Mediaboss Marketing

New York Times

Religious Liberals Sat Out of Politics for 40 Years. Now They Want in the Game. New York Times Frustrated by Christian conservatives' focus on reversing liberal successes in legalizing abortion and same-sex marriage, those on the religious left want to turn instead to what they see as truly fundamental biblical imperatives caring for the poor ...

View original post here:
Religious Liberals Sat Out of Politics for 40 Years. Now They Want in the Game. - New York Times

Now that a minority NDP government is poised to take office with Green Party support, the question must be asked where does the future of the B.C. Liberals lie?

While the party came within a hairs breadth of gaining a majority in last months election, there was a palpable sense of voter exhaustion in several key strongholds.

Back in 2001, when the Liberals were elected, their emphasis on discipline was welcomed. The preceding decade of NDP rule, at times chaotic, had created a desire for stability among voters.

But as time passed, discipline turned into rigidity. Iron budget management became an excuse for ignoring other legitimate interests.

And the policy of accepting large corporate donations fed a suspicion that the party was more attached to big business than working-class families.

After 16 years in office, the Liberals appeared increasingly tone-deaf and out of touch. Voters wanted change, and not just in policy, but in style and empathy.

Fairly or not, any such change has to begin with the premier. Christy Clark, for all her strengths, is unavoidably a voice from the past. As long as she remains leader, everything the public has come to dislike about the Liberals lives on.

Then there is the matter of timing. Some in the Liberal caucus might believe there is no hurry. Wait long enough, they might think, and the NDP/Green alliance will self-destruct.

But that would be an error. We have been promised a referendum on electoral reform in October 2018. The Liberals stand to lose if such a reform were made.

Over the past four elections, the partys share of the vote lagged well behind the NDP/Green total. Had some form of rep by pop been in place, the Liberals would have lost all of those contests.

However, if the party means to dispute the need for change, it must first regain its standing as a government in waiting. That means overhauling its platform.

And it must do this in little more than a year. Time, in other words, is not on the Liberals side.

So what might a new platform look like? Certainly, it should continue to emphasize competent management. This is the partys main claim to govern, and it need not be abandoned.

But in two areas, major changes are needed. First, the Liberals must re-forge a connection with voters on social issues such as child care, support for low-income families and affordable housing.

In the process, several hatchets must be buried, in particular with the teachers union, and with the childrens representative. Near-endless warfare on these fronts damaged the Liberals and contributed to their reputation for picking the wrong fights.

Second, a way must be found to articulate a middle ground between protecting the environment, and protecting jobs and the economy.

Tilt too far in the green direction, and you breath life back into the B.C. Conservative party. Fixate on the economy, and you lose support in suburban communities where the environmental movement is strongest. It was here that the Liberals surrendered their majority.

Still, in the end, it all depends on who becomes leader. True, the Liberals have never possessed a particularly strong caucus, and some contenders, such as the outgoing health minister, Terry Lake, retired or lost their seats.

Nevertheless, it is essential that a fresh new face be found. Justin Trudeaus revival of the federal Liberals comes to mind.

Will any of this happen? To date, Clark has expressed every intention of staying.

Her strength of will is commendable. But if she persists in this view, the Liberals might be consigned to the backbenches for a very long time.

Original post:
Editorial: Liberals must rebuild quickly - Times Colonist

Kirsty Duncan, Justin Trudeaus Science Minister, is on the rampage against Canadas leading universities. Shes told them to improve diversity or else. Unless they meet their gender quotas for new research chairs, the federal government will yank their funding. Despite a decade of concerted hectoring, Canadas most prestigious researchers are still too non-Indigenous, too white, too abled and, especially, too male. Frankly, our country cannot reach its full potential if more than half of its people do not feel welcomed into the lab where their ideas, their talent and their ambition is needed, she sermonized.

At stake is hundreds of millions in grant money as well as the ability of expert hiring committees to make their own decisions. (Universities must sponsor the grant applications, which are nearly all approved by the federal funding bodies.) From now on, these committees will be overseen by phalanxes of bureaucrats whose job is to ensure that they come up with the right answers.

The governments emphasis on equity and diversity is central to its branding. Its 50-50 cabinet has won universal praise. But now it has embarked on a campaign of reverse discrimination that deeply undermines the concepts of fairness and excellence.

Academia isnt the only target. Since last fall, the Trudeau government has named 56 judges, of whom 33 or 59 per cent are women. (Women made up only 42 per cent of the applicants.) Its clear the Liberals will keep it up until the balance of judges is more to their liking. But at what cost? In the old days, it was offensive that people got judgeships just because they were Liberals or Tories, Ian Holloway, law dean at the University of Calgary, told The Globe and Mail. That helped breed contempt for the judiciary. What we dont want to do is replicate that in a different form.

The definition of equality has changed dramatically in recent times. Equality used to mean fairness. It meant that everybody should be treated equally, and that discrimination is not acceptable. But the new definition of equality is equal outcomes. And if outcomes arent equal, they must be adjusted until they are.

No one disagrees that our institutions should broadly reflect the society we live in. No one disagrees that disadvantaged people and underrepresented groups deserve a helping hand, and sometimes preferential treatment. Many businesses and public institutions have an unwritten rule: If all else is equal, hire the minority candidate.

But what if it isnt? What if fair hiring practices produce disparities in outcome as they inevitably do? For example, its mainly men who like hard sciences despite a generation of effort to encourage women. This effort has borne fruit. But it has not produced a massive change in womens career choices, which are overwhelmingly on the soft side. Theres also a sizable body of research showing that even women who are highly career-minded are less intent on attaining senior positions than men are.

On the face of it, the Canada Research Chair numbers dont look great. Women hold only 30 per cent of the 1,615 filled positions, a number that Ms. Duncan regards as dismal, and at some universities its much lower. Among the new applications, she notes disapprovingly that twice as many come from men. But these positions are heavily skewed toward hard sciences. Forty-five per cent are for natural sciences and engineering; 35 per cent are for health sciences; and just 20 per cent are for the social sciences and humanities.

But fair is no longer good enough. Only outcomes matter. The new quotas for Canada Research Chairs are: 31 per cent women, 15 per cent visible minorities, 4 per cent disabled, 1 per cent aboriginal. And woe to you if you do not comply.

Other institutions have gone much farther. At St. Michaels Hospital in Toronto, a document called Gender Equity Guidelines for Research Search Committees states, We are hoping to achieve recruitment of 50 per cent female scientists in the next 3-5 years, as well as to achieve 50 per cent female faculty in leadership positions in the next 5-7 years. Given the natural gender imbalance in science research, they might as well just post a sign saying: Men, dont bother! The document further states that all search committee members must take training in unconscious bias (an increasingly discredited idea), and that their work will be closely scrutinized by the diversity police to ensure the proper outcomes.

Im all for diversity. But these future researchers have important work to do. They could save lives. Dont we want people who can research and teach, instead of prove how diverse we are? I guess not. Weve got quotas to fill.

Follow us on Twitter: @GlobeDebate

View original post here:
Liberals' reverse discrimination comes at a cost - The Globe and Mail

There was a very instructive moment this week amid all of the political messaging, applause and back-slapping involved in the arrival of the long-awaited Liberal foreign policy statement and defence review.

It happened when Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan was asked, in front of a sea of uniforms, to guarantee his exhaustive, occasionally thoughtful piece of policy homeworkwould survive beyond the life of the current government.

The report, after all,is supposed to be a 20-year document.

His response was somewhat awkward: "We as a government and future governments owe it to the Canadian Armed Forces that we fully fund the Canadian Armed Forces on a long-term footing."

Much of the post-policy coverage has, justifiably, focused on fiscal skepticism.

Do the Liberals have the money? If so, where is it? Will it add to the deficit? If so, by how much?

The answers were: Yes. Stay tuned. No. And see the previous answer.

The skepticism, however, has deep and tangled roots, some of them fresh in terms of the string of broken Liberal campaign promises; others stretch back decades where history is littered with well-crafted and some not-so-well-crafted defence policy plans.

The Trudeau government may have given Canadianssome crisp, well-honed ideas and fact-based conclusions in the report about a world in turmoil, many of which run contrary to what they campaigned on.

But what Sajjan's rather tentative call to arms indirectly exposed is perhaps the biggest failing of this latest endeavour and maybe even the ones that preceded it: The absence of clear, unambiguous, long-term political support.

So, forget about the budget for a minute. Think Parliament.

"Unless you do get a consensus, some kind of bipartisan consensus, which I think is possible, then this policy is going to be very short-lived," said Richard Cohen, a retired military officer who servedin the Canadian Forces and the British Army.

He should know.

A member of the military looks on as Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan unveils the Liberal government's long-awaited vision for expanding the Canadian Armed Forces Wednesday. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)

As an adviser to former defence minister Peter MacKay, Cohen was one of the people who helped craft the ephemeral 2008 Conservative defence strategy document.

That 20-year plan survived a little less than 20 months from the time it was introduced, said Dave Perry, of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

TheConservative planwas sacrificed in a bid for abalanced budget, but in light of the toxic politics of the day succeeding governments, regardless of their political stripe, would have had a tough time swallowing even the more palatable portions.

The survival of this plan will depend on "whether there is cross-parliamentary and cross-partisan support," Perrysaid.

The two major overseas deployments in recent years have been either politically divisivethink Afghanistanor languished in misunderstood obscurity, such as Iraq.

The defence minister wasn't the only one in the spotlight this week.

Behind Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland's measured, sometimes chirpy, delivery of a major policy speech on Tuesdaywere some stark words and reality.

"To put it plainly: Canadian diplomacy and development sometimes require the backing of hard power," she saidin her speech.

Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland delivering a speech on Canada's foreign policy future in the House of Commons Tuesday. (Chris Wattie/Reuters)

The notion that Canada can no longer be entirely comfortable under the U.S. security umbrella is remarkable in its sobriety and significance.

Yet, it was politics as usual in the House of Commons after Sajjan delivered his plan.

"The previous government announced a lot of things, didn't put the kind of money forward in stable, long-term predictable ways,and that's what we've done," Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said answering opposition criticism.

What the Liberals haven't done is the kind of painful, political bridge-building that may be necessary in times that they themselves acknowledge are extraordinary, said Cohen.

"Neither [opposition]party is very supportive of the end result it seems to me," he said.

The Liberals would argue that both the Conservatives and NDP had their chance during the months of public consultations held during development of the policy.

And, in fairness, neither opposition party has shown any inclination towards ratcheting back the partisan rhetoric.

But Cohen argues the government has an extraordinary opportunity to take politics out of national defence and build some kind of long-term consensus in the implementation of its policy.

"I think this is a time when parties are moreor lessaligned on what they see in terms of our national goals. It is the means they are arguing about," he said. "I think it's possible to come to a consensus, but who knows, maybe it's too late."

Cohen said an overhaul of the House of Commons and senate defence committees,or creating some other kind of body,might provide a venue for bipartisan co-operation.

The almost-established parliamentary oversight committee on national security promised by the Liberals during the election could have provided such a bipartisan forum.

But defence is not included within its already sprawling mandate.

Link:
Cost is one question but partisan politics may undo Liberal defence plan - CBC.ca

Updated June 10, 2017 21:58:53

A $200,000 donation to the WA Liberal Party from a billionaire property developer with close ties to the Chinese Communist Party has raised questions, WA Deputy Premier Roger Cook says.

Dr Chau Chak Wing's company Kingold Group donated the sum to the WA branch of the Liberal Party in 2015/16.

Dr Chau, who is an Australian citizen, also made donations to the Labor Party federally.

Kingold is headquartered in Guangzhou, in southern China, and develops projects including international trade centres, commercial buildings, hotels, office and residential buildings.

A joint investigation by the ABC and Fairfax revealed earlier this week, that Dr Chau's links to the Chinese Government were referenced in a briefing by ASIO chief Duncan Lewis in 2015.

In secret meetings with senior federal administrative officials in the major parties, Mr Lewis warned of the risks associated with accepting foreign-linked donations.

The agency also reportedly briefed senior federal politicians including Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, his predecessor Tony Abbott, and Opposition Leader Bill Shorten.

Mr Cook on Saturday said it was important for all political parties to stick to the absolute spirit and letter of electoral laws.

"A $200,000 donation to a state branch of a political party is a hefty sum, and so you would have to ask questions in relation to the nature of that donation," he said.

"I hope what political parties are making sure is that while they acknowledge and accept political donations are a reality of our modern democratic system, and one that we rely on, that that in no way impacts upon the policies of the parties and it certainly does not impact in any way in terms of good government decisions when those parties are in Government."

WA Liberal Party director Andrew Cox said in a statement the party always conducted its fundraising in an ethical manner and fully adhered to state and federal electoral laws.

He said the Labor Party should tell the WA public how much the union movement donated to it, and what "political favours" were being provided in return.

The ABC was unable to reach Dr Chau for comment.

However he told The Australian newspaper on Friday that the media reports had caused him great distress.

"At no time have I sought to, or see any reason to, use an elaborate corporate structure to mask a donation to a political party," he said.

"Further, I have never sought or received any personal or commercial benefit in connection to a political donation.

"The most distressing allegation in recent days is that I am somehow acting as a conduit for information for the Chinese Communist Party, which risks jeopardising Australia's sovereignty.

"For clarity, I am not and have never been a member of the Chinese Communist Party, and I completely reject any suggestion I have acted in any way on behalf of, or under instruction from, that entity."

Dr Chau is a member of a provincial-level People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), and also owns a newspaper in China. The press in China are closely monitored and influenced by the central government.

Dr Chau also made donations to the federal Liberal Party of $560,000 in 2016, and $100,000 to the NSW branch.

He donated $200,000 to Labor federally.

Dr Chau has made donations to non-political causes in Australia, most notably $20 million for the construction of a business school at the University of Technology, named the "Chau Chak Wing building".

According to Kingold's website, Dr Chau hosted and attended events during Chinese Premier Li Keqiang's recent visit to Australia.

Notre Dame Politics and International Relations Associate Professor Martin Drum said foreign donations to political parties were banned by many Western countries but not on a state or federal level in Western Australia.

"When we don't know the structure that foreign entities operate under, their ownership structure, we don't understand the relationships they have with other overseas entities such as foreign governments, then there's extra cause for concern," he said.

Dr Drum said a recent federal parliamentary inquiry recommended foreign donations be banned.

He said under current rules entities could also make donations up to $13,200 to each political party in each state, and the federal party, without having to declare it publicly.

Watch the Four Corners report "Power and Influence" on ABC iview.

Topics: government-and-politics, elections, foreign-affairs, wa, australia

First posted June 10, 2017 19:52:03

View post:
Chinese businessman subject of ASIO warning donated $200000 to WA Liberals - ABC Online