Författare: Rss .

The Australian Music Venue Foundation launched this month to advocate for and potentially administer an arena ticket levy to support grassroots live music venues. Funds would be raised through a small levy, approximately A$1 per ticket, on the price of tickets to large music events, over 5,000 capacity.

The foundation is partly modelled on the United Kingdom’s Music Venue Trust, a charity and advocacy body founded in 2014 that has advocated for a big ticket levy.

While the proposed levy would certainly help to level the playing field between grassroots music venues and the big end of touring, the Music Venue Trust was founded on much more radical principles and ambitions than simple redistribution.

Socialising live music

Although the Music Venue Trust has moved into advocacy and policy work, such as vocal support for the big ticket levy, the trust’s original and continuing mission is to socialise grassroots music venues. This means they work to help venues transition away from for-profit models and towards alternative ownership structures.

The trust’s “Own Our Venues” campaign spawned Music Venue Properties, a charitable landlord funded by the broader music community. The scheme has now purchased five grassroots venues around the UK, leased on the condition they continue to run as live music venues.

The goal is to take the profit motive out of running a venue. Surplus is reinvested into venue spaces, ensuring their long-term sustainability.

As the trust’s founder and CEO Mark Davyd states, “[the community] is the best person to own a venue”.

We don’t want money going to private landlords, we want it in the cultural economy because that’s the way we generate more great artists and give more people the opportunity to be involved in music.

Acknowledging that such radical ambitions require funding, the trust have been long term advocates for a big ticket levy. However, this advocacy has always accompanied their greater goal of socialising live music venues.

The trust have helped to change the broader cultural understanding of grassroots venues in the UK. Between 2014 and 2022, the proportion of music venues in the country run as not-for-profit ventures increased from 3% to 26%.

The Australian context

Melbourne’s Gasometer Hotel and Brisbane’s The Bearded Lady are the latest small, but culturally significant, live music venues to face closure. The number of venues licensed for live music in Australia is falling, with the greatest reductions in the small-to-medium range.

The recent parliamentary inquiry into the live music industry found costs like insurance and rent have risen sharply in the last five years. Meanwhile, income from alcohol sales – a core revenue source for smaller venues – has dropped in connection with changing youth culture, the cost-of-living crisis, and excises hitched to inflation.

Costs to run music venues have increased, while income from avenues like alcohol sales have fallen.
Frankie Cordoba/Unsplash

Surveys of young people and other groups affirm that Australians value live music, and most people would like to attend more. The most commonly cited barrier is cost, followed by distance from appropriate venues, especially in regional areas.

An arena ticket levy was a key recommendation of the inquiry, with the committee recommending government agency Music Australia should manage the funds.

The committee proposed a levy could enable Music Australia to fund:

performances with minimum pay rates for musicians
capital improvements to venues, such as sound-proofing or disability access
festivals promoting regional, all-ages, First Nations and community participation.

Neither the Labor government nor the opposition have indicated a position on this recommendation, which would require legislation.

The industry proposal

The Australian Music Venue Foundation is asking big music businesses to opt in to an industry-managed ticket levy to fund grassroots live music.

While there has been advocacy for such a voluntary arrangement in the UK, this is yet to come to fruition. The UK government’s deadline for the arrangement of a voluntary scheme by the end of March is approaching, opening up the alternative scenario of a legislated mandatory levy.

Australian advocates believe they may have the relationships to create a different outcome, arguing all industry players have a stake in a healthy music ecosystem.

In the proposed Australian scheme, the recipients and use of funding would be decided by a board of industry professionals. This raises questions around potential conflicts of interest. The foundation has applied for charity status, which requires transparency around operations and finances. However, there are broader questions about priorities.

The foundation argues all levels of the industry have a stake in their being a healthy ecosystem of venues.
Austin/Unsplash

If the scheme gets up, the foundation will need to consider whether to restrict its support to Australian-owned, independent venues of a certain size. Alternatively, funds may be available to venues that are part-owned by the same major, for-profit, international companies paying into the scheme.

To replace the proposed government levy, the foundation would also need to find ways of supporting access to live music for regional, all-ages, First Nations, and other disadvantaged communities, as recommended by the inquiry’s report.

To ensure benefits flow to artists, venue support could also be made conditional on paying a minimum performer’s fee, something venue’s have previously opposed.

The foundation could promote social objectives such as performer diversity, patron safety, and environmental sustainability, but there are no guarantees of this under an industry-led scheme.

These examples demonstrate the issues that can arise when economic redistribution is managed within an industry, rather than by government.

Lofty ambitions

The Music Venue Trust has successfully argued for grassroots music venues as a public good, worthy of longterm community and public investment as well as a structural approach to support.

Through their work, they have provided a new narrative for live music in the UK, supporting innovative ownership and operating models that go beyond the default of a commercially-leased space run as a for-profit small business.

Ambition and innovation has made the trust much more than another industry association advocating for the interests of a particular group of businesses. The Australian Music Venue Foundation should aspire to similar heights if it is to have the same level of influence and impact. Läs mer…

Australia’s BreastScreen program offers women regular mammograms (breast X-rays) based on their age. And this screening for breast cancer saves lives.

But much has changed since the program was introduced in the early 90s. Technology has developed, as has our knowledge of which groups of women might be at higher risk of breast cancer. So how we screen women for breast cancer needs to adapt.

In a recent paper, we’ve proposed a fundamental shift away from an age-based approach to a screening program that takes into account women’s risk of breast cancer.

We argue we could save more lives if screening tests and schedules were personalised based on someone’s risk.

We don’t yet know exactly how this might work in practice. We need to consult with all parties involved, including health professionals, government and women, and we need to begin Australian trials.

But here’s why we need to rethink how we screen for breast cancer in Australia.

Why does breast screening need to change?

Australia’s BreastScreen program was introduced in 1991 and offers women regular mammograms based on their age. Women aged 50–74 are targeted, but screening is available from the age of 40.

The program is key to Australia’s efforts to reduce the burden of breast cancer, providing more than a million screens each year.

Women who attend BreastScreen reduce their risk of dying from breast cancer by 49% on average.

Breast screening saves lives because it makes a big difference to find breast cancers early, before they spread to other parts of the body.

Despite this, around 75,000 Australian women are expected to die from breast cancer over the next 20 years if we continue with current approaches to breast cancer screening and management.

Who’s at high risk, and how best to target them?

International evidence confirms it is possible to identify groups of women at higher risk of breast cancer. These include:

women with denser breasts (where there’s more glandular and fibrous tissue than fatty tissue in the breasts) are more likely to develop breast cancer, and their cancers are harder to find on standard mammograms
women whose mother, sisters, grandmother or aunts have had breast or ovarian cancer, especially if there are multiple relatives and the cancers occurred at young ages
women who have been found to carry genetic mutations that lead to a higher risk of breast cancer (including women with multiple moderate risk mutations, as indicated by what’s known as a polygenic risk score).

For some higher-risk women, could MRI be an option?
VesnaArt/Shutterstock

Women in these and other high-risk groups might warrant a different form of screening. This could include screening from a younger age, screening more frequently, and offering more sensitive tests such as digital breast tomosynthesis (a 3D version of mammography), MRI or contrast-enhanced mammography (a type of mammography that uses a dye to highlight cancerous lesions).

But we don’t yet know:

how to best identify women at higher risk
which screening tests should be offered, how often and to whom
how to staff and run a risk-based screening program
how to deliver this in a cost-effective and equitable way.

The road ahead

This is what we have been working on, for Cancer Council Australia, as part of the ROSA Breast project.

This federally funded project has estimated and compared the expected outcomes and costs for a range of screening scenarios.

For each scenario we estimated the benefits (saving lives or less intense treatment) and harms (overdiagnosis and rates of investigations in women recalled for further investigation after a screening test who are found to not have breast cancer).

Of 160 potential screening scenarios we modelled, we shortlisted 19 which produced the best outcomes for women and were the most cost effective. The shortlisted scenarios tended to involve either targeted screening technologies for higher-risk women or screening technologies other than mammography for all screened women.

For example, in our estimates, making no change to the target age range or screening intervals but offering a more sensitive screening test to the 20% of women deemed to be at highest risk would save 113 lives over ten years.

Alternatively, commencing targeted screening from age 40 and offering a more sensitive screening test annually to the 20% of women at highest risk, and three-yearly screening (of the current kind) to the 30% of women at lowest risk, would save 849 lives over ten years.

However, less frequent screening of the lower risk group was expected to lead to small increases in breast cancer deaths in that group.

How do we best assess women for their risk of breast cancer? At this stage, there’s no one answer.
Tint Media/Shutterstock

We also outlined 25 recommendations to put into action, and set out a five-year roadmap of how to get there. This includes:

a large scale trial to find out what is feasible, effective and affordable in Australia
making sure women at higher risk in different parts of Australia are offered suitable options regardless of where they live and who they see
better data collection and reporting to support risk-based screening
testing how we assess women for their risk of breast cancer, including whether these assessments work as intended and make sense to women from a range of backgrounds
clinical studies of screening technologies to determine the best delivery models and associated costs
ongoing engagement with groups including women, health professionals and government.

Breast cancer screening review out soon

Federal health minister Mark Butler said a review of the BreastScreen program would consider our recommendations. The results of this review are expected soon.

We’re not alone in calling for a move towards risk-based breast cancer screening. This is backed by national and international submissions to government, policy briefing documents and the Breast Cancer Network Australia.

We’ve provided an evidence-based roadmap towards better screening for breast cancer. Now is the time to commit to this journey.

We acknowledge Louiza Velentzis from the Daffodil Centre, and Paul Grogan and Deborah Bateson from the University of Sydney, who co-authored the paper mentioned in this article. Läs mer…

An Ontario court has approved the liquidation of nearly all Hudson’s Bay Company’s stores, marking the end of Canada’s oldest company, which has been in operation for 355 years. The liquidation is set to begin March 24, and will continue until June 15, leaving only six stores in operation.

The court’s decision came shortly after Hudson’s Bay filed for creditor protection, signalling the company’s struggle to manage its mounting debt.

With widespread layoffs sure to follow, this corporate collapse is both shocking and distressing. But the court documents suggest it was not unexpected. Hudson’s Bay lost $329.7 million in the 12 months leading up to Jan. 31, 2025. As of that date, Hudson’s Bay had only $3.3 million in cash and owed more than $2 billion in debt and leases.

The final straw appears to have been trade tensions between Canada and the U.S., with the increased geopolitical and economic uncertainty leading lenders to shun Hudson’s Bay as it sought more financing, according to court documents.

What bankruptcy looks like

The downfall of a major company like Hudson’s Bay brings with it a wave of financial jargon. Understanding the differences between insolvency, bankruptcy, restructuring and liquidation is crucial to fully grasp the situation.

Insolvency occurs when a business runs out of cash and cannot pay its bills. At the start of March, it was $5 million behind on rent and supplier payments, and within days of missing payroll.

Bankruptcy is a legal process under Canada’s Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act where a company files for protection from its creditors. The goal is to avoid the social and economic costs of liquidation, preserve jobs and protect the interests of affected stakeholders. If granted, the judge sets a “stay period” where the company works out a restructuring plan with its creditors.

Pedestrians pass the Hudson’s Bay building in downtown Calgary on March 20, 2025.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jeff McIntosh

Hudson’s Bay has more than 2,000 creditors, including $430 million in secured term loans, $724 million in mortgages and $512 million to unsecured creditors, mostly owed to suppliers. Hudson’s Bay also owes payroll remittances, federal sales taxes and over $60 million in customer gift cards and loyalty points. Gift cards are good until April 6.

A restructuring wipes out the equity holders and allows a company to negotiate a reduction in its debts. The business continues to operate under the supervision of a court-appointed monitor, using interim financing to pay bills. If successful, the company re-emerges from bankruptcy and continues to do business.

If restructuring is not successful, the company asks the court for permission to liquidate. Liquidation means a “fire sale” of all assets such as inventory, shelving, real estate, leases and trademarks. Items are sold at a deep discount, leading to potential bargains.

The Ontario Superior Court denied the initial request to liquidate on March 14, telling Hudson’s Bay and its creditors to “lower the temperature” and work on a deal. With only limited progress and some concessions made to support Hudson’s Bay’s joint venture with RioCan REIT, the court gave permission for the liquidation on March 21.

Many will lose, some will win

The collapse of Hudson’s Bay will leave many facing financial losses, while a select few stand to gain.

Secured creditors, some suppliers and Hudson’s Bay pensioners are expected to be protected by the courts. However, many others, including thousands of customers and more than 1,800 unsecured creditors, will suffer a financial hit.

The hardest impact will be felt by the more than 9,300 employees losing their jobs. Employees will lose their income, health and disability benefits, and life insurance, significantly impacting families across the country.

However, employees will not lose their pension benefits. The company’s pension plan is fully funded and in surplus position. This was not the case for Sears Canada when it went bankrupt in 2018. A surplus means the value of investments is greater than the promised benefits and is good news for retirees.

Read more:
Sears Canada tarnishes the gold standard of pensions

Mall landlords will also lose out. Hudson’s Bay drove foot traffic in malls across the country where it was the anchor-tenant. There will likely be painful ripple effects for smaller Hudson’s Bay store owners, including falling sales, defaults on mortgages and business failures.

That said, some stand to benefit. For example, the American financial services company Restore Capital LLC is providing interim debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing, charging a hefty fee in the process. The lawyers and accountants involved in the bankruptcy may also benefit.

Priority of proceeds

When a company is liquidated, the proceeds from selling its assets are used to repay claimants based on their priority in bankruptcy. This is sometimes referred to as the waterfall of “who gets what.” Think of it as a queue with people lining up to get paid.

Interim DIP financing is paid off first, together with legal and accounting fees related to the bankruptcy. Essential operating costs during the restructuring are also paid, including employee wages.

Shoppers browse at a Hudson’s Bay in Toronto on March 17, 2025.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Christopher Katsarov

Next come secured creditors. These lenders provided funding backed by specific assets, known as collateral. Collateral may include inventory and real estate. A similar process happens on a personal residence; if a homeowner defaults on their mortgage payments, the bank may take possession of the house.

Third in line are debts granted priority by the courts. Employees receive unpaid wages up to a certain cap, just under $9,000, under the federal Wage Earner Protection Program. Pension benefits are paid out and outstanding payroll and sales tax remittances are paid.

As the pool of assets gets smaller, unsecured creditors are paid off next including suppliers, landlords and employees owed additional wages or termination benefits.

Last in the queue from the wind-up are equity holders — the residual claimants — who control the company through their common and preferred shares.

In 2020, Hudson’s Bay’s CEO Richard Baker and a group of investors took the company private, meaning it was no longer publicly traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange, buying out shareholders for approximately $2 billion. This stake is now wiped out.

Disappointing, but not surprising

Hudson’s Bay’s current financial situation is disappointing, but not surprising. The COVID-19 pandemic made times tough for brick-and-mortar retailers. On top of this, under-investment and a failed e-commerce strategy left the company struggling to compete in an increasingly digital retail landscape.

With tariffs and trade uncertainty hurting the Canadian economy, the unfolding trade war is expected to have far-reaching consequences for Canadian households and businesses. Hudson’s Bay was not immune to these effects.

In the end, Hudson’s Bay backed itself into a corner, arguably waiting too long to secure funding and ultimately losing control of its own destiny. Its bankruptcy is a major blow to Canadian retail, marking the end of a era for a company that lasted more than three-and-a-half centuries. Läs mer…

Infectious disease outbreaks have a bad habit of piling on at the worst possible times.

The 1918 flu pandemic, also known as the Spanish flu, caught the world by surprise just as the First World War was coming to an end. It was responsible for killing three to five per cent of the world’s population (50-100 million people, equivalent to about 400 million today).

Now, as we reflect on five years since the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic and face economic uncertainty imposed by the United States administration — as well as lingering conflicts in places such as the Middle East and Ukraine — it’s the steady march of avian influenza, or “bird flu,” that poses an imminent threat to humanity.

Walter Reed hospital flu ward in Washington, D.C. during the flu epidemic of 1918-19, which killed three to five per cent of the world’s population.
(Shutterstock)

Bird flu has been causing a flurry of human infections, especially in U.S. cattle workers. If the virus learns to spread effectively from human to human, it could change the course of history. Even though our weary world already feels maxed out, we have to make room to avert yet another crisis.

Read more:
Bird flu in cattle: What are the concerns surrounding the newly emerging bovine H5N1 influenza virus?

The good news is that we know how to minimize risk and mobilize resources quickly, before the virus starts moving from human-to-human.

Heading off a bird flu pandemic

Knowing what to do and actually doing it, though, are very different, as we saw all too well five years ago when COVID-19 shut down much of the world, killing more than seven million people worldwide. And it’s not through with us yet.

The question is whether we will act in time to head off a bird flu pandemic. The Spanish Flu was the first of five influenza pandemics since the end of the First World War.

A sixth is inevitable without co-ordinated global action. Otherwise, the only questions are when it will it come and how bad it will be.

Read more:
Combatting the measles threat means examining the reasons for declining vaccination rates

Infectious diseases constitute a permanent threat to society, especially as vaccine hesitancy and misinformation grow. Fighting pandemics needs to be a full-time, ongoing priority for governments everywhere.

A biosecurity warning sign is seen on a locked gate at a commercial poultry farm in Abbotsford, B.C., in November 2024.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck

After the arrival of COVID-19, there were some impressive investments in infrastructure and science to support pandemic preparedness, but many were essentially one-time projects.

Canada needs to establish permanent capacity to prevent and respond to health emergencies. Government agencies specifically dedicated to supporting the development of medical countermeasures for pathogens that pose a pandemic risk, like the recently established Health Emergencies Readiness Canada (HERC), are a step in the right direction.

However, we must also re-prioritize investments in the fundamental research that is the birthplace of new medical and non-medical solutions to pandemic preparedness — where we currently lag far behind essentially all of our G7 counterparts. This has never been more important than in the current global political context.

The cost of acting to prevent or limit a pandemic is infinitesimal compared to the price of letting one happen, whether one measures the toll in human lives, or in dollars.

The world needs to adopt a collective mentality that we are “all in” on prevention if we want to maximize our chances of avoiding the next pandemic. We cannot sit on our hands and hope we get lucky. That strategy has failed us in the past and will doom us in the future.

H5N1 avian flu

Today, as we stand on the brink of an avian influenza pandemic that could be significantly worse than COVID-19, too much of the world seems unaware, unprepared or largely disengaged.

Bird flu has been causing a flurry of human infections.
(AP Photo/Erin Hooley)

Globally, more than 900 humans are known to have been infected by H5N1 avian influenza so far. The death rate associated with these human infections is a staggering one in two, placing it on par with threats such as Ebola.

Death rates resulting from human infections of the most prevalent currently circulating H5N1 virus in the U.S. (clade 2.3.4.4b) have been much lower — though the very narrow demographic characteristics of the individuals that have been infected leaves many questions regarding the true danger that this virus poses to the population at-large.Avian influenza has become more prevalent than ever in our environment. Having adapted to spread efficiently among cattle and other mammals, the virus will follow its biological imperative to adapt and survive.

No responsible country can ignore the possibility that person-to-person spread could start anywhere and quickly wash over the planet.

Read more:
An ounce of prevention: Now is the time to take action on H5N1 avian flu, because the stakes are enormous

Certainly, Canada is treating the issue seriously, as I know from my work with the Public Health Agency of Canada, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, the Ontario Immunization Advisory Committee and other bodies.

But the effort to stop or at least slow avian influenza needs to include all countries and to engage everyday people, especially those who work directly with birds, cattle and other wild and domestic animals.

Targeted interventions

The best tactics to stave off a pandemic, at least at this point, are relatively unintrusive, targeted interventions. It’s critical that farm workers, veterinarians and others who work with animals follow careful protocols such as wearing masks and goggles, sanitizing equipment and continuing to cull poultry flocks where exposure is identified.

We also need to educate hunters about protective measures to lower their risk of exposure.

It’s critical that farm workers, veterinarians and others who work with animals follow careful protocols.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Ryan Remiorz

Most mitigation measures are entirely non-medical — though offering vaccines to those at high risk of exposure, as Finland has done, would be prudent. It’s much easier to target vaccination programs to high-risk groups than to organize a global vaccine campaign after a pandemic has begun.

We need to encourage these groups to take every possible action to protect themselves — and therefore the world — and to provide financial supports that enable them to comply without cost.

If avian flu becomes established among humans, which could happen rapidly and with very little warning, COVID-19 has shown that only a swift, decisive and truly global approach can fend off disaster.

A significant lesson from COVID-19 is that we have to support pandemic prevention and response efforts for people in every corner of the world, however remote they may be, and that we must reach vulnerable populations within wealthy countries, such as elderly, frail and marginalized people, and those affected by poverty. These are the people always impacted most by infectious diseases.

A selective distribution of resources among the planet’s wealthiest populations will not provide the protection the world needs and will only enlarge and extend the reach of a new pandemic.

We must remember what it was like to close down schools, workplaces and public gatherings and to have hospitals overflowing with patients as clinicians risked their lives to care for them.

We could have saved so many people and so much money by taking the threat more seriously from the outset, including providing better public education about evidence-based measures such as masking and vaccines.

It’s past time we made pandemic prevention and response a permanent priority, no matter what else is happening in the world. Läs mer…

US President Donald Trump’s pivot toward Russia amid its war in Ukraine has collided with the stance of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s government, which has always shown unwavering support for Kyiv as well as loyalty to Washington. When Trump came to power, Meloni wanted to appear connected to his administration, hoping to play the role of a bridge with Europe while France and Germany were in unfavourable political cycles. Trump’s pivot led to a revival of France’s role in Europe, while Germany emerged from its electoral period with its likely next chancellor, Friedrich Merz, calling for European defence’s “independence from the USA”.

Meloni’s position is not only weakening within the European context, where France, Germany and the UK play leading roles, but also in Italian politics, as US policy has created rifts within the three-part governing coalition. Meloni’s party, Fratelli d’Italia, supports Ukraine and Europe, as does Forza Italia. But the leader of Lega, Matteo Salvini, has come to embody Trumpism in Italy, taking an openly pro-Russian position and opposing European rearmament. If a break with Lega were to occur, it could call into question the viability of the government, as it would no longer hold an absolute majority in parliament.

Anti-French rhetoric

For her part, Meloni always tends to push back against any “European-only” defence solution proposed by France. This position is a way for Italy to avoid facing the fact that NATO has weakened. It also reactivates an anti-French rhetoric that is a classic refrain among Italian nationalists. Salvini has recently accused French President Emmanuel Macron of being “crazy” and calling for Europe to prepare for nuclear war.

However, Macron has not made any significant missteps toward Italy. Since the first informal emergency meeting in Paris after Trump’s policy shift toward Ukraine (a gathering that included the UK, Germany, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain and Poland), the Italian government has always been involved. Moreover, Macron’s policy convergence with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has dulled criticisms, because Rome is traditionally close to London.

Both Meloni’s government and the opposition have put forward complicated if not unrealistic proposals for the war in Ukraine, such as a UN peacekeeping mission after a ceasefire, and repeatedly reaffirmed their commitment to NATO. In terms of public opinion, a poll published in mid-February – two weeks before Trump scolded Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during a White House visit – found that 69 percent of Italians “are favourable toward a common European army”.

There is also a growing debate in Italy on nuclear deterrence. This issue had been taboo until now, with Italy benefitting from an arrangement in which US nuclear bombs are stored in bases on Italian soil. While Germany and Poland have expressed interest in an expansion of the French nuclear umbrella, Italian media and policymakers are also beginning to discuss it. The discussion may reflect doubts about US reliability within NATO, including Washington’s commitment to the alliance treaty’s Article 5, which holds that “an armed attack” on one member “shall be considered an attack against them all”.

Read more:
French nuclear deterrence for Europe: how effective could it be against Russia?

Defence ties to Europe

There are also significant signals coming from Italian industry. While, in recent months, the Italian government appeared to want to use the telecommunications services of Starlink, the satellite network created by Elon Musk, for its defence needs, a contract no longer seems to be on the agenda. Musk’s fluctuating stance about the Starlink service provided to Kyiv, as well as the US decision that temporarily cut aid to Ukraine, introduced questions about reliability. This explains how, in just a few weeks, the French company Eutelsat, which owns the OneWeb constellation, has seen a resurgence of interest, as many countries assess its services as alternatives to Starlink. Following this turmoil, the Italian company Leonardo recently announced that it is planning to launch a constellation of 18 telecommunications satellites for defence purposes.

These developments also tie into Italy’s industrial position in aerospace and defence, because Leonardo and Fincantieri, another large, publicly owned company, do not limit their markets to the Italian armed forces. As part of a European strategy, Leonardo concluded an agreement with the German company Rheinmetall in 2024 to jointly produce battle tanks, and recently announced an agreement with the Turkish company Baykar to produce drones. Leonardo is part-owner, along with French defence company Thales, of Telespazio and of Thales Alenia Space, and is also in discussions with Airbus to form a European satellite production group. In the missile sector, Leonardo’s participation in European joint venture MBDA allowed Italy and France to produce the SAMP/T anti-missile system, which could lead to further developments for the European missile-defence network. In shipbuilding, Fincantieri has expressed interest in merging its activities with the German group Thyssen Krupp Marine Systems. And in aircraft, Italy is participating in the Global Air Combat Programme, which includes the UK and Japan in the production of fighter jets. These examples show that Italian aerospace and defence development is intrinsically linked to European collaborations and export markets.

Both in terms of industrial interests and politics, Italy is firmly anchored in the European camp. The positive stance that the Meloni government took toward Washington does not mean Rome is considering an alternative to EU affiliation. Italy is also facing continuous cyberattacks from Russian groups, which feeds a clear threat perception. The prime minister has stressed her differences with France and the UK during the recent European security summits, but while Italy may be reluctant to deploy peacekeeping troops in Ukraine, it cannot distance itself too much from the future defence architecture of Europe. Läs mer…

President Donald Trump wants Ukraine to repay the United States for helping to defend the country against Russia’s invasion.

Since 2022, Congress has provided about US$174 billion to Ukraine and neighboring countries to assist its war effort. Trump inflated this figure to $350 billion in a March 2025 White House meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron. Separately, he has suggested Ukraine could reimburse the U.S. by giving America access to its minerals.

Ukraine is rich in titanium, graphite, manganese and other rare earth metals used to produce electric vehicle batteries and other tech devices.

Mining and refining these critical mineral resources would require major investment in infrastructure and economic development, including in parts of Ukraine severely damaged by fighting. Some analysts are calling for a return to the European Recovery Program, commonly known as the Marshall Plan.

The Marshall Plan used $13.3 billion in U.S. funds – roughly $171 billion in today’s dollars – to rebuild war-torn Western Europe from 1948 to late 1951. It is often evoked as a solution for reconstruction following global crises. Yet as a military historian and curator, I find that the Marshall Plan is not well understood.

For the U.S., the economic gains of the Marshall Plan did not come from European countries’ repaying loans or allowing the U.S. to extract their raw materials. Rather, the U.S. has benefited enormously from a half-century of goodwill, democratic stability and economic success in Europe.

European nations turn inward

After World War II ended in 1945, Western Europe faced a staggering burden of destruction and upheaval.

The German city of Cologne in ruins, 1945.
Keystone-France/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images

Allied bombardment of major industrial areas and German cities such as Berlin, Hamburg and Cologne had created massive housing shortages. Meanwhile, fighting through agricultural areas and a critical manpower shortage had curtailed food production. What harvest there was could not get to hungry civilians because so many of Europe’s roads, bridges and ports had been destroyed.

The United Kingdom, Italy, France, Germany and other European governments were buried in debt after so many years of war. They could not afford to rebuild on their own. Yet rather than cooperating on their mutual economic reconstruction, European nations looked inward, focusing primarily on their own political challenges.

The continent was politically and militarily divided, too. Europe’s western half was influenced by the democratic, capitalistic forces led by the U.S. Eastern Europe was beholden to the communist, command-economy forces of the Soviet Union.

In a 1946 speech at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill articulated Europe’s growing postwar divide. Over the ruins of proud nations, he said, “an iron curtain” had “descended across the continent.”

US looks abroad

Unlike Europe, the U.S. emerged from World War II as the wealthiest nation in the world, with its territory intact and unharmed. Its steel and oil industries were booming. By 1947, the U.S. was the clear successor to Great Britain as the world’s superpower.

But President Harry Truman feared the ambitions of the war’s other great victor – the Soviet Union. In March 1947, he announced a new doctrine to contain communist expansion southward across Europe by giving $400 million in military and economic aid to Greece and Turkey.

Around the same time, U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall met with Soviet officials to plan Germany’s future. Following the Nazis’ surrender in May 1945, Germany had been divided into four occupied zones administered by U.S., British, French and Soviet forces.

Each nation had its own goals for its section of Germany. The U.S. wanted to revitalize Germany politically and economically, believing that a moribund Germany would thwart the economic reconstruction of all of Europe.

Marshall hoped that the Soviets would cooperate, but Soviet ruler Josef Stalin preferred extracting reparations from a prostrate Germany to investing in its recovery. A vibrant German economic engine, the Soviets felt, could just as easily rearm to attack the Russian countryside for the third time that century.

The Truman administration chose to unilaterally rebuild the three western Allied sectors of Germany – and Western Europe.

Marshall outlined his plan at a commencement address at Harvard University in June 1947. American action to restore global economic health, he said, would provide the foundation for political stability and peace in Europe. And an economically healthy Western Europe, in turn, would inhibit the spread of communism by plainly demonstrating the benefits of capitalism.

“Our policy is not directed against any country,” Marshall said, “but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos.”

Marshall’s plan

Marshall invited all European nations to participate in drafting a plan to first address the immediate humanitarian aid of Europe’s people, then rebuild its infrastructure. The U.S. would pay for it all.

For nearly bankrupt European nations, it was a lifeline.

Reconstruction begins in the shell-damaged town of Nipsa, Greece, as part of the Marshall Plan, in 1947.
Keystone View Company/FPG/Getty Images

In September 1947, the new Committee for European Economic Co-operation, composed of 16 Western – but not Eastern – European nations, delivered its proposal to Washington.

It would take a masterful legislative strategy for the Democratic Truman administration to persuade the Republican-led Congress to pass this $13 billion bill. It succeeded thanks to the dedicated effort of Republican Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, who convinced his isolationist colleagues that the Marshall Plan would halt the expansion of communism and benefit American economic growth.

In April 1948, Truman signed the Economic Cooperation Act. By year’s end, over $2 billion had reached Europe, and its industrial production had finally surpassed prewar levels seen in 1939.

NATO is born

Along with economic stability, the Truman administration recognized that Europe needed military security to defend against communist encroachment by the Soviet Union.

In July 1949, 12 European countries, the U.S. and Canada established the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO committed each member country to the mutual defense of fellow NATO members.

Since 1947, NATO has steadily expanded eastward to include Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and other former Soviet satellite states directly bordering Russia.

Ukraine, which declared its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, is not yet a NATO member. But it desperately wants to be.

Ukraine applied for NATO membership in 2022 after Russia’s invasion. Its application is pending. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said any peace deal with Ukraine must bar NATO membership.

Would a Marshall Plan work for Ukraine?

Modern-day Ukraine mirrors the Western European countries of the Marshall Plan era in meaningful ways.

It suffers from the physical devastation of war, with its major cities heavily damaged. The threat of military attack from hostile neighbors remains urgent. And it has a functional, democratic government that would – in peacetime – be capable of receiving and distributing aid to develop the nation’s economic growth and stability.

U.S. global leadership, however, has changed dramatically since 1948.

Outright American taxpayer financing of Ukraine’s reconstruction seems impossible. Any plan to reconstruct the country after war will likely require public funding from multiple nations and substantial private investment. That private investment could well include mineral extraction and refinement ventures.

Ultimately, Ukraine’s recovery will most likely involve Ukraine and neighboring nations reaching agreement to restore its economic and military security. The European Union, which Ukraine also seeks to join, has the bureaucratic and economic resources necessary to reconstruct Ukraine, restore peace and ease tensions on the continent.

Any future Marshall Plan for Ukraine will probably be European. Läs mer…

I have spent years studying and teaching Japanese anime, exploring how its narratives intertwine with cultural, philosophical and religious traditions. One of the most compelling aspects of Japanese anime is its ability to merge thrilling action with deep spiritual and ethical questions.

“Demon Slayer: Mugen Train,” which shattered Japanese box-office records for earnings and ended up as 2020’s highest-grossing film in the world, is a prime example of how anime engages with these profound themes. With “Demon Slayer” continuing its global success, it is an opportune time to examine how it intertwines Buddhist, Shinto and samurai traditions into a narrative of heroism, impermanence and moral struggle.

Spiritual themes in anime

Anime often explores spiritual and philosophical questions by drawing on Japan’s religious traditions to examine themes of fate, self-sacrifice and the struggle between desire and duty.

Hayao Miyazaki’s “Princess Mononoke,” for example, follows Prince Ashitaka, who is cursed by a demon and must journey to find a cure. His quest leads him into a conflict between the industrialized Irontown, which seeks to expand by clearing forests, and the spirits of the natural world, including the Deer God, a divine being that governs life and death.

The film reflects Shinto principles by portraying nature as sacred and inhabited by “kami,” or spiritual beings. It emphasizes harmony between humans and the environment and the consequences of disrupting this balance.

Scholar Melissa Croteau, in her book “Transcendence and Spirituality in Japanese Cinema,” notes how Miyazaki’s films use nature spirits to critique modernity’s detachment from the sacredness of the environment.

A still from ‘Spirited Away’ in which 10-year-old Chihiro must learn to navigate an unseen world.
GoodFon.com, CC BY-NC

Similarly, his 2001 animated film “Spirited Away” reflects animist ideas in Japanese culture, where spirits are believed to inhabit natural elements and even everyday objects. Set in a mysterious Japanese bathhouse filled with “kami,” 10-year-old Chihiro, once shy and afraid of change, learns to navigate this hidden world and transforms along the way.

A key moment in the film is the arrival of a polluted river spirit, which appears as a filthy, sludge-covered creature but is revealed to be a once-pristine river god, burdened by human waste. This scene embodies the animist belief that natural entities have their own spirit and must be respected. It also reinforces an environmental message: When nature is polluted or mistreated, it loses its vitality, but with care and reverence it can be restored.

“Neon Genesis Evangelion,” a landmark Japanese anime television series that aired from 1995 to 1996, engages with deep philosophical ideas, particularly existentialist questions of identity and purpose. Set in a postapocalyptic world, the series follows 14-year-old Shinji Ikari, who is recruited to pilot a giant biomechanical weapon called an evangelion to defend humanity against mysterious beings known as Angels.

As Shinji and his fellow pilots struggle with their roles, the series explores themes of isolation, self-worth and the challenges of forming close, meaningful relationships. It draws from both Buddhist and Gnostic thought, which emphasize a focus on inner spiritual knowledge and the belief that clinging too tightly to the material world causes suffering. Evangelion portrays suffering as arising from attachment and the inability to form meaningful relationships.

Rengoku: The embodiment of selfless heroism

What sets “Mugen Train” apart is its focus on the internal conflicts of its characters, symbolized by their battles with demons. These demons represent human suffering and attachment, themes deeply influenced by Buddhist thought. At the heart of the film is Kyojuro Rengoku, a demon slayer who embodies unwavering selflessness and honor.

Rengoku’s flame-breathing forms.

Rengoku’s fire-based fighting style is deeply symbolic. In Japanese culture, fire represents both destruction and renewal. The Kurama Fire Festival, held annually on Oct. 22 in Kyoto, is a Shinto ritual where large torches are carried through the streets to ward off evil and purify the land.

Similarly, Buddhist goma fire ceremonies involve priests burning wooden sticks in sacred flames to symbolize the eradication of ignorance and desire. Rengoku’s own techniques reflect this duality: His flames cleanse the world of evil while signifying his unwavering spirit.

Goma fire ritual.

Bushido, the samurai code of honor, underpins Rengoku’s character. Rooted in Confucian ethics, Zen Buddhism and Shinto beliefs, this code emphasizes loyalty, self-sacrifice and duty to protect others. His mother’s teaching – “The strong must protect the weak” – guides his every action, reflecting the Confucian value of filial piety and the moral obligation to serve society.

Bushido’s connection to Zen Buddhism, with its focus on discipline and acceptance of impermanence, further shapes Rengoku’s unwavering resolve, while its Shinto influences reinforce his role as a guardian upholding a sacred duty.

Even approaching death, Rengoku remains steadfast, accepting impermanence, or “mujō,” a fundamental Buddhist principle that sees beauty in life’s transience. His sacrifice teaches that true strength lies in selflessness and moral integrity.

Akaza: A manifestation of attachment and suffering

Opposing Rengoku is Akaza, a demon who embodies the destructive consequences of clinging to power and immortality. Once human, Akaza became a demon in his obsession with strength, unable to accept the impermanence of life.

His refusal to acknowledge death aligns with Buddhist teachings that suffering arises from attachment and desire. Scholars such as Jacqueline Stone have explored how Buddhist texts portray clinging to existence as a fundamental source of suffering, a theme vividly reflected in Akaza’s character.

Visual elements reinforce Akaza’s symbolism. His body is covered in tattoos reminiscent of “irezumi,” traditional Japanese body art historically associated with crime and hardship. In Edo-period Japan, tattoos were often used to mark criminals, branding them as outcasts from society. Even today, irezumi remains stigmatized in many parts of Japan, with some public bathhouses, gyms and swimming pools barring individuals with visible tattoos due to their historical association with the yakuza. In contemporary anime, tattooed characters frequently symbolize a troubled past or inner turmoil, reinforcing Akaza’s role as a figure trapped by his own suffering and destructive path.

Akaza’s irezumi visually conveys his entrapment in cycles of suffering, reinforcing his contrast with Rengoku’s liberating flames.

A battle about human struggles

The battle between Rengoku and Akaza is more than a fight between good and evil; it is a clash between two worldviews – selflessness versus egoism, acceptance versus attachment. “Mugen Train” taps into universal human struggles, making its themes resonate far beyond Japan.

The film’s exploration of impermanence, moral duty and the pursuit of meaning contributes to anime’s broader legacy as a medium that entertains while provoking deep philosophical reflection.

As “Demon Slayer” continues to captivate audiences worldwide, evidenced by social media buzz around its new projects and the ongoing enthusiasm of fans, its success underscores anime’s ability to blend action with profound themes.

Whether through Rengoku’s selfless courage or Akaza’s tragic downfall, “Mugen Train” offers a timeless meditation on what it means to live with purpose and integrity. Läs mer…

The Puerto Rican rapper Bad Bunny is one of the biggest stars of the music world. After becoming Spotify’s most-streamed artist for three years in a row – the first and only artist ever to do so – he sold out all 49 dates of his 2024 U.S. tour, netting US$211 million.

Earlier this year, after Bad Bunny co-hosted “The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon” and announced a 21-show residency in Puerto Rico, the recently reelected mayor of San Juan, Miguel Romero, quipped that the artist had done a better job of promoting Puerto Rico than the island’s official destination marketing organization.

That agency, Discover Puerto Rico, was founded in 2017 to market the island to both tourists and investors. Established during the administration of Gov. Ricardo Rosselló, it was part of a broader effort to professionalize Puerto Rico’s place branding and underscored the importance of tourism to the island’s economy.

As a scholar of Puerto Rican politics and place branding – and a native Puerto Rican – I think this case study raises interesting public policy questions: Who gets to brand Puerto Rico? Why does it matter if a place has a brand anyway? And if political leaders are dissatisfied with an agency whose sole purpose is to market the island, what comes next?

It’s not just a place – it’s a brand

Historically, place-branding campaigns have been led by governments seeking to attract tourism and investment. One of the most iconic examples was the “I Love New York” campaign, launched in 1977 as a collaboration between New York City and private partners. Similar public-private models became more common in the decades that followed.

A Works Progress Administration ad promoting Puerto Rico, circa 1940.
Library of Congress

Puerto Rico has seen various branding efforts over the years. Early boosterism efforts emerged during the first half of the 20th century, and in 1970, the Puerto Rico Tourism Company was created to promote the island as a
tourist destination. By the 1990s, many Puerto Rican municipalities had begun adopting different place branding strategies.

During Puerto Rico’s deepening fiscal crisis in the 2010s, branding efforts remained a bipartisan priority. But the two dominant political parties – the pro-territory Partido Popular Democrático, and the pro-statehood Partido Nuevo Progresista – each rebranded the island every time a new administration took office, raising concerns about consistency. The last major government-led initiative before Discover Puerto Rico was the “Isla Estrella” campaign, which included a sponsorship deal with Spain’s Sevilla FC soccer team.

The ‘Discover Puerto Rico’ era

In 2017, Discover Puerto Rico took control over the island’s place-branding efforts. However, its performance has been polarizing, with critics pointing to significant blunders. For example, an early ad in its “Live Boricua” campaign sparked backlash for featuring a family that didn’t look like most Puerto Ricans.

Beyond its marketing blunders, Discover Puerto Rico has struggled to navigate Puerto Rico’s politically charged place-branding landscape. In fact, it has been contested from the start, and remains so, as recently elected Gov. Jennifer González evaluates its future. It remains unclear to what extent efficiency and economic development will serve as the main criteria for evaluating its success, and to what extent party politics will influence the decision-making process.

Just a day before Mayor Romero made his remark about Bad Bunny, Discover Puerto Rico’s CEO, Brad Dean, resigned, taking a similar role in St. Louis. Dean has argued that during his tenure, Discover Puerto Rico has driven significant increases in tourism and tourism spending. While these self-reported figures suggest success, they don’t address a critical issue – the long-standing political controversy surrounding Puerto Rico’s branding.

Pop culture carries the weight

At the same time the future of Discover Puerto Rico remains uncertain, the island has gained unparalleled international attention thanks to popular music.

Reggaetón, an urban genre that originated in Puerto Rico in the 1990s, has amassed a massive global fan base, extending beyond Puerto Rico and Latin America to the rest of the world. In 2017, Daddy Yankee and Luis Fonsi’s video for the worldwide hit “Despacito” turned La Perla, a working-class barrio in Old San Juan, into a magnet for tourists from all over the world.

“Despacito” prompted a surge of visits to La Perla, as the French news agency AFP noted.

More recently, in January 2025, Bad Bunny released his latest album, “Debí Tirar Más Fotos,” which taps into traditional Puerto Rican music genres such as bomba, plena and música jíbara that aren’t usually associated with reggaetón. It charted at No. 1. Bad Bunny also announced a Puerto Rico-exclusive concert series, with some dates reserved for locals and others open to fans worldwide.

The success of Puerto Rican reggaetón artists raises an important question: Why have these organic cultural movements been so effective – perhaps even more so than the official expert-driven place-marketing agency – in promoting Puerto Rico as a brand?

I think the answer probably lies in authenticity. Unlike government-led initiatives, reggaetón’s global appeal stems from its cultural resonance and emotional connection with audiences worldwide, regardless of politics.

At this critical juncture for the island’s tourism agency, perhaps Discover Puerto Rico should rebrand itself as “Discover the Birthplace of Reggaetón.” Läs mer…

Several weeks have now passed since the infamously heated argument between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and US President Donald Trump on February 28 in the Oval Office. Zelensky has now accepted the partial ceasefire demanded by the US, paving the way for negotiations to reach a peace agreement with Russia.

Perhaps feeling vindicated by Trump’s rhetoric, and with the upper hand on the battlefield, Russian President Vladimir Putin has been reluctant to accept the US proposal for a full cessation of hostilities. So far, he has only agreed to halt attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure.

Putin is most likely weighing up the possibility of an eventual collapse of the Ukrainian front. At the very least, he will be seeking to consolidate his advantage, and to negotiate from a position of strength that would allow him to impose conditions on peace negotiations. As a bare minimum, these conditions would include keeping occupied Ukrainian territory, keeping Ukraine out of Western institutions like the EU and Nato, and avoiding the deployment of Nato forces.

However, even if a negotiation were to give him all this, the underlying geopolitical issue that drove Putin to war would be far from resolved. Controlling Ukraine is a cornerstone of Russia’s territorial bulwark, which it considers essential for its security in the west.

However much it now appears the victor, Russia is far from having achieved the aims of its 2022 invasion. A peace that does not fully satisfy its security needs will, for Russia, be a bad peace, and will leave questions open. As a natural consequence, it is prudent to prepare in order to avoid, or confront, further conflict in the future.

Negotiating without Europe

With the exception of brief visits to the White House by a several of its leaders, Europe has been left out of negotiating efforts. It has been ignored on an issue that, if only for geographical reasons, concerns it directly. This disregard shows how little the continent matters to its North American partner, and forces European states to face existential questions.

In fairness, Russia harbours no imperialist intentions (though one can never truly know how it would act if it were to find a clear path to the Atlantic), but it does want to restore the security shield it lost at the end of the Cold War. We cannot rule out the possibility that, in the future, it might insist on this if the geostrategic conditions are right. This is a source of acute concern for policy-makers in Eastern European states, particularly those of the Baltic republics.

On its own, Europe cannot guarantee Ukraine the support it received from the West when the US was involved in the war effort. From a pragmatic point of view, it has little choice. It will probably accept the US effort to end the war, trying to make its voice heard in the process and, if Russia accepts it, go as far as deploying peacekeeping troops.

Read more:
Are Ukrainians ready for ceasefire and concessions? Here’s what the polls say

European strategic autonomy

In the meantime, the continent should not let up in the effort it has begun to strengthen its defence capabilities. It needs this not only as a deterrent, but also as the only way to maintain US interest in Nato, which remains vital to European security.

Assuming there is no going back on the project of political integration, Europe needs sufficient, credible military power (and power projection) if its voice is to be heard in an increasingly harsh international arena.

Read more:
Europe’s rearmament is moving fast – it must not overlook these three vital areas

Ongoing efforts to achieve real strategic autonomy must also cultivate and strengthen the transatlantic link. Neither the US nor Europe has an interest in damaging, let alone severing, their relations. If that were to happen, the US nuclear umbrella would disappear, opening the way for a future full of worrying unknowns in which European states might fragment, and seek solutions to their security problems alone.

This could, in turn, lead to all manner of unpredictable scenarios, including the end of the EU itself, nuclear proliferation on the continent, an adversarial relationship with the US.

Europe must prepare for a future in which it has to confront the Russian threat without the unconditional support it has hitherto received from the United States. This vital if it is to continue accepting the sacrosanct sovereignty of states, and their right to decide the path they want to follow without interference. This means that it cannot surrender to the idea that Russia has the right to a security sphere of its own.

It would, however, do well to maintain the shield it has deployed to the east since 2014, both for deterrence purposes and as a show of resolve and collective commitment to continental security.

Europe must rise to this historic moment and seize the opportunity to grow as a global actor. However, it has to navigate carefully between the icebergs of the European project’s deterioration and the United States’ alienation from the continent’s security. It must also contend with the possibility of a definitive break from Moscow, one that precludes the rebuilding of a framework of understanding between the two powers that, if not now, will be fundamental in the future. Läs mer…

A national Morgan poll, conducted March 10–16 from a sample of 2,097, gave Labor a 54.5–45.5 lead by headline respondent preferences, a three-point gain for Labor since the March 3–9 Morgan poll. This is Labor’s largest lead in a Morgan poll since August 2023.

Primary votes were 34% Coalition (down three), 32.5% Labor (up 2.5), 13.5% Greens (steady), 5% One Nation (steady), 10.5% independents (steady) and 4.5% others (up 0.5). By 2022 election flows, Labor led by 54.5–45.5, a 2.5-point gain for Labor.

By 50.5–35, respondents thought the country was going in the wrong direction (51.5–33 previously). However, Morgan’s consumer confidence index slid 3.1 points to 83.8, its lowest this year.

Voters were blaming Donald Trump for the stock market falls, and this was hurting the Coalition. The stock market had a better week last week, but Trump is likely to impose more tariffs on April 2.

Morgan is a volatile poll that reacts more to news events than other polls. This poll was taken in the week Trump imposed his steel and aluminium tariffs on Australia. It’s likely that this poll is a pro-Labor outlier, with other polls not giving Labor big leads. Here is the poll graph.

Labor Two Party Preferred Vote in national polls.

The ABC’s Patricia Karvelas wrote on March 17 that a Talbot Mills poll, conducted March 6–12 from a sample of 1,051, asked about Trump’s ratings with Australians for his performance as US president.

Trump was down six points since February to net -14 approval (51% disapprove, 37% approve). There was a six-point increase in strongly disapprove to 40%, with strongly approve down one to 15%. By 65–22, respondents disapproved of the US imposing tariffs on Australia.

Coalition gains in YouGov poll for a 50–50 tie

A national YouGov poll, conducted March 14–19 from a sample of 1,500, had a 50–50 tie, a one-point gain for the Coalition since the March 7–13 YouGov poll.

Primary votes were 37% Coalition (up one), 31% Labor (steady), 13% Greens (down 0.5), 7% One Nation (down 0.5), 1% Trumpet of Patriots (steady), 8% independents (down one) and 3% others (up one). YouGov is using weaker preference flows for Labor than occurred in 2022, and this poll would give Labor about a 51.5–48.5 lead by 2022 flows.

Albanese’s net approval was down three points to -9, with 50% dissatisfied and 41% satisfied. Dutton’s net approval was up one point to -5. Albanese led Dutton as better PM by 45–40 (45–39 previously).

Essential poll tied at 47–47 but Albanese’s ratings jump

A national Essential poll, conducted March 12–16 from a larger than normal sample of 2,256, had a 47–47 tie including undecided by respondent preferences (48–47 to the Coalition in early March).

Primary votes were 35% Coalition (steady), 29% Labor (steady), 12% Greens (down one), 8% One Nation (steady), 1% Trumpet of Patriots (steady compared with UAP), 9% for all Others (down one) and 6% undecided (up one). By 2022 preference flows, this poll would give Labor about a 50.5–49.5 lead, a 0.5-point gain for the Coalition.

Albanese’s net approval jumped nine points to +1, with 46% approving and 45% disapproving. This is Albanese’s first positive net approval in Essential since October 2023. Dutton’s net approval dropped two points to -5, his worst since January 2024.

By 48–35, respondents thought Australia was on the wrong track (49–34 previously).

On climate change, 54% (down five since October 2021) said “climate change is happening and is caused by human activity”, while 35% (up five) thought “we are just witnessing a normal fluctuation in the earth’s climate”. This is the lowest lead for human activity in Essential’s graph which goes back to 2016.

On addressing climate change, 35% (up two since November) thought Australia is not doing enough, 34% (down three) doing enough and 19% (steady) doing too much.

By 39–30, voters opposed the Coalition’s policy of removing working from home provisions for public service workers. By 39–33, voters opposed Australia sending troops to Ukraine.

By 53–33, voters thought Trump’s presidency would have a negative impact on the US economy, by 62–24 negative for the global economy and by 61–20 negative for the Australian economy.

Labor gains lead in a Redbridge poll

A national Redbridge poll, conducted March 3–11 from a sample of 2,007, gave Labor a 51–49 lead, a 2.5-point gain for Labor since the previous Redbridge poll in early February. Primary votes were 37% Coalition (down three), 32% Labor (up one), 12% Greens (up one) and 19% for all Others (up one).

By 51–29, respondents thought things were headed in the wrong direction (49–32 in November 2024).

There has been more criticism of AUKUS from the left since Trump’s election, but by 51–19 respondents said AUKUS makes Australia safer (49–19 in July 2024). There was pro-AUKUS movement on other questions.

US President Donald Trump’s announcements and policies are having an effect on Australian polls.
Matt Rourke/AP/AAP

Polls in Greens target seats

The Poll Bludger reported last Tuesday on polls of seats either held by the Greens or plausible targets for them. These polls were taken by Insightfully for the right-wing Advance, and first reported by the News Corp tabloids. Sample sizes were 600 per seat with no fieldwork dates provided. Seat polls are unreliable.

The Greens hold three Queensland federal seats (Griffith, Ryan and Brisbane), and one Victorian seat (Melbourne). On the primary votes provided, the Greens would retain Griffith, Ryan would be line-ball between the Greens and Liberal National Party. Brisbane would be gained by Labor.

In Victoria, the Greens would hold Melbourne and gain Macnamara from Labor, while Labor would retain Wills against a Greens challenge.

Unemployment steady despite jobs fall

The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported last Thursday that the unemployment rate was 4.1% in February, unchanged from January. This was despite a 52,800 decrease in jobs that didn’t affect unemployment owing to a lower participation rate.

The employment population ratio (the percentage of eligible Australians that are employed) was down 0.3% since a record high in January to 64.1%.

WA election final lower house seats

At the March 8 Western Australian election, Labor won 46 of the 59 lower house seats (down seven from the record landslide in 2021), the Liberals seven (up five) and the Nationals six (up two). Comparing this election with 2017, which was a big win for Labor, Labor is up five seats, the Liberals down six and the Nationals up one.

In 2017, Labor won 69.5% of lower house seats, in 2021 90% and in 2025 78%. If the WA lower house had as many seats as the federal House of Representatives (150), Labor would have won over 100 seats in all three elections.

In the upper house, 75.7% of enrolled voters has been counted, compared with 82.7% in the lower house. On current figures, Labor is likely to win 16 of the 37 seats, the Liberals ten, the Greens four, the Nationals two, and One Nation, Legalise Cannabis and Australian Christians one each.

Two seats are unclear, with an independent group (0.47 quotas) and Animal Justice (0.45) just ahead of One Nation’s second candidate (0.40). As the count has progressed, the Liberals have dropped and the Greens have risen. ABC election analyst Antony Green said the inclusion of below the line votes could put Labor’s 16th seat in doubt, with the Greens possibly winning five seats. Läs mer…