Stampede turns into political battleground as Canada's top leaders flood Calgary ahead of election
Calgary Stampede
, not just for cowboy hats and flapjacks, but for votes.
Alberta Premier
Danielle Smith
hosted the annual Premier's Stampede Breakfast on Monday(July 7) at the McDougall Centre in downtown Calgary, joined by Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe.
All three served breakfast to hundreds, with Ford joking, 'I'm not a professional pancake maker,' as he flipped stacks on the grill. Moe took charge of syrup duty, while Smith greeted attendees between flips.
Meaningful voter engagement
Mount Royal University political scientist Duane Bratt said the Stampede has become a rare platform for meaningful voter engagement. 'It's an opportunity to have face time with voters in a relaxed, comfortable environment,' he said. 'That's why it's not just politicians from Calgary or Alberta, but from across the country.'
Live Events
Indeed, the 10-day event has attracted national figures. Prime Minister
Mark Carney
made appearances at private events and a fundraiser Saturday, while Conservative leader
Pierre Poilievre
hosted his own gathering over the weekend. Poilievre is currently running in a byelection in Battle River–Crowfoot after losing his Ottawa-area seat in the spring.
Municipal candidates have also used the Stampede as a launchpad. Ward 1 Councillor Sonya Sharp, now running for mayor under the 'Communities First' banner, said voters are ready for substance. 'The conversations seem to be more about vision, about your plan, your platform,' she said.
Former councillors Jeff Davison and Jeromy Farkas, both returning contenders from the 2021 race, echoed the sentiment. 'It's being on a listening tour,' Davison said. 'They care about community safety, they care about affordability, they care about infrastructure.'
Farkas added: 'It's election season. You have a lot of politicians out making stump speeches and glad-handing. But at the heart of it is community.'
Brian Thiessen, a first-time mayoral candidate with the
Calgary Party
, has taken a bold approach, erecting more than 6,000 signs around the city to boost name recognition. 'Ninety per cent of people have formed their opinion about some of my opponents, but for me, I'm new,' he said. 'The signs are about them seeing us, and the in-person meetings are a chance for me to tell them what we're about.'
Mayor
Jyoti Gondek
, who is widely expected to seek re-election but hasn't formally declared, has been making the rounds despite a hoarse voice from days of public events. 'When I talk to Calgarians, they're proud to be volunteering and proud of their city, as am I,' she told reporters.
Calgary prepares for its October 20 vote and many say the Stampede is less about political posturing and more about personal connection. For a few short days, the midway becomes a political meeting ground.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
20 hours ago
- Mint
All pain, no gain: Labour's odd strategy
All politics is about pain. Governing is a matter of deciding who is hit and how hard. Sometimes this can be a virtue. 'If it isn't hurting, it isn't working," was the mantra of John Major, a former Conservative prime minister, who embraced high interest rates and high unemployment in order to bring down inflation during the early 1990s. Ronald Reagan opted for a similar slogan when suffering the same ailment: 'No pain, no gain." Today in Britain Labour has a different approach: all pain, no gain. Under Sir Keir Starmer, the party spends its political capital in places where it generates the lowest return. Whether it comes to winter fuel or welfare reforms or even dishing out cash to northern mayors, the government has an unnerving ability to endure the maximum amount of pain for the smallest possible gain. Under this government, fiscally irrelevant savings provoke uproar. Scrapping the universal winter-fuel allowance to save an annual £1.1bn ($1.5bn, or 0.04% of gdp) was a totemic policy. It was deeply unpopular (pensioners liked receiving £300 for nothing) when announced by Rachel Reeves, the chancellor. What Labour would suffer in political pain was worth it for what it would gain: a reputation for pursuing sound policy, even if voters squealed. Now, the government has back-pedalled. All but the richest pensioners will receive the handout. A cost-saving measure will save practically no cost. Pain? Plenty. Gain? Almost none. Labour has long stuck by the two-child benefit cap, citing its £3.5bn cost to remove. That left 540,000 or so children in poverty and made backbench MPs furious. Nearly a year on, Sir Keir is thinking of reversing course. What kind of Labour prime minister wants to oversee a rise in child poverty? Labour could be a party of fiscal prudence or one committed to lowering child poverty. Somehow, it has managed to come across as neither. Even where Labour has stuck to its plans, it has done so in a way that maximises punishment and limits reward. In the spring Ms Reeves reduced disability benefits by £5bn. The cuts were deep enough to upset a base which sees any reduction in disability benefit as a sin. Yet they were nowhere near enough to placate bearish investors who see welfare spending going up for ever. (They are right: these benefits are forecast to rise by 0.2% of GDP by 2030, even with Labour's stricter criteria.) Labour has taken to threatening a chainsaw and then wielding a scalpel and wondering why everyone, across the spectrum, is annoyed. The timing and size of the welfare cuts were not due to an ideological belief that fewer people should be on benefits. It was to ensure that Ms Reeves would not break her fiscal rules. A £5bn hole had appeared in the Treasury's spreadsheet and £5bn was found to fill it. Labour's fiscal rules are supposed to hurt. But they are meant to guarantee stable policymaking. Increasingly they guarantee the opposite. Fiscal policy becomes a recurring drama, whereby Treasury officials amend spending today to hit a forecast—and almost certainly wrong—number in four years' time. Labour has to fiddle with its fiscal position so often because it will not think big on tax. By ruling out increases to the broadest taxes, such as income tax and vat, Ms Reeves has focused on steep rises to less lucrative ones. An inheritance tax on farms raises barely £2bn but guaranteed tractors turning up in Whitehall and blasting their horns outside Downing Street. All pain, no gain is the guiding principle of even the party's more radical flank. Angela Rayner, supposedly the most left-wing member of the cabinet, came up with a plan to target the relatively rich, which helpfully ended up in the newspapers. Pensions could be raided and dividends taxed more heavily. It amounted to £4bn. For context, the British government hoovers up £1.3trn in tax revenues. Middle England would squeal, naturally, yet the public finances would hardly look healthier. Less soak the rich; more squirt them with a water pistol. Where there is a case for collective sacrifice, such as when it comes to defence spending, the government refuses to make it. Instead it promises no pain, just gain. After the cold war, countries slashed defence spending, allowing them to splurge on welfare without having to raise taxes. It was called the peace dividend. Now the government faces the inverse: defence spending will have to rise from 2.3% of gdp to at least 3%. Rather than admit that this will be painful, Sir Keir insists it will be pleasant. It will be a 'defence dividend", says the prime minister, bringing jobs and investment. He promises it 'will be felt in the pockets of working people". Voters will indeed feel it in their pockets. But not in the way the prime minister thinks. No pain, no gain? No! Pain. No gain Back in July, when Labour should have enjoyed a post-electoral glow, Ms Reeves promised only pain. The chancellor made a show of pausing a slew of planned infrastructure projects when she arrived in office. 'If we cannot afford it, we cannot do it," was the chancellor's mantra. It turned what should have been a deluxe honeymoon into a wet weekend in Wales. Almost a year later, on June 4th, Ms Reeves gave these projects the green light once more. Almost a year has been wasted. For a government whose only hope of re-election relies on people feeling better off than they did five years ago, this is not time they could afford to lose. Pain without a purpose is pointless. Policy without any pain is simply a lie. The restraint in day-to-day spending that Labour will unveil in its spending review on June 11th will not be popular. It never is. But it could be accepted as necessary. If this often rather vague government has a project, it is making Britain accept that it must consume less and invest more. That means there will be short-term pain, for long-term gain. There is a case that the government could make. It will hurt. But it might just work. Subscribers to The Economist can sign up to our Opinion newsletter, which brings together the best of our leaders, columns, guest essays and reader correspondence.
New Indian Express
a day ago
- New Indian Express
Trump's Washington police takeover echoes history of racist narratives on urban crime
April Goggans, a longtime Washington resident and grassroots organizer, said she was not surprised by Trump's actions. Communities had been preparing for a potential federal crackdown in the district since the summer of 2020, when Trump deployed National Guard troops during racial justice protests after the murder of George Floyd. 'We have to be vigilant,' said Goggans, who has coordinated protests and local civil liberties educational campaigns for nearly a decade. She worries about what a surge in law enforcement could mean for residents' freedoms. 'Regardless of where you fall on the political scale, understand that this could be you, your children, your grandmother, your co-worker who are brutalized or have certain rights violated,' she said. Uncertainty about what's a safe environment raises alarms According to White House officials, National Guard troops will be deployed to protect federal assets in the district and facilitate a safe environment for law enforcement to make arrests. The administration believes the highly visible presence of law enforcement will deter violent crime. It is unclear how the administration defines providing a safe environment for law enforcement to conduct arrests, raising alarm bells for some local advocates. 'The president foreshadowed that if these heavy-handed tactics take root here, they will be rolled out to other majority-Black and Brown cities, like Chicago, Oakland and Baltimore, across the country,' said Monica Hopkins, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union's D.C. chapter. 'We've seen before how federal control of the D.C. National Guard and police can lead to abuse, intimidation and civil rights violations — from military helicopters swooping over peaceful racial justice protesters in 2020 to the unchecked conduct of federal officers who remain shielded from full accountability,' Hopkins said. A history of denigrating language Conservative lawmakers have for generations used denigrating language to describe the condition of major American cities and called for greater law enforcement, often in response to changing demographics in those cities driven by nonwhite populations relocating in search of work or safety from racial discrimination and state violence. Republicans have called for greater police crackdowns in cities since at least the 1965 Watts Riots in Los Angeles. President Richard Nixon won the White House in 1968 after campaigning on a "law and order" agenda to appeal to white voters in northern cities alongside overtures to white Southerners as part of his 'Southern Strategy.' Ronald Reagan similarly won both his presidential elections after campaigning heavily on law and order politics. Politicians ranging from former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to former President Bill Clinton have cited the need to tamp down crime as a reason to seize power from cities like Washington for decades. District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser called Trump's takeover of the local police force 'unsettling' but not without precedent. The mayor kept a mostly measured tone during a Monday news conference following Trump's announcement but decried the president's reasoning as a 'so-called emergency' and said the district's residents 'know that access to our democracy is tenuous.'
Mint
a day ago
- Mint
India added to UK's ‘Deport Now Appeal Later' expanded list for immediate deportation of foreign criminals
India is one of the countries now included in an expanded UK government list. This list targets foreign criminals for deportation after their sentencing, before their appeals are heard. The measure aims to address increasing migration to the UK. The UK Home Office on Sunday stated that the "Deport Now Appeal Later' scheme will expand from eight to 23 countries, nearly triple. Under this scheme, foreign nationals from these countries will be deported first, with the opportunity to appeal only after the deportation. Foreigners whose human rights claims are denied will be able to participate in their UK appeal hearings remotely via video technology from abroad. 'For far too long, foreign criminals have been exploiting our immigration system, remaining in the UK for months or even years while their appeals drag on. That has to end,' a PTI report quoted Home Secretary Yvette Cooper. 'Those who commit crimes in our country cannot be allowed to manipulate the system, which is why we are restoring control and sending a clear message that our laws must be respected and will be enforced,' she added. The remote hearing scheme, revived in 2023 by then-Conservative home secretary Suella Braverman, included countries such as Finland, Nigeria, Estonia, Albania, Belize, Mauritius, Tanzania, and Kosovo. India will also be included alongside Angola, Australia, Botswana, Brunei, Bulgaria, Canada, Guyana, Indonesia, Kenya, Latvia, Lebanon, Malaysia, Uganda, and Zambia. The UK government stated that it is continuing its talks with various other countries regarding their participation in the scheme. 'We are leading diplomatic efforts to increase the number of countries where foreign criminals can be swiftly returned, and if they want to appeal, they can do so safely from their home country. Under this scheme, we're investing in international partnerships that uphold our security and make our streets safer,' said Foreign Secretary David Lammy. As per the Home Office, previously offenders from the countries on the expanded list could stay in the UK for months or years while their cases went through the appeals system, which was seen as an 'added burden on the British taxpayer' apart from the end of their prison sentences. It also published recent figures showing that approximately 5,200 foreign nationals have been deported since July 2024, when the Labour government assumed office, marking a 14 per cent increase compared to the previous year. Furthermore, the government announced it is enacting legislation to allow for the removal of refugee protection rights from asylum seekers who commit notifiable sex offences, using the new authority granted by the Borders Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. Around GBP 5 million has been invested to deploy specialist staff across nearly 80 jails in England and Wales, aiming to accelerate removals and deportations. (With inputs from agencies.)
