Category Archives: Liberal

Portage-Lisgar MP and deputy leader of the official opposition Candice Bergen says the federal Liberal budget has let a lot of Canadians down.

The first federal budget in more than two years was presented Monday afternoon by Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, and proposes over $100B in new spending, something Bergen says isn't surprising.

"This is just what Liberals like to do - spend money. (Prime Minister Justin) Trudeau and the Liberals do not have the ability to manage the economy," says Bergen. "(The budget) is not going to do what's needed to create jobs. It's really what Trudeau has called his reimagined economy, which dabbles in risky economic activities like abandoning our natural resources. It really leaves our economy in a very precarious position. So, I'm concerned about this budget."The first federal budget in more than two years was presented this afternoon and proposes over $100B in new spending, something Portage-Lisgar MP Candice Bergen says isn't surprising. (File photo)

The budget also calls for a tax on luxury items like cars and personal aircraft that retail over $100,000, and boats that retail over $250,000; while also proposing a national childcare plan. Bergen notes that many Canadians were hoping for a plan to safely reopen the economy, but there is little in the budget that addresses that.

"Let's keep this in perspective as well - when COVID hit, the Prime Minister and the federal government had some jobs to do like keep our borders safe and make sure that we had vaccines, they failed miserably on both of those fronts," she notes. "Other countries are vaccinated and starting to think about reopening, and we are now being hit with what I call a Trudeau third wave, and so this budget is really a lot of big spending and it's not going to create jobs. It's not going to do what we wanted to see that needs to be done."

Additionally, the budget shows the federal deficit is projected to sit at $354.2 billion for the year that just ended, with it slated to drop to $154.7B in the current 2021-22 fiscal year.

"There's no fiscal anchor. There's no plan to bring some responsibility back to our economic outlook," she adds. "Not only is there massive spending that's going to result in a massive deficit, but we're also going to have a debt of $1.2 trillion."

The federal government will need at least one opposition party to support the budget to avoid an election this spring.

Read more from the original source:

"This Is Just What Liberals Like To Do, Spend Money," Says Portage-Lisgar MP Of Federal Budget - PembinaValleyOnline.com

COVID-19 has so far killed over 3 million people worldwide. Despite the human tragedy and economic cataclysm, India and the world will recover. What will not recover, however, is the absolute death of public faith in public expertise and public intellectuals, given the obnoxious and blatantly hypocritical COVID commentary.

Consider this: when Rahul Gandhi announced that he was suspending his campaigning for the final phases of the ongoing election in Bengal, the usual suspects held him up to be a paragon of virtue, going on to suggest the BJP was irresponsible. Conveniently ignored was the fact that local West Bengal leaders, like president of Bengal Congress Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, were carrying on with their rallies. Of course, these same public intellectuals never opened their mouths when the BJP had at the outset, much earlier on, suggested to the Election Commission that public rallies should not be held and only virtual campaigning should take place. To note, that particular suggestion was shot down by the same secular parties lauded by said public experts.

Similarly (justifiably), criticising the Kumbh Mela does not make you a bigotdespite the disaggregated nature of the Sadhu collectives attending it. But everyone naming and shaming the Tablighi Jamaat super-spreader event was deemed a communal bigot, despite the evasion and lying being coordinated right from the top of the Tablighi Jamaat leadership in India, which subsequently went into hiding.

What is particularly hilarious in all of this is, these same conscience keepers now outraging over the ongoing election campaigning were at the forefront of egging on the farm protests. Pizza-making and foot massage machines at the protest venues were hailed as human interest stories and the huddling of protestors was glossed over. Not one of these truth speakers ever cared pointing out that these protests were a veritable super-spreader event.

This is not to say the central government or the BJP is blameless. Indeed, any nuanced commentary would point out that mistakes abound on both sides. Yet, while one can expect politicians to trade one-sided commentary, the reason people read or listen to public intellectuals is because you are expected to call out all public failings not just the ones that suit you.

This isnt unique to India. Even at the start of this pandemic, when socialist Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand imposed a total lockdown it was hailed by these liberals, but Narendra Modis India doing the same was passed off as some kind of genocide in action. Donald Trump refusing to shut down businesses was roundly criticised as atrocious policy making, but socialist Swedens mass infection (and hence rapid acquired immunity) strategy was hailed as pioneering and visionary. A family friend of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and head of the US Covid-19 efforts, Doctor Anthony Faucis early pronouncements warning people against wearing masks was ignored, but Trumps resistance to masks made him a hate figure.

All the while where Trump was blamed, the same liberal media going after him completely ignored the deliberate falsification of information by their beloved Cuomo. Whats worse, when it emerged he had knowingly herded elderly people in old age homes with other COVID affectees, the media conveniently downplayed what was in effect an act of mass murdereither through commission or omission.

But lets return to India. The same Indian commentariat that was hailing Joe Bidens victory over an allegedly incompetent and anti-globalist Trump, have now zipped completely shut given Bidens own anti-globalist and anti-humanitarian export controls on raw materials required for the Novavax vaccine. Indeed, those mocking Modi for his friendship with Trump, are now unable to demonstrate how their great love for Biden and the Democrats has yielded health benefits for India.

Today Maharashtra accounts for 30 per cent of all COVID cases, and Delhi, yet another opposition-ruled state, is rapidly catching up given these are the two economic hubs. One is absolutely accurate in pointing out that the states should be running their own vaccination policies determining their own criteria. However, what they equally fail to point out is that these same statesDelhi or Maharashtrafailed in their own internal and public assessments to predict the second wave.

Maharashtra had, for its part, shut down the big COVID centres it had put up, precisely because its own state doctors prognostication was that COVID was in its terminal phase. It is absolutely accurate to point out that the central governments Stalinist price and distribution controls on vaccines have caused inexcusable shortages. The same people pointing this out would equally ignore their beloved doctor Faucis testimony to Senator Paul Rand that vaccines only assured immunity against the initial strain of the virus and not the current virulent variants. They will equally not point out that the same opposition state governments they love so much shared the exact same assessments as the central government, grew just as lax, and at no point during the entire year-long nightmare, ever provided an alternate assessment or made alternate arrangements. This despite most of the health decisions being devolved back to state governments, following the third phase of unlocking.

Let us be clear, the central government hasnt exactly covered itself in glory, but the state governments if anything have proven to be just as bad or significantly worse. Irrespective of that, the only people to have permanently lost credibility are Indias self-referential, personal access and personal favour-driven public commentariat.

Disclaimer:Abhijit Iyer-Mitra is Senior Fellow at the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies. Views expressed are personal.

Read all the Latest News and Breaking News here

See original here:

Hypocrisy of Liberals: They Outrage Over Election Campaigning, But Egged On Farm Protests - News18

The Libertarian vs. Liberal debate is confusing for some, but once you understand it, its clear as day. While both of these political thought processes have some areas that overlap, youll soon understand the fundamental differences between the history, modernization, and 20th century belief systems behind them.

The foundation of Libertarianism is that liberty is the most critical political value to uphold. Liberty means that you have the freedom to make your own choices in your life no matter what. Others are not able to control you or interfere in your life, and you should not interfere in theirs either.

Libertarians believe that this attitude will create a cosmopolitan society united by mutual respect rather than divided by nationalistic belief systems that create ripples in our society.

In a Libertarian world, youre free to try whatever you want, implement new ideas, live life on your own terms, and live truly free as long as those freedoms do not initiate force against another individual. group, or government.

Since we are all moral equals, no one person has the right to be more powerful than the other. This is where Libertarianism conflicts with the two-party system we have in our American society today.

Libertarians see the government as a threat to our liberty because they are. Regardless of which side youre on, either party possesses some form of totalitarian control over certain aspects of our lives.

If youre a liberal, you believe that the government should have control over your money, how much you pay in taxes, how you get your healthcare, and where you go to school.

If youre a conservative, you believe that the government should have control over who accesses the country, what happens to criminals, what drugs you can take, what religion you can practice, and who you should marry.

Of course, those are blanket statements that might be a little extreme, but thats an overall look at it. Libertarians believe that we should have control over all these areas. The government shouldnt have any involvement in these areas because that will infringe on our ability to maintain a free society.

The modern American Liberal believes in equality and much of that thinking is based off the overall foundation of the ideology and political stance. Liberalism stands for increased personal rights and the general foundation of their beliefs are:

Liberalism grew in popularity during the Age of Enlightenment when Western philosophers and economists started to pull away from traditional Conservatism, promoting free markets and free trade.

In reality, traditional Liberalism is much different from modern Liberalism in the United States. The word liber means free in Latin, which stands for the free markets and free trade that these people believed in at the time.

This is quite contrasting from the modern-day liberals who believe that the government should have more control and more intervention in the operation of our economy and world markets.

Lets apply modern Liberals vs. Libertarians to the issues we face today. Weve seen many questions arise in recent years about what makes a utopian society and what we need to practice to get as close to that as possible.

Even when a Libertarian agrees with one party on an issue, they have very different reasons as to why they agree. For example, some might think that Libertarians lean towards Conservatives on immigration. While that is true, there are many different reasons for that.

Libertarian: Libertarians believe that the government shouldnt stand in the way of any transaction between two parties, and heres why. Both people generally have something to gain in every transaction.

They understand the importance of market participants and how it impacts the prices of goods and services. When there are strict regulations put in place, the system generally favors larger companies over smaller, newer ones.

Liberal: In terms of economic issues, Liberals tend to favor more government control in this area. They would prefer the government to determine what people get paid, when they get paid, and how they get paid.

By doing this, Liberals believe that it will create more equality, help lift more people out of poverty, and be better for the greater good. While this sounds great, its a nightmare for Libertarians and American Republicans.

The opposing forces believe that mandated wages will result in a crippling economy because the people at the top will not be able to support the higher wages. This break down will eventually result in layoffs and a falling stock market.

Libertarian: Foreign policy is the area that unites most Libertarians, and its the clearest of all their belief systems. They believe that war is never the option because it creates widespread death, destruction, violates civil liberties, and encourages a nationalist way of thinking.

This policy directly contradicts the conservative way of thinking where the military is one of the most important factors in their party.

Libertarians believe in individual freedom and individual liberty, which cannot coincide with the process of recruiting, drafting, training, and treating people like soldiers fighting for the social and economic freedom of the county as a whole.

They believe that war is a last resort and that its never our purpose to interfere in foreign relations because its up to the individual to resolve their own problems.

Liberal: Here is another area where Liberals believe that its the responsibility of the American government to interfere in foreign relations. Liberalism believes that we need to send foreign aid because its our moral responsibility, and its not up to us to judge the opposing democracy; we simply need to help.

Libertarian: They have a unique take on criminal justice. If we look at the immense overpopulation of American prisons, we need to understand why we have so many more people incarcerated compared to every other country in the world.

They believe that we need to stop sending people to jail for using drugs because the limited government shouldnt have control over what substances people use in the first place. We should also look at the penalties for severe crimes like assault and murder.

We need to address the process of rehabilitating criminals and whether or not were actually making a difference in the lives of those incarcerated and the lives of those on the outside affected by the criminal.

Overcriminalization is a clear-cut issue, and weve created too many laws and regulations that strip our liberty and create unequal separations between those in power and the average layman.

Liberal: Here is an interesting area where things flip in modern politics. While we generally believe that Conservatives feel that less government control is better, heres where they prefer the government to step in and take the wheel.

Liberalism takes a soft approach and tries to see the good in all people, where Conservatism sees criminals as threats to society who must be eradicated because theyre threatening the freedom of everyone else.

Libertarian: This party believes that free movement and trade should have no border, and anyone should be allowed to morally move products and services across country lines. If youre trying to do so ethically, there shouldnt be any bureaucratic interference, such as tariffs, regulations, or duties.

Economists studying this philosophy believe that the world GDP would double, resulting in more international trade, a larger pool of qualified candidates for trade, and a wealthier world as a result.

The less interference the government has in trade, the better opportunities there are for the individual to create wealth.

That said, Libertarians understand the potential economic impact of immigration and how it can suck the well dry, so to speak, but the Conservative mentality of immigrants coming to the country to live off the welfare state and take our jobs doesnt hold any weight in a Libertarian society.

Liberal: This is another situation where Liberals prefer to step back and let nature work itself out. Liberals believe in open-borders and that we have no right to control who comes or goes from our country. As you can likely tell, this is considered highly reckless to both Conservatives and Libertarians. Conservatives believe that its our responsibility to think of our own citizens first, and we need to protect our borders to keep ourselves safe.

Libertarian: Our government allows citizens a certain number of rights provided they can conduct themselves responsibly. For example, the second amendment is the right to bear arms. As a citizen, each person has the right to own a gun provided they do not use it to recklessly harm others.

Libertarians feel that these amendments only make sense in a democratic society where the government needs to provide you with them in the first place.

In a Libertarian society, the philosophy believes that all people should be protected by these rights regardless of their social status or group membership. Some of these rights include:

Here is a key difference between Libertarian and Liberal. The bolded point at the end also applies to the doctors and facilities who would conduct the procedure. Thats the foundation of the Libertarian belief system. Its that no one persons rights can infringe on the rights of another, no matter what.

If an individual desires an abortion, they can do so, as this issue is up to each person and the government should not be involved in their decision process.

The same applies to same-sex marriage. You have the right to marry who you want, but you cannot attempt to take legal action or smear the reputation of a church leader or business that doesnt want to participate in the union.

Liberal: This is the area where freedoms tend to compound, and the original foundation of Liberalism comes into play. Liberals believe that the individual should have the right to do with their lives as they please. This means they can marry who they like, do with their bodies as they choose, and right for their rights if they feel theyve been mistreated.

The belief system might sound the same as the Libertarianism version, but theres a fundamental difference here.

Liberals believe that everyone should share these beliefs and that its up to the government to enforce this. For example, while Liberals believe that same-sex marriage is a right, they think that the government needs to force these beliefs on everyone.

Libertarians believe that everyone has the right to see it through their own lens, and no one person should force their beliefs on someone because it strips away their own personal liberty and rights to freedom.

Libertarian: Libertarians believe that its your right to choose your medical providers and treatments. They see that the government interferes in the progression of medicine by imposing harsh regulations on pharmaceutical companies and laboratories to limit the use of experimental health care.

In a nutshell, if the government cant understand the use of a treatment and there isnt enough science to back it up, they wont support it. If they dont support it, the researchers will not receive the funding they need to continue their research, which will stop the growth right in its tracks.

This belief system feels that voluntary institutions would do a much better job of caring for people by reducing costs and allowing for individuals to benefit from the economic rewards of health care. Private charity can certainly have its place, but as a whole, health care and medicine shouldnt be a commercial enterprise.

Liberal: The Liberal vs. Libertarian belief is that health care is better left in the hand of the government because individual medicine will lead to corruption, inflated prices, and monopolization. This contrasts the Capitalist way of thinking where many Conservatives believe that its up to the individual to decide what type of health care theyd like, how theyd like to pay for it, and where theyd want to go for it.

Many people compare the Liberal philosophy on health care to socialized medicine, and theres some truth to this. Socialized medicine is complete government control over what you pay for health care, what doctors you see, what procedures you get, and where you go to get those procedures done.

Libertarians see this as a complete violation of our liberties because we should have the freedom to choose our doctors, procedures, and facilities. It should be between the individual and the practicing physician without any government intervention other than to protect the patient from fraud and malpractice.

Liberalism, as a tradition and political science, essentially stands for equality. The policy believes that all people deserve equal opportunities for building wealth, voicing their opinions, and protecting themselves.

In fact, the first recorded use of the word liberal dates back to 1375, describing the liberal arts education as the education of the free man. This early connection between education and Liberalism gave way to the more modern take of the phrase.

During the Period of Enlightenment, the word started to take on a positive note, being described as a belief system that was free from prejudice and free from bigotry. The word liberalism first appeared in English in 1815, and it wasnt until the 19th century that people started using it as a political term to describe parties and world movements.

In European Liberalism, you have an equal divide between the moderates and progressives. The moderates lean towards elitism, and progressives more frequently support the universalization of institutions, including education and property. As time passed, moderates passed progressives as the defenders of European Liberalism.

The way this differs from modern-day Libertarianism is the belief that the government still needs to maintain control over certain areas of our economy, gun control, and health care. Libertarians believe that there are two parties in every situation and they both can benefit from transactions, thus, theres no need for government intervention.

They also believe that gun control is left in the hands of the people who need to defend themselves. The government should have no role in this and its up to the people whether or not they want to own a firearm. The same ideology applies to health care. One thing about Libertarianism is that it hasnt changed much since its introduction and much of the political philosophy is the same.

The Nolan Chart pictured above is a diagram originally developed by American Libertarian David Nolan in 1969. There are two axes representing the contrast between economic freedom and personal freedom. This philosophy differs from that of famous Libertarians such as Ayn Rand and Friedrich A. Hayek.

Ultimately, the further you rise up the vertical y-axis, the more personal freedom you gain, but the less economic freedom you have.

The further you move right across the horizontal x-axis, the more economic freedom you have but, the less personal freedom.

In the middle, you have Centrists who favor a mixture of both economic and personal freedom.

The chart shows that Liberals favor personal freedom over economic freedom, while Conservatives favor economic freedom over personal freedom.

The extremists in the equation would be Libertarians and Authoritarians. Libertarians favor both personal and economic freedom while Authoritarians, Statists, or Communists, as some might like to call them, prefer limited freedom and total government control.

We believe that this article should clear up any concerns you have in the Libertarian vs. Liberal comparison. They are extremely different, and even in areas where their beliefs start to overlap, there are fundamental differences supporting those beliefs. Its crucial that you understand these factors when developing your own political opinions and stances.

Now, when someone asks you, are Libertarians liberal? Youll have a clear answer and a thorough understanding of the differences.

See original here:

Libertarian vs. Liberal: Key Differences and Similarities

How much Australian political content on Facebook is fake, and does the social media platform really care?

Liberal MPs faking engagement on Facebook prompts us to ask: (a) how much of Australias political Facebook is, well, fake? And (b) does Facebook care?

A recent whistleblower report out of the United States on Facebooks failures to block fake engagement suggests that (a) it could be quite a bit and (b) that Facebook cares about as much as the squeaking of local political wheels requires of them.

Just last February, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg was eager to engage with Facebook at the most senior levels over how much money Facebook would pay News Corp and Nine (not much, compared to Facebook revenues, it turned out). A year on, theres notably less enthusiasm to clean up the pollution of political debate where it most directly affects Australians: in their local communities.

Register your email address to get FREE access on a 21-day trial.

See the article here:

The Liberal Party is faking social media, so what will Facebook do? - Crikey

It can be so hard to find a true comparison between a conservative and a liberal since they approach almost every issue with different philosophies and underlying assumptions. Because of their different methods and philosophies, there are many differences that need to be explored between conservative and liberal.

Below are some of the most important differences between conservatives and liberals.

A conservative believes that a judge should determine whether or not laws are permissible under the Constitution. They should also settle any debates that occur regarding the meaning of these laws. A liberal believes that a judge is a way to get unpopular legislation passed. They want a judge to who will impose their will.

A conservative is a die-hard patriot. They truly believe that the U.S. is a great nation. A liberal is more of interested in the world view instead of the best interest of the U.S.

Communism Vs. Fascism

Conservatives are also capitalists. They believe that when an entrepreneur amasses wealth through their own hard work, it benefits the country. Liberals are socialists. They believe that entrepreneurs who are successful have somehow cheated the system.

A conservative believes in God. They also believe that the U.S. has been so successful because it is a Christian nation, guided by God. A liberal is not usually a Christian and many times are hostile to anything Christian.

A conservative has the belief that individual Americans have the Constitutional right to defend themselves and their loved ones with guns. A liberal believes that taking the guns from individual, law-abiding citizens; they can prevent the criminals from using guns in any crime.

A conservative believes that all people should be judged solely on their character and the merits of their actions, not on their color. A liberal does not think it is wrong to discriminate based on race as long as the minority group as a whole primarily benefits.

Abortion, to a conservative, ends the life of an innocent child. They oppose abortion. Liberals believe that it is more important to not inconvenience the mother; therefore it is easier to end the life of the child.

Conservatives are not necessarily Republicans, but they do have many of the same belies; reduce the size of government, low taxes, balanced budget, get the country out of debt. Liberals, many of which would be classified as Democrats, believe in big government, high spending, high taxes and big debt.

According to most conservatives the Government tends to be wasteful, incompetent and inefficient. Less government is the key to a successful government. A liberal views government as the solution. More government programs or mandates will fix all the problems.

The below table demonstrates the key differences between a conservative and a liberal in short.

Read more from the original source:

Conservative Vs. Liberal - 8 Key Differences

After a year that saw federal spending reach levels not seen since the Second World War, the Liberal government will release a long-awaited budget Monday that will offer a roadmap to a post-pandemic economic recovery.

Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland's first budget as finance minister will attempt to balance measures meant to reduce the severity of COVID-19's third wave with efforts to set the stage for an economic rebound.

The budget will account for record emergency spending driven by measures tofight the pandemic and blunt its economic impact.

Freeland is also expected to provide details of a plan to spend up to $100 billion in stimulus and jump-start progress on a number of Liberal priorities ahead of a possible election this year.

"We will have more to tell you next Monday about the plan we are implementing to keep Canadians safe, to create jobs for the middle class and to rebuild a clean, resilient economy," Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said in French at a press conference on Friday.

"All of the measures in Budget 2021 are focused on helping you through this crisis and rebuilding a stronger Canada for everyone."

Here are five items to look out for when Freeland opens the government's books.

The budget is expected to take major steps toward funding a national early learning and child care system a pledge Liberal politicians have made for decades.

At the party's policy convention two weeks ago, Freeland said the time is ripe to fulfilan old promise.

"I really believe COVID has created a window of political opportunity and maybe an epiphany on the importance of early learning and child care," Freeland said.

The Liberals say they believe a nationalchild care system will boost economic growth and productivity by creatingwell-paidjobs andfreeing up more women to work.

Freeland has pointed to Quebec's system where parents pay a flatrate of $10 a day per child as a potential model.

Morna Ballantyne, executive director of the advocacy group Child Care Now, said the budget will have to include a significant financialcommitment to show the government isserious about funding more spaces and bringing costs down for parents.

"We want to see a signal that the federal government is ready and willing to work together with provinces and territories to make sure that a system can actually be built,because it is going to require a collaborative effort," said Ballantyne.

The fall economic statement released in November projected the deficit would reach $381.6 billion by the end of March 2021.

It's likely that number is even higher now,given that several benefits programs the wage subsidy, the rent subsidy and the recovery, sickness and caregiving benefits have been extended into the late spring as the countryconfronts a third wave of the pandemic.

Freeland also announced the government's intention to introduce a short-term stimulus package valued at $70 billion to $100 billion over roughly three years that would launch after vaccines are distributed and life begins to return to normal.

Sources have told CBC Newsthe budget is expected to project a downward trajectory for the deficitbut is not expected to propose a timeline for eliminating it.

Economists and business groups will be looking for a sign that the Liberals have a plan in place to keep spending in check so that it doesn't overheat the economy orlead to unsustainable debt payments if interest rates rise.

"The federal government can boost business confidence and encourage higher levels of private sector investment by committing to a responsible and prudent post-pandemic fiscal plan that avoids unnecessary new spending and seeks to gradually ease the burden of public debt,"Goldy Hyder, president and CEO of the Business Council of Canada, wrote in a March 1 letter to Freeland.

Hyder is encouraging the government to adopt a clear fiscal anchor a benchmark to serve as a theoretical cap on spending and deficits.

The government has said the spending taps will remain open until several "fiscal guardrails" tied to the labour market are met. Those include improvements in employment, unemployment and total hours worked, though the Liberals have not revealed specific targets for each.

The Liberals' slogan for their post-pandemic agenda "build back better" refers in part to their desire to speed up the transition to a green, low-carbon economy.

Expect a significant portion of the planned stimulus spending to go toward investments in clean energy technology, jobs and infrastructure. That means money forbuilding charging stations for electric vehicles, retrofitting old-stock commercial buildings and homes and helping natural resource industries transition to cleaner energy.

Through investments in greening homes and buildings, the government hopes to create a domestic retrofit industry and supply chain for products such as energy-efficient windows and doors.

Shortly after budget day, the government is expected to release more ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets. The current target is 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.

Monday's budget likelywill sketch out how the Liberals plan to meet that more ambitious target.

It's become a common refrain that the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed pre-existing and deep-seated inequalities in Canadian society and it's one the Liberals say they take to heart.

The budget is expected to include an emphasis on supportingpeople who have been disadvantaged historically,and those who have been hardest hit by the pandemic. That includes seniors living in long-term care,young people, Indigenous people and non-white, racialized Canadians.

Advocatessay they want the budget to address high levels of unemployment among racialized Canadians, including those with Asian and Black heritage and Indigenous Canadians.

"This could be the once-in-the-lifetime chance that the government will have this huge amount of fiscal power to correct some very long-standing inequalities," said Avvy Go, executive director of the Southeast Asian Legal Clinic.

"It will create so many jobs that it will be a missed opportunity if we don't use the spending power to address some of the systemic racism, as well as systemic sexism within the labour market by creating jobs for more women,both men and women of colour, [and] people with disabilities."

In the throne speech, the Liberals said they remaincommitted to a national, universal pharmacare system.The party's membership recently reinforced that commitmentat the Liberal policy convention.

But it's not clear that commitment means money in the budget to move the project forward.

The government has taken only incremental steps since anadvisory panelrecommended creating a universal, single-payer public pharmacare system. The panelpredicted that such a programwould cost$3.5 billion over 10 years starting in 2022, rising to $15.3 billion annually in 2027.

National pharmacare is a key NDP demand but some budget watchers believe the pandemic might further delay the initiative because it would require long-term structural spending and negotiations with the provinces some of which are opposed to the very idea of a national pharmacare program.

View post:

5 things to watch for when the Liberals unveil the federal budget - CBC.ca

Welcome to Pollapalooza, our weekly polling roundup.

Only 47 percent of American adults said they were members of a church, mosque or synagogue, according to recently released polling that was conducted by Gallup throughout last year. It marked the first time that a majority of Americans said they were not members of a church, mosque or synagogue since Gallup first started asking Americans about their religious membership in the 1930s. Indeed, Gallups finding was a kind of watershed moment in the long-chronicled shift of Americans away from organized religion.

Whats driving this shift? In part, its about people who still identify with a religious tradition opting not to be a member of a particular congregation. Only 60 percent of Americans who consider themselves religious are part of a congregation, compared to 70 percent a decade ago, according to Gallup. But the bigger factor, Gallup said, is the surge of religiously unaffiliated Americans people who are agnostics, atheists or simply say they are not affiliated with a religious tradition. The rise of this group sometimes referred to as nones because they answer none when asked about their faith (and, you know, its a play on words) isnt new. But the Gallup survey is part of a growing body of new research on this bloc (that includes a recent book by one of us, Ryans The Nones: Where They Came From, Who They Are, and Where They Are Going).

Lets look at some of the new insights about the nones:

By nearly all measures, the nones now represent at least a fifth of all American adults, rivaling Catholics and evangelical Christians as the nations largest cohort in terms of religious faith (or lack thereof). They are the fastest-growing religious/nonreligious cohort the nones went from 12 percent of American adults in 1998 to 16 percent in 2008, to 24 percent in 2018, according to data from the General Social Survey. Gallup puts this group at about 21 percent. Pew Research Center says 26 percent. The Cooperative Election Study suggests their ranks are even larger, at about 32 percent.

Why the confusion about the exact number? First, theres no universal method by which researchers ask people about their religious beliefs. For example, the GSS only offers one response option for the nones (no religion), while the CCES offers three (atheist, agnostic, nothing in particular). Secondly, Americans are still sorting out exactly how disengaged they are from religion, so even small changes in the way these questions are asked can affect the results.

Compared to the U.S. population overall, nonreligious Americans are younger and more Democratic-leaning. But the number of Americans who arent religious has surged in part because people in lots of demographic groups are disengaging from religion many nones dont fit that young, liberal stereotype. The average age of a none is 43 (so plenty are older than that). About one-third of nones (32 percent) are people of color. More than a quarter of nones voted for Trump in 2020. And about 70 percent dont have a four-year college degree.

The decline over the last decade in the share of Black (-11 percentage points) and Hispanic adults (-10 points) who are Christians is very similar to the decline among white adults (-12 points), according to Pew. The number of college graduates leaving the faith (-13 points) is similar to those without degrees (-11 points). The decline in organized religion is indeed much bigger among Democrats (-17 points) than Republicans (-7 points) and among Millennials (-16 points) compared to Baby Boomers (-6 points), but the trend is very broad.

The growing diversity of nones explains a lot of dynamics we see in America today. For example, unlike the civil rights movements of the 1950s and 60s, Black Lives Matter didnt emerge from Black Christian churches and is not principally led by Black pastors. Part of the story there is that some activists involved in BLM view Black churches as too conservative, particularly in terms of not being inclusive enough of women and LGBTQ people. But another part of the story is simply that the Black Lives Matter movement was largely started by Black people under age 50. Many Black Americans under 50, like their non-Black counterparts, are disengaged from religion. About a third of Black Millennials are religiously unaffiliated, compared to 11 percent of Black Baby Boomers, according to Pew.

The nones can generally be broken down into three groups: agnostics, atheists and a third bloc that is much larger than the first two and doesnt ascribe to a label the nothing in particular bloc. According to CCES data from 2020, about 6 percent of American adults are atheists and 5 percent are agnostics, while 21 percent of Americans describe their religious beliefs as nothing in particular. Agnostics and atheists in particular tend to be disproportionately male, white, college-educated and Democratic-leaning. Atheists in particular have fairly negative views about churches and religious organizations.

In contrast, the nothing in particular bloc is more diverse more people of color, more women, more Republicans, fewer people with college degrees. They tend not to have strongly negative views about churches and religious organizations. Also, people in this nothing in particular group, unlike the overwhelming majority of atheists and agnostics, sometimes join (or rejoin) religious denominations. About a quarter of those who were nothing in particular joined religious denominations from 2010 to 2014, while only about 13 percent became atheist or agnostic, according to an analysis of CCES data. (Most of them remained nothing in particular.)

And again, these numbers help explain some things happening in American culture and politics. The BLM movement has coordinated with Black churches and Black religious people and that collaboration is likely eased by the fact that Black nones are rarely atheists or agnostics and therefore dont have the negative feelings about churches and religious organizations that people in those groups often do. (About 12 percent of non-religious Black people are atheists or agnostics, compared to about 39 percent of religiously unaffiliated white people.)

Religiously unaffiliated Republicans usually arent agnostics or atheists either probably making it easier for them to remain in a party with a powerful evangelical wing. Only about 20 percent of Democrats are atheists or agnostics which means they are fairly comfortable with an openly religious politician like President Biden as their partys leader.

There are about as many evangelicals (22 percent of American adults), Jewish Americans (2 percent), Black Protestants (6 percent) and members of smaller religions in the U.S. like Islam and Hinduism (6 percent) as there were a decade ago, according to GSS data. Its really two groups in particular that are declining: mainline Protestants (think Episcopalians or Methodists) and Catholics.

Part of that decline is about young people elderly members of these denominations who die are not being replaced by a younger cohort. But older people are now increasingly shifting from Christian to unaffiliated too particularly older people who lean left politically. As a result, mainline Christianity is not only declining but becoming more conservative. Between 2008 and 2018, three of the largest mainline traditions (the United Methodists, the Episcopalians and the United Church of Christ) all became more Republican.

People who leave Christianity often cite the politics of the Christian right turning them off. But some of the evidence here suggests that probably isnt the only explanation. There is a general disengagement of Americans from organized religion people who are religious no longer identifying as members of congregations. Republicans are becoming less religious, but they seem just fine voting for candidates who court the Christian right. And the people leaving Christianity arent usually members of conservative evangelical congregations in the first place.

So what else is going on? Well, nations with fairly high per capita GDPs (such as Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom) tend to have fairly low levels of religiosity. The U.S. has long been an outlier: a high-income, highly religious nation. But America may have always been destined to grow less religious.

According to FiveThirtyEights presidential approval tracker, 52.8 percent of Americans approve of the job Biden is doing as president, while 40.8 percent disapprove (a net approval rating of +12 points). At this time last week, 53.2 percent of Americans approved of Biden, while 39.9 percent disapproved (a net approval rating of 13.3 points). One month ago, 53.8 percent of Americans approved of Biden, compared to 40.2 percent who disapproved.

See more here:

Its Not Just Young White Liberals Who Are Leaving Religion - FiveThirtyEight

One of the biggest challenges and dilemmas a student faces while growing up is understanding what theyre good at, where their heart lies, and what is an ideal career path for them. At We The Young, a youth content and education platform, we extensively interact with youngsters and hear their thoughts and stories around different issues that matter to them from their career, sexuality, and mental health to their aspirations, opinions, and relationships.

One factor that constantly comes up during these interactions is that students are yearning for something more when it comes to their education and opportunities. Apart from wanting more inclusive and vast employment opportunities, they also want to learn concepts, subjects, and themes that go beyond dated curriculums.

A twelfth-grade student from Pune said, I think its difficult to tell which stream my interest lies in. We, as humans, are not mechanical beings and thus compartmentalising our interests and opportunities limits our potential and growth.

It is clear that this is a new generation - one that is not settling for anything less than what they deserve and is fuelled by limitless dreams. This is a new age, and it needs a new curriculum- one thats inclusive, interdisciplinary, and holistic in its approach. How cool would it be if theyre able to combine their multiple passions together and get a degree that helps them explore all these options while building a holistic learning experience at the same time?

Liberal arts education, degrees, courses, and communities aim to bridge this gap and give students the liberty and space to explore as they learn and create new avenues for themselves. In simple terms, liberal arts education allows a student to go beyond watertight categories of science, commerce, humanities, and social sciences and instead, pick a combination of subjects and interest areas that might be cross-cutting through these disciplines.

Exploring the interdisciplinary nature of various subjects across academic streams is at the core of liberal arts. While this form of learning has been central to the western education system for a while now, India has also started taking conscious steps in this direction. In fact, the New Education Policy announced in 2020 also extensively focuses on a multi-disciplinary approach to learning.

Now addressing a key question that is bound to arise: what is the future of liberal arts in India? Is it really a game-changer in the field of education? What career options do students have after getting a liberal arts degree? The possibilities are limitless. Pursuing a liberal arts degree gives young minds the freedom to pick from a diverse range of fields or perhaps, invent something new of their own.

Students often struggle to make a decision about what field they want to go for early on in their school years but with the flexibility that a liberal arts degree offers, they get more exposure, time, and opportunities to explore and then make an informed decision. Some top spaces in which students with a liberal arts background contribute include public policy, social and development sector, global diplomacy, social sciences, journalism, and content creation.

Liberal arts is the future of education. It is the face of change in India and in the world. It opens a door of opportunities for young minds in a way that no other form of education does. It truly reinforces the idea that the future is young and we, as youngsters, have the power to be limitless.

So for all the curious youngsters who are confused about whats the right career path for them, are passionate about becoming a changemaker, and are looking to explore liberal arts space, take the plunge! This is the right time and age for it; a world of opportunities awaits you.

Article by Charit Jaggi, founder of We The Young.

Read: Assessing student wellbeing, not aptitude is the need of the hour

Read: How to make Work-from-Home work for you

Follow this link:

Why Liberal arts is the degree young is India talking about - India Today

Andrew Sharp Peacock, for so long the coming man of Australian politics, has died in the United States aged 82.

Born in 1939, he was educated at Scotch College, Melbourne, acquired a law degree at the University of Melbourne, where he also met his first wife, Susan Rossiter, the daughter of Victorian Liberal politician Sir John Rossiter.

By the age of 26 he had been president of the Victorian Young Liberals and became president of the Victorian Division of the Liberal Party at a time when Victoria was the Liberals jewel in the crown.

Liberal warhorses, of whom Senator Magnus Cormack was one, saw Peacock as the future of the Liberal Party. Peacock also gained an impeccable contact with the past when, in 1966, he succeeded Sir Robert Menzies in the seat of Kooyong.

He immediately attracted attention when he arrived in Canberra, where in the Liberal Party Room he experienced the resentment of the envious and of the by-passed.

There was a minor setback when John Gorton in 1968 brought another Victorian, Phillip Lynch, into the ministry, overlooking Peacock who believed Gorton had promised him a promotion. Perhaps surprisingly, 35 years later Peacock was still expressing hurt at being overlooked.

In the parliamentary party, he joined the so-called Mushroom Club with other good friends like Jim Killen, Tom Hughes and Don Chipp, all of whom were expected to advance, and did so.

Gorton promoted Peacock after almost losing the supposedly the unlosable election of 1969. As minister for the army, Peacock found it difficult working under Defence Minister Malcolm Fraser, and would again feel a lasting pain when Bill McMahon, with Frasers help, displaced Gorton in March 1971.

Peacock survived a McMahon cull of Gorton supporters, performed well as minister for external territories, and stayed on the front bench after Gough Whitlam won the 1972 election.

The coming man appeared closer to arrival when Fraser appointed Peacock foreign minister in 1975, a move that benefited Fraser by keeping a potential challenger out of the country.

Read more: Vale Bob Hawke, a giant of Australian political and industrial history

The job meant Peacock could do what he always did so well: meeting and greeting the high-ranking and influential from around the world. His natural charm, good looks and genuine goodwill, combined with a sympathy for people and an understanding of different countries situations, enabled him to work with and alongside Asians and Africans, Europeans, Americans and Pacific Islanders.

Cormack wanted his pupil to challenge Fraser for the leadership. Peacock flopped badly when, having previously moved to the seemingly unsuitable portfolio of industrial relations, he did try for the leadership in 1982.

At least he was well placed to succeed Fraser after the Coalition lost the 1983 election to Bob Hawkes Labor Party. Peacock proceeded to lose two of his own in 1984 and 1990 while doing better than expected in adverse circumstances in opposing Hawke.

Critically, however, Peacock exposed a weakness that offset the advantages of intelligence, charm, and apparent self-possession. Beyond proclaiming the shibboleths, it was never clear just what he believed in and what he stood for.

During Peacocks supposed rivalry with Howard beneath the surface it was really one between their supporters one senior moderate Liberal explained his own dilemma:

do I vote for Howard, whose views I dislike, or for Peacock, whose views remain a mystery?

A former federal president from the 1980s once described Peacock as a man who would denounce you in a vile manner and then walk through a door, see you, smile broadly and greet you warmly.

After losing in 1990, Peacock drifted towards the exit door of politics and looked more at ease as the Howard-appointed Ambassador to the United States. At the end of his tenure in 2000 he took various positions in business in America and Australia.

So, why did the coming man never arrive at the Lodge? Commentators usually scoffed at Peacocks own explanation that he was never sure he really wanted the top job.

Yet, looking at how he went about his early career in the Liberal Party, where he was striving to advance himself and was not in a mood to accept setbacks, he was not the same man who reached for the party leadership three times in the 1980s.

Unlike Peacock, Fraser and Howard went for the leadership with agendas. They stood, most of the time, for identifiable and consistent positions and they were there for the long haul.

Peacock was probably at his best when he left that world behind him.

He married happily the third time, and through Penne Percy Korth gravitated to a world occupied by the more moderate Republicans. He also had a close relationship with his three daughters.

Beyond appearances, Peacock had the endearing quality of generating a natural warmth, charm and wit.

See the original post:

Remembering Andrew Peacock, a Liberal leader of intelligence, wit and charm - The Conversation AU

There are legitimate concerns over the legality of the Liberal Party's attempts to block the registration of The New Liberals, writes their Leader Victor Kline.

AS THE LEADER of The New Liberals (TNL), I received a call from a senior member of the Liberal Party some months ago. He told me that when we applied for registration of our party name with the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), the procedure was that anotification would be published allowing anyone who wanted to object to registration to do so within 28 days.

He said that the Liberal Party would object on the basis that our name might mislead voters. He pointed out that such an objection would have no legal basis because three Federal Court judgeshad said that the Liberal Party could not lock up'a generic word like "liberal"and try to make it their property.

He cautioned that the AEC might choose to ignore the law and find against us anyway. He refused to be further drawn on why that would be. But most importantly, he pointed out that, whilst we would have avenues of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and the Federal Court or the High Court, these would be extremely time-consuming.

This, he said, was the Liberal Partys main purpose:to delay us through endless litigation so that we would still not be registered by the time the election came round. In that event, wecould not stand candidates under our party name and logo. And that they further hoped to bankrupt us with legal costs along the way.

As a barrister myself, I researched his legal advice and found it to be correct in every detail. I was,of course, curious as to why a senior member of the Party which was about to try to litigate us into extinction, would call to warn me and give me details of what they would try to do to us.

Given that he had been so accurate on the legal side of things, I anticipated that he would be right about the fundamental fact that the Liberal Party would lodge a challenge.I was surprised, when I rang our contact at the AEC, Tim, right on close of business on the final day allowed to lodge an objection, to find that no objection had been lodged.

However, Timrang me the following Monday to say that there had been an objection lodged after the close of business but before midnight. He was told to explain to me how they considered that to be a valid objection. I said that my understanding of the law was that anything received after close of business did not meet the requirement of "receipt"before the deadline because there was no oneto receive it.

Without responding to that, he moved on to explain that the next step was for a delegate of the Commissioner to examine the objection to ensure it met formal requirements.Once that was done, we would be sent, probably the next day, the identity of the objector and their written objection.

A week later I hadnt heard from the AEC contactand so I called him to see what the delay was. He couldnt really explain that, but said we should hear soon. In the end, we didnt hear for a month, when I was rung by another AEC official, Karen, who said that Tim (with whom we had been dealing for months) had been taken off our case and that she was now handling it.

Karen told me that we would now finally be told who the objector was and be allowed to see the documents in support of their objection. When I asked her why there had been such a delay, when all that was required was a 30-second scan of the documentsand when she knew how crucial time was to us, she just laughed and said "oh, you know how we bureaucrats are".

I then asked her to provide me with evidence of the time the Liberal Party documents were received at the AEC. She refused to comply. I explained that we were fully entitled in law to see evidence of this crucial aspect. She again said that it would not be possible to show us the covering document with a timestamp.

I asked her to provide me with reasons why she was refusing a perfectly proper and normal request, at which time she put me on hold and got her boss, Rob.

Rob also refused to show me this crucial piece of evidence. I explained to him, as I had explained to Karen, that I had strong reasons to believe the objection was not received before the close of business on the last day, for the very obvious reason that Tim had told me so.

Rob then assured me that the documents had been received before the close of business. I asked him how Tim could bewrong about such an important matter, especially when we were the only objection case they had.

He did not answer.He again refused to provide the proof of receipt. And that is where we left it.

I have now written to Mr Tom Rogers, Australian Electoral Commissioner, detailing what I have reported here, and formally requesting that we be sent proof of receipt. I pointed out to Mr Rogers that a failure to do so would amount to a denial of procedural fairness, which would render any decision he or his delegate made against us, void in law. Weawait his response.

Victor Klineis the leader of The New Liberals, a writer and a barrister, whose practice focuses on pro bono work for refugees and asylum seekers.

Support independent journalism Subscribeto IA.

Read more here:

Liberal Party seeks to prevent The New Liberals from registering - Independent Australia