Mediaboss Marketing

Updated June 30, 2017 14:38:11

Liberals in Victoria claim the party's religious right is stacking branches with Mormons and Catholic groups in a drive to pre-select more conservative candidates.

It comes amid a heated debate in the New South Wales division over whether to adopt a Victorian-style "plebiscite" model to empower branch members.

Currently, candidates in NSW are chosen by a mix of branch representatives and party officials, a system critics claim is run by "factional warlords".

The Victorian model, introduced in 2008, allows party members of two years standing to vote in Lower House pre-selections in their electorates.

Sources have told the ABC the Victorian system is more open and democratic and has seen talented MPs including Josh Frydenberg, Kelly O'Dwyer and Dan Tehan win pre-selection.

Others claim it has also encouraged rampant branch-stacking.

Members of the party's executive have been accused of "actively recruiting" Mormons and conservative Catholics to branches across Victoria, which some fear could eventually lead to more conservative candidates winning pre-selection.

While the Liberals prides themselves on being a broad church, the ABC has been told the recruits are often motivated by "single issues" like same-sex marriage or euthanasia.

There are concerns this is distorting the values of the Liberal Party, which is shifting towards the right, but others argue it is part of a broad recruitment drive aimed at arresting a serious decline in membership numbers.

Victorian State Executive member Marcus Baastian said the party has been targeting business groups, young professionals and different cultural groups as well as religious organisations.

He hit back at claims the party was "swinging to the right", saying the accusation was designed to undermine efforts to modernise the state division.

"Recruitment in Victoria has delivered fantastic results in lowering our average age, increasing our party membership and ensuring we have campaigners on the ground in our marginal seats to help out candidates at election time," he told the ABC.

The battle over plebiscite pre-selections in NSW will come to a head at next month's "futures convention" where delegates will debate Tony Abbott's push to adopt a plebiscite or "one member, one vote" model.

Mr Bastiaan, who is considered a controversial figure in the party, is firmly behind Mr Abbott's push and has told the NSW division its duty was "to be relevant, forward footed and ensure it is a membership organisation that respects the very people who vote for it".

In a video to members attending a pre-convention event in Sydney tomorrow, he warned: "Without a strong New South Wales, we cannot win and hold Government."

Those pushing for change in NSW point to the Liberal's dwindling membership and narrow support base, arguing that giving people a say will revive the party.

But, for many, this is also a battle for control between a divided right faction and a dominant left.

The NSW State Council last year rejected Mr Abbott's motion to change the preselection process and voted in favour of a one put by Mr Turnbull and NSW Premier Mike Baird to debate the issue and broader party reforms at this year's futures convention.

Anyone will be able to attend and some party members have told the ABC they fear it will be ambushed by Mr Abbott's hard-right loyalists whose ultimate goal is to damage Malcolm Turnbull.

The Prime Minister supports plebiscites in principle, but the left faction to which he is aligned has been campaigning against it, fearing it could open the door to branch stacking in the state.

According to Mr Abbott, change to the NSW Liberal Party is "unstoppable" and most now concede that is the case.

"Nobody wants to leave that conference with the same system we have now"," a NSW Liberal source said.

"There has got to be change."

Topics: liberals, government-and-politics, federal---state-issues, federal-government, political-parties, community-and-society, religion-and-beliefs, australia, nsw, vic

First posted June 30, 2017 14:29:49

Original post:
Victorian Liberals claim right faction stacking branches with Mormons and Catholics - ABC Online

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

As someone who voted for Barack Obama twice, supported the Affordable Care Act, and could be persuaded to vote for the right kind of single-payer system, I've found the entire health-care debate over the past several months deeply depressing. That's no doubt why my first instinct was to cheer when reading a recent rant against the right from an editor at The Huffington Post.

The transparently titled opinion column, "I Don't Know How to Explain to You That You Should Care About Other People," is a perfect expression of our political moment in its utter exasperation at those on the other side of a policy debate, but even more so in how it casts these partisan opponents as moral monsters with whom communication, let alone persuasion, is simply impossible.

I admit that it does often feel that way these days, especially when it comes to the House and Senate bills to remake the nation's health-care system, since so much of the discussion has been conducted by Republicans in undeniable bad faith with bills primarily designed to cut or eliminate taxes dishonestly described by leaders in Congress, as well as the president, as efforts to make health care more affordable. (The tax cuts ensure that health care would in fact become much less affordable for millions of people.)

But the instinct to cheer on the argument should be resisted.

The fact is that most intelligent and informed people on the right do not oppose progressive policies because they're stingy bastards who don't give a damn about their fellow citizens. It's true that this may describe some Republicans. There are probably a non-trivial number, especially those unduly influenced by the odious ideas of Ayn Rand, who do come close to viewing the poor as parasitic moochers. But many, many others the vast majority, in my experience do not take this position. They believe, instead, that progressive policies do more harm than good for the very people they're designed to help.

Consider the minimum wage. Many conservatives oppose raising it, especially as high as $15/hour, as some municipalities around the country have opted to do over the last few years. Do they take this position because they prefer lower-wage workers to struggle? No. They take this position because they understand basic principles of economics, which predict that raising costs for businesses that employ low-wage workers will lead them to make fewer hires, thereby hurting these workers overall. (A study released earlier this week seems to indicate that this is precisely what's been happening in Seattle since the city began incrementally raising its minimum wage.)

The same holds for the concerns that led the original neoconservatives to make various proposals for reforming crime and welfare during the 1970s and '80s proposals that powerfully influenced policymaking at the local and federal levels during the 1990s.

My point isn't to make a case for these policies (though I think many of them were defensible in the context of the time). The point is to recognize that the proposals were made with the intent of improving the lives of the poor, crime victims, and others, not with the intent of hurting them, or of giving the rich a post-spending-cut tax break. (While it's true that most of these conservatives supported tax cuts as well, those cuts, too, were justified as a spur to economic growth and job creation that would benefit everyone.)

It's certainly easier and more morally satisfying for those on the left to presume that the right is just motivated by rank selfishness. But it's no more true at an individual level than it is as the level of public policy debate.

Though there's been considerable dispute about studies purporting to show that conservatives are more generous than liberals when it comes to private charity, the most fair-minded critics don't claim the opposite that only people on the left care about the well-being of their fellow citizens. The critics claim, rather, that ideology is an insignificant variable in determining who gives to charity, and how much.

So much for having to explain to Republicans as a group why they "should care about other people."

Now, it may well be that Republicans are more inclined toward generosity when it comes to private charity than they are with regard to government programs. Is that foolish? Could conservatives do more social good if they supported tax hikes and policies devised and run by the federal government? That's an empirically testable proposition, the outcome of which just might change some minds on the right.

But only if liberals, progressives, and democratic socialists resist the temptation to flatter themselves and demonize their opponents and keep up the hard, unglamorous, sometimes infuriating work of trying to persuade.

View original post here:
Why can't self-satisfied liberals admit that conservatives care about people, too? - The Week Magazine

We live in a time of catastrophic political experiments. Americans are learning how far the institutions of civil society can protect democratic norms in the face of an autocratically minded president. The British are about to find out how much economic pain they can endure for the privilege of flipping the bird to Europe. Italians may soon hand the reins of power to a clown literally.

For this reason, the results of the recent legislative election in France feel as miraculous as a lantern suddenly lowered into a cave. With President Emmanuel Macrons Republic on the Move party having gained a solid majority of seats in the National Assembly, France is about to show the world how far liberalism can succeed in a profoundly illiberal era. Macron himself prefers the label neither left nor right to liberal, a word that in French carries the purely pejorative meaning of laissez faire but he is recognizably a Third Way liberal in the mold of Bill Clinton or Tony Blair. The fact that the French have traditionally viewed liberals as heartless servants of capitalism makes his success that much more remarkable.

Macron has begun meeting with representatives of business and labor in order to push through his plan to end Frances statist tradition of negotiating work rules at the national level. He plans to issue an executive order this summer, permitting industry-wide or firm-level negotiations with labor that will allow variation in the workweek and enable firms to more easily hire and fire employees. When his predecessors, Franois Hollande and Nicolas Sarkozy, attempted to reform the labor market, massive street demonstrations forced them to back off. The main French union has already set September 12 as a day of action against the proposed reform. However, Macron may have both the grit and the political support to push his plans through.

Next year, Macron hopes to implement reforms that will regularize a fragmented pension system and convert unemployment insurance into a source of lifelong career training. At the same time, he hopes to increase the minimum wage, cut the amount deducted from the average paycheck for social welfare programs, and invest 50 billion euros over five years into training, green energy, and other fields. If he can even make serious headway on that immensely ambitious agenda, Macron may manage to restore the tattered French belief in politics and the state. He may even drain some of the poison from the word liberal.

Still, it is not because governments are too statist that liberalism is in crisis in the West; thats a distinctly French problem, requiring a distinctly French solution. What has provoked the crisis is a widespread sense among middle- and working-class voters that they have been left behind both economically and culturally in a globalized world where jobs, money, ideas, and people sweep across the planet with little regard for borders or traditions or national identity. That, in its many variations, is what accounts for Donald Trump and Brexit and the National Front and the illiberal democracy of Hungarys prime minister, Viktor Orban. The Macron experiment is thus even more portentous, and even more difficult, than it seems.

The Macron insiders whom I met during the election are acutely aware of the need to address the disaffection of industrial workers, village dwellers, the unemployed, and others. They believe that the economic reforms and targeted investments he has planned will create new opportunities for those groups and thus win at least grudging support from far-right and far-left voters who loathe him. There is a view recently expressed in Edward Luces book The Retreat of Western Liberalism that the fear and anger toward Islam, and the resentment toward elites seen to be soft on Islam, are ultimately caused by frustration over declining economic prospects and thus can be cured, or at least brought under control, with the medicine of economic policy. But nationalism afflicts prosperous countries like Sweden, as well as stagnant ones like France or Hungary. Liberals are much too inclined to see values as the ephemeral consequences of real i.e., economic conditions. Thats why Americans on the left think that Republicans have used some sort of black magic to persuade working-class whites to vote for them despite the GOPs plutocratic policies.

In France, issues of culture, identity, and nation center on the countrys large population of North African immigrants. During the campaign, Marine Le Pen, the head of the far-right National Front, pledged to reduce immigration to an impossible 10,000 people a year (from a current figure of about 200,000), while Franois Fillon, the candidate of the center-right Les Rpublicains, said he would amend the constitution in order to cut down the flow. Even former Socialist Prime Minister Manuel Valls openly criticized German Chancellor Angela Merkel for accepting so many Syrian refugees.

Macron is as liberal on matters of identity as he is on the economy, though there is very little political hay to be made on the left side of the issue. In his campaign book, Revolution, he asks, How can we insist that our fellow citizens believe in the Republic if some among us use one of our founding principles, lacit the secular code to tell them that they have no place in it? Macron defends the right of Muslim women in universities to wear the hijab and in one debate ridiculed Le Pen for making a burning issue of the burkini, an Islam-inspired full-body swimsuit. He speaks of immigration as a source of economic and national strength the classic liberal position and, in a rebuke to Valls, thanked Merkel for defending European values by accepting refugees.

Of course, Macron is a calculating politician. He has promised to institute a more humane asylum system so as to quickly separate those who merit protection from those who must be expeditiously deported. While during the campaign, and in his book, he repeatedly asserted that France needs no new law to deal with terrorism, his government is now promulgating a bill that would, in effect, make the current state of emergency a matter of standing law, transferring many powers from the judiciary to the Interior Ministry a measure that has drawn a howl of protest from the editors of the left-of-center Le Monde. (The government has now promised to soften the measure.)

But Macrons policies are much likelier to inflame nationalist opinion than they are to mollify it. He is the supreme representative of the French elite, and on the right his policies on immigration and refugees are seen as signs of elite indifference to the situation of ordinary Frenchmen and women. Christian, my French teacher when I was in Paris this spring, called himself un dplorable a fan of Trump and Le Pen. Christian raged at the West African immigrants who increasingly dominated the life of Montreuil, the town outside Paris where he lived, and at cosmopolitan elites (like me) who, he thought, held traditionalists like him in contempt. In the midst of one of our innumerable arguments, Christian would say, You and I cant talk to each other. We had too little in common even to find common ground.

Ive heard this sense of estrangement from supporters of the nationalist right in Hungary, Poland, Sweden, Germany, and in France. And, of course, it lies at the core of Donald Trumps appeal. The fact is that while the state really does have levers to dislodge economic frustration, there is relatively little it can do to assuage fears of eroding national identity at least without capitulating to the right. Macron has to hope that the economics-first theorists of the liberal crisis are correct. That, perhaps, is the true magnitude of the experiment he has embarked upon.

Photo credit:ERIC FEFERBERG/AFP/Getty Images

Twitter Facebook Google + Reddit

View original post here:
Can Nationalists Ever Make Good Liberals? - Foreign Policy (blog)

Submitted in response to a column by Dr. David Palmer, DDS, of Huntington.

Myth No. 1. Liberals believe they are better than you. Nothing can be further from the truth. Democrats, whether centrists, moderates or liberals, believe that everyone counts and that everyone has something worthwhile to contribute. They dont think all conservatives are deplorable (those who hate gays, women and freedom of speech for others). Liberals support public schools, private schools, vocational schools, on-the-job training, blue-collar workers and the self-educated, as well as those who have a college education.

Myth No. 2. Liberals are not very patriotic. Ridiculous. Democrats (centrists, moderates and liberals) say the Pledge of Allegiance, sing the national anthem and think America is great. They continually try to make it even better, and thats why they are called progressives. Liberals honor the troops that are sent to life-threatening wars declared by politicians, and they honor these brave soldiers after they come home, unlike politicians on the other side of the aisle, who vote against veteran benefits as a rule. They honor the flag as well as the country it symbolizes, and 99 percent are horrified when one is burned.

Myth No. 3. Liberals have a major problem with the Constitution. Democrats are astounded when they hear this condemnation, as they honor and value our Constitution and the civil liberties stated in the Amendments. Liberals see the First Amendment being threatened by conservatives, as they talk about banning peaceful protest and marches. Liberals believe in the constitutional right to worship any way one wants or does not want to worship, with no exceptions. The Constitution does not support a national religion, as they fear some conservatives wish. Liberals believe in the Second Amendment wholeheartedly, which gives U.S. citizens the right to bear arms, and they understand why our founders insisted on that amendment being added. Being against mass death doesnt mean being against gun ownership. Supporting gun reform to reduce death caused by automatic weapons doesnt mean supporting gun confiscation. Conservatives were convinced that our previous president was going to take all the guns away, but it never happened. However, this fear-mongering resulted in many gun and ammo sales (Smart marketing, if unethical).

Myth No. 4. Liberals dont want to debate. Democrats welcome debate when the conversation is respectful (being called libtards or other schoolyard names on social media is admittedly a turnoff). Liberals deal in truth, and when the other person is unwilling to research his claim and back it up with facts, but instead claims fake news, the response is usually an emoji on Facebook of rolling eyes or face palm. If ideology is the topic, liberals also welcome the conversation, as long as its not passed off as fact.

Myth No. 5. Liberals/Democrats are attracted to certain jobs. Really? Does that mean that conservatives/Republicans are also attracted to certain jobs? This ludicrous statement cannot be backed up with fact. Some conservatives claim that liberals are attracted to journalism careers simply because they want to influence elections, citing the previous presidential election, specifically. Actually, the newspapers and media reported just what Donald Trump wanted reported; in fact, many people believe CNN got him elected by airing every vulgar thing he said, which was appealing to his supporters. Should people be restricted from considering various viewpoints and options? Should citizens be restricted from pursuing certain jobs? Of course not.

Myth No. 6. Liberals want to kill unborn babies. This is a bunch of baloney. Democrats do not want to kill unborn babies, period. They march to protect a womans right to have a tubal ligation, a hysterectomy or a D&C. All these things are protected by Roe v. Wade, and were not protected before this Supreme Court ruling. They are pro-choice, which supports a womans right to make a choice to have an abortion based on health and personal reasons, including rape, incest or endangerment of a mothers life. They think this decision should be made between the woman, her doctor and her faith, but not the government, and the Fourteenth Amendment protects this choice. Liberals are not just pro-birth as many conservatives are, but rather, they believe in birth control, sex education, counseling, helping the pregnant mother and helping the baby when it is born. With counseling provided at Planned Parenthood, abortions are avoided 80 percent of the time at one California clinic, according to a nurse who works as a counselor there. Liberals note the fact that some conservatives want to de-fund Planned Parenthood, which provides many more services than abortion, but not hospitals where abortions also are offered.

Myth No. 7. Liberals have no sense of humor and are easily offended. Democrats dont get their feelings easily hurt, despite what youve been told. Political correctness is a term made up by conservatives; liberals simply believe in showing respect.

Myth No. 8. Liberals want to reward lazy people. Democrats do not want to dole out welfare checks to able-bodied men or women who will not work. They are definitely in favor of doubling down on prosecuting welfare fraud and are amazed when this is not mentioned. Liberals believe in helping people with education, training and finding jobs, while maintaining their dignity. Liberals do think its a shame that people who work a 40-hour week still qualify for food stamps. This fact is either not understood, or it is ignored by most conservatives. The majority of food stamp recipients arent the lazy stereotype, but are children, the elderly, the disabled, and yes, the working poor who make up 56 percent of them.

Myth No. 9. Liberals are not very religious. This is simply false. The Christian left is extremely strong in the belief of following in Christs footsteps of helping people and not turning away from anyone, even though one might not hear them pound the podium with righteousness and take to the airwaves to point fingers at others. They are puzzled as to where our critics get this information (Just look around and you wont see many liberals going to church), and for that matter why it concerns them at all. Our Constitution very clearly is against our government interfering in anyones right of religious freedom. There is also a very strong Jewish left, Hindu left, Buddhist left. (Not your brand of religion? Remember, liberals believe in the First Amendment.)

This list could go on and on, but if you want to understand liberals ... Ask a liberal. Not a conservative dentist.

Vernay Carrington of Lufkin is a former centrist turned moderate who is leaning further left with every news cycle.

Read the original:
GUEST COLUMN: Dispelling common myths about liberals - Lufkin Daily News

British Columbias Liberal government, which faces defeat in the legislature as early as Thursday, has released a fiscal update that shows a surplus far higher than what was projected just a few monthsago.

The updated numbers, which have not been audited by the provinces auditor general, are designed in part to explain why the Liberals recently presented a Throne Speech full of expensive promises that deviated widely from the partys spring election campaign. They also leave the Opposition New Democrats with a comfortable surplus to pay for its agenda while insulating the party from claims that its plan would hurt the provincesfinances.

Do we wish we knew the money was there beforehand? Yes, B.C. Premier Christy Clark told the legislature after the update was released.

Gary Mason: Christy Clark pins her hopes on forcing a snapelection

Explainer: How B.C.s Liberal government could fall and what happens next

Globe editorial: B.C. politics get weird, but thats life in a hung parliament

Heres what you need to you about the fiscalupdate.

The Finance Minister says the province ended the 2016/17 fiscal year with a surplus of about $2.8-billion, which is roughly 10 times what his department forecast when it released a budget in February, 2016, and almost double what it predicted when the most recent provincial budget was released this pastFebruary.

That puts it just below the 2014/2015 surplus and makes it the fourth surplus in arow.

The Liberal government says the increased revenue was primarily driven by an economy that performed better than expected, which , in turn, brought in moretaxes.

The government says the increased tax revenue was driven by GDP growth that exceeded every other jurisdiction in Canada and, again, was significantly higher than initially projected. The 2016/17 budget predicted GDP growth of 2.4 per cent in 2016, but that figure grew to 3.7 percent.

B.C.s Finance Ministry says the growth was spread across most industries, including real estate, construction and manufacturing. Housing starts in particular have remained strong in recent months despite starting 2017 significantly lower than the average for lastyear.

The Liberal government is also trumpeting its debt performance. The government says the total provincial debt increased by almost $600-million compared with the year before, though taxpayer-supported debt decreased by$1.2-billion.

The provinces debt-to-GDP ratio decreased to 15.9 per cent in 2016/17, according to the fiscal update less than the 17 per cent initially projected and lower than the previous years figure of17.4.

MORE FROM THE GLOBE ANDMAIL:

See original here:
What you need to know about BC's post-election fiscal update - The Globe and Mail