Daily Archives: December 9, 2021

When looking around the UI campus, its not hard to see the importance and emphasis the university puts on research. Walking to class, students might pass the JW Martin Lab, one of the many engineering labs, the food research center, or the meat science lab. Research is being done all over campus and thats not even considering all the research happening at off-campus centers across Idaho as well. UI spends millions each year on funding research in fact, in 2019, UI spent $115 million on grants and research projects alone. All of this research and experimentation is making huge impacts at the university, in the state of Idaho, and the country as a whole. The driving factor behind much of this important research is the fact that the UI is a land-grant institution the only such institution in the state of Idaho.

Land-grant institutions first began to be established in the United States in 1862 with the passage of the Morill Land-Grant Act. This grant was signed into law by President Lincoln with the purpose to distribute lands and funds for universities that would focus on the teaching of agriculture, science, military, and engineering. This act allotted 30,000 acres to each state and territory to be used to establish a university that would be less of a liberal arts school, focusing on more practical and technical aspects of education.

The Morill Land-Grant Act is the reason that the University of Idaho exists- UI was established in 1889 as the land-grant university for Idaho, a year before Idaho was admitted to statehood in 1890. Along with creating these more technical education universities, this grant also established agricultural experiment stations at the colleges including UI.

Mark McGuire, The Associate Dean of Research and Director of the Idaho Experiment Station explained that their original purpose was to improve communities and the country as a whole.

These were field land facilities to ultimately improve agriculture and support families and rural life so we could feed the world, really, more than anything else, McGuire said.

The land-grant system has been seen to have many positive influences on the nation, however, the means through which the U.S. acquired the land on which the land-grant schools were built has also been the subject of moral and ethical scrutiny. To gain this land, the U.S. made treaties and acquired Native American homelands, confiscating this property to use for their own purposes, such as establishing universities and research stations.

To build the land-grant university system, the U.S. government appropriated an estimated 11 million acres of Indigenous land. UI is one of 52 land-grant institutions that is built on and funded by Indigenous land. The university occupies land that was taken between 1855 and 1873 from the Nez-Perce, Shoshone, Schitsuumush, and Te-Moak Tribes. The general consensus is that it is beneficial to celebrate the inspired research UI is doing as a result of its status as a land-grant institution while keeping in mind the origin of the university and the millions of Native Americans whose home was reappropriated due to the Universitys establishment.

The roots of the land-grant system have been argued to be corrupt and unjustifiable. However, the research done at these institutions has significantly benefitted the community and Idaho as a whole both economic and otherwise. This is seen from land-grant universities across the country.

All analyses that have occurred that look at the investment in research through the land-grant universities show that there is ultimately a substantial return to the taxpayer, McGuire said.

He estimates that for every dollar invested at the UI research facilities, there is an eventual return of $5 to $10 dollars in economic benefit for the state. Through the research done that makes farming or other jobs more efficient, and the jobs provided doing research land-grant universities have made a huge impact on the economy.

However, the reach of the land-grant research stretches far beyond economics. Its impossible to fully calculate all the ways that the research done at the UI has made an impact on our community and our state over the years.

() it makes sure theres food on the shelf, people have clothing, people are happy, educated, McGuire said. Theres many more benefits than just a financial return.

The research done through UI is not just limited to the Moscow campus. There are research facilities across Idaho that are doing groundbreaking research, especially when it comes to agricultural issues.

One such research facility is the Parma Research and Extension Center located north of Boise. This center accommodates many different programs and research projects, most with a focus on improving agricultural practices.

Michael Kiester, the operations manager at the Parma Research Center, explained how one of their most recent projects is benefiting Idaho farmers currently. They are working on testing the nematode levels in soil from different farms. This information greatly benefits farmers who can adjust how they fumigate their soil and grow their crops.

All of it (research) is going to make economic impacts, whether its in the near future or distant future, Kiester said. Its all going to be economically beneficial for the farmers themselves out there.

Not only does this research have important applications in the workforce and economy, it also provides opportunities for UI students to get involved with hands-on research that accompanies their major. According to UIs primary website, approximately 2/3 of all undergrads will participate in research at some point in their program.

Sarah Hale, a Biotechnology and Plant Genomics major and undergraduate lab assistant at UI believes that her job working on research has made a significant difference in her educational experience.

The work I do allows me to implement a lot of the techniques that I learned in my classes and labs, Hale said. When youre working on a project that you can call your own, then it makes you think more about what youre doing and why youre doing it. You learn how to apply different techniques to solve real problems.

Grace Giger can be reached at[emailprotected]

Continue reading here:

What is UI's story as a land-grant institution? - Argonaut

OTTAWAIt was brisk and overcast on Parliament Hill this week when a small group from the distant First Nation of Attawapiskat presented a letter to two Liberal cabinet ministers charged with Indigenous affairs.

Less than a decade ago, Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence staged a hunger strike on an island in the Ottawa River, a protest that helped ignite a national Indigenous rights movement called Idle No More.

And here they were again, leaders of the same nation clustered on the sidewalk near the Centennial Flame with a flag and staff lined with eagle feathers, pressing a different government over the same concerns that have long animated their people: treaty rights, self-determination, poverty, and housing.

That last one is connected with a longstanding demand of the First Nation to add a tract of land to its reserve where the Attawapiskat River empties into James Bay. It also touches on an issue that Marc Miller, the newly-minted Liberal Crown-Indigenous relations minister, is striving to place at the front of the governments reconciliation agenda: land.

In his first comments in the new role this fall, Miller turned heads when he stated that its time to give land back to Indigenous peoples. It was an invocation of an established goal of Indigenous activists pressing to reverse the damaging impacts of colonialism in this country, one of the core aims of Idle No More and other movements since. And it was a statement with potential relevance to Indigenous nations across Canada, from the Wetsuweten opposing a pipeline project in northern B.C., to the people of Attawapiskat who are hoping to acquire new land for housing in their community.

Yet skepticism abounds, not least in Attawapiskat, where Gerald Mattinas has been pushing to expand the reserve to make room for the new housing. Speaking with the Star by phone on Friday, the Attawapiskat band councillor said discussions with government over adding the land to the reserve have led to nothing over the past seven years.

Politicians are politicians. They can say anything and then they forget all about it, Mattinas said.

For Hayden King, director of the Yellowhead Institute in downtown Toronto, Millers endorsement of giving land back is a surprise, given how virtually all Canadian governments before have refused to engage in conversations like this.

But King added that there are many ideas about what land back looks like. These include literally giving land owned by settler Canadians to Indigenous peoples, as well as visions of establishing Indigenous jurisdiction over traditional land and the resources it contains. Some, such as the Secwpemc leader Arthur Manuel, have argued the return of land and the wealth it produces should serve as the economic foundation of empowered Indigenous governments.

It varies from place to place, circumstance to circumstance, but I think it has these three underlying features, which are: Indigenous authority over their own territory; the restitution of actual lands, resources and wealth; and the revitalization of Indigenous culture, he said.

As Miller explained in a recent interview with the Star, he sees land at the heart of Canadas project of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. Miller said that, all too often, when politicians discuss the issues of economic development and inequality that plague Indigenous communities, they will exclude the discussion of land.

This exclusion, he argued, has perpetuated two things: the dispossession of Indigenous peoples from their land, and the exacerbation of economic inequality. The solution, for Miller: give land back.

I cant walk into a community and talk about self-determination or a rights framework without talking about land, or in the case where land cant be restituted proper compensation, he said.

The issue of land and who it belongs to is central to several disputes that have caught national attention with cascading consequences across the country, said Nicole Robertson, an advocate and entrepreneur and member of the Mathias Colomb Cree Nation in northern Manitoba.

These disputes have taken place in areas where the traditional territory of an Indigenous nation was never ceded nor shared through a treaty or land claim, such as with the hereditary leaders of the Wetsuweten who oppose the construction of the Coastal GasLink. Theyve also occurred where treaties have been signed, including a site dubbed 1492 Land Back Lane in Caledonia, Ont., where development has occurred despite the existence of a treaty between the Haudenosaunee and British Crown in 1784.

For Robertson, this shows that land back means respecting the authority of Indigenous nations over their traditional territories. We need to come to this place of understanding that First Nations always should have the last say if theres any type of resource or energy extraction thats going on in and around their treaty boundaries and traditional territory, she said.

Another consideration is how resource development and the permits for construction fall under provincial jurisdiction, something that Miller acknowledged complicates any attempt to give land back to dispossessed Indigenous communities.

As a government, we cant wash our hands from that reality, he said, adding that such issues involve difficult conversations that could fuel frustrations of slow progress.

Some of that frustration is playing out right now. In northern Ontario, the Neskantaga First Nation is taking the province to court, arguing it was not properly consulted about the planned construction of a road through what it claims as unceded traditional territory. And in Saskatchewan, NDP MLA Betty Nippy-Albright has been voicing concerns about provincial auctions of Crown land, which she argues are resulting in the sale of territory thats meant to be available for the hunting and fishing rights of treaty nations.

This is another way for this provincial government to eradicate every treaty right we have, she told the Star this week. They do not care about the treaties that were signed by our ancestors.

For King at the Yellowhead Institute, the governments adoption of the phrase land back is cause for some wariness. Pointing to criticism that the Liberals attempted recognition of Indigenous rights in government policies didnt go far enough, he said he is concerned the government could simply use the language of land back activism and follow familiar policies that dont achieve what activists are pushing for.

In Attawapiskat, meanwhile, Mattinas is hoping for more than just the status quo though he said its not easy to expect more after trying so long with no progress.

Its how we are as First Nations. Thats the kind of treatment that any First Nation gets across Canada, he said. Were never a priority.

With files from Tonda MacCharles

JOIN THE CONVERSATION

Anyone can read Conversations, but to contribute, you should be registered Torstar account holder. If you do not yet have a Torstar account, you can create one now (it is free)

Sign In

Register

Follow this link:

This federal minister says its time to give land back to Indigenous peoples. What could that look like? - Toronto Star

Christopher Luxons ascendancy to the National Party leadership has highlighted once again the precarious balance between the partys liberal and conservative wings. So his newly appointed shadow cabinet attempts to establish some equilibrium, particularly in the choice of liberal Nicola Willis as deputy.

But persistent questioning about Luxons own evangelical Christian faith tends to reinforce perceptions that Nationals broad church is not an entirely unified congregation.

These perceptions have their roots in Nationals origins as a political party. The question now is, why does this need for balance exist? And why, under MMP, has National not devolved into multiple, more ideologically coherent, parties that negotiate with each other come election time?

To answer those questions we need to look at the formation of National from a merger between the United and Reform parties in 1936. In that history we can see the origins of the modern party and the challenges it faces in the MMP era.

The United and Reform parties had first formed a coalition in 1931 to see off a challenge from the Labour Party, and won that years general election. But in 1935 the coalition lost to Labour, leading to the formal merger as National.

Uniteds predecessor, the Liberal Party, dominated New Zealand politics up to the first world war, and was the countrys first organised political party. The Liberals enjoyed support from urban liberals and workers, but the formation of the Reform Party in 1909 and Labour in 1916 saw a steady decline in the partys fortunes.

Read more: Luxon takes the controls can the former Air NZ CEO make National straighten up and fly right?

For its part, the Reform Party was the first consolidation of conservative politicians in New Zealand, coming to power for the first time in 1912 and staying in government until 1928.

Its establishment went back to the Liberal governments land and welfare reforms, which were branded as socialism and an attack on farmers. Support from social conservatives and rural communities continued to be core components of the Reform Party until the 1936 merger.

Meanwhile, a group of Liberal members had formed the United Party in 1927, supplanting the Liberals as the main challenger to the Reform Party. United gained support from urban centres, the business community and socially liberal (in the 1920s sense) interest groups.

If this all seems oddly familiar, thats because many aspects of the United and Reform parties still exist within National today.

Under the First Past the Post (FPP) electoral system, the merger of those two parties made sense. Forming a single block that represented the centre-right in New Zealand allowed them to build a well-supported political apparatus.

More importantly, the merger allowed the two parties to stop fighting each other, and instead counter Labour.

Under MMP (which replaced FPP in 1996), however, the need for single parties that dominate whole sides of the political spectrum has decreased. Instead, theres an opportunity for parties to have more refined policy platforms based on clear ideologies, rather than broad-based appeal.

Read more: Judith Collins may be gone but New Zealands search for a credible and viable opposition is far from over

This doesnt mean socially conservative or liberal parties cant work together MMP allows for this as part of governing coalition negotiations, rather than the tensions playing out as internal party machinations.

Proportional representation systems tend to increase diversity within political systems not just in terms of gender or ethnicity, but also by providing more specific political channels for different ideological perspectives, and encouraging open collaboration and compromise between those various groups.

Looked at this way, the obvious outcome is for a devolution of major one size fits all parties into smaller ones that take clearer policy and ideological positions. To some extent this has already happened on the left, with the advent of New Labour, and subsequently the Alliance (which contained the Green Party), splitting out of Labour in the early 1990s.

So, if thats the way MMP works, could such a devolution occur within National, and what might that look like? Might we see modern versions of United and Reform one socially liberal, the other conservative emerge to represent different groups on the right?

Similarly, could we witness the same process on the left, with socially conservative elements of Labour forming their own party, separate from but aligned to the Labour Party?

Its not impossible, but for the time being seems unlikely. The main reason for that is scale staying a single entity gives a party size, and size brings resources. So while devolution might make sense in theory, the current system rewards major political blocs, particularly through campaign funding.

Read more: Labour makes it easier to change leaders, but Jacinda Ardern has no reason to go yet

Segmenting into new parties would also result in a splintering of support, with consequences for funding streams. The consolidation of resources and support was, of course, one of the main forces that pushed United and Reform together in the first place.

Unless theres major fallout within National, with one cohort having severely reduced influence over policy, its unlikely there will be significant change any time soon. For decades, Nationals liberal-conservative balance has seen the party able to unify a broad base around core values, making National the key player on the centre-right.

Given all of this, until the 2023 election we can expect to hear far more about Christopher Luxons conservatism being balanced out by the urban liberal values of Nicola Willis. For now at least, there will be no going back to the future for National.

Here is the original post:

History made the National Party a 'broad church' can it hold in the MMP era? - The Conversation AU

Dec 11th 2021

TAKEUCHI MASANOBU has a message for his compatriots: If you order something, it arrives on time, if you go to the convenience store, you have cheap, good, foodthats all sustained by foreigners. Across Japan, foreigners are key in industries from farming to retailing. Vietnamese can be found in the fields of Yonaguni and the factories of Hokkaido. Chinese and Uzbeks man counters in Tokyos convenience stores. In Gunma Nepali staff help ageing proprietors of inns carry the futon. They are the labour greasing the wheels of Japans convenience, says Mr Takeuchi, a lawyer in Fukuoka, where one in every 55 workers is foreign, up from one in every 204 in 2009.

Japan may lack an immigration policy, but plenty come in by stealth. The number of foreign workers has trebled in a decade, albeit from a low base. Yet the system is rife with abuse, shown by the death this year of Wishma Sandamali, a 33-year-old Sri Lankan woman detained for overstaying her visa. The pandemic did not help: border controls left thousands stranded abroad. The government has hinted that it may allow low-skilled workers to stay permanently, but it has not taken up the cause of broader reform.

Local leaders express more openness to foreigners than the stereotype of Japan as a shimaguni (island nation) suggests. Its key to bring in people from outside the prefecture, including those from overseas, to bring in new perspectives, says Satake Norihisa, governor of Akita. People with different backgrounds make Tokyo only more attractive, says Ms Koike, its governor. If theyre sincere and good people, I have no concerns about them cominggive them land and let them live here, says Mr Itokazu, mayor of Yonaguni. It doesnt matter which country youre from, we are all descended from apes.

Forward-looking business leaders agree. This is the time to define a better immigration policy, says Mr Yanai, Fast Retailings founder. Attracting high-skilled workers is key to future competitiveness, says Niinami Takeshi, boss of Suntory, a drinks firm. Noda Seiko, from the LDPs liberal wing, says it is time to consider ending the idea of Japan as a country for Japanese people. The public is becoming more open to foreigners. Familiarity helps. Nearly 32m foreigners visited Japan in 2019, up from fewer than 7m a decade earlier.

Yet theres a limit to what local governments can do, laments Toyamas governor, Nitta Hachiro. Businesses must handle their own language training and social integration. Many foreigners are left without the support they need. The government leaves the doors wide open for foreigners, but refuses to position Japan as an immigration nation, says Hisamoto Kizo, Kobes mayor. Presented with a choice, voters may decide the risks of immigration outweigh the benefits. But a frank national discussion is long overdue.

This article appeared in the Special report section of the print edition under the headline "Letting them in"

Link:

Letting more migrants in by stealth - The Economist

Three New Democrat MPs are putting new pressure on party leader Jagmeet Singh througha petition calling on him to demand that the B.C. NDP government and Ottawa pull RCMP officers out ofWet'suwet'enterritory.

The petition, which has received more than 1,000 signatures, includes an expression of support for a statement by Young New Democrats of Quebec thaturges Singh and the deputy leader,Alexandre Boulerice, to call on their B.C.counterparts and the federal Liberal government toendthe RCMP's operations protecting the Coastal GasLink pipeline.

CBC reached out to the signatories. MP Leah Gazan did not respond.MPs Lori Idlout and Matthew Green declined to comment, but publicly voiced support on social media.

"I join @LoriIdlout, @LeahGazan and all the undersigned in publicly denouncing the violence enacted against members of Wet'suwet'en First Nation by the RCMP, and call on the B.C. NDP provincial gov and Liberal federal gov to immediately withdraw the RCMP from Wet'suwet'en territory," Green tweeted.

The move places Singh in a difficult position jammed between the wishes of many NDP membersand his political need to avoid criticizingthe only NDP government in the country.

In November, the RCMP arrested at least 29 people, including a Wet'suwet'en hereditary chief's daughter and two journalists, for breach of a B.C. Supreme Court injunction preventing any obstruction of work on the Coastal GasLink pipeline.

The $6.6 billion pipeline is designed to carry natural gas, obtained by hydraulic fracturing also known as fracking in northeastern B.C., to a $40-billion LNG terminal on the province's North Coast for export to Asia.

The project has the support of 20 First Nation band governments, but not traditional governments under the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs' leadership.

The Wet'suwet'en First Nation's elected leadership issued a statement condemning protests against the pipeline.

In November, the RCMP used tactical teams, helicopters and canine units in a two-day operation on a forest road near Houston, B.C., about 1,000 km north of Vancouver. Itended with officers using a chainsaw and an axe to break into cabins and makearrests.

It was the third time the RCMPhad raided barricades on the same forest road in as many years. In 2020, the RCMP's actions sparked nationwide rail blockades and demonstrations.

On Wednesday, Singh once again denounced the RCMP's actions but stopped short of calling for the RCMP to leave and did not criticizeB.C. Premier John Horgan.

"It's clear that we have been very vocal about the use of force of the RCMP," Singh said in response to a reporter's question.

"We were critical of the RCMP and the use of force for a long time, the use of force of police in general. We've been very concerned about that. We're very vocal about that, and we've been calling for changes in this. [The] Liberal government has done nothing to make those changes happen."

The B.C. premier's office said Horgan wasn't available for comment but issued a statement saying that "elected officials in B.C. do not direct police operations."

Jay Woodruff, an NDP federal executive who signed the Wet'suwet'en statement, said Singh's comments to date on the matter have not been strong enough.

Woodruff is urging Singh to threaten to distance himself from the provincial party, if necessary.

"The B.C.NDP is acting against what the party stands for, what the membership stands for, and it must be called out," said Woodruff, who is the NDP disability co-chair.

"If they're unwilling to act in a manner that represents the NDP values, they shouldn't be able to use the NDP brand, resources and image because they are not currently upholding the values of the NDP."

Woodruff said the movement is a chance for the federal party to prove it stands behind its members.

"The situation has caused an identity crisis in the partyand members are banding together," Woodruff said.

"Unfortunately, it's creating a situation where members are leaving because the party is just acting so against what people stand for."

Other New Democrats who signed the petitioninclude Ontario NDP MLA Joel Harden, former NDP candidate and filmmaker Avi Lewis and former NDP MP Romeo Saganash.

The petition builds on a November statement issued by the Quebec youth wing of the NDP.

"We condemn in the strongest terms the militarized raid on the Gidimt'en Checkpoint and Coyote Camp by the RCMP on Wet'suwet'en territory, as authorized by Premier Horgan and the BC NDP government," said the statement.

The statement expressed "dismay and anger" with the federal NDP's position. It said Singh's past statements obscure "the oppressive role the RCMP and B.C. NDP are playing in perpetuating colonial violence."

See original here:

NDP MPs press Singh to call on B.C. government to pull RCMP out of Wet'suwet'en territory - CBC News

Julius Malema. Photo: Gallo Images

POLITICS

The ANC failed to get the Land Expropriation Without Compensation Bill passed into a law after it was rejected by the National Assembly on Tuesday.

The ANC tabled the bill but various political parties voted against it for different reasons. The EFF and ATM felt it did not go far enough in its provisions, while the DA and other parties felt it was unnecessary and would destroy the economy.

READ:When is a constitution unconstitutional?

The bill was intended to provide some clarity on land expropriation and how it would be enforced without infringing on the right to equality and being in line with section 25 of the Constitution (right to expropriation).

But the bill failed to obtain the support of the majority when 204 parliamentarians voted for it while 145 voted against it. It needed 267 votes to pass into law.

The EFF, which initiated the bill in 2018 but voted against it, said the current version was watered down and was not serious about transferring land to black people

EFF leader Julius Malema said when the EFF introduced the motion of land expropriation without compensation in 2018, it was clear about what needed to be done to correct the abnormalities in landholding created by colonialists and apartheid influence.

He argued that the bill in its current iteration was not good enough:

We wanted the state to be the sole owner of the land and the ANC rejected it.

He said the EFF was not going to support the proposed amendment because it was taking the country backwards. The ANC still wants to compensate for the land, he said.

Former ANC chief whip Mathole Motshekga reminded all South Africans that the principal object of establishing the ad hoc committee to amend section 25 of the Constitution was to eradicate the original sin in the best interests of all South Africans, not a certain a section thereof.

READ:Mondli Makhanya | Four fruitless, wasted years

He argued that it was important for South Africa and the world to be reminded of the nature of this original sin to aid its understanding of this inhumane crime against humanity.

As African people, we were violently dispossessed of the land and it natural resources by the Dutch and British settlers. The Dutch settlers who occupied the Cape believed in land expropriation and used Africans as their cheap labour. The British settlers who occupied the Cape in the 18th century abolished slavery and introduced liberal policies, which denied the Dutch settlers slave labour and limited their access to African men to cheap labour, said Motshekga.

He said the amendment bill sought to address this crime against African majority:

Those who are voting against the bill are the beneficiary of this crime against humanity and have the support of coalition of some Africans who do not know the history of this country.

He said those who are not supporting the bill are hoping that, through unholy coalitions in 2024, they will gain power and do what they like.

We are not worried about those who are not supporting the bill, but we are confident that with or without them the ANC is going to make the land available to people. Because without making the land available to the people, our challenges of unemployment and inequality will continue, he said.

READ:ANC deadlocks with other parties on land expropriation

Motshekga said those who voted against the bill are saying the suffering of African people, and black people in particular, should continue.

In arguing against the amendment of the bill, DA MP Annelie Lotriet said it was ironic that as the country is celebrating the 25th year of the adoption of the Constitution, Parliament is still debating the amendment to the Constitution that will have dire consequences for this country.

Is it necessary to amend section 25? Does it comply with the values enshrined in the Constitution? she asked. She argued that section 25 being substituted with a vague amendment was not in line with the Constitution.

Custodianship is included to win the support of people in rallies for populists. We must have a respect for property rights, which is in line with human rights. This will create uncertainty with property rights and will have adverse effect on investment. This is not what the country needs, she said.

news you need

Go here to see the original:

EFF blames ANC for failure to pass expropriation without compensation bill - News24

Fears are growing that the same rural communities left devastated by Storm Arwen will be abandoned by the government again as Storm Barra hits.

Strong winds, heavy rain and snow have hit parts of the UK on Wednesday as Storm Barra makes it impact, nearly two weeks following Storm Arwen.

The UK's first named winter storm of the season left some farmers in Scotland and Northern England with severe structural damage and loss of power.

It was an issue which led the Liberal Democrats to accuse the government of abandoning rural communities in these areas.

The Country Land and Business Association (CLA) echoed this today, saying the government had led a 'poor response' following the storm.

The group, which represents 28,000 rural businesses, said the government appeared to be "uninterested in helping rural communities devastated by Storm Arwen".

Hundreds of homes are still without power in small villages, with an enormous toll placed on businesses through damaged buildings and lost earnings.

Meanwhile, some farmers reported that the storm had destroyed as many as 1,000 trees on their land.

Whilst ministers have criticised energy companies, the CLA argued it was governments responsibility to lead the response.

It has called on the government to develop an Emergency Recovery Scheme similar to those created in the aftermath of other natural events such as flooding.

As a new storm hits rural communities for a second time in as many weeks, the scheme could help rural communities bounce back more quickly.

CLA President Mark Tufnell said: "People in these communities are legitimately asking where is the governments levelling up agenda.

"The impact on rural communities is every bit as severe as the South East suffered in 1987 but with only a fraction of the government support and public interest.

In an emergency of this scale, only ministers have the authority to mobilise support from government agencies and the private sector to get these communities back on their feet.

"But that doesnt appear to have happened. No COBR, no emergency response coordination, nothing," Mr Tufnell said.

Rural communities cannot be not forgotten about, yet again, in their time of need.

Read the rest here:

Storm Barra: Fears rural areas will be left abandoned again - FarmingUK

During party leaders' questions, which began at the plenary session of the House of Representatives on Dec. 8, the new leader of the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (CDP) Kenta Izumi certainly left the impression that his party was switching away from the confrontational line it had taken with the government and ruling parties in favor of policy proposals.

The CDP had often been criticized for simply opposing the government and ruling parties at all turns. We appreciate the efforts the CDP is making to grow out of that role, as a political party aspiring to government.

In contrast to previous CDP leader Yukio Edano, who used fierce words to slam the administration, Izumi's questions were dedicated to proposing coronavirus countermeasures and other policies. While pointing out the government and ruling parties' delays in implementing coronavirus countermeasures, Izumi made 17 proposals, including methods to distribute 100,000 yen (approx. $879) to children 18 and under, and border control methods to stem the spread of the omicron variant.

However, it cannot be denied that the reason the CDP's criticism of the government has become so muted is that much of what the opposition party and Prime Minister Fumio Kishida are aiming for, such as "a shift from neoliberalism," are similar.

Going forward, which side will be able to present specific visions of society and the state to the public? Only by vying to present its long-term vision, not just its solutions to immediate challenges, can the CDP become a true "policy-proposing" party.

During party leaders' questions, neither Izumi nor CDP Secretary-General Chinami Nishimura touched on a reinvestigation into the highly discounted sale of state-owned land to nationalist school operator Moritomo Gakuen under the administration of then Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, or former Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga's rejection of six nominees for the Science Council of Japan. This is incomprehensible.

These two problems, which could be called negative legacies of the Abe and Suga administrations, are major cases that threaten the very foundations of democracy, and have yet to be resolved. If Izumi and Nishimura failed to mention them because they were too concerned with the criticism that the CDP is merely contrarian, they have it utterly wrong.

There were already CDP supporters from before Izumi became party leader who were worried that with Izumi as chief, "questioning of the administration would become lukewarm," or that he would "cozy up to the ruling Liberal Democratic Party." But the CDP must not become lax in its scrutiny of the administration.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Kishida's answers to Izumi's questions were pretty much in line with previous government responses.

Even if the opposition tries to change, if the government and ruling parties remain the same, debate will not change. This is the first session of the Diet since the Oct. 31 general election. The prime minister, too, must shift from his conventional style of responding to questions.

Read this article:

Editorial: Japan's main opposition CDP has turned over new leaf, but it needs vision - The Mainichi - The Mainichi