The Ontario Liberal Party suffered a wounding in the last provincial election, with results knocking the Grits from a majority government to a minuscule caucus stripped of its official party status. In March, hordes of OLP faithful will assemble in Mississauga to select a new leader, whom the Liberal camp is hoping can spark renewal within their ranks.

This month, iPolitics interviewed each of the six leadership hopefuls about their visions for the party ahead of a 2022 election. (Profiles are listed in alphabetical order by surname.)

Michael Coteau is betting on coalitions.

He credits them with securing his provincial seat in the 2018 election a race he clinched over Toronto deputy mayor Denzil Minnan-Wong by 1,028 votes. There were other elections before that, but Coteau was one of just seven Liberals to hold a seat in 2018; the party has since whittled down to five. Ive won six elections in a row. And Im not saying that to sound like, I win elections. Its more to me about building a coalition, Coteau said in a recent interview with iPolitics, examining his bid to become leader of the currently miniature Ontario Liberal Party.

Were not going to win this next election, as Liberals, by just betting on Doug Ford failing, Coteau said. Make no mistake. There are a lot of people who do agree with what Doug Ford is doing there are a lot of people who are loyal to him and his party. I think we need to build a coalition in this province that exceeds that kind of support.

And he extolls his faith in doing exactly that. He sees the ability as a key differentiating factor against his opponents in the leadership contest as well as his ministerial experience, though candidates Mitzie Hunter and Steven Del Duca each served as ministers in the last government as well. (Hunter held onto her seat in the 2018 vote. Del Duca was bumped from his role by PC Michael Tibollo.) Coteau sees himself as a fixer in Queens Park someone who, in his view, stabilized files like the Pan Am Games or autism services in Ontario. Critics may present dissenting views, asnews reports from 2016lay out a public disagreement between Coteau and Ontario Auditor-General Bonnie Lysyk over whether the 2015 Games cost taxpayers more than planned.

Coteau acknowledges that his 16 years in public office first as a school board trustee, then as an MPP and cabinet minister at Queens Park may work against him in some ways. Some folks wanted a fresh face, new energy, he speculated. (Two of his opponents, Kate Graham and Alvin Tedjo, are former candidates. The final hopeful to be green-lit, Brenda Hollingsworth, is a lawyer in Ottawa.) People look at me and say, Oh, hes been around for some time. Hes one of those guys whos an insider, Coteau said. Shortly afterward, he offered a clarification. Hed been on the inside, certainly; but he insists hes been on the outside of what he calls the circle of the Ontario Liberal Party telling iPolitics that he had challenged the party on matters like education reform.

Read more about Coteaus leadership bid here.

Steven Del Duca considers himself a very traditionally partisan person.

The admission comes as the Ontario Liberal leadership hopeful discussed climate change, in a recent interview with iPolitics about his bid for the partys top post. He tacks on an addendum that the file, in his view, should transcend party partiality. But Del Duca, who has beenframed by at least one of his five competitorsas a sort of symbol of the partys establishment, doesnt shy away from talking about his three decades of immersion in Liberal politics nor discussing how a prolonged stretch of time in government work can narrow your vision.

When youre inside the bubble, when you hear the same advice consistently, over and over again, and when the challenges can be considerable a lot of the things thrown at you can be tough to untangle it becomes easy to fall into the default, Del Duca reflected.

The former cabinet minister was already being described as well-connected in the Toronto Star a decade ago, before his time representing a Vaughan-area riding provincially, which began after a by-election in 2012. But he was bumped out of office by the Progressive Conservatives Michael Tibollo in 2018. (All but seven Liberal candidates provincially faced the same fate.) Del Duca acknowledges that he had at least one clear blind spot during his last go-around at Queens Park, which was a lack of understanding about Ontarios inequalities and disparities that he attributes to spending his whole life living in the Greater Toronto Area.

One of my biggest personal deficits was falling into the trap that my reality was aligned to everyone elses reality, Del Duca admitted, couching the statement by saying he always knew there were inequalities in an intellectual way, but that it had never been visceral to him before visiting a host of varied ridings across the province during the last year.

Read more about Del Ducas leadership bid here.

Kate Graham believes that Ontario could stand to learn a thing or two from local governments.

The provincial Liberal leadership hopeful, who spent a decade as a public servant in London, Ont., and teaches politics at Western University, maintains that Queens Park doesnt invite the same public participation as city halls across the province. Simply strolling into the building feels more difficult, she said. Its a very distant relationship with the public.

Local councils, which generally operate without the same formal party systems as the province, see collisions of individuals ideas and perspectives something Graham admits doesnt always work. But when it does, she sings the systems praises, denouncing what she calls hyper-partisanship and division at higher government levels.

Most people are pretty turned off by politics. They dont care much about political parties, Graham said in a recent interview with iPolitics, pointing to the sparse percentage of Canadians who are card-carrying party members. (As of 2013, Statistics Canada noted that only four per cent of respondent Canadians were members of political parties or groups.)

And while tamping down partisan views may be a tricky sell for someone like Graham who, in slightly more than two months, will face throngs of dyed-in-the-wool Grits at a leadership convention in Toronto, with hopes of gleaning their support over the five other confirmed candidates and gunning for the Ontario Liberal Partys top post she espouses a belief that even party loyalists will see a need for the change after the provincial Liberals blistering 2018 defeat.

In some ways, were in the worst spot in our history, Graham assessed, noting the 2018 loss first, then elaborating. Weve got more people running for leader than currently sitting at Queens Park. Were in debt. Weve got a lot of work to do to rebuild in ridings all around Ontario. But its also an opportunity to think big about who we are and what we stand for.

Read more about Grahams leadership bid here.

At a downtown Toronto convention centre, on an evening in late November, five hopefuls vying for leadership of the Ontario Liberal Party were handed a microphone, and given time to make their pitch to an assembled mass of party loyalists. One candidate, meanwhile, was stuck in the crowd not yet eligible for a five-minute slot on stage.

Brenda Hollingsworth, an Ottawa lawyer who was the last to toss her hat in the ring for OLP leadership, had submitted her paperwork and met the financial deadline for the race, but was still in the throws of a third-party vetting process. It wasnt because I didnt want to (run), Hollingsworth said, defending her last minute sign-up in a recent interview.

The issue was, Im a trial lawyer, she continued. I had a case that I thought it would settle in the summer, and it kept not settling. This is somebody with a catastrophic injury. I couldnt leave them, and I wouldnt have been allowed to leave them anyway. And so, the case settled towards the end of October, and I took a week to decide if it was too late or not, and decided to go for it. So, it was just sort of circumstantial.

The under-the-wire decision left Hollingsworth with a short runway to meet yet another party deadline, which loomed large. New memberships could only be sold until Dec. 2, which was mere days away. Hollingsworth said she pulled in somewhere between 300 and 325, notwithstanding any who were disqualified for any reason. Its a scarce number compared with the 14,173 new members that opponent Steven Del Duca says his campaign sold before the cut-off date. Those members factor into a pool of 37,831, who will elect delegates to select the party leader in early March.

Its not a very long runway to do those things, Hollingsworth conceded, reflecting on her campaigns early days. Cautioning that she didnt want to take away from Del Ducas success, she noted that his campaign in particular had been building momentum for the better part of a year. In addition, candidates like Del Duca, Michael Coteau or Mitzie Hunter had spent time in provincial politics before their bids. Theres no question that its a challenge when youre coming in, literally, as an outsider. Im introducing myself to a lot of people for the first time, Hollingsworth said.

Still, despite the myriad of hurdles that come with being a late entrant and an unfamiliar face, Hollingsworth is banking on an appetite for a true political outsider to be leader propelling her nascent campaign forward.

Read more about Hollingsworths leadership bid here.

Two years after an electoral reform pledge was abandoned on Parliament Hill, flickers of a similar conversation are igniting at Queens Park with Ontario Liberal leadership candidate Mitzie Hunter saying she would absolutely pursue the matter at the provincial level, if she assumes the helm of her party and it eventually forms government.

Hunter, a former cabinet minister and one of six in the running for the OLPs top post, has pushed in the past for electoral reform at the most local level, introducing a private members bill as an MPP that focused on allowing municipalities to conduct elections using a ranked-ballot system. (The idea later became a government bill, and the City of London, Ont., became the first to use ranked ballots for its local vote in 2018.)

I believe that its better. I believe that it provides a more inclusive form of electing leaders, Hunter told iPolitics in a recent interview, during which she confirmed that electoral reform was something she would pursue provincially if successful in the ongoing leadership race. Also, it forces candidates in the race to be more respectful of each other and focus on the issues rather than the personalities, and thats probably something that would be welcome at this stage in our political process, she added.

Hunter currently has no intention of reconsidering the voting age in Ontario, but she would consider a move to register teenagers for the vote while theyre still in their high school years in order to cut down on the potential of young people becoming lost in the shuffle between high school and any post-secondary education they might pursue.

But before any of that comes a rebuild, the primary task facing whomever is selected as leader of the OLP in early March. Hunter currently sits as one of just five Liberal MPPs at Queens Park, representing the Toronto riding of ScarboroughGuildwood since a byelection in 2013. (Another member of the diminutive caucus, Don Valley Easts Michael Coteau, also has his hat in the leadership ring.) Hunter is pitching her role at Queens Park, having survived the 2018 race, as a favourable position for a party leader to be in.

Read more about Hunters leadership bid here.

Alvin Tedjo is prepared to ruffle some feathers.

Tedjo, one of six candidates gunning for leader of the Ontario Liberal Party, punctuates discussion about his platform with more abstract ideas the mainstream political norm as he sees it, for example, versus what he calls the mainstream ethos. Those phrases sprung forward while discussing a chief component of Tedjos pitch to voters, which is a merging of Ontarios public and Catholic school systems.

Since I was born, in the 80s, this has been an issue. And every government, of every political stripe, has been afraid to talk about it because theyre afraid of political backlash, Tedjo claimed in a recent interview with iPolitics, discussing his bid for leader. Certainly Ive run into some people that said, well, I dont think this is a good idea, (but) most of those people are saying they dont think its a good idea politically. Theyre not saying they dont think its a good idea morally, ethically, or policy wise.

Tedjo cites aNovember poll from public opinion form Abacus Datato back his campaign pledge. The survey of 785 voting-aged Ontarians which had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.6 per cent, 19 times out of 20 found 56 per cent support for merging the Catholic and public school systems in Ontario. One in four strongly supported the idea, and on the other side, one in 10 surveyed Ontarians were strongly opposed to it. The strongest opposition came, predictably, from Ontarios Catholic population, as 45 per cent of provincial Catholics opposed consolidation and 15 per cent said they were unsure. (Forty per cent of Catholics supported the idea.)

Despite pushback, though, it would be tricky to claim that Tedjo opposes Catholic education in Ontario wholesale; his children are currently enrolled in the system themselves. They have a great education. I love what theyre getting. But what theyre getting is exclusive to them, because a) theyre Catholic, and b) my wife has French language rights. So we had four times the amount of choices than any other family in Ontario, Tedjo said. I dont see how thats fair at all.

Read more about Tedjos leadership bid here.

The Ontario Liberal Party leadership convention is scheduled to take place March 6 and 7, 2020.

More from iPolitics

Link:

Meet the six candidates vying to lead the Ontario Liberal Party - iPolitics.ca

On Wednesday evening, comedian Ricky Gervais revealed that the reason that he roasted Hollywood liberals during this years Golden Globes was because theywear their liberalism like a medal.

I didnt roast Hollywood for being a bunch of liberals, explained Gervais via social media. I myself am a liberal. Nothing wrong with that.

I roasted them for wearing their liberalism like a medal, he continued. Im such a snowflake, liberal, I cant even really hate them for it. But my job is to take the piss. I did that.

On Monday, Gervais took a swing at Hollywood while hosting the award show, and he didnt hold back, telling liberal elites to can their sanctimonious sermons and f*** off.

So if you do win an award tonight, dont use it as a platform to make a political speech. Youre in no position to lecture the public about anything, the After Life actor and creator told the audience. You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg.

So if you win, come up, accept your little award, thank your agent, and your God and f*** off, he continued, Okay? Its already three hours long. Right, lets do the first award.

In another portion of Gervais fiery monologue, the actor took a shot at Apple:

Apple roared into the TV game with The Morning Show, a superb drama about the importance of dignity and doing the right thing, made by a company that runs sweatshops in China. Well, you say youre woke but the companies you work for in China unbelievable. Apple, Amazon, Disney. If ISIS started a streaming service youd call your agent, wouldnt you?

The scathing monologue was met with criticism from the press, as noted by The Daily Wire.

I always knew that there were morons in the world that took jokes seriously, but Im surprised that some journalists do, Gervais responded via Twitter. Surely, understanding stuff is pretty fundamental to their job, isnt it? Just makes it funnier though, I guess.

The comedian even offered a list of reminders about humor for the perpetually offended:

Below is the transcript of Gervais Golden Globes monologuevia The Daily Mail:

Youll be pleased to know this is the last time Im hosting these awards, so I dont care anymore. Im joking. I never did. Im joking, I never did. NBC clearly dont care either fifth time. I mean, Kevin Hart was fired from the Oscars for some offensive tweets hello?

Lucky for me, the Hollywood Foreign Press can barely speak English and theyve no idea what Twitter is, so I got offered this gig by fax. Lets go out with a bang, lets have a laugh at your expense. Remember, theyre just jokes. Were all gonna die soon and theres no sequel, so remember that.

But you all look lovely all dolled up. You came here in your limos. I came here in a limo tonight and the license plate was made by Felicity Huffman. No, shush. Its her daughter I feel sorry for. OK? That must be the most embarrassing thing thats ever happened to her. And her dad was in Wild Hogs.

Lots of big celebrities here tonight. Legends. Icons. This table alone Al Pacino, Robert DeNiro Baby Yoda. Oh, thats Joe Pesci, sorry. I love you man. Dont have me whacked. But tonight isnt just about the people in front of the camera. In this room are some of the most important TV and film executives in the world. People from every background. They all have one thing in common: Theyre all terrified of Ronan Farrow. Hes coming for ya. Talking of all you perverts, it was a big year for pedophile movies. Surviving R. Kelly, Leaving Neverland, Two Popes. Shut up. Shut up. I dont care. I dont care.

Many talented people of color were snubbed in major categories. Unfortunately, theres nothing we can do about that. Hollywood Foreign press are all very racist. Fifth time. So. We were going to do an In-Memoriam this year, but when I saw the list of people who died, it wasnt diverse enough. No, it was mostly white people and I thought, nah, not on my watch. Maybe next year. Lets see what happens.

No one cares about movies anymore. No one goes to cinema, no one really watches network TV. Everyone is watching Netflix. This show should just be me coming out, going, Well done Netflix. You win everything. Good night. But no, we got to drag it out for three hours. You could binge-watch the entire first season of Afterlife instead of watching this show. Thats a show about a man who wants to kill himself cause his wife dies of cancer and its still more fun than this. Spoiler alert, season two is on the way so in the end he obviously didnt kill himself. Just like Jeffrey Epstein. Shut up. I know hes your friend but I dont care.

Seriously, most films are awful. Lazy. Remakes, sequels. Ive heard a rumor there might be a sequel to Sophies Choice. I mean, that would just be Meryl just going, Well, its gotta be this one then. All the best actors have jumped to Netflix, HBO. And the actors who just do Hollywood movies now do fantasy-adventure nonsense. They wear masks and capes and really tight costumes. Their job isnt acting anymore. Its going to the gym twice a day and taking steroids, really. Have we got an award for most ripped junky? No point, wed know whod win that.

Martin Scorsese made the news for his controversial comments about the Marvel franchise. He said theyre not real cinema and they remind him about theme parks. I agree. Although I dont know what hes doing hanging around theme parks. Hes not big enough to go on the rides. Hes tiny. The Irishman was amazing. It was amazing. It was great. Long, but amazing. It wasnt the only epic movie. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, nearly three hours long. Leonardo DiCaprio attended the premiere and by the end his date was too old for him. Even Prince Andrew was like, Come on, Leo, mate. Youre nearly 50-something.

The world got to see James Corden as a fat p****. He was also in the movie Cats. No one saw that movie. And the reviews, shocking. I saw one that said, This is the worst thing to happen to cats since dogs. But Dame Judi Dench defended the film saying it was the film she was born to play because she loves nothing better than plunking herself down on the carpet, lifting her leg and licking her [expletive]. (Coughs) Hairball. Shes old-school.

Its the last time, who cares? Apple roared into the TV game with The Morning Show, a superb drama about the importance of dignity and doing the right thing, made by a company that runs sweatshops in China. Well, you say youre woke but the companies you work for in China unbelievable. Apple, Amazon, Disney. If ISIS started a streaming service youd call your agent, wouldnt you?

So if you do win an award tonight, dont use it as a platform to make a political speech. Youre in no position to lecture the public about anything. You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg.

So if you win, come up, accept your little award, thank your agent, and your God and f*** off, OK? Its already three hours long. Right, lets do the first award.

More here:

Ricky Gervais Reveals Why He Roasted 'Hollywood Liberals' - The Daily Wire

If the Ontario Liberal Party is very lucky, 2020 will be the year it looks back on and remembers as the beginning of its march back into the halls of power at Queens Park. That would mark a substantial improvement over 2019, when it languished in irrelevance and lost nearly 30 per cent of its caucus (that is, two MPPs) to greener pastures. But, then, almost anything would be an improvement.

The beginning of the new year will definitively end the relatively quiet phoney war phase of the Liberal leadership race, which will see the party vote for delegates in February for the leadership convention in March. The party announced Monday that just under 38,000 people are registered to vote for delegates, who will then in turn vote for the eventual winner. This more intense period of the campaign will involve more debates, more prominent endorsements (on Tuesday, front-runner Steven Del Duca announced one from Thunder BaySuperior North MPP Michael Gravelle), and potentially more acrimony as contestants try to distinguish themselves.

If things go well, the choice of leader will settle a bunch of arguments within the party. Some of them are relatively prosaic and of little interest to the general public: Should the party keep the delegated-convention system of picking a leader or abandon it as the other major parties have? Should the party adopt a free supporter category to expand the membership from the relatively small numbers it has today? Some involve more salient policy questions: Will it pursue Alvin Tedjos proposal to unify the Catholic and public schools in one secular system? Will it support fare-free public transit, which Michael Coteau has called for? Basically, the leader will, to some extent, get to shape the policies the party pursues going forward.

Get Current Affairs & Documentaries email updates in your inbox every morning.

At least as important, though, is the fact that the party will have to determine at least, for now the direction it wants to take post-Kathleen Wynne. The former premier is still a sitting MPP, and shell be a presence at the March convention, but which direction the party should go in 2020 has been the implicit question behind all the other questions in the race so far. Its usually summed up as should the party stay left or go back to the centre, but that oversimplifies both Wynnes legacy and the choices that lie ahead.

In 2018 and 19 it, became common to say that Wynne had taken the party to the left of the NDP, but her record in office is certainly more complicated than that. Wynne partially privatized Hydro One the provincial hydro utility something the NDP never forgave her for and something thats still controversial even in Liberal ranks. Her government struggled with balancing the provincial budget for years precisely because it spent those years being leery of substantial tax increases, although that changed relatively late in her tenure. Those are real parts of her record just as surely as the Universal Basic Income pilot and the $14 minimum wage are.

Numerous contestants in the current race could plausibly lay claim to part of Wynnes legacy, if they were so inclined. Michael Coteau and Mitzie Hunter served in her cabinet. Kate Graham ran as a Liberal in 2018, supporting Wynnes final platform, and has attracted some important allies of the former premier: Deb Matthews, the former deputy premier and a close friend of Wynnes, is supporting Grahams race. Pat Sorbara, Wynnes former deputy chief of staff, has joined Grahams campaign as an adviser.

Graham, for her part, doesnt endorse the idea of a hard pivot away from Wynnes legacy.

All of the issues we ran on in the last election were very, very popular things that Kathleen and the party championed. They did well at the doors, and they polled well, Graham told TVO.org on Tuesday. Theres an opportunity now to address the much bigger question of what kind of culture we want to build inside the party, instead of turning course away from one person. The partys much bigger than that.

The avatar of returning to the centre in this race is Steven Del Duca, and Del Duca himself has suggested that the Liberals were perhaps too activist under Wynne or, as he put it in debates last year, swung at a few too many pitches. But here, too, its worth appreciating the nuances. Del Duca started his leadership campaign by promising that, if he were leader, half of all Liberal candidates in 2022 would be women. Del Duca supports getting back to the $15 minimum wage, which the Tories abandoned, and has proposed a public group-benefits package (including pension, dental, and other perks) for self-employed and contract workers. It may not be a UBI, but it would represent a substantial expansion of the social-welfare system and meaningfully help the people who could use it.

Its easy to describe the recent history of the Liberal party as a swing to the left and to imagine that someone like Del Duca would move away from that, but leaders arent the sole masters of their parties fates: 2022 wont be like 2003, when the Liberals could start a 15-year-long winning streak with a mix of wonky centrism and not being Mike Harris. Even someone like Del Duca, for all his establishment support, is offering voters policies substantially more progressive even that those Wynne was willing to run on in 2014. Events of the past decade have pushed left-of-centre parties around the world to embrace more progressive policies (even the U.S. Democrats are currently engaged in a pitched debate over the proper role of the state), and the Ontario Liberals havent been, and wont be, immune.

Go here to read the rest:

Should the Liberals stay left or go back to the centre? Heres why thats the wrong question - TVO

Liberal support among voters living on reserves fell significantly in October's federal election, as the New Democrats remained the top choice. But the Liberals nevertheless retained more than two-thirds of the support they had gained in the previous election, before Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's stated commitment to Indigenous reconciliation hit some obstacles during his first four years in office.

Indigenous engagement in the 2015 federal election was high, with turnout reaching a historic summit of 61.5 per cent on First Nations reserves. While the NDP won that vote, the Liberals made significant inroads among First Nations voters, more than tripling their support.

On-reserve turnout figures for the 2019 federal election are not yet available, but an analysis of Elections Canada data by CBC News finds that the New Democrats were able to win the vote in on-reserve polling divisions for at least the third consecutive election but their lead over the Liberals was virtually unchanged from four years before.

A measure of First Nations people living on-reserve represents a minority of Indigenous Canadians, as it excludes any who live off-reserve as well as Inuit, Mtis, and non-status Indians. Only about half of First Nations peopleand around a quarter of all Canadians who claim Aboriginal identity in the census live on reserves. Additionally, roughly 10 per cent of people living on reserve are not Indigenous.

But among those in October who voted in polling divisions located entirely on-reserve, the NDPreceived the greatest share with 40.2 per cent of ballots cast. The Liberals finished second with 32.5 per cent, followed by the Conservatives at 17.2 per cent and the Greens at 7.5 per cent. Together, the People's Party, Bloc Qubcois and other candidates earned2.5 per cent of the on-reserve vote.

This suggests First Nations voters at least those living on reserves were more than twice as likely to vote for the NDP as other Canadians. The party captured 15.9 per cent of the vote nationwide, less than half of the share it received on reserves. Conversely, the Conservatives were twice as popular in the country as a whole as they were on reserves.

The Liberal vote share on reserves and nationwide was not significantly different.

Despite finishing first, for the NDP this representsthe party's second consecutive decrease in support on reserves. The NDPreceived58.4 per cent of the vote in polling divisions located entirely on reserves in 2011, when the New Democrats formed the Official Opposition. That dropped 12 points to 46.4 per cent in 2015 and another six points in 2019.

The Liberals saw their share of the vote on reserves drop eight points since 2015, though their score was still significantly higher than the 12.9 per cent the party received in 2011. While their drop was more than any other party's, itis perhaps not as steep as some expected, particularly after the SNC-Lavalin affair and the expulsion of Jody Wilson-Raybould, Canada's first Indigenous attorney general, from caucus.

The Conservatives saw an increase of eight points on reserves between 2015 and 2019, though their result was still lower than the 22.8 per cent earnedin 2011.

There were some significant regional variations in how First Nations voted in on-reserve polling divisions.

The Liberals were the top choice onreserves in both Atlantic Canada and Quebec, outpacing their nearest rivals by 23 and 27 percentage points, respectively.

That advantage for the Liberals appears to have been decisive in two ridings. The Liberals won the New Brunswick seat of MiramichiGrand Lake by a margin of 370 votes over the Conservatives, fewer than the gap of 414 votes separating the Liberals and Conservatives onreserves in the riding.

In the Nova Scotia riding of SydneyVictoria, the Liberals won by an overall margin of 1,309 votes over the Conservatives. Their edge over the Conservativesin on-reserve polling divisions was 1,711 votes.

In Ontario, however, the New Democrats were particularly strong. The party received58 per cent of the votes on reserves in the province, well ahead of the Liberals' 29 per cent. That is a big shift from 2015, with the New Democrats widening their margin over the Liberals by 20 points.

In TimminsJames Bay in northern Ontario, the NDP's Charlie Angus earned86 per cent of the vote in on-reserve polling divisions, more than twice his share in the rest of the riding. He received 99 per cent in KashechewanFirst Nation up from 88 per cent in 2015 where a state of emergency was declared in April due to flooding.

In Grassy Narrows First Nation, where residents have struggled with the health effects of mercury poisoning, Chief Rudy Turtle captured 72 per cent of the vote for the NDP. Defeated Liberal incumbent Bob Nault took just 27 per cent of the vote, roughly half of his share from 2015. He was probably not helped by Trudeau having to apologize after sarcastically thanking a Grassy Narrows protester for their donationat a Liberal fundraiser last year.

Turtle, however, was not able to win the Kenora riding despite his strong support on reserves. The NDPreceived67 per cent of the vote in on-reserve polling divisions in Kenora, compared to just two per cent for the Conservatives' Eric Melillo, whose support was strong enough in the rest of the riding to secure the seat.

This was also the case in the Saskatchewan riding of DesnethMissinippiChurchill River, in which 71 per cent of the population claims Aboriginal identity. The Liberals' Tammy Cook-Searson, chief of the Lac La Ronge Indian Band, won 49 per cent of the on-reserve vote, edging out NDP incumbent Georgina Jolibois by five points.

The Conservatives' Gary Vidal took just six per cent of the vote in on-reserve polling divisions, but managed to get 56 per cent of the vote in the rest of the riding. This made the difference, as Joliboisand Cook-Searson finished well back in other polling divisions with only 23 and 18 per cent of the vote, respectively.

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer received only five per cent of the vote in on-reserve polling divisions in his ReginaQu'Appelle riding. He won theSaskatchewan riding,in which 21 per cent of the population claims Aboriginal descent, with 63 per cent of the vote.

This was typical for the Conservatives in the region. Across Alberta and Saskatchewan, where the partywon 47 of 48 seats, the Conservative had just 10 per cent support in on-reserve polling divisions. The NDPhad 47 per cent, followed by the Liberals at 39 per cent.

Only in British Columbia did the Conservatives edge out the other parties in on-reserve voting, with 31.4 per cent of ballots cast to the NDP's 30.8 per cent and the Liberals' 21 per cent.

Read more:

Liberals dropped in on-reserve voting in 2019 federal election as NDP remained on top - CBC.ca

President Trump has accused the media of being "enemies of the people," and he has been proven to be even more correct than he could have known.

Iranian officials originally denied responsibility for the Ukrainian airliner that crashed near Tehran. On Saturday, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Sharif tweeted his official statement about it, he conceded it was accidentally shot down, but blamed the United States, nonetheless.

Human error at time of crisis caused by US adventurism led to disaster, he tweeted.

Of course! They shot down the plane, but it's America's fault, which is to say it's Donald Trump's fault! Just as the left couldn't quite celebrate the news that General Soleimani had been killed, they also are willing participants in the Blame America Brigade, even Democrats running for president.

American media has also chosen the blame America narrative. In their story about the crash, the Associated Press published a story with the headline, An Iranian general dies in U.S. attack, and innocents suffer, which prompted significant outrage. The Associated Press attempted to explain the absurd headline.

The headline was updated to more clearly describe what the story is about: Canadians struggling to come to terms with how the killing of an Iranian general in a U.S. drone strike may have led to the deaths of dozens of their citizens in a plane crash, an AP spokesperson told Fox News.

Why is it that the messaging of Democrats and the media so often sounds the same as that of our enemies? Is it because Barack Obama made it cool, is it Trump Derangement Syndrome as usual, or something bigger?

_____

Matt Margolis is the author ofTrumping Obama: How President Trump Saved Us From Barack Obama's Legacyand the bestselling bookThe Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama. You can follow Matt on Twitter@MattMargolis

Continue reading here:

Iran's Messaging About The Downed Airliner Echoes Democrats and Liberal Media - PJ Media

The MP for Oxford West sat down with Iain Dale to discuss the Withdrawal Agreement Bill passing yesterday. A caller introduced as Cornelius then joined the conversation and he did not hold back.Cornelius accused Ms Moran of failing still failing to accept the general election and referendum results.

He said: "She still doesn't accept the general election result, the result of the referendum.

"They will still try to oppose any deal and make it difficult for Boris Johnson to bring back any deal to parliament."

The Liberal Democrat MP replied: "Yes I will oppose his deal, I voted against it today."

The caller continued: "We had to have another general election because parliament was blocked and you're still rabbiting on about staying in the EU.

READ MORE:Lib Dems seek to scupper Brexit with public inquiry

"If you are so entrenched in the EU, why don't you just get a job with the EU? Clear off!

"The country has listened to people like you for three and a half years and youre still talking about it."

Ms Moran responded: "If the winner takes all and you have all MPs voting the same way all the time, that's not a parliamentary democracy, that's a dictatorship."

LBC host Iain Dale said: "I think you could have voted for the second reading of the bill, then people would of understood at least you recognised were leaving."

Ms Moran replied: "We do. The parliamentary maths is what it is and I hope you've heard an understanding of where we are now.

"But you don't just go along with everything.

"Good decisions are made when all of the good points of view are in the room.

"That's what we're doing and we have a mandate to do that."

Yesterday SNP's Ian Blackford unleashed a furious rant directed at Boris Johnson demanding a Scottish independence referendum following the passing of the Brexit bill.

Mr Blackford said: "This is an important point in the election we held last December the people of Scotland stood by the SNP on the basis of our right to choose.

"We will not accept being taken out of the European Union.

"I say to the Prime Minister respect democracy, respect the election result, respect the right of the people of Scotland to choose our future.

"We will have our referendum Prime Minister, Scotland will remain an independent European country!"

Continued here:

Liberal Democrat MP savaged by Brexiteer get a job with the EU and clear off!' - Express

Iran shot down a Ukrainian airliner. It occurred during the nations missile attack against U.S. forces in Iraq that blessedly ended with zero American casualties. The worlds largest sponsor of terrorism had to save face after President Trump ordered a drone strike that killed Maj. Gen. Qasam Soleimani, commander of Quds force, and the regions grim reaper. He was a top terrorist and how hes an ashtray. For those who love this country, its a win. Its a good thing. It was a good kill. It was a lawful kill. For the hate America crowdwe call them Democratstheyre acting as if the Iranian version of Gandhi was blasted half-way to hell. There were worries about war. The missile attack allowed liberal media outlets to hyperventilate for about 36 hours before Iran decided to stand down. There was no war. There is no war. Most of the world slept through World War IIIand the liberal media was once againwrong.

It was a win for Trump. Time magazine editor Ian Bremmer, who is no MAGA supporter, said that on CNN this week since it reestablished the red lines and deterrence that was degraded by the Obama administration. There is now a window for diplomacy to resume. Even with a partisan impeachment plot against him, Trump is still riding high and scoring wins. The Left probably cant sand that which is why theyre peddling this piece of misinformation that a Ukrainian airliner shot down by Iran outside of the capital Tehran was due to crossfire. We didnt fire back. This is fake news that some members of the media and the 2020 Democratic field were peddling. Some threw a tantrum when they got dragged for it. Oh, and they lectured us of course, like CNNs Susan Hennessey:

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) outright blamed Trump for the downed airliner (via Free Beacon):

Rep. Jackie Speier (D., Calif.) on Thursday said that Iran's shooting down of a Ukrainian airliner was collateral damage from President Donald Trump's killing of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani.

"If what is being projected is true, this is yet another example of collateral damage from the actions that have been taken in a provocative way by the president of the United States," Speier told CNN.

CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer had asked Speier if she believed Iran confused the commercial flight for a U.S. military plane, suggesting that "it certainly sounds like it was a mistake by the Iranians." Speier did not mention Iran in her response, only implicating Trump in the downed flight.

Trump killed a terrorist. Iran was put in its place. And now, in their anger, the Left is using dead civilians who were shot down by Iran to blame Trump. This is the definition of insanity. Its Trump Derangement Syndrome. Im so sorry this is happening to you, liberal America. Not really though.

View post:

There Was Crossfire! That Latest Attempt By Democrats And The Liberal Media To Blame Trump For Ukrainian Airline Crash - Townhall

The biggest problem of liberals in the country is creating a dominant narrative condescending of faith, religions and rituals. There needs to be an overhaul of the liberal idea and it needs to be rooted in cultural ideas, said Carnatic musician T.M. Krishna, who delivered the third U.R. Ananthamurthy Memorial Lecture in the city on Sunday.

He said faith is essentially a hope for a better tomorrow. It needs challenging and questioning, yes. But we need to renegotiate faith and rebuild rituals. Of course it will be problematic as we need to handle the question of caste. But we should not discard the goodness of humanity, he said, giving instances of the dilemmas he faces on singing certain regressive lyrics of many composers.

Delivering the speech as an open letter to the late Ananthamurthy, Mr. Krishna said India as a country had failed to inculcate the culture of democracy over the last seven decades. The greatest danger of the present regime is that it may have changed the social fabric of our society and the way we think. Politicians will keep it going if it works and it will be normalised. We are very precariously poised and we need to recognise that, he said.

The Constitution is itself our samskara and not western as some people want us to believe. Civilisationally, India has never been of one religion, language or rule. We need to take ideas like secularism and fraternity to the people, he said. But who understands secularism? The preamble should have been sung as songs. Why did we not institute Sarvadharma Prarthana in every school? he posed. Critiquing the private education system, which he was also a part of, he said it had essentially created a segregated schooling system on class, caste and religious lines, and it was hard to expect children who go through it to understand egalitarian values suddenly.

But he expressed hope in the youth taking part in protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. While showing us what is precious, they have showed us we need to be on the streets and not in our homes, he said.

You have reached your limit for free articles this month.

Register to The Hindu for free and get unlimited access for 30 days.

Find mobile-friendly version of articles from the day's newspaper in one easy-to-read list.

Enjoy reading as many articles as you wish without any limitations.

A select list of articles that match your interests and tastes.

Move smoothly between articles as our pages load instantly.

A one-stop-shop for seeing the latest updates, and managing your preferences.

We brief you on the latest and most important developments, three times a day.

Not convinced? Know why you should pay for news.

*Our Digital Subscription plans do not currently include the e-paper ,crossword, iPhone, iPad mobile applications and print. Our plans enhance your reading experience.

See more here:

Liberal argument in India needs an overhaul, says T.M. Krishna - The Hindu

Claim: Facebook page Pork Ng Ina Mo claimed that Andal Ampatuan Jr., who was convicted in the gruesome Maguindanao massacre in 2009, was a Liberal Party member. (READ: WATCH: Trial of the decade: Highlights of Ampatuan massacre case)

The page posted it on December 20, a day after the verdict on the Ampatuan massacre was handed down.

The post also included a graphic that included a screenshot of a tweet by Liberal Party president Kiko Pangilinan and a photo of former Datu Unsay, Maguindanao mayor Andal Ampatuan Jr. wearing a yellow shirt.

The caption for the post reads: Isn't it wonderful how Dilawans praise the conviction of the Ampatuans, who are members of their political party?

The post has gained over 300 shares with 650 reactions and 140 comments, as of writing. The claim was flagged by Facebook Claim Check, a tool used for spotting potentially false posts spreading on social media.

Rating: FALSE

The facts: The masterminds of the Ampatuan massacre were officials of the Lakas-Kampi-CMD, the party of former Philippine president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. In fact, the Ampatuans were expelled from Lakas-Kampi CMD two days after the massacre.

The Ampatuans were allies of Arroyo, head of the Lakas-Kampi-CMD coalition at the time of the massacre. Arroyo is now a close ally of President Rodrigo Duterte.

The Ampatuan family delivered votes for Arroyo in the 2004 presidential elections as well as a 12-0 sweep in favor of her selected senatorial slate, Team Unity, in the 2007 elections.

When the massacre happened, Zaldy Ampatuan one of those convicted in the massacre was the regional chairman for Lakas-Kampi, while his father, Ampatuan clan patriarch Andal Ampatuan Sr., was the party's provincial chairman for Maguindanao province. Both were stripped of these positions following the massacre.

Andal Ampatuan Sr. was also among those accused of masterminding the massacre. He died in 2015 while on trial for the massacre.

At the time of the massacre, the senior Ampatuan had already reached the limit of 3 terms for the post of provincial governor of Maguindanao. The man convicted for leading the gruesome massacre, then-mayor of Datu Unsay town Andal Ampatuan Jr., was selected by the family to succeed his father as governor.

Then-vice mayor of Buluan town Esmael Mangudadatu (now Maguindanao 2nd district representative) also chose to run for governor. (READ: Who is Toto Mangudadatu?)

Mangudadatu's wife, his female siblings and other relatives were among those slaughtered in the massacre. They were headed for the provincial capitol, Shariff Aguak, to file a certificate of candidacy on his behalf when they were abducted and eventually murdered. Glenda Marie Castro and Gemma B. Mendoza/Rappler.com

Keep us aware of suspicious Facebook pages, groups, accounts, websites, articles, or photos in your network by contacting us at factcheck@rappler.com. Let us battle disinformation one Fact Check at a time.

Go here to see the original:

FALSE: Convicted Ampatuan brothers are 'Liberal Party members' - Rappler

I would not be averse to being described as centre-left, social democratic, liberal and moderate, but I am unable to agree with Vince Cable (The centre-left parties must work together more closely, 17 December) that Labours manifesto was advocating radical socialism.

Proposing to raise the level of public expenditure to around that of Germany or France is hardly revolutionary. Its promise of public ownership and control of railways and public utilities is modest in contrast to the commanding heights of the economy run by governments during the 1970s. Even the offer of free broadband is positively Wilsonian in its faith in the white heat of modern technology. Overall, its range of practical and costed measures to deal with the modern day manifestations of want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness was firmly in the reformist tradition of Beveridge. Its intention to borrow at low interest rates in order to promote (green) industrial growth and full employment was essentially Keynesian.

On the other hand, when in office from 2010 to 2015, the Liberal Democrat party, pursuing its own Orange Book principles, shared responsibility for the imposition of neoliberal economic policies of austerity, in combination with the privatisation and fragmentation of public services.

As Cable was himself the minister who virtually gave away our Royal Mail to hedge funds and City institutions, he really needs to reflect on whether it is actually the Liberal Democrat rather than the Labour leadership that has made the radical departure from social democracy.Simon HinksBrighton

I agree with Vince Cable that excessive zealous Europeanism was a huge error in their campaigning and a grave disappointment.

But for me it started with the crass T-shirts declaiming Bollocks to Brexit worn delightedly by their new tranche of MEPs. I am an ardent remainer and, if that ship has now sailed, this party needs to row back from such divisive messaging. I voted for the Lib Dems in the European elections because they had an unapologetic and stalwart remain stance, but I fear it went horribly wrong with the very idea of revoking article 50 and cancelling Brexit. Added to which, Jo Swinsons arrogant position of who she would or would not do a coalition deal with. Judith A DanielsCobholm, Norfolk

It was probably about time we had the ritual call for a party of nice, civilised people. Up pops Vince Cable, right on schedule. As Liberals know from their fraught experience, there is a crucial distinction between working together and the enfeeblement of a distinctive Liberal party by narrowing its electoral opportunities, and that the first-past-the-post electoral system exacts a high price for any fragmentation of a worthy appeal. Vince Cable acknowledges this truth, but glosses over any renewed campaign to change the system.

The consequences of the recent election are not just unfair to specific political parties but, even more so, they traduce the electors. The Brexiters have repeated incessantly that the 52% to 48% vote at the referendum is a democratic authority for Brexit. How can they now claim that a 43% vote for the Conservatives gives them the authority to force Brexit through?Michael MeadowcroftLeeds

What a silly column by Simon Jenkins (The Lib Dems helped the Tories to victory again. Now they should disband, 16 December). If the Liberal Democrats had not won seats like Twickenham, Richmond Park, Kingston and Bath, who on earth does he think would have won them?

When a long-term Conservative government was defeated in 1997, their defeat was partly brought about by a series of Lib Dem byelection wins and the 28 gains made by the Lib Dems from the Tories in that general election (as well as a result of Labour members choosing someone with greater appeal to the electorate than Jeremy Corbyn).

It is arrogant to assume that if the Liberal Democrats did not exist, all of their voters would prefer Labour irrespective of Labours leader and programme. Who else would have solidly stood in support of our membership of the EU?Lord RennardLiberal Democrat, House of Lords

Simon Jenkins correctly recognises the problem of progressive disunity. Since 1945 regressives have only won a majority of the vote at one general election, yet have led 60% of UK governments in that time. However, his diagnosis represents the kind of domineering tribalism that has prevailed in progressive circles and serves us badly. It rejects the diversity of opinion that exists in Britain and compels the disunity to continue.

With Labour and the Lib Dems conducting leadership elections at the same time, there is an opportunity to lay foundations for a winning progressive realignment ahead of the next election. Two Lib Dem leadership candidates (Daisy Cooper and Layla Moran) already indicate they would steer the Lib Dems in an even more progressive direction (as occurred under Charles Kennedy and Paddy Ashdown). Far from preventing a progressive victory as Jenkins holds, the Lib Dems could make a significant contribution. Of the 30 seats the Lib Dems are currently best placed to gain on a uniform swing, 26 are fights versus the Conservatives. Only two are versus Labour.

Progressive voters are already ahead of the parties, with many hundreds of thousands having voted tactically last Thursday and, in the process, they restrained significantly the size of the Conservatives majority. It is time the progressive parties caught up and stopped discarding the pluralistic and cooperative values we say we uphold.Paul PettingerCouncil member of the Social Liberal Forum

Simon Jenkins suggests that the Lib Dems should disband to give Labour a clear run. Here are the results for Cheltenham: Con 48%, LD 46%, Lab 5%, Monster Raving Loony 1%.

Perhaps Labour and the Loonies should shut up shop? I suppose Labour can celebrate the fact that they didnt come last.Nick ChiplenCheltenham, Gloucestershire

Join the debate email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

Read more Guardian letters click here to visit gu.com/letters

Do you have a photo youd like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and well publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition

See original here:

The Liberal Democrats place in progressive politics - The Guardian

DumpsterFire45s cyberhandle pretty much gives it away.

In other words, he explains, hes just like the typical Trump supporter that he comes across in his everyday life except for one thing: Hes a fiscally conservative and socially liberal Democrat.

From there, DumpsterFire45 launched into a viral tweetstorm based on seven insights he has gleaned on the ground rather than, say, in a roadside diner with a cable-news camera in MAGA country.

Heres a breakdown:

1. The talking points are all-pervasive: Decades of faux and talk radio in combination with conservative social media have ingrained right wing talking points into even casual viewers. Its everywhere. On every TV at the doctors office. In every gym. On every radio. Everywhere.

2. Right-wing views are rarely questioned in public: Even the folks that are starting to (only just now) realize that something is wrong about Individual-1 are actively shamed if they question [President Trumps] actions openly.

3. Potential Democratic voters are swayed culturally: Im sorry. I dont like it either and I wish it wasnt so. But if everyone around you is claiming that the dems are out to destroy the country ... its a goddamn stretch just to vote blue. And if done, will mostly be done in secret to avoid ridicule.

4. Its still about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton: They cant get past it. These folks are so radicalized against Obama, he is literally seen as a usurper and foreign agent that took the presidency with the help of the deep state (Hillary) and tried to bring down democracy.

5. Those willing to change must be convinced: We want them and we need them. If crossing over will result in more shame folks will stay where they are. We can teach them all about embracing progressive values after we get em. ... Wars are won one battle at a time. We need to take any victory we can get.

6. Democrats need to embrace reality: Im uninsured right now and its scary. I cant afford the [Affordable Care Acts] marketplace and Im cash-n-carry at the doctors office. I want a progressive. Badly. But if a centrist gets the nomination Im all in. This is about democracy.

7. Maybe its better we dont get our top pick: Twitter is not our country, and we have to accept that. Not everyone has the same understandings we do and we all still need each other to stay intact as a democracy. Vote for the dem that can win and encourage/help others to do the same.

DumpsterFire45s thread rapidly drew tens of thousands of likes, shares and comments, most of them, like this one, cheering his observations:

To be fair, when it comes to grabbing media attention, the I-am-the-exception formula seems to work on both sides of the aisle.

Just ask Bryan Dean Wright, the prolific Im a Democrat, but ... guy, who, as you can see from this tweet, appears to be a regular on Fox News.

Excerpt from:

Gun-toting, Wrangler-wearing, truck-driving red stater has a message for liberals, and its not what you might think - MarketWatch

A Liberal MP is denying allegations, broadcast on an Iranian-language television network, that he has worked with and accepted money from Iran's government.

"These accusations are absolutely false and unfounded," Majid Jowhari told CBC News in a written statement. "I strongly deny any accusations."

The allegations against the member of Parliament for Richmond Hill were made by freelance journalist Alireza Sassani on the program Window on the Homeland on the Iran-e-Farda network.

CBC News has not been able to independently verify Sassani's claims.

Sassani is described as a close collaborator of Masoud Molavi, an Iranian intelligence agent who defected and revealed details of Iranian influence operations overseas.

Molavi was shot dead on the streets of Istanbul on November 14. He had been granted asylum in Turkeyafter fleeing Iran and had set up a digital channel, BlackBox, which he used to broadcast revelations about corruption and wrongdoing within the Iranian regime.

The U.S. government blamed his assassination on Iran's intelligence services.

Describing Iranian government influence operations in other countries, Sassani said that "Masoud talked to me about someone by the name of Majid Jowhari. He's a member of the Parliament of Canada. He's from the Liberal Party, representing Richmond Hill.

"He said that Jowhari was in touch with some of the intelligence officers of Iran, and that he even visited the representatives of Taeb and Mojtaba Khamenei. He even received financial support from these people.

"Now he's been elected in Canada for a second time."

Hossein Taeb is the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) intelligence division. Mojtaba Khamenei is a son of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and is sometimes described as head of the Basij militia, a pro-regime force that is heavily involved in suppressing protests in Iran.

Since 2010, the IRGC has been a listed entity under Canada's Special Economic Measures Act. The law prohibits Canadians from engaging in any financial, service or goods-related transactionswith listed entities and individuals; Hossein Taebhimself is a listed individual under the law. Part of the IRGC is also listed as a terrorist group in Canada.

Mojtaba Khamenei has not been named as a listedindividual under the Special Economic Measures Act. He was, however, designated last month by the U.S. TreasuryDepartment "for representing the Supreme Leader in an official capacity despite never being elected or appointed to a government position aside from work in the office of his father," according to a press release. The assets of those designated by Treasury are blocked, and Americans are banned from dealing with them.

"The Supreme Leader has delegated a part of his leadership responsibilities to Mojataba Khamenei, who worked closely with the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) and also the Basij Resistance Force (Basij) to advance his father's destabilizing regional ambitions and oppressive domestic objectives," says the Treasury release.

Jowharisaid today that he's being singled out "without a shred of evidence ...

"Those who spread these slanderous and baseless accusations want to instigate hate and fear without providing a single fact to support it. We should stand together against this hateful behaviour."

The allegation is already drawing pointed political reaction, with Conservative Sen. Linda Frum calling for an investigation.

It's not the first time Jowhari has had to push back against claims that he is close to the regime in Iran.

Shortly after he was elected in 2015, he was heavily criticized for inviting three Iranian parliamentarians to visit him in his riding office. He also drew negative attention for some of his tweets including one he sent out during the wave of protests that shook Iran in December 2017.

Jowhari said he hoped the protesters would be able to demonstrate "with the support of their elected government".

Jowhari was condemned by many Iranian-Canadians for appearing to suggest that the regime was "elected"and that it was supporting protesters. In fact, government forces were suppressing the protests with considerable bloodshed.

Thomas Juneau researches Middle Eastern affairs at the University of Ottawa and is a former strategic analyst at the Department of National Defence.

Last year, he conducted a research project on the debate over whether Canada should re-establish ties with the Islamic Republic of Iran, a hugely controversial topic in the Iranian-Canadian community.

Advocates of re-engagement include both regime supportersand people who merely want to make it easier to visit family in Iran or send help to family members in the country.

"[Jowhari's] name did come up on a number of occasions. He was known inside the Liberal caucus as one of the main proponents of re-engagement with Iran a view that I agree with," he said."But he was viewed as being a bit too much of a proponent of that view and a bit too much with individuals associated with the Islamic Republic."

Juneau says many of those he spoke to who supported re-engagement were still reluctant to be seen associating with Jowhari, who had a "controversial history".

But he cautions that an allegation made by an "individual associated with a dead Iranian spy" falls far short of the evidence he would need to see to conclude that Jowhari crossed a line.

"To label an individual an asset of a foreign government is a very serious accusation, and it has to be made on the basis of clear information,"he said. "And we do not have we're not even close to having enough information publicly available to make that accusation toward that MP."

Shortly before the federal election in October, a email was widely distributed in the Richmond Hill riding drafted byLiberals who said they had come "to the regrettable conclusion that we simply could not vote for" Majid Jowhari.

The email quoted four prominent Liberals: former Ontario cabinet minister Reza Moridi, who represented the provincial riding of Richmond Hill for over a decade; Bryon Wilfert, who previously held the federal riding for the Liberal Party; Sarkis Assadourian, who represented the federal riding of Brampton Centre for the Liberals; and Richard Rupp, past president of the Richmond Hill federal Liberal riding association.

In their email, they state that their decision is "based on a review of the Liberal candidate's record and of various media reports regarding some of his activities over the past four years."

They did not give details on which aspects of Jowhari's record they took issue with.

"Team Jowhari" responded on the MP's Facebook page: "This communication represents the worst type of campaign tactics a non-specific note from a group who do not have the courage of their convictions to say what party and policies they do support but are prepared to say only what they don't support."

More:

'False and unfounded': Liberal MP denies claims that he's worked with Iran - CBC.ca

Illustrated | NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP via Getty Images, Aerial3/iStock, MicrovOne/iStock

December 18, 2019

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

I don't know how to put this delicately, so I will just out with it, in the hope of sparing the feelings of as many New York Times columnists as possible: The American people are not all that shot up with impeachment.

It's true that polls show that many of us are broadly in favor of it, whatever that means (though others also show, oddly enough, Trump beating every single one of the roughly 437 Democratic hopefuls). But even those who will blandly affirm their support for the process in a poll were not exactly taking to the streets on Tuesday night.

Impeachment was always going to be like this: one of those pet causes beloved of (mostly wealthy or very young) liberal activists and very serious people in the media. The rest of the country, whatever they think about Donald Trump, have more important things to do than develop detailed and passionate opinions about the contents of the House's nearly 700-page impeachment report. As soon as it became clear that "Trump Ukraine impeachment" was not going to be a story involving Eurasian hookers and coke and urine-related videocassettes, people started tuning it out. Bill Clinton's impeachment also divided the country 20 years ago, but for some reason people seemed to care more about the details.

All of this was, as I say, predictable. So too were the increasingly serious-sounding negative repercussions from impeachment in crucial states like Wisconsin and Michigan. This is the price you pay for a self-aggrandizing cynical strategy long opposed by your own party's leadership.

What I don't understand is why so so many of the president's critics are still pouting. Gee, it's so disappointing that you got exactly what you wanted and roughly half of the American people nominally agree with you about it. What a pity that ordinary working men and women feel like they have better things to do than join the rent-a-protester mobs being put on by various well-endowed SuperPACs to protest what, exactly? This impeachment game has been going on for a long time. Everyone knew what the final score would be.

So why shouldn't Trump's opponents enjoy impeachment for what it's been that is, a massive if mostly symbolic victory? They got under the old lizard's skin. They made it almost impossible for him to pursue infrastructure or any of the other things he campaigned on. They are living rent-free in his head and rarely leave their apartments. The same goes for his supporters. So have some fun. Invite friends over. Tweet your pronouns, thank your local graduate student or journo union, bathe in avocado liqueur, or whatever it is that people slightly to the left of Joe Lieberman are popularly supposed to do in the right-wing imagination. It doesn't matter what the lumpenproletariat think. Just keep dancing on your own.

Liberals will be glad they did six months from now, when they find themselves in the exact same position they did four years ago: trying to prevent the guy who once got paid millions of dollars to pretend to fire Gary Busey on television from being duly elected president of the United States. They thought it would be easy in 2016. They should know better now.

Powered By ZergNet

Go here to see the original:

Wait did liberals actually think they'd remove Trump from office? - The Week

Once again, TIME has chosen a reliably liberal recipient to be Person of the Year. The winner is 16-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, who has spent the past year appearing at rallies and giving speeches railing about the dangers of fossil fuels. At a 2018 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poland, Thunberg claimed not to care about being popular. I care about climate justice and the living planet.

In September, she spent two weeks sailing across the Atlantic Ocean in a zero-emissions yacht. Her destination was New York City for the United Nations Climate Action Summit. In a speech that made international headlines, Thunberg fulminated that world leaders have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet Im one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. She challenged world leaders to stop destroying the future for young people and to address a problem that they were ignoring. She said, We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!

In response to this well-publicized speech, President Trump sarcastically tweeted, She seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future. So nice to see! In his comment, the President perfectly highlighted the hysterical nature of Thunbergs remarks. In contrast, liberals loved that Thunberg was so passionate about climate change. It set the stage for her to receive even more speaking engagements and publicity. Thus, it was not a complete surprise that TIME would have bestowed this award on her.

TIME Editor-in-Chief Edward Felsenthal called her the biggest voice on the biggest issue facing the planet. Possibly, TIME believes that Thunberg is the biggest voice, but others including Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro think that she is a brat because of her regular lectures directed at adults in leadership positions. Recently, Thunberg condemned the murder of two indigenous people in areas of the Amazon rainforest known for illegal logging. She tweeted, Indigenous people are literally being murdered for trying to protect the forest from illegal deforestation. Bolsonaro claimed that the illegal logging is being done by foreign governments and questioned why the media gives so much space to this kind of pirralha, which is a Portuguese word for brat.

As far as climate change being the biggest issue, surely this is the mantra of the left, as it is viewed as almost a religion. However, in a recent Yale survey, climate change was not listed as a top concern to most Americans. The study showed that global warming ranked as the 15th most important issue out of a list of 28 possibilities. Hard-working Americans are more concerned about healthcare, the economy, education and crime. Climate change is not an immediate problem for Americans who are taking care of their families and careers.

Instead of addressing concerns of average Americans, TIME has shown its elitism once again by this selection. The choice might not register with most Americans, but liberal professors, journalists and Hollywood stars surely celebrated Thunbergs selection. These activists can afford to obsess about climate change, but most Americans are too busy working.

Others who were considered for the award include House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), the CIA Ukraine whistleblower, the Hong Kong protesters and President Donald Trump. If TIME had been truly honest, Trump would have won the award this year. He has dominated the news unlike any other U.S. President in history.

Thunberg has had a fraction of the impact that Trump has had on the world. Unfortunately, TIME consistently refuses to bestow this award on conservatives. While Trump won it in 2016, he also should have won it in 2017 and 2018.

Donald Trump, Jr. blasted the award as a marketing gimmick and noted that TIME overlooked the Hong Kong Protesters fighting for their lives and freedoms. Trump, Jr. is right that the courageous people of Hong Kong have been true heroes this year. They displayed remarkable courage for standing up to the tyrannical regime in China to advocate for more autonomy for their region.

Not surprisingly, Thunberg has said absolutely nothing about China, a country that is known for massive pollution, abusing human rights, limiting freedoms, inhumane working conditions and doing very little to combat climate change. TIME should have given the award to President Trump or those Hong Kong protesters fighting real threats, such as Chinese communism. Instead, the award was given to a youngster who is promoting an elitist agenda which involves the transfer of massive amounts of wealth and is fighting a threat that many people, including renowned scientists, believe is not even real.

Go here to see the original:

Jeff Crouere: Another liberal named Person of the Year - The Franklin Sun

A Liberal party member who helped organise a Chinese-Australian business fundraising dinner has denied links to the Chinese Communist party after references to Chinas Belt and Road initiative appeared on invitations to the event.

The Australia Chinese United Business Association Federation (Acubaf), representing more than 50 associations and 1,000 individual businesses, is hosting a charity dinner on Friday to raise money for the Salvation Army and its bushfire appeal.

Invitations to the dinner, seen by Guardian Australia, advertise Acubafs role as to provide a bridge between Australian Chinese business and to offer the chance to cooperate for all Chinese associations, meanwhile offering access to the One Belt, One Road policy in China.

The Belt and Road initiative is the Chinese Communist partys $1tn global infrastructure project, building trade and supply routes and subsequent influence across the world.

After inquiries from the Guardian, one of the dinners organisers, Lina Zhao, provided an alternative invitation, identical except that the reference to Belt and Road was absent. She suggested that the original invitation might be fraudulent.

There is no evidence of manipulation on the original invitation, and it was sent to Guardian Australia by several independent sources.

Zhao said the organising committee never approved or distributed the original version of the invitation, and Acubaf was not a vehicle for Belt and Road.

Acubaf is an independent and Australia-based business association, registered in NSW, which is not affiliated with any Chinese government organisation.

Zhao said the dinner was a charitable event to help people affected by these catastrophic bushfire conditions.

A Liberal party member, Nancy Liu, who was also on the organising committee, said she had no political connections or links to the Chinese government.

I have no connection at all to any foreign government or organisation, she said. This isnt anything related to any foreign countries. This dinner is a local fundraising event for our local community. It is a good chance for the Chinese business community to contribute to their mission of building our local community.

The website of the Chinese embassy in Australia says one of the purposes of Acubaf is to provide opportunities for the innovative development opportunities brought by Chinas Belt and Road.

The Australian government has declined to become involved in Belt and Road, though the Victorian state government has signed on, as have several Pacific Island states.

The Acubaf previously also known as the Australian Chinese Chamber of Commerce Association has hosted the prime minister, Scott Morrison, the immigration minister, David Coleman, and a suite of federal and state government ministers, Chinese embassy and government officials.

Acubaf is the peak body for Chinese business associations in Australia and was established at a meeting held at the Sydney premises of the Australian Council for the Peaceful Reunification of China in 2016, when the exiled Chinese businessman Huang Xiangmo was its president. Liu served as vice-president of the ACPPRC and Jiang was on its executive committee during the time Huang was president. Lius name has been removed from the ACPPRC website.

Huang served for three years as president of the ACPPRC, which is regarded as the most significant of dozens of organisations in Australia controlled by the United Front Work Department, a Chinese government agency overseen directly by the Chinese Communist partys central committee.

The United Front Work Department leads operations outside China aimed at influencing overseas Chinese and western elites, in particular business leaders and politicians, to back Beijings policies and aims. The Chinese president, Xi Jinping, has described it as important magic weapon for the victory of the partys cause.

Liu, who sits on the Georges River council in Sydney and the Liberal party Chinese council in New South Wales, said she had ceased all involvement in the ACPPRC and had no personal contact with Mr Huang.

Huang said he did not retain any links to business chambers in Australia.

Huang is in Hong Kong after the Australian government rescinded his permanent residency last December on character grounds. His application for citizenship was withdrawn. Australian intelligence agencies had consistently warned political parties not to accept money from Huang, cautioning that he may have been acting as a conduit for Communist party influence.

Huang is currently locked in a court battle with the tax office which alleges he owes $140m in unpaid taxes, interest and penalties. The tax office has won a freezing order over his assets worldwide, including over a $12m mansion in Mosman held in his wifes name, but which the ATO says he paid for.

Huang is contesting the charges and has accused the tax office of being a despicable tool for political persecution, and saying unknown dark forces within an Australian deep state were conspiring against him.

Since having his visa revoked, Huang has pulled more than $50m out of Australia, and the tax office may seek to bankrupt him as part of the federal court proceedings, arguing he no longer has the assets in Australia to pay his tax bill.

Huang has also been a significant if absent feature of the Independent Commission Against Corruption hearings into NSW Labor party corruption.

It was alleged by party figures that Huang was the secret donor who illegally gave $100,000 in cash delivered in person in an Aldi shopping bag which was then disguised by the party through a series of false straw donors.

Huang has denied the allegations made before Icac but has declined to give evidence.

Originally posted here:

Liberal party member denies links to Chinese Communist party after Belt and Road controversy - The Guardian

OTTAWA The Liberal government has likely painted itself into a corner on carbon taxes, particularly after Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said he was wrestling with the approval of a major oilsands mine.

Ottawa has declined to commit to major carbon tax increases after 2022, despite Liberal claims that the levy will play a key role in meeting their climate targets. The Liberal government has committed to meeting its 2030 Paris agreements as well as a more recent pledge to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

Wilkinson on Wednesday signalled that the 2050 target could weigh heavily on his decision to either approve or reject Teck Resources $20.6-billion oilsands mine in Alberta, saying it was not clear the project would fit into the Liberals environmental goals.

That is something that we will have to be discussing and wrestling with as we make a decision one way or the other, Wilkinson told reporters in Calgary on Wednesday.

The stakes are very, very high

The Frontier project north of Fort McMurray would mark the most significant new investment in the Alberta oilpatch in years. It is expected to generate $70 billion in tax revenue for the federal, provincial and local governments, create 7,000 construction jobs and 2,500 permanent jobs.

It would also generate about 4.1 million megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year over its 40-year lifespan. A federal-provincial review this summer found that the project would be in the public interest, while also laying out a number of environmental damages that would come from the mine.

Wilkinson will make a final decision before the end of February on whether to approve the project.

But killing it would be a major blow, said Alberta Environment Minister Jason Nixon.

It would send a signal to investors that Alberta is not open for business and the federal government is going to go out of their way to stop projects. The stakes are very, very high, he told the Edmonton Journal.

Wilkinsons dilemma over the approval seems to underscore the challenge facing Prime Minster Justin Trudeau as he continues to claim that the Liberals can accommodate environmental concerns while also grow the economy. The environment minister will have to account for new sources of greenhouse gas emissions like Frontier, even as his office has declined to raise its carbon tax over the $50 per tonne threshold.

A report by the Parliamentary Budget Office, meanwhile, estimates that Ottawa would have to introduce various carbon levies of a combined $102 per tonne by 2030 in order to meet its environmental goals. By its own projections, the Liberal government is currently set to fall well short of meeting its Paris targets.

Various environmental policies under Trudeau have been met with intense criticism by some voters, particularly those in oil-rich Western provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan. Critics of the policies argue that carbon emissions reduction should come entirely through technology, rather than taxes placed on households.

Wilkinson has said his office would conduct an early review of the carbon tax in 2020 and a second review in 2022, where it will consider further increases above the $50 threshold. Trudeau recently laid out directions in his mandate letter for Wilkinson, which included strengthening existing environmental policies while seeking to exceed Canadas 2030 targets.

A spokesperson for Wilkinson said Ottawa would close the gap on its emissions reduction shortfalls by planting two billion trees, subsidizing electric vehicles, retrofitting homes, and subsidizing clean technologies through a separate $5-billion fund.

Environmental groups broadly agree that Ottawa needs to raise its carbon tax well beyond $50 per tonne, and that it should be more open about the pace of that increase in order to give families and businesses time to plan for the additional costs.

What we need to see is transparency and consistency in how this is applied, said Josha MacNab, director of policy at the Pembina Institute, an environmental group.

What weve heard from business and industry consistently is that changing the rules of the game, rolling back policy, introducing new policy, not being clear about whats happening its not helpful.

Industry groups, meanwhile, have long claimed that Ottawa could continue to approve emissions-intensive projects like oilsands facilities, while achieving emissions reductions through other measures.

Oilsands producers have managed to make strides in reducing emissions in the past 20 years, largely through technological investments that they claim will continue to drive down greenhouse gas emissions and costs.

What we need to see is transparency and consistency

The Frontier project has been called one of the last major oilsands mines that will be built in northern Alberta, largely because producers are increasingly using steam-driven production methods as a way to target deeper-lying bitumen formations.

A November report by Canadas Ecofiscal Commission found that carbon taxes would have to reach as high as $210 per tonne by 2030 in order to meet the countrys targets, a move that it said might prove politically challenging. The increase would raise costs of gas by roughly 40 cents per litre, the report estimated.

The report said that the alternative to rising carbon taxes could be achieved through regulations, which it said was an even more costly option. People both opposed and supportive of carbon taxes have warmed to the more expensive regulatory option, as it is often hidden from sight and less likely to raise a political fight.

Under the Harper government, Canada agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. Trudeau promised in September to implement legally binding policies that would bring Canada to net-zero emissions by 2050 if re-elected.

See original here:

Liberals in dilemma over carbon taxes, greenhouse gas emissions and a $20B mine in Alberta - National Post

Now what? Boris Johnsons bonus for a stunning election victory is room for manoeuvre. He promised to get Brexit done and the UK will surely leave the EU in January. But he was careful not to say how. He only said that he would also leave Europes single market and customs union, a choice for which he will now claim a mandate. A mandate is not a plan.

British elections are good at hiding paradoxes. There was no great Tory swing. Johnson actually increased the partys vote share by just 1.2% on Theresa Mays ostensibly disastrous election two years ago. They won handsomely because of first-past-the-post. Labour and the Liberal Democrats could not bring themselves to do constituency deals and duly split the anti-Tory vote right across the country.

Had this been a transferable-vote presidency, Johnson, with just 43% of the poll, could well have lost. It was the fratricidal incompetence of the left that gave him victory. Evidence of this is that anti-Brexit parties secured more votes than the Tories and Brexit party together. If this really was a second referendum, it did not go for Brexit. But still Johnson won. And anyone fed up with the past three years of shambles must be relieved it was with a secure majority. Parliament can withdraw into the political background and attention turn to Johnsons use of his victory.

The prime minister knows that leaving the customs union and single market is fiendishly hard

Of course Brexit is not done, and will not be in January. Throughout the campaign, Johnson dodged all questions of what the UKs future relationship with Europe should be, trading or otherwise. For Britain to leave the EU is comparatively small beer compared with whether or not it disentangles itself from the colossal network of economic relationships governing the continent of Europe. Johnson has pledged just such disentanglement. It is a pledge he must break.

The prime minister must know that leaving the customs union and single market is fiendishly hard. He knows because he has just failed to bring it off for Northern Ireland. All experts claim a trade deal cannot be reached in the allotted year or without tearing up Britains relations with third parties who have existing deals with the EU. Withdrawing on WTO terms makes no sense.

Sooner or later, the grownups will have to take charge of this mess. Britain must, like Northern Ireland, remain in a relationship with the EU that is, as promised by the original leavers, frictionless. This will involve a long learning curve for Michael Gove or whoever negotiates it. It may require an ability to interpret the words customs union and single market in new and surprising ways. Either way, what matters is that Johnsons room for manoeuvre must be used to keep the British economy close to Europe however much his backwoodsmen protest. Nothing else about his government matters but the softening of Brexit.

For the rest, few prime ministers can have taken office with a cupboard so bare. Rightwing headline-grabbers on crime and immigration, vague promises on investment and welfare were classic election dross. Whether a big majority unleashes Johnson the social liberal, or whether it unleashes Johnson the cynical appeaser of the last lobbyist to gain his ear, remains to be seen. Most worrying was the sacking of his most able, and liberal, cabinet colleagues earlier this year. Johnson exchanged a ministry of talents for a ministry of toads. It must be the most underpowered cabinet in living memory.

This places even greater responsibility on Johnson personally for shaping the next chapter in British politics. The weight is awesome. Pessimism may seem in order. But for once let optimism have its day.

Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist

Read the original post:

There is hope: Boris Johnsons big majority could unleash the social liberal within - The Guardian

One of the idealistic hopes that arose during the recent Israeli political wrangling was the possibility that centrist Benny Gantz would end the Netanyahu era by forming a minority government of 44 Jewish members of Knesset on the center-left with the outside support of legislators who would keep the government from being voted out. The outside bloc was ten or more Palestinian members of Knesset and eight seats held by rightwinger Avigdor Lieberman.

The Palestinian political leader Ayman Odeh implored Gantz to rise to the moment and make such a coalition, based on the idea of equality of Palestinians and Jews. In a stirring speech at J Street in October, Odeh explained that this was what Yitzhak Rabin had done in 1993: formed a governing coalition with the outside support of Palestinian parties, and it had allowed him to pursue the peace process.

Rabin led a minority government supported from the outside by the Arab and Arab Jewish parties Without [Palestinian leader Tawfik] Ziad there would have been no Rabin coalition, no negotiations, and no peace process. This is a time for bravery once again I am calling on Benny Gantz. Be brave like Rabin was in 1993 and it would be my honor to be brave like Tawfik Ziad. In the words of the great America poet Lin Manuel Miranda, history has its eyes on us. Our demand is nothing more and nothing less than a basic agenda for equality.

Odehs hope soon died. Gantz failed to form any kind of coalition, including a minority one. As the New York Timesand other media told us, it was because Avigdor Lieberman refused to have anything to do with Palestinians, labeling them a fifth column, and Gantz needed Liebermans eight seats.

Well, not really.

Yesterday I was shocked to learn something I should have known weeks ago: The reason the possibility of a minority government led by Benny Gantz in Israel did not go forward was that members of his own centrist party refused to sit with Palestinians.

Evan Gottesman and Eli Kowaz discussed the minority government idea on the Israel Policy Forum podcast (Dec. 12th):

Gottesman: It didnt seem like it was torpedoed by Lieberman even though in the public reaction to it, Lieberman had to take the role of saying, You know I would never sit with the Arabs, and taking on his typical bellicose stance. But it looked like that sort of initiative was actually most controversial within Kahol Lavan [Blue and White] itself, that there were some of the rightwing MKs within Kahol Lavan opposed to a narrow minority government that would be supported from the outside by the Joint List.

Kowaz: So from my understanding, it didnt even get to the point of inviting Avigdor Lieberman to be part of that government because of what you just noted about the Kahol Lavan MKs talking about, on the right. Kahol Lavanencompasses a lot of different political viewpoints.

Gottesman: That was Zvi Hauser and Yoaz Hendel I believe.

Kowaz: Exactly. Those are members of Bogie Yaalons Telem faction in Kahol Lavan.

This important point has not come out in the American press. The New York Times has repeatedly sanitized it. (Marc Schulman of Newsweek acknowledged it in passing but gave equal blame to Lieberman.)

You can find this point in the Israeli press, but over there, racism is ho-hum news. Gantz was reported last month to be angry at the racists. Because of Yoaz Hendel and Tzvika Hauser, Im not Prime Minister, he said.

But no problem. Gantz is now keeping the two men on his Blue and White list for the March elections. Even though Yoaz Hendel explicitly opposed Palestinian political participation, per the Israeli press last summer:

Blue and White will establish a broad and state-oriented nationalist unity government, Hendel said. We respect the Arab citizens of Israel and see them as citizens entitled to all rights, but we will not sit with the Arab parties, which fundamentally deny the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. Period.

The issue here is American liberals, our liberal press and liberal Zionists. Benny Gantz is a hero to liberal Zionists. They see him as the man who can take down Netanyahu. An Opening for Hope, the New Israel Fund said of Gantz getting the opportunity to form a government just last month.

[S]omething is changing for the better in Israel.

If Israels Jewish electorate said anything clearly, it was a clear no to Jewish extremists who incite against Arab citizens. And Israels Arabs citizens turned out in large numbers to vote for the Joint List, a party that the first time in a quarter century has reached out to Jewish parties to build political partnership.

Now look why that didnt happen. Because of racism inside the Blue and White Party. Liberal Americans who are connected to Israel ought to be denouncing this racism and putting pressure on Gantz to purge open racists from his party. Its not happening. Kowaz and Gottesman of Israel Policy Forum dont seem to regard this news as problematic. No, once again Israeli political culture has revealed itself to be deeply racist; and American friends of Israel walk on by.

Follow this link:

Blue and White party liberal Zionist heroes refused to cut deal with Palestinian legislators - Mondoweiss

The New Democratic Party is sitting in fourth place after the fall's divisive federal election and its leader Jagmeet Singh says he is not interested in partnering with the Conservatives to overwhelm Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Liberal minority.

In a year-end interview with The Canadian Press, Singh acknowledged there could be political expediency in having his New Democrats turn to the Conservatives to either defeat or dominate the Liberals.

But Singh has no plans to go down that road.

"When it comes to the values that I have and have been pushing for, I don't see an alignment with the values the Conservatives have pushed forward," he said.

The NDP and Liberals found themselves in a war of words during the fall election campaign to prove which party was more progressive, especially after the New Democrats lost many of the seats they gained in the 2011 "orange wave" to the Liberals in 2015

In general, a weakened Liberal party is good for both the New Democrats and the Conservatives.

Despite this and despite the fact the NDP often struggles to differentiate itself from the Liberal party in its policies, Singh said he still couldn't imagine teaming up with the Conservatives even under a new leader, with Andrew Scheer's recent resignation.

"My goal isn't to defeat the Liberals. My goal is to push them to do better," he said.

Singh said he wants progressive laws that he believes are priorities for many Canadians, including to create national programs to cover drug costs and dental care.

However, Trudeau would be wise not to presume his offer of political help comes without strings, Singh said.

"The frame that I take is the Liberals need to work with somebody. They have 13 votes that they need in this minority government. So they need to get that support from somewhere. I put it out there that I am willing to be that person that supports them," Singh said.

But if the Liberals' goal is to simply "cruise along" and hold onto power, Singh said he's out.

"My leverage and my encouragement comes from if you need something passed that's meaningful, I'm right here. I'm ready to do it. But I'm not going to be taken for granted. I'm not going to support them blindly if it's not good for people."

Singh and his New Democratic Party had a roller-coaster of a year, beginning with Singh spending much of his time in British Columbia in a bid to win a seat in the House of Commons. He won his Burnaby South seat in a February byelection, but appearances in question period and the halls of Parliament did not translate into an immediate bump for the party.

The New Democrats struggled with fundraising after finishing 2018 with nearly $4.5 million in negative net assets the party's worst balance sheet since 2001.

A mass of recognized and well-respected NDP MPs retiring dealt further blows to party morale.

The NDP wasn't able to match the Liberals' and Conservatives' advertising during the campaign, thanks to its smaller war chest, and also only chartered a campaign plane for the last 12 days of the race.

Many pundits were predicting the NDP could lose official party status, thanks to these factors and low polling numbers at the start of the campaign.

However, Singh was able to turn his infectious, seemingly bottomless enthusiasm into upward momentum mid-race. Polling numbers started rising, crowds at his rallies started getting bigger and the spotlight started shining more positively in Singh's direction.

But the momentum didn't translate into enough votes to keep the NDP from losing seats.

The party was reduced to fourth place in the House of Commons behind the Liberals, Conservatives and Bloc Qubcois after winning just 24 seats, down from the 39 it held before the Oct. 21 vote.

The party's losses were especially deep in Quebec, where it lost all but one of 16 seats the party had held onto in 2015.

Singh attributes this to his being new to the federal scene. This election was his "introduction to Canada" and to Quebec, "where I had the biggest introduction to make," he said.

The campaign also saw heated debate among federal leaders over Quebec's controversial law banning religious symbols like hijabs, turbans, kippahs and prominent crucifixes for some civil servants a law that is widely popular among Quebec voters.

Watch: The NDP leader talks about working with the Liberals

Singh admits the law, known as Bill 21, could have played a part in his party's major losses in the province. Singh is a practising Sikh known for his brightly coloured turbans and he wears a symbolic knife.

"I think it was divisive as a bill and I think divisive bills will encourage or create more division. And that might impact me as someone, on first glance if there is something promoting division, because I look different."

Many people face discrimination based on race, gender or country of origin, Singh said, and he hopes to be a voice for those people and show he's willing to take a stand against it and to try to win over the "hearts and minds" of Quebecers.

Looking to 2020, Singh says he hopes to work with the Liberals to implement a universal, single-payer pharmacare program and national dental coverage and to see Indigenous communities finally given access to clean drinking water, housing and equitable child-welfare funding.

He says that even though Canada may be experiencing divisive politics and policies, he believes there is reason to hope.

"While we live in a beautiful place, it's an incredible country. There's so much more that unites us than divides us and there's this real, strong belief that people want to take care of their neighbours. And I want to build on that feeling of camaraderie."

Here is the original post:

From fourth place, Singh says he'd rather push Liberals than work with Tories - CBC.ca

Alexander Heffner, Opinion contributor Published 3:15 a.m. ET Dec. 16, 2019 | Updated 10:51 a.m. ET Dec. 16, 2019

The Trump impeachment is spotlighting the Founders' fears of foreign influence on US security and leaders, and turning liberals into originalists.

There is one indisputable fact about the impeachment of President Donald Trump that should be clear to all Americans: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is making the Constitution great again. Furthermore, she is charting a path forward for the Democratic Party to once again be the guardians of civil society and democracy and to make the liberals on the Supreme Court, and on the streets of America, the true originalists.

Last week Pelosi told the public and her congressional colleagues that she would not be trying to corral House votes on impeachment. "People have to come to their own conclusions," she said. "They've seen the facts as presented in the Intelligence Committee.They've seen the Constitution.They know it. They take an oath to protect and defend it.

That is the point. Abuse of power and obstruction are the cumulative law breaking and corrupt actions of the Trump years, from the Russian and Ukrainian affairs to Trump's violations of the emoluments clauses,relentless attacks on the First Amendment and authoritarian fantasyabouttearing up the Constitution and serving for 29 years.If you think these are Trumps jokes on the media, "Demagoguery and Democracy" author PatriciaRoberts-Miller reminds us that World War II Axis villains started their wars against humanity masking autocratic dystopian dreams in comedy.

By contrast, Pelosi has revived the Founders original intent, their established textual concern about foreign interference, bribery and influence adversely affecting the welfare of American citizens. Trumps violations are unbecoming a president of the United States.

Not only was this concern about foreign powers fortified constitutionally, Americas first president, George Washington, reiterated in his Farewell Address that his successors must never become subjected to the dictates of foreign governments. Had Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madisonor any of the framers heard an American presidential candidate and then president implore adversaries to hack our own American institutions, they would have considered that treason.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi(Photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

There has been a bogus contention over too many years that the textualist view of the Constitution is only the 18th century ratified document instead of the text as it organically and authentically matured. This has always been a false choice. You are an originalist by reading the document, in its entire meaning and its entire body of precedent over decades and centuries.

This is what Pelosi has done, and her timing is preempting what could well be partisan Supreme Court decisions that deny the authority of Congress to subpoena witnesses and shield the presidents taxes from congressional and public scrutiny.The impeachment articles defend both federalism and the separation of powers, in which the Republicans believed until Trumps authoritarianism cannibalized them.

Impeach and remove: An election is no solution when Trump, Russia and Republicans are determined to steal it

Now there is reason for Pelosi to fear these faux textualists will ignore the original document of which they have feigned infatuation and rule in Trumps favor.This fear is justified.In the Senate, McConnell's decision to coordinate an impeachment defense with the White House and Graham's refusal to be an impartial juror are, like Trump's conduct, the opposite of the checks and balances the Founders envisioned.

Trump appointees to the bench have been proven retrograde, refusing to acknowledge many historicalconstitutional protections, and even the legal authority of Brown v. Board of Education. Roberts and company have also ruled against the centerpiece of American life: Voting. After deciding that Ohio can remove citizens from the rolls for not voting, the Supreme Court has emboldened disenfranchisement in Wisconsin, Georgia and elsewhere. The framers would laugh that anti-democratic outcome out of town. And theyd be appalled at the ruling to uphold a Muslim travel banthat excluded Saudi Arabia, the country that deployed the hijackers against us on 9/11 and to whichTrump has business ties.

Too serious to ignore:USA TODAY's Editorial Board: Impeach President Trump

Pelosi and her new originalists know it is past time for jurists and elected representatives to assert this basic truth: The Constitution, with the Bill of Rights, 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, reflects the norms and laws by which we live. It is Trump and Attorney General William Barr who behave like third-world autocrats and want to undermine the literal meaning of the Constitution of the United States. But Pelosi is determined not to let them.

A republic if you can keep it, Pelosi said, quoting Benjamin Franklin,when she opened the impeachment inquiry in September. Thats also the title of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuchs book. But the mantle of the Founders does not belong to Gorsuch, or to Chief Justice John Roberts, or those farcically pretending to be textualists.Pelosi is rightfully reclaiming it for the American people, a majority of whom voted against Trumpin 2016, and half of whom nowfavor his removal from office.

Impeachment is the beginning of liberal originalism to safeguard law and order in America. And we'll haveSpeaker Pelosi to thank for it.

Alexander Heffner is host of "The Open Mind" on PBSand coauthor of A Documentary History of the United States.Follow him on Twitter: @heffnera

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/12/16/trump-impeachment-nancy-pelosi-revives-constitution-column/2657025001/

Go here to read the rest:

Trump impeachment: Pelosi reclaims the Constitution for liberals and today's America - USA TODAY