Category Archives: Liberal

In preparation for her now full-time role in the Trump administration, Ivanka Trump has been secretly reaching out to the heads of liberal special-interest groups for months, including Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards.

Politico reports that the first daughter requested a sit-down with Cecile Richards, apparently wanting to know more about the facts of Planned Parenthood and to reach common ground on abortion.

The purpose of the meeting, from Ceciles point of view, was to make sure that Ivanka fully understood what Planned Parenthood does, how it is funded, and why it would be a terrible idea for Planned Parenthood to be removed from being able to see Medicaid patients, Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America told Politico.

The long and short of their discussion, reportedly, was an argument from Cecile Richards to Ivanka Trump on why Planned Parenthood should not be defunded a position that conflicts with President Trumps campaign promises and claim to be pro-life.

Ivanka was, of course, fed several lies by Richards like how the money doesnt actually go to abortions (money is fungible) and how Planned Parenthood provides cancer screenings (mostly false).

Whether those lies translate to policies in the Trump administration remains to be seen, but the first daughter and her husband Jared Kushner have already worked to stop an executive order on religious freedom in defense of LGBT special-interest groups. It is not unreasonable to think Ivanka Trump will fight an effort to defund Planned Parenthood as well.

And thats not all. Perhaps the most revealing part of Politicos story is that Trump has been meeting with several leaders of progressive special interest groups since the election.

Ivanka Trump has been on a listening tour since moving to Washington, as she stakes a claim on women's issues. In addition to her meeting with Richards, she has quietly met with other leaders of the progressivewomens movement, includingMarcia Greenberger, co-president the National Women's Law Center, and Judy Lichtman, senior adviser to the National Partnership for Women and Family, sources familiar with the meetings told POLITICO.

The only conceivable purpose for doing this is to pitch the liberal lies and talking points directly to the president to move the administration further leftward. Thats what happened when Ivanka Trump brought Al Gore to Trump Tower to discuss environmental issues. Months later, the Trump administration is mulling a carbon tax.

So, through Ivanka Trump, liberal organizations have a direct influence on White House policy. And the administration continues to lurch to the left.

Which member of the Trump administration is meeting with conservatives?

Read more from the original source:

Ivanka Trump holds secret meetings with liberal special interest groups. No good can come from this - Conservative Review

Tony Nutt has stepped down as federal director of the Liberal party. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP

Tony Nutt has resigned as federal director of the Liberal party, citing 35 years of service to the party and calling for renewal before the next election.

In a statement released on Wednesday, Nutt said he had told the federal president, Richard Alston, that a new director should be appointed to take the party to the next election in two years time.

Malcolm Turnbull has thanked Nutt for his extraordinary service to the party, describing him as the consummate political professional and the Liberal partys most loyal and dedicated servant.

Nutt said he had concluded it is time because of his work over six busy years, including three general elections (Victoria 2010, New South Wales 2015, federal 2016) as campaign director, his work on the 2013 federal election for Brian Loughnane, two transitions for prime ministers Turnbull and Abbott, and [managing] the very difficult Icac matter in NSW in 2014-15 before running Mike Bairds campaign.

In 2014-15 the Independent Commission Against Corruption investigated the New South Wales Liberal party and the Free Enterprise Foundation for allegedly taking donations in breach of electoral law, prompting a string of resignations and causing the NSW electoral commission to withhold public funds until it produced a full list of donors.

Nutt noted that the federal executive would meet later this week and receive a report from Andrew Robb on the 2016 election.

Tonys service over so many years is grounded in a deep love of Australia

Invariably a close result has been the subject of criticism, he said, adding that Robbs report will have a number of important recommendations.

This is as it should be because all parties must continually refine and improve their activities to remain competitive in a robust democratic system like Australias.

Since the 2016 election, Nutt has defended the governments decision not to go negative against Bill Shorten and declared Labors Medicare privatisation assault on the government a cold-blooded lie.

He has also supported a ban on political parties, associated entities and activist groups receiving foreign donations, reforms which have been taken up by the government.

Turnbull said that Nutt was central to the Howard government, in which he served as John Howards principal private secretary and chief of staff.

Tony took over the directorship of the federal Liberal party in late 2015 in very difficult circumstances, he then proceeded to direct the campaign which saw the government returned in the face of a ferocious fear campaign.

Turnbull said politicians and political professionals tended to be deprecated but the truth is they, and the parties they run, make our democracy work.

Tonys service over so many years is grounded in a deep love of Australia and an abiding commitment to our democratic values. I look forward to the next chapter of his remarkable career of public service.

Nutt said it had been a privilege to work for the Liberal party, its thousands of members, supporters and office bearers.

He thanked Malcolm and Lucy Turnbull, saying the prime minister had come into public life for all the right reasons and provided strong leadership for Australia during a challenging period.

Nutt thanked the rest of the current leadership team and former greats of the party and Howard government including Howard, Tony Abbott, Arthur Sinodinos, Peter Costello, and the former premiers for whom he worked: Baird, Ted Baillieu and Dean Brown.

See original here:

'It is time': Tony Nutt resigns as Liberal party's federal director ... - The Guardian

There has always been a type of conservative who believes that things were much better in former times and warns of catastrophe if we dont return to them. Today, it is the self-styled liberals who are peddling this apocalyptic gospel. If this country fails to obtain a deal with the EU, they say, we will fall into an economic abyss, while the risk of such a disaster is tearing apart the British state. Why cant we go back to the sunny uplands where we basked in the prelapsarian days before Brexit? Whether or not they admit it, a return to the past is the unspoken manifesto of pretty well all of those now parading as liberals.

There is no status quo to which we can return. The situation in Europe continues to be highly unstable. Geert Wilders may not have broken through in the Netherlands but his party remains the second largest in terms of seats, while Prime Minister Mark Rutte won only by adopting Wilderss inflammatory rhetoric. Even then, Rutte emerged with fewer seats than his party had five years ago. With the Dutch Labour Party achieving less than a quarter of those it had then, the countrys centre left has all but collapsed. In Italy, the chaotic Five Star Movement whose only clear policy stance is scepticism regarding the euro continues to garner support as the old parties crumble. Most people seem confident that Marine Le Pen will be seen off in May in the French presidential elections. But in a run-off against Emmanuel Macron, a semi-virtual politician who makes Franois Hollande look like a substantial figure, anything can happen. Unless Le Pen is trounced, the danger she poses to the EU is not going away. If she succeeds in making any significant advance in the final round, alarm bells will ring in the financial markets. There is no equivalent to Article 50 for the euro. If France or any other country threatens to leave the eurozone, the upheaval that results will be far greater than the impact of Brexit.

Again, Brexit has made a break-up of the Union less, not more, likely. If Scotland decides to leave the UK after a second referendum held in the aftermath of Brexit, it will have to apply to rejoin the EU. Such a move would be strongly resisted by Spain (whose foreign minister has already said Scotland would be at the back of the queue) from fear of Catalan nationalism. With its own separatist problem in Corsica, France would also try to block Scottish re-entry.

Where would this leave Scotland? There have been suggestions that until it joined the euro it would continue to use the British pound as its national currency. Would Scotlands financial system its banks and pension schemes, for example be backstopped by the UK for the duration? If not, the economic risks of independence would be enormous. Since the last Scottish referendum, the oil price has nearly halved and, with the US shale industry putting a cap on any future rises, only a reckless gambler would count on North Sea revenues returning to 2014 levels. Are Scottish voters ready to confront this uncertainty while being outside both the UK and the EU?

The existing settlement between Scotland and the rest of the UK is unlikely to endure. Some type of devo max is probably inevitable and not only in Scotland. But Scottish independence is further from reality than at any point since David Cameron nearly bungled the last referendum. Nicola Sturgeon may be a more intelligent and careful politician than Cameron was not a high bar to cross. Even so, she faces repeating his fate.

Of all the apocalyptic prospects brandished by liberals, none is supposed be more terrifying than a hard Brexit. Prophets of doom of the kind one used to see in sandwich boards on street corners, they warn that Britain is about to be hurled over a cliff edge. They have been joined in these feverish prognostications by the seemingly stolid figure of John Major, who declared in a recent speech that Britain had rejected the colossus of the EU. It is a curious way to describe a zone that despite a widely celebrated recent uptick remains among the slowest growing in the world. Youth unemployment is around 25 per cent in France and 40 per cent in Italy and Spain. Majors rosy view of the EU may be less surprising if one recalls a speech he gave in 1993 to the Conservative Group for Europe, in which he rhapsodised about Britain fifty years hence still being the country of long shadows on county [cricket] grounds, warm beer, invincible green suburbs, dog lovers and pools fillers. Echoing an essay by George Orwell that was published in 1941, Major was harking back to an irrecoverable and partly imaginary past. When he issues dire warnings against the danger of Britain crashing out of the EU without a deal, he is doing the same.

The real danger that Britain faces is of being locked into a deal with an economic zone that is incapable of adapting to the present. Britain will continue to be engaged in Europe whether or not a deal can be struck on trade. Issues of defence and security, including the need to prevent terrorist attacks (such as those in Paris, Brussels and now Westminster) make continuing co-operation imperative. Yet there is no advantage to Britain in any free trade deal with Europe that would curb our freedom to trade with the fast-growing countries China, India, the US and the rest that are shaping the worlds future. If that is what is on offer, no deal will be the best deal.

Liberal Britain is not being heard because it speaks incessantly of a past that cannot be retrieved. This is also why Britain lacks any serious opposition. Liberals who fulminate against Corbyn should remind themselves how he came to be the leader who has taken Labour to the brink of destruction. Has the stupefying banality of the campaigns of his rivals for the leadership already been forgotten? With the exception of Tristram Hunt, not one of the contenders showed any sign of fresh thinking. Corbynism is a consequence, not the cause, of the failure of the liberal centre ground.

After the shenanigans of the past few weeks, Labour is in a worse state than in the early Eighties. A change of leader will not be enough to make the party electable again. A radical shift in policies is needed that shows that the party respects the attitudes and values of the majority of voters. There is little sign of that at present, and it is not only Corbyn who stands in the way. By identifying liberal values with institutions and policies that cannot command democratic consent European federalism, continuing large-scale immigration and unfettered globalisation, among others the self-appointed guardians of liberal centrism in Labour and other parties have shirked the question of what liberalism means in the irrevocably changed conditions of our time. Until it can answer that question, liberal Britain has nothing to say.

Read more here:

Liberal Britain has nothing to say - New Statesman

Researching the life of the late Jimmy Reid, the Scottish political activist who came to prominence because of his work with the Upper Clyde Shipbuildershas afforded remarkable insight into the extensive roots of the Scottish Labour movement with home rule. Much of it has been obscured over recent years. Yet its both worthy of recollection and may offer clues to any possible Labour revival north of the border.

Reid, after all, was committed to both socialism and Scottish home rule hroughout his life. Though his party membership changed, his commitment to these valuesremained undiminished. It was the external factors, whether within his party, or the social and economic conditions in the country, that changed.

Reid leftthe Labour League of Youth to join the Young Communist League. Then, despite being seen as a future leader, he left the Communist party in 1976 for the Labour party. He contested a seat unsuccessfully in 1979, but remained heavily involved in both Tony Benns campaign for deputy leader and the election in 1983. Meanwhile, he had begun a career as a journalist, and in 1987 then-Labour leader Neil Kinnock felt his contributionas a columnist with The Sun and other media outlets was more valuable than any input he could make as an MP. However, disillusioned by New Labour, he drifted away. Ultimately, he left the partyand joined the SNP in 2005.

The story has relevance, not just because of Reid's input in Scottish life, but for the political journey he made. From pursuing a British road to socialism, he ended up supporting Scottish independence. It was a journey followed by many, judging by the 2015 general election results, when the SNP won 56 out of 59 seats. Understanding that journey may provide some answers to why Labour has declined, with further challenges ahead at the forthcoming council elections.

The Labour party north of the border was forged with a commitment to home rule and socialism. Not just Reid, but Keir Hardie had been clear in that. It was to be given greater prominence through the Red Clydesiders during the 1920s and 30s. Not just the Labour party, but especially the Independent Labour Party, which was prominent in Scotland, was in the vanguard on both issues.

As Labour climbed in the polls, the cause of home rule was not neglected. In 1924, during the first Labour minority government, a Scottish Home Rule Bill was proposed by George Buchanan, the ILP MP for the Gorbals. It envisaged a parliament with control over pensions and employment, as well as the power to vary imperial taxes. Joint institutions would remain such as for the Post Office and Customs and Excise but funds would be remitted north. Moreover, a joint board between Scotland and London would officiate on areas of dispute, with an appeal lying to the Privy Council.

What would happen to Scottish representation at Westminster was never fully explained. The Labour secretary of state for Scotland accepted that the Bill was wanted, and supported in the country. However, it ran out of procedural time - causing anger both within the Scottish grouping.

But, try again they did. In 1927, the Rev James Barr, the ILP MP for Motherwell, lodged a bill that was even more radical than Buchanans. He envisaged all taxes raised in Scotland falling to the Scottish Treasury and the withdrawal of all Scottish MPs from Westminster. The military and the Foreign Office were designated joint services and were to be shaped between the two parliaments. A joint council would be established to decide on issues of dispute. That bill fell due to lack of interest from south of the border but the Red Clydesiders had been united in their support for it.

Of course, that was at a time both before the creation of the EU, let alone Brexit. It was the time of the creation of the Irish Free State, and the advocates were more Redmondite (a moderate Irish nationalist)than Republican. However, it shows the radical nature of what was sought. Labour's commitment waned thereafter, but the likes of Jimmy Reid worked to keep the flame alive.

Ultimately, the Labour government established a Scottish Parliamentin 1999, though withpowers far less than those proposed generations before. Labour seemed to bethe national party of Scotland, speaking for the Scottish people. All that changed, though, with the referendum on independence and the alliance with the Tories in the Better Together campaign.

Labour has a proud history on home rule, but it has been overshadowed by recent events. The partyhas to restore its distinctive Scottish identity, not warp itself in the Union Jack. Moreover, it has to state what its for, not just what its against. It has to spell out more radical options than currently exist, and it has to mean what it says. Finally, it needs to ensure that it issupported in these aims not just in Scotland but in London. Otherwise, its effortscounts for nothing, as the 1920s showed.

Read the original here:

Exclusive: Conservative poll showed party would "lose seats" to the Liberal Democrats - New Statesman

Christopher Constant celebrates Tuesday, April 4, 2017, with a victory lap at Election Central in Anchorages Denaiina Center. (Photo by Zachariah Hughes/Alaska Public Media)

In Anchorages municipal elections Tuesday, liberals gained an edge in the Assembly, and residentssupportedall but one bond measure put forward passed.

Voters also opted to shake up the taxi industry.

There were few surprises in the six Assembly races, with incumbents Tim Steele and Pete Petersen holding seats in west and east Anchorage (respectively), and former lawmaker Fred Dyson winning an open seat in the Eagle River/Chugiak district.

Progressive candidates won by large margins in the downtown and midtown races.

In somewhat of an upset, a liberal-leaning political newcomer, Suzanne LaFrance, narrowly won the south Anchorage seat thats traditionally been held by conservative representatives.

LaFrance was slightlysurprised by the results, but thoughtthe positive tone in her campaign helped her efforts.

We had a lot of folks who definitely hit the ground, door-to-door and lit dropping, getting the word out on social media and word of mouth, she said during a brief interview. If you look at the folks who contributed financially to the campaign, its a very broad-based group.

The results nudge the Assembly slightly more to the left of where it currently sits, and likely mean a continued general alignment with the mayors administration.

The Assembly also will see its first two openly gay members, Felix Rivera in the midtown district, and Christopher Constant downtown, who believes Anchorage has changed a lot in the last few years.

Weve seen a sea-change in the last four years in this town, and in fact across the country, Constant said.

Voters also approved the majority of the bond proposals on the ballot, including $58.5 millionfor school improvements, infrastructure, public safety, and separate measures on parks and trail access.

One bond that failed, however, Proposition 2, had to do with attaching 14 staff positions to the operations of two new ambulances, a measure that would have cost $23 million over 10years.

Thats extreme, and I think that was a mistake by the administration to put that out there like that, said Former Mayor Dan Sullivan, who was part of an effort to defeat themeasure.

If you think that these ambulances are something thats that vital they could have rolled it into the regular budget, Sullivan said.

In a proposition about the future of the taxi industry, voters rejected a move to keep the system the way it is presently, and opted to move forward with a measure to open the permitting process.

The move will put more cabs on the road in the next few years.

In the two school board races, Dave Donley won seat C. And as of late Tuesday night, Andy Holleman was less than a hundred votes ahead of Kay Schuster, with two precincts still outstanding.

Turnout across town was slightly lower than usual in a municipal election, at just 19.5percentof eligible voters.

See more here:

Anchorage voters opt for bonds, more liberal Assembly - KTOO

FiveThirtyEight

How liberal activists took over the Democratic Party The San Luis Obispo Tribune The frustration building in the longtime liberal activist finally broke: She wanted to thwart Gorsuch's nomination, but the federal judge buffeted by good press and a sense of inevitability was barely facing any resistance from Democratic senators ... The Gorsuch Filibuster Shows The Liberal Base's CloutFiveThirtyEight Liberals launch ads vs. Republicans over nuke optionPolitico Many Liberal Legal Experts Think A Gorsuch Filibuster Is A Terrible IdeaDaily Caller Washington Free Beacon -Conservative Review all 2,948 news articles »

More here:

How liberal activists took over the Democratic Party - The San Luis Obispo Tribune

Richard Cohen, President of the Southern Poverty Law Center / Getty Images

BY: Joe Schoffstall April 5, 2017 3:56 pm

An immigration reform group filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service today alleging that a liberal hate monitoring' organization violated their tax-exempt status on nearly 50 occasions throughout the 2016 elections.

The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), the D.C.-based legal affiliate of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), filed the legal complaint with the IRS alleging that the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit organization that monitors "activities of domestic hate groups and other extremists," engaged in prohibited activities during a "flagrant, continued and intentional campaign" against Donald Trump and other Republican candidates this past election cycle.

"The IRS grants a special 501(c)(3)' tax classification to certain charitable' and/or educational' organizations (both of which the SPLC purports to be) that operate within strict public service guidelines," FAIR said in a press release. "Under the regulations, however, activities such as promoting or opposing certain political candidates for public office are absolutely not permissible communications for these types of privileged organizations. In other words, no electioneering taking positions in favor of, or against, any active candidate for public office."

Dan Stein, FAIR's president, said the SPLC used their website to openly try to discredit then-candidate Donald Trump by alleging on numerous occasions that Trump was not worthy of voter support. The group used "opinion-based smears and innuendos" to engage in "activity masquerading as teaching tolerance.'"

"According to IRS rules, organizations are not deemed educational, for instance, if their principal function is the mere presentation of unsupported opinion', if they fail to provide a factual foundation for the viewpoint or position being advocated' or they lack a full and fair exposition of the pertinent facts'" which "permit an individual or the public to form an independent opinion or conclusion,'" the release says. "Educational organizations must be organized and continuously operated for instructing the public on subjects useful to the individual and beneficial to the public. FAIR notes the SPLC, however, made numerous sweeping, opinion-based statements about the current president during his 2016 campaign, accusing him of being 'embraced by right-wing extremists,' helping drive mainstream interest to racist memes' and manufacturing a "climate of fear' which might ultimately lead to hate violence."

Examples of the activities that SPLC engaged in throughout the election cycle include:

On July 6, 2016,the SPLC Intelligence Report featured a lengthy thirteen-page "report" by SPLC staff member Stephen Piggott, titled, "Hate in the Race," and subtitled, "A remarkable level of vitriol has characterized the Republican contest for president." The article contained at least 41 distinct unlawful and highly negative statements attacking then-Republican Party candidate and nominee Donald Trump or his campaign staff and supporters, and fourteen similar distinct unlawful statements attacking former Republican Party candidate Ted Cruz.

On May 11, 2016, aHatewatchproject article titled, "Donald Trump's Continuing White Nationalist Problem," by SPLC staff member Stephen Piggott, linked Donald Trump to what the SPLC styles "white nationalists." The term is not defined, but it is intended to discredit Mr. Trump as a presidential candidate.

On May 6, 2016, after Donald Trump was proclaimed by the national media to be the presumptive Republican nominee, theHatewatchproject published an article by SPLC contract writer DavidNeiwert, titled, "Right-Wing Extremists Hail the Ascension of Emperor Trump as GOP Nominee."

On October 2, 2015, the SPLCHatewatchproject published "How the Candidates, the Haters, and the Media Have CookedUpa Perfect Storm of Islamophobia," by SPLC contract writer DavidNeiwert. The article mainly focused on Trump's comments and positions. According to the article, Trump has "demonstrated how the fires of bigotry . . . keep escalating."

Stein says the SPLC went well beyond what they are legally allowed to do.

"The SPLC went way over the line in this last election. It publicly engaged in deep, deliberate, and unlawful participation during the 2016 presidential election cycle, flagrantly violating its non-profit tax status," Stein alleges. "The IRS should investigate all of these instances, and take appropriate steps toeither sanction andfine the SPLC, or remove its tax-exempt status as a public charity. We are alleging via meticulously-detailed documented evidence that it repeatedly engaged in widespread, illegal electioneering in 2015 and 2016."

Original post:

Complaint: Liberal 'Hate Monitoring' Group Repeatedly Violated Tax Exempt Status During 2016 Elections - Washington Free Beacon

Badgered again during question periodTuesdayabout her government's interest in changing the rules that govern the House of Commons,BardishChaggerprotested that Liberals "will not give a veto to the Conservatives over our campaign commitments."

It is on thisbasis that the House of Commons remained, for another day, no closer to reform.

Before a debate on parliamentary reform has even begun, there remains an impasse over how the discussion should conclude.

Wednesdayoffers another opportunity for progress, or continued stalemate.

The procedure and House affairs committee, which might otherwise be studying possible changes to the standing orders, has been stuck since March 21because of a Conservative and NDP filibuster.

Last month, the Liberals released adiscussion paperthat outlined various possibilities for change, including reforming question period, changing the way debates are scheduled and implementing new rules for committee business.

The Liberals then sought to have the committee study the possible changes and report back by June.

But the Conservatives and NDP joined forces to stall the committee, arguing that some of the proposed changes could erode the ability of Parliament to hold the government to account and alleging that the Liberals are trying to rush such reforms through the House.

The opposition are refusing to stop talking out the clock unless or until the Liberals agree to put in writing that no changes will be made without all-party support what Chagger, the Liberal House leader, called a veto.

After suspending its proceedings for a week, the committee was expected to resumeon Monday,only for the chair to abruptly adjourn proceedings again,apparently so the parties might have more time to resolve their differences.

Chaggermet with her Conservative and NDP counterparts twiceon Monday, but no deal emerged.

In the meantime, the Conservatives used a procedural manoeuvre in the House to force a vote on a motion calling on MPs to agree that the procedure committee should only recommend changes to the standing orders if all-party agreement exists.

Conservative House leader Candice Bergen has condemned the way the Liberals have handled the issue of parliamentary reform. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

After Liberals voted to reject that motionon Tuesday, Conservative House leaderCandiceBergen and NDP House leader MurrayRankinissued a joint statement of condemnation.

"The Liberal government has confirmed its intention to run roughshod over the opposition's rights to hold the government to account," they declared."This is truly regrettable."

There is a certain logic toChagger'scomplaint of a Conservative veto.

In their 2015 platform, the Liberals vowed to pursue a number of reforms including implementing a "prime minister's question period," restricting the use of omnibus legislation and empowering House committees.

Liberal MPs now occupy a majority of the seats in the House. And that Conservative MPs could, nonetheless, have the collective power to veto any or all of those changesmight seem somehow unfair.

But the campaign commitments in question relate not to differences of opinion or policy, but to the rules of the House of Commons:the mutually accepted standing orders that govern the people's business and all of the people's representatives, both government and opposition.

Conservatives and New Democrats note there is history of such changes only being made with broad agreement. In response, Liberals have pointed out that changes have sometimes been made without unanimous support.

In fairness, the opposition might be getting ahead of itself: the government hasn't yet really had a chance to run roughshod, regardless of whether it actually wants to. But it's also not yet clear whether the Conservatives or New Democrats would necessarily try to veto anything.

In the meantime, there is the reality of a filibuster.

The Liberals could resort to extraordinary procedural steps to override the opposition's efforts, but at the risk of generating only louder complaint about running roughshod.

They could attempt to wait the opposition out, but at the risk of not getting anything accomplished.

Or they could compromise, at the risk of ending up beholden to the Conservatives or New Democrats.

Either way, the committee is due to reconvene at4 p.m.on Wednesday.

A little less than a year ago, the Liberals were fighting opposition complaints that they were preparing to ram through changes to the electoral system. In that case,the Liberalsbacked down on the composition of a special committee, surrendering their own majority.

Several months later, they abandoned electoral reform on the grounds there wasn't sufficient consensus to proceed.

In lieu of a new electoral system, they might hope to deliver other democratic reforms, but now they find themselves trying to assert a limit on how much support is necessary to proceed.

Justin Trudeau and the Liberals are looking to deliver parliamentary reforms after abandoning their big campaign promise of electoral reform. (Jim Young/Reuters)

Meanwhile, certain other hopes for reform remain unfulfilled.

Legislation toempower and reinforce the parliamentary budget officerhas yet to be tabled. The beleaguered access-to-information systemremains unreformed. The much-lamented estimates processthrough which Parliament approves government spendingremains unchanged.

On Tuesday, Liberal MPs approved a bill to create a special committee on national security. And the Senate, when it's not having todecide whether to discipline its own members, continues toshow new lifeas an independent forum.

But a party that promised real change would hope to have a substantial number of things to say for itself at the next election. And 2019is getting closer by the day.

If the House reforms they desire are worthy, the Liberals mighthave faiththey can convince Conservatives and New Democrats to agree.

If the Conservatives or New Democrats try to stand in the way, the Liberals might have to fight to make the case for change.

Follow this link:

Why the Liberals are still struggling to change how Canadian democracy works: Aaron Wherry - CBC.ca

Former Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney will have a seat at the table at an upcoming Liberal cabinet meeting to discuss the North American Free Trade Agreement, the pivotal deal he helped negotiate more than 20 years ago that now faces an uncertain future.

CTV News has learned that Mulroney accepted an invitation to meet with the Canada-U.S. cabinet committee for the important meeting Thursday morning.

The discussion is expected to centre around the future of NAFTA -- a trade agreement that U.S. President Donald Trump intends to renegotiate.

Sources say Mulroney, a personal friend of Trump and neighbour in Florida, will not have a formal role in negotiations with the U.S., but will instead be consulted by Canadian officials as an elder statesman.

Mulroney helped negotiate NAFTA back in 1990 with George H. W. Bush and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, and Liberal officials hope to tap his knowledge on the inner workings of the deal.

Mulroney is also familiar with U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, a key player in the upcoming trade talks.

Other participants at the Thursday meeting include Derek Burney, the former Canadian ambassador to Washington who helped negotiate NAFTA, and current Canadian ambassador to Washington David MacNaughton.

With a report from CTVs Ottawa Bureau Chief Joyce Napier

This story has been updated to correct that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wont be at Thursdays cabinet committee meeting.

See the original post here:

Mulroney to attend Liberal cabinet meeting to advise on NAFTA - CTV News

Apr. 3, 2017 at 6:07 PM

Sen. Jon Tester on Capitol Hill in Washington in September.

At least 41 Democratic senators have publicly committed to filibuster President Trumps Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, leading to a probable showdown with Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

The filibuster might seem like payback for Democrats after Republicans refused to consider the nomination of then-President Obamas Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, for 293 days starting last year. Unlike Republicans last year, however, Democrats dont have all that much power. They arent in the majority and McConnell has strongly hinted that he could seek to eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court picks if Gorsuch cant get 60 votes. Across a variety of surveys, moreover, a plurality of voters think the Senate should confirm Gorsuch, although a fair number of voters dont have an opinion either way. Therefore, Democrats political endgame is unclear.

Gorsuch is quite unpopular with liberal voters, however: By a 61-15 margin, they oppose his confirmation, according to a YouGov poll last week. Thus, the planned filibuster may simply be a sign of the liberal bases increasing influence over the Democratic coalition. The share of Democrats who identify as liberal has steadily increased over the past 10 years. According to the recently released Cooperative Congressional Election Study, 53 percent of Democratic voters identified as liberal last year. Until recently, it was rare to find surveys that showed liberals made up a majority of the party.

But to some extent, that 53 percent figure understates the case. The CCES also asked voters about whether theyd engaged in a variety of political activities, including donating to a candidate, attending a political meeting, working on behalf of a campaign or putting up a political sign. Among Democrats whod done at least one of those things a group Ill call politically active Democrats 69 percent identified as liberal. These were some of the voters who helped propel Bernie Sanders to almost two dozen primary and caucus victories last year.

Oftentimes these liberals are found in states where you might not necessarily expect them such as in the Mountain West, which was a strong region for Sanders last year. According to a regression analysis conducted on the CCES data, the proportion of politically active Democrats who identify as liberal is larger in states where candidate Trump fared poorly. But controlling for that, its also larger in states that have more white voters, and more college-educated voters. And its larger in the West than in the other political regions of the country. In the table below, Ive estimated the share of politically active Democrats in each state who identify as liberal. Since the sample sizes for some states are small, the estimates are based on a blend of the raw polling data from the CCES and the regression model I described above.

Source: Cooperative Congressional Election Study

Its not surprising that Washington, Oregon and Vermont are places where the liberal wing of the Democratic base dominates. But Idaho, where I estimate that 82 percent of politically active Democrats identify as liberal, and Utah, where I estimate that 80 percent do, also rate near the top. Its not that Idaho and Utah are blue states, obviously; theyre among the most Republican in the country. Nonetheless perhaps because a lot of moderate voters identify with the GOP in these states the few Democrats that remain are overwhelmingly liberal.

The same phenomenon holds in Montana, where I estimate that 76 percent of politically active Democrats are liberal. That may help to explain why Sen. Jon Tester of Montana says he will vote against Gorsuch, even though he faces a tough general election campaign next year. Whether or not Democrats would issue a primary challenge to Tester, who has generally sided with the party on key votes, is questionable. Nonetheless, hell be relying on his base for money, volunteers and a high turnout on Election Day. In Montana, the conservatives are conservative but the Democratic base is fairly liberal also.

By contrast, Democratic Sens. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who will vote to confirm Gorsuch, are on somewhat safer ground. Some 61 percent of politically active Democrats identify as liberal in North Dakota, while 57 percent do in West Virginia, according to this estimate. Those figures are almost certainly higher than they would have been a few years ago. But Heitkamp and Manchin probably face more risk from the general election than from a loss of support among their base.

Nor is the Democratic base all that liberal in the Mid-Atlantic region, including states such as Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey. Instead, even the party activists in these states can have a moderate, pro-establishment tilt. That may explain why senators such as Chris Coons of Delaware and Robert Menendez of New Jersey were slow to announce their positions on Gorsuch before eventually deciding to oppose him.

Follow this link:

The Gorsuch Filibuster Shows Liberals' Clout - FiveThirtyEight