Mediaboss Marketing

Liberal observers must pay $199 plus tax for the honour of watching the rival Tories elect a new leader. (Cole Burston/Bloomberg/Getty Images)

The Conservative Party of Canada is breaking age-old tradition andnot welcomingLiberal MPs to attend their convention this weekend free of charge.In an e-mail exchange Thursday night, Liberal communications officer Braeden Caley hadlodgeda request for observer accesswithConservative communications officer Cory Hann, saying:

..we are wondering if the Conservative Party will continue previous practice of allowing a limited number of observers at your leadership convention this weekend We are looking to have 2 Liberal Members of Parliament and 1 party official join for parts of the event, and as you will know, a number of media outlets are hosting perspectives from a variety of parties on site.We would appreciate you clarifying this tonightand like I mentioned, we would continue to reciprocate on the same number of observers for Liberal conventions.

Hann denied the request. The Liberals requested free passes, he told Macleans by email on Friday.I did not have free passes to provide. Standard practice is to trade passes for policy conventions. Still, asthe e-mail exchange shows, the Liberalsoffered to return thegesture at future policy conventions or leadership eventslike the one this weekend.The two Liberals planning to attend were MPs Adam Vaughan and Francis Drouin. Hann says they could buy passes to the event like members of the public, for $199 plus tax.TheGritssay its absurd for the Tories to demand one party to pay another partyan unprecedented move that discourages them from attending.

Im at a loss for words, and Im not normally at a loss for words, said Vaughan. The Conservatives sort of like to turn turtle, and look inwards. They have a history of trying to operate in a secluded environment all the time, and I guess they havent been able to shake that. He explains that observing helps gather information on competitors. Youre always curious to see the up-close workings of the opposition to see where theyre going, so you can get there before they do.

Canadian politicians have long had the freedom to snoop at each others gatherings. Granting cross-party observer status is considered a gesture of transparency.Conservatives including Jason Kenney and James Moore have attended national Liberal conventions since 2004, as have NDP Olivia Chow and Nathan Cullen. At the 2016 national NDP convention, the Liberals Randy Boissonault kept watch.

In this case, the Conservatives seeminhospitable solely toward Liberals; New Democrat Alexandre Boulerice will attend the Conservative convention on Saturday with his press secretary, Sarah Andrews, who says theyve been told theyll have free passes waiting for them when they arrive.They are reversing a long precedent and closing up shop even more than Harper did, says Braeden Caley of the Liberals.It makes one wonder about the more extreme agenda that the party is bringing forward with these leadership candidatesand what they have to hide.

RELATED: The highs and (many) lows of the Conservative leadership race

Sometimes, inter-party spying goes too far. In February, an undercover caucus member of the B.C. Liberals was accused ofattending an NDP youth meeting and videotaping the gathering of10 young people. She then secretly recorded these youths, using a cell phone she tried to hide on her lap, David Eby, NDP housing critic, toldThe Tyeeafter the fact. Eby accused the operative of pretending to take a phone call when it came time for a group photo. He said she posed as an NDP youth when really she was trying to dig up dirt for the election.

But official observers are generallya symbol of civildemocracy, and Vaughan notes that theyprovidein-personaccess to alternative opinions for journalists. The phenomenon predates the Internet, when it wouldve been more difficult for the media to talk toopponents who werent on site. As a former reporter,Vaughan says, Im not sure whose lives theyre trying to make miserable. With access to Liberals at the Tory convention, he adds, we [would] have less cranky journalists hanging around.

Vaughan is still scheduled to speak in a TVpanel discussion and do interviews withseveral news outlets inside the venue this weekend. Im assuming Ill be able to be escortedthrough the crowd, he says.

The rest is here:
Tories to Liberals: pay up, or don't come to our convention - Macleans.ca

New York Times

Liberals Wanted a Fight in Montana. Democratic Leaders Saw a Lost Cause. New York Times The Democratic defeat in a hard-fought special House election in Montana on Thursday highlighted the practical limitations on liberal opposition to President Trump and exposed a deepening rift between cautious party leaders, who want to pick their ... and more »

See the original post:
Liberals Wanted a Fight in Montana. Democratic Leaders Saw a Lost Cause. - New York Times

By Matthew Reilly

Liberal politics are currently centered around identity politics and social issues, while only adopting weak centrist economic policies that do nothing for a majority of Americans. This is a major reason for their total loss in 2016. Democrats lost their hold in all areas of government, including local, state, federal, and legislative. If the Democrats want to win elections in the future, they need to adopt a much more left-leaning economic platform and identify themselves more with working people, thus encouraging lower-income whites to identify on the basis of class rather than race.

It is a fact that a majority of people are sick of politics that do nothing for them. This discontent often turns into action during election season. Many Democrats and Republicans alike felt disappointed by Obamas presidency, and yearned for a change come election season. The far-left criticized Obama for his centrist policies that they felt did nothing to stop the deepening divide of economic inequality in the United States. While the far-right accused him of being too lenient on social justice issues and illegal immigration. These criticisms are a huge reason for the enormous rise of Bernie Sanders and now-President Donald Trump. They were direct responses to the Obama years, each born out of a desire for change on both sides. Hillary Clintons loss, however, goes far beyond identity politics and immigration. The reason truly boils down to the enormous imbalance of wealth in the United States, which illustrates the need for liberals to shift further to the left in terms of economics.

In January, the Minority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, held a townhall meeting to address concerns over the Trump administration. She took a question from a young college student, Trevor Hill, who first thanked her for her efforts in fighting for his rights as a gay man. He then brought up a Harvard poll which showed that 51 percent of people aged 18 to 29 no longer support capitalism.

Thats not me asking you to make a radical statement about capitalism, but Im just telling you that my experience is the younger generation is moving left on economic issues, Hill said on live television. But I wonder if theres anywhere you feel the Democrats could move farther left to a more populist message, the way the alt-right has sort of captured this populist strain on the right wing if you think we could make a more stark contrast to right-wing economics?

Pelosis response angered progressive leftists everywhere.

I thank you for your question. But I have to say, were capitalist and thats just the way it is, Pelosi said awkwardly. However, we do think that capitalism is not necessarily meeting the needs with the income inequality that we have in our country.

The backlash was immediate. The backlash to her rather weak answer proved the Democratic Party is having a tough time harnessing young progressives exuberant energy to their benefit. Even more plainly, it illustrates how badly the Democrats messed up by backing Clinton over Sanders. Bernie Sanders is currently the most popular politician in the United States and is supported by a whopping 80 percent of Democrats, according to a Harvard-Harris survey. Sanders, whether people like it or not, skillfully captured the minds and hearts of millenial progressives everywhere and energized them into action. He achieved this by adopting a much more left-leaning economic platform than his opponent, an action which prompted many to decry him as a socialist, though is in fact a Democratic Socialist, which is entirely different and much less radical. He represented progress and change, while Clinton represented more of the same.

Hillary Clinton did herself a huge disservice by declaring herself to be a continuation of the Obama years on an episode of Meet the Press with Chuck Todd. After receiving bipartisan backlash for that comment, Clinton quickly retracted her words and never said it again. But it was clear the statement was still true due to her hawkish, pro-interventionist war views and love for corporate cash. If she had adopted even just a few of Sanders economic policies, shed have done much better in the election. The centrist policies she adopted did nothing to win over young & independent voters who are living with their parents, straddled with overwhelming student debt, and working paycheck to paycheck in low-wage positions despite having obtained college degrees.

Sanders calls for free college tuition, single-payer healthcare, higher minimum wage, and strong Wall Street regulations are an extreme departure from typical Democratic economics, despite being incredibly popular amongst a majority of Democratic voters. Clintons approach, which disappointed many young voters, was to maintain a more reasonable approach to economics, labelling Sanders ideas as great ideas with no basis in reality. But what many, including Clinton, failed to realize is that all of Sanders proposals are indeed grounded in solid economic reasoning. The free college tuition was to be financed by taxing Wall Street transactions. A higher minimum wage at McDonalds, for example, could be accomplished by raising the price of a Big Mac from $4.90 to $5.50. These ideas are not radical, they are not outrageous, they have been shown to work flawlessly in many countries in Europe, and theyre all extremely popular policy proposals. The Democrats are squandering their base by refusing to adopt these popular policies, and are almost ensuring low voter turnout in the next election if they decide to nominate another candidate with centrist views on economics. If Democrats indeed want to defeat President Trump in 2020, they need to embrace the needs and desires of their millenial base, which means shifting to the economic left. Addressing issues that matter to young and independent voters is what drives young and independent voters to the voting booths.

Read more:
Liberals need to be more than doe-eyed idealists - The Sun

Published on: May 26, 2017 | Last Updated: May 26, 2017 11:15 AM PDT

A majority ofBritish Columbians think Christy Clark should step down as leader if her B.C. Liberals cannot form a government, according to a new Insights West poll.

After absentee ballots were counted this week, the B.C. Liberals finished one seat short of a majority in the May 9 election, with 43 seats in the 87-seat legislature. The NDP has 41 seats and the Greens have three.

Clark remains premier and has called for the parties, to move forward and form a government.

The final result reinforces that British Columbians want us to work together, across party lines, to get things done for them, she said in a statement.

In anInsights Westonline survey, 66 per cent of respondents including 46 per cent of those who voted Liberal would be in favour of Clarks ouster if the Liberals fail to form government.

Most respondents, 51 per cent, want the Greens tosupport the NDP in the B.C. Legislature if a majority government cannot be formed, while just 38 per cent think the Greens should back the Liberals.

Among those who voted Green, 62 per cent said they are in favour of the partysupporting the NDP, while just 23 per cent would prefer to back the Liberals.

The poll also revealed that British Columbians are not excited about the possibility of holding a new election soon, with 43 per cent responding that they thinkthe next provincial ballot should happen, as scheduled, in May 2021, while only 26 per cent would favour voting again sometime in the next couple of years.

Results are based on an online study conducted by Insights West from May 22 to May 25 among 803 British Columbian adults. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.5 per cent.

Read the original here:
Clark should step down as leader if Liberals can't form government: Poll - Vancouver Sun

Intolerance, at times exploding into violence, is spreading throughout our society. And its coming from the political left.

Its happening on college campuses. Most recently, students walked out on Vice President Mike Pences commencement address at Notre Dame University.

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos was interrupted by boos and jeers at her commencement address at historically black Bethune-Cookman University.

Conservative scholar Charles Murray was met with violent protests at Middlebury College. Another conservative scholar, Heather Mac Donald, was violently shut down in a presentation she was giving at Claremont McKenna College. These are just a couple examples.

Now its spreading off college campuses with reports of violence and threats toward Republican members of Congress and their families, as they hold town halls in their districts.

A column in The Hill newspaper bears the headline, Republicans fearing for their safety as anger, threats mount.

Whats happening?

A recent commentary in Forbes Magazine from a London School of Business professor calls this The Post-Truth World.

He describes a prevailing feeling of helplessness as individuals inhabit a world in which knowledge is, in general, exploding but each individual knows, relatively, less and less. And he points to a world in which business and politics are becoming increasingly interdependent.

New York University psychologist Jonathan Haidt attributes whats happening to a culture in which young people are not forced to deal with opposing viewpoints. This, says Haidt, is amplified by social media, which serves to reinforce existing biases.

But all this doesnt explain why the intolerance and violence is coming mainly from the political left.

A new survey from the Pew Research Center sheds light on this.

Sixty-six percent of Republicans compared to 29 percent of Democrats say that a person is rich because they worked harder than most people rather than because of having personal advantages in life. This 37 percent difference in attitudes of Republicans and Democrats about why some people are rich is 12 points larger today than where it stood just three years ago in 2014.

Seventy-one percent of Democrats compared to 32 percent of Republicans say someone is poor because of circumstances beyond a persons control, rather than because of lack of effort. This 37 percent difference between Republicans and Democrats in attitudes regarding why someone is poor is 19 points larger than where it stood three years ago in 2014.

The nation is becoming increasingly polarized on the very fundamental question regarding the extent to which individuals have control over their own life.

Across the nations whole population, 53 percent feel poverty is the result of circumstances beyond an individuals control compared to 34 percent who see poverty as the result of lack of effort.

What is the meaning of freedom in a country where more than half its citizens feel fate rather than choice governs their life?

Not surprisingly, for the first time in eight years, according to Pew, more Americans (48 percent) say they want bigger government than say they want smaller government (45 percent).

Conservatives are exposed to the same cultural and technological forces as liberals. But its not what comes from outside that determines human behavior. Its what comes from inside the individuals attitudes and approach to life.

Liberal mentality, increasingly dominated by moral relativism, produces a culture of victimhood. The victim sees life exclusively in political terms, seeing political power and government as the means to a better life, rather than freedom and personal responsibility.

With Republicans now in power, trying to restore economic vitality and fiscal balance by limiting government and expanding personal freedom, the left sees this as a threat, not an opportunity.

We all should be deeply troubled that, in the land of the free and home of the brave, some are turning to violence to battle the prospect of becoming freer.

More:
Liberals' violent fight against freedom - WND - WND.com