Connect with us

Politics

NICK BEATON: Politicians took credit, but families forced inquiry – TheChronicleHerald.ca

Published

on


NICK BEATON

There has been a lot of discussion over the last few weeks about the public inquiry into the events of April 18 and 19 that led to families losing mothers, fathers, sons, daughters and wives.

Local politicians like provincial Justice Minister Mark Furey and MPs Lenore Zann and Sean Fraser are claiming victory. But let me be honest: what we watched happen doesn’t match up with their version of events.

Losing my wife and my unborn child is a pain I hope no one reading this ever knows. Knowing that it likely could have been prevented with proper use of the emergency alert system makes it even more difficult. Inquiries answer those kinds of questions. They give families closure.

So why did the federal and provincial governments make this process so hard on us? Why did it take the backlash from a review that nobody wanted for all the Liberal politicians to crawl out of the woodwork? And why, after they finally spoke up in July — about something that happened in April — is everyone trying to give them credit?

Zann, Fraser and others didn’t lift a finger before politics started to hurt them. They stayed quiet when we needed their voices. In Furey’s case, the initial announcement of the “review” demonstrates that he never fought for an inquiry.

“I felt like I was watching pro wrestling. Everyone pretends to fight and make demands, the referee is distracted, and someone gives in, and someone is the hero, but no one really gets hurt. Except for us.”

Nick Beaton, Kristen Beaton’s husband, gets ready to lead hundreds of people on a march to the RCMP detachment in Bible Hill on Wednesday, July 22, 2020, as an effort to keep the pressure on the provincial and federal governments to call a public inquiry into the mass shooting on April 18 and 19. – Nicole Munro

Based on statements that have been issued and interviews that have taken place over the last two weeks, one would be left to believe that Nova Scotia Liberal MPs were the ones who got us our inquiry. In reality, they didn’t say a word about wanting an inquiry before a review was announced. Then they signed off on a letter supporting a review, not an inquiry.

Make no mistake: it was the families who ensured we got an inquiry. We made this happen. My fellow Bluenoses made this happen. Sympathetic Canadians across the country, whom I’ll never meet, and who saw something wrong, spoke up and made this happen.

Federal Public Safety Minister Bill Blair subsequently reversing the review decision all felt staged, to be honest. I felt like I was watching pro wrestling. Everyone pretends to fight and make demands, the referee is distracted, and someone gives in, and someone is the hero, but no one really gets hurt. Except for us.

Can Mr. Furey, Ms. Zann and Mr. Fraser show a little bit of humility and just say, “We were wrong,” instead of trying to take credit for doing something someone else did? Is being a Liberal more important than being a Nova Scotian? I’m overwhelmed with the love this country has shown me and the other families, but I’ll never understand why Liberals in positions of power have continued to add to our pain.

Ms. Zann was recently quoted as saying, “Please don’t patronize us by making assumptions for the victims’ families.”

Politicians like Ms. Zann, Mr. Fraser and Mr. Furey shouldn’t be patronizing the families by pretending they were on our side all along; it wasn’t until it was politically convenient.

Nick Beaton lives in Onslow Mountain, Colchester County.

RELATED:

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Politics

Explainer: Malaysia's political maneuvering, next episode – TheChronicleHerald.ca

Published

on


KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) – A year of Malaysian political maneuvering has taken another turn with opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim saying he now has enough support in parliament to be able to form a government and replace Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin.

DOES THIS MEAN ANWAR BECOMES PRIME MINISTER?

No. It’s far from certain Anwar will take the position he has tried to get for more than two decades.

Anwar’s first step needs to be convincing the king he has the support of the majority of lawmakers. To do that he would need to see the king, who is currently hospitalised, though not for a serious problem.

The king could make him premier if he is convinced Anwar can command a majority, or he could dissolve parliament and trigger elections on the prime minister’s advice.

So far, no major political party has come out in support of him.

Major parties in Muhyiddin’s coalition dismissed his claim as “cheap publicity” and said they firmly supported the premier.

Anwar’s own party only has 38 lawmakers – which means he would need to win over other parties or factions within them to get majority support from the 222-seat parliament.

HOW DID IT GET TO THIS POINT?

Malaysian politics tumbled into turmoil in February when Anwar’s perennial rival, nonagenarian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad resigned in a growing power struggle within their alliance that won a surprise victory in a 2018 election.

Both ended up sidelined while Muhyiddin emerged as prime minister of a government in which the biggest party is the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) – which ruled Malaysia for decades until 2018 and to which Anwar, Mahathir and Muhyiddin all once belonged.

But Muhyiddin’s position has remained precarious with a single digit majority in parliament, while UMNO withdrew some of its backing after former leader and former Prime Minister Najib Razak was found guilty of corruption in the multi-billion 1MDB scandal.

The opposition, including Anwar and Mahathir, had vowed to oust him, saying he won power by shifting alliances instead of earning it at the ballot box.

HOW DO THE POLITICAL FORCES STACK UP?

Malaysian politics revolves around coalitions, but the strongest single party is likely to be UMNO – which stands for the interests of majority Malays in the multi-ethnic country.

Although it was voted out amid anger over the 1MDB scandal in 2018, it has improved its showing at more recent by-elections. Many Malays were unhappy with what they saw as too much focus on non-Malay interests, and particularly those of ethnic Chinese, under the Mahathir-Anwar coalition. Anwar remains allied to a largely Chinese party.

Kingmakers in any coalition, whether through elections or not, could well be the parties from Sabah and Sarawak on the island of Borneo – who have long asked for more autonomy and a bigger share of oil and gas revenues from state oil giant Petronas.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE ECONOMY?

Malaysia’s economy plunged into its first contraction since the 2009 global financial crisis as a result of the impact of the coronavirus on trade and tourism.

While all governments are likely to promise large stimulus packages, political turmoil could hold up prospects for delivering on them and being able to find the financing for them.

If whoever forms a government is beholden to the Borneo parties, that could also mean that central government revenues take a heavier knock as they could end up getting smaller revenue from Petronas.

Muhyiddin, whose coalition relies on the ruling coalition from Sarawak for support, had already agreed to pay a sales tax they demanded and had shown willing to give them a bigger share of revenues.

(Writing by Matthew Tostevin; Editing by Martin Petty)

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

In US, Attention to Politics Shows Typical Election Year Surge – Gallup Poll

Published

on


Story Highlights

  • Percentage of Americans following news on national politics is back to 2008 high
  • Democrats are following national political news more closely than Republicans are
  • Older Americans are most likely to follow news on national politics “very closely”

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Less than two months from the presidential election, 42% of Americans say they follow news about national politics “very closely,” similar to the 39% to 43% who paid this close attention in each of the prior three presidential election years since 2008. Today’s level is a bit higher than in 2004, when 36% followed national political news very closely. Attention was far lower in 1996, at 27%.

Line graph. Rate of those following news about elections closely typically rises prior to election. The current rate matches 2008 record high of 42%.

Since 2006, about a third of U.S. adults have closely followed political news in non-election years. That figure ticks up sharply in presidential election years, only to recede the following year. While Americans’ attention didn’t fall much in the first year after President Donald Trump was elected, it did dwindle to 32% by 2019, only to spike 10 percentage points this year.

In addition to the 42% of Americans saying they follow national political news very closely in the Aug. 31-Sept. 13 poll, 38% say they follow it “somewhat closely,” 14% “not too closely” and 6% “not at all.”

Partisans Most Attentive to Political News

Partisan differences in attention to news have not been large in presidential election years, but to the extent there is a difference — as in 2008 and 2012 — Republicans have been the ones more likely to pay close attention. By contrast, today, Democrats are now slightly more likely than Republicans to say they are following news about national politics very closely (51% vs. 45%, respectively).

In line with prior election year polls, independents are significantly less attentive than either major party group, with about a third (34%) saying they are following news on national politics very closely.

Line graph. The percentage of Americans paying very close attention to national political news, by political affiliation. 51% of Democrats now say they are paying very close attention to national political news, compared with 45% of Republicans and 34% of independents. Unlike previous election cycles, Democrats now most likely to say following political news very closely.

Age Disparities in Focus on National Politics

Older Americans are typically more likely than younger adults to say they are following news on national politics very closely. However, unlike their two age cohort comparisons, older Americans are the only age group to be more likely this year (56%) than in 2008 (50%) to say they are following political news very closely.

Adults aged 18 to 34 are the least likely to say they are following news on national politics very closely this year, at 23% — a significantly lower figure than the 32% of 18- to 34-year-olds who said the same in 2008, when the nation witnessed a historic turnout of young voters.

Four in 10 middle-aged Americans (aged 35 to 54) say they are following political news very closely, just shy of the 44% high for this age group that Gallup recorded in 2008.

Line graph. The percentage of Americans paying very close attention to national political news, by age group. 56% of those aged 55 or older now say they are paying very close attention to national political news, compared with 40% of those 35-54 and 23% of those 18-34. As with previous elections, older respondents more likely than younger ones to say following national politics closely.

Bottom Line

With just six weeks until the Nov. 3 contest, Americans are relatively focused on national politics, as is typical in presidential election years. Compared with their interest in 2008, a year with record-high voter turnout, Democrats are more attentive today, a finding that could bode well for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

When Gallup last measured the amount of thought Americans are giving to the presidential election, Republicans and Democrats were about equal. That situation could have changed since mid-August and the political conventions, but given Republicans’ usual advantage on that measure, a tie between the parties may suggest a stronger Democratic positioning than usual. Gallup will update its “election thought” measure in the coming weeks.

View complete question responses and trends (PDF download).

Learn more about how the Gallup Poll Social Series works.

Learn more about public opinion metrics that matter for the 2020 presidential election at Gallup’s 2020 Presidential Election Center.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

The one thing that matters to stocks more than politics

Published

on

The presidential election is mere weeks away on Nov. 3 and the Supreme Court is also now under a microscope after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg upset the court’s delicate political balance.

<p class=”canvas-atom canvas-text Mb(1.0em) Mb(0)–sm Mt(0.8em)–sm” type=”text” content=”All of this has been featured in copious pundit commentary and research notes — especially as the market turmoil that surrounded 2016 proved to be a huge boon for some savvy investors like Carl Icahn, who left a Trump election night celebration to buy stocks and make $1 billion.” data-reactid=”17″>All of this has been featured in copious pundit commentary and research notes — especially as the market turmoil that surrounded 2016 proved to be a huge boon for some savvy investors like Carl Icahn, who left a Trump election night celebration to buy stocks and make $1 billion.

But in a fresh note from Capital Economics, economist Oliver Allen points out the obvious point many forget during election season: the economy is “probably more important than politics.”

<p class=”canvas-atom canvas-text Mb(1.0em) Mb(0)–sm Mt(0.8em)–sm” type=”text” content=”Politics, Allen writes, is still moving the market. The death of Ginsburg was the “final nail in the coffin” for more fiscal stimulus that millions of Americans need to stay afloat. It also has bearing on what may happen on Election Day, as the Supreme Court may eclipse the pandemic and the economy as key voting issues.” data-reactid=”19″>Politics, Allen writes, is still moving the market. The death of Ginsburg was the “final nail in the coffin” for more fiscal stimulus that millions of Americans need to stay afloat. It also has bearing on what may happen on Election Day, as the Supreme Court may eclipse the pandemic and the economy as key voting issues.

Despite the impact that politics has on the stock market, Allen warns investors not to get ahead of themselves. It’s the economy that matters most, and most importantly, how the long-term coronavirus vaccines and eventual recovery unfold.

Though Allen says to look at the economy more than the election, Capital Economics doesn’t offer more than a vague “the S&P 500 will climb further over the next few years, as major economies eventually get their coronavirus outbreaks under control, and central banks keep monetary policy exceptionally loose,” which seems wise, given how silly 2019 predictions look now.

A television broadcast showing U.S. President Donald Trump is pictured during a trading session at Frankfurt's stock exchange in Frankfurt, Germany, March 12, 2020. REUTERS/Ralph Orlowski
A television broadcast showing U.S. President Donald Trump is pictured during a trading session at Frankfurt’s stock exchange in Frankfurt, Germany, March 12, 2020. REUTERS/Ralph Orlowski

Many people remember how the disrupted Bush-Gore election in 2000 hurt equity markets, causing them to drop around 8%, but the turbulence cleared up relatively quickly, resulting in no long-term damage.

“Provided any dispute over this year’s election is also eventually resolved, we find it hard to see [the election] having a lasting impact on US equities, even if it could cause a spike in volatility following Election Day,” Allen writes.

The fact that politics is secondary to the economy when it comes to stock prices isn’t a controversial take. Plenty of analysts point to uncertainty as being the chief problem. But the political implications for the stock market are frequently discussed by market strategists.

<p class=”canvas-atom canvas-text Mb(1.0em) Mb(0)–sm Mt(0.8em)–sm” type=”text” content=”Many financial pundits have said Trump is better for the stock market and economy, citing deregulation and market performance after his election amid dire predictions from some. And Allen notes that “a second term for President Trump would probably be a better outcome for US equities than a win for Joe Biden,” because of corporate taxes.” data-reactid=”36″>Many financial pundits have said Trump is better for the stock market and economy, citing deregulation and market performance after his election amid dire predictions from some. And Allen notes that “a second term for President Trump would probably be a better outcome for US equities than a win for Joe Biden,” because of corporate taxes.

<p class=”canvas-atom canvas-text Mb(1.0em) Mb(0)–sm Mt(0.8em)–sm” type=”text” content=”At the same time, Trump’s late and weak coronavirus response led, in part, to 200,000 deaths, skyrocketing unemployment, dampened earnings, and a recovery that is still trying to get off the ground. And though some stock prices (mostly tech stocks) are doing well — driving the S&amp;P 500 (^GSPC) back to pre-coronavirus levels after a huge plunge — many companies are still in tough situations.” data-reactid=”37″>At the same time, Trump’s late and weak coronavirus response led, in part, to 200,000 deaths, skyrocketing unemployment, dampened earnings, and a recovery that is still trying to get off the ground. And though some stock prices (mostly tech stocks) are doing well — driving the S&P 500 (^GSPC) back to pre-coronavirus levels after a huge plunge — many companies are still in tough situations.

 

 

Source:- Yahoo Canada Finance

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending