Monthly Archives: April 2017

Researching the life of the late Jimmy Reid, the Scottish political activist who came to prominence because of his work with the Upper Clyde Shipbuildershas afforded remarkable insight into the extensive roots of the Scottish Labour movement with home rule. Much of it has been obscured over recent years. Yet its both worthy of recollection and may offer clues to any possible Labour revival north of the border.

Reid, after all, was committed to both socialism and Scottish home rule hroughout his life. Though his party membership changed, his commitment to these valuesremained undiminished. It was the external factors, whether within his party, or the social and economic conditions in the country, that changed.

Reid leftthe Labour League of Youth to join the Young Communist League. Then, despite being seen as a future leader, he left the Communist party in 1976 for the Labour party. He contested a seat unsuccessfully in 1979, but remained heavily involved in both Tony Benns campaign for deputy leader and the election in 1983. Meanwhile, he had begun a career as a journalist, and in 1987 then-Labour leader Neil Kinnock felt his contributionas a columnist with The Sun and other media outlets was more valuable than any input he could make as an MP. However, disillusioned by New Labour, he drifted away. Ultimately, he left the partyand joined the SNP in 2005.

The story has relevance, not just because of Reid's input in Scottish life, but for the political journey he made. From pursuing a British road to socialism, he ended up supporting Scottish independence. It was a journey followed by many, judging by the 2015 general election results, when the SNP won 56 out of 59 seats. Understanding that journey may provide some answers to why Labour has declined, with further challenges ahead at the forthcoming council elections.

The Labour party north of the border was forged with a commitment to home rule and socialism. Not just Reid, but Keir Hardie had been clear in that. It was to be given greater prominence through the Red Clydesiders during the 1920s and 30s. Not just the Labour party, but especially the Independent Labour Party, which was prominent in Scotland, was in the vanguard on both issues.

As Labour climbed in the polls, the cause of home rule was not neglected. In 1924, during the first Labour minority government, a Scottish Home Rule Bill was proposed by George Buchanan, the ILP MP for the Gorbals. It envisaged a parliament with control over pensions and employment, as well as the power to vary imperial taxes. Joint institutions would remain such as for the Post Office and Customs and Excise but funds would be remitted north. Moreover, a joint board between Scotland and London would officiate on areas of dispute, with an appeal lying to the Privy Council.

What would happen to Scottish representation at Westminster was never fully explained. The Labour secretary of state for Scotland accepted that the Bill was wanted, and supported in the country. However, it ran out of procedural time - causing anger both within the Scottish grouping.

But, try again they did. In 1927, the Rev James Barr, the ILP MP for Motherwell, lodged a bill that was even more radical than Buchanans. He envisaged all taxes raised in Scotland falling to the Scottish Treasury and the withdrawal of all Scottish MPs from Westminster. The military and the Foreign Office were designated joint services and were to be shaped between the two parliaments. A joint council would be established to decide on issues of dispute. That bill fell due to lack of interest from south of the border but the Red Clydesiders had been united in their support for it.

Of course, that was at a time both before the creation of the EU, let alone Brexit. It was the time of the creation of the Irish Free State, and the advocates were more Redmondite (a moderate Irish nationalist)than Republican. However, it shows the radical nature of what was sought. Labour's commitment waned thereafter, but the likes of Jimmy Reid worked to keep the flame alive.

Ultimately, the Labour government established a Scottish Parliamentin 1999, though withpowers far less than those proposed generations before. Labour seemed to bethe national party of Scotland, speaking for the Scottish people. All that changed, though, with the referendum on independence and the alliance with the Tories in the Better Together campaign.

Labour has a proud history on home rule, but it has been overshadowed by recent events. The partyhas to restore its distinctive Scottish identity, not warp itself in the Union Jack. Moreover, it has to state what its for, not just what its against. It has to spell out more radical options than currently exist, and it has to mean what it says. Finally, it needs to ensure that it issupported in these aims not just in Scotland but in London. Otherwise, its effortscounts for nothing, as the 1920s showed.

Read the original here:

Exclusive: Conservative poll showed party would "lose seats" to the Liberal Democrats - New Statesman

FiveThirtyEight

How liberal activists took over the Democratic Party The San Luis Obispo Tribune The frustration building in the longtime liberal activist finally broke: She wanted to thwart Gorsuch's nomination, but the federal judge buffeted by good press and a sense of inevitability was barely facing any resistance from Democratic senators ... The Gorsuch Filibuster Shows The Liberal Base's CloutFiveThirtyEight Liberals launch ads vs. Republicans over nuke optionPolitico Many Liberal Legal Experts Think A Gorsuch Filibuster Is A Terrible IdeaDaily Caller Washington Free Beacon -Conservative Review all 2,948 news articles »

More here:

How liberal activists took over the Democratic Party - The San Luis Obispo Tribune

Christopher Constant celebrates Tuesday, April 4, 2017, with a victory lap at Election Central in Anchorages Denaiina Center. (Photo by Zachariah Hughes/Alaska Public Media)

In Anchorages municipal elections Tuesday, liberals gained an edge in the Assembly, and residentssupportedall but one bond measure put forward passed.

Voters also opted to shake up the taxi industry.

There were few surprises in the six Assembly races, with incumbents Tim Steele and Pete Petersen holding seats in west and east Anchorage (respectively), and former lawmaker Fred Dyson winning an open seat in the Eagle River/Chugiak district.

Progressive candidates won by large margins in the downtown and midtown races.

In somewhat of an upset, a liberal-leaning political newcomer, Suzanne LaFrance, narrowly won the south Anchorage seat thats traditionally been held by conservative representatives.

LaFrance was slightlysurprised by the results, but thoughtthe positive tone in her campaign helped her efforts.

We had a lot of folks who definitely hit the ground, door-to-door and lit dropping, getting the word out on social media and word of mouth, she said during a brief interview. If you look at the folks who contributed financially to the campaign, its a very broad-based group.

The results nudge the Assembly slightly more to the left of where it currently sits, and likely mean a continued general alignment with the mayors administration.

The Assembly also will see its first two openly gay members, Felix Rivera in the midtown district, and Christopher Constant downtown, who believes Anchorage has changed a lot in the last few years.

Weve seen a sea-change in the last four years in this town, and in fact across the country, Constant said.

Voters also approved the majority of the bond proposals on the ballot, including $58.5 millionfor school improvements, infrastructure, public safety, and separate measures on parks and trail access.

One bond that failed, however, Proposition 2, had to do with attaching 14 staff positions to the operations of two new ambulances, a measure that would have cost $23 million over 10years.

Thats extreme, and I think that was a mistake by the administration to put that out there like that, said Former Mayor Dan Sullivan, who was part of an effort to defeat themeasure.

If you think that these ambulances are something thats that vital they could have rolled it into the regular budget, Sullivan said.

In a proposition about the future of the taxi industry, voters rejected a move to keep the system the way it is presently, and opted to move forward with a measure to open the permitting process.

The move will put more cabs on the road in the next few years.

In the two school board races, Dave Donley won seat C. And as of late Tuesday night, Andy Holleman was less than a hundred votes ahead of Kay Schuster, with two precincts still outstanding.

Turnout across town was slightly lower than usual in a municipal election, at just 19.5percentof eligible voters.

See more here:

Anchorage voters opt for bonds, more liberal Assembly - KTOO

Badgered again during question periodTuesdayabout her government's interest in changing the rules that govern the House of Commons,BardishChaggerprotested that Liberals "will not give a veto to the Conservatives over our campaign commitments."

It is on thisbasis that the House of Commons remained, for another day, no closer to reform.

Before a debate on parliamentary reform has even begun, there remains an impasse over how the discussion should conclude.

Wednesdayoffers another opportunity for progress, or continued stalemate.

The procedure and House affairs committee, which might otherwise be studying possible changes to the standing orders, has been stuck since March 21because of a Conservative and NDP filibuster.

Last month, the Liberals released adiscussion paperthat outlined various possibilities for change, including reforming question period, changing the way debates are scheduled and implementing new rules for committee business.

The Liberals then sought to have the committee study the possible changes and report back by June.

But the Conservatives and NDP joined forces to stall the committee, arguing that some of the proposed changes could erode the ability of Parliament to hold the government to account and alleging that the Liberals are trying to rush such reforms through the House.

The opposition are refusing to stop talking out the clock unless or until the Liberals agree to put in writing that no changes will be made without all-party support what Chagger, the Liberal House leader, called a veto.

After suspending its proceedings for a week, the committee was expected to resumeon Monday,only for the chair to abruptly adjourn proceedings again,apparently so the parties might have more time to resolve their differences.

Chaggermet with her Conservative and NDP counterparts twiceon Monday, but no deal emerged.

In the meantime, the Conservatives used a procedural manoeuvre in the House to force a vote on a motion calling on MPs to agree that the procedure committee should only recommend changes to the standing orders if all-party agreement exists.

Conservative House leader Candice Bergen has condemned the way the Liberals have handled the issue of parliamentary reform. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

After Liberals voted to reject that motionon Tuesday, Conservative House leaderCandiceBergen and NDP House leader MurrayRankinissued a joint statement of condemnation.

"The Liberal government has confirmed its intention to run roughshod over the opposition's rights to hold the government to account," they declared."This is truly regrettable."

There is a certain logic toChagger'scomplaint of a Conservative veto.

In their 2015 platform, the Liberals vowed to pursue a number of reforms including implementing a "prime minister's question period," restricting the use of omnibus legislation and empowering House committees.

Liberal MPs now occupy a majority of the seats in the House. And that Conservative MPs could, nonetheless, have the collective power to veto any or all of those changesmight seem somehow unfair.

But the campaign commitments in question relate not to differences of opinion or policy, but to the rules of the House of Commons:the mutually accepted standing orders that govern the people's business and all of the people's representatives, both government and opposition.

Conservatives and New Democrats note there is history of such changes only being made with broad agreement. In response, Liberals have pointed out that changes have sometimes been made without unanimous support.

In fairness, the opposition might be getting ahead of itself: the government hasn't yet really had a chance to run roughshod, regardless of whether it actually wants to. But it's also not yet clear whether the Conservatives or New Democrats would necessarily try to veto anything.

In the meantime, there is the reality of a filibuster.

The Liberals could resort to extraordinary procedural steps to override the opposition's efforts, but at the risk of generating only louder complaint about running roughshod.

They could attempt to wait the opposition out, but at the risk of not getting anything accomplished.

Or they could compromise, at the risk of ending up beholden to the Conservatives or New Democrats.

Either way, the committee is due to reconvene at4 p.m.on Wednesday.

A little less than a year ago, the Liberals were fighting opposition complaints that they were preparing to ram through changes to the electoral system. In that case,the Liberalsbacked down on the composition of a special committee, surrendering their own majority.

Several months later, they abandoned electoral reform on the grounds there wasn't sufficient consensus to proceed.

In lieu of a new electoral system, they might hope to deliver other democratic reforms, but now they find themselves trying to assert a limit on how much support is necessary to proceed.

Justin Trudeau and the Liberals are looking to deliver parliamentary reforms after abandoning their big campaign promise of electoral reform. (Jim Young/Reuters)

Meanwhile, certain other hopes for reform remain unfulfilled.

Legislation toempower and reinforce the parliamentary budget officerhas yet to be tabled. The beleaguered access-to-information systemremains unreformed. The much-lamented estimates processthrough which Parliament approves government spendingremains unchanged.

On Tuesday, Liberal MPs approved a bill to create a special committee on national security. And the Senate, when it's not having todecide whether to discipline its own members, continues toshow new lifeas an independent forum.

But a party that promised real change would hope to have a substantial number of things to say for itself at the next election. And 2019is getting closer by the day.

If the House reforms they desire are worthy, the Liberals mighthave faiththey can convince Conservatives and New Democrats to agree.

If the Conservatives or New Democrats try to stand in the way, the Liberals might have to fight to make the case for change.

Follow this link:

Why the Liberals are still struggling to change how Canadian democracy works: Aaron Wherry - CBC.ca

Richard Cohen, President of the Southern Poverty Law Center / Getty Images

BY: Joe Schoffstall April 5, 2017 3:56 pm

An immigration reform group filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service today alleging that a liberal hate monitoring' organization violated their tax-exempt status on nearly 50 occasions throughout the 2016 elections.

The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), the D.C.-based legal affiliate of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), filed the legal complaint with the IRS alleging that the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit organization that monitors "activities of domestic hate groups and other extremists," engaged in prohibited activities during a "flagrant, continued and intentional campaign" against Donald Trump and other Republican candidates this past election cycle.

"The IRS grants a special 501(c)(3)' tax classification to certain charitable' and/or educational' organizations (both of which the SPLC purports to be) that operate within strict public service guidelines," FAIR said in a press release. "Under the regulations, however, activities such as promoting or opposing certain political candidates for public office are absolutely not permissible communications for these types of privileged organizations. In other words, no electioneering taking positions in favor of, or against, any active candidate for public office."

Dan Stein, FAIR's president, said the SPLC used their website to openly try to discredit then-candidate Donald Trump by alleging on numerous occasions that Trump was not worthy of voter support. The group used "opinion-based smears and innuendos" to engage in "activity masquerading as teaching tolerance.'"

"According to IRS rules, organizations are not deemed educational, for instance, if their principal function is the mere presentation of unsupported opinion', if they fail to provide a factual foundation for the viewpoint or position being advocated' or they lack a full and fair exposition of the pertinent facts'" which "permit an individual or the public to form an independent opinion or conclusion,'" the release says. "Educational organizations must be organized and continuously operated for instructing the public on subjects useful to the individual and beneficial to the public. FAIR notes the SPLC, however, made numerous sweeping, opinion-based statements about the current president during his 2016 campaign, accusing him of being 'embraced by right-wing extremists,' helping drive mainstream interest to racist memes' and manufacturing a "climate of fear' which might ultimately lead to hate violence."

Examples of the activities that SPLC engaged in throughout the election cycle include:

On July 6, 2016,the SPLC Intelligence Report featured a lengthy thirteen-page "report" by SPLC staff member Stephen Piggott, titled, "Hate in the Race," and subtitled, "A remarkable level of vitriol has characterized the Republican contest for president." The article contained at least 41 distinct unlawful and highly negative statements attacking then-Republican Party candidate and nominee Donald Trump or his campaign staff and supporters, and fourteen similar distinct unlawful statements attacking former Republican Party candidate Ted Cruz.

On May 11, 2016, aHatewatchproject article titled, "Donald Trump's Continuing White Nationalist Problem," by SPLC staff member Stephen Piggott, linked Donald Trump to what the SPLC styles "white nationalists." The term is not defined, but it is intended to discredit Mr. Trump as a presidential candidate.

On May 6, 2016, after Donald Trump was proclaimed by the national media to be the presumptive Republican nominee, theHatewatchproject published an article by SPLC contract writer DavidNeiwert, titled, "Right-Wing Extremists Hail the Ascension of Emperor Trump as GOP Nominee."

On October 2, 2015, the SPLCHatewatchproject published "How the Candidates, the Haters, and the Media Have CookedUpa Perfect Storm of Islamophobia," by SPLC contract writer DavidNeiwert. The article mainly focused on Trump's comments and positions. According to the article, Trump has "demonstrated how the fires of bigotry . . . keep escalating."

Stein says the SPLC went well beyond what they are legally allowed to do.

"The SPLC went way over the line in this last election. It publicly engaged in deep, deliberate, and unlawful participation during the 2016 presidential election cycle, flagrantly violating its non-profit tax status," Stein alleges. "The IRS should investigate all of these instances, and take appropriate steps toeither sanction andfine the SPLC, or remove its tax-exempt status as a public charity. We are alleging via meticulously-detailed documented evidence that it repeatedly engaged in widespread, illegal electioneering in 2015 and 2016."

Original post:

Complaint: Liberal 'Hate Monitoring' Group Repeatedly Violated Tax Exempt Status During 2016 Elections - Washington Free Beacon

Former Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney will have a seat at the table at an upcoming Liberal cabinet meeting to discuss the North American Free Trade Agreement, the pivotal deal he helped negotiate more than 20 years ago that now faces an uncertain future.

CTV News has learned that Mulroney accepted an invitation to meet with the Canada-U.S. cabinet committee for the important meeting Thursday morning.

The discussion is expected to centre around the future of NAFTA -- a trade agreement that U.S. President Donald Trump intends to renegotiate.

Sources say Mulroney, a personal friend of Trump and neighbour in Florida, will not have a formal role in negotiations with the U.S., but will instead be consulted by Canadian officials as an elder statesman.

Mulroney helped negotiate NAFTA back in 1990 with George H. W. Bush and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, and Liberal officials hope to tap his knowledge on the inner workings of the deal.

Mulroney is also familiar with U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, a key player in the upcoming trade talks.

Other participants at the Thursday meeting include Derek Burney, the former Canadian ambassador to Washington who helped negotiate NAFTA, and current Canadian ambassador to Washington David MacNaughton.

With a report from CTVs Ottawa Bureau Chief Joyce Napier

This story has been updated to correct that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wont be at Thursdays cabinet committee meeting.

See the original post here:

Mulroney to attend Liberal cabinet meeting to advise on NAFTA - CTV News