Archive for the ‘Liberals’ Category

Liberals’ Bridget Archer set to retain Bass, as Tasmanian MPs Andrew Wilkie, Gavin Pearce and Julie Collins all returned – ABC News

Liberal MP Bridget Archer looks set to becomethe first politician to win re-election in the seat of Bass in 20 years, as the electorate of Lyons remains far too close to call.

Ms Archer held the northern Tasmanian electorate, known as the nation's "ejector seat", by a razor-thin 0.4 per cent margin before this weekend's election.

The ABC projects she will buckthat label and defeatLabor candidate Ross Hart, with the former George Town mayor on track to extend her margin.

Ms Archer said she was feeling "overwhelmed, quite emotional and really proud" following the campaign.

"I've been really privileged to represent the people of Bass through a really difficult time and to support them through that, and I just feel so humbled that they have offered me the opportunity to continue to do that," she said.

"My commitment to the people of Bass is that I will continue to act in their best interests, that I'll continue to be that genuine and authentic person.

"I'm a bit too real sometimes, I have brought all of my vulnerability to this role.It's been very challenging for me and at times I've wondered if I'm up to the task, but I hope that from doing that that it gives comfort and courage to other people and they can see themselves reflected."

Ms Archer said it was too early to speculate on what had cost the Coalition the election but said she would be fighting "tooth and nail" to hold the Labor Party accountable as it forms either majority or minority government.

Ms Archer is one of four Tasmanian MPs set to retain their seats, with Franklin, Clark and Braddon all called by the ABC's Antony Green.

But the fifth seat the sprawling electorate of Lyons remains too close to call, with Labor MP Brian Mitchell locked in a tense battle with Liberal councillor Susie Bower.

The ABC's projection has Brian Mitchell marginally ahead of the Meander Valley councillorwith 70 per cent of the vote counted.

Follow all the post-election action as vote counting continues

Liberal Gavin Pearce has retained Braddon,increasing his margin in the north-west Tasmanian seat which was previously considered marginal.

The beef farmer and former Wynyard RSL president first won the seat in 2019, dethroning Labor's Justine Keay and this time around defeated Labor candidate Chris Lynch.

Mr Pearce believed voters rewarded him for his hard work on their behalf, saying sincebeing first elected, unemployment had dropped and more jobs had been created.

"Finally we've turned the corner and you know I've worked damn hard to make sure that's happened, and they recognise hard work, certainly when they see it here in Braddon," Mr Pearce said.

Mr Pearce said he would call on his experience in the defence force when dealing with the new Labor government.

"Certainly when it comes to the rough and tumble of negotiating, you know you get a couple of hundred soldiers under your command and I tell you what, they try you out from time to time as well."

"I'll be a loud voice for the region, they know that."

Loading

Independent Andrew Wilkie has been re-elected in the Hobart-based seat of Clark on a comfortable margin.

MrWilkie has held the seat, formerly called Denison, since 2010.

He stayed clear of his election night supporters' party due to being in COVID isolation.

Mr Wilkie, who joined his celebrations via video link after testing positive to COVID-19, said he was delighted to secure a fifth term.

"Elections are a wonderful celebration of democracy and to have secured a fifth term is tremendous validation that my consistent calls for greater fairness and action on many key issues have resonated in the greater Hobart community," he said.

"I will continue to work hard to honour the trust the community has placed in me and will never take it for granted."

The southern Tasmanian seat of Franklin has been called for Labor's Julie Collins.

It is Labor's 11th straight victory in the seat, which has been held by Ms Collins since 2007.

In the Senate, where 43.6 per cent of the vote has been counted, the ABC projects that Jacqui Lambie Network candidate Tammy Tyrell is on a path to be elected.

She would be the only new Tasmanian addition to the Senate under those projections, at the expense of long-serving Liberal senator Eric Abetz who was relegated to the third spot on the Liberal ticket.

Ms Tyrell has received 56 per cent of a quota, with the Liberal Party on track for 2.15quotas, only enough to re-elect Jonathon Duniam and Wendy Askew.

The Greens' Peter Whish-Wilson and the ALP's Anne Urquhart have also been re-elected.

Labor's Helen Polley (the party has 1.88 quotas) is considered likely to be re-elected.

Ms Tyrell said she would be watching the remainder of the count closely.

"It would be like Christmas day, it would be like that 16th birthday where you get the present and you go like 'Yes! Mum has come through' but being able to speak for Tasmanian voices in their tone and giving their message would be amazing," she said.

Loading form...

Posted21 May 202221 May 2022Sat 21 May 2022 at 9:45am, updatedYesterday at 12:59amSun 22 May 2022 at 12:59am

See the article here:
Liberals' Bridget Archer set to retain Bass, as Tasmanian MPs Andrew Wilkie, Gavin Pearce and Julie Collins all returned - ABC News

Kean urges Liberals to stand up on climate – Victor Harbor Times

NSW minister and leading Liberal Party moderate Matt Kean says the party needs to rebuild after the devastating federal election loss by listening to the community on issues like climate, integrity and women.

The NSW treasurer says the party needs to "get back to the drawing board" after both major parties lost ground to candidates who were advocating for decisive action on climate change, for an integrity agency and women's issues.

Right winger Peter Dutton is being touted as the frontrunner to replace Scott Morrison but Mr Kean declined to say who was the best candidate to lead the party forward.

"That's not a matter for me. It's a matter of the federal party room," Mr Kean told ABC TV on Monday.

"But what I will say is that we need a leader who is going to be able to set a new path for the Liberal Party."

There was no one person to blame for the defeat but the party needed to take ownership of the result and first and foremost improve on the party's target to deliver net zero emissions by 2050.

"I think that we need to have a strong and decisive 2030 target," Mr Kean said.

"What we saw is that after the bushfires, after the floods, after the drought, that the community are seeing climate change for what it is - a generation imperative that needs strong and decisive action," he said.

Last year the NSW government announced its goal to slash emissions by 50 per cent by 2030 on its way to zero emissions by 2050.

"We need to make sure that we're putting forward policies that will see us take climate change seriously.

""We need to listen to the community and we need to respond accordingly," he said.

"The middle ground is wanting the major parties to stand up and speak out on the issues that concern them," he said.

Australian Associated Press

View original post here:
Kean urges Liberals to stand up on climate - Victor Harbor Times

Where Have All the Liberals Gone? – The New York Times

Liberalism, then, has been spectacularly hypocritical though Fukuyama, for one, is unimpressed with the charge, arguing that this leftist critique fails to show how the doctrine is wrong in its essence. The historian Caroline Elkins might beg to disagree. In Legacy of Violence, her recent book about the British Empire, she argues that ideological elasticity was in fact what made liberal imperialism so resilient. She shows how Britains vast apparatus of laws was used to legitimize the violence of its civilizing mission. What Fukuyama repeatedly refers to as liberalisms essence has also, Elkins suggests, amounted to a paradox: emancipation and oppression, all rolled in one.

But such tensions are less interesting to liberalisms conservative critics, who think that its rotten all the way down. As Matthew Rose puts it in A World After Liberalism, the radical right has long deemed it evil in principle because it destroys the foundations of social order. The 20th-century extremist thinkers he discusses in his book among them a fascist savant and a right-wing Marxist derided Christianity, too, for an egalitarianism and compassion that they just couldnt abide. Still, their critiques have found echoes in contemporary arguments by right-wing Christians like Sohrab Ahmari and Patrick Deneen, who blame liberalism for making people comfort-seeking and spiritually lazy.

Liberal decadence doesnt amount just to temptation but to tyranny or so you might believe when reading liberalisms most vociferous detractors on the right, whose sweeping denunciations can make it sound as if theres a liberal regime coercing women into pursuing careers and forcing them to get abortions. Its notable how little liberalisms book-length defenders have to say about sexual and reproductive rights, while conservative critics have long been fixated on them. Gopnik did warn that if the anti-abortion movement truly meant business, it would have to create some sort of invasive pregnancy police force. He didnt foresee that Texas would soon figure out a way to do something even more extreme by putting that power in the hands of civilians a vigilante-enforced ban on abortion, on the cheap.

Theres an old essay by the feminist cultural critic Ellen Willis in which she said that sophisticated liberals seemed so emotionally intimidated by the anti-abortion movement that they didnt quite know how to talk about it: Nearly everyone I know supports legal abortion in principle, but hardly anyone takes the issue seriously. Willis wrote this in 1980, calling the anti-abortion movement the most dangerous political force in the country, one that posed a threat not only to sexual freedom and privacy but also to physical autonomy and civil liberties in general.

Willis pointed to liberalisms weaknesses while also identifying the room it had opened up for liberation. She had gotten her start as a rock critic, a woman in a male-dominated field, ever aware of the possibilities and limitations afforded by the mainstream culture. The late philosopher Charles Mills was similarly attuned to such discrepancies. In books like The Racial Contract and Black Rights/White Wrongs, he offered scathing critiques of a racialized liberalism that kept trying to pretend it was colorblind; Mills argued that liberalisms exclusions were historically so vast that they werent mere anomalies but clearly fundamental to it.

Still, as he told The Nation in early 2021, liberalism is attractive on both principled and strategic grounds. Mills envisioned a liberalism that was tougher and more radical, yet imbued with some necessary humility a sense of how contingent it was. It was precisely the experience of subordination and exclusion that made him alert to what many liberals didnt want to see. He ended an essay for Artforum in 2018 with a warning: As the anti-Enlightenment bears down on us, threatening a new Dark Age, just remember: We told you so (and long ago, too).

Go here to read the rest:
Where Have All the Liberals Gone? - The New York Times

Liberals Should Be Worried About the Conservative Comedy Scene – POLITICO

For the past three years, Matt Sienkiewicz, an associate professor of communication and international studies at Boston College, and Nick Marx, an associate professor of film and media studies at Colorado State University, have immersed themselves in the world of conservative comedy. The findings of their inquiry, which they detail in their new book, Thats Not Funny: How the Right Makes Comedy Work for Them, might come as a surprise to devotees of the Daily Show: Conservative humorists arent merely catching up to their liberal counterparts in terms of reach and popularity. Theyve already caught them and, in some cases, surpassed them, even as the liberal mainstream has continued to write conservative comedy off as a contradiction in terms.

[Liberals] are ceding ideological territory in the culture wars to the right via comedy, Marx told me, noting that once-beloved liberal comedians like Stewart are struggling to find their footing in the treacherous landscape of post-Trump humor. This thing that we thought we have owned for the last 20 years has been leaking, and the borders are slowly getting shifted.

The growth of the conservative comedy industry isnt just important in the context of the culture war. According to Sienkiewicz and Marx, conservatives are also using comedy to bring new voters into the conservative coalition and build ideological cohesion among existing right-leaning constituencies. In other words, the lefts unwavering belief in its comedic monopoly isnt just wrong its also bad political strategy.

Our project was to kind of shake fellow liberals and academics by the shirt collar and say, Youre missing this, youre misdefining [comedy] on purpose, or youre burying your head in the sand, Marx said. This is a politically powerful, economically profitable thing that we might [want to] pay attention to.

This transcript has been edited for length and clarity.

Ian Ward: I suspect that some readers will share my first reaction to a book about conservative comedy, which is, There is conservative comedy? Could you sketch the landscape of conservative comedy and identify some of its major figures?

Matt Sienkiewicz: It took quite a while for the conservative comedy world to find that what we call the big box store, the tentpole, the thing that announced that conservative comedy was part of the American landscape and [Foxs] Greg Gutfeld was ultimately the answer to that. Then [there are] older-school, right-wing comedians, people like Dennis Miller, or Tim Allen. Theyre less overtly political, and theyre more conservative in cultural feel people like Bill Burr, for example, who want to play off a kind of grumpy old man conservativism as part of their comedy.

And then there are newer and sometimes very popular and very powerful offshoots [in] the world of podcasting, which has a very large libertarian zone to it. We compare it to the kind of drunken bar district of the conservative comedy complex: Youve got a character like Joe Rogan, whose own ideology is a little bit murky, but who certainly gives space and voice to very right-leaning and very libertarian-oriented comedians. And [theres] the world of religious or religious-inflected comedy so the Babylon Bee, which started off entirely as a conservative Christian outlet, and we talk about the ways in which Ben Shapiro tries to pull comedy into his politics to differentiate his brand from the old school National Review kind of conservativism. And then we talk about the really ugly stuff [on] the far right. Were talking about people who sort of think Nazi is a good term for themselves.

Ward: When liberals do come across instances of conservative political humor, the most common response is, Thats not funny. That kind of humor isnt eliciting a lot of laughs from liberal audiences. But what are those liberal audiences missing about conservative comedy when they dismiss it offhand?

Nick Marx: This has a couple of aspects to it. Because were scholars, we first noticed a tendency among our brethren over the last 20 years or so to celebrate Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert or Samantha Bee the sort of progressive wing of political satire. [Academics] are getting advancement through their careers by saying, This stuff is good comedy. The other stuff that doesnt align with my political affiliations isnt comedy its something else, its outrage programming. And this is being echoed in popular discourse through articles in major daily newspapers and magazine articles with headlines like, Why dont conservatives like to laugh? or Searching for the conservative Jon Stewart. It was almost a self-fulling [prophecy]: Because there was no proof of a successful right-wing Daily Show, that must mean that 40 percent of the country must not like comedy and must not like to laugh.

The most glaring example of this is the failure of the 2007 Fox News show, The Hour News Hour, which briefly ran toward the end of the [George] W. Bush administration. It was a very clumsy rip-off of The Daily Show. It failed for a whole host of reasons, but scholars as recently as 2020 and 2021 were still citing it as evidence that conservatives cant do comedy. So our project was to kind of shake fellow liberals and academics by the shirt collar and say, Youre missing this, youre misdefining [comedy] on purpose, or youre burying your head in the sand. This is a politically powerful, economically profitable thing that we might [want to] pay attention to.

Ward: Could you give a sense of the scale of the reach of these programs? You mentioned, Greg Gutfeld how big is his audience?

Marx: He landed with his week-nightly show with quite a splash just about a year ago. And as soon as he did, he was routinely beating competitors in the late-night talk show space not only the ones on Comedy Central that youd expect like The Daily Show, but also and sometimes often [Stephen] Colbert, James Corden, Jimmy Fallon. Im looking at the most recent numbers from the fourth quarter of 2021, and at end of the year, he was routinely averaging more than 2 million viewers per day on his show. This is on par and indeed surpassing the broadcast network late-night shows.

Ward: What are liberals signaling about their worldview when they call this sort of established conservative humor not funny?

Sienkiewicz: When you dont like something, and maybe you dont find it personally funny or maybe you do, but you feel bad about that there are different ways to respond. One is to simply say, Thats not funny as a way to dismiss it or a way to castigate yourself for laughing at something that you think is immoral. But more often, [liberals] are saying, You shouldnt find it funny that there is a moral problem or maybe a political problem with finding it funny.

And on the one hand, we can sort of understand that impulse. On the other hand, is that really what funny means? And if theres this whole suite of people who have a different political and moral compass, thats not going to apply at all.

Ward: What impact did Trump have on right-wing comedy?

Marx: It is undeniable that [Trumps] presence as a TV star and as the host of the hit reality TV show conditioned audiences to view him favorably and contributed to name recognition. And perhaps just as obviously, he had stage timing. He was a performer who knew how to work a live crowd. Sometimes that could veer overly into stand-up schtick: He would do crowd work. He would pinpoint journalists in the back and turn the crowd on them. He would joke, he could go off the cuff and go off the teleprompter quite often in his comedic speeches.

But liberals being unwilling to acknowledge conservative comedy because it tends to punch down is something Trump is the sort of exemplar of. Going after a disabled reporter, going after migrants trying to cross into the United States over and over again, he took as his targets and often as his punchline folks who are in positions of social, cultural and economic marginalization. And so we see a lot of that means-spiritedness across much of right-wing comedy. The casual dabbling in racism, the free license to go after folks who would maybe be a little more protected by mainstream centrist and liberal comedy institutions that I think is a tone set most prominently by Trump.

Ward: In many respects, right-wing comedy reflects the ideological diversity of the conservative coalition more broadly. You have free-market libertarians and traditional social conservatives together with paleoconservatives and right-wing, neo-fascist ultra-nationalists. How does conservative comedy help keep this coalition together?

Sienkiewicz: Youll have the podcast of the Babylon Bee, which is this conservative Christian show, and theyll bring on atheist libertarians. And you say, What on earth are they going to agree about? Their worldviews are totally opposed. And mostly it is finding a common enemy. [The target] could be just the liberals, or it could be the Democrats, [or] empowered Democrats. It could be Joe Biden. It could be AOC a very common target. As much as anything, its finding empowered people that they can both attack from their two angles.

Thats how they build their business models. They bring on guests from other parts of the right-wing comedy complex as guests on their shows or sometimes the algorithms do that for them [through] recommendations attach[ing] one to the other and through the chain of comedy, people can find their place in the coalition, regardless of where they enter.

Ward: What does the growth of the right-wing comedy complex indicate about the trajectory of the American right more broadly?

Sienkiewicz: The American right has found a means of adapting to new media environments and new cultural environments. Theyve embraced fully this Breitbartian notion of politics being downstream from culture, and whether or not it has succeeded fully, it shows that that product has been accepted. That is an approach that is going to define the American right: not just culture wars in terms of the old way of blaming rap music, but [in the sense of] making your own assertive culture that aims to flow into your politics over time. Even if its still small in comparison to the cultural influence of more liberal figures, the fact that [right-wing comedy] is growing and that it exists shows that the project can work.

Ward: One of the driving forces of the culture war on the right is the sense that liberals have a monopoly on all of the sites of cultural production: Liberals have Hollywood, liberals have comedy, liberals have the academy, liberals have publishing, liberals have art. And the ironic thing is that in the comedy space, at least, liberals seem to believe that, too even though its not true.

Marx: [Liberals] are ceding ideological territory in the culture wars to the rights via comedy. This thing that we thought we have owned for the last 20 years has been leaking and the borders are slowly getting shifted the more that you get a Gutfeld encroaching into the late-night space or a figure like Rogan who is poaching [viewers]. But theres this tendency [among liberals] to tell ourselves, Thats not comedy.

Ward: Today, youre almost as likely to hear conservatives accuse liberal comedians of being overly preoccupied with speech norms and political correctness as you are to hear liberals accusing conservative humorists of being grouchy and retrograde. Are the tables turning in the sense that liberals comedians are now the ones having to defend themselves against accusations of un-funniness?

Sienkiewicz: Certainly in the discourse and in the way that we talk about it. Whether or not its true is another issue. I think that there is a certain level of censoriousness and risk aversion in liberal spaces. Its not like a Footloose, you-cant-dance kind of banning of expression in some sort of literal religious way. But certainly we need to be aware of self-censorship and risk aversion in liberal spaces in a way that the right used to be very concerned with and seems much less so now.

Ward: Is there a lesson in the rise of conservative comedy for liberal humorists and for liberals more generally?

Marx: The right is very good at overcoming their intramural disagreements on partisan issues to unite behind a common enemy. The left coalition is a lot bigger and more diverse, so there are going to be a lot more sort of disagreements among that coalition. But I think theres a lesson to be learned from the right that comedy can still be a binding agent, that it can be unifying. It neednt be something that we use to draw boundaries among ourselves on the left.

Ward: Wasnt Trump the common enemy for left-wing comedians?

Marx: I think the short answer to that is yes that we spent the majority of our political energy just trying to get rid of Trump. At the level of the culture industries, though the people who make movies, TV shows, comedy I think theres still a good bit of disparity among, say, far-left Chapo Traphouse types as contrasted with the more mainstream Stephen Colbert types, who are willing to have Kamala Harris on as presidential nominee and not give her the business in the way that somebody further on the socialist left might do it. I think various factions of the left would say, The enemy is both Trump and these other leftists that I dont like because theyre fake leftists, theyre corporate leftists. I dont see that same impulse [in right-wing comedy], to say, The enemy is both the libs and this version of right-wing thought that I dont agree with.

The other aspect is that were urging cultural figures [on the left] to take seriously comedys transgressive and exploratory potential, and not to view it as something that is a policing mechanism not to use it to point to something that somebody did wrong, but maybe to something that somebodys doing thats new and exciting and adventurous. I think we both feel like we [on the left] have downplayed that impulse of late in favor of making sure were doing the right things culturally you know, Because the Bad Orange Man was in office, were politically impotent for those four years, so lets make sure we get culture right. So we get The Good Place, and we get all of the correct people on TV making the correct jokes because that makes us feel better. I think we lose a little bit of that edginess that were now seeing so vibrantly, for better or for worse, on the right.

Ward: Is there a political benefit to making left-leaning comedy edgier?

Sienkiewicz: I do think theres a tremendous thirst for edge and for things that are perceived as edgy. And Im not a political scientist, so Ill be a little careful, but I think thats where a lot of the independent, younger, very powerful vote is. And whether or not its true doesnt matter so much as the perception: If it is perceived that you are going to have more fun and be less subject to [scrutiny about] laughing at the correct things on the right than on the left, well, which party do you want to attend if youre not deeply ideological?

Theres a careful line there. There are still ethical implications to truly hateful comments, and Im not defending that. But yes, I think that if theres even the perception of being able to be adventurous and laugh and not get worried about what happens to you because you laugh if that is perceived to be a strength on the right, then its by definition a deficiency on the left. And do I think that could swing elections local and national? I do.

Read the original post:
Liberals Should Be Worried About the Conservative Comedy Scene - POLITICO

Ontario Liberals accuse PCs of favouring own party in government appointments – Global News

The Ontario Liberals and PCs are locked in a war of words over appointments to public roles after a Liberal campaign event called out the Conservative gravy train at Queens Park.

At an announcement Sunday morning, Ontario Liberal candidate Mitzie Hunter said that 40 per cent of 2018 PC candidates that did not win their seats were given patronage appointments by the PC government.

The Liberals said they had identified 16 of the 41 defeated candidates who were given roles in the PC government.

Doug Fords gravy train never stopped it just kept chugging along, Hunter said.

The list of candidates with appointments shared by the Liberals included a range of roles some with salaries worth more than $100,000 and others with per diem payments of less than $200.

Story continues below advertisement

Cameron Montgomery, who ran for the PCs in Orlans, was on the list. He was appointed as chair of the Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) Board of Directors in 2019, a controversial appointment at the time.

Three former candidates held roles within government ministries working for PC ministers, while five held board seats at places like the Ontario Trillium Foundation or the Ontario Science Centre, according to the Ontario Liberals research.

Others received per diem from the government for their roles.

Neither Doug Ford or Steven Del Duca, the two party leaders, have public events scheduled for Sunday.

Governments appoint thousands of people to positions across the province there are a lot of positions that need to be filled by governments, Tim Abray, a PhD candidate and teaching fellow at Queens University told Global News.

Trending Stories

Abray noted that the sixteen positions in question represent a small portion of what a government would typically hire, and while the practice of patronage hires is not desirable, its commonplace in political settings as long as its not abused.

It is extremely normal behaviour for partisan political parties to choose people they know and trust to fill public positions.

Moreover, Abray criticized all the parties for the constant mudslinging and that they should focus on the policies they can bring to the table to enhance Ontarians lives.

Story continues below advertisement

There are much bigger fish to fry in this campaign, and in many ways, I think this going to trivialize the issue and disillusion people further that the people up for election arent paying election to the most salient issues, he said.

The PCs have hit back, saying the Liberals were trying to distract from their failure to recruit a full slate of candidates.

Hunter did not explain how a Liberal government if elected would ensure roles were not given to people loyal to the party. She said the Liberals believe in transparency and governance and the party appointed people from across the political spectrum while in power.

She estimated that two former Liberal candidates had been handed patronage roles.

However, a 2016 press release from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation recirculated by the PCs said that nine per cent of federal and provincial Liberal candidates who failed, retired, or subsequently won an election between 2007 and 2016 were given an appointment.

Hunter made several references to the resignation of Dean French, who served as Doug Fords chief of staff at the beginning of his term as premier. French resigned after it was reported that two appointments to work for the Ontario government as agents in New York and London, U.K., were linked to him.

Story continues below advertisement

Tyler Albrecht, a friend of Frenchs son, was appointed to a posting in New York, while Taylor Shields, a cousin of Frenchs wife, was appointed to a posting in London, U.K.

Mr. French informed the Premier that he will be returning to the private sector after a successful first year of government, as he had always planned, a spokesperson said at the time.

With files from Global News Ahmar Khan

2022 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

Excerpt from:
Ontario Liberals accuse PCs of favouring own party in government appointments - Global News