Mediaboss Marketing

8 Apr 2017, 11:41 p.m.

The Liberal party narrowly retained two key pieces of its heartland in Sydney's north after voters delivered thumping swings away from the party in three byelections on Saturday.

The Liberal Party narrowly claimed victory in two key pieces of its heartland in Sydney's north after voters delivered thumping swings away from the party in three byelections on Saturday.

The state government prevailed on the unmarked preferences of minor party voters after a nail-biting contest for the blue-ribbon Liberal seat of North Shore and was expected to survive an even larger voter backlash in Manly.

Labor comfortably retained and extended its lead on the Central Coast.

"Our scrutineers tell us we can reclaim the seat of North Shore," Premier Gladys Berejiklian told a small band of supporters in Cammeray on Saturday night.

"I always said North Shore would come down to the wire.

"[Voters] put their faith in me, they put their faith in [candidate Felicity Wilson] and we won't let them down."

With more than half the votes counted, the swing against the Liberal Party on first preferences reached more than 17 per cent in North Shore.

But the collusion of independent and minor party candidates to preference the Liberal Party last had less impact than predicted.

Marking preferences is optional in NSW elections and the rate at which minor party voters marked, or did not mark, second and third preferences gave the Liberals confidence to declare victory.

The Premier had claimed victory in Manly earlier on Saturday. In former premier Mike Baird's seat Liberal candidate James Griffin was projected to win despite being down by almost 25 per cent on first preference votes and the findings of a liquidator a company he ran may have traded while insolvent.

"Let me assure the men and women of [Manly] you will have in James an outstanding local member," Ms Berejiklian said.

Liberals chalked up the major denting of their vote in party heartland to scandals involving their candidates and anger at council amalgamation among the party's most loyal voters, especially in Mosman, the suburb which was home to the first ever branch of the Liberal Party, set up by Robert Menzies.

Locals in North Shore and in Manly have been vocal in their opposition to the state government's plan to forcibly merge the council with its neighbours, which had resulted in legal action against the state government by Mosman, Lane Cove and North Sydney Councils.

Ms Berejiklian cancelled planned mergers of several rural councils that had brought action against the government soon after taking power and negotiating with a new leader of her Coalition partner the Nationals. But she declined to do the same for councils in urban areas, potentially inviting political backlash.

Volunteers from the Save Our Councils coalition flooded polling booths in North Shore and Manly from all around NSW.

"I'm going to be a strong local voice," said government relations and media adviser Felicity Wilson, who prevailed despite revelations she had signed an incorrect statutory declaration that told party preselectors she had lived in the electorate for 10 years.

The average loss of first preferences by a sitting government in NSW byelections since 1988 is about 9 per cent, with the National Party's thrashing in the seat of Orange last year setting the high benchmark at 34 per cent.

Labor, which is not contesting either seat in Sydney's north, was set to retain and extend its lead in a third seat, Gosford on the NSW Central Coast.

The ALP candidate, Liesl Tesch, a Paralympian wheelchair basketball gold medallist, attracted a swing of about 10 per cent on first preferences.

Labor MP Kathy Smith claimed the seat back from the Liberals by about 200 votes last election. She has retired from Parliament following a cancer diagnosis.

Two Liberal veterans, Mr Baird and former health minister Jillian Skinner, represented Manly and North Shore and caused byelections following their retirement from politics.

The story Liberals scrape home in Sydney byelections first appeared on The Sydney Morning Herald.

Read more from the original source:
Liberals scrape home in Sydney byelections - Illawarra Mercury

With long-awaited marijuana legislation set to be announced next week, the federal government is having second thoughts about legalizing cannabis on Canada Day.

The Trudeau government still plans to go ahead with its plan to make weed legal for recreational use. But a senior government source says the initial target of July 1, 2018 as the implementation date will be changed to "on or before July 1, 2018."

The change reflects some internal concerns over legalizing a recreational drug on the country's birthday. Bill Blair, theLiberal government'spoint man on pot, told the Canadian Press he wanted the focus of Canada Day to be Canada not cannabis.

"I'm probably out on a limb on this one but ... I don't believe July 1 should be an implementation date for anything; it is a day of celebration for the anniversary and founding of our country," Blair told CP.

"I don't think that's an appropriate date. That's my opinion."

But what isn't changing is the federal government's desire to fully deliver on its marijuana legalization promise by next summer despite suggestions that the timeline may be too ambitious.

The federal government believes its timeline to have a nation-wide system for the distribution and sale of marijuana is achievable even though much of the heavy lifting will have to be done by the provinces.

"We campaigned on this," said the senior government official. "We told them it was going to happen."

Bill Blair, parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice, told the Canadian Press he doesn't think Canada Day 2018 is an appropriate date for legalising marijuana. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

It appears that Ottawa is counting on the potential profits from marijuana sales to speed things along at the provincial level. Colorado legalized marijuana in 2014 and, with a population smaller than Quebec and Ontario, that state is doing more than $1 billion US in legal sales a year.

The hope is that at least a few of the provinces will move quickly to finalize their system for retail sales and that will have a pace-car effect for the slower moving jurisdictions.

The marijuana legislation is set to be unveiled next week. But CBC News reported many of the details last month. It will broadly follow the recommendation of a federally appointed task force that was chaired by former liberal Justice Minister Anne McLellan.

The federal government will be in charge of making sure the country's marijuana supply is safe and secure and Ottawa will license producers.

But the provinces will have the right to decide how the marijuana is distributed and sold. Provincial governments will also have the right to set the price.

While Ottawa will set a minimum age of 18 to buy marijuana, the provinces will have the option of setting a higher age limit if they wish.

As for Canadians who want to grow their own marijuana, they will be limited to four plants per household.

Legalizing marijuana was one of the more controversial promises Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made as he campaigned to become prime minister.

In their platform the Liberals said it was necessary to "legalize, regulate and restrict access to marijuana" in order to keep drugs "out of the hands of children, and the profits out of the hands of criminals."

The Liberals had promised to introduce legislation by the Spring of 2017. Announcing the legislation next week will allow the party to hit that deadline.

More here:
Liberals want to move up pot legalization to avoid Canada Day celebrations - CBC.ca

Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer, reacting to Senate Republicans killing the filibuster option for Supreme Court nominees, said Democrats may not see the court tilt in their favor now for decades.

In an op-ed published Thursday night, Krauthammer said the GOP is set to confirm Neil Gorsuch and likely more justices that will erode liberals' grasp on the judicial branch.

"The Gorsuch nomination is a bitter setback to the liberal project of using the courts to ratchet leftward the law and society. However, Gorsuch's appointment simply preserves the court's ideological balance of power. Wait for the next nomination. Having gratuitously forfeited the filibuster, Democrats will be facing the loss of the court for a generation."

The GOP-controlled Senate voted Thursday to allow Supreme Court confirmations with a simple majority vote, eliminating Democrats' ability to block Gorsuch and future nominees by filibuster.

The power of the filibuster was first limited by Democrats in 2013, when the party was in the majority and voted to allow confirmation of presidential Cabinet appointees and lower federal court appointees by a simple majority.

View post:
Krauthammer: Democrats may have cost liberals the Supreme Court 'for a generation' - Washington Examiner

Not much really changed when the Senate dropped this bomb, and Democrats know now theres no point in playing nice anymore.

So the Senate, as expected, went nuclear Thursday, and from this point forwardstarting Friday, and thereafter forever afterSupreme Court nominees will need only 51 votes to get on the Court.

I hate seeing Neil Gorsuch rammed through, which will happen Friday, as much as the next liberal. I suspect hes seriously right wing and will be a nightmare to have on the Court for three decades or more. (Now heres a grim thought: I will die with that man on the Court.) But he looks nice enough. Its terrible that in our day and age everything basically comes down to how a guy looks and presents. Somebody can be as right wing as Atilla the Hun, but if he doesnt look the caricatureif he literally doesnt have wild eyes and bushy eyebrows and a handlebar moustache that he twirls while answering senators questionshell skate through.

And yet, I say to my fellow liberals that all is not lost. People worry about two things here: one, the demise of a Senate tradition; two, the fact that now President Trump can nominate any kind of crazy right-winger to the Court, and he or she can be confirmed with 51 votes. Lets break those worries down.

On the first point, I say sod the Senates traditions. The Senates traditions stink. The Senates traditions are reactionary and have been used time and time again in our history to block progressive change. The Senate was a compromise in the first place between small states and large states, and the Connecticut Compromise that created our bicameral legislature passed by just one vote. Small states have always had too much representation, and in the main, they tend to be more conservative states.

Then you have this filibuster, which arose in the 1820s and as you probably know was rarely usedonly to block civil-rights billsuntil the 1970s and 1980s. Its a terrible rule because it makes an effective majority out of 41 no-voting senators. Like the guy from the Broadway show said in Federalist 22: To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision) isto subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser number. He added that such a provision would destroy the energy of government, handing outsized power to an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junto.

So now the minority side wont be able to filibuster a High Court nominee. The legislative filibuster remains in place (and in a better world, Id like to see the legislative filibuster go too, but were not in that world right now). But in truth, the filibuster has been rarely used for Supreme Court nomineesjust four times in the last half-century. The Democrats didnt even filibuster Clarence Thomas. Times were still different back then. Bet theyd like that one back.

All this leads to the second point, which is indeed more problematic. Trump could nominate anyone, and all theyd need is 51 votes. I dont know if Sebastian Gorka has a jurisprudential brother, but Trump could nominate him, fascist chest pin and all, and the Republican majority would confirm him in a flash. Or any of the actually-existing radicals. Roy Moore. Janice Rogers Brown. If you dont know these people, read about them. Theyre some of the greatest minds of the sixteenth century.

Thats something to worry about. Three current justices might not make it to 2021. Who knows what that bench could look like. Its a terrifying thought, and there isnt much we can do about it.

But two points. First, there wasnt much we could do about it before. If Mitch McConnell didnt go nuclear over Gorsuch, he was going to do it the next time, maybe over somebody even worse. So theres no way to stop the Republicans putting Roy Moore on the Court if they want to. But there wasnt any way to stop it last week, either. On that front, nothing really changed this week.

Second, inevitably in these matters, what goes around comes around. Those three justices might not hang on. But then again they might. And by 2021, God willing, the man who was (not) told by Elijah Cummings that hes destined for true greatness will be back on 57th Street.

Then, the Democrats can push through liberal nominees with 51 votes. And, possibly, by 2024, the Court will consist of a 5-4 liberal majority, with young liberal justices like this man, whom I wanted Obama to nominate last year after Scalia died, and the Court will no longer be a cog in [the Republicans] political machine, as E.J. Dionne put it in a bracing column today.

Excerpt from:
Dont Cry for the Filibuster, My Fellow Liberals - Daily Beast

President Trump's pick to head the Labor Department, former assistant attorney general for civil rights Alexander Acosta, is heading toward a relatively easy confirmation when he gets a vote in the full Senate this month.

Acosta has solid Republican support, and while few liberal groups are backing his nomination, their response has been muted and nothing like their opposition to Trump's previous pick for the Cabinet post, fast-food businessman Andrew Puzder.

The vote is expected later this month and "no trouble" is expected, according to a Republican source who requested anonymity.

"It's been eerily quiet about Acosta, on both the Left and Right," said Matt Patterson, executive director of the Center for Worker Freedom, an arm of the conservative Americans for Tax Reform. Others involved in lobbying for Acosta's confirmation report the same thing. Labor and liberal groups with an interest in the department didn't respond to requests for comment.

The Senate fight over placing Judge Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court has pushed everything else to the side for now, said a lobbyist backing Acosta who requested anonymity. That has had the effect of diverting attention from other administration nominees. "We haven't heard anything about Acosta's nomination facing a fight on the Senate floor," the source said.

That's a sharp contrast to Puzder's nomination, which drew fierce opposition from the Left. They mounted a sustained, and ultimately successful, PR campaign against Puzder, an outspoken conservative and CEO of CKE Restaurants, which owns the Hardee's and Carl's Jr franchises.

Acosta, the dean of Florida International University Law School, has not drawn anywhere near that level of opposition. He even has the support of some major unions, including the International Union of Operating Engineers, the Laborers' International Union of North America and the International Association of Fire Fighters. All praised his record of public service in the two previous presidential administrations and said they expected he would fairly apply the law as labor secretary. In addition to being at the Justice Department, Acosta was a member of the National Labor Relations Board, the main federal labor law enforcement agency from 2002 to 2003.

The success of the anti-Puzder campaign appears to have largely satiated liberal groups' need to make a stand. Many still make a point of touting Puzder's defeat even when discussing Acosta's nomination.

In a Huffington Post article Thursday, Gail Rogers, an activist with Fight for $15, a union-run minimum wage activist group, indicated that they didn't have the ammunition against Acosta. "Mr. Puzder made his views on workers very clear, but Mr. Acosta, an attorney and law school dean from my home state, doesn't have the same outspoken record," Rogers said.

Also from the Washington Examiner

Derek Kan is general manager for Lyft's Southern California region.

04/06/17 9:41 PM

It still is likely to be a partisan vote. Acosta frustrated many Senate Democrats with his refusal at a hearing last month to commit to backing Obama-era rule changes at the Labor Department. The AFL-CIO, the nation's largest labor federation, said it "raised serious questions."

See the original post:
Liberals largely quiet on Acosta bid for labor secretary - Washington Examiner