Hong Kong furious as protest song replaces China anthem at match

‘Glory to Hong Kong’, adopted during the 2019 mass protests, has been all but outlawed in the Chinese territory.

Glory to Hong Kong became a rallying cry for the territory's pro-democracy movement during the 2019 protests

 [File: Leah Millis/Reuters]

Published On 14 Nov 2022

Hong Kong’s government has condemned organisers of a rugby tournament in South Korea after a democracy protest song was played instead of the Chinese national anthem before the territory’s team played a match.

Video shared on social video showed the players looking perplexed as the song, Glory to Hong Kong, was played ahead of the final of the Asia Rugby Sevens Series instead of the Chinese national anthem.

The Hong Kong government “strongly deplores and opposes the playing of a song closely associated with violent protests and the ‘independence’ movement as the National Anthem of the People’s Republic of China,” it said in a statement.

“The National Anthem is a symbol of our country. The organiser of the tournament has a duty to ensure that the National Anthem receives the respect it warranted,” a government spokesperson said.

Glory to Hong Kong was written by an anonymous composer and became an anthem for the pro-democracy movement during protests in 2019, which attracted huge crowds but became increasingly violent as the months dragged on.

The organisers of the tournament in Incheon, South Korea, issued an apology and played the Chinese anthem after the match, which was won by the Hong Kong team.

Hong Kong authorities said they had ordered the city’s rugby union body to conduct an investigation and convey its “strong objection” to tournament organiser Asia Rugby.



In a separate statement, Hong Kong Rugby Union expressed its “extreme dissatisfaction” with what had happened.

The organisation’s preliminary investigation found that the Chinese anthem had been given to the organisers by the team’s coach, and the protest song had been played by mistake.

“Whilst we accept this was a case of human error, it was nevertheless not acceptable,” the HKRU said.

The Chinese national anthem, March of the Volunteers, has been played at international events where Hong Kong has competed since the British handed the territory back to China in 1997.

Playing Glory to Hong Kong in the territory is now all but illegal after Beijing imposed a national security law on Hong Kong that rights groups say has “decimated” dissent. It is also considered unlawful under Hong Kong’s sedition law, according to the South China Morning Post.

In September, a harmonica player who played the tune to a crowd commemorating Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II was arrested.

SOURCE: AFP, AL JAZEERA

What happens to family policies like child care, paid leave now?

The Deseret News asked experts across the political spectrum what they expect for family policy given midterm results.

By Lois M. Collins

Lcollins@deseretnews.com
Nov 13, 2022, 

Michelle Budge, Deseret News

In the run-up to the midterms and in the early hours after, the Deseret News asked experts what the election results could mean for the future of family policies that have in the past two years been promoted by the president, debated in Congress and touted or derided by others.

While it’s still unclear what the final count will be in terms of partisan control of Congress, it’s likely that the approach to some key family policies could change. We asked for ideas across political and other aisles on which policy priorities could rise to the top and what might be left behind.

Experts shared concerns that family policy issues might be neglected as the government moves into 2023. We also found some sharp divisions on which policies should be considered the most important in the coming year.

Across ideologies, experts agree that some policy priorities have taken a back seat to the challenges of everyday life posed by inflation, as a significant share of Americans struggles with the rising cost of food, housing and gasoline. Inflation has been hammering households and the cost of raising a family was on the minds of more than 4 in 10 adults back in July when YouGov fielded the eighth rendition of the nationally representative American Family Survey for the Deseret News and Brigham Young University’s Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy. Given a list of 12 challenges families are coping with, the high cost of family life tied for first place.

Inflation and financial burdens on families are what Greg Nasif, spokesman for Humanity Forward, sees as a meeting place for partisan concerns as Americans approached the polls.

“Kitchen table economics are driving massive turnout across the country,” he said on Election Day. “Family policy is both the Republican Party’s central theme, and also the most unfinished part of President Biden and the Democrats’ agenda, so there’s a lot of pressure to get something done. We at Humanity Forward have done the legwork to make sure it’s on the agenda for however these elections come together. We’ll work with any majority to serve our clients — the American people.”

Nasif said that the makeup of Congress in the coming year will have more influence on what family policy looks like than it will on whether policy changes are made.

“There is a lot on the plate for the lame-duck session of Congress, and either way, family policy will be competing with a number of other priorities and must-pass bills. I expect some posturing and high-profile fights over aspects of the policy that actually affect very few people, but in the end, members of both parties (will) agree on the need to improve the child tax credit, find common ground on paid leave, and make parenting a little easier in the United States. My one election prediction: We’ll get there,” Nasif said.
Potential for compromise?

Others believe Republican and Democrat lawmakers will only move family policy from the idea stage to action if they can set aside partisan squabbles, especially given the likelihood now that Democrats will control the Senate and Republicans the House.

“A divided Congress, which is what looks to be the outcome of the election, is probably going to result in legislative gridlock,” said Daniel L. Carlson, an associate professor of family and consumer studies at the University of Utah and deputy editor of the Journal of Marriage and Family. “Little if any policy will be passed in the next two years.”

He deems that unfortunate, “since work-family supports like paid leave and child care subsidies are wildly popular and both parties have drafted legislation to enact such policies. The issue, in my mind, is that the two parties have very different visions on how to enact these supports.”

He points to Utah Republican Sen. Mitt Romney’s proposal to increase the child tax credit, while significantly cutting the Temporary Aid to Needy Families program. “Conversely, the president’s Build Back Better plan would increase the child tax credit, making it fully refundable without cuts to other family supports. Though it seems like there could be a way for the parties to compromise, there is little incentive to do so in that passing legislation may give the other side ‘a win.’”

Carlson’s prediction is “two more years with no substantial progress toward supporting families.”

Brookings Institution scholar Isabel Sawhill is also not convinced family policy will be a doable priority.

“I am pessimistic that there will be much change in family policies after the election,” she wrote in an email. “Democrats have not been able to enact an increase in the child tax credit, paid leave or subsidies for child care even when they held both Houses of Congress and the White House.”

Sawhill said that if Republicans gained control of the House and Senate, as had been predicted when she was asked what she thought likely, the result could be “more tax cuts for families or a national law restricting abortion. They may also try to limit the growth of entitlements including disability or Social Security benefits in the future.”

Angela Rachidi, an expert on poverty with the American Enterprise Institute, thinks if Congress returns to a divided government, it will “eliminate even the smallest chance that the Democrats’ expansive family policy proposals will become reality, such as a fully refundable child tax credit, and universal pre-kindergarten, child care and paid leave.”

She, too, thinks that major changes to family policy over the next year are unlikely, “unless Democrats are willing to compromise by considering Republican proposals on the child tax credit, child care and paid family leave.”

Others are more hopeful the two parties can reach some agreement.

“I think there are some areas of potential compromise between Democrats and Republicans,” said Kevin Shafer, professor and graduate coordinator in BYU’s sociology department.

He sees bipartisan support for increasing the amount of the child tax credit. He sees similar support for increasing the availability of affordable childcare options for middle-class, working-class and low-income Americans.



Other areas that are of interest to both Democrats and Republicans may falter because the gaps in how the two see the details working is too great, he said. “Although Republicans and Democrats have both voiced support for paid family leave, the two sides are very far apart on how such a system should work or be funded,” Shafer said,

Shafer, too, sees who gets to claim credit as a disincentive to work together leading up to the inevitable next election.

“In today’s political environment, both sides seem unwilling to give the other side what might be viewed as a victory — particularly in the lead-up to 2024. Given the hyper-partisanship that now exists in Washington, I’m not hopeful that we’ll make any headway on generating policies that support and strengthen American families,” Shafer said.

“My view is that Biden really got just about everything he wanted before now EXCEPT work-family policies,” Jennifer Glass, a University of Texas-Austin professor and director of the Council on Contemporary Families, said by email. “I am not so sanguine that the new Congress will be receptive, but I do not think these things are dead in the water if the Congress is at least partially controlled by Democrats.”

She said many policies are very politically popular and the pandemic helped spread their popularity. She said that abortion, for instance, “falls under the same umbrella of ‘things to be careful not to irritate among the electorate.’ If your representative is the one blocking paid leave or pre-K, I expect a lot of angry parents to respond,” she wrote. “There was no red wave in this election and suburban parents are the reason why.”

Sawhill said the abortion bill sponsored by Sen. Lindsey Graham which permits abortion up to 15 weeks of pregnancy has been criticized on both sides of the issue, but added that it “reflects where a lot of Americans are on the issue. They don’t want the right to an abortion eliminated but neither do they like late-term abortions. There could be enough Democrats in the Senate to turn this into national law,” she said.
States act on family policy

Going into Election Day, with polls predicting a Republican “wave,” Shawn Fremstad, a senior adviser at the Center for Economic Policy Research, said he figured what he called “bread and butter” family policy issues like child allowances and child care would be “completely overshadowed by hot-button culture war issues like transgender kids and library book battles.” He thought that would mean no movement at the federal level on mainstream family policy until after the 2024 election.

Instead, after the election, he sees state movement on the family policy front. As proof, Fremstad points to the passing in Colorado of a ballot initiative creating universal free school meals, higher wages for school meal workers and other improvements.

“It looks like it was a coalition effort that could be replicated elsewhere, and it should provide momentum for universal school meals in Congress as part of debates over the Farm Bill,” he said.

He’s also watching what happens in states considering policies where there’s a political “trifecta” — one party has control of both chambers of their legislatures and the governor’s office. In Michigan and Minnesota, for example, Democrats have that. “The Minnesota House passed paid leave last year, but it didn’t make it through the Republican Senate. Seems very likely that Minnesota will join the ranks of paid leave states, which, except for Colorado, have been limited to the East and West Coast states,” Fremstad said.

Other states have Republican “trifectas” and different policy priorities.

Same priorities, different solutions

A few days before the election, at the scientific meeting of the Gerontological Society of America in Indianapolis, Andrew MacPherson of the health consulting company Healthsperien told reporters that health care is a major focus for Americans and policy in that arena is of especially keen interest.

RELATED

What experts say about growing old in America

American Family Survey: What worries American households

MacPherson noted that Congress as part of the Inflation Reduction Act will let Medicare negotiate certain drug prices with drug makers and cap out-of-pocket costs in the Medicare Part D program at $2,000

Mental health issues are likely to get some love by lawmakers, given the attention the issue received during the pandemic. MacPherson described himself as “very optimistic on mental health,” noting that a number of congressional committees are working on packages within their jurisdiction on a bipartisan basis, which he called “just extraordinary.“ With the surgeon general’s “laser focus” on youth mental health, he expects Congress will enact related laws.

He said the U.S. might see the loosening of restrictions around reimbursements for providers like marriage and family therapists and other clinicians who cannot now bill Medicare.

But he also expressed doubt that Democrats “could defy political gravity” and take control of the House and Senate. With a divided government, he said, both parties will focus on healthcare costs and affordability, but their solutions will be very different. And both Republicans and Democrats will be looking at Medicare solvency into 2023.

If Congress is divided, he said, Americans can likely expect more executive branch activity, as opposed to legislative. And he doesn’t think Congress will tackle Medicare directly, but said lawmakers are likely to tinker around the edges.

Brian Lindberg, public policy adviser to the society, told conference attendees that regardless of the election outcome, the president can veto action and the Senate with the filibuster will be able to block almost any bill. So something passed in the House with a simple majority — regardless of which party holds power — could go to the Senate to die.

Conservatives are 'telling on themselves' by railing against Democrats who had real policies: John Oliver

Sarah K. Burris
November 14, 2022

Photo: Promotional materials from HBO

John Oliver began his 2022 round-up with a video of Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) drinking Pittsburgh beer and staring at a map of Pennsylvania as a way of celebrating the win of Senator-elect John Fetterman (D-PA).


While Oliver mocked Casey and his map, it goes back to 2020, when it became a meme that Casey did all of his video meetings for the Senate and any interview, with the map behind him. There are many videos of Casey, typically drinking a beer, while talking about the map and explaining things, sometimes set to amusing music.


When the race was called, Casey posted this video:



"First, if you gave me a million guesses about the genre of music that was going to run a freight train through the middle of that clip, not a single one would have been rap," said Oliver. "Second, finding out that guy is going to spend the rest of his night staring at a map is not remotely surprising to me. We all know a map guy when you see one and you, sir, map guy. Finally, congratulations John Fetterman, you survived a stroke and an incredibly ugly campaign run by a snake oil salesman, only to win several years with the world's weirdest new co-worker. Have fun!"

Oliver went on to cite some of the MAGA candidates that he sounded the alarm about over the past year, begging Americans to keep them far away from. He also mentioned the American support for abortion freedoms on the ballot.


"And while it is ridiculous to have to fight stay-by-state for rights that people had earlier this year," said Oliver. "I guess, here we are."

Oliver then brought up the struggle of Fox hosts searching for answers to why they lost so many races. They attacked single women, women of color and young voters, all of which were major supporters of Democratic voters.

According to one clip that Oliver highlighted from Laura Ingraham's show, Democrats offered young people "drugs — recreational drugs — abortion, paid off student loans, again there were actional policies that they were promising to advance. And also climate change."


It was something Oliver couldn't help but mock because it is clear that conservatives don't have any actionable items on which to vote, much less bills ready for the first day Congress is in session.

"We just don't have time to go into all the ways that they are telling on themselves there, from being appalled that young people were voting, to admitting that they have zero actionable policies — oh! And climate change is a complete afterthought, is a pretty fun way to end that. A nice little cherry on top of a what-the-f*ck-have-we-done sunday."

See the opener below:

Last Week Tonight With John Oliver HBO 11/13/22 | HBO 

U$A

'Only Path Forward:' Exit Polls Show Young Women Voted For Democrats Amid Abortion Debate

By Marvie Basilan Chorawan
11/14/22 


KEY POINTS72% of women under 30 voted for Democrats in House races
In several states, a majority of young women also voted for Democrats for senate seats
The overturning of Roe v. Wade has sparked debates on abortion rights

Ahuge percentage of young women voted for Democrats in the midterm elections amid debates over abortion rights in the country. Exit polls showed women under 30 played a key role in crumbling the Republicans' hopes for a "red wave."

Women aged between 18 and 29 went 72% for House Democrats and only 26% supported Republicans, exit polls jointly conducted by CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC showed. A whopping 57% of women aged 30-44 supported Democrats, while only 41% voted for Republicans in the House.

For Senate seats, the majority of women under 30 voted for Democrats. 76% of young women in Arizona voted for Mark Kelly, while 20% voted for Blake Masters. Even Florida, which turned red in the midterms, saw 57% of women under 30 voting for Val Demings.

In Georgia, 63% of young women voted for the Democratic Party's Raphael Warnock, while 34% voted for the GOP's Herschel Walker. In Nevada, 64% of women aged 18-29 voted for Catherine Cortez Masto, while 31% voted for Adam Laxalt.

A similar turnout was seen in New Hampshire, where 74% of women in the 18-29 age group voted for Democrat Maggie Hassan, while 23% voted for Donald Bolduc. The same was the case in Pennsylvania, where 70% of women under 30 voted for John Fetterman, while 28% voted for Mehmet Oz.

"I think most young women feel that the best thing for their rights and for the future of the country is to vote for Democrat," 24-year-old Elizabeth Rickert, from Ohio, told The Hill.

Rickert further explained she thinks younger women believe "voting Democrat is the only path forward" as the GOP "becomes more extreme and moves away from the core American principals of democracy and rights for all."

Some observers believe a predicted "red wave" in the midterm elections was ultimately thwarted by "people motivated by the erosion of abortion rights," Politico reported.

"Had the Supreme Court not overturned Roe v Wade back in June, the Democrats wouldn't have had that to energize voters," Jon Taylor, a political science professor at the University of Texas, said, adding the issue "actually helped the Democrats stave off that Red Wave."

READ MORE

Gen Z Voter Turnout Helped Prevent The "Red Wave"

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion at the national level, triggering a wave of protests. Republicans have been pushing to either completely ban or limit the procedure.

The decision is believed to have played a key factor in the midterms, with concerned young women turning up in large numbers. "Abortion is a winning issue and will continue to be in elections to come," said Mini Timmaraju, president of the nonprofitNaral Pro-Choice America.

Despite the high turnout of young female voters for Democrats, some experts note the extent to which the votes of women under 30 have actually affected the results is unclear and will not be determined until after election results are officially counted.

David Shor, founder of Democratic data analysis firm Blue Rose Research, pointed out that numbers from early voting do not necessarily support the notion that young voters had a very crucial effect on the victory of Democratic candidates, the New York Times reported.

President Joe Biden last week said the turnout of young voters "sent a clear and unmistakable message," that they want to "protect the right to choose."

Abortion rights debates have been on the rise since a landmark ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court.


© Copyright IBTimes 2022. All rights reserved.

Why The Red Wave Didn’t Happen

Concerns about abortion and GOP extremism offset the forces pushing against Democrats.

John Halpin

Democratic candidate for U.S. Senator John Fetterman, former President Barack Obama, Democratic candidate for Governor Josh Shapiro, and President Joe Biden raise their arms when departing after a rally on November 5, 2022 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (Photo by Mark Makela/Getty Images)

Although votes are still being counted in competitive races across the country, it looks like the 2022 midterms may produce a narrow House majority for Republicans. With Senator Catherine Cortez Masto’s victory in Nevada, Democrats have successfully maintained control of the Senate and could expand their majority depending on the results in the Georgia runoff. Given the outsized expectations among the GOP heading into Election Day, and the anxiety from Democrats, this will certainly lead to many sighs of relief among President Joe Biden and his supporters.

Facing serious economic headwinds from 40-year high inflation, and sagging job approval for the President and Democrats in Congress, not getting your clock cleaned counts as a partial victory and gives hope to Democrats going forward. This is not a jump-for-joy moment for Democrats but rather a reprieve that gives Biden and his party breathing room to honestly address and fix the party’s multiple deficiencies with working-class voters and Americans living outside of urban areas.

The economy and jobs emerged far on top of issue priorities for voters (47 percent), according to AP VoteCast, and Republicans won two-thirds of these voters. Likewise, in the national exit poll, using a shorter list of priorities, inflation (31 percent) was the top issue for voters and Republicans won 7 in 10 of these voters. However, in the wake of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, the issue of abortion ranked a close second for voters in the national exit poll (27 percent), with Democrats winning more than three-quarters of these voters. The interaction of these two issues—the economy and abortion—combined to produce the close results we saw on November 8 with abortion likely offsetting inflation concerns among independent and other swing voters in key districts held by Democrats, and the inverse being true in those taken by Republicans.

Awaiting the final tallies in the House, a few lessons for both parties seem straightforward. For Democrats, being a culturally moderate party committed to the economic well-being of working Americans—with the assurance of basic rights and freedoms for all people—is clearly a winning approach. It worked for Biden in 2020 and it worked for a lot of frontline Democrats this cycle facing off against extremist Republicans.

Democrats must feel good seeing the likes of Abigail Spanberger, Elissa Slotkin, Susan Wild, Matt Cartwright, Gretchen Whitmer, Josh Shapiro, Tony Evers, John Fetterman, and Mark Kelly—all with different personal styles but a similar pragmatic approach—winning in highly competitive environments. Ahead of 2024, President Biden and Democrats need to stay focused on embodying a sensible party brand that is “pro-worker, pro-family, pro-America” and avoid temptations to go off on ideological tangents that undermine a big-tent appeal to the electorate.

Democrats still have a lot of work to do on issues like the economy and crime to get back into the good graces of voters facing multiple stresses over personal finances and community safety. The president and congressional leaders should ignore the left of the party which loudly proclaims that cost of living issues and public safety are fake issues cooked up by the right. In reality, one-third of Americans continue to face serious challenges from rising prices and the high cost of living, and Democrats need to serve as their champions.

On the other side, top-level Republicans will continue to rue the day they turned their party over to Donald Trump, a leader despised by Americans outside of a rump base, and a clear drag on the party’s hopes of building a stable electoral majority at the national level. Although Trump-endorsed candidates like J.D. Vance and Ron Johnson won their races, and results in the Arizona governor’s race are still outstanding, the toxic crew of election deniers and ideological hardliners Trump backed in competitive races lost, including Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania, Tudor Dixon in Michigan, Tim Michels in Wisconsin, Blake Masters in Arizona, and Don Bolduc in New Hampshire.

Republicans could have posted huge gains in both the House and the Senate but appear instead to have fizzled out after following Donald Trump’s and Rick Scott’s strategy of promoting ideological extremists and conspiracy theorists. Turns out most Americans don’t want a bunch of weirdos in charge of the government, threatening their personal freedoms and democratic elections—a lesson that should be obvious to Republicans by now, but will probably be ignored to their detriment.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis clearly emerged with the biggest night of anyone, easily winning re-election by a 20-point margin in a state that is now solidly Republican. DeSantis’s successful blend of just-enough-culture war, lots of traditional Republican economics, and opposition to Covid-era restrictions and illegal immigration obviously appeals to many people in this critical state. It’s a post-Trump model that many Republicans will be eager to support given proven successes in Virginia with Glenn Youngkin, and now with Brian Kemp in Georgia and DeSantis in Florida. The 2024 Republican primary battle is sure to be a knife fight should DeSantis seek to take on Trump. Although early odds would put Trump well ahead of others, after this cycle many core Republican voters may think twice about setting themselves up for probable failure again by nominating the former president with the reverse Midas touch.

As analysts continue to digest the results, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that American voters are not particularly happy with either political party. Both parties, their congressional leadership, and their current and former presidents are all viewed unfavorably by voters. Billions of dollars of ads in 2022 did nothing to measurably improve the standing of either party—and probably heightened many Americans’ aversion to politics altogether.

The 2022 midterms may produce another era of divided government run by two parties roundly disliked by large proportions of voters. Whichever party chooses to move beyond a strategy of merely seeking to increase hatred for the other side—and instead focuses its agenda and political pitch on advancing the economic and social aspirations of all Americans—will be best positioned for future victories, and possibly, to break out of the country’s chronic political deadlock.

[Editor’s note: An earlier version of this article originally appeared in Persuasion, a great Substack publication dedicated to civil discourse and the defense of free societies.]

‘Impending intergenerational crisis’: Americans with disabilities lack long-term care plans

By
Sam Whitehead
Kaiser Health News
Nov. 13, 2022

Thinking about the future makes Courtney Johnson nervous.

The 25-year-old blogger and college student has autism and several chronic illnesses, and with the support of her grandparents and friends, who help her access a complex network of social services, she lives relatively independently in Johnson City, Tennessee.

“If something happens to them, I’m not certain what would happen to me, especially because I have difficulty with navigating things that require more red tape,” she said.

Johnson said she hasn’t made plans that would ensure she receives the same level of support in the future. She especially worries about being taken advantage of or being physically harmed if her family and friends can’t help her — experiences she’s had in the past.

“I like being able to know what to expect, and thinking about the future is a bit terrifying to me,” she said.

Johnson’s situation isn’t unique.

Experts say many people with intellectual and developmental disabilities do not have long-term plans for when family members lose the ability to help them access government services or care for them directly.

Families, researchers, government officials, and advocates worry that the lack of planning — combined with a social safety net that’s full of holes — has set the stage for a crisis in which people with disabilities can no longer live independently in their communities. If that happens, they could end up stuck in nursing homes or state-run institutions.

“There’s just potential for a tremendous human toll on individuals if we don’t solve this problem,” said Peter Berns, CEO of the Arc of the United States, a national disability-rights organization.

About one-quarter of adults in the U.S. live with a disability, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nearly three-quarters of Americans with disabilities live with a family caregiver, and about one-quarter of those caregivers are 60 or older, according to the Center on Developmental Disabilities at the University of Kansas.

But only about half of families that care for a loved one with disabilities have made plans for the future, and an even smaller portion have revisited those plans to ensure they’re up to date, said Meghan Burke, an associate professor of special education at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign.

“Engaging in it once is good, right? But you can’t only engage in it once,” she said. “It’s a living document, because things change, people change, circumstances change.”

Burke’s research has found several barriers to planning for the future: financial constraints, reluctance to have hard conversations, trouble understanding government services. Creating plans for people with disabilities also is a complex process, with many questions for families to answer: What are their relatives’ health needs? What activities do they enjoy? What are their wishes? Where will they live?

Burke has firsthand experience answering those questions. Her younger brother has Down syndrome, and she expects to become his primary caregiver in the future — a situation she said is common and spreads the work of caregiving.

“This is an impending intergenerational crisis,” she said. “It’s a crisis for the aging parents, and it’s a crisis for their adult offspring with and without disabilities.”

Nicole Jorwic, chief of advocacy and campaigns for Caring Across Generations, a national caregiver advocacy organization, said the network of state and federal programs for people with disabilities can be “extremely complicated” and is full of holes. She has witnessed those gaps as she has helped her brother, who has autism, access services.

“It’s really difficult for families to plan when there isn’t a system that they can rely on,” she said.


Medicaid pays for people to receive services in home and community settings through programs that vary state to state. But Jorwic said there are long waitlists. Data collected and analyzed by KFF shows that queue is made up of hundreds of thousands of people across the country. Even when people qualify, Jorwic added, hiring someone to help can be difficult because of persistent staff shortages.

Jorwic said more federal money could shorten those waitlists and boost Medicaid reimbursements to health care providers, which could help with workforce recruitment. She blamed chronic underinvestment in Medicaid disability services for the lack of available slots and a dearth of workers to help people with disabilities.

“It’s going to be expensive, but this is four decades of funding that should have been done,” she said.

Congress recently put about $12.7 billion toward enhancing state Medicaid programs for home- and community-based services for people with disabilities, but that money will be available only through March 2025. The Build Back Better Act, which died in Congress, would have added $150 billion, and funding was left out of the Inflation Reduction Act, which became law this summer, to the disappointment of advocates.

Jeneva Stone’s family in Bethesda, Maryland, has been “flummoxed” by the long-term planning process for her 25-year-old son, Rob. He needs complex care because he has dystonia 16, a rare muscle condition that makes moving nearly impossible for him.

“No one will just sit down and tell me what is going to happen to my son,” she said. “You know, what are his options, really?”

Stone said her family has done some planning, including setting up a special needs trust to help manage Rob’s assets and an ABLE account, a type of savings account for people with disabilities. They’re also working to give Rob’s brother medical and financial power of attorney and to create a supported decision-making arrangement for Rob to make sure he has the final say in his care.

“We’re trying to put that scaffolding in place, primarily to protect Rob’s ability to make his own decisions,” she said.

Alison Barkoff is acting administrator for the Administration for Community Living, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Her agency recently released what she called a “first ever” national plan, with hundreds of actions the public and private sectors can take to support family caregivers.

“If we don’t really think and plan, I’m concerned that we could have people ending up in institutions and other types of segregated settings that could and should be able to be supported in the community,” said Barkoff, who noted that those outcomes could violate the civil rights of people with disabilities.

She said her agency is working to address the shortages in the direct care workforce and in the supply of affordable, accessible housing for people with disabilities, as well as the lack of disability-focused training among medical professionals.

But ending up in a nursing home or other institution might not be the worst outcome for some people, said Berns, who pointed out that people with disabilities are overrepresented in jails and prisons.

Berns’ organization, the Arc of the United States, offers a planning guide and has compiled a directory of local advocates, lawyers, and support organizations to help families. Berns said that making sure people with disabilities have access to services — and the means to pay for them — is only one part of a good plan.

“It’s about social connections,” Berns said. “It’s about employment. It’s about where you live. It’s about your health care and making decisions in your life.”

Philip Woody feels as though he has prepared pretty well for his son’s future. Evan, 23, lives with his parents in Dunwoody, Georgia, and needs round-the-clock support after a fall as an infant resulted in a significant brain injury. His parents provide much of his care.

Woody said his family has been saving for years to provide for his son’s future, and Evan recently got off a Medicaid waitlist and is getting support to attend a day program for adults with disabilities. He also has an older sister in Tennessee who wants to be involved in his care.

But two big questions are plaguing Woody: Where will Evan live when he can no longer live at home? And will that setting be one where he can thrive?

“As a parent, you will take care of your child as well as you can for as long as you can,” Woody said. “But then nobody after you pass away will love them or care for them the way that you did.”

———

(KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.)

AUSTRALIA

The Queen’s Coup
November 14, 2022


Queen Elizabeth II of England advised the governor-general he could overthrow the elected government of Australia – and he did, Jenny Hocking and Peter Cronau report.

Queen Elizabeth II waving to crowds in Queensland, Australia, 1970. (Queensland State Archives, CC BY 3.0 au,Wikimedia Commons)

By Jenny Hocking and Peter Cronau
Declassified Australia

It is 47 years since the Australian governor-general, Sir John Kerr, dismissed without warning the elected Labor government of Gough Whitlam.

For decades after Whitlam’s dismissal, a disarmingly simple narrative had been locked in place, which kept the role of the queen and the Palace courtiers out of public view.

The narrative from that Nov. 11 day in 1975 was that Kerr had reached a lonely and isolated decision and that he had had no other option in the face of the Opposition’s blocking of supply but to dismiss the government.

The queen’s then deputy private secretary was an Australian, Sir William Heseltine, and he stated: “The Palace was in a state of total ignorance.” In reality however, nothing was quite so simple, nor as constitutionally proper.

Thanks to a series of archival declassifications, what has emerged reveals a complex web of deception, collusion, and denial in which the Palace was deeply and undeniably involved.*

Following a four-year High Court legal battle, the declassification and release in 2020 of the secret Palace Letters between the queen in England, and the governor-general in Australia, turned that history on its head.

The letters confirmed that the queen through her private secretary Sir Martin Charteris, discussed the possible dismissal of the government with the governor-general and advised him on the use of “reserve powers” to do so, against the advice of both the Australian solicitor-general and attorney-general.

No respectable historian or journalist could now accept that the queen had “no part to play” in the dismissal of the Whitlam government as the protectors of the royal family in Buckingham Palace continues to claim.

Having now the benefit of the Palace Letters in their entirety, Heseltine’s claim of the “total ignorance” of the Palace is simply staggering.

Heseltine was no minor player himself. He had previously been the private secretary to Liberal Prime Minister Robert Menzies and had been assistant federal director of the Liberal Party of Australia for two years.

The Palace Letters provide an exceptional window on the secret political relationship between the queen and the governor-general during one of the most controversial episodes in Australia’s political history.



Truth laid bare. The documents that make up thePalace Letters are now available for public perusal online at the National Archive of Australia.

After decades of speculation, the letters show once and for all that the queen and Prince Charles, now Australia’s king, knew as early as September 1975 that Kerr was considering dismissing the government, two months before he did so. This timing was damning.

They knew a dismissal was being considered by Kerr in the absence of any crisis in government, since the Opposition had not yet made its decision to withhold supply in the Senate.

Even worse, they knew of Kerr’s failure to follow the vice-regal convention to “advise, counsel and warn” the prime minister about his planning and thinking, including for possible dismissal. And they did not object to Kerr’s deceit nor warn Whitlam of it.

John Kerr in 1965. 

(Australian News and Information Bureau, Mike Brown, Public Domain)

Even Kerr’s secret adviser, Australia’s High Court justice Sir Anthony Mason told him, “If you do not warn Whitlam you run the risk of being seen as deceptive.” The Palace was seemingly confident that that “royal secrecy” would forever cover up their role and leave no trace of their discussions with Kerr.

The most significant of these collusive discussions between Kerr and the Palace about the possible dismissal of the Australian government, was revealed in a letter from Charteris to Kerr in early October.

Far from remaining disinterested and “politically neutral,” the Palace Letters show that the queen discussed intensely political matters with Kerr over several months – from petty questions of vice-regal dress, insignia and protocols, to the defining element of the dismissal, the existence and use of the “reserve powers” to dismiss the government.

It confirms that in September 1975, several weeks before the opposition Coalition senators first moved to defer a Senate vote on the supply bills, Kerr had privately raised the prospect of dismissing the Labor government. He did this in a secret face-to-face meeting with Charles when they both attended the Sept. 16, 1975, Papua New Guinea independence celebrations in Port Moresby.

Kerr told Charles that he was “considering having to dismiss the government.” Kerr raised his fears that the prime minister might sack him first should Whitlam become aware of the plotting.

Kerr’s own notes of that secret discussion record Charles’ solicitous response:


“Surely Sir John, the Queen should not have to accept advice that you should be recalled at the very time, should this happen, when you were considering having to dismiss the government.”

Upon Charles’ return to England, he met with the queen and Sir Martin Charteris to discuss the startling information from Kerr that he was considering sacking the prime minister. The group discussed how the queen would deal with any advice from Prime Minister Whitlam to recall the governor-general, if Whitlam had decided to do so.


King Charles, while prince of Wales, delivering the Queen’s Speech on behalf of his mother in May. (House of Lords/ Annabel Moeller, CC BY 2.0, Wikimedia Commons)

As Kerr later recalled, in early October 1975 following the discussions, Charteris wrote back to him in elegant language only thinly disguising its profound impropriety, setting out the queen’s advice.

Kerr was told that should “the contingency to which you refer” arise – that is, if Whitlam advised the queen to remove Kerr on becoming aware of Kerr’s intentions to dismiss the government – the queen would delay responding, thereby stalling Whitlam.

Charteris advised that the queen would not immediately act on the prime minister’s advice as required, but would “try to delay things,” and so give Kerr the time and opportunity to strike first. Heseltine later called this “a policy of political delay,” making clear the political and partisan nature of this royal advice to the governor-general.

The definitive work on the subject, Jenny Hocking’s book The Palace Letters: The Queen, the governor-general, and the plot to dismiss Gough Whitlam, tells the story of the eventful archival research journey and legal battle to secure the release of the Palace Letters, and their impact on the history of the dismissal of the Whitlam government. Published by Scribe Publications in November 2020, it has been described as “a political thriller,” an “absorbing courtroom drama’” and “vital Australian history.” (DeclassifiedAustralia)

Kerr was warned, however, that the queen would eventually, after “considerable comings and goings,” have to bow to the prime minister’s request. The queen had effectively warned Kerr that, in his planning to remove the sitting prime minister and elected government, he would need to act swiftly and with secrecy.

This is that written advice from the Palace to Governor-General Kerr:


“Prince Charles told me a good deal of his conversation with you and in particular that you had spoken of the possibility of the Prime Minister advising The Queen to terminate your Commission with the object, presumably, of replacing you with someone more amenable to his wishes.

If such an approach was made you may be sure that The Queen would take most unkindly to it. There would be considerable comings and goings, but I think it is right that I should make the point that at the end of the road The Queen, as a Constitutional Sovereign, would have no option but to follow the advice of her Prime Minister.”

These are powerful words from the queen to the governor-general who has secretly advised the Palace that he is considering dismissing the government. To quote former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, “This advice no doubt reinforced Kerr in concluding that to forestall any risk of Whitlam sacking him, he would need to give him no, or very little, warning of his intention.”

This direct involvement of the queen in a discussion with Kerr about his own tenure as governor-general, unknown to the prime minister, was manifestly improper.

The appointment or removal of a governor-general is a decision for the prime minister alone to advise the monarch, and had been since the 1926 Imperial Conference firmly established it.

Gough Whitlam giving a speech during the 1972 election campaign. 

(National Archives of Australia, CC BY 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)

The deception by the queen upon the elected prime minister of Australia went even deeper. Kerr himself noted that in her advice to him, the queen raised no objection to the prospect of the dismissal of the Whitlam government without warning. In doing so, she became a party both to Kerr’s planning of the dismissal and to his failure to warn Whitlam.

In this exchange, the queen had expressed an extraordinarily partisan political view. She was condemning the prime minister for a hypothetical action against Kerr, the governor-general’s possible recall, that Whitlam never took.

She was at the same time entirely uncritical of the actions of a rogue governor-general envisaging the dismissal of an elected government and a prime minister who retained the confidence of the House of Representatives.

In doing so, the queen had breached the core requirement of royal “political neutrality” absolutely.

On Oct. 21, 1975, with Supply now blocked in the Senate for nearly a week, at Kerr’s request Whitlam asked the chief Australian law officers to prepare an opinion on just this question of the possible use of the “reserve powers.”

The solicitor-general and attorney-general concluded that, after two centuries of disuse in the Westminster parliamentary system, the “reserve powers” most likely no longer existed, and that there was certainly no basis for them to be used in the current Australian parliamentary stalemate over supply, which they considered a political and not a constitutional issue.

While the opinion of Australia’s two most senior law officers was being prepared, Kerr contacted the Palace to tell them the advice would probably conclude there was no grounds for using “reserve powers.” He then told the Palace that he may not accept the advice of the Australian law officers, his formal constitutional advisers:

“It does not follow that in an extreme Constitutional crisis I would accept that.”

In this declaration, written three weeks before he dismissed the government, Kerr has let the queen know that he was prepared to act against the advice of his prime minister and the most senior Commonwealth law officers on the question of the reserve powers, before he has even received that advice.

Pointedly, the Palace made no attempt in responding to this extraordinary statement to dissuade Kerr from rejecting the legal advice, nor remind him of the “cardinal principle” of a constitutional monarchy — that the governor-general acts on the advice of responsible ministers, namely the prime minister.

But at this crucial moment, the queen’s letters are at their most overtly political. They contradict the expected advice of the law officers and of the prime ,inister to Kerr and instead encourage him to act unilaterally in using the reserve powers. “That you have powers is recognised,” Charteris told the governor-general, just as the law officers were determining that he did not.

Charteris’ final letters just days before the dismissal are quite extraordinary. They are seen as providing Kerr with the “permission” he was seeking, to act against the government on the basis of ‘the reserve powers’ should he chose to do so.

On Nov. 4, the queen assures Kerr not only that the contested and controversial reserve powers exist: “those powers do exist,” but moreover, that any opinion to the contrary is simply wrong; “I do not agree.”

Martin Charteris in 1962, while assistant private secretary to the sovereign.

 (Walter Bird, Fair Use, Wikimedia Commons)

A letter from Charteris the following day, the queen’s final letter before the dismissal, is even stronger. Far from urging “caution” as some inaccurate observers have claimed, Charteris dismisses the concerns which Kerr has expressed in an earlier letter, that any use of the reserve powers might harm the position of the monarchy in Australia.

Charteris reassures Kerr of the Palace view on the use of the reserve powers against Whitlam, telling him that this could only be a positive step for the Crown:

“If you do, as you will, what the constitution dictates, you cannot possibly do the Monarchy any avoidable harm. The chances are you will do it good.” [our emphasis]

Kerr received the Australian senior legal officers’ opinion on Nov. 6, 1975, and, as he had anticipated, it gave no grounds for using the reserve powers to dismiss Whitlam: “The mere threat of or indeed the actual rejection of Supply neither calls for the ministry to resign nor compels the Crown’s representative thereupon to intervene.” The opinion advised Kerr that there was no basis for him to act.

However, it seems Kerr, instead of accepting the advice of Australia’s senior legal officers, accepted the advice of the Palace and elected to intervene as the Palace had advised was certainly valid and would only “do it good.” Five days later Kerr dismissed the prime minister, Gough Whitlam, and his government, in an unprecedented act of vice-regal intervention.

Just four months after the dismissal, in March 1976, Prince Charles sent a long hand-written letter to his confidante Sir John Kerr. In it Charles let the besieged governor-general know that he fully supported Kerr’s dismissal of the Australian government without warning:


“I wanted you to know that I appreciate what you do and admire enormously the way you have performed in your many and varied duties. Please don’t lose heart. What you did last year was right and the courageous thing to do.”

Despite what is now well documented and indisputable evidence to the contrary, the Palace continues to claim that these discussions between the queen, her private secretary, Prince Charles and the governor-general played no part in Kerr’s decision to dismiss the government.

Within hours of the Palace Letters’ release in 2020, Buckingham Palace issued a rare public statement denying that they played any part in Kerr’s move to dismiss the government: “neither Her Majesty nor the Royal Household had any part to play in Kerr’s decision to dismiss Whitlam.”

This absurd denial is not only impossible to reconcile with the documented history as we now know it, it is an insult to that history which has been so hard fought for.

The “Palace Letters” case opened the door to scrutiny of the role of the monarch in matters of governance, by rejecting the claims of “royal secrecy” over this immensely significant correspondence.

The High Court’s rejection of this powerful non-disclosure mechanism of “royal secrecy” is a profoundly important outcome of the declassification of the Palace Letters.

Australia is alone among Commonwealth nations in having successfully challenged that arcane notion as it has applied in the National Archives, bringing the actions of the monarch into the public domain, as they should be. The country’s history is infinitely richer for it.

As a result, only now can be seen clearly the interventionist role of Queen Elizabeth and of Charles, now king of Australia, in enabling and encouraging the governor-general in his removal of the elected Whitlam government.

The implications of this for Australia’s future should be obvious.

—

* Editors’ Note: This article addresses the archival documents known as the Palace Letters, revealing British royal involvement in the Whitlam dismissal. It does not at all preclude involvement of other players and agencies in the undermining and removal of the then Labor government. There is of course substantial evidence of the involvement of elements of the transnational security state, and we await declassification of other UK, US and Australian archival records and sources that may shine further light into this dark corner of the Australian story.


Jenny Hocking is an award-winning author, emeritus professor at Monash University, Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia, and inaugural Distinguished Whitlam Fellow at the Whitlam Institute, Western Sydney University. She is the author of numerous books including the highly acclaimed two-volume biography of Gough Whitlam, as well as her latest book The Palace Letters: The Queen, the governor-general, and the plot to dismiss Gough Whitlam.

Peter Cronau is an award-winning investigative journalist, writer, and film-maker. His documentaries have appeared on ABC TV’s Four Corners and Radio National’s Background Briefing. He is an editor and cofounder of DECLASSIFIED AUSTRALIA. He is co-editor of the recent book A Secret Australia – Revealed by the WikiLeaks Exposés.

This article is from Declassified Australia.

The views expressed are solely those of the authors and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.
Post Views: 140

Authoritarianism’s rise and journalism’s fall are intersecting

Supporters with flags of Brazil's former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who is running for president again, walk next to a flag with the image of Brazil's President Jair Bolsonaro, who is running for reelection, during a campaign event at the bus station in Brasilia, Brazil, Wednesday, Oct. 26, 2022. (Photo by Eraldo Peres/Associated Press)

 

Leticia Duarte

Charles M. Sennott
— OCT 28, 2022

Editor’s note: This column was originally published in The Boston Globe on October 28, 2022

Brazil’s runoff presidential election on Sunday is not only a fateful moment for the country’s democracy but a stark illustration of what happens when journalism and truth itself come under attack.

In Brazil, the United States, and many other corners of the world, a global recession in democracy is exacerbating the erosion of a free press. This is unfolding in India, Turkey, and the Philippines, to name a few countries that have had unprecedented assaults on press freedom from rising authoritarian regimes. In the United States, where two newspapers close every week, 70 percent of Republicans still believe false claims perpetuated by Donald Trump that Joe Biden is not the legitimate winner of the 2020 election. Brazil, the second-largest democracy in the Western Hemisphere, offers the most recent indication of just how high the stakes are.

Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro has suggested he will not accept Sunday’s election results if he loses, pushing false narratives of election fraud hauntingly similar to what’s come to be known in America simply as Trump’s Big Lie. Polls indicate that Bolsonaro’s opponent, the former leftist president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, is likely to win by a narrow margin. As in America, there is no evidence of widespread fraud in the voting system. (In Brazil, there’s no evidence of fraud at all.) Yet Bolsonaro’s false claims seem likely to lead to violence — an assault similar to the attack on the US Capitol or worse. Bolsonaro has said there are only three alternatives for his future, “to be arrested, to be killed, or victory,” and he has stated emphatically that he will not be arrested. He has openly threatened a military coup to stay in power.

It’s becoming harder for news media in Brazil to sort out Bolsonaro’s threats and disinformation. Media companies have seen their business models collapse with the rise of digital platforms that bring them virtually no revenue. At least one news outlet per month closed its doors in Brazil in 2021. Over half of Brazilian municipalities are news deserts, with no print or digital news publications, according to an Atlas da Notícia (News Atlas) survey in 2021.

With journalism in this weakened state, reporters are some of Bolsonaro’s primary targets. He has called journalists, who have uncovered trails of corruption in his administration, “communists,” “the extreme press,” and “the enemies of the people.” On social media, pro-Bolsonaro digital militias spread conspiracy theories claiming that the media is helping the Supreme Court and the left manipulate public opinion and rig the election. Reporters in Brazil have documented at least 66 cases of serious aggression against journalists this year, including physical violence and destruction of equipment. The most vitriolic personal attacks are aimed at women.

Moisés Naím, the author of the new book “The Revenge of Power: How Autocrats Are Reinventing Politics for the 21st Century,” says Bolsonaro is following a playbook that authoritarian populists have used all over the world. They have weaponized social media platforms and messaging apps to reach audiences that elude traditional news organizations.

In India, Hindu nationalist-populist leader Narendra Modi has led an offensive against freedom of the press so intense that the country is no longer classified as a democracy and has become one of the most dangerous places for journalists in the world.

In Turkey, a crackdown on journalists by President Tayyip Erdoğan, who has concentrated power in his own hands and sought to muzzle a once vibrant free press, has forced the closure of at least 160 media outlets since 2016.

In the Philippines, under the far-right authoritarian Rodrigo Duterte and his successor Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the independent press has been targeted. Maria Ressa, who last year received the Nobel Peace Prize for her courageous journalism exposing abuse of power and other acts of government corruption, was repeatedly arrested and tried for 10 different cases of libel — and she remains in an appeal process to this day.

In Brazil, the press has been unable to keep up with Bolsonaro’s massive disinformation machine. Nine months before the election, posts targeting elderly voters on Telegram, Facebook, and other platforms claimed that they would have to show “proof of life” by voting for Bolsonaro to keep receiving social benefits from the government. Misleading electoral ads from the Bolsonaro campaign reinforced the narrative. The story made headlines only after the first round of voting. It was too late: The number of voters over age 60 increased by 1 million this year since the previous election. “It is not possible to know how many of those votes went to Bolsonaro,” says journalist and political analyst Maria Cristina Fernandes, from Brazil’s Valor newspaper. “What we know is that Bolsonarism surpasses in focus, method, and agility the ability of institutions to control it.”

One of the answers to this crisis is to better support the local, independent news organizations that have emerged in the past decade in Brazil. There are efforts such as Projeto Comprova, a coalition of 43 Brazilian outlets working collaboratively to investigate online disinformation. But news organizations need to expand their coverage and acquire more resources to cut through the lies and speak truth to power.

That’s our goal with The GroundTruth Project, which is providing reporters to news organizations all over the world. In Brazil, we are matching independent newsrooms with talented emerging journalists who report on under-covered issues. We believe this is an extraordinary opportunity to foster independent local news as a buffer for democracy.

Believers in democracy and the free press will be holding their breath as voters in Brazil head to the polls Sunday. Regardless of the result, polarization and disinformation will remain a challenging reality, and the independent press will need all the support it can get.

Importing US gas is hypocritical

 – but not in the way pro-frackers 

think

The world is on course to produce

far more gas than is safe.

By India Bourke

Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Image

Discussing energy strategy with those sceptical about the need for urgent climate action can be troublesome sometimes because they sometimes don’t play straight. There are misrepresentations and distractions. The response to the UK’s planned gas deal with the US is a case in point. 

This week you may have encountered the suggestion, whether from a pro-fracking uncle or the onshore gas industry itself, that it is “hypocritical” for the UK government to import fracked gas from the US while upholding a fracking ban at home. The “UK political elite… relishes [the] imminent new deal,” tweeted the broadcaster Andrew Neil, despite “huge expense in terms of dollar cost, CO2 LNG [liquefied natural gas] transport footprint and balance of payments deficit.”

The hypocrisy exists, but not in the way Neil is arguing. If you think about it, it is really not surprising the UK government has one rule for itself and another for other countries: even industry insiders say our geology makes UK fracking unviable. And while transporting gas imports will lead to carbon emissions, building domestic infrastructure would lock them in for far longer.No, the genuine hypocrisy is in Rishi Sunak’s framing of US gas imports in terms of “energy security”, at a time when his government is still failing to lift the ban on onshore wind and roll out support for energy efficiency measures. In doing so he perpetuates the myth that more gas is the only way out of the energy crunch.

The world already produces more oil and gas than the climate can safely sustain. The International Energy Agency has warned that investment in new fossil fuels must end if climate change is to be limited – yet the globe is now on course to more than double its gas capacity by 2030, according to Climate Action Tracker analysts, thanks to the scramble to shore-up supply in the wake of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. That is more than twice what Russian gas exports amounted to in 2021.

 Continuing with these gas extraction plans is a pathway to chaos: fire and flood on a scale that will dwarf the disasters that have unfolded across the world this year. The safest, cheapest and fastest options to achieve true energy security by far are cutting overall energy demand and increasing investment in renewables. 

If the UK had done this sooner, our need for expensive gas would be slashed: David Cameron’s decision to “cut the green crap” in 2013 has pushed up the need to import gas by 13 per cent, a Carbon Brief analysis shows. While the think tank E3G projects that energy efficiency improvements and renewables investment could replace Russian gas imports four times over by 2025.

A UK decision to frack domestically would only further compound the error that it is already making in extending licences for North Sea oil and gas exploration. Proposed domestic fields are incapable of meeting the immediate demand – yet will lock in future emissions. And while the UK needs enough gas to tide it through the coming winter, there is no certainty that imports will bring down costs. As E3G’s Colm Britchfield, a policy adviser, said: “Since the UK is integrated into global and, in particular, European energy markets, whether the planned 10 billion cubic metres of LNG (a two thirds increase on current LNG imports) will stay within UK shores and bring down energy costs depends on whether the UK is willing to pay more than other markets.”

According to Nick Bryer from the 350.org campaign group, to truly avoid accusations of hypocrisy the government should not only refuse to import fracked gas from the US – it should also prevent companies such as Shell and BP from fracking in Argentina, where indigenous communities in the Vaca Muerta region are resisting new projects.

In the meantime, this winter’s energy crunch must be seen for what it truly is: a short-term gas shortage that would be better fixed with short-term imports rather than a long-term commitment to expensive and planet-polluting new domestic gas infrastructure.

[See also: Away from Cop27, Big Oil is dramatically expanding]

• 

  India Bourke

  @india_bourke

  India Bourke is the New Statesman's environment correspondent. She has written on issues such as water pollution and heatwaves, and interviews leading climate thinkers and writers. You can find her writing in the Environment section.