Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By TaeWoo Kim, Lecturer, UTS Business School, University of Technology Sydney

Social media algorithms, artificial intelligence and our own genetics are among the factors influencing us beyond our awareness. This raises an ancient question: do we have control over our own lives? This article is part of The Conversation’s series on the science of free will.

Have you ever used Google Assistant, Apple’s Siri or Amazon Alexa to make decisions for you? Perhaps you asked it what new movies have good reviews, or to recommend a cool restaurant in your neighbourhood.

Artificial intelligence and virtual assistants are constantly being refined, and may soon be making appointments for you, offering medical advice, or trying to sell you a bottle of wine.

Although AI technology has miles to go to develop social skills on par with ours, some AI has shown impressive language understanding and can complete relatively complex interactive tasks.

In several 2018 demonstrations, Google’s AI made haircut and restaurant reservations without receptionists realising they were talking with a non-human.

It’s likely the AI capabilities developed by tech giants such as Amazon and Google will only grow more capable of influencing us in the future.

But what do we actually find persuasive?

My colleague Adam Duhachek and I found AI messages are more persuasive when they highlight “how” an action should be performed, rather than “why”. For example, people were more willing to put on sunscreen when an AI explained how to apply sunscreen before going out, rather than why they should use sunscreen.

We found people generally don’t believe a machine can understand human goals and desires. Take Google’s AlphaGo, an algorithm designed to play the board game Go. Few people would say the algorithm can understand why playing Go is fun, or why it’s meaningful to become a Go champion. Rather, it just follows a pre-programmed algorithm telling it how to move on the game board.

Our research suggests people find AI’s recommendations more persuasive in situations where AI shows easy steps on how to build personalised health insurance, how to avoid a lemon car, or how to choose the right tennis racket for you, rather than why any of these are important to do in a human sense.

Does AI have free will?

Most of us believe humans have free will. We compliment someone who helps others because we think they do it freely, and we penalise those who harm others. What’s more, we are willing to lessen the criminal penalty if the person was deprived of free will, for instance if they were in the grip of a schizophrenic delusion.

But do people think AI has free will? We did an experiment to find out.

Someone is given $100 and offers to split it with you. They’ll get $80 and you’ll get $20. If you reject this offer, both you and the proposer end up with nothing. Gaining $20 is better than nothing, but previous research suggests the $20 offer is likely to be rejected because we perceive it as unfair. Surely we should get $50, right?

Read more: Do social media algorithms erode our ability to make decisions freely? The jury is out

But what if the proposer is an AI? In a research project yet to be published, my colleagues and I found the rejection ratio drops significantly. In other words, people are much more likely to accept this “unfair” offer if proposed by an AI.

This is because we don’t think an AI developed to serve humans has a malicious intent to exploit us — it’s just an algorithm, it doesn’t have free will, so we might as well just accept the $20.

The fact people could accept unfair offers from AI concerns me, because it might mean this phenomenon could be used maliciously. For example, a mortgage loan company might try to charge unfairly high interest rates by framing the decision as being calculated by an algorithm. Or a manufacturing company might manipulate workers into accepting unfair wages by saying it was a decision made by a computer.

To protect consumers, we need to understand when people are vulnerable to manipulation by AI. Governments should take this into account when considering regulation of AI.

We’re surprisingly willing to divulge to AI

In other work yet to be published, my colleagues and I found people tend to disclose their personal information and embarrassing experiences more willingly to an AI than a human.

We told participants to imagine they’re at the doctor for a urinary tract infection. We split the participants, so half spoke to a human doctor, and half to an AI doctor. We told them the doctor is going to ask a few questions to find the best treatment and it’s up to you how much personal information you provide.

Participants disclosed more personal information to the AI doctor than the human one, regarding potentially embarrassing questions about use of sex toys, condoms, or other sexual activities. We found this was because people don’t think AI judges our behaviour, whereas humans do. Indeed, we asked participants how concerned they were for being negatively judged, and found the concern of being judged was the underlying mechanism determining how much they divulged.

It seems we feel less embarrassed when talking to AI. This is interesting because many people have grave concerns about AI and privacy, and yet we may be more willing to share our personal details with AI.

But what if AI does have free will?

We also studied the flipside: what happens when people start to believe AI does have free will? We found giving AI human-like features or a human name could mean people are more likely to believe an AI has free will.

This has several implications:

• AI can then better persuade people on questions of “why”, because people think the human-like AI may be able to understand human goals and motivations

• AI’s unfair offer is less likely to be accepted because the human-looking AI may be seen as having its own intentions, which could be exploitative

• people start feeling judged by the human-like AI and feel embarrassed, and disclose less personal information

• people start feeling guilty when harming a human-looking AI, and so act more benignly to the AI.

We are likely to see more and different types of AI and robots in future. They might cook, serve, sell us cars, tend to us at the hospital and even sit on a dining table as a dating partner. It’s important to understand how AI influences our decisions, so we can regulate AI to protect ourselves from possible harms.

– ref. Hey Google … what movie should I watch today? How AI can affect our decisions – https://theconversation.com/hey-google-what-movie-should-i-watch-today-how-ai-can-affect-our-decisions-141783

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tony Walker, Adjunct Professor, School of Communications, La Trobe University

Speculation China may be seeking to lower the temperature in its fractious dealings with Australia appears to be premature.

This follows confirmation that Chinese customers have been advised to defer orders of Australian thermal and metallurgical coal.

On top of this, Australian cotton exporters have been advised exports will be cut next year, a blow to a business worth about $2 billion annually.

Australian mining giant BHP has received “deferment requests” for its coal shipments, according to the company’s chairman, Ken MacKenzie.

On the face of it, this is the most damaging trade reprisal by Beijing against what it perceives to be Australia’s hostile attitudes to it in tandem with its security partner, the United States.

It seems more than coincidental that just days after Australia took part in a meeting in Tokyo of the Quad (previously known as the Quadrilateral Strategic Dialogue and involving Japan, Australia, India and the US), China took such action.

To put this in perspective, China has targeted Australia’s third-largest export commodity to the Chinese market behind natural gas and iron ore.

Read more: It’s hard to tell why China is targeting Australian wine. There are two possibilities

In 2018-19, Australia’s exports to China of thermal coal for power stations and metallurgical coal for steel-making reached A$14.1 billion.

The Quad session left no doubt about its purpose. It was squarely aimed at furthering a China containment strategy, and perhaps outlining an Asian NATO.

“Asian NATO” is the description Chinese propagandists apply to the Quad.

Australia finds itself in a grouping that includes a hawkish US Trump administration, a Japan that is understandably anxious about tensions in its own region, and an India that recently found itself in armed conflict with China on its Himalayan border.

In all of this big-power manoeuvring, Australia is the minnow. So it is more vulnerable to Chinese reprisals, trade and otherwise.

In a statement following the Quad, Foreign Minister Marise Payne avoided specific mention of China, but her message was clear. Australia was not hesitating to align itself with its Quad partners in confronting China. The statement said:

Ministers reiterated that states cannot assert maritime claims that are inconsistent with international law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

This was aimed at China’s refusal to accept a mediation ruling under UNCLOS that contradicts its territorial claims in the South China Sea.

Read more: China-Australia relations hit new low in spat over handling of coronavirus

However, even if Australia wanted to detach itself from a hard-edged American position on China, it would be difficult given the sort of rhetoric emanating from Washington.

For example, in a statement issued by US Secretary Mike Pompeo after his meeting with Payne, he said they had discussed “China’s malign activity in the region”.

Australia’s circumspect foreign minister would not have said this publicly.

The Pompeo remarks play into a Chinese narrative that Canberra is Washington’s appendage. In the conduct of its regional diplomacy in close co-ordination with the US, Australia tends not to challenge this narrative.

In an interview with Nikkei Asia, Pompeo said the Quad would enable participants to “build out a true security framework”. This will not have gone unnoticed in Beijing.

Nor would his description of the Quad as a “fabric” that could “counter the challenge that the Chinese Communist Party presents to all of us”.

Payne would not have gone this far.

In the wake of the Quad meeting, China’s strident mouthpiece, the Global Times, accused Canberra of using the gathering to “promote its own global status”. It asked:

[…] how much strength does Australia own with its limited economy and population? Moreover, if Canberra is bent on infuriating China, Australia will only face dire consequences.

This sort of bombast can be dismissed as simply another case of Beijing letting off steam at the expense of a country that is more vulnerable to Chinese pressures than other Quad members.

On the other hand, Australia’s vulnerability to trade penalties invites the question. What will come next? Will it be Australian wine exports to China worth more than A$1 billion a year, or will gas be the next target?

China has been picking off Australian exports over the past year as relations have soured.

It has slapped tariffs on barley, making the Australian commodity uncompetitive in the Chinese market. It has used non-tariff measures to stifle beef imports from five abattoirs. It has told Chinese students to look elsewhere for education opportunities. It has also discouraged Chinese tourists from visiting Australia.

The latter is moot, since the COVID-19 pandemic means inbound tourism has been stopped.

However, a series of trade reprisals should be deeply concerning for the Australian government as it wrestles with an economy hit hard by recession.

The last thing Australia needs in this environment is for its trading relationship with China to fall off a cliff.

The trade numbers underscore Australia’s unhealthy dependence on China.

In 2018-19, more than one-third, or A$134.7 billion worth, of Australia’s total merchandise exports went to China. On top of that Australia’s services business with China, mainly education, totalled A$18.5 billion.

In the first six months of this year, Australia’s exports to China neared 50% of total exports, mainly due to increased iron ore prices.

This level of business may be advantageous to Australia from a short-term perspective, but in the longer term such heavy reliance on a single market is highly undesirable.

It gives China the option of penalising Australia if Canberra’s policies do not correspond with Beijing’s wishes.

This is precisely what is happening now.

In the circumstances, it is hard to reach any other conclusion than that Beijing is targeting Australia as a means of conveying its displeasure that a regional united front appears to be forming to contain China’s ambitions.

In this context it is worth noting that despite a sometimes acrimonious “trade war” between the US and China, Beijing has, for the most part, refrained from penalising American business.

Of course, China exports far more to the US than it imports.

In the lead-up to the US election on November 3, Australia should be hoping for a Biden victory on the grounds that a more normal diplomatic environment will enable a reset of our relations with Beijing.

The alternative is further nasty surprises weighing on a critical trading relationship.

– ref. Hopes of an improvement in Australia-China relations dashed as Beijing ups the ante – https://theconversation.com/hopes-of-an-improvement-in-australia-china-relations-dashed-as-beijing-ups-the-ante-147989

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

The United States has registered the largest fall in relative regional power of any country in the Indo-Pacific during the last year, according to the Lowy Institute’s Asia Power Index.

The index, started in 2018, ranks 26 countries and territories according to the power they wield in the region. It uses multiple indicators across military capability and defence networks, economic resources and relationships, diplomatic and cultural influence, and resilience and future resources.

While the US is still the most powerful country in the region, it has gone from a 10 point lead over China two years ago to five points in 2020, scoring a rating of 81.6.

“Despite its continuing pre-eminence, US standing has waned in all but one of the eight Index measures,” the report says.

It says the closing power disparity with China suggests America, “far from being the undisputed unipolar power, can more correctly be described as the first among equals in a bipolar Indo–Pacific”.

The US lost the most points in measures where China is ahead – economic relationships, economic capability, and diplomatic influence.

Despite the US’s significant advantages, “the current US administration’s unilateral inclinations mean the United States is an underachiever in its ability to wield broad-based power in Asia. In addition, the coronavirus has contributed to a loss of US prestige.

“America has suffered the largest reputational hit in the region for its domestic and international handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

The report says while China has been “diplomatically diminished” by COVID it is “holding ground in its overall power”.

“In conditions where most countries are less powerful than a year ago, China’s fast economic rebound from COVID-19 will widen the power differentials between itself and the rest of the region.”

China, which ranks second at 76.1 on the regional power index, has an unchanged score.

“China leads in four of the eight measures of power: economic capability, diplomatic influence, economic relationships and future resources. But the country delivers inconsistent results in the other measures, with stark strengths and weaknesses. By contrast, US performance in the Index still appears more rounded.”

Australia and two other middle powers – Vietnam and Taiwan – were the only countries to gain in comprehensive power in 2020.

“Their competent handling of the COVID-19 pandemic was a necessary, but not sole condition for improving their regional standing.”

Australia ranks number 6 on the index with an overall rating of 32.4. It was previously 7th and has overtaken South Korea. Its greatest improvement was in cultural influence.

“Australia’s comparative advantages as a middle power are most evident in its defence networks, where it ranks second behind the United States. Despite a far more modest military capability, Australia is ranked ahead of the United States for its defence diplomacy with non-allied partners.

“Canberra has led the way in forging variable geometry — bilateral, trilateral, quadrilateral and ‘quad plus’ — defence partnerships with a diverse range of countries, including India, Japan, Indonesia and Vietnam. Australia carries less ‘great power baggage’ and has demonstrated it can be far nimbler in Southeast Asia than its US ally.”

But the report warns of the effect of the contraction of migration to negative levels.

“Dropping out of the demographic ‘Goldilocks zone’ will have adverse implications for Australia’s fundamentals as a young and growing middle power. The failure to reverse this trend in the next few years would result in a smaller, poorer and ultimately less secure nation.”

The report also concludes that Japan will take much of the next decade to recover economically from COVID. It says that of all the countries, “India’s economy has lost the most growth potential through the damage inflicted by the pandemic”.

– ref. United States’ standing wanes on Lowy Asia power index – https://theconversation.com/united-states-standing-wanes-on-lowy-asia-power-index-148317

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Philippa Martyr, Lecturer, Pharmacology, Women’s Health, School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Western Australia

Aspirin is one of the most widely used drugs in the world. Its main ingredient comes from a natural product, salicin, found in plants such as willow and myrtle.

Aspirin is also a good example of how myths build up around ancient medicines.

Its origins have been closely linked with Hippocrates, the famous ancient Greek doctor and so-called father of medicine. He’s said to have used willow for pain relief, inspiring the development of aspirin centuries later.

But his writings barely mention willow. So why do we still believe the myth?

What’s all this about willow?

Practically every history of aspirin tells you Hippocrates prescribed willow to women in labour. Some say he prescribed willow leaf tea. Others say he told them to chew willow bark.

But when we look at what Hippocrates actually wrote, there is just one reference to burning willow leaves to make smoke for “fumigating” the uterus to get rid of a miscarried pregnancy.

This is pretty much the only reference to willow — ιτεα or itea — as a drug in these writings.

Read more: Hippocrates didn’t write the oath, so why is he the father of medicine?

Could willow actually relieve pain?

Willow bark and leaves were used in some ancient medicines. However, these were often used externally, rather than swallowed. Because ancient weights and measures are confusing — and sometimes missing altogether in recipes — it’s hard to tell whether there was enough salicin in an ancient recipe to make a difference.

The bark of white willow (Salix alba), which Hippocrates may have been talking about, doesn’t contain much salicin, compared with other willows and salicin-rich plants like the myrtle tree.

A clinically effective dose of 60–120mg of salicin would be very hard to obtain from simply chewing white willow bark or drinking willow tea.

White willow also contains toxic, bitter-tasting tannins. These would make it hard to consume enough bark or tea to reach that dose, and would cause stomach pain long before you got there.

Natural salicin is more abundant in other ancient plants, such as the myrtle tree. But even then you would still probably give yourself a terrible stomach ache after ingesting enough of the plant to relieve pain.

Dioscorides was an ancient Roman who wrote a guidebook of medicines, still in print today. He described willow as a remedy for stomach ache, the respiratory disease tuberculosis, and as a contraceptive.

He said if you burned willow bark, soaked it in vinegar, then rubbed it on corns and calluses, it would remove them. He also recommended a hot pack containing willow leaves for gout (which we know now as a type of arthritis).

Celsus, another Roman medical writer, said warm willow packs or poultices would treat a prolapse of the womb or bowel (where the organ literally falls out of the body). Celsus advised to push it back in, and then bandage the warm dressing on the outside.

Read more: Avicenna: the Persian polymath who shaped modern science, medicine and philosophy

Salicin is used today to treat corns and warts. But this doesn’t mean Dioscorides’ recipe worked because of the salicin. Vinegar is acidic and is said to soften corns on its own. Applying any kind of warm pack will also relieve pain.

If willow bark and leaves were handy and potent painkillers, we would have used them almost to extinction by now. Instead, by early modern times in Europe, willow was considered largely useless as a medicine.

This doesn’t mean willow was actually useless. It still contained salicin, but this hadn’t yet been isolated or refined into its modern form.

Read more: Leaders as healers: Ancient Greek ideas on the health of the body politic

So, if it wasn’t Hippocrates, who was it?

It was English cleric Reverend Edward Stone who “rediscovered” willow.

In around 1757, Stone chewed on white willow bark out of curiosity and was struck by how bitter it was. He wondered whether it could be used medicinally, like the bitter cinchona bark (where the malaria drug quinine comes from).

Stone gathered and dried around half a kilogram of willow bark, then ground it to powder, before taking small doses every four hours to reduce his fever. Drying the bark would have concentrated the salicin, making its effect stronger.

When the powder seemed to relieve his fever, Stone tried it on his parishioners when they were sick. In 1763, he wrote to the Royal Society, reporting it worked.

How did a plant extract turn into aspirin?

Italian researchers Brugnatelli and Fontana managed to extract salicin from willow bark in 1826. Then German pharmacologist Johann Andreas Buchner created the name “salicin” in 1828 from the Latin word for willow, salix.

Felix Hoffmann, a researcher at the German company now known as Bayer, chemically modified the related molecule salicylic acid, which was eventually named aspirin. The company patented the name in 1899.

Today aspirin is used for pain relief, reducing swelling, lowering body temperature and preventing blood clots.

Read more: Weekly Dose: aspirin, the pain and fever reliever that prevents heart attacks, strokes and maybe cancer

Why do we keep repeating the willow myth?

Researchers keep repeating the myth that ancient people understood the link between willow and salicin for pain relief, partly because everyone loves an epic tale. And the story of aspirin can be turned into one, with a bit of imagination. But it’s a good reminder to look at original texts if you can.

It’s also an example of how confirmation bias works. We know salicin is in willow, and salicin relieves pain. So when we find ancient references to willow, we think ancient people discovered salicin before us.

Modern medicine likes a respectable family tree. It helps give today’s manufactured products a good pedigree. It also helps us think of these products as safe, beneficial and part of a long healing tradition.

But the “ancient” history of aspirin has a lot of holes in it. So next time you pop an aspirin, thank Hoffmann rather than Hippocrates.

– ref. Hippocrates and willow bark? What you know about the history of aspirin is probably wrong – https://theconversation.com/hippocrates-and-willow-bark-what-you-know-about-the-history-of-aspirin-is-probably-wrong-148087

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marissa Parrott, Reproductive Biologist, Wildlife Conservation & Science, Zoos Victoria, and Honorary Research Associate, BioSciences, University of Melbourne

Antarctica, the world’s last true wilderness, has been protected by an international treaty for the last 60 years. But the same isn’t true for most of the ocean surrounding it.

Just 5% of the Southern Ocean is protected, leaving biodiversity hotspots exposed to threats from human activity.

Read more: Antarctica has lost 3 trillion tonnes of ice in 25 years. Time is running out for the frozen continent

The Western Antarctic Peninsula, the northernmost part of the continent and one of its most biodiverse regions, is particularly vulnerable. It faces the cumulative threats of commercial krill fishing, tourism, research infrastructure expansion and climate change.

In an article published in Nature today, we join more than 280 women in STEMM (science, technology, engineering, maths and medicine) from the global leadership initiative Homeward Bound to call for the immediate protection of the peninsula’s marine environment, through the designation of a marine protected area.

Our call comes ahead of a meeting, due in the next fortnight, of the international group responsible for establishing marine protected areas in the Southern Ocean. We urge the group to protect the region, because delays could be disastrous.

Threats on the peninsula

The Southern Ocean plays a vital role in global food availability and security, regulates the planet’s climate and drives global ocean currents. Ice covering the continent stores 70% of the earth’s freshwater.

Climate change threatens to unravel the Southern Ocean ecosystem as species superbly adapted to the cold struggle to adapt to warmer temperatures. The impacts of climate change are especially insidious on the Western Antarctic Peninsula, one of the fastest-warming places on Earth. In February, temperatures reached a record high: a balmy 20.75℃.

Read more: Anatomy of a heatwave: how Antarctica recorded a 20.75°C day last month

The peninsula is also the most-visited part of Antarctica, thanks to its easy access, dramatic beauty, awe-inspiring wildlife and rich marine ecosystems.

Tourist numbers have doubled in the past decade, increasing the risk of introducing invasive species that hitch a ride on the toursts’ gear. More than 74,000 cruise ship passengers visited last year, up from 33,000 in the 2009-10 season.

The expansion of infrastructure to accommodate scientists and research, such as buildings, roads, fuel storage and runways, can also pose a threat, as it displaces local Antarctic biodiversity.

Eighteen nations have science facilities on the Antarctic Peninsula, the highest concentration of research stations anywhere on the continent. There are 19 permanent and 30 seasonal research bases there.

Read more: Australia wants to build a huge concrete runway in Antarctica. Here’s why that’s a bad idea

Another big threat to biodiversity in the peninsula is the commercial fishing of Antarctic krill, a small, shrimp-like crustacean which is the cornerstone of life in this region.

A cornerstone of life

Krill is a foundation of the food chain in Antarctica, with whales, fish, squid, seals and Adélie and gentoo penguins all feeding on it.

But as sea ice cover diminishes, more industrial fishing vessels can encroach on penguin, seal and whale foraging grounds, effectively acting as a competing super-predator for krill.

Read more: Climate change threatens Antarctic krill and the sea life that depends on it

In the past 30 years, colonies of Adélie and Chinstrap penguins on the Antarctic Peninsula have declined by more than 50% due to reduced sea ice and krill harvesting.

Commercial Antarctic krill fishing is largely for omega-3 dietary supplements and fish-meal. The fishery in the waters of the Western Antarctic Peninsula is the largest in the Southern Ocean.

The krill catch here has more than tripled from 88,800 tonnes in 2000 to almost 400,000 tonnes in 2019 — the third-largest krill catch in history and a volume not seen since the 1980s.

How do we save it?

To save the Antarctic Peninsula, one of critical steps is to protect its waters and its source of life: those tiny, but crucially important, Antarctic krill.

This can be done by establishing a marine protected area (MPA) in the region, which would limit or prohibit human activities such as commercial fishing.

Read more: Why marine protected areas are often not where they should be

An MPA around the peninsula was first proposed in 2018, covering 670,000 square kilometres. But the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (the organisation responsible for establishing MPAs in the Southern Ocean) has yet to reach agreement on it.

The proposed MPA is an excellent example of balancing environmental protection with commercial interests.

The area would be split into two zones. The first is a general protection zone covering 60% of the MPA, designed to protect different habitats and key wildlife and mitigate specific ecosystem threats from fishing.

The second is a krill fishery zone, allowing for a precautionary management approach to commercial fishing and keeping some fishing areas open for access.

The proposed MPA would stand for 70 years, with a review every decade so zones can be adjusted to preserve ecosystems.

No more disastrous delays

The commission is made up of 25 countries and the European Union. In its upcoming meeting, the proposed MPA will once again be considered. Two other important MPA proposals are also on the table in the East Antarctic and Weddell Sea.

In fact, for eight consecutive years, the proposal for a marine park in Eastern Antarctica has failed. Delays like this are potentially disastrous for the fragile ecosystem.

Protecting the peninsula is the most pressing priority due to rising threats, but the commission should adopt all three to fulfil their 2002 commitment to establishing an MPA network in Antarctica.

If all three were established, then more than 3.2 million square kilometres of the Southern Ocean would be protected, giving biodiversity a fighting chance against the compounding threats of human activity in the region.

Read more: Protecting ocean habitats isn’t easy when industries are booming – but can they be part of the solution?

– ref. Humans threaten the Antarctic Peninsula’s fragile ecosystem. A marine protected area is long overdue – https://theconversation.com/humans-threaten-the-antarctic-peninsulas-fragile-ecosystem-a-marine-protected-area-is-long-overdue-147671

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Claire Wyatt-Smith, Professor of Educational Assessment and Literacy and Institute Director of the Learning Sciences Institute Australia, Australian Catholic University

The recently released report of the NAPLAN review — commissioned by the New South Wales, Queensland, Victorian and Australian Capital Territory education ministers — found many young people are reaching Year 9 without being able to write properly.

The number of students below the national minimum standard is higher in regional and remote areas. The difference in performance between males and females is significant and has been evident each year since 2008.

The review says the NAPLAN data indicate writing has not improved since 2011.

When we talk about writing, we are not talking about the fine motor skills associated with forming letters or handwriting, gripping a pencil or typing. We are talking about writing to communicate meaning and the role of writing in how young people learn in the curriculum.

Being able to write is important for future success. In 2019, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) characterised writing as a:

… foundational skill required for communication, future learning and full participation in economic, political and social life as well as in many aspects of daily life.

But while education systems have prioritised teaching reading, far less attention and expertise has been directed to teaching writing, beyond perhaps spelling.

We surveyed more than 4,000 primary and secondary school teachers in NSW to find out how often they explicitly teach writing, and what strategies they use.

Our data show there is an emphasis on basic writing skills in primary school. But once students enter secondary school, it appears teaching subject knowledge competes with a focus on teaching basic writing skills.

Read more: NAPLAN results show Year 3 students perform better than Year 9 in writing, and it’s a worrying trend

The dangerous assumption, it seems, is that students have developed these skills in earlier years. For many students this is simply not the case.

How often do teachers teach writing?

Our survey was commissioned by the NSW Education Standards Authority. It was completed by 4,306 NSW teachers, across all sectors, stages of schooling and curriculum areas.

We asked the teachers how much time they spent on teaching writing in the past fortnight, and how often they used specific strategies. Some of these included:

• asking students to set goals for their writing

• analysing good models of writing with students

• modelling good writing

• composing text together with students in their chosen genre

• allocating time for students to practise specific writing strategies

• explicitly teaching students how to plan, draft, revise and edit their work.

Results show teachers in Years K-2 emphasise explicitly teaching writing. This peaks in Years 3-6, and dips significantly in Years 7-10. Following this decline, there is a noted increase in focus on explicitly teaching writing in Years 11-12.

This could reflect the emphasis on writing in most subjects as teachers prepare students for the NSW Higher School Certificate.

For instance, 58.5% of teachers in Years 3-6 spent between one to five hours in the preceding fortnight teaching writing. But this fell to 48.3% in Year 7-10, and it went up again to 56.5% in Years 11-12.

In Years 3-6 nearly 25% of teachers taught writing for five to ten hours in the preceding fortnight, compared to only 6% of teachers in Years 7-10, and 7% in Years 11-12.

What about the way they taught writing

Our survey showed Years 7-10 teachers were less likely (never, or rarely) to use interactive, instructional practices compared to teachers in other year levels. These include asking students to set goals, and helping them analyse a model of good writing to identify what works and what may not.

In K-Year 2, nearly 50% of teachers said they spent most lessons modelling writing to children. This dropped to 25% in Years 3-6, 12% in Years 7-10 and 16% in Years 11-12.

Around 70% of teachers in K to Year 6 allocated time regularly or in most classes for students to practise writing strategies independently. But this fell to 38% in Years 7-10.

Read more: Too many adjectives, not enough ideas: how NAPLAN forces us to teach bad writing

Allocating time for students to practise writing strategies with the support of the teacher, and then independently, is critical for student success.

Like other complex skills, if you don’t practise, how can you improve?

Research also suggests explicitly teaching writing strategies such as planning, drafting and revising is a particularly effective method for improving writing skills of all students.

But while more than 50% of teachers in K to Year 6 explicitly taught students to do this regularly or in most classes, only 35% of teachers did so in Years 7-10. Exactly 50% of teachers did this in Years 11-12 regularly or in most classes.

Explicitly teaching these skills connects thinking and writing and makes such connections visible and meaningful for students.

We also found far less focus on sentence construction in secondary school.

While most K-2 and Years 3-6 teachers indicated they regularly or during most lessons engaged in teaching “sentence structure”, the focus dips in Years 7-10. Only 44% of teachers regularly engaged in the practice.

Read more: ‘I’m in another world’: writing without rules lets kids find their voice, just like professional authors

Secondary teachers need a greater focus on teaching how to structure sentences and paragraphs as part of explicit regular teaching practice.

Writing must be practised, continuously

Teaching writing skills needs to be a baseline requirement for all students. The explicit teaching of these skills must be continuously revisited, building on student knowledge throughout their years of school.

Writing is a difficult skill to master and a difficult skill to teach. At the very least, secondary schools need to allocate more time to teaching this skill and for students to practise writing.

– ref. Writing needs to be taught and practised. Australian schools are dropping the focus too early – https://theconversation.com/writing-needs-to-be-taught-and-practised-australian-schools-are-dropping-the-focus-too-early-148104

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hal Pawson, Professor of Housing Research and Policy, and Associate Director, City Futures Research Centre, UNSW

COVID-19 triggered multimillion-dollar commitments by state governments to tackle homelessness. Our research for the Australian Homelessness Monitor 2020, released today, reveals at least 33,000 rough sleepers and other homeless people have been booked into hotels and other temporary accommodation during the crisis.

Beyond this, several states have pledged funds and support to move beyond this short-term fix and ensure former rough sleepers find long-term housing.

Read more: If we realised the true cost of homelessness, we’d fix it overnight

These are commendable actions in a long-neglected policy area, even if largely inspired by public health anxieties rather than concern for the welfare of people without a home.

Still, our research also shows the burst of activity over the past six months builds on several years of stepped-up state government action to tackle street homelessness across Australia.

What prompted governments to act?

Three factors seem to have contributed:

1. around 2016, rising inner-city rough sleeping apparently crossed a threshold of political embarrassment

2. people experiencing homelessness challenged official complacency with direct action, including protest camps in Sydney’s Martin Place and outside Melbourne’s Flinders Street Station during the 2017 Australian Open tennis tournament

3. a new level of activism, often inspired by developments overseas, led to initiatives such as the Everybody’s Home campaign, the Australian Alliance to End Homelessness, the Constellation Project and Adelaide Zero.

Read more: Clearing homeless camps compounds the violation of human rights and entrenches the problem

In response, several state governments boosted efforts to reduce street homelessness. Measures included expanded outreach services and offers of housing assistance, increased spending on rental subsidies and personal support for former rough sleepers, and leasing of private rental properties as temporary social housing.

Some states even set specific targets to reduce homelessness. New South Wales, for example, pledged to cut rough sleeping on Sydney’s streets by a quarter between 2017 and 2020. Statewide, the aim is to halve street homelessness between 2019 and 2025.

Such targets are a welcome sign of ambition. They could even spur other states and territories to make similar commitments.

Rough sleepers are just the visibly homeless

As our report explains, though, these aspirations raise tricky issues of definition and measurement. And they focus narrowly on rough sleeping. Though highly visible, it’s just one of the forms of homelessness.

This approach risks airbrushing the wider, and much larger, homelessness problem. Of the 116,000 homeless people counted by the 2016 Census some 8,000 were rough sleepers. Homelessness also includes experiences such as as couch surfing and living in badly overcrowded dwellings and short-term, unsafe accommodation like rooming houses.

Read more: Informal and illegal housing on the rise as our cities fail to offer affordable places to live

Crucially, homelessness cannot be overcome purely through better management and co-ordination of existing services. Nor can it be seriously tackled by state/territory governments without federal support.

New wave of homelessness is looming

The most immediate concern now is an imminent surge in homelessness. This is likely in coming months as a result of JobKeeper payments and JobSeeker Coronavirus Supplements being scaled back and bans on evictions lifted.

These protections staved off a new, recession-induced, homelessness crisis through the winter months. But, since mid-year, rough sleeper numbers have been on the rise once again in cities including Adelaide and Sydney. This is almost certainly a problem deferred, rather than a problem avoided.

We know, for example, that many tenants who lost incomes and sought reduced rent have only been granted deferrals. They are building up big arrears.

Read more: Cutting JobSeeker payments will cause crippling rental stress in our cities

For their part, many landlords have lost rental income – by negotiation or otherwise. They represent about one-third of the more than 400,000 mortgage accounts on which banks have agreed to defer payments.

The extent of any surge in homelessness will depend on the public health situation, the timing and vitality of post-pandemic economic recovery, and on how quickly eviction bans and income-support measures are withdrawn. However, if unemployment hits 10% as predicted, homelessness could rise by 21% according to one projection for NSW.

For state governments, housing the mid-2020 rough-sleeper cohort has been enough of a challenge on its own. Even with stepped-up assistance programs, the states lack the capacity to cope with a surge of households newly evicted from private rental housing.

The main problem is a lack of homes at rents that low-income tenants can afford. A large part of the reason is decades of official inaction that effectively halved Australia’s supply of social housing since the 1990s. On top of that, the shortfall of private rental properties affordable for low-income tenants grew by 54% in the decade to 2016, as detailed in our report.

What needs to be done?

Lessons from Australia’s success in tackling street homelessness during the pandemic must be integrated with ongoing services. We have to reduce reliance on band-aid interventions that are costly and, at best, only lessen the harm. Homelessness is bad for health and for our society at all times, not just during pandemics.

Governments at all levels must recognise that the growing homelessness problem of the past two decades calls for a comprehensive housing policy rethink.

Read more: Australia’s housing system needs a big shake-up: here’s how we can crack this

Yes, governments have partnered with community organisations to get people off the streets during the pandemic, which is something to celebrate. But these successes do not resolve the underlying structural problems.

The federal government has a critical role to play in both policy and funding. It must be far more active in owning and tackling the issue. Essential first steps are to permanently boost JobSeeker payments and the rate of Commonwealth Rent Assistance. And the government should properly index these payments, as it does the Aged Pension.

Beyond this, the Commonwealth must use its greater budget capacity – more than the combined resources of the states and territories – to invest in building new social housing at scale. For almost the entire period since 1996 we’ve been building only 2,000-3,000 social housing units per year. Just to keep pace with a growing population, that needs to be 15,000 a year. It’s essential not just as a stimulus for post-pandemic recovery as proposed, but as a routine national program long into the future.

Such action should be part of a comprehensive national housing strategy to design and phase-in the wide-ranging reforms of taxes and regulations needed to rebalance Australia’s housing system and tackle homelessness at its source.

The authors are very grateful to Peter Mares for his input into this article.

– ref. COVID spurred action on rough sleepers but greater homelessness challenges lie ahead – https://theconversation.com/covid-spurred-action-on-rough-sleepers-but-greater-homelessness-challenges-lie-ahead-147102

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendan Coates, Program Director, Household Finances, Grattan Institute

Josh Frydenberg has told us his 2020 Budget is “all about jobs”.

What he hasn’t said is that it is actually aiming for a slower recovery from the recession, as far as unemployment goes, than from most recessions in Australia’s history.

That’s both the budget’s explicit forecast and the result of the measures in it.

You would be forgiven for expecting the recovery from this recession to be faster than the recoveries from previous recessions. Previous recessions haven’t involved the government requiring businesses close their doors.

In most recessions the government isn’t able to switch things back on.

Yet Australia’s recovery from this COVID recession is officially forecast to be on the sluggish side, as our graph of the recovery in the unemployment rate after each of the past eight recessions and slowdowns shows.

The budget expects the unemployment rate to peak at 8% in December this year, but then take three-and-a-half years to fall to 5.5% by mid-2024.

That’s an average decline of 0.71 percentage points per year in the unemployment rate.

In the 1990s recession – Australia’s most recent major recession – the unemployment rate peaked at 11.1% in late 1992, then fell to 8.3% by 1996.

That’s an average decline of 0.9 percentage points per year – a good deal faster than expected after this recession.

With, rather than ahead of, the pack

By the standards of past overseas recessions, our recovery is expected to be no more than typical.

We examined 150 past recessions in the countries that make up the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and found that typically unemployment falls by 0.85 percentage points per year – about the same as what Australia expects this time.

This analysis uses all the labour force data kept by the OECD – which in Australia’s case goes back to 1966.

The initial phase of the Australian recovery is forecast to be quite brisk, as you’d expect given the nature of this recession and the budget assumption that a COVID-19 vaccine will be found soon.

After peaking at 8% in late 2020, unemployment is expected to fall to 7.25% by mid-next year. That decline – 0.75 percentage points in 6 months, a 1.5-percentage-point annualised fall – is on the fast side.

We’re removing support too soon

But from there on, the recovery is forecast to stall, particularly in 2022-23 and 2023-24 when only 0.5 percentage points per year is expected to be knocked off the unemployment rate.

The budget papers show that support to date has kept unemployment much lower than it would have been.

Treasury believes that without it the unemployment rate would have peaked at about 13% instead of the predicted 8%.

Read more: High-viz, narrow vision: the budget overlooks the hardest hit in favour of the hardest hats

Which raises the question: why isn’t the government being more ambitious and aiming to bring unemployment down faster?

The rapid recovery in unemployment peters out from mid-2022 because, as this graph shows, the stimulus is set to be withdrawn quickly – the deficit is set to more or less halve next year, and then halve again over the following two years.

Policy decisions made this year actually subtract from the deficit by 2023-24.

And the stimulus is made up of measures not particularly likely to create jobs, such as income tax cuts (where much of the money is likely to be saved rather than spent) and transport infrastructure, which creates fewer jobs per dollar spent than services such as child care, health and aged care.

We shouldn’t be content with a recovery that putters along at a below-average pace.

Read more: Morrison is right. All governments will need to spend more to get us out of the crisis

We calculate that extra stimulus of about $50 billion over and above what was announced in the budget will be needed over the next two years to drive unemployment back down to 5%, a result that would kickstart wages growth nearly two years ahead of the government’s schedule.

Some may appear in upcoming state budgets, but there’s no doubt the Treasurer has more work left to do.

We could get unemployment down quickly

Every year that unemployment remains too high is another year that Australians can expect close to zero real wages growth, and another year that Australians young and old will continue to confront a dearth of job opportunities.

Reserve Bank governor Philip Lowe said last week he wanted to achieve more than just “progress towards” full employment.

For him and his board, addressing high unemployment was an “important national priority”.

It ought to also be an important government priority.

– ref. No snapback: the budget sets us up for an unreasonably slow recovery. Here’s how – https://theconversation.com/no-snapback-the-budget-sets-us-up-for-an-unreasonably-slow-recovery-heres-how-148098

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jessica Ford, Lecturer in Film, Media and Cultural Studies, University of Newcastle

In a new series, our writers explore their best worst film. They’ll tell you what the critics got wrong – and why it’s time to give these movies another chance.

The critical consensus on She’s the Man (2006), according to Rotten Tomatoes, is: “Shakespeare’s wit gets lost in translation with […] broad slapstick, predictable jokes, and unconvincing plotline.”

An adaptation of Twelfth Night, here Shakespeare’s heroine is transformed into Viola Hastings (Amanda Bynes) who cross-dresses as her twin brother when the women’s soccer team at her high school is defunded and disbanded.

After donning a dodgy wig and sideburns and comedically lowering her voice an octave, Bynes passes as male soccer player, taking her brother’s place as he ditches school to travel with his band.

She’s the Man was a blatant attempt to capitalise on the success of 10 Things I Hate About You (1999). The high-school set adaptation of Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew was a critical and commercial hit.

Dismissed by critics, I find She’s the Man a highly underrated teen film. Screenwriters Kristen Smith and Karen McCullah, best known for writing “chick flicks” like Legally Blonde (2001) and The House Bunny (2008), with director Andy Flickman, take a 400-year-old play about mistaken identities and deceit, and craft a cutting – and hilarious – commentary on gender roles in the 21st century.

One star reviews

Famed Rolling Stone film critic Peter Travers gave the film one star: “There I sit, suffering total numbness of body and brain, no longer having to wonder what it might be like to be buried alive in gooey marshmallow.”

New York Times critic Nathan Lee wrote: “She’s the Man reminds us that girls can do anything boys can do, unless those girls happen to exist in a romantic comedy, in which case their ultimate ambition is to squeeze into an expensive dress and get it on with a dumb stud.”

Roger Ebert echoed these critiques: “Can Amanda Bynes convincingly play a boy? Of course not.”

The distinction between the film’s critical reception and its cultural popularity can be seen in the Rotten Tomatoes ratings. While the critical reception accrued a rating of 43% (rotten), the audience response has been considerably more positive with a rating of 79%.

Many critics dismissed the film on the basis Bynes’ performance of masculinity was “unbelievable” – which completely misses the point.

Constructing gender

Despite being dismissed by the (mostly male) critics, She’s the Man has gained a cult following among young women.

It has been the subject of Buzzfeed listicles, critical re-appraisals and passionate defences.

The film satirises the societal expectations that shackle women, while portraying expectations of manhood as equally absurd.

At the end of an aggressive soccer game in the opening scene, Viola’s boyfriend is compelled to reassure Viola of her soccer skills, but she doesn’t need the reassurance — she is confident in her abilities. In contrast, when Viola teases his kissing prowess, her boyfriend requires immediate and verbose reassurance.

Read more: When it comes to sport, boys ‘play like a girl’

It is the masculine characters who have a rigid sense of gender identity and performance. The young women see the possibility and malleability of gender. They understand the absurdity of gender performance.

As Viola says to her mother:

I will not wear high heels. Because heels are a male invention designed to make women’s butts look smaller and to make it harder for them to run away.

The appeal of She’s The Man is watching young women have access to the freedoms available to young men without having to completely surrender their femininity, silliness and passions.

Bynes delivers a complex and nuanced comedic performance which deftly explores how gendered facades shift and falter. A montage of Viola following men and imitating their walks and mannerisms has the bonus of highlighting Bynes’ talent for physical comedy.

Viola’s alter ego, Sebastian, performs masculinity in overt and stereotypical ways, rendering the performance (and masculinity itself) as absurd. In one scene, Viola-as-Sebastian emphasises her sexual desirability to young women: a display of heightened masculine prowess explicitly performed for other men.

The scene where Viola-as-Sebastian claims tampons spotted in her bag are kept on hand for nose bleeds is a great example of how the film plays with cultural and social anxieties around gender — in particular the bodily functions of people with uteruses.

Masculinity is repeatedly framed as more fragile than femininity, evidenced by how many of the male characters are threatened by the mere existence of Viola in what they perceive as “their space” — sport.

In the numerous instances where Viola-as-Sebastian is at risk of being “outed”, the men presume a crisis of masculinity. When the principal catches her playing with her wig, he assumes it is the result of male pattern baldness, not cross-dressing.

The idea gender is up for grabs is outside their worldview.

Girls to the front

Historically, cultural objects beloved by young women – pop music, boy bands, chick flicks – have been culturally devalued or dismissed. But ignore young women and their tastes at your peril.

As Harry Styles said of his fans:

They’re our future. Our future doctors, lawyers, mothers, presidents, they kind of keep the world going. Teenage-girl fans – they don’t lie. If they like you, they’re there. They don’t act “too cool.” They like you, and they tell you. Which is sick.

Young women don’t follow trends, they set them – as evidenced by then 19-year-old Bynes who encouraged the producers to take a chance on a then largely unknown Channing Tatum, giving him his first role as leading man.

– ref. My best worst film: She’s The Man – Amanda Bynes shines in a hilarious commentary on gender – https://theconversation.com/my-best-worst-film-shes-the-man-amanda-bynes-shines-in-a-hilarious-commentary-on-gender-147570

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

Daniel Andrews’ angst at the weekend about the multiple New Zealanders who arrived in Victoria via the travel bubble from New Zealand to New South Wales is, as much as anything, a pointer to the pressure the premier is under.

Andrews says his state chose not to be part of the bubble at this stage and he didn’t know these people were coming to Victoria. Now, he says, 55 have “turned up” from NZ.

The federal government counters that Victoria was at the meeting of the federal-state health officials committee where issues of New Zealanders travelling on were canvassed.

Andrews claims when Victoria asked the feds for details of the arrivals they were slow to pass it on. The feds deny a delay but say dealing with internal border issues is up to the states anyway.

The point is, this is a dispute of little consequence. New Zealand doesn’t have community transmission – the visitors are at the very bottom end of risk.

Andrews might be annoyed that these New Zealanders, and thus the Morrison government, have found a way to circumvent his refusal to sign up to the COVID “hotspot” definition and become part of the (one way) trans-Tasman bubble.

But Victoria has an open border for people going in (it’s a different matter for those exiting, for whom other states make the rules). So provided they’re told to abide by the current state restrictions, the presence of the New Zealanders is neither here nor there.

Western Australia is also complaining about New Zealand arrivals – it is in a rather different position because it has a hard state border.

The overall takeout is that those travelling from New Zealand in the “bubble” – which also involves the Northern Territory – might need to be given more information about the restrictions in particular states and internal borders before they leave NZ.

The micro takeout is that Andrews is picking an unnecessary fight. The verbal Victorian-federal tennis match over the New Zealanders is another indication of the tensions between the two governments.

Federal ministers tried to twist Andrews’ arm ahead of Sunday’s announcements about the next stages of opening in Victoria.

Andrews announced a range of restrictions would be relaxed from midnight. People can travel 25 kilometres from their home for shopping and exercise (widened from five). Groups of up to ten from two households will be able to gather in an outdoor places for exercise or a picnic.

Hairdressers can open, but people can’t have visitors over to watch next weekend’s AFL final (played in Queensland).

Retail isn’t scheduled to reopen open until November 2, when restaurants will be open to diners (with limits), and people will be able to leave home for any reason.

With new cases in single figures for the last five days, Andrews indicated the timetable could move faster than outlined.

The politically-embattled premier is determined to minimise risks in bringing the state out of lockdown. The federal government and business continue to rail. Andrews may judge that he’s taken the attacks from those quarters and the greater immediate danger to him is the possibility of a fresh tick-up in virus numbers.

The eventual fallout – in lost businesses, in the public’s judgement of Andrews – will be months, possibly years, in the coming.

In the meantime, whether his ultra-caution is excessive or well-judged will be fiercely debated.

He maintains it’s all on the health advice.

When asked how come his advice was at odds with the position of the federal government and epideminologsts who disagree with him, his edginess was obvious.

“I will put it to Minister Hunt and anybody else who has a view about these things, I don’t accept that anybody has a more complete picture of what this virus is doing in Victoria than the Victorian Chief Health Officer, the Victoria deputy Chief Health Officer, the Victorian health Minister and the Victorian premier.” And so he went on.

Some Victorians will welcome the timetable as tangible hope in a bottle. More than a few small business owners will see the hairdresser across the road opening and ask, why not us?

The Australian Industry Group described the announcement as “plodding steps in the right direction”, while raising a nightmare scenario, saying businesses “still have no certainty that [they] will not be forced to shut again after they have been allowed to reopen”.

The federal government’s impatience with Victoria was on show again in a Sunday statement from Scott Morrison, Josh Frydenberg and Greg Hunt, which highlighted economic and mental health costs.

“Victoria’s three-day rolling average is now below two cases per day. Maintaining this result will make a strong case for the retail and hospitality sectors to reopen before the next review date in November,” they said.

“The continued health, mental health and financial impacts of these restrictions will be profound on many Victorians. That is why we encourage Victoria to move safely and quickly towards the NSW model of strong contact tracing and a COVIDSafe but predominately open economy.”

As Morrison and the ministers say, “the national picture is a positive one” in terms of case numbers and handling them. Yet politically, the national handling of COVID continues to fray.

The conflicts around the blunders and inadequacies that led to the Victorian second wave, the imminent Queensland election in which premier Annastacia Palaszczuk is relying substantially on her COVID record, with its tough border policy, and WA’s semi-secessionist mindset are all straining the federation.

The national cabinet initially managed dissent among the various governments. But presently the disunity is swamping the unity. To the extent possible, it is important Morrison keep together what has become an unwieldy beast.

While COVID in Australia may be substantially under control when we say a thankful goodbye to 2020, 2021 will be a challenging year that would only be made more difficult by excessive fractiousness within the federation.

– ref. View from The Hill: New Zealand arrivals inject new irritation into federal-Victorian tensions – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-new-zealand-arrivals-inject-new-irritation-into-federal-victorian-tensions-148318

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Warhurst, Emeritus Professor of Political Science, Australian National University

New Zealanders were not the only ones to go to the polls over the weekend. On Saturday, the Australian Capital Territory also voted, returning Labor for a sixth consecutive term after almost 20 years in office.

Andrew Barr, after almost six years as chief minister, has won a further four years in office.

The result confirms Canberra’s reputation as the most progressive jurisdiction in the Australia.

Big wins for the Greens, losses for Liberals

Labor’s vote remained steady, despite being the nation’s longest-serving government, albeit under different leaders.

The big winner on the night was Barr’s coalition partner, the Greens, led by Minister for Climate Change, Sustainability and Corrections, Shane Rattenbury.

The Greens earned a swing of 3.4%. It looks like the party will go from two to at least three seats, with the possibility of up to six in the 25-seat Legislative Assembly as counting is confirmed.

Read more: Labo(u)r easily wins in both New Zealand and the ACT, and leads in Queensland

There are five electorates of five members each under the ACT’s Hare-Clark electoral system and the Greens may have at least one member in each electorate.

The big loser was the Canberra Liberals, under new leader, 36-year-old Alistair Coe. They suffered an equivalent 3.4% swing against them and lost at least one and possibly three seats.

With several seats still to be decided, at this stage, the outcome looks like it could be Labor 11, Liberals ten, and Greens four.

At the 2016 election Labor won 12 seats, the Liberals 11, and the Greens two.

A closer contest was expected

The return of the government was predictable, but the result was expected to be much closer.

Commentators predicted the Labor-Green coalition could lose a seat in the small assembly. Instead, they are set to increase their majority.

The government ran as an experienced, progressive coalition, tagging the opposition leader as inexperienced and too socially conservative for Canberra. It was a low-key, steady pair of hands approach, in contrast to an opposition relying on stunts and expensive policy proposals.

It was the Greens, coming off a solid 2019 federal election performance, who painted a vision of a “better normal”, including action on climate change and social housing, rather than business as usual.

The Liberal’s slogan was “lower taxes, better services”, playing on community concerns about rate rises and problems in health and transport services. It wanted to “grow the pie” through population growth, by appealing for the return of Canberrans attracted to nearby NSW towns by lower property prices. It also painted the government as arrogant and tired.

But the Liberal campaign, widely acknowledged to be disciplined, failed to cut through and was dogged by its inability to convincingly answer where the money was coming from for better services, if rates were frozen. The Liberals have now campaigned for almost a decade against cost of living rises without any return.

Read more: Jacinda Ardern and Labour returned in a landslide — 5 experts on a historic New Zealand election

Saturday’s election result also sees the long-running controversy about the government’s investment in light rail resolved in Labor-Greens’ favour.

Despite concerns about the construction and usage of the new transport system, which launched in the city’s north in 2019, it is now seen as a positive. Canberrans in the southern suburbs want to get on board too.

Surprising results

Within the overall result, there were some intriguing variations between and within the parties and regions.

The Liberals’ lost a seat in its hitherto southern heartland, Brindabella. This may have been connected to growing concerns about climate change, fuelled by the bushfires and smoke haze at the beginning of the year.

But in the northern seat of Yerrabi, which benefited from the new light rail, Labor surprisingly looks like losing a seat to the Greens.

Independents and new parties made no inroads. The Belco Party, created by former Liberal leader, Bill Stefaniak, fell short in the western seat of Ginnindera, damaging the Liberals in the process.

Stinging criticism of Labor, by former Labor Chief Minister Jon Stanhope, may have driven some Labor voters, not to the Liberals, but to the Greens.

Combined with retirements, the losses among sitting members on both sides may mean as many as seven new faces in the 25-member Legislative Assembly.

COVID elections good for incumbents

Given the small size of the ACT and its traditional Labor-leanings, there are few national lessons from Saturday’s result. But the Greens will be encouraged to campaign again on a positive vision.

Meanwhile, the idea that incumbent governments thrive under pandemic condition elections also received a boost. There will be another opportunity to test this theory when Queensland goes to the polls on October 31.

Read more: Remember Quexit? 5 reasons you should not take your eyes off the Queensland election

– ref. Labor scores its sixth ACT election victory in a row. But the big winners are the Greens – https://theconversation.com/labor-scores-its-sixth-act-election-victory-in-a-row-but-the-big-winners-are-the-greens-148259

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Catherine Bennett, Chair in Epidemiology, Deakin University

After days of speculation, today’s announcement by Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews was pretty much as we expected: a significant lifting of restrictions, albeit only a half-step out of lockdown.

From 11.59pm tonight, Melburnians will be able to travel up to 25km from home, with no time limits on exercise or recreation, bringing the chance to play a round of golf or visit the hairdresser.

Even more encouragingly, we may only have to wait a week until the lockdown is lifted, the “four reasons” to leave home are removed, and retailers and other businesses can once again open their doors.

Andrews said the planned move to step three of the COVID-19 roadmap could be brought forward a week from its provisional date of November 1 if case numbers — now tracking at 7.5 new cases a day for metropolitan Melbourne and just 0.5 in the regions — remain favourable.

“Victorians have stayed the course, and we just have a little longer to go,” he said.

I agree Victorians can rightly be proud, because this lockdown was a very big ask. In fact, I see no reason why we can’t remove blanket rules such as the 25km radius and Melbourne’s “ring of steel” immediately.

Buying time

The blanket restrictions in Melbourne, which have been in place since early July, have bought time to rebuild our public health response, with stronger measures for testing, contact tracing and isolating outbreaks. The idea is to “bring the restrictions to the virus”, meaning we can now contain it wherever it might appear.

As a result, restricting the general public’s movements with the help of blanket rules makes less sense, because many Melburnians now have a minuscule risk.

Read more: A 14-day rolling average of 5 new daily cases is the wrong trigger for easing Melbourne lockdown. Let’s look at ‘under investigation’ cases instead

I don’t understand why we need to impose a 25km limit. It’s such a big radius but will still exclude people who live at opposite ends of the city from seeing each other. Perhaps the fear is too many people will congregate in popular or scenic places. But surely that can be managed by scrutinising those particular places.

In contrast, when Singapore was coming off its second wave, it lifted restrictions when COVID-19 cases were at 60 per million people, per day. Melbourne’s current average is just over 1 case per million people, per day. If Andrews were to promote Victoria’s strategy to the rest of the world, I’ve no doubt they would agree it’s been a success, but they would probably also wonder why it is taking so long.

We had an extended blanket lockdown that was enough to quash the virus multiple times over in households. But we weren’t able to contain it in aged care, certain workplaces, and complex households.

With cases now so low, the idea that all public movement equals viral spread is not true. There’s a lot more to this virus than this sort of reductionist approach. We know probably 70% of people don’t even pass it on, and that many cases are the end of a chain of infection. If we do get a cluster, we will likely pick it up. This gives me confidence Melbourne will be able to open up fully next weekend.

The wholesale rebuilding of our contact-tracing means we are now very much on the front foot. Health authorities should continue urgently interrogating and isolating new cases, particularly mystery ones.

But for the wider public, it is now important to instil a sense that the government trusts people to be sensible for themselves. The more rules we have, the harder it is for people to have a sense of agency.

The rules should now be focused on areas where there is greatest risk. Unnecessary blanket rules might get in the way of people buying in. For instance, the ring of steel shouldn’t be necessary, given the testing and tracing measures we now have in place. What’s more, I think it will be a long time before people go back to their old patterns of movement, given that people have become acclimatised to staying at home.

This also means it’s easier to consider lifting border restrictions. While we’ve been busy fighting off the second wave we’ve built the health response to a point where we can live with the virus. So things like borders become less crucial.

Read more: WHO is right: lockdowns should be short and sharp. Here are 4 other essential COVID-19 strategies

If authorities aren’t busy policing things that don’t make much of a difference, such as the 25km rule, it will free up resources and also mean people have one less rule, and one less fine, hanging over them.

I would also urge authorities to allow people to wear masks only in situations where it makes a real difference, as opposed to everywhere. It’s easier to trust the public to do that when they’re not being told to wear them all the time.

Over more than three months, Victorians have grown used to being told what to do in intense detail. Now it’s time for people to get back some control, and I’m hopeful we can do that in a way that’s safe.

– ref. Melbourne is almost out of lockdown. It’s time to trust Melburnians to make their own COVID-safe decisions – https://theconversation.com/melbourne-is-almost-out-of-lockdown-its-time-to-trust-melburnians-to-make-their-own-covid-safe-decisions-148316

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Catherine Bennett, Chair in Epidemiology, Deakin University

After days of speculation, today’s announcement by Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews was pretty much as we expected: a significant lifting of restrictions, albeit only a half-step out of lockdown.

From 11.59pm tonight, Melburnians will be able to travel up to 25km from home, with no time limits on exercise or recreation, bringing the chance to play a round of golf or visit the hairdresser.

Even more encouragingly, we may only have to wait a week until the lockdown is lifted, the “four reasons” to leave home are removed, and retailers and other businesses can once again open their doors.

Andrews said the planned move to step three of the COVID-19 roadmap could be brought forward a week from its provisional date of November 1 if case numbers — now tracking at 7.5 new cases a day for metropolitan Melbourne and just 0.5 in the regions — remain favourable.

“Victorians have stayed the course, and we just have a little longer to go,” he said.

I agree Victorians can rightly be proud, because this lockdown was a very big ask. In fact, I see no reason why we can’t remove blanket rules such as the 25km radius and Melbourne’s “ring of steel” immediately.

Buying time

The blanket restrictions in Melbourne, which have been in place since early July, have bought time to rebuild our public health response, with stronger measures for testing, contact tracing and isolating outbreaks. The idea is to “bring the restrictions to the virus”, meaning we can now contain it wherever it might appear.

As a result, restricting the general public’s movements with the help of blanket rules makes less sense, because many Melburnians now have a minuscule risk.

Read more: A 14-day rolling average of 5 new daily cases is the wrong trigger for easing Melbourne lockdown. Let’s look at ‘under investigation’ cases instead

I don’t understand why we need to impose a 25km limit. It’s such a big radius but will still exclude people who live at opposite ends of the city from seeing each other. Perhaps the fear is too many people will congregate in popular or scenic places. But surely that can be managed by scrutinising those particular places.

In contrast, when Singapore was coming off its second wave, it lifted restrictions when COVID-19 cases were at 60 per million people, per day. Melbourne’s current average is just over 1 case per million people, per day. If Andrews were to promote Victoria’s strategy to the rest of the world, I’ve no doubt they would agree it’s been a success, but they would probably also wonder why it is taking so long.

We had an extended blanket lockdown that was enough to quash the virus multiple times over in households. But we weren’t able to contain it in aged care, certain workplaces, and complex households.

With cases now so low, the idea that all public movement equals viral spread is not true. There’s a lot more to this virus than this sort of reductionist approach. We know probably 70% of people don’t even pass it on, and that many cases are the end of a chain of infection. If we do get a cluster, we will likely pick it up. This gives me confidence Melbourne will be able to open up fully next weekend.

The wholesale rebuilding of our contact-tracing means we are now very much on the front foot. Health authorities should continue urgently interrogating and isolating new cases, particularly mystery ones.

But for the wider public, it is now important to instil a sense that the government trusts people to be sensible for themselves. The more rules we have, the harder it is for people to have a sense of agency.

The rules should now be focused on areas where there is greatest risk. Unnecessary blanket rules might get in the way of people buying in. For instance, the ring of steel shouldn’t be necessary, given the testing and tracing measures we now have in place. What’s more, I think it will be a long time before people go back to their old patterns of movement, given that people have become acclimatised to staying at home.

This also means it’s easier to consider lifting border restrictions. While we’ve been busy fighting off the second wave we’ve built the health response to a point where we can live with the virus. So things like borders become less crucial.

Read more: WHO is right: lockdowns should be short and sharp. Here are 4 other essential COVID-19 strategies

If authorities aren’t busy policing things that don’t make much of a difference, such as the 25km rule, it will free up resources and also mean people have one less rule, and one less fine, hanging over them.

I would also urge authorities to allow people to wear masks only in situations where it makes a real difference, as opposed to everywhere. It’s easier to trust the public to do that when they’re not being told to wear them all the time.

Over more than three months, Victorians have grown used to being told what to do in intense detail. Now it’s time for people to get back some control, and I’m hopeful we can do that in a way that’s safe.

– ref. Melbourne is almost out of lockdown. It’s time to trust Melburnians make their own COVID-safe decisions – https://theconversation.com/melbourne-is-almost-out-of-lockdown-its-time-to-trust-melburnians-make-their-own-covid-safe-decisions-148316

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

At Saturday’s New Zealand election, Labour won 64 of the 120 seats (up 18 since the 2017 election). This means a Labour eight-seat majority. The opposition National won 35 seats (down 21), the right-wing ACT ten (up nine), the Greens ten (up two) and the Māori party one (up one).

Vote shares were 49.1% Labour (up 12.2%), 26.8% National (down 17.6%), 8.0% ACT (up 7.5%), 7.6% Greens (up 1.3%) and 1.0% Māori (down 0.2%).

Under New Zealand’s system, parties are entitled to a proportional allocation of seats if they either win at least 5% of the overall vote, or win a single-member seat. The Māori party entered parliament by winning one of the seven single-member seats reserved for those on the Māori roll. The Greens and ACT also won single-member seats.

Since the 2017 election, Labour has governed in coalition with the Greens and the populist NZ First. NZ First will not be returned to parliament, as their vote slumped to 2.7% (down 4.5%), and they failed to win a single-member seat.

This will be the first single-party New Zealand majority government since the adoption of proportional representation in 1996.

In February, two polls had National ahead of Labour. But Labour recorded massive poll leads in May owing to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s handling of coronavirus. Labour’s lead narrowed somewhat as the election approached, but final polls understated Labour’s lead; they won by 22 points, not the 15 in final polls.

Greens could win six of 25 ACT seats

With 78% of enrolled voters counted at Saturday’s ACT election, vote shares were 38.4% Labor (down 0.1% since 2016), 33.1% Liberals (down 3.6%) and 13.9% Greens (up 3.6%).

The ACT uses five five-member electorates, with candidates elected using the Hare-Clark system. A quota is one-sixth of the vote, or 16.7%. Preference distribution sheets have been released based on votes cast electronically. Paper ballots will be manually entered.

In Brindabella, Labor has 2.5 quotas, the Liberals 2.3 and the Greens 0.7. The Poll Bludger’s analysis of preferences has it very close between Labor and the Greens for the final seat.

In Ginninderra, Labor has 2.4 quotas, the Liberals 1.6 and the Greens 0.8. Labor leads the Liberals for the final seat, but it could be overturned on late counting.

In Kurrajong, Labor has 2.3 quotas, the Liberals 1.6 and the Greens 1.4. Preferences from Labor and minor parties give the Greens a solid lead over the Liberals in the race for the final seat. So Kurrajong is likely to split two Labor, two Greens and just one Liberal.

In Murrumbidgee, Labor has 2.2 quotas, the Liberals 2.1 and the Greens 0.7. This is a clear two Labor, two Liberals, one Green result.

In Yerrabi, the Liberals have 2.4 quotas, Labor 2.1 and the Greens 0.6. This will be two Liberals, two Labor and one Green.

In summary, Labor is likely to win ten of the 25 seats, the Liberals eight and the Greens five, with two in doubt, one Labor vs Greens and one Labor vs Liberal. In 2016, the result was 12 Labor, 11 Liberals, two Greens. The current Labor/Green coalition has easily retained power.

Queensland Newspoll: 52-48 to Labor

The Queensland election will be held on October 31. A Newspoll, conducted October 9-14 from a sample of 1,001, gave Labor a 52-48 lead, a three-point gain for Labor since a late July Newspoll. Labor’s lead is the same as in a YouGov poll that I covered in early October. YouGov conducts Newspoll, so it is effectively the same pollster.

Primary votes were virtually identical to that YouGov poll, at 37% Labor, 37% LNP, 11% Greens and 9% One Nation; the only difference a one-point drop for the Greens.

63% were satisfied with Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk’s performance and 33% were dissatisfied, for a net approval of +30. These figures are identical to a September Newspoll of the Victorian and Queensland premiers’ ratings.

Opposition Leader Deb Frecklington had a net approval of -7, up one point since the late July Newspoll. Palaszczuk led Frecklington as better premier by 57-32 (57-26 in July).

More state polls: NSW and Victoria

Channel 10 commissioned a uComms NSW poll after revelations of Premier Gladys Berejiklian’s affair with former Liberal MP Daryl Maguire. 63% said Berejiklian should not resign, and just 28% thought she should go.

The only information provided on voting intentions was that the Coalition led Labor by 38-30. William Bowe says that uComms includes undecided in the initial table, and that this implies little change from the 2019 election result.

A YouGov poll for The Sunday Telegraph gave Berejiklian a 68-26 approval rating. By 49-36, voters did not think she had done anything wrong. By 60-29, they wanted her to stay as premier.

A Victorian SMS Morgan poll, conducted October 12-13 from a sample of 899, gave Labor a 51.5-48.5 lead, unchanged since late September. Primary votes were 40% Labor (up one), 40% Coalition (up 0.5) and 9% Greens (down one). Premier Daniel Andrews had a 59-41 approval rating (61-39 previously).

Trump still down by double digits nationally

The FiveThirtyEight national polls aggregate currently gives Joe Biden a 10.6% lead over Donald Trump (52.4% to 41.8%). It’s somewhat closer in the key states with Biden leading by 7.9% in Michigan, 7.8% in Wisconsin, 6.8% in Pennsylvania, 4.0% in Florida and 3.9% in Arizona.

Pennsylvania has returned to being the “tipping-point” state, and is currently polling 3.8% better for Trump than nationally. But Trump needs to get within five points to make the Electoral College competitive.

There appears to be a new surge of coronavirus in the US: over 70,000 new cases were recorded Friday, the highest since late July. Trump is perceived to have handled coronavirus poorly, so the more it is in the headlines, the worse it will probably get for him.

– ref. Labo(u)r easily wins in both New Zealand and the ACT, and leads in Queensland – https://theconversation.com/labo-u-r-easily-wins-in-both-new-zealand-and-the-act-and-leads-in-queensland-147985

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Hall, Senior Researcher in Politics, Auckland University of Technology

A pandemic can change the foundations of a society. But if this happens in New Zealand over the next three years, it will be for reasons beyond the control of the sixth Labour government. When it comes to the fundamental structure of state and economy, Labour is broadly committed to the status quo.

This was confirmed on election night when Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, wearing a Labour red dress before a National blue background, declared: “We will be a party that governs for every New Zealander.”

In times of upset, people yearn for normality — and Ardern’s Labour Party was awarded a landslide for achieving something close to this. The risk of a further COVID-19 outbreak is ever present, as today’s announcement of a community transmission case in Auckland reminded us.

Nevertheless, international spectators view our pandemic response with a wistful gaze. At a time when many nations went sour on liberal democracy and rolled the populist dice, New Zealand appears on the world stage like a tribute act to third-way politics, a nostalgic throwback to the relative sanity and stability of the long 1990s.

Yet for many people who live in Aotearoa New Zealand, the status quo isn’t working, and hasn’t for some time. These tensions are only intensifying.

Housing unaffordability is on the rise again, with implications for wealth inequality and deprivation. This is compounded further by the cascading economic effects of the global pandemic and unconventional manoeuvres in monetary policy that are pushing house prices higher.

Without remedial action, this inequality will leave New Zealand society more exposed to future shocks, not only from COVID-19, but also the multiplying risks of climate change, biodiversity collapse, digital disruption and international instability. Inequality ensures uneven impacts, a recipe for further discontent and conflict.

No party for ideologues

Even from a purely electoral perspective, the Labour Party can’t afford inaction. It is easy to forget how precarious the prime minister’s position was at the beginning of the year. She could boast enough policy wins to stack an early campaign video, yet hadn’t pulled a fiscal lever large enough to convince the public that her government was truly “transformational”.

Entering a second term, her policy agenda is more recognisable by what she won’t do than what she will — no capital gains tax, no wealth tax, indeed no new taxes at all beyond a tweak for the highest earners.

This leaves us with the longstanding conundrum of what the Labour Party is and what it really stands for these days. Ardern and her colleagues are not ideologues, but no politics is without ideology — a system of ideas, values and beliefs that orients its efforts.

Read more: New Zealand’s new parliament turns red: the 2020 election results at a glance

I’ve argued in the past that Ardern’s government has a spirit of civic republicanism. This has met with reasonable scepticism, yet in the midst of the pandemic it feels more relevant than ever. With borders drastically restricted, and old allies going wayward, there is a renewed sense of separateness, of independence in the world.

Might the pandemic seal New Zealand’s fate as the Commonwealth of Oceana, as a 21st century version of 17th century English republican John Harrington’s utopian island?

Kindness as a political virtue

The first symptom of republicanism belongs to Ardern herself. She is the active citizen par excellence. She embodies civic commitment and public-spiritedness, along with a good dose of humility. Even in emergencies, she remains one of us: primus inter pares, “first among equals”.

Analysts of Ardern’s political leadership emphasise her openness, honesty, self-discipline, empathy and, above all, her authenticity. For civic republicans, the exercise of such virtues is the lifeblood of public life. Indeed, insofar as Ardern has a distinctive political agenda, it is centred on the virtue of kindness.

Arguably, this has displaced the more principled commitments that might guide substantive structural reform. But kindness also provided vital emotional leadership in the raw moments following the Christchurch mosque attacks and the outset of the pandemic.

Read more: Jacinda Ardern and Labour returned in a landslide — 5 experts on a historic New Zealand election

As the 18th century philosopher Montesquieu said, “Virtue in a republic is a most simple thing: it is a love of the republic.” Few could doubt Ardern’s devotion to the nation. But for the Labour Party, as for republicans, this has an exclusionary aspect.

Given the emphasis on citizens, republicans have tended to prioritise “us” over “them”. In the Athenian republic, only citizens could participate in democracy, and only wealthy men could be citizens — not women, not slaves, not foreigners.

Similarly, in New Zealand’s “team of five million”, only citizens have the full spectrum of rights and entitlements. For more than 300,000 temporary visa holders, whose compliance with pandemic restrictions was vital for containing the outbreak, there was minimal solidarity from government.

Many were frozen out of jobs during lockdown, unable to relocate due to visa conditions, and excluded from social welfare support. Others were stuck outside the country until very recently, unable to re-enter. From a liberal or internationalist perspective, this is hard to swallow. But there is a nativist strain within the Labour Party which will relish these harder borders.

None of this is to say that Labour’s politics aren’t liberal or social democratic. Ideologies can be mixed in the same way that economies can be. It is to say, more modestly, that some of the qualities that characterise the Ardern government align with civic republicanism.

And this helps to resist the lazy analysis that this government is nothing more than a continuation of what came before, another phase in an undifferentiable centrist blob.

Neither socialist nor purely liberal

But where to next? Firstly, this is not a government of pure socialist intentions. Accusations of this kind come from a place of confusion, delusion, or plain mischief. Socialism, simply put, involves collective ownership of the means of production.

This government already relinquished an unprecedented opportunity to socialise the economy when it implemented its wage subsidy scheme at the outset of the pandemic.

Public debt is growing precisely to keep private businesses in private hands. Labour’s resistance to substantive tax reform, even to reduce the debt it insists it must pay back, reveals its abandonment of redistribution as a practicable tool for social change.

Read more: NZ election 2020: Jacinda Ardern promised transformation — instead, the times transformed her

Secondly, this is not a government of purely liberal intentions. It is ambivalent about the free flow of people and capital. Attorney-General David Parker, in particular, has prioritised citizens through restrictions on overseas buyers of housing and the “national interest” test for foreign investment.

It is notable that former National prime minister John Key, guided by a vision of global liberalism that is increasingly endangered, is still railing against this.

Ardern’s government is also unembarrassed about a more active role for the state. Its approach for housing is illustrative — not just its boost to state-owned housing, but especially its embrace of the state’s potential as a developer providing houses directly to market.

Liberals see this as mere interference, but republicans tolerate government intervention wherever it improves the lives of citizens. In the wake of the pandemic, voters will be prone to agree.

The danger of losing trust

This touches on the defining feature of civic republicanism: its commitment to freedom from domination. Republicans accept the kinds of intervention that liberals fear, as long as they free people from situations of oppression and subjugation.

Domination should also be broadly understood to include regulations, poverty, sexism, racism, environmental degradation, employment relations — anything that thwarts our cherished projects.

This is where the republican spirit mostly clearly intersects with the sixth Labour government’s interest in well-being. The purpose of worrying about well-being is to improve people’s capabilities to live the kinds of lives they most value.

Read more: NZ election 2020: why gender stereotypes still affect perceptions of Jacinda Ardern and Judith Collins as leaders

Because the aforementioned forms of oppression curtail such freedoms, we have a duty to overturn them, through intervention if necessary. Well-being economics isn’t merely about measurement; it is an emancipatory project.

Ardern’s government is most vulnerable to criticism when it falls short of this ideal — for example, the oppressive practices of Oranga Tamariki or ineffective infrastructure development. If voters won’t punish Ardern for not being socialist or liberal enough, they might still penalise her for failing to make real these republican impulses.

It is said that, in politics, what lifts you up is what will eventually drag you down. When the virtues of openness fail to strengthen transparency, when state intervention fails to deliver outcomes competently or effectively, when appeals to “the people” paper over vital differences, when the politics of kindness fail to prevent suffering — this is where trust will be lost.

The danger of electoral dominance is becoming your own worst enemy.

– ref. With a mandate to govern New Zealand alone, Labour must now decide what it really stands for – https://theconversation.com/with-a-mandate-to-govern-new-zealand-alone-labour-must-now-decide-what-it-really-stands-for-144490

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Liz Minchin, Executive Editor, New Zealand

Labour is celebrating a landslide victory tonight after winning 49% of the vote. The result means Labour could govern alone — the first time this has happened since New Zealand introduced a mixed member proportional (MMP) electoral system in 1993.

In her victory speech, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said the result gave Labour “the mandate to accelerate our [COVID-19] response and our recovery, and tomorrow we start”.

Earlier, National Party leader Judith Collins, whose party only won 26.9% of the vote, promised to be a “robust opposition” and “hold the government to account for failed promises”.

You can read the analysis of the results by our five political experts here.

In the new parliament, Labour will have 64 seats, while National has 35, the Green Party ten, ACT ten and the Māori Party is expected to return to parliament with one seat.

The numbers are a reversal of the 2017 results, when Labour polled 36.9%, National had 44.4% of the vote and New Zealand First leader Winston Peters became the kingmaker.

New Zealanders had to wait almost a month before Peters announced he would form a coalition with the Labour Party, becoming deputy prime minister. The Green Party joined the coalition in a confidence and supply arrangement.

In this election, NZ First was ousted from parliament, after the party failed to reach the 5% threshold and neither of its candidates managed to win an electorate seat.

Five parties gained seats in parliament. The Māori Party is expected to win one of seven Māori electorate seats and return to parliament even though it only achieved 1% of the party vote. None of the other minor parties won electorate seats or reached the 5% party vote threshold.

Compared to previous elections, record numbers of New Zealanders voted early in 2020. A day before the election, more than 1.7 million people had already cast their vote, representing more than 60% of the total number of votes cast in the 2017 general election.

Read more: NZ election 2020: how might record advance voting numbers influence the final outcome?

Voters also voted on two referendums: whether the End of Life Choice Act 2019 should come into force and whether the recreational use of cannabis should become legal.

Referendum votes will be counted after election day and preliminary results will be released on October 30. We’ll cover the outcomes then.

2017 election results

In 2017, the National Party won 44.4% of the votes and on election night, then prime minister Bill English celebrated victory.

But NZ First won 7.5% and held the balance of power. It was the third time for NZ First leader Winston Peters to become the veto player in the government-formation process.

After almost four weeks of negotiations, he opted to go into coalition with Labour, with the Green Party in a confidence and supply role. For the first time under New Zealand’s MMP electoral system, the new government was not led by the party that had won the largest number of seats.

Jacinda Ardern became prime minister in an extraordinary period in New Zealand’s political history. Just three months earlier, Ardern had been the deputy leader of a Labour Party polling in minor party territory.

– ref. New Zealand’s new parliament turns red: the 2020 election results at a glance – https://theconversation.com/new-zealands-new-parliament-turns-red-the-2020-election-results-at-a-glance-147757

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Cowling, Associate Professor – Information & Communication Technology (ICT), CQUniversity Australia

Apple has released its new smartphone, the iPhone 12, without an accompanying charger or earbuds. Users have harshly criticised the company for this move and will have to purchase these accessories separately, if needed.

While some see it as cost-cutting, or a way for Apple to profit further by forcing customers to buy the products separately, the technology giant said the goal was to reduce its carbon footprint.

This is the first time a major smartphone manufacturer has released a mobile without a charger. Earlier this year, reports emerged of Samsung considering a similar move, but it has yet to follow through.

But even if abandoning chargers is a way for Apple to save money, the action could have a significant, positive impact on the environment.

Australians, on average, buy a new mobile phone every 18-24 months. In Australia, there are about 23 million phones sitting unused — and therefore likely a similar number of accompanying chargers.

Just as single-use shopping bags contribute to plastic waste, unused and discarded electronic appliances contribute to electronic waste (e-waste).

Read more: Don’t chuck that old mobile phone, there’s gold in there

You can reuse a shopping bag, so why not your phone charger?

Just over a decade ago, Australia started to ban single-use plastic bags, starting with South Australia. Today, every state and territory in Australia has enforced the ban except New South Wales — which intends to do so by the end of 2021.

Since South Australia implemented its ban in 2008, state government estimates suggest it has avoided 8,000kg of marine litter each year — and abated more than 4,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.

The benefits for the environment have been clear. So, why are we so hesitant to do the same for e-waste?

E-waste is a real, but fixable, environmental issue

E-waste includes different forms of discarded electric and electronic appliances that are no longer of value to their owners. This can include mobile phones, televisions, computers, chargers, keyboards, printers and earphones.

Currently there are about 4.78 billion mobile phone users globally (61.2% of the world’s population). And mobile phone chargers alone generate more than 51,000 tonnes of e-waste per year.

On this basis, the environment would greatly benefit if more users reused phone chargers and if tech companies encouraged a shift to standardised charging that works across different mobile phone brands.

This would eventually lead to a reduction in the manufacturing of chargers and, potentially, less exploitation of natural resources.

Who needs a charger with an Apple logo anyway?

Citing an increase in e-waste and consumer frustration with multiple chargers, the European Parliament has been pushing for standardised chargers for mobile phones, tablets, e-book readers, smart cameras, wearable electronics and other small or medium-sized electronic devices.

This would negate the need for users to buy different chargers for various devices.

Also, there’s no doubt phone companies want people to regularly buy new phones. Apple themselves have been accused of building a feature into phones that slows them down as they get older. Apple responded by saying this was simply to keep devices running as their batteries became worn down.

But even if this is the case, Apple’s decision to ship phones without chargers would indeed reduce the use of precious materials. A smaller product box would let Apple fit up to 70% more products onto shipping pallets — reducing carbon emissions from shipping.

However, it remains to be seen how much this cost will reduce and assist in Apple’s environmental goals, especially if many consumers end up buying a charger separately anyway.

Apple equates its recent “climate conscious” changes to the iPhone 12 with removing 450,000 cars from the road annually — contributing to its target of becoming carbon-neutral by 2030.

Are wireless chargers the answer?

It’s worth considering whether Apple’s main incentive is simply to cut costs, or perhaps push people towards its own wireless charging devices.

These concerns are not without merit. Apple is one of the richest companies in the world, with most of its market capital made with hardware sales.

Without a shift to a standardised plug-in charger, a wireless charging boom could be an environmental disaster (even though it’s perhaps inevitable due to its convenience). But wireless charging consumes around 47% more power than a regular cable.

This is potentially concerning, as the sustainability advantages of not including a charger may come alongside increased energy consumption. Currently, the Information, Communication and Technology (ICT) sector is responsible for about 2% of the world’s energy consumption.

The case for a universal plug-in charger

Perhaps one solution to this dilemma is device trade-in services, which many companies already offer, including Apple and Samsung.

Apple gives users a discount on a new device if they trade in an older model. Similar services are offered by third parties such as Optus, Telstra, MobileMonster and Boomerang Buy Back.

Ultimately, however, the best solution would be for tech giants to agree on a universal plug-in charger for all small or medium-sized electronic devices, including mobile phones.

And hopefully, just as we all now take reusable bags to the grocer with us, in a few years we’ll be able to use a common charger for all our devices — and we’ll wonder what all the fuss was about.

Read more: Apple releases fast 5G iPhones, but not for Australia. And we’re lagging behind in getting there

– ref. Apple’s iPhone 12 comes without a charger: a smart waste-reduction move, or clever cash grab? – https://theconversation.com/apples-iphone-12-comes-without-a-charger-a-smart-waste-reduction-move-or-clever-cash-grab-148189

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, La Trobe University

Last week the World Health Organisation’s special envoy on COVID-19, David Nabarro, said:

We in the World Health Organisation do not advocate lockdowns as the primary measure for the control of the virus.

This has created confusion and frustration, as many people have interpreted this as running counter to WHO’s previous advice on dealing with the pandemic. Haven’t most of us spent some or most of the past few months living in a world of lockdowns and severe restrictions, based on advice from the WHO?

Dig a little deeper, however, and these comments are not as contrary as they might seem. They merely make explicit the idea that lockdowns are just one of many different weapons we can deploy against the coronavirus.

Lockdowns are a good tactic in situations where transmission is spiralling out of control and there is a threat of the health system being overwhelmed. As Nabarro says, they can “buy you time to reorganise, regroup, rebalance your resources”.

But they should not be used as the main strategy against COVID-19 more broadly. And the decision to impose a lockdown should be considered carefully, with the benefits weighed against the often very significant consequences.

Lockdowns also have a disproportionate impact on the most disadvantaged people in society. This cost is greater still in poorer countries, where not going to work can mean literally having no food to eat.

Read more: Is lockdown worth the pain? No, it’s a sledgehammer and we have better options

So if lockdowns are best used as a short, sharp measure to stop the coronavirus running rampant, what other strategies should we be focusing on to control the spread of COVID-19 more generally? Here are four key tactics.

1. Testing, contact tracing and isolation

The key pillars in the public health response to this pandemic have always been testing, contract tracing, and isolating cases. This has been the clear message from the WHO from the beginning, and every jurisdiction that has enjoyed success in controlling the virus has excelled in these three interlinked tasks.

No one disputes the importance of being able to identify cases and make sure they don’t spread the virus. When we identify cases, we also need to work out where and by whom they were infected, so we can quarantine anyone who may also have been exposed. The goal here is to interrupt transmission of the virus by keeping the infected away from others.

Time is of the essence. People should be tested as soon as they develop symptoms, and should isolate immediately until they know they are in the clear. For positive cases, contact tracing should be done as quickly as possible. All of this helps limit the virus’s spread.

Read more: Where did Victoria go so wrong with contact tracing and have they fixed it?

2. Responding to clusters

Responding to disease clusters in an effective, timely manner is also vitally important. We’ve all seen how certain environments, such as aged-care homes, can become breeding grounds for infections, and how hard it is to control these clusters once they gain momentum.

Bringing clusters under control requires decisive action, and countries that have been successful in combating the virus have used a range of strategies to do it. Vietnam, which has been lauded for its coronavirus response despite its large population and lack of resources, has worked hard to “box in the virus” when clusters were identified. This involved identifying and testing people up to three degrees of separation from a known case.

Read more: Europe’s second wave is worse than the first. What went so wrong, and what can it learn from countries like Vietnam?

3. Educating the public

Another crucial element of a successful coronavirus response is giving the public clear advice on how to protect themselves. Public buy-in is vital, because ultimately it is the behaviour of individuals that has the biggest influence on the virus’s spread.

Everyone in the community should understand the importance of social distancing and good hygiene. This includes non-English speakers and other minority groups. Delivering this message to all members of the community requires money and effort from health authorities and community leaders.

4. Masks

After some confusion at the beginning of the pandemic, it is now almost universally accepted that public mask-wearing is a cheap and effective way to slow disease transmission, particularly in situations where social distancing is difficult.

As a result, masks — although unduly politicised in some quarters — have been rapidly accepted in many societies that weren’t previously used to wearing them.

Read more: Victorians, and anyone else at risk, should now be wearing face masks. Here’s how to make one

– ref. WHO is right: lockdowns should be short and sharp. Here are 4 other essential COVID-19 strategies – https://theconversation.com/who-is-right-lockdowns-should-be-short-and-sharp-here-are-4-other-essential-covid-19-strategies-148175

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Melatos, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Sydney

US private equity firm Bain Capital won’t formally assume control of Virgin Australia until November. But its coup this week against chief executive Paul Scurrah, dumping him for Jayne Hrdlicka, a former Bain employee with a reputation for toughness, signals the start of a classic private equity smash-and-grab operation.

When Virgin’s administrators and creditors formally accepted Bain’s bid for the stricken airline, they did so in part due to undertakings job losses would be minimised. Administrator Vaughan Strawbridge optimistically said in September the deal would provide “certainty for employees and customers” as well as “maintaining a competitive Australian aviation industry for the benefit of consumers”.

Now, just weeks later, Scurrah’s exit indicates Bain’s intentions. He was reportedly reluctant to undertake the cost-cutting Bain wants as part of a plan to position Virgin Australia between Qantas and its budget carrier Jetstar.

Hand-picked appointment

Hrdlicka spent about 15 years working for Bain in both the US and Australia. She joined Qantas as a senior executive in 2010, where she reportedly gained a reputation for being tough on unions. She was appointed group chief executive of Jetstar in 2012 (a position she held until 2017).

Replacing the existing boss with a hand-picked replacement is standard practice in private equity deals. It is one of the most important strategic decisions (and typically the first) a private equity owner makes.

As such, the choice says a great deal about what an owner hopes to achieve, and how it plans to achieve it.

In contrast to the chief executive of a public company (the shares of which are traded on a stock exchange) who must act on behalf of a multitude of shareholders, the head of a private-equity company answers solely to the private equity owners.

This relationship, therefore, is an intensely personal one, with private-equity partners being very “hands-on” owners.

Urgency trumps empathy

What are the qualities private-equity owners look for in a chief executive?

According to researchers who interviewed 32 managing partners of private-equity firms to find out what they valued, a handful of key qualities are particularly sought after.

They want candidates with a track record in overcoming setbacks, who are team builders, and who won’t shy away from telling their bosses (the private equity firm) how things are. Previous experience is less important. So too is empathy. As one interviewee told them:

I’m not down on empathy, but there are times when empathy needs to take a back seat to urgency. Some highly empathetic leaders are not able to make the tough personnel decisions that need to be made – which compromises performance.

In this vein, Bain’s jettisoning of Scurrah for Hrdlicka is highly suggestive of the management approach Bain would like to see.

Among other things, it is likely to involve a more combative approach to employee relations with a view to aggressively, and quickly, driving down Virgin’s cost base.

Scurrah’s dumping has already reportedly led to the Transport Workers Union (representing the biggest proportion of Virgin Australia employees) suspending negotiations with management. Unions had reportedly been assured months ago Hrdlicka would not be made chief executive.

Private equity’s poor track record

Yesterday, Virgin’s administrator Vaughan Strawbridge again (somewhat optimistically) “reaffirmed” that “Virgin Australia will not be repositioned as a low-cost airline”:

Virgin Australia will be a ‘hybrid’ airline, delivering high value to its customers by delivering a distinctive Virgin experience at competitive prices.

But Bain’s dumping of Scurrah for Hrdlicka fits the classic narrative of how private-equity players squeeze money for themselves out of takeover targets before bailing out before those companies nose-dive.

As I wrote after Virgin Australia’s August announcement that it would axe its budget brand Tigerair and sack about 3,000 of its 9,000 staff:

Private-equity owners have a poor track record in creating strong, sustainable companies with long-term prospects. At their worst they can act a bit like used-car salesmen who know how to spruce up and turn a profit on a vehicle with underlying mechanical problems.

If the typical private-equity experience is anything to go by, Bain, having acquired Virgin with mostly borrowed money, will seek to maximise cash flow by operating only high-margin, high-volume routes (consistent with servicing “premium corporate” and “budget-focused” travellers). It will abandon other low-margin, mostly regional routes to the vagaries of the Qantas monopoly.

Read more: Cutbacks may keep Virgin Australia alive for now, but its long-term prospects are bleak

Bain will also likely seek to reduce staffing costs through renegotiating pilot and cabin-crew employment contracts, using the threat of further redundancies as leverage. On the most popular trunk routes, where it will provide a parallel service to Qantas, customers will face cosy duopoly prices.

The upshot of all this: to allow Bain and its co-investors to pay themselves handsome dividends upfront, thereby facilitating an exit at the earliest opportunity at a tidy profit. This would be a classic debt-fuelled private-equity play.

In public-interest terms, however, it will be a costly missed opportunity to build a robust long-term domestic competitor to Qantas.

Read more: ‘Home away from home’: reflecting on past airline collapses in Australia

Inevitably, once the private equiteers have left the building, a once-proud airline will be left labouring under a mountain of debt, marking time until it capitulates at the onset of the next economic crisis; the unfortunate plaything of financial, not aeronautical, engineers.

– ref. Virgin sacrifice: boardroom bloodletting signals a classic private-equity hijacking – https://theconversation.com/virgin-sacrifice-boardroom-bloodletting-signals-a-classic-private-equity-hijacking-148244

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lorna Piatti-Farnell, Professor of Popular Culture, Auckland University of Technology

With much of the world in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, there is some talk of cancelling Halloween celebrations this year.

It’s only natural to wonder if we should celebrate an event that, on the surface, seems frivolous and unimportant when so many people around the world are suffering and dying because of the deadly virus.

But it’s precisely because of the current situation that it’s essential to hold on to customs that bring the community together.

Halloween is a celebration of both the living and the dead. The fun and entertaining aspects — sweets, parties, carved pumpkins and over-the-top costumes and decorations — don’t take away from its importance.

The question is: how to celebrate Halloween and stay safe within any local rules you have to follow on social distancing and other measures as part of coronavirus prevention strategies?

Perhaps it’s time to create new traditions to keep the spirit of Halloween alive, without forfeiting our health. The origins and aims of Halloween may provide some good ideas on how to move forward.

A brief history of Halloween

Halloween has a mixed historical heritage. It’s often claimed it originated in Europe in the ancient Celtic festival of Samhain. This was celebrated (roughly) in November, starting on the evening of October 31 — known as “the eve of Samhain”.

Read more: Why is it fun to be frightened?

Samhain was both a community and a spiritual event, when bonfires were lit and food offered to the spirits who had crossed over from the Otherworld for the night.

Carved vegetables, such as turnips, were placed outside doors to both guide and ward off evil spirits.

Masks were worn as part of the celebration: the aim was either to scare off the spirits or to honour them, depending on which source you consult.

Some claim that when Christianity arrived in the Celtic world in the fourth century it tried to incorporate some of the existing pagan festivals into its rituals, with an aim to perhaps become more appealing to new followers.

Some see the influence of Samhain on the Christian season of Hallowtide, which the church formally established in the ninth century. This incorporates All Hallows’ Eve (October 31), All Saints’ Day (November 1) and All Souls’ Day (November 2). Hallowtide was, and still is, a time to commemorate the dead and celebrate our ongoing connection to them.

Across the centuries, many practices have been part of the Hallowtide celebrations, including “guising”, where children dress up in whimsical costumes and go door to door demanding offerings of foods for the departed.

This practice survives today and most will recognise it by its American name “trick or treating”.

Whether you wish to acknowledge the influence of either pagan or broad Christian belief on Halloween, what remains true is that on this night the boundary between this world and the next is meant to be at its thinnest. Spirits, then, can cross over to visit.

What better way to celebrate the occasion — even if you perceive it as completely secular — than to indulge in fancy dress, games and delicious food.

Halloween traditions 2020 style

This is where our cultural creativity comes in. We need to rechannel what’s at the heart of Halloween, and consider how we can still make celebrations easy and accessible — especially for children.

Remember that Halloween is all about the sharing of food, community celebrations, the appreciation of each other and, above all, a layer of spiritual awareness that keeps us connected to our dearly departed.

If we think about the event in these terms then we can reshape and re-invent our traditions to fit our changed world.

For example, rather than taking our children from door to door to collect sweets, take a leaf from the “Easter egg hunt” and organise a “Halloween treats hunt” at home instead.

This still places an emphasis on finding and collecting food, which is what children tend to be most interested in. The treats don’t have to be sugar-filled and can be adapted to meet the health sensibilities of each home.

A Halloween hunt done in costume provides a good photo/video opportunity for families.

If you can’t imagine not being out in the streets, a useful alternative is to take socially distanced COVID-safe Halloween walks. That way children can still see their friends’ costumes, and show off their own.

If houses are decorated to match the Halloween spirit, inside and out — whenever possible, both physically and financially — this could add an extra touch to the experience of Halloween.

Read more: Create new Halloween rituals with healthy eating and playful living

Countdown to Halloween

Similar to the 12 days of Christmas, set up a Halloween countdown. The “13 days of Halloween” has an irresistible sound to it. It provides an opportunity to do something a little bit special each day, whether baking Halloween cookies, crafting your own masks, or watching an (age-appropriate) spooky movie.

Carving a pumpkin will, of course, be an unmissable part of the countdown.

While Halloween might be different this year, by embracing new traditions we show the resilience of the event, as well as our own, during difficult times.

The spirit of Halloween must certainly live on.

What tips do you have to play safe this Halloween? Share your ideas in the comments below, and remember to follow our community standards.

– ref. Don’t cancel Halloween: some ‘spooky’ tips on how to stay COVID-safe this All Hallows’ Eve – https://theconversation.com/dont-cancel-halloween-some-spooky-tips-on-how-to-stay-covid-safe-this-all-hallows-eve-147658

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samuel Wilson, Senior Lecturer in Leadership, Swinburne University of Technology

Since 2018, we have tracked public perceptions of the leadership of various Australian institutions — including government — as part of our Australian Leadership Index.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic worsened in Australia in March, public perceptions of the federal and state governments were consistently poor. Political leaders were seen to be serving themselves and other vested interests, rather than the public interest.

However, since the start of the pandemic and the establishment of the National Cabinet in March, this has begun to change.

We collected data at three points during the pandemic — March, June and September. And for the first time since our data collection began in 2018, a majority of people said they felt the federal and state governments were exhibiting leadership for the greater good.

State government leadership has improved since March

We have also tracked how the public has viewed the leadership of individual state governments.

While all state governments improved in our surveys from March to September, there have been marked differences in their approval ratings.

The government of WA Premier Mark McGowan has consistently been viewed as displaying the most leadership for the public good — topping out at 65% of respondents in September.

Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk’s government, meanwhile, has been at the bottom. Just 30% of our respondents said her government has shown a high degree of leadership for the greater good in September — up from 19% in March.

These findings are consistent with other surveys — Newspoll and Vox Pop Labs/ABC — from the first wave of the pandemic.

However, perhaps no other leader in the country has been under greater scrutiny than Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews.

Unlike other states, Victoria’s numbers were relatively static from June to September during the state’s harsh second lockdown. In June, 44% of respondents said they believed the Andrews’s government was displaying a high degree of leadership for the greater good, and this modestly improved to 46% in September.

This could be seen as an unexpectedly good result in the context of the hotel quarantine debacle and the prolonged lockdown.

Andrews’s government was not nearly as popular as McGowan’s in our surveys, but it has tracked quite closely to NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian’s government from March through September, and ahead of the Queensland government.

Read more: Andrews under fire: why an activist premier’s greatest challenges may yet lie ahead

A tale of two states

Given the markedly different experience of Victoria and NSW residents during the pandemic, it is instructive to compare public perceptions of both governments’ leadership.

According to the model that underpins the Australian Leadership Index, the public regards an institution as leading for the greater good when it creates social, environmental and economic value for the whole of society in a way that is transparent, accountable and ethical. At least, this is how people judge leadership in normal times.

Read more: How the coronavirus pandemic is (finally) resulting in leadership for the greater good

Among NSW residents, there were some changes in the factors that underpinned perceptions of state government leadership through the pandemic. Transparency became increasingly important, for instance, while balancing the interests of different stakeholders became less so.

There was also a shift in what people felt was needed most by society. In March and June, respondents said good leadership involved creating positive social outcomes for people, but in September, this shifted to creating positive economic outcomes.

By contrast, among Victorians, there was a marked shift how people viewed good leadership from the first wave (March-June) to the second wave (June-September).

During the first wave, Victorians thought leadership for the common good was served by balancing the needs of different groups and focusing on the creation of positive social outcomes.

By September, however, far more people were concerned about the ethical standards of the government and its accountability.

Will people continue to rate state governments highly?

Despite the furious debate taking place in the media about personal freedoms and the proportionality of government measures to control the pandemic, at the community level, there appears to have been a more settled attitude to the reality of living in a COVID-19 world.

However, there are signs the public mood is turning and politics-as-usual is returning. State premiers are faltering. Federal and state government solidarity is ebbing away. None of this bodes well for community perceptions of government leadership.

Although leadership for the greater good is a complex, evolving phenomenon, people know it when they see it. Let us hope that political leaders have the moral conviction and imagination to sustain it.

Read more: Tensions rise on coronavirus handling as the media take control of the accountability narrative

– ref. Blunders aside, most Australians believe state premiers have been effective leaders during pandemic – https://theconversation.com/blunders-aside-most-australians-believe-state-premiers-have-been-effective-leaders-during-pandemic-147998

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexa Gower, Postdoctoral researcher, Monash University

Melbourne has endured one of the strictest COVID-19 lockdowns in the world. Public health announcements indicate restrictions are set to continue despite experts warning that Victoria is unlikely to get the daily average number of new cases down to just five in the near future.

Our research shows some people lack access to the essential services and amenities that support healthy and liveable places during the lockdown. We tracked 80,000 location-based tweets from January 2020 to September 2020 to understand how people are responding to Melbourne’s lockdowns.

Social media such as Twitter can provide a window into how people are emotionally managing during the lockdown and how well their neighbourhood meets their needs in this challenging time. This is particularly important as policy conversations turn to the importance of 20-minute neighbourhoods and living locally in the post-COVID city.

Read more: People love the idea of 20-minute neighbourhoods. So why isn’t it top of the agenda?

Research has shown the inequality of neighbourhood access to services and amenities can have serious physical and mental health impacts. These differences raise issues of equity and whether responses are proportionate to the threat. It also means some neighbourhoods are ill-equipped to support the anticipated increase in people working from home during and after the pandemic.

Read more: Our cities are full of parks, so why are we looking to golf courses for more open space?

Life under lockdown isn’t the same for all

On August 2, the Victorian government established strict restrictions on movement including a 5km travel bubble and curfew in Melbourne. In a cross-discipline collaboration between Monash’s Art, Design & Architecture and Data Futures Institute, our analysis of Twitter data focused on neighbourhood amenity and opportunity at this point. Our findings reveal the differences in resident well-being across different suburbs during lockdown.

With the introduction of the first lockdown, the number of tweets posted about people’s local neighbourhoods increased by 158% compared to January and February 2020. This highlights how the lockdown turned people’s attention towards their residential area. It also indicates neighbourhood amenities became more significant for people who are no longer commuting to work in Melbourne’s CBD or other places.

People living in areas with poor access to amenities expressed higher levels of negative sentiment about their neighbourhood during the lockdown periods. Sentiment in these areas dropped three times in the year. There was a 13% drop in sentiment in March when the first lockdown came in and another 15.5% fall with the June lockdown 2.0. Sentiment continued to fall by 30% in August.

In contrast, tweets about amenity-rich areas revealed a 4% rise in positive sentiment. These residents detailed how their neighbourhood amenity helped their well-being during this time.

Read more: Twitter posts show that people are profoundly sad – and are visiting parks to cheer up

Missing aspects of going to work

We also see that not everyone is as supportive of remote working arrangements as some studies claim. Before the lockdown, tweets about places in Melbourne often highlighted satisfaction with working environments. These tweets spoke of walking between meetings, and places to gather and eat out:

Beautiful day in the city – just perfect for walking between meetings and lunch at the cafe. (Outer Melbourne, March 6).

Under lockdown, the number of tweets with negative sentiment about residential neighbourhoods throughout Melbourne increased by 124%. People posted negative opinions about what was missing from their local area and expressed longing for the amenities found in their workplace. People also missed their daily commute and the opportunity to walk between places outside their neighbourhood:

Although I’m loving working from home, one thing that I really miss is my walk to the office from the station. (Outer Melbourne, July 9).

Moreover, tweets highlighted that some people don’t have enough space to work from home

When I am working at home I’m currently sharing space with the indoor clothes hangers. (Outer Melbourne, April 16).

These tweets remind us of the challenges some people face when working from home and indicate how commuting enables access to amenities that their neighbourhoods lack.

Some areas make work from home a joy

In comparison, tweets that expressed positive neighbourhood sentiment during the lockdown referred specifically to the benefits of parks and public facilities. In high-amenity areas, people expressed gratitude for these places.

Social isolating done right … I’m so #grateful to have these sort of parks right on my doorstep so I can exercise both me and the dogs ?? (Inner Melbourne, March 29)

Being able to experience the natural environment improved their mood.

I went outside for a walk and took a moment to stand in a spot where the onshore bay breeze could freely hit me in the face while I listened to Sign ☮️ the Times. I needed that so badly. #starfishandcoffee’ (Inner Melbourne, April 16)

Read more: Parks and green spaces are important for our mental health – but we need to make sure that everyone can benefit

Some were happy to spend more time locally even when lockdown measures had eased.

The joys of working from home and walking to support our local coffee shop. Then you are pleasantly surprised by Teddy and his marmalade skills. Just sweet! (Outer Melbourne, May 27)

Increased positive sentiment about local amenity continued longer into the year than negative tweets, highlighting the broad benefits local amenities provide to communities.

Work to be done on neighbourhood amenity

Comparing Melbourne’s Twitter data across different places provides insight into the impacts of neighbourhood amenity on resident well-being during lockdown. It also shows the uneven access to important neighbourhood facilities in different places and the consequences for remote working.

The lockdown experience highlights that if Melbourne is serious about achieving a city of 20-minute neighbourhoods, there is immediate work to do to improve access to everyday amenities and support remote working.

Read more: Reclaiming the streets? We all can have a say in the ‘new normal’ after coronavirus

– ref. How’s your life under lockdown? Tweets tell the tale of how neighbourhoods compare – https://theconversation.com/hows-your-life-under-lockdown-tweets-tell-the-tale-of-how-neighbourhoods-compare-147839

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

University of Canberra Professorial Fellow Michelle Grattan and University of Canberra Assistant Professor Caroline Fisher discuss the week in politics.

This week the pair discuss a week of ICAC hearings, and evidence concerning Premier Gladys Berejiklian and former MP Daryl Maguire, as well as the resignation of head Victoria bureaucrat Chris Eccles, and scandal for the LNP leading up to the Queensland election.

– ref. VIDEO: Michelle Grattan on ICAC, Chris Eccles, and the Queensland election – https://theconversation.com/video-michelle-grattan-on-icac-chris-eccles-and-the-queensland-election-148253

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Gruen, Adjunct Professor, Business School, University of Technology Sydney

Three of the world’s most populist leaders of modern times – Donald Trump, Boris Johnson and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, have handled the COVID crisis badly.

All three have caught it.

In the Financial Times, chief economics commentator Martin Wolf has asked whether this spells the end of the sort of right wing aggressive populism that has been so successful in recent times.

Part of his answer is that populism hasn’t lined up neatly against relative success in keeping populations safe.

In the Anglosphere, Trump and Johnson have indeed been much more chaotic in tackling COVID than Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

But other populist governments such as those in Hungary and Poland have done well.

“The really interesting question” he says, turns out to be “is a government actually interested in governing?”.

Trump and Bolsonaro are basically interested in politics as performance.

They don’t care about government but they don’t really understand what government is for and they’re indifferent to it. In some ways and in some cases, they’re actually trying to dismantle the state.

As Wolf says, it’s obvious if that’s what you want to do, you can’t manage a disease well.

But there are other autocratic and indeed populist politicians who understand that ultimately their claim on power depends on being reasonably effective in dealing with such things.

The populists who don’t care about government are likely to be disposed of.

It’s possible for populists to govern well

But, what will replace them will not necessarily be a more effective democratic government, it could just as easily be a more effective dictator who understands the importance of delivering what people care about.

Wolf says that’s what Hungary and, in a different way, Poland has shown.

Alasdair MacIntyre’s concepts of “internal” and “external” goods offer some useful tools with which the think about these issues.

MacIntyre explains them with an example in which a child is taught to play chess and rewarded with candy if she wins.

Read more: Populism in Brazil: how liberalisation and austerity led to the rise of Lula and Bolsonaro

The skills required for excellence in chess are “internal goods”. They include spatial vision, computational accuracy and competitive intensity. They are “internal” because they emerge organically from the activity.

Candy is an “external good” because it is provided from outside the game.

All of the practices that have acquired any significance in the world, from chess playing to accountancy, from business management to political statesmanship are all entanglements of internal and external goods mutually supporting each other.

Rewards matter, but they are not everything

The internal goods of a practice can’t prosper – can’t exist in the world as more than a hobby – without the external goods such as money (and sometimes candy), power and esteem.

Thought of economically, they enable the practice to bid resources (of people’s attention, time and money) away from other activities.

Medicine is a practice with its own internal goods, but there wouldn’t be much of it unless practitioners were paid.

The converse is also true. People are prepared to part with their scarce resources to fund medicine or some other practice only because they value what it produces. Equally medicine can’t function without internal goods – such as the skills taught at med school.

Read more: How to discipline your children without rewards or punishment

However, although they complement one another, internal and external goods are in tension.

The girl in pursuit of candy will be tempted to cheat, undermining her incentive to acquire the game’s internal goods. A doctor will be tempted to over-service to obtain more external goods at the cost of sacrificing internal goods.

MacIntyre says it is virtues that keep this from happening.

Without them, in particular, “without justice, courage and truthfulness, practices could not resist the corrupting power of institutions”.

Leaders are getting skilled, at the wrong things

As MacIntyre sees it, the skill of political performance is actually an internal good of politics. It’s an important skill that helps one excel at politics. But it’s a particular kind of internal good.

Many internal goods are unquestionably meritorious unless they’re deliberately used for some nefarious purpose. Such skills include an astronomer’s or a chess player’s accuracy in calculation or the sensitivity of a medical professional’s skills of observation and diagnosis.

On the other hand the business person’s focus on profit, the sportsperson’s competitive intensity and the politician’s capacity to perform are internal goods that are, in their respective areas, most closely associated with acquiring external goods.

This makes them more morally ambiguous than other internal goods.

This has been true since ancient Athens, but in my view what has changed is the fast foodification of our culture; the growing focus of our institutions on the external rewards of profit, power and prestige.

As fast food is to ordinary food, so porn is to sexuality, memes are to culture and to our capacity to concentrate, auto-tuned formulaic pop is to popular music, and linkbait and trolling are to journalism.

It was MacIntyre’s horror that this was increasingly the case in modern liberal capitalist democracies that motivated his thinking. As he put it

if in a particular society the pursuit of external goods were to become dominant, the concept of the virtues might suffer first attrition and then perhaps something near total effacement, although simulacra might abound.

So how did we get here and what can we do about it?

It seems to have arisen from the way the markets or “theatres of action” have scaled.

A generation ago, party politics had deep roots into the community across the Western world with party membership of around 14% of population.

By the turn of this century average membership had fallen to just 5% of the population and active membership had fallen to a mere fraction of that.

Read more: Discontents: identity, politics and institutions in a time of populism

Politicians doorknock less than they used to. After COVID they mighn’t do it much at all.

The mass scale of campaigning has forced politics to be conducted through media far more than it used to be, making the external goods of power and prestige much more dependent on performance in the media.

Fast food media, fast food politics

But the media has been driven by its own competitive imperatives to attract audiences, and so has concentrated on reporting the theatrics of political performance – intensifying the vicious cycle which hollows out political discourse as loss of members and local action has hollowed out party membership.

So much so that politicians do increasingly farcical things for the cameras – none more so than the famously irreligious (or perhaps “areligious’”) Trump photo-op, bible in hand, at a church outside the White House, having walked through public space that had been cleared of demonstrators with tear gas.

Because these phenomena have developed deep structural roots, I’d expect there to be strict limits to the extent that they can be addressed within the existing system – though measures within it to improve integrity such as fundraising limits on political parties might be helpful.

Wolf may also be right that the extraordinary incompetence of the worst of the populists will trigger a backlash against them.

But I fear we’re in the grip of something bigger.

This analysis points to the possible healing qualities of injecting into our system small-scale deliberation of the kind of I have argued for elsewhere through mechanisms that aren’t “scaled” via media performances such as citizen’s juries.

We are prepared to do it for court cases. We are prepared to appoint as our representatives a jury of twelve ordinary people chosen without reference to performance or external rewards.

That Western democracies used to deliver good outcomes is not a good argument for maintaining the status quo. If we care about our institutions we will try to improve them.

– ref. COVID won’t kill populism, even though populist leaders have crisis badly – https://theconversation.com/covid-wont-kill-populism-even-though-populist-leaders-have-crisis-badly-145309

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Todd E. Caissie, PhD Candidate in Art History and Cultural Heritage and Preservation Studies. Lecturer, Rutgers University

Kyniska (or Cyniska), a Spartan princess, was the daughter of King Archidamus II and sister to King Agesilaus.

She owned a sizable estate where she bred, raised and trained horses, and in 396 BCE, when she was probably between 40 and 50 years old, she became the first woman to participate in the Olympic Games.

Spartan culture believed stronger children come from parents who were both strong, an unusual concept in Ancient Greek society. Spartan authorities encouraged women to train both mind and body.

Unlike Athens and the other Greek city-states where girls were hidden from the public and learned only domestic skills, Sparta held races and trials of strength for girls as well as boys.

Kyniska’s childhood would have been full of athletic training: running, jumping, throwing the discus and javelin, perhaps even wrestling.

Spartan girls married later, allowing more years in education. Aristocratic girls such as Kyniska learned poetry and also trained to dance and sing competitively, so she may have even been literate.

Kyniska had wealth and status – but it was her ambition that made her a legend.

This ambition drove her to compete in the four-horse chariot race, or tethrippon, at the Olympics in 396 and 392 BCE.

Her chariot team won both times.

No women allowed

This feat was especially impressive because women could not even step foot on the sacred grounds of the Olympic Sanctuary during the festival. Married women were forbidden on penalty of death from even attending as spectators.

To compete, Kyniska cleverly exploited loopholes.

In sports like wrestling or javelin, the victors individually competed on the field. In the chariot race, the winners were the horse owners, not the riders – who were almost always slaves. Much like with the modern Kentucky Derby or Melbourne Cup, the victors are the horse and its owner, not the rider.

Kyniska didn’t have to drive the chariot to win.

In fact, chariot team owners did not even have to be physically present at Olympia during the games. Kyniska could enter her chariot team in the race without ever stepping foot on the forbidden sacred grounds.

But Kyniska’s role was not secret. News of an Olympic victory was carried by fast messengers to the victor’s home city, where preparations to celebrate their return were begun at once. News that a woman had won an Olympic contest would have spread quickly.

What motivated a Spartan royal to break through the difficult glass ceiling of male-dominated Olympic competition and culture? The scant sources we have offer different opinions.

The Greek writer Pausanias said Kyniska had personal ambitions to win at Olympia, but Xenephon and the philosopher Plutarch credit her brother, King Agesilaus, for pressuring her to compete.

The answer may involve a bit of both.

Her legacy

Many ancient Greek women won Olympic victories after Kyniska, but none were as famous as she.

Kyniska erected at least two life-size bronze statues of herself at Olympia. The inscription on a remaining fragment of her marble statue base reads:

Kings of Sparta were my fathers and brothers. I, Kyniska, victorious at the chariot race with her swift-footed horses, erected this statue. I claim that I am the only woman in all Greece who won this crown.

Kyniska relished her fame. Agesilaus may have been the catalyst, but Kyniska herself probably decided to compete – at least the second time.

Other women would go on to compete in the chariot races, and by the 1st century CE women were competing directly against men in foot racing events – and winning.

The fact Kyniska didn’t physically compete has caused history to discount her achievements, but this argument marginalises her larger accomplishment. Amid enormous cultural barriers, Kyniska broke gender norms and glass ceilings.

By boldly and proudly celebrating her trailblazing victories with commemorative statues, she transmitted this message to women across the Greek world.

Fuelled by Spartan pride, Kyniska’s accomplishment to be the first woman to compete, and win, in the male-only Olympics is a startling and memorable achievement that deserves a prominent place in Olympic lore.

– ref. Hidden women of history: Kyniska, the first female Olympian – https://theconversation.com/hidden-women-of-history-kyniska-the-first-female-olympian-123909

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tony Wood, Program Director, Energy, Grattan Institute

Shifting Australia to a low-emissions energy system is a big challenge. Much has been said of the need to change the electricity generation mix, from mostly fossil fuels to mostly renewables. Yet our electricity transmission network must also be overhauled.

The transmission network largely consists of high-voltage cables and towers to support them, as well as transformers. This infrastructure moves electricity from where it’s generated, such as a coal plant or wind farm, to an electrical substation. From there, the distribution network – essentially the “poles and wires” – takes the electricity to customers.

On Australia’s east coast, increased renewable energy generation is already stretching the capacity and reach of Australia’s ageing transmission network. New capacity is being built, but is struggling to keep up.

In his budget reply speech last week, Labor leader Anthony Albanese pledged to create a A$20 billion corporation to upgrade Australia’s energy transmission system. So let’s take a look at what work is needed, and what’s standing in the way.

Starting with the basics

The electricity grid covering Australia’s east is part of the National Electricity Market (NEM). It’s one of the largest interconnected electricity networks in the world, and covers every jurisdiction except Western Australia and the Northern Territory.

The NEM comprises:

• electricity generators (which produce electricity)

• five state-based transmission networks, linked by interconnectors that enable electricity to flow between states

• the distribution network (poles and wires)

• electricity retailers (which sell electricity to the market)

• customers, such as homes and businesses

• a financial market in which electricity is traded.

The NEM’s transmission grid currently has a long, thin structure, running from the north of Queensland to the south of Tasmania and the east of South Australia. This reflects the fact that electricity has traditionally been produced by a small number of large, centralised (mostly coal and gas) generators.

Who owns and runs transmission networks?

Australia’s electricity networks were originally built and owned by state governments, mostly during the latter half of the 20th century. Over several decades, interstate transmission interconnectors were built to share resources more efficiently across borders. The NEM was formally created in the late 1990s.

Between 2000 and 2015, several states either partly or fully privatised their transmission networks, leading to the mixed model of today. The transmission companies are monopoly providers, and the prices they charge are set by the Australian Energy Regulator (AER).

Read more: Sure, no-one likes a blackout. But keeping the lights on is about to get expensive

The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) operates the national market and is responsible for transmission planning. In Victoria, AEMO also decides on transmission investments. In the other jurisdictions, that role rests with the transmission companies.

In the past, electricity companies made some infrastructure investments far beyond what was needed – mostly in distribution networks, but also in transmission. This so-called “gold plating” of networks led to inflated costs for consumers, who ultimately pay for the investments via their power bills.

Why do the transmission networks need fixing?

Renewables have increased the total NEM generation capacity from 40 gigawatts to 60 gigawatts since 2007. More than 30 gigawatts of renewable generators and 12 gigawatts of energy storage are expected to come online by 2040.

In mid-2017, a panel led by Australia’s Chief Scientist Alan Finkel recommended a plan be drawn up to create “renewable energy zones”. These would coordinate the development of new renewable projects with new grid infrastructure.

The zones were contained in AEMO’s 2018 “Integrated System Plan (ISP). It identified transmission projects that should start immediately, and possible future projects.

Two initial projects involve expanding the system’s capacity between Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. Possible future projects include a second interconnector between Victoria and Tasmania.

Read more: In a world first, Australian university builds own solar farm to offset 100% of its electricity use

But upgrading the transmission grid is easier said than done. The large size and cost of new transmission lines means planning and approval is subject to lengthy, intensive economic assessments.

What’s more, renewable energy generators are often built in regional areas, where solar and wind energy are plentiful. In many cases the electricity grid in those areas, designed in a different era, doesn’t have the capacity to accommodate them.

In September, the Energy Security Board (ESB), created by COAG energy ministers, said the transmission grid must be reconfigured along the lines of the ISP to suit the emerging mix of renewable generation and storage. This means upgrading existing interconnectors, and building new interconnectors and intrastate transmission from regional areas to coastal centres.

Weighing the political promises

Labor leader Anthony Albanese last week released a A$20 billion “Rewiring the Nation” policy to upgrade the grid. It would establish a government-owned body to partner with industry, providing low-cost government finance for the upgrades.

The Morrison government, for its part, is also working on transmission solutions. It’s supporting projects prioritised in the ISP, including up to A$250 million allocated in this month’s federal budget.

Some states have separately accelerated their own high-priority transmission projects. However, none of the above measures effectively solve two big impediments to modernising the transmission network.

Read more: Energy giants want to thwart reforms that would help renewables and lower power bills

First, the processes to identify, analyse and build transmission projects is too slow. Second, a state’s transmission infrastructure is currently paid for by consumers in that state – a poor fit for the increasingly integrated, and therefore shared, national grid.

Much work must be done to address these issues. Perhaps a government-owned national company could be established. It would own the shared transmission system, while AEMO would drive what gets built. Operations could be outsourced to a private company to deliver efficiencies.

Separating planning from owning would minimise the perverse financial incentives that led to past “gold plating”.

To minimise the risk of white elephants being built, strong, up-to-date benefit-cost assessments would be required.

Such alternatives will come with their own challenges. But the transition towards low emissions is too important for radical solutions to be ignored.

– ref. Explainer: what is the electricity transmission system, and why does it need fixing? – https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-the-electricity-transmission-system-and-why-does-it-need-fixing-147903

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Gruen, Adjunct Professor, Business School, University of Technology Sydney

Three of the world’s most populist leaders of modern times – Donald Trump, Boris Johnson and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, have handled the COVID crisis badly.

All three have caught it.

In the Financial Times, chief economics commentator Martin Wolf has asked whether this spells the end of the sort of right wing aggressive populism that has been so successful in recent times.

Part of his answer is that populism hasn’t lined up neatly against relative success in keeping populations safe.

In the Anglosphere, Trump and Johnson have indeed been much more chaotic in tackling COVID than Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

But other populist governments such as those in Hungary and Poland have done well.

“The really interesting question” he says, turns out to be “is a government actually interested in governing?”.

Trump and Bolsonaro are basically interested in politics as performance.

They don’t care about government but they don’t really understand what government is for and they’re indifferent to it. In some ways and in some cases, they’re actually trying to dismantle the state.

As Wolf says, it’s obvious if that’s what you want to do, you can’t manage a disease well.

But there are other autocratic and indeed populist politicians who understand that ultimately their claim on power depends on being reasonably effective in dealing with such things.

The populists who don’t care about government are likely to be disposed of.

It’s possible for populists to govern well

But, what will replace them will not necessarily be a more effective democratic government, it could just as easily be a more effective dictator who understands the importance of delivering what people care about.

Wolf says that’s what Hungary and, in a different way, Poland has shown.

Alasdair MacIntyre’s concepts of “internal” and “external” goods offer some useful tools with which the think about these issues.

MacIntyre explains them with an example in which a child is taught to play chess and rewarded with candy if she wins.

Read more: Populism in Brazil: how liberalisation and austerity led to the rise of Lula and Bolsonaro

The skills required for excellence in chess are “internal goods”. They include spatial vision, computational accuracy and competitive intensity. They are “internal” because they emerge organically from the activity.

Candy is an “external good” because it is provided from outside the game.

All of the practices that have acquired any significance in the world, from chess playing to accountancy, from business management to political statesmanship are all entanglements of internal and external goods mutually supporting each other.

Rewards matter, but they are not everything

The internal goods of a practice can’t prosper – can’t exist in the world as more than a hobby – without the external goods such as money (and sometimes candy), power and esteem.

Thought of economically, they enable the practice to bid resources (of people’s attention, time and money) away from other activities.

Medicine is a practice with its own internal goods, but there wouldn’t be much of it unless practitioners were paid.

The converse is also true. People are prepared to part with their scarce resources to fund medicine or some other practice only because they value what it produces. Equally medicine can’t function without internal goods – such as the skills taught at med school.

Read more: How to discipline your children without rewards or punishment

However, although they complement one another, internal and external goods are in tension.

The girl in pursuit of candy will be tempted to cheat, undermining her incentive to acquire the game’s internal goods. A doctor will be tempted to over-service to obtain more external goods at the cost of sacrificing internal goods.

MacIntyre says it is virtues that keep this from happening.

Without them, in particular, “without justice, courage and truthfulness, practices could not resist the corrupting power of institutions”.

Leaders are getting skilled, at the wrong things

As MacIntyre sees it, the skill of political performance is actually an internal good of politics. It’s an important skill that helps one excel at politics. But it’s a particular kind of internal good.

Many internal goods are unquestionably meritorious unless they’re deliberately used for some nefarious purpose. Such skills include an astronomer’s or a chess player’s accuracy in calculation or the sensitivity of a medical professional’s skills of observation and diagnosis.

On the other hand the business person’s focus on profit, the sportsperson’s competitive intensity and the politician’s capacity to perform are internal goods that are, in their respective areas, most closely associated with acquiring external goods.

This makes them more morally ambiguous than other internal goods.

This has been true since ancient Athens, but in my view what has changed is the fast foodification of our culture; the growing focus of our institutions on the external rewards of profit, power and prestige.

As fast food is to ordinary food, so porn is to sexuality, memes are to culture and to our capacity to concentrate, auto-tuned formulaic pop is to popular music, and linkbait and trolling are to journalism.

It was MacIntyre’s horror that this was increasingly the case in modern liberal capitalist democracies that motivated his thinking. As he put it

if in a particular society the pursuit of external goods were to become dominant, the concept of the virtues might suffer first attrition and then perhaps something near total effacement, although simulacra might abound.

So how did we get here and what can we do about it?

It seems to have arisen from the way the markets or “theatres of action” have scaled.

A generation ago, party politics had deep roots into the community across the Western world with party membership of around 14% of population.

By the turn of this century average membership had fallen to just 5% of the population and active membership had fallen to a mere fraction of that.

Read more: Discontents: identity, politics and institutions in a time of populism

Politicians doorknock less than they used to. After COVID they mighn’t do it much at all.

The mass scale of campaigning has forced politics to be conducted through media far more than it used to be, making the external goods of power and prestige much more dependent on performance in the media.

Fast food media, fast food politics

But the media has been driven by its own competitive imperatives to attract audiences, and so has concentrated on reporting the theatrics of political performance – intensifying the vicious cycle which hollows out political discourse as loss of members and local action has hollowed out party membership.

So much so that politicians do increasingly farcical things for the cameras – none more so than the famously irreligious (or perhaps “areligious’”) Trump photo-op, bible in hand, at a church outside the White House, having walked through public space that had been cleared of demonstrators with tear gas.

Because these phenomena have developed deep structural roots, I’d expect there to be strict limits to the extent that they can be addressed within the existing system – though measures within it to improve integrity such as fundraising limits on political parties might be helpful.

Wolf may also be right that the extraordinary incompetence of the worst of the populists will trigger a backlash against them.

But I fear we’re in the grip of something bigger.

This analysis points to the possible healing qualities of injecting into our system small-scale deliberation of the kind of I have argued for elsewhere through mechanisms that aren’t “scaled” via media performances such as citizen’s juries.

We are prepared to do it for court cases. We are prepared to appoint as our representatives a jury of twelve ordinary people chosen without reference to performance or external rewards.

That Western democracies used to deliver good outcomes is not a good argument for maintaining the status quo. If we care about our institutions we will try to improve them.

– ref. Populist leaders have handled COVID badly, and they could still get away with it – https://theconversation.com/populist-leaders-have-handled-covid-badly-and-they-could-still-get-away-with-it-145309

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Claire Robinson, Professor of Communication Design, Massey University

With under 48 hours until polls close in the 2020 election, 1,565,421 New Zealanders have made an advance vote. This represents 60% of the total number of votes cast in the 2017 general election and is the most advance votes ever cast in a New Zealand general election.

Is it possible to read the tea leaves in these numbers and predict what’s going to happen on Saturday?

Earlier this century and facing plummeting voter turnout, the Electoral Commission surveyed non-voters as to why they had not cast a vote. Respondents said they simply forgot or were otherwise busy on election day, away or overseas.

To mitigate these factors, the commission has made it easier for people to vote when and where it suits them. It has opened polling booths two weeks ahead of the election day in a range of locations, including school and church halls, mosques, marae, universities, clubrooms, libraries and pop-ups in retail spaces.

As a strategy to increase the total vote, this appears to have worked. Turnout has risen from a record low of 74.2% of enrolled voters in 2011 to 77.9% in 2014 and 79.01% in 2017.

Advance voting is not the only factor in these statistics. Voter advice applications such as Massey University’s On The Fence have helped first-time voters feel more confident about the voting process. This has led to higher youth voter turnout, contributing to the rise in overall turnout.

Who benefits from advance voting?

Our major political parties have cottoned on to the advantages they can gain by promoting advance voting. Core major party voters tend to decide their voting choices well before the official campaign period. It’s therefore in major party interests to lock those votes in before random campaign events shake voters’ confidence in their choices at the last minute.

Parties only have to look back at the 2002 election to see the impact of this. When Labour entered the campaign it was hovering around 53% support. Following a random media storm over genetically engineered corn, which blew over as quickly as it arrived, Labour’s vote dropped over ten points to 41.26% on election day.

It was therefore no surprise to see our major party leaders, Jacinda Ardern and Judith Collins, casting their votes on the first weekend polls were open, projecting confidence and role-modelling the acceptability of advance voting. Green co-leader James Shaw and ACT leader David Seymour also voted that weekend, hopeful of locking in the opinion poll gains their parties had made in the middle of the campaign period.

Read more: NZ election 2020: 5 experts on the final debate and the campaign’s winners and losers ahead of the big decision

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has said he will wait until tomorrow to cast his vote. On the grounds of “clanger after clanger after clanger being dropped every day now”, he has warned “only a fool tests the water with both feet”. He has encouraged voters to wait until election day so they know all the facts before casting their votes.

This isn’t just Peters playing amateur philosopher. Currently languishing in the polls, it has never been more important for New Zealand First to discourage advance voting. Peters will know that many of his supporters in previous elections have been protest voters who opted for New Zealand First as a matter of last resort because they liked neither of the major parties’ offerings or leaders.

Unfortunately for the party, some of the clangers this week are own goals. News about the financial scandal concerning the New Zealand First Foundation is more likely to hurt than benefit the party’s election fortunes this close to election day.

The impact of late strategic voting

At least a million voters are still to cast their votes today and tomorrow. History shows many will end up voting the same way they would have two months ago, irrespective of what has transpired during the campaign.

But a good proportion will also have been waiting for last night’s opinion poll to decide how to strategically cast their vote to influence the composition of the next parliament.

Read more: NZ election 2020: why gender stereotypes still affect perceptions of Jacinda Ardern and Judith Collins as leaders

If it looks like their preferred party is “safe”, they may give their votes to a minor party to help them form part of a final coalition. If their preferred party is looking unsafe, they may give their votes to a minor party to send a message of disappointment for poor performance.

Since the MMP system began, the minor party vote has been highest in the elections where the pre-election poll gap between the major parties has been widest. With last night’s gap between Labour and National remaining a whopping 15 points, it looks like the Greens and ACT will be the beneficiaries of late strategic voting, not either of the major parties.

This won’t be the result Ardern and Collins were hoping for when they cast their advance votes two weeks ago, but democracy in New Zealand will ultimately be stronger for it.

– ref. NZ election 2020: how might record advance voting numbers influence the final outcome? – https://theconversation.com/nz-election-2020-how-might-record-advance-voting-numbers-influence-the-final-outcome-148182