Mediaboss Marketing

By now, you should have seen enough to decide whether youre inclined to vote for Justin Trudeau in the next election.

With the arrival Thursday of legislation to legalize marijuana use, with two of their four budgets behind them, and with most of the agenda implemented, imminent or abandoned, the Liberals first term has largely taken shape. Should it also be their last? Lets take a look at how the government has performed thus far. Consider this one observers midterm report card.

Mr. Trudeau came to power vowing to admit 25,000 refugees displaced by the Syrian civil war. The rookie government missed the Dec. 31, 2015 deadline, but not by much, and the airlift has been welcomed by most Canadians. Former immigration minister John McCallum also increased the annual intake of immigrants to 300,000, which will help sustain a Canadian population that, were it not for immigration, would otherwise soon be in decline. The jury is still out on how the Liberals are handling refugee claimants crossing the border illegally, but overall this governments immigration and refugee policy deserves high praise.

Margaret Wente: Justin Trudeau's out of touch with the 99 per cent

Praise is also warranted on the trade file. In opposition, the Liberals were lukewarm to the Conservative governments ambitious trade agenda. In government, they became firm supporters, pushing hard and successfully (if the Walloons can be kept onside) to complete the agreement with the European Union. Will they be able to conclude a deal with China, Japan or another major Asia/Pacific nation between now and 2019? If so, the Liberals could count trade as one of their signature achievements.

On the environment, Justin Trudeau promised a new resolve in Canadas efforts to fight global warming. In the end, he simply embraced the targets established by the previous Conservative government. But the Liberals appear determined to meet those targets, and to that end have persuaded most provinces to impose some form of carbon tax. Promise made; promise at least partly kept.

The Liberals also deserve qualified praise for their handling of the health-care file. Their funding broadly follows the targets set by the Harper government, but Health Minister Jane Philpott did find some extra dollars for mental health and home care, which the provinces, for the most part, accepted. Should Ottawa be meddling in how the provinces handle health care? And is the money enough to meet the need? Probably not, in both cases. And the federal/provincial prescription-drug strategy remains more aspiration than reality. But Ms. Philpott can take credit for preventing a federal/provincial impasse on funding.

The Trudeau governments relationship with the military is more problematic. Full marks to Mr. Trudeau for his governments commitment to lead a NATO battle group in Latvia, to deter Russian ambitions. Defence Minister Harjit Sajjans biggest procurement move was to acquire Boeing Hornets as a stopgap to replace the terminally aged CF-18s, while holding off on a permanent replacement for several more years. It was a controversial decision, but at least it was a decision. On the downside, the Liberals still cant make up their minds whether to commit to a peacekeeping mission in Africa, a defence review has been repeatedly postponed and the shipbuilding program continues to be plagued by delays. A very mixed bag.

Closer to home, Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould skillfully piloted an emotionally charged bill on assisted dying through Parliament. The marijuana legislation is another big, important file that she has kept on top of. But the governments efforts to streamline and modernize the criminal-justice system havent prevented impatient judges from throwing out cases that take too long to come to trial. Delays in appointing judges are making things even worse. The minister has to take responsibility for this serious miscarriage of justice.

People have reason to be disappointed in this governments handling of Indigenous issues. Mr. Trudeaus most impassioned promise was to transform relations with Canadas Indigenous peoples on a nation-to-nation basis. But although funding has increased, nothing transformative has emerged. The inquiry into murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls proceeds at a glacial pace which anyone could have predicted and there is little evidence of accelerated progress in settling land claims, or of progress toward comprehensive education reform, which the Conservatives tried but failed to implement.

But what about the finances, you might reasonably ask. How the government raises and spends taxpayers money is a key metric on how it is judged. From this armchair, the government has little to brag about. The Liberals promised during the election campaign to run modest $10-billion deficits, with the money devoted to renewing infrastructure. Instead, the deficit was $23-billion in the past fiscal year, and is projected to be $28.5-billion in 2017-18, with no end to red ink in sight. A Senate report criticized the governments $186-billion decade-long infrastructure plan for its lack of clarity and co-ordination. The Liberals did implement their promise to make income tax and the child benefit more progressive, punishing the wealthy and rewarding the middle class, and Finance Minister Bill Morneau has earned praise for initiatives that make it easier to recruit foreign talent, raise venture capital and bring innovations to market. Its a one-hand, other-hand file. Mr. Morneau negotiated an enhanced Canada Pension Plan with the provinces: Good. He lowered the retirement age for old-age security: Bad. But its the growing debt that causes this writer the most concern. When will this government keep its promise to balance the budget?

On two files, the Liberals deserve unremitting scorn. We are committed to ensuring that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system, Mr. Trudeau said, over and over again. But when a parliamentary committee urged a move to proportional representation, Mr. Trudeau balked; he also resisted calls for a national referendum on the subject. In February, the government announced it was scrapping its electoral-reform plans. A total fail.

The Liberals promised, as well, to end the conversion of home delivery of mail to community mailboxes. A subsequent study estimated that abandoning conversion would cost $400-million and sink the Crown corporations efforts to stay in the black. A final decision is expected this spring on whether to break the promise or lose the savings. Both choices are lousy. Shame on the Liberals for painting themselves into this corner.

On one vital issue, the jury is still out. Foreign policy under the Trudeau government has broadly cleaved to the principles established by Stephen Harper: a strong commitment to NATO and to free-trade agreements, caution in dealing with trade and human-rights issues in China, and stern disapproval of Russian ambitions in Ukraine and elsewhere in Europe. But the election of Donald Trump as U.S. President changed the game. Keeping the Canada-U.S. border open, successfully renegotiating the North America free-trade agreement and preventing a crippling import tax from applying to Canadian exports are the most important priorities for Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland. Her success or failure could define this government.

Otherwise, not much is likely to change over the next two years, for better or for worse. You may disagree with this report card, but you surely know enough now to come up with one of your own.

Follow John Ibbitson on Twitter: @JohnIbbitson

Go here to see the original:
Trudeau's Liberals: A midterm report card - The Globe and Mail

New Democrat Leader John Horgan took aim on Monday at the Liberals failed pledge to match every British Columbian with a family doctor by promoting his partys strategy to build team-based urgent care centres.

The centres would be open evenings and weekends and would allow patients to see the care provider that fits their needs, whether its a doctor, nurse practitioner or counsellor, Horgan said at a campaign stop ahead of the May 9 election.

BC NDP leader promises to address lack of family doctors (The Canadian Press)

Horgan said Christy Clarks Liberals are letting down patients, who are waiting for hours at walk-in clinics or emergency rooms. The NDP said 700,000 people dont have a family doctor, with 200,000 still looking for one.

Its a fundamental right in Canada to access our public health care system. I will defend that to my last breath, Horgan said.

The NDP leader made the promise in Burnaby, flanked by two local residents who cant find a family doctor. Sky Belt said her friend visited walk-in clinics several times for pain and was told she had anxiety before she was finally diagnosed with cancer.

Those months that she spent not having a family doctor have made her situation very critical, Belt said.

The Liberals estimated in 2013 that 200,000 British Columbians didnt have a family doctor. They campaigned in 2010 and 2013 on providing a family doctor to every resident who wanted one by 2015, but conceded two years ago they would not meet their target.

The website for the GP For Me program says 178,000 people who did not have a family doctor were able to get one by 2016. But B.C.s population also grew by 162,600 between 2013 and 2016.

The Liberal platform includes $2.7 billion for new hospitals, 500 additional long-term care beds and 5,500 more hip and knee surgeries.

Campaigning in Campbell River, Clark highlighted her governments record on helping business, such as phasing out the provincial sales tax on electricity that she said would save businesses $160 million a year, including pulp and paper companies on north Vancouver Island.

Vancouver Island has been a stronghold for the NDP but Clark said the island has a successful economic record because of Liberal policies. She said the unemployment rate on the north island is half what it was under the last NDP government.

More people are working and our jobs plan has worked for British Columbia, she said.

Weve supported the private sector in creating thousands of jobs here and I dont think people, whether in the south island, the mid-island or the north island, want to give up that prosperity. We want to keep this going.

Horgans promise was short on details, with no specific number of urgent-care centres an NDP government would build or a cost estimate. He said the party would shift priorities to make room in the existing health budget.

We want to assemble those teams in a cost-effective way, he said.

Later, Horgan visited Coquitlams Riverview Hospital, a shuttered mental-health institution, where he has promised to reopen some residential care facilities. The NDP would also establish a Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions to help people get timely and effective treatment.

Green party Leader Andrew Weaver, who is campaigning on a promise to do politics differently, unveiled his partys platform on democratic reform in Victoria.

He said his party would establish a public watchdog to oversee government advertising and communications, block cabinet ministers from engaging in partisan fundraising, ban corporate, union and out-of-province donations, and place limits on individual contributions that would be in line with current federal limits.

The Liberals, and to a lesser extent the NDP, have faced intense scrutiny over lavish fundraisers and unlimited donations. The NDP has promised to ban corporate and union donations if elected, while the Liberals would convene a panel to make recommendations. The Greens banned corporate and union donations in September.

Weaver also promised to introduce proportional representation.

British Columbians have lost trust in their government and rightfully so, he said in a statement. We have a duty to regain that trust and to demonstrate through action that the government is there to serve British Columbians not politicians.

View original post here:
BC NDP take aim at Liberals, promote strategy to build urgent-care centres - The Globe and Mail

What motivated voters most during the 2016 election is still a highly debated topic. The 2016 American National Election Study, released last week, provides insightinto the factors that propelled Donald Trump to victory.

Trump supporters have often been depicted as racist, poor white Americans. But are they actually racist? Are they economically anxious?

This year the American National Election Study included 1,200 participants. The publicly funded study has been conducted for each electionsince 1948 and offers historical perspective. The new study examined key factors involved in the 2016 election.

The Washington Post analyzedthree motivationsfor voters based onthe study: income, authoritarianism and racial attitudes. Here is a recap:

How did voters income affect their decisions?

Traditionally, wealthier voters tend to vote for the Republican candidate whilelow-income voters lean toward the Democratic candidate.

That was not the case for the most recent election, however.

Was authoritarianism much at play?

The Washington Post reported:

Many commentators and social scientists wrote about how much about authoritarianism influenced voters. Authoritarianism, as used by political scientists, isnt the same as fascism; its a psychological disposition in which voters have an aversion to social change and threats to social order. Since respondents might not want to say they fear chaos or are drawn to strong leadership, this disposition is measured by asking voters about the right way to rear children.

The idea is that voters anxious about change and disorder will say its best to encourage children to follow rules. For instance, respondents are asked whether its better when children are considerate (likely more liberal) or well-behaved (likely more authoritarian), or whether they should be self-reliant (likely more liberal) or obedient (likely more authoritarian).

According to the data, authoritarianism did not play a major role for GOP voters in this past election cycle. In fact, Republicanswere slightly less attracted bythe idea of authoritarianism than they had beenin previous elections.

What effect did race have?

The major narrativesurroundingNovembers historic election focused on voters racial attitudes, and for good reason. Trump supporters were relentlessly depicted as racists, and the study confirmed that suspicion.

Since 1988, weve never seen such a clear correspondence between vote choice and racial perceptions, Thomas Wood wrote in his Washington Postanalysis. The biggest movement was among those who voted for the Democrat, who were far less likely to agree with attitudes coded as more racially biased.

The Post concluded, Racial attitudes made a bigger difference in electing Trump than authoritarianism.

The current American National Election Study ultimately served as proof of what many left-wingers have been saying all along.

Original post:
Liberals were right: Racism played a larger role in Trump's win than income and authoritarianism - Salon

In order to win a war any war you need to have a realistic analysis of your enemys aims, his strengths and weaknesses, your real strengths and weaknesses, and clarity on your ultimate goals in prosecuting the war. The truth is neither the Indian state nor its detractors in the national media, has thought this through.

The war we are losing is the information war, as the outrage over the video of a Kashmiri tied to an army jeep shows. If anything, the video shows that army officers are able to use innovative tactics to prevent violence and deaths, but the mainstream narrative is about the army using human shields when this is the perennial tactic used by stone-pelters in the Valley. What is the norm among stone-pelters is now shown as the armys failure in one instance of a change of tactics.

We are not losing the real war with jihadi militants and their stone-throwing mobs. The war we are losing is the one launched by so-called liberals who think the army is fair game in their fight against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

It is thus easy for Pratap Bhanu Mehta, writing in The Indian Express, to suggest that India is failing with its Kashmir policy, concluding: We are looking at a situation where our strategy of containment by force has failed, our political instruments are hollow, and there is a deepening death wish in the state. Kashmir is looking at an abyss. Who lost the plot this time around?

Similar conclusions have been reached by many other liberals. One is tempted to say that it is the liberals who have lost the plot, for they are training their guns on our army and the BJP, when they should be more concerned about the jihadi gains in the Valley. If people committed to anarchy and stone-pelting win, will liberals gain or lose?

Mehtas article should be an eye-opener to everybody, for it raises the right questions. But there are no answers beyond the usual platitudes that both local politicians and Delhi have been delegitimised in the Valley, that there is a trust gap between the Valleys Kashmiris and the rest of India, and that ultimately Kashmir cannot be held down by force. We have not been able to sell the India story.

This analysis seems to carry the ring of truth, but is substantially wrong. The wrong assumptions it makes are the following.

First, they assume that there is a general problem the state has with India. Is that so? Neither Jammu nor Ladakh have the same problem, even though these regions have been even more discriminated against than Kashmir Valley. And even inside the Valley, the trust deficit is with that chunk of Muslims who have been radicalised over the last two decades, both due to global developments and domestic. By ethnically cleansing the valley of Pandits, Pakistan has essentially destroyed the earlier syncretism of the Valley, making it easier to Islamise a large segment of the youth.

Can any progress be possible if this trend is not reversed, and Kashmiris learn to rediscover their diversity? There can be no solution to the Valleys alienation without the rediscovery of its original diversity. That should be goal one for the Indian state, and the liberals who claim to stand for these values should be fighting for this as a prerequisite to any political dialogue. Giving the Valley concessions now is like rewarding bad behaviour.

How can there be a political dialogue by excluding a large chunk of the population? Any dialogue has to make the Pandits a party to it, but no liberal is willing to back this idea. With what temerity can they call themselves liberals?

Second, the legitimacy of a state stems primarily from its ability to enforce the rule of law, which, in turn, depends on ensuring that its writ runs over the geographical area that it claims to control. This means Indian law must prevail in the state before we can start a realistic dialogue with all stakeholders in J&K. If this means use of force, we cannot run away from the idea.

If liberals truly want to establish the rule of law in J&K, they must first back the states decision to claw back control of law and order from jihadi elements. As long as this does not happen, what is the chance that the state police which has already been rendered hors de combat by jihadi intimidation of their families can ever play a role in restoring order? When policemen are being coerced to resign by violent elements, and the state authorities think asking policemen not to visit their homes to avoid intimidation is the solution, what are we talking about?

The aims of the Pakistan-backed jihadis and their stone-pelting comrades are clear: target the laws guardians so that they get a free run all over. How will the army even defend the border if there is a hostile population behind it? Once this happens, the dismemberment of India is only a matter of time. The liberals are not doing Indias cause any good by pretending that liberal values must prevail before the state manages to regain lost power. This is priority. It is worth recalling that Punjab could not have returned to normalcy without first restoring a semblance of the authority of the state, which is what KPS Gill did with his unorthodox methods.

If todays faux liberals had their way, India would have stared at an abyss in Punjab even before J&K. So, yes, let us not shy away from it. We can dialogue with the separatists till the cows come home, but the army and security forces must be given total support to quell the violence by any means possible before that. AFSPA must be the norm till order is restored, for the armed forces whether the military or the paramilitary - cannot fight with their arms tied behind their backs.

Third, the only logic of Kashmiri separatism is Islamic bigotry and Partition II. This is where liberals, even those who think the BJP is the worst thing to happen to India, are seriously underestimating the long-term damage they are doing to the ideas of India. If the Valley is lost due to liberal and state stupidity, Indias second partition on religious lines will be only one leap away. While the BJP is unlikely to let this happen during its watch, do the liberals even understand they are the ones causing this through their blind BJP-hatred?

Mark my words, if Kashmir is lost to Islamic militancy, there is no way India will not turn a Hindu rashtra. A win for Pakistan and jihadis in elements will prove to the ordinary Hindu that if Muslims can keep breaking away, why should only Hindus carry the can for secularism? Let India be a Hindu state. The BJP, or a successor party, will become stronger than ever, but this time it would truly become a 100 per cent Hindu majoritarian party. India will indeed become a Hindu Pakistan. The Idea of Pakistan will win, and it would be because the liberals were blinded by hatred for the BJP.

It is also worth considering the real reason why the Valleys militancy seems worse than before and here too liberals must share the blame. In 2014, the BJP emerged as the single largest party in J&K in terms of vote share. This scared the separatists so much that when the state assembly elections came, they backed the PDP to the hilt in the valley since the National Conference had lost favour. This is why they did not do anything to prevent that ballot exercise.

But, to their surprise, the BJP took control of Jammu and Jammu demanded a share of power. The liberals, instead of seeing the PDP-BJP alliance as a true democratic result and an attempt to heal the regional divide, kept up its shrill cry, trying to make the BJPs claim to power sharing as illegitimate. This suited their secular politics in Delhi, but it made things impossible for the PDP to play its political role in bringing the Valley to the mainstream, even though the BJP was fully committed to providing development resources to the state, the whole state and not just the Valley.

The secular parties and the liberals, instead of backing true power-sharing, went in the other direction claiming that the anger of the Kashmiris was the result of the BJPs rise to power, and Indias failure to honour its commitment of greater autonomy to the people made long ago. This attitude is spelt out by P Chidambaram, who did nothing about giving J&K greater autonomy when his party was in power, but now pretends that this is something that cropped up after the BJP came to power in the state.

The problem is not about granting more autonomy to states, including J&K, but in believing that is what will keep Kashmiris tied to the India project, as Mehta calls it. The Kashmir project, whether under the Abdullahs or other regional parties, has always been about Muslim majoritarianism, if not Islamism. It is a tragedy that the liberals who oppose Hindu majoritarian thinking in Delhi end up justifying Muslim majoritarianism in Srinagar. Their two-faced liberalism is essentially dhimmitude in the face of militant Muslim assertions in the Valley. You cant talk of the India project as separate from the Kashmir project. The latter has to start aligning with the ideas of India and pluralism as much as India needs to be mindful of the aspirations of all of J&K, including its Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and other minorities.

What is the way out? The progression of strategy must be along the following lines: first, allow the armed forces to take full geographical control of the valley and create the conditions for the police and politicians to do their jobs or speak freely; next, start the political process of granting all states (and not only J&K) more economic and political autonomy; third, launch a propaganda war for syncretism and pluralism in J&K, and finally change the constitution to make J&K a full part of the Indian Union, where Indians can also be allowed to settle and buy land in the state just as the reverse is now possible; fifth, take the covert war to Pakistan and focus on its dismemberment unless that rogue state gives up terrorism as state policy.

It is quite likely that Pakistani aggression this time is being covertly fuelled by China, and so our China diplomacy needs to be convincing. The deal India can offer China is that it will not question the status of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, even though it passes through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, only as long as it forces its client state to accept the line of control as the true international border that cannot be crossed by Pakistani forces of jihadi militants.

If needed, India should be willing to share intelligence on jihadis targeting Chinas western province, where the Uighurs are restive. China should be as worried about Islamist militancy in the western state as anyone else, and we should have some leverage here.

It is going to be a hard and bitterly-fought war, but this is the strategy that must drive us. Unfortunately, our liberals appear unwilling to help us win this war. They must truly introspect, but this does not seem to be forthcoming.

If India ever loses the Valley, it will be because the liberals have enabled this.

See original here:
India's Faux 'Liberals' Are Damaging Our Army's Efforts To Douse J&K Fire - Swarajya

NewsBusters (blog)

Zakaria Slams Liberals for 'Trump Derangement Syndrome,' Defends Syria Airstrikes NewsBusters (blog) On Sunday's Fareed Zakaria GPS on CNN, host Zakaria began his show by admonishing liberals for reflexively opposing anything President Donald Trump does -- calling it "Trump Derangement Syndrome" -- as he responded to those who have attacked the ... Fareed Zakaria Warns Liberals to Avoid Trump Derangement ...Townhall Liberals: Avoid Trump Derangement SyndromeCNN all 14 news articles »

See the rest here:
Zakaria Slams Liberals for 'Trump Derangement Syndrome,' Defends Syria Airstrikes - NewsBusters (blog)