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

Ticker Views

Liberals and Nats patch things up and announce new ministry

Published

on

View from the Hill: Liberals and Nationals patch things up and announce a shadow ministry

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Two Victorian Liberal women, Jane Hume and Sarah Henderson, have been dumped and a key numbers man has been promoted from the backbench to the shadow cabinet in the new frontbench announced by Coalition leaders Sussan Ley and David Littleproud.

Hume was the high-profile finance spokeswoman last term and central in the disastrous work-from-home election policy debacle.

Henderson was shadow education minister, and complained after the election about not being able to get some of her policy out. She said in a statement she was “very disappointed” not to be included in the shadow ministry. “I regret that a number of high performing Liberal women have been overlooked or demoted in the new ministry”.

Alex Hawke, who was numbers man for Scott Morrison, and has played that role for Ley, becomes shadow minister for industry and innovation as well as manager of opposition business in the House of Representatives.

The shadow ministry was unveiled after a Nationals party meeting earlier on Wednesday formally signed off on re-forming the Coalition, just over a week after it had dramatically split.

Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who defected from the Nationals in a vain hope of becoming deputy Liberal leader, is shadow minister for defence industry, outside the shadow cabinet. Price has lost out by her move – she would have been in the shadow cabinet if she had stayed in the Nationals. She indicated on Wednesday night she would continue to speak widely on issues.

The post of “government efficiency” that Peter Dutton created for Price has been scrapped.

As expected, Liberal deputy Ted O’Brien, who carried the nuclear debate for the opposition in the last term, becomes shadow treasurer. The deputy leader has the right to choose their own portfolio.

Apart from O’Brien, the opposition economic team includes James Paterson in finance, Andrew Bragg in productivity, deregulation and housing, and Tim Wilson in industrial relations, employment and small business.

This is a promotion for Paterson, considered a good performer on national security issues last term, and a big reward for Wilson for dislodging teal MP Zoe Daniel. There is a partial recount in Wilson’s seat of Goldstein at Daniel’s request, but he is considered safe.

The opposition’s Senate leader Michaelia Cash receives the plum job of shadow foreign minister, while Angus Taylor, who ran unsuccessfully for leader, becomes shadow defence minister.

Andrew Hastie, who wanted to move from the defence post, is in home affairs. Hastie decided not to run for leader after the election but is seen as positioning himself for a bid at some point in the future. He told the ABC this week: “Timing is really important in political life”.

Kerrynne Liddle is shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, as well as having social services. Angie Bell becomes shadow minister for the environment while Dan Tehan is spokesman on energy and emissions reduction.

Jonathon Duniam becomes education spokesman. Julian Leeser takes over shadow attorney-general, a position he held early last term before he resigned over the Voice.

The Nationals, who wanted a stronger economic voice, have
won the position of shadow assistant treasurer, which goes to Pat Conaghan.

For their part, the Liberals have sliced off part of the infrastructure portfolio, held by the Nationals’ Bridget Mckenzie, to create a new shadow ministry for urban infrastructure and cities, which goes to Queensland senator James McGrath.

Gisele Kapterian, who as of late Wednesday was only three votes ahead of teal Nicolette Boele for the Sydney seat of Bradfield, will become a shadow assistant minister if she wins.

For Ley, the shadow frontbench reflects a juggling act of rewarding supporters while seeking to not excessively alienate those who opposed her.

She was reluctant to be drawn on her dumping of Hume, who supported Taylor in the leadership. “I don’t reflect on private conversations. I will say this; These are tough days and having been through many days like this myself in my parliamentary career, I recognise that.”

Tensions in the Nationals

Though the Coalition is back together, ructions within the Nationals are continuing, with the longer-term implications for Littleproud unclear.

Two former Nationals leaders, Michael McCormack and Barnaby Joyce, have been excluded from frontbench positions. Both had been critical of breaking the Coalition.

McCormack welcomed the Coalition rejoining, but said “we should never have been apart”. Of his exclusion from the frontbench, he told reporter in his home city of Wagga Wagga, “I’m disappointed, but life goes on”.

Nationals Colin Boyce, from Queensland, attacked Littleproud on Wednesday saying, “How can you support a bloke who misled the party room?” Boyce, speaking on Sky, said the party room had not been told “the whole truth about the conversations, the letters, the little extras that were demanded”.

It was later revealed Littleproud had asked for Nationals shadow ministry to have freedom to freelance on policy. This was rejected by Ley, which Littleproud then accepted.

The Coalition now faces a defining coming battle over whether to stay committed to the target of reducing emissions to net zero by 2050.

Joyce – under whom the Nationals signed up to net zero – flagged he would push for change.

He said net zero was a disaster for the economy and the environment, and most importantly for “poor people because they can’t afford their power bills”.

Nationals senator Matt Canavan, who ran for the leadership against Littleproud, is a constant campaigner against net zero.

Hastie this week described net zero as “a straitjacket that I’m already getting out of”.

Ley was confident she and Littleproud could work well together. “Personally, David and I will be friends. I think a woman who got her start in the shearing sheds of western Queensland can always find something to talk about over a steak and a beer, David, with you, the person who represents those communities now.”

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