Mediaboss Marketing

OTTAWABill Blair could make the leap from top cop to Parliament Hill.

Both the Liberals and Conservatives have their eyes on Blair when he hangs up his badge in the coming months after a decade as chief of the Toronto Police Service, a source told the Star.

Nothing I can say other than everybody wants the guy, said the official of one political party in the hunt.

The long-serving and high-profile police chief, a polished speaker, would be a prize catch for any of the parties, especially in Toronto, which promises to be a hard-fought battleground in the fall election.

Blairs tenure as Toronto police chief ends April 25. In a recent interview with the Star, he left open the possibility of entering politics, saying he would not be done working at the end of his term.

Ive spent my life in public service. If this is not available to me, Ill find another way to serve, he told the Star.

Mark Pugash, Toronto police spokesmanperson, said Tuesday Blairs position has not changed since that interview, and the chief would not be commenting further.

Blair, a 35-year policing veteran, would bring instant name recognition and credibility in areas of law-and-order and social issues, thanks to his time as a police officer and volunteer in community organizations.

After two disastrous election showings, the Liberals have been working to bolster their slate of candidates by attracting people like former army general Andrew Leslie and CTV host Seamus ORegan.

And while the Conservatives too, reportedly, would like Blair in their camp, the chief sparked a backlash from the party in 2010 over his support for the long-gun registry, an episode that may influence Blairs political leanings.

Go here to see the original:
Liberals and Conservatives coveting Bill Blair for federal politics

Glenn Thibeault - Lliberal candidate in the Sudbury by-election8:03

Ontario's Liberals are sending in some high-profile cabinet ministers to help the party win back the Sudbury riding in the Feb. 5 byelection.

Health Minister Eric Hoskins, Transportation Minister Steven Del Duca, Infrastructure Minister Brad Duguid and other ministers will hold joint events in Sudbury with Liberal candidate Glenn Thibeault.

Premier Kathleen Wynne is also making repeated visits to Sudbury to help Thibeault, who was a New Democrat member of Parliament until he was appointed to be the Liberal candidate in the provincial byelection.

Wynne's decision to lure Thibeault from the NDP instead of allowing the Liberal candidate in last June's election, Andrew Olivier, to run again upset some party loyalists in Sudbury.

Olivier, who finished less than 1,000 votes behind New Democrat Joe Cimino in June, is running as an independent in the byelection.

It was Cimino's surprise decision to resign in November, just five months after taking Sudbury from the Liberals, that prompted the need for the byelection.

Go here to read the rest:
Ontario Liberals round up the troops for Sudbury byelection fight

The 2015 federal election will require political parties to work harder than ever to capture the attention of the electorate. This story is part of Adam Radwanskis new assignment looking at how the party machines across the country are preparing.

Federal Liberals and New Democrats are bracing to be heavily outspent on the ground by the governing Conservatives in this years election.

All three leading parties can be expected to spend their national limit of more than $20-million during the official campaign period scheduled for next fall, and the Liberals recent fundraising success should allow them to join though not match the Conservatives in national prewrit advertising. But officials with both opposition parties are privately worrying that many of their riding associations will suffer a cash disadvantage both leading up to the campaign and during it.

Its a huge issue, a Liberal official said, speaking on a background basis. We spent a fair amount of last year internally sounding the alarm bells on this.

Although the 2011 election demonstrated that riding resources do not always have a strong impact on results as the NDP virtually swept Quebec despite minimal organization there all parties expect closer on-the-ground battles this time. Members of their campaign teams commonly express the view that candidates ability to spend close to their limit which ranges from about $90,000 to $120,000, depending on the number of voters could provide decisive advantages where there are margins of victory under 10 per cent.

Among those potential advantages are the ability to pay for voter contact, including through phone banks or paid canvassers, and communications. While the in and out controversy following the last election will require parties to step carefully, rules around regional advertising are likely ambiguous enough to allow several local campaigns to pool together funds for city-wide ads; candidates who arent in close races, but have ample cash reserves, could also help allies by purchasing ads that will be seen both by their own voters and by those in neighbouring ridings.

The scale of the Conservatives current advantage is difficult to gauge, because riding associations 2014 financial returns will not be available until later this year. But a Globe and Mail review of the previous years returns found that, as of the end of 2013, Conservative riding associations cumulatively had more than $15-million in net assets, while the Liberals had under $8-million and the NDP less than $4-million.

As of the last filings, the Conservatives were continuing to widen the gap, topping the Liberals by nearly $1-million and the New Democrats by more than $2-million in local fundraising in 2013. And there appears a good chance they continued to pad their advantage in 2014, with a senior Conservative source expressing confidence the governing partys riding assets now top $20-million.

That could give the Conservatives an equal or greater advantage to the one they had in the 2011 election, when their candidates cumulatively spent just under $20-million, Liberals spent less than $15-million and New Democrats about $7-million.

At the end of 2013, the Conservatives had 54 riding associations with more than $100,000 in net assets, next to eight for the Liberals and just one for the NDP. The Conservatives have some associations with much more money than they could spend during the campaign, which they are permitted to transfer to other ridings. (Among the richest is Employment Minister Jason Kenneys in Calgary, which at the end of 2013 had over $360,000.)

See the rest here:
Conservatives poised to outspend opponents in key election battlegrounds

The Canadian Press Published Wednesday, January 14, 2015 11:08AM EST Last Updated Wednesday, January 14, 2015 4:35PM EST

TORONTO -- Ontario's Liberals said Wednesday they would send in some high-profile cabinet ministers to help the party win back the Sudbury riding in the Feb. 5 byelection.

Health Minister Eric Hoskins, Transportation Minister Steven Del Duca, Infrastructure Minister Brad Duguid and other ministers will hold joint events in the northern Ontario city with Liberal candidate Glenn Thibeault.

Premier Kathleen Wynne is also returning to Sudbury later this week -- the third visit this month -- to help Thibeault, who was a New Democrat member of Parliament until he was appointed to be the Liberal candidate in the byelection.

Wynne's decision to lure Thibeault from the NDP instead of allowing the Liberal candidate in last June's election, Andrew Olivier, to run again upset some party loyalists in Sudbury.

Olivier, who finished less than 1,000 votes behind New Democrat Joe Cimino in June, is running as an independent in the byelection.

It was Cimino's surprise decision to resign in November, just five months after taking Sudbury from the Liberals, that prompted the need for the byelection.

The NDP candidate in the byelection, Suzanne Shawbonquit, issued a statement Wednesday saying the people of Sudbury will see through the Liberals' "desperate, last-ditch" visits to the city.

"For the last decade, the Liberals have ignored Sudbury as life got less affordable and jobs left town," said the NDP statement. "Now with a byelection on, a seat on the line and a candidate hand-picked by Toronto, the Liberals seem to have found the map to Sudbury."

Former Liberal cabinet minister Rick Bartolucci, who did not seek re-election last year, first won the Sudbury riding in 1995 from the New Democrats. The riding was held by the Progressive Conservatives from 1981 to 1987.

Visit link:
Liberals send cabinet ministers to Sudbury to help win byelection

One of the years greatest and most important films is Selma, the story of Rev. Martin Luther Kings historic role in leading the march in Selma, Alabama, which helped lead to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The film enjoys universal acclaim from movie critics, and high ratings from audiences who have so far had the pleasure of viewing the production. But this is Oscar season, and so it goes that films come under attack to undermine their chances of securing nominations or winning awards, and this year Selma has seen a particularly harsh degree of award season backlash.

The backlash might have also impacted its box office performance a bit, as the film presently stands at $14 million domestically after its limited release expanded this past weekend and took in just over $11 million. How it performs internationally will make a big difference, but so far the numbers are below what one might expect for such a high-profile production about so significant a figure and event.

This backlash is coming primarily from a segment of white liberals loyal to the legacy of President Lyndon Johnson. And to be perfectly clear, let me say upfront that when I speak about white liberals in this article, I am specifically talking about this precise segment of white liberals, and Im not saying all of this particular criticism is originating only from white liberals. This is not an indictment of white liberalism overall, nor of white people or liberalism in general. But its also true that I will make a few general observations about white liberals and the ways media plays to their perceptions and preferences, and how that has largely driven much of the negative media reporting about Selma. So, keep these things in mind as you read

The films director Ava DuVernay said of the controversy, For the film to be, I think, reduced reduced is really what all this is to one talking point of a small contingent of people who dont like one thing, I think is unfortunate. DuVernay has crafted a masterful, amazing film, and she is absolutely right that the arguments against the film are reductive in the extreme.

Selma is targeted by a campaign to tarnish its reputation because it supposedly doesnt treat the white liberal president nicely enough based on those peoples interpretation of history, a notion that nobody should take seriously if theyve ever seen any historical-figures movies ever. Most viewers are perfectly willing to excuse shorthand history or presenting events in a more dynamic, dramatic fashion, if and when they like the film or like the changes its made to history.

Films are not documentaries, and no amount of false pretense that they claim to be is going to change that if some people cannot understand that feature films are not documentaries and that they cannot assume everything they see and hear is literally exactly what happened, then its probably dangerous to let that person watch any movies in the first place. Audiences arent so dumb as such presumptions suggest, and even young people who see this film and take it as a mostly-true account of the events of Selma are plenty smart enough to know that movies are not real life and that film takes liberties in telling stories.

Films about historical events have been made since the beginning of cinema. If after nearly 100 years of movies some folks still want to have this absurd debate over whether films even the best historical films should make changes in order to fit an entire historical event into two hours of screen time, then lets at least admit at the outset that its a dumb debate and that nobody is going to be consistent about their expectations of accuracy. Some things will matter more to some people sometimes, and its just a question of being honest enough to acknowledge that any historical film is going to change some things and how we react to those changes often/usually says as much about us as it does about the film.

See the original post here:
White Liberals Are Wrong About 'Selma' And LBJ