Latest news with #elect
New Indian Express
23-07-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
ECI begins preparations to hold vice presidential poll after Dhankhar's exit
NEW DELHI: The Election Commission of India (ECI) on Wednesday initiated the process to elect the next Vice President of India following the resignation of Jagdeep Dhankhar. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), through a Gazette Notification dated 22 July 2025, formally notified Dhankhar's resignation, paving the way for the electoral process to fill the constitutional vacancy, the ECI said in an official statement. 'In accordance with Article 324 of the Constitution, the ECI is mandated to conduct elections to the office of the Vice President. These elections are governed by the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952, and the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Rules, 1974,' ECI said. It announced that preparatory work for the election is already underway, and a formal schedule for the election 'will be announced soon after the completion of pre-election activities.' The poll panel said that key preparatory steps initiated include the compilation of the Electoral College comprising both elected and nominated members of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, the finalisation of the Returning Officer and Assistant Returning Officers, and the preparation and distribution of detailed background material on all previous vice-presidential elections.
News18
17-07-2025
- Politics
- News18
Magic Number Achieved: With 22 State Chiefs, BJP Clears Deck For National President Announcement
Last Updated: According to the BJP's constitution, the party must elect 50 per cent of its 37 organisational state chiefs before proceeding with the election for national president. The BJP has achieved the required majority – 19 – enabling it to declare the name of its new National President who will succeed Jagat Prakash Nadda, at any time the party chooses. The party now has 22 state chiefs, making it ready to declare its national president. HOW DID BJP JUMP FROM 14 TO 22 STATE CHIEFS IN 2 DAYS? According to the BJP's constitution, the party must elect 50 per cent of its 37 organisational state chiefs before proceeding with the election for national president, which are typically chosen unanimously. By Sunday, the BJP had only elected new leaders in 14 states. However, on Monday, the party announced several new leaders, including N Ramachander Rao for Telangana and PVN Madhav for Andhra Pradesh. Officially, the BJP received two more state leaders – VP Ramalingam and K Beichhua – who were elected as the party presidents of Puducherry and Mizoram, respectively. With 16 states accounted for, the BJP was three state leaders short of the magic number by Tuesday morning. However, the elections of Rao and Madhav were merely formalities. Congratulatory calls and bouquets began arriving from Monday afternoon. The BJP was confidently at 18 states. Uttarakhand completed the requirement with the re-election of Rajya Sabha MP Mahendra Bhatt as the president of the Uttarakhand BJP. This announcement was made by the party's central observer Harsh Malhotra in the presence of Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami and senior party leaders, including state in-charge Dushyant Gautam. This not only confirmed Bhatt's re-election but also the BJP's achievement of the magic number. The number increased to 22 with the re-election of Rajiv Bindal as the unopposed party president for Himachal Pradesh – JP Nadda's home state. Later on Tuesday, Union Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju formalised Ravindra Chavan's election as the BJP Maharashtra President. Additionally, Anil Tiwari was appointed as the new president of the BJP's Andaman and Nicobar Islands unit in a late evening development. THE DARK HORSES OF THE STATES MAHARASHTRA Ravindra Chavan, a relatively young leader at 54, is highly trusted by Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis for his organisational skills. Chavan, a four-time MLA from Dombivli, has served as a Maharashtra minister twice and has led local body elections and the Mumbai Metropolitan Election for the BJP. Previously, he worked as the working president under Bawankule, an arrangement acknowledged by party leadership after he lost out on the CM race. Chavan was the natural choice for Maharashtra due to his political backing and impressive CV. The Delhi BJP leadership recognised his behind-the-scenes role in forming the Eknath Shinde-Fadnavis government in 2022 as a significant factor in his selection. MADHYA PRADESH Though the name will be announced on Wednesday, Hemant Khandelwal is expected to succeed BD Sharma, having received support from both Sharma and CM Mohan Yadav. A four-time MP from Betul with roots in Uttar Pradesh, Khandelwal has deep connections with the BJP's core ideology and has played a key role in strengthening the organisation in MP. He has also headed the Kushabhau Thackeray Vichar Nyas. Khandelwal's non-controversial background in a state known for controversies has worked in his favour. Although other candidates like Rajendra Shukla, Arvind Singh Bhadouria, and Lal Singh Arya were considered, none could secure the position. UTTARAKHAND After taking over as Uttarakhand BJP chief in 2022, succeeding Madan Kaushik, Rajya Sabha MP Mahendra Bhatt was re-elected on Tuesday, supported by state leadership including CM Dhami. Bhatt is the first Uttarakhand BJP President to be re-elected. His Brahmin caste and ability to coordinate between the government and the organisation have worked in his favour. Other contenders included Aditya Kothari, Vinod Chamoli, Madan Kaushik, and Dipti Rawat Bhardwaj, but Bhatt's re-election was confirmed. TELANGANA In a region known for Dravidian politics, the BJP chose upper-caste Brahmin leader Naraparaju Ramachander Rao to head Telangana. Rao, with strong RSS roots, was unanimously agreed upon by both the Sangh and the BJP. His ability to keep the party united and strong until the Assembly polls in three and a half years made him the ideal candidate. Eatala Rajender was a front runner but couldn't secure the position due to opposition from the Bandi Sanjay faction and his past association with BRS. Laxman expressed his unwillingness to head the state unit after his name was mentioned in the media. ANDHRA PRADESH PVN Madhav, BJP's new state chief in Andhra Pradesh, is seen as a loyal leader with a background linked to the Sangh and good regional representation. As the BJP aims to expand its presence in southern India, having a leader like Madhav is crucial. He succeeds D Purandeshwari, a well-known leader from the NTR family. Other contenders included Dr PV Parthasarathi, Sujana Chowdary, and Purighalla Raghuram, but Madhav's previous experience as an MLC worked in his favour. In JP Nadda's home state, Himachal Pradesh, senior BJP leader Rajiv Bindal was re-elected without contest. Bindal has been associated with the RSS since childhood and brings significant experience as a five-time MLA and former minister. His proximity to Nadda has been beneficial for his political career. In Puducherry, VP Ramalingam was elected unopposed as BJP President. A businessman and former nominated legislator, Ramalingam will be the face of the BJP in Puducherry, where the party aims to come to power in the next assembly election. On Monday, K Beichhua was elected as the new president of BJP Mizoram. A former Mizo National Front leader and retired surgeon, Beichhua previously served as the Minister of State for Social Welfare, Excise & Narcotics, and Sericulture in Mizoram. His appointment is seen as a strategic move to expand the BJP's influence in Mizoram. Lastly, late on Tuesday evening, Anil Tiwari was appointed as the new president of the BJP's Andaman and Nicobar Islands unit, replacing Ajay Bairagi. Tiwari, with a background in the RSS, joined the party in 1990. The ball is now in the court of the BJP Headquarters at 6A Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg. The party can announce its new national president at any time, and the decision will be made by the BJP's top leadership in due course. Get Latest Updates on Movies, Breaking News On India, World, Live Cricket Scores, And Stock Market Updates. Also Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : BJP National President jp nadda view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: July 02, 2025, 10:41 IST News politics Magic Number Achieved: With 22 State Chiefs, BJP Clears Deck For National President Announcement Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
The Advertiser
11-07-2025
- Business
- The Advertiser
Deficit is a worry and right-wing governments aren't going to fix it
The ridiculously named "big beautiful bill" recently passed in the US warrants close attention from Australian policymakers. The focus should not just be on the items in the bill, but on how the US political landscape has shifted and what that might mean for Australian political parties on both sides. Although numerous contested claims have been made about the bill's benefits, it seems clear that it will add to the (already enormous) US deficit. For example, the Congressional Budget Office projects it will add $3.4 trillion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years. Trump, of course, has form on the debt and deficit front. ProPublica calculated that national debt increased by almost $7.8 trillion in his first term. The Republicans have shifted a long way from 2012, when vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan proposed a radical new fiscal program that would have cut the budget deficit by 75 per cent or more within 10 years. This shift should worry Australian politicians for two reasons. The first is that debt and deficits are not nearly as benign as the public seems to believe. Second, it suggests some closely held political truisms may no longer hold true. The CIS has been warning about the risks of debt and deficits for some time. For example, a recent CIS publication by Robert Carling, Gene Tunny and Peter Tulip laid out the fiscal challenges facing the government. As Robert states "the federal government's finances [will not] cope well with more economic or other shocks to the system - and there are even bigger debt problems in some states and territories." However, the political economy effects of shifting attitudes to debt and deficit are more subtle. It was traditionally taken for granted that the right cared more for debt and deficits than the left. Right-wing politicians used to grumble that the public would elect right-wing governments to do the hard work of balancing the books, and then they would immediately elect a left-wing government to unbalance them again. There was a positive element of this, too, though. John Howard convinced the public that fiscal prudence was the best measure of the competence of a government. This millstone hung heavily around the neck of the Rudd - Gillard - Rudd Labor government that followed. This millstone is gone, or at least greatly diminished. It seems clear that voters no longer consider a budget surplus the sign of success, or a large deficit that of failure. The main measure of a good budget now seems to be how much cash is shovelled out the door. Certainly, the lack of alarm over the deterioration in the fiscal position in the recent budget suggests Labor isn't very worried about debt and deficits. Some on the left believe that voters ignoring on budget surpluses is an unalloyed good for the party - and they aren't entirely wrong. The conventional wisdom suggests that in any contest between left and right over who can hand out the most money, the voters will prefer the real deal on the left over those Johnny-come-lately spendthrifts on the right. But Trump's example shows that this wisdom only holds as long as the status quo holds on the right. To put it bluntly, if the right abandons fiscal responsibility to the same extent as the left, then not only can the right compete with the left on spending, they can win the fight. Why? Because in so many areas, the left is now tied to vested interests in a way that the right simply isn't. The left is compelled to launder their spending through the priorities of quasi-government institutions, not-for-profits and unions because these groups represent key constituencies for left-wing political parties across the globe. These bodies - which range from the well-meaning to the borderline corrupt - have their own weaknesses. Even those who interests align relatively well with voters will take a cut from any funding. Many are preoccupied with policy solutions that don't work very well. Take teachers unions for example. In Australia, Labor's Gonski spending explosion was heavily influenced by what the unions thought the money should be spent on (such as reducing class sizes). This spending was largely ineffective in terms of improving results. Another example is childcare. Voters might well feel good about recent moves to subsidise higher wages for childcare workers, but if given a meaningful choice would they prefer the government to spend that same money on greater subsidies and more flexible care options instead? Labor might retort that they have done both, but what if the Coalition promised to overhaul the whole system and give voters the option to keep the same subsidy and spend it on any type of care they want? Another, rather crude, example: do you think there are more votes in increasing the age pension or in boosting unemployment benefits? And that is before you get into ideological crusades - which many of the left-wing institutions are obsessed with - that the public has little patience for. A populist, big-spending right would be unencumbered by the baggage that hamstrings these bodies. They could cut out the middlemen and just bribe the voters directly. To be clear, the Australian right adopting big government populism would be terrible for the country, as it undoubtedly will be for the US. The extent to which US politicians have abandoned their responsibilities is scandalous. READ MORE SIMON COWAN: In the same way that the recent inflation crisis put paid to the nonsense economics of modern monetary theory, the US is on the path for a potentially disastrous fiscal reckoning that will force US politics to focus on debt and deficits again. Australia would be ill-served to follow the same path. However, it is far from a foregone conclusion that a more positive direction will be taken. The populist alternative remains alluring, especially in the short term where the consequences can be deferred into the future. Australia would be far better off if politicians and voters cared more about fiscal responsibility. But the onus lies on both sides of politics to prevent this from happening; not just the right. The ridiculously named "big beautiful bill" recently passed in the US warrants close attention from Australian policymakers. The focus should not just be on the items in the bill, but on how the US political landscape has shifted and what that might mean for Australian political parties on both sides. Although numerous contested claims have been made about the bill's benefits, it seems clear that it will add to the (already enormous) US deficit. For example, the Congressional Budget Office projects it will add $3.4 trillion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years. Trump, of course, has form on the debt and deficit front. ProPublica calculated that national debt increased by almost $7.8 trillion in his first term. The Republicans have shifted a long way from 2012, when vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan proposed a radical new fiscal program that would have cut the budget deficit by 75 per cent or more within 10 years. This shift should worry Australian politicians for two reasons. The first is that debt and deficits are not nearly as benign as the public seems to believe. Second, it suggests some closely held political truisms may no longer hold true. The CIS has been warning about the risks of debt and deficits for some time. For example, a recent CIS publication by Robert Carling, Gene Tunny and Peter Tulip laid out the fiscal challenges facing the government. As Robert states "the federal government's finances [will not] cope well with more economic or other shocks to the system - and there are even bigger debt problems in some states and territories." However, the political economy effects of shifting attitudes to debt and deficit are more subtle. It was traditionally taken for granted that the right cared more for debt and deficits than the left. Right-wing politicians used to grumble that the public would elect right-wing governments to do the hard work of balancing the books, and then they would immediately elect a left-wing government to unbalance them again. There was a positive element of this, too, though. John Howard convinced the public that fiscal prudence was the best measure of the competence of a government. This millstone hung heavily around the neck of the Rudd - Gillard - Rudd Labor government that followed. This millstone is gone, or at least greatly diminished. It seems clear that voters no longer consider a budget surplus the sign of success, or a large deficit that of failure. The main measure of a good budget now seems to be how much cash is shovelled out the door. Certainly, the lack of alarm over the deterioration in the fiscal position in the recent budget suggests Labor isn't very worried about debt and deficits. Some on the left believe that voters ignoring on budget surpluses is an unalloyed good for the party - and they aren't entirely wrong. The conventional wisdom suggests that in any contest between left and right over who can hand out the most money, the voters will prefer the real deal on the left over those Johnny-come-lately spendthrifts on the right. But Trump's example shows that this wisdom only holds as long as the status quo holds on the right. To put it bluntly, if the right abandons fiscal responsibility to the same extent as the left, then not only can the right compete with the left on spending, they can win the fight. Why? Because in so many areas, the left is now tied to vested interests in a way that the right simply isn't. The left is compelled to launder their spending through the priorities of quasi-government institutions, not-for-profits and unions because these groups represent key constituencies for left-wing political parties across the globe. These bodies - which range from the well-meaning to the borderline corrupt - have their own weaknesses. Even those who interests align relatively well with voters will take a cut from any funding. Many are preoccupied with policy solutions that don't work very well. Take teachers unions for example. In Australia, Labor's Gonski spending explosion was heavily influenced by what the unions thought the money should be spent on (such as reducing class sizes). This spending was largely ineffective in terms of improving results. Another example is childcare. Voters might well feel good about recent moves to subsidise higher wages for childcare workers, but if given a meaningful choice would they prefer the government to spend that same money on greater subsidies and more flexible care options instead? Labor might retort that they have done both, but what if the Coalition promised to overhaul the whole system and give voters the option to keep the same subsidy and spend it on any type of care they want? Another, rather crude, example: do you think there are more votes in increasing the age pension or in boosting unemployment benefits? And that is before you get into ideological crusades - which many of the left-wing institutions are obsessed with - that the public has little patience for. A populist, big-spending right would be unencumbered by the baggage that hamstrings these bodies. They could cut out the middlemen and just bribe the voters directly. To be clear, the Australian right adopting big government populism would be terrible for the country, as it undoubtedly will be for the US. The extent to which US politicians have abandoned their responsibilities is scandalous. READ MORE SIMON COWAN: In the same way that the recent inflation crisis put paid to the nonsense economics of modern monetary theory, the US is on the path for a potentially disastrous fiscal reckoning that will force US politics to focus on debt and deficits again. Australia would be ill-served to follow the same path. However, it is far from a foregone conclusion that a more positive direction will be taken. The populist alternative remains alluring, especially in the short term where the consequences can be deferred into the future. Australia would be far better off if politicians and voters cared more about fiscal responsibility. But the onus lies on both sides of politics to prevent this from happening; not just the right. The ridiculously named "big beautiful bill" recently passed in the US warrants close attention from Australian policymakers. The focus should not just be on the items in the bill, but on how the US political landscape has shifted and what that might mean for Australian political parties on both sides. Although numerous contested claims have been made about the bill's benefits, it seems clear that it will add to the (already enormous) US deficit. For example, the Congressional Budget Office projects it will add $3.4 trillion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years. Trump, of course, has form on the debt and deficit front. ProPublica calculated that national debt increased by almost $7.8 trillion in his first term. The Republicans have shifted a long way from 2012, when vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan proposed a radical new fiscal program that would have cut the budget deficit by 75 per cent or more within 10 years. This shift should worry Australian politicians for two reasons. The first is that debt and deficits are not nearly as benign as the public seems to believe. Second, it suggests some closely held political truisms may no longer hold true. The CIS has been warning about the risks of debt and deficits for some time. For example, a recent CIS publication by Robert Carling, Gene Tunny and Peter Tulip laid out the fiscal challenges facing the government. As Robert states "the federal government's finances [will not] cope well with more economic or other shocks to the system - and there are even bigger debt problems in some states and territories." However, the political economy effects of shifting attitudes to debt and deficit are more subtle. It was traditionally taken for granted that the right cared more for debt and deficits than the left. Right-wing politicians used to grumble that the public would elect right-wing governments to do the hard work of balancing the books, and then they would immediately elect a left-wing government to unbalance them again. There was a positive element of this, too, though. John Howard convinced the public that fiscal prudence was the best measure of the competence of a government. This millstone hung heavily around the neck of the Rudd - Gillard - Rudd Labor government that followed. This millstone is gone, or at least greatly diminished. It seems clear that voters no longer consider a budget surplus the sign of success, or a large deficit that of failure. The main measure of a good budget now seems to be how much cash is shovelled out the door. Certainly, the lack of alarm over the deterioration in the fiscal position in the recent budget suggests Labor isn't very worried about debt and deficits. Some on the left believe that voters ignoring on budget surpluses is an unalloyed good for the party - and they aren't entirely wrong. The conventional wisdom suggests that in any contest between left and right over who can hand out the most money, the voters will prefer the real deal on the left over those Johnny-come-lately spendthrifts on the right. But Trump's example shows that this wisdom only holds as long as the status quo holds on the right. To put it bluntly, if the right abandons fiscal responsibility to the same extent as the left, then not only can the right compete with the left on spending, they can win the fight. Why? Because in so many areas, the left is now tied to vested interests in a way that the right simply isn't. The left is compelled to launder their spending through the priorities of quasi-government institutions, not-for-profits and unions because these groups represent key constituencies for left-wing political parties across the globe. These bodies - which range from the well-meaning to the borderline corrupt - have their own weaknesses. Even those who interests align relatively well with voters will take a cut from any funding. Many are preoccupied with policy solutions that don't work very well. Take teachers unions for example. In Australia, Labor's Gonski spending explosion was heavily influenced by what the unions thought the money should be spent on (such as reducing class sizes). This spending was largely ineffective in terms of improving results. Another example is childcare. Voters might well feel good about recent moves to subsidise higher wages for childcare workers, but if given a meaningful choice would they prefer the government to spend that same money on greater subsidies and more flexible care options instead? Labor might retort that they have done both, but what if the Coalition promised to overhaul the whole system and give voters the option to keep the same subsidy and spend it on any type of care they want? Another, rather crude, example: do you think there are more votes in increasing the age pension or in boosting unemployment benefits? And that is before you get into ideological crusades - which many of the left-wing institutions are obsessed with - that the public has little patience for. A populist, big-spending right would be unencumbered by the baggage that hamstrings these bodies. They could cut out the middlemen and just bribe the voters directly. To be clear, the Australian right adopting big government populism would be terrible for the country, as it undoubtedly will be for the US. The extent to which US politicians have abandoned their responsibilities is scandalous. READ MORE SIMON COWAN: In the same way that the recent inflation crisis put paid to the nonsense economics of modern monetary theory, the US is on the path for a potentially disastrous fiscal reckoning that will force US politics to focus on debt and deficits again. Australia would be ill-served to follow the same path. However, it is far from a foregone conclusion that a more positive direction will be taken. The populist alternative remains alluring, especially in the short term where the consequences can be deferred into the future. Australia would be far better off if politicians and voters cared more about fiscal responsibility. But the onus lies on both sides of politics to prevent this from happening; not just the right. The ridiculously named "big beautiful bill" recently passed in the US warrants close attention from Australian policymakers. The focus should not just be on the items in the bill, but on how the US political landscape has shifted and what that might mean for Australian political parties on both sides. Although numerous contested claims have been made about the bill's benefits, it seems clear that it will add to the (already enormous) US deficit. For example, the Congressional Budget Office projects it will add $3.4 trillion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years. Trump, of course, has form on the debt and deficit front. ProPublica calculated that national debt increased by almost $7.8 trillion in his first term. The Republicans have shifted a long way from 2012, when vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan proposed a radical new fiscal program that would have cut the budget deficit by 75 per cent or more within 10 years. This shift should worry Australian politicians for two reasons. The first is that debt and deficits are not nearly as benign as the public seems to believe. Second, it suggests some closely held political truisms may no longer hold true. The CIS has been warning about the risks of debt and deficits for some time. For example, a recent CIS publication by Robert Carling, Gene Tunny and Peter Tulip laid out the fiscal challenges facing the government. As Robert states "the federal government's finances [will not] cope well with more economic or other shocks to the system - and there are even bigger debt problems in some states and territories." However, the political economy effects of shifting attitudes to debt and deficit are more subtle. It was traditionally taken for granted that the right cared more for debt and deficits than the left. Right-wing politicians used to grumble that the public would elect right-wing governments to do the hard work of balancing the books, and then they would immediately elect a left-wing government to unbalance them again. There was a positive element of this, too, though. John Howard convinced the public that fiscal prudence was the best measure of the competence of a government. This millstone hung heavily around the neck of the Rudd - Gillard - Rudd Labor government that followed. This millstone is gone, or at least greatly diminished. It seems clear that voters no longer consider a budget surplus the sign of success, or a large deficit that of failure. The main measure of a good budget now seems to be how much cash is shovelled out the door. Certainly, the lack of alarm over the deterioration in the fiscal position in the recent budget suggests Labor isn't very worried about debt and deficits. Some on the left believe that voters ignoring on budget surpluses is an unalloyed good for the party - and they aren't entirely wrong. The conventional wisdom suggests that in any contest between left and right over who can hand out the most money, the voters will prefer the real deal on the left over those Johnny-come-lately spendthrifts on the right. But Trump's example shows that this wisdom only holds as long as the status quo holds on the right. To put it bluntly, if the right abandons fiscal responsibility to the same extent as the left, then not only can the right compete with the left on spending, they can win the fight. Why? Because in so many areas, the left is now tied to vested interests in a way that the right simply isn't. The left is compelled to launder their spending through the priorities of quasi-government institutions, not-for-profits and unions because these groups represent key constituencies for left-wing political parties across the globe. These bodies - which range from the well-meaning to the borderline corrupt - have their own weaknesses. Even those who interests align relatively well with voters will take a cut from any funding. Many are preoccupied with policy solutions that don't work very well. Take teachers unions for example. In Australia, Labor's Gonski spending explosion was heavily influenced by what the unions thought the money should be spent on (such as reducing class sizes). This spending was largely ineffective in terms of improving results. Another example is childcare. Voters might well feel good about recent moves to subsidise higher wages for childcare workers, but if given a meaningful choice would they prefer the government to spend that same money on greater subsidies and more flexible care options instead? Labor might retort that they have done both, but what if the Coalition promised to overhaul the whole system and give voters the option to keep the same subsidy and spend it on any type of care they want? Another, rather crude, example: do you think there are more votes in increasing the age pension or in boosting unemployment benefits? And that is before you get into ideological crusades - which many of the left-wing institutions are obsessed with - that the public has little patience for. A populist, big-spending right would be unencumbered by the baggage that hamstrings these bodies. They could cut out the middlemen and just bribe the voters directly. To be clear, the Australian right adopting big government populism would be terrible for the country, as it undoubtedly will be for the US. The extent to which US politicians have abandoned their responsibilities is scandalous. READ MORE SIMON COWAN: In the same way that the recent inflation crisis put paid to the nonsense economics of modern monetary theory, the US is on the path for a potentially disastrous fiscal reckoning that will force US politics to focus on debt and deficits again. Australia would be ill-served to follow the same path. However, it is far from a foregone conclusion that a more positive direction will be taken. The populist alternative remains alluring, especially in the short term where the consequences can be deferred into the future. Australia would be far better off if politicians and voters cared more about fiscal responsibility. But the onus lies on both sides of politics to prevent this from happening; not just the right.
Edmonton Journal
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Edmonton Journal
Rob Breakenridge: Province needs to stay in own lane on bike infrastructure
A cycle track is shown in front of businesses on 11th Street S.W. in Calgary. Photo by Brent Calver / Postmedia Network Municipal elections in Alberta are just over three months away, when voters will elect municipal governments to make decisions in areas that are municipal responsibility. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Exclusive articles by David Staples, Keith Gerein and others, Oilers news from Cult of Hockey, Ask EJ Anything features, the Noon News Roundup and Under the Dome newsletters. Unlimited online access to Edmonton Journal and 15 news sites with one account. Edmonton Journal ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Exclusive articles by David Staples, Keith Gerein and others, Oilers news from Cult of Hockey, Ask EJ Anything features, the Noon News Roundup and Under the Dome newsletters. Unlimited online access to Edmonton Journal and 15 news sites with one account. Edmonton Journal ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors This is stating the obvious, perhaps, but sometimes the obvious isn't as obvious as it should be. The question of jurisdiction has become an especially important matter in Alberta politics these days. The province has been quite public and insistent that its jurisdiction be acknowledged and respected, by both Ottawa and municipal governments. But that should be a two-way street — Alberta's government should stay in its own lane, too. Get the latest headlines, breaking news and columns. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again Not that municipal politicians haven't overreached. Last year, Calgary city council devoted far too much time discussing Alberta's Local Authorities Election Act and the issue of voting rights for non-citizens. As then-Municipal Affairs Minister Ric McIver put it, 'I'll save us all some time. Only citizens of Canada can vote in municipal elections. That will not be changing.' Say what you will about McIver (who is now Speaker of the Alberta legislature), but he at least had some understanding of these jurisdictional divisions, having previously served as a municipal politician. Last year, amid concerns that the province might intervene in municipal bike lane decisions, McIver wrote that his government 'respects the autonomy of municipalities to make decisions about local projects and priorities,' including 'control over their local roads and transportation infrastructure.' Maybe that respect is not universally shared by those in the Alberta government. Despite everything on his plate that actually does pertain to his portfolio, Transportation and Economic Corridors Minister Devin Dreeshen has become preoccupied with municipal decision-making on bike lanes. Earlier this year, Dreeshen called on Edmonton and Calgary to rethink bike lanes, and specifically called on Edmonton to cancel a planned project. At a town hall event, when asked if Alberta would consider removing bike lanes like Ontario is doing in Toronto, Dreeshen said the option is 'on the table.' Dreeshen also wrote a June 27 letter to Calgary Mayor Jyoti Gondek expressing concerns over Calgary's approach to bike lanes, although he didn't single out any specific project or proposal. To be clear, the Alberta government is not being asked to fund any of these projects, nor have either Calgary or Edmonton done anything that exceeds their authority.
Malaysian Reserve
01-07-2025
- Business
- Malaysian Reserve
SHAREHOLDER INVESTIGATION: Halper Sadeh LLC Investigates HONE, FL, SAGE on Behalf of Shareholders
NEW YORK, July 1, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — Halper Sadeh LLC, an investor rights law firm, is investigating the following companies for potential violations of the federal securities laws and/or breaches of fiduciary duties to shareholders relating to: HarborOne Bancorp (NASDAQ: HONE)'s sale to Eastern Bankshares, Inc. for either 0.765 shares of Eastern common stock or $12.00 in cash per share. If you are a HarborOne shareholder, click here to learn more about your rights and options. Foot Locker, Inc. (NYSE: FL)'s sale to DICK'S Sporting Goods, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Foot Locker shareholders can elect to receive either (i) $24.00 in cash or (ii) 0.1168 shares of DICK'S common stock for each share of Foot Locker common stock. If you are a Foot Locker shareholder, click here to learn more about your rights and options. Sage Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: SAGE)'s sale to Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Sage shareholders will receive $8.50 per share in cash, plus one non-tradable contingent value right collectively worth up to $3.50 per share in cash payable upon achieving certain net sales and commercial milestones. If you are a Sage shareholder, click here to learn more about your legal rights and options. Halper Sadeh LLC may seek increased consideration for shareholders, additional disclosures and information concerning the proposed transaction, or other relief and benefits on behalf of shareholders. We would handle the action on a contingent fee basis, whereby you would not be responsible for out-of-pocket payment of our legal fees or expenses. Shareholders are encouraged to contact the firm free of charge to discuss their legal rights and options. Please call Daniel Sadeh or Zachary Halper at (212) 763-0060 or email sadeh@ or zhalper@ Halper Sadeh LLC represents investors all over the world who have fallen victim to securities fraud and corporate misconduct. Our attorneys have been instrumental in implementing corporate reforms and recovering millions of dollars on behalf of defrauded investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information:Halper Sadeh LLCDaniel Sadeh, Halper, Esq.(212) 763-0060sadeh@
