Mediaboss Marketing

Premier Christy Clark had hoped to head into this springs election running on a new provincial budget infused with billions from a thriving liquefied natural gas industry. She will have to settle for something far less.

On Tuesday, Ms. Clarks Liberal government tabled its final fiscal plan before this Mays provincial showdown and, as expected, it had a bit of something for everyone: corporate and personal tax and fee cuts, health and educating funding hikes, and a range of other spending increases that allows the government to ingratiate itself to an array of constituents.

Make no mistake: this is a document most provincial governments would still be thrilled on which to campaign. For starters, it marks the fifth consecutive balanced budget the Liberals will have submitted, a stretch of first-rate fiscal stewardship unparalleled in the country. The provinces debt-to-GDP ratio is 16.1 per cent which compares to 40.3 per cent for Ontario and 48 per cent for Quebec. It is the only province in the country with a Triple A credit rating.

B.C. promises to cut health premiums in half with pre-election budget

What you need to know about B.C.s latestbudget

New budget does little to help B.C. home buyers

As Finance Minister Mike de Jong noted, this is not just about holding bragging rights. The difference in that credit rating and those debt figures compared to those of a province like Ontario amounts to a savings of about $2-billion a year in interest costs. That is a lot of program spending.

The government deserves plaudits, as well, for continuing to diversify not just its economy but its trade markets, too. For instance, only 53.9 per cent of B.C.s trade is now with the U.S., compared to 86.3 per cent for Alberta and 80.9 per cent for Ontario. Those percentages take on a more ominous hue when you consider the protectionist trade winds currently emanating from south of the border. Meantime, B.C. created the most jobs in Canada last year as well.

All of this is important. The B.C. Liberals are a coalition of conservative and liberal-minded voters. To keep the conservative wing happy, the Clark government has had to demonstrate it knows how to run an economy, or at least, knows how not to ruin one. It has taken some heat along the way for some of the more ruthless spending decisions it has made in the name of balancing budgets. This has been an important aspect of maintaining the support of conservatives in the province. But the Premier knows she needs to appeal to voters beyond that group as well, especially ones in the mushy ideological middle.

She believes this budget does that. Others may not.

In the weeks leading up to it, Ms. Clark hinted that a significant tax cut was coming. It ended up being a somewhat underwhelming reduction to MSP premiums. It doesnt take effect until next January, while the announced small business corporate tax cut occurs immediately which perhaps speaks to the Liberals priorities. The government has significantly boosted spending in the ministries of education and children and family development, but in both cases it was virtually forced into it; in the instance of education by the courts and in child protection by relentless public criticism and damaging reports.

This is not a government that could in any way be described as warm or sensitive.

Of course, this has always been where the Opposition New Democrats have tried to set themselves apart from the Liberals mostly to little avail. But they will try again.

The New Democrats intend on making a $10-a-day daycare strategy a centrepiece of its election platform, something the Liberals have no interest in touching. The Liberals will also face criticism from the Opposition for not raising welfare rates in this budget, maintaining a hardened position on this line item it has held for a decade. The NDP will almost certainly make other choices on the social welfare side of the ledger that the Liberals resisted in this budget.

At the end of the day, however, the Liberals insist that the upcoming election will be fought on the same fundamental voter concerns as the last one: which party is best for creating jobs and growing the economy, and which party can best be trusted to navigate the often tricky and perilous economic times in which we live.

Ms. Clark is betting this budget, and the four that preceded it, make the case that that party is hers.

Follow Gary Mason on Twitter: @garymasonglobe

See the article here:
BC Liberals make re-election pitch with fifth straight balanced budget - The Globe and Mail

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

How far would you go to make the people you don't like mad? Over the weekend, we found out how the Conservative Political Action Conference, the premier gathering of conservative activists, answers that question. The conference invited semi-famous internet troll Milo Yiannopoulos to be a keynote speaker at this year's confab, then disinvited him after videos emerged of him condoning sex between 13-year-olds and adults. The misogyny and racism Yiannopoulos traffics in were apparently not a problem, but pedophilia was just a bit too far.

Yiannopoulos is, in the end, not a particularly interesting figure on his own terms (see here if you want to know what he's all about). He's a troll, a provocateur, someone whose schtick is to say outrageous things and then goad liberals into objecting to him or even trying to keep him from speaking on college campuses, and they often eagerly oblige. Indeed, before cancelling Yiannopoulos' appearance, the head of the American Conservative Union, which mounts CPAC, defended the invite to a conference that will feature speeches by President Trump, Vice President Pence, Stephen Bannon, Reince Priebus, and a lengthy list of political and media luminaries from the right on the grounds that it was good to hear Yiannopoulos' "important perspective" on fighting political correctness on campus.

But eventually, the line of unacceptability was located. Yiannopoulos might object that Republicans just elected a guy who bragged about sexually assaulting women, intentionally walked in on underage girls getting undressed, and had a habit of meeting girls as young as 10 and imagining himself dating them. But the question is not whether Yiannopoulos was cast aside, but why he became such a celebrity on the right in the first place.

The reason is that conservatives are obsessed with the idea of making liberals mad, and that's something Yiannopoulos is really good at.

One of the pillars of Donald Trump's presidential campaign was this idea that he would free his supporters from the straightjacket of political correctness and let them tell those bastards exactly what they think. As one popular T-shirt at Trump rallies during the campaign read, "Trump 2016: F--k your feelings." This antagonizing impulse is behind things like "rolling coal," in which owners of diesel trucks trick them out to expel as much black smoke as possible; they take particular delight in enveloping a Prius in a cloud of fumes, then posting the video to YouTube or Instagram. Take that, enviro-hippie! It's why Sarah Palin showed up at her CPAC speech a few years ago with a Big Gulp, just to tell Michael Bloomberg where he could shove his soda tax to the lusty cheers of the crowd.

This is a kind of public performance of negative partisanship, the increasing tendency of Americans on both sides of the aisle to define their political identities less by their affection for their own party and more by their dislike of the other party. If what's important is that the other side is wrong, what could be better than figuring out what really gets their goat, then doing exactly that thing, as loudly as possible?

There's a problem, though: Exasperating your opponents may feel good, but it doesn't actually accomplish anything.

This is a question all political action has to confront: What good does this do? There will always be some distance between any kind of political engagement and the changes one would like to see, but if you find yourself saying, "Man, this is really going to tick them off! Hah!" then you might want to do some thinking about whether you're achieving something or just having fun.

Let's take as a counterexample the left's most visible political action of the moment, in which Democrats turn up in large numbers at the town hall meetings of their Republican representatives, making a lot of noise in opposition to Republican plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act. There's no doubt that forcing your representative (particularly if he's from the other party) to squirm and even make a dash for his car to escape the wrath of his constituents is exciting. But the protest also increases pressure on that representative, making it clear to him that there will be a political cost to repeal and perhaps making him more likely to seek a more humane solution to the health care system's problems. The attendant news coverage can have a similar effect on other members of Congress, who are governed by fear of the voters' displeasure. It might also encourage other citizens to get involved.

That public performance is driven by a logic focused on the location of power and the processes of policy change. Trolling, on the other hand, is almost always focused on the feeling of power it gives the troll, the power to enrage and outrage.

But frankly, that's the easy part. Anybody can make somebody else mad, especially if you're using a pose of rebelliousness and transgression to punch downward on behalf of those at the top. That doesn't mean it can't serve a purpose Trump's brave stance in defense of jerkishness was a key part of his appeal, so it probably brought out a significant number of people to vote who might not have otherwise. But in the end, if the most important thing to you is how many people you've ticked off, you probably haven't accomplished much at all.

Excerpt from:
The right needs to get over its pointless obsession with trolling liberals - The Week Magazine

5492570

Liberalsseeking refuge from reality now have a fake news website where they can pretend to live in a world where Hillary Clinton is president.

In the midst of a Constitutional crisis, this is our response, the sites description reads. Long live the true president, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The sites proprietors do not identify themselves online, and did not return TheDCs request for comment, but their articles suggest they have liberal leanings.

The sites articles single out prominent Republicans like Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and White House press secretary Sean Spicer for mockery.

Democratic presidential nominee former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton waves to the crowd as she walks on the stage during the third U.S. presidential debate at the Thomas & Mack Center on October 19, 2016 in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

On Monday, Senator Ted Cruz went on Ellen to confess that he, of course, killed Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster in 1993, reads one recent article, which refers to Cruz as the Republican front-runner to take on President Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2020.

Follow Hasson on Twitter @PeterJHasson

See more here:
Fake News Site Lets Liberals Live In Alternate Reality Where Hillary Is President - Daily Caller

Just when you thought the WA Liberal's cringe worthy and hilarious dance moves couldn't get any worse, it appears party members are serial offenders when it comes to busting out awkward moves on the dance floor.

At the Liberal's campaign launch on Sunday, members can be seen clumsily cutting a rug and clapping out of sync to Daft Punk's One More Time.

The daggy dancing was only elevated slightly thanks to Liberal deputy leader Liza Harvey doing what could only be described as a robotic and rigid impersonation of the Twist.

Now a video has emerged of Liberal MP's boogieing to Bollywood-style tunes at a fundraiser for wannabe pollie Jim Seth who is running for the party in the seat of Bassendean.

And TreasurerMike Nahan, who foxtrotted to back of the corny choreography at the Liberal launch, is on the stage leading the charge in theBollywood Dance Workshop fundraiser filmed in December.

We are just not sure what he is doing.

At one-stage it looks like the Riverton MP is trying to put a fire out on his left arm, then he whoops it by creating his own dance move which we will dub, ringing the church bells.

The Treasurer'sown version of Dirty Dancing doesn't end there as he wiggles his hips and does a half-version of the sprinkler, before it looks like he pops out a hip.

Meanwhile Ms Harvey, Planning Minister Donna Faragher, Attorney General Michael Mischin and Parliamentary Speaker Michael Sutherland are waving their arms in the air, just like they just don't care.

It's just their cavorting isn't coordinated.

We are not suggesting the Liberals got stuck into any exotic Indian drinks, but it does seem a few might be a little tipsy while tripping the light fantastic.

At one point in the video, Mr Seth can be seen walking off the dance floor. We are not sure if decided to head home after watching his Liberal mates bust out the whitest moves ever.

And it also clears up the mystery who the man with the giant ribbon with the words "I'm Jim" on it was on stage during the Liberals' butchering of One More Time.

Read the rest here:
Liberals butcher Bollywood One More Time - WAtoday

For a perfect example of what the New York Times has become, one need look no farther than the Upshot column in this mornings paper, which quotes an Internet data-analytics firm and a psychology professor (the Times would quote a professor if a Little League game was rained out) to explain why liberal readers prefer liberal news sources and conservatives readers prefer conservative ones. In case you have trouble grasping the concept, the piece is illustrated with half a dozen bar graphs.

Most telling, perhaps, are the particular stories the writer chose as examples: President Trumps false claims about the attendance at his inauguration, and Kellyanne Conways references to a nonexistent Bowling Green massacre. Why did liberals spend more time following these stories than conservatives? The writer suggests one reason could be that articles by outlets with more liberal readers were more engaging, then undercuts his argument by quoting a Daily Kos headline that is lackluster even by that sites low standards.

The actual explanation is obvious: Only a liberal would consider Trumps exaggerating the size of something, or one of his aides getting a place name wrong, to be news. When Obama was president, we had our fun with 57 states and I dont speak Austrian and corpseman, while liberals shrugged them off. But when your side is in power, you focus on things that actually matter.

Follow this link:
Dispatch from the Frontiers of Media Science - National Review