#VanPoli | City Politics, Development and Scandal on the Near Horizon

#CdnPoli | Canadian Politics, #VanElxn 2026, #VanPoli Civic Politics, BC Politics, canadian politics, Politics, Vancouver, Vancouver Votes 2026, , , , , , , , , , , , ,


The Politics of Development, Corruption and Vancouver House. Thank you Robert Renger.

The story of Vancouver House is, depending on one’s perspective, either a triumph of architectural ambition or a cautionary tale about the dangers of a city becoming too closely aligned with the interests of powerful developers.

Today, the twisting glass tower at the foot of the Granville Bridge stands as one of Vancouver’s most recognizable landmarks. Designed by the internationally acclaimed Danish architect Bjarke Ingels and developed by Ian Gillespie’s Westbank Corp., Vancouver House has appeared in architectural journals around the world. Its dramatic form rises from a narrow triangular base before expanding into a rectangular tower as it climbs 58 storeys and 155 metres into the skyline.

Yet behind the celebrated architecture lies a political and financial controversy that has lingered for more than a decade and has now been reignited by findings from Vancouver Auditor General Mike Macdonell. What began as an ambitious redevelopment of awkward land beneath the Granville Bridge has evolved into one of the most contentious examples of Vancouver’s developer-driven era under former mayor Gregor Robertson and his governing party, Vision Vancouver.

Westbank Corp.’s Vancouver House, on Howe Street leading to the Granville Street bridge

For supporters, Vancouver House transformed a neglected urban void into a world-class architectural destination.

For critics, it exposed how City Hall bent rules, discounted public assets and abandoned promised public benefits in order to accommodate a politically connected developer.

The controversy stretches back to the late 2000s.

The triangular parcel beneath the Granville Bridge had long been considered difficult to develop. Previous proposals had failed.

The City of Vancouver eventually entered into negotiations with Westbank, which proposed an ambitious mixed-use development featuring luxury residential units, retail space and extensive public realm improvements.

What followed became one of the most controversial land transactions in modern Vancouver history.

Critics argued that Vision Vancouver effectively removed the site from the open market for approximately six years while Westbank assembled financing and refined its proposal. Opponents contended that the city was no longer acting as a neutral steward of public land, but had become a partner in realizing a specific developer’s vision.

One of the most persistent criticisms was that the city failed to test the market adequately and did not seek competing bids that might have generated significantly greater value for taxpayers.

In 2014, Glen Chernen, Cedar Party candidate for Mayor, who following days of day and night research of Vancouver City Hall was the first to expose the “corruption” associated with Vancouver House

These concerns were amplified by the work of Glen Chernen, who ran for Vancouver City Council in 2014 with the Cedar Party. During that election campaign, Chernen examined city documents and negotiations surrounding Vancouver House and raised questions about what he characterized as preferential treatment afforded to Westbank. His research helped bring public attention to agreements that had largely escaped broader scrutiny and contributed to growing concerns about the relationship between Vision Vancouver and major developers.

At the heart of the controversy was the price Westbank paid for the city-owned land.

Critics argued that Westbank acquired the property for approximately $32 million despite assessments and valuations suggesting a substantially higher market value. Over the years, opponents have repeatedly cited figures indicating the land’s value was closer to $119 million, arguing that taxpayers effectively subsidized the project through an undervalued transaction.

Whether those valuations can be directly compared remains disputed. Nevertheless, questions about whether the city maximized value from the sale have never fully disappeared.

Vancouver Auditor General, Mike Macdonell who in his 2026 scathing report to Vancouver City Council found concerning irregularities in the Vancouver House development process, in 2014 through 2026

Those concerns gained renewed legitimacy in February 2026 when Vancouver Auditor General Mike Macdonell released a major audit examining city land sales and exchanges. The report found that city staff did not consistently provide Council with all relevant information needed to determine whether land sales reflected market value. In some cases, land was sold for less than assessed value, and documentation supporting valuation decisions was incomplete.

While the audit was broader than Vancouver House alone, critics immediately connected its findings to long-standing concerns about the Westbank transaction.

Even more damaging was a separate whistleblower investigation that examined community amenity contributions associated with Vancouver House.

Community amenity contributions, known as CACs, are intended to ensure that when rezonings dramatically increase land values, the public receives a share of that value through amenities, infrastructure or cash contributions. According to city policy, rezonings are expected to capture a significant portion of the resulting “land lift” for public benefit.

The Vancouver House rezoning ultimately secured approximately $4 million in cash contributions and roughly $6 million in promised in-kind public improvements.

The problem, according to Macdonell’s investigation, is that many of those promised benefits either were never properly defined, were reduced, or were not adequately tracked and enforced by the city. The auditor found that the city’s management of these commitments fell below a reasonable standard and constituted “waste” under the city’s whistleblower framework.

Among the promised public improvements were enhanced pedestrian connections between Granville Street and the bridge structure above, upgraded public spaces, landscaping, seating areas, special lighting, event infrastructure and other public realm features. Over time, several elements were altered, reduced or abandoned. The auditor found evidence that city staff excused some obligations without ensuring equivalent public benefits were delivered in return.

The findings were particularly significant because they reinforced a criticism that had existed since the project’s approval: Vision Vancouver’s enthusiasm for landmark architecture overshadowed its responsibility to protect the public interest.

Critics argue that Vancouver House became emblematic of a broader governing philosophy that dominated City Hall during the Robertson years. Vision Vancouver promoted density, urban design excellence and partnerships with the private sector. Many of the city’s most ambitious projects emerged during this period.

Yet opponents increasingly argued that City Hall had become too close to the development industry.

The Vancouver House negotiations appeared, to many observers, to confirm those fears.

Retired planner Robert Renger brings the Vancouver House controversy to the fore

Retired Burnaby planner Robert Renger became one of the most persistent voices raising concerns about the project. Renger, who had extensive experience negotiating major development agreements, filed complaints and provided information that ultimately contributed to the Auditor General’s investigations. He argued that Vancouver House represented a failure to maximize public value and a failure to enforce negotiated public benefits.

Renger’s concerns were not focused primarily on architecture. Rather, they centred on governance.

His argument was straightforward: if developers receive enormous increases in land value through rezonings, the public should receive commensurate benefits. When those benefits are reduced, deferred or abandoned without compensation, taxpayers effectively absorb the loss.

The Auditor General’s findings did not conclude that bribery, fraud or criminal corruption occurred. In fact, the report explicitly noted that the circumstances did not meet the threshold for serious wrongdoing in the legal sense and found no evidence of fraud.

Nevertheless, the report painted a troubling picture of weak oversight, poor documentation and inadequate protection of public interests.

That distinction is important.

Political scandal does not necessarily require criminal conduct.

A city can follow legal procedures and still make decisions that produce poor outcomes for taxpayers.

In the eyes of many critics, that is precisely what happened with Vancouver House.

The irony is that the project itself is, in many respects, a success.

Vancouver House has become an internationally recognized architectural icon. It transformed an awkward and neglected site. It helped redefine the southern entrance to downtown Vancouver. The building’s engineering and design innovations have been celebrated globally.

But success in architecture does not automatically translate into success in public policy.

The project was also controversial because of how it was marketed. During Vancouver’s housing affordability crisis, luxury condominiums in Vancouver House were aggressively promoted overseas, particularly in Hong Kong and mainland China. Many Vancouver residents viewed the marketing strategy as symbolic of a city increasingly designed for global wealth rather than local residents.

The optics were especially damaging during a period when housing prices were accelerating beyond the reach of many middle-class families.

To critics, Vancouver House represented not merely a building but a broader economic model: public land converted into luxury housing marketed internationally while affordability worsened at home.

The lingering question is why subsequent city councils have done so little.

A photo of the newly elected, or re-elected, members of the 2022 Vancouver City Council

Since Vision Vancouver’s defeat in 2018, two entirely different governing administrations have controlled Vancouver City Hall. First came the minority Council elected in 2018. Then came the ABC Vancouver administration under Ken Sim.

Neither administration has aggressively pursued remedies related to Vancouver House.

There are several possible explanations.

First, many of the agreements were legally finalized years ago, limiting available remedies.

Second, governments are often reluctant to reopen complex development contracts because doing so can trigger litigation and financial risk.

Third, Vancouver remains heavily dependent on private-sector development to finance infrastructure, amenities and housing construction. Political leaders may fear that aggressively challenging major developers could undermine future investment.

And finally, there is the uncomfortable reality that municipal governments of every political stripe often inherit decisions they would prefer not to revisit.

Yet the Auditor General’s findings have ensured that the controversy will not disappear.

The central question remains remarkably simple.

An elevator connecting the Granville Street Bridge and Granville Island was proposed as a way to improve access to the often gridlocked island that could have met Westbank’s obligations

Did Vancouver receive fair value for public land, public density and public approvals?

The architectural success of Vancouver House cannot answer that question.

The beauty of the building cannot answer it.

The prestige associated with Bjarke Ingels cannot answer it.

The Auditor General’s reports suggest that documentation was inadequate, public benefits were poorly managed and opportunities to maximize value may have been missed.

For critics such as Robert Renger and Glen Chernen, those findings validate concerns they have been raising for years.

For defenders of the project, Vancouver House remains a remarkable example of what ambitious city-building can achieve.

Perhaps both interpretations contain elements of truth.

Vancouver House is simultaneously one of Vancouver’s greatest architectural achievements and one of its most enduring political controversies. It stands as a glittering monument at the gateway to downtown —a building that transformed the skyline while raising difficult questions about governance, accountability and the relationship between public institutions and private power.

Long after debates about its twisting form have faded, those questions may prove to be the building’s most lasting legacy.

#Cinema | The Tyranny of the Tomatometer: How Aggregated Scores Are Killing Cinema Going

A & E, Arts Friday, Cinema, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

There was a time — not that long ago — when moviegoing required curiosity.

You read a few critics, maybe listened to a friend’s recommendation, and decided whether to spend two hours in the dark discovering something new.

Today, that act of discovery has largely been replaced by a single number. Before many people even consider seeing a film, they glance at a percentage on Rotten Tomatoes, or a numerical score on Metacritic. If the number is high, the film is deemed worth watching. If it is low, it might as well not exist.

The result is one of the most profound — and least discussed — transformations in the modern film industry.

Review aggregation has quietly reshaped the way audiences choose movies, the way studios finance them, and even the kinds of films that get made. In the process, it has flattened audience taste, suffocated mid-budget filmmaking, and helped create the blockbuster monoculture that now dominates cinema.

The Reduction of Criticism to a Number

Film criticism once thrived on disagreement. One critic might celebrate a bold experiment while another dismissed it as indulgent. That tension created a conversation around movies.

Aggregators ended that conversation by reducing criticism to arithmetic. On Rotten Tomatoes, reviews are translated into a simple binary: “fresh” or “rotten.” The site’s famous Tomatometer then calculates the percentage of critics who gave a positive review.

In practice, this system erases nuance. A film that receives dozens of mildly positive reviews can achieve a dazzling 90% score, even if no critic thought it was particularly great. Meanwhile, a polarizing masterpiece that divides critics — half loving it, half hating it —might end up with a mediocre score.

The number becomes the narrative.

And because audiences increasingly rely on that number to decide what to watch, a film’s reputation is often determined before the public has even seen it.

The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy of Success

Hollywood has noticed. In fact, studios have been obsessing over Rotten Tomatoes scores for years.

The industry’s anxiety became obvious during the summer of 2017, when several heavily marketed films opened far below expectations after receiving poor Tomatometer scores. Studios privately blamed Rotten Tomatoes for undermining their marketing campaigns, while highly rated films like Wonder Woman benefited from glowing scores and exceeded expectations at the box office.

Films are now judged almost instantly by their aggregated scores. A low rating can create a perception of failure before opening weekend even begins. A high rating can generate momentum and headlines. Either way, the number becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Once audiences internalize the logic of the score, they begin to behave accordingly: avoiding films with bad numbers and flocking to those with good ones.

The Crushing of the Mid-Budget Film


Kristen Stewart and Andrew Garfield on the red carpet at the Independent Spirit Awards ceremony

The biggest casualty of this culture is the mid-budget movie — the $20-$60 million drama, thriller, or adult comedy that once formed the backbone of Hollywood.

These films depend heavily on word-of-mouth and critical reception. That means they are far more vulnerable to aggregated scores than massive franchise films with huge marketing budgets. In fact, research suggests Rotten Tomatoes has a greater effect on smaller or independent movies than on major blockbusters.

For a mid-budget film, a weak score can be fatal. It discourages audiences from giving the movie a chance and convinces studios that similar projects are too risky.

The lesson Hollywood has absorbed is simple: if audiences are choosing movies based on numbers, studios should make films that are least likely to receive negative numbers.

The safest way to do that is to make movies audiences already know.

Sequels. Franchises. Superheroes.
The Homogenization of Taste

Aggregated scores quietly reshape the psychology of moviegoers themselves.

When audiences use a single metric to choose entertainment, they gravitate toward consensus. The safest choice becomes the one everyone else appears to like.

Over time, this process homogenizes the marketplace. Films that aim for broad approval — competent, inoffensive entertainment — perform better in aggregated scoring systems than films that take risks or challenge viewers.

The result is a feedback loop: audiences follow the scores, studios follow the audiences, and the entire system rewards safe mediocrity.

Gaming the System

Once numbers became powerful, the temptation was to manipulate them.

Studios now carefully manage early screenings to influence aggregated scores. Positive early reactions can create a high initial rating that attracts audiences before more critical reviews appear. In some cases, marketing campaigns have even tried to boost a film’s rating by selectively promoting favorable critics or delaying negative reviews.

Meanwhile, user scores on sites like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes can be distorted by organized campaigns known as “review bombing,” where groups flood a site with extreme ratings for political or cultural reasons unrelated to the film itself.

When the system becomes a battlefield of manipulated numbers, the illusion of objectivity collapses.

Yet the numbers remain.

Cinema as Data

Perhaps the most troubling consequence of aggregation culture is philosophical.

Cinema is an art form built on subjectivity. The experience of a film is deeply personal —shaped by mood, taste, memory, and emotion. Turning that experience into a percentage suggests a false precision.

And so cinema — one of the most expressive art forms ever invented — has been reduced to a metric.

Rediscovering Curiosity

The tragedy is not that Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic exist. Aggregating reviews can be useful. The tragedy is how completely those scores have come to dominate the conversation.

A score should be the beginning of exploration, not the final verdict.

If the future of cinema is decided by percentages alone, the industry will continue drifting toward the safest, most predictable movies imaginable.

And the next generation of great films — the strange, polarizing, risky ones that critics initially disagree about — may never get the chance to exist.
The tyranny of the Tomatometer is not just changing how we judge movies.

It is quietly changing which movies get made at all.

#VanPoli | Backgrounder on Vancouver’s 2026 Municipal Civic Election

#VanElxn 2026, #VanPoli Civic Politics, Politics, Vancouver Votes 2026, , , , , , ,

As is almost always the case, the 2026 race for power at Vancouver City Hall is shaping up as one of the most consequential elections in the city’s history.

Four years ago, voters handed a sweeping mandate to current Mayor, Ken Sim.

In 2026, the central question of this year’s civic election is a simple one: has Vancouver become a better, more affordable, more livable city under Ken Sim?

For Mayor Ken Sim and ABC Vancouver, the answer is yes. For many others — and certainly members of the opposition parties — the answer is an emphatic NO.

In 2022 Mayor Ken Sim’s party, ABC Vancouver, campaigned on public safety, housing approvals, reducing street disorder, and delivering major civic projects.

Mayor Sim has repeatedly highlighted the city’s efforts to hire 100 additional police officers — ABC Vancouver has, in fact, hired well more than 100 new police officers — and 100 mental-health nurses — the latter commitment would have to be considered an abject failure, with Business in Vancouver reporting that 41 mental health workers were brought on to staff various response teams … as of June 2026, only about half of those hires were registered nurses — to accelerate housing construction approvals, and prepare Vancouver for the  current FIFA World Cup.

ABC Vancouver has argued that it has brought a business-oriented approach to City Hall after years of political fragmentation.

Yet for many Vancouverites, the Ken Sim years have been anything but smooth.

Housing affordability remains the defining issue in Vancouver.

Despite record levels of housing approvals, rents remain high if not the highest in Canada, while home ownership continues to be out of reach for most young families and workers.

Public safety, homelessness, addiction, and visible street disorder remain persistent concerns, particularly in the DTES and surrounding neighbourhoods.

Concerns about transportation, climate policy, development pressures, and the spiraling costs associated with hosting FIFA World Cup matches have also entered the civic conversation. Polling released earlier this year suggested Vancouver residents remain sharply divided in their assessment of the ABC administration, with many polls registering  ABC Vancouver at 10% support among Vancouverites.

Those divisions have fueled a broad anti-Sim movement on the political left.

The most visible expression of that opposition has been COPE’s “Evict Ken Sim” campaign.

Led by COPE Mayoral candidate Stephanie Allen, the Coalition of Progressive Electors (COPE) has framed the election as a referendum on what it describes as an increasingly corporate and developer-friendly City Hall. The slogan has become a rallying cry among activists who believe Sim’s administration has failed renters, marginalized residents, and neighbourhood communities. COPE’s fundraising appeals openly ask supporters to help “evict Ken Sim” as Mayor.

But make no mistake, COPE is not alone in its criticism of the Mayor.

Recognizing that vote splitting helped ABC achieve its landslide victory in 2022, Vancouver’s progressive parties have once again attempted something unusual.

COPE, OneCity Vancouver, and the Green Party of Vancouver have negotiated an electoral co-operative agreement intended to reduce competition among progressive candidates and maximize their chances of defeating ABC candidates. Sadly, the agreement has not proved entirely successful at the centre-left unity goal.

As we wrote last week, the Mayoral field itself remains crowded.

Ken Sim is seeking a second term and remains the clear front-runner — at least according to civic election commentators, lawyer Kyla Lee and This is Vancolour’s Mo Amir, a sentiment the two have expressed in their role as civic affairs panelists on CBC Vancouver’s On The Coast afternoon programme — in part because he benefits from name recognition, an established — if broken, in the eyes of many — political machine, and the advantages of incumbency.

OneCity Vancouver has nominated William Azaroff, an affordable housing advocate whose campaign has not only emphasized affordable housing, but protections for tenants (provincial jurisdiction), climate action, and expanding public services.

The Green Party has nominated popular incumbent Vancouver City Councillor Pete Fry, who has positioned himself as a pragmatic progressive focused on neighbourhood planning, sustainability, and balancing growth with livability.

COPE has put forward Stephanie Allen, whose campaign has focused on renters’ rights, social and affordable housing, labour issues — including re-instating the Livable Wage Programme jettisoned by Mayor Sim early in his term of office — working with the provincial and federal governments to implement an affordable $40 a month transit pass for those whose incomes fall below $40,000 a year — which is an laudable environmental initiative, as well — and challenging what Ms. Allen describes as the monied backers of ABC Vancouver, and the elites influence over civic politics that ill-serves the interests of most citizens.

Meanwhile, Councillor Rebecca Bligh has launched the new Vote Vancouver party, creating another centrist option that could attract voters dissatisfied with both ABC and the traditional left.

Colleen Hardwick, and her TEAM for a Livable Vancouver civic party, have also launched a campaign for elected office, focused on neighbourhood empowerment, and transparency in decision-making at Vancouver City Hall.

Perhaps the most hopeful campaign for office in 2026 comes in the form of Kareem Allam and his Vancouver Liberals party, whose platform is centred on fiscal discipline; a socially progressive approach to governance that is focused on making the city affordable again for working and middle-class families; addressing the drug crisis on the DTES by ridding our city of the cryptocurrency ATMs so well loved by Mayor Ken Sim and the offshore drug lords who fuel the drug crisis that has taken so many lives in our city and our region; ridding Vancouver of our city’s disturbing rat infestation; working collaboratively with opposition Councillors; requiring fewer managers while hiring more front line workers; strengthening the role of the City’s Integrity Commissioner, and funding Vancouver’s Park Board properly in order that Park Board Commissioners might work to repair and renovate Vancouver’s increasingly dilapidated community recreation centres.

The controversies surrounding Ken Sim are likely to dominate much of the coming Vancouver municipal election campaign.

Critics have accused ABC of excessive centralization of power, a lack of transparency in decision-making, and governing in a manner that has marginalized opposition Councillors. Debates over policing, housing policy, encampment responses, development approvals, and FIFA-related expenditures have all generated political friction. Former allies have occasionally become critics, and opposition parties have attempted to portray the Mayor as increasingly disconnected from ordinary Vancouver residents.

Mayor Ken Sim’s re-election strategy will likely emphasize stability, competence — it is but to laugh — and the argument that major reforms require more than a single four-year term.

The mechanics of the 2026 Vancouver civic election are already taking shape.

Vancouver has announced expanded voting opportunities for 2026, including more advance voting locations, larger voting sites, and more than 2,200 election workers. Election Day is Saturday, October 17, 2026.

While the city has not yet finalized all advance voting dates, advance polls are expected to open in the weeks leading up to Election Day, continuing Vancouver’s recent practice of offering multiple opportunities for early voting.

Voters will elect not only a Mayor but also 10 City Councillors, 7 Park Board Commissioners, and 9 school trustees. We will also decide several capital borrowing questions that could shape municipal infrastructure spending for years to come.

In many ways, Vancouver’s 2026 election has become a contest between competing visions of the city itself.

One vision, represented by Ken Sim and ABC emphasizing growth, public order, and managerial governance. The other, represented by the city’s progressive parties, argues for stronger social programmes, requiring landlords to repair pest infested and rundown SROs, legislating deeper affordability measures, taking an activist approach to rebuilding infrastructure, opening up City Hall to citizens, and adopting a community-driven approach to development in our city.

By the evening of October 17, Vancouver voters will have decided whether Ken Sim’s sweeping victory in 2022 marked the beginning of a new political era — or is merely an unfortunate interlude, a one and done for Mayor Sim’s right-of-centre civic party — in the city’s long tradition of progressive municipal politics.

The answer will determine not only who occupies the Mayor’s office through autumn 2030, but what kind of city Vancouver hopes to become in the decade ahead.

#CDNPoli | The Curse of Politics | Chronicling Politics for Canadians

#CdnPoli | Canadian Politics, Canada, canadian politics, Know Your Local Ruling Class, Politics, Pop Culture, , , , , , , , , , ,


The Curse of Politics podcast, Canada’s pre-eminent must-listen-to political podcast hosted by political strategist and pollster David Herle with panelists Scott Reid, Jordan Leichnitz and Kory Teneycke

The Curse of Politics: Three Backroom Boys and One Backroom Woman Operative, and the Podcast That Has Become Essential Canadian Listening

Launched in August 2021, David Herle’s The Curse of Politics, each and every week for the past five years has provided unfiltered, unmuzzled insider perspectives from four of Canada’s most prominent backroom strategists, pollsters, and operatives, the collective in-depth analysis of the four hosts covering Canadian federal and provincial politics, election polling, and strategic political developments.

When Canadian politics entered the strange, socially distanced world of the COVID-19 pandemic, a curious thing happened. The formal press conferences, scripted talking points, and carefully stage-managed political events that had long dominated public discourse began to feel increasingly inadequate. Canadians wanted something else. They wanted context. They wanted candour. They wanted to know what was really happening behind the curtain.

In August 2021, just as Canada was entering another federal election campaign, that appetite found a home in The Curse of Politics, the political podcast launched by Air Quotes Media and hosted by veteran Liberal strategist David Herle alongside fellow political operatives Scott Reid, Jordan Leichnitz and Kory Teneycke.

What began as a pandemic-era experiment quickly evolved into one of the country’s most influential political podcasts, attracting an audience that includes journalists, politicians, campaign workers, public servants, lobbyists, and politically engaged Canadians from coast to coast — which clearly includes you!

The Curse of Politics podcast’s success rests on a simple premise.

Rather than treating politics as theatre, the hosts discuss it as practitioners. These are not academics or detached commentators. They are campaign veterans who have lived through leadership races, election victories, crushing defeats, cabinet crises, and war-room battles. They know where the bodies are buried because, in some cases, they helped bury them.

At the centre of the panel sits David Herle, the show’s ringmaster and perhaps one of the most influential Liberal strategists of the past generation.

A Saskatchewan native, Mr. Herle cut his political teeth working in the 1980s with future federal Liberal cabinet minister and Saskatchewan Liberal leader Ralph Goodale, before becoming a key adviser to former Prime Minister Paul Martin.

During Mr. Martin’s rise to prominence and political power, David Herle emerged as one of the most respected strategic minds in Liberal politics.

Known for his blunt speaking style and encyclopedic knowledge of political history, Mr. Herle later became a commentator on the CBC and launched the popular Herle Burly interview podcast. Today he remains a partner at Rubicon Strategy, and one of the country’s most sought-after political consultants.

Among Mr. Herle’s many political accomplishments, none may be more impressive than how he transformed Kathleen Wynne from an underdog Premier into the leader of a majority government in Ontario’s 2014 provincial election.

When Ms. Wynne became leader of the Ontario Liberal Party in January 2013, succeeding Dalton McGuinty, the Liberals appeared exhausted after a decade in power. Polls frequently showed the party trailing Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives by double digits, with some surveys placing the Liberals as much as 15 points behind.

David Herle set about to craft a compelling campaign narrative, an engaging and thought provoking message that positioned Ms. Wynne as a  change agent, a progressive reformer with a bold vision for Ontario’s future. Mr. Herle’s strategy focused on defining the election as a choice between investment and austerity.

At the centre of the Liberal platform was an ambitious plan to expand public transit through a dedicated infrastructure fund, financed in part through pension reform and asset sales.

The campaign also emphasized education, public services, retirement security, and economic growth through government investment rather than spending cuts — constituent elements of, perhaps, the most progressive election campaign ever waged in Canada. While critics attacked the proposals developed by Mr. Herle as fiscally irresponsible, he recognized that many Ontarians were weary of austerity politics following the global financial crisis.

Equally important was Kathleen Wynne herself.

David Herle encouraged a campaign that highlighted her authenticity, optimism, and willingness to engage directly with voters. As Ontario’s first female premier and the first openly gay Premier in Canadian history, Ms. Wynne represented a significant break from traditional political leadership. Rather than downplaying those qualities, the campaign embraced them.

By election night, June 12, 2014, the political landscape had been transformed. The Liberals captured a majority government with 58 seats, while Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives fell well short of expectations. The 2014 Ontario election campaign remains one of the most remarkable campaign turnarounds in modern Canadian political history, and a testament to David Herle’s strategic brilliance.

Scott Reid brings a similarly deep Liberal pedigree, though one forged in a somewhat different mould. Reid served as communications director and senior adviser to Paul Martin during the latter’s tenure as Prime Minister. Smart, combative, outspoken and often — with a twinkle in his eye — delightfully profane and contrarian, Mr. Reid possesses a rare ability to dissect political messaging with surgical precision. His sharp wit has made him a favourite among listeners, particularly when discussions drift into campaign strategy, advertising, and voter psychology. While Mr. Herle often plays the role of storyteller, Scott Reid is the analyst, forever searching for the hidden logic — or illogic — behind political decisions.

If David Herle and Scott Reid represent the Liberal tradition, Kory Teneycke embodies modern Conservative politics. Teneycke emerged as one of the most formidable conservative communicators of his generation while serving as Director of Communications to former Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Later, he became a central architect of Ontario Progressive Conservative leader and Premier Doug Ford’s electoral successes, managing multiple winning campaigns. Mr. Teneycke’s style is unapologetically aggressive, deeply strategic, and occasionally provocative. He has long embraced the notion that politics is a contact sport.

Recently, Mr. Teneckye took a break from The Curse of Politics, moving to British Columbia  to help Caroline Elliott secure the leadership of the Conservative Party of British Columbia. Sadly, despite Mr. Teneycke and his team’s best efforts, Ms. Elliott fell just short, securing 49% of the vote to Kerry-Lynne Findlay’s 51%

One of the most fascinating developments in recent years has been Mr. Teneycke’s willingness to criticize his own side when he believes it is making mistakes.

During the 2025 federal election campaign, he became one of the most prominent Conservative insiders to publicly question the strategy being pursued by federal Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre. As Liberal leader and future Prime Minister Mark Carney gained momentum amid economic uncertainty and growing concerns about relations with the United States, Kory Teneycke argued that the Conservatives were squandering a commanding lead in public opinion polls, describing the campaign’s failures in remarkably blunt terms, warning that it would be remembered as a case study in campaign malpractice.

The criticism generated headlines across the country and underscored one of the podcast’s defining strengths: intellectual honesty. The hosts may have partisan backgrounds, but they are rarely partisan cheerleaders. Their loyalty lies more with effective politics than with any particular party.

Completing the quartet is Jordan Leichnitz, arguably the least publicly known member of the panel but, in many ways, the secret ingredient that gives the show its balance.

Ms. Leichnitz built her career in political strategy and public affairs, working extensively within NDP circles, particularly with the late Jack Layton during his extended term as the federal party lead, prior to his untimely death on August 22. 2011, at the age of 61, just weeks after the 2011 federal election campaign.

While developing a reputation as a sophisticated campaign thinker and communicator, and decidedly less theatrical and histrionic than her colleagues on The Curse of Politics, Ms. Leichnitz often serves as the voice of moderation and practical political judgment. When debates become heated on the podcast —as frequently they do, or at least that was once the case — Ms. Leichnitz is often the one grounding the conversation in electoral realities.

Together, the three male panelists and Ms. Leichnitz have created something unusual in Canadian media.

The chemistry feels less like a panel show than an ongoing conversation among old friends who have spent decades fighting one another on campaign battlefields. They interrupt, tease, challenge, and occasionally exasperate one another. Yet beneath the banter lies a remarkable reservoir of political knowledge.

The Curse of Politics podcast’s influence has grown steadily because it offers something increasingly rare: expertise without excessive self-importance.

Listeners hear discussions about polling, campaign mechanics, advertising strategy, leadership performance, voter behaviour, and media relations from people who have actually done the work. The hosts frequently explain not merely what happened but why political actors behaved as they did.

That insider perspective has made The Curse of Politics required listening for journalists and political staffers. It is not uncommon for themes raised on the podcast to migrate into newspaper columns, television panels, and broader political discussions. In an era dominated by social-media outrage and performative partisanship, The Curse of Politics offers a more substantive, if often profane, alternative.

The title of the podcast itself contains a measure of truth.

Politics is a curse of sorts. It attracts idealists and cynics alike. It promises power while demanding sacrifice. It rewards ambition while punishing miscalculation. Few people understand those contradictions better than Messrs. Herle, Reid and Teneycke, and increasingly the voice of wisdom and ruminative introspection on The Curse of Politics podcast, the estimable Jordan Leichnitz.

Five years after its launch, The Curse of Politics has become far more than a podcast. It is an institution within Canada’s political culture, a place where practitioners gather to explain the game to those watching from the stands. The hosts have disagreed on nearly every major issue of the day, but that disagreement is precisely the point. Democracy is not built upon consensus. It is built upon argument.

Interestingly, some longtime listeners have suggested that the name evolved from the show’s conversational, discursive style before settling on The Curse of Politics, a title that better captured the hosts’ love-hate relationship with political life.

In that sense, the title is both humourous and autobiographical. The hosts understand politics better than most people because they have lived it — and because, despite all its frustrations, they have never really escaped its pull. That enduring attraction, equal parts passion and affliction, is the curse they discuss every week.

The podcast’s official description explains the idea this way:

“Politics. It’s a blessing and a curse. On good days, it’s about your friends in the foxhole with you. On bad ones, it’s the mountain of votes that went the other way. Either way, it pulls you back in, again, and again.”

And every week, around a virtual table crowded with stories, scars, and strategic insight, four veterans of Canada’s political wars remind listeners politics is rarely as simple as it looks — and infinitely more interesting than most people imagine.