Mediaboss Marketing

The Coalition is attempting to claim it supports a legislated Voice to Parliament because it is important in the way it may close the gap and the way it may improve the lives of indigenous people, but that a Voice protected by the Constitution on which Australians will vote in a referendum later this year is dangerous and will wreak chaos.

The opposition has struggled to articulate what precisely it thinks the risks are, and recent off-the-record backgrounding indicates the aim appears to be to damage Prime Minister Anthony Albaneses standing, in the hope this will extend to voters general faith in the government.

Perhaps the party leadership feels this is the only viable strategy given their political position, but it comes with risks.

This logic rests on several assumptions:

The first two factors are unknowable. But it is worth noting that Albaneses biggest downside risk is in being seen to have shied away from his heartfelt commitment. That is because it goes to his authenticity and trustworthiness. Losing after standing up for a point of principle is a different calculus. It is also an empirical fact that more prime ministers have lost referendums than won them.

It is possible Labor will turn on itself in the wake of a referendum defeat and a looming economic crisis. Both the ill-discipline and lack of nerve of the Whitlam and Rudd-Gillard governments made it possible for the extreme negative politics of the Snedden-Fraser and Abbott oppositions to succeed.

However, the government has so far shown itself to be composed largely of tough-minded pragmatists in economically ill-favoured times.

The idea that Australian electoral seats end up with either Labor or Coalition was an article of faith in Australian politics. It was underwritten by very high levels of party loyalty and our compulsory, preferential voting system.

Read more: What now for the Liberal Party? A radical shift and a lot of soul-searching

But the conditions that buttressed this orthodoxy have been in decline for decades, and have been shaping election outcomes for some time. There are now multiple viable political alternatives, and while it is not possible to predict whether voters will continue to abandon the major parties, offering voters more of what they just rejected is unlikely to be a winning strategy.

The strategy could backfire and the Coalition may reinforce a perception that its approach to politics remains cynical and tactical, rather than focused on finding solutions to longstanding problems and building a better future.

The electoral rout in 2022 was the Liberal partys worst ever. While some of that is attributable to the unpopularity of former prime minister Scott Morrison, much of it was also the result of long-term trends, including voter dealignment and a growing generational gap in ideological outlook.

Why have voters abandoned the major parties, and young people and women in particular turned their backs on the Coalition? The reasons are complex, but can be summarised as a growing sense that politicians dont listen, dont act in the national interest, and pursue partisan aims over the wider public good. The result is that governments appear unwilling to solve a growing number of pressing problems and voters have rationally sought alternatives.

Virtually every royal commission weve had has come about because governments failed (often wilfully) to listen to those affected or those in a position to give good advice.

The Liberals approach to the Voice is illustrative of the partys ongoing commitment to negative campaigning with a minimal positive agenda.

In the wake of the election, the party said it heard what women had to say. Others argued the party needed to do more for young people, particularly in relation to housing and global heating.

But the response so far has been largely backward-looking reheating old policies, invoking old platitudes and, in the case of the Voice, reviving arguments and language from the 1990s.

First-term oppositions typically arent imaginative, but they are usually reflective on some level. After all, they have just lost an election.

The Liberals have made much of their claims to being a broad church. In reality, this refrain has been a useful tool to quickly end discussions about how much internal debate the party should allow. The party has always consisted of two irreconcilable political traditions after all, Liberals and Conservatives were the government and opposition of the 19th century.

The Liberal party, like other hybrid Conservative-Liberal parties, has managed this dilemma by having one faction dominate the other. What was different in the past was the degree to which the party was prepared to tolerate differences of opinion in open forums.

Debate within the Liberal Party has been in decline for decades. Genuine debate has been eroded by message discipline and the centralisation of power with party leaders.

These are worldwide trends facing all parties. But the Liberal Party now also faces the dilemma of having lost a significant number of its moderate flank.

There are simply far fewer countervailing voices in todays Liberal party room.

The 2022 election saw many of the partys most able political leaders, capable of articulating a centre-right vision of the good life in the 21st century, exit parliament. Many of the remaining moderates are in the shadow cabinet, where discipline means they cannot publicly articulate the range of views that would truly denote the broad church that has historically so successfully appealed to Australian voters.

Read more: View from The Hill: Without those 'lefties' the Liberals can't regain government

The Liberal Party is not going anywhere. It draws on considerable institutional buffers, including public funding and electoral and administrative laws that protect established parties from some competition. Significantly, it retains the support of more than one-third of the electorate.

But with public movement away from both major parties now an established trend, and the partys seemingly entrenched backward-looking focus, it remains an open question as to how long will remain in the wilderness and whether it will choose to remain, permanently, a smaller and narrower party.

See more here:
Accentuate the negative: why the Liberal Party's fondness for 'no ... - The Conversation

In what could be a troubling sign for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, a byelection this week in Nova Scotia, fraught with debate about the carbon tax and the state of the Liberal brand, ended in a once-safe provincial Liberal seat being lost in a landslide to the Progressive Conservatives.

As the federal Liberals grapple with the soaring cost of living and sagging poll numbers, political veterans across the Atlantic provinces say the byelection result could be a sign of things to come across Canada.

Its not uncommon for perhaps a swing riding to flip in a byelection, but for what had been a relatively safe seat to flip is something bigger, says Stephen Moore, who served as director of communications for former Nova Scotia Liberal Premier Stephen McNeil.

The riding of Preston had been held by the Nova Scotia Liberals for the last 20 years, but the byelection saw their support collapse with the Liberal candidate placing third behind the Progressive Conservative winner and the NDP runner-up.

The Progressive Conservatives heavily focused on criticizing what they described as the Liberal carbon tax, which PC Premier Tim Houston has been vocally opposed to.

Chad Bowie, a Conservative consultant and political commentator, says federal Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, a staunch critic of carbon taxes, has reason to be encouraged by the Preston byelection result.

We know that the Liberal carbon tax was a key issue in this byelection, and one of the key vote drivers, so of course, I think there could be ramifications. Perhaps even a sign of things to come, says Bowie.

There have increasingly been signs that Atlantic Canada, which was a stronghold for the Liberals in the 2015 election and has mostly stayed red since, is wavering. A recent poll by Abacus Data found the Liberals in the unenviable spot of lagging behind in all regions of the country, with the Conservatives leading in Atlantic Canada and the Bloc Qubcois leading in Quebec.

There are also signs the Liberals are circling the wagons in ridings and regions that have previously been bulwarks. Both cabinet ministers from Newfoundland and Labrador were retained with increased portfolios. The Nova Scotian MP Sean Fraser was promoted to housing, one of the most visible and thorny cabinet jobs as the country copes with a housing crisis.

And as ire on the east coast about the carbon tax mixes with general frustration about inflation and the cost of living, the Conservatives could see an opportunity to tear down the Liberal red wall in the Atlantic provinces.

I do think that the Tory decision to call the byelection just as the federal carbon tax was coming into place was likely a wise political calculation on their part, but certainly one that would have stung the Liberal brand, says Moore.

David Tarrant lauds Twila Gross, the PC challenger in Preston, for a strong campaign but says external factors also helped turn Prestons voters against the Liberals.

The biggest additional force is, without question, the carbon tax, says Tarrant. This summer for the first time, Nova Scotians felt the full vice of the Trudeau Liberal carbon tax, with immense pressure and pain to peoples cost of living, and the rather indifferent response from the federal government and the prime minister has massively damaged the Liberal brand in Nova Scotia.

A recent Nanos Research poll found 73 percent of Canadians surveyed in Atlantic Canada believe it is the wrong time to implement a carbon tax. Canada-wide, the poll found just 32 percent of Canadians surveyed believe carbon taxes are an effective way to reduce carbon emissions.

Unlike the Ontario Liberals, who are operationally independent of the federal Liberals despite strong grassroots ties, the Nova Scotia Liberals are an official branch of the federal party. The NSPCs and the federal Conservative parties are not organizationally linked, even if both parties members hold overlapping memberships.

I think the big lesson from the byelection is two-fold, says Bowie. First, Tim Houstons brand of progressive, pragmatic conservatism is a winning formula in Nova Scotia, and secondly, Zach Churchill has a Justin Trudeau problem.

Tarrant says Prestons voters did not differentiate between the provincial and federal Liberal parties when it came to their frustrations about the carbon tax.

A key issue that the PCs ran on was the carbon tax and gas prices, and the people I talked to said it was getting amazing traction, says Tarrant. No other single issue drove this more than the carbon tax.

Tarrant says the negative reaction to the federal carbon tax will be felt in all parts of Canada, with the exceptions of B.C. and Quebec which implemented their own provincial carbon taxes years ago.

In every other part of the country, particularly rural, suburban, small town parts, if Im a federal Liberal caucus member, the number one drag on the LPC right now is the carbon tax, says Tarrant. Its gonna cost them seats if Im a provincial Liberal, one of my big strategic dilemmas is how do I separate myself from the national party?

See the rest here:
In a troubling sign for Trudeaus Liberals, the Atlantic red wall looks ... - The Hub

QUEENS PARK Today, the Auditor General of Ontario released the findings of a new report detailing how the Conservatives Greenbelt Giveaway was hand-picked and directly influenced by wealthy developers that stood to benefit to the tune of 8.3 billion dollars.

In the new report, the Auditor General found that the Chief of Staff to the Minister of Housing hand-picked the land sites that would be removed from the Greenbelt 92% of which were suggested to the Chief of Staff by prominent and wealthy developers who had inside access to Ministry staff, and who would be the direct beneficiaries of the land swaps.

The report also makes it clear that the Housing Ministers Chief of Staff was operating under the direct authority of the Minister and the Premiers Office.

There is no way on Gods green Earth that Minister Clarks Chief of Staff acted without the Ministers full knowledge or direction, said MPP Fraser. Ministers make decisions; their Chiefs of Staff implement them.

While everyday Ontarians struggle to keep up with the skyrocketing cost of living, this Conservative government is focused on ensuring their closest, most well-connected friends get richer. It is evident that Minister Clark is unable to conduct his ministerial duties in good faith or in the interest of Ontario families, and as a result, he must step aside.

Ontario Liberals are also calling on the provincial government to freeze all development on the lands involved in the Greenbelt Giveaway and end the multi-billion-dollar wealth transfer that has come at the unnecessary expense of our protected greenspaces, our sources of water, and the health and well-being of future generations.

Doug Ford knew from day one that he was going to do this, added MPP Fraser. Five years ago, the Premier got caught promising a room of his wealthy friends that he would crack open the Greenbelt for development. The Premier needs to do the right thing by coming clean about his deception and ending the Greenbelt Giveaway.

Read the original post:
Ontario Liberals Call for Minister Clark to Step Aside, End of the ... - Ontario Liberal Party

Visitors walk outside the Supreme Court building on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., Feb. 21, 2022. Members of high court (inset) pose for a group photo Oct. 7, 2022 | Associated Press file photos, St. George News

OPINION In response to the recent Letter to the Editor published on St. George News about the proposed Judiciary Act, support for court packing shows a severe lack of comprehension regarding our Constitution and the separation of power.

The writer laments that current Supreme Court rulings do not reflect the will of the people. Perhaps the public education system needs to be teaching U.S. Government instead of gender theory, considering such a statement shows dangerous ignorance regarding checks, balances and the purpose of judicial review.

It is the elected representatives who make up Congress, the legislative branch, who are to write constitutional legislation that hopefully represents the will of the people. The system of checks and balances leaves it up to the judicial branch to interpret whether or not such legislation is constitutional. Obviously, not every act of central power is protected in our Constitution, nor should it be, considering such a stance is a slip n slide into federal tyranny.

The ideological issue is this: Conservatives are what are traditionally known to be strict constructionists, while liberals tend to be loose constructionists. That is to say, strict constructionists interpret the language of the Constitution within its historical context, intent and explicit language; while loose constructionists interpret the founding document arbitrarily and can be framed as relatively good for the country, even if the Constitution does not explicitly allow it.

Here is a fundamental issue with loose constructionists good is entirely subjective to personal values and social ideology. For example, one day, a loose constructionist court can determine that overpopulation is a threat to the prosperity of our Union and thus determine that it is good for Congress to enact legislation that would limit reproduction to state-approved families. Within the explicit context of the Constitution, there is no circumstance where a strict constructionist court would allow such tyranny.

Another issue is that liberals tend to believe that the central government has to be the solution to all problems, while conservatives believe that problems tend to exist because of personal choices, thus can be solved by personal choices. Conservatives believe you should turn to yourself, your family and your local community/charity before you look to the government to bail you out.

Regarding the writers statements regarding recent Supreme Court decisions: First, they claimed that the Supreme Court gutted voting rights. Since he or she never actually states what cases they are fear-mongering on, readers can only speculate the decisions in reference. Allen v. Milligan was decided in June of this year, which affirmed a lower court ruling that Alabamas congressional maps for 2020 likely violated the Voting Rights Act, thus requiring Alabama to redraw congressional maps by the 1st of October. If anything, this decision errs more to liberal favor. Personally, I think it is a terrifying precedent set that states must district according to racial demographics rather than statistically reviewed voting patterns.

Secondly, the writer complains about the court opening the floodgates to unlimited corporate money within our elections. This is another complaint that I am very confused as to what the writer is referring to. There is a 2010 case, Citizens United vs. FEC, where the court ruled that prohibiting corporate and union independent expenditures violated the First Amendment. The dissent in this case essentially wrote that the potential for taking bribes was far greater than the First Amendment.

If your fear is corruption, then we need to constantly hold our elected representatives up to ethical standards as citizens rather than infringe on First Amendment rights as a preventative measure for potential corruption. Dont expect the government to hold itself accountable. If you think your representatives are voting solely in the interests of corporate donors and not their constituents, vote them out. This is also why we have laws against taking bribes and we have ethical standards in Congress. The onus is on you, the constituency, to pay attention.

Thirdly, the writer whines about the courts overturning what is broadly referred to as gun safety laws. My assumption is that she is referencing the Bruen decision, which ruled that requiring a state-approved reason for wanting to conceal carry was unconstitutional. The wording in the 2nd amendment is very clear the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. The use of the term militia also implies bearing arms extends to the public domain.

The New York law that was struck down required citizens to have proper cause to conceal carry. Shall-issue permitting requires applicants for firearms to satisfy objective criteria, such as a background check; the court did not take issue with this. What the court deemed unconstitutional was the may-issue policy that meant your right to arm yourself against tyranny was dependent on local authorities agreeing with your reason for wanting to own a gun.

Fourthly, regarding the Dobbs decision and the overturning of Roe v. Wade sending abortion back to the states the writers personal turmoil is simply a result of their social ideology and holds no constitutional weight. Abortion was loosely interpreted as a personal liberty when Roe was initially decided. When you disingenuously simplify abortion to merely the choice between parenthood or not, it is very easy to then view it as a personal liberty. However, when you are honest about the conversation, you realize abortion is not simply choosing to have children, but it is medically intervening in the life of ones own child who already exists in the womb.

The Constitution does not define liberty, and it would be negligent for the justices to use their own arbitrary feelings of what should be included in the word to define it for the country. They instead interpreted what the founding fathers meant when they wrote the Constitution, and to do so, they examined abortion in its historical context. Prior to Roe v Wade in 1973, abortion was overwhelmingly criminalized; such a pattern of criminalization shows that abortion was not considered essential to American liberty. To add to this, the Jackson Womens Health Organization attempted to prove that America had a pattern of allowing abortion prior to quickening before Roe as a way to show the historical context in allowing abortion.

What is quickening? It is approximately 15 weeks gestation when the mother can feel her son or daughter moving inside the womb. Think about this: why would quickening be the cut-off point for ending a pregnancy during a time when we lacked prenatal technology? It was the point in fetal development where mothers would objectively know that their childs life in the womb had begun. Considering modern technology, Jackson Womens Health Organization may have inadvertently provided the historical context that when human life begins has always been important to criminalizing abortion, thus laying the groundwork for broader abortion bans.

To be clear, the court did not ban abortion, it ruled that abortion is not constitutionally protected and thus should be left to the states.

With all things said, the Supreme Court is doing exactly what the founding fathers intended it to do interpret the meaning and constitutionality of legislation and federal power. Citizens should be scared for their rights when the court is full of loose constructionists who lack objectivity and arbitrarily decide what they think is relatively good for the public.

Submitted by MELANIE COX, St. George.

Letters to the Editor are not the product of St. George News, its editors, staff or news contributors. The matters stated and opinions given are the responsibility of the person submitting them. They do not reflect the product or opinion of St. George News and are given only light edit for technical style and formatting.

Letters to the Editor are received from the public and are not the product of St.George News, its editors, staff or contributors. The matters stated and opinions given are strictly the responsibility of the person submitting them; they do not reflect the product or opinion of St. George News. Letters to the Editor, op-eds, and other news matters may be submitted for consideration to St. George News via email to: [emailprotected]

View post:
Letter to the Editor: Packing the Supreme Court with liberals would undermine our Constitution - St George News

Samuel Johnson, father of the dictionary, called second marriages the triumph of hope over experience. That sounds like progressive policy on immigration and crimeand they get both wrong.

The Biden administration wants increased and easier immigration. While most Americans support reasonable legal immigration, they reject unlimited numbers via open borders.

Last year, a majority of Americans polled thought there was an invasion on the border. U.S. immigration process was built in layers of law over decades. Reforming it is hard. Reaching consensus is rare. Neither those favoring restriction nor those favoring expansion are ever satisfied.

Past presidential administrations did the best they could, mostly enforcing the law, but occasionally inventing legally dubious programs like family-reunification parole for Cubans (2007) and Haitians (2014) or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals(2012).

But for President Joe Biden, restraint is a dirty word. Not content merely to release inadmissible border crossers pending far-off court dates, the administration has ignored the law and invented an entire parallel migration system, a sort of Upside Down of what they call lawful pathways to let people in on parole.

In the furtherance of left-wing ideology, California passed Proposition 47 in 2014, reducing thefts totaling less than $950 from felonies to misdemeanors. According to the Desert Sun, Many police say this law is a major factor in the wave of shoplifting that has plagued cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles and closed many stores.

Stores have adapted by (a) closing or (b) locking things up. At the same time, they instruct their employees not to stop thieves, on pain of being fired.

Meanwhile, New York Citys shoplifting complaints rose 44% from 2021 to 2022. All this retail theft angered businesses in his city, so Mayor Eric Adams announced a plan. Dead last of his seven points is the creation of an Organized Retail Theft Task Force. Higher up are two diversion programs for offenders, and the installation of resource kiosks in stores to connect individuals in need to critical government resources and social services.

Adams was once a cop, so he ought to understand the criminal mind a bit better.

The recidivist thieves driving that 44% increase are likely opportunists exploiting a system they know wont catch or punish themnot low-income mothers desperate for Pampers.

Former professional booster Jared Klickstein gets it. He wrote that no matter how shiny or sophisticated, no electronic kiosk would have prevented me from shoplifting to feed my $350-a-day heroin and cocaine habit.

Not helping, New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg has allowed a relative handful of career thieves to be released time and again, such that they account for half the shoplifting in the city.

Equally oblivious to human nature is the plan in Washington, D.C., to solve reckless driving by sending text messages to the owners of a random sample of 100,000 cars that have received a large number of citations for speeding and running red lights.

To be clear: The D.C. government knows who the most recidivist, dangerous drivers are, but instead of taking them off the roads through prosecution, its answer is to make people think about their driving habits.

Allowing thieves to steal with impunity doesnt lower theft, and letting known dangerous drivers off with a warning doesnt reduce accidents. Likewise, inventing more and more parole-based bogus immigration programs wont discourage illegal immigration.

Only law enforcement will do that.

But instead of enforcement, the Biden administration has just added yet another Family Reunification Parole program, this time for people waiting their turn for immigrant visas in Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.

The Biden administrations pretzel logic is this: To prevent people entering the U.S. illegally, theyre inventing a program that pretends they are coming legally. To justify it, the Department of Homeland Security implausibly argues that bumping 100,000 people from these four countries to the head of the line and allowing them to wait for their visa number in the U.S. is both a foreign policy objective and a significant public benefit to the U.S.

Though they almost certainly never consulted the state and local schools and hospitals that would have to bear them, DHS has determined that the significant public benefits of the Family Reunification Parole program outweighs any costs incurred for schools and health care.

Having pressured Latin American countries to sign the Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection, the Biden administration now claims that the U.S. now needs to follow through on the countries joint intent to work together to expand access to regular pathways for would-be illegal immigrants.

But as Phillip Linderman, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies and a retired U.S. career diplomat, explains here, the Biden administrations underlying dream is the globalist one of open borders and untrammeled migration by right.

To assist this goal, the U.S. has persuaded Guatemala, Costa Rica, and Colombia to set up Safe Mobility Offices that will channel people into accelerated refugee processing, family reunification, and labor pathways to the United States. Theres already a website, setting Uncle Sam up as a migration advisory service abroad.

Ill credit Adams with genuinely wanting to prevent crippling theft in his citys stores, even if his methods are ridiculous. But anyone studying the Biden administration knows full well that its parole policies arent designed to deter illegal immigration, much less remove anyone living here unlawfully.

All the talk of pathways, root causes, and regional cooperation is just smoke and mirrors to distract a weary U.S. publics attention from the true agenda.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please emailletters@DailySignal.comand well consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular We Hear You feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.

Go here to read the rest:
Liberals' 'Solutions' for Illegal Immigration, Shoplifting Make Matters Worse - Daily Signal