Mediaboss Marketing

Let it never be said Stephen McNeil was afraid to stand up to unions.

Protesters circling Province House, chanting "Steee-vannn" and waving signs, were one of the hallmarks of the Liberal leader's first term as premier. More often than not, labour-related legislation was the source of that protest.

McNeil repeatedly stuck to a position that his government had a certain amount of money it could spend on contracts and it would not deviate from that "fiscal envelope," a position that would keep the Liberals from reaching a collective agreement with any of the province's three major unions.

How the public views thatapproach and the Liberals'motives could well determine the outcome of the upcoming election.

But for his most recent scuffle with teachers, McNeil and the Liberals saw bumps in the polls whenever there was a union-related fracas.

Jason Foster, a professor who studies labour relations at Athabasca University in Alberta, said the combative approach from the Liberals during the last 3 years is a trend for many governments as they try to negotiate contracts.

"It's a pretty common tactic for government especially governments who are feeling some fiscal pressure to target their public sector unions," he said.

The approach here is measured compared to some provinces and states, said Foster, where wages are being rolled back and workers are being laid off. In McNeil's own words, the approach in Nova Scotia was about"slowing down growth" of public sector contracts.

NSGEU president Jason MacLean says unions are trying to maintain what they've already earned through previous bargaining. His members will campaign against the Liberals. (CBC)

The Liberals enter the election campaign having imposed a contract on teachers and having yet to sign deals with the other two major public sector groups: health-care workers and civil servants. The Nova Scotia Government andGeneral Employees Union represents the latter and a good chunk of the former.

NSGEU president Jason MacLean described labour relations in the province as "strained."

MacLean said he sees the Liberals'track record of labour-related bills as anti-union and,in some cases, unconstitutional. It's why the NSGEU is putting on a push with its 30,800 members to try to help defeat the Grits, he said.

"They feel that they know everything and that they can dictate everything to Nova Scotians. However, the ones that they're dictating to are the ones that are serving Nova Scotians."

MacLean said he sees Liberal legislation thatmerged the district health authorities, designated workers as essential services and reserved the right to impose a wage packageas designed so the government could avoidactual negotiations.

Liberal Leader Stephen McNeil says he didn't relish confrontation with unions during his first term as premier, but it was what was necessary to bring order to provincial finances. (CBC)

McNeil, not surprisingly, doesn't see it that way.

His focus in negotiations as premier was on "what was the amount that we could afford that was fair and, at the same time, leaving capacity for government to invest in infrastructure and programs," he said.

McNeil sits across the table from union leaders tasked with doing what's best for their members. But it's his job, he said, to think of the whole province. In many cases that's put him at odds with thousands of workers, something he said he does worry about.

"It's not always a good place to be where you're in confrontation. It's not where I like to be, but it's part of what I have to do.It's part of the job to say, 'This is all I can afford.'"

When the Liberals tabled their latestbudget, McNeilmade the case that many of the investments in the document were possible only because his government took the position it did when negotiating contracts.

Foster said the challenge for governments is that wages make up the largest line item in a budget.

But a confrontational approach can be as much of a challenge because it can lead to people feeling alienated, not working to their full potential, or leaving the public sector altogether, he said.

"And that's a long-term consequence that [governments] don't think about because they're thinking about short-term votes and they're thinking of short-term public opinion."

Read more:
'Strained' labour relations a hallmark of Liberals' first term - CBC.ca

To the editor:

I recently received an email from a friend with an obvious liberal bent. He was replying to an email that I had sent. Among other things, he stated that he had always been much more broadminded than me. I had a general idea what broadminded meant but had to look up the dictionary definition so that I could respond to him. I also looked up the definition of narrow minded, which I assumed he was implying is what I am.

Story continues below video

This is what I found: Broadminded (adjective) 1. tolerant or liberal in one's views and reactions; not easily offended: a broadminded approach to religion. synonyms: liberal, tolerant, open minded, free thinking, progressive, permissive, unprejudiced, unbiased, unbigoted. Now for narrow minded: Narrow-minded (adjective) 1. not willing to listen to or tolerate other people's views, prejudiced. synonyms: intolerant, illiberal, reactionary, conservative, parochial, provincial, insular, small minded, petty, blinkered, inward looking, narrow, hidebound, prejudiced, bigoted, redneck. Example: our school has no place for such narrow minded teaching.

I found the definitions a little baffling in light of what I see going on in today's world. For example, when I see what's going on up at Berkley, arguably the most liberal, broadminded university in the USA, I have to wonder about those definitions. And Berkley is not alone among the so-called liberal universities condoning such illiberal activities. "Almost" laughable when one thinks about it. If that type of activity is what broadminded and liberalism is all about, I don't want any part of it. Which definition do you feel best fits the activities we are seeing at these "liberal" campuses?

David Cresine

Avon

Link:
And liberals claim to be 'broadminded' - The Herald Journal

Les Knoll

I saw a study recently by Media Research Center where 89% of the news on TV networks was negative toward our President Donald Trump. Liberal media raises its ugly head trashing Trump non-stop. When Obama became president, the percentages were in reverse proof there is bias and those percentages on both sides are totally unrealistic.

Dont expect me to apologize for again criticizing liberals as with my previous letters. For every one writing critical of the left like mine, there are 10 critical of the right. There is no shortage of Trump haters, even in local media.

Rush Limbaugh has been claiming recently its not media that is an arm of the Democrat Party. No, it is the Democrat Party that is an arm of liberal media. Media, in other words, puts out the narrative that the Dems need to run with. Liberal media controls the Dem Party apparently.

Liberals dont live in the real world. Their master is like the Pied Piper and chooses what they are to believe. Most is fake news. Most is not reality, lacking in facts, logic and even common sense at times. Those Obama lovers and never Trumpers live in a bubble.

Take Trumps collusion with Russia to win the election for example. There is no evidence to support that claim, but it is impossible to debate most liberals on this issue. There are no facts to back up collusion but that makes no difference.

Try telling a liberal Obamas eight years of failed agendas led to Democrats losing some 1,200 elections nationally and in states. Obama was a failure, but to a liberal, he was one of the best presidents ever in spite of increased poverty, racial animus, people out of work, international disaster, etc. And, lets not forget the top 1% got richer during his presidency. No intellectually nonpartisan historian can possibly give the man positive marks.

Obamas marquee legislation called Obamacare is imploding, yet liberals claim it is as popular as ever. Facts dont matter to those on the left.

Hands up, dont shoot of Black Lives Matter did not happen. Period. However, law enforcement throughout the country was given a black eye on just another liberal false narrative. Pun intended.

How in the world can anybody justify harboring illegals in what are called sanctuary cities. Defying federal law by these cities is insanity. At the expense of endangering their constituents, the powers to be, prefer harboring illegals (criminals included) as do most liberals. Common sense takes a hike.

How do open borders make us better as a country? The negatives (drugs, crime, jobs, dependency, etc.) far outweigh positives. Liberals claim we need to have compassion but in reality its to transform America having little or nothing to do with compassion. Just another example of losing touch with reality.

Try telling a liberal the massive migration of Muslim refugees is not good for this country. Muslims dont assimilate and prefer Sharia law to our Constitution. Invasion within is their goal politically, culturally and religiously.

What about the disastrous Iranian nuclear treaty? Socialism versus capitalism? An overreaching government versus a less invasive one? Handouts versus a hand up? More versus fewer taxes? Man causes climate change. Please!

Who in their right mind believes liberals when they consistently call Republicans racists, bigots, homophobes, islamophobes and misogynists?

The height of liberal delusion was a recent column in which Leonard Pitts says: The 12 weeks since Jan. 20 have seen more scandal, international incidents, incompetence, instability, lies and jaw-dropping embarrassments than the previous 12 years combined. Pitts needs to see a shrink. Hes lost it and proves the whole point of my letter to the editor.

The list of pie in the sky and off the wall liberal untruths is endless and the differences between the left and grassroots Americans (especially rural Americans) are as big as it can possibly get. Never, since the Civil War, have we been this divided.

Personally, I maintain we cant possibly make America great again with make-believe liberalism back in control of our government, and its clear why.

Les Knoll lives in Victoria and Gilbert, Ariz.

Continue reading here:
KNOLL: Do liberals live in a make-believe world? - hays Post

5623454

Days after The New York Times newest columnist wrote apiececautioning against shutting down reasonable debate on climate change,liberals in the media and elsewhere are still railing against the paper for publishing a dissenting view from its typical climate alarmism.

Bret Stephens column on Friday quoted former NYT environmental reporter Andrew Revkin who wrote last year,I saw a widening gap between what scientists had been learning about global warming and what advocates were claiming as they pushed ever harder to pass climate legislation.

Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong, Stephens, a Never Trump conservative hired away from the Wall Street Journal, argued. (RELATED: The New York Times Affirms Elitist Bent With Latest Hire)

Stephens column prompted furious left-wingers to threaten to cancel their subscriptions. Days later, liberals are still bitterly complaining aboutthe NYTs decision to publish Stephens column.

Liberal website Slate ran an article Sunday calling Stephens column classic climate change denialism. The column declared it not actually true that reasonable people can be skeptical about the dangers of climate change. The author, Susan Matthews, appeared to suggest that the liberal paper can no longer be trusted on account of the article, concluding: Stephens may be wrong about most things but he was right about onesome institutions no longer deserve to be trusted.

Theres nothing conservative (or liberal) about the Stephens column, data journalist Nate Silver complainedon Sunday. The issue is about evidence vs. bullshit. He doesnt know his subject.

Washington Post blogger Erik Wemple called Stephens column a dreadfully argued piece in his second piece complaining about it. Wemple claimed that speaking of climate change as a future problem shortchanges the entire issue.

Penn State professor Michael Mann said the NYT can win him and other readers back by owning [the] debacle and convincing us theyre not adopting editorial stance of false balance on climate.

Some of my more intemperate critics are doing an awfully good job of proving the point about the column, Stephens noted in a statement on Sunday.

Follow Hasson on Twitter @PeterJHasson

Go here to see the original:
Days Later Liberals Are Still Melting Down Over Bret Stephens' First NYT Column - The Daily Caller

Veteran South Australian MP Duncan McFetridge will quit the Liberal Party after losing pre-selection in his seat for the 2018 state election.

Dr McFetridge has confirmed the move and says he will make a statement to parliament next week.

He has held the suburban seat of Morphett since 2002, but recently lost pre-selection to former Collingwood footballer and local mayor Stephen Patterson.

Dr McFetridge says he is now taking a few days break ahead of parliament's return on Tuesday.

He previously held a range of opposition front bench positions, but was dumped as a shadow minister by leader Steven Marshall in January.

He retained Morphett in 2014 with a near 13 per cent margin, but that was reduced to an estimated 7.7 per cent in the 2016 redistribution of electoral boundaries.

It remains unclear if Dr McFetridge will contest the next election in March as an independent.

Go here to read the rest:
SA MP to quit the Liberals - NEWS.com.au