Mediaboss Marketing

Labour leader Keir Starmer and Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey had what looked like a political strategy meeting when they were sitting together in Westminster Abbey for the Coronation of King Charles. This produced what appears to be a tacit agreement between the two parties to campaign against the Conservatives but not against each other.

A tacit agreement makes a great deal of sense in 2024. In the 2019 general election, the Liberal Democrats came second to the Conservatives in 80 seats and second to Labour in only nine seats. They werent much of a threat to Labour. If we look at the 11 seats won by the Liberal Democrats last time, the Conservatives were in second place in seven of them, with Labour second in none. Labour was not much of a threat to them either.

Want more election coverage from The Conversations academic experts? Over the coming weeks, well bring you informed analysis of developments in the campaign and well fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our new, weekly election newsletter, delivered every Friday throughout the campaign and beyond.

But how is this arrangement affected by the surge in support for Reform? We can examine this by looking at the electoral battleground using two scenarios.

The first looks at a plausible swing to Labour and the Liberal Democrats in the absence of a Reform surge. The second looks at what might happen given that Nigel Farages party is now neck and neck with the Conservatives in voting intentions according to a recent YouGov poll.

Scenario one is a plausible sequence of events relating to Labour and Liberal Democrat seat gains across the regions of the country in the absence of a Reform surge. It lists the number of marginal seats in which Labour and the Liberal Democrats came second in 2019, and are therefore in the strongest position to defeat the Conservatives in 2024. In this scenario, a marginal seat is defined as the Conservative winner having a lead of 10% or less in the vote over their rivals.

In total, Labour was in second place in 56 of these marginal seat, and the Liberal Democrats in 15. When it comes to comparisons by regions, Labour dominated in the East Midlands, the north-east, the north-west, Scotland, Wales, the West Midlands and Yorkshire and Humberside. An electoral pact in these regions would be of little use to either party. But there are prospects for a deal in the east of England, London, the south-east and the south-west.

2019 Conservative Seats with a 10% Lead over Labour/Lib Dems

If we look at the case of London in the chart, then given the increase in support for the two parties in the polls, they have a good chance of winning in all seven of the seats where they are in second place. To clarify, Labour came second in the marginal seats of Chingford and Wood Green, Chipping Barnet, Hendon, and in Kensington in the 2019 election. The Liberal Democrats came second in Carshalton and Wallington, the City of Westminster, and in Wimbledon.

All seven seats are ripe to be taken by the two parties but the chances of this happening are increased by a tacit agreement in which Labour puts up a token candidate in the potential Liberal Democrat wins and the Liberal Democrats do the same in the potential Labour wins. This tacit agreement should be kept secret of course otherwise it would be weaponised by the Conservatives.

The assumption that marginal seats are defined as Conservative seats with a lead of up to 10% ahead of Labour and the Liberal Democrats in 2019 has been overturned by the rise in support for the Reform party. Seats with what were once considered healthy majorities are at risk.

In the last election, Nigel Farage withdrew Reform candidates (then standing under the banner of the Brexit Party) from Conservative seats with strong Brexit supporting MPs and fielded only 275 candidates altogether. This means that the party was not a real threat to the Tories in 2019.

This year, however, Reform is standing candidates in the vast majority of constituencies, making the Tories much more vulnerable. The YouGov poll which put Reform in the lead shows that 32% of 2019 Conservative voters have now switched to Reform. Only 6% of Labour voters have switched to Reform and only 3% of Liberal Democrats so the Reform surge has shifted the battleground significantly in favour of both parties.

In the second scenario, we assume that Labour and the Liberal Democrats threaten the Tories in seats won by the party with up to a 20% lead over their rivals.

In seats falling into this category, Labour was in second place in 117 seats and the Liberal Democrats in 29. Labour was still dominant in the East Midlands, the north-west, Scotland, Wales, the West Midlands and Yorkshire and Humberside. However, the Liberal Democrats could do much better in the east, London, the south-east and the south-west.

If the two parties won all these seats, then Labour would have 321 seats and the Liberal Democrats 44 seats altogether as a result of adding them to the present total of their MPs in the Commons. That said, this figure ignores the effects of the nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales, both of which could contribute to Conservative losses. In practice, both Labour and the Liberal Democrats could do even better than this.

2019 Conservative Seats with a 20% Lead over over Labour/Lib Dems

These are just two scenarios, and so things could be different in reality. However, they highlight a unique feature of the current election. The centre-left has been divided since Labour replaced the Liberals as the main party of opposition in Britain after the first world war. This is the main reason why the Conservatives have been so successful in winning elections over the past century. The situation has now changed, with the centre-right divided. It is likely to have a devastating effect on the Conservatives on July 4.

Read the original here:
What would a Reform surge do to Labour and the Liberal Democrats? Two scenarios mapped - The Conversation

The liberal family at the European Parliament lost a significant number of seats after the European elections in early June, how is the group taking shape now?

Who will sit in the liberal Renew Europe family in the new Parliament? Today, Radio Schuman considered some scenarios based on discussions with European Parliament insiders.

We also talked to Euronews tech reporter Romane Armangau about the controversial regulation to protect children from online sexual abuse, which is encountering resistance from EU ministers in the Council because it proposes hefty surveillance.

Meanwhile, houses come cheap in the Italian village of Sambuca di Sicilia starting from a mere 3. But buyer beware! You could end up paying more than you bargained for.

Radio Schuman is hosted and produced by Maa de la Baume, with journalist and production assistant Eleonora Vasques and audio editing by Zacharia Vigneron. The music is by Alexandre Jas.

Go here to read the rest:
What does the future hold for the liberals in the European Parliament? - Euronews

I sometimes marvel that liberalism manages to hold its own in this, or really any, country. Its insistence upon openness to change and new ways of thinking is, lets admit it, a pretty large boulder to be carrying right out of the chute. Your average person is suspicious of change and perfectly content with the old ways of thinking. As much as liberals might wish otherwise, the desire to conserve runs far deeper in the human soul than the desire to reform.

The natural liberal disadvantage is, alas, quantifiable. Going back to 1992, Gallup has done a yearly survey asking Americans if they considered themselves moderate, conservative, or liberal. The 2024 numbers: moderate, 36 percent; conservative, 36; and liberal, just 25. But dont despair! Twenty-five is good! Back in 1992, the distribution was moderate, 43; conservative. 36; and liberal, 17. (As for left of liberal, Gallup doesnt even bother, although a 2021 Pew survey that tried to drill down more specifically found progressive left clocking in at just 6 percent.)

A stroll through American history makes readily apparent the reality that our default position as a society has been resistance to change, which carries on for agesor more often, is enforced, and usually brutallyfollowed by paroxysms of progressive reform, which are in turn followed by backlash against said reform. The periods of liberal regnancy in this countrys 248-year history can easily be counted on one hand.

Read more from the original source:
Liberalism's Natural Disadvantageand How to Overcome It - The New Republic

Residents of the federal riding of Toronto-St. Pauls will soon be tasked with voting for their next Member of Parliament. Under conventional circumstances, this wouldnt be very interesting. The riding, occupying a sizable section of midtown Toronto, has been a Liberal stronghold for the last several decades.

Former cabinet minister Carolyn Bennett, who represented the area from 1997 until early this year, regularly won the seat by at least 25 percentage points. Even in 2011, an otherwise devastating year for the Liberals, she won by just over eight points.

But things seem different this time. Although the Liberals remain ahead, recent polls show its a uniquely slim lead. Instead, the Conservatives despite winning only 21 per cent of the vote in Toronto-St. Pauls in 2019 are as close as four points behind. Both parties have invested considerable resources into the area, expecting a competitive contest on June 24.

If the Liberals lose the riding, it would be an ominous sign for Justin Trudeaus government.

Byelections can serve as important indicators of ongoing and emerging trends. Unlike general elections, an individual riding receives sustained media attention, and parties can devote a far greater degree of resources than normal.

Voters often respond to political events as they happen in real time. In this byelection, that certainly works in favour of the Conservatives.

Toronto-St. Pauls voters may be voicing their discontent with Canadas ongoing economic problems. The countrys economic growth continues to stagnate, the rate of housing construction has stalled, unemployment has risen and inflation although now under control continues to be felt by many Canadians.

Undoubtedly, this is especially acute for those under the crunch of Torontos ever-higher cost of living.

Byelections also often have a much lower turnout than normal elections, rarely drawing more than a third of eligible voters. This can not only accentuate voting trends that would otherwise be submerged under larger voting numbers, but can make the mobilizing efforts of the parties that much more important.

Nonetheless, the Conservatives are still unlikely to win in Toronto-St. Pauls. Thats because byelections dont often change the fundamental character of an electoral district.

The fact remains that Toronto-St. Pauls, as with most of the city south of Eglinton Ave., is disproportionately made up of the kind of voters that are least likely to support the Conservatives: highly educated and socially progressive while generally more affluent. With a continually weak NDP and Green Party, the Conservatives are unlikely to see a vote split on the centre-left that theyd need to succeed.

Public opinion polls indicating such a close race, however, are remarkable on their own, showing the extent of the Liberal governments increasing unpopularity. More than anything, they serve as a disconcerting though not very surprising indicator to the party of its need to change course if it wants to avoid massive electoral defeat in the near future.

At worst, Toronto-St. Pauls may indicate that Trudeaus Liberals no longer have any real chance to make that change. Its another sign alongside a considerable length of time in power, economic stagnation and several damaging scandals that Canadians are increasingly motivated by a desire for serious change in government.

Although young administrations can often be capable of addressing this mood, flexibility is always constrained by the disappointments and complacency that comes with incumbency. Its difficult to restore a tarnished reputation after nine years.

Since an upcoming wave of change in a general election seems inevitable, it may limit the Liberals ability to sway their electoral fortunes. But it also means the discontent is likely shallow and not indicative of a major, permanent realignment in Canadian politics.

Liberals have suffered numerous, quite devastating defeats in their history in 1958, 1984 and 2011 before reclaiming their core base of support.

In fact, Toronto-St. Pauls is likely to become more Liberal in the future. It decidedly stands on one side of a growing number of divisions that will structure Canadian politics over the coming years.

These divisions include the differences between rural and urban areas, social conservatives and progressive liberals and divides between knowledge-economy workers and those who rely on conventional manufacturing or resource-based sectors.

In many ways, an important fault line lies between suburban and midtown Toronto, a location where Toronto-St. Pauls arguably sits. At the ridings north border, for example, Eglinton-Lawrence is a far more competitive riding that has elected Conservatives in the recent past, even though it leans Liberal.

Unlike those closer to the downtown core, suburban voters are not only more likely to feel economic frustrations, but rely on a more diverse set of industrial sectors for their livelihood. This means the suburbs are not only primed for a Conservative takeover, but will continue to serve as swing districts that decide Canadian elections.

But for the time being, what matters is that the Liberals are in trouble. Voters apparently want change with or without Trudeau at the helm of the party.

Read more here:
A byelection to watch: What the Toronto-St. Paul's vote means for Justin Trudeau - The Conversation

As Liberal MPs prepare to return to their home ridings for the summer recess, they were surely hoping for better polling news. Last weekend, however, Abacus Data released its latest federal political opinion survey, and found the Conservatives still 20 percentage points ahead of the Liberals. The polling firm reports that: If an election were held today, 42% of committed voters would vote Conservative with the Liberals at 22%, the NDP at 19% and the Greens at 5%.

The Conservatives lead in every region except Quebec (where the Bloc still leads) and with every age cohort. Abacus reports the Liberals are polling at their lowest level since they were elected in 2015. Meaning, they have received no bounce from their most recent federal budget, nor from a host of housing announcements, nor from the well-advised increase in the capital gains tax, nor from the Bank of Canadas long-awaited interest rate cut.

Ouch.

My key take-away: as the government seeks a reset ahead of its final year before the fall 2025 election, it desperately needs to shake things up. And for those of us deeply anxious about what a Pierre Poilievre majority government would mean for the climate emergency, we urgently need it to do so. Ill leave the matter of whether Prime Minister Trudeau should stay or go to others. But on policy, what is beyond dispute is that these folks need to cease what feels like a painful death march and reinvigorate the terrain with exciting ideas that can, finally, change the dreadful script that has characterized the last two years.

What role can and should climate policy have in such an effort to reset the political dial?

My perception in dealings with government representatives is of a prevailing sentiment that they have done enough on climate, and now have a limited desire to further poke the bear.

Thats a mistake. They have not done enough, but they do indeed need a new approach. Its time to stop being so damn boring and invite the fight with the fossil fuel industry and its political servants.

Among the most intriguing findings in last weekends Abacus survey was this chart, showing the results when the pollsters asked those who prioritized a given issue which party is best able to handle it:

If the path to great leadership can be found in capitalizing upon ones strengths, then the Liberals should lean in on climate. It is the only domain in which they strongly outperform the Conservatives and NDP.

The above also has lessons for the NDP. Its strengths are in the domains of Indigenous reconciliation, inequality and poverty, and to a lesser extent health care. But their results on climate and environment should give them great pause, where their credibility among those who prioritize this issue registers on par with the Conservatives and less than half the Liberals and Green Party.

I confess this NDP result somewhat surprised me. The partys lead critics of this file MPs Laurel Collins and Charlie Angus have, in my view, been stellar performers of late, leading the charge against the fossil fuel corporations. Perhaps the partys result is better explained by perceptions of leader Jagmeet Singh, who is virtually invisible on climate. Compounding the problem, to the extent that, for better or worse (mostly worse), the climate file is dominated by the issue of carbon pricing, the leader seems to dither and lack conviction. This is going to present a major problem for the NDP, because climate-anxious voters represent a big chunk of their potential base, yet on this issue, they find the partys performance wanting.

While the Liberals are moving on climate, they are doing so in such a ponderous, incremental and technocratic manner that they have failed to gain anything politically. They appear desperate not to overly antagonize the oil and gas industry. And so, we have a Sustainable Jobs Act that will result in nothing for at least five years (an act that manages to suck all the lifeblood out of a widespread movement for a just transition). We have a lackadaisical stroll towards a modest oil and gas emissions cap that may or may not see the light of day before the next election. We have low-carbon business tax credits that are under-subscribed and poorly deployed (with a heavy focus on carbon capture and storage). And we have much-needed zero-emission vehicle and electricity mandates with target dates set for the next decade.

You still awake? None of this, let us agree, has the capacity to capture the imagination or excite the electorate.

If the governing Liberals wanted to truly shake things up on climate, what would they do?

First (and I know Im a broken record here), bring in an audacious Youth Climate Corps. Kick it off with a $1 billion annual down-payment that invites tens of thousands of young people to train-up and serve in the battle of our lives (responding to extreme weather events, undertaking building retrofits, and working on renewable energy projects, etc.) Polling commissioned by the Climate Emergency Unit last fall finds such a program would be a big political winner.

Second, take Charlie Anguss private members bill C-372 an act to prohibit fossil fuel advertising and make it law. Yes, the oil and gas industry will holler blue murder. Thats the surest proof of its effectiveness. But after what will be, in all likelihood, another record summer of fires, heat and other unnatural disasters, why not come back to the House of Commons in the fall ready to name the culprits and limit their ability to sow confusion on the urgent need for climate action?

Third, rethink those climate-related business tax credits (the take-up rate is weak and political pay-off even weaker), and redeploy billions towards big-ticket, high-visibility public climate infrastructure investments renewable energy projects, public transit, inter-provincial grid upgrades, zero-emission affordable housing that will employ thousands in well-paying jobs.

Critically, the government must link the fight for a safe climate with the battle to tackle inequality and the affordability crisis. The cost of living is what tops the publics list of concerns. So lets go big on items that free people from oppressive monthly utility and transportation costs free heat pumps for households with incomes under $100,000; free transit passes for modest income households; ambitious funding for deep housing retrofits; and enhanced rebates for e-bikes.

And lets pay for that with new taxes on wealth, windfall profits and high-emitting luxury items like private jets, outsized vehicles and yachts.

Rumour was the Liberals were considering bringing in a windfall profits tax on oil and gas companies in the lead-up to the last federal budget, but then Minister Freeland took a pass. That was a huge error. The matter should be revisited and introduced in the Fall Economic Update. Doing so could offer a sextuple win.

First, a windfall profits tax is hugely popular; polling conducted last March found 62 per cent of Canadians support such a tax. Second, it would secure ongoing NDP support; the NDP would happily vote for such a measure, giving the government time to shift the political terrain ahead of the election. Third, the climate movement would be over the moon; failure to include a windfall tax was a source of deep disappointment with the spring budget, whereas this single item would unleash that movements enthusiasm. Fourth, a windfall profits tax on oil and gas could raise close to $1 billion a year, enough revenues to just about double the newly-introduced monthly Disability Benefit, allowing the government to re-win support from that constituency. Fifth, a windfall profits tax would help lower inflation, given the outsized role oil and gas profits have played in rising prices. And six, vitally, a windfall profits tax would bring on a good fight with the oil and gas industry, which at this stage would also be good politics. The Liberals have almost nothing to lose in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and much to gain elsewhere. And let Poilievre rail and explain why he doesnt want to impose this excess profits tax on the most profitable corporations in human history it will expose him as the faux populist that he is. Whats not to like here?

If we are to stave off a Conservative majority government something which, for the sake of climate policy and a safe future, we desperately need to do then its time for progressive parties to take some big risks and make some big, bold moves. Times ticking if they hope to shift the dial.

Go here to read the rest:
Federal Liberals urgently need to shift terrain with bold ideas - Canada's National Observer