Conservative candidate survives Liberal wave in B.C. parliamentary riding north of Spokane
Apr. 28—Although Canada's Liberal Party was heading for victory in Monday's election nationwide, the Conservative Party appeared to hold steady in eastern British Columbia.
In the parliamentary district just north of Spokane, the Conservative Party's incumbent candidate, Rob Morrison, had a big lead in his re-election bid.
Morrison, the member of Parliament who was first elected in 2019, said last week that he's baffled by President Donald Trump's antagonistic stance toward Canada, but that he isn't worried about Canada maintaining its sovereignty. He said he's concerned about tariffs but more worried about affordability and inflation.
"Affordability was already a big problem, especially cost of housing," Morrison said at a campaign barbecue Wednesday in Salmo, British Columbia, a town 15 miles north of the border of Pend Oreille County, Washington. "Our biggest issue here is people just want to have more money in their pocket to be able to afford to feed their kids."
Morrison had 52.5% of the vote with 230 of 310 polling stations counted at 9:10 p.m. Monday night.
The Liberal candidate, Reggie Goldsbury, was far behind in second place with 26.1% of the vote.
The New Democratic candidate, Kallee Lins, was in third with 17.7%.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
The forgotten story of India's brush with presidential rule
During the mid-1970s, under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's imposition of the Emergency, India entered a period where civil liberties were suspended and much of the political opposition was jailed. Behind this authoritarian curtain, her Congress party government quietly began reimagining the country - not as a democracy rooted in checks and balances, but as a centralised state governed by command and control, historian Srinath Raghavan reveals in his new book. In Indira Gandhi and the Years That Transformed India, Prof Raghavan shows how Gandhi's top bureaucrats and party loyalists began pushing for a presidential system - one that would centralise executive power, sideline an "obstructionist" judiciary and reduce parliament to a symbolic chorus. Inspired in part by Charles de Gaulle's France, the push for a stronger presidency in India reflected a clear ambition to move beyond the constraints of parliamentary democracy - even if it never fully materialised. It all began, writes Prof Raghavan, in September 1975, when BK Nehru, a seasoned diplomat and a close aide of Gandhi, wrote a letter hailing the Emergency as a "tour de force of immense courage and power produced by popular support" and urged Gandhi to seize the moment. Parliamentary democracy had "not been able to provide the answer to our needs", Nehru wrote. In this system the executive was continuously dependent on the support of an elected legislature "which is looking for popularity and stops any unpleasant measure". What India needed, Nehru said, was a directly elected president - freed from parliamentary dependence and capable of taking "tough, unpleasant and unpopular decisions" in the national interest, Prof Raghavan writes. The model he pointed to was de Gaulle's France - concentrating power in a strong presidency. Nehru imagined a single, seven-year presidential term, proportional representation in Parliament and state legislatures, a judiciary with curtailed powers and a press reined in by strict libel laws. He even proposed stripping fundamental rights - right to equality or freedom of speech, for example - of their justiciability. Nehru urged Indira Gandhi to "make these fundamental changes in the Constitution now when you have two-thirds majority". His ideas were "received with rapture" by the prime minister's secretary PN Dhar. Gandhi then gave Nehru approval to discuss these ideas with her party leaders but said "very clearly and emphatically" that he should not convey the impression that they had the stamp of her approval. Prof Raghavan writes that the ideas met with enthusiastic support from senior Congress leaders like Jagjivan Ram and foreign minister Swaran Singh. The chief minister of Haryana state was blunt: "Get rid of this election nonsense. If you ask me just make our sister [Indira Gandhi] President for life and there's no need to do anything else". M Karunanidhi of Tamil Nadu – one of two non-Congress chief ministers consulted - was unimpressed. When Nehru reported back to Gandhi, she remained non-committal, Prof Raghavan writes. She instructed her closest aides to explore the proposals further. What emerged was a document titled "A Fresh Look at Our Constitution: Some suggestions", drafted in secrecy and circulated among trusted advisors. It proposed a president with powers greater than even their American counterpart, including control over judicial appointments and legislation. A new "Superior Council of Judiciary", chaired by the president, would interpret "laws and the Constitution" - effectively neutering the Supreme Court. Gandhi sent this document to Dhar, who recognised it "twisted the Constitution in an ambiguously authoritarian direction". Congress president DK Barooah tested the waters by publicly calling for a "thorough re-examination" of the Constitution at the party's 1975 annual session. The idea never fully crystallised into a formal proposal. But its shadow loomed over the Forty-second Amendment Act, passed in 1976, which expanded Parliament's powers, limited judicial review and further centralised executive authority. The amendment made striking down laws harder by requiring supermajorities of five or seven judges, and aimed to dilute the Constitution's 'basic structure doctrine' that limited parliament's power. It also handed the federal government sweeping authority to deploy armed forces in states, declare region-specific Emergencies, and extend President's Rule - direct federal rule - from six months to a year. It also put election disputes out of the judiciary's reach. This was not yet a presidential system, but it carried its genetic imprint - a powerful executive, marginalised judiciary and weakened checks and balances. The Statesman newspaper warned that "by one sure stroke, the amendment tilts the constitutional balance in favour of the parliament." Meanwhile, Gandhi's loyalists were going all in. Defence minister Bansi Lal urged "lifelong power" for her as prime minister, while Congress members in the northern states of Haryana, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh unanimously called for a new constituent assembly in October 1976. "The prime minister was taken aback. She decided to snub these moves and hasten the passage of the amendment bill in the parliament," writes Prof Raghavan. By December 1976, the bill had been passed by both houses of parliament and ratified by 13 state legislatures and signed into law by the president. After Gandhi's shock defeat in 1977, the short-lived Janata Party - a patchwork of anti-Gandhi forces - moved quickly to undo the damage. Through the Forty-third and Forty-fourth Amendments, it rolled back key parts of the Forty Second, scrapping authoritarian provisions and restoring democratic checks and balances. Gandhi was swept back to power in January 1980, after the Janata Party government collapsed due to internal divisions and leadership struggles. Curiously, two years later, prominent voices in the party again mooted the idea of a presidential system. In 1982, with President Sanjiva Reddy's term ending, Gandhi seriously considered stepping down as prime minister to become president of India. Her principal secretary later revealed she was "very serious" about the move. She was tired of carrying the Congress party on her back and saw the presidency as a way to deliver a "shock treatment to her party, thereby giving it a new stimulus". Ultimately, she backed down. Instead, she elevated Zail Singh, her loyal home minister, to the presidency. Despite serious flirtation, India never made the leap to a presidential system. Did Gandhi, a deeply tactical politician, hold herself back ? Or was there no national appetite for radical change and India's parliamentary system proved sticky? There was a hint of presidential drift in the early 1970s, as India's parliamentary democracy - especially after 1967 - grew more competitive and unstable, marked by fragile coalitions, according to Prof Raghavan. Around this time, voices began suggesting that a presidential system might suit India better. The Emergency became the moment when these ideas crystallised into serious political thinking. "The aim was to reshape the system in ways that immediately strengthened her hold on power. There was no grand long-term design - most of the lasting consequences of her [Gandhi's] rule were likely unintended," Prof Raghavan told the BBC. "During the Emergency, her primary goal was short-term: to shield her office from any challenge. The Forty Second Amendment was crafted to ensure that even the judiciary couldn't stand in her way." The itch for a presidential system within the Congress never quite faded. As late as April 1984, senior minister Vasant Sathe launched a nationwide debate advocating a shift to presidential governance - even while in power. But six months later, Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards in Delhi, and with her, the conversation abruptly died. India stayed a parliamentary democracy. India media: Papers remember 1975 emergency Indira Gandhi: The Centre of Everything India's State of Emergency
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
What is a burka and what are the rules around wearing one in the UK?
Employers should be able to decide if their staff can wear burkas in the workplace, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has said, amid a debate on the face coverings and whether they should be banned in the UK. The issue was brought up by Reform's newest MP Sarah Pochin, who asked Sir Keir Starmer during Prime Minister's Questions whether he would support such a ban. Starmer said he would not "follow her down that line", but the question has sparked what Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice said is 'a national discussion'. A burka is a veil worn by some Muslim women that covers the face and body, often leaving just a mesh screen to see through. Other face coverings include the niqab, which leaves the area around the eyes clear, while the term hijab refers more general to headscarves that cover the head and neck but leave the face clear. Badenoch said her view is that people who come to her constituency surgeries must remove their face coverings 'whether it's a burka or a balaclava'. The Telegraph asked me about Burqa Bans.I don't like these sorts of face coverings in fact I won't hold my constituency surgeries with people in face coverings….but burqa bans won't fix the problem of cultural separatism. There are better in my response below👇 — Kemi Badenoch (@KemiBadenoch) June 8, 2025 She shared a segment of an interview with the Telegraph via X, in which she said: 'I personally have strong views about face coverings. If you come into my constituency surgery, you have to remove your face covering, whether it's a burka or a balaclava. I'm not talking to people who are not going to show me their face. 'Organisations should be able to decide what their staff wear for instance, it shouldn't be something that people should be able to override.' Her comment on the post said: "I don't like these sorts of face coverings in fact I won't hold my constituency surgeries with people in face coverings….but burqa bans won't fix the problem of cultural separatism. There are better ways." Yahoo News look at what a burka is and what the rules are around wearing them. There are various different headscarves worn by Muslim women as a sign of modesty, with different names referring to different styles. The burka is the most concealing and is a one-piece veil that covers the face and body, often leaving a mesh screen to see through. A niqab is a veil for the face that leaves the area around the eyes clear, and is worn with a headscard. Hijab is used to describe headscarves in general, with the most common type in the West covering the head and neck but leaving the face clear. Other face coverings include a shayla, chador, khimar and an al-amira, all of which are different and cover the face and head in different ways. Islamic dress is not banned in the UK, but schools and employers are allowed to set their own rules around dress code. However, an organisation would have to demonstrate its ban is "proportionate" and for a "legitimate aim" or it could face a legal challenge on the grounds of discrimination under equality and human rights laws. Several countries have restrictions in place on where the burka or niqab can be worn. France banned the wearing of veils intended to conceal the face in public in 2010, with similar bans in place in countries including Denmark, Belgium, Austria, the Netherlands and Switzerland. When she asked her question in PMQs, Pochin cited other countries, saying: "Given the prime minister's desire to strengthen strategic alignment with our European neighbours, will he - in the interests of public safety - follow the lead of France, Denmark, Belgium and others, and ban the burqa?" Banning the burka was not part of Reform UK's policies at last year's general election. But asked about the issue on Sunday, the party's deputy leader Richard Tice said: 'We've triggered a national discussion. I'm very concerned about them (burkas). 'Frankly, I think they are repressive. I think that they make women second-class citizens. 'We're a Christian nation. We have equality between the sexes, and I'm very concerned, and if someone wants to convince me otherwise, well come and talk to me. 'But at the moment, my view is that I think we should follow seven other nations across Europe that have already banned them.' He called for a debate on the topic to 'hear where the country's mood is'. Meanwhile, shadow home secretary Chris Philp said 'employers should be allowed to decide whether their employees can be visible or not', when discussing face coverings. Asked on the BBC's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg programme if the Conservative Party's position is not to speak to people who cover their face, Philp said of Badenoch: 'Well she was talking specifically about her constituency surgery I think, and it is definitely the case that employers should be allowed to decide whether their employees can be visible or not. 'But I don't think this is necessarily the biggest issue facing our country right now. 'There's a legitimate debate to have about the burka. You've got, obviously, arguments about personal liberty and choice and freedom on one side, and arguments about causing divisions in society and the possibility of coercion on the other. 'That is a debate I think we as a country should be having, but as Kemi said, it's probably not the biggest issue our nation faces today.' Women should not be veiling their faces in Western society (Telegraph) Reform UK chairman quits after calling question from party's newest MP 'dumb' (PA Media) New Reform UK MP Stuns The Commons With Outrageous Request In PMQs (HuffPost)
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Early election looms as state leaders trade blame
A state election is inching closer as an embattled premier refuses to stand down to spare voters the pain of returning to the polls. Tasmanian Premier Jeremy Rockliff is preparing to call an early election as soon as Tuesday after narrowly losing a no-confidence motion in state parliament. The state Liberal leader could have stood aside or been removed to allow his party to continue to govern in minority with crossbench support. But he is forging ahead with plans to recall parliament on Tuesday to pass a bill to ensure government workers can keep getting paid, before asking Governor Barbara Baker to call an election. She could approve his request or ask another Liberal MP or Labor leader Dean Winter to try to form minority government. Mr Rockliff said an election date would likely be set this week and confirmed he would lead the party to the poll. "Dean Winter's guaranteed the election," he told reporters on Sunday. Tasmanians were sent to the ballot box for a state election as recently as March 2024 and another would mark the fourth in seven years. The unofficial election campaign has already kicked off, with Mr Rockliff revealing former federal MP Bridget Archer will run for Liberal preselection in the state seat of Bass. Mr Rockliff also confirmed the Liberals would not pull a previous pledge to introduce a five per cent levy on short-stay rentals, including Airbnb listings. The levy would partially offset the cost of waiving stamp duty for first-time buyers purchasing homes worth up to $750,000. Mr Winter is sticking to his guns in ruling out forming government with the Greens, without whom Labor doesn't have the numbers. He has defended bringing forward the no-confidence motion over the state budget, privatisation concerns and the Spirit of Tasmania ferry debacle, and doubled down on calls for Mr Rockliff to resign. "He's carrying on at the moment like a spoiled child that's been given out in a game of cricket," Mr Winter said. "And then instead of just accepting the umpire's decision he's picking up his bat and ball and going home."
