BludgerTrack: 53.5-46.5 to Labor

Some slightly better numbers for the Coalition improve their position in the final BludgerTrack reading for the year, although they remain fatally weak in Queensland.

With last week’s results from Newspoll and Essential Research added to the mix, the BludgerTrack poll aggregate records a solid shift back to the Coalition after a recent Labor blowout, converting into a 0.6% increase on two-party preferred and four on the seat projection. The Coalition is up even more on the primary vote, although this is basically at the expense of One Nation (see the sidebar for full results). Furthermore, The Australian published the Newspoll quarterly state breakdowns for October to December this week, which is the last polling data we will get until well into January, and this too has been added to the mix.

I’ve been noting in recent weeks that BludgerTrack’s readings for Western Australia and especially Queensland were looking off beam, and anticipated that the long-awaited addition of Newspoll data would ameliorate this. However, the Newspoll result backed up the picture of a huge swing to Labor in Queensland, of 9%, resulting in a two-party lead of 55-45. Labor’s lead in Queensland has nonetheless narrowed in BludgerTrack this week, reducing their projected seat gain from an entirely implausible 16 seats to a still rather unlikely 11, but this is as much to do with more normal-looking numbers from Essential over the past two weeks than Newspoll.

A very likely problem here is that both Newspoll and BludgerTrack are assuming preferences will behave as they did in 2016, which means a roughly even split of preferences from One Nation. The Queensland state election result suggests the support One Nation has built since comes largely from former Coalition voters, resulting in a stronger flow of preferences to them – of about 65%, in the case of the state election. In the new year, I will begin calculating preferences by splitting the difference between 2016 election flows and a trend measure of respondent-allocated preferences (which have been leaning too far the other way). This will result in more conservative readings of Labor’s two-party support.

In addition to the five seat shift to the Coalition in Queensland, BludgerTrack has the Coalition up a seat in New South Wales – but down two in Western Australia, where the Newspoll numbers (again with some help from a more normal-looking result from Essential Research) have taken the wind out of an outlier result from the state in the Ipsos poll a fortnight ago.

The leadership rating trends have been updated with the latest Newspoll results, producing a slight drop in both leaders’ net approval ratings. However, this too suffers a deficiency to which I will make an overdue correction in the new year, namely that no account is made for the idiosyncrasies of particular pollsters – such as lower approval and higher disapproval ratings from Newspoll, and lower uncommitted ratings from Ipsos. This means changes from week to week often reflect the specific pollsters that have published results, as much as meaningful change in the numbers.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

3,297 comments on “BludgerTrack: 53.5-46.5 to Labor”

Comments Page 61 of 66
1 … 60 61 62 … 66

  2. P1

    Specious politicians argument. Argue for what the voters want. The directly elected model.

    That will get more votes. You start from a higher base. Less minds to change.

    Read those articles.

  3. If you advocate minimalist just be honest and say you want to keep the Monarchy.

    FFS…that is an impressive load of crap even by your standards! You can’t vote to retain the monarchy and then suggest that it is others that want to keep the monarchy.

  4. guytaur

    If you advocate minimalist just be honest and say you want to keep the Monarchy.

    No Guytaur. As far as I remember, the minimalist version simply divorced the GG from the Monarchy and left structures all the same.

  5. briefly @ #2989 Monday, January 1st, 2018 – 2:00 pm

    Barney in Go Dau says:
    Monday, January 1, 2018 at 5:28 pm
    briefly @ #2964 Monday, January 1st, 2018 – 1:20 pm

    How would an elected HoS be, practically, any different?

    If anything they would be more powerful because they had a popular mandate.

    The premise is that power will reside in the office in any case. This is inevitable. In a democracy, power is to be conferred by the people. So let the people choose the whole Parliament – the House, the Senate and the H-o-S. Their popular authority will be equal but their Constitutional rights would differ.

    In my conception, the H-o-S could be removed and/or sent to an election by the House and the Senate acting together, but the neither the House nor the Senate could be sent to an election by the H-o-S.

    The people do choose the whole Parliament.

    The HoS is outside overseeing the Parliament.

  7. Lizzie

    Thats the minimalist argument the monarchists managed to get the politicians to buy. Hook line and sinker.

    Despite polls showing directly elected was preferred by the public.

  8. Fighting about models is doing the Monarchists’ job for them.

    Until we accept that Australians as a whole crave an “authority” figure, we are doomed to repeating the brawls of the past – with identical results.

    The stereotypical image of the “Larrikin Aussie” died in the 20th century, if it ever *was* real. You could probably pinpoint the last throes of it down to where Curtin brought back the AIF from Africa, and told Churchill to get nicked when the old Imperialist ordered the fleet to steam to Burma.

    Not long after that we became America’s pawn in the Pacific. We filled out a holding role in New Guinea, and got the Balikpapan consolation prize. From then on we were all the way with the USA… another foreign master.

    You can see the pathetic craving for someone to “be in charge” in the promotion of the utterly bogus assertion that we (somehow) “elect” Prime Ministers. No we don’t, but that doesn’t stop supposedly savvy political commentators, and those who sheepishly follow their lead (some of them on this very blog) from spouting phoney tropes about the “need for leadership”, as in “We want a Messiah”.

    You see it daily with cringeworthy calls for so-and-so politician (who happens to fluke a vaguely inspiring speech on a particular day) to step up and go for PM. You see it in utterly cynical opinionation in the MSM that tells us what we need is a strong man in the top job. It’s all garbage.

    What we need is rule by the people, not a dictator with executive powers over life and death.

    But mostly what we need is to grow up as a nation, not seeking a father figure, not expecting someone else to look after us or make our decisions for us, because that will never and has never worked in the past. Absolute power can only corrupt absolutely, and that is what a king, a queen or a directly elected monarch (read: “President”) will ensure happens. An executive President is a terrible idea.

    Grow up Australia. Shit or get off the pot. But don’t just hand power over to some fly-by-night political operator who essentially answers to no-one, but those who control him or her.

    Maturity as a nation and a people first, and only then a Republic. The dog wags the tail, remember?

  11. The arguments about reserve powers disappear if the H-o-S can be summarily removed by the Legislature. Simply put, in the event of a dispute between the Executive and the Legislature, the Constitutional design must ensure that the Legislature will win. In practice, this would mean the H-o-S could be sent to an election by the Legislature while the Legislature could not be dissolved by the H-o-S. Tenure. It’s all about tenure.

  12. GT

    Thats the minimalist argument the monarchists managed to get the politicians to buy. Hook line and sinker.

    If the monarchists got anybody hook, line and sinker it was “no” voting faux republicans.

  13. guytaur @ #3003 Monday, January 1st, 2018 – 2:08 pm

    Barney

    Then its not a minimalist model.

    Who said it had to be?

    It’s about transitioning to a Republic.

    No one said that improvements couldn’t be proposed and considered.

    I’m yet to be convinced of one benefit that that would be achieved be directly electing the HoS.

  14. BB

    Good try.

    Just forget Direct Elected model executive can have very strict controls over what is the executive.

    Our current system is far more open to abuse than that. I have spent a lot of today arguing exactly that point you are making about power corrupts.

    Especially seen today with one man alone deciding when we go to war.

  16. Barney in Go Dau says:
    Monday, January 1, 2018 at 6:07 pm
    briefly @ #2989 Monday, January 1st, 2018 – 2:00 pm

    Barney in Go Dau says:
    Monday, January 1, 2018 at 5:28 pm
    briefly @ #2964 Monday, January 1st, 2018 – 1:20 pm

    How would an elected HoS be, practically, any different?

    If anything they would be more powerful because they had a popular mandate.

    The premise is that power will reside in the office in any case. This is inevitable. In a democracy, power is to be conferred by the people. So let the people choose the whole Parliament – the House, the Senate and the H-o-S. Their popular authority will be equal but their Constitutional rights would differ.

    In my conception, the H-o-S could be removed and/or sent to an election by the House and the Senate acting together, but the neither the House nor the Senate could be sent to an election by the H-o-S.
    The people do choose the whole Parliament.

    The HoS is outside overseeing the Parliament.

    Well…in fact the Constitution now provides that the Parliament consists of the House, the Senate and the Crown and also specifies that authority stems from the people.

    Your depiction is monarchic. It specifies that the democratically-chosen legislature will be “supervised”. This is quite different from model in which the legislature governs itself and is answerable to the people rather than to an appointee….

  17. Someone on The Drum suggested that it was more important to sort out the status of First Peoples and the Constitution before the Republic. I think I’d agree.

  18. Marian Rumens@mrumens
    5h5 hours ago
    Just re-reading #JuliaGillard’s misogyny speech. How Australian journalists missed the power of that speech is beyond me. #auspol

    Yes it was the international journalists who were much more appreciative of it and its powerful message. I’ve still got the tea towel I bought from Emily’s List that has her misogyny speech printed on it. 🙂

  20. BB

    You may have missed it. Earlier today it seems we all agree (at least did not see objections) that the first question must be simple.

    Become a Republic Yes or No as referendum question.

    Then argue models if a Yes vote gets up.

  21. P1

    Its the line to use when someone thinks they have demolished an argument ignoring facts.

    Plenty of working direct election models.

  23. The entire problem with an H-o-S appointed/removed by a super majority is they would have even better tenure than the G-G now has. The legislature would be diminishing its own standing with respect to the executive. This would be highly undesirable. The executive is already very powerful. It would be a mistake to subtract from the power of the legislative chambers.

  24. lizzie

    To me recognising the First People has to be part of the model of a Republic.

    If we can get recognition up sooner than that I am all for it. By that I include a treaty for Sovereignty.

  26. GT

    Again you run the false argument its the voters fault.

    In this case I think it is a perfectly valid argument. I don’t blame all voters just those that claim to be republicans that voted “No”.

    I think most people that voted “No” were convinced that they would quickly get a second bite at the cherry and be able to vote for a republic with a directly elected president. They were wrong! It was clear to most at the time that they were wrong…they were idiots.

    People that voted “No”didn’t want politicians picking the head of state so, FFS, they voted to retain the status quo where the GG is picked by the PM (a politician). Again this makes them idiots.

  27. lizzie….I’m all for detaching ourselves from the 19th century and facing the future. We have to resolve the standing of first peoples and provide for the creation of Treaties; we have to abolish 44(i); we have to remove the Crown from the Constitution; we have to encode our civil and political rights in the Constitution.

  28. JW

    Yes you are blaming the voters for a Republic who voted no because they did not want the “minimalist” model foisted on them.

    The articles are very plain.

    While both leaders can conveniently protest that they have a global financial crisis and other more urgent matters to concern them, the republic will remain in limbo. But the kind of identity politics that so fervently consumed the nation 10 years ago will eventually return. And when it does, what will opponents of direct election do? Will they accept that voters should get a choice of models, as the ARM’s leaders, perhaps with gritted teeth, now concede? Will they accept what polls still show the choice would almost certainly be? If they cannot, whose fault will it be in that oh-so-vague ”next time”?

    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/unpalatable-choice-sank-the-republic-20091105-i03d.html

  30. briefly @ #3013 Monday, January 1st, 2018 – 2:16 pm

    …

    Your depiction is monarchic. It specifies that the democratically-chosen legislature will be “supervised”. This is quite different from model in which the legislature governs itself and is answerable to the people rather than to an appointee….

    Yep, with no day to day political participation.

    Kind of like a GG or, as much as I hate to say it, a US President, actually use their power to override the legislature. 🙂

  31. So, Japan has onshored the AEGIS system and is buying cruise missiles that can reach any part of NK.

    How selfdefencement.

  32. The hottest day in 12 months is forecast for this Saturday, with temperatures expected to rise to a sweltering 41 degrees across Melbourne.

    I hope these 100 diesel powered generators brought in to replace Hazlewood are ready to go.

  34. Taylormade @ #3029 Monday, January 1st, 2018 – 6:35 pm

    The hottest day in 12 months is forecast for this Saturday, with temperatures expected to rise to a sweltering 41 degrees across Melbourne.

    I hope these 100 diesel powered generators brought in to replace Hazlewood are ready to go.

    Sure you’re not eager for them to fail …?

  35. Rex

    Simple. See articles posted.

    Give Republican voters what they want to vote for. Not what politicians want them to vote for.

  36. Guytaur

    Yes you are blaming the voters for a Republic who voted no because they did not want the “minimalist” model foisted on them.

    I am not blaming all voters just the republican ones that were stupid enough to vote “No”.

  37. Boerwar says:
    Monday, January 1, 2018 at 6:31 pm
    Turnbull is taking a punt on Her Madge turning up her toes.

    That is only a question of time.

    Turnbull wants to affiliate himself with something other than the usual run of RW themes. Republicans have to hope he has some success. If the LNP resolve to oppose the Republic – to fight it all the way – then the project will not get off the ground anytime soon.

  38. Things don’t look too good at Myer. Their main Canberra store in the city was advertised on their website to open from 10-4 today. My OH found it closed.

    Their other store in Belconnen (slated for permanent closure later this year) was advertised to be closed today. Presumably someone compared the anticipated sales against the costs of opening. And don’t blame penalty rates!

    Myer must be struggling in the current retail climate and they are obviously not the only ones. Something for Morrison’s thick skull to absorb.

  39. JW

    No you are saying that the voters were stupid. Its your sole opinion. Its wrong.

    Republican voters want a directly elected President or why bother changing?

    Thats why no won. The monarchists fooled the politicians into presenting an unpopular thus a losing model vote. That was a failure of the politicians for the Republic. Not any of the voters.

  44. guytaur @ #3032 Monday, January 1st, 2018 – 2:38 pm

    Rex

    Simple. See articles posted.

    Give Republican voters what they want to vote for. Not what politicians want them to vote for.

    Considering the debate is just starting up again, a large part of the electorate has not been through this debate before, so talk of what people want may be a little premature.

    That’s where engaging and informing voters fully will be important.

  47. Barney

    Yes. However given the media we have now I doubt the ability of a fully informed debate on any issue.

    The campaigning Murdoch press. Proudly proclaiming thats their role.

    Not about accountability of power for the public at all.

  48. Boerwar @ #3028 Monday, January 1st, 2018 – 6:34 pm

    So, Japan has onshored the AEGIS system and is buying cruise missiles that can reach any part of NK.

    How selfdefencement.

    BW

    I just finished Richard Mcgregor’s Book – “Asia’s Reckoning: China, Japan, and the Fate of U.S. Power in the Pacific Century” published in September 2017 that you might be interested in.

    It’s absolutely fascinating. He is an Australian Journo who has been the Financial Times’s Beijing and Washington bureau chief.

    A bit from the blurb on Amazon –

    A Financial Times Best Book of 2017

    “A shrewd and knowing book.” —Robert D. Kaplan, The Wall Street Journal

    “A compelling and impressive read.” —The Economist

    “Skillfully crafted and well-argued.” —Jeffrey Wasserstrom, Financial Times

    “An excellent modern history. . . . provides the context needed to make sense of the region’s present and future.” —Joyce Lau, South China Morning Post

    A history of the combative military, diplomatic, and economic relations among China, Japan, and the United States since the 1970s—and the potential crisis that awaits them

    Richard McGregor’s Asia’s Reckoning is a compelling account of the widening geopolitical cracks in a region that has flourished under an American security umbrella for more than half a century. The toxic rivalry between China and Japan, two Asian giants consumed with endless history wars and ruled by entrenched political dynasties, is threatening to upend the peace underwritten by Pax Americana since World War II. Combined with Donald Trump’s disdain for America’s old alliances and China’s own regional ambitions, east Asia is entering a new era of instability and conflict. If the United States laid the postwar foundations for modern Asia, now the anchor of the global economy, Asia’s Reckoning reveals how that structure is falling apart.

    With unrivaled access to archives in the United States and Asia, as well as to many of the major players in all three countries, Richard McGregor has written a tale that blends the tectonic shifts in diplomacy with bitter domestic politics and the personalities driving them. It is a story not only of an overstretched America, but also of the rise and fall and rise of the great powers of Asia. The about-turn of Japan—from a colossus seemingly poised for world domination to a nation in inexorable decline in the space of two decades—has few parallels in modern history, as does the rapid rise of China—a country whose military is now larger than those of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and southeast Asia’s combined.

    The confrontational course on which China and Japan are set is no simple spat between neighbors: the United States would be involved on the side of Japan in any military conflict between the two countries. The fallout would be an economic tsunami, affecting manufacturing centers, trade routes, and political capitals on every continent. Richard McGregor’s book takes us behind the headlines of his years reporting as the Financial Times’s Beijing and Washington bureau chief to show how American power will stand or fall on its ability to hold its ground in Asia.

    https://www.amazon.com/Asias-Reckoning-China-Pacific-Century/dp/0399562672

    AFR carried this article just before the book was released –

    http://www.afr.com/opinion/columnists/a-us-exit-would-release-old-nightmares-20170901-gy8nts

    also

    http://www.afr.com/opinion/columnists/xi-jingping-economic-path-ahead-for-chinas-disciplined-leader-remains-unclear-20171005-gyvfze

    Editorial Reviews

    “McGregor is perfectly placed to analyze the crucial three-sided relationship that defines the balance of power in the Pacific.”
    —Gideon Rachman, Financial Times (Best Books of 2017)

    “McGregor has written a shrewd and knowing book about the relationship between China, Japan and America over the past half-century. Among much else, he shows how the world’s top three economies are now imprisoned by increasingly unstable dynamics, and not only in the military realm. Though Mr. McGregor has pored over archives to put together a hard-to-surpass narrative history of high diplomacy in Asia, the strength of his book is its old-fashioned journalism, in which empathy and explanation outweigh mere exposé. Indeed, Asia’s Reckoning has the aura of a ‘tour-ender,’ the kind of conspectus that foreign correspondents of a generation ago and further back would put together after they had finished a multiyear stint in some far-flung place. Here are insightful, detail-rich profiles of everyone from Zhou Enlai and Henry Kissinger to Kakuei Tanaka and Jiang Zemin.”
    —Robert D. Kaplan, The Wall Street Journal

    “A well-documented account of the post-war triangular relations between China, Japan and America. . . . McGregor [has] access to a range of archives and memoirs beyond the reach and nuanced comprehension of most other scholars. His narrative of relations and contacts between the leading politicians and policy-makers in both [China and Japan], and of America’s interplay with the two, makes for a compelling and impressive read. One notable feature is how often the Americans, from Henry Kissinger to Barack Obama, seem to find their close Japanese allies more irritating and harder to understand than their Chinese counterparts, even as a rising China is coming to be seen as America’s greatest 21st-century challenger.”
    —The Economist

    “Sometimes a crisis hits that reminds us of the need to think in terms of the interplay between multiple centers of power, and of the value of books that do not confine themselves to bilateral relations. The current furor over North Korea is one such crisis, and Richard McGregor’s skillfully crafted and well-argued Asia’s Reckoning is a good example of the sort of book I have in mind. . . . The great strength of Asia’s Reckoning, indeed, is that it encourages the reader to look for continuities amid apparent dramatic change, as well as subtle changes amid apparent continuity. McGregor helps us appreciate the areas where leaders of the US, Japan and China find it easiest and hardest to find common ground. He also sensitizes us to the complex ways in which the ratcheting up or loosening of tensions between Washington and Tokyo or Beijing inevitably affects the strategies of leaders based in the other east Asian capital. . . . An engaging, timely book that provides a nice complement to important recent studies focusing on two points of the US-China-Japan triangle.”
    —Jeffrey Wasserstrom, Financial Times

    “Tackles how the interplay of Chinese assertiveness with Trump’s dissolution of US power is fundamentally altering the balance of power in this vast region. . . . McGregor’s brilliant book is packed with insights, especially on the complex Sino-Japanese relationship, the gist of that being that past history should be our teacher rather than master. Will a more powerful China learn magnanimity, one wonders.”
    —Michael Burleigh, Evening Standard (Best Books of 2017 Selection)

    “{McGregor} has a sharp eye for personalities and policy factions, as well as a firm grasp of geopolitics. His fascinating narrative of the three countries’ relations over 50 years is filled with fresh anecdotes drawn from interviews and newly released archival documents. . . . Flinty realism has usually driven trilateral diplomacy, but in McGregor’s view, no factor has done more to sustain the shape of the triangle than Japan’s inability to allay Chinese resentment over the depredations of the 1930s and 1940s.”
    —Andrew J. Nathan, Foreign Affairs

    “Undoubtedly the best book I have read all year. . . . The main strength of McGregor’s account is that it shows how important history has become to relations in the region. . . . One of the themes of McGregor’s book is that Americans think China is much easier to read than Japan, where they find the corruptly byzantine politics and culture of indirection frustrating. . . . Whether, psychologically, the USA can cope with its relative decline and whether China can move to a more magnanimous understanding of its role are the questions on which peace and war in the region hinge.”
    —Michael Burleigh, Literary Review

    “McGregor warns against underestimating the historic tensions between China and Japan. Trade and tourism may run smoothly between the two pragmatic, business-minded nations, but deep, mutual dislike simmers under the surface. McGregor says it would not take much of a trigger to disrupt the region’s tentative peace. . . . An excellent modern history book that explains the roots of the complex political, business and military ties between major superpowers. In an age of rocky global politics, Asia’s Reckoning provides the context needed to make sense of the region’s present and future.”
    —Joyce Lau, South China Morning Post

    “McGregor deploys interviews with heavy hitters from all three countries and cites extensive archival research to provide readers with a comprehensive look at this often misunderstood trilateral relationship. Whether it’s Chinese Communist Party founder Mao Zedong thanking Tokyo for its invasion of his country, or Japan’s fears of being replaced by China as America’s top partner in Asia, or Henry Kissinger’s intense distaste for Tokyo’s droll diplomats, McGregor mixes in one little-known anecdote after another to pull readers through his narrative. . . . Balanced and insightful, the book goes the extra mile to delve into the minutiae of the relationships, taking readers beyond mere Japanese peculiarities, Chinese propaganda and American stereotypes. . . . This is an astute take on the three nations’ modern ties, serving up a much-needed and often overlooked helping of the context necessary for making sense of Asia complexities.”
    —Jesse Johnson, Japan Times

    “In Asia’s Reckoning McGregor provides a cogent and superbly researched guide to the deep forces that undergird China’s geo-political strategy and the attempts of two other great powers in the region, the United States and Japan, to deal with it.”
    —Peter Tasker, The Mekong Review

    “McGregor, an absorbing storyteller, {takes} the reader behind the curtains to witness how the history of China’s ties with Japan and the US unfolded after World War II. . . . {His} precise observations and incisive analyses of the dynamics in the China-Japan-United States relationship are valuable.”
    —Cheong Suk-Wai, The Straits Times

    “A must read for anyone who wants to understand our future. Asia’s Reckoning provides a detailed picture of the slow military, diplomatic and economic waltz between China, Japan and the United States that determined the shape of the past half-century. . . . The framework that previously determined the contours of our international engagement is changing. McGregor {is} dealing with a subject that’s crucial—China’s place in the world—but does so in an intimate manner, bulging with insightful interviews with the players behind the scenes.”
    —Nicholas Stuart, Brisbane Times

    “A compelling account of the post-war relationship between China, Japan and America {that} brings to life one of the world’s most complicated love-hate triangles.”
    —Clifford Coonan, The Irish Times

    “McGregor shows that U.S. diplomats and military strategists have deftly played the Sino-Japanese rivalry in the Pax Americana period since the end of the Cold War. However, he is concerned that the tightrope is becoming frayed and that if it breaks, all three performers could be in for a terrible fall. . . . {Asia’s Reckoning} has anecdotes and insights that will delight policy wonks interested in the region.”
    —Gary Anderson, The Washington Times

    “For journalists taking up new posts in China, the first book I always suggest is Richard McGregor’s The Party. I will now add McGregor’s new book, Asia’s Reckoning, to my list for those headed to the Far East.”
    —Melissa Chan, Los Angeles Review of Books

    “In spite of the recent crisis with North Korea, the critical relationship for Asian peace and stability in the 21st century will be the trilateral balance between China, Japan, and the United States. In spite of the economic interdependence of these nations, their domestic politics and foreign policies often clash with their trade interests, and the rise of China as both an economic and military power now threatens to upend the entire East Asia security structure. . . . This book is an essential primer for anyone seeking to understand the complicated brew of history, politics, and prejudices that make this area of the globe one of the most likely flashpoints of the 21st century.”
    —Jeremy Lenaburg, New York Journal of Books

    “McGregor anatomizes the dynamic, often strained trilateral relationship between China, Japan, and the U.S. since WWII. His informed volume comes at a time when, in his opinion, East Asia sits at the heart of the global economy and China’s aggressive foreign policy is upsetting the region’s stability. . . . Often critical of Washington’s ‘combination of idealism and arrogance,’ McGregor offers detailed, vivid descriptions of America’s Asian diplomacy. . . . Reviewing East Asia’s toxic rivalries with balance and insight, McGregor’s survey concludes ominously with President Trump’s lack of familiarity with regional issues and disdain for old alliances, portending further tensions in East Asia’s future.”
    —Publishers Weekly

    “{A} wide-ranging study of China’s re-emergence as a regional power in Asia after a long hiatus, thwarting the designs of other powers, including the United States and Russia. . . . The U.S. [finds itself] firmly ensnared in the so-called Thucydides trap, ‘the principle that it is dangerous to build an empire but even more dangerous to let it go.’ So it is, and the current leadership appears to be at a loss about what to do or to formulate other aspects of any coherent policy in and toward Asia. . . . Geopolitics wonks will want to give attention to this urgent but nonsensationalized argument.”
    —Kirkus Reviews

    “The United States, China, and Japan form the power triangle that will shape much of the international politics in the 21st century. Richard McGregor’s masterful The Party illuminated one corner of that triangle—China. In this important book he describes how the other two corners have interacted with China since World War II. Lucid, insightful and ominous, as the author describes big trouble ahead.”
    —Eliot Cohen, author of Supreme Command

    “Richard McGregor’s new book is essential reading for anyone worried about the most fraught relationship in Asia—between China and Japan. With extensive experience in and knowledge of both China, Japan, and the United States, McGregor is in a unique position to unpack the relationship and sort through the extensive propaganda and myth-making on all sides. A great read!”
    —John Pomfret, author of The Beautiful Country and the Middle Kingdom

    “McGregor distills years of meetings with high officials in China and Japan to give a vivid nuanced picture of their relations in the 21st century.”
    —Ezra Vogel, author of Deng Xiaoping and the Transformation of China

    “An in-depth depiction of radical changes and challenges in Japan-China relations in the post-war period, thoroughly researched and rich in storytelling. In the course of tumultuous relations with China, Japan has had to trail blaze in the face of the rise of China. Japan’s naked exposure to the unfolding Realpolitik with China at its core is for the first time comprehensively reviewed.”
    —Yoichi Funabashi, former Editor-in-Chief, Asahi Shimbun

    “Tackles how the interplay of Chinese assertiveness with Trump’s dissolution of US power is fundamentally altering the balance of power in this vast region. . . . McGregor’s brilliant book is packed with insights, especially on the complex Sino-Japanese relationship, the gist of that being that past history should be our teacher rather than master. Will a more powerful China learn magnanimity, one wonders.”
    —Michael Burleigh, Evening Standard (Best Books of 2017 Selection)

    “{McGregor} has a sharp eye for personalities and policy factions, as well as a firm grasp of geopolitics. His fascinating narrative of the three countries’ relations over 50 years is filled with fresh anecdotes drawn from interviews and newly released archival documents. . . . Flinty realism has usually driven trilateral diplomacy, but in McGregor’s view, no factor has done more to sustain the shape of the triangle than Japan’s inability to allay Chinese resentment over the depredations of the 1930s and 1940s.”
    —Andrew J. Nathan, Foreign Affairs

    “Undoubtedly the best book I have read all year. . . . The main strength of McGregor’s account is that it shows how important history has become to relations in the region. . . . One of the themes of McGregor’s book is that Americans think China is much easier to read than Japan, where they find the corruptly byzantine politics and culture of indirection frustrating. . . . Whether, psychologically, the USA can cope with its relative decline and whether China can move to a more magnanimous understanding of its role are the questions on which peace and war in the region hinge.”
    —Michael Burleigh, Literary Review

    Audiobook version here, need Winrar to unpack it –

    https://rapidgator.net/file/648331c041a0a67c639a4cbea123d785/_Asias.rar.html

  49. The so-called Republican minimalists were not willing to support the democratic model that the majority have wanted all along. I voted Yes, and I suppose I had the usual reservations about the direct election model. But this model is badly flawed. It is in any case misnamed. There is nothing minimalist about ejecting the crown from the system and replacing it with democracy.

  50. My how things have changed when it comes to meeja presstitution …………….Not !

    John Swinton (1829–1901) was a Scottish-American journalist, newspaper publisher, and orator. Although he arguably gained his greatest influence as the chief editorial writer of The New York Times during the decade of the 1860s,

    1883

    There is no such a thing in America as an independent press, unless it is out in country towns. You are all slaves. You know it, and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to express an honest opinion. If you expressed it, you would know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid $150 for keeping honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for doing similar things. If I should allow honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, I would be like Othello before twenty-four hours: my occupation would be gone. The man who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the street hunting for another job. The business of a New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to villify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, or for what is about the same — his salary. You know this, and I know it; and what foolery to be toasting an “Independent Press”! We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping-jacks. They pull the string and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Swinton_(journalist)

Comments Page 61 of 66
1 … 60 61 62 … 66

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *