Prime Minister Anthony Albanese offered his congratulations to President Donald Trump on his historic victory in the US presidential election.

Albnaese posted on X, “Australians and Americans are great friends and true allies. Working together, we can ensure the partnership between our nations and peoples remains strong into the future.”

Opposition leader, Peter Dutton, echoed Albnaese’s sentiment, praising the resilience of the US-Australia alliance and the shared values that underpin it.

On behalf of the Federal Coalition, Dutoon said, “May the years ahead be some of the most defining for our Alliance in which, driven by tests of our times, the necessity of deterrence, and the cause of securing peace through strength, we unleash the defence, industrial and economic opportunities of AUKUS at speed and scale.”

India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi was also among the first world leaders to congratulate Trump on his win. Modi took to X to share his optimism about building on their past successes, tweeting, “Had a great conversation with my friend, President @realDonaldTrump, congratulating him on his spectacular victory. Looking forward to working closely together once again to further strengthen India-US relations across technology, defence, energy, space and several other sectors.”

Modi later spoke with Trump directly, and sources report that Trump reaffirmed his commitment to the US-India friendship, calling Modi and India “true friends.”

The renewed US administration signals continuity but with the trademark unpredictability Trump brings to the global stage.

Trump previously proposed crippling tariffs on Chinese imports in excess of 60 per cent if re-elected and ending the country’s most-favoured nation trading status. His return could mean further negotiations on trade and immigration, a unified stance against China, and a firm stance on Islamist terrorism.

Support Our Journalism

The global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today—with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors—is doing just that. Sustaining this requires support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

As Americans vote in one of the most important presidential elections in generations, the country teeters on a knife edge. In the battleground states that will likely decide the result, the polling margins between Democrat Kamala Harris and Republican Donald Trump are razor thin.

These tiny margins, and the general confusion around American politics today, make it impossible to predict the outcome.

The polls might well be wrong: the electorate may have shifted dramatically since 2020 in ways that will only reveal themselves after the election. The reality is we do not know much of anything for sure, and we may never be able to untangle all of the threads that make up the knot of American politics.

After two assassination attempts on Trump and incumbent President Joe Biden’s dramatic decision to leave the race in August, it is entirely possible this election will throw up more big surprises. But as things stand, there are three broad possibilities for what will happen on Election Day.

All of them throw up their own challenges – for the United States, and for the world.

Possibility 1: the return of Trump

Trump may make history and win back the White House. Only Grover Cleveland has managed to get elected a second time as president (in 1892) after suffering a defeat four years earlier.

If Trump does win, it could be via a similar path to the one he took in 2016 – by once again sundering the “blue wall” and winning the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan.

This feat will likely mean his campaign tactic of mobilising men has worked.

A Trump victory would represent the culmination of a generational project of the American right. A second Trump administration would be very different from the first – the movement behind Trump is more organised, focused and cognisant of the mistakes of the first Trump White House. It would also face considerably weakened democratic guardrails.

The implementation of Trump’s radical agenda, alongside some or all of the broader far-right agenda detailed in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, would radically reshape American life and create political and economic chaos.

The rest of the world would have to reorient itself, once again, around Trump.

Possibility 2: Harris makes history

It is entirely possible Harris makes history – not only by beating Trump, but by becoming the first woman and woman of colour to win the US presidency.

Like Trump, if Harris does win, it will likely be through one or more of the battleground states – in particular, Pennsylvania and Georgia.

For Harris, victory will likely come via high turnout by women and voters of colour, particularly African-Americans, or through a combination of turnout by this core Democratic base and swing voters in key states like Pennsylvania.

How Harris wins – and by how much – will be crucial, both to the immediate aftermath of the election and to the shape of a future Harris administration.

A big question: can she win by enough to head off resistance by Trump and the movement behind him? As Australian writer Don Watson has noted, a Harris victory would likely be taken as an existential defeat by the MAGA movement.

How Trump’s supporters react to such a defeat – and how US institutions react to their reaction – will be a critical test for American democracy.

Possibility 3: too close to call

This brings us to the third possibility: the polls are correct, and it’s such a tight race that the margins in the battleground states are in the thousands of votes, or even less.

If it is that close, counting could take days. And there could be recounts after that.

While conspiracies abound, a delay in the result like this would be an entirely predictable and normal outcome. In the United States, there isn’t one system for counting the votes; elections are run by the states on a county-by-county basis, and each state does it differently.

Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, for example, legally can’t start counting mail-in votes until the polls open on Election Day.

Then there is the supposed “blue shift” or “red mirage” that sometimes occurs on election night.

There are now many ways to vote in the US – in person on Election Day, early voting before Election Day or by mail-in ballot. And the time it takes to count these different ballots can vary. So, it may appear as if one candidate is winning early in the night (say, when in-person votes are counted) only for their opponent to slowly turn the tide (when mail-in ballots are counted).

In the 2020 election, this meant early Trump (“red”) leads were gradually lost to the Biden (“blue”) votes. Researchers found that counties won by Biden counted more slowly, on average, than those won by Trump – hence the so-called “blue shift”.

This is an entirely normal – and legal – phenomenon. In Nevada, for instance, state law permits mail-in ballots to be counted four days after Election Day, so long as they were postmarked by Election Day.

Trump and his surrogates like Steve Bannon, however, have exploited the differing times it takes to count votes to peddle baseless conspiracy theories, undermining Americans’ faith in their own democracy, and to incite unrest.

By baselessly declaring victory in 2020 on the early “red mirage” tallies in key states before all the votes were counted, Trump was able to create what Bannon described as a “firestorm” – one that eventually led to the insurrection of January 6 2021.

This could very well happen again. Bannon, in fact, has just been released from prison after serving four months for contempt of Congress, and could once again be a driving force in any post-election challenges by the Trump campaign.

Trump, meanwhile, lied again this week when he said “these elections have to be, they have to be decided by 9 o’clock, 10 o’clock, 11 o’clock on Tuesday night” – laying the groundwork for further election conspiracies.

Delays are normal – but fraught

Trump has made it very clear he will not accept another election loss. If he does lose, he or his surrogates will attempt to weaponise similar conspiracy theories again. They may also use legal challenges to vote counts as they did in 2020 – both to contest the result and to once again mobilise the MAGA movement.

In the event of close margins, it’s also possible some states will go to a recount.

There are different rules for this in different states. To take one example, if the margin is within 0.5% in Georgia, a candidate can request a recount.

In the 2020 presidential election, Biden narrowly defeated Trump in Georgia by 0.25%, which triggered a full hand recount of the votes. The Associated Press declared Biden the winner of the state more than two weeks after Election Day. A second recount was later reconfirmed by Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

Again, this is a normal part of the process. It ensures all votes are counted accurately and the result reflects the democratic will of the American people as best as the (admittedly, deeply flawed) system allows.

Such a delay, legitimate as it would be, would elevate the already very real risk of further political violence and instability in the United States.

None of these outcomes is inevitable. 2024 is not 2020; nor is it 2016. What happens next in America depends on the movement and interplay of so many tangled threads, it is impossible to see where old ones end and new ones might begin.

In all of this, only one thing is certain. Whatever the result – and however long it takes to come through – the divisions and conspiracy theories that have destabilised American politics for so long will not be easily or quickly resolved. That knot may well prove impossible to untangle.

Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

The global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today—with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors—is doing just that. Sustaining this requires support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

On election eve in the United States, the presidential race is deadlocked. The polls are exceptionally close across the country and in all the swing states – Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin in the industrial midwest; Nevada and Arizona in the west; and Georgia and North Carolina in the south.

The final New York Times/Siena poll shows Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris leading by a very small margin or tied with Republican former President Donald Trump in all the swing states. The exception is Arizona, where Trump leads by a few percentage points.

While there is no clear favourite to win, there are several critical factors that will driving voters’ decisions on Election Day. This is what to watch.

Republicans turning against Trump

Trump’s favourability is stuck around 43% in nationwide polling. In the past two presidential elections, he fell short of taking 50% of the national popular vote. As president, he never achieved over 50% favourability. And he has never topped 50% since leaving office.

This means he has hit a ceiling in his support and is highly unlikely to win the national popular vote on Tuesday.

This also reflects what happened to Trump in the Republican primaries to win the nomination. He dominated the field, defeating Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, and several others. But in most of those primaries, 15-20% of Republican voters did not vote for Trump.

Where will these Republican voters ultimately land on Tuesday? Probably half want to vote Republican and will go with Trump. Others will not being able to bring themselves to vote for Harris and will simply not vote for president.

Others will switch their support to Harris. Indeed, there has never been such a swelling of support from members of one party to support the other party’s presidential candidate.

Harris needs those “Republicans for Harris” votes. In addition, she’ll need to replicate the coalition of young voters, voters of colour and women who backed current President Joe Biden against Trump in 2020 in those same swing states and nationally.

Her favourability ratings are higher than Trump, at around 46%. The closer a presidential candidate is to 50% approval ratings, the better their chance of winning the election.

It’s the economy, stupid

At the same time, the country is in a bad mood. There is a classic polling question asked at elections: is the country on the right track, or moving in the wrong direction? Between 60–70% of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track.

That is a signal this election is about change. Historically, that sentiment has not favoured the incumbent in the White House. As Biden’s vice president, Harris is directly facing this headwind.

There are four key issues in this election. The most important is the hip pocket issue: household budgets, cost of living pressures and voters’ concerns about their future economic security.

Since Biden and Harris took office nearly four years ago, the cost of groceries, household items, utilities and services such as insurance have risen between 10–40%. Petrol prices have gone up even more.

Though interest rates have fallen, American households are hurting. When asked who is best to manage the economy, voters in swing states say Trump by a 15-point margin.

The next-biggest issue is immigration. Since Trump first became a presidential candidate in 2015, he has relentlessly pushed the immigration button, declaring the border with Mexico is out of control, with crime and pillage rising in its wake.

The first three years of Biden’s term were also marked by big surges of immigrants crossing the border, though rates have fallen dramatically in 2024.

Voters view Trump as best placed to manage this issue, too, by nearly 15 points.

So, Trump is seen as a more effective leader on the two most important policy issues in this election.

A surge in support from women

Abortion rights and reproductive health services are the third major issue. Many women across America are repelled by the Supreme Court’s decision to take away their long-held constitutional right to an abortion. Now, this policy is decided at the state level. And several conservative Republican states – including Ohio and Kansas – have voted to restore abortion rights.

Harris is seen as the champion of these issues. Multiple polls show voters trust her more than Trump on reproductive rights, by wide margins.

As a result, polling shows Harris is leading Trump with women voters in the swing states, by 15 points or more.

Abortion rights are also on the ballot in two swing states, Nevada and Arizona, which should help Harris in both.

The future of American democracy is the fourth major issue facing voters. According to a new poll, half the country sees Trump as a profound threat to America’s democracy who will wield authoritarian power to enforce his policies and programs.

Harris has pledged to turn the page, heal divisions and get Republicans and Democrats working together again.

In these closing days, Trump continues to make provocative statements with violent imagery. At a rally in Arizona last week, for instance, he again attacked Liz Cheney, the former Republican congresswoman who advocated for the prosecution of Trump over the January 6 insurrection:

She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK? Let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face.

This may have provided Harris with a final cut-through moment on Trump’s fitness for office in the final days of the campaign. She said in response:

Anyone who wants to be president of the United States who uses that kind of violent rhetoric is clearly disqualified and unqualified to be president. […] Trump is increasingly, however, someone who considers his political opponents the enemy, is permanently out for revenge and is increasingly unstable and unhinged.

So, who is going to win?

Trump’s team sees victory in all the polls. His chief pollster wrote late last week:

President Trump’s position nationally and in every single battleground state is significantly better than it was four years ago.

The polls may also be undercounting the full measure of Trump’s support, as was the case in 2016 and 2020. And the polls may not be reflecting the extent of antipathy towards Harris as a Black and south Asian woman.

Jen O’Malley Dillon, Harris’ campaign director, and who headed the 2020 Biden campaign that defeated Trump, has told her troops, meanwhile, that undecided voters are “gettable”, adding:

We have multiple pathways to victory […] Our folks are voting at levels we need them to vote in order for us to win.

Harris has built a US$1 billion (A$1.5 billion) machine designed to reach voters in the swing states – through personal contact. This machine made three million phone calls and door knocks on homes in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin alone on Saturday. If this machine delivers, it could be the boost Harris needs on election night.

Harris’ campaign also signalled over the weekend that late-deciding voters, and especially women, are breaking their way by double digits. There is a sense among Democrats that Harris is now peaking as the campaign concludes.

The final analysis

If Harris wins, it will be because she has successfully sealed the deal with those voters and made the election a referendum on Trump – that on balance the country has had enough of him after eight years. It also means her ground game delivered the votes.

If Trump wins, it will mean voters trusted him to manage inflation and the cost-of-living squeeze on households, as well as what they see as out-of-control immigration and crime. These messages would also have been further embellished by unease about Harris, a Black and south Asian woman, as president.

Bruce Wolpe, Non-resident Senior Fellow, United States Study Centre, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

The global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today—with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors—is doing just that. Sustaining this requires support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

People repaying HELP student debts would get cost-of-living relief under changes to repayment arrangements to be announced by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on Sunday.

The minimum threshold for repayments to start would be lifted by more than $10,000 a year, from about $54,000 in 2024-25 to $67.000 in 2025-26. This threshold would be indexed so it always remained about 75% of average graduate earnings.

The government would also move to a marginal repayment system for HELP debts. That would in the short term be to the advantage of people on incomes just above the threshold.

This change, which does not alter the overall amount of the person’s debt, was recommended by Bruce Chapman, the academic who was a designer of the original HECS scheme in the 1980s. Chapman undertook work for the universities accord released by Education Minister Jason Clare.

The accord recommended “reducing the financial burden of repayment on low-income earners and limiting disincentives to work additional hours by moving to a system of HELP repayment based on marginal rates”.

In a Sunday speech, Albanese will say the changes will boost take home pay for one million young Australians.

The average HELP debt holder would pay about $680 less annually in their repayments.

A university graduate earning $70,000 would have their minimum repayments reduced by $1,300. A graduate on $80,000 would receive a cut of $850.

The targeted relief would apply to all graduates earning up to $180,000 annually.

The changes extend to student loans for vocational education.

The government plans to bring in legislation for the changes next year, but it is not clear whether this will be before or after the election, which must be held by May.

The cost over the forward estimates would be about $300 million.

Albanese said:“We will make it easier for young Australians to save in the future and we are going to make the system better and fairer as well. This is good for cost of living. Good for intergenerational fairness. Good for building Australia’s future.”

This is the government’s second recent round of changes to the HELP scheme .

In changes to indexation in this year’s budget the government announced it would cut the student debt of more than three million people, wiping more than $3 billion from what people owe.

It capped the HELP indexation rate to be the lower of either the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or the Wages Price Index (WPI), backdated from June 1 last year. Indexation had been based on the CPI. Legislation for the budget change is currently before the parliament.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

The LNP’s campaign, driven by hardline promises to address youth crime, secured a narrow majority, falling short of predictions of a landslide win.

In a speech at Brisbane’s W Hotel, Crisafulli declared, “Queenslanders voted for hope over fear,” emphasising his commitment to addressing the youth crime crisis with plans to introduce “adult crime, adult time” legislation by Christmas.

This election result represents the first time since 1989 that the LNP has won a state poll.

The victory was largely attributed to breaking Labor’s long-standing control of central Queensland’s heartland seats, although the LNP struggled to gain ground in Brisbane. Crisafulli, who has led a disciplined opposition since taking over after Labor’s 2020 victory during the COVID-19 pandemic, declared,

“Elections are about people and doing good for those who don’t have a voice.”

The LNP’s focus on crime policy, particularly its pledge to reform the Youth Justice Act, was central to Crisafulli’s campaign. Despite warnings from experts that many of these proposals lack supporting evidence, Crisafulli has committed to reducing crime victim numbers or resigning in four years if he fails to deliver on his promises.

Labor, led by Steven Miles, fought hard during the campaign, particularly in Brisbane, where it managed to stave off predicted challenges from the Greens in inner-city seats. However, with the LNP projected to win at least 49 seats, Labor’s decade-long rule has come to an end.

Miles, who had taken over from Annastacia Palaszczuk just 10 months ago, expressed pride in his time as premier, saying, “Being Queensland’s premier for 10 months has been the greatest honour of my life.” Despite Labor’s defeat, Miles has indicated his intention to continue leading the party from opposition.

The LNP’s primary vote of 41.8% marks its highest result since the 2012 landslide, while Labor’s primary vote fell to 32.9%, a significant swing from the 2020 election.

In his victory speech, Crisafulli signalled his ambition to lead the LNP to a second term in 2028, invoking the iconic words of former Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam: “It’s time.” Crisafulli pledged to govern with “humility, decency, vision, and tenacity” and to deliver “extremely good outcomes for everyday people.”

The incoming premier is poised to take Queensland in a new direction, but the real test of his leadership will begin as the LNP sets out to deliver on its ambitious promises.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

By Jamie Pittock and Andrew Blakers

Solar and wind have won the global energy race. They accounted for 80% of new global power capacity installed in 2023. In Australia, 99% of new capacity is wind or solar.

The Queensland election campaign suggests both sides of politics have embraced the renewable energy transition. But solar and wind are variable and need energy storage. That is where pumped hydro energy storage and batteries come in.

Both are off-the-shelf technologies. And both are already being used on a vast scale.

Having promised 80% renewable energy by 2035, the incumbent Labor government is committed to large pumped hydro systems at Borumba, on the Sunshine Coast, and Pioneer-Burdekin, near Mackay. The A$14.2 billion Borumba project appears to have support from both major parties. However, the Liberal National Party (LNP) says it will scrap the $12 billion Pioneer Burdekin project and the renewables target if elected.

While Pioneer-Burdekin is a very good site, there are good alternatives. The LNP says it “will investigate opportunities for smaller, more manageable pumped hydro projects”. Regardless, in supporting more pumped hydro storage and rejecting the federal Coalition’s nuclear power plans, the state LNP is accepting the renewable energy transformation as inevitable.

What is pumped hydro energy storage?

Pumped hydro systems store surplus electricity from solar and wind on sunny and windy days. The electricity is used to pump water from a lower reservoir to an upper reservoir. This water can later be released downhill though turbines to generate power when it’s needed.

This proven technology has been used for over a century. It accounts for about 90% of global energy storage. Australia has three pumped hydro systems (Tumut 3, Kangaroo Valley, Wivenhoe) and two under construction (Snowy 2.0 and Kidston).

Snowy 2.0 will last for at least 100 years. Its capacity (350 gigawatt-hours, GWh) is equivalent to 6 million electric vehicle batteries. It’s enough to power 3 million homes for a week.

Due to start operating in 2028, Snowy 2.0 will cost about $12 billion. That’s roughly equivalent to $2,000 for a 100-year-lifetime EV battery. Pumped hydro energy storage is cheap!

ANU’s RE100 Group has published global atlases of about 800,000 potential pumped hydro sites. None require new dams on rivers. Some are new sites (greenfield). Others would use existing reservoirs (bluefield) or old mines (brownfield).

What about batteries?

Batteries are best for short-term storage (a few hours). Pumped hydro is better for overnight or several days – Snowy 2.0 will provide 150 hours of storage.

A combination of these storage systems is better than either alone.

As with any major infrastructure, pumped hydro development has costs and risks. It has high upfront capital costs but very low operating costs.

What are Queensland’s options?

In Queensland, solar and wind electricity rose from 2% to 26% of total generation over the past decade. It’s heading for about 75% in 2030 as part of Australia’s 82% renewables target.

Queensland needs roughly 150 GWh of extra storage for full decarbonisation. After accounting for Borumba (50 GWh), batteries and other storage, Pioneer-Burdekin (120 GWh) would meet that need.

A similarly sized system or several smaller systems would also suffice. The latter approach has advantages of decentralisation but would cost more and have environmental impacts in more places.

The state has thousands of potential sites that are “off-river” (do not require new dams on rivers). The table below shows 15 premium sites, most with capacities of 50–150 GWh. Some larger sizes are included for interest – 5,000 GWh would store enough energy for 100 million people.

The key technical parameters are:

• head: the altitude difference between the two reservoirs – bigger is better
• slope: the ratio of the head to the distance between the reservoirs – larger slope means shorter tunnel
• W/R: the volume of stored water (W) divided by the volume of rock (R) needed for the reservoir walls. Large W/R means low-cost reservoirs.

Clicking on each name takes you to a view of the site with more details.

Pumped storage in far north Queensland is valuable because it can absorb solar and wind energy from the Copperstring transmission extension to Mt Isa. It can then send it down the transmission line to Brisbane at off-peak times. This will ensure the line mostly operates close to full capacity.

What about the rest of Australia?

Pumped storage and batteries keep the lights on during solar and wind energy droughts that occasionally occur in winter in southern Australia. They also meet evening peak demand.

The fossil fuel lobby argues gas is needed in the energy transition. But pumped hydro and battery storage eliminate the need for gas generators and their greenhouse gas emissions.

In the past decade, solar and wind generation in Australia’s National Electricity Market increased from 6% to 35%. Gas fell from 12% to 5%.

Most pumped hydro projects can be built off rivers. The same water is repeatedly transferred between the reservoirs. This means the system keeps running during droughts and avoids the impacts of new dams blocking rivers and flooding valleys.

The environmental and social impacts of off-river pumped hydro projects are much lower than for conventional hydropower or fossil fuel projects.

The system uses very common materials, primarily water, rock, concrete and steel. Very little land is flooded for off-river pumped hydro to support a 100% renewable energy system: about 3 square metres per person. Only about 3 litres of water per person per day is needed for the initial fill and to replace evaporation.

Sometimes, safely disposing of tunnel spoil is a challenge – as with mining (including for coal and battery metals). Any major new generation facility and its transmission lines may involve clearing and disturbing bushland. Local communities sometimes oppose pumped hydro developments.

In Australia, ANU identified 5,500 potential sites. Only one to two dozen are needed to enable the nation to be fully powered by renewables.

About a dozen pumped hydro projects are in detailed planning. Hydro Tasmania’s Battery of the Nation is proposed for Cethana. Other prominent projects include Oven Mountain, Central West, Upper Hunter Hydro and Burragorang in New South Wales.

You can expect to see more pumped hydro systems in a state near you.

Jamie Pittock, Professor, Fenner School of Environment & Society, Australian National University and Andrew Blakers, Professor of Engineering, Australian National University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

This marks the first time any government has overseen the creation of such a large number of jobs within a single parliamentary term.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese described the figures as a “historic achievement,” particularly given the current economic conditions.

“Today’s data shows that one million new jobs have been created since our election, and that our Government has helped more Australians than ever into secure, well-paid jobs – earning more and keeping more of what they earn,” he said.

“This is the most jobs ever created in a parliamentary term in Australian history.”

In September alone, the ABS reported that 64,100 jobs were created, with 51,600 of them being full-time positions. This increase contributed to a rise in the labour force participation rate, which reached a record high of 67.2 per cent. An additional 54,900 people entered the workforce during the month, with female participation also hitting a new record of 63.2 per cent.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers praised the government’s approach, highlighting the success of creating over one million new jobs despite a slowing economy.

“More than a million new jobs in one parliamentary term is a pretty remarkable achievement in a slowing economy, and it means more new jobs have been created on our watch than any other government at any time,” Chalmers said.

“It’s a tribute to Australian workers and employers and it justifies the responsible way we’re managing the economy.”

The figures also show strong jobs growth across the states, with employment in New South Wales, Victoria, and Western Australia reaching record highs. The labour market saw notable increases in New South Wales (up by 23,100 jobs), Victoria (21,700 jobs), and Western Australia (8,300 jobs).

Employment and Workplace Relations Minister Murray Watt pointed to the government’s focus on higher wages and job security as a way to address cost-of-living pressures. “There’s nothing more important than having a well-paid job, so that you can pay your bills, and that’s what the Albanese Government is delivering,” Watt said.

The government’s approach to boosting wages has resulted in the average full-time worker earning an extra $159 per week since Labor took office. Additionally, cost-of-living tax cuts have provided a $44 per week tax relief for the average worker.

While the Albanese Government remains focused on job creation and wage growth, the Coalition has faced criticism for its stance on workplace reforms. Treasurer Chalmers highlighted that the government’s achievements stand in stark contrast to the Coalition’s promises to cut labour hire workers’ pay and scrap protections such as the Right to Disconnect.

As Australia navigates economic challenges, Albanese affirmed his government’s commitment to ensuring more Australians are employed and earning more. “We’re all about more people working, earning more and keeping more of what they earn, and this shows we’re making good progress,” he stated.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

From concert tickets and gym memberships to hotel bookings, many Australians have expressed frustration over businesses that employ hidden fees and complicated processes to cancel subscriptions. These practices can lead to inflated costs, further burdening household budgets.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese highlighted the need for action, stating,

“We’re taking strong action to stop businesses from engaging in dodgy practices that rip consumers off. Hidden fees and traps are putting even more pressure on the cost of living and it needs to stop.”

The Government is addressing a wide range of practices, including so-called ‘subscription traps,’ which make it hard for consumers to cancel subscriptions, ‘drip pricing,’ where additional fees are tacked on throughout a transaction, and deceptive online tactics that create false urgency or hide key information.

Other concerns include dynamic pricing, where prices change mid-transaction, and businesses requiring unnecessary personal information to complete a purchase.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers emphasised the importance of these reforms, saying, “We’re taking important steps to ban unfair trading practices and ease the cost of living for Australians. Whether it’s traps that make it difficult to cancel a subscription, hidden fees at different stages of a purchase, or manipulative practices online, we’re going to change the rules.”

Most businesses that operate fairly have little to worry about, Chalmers noted, adding,

“This is about cracking down on dodgy deals to save Australians money.”

In conjunction with this announcement, the Government has released a consultation paper proposing reforms to strengthen consumer protections under the Consumer Guarantees and Supplier Indemnification provisions of the Australian Consumer Law.

The proposed changes include penalties for suppliers that refuse to offer legally required remedies, such as repairs, replacements, or refunds.

Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services Stephen Jones said the reforms are designed to ensure protections extend across both digital and physical marketplaces.

“Consumer protections shouldn’t stop at the internet. Whether you are shopping online or at a brick-and-mortar store, the Albanese Government is protecting Australian consumers. This is all about ending the rip-offs so people don’t fall into subscription traps or added fees when they purchase things like airline or concert tickets.”

The Government will consult on the design of the reforms before legislating, aiming to finalise the proposal in early 2025. Stakeholder feedback is being welcomed to ensure that the reforms effectively tackle the issues facing consumers and small businesses across Australia.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

Addressing a large gathering, Prof. Prasad emphasised that the NFP has always championed collaboration and inclusive leadership, working alongside different communities and political groups.

“We have stood firm on those principles. We have stood firm on the idea of consensus, dialogue, and shared leadership between different groups,” he said, highlighting the party’s collaboration with Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka in the current Coalition Government.

“This Coalition Government is a wake-up call for the country. It may have failed in the past, but today, we are working together to lead Fiji,” he added, stressing that the nation is moving away from a divisive political climate dominated by fear and misinformation.

Prof. Prasad pointed to the diversity of the NFP as a testament to its success in building bridges between communities.

“We have fought for unity, bringing communities together. NFP is now a truly multiracial party. Two out of three Members of Parliament come from our iTaukei community. Look at our office bearers, look at the crowd today—the mix, that diversity. That is the future of this country.”

In a statement, Fiji’s PM Rabuka acknowledged NFP’s significant role in Fiji’s political history, lauding its resilience.

“At 61 years, the National Federation Party proudly stands as Fiji’s longest surviving political party, a testament to its dedication to our people,” he said.

PM Rabuka reflected on NFP’s influence in shaping modern Fiji, from the pre-Independence era under the leadership of the late A.D. Patel to its role in the 1997 Constitution, a key moment of national unity.

“Fate brought us together when we collaborated on the 1997 Constitution—a historic moment for Fiji. It was recognised globally as a product of perseverance, dialogue, and consensus,” he said.

PM Rabuka noted that the current Coalition Government, led by NFP and his party, is the first to remain in power for more than a year, signalling its strength and commitment to democratic leadership. He also called for a re-examination of the 2013 Constitution, which, unlike its 1997 predecessor, he argued contains regressive elements that limit human rights.

The NFP was founded out of the struggles of farmers and indentured labourers and remains rooted in values of equality, social justice, and compassion.

The party, founded by A. D. Patel in November 1968 through the merger of the Federation Party and the National Democratic Party, historically represented Indo-Fijians, whose ancestors arrived in Fiji as indentured labourers between 1879 and 1916.

In the 2018 general election, the NFP saw a shift in its support base with the inclusion of more indigenous Fijian (iTaukei) candidates. By 2022, this trend continued, with prominent iTaukei figures like Pio Tikoduadua joining, broadening the party’s appeal.

The NFP, Fiji’s oldest party, is currently the second largest in the coalition. As the country faces political challenges, Prof. Prasad assured that the NFP, with its experience, diverse membership, and sound policies, offers a viable alternative for Fiji’s future.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

The attacks, orchestrated by Hamas, led to the deaths of over 1,200 Israelis, marking the deadliest single day for Jewish life since the Holocaust.

In his statement, Prime Minister Albanese described October 7 as a day that “carries terrible pain” and condemned Hamas’ actions, calling the brutality “coldly calculated.” He expressed deep sympathy for those still held hostage by Hamas and for their families, whose agony of waiting for answers has been unbearable.

Albanese also noted the rise in antisemitism following the attacks and reaffirmed Australia’s commitment to fight all forms of prejudice, stating,

“There is no place in Australia for discrimination against people of any faith.”

He emphasised the shared humanity of all people, adding that “every innocent life matters” in times of conflict.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton echoed these sentiments, calling the last 12 months “one of the most difficult periods for Jewish Australians in our nation’s history.”

He mourned the loss of 1,200 innocent lives on October 7 and expressed grief for families still holding out hope for hostages. Dutton further condemned the rise of antisemitism across Western democracies, which the attacks have exposed, and reiterated Israel’s right to defend itself against such existential threats.

“The enemies of Israel and the peddlers of Jewish hate will never win,”

Dutton asserted, standing firmly with Australia’s Jewish community.

The tragic events of October 7, 2023, occurred when Hamas launched an unprecedented series of coordinated attacks on Israel. Armed militants breached the Gaza-Israel border, targeting civilians at a music festival, residential areas, and military posts. Innocent men, women, and children were killed, with hostages taken, sparking global outrage and a renewed focus on the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

It’s the big question that has loomed over Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign from the start: is the United States ready for a Black woman president?

I get asked this almost every time I speak about American politics. And it’s a question that pundits, observers and experts keep asking, without ever landing on an answer.

That’s because the question is, in the end, unanswerable. It’s so heavily loaded that answering it requires too much history, cultural knowledge, judgment and speculation.

While the question hints at the deeply ingrained racism and sexism that is built into the structures of American politics and culture, it doesn’t directly address these things, leaving assumptions about just how sexist and racist the country might be unresolved.

Asking if America is “ready” also assumes that history is progress – that things move forward in a relatively straight line. It assumes that in the past America was not ready for a Black woman president, but at some point in the future it might be. It assumes, as Martin Luther King junior once said so beautifully, that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice”.

Like much of King’s teachings, this idea has been flattened into an assumption that “progress” is inevitable – that women and people of colour will eventually get equal representation and treatment as society learns, gradually, to become more just, tolerant and accepting.

It assumes that, one day, the United States will live up to its own foundational ideal that “all men are created equal”.

But as Harris has herself said, the United States has not always lived up to its own ideals. Progress on equality – especially in extending it beyond the original, exclusively white men identified in the Constitution – has been patchy and frustratingly slow. It has also been marred by violence and even war.

History is not a forward march. It does not “progress” to some end point of idealism. It is, more often than not, a fight.

Are you ready for it?

Many other countries have shown it is possible to be “ready” for a woman leader at various points in their histories, only to return to being not ready again.

India, the largest democracy in the world, elected Indira Gandhi to the prime ministership in 1966. Gandhi served for over a decade, and then again from 1980 to 1984, when she was assassinated. Every leader since then has been a man.

Similarly, the United Kingdom elected its first woman prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, in 1979. After Thatcher resigned in 1990, the UK didn’t have another woman leader until Theresa May from 2016–19 and then Liz Truss in 2022 (and that didn’t exactly go well).

In Australia, Julia Gillard won a very close election to become prime minister in 2010, only to lose to a man four years later. There has been no real suggestion that a woman, let alone a woman of colour, might ascend to the leadership of either major party in the decade since. And could Australia even be definitively considered “ready” for a woman leader in that period, given how Gillard was treated during her prime ministership? https://www.youtube.com/embed/fCNuPcf8L00?wmode=transparent&start=0 Julia Gillard’s famous misogyny speech in 2012.

New Zealand has a stronger record. Jenny Shipley became the first woman prime minister in 1997 by bumping off the leader of the coalition government. Helen Clark was then the first woman to be elected prime minister in 1999, followed by Jacinda Ardern nearly two decades later, in 2017.

While Britain, New Zealand and Australia have some political and cultural similarities with the United States, they have different political structures. Unlike in the US, their leaders are not directly elected, making the specific identity of the leader less explicitly the focus of elections.

Other countries with direct elections, though, have also been “ready” for women leaders at one point or another. In 1980, Iceland became the first country in the world to directly elect a woman to the presidency. Vigdís Finnbogadóttir served for 16 years. Deeply conservative Ireland was also ready 30 years ago, directly electing its first woman president, Mary Robinson, in 1990.

Structural inequality

For the most part, though, these women are exceptions to ingrained, structural gender inequality in politics across the world – albeit a reality reflected more starkly in the American experience.

The fact the question of “readiness” remains so prominent reflects the fundamental reality of the unequal representation of women, especially Black women and women of colour, not just in America but in most democracies.

In June this year, UN Women noted only 27 countries currently have women leaders. It said:

At the current rate, gender equality in the highest positions of power will not be reached for another 130 years.

The idea of a “rate” of progress once again assumes the world will be ready for women leaders one day (even if that day might be more than a century away).

Unsurprisingly, the same structural inequality is reflected below the highest levels of leadership. UN Women found only 15 countries where women hold at least 50% of Cabinet minister positions. And when women do get leadership positions, it’s often in areas traditionally understood as “women’s” or “minority” issues, such as social services or Indigenous affairs.

This general trend is reflected in the US, too. After the most recent US election, the Congress has a “record number” of women. Yet it is still just 28%.

Similarly, in Australia, research by The Australia Institute found women are underrepresented in seven of Australia’s nine parliaments.

That should not, however, undermine the significant achievements of women and people of colour, who have long fought for a seat at the table of power – often at great personal risk.

According to the Pew Research Center, the current Congress in the US is also the most racially and ethnically diverse in history, with 133 representatives and senators identifying their ethnicity as something other than non-Hispanic white.

And in 2021, Harris became the first woman, the first person of South Asian descent and the first Black woman to be vice president of the United States. In another historic milestone, President Joe Biden appointed the first Native American woman to a Cabinet position – Interior Secretary Deb Haaland.

A milestone was achieved in Australia, too, when Linda Burney became the first Aboriginal woman to serve as minister for Indigenous affairs in 2022.

Weaponising gender and race

None of this, though, can confirm or deny the “readiness” of the United States – or any other country – to elect a Black woman leader.

There are signs a sizeable portion of the American electorate is decidedly not ready to elevate a woman, let alone a Black woman, to the highest position of power.

A great deal of attention has, rightly, been focused on the current Republican candidates’ attitudes towards gender and race. Vice-presidential nominee JD Vance, for instance, has made numerous comments about women, such as his insistence that “childless cat ladies” have too much power. Donald Trump has also repeatedly attacked women with sexist remarks, made obscene comments about women’s bodies, and been found liable in a civil court for sexual assault.

In August, Fox News anchor Jesse Watters suggested generals would “have their way” with Harris if she were to be elected.

Trump, Vance and their surrogates use race and gender to delegitimise their opponents, suggesting they are not fit for positions of power.

Such misogynistic attacks are a common experience for women in politics. Decades before Vance’s insistence that only people with biological children have a proper “stake” in the future, an Australian Liberal senator suggested Gillard was unfit for leadership because she was “deliberately barren”.

As a Black woman, Harris faces attacks on both her race and her gender. Right-wing figures have repeatedly dismissed her as a “DEI” (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) candidate, suggesting she has only made it as far as she has because of special treatment based not on her merit, but on her identity.

Once again adopting a tactic he honed during Barack Obama’s presidency, Trump has also repeatedly questioned Harris’ legitimacy as vice president and a candidate based on her race.

Context matters

Not so long ago, many people assumed Hillary Clinton would win the race to be “first”. When she accepted the presidential nomination at the Democratic National Convention in 2016, she stood, symbolically, underneath a shattering glass ceiling.

A few months later, that ceiling quickly re-formed itself.

But even Clinton’s loss in 2016 cannot definitely prove that America was “not ready” for a woman president. Context is crucial.

Even those voters who might be “ready” for a woman president won’t vote for just any woman. They will make decisions based on complicated, interrelated factors, including a candidate’s policy positions.

It’s arguable the role both Bill and Hillary Clinton played in the adoption of free-trade agreements – from Bill Clinton’s overseeing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to Hillary Clinton’s support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – alongside economic stagnation in the US, had a much bigger role in Clinton’s loss than her gender. And her characterisation of alienated voters as “a basket of deplorables” certainly didn’t help.

Clinton had significant political baggage after decades in the spotlight. The political, economic and historic circumstances of the 2016 presidential race – alongside Trump’s political ascendancy – are impossible to pull apart.

Similarly, while some Britons might have voted for Thatcher because she was a woman, many also voted for her because of her conservative policy positions, or perhaps because they disapproved of her opponents more.

Decades later and worlds apart politically, Harris is under pressure from a critical section of her own party’s base to modify her position on Israel. This is a serious and pressing policy issue that has nothing to do with her race or gender and everything to do with competing visions for the United States’ role in the world. And this will have an impact on many voters’ decisions in November.

Put simply, it cannot be definitively argued that Clinton lost in 2016 because America was “not ready” for a woman. Or that circumstances have changed enough that the country can be considered ready now.

In a different context, with a different candidate and a different policy platform, America may well have been “ready” in 2016. A different woman – like, say, the unwaveringly popular Michelle Obama – might well have been able to beat Trump. Or not. We simply have no way of knowing.

And even if we did, we still could not know if America was definitively “ready” for a Black woman to lead.

Kamala Harris’ ‘firsts’

Nevertheless, at this year’s Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Hillary Clinton reflected on the possibility of “firsts” and the progress of American history. She proclaimed that “a future where there are no ceilings on our dreams” had finally arrived.

Harris, too, is focused on the future – but not on her “firsts”.

In her first media interview since becoming the Democratic candidate, for example, she dismissed a question about Trump’s focus on her race. Her campaign has successfully framed any specific focus on gender or race – and particularly on women’s bodies – as “weird”.

In this way, Harris’ campaign has firmly flipped the focus of identity politics back onto Trump and Vance. Her campaign is showcasing a very different kind of masculinity – one that is entirely comfortable with Black women occupying positions of leadership.

The Harris campaign is reinforcing this framing by focusing not on individual “firsts”, but on structural gender and racial inequality and women’s basic rights of bodily autonomy. In this way, the campaign is embracing a collective feminism, rather than the more 1990s-style, individualistic, “white women” feminism more redolent of Clinton. Kamala is, after all, brat.

The Harris campaign is explicitly avoiding the tempting shallowness of identity politics, learning the lessons of an often fraught Clinton campaign that appeared to assume Americans would vote for her precisely because she was a woman, or because it was time America did, finally, elect a woman president.

All of this is, implicitly at least, a recognition that “readiness” is not a simple question with a straightforward answer. The Harris campaign recognises it is not necessarily a question of collective “readiness”, but of getting enough Americans who are already ready inspired and mobilised.

As Biden has said repeatedly, “women are not without […] electoral or political power”. According to one analysis, in the four years since 2020, Black women’s voter registration has increased by 98.4%. Among young Black women, it has increased by 175.8%.

Black American women are clearly ready for this moment.

The question has no answer

If Harris is elected this November, many will take this as proof that a threshold has been crossed, that America was indeed collectively “ready” to be led by a Black woman. And that might be true. Up to a point.

The United States once demonstrated itself “ready” to elect its first Catholic president. In 2008, it proved itself “ready” to elect the first Black president.
But eight years later, in an historic, world-shaping backlash, it went back to being very much not ready.

The divides of American politics are deep and structural. They have remained unresolved since the country’s foundation. The election of the first Black woman would be hugely significant, a remarkable historical development in what has already been an extraordinary campaign.

But the question of whether America is “ready” for this moment cannot be answered by a single individual.

There are two versions of America: one that is ready for this moment (and has always been), and one that will likely never be. These two versions co‑exist. And they are, for the moment, irreconcilable.

Both sides know that victory in November is only an indication of where power lies in this moment. It will not be some clear resolution to a centuries-long question about what the United States is and what it wants to be.

That’s not how history works.

Correction: This story has been amended to add Theresa May’s prime ministership in the United Kingdom.

Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

Jinson, who migrated to Australia in 2011, will be sworn in following his election as a member of the Country Liberal Party (CLP). He is a vocal supporter of CLP policies, particularly in healthcare and community safety, aiming to ensure a secure future for families in the Territory.

Born and raised in Kerala, Jinson completed a Bachelor of Science in Nursing and Midwifery before moving to Darwin in 2015. He initially worked as a Registered Nurse in the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Program, a health initiative aimed at tackling alcohol-related harm, before it was scrapped by Labor in 2017 despite its positive outcomes.

Over the years, Jinson has ascended to senior leadership roles in health, with a focus on mental health services. His work includes serving as Director of Acute Services for the Top End Mental Health Alcohol and Other Drug Services (NT Health).

In addition to his professional achievements, Jinson has been a strong community advocate, currently serving as President of the Darwin Malayalee Association (DMA).

Jinson, along with his wife Anu and their two daughters, Aimie and Anna, is deeply embedded in the multicultural fabric of the Northern Territory.

“We need experienced leaders to deliver the health and rehabilitation services we need. Territorians deserve better healthcare and stronger support for our communities,” Jinson said in his campaign.

Jinson is also the nephew of Indian MP Anto Antony, and his family in Kerala is celebrating his upcoming oath-taking ceremony. The newly appointed minister is also expected to visit his family in Kerala later this year.

Jinson’s portfolios will include Disability, Multicultural Affairs, and Sport and Culture, further underscoring his commitment to serving the diverse needs of the NT’s population. His victory comes alongside Khoda Patel, another Indian-origin politician, both part of the CLP’s landslide win in the NT elections, which saw the party secure 17 of the 25 seats.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

A national Newspoll, conducted August 26–30 from a sample of 1,263, had a 50–50 two-party tie between Labor and the Coalition, unchanged from the previous Newspoll three weeks ago. This is the first time this term there have been two successive ties in Newspoll.

Primary votes were 38% Coalition (down one), 32% Labor (steady), 12% Greens (steady), 7% One Nation (up one) and 11% for all Others (steady).

Anthony Albanese’s net approval slumped five points to -13, with 54% dissatisfied (up three) and 41% satisfied (down two). This is Albanese’s worst net approval in Newspoll since November 2023, after the failure of the Voice referendum.

The graph below shows Albanese’s net approval in Newspoll this term. The plus signs are Newspoll results and a smoothed line has been fitted.

Peter Dutton’s net approval was down three points to -13, and this is the first time Albanese and Dutton have been equal on net approval in Newspoll since November 2023. Albanese led Dutton by 45–37 as better PM (46–39 previously).

When asked about inflation if Dutton and the Coalition were in government, 24% said inflation would be lower than it is now, 18% higher, 41% about the same and 17% were undecided.

While the government has had other problems in the past few weeks, I believe inflation is still its main problem with voters. Last week’s Morgan consumer confidence reading of 82.6 was the highest six-week average since February, but consumer confidence has been below 85 for a record 82 successive weeks.

YouGov poll tied at 50–50

A national YouGov poll, conducted August 23–28 from a sample of 1,543, had a 50–50 tie, a one-point gain for the Coalition since the mid-July YouGov poll. Primary votes were 37% Coalition (down one), 32% Labor (up one), 13% Greens (steady), 8% One Nation (up one) and 10% for all Others (down one).

It’s strange that the two-party vote improved for the Coalition despite the drop in the Coalition’s primary vote and gain for Labor. Rounding probably explains this.

Albanese’s net approval was down one point to -11, with 52% dissatisfied and 41% satisfied. Dutton’s net approval was also down one to -5. Albanese led Dutton by 43–38 as preferred PM (45–37 in July).

In a forced choice question, 67% of Australian voters would vote for Democrat Kamala Harris for US president, while 33% would vote for Republican Donald Trump. The only group voting for Trump was One Nation voters (80–20 for Trump).

Essential poll: Labor gains to lead by 48–46

A national Essential poll, conducted August 21–25 from a sample of 1,129, gave Labor a 48–46 lead including undecided, after a 47–47 tie in the early August Essential poll. Primary votes were 33% Coalition (down one), 29% Labor (up one), 13% Greens (down one), 7% One Nation (steady), 1% UAP (steady), 11% for all Others (up two) and 6% undecided (steady).

Despite Labor’s improvement on voting intentions, Albanese’s net approval dropped seven points since late July to -10, with 50% disapproving and 40% approving. This is Albanese’s worst rating in Essential this term. Dutton’s net approval was steady at +1.

By 44–30, voters supported Dutton’s call to pause arrivals of Palestinian refugees. There was a 42–42 tie on whether immigration to Australia is generally positive or negative (46–34 positive in November 2023).

While voters were narrowly positive on immigration’s impact on the economy (42–41), they were negative on its impact on jobs (51–35), the environment (43–24) and strongly negative on house prices (69–15).

On the government’s response to the Israel-Gaza war, 32% said it was too supportive of Israel, 16% too harsh on Israel and 52% were satisfied. These figures are unchanged from June. On Israel’s military action in Gaza, 39% (up one since June) said Israel should permanently withdraw, 21% (steady) agree to a temporary ceasefire and 17% (up two) said Israel’s military action was justified.

Redbridge and Morgan polls

A national Redbridge poll, conducted from a sample of 2,000, gave Labor a 50.5–49.5 lead, a two-point gain for Labor since the mid-July Redbridge poll. Primary votes were 38% Coalition (down three) and 33% Labor (up one). No other primary votes or fieldwork dates have been released yet.

A national Morgan poll, conducted August 19–25 from a sample of 1,701, gave the Coalition a 50.5–49.5 lead, a one-point gain for the Coalition since the August 12–18 Morgan poll.

Primary votes were 39.5% Coalition (up one), 29.5% Labor (down one), 13% Greens (down 0.5), 4% One Nation (steady), 9% independents (up 0.5) and 5% others (steady).

The headline figure is based on respondent preferences. By 2022 election preferences flows, there was a 50–50 tie, a one-point gain for the Coalition.

EMRS Tasmanian poll: little change since May

An EMRS Tasmanian state poll, conducted August 14–21 from a sample of 1,000, gave the Liberals 36% of the vote (up one since May), Labor 27% (down one), the Greens 14% (down one), the Jacqui Lambie Network (JLN) 8% (up one), independents 14% (steady) and others 3% (steady).

Liberal incumbent Jeremy Rockliff held a 45–30 lead over Labor’s Dean Winter as preferred premier (40–32 in May).

At the March state election, three JLN MPs were elected, but analyst Kevin Bonham reported on August 25 that two of these MPs had been expelled by the party.

So the current standings of the Tasmanian lower house are 14 Liberals out of 35, ten Labor, five Greens, five independents and one JLN. The Liberals need four of the six crossbenchers to pass legislation opposed by Labor and the Greens. The EMRS poll was done before the JLN blew up.

NT likely election result

For the August 24 Northern Territory election, the ABC is giving the Country Liberal Party (CLP) 17 of the 25 seats, Labor four, independents three and one seat (Nightcliff) is undecided, but Labor is expected to beat the Greens after distribution of preferences.

The Greens were initially seen as likely to beat the CLP in Fannie Bay on Labor preferences, but the flow of Labor preferences to the Greens was weaker than expected, and the CLP will gain Fannie Bay from Labor.

Contributing Author: Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

“Where I live if someone gives you a hug, it’s from the heart,” said famous wildlife lover Steve Irwin. This sentiment resonates deeply with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s approach to international diplomacy.

In the meticulous world of global politics, where every gesture is analysed, Modi has introduced a distinctive element: the hug. This seemingly straightforward act has become a hallmark of his diplomatic style, stirring both admiration and debate across the global arena. To truly grasp the significance of Modi’s “hug diplomacy,” it is essential to explore the cultural, historical, and diplomatic contexts that frame this gesture.

On July 9, 2024, when Modi embraced Russian President Vladimir Putin, it provoked concern from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Indian Foreign Minister Dr Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, in response, defended his Prime Minister by stating,

“In our part of the world, when people meet, they embrace. It may not be a part of your culture, but I assure you, it is part of ours.”

This statement encapsulates the cultural bridge that Modi’s hugs aim to build, while also highlighting the occasional misunderstandings they provoke.

In India, the act of embracing, known as ‘Aalingan’, is deeply ingrained in cultural and spiritual traditions. It is not merely a form of greeting but a profound expression of trust, respect, and connection that transcends verbal communication. This practice is rooted in ancient Indian epics and spiritual texts.

In the Ramayana, one of India’s most revered epics, the embrace between Lord Rama and Hanuman signifies not just friendship but a deep spiritual bond. Similarly, in the Mahabharata, the god Krishna’s embraces with his friends and devotees are depicted as acts of divine love, emphasising the spiritual depth of physical connection.

‘Aalingan’ extends beyond religious texts into daily Indian life, where it is a common form of greeting among family members and close friends, symbolising affection, comfort, and the strengthening of bonds.

While Modi’s hugs are rooted in Indian tradition, the act of embracing as a form of greeting or expressing kindness is not unique to India. Throughout history and across various cultures, this action has played significant roles in social and diplomatic interactions.

In ancient Greece, the concept of aspasmós referred to a greeting that often included an embrace. The Greeks, known for their emphasis on personal relationships and philosophical discourse, understood the power of physical connection in fostering mutual understanding. In Greek literature, this contact often signifies an emotional reunion or reconciliation between former enemies, such as the embrace between Odysseus and Penelope in the *Odyssey*.

The Romans also recognised the importance of physical gestures in both personal and diplomatic contexts. The Latin terms amplexus (embrace) and complexus (entwining) were used to describe close physical contact that conveyed sincerity and built trust. The celebrated “Portrait of the Four Tetrarchs,” depicting the four Roman co-emperors in a mutual embrace, is a testament to this custom.

In the Middle Ages, the “kiss of peace” or Pax was a common greeting among European nobility and clergy, often accompanied by an embrace. Rooted in early Christian traditions, this practice expressed unity and reconciliation within the community.

Even in cultures where physical contact is generally more reserved, there are historical instances of embraces being used in diplomatic contexts. A notable example is the “socialist fraternal kiss” between Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev and East German leader Erich Honecker in 1979, an iconic image of Cold War diplomacy.

Against this rich historical backdrop, Modi’s embraces take on a deeper significance. They are not merely spontaneous displays of affection but calculated diplomatic moves that merge ancient traditions with modern international relations.

In the often cold and formal world of geopolitics, where interactions are guided by strict protocols, touch serves as a disruptive force. It humanises interactions, breaks down barriers, and creates a sense of intimacy that few other diplomatic gestures can achieve.

When Modi embraces a world leader, he sends a clear message: India values personal connections, and relationships are built on more than just agreements and treaties. This approach aligns with India’s broader diplomatic strategy, which emphasises soft power and cultural diplomacy as key tools in its international relations.

To dismiss these hugs as mere quirks or cultural misunderstandings would be to underestimate their strategic significance. In a world where geopolitical tensions often dominate headlines, these embraces symbolise unity and shared humanity.

Modi’s embraces have become a unique form of non-verbal communication in his diplomatic toolkit. They convey warmth where words might fail, break the ice in tense situations, and reinforce the strength of existing relationships. In some instances, they have even become newsworthy events, drawing attention to India’s diplomatic engagements and the Prime Minister’s brand of leadership.

Moreover, these hugs reflect India’s aspirations on the global stage. As India seeks to position itself as a bridge between East and West, North and South, Modi’s hugs symbolise the country’s ability to connect diverse cultures and political systems.

Despite the criticisms, the enduring popularity and discussion surrounding Modi’s hugs underscore a fundamental truth about human interaction: physical connection matters. A simple embrace can carry profound meaning in a world increasingly dominated by digital communication and remote interactions.

As the ancient Greeks and Romans understood, and as Indian tradition has long emphasised, physical gestures can convey what words often cannot. They can build trust, foster goodwill, and create lasting impressions in ways that formal speeches or written agreements cannot.

After all, as Charles Caleb Colton once said, “A hug is worth a thousand words.”

——————————————————————————————————

Contributing Author: Anurag Punetha is a senior journalist and Media Head of the Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts, Based in New Delhi, India.

——————————————————————————————————

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. The Australia Today is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information in this article. All information is provided on an as-is basis. The information, facts, or opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of The Australia Today and The Australia Today News does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

The advocacy group Muslim Votes Matter has put together a high-profile speakers list to launch its national campaign in Melbourne on Sunday, which is aimed at leveraging its influence for the federal election.

The group, formed earlier this year, is committed “to promoting political engagement and amplifying the voice of Australian Muslims”.

It does not intend to run candidates itself but will support those that align with its values and priorities.

Group spokesman Naser Alziyadat, a former lecturer and research fellow at Murdoch University, claimed that across Australia, there were more than 20 seats where Muslims could have the deciding vote.

“In the last 25 years, no federal government has been elected by more than a 15-seat margin. This positions us strategically to support candidates who prioritise our issues and challenge those who neglect our community,”

he said.

At the Broadmeadows Town Hall launch, speakers will cover subjects ranging from conditions in Gaza to the recent wins by Muslim candidates in the United Kingdom election, and the prospects of a hung parliament.

Wajid Akhter, a medical doctor working in the UK and a former assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, representing The Muslim Vote UK, will “share the British election learnings with the Australian Muslim community to inform strategy and success”.

Bushra Othman, a surgeon from the Palestinian Australian New Zealand Medical Association (PANZMA) who did a three-week medical mission in Gaza, will give her first-hand account of the situation there.

Nail Aykan, a former head of the Islamic Council of Victoria, from Muslim Voices of Calwell, will talk on the topic “Towards a Hung Parliament – there are no more safe seats”.

Among other speakers are Maha Abdo, CEO of Muslim Women Australia, Muhammad Jalal, host of The Thinking Muslim podcast, and Umber Rind, a community health and anti-racism advocate who is a Yamatji Badimaya woman of Balouch cameleer ancestry.

Alziyadat said Muslim Votes Matter was “a beacon of cultural, linguistic, and professional diversity”. Its volunteers represented more than 20 different ethnic and cultural groups.

“Many of our volunteers are not Muslim, showcasing the inclusive and broad vision of our movement,” he said.

“As an independent, grass-roots organisation, unaffiliated with any political party, our movement is dedicated to empowering the Australian Muslim and minority community to amplify our political voice.”

The Muslim community was the largest and one of the fastest-growing minority groups in Australia.

“Our collective voting bloc holds significant potential,” he said.

“MVM’s primary objective is to build strong partnerships with diverse community stakeholders to enhance political engagement and share resources.

“This effort will involve engaging the community through forums, workshops, campaigns, and digital platforms to encourage greater political participation and ensure representation at all levels of government.”

MVM national representative Ghaith Krayem said what had happened in Palestine in the last 10 months was “beyond reprehensible and we will not stop until the victims and all Palestinians receive the justice they so truly deserve.

“Part of that justice means holding our leaders accountable for their role in the plausible genocide unfolding in Gaza.”

Scott Morrison questions ASIO chief’s Hamas comment

Former prime minister Scott Morrison has questioned the comment by ASIO chief Mike Burgess that “rhetorical” support for Hamas would not be a problem for the security organisation.

Asked recently on ABC if it was a problem for ASIO if a person had expressed any support or sympathy for Hamas, Burgess said: “If it’s just rhetorical support, and they don’t have an ideology or support for a violent extremism ideology, then that’s not a problem. If they have support for that ideology, that will be a problem.”

In a Sky interview on Monday Morrison, who praised Burgess as an “outstanding” public servant, said he found the comment inexplicable.

He had worked with Burgess over a long period and many in different roles. He found the comment “completely inconsistent with what I would hear regularly from him over a long period of time.”

“The idea that any sympathy with Hamas, rhetorical or otherwise, somehow could be overlooked and you could get a leave pass to live long term in Australia – I can’t imagine that,” Morrison said, drawing a comparison with support for Stalinist purges or sympathy with Nazism.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

The Northern Territory is a different place. On the day prior to this election, Speckles the Adelaide River crocodile was asked to predict the result of the election. He had replaced the previous crocodile, a spiv who got the 2016 and 2020 elections wrong.

Speckles decided Eva Lawler, the Labor Chief Minister, would win the election. Speckles was not the only prognosticator to get it wrong. I fear for his future.

The Country Liberal Party (CLP) has won majority government, returning to power after eight years in opposition. Double-digit swings against Labor have been recorded in some electorates. Lawler lost government and her own seat.

Instead, CLP Leader Lia Finocchiaro will become the Territory’s next Chief Minister and govern in majority.

A tale of two elections

Yesterday, effectively, there were two elections conducted for the NT Legislative Assembly. The first was in the bush electorates.

These are dominated by Aboriginal communities, often blighted by poverty, poor housing, inadequate medical services, failing educational services and the absence of employment opportunities: all the elements the Closing the Gap targets seek to address.

As is customary in Territory elections, these Indigenous communities voted Labor. Only once since self government in 1978 (in 2012) have they not done so.

However, Indigenous issues were hardly mentioned by politicians or the media in this election campaign.

This election was essentially an urban election played out mainly in Darwin-Palmerston and, to an extent, Alice Springs. It only paid some attention to Indigenous issues as a covert subtext to the broader community angst about crime.

Twice the expected swing

I predicted the CLP would get uneven swings, bigger in some instances (like in electorates that had suburbs where there were high levels of property crime, violence and public drunkenness).

Overall, I assumed the CLP Opposition would get a Territory-wide swing of about 4%–6%. I was wrong.

The overall swing to the CLP in the suburbs of Darwin was over twice that estimate. Several ministers, including Lawler, have lost their seats.

Lawler conceded defeat at 8:30pm, a full hour before losers in NT elections usually do so. That indicated the extent of the loss for Labor.

Counting will resume today but, on the trends, I expect at least four (possibly six) Labor Ministers will lose their seats.

As I predicted, independents have been elected in two seats: Yingiya Mark Guyula in Mulka (in northeast Arnhem Land) and Robyn Lambley in Araluen (in Alice Springs).

Other independents have done well, as in Johnston where a Teal-like (she actually wore purple) independent out-polled the Labor incumbent (although still behind the CLP).

Labor’s vote collapse

My interpretation of the collapse of the Labor vote is that it involves two elements.

One is the defection of weakly-aligned voters. These voters usually make up the swing in an election.

The other is that a fair proportion of Labor voters switched to the Greens. I have lauded Chief Minister Lawler for her tough campaign, but it’s possible some Labor voters were alienated by her right-ish switch and decided to vote Green, to remind Labor that it is supposed to be a progressive party.

However you interpret this election, it is definitely a landslide to the CLP. Comparatively, it’s not as bad for Labor as the anti-CLP landslide in 2016. Back then, Finocchiaro was the only CLP member reelected in the Greater Darwin area.

That 2016 election was consequential. Because Finocchiaro was the only CLP parliamentarian left in the Greater Darwin area, she eventually became CLP leader. The twists of fate mean that she is now Chief Minister.

The most interesting new development of this election was the rise of the Greens. They will feel greatly buoyed by this election, where in some seats they finally broke the 20% primary vote barrier to become serious players in Territory politics.

In my pre-poll analysis, I said this would be a good election to win because the NT economy will pick up next year.

In addition, Commonwealth expenditure in the NT is set to dramatically escalate. The billions of dollars worth of spending as part of remote housing and education deals struck with the Commonwealth, plus other large-scale spending programs, will start to come into play.

The Commonwealth is becoming invested in reversing Indigenous disadvantage in the Territory because the NT is the worst performer on the Closing The Gap targets.

This means continuing money for the NT and all but ensures the new CLP government will be re-elected in 2028.

Rolf Gerritsen, Adjunct Professor, The Northern Institute, Charles Darwin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you. Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism.

This week, the US intelligence community specifically accused Iranian actors of hacking into Donald Trump’s presidential campaign as well as Vice-President Kamala Harris’s campaign being targeted by foreign hackers.

Multiple agencies, including Meta and Microsoft’s threat intelligence division, have sounded the alarm over the increasing interference as election day approaches. However, the motives and methods behind these cyberattacks differ across the nations involved.

The US intelligence community highlighted that Iranian actors see the upcoming election as especially significant, aiming to “stoke discord” within the country. The joint statement from the FBI, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, mentioned tactics such as “social engineering” and “thefts and disclosures” being part of Iran’s strategy.

The statement added that these methods are not new, as Iran and Russia have employed similar tactics in past US elections and other countries worldwide. Despite these accusations, Iran has denied any involvement, dismissing the intelligence report as “unsubstantiated”.

“We will not tolerate foreign efforts to influence or interfere with our elections, including the targeting of American political campaigns.”

According to a recent report by Microsoft Threat Intelligence, Iranian activities have contributed to a rise in “foreign malign influence,” with cyber-enabled operations being a consistent feature in the last three US election cycles. The report also noted that Iranian operations often emerge later in the election season and are more focused on disrupting the election process rather than directly influencing voter decisions.

Recent months have also seen Russian actors accused of attempting to sway the election. Meta’s latest threat report identified a “deceptive campaign from Russia” involving fake news stories and AI-generated content on YouTube.

Russia has been the leading source of coordinated inauthentic behaviour (CIB) networks disrupted since 2017, with Meta reporting 39 covert influence operations from Russia, 30 from Iran, and 11 from China. Russia’s interference is often aimed at supporting candidates opposing aid to Ukraine and criticising those advocating for it. The goal is to exploit economic hardships in the US and undermine support for Ukraine.

US intelligence agencies have also warned of Russian operatives covertly using social media to influence public opinion, often employing deep fake technology and inflammatory content to spread disinformation.

China, labelled by Meta as the third-highest source of CIB operations, has also been active in influencing American discourse. Microsoft’s report noted that CCP-linked actors have been expanding their activities to new platforms and audiences in the lead-up to the election. For example, these actors have been stoking outrage around pro-Palestinian protests at US universities and attempting to manipulate both left-leaning and right-wing groups to further agitate conflicts.

A US intelligence report from March highlighted China’s growing sophistication in influence operations, particularly through the use of generative AI and targeting candidates as early as the 2022 midterm elections. The report suggested that China’s primary aim is to sideline critics of Beijing and magnify societal divisions within the US.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you. Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism.

The Albanese government next week will introduce legislation to force the appointment of an administrator into the recalcitrant CFMEU, after the union tried a delaying tactic to drag out court action.

Workplace Relations Minister Murray Watt announced on Friday the legislation – which the government threatened if the union resisted the application by the Fair Work Commission’s General Manager to install an administrator – would go ahead.

Watt had given the union until 5pm on Thursday to consent to the application, which is before the federal court.

He told a news conference that at 5.09 Thursday he had received a response from Zach Smith, the union’s national secretary, “in which he said that consenting to the application only remains a possibility.

“It is clear that the CFMEU will not consent to that application any time soon and for that reason the Albanese government will introduce a bill to deal with this situation when parliament returns next week.”

The bill will enable Watt to decide whether it is in the public interest to appoint an administrator into the union’s construction division. He would then set down a scheme of administration, including the administrator’s powers, roles and responsibilities. The legislation would give the Fair Work Commission’s General Manager, Murray Furlong, the power to appoint the administrator.

Watt said the bill was drafted so as to withstand legal challenge. There were “a couple of steps in the legislation to ensure that it can hold up in court – because I think you can bet your bottom dollar that the CFMEU will try and challenge it”.

“We cannot stand by and allow a once proud union to be infiltrated by bikies and organised crime or have bullying and thuggery as part of its day-to-day business,” Watt said.

“The construction division of the CFMEU has clearly failed to operate effectively or in the best interest of its members. Urgent action is required,” he said

“Our legislation is a critical step towards ridding organised crime from the construction industry once and for all.”

In his letter, Smith said the allegations had “not been tested by any court or tribunal, and the union’s rules require procedural fairness to be afforded to all persons whose interests are directly affected by any steps taken to address the allegations”.

“This takes time,” he wrote. The union had sent questions to the commission’s General Manager, Murray Furlong.

“Consenting to the application or seeking to negotiate some revisions to the proposed scheme in order to facilitate consent remains a possibility,” Smith wrote.

But Watt said the union had had “ample time” “The time for messing about is over.”

The union has previously tried to argue it can deal itself with the crisis following revelations in Nine media of a range of alleged nefarious behaviour. The union has appointed anti-corruption expert Geoffrey Watson the investigate the allegations.

The opposition has called for the union to be deregistered, but is expected to support the government’s legislation, although probably it will try to get amendments.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism.

ASIO Director-General Mike Burgess highlighted the volatile security environment, noting that while the conflict in Gaza is a significant driver, it is not the sole cause for the raised alert level.

Rising Threats and Quick Radicalisation

Burgess emphasised that the security landscape in Australia has become increasingly unpredictable, with more Australians being rapidly radicalised and showing a willingness to resort to violence for political motives.

“Politically motivated violence now joins espionage and foreign interference as our principal security concerns,”

he stated.

Despite the elevated threat level, Burgess reassured that there is no specific intelligence indicating an imminent attack.

Recent Disruptions and Concerns

Over the past four months, security agencies have disrupted eight incidents involving alleged terrorism or potential acts of terrorism. These cases primarily involved young individuals, with the youngest being 14 and the oldest 21, who had been radicalised online. The disruptions included plans for knife attacks and the use of improvised weapons.

Prime Minister’s Call for Calm

Prime Minister Albanese urged Australians to maintain calm and engage in peaceful debates, particularly regarding politically sensitive issues like the Gaza conflict.

“Probable does not mean inevitable, and it does not mean there is intelligence about an imminent threat or danger,”

Albanese reassured.

He stressed the importance of lowering the temperature of debate to prevent further escalation.

“No one is suggesting people should have conformity to particular views, but the way people express things is important,” he said.

“It is not normal to have people in occupations for months outside electorate offices, where the work of those electorate offices is to assist people.”

The last time Australia’s terror alert level was raised to “probable” was in 2014, following the emergence of the Islamic State terrorist group. The current rise in the threat level reflects a broader spectrum of ideologies and the increasing influence of online radicalisation.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism.

He further claimed that Harris “all of a sudden, made a turn” in her identity and wants to be known as black.

Trump made the comments at a gathering of black journalists in Chicago when an interviewer asked him why black voters should consider backing a candidate with his history of racist attacks on political rivals.

Trump responded by questioning Harris’ heritage.

“She was always of Indian heritage, and she was only promoting Indian heritage. I didn’t know she was black until a number of years ago, when she happened to turn black, and now she wants to be known as black. So I don’t know, is she Indian or is she black?”

CNN quoted him as saying.

“I respect either one, but she obviously doesn’t, because she was Indian all the way, and then all of a sudden she made a turn and she went – she became a Black person,” he said.

“I think somebody should look into that too.”

Notably, Trump has made similar comments in the past as well. For years, he pushed the “birther” conspiracy theory that former President Barack Obama was not born in the United States, according to CNN.

Kamala Harris is of Indian origin. Her mother was Indian and her father is Jamaican; both immigrated to the United States. She was born in Oakland, California, and attended a historically black university, Howard University, in Washington.

American people deserve better”: Kamala Harris hits back at Trump 

US Vice President, Kamala Harris, hit back at her presidential rival and former President Donald Trump over the latter’s remarks against her racial identity and said the American people “deserve better.”

She asserted that today the country faces a choice between two different visions, and alleged that Trump and his campaign aim to take the country “backward.”

Harris was speaking at a Houston fundraiser on Wednesday (local time), hours after Trump’s comments.

“In this moment, we face a choice, between two very different visions for our nation. One focused on the future, and the other focused on the past. And we in this room, are fighting for the future,” she told the donors.

“As we work to move our nation forward…there are those who are trying to take us backward. You might have seen their agenda, they call it Project 2025 and it is a 900-page agenda of extremism,” Harris added.

Speaking on Project 2025, Harris claimed that it would raise taxes on the middle class, cut taxes on billionaires, and end the Department of Education.

Attacking Trump further, the Vice President said, “We are not going back. We all remember what those four years were like, and today we got yet another reminder. This afternoon, Donald Trump spoke at the annual meeting of the National Association of Black Journalists, and it was the same old show, the divisiveness and the disrespect. Let me just say, the American people deserve better.”

She added: “The American people deserve a leader who does tell the truth, who does not respond with hostility and anger when confronted with the facts. We deserve a leader who understands that differences don’t divide us, they are an essential source of our strength.”

She is the first female, first Black and first Asian American vice president. Also, if she wins the upcoming polls, she will become the first woman president of the country.

Last week, President Joe Biden dropped out of the presidential race and nominated his deputy, Kamala Harris, as the Democratic nominee for the race.

Harris’ takeover has re-energised the Democratic campaign that had faltered following Biden’s performance in the presidential debate against Trump, leaving the party in doubt about Biden’s chances of defeating Trump or his ability to continue in the White House if he had won.

Harris rapidly consolidated support among Democrats in the hours after Biden stepped aside, and she raised more than USD 200 million in her first week as a presidential candidate.

The White House was quick to denounce Trump’s comments, calling it “insulting” and said only VP Kamala Harris can speak for herself on the matter.

“As a person of colour, as a black woman, who is in this position, standing before you, at this podium…what he said is insulting,”

White House Press Secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre said at the briefing on Wednesday (local time).

“No one has any right to tell someone, who they are, how they identify, that is no one’s right. It is someone’s own decision,” she added.

“Only she (Kamala Harris) could speak up to her experience, only she can speak up to what it’s like, she is the only person that can do that. I think it’s insulting for anybody, doesn’t matter if it’s insulting for a foreign leader, a former president, it is insulting…she is the Vice President of the United States, we have to put some respect to her name,” Jean-Pierre further asserted.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism.

“I am proud to lead a talented and united cabinet government that is focused every day on continuing to deliver better outcomes and more opportunities for all Australians,” Albanese stated.

“Our Ministers work together, listen to each other and acts decisively with purpose. We are proud of what we have delivered for Australians and the progress we have made together.”

Key Cabinet Changes

• Tony Burke MP has been appointed Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Cyber Security, and Minister for the Arts, while retaining his role as Leader of the House.
• Julie Collins MP will take on the roles of Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and Minister for Small Business.
• Senator Murray Watt has been promoted to Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations.
• Clare O’Neil MP will now serve as Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness.
• Senator Malarndirri McCarthy has been named Minister for Indigenous Australians.
• Pat Conroy MP will assume the roles of Minister for Defence Industry and Capability Delivery, and Minister for International Development and the Pacific.

Ministry Changes

• Andrew Giles MP is the new Minister for Skills and Training.
• Senator Jenny McAllister will serve as Minister for Cities and Minister for Emergency Management.

Assistant Ministry Changes

• Matt Thistlethwaite MP is the new Assistant Minister for Immigration.
• Patrick Gorman MP will be Assistant to the Prime Minister, Assistant Minister for the Public Service, and Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General.
• Ged Kearney MP has been appointed Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care, and Assistant Minister for Indigenous Health.
• Senator Tim Ayres will be Assistant Minister for a Future Made In Australia, and Assistant Minister for Trade.
• Senator Anthony Chisholm takes on roles as Assistant Minister for Education, Assistant Minister for Regional Development, and Assistant Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.
• Kate Thwaites MP is the new Assistant Minister for Social Security, Assistant Minister for Ageing, and Assistant Minister for Women.
• Josh Wilson MP has been appointed Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy.
• Julian Hill MP is the new Assistant Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs.

Special Envoy Changes

• Peter Khalil MP will serve as Special Envoy for Social Cohesion.
• Luke Gosling MP is appointed as Special Envoy for Defence, Veterans’ Affairs and Northern Australia.
• Andrew Charlton MP will be Special Envoy for Cyber Security and Digital Resilience.

Prime Minister Albanese paid tribute to the outgoing ministers, stating, “We pay tribute to Brendan O’Connor and Linda Burney for their outstanding contribution to our Government and our nation, and after decades of public service, we respect their decision to retire at the next election.”

The reshuffle aims to maintain stability and certainty while elevating new voices within the government. The new members of the Ministry are expected to be sworn in tomorrow, Monday, July 29, 2024.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism.

Both ministers will step down at the next federal election in 2025 but are exiting their cabinet roles immediately to allow fresh leadership ahead of the polls.

The resignations have triggered a flurry of activity among Labor heavyweights, who are currently deliberating over potential successors for these key Left faction positions.

Minister for NDIS Bill Shorten, while addressing the matter on the Today show, emphasised the importance of merit in the selection process, stating, “Loyalty is not always rewarded but merit should be.”

Among the frontrunners is Indigenous Senator Malarndirri McCarthy, who serves as assistant minister to Linda Burney and is widely viewed as her likely successor. Also in the running are NSW Left faction senators Tim Ayres and Jenny McAllister, both considered strong performers, and Queensland Senator Anthony Chisholm, all of whom currently hold assistant minister roles.

Further changes may also be on the horizon for Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil and Immigration Minister Andrew Giles. Following significant criticism over the handling of asylum seekers released from immigration detention, there is speculation that Giles might be reassigned.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has been vocal about this potential move, remarking,

“If Andrew Giles doesn’t get the flick, I don’t know who does.”

The forthcoming cabinet reshuffle is expected to address the need for more senators in ministerial roles, a move designed to better manage the workload during busy parliamentary sessions. Names such as lower house MPs Ged Kearney and Julian Hill, as well as Northern Territory MP Marion Scrymgour, are being mentioned by insiders.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s decisions, particularly whether to maintain the current size of the cabinet, will determine the final lineup. If Senator McCarthy is promoted, one cabinet spot will remain open, providing opportunities for other potential candidates such as Pat Conroy, another trusted ally of Albanese.

As the NSW and Victorian party branches gear up for pre-selection processes, Linda Burney has expressed her commitment to supporting her successor in the inner-Sydney seat of Barton, which she secured with a significant majority in the 2022 federal election. Meanwhile, Brendan O’Connor’s outer Melbourne seat of Gorton remains a safe Labor seat despite a notable swing towards the Liberals in the last election.

With the full extent of the cabinet shake-up set to be revealed on Sunday, the political landscape is poised for significant changes as Labor positions itself for the upcoming federal election.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism.

The Liberal National Party Queensland (LNP) has recently taken a bold step in its political strategy by employing artificial intelligence (AI) to shape public perception of the current premier, Steven Miles. This move has not only highlighted the innovative potential of AI in political campaigning but also sparked significant debate about its ethical implications.

Globally, the use of AI in political campaigns is on the rise. In recent elections worldwide, AI has been harnessed to analyse voter behaviour, craft targeted messages, and even generate persuasive content.

We saw the use of AI in the UK general elections through the development of an AI-generated politician. In February 2024, there was another powerful use of AI in Pakistan when Imran Khan and his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party generated an AI video of Khan to deliver a victory speech written while in prison.

However, the LNP’s approach in Queensland marks a notable escalation in the Australian context, albeit with a much more light-hearted approach. This video depicts Miles in a realistic portrayal of dancing to a popular early 2000s song with the caption:

POV: my rent is up $60 a week, my power bill is up 20%, but the premier made a sandwich on TikTok.

It aims to sway voter opinion by casting doubt on Miles’ leadership.

It’s clever, but is it ethical?

While technologically impressive, the role of AI in political campaigning is in question. Negative campaigning is a common strategy used worldwide. Society has come to expect negative posts or commentary from opposing parties. For instance, during the 2022 Australian federal election, the Labor Party used technology and video editing tools to manipulate images of then prime minister Scott Morrison.

What makes the Queensland LNP example unique is the use of AI to manipulate the individual’s actual form.

The Labor Party also came under scrutiny recently for an AI-generated TikTok video featuring opposition leader Peter Dutton.

This video leverages AI to manipulate Dutton’s appearance and behaviour. It also exemplifies how AI technology can be used to create realistic and persuasive content.

AI’s ability to be convincing yet misleading at the same time challenges the boundaries of acceptable political debate. It also underscores the need for robust regulatory frameworks.

The Electoral Commission of Queensland has said that while the state’s electoral act does not explicitly mention AI, it does cover the publication of false statements about a candidate’s character or conduct. However, political freedom of expression does allow for negative campaigning.

When politics and pop culture collide

From an election campaigning perspective, there has been a significant shift towards a more lighthearted and culturally relevant approach. Short-form video platforms serve as an excellent method to engage a generation of people who may not yet be politically aligned.

These platforms are exceedingly powerful tools. But platforms like TikTok are driven by algorithms, requiring content to be crafted to capture the algorithm’s interest. One effective strategy to achieve this is incorporating elements of popular culture and current trends. This can transform a serious topic into more entertainment-driven content.

Consequently, for politicians, governments, and large organisations to use these platforms effectively, they must adopt these popular culture methods, regardless of the seriousness of the topics being addressed. This has resulted in a rising trend of “politainment” by political figures.

However, politicians are also increasingly engaging with these platforms to develop a sense of authenticity. In Queensland, the two party leaders are using personal accounts to portray themselves as an “ordinary” Australian. The techniques they use to do this centre around domestic tasks such as cooking. A connection to food has been seen internationally, particularly in Italy, but is a relatively new approach in Australia.

Scott Morrison used to delight in showcasing his cooking skills. However, this was not always to positive effect. https://www.youtube.com/embed/x3ACCKRfT8U?wmode=transparent&start=0

Ultimately, political parties are not new to using digital manipulation for strategic purposes. However, the question remains whether there should be rules governing the use of AI in election campaigns.

AI is mostly fine – but it should be clearly labelled as such

While freedom of speech in political campaigning is crucial, clear identification of AI use is essential to maintain transparency and trust. Restricting official accounts might push AI-generated content to more unofficial, harder-to-regulate sources, complicating the issue further.

The case in Queensland highlights the opportunities and challenges of integrating advanced technologies into political campaigns. As AI continues to evolve, its role in shaping political landscapes will grow.

Political parties, regulators, and the public must navigate this terrain carefully, ensuring that the integrity of democratic processes is upheld while embracing the innovative potential of AI.

Susan Grantham, Lecturer in communication, Griffith University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism.

President Joe Biden’s decision to step aside as the Democratic nominee in this year’s presidential election certainly had a sense of inevitability about it.

Yet, it is still unprecedented in the modern era for a sitting president to drop out of a presidential race this late in the process. We are really in uncharted waters for American politics.

So, how where does the race go from here – and what does it mean for both the Democrats and Donald Trump, the Republican nominee?

Will the Democrats now unite behind Kamala Harris?

Biden has endorsed his vice president, Kamala Harris, as the nominee, which I believe he was always going to do. Not anointing Harris as his successor would have been politically unthinkable for Biden simply because it would have undermined his own decision-making when he chose her to be his running mate before the 2020 election.

His endorsement will also have a big impact on the decision-making of the Democratic Party as a whole. Anybody who challenges Harris now might well be taking on the establishment of the party. And the party would be wary of increasing perceptions of disunity at this point.

So, it certainly seems the Democrats will unite behind her as the candidate.

That said, it’s not out of the realm of possibility that she could be challenged by another presidential hopeful. This may well depend on her performance – and the broader reactions to her – in the next couple of days.

Potential rivals will have political ambitions of their own – we can’t discount that.

There will also be significant calculations about whether Harris can do the job – if she can win a national election campaign against Trump. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of wariness in the United States about what it would mean to be have a Black woman running against Trump, and how that would be received.

And lastly, there is a lot of very real angst within the Democratic Party – and more broadly – about what a Trump victory would mean for the country. In many people’s views, the best way to avert what Democrats see as a potential catastrophe is to nominate the candidate with the best chance of beating him. Whether or not the party settles on Harris as that person remains to be seen.

What are the potential risks and rewards for the Democrats?

The risks are quite obvious. There’s a real wariness about the unprecedented nature of this decision and how it will rattle the party.

One risk is Harris turns out not to be the right candidate and that the presidential race would be difficult for her to win, especially given how badly her first campaign for the presidency went in 2020.

The risks to American politics more broadly are also quite serious, given the level of vitriol and hatred that will be directed at the Democratic Party if a Black woman is the head of the ticket.

But I think it’s also entirely possible this is the circuit breaker the Democrats needed. The party had been slipping into a morass of despair after Biden’s debate performance against Trump last month and the subsequent assassination attempt against the former president. In a recent poll, two-thirds of Democrats said they believed Biden should withdraw from the race.

Given that both Biden and Trump are so disliked by the American population, Harris (and her running mate) could represent a huge opportunity for the Democrats.

A key strength of Harris is on the critical issue of reproductive rights. She has owned this issue in the campaign so far because Biden has difficulty with abortion politically as a devout Catholic – and we saw how he struggled with the messaging on this issue in the debate.

It’s entirely possible it will be a hugely mobilising factor in this year’s election, as it was in the 2022 midterm elections. As such, Harris would have a significant advantage in persuading the Democratic base to turn out to vote on that issue, in addition to other voters.

How would this change the calculations for Trump?

Assuming Harris does become the nominee, Trump’s pick of J.D. Vance as his vice presidential running mate may turn out to have been a mistake. Like much of the movement that supports Trump, Vance is virulently anti-abortion and committed to further regulations on reproductive rights.

This could be a significant vulnerability for Trump, who doesn’t perform as well with women voters compared to men.

And it seems the Trump campaign knows this, which is why it has been campaigning against Harris even before it was clear Biden was going to drop out.

The attacks on Harris from the right have been very brazen in their misogyny and racism. For example, the New York Post published a column earlier this month saying Harris would be the country’s first “DEI president”, referring to diversity, equity and inclusion. This is a way of dismissing anybody who’s not white and not a man as not being worthy of the position they’ve earned.

Trump rose to national prominence prosecuting the same kind of racist campaign against the presidency of Barack Obama.

I think we can expect there to be a push for the Trump campaign not to go down that road any further. But we’ve seen in the past how Trump completely ignores that kind of conventional wisdom, and just how much that incites his base.

This remains a dangerous and unpredictable era in American politics. There are no rules for what happens next.

Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism.

The cracks beneath US President Joe Biden’s feet continue to widen.

While the shock of the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump seemed like it might relieve some of the pressure on Biden, the story of his viability as both president and candidate continues to feed on itself.

Ever since his disastrous debate performance against Trump on June 27, the 81-year-old incumbent has been dogged by relentless questions about whether he should be running for a second term as the Democratic nominee.

And this week, the pressure has continued to mount. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, one of the most senior members of the party, “forcefully made the case” for Biden to step aside in a one-on-one conversation, according to reports. (Schumer’s spokesperson has called the reporting “idle speculation”.) Another top Democrat, Adam Schiff, has publicly called for him to exit the race, as well.

As if things couldn’t get any worse, the White House announced today that the president has COVID.

It is all getting very hard to watch.

Biden and his team need to realise there is no way for him to allay these concerns over his decline simply because he cannot get younger. He cannot prove he is not too old because he is too old.

As such, there is no good way for Biden and his campaign to approach the problem – it is, largely, unsolvable. And it is hard not to argue the efforts of the president and his surrogates to persuade the public he is still a viable candidate have only made things worse.

A growing sense of betrayal

Biden and his team have blamed his debate performance on a cold and the effects of jet lag from an overseas trip 12 days earlier. But if a president is hit so hard by a mere cold and jet lag, of course questions will be asked about his capacity to continue to lead, not just now but over the next four years.

Being the president of the United States is arguably the hardest job in the world. The person who does it, fairly or not, needs to be able to push through when they are tired and sick.

Perhaps all of this would have been eventually surmountable, though, if Biden’s political appeal – as opposed to his personal one – had any traction.

Over the last several weeks, however, Biden’s message appears to have degenerated into simply pointing out that he is not Trump. The entire point of his candidacy now appears to be a negative one – to beat Trump.

Yes, beating Trump is critical to Democrats. But Biden appears to have lost the ability to persuade Americans he can stop the deepening divisions that still plague the US and cause many to fear it is splitting apart. It is not clear what Biden’s vision for the future is or what he is offering other than another temporary stay in a much longer historical catastrophe.

This was evident at Biden’s “big boy” press conference at the end of the NATO Summit in Washington. Biden spoke at length and in great detail about foreign policy, an area he and his supporters have long considered one of his greatest strengths. But his vision for the United States’ role in the world was muddled and included some misleading comments and gaffes.

His comments on Israel, too, highlighted a much deeper problem on the electoral horizon. A day after the press conference, The New York Times published a video montage of voters explaining they cannot vote for Biden because of his administration’s support of Israel’s war in Gaza.

To these voters and others, it is hard to underestimate the depth of Biden’s betrayal, both political and personal.

In 2020, Biden’s successful pitch to the American people centred on his own compassion, his ability to see the suffering of other people, really feel and share it, and then to work to ameliorate it. He promised to both listen and to be a generational bridge. He has done neither.

His support among Democratic voters continues to decline. In a new survey this week, in fact, two-thirds of Democrats now believe he should withdraw from the race.

A party historically wary of division

Succession planning should be a critical part of any president’s job. And yet Biden – the oldest sitting president in American history – has no obvious successor, not even his own vice president, Kamala Harris. And no one else in the Democratic Party has any authority to lead until and unless he steps aside.
Everything now becomes a matter of risk calculations for a party not good at making them.

For decades, Democrats have been scarred by the inherited “lessons” of the 1968 contested convention. This was a tumultuous meeting of party members to choose a nominee for that year’s presidential election, which revealed deep divisions over the Vietnam War. The Democratic nominee, Hubert Humphrey, went on to lose the election to Richard Nixon.

Since then, Democrats have been very wary of public conflict. So it is entirely possible Biden will remain the candidate in this year’s election, that Democrats will kick the figurative can down the road until November.

However, given the stakes, they may also decide – either individually or collectively – that the risk Biden poses for “down-ballot” races (those Democrats running for the House and Senate) might outweigh the risk of ditching him so late in the campaign.

For some, this will be a question of personal risk to political careers; for others, it is a question of small-“d” democratic survival. Ensuring the Democrats do not lose both houses of Congress is widely regarded as critical to stymieing Trump’s anti-democratic agenda, should he beat Biden.

If more high-profile Democrats continue to put pressure on Biden, which appears likely, he may eventually be persuaded to step aside of his own accord, for Harris or someone else. Biden is, if nothing else, loyal to his party. This would leave time to choose another candidate and revamp the campaign.

But American politics is often wildly unpredictable. It is entirely possible there is a circuit breaker on the horizon. A candidate no one expected may emerge to unite the party, Harris may step up, or some outside event may change everything in an instant (such as the attempted assassination on Trump).

The current crisis embroiling the Democratic Party was entirely foreseeable and avoidable. But nothing is inevitable.

Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism.