Latest news with #Trump-lite
The Star
20-05-2025
- Politics
- The Star
Australia's conservative opposition rocked by rare split
SYDNEY: The conservative coalition that has dominated modern Australian politics was abruptly terminated on Tuesday (May 20), as the two right-leaning parties traded blame over a crushing election defeat this month. The centre-right Liberal Party and the rural-focused Nationals have jointly governed Australia under various guises for most of the last century. But that alliance has broken down as the partners -- now in opposition -- come to grips with one of their worst-ever election results. "We will not be re-entering into a coalition agreement with the Liberal Party after this election," Nationals leader David Littleproud (pic) told reporters Tuesday. "It has been broken before. This is a healthy part of our democracy, which we should be proud of." Reasons included the failure to embrace nuclear energy and uncertainty over infrastructure funding for rural Australia, Littleproud said. The Liberal Party -- by far the biggest coalition member -- lost more than a dozen seats in May elections. Voters abandoned a platform widely derided for so-called "Trump-lite" policies such as slashing the public service. The two parties have traditionally been so intertwined, they are viewed as a singular force known simply as the "Coalition". Although rare, the coalition has suffered brief splits in the past before resolving policy differences. Left-leaning Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and his governing Labor Party won a second term in a landslide victory on May 3. - AFP
Time of India
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Australia's conservative opposition rocked by rare split
David Littleproud (National Party of Australia) SYDNEY: The conservative coalition that has dominated modern Australian politics was abruptly terminated on Tuesday, as the two right-leaning parties traded blame over a crushing election defeat this month. The centre-right Liberal Party and the rural-focused Nationals have jointly governed Australia under various guises for most of the last century. But that alliance has broken down as the partners, now in opposition, come to grips with one of their worst-ever election results. "We will not be re-entering into a coalition agreement with the Liberal Party after this election," Nationals leader David Littleproud told reporters Tuesday. "It has been broken before. This is a healthy part of our democracy, which we should be proud of." Reasons included the failure to embrace nuclear energy and uncertainty over infrastructure funding for rural Australia, Littleproud said. The Liberal Party, by far the biggest coalition member, lost more than a dozen seats in the May elections. Voters abandoned a platform widely derided for so-called "Trump-lite" policies such as slashing the public service. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Ayora: Un segundo ingreso para ecuatorianos: prueba Amazon CFD (Inicia hoy). Empezar ahora Registrarse Undo The two parties have traditionally been so intertwined, they are viewed as a singular force known simply as the "Coalition". Although rare, the coalition has suffered brief splits in the past before resolving policy differences. Left-leaning Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and his governing Labor Party won a second term in a landslide victory on May 3.
Irish Independent
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Irish Independent
Green leader accuses Michael Healy-Rae of ‘Trump-lite environmental madness' in row over peatlands
Mr Healy-Rae's stated plans have been roundly condemned by academics, conservationists and environmental campaigners since he unveiled them in the Seanad two weeks ago. Green Party leader Roderic O'Gorman challenged the Government during Leaders Questions in the Dáil on Thursday to explain if this was now official coalition policy. 'Just to be crystal clear, a policy of planting on peatlands that we have spent years trying to restore, trying to preserve, this policy would be environmental madness,' he said. 'Aside from being a breach of EU law and Irish policy, it would destroy an extremely delicate, extremely complex habitat that can provide a large and effective part of Ireland's capacity to store carbon.' Mr O'Gorman cited one of the country's foremost peatlands experts, Dr Florence Renou of University College Dublin, who said the plan was not a viable option. 'Is it the policy of the new Government to ignore science, to abandon our legal obligations and to destroy some of our best chances to capture carbon while preserving unique habitats?' he asked. Education Minister Helen McEntee who was answering on behalf of the Government said all options had to be examined for planting forestry but she insisted all plans would be backed by science. Mr O'Gorman asked why then Mr Healy-Rae had announced, in comments later repeated outside the Seanad, that he had instructed his officials to move to planting on peatland. 'Is he being allowed to indulge in a bit of Trump-lite – be anti-science, be anti-climate while purporting to speak for the people?' he said. 'Instead of 'drill, baby, drill', it's dig, drain and destroy.' He said either the senior agriculture minister, Martin Heydon, or Mr Healy-Rae, should come before the Dáil and explain what was going on. Ireland has some of the sparsest tree cover in the EU and the Government has a target of increasing forest cover for climate, biodiversity and commercial reasons. Mr Healy-Rae said, however, that farmers did not want to plant on grassland that they used for livestock and should be allowed plant on peatlands instead. Some planting is allowed on shallow peatlands that have been drained and stripped so much that they have largely lost their potential to capture and store carbon. However, the general policy is to protect peatlands that are still intact or have potential to be restored. That means removing drains from them and allowing them to naturally rewet which puts them out of scope for forestry. The Irish Peatland Conservation Council was among the groups that criticised Mr Healy-Rae, saying his policies would 'have severe environmental consequences and undermine Ireland's commitments to biodiversity and climate action'. "Ireland's Peatlands are meant to be open landscapes, and treating them as wastelands and only seeing them as areas to destroy and turn into industrial forestry is not recognising their importance,' said policy officer Tristram Whyte.
The Age
11-05-2025
- Politics
- The Age
The Dutton delusion: Many election myths were believed, then busted
One of the great dangers in politics – for both practising politicians and those, like me, who write about them – is in accepting the stories that everybody else is telling. Last week, Liberal leadership hopeful Angus Taylor told The Australian Financial Review that his party needed to have 'a more collaborative and collegiate environment, where we can have more robust debate despite differences of view'. It's a good point. It is clear that the environment of the past three years did the Coalition no favours: changing it is crucial. And so it was odd to hear Taylor say, as well, 'Dutts actually did do an extraordinary job holding the party room together'. Perhaps this was simply the praise that sprang most easily to mind after the Coalition's devastating defeat. Still, it was a little confusing. Was this unity, as Taylor's other comments seemed to suggest, a cause of defeat or a landmark achievement? Still, you can understand why it sprang easily to mind. For the past three years, Coalition unity has been repeatedly mentioned as an unequivocally good thing: a virtue, it seemed, in its own right. And not just by the Coalition: it was routinely described in much of the media as a signal achievement of Peter Dutton, an obviously good fact about his leadership to be praised. And so it might have continued, had not the cost of that unity become horribly clear on election night: the consequence of policies like work-from-home that voters hated, a nuclear policy that served little purpose other than making it possible for climate deniers to sit alongside Liberal moderates, a Trump-lite approach that was wrong for the times, and a series of contradictory policy positions that were obviously never properly tested through discussion. The reality is that after a large election loss, like the one in 2022, a party needs to resolve its differences over what is wrong and where to go. There are two ways to do this. One is via a series of elections in which its approach is gradually sharpened – which tends to be both exhausting and demoralising. The other is by having open debate. Dutton and those who praised him for maintaining unity were, in effect, choosing the long road of trial and error. Perhaps worse, the 'unity' path not only delivered defeat: it means the Coalition is three years behind where it could be in conducting that difficult discussion. We all can and should criticise the Coalition for this. But what should not be missed, as we head into another three-year term, is that much of the press backed this approach. Part of the Coalition's mistake was to believe its own publicity.
Sydney Morning Herald
11-05-2025
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
The Dutton delusion: Many election myths were believed, then busted
One of the great dangers in politics – for both practising politicians and those, like me, who write about them – is in accepting the stories that everybody else is telling. Last week, Liberal leadership hopeful Angus Taylor told The Australian Financial Review that his party needed to have 'a more collaborative and collegiate environment, where we can have more robust debate despite differences of view'. It's a good point. It is clear that the environment of the past three years did the Coalition no favours: changing it is crucial. And so it was odd to hear Taylor say, as well, 'Dutts actually did do an extraordinary job holding the party room together'. Perhaps this was simply the praise that sprang most easily to mind after the Coalition's devastating defeat. Still, it was a little confusing. Was this unity, as Taylor's other comments seemed to suggest, a cause of defeat or a landmark achievement? Still, you can understand why it sprang easily to mind. For the past three years, Coalition unity has been repeatedly mentioned as an unequivocally good thing: a virtue, it seemed, in its own right. And not just by the Coalition: it was routinely described in much of the media as a signal achievement of Peter Dutton, an obviously good fact about his leadership to be praised. And so it might have continued, had not the cost of that unity become horribly clear on election night: the consequence of policies like work-from-home that voters hated, a nuclear policy that served little purpose other than making it possible for climate deniers to sit alongside Liberal moderates, a Trump-lite approach that was wrong for the times, and a series of contradictory policy positions that were obviously never properly tested through discussion. The reality is that after a large election loss, like the one in 2022, a party needs to resolve its differences over what is wrong and where to go. There are two ways to do this. One is via a series of elections in which its approach is gradually sharpened – which tends to be both exhausting and demoralising. The other is by having open debate. Dutton and those who praised him for maintaining unity were, in effect, choosing the long road of trial and error. Perhaps worse, the 'unity' path not only delivered defeat: it means the Coalition is three years behind where it could be in conducting that difficult discussion. We all can and should criticise the Coalition for this. But what should not be missed, as we head into another three-year term, is that much of the press backed this approach. Part of the Coalition's mistake was to believe its own publicity.
