Latest news with #policychange
Yahoo
20 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
City of St. John's changes policy on naming new streets to avoid 'problematic legacies'
The City of St. John's is changing its street naming policy to no longer allow new streets in the city to be named after people. It's an effort to protect itself from potential problems in the future, according to Coun. Ron Ellsworth. "Naming streets after people carries a number of risks," Ellsworth said during Tuesday's council meeting. "[There could be] problematic legacies, political polarization, disparity in representation and cultural marginalization." To reduce those risks, Ellsworth continued, the city's policy has been updated to remove the option to submit a person's name to the city's reserve street names inventory. On Friday, Ellsworth told CBC News that applications that were already under review ahead of the policy change — of which there are four — will continue moving through the process. Current streets also won't be renamed, Ellsworth said, and the city will still allow the use of surnames because they aren't directly tied to a person. For example, a road could be named Breen Street, but not Danny Breen Street in honour of the current mayor. Ellsworth said there wasn't a single issue that prompted the change, but noted other municipalities have faced challenges in recent years. "If you don't pay attention to your history, you're doomed to repeat your history and repeat the same mistakes. So this is a clarity issue, an identity piece that will, hopefully as we move forward, will create less issues for future councils and the public," he said. "This is not about renaming anything, this is just about as we move forward. New streets, new subdivisions, this is the process we will be using." Coun. Tom Davis said he sees the change as a harm reduction measure. "People can have, you know, history that comes out after the fact. So in particular, I brought up the point about child abuse.… A lot of times, we don't know these people's history because a lot of times they never get brought to justice," Davis said Friday. "There was also, you know, the reflection upon, you know, colonialism and potentially the use of some names. But the main driver was new names that might be brought forward that could end up having criminal or some sort of negative connotation that would end up being a mistake." Ellsworth said there's nothing stopping the city from reviewing street names in the future, should the need arise. Coun. Ophelia Ravencroft also voiced support for the change during Tuesday's meeting. Ravencroft encouraged finding new street names with an Indigenous-first lens. Download our to sign up for push alerts for CBC Newfoundland and Labrador. Sign up for our . Click .
Bloomberg
10-06-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
Education Secretary McMahon Says Harvard May See Grants Restored
Education Secretary Linda McMahon said that Harvard and other universities could get some of the federal funding cut by the Trump administration restored if they change their policies. 'It would be my goal that if colleges and universities are abiding by the laws of the United States and doing what we expect of them, that they can expect taxpayer funded programs,' the secretary said at a Bloomberg News event on Tuesday.
BBC News
09-06-2025
- Business
- BBC News
'It will make a lot of difference': Reactions to winter fuel payment U-turn
More than three-quarters of pensioners will receive the winter fuel payment this year after a major policy decision from Chancellor Rachel Reeves means nine million pensioners in England and Wales with an annual income of £35,000 or less will now be have spoken to us or contacted the BBC through Your Voice, Your BBC News about how the change of plan will affect them. 'Payment was taken away without warning' Bob Pritchard, 78, from Bath, told the BBC he earns £19,500 a year and believes he will now have his allowance reinstated."It will make a lot of difference. I've got various health issues and have to travel to hospital by taxi. I can't really afford to do it. The winter fuel payment was more or less taken away without warning," he said,Despite being happy about the government's U-turn, Bob believes he should be compensated for how he struggled when his winter fuel payment was taken away last year."The least they could do is offer some small compensation for all the grief and heartache that the initial decision to stop winter fuel payments has caused," he said. 'I give my winter fuel payment to charity' Alice George, 71, from Watford says she is "appalled" by Reeves' decision and gives her own winter fuel payment to charity."I know people who put the money towards a holiday," she said."I constantly meet pensioners who live very comfortably. I go to the cinema and the theatre regularly and they are packed with my ilk, most of whom don't need this money."Alice thinks its unfair that some young people earning less than £30,000 are expected to pay what she calls "extortionate rent and travel expenses".She thinks the winter fuel payment money should be put towards the NHS or tackling the housing crisis. 'I'm more than happy not to receive the payment' Ian Bryant, from Nailsworth in Gloucestershire, is pleased with the government's earns more than £35,000 as a pensioner so will not be receiving the payment himself but is happy for the others who will."It wasn't ideal when the payment was removed last year, as it impacted on many of those on the lowest income although I understand why it was done. A more considered approach would have been better," he said."I'm 68 and still have a mortgage. I go away a couple of times a year - nothing five star - have an old car, but manage fine. I'm more than happy not to receive the payment." 'Last year I turned off all the heating' Gail Impey, 71, a finance manager from Buckinghamshire, will miss out on the payment as her income is just over £35, said she struggled last year when her winter fuel payment was taken away."I turned off all the heating and used all my saved up logs in my log burner," she husband died in 2021, which meant she could no longer retire as she said she could not afford to stop working."Luckily at 71 I am fit enough to work but I do not have a good quality of life. It's just me and the dog. Everything is so expensive, I have to make every penny count," she added: "I earn just over the threshold but I'm taxed on that. I have paid in all my life and it seems I am missing out again. This is not fair and being on my own I have to work harder than ever." 'I didn't miss the winter fuel payment' Mike Hodges, 72, says he did not miss the winter fuel payment when he stopped receiving says his income is above the £35,000 threshold but below £40,000."The threshold could be a lot lower so money can be spent on much more pressing priorities."He thinks the money spent on the fuel payments should go to initiatives for younger people instead. Additional reporting by Kris Bramwell and Alex Emery Get our flagship newsletter with all the headlines you need to start the day. Sign up here.
Yahoo
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's Endless Flip-Flops Reveal His Recklessness
THERE'S NO ESCAPING the pattern in this run of recent headlines: 'Trump reverses plan to close more than 30 mine safety offices' 'Here are the 22 times he's changed his mind on tariffs' 'Trump reverses USDA office closures' 'Reversing on layoffs, National Weather Service adding staff' Plus, this whole set: 'Trump turns sharply on Musk'; 'Trump threatens to cut Musk's government contracts'; 'Trump, White House aides signal a possible détente with Musk'; 'Trump tells CNN he's 'not even thinking about' Musk and won't speak to him 'for a while'; 'Trump wants to get rid of the Tesla he bought to show support for Elon Musk.' That was all in less than a week, and telescoped to just 48 hours for the Trump-Musk blowup-détente-never-mind cycle. This is the bris you never wanted to attend, the circumcision you would never be able to unsee. And don't blame me for that metaphor, blame John Oliver. In late April, the Last Week Tonight host worked himself into a hilarious (and entirely warranted) frenzy over Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s mass destruction of the Department of Health and Human Services. Asked about various program cuts on CBS, RFK Jr.'s answered with variations on 'I didn't know that, that's something that we'll look at.' After the fact. Because weighing programs and people on the merits beforehand 'takes too long and you lose political momentum,' the nation's top public health official said. Oliver's take: 'The health secretary should not be learning what he just did like some guy at a bachelor party being told what happened the night before. 'Do you not remember, bro? You spoke French well, then you pissed on a grave, fucked a bike rack, and cut $750,000 of research money for kid diabetes! You went wild!'' A photo of a mohel about to circumcise a baby boy then shows up onscreen. 'The rules for restructuring HHS should be the same as the ones for a bris!' Oliver almost shouts, his arms pumping, his voice rising, his eyes practically popping out of his head. 'It is crucially important to know exactly what you are cutting! Speed is just not the most important thing!' Or, as any seamstress or carpenter would tell you, measure twice, cut once. Join now EVEN BEFORE MUSK BRANDISHED a chainsaw, moved fast and broke much of the government, no one paying even an iota of attention would have expected Trump to be a model (mohel?) of careful consistency. Still, the speed and significance of the reversals has been shocking, and they appear to be standard operating procedure. In other words, we can expect them to continue until Trump exits the White House, whenever that is. One of the first and worst moments came when the Department of Energy discovered it had fired hundreds at the agency that oversees the nuclear weapons stockpile. Oops. And then had trouble finding them to hire them back. Oops again. Cancel foreign student visas? Require in-person Social Security visits? Fire a thousand National Park Service workers? Close more than thirty mine safety offices? Offload seven thousand Internal Revenue Service workers, hobbling its ability to collect taxes? Never mind times five. Court orders played a role in some of these reversals, but many others arose from delusional thinking (about phone fraud running rampant at Social Security, though there was hardly any) or magical thinking (as in, who needs nuclear stockpile safety overseers, or rangers at national parks that fuel local economies, or the people who know how to make sure taxes owed are taxes paid). The breaking point for me was an NPR story (yes, the NPR that's currently on Trump's chopping block) about the National Weather Service. Who knew we needed to know the weather? Not the DOGE crew. Who knew America has a hurricane season? Possibly not the nation's disaster aid chief. Who assumed AI would save the day, not realizing that AI can't function without the data produced by the federal government and its actual human employees? Apparently not Musk's tech bros. Who knew that Americans might want or need weather information outside of business hours? And really, who could have predicted that the NWS would now be hiring to fill in gaps left when five hundred people were fired? Or that many of the applicants will probably be fired probationary employees reapplying for their old jobs? That's what a union official told NPR. I've gotten this far without mentioning TACO, the Trump Always Chickens Out acronym that Financial Times columnist Robert Armstrong coined to describe investment strategy amid Trump's constant tariff flip-flops. Trump hates the phrase, but if the flip-flop fits. . . And it does. Very well. Share TO LONGTIME POLITICAL OBSERVERS, by which I mean those of us so old we remember pre-MAGA times, it seems strange that the constant flip-flops have not ruined, scarred, or even dented Trump. Nothing has, and nothing probably will, as we've seen all too often. In this case, maybe it's because everyone already knows he's so deeply flawed, or because his decisions are so terrible that flipping in a different direction is all to the good. Especially if you're a savvy financial player who buys low every time a Trump-made disaster strikes. Because, TACO. My context here is the 2004 John Kerry presidential campaign, which I covered as a reporter on his bus and plane. Maybe it was a simpler time, or maybe Republicans were simply ruthless in driving home a message, but one unfortunate turn of phrase turned Kerry—a combat veteran—into a 'flip-flopper' who didn't support the troops. It was truly a doozy of a sentence, the classic 'I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it.' 'I had one of those inarticulate moments,' Kerry said. He tried to explain. He wanted the expenditure funded at least in part by rolling back some of George W. Bush's tax cuts. But the phrase conveyed weakness and dithering, and Team Bush made sure it stuck. They even sold Kerry flip-flops at the Republican convention that year. The National Museum of American History owns a pair as part of its collection: It's a safe bet that those anti-Kerry flip-flop shoes will survive the coming cultural culling as Trump tries to remake the Smithsonian museums in the image of MAGA and himself. It's also a safe bet that the museum won't be adding Trump flip-flops in future years. It would be too exhausting to create souvenir flip-flops for every Trump flip-flop—and you'd need an entire museum to house them all. Share this article with a friend or family member, or post it to social media: Share
Fox News
29-05-2025
- Business
- Fox News
CNN host warns Dems must actually 'get rid of some sacred cows' of far-left ideology, not just talk about it
CNN host Abby Phillip warned that if Democrats want to win back voters, they will need to risk offending their consultant class base with concrete policy changes. Since their historic defeat in November, the Democratic Party remains divided about how to move forward. While some Democrats are doubling down on the far-left politics many argue alienated voters, others are calling to abandon so-called "woke" politics. But as the party remains in flux, a rising tide of commentators are challenging such Democrats to actually articulate which far-left policies they will kick to the curb in order to regain the working-class voters they lost. On Tuesday evening, a panel on CNN discussed The New York Times' report claiming that Democrats are spending $20 million on a study called "Speaking with American Men: A Strategic Plan." The study is purportedly a project to "study the syntax, language and content that gains attention and virality in these spaces" of male voters. The panel spoke about how Democrats lack their own equivalent of podcaster Joe Rogan, and how he gradually went from a nonpolitical figure to becoming prominent in the "MAGA universe." CNN media correspondent Hadas Gold said one idea she has seen pitched is a "sleeper" podcast, "where they just they help fund the podcasters, let them do whatever they want, really build up that base, it has nothing to do with politics, and then in a few years, sort of seep into politics," she said, "just like Joe Rogan." However, she argued, such an idea probably wouldn't work. "The only way that that works is through authenticity, and you're not going to make it work by building up these funds and, in any way, being connected to a political party, because the political parties, especially Democrats right now, don't exactly have a good brand people want to be attached to," she said. When Gold praised Arizona Democratic Sen. Ruben Gallego for appealing to authenticity in his rhetorical style, Phillip responded that Democrats need actual substance to their reform. "Okay, but here's the thing. They're going to have to — you alluded to this," Phillip said as she pointed to former Biden White House official Dan Koh, who called to take positions that may offend parts of the party. "They're going to have to get rid of some sacred cows. This is going to be the hard part. Everybody talks about authenticity until the rubber meets the road, and they have to actually take positions that the activist, you know, consultant class base does not want them to take." "I don't think they will," CNN commentator Shermichael Singleton said. "I mean, for Democrats to effectively target men of every color, they are going to have to drastically change some of their positions, especially some of the cultural stuff. I don't think that's going to happen, Dan. I think you guys have moved so far to the left, many — I know you're from the South, Dan, you seem to be more reasonable than most, but for the most part, a lot of you guys don't make room for guys to express their views in an open way about a lot of issues." When Koh was asked what he would do to change the party, he proposed doing a better job of enforcing the border and supporting upward mobility, saying, "These positions aren't popular with a lot of the party, but it's what people are — to the point of putting people where they are, it's where people are, and it's where we need to be as well."
