Monthly Archives: April 2017

There is also a second cluster of eleven seats where the vote to Remain in the EU surpassed the 50 per cent mark but Liberal Democrats are still up to 20 points behind. Again, only three of these (Cheadle, Cheltenham, and Oxford West and Abingdon) are held by the Conservatives. Another six are held by the SNP while two are held by Labour (Cardiff Central, and Hornsey and Wood Green.

Yet there is a third cluster of seats where the vote for Remain was around or just below the average and where Liberal Democrats are between 3-18 points behind. They would not require an excessive swing. Worryingly for the Prime Minister these are mainly Conservative seats which turned blue in 2015, like Thornbury and Yate, Colchester, and Sutton and Cheam.

If Tim Farron can build momentum, his party could break the 20 seat mark and put an (albeit small) dent in Mays majority. Even still, it is not all one way of the nine Lib Dem MPs some like Norman Lamb in Norfolk North are in seats that voted to leave the EU and could be vulnerable to a Conservative challenge.

Read the rest here:

Here are the seats Liberal Democrats could seize, especially if Tim Farron bangs on about more than Brexit - Telegraph.co.uk

"Comeback is a good word, man," said actor Mickey Rourke when he was catapulted back into Hollywood stardom after a long stint in the wilderness. Tim Farron is no Rourke but at the rapidly approaching general election he too is betting on a comeback.

Liberal Democrats have a score to settle. Two years ago, the traditional third party in British politics were a mere 25,000 votes away from losing all of their seats in Westminster. But the vote for Brexit has given Farron and his party a lifeline. With Labour divided, the party has taken an opportunity to pitch to disillusioned Remainers. And they have made some inroads. Local by-election victories for Liberal Democrats are now commonplace, while the parliamentary by-election in Richmond Park provided further evidence of a comeback.

Now, Farron eyes a snap "Brexit election" as an opportunity for a full-scale comeback, claiming that Prime Minister May is "playing on the Liberal Democrats ground". But could his party really give the Conservatives a bloody nose by winning back some of the seats that were lost in 2015, and possibly more?

Lets start with the current state of play. In 2015, the Liberal Democrats were reduced to a rump of only eight MPs, with the Richmond Park victory increasing this to nine. Today, Liberal Democrats are the main opposition in 62 seats, in third place in a further 36 seats, and fourth place in 338. The good news for Farron is that in 16 seats Liberal Democrats' vote iswithin 10 per centof the incumbent. Ten of these seats are held by Conservatives, and all are in the south or south west England. A further three are held by Labour and three by the Scottish National Party. There is also an "outer ring", where Liberal Democrats are between 10 per cent and 20 per cent behind the incumbent. Of these more distant prospects, 15 are held by Conservatives, four by Labour and fiveby the SNP.

Then there's the Liberal Democrat MPs themselves. Of the nine MPs, five have a majority of less than five percentage points, with the incumbent in the most marginal seat (Southport) not seeking re-election.

What happens from here? One longstanding problem for Liberal Democrats has been to translate votes into seats. In the past, targeted campaigns helped but did not resolve the disparity between the partys share of the vote and its number of MPs. One reason was the so-called "credibility gap" where voters are reluctant to vote for a party they believe has little chance of winning. Historically, Liberal Democrats tried to offset this through strong, local campaigns. This campaigning, which two years ago saved Liberal Democrats from complete annihilation, could be more important in 2017 given the shorter election period. In 2015, the Conservatives' "decapitation strategy" across southern England relied on a ruthlessly efficient "joined-up" campaign, driven by Conservative headquarters in co-operation with local parties. Huge sums were thrown at key south and south-west battlegrounds for nine months or more. The thinly-resourced Liberals were out-gunned.

But this time, with less than 50 days until polling day, the Conservatives are unable to replicate this sustained ferocity. This may give Liberal Democrats more of a fighting chance.

The shorter campaign could help them in other ways. Since the vote for Brexit, the Lib Demshave prepared for a snap election and selected candidates in seats that were lost in 2015, as well as others on a long range target list. This could be a double-edged sword. Familiar faces like Vince Cable, Ed Davey, Simon Hughes and Jo Swinson will remove credibility problems, but such faces might also remind voters of the partys role in the post-2010 coalition. Nonetheless, all remain within striking distance. Cable and Davey require a direct swing from the Conservatives to Liberal Democrat of less than 2.4 per cent while Jo Swinson requires a direct swing from the SNP of 2 per cent. If their local popularity remains, the changed climate since 2015 may mean that such seats are more attainable than they would be with new candidates.

But the bigger and more popular argument is that Liberal Democrats will be boosted by the "Brexit election" whereby Remainers will flock to the orange banner. But our evidence suggests that while there is potential, the party faces an uphill task.

Under most scenarios, Conservative losses will be minor. The figure below shows the Remain vote by the Liberal Democrat margin (the difference between the 2015 vote for the Liberal Democrats and the vote for the winning party). And we have focused on the 40 most marginal Liberal Democrat target seats in 2017.

This reveals a cluster of nine seats where Liberal Democrats are within striking distance of victory, within 10 percentage points of the winner, if indeed the Remain vote switches over en masse. Four of these seats are held by Conservatives (Bath, Twickenham, Kingston and Surbiton, Lewes) and two by Labour (Cambridge, and Bermondsey and Old Southwark). Worryingly for Farron, the remaining three are held by the similarly anti-Brexit SNP.

There is also second cluster of 11 seats where the Remain vote surpassed the 50 per cent mark and in some cases was much higher, but where Liberal Democrats are up to 20 points behind the winning party. Once again, the task facing Farron is hard six are held by the SNP.Of the remaining five, three are Conservative (Cheadle, Cheltenham and Oxford West and Abingdon) and two Labour (Cardiff Central, and Hornsey and Wood Green).

% Constituency Remain Vote by 2015 Liberal Democrat Margin (%)

*Key: Blue = Conservative held; Red = Labour held; Yellow = SNP Held

A third cluster is more interesting. There is a distinct grouping of seats that were around or just below the average Remain vote and where Liberal Democrats are between 3-18 per cent behind the incumbent. In most cases the swing required for them to win is not excessive.

Worryingly for Prime Minister May, these are predominantly Conservative-held seats that turned blue in 2015 seats like like Thornbury and Yate, Colchester, and Sutton and Cheam. Here, as elsewhere, turnout will be key. If and it is a big if- the Liberals can sweep up Remainers and get them to turnout they could easily break the 20 seat mark and put a dent in Mays majority (see Table 1). Of course, it is not all one way. At the same time, of the nine Liberal Democrat MPs, Norman Lamb in Norfolk North (where 58 per cent voted for Brexit) looks vulnerable to a Conservative challenge if this post-Brexit realignment plays out.

A Brexit Election Scenario: Liberal Democrat Possible Gains

Cluster 3: 45 per cent+ Remain

Low Leave Turnout

*Note: other possibilities include Berwick upon Tweed, and Eastbourne. The latter is extremely marginal but the leave vote was substantial. Other marginal seats such as Torbay and Yeovil would be unlikely to go back to the Liberal Democrats under a Brexit election scenario (although they come in play if not). It should be noted there may be anomalies like St Albans, which voted Remain, where the party has and continues to poll well. But in previous elections the strong local platform has not translated into voting Liberal Democrat in the general election. Maidstone & the Weald is a long term target but a strong Brexit vote there rules it out under this scenario. **Previous Liberal Democrat incumbent confirmed as standing again.

Turning to the Conservative-Liberal Democrat battlegrounds, Farron and his party will do better where they have past success and an activist base. The party is positioning itself against the Conservatives and will target seats that are marginal and have a healthy Remain vote. But, as we have seen, the gains are limited given the scale of the partys collapse in 2015. So are there long term targets where we could see a swing to the Liberal Democrats?

If the Liberal Democrats get a poll bounce during the campaign and hit the heights of 16-17 per cent then there are seats that could come into play in the shadow of the election. The next figure shows the Remain vote by 2015 Liberal Democrat margin in seats currently held by the Conservatives but which used to be held by Liberal Democrats in the recent past.

Conservative Held Seats (Previously won by the Liberal Democrats only) - % Constituency Remain Vote by 2015 Liberal Democrat Margin (%)

There is a cluster of pro-Remain seats with a Liberal Democrat heritage where Farron will find a receptive audience Winchester, Guildford, Harrogate and Knaresborough, and Romsey and Southampton North. But these would require goliath swings Liberal Democrat candidates are 30-40 points behind. This also reveals how the Conservatives have a buffer, even in areas where historically the Liberal Democrats have been strong, as in Cornwall and Devon. There are 16 seats in the south-west that used to be held by the Liberal Democrats but which recorded below average Remain votes at the referendum. So if this does become a Brexit election then to win these seats back Farron will need to do a lot more than simply bang on about the perils of hard Brexit. In these seats Liberal Democrat gains in 2017 seem unlikely.

Another factor that could easily work against the Liberal Democrats is the Ukip vote. Ukip is already finding it difficult to retain its 2015 vote and how this vote splits could be crucial. Theresa May and her team are doing everything in their power to tempt back Ukip voters. If this happens on a broad basis it could have worrying implications for Liberal Democrats.

In 75 per cent of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat seats shown above Ukip polled more than 10 per cent of the vote in 2015. Crucially, Ukipobtained more than 10 per cent of the vote in all but one of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat battleground seats that polled a lower Remain vote than average. Ukip also achieved this feat in 15 of the 16 seats in the south west which had a higher than average Leave vote. What does this mean? The Brexit election could backfire on Farron. If Lynton Crosby, who knows these seats well, guns after Leave voters they may vote tactically to keep out the Liberal Democrats in order to get what they really want Brexit.

Turning back to the most enticing prospects for Liberal Democrats in Cluster 1, only the Conservative-held Lewes had a Ukip vote of more than 10 per cent, reaffirming how these seats represent the best hope for Farron. In sharp contrast, all of the seats in Cluster 3 have substantial Ukip votes which the Conservatives will look to mobilize as a firewall against Liberal Democrat gains. In conclusion, therefore, Mays gamble of "playing on the Liberal Democrats ground" is not without risk but seems a safe bet. She has a good chance of holding onto many "traditional liberal" heartland seats that her party captured in 2015. The Liberal Democrats may stage a comeback of sorts, but this may be less impressive than many currently expect.

Matthew Goodwin is Professor of Political Science at the University of Kent and author of Brexit: Why Britain Voted to Leave the EU. He tweets @GoodwinMJ. David Cutts is Professor of Political Science at the University of Birmingham.

Original post:

The constituencies where the Liberal Democrats can take on the Tories - New Statesman

LIBERAL, Kan. (KSNW) Some residents in Liberal are learning they no longer should eat fish caught in a popular fishing spot. That word is coming down from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.

A few weeks ago, KDHE emailed city officials saying fish in the Arkalon Park lake arent safe to be eaten and need to be released once caught.

Well, if they catch any fish, they have to throw them back, because its wastewater, said Jody Thompson with Arkalon Park maintenance department. They dont think they get all the contaminants out.

Thompson says warning signs are up to make area residents aware of the problem.

We have to put signs up to let everyone know its catch and release only, try to enforce it. Its going to be tough, but thats all I can do, Thompson said.

The lake has been fed with treated wastewater for decades. KDHE says the lake has always been designated as a no-swimming lake. But, this year, they realized the fishing component had not been addressed.

The permiters, when they were renewing the permit this year, noticed that people were fishing out of it and realized that they needed to mark that its also catch and release, said KDHE spokesperson Kara Titus.

She says its a precaution more than anything else because things like the presence of hormones in wastewater dont always get tested.

We dont have proof that the water is dangerous, Titus said. However, due to the fact that it is treated wastewater, we advise people that they should not consume the fish.

Thompson said the lake is a popular picnicking spot.

Well a lot of them come down here to picnic, then go fishing, or go fishing and then come down and picnic, and its been kind of slow, Thompson said.

Liberal resident Judy Yates has been fishing in the lake for three years, but says she plans to follow the new warning.

I think like myself, you know, you kind of take heed to that and say maybe thats not a good idea, Yates said. Thats a nice fish, I might take a picture of it but let it go.

Starting Wednesday, park visitors will start seeing signs warning them to throw back any fish caught in the lake.

Like Loading...

Read the original here:

KDHE: Fish in popular Liberal lake not safe to eat | KSN-TV - KSN-TV

NDP Leader Andrea Horwath announces details about her party's first-ever provincial pharmacare plan, election promise at Queen's Park on April 24, 2017. ( Kris Rushowy / Toronto Star ) | Order this photo

At Queens Park, NDP Leader Andrea Horwath unveiled details of an ambitious pharmacare program to provide major prescription drugs for Ontarians Monday.

Simultaneously in Hamilton, Premier Kathleen Wynne announced details of her Liberal governments basic income pilot program to provide a stronger safety net not least for those between jobs who might fall between the cracks in our social programs.

A pre-election battle has broken out between the NDP and Liberals for the hearts and votes of progressives with the Progressive Conservatives out of mind.

The rival NDP and Liberal plans are still in the early stages, but each has great long-term potential. In an era of precarious work, where people can no longer count on jobs for life with workplace benefits or workplace income government has an even greater role to play as a force for good.

Unless you believe government is a bad influence best reined in. Which is why PC Leader Patrick Brown ahead in the polls, coasting as premier-in-waiting had nothing good to say Monday morning about either proposal. Lacking any proposals of his own, he had nothing at all to say about the challenges of life in tomorrows workplace.

On Thursday, the Liberals will roll out and restate more of their pre-campaign agenda in the spring budget. Which explains Horwaths attempt to steal a march on the budget.

At a weekend convention, she gave party supporters a sneak peek of the campaign trail ahead with a 40-page New Democrat Vision for Ontario. Its not an election platform, merely a precursor, but it points in a progressive direction.

In the 2014 provincial election and the 2015 federal vote, New Democrats deluded themselves into thinking they were a government-in-waiting, stressing prudent stewardship over progressive action. Fearful of being labelled the party of the free lunch, they were outflanked by Liberal leaders who ate their lunch.

Case in point: Pension reform, which Horwath had once proposed for Ontario, but churlishly abandoned in the last campaign merely because Wynne had made it her own. The provincial Liberals teamed up with the union movement to advance an Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, which pushed the federal government into a reformed Canada Pension Plan.

Now, Horwath has finally grasped that if you cant beat them, beat them to it. Thats how the NDP leader brought party delegates to their feet with her pharmacare promise:

This is what the next election is all about, she exhorted, before the sound system cued up Bruce Springsteens We Take Care Of Our Own.

When medicare came into being 50 years ago, prescription drugs were unconscionably left out of the equation, an afterthought to be redressed in future. Now, Canada remains the only industrialized nation to offer medicare without medicine outlier status that puts the lie to our prideful pretensions about our health care system.

All these years later, the gap has grown greater: modern pharmaceuticals play an even more essential role in treating illness; and workers wont be able to rely on private workplace drug plans as companies scale back full-time jobs and benefits.

With a 40-per-cent share of the population and the economy, Ontario has the purchasing power and critical mass to lead the way. Federalism can take forever, but it allows for progress by progressive provinces launching experiments that can be expanded nationwide. Just as Queens Park plotted its own path on pensions, other provinces moved on carbon pricing, and Saskatchewan led the way on medicare in the 1960s.

Horwaths plan is embryonic. The NDP has budgeted $475 million to launch the program with an initial list of 125 of the most-common and effective medicines. There would be inevitable criticism that more drugs should be covered (as the NDP always demands in opposition). Horwath concedes that any comprehensive expansion would only come after Ottawa and the other provinces joined in.

Liberal Health Minister Eric Hoskins, who has campaigned for a national pharmacare plan without success, knows enough about the proven benefits and savings medical and economical to have graciously and sagaciously welcomed the rival NDP idea Monday. Brown, by contrast, claimed his Tories had heard from their friends in the insurance industry that the costs would be far higher than claimed.

Yet expert research, from all sides of the ideological spectrum, has shown pharmacare saves far more money than it costs, reducing the overall health-care bill while preserving life. Not only because an ounce of medication is worth a pound of cure, but because a streamlined, single-payer system is far more cost-effective than the costly duplication of private insurance plans that skim profits by short changing patients. Thats the attraction of medicare, and the equal appeal of pharmacare.

Would an NDP government follow through on its pledge, or might Horwath acquiesce to pressure from private companies as Bob Raes NDP government did with its broken promise of public auto insurance in the 1990s? Will Hoskins persuade his fellow Liberals to act at the provincial level to spur a national pharmacare program?

The diagnosis has been known for decades. Perhaps now we have a prescription for political will.

Martin Regg Cohns political column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. mcohn@thestar.ca , Twitter: @reggcohn

The Toronto Star and thestar.com, each property of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited, One Yonge Street, 4th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5E1E6. You can unsubscribe at any time. Please contact us or see our privacy policy for more information.

Here is the original post:

NDP-Liberal battle for hearts and votes of progressives: Cohn - Toronto Star

U.S. Rep. Todd Rokita(Photo: File photo)

U.S. Rep. Todd Rokitas unwavering conviction on climate change isnt particularly new.

The Brownsburg Republican will tell you as much. In fact, he once again told a legislative forum as much Weve had this discussion a number of times, publicly, Rokita said a little over a week ago, when constituents grilled him on the topic April 15 in Crawfordsville.

Rokitas defiance is just getting a fresh airing at a time when scientists take to the street to defend their work not to mention that the 4th District congressman is positioning himself among fellow Republicans for a shot at Joe Donnelly, Indianas first term senator, in 2018.

Over the weekend, as mop-up work continued behind various March for Science events including one that drew 400 people to Lafayettes Riehle Plaza a handful of Indiana bloggers picked up on the Cliffs Notes version of Rokitas comments the week before at Wabash College, letting them loose across social media over the weekend.

What those paraphrased references might have lacked in word-for-word transcription, they picked up the essence of what Rokita has touted through his years in Congress when it comes to the science chasing climate change and the financial price dealing with it could create.

Heres a baseline reference point: Bjorn Lomborg, president of an economic think tank called the Copenhagen Consensus Center and controversial author of The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World, raised hackles when Purdue President Mitch Daniels invited him to campus in March. But even Lomborg doesnt deny that climate change is a thing. A vast majority of scientists, Lomborg agreed, had shown proof of that. His point is that climate change isnt the most pressing issue or best use of global effort and cash to fix.

Rokitas point, by comparison: Hes open to science. Just not that liberal science. And anything that suggests climate change is liberal science.

WAITING:What Todd Rokita would have heard at a town hall

'SKEPTICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST':A Q&A with Bjorn Lomborg

OP-ED:Focus at Purdue always on #ScienceForYou

Hungry for a town hall Rokitas folks havent scheduled, constituents pressed him to elaborate that morning in Crawfordsville. Heres how the conversation went, just so everyones on the same page.

Stacy Bogan, a Lafayette artist, framed the question in terms of how the General Assembly this year trusted the early science on cervical cancer to move a bill calling for a state plan aimed at reducing the number of new cases. State Rep. Sharon Negele, an Attica Republican who authored House Bill 1278, was at the April 15 forum in Crawfordsville.

Bogan, who has chased Rokita on this in the past, asked: What threshold of proof do you require in order to listen to scientists worldwide rather than listening to a handful of lawyers who are funded by fossil fuels.

Heres Rokitas response:

Ill summarize, using actually one of your sentences from your opening remarks, and that is, We trust the scientists to do the research. In science, there is no trust. Thats why its called science. We use scientific methodology to review any question. And theres all kind of questions in regard to the liberal scientists who come up with their research. With regard to cervical cancer, there is conclusive evidence and proof there is no trust there. You said it yourself, we trust our scientists to do their research. I do not.

I do not take any kind of preliminary conclusion as a reason to change our entire economy and put thousands and thousands of people out of work, based on someones hunches. There is all kinds of discrepancy in the science that you quote. Im not going to vote for policies that could disrupt our entire economy and do things just because of someones liberal hunches.

Following up, Marc Hudson, a retired English professor at Wabash College in Crawfordsville, asked Rokita a Wabash College graduate to think about what hed actually said and whether he truly believed 99 percent of scientists are liberals.

In a few decades, Hudson suggested to Rokita, you are going to look back in your own lifetime and realize how absurd and how nearsighted your position is.

Rokita stayed the course.

Ninety-nine percent of the climate scientists havent been interviewed. Of the ones that have been polled, theyve come up with their opinion.

I have looked into this issue. I have studied it. Id be happy to be moved by evidence, but Im not going to be moved by liberal opinion.

Thats where things stand with the 4th District congressman as he lines up a Senate campaign.

And thats why they were marching for science on Saturday.

Reach columnist Dave Bangert at 765-420-5258 or at dbangert@gannett.com.

Read or Share this story: http://on.jconline.com/2pYafak

See more here:

Bangert: Rep. Todd Rokita vs. a 'liberal scientist's hunch' - JConline - Journal and Courier

Conservative firebrand Ann Coulter found an unlikely ally in Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) over the weekend when the self-described democratic-socialist defended Coulters right to speak on a college campus.

The University of California, Berkeley last week canceled an event where Coulter was scheduled to speak, citing security concerns. University officials fearthat Coulters presence on campus will incite another round ofviolent protests similar to what happened in February something the school and city have become accustomed to in recent months.

Given currently active security threats, it is not possible to assure that the event could be held successfully or that the safety of Ms. Coulter, the event sponsors, audience, and bystanders could be adequately protected at any of the campus venues, university officials said.

But Sanders doesnt believe that what happened to Coulter is right. The former presidential candidate said Coulter should be allowed to speak on campus without fear of violence or intimidation.

I dont like this. I dont like it, he told the Huffington Post last week when asked about the situation.

Obviously, Ann Coulters outrageous to my mind, off the wall. But you know, people have a right to give their two cents-worth, give a speech, without fear of violence and intimidation, he explained.

In recent years, students, mostly liberal and progressive in their politics and worldview, have organized in force to protest conservative speakers claiming that their hate speech shouldnt be allowed on campus. Of course, the hate speech they refer to is hardly hateful and more often than not just an idea or opinion that the students disagree with.

Still, students have beendetermined to take whatever steps necessary to shut down speakers they disagree with and whom they deem bring hate to their campus. Its all in the name of silencing fascists, the students claim.

But Sanders disagrees. He told the Huffington Post that its just a sign the students are intellectual lightweights.

To me, its a sign of intellectual weakness, he said. If you cant ask Ann Coulter in a polite way questions which expose the weakness of her arguments, if all you can do is boo, or shut her down, or prevent her from coming, what does that tell the world?

What are you afraid of her ideas? Ask her the hard questions. Confront her intellectually, Sanders said. Booing people down, or intimidating people, or shutting down events, I dont think that that works in any way.

Sanders isnt the only noted liberal to come to Coulters defense in recent days. HBO Real Time host Bill Maher slammed the university on his show Friday and labeled the students f***ing babies.

Berkeley used to be the cradle of free speech, and now its just the cradle for f***ing babies, Maher said. I feel like this is the liberal version of book burning and its got to stop.

University officials have since rescheduled Coulters speech for May 2, a day when students will be deep in books studying for final exams.

Coulter, however, is insistent on giving her speech on Thursday, the originally scheduled day.

Read more here:

Ann Coulter finds unlikely ally in powerful liberal politician after Berkeley cancels speech - TheBlaze.com

Liberal Arts Colleges, in Fight for Survival, Focus on Job Skills Wall Street Journal (subscription) With their students facing rising debt and pressure to land a job after graduation, colleges and universities are focusing less on the meaning of life and more on how to earn a living. This evolution toward pragmatism has been under way since the 1990s ...

Read this article:

Liberal Arts Colleges, in Fight for Survival, Focus on Job Skills - Wall Street Journal (subscription)