Mediaboss Marketing

The Israeli government has not been functioning for the entire year of 2019. Weve already had two elections, and a third election season is now upon us. Government offices, which even in more stable times have no long-term strategic plans in place, are barely functioning. No decisions regarding the functioning of the country as a whole are being made, budgets are not being passed and some local authorities are rebelling against the national government. Hospitals are collapsing, infrastructure plans are not being approved, and there is no sign that anything will change in the near future. Some commentators will claim that this is the price of living in a democracy. But thats just not true. Democracy is indeed the foundation upon which the State of Israel was built, and the Declaration of Independence states that the country is both a Jewish and democratic state. Nonetheless, democracy must serve its citizens, and not the other way around. For citizens to feel that they are an integral part of the democratic system, they must be able to trust their elected officials, the electoral system and the governments structure. The government must represent them and fulfill their needs. Unfortunately, something bad has happened here in Israel over the last decade. The ideal of democracy seems to have gotten lost as a handful of elected officials have taken over and begun ruling the country according to their whims. They have their own laws and they make up new rules as they go along. They apply democratic principles only when it suits them. The ruling party, Likud, has been in power almost continuously since 1977, with just a few short breaks. In fact, I would venture to say that it is the only significant democratic party in Israel. And yet, something very undemocratic has been taking place within its walls for some time now. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has headed the Likud Party and been prime minister for over a decade now, in addition to his previous term. He has done a tremendous amount of good for our country, while cementing his standing in all the party institutions and surrounding himself with an almost blind loyalty from other politicians and businesspeople who take care of themselves before thinking about whats good for the country. No, Netanyahu is not a magician, though he did serve the country for many years and represented Israel in the world quite honorably. He is a brilliant diplomat and a gifted politician. But he did lose in the Likud primaries when he ran against Ariel Sharon, and in 1999 he lost in the election to Ehud Barak, which led the Likud to an all-time low of just 19 seats in the Knesset. In 2006, Netanyahu once against suffered defeat and brought the Likud to a record low of 12 seats in the Knesset. Since 2009, the Likud has remained in power with Netanyahu at its head. The last time primaries were held in the Likud was in 2014. Since that time, the big guns of the Likud have ensured that no potential rivals might jeopardize his position. BUT THINGS have changed since then. Gideon Saar returned to politics, and to his home party, Likud. Hes garnered substantial support in his efforts to wiggle his way up the top of the list, despite great efforts by Netanyahu and his associates to thwart Saars rise. And so now, after Netanyahu served as prime minister for over 10 years, and failed to form a government after both of the elections that took place in 2019, Saar is demanding change. Hes demanding that the Likud uphold its democratic character and hold primaries. This is not a putsch or a betrayal. No one is being disloyal to a ruling leader. This is simply the necessary step that must take place in Israels most popular party if there is to be any hope of a functioning, stable government being formed. One of the Likuds greatest strengths is the loyalty of its members to whichever leader is in control, even in times of crisis. Despite what has happened in the Labor Party, this loyalty has proven itself and brought about long-standing stability within the Likud leadership. Nonetheless, the time has come for change. Its time to thank Netanyahu for his loyal service, and to replace him and his close supporters with a new leadership. This form of action is the only option available for the Likud if it wants to survive. After the dust settles, Netanyahus replacement will have to begin repairing all the broken parts and establish a proper political relationship with the political Left, the religious parties and representatives of the Arab sector. The party needs to reinstate the partys vision established by Zeev Jabotinsky, and do whats best for the people and not just its leaders. There is no one today who is more fitting than Gideon Saar to take over the Likud leadership. Saar brings with him many years of political expertise, intelligence and critical thinking. He is capable of long-term strategic planning, is a great speaker and a courageous leader with the air of senior official. He is also the only figure who is capable of bridging the gaps between the various political camps and maintaining a functioning, stable government. In the past, Saar has proven himself through his long-term strategic planning in the fields of education, health, welfare and security. Its hard to think of any other politician with such a successful record since the days of David Ben-Gurion. All the polls are showing that if a new Likud leadership is chosen, the party would grow to such an extent that it would succeed in forming a stable, long-standing government. Its time for a change of leadership in the ruling party. The people are demanding this and the country needs it. Its time we started dealing with the issues and solving our problems. The next items on the agenda need to be changing the electoral process and government structure. We dont have any more time to waste on unnecessary and expensive elections. The writer is a former deputy Shin Bet chief, an intelligence and terrorism specialist, and an author.

More here:
Likud needs a change of guard if democracy is to be served - The Jerusalem Post

A Better World Is Possible. We Will Only Get There If We Stick Together.

Our journalists work hard to inform by bringing you the news that matters - which is often about how the world is. But we think the most important part of our mission is to inspireand so we work hard to bring you the voices of visionaries who dream about how the world should be. Independent journalism and democracy itself have never been more needed yet more fragile and at risk than now. Pleaseno amount is too large or too smallpitch in to support our people-powered model and help Common Dreams start 2020 at full strength. Thank you. -- Craig Brown, Co-founder

Please select a donation method:

Support Independent Journalism. The only thing that keeps us going is support from readers like you. Every contribution makes a huge difference.Yes! I will support this work

Read more here:
'To Protect Our Democracy,' Tuesday Night Rallies Planned In All 50 States to Demand Congress Votes to Impeach Trump - Common Dreams

Weve got to acknowledge that in 1979 although on a technicality it was defeated we delivered a Scotland Bill.

But Labour has refused to take advantage of that legacy, and currently in Scotland we have no traction whatsoever in the constitutional debate.

Thats why Im encouraged by the comments of some senior Labour MSPs that the party has to have a rethink about the constitutional question.

Of course there will be a second referendum. You cannot continue to fight democracy. Because if you oppose indyref2 you are opposing democracy.

For Labour that is not a vision, its not a strategy, its not a policy, its an acceptance of defeatism.

The only reason they might not want to have a referendum, along with the Conservatives, is that they might lose.

I think the 2021 Holyrood election will be pivotal in defining where Scots are on the issue.

My best bet is that a referendum will take place after that in either 2022 or 2023.

I dont believe for a minute that Scotland, couldnt be independent, of course it could. But thats not the question we need to be asking ourselves.

The question really is, do we take a substantial number of Scottish people with the country as it moves, or is there an alternative to independence which is not being properly developed.

READ MORE:Henry McLeish: Ditch first-past-the-post MSPs at Holyrood

I fear that weve run out of time.

Westminsters not interested. Boris Johnsons not interested. Labours not interested.

The SNPs position has been buoyed by their excellent results last week, but they have got to appreciate though that since 2014 very few opinion polls, out of more than 100, have given them a result of 50% or more in favour of independence.

Secondly, the country is bitterly divided at the present time. I think theres a danger of looking into the SNP vote and thinking that everybody who votes SNP supports independence.

The SNP have been a competent government, and in many respects a good government, so therefore people vote for them for a variety of reasons.

Labour can only get back into Scottish politics if it uses the key of the constitutional question to unlock that political door.

Were currently nowhere on the Scottish question. I have seen one person suggest that its nothing to do with Labour, leave it to the Tories and the SNP. That doesnt make sense, its also quite dangerous.

Labour has now got to seize the opportunity to decide whether it can develop an alternative, or if it cant, what is the next best option.

And in that sense, I have an option for them. As we move forward, we should explore further the powers of the Scottish Parliament.

What I want the Scottish party to do is test the boundaries of all the reserved issues. For example on welfare, on Europe, on immigration.

Labour has to rebuild trust. A lot of the policies in the Labour manifesto were sound, good and radical, but the fact is were locked out of the Scottish debate.

Go here to read the rest:
Henry McLeish: opposing indyref2 is opposing democracy - The National

The Democrats believe that the 2020 election is too important to be left to the voters. Its obvious that President Trump withheld defense aid to Ukraine to pressure its president to commit to the investigations that he wanted, an improper use of his power that should rightly be the focus of congressional investigation and hearings.

Where the Democrats have gotten tangled up is trying to find a justification that supports the enormous weight of impeaching and removing a president for the first time in our history.

Theyve cycled through different arguments. First, Trumps offense was said to be a quid pro quo a phrase cast aside for supposedly being too Latin for the public to understand. Then it was bribery, which has lost ground lately, presumably because of the inherent implausibility of the charge.

Now, the emphasis is on Trumps invitation to the Ukrainians to meddle and interfere in our elections.

This is posited to be an ongoing threat. Nancy Pelosi said in her statement calling on the House to draft articles of impeachment: Our democracy is what is at stake. The president leaves us no choice but to act, because he is trying to corrupt, once again, the election for his own benefit. The president has engaged in abuse of power undermining our national security and jeopardizing the integrity of our elections.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler said on Meet the Press last weekend that Trump has to be impeached for posing the considerable risk that he poses to the next election. Asked if he thinks the 2020 election will be on the up-and-up, he said, I dont know. The president, based on his past performance, will do everything he can to make it not a fair election.

The gravamen of this case is that the election is too crucial to allow the incumbent president of the United States, who is leading in key battleground states and has some significant chance of winning, to run. In fact, the integrity of the election is so at risk that the US Senate should keep the public from rendering a judgment on Trumps first term or deciding between him and, say, his nemesis Joe Biden.

Of course, its possible to imagine a circumstance where a president would indeed present such a grave risk to our elections that hed have to be removed. This is a reason that we have the impeachment process in the first place.

But whats the real harm that Trumps foolhardy Ukraine adventure presented?

Lets say that Ukraine had, in response to Trump pressure, actually announced an investigation into Burisma, a shady company that had in the past been under investigation. What would have happened? Would Joe Biden have been forced from the race? Would his numbers have collapsed in Nevada and South Carolina, his best early states? Would his numbers have changed anywhere?

No, its not even clear there would have been any additional domestic political scrutiny of Hunter Bidens lucrative arrangement with Burisma, an issue that is dogging the former vice president on the campaign trail anyway because his sons payday was so clearly inappropriate.

The bottom line is that after tsk-tsking Trump for refusing to say in advance that hed accept the outcome of the 2016 election, Democrats have steadfastly refused to truly accept the 2016 result, allegedly the work of the Russians, and now are signaling they wont accept next years election, either, should they lose again.

Given their druthers, Trump wouldnt be an option for the voters. They are rushing their impeachment, in part, because they know that as November 2020 approaches, it becomes steadily less tenable to portray the man who wants to run in an election as the threat to democracy and the people who want to stop him as its champions.

With every day that passes, the Democrats risk a growing perception that they themselves are a threat to the 2020 election.

Twitter: @RichLowry

The rest is here:
Dems' impeachment absurdities are making them look like the threat to democracy - New York Post

Former U.K. Finance Minister Philip Hammond seen in July, 2019.

WIktor Szymanowicz | NurPhoto | Getty Images

The U.K.'s reputation as a pillar of political stability has certainly been tarnished by the Brexit crisis, according to the country's former finance minister, but a "sensible" departure from the European Union might eventually be seen as "democracy in action."

Speaking to CNBC's Dan Murphy at the SALT Conference in Abu Dhabi on Tuesday, Philip Hammond said there can be "no doubt" that the U.K.'s reputation as a haven of stability had been "dented" by Brexit, "but there is all to play for."

His comments come just two days before voters in the U.K. head to the ballot box. The vote is likely to decide whether the world's fifth-largest economy leaves the bloc next month or moves toward another EU referendum.

"If we now demonstrate that we can deliver a sensible Brexit that satisfies the millions of people who voted to leave the European Union, that does it in a way that protects the U.K. economy, then actually, when a few years have elapsed and people look back, maybe they will see this as an example of democracy in action rather than a system in meltdown," Hammond said.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has sought to frame the upcoming ballot as the "Brexit election," promising to deliver his so-called "oven-ready" divorce deal and take the country out of the EU by Jan. 31.

In contrast, opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn has said that, if elected, his left-leaning Labour party would hold another EU referendum within six months. This vote would offer Britain the choice between a "credible" renegotiated leave deal including a customs union and close single market relationship with the EU or the option to remain.

Johnson's center-right Conservative government holds a commanding lead in the latest opinion polls and Hammond expects the former London mayor to secure a working parliamentary majority later this week.

"The question for me is what Boris Johnson will do with the undoubted authority that he will gain from being the first Conservative prime minister for 25 years to obtain a decent working majority in parliament."

The Houses of Parliament on October 23, 2019 in London, England.

Peter Summers | Getty Images News | Getty Images

The last Conservative Party leader to form a single-party government with a parliamentary majority was David Cameron in 2015, when the former prime minister unexpectedly secured a slender 11-seat majority in 2015. Hammond appeared to be referring to John Major's parliamentary majority of 21 seats in the 1992 general election.

"He can use that to deliver a Brexit which protects the British economy, allows him to deliver on many of his ambitions for public services, for reduced taxation. Or, he can use it to deliver a hard Brexit which means that we will struggle to deliver on those promises because the economy will be in a much worse position," Hammond said.

"So, it is going to be all up to him to decide how to interpret Brexit once we have left the European Union," he added.

Hammond, who lost the Conservative Party whip in October after opposing to leave the EU without a deal, has repeatedly clashed with Johnson over Brexit.

Last month, the former finance minister said in a letter to his constituents in Runnymede and Weybridge that it was with "great sadness" he would step down as a Member of Parliament (MP) at the upcoming election.

In an apparent swipe at more hard-line Conservative lawmakers, Hammond said he would continue to promote a "broad-based, forward-looking, pro-business and pro-markets center-right party."

Read more:
Brexit might one day be seen as 'democracy in action,' former UK finance minister says - CNBC