Mediaboss Marketing

The Liberal knives were out before polls had even closed.

It gathered momentum as the quantum of the Liberal defeat stunned even those insiders who had realisedlong ago that the party was out the door.

Four ministers lost their seats as part of a massive 16 per cent swing against the Liberals, the biggest swing against a sitting government on record and a backlash that left some insiders stunned on Sunday.

Most expected to lose. But not by this much.

Ministers John Day, Albert Jacob, Paul Miles and Andrea Mitchell lost seats and Joe Francis was in doubt in Jandakot.Former ministers Tony Simpson and Murray Cowper and Speaker Michael Sutherland alsolost their seats.

There is deep regret and anger over the controversial preference deal with Pauline Hanson's One Nation a decision that hurtthe primary vote for both parties.

The dealderailed the Liberals' campaign by starving the party of oxygen the Premier faced questions over it right up until Saturday and it provided an effective line of attack for Labor, which argued a vote for One Nation was a vote for Colin Barnett.

Make no mistake, it played a role. It sent more people to Labor. But the preference deal was not the only culprit.It wasn't even the main one. It simply made a dismal performance worse.

The Liberals ran a terrible campaign.It lacked big policy initiatives beyond its signature item the partial privatisation of the state's electricity distribution network Western Power.

Privatisations are hard to sell even when premiers are popular.After making it the signature policy to repair the state's parlous financial position and fuel jobs and economic growth from a $3 billion infrastructure spend, the government played dead on the issue during the campaign.

There's was no massive pitch to voters beyond the sober lines of needing to sell half the asset to continue to "get the job done" .

Labor had a field day.On a near daily basis Labor leader Mark McGowan attacked the sale, warning power prices would go, the state would lose an income stream and only Labor would stop the sale.

The problem for the Liberals is that up until about six months ago Barnett was not just against privatising Western Power he was staunchly opposed to it.

It made it hard for the Premier to campaign for it when Labor had a thick file of quotes from Barnett arguing why it should be in government hands.

It's why Liberal insiders argue the sale should have been put forward at the 2013 election, when negative sentiment was running high against Labor due to former prime minister Julia Gillard's carbon and mining taxes.

It is also why some argue the party should have changed leaders a year ago.

But the party cannot escape the fact there were few viable options. Deputy Premier Liza Harvey was viewed as needing more time to develop while the man who made a ham-fisted attempt to steal the leadership, former transport minister Dean Nalder, had only been in office three years.

The Liberals ran a campaign based around trading off past glories (building stuff) and tried to spook voters that Labor couldn't be trusted with the finances, especially because the party refused to submit its costings to Treasury.

Ordinarily voters would be sceptical of an opposition bypassing Treasury.

But it didn't resonate. Largely because the Liberals were arguing they were the better fiscal manager only to have saddled the state with record debt and deficit despite a once-in-a-generation mining boom.

The boom is long gone and the biggest issue for voters was jobs. The state has the highest unemployment rate in the country, business investment is weak and house prices are falling. The economy was a big issue but Barnett was telling voters the economy was "basically strong". It didn't resonate.

The lack of big policies by the Liberals (nervous candidates retreated to minuscule local issues like campaigning to return post boxes to a local shopping centre) allowed the media to focus on the preference swap.

And it annoyed Barnett, who just like the Western Power sale, didn't have his heart in the deal. While he supported his party's position he confirmed he was "personally uncomfortable" with it.

The lack of any major new policies or direction failed to dampen the time for change attitude among voters.

Hindsight is a wonderful beast.

There will be plenty of reflection and finger pointing in the weeks ahead.

At the same time the focus will shift to who has to clean up the mess.

Barnett will go to the backbench. He has been grooming Harvey for the top job he intended to pass over the baton during a third term.

But Francis is widely expected to contest the leadership. Of course, he needs to win his Kalamunda seat first, which was too close to call at time of printing.

The rest is here:
WA election: How the Liberals blew it - The Australian Financial Review

Labor's Mark McGowan with his family: he took power in a landslide.

The decision to cut a preference deal with One Nation at Saturday's state electionwas motivated by internal polling that showed fewer than 30 per cent of people were prepared to give the Barnett government their primary vote.

With both One Nation leader Pauline Hanson and the Liberals blaming the preference deal, in part, for their respective poor performances on Saturday, Senior WALiberal MathiasCormannsaid the Liberals' own internal polling had their primary vote as low as 29 per cent.

"All throughout the campaign it has hovered at the 29 per cent-to-31 per cent at State level. If we wanted to minimise losses, maximise our chances of holding onto seats, we needed to be able to source preferences and clearly, these weren't going to come from Labor and the Greens," he told the ABC's Insiders program.

"The election result last night has been a long time coming. It is not unexpected. All of the published and internal polling indicated that this was the way it was going to go.

"As far as the preference deal is concerned, the Liberal Party's consideration was looking at our primary vote long before the campaign got underway, long before any preference arrangements were entered into."

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull did not rule outfuture deals with One Nation, saying that would be decided closer to the election. He said the WA result was driven overwhelmingly by state issues and the "it's time" factor.

But Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce called the deal "a mistake" because it confused voters of both parties, as well as the Nationals. One Nationhad had " a shocker" and the Liberals a "bad day at the office".

"It's in the Liberal Party'sinterestto be close to the National Party and it's in the National Party's interest to be close to Liberal Party and it is in bothinterestsnot to be close to anybody else," Mr Joyce said.

On Saturday, Labor's Mark McGowan was swept to power on the back of a massive landslide driven primarily by the collapse of the WA mining-based economy and the longevity of a reform-shy government.

As of the latest count, the Liberals had suffered a primary swing against them of 15.7 per cent for a primary vote of 31.4 per cent. Most of it went to Labor which received 9.7 per cent primary swing.

The Greens held at 8.5 per cent, the Nationals,who are not in Coalition with the Liberals, stayed relatively steady at 5.4 per cent while One Nation underperformed with just 4.7 per cent.

This was not enough for a lower house seat and may only see it gain one Upper House seat when it was confident of up to five seats and the balance of power.

One Nation leader Pauline Hanson blamed the preference deal "definitely damaged us" because to voters, it looked as though One Nation was betraying its anti-establishment platform by supporting the government.

"We are going to really have to have a good look at this," she said of cutting future deals with the conservatives in this year's Queensland state election or the next federal election.

She said the Liberals should have replaced Mr Barnett before the election because he had become the political equivalent of "sour milk".

Senator Cormann said it was to early to speculate on future dealings with One Nation.

"The circumstances at a federal level is very different. We are in a strong and united Coalition with the National Party at the federal level.

"The National Party in WA took the view that they didn't want to be in Coalition with us, they wanted to be more independent and only enter into an alliance," he said.

"These are judgements that will be made at the right time. We will review all aspects of the campaign and the ultimate outcome and relevant judgements will be made at the right time."

The deal, in which the Liberals referenced One Nation in the Upper House in return for lower house support, angered Oe Nation voters and moderate LIberals.

In declaring victory, Mr McGowan said the Liberals had paid a price.

"Today, we showed we are a State of decency and intelligence, not a State of stupidity and ignorance," he said.

Labor leader Bill Shorten claimed the recent decision to cut penalty rates had contributed to the result. He called the One Nation deal the "ultimate exploding cigar".

Senator Cormann said the government had give WA $1 billion in extra grants but to change the whole formula would create problems elsewhere because another state would lose out.

"In relation to GST sharing arrangements, we did as much as we could in an appropriate fashion, bearing in mind that a national Government has the responsibility to act in the national interests."

He played down its impact on the result.

"This was a big issue in the lead-up to the last federal election and we won 11 out of 16 seats (inWA), 54.7 per cent of the two party preferred," he said.

"This is an issue in WA, no doubt about it. By the same token, we have to be realistic on what a national Government can do in relation to these sorts of issues and the timetable is determined by what happens with the GST sharing arrangements moving forward."

More:
WA election: Liberals defend One Nation deal despite rout - The Australian Financial Review

Wednesday was an eventful day for the House of Commons. Perhaps even an important one, precisely because it was so eventful.

In the climactic moment, 105 Liberals broke with the government and voted in favour of S-201, a bill sponsored by Liberal MP Rob Oliphant to ban genetic discrimination.

Moments earlier, 27 Liberal backbenchers had provided the decisive votes in favour of S-217, Conservative MP Michael Cooper's bill on detention in custody again, against the position of the Liberal government.

Less noticed, but still noteworthy, was the cabinet's own move a few hours earlier to amend C-22, a government bill that would establish a committee of parliamentarians to review national security operations.

Liberal members of the public safety committee joined with Conservatives and New Democrats to amend the bill late last year. On Wednesday afternoon, the government brought forward its own amendments to counter some of the committee's changes.

The prime minister has, rightly or wrongly, punted on electoral reform. Parliamentary procedures remain basically unchanged, though the government has at least now released a discussion paper and the Senate continues to be a live experiment in legislative independence.

The access to information system is still awaiting reform. Question period is still a mostly drab exchange of accusations and platitudes.

But interesting things keep happening nonetheless; indications that the House of Commons might be slowly changing.

With a few exceptions, the last Parliament wasn't generally given to such dramatic demonstrations of independent thought. But Wednesday was actually not the first time during this Parliament that Liberal backbenchers have decisively swung a vote.

Liberal backbenchers helped swing two votes against the wishes of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his cabinet on Wednesday. (Chris Bolin/Reuters)

On Oct.26, 103 Liberal MPs voted to support Bill C-243, Liberal MP Mark Gerretsen's bill on maternity benefits. And, that same day, 90 Liberals voted in favour of Bill C-240, Liberal MP Bryan May's bill to create a tax credit for first-aid training.

In both cases, Liberal cabinet ministers voted against.

But C-243 and C-240, along with S-217, were at the second-reading stage of the process and Liberals were merely voting to send the bills to committee for further study.

With S-201, the ban on genetic discrimination, Liberal backbenchers were voting to pass the bill into law.

According to Liberal sources, both the prime minister and Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould addressed caucusWednesday morning about why the government opposes S-201. As Justin Trudeau explained to reporters that day, the cabinet believesthe bill violates provincial jurisdiction.

But nearly the entire Liberal backbench and a dozen parliamentary secretaries disagreed, siding with the House committee that studied the bill.

"I felt that the House justice committee came to the correct result in its deliberation and remain convinced that the important human rights concerns outweigh the concern that the bill might be ultra vires," explained Nick Whalen, the Liberal MP for St. John's East.

Did it feel odd to vote in favour of a bill that the prime minister spoke out against?

"Our obligation to use free votes for the best interest of the country and our constituents was a campaign commitment, and needs to overcome my natural desire to vote with the government," Whalen said. "So, yes. It feels odd, but it is part of a healthy working relationship and what should happen from time to time."

'There are differences in our Liberal caucus, but not a divide,' says MP Rob Oliphant6:48

Immediately after the vote, Oliphant was enthused.

"I think the new reality is that Liberal backbenchers are being empowered," he told reporters. "And I think that we're really trying to see how Parliament can change."

Excessive party discipline and the limited relevance of the backbench MP are the eternal laments of the Westminster parliamentary system.

But the last Parliament ended amid particularly loud complaint about the state of things personified by Brent Rathgeber after he quit the Conservative caucus to sit as an independent and the Liberals came to office with some suggestion things would be somehow different.

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, the Liberal MP for Beaches-East York in Toronto, is developing a reputation for voting his own way in the House of Commons. (Nathaniel Erskine-Smith)

And things have at least been somewhat different. There were hints of a livelier Parliament last spring and one Liberal MP, Nathaniel Erskine-Smith,has nowmanaged to break from the party line on 13 per cent of his votes far more than recent precedent and roughly in line with the most independent-minded membersofthe looser British Parliament.

Oliphant theorizes that Liberal MPs, having campaigned on a promiseof more independence for MPs and House committees, are now getting comfortable in their new jobs. And the prime minister, having promised to only whip votes in specific circumstances, isn't whipping every vote.

With S-201, Oliphantsays the result wasn't a division within caucus, but a mere difference of opinion. He suggestsConservatives and New Democrats are still getting used to the new reality, too.

"I think we're in a transition time,"Oliphantsaid Thursday, reflecting on S-201's victory.

Though MPs from the governing party often function as extensions of the government, they are also simply MPs, sitting outside cabinet and with some responsibility to hold the government to account. That was one of the messages Rathgeber tried to conveyas he took on the cause of reform.

Brent Rathgeber speaks about his decision to quit the federal Conservative caucus in St. Albert, Alta., in 2013. (Jason Franson/Canadian Press)

And while self-interest often holds partisans of the same stripe togetherpolitics is still a team sport a system that allows for greater independence could have some benefits. Legislation and spending might be better scrutinized. Public concerns and potential problems might be better aired. MPs who never ascend to cabinet might be able to establish themselves as important legislators.

Or so the reform-minded might dream.

It remains to be seen whether the spirit of Wednesdaywill continue on or evolve.

Liberals can say this is the change they promised.Wednesday'svotes, and the upset that night in a Liberal nomination race in St. Laurent, might suggest a party whose members are not easily controlled anyway.

With the example of S-201, the prime minister might learn to get behind his caucus when its opinion seems to be moving against him. Or his willingness to tolerate dissent might be tested.

But regardless of whatever rules or procedures are rewritten, the potential for change would likely still depend on how MPs assert themselves. And at the very least,Wednesdaymight suggest that some change is possible.

Read more here:
What happens when Liberal backbenchers rise up: Aaron Wherry - CBC.ca

One of the questions I get asked most often these days by friends and acquaintances is whether Premier Kathleen Wynne is going to resign to give her OntarioLiberal Party a fighting chance in next year's election.

Rumours certainly abound that there is a concerted movement to push Wynne out.

The people involved (according to the whispers)rangefrom ambitious cabinet ministers who want to be premier, to backbenchersworried about losing their seats, to grassroots Liberals who believe Wynne has irreversibly become a lightning rod for voter anger.

But if there truly is a movement among Ontario Liberals to topple Wynne so that someone else can lead the party into the 2018 vote, I can't find it.

I've spoken to a range of people who you'd think would delight in seeing the back of Wynne: strong supporters of SandraPupatello, her chief rival in the last leadership race;longtime Liberal backroomers who've been frozen out by Wynne's inner circle;and senior officials whose greatest loyalty is to the party, not to Wynne.

Even given the opportunity to speak off the record, none of them purports to smelleven a whiff of an imminent revolt.

The strongest statement I could coax out of a senior Liberal (not a Wynne loyalist) is that some key activists in the party are giving her until summer to show signs of a turnaround in the polls.

Deputy Premier Deb Matthews (left) is one of Wynne's staunchest allies. (Geoff Robins/The Canadian Press)

"The knives are not out," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "But these people arein the tool-shed and they're sharpening the knives. Whether they use them or not depends on where things go from here."

He said that Wynne would only step down if there is pressure from "a combination of caucus members and the party executive." He addedthat he sees no evidence of such pressure now.

One of Wynne's staunchest allies, Deputy Premier Deb Matthews, dismissed talk of dissension in theranks.

"Kathleen Wynne has really strong support in our caucus, in our party membership,"said Matthews in an interview.

Matthews is also co-chair of the Ontario Liberal re-election campaign and insistedthat Wynne is the best person to lead the party into the 2018 vote "because she's smart, really hard working, cares deeply about issues that matter to people and gets the job done."

Another senior party official who also said he sees no sign of a desire to dump Wynne called her "our best weapon."

Here's something else that makes me skeptical there really is a movement to push Wynne out: the fact that the PCs are loudly insistingthere is one.

From the PC candidate in the Ottawa-Vanier byelection:

Earlier this week, I received anemailpurporting to be from a group of Ontario Liberal Party members, past and present, calling for Wynne to resign.

The message's credibility quickly crumbled upon closer inspection.

There was no name or contact number. Nobodyresponded to my reply asking for an interview. It contained numerous sloppy grammatical errors and typos, referredto Hydro One as "Ontario Hydro" and spelledSt.Catharineswrong.

But the final straw was the message's rant against Wynne's plan to cuthydro rates by a further 17 per cent.

The plan may indeed have some long-term negative consequences for the province, but in the short term, it can bring only political benefits for the Liberals. Knowing how intense the hydro price backlash has been, and how relieved the Liberals are that the plan could neutralize what was the hottest political issue in the province, I can't imagine any real party member would see the move as a reason to push Wynne out.

Yes,the Liberals are jittery about polls putting them on average 14 points behind the ProgressiveConservativesand putting Wynne's personal approval rating at near-record lows.

But polls only indicate how voters feel right now. Theelectionis 15 months away, an eternity in politics. The Liberals were sagging at similar points ahead of the elections in 2007, 2011 and 2014 and won them all.

It's also unclear that any other leader would be able to magically produce a surge in the polls. No matter who the premier is, the party will almost certainly have to battle against sentiment that it's "time for a change" after 14 years of Liberal governments.

It's simply a little early to write Kathleen Wynne's political obituary just yet.But if you are a Liberal party member and youdo wanther gone, please do let me knowthat you're out there.

The rest is here:
No sign that Liberal knives are truly out for Kathleen Wynne - CBC.ca

Not all liberals are bullies, but a great many are. Where liberals are in the majority, the bullies among them try to make life miserable for those who fail to conform. Almost every college campus is in this category. A case in point, one of many, is St. Olaf College, where my youngest daughter is a sophomore. The college newspaper has a commendably balanced story on the intolerance that prevails there:

Of the 12 students interviewed by the Manitou Messenger, several have been violently threatened because of their political beliefs, and almost all of them feel as though they cant speak up about politics on campus in class, online or with their friends. *** Reagan Lundstrom Warner 20 is a political science major who has learned how to keep [her] mouth shut. While faculty are encouraged to remain unbiased, she said that one of her professors used class time to expound upon personal views.

[A professor] started every class with basically just ridiculing Trump for about 20 minutes, Lundstrom Warner said. She plans to transfer to St. Thomas University next fall.

St. Olaf is an expensive school. Do parents know that they are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars so that their children can be subjected to irrelevant political tirades?

My daughter was among those who were threatened with violence:

Many conservative students felt that the campus became more hostile during election season, and some students received violent threats. On the night of the election, a student in the Pause threatened to beat up [College Republican President Emily] Schaller, calling her a f***ing moron. Over the next couple of days, she overheard multiple students threaten to hurt the next conservative or Republican they saw. Vice President of St. Olaf College Republicans Kathryn Hinderaker 19 had a similar experience.

I think one of the hardest things was, the second day, I went into Buntrock and someone yelled from the bottom, if you voted for Trump, you better be f***ing scared. Everyone clapped and applauded, Hinderaker said. Obviously, it didnt feel super safe.

Facebook was another venue for threats against those suspected of voting for Donald Trump:

[Former student Katie] Ivance noted that the insults continued on social media.

People were saying [things] like F-you and I wish you were dead, she said. Ivance isnt the only one who has faced harassment online due to political beliefs. On Feb. 18, a student posted an unsolicited photo of a group of students that supposedly included Trump supporters and encouraged fellow students to remember their faces.

Ivance transferred to the University of Minnesota Twin Cities after the fall semester, citing harassment as her primary reason for transferring.

Schools cannot continue to permit this level of harassment and discrimination against non-left wing students. Public universities will not be supported by legislatures, and private colleges will not be supported by donors and parents, if the situation persists.

It is striking that this borderline fascist behavior by Democrats is occurring precisely as the Democratic Party slides toward irrelevance. Democrats try to enforce the view that voting for Donald Trump is beyond the pale, but Trump won the election. It is not as though Republicans are members of some obscure splinter faction. They control the presidency, both houses of Congress, thirty governorships and two-thirds of state legislative bodies.

Democrats are at a historically low ebb. You might think that this would cause liberals to re-examine their premises rather than try to bully others into submission. But thinking is not what liberals are best known for.

Continue reading here:
Liberal Bullying On Campus: A Case Study - Power Line (blog)