Incoming Feed Items

The Labour government that rules the United Kingdom is hardly a year old, but its time is already coming to an end. Its popular legitimacy has collapsed, and it is visibly losing control of both the British state and its territories. Every conversation not about proximate policy is about the successor government: which party will take over, who will be leading it, and what’s needed to reverse what looks to be an unalterable course. What is known, however, is that the next government will assume the reins of a fading state after what will likely be the final election under the present, failed dispensation.

The Britain birthed by New Labour three decades ago, deracinated and unmoored from its historic roots, is unquestionably at its end. Its elements—most especially the importation of malign Americanisms like propositional nationhood—have led directly to a country that is, according to academics like Dr. David Betz of King’s College London, on the precipice of something like a civil war. That’s the worst-case scenario. The best case is that a once-great nation made itself poor and has become wracked with civil strife, including the jihadi variety. It is a prospect that will make yesteryear’s worst of Ulster seem positively bucolic.

In 2025, sometimes it is difficult to remember that, for two decades or so at the end of the twentieth- and start of the twenty-first century, Latin America was a place of hope. A progressive wave brought left-leaning governments to power across the region, driven by social currents fighting for new ways of organising society, politics and production; that is to say, new ways of organising life. The Zapatista uprising on the 1 January 1994 sparked excitement that Latin America could be a social laboratory once more. After being the cauldron where the economic ideas of the post-War period and the counterrevolutionary violence of the Cold War were first forged, the Zapatistas at once centred Latin America across debates over autonomy, democracy and alternatives to neoliberalism. Factory occupations by the piquetero movement in Argentina, Indigenous movements in Bolivia and Ecuador demanding control over water and other natural resources and the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (Landless Peasants’ Movement, MST) across South America captured the imagination of a generation of critical scholars. Arguably, nowhere was this truer than in Venezuela, where the charismatic president Hugo Chávez had returned from the brink in the face of a conservative coup d’état in 2003 to pursue what he labelled ‘twenty-first century socialism’.

Why does having a “reasonable” argument matter?

Listen to the full conversation on the Perspectives Journal podcast, available to subscribe on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Amazon Music, and all other major podcast platforms.

On September 20, 2025, thousands of Canadians took to the streets uniting climate justice, migrant justice, economic justice, Indigenous rights, and anti-war movements, calling for government action. Helping coordinate the more than 70 community demonstrations across Canada was Atiya Jaffar, National Campaigns Manager at 350 Canada. Activists from interconnected movements refused to stand by and accept the status quo.

On 9th October, we held a workshop for local authority members to learn more about the best ways to implement the socio-economic duty – a part of the Equality Act 2010 that may finally be coming into force. We and our expert speakers shared case studies, tips and resources on how to approach the SED […]

The post Event Recording: Preparing for the Socio-Economic Duty appeared first on Equality Trust.

No drug is as sacrosanct in today’s sexually “liberated” culture as oral contraceptives. But the proliferation of the birth control pill since the 1960s has fostered a number of grave consequences for our society: hook-up culture, delayed marriage, and the destruction of the nuclear family.

None of this would surprise Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. In the early 20th century, she promoted contraception as the mechanism for female emancipation. “Birth control is the first important step a woman must take toward the goal of her freedom,” she wrote. “It is the first step she must take to be man’s equal. It is the first step they must both take toward human emancipation.”

Feminist author Betty Friedan agreed, asserting that the pill gave women “the legal and constitutional right to decide whether or not or when to bear children,” and established the basis for true equality with men.

Because oral contraception has been touted as a cornerstone of women’s equality and freedom, its health repercussions are rarely called into question. Even HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who regularly wades into controversy by calling for investigations into seed oils and food dyes, remains relatively silent on oral contraceptives.

On October 7, President Donald Trump proclaimed a “National Manufacturing Day,” recognizing that “the strength of our Republic rests on the strength of our industries and the determination of our workers.” It is his administration’s latest move to support the reindustrialization of the American heartland.

The proclamation caps off numerous successes of the past nine months, which have seen around $5 trillion in new private and foreign investments in America, along with reciprocal tariffs, that are reawakening our manufacturing base. Better still, it highlights the all-too-often unsung hero of President Trump’s Golden Age industrial policy: deregulation.

For decades, smug economists and academics have insisted that America’s transition from an industrial economy to a financialized service-based one was natural, that the hollowing out of the American heartland and the offshoring of jobs were inevitable byproducts of capitalism. I beg to differ.

For the past few years, a growing problem has put healthcare budgets under increasing stress.

State and territory governments have been trying to do more with less, and it is all starting to come apart at the seams.

Extra money for healthcare during the pandemic hid the problem for a while. But, with those emergency sources of revenue gone, the states face funding shortfalls, and it is everyday Australians who are suffering as a result.

Overcrowded hospital waiting rooms. People waiting years in pain for hip replacements. People delaying appointments because of the cost, which then means issues are not picked up early.

Source of the problem probably not what you think

But this is not all doom and gloom. There is the real possibility of meaningful change.

The problem is that the GST is failing. The GST was created as a state tax, collected by the Commonwealth government, but then transferred in full to the state and territories.

It was promised to be the states’ own growth tax, which would help them fund their spending responsibilities, the biggest of which was healthcare.

But over the past 25 years since its introduction, it hasn’t grown with the economy.

On this episode of After America, Judge Navi Pillay, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and 2025 Sydney Peace Prize Laureate, joins Dr Emma Shortis to discuss accountability in international law and the prerequisites for genuine peace.

This discussion was recorded on Monday 13 October 2025.

Details of Judge Navi Pillay’s Australian events are available on the Sydney Peace Foundation website.

Dead Centre: How political pragmatism is killing us by Richard Denniss is available now via Australia Institute Press.

Guest: Navi Pillay, Chair of the United Nations Human Rights Council Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory

Host: Emma Shortis, Director, International & Security Affairs, the Australia Institute // @emmashortis

Show notes:

Israel has committed genocide in the Gaza Strip, UN Commission finds, Office of the High Commissioner, United Nations Human Rights (September 2025)

On May 13, 2005, the Uzbek government killed over 700 civilians gathered in the eastern city of Andijon to protest the economic, social, and political conditions of Uzbekistan. Prompted by the imprisonment and subsequent jailbreak of popular local businessmen, the crowd grew to 10,000 people, some drawn by a rumor that their dictator, President Karimov, would address the largest protest in Uzbekistan’s history.

Instead, military forces greeted the demonstrators. According to the Uzbek government, the forces targeted only armed insurgents, 187 of whom were killed. According to nearly all other accounts, the military fired indiscriminately into the crowd, murdering at least 700 people, including children.

At the center of the massacre was a group the Uzbek government called “Akromiya”. According to the Uzbek government, Akromiya armed the militants, Akromiya gave the orders, Akromiya was responsible for the deaths of Uzbek citizens in Andijon. Akromiya was a menace that had to be stamped out at any cost.

There was one problem with this theory: Akromiya — by the accounts of Uzbek and international human rights groups, political organizations, journalists, citizens, and accused Akromiya members themselves — did not exist.

Earlier this week, Alvaro Bedoya published a story-forward account of his experience as an FTC commissioner in the US. It's the kind of story that makes an ethnographer swoon. Through his accounting, he demonstrates how his perspective on politics changed by talking with people around the country. His experience this role upended his understanding of why American people are struggling - and why they are making the political choices that they make.

His accounting reminds me so much of my experience talking with teenagers all over the US. What powerful voices think about the problems in the world often look different from a different perspective. In my case, I was grappling with how teens' understanding of their struggles, desires, and goals looked different from adults' anxieties. In Alvaro's case, he came to realize that the DC narratives animating "left" and "right" don't make sense on the ground as people struggle with the economic realities of the present. Put simply, he shows why grappling with the political economy matters. (And he makes it very clear how corporate greed and oligarchic power have shaped political views.)

There is much to gain from reading the short stories of Raymond Carver, especially for today’s conservatives. When he published in the ’70s and ’80s, Carver was unsurpassed in his popularity. Today his settings, for instance, would be immediately recognizable to the average Trump supporter: fishing trips, small farms, barber shops, motel rooms, bingo halls, and bars (plenty of bars).

His scenes are small or midsized towns in the Columbia Plateau, the Great Basin, or the Pacific Northwest (mostly coastless parts like Clatskanie, Oregon, or Yakima, Washington, where Carver was born and grew up, respectively). These regions were industrial, sleepy, homogenous, and poor during Carver’s time (he died an alcoholic’s death in 1988 at the age of 50).

Pretty much all his characters are white and working-class, a group largely sandwiched between privileged, coastal elites and handout recipients. These are people who cannot live in a world of make-believe and have to confront head-on the realities of belt-tightening, scouring for money for rent or hospital bills, cars on the verge of breakdown, etc.

Still, Carver’s plots do vary: an elderly man losing his farm to a slug infestation; a father who abandons the family dog because they can’t afford it; a postal worker who can’t stand a hippie couple who have moved onto his route; an apparently evicted man who moves the interior of his home outside for a “house party”; a depressed divorcee who finds inspiration from a double amputee, a door-to-door salesman, etc.

To mark both Challenge Poverty Week and the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty we are delighted to welcome our friends from Addressing Poverty through Lived Experience (APLE) Collective to author this guest blog. APLE continue to inspire us with their incredible work putting lived experience at the centre of decision making.   At APLE Collective, we […]

The post APLE Collective, Taking Voice Seriously and Why IDEP 2025 Matters appeared first on Equality Trust.

Australia Institute analysis also shows:

• Gas exports worth $170 billion paid no royalties and no PRRT over the last 4 years.
• Australians pay 4 times more in HECs /Help repayments than the gas industry pays in PRRT.
• Australian nurses pay more tax than the gas industry.
• Many gas exporters continue to pay no tax and PRRT payments are at a 3 year low.
• The Australian government gives gas exporters more than half the gas they export royalty free.

“A 25% gas export tax would go a long way towards solving the nation’s housing crisis and the self-inflicted ‘gas crisis’ in one fell swoop,” said Rod Campbell, Research Director at The Australia Institute.

“It is extraordinary that Australia raises so little money from gas exports, despite being one of the world’s largest producers.

“This is an opportunity for the Albanese government to implement progressive patriotism and put the interests of Australian households and businesses ahead of gas industry greed.

The American Mind’s ‘Editorial Roundtable’ podcast is a weekly conversation with Ryan Williams, Spencer Klavan, and Mike Sabo devoted to uncovering the ideas and principles that drive American political life. Stream here or download from your favorite podcast host.

Art of the Hostage Deal | The Roundtable Ep. 289

Tomas Jankauskas, Ugo Albertazzi, Lorenzo Burlon, and Nicola Pavanini

In July, the Trump Administration published “Winning the AI Race: America’s AI Action Plan,” a blueprint for American leadership in the defining technological endeavor of the 21st century. President Trump and key advisors like David Sacks and Michael Kratsios are setting the regulatory stage to ensure America dominates in AI, and that the government supports innovation and channels use cases to ends that serve the American people.

The Plan acknowledges that the administration’s aggressive embrace of AI leadership is not without risk. From labor to culture to national security, AI will fundamentally alter the landscape, introducing vast potential for good but also pitfalls that must be avoided. Above all, America’s adoption of AI must preserve the character of our people and the integrity of our economy, giving Americans confidence in the prospects of a future where AI propels us to untold levels of national greatness.

Here’s the thing you need to understand about the artificial intelligence race: it’s exponential, not linear. In a traditional race, the track underneath you doesn’t change in real time. But when it comes to AI, a single innovation can radically transform the field. Think of a poker table, where the deck reshuffles mid-hand. 

In January, a little-known Chinese startup called DeepSeek jolted the stock market with a cheaper reasoning model than anyone thought possible. Immediately, AI chip and Big Tech stocks plummeted, the Nasdaq slid about 3%, and Nvidia shed roughly $590 billion in market value—the largest one-day wipeout on record.

Last month, Nvidia published a Nature paper, claiming it trained its flagship “R1” for about $294,000 on export-restricted H800 chips. That’s a suspiciously low number, to say the least. For context, the H800 is a purposely less capable chip in order to get around export controls. Most in the field are quick to dismiss this problem, claiming the U.S. is still well ahead of China. But it’s still prudent to take into account the existence of a competitive, cheap, Chinese model.

Political skills are the skills to build trust, influence, and persuade others to support a decision within a political context. These abilities underpin effective political leadership, advocacy, and decision-making, yet they are often invisible and difficult to define. This is especially true for people from minority backgrounds who may not be as familiar with Australian cultural and political norms.

As the Executive Director of Per Capita, one of Australia’s leading progressive think tanks, Dr Chau brings both academic depth and lived experience to this topic. Her personal journey has required her to learn and refine these skills intentionally — from grassroots advocacy and community organising, to serving on ministerial advisory councils, and now shaping national debates on equity and inclusion. Along the way, she has navigated the challenges of cultural identity and leadership in spaces where diverse voices are often underrepresented.

At the October 2025 John Cain Lunch Dr Chau explored how political skills are developed and applied, particularly in environments where power and representation are contested.

Watch the recording below.

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Greg and Elinor discuss the latest World Economic Outlook from the International Monetary Fund, the latest trade spat between the United States and China, why fewer Australians are travelling to America, and the Australian Government’s backdown over superannuation.

Dead Centre: How political pragmatism is killing us by Richard Denniss is available now via the Australia Institute website.

This discussion was recorded on Wednesday 15 October 2025.

Host: Greg Jericho, Chief Economist, the Australia Institute // @grogsgamut

Host: Elinor Johnston-Leek, Senior Content Producer, the Australia Institute // @elinorjohnstonleek

Show notes:

The IMF reckons the global economy remains ‘in flux’, but the Trump effect is real – and Australians aren’t fooled by Greg Jericho, Guardian Australia (October 2025)

This interview is also available on podcast platforms and Rumble.

For decades, clandestine foreign military and intelligence operations have been the deadly, destabilizing engine of American foreign policy. Today, as exposed by investigative journalist Seth Harp in his new book The Fort Bragg Cartel, 21st-century Special Forces operations have become their brutal, logical successor.

Listen to the full conversation on the Perspectives Journal podcast, available to subscribe on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Amazon Music, and all other major podcast platforms.

Environment Minister Murray Watt is known as Labor’s political “fixer” – Australians have given him the opportunity to fix something for us, and our planet.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) was enacted in 2000 as the country’s first attempt at a holistic approach to balance the desire for growth with the need for environmental protection.

At the same time, the world was beginning global efforts to reduce emissions and stabilise the climate.

The Howard government failed to integrate action on climate with protecting and restoring nature. It was a failure repeated by successive governments.

The original EPBC Act did not include a mechanism for dealing with growing emissions and climate change. But Australia had at least signalled its intention to be part of global efforts to stabilise the climate, with then-environment minister Robert Hill signing the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.

Hill always stuck to his guns on the environment. At a fossil fuel-sponsored conference in Canberra, Hill took the floor and, staring down the captains of industry, said: “I have stated many times, and will do so again, that Australia accepts the balance of the scientific evidence which suggests that human activity is accelerating the increase in the Earth’s average temperature.”

It was a backbone not found on this issue with the then-prime minister, John Howard. No doubt under pressure from fossil fuel interests, the PM refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which his environment minister had signed the country on to.

Natalia Emanuel, Pim Welle, and Valentin Bolotnyy

In his recent Provocation, Claremont Institute Washington Fellow Scott Yenor savagely criticizes Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s 1996 opinion in US v Virginia, writing that her opinion “banned single-sex education at Virginia Military Institute (VMI).” Yenor asserts that Ginsburg portrayed “single-sex institutions [as] artifacts of prejudice” and calls for a reversal of US v Virginia and the establishment of all-male military schools in the model of VMI pre-1996. The problem is that Yenor misrepresents what Justice Ginsburg actually said. Additionally, he does not even mention Chief Justice Rehnquist’s concurrence, which needed to be addressed for his argument to carry any weight.

Justice Ginsburg’s opinion begins by acknowledging that “Single-sex education affords pedagogical benefits to at least some students, Virginia emphasizes, and that reality is uncontested in this litigation.” Instead of admitting women to VMI, the Commonwealth offered women admission to the Virginia Women’s Institute for Leadership (VWIL), a women’s program based at Mary Baldwin College.