Latest news with #Libs
The Age
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Age
Coalition of the unwilling: Climate wars will soon eclipse reunification relief
That gets close, but, in truth, Ley didn't even go that far. All she agreed to was that the Coalition would support an end to the moratorium on the building of nuclear power plants. She emphatically did not agree to finance and build seven nuclear power plants. Not even one. On the other three areas that Peter Dutton's Coalition had taken to the election and that Littleproud insisted remain, Ley has agreed but so hedged them with conditions that they are almost meaningless. Loading And what of Littleproud's other early demand – that Nationals' members of a Coalition shadow cabinet should not be bound by the principle of solidarity? He quickly abandoned that when it was roundly rejected. He achieved nothing he couldn't have accomplished with a quiet conversation behind closed doors, as is customary between the Libs and Nats. All he's managed to do is make himself a laughingstock with a limited leadership lifespan. And diminish the entire Coalition in the process. So far, the Liberals have done two things right since the election. First, they elected a woman as leader. Second, that woman handled the Nat spat with calm and steely grace. But the really hard part lies ahead, and the Coalition ruction was the opening act. 'It wasn't a fight about four policies,' says a Liberal. 'It was really about us being totally fine with them running all over us in three or six months' time when we reach a policy on climate change.' The climate wars are over. And the Coalition lost. But it will have great difficulty in accepting this fact. The Liberals have undertaken to review their policy; it will be traumatic. Ley will want to bring the party to a recognition that climate change is not only real but a reality that the party must embrace in its policies: 'You won't see any climate denial from Sussan,' says a Liberal from her camp. 'It's about respectful engagement, so voters understand that we are believers.' The pollster Jim Reed of Resolve Strategic says that this is an irreducible minimum for any party that hopes to win power. 'In the early to mid-2000s we regularly asked a question in our polling – do you believe in climate change? Very quickly, over two or three years, it became redundant,' he tells me. 'Speaking to tradies in focus groups, a no-nonsense group who, in the past, would have had some of the doubters in it, today, they say 'yes, and we can see it happening, we see the effects.' The ship has sailed.' Yet climate disbelief runs deep in the surviving members of the Coalition. In the Nats, certainly. Littleproud says he supports the pre-existing Coalition commitment to reach net zero emissions by 2050. But Barnaby Joyce, Matt Canavan, Michael McCormack, Colin Boyce and Llew O'Brien, at a minimum, will fight to defeat it. Loading But climate scepticism also runs strongly through the ranks of the Libs, as Andrew Hastie reminded us this week: 'I think the question of net zero, that's a straitjacket that I'm already getting out of,' the new shadow minister for Home Affairs told the ABC. 'The real question is should Australian families and businesses be paying more for their electricity?' Other Liberals, even climate sceptics, think it's time for the party to bow before the electoral reality. 'Some of the colleagues still haven't absorbed the magnitude of our loss,' says one who, like Hastie, is a frontbencher from the party's conservative side. 'When they walk into the House, and they're confronted with the wall of Labor MPs, it will be a reality check for them. We'll see the final numbers and see what we have to do if we want to get back into government – it'll be of the order of 30 seats or around a 7 per cent swing.' A daunting prospect and extraordinarily difficult to accomplish in a single term. 'I can't think of a single seat in the country that we'll be able to win without a commitment to net zero.' Liberal Zoe McKenzie points to a statistic that should rivet the party's attention. Of the 151 seats in the House, 88 are metropolitan. Of those, the Coalition occupies just eight. This is, in effect, the banishment of the Liberal Party from the cities of Australia. Even if the Coalition can hold those eight and win all the other 63 city seats in the parliament, it would hold a total of only 71. In other words, it's mathematically impossible for it to win a majority, which is 76, without returning to metropolitan Australia. And belief in climate change is the price of admission to city seats. McKenzie, factionally non-aligned and freshly elected to a second term in the seat of Flinders covering Victoria's Mornington Peninsula, hopes that the party retains its net zero commitment. As it debates the policy, she wants the party to 'keep the voices of the ghosts alive,' meaning all the moderate Liberals who lost their seats in recent elections. The former MPs who'd be arguing in favour of net zero and climate-friendly policy. Loading Overarching all of this is the larger question of the party's political philosophy. Fundamentally, the Liberals have to decide whether they are the party of Robert Menzies or Rupert Murdoch. Menzies was a great pragmatist, principled but not ideological, who adapted to his times. He was preoccupied with the concerns and interests of the suburban middle class, not the capitalist class but the ordinary men and women of aspiration. Murdoch is a right-wing populist interested in pressing always further rightward to build constituencies favourable to his own business interests. The Liberals have to choose. Once they decide whether to continue following the Murdoch pied piper to electoral irrelevance or to rediscover the Menzian attachment to middle Australia, all their other choices will become clearer. And the Nationals? They are now reduced to four senators. The same number as One Nation. And, like One Nation, the Nationals won a touch over 6 per cent of the national primary vote for the House. 'We, as Liberals, would never allow One Nation to determine our policies,' points out a Lib. So, his logic runs, why should the party accept the Nationals' terms?
Sydney Morning Herald
4 days ago
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
Coalition of the unwilling: Climate wars will soon eclipse reunification relief
That gets close, but, in truth, Ley didn't even go that far. All she agreed to was that the Coalition would support an end to the moratorium on the building of nuclear power plants. She emphatically did not agree to finance and build seven nuclear power plants. Not even one. On the other three areas that Peter Dutton's Coalition had taken to the election and that Littleproud insisted remain, Ley has agreed but so hedged them with conditions that they are almost meaningless. Loading And what of Littleproud's other early demand – that Nationals' members of a Coalition shadow cabinet should not be bound by the principle of solidarity? He quickly abandoned that when it was roundly rejected. He achieved nothing he couldn't have accomplished with a quiet conversation behind closed doors, as is customary between the Libs and Nats. All he's managed to do is make himself a laughingstock with a limited leadership lifespan. And diminish the entire Coalition in the process. So far, the Liberals have done two things right since the election. First, they elected a woman as leader. Second, that woman handled the Nat spat with calm and steely grace. But the really hard part lies ahead, and the Coalition ruction was the opening act. 'It wasn't a fight about four policies,' says a Liberal. 'It was really about us being totally fine with them running all over us in three or six months' time when we reach a policy on climate change.' The climate wars are over. And the Coalition lost. But it will have great difficulty in accepting this fact. The Liberals have undertaken to review their policy; it will be traumatic. Ley will want to bring the party to a recognition that climate change is not only real but a reality that the party must embrace in its policies: 'You won't see any climate denial from Sussan,' says a Liberal from her camp. 'It's about respectful engagement, so voters understand that we are believers.' The pollster Jim Reed of Resolve Strategic says that this is an irreducible minimum for any party that hopes to win power. 'In the early to mid-2000s we regularly asked a question in our polling – do you believe in climate change? Very quickly, over two or three years, it became redundant,' he tells me. 'Speaking to tradies in focus groups, a no-nonsense group who, in the past, would have had some of the doubters in it, today, they say 'yes, and we can see it happening, we see the effects.' The ship has sailed.' Yet climate disbelief runs deep in the surviving members of the Coalition. In the Nats, certainly. Littleproud says he supports the pre-existing Coalition commitment to reach net zero emissions by 2050. But Barnaby Joyce, Matt Canavan, Michael McCormack, Colin Boyce and Llew O'Brien, at a minimum, will fight to defeat it. Loading But climate scepticism also runs strongly through the ranks of the Libs, as Andrew Hastie reminded us this week: 'I think the question of net zero, that's a straitjacket that I'm already getting out of,' the new shadow minister for Home Affairs told the ABC. 'The real question is should Australian families and businesses be paying more for their electricity?' Other Liberals, even climate sceptics, think it's time for the party to bow before the electoral reality. 'Some of the colleagues still haven't absorbed the magnitude of our loss,' says one who, like Hastie, is a frontbencher from the party's conservative side. 'When they walk into the House, and they're confronted with the wall of Labor MPs, it will be a reality check for them. We'll see the final numbers and see what we have to do if we want to get back into government – it'll be of the order of 30 seats or around a 7 per cent swing.' A daunting prospect and extraordinarily difficult to accomplish in a single term. 'I can't think of a single seat in the country that we'll be able to win without a commitment to net zero.' Liberal Zoe McKenzie points to a statistic that should rivet the party's attention. Of the 151 seats in the House, 88 are metropolitan. Of those, the Coalition occupies just eight. This is, in effect, the banishment of the Liberal Party from the cities of Australia. Even if the Coalition can hold those eight and win all the other 63 city seats in the parliament, it would hold a total of only 71. In other words, it's mathematically impossible for it to win a majority, which is 76, without returning to metropolitan Australia. And belief in climate change is the price of admission to city seats. McKenzie, factionally non-aligned and freshly elected to a second term in the seat of Flinders covering Victoria's Mornington Peninsula, hopes that the party retains its net zero commitment. As it debates the policy, she wants the party to 'keep the voices of the ghosts alive,' meaning all the moderate Liberals who lost their seats in recent elections. The former MPs who'd be arguing in favour of net zero and climate-friendly policy. Loading Overarching all of this is the larger question of the party's political philosophy. Fundamentally, the Liberals have to decide whether they are the party of Robert Menzies or Rupert Murdoch. Menzies was a great pragmatist, principled but not ideological, who adapted to his times. He was preoccupied with the concerns and interests of the suburban middle class, not the capitalist class but the ordinary men and women of aspiration. Murdoch is a right-wing populist interested in pressing always further rightward to build constituencies favourable to his own business interests. The Liberals have to choose. Once they decide whether to continue following the Murdoch pied piper to electoral irrelevance or to rediscover the Menzian attachment to middle Australia, all their other choices will become clearer. And the Nationals? They are now reduced to four senators. The same number as One Nation. And, like One Nation, the Nationals won a touch over 6 per cent of the national primary vote for the House. 'We, as Liberals, would never allow One Nation to determine our policies,' points out a Lib. So, his logic runs, why should the party accept the Nationals' terms?
West Australian
24-05-2025
- Politics
- West Australian
WA Federal Liberals Andrew Hastie, Michaelia Cash in push to reunite with Nationals
WA Federal Liberals Andrew Hastie and Michaelia Cash have warned the Nationals that the only way back to government is through a Coalition — not by the conservatives going their separate ways. At the end of a tumultuous week in which Nationals leader David Littleproud refused to continue a long-standing arrangement in Canberra where the Liberals and Nationals had a Coalition agreement — both in opposition and in government — Liberals are hoping for a reconciliation in coming days. 'What I want to see delivered to the Australian people is competent, centre right government,' Mr Hastie, the member for Canning, on Saturday said. 'And the question is: Can the Libs do that on their own? 'No they can't. 'We have to do it as part of a Coalition with the Nats. 'A pre-condition of winning government, is forming a Coalition with the National Party. 'We can't afford to waste resources fighting each other in three-corner contests.' Part of the conditions of Mr Littleproud agreeing to re-enter a Coalition are the Liberals agreeing to adopt policies embracing nuclear power and committing to a $20 billion regional Australia fund. WA Liberal senator Michaelia Cash implored the Nationals to re-enter a Coalition agreement. 'I am a strong coalitionist,' she said. 'It was very disappointing I thought when David Littleproud did walk away from the Coalition. 'I think the work that (Opposition leader) Sussan Ley has undertaken over the past few days to bring us back together has been outstanding. 'We (Liberals and Nationals) are stronger together. 'The enemy is Labor. It's a simple as that.'
New York Post
21-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Welfare work requirements empower, slashing funding can help science and other commentary
Conservative: Welfare Work Rules Empower Setting a work requirement to collect welfare is more than 'a way to reduce costs,' argues Merrill Matthews at The Hill: 'Its real benefit is to help individuals regain the dignity and self-respect that comes from having a job.' As the GOP budget bill moves to 'require states to enforce a work requirement' for some able-bodied individuals on Medicaid, liberals 'claim the heartless Republicans are trying to punish people just for being poor.' Libs 'think they are doing welfare recipients a favor, but they're not,' as time out of the workforce makes people 'lose needed work habits and skills' and 'respect for themselves,' — which can encourage drug and alcohol abuse. People who are 'required to work for their benefits' often 'discover that work is empowering'; they just need 'a little push to get started.' Libertarian: Slashing Funding Can Help Science 'There's a good chance' President Trump's slashing of 'federal spending will liberate science from the corrupting forces that Eisenhower warned us about' in a 1961 speech, when he 'cautioned Americans about the growing power of a 'scientific, technological elite,'' points out Reason's Zach Weissmueller. When government controls funding, 'there's homogenization, and only one set of ideas is allowed to emerge,' says University of Buckingham biochemistry professor Terence Kealey, crushing 'what's so important in science, which is different ideas competing in a marketplace of ideas.' Weissmueller notes: 'Before government money flooded in, private research facilities like Bell Labs were centers of innovation,' and could be again. 'If Kealey is right, slashing science funding could, counterintuitively, accelerate' innovation in fields like medicine 'in the long run.' Eye on DC: Senate Keeps Nominees Hanging The GOP Senate's 'two-and-a-half-day work week and lackadaisical work ethic' has stymied President Trump's agenda, fumes Rachel Bovard at the Federalist, as 'nearly 80 nominations for crucial Executive Branch roles 'now languish' for want of a floor vote. Don't blame Democrats, as 'the Senate filibuster no longer exists for presidential nominations.' Republicans could 'easily clear every nomination' in a single 40-hour work week — but that 'requires work — more hours, more workdays, and the physical presence of GOP senators in the Senate chamber (the place, ironically, senators most hate to be).' After 'the permanent bureaucracy' thwarted the voters' will in Trump's first term, everyone understands 'how critical these appointees are — everyone, it seems, except the people whose job it is to confirm them.' Politics beat: Heed Starmer's Reset, Dems British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is the latest politician 'hurrying to the front of the march to claim it as their own,' snarks Dominic Green at The Wall Street Journal. 'Starmer opposed the Brexit campaign to 'take back control' over British immigration policy but now promises to 'take back control' over the borders.' He flipped because this month's local elections 'confirmed' that 'Nigel Farage's anti-immigration Reform UK party is gaining significant ground.' Starmer's reset 'should be instructive for America's Democrats as they struggle through their post-woke identity crisis.' To 'regain public trust,' Dems need 'new leaders who acknowledge past errors and recognize new realities by embracing elements of Donald Trump's agenda and cultivating his voter coalition.' MidEast beat: Free Gaza From Hamas Rule As US campus activists hold pro-Hamas demonstrations, 'Palestinians in Gaza are demonstrating — and risking their lives to do so — against Hamas's continued despotic rule,' thunders Commentary's Seth Mandel. 'Gazans would like Hamas to surrender' — and they shouldn't 'be the only ones demanding this.' Those 'Western governments pressuring Israel to leave Hamas in power are doing so not out of any concern for Palestinians,' but just 'bending to public pressure' that's 'being applied by pro-Hamas protesters and orchestrated by pro-Hamas entities' to 'ignore the will of the Gazans suffering under Hamas.' Western governments should 'grow a spine and push back against the Hamasniks in your streets,' not for Israel, but 'for the people you are claiming to help.' — Compiled by The Post Editorial Board
Sky News AU
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Sky News AU
‘The Libs appear to be flat-footed on preferences': Peta Credlin
Sky News host Peta Credlin claims preference polls in the previous federal election were 'off the mark' for the Liberal Party. 'The Libs appear to me to be flat-footed on preferences,' Ms Credlin said. 'The left have got this whole program now … in harvesting preferences and funneling back to Labor in a very disciplined way. 'We're like primary school kids, and they're like university kids. 'We are so far out of the game.'
