Mediaboss Marketing

Gregor Wilson has a blunt assessment of the lobby effort that ultimately brought about an overhaul of the Liberal government's Biodiversity Act on Monday.

"The fear mongering around, 'You're not going to be able to hunt or fish or use trails,' I think, was just silly nonsense from [Forest Nova Scotia] and their coalition," he told a virtual meeting of the legislature's law amendments committee.

Wilson was one of more than 40 people who appeared to speak about the bill, and changes Premier Iain Rankin announced last week, the text of which was onlyreleasedat the start of the meeting.

Those changes, which remove all enforcement action, emergency orders and prevent any application on private land without the voluntary invitation of a landowner, followed an aggressive lobby campaign funded by Forest Nova Scotia that galvanized enough landowners against the bill to get the premier's attention and weaken support for it within his own caucus.

When Rankin announced last week that he would be making changes, he said it was in response to concerns that constituents were voicing to members of his caucus.

But Wilson, who lives in Colchester County and owns woodlots there and in Cumberland County, where he also manages about 600 hectares of recreational property on land his family owns that is open to the public, said the language of the lobby campaign didn't mesh with what he was hearing from landowners.

They shared none of the fears being pushed about a government overreach that would dictate how people could use their land, he told MLAs.

"In fact, I expect the act would help protect some of the places I cherish and hold close to my heart," he said.

For all the people who spoke Monday, about half shared Wilson's view and wanted the bill passed in its original form.

More than one person addressed concerns about heavy fines and a potential loss of rights by pointing to the fact that several bills already on the books have similar enforcement power to what the Biodiversity Act originally proposed. It was also noted that people's rights have been curbed by public health legislation to try to protect the province from COVID-19.

"When a person shows up with a full-blown COVID-19 infection, his rights do not extend as far as to allow him to continue to engage out in society, willy-nilly, as he pleases," said Elizabeth Glenn-Copeland.

"To do so would infect tens to hundreds to thousands of other people. Thus, his small right to have his way is eclipsed by the rights of the many."

But while many presenters argued the crisis facing biodiversity is every bit as much of a crisis as the pandemic, if not more so, that demanded a corresponding response, many landowners raised concerns about the bill's enforcement measures creating undue liability for them should someone do something on their land that violates it.

"We personally have borne the legal and financial consequences of the behaviour of other individuals because we cannot police [4,000 hectares] of land and we have no recourse," said Martha Brown, whose family owns and oversees woodlands in the Musquodoboit Valley.

"The scenarios are endless where we and other private landowners just like us are considered culpable under legislation, even if we are not the violators."

Like others, Brown said the government should focus first on addressing problems on Crown land. Using that example, it might be able to eventually earn the trust of private landowners, she said.

Lack of trust was a recurring theme among people who spoke in favour of Rankin's changes. And people on both sides of the issue pointed to the unfairness of only getting the text of the changes the day they were to present.

Others, like Patrick Wiggins, said the government did itself no favours by using vague language and leaving much of the bill's detail to regulations that have yet to be drafted.

"With the help of pre-existing legislation as well as regulations accompanied with a bill like this, we could have had a home run and a real step toward good change," said Wiggins, executive director of the Federation of Nova Scotia Woodlot Owners.

Instead, he said the bill has sewn division within his organization and across the province.

In the end, after nearly 12 hours, Liberal MLAs passed Rankin's changes, which took more than 10 pages out of the 19-page bill. It will now go back to the House for further debate sometime this week.

Go here to see the original:
Liberals amend Biodiversity Act in the face of industry, landowner criticism - CBC.ca

Tony Greaves, Lord Greaves, who has died aged 78, was a stalwart of the Liberal party and then the Liberal Democrats for half a century. Elevated to the peerage in 2000 on Charles Kennedys nomination, he used his position in the Lords to extend his career of community activism and to try to promote a more radical kind of Liberalism in the upper house. While doing so he continued as a member of Pendle borough council in Lancashire, to which he had been elected on its formation in 1973, serving for almost 50 years until his death.

Born in Bradford, Greaves was a Yorkshireman transported to Lancashire by his employment as a teacher of geography and who made his home and his political base in the Pendle district. The son of Geoffrey Greaves, a police driving instructor, and his wife, Moyra (nee Brookes), he went to Queen Elizabeth grammar school in Wakefield as a scholarship boy and traced his interest in politics to the sixth form there, where we debated everything. By the time he arrived at Hertford College, Oxford, he had found himself in tune with Jo Grimonds Liberal party, which he joined in 1961, and went canvassing for the first time in the Liberal victory at the Orpington byelection of 1962.

After gaining a degree in geography at Oxford he took a diploma in economic development at the University of Manchester. From 1969 to 1974 he taught geography at Colne grammar school in Lancashire, but it became clear that his commitment was to politics rather than teaching. In 1971 he was elected both to Lancashire county council and to Colne borough council, which later became Pendle borough council.

Under his local leadership the party and later the Lib Dems controlled Pendle, but his success in local government failed to transfer to parliamentary elections, and he finished third on the three occasions he fought in his home constituency in Nelson & Colne in February and October 1974 and then, after boundary changes, in Pendle in 1983.

Having supported American draft dodgers in the Vietnam war and taken part in the Stop the Seventy Tour campaign against the visit of the apartheid-era South Africa cricket team, Greaves had been elected in 1970 as chair of the national Young Liberal movement. Most of the red guard of radical young Liberals soon moved out of mainstream politics but Greaves stayed.

He had not long been in office when the party leader, Jeremy Thorpe, made the error of trying to force him to withdraw a pro-Palestinian motion from the Young Liberals annual conference agenda. Greaves said no and a standoff between the party hierarchy and the youth section continued for some time, although it was eventually smoothed over at the partys own annual assembly.

From 1974 onwards he made a living from a series of politically oriented jobs, initially surviving on the then meagre attendance allowances as a councillor, plus wages from a number of temporary posts. From 1977 to 1985 he was employed by the Association of Liberal Councillors as its organising secretary, and in that role produced a series of practical handbooks that were well used by the growing numbers of Liberal councillors. He followed this by managing the publishing arm of the party until 1990 and then had stints as a constituency agent while also operating as a secondhand book dealer specialising in Liberal history and theory.

For a five-month period from September 1987 he was a member of the Liberal party team negotiating a merger with the Social Democratic party (SDP), an undertaking that proved to be mentally and physically exhausting. He was unable to accept the final package and resigned from the negotiating team, speaking in vain against the merger of the two parties at the special Liberal party assembly in 1988 in Blackpool. Together with the then chair of the Young Liberals, Rachael Pitchford, he co-wrote a diary of the whole process, published as Merger: The Inside Story, in 1989.

Later on, Greaves joined the Liberal Democrats, although in 1996 he declared that fundamentally I am not a Liberal Democrat for I do not know what it means. He continued his efforts to secure radical Liberal policies, and right up to his death was working on ideas to increase regionalism.

He was well liked by everyone with whom he worked, even though, in the words of one fellow Liberal Democrat peer, he could be uncompromising, argumentative, curmudgeonly and stubborn. He was also mercurial, taking on causes with gusto and then moving on swiftly as a more urgent issue came up. Sometimes this meant that his considerable intellectual and analytical skills were underplayed.

He got away from politics by relaxing with his family, and, until his older years, spent four weeks each year climbing in the French Pyrenees.

He married Heather Baxter in 1968; she was a teacher who shared his political views, had worked briefly in the local government department at Liberal party headquarters, and has been a member of Pendle borough council for more than 20 years. He is survived by Heather, their two daughters, Vicky and Helen, and a grandson, Robin.

Anthony Robert Greaves, politician, born 27 July 1942; died 23 March 2021

See more here:
Lord Greaves obituary - The Guardian

On Jan. 6, the president of the United States, arguing with zero evidence that his reelection was stolen, incited a violent mob to storm the Capitol, where the bravery and wits of outnumbered security officers staved off catastrophe. The same man is still the undisputed leader of one of the United States two main political parties.

The United States convulsions are dramatic but not unique. Liberalisms crises predated Donald Trump and will outlast him in America and around the world. Hungarys Prime Minister Viktor Orban has successfully swapped out independent press, judiciary, civil society, and parliamentary representatives with pliable functionaries of his own. In India, long a marvel of democracy, the Hindu nationalism of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has wreaked violence on the countrys Muslims and taken legislative steps toward undermining their citizenship, while cracking down on journalists and nongovernmental organizations. In all, according to Freedom House, democracy has deteriorated in countries where three-quarters of all humans live this past year.

Many countries hold elections, for surebut without the guarantees of speech, assembly, or religion; the respect of individual dignity in government and law that is the hallmark of liberalism; and its promise of freedom. Liberalisms global recession is real and is not going away.

Like so many people, Ive spent the last years reeling from the illiberalism sweeping the world. Yet the term illiberal is helpful only in a very limited way. It has no positive, affirmative content and is hardly something any group would call itself. It assumes anything non-liberal is a deviation from the norm.

The end of the Cold War made it easy to see things that way. But victory can blind you too, and the Wests seemingly miraculous victory over Soviet communism was as blinding as Israels own victory in the 1967 Six-Day War. Both seemed to settle not only geopolitical disputes but also ideological arguments once and for all. Western-style liberalism was to be the wave of the future, and Israels existence as both a Jewish and democratic state seemed at long last secured.

In Israel, the worlds only Jewish state, one-fifth of the citizens are Arabmostly, though not all, Muslim. It is a vibrant, raucous democracy in a largely undemocratic region; a military and technological power punching well above its weight, wracked by profound economic and social inequalities and burdened by generations of trauma; a state built by settlers who largely saw themselves not as colonizers but as stateless refugees coming home; a Western-style polity engaged in a decades-long occupation.

It has also been moving steadily in the direction of religious nationalism and authoritarian populism. The March 23 election propelled into parliament politicians belonging to the once-fringe Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power) partya far-right group with roots in the late Rabbi Meir Kahanes violent anti-Arab Kach movement that was once described by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee as racist and reprehensible.

The half of the body politic opposed to Netanyahus combative right-wing populism has so far failed to dislodge him. Liberalisms recession in Israel can offer some lessons about liberalisms crises elsewhereand show liberals in different countries that they are in this together and need urgently to learn from one another in order to preserve the ideals and institutions they hold dear.

In his deeply researched and ambitious book Liberalism in Israel: Its History, Problems, and Futures, Tel Aviv Universitys Menachem Mautnera leading Israeli constitutional scholarsensitively and searchingly critiques his own, liberal camp, hoping to rescue it from oblivion. Doing so, he says, means rethinking liberal assumptions not only about law, but also about nationalism, economics, ethnicity, religion, and culture.

In a previous, illuminating work on Israels judiciary, Mautner demonstrated that Israels Supreme Court, under the presidency of Chief Justice Aharon Barak, developed a doctrine of liberal judicial activism going further than his avowed American role model. This was all the more remarkable given that Israel has no written constitution.

It does have a series of awkwardly named Basic Laws, mostly governing basic government structures. But 1992 saw a new one, passed jointly by the Labor and Likud parties: the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. This meta-statute incorporated international human rights principles into Israeli law and defined Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. Barak, in over a decade of remarkable and controversial judicial opinions, used this Basic Law to launch a constitutional revolution. By the time of his retirement, the Supreme Court had final say over vast swaths of parliamentary legislation and governmental policyand it had hordes of new critics.

Mautner views this judicial revolution as the crusade of a once-dominant Labor Party establishment, based on socialist ideals and holding liberal views, to retain some of its steadily vanishing power. Failing to win votes, as new religious and nationalist groups became ascendant and core liberal values declined, the former Labor hegemons as he calls them looked to the courts to save what to them were the foundations of Israeli democracy, and to their critics and rivals symbolized elitist cosmopolitanism. Backlash was not long in coming, culminating in 2018s Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People, in which the word democracy tellingly does not appear.

The vitriol heaped on Israels court is excessive, but the former Labor hegemons religious and nationalist foes were not entirely wrong. Barak and his allies were indeed fighting a culture war against themone with deep, complicated roots.

Israels secular elites had quite deliberately estranged themselves from, and weaned their children off, their own Jewish cultural resources, succumbing to the fate of revolutionaries who give their children an education as different as they can get from their own.

Israels first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and his peers, for all their secularist, socialist rebellion, were deeply tied to Jewish tradition, texts, and history. After independence, they had no trouble making the argument to Religious Zionists and to the non-Zionist ultra-Orthodox both that the Labor Zionist ethos was not only the better defense of Jewish interests but also the better interpretation of its values. The successors of Ben-Gurions generation, however, could not make that argument, if for no other reason than that they no longer shared with their religious interlocutors the same language or the same basic understanding of who they are and what they are doing in their own state.

To the ultra-Orthodox, the enterprise of secular Jewish statehood was a deep assault on tradition, necessitating retreat to an enclave paid for by the state. To the Religious Zionists, the secularists had lost their way, failing to grasp the true meaning of Jewish statehood as the occasion for a new, muscular Judaism, and the fulfillment of Messianic longing. For Sephardic Jews, arguments over secular Jewish nationalism were all very foreign.

The reengagement that Mautner urges, then, isnt a call for Israeli liberals to stop being themselves but to dig more deeply into the histories that made them who they are, see what they can learn, and interpret anew.

Deep, informed dialogue with the best of American political and legal thought is on every page. Yet, Mautner argues, seeking to imitate U.S. democracy isnt the answer. After all, the United States is full of problems: structural economic inequalities, a deeply dysfunctional health care system, high levels of imprisonment, and unending racial injusticeall of which made possible the rise of Trump.

Mautner calls on his comrades on the Israeli left to lay aside American liberalisms brand of rugged individualism in favor of what he calls the liberalism of human flourishing. From this perspective, politics still aims to help individuals flourish independently, but also through meaningful belonging to ethnic, religious, and cultural communities.

Concretely, such a project would mean parting with a form of liberalism modeled on untrammeled American capitalism and looking instead to social democratic models found in Europe. This could mean letting different localities arrange their own religious affairs, resurrecting ideas of civic nationalism as an alternative to ethnic nationalism, working toward a humbler and thus more legitimate judiciary, and finding ways to engage in good faith with religious thinkers and their ideas while still holding fast to fundamental freedoms.

Where in all this, one might ask, is Israels painful conflict with the Palestinians? To Mautner, the absence of robust liberal nationalism is both a cause and effect. In bringing out all of nationalisms evils, the occupation discredits nationalism as a whole, making it that much harder for Israeli liberals to assert the shared national commitments would make Israels broadly nationalist center take them seriously. In other words, if you want to end the occupation, Mautner argues, dont throw out nationalism but make it more liberal (as many early Zionists, including Theodor Herzl, hoped to do).

Mautners argument has lessons for other countries: We live in a world of nation-states that isnt going away anytime soon, not least because the kind of meaningful belonging nationhood provides speaks to deep human needs. By refusing to engage with the worlds of meaning that many people of good will draw from ethnicity, shared history, culture, and religious life, liberals are not helping their cause.

The point isnt to capitulate to the bristling animosities of sectarian or identity politics but to speak clearly about how liberal values are needed if people want to live together, seeking their varied paths of communal, cultural, and religious fulfillment and flourishing, without tearing each other to pieces. This is also true of the state whose own brand of nationhood, it likes to think, is the great exception: the United States of America.

There is a deep paradox at the heart of Americas claim to leadership of the democratic world, and it is tied to American exceptionalism. Its geography as a continent secure from invasion, its multidimensional religious history, and its being a nation of immigrants make its own senses of religion, ethnicity, and nationalism different from those of most every other country. The identities of African Americans, the descendants of people brought in chains, are inextricably intertwined with their having been the victims of the countrys original sin. (That the earlier American original sin, the slaughter and displacement of Native Americans, is not an acute source of discomfort to much of the body politic is because it was so murderously successful.)

The stunning Trumpist resurgence of racist politics in response to, among other things, the presidency of Barack Obama was on display in the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, where Confederate flags were flying and Camp Auschwitz T-shirts were on display.

American liberals need to understand where the United States is exceptional and where it is not. The reckoning with race every American must make is at once very public and very personal. Public, because anti-Black racism that indelibly shaped American democracy for so long. And personal, because every American, no matter when or how their ancestors arrived, has inherited that past and must grapple with its legacies today.

The illiberalism of the right is more obviously violent; the illiberalism of the left is most pronounced in academia and to some extent in journalism. But both share the insidious assumption that we cannot think or feel as humans outside our bloodstreams and that all politics is a zero-sum struggle for power and privilege.

How then can the United States hope to serve as an example to other liberal democracies? The answer is that America can lead only if it is willing to learn.

Something embattled liberals need to understand is that while they may see their opponents as nothing but destructive, that it not at all how they see themselves. Yes, authoritarian populists, hyper-nationalists, and radical religionists are regularly on the attack, but they win adherents not only because they express peoples anger, but also because they offer them a vision of something good. Those visions, deceptive though they can be, speak to profound human needs for connection, community, and commitment that the U.S.-led post-Cold War order of globalized economics and culture simply fails to provide.

That failure is compounded by the very American faith that those who differ from Americas vision of what is good are bound sooner or later to come around. The excesses of Trumpism on the one hand and the Great Awokening on the other show us where those frustrations can lead when liberalism fails to respond.

The end of American exceptionalism, saddening though it may be, is also liberating. Crafting American policies rooted in liberalism at home and abroadwith lucid views of its genuine shortcomings and failures, of how far it reaches and how far it doesntis crucial. Self-professed liberals must also examine what kind of philosophical or theological justification liberalism needs to maintain its own conception of what it means to lead a good life.

Such an effort not only makes good sense but also seeks to reap the rich harvest of differing ideas of how to protect life and libertyfrom the violence of the state, the ravages of the market, the authoritarianism of the clergy, or the monolithic conformism of the tribe. This is liberalisms deepest, abiding good.

See the article here:
In Israel, Liberals Lost. The American Left Should Heed Their Lessons. - Foreign Policy

Of the many executive orders issued on Day One of the Biden administration, those directed at equity have caused perhaps the greatest consternation amongthe presidents critics.

The decrees four of them lay the groundwork for policies that aim to address and eventually undo systemic racism and discrimination in our economy, laws and institutions. Americas promise, the White House says, is out of reach for too many families of color.

Even though the use of the word equity has along pedigree in American politics, today its use and elevation in public policy discussions has set off hand-wringing in some circles that this is the beginning of the end the application of a term withno meaning that is really just a clever shortcut in our nations inevitable march toward socialism.

In practice, achieving equity in America would mean that every person irrespective of zip code, income, race, ethnicity, or occupation has a fair and just opportunity to not just survive, but thrive. In reality, were not even at the end of the beginning of our nations path toward an equitable future.

During my tenure as commissioner of Chicagos Department of Public Health, efforts to achieve equity were not political maneuvers meant to give to one or take from another. My colleagues and I saw our work as integral to the long-term goal of ensuring that every person in Chicago had a fair and just opportunity to not just survive, but thrive. Health is about so much more than health care. A healthy neighborhood is one that is a genuine community, safe and walkable. Its a place with stable housing, access to fresh foods and public transportation. Its a place where a child can get a quality education, play in parks and read in libraries. We aspired to bring this form of equity to every child in Chicago and we should work together to achieve equity for every child in America.

Simply defined, equity is about fairness, which is among the most subjective words in the English language. However, we can objectively examine other measures theunemployment rate,household wealth,life expectancy, educational attainment that reflect the barriers centuries in the making that have harmed communities of color, in particular. Even so, equity is not a liberal or conservative concept that needs to be tethered to one party. Issues of inequity can plague people in rural America and urban dwellers alike a lack of broadband access, hospital deserts, a dearth of public transportation, food insecurity and underfunded schools are plagues unrestrained by politics or party. Individuals can suffer the effects of inequity because of economics, education, long-festering discrimination, or some other barrier like geography. In rural counties in the center of the country, for instance, a shortage of pharmacies is hampering the distribution of COVID-19 vaccine, potentially extending the pandemic in these communities. In addition, decisions not to expand access to Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act stand to exacerbate health care inequities in the dozen holdout states. In Georgia, Wisconsin and many states in between, peoples access to health care is limited simply because of where they live.

The reason we need policies at all levels that consider equity across sectors from education to health care to transportation to law and justice is because issues of equity can be like dominoes in a persons life. Im a pediatrician. I know that if a mother does not have access to prenatal care, her child stands to have a worse outcome at birth. And if that same child is born into a neighborhood with high crime rates and old homes slathered in lead paint, that childs chances are diminished further. And if that childs school doesnt have the resources to provide a good education and during this pandemic, online learning that child will be unlikely to grow up to find a stable job with good benefits. This all ultimately will impact how long that child will live and the dominoes of that life and other children with similar challenges and barriers in that neighborhood will continue to fall in familiar and predictable patterns.

The connections are clear to see, but only if were willing to look. Take the issue of safe streets and housing. The city of Chicago has been a convenient foil for gun rights groups who battle regulation by citing the carnage in my home city. These arguments tend to focus narrowly on gun violence while conveniently ignoring the many root causes. But that gun violence is the toppling of one more domino, often the end piece in a chain of inequities that began with redlining, forced segregation and other forms of embedded discrimination in housing that have long-term impacts on health and well being. Chicagos South and West Sides are disproportionately affected by gun violence and these neighborhoods also have not seen the investments in resources common in other parts of the city. These inequities show up in gun violence statistics, housing instability and inthe disproportionate impact of COVID on people of color weve seen in Chicago and across the U.S. throughout the pandemic.

Public health outcomes are not just about the choices an individual makes, but the choices available to people in any community. Importantly, equitable policies serve all people, including those who have benefited from our current system. As we have found during the pandemic, we are interconnected, and a communitys health and well being cannot and should not be sequestered by neighborhoods.

In our politics today, language is often weaponized in an attempt to end the discussion, blunt any policy changes and too often to maintain the status quo. This is done to inflame rather than illuminate the issues. We cannot let this happen with the word equity or the concept of a more equitable nation. We need health equity in America in the same way that we need clean water, nutritious foods, safe streets and good schools. We need these basic necessities in the reddest counties in Utah and in the bluest neighborhoods of Chicago.

Equity, properly understood, is a bridge to a better future for all Americans.

Julie Morita is executive vice president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and served on President BidenJoe BidenSupreme Court will hear Boston bomber's death case if the Biden administration lets it The Hill's Morning Report - Biden tasks Harris on border; news conference today Democrats face questions over agenda MOREs COVID-19 Advisory Board during the transition. She was formerly a medical director, the chief medical officer and then commissioner for the Chicago Department of Public Health. Follow her on Twitter: @DrJulieMorita.

See the article here:
Conservatives and liberals should rally around equity | TheHill - The Hill

We continued to struggle after the outbreak.

We didnt read the room on state borders.

We flip-flopped in response to the backlash.

We barely produced strong policies with widespread appeal.

Nor did the parliamentary party adopt the multitude of policies submitted by its rank-and-file membership.

When the election came around, it was left scrambling for policies.

Loading

By the time policies on the run began being announced, that was done through a fairly centralised process.

And by that stage, voters had stopped listening to us.

That green energy policy was an interesting experiment.

It was rushed through without any consultation with the wider party.

Energy policy remains the single most divisive force in Australian politics.

Who could forget the backlash and leadership spills on both sides of federal politics over the Emissions Trading Scheme, the Carbon and Mining Taxes, and the National Energy Guarantee.

Proposing that particular policy at the 11th hour was never going to swing any new votes.

On the flipside, it was always going to cost us existing votes from our traditional support base.

There has been no shortage of diagnosis since election day.

Whats needed now is the cure.

My prescription presents a simple first step: grassroots policy development.

The Liberal Party is lucky that its membership base is made up of so many successful individuals.

They bring to the table their own unique life experiences and industry-specific knowledge from different professions.

With the parliamentary party now reduced to fewer members than a cricket team, there is no alternative other than to draw on the wisdom of the rank-and-file membership to develop good policies.

There will be no state preselections for a couple of years.

But there will be sitting weeks in State Parliament.

And guess what? The partys performance will ultimately be judged on the alternative policies we can offer West Australians.

Besides, the whole point of preselections is to have candidates advocate for policies based on Liberal values.

If were struggling on that front, then whose portrait we chuck on a Liberal Party poster becomes irrelevant.

Loading

If personalities mattered more than policies, youd think that changing leaders wouldve done the trick. It didnt.

Lets fix the policy development process first.

We cant go on hiding behind the clichs of the electoral cycle and unprecedented political environment to downplay our responsibilities.

Using this election result as an excuse to lash out at others also achieves nothing.

It only distracts us from rebuilding ourselves in the image of the We Believe statement that is read out before every state council meeting.

Lets start practising what we preach.

What has been outlined here is fairly straight-forward.

Theres no reason why it cant be actioned right away.

Its only through grassroots policies based on Liberal values that we will succeed in regaining the confidence of those we left behind on March 13, 2021.

Its time to bring back our volunteers, our supporters and our voters.

By-elections happen at unexpected times. Imagine if there was one around the corner.

In the fond memories of Darling Range, we must be ready to win.

The road to recrimination and revenge leads to a dead end.

Its the road to redemption and reform that will make the WA Liberal Party great again. Lets get to work.

Dr Sherry Sufi is Chairman of the WA Liberal Partys Policy Committee. He is an Adjunct Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs. His PhD was on language and nationalism. The opinions expressed here are his own.

Excerpt from:
Path ahead for WA Liberals could lead to reform or revenge the choice is the partys - WAtoday