Mediaboss Marketing

Wednesday was an eventful day for the House of Commons. Perhaps even an important one, precisely because it was so eventful.

In the climactic moment, 105 Liberals broke with the government and voted in favour of S-201, a bill sponsored by Liberal MP Rob Oliphant to ban genetic discrimination.

Moments earlier, 27 Liberal backbenchers had provided the decisive votes in favour of S-217, Conservative MP Michael Cooper's bill on detention in custody again, against the position of the Liberal government.

Less noticed, but still noteworthy, was the cabinet's own move a few hours earlier to amend C-22, a government bill that would establish a committee of parliamentarians to review national security operations.

Liberal members of the public safety committee joined with Conservatives and New Democrats to amend the bill late last year. On Wednesday afternoon, the government brought forward its own amendments to counter some of the committee's changes.

The prime minister has, rightly or wrongly, punted on electoral reform. Parliamentary procedures remain basically unchanged, though the government has at least now released a discussion paper and the Senate continues to be a live experiment in legislative independence.

The access to information system is still awaiting reform. Question period is still a mostly drab exchange of accusations and platitudes.

But interesting things keep happening nonetheless; indications that the House of Commons might be slowly changing.

With a few exceptions, the last Parliament wasn't generally given to such dramatic demonstrations of independent thought. But Wednesday was actually not the first time during this Parliament that Liberal backbenchers have decisively swung a vote.

Liberal backbenchers helped swing two votes against the wishes of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his cabinet on Wednesday. (Chris Bolin/Reuters)

On Oct.26, 103 Liberal MPs voted to support Bill C-243, Liberal MP Mark Gerretsen's bill on maternity benefits. And, that same day, 90 Liberals voted in favour of Bill C-240, Liberal MP Bryan May's bill to create a tax credit for first-aid training.

In both cases, Liberal cabinet ministers voted against.

But C-243 and C-240, along with S-217, were at the second-reading stage of the process and Liberals were merely voting to send the bills to committee for further study.

With S-201, the ban on genetic discrimination, Liberal backbenchers were voting to pass the bill into law.

According to Liberal sources, both the prime minister and Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould addressed caucusWednesday morning about why the government opposes S-201. As Justin Trudeau explained to reporters that day, the cabinet believesthe bill violates provincial jurisdiction.

But nearly the entire Liberal backbench and a dozen parliamentary secretaries disagreed, siding with the House committee that studied the bill.

"I felt that the House justice committee came to the correct result in its deliberation and remain convinced that the important human rights concerns outweigh the concern that the bill might be ultra vires," explained Nick Whalen, the Liberal MP for St. John's East.

Did it feel odd to vote in favour of a bill that the prime minister spoke out against?

"Our obligation to use free votes for the best interest of the country and our constituents was a campaign commitment, and needs to overcome my natural desire to vote with the government," Whalen said. "So, yes. It feels odd, but it is part of a healthy working relationship and what should happen from time to time."

'There are differences in our Liberal caucus, but not a divide,' says MP Rob Oliphant6:48

Immediately after the vote, Oliphant was enthused.

"I think the new reality is that Liberal backbenchers are being empowered," he told reporters. "And I think that we're really trying to see how Parliament can change."

Excessive party discipline and the limited relevance of the backbench MP are the eternal laments of the Westminster parliamentary system.

But the last Parliament ended amid particularly loud complaint about the state of things personified by Brent Rathgeber after he quit the Conservative caucus to sit as an independent and the Liberals came to office with some suggestion things would be somehow different.

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, the Liberal MP for Beaches-East York in Toronto, is developing a reputation for voting his own way in the House of Commons. (Nathaniel Erskine-Smith)

And things have at least been somewhat different. There were hints of a livelier Parliament last spring and one Liberal MP, Nathaniel Erskine-Smith,has nowmanaged to break from the party line on 13 per cent of his votes far more than recent precedent and roughly in line with the most independent-minded membersofthe looser British Parliament.

Oliphant theorizes that Liberal MPs, having campaigned on a promiseof more independence for MPs and House committees, are now getting comfortable in their new jobs. And the prime minister, having promised to only whip votes in specific circumstances, isn't whipping every vote.

With S-201, Oliphantsays the result wasn't a division within caucus, but a mere difference of opinion. He suggestsConservatives and New Democrats are still getting used to the new reality, too.

"I think we're in a transition time,"Oliphantsaid Thursday, reflecting on S-201's victory.

Though MPs from the governing party often function as extensions of the government, they are also simply MPs, sitting outside cabinet and with some responsibility to hold the government to account. That was one of the messages Rathgeber tried to conveyas he took on the cause of reform.

Brent Rathgeber speaks about his decision to quit the federal Conservative caucus in St. Albert, Alta., in 2013. (Jason Franson/Canadian Press)

And while self-interest often holds partisans of the same stripe togetherpolitics is still a team sport a system that allows for greater independence could have some benefits. Legislation and spending might be better scrutinized. Public concerns and potential problems might be better aired. MPs who never ascend to cabinet might be able to establish themselves as important legislators.

Or so the reform-minded might dream.

It remains to be seen whether the spirit of Wednesdaywill continue on or evolve.

Liberals can say this is the change they promised.Wednesday'svotes, and the upset that night in a Liberal nomination race in St. Laurent, might suggest a party whose members are not easily controlled anyway.

With the example of S-201, the prime minister might learn to get behind his caucus when its opinion seems to be moving against him. Or his willingness to tolerate dissent might be tested.

But regardless of whatever rules or procedures are rewritten, the potential for change would likely still depend on how MPs assert themselves. And at the very least,Wednesdaymight suggest that some change is possible.

Read more here:
What happens when Liberal backbenchers rise up: Aaron Wherry - CBC.ca

One of the questions I get asked most often these days by friends and acquaintances is whether Premier Kathleen Wynne is going to resign to give her OntarioLiberal Party a fighting chance in next year's election.

Rumours certainly abound that there is a concerted movement to push Wynne out.

The people involved (according to the whispers)rangefrom ambitious cabinet ministers who want to be premier, to backbenchersworried about losing their seats, to grassroots Liberals who believe Wynne has irreversibly become a lightning rod for voter anger.

But if there truly is a movement among Ontario Liberals to topple Wynne so that someone else can lead the party into the 2018 vote, I can't find it.

I've spoken to a range of people who you'd think would delight in seeing the back of Wynne: strong supporters of SandraPupatello, her chief rival in the last leadership race;longtime Liberal backroomers who've been frozen out by Wynne's inner circle;and senior officials whose greatest loyalty is to the party, not to Wynne.

Even given the opportunity to speak off the record, none of them purports to smelleven a whiff of an imminent revolt.

The strongest statement I could coax out of a senior Liberal (not a Wynne loyalist) is that some key activists in the party are giving her until summer to show signs of a turnaround in the polls.

Deputy Premier Deb Matthews (left) is one of Wynne's staunchest allies. (Geoff Robins/The Canadian Press)

"The knives are not out," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "But these people arein the tool-shed and they're sharpening the knives. Whether they use them or not depends on where things go from here."

He said that Wynne would only step down if there is pressure from "a combination of caucus members and the party executive." He addedthat he sees no evidence of such pressure now.

One of Wynne's staunchest allies, Deputy Premier Deb Matthews, dismissed talk of dissension in theranks.

"Kathleen Wynne has really strong support in our caucus, in our party membership,"said Matthews in an interview.

Matthews is also co-chair of the Ontario Liberal re-election campaign and insistedthat Wynne is the best person to lead the party into the 2018 vote "because she's smart, really hard working, cares deeply about issues that matter to people and gets the job done."

Another senior party official who also said he sees no sign of a desire to dump Wynne called her "our best weapon."

Here's something else that makes me skeptical there really is a movement to push Wynne out: the fact that the PCs are loudly insistingthere is one.

From the PC candidate in the Ottawa-Vanier byelection:

Earlier this week, I received anemailpurporting to be from a group of Ontario Liberal Party members, past and present, calling for Wynne to resign.

The message's credibility quickly crumbled upon closer inspection.

There was no name or contact number. Nobodyresponded to my reply asking for an interview. It contained numerous sloppy grammatical errors and typos, referredto Hydro One as "Ontario Hydro" and spelledSt.Catharineswrong.

But the final straw was the message's rant against Wynne's plan to cuthydro rates by a further 17 per cent.

The plan may indeed have some long-term negative consequences for the province, but in the short term, it can bring only political benefits for the Liberals. Knowing how intense the hydro price backlash has been, and how relieved the Liberals are that the plan could neutralize what was the hottest political issue in the province, I can't imagine any real party member would see the move as a reason to push Wynne out.

Yes,the Liberals are jittery about polls putting them on average 14 points behind the ProgressiveConservativesand putting Wynne's personal approval rating at near-record lows.

But polls only indicate how voters feel right now. Theelectionis 15 months away, an eternity in politics. The Liberals were sagging at similar points ahead of the elections in 2007, 2011 and 2014 and won them all.

It's also unclear that any other leader would be able to magically produce a surge in the polls. No matter who the premier is, the party will almost certainly have to battle against sentiment that it's "time for a change" after 14 years of Liberal governments.

It's simply a little early to write Kathleen Wynne's political obituary just yet.But if you are a Liberal party member and youdo wanther gone, please do let me knowthat you're out there.

The rest is here:
No sign that Liberal knives are truly out for Kathleen Wynne - CBC.ca

Not all liberals are bullies, but a great many are. Where liberals are in the majority, the bullies among them try to make life miserable for those who fail to conform. Almost every college campus is in this category. A case in point, one of many, is St. Olaf College, where my youngest daughter is a sophomore. The college newspaper has a commendably balanced story on the intolerance that prevails there:

Of the 12 students interviewed by the Manitou Messenger, several have been violently threatened because of their political beliefs, and almost all of them feel as though they cant speak up about politics on campus in class, online or with their friends. *** Reagan Lundstrom Warner 20 is a political science major who has learned how to keep [her] mouth shut. While faculty are encouraged to remain unbiased, she said that one of her professors used class time to expound upon personal views.

[A professor] started every class with basically just ridiculing Trump for about 20 minutes, Lundstrom Warner said. She plans to transfer to St. Thomas University next fall.

St. Olaf is an expensive school. Do parents know that they are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars so that their children can be subjected to irrelevant political tirades?

My daughter was among those who were threatened with violence:

Many conservative students felt that the campus became more hostile during election season, and some students received violent threats. On the night of the election, a student in the Pause threatened to beat up [College Republican President Emily] Schaller, calling her a f***ing moron. Over the next couple of days, she overheard multiple students threaten to hurt the next conservative or Republican they saw. Vice President of St. Olaf College Republicans Kathryn Hinderaker 19 had a similar experience.

I think one of the hardest things was, the second day, I went into Buntrock and someone yelled from the bottom, if you voted for Trump, you better be f***ing scared. Everyone clapped and applauded, Hinderaker said. Obviously, it didnt feel super safe.

Facebook was another venue for threats against those suspected of voting for Donald Trump:

[Former student Katie] Ivance noted that the insults continued on social media.

People were saying [things] like F-you and I wish you were dead, she said. Ivance isnt the only one who has faced harassment online due to political beliefs. On Feb. 18, a student posted an unsolicited photo of a group of students that supposedly included Trump supporters and encouraged fellow students to remember their faces.

Ivance transferred to the University of Minnesota Twin Cities after the fall semester, citing harassment as her primary reason for transferring.

Schools cannot continue to permit this level of harassment and discrimination against non-left wing students. Public universities will not be supported by legislatures, and private colleges will not be supported by donors and parents, if the situation persists.

It is striking that this borderline fascist behavior by Democrats is occurring precisely as the Democratic Party slides toward irrelevance. Democrats try to enforce the view that voting for Donald Trump is beyond the pale, but Trump won the election. It is not as though Republicans are members of some obscure splinter faction. They control the presidency, both houses of Congress, thirty governorships and two-thirds of state legislative bodies.

Democrats are at a historically low ebb. You might think that this would cause liberals to re-examine their premises rather than try to bully others into submission. But thinking is not what liberals are best known for.

Continue reading here:
Liberal Bullying On Campus: A Case Study - Power Line (blog)

New York Times

Ouster of South Korean President Could Return Liberals to Power New York Times Now, after being out of power for almost 10 years, the South Korean liberal opposition is on the verge of retaking the presidency with the historic court ruling on Friday that ousted its conservative enemy, President Park Geun-hye, who had been ... and more »

Read more:
Ouster of South Korean President Could Return Liberals to Power - New York Times

Our country is broken. This proposition is so uncontroversial nowadays that it is regarded not with a sense of shock or tragedy but as a banal fact. Many worry that we are beyond repair too divided politically; too different in our views about morality and culture; too unwilling to compromise.

Call me an optimist. I know that, despite all the bickering, Americans across ideological lines share a common ideal. We all want to live in a place where people get the things that they deserve.

But conservatives, too, argue on grounds of merit the best-qualified applicant deserves the job, but affirmative action provides less-qualified minorities an advantage over better-qualified white people.

While liberals and conservatives disagree on this issue, it is only about a superficial fact whether affirmative action does, in fact, distort merit-based hiring. On the tough question the underlying, moral question there is no disagreement: the best-qualified applicant deserves the job.

Or consider the state of our economy. We have all heard the statistics the top 1 percent of Americans have the same share of national income as the bottom 50 percent, and the top 0.1 percent has the same total wealth as the bottom 90 percent.

Is this just? Conservatives say yes because they believe that meritorious and hard-working people deserve the fruits of their labor. They also believe that the rich in America have shown merit and effort in this way.

But liberals who say no rely on the very same moral premise meritorious people do deserve the fruits of their labor, but in America today, they point out, you get rich through family influence, cronyism, or by exploiting the system; not through merit.

Again, all we disagree about is a factual question whether wealth is tied to merit or not. That we can answer. When we do, and when we adjust public policy accordingly, liberals and conservatives alike will feel that justice has been done.

This is all well-known. Researchers have tested how human beings think about justice, and a deservingness principle like the one described reigns supreme across contexts and cultures. For example, if you pay a person less than she thinks she deserves for her work, or more than she thinks she deserves, she is less satisfied with her job than if you paid her what she thinks she deserves.

We know that the deservingness principle has an evolutionary origin. According to Political Scientist Michael Bang Petersen, it helps us distinguish cheaters from reciprocators. We have also discovered that it is hard-wired into the striatum the part of the brain that regulates moral decision-making. We have even seen evidence of the principle in other species, like capuchin monkeys.

In this way, liberals and conservatives are united, deep down, by a powerful moral premise. Both sides should think about what it would mean to take the deservingness principle seriously and rebuild our country around it.

Liberals should recognize that conservative opposition to affirmative action, welfare and taxation is not due to racism, callousness, or greed. The truth is that conservatives worry that these programs penalize merit and effort and reward the undeserving.

As evidence of conservatives good will, consider the Earned Income Tax Credit. It is a payment to poor Americans who work, and one of the largest components of our welfare system. It was enacted under Gerald Ford, expanded under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, and has always enjoyed strong support from Republican legislators. Why? Because these welfare recipients show that they are deserving through their work.

On the other hand, conservatives need to understand that our economy is failing to give people what they deserve. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is now the worst in the developed world. Roughly 60-80 percent of a young persons income potential is predetermined by his parents wealth. Merit and effort matter little. The top 1 percent richest Americans inherit, on average, $3 million.

Moreover, corporate executives have gained power over their own pay-setting, reaping rewards whether or not they are deserved. A prime example is Stan ONeal, the former CEO of Merrill Lynch, who posted a $2.3 billion quarterly loss the worst in Merrills history and then floated away on a $162 million golden parachute.

We are rewarding failure, enriching the incompetent at the expense of the talented, and undermining competition, and that should worry all of us.

The deservingness principle is neither a liberal nor a conservative ideal. Therein lies its potential to unite Americans once again, around the common cause of justice.

Thomas Mulligan is a postdoctoral fellow at the Georgetown Institute for the Study of Markets and Ethicsat the McDonough School of Business.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

Read more from the original source:
Liberals, conservatives have more in common than they think | TheHill - The Hill (blog)