"You'd probably give him a solid B or B plus."
We are entering a new era of identity politics -- the increasingly common practice of political campaigns throwing actual policy to the wind and instead playing directly to our emotions -- this method is defined by selfies, sunny-ways, hope and change, fear and division and class anger turned into blind rage.
Regrets, he has a few.
The mistake during last year's election campaign though, which everyone now recognizes, was to focus our message on identity issues like this one and the misguided barbaric practices snitch line proposal, instead of running on our excellent economic record. Yes, Canadians care about shared values and about these issues. But I would argue that they care a lot more about issues that impact their standard of living and quality of life. They care about whether our economy is strong enough to provide job opportunities. They care about having to pay twice as much as Americans for basic food like milk, eggs, butter and chicken.
White boys rapping, Ready for Raitt, barbaric cultural practices and two Libertarians. All this and more as the Conservative
Peter Goldring allegedly bugged campaign computers in 2011 to hack into someone's private accounts.
The concept of strategic voting is widely used by political parties and the media since the beginning of the campaign. It is assumed that it is a widespread behaviour because Canada has a "winner-takes-all" electoral system. There are two very simple conditions for a vote to be qualified as strategic: first, a voter must not vote for her preferred party, and second, behave this way in order to block a worse option. As we shall see, this straightforward definition has enormous consequences when it comes to quantifying strategic voting.
Despite the growing dissatisfaction Albertans felt with the ruling party, the election remained Jim Prentice's to lose. Though odds were stacked against him, there were too many missteps, and at the root of each was a failure to respect the intelligence of the Alberta voter.
Beyond the gates of the Stampede grounds, however, the mood was less affable. Hundreds braved a snow storm and icy temperatures to show their dissatisfaction with this convention and government's agenda more broadly. The gathering was part of a three-day conference advocating for democracy, the environment, Aboriginal Treaty rights, and human rights.
For a party that once appeared expansive and confident, the Conservatives now appear divided, shrinking and defensive. Even delegates arriving in Calgary are puzzled why media has been given such limited access to the convention. One quipped, "It's because of the Senate stuff going on."
I'm no John Ivison, Christie Blatchford, Chantal Hebert, Ezra Levant, Christopher Hume, Andrew Coyne or Margaret Wente. Heck
Ford used his party time on the Danforth to seek the spotlight while posing for countless pictures. He knew all eyes were on him because he was smiling for the attention. He knows the cloud of suspicion that surrounds him is darkening the city's reputation and causing dysfunction within city council. He honestly doesn't even seem to care.
Canada's head-long rush to the extreme right of the political spectrum is multi-causal. While the economic theory of neoliberalism
Stephen Harper has stayed true to his word, maintaining his stand that the issue of abortion will not be reopened in Canada so long as he is Prime Minister. That being the case, how did we reach the point where the blame for Motion 312 and it's implications on the reproductive rights of women in this country are perceived to be solely with Stephen Harper and the CPC?