Mediaboss Marketing

One of the most striking findings in the Australian National Universitys Australian Election Study the survey of voters the university has undertaken after every federal election since 1987 are the results on satisfaction with democracy.

The survey tells us that back in 2007, Australians were sanguine. Kevin Rudd had won the federal election, and politics was hovering on the brink of a decade of profound disruption. At the tail end of the revolving door of prime ministers, and the failure of our parliament to achieve a durable consensus on important issues like climate change, only 59% of us are satisfied with democracy, and trust has reached its lowest level on record, with just 25% believing people in government can be trusted.

Loss of faith, given the experience post-2007, is to be expected. But the striking bit for me in the latest AES was the rate of decline in satisfaction with democracy. The faceplant in Australia has been steeper than the experience in the United Kingdom after the 2016 Brexit referendum and in the United States following Donald Trumps 2016 election win. Just roll that small insight around in your head for a minute. Politics in the US and the UK has completely jumped the shark yet our citizens are hitting the screw-this button faster than the citizens of America and Britain.

Assuming this insight is correct, thats really quite something. It tallies with the despair I encounter among the community of politically engaged people on social media, day in and day out, heaving and crashing. My inbox is studded with it. Progressives, engaged folks, are clearly angry, frustrated, thwarted.

Some of this roiling is currently trained in Labors direction. Anthony Albanese has copped a hiding on social media and elsewhere this week for visiting coal communities during the bushfires the visit seen as a portent of capitulation by Labor on climate policy. I want to work through the points Im going to make about this reaction, step by step, just so we are clear.

This first thing to say is Im minutely interested in where Labor ultimately ends up on climate policy. If Labor does ultimately capitulate on climate action, producing an execrable policy for the next federal election, then I will be the first one lining up with the rhetorical baseball bat. I will be taking no prisoners.

But rather than fly off in a rage because Albanese went to Emerald, or looked sideways at a coalminer while Sydney choked in smoke, right now Im content to wait and watch. Im content to wait and watch not because Im a naturally patient person, or a trusting person, or a generous person, but because Im a student of history.

Its worth laying out the recent history just so its clear, because right now the debate feels a bit untethered, and things that can be known and proved (as opposed to being speculated about) are a bit obscured in the thicket of fail hashtags.

History tells us that Labor has made mistakes on climate policy, significant errors of hubris, fear and poor judgment that have set back the cause of progress.

But history also tells us this political party shows up on climate action. It is the only party of government in Australia that does, election cycle after election cycle. That basic fact seems a bit lost in the wash in some of the current emoting and hectoring.

The other lesson of history that may not be obvious is this. Labor has lost two elections on climate change 2013 and 2019.

Climate change wasnt the only negative factor in these contests. Labor lost predominantly in 2013 because it was more interested in conducting a civil war at taxpayer expense than serving Australian voters, but Labor also lost because Tony Abbott was successful in weaponising climate change. It was diabolical, what Abbott did, but it was a precision, partisan, demolition.

A backlash against climate action in regional Queensland was also part of the story of Labors election loss in May. I dont think a lot of progressive people have really grasped this basic fact, because they prefer to think climate change switched votes Labors way in 2019, because thats a more comforting story.

I cant fathom, given what the science says, why climate change goes on being Australias Brexit.

Now its true, climate change did help shore up Labors left flank against the Greens, and pushed a number of swing votes Labors way in 2019. But its important to look where those positive swings happened, and they were largely in seats Labor had no prospect of winning.

Any political party will happily bank any positive swing. Its gratifying. It suggests the dial is moving. But obviously it is better if the swings deliver you government rather than just a warm inner glow, and abstract validation.

So what Im trying to convey this weekend is Labor has paid a price electorally for pursuing climate action.

I dont high five this fact. I dont find it comforting. I cant fathom, given what the science says, given the clear evidence that warming is under way, why there is even a debate in this country about what needs to happen, why climate change goes on being Australias Brexit.

But there is a debate, pushed by corporates with vested interests, and culture warriors intent on routing progressivism, whatever the cost; and materialist anxiety is stoked assiduously by poisonous agitprop rags like the Daily Telegraph, and other alleged news outlets in the Murdoch stable that act like sheep dogs rounding up thought criminals, fully resolved to let no good deed go unpunished.

I thought after the defeat in May we would see ignominious surrender from the ALP. I fully expected that to happen, not because its right, but because retreat is not irrational in terms of the electoral calculation.

But the only person Ive heard in Labor saying we need to lower the level of ambition is Joel Fitzgibbon, who got the fright of his life after suffering a huge negative swing in his coal community in the Hunter Valley, and has now embarked on a coal worshipping tour of the country as an act of contrition.

Mark Butler isnt saying lower ambition. Albanese isnt saying it. Penny Wong isnt saying it. Senior New South Wales rightwingers, such as Tony Burke and Chris Bowen, are saying we need to maintain ambition consistent with the science and find a way to do that while reassuring our blue-collar base. Burke and Bowen have floated the New Green Deal, or something like it, as a mechanism that might square the circle.

Maybe Labor will, ultimately, surrender. Its certainly possible. But whats happening now isnt surrender its an attempt to stitch climate action and blue-collar jobs together. Its an attempt to craft a nuance.

Now some progressive people will argue thats impossible, so dont even bother; Labor should just draw a line now and say we are for climate action, no compromises, no redux on the messaging. If you dont like it, vote for someone else.

Thats fine, as long as the people making these arguments understand a couple of basic things.

Labor cant win an election by saying that. Not on current indications.

Perhaps that could change in time, because public sentiment will shift as the evidence and experience of warming grows. The community is clearly mobilising. But right now, Australians are telling pollsters they are increasingly worried about climate change, but a majority is not voting in favour of climate action when push comes to shove. The country remains divided, and rancorously so. Thats the legacy of our busted arse politics, and our busted arse media conversation.

While ever that remains the case, Labor will have to hold its progressive post-material constituency and hold its traditional base, or enough of it to win enough seats to form a government.

If its either/or, Labor loses.

So lets be precise about what that means. It means the only party of government in Australia that is halfway serious about climate action, the only party with the capacity to deliver tangible action, remains out of power, unable to move the dial.

This is less of a problem obviously if the Liberal party can enjoy a Damascene conversion. I remain hopeful that it might happen. But theres not much evidence of that happening currently.

These are just facts. These might be irritating facts, facts disruptive to the flow of feelings, but they are facts.

Lets loop back to despair, which is where we started this weekend. I get despair. I understand why people who care about the fate of the planet are so worried about the failure of our political system, particularly on this issue. I worry about it constantly. I report on it incessantly in the hope that something will change.

I understand the feelings of helplessness and hopelessness. I battle these feelings myself. But also know this. Lashing out is a waste of time and energy. Rage in advance of the facts is just more noise. Some of its eloquent noise, but it is just noise.

David Remnick of the New Yorker wrote one of the finest pieces of the year about the challenges of reporting during the age of Donald Trump. He told his readers despair is not an option. Despair is a form of self-indulgence, a dodge.

Remnick is absolutely right. Despair is not an option, particularly in advance of the facts.

The times are just too serious.

Visit link:
Australias democracy has faceplanted and Labor is staring down some disturbing truths - The Guardian

The Israeli government has not been functioning for the entire year of 2019. Weve already had two elections, and a third election season is now upon us. Government offices, which even in more stable times have no long-term strategic plans in place, are barely functioning. No decisions regarding the functioning of the country as a whole are being made, budgets are not being passed and some local authorities are rebelling against the national government. Hospitals are collapsing, infrastructure plans are not being approved, and there is no sign that anything will change in the near future. Some commentators will claim that this is the price of living in a democracy. But thats just not true. Democracy is indeed the foundation upon which the State of Israel was built, and the Declaration of Independence states that the country is both a Jewish and democratic state. Nonetheless, democracy must serve its citizens, and not the other way around. For citizens to feel that they are an integral part of the democratic system, they must be able to trust their elected officials, the electoral system and the governments structure. The government must represent them and fulfill their needs. Unfortunately, something bad has happened here in Israel over the last decade. The ideal of democracy seems to have gotten lost as a handful of elected officials have taken over and begun ruling the country according to their whims. They have their own laws and they make up new rules as they go along. They apply democratic principles only when it suits them. The ruling party, Likud, has been in power almost continuously since 1977, with just a few short breaks. In fact, I would venture to say that it is the only significant democratic party in Israel. And yet, something very undemocratic has been taking place within its walls for some time now. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has headed the Likud Party and been prime minister for over a decade now, in addition to his previous term. He has done a tremendous amount of good for our country, while cementing his standing in all the party institutions and surrounding himself with an almost blind loyalty from other politicians and businesspeople who take care of themselves before thinking about whats good for the country. No, Netanyahu is not a magician, though he did serve the country for many years and represented Israel in the world quite honorably. He is a brilliant diplomat and a gifted politician. But he did lose in the Likud primaries when he ran against Ariel Sharon, and in 1999 he lost in the election to Ehud Barak, which led the Likud to an all-time low of just 19 seats in the Knesset. In 2006, Netanyahu once against suffered defeat and brought the Likud to a record low of 12 seats in the Knesset. Since 2009, the Likud has remained in power with Netanyahu at its head. The last time primaries were held in the Likud was in 2014. Since that time, the big guns of the Likud have ensured that no potential rivals might jeopardize his position. BUT THINGS have changed since then. Gideon Saar returned to politics, and to his home party, Likud. Hes garnered substantial support in his efforts to wiggle his way up the top of the list, despite great efforts by Netanyahu and his associates to thwart Saars rise. And so now, after Netanyahu served as prime minister for over 10 years, and failed to form a government after both of the elections that took place in 2019, Saar is demanding change. Hes demanding that the Likud uphold its democratic character and hold primaries. This is not a putsch or a betrayal. No one is being disloyal to a ruling leader. This is simply the necessary step that must take place in Israels most popular party if there is to be any hope of a functioning, stable government being formed. One of the Likuds greatest strengths is the loyalty of its members to whichever leader is in control, even in times of crisis. Despite what has happened in the Labor Party, this loyalty has proven itself and brought about long-standing stability within the Likud leadership. Nonetheless, the time has come for change. Its time to thank Netanyahu for his loyal service, and to replace him and his close supporters with a new leadership. This form of action is the only option available for the Likud if it wants to survive. After the dust settles, Netanyahus replacement will have to begin repairing all the broken parts and establish a proper political relationship with the political Left, the religious parties and representatives of the Arab sector. The party needs to reinstate the partys vision established by Zeev Jabotinsky, and do whats best for the people and not just its leaders. There is no one today who is more fitting than Gideon Saar to take over the Likud leadership. Saar brings with him many years of political expertise, intelligence and critical thinking. He is capable of long-term strategic planning, is a great speaker and a courageous leader with the air of senior official. He is also the only figure who is capable of bridging the gaps between the various political camps and maintaining a functioning, stable government. In the past, Saar has proven himself through his long-term strategic planning in the fields of education, health, welfare and security. Its hard to think of any other politician with such a successful record since the days of David Ben-Gurion. All the polls are showing that if a new Likud leadership is chosen, the party would grow to such an extent that it would succeed in forming a stable, long-standing government. Its time for a change of leadership in the ruling party. The people are demanding this and the country needs it. Its time we started dealing with the issues and solving our problems. The next items on the agenda need to be changing the electoral process and government structure. We dont have any more time to waste on unnecessary and expensive elections. The writer is a former deputy Shin Bet chief, an intelligence and terrorism specialist, and an author.

More here:
Likud needs a change of guard if democracy is to be served - The Jerusalem Post

A Better World Is Possible. We Will Only Get There If We Stick Together.

Our journalists work hard to inform by bringing you the news that matters - which is often about how the world is. But we think the most important part of our mission is to inspireand so we work hard to bring you the voices of visionaries who dream about how the world should be. Independent journalism and democracy itself have never been more needed yet more fragile and at risk than now. Pleaseno amount is too large or too smallpitch in to support our people-powered model and help Common Dreams start 2020 at full strength. Thank you. -- Craig Brown, Co-founder

Please select a donation method:

Support Independent Journalism. The only thing that keeps us going is support from readers like you. Every contribution makes a huge difference.Yes! I will support this work

Read more here:
'To Protect Our Democracy,' Tuesday Night Rallies Planned In All 50 States to Demand Congress Votes to Impeach Trump - Common Dreams

Weve got to acknowledge that in 1979 although on a technicality it was defeated we delivered a Scotland Bill.

But Labour has refused to take advantage of that legacy, and currently in Scotland we have no traction whatsoever in the constitutional debate.

Thats why Im encouraged by the comments of some senior Labour MSPs that the party has to have a rethink about the constitutional question.

Of course there will be a second referendum. You cannot continue to fight democracy. Because if you oppose indyref2 you are opposing democracy.

For Labour that is not a vision, its not a strategy, its not a policy, its an acceptance of defeatism.

The only reason they might not want to have a referendum, along with the Conservatives, is that they might lose.

I think the 2021 Holyrood election will be pivotal in defining where Scots are on the issue.

My best bet is that a referendum will take place after that in either 2022 or 2023.

I dont believe for a minute that Scotland, couldnt be independent, of course it could. But thats not the question we need to be asking ourselves.

The question really is, do we take a substantial number of Scottish people with the country as it moves, or is there an alternative to independence which is not being properly developed.

READ MORE:Henry McLeish: Ditch first-past-the-post MSPs at Holyrood

I fear that weve run out of time.

Westminsters not interested. Boris Johnsons not interested. Labours not interested.

The SNPs position has been buoyed by their excellent results last week, but they have got to appreciate though that since 2014 very few opinion polls, out of more than 100, have given them a result of 50% or more in favour of independence.

Secondly, the country is bitterly divided at the present time. I think theres a danger of looking into the SNP vote and thinking that everybody who votes SNP supports independence.

The SNP have been a competent government, and in many respects a good government, so therefore people vote for them for a variety of reasons.

Labour can only get back into Scottish politics if it uses the key of the constitutional question to unlock that political door.

Were currently nowhere on the Scottish question. I have seen one person suggest that its nothing to do with Labour, leave it to the Tories and the SNP. That doesnt make sense, its also quite dangerous.

Labour has now got to seize the opportunity to decide whether it can develop an alternative, or if it cant, what is the next best option.

And in that sense, I have an option for them. As we move forward, we should explore further the powers of the Scottish Parliament.

What I want the Scottish party to do is test the boundaries of all the reserved issues. For example on welfare, on Europe, on immigration.

Labour has to rebuild trust. A lot of the policies in the Labour manifesto were sound, good and radical, but the fact is were locked out of the Scottish debate.

Go here to read the rest:
Henry McLeish: opposing indyref2 is opposing democracy - The National

BRUSSELS European Union lawmakers on Tuesday strongly criticized corruption and self-dealing in the blocs $65-billion-a-year farm subsidy program but were sharply divided over how or whether to reform a system that has become a third rail of European politics.

At a time of festering anti-European sentiment, the debate over one of the worlds largest subsidy programs highlighted a fissure that cuts far deeper than a simple dispute over farm policy. It raised the question of how to combat political corruption without infringing on the independence of the blocs 28 nations and further emboldening its far-right populist critics.

Tuesdays debate happened during a European Parliament budget oversight hearing, which was prompted, in part, by a New York Times investigation into the farm subsidy program, known as the Common Agricultural Policy or C.A.P. In November, the Times revealed how subsidies help underwrite oligarchs, enrich politicians and encourage land-grabbing and Mafia-style tactics.

The recent New York Times report on the abuse of C.A.P. subsidies is damning and undermines trust in government, said Mick Wallace, a European lawmaker from Ireland.

The Times tracked state land sales and subsidies that benefited friends and family members of Hungarys prime minister, Viktor Orban, while also identifying at least $79 million in government subsidies paid to companies owned by the Andrej Babis, prime minister of the Czech Republic.

It quite ironic to see populists such as Andrej Babis and Viktor Orban making such hue and cry about how European Union money is spent, while the same two people use E.U. money to enrich their friends, said Lara Wolters, a lawmaker from the Netherlands and member of the budget oversight committee.

In the hearing, Ms. Wolters argued that Parliament should reconsider the core premise of the subsidy program that farmers are paid based on how much land they control.

Such a change would curb the ability of national leaders to use farmland as political chits. And it could reduce the incentives for large, politically powerful companies to acquire more land. But it would also amount to a seismic overhaul of a fund regarded as sacrosanct by many national politicians and many farmers.

European lawmakers are now debating the renewal of the blocs next seven-year farm bill. National leaders want more discretion on how to spend the money, and farmers want fewer administrative requirements. In Brussels, there is little appetite for a major reform that would impose greater oversight on governments even those that have manipulated or abused the system.

So the latest proposal, which will be debated in the coming months, gives national leaders like Mr. Babis and Mr. Orban even greater power to set farm policy and oversee spending, despite allegations of corruption. Internal auditors have criticized that proposal, and several lawmakers objected Tuesday.

We cant even adequately police corruption, said Sheila Ritchie of Scotland. What on Earth makes us think self-policing compliance is going to work?

Johannes Hahn, the European budget administrator, defended the blocs approach to corruption and abuse, noting that European auditors have investigated and audited Mr. Babis.

We have reacted very quickly, he said.

But the Babis investigations also reveal how accountability is still limited. Years ago, European investigators recommended that Mr. Babis be charged with fraud, but they lack jurisdiction or authority to bring charges. The case has languished in the Czech Republic. And the audit is expected to drag on for many months, during which time Mr. Babis can still vote on the European budget.

The European Union is not a government but an economic and political bloc. While it has a system of shared laws, the union is built on the concept of national sovereignty.

Those tensions bubbled over on Tuesday, as some lawmakers strongly rejected suggestions that cracking down on corruption required the European Union to take on new oversight.

Some colleagues want the E.U. to have even greater responsibilities and to supervise member states even more, Tomislav Sokol, a Croatian lawmaker, said during the hearing, held in Strasbourg, France. But member states should look after their own interests. Solutions should not be imposed by the European Union.

The clearest divisions, though, were between lawmakers calling for a significant overhaul of the subsidy program and those who argued for keeping it intact.

The story here isnt actually about a few bad apples robbing funds, said Clare Daly, an Irish lawmaker. The problem is actually the system itself.

Such sentiments elicited a rebuke from Clara Aguilera of Spain, who is also a member of the agricultural committee.

There are people who are trying to make these problems into a general condemnation of the C.A.P., she said. I refuse to join in this blanket condemnation.

More here:
E.U. Lawmakers Condemn Subsidy Corruption but Disagree on What to Do - The New York Times