Category Archives: Populism

Number 10 Downing Street, the office of the UK Prime Minister. Credit: Defence Imagery, Flickr.

The race to be UKs next Prime Minister is now down to 2- Liz Truss, the current Foreign Secretary and the former Chancellor Rishi Sunak, whose resignation led to the start of backlash and the ultimate fall of Boris Johnson as the PM. The final two candidates will be trying to convince Tory party members to back them at hustings events around the country between 28July and 31August. The ballot will close at 17:00 BST on 2September. The next PM will be announced on September 6. The agendas of both the leaders have been set out to the public- with focus on tax cuts, leveraging a green economy and both at the same time more than ever enthusiastic at scrapping the remaining EU laws - something to cheer for, at least for some Eurosceptic media.

Liz Truss appears to be the favourite to replace Boris Johnson as the next PM, riding high on her promise of billions of pounds of tax cuts, setting targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions and leveraging green growth and continuing the undeterred stance of the UK on the Ukraine War. Recent polls from the 4th of August suggest that her lead over Rishi Sunak has increased significantly (87 percent chances of Truss becoming the next PM) and chances are likely that come September 6, the 3rd ever woman will be sworn in as the next UK Prime Minister. Trusss tax cut promises come at a time when the UK economy has become stagnant and inflation has been at an all time high in recent decades along with a significant increase in public distrust towards the government in particular. Critics have lashed out at her, stating her campaign is being run on grounds of populism and that she is simply saying what the public wants to hear, rather than having a pragmatic approach to solving the challenges home and abroad. Another significant aspect would be the approach to international affairs and anchoring the UKs relations with the EU.

Foreign Policy Implications and Relations with the EU

Once a Remainer and now a strong Brexiteer, Trusss approaches embody a Reaganite style where UK continues to remain a faithful ally of America and a sharp critic of China and Russia. In terms of UKs relation with the EU, it is highly unlikely that Truss would not go ahead with Johnsons approach of no compromise with Brussels. She also seeks to scrap the remaining EU laws that the UK still holds adherence to, echoing the phrase: The destiny of the UK is in the hands of the people. Her spearheading of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill also prompted legal actions by the EU. She remains adamant that post-Brexit freedom would help in unleashing economic growth by stimulating opportunities that are UK-centric and for the British people. Trusss promise to scrap all of the remaining EU Laws by 2023 earlier than her contender has claimed to do so, remains a promise only on paper as the UK continues to struggle economically as its population mediates with high taxes and a frivolous job market, made only more complicated by Brexit. Trusss bid for the leadership has garnered popular support, especially among her ex-rivals such as Penny Mordaunt and others within the tory camp, which is largely seen to be Eurosceptic, a sharp contrast to how the majority of the Brits is feeling at the moment.

On issues such as Russia-Ukraine War and China, Truss maintains that the UKs stance on the matter would remain the same and that the UK would not directly get involved in the war. She, like her rival, has echoed the chants of an increased defence expenditure, to avert any possible future Russian aggression on its soil or that of its NATO allies, only to be overshadowed by a proper blueprint to achieve the same. On the issue of China, Liz Truss appears to be hard on China and its ways and measures, calling for a clampdown on the Chinese tech companies such as TikTok, in her stance of regulating tech companies hailing from authoritarian regimes. She also lashed out at Sunak, for trying hard to broker an economic deal with China. In contrast, her present actions and views appear outlandish, given her role in helping to set up the Confucius Institutes in the UK. Liz Truss oversaw the signing of a memorandum of understanding between University College Londons education faculty and Hanban, a wing of Chinas education ministry in 2014. She was serving as the education secretary at that time. In the wake of the China-Taiwan Crisis, Truss called the Chinese actions of military drills near Taiwan to be inflammatory and called for immediate de-escalation, commenting that Chinas invasion of Taiwan would be catastrophic.

Rallying on popular support for her stand on tax cuts, the economy and the Ukraine War, among others, Truss, has a very high chance of being the next PM, hailed as a true conservative by her party peers. What remains to be seen however is for how long can Truss hold onto the strings of the conservative party leadership, which in the recent decade has often been in a crisis and conflict regarding the right person to lead them forward?

Original post:

Race to 10 Downing Street : How the next Reaganite could further deter relations with the EU Le Taurillon - thenewfederalist.eu

Ms Koranda, another former Palin fan, chimed in. She's a media whore, she said. I think she's gonna attract such a circus, shes not gonna be able to get any work done, she added, asking: Is she in it for herself, or for Alaska?

Ms Palin has argued her fame would be an asset for a state that has a smaller population than Merseyside. As Alaskas sole congresswoman, she said, she could pick up the phone and call any reporter and be on any show if I wanted to, and it would be all about Alaska.

She has hit back, too, at what she called an inaccurate narrative that she left Alaska behind.

At one campaign event, she bemoaned spending $140 to fuel her truck due to rampant inflation and joked about a recent collision with a moose as proof she understands the concerns of ordinary Alaskans.

That's the sign of a true Alaskan - I took a moose out of season, she quipped.

A large Sarah for Alaska billboard sits along the secluded gravel drive that leads to her lakefront home in Wasilla.

Just visible beyond a tall brown fence is the large satellite dish which serves Ms Palins home TV studio.

On a recent visit, The Telegraph spotted very few pro-Palin campaign signs around the town, but some residents remain fiercely protective over their famous neighbour.

One nearby resident, who declined to be named, offered a strong defence of Ms Palin whom she argued was the victim of smear campaigns.

Another described how, despite her celebrity status, she still frequents a local Mexican restaurant in town.

Ms Palin, long mocked for her gaffes - memorably mixing up North and South Korea, and failing to name a single newspaper she reads - has also framed herself as the victim of Americas liberal media.

After years of tabloid-worthy family dramas and political scandals, she said she has nothing left to lose in reviving her political career. What more can they say? she told Fox News.

An earlier endorser of Mr Trump, the former president returned the favour last month by holding a rally for Ms Palin in Alaskas largest city, Anchorage.

Long seen as a forerunner to Trumpism with her rogue one-liners - waterboarding is how we baptise terrorists - and rage-filled populism, Mr Trumps endorsement has prompted speculation he could name Ms Palin as his running mate for a potential 2024 presidential bid. Ms Palin herself has said she is open to the idea.

Read more:

The return of Sarah Palin: how the Tea Party star is plotting a comeback - The Telegraph

Liberal: Inclusive Populism Wont Fly

The Liberal Patriots Ruy Teixeira examinesa new entrant in the Democratic messaging sweepstakes: inclusive populism. Proponents wont move to the center on culturally-inflected issues like crime, immigration, race, gender and schooling. Instead, they argue forturning it up to 11on economic populism. Yet cultural issues are a hugely important part of how voters assess who is on their side and who is not, and Democrats need to convince these voters that their views on culturally-freighted issues will not be summarily dismissed as unenlightened. E.g., crime worries are unlikely to be magicked away by attacks on greedy corporations. Plus: It defies common sense to think Democrats can win over working class voters who are suffering from inflation simply by pointing to greedy oil companies and promising to fight harder for the working class.

Metas third-party fact-checkers have flagged as false information posts on Instagram and Facebook accusing the Biden administration of changing the definition of a recession in order to deny that the U.S. economy has entered one,gripes Reasons Robby Soave. Yet this authority, PolitiFact, used the now-false definition (two straight quarters of negative GDP growth) to debunk GOP claims about coming recessions and to bolster Democratic claims. Fact-checkers are supposedly somehow above the fray, only weighing in when something can be proven or disproven quite definitively. Instead, they are often making dubious judgment calls on issues where reasonable disagreements exist.

Team Biden doesnt justnotfeel our pain it jumps through hoops to tell us we arent feeling that pain at all,notes the Washington Examiners Salena Zito. Last week, it insisted the nations not technically in a recession, which does nothing about what it feels like to the American people. And in American politics one of the most important things you have to do is validate people, to acknowledge their concerns, even if you privately think to yourself they are unfounded. President Biden has embraced the same dismissive attitude that elites often cast toward voters. . . . Otherwise, he wouldnt be telling people there is no recession when they are clearly feeling or fearing its effects on them. No wonder every new poll . . . seems to show him at a new low.

Americans find their country in a recession,observes The American Spectators Daniel J. Flynn, yetThe New York Times Paul Krugman, like Team Bidens other media allies, insists we wait for word from the people who actually decide were in a recession.Whodecides? The elite eight National Bureau of Economic Researchs Business Cycle Dating Committee members, who can go years without meeting. They include James Stock, who donated to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Pete Buttigieg and President Bidens 2020 campaign and David Romer, another Joe donor. The latterswife, Christina Romer, also sits on the committee; she chaired Obamas Council of Economic Advisers. Sorry: Economists do not decide on a recession. The economy does.

Gov. Hochul cheered that the just-approved Cider Solar Farm, a 3,000-acre, 500-megawatt facility upstate, can power about 125,000 homes. But the numbers dont add up,warns the Empire Centers James E. Hanley. New Yorks average home uses 7,000 kilowatt hours of electricity yearly. A 500-megawatt power plant operating at 90% percent capacity, like a nuclear or natural gas plant, would power 530,000 homes but New York solar produces only about 12.6 percent of its theoretical capacity, enough power for 79,000 homes, 37 percent less than advertised. And thats just 14% as many homes as a more reliable source of electricity could power. Like Cider Solar, the states entire climate plan is based on dubious assumptions and questionable math. We must keep reliable energy sources, like our nuclear and natural gas plants, to ensure we have the energy to supply our needs.

Compiled by The Post Editorial Board

View post:

Inclusive populism wont fly and other commentary - New York Post

I recently posted a piece atLawyers, Guns and Moneyabout Jonathan Swanstwopart series on Trumpworlds plans for a second term. The gist is that Trump and his inner circle intend to revive his Schedule F executive order.

What is Schedule F? Eric Katzexplains:

In October 2020, just before the presidential election, Trump signed his controversial executive order creating a new class of federal employees excepted from the competitive service. The order sought to remove career federal workers in confidential, policy-determining, policy-making or policy-advocating jobs from the General Schedule into a new job classification where virtually all of their civil service protections were absent, essentially making them at-will employees. Although the Trump administration began efforts to reclassify jobs into the new Schedule F, they ultimately were unable to move any workers before January 2021, and President Biden quickly signed an executive orderrescinding the edictas one of his first acts as president.

The former Trump administration officials envision quickly shifting many employees under the new classification, making those positions eligible for quick hiring and firing without the normal protections afforded to civil servants. The new flexibility would allow a future Trump administration to get rid of any employees it deems as standing in the way of implementing its agenda and replace them with loyalists.

It literally takes five minutes to reissue it, a former Trump administration official involved in personnel policy and current talks about Schedule Fs revival toldGovernment Executive. There was real value to issuing Schedule F because it turned it into a flip the switch thing for the next administration that wants to do it.

The original Schedule F order faced widespread condemnation from lawmakersincluding members of both partiesgood government groups, unions, employees and former government officials.

Swans article provides another reminder that Trump remains an existential threat to U.S. liberal democracy. But its not just Trump. Any number of other GOP presidential hopefuls say Ron DeSantis or Josh Hawley would likely implement the same kind of plan.

The specifics of the Schedule F plot also track with how Ive come to understand Trumpism: as aspecificformofreactionarypopulism.

Reactionary populism has in one form or another been around for quite some time. If I remember correctly, we can find a reactionary-populist faction of the Republican Party at least as far back as the 1930s, and the Democrats used to be home to one as well. Reactionary populism started, as best I can tell, gaining real traction in the GOP during the Obama years. It did not, however dominate the party.

This changed with Trump. He not only mobilized reactionary populists. He also mainstreamed the reactionary-populist worldview.

What does this have to do with Schedule F?

Once in power, reactionary populists pretty much always pursueneopatrimonial styles of governance. This involves breaking down state autonomy and transforming government bureaucracies into an extension of their own personal authority.

Ive mentioned before that IconsiderStephen Hanson and Jeffrey Kopsteins Understanding the Global Patrimonial Wave (Perspectives on Politics, 2022) an essential read.

As theyexplain:

German sociologist Max Weberconsidered the key act of politics to be obedience to the leaders command. Such obedience is more likely and consistent, Weber argued, when subordinates subjectively believe that orders from their superiors are legitimatethat is, that they have a duty, and not merely a self-interested motive, to obey. Without obedience to commands there can be no government, no matter how it is chosen. The core link is between the leader and his or her administrative staff. This relationship can be highly personal and intimate, or it can be impersonal and legalistic. The staff accept commands as legitimate for basically one of two reasons: because of their sense of duty to the person of the leader or because of their sense of duty to law and abstract rules. For much of human history, this sense of duty was based primarily on personal relationships. During periods of social crisis, followers might obey orders under the spell of a leaders personal charisma. Yet charismatic leadership generally does not last long. The patrimonial bond, when durable, was emotional, one of respect, friendship, and devotion, embodied in the beloved monarch whose royal lineage had ruled since time immemorial. Finding a loyal staff is not easy, so in its purest form patrimonialism amounts to rule by the family and friends of the leader. To provide a succinct definition, a patrimonial regime is a form of legitimate domination in which the ruler and his staff fuse administration with personal authority, considering the state itself to be a family business of sorts.

We should not conflate patrimonialismwhether new-style or in its OG formwith authoritarianism.

democracies are becoming more personalistic.

Plenty of authoritarian regimes operate along more legal-rational line. They make use of state bureaucracies staffed by a civil service of educated professionals who follow rules and procedures and are recruited on the basis of merit rather than personal relationships. In more rational-legal regimeswhether democratic or authoritarianthe basic grounds on which commands are obeyed stem not from duty to the person of the ruler but from duty to the impersonal abstraction of the rules themselves.

Of course, all real-world political systems combine different forms of authority. But the term neopatrimonialism describes a specific kind ofhybrid arrangement.

On paper, neopatrimonial regimes look like legal-rational ones. Most civil servants do standard civil-servant things. State bureaucracies and political officials invoke principles of fairness, equal treatment, merit, and following the rules.

In practice, patrimonial authority predominates; the state serves the personal interests of its leadership; agencies just happento target opponents of the regime for audits and regulatory violations (the Obama IRS scandal, if it werentbullocks, would have been a good example of how this works). Supporters somehow almost always submit winning bids for government contracts.Opponents dont.That kind of thing.

Hanson and Kopstein point out that the current patrimonial wave affects both democratic and autocratic regimes. Manycommentatorswarn about the rise ofpersonalist authoritarianismin countries like Russia and China. As others point out,democraciesare also becoming, on average, more personalistic.

Erica Frantz and her co-authorswritethat:

[O]bservers intuitions are correct: Levels of personalism have increased in democracies in recent years. Importantly, we show that greater personalism is associated with a variety of negative outcomes, such as higher levels of populism, a higher probability of democratic erosion, and greater political polarization. In addition, we explore the potential causes of the personalist wave and find evidence that new technologies and digital tools are facilitating it.

We should distinguish betweenpersonalist regimesandpersonalist politics.

When we talk about the personalist politics we mean, more or less, the relationship between parties and their leaders:

Personalist politics do facilitate neopatrimonialism; personalist regimes tend to exhibit higher levels of neopatrimonial governance. But keep in mind that we also find neopatrimonial styles of governance in contexts where authority rests in families, ethnic groups, or parties.

Indeed, one plausible future in the United States is that term limits produce a succession of reactionary-populist regimes. Perhaps they might crystalize around a family. It is more likely, I expect, that wed see authority derive from a flexible arrangement, in which party provides a bridge between personal loyalty to presidents.

Americans dont tend to think in terms of patrimonial authority

Hanson and Kopstein make a lot of important arguments, but one is that political scientists have generally dropped the ball because were used to thinking about regimes mostly in terms of the autocracy-democracy continuum; when we do study neopatrimonialism, we typically assume its confined to the developing world (this tendency is, in part, a holdover from modernization theory).

This myopia explains, in part, why the field struggles to make sense of regimes that combine electoral democracy with neopatrimonial governance: we tend to try to put their square pegs into the round holes of democracy and authoritarianism.

Of course, neopatrimonialism does erode liberal democracy.

Despite this, neopatrimonial quasi-democracies are going to look and behave differently than legal-rational quasi-democracies.

The conceptual challenge here extends far beyond political science. Americans dont tend to think about regimes in terms of patrimonial and legal-rational authority. This is a real problem. It makes it much harder for people to understand the nature and extent of the threatespecially if it involves reforms that, on face, might seem reasonable.

This is particularly true, Id wager, for Republicans who otherwise do not particularly care for Trump or Trumpism. The reason? Trumps efforts to establish personal authority over the civil services easily slot into longstanding GOP complaints about bureaucracy.

Republicans have spent decades attacking the federal bureaucracy, and the rhetoric that they use has a strongly polyvalent quality. It communicates distinctive meanings to different audiences.

Lets keep things simple by limiting ourselves to three difference valences of anti-bureaucracy rhetoric: libertarian, technocratic, and populist.

These valences can combine in a lot of different ways. Technocratic criticisms commonly feature in more populist and libertarian attacks on the civil service. By the 1980s, national politicians usuallyencodedpopulist objections to Civil Rights in libertarian and technocratic language.

Some reactionary populist demagogues are true believers. Others are cynical opportunists. But, as I noted above, no matter where they fall on that axis, they invariably attempt to consolidate their power by transforming the state into their own personal patrimony.

Populist leaders paint their actions as returning power to the people

Successful populist leaders are able to turn their efforts into a self-reinforcing process. They use every incremental increase in personal control over government finances to reward supporters, thus encouraging business leaders and political officials to throw in with the regimeand reducing the clout of those who refuse; when their loyalists take control of a regulatory body, they turn it into a political weapon for weakening opponents; this makes the next body easier to capture. Rinse and repeat.

The irony, of course, is that populist leaders paint their actions as returning power to the peopleeven as they consolidate elite control, they claim to be breaking the power of elites.

With Trump, though, we saw an interesting (and worrisome) twist.

His uncoordinated assault on the independence of the civil service was also legible in libertarian and technocratic terms. In essence, Republicans fromdifferentwings of the party each could view his action throughdifferentframeseach of which obscured the nature of Trumps personalist power grab.

Well, maybe obscure isnt quite the right word. Lets put it this way: they had an easier time accommodating Trumps neopatrimonialism.

From a technocratic or libertarian perspective, Trump wasnt making the state his own personal patrimony. He was finally reining in those liberal, big-government bureaucrats! Talk of Trump killing U.S. democracy? Liberal hysteria. Even if he actually wanted to, theres no way he could succeed because of the guardrails built into the system (i.e., the ones he was trying to dismantle).

For what its worth, this gets at why, after January 6, it took massive intervention by FOX News and the broader right-wing media ecosystem to rescue Trump form political collapse. Its also why the January 6 Select Committee hearings are damaging, however modestly, his changes of winning the presidency in 2024. January 6 was consistent with a more traditional understanding of how leaders try to destroy democracy. It wasnt slow and complicated.

Now, as far as I know, its true that members of the civil service lean Democratic. Theres apparentlylittle evidencethat this translates into a disposition to undermine Republican presidents.

So did some parts of the civil service thwart Donald Trump? Sure.

Sometimes, I expect civil servants prioritized bureaucratic interests or organizational mission over enacting policy directives. The same thing happens to Democratic administrations.

There are also clearly pockets of active partisanship. This is most worrisome when it shows up in the security services a pattern thatseemstoskewright, not left.

But it is important to stress how little disloyalty the Trump administration would accept. Swan reports that the idea for Schedule F began early in 2017, when the State Department rebelled against the so-called Muslim Ban.

How, exactly, did State rebel? Something like 900 members of the State Departmentsigneda dissent memo. They used normal channels and standard-operating procedure toregisterdisapproval. Yeah, it blew up in the press. But thats not a refusal to carry out Trump policy. Not even close.

Indeed, most of the time, though, civil servants thwarted Trump becausethey were doing their jobs.

For example, a career employeeblew the whistleover concerns that Trump pressured Ukraines president to investigate his political rival. Aninspector generalcited whistleblower protection laws when siding with a Customs and Border Protection employee who blew the whistle on his agencys racial profiling of motorists. A court relied on civil service lawsto issue an injunctionprotecting several Voice of America employees from an agency head accused of political meddling and trying to disseminate political propaganda. An inspector generals report later vindicated other VOA employees in this work environment.

Both the technocratic and libertarian frames imply that this is precisely what the civil service should be doing. Unfortunately, thanks to Trump, the populist frame now predominates. It is conventional wisdom in the GOP that civil servants make up a hostile deep stateone dedicated to destroying Republican presidencies.

The only solution, it follows, is to purge it and install reliable Republicans. Or those loyal to the current GOP president.

Doesnt really matter.

Same difference.

See the original post here:

Textbook Reactionary Populism - The Duck of Minerva

The Conservative Partys leadership race has been conventionally seen as a battle between the moderate establishment candidate Jean Charest and the rowdy populist Pierre Poilievre.

But one academic who studies populism and its cultural causes says Poilievres campaign has been fairly traditional, especially when compared to the global populist movement that has swept the Western world in the last decade.

The populist moment really was about parties moving away from just talking about economics to talking about those tricky cultural issues. Its happened with the Peoples Party, but its not happened with Poilievre. I guess I would still see that as pretty much a standard conservatism, more of an establishment conservatism, said Eric Kaufmann, a professor of politics at Birkbeck, University of London and the author of Whiteshift: Immigration, Populism, and the Future of White Majorities.

On a recent episode of the Hub Dialogues, Kaufmann said one clear sign that a candidate is pushing into populist territory is a fixation on immigration and the social justice politics (or wokeness) embraced by the Left. Instead, Poilievre has trained his rhetorical sights on inflation, the Bank of Canada, the countrys housing shortage, and an all-encompassing opposition to gatekeepers.

Poilievre, I think, has shied away largely from those (cultural) issues except in a few places. Hes largely about economics, which in my view is a relatively safe topic. Youre not going to get canceled for it, said Kaufmann.

Although Poilievre has been the consistent frontrunner in the race to succeed Erin OToole as the permanent leader of the Conservative Party, he has been dogged by questions about whether he will be palatable to moderate voters in a federal election.

A recent survey by the Angus Reid Institute seemed to confirm that Poilievre is disliked by previous Liberal and NDP voters, although Peoples Party of Canada voters view him favourably. Poilievre may also be shunning the conventional strategy of chasing swing voters and, instead, pursuing people who have previously chosen not to vote in federal elections.

In chasing these new voters, Poilievre has doubled down on opposition to COVID-19 restrictions and vaccines mandates, while vocally supporting the cause of Freedom Convoy protesters, to the chagrin of establishment Conservatives.

Kaufmann believes that the populist spasm in response to the pandemic, seen in Canada and other Western countries, will pass quickly and wont necessarily fuel the larger populist movement.

I actually dont think that that is a significant source of populist movements we see across the West now. Even though it has played in Canada, I think thats a departure from the pattern that we tend to see across the West, said Kaufmann.

Kaufmann said that conventional populism, which targets immigration and other cultural issues, hasnt taken root in Canada due to a strong taboo against those topics in the media and other elite institutions.

I think its because of the power of the cultural Left in Canada. Now, of course, the way the power of the cultural Left works is that it works up until the point it doesnt work. The suppression works to keep ideas such as reducing immigration out of the political debate until that crumbles, said Kaufmann.

In his book Whiteshift, Kaufmann wrote that attitudes in Canada arent very different from other countries, like the United States, that were rocked by a populist candidates.

What you see in Canada is you do see the Peoples Party raising these issues. You do see that Conservative voters, for example, compared to Liberal and NDP voters, are like 50 points apart on immigration. Theres a natural place for the Conservatives to go, but of course, the media environment and the cultural environment in Canada is very strongly dominated by the cultural Left, he said.

Kaufmann said he views populism as a fundamentally cultural phenomenon, and with the Left currently dominating important institutions like the media and academia, it could mean that our populist moment turns into a populist era. In his research, Kaufmann has tracked the ideological shift in journalism and academia that, over decades, has pushed progressives from a slight majority to utterly dominant in these institutions.

I think there is a kind of in-built dynamic here where were going to see populism as long as there is a very strong cultural Left controlling these institutions, said Kaufmann.

Theres an awful lot of incentive to rail against the elites in those institutions.

Read more:

One of the worlds leading populism experts says Pierre Poilievre isnt quite a populist - The Hub

Populism, development, and the drama of White Rock politics What happens when a populist movement storms into office on a platform of change, and then has to govern?

The City of White Rock has proven an interesting case study the last four years.

In 2018, it was one of those towns where the all-candidate meetings were packed and the comments on the local political Facebook pages were angrier than most.

Campaigning primarily on issues of development (too much) and transparency (too little), a new political party called Democracy Direct White Rock swept to power. Former B.C. General Employees' Union (BCGEU) president Darryl Walker became mayor, all four council candidates were elected, and they set out to reshape how the seaside community of about 20,000 people was run.

But then an interesting thing happened: after initially working together as a team to restrict tower heights in the centre of the municipality, the coalition began to splinter. Walker started voting more often in favour of new housing, saying he had evolved his thinking.

Before this term, I didn't realize how slow and arduous municipal politics can be, he said, talking about the work to rebuild the pier and the need to upgrade roads and sewers.

We've got developers that come before us that are willing to work with us on affordable housing. And the tendency from a couple of councillors has been to turn it down.

Those councillors have primarily been Erika Johanson and Scott Kristjanson, who ran with Walker. Not surprisingly, they tell a different story.

There's a honeymoon. And then when you get to the nitty gritty, the day-to-day stuff, he was terrible, said Johanson, who argues Walker turned his back on what he campaigned on, and allowed staff to control too much of the citys agenda.

They only answer questions very specifically as we ask them, they don't volunteer any information. Thats got to change, she said.

Johanson and the city are in the midst of a protracted legal battle over whether Johanson bullied and harassed staff or not. Walker has been unable to convince the majority of his colleagues to support him on a number of votes.

And Democracy Direct has been dissolved: Walker is asking for a council thats progressive and will support more mid-rise developments, while Johanson promises a mayor candidate who will challenge Walker.

In short, its been messy and it's another example that campaigning is a lot different fromgoverning.

Walking in the first day as a mayor three and a half years ago, said Walker, I didn't know what I know now.

In their final major week of meetings prior to the election (there willbe a couple of smaller housekeeping things closer to the vote), council approved a social housing tower next to an incoming SkyTrain station at Broadway and Arbutus after six days of meetings. It was the last of this council's famed marathon meetings, which led us to explore just why Vancouver has become known for inefficiency at the council table. Meanwhile, one of Kennedy Stewart's chief rivals for mayor unveiled his park board candidates platform which reversed his promise to try and get rid of the board.

Read more

Read more

Read morein the Tri-City News

or subscribe if this was forwarded to you.

Read more from the original source:

Populism, development, and the drama of White Rock politics - CBC

Lets talk about housing. Specifically what's up with Rishi Sunaks new housing policy.

He pledges to preserve the green belt in aspic, banning councils from amending it, preventing development around the dozen or so cities the green belt currently covers.

He also says that any new housebuilding should be done on brownfield land.

Which may come as a surprise to his local council, as the very same Rishi Sunak applied for planning permission to build a new single storey sporting complex on a field near his grade II listed home only last year.

In Rishi Sunaks world only he is allowed to build on fields. No one else can.

But beyond the hypocrisy lets explore this idea in its own terms.

Because to most of us, preventing any green belt amendments might at face value seem like a nice thing.

Well let's turn to a case study in York, where controversy erupted earlier this year, when a developer proposed to construct up to 158 homes on land sandwiched between a housing estate, a duel carriageway and the railway lines. Why was there uproar? Well this scrap of land had been designated as part of the green belt back in the 1940s.

Tom Harwood has criticised the Tory leadership hopeful's housing policy. Dominic Lipinski

Fortunately the council in the end saw sense, the green belt amended, and the homes were approved. Yet under Rishi Sunaks policy, this peculiar cut off bit land by the road and the railway would stay forever undeveloped and unloved.

But surely that is just an anomaly, right? The rest of the green belt is in reality the rolling fields our minds go to when we think of England?

Not quite.

This is where the green belt actually is.

Frozen land around a dozen or so cities that are deemed to be important.

It does not include those areas of outstanding natural beauty in England that we know so well.

It does not cover the Chilterns, the Yorkshire Dales, the Lake District, the Peak District, the Cotswolds, the South Downs, Dartmoor, Thetford, or the New Forest.

Rishi needs a rethink, says Tom Harwood Image: GB News

None of those areas are greenbelt. Most green land is not green belt. And some green belt is not green land.

No, the most beautiful parts of our country, the parts that protecting perhaps matters most are entirely distinct from the green belt.

Yet I get the sneaking feeling that when we think of the green belt, our minds erroneously but understandably go to those Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

But what did I mean when I said that some green belt is not green land?

A project to build 40 social rented homes was rejected from this scrap of concrete because it has green belt status.

This junk yard is some of Londons green belt.

And so is this tip.

And even this car wash.

In fact, a former Bradford Councillor took to social media yesterday to dispel some green belt myths.

Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss are vying for the top job in Government. Jacob King

Simon Cooke was a councillor for 24 years, and took to Twitter to share the reality of what the green belt just in his ward really looks like.

It included the site of an old mill, several scrap yards, a car park, an empty chicken slaughterhouse, and some empty unused buildings. Unable to be redeveloped of course.

And remember, all of this is green belt, all in just one council ward.

Yes, some green belt simply isn't green at all. And we might all be better off with a rationalisation, a reclassification.

Classifying some of our genuinely precious areas of natural beauty as Green Belt, and freeing up some of the ugliest most concrete blighted, road or rail-side bits of what is erroneously called the green belt right now.

Here's a perhaps surprising fact: In 1979 the green belt covered 721,500 hectares of England

By 2020 that had more than doubled to 1.6 million hectares of England.

It is possible to enhance protections, to rationalise the system, but none of that can be done with unthinking pledges that the green belt can never ever be touched. Not even the concrete bits.

Sunak's desperate attempt at populism is wrong. It doesn't protect green land in the way he would like you to think it does. And it will make it even harder for younger people to get on the housing ladder.

And that in and of itself an existential question for the Conservative Party. Without enough homes, with young people stuck in renting traps, with nothing of their own to conserve. The Tory Party will find it harder and harder to win their votes.

Any leader serious about a home owning democracy, serious about winning elections, and frankly serious about Conservatism - would not trumpet big government clumsy planning policy that prevents sensible development.

Rishi needs a rethink.

Follow this link:

Rishi Sunak's desperate attempt at populism doesn't protect green land in the way he would like you to think it does, says Tom Harwood - GB News

Former president Donald Trump tosses hats into the crowd before addressing attendees during an event in on July 23, 2022, in Tampa, Fla. (AP Photo/Phelan M. Ebenhack)

BY Agata Mirowska, Raymond B. Chiu, and Rick Hackett

Testimony to the House of Representatives Jan. 6 committee about the insurrection at the United States Capitol in 2021 has allowed us to delve deeper into the humanity of Donald Trumps supporters.

As the hearings reveal, the outgoing president and his supporters seemed to be on different wavelengths as he hesitated to stop the violence while his followers were hell-bent on doing his bidding.

Given his influence, it seems clear that Trump knows what makes his followers tick. The allure of Trumps populism isnt an isolated phenomenon, but something connected to the way people think about their leaders.

Trumps populism has now become bigger than Trump himself. The success of tyrants worldwide suggests that we should take them more seriously when theyre praised as smart, at least when it comes to manipulating our minds.

Although populist movements have been around a long time, there has been considerable interest in explaining why populism is different now why its paired with authoritarianism and unapologetically tinged with nationalism and xenophobia.

The emotions underlying the passions of disenfranchised masses are rooted today in an us-versus-them fear of national demise that increasing immigration, liberalization and globalization are damning signs that once-trusted institutions can no longer protect our collective well-being.

In many countries where authoritarianism has gathered steam Russia, Belarus, Hungary, Turkey and Poland to name a few this populism is also accompanied by a push by leaders to suppress press freedom or spread rampant misinformation aided by social media.

In a nod to the cleverness of such autocrats, Nobel laureate Maria Ressa describes the political use of such misinformation as diabolically brilliant.

Ressa, a journalist, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts to safeguard freedom of expression.

Years before Trumps rise to power, we started to investigate these elements to understand how they drive peoples tolerance of tyranny. We began with a simple premise: that the appeal of tyrants is not an aberration, but a phenomenon tied to how our minds work.

Tyranny, however, is distinct from authoritarianism, which speaks to political beliefs or actions. The defining features of tyrannical leadership traits described as domineering, pushy, manipulative, loud, conceited and selfish are prototypical characteristics that catch followers attention in the absence of more substantive information about what the leader is really like.

In this 2016 photo, a couple kisses in front of graffiti depicting Russian President Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump kissing in Vilnius, Lithuania. (AP Photo/Mindaugas Kulbis)

As Trump rose to power, elements of our research were playing out in reality: fear of a threatening world, traditional morality the type commonly expressed in North America through conservative politics and religion and reliance on scarce information about the leader.

Based on surveys of 1,147 North Americans, our findings revealed that sensitivity to threats, as reflected in a belief that the world is dangerous, is linked with traditional or conservative morality. American social psychologist Jonathan Haidt calls this morality the binding moral foundations.

Those who focus on group protection have a stronger preference for tyranny as defined by the well-established theory of implicit leadership, which says that we dont always see leaders for who they really are, but according to mental prototypes we have in our heads.

Additionally, we discovered that the significant relationship between the binding foundations and tyrannical leadership is stronger for men than women. Its no wonder, then, that ardent supporters of Trump throughout his presidency included hypermasculine, anti-feminist, anti-left groups such as the Proud Boys.

Proud Boys members walk toward the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

U.S. author and filmmaker Jackson Katz attributes the overwhelming support of Trump by high-school educated, working-class white men to a deep-seated desire for respect and a return to patriarchy.

The masculine nature of leadership today, especially in times of crisis and uncertainty, has not necessarily changed over the centuries. When bad people show up to invade our fields, corrupt our children or pollute our streams, the gut reaction is to welcome the strong man who demonstrates his skills by successfully manipulating others for personal gain.

That means aggression, guile and greed are coveted if those qualities can be turned against outsiders.

Our research suggests that simply railing against tyrants isnt enough. There are three areas where more action is necessary.

First, the nasty traits of tyrannical leaders send vitally important information about leadership effectiveness to followers paradoxically, more information than if a leader were to act with kindness and compassion.

The medias revulsion to tyranny and obsession with reporting every shocking curse or tweet has only served to telegraph those traits far and wide, reinforcing the allegiance of followers.

Second, concerned citizens need to do less recounting of every nasty incident on behalf of tyrants and instead spend a lot more time explaining the nature of good leadership and how it compares with todays leaders.

Some business schools do a good job of teaching the meaning of sustainable, effective leadership, yet the typical young person gets little education on moral character and the strengths of trustworthy, virtuous leaders of the past.

Third, peoples fears whether they pertain to economic loss, foreign adversaries or cultural demise need to be taken seriously. The average person becomes overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of audacious attempts at social change, as evidenced by the discontent over German leader Angela Merkels welcome of Syrian refugees.

Protesters in eastern Germany demonstrate against Germanys welcome of immigrants and refugees in 2015. (AP Photo/Jens Meyer)

Such efforts dont always address the fundamental need for the conservative population to feel safe, because they fail to appreciate that people on both ends of the spectrum share a common desire for the collective good, although they may prioritize aspects of that good differently and approach those aspects via different means.

Elements of everyday human psychology are driving our shared global future. For our societies to survive, the dialogue must change rapidly to address this reality, or else the sole voices well be forced to hear will be those of fear-mongering, war-mongering tyrannical liars.

Agata Mirowska, Assistant Professor, Human Resources Management and Organizational Behavior, Neoma Business School; Raymond B. Chiu, Assistant Professor, Business and Organizational Behaviour, Redeemer University, and Rick Hackett, Canada Research Chair, Organizational Behaviour & Human Performance, McMaster University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read the original post:

Analysis: From Trump to Putin: Why are people attracted to tyrants? - Brighter World

Ottawa Playbook will be off on Monday for Ontarios Civic Holiday, but will be back in your inbox on Tuesday at 6 a.m.

Send tips | Subscribe here | Email Maura | Follow Politico Canada

WELCOME TO OTTAWA PLAYBOOK. Im your host, Maura Forrest, with Zi-Ann Lum and Nick Taylor-Vaisey. Today, we take a final look at the popes pilgrimage of penance. National Defence is looking to science-fiction writers to help with a public image boost (yes, really). And is PIERRE POILIEVRE really a populist?

Did someone forward Ottawa Playbook your way? Click here to sign up for your own edition. Its free!

Pope Francis. | Cole Burston/Getty Images

THE PONTIFF DEPARTS POPE FRANCIS will head back to the Vatican today, after a brief stop in Iqaluit to meet with residential school survivors, leaving a host of questions in his wake.

Chief among them: What now?

On Thursday during a mass at the Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupr basilica outside Quebec City, the pope delivered perhaps his strongest comments to date on the role of the Catholic Church in Canadas residential schools.

We too feel the burden of failure, he said. Why did all this happen? How could this happen in the community of those who follow Jesus?

The reactions to the popes apologies have been as varied as you might expect. I felt he was speaking from his heart, NORMA DUNNING, an Inuk scholar and author and the daughter of a residential school survivor, told the Edmonton Journals KEITH GEREIN. Unlike what I have read by others, I do not think he had to go into a painful litany of what the many harms were. He did not have to name them.

On the other hand: It's not enough just to apologize, activist SARAIN FOX told the CBCs ANTONI NERESTANT. "Indigenous people are looking for action and our elders have very little time left to see that action."

Fox took part in a protest ahead of the popes mass in Quebec, holding up a banner demanding the Catholic Church rescind the Doctrine of Discovery, which was used to justify European colonization of North America.

But as POLITICOs NICK TAYLOR-VAISEY reports this morning, the Pope didnt promise action. Francis didn't broach the topic of reparations, didn't commit to disclosing records that would help locate the final resting places of many Indigenous children, and didn't say a word about revoking the Doctrine of Discovery, he writes.

One development: On Wednesday, organizers of the papal visit said Canadas bishops are working with the Vatican in the hope of issuing a new statement from the church on the Doctrine of Discovery.

If this is a watershed moment in Canadas journey toward reconciliation, it certainly isnt the first. There was former prime minister STEPHEN HARPERs 2008 apology for residential schools. There was the landmark report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 2015, and the 2019 final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. Then there was last years discovery of hundreds of potential unmarked graves at residential school sites.

And every time, the same question: What now?

I work on reconciliation every day. And I just call it the paradox of reconciliation, CYNTHIA WESLEY-ESQUIMAUX, the chair on Truth and Reconciliation at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, told POLITICO. We say all these things, but what are we doing? Whats the end goal? How will we know when we get there?

Here is what happened this week: The head of a church not known for contrition came to Canada and apologized for residential schools before Indigenous people, on land inhabited by Indigenous peoples for millennia. Nothing less, but nothing more.

What now?

IS PIERRE POILIEVRE A POPULIST? Conventional wisdom says yes. His railing against the elites and the gatekeepers, his rallying cry for freedom, his hostility toward the media its all there. Isnt it?

On Thursday: The CBCs AARON WHERRY claimed Poilievre has taken up the populist torch from former prime minister STEPHEN HARPER, who has said his government practiced populist conservatism.

But while Harper has argued for a populist approach to make conservative ideas relevant to working-class people, Wherry wrote, Poilievre has fully embraced the language of populism.

In practice, populism seems to have less to do with proposing practical solutions to real problems than it does with finding someone to blame or resent, Wherry wrote. It is anti-establishment in a way that can threaten traditional institutions.

Also on Thursday: Quebec MP and JEAN CHAREST supporter ALAIN RAYES published a call to arms in newspapers across the province that was basically one long subtweet of Poilievre and his populist approach.

Do we want to favor the establishment of American-style populism and guarantee power for JUSTIN TRUDEAU and his New DemocratLiberal coalition? Or do we prefer to give our party a real chance to form a majority government to serve the interests of Canadians? he wrote. Canadians will never trust a Conservative leader who fosters division and who courts the extremes.

But on the other hand: On the latest episode of Hub Dialogues with SEAN SPEER, a leading expert on populism says nah. Poilievres politics? I guess I would still see that as pretty much a standard conservatism, more of an establishment conservatism, says ERIC KAUFMANN, a Canadian professor of politics at Birkbeck, University of London.

(We wonder how Poilievre would react to being called establishment.)

Why isnt he the real deal? Kaufmann says real populism is fixated on cultural issues: immigration and social justice politics, for example. Poilievre, for all his angry rhetoric, has shied away largely from those issues except in a few places, Kaufmann told Speer. Hes largely about economics, which in my view is a relatively safe topic.

Safe. Ouch.

By the way: Poilievre and LESLYN LEWIS are officially out of the final leadership debate, the CBCs CATHERINE CULLEN reports. They will face C$50,000 fines for being no-shows.

Prime Minister JUSTIN TRUDEAU is in the National Capital Region for private meetings.

The 24th International AIDS Conference begins in Montreal.

8:15 a.m. (9:15 a.m. ADT) International Trade Minister MARY NG will highlight a development regarding the Canada Digital Adoption Program in Halifax, N.S.

10 a.m. Liberal MP YASIR NAQVI will make an announcement about the future of downtown Ottawa.

3:50 p.m. POPE FRANCIS will arrive in Iqaluit for a meeting with residential school survivors and a public event. He will depart Canada at 6:15 p.m.

NOW WHAT The text of the $700-billion spending deal brokered between Sen. JOE MANCHIN and Senate Majority Leader CHUCK SCHUMER is out and the reception from Canadian cabmins and politicians has been predictably cheery.

Amended language in the deal would extend tax credits to electric vehicles assembled in North America, not just in the United States.

Since day one weve worked tirelessly to position Canada as a global leader in the EV market, Industry Minister FRANOIS-PHILIPPE CHAMPAGNE said Thursday on Twitter. The proposed US Senate deal is a testament to our skilled workers and our strong EV ecosystem.

Industry reaction: POLITICOs ZI-ANN LUM spoke with BRIAN KINGSTON, president and CEO of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, who called the deal great news for Canada. But he also said theres more work ahead.

We need a serious plan on electric vehicle adoption: We don't have one, Kingston said. That's what we need to do now that we know what the Americans will be doing through the Senate bill.

The ask: A serious plan, from the auto industry perspective, would raise the retail price cap under the iZEV program so more EVs, including pickups, SUVs and vans, are eligible for federal incentives.

We are not keeping pace with the Americans, Kingston said, pointing out the U.S. consumer incentive is equivalent to C$10,000 while the one on offer in Canada is C$5,000.

Last years fall economic statement poured another C$73 million into the federal EV rebate program. The Liberals have budgeted nearly C$660 million for the program since 2019.

Together or bust: Kingston also took aim at the Liberals plans for a zero-emission vehicle sales mandate.

He believes the policy proposal, included in Environment Minister STEVEN GUILBEAULTs mandate letter, is out of step with the U.S. EV sales target a potential problem given the new U.S. spending bills revamped focus on North American-produced EVs.

That cannot happen, Kingston said of the proposed Canadian EV sales mandate. We benefit when we align our regulations with the U.S., when we work with the Americans to build out and strengthen our auto industry.

Are you CHRYSTIA FREELAND or a SENIOR GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL who knows what industry or consumer EV incentives are cooking for this years fall economic statement? Drop us breadcrumbs: [emailprotected]

OPEN AND CLOSED H/T to Global News journalist ASHLEIGH STEWART for pointing out that Canadas embassy in Kyiv, despite having been ceremonially opened by Prime Minister JUSTIN TRUDEAU in May, still appears to be rather closed.

The blinds are drawn, gates are padlocked & a sign out front says services are still suspended, she tweeted Thursday. A security guard told us no one is currently working inside.

In a statement, Global Affairs Canada told Stewart that Canadas ambassador to Ukraine, LARISA GALADZA, returned to Kyiv to resume in-person high-level diplomatic engagement. But the statement also says diplomatic personnel is at reduced capacity, and consular services are being provided from Poland and other European cities.

OUT WITH THE NEW, IN WITH THE OLD ELIZABETH MAY is set to run for the Green Party leadership, which she relinquished in 2019 after 13 years at the partys helm, the Toronto Stars ALEX BALLINGALL reports.

According to Ballingall, May plans to pitch herself as a co-leader of the party, alongside former human rights worker JONATHAN PEDNEAULT. That wouldnt be unprecedented Qubec Solidaire, a left-leaning provincial party, is led by two spokespeople, one male and one female.

Related: SaltWires STU NEATBY also reported this week that another likely Green Party candidate, P.E.I. climate advocate ANNA KEENAN, is planning to run on a co-leadership platform with Montreal-based CHAD WALCOTT.

Leadership hopefuls arent allowed to publicly announce their candidacy until Aug. 31.

The background: May is one of just two Green Party MPs in the House of Commons. The party was mired in internal conflict during the ill-fated tenure of Mays successor, ANNAMIE PAUL, and has struggled with its finances since Pauls resignation last year.

Todays picks come from Liberal MP NATHANIEL ERSKINE-SMITH.

BRAIN FOOD

Innovation in Real Places Strategies for Prosperity in an Unforgiving World, by DAN BREZNITZ

Home of the Floating Lily, by SILMY ABDULLAH

Power to the Public: The Promise of Public Interest Technology, by TARA DAWSON MCGUINNESS and HANA SCHANK

Riding the Third Rail: The Story of Ontario's Health Services Restructuring Commission, 1996-2000, by DUNCAN SINCLAIR, MARK ROCHON and PEGGY LEATT

GUILTY PLEASURE

No particular book in mind, but I'll keep reading anything and everything I can about the Jays.

Heres our summer 2022 reading list so far.

Send us your reading suggestions your brain food and your guilty pleasure! We'll share them in the Playbook newsletter.

Justice SAMUEL ALITO, who penned last months Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, took aim during a speech in Rome last week at foreign leaders who lamented his opinion including JUSTIN TRUDEAU. POLITICOs JOSH GERSTEIN has the story.

For CBC News, JONATHAN MONTPETIT reports that Quebecs upstart Conservative party, led by former shock jock RIC DUHAIME, has attracted a slew of candidates who have used their social media accounts during the pandemic to amplify medical misinformation, conspiracy theorists or to engage with far-right extremists.

For The Logic, DAVID REEVELY looks at how new proposed regulations for Big Tech led to a flood of activity, and a flush of cash, for lobbyists.

The CBC's CATHERINE TUNNEYreports this morning: Top N.S. Mountie wanted an officer dismissed for sexual misconduct but Commissioner Lucki disagreed.

After a brutal year dominated by economic angst, legislative setbacks and sinking approval ratings, President JOE BIDEN is back in the game, POLITICOs ADAM CANCRYN, JONATHAN LEMIRE and CHRISTOPHER CADELAGO report.

People who call 911 are facing hours-long delays for ambulances in some parts of Canada due to staff shortages and overcrowded hospitals, CARLY WEEKS and JAKE KIVANC write for the Globe and Mail.

CHANGE THE NARRATIVE The Department of National Defence is calling in a group of beltway bandits who can help the perpetually PR-challenged corner of government improve a public image somewhat lacking in positivity.

For a mere C$76,800, a "teaching team" of "world-class futurists, science fiction and entertainment creators, and military and business leaders" will "teach the how of forecasting and narrative communication, in order to better reach and influence target audiences."

The contractor's name: Useful Fiction.

What is that? "The use of research and narrative to build 'synthetic environments' as a tool for analysis, prediction, explanation, and communication Research is turned into insightful character-driven stories that can help individuals and organizations understand complex concepts, distill key themes, explore alternative points of view, reveal analytical blind spots, and/or project future issues and dilemmas."

The roster: Useful Fiction once trained United States Air Force mid-career leaders "on forecasting and narrative for more effective communications."

Their trainers included: "New York Times best-selling authors, a venture capitalist investor, a corporate futurist, the head of Australian military officer training, the former Commander of US Special Operations, the co-writers of Game of Thrones, the producer of Hunger Games and Crazy Rich Asians, and the team behind The Walking Dead and Good Lord Bird."

The company lists Giller Prize-winning author OMAR EL AKKAD on its list of contributors.

Client list: "Useful Fiction has provided such classes to organizations that range from the NATO military alliance to Syracuse Universitys Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs training program for US government executives."

For POLITICO Pro subscribers, catch up to our latest policy newsletter from ZI-ANN LUM and ANDY BLATCHFORD: What Manchins deal means for Canada.

In other news for subscribers:

Canada 'encouraged' by EV tax tweak in Manchin deal. 'Easter eggs' in climate bill delight oil and gas industry. Alaska Republican to delay DoD nominees over rare earth minerals. Ukrainians doing everything we can to make Russia grain deal work. Arabic social media remains an unchecked Wild West.

Birthdays: HBD to Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth MARCI IEN and former MP DAVID DE BURGH GRAHAM.

Saturday celebrations: Ottawa Mayor JIM WATSON, Quebec MNA LORRAINE RICHARD, Alberta MLA JOE CECI, former Conservative MP KELLIE LEITCH and former trade minister JIM PETERSON.

Sunday: Bloc MP and dean of the House LOUIS PLAMONDON, Conservative MP TOM KMIEC, Saskatchewan Premier SCOTT MOE and SHEILA MARTIN, wife of former PM PAUL MARTIN.

Monday: Senator WANDA THOMAS BERNARD.

Send birthdays to [emailprotected].

Spotted:MICHAEL GEIST was so struck by how similar CRTC Chair IAN SCOTT sounded to Rogers CEO TONY STAFFIERI during this weeks parliamentary committee hearings on the Rogers outage that he created a quiz with quotes from both men to see if people could tell the difference.

A day later, more than 600 people had taken the quiz and a grand total of zero people had managed to get all 12 quotes right. (Your Playbook host, who didnt watch the hearings, took the quiz and scored a modest nine out of 12 nothing to humble-brag about.)

GEORGE SOULE, double-boosted.

Media mentions: Postmedia chairman PAUL GODFREY is stepping down at the end of the year, to be replaced by board member JAMIE IRVING. Godfrey will serve as a special adviser following the end of his term.

Thursdays answer: The RCMP consulted the British MI5 security agency (and Soviet defector IGOR GOUZENKO) while attempting to plant microphones in the new Soviet embassy while it was under construction in 1956.

Props to BRAM ABRAMSON, ROBERT MCDOUGALL and ROBERT BOSTELAAR.

Fridays question: LOUIS PLAMONDON, the longest-serving current member of the House of Commons, turns 79 on Sunday. Plamondon has won his seat in a whopping 12 consecutive elections. What two federal parties has he represented?

Send your answers to [emailprotected]

Playbook wouldnt happen without Luiza Ch. Savage and editor Sue Allan.

Link:

The 'paradox' of reconciliation- POLITICO - POLITICO

This is all to say that in the United States, a successful third party isnt necessarily one that wins national office. Instead, a successful third party is one that integrates itself or its program into one of the two major parties, either by forcing key issues onto the agenda or revealing the existence of a potent new electorate.

Take the Free Soil Party.

During the presidential election of 1848, after the annexation of Texas, the Mexican-American War and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, a coalition of antislavery politicians from the Democratic, Liberty and Whig Parties formed the Free Soil Party to oppose the expansion of slavery into the new Western territories. At their national convention in Buffalo, the Free Soilers summed up their platform with the slogan Free soil, free speech, free labor, free men!

The Free Soil Party, notes the historian Frederick J. Blue in The Free Soilers: Third Party Politics, 1848-1854, endorsed the Wilmot Proviso by declaring that Congress had no power to extend slavery and must in fact prohibit its extension, thus returning to the principle of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. It is the duty of the federal government, declared its platform, to relieve itself from all responsibility for the existence of slavery wherever that government possesses constitutional power to legislate on that subject and is thus responsible for its existence.

This was controversial, to put it mildly. The entire two-party system (the first being the roughly 30-year competition between the Federalists and the Jeffersonian Republicans) had been built to sidestep the conflict over the expansion of slavery. The Free Soil Party which in an ironic twist nominated Martin Van Buren, the architect of that system, for president in the 1848 election fought to put that conflict at the center of American politics.

It succeeded. In many respects, the emergence of the Free Soil Party marks the beginning of mass antislavery politics in the United States. It elected several members to Congress, helped fracture the Whig Party along sectional lines and pushed antislavery Free Democrats to abandon their party. The Free Soilers never elected a president, but in just a few short years they transformed American party politics. And when the Whig Party finally collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions, after General Winfield Scotts defeat in the 1852 presidential election, the Free Soil Party would become, in 1854, the nucleus of the new Republican Party, which brought an even larger coalition of former Whigs and ex-Democrats together with Free Soil radicals under the umbrella of a sectional, antislavery party.

There are a few other examples of third-party success. The Populist Party failed to win high office after endorsing the Democratic nominee, William Jennings Bryan, for president in 1896 but went on to shape the next two decades of American political life. In the wake of the defeat of the Peoples Party, a wave of reform soon swept the country, the historian Charles Postel writes in The Populist Vision: Populism provided an impetus for this modernizing process, with many of their demands co-opted and refashioned by progressive Democrats and Republicans.

See the original post:

Opinion | Why Andrew Yangs New Third Party Is Bound to Fail - The New York Times