Connect with us
https://tickernews.co/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/AmEx-Thought-Leaders.jpg

Ticker Views

Key markers on the bumpy road to this election

Published

on

Grattan on Friday: Key markers on the bumpy road to this election

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

When we look back, we can see the road to election day has had a multitude of signposts, flashing red lights, twists, turns and potholes. Some came before the formal campaign; others in the final countdown days; some have been major, others symbolic.

The importance of certain markers has been obvious in the moment; the significance of others became clear in retrospect. Here is a recap of a few of those that have shaped this campaign and its battle for votes.

1. Anthony Albanese’s January 6 $7.2 billion announcement to upgrade the Bruce Highway

Why start here? Because this was the prime minister jumping out of the blocks at the start of January, with multiple announcements over the summer. Albanese laid down policy groundwork in these weeks, giving voters time to absorb the initiatives.

In contrast, Peter Dutton, although he had a “soft” launch on January 12, was running slowly, believing voters weren’t yet paying attention.

2. Donald Trump’s inauguration

January 21 (January 20 US time) unleashed a tsunami; its waves would wash over the coming months, and profoundly affect the election. At first, the Coalition thought – wrongly – that the election of Trump would favour it, but Labor became the beneficiary. Many Australians (including Dutton) were appalled at the way Trump and Vice President JD Vance treated Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. Later, Trump’s tariffs hit Australia (although not as hard as many countries).

Dutton argued he’d be better able than Albanese to handle the capricious president, but it became a spurious debate. Labor painted Dutton as Trump-lite and some of his decisions played into its hands, notably appointing in late January Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price to a Musk-like role to pursue efficiencies in government. She later made the comparison even more obvious by saying the Coalition would “make Australia great again”.

But the central factor was this: suddenly, the world had become more uncertain and many voters would think it wasn’t the time to change.

3. The Reserve Bank’s cut in interest rates on February 18

The amount was modest, 25 basis points, but the psychology was the thing. The cut reinforced Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ argument that the worst was over and the outlook was positive. In the campaign’s final week, just at the right time for the government, inflation figures pointed to another expected cut in May.

4. Cyclone Alfred’s March 7 election delay

Albanese appeared set to call an April 12 poll, when the approaching winds blew the plan off course. The prime minister was able to put himself at the middle of the response to the cyclone, projecting himself as a national leader as distinct from a partisan one; he appeared with Queensland LNP Premier David Crisafulli, and at the Canberra National Situation Room.

The election delay meant Labor had to bring down the March 25 budget. Many in the government had wanted to avoid a budget, because of its deficits into the distance. But the budget became a useful frame for the start of the formal campaign, with Albanese going to Government House at the end of budget week.

5. Dutton’s budget reply

The opposition leader’s reply contained his proposal to cut petrol excise but did not include tax cuts. The opposition had already voted against the government’s budget tax cut package, and committed to repealing it.

The excise move was popular – Dutton would visit countless service stations over coming weeks – but the government was able to say a Coalition government would raise taxes.

At his campaign launch subsequently, Dutton promised a $1,200 tax offset, despite earlier flagging he would not be able to announce any income tax relief during the campaign. The tax offset was an attempt to rectify what had been the mistake of thinking that the Coalition – traditionally committed to lower taxes – could go to the election on the wrong side of the tax argument.

6. Dutton’s April 7 backtrack on working from home

The opposition policy to get public servants back into the office all week was a disaster-in-the-making from the start. Workers in the private sector would, rightly, see it as sending a signal to non-government employers.

Women hated the policy, and it would further alienate the female vote. Dutton had to ditch the idea and apologise. Finance spokeswoman Jane Hume didn’t help the retreat by saying it was a good policy that hadn’t found its appropriate time.

7. News on April 15 that the Russians wanted to base planes in Papua

The story appeared on the respected military site Janes, and Dutton rushed to pick it up, but went off half-cocked, declaring wrongly that the Indonesian president Prabowo Subianto had announced the Russian request. It was symptomatic of Dutton being under-prepared. He had to make another admission of error.

8. Neo-Nazis heckle during the Welcome to Country at the Melbourne Shrine of Remembrance Anzac Day Dawn Service

This led to Dutton launching into “culture wars” in the final days of the campaign. In criticising the disruption, he at first said, “We have a proud Indigenous heritage in this country and we should be proud to celebrate it as part of today”.

Subsequently he said most veterans didn’t want the Welcome to Country as part of the Anzac Day ceremonies, although it was a matter for the organisers. In general, he believed Welcome to Country ceremonies were used too frequently.

Dutton segued the controversy back to criticism of the Voice, and seized on confusing remarks by Foreign Minister Penny Wong to claim Labor was still committed to bringing in a Voice, something Albanese flatly denied.

9. The price of eggs

In the last of the four debates neither leader could specify the cost of a dozen eggs. Dutton was way out ($4.20); Albanese rather closer (“$7, if you can find them”). It was a small moment but sent the message that even in a cost-of-living election, the leaders do live in bubbles.

10. Dutton comments on Thursday

Almost at the road’s end, the opposition leader appealed to voters to overlook a flawed campaign. “This election really is a referendum not about the election campaign but about the last three years.”

Asked if there was anything he could have done differently, he said “we should have called out Labor’s lies earlier on”.

It was as though he was speaking to a postmortem, while praying for a miracle.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

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

Ticker Views

The trouble with Trump’s Greenland strategy

Published

on

Trump’s annexation of Greenland seemed imminent. Now it’s on much shakier ground.

Eric Van Rythoven, Carleton University

Looking at headlines around the world, it seemed like United States President Donald Trump’s annexation of Greenland was imminent. Buoyed by the success of his military operation to oust Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, Trump ratcheted up his rhetoric and threatened tariffs on any nation that opposed him.

Adding insult to injury, he openly mocked European leaders by posting their private messages and sharing an AI-generated image of himself raising the American flag over Greenland.

But behind these headlines a different story has emerged that has likely forced Trump to back down on using military force against Greenland and to drop threatened tariffs against Europe.

Trump’s military threats had toxic polling numbers with the American public. His Republican allies openly threatened to revolt. European countries are sending reinforcements to Greenland, hiking the costs of any potential invasion. And Europeans started to contemplate what economic retaliation might look like.

Far from being inevitable, Trump’s Greenland gambit is now on shaky ground.

No good options

Trump has three options to take control of Greenland: diplomacy, money and military force. The latest diplomatic talks collapsed as Greenland and Denmark’s foreign ministers left the White House in “fundamental disagreement” over the future of the territory.

Simply buying the territory is a non-starter. Greenlanders have already said the territory is not for sale, and U.S. Congress is unwilling to foot the bill. That’s left military force, the worst possible option.

It’s difficult to convey in words just how stunningly unpopular this option is with Americans. A recent Ipsos poll found that just four per cent of Americans believe using military force to take Greenland is a good idea.

To put that in perspective, here are some policies that are more popular:

If your official foreign policy is less popular than pardoning drug traffickers, then your foreign policy might be in trouble.

Sensing this unpopularity, Trump has already begun to walk back his military threats. Using his platform at Davos, he claimed “I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force.” He also said he and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte have “formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland.”

It’s too early to tell whether Trump is being sincere. Not long after claiming to be the “president of peace,” he was invading Venezuela and bombing Iran.

The broader point is that if diplomacy has failed, money is a non-starter, and now military action is ostensibly being taken off the table, then Trump has no good options.

The danger of defections

Trump’s political coalition, in fact, is increasingly fragile and in danger of defections. The Republican House majority has shrunk to a razor-thin margin, and Republicans are already signalling a loud break with Trump over Greenland.

Nebraska congressman Don Bacon recently told USA Today: “There’s so many Republicans mad about this … If he went through with the threats, I think it would be the end of his presidency.”

The situation in the Senate looks even worse. Multiple Republican senators have pledged to oppose any annexation, with Thom Tillis and Lisa Murkowski visiting Copenhagen to reassure the Danish government. With enough defections, U.S. congress could sharply curtail Trump’s plans and force a humiliating climb-down.

There’s yet another danger of defection. Senior military officers can resign, retire or object to the legality of orders to attack America’s NATO allies. Just last year, Adm. Alvin Holsey, the leader of U.S. Southern Command, abruptly retired less than year into what is typically a multi-year posting.

Holsey’s departure came amid reports that he was questioning the legality of U.S. boat strikes in the Caribbean. Americans still have a high level of confidence in the military, so when senior officers suddenly leave, it can set off alarm bells.

Creating a tripwire

In recent days, Denmark and its European allies have rushed to send military reinforcements to Greenland. These forces, however, would have no hope of defeating a committed American invasion. So why are they there?

In strategic studies, we call this a “tripwire force.” The reasoning is that any attack on this force will create strong pressure at home for governments to respond. If Danes and Swedes — and other Europeans for that matter — saw their soldiers being captured or killed, it would force their governments to escalate the conflict and retaliate against the United States.

The Trump administration would like to seize Greenland, face no European forces and suffer no consequences. But the entire point of a tripwire force is to deny easy wins and to signal that any attack would be met with costly escalation. It creates a price to invading Greenland for an administration that rarely wants to pay for anything.

The B-word

Amid the Trump administration’s economic and sovereignty threats, people are forced to grapple with what comes next. European governments are already quietly debating retaliation, including diplomatic, military and economic responses.

Chief among these is the European Union’s Anti-Coercion Instrument, colloquially known as the “trade bazooka,” that could significantly curb America’s access to the EU market.

But for ordinary Europeans, a different B-word will come to mind: boycott.

Some Europeans began boycotting U.S. goods last year amid Trump’s trade threats — but never to the same level as Canadians. That could quickly change if the U.S. engages in a stunning betrayal of its European allies. Fresh anger and outrage could see Europeans follow Canada’s lead.

Trump repeatedly threatened Canada with annexation, and it triggered a transformation of Canadian consumer habits. Canadians travel to the U.S. less, buy less American food and alcohol and look for more home-grown alternatives. Despite Canada’s small population, these boycotts have caused pain for U.S. industries.

Now imagine a similar scenario with the EU. In 2024, the U.S. exported almost US$665 billion in goods and services to the EU. It’s one of the largest export markets for the U.S., fuelling thousands of jobs and businesses.

The real danger for American companies, however, is when consumer pressure moves upwards to governments and corporations. European governments and corporations who buy from American giants like Microsoft, Google and Boeing will start to see public pressure to buy European — or at least not American. America’s most valuable corporate brands risk being contaminated by the stigma of the U.S. government.

Will he, won’t he?

None of this will stop the Trump administration from trying. Trump’s own words — that there is “no going back” on his plans for Greenland — ensure he’s backed himself into corner.

The more likely scenario seems to be starting to play out — Trump will try and then fail. His threats to annex Greenland will likely be remembered next to “90 trade deals in 90 days” and “repeal and place” in the pantheon of failed Trump policies.

The tragedy here is not simply a Trump administration with desires that consistently exceeds its grasp. It’s that the stain of betraying America’s closest allies will linger long after this administration is gone.The Conversation

Eric Van Rythoven, Instructor in Political Science, Carleton University

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

Continue Reading

Ticker Views

Market Watch: Greenland deals, Japan bonds & Australia jobs

Join David Scutt as we dissect fast-moving global markets and key insights from Greenland to Japan and Australia.

Published

on

Join David Scutt as we dissect fast-moving global markets and key insights from Greenland to Japan and Australia.


From Greenland to global bonds, and right here at home in Australia, markets are moving fast—and we break down what it all means for investors.

David Scutt from StoneX joins us to give expert insights on the key risks and opportunities shaping the week.

First, the U.S. is back in Greenland with its “Sell America 2.0” strategy. We explore the geopolitical wins, the potential economic gains, and the hurdles that could derail this ambitious plan.

Then, Japan’s bond market meltdown has shaken global investors. Scutt explains what triggered the rout, whether it’s over, and the implications for markets across Asia and the US.

Finally, Australia’s December jobs report is more than just numbers—it’s a critical piece of the RBA rates puzzle. We break down the scenarios and what a surprise result could mean for the economy and local markets.

Subscribe to never miss an episode of Ticker – https://www.youtube.com/@weareticker

#MarketWatch #GlobalMarkets #GreenlandDeals #JapanBonds #AustraliaJobs #RBA #DavidScutt #TickerNews


Download the Ticker app

Continue Reading

Ticker Views

Backlash over AI “Indigenous Host” sparks ethical debate

AI-generated “Indigenous host” sparks controversy, raising ethical concerns about representation and authenticity in social media.

Published

on

AI-generated “Indigenous host” sparks controversy, raising ethical concerns about representation and authenticity in social media.


A viral social media account featuring an AI-generated “Indigenous host” is drawing criticism from advocates and creators alike, raising questions about authenticity, representation, and ethics in the age of artificial intelligence. Critics argue that AI characters can displace real Indigenous voices and mislead audiences.

Dr Karen Sutherland from Uni SC discusses how AI is reshaping identity on social media and why the backlash over this account has ignited a wider conversation about “digital blackface” and the ethics of AI-generated personalities. She explores the fine line between education, entertainment, and exploitation.

The discussion also dives into monetisation, platform responsibility, and the broader risks AI poses to media and cultural representation. As AI becomes increasingly sophisticated, audiences and creators alike must consider what authenticity truly means online.

Subscribe to never miss an episode of Ticker – https://www.youtube.com/@weareticker

#AIControversy #IndigenousVoices #DigitalBlackface #SocialMediaEthics #AIIdentity #OnlineBacklash #MediaEthics #RepresentationMatters


Download the Ticker app

Continue Reading

Trending Now