Mediaboss Marketing

Breadcrumb Trail Links

Five of Canada's nine women premiers have been conservatives, as well as its only woman prime minister

Publishing date:

First Reading is a daily newsletter keeping you posted on the travails of Canadian politicos, all curated by the National Posts own Tristin Hopper. To get an early version sent direct to your inbox every Monday to Thursday at 6:30 p.m. ET (and 9 a.m. on Saturdays), sign up here.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

In slightly more than two weeks, it seems likely that the United Kingdom will be swearing in its third-ever woman prime minister. And just like the other two, this ones going to be a Conservative.

Liz Truss, the U.K. foreign secretary, currently enjoys a commanding 22-point lead in the Conservative Party leadership race to replace Prime Minister Boris Johnson. If this lead holds when results are announced on Sept. 5, she can expect to be sworn in immediately as the U.K.s head of government.

Trusss elevation to 10 Downing Street would further highlight a unique political quirk shared between the United Kingdom and Canada. When it comes to breaking gender glass ceilings in electoral politics, the role has been disproportionately filled by women representing right-leaning parties.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

To date, the only two women to reach Britains highest elected office were leaders of the Conservative Party: Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May. Kim Campbell, Canadas first and to date only woman prime minister similarly headed the Progressive Conservatives.

Meanwhile, the leading centre-left parties in both Canada and the U.K. the Labour Party and the Liberal Party are both conspicuous for having never once elected a woman leader.

While the U.K. Labour Party has seen the occasional woman serving as interim leader, a woman has never won a party leadership race. The Liberal Party of Canada remains the only major Canadian party that hasnt even had a woman as acting leader. Although the Liberals last leadership election in 2013 was dominated by women, all of them were steamrolled by the candidacy of Justin Trudeau.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

In Canada, the trend of conservative women beating progressives to high office even holds up at the provincial level.

Canadas first-ever woman premier represented the right-leaning B.C. Social Credit Party. Rita Johnston got the job after the 1991 resignation of Bill Vander Zalm, and would later switch her allegiance to the upstart B.C. Conservative Party after the Socreds collapse.

Of the nine women who have ever headed a Canadian provincial government, slightly more than half have represented a right-wing option in the legislature. In addition to Johnston, the first woman premiers in both Manitoba (Heather Stefanson) and Newfoundland and Labrador (Kathy Dunderdale) were Progressive Conservatives. Christy Clark, who was B.C. premier for six years, headed the B.C. Liberals, a party that despite its name is the provinces main centre-right option.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

A fifth is Albertas Alison Redford, who headed the ostensibly centre-right Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta, but thanks to a quirk of Alberta politics ended up being the progressive option in the 2012 provincial election she fought against the more conservative Wildrose. Although, that election broke its own Canadian glass ceiling by being the first in which both primary party leaders were women: Redfords main opponent was Wildrose leader Danielle Smith.

Canadas other four female provincial leaders consist of two Liberals (Ontarios Kathleen Wynne, P.E.I.s Catherine Callbeck), one New Democrat (Albertas Rachel Notley) and Quebecs Pauline Marois, who headed the Parti Qubcois.

There are other countries whose first national leaders represented centre-right options, most notably Germany with Chancellor Angela Merkel, and New Zealand, with Prime Minister Jenny Shipley. But Canada and the U.K. are basically the only major democratic countries where it is the norm.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

While the United States has not elected a female president, the only woman ever nominated for a major party candidacy was Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party. A Democrat was also the first female state governor.

Israels Golda Meir, one of historys first women to serve as prime minister, represented the countrys Labor Party. Indias Indira Gandhi, still the countrys only female prime minister, headed the left-leaning Indian National Congress. Norways first woman prime minister, Gro Brundtland, represented Labour. So did Australias first woman prime minister, Julia Gillard.

And while Canadian conservative parties may be comfortable with putting women in the top job, its a whole different story when it comes to basically any other electoral first.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The first Canadian women to win office at the municipal, federal and provincial levels all represented progressive parties. Similarly, Canadas first LGBT politicians are represented almost exclusively by either Liberals or NDPs, a rule that also holds up for Canadians from Indigenous groups or other ethnic minorities.

The only real exceptions to this rule are Lincoln Alexander, Canadas first Black MP, and Douglas Jung, Canadas first-ever Chinese-Canadian MP: Both were elected as Progressive Conservatives.

Theres yet another case of Canadian hospital staff seeming to nudge a chronically ill patient towards killing themselves. Global News interviewed a Canadian Forces veteran suffering from PTSD who was casually offered the option of euthanasia during a conversation with a Veterans Affairs Canada employee. The story comes only days after a widely circulated Associated Press feature broke revelations about a patient in London, Ont., with a severe brain disorder being offered medically assisted death by a hospital ethicist who first reminded him that his treatment was costing the system north of $1,500 a day.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

ArriveCAN the mandatory COVID-screening smartphone notable for once sentencing 10,000 innocent Canadians to mandatory house arrest has garnered another enemy. A coalition of Chambers of Commerce representing border communities from Manitoba to New Brunswick has come out to urge the federal government to scrap the app, saying it kneecaps tourism, worsens supply chain problems and is bafflingly ineffective at preventing the spread of COVID ArriveCANs sole justification for existing. The coalition joins a diverse field of official ArriveCAN haters, including politicians on both sides of the border representing both left and right-wing parties. The government has lost all credibility on this app, and people dont trust it, says a recent web video by the extremely mustachioed Conservative MP Martin Shields.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

ArriveCAN has been glitchy, invasive, and added to the hold-up at airports. Not to mention it cost taxpayers $25 million. The government has lost all credibility on this app, and people don't trust it, but they insist on keeping it around. It's time to scrap the app. #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/c7LPoJzRTK

Get all of these insights and more into your inbox every weekday at 6 p.m. ET by signing up for the First Reading newsletter here.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive the daily top stories from the National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of NP Posted will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

The rest is here:
FIRST READING: Why Tories (and not Liberals) are way better at putting women in high office - National Post

Every day, Canadians lose their lives because of the toxic drug crisis its destroying communities and families. This week, the British Columbia Coroner released a report showing that the toxic drug crisis is escalating 10,000 people have lost their lives in B.C. alone since 2016.

We need to take immediate action to stop the devastation and grief that this public health crisis is causing. It is not about numbers; this is about preventing more loss and protecting the lives of our loved ones.

Instead of acting, the Liberals sat by and watched for seven years while people died it's appalling. Now, the Liberals have decided to take a patchwork approach to a national crisis by decriminalizing personal possession in B.C. It is unacceptable that the Liberals, after taking so long to act, have delivered a lackluster plan that does not address the severity of the crisis or help anyone outside of the Rockies.

There are solutions available that must be rapidly scaled up and developed not just provincially but nationally so that no more preventable deaths happen. New Democrats have called on the Liberals to introduce a national health strategy for fighting the toxic drug emergency. We need education and prevention, safer supply, harm reduction and treatment and recovery services.

Despite mounting losses and evidence, the Liberal government has doubled down on an incremental approach that is costing lives. New Democrats know that this is wrong thats why we proposed real solutions. But instead of listening, the Liberals teamed up with the Conservatives to follow the status quo. We know that the time for pilot projects has well passed.

The NDP will keep fighting so that parents stop prematurely burying their children. We will push the Liberals to adopt a comprehensive emergency response to turn the tide on this crisis."

See the article here:
10000 lives lost in a single province but the Liberals still refuse to fight the drug crisis - New Democratic Party

Ottawa, ON Dan Albas, Conservative Shadow Minister for Finance, and Grard Deltell, Conservative Shadow Minister for Innovation, Science and Industry, released the following statement after Julys inflation reached 7.6 per cent:

Todays Consumer Price Index report confirms what Canadians are already feeling that the dollars in their pockets arent going as far as they used to.

With inflation remaining at levels not seen since the 1980s Canadians are struggling to afford basic essentials. Yet, rather than controlling spending and lowering inflationary pressures, the Liberals remain committed to their tax and spend agenda and continue to reject any attempt to provide cost-of-living relief.

Facing stubbornly high inflation, rising interest rates, and a worsening labour market, Canadian families are increasingly worried about a Liberal-made recession on the horizon.

The runway for a soft-landing to steer Canadas economy clear of a recession is getting shorter and shorter. Unfortunately, the Liberals and their NDP allies have rejected Conservative proposals to reduce inflationary pressure by getting their reckless government spending under control.

Instead, the Liberals and their NDP partners seem to be out-of-touch with the cost-of-living crisis Canadians are facing. As a result of their failure to control spending and provide cost-of-living relief, Canada appears poised to face a significant economic downturn.

Canadians deserve a government that will fight the cost-of-living crisis and make life more affordable. That is why Conservatives will continue to propose common-sense ideas, like suspending the GST on gasoline and diesel.

Conservatives will continue to fight to leave more money in the pockets of hard-working Canadians, protect the value of the money that they earn, and end the governments inflation-fueling reckless spending.

More:
With looming economic woes, Liberals' lack of leadership on inflation only hurts Canadians - Conservative Party of Canada

OTTAWA After two years of not being able to travel or see loved ones, Canadians are extremely frustrated by the months of flight delays and cancellations. Today, Transport Minister Omar Alghabra appeared before committee to explain to people why the Liberals havent fixed the delays. NDP Transport Critic Taylor Bachrach (SkeenaBulkley Valley) called on the Liberal government to protect passengers and stand up to big airlines.

For months, Canadians have been facing unacceptable airport delays and even having their flights cancelled because the Liberals failed to prepare for the predictable return of travel, said Bachrach. To make matters worse, were learning airlines have been refusing to compensate passengers when flights are delayed or cancelled. It is completely ridiculous that people whove patiently waited to travel are now paying the price because of the Liberals' failure to stand up for them.

Airlines continue to cite crew shortages to avoid providing compensation for cancelled flights under the Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR), which is meant to protect passengers. On July 8th, the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) ruled that crew shortages are not a sufficient reason to avoid giving compensation for cancelled flights.

The Liberals promised Canadians the APPR would protect them, but then theyve stood by and allowed the airlines to make a mockery of the rules, said Bachrach. It makes a lot of people wonder whose side the government is on.

To add insult to injury, the huge backlog of complaints at the CTA means it can take months for Canadians to get an issue heard, added Bachrach. Its unfair and unacceptable.

The NDP is calling on the Liberal government, through the CTA, to take a more proactive role in enforcing passenger protections. They need to ensure that passengers who faced delays and cancellations are properly compensated without excuses from airlines, provide resources to deal with the backlog of complaints to get processing times down to the CTAs stated 20-day service standard, increase the maximum fine the CTA can issue to airlines beyond the outdated cap from 1996 and issue fines in cases of repeated non-compliance.

Its time for the government to get serious about protecting air passengers from the appalling treatment theyve experienced in recent months. New Democrats know that the CTA should be a watchdog for Canadians, not a lapdog for the big airlines.

Read more:
Liberals refuse to stand up to airlines and protect passengers - New Democratic Party

The brave defenders of Ukraine are hailed as fighting not just for their homeland but for a way of life. It is a fight, we are told, for us.

In this telling Ukraine is ground zero in the battle for the 21st century. What US President Joe Bidenhas framed as a contest between autocracy and democracy.

It begs the question then: just what is this fight for?

Democracy? Russia is a democracy. Unpalatable as it is, the media shackled, opposition silenced or jailed. Vladimir Putin has been described as a new tsar. But elected, he is.

The US is hardly a bastion of democracy itself. The last election descended into lies and conspiracy. Rather than a peaceful handover of power, supporters of Donald Trump ransacked the Capitol building the very seat of American democracy.

Elsewhere democracy has fallen prey to political strongmen, populists and demagogues. They have taken power at the ballot box on a platform of divide and rule.

Democracy globally has been in free fall for more than a decade. Each year there are fewer and fewer free, democratic states.

Rather than a fight between democracy and autocracy, autocracy itself thrives within democracy.

What defenders of democracy are more accurately talking about is liberalism. An animating idea of democracy that claims individualism, freedom, human rights, and rule of law as chief virtues.

Nice in theory, but they have not always been delivered nor proven strong enough against assault.

Liberalism is sometimes cast as a fighting faith, but it is just as easily often derided for its timidity even complicity when confronted by tyranny.

To its critics, liberalism is a question without an answer a torrent of words with no meaning.

The German jurist and one-time NaziCarl Schmittmocked liberalism as an "endless conversation". Marxist revolutionaryLeon Trotsky called it a "debating society". Friedrich Nietzsche said it made people "cowardly".

Liberalism's fondness for tolerance has been seen as a weakness.

As the poetRobert Frostfamously wrote:"A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel."

In the 21st century, liberalism like democracy is in crisis. Just what does it stand for?

This has been liberalism's fate, to lurch from crisis to triumph to crisis again.

Liberalism was a response to the terror of the French Revolution. In the first decades of the 20th century, it was assailed by war, revolution, communism, and fascism.

Then as now, liberals asked what it meant to be a liberal. Could liberalism resist violent challenge without itself becoming violent?

Isaiah Berlin called it the "liberal predicament" to remain faithful to liberalism may be to fail liberalism.

Political scientist Joshua Cherniss picks up where Berlin left off in his new book, Liberalism in Dark Times.

He identifies the core of this predicament: liberals confront uncertainty while authoritarians harbour no doubts. To quote William Butler Yeats:

"The best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

The "worst" believe history bends to their will. Historicism, as it is called, posits that humanity is set on a course and atrocities are excused in order to deliver us to this fate. It can be an apocalyptic vision.

The father of historicism, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, said: "History is a slaughter-bench" upon which we are each sacrificed.

As Cherniss says:"History came to be identified with a story of purifying moral transformation between the children of light and the children of darkness."

Liberalism has been found wanting, holding onto virtues of a humane society while,as Chernisswrites, failing to "recognise the reality of politics".

As he damningly says: "While liberals cherished dreams of civility and innocence, the masses groaned and the world burned."

Cherniss writes not to bury liberalism but to redeem it. What does history teach us?

He identifies several figures who, in dark times, spoke to a different liberalism. These philosophers and writers who identified the liberal predicament.

They saw the weakness of liberalism but also the dangers of liberals staining their own hands in blood, fighting authoritarianism by becoming authoritarians themselves.

Cherniss says these thinkers offered a "tempered liberalism"; "an awareness of liberalism's drawbacks and defects".

Tempered liberals embraced uncertainty, eschewed simple answers, yet remained firm in what they stood for.

As Cherniss says, they approached politics with an "ethos". The antidote to ruthlessness, Cherniss says, "is to be found in the cultivation of a particular ethos".

It is a way of being, informed by values yet not fixed or permanent. Cherniss says these thinkers sought "disagreement and ambivalence".

Cherniss quotes Bertrand Russell defining tempered liberalism as "not in what opinions are held, but how they are held".

Another was the French writer Albert Camus who saw the quality and style of public debate as essential to successful liberalism. Camus' liberalism is "marked by modesty", balancing "demands and extremes".

Camus famously wrote his novel, The Plague a pandemic lays waste to a town, as people are shut down as an allegory of authoritarianism.

He appropriated the myth of Sisyphus, condemned to forever roll a boulder up a hill only for it to return again to the bottom, as a way of speaking back to the certainty of historicism.

Camus saw danger in certainty. "We suffocate among people who believe they are absolutely right," he wrote.

He had flirted with Marxism, but eventually rejected its idea of "finality". Camus was ultimately expelled from the Communist Party in France.

Cherniss concedes Camus does not sit easily within ideas of liberalism, but he offered a moderation that eschewed absolutism or fanaticism.

It was not, though, a moderation that seeks to find balance or resolution it was not a liberalism for "tepid souls" but "burning hearts". "Modest but not mild", a liberalism that stands up to extremists and sets limits.

The likes of Camus were forged in the fire of revolution, war, and persecution. They sought to find light in dark times.

In the second half of the 20th century, liberalism often became the preserve of the comfortable, captured by elites.

It morphed into neoliberalism and the dominance of markets over society. After the end of the Cold War, liberalism fell prey to hubris and triumphalism.

The political scientist Francis Fukuyama, channelling Hegel's historicism, declared the "end of history" that liberal democracy was the final destination for all humanity.

Fukuyama now wrestles with the latest crisis of liberalism. In his latest book Liberalism and its Discontents,he concedes Liberalism is assailed from the political left and right.

Liberalism, he says, can appear to some as "an old and worn out ideology that fails to answer the challenges of our times".

Fukuyama though is still a believer. It is less liberalism that has failed than liberals themselves. We need more and better liberalism, not less.

Others, like the philosopher Judith Shklar, warned in the 1950s that liberalism had lost its moral centre. It was used by the powerful against the powerless.

This was Shklar's "liberalism of fear" the wilful "inflicting pain ... in order to cause anguish". Shklar adopted a scepticism that didn't reject liberalism, but wanted to open it to voices too long silenced.

As war rages in Ukraine and China's authoritarianism challenges democracy, where is liberalism?

Do the voices of the 1930s and '40s the voices of tempered liberalism speak to us?

Joshua Cherniss says it is "fashionable to cheer the 'shipwreck' of liberalism and profitable to join in looting the wreckage".

He says we are again suffocated by those "who believe they are absolutely right; we again stand by as humanity is outraged".

The West is less sure of itself, and common ground is harder to find. Authoritarians present themselves with certainty.

That is the appeal, Chermiss says, of the "political strongmen speaking the language of greatness."

There is a need, he says, for ethical resistance and resilience. We need to embrace"heroic ambitions", as Judith Shklar says, "not the courage of the armed, but that of their likely victims".

In Ukraine, we are seeing courage. Ukrainians may well have their minds just on survival, not the task of saving liberalism for us all.

But when the guns eventually fall silent, Ukrainians like the rest of us will be wondering just what is this liberalism we are fighting for?

Stan Grant is the ABC's international affairs analyst and presents China Tonight on Monday at 9:35pm on ABC TV, and Tuesday at 8pm on the ABC News Channel, anda co-presenter of Q+A on Thursday at 8.30pm.

Link:
As war rages in Ukraine and China challenges democracy, where is liberalism and what does it stand for? - ABC News