Category Archives: Liberal

Scott Morrisons Monday salvo against the NSW environment minister, Matt Kean, one of the Liberal progressives on climate change, was gratuitous and inept.

Quizzed about Keans claim that theres pressure from senior Liberals for strong climate policies, Morrison let fly on the ABC.

Matt Kean doesnt know what hes talking about. He doesnt know whats going on in the federal cabinet. Most of the federal cabinet wouldnt even know who Matt Kean was.

The put down came across as arrogant and rude. As for saying most of the federal cabinet wouldnt know who Kean was really? Given the centrality of energy and environmental issues, and the fact Kean has hardly been low profile, such alleged ignorance is not something to use as a political weapon.

On Nine Morrison said: I think Matt should focus on hazard reduction and Ill focus on emissions reduction.

The attack on Kean who had cast his remarks on Sky quite respectfully - can do little for relations with a sister Coalition government charged with the major heavy lifting in the states fire crisis. (It also fuelled tensions within that government - deputy premier John Barilaro is a critic of Kean.)

It was a flash of the Morrison temper - another example of the Prime Minister having trouble striking the right tone in responding to these devastating events.

In his Monday round of interviews to spruik the governments announcement of a package for fire-hit small businesses, Morrison seemed to dig in against any change on emissions policy, putting the emphasis on adaptation and response.

Some Liberal sources believe (or hope) this isnt so much indicating Morrison will do nothing, as showing he wants anything he does to be on his own terms a reflection of his personality, as well as the debilitating sensitivity of the climate issue within the Liberal party.

No one thinks theres any chance of the government toughening its emissions reduction target. But it is likely there will be measures over time to try to speed the achievement of the target. (Electric cars will no longer be a threat to the Australian weekend!)

Whether additional measures collectively will be significant or just at the margin is another matter.

Anything extra done on climate policy (as distinct from changes to bushfire response arrangements, such as for mobilising the army) will be, as far as Morrison is concerned, driven substantially by politics.

The prime minister is not galvanised by the importance of the climate issue itself.

For example when pressed on Monday about whether zero net emissions would be achievable by 2050 widely recognised as imperative in the battle to contain global warming Morrisons emphasis was on the downside.

We undertook to look at that through the Pacific Islands Forum, he told 3AW:

But what does that mean for jobs? I cant answer that question right now about what that would mean for jobs. But Im concerned that it wouldnt be a good thing and so I think people who make these commitments need to be able to tell people what that will cost them.

Morrison is focusing on unattainable precision. We are talking about three decades on. Decarbonising will create new jobs as well as costing some old ones. Anyway, the jobs outlook so far ahead will be affected by many factors, including some not on the radar now.

Meanwhile, the government is under increasing pressure on its earlier near-religious commitment to a surplus this financial year a commitment it is being forced to retreat from or hedge.

In the pre-Christmas budget update the projected surplus was revised from about $7 billion to $5 billion. Where the budget bottom line will now land is anybodys guess.

At the PMs joint news conference on Monday, treasurer Josh Frydenberg acknowledged the cost to the budget this financial year of the fire relief can be expected to be above the $500 million figure the government has been using.

He refused to be pinned down on the status of the projected surplus.

Asked do you think its likely you will deliver a surplus or you wont?, Frydenberg said: Look, Im not in a position to give a firm answer to that question because the full economic impact is still uncertain.

On the other side of politics, Anthony Albanese finds himself in an awkward spot by again declining to be specific about Labors future climate policy in his Sunday remarks on the subject.

While this has left him open to criticism when the climate debate is intensifying, it is a sensible strategy for the long game.

To spell out detail now would turn the focus sharply onto Labor, when Albanese wants maximum attention on the government.

Elements in this debate can change over the next year and beyond. Although some will believe Labor should be more decisive, it make political sense for Albanese to retain flexibility until closer to the election.

View original post here:

View from The Hill: Morrison should control that temper in Liberal climate debate - The Conversation AU

Semi-automatic AR-15's are for sale at Good Guys Guns & Range on February 15, 2018 in Orem, Utah.George Frey/Getty Images

An Alberta-led federal petition opposing a ban on military-style assault rifles without first having a debate has received more than a hundred-thousand signatures in just a short period of time.

As of Saturday, the 60-day petition, known online as e-2341, has received more than 107,000 signatures since launching on Dec. 17. The petitions main problem is how the Liberal government plans to impose a ban on military-style assault rifles through an Order in Council instead of having it debated in the House of Commons.

Medicine Hats Brad Manysiak, who started the petition, said how the government is approaching this doesnt sit well with him.

Thats an egregious overreach of parliamentary power, he said. When we change laws in Canada, historically, its debated, it goes to the Senate, it has a specific path it has to take in order for something to become law. Usually, there has to a lot of public support for it. This is a slippery slope.

A spokesperson from the Minister of Public Safety in an email said a ban is coming.

Military-style assault rifles have been used in Canada to target women and students, the spokesperson said. Police chiefs in our country have been advocating for restrictions on assault weapons for more than four decades. Weve listened, and, as promised to Canadians in the recent election, we will ban military-style assault rifles.

The spokesperson said the ban would not affect rifles and shotguns designed for hunting and pest control.

Ottawa is also looking at introducing a buyback program but the cost to do so is estimated to be in the hundreds of the millions. Public Safety Minister Bill Blair told reporters months ago that there are about 250,000 semi-automatic assault rifles legally owned in Canada.

Manysiak called this a kneejerk reaction by the government, especially in light of an increased amount of handguns used in Toronto-area shootings. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised he would allow municipalities and provinces to implement handgun bans if they so choose.

Its not being directed in the proper way, Manysiak said. Its not directed at the problem.

He said owning a gun in Canada is a long and arduous process and even when someone passes, a gun owners name is constantly being run through the RCMPs database to ensure no crimes have been committed.

Medicine Hat MP Glen Motz is expected to present the petition in the House after its closed on Feb. 15. Manysiak didnt believe it would be enough to change the governments mind but will send a message to the Liberals given the amount of support and media attention the petition has received.

With files from The Canadian Press

jlabine@postmedia.com

Twitter.com/jefflabine

Visit link:

This is a slippery slope: Petition against Liberal assault rifle ban receives thousands of signatures - Edmonton Journal

Historians will debate the reasons for the complacency that descended on the British in the first months of the 2020s. Had their government duped the nation into ignorant passivity? Were they really as stupid as they appeared to be? Nothing had been settled. The pain was yet to come. Yet they behaved as if they believed Boris Johnson when he said he could get Brexit done. And, as Im certain the historians of the future will say, believing Boris Johnson never ended well.

A few causes of our torpor appear obvious. The Conservatives won a handsome majority. Brexit bored the public rigid. The opposition was hopeless. Journalists werent doing their job. The prime minister was thus free to announce: Now we can put the rancour and division of the past three years behind us and focus on delivering a bright, exciting future, and not be met with derisive laughter.

Yet the delusions that follow are anything but obvious. As the clock chimes 11 on Friday night, we can, apparently, build high-speed rail lines, reinvigorate the north, bail out a regional airline and let a thousand bus services bloom. We can tear up our economic model without having the smallest idea what to put in its place.

The listless acceptance extends to those who believe that leaving the European Union is an act of monumental folly. Brexits inevitability, the possibility that we are in for another decade of rightwing rule, is leading opponents of the status quo to retreat into private life, as the defeated so often do. Perhaps they are almost grateful for the chance to concentrate on their friendships, family and love affairs: these are in the end what matter most to everyone except obsessives.

Arent you sick of an argument about a subject no one except a handful of zealots cared about before 2016?

On this reading, the country has not been wholly deceived by Johnson and his propagandists. The British are just exhausted. In a piece for the Parisian news magazine, LExpress, the French journalist and historian Agns Poirier interviewed psychiatrists dealing with voters who had looked on appalled as Britain made a disastrous choice. They were devastated, angry, depressed, betrayed and ashamed, as a psychological study of Remain supporters put it. Brexit allowed the old to enforce their worldview on the young and broke ties between the generations. My patients talk about the impossibility of mentioning the subject in family, to avoid clashes. In extreme cases, they have cut ties, Dr Ian Martin, a London psychiatrist, said a story I have heard several times myself.

Its not the fear that kills you but the hope, runs the cliche. And now all hope of a second referendum or a change of government has gone, a kind of liberation follows. You can just sigh, move on and patch up differences. What else is there to do?

Perhaps many will be relieved. Poirier repeats the echoingly grim phrase the French socialist Lon Blum used to describe the decision by France and Britain to allow Hitler to dismember Czechoslovakia at the Munich conference of 1938: a lche soulagement a cowardly relief. Selling out Czechoslovakia was shameful, but Blum, who had campaigned for peace, could tell himself that at least it avoided war in Europe. Do you feel a lche soulagement of your own? Arent you sick of an argument about a subject no one except a handful of zealots cared about before 2016?

The millions who think they can now avoid the bitterness of 2016-19 will find that it has just been postponed

Wouldnt it be more truly British to come together, let bygones be bygones, and make the best of it? I dont see how you can if you are one of the three million EU nationals in Britain or 1.5 million Britons in the EU who have seen their sense of who they are and where they belong torn to shreds. But if you face no immediate stresses, the temptation to walk away is seductive.

The Munich agreement did not avoid war, it merely postponed it for a year. Likewise, the millions who think they can now avoid the bitterness of 2016-19 will find that it, too, has just been postponed. You may not be interested in Brexit but Brexit is interested in you.

The hard break the government is proposing as the only way to leave the EU without following EU law will be a direct attack on the pharmaceutical, chemical, aerospace, food processing, farming, fishing and car industries. Businesses that rely on the frictionless movement of goods will suffer. The absence of regulatory checks and arguments about the source of components and applicable tax rates is essential for their health, just as the absence of border checks on perishable food is essential for fresh food and fish exports. Hundreds of thousands of jobs and everyones living standards are at stake. The Food and Drink Federation said last week that the Johnson administrations policies sounded like the death knell for frictionless trade with the EU and were likely to cause food prices to rise.

You can tell we are in a state that borders on the catatonic when Sajid Javid responded by telling the Financial Times that some businesses would indeed suffer. It was a welcome outbreak of honesty from a dishonest administration. But what an admission from a chancellor of the exchequer charged with protecting the economy.

As telling was the indifference with which his dereliction of duty was greeted. The liberal elite, the chattering classes, the remoaners, call them what you will, once worried about the fate of car workers. Every serious study of the consequences of Brexit has shown that it will hit the old manufacturing regions of the north-east, Wales and Midlands hardest. London will be all right, as London always is. Yet at the moment they need support, they will be met with indifference. They will hear educated voices say that they voted for Brexit in 2016 and then voted for Johnson in 2019. They were warned and chose not to listen.

I fear that the most damaging effect of the languid complacency that has infected the national mood is the collapse of any notion of solidarity. The most characteristic gesture of Brexit Britain will be a shrug of the shoulders.

Nick Cohen is an Observer columnist

Continue reading here:

With Boris Johnson in control, the danger is that liberals will give up the fight - The Guardian

object(WP_Post)#1967 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(60686) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2020-01-25 17:27:11" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2020-01-25 11:57:11" ["post_content"]=> string(14282) "

As we approach the end of the second decade of the twenty-first century, it is clear that the international liberal order is facing a moment of crisis. The political, economic and security fundamentals that underpinned it are invalid, with no consensus on others. Globalization is now being confronted by economic nationalism. Attempts are being made to close open borders. Strongmen politicians are leveraging multiple grievancesreal and perceived to legitimize populist rule. And international norms and institutions appear less relevant to managing the global commons. There is a sense that the global order is once again becoming more Westphalianthat the gains of interdependence are being undone. There is a visible reassertion of sovereigntyfrom democracies and otherwise. And above all, there is an uncertainty about what this century has in store for our societies.

Within the punditry that seeks to understand why the world is as it is today, the overwhelming sentiment is that popular and populist leaders have undermined what was a well-meaning and well functioning international order. We intend to correct this narrative. From our perspective, the world has fundamentally been defined by the spirit of Darwinism: the survival of the fittest. The processes of global governance merely legitimized what was otherwise coercive state diplomacy. It provided a means to amass and maintain power and wealth without the use of military force. As our book will show, the crisis of global governance is, in many ways, a comeuppance for the custodians of the post-1945 world order. The story of decline does not begin with populist leaders trampling on an existing world orderalthough they certainly are. These leaders are the product of the contradictions that have always defined the liberal order.

Before we detail this any further, it is useful to set the context. Where are we now? For one thing, the guarantors that once evangelized the liberal international order are themselves being swept away by the undercurrents of these shifts. American elites remain dismayed that the US elected Donald Trumpan individual with no interest in global partnerships or liberal posturing. European elites are mortified by the rise of the Alternative fr Deutschland (AfD), the National Rally, Viktor Orbn, and others who represent values ostensibly antithetical to those of the European Union (EU). Those who would stand for globalization and multilateral values, on the other hand, are struggling for relevance. Macron is fighting a wave of popular discontent over his business friendly policies, while Angela Merkel will have demitted office after fighting a losing battle against a populist resurgence in the EU. From the perspective of Western elites, the norms, institutions and partnerships that were so carefully crafted in the post-war period can no longer sustain their peace, freedoms or security. On the contrary, it is these very ideals that are seemingly the root cause of the problem. The wave of popular anger in the transatlantic community is directed at free movement and open borders; towards globalization and the volatility of interdependence; and towards the elites in politics, business, academia, and media that support these policies. Local identity and sovereigntyboth of which the international liberal order was thought to have subsumedare reasserting themselves everywhere.

This domestic turbulence has also shaken the security foundations of the international liberal orderthe transatlantic and transpacific partnerships of the United States. A core diplomatic mantra of the Trump administration appears to be irreverence for all that was revered. His administration has adopted economic and security policies that are bordering on hostile towards the EU and Japan. It has been relentless in compelling both to pay more for their own defence. More than this, Trump has also been willing to raise military tensions in these regionswith Iran in West Asia, and North Korea in East Asia. His willingness to use unilateral force and pressure in lieu of multilateral negotiations has caused much anguish in Europe, Japan and South Korea. More consequentially, perhaps, Trump has been more than willing to undermine the institutional frameworks of the global ordernamely the United Nations (UN) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). He sees both organizations as captured by actors inimical to American interests that infringe on the absolute sovereignty of the US.

Amidst this turbulence in the West, there is also a resurgence of the East. The old empires and civilizations of Asia, especially China and India, are beginning to impress upon the world their size and weight. China, undoubtedly, is leading this charge. While the West is thinking local, China is going global. In 2017, President Xi emerged as the unlikeliest defender of globalization, stating, in a very statesmanlike fashion, that the international community should adapt to and guide economic globalization, cushion its negative impacts and deliver its benefits for all countries. More important, the Middle Kingdom is investing in infrastructure projects across Asia and Europe in an unprecedented effort to connect the two continents. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a multi-billion dollar geopolitical and geoeconomic thrust that will see China emerge as the chief arbiter of an Eurasian political, economic and security arrangement. In doing so, Beijing is steadily undermining the efficacy and legitimacy of the post-war alliance arrangements. In Europe, the China-led 17+1 arrangement is eroding the EUs influence over its eastern borders. Chinas aggressive naval build-up in the South China Sea (SCS) is displacing American military power in the Pacific, and sowing discord among the member states of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Its investments in G7 nations like Italy have divided and derailed any potential Western response.

Equally significantly, Chinas rise is being accompanied by an alternative proposition for global governance. Remember, China bears an enduring grudge against those who profess to lead the international order. Chinas political histories are stories about humiliation, subjugation and suffering at the hands of outsiders. There is some disagreement in international affairs literature about exactly what change, and how much of it, China actually seeks. This line of thinking, however, misses the point. China is large enough that the influence of its domestic arrangements will be felt organically in other parts of the world. Beijing has only grown more authoritarian at home and more assertive abroad under the presidency of Xi Jinping. And China is certainly exporting bits and pieces of this model. The most obvious manifestation is surveillance technologies that Chinas massive technology companies are selling in developing countries around the world. Chinas propositions are certainly international; they are infused, however, with Chinese characteristics. It is a proponent of globalizationbut a morphed version that prioritizes state-led capitalism with the Peoples Republic of China in command. Beijing favours international institutions, but seeks to subvert their original purpose. In the UN, for example, China has attempted to introduce human rights language that privileges and protects state interpretations, as opposed to more universal (read, in Chinese eyes, Western) international values.

The myth of the liberal order is caught between these shifts in domestic attitudes and the balance of global power. And it is crumbling under these pressures because it is unsuited to balancing internationalism and sovereignty, or to managing a more multipolar international system. Many write and speak about the international liberal order with rose-tinted glasses and a sense of nostalgia. This could not be further from the truth. It was hardly international premised as it was on Americas system of post-war alliances. While it did guarantee sovereign equality, it is difficult to argue that decision-making authority was sufficiently diffused. Instead, important institutions were run by the largest and most powerful countries. The fabled Washington Consensus, meanwhile, privileged the commercial interests of a handful of geographies, often to the detriment of emerging economies, the environment, and the blue-collar worker. Nor was this order truly orderly. If institutions could realistically impose limits on the unilateral actions of all countries, we would not have seen disastrous Western interventions in the Middle East. Perhaps, the only legitimate claim the international liberal order can truly have is to liberalism itself. It certainly helped that the victors of World War II were all open, democratic societieseven though much of the world was not. With the original guarantors of this order themselves in disarray, it is understandable why its resilience is fraying. The idea of global governance, then, was ultimately a consensus-building framework for the global political, economic and security elite. As a popular right-wing Indian commentator tweeted, The entitled elites dont believe in the survival of the fittest but the survival of the fatuous, frivolous and the feckless. In other words, pedigree, privilege and personal networks have defined who is at the high tableand more important, who isnt. This may be a Trumpian statement to makebut as our chapters on development and cyberspace will show, both twentieth and twentieth-first century debates have been monopolized by small but vocal and influential communities. The backlash we are seeing today is driven by a groundswell of grassroots opposition to many of its central tenets and philosophies.

Where, then, does the world go from here? We look to India for answers and alternatives. It is not lost on us that it might seem opportunistic for two Indians to make a case for Indian leadership. But the appeal is too strong to ignore. A soon-to-be relatively wealthy, democratic, multicultural state with an instinct that privileges multilateralism and rules-based order, is the perfect antidote to the increasingly parochial and unilateral mood defining global politics. The rules-based order is shared commitment by all countries to conduct their activities in accordance with agreed rules that evolve over time, such as international law, regional security arrangements, trade agreements, immigration protocols, and cultural arrangements. Its identity as an Asian power gives it a sense of responsibility to ideate and execute equitable global rules that protect the interests of the marginalized. And its civilizational philosophy of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakamthe whole world is one familyhave tempered its willingness to use force as a means to achieve its political interests. This is not to say that India itself is insulated from the disruptions underway around the world. We see strident nationalism increasingly defining the Indian political space as well. Nor is an Indian rise inevitableinequality remains persistent and social risks and economic mismanagement, as well as the risk of divisive politics, continue to daunt the nation. However, providing solutions for the world at large is a fine motivation for Indians to get our house in order. And Indias phenomenal transformation over the past seven decades gives us much to be optimistic about. Of course, we are conscious that Indian leadership is not an end in itself, but a means. The twenty-first century requires this new ethic in order to revive the legitimacy and efficacy of global governance. The rise of India must catalyse methods for governance that are more inclusive, democratic and equitable than before and its own national experience must temper the mercantilism embedded in todays market-led growth and development models to one where markets are made to serve humankind. It may be time for a New Delhi Consensus, which is not a metaphor for Indian exceptionalism but a call for a more inclusive and participatory world order. This is the most pressing Indian imperative.

See the rest here:

The myth of the liberal order is caught between shifts in domestic attitudes and the balance of global power - Observer Research Foundation

This is nearly over this weird disconnect between what most of us understand as reality and the world as seen through the eyes of an all pervasive Authority that was apparently appointed (although we never knew by whom) to establish the limits of public discourse. The crisis of confidence at the BBC and make no mistake, it is a full blown, all alarm bells ringing, catastrophic crisis is probably the most visible sign of the shift but it is much bigger than this.

So bear with me: I promise that the whole column is not going to be about the BBC, even though it is easily the most infuriating and useful exemplar of the problem.

But no, what could be about to implode is not just the sublime, unlimited self-regard of the broadcasters. It is nothing less than the whole interlocking set of preconceptions that are so embedded in the consciousness of those who decide what it is acceptable to think that they must ignore or traduce anything that contradicts them.

Of course, self-doubt should have begun with the Brexit referendum result but that scarcely slowed them down: if a majority of the country were benighted bigots then it was up to the enlightened ones to lead them out of the darkness. Or to bully them out of it. And believe it or not, a good many of the Enlightened actually believed they had succeeded in this hence the demand for a second referendum which would allow the masses to repent of their ignorance.

View original post here:

The BBC is panicking at the publics rejection of its arrogant Left-liberal worldview - Telegraph.co.uk

Senator Rex Patrick spent nearly $50,000 on software to "manage" his constituents last year, $40,000 more than any other MP.

Computer programs, known as constituent management software, help identify and act on voter concerns but they also collect personal data to track, profile and influence people during elections.

Most politicians bill taxpayers for these services under the label of "software reimbursement", which totalled $586,311 in 2018-19.

Many Liberal MPs claimed about $2590, Warringah independent MP Zali Steggall spent $4000, most Labor politicians used about $3130, the majority of Greens senators spent less than $1500 and Centre Alliance senator Rex Patrick from South Australia billed $49,739.

The Liberal Party was criticised for using a program called Feedback, provided by a Liberal-controlled entity called Parakeelia, which also donated money to the party. The Labor Party uses a similar program called Campaign Central. Both build on the electoral roll and log interactions between politicians and voters.

Read the original here:

Senator spent nearly $50,000 on software to 'manage constituents' - The Age

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences 2020 slate of nominations for the Oscars was a sea of white men. The Democrats seventh debate also featured a profound lack of pigment and was pretty testosterone-heavy, though it did include two women.

For those who want equal representation, the sea of white maleness really sucked. How was this happening again? We had read countless think pieces on diversity, and yet the Oscars were as white as ever, and the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination is a white man in his 70s, trailed by another white man in his 70s?! We were told this was the year of womenno, wait, maybe that was last year. Has the year of the women expired?

In the incredibly lame Academys incredibly lame defense, theyve always sucked. Every year we collectively bemoan the whiteness and general cronyism of the Oscars. Every year it becomes slightly harder to not feel despondent about all these lame white guys getting participation trophies from their friends.

But you have to remember that the Oscars were started in the late 1920s by a lame white guy (Louis B. Mayer) as a way to give his friends participation trophies and to get around actors unionizing by making them part of an elite organization of academy members (otherwise known as fancy scabs) in the hopes of having more control over the actors.

So perhaps the Oscars are really the same as theyve always been. After all, these are the people who chose Crash over Brokeback Mountain and Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan and Green Book over anything else.

The 64 percent male Oscar voting base did not nominate any women in the best director category. Now this isnt new: In the 92 years of Oscars, there have only been five female directors nominated for an Oscar, and of those only one has ever won (quick: who was it?). But this year was even more annoying because there were a bunch of excellent movies directed by women, including Little Women (Greta Gerwig), The Farewell (Lulu Wang), Queen & Slim (Melina Matsoukas), and A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (Marielle Heller).

Also, there were a lot of movies directed by women. Women made up 10.6% of the directors of the top 100 grossing movies from 2019. The 84 percent white Oscar voting body seemed also to completely ignore people of color in the major categories, except for actress Cynthia Erivo (Harriet).

Its like the white men didnt see any movies that stared people of color, of which there were numerous excellent performances: Eddie Murphy, Lupita Nyongo, Jamie Foxx, and Jennifer Lopez, about whose royal screwing agreement is nearly universal. April Reign, who created the #oscarssowhite hashtag, pointed out that the pushback has often been, Well, there just werent enough diverse films to nominate. But that clearly was not the case in 2019, with films like Just Mercy, Us, Luce, Clemency, The Farewell, and so many others.

And what of the Democratic Party? We think the Democratic Party isnt run by white men. After all, the head of the DNC, Tom Perez, is the child of two Dominican immigrants, and his deputy was Keith Ellison, the first Muslim to get elected to Congress.

Old white guys have run things for the last 6,500 years and, you know, theyve done a pretty good job, besides the wealth inequality, the health care crisis, the Trump presidency, the coming climate apocalypse, and all the wars.

But since Sens. Kamala Harris and Cory Booker dropped out, the debate stage is a virtual cornucopia of white guy-ness, all of them arguing about who can appeal to women of color better, because if irony wasnt already dead, this would have killed it. Yes, the party that wins from the support of people of color has a debate stage that looks the celebratory dinner at the South Hampton Paddle Tennis Club.

But the DNC does not pick the candidate, contrary to what WikiLeaks would lead you to believe. Neither, really, do the voters. No, the donors pick the candidates by giving them moneyor at the very least, they aggressively screen the candidates for the voters. And those donors, whether they cop to it or not, like white guys. Yes, they went for a black candidateonce. But even Barack Obama was largely fueled by small donors in 2007, until he won Iowa and the large donors saw he could win. And they went with a white woman after that. But this time around, things are back to normal, and the big-dollar Democratic donors really like Mayor Pete and Joe Biden.

Its possible that the donors like them because they think theyre electable in a way Hillary Clinton wasnt. Instead of blaming her failure to visit Wisconsin enough or Clinton Ca$h, many Democrats have decided that Clintons loss is proof that a woman cant beat Trump. It doesnt matter what the thinking is, the reality is big money donors didnt pony up for Andrew Wang, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders (old white guy but socialist), Elizabeth Warren, or Amy Klobuchar.

What if, and just bear with me here, white men win everything because everything from the Oscars to politics to most major corporations is run by old white men? From the C-suite to the gifting suite, white men are the bosses, and they tend to favor people who look like they do, people they feel comfortable standing next to on the approach to the 17th and giving an encouraging, Oh, nice chip!

Diversity begets diversity, and old white guys beget more old white guys. Old white guys have run things for the last 6,500 years and, you know, theyve done a pretty good job, besides the wealth inequality, the health care crisis, the Trump presidency, the coming climate apocalypse, and all the wars. OK, they havent. So maybe, just maybe, its time to give the rest a shot.

Oh, and that lone female to have won Best Director? Kathryn Bigelow for The Hurt Locker in 2010. After she won, Bret Easton Ellis deemed her overrated and said she won only because she was a very hot woman. Hard to imagine Bret saying that about a man, but then again, men win every year, so theres no need to explain a deviation to the norm.Maybe someday, when we have true gender parity and women win more directing Oscars than men, we can judge male directors on their cheekbones and hairlines.

See the article here:

Oscars, White Guys. Democratic Candidates, White Guys. And These Are the Liberal Organizations. - The Daily Beast

You could tell the Liberal rookies after the 2015 election there was a kind of new car smell and puppy dog naivet about them.

One veteran MP shook his head as he recalled how the new government allowed its opponents to control the agenda.

Once we got elected, people thought it would be just like the village council everybody would get together and make Canada a better country, he said.

It was all peace, love, unicorns and rainbows. Harper ran it like Robert Mugabe but we went to the other side. The first piece of business we undertook at the human resources committee was a study by Niki Ashton of the NDP to review Employment Insurance. So weve been out of power for 10 years and the first thing we see is a motion by the third party.

The Liberals chased a legislative agenda for much of their first four years, frustrated by the opposition in the House of Commons and the Senate.

By summer 2018, only 39 per cent of the legislation introduced in the House had been passed (excluding appropriation bills, which always sail through).

By the end of the 42nd Parliament, that number was a more typical 78 per cent but that conversion rate required the kind of iron-fisted power plays the Liberals used to decry.

Trudeau is banking on lessons having been learned during the first mandate otherwise the current parliamentary session is likely to be an historic exercise in futility.

Stephen Harpers majority government passed 77 per cent of the bills introduced into Parliament, but his two minorities were much less productive a 48 per cent conversion rate between April 2006 and September 2008 and just 44 per cent between November 2008 and April 2011.

Justin Trudeaus Liberals have already had a taste of minority government. The opposition parties combined to defeat the government in the very first vote held in the 43rd Parliament last month to create a special parliamentary committee to examine Canadas relationship with China.

You dont fix problems that you dont have to. You dont make decisions you dont have to

That committee met on Monday and spent an eternity debating sub-amendments to clauses governing a sub-committee.

At the best of times, parliamentary committees are cul-de-sacs, down which ideas, patience and the will to live are lured and lost. From the governments point of view, these are not the best of times.

At the Liberal cabinet retreat in Winnipeg, Trudeau offered some sense of his priorities legislation implementing the new NAFTA trade deal will be introduced immediately. A new bill on medically assisted dying will come next month to comply with a court ruling that invalidated much of the existing law last fall.

And the government will bring forward a new law to outlaw the sale of assault weapons.

Beyond that, the prime minister talked in vague terms about fulfilling election pledges. Aside from the pressures of getting legislation through parliament, Trudeau has to keep one eye on spending. The debt to GDP ratio that he promised would continue to decline, even in times of deficit, is set to rise this year and thats before most of the $57 billion in election promises are added.

Were just getting started, Trudeau told reporters in Winnipeg.

In reality, though, the level of ambition in this Parliament will be more aligned with the reality of minority government.

Trudeau is being judicious in his public statements, an apparent attempt to manage expectations in a way he did not in his first term.

As one of Jean Chrtiens closest aides told his biographer Lawrence Martin: You dont fix problems that you dont have to. You dont make decisions you dont have to. Nobody was sitting and saying: Christ, were just maintaining the status quo why dont we do something exciting?.

Doing nothing much for the past three months seems to be working for Trudeau. A new poll by Mainstreet Research has the Liberals in majority territory at 40 per cent support, a number that has likely been bolstered by the prime ministers adroit handling of the downing of Flight 752.

As Chrtien and Harper were quick to discover, good government is boring government.

With luck, Trudeau has realized belatedly that jumping on your horse, in Leacockian fashion, and riding off madly in all directions is not the best way to run a country like Canada.

Email: jivison@postmedia.com | Twitter:

POPULAR ON NP RIGHT NOW:

Jean Charest decides not to run for Conservative leadership

Day One in Canada: Harry, Meghan threaten legal action against paparazzi outside home

Ex-soldier wished he had booby-trapped home and blown up RCMP officers: U.S. court document

Original post:

John Ivison: The lesson Trudeau hopes Liberal MPs have learned good government is boring government - National Post

PUBLISHED: 15:28 24 January 2020

Nathalie Raffray

LibDem Mayor candidate Siobhan Benita with Anton Georgiou who won the Alperton by-election for the party.

Archant

Alperton residents have voted for change by installing a Liberal Democrat back in to Brent's council chamber after the party's four-year absence.

Email this article to a friend

To send a link to this page you must be logged in.

Anton Georgiou swept to victory in Thursday's by-election with 1,699 votes saying he's "flabbergasted" by the result.

Chetan Harpale, who has been suspended from the Labour Party came second with 1,304, and the Conservatives third with 373.

The seat was made vacant by the resignation and suspension from the Labour Party of James Allie.

It is the first time a Liberal Democrat has sat in the Labour-strong chamber since Helen Carr became an Independant in 2016.

Mr Georgiou said he was "grateful" to residents for "placing their trust in me" adding: "I'm absolutely so grateful and stunned by this victory.

"It's a great honour that I have been able to elected as the Libdem councillor for Alperton, it's crazy.

"I think people are genuinley so tired of way things are and wanted to see something different."

He was congratulated by the Liberal Democrat Mayor of London candidate Siobhan Benita who said: "What a stunning result for Anton in Alperton.

Such a massive swing to the LibDems and away from Labour shows that voters want change.

"It's a real boost to my campaign to be London's first LibDem mayor and for my vision of a safer, greener, kinder capital. "I'll end knife crime and rough sleeping, reopen police stations and boost community policing, make London plastic-free and end the commuting nightmare."

Anton, who lives in Dudden Hill, has long campaigned in the borough.

His record includes standing as a council candidate in Dudden Hill in 2014.

A bright light in his party he was selected as the GLA candidate for the Brent and Harrow constituency during the 2016 mayoral elections and again for the elections in May. "To be honest I haven't thought about it, I don't think I can do everything. I won the selection for the GLA in the summer of last year before Alperton ever came up."

He helped set up Brent Refugee Action Group for those fleeing violence in Syria and other war-torn countries, explaining at the time how his own family arrived in the UK after the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974.

He added: "I'm flabbergasted by it all. I worked so hard for so long. We have a Lib Dem back in Brent. I never expected it to be me but it is and I'll do as much as I can to make sure there's a strong Liberal voice in the chamber.

"I'll hold them to account but also work with other parties, Labour and Conservative where possible."

His priorities he said, are: "The neglect of the area, the rubbish, the flytipping, the general poor state of the area is something that was referred back to again and again.

"They live in a really dirty, messy area and it's time we found a way of tackling the flytipping and rubbish and cleaned it up.

"My tagline during the campaign was 'a vote for Anton and the Liberal Democrats is a vote for Alperton' and I'll keep that up."

The other by-election wards, which included two vacancies in Barnhill and one in Wembley Central, were all won by Labour candidates.

Mansoor Akram, the brother-in-law of Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt, received 1,194 votes while Gaynor Lloyd, wife of Northwick Park's Cllr Keith Perrin won 1,152.

They were closely followed by Conservatives Kanta Mistry with 1,082 votes and Stefan Voloseniuc with 1,018.

Sonia Shah won Wembley Central with 1,945 votes with the Conservative Sai Karthik Madabhushi in second place with 1,090.

Alperton had the greatest turnout with 33.99 pc, followed by Wembley Central with 27.57pc and Barnhill's 21.97pc.

Carolyn Downs, chief executive of the council and returning officer, said: "Thank you to everyone who came out to vote despite the cold weather.

"I would also like to thank all our polling station and count staff who have now run two back-to-back elections successfully.

"Congratulations to the councillors who have been newly elected - I look forward to working with them."

See the original post here:

Liberal Democrat Anton Georgiou sweeps to victory in Alperton by-election as Labour hangs on to seats in Barnhill and Wembley Central - Kilburn Times

In early January 2020, Snopes readers inquired about the provenance and authenticity of a quotation attributed to former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt that contained her reflections on the word liberal and the importance of the concept of freedom in American society.

On Dec. 31, 2019, for instance, a Facebook account posted a widely shared meme containing a portrait of Roosevelt and the following quote:

Long ago, there was a noble word, liberal, which derives from the word free. Now a strange thing happened to that word. A man named Hitler made it a term of abuse, a matter of suspicion, because those who were not with him were against him, and liberals had no use for Hitler. And then another man named McCarthy cast the same opprobrium on the word We must cherish and honor the word free or it will cease to apply to us. Eleanor Roosevelt.

The same meme was promulgated even further two days later, when the left-leaning Occupy Democrats Facebook page posted it, along with the message Who else is a PROUD liberal?

The quote is authentic and did indeed originate in something Roosevelt wrote: her 1963 book Tomorrow is Now, which was published shortly after her death in November 1962. The relevant section, towards the end of the book, reads in full as follows:

Long ago, there was a noble word, liberal, which derives from the word free. Now a strange thing happened to that word. A man named Hitler made it a term of abuse, a matter of suspicion, because those who were not with him were against him, and liberals had no use for Hitler. And then another man named McCarthy cast the same opprobrium on the word. Indeed, there was a time a short but dismaying time when many Americans began to distrust the word which derived from free. One thing we must all do. We must cherish and honor the word free or it will cease to apply to us. And that would be an inconceivable situation. This I know. This I believe with all my heart. If we want a free and a peaceful world, if we want to make the deserts bloom and man grow to greater dignity as a human being WE CAN DO IT!

The meme shared widely in early 2020 left out certain words taken from this section, but it properly acknowledged that omission with the use of an ellipsis, and the omission did not misrepresent or change the meaning of what Roosevelt wrote. As such, the meme was accurate and authentic and properly attributed the quotation to its true author.

Read the original here:

Did Eleanor Roosevelt Say This About the Word 'Liberal'? - Snopes.com