Category Archives: Liberal

Whats happening?

The Liberal partys national committee voted 59-31 in favour of campaigning as part of a right-wing alliance in the 2022 general election, approving a proposal from leader Nyamko Sabuni.

The committee also voted that the partys leadership can negotiate with the populist Sweden Democrats on policy, and even involve them in budget negotiations.

Why is that controversial?

The first part of the vote campaigning alongside the Moderate Party and Christian Democrats is in itself no surprise. The three parties have been allies through several election cycles as part of the right-wing Alliance, together with the Centre Party.

But the Alliance fell apart after the 2018 election, when neither they nor the centre-left bloc received enough votes to govern alone. A right-of-centre government would have relied on accepting support from the Sweden Democrats, a populist party with roots in neo-Nazi groups in the 1980s, which would likely only have been given in return for some level of policy influence.

The former leader of the Liberal Party,Jan Bjrklund, argued that the partys values precluded negotiating with the Sweden Democrats, as did the Centre Party and its leader Annie Lf.

Instead, the Liberals and Centre Party agreed not to vote against Social Democrat prime minister Stefan Lfven, allowing him to govern in exchange for policy influence as agreed in the so-called January Agreement between the four parties. This meant the centre-left government agreed to liberal policiessuch as cutting tax on the highest earners and reforming Swedens first in first out labour laws.

The Liberal party remains deeply split on the issue of cooperating with the Sweden Democrats, with Christer Nylander, the second vice-chair of the party, who has been one of the staunchest opponents of ending the cordon sanitaire around the Sweden Democrats, announcing after that vote that he would not put himself up for election in 2022. Sundays vote took place after several hours of debate, and several prominent figures in the party were staunchly against the proposals from leadership.

What limits does the new party policy set on deals with the Sweden Democrats?

The resolution which passed says that the budget propositions should initially be prepared by borgerliga, or right-wing parties (which would exclude the Sweden Democrats).

The resolution also said that the party would not support budget cooperation of the sort which took place between the parties in the January Agreement, with any ytterkantsparti, or outer-rim party, which would include both the far-right Sweden Democrats as well as the far-left Left Party. However, a proposed formulation that closed the door entirely on budget cooperation with the Sweden Democrats was voted down.

To placate those uncomfortable with the new policy, the resolution, A New Start For Sweden, asserts that the Liberal Partys mission was to go into hard conflict with the present days illiberal ideas, no matter which party, from left or right, is promoting them.

(article continues below)

In her speech to the meeting, Sabuni reminded her party that she had battled racism throughout her career.

I got involved in politics during a wave of xenophobia in the middle of the 1990s, when skinheads murdered refugees and the laser man was running around with a rifle, she said. For nearly 30 years, Ive stood up against racism and for the liberal model of society.

But the resolution also embodied the harder line on crime and on immigrant areas that Sabuni has brought to the party, promising to push for a Sweden without parallel societies, where the criminal justice system is strong and no district is a free zone for criminals.

How have other parties reacted?

The Sweden Democrats leader Jimmie kesson immediately cast doubt on whether the level of influence suggested in the Liberals resolution would be enough, saying neither he, nor his party, would be content to be a support wheel for a government that doesnt give us influence in proportion to our size.

kesson has in the past suggested a written agreement that would look precisely like that agreed with the January parties.

Annie Lf, the leader of the Centre Party the other January Party was highly critical of the decision, writing on Facebook that she regretted that the Liberals had chosen to open the door to an anti-liberal and xenophobic party, hard words that double as an invitation to disgruntled Liberal voters.

What will the decision mean for The Liberal party?

The Liberal party were struggling in the polls even before Sabuni took over as leader in June 2019, but the partys share of the vote has continued to fall, sometimes to under 3 percent, well below the 4 percent threshold needed to enter the Swedish parliament.

By winning the backing of the partys controlling board, Sabuni has strengthened a weak position and beaten her internal critics, making it more likely that she will continue as leader up until the 2022 election.

The party can now expect to receive tactical votes from Moderate, Christian Democrat and even Sweden Democrat voters who want to push it above the four percent threshold, making it less likely that it will be ejected from parliament in the 2022 election.

At the same time, there is a risk that the party loses both MPs and voters who oppose cooperation with the Sweden Democrats.

What will the decision mean for Swedish politics?

The decision of one of the two liberal parties to agree to negotiate and cooperate with the Sweden Democrats is a significant milestone in the normalisation of the populist party, which was long a pariah no other party of left or right could be seen to negotiate with.

The Sweden Democrats leader Jimmie kesson has sought to make the party acceptable, both to mainstream voters and to other parties, promoting a zero-tolerance policy towards racist views, and seeking to attract Swedes with immigrant backgrounds as supporters, at the same time as pushing a hard line on immigration.

The Liberals decision may make it easier for liberal-minded Moderate supporters to accept their partys decision to cooperate with the populist.

It seems unlikely, however, that it will win many more votes for the right-wing bloc. Any new voters the Liberals gain are likely to come from other right-wing parties, while the Liberal voters who oppose the decision may instead vote for the Centre Party, Green Party, or Social Democrats.

Follow this link:

Working with the far-right? What a watershed Liberal Party vote means for Swedish politics - The Local Sweden

Written by Navneet Sharma and Prakrati Bhargava

Resignation letters are supposed to be answers, but few resignations pose more questions than the answers that they were supposed to give. Pratap Bhanu Mehtas (PBM) letter of resignation from Ashoka University or his earlier letters of resignation from the National Knowledge Commission and Nehru Memorial Museum and Library have raised more questions than answers. The fundamental questions about the idea of education and the functioning of educational institutions; what education may produce if it is not expected to inculcate critical thinking and reflection; why educational institutions must be accountable to the state and what does autonomy mean for a privately-funded university which stands on the idea of liberal education?

Mehtas resignation is not about an individual and an institution coming to an agreement to terminate their mutual agreement but how and why a higher educational institution (even though it is private) could ask a teacher to resign only because s/he had a different and dissenting opinion, which became a political liability for his/her employer. It is not about Mehtas writings alone the people at the helm may have rejoiced when he compared the PM to Charles De Gaulle but it is about the inability of the system to reckon with dissent. It also speaks of how the Indian higher education system has evolved, especially in its attempt to get decolonised. The privatisation of educational institutions schools as well as higher educational institutions promised a liberal space, but these institutions could never get out of the control of the state and the government of the day.It sounds like a clich that education is a liberating force, when it could not liberate even the institutions where liberal education is imparted. The Indian Higher Education System (HES) is the second-largest such system in the world. It is experiencing severe challenges related to autonomy and academic freedom.

Autonomy and academic freedom are prerequisites for the production and dissemination of knowledge to create a truly democratic and just society. But the system is also erected on the model of affiliating and examining university, set up during the colonial period when the Indian academic profession had to affirm loyalty not creativity and research. Indian HES is still in search of its own objectives and models.

In recent years, some private enterprises Nalanda, Azim Premji, Shiv Nadar, and Ashoka have promised to provide an alternative to shrinking spaces of dissent and discourse in public universities not only with regard to courses, curriculum, pedagogy, and cultural events but also in the realm of university administration and organisation. Although committed to the values of liberal art and science education, these universities are witnessing challenges and constraints of varied forms. The idea of liberal art and science education propounded by John Henry Newman in The Idea of a University underlines the function of a university that promotes liberal education: Here then is real teaching it at least tends towards the cultivation of the intellect; it at least recognises that knowledge is something more than a sort of passive reception of scraps and details; it is a something and it does a something, which never will issue from the most strenuous efforts of a set of teachers, with no mutual sympathies and no intercommunion, of a set of examiners with no opinions which they dare profess, and with no common principles, who are teaching or questioning a set of youths who do not know them, and do not know each other, on a large number of subjects different in kind, and connected by no wide philosophy.

Drawing from Newmans idea of liberal art and science education, universities in modern times have to profess universal knowledge. However, liberal arts and science education in the third world is often re-configured according to the socio-political, economic and cultural climate of the time. Any endeavour to transplant the concept of liberal education in India has to negotiate with varied challenges emanating from the values practised in the society. Indian public universities have witnessed several shifts from liberal democratic to ideological conformity, from academic and intellectual freedom to conservatism, from liberal knowledge to knowledge management, and from socially inclusive to financially progressive. In contrast, private universities in India are largely embedded in the political economy of the state. They claim relative autonomy yet cannot shrug off political patronage. The controversy around the University of Eminence status in 2018 by the MHRD to the yet-to-take-off Jio University speaks of the intimate relationship of state and private universities. A private university which thrives to promote the liberal idea of the university has to adjust and administer in accord with the invisible structures of power and agency.

Universities like Ashoka University which advocate the idea of liberal art and science university with a vision of promoting critical thinking and a strong commitment to public service have to negotiate with the existing climate of Indian HES.

There was a shift, not so long ago, from public universities to private universities when senior academics deserted public universities. The love lost for public education and educational institutions and the public culture that we have created needs, in Mehtas own words, a massive repudiation or we may not be able to recover and reclaim our nation, freedom, truths, and religion. Mehta himself had forewarned that liberalism, which was an insurgent ideology once, will turn hegemonic if it runs too long and too well. The events leading to his resignation is an outcome of a deadly mix of liberalism and cultural nationalism.

The writers are faculty, Department of Education, Central University of Himachal Pradesh. Views are personal

View post:

No space for liberal education - The Indian Express

Last Monday at Senate estimates, Labor senator Jenny McAllister put to Marise Payne a question that I have long wanted to ask myself: Is it an impossible job being a minister for women in a Morrison government?

Now I have made no secret of my feelings about our Minister for Women and the fact she has been effectively missing in action on how the pandemic has disproportionately affected women. She has also been conspicuously absent from the debate over the past six weeks on the treatment of women in the Liberal Party and in Australia generally. This glaring omission culminated in criticism that she had not attended, let alone addressed, a meeting of 400 Coalition staffers which Scott Morrison held behind closed doors last week to acknowledge the absolute rubbish female Liberals have had to deal with.

Marise Payne at a Senate estimates hearing on Monday. Credit:Alex Ellinghausen

I have also made no secret of my contempt for what has been referred to as the handbag brigade, the Liberal women paraded in front of the media to defend the indefensible, whenever it occurs. The most recent, egregious example: Anne Ruston, Linda Reynolds and Michaelia Cashs spirited defence of that budget last financial year, which many women, including yours truly, rightly called out for failing to deliver for women. A highlight, no doubt, was Ruston feebly telling the ABC that women will enjoy driving on all those new roads that the government stimulus would fund.

Yet when McAllister asked Payne on Monday if it is an impossible job being a minister for women in a Morrison government, I have to admit even I felt for a minister so clearly under siege.

No, senator, was Paynes response. And then there was a very long silence as both women exchanged what I can only describe as a knowing look that Paynes answer was complete and utter bullshit.

Andrew Laming in Parliament on Wednesday.Credit:Andrew Meares

The week before, I watched on with similar unease when Channel 10 reporter Tegan George literally chased Payne through the halls of Parliament (the minister apparently tried to do a runner instead of a promised doorstop) to put to her this question: Can you understand why Australian women feel disappointed and let down by you?

Loading

A former boss of the Office for Women, Trish Bergin, has suggested that Morrison make the post of Minister for Women a standalone portfolio that maintains its place at the cabinet table, to ensure the portfolio gets the prominence it deserves. I dont disagree, but I imagine whoever is in the role will be hampered by the fact a male-dominated Liberal Party demands the minister prioritise loyalty over speaking sense. And anyone would tire of being hauled out as an apologist for whatever nonsense their male peers get up to.

Read more:

Paynes silence speaks volumes about the Liberal Party - Sydney Morning Herald

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

The Liberal Democrats and the Green Party have made a pact to stand aside for each other in all Guildford seats in May's local elections, in a bid to defeat the Conservatives.

The two parties sit together on Surrey County Council in the Surrey Opposition Forum council group.

Lib Dems will put forward candidates in nine of the ten county council divisions in the Guildford borough and the Greens will stand in the remaining division, Shere.

Signing up to the SurreyLive newsletter means you'll receive our daily news email.

It couldn't be simpler and it takes seconds - simply press here, enter your email address and follow the instructions.

You can also enter your address at the top of this page in the box below the picture on most desktop and mobile platforms.

Changed your mind? There's an 'unsubscribe' button at the bottom of every newsletter we send out.

Catherine Houston, chair of Guildford Liberal Democrats, said: Wherever they live, residents of Guildford borough will be able to vote with confidence for a Liberal Democrat or Green, safe in the knowledge that the candidate they are voting for is the one best placed to beat the Conservatives and to bring about a kinder, fairer and more competent politics at County Hall.

Similarly the Green Party will not stand in the Friary and St Nicolas by-election for the borough council, and the Liberal Democrats will stand aside in the borough by-elections in Pirbright and Send.

Mark Bray-Parry, spokesperson for Guildford and Waverley Green Party, said: The Green Party recognises the benefit to residents of a collaborative approach to politics.

In an election where Covid has put pressure on local campaign resources, we are pleased to have worked with the Liberal Democrats to ensure that residents in key divisions and wards have a progressive and environmentally conscious candidate, regardless of whether that candidate is a Liberal Democrat or a Green.

Currently the political make-up of Guildfords county councillors are: Six Conservative (Ash, Guildford South East, Horsleys, Shalford, Worplesdon and Shere), three Liberal Democrat (Guildford North, Guildford South West and Guildford West) and one vacancy (Guildford East).

Read more:

Liberal Democrats and Greens make election pact in a bid to defeat Conservatives in Guildford - Surrey Live

U.S. Supreme Court

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 25, 2021, 1:11 pm CDT

Image from Shutterstock.com.

A woman who continued to flee after being shot by police has the same Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizure as a person who is detained, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The high court ruled 5-3 for Roxanne Torres, who said she thought the officers who tried to open the door of her car were carjackers. The New Mexico State Police officers were wearing tactical vests marked with police identification, but Torres said she only noticed their guns.

The issue in the case was whether a seizure happens for Fourth Amendment purposes when an officer shoots someone who temporarily evades capture after a shooting.

The answer is yes, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in the March 25 majority opinion. The application of physical force to the body of a person with intent to restrain is a seizure, even if the force does not succeed in subduing the person.

Roberts opinion was joined by Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and the courts more liberal members, Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not take part in the opinion.

The incident happened in July 2014 outside an apartment complex in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where police had gone to execute a warrant. Torres, who was experiencing methamphetamine withdrawal, drove away after the officers approached her car.

Police fired 13 shots, striking her twice in the back. Torres drove to a nearby apartment complex, where she stole an idling Kia Soul. She then drove 75 miles to another town, where she was hospitalized. Torres was airlifted back to an Albuquerque hospital, where she was arrested.

Torres sought damages for an unreasonable seizure under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act. A district court judge tossed her excessive force claim, reasoning that there was no seizure because she continued to flee after being shot.

In his opinion, Roberts stressed that the majority decision is narrow and does not apply to every physical contact between a government employee and a member of the public.

A seizure requires the use of force with intent to restrain. Accidental force will not qualify, Roberts wrote. Nor will force intentionally applied for some other purpose satisfy this rule. In this opinion, we consider only force used to apprehend. We do not accept the dissents invitation to opine on matters not presented herepepper spray, flash-bang grenades, lasers and more.

Roberts said the courts decision for Torres left open several issues to be decided on remand, including whether the seizure was reasonable and whether the officers had qualified immunity.

In a dissent, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said the majority had disregarded the Constitutions original and ordinary meaning, had dispensed with interpretive rules, and had bypassed the main currents of the common law.

Gorsuch said the majority decision may have been based on an impulse that people such as Torres should be able to sue for damages.

Sometimes police shootings are justified, but other times they cry out for a remedy. The majority seems to give voice to this sentiment, Gorsuch said.

But tasked only with applying the Constitutions terms, we have no authority to posit penumbras of privacy and personal security and devise whatever rules we think might best serve the [Fourth] Amendments essence.

Gorsuchs dissent was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Hat tip to SCOTUSblog.

See original here:

Roberts, Kavanaugh join with liberal justices to rule for woman shot by police while fleeing - ABA Journal

Voters in Bengal feel quite amused when told that the next assembly elections are all done and dusted. But it is rather distressing to see how personal biases or received wisdom (tonnes of which is freely offloaded in the national capital) masquerading as profound political analysis. Despite what poll surveys tell us, a very tough battle lies ahead, not only for Mamata Banerjee but also for the liberal principles and secular ideologies that the people of the state have prided in.

Bengal is surely a difficult state to conduct elections in I can certify as I had to do it twice and the argumentative Bengalis love to gorge, guzzle and breathe politics. From the early years of the twentieth century, the pistol and the bomb have been romanticised and socially legitimised, as terrorism challenged the might of the Empire in Bengal with the unusual daring, courting the gallows. Then the violent image was reinforced from 1971 when Congress-backed lumpen elements fought Naxalites to force through elections. Since then, every party that controlled Bengals politics or challenged such control resorted to violence, large or small.

Also read: Whats Determining the BJPs Prospects in West Bengal?

Violence surely makes it to the headlines, irrespective of what the desk had planned earlier. But while equally problematic states where bullets and bombs fly around even more, and long lathis crack skulls so effortlessly, manage well enough with one or two phases of polling; West Bengal has to suffer eight long phases. It has, after all, consistently voted against the ruling party in Delhi, for 44 years at a stretch. Of course, the prolonged electoral process does help those who have to fly in from outside to campaign, one zone at a time.

In the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, Mamata Banerjee was among the few who could successfully halt Modis juggernaut and she actually added 27 seats to her kitty in the next state assembly elections of 2016. Her Trinamool Congress (AITC or TMC) secured 211 out of the 294 seats in that election, while the BJP managed to win just three seats. So, where is the challenge?

BJPs Bengal push

Well, a lot of water has gone under Howrah Bridge since then, and though she managed to stave off the second Modi wave in the Lok Sabha polls of 2019, her party was left badly battered. She clawed her way to retain 22 of the 42 parliament seats, while the BJP shot through the roof to secure an incredible number of 18 MPs in place of only two that it had won earlier. It was almost as if the BJPs slogan Unishe half, Ekushe saaf (halve TMC in 2019, finish it off in 2021) was coming true.

The BJPs vote share also went up by a whooping 22.7%, to equal the 40% that TMC had secured in the last Lok Sabha election. Mercifully, for the TMC, it managed to garner an additional 3.5% in 2019, which gave it its 22 seats. It was quite a photo finish and while Narendra Modi has surely tasted blood, the perennial street fighter is far from over. Her TMC is desperately fighting to improve its position, based on her reasonably good execution of welfare schemes.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi in West Bengal. Credit: PTI/Files

Mamatas micro-management has been quite obsessive and she is also banking on the Modi magic dimming, as it does, in state elections. But Modi is not only splattered all over the place but has made more visits to the state in weeks than he has done in several years. And the BJP has pulled out its entire reserve force as if the other three state elections do not matter. It is using the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Income Tax to bludgeon opposition and engineer defections, but convictions are next to nil. It is surely splurging much more than the state has ever seen and that matters.

The BJP has also capitalised on Mamatas autocratic manner and corruption issues to whip up a strong anti-incumbency breeze. This is stronger than what the Left could achieve with its consistent attacks, but one is not sure whether to call it a wave. Mamatas elected representatives have surely antagonised voters by demanding cuts from welfare schemes and enriching themselves from illegal mining of sand and coal. Sadly, Bengal has neither granite or other major minerals to finance ruling parties, nor huge infrastructure projects for cronies to feast on and also contribute to the regime. Hence, corruption in Bengal is on the MSME model rather than, say, the Bellary one.

We seem to have forgotten that the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Left Front had ruled the state for 34 years. Well, in 2019, the party was almost wiped out as all its candidates lost and it could not secure the second position in any of the 294 assembly segments. Its overall vote crashed to just 6.3% in 2019 from its earlier historic levels of 30 plus to less than 20% in 2016. The Congress has been systematically bled by its own breakaway party, TMC, and relations are bitterly hostile. It managed, however, to send two MPs to the Lok Sabha in 2019, even as its vote share plummeted to barely 5%.

Many had expected that the three secular parties would either stand up together against the most deadly challenge from communal forces after Jinnah and his Great Calcutta Killings of 1946. It is puerile for any of the three to complain about being victimised by the other(s) as every one of them has indulged in violence when in power. In fact, the present colossal size of the BJP in Bengal is indirectly Mamatas contribution, as her partys goons tormented local leaders of the Congress and the Left, filed false or exaggerated police cases (before an ever obliging police administration) and drove them away from their homes.

Many of those attacked were also musclemen, but the cumulative result was that almost all of them took shelter under the centrally-protected BJP, that constantly flashes the Union home ministrys biceps. To add to the pandemonium, the Congress and the Left have buried their blood-stained hatchets and formed a Third Front to fight primarily the TMC, the bte noire.

A new divide along linguistic lines

While a demoralised, confounded Congress, abandoned by its central leadership, focuses desperately to retain its traditional base in middle Bengal, the CPI(M), led by its intellectual brigade, has unleashed a bitter war on the TMC, as if the BJP threat hardly exists. Communists have tapped into youth power and crafted innovative slogans, songs, memes and lampoons heckling the TMC much more than the BJP. The BJP surely profits from this divide in secular votes and we must thank the Marxists if the BJP romps to power. They will, of course, then spend several debating days to deliberate on yet another historic mistake. And this Left-Congress combo has (hold your breath!) tagged along with a new Muslim party led by a 24-year-old rabble rousing hereditary religious leader from the very-famous Furfura Sharif in Hooglhy.

Also read: We Cannot Ignore the Lefts Role in Fostering Soft Hinduisation in Bengal

Obviously, it will cut into the 27% plus of Muslim votes that Mamata has been wooing to the point of making it a major electoral issue. The Bengali Muslim is hardly swayed by the Urdu oratory of, say, an Owaisi who wisely decided to stay away. A section of Bengals Muslims must have taken it too easy or else the BJP could not have got away with Lok Sabha seats in Muslim-dominated Malda, Raiganj and Balurghat. A large section has also supported the Congress and the Left, but with such an unprecedented threat from the BJP, it is likely that they may seriously back Mamatas TMC.

Incidentally, at the time of Indias partition, the east did not witness the bloodbaths of Punjab and there is more in common among the Bengalis of both religions than in the west. Over the next decades, however, lakhs of refugees streamed in, but the Communist parties played a sterling role in de-communalising disgruntled displaced masses. They needed them for class wars and political agitations. Even the most optimistic secular Bengali will, however, admit there has been an unbelievable polarisation, especially of Hindus.

It does not matter whether the local bhakts are victims of non-stop exaggerated, one-sided propaganda or whether they seek the uterine comfort of blind, non-thinking political guruvad that is doled out by an irresistible demagogue. Many nurse a deep rooted hatred for the corrupt leaders of the TMC and are prepared to invite communal forces to combat it and it is a small mercy that communal incidents have not been ignited, not yet.

But voters here are certainly not amused when they are informed that they now suffer from regional parochialism. This hurts, as Bengal is one of the very few states that has rejected regionalism rather vigorously, consistently for over seven decades. But many rural voters can hardly understand much of what the prime minister, the home minister and leaders like Adityanath say in Hindi even though they flock to see these TV characters alight from helicopters and address them.

If, say, Gujaratis who can hardly understand what Telugus say are not branded parochial, there is no reason why Bengalis should be if many dont understand Hindi. Why Bengals own Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders do not lead the charge is not clear and this unprecedented PM/HM-led campaign has all the pitfalls of a centrally-sponsored scheme that invariably ignores local traditions.

Bengalis have, however, lesser angst against Hindi than Tamils, and they can easily massacre Hindi pronunciation, accent, gender and grammar quite adroitly. Even so, one is really not sure that they would be delighted to be an extension of a Hindi-Hindu-Hindutva world. An extremely worrisome phenomenon is a new divide along linguistic lines and the swagger that accompanies both sides. This has hardly ever been seen before and must be cured the soonest.

Also read: Ground Report | What Happens in Bankura Will Decide What Happens in Bengal

True, Bengalis are passionately attached to their language and their fellow speakers in the east, now called Bangladesh, sacrificed more than 30 lakh lives for it. This does not, however, condone the incorrigible habit of speaking in Bengali among themselves, when others present do not understand. And, while more sensible folk elsewhere made money, many Bengalis remained fixated with culture, literature, songs, revolution and such other terribly uneconomic vocations. Thus, when their icons like Tagore, Vivekananda or Netaji are tossed around flippantly for votes and subjected to sacrilegiously wrong descriptions by the powers that be, there is an expected hue and cry.

Whether the mainly-liberal ideals that were injected into most educated Bengalis over the last two centuries will hold on against a tsunami of men, materials and money is yet to be seen. Civil society that usually exerts only a moral pressure from a distance has, however, jumped into the fray this time somewhat like liberals in America and are leading an active No vote to BJP campaign. But we also have to remember that a BJP, flush with crony-funding, views electoral results only as indicating the base price above which MLAs are to be bought, to form governments. There is, however, quite some time left for that. A week, Harold Wilson had once said, is a long time in politics. Six weeks are, thus, oceans of time for political history to traverse.

Jawhar Sircaris a former culture secretary, Government of India. He tweets at@jawharsircar.

More:

From Liberalism To Secularism, the Battle for Bengal Has Just Begun - The Wire

Events culminated this week when a Coalition staffer was sacked after videos of him masturbating on the desk of his then-boss, a federal female Liberal MP, were leaked to the media.

Ms Wicks said the culture drastically needed changing and endorsed a speech by Labor MP Madeleine King, who earlier told the House that if the Federal Parliament could change its culture it could help bring the systemic abuse of women and domestic violence to an end.

Ms Wicks said the last five weeks had forced her to confront experiences that had been deeply buried.

One of the things I recognised during that week as I really grappled with this, was a recognition that certainly in my own life, I had seen so many instances of when I raised a problem and said something was not OK, too often I became the problem I was made to be the problem, she said.

And I dont think Im alone in this and when you have instance after instance of that you almost come to agree with the lie that silence keeps you safe.

But silence doesnt keep us safe so its an important moment to be having this conversation to break that silence so we can actually look at what changes we need to make in order to not only end the cycle but reverse it.

I realised that my own voice had been silenced as a result of what I had experienced, and my determination since that moment is that my voice will not be silenced, and I will use all those experiences to do what I am able, serving in this Parliament to help create change for good, change in the Liberal Party, change in our parliament, change in our workplaces, change in our communities and change in our homes around the nation.

Ms Wicks said this was also the reason for her change of heart on the Liberal Party adopting quotas, which she and a growing number of female MPs as well as the Prime Minister are now publicly endorsing despite the partys long-held opposition to affirmative action measures first adopted by Labor in 1994.

Ms Wicks is a member of Mr Morrisons inner circle and says she has shared some of her personal history with the Prime Minister, as well as her thoughts on how the government can be better responding to the issue.

She says introducing quotas is one step.

If we havent got it right over 20 years its probably time to shift the conversation and look at quotas and merit-based selection, Mrs Wicks said.

I think we can do it, I think we should do it quickly and I think we should do it in time for the next federal election.

Loading

Asked if Liberals were staging an about-turn on the issue as a way of providing the Prime Minister with a way out of the scandal engulfing the government ever since Ms Higgins came forward with her claims, Ms Wicks said backing quotas was a positive and first step, but also a big for step for the Liberal Party.

Ms Wicks said the Prime Minister was genuine about trying to change the culture and the treatment of women but that it couldnt be fixed quickly or by Parliament alone.

Its going to be a long conversation but I think its a conversation the Prime Minister is having, will have and will continue to have, hes determined to keep listening and learning, she said.

Asked why the Prime Minister had faced such fierce criticism for his response, Mrs Wicks said the issue was not easy to navigate for any leader.

Its incredibly hard to get right because its incredibly confronting because as a leader you have to hold the pain of a nation, thats really hard to do but I think he is genuinely listening and learning.

Latika Bourke is a journalist for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, based in London.

Read more here:

Ive really struggled: Federal Liberal MP reveals personal grief as motivation for changing course on quotas - Sydney Morning Herald

Lyndon B. Johnson, as US President, with Hubert H. Humphrey, as US Vice President. (AP)

It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.

These words of the late Minnesota Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey have always best defined for me what it means to be a liberal Democrat. I still believe them to govern my political philosophy.

The key is belief in government not as the problem but as the needed counterpoint to over-concentrated power to level the playing field, as progressive presidents from Teddy Roosevelt to Franklin Delano Roosevelt to John Kennedy to Bill Clinton would say, for equal opportunity, individual responsibility and social justice for the average American.

[pullquote]

In recent months, however, some people who sincerely believe they are liberals are being quoted in the national media and on the blogosphere as if their definition of liberalism is the only one.

For example, if a Democrat is on record as pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-ObamaCare, pro-minimum wage, pro-labor, pro-strong environmental regulation or pro-preschool supported by taxes, if that Democrat also believes in the value of business, believes in the private sector as being the best job creator and often more efficient than government, that Democrat still risks being called a conservative or, to many even worse, a centrist.

This reminds me of something I wrote about my own personal liberal political hero in the 1960s, the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy of New York, brother of former President Kennedy. Here is what I wrote in my 2006 book, "Scandal: How Gotcha Politics Is Destroying America:"

When Kennedy announced the Bedford-Stuyvesant redevelopment plan, which used Republican-style market incentives and tax breaks for business to spur jobs in the urban inner city, he was criticized by a well-known and respected Democratic socialist writer, Michael Harrington, as putting too much trust in private business. Kennedys reportedly responded: The difference between me and [Republican conservatives] is I mean what I say.

... Kennedy also prayed with Cesar Chavez in the grape fields of California to win collective bargaining rights and justice for agricultural workers. ... He was sometimes rough, often described as ruthless ... but was seen by both left and right as blunt-speaking, passionate and authentic. ... His followers ran the gamut, from culturally conservative blue collar workers who became Reagan Democrats in the 1980s to the poorest African Americans and Hispanics in Americas underclass. The results of the May 1968 Indiana Democratic primary were a dramatic indication of this. He carried 9 of the 11 congressional districts, won 17 of the 25 rural southern counties, won more than 85 percent of the African American vote, and carried the seven [white] backlash counties that segregationist George Wallace had won in the 1964 Democratic presidential primary.

So, although RFK is remembered as a liberal for his 1968 anti-war and anti-poverty presidential campaign ... he represented someone who is neither left, nor right, but both; liked and disliked by both; pro-business but also pro-regulation; religious and even moralistic about family values and faith, but tolerant of dissent and committed to the separation of Church and State. Most importantly, Robert Kennedy connected with people who wanted their problems solved.

Believe it or not, I actually read over the weekend in an Associated Press article that there are some self-described liberals who challenge President Obamas liberal credentials because he attempted to negotiate a grand bargain with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) last year to try to reduce budget deficits and a $16 trillion national debt (now approaching $17 trillion, or about equal to gross domestic product).

What would Hubert Humphrey and Robert Kennedy say if they were alive today, about a government that uses credit cards every day to pay for all its programs and plans to dump all the receipts on the laps of its children and grandchildren, expecting them to pay the tab?

I believe both men would regard such a government, unwilling to raise taxes and cut spending and reform entitlements to avoid passing the tab to our children, as neither moral nor liberal.

If you are a liberal, what do you think?

This column appears first and weekly in The Hill and the Hill.com.

Read this article:

What is a liberal? What is a conservative? | Fox News

Normal text sizeLarger text sizeVery large text size

In a 2015 speech to the NSW Liberal Party State Council, then prime minister Malcolm Turnbull declared we are not run by factions. It was a claim that had the party faithful rolling in the aisles.

While Labor organises along strict Left-Right lines (with some smaller sub-factions, often allied with a specific union) the Liberal Party is far more byzantine. Nevertheless, factions or ideological groupings play an important role in organising the modern parliamentary party.

To report this story, The Sun-Herald and The Sunday Age conducted more than 50 interviews with 39 MPs in the 91-member federal parliamentary Liberal Party.

What emerged was agreement on two key points.

There are three broad groupings within the party a Moderate or Modern Liberals wing, with Finance Minister Simon Birmingham as its leader; a Morrison Club/Centre-Right grouping led by the Prime Minister; and a National Right group led by Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton.

The second key point is that MPs (except for the unaligned few) are drawn to one of these three groups by overlapping interests that span their state of origin and the region theyre from, allegiance to a powerful individual, faith, ideology, philosophical interests and their year of election.

The NSW and South Australian divisions of the party are the most similar to Labor in that they have a factional structure (Moderate, National Right and in the case of NSW, Centre Right). In Victoria factional allegiances are largely based on personalities and the party has been riven by divisions for at least a decade since the faction led by former federal treasurer Peter Costello and powerbroker Michael Kroger fell apart. Treasurer Josh Frydenberg close to Kroger and National Right powerbroker Michael Sukkar leads the Victorian ambition faction after he thrashed his friend, Health Minister Greg Hunt, in the contest for the deputy Liberal leadership in 2018, while the Costello group has largely faded away.

The running joke among party moderates is that in Queensland, WA and Tasmania there are no moderates like Canberras version of the Tasmanian Tiger or the Grampians Puma, there are people who swear they exist, but they rarely break cover in public.

So how do Liberal MPs align when it comes to factions? How can they be in more than one group? Who is in the ambition faction? Who is in the Prayer Group? And who are the Monkey Pod Lunch Conservatives?

To understand how the Liberal Party works, a good starting point is former Howard government minister David Kemps 1973 essay A Leader and a Philosophy. Liberal factions tend to be very different to Labors factions, Kemp says, they arent organised in the same way and they tend to cut across each other on different issues, its not as clear-cut and there is much more fluidity.

The groupings in the Liberal Party tend to be around personalities and issues but you get people with similar views in different groups.

This observation is crucial. In the 1980s and 90s there were the dries, who emphasised free-market economics and conservative social policy, and the wets, who favoured more progressive social policy and bigger government, but those groups are no more.

These days the Moderate faction is the leading advocate of free-market economics whereas the National Right is more concerned with social issues: religious freedoms, gender identity, national security and, until recently, opposing same-sex marriage.

Climate change is still a lightning rod: the Moderates favour stronger action to mitigate it, the National Right counts some sceptics among its number and the Centre Right takes a pragmatic, middle-of-the-pack approach (as it does on many other issues).

Personalities in the Liberal constellation of alliances and leaders accrue personal loyalty over time especially from those they bring into parliament, such as the 15 new MPs who won their seats in 2019.

While the partys factional lines are on clearest display during leadership spills, the groups are always present, working behind the scenes. And while the party does not rely on factions to organise and manage policy debates to the extent that Labor does, the groupings play a key role in managing competing interests.

Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister Ben Morton with Prime Minister Scott Morrison in May 2019.Credit:Alex Ellinghausen

Scott Morrison is the titular head of the Morrison Club/Centre Right group. Outside NSW, where the Centre Right is an organised faction, this grouping is the least formally structured of the three main groups. It doesnt meet on a regular basis and is really several overlapping groups with shared interests and Morrison as its figurehead.

The groups unifying philosophy is pragmatism - that means an adherence to free-market economics (but with enough flexibility to splash billions to prop up the economy during the COVID-19 pandemic) and relatively conservative social values.

As one member of the group puts it, we realise you dont win elections by yelling at people about abortion. We are dry economically and socially conservative but not in an in your face way.

Morrisons club primarily consists of MPs who entered parliament when he did, in 2007: Alex Hawke, the factional organiser of the Centre Right in NSW, Queenslander Stuart Robert and West Australian Steve Irons. This core group is also defined by their shared faith (all are members of the Prayer Group more on that below) and their lets get things done approach.

Loading

Ben Morton, another West Australian and, like Morrison, a former state division director, is one of the PMs closest and most able lieutenants but if Morrison were not in the parliament, Mortons philosophical home would be the National Right.

In NSW, Morrison and Hawke have five other rusted-on supporters in Hollie Hughes, Melissa McIntosh, Lucy Wicks, Julian Leeser and Jim Molan. Environment Minister Sussan Ley, also from NSW, is part of the Morrison Club but historically has been a moderate and so isnt considered a core member of the Centre Right.

About half of Treasurer Josh Frydenbergs Victorian group, including Hunt, Trade Minister Dan Tehan and a handful of others, belong to the Morrison Club. A large cohort of Queenslanders, many of them first-termers, people of faith or both, and some MPs from other states are also members of the Morrison Club. In all, about half of the Prayer Group belongs to the Centre Right while the other half is in the National Right.

Both Moderates and National Right members argue that some MPs self-nominate as members of the Centre Right because its the Morrison Club personal loyalty to the PM matters, particularly for the class of 2019.

MPs who have historically been moderates but are in the Morrison Club include Hunt, Ley, Hughes, Anne Ruston, Jason Wood, Julian Leeser, Sarah Henderson and Rowan Ramsey.

On the day that Morrison leaves parliament, its likely the Centre Right will begin to lose members back to the other two factions unless Frydenberg, the clear heir apparent to the Liberal leadership, can hold the club together. Its important to remember that back in 2014 there was a (Joe) Hockey Club but political trajectories can reverse in an instant.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, who is part of the Morrison Club, and Finance Minister Simon Birmingham, a Moderate. Credit:Alex Ellinghausen

Simon Birmingham, Marise Payne and Paul Fletcher are the three most influential Moderates in the federal Liberal Party. All three are cut from similar cloth and are quieter personalities than their factional predecessors Christopher Pyne, Julie Bishop and George Brandis.

The Moderates dont have a weekly meeting when parliament sits. Instead, they meet to discuss specific policies or legislation on a more ad hoc basis.

A grouping within the larger is dubbed the New Guard Moderates or Modern Liberals. Elected in 2016 or 2019, they typically represent inner-city lower house seats or are in the Senate.

This group are more economically dry than their elder colleagues, progressive on social issues and, if anything, willing to advocate for more ambitious climate change policy. As one member puts it: We are Menzies Liberals, the live and let live people. And we are the old dries and wets at the same time.

The New Guard have landed the chairmanships of some of parliaments most important committees, including mental health (Fiona Martin), taxation (Jason Falinski), economics (Tim Wilson), Fintech (Andrew Bragg) and treaties (Dave Sharma).

Nearly three years on from the spill, the PM has broad support across the party from all three factions.

As chief political correspondent David Crowe wrote in Venom, his book about the fall of Turnbull and the rise of Morrison, Morrison beat Dutton and Julie Bishop in the 2018 leadership contest because his core group of about 15 supporters was able to weld together an alliance that also included the Moderates, securing him his 45-40 victory in the party room.

Nearly three years on from the spill, the PM a natural conservative, not an ideological conservative, as one of his allies puts it has broad support from all three factions.

But that doesnt mean the Moderates are always happy with the PMs policy approach. Some feel he takes the Moderates support for granted; and they believe that, in a post-Morrison era, a lot of people in the Centre Right, in particular, will move back to us.

Peter Dutton is possibly the least well-understood conservative in Parliament.Credit:Alex Ellinghausen

The National Right (sometimes called the Hard Right) is the most organised faction in the Liberal Party and is undergoing a changing of the guard. For years its figureheads were Tony Abbott, Eric Abetz and Kevin Andrews. Abbott has, of course, left the building, Andrews has lost preselection and Abetz is facing a challenge from his former staffer, Jonathon Duniam, for the top spot on the Tasmanian Senate ticket.

Peter Dutton, the notional leader of the faction, is perhaps the least well-understood conservative in the parliament. He is best described as a national security conservative rather than a religious conservative, and is arguably more socially progressive than the Prime Minister.

Michaelia Cash has begun to fill that vacuum, as has rising star MP Andrew Hastie, but Mathias Cormann casts a long shadow in the west.

The exit of Mathias Cormann, Duttons close friend, has left a big gap in the National Right and in WA in particular. Senator Michaelia Cash has begun to fill that vacuum, as has MP Andrew Hastie, but the former senator casts a long shadow in the west. Angus Taylor is an important figure, insofar as hes a member of the cabinet, but doesnt tend to wield influence in factional brawls over preselections.

Victorias Michael Sukkar and the ACTs Zed Seselja have risen through the ranks and are now involved in everything from organising the annual National Right dinner to influencing internal policy debates (incidentally, the Moderates have a similar annual meal known as the Black Hand dinner, while the Centre Right doesnt have a comparable event but some attend the National Right meal).

Sukkar also wields significant influence over preselection in his home state. Hastie, as well as Queenslander Amanda Stoker and South Australian Tony Pasin, are also increasingly influential.

The National Right is more likely to speak with one voice on social policy rather than economic policy. As a member of the faction puts it, the group believes in government that is as big as it has to be and the acceptance that the future of the Liberal Party is in the outer suburbs and the regions.

We believe in defending the value of institutions that have stood the test of time.

Philosophically, the National Right and the Morrison Club have a lot in common - its a question of degrees of emphasis on specific policies - and many members could be at home in either group.

The fact that many MPs belong to more than one group underscores the partys less formal factional alignments and how interests overlap.

Key sub-groups include the Prayer Group, the Monkey Pod Lunch Conservatives, Frydenbergs Victorian group, the Rural and Regional Liberals, the Veterans group and the Morrison-Hawke Centre Right in NSW.

The Prayer Group has, at its core, the Prime Minister and some of his key allies including Irons and Robert. While some of its members are Pentecostal Christians like the PM, its not an exclusive club there are also Catholic members and Julian Leeser, who is Jewish.The group also includes members of the National Right such as Andrew Hastie, Amanda Stoker and Jonathon Duniam underscoring the confluence of interests among the National Right and the Centre Right.

Convened by Peter Dutton, the group shares a philosophical outlook, discusses policy and shares takeaway lunch on a Tuesday.

The Monkey Pod Lunch group first revealed back in 2015, and named after the tropical hardwood tree table in a meeting room in the ministerial wing of Parliament House is a group of like-minded National Right conservatives. Convened by Dutton, the group discusses policy and shares takeaway lunch on a Tuesday.

The Rural and Regional grouping of Liberals, convened by South Australian Rowan Ramsey and with at least 19 members, exists to advance regional Liberal interests in contra-distinction to the 21 Nationals MPs. Though they wouldnt be considered a faction, this Liberal group is designed to ensure the party maintains a strong presence in the bush.

Other groupings include Frydenbergs Victorian ambition faction, which takes in members of the Centre Right and the National Right. This group has 10 members, meets semi-regularly when in Canberra, and works to ensure its preferred Victorian candidates are preselected, but at a national level is split in two.

Theres also a Veterans group with eight members that includes Stuart Robert, Andrew Hastie, Phillip Thompson, Gavin Pearce, Jim Molan, Vince Connelly, Andrew McLachlan and David Fawcett but not Defence Minister Linda Reynolds, a former brigadier in the Army Reserve.

Celia Hammond (here being congratulated after her maiden speech in 2019 by Treasurer Josh Frydenberg and Prime Minister Scott Morrison) has ties to all three main groupings.Credit:Alex Ellinghausen

Then there are the independents. House Speaker Tony Smith and Senate president Scott Ryan (both Victorians) were, back in the day, dyed-in-the- wool members of the Costello faction in Victoria but that faction no longer exists. Tim Wilson, Jane Hume and Katie Allen are (broadly speaking) members of the Moderates but would be more likely to describe themselves as Classical, or even Menzies, Liberals.

WA Senator Dean Smith now tells colleagues he is a faction of one.

Loading

WA senator Dean Smith is by disposition an arch-conservative (and monarchist) but he was also a leading proponent of same-sex marriage and now tells colleagues he is a faction of one. Fellow West Australian Celia Hammond straddles all three groups she was backed by the National Rights Cormann to take Julie Bishops seat, is a member of the Prayer Group and holds progressive views on climate change.

Fairfax MP Ted OBrien is not factionally aligned but is one of the key organisers of a Team Queensland group of MPs (which could be considered another grouping). Fellow Queenslander Andrew Laming is considered so mercurial as to be an independent.

The independents have plenty in common with each of the three groups but they also underscore just how fluid Liberal Party allegiances can be.

Read also: Whos who in Labors Left and Right factions?

An earlier version of this article said that Senator James Paterson is a member of the New Guard Moderates sub-faction. This is not correct, he is in the National Right. The article has also been updated to reflect the fact that Senator Andrew Bragg is chair of the Fintech committee.

Read more:

Whos who in the Liberals left, right and centre factions? - Sydney Morning Herald