Monthly Archives: May 2022

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican, has warned many of the state's Native American tribes that if they allow abortion on sovereign land he will intervene.

"Oklahomans will not think very well of that if tribes try to set up abortion clinics," Stitt said on Fox News Sunday.

"You know, the tribes in Oklahoma are super liberal," he said. "They go to Washington, D.C. They talk to President [Joe] Biden at the White House; they kind of adopt those strategies. So yeah, we think that there's a possibility that some tribes may try to set up abortion on demand. They think that you can be 1/1,000th tribal member and not have to follow the state law. And so that's something that we're watching."

The tribes aren't liberal. In fact, some, particularly in Eastern Oklahoma, work with Republican Rep. Tom Cole (OK) on issues.

RELATED:Oklahoma Republicans ram through most restrictive abortion ban in the nation

Native American tribes are allowed to govern themselves on their own land. Their sovereignty is the reason that they can have things like casinos in states where it is banned. Once known as Indian Territory, the state has more than 40 tribes in its borders.

It was just last monththat Oklahoma politicians faced off against tribes in an ongoing refusal to cooperate with the Supreme Court decision inMcGirt v. Oklahoma.

"In the McGirt ruling, the Supreme Court held that much of eastern Oklahoma is Indian country under the terms of an1833 treaty between the U.S. government and the Muscogee Creek Nation," explained Professor Kirsten Matoy Carlson of Wayne State University. "Based on that treaty and an 1885 federal law, the ruling effectively means that the state of Oklahoma cannot prosecute crimes committed by or against American Indians there.Federal and tribal officials are the only oneswho can pursue these cases."

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Oklahoma's state government has asked the Supreme Court to rehear the case over40 times. Under the existing Supreme Court rulings,about 43% of Oklahomais ruled by tribal lands. It ultimately means that the GOP governor doesn't have control over the whole state when it comes to his laws.

There has been a conversation among activists searching for loopholes in anticipation of the unmaking of Roe v.Wade that putting clinics under tribal lands could be possible. Such a decision would require involvement by tribal councils, however. Sources involved in the tribal government of one Oklahoma tribe told Raw Story that many are unlikely to rock the boat.

RELATED:Abortion providers sue to block Oklahoma bans

If Stitt and others in the Oklahoma legislature attempt to restrict the tribes under the guise that they are trying to stop abortions, they could end up in a considerable legal battle over the right for Native tribes to govern themselves.

Stitt is up for reelection in November.

Originally posted here:

GOP governor warns sovereign Native American tribes to not make abortion accessible on their land - Salon

In 1881, Henry George, already famous for his most well-known work, Progress and Poverty, published The Irish Land Question. In the book, he argued that if all people have the same equal right to life, it follows that they must all have the same equal right to the land.

For George, the liberal notions of individual liberty and equal rights for all were worthless unless they meant the end of land theft and land monopoly, the return of the land to its proper status as the inheritance of all mankind. He observed a great disconnect: while we all need the land and its products to survive, only a small handful of landlords own it, thus allowing them to dictate the terms under which most of us live out our days.

That disconnect has defined the modern age, and while it remains with us, it has been notoriously difficult to quantify its social, economic, and environmental impacts. In particular, the causal relationship between land monopoly and present-day environmental conditions has not been sufficiently studied. Exploring this relationship reveals that a comprehensive critique of land monopoly entails a program for the more responsible and sustainable use of land and natural resources.

In order to make those who use the land accountable, planning strategically for the long term and internalizing their costs to the extent possible, it must be owned by small groups of people who live on it. When decisions are made by large, distant corporate bodies that are not answerable in any robust way to local communities, we cannot be surprised to find them depleting and draining the life from the land. The ability of the land to sustain life begins with the soil, which, when it is strong and healthy, is a world of irreducible beauty and complexity. This world is full of life forms and the relationships between them, from bacteria and fungi, to plants and animals, both living and dead, of various sizes and scales.

Soil is a living thing an infinitely complex network of them, more precisely and human civilization has been phenomenally good at killing it, at making dead, dry deserts of dynamic living networks. As observed from space, we might regard humans as a desert-making species. It is important to point out that the current environmental and ecological crisis is not entirely a product of the industrial age, but begins thousands of years ago, as human civilizations agricultural endeavors became progressively (perhaps regressively) more widespread and intensive. It is not enough to point the way to organic farming, as such practices were all that was available to previous agricultural civilizations, which likewise pushed their natural environments beyond sustainable limits.

The introduction and successive redoublings of modern, industrial techniques, particularly the indiscriminate, irresponsible use of fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, and whatever other chemicals are at hand, have aggravated the soil crisis to such a degree that many of the worlds formerly rich soils are now almost completely bereft of organic matter. This is a direct consequence of the fact that although our farms have grown larger, they are owned and operated by comparatively fewer and fewer people, through corporate operations with short-sighted business strategies and goals.

Excerpted: The Enduring Land Question.

Courtesy: Counterpunch.org

See more here:

Right to the land - The News International

American-Statesman Editorial Board| Austin American-Statesman

Austin area voters have one more chance tohelp shape general election races in November as candidates square off in primary runoff contests up and down the ballot this month.

Election Day is Tuesday, May 24. Early voting starts today and ends on Friday.

Below is a recap of the Statesmans endorsements.Welll make a new round of recommendations for the November election.

Voters unsure what district they're incan find that information here:wrm.capitol.texas.gov/home.

Lieutenant Governor, Democratic runoff:Mike Collier

Collier,amoderateDemocrat and clean energy consultant from Houston, came within five points of defeating Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick in 2018. With his command of the issues and appeal to rural voters, Collier has a better chance of unseating Patrick this year than his liberal Democraticprimary opponent, state Rep. Michelle Buckley.The winnerfaces Patrick in the general election.

Attorney General, Democratic runoff: Rochelle Garza

Anaccomplished civil rights attorney with experience in immigration, family, criminaland constitutional law, Garza is an outstanding candidate. She is running against Galveston trial lawyer Joe Jaworski; the winner faces either Ken Paxton or George P. Bush in November.

Attorney General, Republican runoff: George P. Bush

Two-term Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush offers Republicans achance to vote forintegrity in the Attorney General's office after eight years of scandal duringKen Paxton's tenure. The winner faces either Rochelle Garza or Joe Jaworski.

U.S. House District 37, Republican runoff:Jenny Garcia Sharon

A longtime party activist,Sharonis the best choice for Republicans supporting a standard GOP platform. Sheopposes abortion rights, supports taxpayer-funded school vouchers and wants the federal government to build a border wall. Sharon's runoff opponent isSan Antonio pilot Rod Lingsch. The winner will facelongtime U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, running in the newly created 37th district, in the general election.

U.S. House District 21, Democratic runoff: Claudia Zapata

An Austin community activist and formerTexas Health and Human Services Commission budget analyst, Zapata has a strong record of public service. She would prioritize immigration reform centered on due process for asylum seekers and oversight ofU.S. Customs and Border Protection. She is running against Ricardo Villareal in the runoff; the winner faces incumbent Republican Chip Roy in November.

Comptroller, Democratic runoff: Janet T. Dudding.A certified public accountant and budget manager for the city of College Station,Dudding vowsto make corporations pay moreproperty taxes to reduce the burden on individuals, improvethe state retirement plan for teachers and expandbroadband internet service. Shefaces Angel Luis Vega in the runoff; the winner will runagainstincumbent Republican Glenn Hegar in the general election.

Land Commissioner, Republican runoff:Tim Westley

Westley offers a more detailed and moderate policy platform than his primary opponent, state Sen. Dawn Buckingham. He wants to use Land Office resources to improve state-run nursing homes for veterans, invest inpublic education and create a natural disaster recovery plan for Texas. The winnerwill compete in the general election againstthe winner of the Democratic runoff between Jay Kleberg andSandragrace Martinez.

Land Commissioner, Democratic runoff: Jay Kleberg.

Kleberg, who grew up working cattle on the legendary King Ranch, says theland commissioner's job is an environmental oneand "the urgency of climate change is real."He says thatoil and gas lease royalties are important to Texas, but vows to alsochampion cleanenergysources. He faces former parole officer Sandragrace Martinez in the runoff; the winner will square off in November against the winner of the Republican runoff betweenTim Westley and Dawn Buckingham.

Railroad Commissioner, Republican runoff:Sarah Stogner

Stogner, an oil and gasattorney, says she will hold the industry accountable for environmental infractions and force natural gas operators to protect their infrastructure to prevent electricity blackouts like the one that resulted in the death of hundreds of Texans during the winter freeze of 2021. Stognerhas refused oil and gas industry contributions incontrast withher runoff opponent, incumbent Wayne Christian. The winner faces Democrat Luke Warford in the general election.

Texas House 19, Republican runoff:Ellen Troxclair

A conservative former Austin City council member who has demonstrated an ability to work with Democrats, Republican Ellen Troxclair is the clear choice for GOP voters. Heropponent, Austin police officer Justin Berry, was among 19 Austin police officers indictedon felony assault charges for their conduct during the May 2020 racial justice protests. Thewinner will face off against Democrat Pam Baggett in November.

See the original post:

Statesman endorsements in the May 24 runoff elections - Austin American-Statesman

Reports that the US Supreme Court will overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that created a right to abortion under the U.S. Constitution has led to a flurry of commentary and speculation about that likely decisions effect on the 2022 elections. A new survey, however, raises doubts that it will be a transformative issue.

A recent SurveyUSA poll conducted for KSTP television sheds some light on the role of abortion in Minnesotas 2022 electoral politics. The survey queried 725 state adults about their abortion opinions and how those opinions might affect their votes in Novembers state elections. The May 5 May 10 survey, weighted by gender, age, education and home ownership to reflect the state population, has a margin of error 4.4 percent.

Fifty-one percent of Minnesota adults opted for keeping Roe v. Wade as the law of the land. The survey did not, however, ask respondents if they knew the actual content of that court decision. The key divide in the survey concerned respondents differing views of the proper availability of abortion procedures. Thirty percent wanted abortion always legal, 25 percent wanted abortion permitted with some limitations, 26 percent wanted it available only for cases of rape, incest and saving the life of the mother and 12 percent wanted it always illegal.

The major ideological and partisan divide was between those wanting abortion to be always legal and those wanting it mostly or always illegal. Fifty-two percent of Democrats and 58 percent of liberals opted for abortion being always legal. In contrast, 56 percent of Republicans and conservatives wanted it mostly or totally illegal.

Article continues after advertisement

What was the presence of this great divide among key voter groups? A gender gap of about 7 percent existed between men and women, with men more in favor of restrictions than women.

The crucial swing groups in the Minnesota electorate are suburban residents and political independents. Among suburbanites, 27 percent wanted abortion always legal, the same level of support evident among rural poll respondents. Thirty-eight percent of those residing in the suburbs wanted abortion to be usually illegal. Similar percentages obtained among independents, with 27 percent opting for no limits on abortion and 42 percent preferring it to be usually illegal.

One crucial question for 2022 is how important the abortion issue looms in Minnesotans voting decisions. Those advocating no limits to abortion clearly have intensity on their side, with 54 percent saying the issue would be very important in their voting choices. Those who supported making abortion illegal under many or all circumstances were about 20 points less likely to say it would be very important in their 2022 voting.

Steven Schier

The major political opportunity for Minnesota Democrats and liberals, then, lies with stoking intensity among their base supporters about the abortion issue. Fifty-one percent of Democrats, 49 percent of liberals and an impressive 77 percent of those very liberal indicated that a candidates abortion position would very likely influence their vote for that candidate.

This part of the electorate, however, is always likely to turn out in considerable numbers, so it is far from clear that many additional votes will come from them in 2022 because of the abortion issue. What can come from this segment of the electorate, however, is additional volunteer activism and financial support for campaigns. Expect the state DFL to spur that activity among their intense abortion supporters.

In other parts of the Minnesota electorate, however, it is not very evident from this survey that abortion will transform the states 2022 electoral landscape. Countering liberal activism on this issue, 51 percent of very conservative respondents also indicate that a candidates position on abortion is very likely to influence their vote. The 9 percent of the sample who are very conservative adults comprise a group half again larger than the 6 percent of respondents who are very liberal.

Article continues after advertisement

The issue also is far less important for those who are political independents or who reside in the suburbs who often determine the direction of state politics. As Julie Roginsky, a national Democratic consultant recently noted about 2022 voters thinking about abortion, Is this something they lose sleep over every night? No. What they do lose sleep over is, I cant fill up my gas tank, its really expensive. I cant afford to send my kid to college, its really expensive. Any voter who will vote purely based on (Roe) is an incredibly committed voter who will be coming out in the midterms, anyway.

Roginskys point applies to Minnesota voters. Given the many issues besetting Minnesotans, abortion seems be just one in a large crowd of concerns. It may help Democrats turnout at the margins, but its influence on the overall state results, as evident in the surveys findings, may well not extend beyond that limited effect.

Steven Schier is the Emeritus Congdon professor of Political Science at Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota.

MinnPost's in-depth, independent news is free for all to access no paywall or subscriptions. Will you help us keep it this way by supporting our nonprofit newsroom with a tax-deductible donation today?

Read the original here:

Will abortion dominate the 2022 Minnesota election? - MinnPost

At their first televised debate four weeks ago, Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese were asked by an audience member how each would help his kids afford to buy their own home. Neither had much to offer.

Now, in the final week of the campaign, housing affordability is a red-hot point of difference between the parties.

Each plan reflects the core values of the party pushing them, but both sidestep the major reforms needed to improve housing affordability for all.

On the plus side, at least both are somewhat limited, which means neither should push up house prices dramatically if implemented, contrary to some hyperbolic warnings.

The Coalitions plan, announced on Sunday, is to allow first-home buyers to withdraw up to 40% of their superannuation balance, up to a maximum of A$50,000, for a mortgage deposit. They must return the amount withdrawn, plus or minus any capital gain or loss, when they sell the property.

This amounts to borrowing from your super account. You lose the return your super savings would have accrued, but you gain the return on your house, in the form of avoided rent and any capital gain.

Read more: View from The Hill: Scott Morrison tells Liberal launch 'I'm just warming up', as he pitches on home ownership

The concept is similar in principle to a recommendation of the recent parliamentary inquiry into housing affordability, chaired by Liberal MP Jason Falinski, calling for super balances to be used as collateral for home loans.

But allowing buyers to actually withdraw money from their super may require super funds to change their investment strategies investing more in higher-liquidity, lower-return assets which might be problematic for some super funds with a lot of younger members.

Around a quarter of all homes sold are to first-home buyers, amounting to around 150,000 houses in the past year. While all first-home buyers would be eligible, not everyone would access the scheme, nor use it in the same way.

Some wont have enough super for it to make much difference. Some will choose not to use the scheme because they dont want to draw down their super.

Some will offset part of their own private saving or take out a smaller loan. Some will get into the market a little earlier than they otherwise would have. And some will get into the market when they otherwise would not have.

While some have claimed the Coalitions policy would undermine peoples security in retirement, in fact the opposite is the case.

Home ownership and superannuation are the two pillars of independent financial security in retirement. Owning a home will be preferable to super for many because it is exempt from the pension assets test.

And given housing is by far the biggest form of consumption, owning a home is a far less risky form of retirement savings, albeit potentially at a lower return.

What really matters is the total quantum of retirement assets, and that those assets are allocated in the way that best secures their retirement. So a scheme that enables portability between different forms of retirement saving makes sense.

Labors plan is to become an equity partner in 10,000 homes a year. It will chip in up to 40% of the cost of a new home, and 30% for an existing home.

To qualify, individuals must earn less than $90,000 a year, and couples a combined $120,000 a year. There will be a cap on the property value, according to location. In Sydney this will be up to $950,000.

Labors scheme is far more generous than the Coalitions, but it also covers far fewer people.

The 10,000 lucky buyers a year who qualify will be able to finance a property worth an extra $380,000. In contrast, the Coalitions scheme gives buyers up to $250,000 more in purchasing power (but a lot less for the vast majority with lower super balances).

Labors policy also entails a very large subsidy.

If you or I invested 40% in an investment property, wed also receive 40% of the rental income. Under Labors plan, the government wont. Taxpayers will therefore gift up to 40% of the rent the occupier would otherwise have paid worth up to around $15,000 a year forever.

A small portion will be offset by the owner-occupier picking up the govermnments share of rates, insurance, and maintenance. But the rest is gravy. Thats why it costs more than $80 million a year.

In previous shared-equity schemes (proposed as far back as 2003) the lender was to chip in a proportion of the equity, but took a higher proportion of the gain to compensate for this loss.

The income limit of $90,000 is also well above the median income of $61,000, making the subsidy a generous form of middle-class welfare. Like a lottery for a lucky few.

Labor argues the scheme will make money for taxpayers through capital gains when properties are eventually sold. But consider that instead the government could invest $10 billion a year in listed property trusts, which would provide a lower-risk portfolio of housing assets at a far higher return. So, relatively speaking, Labors policy would run at a loss.

Both policies attempt to improve housing affordability by addressing the demand side of the market. That means they both suffer from the problem of all such schemes: by increasing buyers purchasing power, they push up prices.

But commentary suggesting either will create a house price explosion is overstated in my view.

First-home buyers are about a quarter of the market. And about half of all 40-year-olds have less than $80,000 in their super, which means the maximum they could withdraw under the Coalitions scheme is $30,000. And its not a first home owners grant - participants have skin in the game.

Labors plan is of course capped at 10,000 places.

I expect both parties schemes to put some modest upward pressure on house prices in the short term as all schemes focused on demand do blunting some of the help they offer. The Coalitions scheme a bit more so given it will extend to more buyers, albeit at a lower amount.

Read more: For first homebuyers, it's Labor's Help to Buy versus the Coalition's New Home Guarantee. Which is better?

Its hard for me to get too enthused about any scheme that increases demand but does nothing about the supply side, which is the ultimate source of high house prices.

Australias population has doubled since 1970, and yet we all live, more or less, in the same places, fighting over the same bits of land. With greater density, the cost of that land rises. We can only contain housing costs by using that land more efficiently, or having people move to where land is more plentiful.

Increasing housing supply isnt simply a case of building more houses. Its also about having the right kind of homes in the right locations. On that, devolving decision making down to the street level, as proposed in the United Kingdom, is a promising idea.

And Labors plan to set up a National Housing Supply and Affordability Council is a welcome development that will hopefully help achieve some progress.

Read more: More affordable housing with less homelessness is possible if only Australia would learn from Nordic nations

Tax and transfer policy also plays a role. State government stamp duty discourages turnover, which prevents better housing matches, driving up prices. Exempting the family home from federal taxation and the assets test for the pension does the same, discouraging downsizing.

The Coalitions proposal, backed by Labor, to allow people to sell their house, downsize, and put the proceeds in super will help. But we need more.

Negative gearing is a perennial villain but is over-hyped. Its not clear it has a meaningful effect on house prices, and removing it actually introduces a distortion into the tax system. The real culprit is the overly generous 50% discount on capital gains tax, which is why people use negative gearing in the first place.

Read more: Election surprise. Negative gearing isnt a rort but something else is

After the reception received by an ambitious (albeit somewhat misguided) tax policy agenda at the 2019 election, it may be a while before we make any meaningful progress on that front. For now, the choice between the major parties is between these relatively limited demand-side schemes. Take your pick.

Read this article:

Super for housing or the government as a co-owner: how Liberal and Labor home-buyer schemes compare - The Conversation Indonesia

(Francisco Kjolseth | The Salt Lake Tribune) Orrin Hatch, shown in 2018, died last month. The late senator ranks among the most important and influential political figures in the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

| May 11, 2022, 1:00 p.m.

He defeated a popular Democratic senator, arguing that three terms were enough, and then proceeded to serve more than twice as long (seven terms) longer than any Republican in Senate history.

During those 42 years, this conservative loyalist teamed up with a liberal lion, Sen. Ted Kennedy, to create the Childrens Health Insurance Program and the Americans with Disability Act.

He eventually became among the staunchest defenders of Donald Trump, shepherding through a major tax overhaul and helping to shape the conservative majority of todays Supreme Court. These justices appear poised to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, which gave women a constitutional right to abortion.

Through it all, Orrin Hatch, who died April 23 at age 88, often touted his membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and championed the cause of religious liberty.

In fact, historian Benjamin Park says in a recent Washington Post piece, Hatch helped transform the nations Latter-day Saints into one of the most reliably red voting blocs.

On this weeks show, Park discusses the late senator, his influence, his politics, his piety and his place in history.

Listen here:

[Get more content like this in The Salt Lake Tribunes Mormon Land newsletter, a weekly highlight reel of developments in and about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. To receive the free newsletter in your inbox, subscribe here. You also can support us with a donation at Patreon.com/mormonland, where you can access transcripts of our Mormon Land podcasts.]

Read the rest here:

'Mormon Land': How Orrin Hatch transformed the political loyalties of Latter-day Saints - Salt Lake Tribune

Barrage of opposition research sees Del Duca turf candidates, Ford stick by Lecce. Del Duca finds a big old target on his back. Is this thing really about affordability or nah?

Alex Boutilier: Welcome to Global News Ontario Votes Roundup, your increasingly desperate-for-news recap of the week that was in Ontarios 43rd general election.

Each week Globals Queens Park Bureau Chief Colin DMello and I attempt to make sense of the politics, policy and polling as Ontarians prepare to make their choice at the ballot box on June 2.

This was a busy week Steven Del Duca released the Liberal platform on Monday, we had the Northern Debate on Tuesday, and a barrage of opposition research was released to try and destabilize the campaigns. And Doug Ford facing renewed criticism of dodging scrutiny by dodging reporters after the debate held not one, but two media avails!

Story continues below advertisement

Colin, weve got a lot to get to, so lets get your impressions off the top. What mattered on the campaign trail this week?

Colin DMello: After a sleepy start to the campaign last week, the parties began deploying their opposition research this week in an attempt to snipe off as many candidates before the nomination deadline.

The Ontario Liberals ended up being the big losers of the week, having to turf three candidates in total which means they wont be able to run a full slate of 124 candidates and are facing questions about their verification process.

What I found to be interesting is how each parties treated allegations around candidates.

Doug Ford, for example, very swiftly stamped out the story about Stephen Lecces participation in a slave auction as a university student by reinforcing Lecces apology, excusing his actions because Lecce was a teenager at the time, and declaring his support for Lecce. Ford was able to deny the story any more oxygen and as a result didnt have to answer for it the very next day effective strategy.

Del Duca, on the other hand, immediately vowed to boot out candidates for offenses of the past when reporters presented him with allegations and in doing so gave the opposition parties a chance to systematically target even more candidates hoping to create some chaos for the Liberal camp.

Story continues below advertisement

As for the Northern Debate, what stood out was who the prime target was. Going into the debate most would reasonably expect the incumbent would be broadsided with barbs from the other leaders, but Doug Ford seemed to play second fiddle to Steven Del Duca.

Del Duca found himself fending off the majority of the attacks, as the other leaders attempted to hold him accountable for 15 years of Liberal rule in Ontario even though Del Duca was only present for seven of those years and was a cabinet minister for four. It could be an indication that the parties sense a Liberal resurgence in the province.

Alex Boutilier: Im really not getting the sense, either from what public polling is available or just from watching the race, that anything is really breaking through. I mean, Im actually literally paid to pay attention to this, and Im still having a hard time understanding what this election is actually about.

People keep screaming its about affordability! at me, and with inflation, housing and gestures vaguely at everything I guess that makes sense. But I remember people screaming that during the federal election campaigns of 2019 and 2021, and Im not sure thats what really decided those races.

Lets pretend that the screaming people are right, though. If this is about affordability, who has the edge right now? Del Duca and his Buck a Bus transit plan? Horwath with her commitments on health care? Doug on being the guy who sent me several hundred dollars in license plate sticker rebates before the campaign?

Trending Stories

Story continues below advertisement

Colin DMello: Alex, we know your life has become more expensive, your grocery bills have gone up, your mortgage is expensive, the price of gasoline has gone up. Thats why [INSERT PARTY LEADER NAME HERE] is the only leader who can make your life more affordable.

Sound familiar? Thats because all the parties are saying the exact same thing on a macro scale, the only difference being the paths to affordability. So to answer the question of who has the edge more directly: all of the above and none of the above. None of the parties has been able to, to date, present themselves as the singular answer to the affordability question with much effect. But theyll keep trying.

Alex Boutilier: Well, to paraphrase Arrested Development, theres always money in the local riding associations

Right, well, were only a week and a half in, and yet theres less than three weeks to go before E-Day. Next week is a big one, though, with a debate scheduled for Monday night.

Will Horwath rally the provinces progressives to her banner? Will Del Duca once again be everybodys favourite target? Will Doug Ford upgrade his media dodging skills and bring a smoke bomb to escape questioning?

Story continues below advertisement

Tune in on Monday to find out. To be extra prepared, catch up on some of this weeks coverage that you might have missed.

Globals Coverage of the 2022 Ontario Election, Week Two:

Check out Global News promise tracker, keeping tabs on every pledge and policy announced during the campaign.

Liberals drop candidate hours before Elections Ontario deadlineThe Ontario Liberals dropped a third candidate in as many days Thursday after the NDP unearthed Facebook comments he allegedly made that used a slur for gay people. (Nicole Thompson/The Canadian Press)

Ford says Lecce has his full support after slave auction report, subsequent apologyOntario Progressive Conservative Leader Doug Ford says Stephen Lecce has his full support after he apologized in the wake of a report about a slave auction event that happened when Lecce was part of a fraternity at Western University in the 2000s. (Ryan Rocca/Global News)

Doug Ford promises to tighten election financing laws after MPP allowance controversyOntario Progressive Conservative Leader Doug Ford is promising to tighten up election financing rules after a Global News investigation revealed eight PC MPPs were given allowances from their local riding associations paid for by party donors and taxpayers. (Colin DMello/Global News)

The road to Queens Park: parties divided on highways, united on transitOntarios political parties have identified the transport promises they hope will propel them into government at Queens Park after the provincial election on June 2.

Ontario NDP promise to ban MPP allowances from party donorsOntarios NDP is promising to ban the practice of MPPs dipping into riding association funds to pay for expenses, in the wake of a Global News investigation into how donations to the Ontario PC party are being used.

Story continues below advertisement

Doug Ford pledges to continue Highway 7 expansion between Kitchener and Guelph if re-electedOntario PC Party Leader Doug Ford, who made appearances in Kitchener and Cambridge on Thursday, is pledging to continue construction on the expansion of Highway 7 between Kitchener and Guelph.

2022 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

Read the original:

Ontario Votes Roundup: The gloves are off, but did anyone land a punch? - Global News

The claim

Coalition MPs in normally safe, inner city seats have been under threat this election from independent challengers, with climate change a key line of attack.

One of these MPs is Treasurer Josh Frydenberg. When asked on ABC TV's Insidersabout why the government wouldn't be changing its 2030 emissions targets from those set under former prime minister Tony Abbott in 2015, Mr Frydenberg said Australia needed to "do our part".

"We have now reduced our emissions by 20 per cent," he toldhost David Speers on Sunday, May 15.

"In comparison, Canada has seen emissions down by just 1 per cent, New Zealand by just 4 per cent,the OECD average just 7 per cent," he said.

Is he correct? RMIT ABC Fact Check investigates.

Mr Frydenberg's claim is misleading.

The first reasonis that the figures the Treasurer has quoted are from different years.Australia is sourced to 2020, New Zealand and Canada to 2019 and the OECD to 2018.

This inconsistency is particularly problematic as emissionsfigures to 2020 include large reductions as a result of the pandemic, and not government policy, while prior years do not.

Figures for 2020 are available for New Zealand, Canada and 32 of 38 OECD countries.

In line with Mr Frydenberg's claim, Australia's emissions in 2020 were 19.9 per cent lower than in 2005 whenincluding emissions from land use, land-use change and forestry.

While New Zealand's 2020 corresponding reductionof3.1per cent is close to the 2019 figure of 4 per cent used by Mr Frydenberg, the same cannot be said of the others.

Canada's emissions includingland use, land-use change and forestry were 9.7 per cent lower in 2020 than 2005, which is almost 10 times greater than the 2019 figure quoted by Mr Frydenberg.

The corresponding reduction for the 32 OECD countries which have reported figures for 2020 is afall of 20.9 per cent on 2005 levels including land use, land-use change and forestry.

Though this figure doesn't include six OECD countries, it is clear that Australia's reduction is not roughly three times the OECD average.

A further problem is that Mr Frydenberg chose two measures that show Australia's record in a favourable light: astarting year of 2005; and the inclusion ofland use, land-use change and forestry.

If the starting year is changed to 1990, when the United Nation's data begins, and if emissions fromland use, land-use change and forestry areexcluded, which experts have previously told Fact Check enables a fairer comparison between countries, the relative positions look very different.

On this basis, Australia has increased its emissions by 19.9 per cent, on par with New Zealand but underperforming Canada's 13.1 per cent increase and a far cry from the 32 OECD countries on a reduction of 12.9 per cent.

This is not the first time Mr Frydenberg has made this claim.

On April 23, the Treasurer toldABC News Weekend Breakfast: "We've seen our emissions down by 20 per cent on 2005 levels already, which compares to New Zealand at around 4 per cent, Canada at 1 per cent and the OECD average at 7 per cent."

Loading

Shortly after that interview,Fact Check contacted his office to ask for the source of his claim, but received no response on the record.

The Coalition has repeatedly made similar claims before the election campaign.

A Facebook postfrom the Liberal Party in November 2021 claimed a reduction of 20 per cent for Australia, 4 per cent for New Zealand, 1 per cent for Canada and 7 per cent for the OECD on 2005 levels. These figures accord with the figures cited in Mr Frydenberg's claim

Loading

However, buried in the fine print is the admission that the figures for these countries are from completely different sources with completely different finishingyears.

Australia is sourced fromthe government's National Greenhouse Gas Inventory with a finishing year of 2020.

Meanwhile, Canada and New Zealand's data is sourced to 2019, and comes from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Finally, the OECDaverage is sourced fromthe World Resources Institute to 2018, which Fact Check has used as a source in a previous analysis.

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development is comprised of 38countries andis often used as a proxy for developed nations.

Fact Check hasfound two previous, similar,claims made by Prime Minister Scott Morrison on this subject to be misleading.

Most problematic in these claims was that there was no data available for 2020 for thecountries the Prime Minister was comparing with Australia.

This, experts told Fact Check, was not a fair comparison, and awarded a large, pandemic-related reduction in emissions to Australia without taking that into account for other countries.

Furthermore, experts said large falls in emissions between 2019 and 2020 did not have anything to do with government policy.

Once again, Fact Check considers that to make a fair comparison, the same starting and finishing years must be used.

Keeping that in mind, it's important to mention that in the dataset used by the Liberal Party for the OECD, Australia actually increased emissions to 2018 by 3.4 per cent on 2005 levels including land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF).

This puts Australia behind the OECD average a reductionof 6.6per cent, which Fact Check has calculated using the data and roughly accords with the Liberal Party's figure.

The UNFCCC dataused by the Liberal Party for New Zealand and Canada, for the period from2005 to 2019 including land use, land-use change and forestry, shows Australia reduced emissions by 15.2per cent still ahead of New Zealand and Canada but by a smaller margin.

As Fact Check has previously noted, Annex I signatories to the UNFCCC report their data on an annual basis to the convention's secretariatwith a two-year lag. Data for 2019, for example, was reported by these countries in 2021.

Annex I countries arecomprisedof members of the OECD in 1992 "plus countries with economies in transition (the EIT Parties), includingRussia, the Baltic States, and several Central and Eastern European States".

Since Fact Check tested Mr Morrison's lastclaim, all but two Annex I countries Australia and Ukraine have submitted their figures for 2020 to the UNFCCC.

This means that all but six OECD countries, whichare not Annex I signatories Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Israel, Mexico and South Korea have data available for 2020. Annex I countries whichare OECD members other than Australia havesubmitted this data in the secretariat's Common Reporting Format (CRF) tables.

Fact Check has sourced emissions data from these CRF tables for 31 Annex I countries whichare OECD members.

For Australia, Fact Check has used the latest available calendar year figures from the government's NGGI.

On this measure, Australiawith a reduction of 19.9 per cent is below the OECD countries whichare Annex I signatories on 20.9 per cent. Fact Check's calculation of the OECD includes figures for Australia.

Australia is still in front of Canada, with a reduction of 9.7 per cent, but this figure is a far cry from the 1 per cent quoted by Mr Frydenberg.

New Zealand recorded a reduction of 3.1 per cent, which is much closer to the 4 per cent figure quoted by Mr Frydenberg.

However, as Fact Check has previously explained, the inclusion of LULUCF is often controversial in carbon accounting.

The UNFCCCrecogniseshuman activity through land use, land-use change and forestry as a carbon "sink", which can remove carbon from the atmosphere.

Planting trees throughafforestation or reforestation, for example, stores carbon, removing it from the air.

Australia'sGreenhouse Gas Inventoryincludes LULUCF.

But experts previously told Fact Check that there are sometimes issues with the accuracy of measurements, and not all countries have significant LULUCF inventories, which means international comparisons are not always fair.

Furthermore, they said that the inclusion of the category advantages Australia in international comparisons.

Excluding LULUCF in this dataset changes the picture: Australia is ranked behind New Zealand, Canada and the OECD average on this measure.

In fact, there are only two OECD countries whichare Annex I signatories below Australia Iceland and Turkey.

Mr Frydenberg referenced 2005 as his starting year in making his claim.

Experts previously told Fact Check that 1990, the year in which the UNFCCC data begins, is the best year to use as it is the year most countries began their emissions accounts, while acknowledging that all choices of starting years advantage different countries in different ways.

Australia's reductionsincluding LULUCF were similar using1990 and 2005 as the base year, but for some other countries there were large variations.

Including LULUCF, Australia with a reduction of 19.9 per cent on 1990 levels is above the OECD (a reduction of 14.5 per cent).

It is also above Canada and New Zealand whichrecorded increases of 25.3 per cent and 26.2 per cent respectively.

While Australia is above these countries and the OECD, its rank amongst OECD Annex 1 countries, at number 19, does not change whether the starting year is 1990 or 2005.

Excluding LULUCF, Australia recorded an increase of 19.9 per cent on 1990 levels, putting it just above New Zealand with an increase of 20.8 per cent, but below Canada with an increase of 13.1 per cent and the OECDwith a reduction of 12.9per cent.

Complete data for 2020 is not available for the six OECD countries which are not Annex I signatories.

However, the Global Carbon Project, an international research project with a goal to "develop a complete picture of the global carbon cycle",holds data for carbon dioxide emissions for these countries.

Emissions of carbon dioxide make up around three quartersof world emissions, with the rest comprisedof methane, nitrous oxide and smaller trace gases.

This data shows that each of these countries recorded falls in carbon dioxide emissions excluding LULUCF between 2019 and 2020.

In fact, the group of non-Annex I OECD countries recorded a larger dropin carbon dioxide emissions in proportional terms than their Annex I counterparts.

While these figures cannot be extrapolated to total greenhouse gas emissions reductions for 2020, they do demonstrate the impact of the first year of the pandemic on emissions in these countries.

The OECD also holdsemissions data on member countries, with the data ending in 2019.

The organisation sources its data to the UNFCCC as well as well as replies to the organisation's State of the Environment report.

For non-Annex I countries, there is no country-level data for 2019. However, the OECD does provide an estimate of total emissions for member countries, excluding Israel.

It's important to note here that the data held for Annex I countries aligns with submissions these countries made to the UNFCCC in 2021.

Countries update their estimates for previous years every year, so the data may not align with the data sourced from countries' CRF tables above and is slightly out of date.

Nonetheless, it's the most complete and up-to-date estimate of OECD emissions that Fact Check was able to find.

Fact Check has used this estimate to calculate emissions reductions for the OECD. Reductions forCanada, New Zealand and Australia are also calculated from this data in the graph below.

On 2005 levels including LULUCF, the data shows a reduction to 2019 of 15.2 per cent for Australia, 10.6 per cent for the OECD, 4 per cent for New Zealand and 0.9 per cent for Canada. Notably, that puts Australia much closer to the OECDthan Mr Frydenberg's claim.

The margin between Australiaand those Mr Frydenberg compares it to is much smaller in this dataset.

Fact Check has made the same calculations using the OECD data but excluding LULUCF.

On this measure Australia increased emissions to 2019 by 4 per cent. The OECD decreased emissions by 9.6 per cent, while Canada and New Zealand both recorded small decreases.

Changing the starting years in this dataset does little to change these positions on either measure.

On 1990 levels, Australia is in front of New Zealand, Canada and the OECD when LULUCF is included.

But excluding LULUCF, Australia falls behind once again.

A comparison of emissions records can also vary significantly according to finishing year and the dataset used.

As mentioned above, the 2018 dataset chosen by the Liberal Party to cast the OECD in a less favourable light does little to boost Australia's position when measured consistently.

Australia was one of 16 OECD countries whose emissions including LULUCF actually increased between 2005 and 2018.

Australia ranksnot only behind the OECD but also well behind Canada with a reduction of 24.2 per cent.

Australia is still in front of New Zealand in this dataset, which increased emissions by 15.6per cent.

Principal researcher: Elections editor Matt Martino

Here is the original post:

Josh Frydenberg says Australia has achieved a greater reduction in emissions than New Zealand, Canada and the OECD. Is that correct? - ABC News

And thats all from Scott Morrison on A Current Affair - and from the blog. Well be back tomorrow with more breaking news, COVID-19 updates and reporting from the federal election campaign.

Some of the highlights:

- The Prime Minister says he could have been more sensitive to voters as he defended his track record during the pandemic, saying Australia had weathered COVID-19 better than nearly any other country in the world.

- The topic of costings was high on both the Coalition and Labors campaign agendas today, with the Treasurer Josh Frydenberg releasing the Coalitions costings, which includes a 2 per cent increase to the public sector efficiency dividend to save $3.3 billion dollars.

- Shadow treasurer Jim Chalmers has confirmed Labor will unveil bigger debt and deficits before the election, saying a a couple of billion dollars a year is no big deal, and it is time to flick the switch to quality.

-Opposition leader Anthony, meanwhile, said the Labor partys costings would be unveiled on Thursday after declining to provide a specific timeframe yesterday.

- Albanese also said he would like his legacy to be acting on climate, regardless of the election result on Saturday. He also acknowledged his gaffes during the campaign, saying he is human and had an issue with memory recall.

- The latest early voting numbers came in today, indicating 3.75 million Australians have already cast a ballot. The Australian Electoral Commission said 2.6 million voters have prepolled and 1.15 million submitted a postal vote.

- Former Liberal mainstays went on the campaign trail today to convince voters to cast their ballot for a Morrison government. Addressing voter discontent with the Coalition, former prime minister John Howard said people inevitably tire of governments that have been in power for a while but that it should not influence Liberal voters into casting their ballots for independents instead.

Former foreign affairs minister Julie Bishop said teal independent candidates being elected into parliament would eat the heart out of the Liberal Party and threaten its broad electoral appeal in the future.

Read the rest here:

Election 2022: Prime Minister Scott Morrison admits he could have been 'more sensitive' to voters - The Australian Financial Review

news, national,

Australians are poised to hit the polls at the weekend with increasing concern the nation may wake up on Sunday to its second hung parliament in just over a decade. So what is a hung parliament, and is it something that should be feared? In order to form a majority in the Lower House - or House of Representatives (the green one) - either the Australian Labor Party (ALP) or the Liberal Nationals Party need to have won a majority of the available 151 seats. That means, that either party needs to claim a minimum of 76 seats to form a government. If neither party secures this majority, then neither can form a government. In this case, the two-party leaders will appeal to Independent crossbenchers for their support. "When that occurs, the major parties will have to negotiate with the crossbench and try and get them to agree to support them and form a government," said Dr Jacob Deem from the University of Central Queensland. "What they're aiming to do is to convince enough members of the crossbench to support them in confidence motions and in supply. So passing a budget. Those are the two things that any government has to be able to do." Either leader must convince the Governor-General that they have the 'confidence of the house' in order to be sworn in as prime minister. When the two leaders call on the support of the crossbenchers, they need to ensure that the crossbenchers will not support any no-confidence votes, which could derail the sitting government. They also need to ensure that the crossbenchers do not support votes that would stop the supply of ordinary government business - which includes the paying of public servants and social security bills, and the passing of the annual budget. "And so they'll be looking to get agreement from enough minor party or independent members to support them on those particular motions," Dr Deem said. "To do that, the crossbench will have their own list of demands or things that they would like to achieve, and like any negotiation, it'll be a question of how far each party is willing to go to compromise and meet those demands." That depends on how quickly the leaders can garner the official support of the crossbenchers and it depends on how many crossbenchers are needed to sway a majority. The last hung parliament in Australia occurred in 2010 when both Labor's Julia Gillard and Liberal's Tony Abbott managed to land just 72 seats each. The power was then in the hands of six crossbenchers who took 17 days to deliberate on which side of parliament they would lend their support. In the end, Bob Katter, Rob Oakeshott, and Tony Windsor voted for Julia Gillard to return as prime minister, which was enough for the Labor leader to be sworn in again as prime minister. "It's not quick," Dr Deem said. "It depends on how big the crossbench is. If the major parties only need to convince one or two crossbenchers, it can be a few days. "But if there's a big crossbench as we might see in this election, then it might really drag out as those last few independent members take their time to consider all their options and see who's willing to meet their demands and give them what they're looking to achieve in For those 17 days in waiting back in 2010, Julia Gillard was installed as a caretaker prime minister to maintain some governance in the interim. Before 2010, a hung parliament had not happened in Australia in more than 70 years. In fact, the last one before 2010 was back in World War II. So hung parliaments are not at all common in Australia. That really depends on your perspective. It could mean more accountability for the sitting government, but it also could mean more difficulty in passing legislation. "Potentially, the government of the day is held to ransom by a few independents or a few people representing only a tiny portion of the population," Dr Deem said. "On the other hand, it ensures that the government doesn't get to just do whatever it wants. There's extra review, there are extra considerations that they have to take into account before they try and do anything." Despite her minority government, from 2010 to 2013, Labor's Julia Gillard managed to pass more legislation than term of government. "Julia Gillard herself was a very good negotiator," Dr Deem said. "So the minority government definitely made things harder for her, but she was able to overcome those challenges." Though that too became its own double-edged sword, since some of the legislation the Gillard Government pushed through ended up losing the election for Labor in 2013. "The really tricky thing for Julia Gillard was that in order to get the full support of the crossbench, she had to concede to the Greens that they wanted to put a price on carbon which became referred to as the 'carbon tax' and that ultimately was very unpopular and brought down that government," Dr Deem said. "So these negotiations, these compromises to the crossbench can be quite a long run for the party seeking to form a government."

/images/transform/v1/crop/frm/Emma.Horn/279fb537-f6bf-4c06-85c2-6a54a9065f47.jpg/r5_0_1915_1079_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg

WATCH

May 17 2022 - 7:00AM

So what is a hung parliament, and is it something that should be feared?

What is a hung parliament?

In order to form a majority in the Lower House - or House of Representatives (the green one) - either the Australian Labor Party (ALP) or the Liberal Nationals Party need to have won a majority of the available 151 seats.

That means, that either party needs to claim a minimum of 76 seats to form a government.

If neither party secures this majority, then neither can form a government. In this case, the two-party leaders will appeal to Independent crossbenchers for their support.

"When that occurs, the major parties will have to negotiate with the crossbench and try and get them to agree to support them and form a government," said Dr Jacob Deem from the University of Central Queensland.

"What they're aiming to do is to convince enough members of the crossbench to support them in confidence motions and in supply. So passing a budget. Those are the two things that any government has to be able to do."

Either leader must convince the Governor-General that they have the 'confidence of the house' in order to be sworn in as prime minister.

HUNG UP: If neither party obtains a majority of the 151 seats in the House of Representatives, it results in a hung parliament.

What's in it for the independents?

They also need to ensure that the crossbenchers do not support votes that would stop the supply of ordinary government business - which includes the paying of public servants and social security bills, and the passing of the annual budget.

"And so they'll be looking to get agreement from enough minor party or independent members to support them on those particular motions," Dr Deem said.

"To do that, the crossbench will have their own list of demands or things that they would like to achieve, and like any negotiation, it'll be a question of how far each party is willing to go to compromise and meet those demands."

How long does it take to form a government?

The last hung parliament in Australia occurred in 2010 when both Labor's Julia Gillard and Liberal's Tony Abbott managed to land just 72 seats each.

The power was then in the hands of six crossbenchers who took 17 days to deliberate on which side of parliament they would lend their support.

In the end, Bob Katter, Rob Oakeshott, and Tony Windsor voted for Julia Gillard to return as prime minister, which was enough for the Labor leader to be sworn in again as prime minister.

"It's not quick," Dr Deem said.

"It depends on how big the crossbench is. If the major parties only need to convince one or two crossbenchers, it can be a few days.

"But if there's a big crossbench as we might see in this election, then it might really drag out as those last few independent members take their time to consider all their options and see who's willing to meet their demands and give them what they're looking to achieve in

For those 17 days in waiting back in 2010, Julia Gillard was installed as a caretaker prime minister to maintain some governance in the interim.

Before 2010, a hung parliament had not happened in Australia in more than 70 years. In fact, the last one before 2010 was back in World War II. So hung parliaments are not at all common in Australia.

Is a hung parliament a bad thing?

That really depends on your perspective. It could mean more accountability for the sitting government, but it also could mean more difficulty in passing legislation.

"Potentially, the government of the day is held to ransom by a few independents or a few people representing only a tiny portion of the population," Dr Deem said.

"On the other hand, it ensures that the government doesn't get to just do whatever it wants. There's extra review, there are extra considerations that they have to take into account before they try and do anything."

Despite her minority government, from 2010 to 2013, Labor's Julia Gillard managed to pass more legislation than term of government.

"Julia Gillard herself was a very good negotiator," Dr Deem said.

"So the minority government definitely made things harder for her, but she was able to overcome those challenges."

Though that too became its own double-edged sword, since some of the legislation the Gillard Government pushed through ended up losing the election for Labor in 2013.

"The really tricky thing for Julia Gillard was that in order to get the full support of the crossbench, she had to concede to the Greens that they wanted to put a price on carbon which became referred to as the 'carbon tax' and that ultimately was very unpopular and brought down that government," Dr Deem said.

"So these negotiations, these compromises to the crossbench can be quite a long run for the party seeking to form a government."

Read the original here:

2022 Federal Election: What is a hung parliament? - Daily Liberal