Category Archives: Liberal

A number of senior Labour and opposition politicians are calling for a cross-party alliance. In a bid to hold the Conservative government to account as Brexit negotiations kick off, party grandees are urging their leaders to put party politics to one side and work together.

The former Labour minister Chris Mullin believes that the only way forward is an eventual pact between Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens not to oppose each other in marginal seats.

Given the loss of Scotland, itwill be difficult for any party that is not the Conservative party to form a government on its own in the foreseeable future," Mullin argues, but headmits, no doubt tribalists on both sides will find this upsetting and laments that, it may take three or four election defeats for the penny to drop.

But there are other Labour and Liberal grandees who are envisaging such a future for Britains progressive parties.

The Lib Dem peer and former party leader Ming Campbell predicts that there could be some pressure after the 2020 election for Labour MPs to look at SDP Mark II, and reveals, a real sense among the left and the centre-left that the only way Conservative hegemony is going to be undermined is for a far higher degree of cooperation.

The Gang of Fours David Owen, a former Labour foreign secretary who co-founded the SDP, warns Labour that it must face up to reality and proudly and completely coherently agree to work with the SNP.

It is perfectly legitimate for the Labour party to work with them, he tells me. We have to live with that reality. You have to be ready to talk to them. You wont agree with them on separation but you can agree on many other areas, or you certainly should be trying.

The Labour peer and former home secretary Charles Clarke agrees that Labour must open up an alliance with the SNP on fighting for Britain to remain in the single market, calling it an opportunity thats just opened. He criticises his party for having completely failed to deal with how we relate to the SNP during the 2015 election campaign, saying, Ed Miliband completely messed that up.

The SNP will still be a bigfactor after the 2020 general election, Clarke says. Therefore we have to find a way to deal with them if were interested in being in power after the election.

Clarke also advises his party to make pacts with the Lib Dems ahead of the election in individual constituencies in the southwest up to London.

We should help the Lib Dems to win some of those seats, a dozen of those seats back from the Tories, he argues. I think a seat-by-seat examination in certain seats which would weaken the Tory position is worth thinking about. There are a few seats where us not running or being broadly supportive of the Lib Dems might reduce the number of Tory seats.

The peer and former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown agrees that such cooperation could help reduce the Tory majority. When leader, he worked informally in the Nineties with then opposition leader Tony Blair to coordinate their challenge to the Conservative government.

Were quite like we were in 1992 when Tony Blair and I started working together but with bells on, Ashdown tells me. We have to do something quite similar to what Blair and I did, we have to create the mood of a sort of space, where people of an intelligent focus can gather I think this is going to be done much more organically than organisationally.

Ashdown describes methods of cooperation, including the cross-party Cook-Maclennan Agreement on constitutional reform, uniting on Scottish devolution, a coordinated approach to PMQs, and publishing a list 50 constituenciesin the Daily Mirror before the 1997 election, outlining seats where Labour and Lib Dem voters should tactically vote for one another to defeat Tory candidates.

We created the climate of an expectation of cooperation, Ashdown recalls. Pursuing the spirit of this time, he has set up a movement called More United, which urges cross-party support of candidates and campaigns that subscribe to progressive values.

He reveals thatTory Central Office are pretty hostile to the idea, Mr Corbyn is pretty hostile to the idea, but there are Conservative and Labour MPs who are talking about participating in the process.

Indeed, my colleagueGeorge reveals in his report for the magazine this week that a close ally of George Osborne has approached the Lib Dem leader Tim Farron about forming a new centrist party called The Democrats. Its an idea that the former chancellor had reportedly already pitched to Labour MPs.

Labour peer and former cabinet minister Tessa Jowell says this is the moment to build a different kind of progressive activism and progressive alliance, as people are engaging in movements more than parties. But she says politicians should be wary of reaching out for what is too easily defined as an elite metropolitan solution which can also be seen as simply another power grab.

She warns against a Were going to have a new party, heres the board, heres the doorplate, and now youre invited to join approach. Talk of a new party is for the birds without reach and without groundedness and we have no evidence of that at the moment.

A senior politician who wished not to be named echoes Jowells caution. The problem is that if youre surrounded by a group of people who think that greater cooperation is necessary and possible people who all think the same as you then theres a terrible temptation to think that everyone thinks the same as you, they say.

They warn against looking back at the halcyon days of Blairs cooperation with the Lib Dems. Its worth remembering they fell out eventually! Most political marriages end in divorce, dont they?

View post:

Senior Labour and Liberal Democrat politicians call for a ... - New Statesman

A liberal group that was formed to fight for the confirmation of Judge Merrick G. Garland to the Supreme Court is now trying to derail President Trumps nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch.

The Constitutional Responsibility Project continued to run ads Wednesday urging voters to tell Democrats to vote against the conformation of Judge Gorsuch, claiming that he ruled against a disabled boy and the boys father, who wanted the best for his autistic son.

Thankfully the Supreme Court voted unanimously to reject Gorsuchs heartless approach, the narrator says in the ad. Now Donald Trump wants to give Gorsuch a lifetime appointment on that same court. Only the Senate can stop him. Tells Senator [Jeff] Flake, Our children deserve better. Vote no on Gorsuch.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote on the confirmation of Judge Gorsuch early next week, passing it along to the full Senate for a vote later in the week.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, said this week that Judge Gorsuch will win confirmation.

Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, plans to require a 60-vote threshold on the vote, which could force the GOP to rely on the so-called nuclear option and pass Judge Gorsuch on a simple majority vote.

Original post:

Liberal group running ads against Gorsuch nomination - Washington Times

The Democratic base doesn't want any part of it.

Buoyed by its initial victory on health care, Democrats are interested in using the improved bargaining position that the party's House and Senate members suddenly find themselves in.

Instead, progressives are continuing to demand total opposition to Trump.

With the confirmation fight over Gorsuch and a deadline to fund the government both looming, Democratic lawmakers are under intense pressure not to give an inch, even if that means forcing what could be a losing battle over the filibuster in the Senate.

Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-California, said Tuesday that the party's constituencies feel "energized" and "emboldened" now that Republicans have failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and believe they can hamstring Trump for the duration of his presidency.

"If he were a TV show, I think he would be canceled for next season," Sanchez said of Trump.

An epic clash between Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, looms over the Gorsuch confirmation battle.

If Democrats don't supply at least eight votes to get Gorsuch over the 60-vote threshold, McConnell is likely to invoke the "nuclear option" -- removing Democrats' ability to filibuster Supreme Court nominees.

But liberal groups aren't concerned about losing that potential leverage for future confirmation fights.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee sent a letter to members in Vermont this week criticizing Sen. Patrick Leahy over what the group called "squishy comments" about confirming Gorsuch. He'd said he is "not inclined to filibuster" Gorsuch.

It's not just Gorsuch. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus on Monday sent a letter to House budget-writers urging them to reject Trump's request for border wall funding as a deadline to fund the government and avert a shutdown draws closer -- signaling that any effort to implement a key Trump campaign promise could trigger another major battle.

"Across issues, the Republican agenda represents handouts to giant corporations and the rich while a populist progressive agenda fights for the little guy," said Progressive caucus co-founder Adam Green. Those are two completely opposite directions, and Trump has broken his campaign promises by running full-steam toward corporate welfare over and over again."

On health care, Trump has predicted Obamacare will ultimately collapse and that Democrats will seek to strike a bargain with him.

Rep. Joe Crowley of New York, the Democratic caucus chair, said he is unaware of any direct outreach from Trump's White House to House Democrats.

"If the President is serious about working with Democrats, he has to completely revamp the way he has conducted himself in office so far," he said.

Before working on health care changes, Democrats say Republicans first need to take the party's longstanding desire to repeal the law off the table.

"We're at the table. We're ready to negotiate. We just need them to abandon the purely political attacks on Obamacare," Crowley said.

Left-leaning groups also say they don't buy the sincerity of Trump's desire to work with Democrats.

"Trump and the GOP have done nothing to indicate they are legitimately interested in working with Democrats on bipartisan solutions that would benefit the American people," said MoveOn.org national spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre.

"If Trump wants to endorse progressive ideas like Medicare for All and massive government investments without corporate giveaways -- in a way that unites populist progressives, Democrats, and a minimal handful of swing-district Republicans -- that would be a fantasy world that is not going to happen," he said.

Democrats are suggesting they'll work with Trump only if he fully embraces their ideas -- an unlikely prospect.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California sent fellow party members a letter Tuesday congratulating them on their health care victory and soliciting ideas to improve Obamacare.

"It would be my hope to create a list of priorities to engage with our colleagues, with social media and advocacy groups," she said, "and perhaps even with the President."

Go here to read the rest:

Liberal voters push Democrats to a new nuclear age - CNN

Jon Lovett, the ex-Obama speechwriter, has a bad case of the liberal mania.

And oh, yes. He knows what conservatism is. Just ask him.

In a conversation on CNNsReliable Sources,Lovett told host Brian Stelter just that, as reported here in this partial transcript provided at, ahem,Breitbart. Bold print boldly supplied by me:

LOVETT: Look, heres an example. You go after Hannity on this show, right? You say hes intellectually dishonest, he doesnt care about the truth, he doesnt care about what his audience cares about, right?

Then you turn on CNN, and Hannity has got a little beachhead on half the shows on this network. You turn it on, and theres a big, giant panel. And you have

STELTER: You mean Jeffrey Lord and Kayleigh McEnany and other Trump supporters.

LOVETT: Absolutely.And you look at that giant panel, and its smart person, smart person, smart person, stupid person, smart person, smart person, smart person, bulls**t factory.

(CROSSTALK)

STELTER: Why does it help to insult Trump supporters like that?

LOVETT: Im not insulting the Trump supporters.

(CROSSTALK)

STELTER: You just called them stupid people.

LOVETT: Im not calling the Trump supporters stupid people.Im calling the people that CNN puts on television are terrible representatives of the views of conservatives. Theyre terrible representatives of the kind of politics we should have.

I mean, these are not intellectually honest people. These are people building a brand. These are people willing to say anything.

And the same criticism you direct at Hannity, you could direct at the people that CNN puts on the air. I mean, I have said this before, but I think its true. So often on CNN, theres a world-class journalist interviewing campaign rejects and ideologues and silly, craven people who do not care about informing people, that arent there to kind of help people understand what is going on in the news.

And the thing is, there are millions of people who say every day, we dont like this, right? You look at every single poll, every single poll.

(CROSSTALK)

STELTER: But millions are also watching it.

(CROSSTALK)

LOVETT: Oh, were all getting a ratings bump. Were all getting a ratings bump.

STELTER: I wish I had Jason Miller here to react to you right now.

Youre saying these people arent intellectually honest.

LOVETT: Im what Im saying is, over and over again, you have polls that say people hate the news. And its not sustainable to have an entire look, and some of that is partisanship, right? That is liberals saying that our side is not represented well, and conservatives saying, our side is not represented now.

But how is it sustainable that we all cannot stand the way the news comes at us, right, and not just the substance of it, but the way its delivered?

And I think what we have found with this company is that theres an appetite for something different, for something that is at times serious, but doesnt take itself seriously.

Phew! Ive been found out at last! When I decided to write a column all the way back there in June of 2013 titledNever Ignore Donald Trump,I was really all about branding! I just knew this was a sure-fire career boost, and, but of course, what else is there in life? Visions of CNN danced in my head!

Uh-huh.

I take no offense at Lovett. Im sure hes a perfectly nice guy. But, alas, he is clearly possessed of a seriously bad case of what the late William F. Buckley Jr. once described as the liberal mania. Here is Buckley on the subject in his bookUp From Liberalism, written all the way back there in the primordial mists of 1959:

I think it is fair to generalize that American liberals are reluctant to co-exist with anyone on their Right. Ours, the liberal credo tells us, is an open society, the rules of which call for a continuing (neverterminal) hearing for all ideas. But close observation of the liberal-in-debate gives the impression that he has given conservatism a terminal audience.When a conservative speaks up demandingly, he runs the gravest risk of triggering the liberal mania; and then before you know it, the ideologist of openmindedness and toleration is hurtling toward you, lance cocked.

The tools of controversy are tough, as necessarily they must be.But I wonder when else, in the history of controversy, there has been such consistent intemperance, insularity and irascibility as the custodians of the liberal orthodoxys premises? The liberals implicit premise is that intercredal dialogues are what one has with Communists, not conservatives, in relationship with whom normal laws of civilized discourse are suspended.

Here we are in 2017, a full 58 years after Buckley described the liberal mania and there, instinctively and right on cue is Jon Lovett exemplifying the liberal mania at work. It is particularly telling that Lovett who arrived on this earth, according to Mr. Google, smack in the Reagan-era, long after Buckleys book debuted so naturally exhibits the characteristics of which Buckley wrote. (And not to put too fine a point on it, one suspects the liberal Lovett who deems himself a judge of just who are and are not representatives of the views of conservatives has never heard of Buckleys book, much less read it.)

For Lovett to say that Kayleigh McEnany is stupid and that I am a bulls**t factory is the personification of Buckleys point that liberals are really all about declaring that the normal laws of civilized discourse are suspended in debate with conservatives. Which is to say, liberals and liberalism are the very picture of intolerance. Lovett, charmingly ignorant, has no idea how he has just embodied Buckleys point that liberals are the very image of intemperance, insularity and irascibility. Even more humorously, Lovett does so hilariously unaware of the setting in which he says this perched for his interview on a set overlooking Los Angeles aka Hollywood. Hollywood of which the conservative actor Tim Allen recently said: You gotta be real careful around here. You get beat up if you dont believe what everybody else believes. This is like 30s Germany. Clearly, Lovett is in no danger.

From Goldwater to Reagan in politics, from Buckley to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and others in the world of the conservative commentariat the standard reaction from liberals is that fill-in-the-blank conservative is precisely some version of how Lovett has described myself and my fellow CNN Trump-supporting colleague Kayleigh McEnany. If I had a nickel for every time I used to hear liberals describe Reagan as dumb, ignorant, stupid, extreme (or, in the words of one leading Democrat of the day, an amiable dunce), I would own both CNN and Fox.

But hey, being called stupid and a bullsh**t factory is the least of being targeted by the liberal mania. Listen to this description of William F. Buckleys first book, 1951sGod and Man at Yaleby a liberal reviewer of the day:

The book is one which has the glow and appeal of a fiery cross on a hillside at night. There will undoubtedly be robed figures who gather to it, but the hoods will not be academic. They will cover the face.

Buckley as Klansman? But of course! (The fact that the Klan was founded, according to Columbia University historian Eric Foner, as a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party and the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party per University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease was simply ignored. Yes, they were progressives under those hoods but never mind. Nothing to see there move along.)

Buckley also noted inUp From Liberalismanother trait that Lovett unwittingly if delightfully illustrates. Bold print again supplied:

A second marked characteristic of the liberal-in-debate-with-the-conservative is the tacit premise that debate is ridiculous because there is nothing whatever to debate about.Arguments based on fact are especially to be avoided. Many people shrink from arguments over facts because facts are tedious, because they require a formal familiarity with the subject under discussion, and because they can be ideologically dislocative.Many liberals accept their opinions, ideas, and evaluations as others accept revealed truths, and the facts are presumed to conform to the doctrines, as any dutiful fact will; so why discuss the fact?

In discussing a conservatives contentions, it is not enough merely to say that the matter under discussion is closed; it is usually necessary, for the sake of discipline, to berate the person who brought the matter up.

And right there is William F. Buckley Jr. in 1959 predicting Jon Lovett in 2017. As follows:

Buckley in 1959: Liberals in debate showcase consistent intemperance, insularity and irascibility A second marked characteristic of the liberal-in-debate-with-the-conservative is the tacit premise that debate is ridiculous because there is nothing whatever to debate about. In discussing a conservatives contentions, it is not enough merely to say that the matter under discussion is closed; it is usually necessary, for the sake of discipline, to berate the person who brought the matter up.

And right on cue, there is Lovett in 2017:And you look at that giant panel, and its smart person, smart person, smart person, stupid person, smart person, smart person, smart person, bulls**t factory. Im not calling the Trump supporters stupid people. Im calling the people that CNN puts on television are terrible representatives of the views of conservatives. Theyre terrible representatives of the kind of politics we should have.

I mean, these are not intellectually honest people. These are people building a brand. These are people willing to say anything.

In other words?

Jon Lovett has a bad case of the liberal mania. And he is charmingly clueless to just how vividly he personifies the fact.

Shocker? No.

Read more here:

Jon Lovett's Liberal Mania - American Spectator

On the morning of article 50 being triggered, a defiant pro-EU protester demonstrates in Cardiff. Photograph: Geoff Caddick/AFP/Getty Images

Nothing conveyed the madness of Brexit like the implementing of it. Theresa Mays speech to the Commons delighted the anti-EU warriors of course it did. The likes of Victoria Borwick, the Kensington MP who wore an alice band in union jack colours for the occasion, or Bill Cash and John Redwood, for decades dismissed as backbench eccentrics for demanding a British departure from the European Union, were ecstatic at the prime ministers announcement of what they saw as Britains day of liberation. They bellowed their joy when the PM declared that article 50 had been triggered, and: This is a historic moment from which there will be no turning back.

They might have been hoping for some stirring rhetoric to match, a rousing reassertion of the case for Brexit. But in her speech and in her letter to Donald Tusk, May no doubt inadvertently reminded the country of something else: the value of what has just been lost.

Europes security is more fragile today than at any time since the end of the cold war, she said, apparently deploying one of the remainers strongest arguments: that at a time of global peril, now is not the time to destabilise an institution that has helped maintain the postwar peace.

She appeared to warn too that in the age of Donald Trump it was folly for Britain to turn its back on the worlds largest single market. As she wrote to Tusk: At a time when the growth of global trade is slowing, and there are signs that protectionist instincts are on the rise in many parts of the world, Europe has a responsibility to stand up for free trade in the interest of all our citizens.

She went further: Perhaps now more than ever the world needs the liberal, democratic values of Europe values that the UK shares. Close your eyes and it might have been 1972, with May making the case for Britain joining the European Economic Community.

Of course, she was saying all this in order to prove to Brussels that Britain is not hostile to the European enterprise: that, on the contrary, it wants a deep and special partnership with the 27 EU states that will be left behind a phrase surely chosen to convey a bond even closer than the special relationship with the United States.

But the unsettling effect, as May set out aspiration after aspiration for the post-Brexit future, was not only to remind us that she herself had backed the cause of remain however tepidly but that the ideal state of affairs she sought closely resembled the world we are about to throw away.

The free trade, the close cooperation on security, the collective stance for liberal and democratic values, the soft, almost invisible, border between the Republic of Ireland and the north these are the things she wanted. Yet the unavoidable truth is that this is what Britain already had and could have kept on having but which it has chosen to discard.

And for what? The Daily Telegraph hailed the liberation with a feature on the EU rules we are now free to shake off. And what were these dreadful shackles that turned us into a slave nation, thirsting for our freedom? The Telegraph cited the rules that deny Britons bendy bananas, incandescent lightbulbs and their choice of vacuum cleaners.

Heroically, May talked of a brighter future for this country imagining that Brexit was set to turn us into a secure, prosperous, more tolerant land. It sounded like a fantasy. The better place seemed to be the one she was leading us away from, the one we are leaving behind.

Read the rest here:

May wants security, free trade, liberal values: just what we're throwing away - The Guardian

... many progressive liberals are violent when they fail to get their way.

Advertisement - story continues below

ALiberal Prepper with a man-bun. Now what!?

It wasnt long ago that conservative preppers were looked-upon by most liberal progressive Democrats with great disdain.

Advertisement - story continues below

Preppers have been around for a very long time and decades ago were more commonly known as survivalists. And over those decades, liberals viewed old-school preppers as gun-toting, Bible-thumping, food-hording, workaholic nut-case Constitutionalists.

Sowhats wrong with being guided by the founding document of the United States?

A study of the radical non-traditional views liberals hold dear these days seems to come from a matrix of progressive ideals taught by the likes of Saul Alinsky, Barack Obama, and now Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Advertisement - story continues below

As a part of the so-called social-political logic preached by liberal progressives, there are no existential threats that warranted the preparations as being undertaken prior to 2016 by the millions of traditional preppers, sothese traditional conservativepreppers were considered just a bunch of paranoid people.

Liberals believed the things traditional preppers were concerned about, which included hurricanes, earthquakes, loss of the electrical grid, runaway disease, etc., were events so rare in their own life experiences (normalcy bias) that it wasnt worth spending the time or money worrying about.

That liberal perspective seemed especially true with their great Obama at hand, who they believed would come to the rescue if anything really bad ever happened.

As Obama sycophants, progressive liberals believed Obama was the savior of the world and would provide everything in life a person could possibly need, conveniently at the expense of some unknown benefactor. Housing, cell phones, birth control, health care, security, food stamps,and evenfree money were all universal rights liberals believed they had under the now-bygone Obama regime.

Advertisement - story continues below

And according them, nobody needed or should have guns (except Obamas brown shirts) because if Obama took guns away from everyone else, only the good guys would have them, right?

And speaking of Obama, I have to wonder why that big dummy was off doing a TV show with Bear Grylls while he was being paid with our tax dollars to run the country? More of the same malfeasance that has placed our beloved America into the dire straits we face now!

Well now that Donald J. Trump is the leader of the United States, these hypocrites have made an amazing and truly worrisome180-degree transition. They are suddenly arming and preparing themselves in what seems to be preparedness (revolution?) against the Trump administration.

And they doing so as some cities are coincidentally defying the president and U.S. immigration law by aligning themselves as sanctuary cities where violent leftist activists are organizing and providing cover for other anti-Trump groups, such as illegal immigrants, Islamists and other anti-Constitutional criminal elements.

In a recent article titled, Liberal Preppers Stock Up For The Trumpocalypse,it appears progressive liberals may be preparing for armed revolution against Trump and his administration.

So why are liberal preppers worrisome? As we now see, there are some serious concerns supported and evidenced by liberals in action. Unlike conservatives, who by comparison rarely act-out in violence, liberals (like Islamists) seem to have little restraint when it comes to resorting to violence as we saw recently at the Univ. of California-Berkeley Campus, when a gay Jewish man was scheduled to speak.

As we have seen in the news over and over again, many progressive liberals are violent when they fail to get their way. Even though they preach peace when things are going their way (as we see with Islamists), they quickly default to violence when they dont get their way. And they have been proven by their own actions as being the biggest hypocrites around.

Given the propensity for liberals to embrace and provide cover for Islamists and criminal illegal immigrants, it seems an unholy and dangerous alliance could be in the making. Sanctuary cities could become centers for the aggregation and organization of extremist-revolutionaries made up of violent leftists, Islamists and illegal immigrants as well as certain criminals, all under the banner of Liberal Preppers.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website.

Read more from the original source:

An Unholy Alliance? Progressive Liberals And Illegal Immigrants As 'Liberal Preppers' - Western Journalism

Though the federal Liberal Party remains the top choice for Atlantic Canadians, satisfaction as well as party and leader preference has taken a dive in all four provinces.

According to new numbers from Corporate Research Associates, if an election were held today, 60 per cent of Nova Scotians would vote for the Grits, down from 68 per cent in November the lowest level of support in the Atlantic Provinces. Regionally, 62 per cent say they would vote Liberal, down also from 68.

The Conservative Party saw the highest increase in support in Nova Scotia, going from 16 to 21 per cent in the last quarter, followed by the undecided vote, going from 25 to 32 per cent. The NDP and Green party sit at 14 and five per cent support, both up by two percentage points.,

For leader preference, Justin Trudeaus 60 per cent support has dropped to 52 per cent, while support for Tory interim leader Rona Ambrose increased slightly from 13 to 14 per cent, as did Thomas Mulcair (seven to nine per cent) and the Greens Elizabeth May (seven to eight). The none of the above option went up four percentage points from three to seven per cent likely as people look ahead to upcoming leadership races in both the NDP and Conservative parties.

Regionally, 54 per cent support Justin Trudeau, down from 62 per cent, while increases in support were between one and three per cent for the other leaders as well as the undecided contingent.

In Nova Scotia, as with the Atlantic region as a whole, the percentage of people completely or mostly satisfied with the Liberal governments performance dipped significantly in the last quarter, from 72 per cent to 64 per cent provincially, and 73 to 65 per cent across the Atlantic region. At the same time, the percentage of people mostly or completely dissatisfied with the governments performance saw a big increase, from 20 to 28 per cent regionally, and 20 to 30 per cent in Nova Scotia.

Last month, another CRA poll showed a downward trend for the provincial Liberals as well.

Don Mills, chairman and CEO of CRA, said the decline in support is no surprise, considering the Liberals historic popularity in the region early in their mandate.

Whats surprising is that they were up that high for that long. Its really unprecedented from our tracking over the last 25 years, Mills said.

Mills told the Chronicle Herald that support is still high enough that if a federal election were called tomorrow, the Liberals could still win all their seats in the region.

These numbers are the result of CRAs independent, quarterly survey of 1,511 adult Atlantic Canadians, conducted during the month of February, with overall results accurate to within 2.5 percentage points, 95 of 100 times.

See more here:

Federal Liberal party's popularity dips: poll - TheChronicleHerald.ca

Americas biggest, wealthiest cities arent succeeding at the expense of others, and breaking them up just doesnt make sense.

Are cities doing their part to make America great?

Its the kind of question we apparently have to ask about many things these days, and this one comes from New York Times Ross Douthat. Smug coastal urbanites and the social decay they are enabling are a frequent target of the Times lone quasi-conservative columnist. But the thinking behind his latest, Break Up the Liberal City, is a real head-scratcher.

The exact complaints here are hard to pin down, but they range from the fact that segregation exists to the curious claim that recent urbanization hasnt given us much more than some great apps and some fun TV shows to binge-watch. Its not even clear which cities were talking about here: New York and D.C. are singled out as the bad guys, but the implication is that Cleveland, Detroit, and Milwaukee arent liberal at all.

These are offered as counterpoints to a Washington Post op-ed that says President Donald Trump is all wrong about cities, which are safer-than-ever, culturally-rich, rife with policy innovation, and driving our economic future. These things are more or less true. Americas cities are more liberal, and they do contribute enormously to the countrys economy, and the worlds. Its also true that theres a divergence in regional economies that could spawn a resentment against the large cities and their denizens.

So what big idea could solve this problem?

We should treat liberal cities the way liberals treat corporate monopoliesnot as growth-enhancing assets, but as trusts that concentrate wealth and power and conspire against the public good. And instead of trying to make them a little more egalitarian with looser zoning rules and more affordable housing, we should make like Teddy Roosevelt and try to break them up.

What would this entail? Douthat has several proposals, which, he admits, are implausible, perhaps even ridiculous. Take federal agencies out of D.C. and distribute them to cities around the country. Tax huge university endowments unless the schools open satellite campuses in other cities. And support flyover-country TV stations and newspapers through taxes on D.C.- and New York-based media companies.

These arent all inherently ridiculous ideas; indeed, reform-minded conservative politicians and think tanks have recently been calling to relocate agency headquarters for similar reasons. However, government jobs are already distributed around the country: Only about 15 percent of the federal workforce is in the D.C. area. Moving them would indeed hurt D.C.s economy and benefit other cities, as Voxs Matthew Yglesias has explained. But it probably wouldnt mitigate the blinding rage some feel toward the capital, and all it represents.

Now, the thing about universities. The idea starts sensibly enough: tax the endowments of deep-pocketed elite universities. Harvards endowment was valued at $37.6 billion in 2015, Yales was at $25 billion, and there are good arguments for changing their tax-free status for the benefit of their cities, states, and debt-ridden students. But then theres this:

Well tax their endowments heavily, but offer exemptions for schools that expand their student bodies with satellite campuses in areas with well-below-the-median average incomes. M.I.T.-in-Flint has a certain ring to it. So does Stanford-Buffalo, or Harvard-on-the-Mississippi.

For a plan to break up the liberal elite, thats a lot of faith to put in elite institutions. And rather than helping the people of Flint, Buffalo, or wherever Harvard might go, it sounds more like a dare for the imagined caricatures of the liberal intelligentsia: Dont want to pay your taxes? Fine, suckerenjoy Buffalo!

Flint and Buffalo, like plenty of cities that arent Ivy League-adjacent, already host campuses of public research universities that are not known for how many people they reject or how much debt they pile on students. If you really want to help communities like them, do it by investing more in these kinds of anchor institutions, and in the transit and economic programs that improve access for local residents.

Simply put, cities dont function like corporate monopolies. They may be geographic concentrations of wealth, but thats not because of unfair or manipulative practicesits a product of the people and economic activity that urban areas bring together and facilitate. People in cities are more productive, more innovative, and have higher skills because they live in cities, as Joe Cortright writes at City Observatory. Absent cities, the innovation and productivity upon which these industries depend for their success, they simply wouldnt exist. And after the 2016 elections, its hard to argue that liberal cities wield undue influence in the American political system, especially when the policies urban voters choose are so easily overruled by state and federal governments.

But Douthat is absolutely correct in pointing out that its too expensive to live in many cities. That blocks too many people from moving there to share those economic benefits, and it locks in others who would move to a more affordable city if there were adequate job opportunities there.

The big failure is to think that some cities win at all the others expense. Rather than carving up the successful institutions in Americas biggest cities, other places would be better off tackling some of their most obvious and enduring hurdles. Segregation, housing discrimination, and bad zoning are scourges everywhere, not just in dense coastal cities that vote for Democrats. Sprawl and over-reliance on cars have severe costs and inefficiencies that can be mitigated without creating some morally bankrupt leftist megalopolis. One hitch, though: These changes require an electorate that understands the governments role in making them happen.

View post:

Liberal Cities Aren't the Problem - CityLab - CityLab

BizPac Review

Liberal April Ryan Hilariously Claims She Doesn't 'Have an Agenda' After Tense Exchange with Spicer NewsBusters (blog) Following her latest debate with White House press secretary Sean Spicer, liberal journalist and American Urban Radio Network correspondent April Ryan hilariously argued Tuesday afternoon on MSNBC that she doesn't have an agenda despite being ... Liberal White House reporter April Ryan gets 'Spiced' not once, but twice, and it was gloriousBizPac Review all 219 news articles »

Link:

Liberal April Ryan Hilariously Claims She Doesn't 'Have an Agenda' After Tense Exchange with Spicer - NewsBusters (blog)

The Liberal government will announce legislation next month that will legalizemarijuana in Canada by July 1, 2018.

CBC News has learned that the legislation will be announced during the week of April 10 and will broadly follow the recommendation of a federally appointed task force that was chaired by former liberal Justice Minister Anne McLellan.

Bill Blair, the former Toronto police chief who has been stickhandling the marijuana file for the government, briefed the Liberal caucus on the roll-out plan and the legislation during caucus meetings this weekend.

Bill Blair, parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice, speaking at an open caucus meeting and panel discussion on the legalization of marijuana on Parliament Hill in February, 2016, has briefed the Liberal caucus on new marijuana legislation, which leaves the provinces to decide how marijuana is distributed and sold. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

The federal government will be in charge of making sure the country's marijuana supply is safe and secure and Ottawa will license producers.

But the provinces will have the right to decide how the marijuana is distributed and sold. Provincial governments will also have the right to set price.

While Ottawa will set a minimum age of 18 to buy marijuana, the provinces will have the option of setting a higher age limit if they wish.

As for Canadians who want to grow their own marijuana, they will be limited to four plants per household.

Legalizing marijuana was one of the more controversial promises Justin Trudeau made as he campaigned to become prime minister.

But in their platform the Liberals said it was necessary to "legalize, regulate and restrict access to marijuana" in order to keep drugs "out of the hands of children, and the profits out of the hands of criminals."

The Liberals had promised to introduce legislation by the Spring of 2017. Announcing the legislationthe week of April 10 willallowthe partyto hit that deadline.

Trudeau referred again to that rough timetable a few weeks agowhen he said the legislation would be introduced before the summer. But at the same time he also warned that it wasn't yet open season for the legal sale of marijuana.

"Until we have a framework to control and regulate marijuana, the current laws apply," Trudeau said in Halifax March 1.

That warning became more concrete a week later, when police in Toronto, Vancouver and other cities carried out raids on marijuana dispensaries and charged several people with possession and trafficking, including noted pot advocates Marc and Jodie Emery.

Trudeau's promise to legalize marijuana was seen as one of the reasons for the Liberals' strong showing among youth voters in the 2015 election.

But at the NDP's leadership debate in MontrealSunday, which was focused on youth issues, several of the candidates pointed to marijuana legislation as an example of a broken Liberal promise.

"I do not believe Justin Trudeau is going to bring in the legalization of marijuana and as proof that ... we are still seeing, particularly young, Canadians being criminalized by simple possession of marijuana," said B.C. MP Peter Julian.

More here:

Liberals to announce marijuana will be legal by July 1, 2018 - CBC.ca