Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frederic Gachon, Associate Professor, Physiology of Circadian Rhythms, Institute for Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland

This is the next article in our ‘Light and health’ series, where we look at how light affects our physical and mental health in sometimes surprising ways. Read other articles in the series here.

Exposure to light is crucial for our physical and mental health, as this and future articles in the series will show.

But the timing of that light exposure is also crucial. This tells our body to wake up in the morning, when to poo and the time of day to best focus or be alert. When we’re exposed to light also controls our body temperature, blood pressure and even chemical reactions in our body.

But how does our body know when it’s time to do all this? And what’s light got to do with it?

What is the body clock, actually?

One of the key roles of light is to re-set our body clock, also known as the circadian clock. This works like an internal oscillator, similar to an actual clock, ticking away as you read this article.

But rather than ticking you can hear, the body clock is a network of genes and proteins that regulate each other. This network sends signals to organs via hormones and the nervous system. These complex loops of interactions and communications have a rhythm of about 24 hours.

In fact, we don’t have one clock, we have trillions of body clocks throughout the body. The central clock is in the hypothalamus region of the brain, and each cell in every organ has its own. These clocks work in concert to help us adapt to the daily cycle of light and dark, aligning our body’s functions with the time of day.

However, our body clock is not precise and works to a rhythm of about 24 hours (24 hours 30 minutes on average). So every morning, the central clock needs to be reset, signalling the start of a new day. This is why light is so important.

The central clock is directly connected to light-sensing cells in our retinas (the back of the eye). This daily re-setting of the body clock with morning light is essential for ensuring our body works well, in sync with our environment.

In parallel, when we eat food also plays a role in re-setting the body clock, but this time the clock in organs other than the brain, such as the liver, kidneys or the gut.

So it’s easy to see how our daily routines are closely linked with our body clocks. And in turn, our body clocks shape how our body works at set times of the day.

What time of day?

Let’s take a closer look at sleep

The naturally occurring brain hormone melatonin is linked to our central clock and makes us feel sleepy at certain times of day. When it’s light, our body stops making melatonin (its production is inhibited) and we are alert. Closer to bedtime, the hormone is made, then secreted, making us feel drowsy.

Our sleep is also partly controlled by our genes, which are part of our central clock. These genes influence our chronotype – whether we are a “lark” (early riser), “night owl” (late sleeper) or a “dove” (somewhere in between).

But exposure to light at night when we are supposed to be sleeping can have harmful effects. Even dim light from light pollution can impair our heart rate and how we metabolise sugar (glucose), may lead to psychiatric disorders such as depression, anxiety and bipolar disorder, and increases the overall risk of premature death.

The main reason for these harmful effects is that light “at the wrong time” disturbs the body clock, and these effects are more pronounced for “night owls”.

This “misaligned” exposure to light is also connected to the detrimental health effects we often see in people who work night shifts, such as an increased risk of cancer, diabetes and heart disease.

How about the gut?

Digestion also follows a circadian rhythm. Muscles in the colon that help move waste are more active during the day and slow down at night.

The most significant increase in colon movement starts at 6.30am. This is one of the reasons why most people feel the urge to poo in the early morning rather than at night.

The gut’s day-night rhythm is a direct result of the action of the gut’s own clock and the central clock (which synchronises the gut with the rest of the body). It’s also influenced by when we eat.

How about focusing?

Our body clock also helps control our attention and alertness levels by changing how our brain functions at certain times of day. Attention and alertness levels improve in the afternoon and evening but dip during the night and early morning.

Those fluctuations impact performance and can lead to decreased productivity and an increased risk of errors and accidents during the less-alert hours.

So it’s important to perform certain tasks that require our attention at certain times of day. That includes driving. In fact, disruption of the circadian clock at the start of daylight savings – when our body hasn’t had a chance to adapt to the clocks changing – increases the risk of a car accident, particularly in the morning.

What else does our body clock control?

Our body clock influences many other aspects of our biology, including:

• physical performance by controlling the activity of our muscles
• blood pressure by controlling the system of hormones involved in regulating our blood volume and blood vessels
• body temperature by controlling our metabolism and our level of physical activity
• how our body handles drugs and toxins by controlling enzymes involved in how the liver and kidneys eliminate these substances from the body.

Morning light is important

But what does this all mean for us? Exposure to light, especially in the morning, is crucial for synchronising our circadian clock and bodily functions.

As well as setting us up for a good night’s sleep, increased morning light exposure benefits our mental health and reduces the risk of obesity. So boosting our exposure to morning light – for example, by going for a walk, or having breakfast outside – can directly benefit our mental and metabolic health.

However, there are other aspects about which we have less control, including the genes that control our body clock.

Frederic Gachon is currently receiving funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the Velux Stiftung, and the US National Institute of Health. He has previously received funding from the French Institute for Medical Research and Health (INSERM: 2006-2008), the Swiss National Science Foundation (2010-2012), the European Research Council (2011- 2015) and the Leenaards Foundation (2012-2014). He also worked for Nestlé (2012-2017) where he received industry funding.

Benjamin Weger is currently receiving funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) Investigator Grant (2016334) and the Alzheimer’s Association Research Fellowship (US, AARF-22-917584). He was also an employee of Nestec, a subsidiary of the Nestlé group, from 2014 to 2018.

– ref. How light tells you when to sleep, focus and poo – https://theconversation.com/how-light-tells-you-when-to-sleep-focus-and-poo-236780

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Weeks, Associate Senior Research Scientist, The University of Melbourne

The dingo was completely isolated from other canines on the Australian mainland for more than 5,000 years, until domestic dogs arrived on the scene. Subsequent concerns about livestock loss formed the basis of Australia’s “wild dog” (dingo) pest control programs, which continue today. Stretching 5,614km across Australia, the “dingo fence” or “dog fence” was built in the 1880s to keep dingoes away from livestock in the southeast.

Dingoes are protected as a threatened species in Victoria. But dingo–dog hybrids are considered pests, and therefore allowed to be killed.

Unfortunately, past research claimed to find evidence dingo-dog hybrids are common in the wild across eastern Australia. This research has been used to defend the trapping, poisoning and shooting of these animals in some parts of Australia, particularly Victoria.

But other studies and now our new genetic research show dingoes are not breeding with domestic dogs in the wild. Rather, they are maintaining their independence as a unique evolutionary branch.

Our research also highlights the precarious state of dingo populations in Victoria. We fear dingo genetic diversity will continue to decline as long as lethal control measures are used. Ironically, this could prompt dingoes to mate with dogs to survive.

Two tales of Victorian dingoes

Victoria has two main populations of dingoes: northwestern and eastern.

The northwestern population consists of as few as 40 dingoes and is protected.

But the eastern population of 2,640–8,800 dingoes is not fully protected. Lethal control measures are allowed on private land and on public land within 3km of a private land boundary. This “unprotection order”, introduced to safeguard livestock, was recently extended until 2028.

In 2022 alone, 683 dingoes were trapped and shot on public land as part of the Victorian wild dog program. But this number doesn’t include deaths from baiting programs, or farmers shooting dingoes on private land. Altogether, it’s estimated up to 1,500 dingoes are killed in eastern Victoria each year.

This means a substantial proportion of the eastern Victorian population is being killed every year. Even if population size is maintained despite culling, it may still reduce genetic diversity.

The threat of inbreeding

When a population shrinks, related individuals start to breed with each other. Inbreeding decrease litter size, increase deformities and pup deaths, and reduce resistance to diseases.

We think this is already happening in the northwestern population. Our research shows its genetic diversity is critically low. Recent observations of tail deformities underscore the potential consequences of low genetic diversity.

What we did and what we found

We obtained 434 frozen canine DNA or tissue samples for genetic analysis, from organisations around Australia.

The Victorian samples mainly came from the state’s wild dog program (2014–19). Other samples came from government officers, private landholders, conservation groups and dog owners.

Most (380) of the samples were originally collected in the field from free-ranging animals believed to be either pure dingoes or potential dingo–dog hybrids.

The remaining 54 samples came from domestic and captive animals. These were 39 domestic dogs, seven known hybrids born in captivity, and eight known “backcrossed” dingo–dog hybrid × dingo crosses born in captivity.

We found the free-ranging animals were all dingoes. They fell into one of three distinct groups: alpine, desert or mallee. They were distinct from the domestic dogs and known hybrids born in captivity.

The results also revealed low genetic diversity in all three dingo groups.

The isolated population in northwest Victoria is in particularly bad shape. Local extinction is probable in the near future. That’s why the unprotection order was lifted there.

If culling of the eastern population continues, it could soon follow suit.

Ongoing decline may prompt desperate measures

The ongoing unprotection order is likely to further diminish genetic diversity. As dingo numbers decline and options for mates become increasingly limited, this could force dingoes to mate with dogs.

In North America, hunting of red wolves decimated their populations, while the numbers of coyotes increased, forcing these two species to hybridise.

Mating with domestic dogs may actually increase dingo genetic diversity and allay concerns about inbreeding. But the implications will be profound, not just for the dingo itself, but for the ecosystem, Traditional Owners and even graziers. Balancing livestock protection against conservation of this iconic species is more crucial now than ever before.

In the next decade or so, Victorian dingoes may reach a “genetic cliff” where their genetic decline is irreversible. So it is essential to develop strategies that both support graziers and the unique dingo lineage.

Several non-lethal management strategies have been previously described. These need to be further developed with input from graziers, so they can be applied effectively across Victoria.

Treading a different path

Our research reveals dingoes remain genetically distinct from domestic dogs, despite more than 200 years of coexistence. This is consistent with recent research challenging previous claims about widespread interbreeding.

Unfortunately, our research also found low genetic diversity in all dingo populations. We are continuing to explore the genetic state of dingoes across Australia using new genomic approaches. This work promises to provide more insight into the decline of this iconic Australian animal.

In the meantime, we urge governments across Australia to consider the biological consequences of killing dingoes. It is becoming increasingly clear that “wild dog” control programs are contributing to their genetic decline.

Andrew Weeks is an Adjunct Research Fellow at the University of Melbourne and a Director of Cesar Australia, a small research based company that works in the fields of sustainable agriculture and biodiversity conservation. He receives funding from the Victorian Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action.

Collin Ahrens is a Visiting Fellow at the Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment at Western Sydney University and a Senior Geneticist of Cesar Australia, a small research based company that works in the fields of sustainable agriculture and biodiversity conservation. He receives funding from the Victorian Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action.

– ref. Dingoes are not mating with dogs – but that could soon change if the culling continues – https://theconversation.com/dingoes-are-not-mating-with-dogs-but-that-could-soon-change-if-the-culling-continues-241350

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Thomas, Lecturer in Middle East Studies, Deakin University

Israel’s strike on military targets in Iran over the weekend is becoming a more routine occurrence in the decades-long rivalry between the two states.

Israel has conducted low-level or “unofficial” operations in Iran in the past, but since the October 7 2023 Hamas attacks on southern Israel and subsequent Israeli war in Gaza, tensions between Iran and Israel have spilled over into direct military confrontation for the first time.

While the consequences of this particular strike are not yet clear, it does show that the violence in the Middle East is not winding down any time soon. This is also a clear example of how easily one conflict – in this case, Gaza – can expand into new conflicts with unintended consequences.

But there are other dimensions at play beyond Gaza and the Palestinians. Relations between Israel and post-revolutionary Iran have never been good. The Iranian government has called for the destruction of Israel, and Israel has used its foreign intelligence service, Mossad, to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program with assassinations and cyber warfare.

In its most recent direct attack on Iran, Israel struck military targets from the air in the provinces of Tehran, Khuzestan and Ilam, causing minor damage to military installations and killing four soldiers. Israel had consulted the US State Department about its plans, but the US was not directly involved in the strikes.

Though Tehran has played down the extent of the damage, the Iranian regime has not ruled out a response, which should keep the region on edge for weeks to come. In fact, some hardliners in the Iranian parliament say the strike crossed a red line and a response is necessary.

Who’s to blame here?

Answering the question of “who started it?” in this conflict is not that simple.

If you were to ask the Iranians, they would say the first escalation came in early April when Israel struck an Iranian diplomatic compound in Damascus, Syria, killing two senior Iranian generals, among others.

If you were to ask the Israelis, they would say that attacks by Hezbollah in northern Israel over the past year are effectively Iran throwing the first stone, as Hezbollah is a militant proxy of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Iran has responded to Israeli strikes on its territory twice with barrages of rockets and explosive drones – once in retaliation for the consulate strike and again in early October after Ismail Haniyeh, one of the leaders of Hamas, was killed by a strike in Tehran. Israel’s latest airstrike was in direct response to Iran’s early October retaliation.

US President Joe Biden said after the latest Israeli attack, “I hope this is the end” – an effort to urge both parties to halt their escalations. But unfortunately it is not his call to make.

Maintaining a delicate balance

There is a reason why direct military strikes between nations are rare, even between sworn enemies. When attacking another state, it is difficult to know exactly how they will respond, though a retaliatory strike is almost often expected.

This is because defence forces are not just used for fighting and winning wars – they are also vital to deterring them. When a fighting force is attacked, it’s important for it to strike back to maintain the perception it can deter future attacks and make a display of its capabilities. This is what is happening right now between Israel and Iran – neither side wants to appear weak.

If this is the case, where does the escalation end? De-escalation is essentially a game of chicken – one side has to be content with not responding to an attack to take the temperature down.

But there are equal pressures on states to choose to respond to an attack or de-escalate.

On the one hand, showing that your military is incapable of responding to an external threat is unacceptable, and theoretically invites further attacks. An unused deterrent is not a deterrent.

On the other, there’s the risk a retaliation could spiral into all-out conflict with your adversary. In the case of Israel and Iran this would almost certainly mean the involvement of US forces – a dire prospect.

Thankfully, this outcome is unlikely. There are signs both Iran and Israel are using their strikes to “save face” and maintain their deterrence capability rather than escalate tensions further, given the fact both made strikes on nonessential targets.

Both sides have reasons to avoid a larger conflict. Israel has just opened a second front against its adversaries by targeting Hezbollah in Lebanon and would face the largest conventional fighting force in the region if an all-out war broke out with Iran.

And Iran’s leaders have been under pressure domestically in recent years due to widespread public discontent. Iran would much rather continue to attack Israel through its proxies and maintain plausible deniability, as a direct war could threaten the regime’s survival.

But this latest strike is also a reminder that the longer conflicts go on, the less likely they are to remain contained. For over a year, the war in Gaza has raised tensions in the region to a fever pitch. A ceasefire would go a long way to reducing these tensions and stop the spread of political violence across the region – before it’s too late.

Andrew Thomas does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Israel and Iran are playing a dangerous game of chicken that will be impossible to contain forever – https://theconversation.com/israel-and-iran-are-playing-a-dangerous-game-of-chicken-that-will-be-impossible-to-contain-forever-242275

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

Often state elections don’t mean much federally, but Saturday’s Queensland’s result does carry implications for Anthony Albanese, Peter Dutton and Adam Bandt.

Neither the prime minister nor the opposition leader will have missed the fact the actual campaign mattered. The new LNP government is headed to a comfortable majority but go back some time and Labor feared a wipeout.

Initially, that prompted the replacement of Annastacia Palaszczuk with Steven Miles less than a year ago.

Fast forward to the campaign, and a comparison between the pre-poll votes and the votes cast on Saturday shows how Labor clawed back some support during the final dash to the finish.

This pattern might make both federal leaders nervous. Albanese ran a relatively poor campaign in 2022. Looking back further, remember how the campaign went badly for Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull in 2016, and for Prime Minister Julia Gillard in 2010.

Peter Dutton is an unknown quantity in leading an election campaign, when scrutiny is intense and small things can blow out of proportion.

In Queensland we saw, once again, that scare campaigns are effective, and that Labor in particular is good at them.

Miles and state Labor seized on suggestions that women’s access to abortion could be rolled back by the LNP, perhaps via a private a member’s bill from Katter’s Australian Party (KAP) and a conscience vote for LNP MPs.

LNP leader David Crisafulli, likely sensitive to division within his own ranks, failed to react skillfully to the potential damage this issue could do him. He did not jump on it hard enough, early enough. Some shifty answers stoked fears and made him look dodgy.

Federal Liberals realise the risk of the abortion issue, which has seen passionate debate in parliament in the past even though the federal jurisdiction touches it only marginally.

When a couple of Nationals – senator Jacinta Price and Barnaby Joyce – aired their anti abortion views in the last week they were slapped down by Liberal women.

While abortion might be hard to mobilise as a federal issue in the coming election, scare campaigns can arise on all sorts of things, and unpredictably. Remember Labor’s “Mediscare” in 2016.

Parties have to be quick to recognise the potency of a scare, and deal with it effectively. Once it gets away it spreads like a bushfire, especially in the social media age of campaigning.

The state result will give heart to Dutton’s strategy of targeting the outer suburbs. As ABC election analyst Antony Green pointed out, the anti-Labor swing “was smaller in the south east than in regional Queensland, and smaller in inner Brisbane compared to outer Brisbane”.

More widely, in Australia the trend in recent years is towards Labor becoming the party of inner urban voters and the Liberals targeting outer suburbia.

The federal Greens will need to do some self-questioning about their strategy after their Queensland result. While their overall vote was not hit they appear certain of only one of their two state seats. They had talked up expectations of expanding their numbers.

This comes after seat losses at this month’s ACT election and a poor performance in the New South Wales local government election.

In 2022 the Greens increased their House of Representatives numbers from one to four, by winning three Queensland seats, two from the Coalition (Brisbane and Ryan) and one (Griffith) from Labor.

In this term of federal parliament, the Greens have become more extreme in their positions. The Middle East conflict has pushed this left-wing party further to the left. High profile Greens Max Chandler-Mather, from Queensland, appeared at a pro-CFMEU rally. The Greens have played hardball on some key government legislation.

As they review their situation, the Greens might be wise to cut a deal sooner rather than later on the housing bills they are holding up in the Senate. They have sought to make housing a high-priority issue for them, and could alienate voters they are targeting by continuing to hold out on measures the government argues will contribute to easing the housing crisis.

Finally, both the federal government and the Coalition will be able to see advantages in this result.

For the Coalition there is the golden threat of a conservative victory which, together with the federal polls, it can take as suggesting national opinion is, to a greater or lesser extent, moving in its favour.

Labor can look to silver linings. While the cost of living, an issue hitting the Albanese government hard federally, was central in the Queensland election, so was crime, as well as the “it’s time” factor. Crime was a distinctly state matter, and the Albanese government is looking for a second term, not a fourth one.

Federal Labor’s hope is that now voters have “vented” at a state level, they might be – despite the cost-of-living pressures – in a more benign mood when next year’s federal election comes.

For those in Queensland, that mood will also be influenced by how the Crisafulli government performs in the next few months, in meeting public expectations and avoiding missteps.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. View from The Hill: Queensland’s lessons for Anthony Albanese, Peter Dutton and Adam Bandt’s band – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-queenslands-lessons-for-anthony-albanese-peter-dutton-and-adam-bandts-band-242213

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Pandanus Petter, Research Fellow School of Politics and International Relations, Australian National University

David Crisafulli, leader of the centre-right Liberal National Party of Queensland (LNP), will be Queensland’s 41st Premier. The party will form majority government for the first time since 2012.

Late Saturday night, Crisafulli claimed a victory of “hope over fear”, following a campaign dominated by messaging around youth crime, cost of living, housing and health crisises.

Although earlier polling was projecting a landslide to the LNP, Steven Miles’ three-term Labor party were able to narrow this lead in the final week of campaigning.

While there will be a change of government, the result wasn’t as decisive as many expected. As the vote counts trickled in on election night, they revealed a fragmented picture of who Queenslanders want in their parliament.

Read more:
LNP wins Queensland election, likely with a clear majority

LNP success in the regions

Miles campaigned vigorously on bread and butter, cost of living issues while promising more state involvement and regulation in housing, energy retail and petrol stations.

This looks to have played well in their heartland seats in Brisbane, Ipswich and Logan where they have likely returned South Brisbane and Ipswich West to the fold. Labor lost the former to The Greens in 2020 and the latter to the LNP in a by-election earlier in 2024.

Despite this, with their laser focus on youth crime, the LNP made strong gains across the state, particularly on the North and central Queensland coasts.

They even took Mackay, a seat Labor has held for more than a century.

The LNP harmonised their heavy focus on crime with the selection of candidates. Some were high-profile victims of crime campaigners (such as in Capalaba, just outside of Brisbane). Others had a background in law enforcement.

How did the minor parties fare?

While the primary vote for the Greens increased modestly, they fell short of the election results they had hoped for. Having campaigned hard in four inner Brisbane seats in particular, the party has failed to pick up any seats so far, though they’re ahead in Maiwar.

Despite their efforts to pick up more seats in Queensland’s north, the parliament will likely continue on with a contingent of three or four Katter’s Australian Party MPs.

Popular independent Sandy Bolton was reelected in Noosa, while One Nation failed to secure a seat after running a candidate in all 93 electorates.

But the LNP will govern with a majority. It is one Crisafulli last night said they would use with “humility and decency”, in order to “govern for a long time”.

This was likely alluding to possible lessons learned from the LNP’s short-lived success last time around.

But it was also foreshadowing challenges he will face as a leader.

Who’s the new premier?

Like many politicians, Crisafulli will point to his early upbringing as teaching valuable lessons along his pathway to the premiership.

The 45-year-old was born in Ingham in North Queensland, the son and grandson of Italian migrants who run a successful sugarcane farm.

In his maiden speech in 2012, he attributed his success to his upbringing on the farm, the discipline he learned at local Catholic primary and secondary schools and the skills acquired working as a journalist during and after his days at James Cook University (where he was also known for competitive spaghetti eating).

He can claim to be able to understand the needs of rural constituents and those in the far north, who often feel neglected compared to the more densely populated south-east.

Despite this, his later career shows that he’s not tied down to that rural identity. It also shows he can’t claim to be an amateur politician.

Although he wasn’t involved in student politics, his political education began early as a media advisor for former Howard Minister Ian McDonald.

He demonstrated energy and ambition which have remained hallmarks of his career when he took a successful tilt at usually Labor-dominated Townsville politics, becoming the youngest ever councillor in 2004 and deputy mayor in 2008.

He joined state parliament in the bellwether seat of Mundingburra as part of Campbell Newman’s 2012 wipeout of Labor.

However, his time as a cabinet minister and high public profile weren’t enough to save him from a bitter exit from parliament when the electorate swung back towards Labor in 2015.

After reinventing himself as a Gold Coast based business consultant, he began his ascent anew by successfully defeating the incumbent in the safe LNP seat of Broadwater.

After the party lost the 2020 election, Crisafulli took over the party leadership.

He remained constantly on the move, unusually not residing permanently in his electorate but instead travelling the state extensively.

Crisafulli has focused on keeping public attention on crises (so-called or real) in youth crime (even promising to resign if he couldn’t quickly quash crime rates).

He also campaigned on health services and home-ownership and cost of living.

In aid of this goal, he mirrored many Labor party commitments to cost-of-living relief, such as cheaper public transport. Unusually, Crisafulli even agreed to honour their budget commitments sight unseen.

But on more controversial issues of interest to the party’s conservative base, he’s shown a tendency to try to avoid being nailed down.

This was most clear on the issue of abortion. Late in the campaign, Crisafulli said he supported “a woman’s right to choose”, but hasn’t ruled out a conscience vote on the subject.

Read more:
Labor looks set for a resounding defeat in Queensland. But the state’s elections have long thrown up surprises

Otherwise, he has only moved the party decisively to the right when he could claim to be following public opinion. For example, he abandoned bipartisan support for a Pathway to Treaty with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders after the unsuccessful Voice referendum.

Interestingly, Crisafulli has shown a willingness to disagree with his federal counterparts on nuclear energy.

Given he’s staked his leadership and credibility on addressing thorny problems in housing, health, crime and cost of living, he may have to take some big political risks.

Given the voters of Queensland have gifted him a majority, which in Queensland’s parliament comes with few restrictions on power, how well he’ll manage to avoid the mistakes of the Newman era remains to be seen.

Pandanus Petter is employed at the Australian National University with funding from The Australian Research Council.

– ref. David Crisafulli will lead the first LNP government in Queensland in a decade. Who is he? – https://theconversation.com/david-crisafulli-will-lead-the-first-lnp-government-in-queensland-in-a-decade-who-is-he-240906

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

With 45% of enrolled voters counted in today’s Queensland state election, The Poll Bludger’s results have the Liberal National Party (LNP) winning 38 of the 93 seats, Labor 26, Katter’s Australian Party (KAP) three and independents one.

Including undecided seats where one party is ahead, it’s 49 LNP, 39 Labor, three KAP, one Green and one independent. A majority is achieved with 47 seats, so the LNP are on track for a majority.

The statewide two-party estimate is a 53.1–46.9 win to the LNP, a 6.3% swing to the LNP since the 2020 election. Current primary votes are 40.9% LNP (up 5.7%), 33.4% Labor (down 6.6%), 10.3% Greens (up 0.7%), 7.8% One Nation (up 1.0%) and 2.3% KAP (down 0.3%).

As pre-poll and postal votes have come in, the swing to the LNP has increased as these votes have had stronger swings to the LNP than election day votes. There are many more pre-poll and postals still to be counted, so it’s more likely that the LNP will exceed its current projections than fall below them.

I believe the Resolve poll that gave the LNP a 53–47 lead will be the most accurate. While Labor recovered from landslide defeat margins in polls taken about the middle of this year, it wasn’t enough. The uComms poll that gave the LNP just a 51–49 lead two days before the election was poor.

The Greens lost South Brisbane to Labor, after the LNP recommended preferences to Labor on their how-to-vote material after recommending preferences to the Greens in 2020. Analyst Kevin Bonham said this is the first time the Greens have lost a single-member seat that they won at the previous general election.

The key reasons for Labor’s defeat were an “it’s time” factor, as Labor has governed since winning the January 2015 election, the federal Labor government tending to hurt state Labor parties, and Queensland easily being the most pro-Coalition state at the 2022 federal election.

At that election, Queensland was the only state where the Coalition won the two-party vote (by 54.1–45.9). The second best state for the Coalition was New South Wales, where Labor won the two-party vote by 51.4–48.6.

Labor’s defeat in Queensland will give some assistance to federal Labor. An unpopular and old Queensland Labor government would have hindered federal Labor’s prospects in Queensland at the federal election that is due by May 2025.

Late polls

The Newspoll and uComms poll were both released after Wednesday’s preview article on the Queensland election.

A Newspoll, conducted October 18–24 from a sample of 1,151, had given the LNP a 52.5–57.5 lead, a 2.5-point gain for Labor since a mid-September Newspoll. Primary votes were 42% LNP (steady), 33% Labor (up three), 11% Greens (down one), 8% One Nation (steady) and 6% for all Others (down two).

Labor premier Steven Miles gained seven points for a -3 net approval, with 48% dissatisfied and 45% satisfied. LNP leader David Crisafulli’s net approval plunged 15 points to -3. Miles led Crisafulli by 45–42 as better premier, a reversal from a 46–39 Crisafulli lead in September.

A uComms poll that was conducted Thursday from a sample of 3,651 using robopolling, gave the LNP a 51–49 lead. Bonham had primary votes from this poll, which was not commissioned by anyone. The primary votes were 39.3% LNP, 33.6% Labor, 12.9% Greens, 7.8% One Nation, 2.9% KAP and 3.5% others.

Federal Essential poll: Labor slumps and Dutton’s ratings jump

A national Essential poll, conducted October 16–20 from a sample of 1,140, gave the Coalition a 48–46 lead including undecided (49–47 to Labor in early October). Primary votes were 35% Coalition (up one), 28% Labor (down four), 12% Greens (steady), 7% One Nation (down one), 2% UAP (up one), 9% for all Others (steady) and 6% undecided (up one).

Anthony Albanese’s net approval improved one point from September to -4, with 48% disapproving and 44% approving. He has improved six points since August. Peter Dutton’s net approval jumped six points to +6, his best in any poll this term.

King Charles had a 50–26 approval rating. By 45–39, voters supported Australia becoming a republic (42–35 in January). On Australia’s colonial history, 26% thought it something we should be proud of, 12% something we should be ashamed of and 62% said it had both positive and negative elements.

On the National Anti-Corruption Commission, 46% thought it is largely operating as intended but could be improved, 14% wanted it abolished and 10% said it’s successful.

Freshwater poll: Coalition holds narrow lead

A national Freshwater poll for The Financial Review, conducted October 18–20 from a sample of 1,034, gave the Coalition a 51–49 lead, a one-point gain for Labor since the September Freshwater poll. Primary votes were 41% Coalition (down one), 30% Labor (steady), 13% Greens (steady) and 16% for all Others.

Albanese’s net approval was up one point to -14, with 49% unfavourable and 35% favourable. Dutton’s net approval improved two points to -2. Albanese was just ahead as preferred PM by 44–43 (45–41 in September).

Asked about Albanese buying a $4.3 million house, 52% said it had no impact on their view of him, 36% said it had worsened their view and 4% improved their view.

Cost of living remained the top issue with 72% saying it was important. The Coalition retained a 14-point lead over Labor on this issue and a 16-point lead on managing the economy.

Morgan poll: Labor jumps ahead

A national Morgan poll, conducted October 14–20 from a sample of 1,687, gave Labor a 52–48 lead, a two-point gain for Labor since the October 7–13 Morgan poll.

Primary votes were 36.5% Coalition (down one), 32% Labor (up two), 13.5% Greens (down 0.5), 5.5% One Nation (down 0.5), 9% independents (steady) and 3.5% others (steady).

The headline figure uses respondent preferences. By 2022 election preference flows, Labor led by 53–47, a two-point gain for Labor.

Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. LNP wins Queensland election, likely with a clear majority – https://theconversation.com/lnp-wins-queensland-election-likely-with-a-clear-majority-241918

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laura Ginters, Associate Professor, Department of Theatre and Performance Studies, University of Sydney

After nearly 20 years as a lecture theatre, the University of Sydney’s Footbridge Theatre is reopening as a live performance venue in the university’s arts precinct.

The Footbridge is home to a long history of student theatre on campus. When it opened in 1961 as the 655-seat Union Theatre (replacing the old Union Hall) it was the first theatre to have been built in Sydney in more than 20 years.

Hopes were high for the new venture to be shared by student theatre groups and Sydney’s first professional repertory company, the Union Repertory Theatre Company (not to be confused with the Melbourne Theatre Company’s original name, the Union Theatre Repertory Company).

For decades, the Footbridge Theatre was host to both industry heavyweights and budding talent from across the arts sectors, before being converted to a lecture hall in 2006. Now, it’s back.

Hitting the ground running

The theatre opened with productions from the Sydney University Musical Society, including Claudio Monteverdi’s ballet Il Ballo Delle Ingrate and Henry Purcell’s opera Dido and Aeneas.

Also on show was the Sydney University Theatre Council’s Serjeant Musgrave’s Dance, starring John Bell in the title role. Ken Horler, with whom Bell founded the famous Nimrod Theatre a decade later, co-directed the play with May Hollinworth, who ran the university’s Dramatic Society in the 1920s and ’30s. The production also featured John Gaden, Bob Ellis, Bruce Beresford, Richard Brennan and Mungo MacCallum.

The following year, Horler directed Coriolanus, with Bell in the title role and Gaden and Arthur Dignam in the cast.

Horler would go on to direct the first Australian production of Bertolt Brecht’s Mother Courage in 1963. The cast included Germaine Greer as Mother Courage, Peter Carroll and Ron Blair.

Bell also acted in and directed a number of shows in the following years. He returned again in the early 1990s to stage a series of productions with his fledgling Bell Shakespeare company.

A smidge of controversy

The university students of the 1960s had been delighted to have their “own” venue after years of makeshift spaces. They produced some adventurous – as well as some scandalous – works.

When the Dramatic Society staged its Revue of the Absurd in 1963, it included a controversial film by the then-nascent filmmakers Bruce Beresford and Albie Thoms. It Droppeth as the Gentle Rain depicted a cocktail party coming to a sticky end as shit rained down from the sky.

The film was promptly banned. This ban was reinstated the following year when Beresford and Thoms sought to show it at a gala commemorating the Dramatic Society’s 75th birthday.

Student revues were a popular feature of the theatre in its early years. One of these was the 1964 revue called Jump, which starred Colin Anderson, Germaine Greer, John Gaden and Paul Thom.

The Union Repertory Theatre Company was short-lived, collapsing within 12 months of its launch in 1961.

Also, ironically, the Footbridge was too expensive for students to hire often. Nonetheless, it was still a launching pad for those involved in student theatre, including Henry Szeps (who later acted in the 1984–94 series Mother and Son), Jack Thompson, who played Claudius in a production of Hamlet (1969), and Neil Armfield in Much Ado About Nothing (1974).

Fellow student actor and director David Marr would later acknowledge Armfield’s genius as a director, while diplomatically adding “acting was not his strength”.

What’s in a name?

The Union Theatre was a venue for hire throughout the 1970s, with student theatre, concerts, music theatre, French language theatre and other genres sporadically staged. In 1981, it was renamed the Footbridge Theatre (after a footbridge that was constructed over Parramatta Road in 1972).

For two decades from the mid-1980s, the Gordon Frost Organisation leased the theatre to present a number of popular commercial productions.

It also rented the theatre to other companies, including Bell Shakespeare, the Sydney Theatre Company, Ensemble Theatre and Sydney Festival, which programmed outstanding international works such as the Irish Druid Theatre’s 1998 production of The Leenane Trilogy.

The 1990s also saw students back onstage in annual faculty revues.

The next act begins

A squeeze on space at the university led to Footbridge’s conversion to a lecture theatre in 2006. Following extensive renovations, the now 300-seat theatre is opening once again, with Stephen Sondheim’s Into the Woods.

The university’s Dramatic Society first produced Into the Woods in the early 2000s (starring Virginia Gay). The Sydney University Musical Theatre Ensemble (MUSE) staged it again in 2011.

This time around the production is showcasing the talents of the inaugural cohort of music theatre students from the university’s Conservatorium of Music.

Just as it was for the “Johns” (Bell and Gaden) who, in the early 1960s, took their first steps as student actors into their future careers – and are still going strong six decades later – campus theatres remain vitally important for students finding their feet as the artists of the future.

Now, in a new decade and with a new generation of students, it’s time to go into the woods again.

Laura Ginters and Robyn Dalton co-authored a history of drama activities at the University of Sydney, The Ripples Before The New Wave 1957-1963 (2018). The authors interviewed many of the student actors mentioned here for that book.

– ref. Sydney’s beloved Footbridge Theatre launched some of our biggest stars. After nearly 20 years, it’s making a grand return – https://theconversation.com/sydneys-beloved-footbridge-theatre-launched-some-of-our-biggest-stars-after-nearly-20-years-its-making-a-grand-return-241561

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ari Mattes, Lecturer in Communications and Media, University of Notre Dame Australia

Investing in film and TV productions is a risky venture. Even the best directors and producers are just a flop away from ruining their careers.

So if a company owns the intellectual property to a popular material, or if that material enters the public domain, these companies – risk-averse entities, to be sure – will hastily retread their tyres for another lap of the track. This is partly why you’ll see well-worn stories from your childhood told over and over onscreen, even now.

But if the new version is too similar to the old, people will cynically roll their eyes. Enter Disney, which has perfected the strategy over the past few decades of retelling the same stories from different characters’ perspectives – a gambit that seems to strike people as inherently interesting.

Maleficent, for example, is Sleeping Beauty from the perspective of the evil queen. Although this kind of fairytale revisionism goes back to Angela Carter’s best-selling feminist fiction, Disney has, more than any other corporation, become an expert at co-opting social movements in pursuit of profits.

The latest revisionist work set to be distributed by Disney+ was Nautilus. The series filters the story of Jules Verne’s inimitable maritime adventure novel 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea through the lens of Captain Nemo, framed as a prequel to the original.

The fact that Disney+ dropped Nautilus before its release (it has been picked up by Prime in the UK and Ireland and Stan in Australia) immediately stoked my interest. This is particularly notable because, with a budget of A$300 million, it’s the most expensive series ever made in Australia (filmed mainly on the Gold Coast).

Alas, after restlessly sitting through all ten episodes, I understand Disney’s decision.

Diluting a powerful message

Where Verne’s novel (and to a lesser extent, the 1954 Disney live action film) effortlessly creates an authentic world, which is absolutely critical to the effectiveness of any fantasy work, Nautilus seems painfully contrived from its opening.

It’s the kind of show where all the British soldiers and East India Company men speak in toffee accents and spout horrifically ruthless commands between sips of tea.

The Nautilus’ crew is made up of a miscellany of virtuous victims of the company (and thus of the British empire): a wealthy British woman being forced into an arranged marriage, an old Chinese worker, a Māori cook, a trader from Zanzibar and ex‑slave Indians.

The characters frequently pontificate about the value of freedom, the evils of slavery and the glory of the environment. In one particularly ludicrous scene early on, Nemo jumps onto a whale’s back to remove a harpoon.

In the novel, Nemo’s romantic alienation perfectly complements his maniacal drive, interspersed with Verne’s faux-scientific descriptions of the submarine, giant squid and other objects.

Similarly, here, Nemo is presented as being far from mercenary; hounded to the north seas by the British, he’s seeking treasure in order to bring the company down. But lead Shazad Latif’s delivery is monotonous and strained, as though even he doesn’t buy it.

The idea that this is some kind of “fresh” (read “politically correct”) re‑imagining of the world of the novel is strange in the first place, given the original story (although narrated by Professor Aronnax) is already closely anchored to Nemo’s point of view.

Verne clearly presents Nemo as a kind of eco-warrior responding to the brutalities of colonialism. If anything, the original message is diluted in this adaptation as it implies Nemo’s quest is mainly personal – that he simply wants vengeance for what the company did to his family – rather than political.

At the same time, I sense the creators are going for some kind of psychological realism by painfully spelling out that Nemo had bad things done to him by the British. But this didacticism causes the spirit of adventure to suffer, so we’re left with something both silly and not particularly exciting.

A big fish isn’t always a good fish

The show’s production design and cinematography (some of the most important components in this kind of adventure epic) seem flat, too. The sets, though colourful, look decidedly artificial. The synthesis of CGI elements with filmed footage is far from smooth.

And the odd colour grade makes the characters’ skin look hyper-artificial. This was surely the intention, but why? It is distracting in every closeup.

Not to single out any particular department, every aspect of the production seems dialled in, including the score, which sounds like something hastily composed using AI software.

Of course, one could talk about the production’s benefits to the Australian industry, but this seems like a hapless argument if the work is no good. How many low-budget films could have been made with $300 million? 100? 150? Those would have also invested money in the industry, while developing local talent.

Not camp enough, yet not careful enough

If it were camper, Nautilus could have acquired the cult value of a great cinematic fiasco such as Renny Harlin’s 1995 film Cutthroat Island. All the actors seem to be trying hard, and the writers clearly laboured away at the story.

Perhaps this is the problem. Like so many new commercial works, Nautilus tries so hard to please everyone it ends up pleasing no one. The wider the appeal, the greater the risk mitigation, apparently.

But given it actually tries to embed the story in a sense of history, its sins seem greater than mere televisual boredom for the viewer. The series presents a monolithic and simplistic image of the way colonialism and capitalism are intertwined.

At best, this is naïve – one could argue, “who cares, it’s just a silly fantasy series”. At worst, however, it is actively destructive of historical consciousness. And that’s not smooth sailing.

Ari Mattes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. At $300m, Jules Verne-inspired Nautilus is the most expensive Australian-made show. But Disney+ was right to dump it – https://theconversation.com/at-300m-jules-verne-inspired-nautilus-is-the-most-expensive-australian-made-show-but-disney-was-right-to-dump-it-241583

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Blair Aitken, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Psychopharmacology, Swinburne University of Technology

You had a great night out, but the next morning, anxiety hits: your heart races, and you replay every conversation from the night before in your head. This feeling, known as hangover anxiety or “hangxiety”, affects around 22% of social drinkers.

While for some people, it’s mild nerves, for others, it’s a wave of anxiety that feels impossible to ride out. The “Sunday scaries” may make you feel panicked, filled with dread and unable to relax.

Hangover anxiety can make even simple tasks feel overwhelming. Here’s why it happens, and what you can do about it.

What does alcohol do to our brains?

A hangover is the body’s way of recovering after drinking alcohol, bringing with it a range of symptoms.

Dehydration and disrupted sleep play a large part in the pounding headaches and nausea many of us know too well after a big night out. But hangovers aren’t just physical – there’s a strong mental side too.

Alcohol is a nervous system depressant, meaning it alters how certain chemical messengers (or neurotransmitters) behave in the brain. Alcohol relaxes you by increasing gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), the neurotransmitter that makes you feel calm and lowers inhibitions. It decreases glutamate and this also slows down your thoughts and helps ease you into a more relaxed state.

Together, this interaction affects your mood, emotions and alertness. This is why when we drink, we often feel more sociable, carefree and willing to let our guard down.

As the effects of the alcohol wear off, your brain works to rebalance these chemicals by reducing GABA and increasing glutamate. This shift has the opposite effect of the night before, causing your brain to become more excitable and overstimulated, which can lead to feelings of anxiety.

So why do some people get hangxiety, while others don’t? There isn’t one clear answer to this question, as several factors can play a role in whether someone experiences hangover-related anxiety.

Genes play a role

For some, a hangover is simply a matter of how much they drank or how hydrated they are. But genetics may also play a significant role. Research shows your genes can explain almost half the reason why you wake up feeling hungover, while your friend might not.

Because genes influence how your body processes alcohol, some people may experience more intense hangover symptoms, such as headaches or dehydration. These stronger physical effects can, in turn, trigger anxiety during a hangover, making you more susceptible to “hangxiety.”

Do you remember what you said last night?

But one of the most common culprits for feeling anxious the next day is often what you do while drinking.

Let’s say you’ve had a big night out and you can’t quite recall a conversation you had or something you did. Maybe you acted in ways that you now regret or feel embarrassed about. You might fixate on these thoughts and get trapped in a cycle of worrying and rumination. This cycle can be hard to break and can make you feel more anxious.

Research suggests people who already struggle with feelings of anxiety in their day-to-day lives are especially vulnerable to hangxiety.

Some people drink alcohol to unwind after a stressful day or to make themselves feel more comfortable at social events. This often leads to heavier consumption, which can make hangover symptoms more severe. It can also begin a cycle of drinking to feel better, making hangxiety even harder to escape.

Preventing hangover anxiety

The best way to prevent hangxiety is to limit your alcohol consumption. The Australian guidelines recommend having no more than ten standard drinks per week and no more than four standard drinks on any one day.

Generally, the more you drink, the more intense your hangover symptoms might be, and the worse you are likely to feel.

Mixing other drugs with alcohol can also increase the risk of hangxiety. This is especially true for party drugs, such as ecstasy or MDMA, that give you a temporary high but can lead to anxiety as they wear off and you are coming down.

If you do wake up feeling anxious:

• focus on the physical recovery to help ease the mental strain

• drink plenty of water, eat a light meal and allow yourself time to rest

• try mindfulness meditation or deep breathing exercises, especially if anxiety keeps you awake or your mind races

• consider journalling. This can help re-frame anxious thoughts, put your feelings into perspective and encourage self-compassion

• talk to a close friend. This can provide a safe space to express concerns and feel less isolated.

Hangxiety is an unwelcome guest after a night out. Understanding why hangxiety happens – and how you can manage it – can make the morning after a little less daunting, and help keep those anxious thoughts at bay.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why do I get so anxious after drinking? Here’s the science behind ‘hangxiety’ – https://theconversation.com/why-do-i-get-so-anxious-after-drinking-heres-the-science-behind-hangxiety-240991

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jonathan Waters, Professor of Zoology, University of Otago

As we continue to change the planet, scientists are worried we might also be altering the evolutionary trajectories of the species that live alongside us, perhaps even including some irreversible shifts.

Certainly, the evidence for change is everywhere. As the planet warms, species’ ranges are shifting and their life cycles are changing. As we harvest the largest fish in the ocean, the species affected are now maturing at smaller sizes.

But are these shifts we observe in wild populations underpinned by genetic changes (mutations in the DNA) or are they simply flexible responses to environmental change? If the changes are genetic, how are they happening?

So far, researchers have observed fewer clear-cut examples of human-induced evolution in the wild than one might imagine. But our new study may provide a new “textbook” case of human-driven evolution in wild insects.

Our findings are centred on an intriguing case of “mimicry” from New Zealand, in which a harmless insect has evolved to mimic the warning colours of a highly toxic species.

Forest removal drives colour shift

Convincingly demonstrating “evolution in action” involves finding the agents of natural selection (environmental factors driving the change) and discovering the genetic mechanism.

Until now, the peppered moth was the “classic” example of human-driven evolution. Dark-coloured specimens of the moth suddenly appeared during the 19th century. It was a likely response to industrial pollution which meant light-coloured individuals were no longer blending in to the increasingly sooty British environment. Despite its broad appeal, some aspects of even this famous case have been criticised as unclear and anecdotal.

We worked on stoneflies and the impact of deforestation.

The black stonefly Austroperla lives in forests. It produces cyanide to deter potential predators, and to advertise its toxicity this species has high-contrast black, white and yellow markings, reminiscent of wasp colouration.

The non-toxic Zelandoperla stonefly has evolved astonishingly similar warning colouration, apparently to trick predators (forest birds) into assuming that it, too, is toxic. The intricate and unique ecological interactions between these insects and their predators have apparently evolved together over millions of years.

Where do humans come into this story? Aotearoa New Zealand was the last major landmass to be colonised by people. In many places the human impacts on its ecosystems have been devastating.

In addition to species extinctions, New Zealand has lost much of its original native forest cover in just a few centuries. This deforestation has wiped out countless populations of forest birds, along with the poisonous, forest-dependent Austroperla.

Our study reveals this widespread deforestation has also proven a game changer for the stonefly “mimic”. As its predators and the poisonous species it mimics have vanished from many regions, there is no longer much point in displaying warning colouration.

In an astonishing about-turn, Zelandoperla populations from deforested habitats have quickly lost their spectacular “mimic” colouration. It turns out that the production of this intricate colouration was costly, and when no longer essential, evolution rapidly removed it – in a case of “use it or lose it”.

Genetic change

In our study, we compared insect populations across several parts of the South Island. We found a remarkably consistent picture. The removal of forest has driven similar colour shifts across different deforested regions.

The finding that evolutionary change can be “predictable” offers hope that scientists can use evolutionary theory to predict future biodiversity shifts.

How do we know birds have played a key role in this rapid colour change? By placing stonefly models of different colours in a variety of habitats, we were able to demonstrate that birds only avoid attacking stoneflies with the “warning” colouration when they are in forests.

Another challenge was to show that this colour change represents evolution at the DNA level rather than a flexible response to environmental change. We looked at genetic variation across the Zelandoperla genome and found that just a single gene – ebony – is almost completely responsible for this colour evolution.

Our study also reveals the pace of evolutionary change. By comparing regions deforested soon after human arrival (for example Central Otago, which was deforested around 600 to 700 years ago) with those cleared much more recently (Otago Peninsula, 150 years ago), we show that evolution has proceeded steadily yet inexorably over this human timeframe.

On the positive side, the finding that at least some of our native species can adapt in the face of rapid environmental change suggests ongoing resilience of our native biodiversity. However, our results also highlight how quickly the intricate interactions that have evolved among native species over millennia can be lost from disturbed ecosystems.

These new findings raise tantalising questions about the potential to reverse the negative impacts of deforestation on our native biodiversity. In particular, our increasing focus on reforestation and ecological restoration provides hope for restoring the complex ecosystems we have inherited.

Jonathan Waters receives funding from the RSNZ Marsden Fund.

Graham McCulloch receives funding from the RSNZ Marsden Fund

– ref. Stoneflies change colour in response to deforestation, suggesting humans can alter evolution – new research – https://theconversation.com/stoneflies-change-colour-in-response-to-deforestation-suggesting-humans-can-alter-evolution-new-research-242008

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Gillespie, Professor of Law, University of Waikato

The current inquest into the worshippers killed in the Christchurch mosque attacks has been examining gun laws at the time of the 2019 atrocities, and how lax controls helped the terrorist acquire his weapons.

Inevitably, it has also put the spotlight on the coalition government’s proposed changes to the Arms Act, and how changes to licence vetting procedures and regulation might affect public safety.

Firearms control is a complex and contentious issue – but New Zealand can learn from other countries’ experience. It may surprise many, but one such country is the United States, where gun rights and restrictions are perennially – and often tragically – political.

Of course, there are fundamental differences between the US and New Zealand when it comes to the regulation of firearms. For Americans, the possession of guns is a right. For New Zealanders, it is a privilege. This has resulted in very different approaches to regulation, with the US undoubtedly more liberal – for which it pays a heavy price.

But it would also be wrong to assume New Zealand has nothing to learn from the US. Paradoxically, a more liberal approach to firearms ownership can produce tighter specific laws and regulations as a result.

There are four areas where New Zealand might learn from this as the government seeks to rewrite the Arms Act.

Some crimes should not be forgotten

The Americans take the position that anyone convicted of a crime punishable for a prison term exceeding one year (a “felony”) forfeits their right to possess a firearm.

Unless that right is restored, typically by petition or pardon (agreeing the person is no longer a risk), there is a strong presumption this is a permanent ban. Supplementary state prohibitions ensure this law is generally enforced properly, keeping convicted criminals away from firearms.

(Even Donald Trump fell foul of this law because of his conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records during the 2016 presidential election.)

In New Zealand, the list of legal and other reasons to deny a firearms licence is growing. But such disqualifications typically only extend back ten years from the application date, and are not indefinite.

Take ‘straw buying’ seriously

A “straw purchase” is when someone who is legally entitled to purchase or possess a firearm provides a weapon to someone prohibited by law from possessing one.

A 2023 federal report showed 54% of the guns US police recovered at crime scenes in 2021 had been bought within the previous three years. This suggested straw purchasing or illegal trafficking was a significant problem.

Lawful owners illegally providing firearms to those who should not have them (including gang members) is also a problem in New Zealand.

Recently, in a remarkable piece of policing, NZ officers trawled through three years of hand-written records for more than 360,000 individual gun sales across 390 stores. This appears to have set the scene for the arrests of nearly 40 people, including two former gun store employees, on charges of illegally on-selling guns.

Read more:
American gun culture is based on frontier mythology – but ignores how common gun restrictions were in the Old West

In the US, the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act made gun trafficking and straw purchasing federal crimes for the first time. Until then, only light penalties applied. But the new law allows for prison sentences of up to 15 years – or up to 25 years if the firearm was used in more serious crimes, such as terrorism or drug trafficking.

In New Zealand, by contrast, selling or supplying restricted firearms to unauthorised people carries a jail penalty of up to three years in jail. The illegal sale of prohibited firearms or magazines (such as the type used in the Christchurch terror attack) carries a penalty of up to five years. The prison sentence for supplying someone subject to a firearms prohibition order can now be up to seven years.

These changes, made in the aftermath of the Christchurch attacks, are at least an improvement. In 2018, the man who supplied Quinn Patterson with the military-style weapons he used to murder two people received only 12 months’ home detention.

Minimum amounts of metal in all firearms

A particularly clever US law – renewed four times since it was first signed by Ronald Reagan in 1988 – is the Undetectable Firearms Act. This makes it illegal to manufacture, import, sell, possess, transfer or receive any firearm not detectable by walk-through security systems.

Every gun must contain enough metal to set off X-ray machines and metal detectors. Also prohibited are any firearms with major components that do not generate an accurate image in standard airport imaging technology.

Although this alone won’t prevent the problem of unauthorised 3D printing of firearms, it is a step in the right direction for enhancing security in places such as court houses and airports. New Zealand has no similar law.

Mandatory reporting of firearms injuries

While firearms homicides are well recorded and shared with the police, there are often significant gaps in the data due to firearms injury reporting being optional.

Health professionals in New Zealand are only required to report an injury if they believe someone has a health condition that should prevent them holding a firearms licence.

But mandatory reporting of firearm injuries by medical professionals is common in a number of comparable countries. In the US, there are reporting requirements in 48 out of 50 states.

Mandatory reporting of all firearms injuries helps authorities track the extent and nature of wrongful firearms use. It can also prompt police visits and checks on the gun owner to ensure they are still “fit and proper” since their last licence renewal.

Despite these benefits – and the fact that mandatory reporting of firearms injuries by health professionals was recommended by the royal commission into the Christchurch terror attack – the government declined to take the matter further.

Revisiting the Arms Act presents a unique opportunity to make New Zealand safer. The first step is to look at what other countries can teach us. And while it may seem counterintuitive, and despite all the faults in its very liberal system, the US still has some ideas we should consider adopting.

Alexander Gillespie is a member of the Ministerial Arms Advisory Group (MAAG). He is also the 2024 recipient of the Borrin Justice Fellowship, and is researching revision of the NZ Arms Act. His views and opinions here are independent of both the MAAG and the Borrin Foundation.

– ref. What can the US teach NZ about gun control? More than you might expect – https://theconversation.com/what-can-the-us-teach-nz-about-gun-control-more-than-you-might-expect-242020

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Buxton, Assistant Professor, Department of Biology, Carleton University

More than five million Canadians — approximately one in eight of us — are living with a mood, anxiety or substance use disorder. The prevalence of mental disorders is on the rise, with a third of those with a disorder reporting unmet or partially met needs for mental health-care services.

The stresses of the city, where more than 70 per cent of Canadians now live, can increase the risk of poor mental health even further.

When most people think about caring for their mental health, they may think about getting more exercise, getting more sleep and making sure they’re eating healthy. Increasingly, research is showing that spending time in nature surrounded by plants and wildlife can also contribute to preventing and treating mental illness.

Our research focuses on the importance of birds and trees in urban neighbourhoods in promoting mental well-being. In our study, we combined more than a decade of health and ecological data across 36 Canadian cities and found a positive association between greater bird and tree diversity and self-rated mental health.

The well-being benefits of healthy ecosystems will probably not come as a great surprise to urban dwellers who relish days out in the park or hiking in a nearby nature reserve. Still, the findings of our study speak to the potential of a nature-based urbanism that promotes the health of its citizens.

Read more:
How the health of honeybee hives can inform environmental policies in Canadian cities

Birds, trees and human connection

Across cultures and societies, people have strong connections with birds. The beauty of their bright song and colour have inspired art, music and poetry. Their contemporary cultural relevance has even earned them an affectionate, absurdist internet nickname: “birbs”.

There’s something magical about catching a glimpse of a bird and hearing birdsong. For many urbanites, birds are our daily connection to wildlife and a gateway to nature. In fact, even if we don’t realize it, humans and birds are intertwined. Birds provide us with many essential services — controlling insects, dispersing seeds and pollinating our crops.

People have similarly intimate connections with trees. The terms tree of life, family trees, even tree-hugger all demonstrate the central cultural importance trees have in many communities around the world. In cities, trees are a staple of efforts to bring beauty and tranquility.

When the Australian city of Melbourne gave urban trees email addresses for people to report problems, residents responded by writing thousands of love letters to their favourite trees. Forest bathing, a practice of being calm and quiet among trees, is a growing wellness trend.

Birds and trees as promoters of urban wellness

Contact with nature and greenspace have a suite of mental health benefits.

Natural spaces reduce stress and offer places for recreation and relaxation for urban dwellers, but natural diversity is key. A growing amount of research shows that the extent of these benefits may be related to the diversity of different natural features.

For example, in the United States, higher bird diversity is associated with lower hospitalizations for mood and anxiety disorders and longer life expectancy. In a European study, researchers found that bird diversity was as important for life satisfaction as income.

People’s connection to a greater diversity of birds and trees could be because we evolved to recognize that the presence of more species indicates a safer environment — one with more things to eat and more shelter. Biodiverse environments are also less work for the brain to interpret, allowing restoration of cognitive resources.

To explore the relationship between biodiversity and mental health in urban Canada, we brought together unique datasets. First, we collected bird data sourced from community scientists, where people logged their bird sightings on an app. We then compared this data with tree diversity data from national forest inventories.

Finally, we compared both of these data sets to a long-standing health survey that has interviewed approximately 65,000 Canadians each year for over two decades.

We found that living in a neighbourhood with higher than average bird diversity increased reporting of good mental health by about seven per cent. While living in a neighbourhood with higher than average tree diversity increased good mental health by about five per cent.

Importance of urban birds and trees

The results of our study, and those of others, show a connection between urban bird and tree diversity, healthy ecosystems and people’s mental well-being. This underscores the importance of urban biodiversity conservation as part of healthy living promotion.

Protecting wild areas in parks, planting pollinator gardens and reducing pesticide use could all be key strategies to protect urban wildlife and promote people’s well-being. Urban planners should take note.

Read more:
Eco-anxiety: climate change affects our mental health – here’s how to cope

We’re at a critical juncture: just as we are beginning to understand the well-being benefits of birds and trees, we’re losing species at a faster rate than ever before. It’s estimated that there are three billion fewer birds in North America compared to the 1970s and invasive pests will kill 1.4 million street trees over the next 30 years.

By promoting urban biodiversity, we can ensure a sustainable and healthy future for all species, including ourselves.

Rachel Buxton receives funding from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, National Institutes of Health, and Environment and Climate Change Canada.

Emma J. Hudgins received funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Fonds de Recherche du Québec – Nature et Technologies for this work. She currently receives funding from Plant Health Australia.

Stephanie Prince Ware has received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

– ref. Want to build healthier cities? Make room for bird and tree diversity – https://theconversation.com/want-to-build-healthier-cities-make-room-for-bird-and-tree-diversity-235379

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Troy McEwan, Professor of Clinical and Forensic Psychology, Swinburne University of Technology

New data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) reveals one in seven adult Australians have been stalked in their lifetime: one in five women and one in 15 men.

While shocking to many, for those of us who work in the field, there is nothing surprising about these figures.

The ABS has conducted similar surveys roughly every five years since 2005, which reveal basically the same results each time.

About 3-4% of women and 1-2% of men are victims of stalking every year.

These rates are consistent with those reported in research from the United Kingdom and United States, with small variations depending on definition.

Stalking rates have remained stubbornly consistent despite the same ABS survey showing reductions in the rates of intimate partner violence and general violence over the past decade.

The reasons for this are unclear, though there are obvious differences in the level of government and community investment in countering intimate partner violence versus awareness of and attention to stalking.

What exactly is stalking?

Stalking is a pattern of repeated and unwanted behaviour in which one person pushes their way into the life of another where they have no legitimate right to be, causing the target distress and fear.

The most common methods are unwanted communication (by phone or digital media) and unwanted contacts (such as following someone or loitering nearby).

Threats of violence and assault occur in at least a quarter of cases.

Stalking that persists for more than two weeks is more likely to continue and cause significant harm.

The impact of stalking

Victims of persistent stalking have described it as “psychological rape”, with the stalker invading every part of their life.

The cumulative impact of seemingly never-ending intrusions, and their social and financial toll, is probably why stalking victims report high rates of depression, anxiety and traumatic stress disorders.

Researchers have estimated being stalked for 14 months costs victims approximately $A140,000, including direct costs from lost work and legal expenses and indirect costs of physical and mental harm.

Who stalks?

Most stalking is perpetrated by people who are known to the victim, either as an acquaintance or an ex-partner, with strangers responsible for about 20-25% of stalking.

Stalking usually starts either because the person feels mistreated and stalks to take revenge or right the wrong, or they stalk to start or enact a relationship with the victim that does not exist. In a small number of cases, stalking has a sexual motivation and can sometimes be part of planning or preparation for a sexual assault.

Regardless of motivation, most stalking is communicative – the stalker wants the victim to know they exist and to feel like they must respond.

However, responding to a stalker is not advisable as it usually just adds fuel to the emotional fire that drives them.

Ex-partners account for just under half of all stalking cases and many more women than men are stalked by an ex.

Stalking in this context is a type of intimate partner violence and it receives by far the most attention and response.

Research suggests that intimate partner stalking is more often identified as being perpetrated by former rather than current partners.

Psychological abuse or coercive control during a relationship might be linked to increased potential for stalking after a break-up.

Physical violence is much more common in cases of ex-partner stalking, with the ABS survey and earlier research finding half of intimate partner stalkers used physical violence.

Thankfully, most stalking-related violence does not cause severe physical harm and homicide is extremely rare.

Although prior stalking is common in ex-partner homicides, recent Victorian research showed that of 5,026 intimate partner violence reports to police involving stalking, only nine involved fatal or near fatal violence in the following 12 months.

This means the presence of stalking is not a useful risk factor for trying to predict intimate partner homicide.

Strategies against stalking

Numerous strategies have been identified to prevent and reduce stalking-related harms. Among those tried largely outside Australia:

• stalking awareness campaigns
• training and specialist responses by police and courts
• education for young people in schools
• providing psychological treatment for people who stalk.

The Victorian Law Reform Commission’s 2022 review of stalking laws recommended adoption of several of these strategies, though to date the state government has committed only to revising the stalking law.

A simple but powerful strategy

Stalking is a complicated problem and a comprehensive response needs multi-faceted systemic change that will be costly and take much effort and time.

Currently, there doesn’t seem to be an appetite in Australia for the work required.

However, there is one relatively straightforward thing the federal, state and territory governments could do right now to help: establish a national stalking helpline that can provide specialist information, advice and advocacy for all victims.

Such a helpline was established in the UK in 2010 and has supported more than 65,000 people.

The helpline provides online and telephone advice to potential stalking victims, including basic risk assessment, advocacy and links to local support services. It also provides advice to mental health professionals and others who are supporting stalking victims.

The helpline serves all people, regardless of their gender or relationship with the stalker. Nearly half (45%) of its clients are stalked by a stranger or acquaintance, not an ex-partner. This highlights the importance of a specialised stalking response separate to existing services for family and intimate partner violence.

An Australian equivalent would provide immediate support for victims and a focal point for necessary research and evaluation into what works to stop stalking.

An Australian national stalking helpline would be a practical, relatively inexpensive and immediately helpful strategy that governments could implement to support the hundreds of thousands of Australians who are stalked every year.

Troy McEwan has received funding from the Australian Research Council and Victoria Police for stalking-related research.

– ref. Stalking rates in Australia are still shockingly high – one simple strategy might help – https://theconversation.com/stalking-rates-in-australia-are-still-shockingly-high-one-simple-strategy-might-help-241891

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Liam Moore, Lecturer in International Politics and Policy, James Cook University

Tuvalu’s Prime Minister Feleti Teo took to a stage in Apia, Samoa, on Thursday morning to say something pointed. Planned fossil fuel expansions in nations such as Australia represented, for his nation, a “death sentence”. The phrase “death sentence”, Teo said, had not been chosen lightly. He followed up with this: “We will not sit quietly and allow others to determine our fate.”

Teo chose the moment for this broadside well – on the sidelines of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), attended by both King Charles and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. The speech came at the launch of a new report on moves by the “big three” Commonwealth states – the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia – to expand fossil fuel exports.

These three states make up just 6% of the population of the Commonwealth’s 56 nations, but account for over 60% of the carbon emissions generated through extraction since 1990, the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative report shows.

Canada and the UK are no climate angels, given their respective exports of highly polluting oil from oil sands and North Sea oil and gas. But Teo and others in the movement to stop proliferation of fossil fuels have reserved special criticism for Australia. That’s because Australia is now second only to Russia based on emissions from its fossil fuel exports and has the largest pipeline of coal export projects in the world – 61% of the world’s total.

The elephant in the room

Tuvalu, like many other small Pacific nations, is laser-focused on the threat of climate change. Across the Pacific, rising sea levels and saltwater intrusion are already pushing people to consider migration or retreat.

Australia has long been influential in the Pacific, even more so as Western states try to outcompete Chinese funds and influence in the region. But fossil fuel exports are a very large elephant in the room.

As Tuvalu’s leader points out, Australia is:

morally obliged to ensure that whatever action it does [take] will not compromise the commitment it has provided in terms of climate impact.

Teo pointed out the “obvious” inconsistency between Australia’s commitment to net zero by 2050 and ramping up fossil fuel exports.

This year, Australia and Tuvalu’s groundbreaking Falepili Union treaty came into force. The treaty includes some migration rights for Tuvaluans as well as a controversial security agreement. But Teo has now flagged using this as leverage to “put pressure on Australia to align its activities in terms of fossil fuels”.

Tuvalu’s diplomatic pressure is a small part of broader efforts by island states facing escalating climate damage to be seen not as passive victims but to emphasise, as Teo said, they are also “at the forefront of climate action”.

Echoing these sentiments was Vanuatu’s climate envoy, Ralph Regenvanu. He called on Commonwealth nations to “not sacrifice the future of vulnerable nations for short-term gains”, and “to stop the expansion of fossil fuels in order to protect what we love and hold dear here in the Pacific”.

Vanuatu and Tuvalu have led the campaign for a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty, committing signatories to ending expansion of fossil fuels. So far, 12 other nations have joined, including Fiji, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Republic of Marshall Islands, Colombia and the CHOGM host, Samoa.

Australia all alone?

It’s not surprising to see Australia facing these calls for action. The meeting is being held in Samoa, the first time a Pacific Island state has hosted Commonwealth leaders.

Leaders of other large Commonwealth states have skipped the meeting. Notable by their absence were Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Climate action is one of several background issues in Apia. One of the more significant is the call for reparations for slavery from former British colonies – calls UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is keen to put to the side. But reports on the ground suggest the issues of reparations, monarchy and the future relevance of the Commonwealth are all in the shadow of the main concern – climate change.

The meeting also serves as a precursor to November’s United Nations climate talks, the COP29 conference in Baku, Azerbaijan. Pacific nations are focused on building consensus on climate finance.

Australia has its own concerns. The host of the 2026 COP31 conference will be announced in Baku, with a joint Australia-Pacific bid in competition with Türkiye. Observers suggest Australia is in the box seat, but it has faced consistent pressure from Pacific states to reconcile its actions with its climate rhetoric.

There are domestic implications too. As the next federal election looms, the lure of a potential A$200 million windfall for the COP host city would be more than welcome.

Securing an Australia-Pacific COP could also boost the government’s environmental credentials as it comes under sustained attack from the Greens over fossil fuels and the Coalition over energy security and nuclear power.

In Apia, Pacific efforts to convince leaders of the need for greater climate action are reported to include a walk through a mangrove reserve for King Charles, guided by Samoan chief and parliamentarian Lenatai Vicor Tamapua. Tamapua told the ABC he showed leaders how king tides today were “about twice what it was 20, 30 years ago”, which he says is forcing people to “move inwards, inland now”.

For Australia, difficult questions remain. How will it balance regional demands to phase out coal and gas exports with domestic pressures to maintain jobs, public funds and economic growth? Can it walk the tightrope and be the partner of choice in the Pacific while continuing to explore for, extract and export coal and gas?

These questions will not be resolved in Apia. They might not even be resolved by the next federal government, or by the time COP31 arrives. But they will not go away.

The way Australia and other exporters resolve these tensions will, as Teo says, decide whether Tuvalu stays liveable – or goes under.

Liam Moore does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. ‘We will not allow others to determine our fate’: Pacific nations dial up pressure on Australia’s fossil fuel exports – https://theconversation.com/we-will-not-allow-others-to-determine-our-fate-pacific-nations-dial-up-pressure-on-australias-fossil-fuel-exports-242103

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University

Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, North Carolina.

In a repetitive, anxiety-inducing mantra, media coverage of the US presidential election between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris recites these seven states over and over again.

The winner will almost certainly be decided by these states – perhaps a few of them, or maybe just one.

Depending on your particular interpretation of the electoral map, the mantra might just be Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania. Or could it be Wisconsin, Wisconsin, Wisconsin? Or perhaps it’s Georgia, Georgia, Georgia.

Some analysts argue that to win, Harris needs to hold on to the “blue wall” of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, three predominantly white states with large numbers of working-class voters. In 2016, Democrats were devastated by Trump’s sundering of this wall – he narrowly won all three.

The Democratic victor in 2020, Joe Biden, rebuilt the wall with three wins in these states. (In fact, Biden won six of the seven battleground states in 2020, losing only North Carolina.)

In this year’s campaign, Harris needs to keep it standing, while the Trump campaign is hoping to break it down again.

But it’s also possible for some cracks to appear in the “blue wall” – if Harris can hold on in Pennsylvania, there is a path to victory for the Democrats through the remaining battleground states.

The Trump campaign is, meanwhile, hoping it can repeat 2016 and break down the blue wall, particularly by winning the iconic rust-belt state of Michigan.

An outsize focus on ‘swing voters’

The critical role these seven states will play of course means they are the overwhelming focus of both campaigns and the media that covers them. Trump and Harris and their running mates have visited Pennsylvania and Michigan dozens of times, while residents of these states are being subjected to wall-to-wall television advertising.

The other states are, effectively, stitched up for one side or the other.

There’s no real possibility of Trump winning solidly Democratic New York or California. And no chance Harris will could win deep-red Wyoming or Tennessee.

In the American democratic system, presidential elections are decided not via a national popular vote but the enslavement-era Electoral College (alongside widespread voter suppression). As a result, vast swathes of the American electorate are effectively disenfranchised.

In the states that are in play, the polling margins are razor-thin, just as they have been in most elections this century.

In 2020, for example, Biden won the popular vote by a four-point margin – seven million votes. But in the Electoral College, which is what actually decides the winner, Biden won by around 45,000 votes: 10,457 in Arizona, 11,779 in Georgia, and 20,682 in Wisconsin.

While polls are only one indicator – and they aren’t always that reliable – they do suggest the result in the seven battleground states in 2024 may be that close again.

That’s why both Harris and Trump have been spending so much time in those states. And it’s why their campaigns – as well as the media’s attention – are focused on finding as many voters in those places as they can.

And because of the way the American electoral system works, this focus is disproportionately placed on certain types of voters – or “swing voters”.

Both campaigns are chasing voters who may have gone for Trump in 2016 and then Biden four years later. They’re chasing “shy” Republicans or Democrats – voters who may be generally inclined to vote for one party or the other, but for whatever reason (usually, the particular candidate) are quiet about their choices.

Since the role of the “blue wall” in both electoral politics and the American imagination is so pronounced, this means there’s an inordinate focus (often unconsciously) on white swing voters, in particular.

Chasing the swing voters

These voters may indeed turn out to be the critical deciding factor.

But in American politics, it’s rarely one single thing that decides the outcome.

In a system that does not have compulsory voting, in which small numbers of voters in a small number of states can change the result, voter turnout is the main game. This election cycle, it could matter a great deal.

And that is why there is a hidden tension in both campaigns.

In Trump land, there has been consistent pressure (and unsolicited advice) on Trump to “moderate” his stances on particular issues in order to appeal to those “shy” or swing voters.

This is particularly the case with reproductive rights. It’s led to contradictory messaging from Trump – he’s taken full, individual credit for the overturning of Roe v. Wade while simultaneously insisting he is not supportive of extreme, right-wing positions on abortion bans.

Trump’s pick of JD Vance as his vice presidential running mate suggests his campaign decided not to focus mostly on swing or shy voters, but on mobilising and expanding their core voter base of white men. That is reflected in much of Trump’s media strategy and his consistent presence on right-wing podcasts.

But that is contradicted occasionally, and quite deliberately, by high-profile surrogates, including his wife.

The Harris campaign, on the other hand, seems to be attempting to divide its focus more evenly. Harris is chasing swing voters by going on Fox News and sharing a stage with former Representative and harsh Trump critic Liz Cheney. She also appeared with 100 Republicans at an event in Pennsylvania this month.

At the same time, the campaign is also attempting to drive turnout in key demographics for Democrats. Harris is targeting young women, particularly in the South, by going on popular podcasts like Call Her Daddy. Similarly, she is reaching out to Black men by appearing on platforms like Charlamagne tha God’s podcast in a live event in Detroit.

Does the strategy work?

The question for both campaigns is: does one of these tactics undermine the other?

Might the alliance between Democrats and the Cheney family’s deeply conservative stances on foreign policy, for example, further undermine or depress turnout in a state like Michigan, where outrage and betrayal over Democratic support for Israel may well be a deciding factor?

Alternatively, will Harris’ more hardline message on immigration depress enthusiasm amongst Black and Latino voters?

Similarly, might the Republican Party’s position on reproductive rights, and the consequences of the overturning of Roe v. Wade, mean Trump continues to lose support with women, which might not be countered by a sizeable boost in men’s turnout?

The answer is: we don’t know. And if the margins are indeed as close as the polling suggests, we may not know for some time after election day.

Until then, the mantra keeps repeating:

Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, North Carolina.

Emma Shortis is senior researcher in international and security affairs at The Australia Institute, an independent think tank.

– ref. With 7 states deciding everything, can Trump and Harris reach the remaining swing voters – without alienating others? – https://theconversation.com/with-7-states-deciding-everything-can-trump-and-harris-reach-the-remaining-swing-voters-without-alienating-others-240670