Latest news with #noConfidenceVote
SBS Australia
7 days ago
- Business
- SBS Australia
Five things to know about this weekend's Tasmanian election
Tasmania is holding its second state election within 16 months. A no-confidence vote in the Premier led to the snap election. Another minority government could potentially be voted in. Tasmanians may have a sense of déjà vu on Saturday as they head back to the polls. Following the Federal Election in May and a state election last year, an early state election is being held after Tasmania's governor conceded a workable government could not be formed. It will be Tasmania's second state election in 16 months and the fourth in seven years. This is what we know about the election dubbed 'the one nobody wanted'. No-confidence vote prompted election Concerns about Tasmania's poor financial position had prompted the vote of no confidence. The state budget forecast had the state with more than $10 billion in debt by 2029. There had also been major cost blowouts in the project to launch two new Spirit of Tasmania ferries, which link the island state with the mainland, and disagreement over the government's plan to potentially privatise some state-owned businesses. Tasmanian voters might not have wanted to return to the polls so soon, but school P&Cs could be in for a bump in their fundraising totals for the year. Source: AAP / Ethan James Other parties were able to get the numbers in the no-confidence vote, given that the Liberal government formed after the 2024 election was a minority government with just 14 members. Rockliff resisted pressure to resign. After the Premier consulted the Governor of Tasmania Barbara Baker, she decided to dissolve parliament and call an election. "I make this grant because I am satisfied that there is no real possibility that an alternative government can be formed," she said. Candidate and potential premiers Labor leader Dean Winter could become premier within 18 months of becoming opposition leader. The 40-year-old former councillor became his party's leader following its 2024 election loss. Despite reports that former senator Eric Abetz and ex-deputy premier Michael Ferguson were willing to be Liberal leader following the no-confidence vote, Rockliff insisted the backing of his party room was solid and he remained leader. The 55-year-old has been premier since 2022 and part of the state's Liberal government since they came to power in 2014. The Liberals recruited former federal MPs Gavin Pearce and Bridget Archer to run, while Labor has done the same with Brian Mitchell. Anti-salmon activist Peter George, who picked up sizeable support at the federal election, is among a record cohort of 44 independent candidates. The Nationals are aiming to enter parliament via former Liberal John Tucker and ex-Jacqui Lambie Network MPs Andrew Jenner and Miriam Beswick. Chance of a hung parliament Multiple surveys point to the election resulting in another hung parliament, meaning no single party would hold a majority of seats. This is the situation that Rockliff's government had faced after the last election, with the government requiring support of members from outside its party to pass legislation. The latest opinion survey suggests the Liberals will pick up more seats than Labor, but neither will reach the 18-seat mark required for majority. Polling suggests 20 per cent support for independents, with the Liberals on 35, Labor on 25 and the Greens on 16. Both major parties have ruled out doing a deal with the Greens to form government, but have said they are prepared to work with "sensible independents". The Greens could end up wielding power from the crossbench. Election promises Rockliff's pledge for a state-owned insurance company to bring down the prices of premiums has been lashed by Labor as a thought bubble. Treasury on Friday revealed it was unable to cost the proposal because of insufficient detail, and it would likely incur additional costs for any government. The Liberals also promised a reduction in red tape around residential planning approvals and talked about a new agricultural learning centre Labor's campaign has been focused on promoting a fresh start. It plans to implement a policy whereby any new public schools or major school redevelopment must include a childcare centre. While many have welcomed the proposed addition of a Tasmanian team to the AFL, not all Tasmanians are comfortable with the commitment to build a new stadium, given the state's financial position. Source: AAP / Ethan James The party has also seized on the state's financial woes. "Our finances are the worst in the nation," Winter said. "Health waitlists are double the size they were a decade ago, and young people are fleeing the state in record numbers." The Greens have pledged to continue their fight against a new AFL stadium that is supported by the Liberals and Labor and a requirement for a side in the national competition. "Poll after poll, door after door we've heard loud and clear Tasmanians overwhelmingly do not want a new stadium," Greens leader Rosalie Woodruff told reporters. The Hare-Clarke voting system Votes will be counted differently in the Tasmanian poll to how they are counted in other state and territory elections. The island state uses the Hare-Clarke system, which is a single transferable vote method of proportional representation that sees ballot papers move between candidates as determined by the elector's marked preferences. The Tasmanian Electoral Commission said this means the composition of the House more closely reflects the proportion of primary votes for each party on a state-wide basis. Under the system, seven MPs are elected in each of the state's five electorates.
Free Malaysia Today
10-07-2025
- Business
- Free Malaysia Today
EU's von der Leyen survives parliament confidence vote
European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen defended her record in parliament, rejecting criticism of her management of the Covid-19 pandemic. (AFP pic) BRUSSELS : European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen survived a no-confidence vote in the European Parliament today, tabled by mainly far-right lawmakers who alleged she and her team undermined trust in the EU through unlawful actions. As expected, the motion failed to get the two-thirds majority it needed to pass. Only 175 members of parliament backed the motion, while 360 voted against and 18 abstained. Romanian nationalist Gheorghe Piperea, the lead sponsor of the motion, had criticised, among other things, the commission's refusal to disclose text messages between von der Leyen and the chief executive of vaccine maker Pfizer during the Covid-19 pandemic. 'The decision-making has become opaque and discretionary, and raises fears of abuse and corruption. 'The cost of obsessive bureaucracy of the EU, such as (tackling) climate change, has been a huge one,' Piperea told the parliament on Monday. During the debate on her leadership, von der Leyen defended her record in parliament, rejecting criticism of her management of the pandemic and asserting that her approach ensured equal vaccine access across the EU. Although the censure motion had little chance of success, it was a political headache for von der Leyen as her commission negotiates with US President Donald Trump's administration to try to prevent steep US tariffs on EU goods. It was the first time since 2014 that a commission president has faced such a motion. Then president Jean-Claude Juncker also survived the vote.
Russia Today
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Russia Today
Von der Leyen survives EU no-confidence vote
European Union lawmakers voted on Thursday to reject a motion of no confidence in European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Critics alleged abuse of power on her part, while she blamed the attempt to remove her on Russia. The motion neede 357 votes to pass but garnered only 175 in favor. A total of 360 members of the European Parliament voted against it, with 18 abstentions. The result had been widely anticipated. Of the chamber's 720 members, only 553 participated in the vote. Many of the absentees were reportedly members of parties that had publicly endorsed von der Leyen. Although some centrist groups initially threatened to abstain in protest, they ultimately opposed the motion to distance themselves from its sponsors. During debate on Monday, von der Leyen dismissed her opponents as 'conspiracy theorists' and claimed that lawmakers calling for her removal were being 'supported by our enemies and by their puppet masters in Russia or elsewhere.' A vocal critic of Moscow, von der Leyen is championing a large-scale military buildup across the EU, which will require member states to borrow hundreds of billions of euros. Russian officials have denounced the strategy, claiming it is rooted in unfounded claims of a Russian threat and serves to obscure Brussels' policy failures. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev predicted before the vote that 'the old crone' would survive, but called the proceedings a warning sign for officials in Brussels. Romanian nationalist MEP Gheorghe Piperea, who introduced the motion, said von der Leyen had won a Pyrrhic victory, arguing she had made contradictory promises to secure support from different political groups. Von der Leyen reportedly pledged to preserve the European Social Fund in the EU's upcoming budget to win over the Socialists & Democrats (S&D) group. Piperea said that center-right factions such as Renew Europe and the European People's Party (EPP) would prefer to reallocate those funds toward defense, as the Commission previously intended. Political analysts remarked that even mainstream factions used the proceedings as an outlet to express frustration with von der Leyen's leadership, which critics say lacks transparency and consolidates too much authority in the Commission president's office.
CTV News
10-07-2025
- Politics
- CTV News
EU official Ursula von der Leyen comfortably survives a confidence vote
European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen delivers her speech during a statement on the preparation for the EU–China Summit, Tuesday, July 8, 2025 at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, eastern France. (AP Photo/Pascal Bastien) BRUSSELS — European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen comfortably survived a vote of no confidence on Thursday, as an overwhelming number of European Union lawmakers rejected a censure motion against her. The motion contained a mix of allegations against von der Leyen, including text messaging privately with the chief executive of vaccine maker Pfizer during the COVID-19 pandemic, misuse of EU funds and interference in elections in Germany and Romania. The motion was defeated in a 360-175 vote against it, with 18 lawmakers choosing to abstain during a plenary session at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France. Von der Leyen wasn't present for the vote. The vote has been a lightning rod for criticism of Von der Leyen — who led the EU drive to find vaccines for around 450 million citizens during the pandemic — and her European People's Party, or EPP, which is the largest political family in the assembly. They're accused of cozying up to the hard right to push through their agenda. The EU parliament shifted perceptibly to the political right after Europe-wide elections a year ago. 'We won't vote with the far-right and we do not support this motion. This vote was little more than a far-right PR stunt from Putin-loving populists,' Greens group President Terry Reintke said in a statement after the poll, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin. However, she added: 'We are ready to build pro-European majorities, but we will not be played by the EPP in their desperate deregulation agenda and their desire to consistently form anti-European majorities with the far-right.' The censure motion, the first at the European Parliament in over a decade, was brought against the European Commission president by a group of hard-right lawmakers. On the eve of the vote, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said on Facebook that it would 'be the moment of truth: on one side the imperial elite in Brussels, on the other patriots and common sense. There is no getting out of it, it is essential to make a choice.' He posted: 'Madam President, the essence of leadership is responsibility. Time to go!' Von der Leyen's commission has frequently clashed with Orbán over his staunchly nationalist government's moves to roll back democracy. The European Commission has frozen Hungary's access to billions of euros in EU funds. The second biggest group, the Socialists and Democrats, has said that the censure motion was a result 'of the EPP's irresponsibility and the double games.' During debate on Monday, S&D leader Iratxe García Pérez said to the EPP: 'Who do you want to govern with? Do you want to govern with those that want to destroy Europe, or those of us who fight every day to build it?' The EPP has notably worked with the hard right to fix the agenda for hearing von der Leyen's new commissioners when they were questioned for their suitability for their posts last year, and to reject an ethics body meant to combat corruption. Lorne Cook, The Associated Press
Russia Today
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Russia Today
Stalin of the EU: How the unelected Queen of the Union plans to keep her grip on power
Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission that runs the EU is finally facing a long overdue no-confidence vote. Its chances of success, all observers agree, are very small. And yet, this is an important moment. That's because the single most powerful politician in the EU is not, for instance, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz or French President Emmanuel Macron (notwithstanding their own delusions of grandeur), but Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the EU Commission. Because in NATO-EU Europe, the true measure of power now is the ability to spoil whatever sorry remnants of democracy are still standing. And in spite of very tough competition, von der Leyen is the worst, most corrupting spoiler of them all. This is due to three facts. The first is structural: The EU was designed not to be a 'democracy' – however flawed – but one big, entrenched, and growing 'democracy deficit'. Its purpose has never been to shaft the US, even if American President Donald Trump can't stop whining about that. The EU's real core function is to extinguish democracy in Europe by shifting genuine power from nation-states with some, if already meagre, popular participation in political decision-making to an unelected bureaucracy, of which the Commission is the center and top. The second fact is a matter of individual character and hence responsibility: Ursula von der Leyen is the embodiment of an insatiable lust for personal, unaccountable power. She won't admit it, of course, but her behavior speaks volumes: Von der Leyen does not see herself as a public servant but firmly believes that it is the public that must serve her. Think of these two factors – the structural and the individual – if you wish, as broadly similar to what happened during the rise of Joseph Stalin in the former Soviet Union: Like the EU, the post-revolutionary Communist party was built to restrict political decision-making to a small and self-selecting group of true believers. And only those confessing the correct 'values' were even offered a chance to join. Like von der Leyen, Stalin managed to turn this deliberately created 'democracy deficit' to his own advantage by basing his personal despotism on it. If you think that analogy is far-fetched, consider that in both cases, the rise of the Soviet despot and that of the European Commission president, real power has been concentrated in an overbearing and invasive bureaucracy that, formally, should only be an executive organ. There is a reason why, if you take one tiny step back, 'general secretary' sounds rather similar to 'commission president.' And then there is the third fact that has facilitated von der Leyen's performance as NATO-EU's top spoiler. In this respect, she certainly does not resemble Stalin at all, but rather one of the many Eastern European satraps of Cold War Eastern Europe. Like trusty Walter Ulbricht of early East Germany or Poland's Boleslaw Bierut who suffered a heart attack when Khruschev made Stalin the fall guy, von der Leyen is a vassal leader, just working for another outside empire. So obviously, so shamelessly that even Politico has – rightly – labeled her the EU's 'American president.' The charges that her political opponents in the EU parliament have just used to initiate the current no-confidence vote are less fundamental – while still reflecting stunning misbehavior – and more specific, as they have to be. In essence, they target von der Leyen's – and the whole Commission's – scandalous handling of the Covid-19 crisis (scandalous by the way from any angle, whether you approve or disapprove of vaccines); her subsequent and illegal refusal to provide key information on what she and the CEO of big pharma company Pfizer were up to during that period in messages that were private but should not have been; waste (to say the least) in the handling of a 650 billion-euro post-Corona crisis recovery fund; the misuse of a legal loophole to boost armaments spending via the EU; and last but not least, the weaponization of digital legislation to interfere in the recent Romanian, as well as German elections. What all these transgressions have in common is not only that they may very well be criminal. They are also all variants of the same, fundamentally simple ruse: the manipulation or even fabrication of 'emergencies' that are then exploited as cover for constantly escalating abuses of power. If there is one main principle of von der Leyen's power grab, this is it. Again, Stalin knew a thing or two about that trick. In sum, the sponsors of the no-confidence vote conclude 'that the Commission led by President Ursula von der Leyen no longer commands the confidence of Parliament to uphold the principles of transparency, accountability, and good governance essential to a democratic Union.' They call on the Commission 'to resign due to repeated failures to ensure transparency and to its persistent disregard for democratic oversight and the rule of law within the Union.' And they are obviously right. If the EU was a halfway lawful, honest, and sensible organization, this should be a slam-dunk case of no confidence, and the Commission, with Ursula von der Leyen at its head, should fall. There is a precedent, too: In 1999, an entire EU Commission did resign, even without a no-confidence vote. A devastating report on corruption, fraud, nepotism, and mismanagement was enough. Clearly, if anything, the EU has only regressed since then. Today it has a Commission which the EU's own transparency chief has chastised as not only unelected and opaque, but also staffed with 'consiglieri,' a term from mafia lingo. And where the gang consists of 'consiglieri,' the boss must be a don. Yet the EU now is not only highly dysfunctional but, in the wider sense of the word, fundamentally corrupt. Tactics will beat principle any day, no exceptions. That is why most of the over 700 parliamentarians in the European parliament will fail to do the right thing and eject von der Leyen and her Commission. Meanwhile, the usual dirty tricks have been employed against von der Leyen's challengers. Let's not even focus on the petty and brazen procedural tactics deployed by the European Parliament's president, Roberta Metsola, to stifle debate on the no-confidence motion, as rightly castigated by AfD member of parliament Christine Anderson. Or von der Leyen's own cringeworthy attempt to blame any criticism of her once again on 'extremism,' 'polarization,' and manipulation by – as she clearly implied – the big bad Russians and 'Putin' personally. In a similar daft spirit, the head of von der Leyen's conservative grouping in the European parliament, Manfred Weber declared the whole vote a 'waste of time' – at least he is honest about his contempt for democratic procedures and the rights of parliamentarians, you might say – and, of course, a boon to Russia. Perish the thought that if anything 'plays into the hands' of any opponents of the EU, it is precisely the Commission's authoritarianism and corruption as well as cheap, demagogic attempts to shut down legitimate criticism by shouting 'Russia, Russia, Russia!' The leader of the no-confidence motion, Gheorghe Piperea, with a background as a lawyer and judge in Bucharest, is routinely being smeared as 'far right,' for instance in the New York Times. This label is then extended to all those who dare rebel against the Commission, and – step number three – used to justify not supporting their ininitiative. So devious, so simple. In reality, the issue of where exactly Piperea and his supporters stand on the political spectrum is simply irrelevant. What matters is the case that they are advancing, and that is iron-clad. Indeed, if this has to be done by the 'margins' of the European Parliament, then shame on its self-appointed 'center' – and even more so for helping protect von der Leyen further by helping defeat this long overdue challenge to her misrule. But that is, of course, the real issue here: Von der Leyen bears enormous individual responsibility, including for the EU's criminal and evil – there are no other words – support for Israel while the Zionist apartheid state is committing the Gaza Genocide and one war of aggression after another against its neighbors, near and far. But Von der Leyen can only be what she is thanks to structures designed to both imitate and in reality, kill democracy. And also thanks to the large majority of those without a conscience – at the very least – in the EU Parliament. Von der Leyen, like all villains of history, is not alone; she is merely the very worst.
