On the surface, Australia’s opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull won the endorsement of his party when he put his job on the line over his bipartisan support for the PM’s carbon trade plan. ‘Turnbull wins the day’, was the headline on the Sydney Morning Herald website.

But, dig a little deeper, and the picture is in fact quite bleak for the Liberal Party with around 12 months to go before a national election. Within hours of the vote the obituaries for Turnbull’s political career started to appear.

Two things arise from the leadership vote called by Turnbull as a
result of an internal Liberal Party revolt over climate policy.
First, the count itself. 48-35. This is hardly a vote of confidence in a leader. Second, who was it who managed to secure so many votes against Turnbull? A relative unknown in Kevin Andrews.

The Herald’s Mark Davis writes “the stark reality of today’s vote is that 35 Liberal MPs were so angry at Turnbull they stood ready today to install a plainly politically unviable candidate”. Peter Hartcher in the Herald writes the vote backfired on Turnbull, serving only to highlight an “extraordinary mood of angry, irresponsible recklessness” within the Liberals. He derides what has become an
“angry rabble”, a party out of control.

By the end of the Australian summer, pundits are predicting the
Liberals could have a new leader, the party’s third in three
years. That leaves precious little time to turn around a party that only a couple of years ago had dominated Australian politics for over a decade.

This week, Kevin Rudd celebrated his second year in office. It looks like only a miracle for the Liberals will prevent him from celebrating a second term in office next year. As Shaun Carney writes in the Age, Rudd’s good fortune is yet to run out.

They may be on first-name terms, but Barack's discussions with Yukio during his 24-hour stay in Tokyo have left unresolved a feud over a U.S. military base and deeper questions about the future.

They agreed to review the five decade-old U.S.-Japan alliance as both countries adapt to China's rising regional and global clout, and they agreed to resolve as soon as possible a dispute over the U.S. Marines Futenma airbase on Japan's southern island of Okinawa.

But President Obama and Prime Minister Hatoyama remain at odds over how to resolve the feud over Futenma - located in the middle of a city whose residents are sick of the noise and worried about the danger of accidents. 

Obama made clear he wants Tokyo to implement a 2006 deal under which Futenma would be closed and replaced with a facility on a less crowded part of the island. The agreement was part of a broader realignment of the 47,000 U.S. troops in Japan, including a shift of up to 8,000 Marines to the U.S. territory of Guam.

But Hatoyama said that comments during the August campaign that vaulted his party  to power had raised the hopes of Okinawa residents who want the base off the island.

High-level talks could begin as early as next week, reviving the headache the leaders played down at their summit before an APEC meeting in Singapore.

They can't let the base row drag on. The victory of an anti-base candidate in a local mayoral election in Okinawa in January would make it even harder to agree to implement the deal, even with some
changes.

Bowing to U.S. demands could cause a rift with two small coalition partners, upset some in Hatoyama's own party and alienate some voters ahead of an important upper house election in mid-2010.

But the bigger issue is the wider review of the alliance -- a process one newspaper compared to being in "the same bed with different dreams". Hatoyama and Obama want to complete the review before Japan hosts an Asia-Pacific summit a year from now.

Many experts say the alliance needs to be reframed to adjust to changing regional and global dynamics centred on China's rise. But it remains to be seen whether the two sides will approach the process the same way.

Hatoyama wants to broaden the alliance to include non-traditional security areas, but what future role he sees for the U.S. bases in Japan is not clear.

Hatoyama's party wants to steer a more independent diplomatic course but the paradox of Tokyo living in a nuclear neighbourhood but dependent on the U.S. nuclear umbrella means analysts see the relationship as inherently unequal.

Photo credits: REUTERS/Kim Kyung Hoon and REUTERS/Jason Reed

The Berlin Wall fell 20 years ago on Nov. 9, 1989. A team of Reuters correspondents and multimedia journalists from Berlin and London will be covering the major event in a completely new way — Berlin Wall 2.0. The team from The Berlin Project are joining forces with the Reuters text, pictures and TV correspondents in Berlin to present real-time coverage and impressions of everything going on in Germany’s reunited capital city.

You can also view the best of Reuters’ content on our Berlin Wall global coverage page, follow the team in Berlin on Facebook and get a behind the scenes look at Berlin 2.0 by visiting The Berlin Project. Please send us your thoughts and memories by commenting on the live blog below.

Click on the points on the map below to find out where in the city the Berlin Project team have been reporting from and to listen to their audio reports.

More from the Berlin Project

U.S. President Barack Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. The Norwegian Nobel Committee said Obama had been awarded the prize for his calls to reduce the world’s stockpiles of nuclear weapons and work towards restarting the stalled Middle East peace process.

The committee praised Obama for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

“Very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future.”

The laureate wins a gold medal, a diploma and 10 million Swedish crowns (1.4 million dollars or 878,000 pounds).

Obama was one of a record 205 nominees for this year’s prize and the decision has come as a surprise to many. Zimbabwe’s Prime Minister, Morgan Tsvangirai, had been tipped as one of the favourites.

Despite his ambitious international agenda, Obama is yet to make a significant breakthrough in the Middle East or effectively deal with the threat of Iran’s nuclear programme and his country is currently fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Has Obama done enough to justify winning the Nobel Peace Prize? If not, who do you think should have won?

Sunday’s federal election threw Germany’s Greens into a state of disarray — should they celebrate their best result ever or mourn the fact they failed to prevent a centre-right coalition and languished in fifth place?

“A Victory that is a Defeat”, “Triumph and Bitterness”, “Celebrations despite missing goal,” read newspaper headlines on Monday.

(Photo: Kuenast and Trittin, top candidates of the Greens party, arrive on stage after the general election, Sept 27, Reuters/Ralph Orlowski)

The Greens, one of the world’s most successful environmental parties, won more than a tenth of the vote — not bad for a party whose members entered parliament as revolutionary rebels in the 1980s flourishing potted plants and sporting woolly jumpers.

“We feel strengthened in our fight for ecological modernisation, social justice and civil rights by the best result we have ever had,” co-leader Juergen Trittin told hundreds of party faithful on Sunday evening at the Greens headquarters in Berlin.

But a German colleague who attended the event, Hans-Edzard Busemann, told me the ambiance was confused rather than euphoric, and faces fell when they saw the results for the first time.

No wonder. The Greens were hoping to be the third strongest party at the elections and kingmakers in governemnt coalition talks — a goal they missed by a long stretch, trailing behind their nemesis the pro-business Free Democrats (FDP) on 14.6 percent and the far-left Linke on 11.9 percent.

They campaigned hard to prevent a centre-right coalition of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives with the pro-business Free Democrats — and failed.

Such a coalition is likely to undo much of the work that the Greens, who emerged from the anti-nuclear and peace movememnts of the 1970s, carried out while ruling with the Social Democrats from 1998 to 2005.

For a start, it will probably rewrite a national nuclear phaseout deal by allowing reactors to run longer than the previously agreed 2020 deadline. (Click here to see a story that a colleague in Frankfurt, Vera Eckert, wrote about this earlier today)

It will also likely change or drop the generous feed-in law for renewable energies introduced by the Greens and SPD, a prospect which sent shares in highly subsidised solar firms such as Q-Cells and Solarworld sliding on Monday.

(Photo: Supporters of the Green party react after the first exit polls, Sept 27, Reuters/Ralph Orlowski)

And as if all that that weren’t enough, Greens co-leader Cem Oezdemir — the only member of an ethnic minority to have ever headed a German party — failed to win a seat a parliament despite securing 30 percent of the vote in his constituency in Stuttgart.

So despite their best election result ever, the Greens may not be able to avoid some soul-searching over the coming weeks and months.

Some political analysts argue very little has changed in their manifesto over the past four years and the party executive, with the exception of Oezdemir, is still the same. Will Sunday’s result prompt a Greens renewal?

Welcome to the live blog of the German election, a showdown between Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier (left) and Chancellor Angela Merkel (right). More than 50 Reuters correspondents, photographers and television crews in Berlin and across Germany will be tracking the story throughout the weekend.

And in this box you will be able to follow the latest twists and turns throughout the weekend. We’re using #germanelection as the hashtag if you want to follow us on Twitter.

Here is a glimpse of the Reuters office in Berlin that will be delivering the story to Germany and the world.

Getting pelted by eggs or tomatoes is an occupational hazard for most hardened politicians on the election trail.

But German Chancellor Angela Merkel, seeking re-election on Sunday, has been confronted with a new kind of protest during her final campaign rallies: flashmobs.

The mobs, groups of people summoned over the Internet to show up at a specific time and place to do something unusual, have materialised at several election events in the last week to wave flags and banners and heckle the unsuspecting Merkel.

Mostly, they have been chanting “Yeahhhh!” after every sentence she utters and the slogan is meant as an ironic expression of support.

It may not sound like the most damaging critique, but Merkel has cottoned on to the flashmobs and now even addresses them at the rallies as “My young friends from the Internet”.

So is this a new form of political protest or just a bit of fun?

Blogger Rene Walter, who writes for nerdcore, says there is a serious idea behind the light-hearted gatherings.

“We are not just going to swallow the election messages, we are spitting back the rubbish Merkel speaks in the ironic form of a “Yeahhh!”, he says in the Sueddeutsche Zeitung daily.

Many involved in the flashmobs support the Pirate Party, who are popular among young voters and oppose what they say is censorship of the Internet that has been brought in under Merkel’s government.

One thing is for sure. Flashmobs are injecting some much-needed spontaneity into the final days of a campaign which many voters think has been the most turgid in decades.

But are flashmobs here to stay? Could they become the political protest movement of the Internet age?

Visitors to Greece’s capital these days cannot escape the fact that a general election is on he way.  But it is not just the constant discussion on television and the excited newspaper headlines about a U.S.-style debate between front runners that lets you know.

Peppered across the city are political stalls, open for the public to come in and be persuaded to vote on Oct. 4 for whichever party is hosting them. The style ranges from a bench and chairs manned by two ageing communists in the northern suburbs to a rather slick structure in Athen’s central Syndagma Square touting the worth  of the ruling conservative New Democracy party. For some reason the latter was blaring out The Clash’s “Rocking the Casbah” on a recent sunny morning.

It is all very frothy and something of a celebration of democracy in the city which, after all, invented it.

Which is why a quieter, almost unnoticed gallery on the corner of Syndagma is offering something all the more poignant — a reminder that it was not that long ago that such expressions of democracy would be met with batons, water cannons and even tanks.

“Mikis Theodorakis: The Composer - The Politician - The Thinker” is a temporary exhibition funded by the Greek parliament to honour one of the country’s greatest living artists and an icon of left-wing resistance.

Best known to the world at large for composing the music for Michael Cacoyannis’ 1960s film “Zorba the Greek” — now almost a Greek anthem — Theodorakis has a huge and respected body of work covering some 60 years, from operas to song cycles, ballets and symphonies. Among his film themes are those for Sidney Lumet’s “Serpico” and Costa-Gavras’ “State of Siege”.

These are all celebrated with due reverence at the exhibition, including displays of many strangely ancient-looking  record album covers. But in the current political climate, it is the politics which catches the eye.

Various phases of Theodorakis’ life are highlighted — from wounded resitance fighter in the Second World War to internal exile in the Greek Civil War that raged until 1949. His music was banned and the composer himself arrested during the brutal military junta that ruled Greece from 1967 to 1974. But his escape to Paris in 1970 combined with his music and imposing presence to set him up as a voice for democracy’s return.

A particulary historic photograph for the period shows Theodorakis embracing Mercedes Sosa, the Argentine singer who had similar struggles with her own country’s junta. 

It is all puts “Rocking the Casbah” into context as Greeks ready themselves for a simple excercise in democracy.

(Photo: Jeremy Gaunt)

Having traded in their woolly sweaters, jeans and sandals for dapper suits and shiny shoes, Germany’s Greens are ready for business, claiming that to be the “party that truly knows its economics”.

The world’s most successful environmental party is eager to get back into power at the federal election on Sept. 27 after a first stint in coalition with the Social Democrats (SPD) from 1998 to 2005.

(Photo: Leaders of Germany’s Greens party address a news conference in Berlin, April 20, 2009, Reuters/Tobias Schwarz)

The Greens hope that by developing a plan for economic growth, rather than just focussing on the ecology, they will broaden their appeal for voters.

“We are the party that truly knows its economics,” said Renate Kuenast, one of the party’s leading politicians, at a campaign rally in Stuttgart. “We are the party which brings together economics and the environment, as the environment has so much to offer to the economy.”

The concept is a enticing one, but I spoke with a couple of political analysts who were sceptical about the Greens’ new tack. “The Greens have attempted to add new competences beyond ecology to their electoral program, notably social and economic policy,” said Gero Neugebauer, political scientist at Berlin’s Free University.

“But this is only theoretical because they haven’t been able to prove them anywhere.”

Still, recent flagship projects — such as a 400 billion euro plan by a consortium of finance and industrial firms mostly from Germany to power Europe with sunlight — have reduced the perception that Green ideas are at odds with business interests, or pie in the sky.

Moreover, the perception that the global economic crisis is the result of the pursuit of short-term profit could work in the Greens’ favour, as they campaign for more sustainable economic growth.

(Photo: Workers build a thermo-solar power plant in Beni Mathar, August 20, 2009, Reuters/Rafael Marchante)

“Green policies are the only way out of the crisis,” read campaign posters plastered on billboards throughout Germany, which is slowly emerging from its deepest post-war recession.

I had the chance to speak with Cem Oezdemir, the new face of the Greens, having a break by the bar before taking to the stage and holding a speech before hundreds of supporters.

“Environmental policies create jobs, they don’t threaten them,” said Oezdemir, looking trendy and business-like, with his trademark sideburns and dark, tailored suit.

In their election manifesto, the Greens have promised the creation of one million jobs including 400,000 in renewable energy and other areas of environmental protection such as ecological agriculture.

They say there is a need to foster economic sustainability and innovation rather than plough money into the auto sector, for example, which is churning out gas-guzzling cars that nobody wants.

 Ultimately though, developing environmentally friendly alternative technologies takes time. So, the question remains whether voters are willing to look beyond their short-term interests towards a more sustainable, Green future? And are Green policies truly compatible with business interests?

Strikingly different election campaign styles in Germany and Britain, especially parties’ contrasting use of the media, provide some intriguing insights into the political traditions of the two nations.

in Britain, the parties hold daily news conferences, broadcast live, where leaders attempt to set an agenda for the day — be it on health, tax or education — and then get grilled by the press corps.

In Germany there is no equivalent. In fact, there are not even regular weekly news conferences with conservative Chancellor Angela Merkel and her Social Democrat (SPD) rival Frank-Walter Steinmeier. 

Instead, they seek direct contact with voters by holding speeches in town squares and, especially in the southern state of Bavaria, beer tents.

The challengers are not interested in playing to the media because the election does not dominate the German headlines as much as it does in Britain.

One reason for the particularly strong contrast this year is the duo fighting the German election. Merkel and Steinmeier are shying away from personal attacks as they know they may have to share power again after the Sept. 27 vote.

And few dispute that either challenger competes with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair or opposition leader David Cameron – let alone U.S. President Barack Obama — on charisma.

Indeed, former SPD Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s media instincts — on display in the 2002 campaign when he waded through flooded areas in wellington boots — stood out because they were an exception.

But the differerences run deeper than individuals.

The national media plays a far bigger role for British politicians. Clinching the backing of The Sun tabloid was a pivotal moment for Blair before his 1997 landslide.

In this environment, pictures and soundbites become all-important for politicians to get their message across.

An enduring image of 2005’s UK election was when Blair bought his arch-rival Gordon Brown an ice cream in a show of unity designed to shake off rumours the two were not speaking.

In Germany, the regionally fragmented newspaper landscape means no single headline carries as much weight.

In addition, the overall relationship between politicians and media is very different.

Germany’s top politicians are never subjected to the aggressive, at times irreverent, probing British politicans get from BBC interviewers John Humphrys or Jeremy Paxman. 

Although German reporters do not stand up when Merkel enters the room, as their U.S. counterparts do for the President, there is a high degree of respect discernible among Berlin’s political hacks who tend to ask thoughtful, serious questions rather than try to catch out their subjects.

So what does this reflect?

Germany’s relatively short tradition of parliamentary democracy, compared to that of Britain, France and the United States, has — some commentators argue — nurtured a greater deference to authority than in Britain.

Germany adopted a political system after World War Two carefully designed to avoid the weaknesses of the Weimar Republic — a fragmented system that had enabled Hitler’s rise to power.

Today’s system makes for stable but moderate coalition governments which cannot implement radical reforms in the tradition of, say Britain’s Margaret Thatcher, say analysts.

A series of checks and balances and the distribution of power to the 16 federal states limit politicians in what they can do.

Some commentators argue an unforgiving British media does the job the country’s political system fails to do.

For example, it is almost unthinkable that a German reporter would pose the question: “Do you have blood on your hands?” as a British reporter asked Blair after the death of David Kelly, a government weapons expert who was found dead after being linked to a BBC report stating the government had exaggerated the case for going to war in Iraq.

The political setup suits Germans who these days prefer incremental change and predictable politicians to charismatic leaders with radical ideas, say political scientists, who argue the many merits of the German structure.

But are the benefits of the German system a recipe for a turgid election campaign?