Category Archives: Liberal

Bi-Weekly News Column

Damien C. Kurek, M.P. (Battle River-Crowfoot)

June 19th, 2020

Contact: 1-780-608-4600, damien.kurek@parl.gc.ca, & @dckurek

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Justin Trudeau and the Liberals have avoided accountability at all cost. My Conservative colleagues and I have demanded Parliament start up again, it is unfortunate however that over the course of the pandemic, left leaning political parties in Canada have mostly resisted these calls.

While Trudeau carries on with his tightly choreographed press conferences outside of his cottage, I have been searching for answers for my constituents.

I have heard from many of you regarding the poor roll-out of the COVID-19 supports and concerning lack of accountability. Further the Government has moved forward on policy initiatives, like their gun grab, without democratic scrutiny.

The antics of the Liberal Government prompted me to look for answers through other measures. This is why I started filing Access to Information Requests (ATIPS).

ATIPS can help any member of the public access information from within a department that would otherwise be obscure or hard to find.

This is an important tool that allows Canadians to see what is happening within government departments and agencies. I have used this process to find out information about the Liberal agenda.

Recently, I attempted to file an ATIP on how the Liberals decided to ban more than 1,500 types of firearms and to find out who was involved in the consultations.

In yet another round of incompetence and with a complete lack of transparency, the ATIPS system is not working. Less than five per cent of all federal departments are accepting ATIPS. This excludes, at the time of this column, the Department of Justice and the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness two departments that have a lot to answer for with rural crime sweeping small towns and the undemocratic gun grab.

Shortly after I attempted to file these ATIPS, I had a chance to question Liberal MP and President of the Treasury Board Jean-Yves Duclos about the faulty ATIPS system.

He stated that they are essential and are absolutely key, especially now with the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Ministers words are hollow when considering the utter lack of transparency that his government has displayed.

Rather than taking responsibility for the problem, the Liberal Government simply gave another non-answer.

In the near future, I will begin to post the ATIPS that I have filed on social media to keep the good folks of my constituency informed and to let you know that I am working for you.

Democracy cannot take a back seat because there is a pandemic. Further, I will continue to use my role as a member of the Ethics Committee to demand accountability and transparency.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has proven time and time again that he will not work for Canadians when it is not in his personal or political best interest.

The Official Opposition will continue stand up to the Liberal Government and their lack of transparency. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns about Access to Information Requests, please do not hesitate to contact my office. My staff and I are here to help and will gladly do so.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this column you are encouraged to write Damien at 4945-50th St., Camrose, Alberta, T4V 1P9. You can also call 780-608-4600, text 403.575-5625, or e-mail damien.kurek@parl.gc.ca. You can also stay up to date with what Damien is up to by following him on social media @dckurek.

-Submitted

Read the original post:

The Official Opposition will continue stand up to the Liberal Government and their lack of transparency - Stettler Independent

Harold Wilson who lost his only election as Labour leader half a century ago today once said a week is a long time in politics. If that was right, then how long is an entire year?

Eleven months ago, the Conservative party looked into the abyss and decided Boris Johnson was the right answer to its (and Britains) problems. It did this because most Tory members, though not most Tory MPs, thought he would deliver the hard Brexit they favoured, and be electorally popular.

Johnson was never the ideal leadership candidate, and many Tories opposed him bitterly. But he won because he was seen by the majority as the partys last best hope in a very tight spot.

The party got that bit right. A year on, it is clear that the Tories took an electorally rational decision. Johnson duly played hardball with a hung parliament in which he had no majority and he won. The opposition parties overplayed their hands by agreeing to an early election. Johnson triumphed at the polls at the expense of a mistrusted Labour party. Brexit duly took place, and Johnson reigned supreme. His enemies were cowed and marginalised. And then came Covid-19.

Today, as Johnson approaches the first anniversary of his premiership, there is a volatile new political reality. Criticism of Johnson is again common within the Tory party. There are deepening divides about the governments direction, priorities and leadership. Some of these relate to the handling of Covid-19. Others concern Covid-19s vast economic consequences. These are the seeds of future internal conflicts.

But the volatility has other causes too. Clumsy handling of the Black Lives Matter protests and the U-turn on free school meals have added to the unstable mix. These have come on the heels of volte-faces on migrant health worker NHS charges and parliamentary voting. Together they create a nervous Tory mood at Westminster, and foster a wider sense of a government that has lost its way.

Johnson appears to have evacuated the middle ground and, at Cummingss direction, pitched his tent on the right

These anxieties more typically affect a government well into its midterm period. Whether their occurrence so soon into Johnsons term is all because of the pandemic, or whether they would have broken out anyway, is an unanswerable question. Experience, though, suggests the latter cannot be dismissed. As the veteran Tory party-watcher Professor Tim Bale puts it: Johnsons success was not built on firm foundations in the first place. There was always a real danger of future subsidence under the property.

Two decisions this week highlight this. The first was the axing of the international development department. This had always been a Little Englander demand, which is precisely why David Cameron made DfIDs continuation and budget such signature commitments in his modernisation agenda. Johnsons decision is the exact reverse, a dogwhistle to the Tory partys nativist right wing.

Just as symbolic is the decision, again announced this week, that Johnson will splash the publics cash on upgrading the prime ministerial aircraft. In the scheme of things, this is a minor matter. Yet, coming in the same week that Johnson had to be shamed by the footballer Marcus Rashford into maintaining the school meals voucher scheme over the summer, it is more resonant. As with the Dominic Cummings debacle, it proclaims one law for the prime minister and another for the little people. It displays an almost Neronian indifference to the nations larger anxieties.

All this raises longer term and difficult questions about what kind of Conservative government Johnson really leads. It is true that these flames can be fanned by journalists, who have a material interest in writing about splits. It is also true that this Tory government remains one with a working majority of more than 80, and four years more to run. It has plenty of time to sort things out and regain the initiative before 2024.

It may well do so. Nevertheless, it is clear that Johnson suffered avoidable political damage from Covid-19. The pandemic presented him with a huge challenge but also a huge opportunity. It offered the chance to gain broader national support instead of the highly polarised platform defined by Brexit. Johnson appeared to be flirting with the idea of being a national leader at times but, as so often in his political career, he eventually failed to put his shoulder to the task. Instead he took the easier option. As a result, his poll ratings plunged from their early pandemic heights to new lows.

Johnsons response to his declining popularity has been revealing, most of all to those who want to believe his one-nation talk. Especially after the Cummings affair, Johnson has retrenched. Many Tory backbenchers are aghast at the degree to which Cummings has been rewarded for the scandal he created, by redoubled control over the governments agenda. Faced with the first Labour leader in a decade who looks like a prime minister, Johnson appears to have evacuated the middle ground and, at Cummingss direction, pitched his tent on the right.

There is one long-term reason why this may make sense. The Tory party remains overwhelmingly Margaret Thatchers party of low taxes, low spending, the small state, social authoritarianism and a particularly English sense of post-imperial exceptionalism. These views are more firmly in the ascendant than ever in the Tory party. Johnson is the prisoner of that party, not vice versa.

But the long-term reasons why it may fail are stronger. First, it is clear after the DfID decision and the widely trailed scrapping of gender self-identification plans that Cummings intends to fight a culture war against what the Tory right regard as over-mighty liberal values and institutions. Other battles are likely to include assaults on human rights laws, the supreme court, parliament, the universities and the BBC. Cummings wants to polarise and prosper posing awkward dilemmas for Labour as he did over Brexit.

And, second, the Tory party cannot make up its mind whether it is a Little England protectionist party or a global, free-trading, buccaneering British party. That divide was never resolved in the leave campaign, and the faultline still runs right down the middle of the government. It is embodied in the potent divides between the partys deregulators and regulators over the US trade treaty and, of course, over relations with the EU.

If Cummings and Johnson get their way, they may try to wage permanent war on both fronts. In the end, though, the changing Tory party may not permit that. Johnsons problem is that there are not enough Tories or Tory voters to prosecute the culture war Cummings wants. Tory under-45s are more liberal on cultural issues, just like their Labour equivalents. So are many of the 140 new and disproportionately young Tory MPs elected in 2019. It may have seemed, after the landslide election, as if Johnson commanded the field. In the real world, landslides are evidence that the ground is often unstable and full of hazard.

Martin Kettle is a Guardian columnist

Here is the original post:

Boris Johnson's U-turn shows the assault on liberal values is faltering - The Guardian

In the end, all that was left was the sex. And its hinterland. It was November 1998 and after six years of investigation a pasty faced, but not shame faced, Kenneth Starr testified that Bill Clinton was exonerated of wrongdoing in the Whitewater property scandal and the Vince Foster suicide. There was no evidence of a pattern of corruption. All they had to push for impeachment was the Monica Lewinsky affair.

They did. It was sordid. Over the following twenty tumultuous years, Hillary Clinton failed twice to re-patent the Clinton presidential brand. Kenneth Starr expressed regret that his investigation caused so much pain to so many people - none more so than Monica Lewinsky, whose life was destroyed. And the American political landscape has reaped a whirlwind.

A new documentary shows where the wind was sowed. Hillary - a four part documentary by Nanette Burstein on Sky - is a Gibbonesque glimpse of the decline and decline of a liberal democracy as well as a poignant political swansong, it purges the soul with terror and with pity.

Ive loved, Ive been loved. The rest is background music, Clinton murmurs. But to be loved or to be President - that was the question.

When Hillary Clinton first ran for President, she was, as New York senator, a political force and a feminist icon. In her bid for the Democratic nomination, her opponent was history itself: her achievements eclipsed by a charismatic young lawyer from Illinois, Barack Obama. If there is a hierarchy of oppressions, race trumps gender: black women backed him over Hillary. Now white feminists know why.

On her second run, while she was mercilessly bullied by Trump, who mockingly attempted to re-litigate her husbands sexual misdemeanours, her real nemesis was Bernie Sanders. During the long, hot primary season, he pounded hard at her Wall St links and re-awakened in the American memory the idea - fading with its century - that there was something untrustworthy about the Clintons. Trump took it and ran with Crooked Hillary until it infected even the sanest of people. Like FBI chief James Comey who, on the eve of the election, re-opened the infamous emails investigation. Despite exonerating her, the blow proved fatal.

That kind of character assault takes a toll. Clinton knows the corrosive power of calumny. Even supporters, friends who dont believe it - they still have a space at the back of their minds and then that space gets bigger - thats been the story of my public life.

But this is not merely a story of a public life. It is a portrait of an extraordinary marriage. It is a story unique in the vast lexicon of love stories. It confronts many of the tropes about their relationship, even the paradox that, despite her declaration about not being Some kind of Tammy Wynette Stand By Your Man, she actually was.

Their courtship is the stuff of early period chick-lit. He chased her. Though he never expected to marry -complicated childhood is the rationale - he immediately recognised his deep need of her. She, excited by her budding lawyer career, was in no rush. Several proposals later, she said Yes, and to the astonishment of her circle of feminist friends, moved to Arkansas to become the Governors wife .

She was a full partner in the governorship, he says. And the footage reveals a dynamic, beautiful couple, high on their shared mission, their passion for politics and their love. But they had reckoned without that toxic conservatism which runs like a subterranean river through US politics.

Her feminism cost him a second term as Governor. She hadnt taken his name and an unguarded comment deflecting criticism of her job - I suppose I should have stayed home and made cakes and tea - was turned into a full blown cyclone: Hillary versus the American housewife.

She changed her name to Hillary Rodham Clinton, he got re-elected as Governor, Then President. Then the real problems began for her.

First Ladyship, it became clear, could never be full partnership. They tried and were thwarted at every turn. Her 1995 Beijing speech womens rights are human rights and are for all was a brave bolt for freedom of expression. But storm clouds were gathering. And the storms had names; Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky.

The truism, that a marriage survives infidelity if fidelity isnt important is too facile. She navigated the Gennifer Flowers allegation with the confidence of her own sexual power and a great soundbite. But Monica Lewinsky hurt. She sublimated her rage in fighting his impeachment. And, crucially, she stood by him, a position which came to haunt her election campaign: he cheated but they blamed her.

By then all the character assaults had taken effect. The emotionally open woman who wanted to make a difference was receding; in her place an intellectual, who met emotional challenge with policy. This proved a fatal flaw on the hustings, where populism was providing the narrative for people who felt excluded.

That liberal democracy wasnt delivering was bewildering. We werent perfect. But is there anything left of everything we tried to do?

In the end only their bond proved unbreakable. Proving, as ever, the heart has its reasons which reason cannot tell.

Read more:

Hillary Clinton and the decline and decline of liberal democracy - The Irish Times

We got another mask-denier making a statement.

Brandon Straka, a conservative activist and a Trump supporter with a big social-media following, was removed from an America Airlines flight this week after he refused to wear a mask.

Here he is explaining his absolutely insane version of the story:

American Airlines AAL, -2.97% , which reiterated its policy on Monday that all passengers need to wear a face mask when on board one of their flights, confirmed the incident.

After he refused to comply with the instructions provided by the flight crew, our team members asked him to deplane, the airline said in a statement. He deplaned and the flight departed the gate four minutes late at 12:34 p.m. Eastern Time.

Also: United, other major airlines tell passengers to wear face masks or risk getting banned

On Thursday, the airline said it has banned the passenger, after reviewing the incident. We expect customers who choose to fly with us to comply with these policies, and if necessary, we will deny future travel for customers who refuse to do so, American said.

The law does not mandate wearing masks, but airlines have instituted their own mask requirements for crew and passengers, and American Airlines, as well as several other carriers, have pledged to take a harder line on enforcing their policies, CNN reported.

Read:Costco shopper gets bounced for not wearing a mask

A New York Times reporter captured some of the testy exchange, which includes two passengers telling Straka to get off the plane so they could resume their travels.

Straka, who describes himself as former liberal... on a mission to #RedPill humanity and has appeared on Fox News, was rebooked on a later flight after he agreed to comply.

The story, of course, blew up on social media, with Straka addressing many of his critics:

Follow this link:

'Former liberal' kicked off flight, banned for refusing to wear mask a New York Times reporter recorded the incident - MarketWatch

This is the report from the New York Times, the spokesperson of the global establishment. They are clearly putting the blame on India for aggravating China! And what is the basis for their claim? Amit Shahs speech on Art 370 in Parliament, where he asserted Indias position that PoK and Aksai Chin belong to India.

And just like that, you can now see the straight line that connects Chinese aggression and liberal anger over CAA and abrogation of Article 370.

Did the connection drawn by the New York Times surprise you?

And with this, the real fangs of the anti-CAA campaign and the liberal anger over Art 370 have emerged. They made it look like an internal political tussle. It was a propaganda trick. Did you fall for it?

Think about it. As China gets more aggressive, India is pushed closer to Western powers. Every editorial in Chinas state run Global Times warns India not to get close to America. Its Chinas biggest fear.

The West may have no particular love for India, but they do understand one simple thing. A democratic India is better than authoritarian China. They may not be thrilled about Indias rise, but they do not fear it.

So what does China need here? They need the world to start believing that India is also an authoritarian state. They want the world to think that India is ruled by a tyrannical Prime Minister, inspired by Nazism.

And who was serving this poison to Western audiences? Now you can make sense of the vicious anti-India campaign that swept across global newspapers, think tanks and campuses in the last 6-9 months. Now you see who was *really* pulling the strings. Now you see why they morphed the Om symbol into a Nazi hooked cross.

Maybe you got caught up in this rhetoric. After all, the liberal celebrities talked about all things nice: sensitivity, inclusion, human rights. They sang revolutionary poems and offered flowers to uniformed policemen. As and when the violent elements pelted stones at policemen or doctors, the stories were quickly buried by media.

Maybe you thought these people were fighting for justice after all. If they werent, why would big-name newspapers and college campuses across the world be so sympathetic to them? Why would photos of the protesters receive big-name international prizes?

Sadly, the world is a bad place. Big media and big prizes can be bought and sold for a handful of $$$. There are billionaires who pledged special funds to take down Modi. These billionaires made their fortune taking down economies from the UK to South America. India was just another target for them. And as for big-name US universities, sometimes they forget to disclose billions of $$$ in gifts from Saudi Arabia and China. Sometimes, their top-ranked academics have secret agreements with the Chinese military, receiving thousands of dollars a month to run secret labs in China. Sometimes in the same city where the Coronavirus emerged.

People can be much more evil than you think. Dear woke people, it is time to wake up.

This is not to talk down to you. Many generations of young people have been taken in by this rhetoric. In the early 70s, young students across Bengal were fired up with dreams of a Communist revolution. When the Communists came to power, there were 28000 political murders in the next 20 years. This is theofficialfigure given by the Communist Home Minister on the floor of Bengal Assembly. Imagine what the real number was.

Let me break down that number of 28,000 for you. Spread over 20 years, that works out to four murders a day. Still, think this rhetoric is about offering roses to armed policemen or singing Faizs poetry?

It sounds romantic but is always soaked in blood of innocents. Thats the truth.

On April 13, 1975, the New York Times reported from Phnom Penh as Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge took over Cambodia. The headlineread: For most, a better life. At Harvard University campus, students were overjoyed. Aneditorialin the Harvard Crimson put it thus:

The capture of Phnom Penh last week by the Khmer Rouge is a victory for the Cambodian people over the corrupt Lon Nol regime and the imperialist American policies that supported it.

How much of these sentiments were due to foolishness and how much was due to corruption? We will never know. What we doknowis that the Khmer Rouge went on to slaughter 20 lakh people.

So dont feel bad if you were swept up by the anti-CAA rhetoric or the cries against the abrogation of Article 370. Instead, go back and carefully analyze the incentives of the media, intellectual and Instagram celebrities who led you there. Ask yourself: is there one among them who wouldnt sell out their country for a million dollars?

Did you notice: leaving behind their foot soldiers in the freezing cold of Shaheen Bagh, their media champions went to vacation in Europe, America and Australia in December of last year? Do you think they were sincere in their commitment to the supposed cause of the protests? Didnt they say the Indian nation was in mortal danger? Do you think Chandrasekhar Azad ever said to people: you hold the line against the British Raj while I go on a five-star tour of Paris? No, because real patriots like Azad sacrificed everything, including their lives.

Now look at the media, intellectual and Instagram celebrities who are asking you to join in the movement against CAA or abrogation of Article 370. While babies die in the cold of Shaheen Bagh, these people are making a fortune.

Who is paying for it?

Think about it. If they did care about human rights, would they be so against the persecuted Hindus of Pakistan? They talk about caste all the time and how committed they are to addressing caste injustices. Good. But how many backward caste faces do you see in the ranks of media intellectuals? Not that India is unjust to its religious minorities, but if these people cared about religious minorities, wouldnt they speak out against real injustices in Pakistan? How many articles have you read in foreign media on the problem of Hinduphobia in Pakistan or Bangladesh?

The anger over CAA and abrogation of Art 370 was a setup. The strings were being pulled from somewhere else. The aim was to turn the world and the Indian youth against India. So that India looks just as bad as the authoritarian aggressor.

If they care so much about India, why did they not shed one tear for our jawans in Pulwama? Instead, do you remember how they tinkled champagne glasses, made jokes about 56 inch and raised slogans of Hows the Jaish? On the odd occasion, their cup of wine flowed over and spilt on to Facebook, where everyone could see it. Then, their employers saved face by sending them on a few weeks leave. Ha!

They are doing the same right now even as we face aggression on the LAC. The same jokes about 56 inch, the same barely concealed glee. People of India rejected them. Pakistan could not help them. Now they look to China to humiliate Modi.

Woke people need to wake up and smell the anti-India cauldron. Because it stinks so bad.

Go here to see the original:

Dear woke people, see the connection between Chinese aggression and liberal anger on Article 370 - OpIndia

Analysis by Inq has revealed that the Council of the Order of Australia has become stacked with Liberal Party veterans, insiders and sympathisers. Have the awards themselves become partisan?

Take your pick as to the most outrageous Order of Australia award over the last two or so years.

Was it to Bronwyn Bishop (AO), the former speaker of the House of Representatives whose extreme partisan behaviour besmirched the independence of the role,and who resigned from the position after misusing taxpayer funds?

Was it Nick Minchin (AO), the Liberal Party staffer, senator and standard bearer for the partys climate change denialists who also used his parliamentary role to question the proof on whether cigarettes were addictive and harmed others?

Was it Brian Loughnane (AO), federal director of the Liberal Party for 13 years and husband of Tony Abbotts chief of staff Peta Credlin.

Or is those backroom political operators, including former Liberal Party director Tony Nutt, and former National Party federal director Paul Davey, who have been recognised with awards by the taxpayer-supported honours system for their partisan political work?

An Inq investigation reveals these cases are just part of a partisan culture which now infects the Order of Australia awards.

Our analysis of Australia Day and Queens Honours awards given to (mainly former) politicians over 2019 and 2020 shows a startling political disparity.

A total of 62 honours were awarded: 42 to Liberals or Nationals and 20 to ALP members or independents.This means 67% of all political gongs went to conservative parliamentarians.

The gap is even wider when it comes to the most prestigious categories the Companion of the Order of Australia (AC) and Officer of the Order of Australia (AO) where Liberals/Nationals received 14 of 18 awards, or 77%. Most honoured former state premiers and federal members.

Labor recipients included former senator Graham Richardson a Sky News commentator, Murdoch columnist and distantly a whatever it takes NSW Labor Right heavy.

Or, as investigative reporter Kate McClymont put it:

Our investigation reveals that the stacking of the awards has come at the same time as more politically partisan appointments are made to the core group of community representatives the seven individuals who consider nominations and advise the governor-general.

(Others on the Council of the Order of Australia are the eight representatives of the state and territory governments, as well as three ex officio members. These include WA Liberal Senator Matthias Cormann in his role as vice-president of the Federal Executive Council.)

Key changes to the council began in the first year of the Abbott government.

In 2014, then-prime minister Tony Abbott appointed former Liberal NT chief minister Shane Stone a former national president of the Liberal Party to be a community member of the council.It was the first time since the awards began in 1975 that a former state or territory leader had been appointed to the role.

In the 40 years before Stone was appointed, community members of the council were largely politically unaligned. They included sporting figures such as Olympic athlete Betty Cuthbert and cricketer Allan Border; television personalities George Negus, Anne Fulwood, Kerri-Anne Kennerley and Mary Kostakidis. The exceptions were trade union figures, such as Cliff Dolan and Jennie George, and a former Liberal senator Tony Messner.

In appointing Stone, Abbott had found a man close to his own heart: Stone, it has emerged, is a genuine honours enthusiast.

As the Northern Territorysattorney-general in the 1990s, Stone applied and accepted a commission as Queens Counsel as the NTs First Law Officer.

In 1998, Stone was made a Commander of the Order of Kinabalu by the Malaysian state of Sabah. In 2006 he was elevated to the highest rank of Australian honours Companion of the Order of Australia under the Howard government.

Stone has also been made a member of the little-known Order of Malta. Its website notes the main qualifications sought in those invited to join are to be a Catholic in good standing to be verified by church authorities and to be committed to meet the spiritual and other duties of membership. The Order certainly comes with an attractive medal, as worn here by Stone, alongside former prime minister John Howard.

Stone has also before and since collected a maze of company directorships, including of Australian Pacific Coal and Energex, a power company owned by the government of Queensland.Stone was appointed to Energex in 2012 by the Newman government and resigned when the Palaszczuk government was elected, declaring bluntly, I dont work for Labor governments.

(Former Queensland premier Campbell Newman, booted out in 2015, received his Order of Australia gong earlier this year.)

At the beginning of 2018, after four years as a community member, Stone was elevated to the additional role of chair of the Council of the Order of Australia. This too was a key break with a convention of independence.

Previous chairmen of the council (all men, incidentally) had been High Court judges, senior academics or retired armed services chiefs. Retired air chief marshal Sir Angus Houston, who preceded Stone, had been appointed by a Labor government in 2012.

While chair of the council, Stone has simultaneously been paid more than half a million dollars per annum $434,690 salary with a $100,000 loading, just over $10,000 a week to act as the CEO of the federal governments North Queensland Livestock Industry Recovery Agency (NQLIRA).

Other community members of the council appointed during Stones time, and on the recommendation of the prime minister, have party political ties of varying strengths.

Tracey Hayes, whose appointment expired at the beginning of this year, was CEO of the NT Cattlemens Association and also joined Stone on the advisory board of NQLIRA.

Hayes is now running as a Country Liberal Party candidate in the Northern Territory elections a role she reportedly nominated for while still a member of the Council of the Order of Australia.

Hayes was succeeded earlier this year by Cheryl Edwardes, a prominent Western Australian Liberal who was attorney-general in the Court government in the 90s, when Stone was the Northern Territorys AG. Edwardes worked for a time as director of external affairs, government relations and approvals at mining billionaire Gina Rineharts Hancock Prospecting. Edwardes has also had roles with Pilbara iron ore mining company Atlas Iron and Flinders Mines.

She picked up her Order of Australia gong in 2016. (Her husband Colin Edwardes had worked on the staff of WA Liberal ministers.)

Rupert Myer, scion of the Melbourne establishment Myer family, holds several company directorships as well as board positions in the arts. He has a close association with one-time Liberal Party vice-president Tom Harley who was also a long serving chair of the Liberal-aligned Menzies Research Centre, with the two being co-directors of a not-for-profit grants organisation, the Aranday Foundation.

Electoral records show that Myer donated $3000 to the Liberal Party of South Australia in 2002 and $2500 in 2001.

Myer told Inq via email that he supports candidates from different sides of politics, particularly if he thinks they make an important contribution to the public debate. He added that he had been appointed to and reappointed to governance roles of Victorian and Commonwealth government statutory bodies by Labor and Coalition administrations.

Amelia Hodge is CEO of Australian Property Institute (API), a professional industry body. Former Abbott government minister Bruce Billson joined the API board last year.

The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet told Inq that donating to a political party was not a bar to being appointed as a community member.

And despite appearances, the Council for the Order of Australia rejected the assumption that any appointment reflected a politicisation of the awards.

For an appointment to be made, a nomination must be submitted. Every nomination is reviewed and researched using the same process and the Council considers each nomination on its merits, a council spokesperson told Inq.

While members of the council are recommended by governments, no member of the council represents a government. They serve as individuals, bring their own perspectives and experiences to the table and operate with complete independence.

This independence is one of the fundamental pillars of the council and something that each member is proud of.

They added that any change to the make-up of the council was a matter for the government of the day.

Next: Two years of political patronage so who got the gongs?

Save up to 50% on a year of Crikey, or, dig deeper so that we can dig deeper.

Crikey may be small but our goal has always been to focus on the why, not the what of public life to explain how power is used and abused in Australia, and the systems and people who facilitate it.

But to do that effectively, we need subscribers. Lots of them.

Join Crikey now, and for the first time ever, choose what you pay.

Peter FrayEditor-In-Chief of Crikey

Read the original post:

Has the Liberal Party stacked the Council of the Order of Australia? - Crikey

The mundane business of debating government spending estimates sparked to life on Wednesday afternoon when NDP leader Jagmeet Singh was booted from the House of Commons for calling a Bloc Qubcois MP a racist.

Singh had proposed a motion condemning the RCMP for systemic racism. When the Bloc refused to grant its consent, Singh called MP Alain Therrien a racist. Its true, I called him a racist and I believe thats so, Singh said, when challenged.

After he refused to apologize he was asked to leave the chamber by the Speaker.Later, in an emotional news conference, Singh said he got angry. Why cant we do something to save peoples lives? We can do something. Why would someone say no to that? he said.

Singh was reacting to the dismissive gesture of a reality he has lived.But it reflected recent tensions between the NDP and the Bloc.By contrast, relations with the Liberals have been much less belligerent a crucial point as MPs pored over the largest spending bill ever to come before the House of Commons.

Singhs NDP risks being seen as a junior partner to Justin Trudeaus Liberal party, after striking a pact last month on the resumption of Parliament. Singh had a good hand when he opened negotiations with the Liberals. The Liberal government was keen to avoid the return of Parliament and the inconvenience of having to defend its COVID spending in detail.

In the minority setting, Trudeau needed the support of the New Democrats or the Bloc Qubcois to give himself a free hand.Singh obliged, in return for a vague promise to deliver 10 days paid sick leave to workers a commitment that requires provincial backing. Singh claimed he had secured two weeks of paid sick leave for every worker in Canada. But if he has, it is not yet apparent.

Chrystia Freeland, the deputy prime minister, said in the House on Wednesday that the government remains committed to the idea. But provinces like Nova Scotia have given it a cool reception. If it does come to pass, the odds are that the Liberals, not the NDP, will get the credit.

In return for that commitment, the New Democrats voted for the government motion to waive normal House proceedings, reneging on the partys legislative obligation to hold the government to account.

Former prime minister John Diefenbaker once described the role of opposition parties to find fault; suggest amendments; ask questions; elicit information; arouse, educate and mould public opinion by voice and vote. The NDP appears to have given up on the opposing part of opposition.

All this is by way of backdrop to Wednesdays parliamentary debate on the whopping $87-billion appropriation bill. In order to spend money, the government must receive Parliaments approval. But that approval is normally granted only after the spending plans have been vetted thoroughly.

Jean-Yves Duclos, president of the Treasury Board, said only $6 billion of the $87 billion is new funding, with the bulk having been discussed, debated and agreed upon by this House, in previous legislation. Yet, the spending in the COVID-19 Emergency Act did not receive anywhere near the scrutiny it might have done in other circumstances.

So much money is flowing through these supplementary estimates that ministers had trouble answering what it was all for.

This is a serious amount of money with zero specifics, said Conservative MP Dan Albas. He was talking about a measure on student work experience but, in truth, it could have been any of the dozens of initiatives.

Youll get stronger data at a later date, said Employment Minister Carla Qualtrough. Presumably she meant long after MPs have approved the measures in front of them.

These are massive investments: $60 billion on the Canada Emergency Response Benefit alone, but also $3 billion in emergency rent assistance, $1.8 billion for personal protective equipment, $5.3 billion for student benefits and $2.5 billion on seniors support (for some reason the wage subsidy and the emergency business account were not included in these estimates).

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau arrives for a meeting of the Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic in the House of Commons, June 17, 2020.Justin Tang/The Canadian Press

There were also non-COVID funding measures: $585 million for two joint support ships for the Royal Canadian Navy and $468 in funding for Indigenous child and family services.

Was this the optimal use for billions of taxpayers dollars? Who knows? Who cares? Not the members of Parliament representing the Liberal party or NDP apparently.

The study of supplementary estimates is usually conducted by a standing committee, which has the power to reduce or deny specific measures (though not to increase them). The committee is master of its own timetable and has the option of calling witnesses from the public service and beyond. However, because of the Liberal-NDP pact, those estimates were dealt with in five hours on Wednesday afternoon, with the simple option of approving or refusing them.

As Yves Giroux, the parliamentary budget officer, put it in his guidance for MPs: It will be difficult for parliamentarians to perform their critical role of properly scrutinizing proposed government spending in the four-hour window. And so it proved. It was a thoroughly unsatisfying experience for anyone who cared to watch.

So much money is flowing through these supplementary estimates that ministers had trouble answering what it was all for

Former NDP MP Pat Martin chaired the government operations committee for years and fought successive governments to improve scrutiny of spending. Its the most fundamental principle of our democracy and the most important job a member of Parliament has, he said. It used to make me crazy that billions of dollars would fly out the door with only a cursory review of an hour or two of review or oversight. That is the bare minimum of accountability the government owes the people.

The opposition parties commanded a majority in the House on Wednesday and could, in theory, have demanded more information. But the NDP had already shown its hand and bargained away its independence.

Singh and his colleagues might have a better chance of changing the world if they just joined the Liberal party.

Email: jivison@postmedia.com | Twitter:

Read more:

John Ivison: Who cares about $87 billion? Not the Liberals or the NDP apparently - The Province

The Liberal Democrats are too old and white to appeal fully to the modern British electorate, the frontrunner for the partys leadership has warned.

Layla Moran told i there was a pressing need for the party for a diversify its membership to help it rebuild support after almost a decade in the electoral doldrums.

And she pledged to renew the Lib Dems progressive credentials to enable them to work alongside Labour under Sir Keir Starmer to defeat Boris Johnson at the next election.

Ms Moran, the partys education spokeswoman, partly blamed the Lib Dems third disastrous election result in a row on the polarising of an electorate asked to choose between Mr Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn.

She also said its promise to overturn the Brexit result was perceived as anti-democratic and too focused on Remain voters in London and the South-East of England.

She acknowledged that her party was still suffering a hangover among left-leaning voters from its spell in the 2010-15 Tory-led Coalition government.

We need to make a concerted effort to show the country that we are renewed, and that they should give us another look, and I think I am the leader to do that, she said.

Urging Lib Dem activists to reach out more widely to all communities, Ms Moran said: We had a general election review recently that made the point that we are not diverse enough.

We are primarily a party that is older, whiter, more educated, richer than the rest of the country.

We need to look ourselves in the eye and say that if we are serious about winning should we not be looking to recruit members from all parts of the country and all backgrounds.

The Oxford West and Abingdon MP said it was crucial for the party to present a compelling and positive vision which would encourage Labour supporters to put down their swords against us.

She explained: We saw at the last election swarms of activists going into Lib Dem-Tory marginal seats.

The consequence of that was that we lost some seats very narrowly which ended up bolstering Boris Johnsons majority and surely thats not in the best interests of either of the parties if what we want to achieve the removal of Boris Johnson in 2024.

Ms Moran called for an immediate increase in Britains aid budget, with the extra cash used for tackling climate change in the developing world.

She would increase the proportion of the gross national income used for international development from 0.7 per cent to one per cent. On 2019 figures, this would add 6.5bn to the existing 15.2bn aid budget.

We have got an emergency right now which is coronavirus, but that is just a dress rehearsal compared to the biggest issue facing the entire planet which is climate change, she said.

See the original post here:

Lib Dems are 'too old and white' to appeal to modern British voters, Layla Moran warns - iNews

A veteran who helped stop a terrorist attack on a Paris-bound train in 2015 is running for Congress in Oregon, telling "Fox & Friends" on Wednesday that liberal Democrat Peter DeFazio "doesn't represent" the rural district anymore.

Alek Skarlatos, a veteran of the Army National Guard who served in Afghanistan, said he became interested in politics after speaking with his state senator on a plane to Washington, D.C. and was encouraged to consider running for office.

"I did some research andthe more I learned about the[4th Congressional District] and everything thathappened to it under the tenureof Peter DeFazio, the angrier Igot," he told host Ainsley Earhardt.

STARS OF CLINT EASTWOOD'S '15:17 TO PARIS' OPEN UP ABOUT STARRING AS THEMSELVES ON SCREEN

DeFazio has represented the area of southwest Oregon since 1987, chairs the Transportation Committee and founded the Progressive Caucus. Skarlatos, who won the Republican primary, said he believes DeFazio is too liberal for the area he represents, comparing the incumbent's platform to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.

"He co-sponsored the Green New Dealwith AOC.He votes with AOC 96 percentof thetime, but he is not from New Yorkor Seattle or San Francisco.He is from rural Oregon.He just doesn't represent thedistrict anymore.I think there may have been atime where he did," said Skarlatos, adding that he is running a middle-of-the-road campaign on issues that he believes most voters will support.

"We need more politicalcompromise in this country.I think the left and the rightare getting way too divided and there is a lot to be said forsomeone who can run on theissues in the middle that mostpeople care about and that'swhat we are planning on doing," he said.

Skarlatos played himself in the 2018 Clint Eastwood film The 15:17 to Paris, which depicted the attempted attack on a train from Amsterdam to Paris. Skarlatos and two of his friends,Anthony Sadler and Spencer Stone,were traveling in Europe in August 2015 when they incapacitated an Islamist gunman.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The trio was among a handful of people who helped tackle and subdue the assailant, whose assault rifle had jammed.The three Americans were awarded French citizenship last year during a special naturalization ceremony in Sacramento.

President Barack Obama in 2015 honored Stone with an Airmans Medal and Purple Heart, while Skarlatos who was a member of the Oregon National Guard received the U.S. Armys Soldiers Medal. Skarlatosran for a local county commission seat in 2018.

Fox News' Lucia I. Suarez Sang contributed to this report.

Continued here:

Hero from Paris train attack running to unseat liberal Oregon Democrat: 'He votes with AOC 96 percent of th... - Fox News

As the federal government gears up to deliver $595 million in media subsidies over five years, some want to ensure that this money remains in Canada.

Margaret Ormrod, a resident of St. Albert, Alberta, initiated a petition noting that Canada's largest newspaper chain, Postmedia Network, is mostly owned by U.S. hedge funds.

Postmedia owns 15 of Canada's 21 largest daily newspapers, including the Vancouver Sun, Province, and National Post.

"Federal enquiries going back 50 years warned Canadians about the dangers of growing media ownership concentration, including Reports of the Special Senate Committee on Mass Media (1970), the Royal Commission on Newspapers (1981), the Senate Committee on News Media (2006), and the Heritage Committee on Media and Local Communities (2017)," the petition states. "All these reports urged measures to check concentration and then newspaper-television 'convergence,' but few were taken."

After 4,147 people signed the petition, Vancouver Centre Liberal MP Hedy Fry presented it to Parliament on June 17.

As she did this, she read aloud what the petitioners are demanding: "We, the undersigned, citizens of Canada, call upon the House of Commons in Parliament assembled to use our tax dollars to foster a more pluralistic Canadian news media by providing subsidies only to Canadian-owned publications, as a free and diverse press is essential to a healthy democracy."

Fry chaired the Commons heritage committee when its 2017 report, Disruption: Change and Churning in Canada's Media Landscape, was published.

Its fourth recommendation was that the Canadian government amend sections of the Income Tax Act to allow deductions of digital advertising on Canadian platforms.

See the original post here:

Liberal MP Hedy Fry presents petition in Parliament urging that subsidies be restricted to Canadian-owned media - Straight.com