Mediaboss Marketing

Press play to listen to this article

Voiced by artificial intelligence.

BERLIN You know fears over immigration and the rise of the far-right are boiling over in Germany when even the Greens are calling for a crackdown on illegal asylum seekers.

In a remarkable intervention on Monday, Green co-chair Ricarda Lang whose party is usually known for advocating a moderate course on migration criticized key officials from her two coalition partners for not doing enough to ensure that asylum seekers without a valid reason to stay, such as fleeing a warzone, are being sent back to their home countries.

Theres no doubt the political temperature is rising fast in Germany. A poll published Tuesday showed that the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany party has become the strongest political force in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, making it the fourth eastern German state after Brandenburg, Thuringia and Saxony in which the far-right is leading in polls. This is particularly spooking established parties as the latter three states are heading to the polls in September next year, raising the possibility that the AfD might, for the first time, win power at state level.

The Greens Lang lashed out at Interior Minister Nancy Faeser, who is from Chancellor Olaf Scholzs Social Democratic Party (SPD), and Germanys special envoy for immigration, Joachim Stamp from the liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP), saying that they must finally make progress on repatriation agreements with non-EU countries to facilitate the deportations. The government must act to avoid more and more people arriving, Lang said.

These unusual remarks from a senior Green politician come as the FDP of Finance Minister Christian Lindner on Monday adopted a position paper vowing to cut social payments for asylum seekers. The FDP also wants to convince its coalition partners to declare Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria as safe countries of origin, which would make it easier to send asylum seekers from those countries back home.

These actions highlight the extent to which Germanys ruling coalition of the SPD, FDP and Greens is beginning to panic as migration numbers keep rising in August alone, about 15,100 illegal border crossings were registered, marking a 40 percent increase compared to July and an increasing number of Germans are turning toward the AfD.

German President Frank-Walter SteinmeierwarnedWednesday that Germany is at breaking point, as 162,000 people applied for asylum in the country within the first half of the year. Thats more than a third of all applications within the EU, Steinmeier added in an interview with Italys Corriere della Sera.

While the AfD has not made a breakthrough at a state level, it took power at smaller district levels for the first time when it won a council election in Thuringia in June and notched up a mayoral election win in Saxony-Anhalt in July.

Although the AfD is building support on the back of many factors inflation, high energy prices and the governments poor handling of a controversial heating law it is the growing influx of asylum seekers that is seen as its main catalyst.

Such a party is getting stronger when problems are not being solved, Friedrich Merz, the leader of Germanys center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the main opposition party, said last week in reference to the immigration debate. He added cities and municipalities in Germany are hopelessly overwhelmed by the growing numbers of asylum seekers.

The AfD has also surged in national polls from just 14 percent at the beginning of the year to 22 percent now, according to an average of national polls compiled by POLITICOs Poll of Polls. That puts it as the countrys second-most popular party after the conservative alliance of the CDU with the Christian Social Union, which has 27 percent support. Scholzs SPD is trailing on 17 percent.

For more polling data from across Europe visit POLITICO Poll of Polls.

The AfD is also on the rise in the western German states of Hesse and Bavaria, which will head to the polls in less than three weeks, on October 8.

In Bavaria, the AfDs ascent is partly contained by the popular right-wing Free Voters party, which even managed to increase its standing in the influential southern state following a Nazi leaflet scandal involving its leading candidate Hubert Aiwanger.

In Hesse, however, the far-right party is making strong gains. Latest polls in the state, which is home to the banking hub of Frankfurt, indicate that the AfD is closing in on the SPD, which is particularly damning as the Social Democrats nominated Faeser, the interior minister, as their lead candidate in Hesse, hoping that her prominence would help the party to win the election against the incumbent CDU Premier Boris Rhein.

Instead, Faeser is getting hammered in the election campaign by the far-right, which accuses her of failing on the immigration front as interior minister a job that Faeser has kept while running in Hesse, and which she wants to keep in case she loses the state election.

It isnt helping Faeser that even the widely respected former German President Joachim Gauck criticized the government and called for more radical solutions.

The measures taken so far have not been sufficient to remedy the loss of control that has obviously occurred, the former president told public broadcaster ZDF on Sunday.

That means we have to discover margins [for maneuver] that are initially unappealing to us because they sound inhumane, added former Lutheran pastor Gauck, as he argued in favor of introducing a limitation strategy to curb the numbers of asylum seekers.

Read more here:
Germany's Greens and Liberals call for action on immigration as far-right strengthens - POLITICO Europe

Photo: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images

If you are a student of very recent legal history, you might have found yourself scratching your head in recent weeks, as some commentators on the left and the anti-Trump right have joined forced in a dubious, long-shot effort to argue that Donald Trump is constitutionally ineligible to run for reelection. They want to use lawsuits to disqualify Trump from state ballots before next years elections on a theory that centers on a largely forgotten section of the 14th Amendment to punish Trumps effort to overturn the 2020 election results. It sounds a lot like One Neat Trick that could get rid of Trump once and for all, but the boosterism has bordered on nave and at times disingenuous. The impulse reflects a familiar reflex among some of Trumps political opponents to root for a legal miracle some sort of deus ex machina that might rid them of Trump without doing the hard work of winning an election.

But reality requires us to acknowledge that this dispute, if it has any chance of success, will ultimately end up in the Supreme Court. And no one, least of all liberals, should assume that they will save the country from Trump.

The underlying legal question is whether the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, adopted in 1868 in the wake of the Civil War, disqualifies Trump from being president again. The relevant text precludes anyone who once served as an officer of the United States from holding any office in the government if they have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States or have given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. Congress may remove such disability if two-thirds of each chamber agree to do so.

The public debate over the applicability of the amendment kicked into high gear following the release last month of a law-review article written by William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, two conservative constitutional law professors who argue that, under an originalist interpretation of the provision, Trump is barred from running for office. The notion picked up steam in some quarters of the press, as well as an endorsement from two prominent legal thinkers, but it has since drawn vocal objections from the right on legal, political, and policy grounds. Just this month, one early and prominent supporter of the effort a co-founder of the Federalist Society who had initially called the article a tour de force changed his mind.

The originalist framework can lead its adherents to some strange places, particularly if they have already made up their minds about what the result should be. Baude and Paulsen, for instance, breeze past two statutes from the late 1800s not that long after the 14th Amendment went into effect that complicate their analysis, but they produce no meaningful or contemporaneous historical evidence to support their conclusions.

Somewhat amusingly, the authors go to great lengths to shore up their position against the very unhelpful fact that it was rejected the year after the 14th Amendment was adopted. Chief Justice Salmon Chase issued a decision that dismissed the idea that the provision created a sweeping and self-executing prohibition on public office and concluded that Congress had to pass legislation to implement it. Chase wrote the opinion while riding circuit, so it is not the law of the Supreme Court, but under ordinary circumstances, this would seem to be pretty devastating for originalist legal scholars. After all, are they better positioned to conclude that Chases interpretation does not hold up as an original matter their words than a sitting Chief Justice who was alive at the time and explicitly contemplated the question? There are also plenty of legitimately unsettled questions concerning the application of the 14th Amendment to Trump, including whether the president is himself an officer of the United States or if instead that phrase applies only to subordinate officials in the government.

Baude and Paulsen argue that the 14th Amendment can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications, but that interpretation of the law is also running into some problems this time among government officials who are actually alive. Democratic secretaries of state are publicly disavowing the idea that they can keep Trump off the ballot unilaterally and instead want to kick the issue to the courts. Republican Brad Raffensperger of Georgia, perhaps the countrys most famous and well-regarded secretary of state thanks to Trump, has also come out against the idea.

As of now, there are two lawsuits that have been filed by liberal groups seeking to keep Trump off the ballot in Colorado and Minnesota. If one of these lawsuits or others that are likely to be filed actually results in Trump being removed from a states ballot, we can safely assume that the case will make its way to the Supreme Court for the final word.

If you hold the sitting Supreme Court in low regard as most of the country now does you have probably already stopped counting on them to do the right thing, whatever you may think it is. After all, until last year, the Courts decisions had established a right to abortion in this country, had repeatedly upheld the use of affirmative action in higher education, and had made clear that businesses open to the public cannot discriminate against members of protected classes, including same-sex couples. None of those things is true anymore thanks to the conservative supermajority on the Court that was installed by Trump.

Those decisions, which were all wrong on the merits, rightly infuriated many liberals, and calls for reform of the high court on the left are now commonplace (despite being ignored by the White House). Meanwhile, a series of ethics controversies in recent months concerning ultraconservative justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas have generated more public criticism, with little evident concern on the part of Chief Justice John Roberts or his conservative colleagues.

All of this, as a practical matter, is highly relevant to the effort to remove Trump from the ballot.

For one thing, even assuming that there was an airtight case on originalist grounds, it would be unwise to assume that it will actually sway votes among the conservative justices. Whatever one makes of originalism as an academic pursuit, it is not practiced by conservative justices in anything resembling a legitimately principled or objective manner. All too often, originalism in the courts is little more than an outcome-driven interpretive method that somehow magically almost always aligns with the political and policy prerogatives of the Republican Party.

Then there are problems of math and individual psychology. Very crudely, let us assume for the sake of argument that the three liberal justices would support disqualifying Trump if not on strictly originalist grounds, then using contemporary methods of liberal constitutional interpretation that might lead to the same result following serious examination. At the same time, we can probably safely assume that Alito and Thomas, who seem to define their judicial outlooks in opposition to anything that liberals want, would oppose that result.

That would mean that liberals would need to attract two of the four remaining conservative justices in order to cobble together a majority. Three of those justices (Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett) were appointed by Trump, but disqualifying him under the 14th Amendment would require them to directly confront the fact that their legacies are closely intertwined with his that they are on the Court issuing rulings for decades to come because a historically awful president put them there. Nothing I have seen from them suggests to me that they have the self-awareness, humility, or intellectual fortitude to do this.

Three justices in this group (Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett) also share the dubious distinction of having worked for Republicans on the litigation in Bush v. Gore, when conservatives on the Supreme Court used a deeply flawed and tendentious analysis to put George W. Bush in the White House. (It is no mere coincidence that they ended up on the Supreme Court: Working on that litigation was a major career boost for young Republican lawyers.) Perhaps some of these justices will turn out to surprise us if the question of Trumps eligibility reaches them, but my general operating assumption is that this is a group of people who are perfectly content to contort the legal system in service of the Republican Partys interests when the stakes are high, particularly if those interests align with their own.

It was one thing for them to have rejected Trumps various legal efforts to overturn the 2020 election in the courts after he lost, but it would be another thing entirely for them to prevent him from running altogether, particularly when most Republican politicians and Republican voters strongly support his candidacy. For this to work, at a bare minimum, a comprehensive and compelling legal argument with broad ideological appeal and robust bipartisan support would likely need to come together.

That may emerge as litigation proceeds, and as scholars and lawyers continue to debate and refine their ideas, but it is not here yet. For now, Trumps opponents need to focus on beating him the old-fashioned way at the ballot box.

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice and to receive email correspondence from us.

Read the original:
Do Liberals Think the Supreme Court Will Save Us From Trump? - New York Magazine

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico US Virgin Islands Armed Forces Americas Armed Forces Pacific Armed Forces Europe Northern Mariana Islands Marshall Islands American Samoa Federated States of Micronesia Guam Palau Alberta, Canada British Columbia, Canada Manitoba, Canada New Brunswick, Canada Newfoundland, Canada Nova Scotia, Canada Northwest Territories, Canada Nunavut, Canada Ontario, Canada Prince Edward Island, Canada Quebec, Canada Saskatchewan, Canada Yukon Territory, Canada

Zip Code

Country United States of America US Virgin Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands Canada Mexico, United Mexican States Bahamas, Commonwealth of the Cuba, Republic of Dominican Republic Haiti, Republic of Jamaica Afghanistan Albania, People's Socialist Republic of Algeria, People's Democratic Republic of American Samoa Andorra, Principality of Angola, Republic of Anguilla Antarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina, Argentine Republic Armenia Aruba Australia, Commonwealth of Austria, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bangladesh, People's Republic of Barbados Belarus Belgium, Kingdom of Belize Benin, People's Republic of Bermuda Bhutan, Kingdom of Bolivia, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana, Republic of Bouvet Island (Bouvetoya) Brazil, Federative Republic of British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria, People's Republic of Burkina Faso Burundi, Republic of Cambodia, Kingdom of Cameroon, United Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad, Republic of Chile, Republic of China, People's Republic of Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia, Republic of Comoros, Union of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica, Republic of Cote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of the Cyprus, Republic of Czech Republic Denmark, Kingdom of Djibouti, Republic of Dominica, Commonwealth of Ecuador, Republic of Egypt, Arab Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Fiji, Republic of the Fiji Islands Finland, Republic of France, French Republic French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon, Gabonese Republic Gambia, Republic of the Georgia Germany Ghana, Republic of Gibraltar Greece, Hellenic Republic Greenland Grenada Guadaloupe Guam Guatemala, Republic of Guinea, Revolutionary People's Rep'c of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Guyana, Republic of Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras, Republic of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China Hrvatska (Croatia) Hungary, Hungarian People's Republic Iceland, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq, Republic of Ireland Israel, State of Italy, Italian Republic Japan Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait, State of Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon, Lebanese Republic Lesotho, Kingdom of Liberia, Republic of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein, Principality of Lithuania Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Macao, Special Administrative Region of China Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Malaysia Maldives, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Republic of Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania, Islamic Republic of Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco, Principality of Mongolia, Mongolian People's Republic Montserrat Morocco, Kingdom of Mozambique, People's Republic of Myanmar Namibia Nauru, Republic of Nepal, Kingdom of Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, Kingdom of the New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Republic of the Nigeria, Federal Republic of Niue, Republic of Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway, Kingdom of Oman, Sultanate of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama, Republic of Papua New Guinea Paraguay, Republic of Peru, Republic of Philippines, Republic of the Pitcairn Island Poland, Polish People's Republic Portugal, Portuguese Republic Puerto Rico Qatar, State of Reunion Romania, Socialist Republic of Russian Federation Rwanda, Rwandese Republic Samoa, Independent State of San Marino, Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Senegal, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of Singapore, Republic of Slovakia (Slovak Republic) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia, Somali Republic South Africa, Republic of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Spain, Spanish State Sri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic of St. Helena St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Pierre and Miquelon St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Suriname, Republic of Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Switzerland, Swiss Confederation Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand, Kingdom of Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of Togo, Togolese Republic Tokelau (Tokelau Islands) Tonga, Kingdom of Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda, Republic of Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland Uruguay, Eastern Republic of Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam, Socialist Republic of Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe

Follow this link:
OPINION: If liberals voted their values, America would be saved - Lewiston Morning Tribune

1 day ago

September 20, 2023

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TORONTO Before the Ontario Liberals second leadership debate, the Ontario PC Party released the following statement:

In two straight elections, voters have said NO to the Liberals and stripped them of official party status.

The people of Ontario havent forgotten the Liberal record: creating the healthcare crisis, firing 1,600 nurses, freezing healthcare funding, driving up the cost of living, closing over 600 schools, and driving 300,000 manufacturing jobs out of the province.

Worse, the Liberal leadership candidates just cant stop saying NO.

While our PC Team is moving forward with our plan for the biggest public transit expansion in Ontarios history, some Liberal leadership candidates said NO.

While our PC team is building Ontarios economy with lower taxes, less red tape, and strong pay cheques for workers, some Liberal leadership candidates said NO.

The Liberals rhetoric cant hide their record. The only thing they have is their continued ability to say NO to getting it done.

While the Liberals continue down their path of saying NO, our PC team will continue to move forward with our ambitious plan to get it done.

30

See the article here:
Ontario Liberals' Rhetoric Can't Hide Their Record in Toronto - PC Party of Ontario

Open this photo in gallery:

Canada's Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Chrystia Freeland, presents the federal government budget for the 2023 to 2024 fiscal year in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on March 28.BLAIR GABLE/Reuters

Re The Liberals are letting themselves become Pierre Poilievres punching bag (Sept. 14): The Trudeau Liberals have been a better government than I ever expected, but then I am a former NDP MP whos never voted for them. The thought of their being replaced by Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives scares me, as his first business would likely be to axe carbon pricing, one of the few things we have done right on climate change.

Recall that in 2009, the B.C. NDP ran an axe the tax election campaign against Canadas first carbon tax brought in by the provincial Liberals (bless them). The NDP lost that election and the next two.

May axe the tax have the same effect federally.

Lynn McDonald CM, Toronto

Re For the foreign-interference inquiry to be effective, Justice Hogue needs the right tools (Sept. 11): The idea for such an inquiry may appear laudable, but the task is mountainous.

The inquiry is to cover China, Russia and other hostile countries. Are we to assume that the government has reliable data to classify countries as hostile? Are they so few that they can be covered comprehensively within the allotted six months?

At times, friendly countries can and do carry out unfriendly interference. In 2013, it was reported that the United States was snooping on Angela Merkels phone conversations (U.S. spy chief says foreign wiretap operations are entirely normal Oct. 29, 2013).

Ingredients for successful interference include insider sympathizers and financial collaborators. As much as possible, such people will likely obstruct or sabotage the inquiry.

Will the inquiry be able to identify and neutralize such people? Will it really have more than the curated access of David Johnston?

Muri Abdurrahman Thornhill, Ont.

Re If Chrystia Freeland needs a tool to help Canadians, she should start by freezing spending (Editorial, Sept. 13): I believe the will to spend, without the courage to tax, is political cowardice.

Michael Arkin Toronto

Re Liberals target grocers with changes to Competition Act, threaten tax measures if prices dont stabilize (Report on Business, Sept. 15): The Liberal government should look in the mirror to see how their policies are increasing the price of groceries.

Supply management increases the price of dairy, eggs and cheese. Carbon pricing increases the price of food transported across the country. Our declining dollar drives up the cost of imported food products.

No doubt groceries have increased in price, but I still feel blessed when I walk into any of our grocery chains and see the abundance and variety of foods on display. Without profit, our grocers would not be in business.

Doug and Jan Ireland Tiny, Ont.

Re Canadas bankers lash out at Liberals for picking on financial services firms with new taxes (Report on Business, Sept. 12): The governments new tax measures should not be singling out the banking sector.

Large corporations across a wide range of sectors in Canada made record profit in recent years. Just six of the countrys biggest oil and gas corporations enjoyed $35-billion in profit in 2022. Canadas three largest grocery chains reaped nearly $18-billion in excess revenue from 2020 to 2022.

Excess corporate profit has not helped Canadian consumers or workers, but they have contributed to inflation and inequality. The revenue from a windfall tax would provide far more support for Canadians and the economy.

Katrina Miller Executive director, Canadians for Tax Fairness; Toronto

Re Bank of Canada is bleeding the economy, just like 19th-century doctors bled patients (Report on Business, Sept. 14): The Globe and Mail reports that investors account for 30 per cent of home buying in Canada, data show (Sept. 9). Most investors are flush with cash and less dependent than most other people on traditional forms of financing such as mortgages.

When mortgages for average Canadians are up for renewal and they are unable to renew them due to the rate hikes imposed by the Bank of Canada, they would put their homes up for sale. The 30 per cent figure would significantly increase.

Is this what the bank is trying to accomplish?

James McCarney Oakville, Ont.

Re Trudeau unveils housing funds for London, offers no details on broader plan (Sept. 14): The Globe and Mail recently reported that London, Ont., was at the top of a list of smaller cities with big-fish investors, owners of three or more condo properties who account for 94.2 per cent of these London investment properties (Larger investors dominate condo ownership in smaller cities in Ontario and B.C. Report on Business, June 22).

Before governments throw more money at the housing problem, we should ask what they are doing to ensure these dwellings go to those who need them. Or, like the Ford governments Ontario Greenbelt fiasco, is it just making the rich richer?

Tom Suhadolc Grimsby, Ont.

Re Key OSC witness in Bridging Finance case alleges executives altered loan documents and kept conflicts of interest secret (Report on Business, Sept. 14): I read the details of how shockingly simple it was for Bridging Finance executives to allegedly steal millions of dollars from investors, as well as another article explaining a new proposal by the province to allow the Ontario Securities Commission to enrich its own funding from fines, rather than direct a significant portion of recouped money to bilked investors (Ontario government balks as millions from investment scofflaws sits unspent Report on Business, Aug. 31).

Forgive me if Ive lost the plot. Who exactly is looking out for Ontario investors?

Shelly McQuillen Ottawa

Re Guerrero on knife edge of success or failure, depending on the Jays playoff push (Sports, Sept. 13): When are the Toronto Blue Jays going to part ways with general manager Ross Atkins?

In Gabriel Moreno and Lourdes Gurriel Jr., I think Mr. Atkins surrendered far too much for the offensively challenged Daulton Varsho. And it was Mr. Atkins who hired coach John Schneider, who has proven to me wholly incapable of extracting the best from a talented roster. This while the Jays have a seasoned baseball mind in its midst with bench coach Don Mattingly.

Unless the team wishes to see the hugely disappointing 2022 campaign repeated, it should make changes at the helm. Otherwise, an expensive stadium full of empty seats may be on the horizon.

Greg Longphee Victoria

Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com

See the article here:
Letters to the editor: 'The Trudeau Liberals have been a better ... - The Globe and Mail