Mediaboss Marketing

The New Democratic Party is sitting in fourth place after the fall's divisive federal election and its leader Jagmeet Singh says he is not interested in partnering with the Conservatives to overwhelm Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Liberal minority.

In a year-end interview with The Canadian Press, Singh acknowledged there could be political expediency in having his New Democrats turn to the Conservatives to either defeat or dominate the Liberals.

But Singh has no plans to go down that road.

"When it comes to the values that I have and have been pushing for, I don't see an alignment with the values the Conservatives have pushed forward," he said.

The NDP and Liberals found themselves in a war of words during the fall election campaign to prove which party was more progressive, especially after the New Democrats lost many of the seats they gained in the 2011 "orange wave" to the Liberals in 2015

In general, a weakened Liberal party is good for both the New Democrats and the Conservatives.

Despite this and despite the fact the NDP often struggles to differentiate itself from the Liberal party in its policies, Singh said he still couldn't imagine teaming up with the Conservatives even under a new leader, with Andrew Scheer's recent resignation.

"My goal isn't to defeat the Liberals. My goal is to push them to do better," he said.

Singh said he wants progressive laws that he believes are priorities for many Canadians, including to create national programs to cover drug costs and dental care.

However, Trudeau would be wise not to presume his offer of political help comes without strings, Singh said.

"The frame that I take is the Liberals need to work with somebody. They have 13 votes that they need in this minority government. So they need to get that support from somewhere. I put it out there that I am willing to be that person that supports them," Singh said.

But if the Liberals' goal is to simply "cruise along" and hold onto power, Singh said he's out.

"My leverage and my encouragement comes from if you need something passed that's meaningful, I'm right here. I'm ready to do it. But I'm not going to be taken for granted. I'm not going to support them blindly if it's not good for people."

Singh and his New Democratic Party had a roller-coaster of a year, beginning with Singh spending much of his time in British Columbia in a bid to win a seat in the House of Commons. He won his Burnaby South seat in a February byelection, but appearances in question period and the halls of Parliament did not translate into an immediate bump for the party.

The New Democrats struggled with fundraising after finishing 2018 with nearly $4.5 million in negative net assets the party's worst balance sheet since 2001.

A mass of recognized and well-respected NDP MPs retiring dealt further blows to party morale.

The NDP wasn't able to match the Liberals' and Conservatives' advertising during the campaign, thanks to its smaller war chest, and also only chartered a campaign plane for the last 12 days of the race.

Many pundits were predicting the NDP could lose official party status, thanks to these factors and low polling numbers at the start of the campaign.

However, Singh was able to turn his infectious, seemingly bottomless enthusiasm into upward momentum mid-race. Polling numbers started rising, crowds at his rallies started getting bigger and the spotlight started shining more positively in Singh's direction.

But the momentum didn't translate into enough votes to keep the NDP from losing seats.

The party was reduced to fourth place in the House of Commons behind the Liberals, Conservatives and Bloc Qubcois after winning just 24 seats, down from the 39 it held before the Oct. 21 vote.

The party's losses were especially deep in Quebec, where it lost all but one of 16 seats the party had held onto in 2015.

Singh attributes this to his being new to the federal scene. This election was his "introduction to Canada" and to Quebec, "where I had the biggest introduction to make," he said.

The campaign also saw heated debate among federal leaders over Quebec's controversial law banning religious symbols like hijabs, turbans, kippahs and prominent crucifixes for some civil servants a law that is widely popular among Quebec voters.

Watch: The NDP leader talks about working with the Liberals

Singh admits the law, known as Bill 21, could have played a part in his party's major losses in the province. Singh is a practising Sikh known for his brightly coloured turbans and he wears a symbolic knife.

"I think it was divisive as a bill and I think divisive bills will encourage or create more division. And that might impact me as someone, on first glance if there is something promoting division, because I look different."

Many people face discrimination based on race, gender or country of origin, Singh said, and he hopes to be a voice for those people and show he's willing to take a stand against it and to try to win over the "hearts and minds" of Quebecers.

Looking to 2020, Singh says he hopes to work with the Liberals to implement a universal, single-payer pharmacare program and national dental coverage and to see Indigenous communities finally given access to clean drinking water, housing and equitable child-welfare funding.

He says that even though Canada may be experiencing divisive politics and policies, he believes there is reason to hope.

"While we live in a beautiful place, it's an incredible country. There's so much more that unites us than divides us and there's this real, strong belief that people want to take care of their neighbours. And I want to build on that feeling of camaraderie."

Excerpt from:
From fourth place, Singh says he'd rather push Liberals than work with Tories - CBC.ca

Posted December 21, 2019 05:00:59

Some Liberal MPs are becoming frustrated with the Federal Government's inability to sell its climate change policies and believe the chief salesman, Angus Taylor, is part of the problem.

In the midst of a seemingly relentless drought, record-breaking heatwave and bushfire crisis that's choking cities with smoke, debate about Australia's role in tackling the global challenge has become even more supercharged than usual.

People are getting anxious and "this is not normal" the phrase employed by New South Wales Liberal Minister Matt Kean to describe the apocalyptic skies above Sydney could well become the catch cry of this summer.

Liberal insiders know it is a hot issue and they know voters are increasingly looking to the Government to do something "more".

At a recent meeting of Liberal MPs and senators, the party's federal director Andrew Hirst identified climate change and the economy as the biggest issues confronting the country.

It was an obvious statement but one that carried an important message to the sceptics in the room: don't get caught flat-footed.

"It is a massive issue and we have got to engage on it," said one Liberal who was in the meeting.

Another echoed that sentiment, telling the ABC "we need to demonstrate to the community that we take climate change seriously".

"We've been all over the place on climate change for the past decade," the MP said.

Comparisons have been made between the current circumstances and the "perfect storm" which confronted then prime minister John Howard in 2006, when growing community concerns forced him to reverse his government's stance on climate change.

It was seen as too little, too late and Mr Howard went on to lose government, and his seat, at the following federal election.

The Morrison Government is under pressure to develop a more coherent policy, possibly through a market mechanism, and adopt a more ambitious emissions reduction target (beyond the promised 26 per cent cut by 2030).

But having ruled out so many measures, the Government's options from here are limited and even those MPs pushing for stronger action are not exactly clear on what that action should be.

Notwithstanding the bungled handling of his pre-Christmas family holiday to Hawaii, Scott Morrison has been careful in his language.

As Treasurer, he famously (or infamously) brought a lump of coal into Parliament, proudly holding it up in Question Time to demonstrate his support for the industry.

As Prime Minister, he has acknowledged that climate change is a "factor" in the current bushfire crisis, and insists Australia is cutting emissions in line with its targets, and "playing its part" in the global challenge (emphasis on "global").

That message, according to many of his colleagues, is either not cutting through or not well understood, and they lay at least part of the blame at the feet of the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, Angus Taylor.

"I think the biggest problem we face is not so much our suite of policy measures, it's our credibility and sincerity and spokespeople," said one Liberal.

"Angus doesn't have the ability to sell a positive climate change message."

Another MP said Mr Taylor was "not the best person" to be selling the Government's policies, because he was seen (rightly or wrongly) as a "pro-coal climate change denier" who played a key role in the downfall of the Turnbull government's energy policy (which was designed to curb emissions).

The Minister has publicly denied being a climate change sceptic, and he has his defenders who believe the Rhodes Scholar is well credentialed to run the energy portfolio (his grandfather helped build the Snowy Hydro Scheme).

But he has also become a distraction for the Government and ended the year by inflicting enormous damage on himself, using doctored figures to attack the City of Sydney's commitment to tackling climate change.

So far, Mr Morrison has stood by Mr Taylor, refusing to give Labor a political "scalp" so early in his Prime Ministership.

But when the 112 Coalition MPs and Senators return to Parliament having spent Summer listening to their constituents' concerns, Mr Taylor will likely come under serious pressure from his colleagues to devise a more compelling Coalition strategy if not policy on climate.

Topics:government-and-politics,federal-parliament,federal-government,climate-change,liberals,australia

Read more from the original source:
As the nation breaks new heat records, the Government is facing its own perfect storm - ABC News

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, seen here in a year-end interview with The Canadian Press in Ottawa on Dec. 18, 2019, defended his conduct while acknowledging he could have handled the SNC-Lavalin file better.

Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press

The Liberal government says it played no role in the settlement of criminal charges against SNC-Lavalin 10 months after a political scandal over the prosecution of the Montreal engineering giant ensnared Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his inner circle.

The Prime Minister defended his conduct Wednesday while acknowledging he could have handled the SNC-Lavalin file better.

Obviously, as we look back over the past year and this issue, there are things we could have, should have, would have done differently had we known, had we known all sorts of different aspects of it, he said in a year-end interview with The Canadian Press. This process unfolded in an independent way and we got to an outcome that seems positive for everyone involved, particularly for the workers.

Story continues below advertisement

Justice Minister David Lametti said he learned of the settlement this week.

He said Kathleen Roussel, the director of Public Prosecutions Service Canada (PPSC), informed him on Tuesday that a division of SNC-Lavalin had agreed to plead guilty to a single charge of fraud and will pay a $280-million fine and abide by a three-year probation order.

Editorial: SNC-Lavalin got what it wanted. Its still a win for the rule of law

Opinion: SNC-Lavalins plea deal leaves no winners, only losers

This decision was made independently by the PPSC, as part of their responsibility to continually assess and determine the appropriate path for cases under their jurisdiction, Mr. Lametti said Wednesday. Canadians can have confidence that our judicial and legal systems are working as they should.

The case was resolved without the deferred prosecution agreement that the Prime Minister and his top aides had aggressively pushed when they claimed it was necessary to save the company from a ruinous criminal prosecution that could have barred the company from bidding on federal contracts for up to a decade.

The company said Wednesday it does not anticipate that the [guilty] plea will have any long-term material adverse impact on the companys overall business.

The department of Public Services and Procurement did not immediately answer whether the settlement means SNC-Lavalin is spared from a ban on bidding for federal contracts.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is pleased that workers at SNC-Lavalin won't suffer as a result of the company's guilty plea to a criminal charge in a Montreal court Wednesday. It would have been good to know how this would play out a year ago, before a scandal over the attempt to get the company a different deal rocked his government, he says, but there are no do-overs in politics. The Canadian Press

University of Ottawa law professor Jennifer Quaid said its her understanding Wednesdays court decision does not trigger a federal ban on SNC-Lavalin bidding on contracts because the offence to which its division pleaded guilty fraud against an entity other than the Crown is not one of the crimes that would result in such a debarment.

Story continues below advertisement

The bribery charge that SNC had previously faced would have triggered a ban on federal bidding but it was dropped by the federal prosecution service as part of this plea settlement, she said.

The prosecution of the Quebec company triggered a political crisis for the governing Liberals after The Globe and Mail reported that then-attorney-general Jody Wilson-Raybould was pressed by Mr. Trudeau and senior staff to settle bribery and fraud charges against SNC-Lavalin without a trial, using a new legal measure known as a deferred prosecution agreement.

The guilty plea by SNC without a DPA is proof that Jody Wilson-Raybould was right to stay the course and that the relentless pressure from Prime Minister Trudeau and his surrogates amounted to interference, Conservative foreign affairs critic Erin OToole told The Globe.

The Conservatives have accused Mr. Trudeau and his top aides of trying to obstruct justice.

In the new minority Parliament, the opposition parties could force a parliamentary inquiry into SNC-Lavalins efforts to avoid a criminal prosecution for fraud and bribery charges and the role played by the Prime Ministers Office.

The justification for either the justice committee or the ethics committee to investigate is pretty overwhelming," Conservative MP Peter Kent said. "One would hope the Bloc Qubcois and the NDP would support the Official Opposition in getting it done.

Story continues below advertisement

On the eve of the fall election, the RCMP sought and were denied access to cabinet documents and key witnesses involved in the SNC-Lavalin affair with the Trudeau government citing cabinet privilege and confidentiality.

The RCMP would not say Wednesday if they are still examining whether to launch a criminal investigation into obstruction of justice.

Ms. Wilson-Raybould paid a heavy price when she refused to buckle under political pressure from the Prime Ministers Office to grant a deferred prosecution agreement to SNC-Lavalin.

On Wednesday, she said on Twitter: 2019 began with very public questions about the rule of law in our country. I am glad to see it end with that principle being upheld. The justice system did its work. It is time to move forward and for the company to look to its future.

The Quebec engineering and construction giant had heavily lobbied Mr. Trudeau and the PMO to bring in DPA legislation and renewed its efforts after Ms. Roussel refused to to drop the bribery and fraud charges against the company and allow it to pay fine, without acknowledging any guilt.

When Ms. Wilson-Raybould refused to override Ms. Roussel, the Prime Minister demoted her to veterans affairs minister.

Story continues below advertisement

In the fallout from The Globe revelations, Ms. Wilson-Raybould and colleague Jane Philpott resigned from cabinet. Mr. Trudeau later kicked them out of the Liberal caucus and party. Both ran as independents in the Oct. 21 election with Ms. Wilson-Raybould winning her Vancouver Granville riding and Ms. Philpott losing her Ontario seat.

I have long believed in the essential necessity of our judicial system operating as it should based on the rule of law and prosecutorial independence, and without political interference or pressure, Ms. Wilson-Raybould said of Wednesdays court settlement.

NDP MP Charlie Angus said Ms. Wilson-Raybould deserves the countrys gratitude for refusing to give into the snake like behaviour of the Prime Ministers Office to try cut a deal for SNC-Lavalin.

I have seen people kicked out of caucus for all manner of things but I have never seen anyone kicked out caucus and a party for standing up for the rule of law, Mr. Angus said. If she hadnt done that, who knows what kind of deal would have been shaken down for SNC-Lavalin.

Mr. Angus said the Prime Minister and his top aides kept saying the company could go under and that 9,000 jobs could be lost, which never happened.

In a report released in August, Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion said Mr. Trudeau and senior officials violated the Conflict of Interest Act by improperly pressing Ms. Wilson-Raybould to order the Public Prosecution Service to grant a DPA to SNC-Lavalin.

Read this article:
Liberal government says it played no role in SNC-Lavalin court settlement - The Globe and Mail

While Premier John Horgan says his government needs to renew and refresh itself, the same can be said of the BC Liberals sitting in opposition.

It can be argued its the Liberals who are most urgently in need of a shake-up that injects new life into the party. And if that isnt done before the next election, the party will likely find itself stuck in opposition for another long four years.

Winning the most seats in 2017 election yet being unable to form a lasting government was a wrenching experience for the BC Liberals

The shift out of power was a psychological blow for many and it has taken time for many of them to recover.

The only real way for the party to renew itself and offer a fresh vision to voters is to inject itself with new blood.

And that means veteran MLAs may be pressured by some in the party to consider stepping aside to allow a younger and more diverse group of candidates to become the new face of the party going forward.

So far, four incumbent BC Liberal MLAs have said they wont seek re-election. They are: Linda Reid (Richmond South Centre), Steve Thomson (Kelowna-Mission), Linda Larson (Boundary-Similkameen) and Ralph Sultan (West Vancouver-Capilano).

The Kelowna and West Vancouver seats are considered virtual locks for the BC Liberals to hold in the next election, while the party has to be considered a strong favourite to win the other two seats as well.

So it is a safe bet that four new faces will be part of the next BC Liberal caucus after the election. But many in the party will tell you that is not enough.

The partys internal spotlight continues to shine on other long-term MLAs who have accumulated enough political baggage over the years to wear the party and other candidates down come the next campaign.

So there is speculation that 23-year veteran Rich Coleman (Langley East) will be pressured to give up his safe seat and make way for someone new. His record in government, particularly in regards to the gambling file, makes him an easy target for the NDP.

It is also unclear whether fellow veterans Shirley Bond (Prince George-Valemount), Mike de Jong (Abbotsord West) and Mary Polak (Langley) will run again, although I would argue both have emerged as solid critics after years as cabinet ministers.

But Bond and de Jong aside, the BC Liberal caucus hasnt really found its sea legs in opposition. With the exception of rookie MLAs Peter Milobar and Jas Johal, and veterans such as John Rustad and Jane Thornthwaite, no one has really shone.

The party is in urgent need of new talent. Horgan thinks his side needs to press the restart button, but it would seem BC Liberal leader Andrew Wilkinsons party may require more of a general makeover.

Keith Baldrey is chief political reporter for Global BC.

Read more:
Opinion: Pressure is on for some veteran BC Liberal MLAs to quit - Burnaby Now

The battle for 1989 was won by illiberal populism. Thats one thing we can say with certainty 30 years on from the fall of the iron curtain. In the narrative spun by Jarosaw Kaczyski, Viktor Orbn and their supporters, democratic transformation turned out to be a fraud, liberal democracy an illusion, and integration with the EU an upmarket form of foreign occupation. The illiberal populists, under the cover of such rhetoric, simultaneously dismantle the rule of law and independent institutions. Meanwhile, liberals seem devoid of ideas or initiative, agreeing only that somehow, it all went wrong.

This is not just about melancholy and misunderstanding. In a sense, post-communist countries became a testing ground after 1989. Both our families came from Warsaw and they struggled not only to survive the upheavals of that era, but to create better lives, if not for themselves, at least for their children. Individually, some succeeded, but it came at a high price. The revolutions of 1989 meant the almost overnight disintegration of entire ways of life. That had an immense impact, even if most people would not have wanted to hang on to their experience of pure socialism.

Todays populists tend to focus only on the downsides of what came after 1989. But how have they been so effective at imposing their interpretation of events, even now, 30 years on?

In the last year of the cold war, the west of our collective imagination was a place of hope Moscow we were more familiar with, and viewed with fear. Yet, contrary to the image often conveyed, the reaction in our countries to the end of communism was far from euphoric.

The promise of freedom and a better life lay on the distant horizon. Day to day, though, we experienced a poverty more humiliating than anything that had come before especially after seeing the west with our own eyes. It is a common mistake to think that illiberal politicians in post-communist countries are popular despite these countries successes. The contrary seems more plausible: their popularity is a consequence of the success.

At a time when populist leaders are in power in other parts of the world, including the US, it may be instructive to look at the causes of illiberal populism generally.

Our focus is on an aspect of human nature that is underexplored in political analysis: namely political emotion, and in particular, the feeling of loss.

It is astonishing to us to hear people in the US, the UK, France or Italy express views so familiar to us: Our jobs are being stolen, The world is changing too much, I dont recognise my country. This is where 1989 meets 2019 at least in the populists narratives. Their pessimistic interpretation of the fall of communism is mirrored in the current over-simplifications.

The year 1989 was one of those breakthrough moments in human history whose impact is felt in contradictory ways. As Charles Dickens wrote about 1789 in A Tale of Two Cities, it was the best of times and the worst of times. It was a spring of hope, and a winter of despair, it was indeed the age of wisdom and the age of foolishness.

The same duality was felt elsewhere. As well as the fall of communism, 1989 marked the beginning of an era of global change and acceleration. Quality of life and longevity improved, as revolutions were occurring in technology, communication, and social mobility. There was simultaneous gain and loss.

Central and eastern Europe has registered extraordinary economic growth on almost every parameter since the end of communism. But change, when it happens so swiftly and completely, can also involve great loss for the individual. We dont just mean the disappearance of jobs or bankruptcies. We mean something much deeper. A loss that relates to the micro-world of secure long-term relationships, identity and feelings of security, so important in the classical liberalism of Adam Smith and JS Mill.

In German, there is a word that captures this disruption: schleudern, which means to spin round and round as in a washing machine. In the social sense, our world spun repeatedly as we strived for a better future. This is the context in which we can see that illiberal populists are effective not because they buy voters, or manipulate negative emotions, such as fear or rage. Their skill is to recognise and empathise with feelings of loss when liberals tactlessly disregard or ridicule them.

And it is how we can explain the reactionary aspect of populism in eastern Europe, and beyond. Brexiters won with the slogan Take back control, and Donald Trump cut through with Make America great again. Kaczyski in Poland, Bjrn Hcke in Germany and Thierry Baudet in the Netherlands all talk about protecting the traditional values of their societies (usually without being specific about what this would mean).

Liberals often feel overwhelmed by this kind of politics. A peculiar defeatism surrounds the failure of liberal democracy to deliver. Liberals also fear that pandering to emotion plays the same game as populists. They prefer to calm feelings down or just steer clear of them.

Enemies of democracy have, of course, always manipulated feelings. Yet we believe that theres a key lesson from 1989 that liberalism can learn. We need a passionate defence of liberal democracy and the liberal order. We also need to embrace the feeling of loss and translate it into something positive and enriching, into a feeling about political community.

How could this be done? The collective sense of loss we have been describing is akin to the grief that follows the death of a loved one. In bereavement our first reaction is to look back, to dwell on the loss. Reactionary populisms concentration on the negative aspects of transformation might be compared with bereavement. As humans we know that after bereavement comes the recovery phase. And this means looking to the future and building networks of friends. It requires courage, hope and compassion especially for those who think so differently that they vote for populists.

This is what the liberalism of the future could mean. It could retell the story of 1989, while doing justice to this great and complex moment. Central and eastern Europe still has an important message for the world. It is the knowledge that the greatest successes of liberal democracy, including 1989, were enabled by passionate hope.

Karolina Wigura is a historian, political editor of the Polish weekly Kultural Liberalna and a fellow at the Institute of Advanced Studies in Berlin

Jarosaw Kuisz is a historian, editor-in-chief of the Polish weekly Kultura Liberalna and a fellow at the Institute of Advanced Studies in Berlin

Original post:
Populists understand the power of human emotion. Europes liberals need to grasp it, too - The Guardian