Mediaboss Marketing

Political certainties are rare these days, but the zero chance that Grant Shapps ideas about mandatory insurance and registration plates for cyclists are ever enacted is about as close as you can get.

The transport secretary floated the idea of compulsory insurance for all bikes on the road and number plates for cyclists in an interview with the Daily Mail that made the front pagetoday: How are you going to recognise the cyclist, do you need registration plates? he asked. He then said the opposite in an interview with the Times: Im not attracted to the bureaucracy of registration plates. That would go too far. His confused interventions would have been news to his junior ministers at the Department for Transport, too, whose longtime view has been that such schemes are a waste of time.

It is not just his own political staffers more or less every official within the Department for Transport, and any expert outside it, would tell Shapps, if asked, that such plans have been mooted many times in numerous places, but have been very rarely implemented. When they have, it has never been with success. Switzerland had a try for a period. Argentina once tried, as have several US cities. But the only place to stick with the idea has been North Korea.

The argument for registering bikes can seem initially tempting. Cyclists, like cars, are road users, they can and sometimes do break laws, and they can also cause serious harm to others. Why should they be exempt from identification and enforcement? The reason is very simple: practically, it would be enormously difficult to enforce and evidence shows it would deliver very little benefit.

First, the logistical hurdles of registering and identifying cyclists: a number plate needs to be big enough to be legible, which is tricky on its own. It would also only identify the bike itself, not the person on it. Some advocates have mooted the idea of rider-specific numbered tabards. But again, something big enough to be seen would be hugely impractical sweaty to wear in summer, and impossible to get over a coat in the wet or cold.

And what about children? No one has seriously suggested that a 12-year-old cycling to school needs to face such administrative hurdles. But if the under-18s are exempt, would 16- and 17-year-olds need to start carrying ID to prove their age?

Even if some half-workable administrative fudge could be found, you run into the other glaring drawback of such schemes: there is very strong evidence that they bring no net benefit either to road safety or to overall national wellbeing. In fact, they do the opposite.

Identifying road users does not eliminate danger. The UK has an estimated one million uninsured drivers, according to the Motor Insurers Bureau, and about 70 people a day are either killed on the roads or experience potentially life-changing injuries.

Almost all road casualties are caused by cars. Focusing finite police resources on bikes would be to concentrate on a group that kills an average of two a year, against around the 1,700 lives lost each year in car accidents.

All you would get from these draconian measures is, most likely, fewer cyclists. Mandatory helmet laws in places such as Australia a far less onerous administrative barrier have been shown to suppress cyclist numbers. And if you get people switching from bikes to cars you get worse public health, more pollution, more congestion and more road deaths.

So why did Shapps venture so far off piste? Probably because with discipline evaporating in the last weeks of Boris Johnsons government, he felt he could. Before now, cycle policy had largely been imposed on Shapps by No 10, with Johnson giving his longtime adviser, Andrew Gilligan, the lead on the issue.

Shapps is by no means the only incumbent minister showing off in the hope he might land a ministerial role if a Truss government becomes a reality. Within his brief, cyclists are an easy target that will score well with members who support a more populist candidate such as Truss. Cyclists remain in the minority despite a boom in numbers during the pandemic, only about 1% of all mileage on Britains roads is from cyclists. So cyclists are a conveniently small population for Shapps to take aim at.

Overall, the media treatment of cyclists has deteriorated recently. The Mail has routinely run scare stories about bikes for years but the previously bike-positive Times declared in January that it now supported registration plates.

This media coverage matters. Some studies have linked anti-cycling media coverage to drivers being more aggressive towards cyclists on the roads. So while its tempting to write off Shapps comments given how unlikely his ideas are to be implemented the consequences for cyclists on roads could be much more serious.

Read more:
Cyclists, welcome, you have just become the latest target in the culture wars - The Guardian

A snap election in September will choose a parliament after the resignation of Prime Minister Draghi, a technocrat whose strong international reputation did not help him stay in power.

Italys Mario Draghi, who, despite his July 21 resignation will remain as a caretaker prime minister until after a September 25 election chooses a new parliament, will have served longer as premier than Mario Monti, who similarly led a caretaker government while in office from 2011-2013.

Yet the two premiers left the countrys leadership in very different circumstances. Mr. Monti, who became prime minister when Italy was on the edge of default, largely succeeded in putting the countrys public finances in order. The main uncertainty after his tenure was whether the political right or left would win elections. Neither did, and another national unity government was formed, as the Democratic Party allied with Silvio Berlusconi, their former foe.

The outgoing prime minister took the countrys helm in February 2021 with two main goals. The first was to run an efficient vaccination campaign. Mission accomplished, largely thanks to army general Francesco Paolo Figliuolo, appointed as vaccine czar. The second was to secure largesse from the 806.9 billion-euro NextGenerationEU fund. Mr. Draghi, who had spent the previous eight years as president of the European Central Bank, used his prestige to shield Italy from criticism and win European funds. That was, however, only the first step: the resources need to be spent within a clearly defined schedule and with changes in the countrys legal and regulatory infrastructure (reforms).

As prime minister, Mr. Draghi had easier circumstances than Mr. Monti: he did not even have to attempt to reduce spending or raise taxes. Yet, paradoxically, he will leave a country mired in more fundamental uncertainty than when he took over.

Read more from Alberto Mingardi

The newly elected parliament will open on October 12. The new government will have to rush to create a new budget law. The Draghi government in recent months has been quite generous with special aid and subsidies to families and businesses to soften the blow of inflation and high energy prices.

Minister for Ecological Transition Roberto Cingolani recently insisted that the country can get through the next winter even if Russia completely stops providing gas. The question is how. The last two generations of Italians (and Western Europeans, more broadly) have no memory of double-digit inflation. But neither do they have any more experience with energy shortages and government seizing supplies. The Italian government has strongly backed the Ukrainian war effort but has maintained that it would limit the costs of supporting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy for Italian households. Yet it is not clear this will be the case: the government may force families to cut down on winter heating, despite its repeated assurances that the war in Ukraine will not limit their wallets or room temperatures. If this turns out to be untrue, the new government will face social unrest that may become radicalized if Italians believe the government has been telling them lies.

Inflation is another challenge. Italy has low salaries, which have been basically stagnant for over 20 years now. At the same time, taxes on labor in 2020 were the fifth highest in the 38-nation Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: 46 percent vs. an average of 34.6 percent. Increasing salaries should be a priority of the new government. Yet the proposals on the table seem unlikely to achieve that goal: though it will be difficult this time, the right-wing Lega Party is flirting with lowering the retirement age, which tends to raise the social contribution tax on labor.

The left wants to introduce a national minimum wage, though the country traditionally has national bargaining agreements that achieve the same goal. The Brothers of Italy, currently placed by the polls as the leading party of a center-right coalition, wants to lighten the fiscal burden of businesses that hire more people. The attempt, similar to the lefts, is to hijack the distribution of business-provided resources.

Gross domestic product growth is projected to be a modest 0.9 percent in 2023.

Fiscal leeway will be limited, particularly if interest rates eventually cross into positive territory and the yield spread between German and Italian 10-year bonds begins to widen, signaling the growing unease in financial markets. The spread already widened during the Draghi premiership, from 103 to 200 basis points. It is now floating around 250 basis points, partly due to the election uncertainty and the European Central Bank (ECB) raising rates. The new Transmission Protection Instrument that the ECB hoped would bring spreads under control is apparently working. Yet the new government, whose head will not have the prestige of Mr. Draghi, will need to pay extra attention.

Though estimates have improved for 2022, with expected economic growth of 2.9 percent, the gross domestic product is projected to rise only a modest 0.9 percent in 2023. Any new government should strive to revive stronger growth, but this would require reforms. The very word reform is now confused with requirements that need to be fulfilled to access European funds. Whoever wins the elections will need both to keep up with the timetable set by the Draghi government and add perhaps some changes of its own making.

Given the Italian predicament, one would expect an electoral campaign passionately devoted to discussing economic reforms. That is, however, unlikely to happen. For one thing, Italians suffer from a sort of reform fatigue. From 1994 to 2018, they were constantly promised profound changes to put the country back on the growth path. Though reforms were implemented, Italys transition is still in the making, a sort of never-ending story that ultimately disappointed voters.

The populist triumph of 2018 was partly a reaction against the litany of promises that mostly failed to accomplish their declared goal. Nobody understands this better than ex-Prime Minister Berlusconi, the master pied piper, always promising an Italian catharsis. This time, Mr. Berlusconi in office from 1994 to 1995, 2001 to 2006 and again from 2008 to 2011 began his campaign by promising to plant one million trees and raise pensions. Though he may have pleased those most worried about climate change and the summer drought, Mr. Berlusconi also signaled that he was unwilling to trouble himself with labors such as economic deregulation, freeing the labor market or cutting taxes.

It is unlikely that any party will wage the next election campaign on a pro-growth agenda.

Mr. Berlusconi is not alone. Over the past few years, Italys political parties have highly invested in culture wars. They had the luxury to do so because they entrusted the prime ministers role to a seasoned technocrat like Mr. Draghi. Lega is going to campaign aggressively on immigration, though after Covid-19 and the subsequent reduction in international mobility, the issue is far less prominent. The left will rally around the flag of diversity and individual rights (LGBTQ+ causes, etcetera), which goes well with propaganda to shame fascist Giorgia Meloni, the leader of the Brothers of Italy and the most likely winner of the next election. In a desperate attempt to save something of their once huge following, the Five Star Movement will go for a mixture of environmentalism and social justice, to position itself at the extreme left.

It is unlikely that any party will wage the next election campaign on a pro-growth agenda. On a brighter note, no party will have a particularly dangerous economic agenda, certainly not one that would threaten the eurozone. In 2018, two parties (Lega and the Five Star Movement) were suspected of wanting to leave the euro. Nobody is flirting with the idea now. After NextGenerationEU, Brussels is no longer seen as the odious torchbearer of austerity but as a welcomed source of aid.

In many ways, Italian parties will do their best to mimic the peculiar mixture of policies offered by the Draghi government. The spendthrift technocrat leaves the country with a budget deficit three times the size of the government led by Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, who served from July 2018 to February 2021, when populists from the right and the left allied for the first time.

Yet Italian politicians may be wrongly assuming that the spirit of the times has changed and that they will be allowed to continue with the status quo. They may be discounting how Mr. Draghis prestige helped Italy to receive a pass from the European Commission and benevolent attention from financial markets.

The course followed by the next Italian prime minister will be fraught with peril. While nobody can compete in international reputation with Prime Minister Draghi, his legacy has blemishes that will prove to be challenging from the first day of the new government.

See the article here:
Italy parliamentary election will take place on September 25 - Geopolitical Intelligence Services AG

Pat Brothwell| OPINION COLUMNIST

On Aug. 2, Kansas voters rejected a proposed state constitutional amendment that wouldve said there was no right to legal abortion in the state, the first of its kind since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Fifty eight percent of voters 534,134 individuals voted for abortion rights in a state thats traditionally been heavily red, echoing the sentiment of the American public. Pew Research reports that 62% of Americans believe abortions should be legal, and 57% of Americans disapproved of the courts decision to overturn what they thought was precedent.

On June 24, District-11 Republican congressional candidate Chuck Edwards tweeted, I have always been pro-life. Im pro-life today, and Ill be pro-life tomorrow. The Supreme Court has now decided that this is a state issue, and I will keep working with the North Carolina legislature to ensure that life is protected in our great state. Only, thats not what the people Edwards claims hes looking to serve want.

More North Carolinians believe in abortion rights than the national average a Public Policy Polling survey reports that 74% of North Carolina voters believe abortion should be legal.

So, if the overwhelming majority of North Carolinians are pro-choice, why do we keep electing politicians who choose to eschew the views of their constituents to push the current conservative agenda? An agenda thats morphed into a monolithic viewpoint that doesnt represent the average American? We did it with Madison Cawthorn. If we dont learn from our mistakes, well do it again with Chuck Edwards, who, despite campaigning as the anti-Cawthorn, shares his possible predecessor's penchant for putting his own needs and views over his constituents.

A 2022 ABC News/Ipsos poll finds that 70% of Americans think enacting new gun control laws should take precedence over protecting gun ownership rights a WRAL News poll finds 62% of North Carolinians want stronger gun control. Chuck Edwards is a staunch defender of gun owner rights, though one wonders if hes driven more by his strict adherence to the conservative culture wars or his wallet, since he advertised in an April 22tweet that hes a federally licensed firearms dealer. Madison Cawthorn used his position in Congressto try to enrich himself. Must we worry Edwards will do the same?

As reported by the Mountain Xpress, during the Republican primary debate in April, candidate Wendy Nevarez emphasized how serving constituents must be a congresspersons priority. Were not doing it for profit, she said, were doing it for people. … If a businessperson only has profit (in mind), theyre not going to be thinking about the American people.

In the same debate, Edwards praised the merits of former President Trump, going so far as to emulate his penchant for speaking in third person. Chuck Edwards is a businessman that loves this country, with conservative principles, that has a track record of getting things done, Edwards said. Thats exactly why we sent President Trump to the White House in 2016: Hes a businessman with conservative principles that loves this country. Once again, the people disagree. Another ABC News/Ipsos poll found that 60% of Americans believe the House select committee is conducting a fair and impartial investigation into the events of Jan. 6, and 58% feel Trump should be criminally charged.

A major Edwards campaign promise is cracking down on the elusive Critical Race Theory (CRT) in high schools, even though the reality is that education-wise, its a theory mainly relegated to law-school studies. Also, a reality? A Spectrum News/Ipsos poll found that only 33% of registered North Carolina voters support banning CRT 45% are against a ban, and 22% dont know enough to make a decision.

I was unable to find whether Edwards supports codifying gay marriage, but his tweeting on June 27that Christian Conservatives are on the cusp of taking back our country leads me to believe he doesnt, even though Gallup found that 71% of Americans say they support legal same-sex marriage. In related news, Gallup also found that religious membership in the U.S. has fallen to an all-time low just 47%.

Ill go back to Nevarezs astute point that politicians should be working for people. Madison Cawthorn didnt. The Kansas vote shows the right-wing Washington establishment isnt. Lets not make the same mistake with Chuck Edwards this fall. He may not have Cawthorns jawline or Twitter following, but deep down, hes the same partisan hack.

Pat Brothwell is a former high school teacher, butcurrent writer and marketing professional living and working in Asheville.

Visit link:
Opinion: Don't be fooled: Chuck Edwards is the same partisan hack that Madison Cawthorn is - Citizen Times

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

"The Next Revolution" host Steve Hilton said Sunday that the country is yearning to return to a"simple old-fashioned patriotic culture," and urged Americans to unite on common ground this Independence Day,

STEVE HILTON: None of this is to say that America is perfect orabove criticism, but there is nocountry in the history of theworld that is more self-reflective,more focused on constantly striving toimprove, than America.That is what the magicalphrase in the opening sentence in the Constitution toform a more perfect union isall about.To love America is torecognize its flaws and workto make things better.Not to tear things down.Is the Lefts constant derision of America creating a moreperfect union?Of course not.It's not building anything. Itsjust turning Americans againsteach other and against thecountry.But heres the good news this July Fourth weekend. Americans dont want allthis.Not the far-left ideologues and thepolitical zealot's on Twitter the regularAmericans who love theirfamilies and community andcountry.They are crying out forchange.Theyve had enough of thenegativity about America.

LEFT RENOUNCES INDEPENDENCE DAY OF TWITTER

---

Americans are yearning for thesimple old fashion patrioticculture that so many of usremembergrowing up. We are all Americans. Lets come together as anation and celebrate whatmakes us, us.Lets rise above the culturewars this Fourth of July andremember we are all in thistogether as Americans.Thats the next revolutionwe need.

WATCH STEVE HILTON'S INDEPENDENCE DAY MONOLOGUE HERE:

This article was written by Fox News staff.

Original post:
Let's rise above the culture wars this Fourth of July and come together as Americans: Steve Hilton - Fox News

Culture is often the reason given for campus conflicts over issues such as free speech. Butthey arent really cultural issues; theyre economic ones.

As the bad economic news keeps rolling in for U.S. colleges and universities (fromthe Big Quitandinflationary pressuresto thedemographic cliff), its important to keep in mind that economic realities, not cultural ones, largely underpin volatile campus political dynamics.

Take, for instance, the matter of free speech and academic freedom on campus, a political issue often chalked up to cancel culture. I dont mean to be evasive here. Sure, I know what people are talking about when they reference cancel culture and have experienced some of it first-hand. Its just as ugly as critics claim, if not worse. But the root of the problem is economic, not cultural.

The vast majority of university faculty in the U.S. are contingent faculty, meaning they are full-time and part-time workerswithouttenure. Over the past 40 years, the proportion of academics holding full-time tenured positions has declined 26 percent. The proportion holding full-time tenure-track positions (i.e. eligible for tenure) has declined 50 percent.

Today, close to75 percent of facultyare contingent faculty. Tenure for faculty is similar to lifetime appointments to the bench for judges. Its a mechanism for ensuring that we can build knowledge and seek truth independently, that we can teach, research and make public commentaries without external political interference.The Government Accountability Officeestimatesthat part-time contingent faculty make, on average, 75 percent less than full-time tenured and tenure track faculty. Full-time contingent faculty make, on average, 45 percent less than their full-time tenured and tenure-track colleagues.

In 2015,taxpayers paidalmost half a billion dollars in support of public assistance for families of part-time faculty. This is the so-called Walmart model, in whichtaxpayers subsidize low wagespaid by employers, permitting exploitative labor relationships to continue over time. The impact of this labor hierarchy and the economic insecurity it creates on the capacity of faculty to take risks, including risks regarding political speech, is difficult to overstate.

Contingent faculty generally understand very well that, if they are perceived as stepping out of line in any way, there is a high likelihood of not being rehired. It is pretty rare that faculty who engage in wrongspeak are fired flat out like somehigh-profile professorshave been. It is much more common for contingent faculty to just not be rehired for the next semester or the next year. Contracts wont be renewed. Courses will be given to someone else to teach. And even if the reason was politically motivated, theres little leverage for faculty in such situations. Its hard to prove that you werent rehired because of your social media posts as opposed to low enrollments. And lawyers are expensive.

And its not like there are many other jobs out there waiting for you if you lose the one you have. The academic job market has beentight and highly competitivefor a long time. Faculty jobs, even the contingent kind, are hard to find these days, especially if your expertise is in the humanities or social sciences.

Further, academics are a tight-knit, competitive and ego-rich group with a strong proclivity for gossip, meaning that bad news about you may travel well beyond your own campus, poisoning your ability to get work elsewhere. So, every time you decide to take a risk at work, for example by standing up for your own beliefs or for a colleague, you face the knowledge that this may be your last academic job. Full stop. Its a powerful deterrent and a super effective mechanism for worker discipline.

It is all the more so because most of us love our work, love working with our students and dont want to give it up (and also becausemany faculty are themselves student debtors). So, if faculty generally seem too silent on critical issues like this one, its not because we dont care. Its not because we all creepily agree with one another like the Borg from Star Trek. Its because were afraid that we wont be able to work, earn an income, feed our families or provide them with health insurance. Political freedom requires economic security.

Sasha BregerBushis an associate professor at the University of Colorado Denver and the author ofDerivatives and Development: A Political Economy of Global Finance, Farming, and PovertyandGlobal Politics: A Toolkit for Learners.For more of Sashas research and writing, visit herSubstackandwebsite.

See the rest here:
Culture wars cover up economic realities on campus - The Hill