Liberal Democrats leader Tim Farron (C) speaks as Nick Clegg MP (R) and Liberal Democrat MP for Richmond Park Sarah Olney look on during a rally at the Shiraz Mirza Community Hall on June 1, 2017 in Kingston upon Thames, England. Leon NealGetty Images

Its a cold evening in April, and a loud bang has just stopped a huddle of political canvassers in South London. He shut the door in my face, says Richard Phillips, a 62-year-old retired advertising executive campaigning for the Liberal Democrats party in the constituency of Vauxhall. I suppose they wont be voting for us, he says to George Turner, the Liberal Democrats candidate for Vauxhall who is attempting to take the seat from the local MP. The group moves on, to bang on more doors and hand out more leaflets.

Doors have been slamming across the U.K. over the past six weeks as voters are presented with yet another set of political pitches on their stoops before the snap general election on June 8, called by Prime Minister Theresa May a little less than two months ago. It's the third vote in three years here, after the general election of 2015 that delivered David Cameron a parliamentary majority and last year's 'Brexit' referendum that forced his resignation.

May launched the election as a bid to boost her mandate in the upcoming negotiations to leave the E.U., and many expected Britain's future outside the political and economic bloc to be the focus of the race. On the face of it, this seemed like good news for the Liberal Democrats Britain's third party, created in 1988 as a center-left alternative to the two largest parties. Having been all but wiped out in the 2015 election, the "Lib Dems" plotted a comeback built on the support of anti-Brexit voters. The "Lib Dems" launched a manifesto calling for a second referendum on the final Brexit deal, where voters can either accept the deal or choose to remain in the E.U. something both Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party and May's Conservative Party, or "Tories," have ruled out.

Promising a do-over on "Brexit" should logically have been a popular pitch the 16 million Remainers number five million more than the Tories total vote share in 2015, and nearly 7 million more than Labours. A vast center-ground remains unaccounted for as the countrys biggest parties become more polarized, tilting their messages further left and right on the political spectrum. The election was called because of Brexit, would-be MP George Turner tells TIME. In many ways this is a single issue vote."

But polls suggest the Liberal Democrats will gain barely any seats at all on June 8. Analysts predict that they will struggle to win back its seats in rural, Euroskeptic areas, especially in South West England. [The result] is going to be patchy, Tony Travers, an elections expert at the London School of Economics, tells TIME. The Liberal Democrats set their stall so strongly against Brexit and in favor of another referendum, have got virtually nowhere with it. Betting on Brexit is looking like a bust.

Two years ago, it looked as if the Lib Dems had hit rock bottom. The party went from holding 48 parliamentary seats to just eight after the 2015 election, as younger and left-leaning voters punished the party for the five years it spent in coalition government with the Conservative Party. The Lib Dems were seen to have reneged on key promises, most infamously a pledge to stand in the way of tuition fees for higher education that was dropped under pressure by their Conservative partners.

The party was enthusiastically anti-Brexit in the referendum campaign, and defeat appeared to galvanize it in opposition. Under new leader Tim Farron, the party rode an anti-Brexit strategy to success in December in a local election in the London constituency of Richmond. More than 100,000 people joined the party in the wake of the referendum, among them Rachel Johnson, a prominent journalist and sister of vocal Leave campaigner Boris Johnson , now Foreign Minister. Speaking to a Brexit convention on May 12 in London, Johnson said, to loud cheers from the Remain-leaning audience, she became a Liberal Democrat because the party was offering voters a second look at whatever deal there is.

Some 600 pro-European candidates also flocked to the Lib Dem ranks; people like George Turner. His key rival in Vauxhall an urban constituency of about 73,000 people is Kate Hoey, a former Labour Party cabinet minister who was among the most vocal Brexiteers. Hoey even joined former far-right leader Nigel Farage on the campaign trail. Turner, by contrast is a British-Croatian national who voted to remain in the E.U. Almost 8 in 10 of his potential constituents did, too one of the highest shares against Brexit in the country.

And yet the polls have consistently given the Liberal Democrats between 7 and 10% of the vote which will likely give them roughly the same result as last time around.

In many ways, it's not their fault. A handful of political upsets, which includes a terrorist attack in Manchester and another assault at London's Borough Market five days before the vote, has tilted a one-issue vote into a traditional race focused more on domestic issues such as social services, security, austerity and the countrys creaking health provider, the National Health Service (NHS). Prime Minister May, who was initially predicted to win in a landslide, saw her unassailable 20-point lead against Labour narrow to around five points at the end of May due to a pledge to make people pay more of the costs of social care, which was branded the 'dementia tax.' Some are predicting a hung Parliament or a small majority for the Tories.

But the apparent shift in voting intentions has not translated to votes for the Liberal Democrats. Those who have Brexit buyers remorse seem more likely to vote for Labour who, unlike the Liberal Democrats, have a better chance of winning and have positioned themselves as slightly less pro-Brexit than the Tories. Some say there just isnt room for a third party to make much difference. The Tories are getting 30% of Remain voters and will win about two thirds of leave voters, while the plurality of Remain voters will go for Labour, Philip Cowley, Professor of Politics at Queen Mary University in London tells TIME.

Even the most senior Liberal Democrats concede that many Brits feel the Brexit question has been answered, no matter how they voted in 2016. Much as I'd like to think there's an army of 48% of the British electorate ready to rise up as one and say that they're all Liberal Democrats now, former leader Nick Clegg tells TIME, the truth of course is there are many people who, in keeping with a very sort of pragmatic British spirit, are saying oh well, we must now move on and make the best of it.

Theres also a sense that two years is not quite enough to spend in the wilderness, especially among younger voters who feel the Lib Dems did not do enough to resist the Tory agenda while in government. According to a Y ou Gov poll for the Sunday Times , nearly three-quarters of people between the ages of 18 to 24 will vote Labour no doubt buoyed by the partys popular policy pledges of increased taxes on companies and the abolishment of college fees. The damage done to the Liberal Democrats by the years in the coalition are going to take more than one Parliament to repair, Travers says.

The object for Liberal Democrats, then, is to use this election to build a platform for the future not just on Brexit, but on other campaign pledges pitched at young, metropolitan voters, like marijuana legalization and cleaner air standards. This isnt an election when the Liberal Democrats will be sweeping to power, Lib Dems strategist Mark Pack says. It is important to play the long game in some sense.

But some see more radical changes coming, once this election is over. One senior party figure, who asked to remain anonymous to speak freely, told TIME that a new movement needs to rise from the ashes of the snap election, much like the En Marche! movement which Emmanuel Macron rode to the French presidency. "I am not saying electoral packs; I'm not saying progressive alliances," says the senior figure. "They will be minor and on the edges, but something which brings those who hold broadly progressive views together and which above all, appeals to those beyond the political parties."

First, though, comes this election. The Liberal Democrats are still hoping to spring a surprise in Vauxhall, where Turner is campaigning hard to overturn Hoey's majority of 12,000. Bookmakers don't favor a shock, though Hoey is 1/7 to retain the seat, according to local media .

If she does, it will be because of voters like Georgie Darroch. The 31-year-old conservationist voted for the Liberal Democrats in 2010, and to Remain in 2016, but is now leaning towards voting Labour in Thursday's vote. The referendum has polarized the country, she says, and she wants to vote for a party that will foster national unity. I dont necessarily think going back on the [referendum] vote is going to be the best. I think we should be pushing for meaningful change.

Here is the original post:

The Liberal Democrats Bet on a Brexit Election. It Hasn't Paid Off - TIME

Vox's home for compelling, provocative narrative essays.

Evergreen State College descended into chaos last month after Bret Weinstein, a professor there, objected to a planned Day of Absence event where white students and faculty were encouraged to leave campus. The protests against Weinstein for his alleged racism were so vociferous that campus police told him they could not ensure his safety on campus. In addition, threats have forced the cancellation of classes at Evergreen State on several occasions over the past week.

Earlier this year, Charles Murray, Ann Coulter, and Milo Yiannopoulos were unable to speak at Middlebury College and the University of California Berkeley after violence erupted in response to their planned appearances on those campuses.

By now, youve probably seen news accounts of the Weinstein, Murray, Coulter, and Yiannopoulos incidents. But heres a story youre far less likely to have heard of: Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, a Princeton professor, gave a speech late last month at Hampshire College in which she was highly critical of President Donald Trump. After the content of her speech hit national news outlets, Taylor received threats that led her to cancel several other speaking engagements, including one on a college campus, out of concern for her own safety.

And yet theres been little of the news coverage or outrage from free speech advocates that these other incidents received.

Why? There are several possible reasons, which I will discuss in greater detail below. But among other things, there may be a double standard at work: Many of the conservative media outlets that extensively covered the Murray, Coulter, and Yiannopoulos controversies suddenly seem a whole lot quieter when the attacks on free speech are coming from the right.

This apparent double standard is unacceptable. Support for free speech should not be a partisan issue. We all depend on the right to free speech to express our views whatever those views may be, and wherever we may fall on the political spectrum. Too often, however, support for free speech breaks down along political lines, with people expressing outrage when one of their own is silenced while remaining conspicuously silent when the shoe is on the other foot.

At a time when our collective willingness to listen to opposing viewpoints seems to be at a nadir, it is more critical than ever that all of us speak out against censorship and intimidation regardless of the identity of the speakers or the censors.

On May 20, professor Taylor gave the commencement address at Hampshire College in Massachusetts. In it, she exhorted Hampshires graduating class to fight injustice, discussing many of her concerns with American society and referring to President Trump as a racist and sexist megalomaniac.

Several conservative media outlets, including Campus Reform and Fox News, reported on Taylors speech.

According to a statement released through her publisher on May 31, after the Fox report aired, Taylor received more than fifty hate-filled and threatening emails, some containing specific threats of violence, including murder. In Taylors own words:

I have been repeatedly called nigger, bitch, cunt, dyke, she-male, and coon a clear reminder that racial violence is closely aligned with gender and sexual violence. I have been threatened with lynching and having the bullet from a .44 Magnum put in my head.

As a result, Taylor canceled two planned appearances at Seattle Town Hall and the University of California San Diego for fear of my safety and my familys safety.

Sadly, Taylors case is just the latest in a string of incidents that paint a bleak picture of the state of free speech on college campuses and beyond. Rather than engage constructively with people who express controversial political or social views, the modus operandi today seems to be to react with threats of violence and protests so disruptive that they actually prevent the speaker from speaking a phenomenon known as the hecklers veto.

But as the New Republics Sarah Jones pointed out, there seems to be much less coverage of Taylors story than the stories of Weinstein, Murray, and others.

There are several possible explanations for this, none of which are mutually exclusive.

First, unlike the other incidents, the threats against Taylor appear to have come not from on campus but from the kind of internet trolls to whom we have all become perhaps too inured. People seem to be more surprised when the threats and vitriol come from within an institution of higher education, where one would theoretically expect people to support the expression of a wide range of ideas, and to respond with ad rem rather than ad hominem arguments.

Second, as Jones noted, Taylor canceled the speaking engagements herself, rather than being disinvited or prevented from speaking in the same way as Murray et al. placing this incident outside of the disinvitation season phenomenon that has garnered media attention over the past few years.

But finally, we cannot discount the possibility that there is also a double standard at play.

Much of the recent intolerance of campus speech has come from the left, and has been widely covered by conservative media outlets under the guise of a concern for the state of free speech on campus. Why, then, do these same outlets remain comparatively quiet when the intolerance for speech is coming from the right? Free speech is free speech, and if you believe that the right to openly express controversial political opinions is important, you should be as concerned about Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylors right to free speech as you were about Charles Murrays or Ann Coulters and vice versa.

I have worked as a free speech advocate for more than 12 years now. In that time, it seems as if the extent to which we insulate ourselves from opposing viewpoints, and demonize the people who hold them, has increased dramatically. Admittedly, this is just my sense of things, but it is a sense I have heard echoed repeatedly by colleagues, friends, family, and virtually anyone with whom I discuss the work I do. It feels as though we have reached a point where many of us, from across the political spectrum, recognize that this is a problem but it feels insurmountable, and we dont quite know what to do about it.

If you feel this way, start being a role model now. If you disagree with professor Taylors remarks about President Trump but are horrified by the threats made against her, send her a note of support. Share one of the few reports about her story with friends who might not otherwise see it, and let them know what you think. Similarly, if you disagree with Bret Weinstein at Evergreen State College but are appalled that police cant ensure his safety on campus simply because he expressed his views, send him a note of support. Be a vocal supporter of the right to free speech not only when you agree with the speaker, but also especially when you disagree with the speaker.

Beyond that, be a model of constructive engagement. One of my favorite sayings, from a book of Jewish ethical teachings called Pirkei Avot, says, Who is wise? The one who learns from every person. Talk to people with whom you disagree. Ask them about what they believe. Really listen to what they have to say. Tell them about what you believe. In my experience, many people are hungry for these kinds of thoughtful encounters but have ceased to believe they are possible. Show them otherwise.

Samantha Harris is vice president of policy research for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).

First Person is Vox's home for compelling, provocative narrative essays. Do you have a story to share? Read our submission guidelines, and pitch us at firstperson@vox.com.

Follow this link:

Charles Murray gets attacked? Outrage! A liberal professor gets threatened? Silence. - Vox

Conscious of all the hot takes about its alleged liberal bias, ESPN contracted a research firm last month to survey its audience about any political tilt in its programming. The results from the study should be considered a win for the sports channel.

Approximately two-thirds (64%) of respondents who took the survey indicated that ESPN had found the right chemistrybetweensports news and political issues, while only 30% claimed to have detected a political bias.

Of those who sawa bias, 30% percent actually believed that ESPN expressed a conservative viewpoint.

Viewers who identified themselves as strong conservatives ranked ESPN at 7.2 using a 1-10 scale, according to the survey. Liberals gave ESPN a 7.0 ranking. A score of 8.0 was considered highly rated.

In a press release touting the results of the survey, ESPNs vice president of consumer insights Bary Blyn neglected to mention that of the viewers who saw a bias, 63% said that the sports channel swung too far to the left.

These answers certainly do not determinethat a good portionof ESPNs audience senses a liberal bias, as sportingnews.com suggested. Sporting News Michael McCarthy, who astutely noted that ESPNs press release omitted the liberal bias statistic, was quick to write that the survey in fact showed asubset of respondents, by a 2-to-1 margin, believe the network leans to the left politically. Buried later in McCarthys piece, the sports writer acknowledges that this subset of respondents only made up less than 2out of 10 surveyed a mere 19% percent of the total.

For all the histrionicsover ESPNs alleged liberal bias, the sports channels main audience doesnt seem to mind.

Visit link:

Actually, most ESPN viewers don't think it has a liberal bias - Salon ... - Salon

Sacramento Bee

California too liberal? Here's a solution: Move to Texas | The ... Sacramento Bee Conservative Move, a company started by U.S. congressional candidate Paul Chabot, aims to get more conservatives to move to Texas. California too liberal of a state for you? 'Conservative Move' takes ...The San Diego Union-Tribune all 2 news articles »

Excerpt from:

California too liberal? Here's a solution: Move to Texas | The ... - Sacramento Bee

ESPN has cleared itself of not growing too liberal. But for the conservatives who dont buy that, heres Hank Williams Jr.!

In purportedly unrelated announcements, the Worldwide Leader announced on Monday that 1) an ESPN-commissioned research group found that ESPN is getting it right in mixing political and sports coverage, in addition to finding the proportion of people who see a political slant in ESPNs coverage is not growing, and 2) the network is rehiring Williams, the conservative firebrand.

Well start with item 2. Williams is bringing All His Rowdy Friends back to Monday Night Football for the first time since 2011. The country singer had participated in the Monday night broadcasts since 1989, playing versions of a song that would always feature, Are you ready for some football?

ESPN pulled the broadcast staple six years ago, after he went on Fox News to compare a meeting of then-President Obama and then-Rep. House Speaker John Boehner to a meeting between Adolf Hitler andIsraeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

In response to ESPN pulling the song for one week, Williams was enraged: After reading hundreds of emails, I have made MY decision, he wrote on Oct. 6, 2011. By pulling my opening Oct 3rd, You (ESPN) stepped on the Toes of The First Amendment Freedom of Speech, so therefore Me, My Song, and All My Rowdy Friends are OUT OF HERE. Its been a great run.

Six years, a new White House regime and a rumbling that ESPN is too liberal later, the two sides are finding common ground. Williams is back in the spotlight with a company that is trying to disprove that liberal politics have anything to do with declining ratings and subsequent layoffs.

Beyond rehiring a polarizing personality, ESPN composed a public relations piece Monday that highlighted findings from a May 3-7 survey that studied a perceived liberal bias. The full survey results from Langer Research Associates of New York were not made available, but ESPN promoted the discovery that 64 percent of respondents think Bristol is getting it right in walking the politics/sports tightrope. Ten percent had no opinion, while 8 percent wanted more politics in broadcasts.

A network that fired noted conservative meme-purveyor Curt Schilling emphasized italics and all that 30 percent actually believe ESPN expresses a conservative viewpoint.

The most important takeaway for ESPN, though, is that both Republicans and Democrats rated the network highly. On a scale to 10, Republicans gave the Worldwide Leader a 7.1 (up .5 from October) and Democrats rated ESPN as a 7.0.

Read more:

ESPN going all-out to prove it's not actually liberal - New York Post

The federal contractor, who was charged by the Department of Justice for stealing classified information from the National Security Agency (NSA) and leaking it to a media outlet, is apro-Iran liberal activist who believes being white is terrorism.

According to the resurfaced social media accounts of Reality Leigh Winner,who was arrested on Saturday over leaking classified information to The Interceptand reportedly confessed the wrongdoing, the 25-year-old didnt hide her contempt for President Trump or her country, and repeated far-left talking points.

On Twitter,she tweeted at rapper Kanye West suggesting he should make a shirtstating that being white is terrorism, despite being a white woman herself.

Just like other far-left Twitter warriors, Winner had a habit of replying to Trumps tweets and trying to mock him. She called the President the orange fascist.

The most dangerous entry to this country was the orange fascist we let into the white house, she wrote, in reply to Trumps tweet about the travel ban.

In another shocking revelation, the NSA leakerexpressed support for Iran, saying she would support the Islamic country if the President, who she described as Tangerine in Chief, declares war.

According to the FBI warrant, Winner was an active duty member of the U.S. Air Force and held a Top Secret clearance.

There are many Americans protesting US govt aggression towards Iran. If our Tangerine in Chief declares war, we stand with you! Winner tweeted at Javad Zarif, the Foreign Minister of Islamic Republic of Iran.

Winner was arrested by the FBI on Saturday after she printed out classified information containing national defense information from an intelligence community agency and then unlawfully transmitted by mail the intelligence reporting to an online news outlet, according to the DOJ.

As a federal contractor with Pluribus International Corporation, the leakerhad top security clearance that allowed her to access classified information.

The leaked information was allegedly the basis for a June 5 article on The Interceptshowing Russian hacking attempts into U.S. voting software leading up to the election.

Following herarrest, Winnerconfessed to printing the classified documents and sendingthem over to the media outlet.

In other posts on Twitter and Facebook, Winner ticked all the relevant boxes when it comes to being a left-wing activist, showing her support for Bernie Sanders, Black Lives Matter, fighting against climate change, and accusing Trump of colliding with Russia.

Continue reading here:

Revealed: NSA Leaker Is Pro-Iran Liberal Activist Who Says 'Being White Is Terrorism' - Heat Street

After a bruising three months marked by the property assessment scandal, Premier Brian Gallant's Liberal government holds a seemingly comfortable lead over the opposition Progressive Conservatives, according to a new poll.

Corporate Research Associates' quarterly survey found 46 per cent of decided respondents would vote for the Liberals, while 33 per cent said they would vote PC.

But CRA pollster Don Mills said that lead masks some troubling trends for the Liberal Party.

Liberal support has been gradually shrinking over the last year and PC support has been inching up.

The gap between the two parties has narrowed from 27 points in the May 2016 poll to 13 points in May 2017.

"That is getting tighter, there's no doubt about it," Mills said.

"The trend line is not that good for the Liberals if it were to continue, and pretty good for the Tories if it were to continue."

Liberal support is down from 51 per cent in the last CRA poll three months ago, a five-point drop that is outside the sample's margin of error of 4.5 percentage points.

Liberal Party president Joel Reed attributed the dip to the scandal over botched property tax assessments. (LinkedIn)

PC support didn't shift outside that margin from 30 to 33 per cent but it's been growing steadily for a year.

The NDP was chosen by 11 per cent of those surveyed, the Green Party by six, and the People's Alliance by three. Those numbers were among decided voters only. Thirty-six per cent of respondents were undecided.

Liberal Party president Joel Reed said the poll is just a snapshot of opinion from last month, but "that being said, we're relatively pleased with these numbers."

He attributed the Liberal apparent dip in support to the scandal over botched property tax assessments.

"There's no question that with the volume of coverage of the property assessment issue, it's had an impact on the polling numbers," Reed said.

But he said the level of Liberal support is still higher than what it was in the 2014 election, when the party won a majority of seats.

He also pointed to the satisfaction level with the government 53 per cent, which is statistically unchanged from the 55 per cent in the last poll, taken before the property assessment scandal began dominating political debate.

Dissatisfaction was at 41 per cent. The margin of error for those numbers is 3.5 points.

However, Mills said the overall provincial number has regional breakdowns that should worry the Liberals.

The satisfaction rate was 67 per cent among francophones and only 44 per cent among anglophones.

Corporate Research Associates' quarterly survey found 46 per cent of decided respondents would vote Liberal, while 33 per cent would vote PC. (CRA)

In the 2014 election, the Liberals won huge majorities in most francophone ridings.

That's why despite an eight-point margin in the popular vote over the PCs 42.7 per cent to 34.7 per cent they won only a narrow majority of seats, some of them by fewer than 100 votes.

Another trouble sign for the Liberals is that only 31 per cent of respondents preferred Gallant as premier, down from 35 per cent in the last poll, another shift that is outside that sample's margin of error of 3.5 points.

PC leader Blaine Higgs was the preferred premier for 23 per cent of respondents, 11 per cent chose Green Party Leader David Coon, five per cent chose interim NDP Leader Rosaire L'Italien, and five per cent chose People's Alliance Leader Kris Austin.

CRA sampled 804 New Brunswickers between May 3 and 31.

View post:

NB Liberals hold lead, but Tories narrowing the gap, poll suggests - CBC.ca