Daily Archives: October 15, 2022

A third-party candidate running against longtime Representative Jerry Nadler, a New York Democrat, released his own sex tape to highlight his sex-positive platform.

Mike Itkis, an independent candidate running for the House of Representatives in Manhattan's 12th District, uploaded the 13-minute video to a popular porn website as a "conversation piece," the 53-year-old told City & State on Friday. The 2021 video, titled "Bucket List Bonanza," depicts him having sex with adult film star Nicole Sage.

"If I would just talk about it [his platform], it wouldn't demonstrate my commitment to the issue," Itkis, who describes himself as "very liberal," told the news outlet. "And the fact I actually did it was a huge learning experience, and it actually influenced items on my platform."

On his campaign website, Itkis said he supports sexual rights and "actively oppose[s] the conservative idea that sex should only happen between a man and a woman who are married to each other." Issues on his platform include legalizing sex work, ending adultery laws, protecting privacy rights and redefining the abortion debate as "a right to unplanned sex."

On his campaign website, it also says that "men should not be required to support biological children without prior agreement."

Itkis is one of three candidates who will appear on the general ballot next month. He is running against Nadler and Republican candidate Mike Zumbluskas, who told City & State that he understood Itkis' decision to release his own sex tape.

"You gotta do what you gotta do," Zumbluskas said. "The media ignores everybody that's not a Democrat in the city."

Nadler is widely expected to win the heavily Democratic district that has only been represented by one Republican congressman in the last 147 years. The Democratic primary for the race was closely-watched this year after redistricting pitted two incumbents against one another.

Representative Carolyn Maloney, who has been in Congress since 1993, ultimately lost to Nadler after the 15-term congressman secured 56.3 percent of the Democratic vote last month.

On Friday, Itkis said that while he made the risky decision of publishing the sex tape, he's "very much an introvert."

"I'm kind of a nerd who doesn't like to be the center of attention if I can avoid it," the congressional candidate said. "But I thought the issues I'm trying to address are so important...I wanted to have my issues talked about in some way."

Itkis has emphasized his willingness to break from establishment politics, saying that while he is "uncompromisingly opposed to the Republican legislative agenda," he also has "significant disagreements" with the Democrats.

"I am a liberal with drastically different views, not one that marches in lockstep with the Democratic party," he tweeted earlier this month.

Newsweek reached out to Itkis' campaign for comment.

View post:

'Very Liberal' Candidate Releases Own Sex Tape to Break From the Pack - Newsweek

Five new scholars have joined the Society of Fellows in the Liberal Arts this fall. The Society is an interdisciplinary community of postdoctoral fellows and Princeton faculty members that aims to bring innovative approaches to scholarship and teaching.

Established by a gift from charter trustee Lloyd Cotsen and the Humanities Councils leadership in 1999, itoffers outstanding scholars with a recent Ph.D. the opportunity to enhance their teaching and research over a period of three years.

This promises to be an especially rich year, said Michael Gordin, director of the Society and the Rosengarten Professor of Modern and Contemporary History. We have a wonderful group of fellows joining the two returning cohorts of fellows, and they are already bristling with engagement inside and outside the classroom. Im looking forward to our weekly seminars, which will range even more widely across the disciplines.

From its beginnings, the Society has been committed to building a scholarly community with a great diversity of experiences and perspectives, and to creating a collaborative environment for inquiry, debate, and groundbreaking scholarship and teaching. Its array of open and targeted fellowships has included a fellowship in LGBT Studies since 2005, generously supported by the Fund for Reunion/Princeton BTGALA, and a fellowship in race and ethnicity studies since 2006, funded by Princeton's President and Dean of the Faculty.

For all fellowships, the Society welcomes a diverse and international pool of applicants. The Society has hosted well over 100 postdoctoral fellows at Princeton who have moved on to pursue careers at a wide range of institutions both in the U.S. and abroad.

The full cohort of 12 Cotsen postdoctoral fellows is drawn from a wide range of disciplines in the humanities and humanities-related social sciences and includes one astrophysicist. Fellows hold appointments as lecturers in their academic host departments and in the Humanities Council, teaching half-time while conducting their own research over a period of three years.

Meeting regularly for formal and informal discussions, seminars, workshops and readinggroups, the fellows pursue new knowledge and understanding within and across disciplines. During their time at Princeton, they engage with the campus community in many ways: advising and mentoring undergraduate students, participating in academic programs and panels, presenting their research, developing new courses and co-teaching with faculty members.

The new Cotsen fellows of the 2022-25 cohort are:

Andrea Capra, lecturer in the Department of French and Italian and the Humanities Council. A literary scholar, Capra focuses on the 19th through the 21st centuries, drawing on comparative literature, philosophy and intellectual history. His current book project, Deforming Modernity: The Experience of Horror in Italian Literature, analyzes the aesthetics of horror beyond the horror genre and develops a phenomenology of this experience that centers on mundane circumstances such as illness, poverty or warfare. In dialogue with works from statistics, history, philosophy and sociology that study modernitys promise to minimize risk and maximize safety and individual agency, his project frames horror as the collapse of this promise into a life. Capra holds a Ph.D. in Italian from Stanford University. This fall, he is teaching What Is Horror?, a Freshman Seminar aimed at exploring todays cultural, artistic and existential relevance of horror.

Jahmour Givans, appointed as a Presidential Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the Department of Astrophysical Sciences. He is interested in understanding how the contents and structure of the universe, at the largest physical scales we can explore, have evolved over time. To do this, he uses a combination of theoretical modeling, simulations, computations and data analysis to describe astronomical systems. He is combining data from large-scale structure experiments and cosmic microwave background experiments to constrain cosmological parameters and models. He holds a Ph.D. in physics from The Ohio State University.

Marcus Lee, appointed as lecturer in the Department of African American Studies and the Humanities Council. A social scientist and writer, with expertise in Black studies, Lee is pursuing a book project that examines the material and discursive conditions under which Black gay/lesbian groups attained political visibility in the post-Civil Rights era. With particular attention to the early development of HIV/AIDS statistics, the advent of hand-held audiovisual technologies, and the institutionalization of civil rights history, the project details the political effects and historical significance of late 20th-century efforts to specify and articulate Black sexual difference. He received his Ph.D. in political science, with a certificate in gender and sexuality studies, at the University of Chicago. This fall, Lee is teaching a course on Black political history titled The Black Radical Tradition.

Bailey Sincox, appointed as lecturer in the Department of English,humanistic studies and the Humanities Council. She is a scholar of early modern English drama and performance. Her work spans the theater of Shakespeare and his contemporaries, gender studies, reception and adaptation studies (including contemporary theater, film and the novel), and history of the book. She is currently at work on her first book project, Female Revenge on the Early Modern Stage. The book takes cues from contemporary film to chart how 16th- and 17th-century dramas of justice-seeking co-construct gender and genre. Sincox received her Ph.D. from Harvard University. This fall, Sincox is teaching an English department Forms of Literature course titled Allegory: From Chaucer to Colson Whitehead.

Guy St. Amant, appointed as lecturer in the Department of Religion and the Humanities Council. He studies the religion and intellectual history of premodern South Asia. His current book project, tentatively titled Age of Scripture, examines the proliferation of new scriptural texts among both Hindus and Buddhists during the first millennium C.E. and analyzes philosophical responses to the theoretical problem of scriptural authority during the same period. While at Princeton, St. Amant plans to pursue several other projects involving issues that bridge the topics of scripture and language. He earned his Ph.D. from Columbia University. This fall, he is teaching a course on premodern South Asian religion called The Making of Hinduism.

See the original post:

Society of Fellows in the Liberal Arts welcomes new scholars - Princeton University

Actor Mark Wahlberg said he moved his family out of California to give his children a better life.

"I moved to California many years ago to pursue acting and Ive only made a couple of movies in the entire time that I was there," he told CBS's The Talk on Tuesday. "So, to be able to give my kids a better life and follow and pursue their dreams whether it be my daughter as an equestrian, my son as a basketball player, my younger son as a golfer, this made a lot more sense for us."

ANOTHER FLOUNDERING TURNOUT FOR CNN WITH JAKE TAPPER'S PRIMETIME SHOW DEBUT

The actor described wanting to build a studio in his new state and make a "Hollywood 2.0" in Nevada so that he can work from home.

"So, we came here to just kind of give ourselves a new look, a fresh start for the kids, and theres a lot of opportunity here. Im really excited about the future, he continued.

"There's lots of opportunity here," Wahlberg added.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

In a 2016 interview, he told Task & Purpose that many celebrities talk about politics a lot more than they ought to. A lot of Hollywood is living in a bubble," he said. "Theyre pretty out of touch with the common person, the everyday guy out there providing for their family.

Original post:

WATCH: Mark Wahlberg ditched liberal California to 'give my kids a better life' - Washington Examiner

We can only sympathise with the honourable Judges of the Supreme Court, who have accomplished a thankless task this week, while giving their verdict on the hijab issue. There are already serious clashes on the matter across the world and within the country, sometimes even among those who claim to share the same principles, ideology and religion.

Liberals are being mocked for supporting the women protesting against the hijab in Iran, while defending those claiming the right to wear it in India. The clamour of the debate is also silencing many voices, within and outside the Muslim community.

Countries which have good credentials as functional democracies cannot give us any pointers on proper secular behaviour. This is something that every nation must decide for itself within its own historical and socio-political context.

The French approach to the hijab issue is widely misunderstood. Secularism is enshrined in the French principle of Lacit. This is a freedom that the country has won after more than a century of battle against religious forces.

The French Revolution of 1789 and subsequent outbursts were a fight not only against autocratic monarchs, but also against the powers and privileges of churches, particularly of the Catholic church. Which is why the different republics and constitutions of France have ruthlessly enforced the separation of the Church from the State.

A major plank of this division is the refusal to permit citizens to wear clothing identified with religion in any public space. The French ban on the hijab and the identifying marks of religions arises not from a dislike of Islam, but from a determination to never again return the control of secular spaces to religious organisations.

But, even the French are conflicted, when nuns, devout Catholics sporting crosses, turbaned Sikhs and members of certain Jewish communities who insist on wearing religious insignia move around in their roads, parks and schools. The UK, which still cannot have a Catholic head of State because the King is also the head of the Anglican Church, is certainly in no position to teach us lessons in secularism.

We must, therefore, forge our own unique Indian approach to this thorny issue in accordance with the country's religious and social diversity and our desire to create a modern, cosmopolitan environment. Most Indians do not realise that we are the country with the largest number of religions in the world: Hinduism, Christianity (one of Jesus's apostles, Thomas, came to India and we have almost every variant of Christianity in our country), Islam in many forms, Buddhism (which spread across the world out of India), Jainism and Sikhism.

Secularism is not a modern concept imported from the Western world. Every part of India has forged its own way of peaceful coexistence, using methods by which shrines of different faiths huddle together in harmony and pilgrimages are made to common temples. This symbiosis is reflected in sages like Shirdi Sai Baba, the Muslim seer, who is revered by most Hindus.

Exclusion of costumes associated with religious identity in public spaces in the French style is, therefore, impossible in India. Hindus must sport bindis and caste marks, Sikhs must wear turbans and kirpans, Christians must put on scapulas and crosses and Jews their skull caps. Muslims, too, must put on fezes, if they wish to.

When I was growing up in Kerala as a child, I saw different kinds of mundu worn differently by Hindus, Muslims and Christians. These distinctions have now disappeared, since use of the mundu has become rarer. Apparently, therefore, there should be no controversy about the use of the hijab.

But, this is not a straightforward matter. Both supporters and opponents of the hijab have communal agendas for which the costume is only a symbol. They are determined to drive the discussion to the brink to provoke violence and conflict.

We are not even told exactly what the issue is. I would like to drop the use of terms like hijab and purdah (the elephant in the room that is not talked about) and simply ask if the demand is for covering the head. This is a common practice among many religious communities. Catholic women in Kerala and in countries like Spain and Portugal do so while going to church. Hindu women of north India cover their heads too as a mark of respect, while greeting older members of the family.

Orthodox Rajasthani women of some communities even draw their dupattas across their faces. Head coverings are also mandatory for men in many religions. There is nothing controversial in this request.

If the demand is for women alone to put on a black robe and a mask to conceal the body and the face, whatever be the name of the costume (hijab or purdah), we must look at the reasons for this injunction. This is when the misogyny underlying the garb becomes apparent.

Women's bodies and faces evoke impure thoughts and lust in men; hence, they must be concealed to keep women safe. The dress is not linked to religion, for men do not have to follow the practice. No civilised country which gives women equal rights should accept this sort of thinking.

Liberals are conflicted because women themselves wish to conceal their bodies with such robes to protect themselves from the gaze of men in public spaces. This is the "choice" argument that is used to counter the charges of misogyny.

But, the word "choice" can be particularly misleading, when applied to women. This is a group that must pick its words and moderate its behaviour to suit the expectations of the family and of society.

How do we discover if there has been a free and open choice, without pressure or influence? The first ingredient in making a choice is full knowledge of the implications and alternatives.

Most of the women who choose to conceal their bodies and faces are neither aware of the misogyny behind the demand nor the other possibilities open to them. They do not debate the matter with women who live and dress differently. Their families and communities shape their ideas and preferences and influence them covertly and overtly.

Those outside the group have no way of knowing if there has been an independent choice, but they should at least take it with a pinch of salt. At one time, many Muslim women who moved around without black robes and masks were available in India as role models to girls from more conservative families.

Such women are the norm in Muslim countries like Malaysia, Indonesia and Turkey. When many Indians found employment in the oil driven economies of the Middle East (and especially in Saudi Arabia), these modern influences were replaced by a more conservative and retrograde mentality, that associated the misogyny of the face-and-mask covering with faith in Islam. This has led to a backlash in the demands made on Indian Muslim women.

Hindu and Muslim fundamentalists have much to gain from the controversy, but not their women. By bringing the issue to a boil, they are making it impossible to transition easily to a liberated environment in India, to an ambience more in line with the Indonesian and Turkish example, rather than the Saudi Arabian.

I also wonder if the controversy has isolated Muslim women coming from families who do not mask themselves by implicitly requiring them too to proclaim their adherence to the practice as proof of their faith in Islam. What I would like to see, therefore, is free use of head coverings and religious marks of all religions in public and private spaces. To encourage families to educate daughters,

I would prefer the State to allow the use of masks and black robes in public spaces; that is, up to the gates of educational institutions. To fight misogyny, however, I would insist on these being removed within classrooms, since security concerns in these areas should be addressed by the authorities.

This was exactly the situation I had known in Kerala, when I was growing up. This was also where we stood in Karnataka before the controversy was ignited. Polarising citizens by creating confrontations will increase the political clout of all fundamentalist groups. It will not, however, do any favour to Indian women.

Renuka Viswanathan is a former civil servant.

Go here to read the rest:

A Liberal View of the Hijab Controversy - The Citizen

The chair of Parliament's Canada-Taiwan Friendship Group said Taiwan should be granted membership in international organizations to discuss issues and threats that affect the whole planet.

Speaking in Taipei during the friendship group's visit to Taiwan this week, Liberal MP Judy Sgro said Taiwan should be give membership in the World Health Organization and the International Civil Aviation Organization

"Why wouldn't they be part of WHO and ICAO and those other international organizations? [Their membership] should not be a threat to anyone," she said Friday.

"Taiwan should be at the tableat these major discussions when we talk about health issues and security issues."

The MPs who took part in thevisit to Taiwan included Liberal MP Angelo Lacono, Bloc Qubcois MP Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay and Conservative MPs Chris Lewis and Richard Martel.

China considers Taiwan a breakaway province and views any expression of support by a foreign government as interference in its internal affairs.

Canada has a "one China policy" that does not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign political entity, although Canada has a cultural and trading relationship with the country.

China's embassy in Ottawa was quick to denounce the visit by Canada's parliamentarians.

"Despite China's stern position, JudySgro and [four] other Canadian Parliament members persist in visiting the Taiwan region of China, which blatantly violates the one-China principle, grossly interferes in China's internal affairs and sends a seriouslywrong signal to the Taiwan independence separatist forces," the statement said.

China said in the statement that the "one China policy"is an international norm and the foundation for China'srelations with countries like Canada.

"China will continue to take resolute and strong measures to defend its national sovereignty and territorial integrity, and oppose the interference by external forces in China's internal affairs," the statement said.

Sgro and the other MPs in the group said that despite China's condemnation, the trip was a success because it revealed several business opportunities for both Canadian and Taiwanese companies.

"We're here to learn. We have. We'll take those voices and those messages back to Canada and look where there's opportunities to do those connections and promote businesses," Sgro said.

"The fact that not everyone is happy that we're here, well, that's unfortunate. But we're here and we've had a wonderful week and we look forward to taking the messages back."

Lewis, who represents the Ontario riding of Essex, said the automotive industry in Ontario is struggling with a shortage of some electronic goods produced in Taiwan. While visiting the country, he said, he spoke to manufacturers directly to ask for increased supplies.

"We've got parking lots full of cars, finished product cars,that sit in the parking lot, can't be sold, because we don'thave semiconductors," he said.

Lewis said he and other MPs met with senior executives at Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd., theworld's largest contract chipmaker, and asked them to "put Canada at the top of the list."

Lewis said MPs were assured that Taiwan is working"very diligently" to build more chips.

During the visit, Sgro was presented with the Special Medal of Diplomacy by Taiwan's Foreign Affairs Minister Joseph Wu in a ceremony in Taipei.

"I appreciate being recognized for all the work that we've done together and I look forward to continuing our friendship for many years to some," she said in a social media post.

Taiwan's ministry for foreign affairs held a dinner for the group and said in a social media post that it appreciates Canada's friendship.

"We're thankful for the support of the like-minded lawmakers and feel truly blessed to call them our friends," the ministry said in thepost.

Follow this link:

Liberal chair of Taiwan parliamentary group says Taiwan should be at the table with other nations - CBC News

One must empathise with Left-liberals who have to perform a high-wire balancing act just to acknowledge the obvious.

For the Left-liberal, Hinduism did not exist before the British came to rule over us; but caste rigidity, which was as much a colonial legacy as anything else, must be labelled as intrinsically Hindu and ancient.

And even when this backdoor nod to Hinduisms existence is accepted, it must be contrasted with vile Hindutva, so that only negative linkages remain to the term Hindu.

The latest liberal to do this kind of balancing act is Pratap Bhanu Mehta, who called out the tendency among some intellectuals to deny Hinduisms existence before colonial interventions made the term more widely usable to describe an Indic plurality.

But before he acknowledged the obvious, from the very first line of his article, he sought to differentiate Hindutva from Hinduism.

He wrote: In part as a reaction to the spiritual desecration, homogenisation and centralisation of Hinduism that Hindutva represents, there is a temptation to take recourse to the idea that Hinduism is a colonial invention and no such identity existed before the 19th century.

Really? Is it the votaries of Hindutva who are desecrating Hinduism or its mindless critics?

The context of Mehtas observation was a recent statement by actor Kamal Haasan, a covert Hinduphobe, who critiqued the film Ponniyin Selvan-I, based on a popular novel written by the late Kalki Krishnamurthy and serialised in the Tamil magazine Kalki in the sixties.

The novel has had, and continues to have, a cult following among some sections of Tamilians. It is a piece of historical fiction set in the Chola era, where some of the finest Hindu temples were built. Most major Tamil dynasties, whether Cholas or Pandyas or Pallavas, were great temple builders.

But Kamal Haasan would have none of it. There was no Hinduism in the Chola era, he said. There were Shaivites and Vaishnavites, no Hindus.

To debunk this nonsense, Mehta, in an article in The Indian Express, had to resort to the subterfuge of bringing in Hindutva to contrast with Hinduism.

He wrote: Recently, the actorKamal Haasanwas reported as referring to this idea in his historical critique ofPonniyin Selvan-I, to flag the dangers of homogenisation in modern representations of Hinduism.

"Kamal Haasans critique has a local context in Tamil Nadu politics. But increasingly, this idea of Hinduism as a British invention is seen as some kind of intellectual response to the claims of Hindutva.

"Many academics and self-proclaimed secularists spout this idea, as if this was common sense. But this idea is itself philosophically nave, culturally ignorant and even politically self-defeating.

Mehta is right to indirectly point out that the mainstream Dravidian political discourse in Tamil Nadu is anti-Hindu, but why does he need to bring in Hindutva, and give it a negative connotation, just to be able to say that denying the existence of Hinduism was philosophically nave, culturally ignorant and even politically self-defeating.

Clearly, liberals fear being cancelled by their own for merely accepting the reality of Hinduisms pre-colonial existence.

Mehta is bang on when he notes that a category can exist even though it may not have a name attached to it, especially when almost every foreign source assumed that Indias plurality existed within a field that made it distinctive.

As one TV debate participant noted, we dont say the human species did not exist before the term homo sapiens was invented. We dont say the American continent did not exist before Amerigo Vespucci and Columbus brought it to the notice of Europeans.

The real problem is why Mehta thinks Hindutva is about spiritual desecration, homogenisation and centralisation of Hinduism? Is the search for common elements (our collective Hinduness) a form of homogenisation and centralisation?

While religion can be vulgarised by (for example) the use of loud Bollywood music during festivals, but is this spiritual desecration when Hinduism does not hold spirituality to be something different from basic human desires?

Hinduism embeds both sublime spirituality and earthy physicality. The four purusharthas: Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha, embody this multiplicity of human aspirations. Sensory pleasures were never deemed to be antithetical to more spiritual pursuits.

Where is the attempt at homogeneity, when all that is being attempted under the banner of Hindutva is to find common elements of identity in order to protect the interests of the collective?

Take a different example. When there is no caste called Dalit, why are so many different and unrelated jatis seeking to band themselves together under the term Dalit?

Why do we have a term called feminism, when we know that every woman is different from other women, and groups different from other groups? Is this an attempt at homogeneity?

If Hindutva is homogenisation, then Dalitism the search for an overarching identity in order to protect common interests and rights - is invalid too.

The real issue is not that Hindus are trying to find common linkages to one another, but why they need to do so.

Unlike religions which had clear founders and a set of defined fundamentals, where commonality is defined by these two factors, Hinduism is a ground-up religion that grew from this soil.

Soft unity was forged through interactions, contestations, debates and by borrowing ideas from one another.

Put simply, the three religions that originated from desert cults and three Indian ones Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism started with a unified set of ideas and then developed diversity.

Hinduism started at the other end, with plurality as the norm, and then seeking spiritual and temporal unity. Given its origins and development over five millennia, it is easier to divide Hindus than unite them.

Which is why the predatory and expansionist religions find it easier to recruit new members by exploiting internal fault-lines. To guard against this, Hindus need to find common elements for unifying them and survive these assaults.

This is not the same as homogenisation and centralisation.

Pratap Bhanu Mehta should focus on the truth that he finds relevant, not try to create imaginary threats to plurality through homogenisation and spiritual desecration.

He could have merely said that Hinduism-deniers have no clothes, but he chose to clothe his statement by pointing in a different direction to balance the truth with some untruth. He probably fears being "cancelled".

Also Read: Hinduism v/s Hindutva: A False Dichotomy

Read the rest here:

Why 'Liberals' Tie Themselves Into Knots Over Hinduism And Hindutva - Swarajya

The duty of an Opposition is to oppose attributed to Lord Randolph Churchill is one of those quotations I remember seeing on exam papers in high school politics classes. It is true, but only half-true.

Tony Abbott opposed. He opposed relentlessly. Assisted by a conservative media that also opposed relentlessly, he did much to help destroy the Labor governments of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, although they did a better job of destroying themselves.

When Abbott won a massive victory at the 2013 election, it was easy to proclaim him an all-time champion. In their book Battleground: Why the Liberal Party Shirtfronted Tony Abbott, Wayne Errington and Peter van Onselen thought historians might one day see Abbott as the countrys best ever opposition leader.

Yet the negativity surrounding the role rarely makes opposition leaders popular. Late in 2012, 60% of the public told pollsters they disapproved of the job Abbott was doing.

Read more: Are we learning the wrong lessons from history?

In most occupations, we do not treat people only capable of doing half their job as good at it. Abbott was, at best, capable of doing half his job. Even then, he brought such political aggression and opportunism to the task that it poisoned the well for when he won office. As prime minister, he continued to be the countrys most prominent opposition leader.

Under the system of party government that still operates in Australia, we need effective oppositions. We need them for two reasons. They are there to keep governments accountable. And they are there to prepare for being the government themselves.

Assuming for a moment that both sides of politics accept both democratic norms and that their mission is to serve the public good assumptions that recent US experience, and a little of our own, suggest might be dubious it is beneficial to have changes of government every few years. At best, it can freshen policy, challenge entrenched assumptions, and bring new personnel, energy and life to government.

As in sport, many people are wedded to their own team and want that team to win although in Australian politics, far fewer today than a generation or two ago. But as in a sporting competition in which the same team wins every year, it is not good for democratic politics when one party is permanently excluded from office. That is why those who think the present weakness of the Liberal Party is only a cause for celebration or mockery might do well to think again.

The Liberals weakness is self-evident and, especially at the state level, part of a long-term change in the countrys electoral politics. Labor had only been a majority government once before John Cain junior became Victorian premier in 1982. In the 40 years since, it has only had three terms out of office.

The pattern in South Australia is similar, although the shift there occurred earlier. Decades of Liberal dominance to the mid-1960s were followed by decades of Labor dominance. In Queensland, Labor dominated from 1915 to 1957, the Country Party or Nationals (sometimes partnered by the Liberals) from then until 1989, and Labor has dominated since. In New South Wales, a Coalition government in office since 2011 has moved on to premier number four, looks tired, is often mired in scandal. It faces an uphill battle to be re-elected in March next year.

In the various states, the Liberal Partys position seems dire. A report on the Western Australian branch following its reduction to two lower house seats at the 2021 state election left the impression of an organisation that was a smouldering wreck. The WA Nationals, with four seats, became the opposition. WA voters registered their views again at the 2022 federal election by awarding Labor a swing of more than 10% and electing a teal independent to a formerly safe Liberal seat.

The Victorian Liberal Party, once considered that partys jewel in the crown, has consistently failed to present as a serious alternative to the Andrews Labor government. Its polling is dire in the lead-up to a November election, and it is a regular target of ridicule.

The federal scene, too, is much worse for the Coalition parties than Labors poor primary vote and slight majority at the 2022 election would indicate. That election was a landslide not in favour of Labor but against the Coalition. Its loss of seats to independents in traditional heartlands looks at least as bad and probably worse than the loss of blue-collar support by Labor in many of its own heartlands in the mid-1990s (the latter has, in any case, been consistently exaggerated).

Read more: Did Australia just make a move to the left?

Oppositions do more than compete for government. They also play a crucial role in keeping governments accountable. It is a rare government that can enjoy years in office without becoming just a little arrogant and entitled. Equally seriously, popular and successful governments might perform poorly in some areas. Labor governments in Victoria and WA, for example, have had significant problems in the delivery of health services. It is appropriate and important to have an opposition that can identify and criticise problems as well as suggest alternative policies and provide viable electoral competition.

As we head towards the 50th anniversary of the election of the Whitlam government in December, it may well be that it is Gough Whitlams achievements as opposition leader that should grab our attention. For what it is worth, I consider him the best opposition leader the country has seen. Why? In stark contrast with Abbott, Whitlam was successful both in keeping governments accountable and in preparing for office. No one can accuse Prime Minister Whitlam of behaving as though he were leader of the opposition.

Whitlams government had faults. But his was a government with a genuine sense of purpose. It left a significant, positive and enduring imprint on the country. That had its origins in a fruitful period of opposition.

Read the original here:

The Liberal Party is in a dire state across Australia right now. That should worry us all - The Conversation

Opposition MLAs are calling for an independent investigation intoefforts by Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston to exert pressure on the Speaker of the House to resign.

Liberal House leader Derek Mombourquette moved a resolution on Friday that, if passed, would see the conflict of interest commissioner conduct an independent review of the situation and reaffirm the independence of the Speaker's office.

"If this was a sporting game, people would understand: the coach can't have influence over the ref. It's not fair," Liberal Leader Zach Churchill told reporters.

"This isn't a game. This is our democracy and [the Speaker] has a right to act impartially. He has a duty to do that."

The Liberals were responding to comments Speaker Keith Bain made Thursday that Houston asked him to resign to give other people a chance in the role and because past rulings he's made put the government "in a hard spot."

Bain said he signed a document in the premier's office on Wednesday pledging to resign by next April, but that he'd hoped there was room for further negotiation on that matter because he didn't want to give up his job.

The premier's office has refused to release a copy of the document.

Churchill said it doesn't matter if Houston is happy with rulings by the Speaker.

"What matters is if those rulings are fair to the chamber and to the representatives in that chamber."

Houston would not directly answer any questions about the matter on Thursday, despite the fact his caucus office issued a news release saying Bain promised to resign by next April 1. On Friday, he walked away without talking to reporters.

NDP Leader Claudia Chender said the premier's actions are the latest in apattern of behaviour by Houston and his office that manifests as "silencing anyone, by any means that they have at their disposal, who will dare speak in a contrary manner to their policies.

"And I think that's very, very troubling in a democracy," she told reporters.

"This is the 175th anniversary of responsible government in Nova Scotia and it may be on the decline here."

In announcing Bain's pending departure on Thursday, the Tories also announced that theywould be adding three new deputy speakers all from their caucus to join the current two deputies who represent the Liberals and NDP.

Churchill said the premier's actions extend beyond the legislature and send a chilling effect across government.

Since coming to power, Houston has fired the CEO of the health authority and its board. He also dismissed the three heads of the province's economic development Crown corporations in a step to reorganize the entities. In doing so, Houston appointed people he called personal friends as the interim heads of those new bodies.

The message the premier is sending is that if people cross him, they'll be gone, said Chender.

"It demonstrates a vindictiveness and a desire to consolidate power and do his will."

Chender said MLAs need to push back and remind the premier that, "as of today, we're still in a democracy."

The Liberals intend to call their motion for debate on Wednesday, when they have control over the agenda of the House. The motion is unlikely to pass, given the Tory majority in the chamber.

Churchill also stood Friday on a point of privilege, saying Houston's attempts to influence the Speaker affects his rights as a member, and all other MLAs, to do their job in the legislature. They've been prevented from asking the premier about it during Question Period because Bain has ruled the subject does not fit within the mandate of the premieror any cabinet minister.

Deputy Speaker Angela Simmonds said she would issue a ruling at a later date.

MORE TOP STORIES

More:

Liberals want investigation into attempts by premier to force out Speaker of the House - CBC.ca