This election is acquiring quite a few back-to-the-future touches.

There’s John Howard, in robust campaign mode. One of those he’s spruiking for is the embattled Tony Abbott, with a letter to Warringah voters, a video and a planned street walk.

Then there’s a prospect that independent Rob Oakeshot might be set for resurrection. Oakeshott, remembered for that 17-minute speech when he (finally) announced he’d support the Gillard government, could strip the Nationals of the northern NSW seat of Cowper.

And bizarrely, there’s Clive Palmer, becoming a player to be reckoned with.

Only last June Morrison said of Palmer’s renewed political push that he thought Australians would say “the circus doesn’t need another sideshow.”

Well, the sideshow’s here and the Liberals are grabbing a prize from its spinning wheel, with an in-principle preference deal with Palmer’s United Australia Party (still to be formally announced by the UAP on Monday).

With Morrison, preferences are a matter of cost-versus-benefit.

That assessment led him to declare recently the Liberals would place One Nation behind Labor. Given the expose of One Nation’s cavorting with the US gun lobby, and how vulnerable the Liberals are in Victoria, Morrison needed to make a gesture.

Read more: View from The Hill: James Ashby rocks a few boats, including his own

Anyway, the One Nation preference issue is most relevant to the Nationals, and the edict didn’t apply to them.

Indeed on Thursday, Nationals’ senator Steve Martin announced the Tasmanian Nationals Senate how-to-vote card will have One Nation third, behind the Liberals (and ahead of Labor) after an agreement between the two parties. “One Nation is less objectionable than the Labor/Greens cohort,” Martin said.

A cost-benefit analysis leads Morrison to turn a blind eye to the times Palmer stymied the Coalition government when he had the power to do so, let alone his business practices, including leaving his nickel refinery workers in the lurch. As is his style, Morrison simply throws a blanket over such inconvenient history.

Read more: View from The Hill: Can $55 million get Clive Palmer back into parliamentary game?

Preference deals are all very well but if Palmer’s comeback takes more votes off the Coalition than from Labor it’s damaging for the government. They won’t all be returned via preferences. Of course Pauline Hanson also has a lot to worry about from any Palmer surge.

The Australia Institute, releasing its latest round of Senate polling in a report out on Friday, notes a “striking rise in support” for the UAP over its last four polls – from 0.8% in August last year to 3.1% earlier this month.

The current figures wouldn’t get the UAP a Senate seat, the report says. “But if the party’s vote continues to grow sharply, it will be an outside chance in Queensland and (surprisingly) Victoria.”

Victoria sounds far-fetched but in the Senate polling the UAP in that state was on 4.7%. Last week, Newspoll surveys in four marginal seats across the country had the UAP polling an average 8%, and 14% in the Queensland seat of Herbert.

Read more: Poll wrap: Palmer’s party has good support in Newspoll seat polls, but is it realistic?

With two weeks gone in the campaign, there’s a good deal of confusion about the state of play. The public holidays have broken the flow, and while parties have their research, publicly we’re lacking evidence about whether Labor’s 52-48% Newspoll lead of around a fortnight ago has held.

But a couple of points seem clear. First, Morrison so far has more than held his own on the campaign trail; Bill Shorten has under-performed. Second, the Liberals’ relentlessly negative campaign looks dangerous for Labor. This is especially so as Shorten is facing the full weight of News Corps’ hostility.

Labor entered the campaign in a good position. Its challenge is to limit the extent to which its initial advantage is eroded by its opponents’ scare tactics.

Although Morrison is battling for the survival of the government, it can be argued Shorten has more at stake personally.

That sounds counter-intuitive, but think of it this way.

Morrison has been leader well short of a year. The government has been generally written off. If the Coalition’s loss was small, many Liberals would see Morrison as having done a good job.

It would be another matter with a big defeat, but the blame for a relatively narrow one would likely (and rightly) be rammed home less to him, and more to the disgraceful shambles of the whole Coalition outfit.

But a Shorten loss, against the odds and after years of polling in Labor’s favour, would see the blame heaped on him (and shadow treasurer Chris Bowen, a driver of much of Labor’s ambitious policy).

Shorten would be criticised not just for his campaign – more fundamentally, he’d be condemned for adopting the big target strategy, so open to scare attacks.

And he’d be blamed for being who he is, a leader with an X factor when X stands for some hard-to-identify (and seemingly impossible to rectify) political gene that makes voters wary of him.

For two terms, Shorten’s government enemies and critics on his own side have underestimated him.

The Liberals thought he could be slain at the royal commission into trade unions that Tony Abbott set up. Malcolm Turnbull did not grasp how tough an opponent he’d be in 2016. Anthony Albanese was ready for him to stumble at the Super Saturday byelections.

Once again, facing this ultimate test, watchers are wondering whether Shorten’s has the goods.

Nonetheless, he and others in Labor appear confident of the numbers, even if in the melee it’s not just Coalition seats up for change, but some held by Labor and independents too.

Labor is encouraged that health, its signature issue and at the centre of Shorten’s first-week campaigning, is coming through strongly in its research, and climate change has been climbing up the issues scale.

Now the holidays are over, the campaign will ramp up quickly, with a new Newspoll, increasing voter tune-in, and prepolling beginning on Monday.

Also on Monday, Morrison and Shorten meet in Perth for a debate sponsored by the West Australian newspaper, an encounter where body language might be as revealing as content.

On Friday next week, they’ll be at a “people’s forum” in Brisbane. By then, with only a fortnight left, the trajectory of the campaign may be clearer.

– ref. Grattan on Friday: All is forgiven in Liberal-Palmer embrace – http://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-all-is-forgiven-in-liberal-palmer-embrace-116011

The islands of Sumatra, Borneo and Java were once part of a much larger landmass connected to Asia called Sundaland.

But there are some species that are unique to each island today – such as the two species of orangutan – so in research, published today in Scientific Reports, we looked at what could have kept them apart.

And that involves looking at ancient poo samples.

Land exposed

Sundaland was largest during times of lowest sea level, when it was bigger than all of today’s Europe combined.

Most recently, this was about 20,000 years ago at the peak of the last ice age. Glacial (ice age) periods are much longer than interglacials (warm – like today).

This means Sundaland was exposed above sea level for about 90% of the time over the last few million years, and looked like it does today about 10% of that time.

Sundaland when sea level was at its lowest 20,000 years ago. Study sites are shown that support savanna (orange) or rainforest (green) during that time. Also shown are the Molengraf rivers, on the now-submerged shelf, originally identified from early bathymetric surveys in 1921.

But what did the ancient landscapes look like across this vast – now largely underwater – continent?

Drop what you eat

To find this out we looked at thick accumulations of bat and bird poo in caves across the region.

Bats flying out of an Indonesian cave for a nightly feed. Chris Wurster, Author provided

Insect-feeding bats and birds live in caves. Every night, millions leave their roosts to feed, eating insects from the landscapes surrounding the cave.

After returning to sleep, the bats and birds “do their business”, defecating on the cave floor. The piles of excrement are mostly made up of insect skeletons. So the bats effectively act as mini-scientists, “sampling” the insects that were around the cave during each feed.

Over time, droppings accumulate in deposits several metres thick, which contain insect skeletons many thousands of years old.

Although we can’t identify the insects, as they are too broken up, we can look at chemical fingerprints to figure out what kind of plants the insects were feeding on. This is because insects that feed on tropical grasses leave a very different chemical imprint to those that feed on trees.

Bats clumping on a cave wall: look out below. Chris Wurster, Author provided

So these deposits tell us what type of vegetation was around the cave, and how this changed over time. This is lucky for us, because many other types of records of past environments simply don’t exist in the region, or are now under the sea.

Rainforest refuges

Because there aren’t many other sources of information, there is no agreement on what the landscapes were like across Sundaland in the past.

Some argue, and many models support this idea, that tropical rainforests always covered the whole region, similar to what exists on the islands today.

But there is another idea: that a savanna cut through Sundaland from north to south. This was flanked east and west by wet tropical rainforest, which served as a refuge for rainforest animals and plants during ice ages.

The whole Indonesian region is a biodiversity hotspot with lots of species found only on specific islands and nowhere else. Why? Think of the two species of orangutan, one found only in Sumatra and another only in Borneo. Why are there two subspecies of the Sunda clouded leopard, each unique to Borneo and Sumatra? What about the small Indian civet, found on mainland Asia and Java, but mostly absent from Borneo and Sumatra?

This is curious considering that for most of the time these weren’t in fact islands. So how did these species evolve separately if, for most of the time, they should have been able to move freely from Borneo to Sumatra through rainforest?

The answer to this question has implications for the conservation of many species in the region.

Chris, in over his head in cave poo. Hamdi Rifai, Author provided

We need more caves

We scoured Malaysia and Indonesia for caves with deposits that can answer this question. So what does the cave poo say?

In our latest published study, we present results from a 3-metre pile of ancient excrement covering almost 40,000 years.

Saleh Cave is on the southeastern end of Borneo and at the southern equatorial end of a savanna corridor, if one existed. Today, lush tropical rainforest covers the region.

Being guided to Saleh Cave. Chris Wurster

The chemical fingerprint in the cave poo is clear. Tropical grasses were a dominant part of the landscape during the ice age until recently – geologically speaking.

Putting this in the context of our earlier work in Malaysia, we conclude that a savanna corridor north of the equator was likely. Or, to put it another way, tropical forests did retreat to refuges on Sumatra and Borneo and did not cover Sundaland during the ice age.

Other ocean records also show that tropical grasses expanded, but these records are well to the south and east, and not in the heart of the proposed savanna corridor.

A barrier landscape

The savanna corridor acted as a barrier for rainforest specialists that wanted to move across Sundaland. On the other hand, the savanna corridor served as a bridge for species adapted to the open non-forest environments north and south of the equator.

This neatly explains many of the odd patterns of animal, insect and bird distributions we see across a region of major significance as a biodiversity hotspot.

It might also partly explain how people managed to move through the region so rapidly and on into Sahul (Australia and New Guinea) – the companion ice age continent to Sundaland – more than 50,000 years ago.

– ref. Bat and bird poo can tell you a lot about ancient landscapes in Southeast Asia – http://theconversation.com/bat-and-bird-poo-can-tell-you-a-lot-about-ancient-landscapes-in-southeast-asia-115628

by Dr Bryce Edwards

It’s a very different Anzac Day this year. In recent years this remembrance day has been steadily transforming. Most notably, becoming more popular, with attendance at ceremonies up, and an apparently more interested population in general. Last year’s centenary also bolstered the importance of the day. But this year, due to the Christchurch terrorist attacks, it’s all changed again.

For the single best examination of how Anzac Day is transforming, it’s worth reading the Christchurch Press editorial, which explains some of the changes and calls for even more modernisation, to turn the day into a more liberal-progressive way of dealing with war and its victims – see: Anzac Day will never be the same.

The editorial explains that the form Anzac Day takes is always going to be a product of the politics of the time. And so, what has happened in Christchurch, and what’s occurring around the world – and in the Middle East, in particular – means that Anzac Day is changing. Essentially, it’s becoming more political, and New Zealand society is using the day to reflect on global conflict.

It concludes with the hope that those attending remembrance ceremonies today might think of victims of conflicts beyond the traditionally recognised ones: “it would be nice to imagine that they will be thinking about more than the thousands of Australians and New Zealanders who died over a century ago. Instead, they might also turn their minds to the many who have been killed in the decades since, sometimes very recently and very close to home.”

The growth and modernisation of Anzac Day is such that according to John Tamihere it has become more nationally important to New Zealanders than Waitangi Day – see: Of all our days Anzac Day is our real national day.

Tamihere sees the day as one of both diversity and unification: “The beauty about our Anzac Day is the way in which, regardless of the conflict, we can all stand together and own the memory of whānau who gave their lives selflessly in order to defend who and what we are today. It matters not if some stand there to remember ancestors who gave their lives in the New Zealand Land Wars, the Boer War, World War I or World War II, or indeed even newcomers to New Zealand — now New Zealand citizens — whose ancestors gave their lives for their lands fighting on opposite sides. The beauty about Anzac Day is it allows us to embrace as a nation all of these hurts and sufferings.”

However there seems to be a heightened awareness this year that war commemorations can sometimes spill into patriotism and nationalism, which is a bitter irony, given that the invasion of Gallipoli and World War I strongly represents the folly of such emotions and ideologies.

This point is well made by Glenn McConnell today in a column in which he says Gallipoli should be “a reminder governments can so easily disregard human lives” utilising their “propaganda machine” to foster nationalism and falsehoods – see: Anzac Day should be a time of reflection, not celebration or patriotism.

McConnell reflects on last year’s centenary, saying “As we commemorated a century since the war, many people conflated our coming together at ceremonies with national pride and cohesion.” The major problem, he argues, is that although we are commemorating the tragic invasion of a Muslim land, today the “one group that is not readily welcomed into this collective commemoration is the Muslim community.”

He’s referring in particular to the decision of RSAs not to include Muslim prayers in their services today. Here’s his wider point about this: “When our leaders stand at memorials to preach about our unity, remember that they are not giving us the full picture. We are not ‘one’. We are not yet united. People repeat those comforting myths to lull themselves into a false security. The ‘one’ which they speak of is a Pākehā assimilated ‘one’. It is one Christian god. It is the one group which wells up with national pride on Anzac Day. New Zealand, we have a lot to be proud of. But we shouldn’t be proud of everything We shouldn’t be proud that we’ve let a great opportunity to unite slip. We shouldn’t be proud that for more than a century and counting, we treat our Muslim friends more like enemies.”

Similarly, a Press editorial today disagrees with the exclusion of Muslim prayers: “The obvious subtext, that Anzac Day commemorations are only about Anzacs, and are somehow Christian, is interesting and flawed” – see: Commemorating Anzac Day in a ‘different’ country. Instead of exacerbating division, what the remembrance of war “should turn our minds to, even as we commemorate those of our number who made the ultimate sacrifice, is reconciliation and peace.”

Today’s Otago Daily Times editorial also carries this message of inclusion and tolerance, saying we need to be “employing kindness, respect and tolerance in the present” when dealing with past wars, and that Anzac Day “is not a day of exclusivity, intolerance or rigidity. That is not what this country stands for and is not what it has fought for” – see: Honouring our past, present and future.

In terms of the decision not to include Muslim prayers in the ceremonies, the paper reflects on New Zealand’s relationship with Islam and Turkey: “But Islam has never been the enemy of New Zealand. We have always strived to be an open and tolerant country. We have had Muslim members of our armed forces and we have fought alongside Muslim soldiers from other nations. We celebrate Anzac Day on the date our own soldiers stormed the beaches of Turkey, attacking and killing Turkish soldiers – many of them Muslim. No Muslim army has stormed our own shores. Nor does Turkey forbid us from remembering our fallen in their own country, year after year. Germans, Italians, Japanese and others we have fought also deserve our respect and empathy. We can honour our own soldiers while also empathising with the suffering experienced by our then-enemies.”

Of course, as with all “national days” there’s a strong element of “state building” and mythology. According to James Robins, at this time each year, “folklore and tradition overtake fact, and much of the nation seems to embrace a soft-lit consensus, or worse, outright delusion. The repetition of half-truths, misremembered legends, and popular fictions is elevated to high art”. He believes that the so-called “Special Relationship” between New Zealand, Australia and Turkey is rather overplayed –  see: The repetition of Anzac half-truths.

The biggest falsehood of Anzac Day, according to Robins, is the whitewashing of the genocide that occurred at the same time as the invasion of Gallipoli, which was intrinsically linked – see his article in the Guardian: Anzacs witnessed the Armenian genocide – that shouldn’t be forgotten in our mythologising.

And back in New Zealand, the narrative around Anzac Day is strongly reinforced by two Peter Jackson-associated exhibitions in Wellington – Te Papa’s “Gallipoli: The Scale of Our War” and the old Dominion Museum’s “The Great War Exhibition”. But both of these are strongly critiqued by Massey University’s Nicholas Haig, who says they “nourish nationalistic and chauvinistic sentiment” – see: War remembrance: Acting out or working through?

On a lighter note, for another history lesson on how New Zealand has come to commemorate Anzac Day, see Bob Edlin’s Anzac Day – how local body leaders initiated a half-day holiday in NZ. In this, he looks back at what led to the national half-day holiday, noting “We have been checking the files and find a story akin to rival trans-Tasman claims about Phar Lap and pavlova cake.”

Controversy over cancellations and security

The various cancellations and increased security this year has also made today rather strange, with a lot of debate about whether authorities are doing the right thing. In Auckland, two-thirds of Anzac Day services were cancelled, and one was cancelled in Christchurch.

The New Zealand Herald is very unconvinced about the need for the cancellations, saying “Unless they know of a threat to Anzac Day, the police should let New Zealand honour its fallen as usual without fear” – see the editorial, Anzac Day is no time to give in to terror.

The newspaper argues that “Terrorism succeeds when a community is afraid to go about its normal life”, and “it becomes hard to deny the shooter in Christchurch has achieved a part of his destructive purpose. The police ought not to be giving him this satisfaction without good reason.”

This is also the view of John Tamihere: “Anzac Day celebrations are about honouring those lost in conflict and NOT the pointless ugly acts conducted in Christchurch. We cannot surrender what we are, who we are or where we are after this alleged lone ranger attack, or any other single act. But it feels to me, somewhere, someone has surrendered our identity as Kiwis.”

Former politician and soldier, Heather Roy also says she’s offended by the cancellations, saying they are a blow to the freedom that New Zealand soldiers have died for: “Thanks to their sacrifices we live in a free society. We’re free to go where we please, free to gather with others, enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of association. Yet this ANZAC Day the Police have told us we’re not free to gather with our local communities because they can’t protect us. They blame the government imposed heightened security threat” – see: Resist Anzac Day Restrictions. Attend and March.

They’re not the only ones dissatisfied. 1News reports that the backlash has been strong against the cancellations, with RSA leaders being blamed – see: RSA president called ‘coward’ and ‘disgrace’ following Anzac cancellations in Auckland.

There’s some dispute, however, over who actually made the cancellation decisions, with Police Minister Stuart Nash stating clearly that it was an RSA decision, causing some RSA officials to push back strongly. One official went on record to explain what he was told by Police: “The first thing we were told was you will have no parades and no marches anywhere, and after a bit of discussion on that we were then told you will have one civic parade and you will have one dawn parade… No arguments… it was an order, we were directed, it wasn’t would you please, it was you will have” – see Kim Baker Wilson’s RSA and police in standoff over who is responsible for cancelled Anzac Day events.

But for the best discussion of security arrangements for today, see the Herald’s Kiwi troops not designed for Anzac Day crowd control, police say they have the resources.

Finally, although the dawn services are already over today, there’s plenty of memorial coverage, war films and documentaries to watch on TV – see Fiona Rae’s What to watch on TV this Anzac Day. And if you want to make a stand for peace, there are also lots of anti-war events around the country – see: Anzac Day peace vigils and picnics.