Mediaboss Marketing

Just before the Western Australian state election in March 2021, the then leader of the Liberal Party did an unusual thing. He conceded defeat but then asked voters to stop premier Mark McGowans Labor Party from achieving total control of the state.

The appeal failed spectacularly. McGowan won 53 of the 59 seats in the legislative assembly and a majority for the first time ever in WAs upper house, the legislative council.

The Liberals, shattered, were reduced to just two seats in the assembly. The Nationals, with a grand total of four seats, became the official opposition, and a Nationals MP, Mia Davies, was elected opposition leader. The question immediately arose: could parliament operate effectively in these extraordinary circumstances? Would sufficient democratic scrutiny be applied to the government?

Just over a year later, the federal election provided another crushing blow to the WA Liberals. The party lost not only four lower house seats and a senate seat to Labor, but also the seat of Curtin to independent Kate Chaney.

Read more: Swing when you're winning: how Labor won big in Western Australia

WA has 122 state and federal MPs. Currently, 89 of them almost three-quarters are Labor. Less than six years ago, the comparable figure was 41, or a third. By contrast, the Liberals have just 19 MPs or 16% of the total, compared to 64, or just over half, six years ago. Perhaps we need to take the fears of total control seriously?

Senator Linda Reynolds, the former Liberal defence minister, seems to think so. She recently argued that without substantial change, we risk condemning Western Australia to a one-party state and the WA Liberals to an electoral abyss.

Everyone would agree democracy works best when a strong opposition can keep the government accountable. So what is happening in WA? Is democracy in danger?

So far, the answer would appear to be no. Take parliament. Parties with a majority of MPs can, in principle, run roughshod over their opponents in parliament. In practice, most dont. While governments will occasionally force through legislation or resist pressure to reveal information, rules and conventions enable non-government parties to participate in debates and committees, and to scrutinise the executive about its actions and proposed legislation.

Governing parties know one day they will be in opposition, and parliament should at the very least let the opposition have its say, even if the government prevails.

Despite the vast disparity in numbers, this attitude seems to be holding up in WA. Question time is still operating, unchanged. The parliamentary schedule continues to allow non-government MPs to bring forward debates on matters of public importance, private members business and grievances.

Read more: Governments usually win a second term. But could the new Labor government be an exception?

Estimates hearings continue to be held, as are meetings of parliamentary committees. As in the past, the opposition chairs one committee in the assembly, two in the council, and the joint audit committee. The deputy Liberal leader chaired a prominent committee inquiry into sexual harassment in the resources sector.

Of course, with so few seats, the workload of non-government MPs is very large. The government has a majority on most committees but this was true in previous parliaments. One potential area of concern is that the standing committee on education and health the two areas of greatest expenditure has only Labor members.

Clearly, the government is not going to lose any votes on the floor of the house. Overall, though, the structures and operations of parliament look much the same as before.

But given the huge imbalance of resources and power within the political system, it is important other players keep the government under scrutiny. WA retains a full complement of independent integrity agencies ombudsman, auditor-general, information commissioner, corruption and crime commissioner.

The auditor-generals office has been particularly active. It recently produced a transparency report on the progress of major government projects, arguing the government could and should update parliament more regularly on whether these projects are on time and on budget and vowing to do this itself, if government refused.

Read more: Below the Line: Has Australia's political landscape changed forever? podcast

Another crucial player is the media. WAs press and broadcasting landscape is dominated by Seven West Media, which owns the states only daily newspaper and its most popular TV station. While Mark McGowan received generally positive coverage for his handling of the pandemic, his government has not escaped media criticism, on hospitals and health in particular. Other media outlets have also been active in scrutinising government.

With the federal election out of the way, what might we look forward to in WA politics? Three things are worth noting.

First, the WA Liberal Party holds its annual conference in July. This will be an important indicator of whether it has done the thinking it needs to turn its fortunes around.

Second, a state by-election is due soon after a Nationals MP, Vince Catania, resigned his marginal seat of North-West Central. If Labor were to win, the number of non-government MPs would fall from six to five a much bigger deal than Labor increasing its representation from 53 to 54.

Intriguingly, if the Liberal Party managed to win North-West Central (which is not completely out of the question, as they have held the seat in the past), then they and the Nationals would each have three MPs and would need to work out who would be the official opposition.

Third, no election is due in WA, state or federal, for almost three years. (The state poll is in March 2025, followed by a likely federal poll two months later.) Can Liberal and National MPs maintain their diligence in parliament? Can their parties form a viable alternative government? And can Labor avoid the malaise that commonly strikes second-term governments in WA, where no party has won a third term since 1989?

It seems inconceivable that Mark McGowan and Labor could lose office in 2025. But can he govern well in the meantime? And can the non-government parties, the integrity watchdogs and the media keep him and his government on their toes? For democracys sake, lets hope so.

Read the original post:
Does Labor have total control in Western Australia? - The Conversation

In their first-ever competition,UTWind a team of undergraduate and graduate students from the University of Torontos Faculty of Applied Science & Engineering has taken the top prize in an international challenge to design and build a small-scale wind turbine.

While we always strived to be a competitive team from the beginning and knew that we had a strong design, we definitely didnt expect to win first place, saysDavid Petriw, a third-year materials science and engineering student who isa member of UTWind.

The morale of the team is at an all-time high, and we are going to celebrate this win in a big way.

TheInternational Small Wind Turbine Contest (ISWTC)is hosted annually by Hanze University of Applied Sciences in Groningen, Netherlands. To clinch first place, UTWind edged out teams from Denmark, Germany, Poland and Egypt.

The goal of ISWTC is to build and demonstrate a wind turbine designed for rural regions in Sub-Saharan Africa, saysAndrew Ilersich, aPhD candidate at the U of T Institute for Aerospace Studies (UTIAS) andaerodynamics lead for UTWind.

Every aspect of our design had to be tailored to, or at least compatible with, the region it would be sold and operated in. We also had to show that our design was sustainable, being made from recyclable, low-cost, and locally available materials.

Unlike the large turbines used in commercial wind farms, which can rise to over 100 metres and generate megawatts of power each, small wind turbines (SWTs) are designed for generation on scales from a few hundred watts to a few kilowatts.

To win the contest, teams must demonstrate top-of-class performance across a number of criteria, including power generation, cut-in speed, estimated annual energy production and coefficient of power, which is a measure of the turbines efficiency.

Performance was measured at the Open Jet Facility wind tunnel at Delft University of Technology. After that, the teams headed to theScience of Making Torque Conferencein Delft, to present their business case.

The process of creating the prototype took more than a year from start to finish.

We began the design phase in the beginning of 2021 and the whole assembly was built in winter semester 2022, saysAshley Best, a third-year student in materials science and engineering who ismedia team lead for UTWind.

Our turbine is made from wood and 3D-printed plastics. A few parts were outsourced to our sponsoring machine shop, Protocase, but the majority of the fabrication was done in house by our team 3D printing, laser cutting, drill pressing, lathing, milling and assembly.

One of the things that set our team apart was our high coefficient of power, even when operating at very low wind speeds, says Suraj Bansal,UTWind co-president and technical adviser and a PhD candidate at UTIAS.

In addition, we had a very modular, low-cost and sustainable construction, as well as a self-starting wind-turbine design thanks to our active pitch control system. We are currently creating a mobile app to control and monitor the wind turbine performance right from our mobile devices.

UTWind is one of U of T Engineerings newest design teams, co-founded in January 2021 by Bansal and UTIAS alumnusBen Gibson.

I was a member of a similar wind turbine design team at the University of Manitoba, while Suraj had prior experience from his masters research work in the U.S. to design extreme-scale wind turbines, Gibson says.

We wanted to pass as much of that knowledge on as we could, while both having fun and pushing ourselves to the maximum. And so far, it has worked out great.

See the rest here:
U of T student team takes first place at International Small Wind Turbine Contest - University of Toronto

If norms exist in the Chinese Communist Party, perhaps Xi Jinping, the general secretary and de facto president of the Peoples Republic of China, has established one by attending the inauguration of incoming chief executives. He last came to Hong Kong five years ago when Carrie Lam took up the post.

But his visit, whose length did not match the three days of 2017, perhaps from a fear of Covid-19 or a need to concentrate on mitigating its economic and social consequences on the mainland, has deeper significance.

For Xi himself, it is an opportunity to bang the nationalist and patriotic drums in this important year when he intends to continue for a third term in the trinity of top party, army and state posts. This reminder to the Chinese people that the CCP ended the century of foreign humiliation, which began with the ceding of Hong Kong to Britain, portrays Xi as the embodiment of the CCPs success.

For others, the 25th anniversary is significant as a halfway milestone to 2047. Before the 1997 handover of Hong Kong, Deng Xiaoping, then paramount leader of the PRC, had promised 50 years no change () as reassurance that his policy of one country, two systems would allow Hong Kongs freedoms to continue and remain different from those on the mainland.

So, where does Hong Kong stand 25 years after the handover?

The answer is not where the people of Hong Kong and the British government hoped back in 1997. At best Hong Kong experiences one country, one and a half systems. 50 years no change was always a way of papering over unresolved differences or worries. The hope was that, by 2047, the PRC would have changed, and thus the gap with the Hong Kong system would have narrowed. Indeed the CCP has changedfor the worseand the gap between past rhetoric and present reality has widened.

Every five years or so since 1997 the clash between Hong Kongs and Beijings interpretation of one country, two systems boiled over into protest. The issues were unsurprising: national security legislation (2003); national education (2012); electoral system (2014); and extradition arrangements, which then led to wider unrest (2019).

The wide scale demonstrations and street violence of 2019 convinced the CCP that its three red linesno harm to national security, no challenge to the central governments authority and the basic law, and no using Hong Kong as a base to undermine the PRChad been crossed. In essence, they embodied the fear that Hong Kongs protests and values might spill over into neighbouring Guangdong province and provoke unrest. The spear point of the CCPs response was the national security law, or NSL, which came into force on 1 July 2020. The NSL centred on four crimes: secession from the PRC, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces. Their definitions are elasticintentionallyand their enforcement ubiquitous. Currently, around 150 people are awaiting trial.

While maintaining the slogan of one country, two systems, the CCP has reached into its traditional playbook for ensuring control. No self-respecting and aspiring totalitarian regime can afford to ignore:

Among other signs of reduced differences between Hong Kong and the mainland, there have been increasing interference and self-censorship in the arts and culture, an expansion of technological surveillance, and a greater presence and powers to operate for mainland security forces.

Hong Kongs value to the PRC has been steadily diminishing. Its gross domestic product, once equivalent to over 18% of that of the mainland, is now under 3%. Its port and airport, while formidable, are matched by recently built facilities elsewhere in the south of the PRC. Shanghai, Shenzhen and other cities are increasingly important in meeting the PRCs financial needs.

Yet Hong Kong retains value for Beijing. While the CCP might be happy to see Shanghai and Shenzhen take over the ex-colonys financial role, there are impediments while the Chinese yuan, unlike the Hong Kong dollar, remains a non-convertible currency (and will for many years). Hong Kong has been a good place for Chinese companies to raise money. And it has proved useful for powerful CCP members as a safer place for their families and capital.

But Dengs phrase of 50 years without change still haunts. It implies change after 2047. The CCP has set itself the second centennial goal of becoming a strong, democratic, civilised, harmonious and modern socialist country by 2049, the centenary of its founding of the PRC. Translated from party-speak, this means that the PRC is to become the worlds primary superpower in an international order transformed to its advantage and values. It is surely inconceivable that a CCP so committed to a narrative of nationalism and superiority would be happy for Hong Kong to retain much more than the merest vestiges of one country, two systems. For the CCP, Hong Kong must become no different from any other mainland city, including a move away from the common law system to legal consistency with the mainland.

This absorbing of Hong Kong into the mainland is partly what lies behind Xis emphasis on the greater bay area plan, an intention to mould the 10 major cities of Guangdong province into an unrivalled economic and technological powerhouse. Hong Kongs identity, population and culture would be subsumed and diluted into insignificance within the 126 million people of the neighbouring province. It is no coincidence that in the 28 June Peoples Dailyarticleannouncing Xis visit, a large portion centres on Hong Kongs future in the greater bay area. As 2047 looms, the CCP may be indifferent to whether foreign companies stay in Hong Kong or move north: if they wish to do business in the PRC, they will need a presence in Hong Kong or the mainland.

Sometimes it is the smallest details which reveal the state of things. The mainland press has assured the world that the Hong Kong police detachment of honour will no longer march in its traditional British fashion but with a mainland goose step. Political slogans, never a feature in Hong Kong, have been floating on boats through Victoria Harbour. Outside the Hong Kong police headquarters two banners spread different messages. In Chinese, there is the disconcerting message about a threat as yet unseen in Hong Kong, Remember to report terrorists. The next victim could be you and in English, United we stand. One country, two audiences.

Continue reading here:
Xi's anniversary visit marks near-total CCP control of Hong Kong | The Strategist - The Strategist

A Turkish flag is put in the barrel of an Armored Vehicle parked outside the parliament building in Ankara, Turkey, July 16, 2016. REUTERS/Baz Ratner

Register

ANKARA, July 1 (Reuters) - Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan said he would approve possibly reinstating the death penalty if parliament were to send a bill on the matter to him, broadcaster NTV cited him as saying on Friday.

Erdogan's justice minister said at the weekend Turkey would consider turning back the 2004 abolishment of capital punishment after the president earlier raised the issue in connection with the cause of wildfires. His nationalist ally Devlet Bahceli has backed the idea and said the penalty should extend to terrorism, rape, and the murder of women. read more

"If necessary, this should be brought back on the agenda and made into a debate. We should see what comes of this debate," Erdogan was cited as saying.

"I said it before, if parliament makes such a decision as a result of our justice ministry's work, I will approve this decision," he added.

Register

Reporting by Tuvan Gumrukcu; Editing by Jonathan Spicer

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read the original here:
Erdogan says he is ready to back reinstating Turkey's death penalty - Reuters

A videograb shows Erdogan tapping Boris on shoulder in Madrid.

Gulf Today Report

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan greeting his British counterpart Boris Johnson a little awkwardly at the Nato summit in Madrid earlier this week has become a social media sensation.

The video showed the UK prime minister sitting at a table, Turkey's president can be seen sneaking up behind him and tapping him on the shoulder.

Boris appeared a bit taken aback by Erdogan's greeting.

He even attempts to remove the hand from his back before saying, Hello My distinguished friend

Media reports suggest Boris appeared to have been caught off-guard by Erdogan at the summit.

The awkward greetings have become an instant meme.

Social media users said that Erdogan's move represented, "Alpha behavior."

Boris turns and says hello to Erdogan.

A TTwitter user wrote, "Trkye Erdogan showing Boris who wears the pants in the house..."

"Big boss enters the room" another user wrote.

Another wrote on Facebook, Erdogan was "bullying" the British PM, commenting on the video, "Turkeys president chooses his next victim.

On the political front, Erdogan told Sweden and Finland that he could still block their drives to join Nato if they fail to implement a new accession deal with Ankara.

Erdogan issued his blunt warning at the end of a Nato summit at which the US-led alliance formally invited the Nordic countries to join the 30-nation bloc.

Read this article:
VIDEO: Erdogan taps Boris on shoulder at Nato summit, and the internet loves it - Gulf Today