The automated system leaving welfare recipients cut off with nowhere to turn – The Guardian

Bad news comes to Australias welfare recipients in different ways.

Sometimes, the message comes in the post. More often than not, though, word arrives through a special email portal, or by text to a smartphone. The sender always says the same thing: Your payments have been suspended.

It happened to Keelan two months ago. He got a notification on his MyGov account, the online portal he uses to receive emails from Centrelink, Australias social security agency.

The 26-year-old has been surviving on Australias jobseekers payment, Newstart allowance, ever since his medical conditions anxiety, depression and OCD started affecting his studies.

His payments A$600 a fortnight were automatically stopped because he missed a phone appointment. It mattered little that he was not in a great state at the time.

I wasnt sure what day it was because my OCD was quite bad, Keelan tells the Guardian. I got a phone call that I didnt register. It turned out to be Centrelink and they cut off my payments. And I didnt hear from them again after that.

Keelan, who did not want his surname published, says he spent hours on the phone over several days trying to get his welfare payments back. Most of the money was delayed for about a week. He was broke and couldnt afford his medication.

When he doesnt take his meds, it sort of throws off my day-to-day function to the point where I cant complete a sentence, he says. My condition just gets worse and I go into a downward spiral where I need to go into care sometimes.

These suspensions are becoming increasingly common and will be considered by the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, who is examining the impact of digital technology on social safety nets around the world.

Australias welfare system is often touted by its politicians as the most efficient and the envy of the world.

Bureaucrats and politicians alike have embraced technology and automation with open arms. As part of a sweeping digitisation push slated to finish in 2022, benefits claims are now conducted online. Since 2013, welfare recipients have been pushed away from Centrelink shop fronts and on to the MyGov online portal.

The centre-right coalition government is already facing legal action over its Robodebt scheme, which critics say uses a flawed algorithm to accuse benefits recipients of owing a welfare debt. But there have been other, less-remarked-upon changes, too.

Last year, the government overhauled the way it sanctions welfare recipients accused of gaming the system. In a briefing to the privately run job service agencies that administer the new policies, an official summed up the changes: Processes will be automated as much as possible to simplify administration.

Welfare advocates say the consequences have been disastrous. In the space of a year, the new policy has increased the number of welfare payment suspensions to 2.7m.

In 12 months, welfare payments were stopped an extra 1m times.

Theres a shifting of decision-making that is increasing the amount of automatic suspensions, says the policy analyst Simone Casey.

Under the most recent changes, the government has prioritised welfare suspensions over sanctions, in which a person has their payments docked for doing the wrong thing. These penalties, which used to be applied manually by a staff member, have dropped significantly. Instead, a recipients money is cut off automatically until they satisfy their job agency consultant that they are committed to looking for work.

Casey, who used to engage with the government regularly in her work as a policy analyst adviser to not-for-profit job agencies, says that over time consultants have been handed less decision-making power over how to penalise or not the welfare recipients they are employed to help.

Consultants have less discretion when a welfare recipient does not turn up to an appointment or misses another compulsory activity. They enter a code into a system that automatically triggers a payment suspension.

The same goes when the welfare recipient fails to report their income or confirm they met their job search requirements via digital channels.

Money is stopped first, and questions are asked later. The idea is that this will encourage people to follow the rules.

In some cases its left single parents without money for food for their children over a weekend because they havent logged in and reported their attendance, says Adrianne Walters, a senior lawyer at the Human Rights Law Centre.

And so the computer says, No payments. And then that person is left without anywhere to turn until their employment service provider opens up again on the Monday.

The National Social Security Rights Network represents community legal centres who take calls daily from welfare recipients that feel wronged by the system.

Were definitely seeing more people call up because of automation, says Jai Manoharachandran, a policy officer at the network.

When youre living paycheck to paycheck, every little bit counts. And the idea that you might have to try and stretch your income for a few days before you get back-paid, its incredibly stressful for clients. They often dont understand why their payments have been suspended.

Rebecca Johnson, 39, lives in Perth, in Western Australia, with her 21-year-old son. He has autism and also receives government benefits. She says she honestly cant remember how many times her payments have been suspended.

Since the new policies were introduced, about 50,000 suspension notifications now go out to welfare recipients across the country each week.

When they contact their job agency, the consultant decides whether or not they had a fair reason for missing their appointment. If not, they are given demerit point, which can lead to harsher penalties.

But analysis of government statistics by the Guardian shows about 75% of the time, benefits recipients who had their payments suspended under the new system were not at fault. The data shows payments were suspended 2.7m times in 12 months, but only 654,ooo demerits were handed out.

The Guardian has tracked the new system since it was rolled out, finding that the homeless and single parents are disproportionately impacted. In six months, 55,000 homeless people received a suspension; yet there are only about 60,000 homeless people receiving welfare at any given time.

Meanwhile, across a controversial welfare-to-work program for single parents with children under five, 85% had their payments suspended automatically but were later cleared of wrongdoing. The overwhelming majority were single mothers.

On one occasion, Johnson says she had her welfare cut after she was given four phone appointments with her job agency over 10 days.

I was at work and they just kept changing them with no contact, she says.

There was no contact as to what was really going on. Just I kept getting these text messages saying that youve got appointment on this day, you got an appointment on this day.

The last text in the chain, shown to the Guardian, says: Your payment has been suspended for not attending your provider appointment. To restore payment you need to attend a provider appointment.

The government says payments are turned back on once people re-engage with the system. But observers say it doesnt always work like this in practice.

Manoharachandran tells the story of one client who was already broke when her welfare payments were suspended.

She didnt have money for the train to go to her job service provider, they say. She had no money for food or other essentials. So basically, she needed to get the suspension lifted as soon as possible. She ended up riding the train without a ticket and picking up a $200 fine.

And then when she got to the provider, they initially told her they couldnt see her that day and shed have to come back the next day to re-engage and get that suspension lifted. She didnt even have the money to get home. Shed already incurred a $200 fine getting there.

For Johnson, the suspensions mean stress and hoop-jumping at best. Other times, its much worse. You virtually have no money left, she says of living on Australias unemployment benefit, which is among the lowest in the OECD.

The last time her payments were suspended, she had no money for the weekend. And it wasnt even her fault: a system glitch with the digital app meant she could not report her income to Centrelink.

You try and do the right things, you still get punished, she says. Thats the way I see it.

The most vocal critic of this system has been Rachel Siewert, a senator with the Australian Greens.

The system is geared to be very aggressive towards job seekers, and people looking for work, she says. This is what we predicted would happen given the way the system is set up.

Over time, people receiving benefits in Australia have been given more responsibilities. Increasingly, this involves using technology an online portal or smartphone app to regularly report information back to the government.

The government has also established a trial for welfare recipients engaging with job agencies. In time, it hopes a large proportion of them will not go into an office for help and will instead deal with their consultant using an online platform.

Siewert is not convinced it will work. Im not having a go at technology but that it can make it harder, she says. Youve also got certain groups of people that dont have the same digital skills.

Im not saying older all older people dont understand technology, but many of them dont. Theyre finding themselves unemployed, later in their career, they may have been involved in an industry that didnt have to become particularly technically literate, and they are also being alienated through the approach.

The same goes for Johnsons son, whose autism means he struggles to navigate the increasingly digital system. He sometimes forgets to report his income to Centrelink. That does not trigger a phone call asking him what happened, just a payment suspension.

I have to remind him so we dont get paid for a day or two later until you report, Johnson says.

The government is convinced the new system is working. Despite the huge increase in welfare payment suspensions, it says most people end up having their payments restored before they are delayed.

Moreover, the new system has one clear benefit in its eyes. It is expected to save a few hundred million dollars.

Critics say the true cost is felt by people engaging with the system. Walters, of the Human Rights Law Centre, points to a study by researchers from the University of York that found welfare penalties were ineffective.

Thats that starting point, youve got a program that is causing the stress to Australian families, she says. And when you automate that programme, we automate the decision-making, you essentially turbo-charge those impacts.

Johnsons phone and email are full of messages telling her about her suspensions. She argues she should at least have a phone conversation with someone before her income is stopped.

But shes used to getting those notifications now. What does she think when she gets the news?

Oh, I dont know I probably just, Again? Theres always something, she says.

Its never-ending. What have I done this time? Or just another drama to deal with. I dont have time for this crap. Thats what I feel like.

Excerpt from:

The automated system leaving welfare recipients cut off with nowhere to turn - The Guardian

Google is adding new Nest routines to further automate your home – Engadget

To start, the company is launching a new Device Access program that will allow "qualified" partners to ask for access to your Nest devices. The idea here is that this integration will give you yet another way to control all the smart home devices you own. For instance, if you have a non-Nest smart home security system that supports the platform, the API will allow you to view and control your Nest cameras through that device's app. According to Nest, third-parties that want to join the program will have to pass an annual security assessment. The Device Access API is available today, with new device integrations "coming soon." Nest had already offered third-party integrations in the past through its Works with Nest program. However, the Device Access program is the new API those companies will need to use to get their devices recertified.

Meanwhile, the company's new and expanded Home Routines will allow your Nest devices to trigger your other smart home products. For instance, say you have a Nest Protect in your home. If it detects smoke in your home, one of the new Home Routines will allow it to communicate with your smart lights, causing them to function as a warning sign by flashing red. A less extreme example is that a single routine will allow you to automatically turn down your Nest thermostat and turn off your smart lights at the same time whenever you leave your home. The company says you'll be able to build your own routines, as well as enroll in pre-made ones created by the company.

Starting in the second half of next year, you'll also be able to use routines made by third-parties. Nest adds that you'll be able to add smart home products to a routine on a device-by-device basis. The company plans to launch Home Routines early next year. In introducing both new features, Nest was quick to note that it will do its best to "safeguard your Google data to our standards."

If you consider yourself a smart home enthusiast, Nest is also working on a Device Access program for individuals. The program will allow you to control your own Nest devices and create private integrations and automation routines that work with them.

Nest says today's enhancements come part of the revised privacy policy the company announced back in May. With each new feature, Nest notes that it tried to find a balance between creating a more open ecosystem with one that respects individual privacy. Thankfully, it won't be long before we'll be able to judge if the company was successful.

Link:

Google is adding new Nest routines to further automate your home - Engadget

Automation Anywhere’s Rashim Mogha Named ‘Woman of the Year’ at 2019 Women in IT Awards – PRNewswire

Mogha was selected out of more than 300 nominees for her efforts to bring more diversity to the technology industry and prepare the workforce for the future of automation. As a global leader for education products at AAU, Mogha oversees the company's curriculum and certification division, which has trained more than 350,000 developers, business analysts, partners and students in RPA and within the next five years, anticipates certifying more than one million individuals for the future of work.

A keynote speaker, published author of a #1 Amazon best-seller "Fast-Track Your Leadership Career," and women in tech evangelist, Mogha empowers women globally to create successful leadership careers, sharing her perspective on leadership, innovation, skills development and enablement strategy. She also founded eWOW, empowered Women of the World, an intellectual platform to help women advance their technical and leadership skills.

"It's such an honor to be recognized by the Women in IT Awards Silicon Valley, an organization championing one of the most pressing issues facing the technology industry today gender diversity. By upskilling and reskilling women for the jobs of the future, we can take a step towards bringing more women into the technology industry," said Rashim Mogha. "I am so inspired to see women technology leaders come together to celebrate each other's successes and empower the next-generation of changemakers."

Organized byInformation Age, the Women in IT Awards is a flagship and high-profile platform to shine a light on women in tech leaders. For women in technology in the U.S., representation still languishes at 25 percent, which has steadily declined from 35 percent over the last 15 years. However, Silicon Valley faces a unique set of challenges, with only 11 percent of executives being female.

Furthermore, the odds of being in a leadership position is almost three times greater for men than for women. The Women in IT Awards series aims to tackle this issue and redress the gender imbalance by showcasing the achievements of women in the sector and identifying new role models.

For more information on the Women in IT series and to see a full list of winners, please visit here.

Interact with Automation Anywhere:

About Automation Anywhere:

Automation Anywhere is a leader in Robotic Process Automation (RPA), the platform on which more organizations build world-class Intelligent Digital Workforces. Automation Anywhere's enterprise-grade platform uses software bots that work side by side with people to do much of the repetitive work in many industries. It combines sophisticated RPA, cognitive and embedded analytic technologies. More than 3,100 customer entities and 1,800 enterprise brands use this AI-enabled solution to manage and scale business processes faster, with near-zero error rates, while dramatically reducing operational costs. Automation Anywhere provides automation technology to leading financial services, insurance, healthcare, technology, manufacturing, telecom and logistics companies globally. For additional information, visit http://www.automationanywhere.com.

SOURCE Automation Anywhere

http://www.automationanywhere.com

Excerpt from:

Automation Anywhere's Rashim Mogha Named 'Woman of the Year' at 2019 Women in IT Awards - PRNewswire

Neximatic Partners With Surgical Information Systems to Deliver Automated Vitals Charting to Ambulatory Surgery Center (ASC) Market – PRNewswire

CHICAGO, Oct. 16, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- As Surgical Information Systems (SIS) delivers its advanced clinical documentation solution, SIS Charts, to the growing ambulatory surgery center (ASC) market, it has partnered with Neximatic to provide automated vital sign charting for operating rooms and PACUs, bringing a new level of workflow efficiency to ASC clinicians.

SIS is a leader in ASC software, and SIS Charts is an intuitive, cloud-based platform designed to make ASC clinical documentation easy. Automating vital sign charting with Neximatic's solution eliminates the manual data entry process so clinical staff can focus their attention on patient care and not the documentation. It also ensures a comprehensively charted record that improves workflow efficiency in ASCs.

"We have been successful in deploying SIS Charts with vital sign charting automation in multiple facilities during the past six months," said Doug Rempfer, SIS chief operating officer. "Our clients appreciate this feature as it streamlines documentation and helps improve patient care by removing this manual step."

The Neximatic solution works seamlessly with a surgery center's existing IT infrastructure, making installation simple. The feature can be enabled in less than one day.

"We are very excited to partner with SIS," said Bobby Wong, President of Neximatic. "Our solution supports vitals capture in operating rooms and PACUs, enabling end-to-end vital sign charting automation for ASCs."

About Neximatic, Inc.

Neximatic, Inc. is a technology provider for electronic health record (EHR) providers, enabling new features in EHRs. Its vital sign streaming solution has enabled automatic charting in AIMS and tele-health applications. For more information, please visit http://www.neximatic.comor email toinfo@neximatic.com.

About Surgical Information Systems (SIS)

Surgical Information Systems (SIS) delivers surgical information solutions to healthcare providers. Our commitment to deliver on promises made to our clients and each other drives everything we do. SIS has grown to serve the needs of nearly 3,000 surgical facilities in over 10,000 operating rooms across the United States and Canada. Our deep understanding of surgical services has allowed us to develop proven solutions and services that improve the financial, operational, and clinical performance of those we serve. Healthcare is constantly changing, and we change with it. We continue to innovate using input from our clients and the market in order to meet their evolving needs. For more information, please visit:https://www.sisfirst.com.

Contact:844-890-6095info@neximatic.com

Related Links

News on Neximatic Inc

SOURCE Neximatic Inc

https://www.neximatic.com

More:

Neximatic Partners With Surgical Information Systems to Deliver Automated Vitals Charting to Ambulatory Surgery Center (ASC) Market - PRNewswire

Edelman CEO: 25% of financial services jobs will be eliminated by automation – Yahoo Finance

Automation is coming to the financial services industry, according to Edelman CEO Richard Edelman.

Financial services is going to go through a wave of automation, Edelman said atYahoo Finances All Market Summit Thursday in New York City. Twenty-five percent of financial services jobs will be eliminated.

Edelman said automations threat to jobs applies to both white collar and blue collar jobs. This is not simply truck drivers, he said. Its happening in retail stores and back offices.

Richard Edelman, President and CEO of the public relations company Edelman, attends a conference at the Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity, in Cannes, France, June 19, 2018. REUTERS/Eric Gaillard

According to a recent Edelman survey, 4 out of 5 respondents globally think theyll be economically worse off in 10 years from now.

[People are] afraid theyll lose their job to machines, he added.

Edelman, a global communications and public relations company, was founded in 1952, by Daniel Edelman, and maintains 60 offices across the globe.

Click here to watch the complete interview:

Scott Gamm is a reporter at Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Twitter @ScottGamm.

More from Scott:

Follow Yahoo Finance on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Flipboard, LinkedIn, and reddit.

Go here to read the rest:

Edelman CEO: 25% of financial services jobs will be eliminated by automation - Yahoo Finance

Kingsgate Logistics Goes Live with Trucker Tools Automated Load Booking – SupplyChainBrain

Trucker Tools LCC, which provides shipment visibility, carrier capacity management and predictive freight-matching solutions for the transportation industry, recently announced that Kingsgate Logistics Services has completed integration and gone live with Trucker Tools Book it Now, a new feature of the companys cloud-based software platform that fully automates the process of booking truckload shipments with carriers.Book it Now connects with the brokers TMS as a plug and play integration and does not require significant process change to leverage the platforms automation benefits, which reduce the variable cost of covering a load to zero.

Truckers are demanding more automation and apps with features that save them time and let them engage with many brokers in a standardized, common process, said TomCuree, Vice President of Strategic development at Kingsgate. Book it Now greatly simplifies and accelerates the process for how a trucker accepts a load literally taking it down to one click of a button. All the information is there, accurate and in real-time, for the trucker to make a decision. Once accepted, the shipment is booked, a rate confirmation is automatically generated, and all other shipment details are transmitted to the drivers smart phone. Then he clicks on the pickup location and off he goes.

Book it Now is a fully automated process. Using this feature, a driver or dispatcher reviews a list of participating brokers available loads that match available capacity and are in that fleets or drivers preferred lanes. Each entry has a Book it Now button. Once the driver/dispatcher clicks on Book it Now, the load is booked and recorded in the brokers TMS, a rate confirmation is issued to the driver/dispatcher and the load is scheduled for pickup. A brokers intervention is needed only if the driver and broker want additional conversation.

About Kingsgate Logistics Services, LLC

Kingsgate Logistics Services, LLC is a family -owned, third-party logistics company founded in October 1986 on three fairly basic principles: hard-work, exemplary service and the highest levels of integrity. Kingsgate provides total supply-chain solutions to a broad range of customers throughout North America.

About Trucker Tools LLC -- Trucker Tools, LLC, based in Reston, Va., is the leading provider of trip planning, shipment visibility and freight matching solutions for the transportation industry. Its ground-breaking Smart Capacity platform uses accurate, real-time data and powerful algorithms to optimally match freight by predicting when and where capacity will become available, days in advance. The companys popular driver smartphone app, launched in 2013, has been downloaded by over 725,000 owner-operators and small-fleet truckers to access load information, planning and booking services conveniently while on the road. Smart Capacity automated shipment tracking is a robust feature in the app that connects drivers with carriers and freight brokers, providing real-time location updates, eliminating manual check calls and increasing carrier load-tracking compliance.

See the article here:

Kingsgate Logistics Goes Live with Trucker Tools Automated Load Booking - SupplyChainBrain

Thailand and Japan agree to develop automation tech – OpenGov Asia

The Industry Ministry has begun a mission to bolster ties with Japanese businesses given the uncertainties surrounding Thai politics.

Japan is among the key nations the ministry aims to cement ties with. It was noted that R&D experience from Japan can help the government meet its goal of directing the country toward the fourth industrial revolution.

The recent meeting in Japan was aimed at assuring Japanese businessmen of the mutual benefits the two countries will enjoy through stronger investment ties.

During the trip, the minister, the chairman of a major car manufacturer signed a memorandum of understanding.

Under the MoU, the two have agreed to further develop automation and robotics in Thailand, two fields that are crucial to the Thailand 4.0 blueprint.

Robotics is one of 10 targeted industries in the governments Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC) project, which is a new high-tech industrial hub covering 30,000 rai of land in three coastal provinces of Chon Buri, Rayong and Chachoengsao.

The MoU will be a start for setting up a consortium to support robotics and automation development.

In addition, Thailand wants to increase the number of system integrators specialising in computing operations.

During the trip, the minister, also led an entourage to meet high-ranking Japanese officials, including those in charge of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), to discuss joint business opportunities.

The METI promised to take Japanese investors to Thailand to see how they can develop their businesses in the EEC. Many EEC projects will be at the heart of industrial development under Thailand 4.0.

The minister also noted that he had strengthened investment links with Japans large agencies and corporations.

These corporations include the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organisation, which is helping Thailand with rubbish recycling technology; a Japanese multinational automotive manufacturer, which is preparing to produce plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in Thailand over the next two years, and another arm of the same automotive manufacturer, which is planning to open a new smart technology business line.

The minister also sought cooperation with small and medium-sized enterprises in Toyama, located northwest of Tokyo, in a move to encourage Japanese SMEs to expand their businesses to Thailand.

They are prospective investors too because almost all large companies in Japan have already invested in Thailand, the minister noted.

Toyamas businessmen are interested in doing business in Thailand as they have established 65 firms here over the past three years. The Industry Ministry hopes to increase that number to 100 by 2021.

The Thai government will give new investors incentives which will be tailor-made for their businesses. The aim to help Japanese firms feel more comfortable in Thailand in order to support more foreign investment.

Thailand seen as a tech hub

According to another article, the ministers recent trip to Japan involved meeting regarding business and investment opportunities with existing and future partners, including one automotive company which aims to produce 5.5 million automobiles in Thailand by 2025.

After signing a memorandum of understanding with the Japan-Thailand Economics Corporation Society (JTECS) and Toyota Motors Co Ltd, the minister stated that the agreement to boost the production of automobiles and improve the robotic industry in Thailand.

This MoU will bring the nation closer to the Thailand 4.0 target. Moreover, the government aims to establish 1,400 system integrators within four years to facilitate hardware and software needs of corporate clients.

As a major partner in this MoU, the automotive manufacturer will bring state-of-the-art technology to manufacturing bases in Thailand, which will boost production capacity to over 750,000 units annually.

Within this target, 500,000 will be electric vehicles [EV], while the rest will be plug-in hybrid electric vehicles [PHEV]. An emphasis is being placed on PHEVs since pure EVs still have many limitations, such as higher price batteries and total reliance on charging stations, which are not comprehensive enough in many areas.

Japan is also interested in infrastructure projects such as high-speed train and manufacturing bases for robotics and high-tech industries.

Here is the original post:

Thailand and Japan agree to develop automation tech - OpenGov Asia

Indiana Manufacturing Survey shows need for skilled, unskilled workers as companies move to automate – IU Newsroom

INDIANAPOLIS -- The 2019 Indiana Manufacturing Survey, released Oct. 16 and titled "Labor Shortages Hit Home," finds companies across the state are reporting a serious shortage of skilled and unskilled laborers as they move rapidly toward smart manufacturing, known as "Industry 4.0."

Commissioned by Katz, Sapper & Miller, authored by faculty from Indiana University's Kelley School of Business at IUPUI and promoted by the Indiana Manufacturers Association, the annual survey shows that a record number of respondents expect their product markets to grow rapidly in the near future, but many are finding it difficult to attract younger generations of skilled and unskilled workers who are able to replace the wave of retiring baby boomers.

Companies indicate they are substituting capital investments in technology for labor to partially satisfy the demand for skilled workers and to remain competitive. Even with this investment, 48 percent of employers say the number of jobs continues to increase at their organizations, and nearly two-thirds expect the number of skilled jobs to increase as a result of implementing new technologies and automation. Respondents say current shortage areas include skilled production, such as machinists, craft workers and operators; unskilled production; and supporting roles, such as engineers and planners.

"The general sentiment for a solution may surprise some. Manufacturers overwhelmingly feel that employers should be responsible for their own workforce development," said Mark Frohlich, associate professor of operations management at the Kelley School of Business at IUPUI and the Gregg and Sabine Sherrill Director of the Center for Excellence in Manufacturing. "They recognize that an adequate STEM education and employable life skills are necessary for the manufacturing jobs available and suggest enlisting public secondary schools to help address the shortage."

The findings in this survey reflect national trends the manufacturing industry is seeing across the country. For example, the September 2019 national Institute for Supply Management report indicates that the manufacturing index has dropped to 47.8, meaning activity has slowed to its lowest in 10 years. Economists point to several factors causing slowdown and uncertainty about the industry's future, including the U.S.-China trade war, health care regulations and a potential recession. But Indiana manufacturers have an optimistic outlook on the future growth of their industry.

"Over the past decade, survey responses have reflected that manufacturing growth has been impeded by regulations, an increasing skills gap, and now uncertainties with trade tariffs and economic stability," said Jason Patch, partner-in-charge of KSM's Manufacturing and Distribution Services Group. "But on a positive note, the vast majority of respondents in this year's survey agree that corporate tax reform has helped increase capital investment and wages. That's a bright spot not many would have predicted."

Overall, the survey suggests that the Hoosier manufacturing sector continues to see strong demand for its products. The obstacle of hiring skilled workers means there is a dependency, now more than ever, to improve operational efficiencies.

"The findings from this survey help take the temperature of Indiana's manufacturing industry and provide insights into future trends," said Brian Burton, president of the Indiana Manufacturers Association. "This year's survey shows that manufacturers expect future growth rates in sales revenues, profit margins and capital investment and are focused on solving the issue of a skilled-worker shortage."

The 2019 Indiana Manufacturing Survey includes other valuable manufacturing industry data for service providers, economic officials and potential investors. A full copy of the report is available online.

As one of the top 60 CPA firms in the nation, KSM has earned a reputation as a leader in the areas of accounting, tax and consulting services. The firm has nearly 350 employees and is headquartered in Indianapolis, with additional offices in Fort Wayne, Indiana; Oklahoma City; and New York City. KSM is consistently named one of the "Best of the Best" accounting firms in the nation by INSIDE Public Accounting magazine. It is a member of PrimeGlobal, a global association of independent accounting firms. Learn more at ksmcpa.com.

The Indiana University Kelley School of Business has been a leader in American business education since 1920. With nearly 115,000 living alumni and an enrollment exceeding 11,000 students across two campuses and online, the Kelley School is among the premier business schools in the country. The Kelley School at IUPUI is home to a full-time undergraduate program and five graduate programs -- including a graduate certificate for health care professionals; master's programs in accounting and taxation; the Business of Medicine Physician MBA; and the Evening MBA, which is ranked ninth in the country by U.S. News & World Report. Learn more at kelley.iupui.edu.

Formed in 1901, the Indiana Manufacturers Association is the second-oldest manufacturers association in the country and the only trade association in Indiana that exclusively focuses on manufacturing. Manufacturing is the driving force of Indiana's economy, employing more people and contributing more to Indiana's gross domestic product than any other industry. The Indiana Manufacturers Association, representing more than 1,100 companies, is dedicated to advocating for a business climate that creates, protects and promotes quality manufacturing jobs in Indiana. The staff of the Indiana Manufacturers Association are recognized experts in areas including tax, environment, labor relations, human resources, energy, workforce development and health care. Learn more at imaweb.com.

Read the original:

Indiana Manufacturing Survey shows need for skilled, unskilled workers as companies move to automate - IU Newsroom

Is This the Future Liberals Want? – Jacobin magazine

The following is a preview from the forthcoming print issue of Jacobin, on populism. Subscribe to Jacobin today and get it when its released in November!

October 2040: an exhausted nation readies itself for the third and final presidential debate of a grueling campaign season. Across Americas living rooms, bars, basement shelters, and prisons, augmented reality devices light up with images of the two contenders.

First-term California governor Malia Obama, vaulted to the Democratic nomination after her heroic response to the devastating Central Valley flood of 39, introduces her Green Forward agenda. This ambitious plan, developed in partnership with Harvard University and the Bezos Foundation, aims to relocate 20 million workers from environmental and economic brownfields to productive metropolitan cores, where they can apply for federal grants, providing the displaced with access to education and skills training, along with civic engagement and entrepreneurship programs.

The proposal brings a throaty sneer from Republican president Allen Jones, the retired professional wrestling star formerly known as A.J. Styles. The elite wants to make you move to Portland, Oregon, and eat plastic hamburgers in a cubicle until you die, he says, referring to the citys recent ordinance banning the consumption of animal products. In contrast, Jones pledges to protect Judeo-Christian values by building the largest military drone fleet in world history, implanting microchips in illegal immigrants (just stamp em!), creating a million new American jobs in ocean-floor mineral mining, and cutting taxes.

As the debate ends, pundits remark that the country is more polarized than ever. Earlier in the campaign, Joness son Ajay, a freshman congressman from Georgia, made headlines by performing his fathers signature move, the Styles Clash, on longtime Texas senator Beto ORourke; images of bleeding Beto have featured prominently in campaign ads on both sides. But it is not clear how many Americans are really paying attention. One hundred and thirty million people sat out the last election, including a record share of lower-income and working-class voters. Even as wealth and income inequality soar to new highs, experts predict that less than a quarter of Americans without college degrees will cast a ballot in 2040.

For socialists, this may be a dystopian vision, but this is the future many liberals want or, at least, the future that professional Democrats have been aiming at for some time.

Chuck Schumers notorious boast about trading blue-collar Democrats for college-educated Republicans accurately captured the strategy that produced both the Democratic Partys disastrous 2016 defeat and its limited victory in 2018. But the comment was not just an unusually candid confession of the partys strategic priorities; it was also a neutral description of a much larger process that began long before Schumer reached the Senate.

Since the 1970s, parties of the left center have bled working-class support all over the industrialized world, with millions of blue-collar Democrats, Social Democrats, and Labor voters giving way to a new class of highly educated professionals. Schumers own political career, which began at age twenty-three, when he graduated from Harvard Law School and won election to the New York State Assembly in the same year (eat your heart out, Pete Buttigieg!) is just one illustration of this shift. In fact, Schumer-like politicians, and the professional-class voters they represent, have become the active leadership and core constituency within center-left parties from Brooklyn to Berlin to Sydney.

Thomas Piketty has dubbed this new configuration a clash between the Brahmin Left educated professionals, defined by their cosmopolitan virtues and the Merchant Right business leaders, committed to the ruthless maximization of profit. Under this arrangement of forces, working-class voters have either dwindled into quiescent adjuncts of the professional-class left, gravitated toward right-wing populism, or dropped out of politics altogether.

It wasnt always this way. Even in the United States, where racism and the two-party system have always sapped working-class solidarity, politics in the mid-twentieth century was polarized firmly along class lines. From the 1930s to the 1960s, if you were a working-class voter a mail carrier in Harlem, a miner in West Virginia, a farm laborer in New Mexico, a garment worker in Cleveland you were very likely to vote Democrat. If you were a manager or professional outside the Solid South from Vermont to California you were very likely to vote Republican. At its peak, in the era of Franklin D. Roosevelt, class voting was nearly as robust in the United States as anywhere in the industrialized world.

Across the twentieth century, it was this politics of class that structured the great and lasting achievements of European social democracy, from Britains National Health Service to the Scandinavian welfare state. In the United States, class voting produced the political coalitions that delivered the New Deal and the Civil Rights Acts. Here, as elsewhere, the decisive energy for reform came about through working-class organization, chiefly in labor and social movements.

But a key ingredient in the mix was a partisan alignment that allowed, and in some ways even encouraged, the success of class-based demands for economic redistribution and democratic equality. Unexceptional New Deal Democrats like Hubert Humphrey, pushed by organized labor and confident in the knowledge that they spoke as clear representatives of the working people, could denounce scabs and defend vigorous labor laws while calling for national health insurance, an end to Jim Crow, unprecedented mass transit and eldercare projects, and a stabilized economy of full employment.

There is no need to romanticize such mid-century Democrats, who also presided over the expansion of the security state and the murderous war in Vietnam. Yet neither can we afford to dismiss the victories in this era of class voting, which dwarf anything either Democrats or American leftists have won in the last fifty years. The Democratic Party was never truly a workers party, but its major achievements of the twentieth century were possible only because it was a party of workers.

This alignment has been under stress since the 1960s. Today, it is officially dead. The Democratic Party of our own decade, as New Americas Lee Drutman writes with palpable excitement, has become an unequal partnership between highly educated professional whites and minority voters, in which wealthy cosmopolitans play a role of increasing significance, not least as fundraisers and donors, but also in the party primaries, where the affluent disproportionately participate.

The Republican Party, meanwhile, has sharpened its identity as an alliance of bosses, cultural conservatives, and white nationalists. With a working class divided by race, and a managerial class divided by culture, more than ever it is education and moral values rather than material interests that form the battleground on which Americas two parties collide.

The causes of this broader shift, of course, transcend the conscious maneuvering of center-left party leaders. Racist backlash in the postcivil rights era served to undermine class solidarity everywhere. More broadly, globalization, financialization, automation above all, the political victories of capital over organized labor in the late twentieth century have combined to create a social reconstitution of the American working class. Its representative figure today is not a General Motors line-worker, close to the centers of power, but a home health aide (or atomized gig worker) whose labor, however necessary to society at large, does not always generate obvious leverage over capital or natural opportunities for collective action.

In the same decades, the rise of the knowledge economy swelled the numbers of credentialed professionals especially in law, medicine, education, and engineering and cemented their influence on American politics. With organized labor in decline, Democrats increasingly sought and often won this professional-class support, often clustered in affluent suburbs near universities, hospitals, and technology centers.

In the 1970s, the practitioners of the New Politics gave this process a progressive sheen, seeking to build a constituency of conscience in the era of George McGovern and Watergate. In the 1980s and 1990s, New Democrats in the mold of Michael Dukakis and Bill Clinton tacked to the right, promising to rein in big government, forge public-private partnerships, and get tough on crime. But what both party movements shared was a laser-like focus on white-collar voters, accelerating the decline of class voting and paving the way for todays even more comprehensive dealignment.

This fundamental shift from the party of Humphrey to the party of Schumer remains the most important American political development that confronts the Left today. It is no accident that the decline of class voting has corresponded with fifty years of retreat for American workers: stagnant wages, accumulating debt, and increasing precarity, even as corporate profits have soared. Nor is it a coincidence that even popular two-term Democratic presidents in this era, elected by such dealigned class coalitions, have proven unable or unwilling to push for structural reforms on anything like the scale of the New Deal era, even after facing the biggest economic crash since the Great Depression.

This is the heavy undertow that churns beneath the apparent rising tide of the American left. Yes, the 2016 Bernie Sanders campaign helped bring social-democratic ambition back to national politics, revealing mass support for once-marginalized ideas like single-payer health insurance and free public college. Yes, the overwhelming popularity of these and other proposals from debt cancellation to a Green New Deal has encouraged mainstream Democrats to ride the wave the best they can, accepting some limited demands (a $15 minimum wage) while attempting to dilute others (Medicare for All Who Want It). And yes, by appearing to embrace most of Sanderss platform, Elizabeth Warren has vaulted to the front of the 2020 primary race, leaving more cautious contenders like Kamala Harris and Beto ORourke far behind.

In one sense, these are cheering ideological victories, and a testament to the ongoing appeal of class-based politics. But the truth remains that all this has come about almost entirely within a political party whose own professional-class character, in the same years, has only grown stronger than ever. The 2018 midterms, after all, were won in the affluent suburbs; Democrats now control every single one of the countrys twenty richest congressional districts.

Warren, meanwhile, has broken away from the Democratic primary pack with the unmistakably enthusiastic support of voters making over $100,000 a year, among whom she leads in almost every poll. A recent California survey showed Warren winning more voters making over $200,000 than her next two rivals combined.

Is this a reliable base on which to challenge the power of capital or even to fight for basic social-democratic reforms? The experience of the last fifty years suggests otherwise.

For some liberal-left commentators, the decline of class voting and the rush of rich professionals into the Democratic Party is not a problem, but an opportunity. Matthew Yglesias and Eric Levitz, among others, have assembled all their cleverness to make the case that these new affluent voters so-called Patagonia Democrats are not an obstacle to economic populism, and may even be an asset.

As should be obvious, this is a deeply counterintuitive argument you see, wealthy people want to have their wealth redistributed! for which the burden of proof should be very high. Yglesias and Levitz do not reach it with either of the two major points they make.

First, they contend, the leftward shift within the professional class reflects a sincere ideological response to empirical reality that is, the shocking inequality of our era. Surveys show that upscale voters are increasingly willing to support redistributive ideas, including new taxes on the rich and increases in health-care spending. Even the professional establishment of the Democratic Party, Levitz notes, has moved dramatically leftward why else does the Center for American Progress now propose a federal job guarantee and a universal health-care plan?

Why now, indeed? Inequality yawned just as grotesquely ten years ago, under the presidency of Barack Obama and a filibuster-proof Senate, when the Center for American Progress supported no such things. The American health-care system was no less revolting in 2014, when the words Medicare for All did not appear in a single New York Times news article. Nor did this great leftward turn of the establishment make much of an impact on the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign, which won Patagonia Democrats in droves while fiercely resisting most of Bernie Sanderss social-democratic platform.

Might it be that the Democratic establishments recent leftward movement does not represent a sudden ideological conversion, but a tactical response to a rather different empirical reality the militant economic populism unleashed by the Sanders campaign, whose base was anything but Patagonia Democrats? In that case, the way to further advance the shift is not by congratulating professional-class elites on their progress much less building a political strategy centered around them but by making bolder and broader demands for change from outside the system.

Abstracted opinion polls, in any case, are an unreliable index of political behavior, especially when material interests become involved. After all, surveys show that most millionaires and tech CEOs also support various redistributive measures; a number of billionaires, including Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, have consistently expressed support for higher taxes on the rich. Does this mean that literal millionaires and billionaires are also not an obstacle to waging class war on millionaires and billionaires? Obviously not.

Yglesias and Levitzs second point is that the material interests of the professional class diverge sharply from the true 1 percent, which has hogged nearly all the economic growth of the last three decades. This is surely true, to an extent, and a major reason why many six-figure earners support taxes on seven-figure earners, while seven-figure earners support taxes on eight-figure earners, and so on and so on. But what does such modest and selective backing for redistribution look like in political practice?

One clue comes from Democratic governments in deep-blue states. Levitz optimistically cites Californias new bill to protect gig workers, but for every such example, there are several more discouraging ones, most of them concerned not with the regulation of a particular sector, but with the red meat of budgets and taxation. In New Jersey, new millionaire governor Phil Murphy failed to persuade a Democratic legislature to pass a millionaires tax. In Connecticut, governor Ned Lamont made good on his major campaign promise by passing a budget without any income tax raises. In Washington State, meanwhile, the new Democratic House speaker recently ruled out a new state income tax. This years California budget, purposefully light on tax increases, can hardly be considered a serious effort at economic redistribution.

Even New York, where a new progressive majority won a number of significant victories in the State Senate, the budget itself remained very much in Patagonia, prioritizing historic tax cuts on incomes up to $323,200 over urgently needed funding for education, public transit, and social programs. The New York Health Act, a single-payer bill that had passed the State Assembly in four straight sessions, was deemed untouchable in the Senate. New Yorks legislative session may suggest the arrival of a better Democratic Party, but it hardly suggests the second coming of social democracy or even the second coming of Hubert Humphrey.

At the national level, it may be that Patagonia Democrats prove more willing, as Levitz says, to pay modestly higher taxes for the sake of fortifying Americas social safety net. But this formula is neither new nor inspiring its a rerun of the Obama presidency, which let the Bush tax cuts expire, passed the stimulus, and expanded Medicaid, thus proving to captive observers like Paul Krugman that progressive policies have worked. Meanwhile, in the real world, the housing crisis destroyed working-class wealth, inequality kept soaring, and poverty remained entrenched.

Democrats should take the class warfare message to upscale suburbs Yglesiass argument is a sentence that makes sense only if your idea of class war is a few tweaks to the tax code, and your ultimate political horizon stretches no further than a third Obama administration.

Elizabeth Warren is the ideal general to fight just this kind of class war. A university law professor for forty years, thirty of them inside the Ivy League, Warren would be the most academic president since Woodrow Wilson, and she is already the most influential scholar to mount a serious presidential campaign. Her impressive credentials and technocratic sensibility have made her catnip for affluent professionals including, of course, some journalists who have become her most enthusiastic supporters.

Ideologically, Warren is no centrist New Democrat. Nor is she a lofty neoliberal triangulator in the mold of Obama or Pete Buttigieg. In her determination to fight corruption, and her fondness for clear rules and fair regulations, she may most resemble the progressive reformers of the McGovern era.

Yet while she is sometimes described as an economic populist, Warrens chief function in the primary race against Bernie Sanders has been to take the populism out of progressive economics. While formally embracing much of Sanderss 2016 platform, the Warren campaign distinguished itself not by underlining the necessity of popular struggle, but by advertising the comprehensive wonkery of her policy agenda: She has a plan for that! Warrens planfulness is Democratic savior politics in the style of Obama or Hillary Clinton. It does not summon the will of the masses; it says, Chill out, shes got this.

The emphasis here is on the reasonableness of the plans, not the boldness of the demands. Even Warrens most daring stroke on this front, a 2 percent tax on fortunes over $50 million,elicitschantsoftwo cents, two cents! withthe campaign and its supporters alike practically fetishizingthe modest limitsof the request.

When Warren does vow to challenge the power the wealthy, her rhetoric often works not to stoke the popular mind against Americas inequality but to naturalize it as a fact of national life: In America, there are gonna be people who are richer and people who are not so rich. And the rich are gonna own more shoes, and theyre gonna own more cars, and they may even own more houses. But they shouldnt own more of our democracy.

This isnt economic populism; its closer to a folksy progressive riff on there is no alternative. Nor does such a cabined understanding of democracy a question of fair procedures, walled off from the world of material goods open much room for questioning the tyranny of bosses under capitalism.

Having assembled a scrupulously conventional campaign staff, loaded with veterans of the DNC and Hillary for America, Warren has made it clear through careful primary endorsements that she remains an institutional player within the Democratic establishment, not an insurgent aiming to transform the party itself. Even in her scattered and vague references to the need for a grassroots movement, what she appears to mean, when she doesnt mean selfie lines, is nothing more revolutionary than electing more Democrats.

Rhetorically, Warrens stress on corruption the malfeasance of individual bad actors in Washington further channels legitimate complaints about a rigged system away from a confrontation with class power (as Sanders intends) and toward a search for better rules. It is perfectly suited to the spirit of todays proceduralist progressives Rachel Maddow Democrats whose first and strongest instincts are to outlaw, invalidate, or somehow disqualify their opponents rather than to defeat them in popular struggle.

In occasional populist moments, as in her recent speech at New York Citys Washington Square Park, Warren talks about the need to put economic and political power in the hands of the people. But the technocratic style of her politics hardly works to close the distance between political professionals and the people even her own supporters. I havent specifically pored through her policy proposals, said one New York University student in Washington Square Park, with what one imagines was a mixture of shame and awe, because there are a hundred thousand of them.

In fact, Warren lacks detailed plans for K12 education and health care. In Washington Square Park, while Warren talked about big structural change, comparing herself to the workers rights advocate Frances Perkins, she devoted just two formulaic sentences to contemporary labor politics. Although 2018 saw the most labor strife in over thirty years, with nearly half a million workers involved, Warrens speech barely mentioned the word strike.

The question here is not simply whether a Democratic candidate nominally supports unions, but where labor stands asa priority within the party. Memorably, Barack Obama supported the union-backed Employee Free Choice Act on the campaign trail, but after his election, he let the proposal die in Congress with barely a sound.

We may choose to regard this as a shameful presidential betrayal, but like many Obama-era failures, it revealed far less about Obamas personal views than about an institutional Democratic Party dominated not by labor advocates but by professional-class politicians highly attentive to their professional-class constituents. (The rise of the broader Patagonia left, as a study of fifteen European countries has found, tends to produce a less pro-worker welfare state.) As an individual Democrat, Warren may be to the left of Obama, but there is little reason to believe that she has the capacity to change this larger state of affairs.

Warrens most enthusiastic left-liberal supporters seem to regard her as a kind of sleeper agent within the system who can heroically cajole or hypnotize establishment Democrats into backing big, structural change, purely on the strength of professorial persuasion. Such faith, if sincere, is almost touching. But the record of Warrens own private battles with the Obama team hardly suggests that transformational change can be achieved through such a deeply institutional politics.

Warren will surely aim to craft better rules for Washington and Wall Street, but is this really structural reform? Her campaign has already announced that the first legislative priority of a Warren administration is nothing more architectural than a suite of strict lobbying regulations, most of them already passed by the Democratic House, along with the creation of a US Office of Public Integrity. Naturally, Vox calls this agenda ferocious.

Even in the best-case scenario, politics under a President Warren would almost surely resemble politics under Obama: careful negotiations between progressive professionals and stakeholders in Washington, in which the president seeks the least-worst outcome in a world of narrow and fixed constraints. An infinite variety of Yglesiases and Krugmans will luxuriate in the nuance, integrity, and ferocity of Warrens bold progressive agenda, even as fundamental economic structures remain unchanged. And then they will be shocked, just shocked, when the next Donald Trump swaggers into the White House and blows it all to bits.

Above all, it is hard to see how Warren can address the dealignment of class voting, or the ongoing evolution of the Democratic Party into the party of Fairfax County, USA. More than likely, Warrens nomination would only accelerate the trend. It is not a coincidence that by far her strongest support comes from Democrats with six-figure incomes and postgraduate degrees: in style and in substance alike, she offers a version of progressive politics as professional politics.

Theres a reason, as the journalist Krystal Ball has pointed out, why Warren and Buttigieg appeal to the same class of voters, despite the considerable differences in their platforms. Both candidates Harvard folk, of course rely heavily on individual stories of meritocratic achievement, along with an appeal to white papers, intellect, and resume items. This has worked and may continue to work wonders for Warren in a Democratic primary, where Patagonia Democrats predominate; how it would fare in a general election is much less clear.

In a campaign against Trump, of course, Warren would win many of the same votes that Hillary Clinton won, including black, Latino, and Asian workers who see no real alternative in the Republican Party. But a Warren nomination also clearly sets the stage for another dreary cultural clash between elite progressivism and Trumps fake populism. In such a battle, earnest liberal hymns to Warrens 100,000 plans no matter how many wealth taxes they propose are not likely to fare much better than 2016 pleas for voters to visit http://www.HillaryClinton.com/Issues.

Ultimately, there is little sign that a Warrenite politics of strict rules, detailed plans, and careful procedures can break the grip of this new cultural polarization never mind inspire the multiracial working-class coalition necessary for big, structural change, both inside and outside the Democratic Party.

More than a hundred years ago, Engels mocked the faddishness of elite interest in left-wing economics, and even socialism itself:

There is indeed Socialism again in England, and plenty of it Socialism of all shades: Socialism conscious and unconscious, Socialism prosaic and poetic, Socialism of the working class and of the middle class, for, verily, that abomination of abominations, Socialism, has not only become respectable, but has actually donned evening dress and lounges lazily on drawing-room causeuses. That shows the incurable fickleness of that terrible despot of society, middle-class public opinion, and once more justifies the contempt in which we Socialists of a past generation always held that public opinion.

In the last fifty years of American history, elite Democratic support for economic redistribution has proven no less fickle. The carousel of professional-class opinion spins on and on last week, McGovern; yesterday, Dukakis; today, Warren; tomorrow, Buttigieg? all while the right wing grows ever uglier and workers, as a class, drop ever further from view.

In a 2020 campaign against Donald Trump, a bet on Warren is a risky wager on its own terms. But over the next twenty years, the politics of Patagonia liberalism is not a bet at all its an unconditional surrender to class dealignment.

Bernie Sanders offers a fundamentally different path forward and not only due to his domestic, foreign, and planetary policy ideas, his ideological roots, his theory of change, or his relationship to the Democratic Party. All these differences are important, but Sanders also points to an alternate future for class politics itself.

To be sure, the Sanders campaign in the United States, like the Corbyn movement in Britain, has benefited, too, from the professional-class vogue for left-wing politics. (Thus Engels mocked the rise of respectable socialism, but admitted that we have no reason to grumble at the symptom itself.) Sanders supporters, much younger than average, are hardly a perfect cross section of Americas working class.

Yet neither is Sanders the creature of drawing-room progressives. From the beginning, Bernies campaign in 2015 attracted a coalition that looked very different from any primary insurgent in Democratic Party history. While McGovern, Gary Hart, Bill Bradley, Howard Dean, and now Elizabeth Warren won their first and fiercest support from wealthy professionals, Sanders in 2016 won more than 13 million votes from a much younger, less affluent, and less educated swath of the electorate.

In this years primary, the Sanders coalition remains young and relatively lower income, while it has grown more racially diverse. Bernies large, enthusiastic, and disproportionate support from Latino voters who form by far the fastest-growing segment of Americas working class must be one of the most underreported political stories of 2019.

The gaps between Warren and Sanders supporters are stark, especially considering their purported similarities in policy and ideology. According to Politicos September poll averages, Warren underperforms with voters making less than $50,000 by a greater margin than seven of the top eight Democrats in the race; Sanders overperforms with the same group by the highest margin the field.

When it comes to Patagonia Democrats, especially, the differences are unmistakable. A recent YouGov poll showed that just 13 percent of Democrats making $100,000 or more would be disappointed if Warren were nominated, the lowest share in the entire field, aside from Pete Buttigieg. Over a third of the same affluent group was opposed to Sanders, by far the highest of the top five leading Democrats.

In California, meanwhile, a UC Berkeley poll showed Warren far ahead of the pack among postgraduates (at 39 percent) and voters making over $200,000 (35 percent). Sanders, meanwhile, earned the backing of just 12 percent of postgrads and 9 percent of highest earners.

If the Sanders platform is in the objective self-interest of virtually all affluent suburbanites, as Eric Levitz argues, why do so few of them seem to know it?

The point is not thatSanders or his agenda is incapable of winning professional-class votes. In a general election, as dozens of polls have made clear since 2016, these affluent Democrats will almost certainly come around if the alternative is Trump. But while some upscale Democrats may benefit from Bernies platform, they are not drawn to his populism or his class politics. Sanders, unlike Warren, will never be their top choice.

In fact, the core of Bernies support comes from voters with a far more urgent material interest in the social-democratic programs he proposes, and a far clearer position in the class struggle that he has helped bring to the fore. Among California voters making under $40,000, Sanders had more support than Warren and Joe Biden combined; he also led both rivals among all voters who didnt go to college.

Bernies call for wealth taxes is not a modest plea for two pennies from Jeff Bezos, but a cry to abolish Jeff Bezos, and billionaires writ large. His support of Medicare for All is not a pledge to find the best policy framework, but a vow to fight the private insurance industry until every American has health care as a human right.

This is the kind of class politics that has won Sanders the support of 1 million small donors, faster than any candidate in history (and twice as many as the Warren campaign). An OpenSecrets review of campaign donations found that while Warren was naturally the top recipient among scientists and professors, Sanders led by far among teachers, nurses, servers, bartenders, social workers, retail workers, construction workers, truckers, and drivers. Of all the money going to 2020 Democrats from servers one of the lowest-paying jobs in the country more than half went to Sanders alone.

This is just what is required to challenge the power of the ultrarich: a politics that does not treat lower-income voters as a kind of passive supplement for professional liberals, but one that can put the new working class itself at the center of the action.

A professional-class left, as scholars of European politics have noted, may be trusted to safeguard the bare bones of existing welfare states programs that are themselves the legacy of much older working-class struggles. But in the United States, with our barbarously incomplete provision for basic social needs, the necessary struggle is not just to defend existing social democracy, but to build it from the ground up.

This is not the work of a single election cycle or a single presidential administration. Nor is it exclusively, or even primarily, the work of electoral struggle itself. But if we want to build anything like a halfway decent, free, or fair democracy, we should remember that the only politics that have ever achieved this or can ever achieve this are the politics of class voting, led by an organized working class. Bernie Sanders, all by himself, will hardly bring about the movement we need. But unlike every other Democrat in the field, at least he points in the right direction.

Continued here:

Is This the Future Liberals Want? - Jacobin magazine

A Liberal Uneasy in the World of #MeToo Feminism – The New York Times

THE PROBLEM WITH EVERYTHINGMy Journey Through the New Culture WarsBy Meghan Daum

Heres the problem with Meghan Daums electrifying new book, The Problem With Everything: My Journey Through the New Culture Wars. Its a critique of feminisms fourth wave, a social media-driven movement articulating not just the rights of women, along with microaggression concepts like mansplaining, but also the fuzzier tenets of intersectionality, a hitherto hidden matrix of privilege and oppression. But trickily for readers in todays age-striated world, three (approximately) generations encounter this feminist movement and the broader culture wars of which it is a part in at least three different ways.

First, baby boomers. Think someone 70-plus, like my friend Peggy, comfortably retired, living in a leafy enclave, who wears Native American jewelry without irony (shes from Pennsylvania). She sends her grandchildren Apple products and money for their college tuitions from a comfortable distance. Typical gently amused exclamation, regarding nonbinary pronouns: They, them, their? Please. Its not even grammatical!

Second, Gen Xers. Around 50, or about Daums age, theyre the sweet spot for this collection. Or sweet-sour, if you will, caught as these aging Gen Xers are in the culture wars saw blades. Many have children in their teens and 20s, so they mis-gender at their continual peril. Their workplaces, particularly if at cultural institutions, have become professional minefields: In these fraught times, linguistic slips involving any kind of race or sex or otherness can trigger a layoff. (One radio producer remarked, over his barely touched quinoa salad: Im 61 if I can just hang on for four more years.)

These beleaguered, not-yet-retired middle-agers might want to discuss The Problem With Everything with the third generation: the millennials and Gen Zs. Thirty-five and younger, this cadre occupies a new world, particularly if culturally woke. Their social media teems with hashtags (#DGAF Dont Give a [expletive]), eye-rolling GIFs (Emma Stone), raw outrage (I. Cant. Even.). In 280 characters, Twittering S.J.W.s (social justice warriors) call out and cancel their oppressors. Daum acknowledges such behavior is understandable, even necessary: Trumpism has made us feel that the world is out of control. However, she insists, the migration of #MeToo to #BelieveWomen also fundamentally flew in the face of innocent until proven guilty.

See the original post here:

A Liberal Uneasy in the World of #MeToo Feminism - The New York Times

This Polarizing Liberal Zionist Group Is Growing. Can It Overcome Its Past? – Forward

Carly Pildis is a progressive activist and writer who frequently speaks out about anti-Semitism on the left as well as the depredations of the right. Every day, she says, she gets messages from American Jewish women who tell her theyre scared of expressing their support for Israel, or even their Jewish identities, in progressive spaces.

She tried to support the women, advising them and amplifying their concerns in her writing , but there wasnt much more she could do.

Now Pildis, who worked on the 2012 Obama campaign, is taking action on the issue. She has joined the staff of a Jewish not-for-profit called Zioness as its director of organizing and second full-time employee.

I dont want people to feel afraid, said Pildis. I want them to know they are powerful, and I joined Zioness to teach them how to grab that power.

Zioness was founded in 2017 to serve people like Pildis - feminists and liberals who dont want to denounce the Jewish state as the price of entry among progressives. Now its expanding its staff and ambitions.

But as the group tries to grow, it is facing distrust from other liberal Jewish organizations that would presumably be its natural allies. The divide reflects the tension many American Jews face as they struggle to balance their liberal leanings with their desire to support what they see as an increasingly illiberal Israel.

The suspicion goes back to Zionesss founding two years ago. The group was born after employees of the Lawfare Project, which fights the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel, learned in 2017 that the Chicago Slut Walk had banned Zionist symbols. Outraged, they flew from New York to Chicago to participate anyway, waving banners proclaiming themselves part of the Zioness movement.

The group reached its highest profile as a critic of anti-Semitism within the Womens March. Executive director Amanda Berman got invited to speak at synagogues. Chapters now more than 30 were formed across the country.

But many prominent Jewish progressives were skeptical, especially about the Lawfare connection. Berman worked there until this January, and Lawfare founder and executive director Brooke Goldstein, who went with Berman to Chicago, is a Trump supporter and a frequent Fox News guest.

Berman insisted at the time and maintains now that Zioness was independent from Lawfare.

Still, some on the Jewish left wondered if Zioness was a bid by right-wing Zionists to co-opt their movement, claiming to be progressive only to cover up their true goal of defending Israel.

Now it seems that IfNotNow and others were right to be skeptical.

Last month, Goldstein wrote on Facebook that Lawfare funded and incubated Zioness and that she had used [Berman] as the face of the movement as she wasnt a public figure and not identifiable as conservative. Goldstein did not respond to interview requests.

Whats more, Berman admits now that her Lawfare connections helped Zioness get right-wing funding. She secured a $25,000 donation when she spoke about Zioness in 2018 to the Merona Foundation, a Jewish donor network run by the wife of the controversial conservative Jewish philanthropist Adam Milstein.

Yet Zionesss relationship with Zionist conservatives soured after the group issued a statement calling Trumps policies of detaining migrant children and separating families heartless and contrary to Zionist values.

We felt betrayed, basically. And angry, said former donor Rita Emerson.

These days, Goldstein claims that Zioness is now too anti-Trump. Berman claimed that Milstein used to donate to them but no longer does because its actually progressive. A spokesperson for Milstein said that was not an accurate characterization but declined to say whether Milstein gave or is still giving to Zioness.

Support on the right has withered but will progressive groups step in as allies, given that their early suspicions seem to have been well-founded?

If the answer is no, Zioness work will be harder at the beginning, said Shaul Kelner, a professor at Vanderbilt University who studies social justice movements.

One such progressive Jewish group is Truah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights. Truah is Zionist they support a Jewish state alongside a Palestinian one and also campaigns against mass incarceration and family separation, partnering with major organizations like the ACLU.

Truah executive director Rabbi Jill Jacobs said she was still skeptical of Zionesss strategy.

My perception of Zioness is about showing up at protests with the signs, not around long-term relationships, she told the Forward. Its those relationships that allow you to have complicated conversations around Israel.

Zionesss board features Jewish liberals, such as former Clinton White House communications director Ann Lewis and onetime Democratic congressional candidate Erin Schrode. But its impossible to know whos funding it now. Since its so new, its not yet required to share financial records.

Other progressive groups are going to be looking at [the funding,] and that will probably influence whether theyre going to work with them or not, Kelner predicted.

Berman said that the money to hire Pildis came from an anonymous liberal Jewish philanthropist. She refused to disclose their identity because she didnt want Pildis to find out. Pildis said she didnt know who it was.

Zionesss next stage, Berman said, involves helping members advocate for specific issues they care about - providing them with policy memos and campaign strategies.

Some chapters are already active. One has joined the Florida Hate Crime Coalition.

Pildis has been hired to train Zioness members to be activists on domestic issues like gun control and reproductive rights. She will teach them how to engage with elected officials and form partnerships with other advocacy groups.

But what Zioness wont do, say Pildis and Berman, is advocate for Israel unless someone else brings it up first.

Weve been really clear from day one we dont exist just to debate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Berman said.

Kelner said Zioness has a chance to be a long-term success even if other liberal groups keep their distance.

Its a matter of doing the hard organizing work to transform the base level of demand into people actually signing up, he said. Then it doesnt matter what the origin story is, because they have the power of numbers behind them.

Aiden Pink is the deputy news editor of the Forward. Contact him at pink@forward.com or follow him on Twitter @aidenpink

Read the original:

This Polarizing Liberal Zionist Group Is Growing. Can It Overcome Its Past? - Forward

Q&A: Western Liberal pres on why you should vote to re-elect – The Gazette Western University’s Newspaper

Elections always centre around the incumbent especially this year, after photos appeared of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in blackface and brownface.

It was another controversy for the Liberal leader, whose platform pledges a number of supports for students.

The president of the Western Liberals club, Robert Belanger-Polak, spoke with Gazette Opinions Editor, Hope Mahood, about how students should think about the PM. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

How did you react when you found out Trudeau did brownface?

Just the brownface? Well, I did find it disappointing. It was an unfortunate thing to have had happen. Personally I dont agree with it at all. But I do think the Prime Minister has done a pretty good job with diversity and inclusion and promoting values within the last four years.

And it seems like its going to be a big push in the current iteration of the Liberal platform, which should be good. I think there will be a net positive, for lack of a better word, in opposition to what he did previously.

What do you think of his apology then?

Well I cant recall his apology word-for-word, which is too bad, but its one of those scenarios where an apology cant really suffice. Its one of those things that you have to, I think, prove different with actions.

Im sure you know the liberals are being attacked on two fronts right now when it comes to climate change. Theres the NDP whore mad with them for buying the trans-mountain pipeline, and then theres the Conservatives who are upset with the carbon price.

Yep.

Which of these criticisms do you think is more valid?

So I think, in a way they both have validity. And I think theres probably more validity from the left criticisms we need to do more, and I think thats something myself and the party agrees with. I think were taking steps to get there, but its also a matter of making sure our climate plan is feasible, so appeasing the criticism from the right. And also making sure that we move forward with the necessary precautions.

So making sure that the plan will have tangible effects making sure that Canada has net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. And you know there are other things the Liberals are doing that I think make them pretty good for the climate change plan.

And Trudeau announced that hed make changes to student loans in light of Ontarios OSAP cuts. Should the Federal government be inserting itself into provincial policies?

I think thats a good question. I dont know if its inserting though Id say that the Liberals are covering up where they believe there to be deficits theyre not taking over it or anything, right?

But theyre going ahead and saying things like theyll provide 1,200 more in student grants and were going to make the loans you receive from us so that, if youre making under 35 thousand, you wont have to pay them back until you are making above that or if after two years of graduation you have to start paying them back and its all interest free. I do think it is a positive policy to implement.

I guess there is an elephant in the room question then can Canada afford all this?

I guess that is a common criticism when we have a bunch of fun, good policy proposals where is the money coming from? how are we going to pay for everything? One of the fun things in the platform well, I guess its not fun, but its cool you can see the platform is actually fully costed.

I dont know how tax is going to come into play but I do know the platform does have a breakdown of everything so I think it will be cool. I guess the flipside is with other parties policies cutting things, like when you have one party proposing $41 billion in cuts you have to ask where are the cuts coming from what services are not going to be provided?

Read more from the original source:

Q&A: Western Liberal pres on why you should vote to re-elect - The Gazette Western University's Newspaper

Can American Jews Be Both Liberal and Pro-Israel? – The New York Times

The Oldest Hatred

To the Editor:

It was with great interest that I read Hillel Halkins review of Bari Weisss How to Fight Anti-Semitism (Sept. 29). Halkin writes with characteristic clarity, force and knowledge, and I concur with his judgment that her book is a brave one in the current political and cultural climate. Her stance as a proud Jew and lover of Israel is one that I, like Halkin, applaud.

However, I find his disappointment and critique of Weisss identification with the liberal values that dominate the contemporary American Jewish community rather narrowly construed historically. The alliance between Jews in the modern Western world and political liberalism predates the 19th century and German reform and unquestionably has its origins in the writings of Baruch Spinoza and Moses Mendelssohn that called for separation between religion and state during the 17th and 18th centuries. These stances were part and parcel of Enlightenment thought and allowed for a neutral or at least semineutral public sphere to emerge that permitted the political emancipation of the Jews. Virtually all modern religious and secular Jews applauded this development. It was a stance that was born both out of one reading of a multivalent Jewish tradition that championed such values and of a self-interested Jewish judgment that such liberal values were in the best interests of the Jewish community. Many if not most American Jews including Weiss and myself still believe this to be the case.

Indeed, in championing a liberal reading of Jewish tradition, Weiss and other American Jews are allowing values of the larger culture to inform their reading of the tradition no less than Jews have for thousands of years. As the historian Gerson D. Cohen pointed out in his memorable 1966 commencement address, The Blessing of Assimilation in Jewish History, Jews throughout history have assimilated teachings from the surrounding world to inform their own understanding of an ever-evolving Judaism.

This was true when the Bible employed the political lexicon of the ancient Near East to describe the relationship between a sovereign and his subjects and transformed the Akkadian word biritu (clasp or fetter) into the Hebrew term berit (covenant) to describe the relationship between God and the Jewish people, or when the medieval philosopher Moses Maimonides internalized and applied the teachings of Aristotle to explicate the nature of Judaism to his contemporaries. I fail to see why modern Jews like Weiss should not possess the same right as their ancestors to interpret Jewish tradition through the wisdom and insights provided by a surrounding culture.

Halkin may not agree. Nevertheless, I do not see why Weiss has any need to apologize for her advocacy of a liberal stance or why such a stance is any less legitimate than a neoconservative reading of Jewish tradition.

David Ellenson New York

The writer is chancellor emeritus and former president of Hebrew Union College and professor emeritus of Near Eastern and Judaic studies at Brandeis University.

To the Editor:

In his review of Bari Weisss book, Hillel Halkin tries to deride the position of those who are liberal and pro-Israel as a seemingly contradictory notion in this day and age a position not unlike that of President Trump, who recently accused Jews who are Democrats of being disloyal. The question is not whether democracy is compatible with the stance of liberal Jewish Americans who are pro-Israel but whether social justice, which is the foundation of the Jewish religion, is compatible with being a Republican.

Diane Burstein Jamaica, Queens

To the Editor:

Has Judaism been influenced by the American milieu? Yes, of course. But Judaism has likewise been influenced by every diaspora Jews have lived in. Throughout its long history Judaism has evolved as it interpreted and reinterpreted its foundational sacred writings in light of the times and communities in which Jews have lived.

In his attempt to strip love and compassion from its rightful place in the Jewish tradition, Hillel Halkin seems to have forgotten about the teachings of the biblical prophets.

The lines from Isaiah, read in every synagogue on Yom Kippur, to let the oppressed go free share your bread with the hungry and take the wretched poor into your home, sound an awful lot like American liberalism to me.

Barry W. Holtz New York

The writer is Theodore and Florence Baumritter professor of Jewish education at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York.

To the Editor:

Hillel Halkin asserts that the tradition of Judaism does not support democracy or gay rights. Apparently these were created by the deplorable Greeks and picked up by the Reform Jews.

Halkin, like Bari Weiss, is entitled to his interpretation of his religion. The problem arises when anyone asserts their right to rule a nation-state according to their religious interpretation. That is why the United States began with separation of church and state. There should be no Jewish state, no Christian state, no Muslim state, no Hindu state and not even an officially atheist state. If such a view leads to a rejection of Zionism, then so be it. Democratic anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitic.

Wayne Price Bronx

To the Editor:

The headline (The Oldest Hatred) on Hillel Halkins review of Bari Weisss book got it dead wrong.

The oldest hatred is of women. Period.

Caroline Gaudy Salt Lake City

See the original post:

Can American Jews Be Both Liberal and Pro-Israel? - The New York Times

Election 2019: New poll shows Liberals, Bloc tied for voting intention in Quebec – Montreal Gazette

The Liberals and the Bloc Qubcois are neck and neck in voting intention in Quebec, according to results of a poll of Quebec voters by Forum Research on Oct. 11, with the Conservatives a distant third. Voting Intention describes voters who say they are decided or leaning in a particular direction.

That the Liberals and the Bloc are tied in Quebec could negatively affect Liberal chances for re-election, said Forum Research president Lorne Bozinoff.

In a random sampling among 1,001 Quebec voters aged 18 or older the day after the Oct. 10 French-language debate, 33 per cent said they plan to vote Liberal in the Oct. 21 federal election; 31 per cent said they plan to vote for the Bloc.

Those most likely to say theyll vote Liberal are 35 to 44, live in Montreal or northwestern Quebec and are anglophone; respondents most likely to say theyll vote Bloc are 65 or older, living in suburbs of Montreal and francophone.

Respondents named Bloc Qubcois leader Yves-Franois Blanchet the winner of the debate. Twenty-eight per cent of those surveyed said hed won and, among Quebecers aged 65 or older, the figure was 44 per cent.

Forum Research president Bozinoff said the fact that Blanchet was seen to have performed well in the debate may explain some of the Blocs recent gains in Quebec.

The most popular answer for who won the debate was nobody, but 18 per cent of respondents said it was Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau. Respondents most likely to declare Trudeau the victor won include those who speak neither French nor English at home, are anglophones and plan to vote Liberal.

The performance of Conservative Andrew Scheer in the debate was ranked in the poll as worst among the candidates by 25 per cent of respondents.

Thirty-five per cent of the Quebecers polled said that, regardless of party affiliation, Trudeau would make Canadas best prime minister. This opinion was most prevalent among voters aged 35 to 44, women, Montrealers, anglophones and those who plan to vote Liberal.

By a wide margin, respondents said that Trudeau is best equipped to to represent Canada on the world stage.

The poll of Quebecers, conducted by telephone survey from 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Oct. 11, is considered accurate to within three percentage points 19 times out of 20.

Support for federal political parties in Quebec, from a Forum Research poll taken Oct. 11. (Photos by Stephane Mahe/Reuters)Montreal Gazette

Read more here:

Election 2019: New poll shows Liberals, Bloc tied for voting intention in Quebec - Montreal Gazette

Liberals Ruin Everything – Townhall

The video immediately went viral. Ellen DeGeneres explaining why she was sitting next to former President George W. Bush at the game between the Dallas Cowboys and the Green Bay Packers last weekend was widely praised by people across the political spectrum. Well, almost all the way across the political spectrum. Far left activists were still upset because, well, thats where they live. Everyone else was happy to see someone stand up for getting along with people you disagree with politically. At least for the moment. Then the moment passed, and those on the left returned to doing what they always do ruining everything.

One thing to notice about the controversy surrounding the two political opposites getting along like adults at a public event was where the outrage was coming from in the first place. Progressive activists were beside themselves with anger that DeGeneres, someone who not only is a lesbian but is also on their team as far as politics goes, would sit next to one of historys greatest monsters and not attack him physically, apparently.

Ellens rebuke was a nice change from the usual apologies that flow when the liberal mob targets someone for not being pure enough, but the necessity of it is more telling than that. While there was a lot of rage directed at Ellen for laughing with the former Republican president, there was no rage at the former Republican President for laughing with Ellen.

Conservatives didnt care. Two people with differing political beliefs getting along is a sin on the left, but it is a non-event on the right. We simply dont have the purity tests leftists do to exist in our circle of friends and family.

We all know people, whether were related to them or choose to associate with them, who support Democrats. Its no big deal. It is grounds for excommunication on the left.

Still, the video was nice to see, if only to remind people that human decency was still possible. Thats when CNNs Chris Cillizza came along.

Cillizzas column had an innocuous enough title, What the friendship of Ellen DeGeneres and George W. Bush should teach us. OK, maybe not that innocuous. Adults should be mature enough to not care about anyones politics when it comes to friendship. But Cillizza is a man of the left, and CNNs audience is the left, and they need reminders of basic human decency every now and then, like after calling for a politicians death in front of their house in the middle of the night or while screaming at someone who dared be a conservative in a restaurant. But that wasnt what Cillizza did.

After recounting the event, Chris wrote, What DeGeneres is advocating there is sort of anti-Trumpism in its purest form. Because what this President represents, more than any issue stance or policy position, is the idea that people who disagree with you are to be mocked, to be villainized, to be bullied. If you disagree with Trump on, well, anything, you are his enemy. The only way to be in his good graces -- and therefore, in the good graces of those who support him -- is to agree with him on absolutely everything.

Cillizza suffers from a raging case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, and he simply couldnt control himself.

Not only was it the exact opposite of everything DeGeneres was criticizing in her viral video, its everything the left does on a daily basis.

Its not the right that is shouting down speakers on college campuses. Its not the right demanding people be de-platformed for holding views we dont like. Its not the right calling for boycotts and people to be fired for daring to stray from progressive orthodoxy. It not only is the political left, its CNN in all these cases, with the exception of campus speeches. And all of it pre-dated Donald Trumps ride down the escalator in June of 2015.

What Cillizza either doesnt know or doesnt want his readers to know, is division is the coin of the realm of the left.

Democrats divide people based on their income, their skin color, their sexuality, their gender, their ethnicity, whatever you got. They work to convince people theyre victims, and you cant have a victim without there being a perp.

Listen to any 2020 Democrat speak and its all about how there is this nebulous group of others fighting hard to oppress everyone else, and their liberal policies are the only hope for overcoming that systemic oppression. Ask the citizens of Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, or anywhere else the left has had absolute generational control over the levers of power how the help the left is offering worked out for them.

Cillizza is no different than the Twitter trolls attacking DeGeneres for being friends with Bush, only he turned his focus to the current president.

Many liberals dont seem to realize how nasty and full of hatred they are because their worlds are pure. Cillizza lives in the CNN ecosystem, where hatred for Republicans is the key to more facetime on TV. Even their conservative commentators overflow with bile at the mention of the presidents name.

But the president doesnt take it lying down. The old Republican response to being punched in the face was to apologize for hurting the hand of the Democrat who punched them. Donald Trump doesnt play that game, he hits back (and if you look at the attacks from the president that cause Democrats to clutch their pearls, hes always punching back, never attacking people out of the blue). Liberals arent used to that.

If someone is used to walking all over a person, treating them like garbage for years, then suddenly that person stands up for themselves and refuses to take the abuse anymore, the abuser always feels like a shocked victim. Can you believe what they called me? said the abuser, is not uncommon.

Far-left progressives are the problem, people who think Ellen DeGeneres and George W. Bush being friends is somehow extraordinary are the problem, because its not extraordinary. Its very ordinary to be friends with someone who has wildly different political views from you, even on important issues. Well, ordinary everywhere except far-left places like CNN, where someone like an Ana Navarro is your frame of reference for what constitutes a conservative.

If you want to know what Ellen and Georges friendship should teach us, Chris, its not that Donald Trump is a meanie, its that youre a hypocrite. Its not that people from different ends of the political spectrum CAN get along, its that they DO get along all the time. That that fact is news or, in your words, really important to anyone is more of a reflection on you than it is on society.

Derek is the host of a free daily podcast (subscribe!) and author of the book,Outrage, INC., which exposes how liberals use fear and hatred to manipulate the masses.

Here is the original post:

Liberals Ruin Everything - Townhall

Moderate Liberals urged to break ranks and vote for climate emergency motion – The Guardian

The Greens have intensified efforts ahead of the return of federal parliament next week to lobby moderate Liberals to break ranks and vote for a motion declaring a climate emergency.

With parliament set to resume on Monday, the lower house Greens MP Adam Bandt has written to all parliamentarians in the House urging them to support the climate emergency motion, which would be seconded by independent Zali Steggall, and has the support of most of the crossbench.

Every member of parliament is capable of supporting this motion, Bandt says in the letter. It does not condemn the government nor does it express support for any particular policy position.

It simply acknowledges the science and calls on the government to take urgent action. This motion is a statement that individual members of parliament recognise the seriousness of the challenge we face.

Once the declaration has been made, having recognised across the political spectrum that this is a challenge we all face together, the debate can begin in earnest about the best way to deal with the emergency.

Given that members of the Coalition have a free vote, I expect that government MPs will feel free to vote for the motion. On this issue, every individual parliamentarian has a duty to act.

Labor has discussed the proposal with the Greens but is yet to decide whether or not to back the motion, and the opposition has been publicly at odds over future emission reduction targets in the past week.

During the last parliamentary sitting in September, the shadow climate change minister, Mark Butler, told Guardian Australia it was abundantly clear there is a climate emergency. Ive said so in the parliament on a number of occasions.

But Butler said there was also little to no prospect of the Greens-led motion getting up in the current parliament, because Liberals would not break ranks. Liberals would need to vote in favour of the motion for it to have any prospect of success. In that context, Butler said he was not sure it is realistic to have a debate.

At the time the proposed motion was unveiled, the former Liberal leader John Hewson urged Scott Morrison to give his MPs a conscience vote. Hewson argued if it had been acceptable for Tony Abbott to declare a budget emergency in the run-up to the 2013 election, Liberals in 2019 should have no issue with adopting the language in the Greens motion, because declaring a climate emergency in Australia almost goes without saying.

An e-petition circulating calling on the House to immediately act and declare a climate emergency in Australia, and introduce legislation that will with immediacy and haste reduce the causes of anthropogenic climate change, has now reached 312,779 signatures which is a record for Australian parliamentary petitions.

The British parliament declared a climate emergency in May, endorsing a parliamentary motion moved by the Labour party. Conservative MPs in the UK were told to not oppose the Labour motion. A number of Australian councils have also declared a climate emergency.

The Australian Medical Association has formally declared climate change a health emergency, pointing to clear scientific evidence indicating severe impacts for our patients and communities now and into the future.

Several Liberal MPs have signed on to a crossbench-led climate action committee, as the parliaments independents attempt to take partisan politics out of the nations climate policies.

Tim Wilson, Dave Sharma, Jason Falinski, Katie Allen, Angie Bell and Trent Zimmerman are among the Liberal MPs to sign up to the Parliamentary Friends of Climate Action group, along with Labors Ged Kearney and Josh Burns as well as Adam Bandt from the Greens and Andrew Wilkie.

Read this article:

Moderate Liberals urged to break ranks and vote for climate emergency motion - The Guardian

Oops. Liberal Windsor West candidate posts photo of ballot on Twitter – CBC.ca

Liberal candidate Sandra Pupatello may have violated the Canada Elections Act by posting a photo of her ballot.

Pupatello, running in Windsor West, posted a photo of her completed ballot on Twitter Saturday, saying "I did it! I voted for me!" and tagging the Liberal Party of Canada in Ontario Twitter account.

About five minutes later, Pupatello deleted the tweet, apologizing.

The Commissioner of Canada Elections wouldn't confirm if the matter was being investigated, but referred CBC to Section 163 of the Canada Elections Act, which states that a person's vote is secret.

Other provisions under the Canada Elections Act prohibit "photographs, videos or copies of marked ballots," as excerpted below:

Photograph, video or copy of marked ballot

281.8 (1) No person shall

(a) take a photograph or make a video recording of a ballot or special ballot that has been marked, at an election, by an elector;

(b) make a copy, in any manner, of any ballot or special ballot that has been marked, at an election, by an elector; or

(c) distribute or show, in any manner, to one or more persons, a photograph, video recording or copy of a ballot or special ballot that has been marked, at an election, by an elector.

Should there be an investigation, the Commissioner's office said a fine of up to $5,000 may be imposed, or imprisonment of up to six months or both.

"That being said, the Commissioner has other means of ensuring compliance with, and enforcement of, the Act including compliance agreements and administrative monetary penalties," said Myriam Croussette for the Commissioner's office in an email.

A spokesperson for Pupatello declined to comment further, referring instead to the second tweet acknowledging the photo should not have been posted.

NDP candidate Brian Masse didn't see the photo.

"I don't follow her Twitter account but that's obviously that's not something you would do," said Masse. "I focus on our campaign ... I don't focus on the opponents. Obviously that's not something you should do."

Masse "couldn't say" if there should be any repercussions for Pupatello's photo.

"The vote in Canada in most places is secret," said Elections Canada regional media advisor Rejean Grenier.

Grenier said the issue isn't good for a lot of reasons it's not fair to other voters, or to the process itself.

"When a candidate does it ... it doesn't even really mean anything. We didn't think she was going to vote for someone else," said Grenier.

According to Grenier, people can tell their friends or family who they voted for, but generally speaking the vote should be secret. He also said the rules are "pretty simple."

"You can't take photos in a polling station. You can't take pictures of electors, except from the back. You can take pictures from the doorway," said Grenier.

Pupatello has years of experience in politics, havingserved as an MPP from 1995 to 2011 as a member of the Ontario Liberal Party under Dalton McGuinty.

During her first term as an MPP, she was the opposition critic for community and social services, children's issues, youth issues and the management board of cabinet.

Re-elected in 2003, Pupatellowas appointed as the minister of community and social services. In 2006, she was appointed the minister of education, but was reassigned a short time later as minister of economic development and trade.

In 2008, Pupatello took the role of the minister of international trade and development.

Pupatello was the co-manager of Dwight Duncan's 1996 campaign for the Ontario Liberal Party leadership.

In November of 2012, Pupatello announced her candidacy for the Liberal Party of Ontario leadershiprole, but lost to Kathleen Wynne in January 2013.

Read the original here:

Oops. Liberal Windsor West candidate posts photo of ballot on Twitter - CBC.ca

The Liberals broke their promise on electoral reform. Will it hurt them in 2019? – National Post

OTTAWA Andrew Cash thinks the Liberal promise to bring in electoral reform might have cost him his job.

He also believes the fact that the Liberals abandoned the pledge, which he said is one of many reasons why progressive-minded voters are disenchanted with Justin Trudeau and his government, could help him get that job back in the Oct. 21 election.

The New Democrat candidate in the downtown Toronto riding of Davenport lost by a narrow margin 1,441 votes, or about three percentage points to Liberal Julie Dzerowicz in the 2015 election, one of many upsets in the red wave that swept across the country.

Cash, who is now running there again, says electoral reform is one of the issues that comes up, unprompted, when he knocks on doors.

It comes up for people for whom that was a really important thing in the last election and it also comes up with people who are just sort of really frustrated with the system the way it is right now, Cash said in an interview days before the campaign began.

Trudeau promised, repeatedly and unequivocally, that he would get rid of the current first-past-the-post voting system in time for 2019. The Liberal platform said the 2015 election would be the last for the traditional way of electing MPs: thered be reform legislation before Parliament within 18 months.

It comes up for people for whom that was a really important thing in the last election and it also comes up with people who are just sort of really frustrated with the system the way it is right now

That bold declaration made things a little awkward for the Liberals when they decided, after a series of stumbles, to walk away.

The New Democrats and Greens, who have long called for proportional representation, howled in protest.

The Conservatives, who were against changing anything without a referendum, made political hay of the flip-flop.

The main rationale Trudeau gave for breaking the promise was that apart from a minority of passionate proponents of electoral reform, Canadians were not, in his view, that insistent about changing the way they cast ballots in federal elections after all.

Previous attempts in Ontario, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia have failed, sometimes more than once. That lack of widespread interest was seen as one reason Trudeau could emerge from the controversy with his own electoral fortunes intact.

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh brought renewed attention to the issue this week when he detailed what it would take for his party to support a minority government in Parliament, saying they would push the next government to change the system.

Still, electoral reform is not listed as one of Singhs six specific conditions for support.

The Liberals came to power on high expectations.

They need to convince voters passionate about the progressive causes they championed in 2015 to stick with them, even though they might be disappointed over the choices they have made over the past four years, such as purchasing the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project or how they handled the SNC-Lavalin affair.

David Coletto, chief executive of Ottawa-based polling firm Abacus Data, says he does not think electoral reform, as an issue, is a motivating factor for enough people to have an impact on the outcome. Electoral reform as a prominent broken promise, however, could be different.

It was part of a wider set of decisions the government made that has disappointed many of those who voted for them, says Coletto.

Fair Vote Canada, a registered third-party group promoting electoral reform, is targeting 21 ridings, are urging people to vote for local candidates who support some kind of proportional representation.

That includes Davenport, where Fair Vote Canada asks people to vote for Cash or the Green party candidate, Hannah Conover-Arthurs, over Dzerowicz, the Liberal incumbent.

Proportional representation aims to have the numbers of MPs in the House of Commons align more closely with the popular vote.

The current system of first-past-the-post means the candidate with a plurality of votes in each of 338 ridings wins the seat. Its simple and familiar. It meant the Liberals 39.5 per cent of the popular vote in 2015 gave them a majority government with 184 seats.

Trudeau himself had favoured a ranked-ballot system, where voters can transfer their votes to second and third and fourth choices in split races if their preferred candidates come last in successive rounds of counting.

Fair Vote Canada endorses the NDP, which has pledged to bring in mixed-member proportional representation within its first mandate, and the Green party, which has long fought for proportional representation and is also promising to do away with first-past-the-post in time for the 2023 vote.

The Conservatives are not calling for electoral reform. This time around, the Liberal platform is silent on the issue.

The Quebec government has proposed legislation to hold a referendum on changes there in 2022.

Real Lavergne, the president of Fair Vote Canada, said he believes Trudeau aimed his electoral reform promise at Canadians who would otherwise have voted for the NDP or the Greens, causing many to vote strategically for the Liberals.

It was like a deal: vote for me this time and you wont have to do it ever again, said Lavergne.

Melanee Thomas, a political-science professor at the University of Calgary, said the desire for change after nearly a decade of former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper likely played a bigger role in how people voted than an issue like electoral reform did.

Still, Thomas said the promise of electoral reform might have convinced more people to vote strategically in 2015 than usually would.

Thomas, who studies voter behaviour, said she expects strategic voting to return to playing a minimal role in why people vote.

I think all this has done is dropped enthusiasm for the potential for strategic voting, she said.

Leadnow, another registered third-party group in favour of electoral reform, devoted its efforts to a strategic-voting campaign in the 2015 election.

This time around, however, Leadnow is focusing on climate change.

Fair Vote Canada is also endorsing a handful of other candidates who have expressed support for electoral reform.

That includes Liberal Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, who apologized to his constituents when the Trudeau government halted its efforts on electoral reform.

Erskine-Smith is seeking re-election in Beaches-East York, another Toronto seat the Liberals took from the NDP in 2015.

The issue does come up at the doorstep and he shares voters frustration when it does, he said, but tries to focus on the good things he thinks the Liberals have done.

I think we have to be wary of the promises that we make if we cant keep them, and how we walk away from promises, because we dont want to create cynicism, he says.

Go here to see the original:

The Liberals broke their promise on electoral reform. Will it hurt them in 2019? - National Post

The importance of enhancing the relevance of the liberal arts to students today (opinion) – Inside Higher Ed

Much of early American literature is intensely connected to its audience -- Native American creation myths, the Puritans thundering sermons to sinners in the pews, and enslaved Africans writing their lives to not only document their identity but also rally sympathetic readers. Thus, the relationship between speaker, subject and audience is a key discussion topic in early American literature classrooms. As Aristotle wrote in his 350 BCE Treatise on Rhetoric, it is the audience -- or as Aristotle called it, the hearer -- who must be either a judge or an observer, and who determines the speech's end and object.

Thinking about the rhetoric of early American texts made me realize just how quickly we can forget our audience when a viewpoint is one with which we already agree. Take the continuing national and strident calls to value the liberal arts. I realized that I had always assumed I knew who the audience was for the pleas to uphold liberal learning. And it was certainly not I, since my educational and professional bona fides as an English professor and chief academic officer at a liberal arts college clearly establish my commitments.

But what if I assumed that I, in fact, was the intended audience? What if I was the person who needed to hear that institutions of higher education should provide more than narrow vocational training and seek to enhance students capacities for lifelong learning? What if my own courses, not anonymous colleges and universities, need to be the sites of intended outcomes?

Asking myself those questions, I redesigned my early American literature survey. This is the literature of Native Americans, European explorers and colonists, enslaved Africans, and then, eventually, as the United States of America established itself, of writers many students recognize from high school: Nathaniel Hawthorne, Edgar Allan Poe, Herman Melville, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Frederick Douglass. I was interested in giving students the opportunity to see the relevance of studying early American literature, how it fosters intellectual inquiry about significant questions and issues confronting us now. Early American authors wrote profound ideas about issues of immigration, migration and family; borders, cultures and homelands; religious influences, commercial endeavors, race and ethnicity in American society, and political differences. They also tackled questions about the role of science and the presence of truth and falsehood. Those are, of course, issues we still think about today.

What I realized, however contradictory it sounds, is that I actually needed to redevelop my course to focus on contemporary early American literature, so that my current students could see themselves, their ideas and their world in readings that often seem so foreign and historically remote.

Making Connections

That happened in two ways. First, I assigned students to not only examine key concepts in the texts but also to make a connection to something else they were studying, reading or watching unfold in American life. Upon reflection, students saw the benefits to such an approach. One offered, If you understand what you can about the past, you see how the present comes to be. Maybe you can even see the future. Another student rhetorically asked, What is 2018 without 1492, 1630, 1776 or 1865?

Not surprisingly, connections to current news about immigration and migration dominated, as did seemingly inextricable connections between politics and religion at both the national and state level. My students were paying attention to the news, and they were seeing philosophical antecedents and approaches to current events in the literature of early America. Wed periodically interrupt our literature discussions to talk about the relationships they were seeing across the centuries and discuss how literature, and our theoretical approaches, offered a different perspective than history or political science.

My students were sometimes surprised that the antecedents of strongly held American opinions, including their own, were centuries old. They also appreciated hearing directly from the primary texts of people who actually lived through the times, noting that Its a lot easier to think of Ben Franklin as an actual person, rather than just a smart dude who owned a kite.

The second opportunity students had to consider the relevance of early American literature was in a writing assignment that came near the end of the course. I asked them to write a Dear American public manifesto. The prompt read, Weve spent a term studying American literature that was written by both U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens, texts that are hundreds of years old and generations removed from us today in terms of time and culture -- and perhaps even in philosophy and temperament. Weve also spent our time reading literature, what many pundits (and maybe even people you know) these days point to as a worthless endeavor, a quaint and archaic education, a privilege that doesnt pay off for the reader (you). Your task is to tell all of these pundits that theyre wrong. To do so, youll write a manifesto, your public declaration of why its relevant to study early American literature today.

Someone did ask to write a manifesto arguing that early American literature was not relevant, and I said that was fine if they strongly held that opinion. I was interested, I told the class, in their strength of argument as they connected early American literature to contemporary responses. Ultimately, perhaps not surprisingly, no student did argue for irrelevancy.

What was surprising, in delightful and affirming ways, were the reasons students gave in advocating for the contemporary relevance of early American literature. They made the requisite jokes about trivia contests but really just to set up the far more substantive reasons they wrote about. Many students talked about the importance of knowing whats come before, of seeing what each successive generation or period was responding to. One student argued that our country is full of ghosts before there even was an America, [people] fought disease and an unforgiving landscape and one another. Now, we fight viewpoints and ideas, and processes ingrained deeply in our society and government -- processes and ideas and views that may have existed ever since they were fighting disease and the land and each other.

Some students noted the clear ancestors of religious fervor in some political messages today; one even quoted a series of religio-political ads in her hometown that sounded remarkably similar to the messaging of Puritan sermons. Those students who were more widely read in 20th-century American literature saw how the Modernist period emerged from Hawthorne and Whitman. Others noted the introduction of industrial workers as mid-19th-century production developed. Many of my students were from towns and cities where certain factories had closed or production had moved elsewhere; they had family members affected by those economics and had stories of working conditions that were eerily familiar to their readings.

Power in the Grassroots

Like so many political movements -- and preserving and evolving the liberal arts is a vital political movement for higher education today -- theres power in the grassroots and local. My examples come from my own discipline, but every discipline and institution can offer to:

Its not enough to passively continue with the same curriculum and hope that students, their families, politicians and the public at large re-recognize the value in what we do. It is time to actively demonstrate how our disciplines have evolved to connect our students to the world of today and to identify other curricular and co-curricular areas on the campus that they enrich. Despite its grim title, Eric Hayot offers several ideas in Decline in the Humanities: The Sky Is Falling, published in the Modern Language Associations Profession.

Academic programs that can draw a solid line from their courses to knowledge, skills, competencies and other workforce measures now may be more indispensable than others. Likewise, academic departments that can draw a second solid line from their courses to knowledge, skills, competencies and other measures for lifelong learning and quality of intellectual and creative life also may now be more valuable than others. All liberal arts disciplines can rightfully claim these pathways, but some of us have not yet drawn the sharpest connections, and its the responsibility of both faculty members and academic administrators to do so.

National organizations have been actively assembling repositories of evidence in support of the liberal arts. The National Humanities Alliance, for example, has a tool kit, Studying the Humanities: Making the Case, that provides support for connections between the liberal arts and work and life. But in addition to this broader evidence, students should experience how the learning in our own courses transfers into their lives after college.

In lower-level courses that many students use to fulfill general education requirements, assignments should be relevant and contemporary. Podcasts, websites or grant proposals instead of an(other) essay of literary analysis, for example, offer students valuable experience with technological, visual, aural and written argument -- all skill areas theyll need after they graduate. A project that applies course readings to a contemporary social issue that students feel passionately about broadens their critical perspective of the issue and reinforces the validity of the disciplines voice. That makes the work for our courses applicable to something else in students lives, and they begin to see relevance instead of requirement.

If all of this seems like too much work or too much change -- if it seems like selling out, losing the purity of the liberal arts, diminishing the value of disciplines or capitulating to the whims of the marketplace -- then, clearly, other means of persuasion are needed. But to those of us who have heard the call to value the liberal arts and are energized by the responsibility to demonstrate that value to our students today, who are willing to consider that new relationships with our students can change the way we do our work in positive ways and who are willing to see possibility and promise ahead and have ideas about how we can connect at our local levels, I say lets get to work.

Go here to see the original:

The importance of enhancing the relevance of the liberal arts to students today (opinion) - Inside Higher Ed

Kicked out of the party, but not out of politics: Ex-Liberal Jane Philpott holding her own as independent – National Post

MARKHAM, Ont. It was perhaps no coincidence that Liberal leader Justin Trudeau was campaigning Wednesday in the riding once held by former trusted, high-profile Cabinet minister Jane Philpott.

Philpott, the former Liberal Treasury Board president, was turfed by Trudeau from the party after she publicly said she had no confidence in the prime ministers handling of the SNC-Lavalin affair.

Now Philpott, well-known and well-liked in the Markham-Stouffville riding, is standing as an independent and is more than holding her own.

Philpott believes that there is a grassroots, anti-establishment phenomenon of sorts taking place in this riding a largely white, middle-class suburb north of Toronto that is simply not being reflected in mainstream polling data.

In fact, she and her team were so sure about this that they recently commissioned Oracle Poll Research to conduct a survey of 301 voters in the riding, which showed Philpott in the lead, with 38 per cent of decided voters saying that would chose her as their MP. The poll showed Liberal candidate Helena Jaczek coming in at 35 per cent, and Conservative candidate Theodore Antony at 10 per cent.

We have been tracking that I have a three to one advantage amongst decided voters. Thats not what most polls are saying, but thats what were hearing after talking to thousands of people, Philpott said, in an interview with the Post, this past Saturday, just minutes before hitting the road for yet another day of door knocking.

Days after releasing the poll results on her blog, Trudeau descended upon Markham, campaigning with Liberal candidates in the area, including Jaczek.

Since the writ drop, Philpott says that her campaign has knocked on 26,868 doors in a riding with a population of 126,000 people. They have less than two weeks, and roughly 16,000 doors left to go. But with over 350 volunteers, and more than enough cash till election day, theres a palpable feeling of optimism in her campaign office, more than one would expect of a candidate running as an independent in a Westminster system, where party brand reigns supreme and party loyalty runs deep.

It was this aspect of caucus politics party discipline that caused Philpott to clash so publicly with her leader, citing an incompatibility between the conventions of Cabinet solidarity and her own loss of confidence in Trudeaus handling of the SNC affair. And it was similarly this rejection of party discipline, that ultimately pushed Philpott to run as an independent, free from the structural rigidity of party messaging.

There seemed to be unwritten messages and rules about how much youre allowed to disagree with the party. If people disagreed in certain formats, there would be negative consequences, Philpott said. I feel sad about the circumstances that led to me being kicked out. I dont regret what I did by standing up and saying SNC-Lavalin was wrong but I shouldnt have been kicked out of the party for saying that.

I dont regret what I did by standing up and saying SNC-Lavalin was wrong

While door knocking, Philpott, the incumbent, is repeatedly praised for breaking with tradition and taking a stand on SNC. Youre a champion. You go get them, said one voter, excitedly embracing the former health minister.

It helps that Philpott spent a good chunk of her career as a family doctor in Stouffville.

I just want to tell you that Im so proud of what you did, and youre definitely getting my vote, said another voter on the same street, a former patient of Philpotts. Can I put a sign on your lawn? Philpott asks tentatively, not wanting to take up too much time, mindful that it was still relatively early on a weekend morning.

At another house, there was some confusion and concern about what an independent MP will be able to accomplish in Ottawa. This sentiment was expressed often, by numerous constituents, but Philpott had her talking points ready to go: independent MPs will be able to speak solely on behalf of their constituents, unlike partisan MPs who have to follow party messaging; politics can be different and improved by more independents who can freely represent their constituents, and freely collaborate with other MPs.

At least once a week, one of her volunteers Naftali Nakhshon drives across the Greater Toronto Area all the way from the western Toronto suburb of Etobicoke to the north-eastern district of Stouffville to canvass.

Nakhshon, a middle-aged Israeli-Canadian who has a certain candour to his demeanour, isnt even able to vote for Philpott, because he doesnt reside in her riding.

In fact, he admits he will probably end up voting Conservative. I always vote Conservative, but its because we dont have a strong independent like her running in my riding. Shes brave, Nakhshon told the National Post, shortly after canvassing Philpotts riding.

It was this very intrigue with an alternative form of federal government representation beyond the main political parties that got Nakhshon interested in Philpotts campaign.

To a large extent, with her commitment to advancing reconciliation, advocating for a national pharmacare plan, and the condemnation of Bill 21 Quebecs ban on public service employees wearing religious symbols Philpotts platform has the sound and feel of the Liberal Party. She admits that she was courted by both the NDP and the Green Party in the aftermath of being ousted from the Liberal caucus, but did not feel it was fair to herself or to her constituents to wrap myself in another whole party colour and say thats who I am now.

That honesty, says Nakhshon, is exactly what is appealing to him about Philpott. I dont think most people in this campaign office will agree with where I stand politically, but look, were all sitting here together.

Philpott characterizes her actions this past spring as one that placed loyalty to the country above the party. I was trying to uphold the rule of law and say politicians should not interfere with criminal cases. That should not be a reason to be kicked out of your party, especially by somebody I served with complete loyalty for three and a half years. But I cant dwell on that, I have to move on.

Philpotts campaign manager, Jennifer Hess, who was also involved in her 2015 campaign, admits that there are challenges to not having the backing of a big party in running a campaign. But the campaign has surpassed expectations on two key aspects the number of volunteers, and donations. We have more money than we can legally spend. We were in the incredibly fortunate position to stop accepting donations.

The conventional rhetoric about Markham-Stouffville is that Philpotts candidacy will end up splitting the Liberal vote, but both Philpott and Hess believe that that logic might not hold up on Oct. 21.

There are a few very loyal partisan constituents who will vote for the party they have always voted for. But Ive had people tell me that they feel politically homeless, that they cant find a party they feel they belong in, said Philpott. There are definitely people who are interested in voting for an independent because they feel like it is an option for them and will demonstrate something outside of partisanship.

Pollster Philippe J. Fournier of 338canada.com, whose own data suggests that Philpott will end up in third place with just 18 per cent of the overall vote, rejects the idea that Philpotts anecdotal account of support shes getting at doors could indicate her chances of winning.

With all due respect to Ms. Philpott (and I mean this sincerely), lawn signs and what people tell candidates when door knocking are the most unscientific indicators. They absolutely dont mean a thing. Its spin at best, Fournier told the Post over email, prior to Philpotts team conducting the Oracle-commissioned survey. Philpotts gold and black lawn signs are evident throughout Markham-Stouffville there are either as many signs as both the Conservative and Liberal candidates respectively, or even more.

Any candidate of any party would never say on the record that things arent going well on the field. They just never would, Fournier added.

But at least on the surface, and perhaps unlike her former boss, Philpotts own determination to win does not come from the desire to further her personal political ambitions. I dont think of myself as having a political career. I think of using politics as a tool to serve Canadians. I really would not be doing this if I thought I couldnt accomplish something for good.

Read the original post:

Kicked out of the party, but not out of politics: Ex-Liberal Jane Philpott holding her own as independent - National Post