Mediaboss Marketing

PUBLISHED: 10:23 04 January 2020 | UPDATED: 10:23 04 January 2020

The New European

Lib Dem MEPs on stage at the Liberal Democrats conference. Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA.

PA Wire/PA Images

Email this article to a friend

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

Become a Supporter

The New European is proud of its journalism and we hope you are proud of it too. If you value what we are doing, you can help us by making a contribution to the cost of our journalism

Andrew Adonis asks whether the Liberal Democrats now have a reason to exist. The answer is plain: now more than ever.

It may pain him to acknowledge the fact, but the Lib Dems (and Liberal Party before them) have been constant in their support of the European project since it began, through periods when his own party were the sceptics to the present, when Labour has been taken over by a Euro-doubtful hard left.

The arrogance of his claim that "if the majority of social democrats were where they belong, in the Labour Party, we would have a more equal two-party system" beggars belief. If the majority of social democrats were where they belong, in the Liberal Democrats, we'd have a more plausible pro-EU opposition to Johnson. It's hardly the Lib Dems' fault the Tories demolished Labour's red wall.

Roger Hughes

London

No, Andrew Adonis (TNE #175), the Lib Dems should not disband and join Labour.

I loathe the Tories but I live in a rural area where Labour has always been an irrelevance. I joined the Liberals in 1979 and all through the nightmare of the Thatcher years we gained more council seats at each election, eventually won control of the council and took the parliamentary seat in 1997. Lib Dems can beat the Tories in areas like this, Labour can't.

As for joining Labour, I wouldn't want to be a member of a party that allows members of the Socialist Workers Party not only to join but to control it; or of a party whose leadership ignored a party conference vote to campaign for a second referendum on Brexit; or for a party controlled by Len McCluskey, Seumas Milne and their sock puppets Corbyn, Long-Bailey or whoever succeeds him.

Like Andrew Adonis, I hope Keir Starmer wins the Labour leadership but I am not holding my breath.

Richard Palmer

Pucklechurch

You might have expected Labour's catastrophic failure to prompt a little humility, but no. Instead Andrew Adonis is calling for the Lib Dems to be disbanded.

Inconvenient fact: while Labour's vote collapsed, the Lib Dems' increased by three times more than the Tories'. But because of our undemocratic electoral system, the Lib Dems actually ended up with fewer MPs.

The Lib Dems have more than 2,500 local councillors in England and Wales. Does Andrew Adonis want them to be forced to join the Labour or Conservative parties too? And to hell with those who voted for them?

Oh and by the way, does he want the Greens disbanded as well, and what about other Remain parties like Plaid and the SNP?

If this is the best Labour can do, they're going to be in the wilderness for a very long time.

John Withington

London NW1

The election was resoundingly lost not by the Lib Dems but by a spiteful and incompetent Labour party which ran full-on campaigns against us in all Lib-Con marginals, apparently more interested in preventing defectors like Chuka Umunna and Luciana Berger from beating the Tories than actually winning the election. They also ran a concerted social media campaign against Jo Swinson herself.

Labour only win when the Lib Dems take some seats off the Tories which they cannot. A smart Labour Party would have sought to maximise this effect. Instead, they left their heartlands undefended and eschewed targeting other than to stymie Lib Dem success. This was a recipe for total disaster.

Ludovic Tolhurst-Cleaver

Trafford Lib Dems

- The fight may have changed but the cause remains. Buy The New European every Thursday to read the full mailbag of letters. To have your say email letters@theneweuropean and join our readers' group for more debate.

The New European is proud of its journalism and we hope you are proud of it too. We believe our voice is important - both in representing the pro-EU perspective and also to help rebalance the right wing extremes of much of the UK national press. If you value what we are doing, you can help us by making a contribution to the cost of our journalism.

Read the original post:
The Liberal Democrats are needed now more than ever - The New European

How in the world, the editors ask, can a professing Christian vote for and support President Trump? First off, the alternative was absolutely unthinkable. The Clintons had taken politics of personal advantage to an entirely new level. Bill, with a wink and that crooked smile, but Hillary has that icy stare and her cackling laugh. Had she been awarded a session in the Oval Office, she would have even accelerated Obamas openly anti-American maneuverings (he called it fundamental transformation), further eroding American distinction and diminishing international standing and domestic safety. The Clintons have demonstrated to their own personal advantage that government employment and positioning is the surest way to guarantee economic advantage and a measure of prominence, however fleeting. Unthinkable.

Curiously, most folks citing selected Scripture when criticizing the behavior of others, carefully edit the passage, skew the meaning and ignore the general message of Gods invitation to a relationship with him. Welcoming the stranger, or being kind to the oppressed, or helping the poor are surely bits of good advice mentioned in Scripture, yet most often suggested for someone else. Here again, show medont just tell me.

Trump policies have helped more poor by providing jobs (7 million) and encouragement all across the spectrum than all the government give-away programs of the last 60 years. Obama said it, Trump did it. Talks easy. Doing is hard. And none of this is possible without safety. Trump has bolstered the military and encouraged the troops, catching up a bit from years of diminished budgets and outright disdain.

Refugees and migrants, especially illegals, are much in the news and apparently in the hearts of noisy liberals. What about staying legal and enforcing some semblance of law and decorum? Generosity and assimilation are possible only from a position of strength and commitment, but todays liberal anything goes is a recipe for chaos. (Witness California and New York, both run by liberals)

Besides, if America and Capitalism are so despicable, why does most of the oppressed world want to come here, and sneak in if possible? Many refugees are being oppressed and even killed in their own countries by a belief system which is synonymous with death and oppression, yet truth cant even be mentioned lest one be called a bigot or worse.

Islam is incompatible with freedom, Syed Sajid Ahmad's columns notwithstanding. Why allow and encourage something known to be destructive? Human effort (works) have proven inadequate, yet mankind insists hell find the answer. Trump is the realist, and is telling the truth for the benefit of the country, even though liberals hate it and him. Liberalism destroys everything it touches.

Read more:
Letter: Liberalism destroys everything it touches - INFORUM

The Liberal government is postponingthenext round of its widely criticized family reunificationprogram while it looks into developing a new intake process, according to a statement fromImmigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.

The program allows Canadian citizens and permanent residents to apply to bring grandparents and parents to Canada.Critics have called the selection process unfair sinceall of theonline application spots were snapped up in just minutes earlier this year.

In its Monday statement, Immigration Canada said it's delaying the 2020 round as it works on a new intake system.

"This means that the opportunity to express interest in sponsoring a parent or grandparent will not take place on Jan. 1, 2020," reads the statement.

"Further information about the expected launch date and 2020 intake process will be available in the new year. This will give all interested sponsors the same opportunity to submit an interest-to-sponsor form and a fair chance to be invited to apply."

Jamie Liew, an immigration lawyer and professor at the University of Ottawa, said it's upsetting news for families who were hoping to apply this time around.

"It's a significant announcement in the fact it will impact a lot of people who have a lot of hope this time of year," she said.

"It is a significant thing that people who may have missed out on their opportunity last year are waiting for the opportunity this year. And to have that postponed must be disappointing for people who are separated from their families."

A spokesperson for Immigration Minister Marco Mendicino said the departmentwanted to give families aheads up that the application process won't be open inJanuary as it has beenin the last few years.

MathieuGenestsaid the government is "looking at all options" as it reviews the intent-to-sponsor form.

In a follow-up statement to CBC News on Monday night, Immigration Canada said the movewas made in"an effort to provide the best client service possible" and noted it"will begin the intake of new applications as early as possible in 2020."

Earlier this year, the government accepted 27,000 submissions for sponsoring parents or grandparentsand confirmed that more than 100,000 people had attempted to access an online form to express interest.

The online form opened Jan. 28 at noon ET, and closed less than nine minutes later,a processthatleft tens of thousands of people frustrated and furious because they couldn't access the form or fill it out fast enough.

Conservative Immigration Critic Peter Kent said in a statement Monday night, "It's clear that the Liberal'sclumsy and unfairprocessoffamily reunification demands a complete overhaul. First the Liberals instituted a lottery system, leaving family reunification to the 'luck of the draw.' Then, those following the rules were given minutes to submit their forms, and now they are left wondering when they can even apply to see their families again."

Liewsaid any reviewshould look at increasing the intake numbers.

"The system is not meeting the demand. That's the main problem," she said. "There's a greater interest and need to meet the expectations that we promote."

The Liberal government adopted the first-come, first-served online application system this year after scrapping a controversial lottery system for reuniting immigrant families. Thelottery system was contentious, with critics claiming it essentially gambledwith peoples' lives.

Thatprevious lottery process itself replaced another first-in system. Itwas unpopular because it led to long lineupsat the doors of the processing centre overnight and had people paying place-holders in the queue to deliver applications prepared by consultants or lawyers.

In May,CBC reported that the federal government made a secret settlement to quash two lawsuits that claimed the online application processwas flawed and unfair.

To resolve the group litigation, the government awarded at least 70 coveted spots to applicants, allowing them to sponsor their parents' or grandparents'immigration to Canada.

More here:
Parent and grandparent reunification program reopening postponed as Liberals look at new system - CBC.ca

Across the free world, the rise of populism and the decline of open debate has stressed our traditional democratic and societal institutions. New parties and movements are emerging to represent constituencies that have little connection to the political ideologies of the past. In an ongoing series, the National Post asks: What does conservatism mean in Canada today? Is there a set of principles that self-identified conservatives could agree on, and that political parties running on right-of-centre platforms would embrace? Would the countrys historical conservative thinkers recognize the movement as it stands today? To contribute, please send pitches to submissions@nationalpost.com. In todays instalment, Bruce Pardy writes how Canada really needs liberals, not progressives.

Since the federal election, Conservatives have been wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth. They lost to a weak, economically incompetent, scandal-plagued party of virtue-signallers led by a man-child. Meanwhile, elsewhere in the Western world, conservative parties are riding high. So what gives? In Canada, Conservatives dont know who they are or what they stand for. During the campaign they pretended to be both conservative and progressive: to simultaneously believe in traditional values but also in victimhood and identity politics. That made the Conservatives, not the Liberals, the party of hypocrisy no small feat in an election in which the virtue-signaller-in-chief was caught wearing blackface.

In Canada, Conservatives dont know who they are or what they stand for

The answer to the Conservatives troubles is not to choose between conservatism and progressivism but to ditch both. In Canada, social conservatives are political dinosaurs. Andrew Scheer discovered that any whiff of sentiment against gay marriage, for example, was toxic, even when accompanied by an undertaking not to pursue those sentiments in a legislative agenda. Progressivism, on the other hand, is almost universal. All parties who won seats in the House of Commons are progressive and the CPC will never win that contest. But that is the key. Liberals are not liberal but progressive, which is quite a different thing. In fact, Liberals have no idea what a liberal really is. The sweet spot for Conservatives is the space that the Liberals have long vacated. To win, Conservatives must be liberals.

So what is a liberal, really? Libertas is Latin for liberty and Liberal shares the same root (liber). In the political realm, liberalism originally (or classically) denoted holding a philosophy based upon the concept of individual freedom. Hence classical liberalism is a set of beliefs that has at its root a conviction that the purpose of civilized society is to provide for the liberty of the individual. Dont tell me what to do is the liberal mantra. Real liberals believe that people should largely control their own lives that they should be free to say what they think, to have sex with and marry whom they please, to worship as they wish, to buy and sell what they want, to be responsible for themselves and to leave other people alone.

The modern version of liberalism means essentially the opposite. It embraces an expansive welfare state, extensive regulation of individual behaviour and speech, redistribution of wealth, unequal application of the law in pursuit of equality of outcome and myriad other managerial policies. Those who now call themselves Liberals in the political realm are now illiberal in their sensibilities and aspirations. Governments supervise, subsidize and control virtually every aspect of modern life: markets and financial systems, public schools and universities, health care, media, food production, energy production, telecom services, the professions and even speech. Our courts do not believe in equal application of the law. We are eroding the presumption of innocence and other aspects of due process. We have abandoned even the expectation that laws will be written, clear and understandable to all. Instead citizens are subject to the arbitrary discretion of government agencies that pursue their own agendas. Identity politics reign and the surveillance state steadily expands.

Conservatives have shown no serious objection to any of it and indeed have pitched in to make Canada not a liberal country. The CPC has muzzled politically incorrect speech, defended supply management, promoted ideological training for judges, tried to bribe voters with their own money, pushed climate change hysteria (while rejecting the most conservative instrument, the Liberal carbon tax, in favour of statist regulation) and expressed no concern for the erosion of fundamental freedoms. The Conservative election platform was merely a pale version of full-on Liberal illiberalism with an occasional hint of Bible-thumping intolerance. Were they trying to win over imaginary voters who oppose gay marriage but support the coerced use of non-gendered pronouns?

The Conservative election platform was merely a pale version of full-on Liberal illiberalism

Disenfranchised Canadians are fed up with identity politics, authoritarian victimhood and scolding from righteous elites telling them what to think and how to behave. They are liberals in the true sense of the word steady, reasonable, fair-minded, hard-working people who believe in freedom of speech and in the idea that the same rules should apply to everyone. As Yasmine Mohammed, author of Unveiled: How Western Liberals Empower Radical Islam, wrote in the National Post, if Canadian conservatism upheld Western and enlightenment values loudly, unapologetically, and with conviction, then millions of us disillusioned with the Liberal party would proudly mark a big X next to the Conservative representative at the ballot box. Large swaths of Canadians have no political home and are wondering where their country went. Conservatives should help them get it back. Perhaps liberals, not Liberals, are the natural governing party of Canada.

Bruce Pardy is professor of law at Queens University.

Email: pardyb@queensu.ca | Twitter:

Go here to read the rest:
Right Now: The Liberals aren't liberals anymore but the Conservatives can and must be - National Post

Illustrated | NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP via Getty Images, Aerial3/iStock, MicrovOne/iStock

December 18, 2019

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

I don't know how to put this delicately, so I will just out with it, in the hope of sparing the feelings of as many New York Times columnists as possible: The American people are not all that shot up with impeachment.

It's true that polls show that many of us are broadly in favor of it, whatever that means (though others also show, oddly enough, Trump beating every single one of the roughly 437 Democratic hopefuls). But even those who will blandly affirm their support for the process in a poll were not exactly taking to the streets on Tuesday night.

Impeachment was always going to be like this: one of those pet causes beloved of (mostly wealthy or very young) liberal activists and very serious people in the media. The rest of the country, whatever they think about Donald Trump, have more important things to do than develop detailed and passionate opinions about the contents of the House's nearly 700-page impeachment report. As soon as it became clear that "Trump Ukraine impeachment" was not going to be a story involving Eurasian hookers and coke and urine-related videocassettes, people started tuning it out. Bill Clinton's impeachment also divided the country 20 years ago, but for some reason people seemed to care more about the details.

All of this was, as I say, predictable. So too were the increasingly serious-sounding negative repercussions from impeachment in crucial states like Wisconsin and Michigan. This is the price you pay for a self-aggrandizing cynical strategy long opposed by your own party's leadership.

What I don't understand is why so so many of the president's critics are still pouting. Gee, it's so disappointing that you got exactly what you wanted and roughly half of the American people nominally agree with you about it. What a pity that ordinary working men and women feel like they have better things to do than join the rent-a-protester mobs being put on by various well-endowed SuperPACs to protest what, exactly? This impeachment game has been going on for a long time. Everyone knew what the final score would be.

So why shouldn't Trump's opponents enjoy impeachment for what it's been that is, a massive if mostly symbolic victory? They got under the old lizard's skin. They made it almost impossible for him to pursue infrastructure or any of the other things he campaigned on. They are living rent-free in his head and rarely leave their apartments. The same goes for his supporters. So have some fun. Invite friends over. Tweet your pronouns, thank your local graduate student or journo union, bathe in avocado liqueur, or whatever it is that people slightly to the left of Joe Lieberman are popularly supposed to do in the right-wing imagination. It doesn't matter what the lumpenproletariat think. Just keep dancing on your own.

Liberals will be glad they did six months from now, when they find themselves in the exact same position they did four years ago: trying to prevent the guy who once got paid millions of dollars to pretend to fire Gary Busey on television from being duly elected president of the United States. They thought it would be easy in 2016. They should know better now.

Powered By ZergNet

View original post here:
Wait did liberals actually think they'd remove Trump from office? - The Week