Mediaboss Marketing

"[He] is given the opportunity to speak second in cabinet after the Premier and can speak for as long as he likes," one Liberal minister said. "Not once in the past nine months has he raised this koala policy, then expects us to agree to his demands. You will not find a single Liberal minister, from the left or a conservative, who thinks we can work with this man. We will not work with Barilaro."

The fracturing of the Coalition was sparked by a policy designed to protect koala habitat, which the Nationals say would severely limit the way property owners could manage their land.

After an ultimatum from Premier Gladys Berejiklian, Mr Barilaro on Friday ruled out taking his Nationals MPs to the crossbench over the policy, in a move that would have stripped the government of its majority.

Ms Berejiklian had told Mr Barilaro to withdraw the threat or she would sign in a new all-Liberal ministry.

After backing down, Mr Barilaro claimed a win in the crisis, insisting he had secured a commitment that the policy would be debated at cabinet.

But Ms Berejiklian had already agreed to the cabinet discussion and said earlier in the week the "issue would be considered by cabinet in due course". It will remain on the agenda for a meeting on October 5.

Liberal ministers are furious at the tactics used by the Nationals and have said they will not negotiate with the junior Coalition partner while Mr Barilaro is leader.

I think what we have seen out of John Barilaro is the greatest act of political bastardry in quite some time.

"Why would we ever reward bad behaviour?" asked one senior minister, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "He was prepared to destroy the government and now expects us to work with him."

Another Liberal minister said Mr Barilaro "would be sidelined in cabinet and ERC [expenditure review committee]", while another said the Nationals needed to identify their priorities.

"Is hanging on to John Barilaro more important than hanging on to their seats at the next election because the two are mutually exclusive. We simply cannot work with this man," the minister said.

Another minister said there could be "some small changes to the guidelines of the policy" but nothing Mr Barilaro brought to cabinet would be considered.

Mr Barilaro was contacted for comment. A spokesman from his office said they had received "1100 emails of support" after the Nationals had threatened to move en masse to the crossbench.

Nationals upper house MP Sam Farraway said the ministers were "cowards" for speaking anonymously and the government should be "getting a policy outcome for the agriculture and timber industry".

While Mr Barilaro's MPs were insisting he had their "absolute support", Police Minister David Elliott said on Friday the Liberals' relationship with Mr Barilaro would now be unworkable.

Loading

"I think what we have seen out of John Barilaro is the greatest act of political bastardry in quite some time," Mr Elliott said.

Yesterday Nationals MPs had largely gone to ground.

Opposition Leader Jodi McKay has indicated her intention to move a vote of no confidence against the government when Parliament resumes this week.

NSW Nationals state director Joe Lundy said he was aware of some new memberships and others "getting in touch" to praise the party leadership over the stand-off.

"Our members expect us to fight for the issues that are important to them. And if we are not standing up for those issues then who is?" he said.

Mr Lundy said it was not necessarily a "city v country" issue, but that regions want their issues heard.

Alexandra Smith is the State Political Editor of The Sydney Morning Herald.

Lucy Cormack is a state political reporter with TheSydney Morning Herald.

Here is the original post:
'The message is simple': Liberals refuse to work with Nationals if Barilaro remains leader - Sydney Morning Herald

Canada's two main federal political parties took in less money from individual donations during the second quarter of this year compared withthe same time in 2018 the last non-election yearas the financial slowdown caused by the COVID-19 pandemic continues.

According to financialreturns released by Elections Canada this week, the Liberals and Conservatives together raised more than$6.2million in donations between April and June of this year, which is almost $3millionless thanthey raised during the same period in 2018.

Donations are always highest during election years, so comparisons with 2019 would not be relevant.

The drop in donations coincides with the period when the economy came to a virtual standstill as Canadians stayed home to help prevent the spread of COVID-19.

The Conservatives led the pack by pulling in donations from individualstotalling more than$3.5millionin the second quarter of 2018. The party also received about$436,000 in transfers from candidates in its ongoing leadership campaign, for a total of just over $4 million. Theparty raised more than$6 millionfrom bothdonations and transfers during the same period in 2018.

The Liberals pulled in $2.6 million in individual donations this year, compared withjust under$3.1 million in 2018.

The three smaller parties,meanwhile, saw theirdonation totals increase compared with2018.

The New Democratic Partyreceived $1.3 million this year compared withjust $872,000 two years ago, while the Bloc Qubcoisreceived $131,000 in donations, up from a meagre $42,000 two years ago.

The Green Party took in more than$633,000 from individuals and more than$87,000 from its leadership candidates for a total of slightly more than $721,000, up from $572,000 two years ago.

The numbers offer the first significant look into how the pandemic has affected the fundraising efforts of federal political parties.

The $8.2million raisedby all parties from individual donations between April and Juneis a slight decrease from the approximately $8.4million they raised during the firstquarter between January and March. A CBC News analysis found that March 2020 when the novel coronavirus began to shut down businesses and schools in Canada appears to have been the worst March for fundraising in Canadasince March 2006.

Parties had to halt their in-person fundraising events in March after the country went into lockdown. Emails and other messages soliciting money from donors were also temporarily suspended or altered to encourage people to pitch in only if they could.

"We know that not everyone is in a position to give right now, and that's OK. Your involvement means the world to our whole team and we're so grateful to have you standing with us no matter what," one Liberal party email sent in May told supporters.

"If you're able, though, please show your support and chip in $5 today to support our progress for Canadians (or whatever amount feels right for you at the moment)."

These messages have shifted in recent weeks to more traditional pushes for support as pandemic restrictions have lifted and businesses have started reopening.

The Conservatives have also begun asking party faithful to chip in to an "early election fund," with the message that the Liberals "could call an election at any time."

See the article here:
Liberals, Conservatives see drop in donations during height of COVID-19 pandemic - CBC.ca

Published: 7/31/2020 11:26:40 AM

In his book, Bias, former CBS news reporter Bernard Goldberg claims that there is a liberal bias in the national news media. He writes The bias Im talking about, by the way, isnt so much political bias of the Democratic-versus-Republican sort. For me that isnt the real problem. The problem comes in the big social and cultural issues abortion, gun control, feminism ,gay rights, the environment, school prayer.

Nowhere in his list do any of the economic and financial struggles of the poor, the near-poor, the lower classes, and the middle classes appear.

He is among a number of conservatives who seem to suggest that the liberals of the 1960s were primarily concerned with the bread-and-butter issues of survival of these groups as well as with expanding the social safety-net federal government programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps), while the progressives of 2020 seem to be primarily concerned with the social, identity-politics and culture-wars issues.

To the extent that this is accurate. You can put me down as siding more with the liberals of the 1960s than with the progressives of 2020.

(This letter to the editor is dedicated to the Suffragist Alice Paul.)

Stewart B. Epstein

Rochester, N.Y.

Read the original here:
Liberals and progressives - The Recorder

After soaring in the polls for months thanks to the government's handling of the pandemic, support for the federal Liberals is now taking a hit from the WE Charity controversy.

But that outbreak-induced polling surge has provided Prime Minister Justin Trudeau with a bit of a cushion one that likelywould still win him an election if one were held today.

That may not be the case for very long if the Liberals can't arrest their slide in the polls, however.

After COVID-19 shut the country down, the Liberals saw their support increase significantly. It rose from just under 30 per cent in early March to over 40 per cent at the beginning of June, according to the CBC's Poll Tracker.

Since then, the Liberals have been dropping.

Four different pollsters have conducted surveys since July 13, when Trudeau first apologized for his failure to recuse himself from the decision to award the WE Charity the contract for a summer student grant program. They've all recorded drops in Liberal support.

Compared to surveys conducted before July3 when the government announced it was dropping its partnership with WE and the ethics commissioner said he was looking into the matter Abacus Data put the Liberals down four percentage points in its latest poll. The Innovative Research Group (IRG) had the Liberals down just a single point, while EKOS Research recorded the Liberals slipping six points.

The most recent survey, by Lger, put the Liberals down five points since the end of June ending a remarkably steady stream of polls showing the Liberals hovering around the 40 per cent mark.

On average, these four pollsters have put the Liberals down four points compared to pre-WE polling. The Conservatives, New Democrats and Bloc Qubcoiseach haveaveraged a gain of one point.

The Poll Tracker which is designed to react more slowly to new trends outside of the urgency of an election campaign has the Liberals down 2.3 points since their peak in early June.

Trudeau's own personal ratings have taken a bigger hit. According to Nanos Research's rolling four-week poll, Trudeau is the preferred choice as prime minister of 34 per cent of Canadians. That's down seven points from mid-June. The Angus Reid Institute (ARI), which pegged Trudeau's approval rating at 55 per cent in May, now puts it at 44 per cent.

It's clear that the WE controversy is at the root of this drop in support for both Trudeau and the Liberals. Among those polled by IRG who said they had read, heard or seen something about the prime minister in recent days, 72 per cent pointed to the WE controversy and among those people, 66 per cent said it gave them a less favourable impression of Trudeau, compared to just five per cent who said it improved their image of him.

While these shifts in public opinion are significant, they nevertheless leave the Liberals in a better position now than they were before the COVID-19 outbreak.

In early March, the Poll Tracker put the Liberals two percentage points behind the Conservatives in national support. The Poll Tracker currently puts theLiberal lead over the Conservatives at10 points. Even the worst recent poll for the Liberals still gave them a lead of three points.

With a 10-point lead, the Liberals would be favoured to win a majority government. But even if that lead was reduced to three points, the party likelywould still win a bigger minority government than the one it currently has(the Liberals lost the popular vote by 1.3 percentage points last October, after all).

Trudeau's own approval had fallen to 33 per cent in ARI's polling in February. It was 35 per cent just before the last election. While the prime minister's latest result of 44 per cent approval is the outcome ofa big reduction over the last few weeks, it's a number Trudeau would have been lucky to get last fall.

The reason that the picture for the Liberals is rosierthan it otherwise mightbe is that the governing party's main opponent is not taking advantage of its current troubles.

The Conservatives have the same level of support in the Poll Tracker now thatthey did when the Liberals were at their pandemic peak. No national poll has awarded them more than 31 per cent support among decided voters in over three months.

Regionally, the party is trailing the Liberals by double digits in the key battlegrounds of Ontario and British Columbia and has less support in Quebec than it did last fall.

The Conservatives' current lack ofa permanent leader undoubtedly is a handicap. Andrew Scheer, who announced in December he would resign once his replacement was chosen, has only become less popular since losing the election in October.

But it's not a given that his replacement will be better placed to capitalize on Liberal woes. Polling by Lger in June found that former cabinet minister Peter MacKay scored no better than a generic Conservative leader. Ontario MP Erin O'Toole, the other front-runner in the party's leadership race, did worse.

The latest survey from IRG found that fewer than 20 per cent of respondents held a favourable view of the two Conservative front-runners. Polls suggest Derek Sloan and Leslyn Lewis, the other two contestants, remain largely unknown to voters.

If the Liberals halt their slide in the polls, they could end the summer in a relatively decent position perhaps a better one than they could reasonablyhave expected to be in at the beginning of 2020.

But how likely is it that the party can stop the bleeding?

According to ARI, just 29 per cent of Canadians see the WE controversy as "overblown" and just 12 per cent believe it is a "simple mistake or error in judgment." The rest are split over whether it was criminal or merely unethical.

How that opinion splitsis important, though. It is predominantly Conservative supporters who see the government's actions as possibly criminal, while it's mostly Liberals and New Democrats who see it as unethical (but not criminal) or a simple mistake.

ARI found that Trudeau's approval ratings have taken the steepest dive among NDP and Conservativevoters. But they are still higher among these groups than they were before the pandemic.

Because of the political capital the Liberals have built up throughtheir handling of COVID-19, the party has a chance to weather this storm. While the Conservatives remain stagnant, the Liberal base is enough to win an election. The supporters they've picked up in the last few months the ones they have not lost because of the WE controversy over the last few weeks give them some wiggle room.

But the pandemic is also far from over and Canadians' views of the federal government's handling of the emergency are dimming. Lger found satisfaction with the government's management of the crisis is down six percentage points since the end of June to 73 per cent. Satisfaction with provincial and municipal handling of the outbreak has dropped just three points over that time.

And more political fallout from the WE controversy is likely; Trudeau will testify at committee on Thursday and the Bloc has announced it might try to force an election in the fall if Trudeau and Finance Minister Bill Morneau do not resign.

Still, despite the hits they've taken, the Liberals would be the favourites to win a snap vote now. But they'll lose that edge if the hits keep coming.

See original here:
Polls suggest Liberals would still win an election despite WE controversy but only if the bleeding stops - CBC.ca

BILL BLACK

The decision to investigate the mass-shooting tragedy via a joint independent review had a very short life.

The affected families and communities had been calling for months for a public inquiry, which would have greater independence and the ability to compel witnesses to provide written or oral evidence, and to supply relevant documentation when asked.

Nevertheless, the provincial and federal governments announced the weaker review process. It would be less independent of government, which would have both the interim and final reports to consider before they would be shared with the public. The documents and other evidence they received were to be kept confidential.

To make matters worse, they attributed the choice to exclude the full participation of the families on the theory that it would protect them from further trauma. They had no reason to believe that was what the families wanted, and would have learned that if they bothered to ask.

When announcing the review, Attorney General and Minister of Justice Mark Furey confidently asserted that: the government of Nova Scotia is committed to ensuring that they, and all Nova Scotians, get the answers they deserve. We have heard the calls for an independent and impartial review into why and how this happened, and for timely recommendations that will make our communities safer. This joint review will achieve these outcomes.

This confidence was misplaced, as he must have known. There were demonstrations by the affected families and their supporters, and widespread media criticism. Over the weekend, five Liberal members of Parliament from Nova Scotia broke ranks and joined the criticism of their own government.

When that happened, Furey decided to abandon ship:

I have heard from family members and many Nova Scotians who are opposed to a joint review of the tragic events of April 18 and 19 and would prefer a joint public inquiry ...

If the federal government agrees to a joint public inquiry where federal agencies including the RCMP, Canada Border Services Agency, Criminal Intelligence Services Canada, Canadian Firearms Registry and the Public Alert Ready System will participate and offer testimony, I will support that and so will our government.

A few hours later, Bill Blair, his federal counterpart, fell in line. There will be a full inquiry after all. In response, Furey provided the following statement:

We heard overwhelmingly from families, survivors and Nova Scotians on the importance of a public inquiry regarding the tragic events of April 18 and 19. Our government wanted an inquiry from Day 1, but we also needed the federal government at the table. I am pleased that the federal government now supports a joint inquiry.

That is different from the deferential tone of Premier Stephen McNeil in May: There will be a review, Im sure. Its our belief that the national government will lead that as they see fit (and) we as a provincial government will provide the support where we can.

If they were unhappy with the review format, why didnt Furey and McNeil say so a week ago?

More to the point, what were the federal Liberals thinking? They should have known that the review announcement was going to be unpopular. Why would they make it worse by providing a rationale that was transparently false?

Being forced unwillingly into an inquiry will reinforce suspicions that they have something to hide. Families will be watching like hawks to see if either government fails to provide any evidence requested by the inquiry.

Other collateral damage is the loss of caucus discipline. That wall having been breached, there will likely be other occasions.

This continues a pattern that so far has mostly revolved around Justin Trudeau. His initial responses on awkward questions on free vacations from the Agha Khan (He is a close family friend ), SNC-Lavalin (The Globe and Mail story that there was pressure on Jody Wilson-Raybould is false ...), and the failure to recuse himself on the WE contract (I needed to be there because I know so much about the topic ) all fell apart under scrutiny, but not before making a bad situation worse.

It is hard to know whether the miscue around investigating the Portapique tragedy was just a bad day at the office, or reflects a persistent Liberal belief that they can bamboozle Canadians.

RELATED:

Read the original:
BILL BLACK: Review vs. inquiry why did the Liberals get it wrong the first time? - Cape Breton Post