i was unaware of this event when i wrote my write-up on wynne's prospects in the next election. i see that her office had already made the same calculations, several weeks ago. that's reassuring. surprisingly so.

but, she's facing the need to make a choice. if she goes into the new year as leader, she's attaching herself to the party in 2018. do her and her team think that this is the most strategic choice? she is running out of time to step down.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/11/19/wynne-calls-high-electricity-prices-her-mistake_n_13095776.html

i don't usually pay attention to corruption scandals. i make the basic assumption that all parties are corrupt, and judge them by their policies and track records. some money will disappear. that's a given.

but, i just want to draw attention here to the scope of the issue. the issue was a very real concern in the most recent american cycle, where the most popular (however tenuously...) candidate for the entire election cycle had taken extremely large sums from banking institutions for no discernible reason. she took hundreds of thousands per speech, and one estimate suggests it added up to $22 million. that's a lot of cash, and a lot of cash buys access. it's blatant.

trudeau, here, is being accused of accepting a $1500 personal contribution after discussing an issue of some sort with that person. i'm sure the party appreciates it. but, that doesn't buy access.

or at least i hope it doesn't.

no, it doesn't. it doesn't. but what if...?

no. that's not enough. obviously.

you can never be sure.

but, then he'd have to have a meandering policy vision, that dodders about, unfocused, in every which way, which projects minimal confidence in any direction. hrmmn.

naw.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/12/13/trudeau-fundraisers-middle-class-ambrose-mulcair_n_13611432.html

see, this is a smarter way to channel xenophobia, because this really is a practice that shouldn't be tolerated. i don't care if you wear a scarf. i do care if you perform surgical operations on your children by non-licensed practitioners in order to satisfy a superstition. if your rights scheme allows this, it stinks. these kids need protection. i don't want to hear it.

but, of course, it's really a policy for integration - and that appears to be necessary in the uk. the racism is at the point where it needs a social policy to address it. this is a way to acknowledge that without giving in to it.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-38290888

this is what i've been working on. i hope the detail is audible.