Connect with us

News

Japan gears up for ‘wild west’ leadership race

Published

on

Japan gears up for ‘wild west’ leadership race

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

A record number of candidates are vying to become Japan’s next prime minister, as the country confronts rising prices, escalating tensions in the Pacific and uncertainties surrounding a possible second Donald Trump presidency in the US.

The contest for the leadership of the Liberal Democratic party — which has ruled Japan for all but a few years of the postwar period — followed incumbent Fumio Kishida’s decision last month to resign after three years as he battled low approval ratings and public dismay over the state of the economy.

The unusually wide-open race kicks off on Thursday with an unprecedented nine candidates and could crown Japan’s youngest-ever prime minister or its first female leader when it concludes on September 27.

Advertisement

The size of the field attests to upheaval within the ruling bloc, analysts said, as the LDP searches for a standard-bearer who can plausibly lead the party into a general election that must be called by the end of October 2025.

“This first round will be the wild west. There are candidates that are running who know they don’t have a shot,” said Tobias Harris, the founder of political risk advisory firm Japan Foresight. “It is also an election where people who have the strongest CVs do not necessarily advance.”

The candidates include the arch-conservative former economic security minister Sanae Takaichi who has cited Margaret Thatcher as a role model; former foreign minister Toshimitsu Motegi who has been dubbed “Japan’s Trump whisperer”; outspoken former defence and foreign minister Taro Kono, who began his current stint as digital minister by declaring a war on floppy discs; and Yoko Kamikawa, the current foreign minister who ordered 16 executions during her time as justice minister.

The early favourites, according to political analysts and media polls, are former defence minister Shigeru Ishiba and Shinjiro Koizumi, the 43-year-old son of one of Japan’s most charismatic but controversial leaders, Junichiro Koizumi, who pushed Post Office privatisation and other reforms in the early 2000s.

Sanae Takaichi, Japan’s economic security minister © Toru Hanai/Bloomberg

The frontrunners face significant resistance: Koizumi because of his inexperience, and Ishiba from political enemies he has accumulated over his long career and repeated attempts to secure the LDP leadership. Senior party figures said Koizumi’s youth could also prove an advantage, as the LDP’s elite saw greater opportunity to influence his administration.

Advertisement

Whoever succeeds Kishida will face a vexing economic backdrop. While Japan is exiting decades of low growth and deflation, price rises combined with a weaker yen have weighed on household finances, while the Bank of Japan’s introductory interest rates rises last month spurred a bout of extreme market volatility.

Tokyo has also taken on a more assertive security role in the Pacific, raising defence spending and deepening co-operation with the US and other regional allies such as South Korea in the face of more hostile Chinese conduct — tensions that could be further inflamed during a second Trump term.

The leadership contest will initially be decided by a combination of LDP parliamentarians and about 1mn rank-and-file party members. If no clear winner emerges, a second round of voting, only by MPs, will choose between the two leading candidates.

At the core of the race is public exhaustion after 12 years of LDP politics, including disappointment with the “Abenomics” reforms of the country’s longest-serving prime minister, Shinzo Abe, according to analysts.

While polls suggest that Japan’s main opposition party, the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, poses little electoral threat, people close to the LDP leadership said it was looking for a figure to reinvigorate the party as a force of energy and renewal. “Is there someone in the field who can make people forget their exhaustion with this government?” said Harris of the LDP’s thinking.

Advertisement

The contests will also be particularly unpredictable, political analysts said, because the party’s traditional selection mechanisms — factions controlled by influential supremos — are disintegrating in the wake of a political funding scandal.

The factions were officially disbanded under Kishida in an attempt to publicly atone for revelations of large slush funds. But in doing so the LDP eliminated an organisational force that previously winnowed the field of aspirants.

Without factions marshalling votes, ambitious candidates have been freer than at any time in the past to canvass for parliament members’ endorsements.

“The iron control of the factions is no longer there and so people within the party see this as their big chance,” said Jeff Kingston, a political scientist at Temple University. “Right now in the LDP, if you have ambitions and think you’ve earned it, you throw your hat in the ring.”

Yu Uchiyama, a political scientist at the University of Tokyo, noted that apart from divisions on issues such as the budget deficit or gender equality, none of the leading candidates had put forward a distinctive agenda or ideology, with a narrow range of positions on foreign policy and regional security.

Advertisement

Uchiyama added that the weakened factions were likely to be a temporary phenomenon. He predicted that a second round of voting by MPs would see clusters forming that resembled the old factions.

“Lots of times when the LDP declared the factions were gone, they revived,” said Uchiyama.

Others see the contest as a sign of malaise in Japanese politics as a result of the LDP’s dominant hold on the political landscape. 

“As always, the LDP leadership contest is a scam,” said Koichi Nakano, a political scientist and affiliate at the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University. “It is a pretence that Japan gets its leaders through a democratic process, but the reality is that leaders are chosen for the country through a very narrow and tightly controlled system.”

Advertisement

News

Trump claims US stockpiles mean wars can be fought ‘forever’; Kristi Noem testifies before Congress – US politics live

Published

on

Trump claims US stockpiles mean wars can be fought ‘forever’; Kristi Noem testifies before Congress – US politics live

Trump says US stockpiles mean “wars can be fought ‘forever’”

In a late night post on Truth Social, Donald Trump said that the US munitions stockpiles “at the medium and upper medium grade, never been higher or better”.

He added that the US has a “virtually unlimited supply of these weapons”, meaning that “wars can be fought ‘forever’”.

This comes after Trump said that the US-Israel war on Iran could go beyond the four-five weeks that the administration initially predicted. The president also did not rule out the possibility of US boots on the ground in Iran during an interview with the New York Post on Monday.

Advertisement

“I rebuilt the military in my first term, and continue to do so. The United States is stocked, and ready to WIN, BIG!!!,” he wrote.

Share

Key events

During his opening remarks, Senate judicicary committee chairman, Chuck Grassley, blamed Democrats for the ongoing shutdown Department of Homeland Security (DHS) but highlighted four agencies: the Secret Service, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and the Coast Guard.

Democrats are demanding tighter guardrails for federal immigration enforcement, but a sweeping tax bill signed into law last year conferred $75bn for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which means the agency is still functional amid the wider department shuttering.

Share
Continue Reading

News

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

The Supreme Court

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.    
  
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.  
  
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.  
  
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.   
 
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits. 
  
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices  summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.” 
 
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced. 
 
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor  said that  if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.” 

Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.  
  
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow.  Earlier last month  the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map.  California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.     
   
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district.  Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.    
     
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?    
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.   

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Published

on

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending