Mediaboss Marketing

Illustration: John ShakespeareCredit:The Sydney Morning Herald

I was abused by a family member, groomed from the age of eight. Its affected my whole life and the decisions I have made. Its a common story you hear from anybody in that situation and its a good example of why we need to have a national conversation about these things. It is such a prevalent issue.

The speed with which Janine Hendrys spontaneous tweet how many women would you need to form a circle surrounding Parliament House? turned into a 100,000-person national rally is a pretty good clue. It took only two weeks. It was not a celebrity-led event; it had no organisational backing, no money.

We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity now for real change, says Archer. Youve got your head in the sand if you cant see the momentum behind this push for justice, for change, for people to have their voices heard.

But its the policy of the government to put its head in the sand. The leadership is trying to move on to its preferred topics, its preferred political battlegrounds of the economy, the vaccination program, national security.

Scott Morrison judged at the outset that the demand for justice for women was just a passing enthusiasm. That was a month ago. He was wrong. Hes hated every moment of the campaign, the news, the noise. Two of his cabinet ministers are on leave, the government has lost ground in the polls, its lost control of the political agenda.

Loading

The government has bungled badly and just wants the whole women problem to disappear, as if 52 per cent of the electorate is some special-interest clique that can be relegated with a couple of standard crisis-management techniques and talking points dictated by political backroom apparatchiks with all the life experience of an introverted monk in a cloistered order.

Morrison declined the invitation to join the rally. Instead, he offered to meet three or four delegates in his office. The organisers declined: Given that so many have come to the steps of Parliament to make their voices heard, the question is, why cant the Prime Minister take the last few steps through the front door and hear them directly?

In the event, at least 15 Coalition MPs and senators were prepared to venture outside their high-security hideout to meet their fellow citizens. Should Morrison have taken those last few steps? Bridget Archer says its hard for her to know whether it would have been helpful.

I think what would be good now is to follow up, she says. We have to keep the momentum or it will be lost.

Loading

Another Liberal backbencher, Russell Broadbent, has written to Morrison proposing a national summit of womens groups to discuss the subject.

Archer supports this idea. I dont think the Prime Minister or the Opposition Leader is to be expected to magically fix it all. But we cant point to the record amount we are investing in health or in domestic violence, even though its true, because its not enough. It doesnt matter how much youre tipping in if the bucket has a hole in it. Weve done that with sexual violence and its got worse.

Something is not working. The missing piece is cultural change, and that is a structural issue. We cant presume to know it all. You have to listen. Something along the lines of a national summit would be a really good start, and then build on that.

It would need to be bipartisan if it was to work. Archer says she is consulting womens groups about such an idea. In the next couple of days I will certainly be putting my views to the Prime Minister.

Loading

Shell be up against the conventional political playbook for such inconveniences. And she knows it. She summarises accurately the political play to date: The Labor Party has been saying for a few weeks that the Liberals have a problem with women. Now the Liberal party has been saying you, Labor, dont have the moral high ground, which has been one of the reasons that the Prime Ministers office has been cheerleading the Liberals Nicolle Flint as she repeatedly accuses Labor of tacitly endorsing a sexist hate campaign against her at the 2019 election.

This week is the closing of the political loop on that yes, both sides are guilty of mistreating women, Archer says. We are missing the point. The whole country has a problem of culture, of increased levels of violence and disrespect against women.

Chanel Contoss petition, with thousands of testimonials of current and former schoolgirls detailing sexual assault, is one indicator.

Another is the NSW Police Commissioner, Mick Fullers expression of frustration this week with the annual 15,000 reports of sexual assault: Men continue to get away with it less than 2 per cent of the reports lead to guilty verdicts in court. His proposal for an app as a way of registering sexual consent may be impractical, but it was a genuine effort to find new ways to deal with an intractable problem.

Loading

Closing the loop on the political play the two major parties inflicting damage on each other is not the end of the story and it isnt even the beginning, says Archer.

The other element of the standard playbook is the look busy trick. The government is busy with urgent priorities just now. Archers response: The Australian people rightly expect their government to walk and chew gum at the same time. Yes, there is a vaccine rollout, and there is an economic recovery plan. You know what? This is an equally important issue of national significance. What are you saying if you say other things are more important? Thats the problem. Thats exactly the problem.

The politics is the process of strangling the humanity. The political week started with the rally demanding attention for the women of Australia; it ended with a parade of politicians talking about themselves and each other. We have to turn our gaze away from ourselves and back onto the people of Australia, Archer urges.

If the national interest isnt compelling enough, theres also a political incentive. The Coalition once enjoyed an enormous lead over Labor in its share of womens votes. In 1967 the Coalition had an advantage of 9 per cent over Labor, as the ANUs Australian Electoral Study shows.

Thats been declining consistently and went to nothing towards the end of the Howard period, says the ANUs Ian McAllister. Women were exactly divided between the main parties in their support for a while.

The long-term trend of women to be less conservative and more progressive is witnessed across much of the Western world, for three reasons, McAllister explains: a growing proportion of women went into higher education; likewise they went into the work force; and women, once more religious then men, lost that tendency.

Under Julia Gillard, Labor won a surge of women voters, its advantage 7 per cent for a while. Most of that has gone, but Labor still held a 2 per cent edge over the government among women at the 2019 election.

Former prime minister Julia Gillard welcomed another woman to Labors ranks when Senator Marielle Smith delivered her first parliamentary speech in September 2019.Credit:Alex Ellinghausen

Loading

All of which suggests that factors such as leadership and the handling of gender issues in Parliament may well have an influence on voting preference, McAllister concludes.

In other words, if its not too late, the powerful current demanding justice for women today isnt necessarily just a danger to be dodged; it can be intelligently approached and humanely handled, a political asset to be salvaged.

The women and the men of Australia are telling us that the time is now and they are looking for leadership, says Bridget Archer.

Spoken like a true leader.

Peter Hartcher is political editor and international editor of The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.

Originally posted here:
The first Liberal MP to join the March 4 Justice: her heartfelt message for the PM - Sydney Morning Herald

Lyndon B. Johnson, as US President, with Hubert H. Humphrey, as US Vice President. (AP)

It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.

These words of the late Minnesota Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey have always best defined for me what it means to be a liberal Democrat. I still believe them to govern my political philosophy.

The key is belief in government not as the problem but as the needed counterpoint to over-concentrated power to level the playing field, as progressive presidents from Teddy Roosevelt to Franklin Delano Roosevelt to John Kennedy to Bill Clinton would say, for equal opportunity, individual responsibility and social justice for the average American.

[pullquote]

In recent months, however, some people who sincerely believe they are liberals are being quoted in the national media and on the blogosphere as if their definition of liberalism is the only one.

For example, if a Democrat is on record as pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-ObamaCare, pro-minimum wage, pro-labor, pro-strong environmental regulation or pro-preschool supported by taxes, if that Democrat also believes in the value of business, believes in the private sector as being the best job creator and often more efficient than government, that Democrat still risks being called a conservative or, to many even worse, a centrist.

This reminds me of something I wrote about my own personal liberal political hero in the 1960s, the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy of New York, brother of former President Kennedy. Here is what I wrote in my 2006 book, "Scandal: How Gotcha Politics Is Destroying America:"

When Kennedy announced the Bedford-Stuyvesant redevelopment plan, which used Republican-style market incentives and tax breaks for business to spur jobs in the urban inner city, he was criticized by a well-known and respected Democratic socialist writer, Michael Harrington, as putting too much trust in private business. Kennedys reportedly responded: The difference between me and [Republican conservatives] is I mean what I say.

... Kennedy also prayed with Cesar Chavez in the grape fields of California to win collective bargaining rights and justice for agricultural workers. ... He was sometimes rough, often described as ruthless ... but was seen by both left and right as blunt-speaking, passionate and authentic. ... His followers ran the gamut, from culturally conservative blue collar workers who became Reagan Democrats in the 1980s to the poorest African Americans and Hispanics in Americas underclass. The results of the May 1968 Indiana Democratic primary were a dramatic indication of this. He carried 9 of the 11 congressional districts, won 17 of the 25 rural southern counties, won more than 85 percent of the African American vote, and carried the seven [white] backlash counties that segregationist George Wallace had won in the 1964 Democratic presidential primary.

So, although RFK is remembered as a liberal for his 1968 anti-war and anti-poverty presidential campaign ... he represented someone who is neither left, nor right, but both; liked and disliked by both; pro-business but also pro-regulation; religious and even moralistic about family values and faith, but tolerant of dissent and committed to the separation of Church and State. Most importantly, Robert Kennedy connected with people who wanted their problems solved.

Believe it or not, I actually read over the weekend in an Associated Press article that there are some self-described liberals who challenge President Obamas liberal credentials because he attempted to negotiate a grand bargain with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) last year to try to reduce budget deficits and a $16 trillion national debt (now approaching $17 trillion, or about equal to gross domestic product).

What would Hubert Humphrey and Robert Kennedy say if they were alive today, about a government that uses credit cards every day to pay for all its programs and plans to dump all the receipts on the laps of its children and grandchildren, expecting them to pay the tab?

I believe both men would regard such a government, unwilling to raise taxes and cut spending and reform entitlements to avoid passing the tab to our children, as neither moral nor liberal.

If you are a liberal, what do you think?

This column appears first and weekly in The Hill and the Hill.com.

Original post:
What is a liberal? What is a conservative? | Fox News

Blue states are states that have a more liberal population and culture, as opposed to the conservative red states. While there are many more red states than blue states, the blue states tend to have much higher populations, so they have higher numbers in indexes like the electoral college and the number of congressional representatives.

There are also neutral states, usually referred to as swing states because these states could go either Democratic or Republican in an election. Candidates typically do most of their campaigning in the swing states, including Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Colorado, Nevada, and Florida.

The most liberal state in the country is Massachusetts, where the equally progressive city of Boston is located. Next is Hawaii, followed by Vermont, Washington, New York, New Hampshire, California, Maryland, New Jersey, and Maine. This index of how liberal a state is is based on how many liberals there are compared to conservatives.

Just like some states can be more liberal than others, some cities are more liberal than others. These cities tend to have high minority populations and public expressions of LGBTQ+ acceptance. The most liberal city is San Francisco, California, followed by Washington, DC; Seattle, Washington; Oakland, California; Boston, Massachusetts; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Detroit, Michigan; New York City, New York; Buffalo, New York; and Baltimore, Maryland. Notice that all of these cities are in blue states.

States can change from liberal to conservative over time due to factors like immigration, empowerment of minority groups (which tend to support liberal policies over conservative ones), and taxation. New York, for example, used to be highly conservative but is now much more progressive.

Below are the ten most liberal states in the United States. The data is based on a 2018 Gallup pull.

Massachusetts is the most liberal state in the U.S., with 35% of voters identifying as liberal. With 21% of voters identifying as conservative, Massachusetts has a liberal advantage of 14 points. Moderates are the largest group in Massachusetts, with 38% of the voting population identifying as moderate. In the 2016 presidential election, 60% of voters voted Democratic.

Massachusetts is also the home state of well-known politicians such as Elizabeth Warren, Michael Dukakis, Jill Stein, and the Kennedys. That state also has many urban areas and a highly educated population two factors that strongly contribute to a liberal environment.

Maine is the second-most liberal state in the country. 33% of voters identify as liberal; however, the liberal advantage is -2 because 35% of voters identify as conservative. In the 2016 presidential election, 47.9% of Maine voted Democratic, while 44.9% voted Republican. Maine is one of the few states where moderates do not outnumber liberals or conservatives, with 29% of voters identifying as moderate.

Vermont is the third-most liberal state in the country, with 32% of voters identifying as liberal. With 28% of voters identifying as conservative, Vermont has a liberal advantage of 4 points, the third-highest country. 56.3% of Vermont voters voted Democratic in the 2016 election, while 30.3% voted Republican. In 2012, Barack Obama won Vermont by 35.6 percentage points.

Vermont is the home of Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist with very leftists views who ran for president unsuccessfully in 2016 and is running again in 2020. He received 71% of the vote in Vermont in 2016.

With 31% of voters identifying as liberal, Washington is the fourth-most liberal state in the United States. 28% of voters identify as conservative, giving Washington a liberal advantage of 3 points. Moderates have the largest percentage of voters, with 37%. In the 2016 presidential election, 52.5% of voters voted Democratic.

New York is the fifth-most liberal state in the U.S. 30% of voters identify as liberal in New York versus 27% who identify as conservative, giving New York a 3-point liberal advantage. New York is geographically split, a majority of upstate areas vote conservative, and the larger metro areas vote liberal. In the 2016 presidential election, 59% of voters voted Democratic.

New Hampshire is the sixth-most liberal state in a tie with New York at 30%. New Hampshire is 28% conservative, giving it a slightly less liberal advantage than New York of 2 points. In the 2016 presidential election, 46.8% of voters voted Democratic, only a 0.3% lead over those who voted Republican (46.5%).

California is the seventh-most liberal state in the United States. 29% of voters identify as liberal, and 29% identify as conservative, giving California a liberal advantage of zero points. 36% of voters in California identify as moderate. As the state with the most electoral votes, Californias vote is a big deal in elections. In the 2016 presidential elections, 61.5% of voters voted Democratic, a 30% lead over the Republican vote.

Oregon is the eighth-most liberal state in the country, with 28% of voters identifying as liberal. Oregon has a liberal advantage of -4 points due to 32% of voters identifying as conservative; however, 35% of voters identify as moderate. In the 2016 presidential election, 50.1% of voters voted Democratic while 39.1% voted Republican. The most Democratic areas of the state were around Eugene and Portland.

In a tie with Oregon is Maryland, which also has 28% of voters identifying as liberal. Maryland voters are 29% conservative, giving the state a -1 point liberal advantage. The largest group of voters is moderate, at 39%. Most of Marylands liberal base is in the Washington D.C. metro area and Baltimore. In the 2016 presidential election, 60.3% of voters voted Democratic.

Maryland legalized gay marriage, pushed for major gun restrictions, and imposed tax increases, among other progressive policies.

Hawaii is tied with both Maryland and Oregon has the eighth-most liberal state in the United States. 28% of voters in Hawaii identify as liberal, and 22% identify as conservative, giving Hawaii a liberal advantage of 6 points, the second-highest in the country. Moderates are the largest group in Hawaii, with 45% of voters identify as moderate, which is also the largest percentage of any state in the country. In 2016, 62.2% of Hawaii voters voted Democratic in the presidential election.

The top ten most liberal urban areas in the United States, starting with the most liberal city in America, include the following:

Continue reading here:
Most Liberal States 2021 - World Population Review

Yet the centre-right prime minister, Mark Rutte, is still likely to form a government

DUTCH POLITICS are absurdly complicated. The Netherlands has a proportional representation system with no minimum threshold (most EU countries have one at 5%), ensuring a large number of parties and a constant churn of new ones. Voters are more evenly divided than ever between them. The prime minister, Mark Rutte, a brilliant and imperturbably cheerful tactician, has nonetheless managed to stay atop the heap for ten years, through three ruling coalitions. Last year he was hit with the covid-19 pandemic and with a child-benefits scandal that forced his government to resign just two months before an election. Yet there was never much doubt that when the votes were counted, he and his centre-right Liberal (VVD) party would again come in first. Preliminary results after the ballot on March 17th showed that the VVD had won 23%, well ahead of any other party.

Your browser does not support the

Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

Second place, however, was a big surprise: D66, a left-leaning, liberal pro-European party. Its leader Sigrid Kaag, the current trade minister, is a former UN diplomat who presented herself as a candidate to become the Netherlands first female prime minister. D66 won 15%, one of the best results in its history. For his part, Mr Rutte moved towards the centre during the campaign, imitating left-wing parties rhetoric on social policy. And with the exception of the populist right, every party emphatically backed strong climate policies. For a country that spent last summer leading Europes frugal club of countries opposed to greater fiscal integration and nearly torpedoed the blocs 750bn ($900bn) covid-19 relief fund, the election may signal an important shift.

Mr Rutte owes his victory partly to approval of his handling of covid-19. The Netherlands has not done very wellinfection rates have been higher than in peers like Germany and Denmark, and track-and-trace and vaccination programmes have been slow. But most voters seemed not to mind, while others blamed the health minister, a Christian Democrat. During the campaign most of the opposition avoided the issue. As for the child-benefits scandal (in which the tax authority financially ruined thousands of parents over false accusations of fraud), it was not the VVD leader but the head of Labour who quit over his role in the affair.

Yet even for the teflon-coated Mr Rutte, forming a coalition will be difficult. Between 15 and 17 parties have made it into parliament, depending on the final count. Together, the VVD, D66 and the Christian Democrats have exactly half the seats. But the Christian Democrats vote share fell to just 10%, from 13% in the previous election. Their leader, Wopke Hoekstra, currently finance minister, had been billed as a contender for Mr Ruttes job but ran a clumsy campaign with no clear theme. They may prefer a spell in opposition to rebuild their strength, making Mr Ruttes task harder.

The populist right split into more parties, but grew overall. The Party for Freedom (PVV), led by the anti-Muslim firebrand Geert Wilders, had hoped to finish second but settled for third with 11%. A smaller far-right party, Forum for Democracy, grew to 5%, while a new one, JA21, won 2%. All are considered untouchable by the major parties. On the left, Labour, the GreenLeft party and the far-left Socialists were pummelled, each winning 5-6%. Mr Rutte is unlikely to want more than one of them in his cabinet.

That leaves the great swirl of small-to-tiny Dutch parties. They often forecast trends that take longer to materialise in other countries. Four years ago the arrival of Forum for Democracy seemed to augur a new wave of alt-right populism, but that party fractured in November over racism and anti-semitism. The Party for the Animals, the worlds first animal-rights party to win parliamentary representation, got 4%. Identity politics is going strong: DENK, a party representing Dutch Muslims, won 2%. Meanwhile Volt, a new pan-European liberal party that runs in every country in the EU, rose in the polls in the final weeks of the campaign and won 2%.

The VVDs turn to the centre and the success of D66 suggest the next Dutch government may be a tad less parsimonious in future EU fiscal debates. But much depends on which parties join the coalition. In 2017 forming a government took over six months. Mr Rutte says the covid-19 crisis requires more urgent action, and wants speedy negotiations with D66 and the Christian Democrats. But Ms Kaag wants to bring in more parties on the left. She will be happy to take her time.

This article appeared in the Europe section of the print edition under the headline "Suddenly Sigrid"

See the article here:
A Dutch election boosts both pro-EU liberals and the far right - The Economist

Tom Mulcair was the leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada between 2012 and 2017.

Since the Fall, Justin Trudeau has been champing at the bit to launch into a general election. In October, the Liberals threatened the opposition parties that if they insisted on pushing for a new committee to study the WE Charity scandal, it would be a confidence vote that could send Canadians to the polls. Trudeau wasnt bluffing. He couldnt decently have called an election just as the second wave of the pandemic was hitting, but if he could blame the opposition, he could get away with it.

Opposition parties live for the next election. That an election was seen by them as a potential threat and not a godsend, spoke volumes about the Liberals strength and their own lack of preparedness.

Recent polls have the Official Opposition Conservatives at 30 per cent. Even at his low water mark in terms of personal popularity, Stephen Harper still managed to get 32 per cent of the vote in the 2015 campaign.

In their elections held during the pandemic, both New Brunswicks Conservative and B.C.s NDP minority governments were rewarded with majorities. Saskatchewan returned its government with a renewed majority. The Federal Liberals want their turn.

Its easy to understand. After a year of restrictions and lockdowns, people are exhausted and want some hope. The parties that had been there to help, got rewarded. Thats an object lesson for the Conservatives as we head into a likely late Spring election. You have to have something other than frustrated grievances on offer.

The Liberals know that a Conservative Party below 30 per cent is their key to a majority victory. Over the past few weeks weve seen the Liberals check off boxes for promises on everything from a new language policy to guns. It hasnt all been smooth sailing but theyve been clearing the way.

When Chrystia Freeland announced that we would not have a budget in March, you could sense the trap being set and the ballot question come into focus: do you want to re-elect the Liberals, who took care of you and your family; or do you want the Conservatives, who will bring tough times and austerity?

Freelands yet-to-be-scheduled budget will have a big honking plan for post-pandemic stimulus spending and more deficits to go with it. The Conservatives will rail that the Liberals overspent to the tune of $100 billion prior to the pandemic and when it hitthe cupboard was bare. Theyll complain that we shouldve had a budget long before. Theyll ask how such amounts could ever be paid back. It will all be true and it will all be for naught.

When the U.S. can cough up a further $1.9 trillion to sail its way out of the post-pandemic doldrums, surely nothing Trudeau and Freeland can spend will appear worrisome by comparison.

A small clue as to the Conservative challenge could be seen in last weeks activities that commemorated one year of pandemic. There were solemn events in various capitals across the country, including Ottawa. Trudeau, always at his best when emoting, was striking just the right chord.

Then it was Erin OTooles turn. It was tone deaf. Instead of empathy, caring and emotion, he rhymed off the governments shortcomings. Dissing its performance on vaccines, making wobbly comparisons to the U.S. vaccine delivery (yep, they manufacture them, we dont). It was a recipe for a return to opposition.

The vaccine argument is over, that ship has sailed, Trudeau pulled off his Carbomite manoeuvre. Whatever had to be changed or added to the original contracts has been. We may have given up the right to sue, we may have greatly increased what we had to pay, it doesnt matter. People are getting vaccinated from coast-to-coast-to coast and well have largely moved on by June.

Somewhere the keeper of the Big Red Playbook is thumbing through the chapters covering the 1972 and 1974 Canadian general elections. In 72 Trudeau Pre lost his majority after just one term. The flamboyant object of Trudeaumania had been given a lesson in humility. He made friends with David Lewiss NDP to govern for a while, then opened a withering fire on them as he called a general election for the Summer of 1974. The rest is history and Trudeau would reign (almost) uninterrupted well into the 1980s.

Trudeau fils can hardly wait to try his hand and seems unconcerned about any opponent.

Jagmeet Singh has done a very good job preparing his troops for the election. His fundraising has been strong and his support remains at a historically solid 20 per cent. He has some very seasoned advisors who have deep government experience, notably in Manitoba. Theyre ready for battle and know the task ahead. Their deft handling of the Green Partys attempt to make up an insurrection in New Brunswick during the last campaign showed expertise. That bench strength will serve him well once again.

Tragically, some elements of his caucus have chosen to ride their anti-Israel hobby horse at this precise moment and it will take all of Singhs considerable skills not to let it become an unnecessary distraction. Even as historical elements from his Partys fringes try to ignite the issue, Singh will be required to waste precious energy and time explaining that talk of Israel apartheid and shmoozing with Jeremy Corbin are out of line with established NDP policy and out of synch with Canadian voters.

Annamie Paul remains an exceptional political figure in her own right. She knows environmental issues better than any party leader and is solid in debate in both French and in English. Unfortunately for her, like Banquos ghost, Elizabeth May still haunts the hallways and can be counted upon to scold the other parties and help Trudeau whenever she can, most recently berating their tomfoolery. Its difficult to see how that can help the new Green leader take on those same Liberals.

The Bloc is chugging along, leader Yves-Franois Blanchet has been careful not to make himself the author of the governments defeat, most recently backing the Liberals Bill on medically-assisted dying. His party is always at the unique whim of the electors in La Belle Province. The Bloc has bounced between its high as official opposition and its low of only four seats, since being founded. Blanchet will try his best not do anything to compromise the 30-plus ridings he won in the last campaign.

Blanchet will be vying for the same seats OToole hoped to compete for in Francois Legaults heartland outside Montral. Given OTooles underperformance to date, Bloc seats are probably at greater risk in the event of a Liberal resurgence. Legault could still prove to be a wild card, though, because he is ideologically close to the Conservatives. Legault also knows that a strong Bloc could help its provincial separatist sister, the Parti Quebecois, a rival for Legaults CAQ in next years general provincial election. Fifty shades of blue in the Quebec countryside.

Peter MacKay once famously said that Andrew Scheer had missed scoring on an empty net in failing to defeat Trudeau, despite the blackface scandal and other weaknesses.

That may not have been entirely fair.

What anyone facing Trudeau has to learn is that youre not running against a politician, youre running against a celebrity. Thats why going on the attack often backfires. Canadians may not like all of the Liberals policies or their politicians but they feel that theyve known Trudeau all his life and, like indulgent parents, at times seem willing to excuse even the worst behaviour.

This will be a campaign like no other. By any fair measure, the Liberals have done exceedingly well in managing the social parts of the pandemic but failed miserably at others, in particular protection at our borders.

Trudeau is facing a third potential finding by the ethics Commissioner that he broke the rules. Will Canadians be as forgiving as ever, or will it be three strikes youre out as far as some voters are concerned?

Watching the opposition parties whiff on their attempts to pin down the defence minister on issues of sexual misconduct in the military, and completely muff their most recent outing with the Keilburgers, its hard to conclude that Trudeaus confidence is misplaced.

More here:
What to expect from the Liberals: an election, ASAP - Maclean's