Unsurprisingly The Australian did not publish my letter to the editor below defending Malcolm Turnbull.
Your editorial ‘Malcolm’s excellent adventure’ (The
Australian 6 June) contained the most extraordinary claims about the
Minister for Communications, namely that he has been something other than a
team player as Minister.
A fact used as evidence for the claim is the disloyalty to
conservatives displayed in launching Morry Schwartz’s The Saturday Paper. This
is the Minister who is proposing to weaken cross media ownership laws in a move
widely perceived to favour the interests of News Corp.
The Minister on launching the paper sought to make the case
that the current laws are not required to ensure diversity. This is the case he
needs to make if reform is to occur.
The Australian has long made the case that it
is entitled to be a conservative newspaper. So too are Schwartz’s stable of
publications entitled to be ‘left-wing’. The Australian has feasted on a
series of NBN stories largely provided by Mr Turnbull’s office
Mr Turnbull might add to his list. Why with friends like The
Australian do the Liberals need enemies.
The simple fact is that Mr Turnbull at least recognises the importance of diversity in news coverage, a diversity that is important to the operation of democracy. This piece in On Line Opinion captures the essential elements of that argument. However its conclusion is wrong - the media doesn't need to be "impartial" (which is not the same as accurate or even objective) so long as it is sufficiently diverse in the range of partiality represented.
I have also previously commented that the actual influence of the Murdoch press is probably over-rated. The difficulty is that it is Mr Murdoch himself that wants us all to believe how influential he is.
So on this day as Mr Abbott has dined with the person I think the PM has called Australia's greatest businessman (who has chosen to live in what Mr Abbott calls the world's greatest country) let us hop that the conversation might have been two way. Let us hope that Mr Abbott explained that any change to cross media ownership laws has to be based on preservation of diversity rather than Mr Abbott just turned up to take orders.
Showing posts with label Abbott. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abbott. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Wednesday, December 07, 2011
Weird comments
I just moderated a weird comment on a post about the University of Sydney rebranding.
The comment made reference to a supposed "secret society" called the "Integralia." Further research has thrown up a short item in Honi Soit that provides good evidence that the existence of the society is an organised hoax.
The hoax is centred on its own wikispace and seems to be actively centred on a campaign to dis-empower the (already powereless) SRC.
I guess it is just Tony Abbott in the age of the Internet.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
The comment made reference to a supposed "secret society" called the "Integralia." Further research has thrown up a short item in Honi Soit that provides good evidence that the existence of the society is an organised hoax.
The hoax is centred on its own wikispace and seems to be actively centred on a campaign to dis-empower the (already powereless) SRC.
I guess it is just Tony Abbott in the age of the Internet.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Monday, October 31, 2011
NBN Confusion
The coalition doesn't like the NBN - we know that. Malcolm Turnbull, Paul Fletcher and Barnaby Joyce go on about it.
But coalition backbenchers don't like the NBN - because residents don't know when they are getting it. Government backbenchers have also been known to complain about the inadequate roll-out schedule.
The public in general really wonders if the coalition can "stop the NBN." There is no evidence Telstra would have an appetite for negotiating a different deal. There is no evidence a structurally separated copper business could raise any capital in private markets for an FTTN upgrade.
But more significantly, like climate change, everyone wonders whether the coalition could get any enabling legislation through.
The biggest difference between Paul Keating winning the 1993 election against Fightback and Beazley losing the 98 election against the GST was that Keating promised to support ANY Fightback legislation if he lost. Beazley promised to oppose the GST. The people voted strategically in 98 to keep Howard and against the GST - which worked until Meg Lees ratted.
The ALP should go to the next election saying it will oppose legislation to change the carbon tax, because the coalition doesn't believe in any action. They should however say they will support any change the coalition wants to make on broadband policy because Mr Abbott and Mr Turnbull claim to be supportive of the intent.
That would make the issue of cancelling the NBN very very real for many people....maybe enough to make a difference.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
But coalition backbenchers don't like the NBN - because residents don't know when they are getting it. Government backbenchers have also been known to complain about the inadequate roll-out schedule.
The public in general really wonders if the coalition can "stop the NBN." There is no evidence Telstra would have an appetite for negotiating a different deal. There is no evidence a structurally separated copper business could raise any capital in private markets for an FTTN upgrade.
But more significantly, like climate change, everyone wonders whether the coalition could get any enabling legislation through.
The biggest difference between Paul Keating winning the 1993 election against Fightback and Beazley losing the 98 election against the GST was that Keating promised to support ANY Fightback legislation if he lost. Beazley promised to oppose the GST. The people voted strategically in 98 to keep Howard and against the GST - which worked until Meg Lees ratted.
The ALP should go to the next election saying it will oppose legislation to change the carbon tax, because the coalition doesn't believe in any action. They should however say they will support any change the coalition wants to make on broadband policy because Mr Abbott and Mr Turnbull claim to be supportive of the intent.
That would make the issue of cancelling the NBN very very real for many people....maybe enough to make a difference.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Tuesday, October 04, 2011
On Tony Abbott
Chris Wallace in her excellent BreakfastPolitics today titled Gerard Henderson's column about attacks on Tony Abbott's catholicism as In which I flay Mitchell & wrist tap Costello for sectarianism.
The core of the piece was a critique of Susan Mitchell's book Tony Abbott: A Man's Man. In passing he throws a soft punch at Peter Costello for his column accusing Abbott of being more DLP than Liberal.
The core of Henderson's complaint is one he frequently returns to - that attacks on Abbott are thinly veiled sectarianism and that in reality they are attacks on the Catholic Church.
Costello's piece is unfairly tagged in this way - it really was - as I wrote elsewhere a piece trying to depict Abbott as a collectivist rather than as a Catholic, though some unwise words late in the piece did create the opening for the Henderson critique.
Mitchells's book, however, deserves to be considered more widely than Henderson has done. Firstly, I doubt whether Mitchell is "sectarian" as this would imply an attack from a protestant as opposed to an irreligious position.
At the core the Mitchell thesis is that all the mentors in Abbott's life have come from a paternalistic, misogynist mindset. The fact that these key influencers have mostly come from a particular strand of conservative Catholicism has been allowed to distract from that core message. Tony Abbott is the destructive pugalist that she describes - and that is the message that the progressive side of politics needs to understand.
That such a view is not identical to Catholicism is best identified by reading Kristina Keneally's explanation in Eureka Street of why she supports gay marriage. In Twitter conversation she was asked to explain how she reconciled her feminism with her Catholicism, to which she replied she couldn't do it in 140 characters but would consider it for another Eureka Street post.
Mitchell is also wrong to think that merely exposing the paternalist side of Abbott will lead to success. As George Lakoff outlines in Moral Politics the paternalist mindset is how conservatives "think". They appeal to a model of society which combines libertarian values with a strong directive central figure to punish wrong-doers. This actually has wide appeal because everyone thinks the central power is directed at someone else - and the fact that gats, the unemployed, ethnic minorities, even big business can all get at different times "targeted" the overwhelming message is of the big strong leader defending the individual from "the others".
Mitchell provides an interesting example in her quote of Winston Churchill "The women's suffrage movement is only the small edge of the wedge; if we allow women to vote it will mean the loss of social structure and the rise of every liberal cause under the sun. Women are well represented by their fathers, brothers and husbands."
She is also wrong to raise a fear that Abbott's Catholicism creates a fear of a risk to the separation of the Church and the State. While that doctrine was in the English tradition principally founded in the long term settlement of the issue that bedevilled the British Monarchy in Tudor and Stuart times, there is little real risk that Abbott sees any role for the re-establishment of the arbitrary rule by God appointed monarchs or bishops.
There is, however, reason to be concerned about the ongoing "appeasement" movement by all politicians that continues to create roles for religious sponsored charities. But part of the response needs to be for more secular charities.
My proposition is that Mitchell is right in her assessment of Abbott and the influences upon him, but is wrong to describe it as merely Catholicism.
What more do we know of Abbott?
Today he outlined what Wallace called "My (very short) plan for economic happiness." It rested on six planks;
The best way to have lower taxes and better services is to build a more productive economy.
Here's the Coalition's six point plan: first, encourage more people into the workforce; second, make public institutions more effective and responsive; third, cut red tape; fourth, improve competition rules; fifth, get greater value from infrastructure spending; and sixth, reform workplace relations to encourage higher pay for better work.
The first point about workforce participation is explained as a mix of more women through paid parental leave and more programs to get people off welfare. The reform of "public institutions" is described as "community-controlled" schools and hospitals.
Nothing is said about points three, four and five. The "cutting red tape" has become a mantra about de-regulation that no one really knows what it means. There is no explanation of improving competition rules, but it looks like a bit of an appeal to the "get Coles and Woolies" faction.
Finally he is making an appeal on workplace reform that others thought had escaped him - not that I can see how any part of the Fair Work Act makes it harder to reward employees with higher pay for greater productivity. (These AIG surveys of business attitudes are notoriously bad methodologies).
So we have what looks like a plan - but isn't. It looks like the big strong directive Government that will "bash up" the others - welfare recipients, bureaucrats, public institutions, big business, and unions.
Mitchell's other big claim about Tony Abbott is that he is really still exactly the same person he was as a schoolboy and a University student. As I've previously noted the young Tony Abbott and I were involved in student politics at the same time. Long story but I was the Vice-President when he was the President of the Sydney University SRC in 1979. As an interesting aside the Hon sec Treasurer who went on to be the next SRC President was Paul Brereton - now both a Major-General in the Reserve and a Supreme Court judge. (Since the time of writing Paul has retired from the Defence force and following a nice e-mail from the CRESD Webmaster I have removed the link that used to be at the underlined section. DH 14 Sept 2014) In his latter capacity he is currently hearing both the Rinehart and Pratt cases.
Note: I have also previously noted the reference to my Aunt in an earlier Mitchell book. I didn't point out that we thought it a bit rough that Mitchell described her as being a bit more free because her mother was dying of cancer.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
The core of the piece was a critique of Susan Mitchell's book Tony Abbott: A Man's Man. In passing he throws a soft punch at Peter Costello for his column accusing Abbott of being more DLP than Liberal.
The core of Henderson's complaint is one he frequently returns to - that attacks on Abbott are thinly veiled sectarianism and that in reality they are attacks on the Catholic Church.
Costello's piece is unfairly tagged in this way - it really was - as I wrote elsewhere a piece trying to depict Abbott as a collectivist rather than as a Catholic, though some unwise words late in the piece did create the opening for the Henderson critique.
Mitchells's book, however, deserves to be considered more widely than Henderson has done. Firstly, I doubt whether Mitchell is "sectarian" as this would imply an attack from a protestant as opposed to an irreligious position.
At the core the Mitchell thesis is that all the mentors in Abbott's life have come from a paternalistic, misogynist mindset. The fact that these key influencers have mostly come from a particular strand of conservative Catholicism has been allowed to distract from that core message. Tony Abbott is the destructive pugalist that she describes - and that is the message that the progressive side of politics needs to understand.
That such a view is not identical to Catholicism is best identified by reading Kristina Keneally's explanation in Eureka Street of why she supports gay marriage. In Twitter conversation she was asked to explain how she reconciled her feminism with her Catholicism, to which she replied she couldn't do it in 140 characters but would consider it for another Eureka Street post.
Mitchell is also wrong to think that merely exposing the paternalist side of Abbott will lead to success. As George Lakoff outlines in Moral Politics the paternalist mindset is how conservatives "think". They appeal to a model of society which combines libertarian values with a strong directive central figure to punish wrong-doers. This actually has wide appeal because everyone thinks the central power is directed at someone else - and the fact that gats, the unemployed, ethnic minorities, even big business can all get at different times "targeted" the overwhelming message is of the big strong leader defending the individual from "the others".
Mitchell provides an interesting example in her quote of Winston Churchill "The women's suffrage movement is only the small edge of the wedge; if we allow women to vote it will mean the loss of social structure and the rise of every liberal cause under the sun. Women are well represented by their fathers, brothers and husbands."
She is also wrong to raise a fear that Abbott's Catholicism creates a fear of a risk to the separation of the Church and the State. While that doctrine was in the English tradition principally founded in the long term settlement of the issue that bedevilled the British Monarchy in Tudor and Stuart times, there is little real risk that Abbott sees any role for the re-establishment of the arbitrary rule by God appointed monarchs or bishops.
There is, however, reason to be concerned about the ongoing "appeasement" movement by all politicians that continues to create roles for religious sponsored charities. But part of the response needs to be for more secular charities.
My proposition is that Mitchell is right in her assessment of Abbott and the influences upon him, but is wrong to describe it as merely Catholicism.
What more do we know of Abbott?
Today he outlined what Wallace called "My (very short) plan for economic happiness." It rested on six planks;
The best way to have lower taxes and better services is to build a more productive economy.
Here's the Coalition's six point plan: first, encourage more people into the workforce; second, make public institutions more effective and responsive; third, cut red tape; fourth, improve competition rules; fifth, get greater value from infrastructure spending; and sixth, reform workplace relations to encourage higher pay for better work.
The first point about workforce participation is explained as a mix of more women through paid parental leave and more programs to get people off welfare. The reform of "public institutions" is described as "community-controlled" schools and hospitals.
Nothing is said about points three, four and five. The "cutting red tape" has become a mantra about de-regulation that no one really knows what it means. There is no explanation of improving competition rules, but it looks like a bit of an appeal to the "get Coles and Woolies" faction.
Finally he is making an appeal on workplace reform that others thought had escaped him - not that I can see how any part of the Fair Work Act makes it harder to reward employees with higher pay for greater productivity. (These AIG surveys of business attitudes are notoriously bad methodologies).
So we have what looks like a plan - but isn't. It looks like the big strong directive Government that will "bash up" the others - welfare recipients, bureaucrats, public institutions, big business, and unions.
Mitchell's other big claim about Tony Abbott is that he is really still exactly the same person he was as a schoolboy and a University student. As I've previously noted the young Tony Abbott and I were involved in student politics at the same time. Long story but I was the Vice-President when he was the President of the Sydney University SRC in 1979. As an interesting aside the Hon sec Treasurer who went on to be the next SRC President was Paul Brereton - now both a Major-General in the Reserve and a Supreme Court judge. (Since the time of writing Paul has retired from the Defence force and following a nice e-mail from the CRESD Webmaster I have removed the link that used to be at the underlined section. DH 14 Sept 2014) In his latter capacity he is currently hearing both the Rinehart and Pratt cases.
Note: I have also previously noted the reference to my Aunt in an earlier Mitchell book. I didn't point out that we thought it a bit rough that Mitchell described her as being a bit more free because her mother was dying of cancer.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Friday, September 23, 2011
The ALP does listen to me
Great little video on Tony Abbott by the ALP
However, I take the credit. I blogged the idea on 22 August! (And the clip includes a news item dated 28 August).
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
However, I take the credit. I blogged the idea on 22 August! (And the clip includes a news item dated 28 August).
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Monday, August 29, 2011
Unions and the ALP, and the integrity of politicians - updated
There is an old adage that one should learn from one's mistakes.
The ALP, Federally and in NSW, needs to take the opportunity to do so. The nonsense about Craig Thomson and his credit card is now simply ludicrous.
I hope everyone realises that an employee misusing their employers credit card isn't normally a criminal offence. It is normally a civil matter that would involve dismissal and recompense. We still don't know what the expenditure on Craig Thomson's credit card was, it may have been legitimate "entertainment expenses" of other people. But even if it isn't legitimate the misuse isn't necessarily "criminal". There may be other bits I'm not aware of like the question of falsely swearing statements or some specific rules governing unions.
The Australian today withdrew a story filed by Glenn Milne that was grubby in the extreme. The story itself was triggered by a post on Andrew Bolt's blog in which some old well known matters are rehashed and dressed up as a "smoking gun" for the PM while wrapped up in suggestions that no suggestion of impropriety is being made. (see note).
The issue here is the damage being done to Labor by association with Unions that have become hot beds of intrigue, if not outright corruption. It is extraordinary for Milne to claim as he does that an outbreak of Union thuggery (the shovel incident) is evidence that the unions have given up on the Gillard government.
This is to ascribe to the unions a monolithic existence akin to descriptions of "the Left" or "The Right" used to join everyone associated with it into a single stance.
Bolt in his column on Saturday also referred to the theme of "cover-up". In it he also tried to harrangue the ALP for raising Senator Fisher's problems with the law. Tony Abbott has now defended the Senator because she has "serious mental health issues".
Both Abbott and Bolt miss the point of the PMs statement - which was that the standard in Australia is innocent until proven guilty. Accusations are not a reason to resign. Indeed the constitution is very clear, even guilt and imprisonment for less than a year is not a reason to resign.
The ALP is probably right not to ask Thomson to resign from the party. It wouldn't achieve much now.
And while there is some surprise that the PM is pursuing the role of a Parliamentary Integrity Commissioner the reality is that if such a position existed Mr Thomson's position would be likely to be more not less secure. The allegations have nothing to do with his integrity as an MP.
There has been a great history in the labour movement in general of concern about control from the outside. The party in the 20s and 30s struggled between communist influence and "tammany" - that is the exercise of power for the benefits it can deliver. The concern crystallised in the 40s with concerted efforts to reduce communist control in unions. But these efforts themselves became controlled from outside (by the Catholic Church based Movement).
It is time the ALP finally broke free from its industrial base and instead proudly exclaimed itself to be a democratic socialist party. In doing so it can distance itself from the grubby conduct that befalls it all too often.
Note: Mark Antony's famous soliloquy"I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him." is a classic speech in which the audience is meant to "decode" that when the speaker uses a negative it is indeed a hidden way of saying the positive.
News reports of the variety "It has been reported that John Smith brutally beat his wife. No accusation is being made that Mr Smith acted in any way other than as a caring and loving husband concerned for his life partner's well-being." clearly are designed for us to believe the first part. Why else would they be published?
Update: For a good explanation on the legal issues on Thomson and Parliament see this column by George Williams.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
The ALP, Federally and in NSW, needs to take the opportunity to do so. The nonsense about Craig Thomson and his credit card is now simply ludicrous.
I hope everyone realises that an employee misusing their employers credit card isn't normally a criminal offence. It is normally a civil matter that would involve dismissal and recompense. We still don't know what the expenditure on Craig Thomson's credit card was, it may have been legitimate "entertainment expenses" of other people. But even if it isn't legitimate the misuse isn't necessarily "criminal". There may be other bits I'm not aware of like the question of falsely swearing statements or some specific rules governing unions.
The Australian today withdrew a story filed by Glenn Milne that was grubby in the extreme. The story itself was triggered by a post on Andrew Bolt's blog in which some old well known matters are rehashed and dressed up as a "smoking gun" for the PM while wrapped up in suggestions that no suggestion of impropriety is being made. (see note).
The issue here is the damage being done to Labor by association with Unions that have become hot beds of intrigue, if not outright corruption. It is extraordinary for Milne to claim as he does that an outbreak of Union thuggery (the shovel incident) is evidence that the unions have given up on the Gillard government.
This is to ascribe to the unions a monolithic existence akin to descriptions of "the Left" or "The Right" used to join everyone associated with it into a single stance.
Bolt in his column on Saturday also referred to the theme of "cover-up". In it he also tried to harrangue the ALP for raising Senator Fisher's problems with the law. Tony Abbott has now defended the Senator because she has "serious mental health issues".
Both Abbott and Bolt miss the point of the PMs statement - which was that the standard in Australia is innocent until proven guilty. Accusations are not a reason to resign. Indeed the constitution is very clear, even guilt and imprisonment for less than a year is not a reason to resign.
The ALP is probably right not to ask Thomson to resign from the party. It wouldn't achieve much now.
And while there is some surprise that the PM is pursuing the role of a Parliamentary Integrity Commissioner the reality is that if such a position existed Mr Thomson's position would be likely to be more not less secure. The allegations have nothing to do with his integrity as an MP.
There has been a great history in the labour movement in general of concern about control from the outside. The party in the 20s and 30s struggled between communist influence and "tammany" - that is the exercise of power for the benefits it can deliver. The concern crystallised in the 40s with concerted efforts to reduce communist control in unions. But these efforts themselves became controlled from outside (by the Catholic Church based Movement).
It is time the ALP finally broke free from its industrial base and instead proudly exclaimed itself to be a democratic socialist party. In doing so it can distance itself from the grubby conduct that befalls it all too often.
Note: Mark Antony's famous soliloquy"I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him." is a classic speech in which the audience is meant to "decode" that when the speaker uses a negative it is indeed a hidden way of saying the positive.
News reports of the variety "It has been reported that John Smith brutally beat his wife. No accusation is being made that Mr Smith acted in any way other than as a caring and loving husband concerned for his life partner's well-being." clearly are designed for us to believe the first part. Why else would they be published?
Update: For a good explanation on the legal issues on Thomson and Parliament see this column by George Williams.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Alan Jones and that rally - updated again
Jacqueline Maley has written in this morning's SMH about her experience with Alan Jones at the poorly attended rally yesterday. (They have also put up video).
He took objection to the question of whether he was being "paid" to appear. The question was perhaps a little naive - largely because Jones himself is a brand. To not appear - to leave the rally bizz to his competitors at 2UE - really isn't an option.
Jones response to David Lipson has also been reported today. This was over the now infamous "two kilometres of trucks" comment. A bit like the now incredibly famous "of all the carbon dioxide Australians are producing .000018 of a per cent." Jones when he has his errors explained to him does not know how to react.
"Grown ups" know how to acknowledge they are wrong, to make a correction and move on. Serious people go as far as Lord Keynes and note that when the facts change they change their minds.
But not Alan Jones. His brand is built in part on his infallibility - that every pronouncement is right, that every person he decides to befriend is a saint ("We pick and stick" he says, as if this were a rugby team selection).
The real horror is that he is teaching Tony Abbott this "demagogue-ary." Abbott knows there is no way for a double dissolution to be called, and that there is no basis for the GG to dissolve the House of Reps alone. Yet he bays to the crowd in his best Jones impersonation that which the mob wish to hear.
As someone tweeted yesterday - they hope the NSW and/or ACT police pursue Jones for the claim about the trucks stopped at the border.
Update - Crikey's Power Index has noted the two stories above but has added responses by Hadley and Jones this morning.
Hadley seems to think 200 trucks is more important than a revolution in Libya. Jones repeats his assertions about underhand police acts - but changes the story. Meanwhile he seems to be unsure of exactly what he thinks people are complaining about. In yesterday's video footage he was talking of rural suicides - many of which were drought related. Today it was citrus farmers and propositions that the Government should buy Australian crops and give them as food aid in Africa. Economically irrational on every level - not least the cost of shipping waste to a drought. Ship water, ship concentrated nutrients - not oranges.
Updated again - listen to the audio. Two things worth commenting.
Jones can't distinguish between "the border" and the Parliamentary Circle. State Circle is not five kilometres long - and if there were trucks filling it both ways - where were they going to go when they got onto Parliamentary Circle? weird.
How can Jones know whether Maley was afraid or not - how can he criticise her for leaving in those circumstances?
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
He took objection to the question of whether he was being "paid" to appear. The question was perhaps a little naive - largely because Jones himself is a brand. To not appear - to leave the rally bizz to his competitors at 2UE - really isn't an option.
Jones response to David Lipson has also been reported today. This was over the now infamous "two kilometres of trucks" comment. A bit like the now incredibly famous "of all the carbon dioxide Australians are producing .000018 of a per cent." Jones when he has his errors explained to him does not know how to react.
"Grown ups" know how to acknowledge they are wrong, to make a correction and move on. Serious people go as far as Lord Keynes and note that when the facts change they change their minds.
But not Alan Jones. His brand is built in part on his infallibility - that every pronouncement is right, that every person he decides to befriend is a saint ("We pick and stick" he says, as if this were a rugby team selection).
The real horror is that he is teaching Tony Abbott this "demagogue-ary." Abbott knows there is no way for a double dissolution to be called, and that there is no basis for the GG to dissolve the House of Reps alone. Yet he bays to the crowd in his best Jones impersonation that which the mob wish to hear.
As someone tweeted yesterday - they hope the NSW and/or ACT police pursue Jones for the claim about the trucks stopped at the border.
Update - Crikey's Power Index has noted the two stories above but has added responses by Hadley and Jones this morning.
Hadley seems to think 200 trucks is more important than a revolution in Libya. Jones repeats his assertions about underhand police acts - but changes the story. Meanwhile he seems to be unsure of exactly what he thinks people are complaining about. In yesterday's video footage he was talking of rural suicides - many of which were drought related. Today it was citrus farmers and propositions that the Government should buy Australian crops and give them as food aid in Africa. Economically irrational on every level - not least the cost of shipping waste to a drought. Ship water, ship concentrated nutrients - not oranges.
Updated again - listen to the audio. Two things worth commenting.
Jones can't distinguish between "the border" and the Parliamentary Circle. State Circle is not five kilometres long - and if there were trucks filling it both ways - where were they going to go when they got onto Parliamentary Circle? weird.
How can Jones know whether Maley was afraid or not - how can he criticise her for leaving in those circumstances?
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Monday, August 22, 2011
I mightn't like him, but sometimes I admire him
Tony Abbott is not someone I describe as likeable. Despite manifestly having a social conscience and the capacity for empathy, as an individual what is more frequently on show is the pugalist. The scrappy fighter with the Oxford Blue that makes exercise look like something from a Rocky movie is the image he mostly portrays.
It is this that is "admirable", because, just like his physical pursuits, it is something I could not achieve.
How he can stare into the cameras day after day running out his latest cute metaphor, how he can run the line repeatedly that a Government that has the world's praise for handling the GFC is "incompetent", and how he can hold contradictory simultaneous thoughts at the same time.
Perhaps most admirable is his recently found skill to look a goose by NOT answering questions because he knows that any answer he gives merely makes him look more of a goose.
The rant today was inspired by Mr Abbott's call for Craig Thomson to be removed as the chair the HoR economics committee, saying it was;
very hard for someone who can't answer questions about his own credit card to credibly ask questions of the governor of the Reserve Bank about the nation's credit card.
The statement suggests that Mr Abbott's own "credibility" is beyond question. And so perhaps we find the real mid-term campaign that the ALP should mount, on Mr Abbott's credibility not his policy.
This is a campaign that should not be run by press release or in Prime Ministerial statements - see my earlier blog post on referring to the coalition. But it should be run by the ALP secretariat.
It also shouldn't use much of their (depleted) resources by using real TV advertisments. It should use YouTube.
And the target should be Mr Abbott's credibility. You start (or end) EACH piece with the Tony Abbott statement about not believing what he says. Add to it John Howard talking about core and non-core promises.
You then run separate clips on Mr Abbott's inconsistencies. 1. Does he or does he not believe in climate change. 2. Run his current non-belief together with his direct action policy. 3. Repeat the Jones interview on coal seam gas and the non-answers.
It sounds terrible when I say it like this, but Mr Abbott can be turned into an object of derision for his own words, and satire needs to play no part in it.
And to repeat this should be a party secretariat campaign, the PM should act as if Mr Abbott is irrelevant.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
It is this that is "admirable", because, just like his physical pursuits, it is something I could not achieve.
How he can stare into the cameras day after day running out his latest cute metaphor, how he can run the line repeatedly that a Government that has the world's praise for handling the GFC is "incompetent", and how he can hold contradictory simultaneous thoughts at the same time.
Perhaps most admirable is his recently found skill to look a goose by NOT answering questions because he knows that any answer he gives merely makes him look more of a goose.
The rant today was inspired by Mr Abbott's call for Craig Thomson to be removed as the chair the HoR economics committee, saying it was;
very hard for someone who can't answer questions about his own credit card to credibly ask questions of the governor of the Reserve Bank about the nation's credit card.
The statement suggests that Mr Abbott's own "credibility" is beyond question. And so perhaps we find the real mid-term campaign that the ALP should mount, on Mr Abbott's credibility not his policy.
This is a campaign that should not be run by press release or in Prime Ministerial statements - see my earlier blog post on referring to the coalition. But it should be run by the ALP secretariat.
It also shouldn't use much of their (depleted) resources by using real TV advertisments. It should use YouTube.
And the target should be Mr Abbott's credibility. You start (or end) EACH piece with the Tony Abbott statement about not believing what he says. Add to it John Howard talking about core and non-core promises.
You then run separate clips on Mr Abbott's inconsistencies. 1. Does he or does he not believe in climate change. 2. Run his current non-belief together with his direct action policy. 3. Repeat the Jones interview on coal seam gas and the non-answers.
It sounds terrible when I say it like this, but Mr Abbott can be turned into an object of derision for his own words, and satire needs to play no part in it.
And to repeat this should be a party secretariat campaign, the PM should act as if Mr Abbott is irrelevant.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Friday, August 19, 2011
A rarity - a measured Ergas piece
A good column today by Henry Ergas. He does a very good job of explaining why the property right in real estate is not the unconstrained right that people sometimes think it is or should be.
I think I marginally disagree with him on the politics though of why the Federal and State Governments might take different views to "developers". Nice to see though the acknowledgement of the central role of Government in both defining rights and in managing interests where markets would be ineffective in managing rights.
All way too complicated for his primary target - Tony Abbott - to understand though. As a Syd U alumnus and Rhodes Scholar he clearly used to be an intelligent man .... but he seems to have stopped thinking somewhere along the line.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
I think I marginally disagree with him on the politics though of why the Federal and State Governments might take different views to "developers". Nice to see though the acknowledgement of the central role of Government in both defining rights and in managing interests where markets would be ineffective in managing rights.
All way too complicated for his primary target - Tony Abbott - to understand though. As a Syd U alumnus and Rhodes Scholar he clearly used to be an intelligent man .... but he seems to have stopped thinking somewhere along the line.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Monday, July 25, 2011
Turnbull and the ALP
It is an interesting observation that both of the last two leaders of the Liberal Party have been considered possible ALP recruits in the past.
Tony Abbott was certainly wooed in his student days by great NSW right winger Johnno Johnson. The fit would have appeared natural because Abbott's primary opponents in student politics of the 70s were real communists of various varieties. As such he was a natural ally of the former groupers who retained control of the ALP. (See note below).
The fact that he ended up in the Liberal party can be partly credited to the influence of the future Tanya Costello, though not by the mechanism that Bob Ellis claimed in Goodbye Jerusalem
- the "seduction" was entirely of an intellectual kind.
Malcolm Turnbull was also touted as a potential waverer, especially through his closeness to Paul Keating and his support of the Republic. In his case the presence of his father-in-law would have been a steady influence on his choice of the Liberal clan. But the facts remain that at every turn Malcolm has had to impose himself on the party, they have neber embraced him. This perhaps reflects the deeply anti-intellectual traditions of Australia's conservatives.
It is not unusual for individuals to be intent on politics but unsure of which path to pursue. It was always an accusation made by my parents (who knew the Whitlams at University) that Gough only went to the ALP after being unable to gain traction on the conservative side. While history records the progression otherwise, it is notable that Whitlam's commitment to the ALP was about modernising the constitution not any philosophical cause.
By the same token ALP history is replete with "rats" who broke with the ALP to side with their opponents - the most notable being Billy Hughes and Joseph Lyons.
None of this should be surprising given the way "public choice theory" argues that democratic politicians are really competing for the same median voters.
Today we see the suggestion that Turnbull is a threat to both Abbott and Gillard - posing the question of what support Turnbull would have as Labor leader. Given the fact the ALP has been attacked from the left by the Greens the party is increasingly a party of the social democratic middle. The Liberals are still highly fragmented, but Abbott is certainly a poster child for "do nothing" conservatism - a position which the more rabid right can accept.
The Gillard coalition looks fragile given the ongoing demands from Andrew Wilkie that Gillard has to use all her political capital to ensure the pokies legislation gets through.
It does raise the interesting question - what would Turnbull do if a deputation from the ALP factions - possibly including the PM herself - were to say "Malcolm, the most important policy challenge before us is getting to progress on climate change. You know and we know that if the Government stumbles, then Mr Abbott will become Prime Minister and climate change and all other good works are at an end. We invite you to change sides and to be Prime Minister ...."
Note: The SRC of which Tony Abbott was President (directly elected) had 21 members (by recollection) that were made up of seven members of the broad left, seven members from Abbott's conservative ranks and seven members of a much less co-ordinated middle. Members of that middle identified variously with the ALP, but included a zionist group that was motivated by opposition to the pro-Palastinian stance of the left.
I was elected Vice-President, Paul Brereton (now a Justice of the Supreme Court of NSW) was elected Honorary Secretary/Treasurer, Tanya Costello (nee Coleman) was elected as Education Officer. I would need to do more research to do justice to the full list.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Tony Abbott was certainly wooed in his student days by great NSW right winger Johnno Johnson. The fit would have appeared natural because Abbott's primary opponents in student politics of the 70s were real communists of various varieties. As such he was a natural ally of the former groupers who retained control of the ALP. (See note below).
The fact that he ended up in the Liberal party can be partly credited to the influence of the future Tanya Costello, though not by the mechanism that Bob Ellis claimed in Goodbye Jerusalem
- the "seduction" was entirely of an intellectual kind.Malcolm Turnbull was also touted as a potential waverer, especially through his closeness to Paul Keating and his support of the Republic. In his case the presence of his father-in-law would have been a steady influence on his choice of the Liberal clan. But the facts remain that at every turn Malcolm has had to impose himself on the party, they have neber embraced him. This perhaps reflects the deeply anti-intellectual traditions of Australia's conservatives.
It is not unusual for individuals to be intent on politics but unsure of which path to pursue. It was always an accusation made by my parents (who knew the Whitlams at University) that Gough only went to the ALP after being unable to gain traction on the conservative side. While history records the progression otherwise, it is notable that Whitlam's commitment to the ALP was about modernising the constitution not any philosophical cause.
By the same token ALP history is replete with "rats" who broke with the ALP to side with their opponents - the most notable being Billy Hughes and Joseph Lyons.
None of this should be surprising given the way "public choice theory" argues that democratic politicians are really competing for the same median voters.
Today we see the suggestion that Turnbull is a threat to both Abbott and Gillard - posing the question of what support Turnbull would have as Labor leader. Given the fact the ALP has been attacked from the left by the Greens the party is increasingly a party of the social democratic middle. The Liberals are still highly fragmented, but Abbott is certainly a poster child for "do nothing" conservatism - a position which the more rabid right can accept.
The Gillard coalition looks fragile given the ongoing demands from Andrew Wilkie that Gillard has to use all her political capital to ensure the pokies legislation gets through.
It does raise the interesting question - what would Turnbull do if a deputation from the ALP factions - possibly including the PM herself - were to say "Malcolm, the most important policy challenge before us is getting to progress on climate change. You know and we know that if the Government stumbles, then Mr Abbott will become Prime Minister and climate change and all other good works are at an end. We invite you to change sides and to be Prime Minister ...."
Note: The SRC of which Tony Abbott was President (directly elected) had 21 members (by recollection) that were made up of seven members of the broad left, seven members from Abbott's conservative ranks and seven members of a much less co-ordinated middle. Members of that middle identified variously with the ALP, but included a zionist group that was motivated by opposition to the pro-Palastinian stance of the left.
I was elected Vice-President, Paul Brereton (now a Justice of the Supreme Court of NSW) was elected Honorary Secretary/Treasurer, Tanya Costello (nee Coleman) was elected as Education Officer. I would need to do more research to do justice to the full list.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Friday, July 15, 2011
Direct versus representational democracy
BOF is conducting an inquiry into recall elections, the idea of which is that a sufficiently high demand - as measured by a petition - requires a government to call an election.
In NSW part of the motivation for this was the perceived problem of how long it took to get rid of the post-Iemms Labor Government. One could suggest that a reversion to three year terms might be a better start.
But it reminds one of the distinction between direct and representational democracy. Whether people understand it or not, the latter is what we have. You are meant to choose people you trust to represent you, who when faced with the need for change because of change facts, are likely to decide the same way you would.
Because this can't be perfect and because voters change and politicians change we have regular new elections.
That's why Julia Gillard has introduced a carbon tax not an ETS, despite the latter being her preference and position before the election. The position was not the one that garnered a majority.
Tony Abbott has been calling for a plebiscite or an election on the carbon tax. But that isn't how it works. We don't allow one parliament to bind another for exactly these circumstances - governments govern if they get the support of the parliament and we re-judge them at the next election.
He now is reported as saying that a vote for Abbott to repeal the tax will be a guarantee of two elections because he'll call a double dissolution if he has to to repeal it.
This gives the PM the opportunity to now lay out the position.
If Mr Abbott agrees to stop calling for an election now and recognises the way the parliamentary system works she will introduce the tax and, if passed, implement it from July 1. She will then be happy to campaign on the carbon tax once people have seen its effect. Further she will commit the ALP to supporting the coalition in a repeal of the tax if she loses the election. But all she asks is that people be given the chance to assess the tax on its real effects not the scare campaign.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
In NSW part of the motivation for this was the perceived problem of how long it took to get rid of the post-Iemms Labor Government. One could suggest that a reversion to three year terms might be a better start.
But it reminds one of the distinction between direct and representational democracy. Whether people understand it or not, the latter is what we have. You are meant to choose people you trust to represent you, who when faced with the need for change because of change facts, are likely to decide the same way you would.
Because this can't be perfect and because voters change and politicians change we have regular new elections.
That's why Julia Gillard has introduced a carbon tax not an ETS, despite the latter being her preference and position before the election. The position was not the one that garnered a majority.
Tony Abbott has been calling for a plebiscite or an election on the carbon tax. But that isn't how it works. We don't allow one parliament to bind another for exactly these circumstances - governments govern if they get the support of the parliament and we re-judge them at the next election.
He now is reported as saying that a vote for Abbott to repeal the tax will be a guarantee of two elections because he'll call a double dissolution if he has to to repeal it.
This gives the PM the opportunity to now lay out the position.
If Mr Abbott agrees to stop calling for an election now and recognises the way the parliamentary system works she will introduce the tax and, if passed, implement it from July 1. She will then be happy to campaign on the carbon tax once people have seen its effect. Further she will commit the ALP to supporting the coalition in a repeal of the tax if she loses the election. But all she asks is that people be given the chance to assess the tax on its real effects not the scare campaign.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
A grab-bag
Firstly from The Conversation one for the maths nerds. A simple description of the P vs NP problem which hinges on the question of difficulty...and is worth a read if you want to understand something of the limits of mathematics.
I could add at this point the fact that this problem is one that could be used by heterodox economists against mathematics - that once you make the economic model sufficiently detailed to be useful it becomes a "difficult" problem and it is easier to simply check the answers provided through verbal reasoning.
Alan Knight writing for the National Times echoes my conclusion that Sky News can't be allowed anywhere near the Australian Network.
Hawker Brittan's Justin di Lollo raises an important question about the regulation of lobbyists. Lobbyists are defined in regulation to exclude in-house lobbyists, other professions that might meet with government officials and representatives of industry associations.
The problem is that it is really hard to define who in a firm is actually a lobbyist, since we will send all kinds of managers into meetings with government.
Personally I think the law change in NSW proposed by Barry O'Farrell to exclude lobbyists as a class from appointment to Boards etc is the error. But on the more general question of transparency of lobbying activity the simplest thing would be to simply make the appointment schedules of Ministers, their staff and senior officials public. This could be limited to appointments and calls initiated by the external party so as not to hinder Government's ability to be informed.
The perhaps wackiest of the lot today is Tony Abbott's claim that the carbon tax won't pass the Parliament as ALP members will rat.
Ratting like that is permanent - not one off. These would be people casting their lot to bring down an ALP Government in the hope of retaining their seat. History has shown the electorate can be very unforgiving of the rat. So far the ALP has been solid in denying the story.
But as a problem the issue facing all MPs right now has a touch of the "P vs NP" problem. How difficult is it to respond to climate change in a way that is effective and can bring the public along? Gillard and co have taken the neo-classical approach of using the price mechanism, Abbott wants direct action...the centralist/statist approach.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
I could add at this point the fact that this problem is one that could be used by heterodox economists against mathematics - that once you make the economic model sufficiently detailed to be useful it becomes a "difficult" problem and it is easier to simply check the answers provided through verbal reasoning.
Alan Knight writing for the National Times echoes my conclusion that Sky News can't be allowed anywhere near the Australian Network.
Hawker Brittan's Justin di Lollo raises an important question about the regulation of lobbyists. Lobbyists are defined in regulation to exclude in-house lobbyists, other professions that might meet with government officials and representatives of industry associations.
The problem is that it is really hard to define who in a firm is actually a lobbyist, since we will send all kinds of managers into meetings with government.
Personally I think the law change in NSW proposed by Barry O'Farrell to exclude lobbyists as a class from appointment to Boards etc is the error. But on the more general question of transparency of lobbying activity the simplest thing would be to simply make the appointment schedules of Ministers, their staff and senior officials public. This could be limited to appointments and calls initiated by the external party so as not to hinder Government's ability to be informed.
The perhaps wackiest of the lot today is Tony Abbott's claim that the carbon tax won't pass the Parliament as ALP members will rat.
Ratting like that is permanent - not one off. These would be people casting their lot to bring down an ALP Government in the hope of retaining their seat. History has shown the electorate can be very unforgiving of the rat. So far the ALP has been solid in denying the story.
But as a problem the issue facing all MPs right now has a touch of the "P vs NP" problem. How difficult is it to respond to climate change in a way that is effective and can bring the public along? Gillard and co have taken the neo-classical approach of using the price mechanism, Abbott wants direct action...the centralist/statist approach.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Friday, June 03, 2011
Malcolm on the Digital Economy Strategy
Malcolm Turnbull is without doubt a skilled debater. One of the great tricks of debating is to define the territory of the debate.
In the case of his critique he does just this. He asserts that "Senator Conroy’s National Digital Economy Strategy is simply a thinly-veiled spruiking of the NBN."
He makes this assertion after carefully detailing how none of the individual objectives specified in the plan actually depend on a 100 Mbps connection to 93% of households. What he doesn't do though is demonstrate that the goals can be achieved with existing infrastructure.
The case need not be made for 100 Mbps, just for more than most people have today. That includes more than they have in upload and in download. The upload is the killer - because that's why thinks like two-way videoconferencing don't work. And saying that an application only needs 1.5 Mbps or 10 Mbps ignores the fact we want to enable MULTIPLE applications.
The question is then whether alternatives work. The FTTN strategy sucks because you still eventually have to do FTTP to get to 1 Gbps. And I don't have to make the case for higher future speed requirements - it is others who need to make the case for the exponential growth in demanded speed to stop.
Turnbull ran much of this in what delimiter called a "major speech in Parliament" yesterday. But the reality as tagged by the Member for Ballarat is that the "Matter of Public Importance" was shuffled into the last five minutes before the adjournment. It is unclear whether that was more because Mr Abbott has no interest in the topic or fears Mr Turnbull being given too much space to promote himself.
Turnbull has still not explained how he, as Minister, would have achieved a structurally separated industry. He now needs to add to this an explanation of how an FTTN network could have been constructed without handing control of the industry back to Telstra.
And finally can we get over his monstrous assertions that we are abandoning infrastructure based competition. We never had it. All the ADSL services are on Telstra's copper, Optus never opened its HFC to service providers, Optus stopped building HFC about 8 years ago.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
In the case of his critique he does just this. He asserts that "Senator Conroy’s National Digital Economy Strategy is simply a thinly-veiled spruiking of the NBN."
He makes this assertion after carefully detailing how none of the individual objectives specified in the plan actually depend on a 100 Mbps connection to 93% of households. What he doesn't do though is demonstrate that the goals can be achieved with existing infrastructure.
The case need not be made for 100 Mbps, just for more than most people have today. That includes more than they have in upload and in download. The upload is the killer - because that's why thinks like two-way videoconferencing don't work. And saying that an application only needs 1.5 Mbps or 10 Mbps ignores the fact we want to enable MULTIPLE applications.
The question is then whether alternatives work. The FTTN strategy sucks because you still eventually have to do FTTP to get to 1 Gbps. And I don't have to make the case for higher future speed requirements - it is others who need to make the case for the exponential growth in demanded speed to stop.
Turnbull ran much of this in what delimiter called a "major speech in Parliament" yesterday. But the reality as tagged by the Member for Ballarat is that the "Matter of Public Importance" was shuffled into the last five minutes before the adjournment. It is unclear whether that was more because Mr Abbott has no interest in the topic or fears Mr Turnbull being given too much space to promote himself.
Turnbull has still not explained how he, as Minister, would have achieved a structurally separated industry. He now needs to add to this an explanation of how an FTTN network could have been constructed without handing control of the industry back to Telstra.
And finally can we get over his monstrous assertions that we are abandoning infrastructure based competition. We never had it. All the ADSL services are on Telstra's copper, Optus never opened its HFC to service providers, Optus stopped building HFC about 8 years ago.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
Anyone seen a hole ....
This clip is not the best I've seen tonight of the verbal reprimand delivered by Senator Wong to Senator Bushby today.
But it catches a part of Bushby's response - he's the one beside Senator Brandis at the end who looks like he'd like the earth to open up and swallow him.
The only thing more stupid than Bushby was Tony Abbott who four hours later when asked about it could only repeat his silence. Looks like if he can't say "great big tax" Mr Abbott has nothing to say.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
But it catches a part of Bushby's response - he's the one beside Senator Brandis at the end who looks like he'd like the earth to open up and swallow him.
The only thing more stupid than Bushby was Tony Abbott who four hours later when asked about it could only repeat his silence. Looks like if he can't say "great big tax" Mr Abbott has nothing to say.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Julia Gillard doesn't follow my advice!
I'm channelling my inner shock jock here, and expressing my outrage that the Prime Minister simply just doesn't do as I tell her.
I advised her via this blog to stop giving airtime to the leader of the opposition, saying;
Stop referring to coalition spokespersons by name. at most use their titles. Mr Abbott is never Mr Abbott, he is the leader of the opposition, Joe Hockey is just the shadow treasurer. Using their titles will show up the absence of substance.
Also as far as possible try to refer to them as "the alternative government" or simply "coalition" rather than opposition or liberals. Don't feed their brand.
And above all just don't mention them if you can avoid it. When asked about the carbon tax explain it without trying to talk about other points of view. Talking about the coalition means ascribing to them a policy credibility that they don't have on their own.
Then at the launch of the NBN she goes and mentions him a zillion times.
Let's face it there are people out there who doubt the worth of the NBN. Don't feed Abbott by giving him the position of being the logical home. Acknowledge the concerns of those who might doubt the value, identify the value and move on.
Meanwhile her comments have largely overshadowed the good work the shadow Treasurer did in admitting that once there is a Telstra/NBN Co agreement there really isn't a viable alternative policy for the coalition. This perhaps reflects the reality that their coalition partners are probably telling them they have no hope in regional Australia without it.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
I advised her via this blog to stop giving airtime to the leader of the opposition, saying;
Stop referring to coalition spokespersons by name. at most use their titles. Mr Abbott is never Mr Abbott, he is the leader of the opposition, Joe Hockey is just the shadow treasurer. Using their titles will show up the absence of substance.
Also as far as possible try to refer to them as "the alternative government" or simply "coalition" rather than opposition or liberals. Don't feed their brand.
And above all just don't mention them if you can avoid it. When asked about the carbon tax explain it without trying to talk about other points of view. Talking about the coalition means ascribing to them a policy credibility that they don't have on their own.
Then at the launch of the NBN she goes and mentions him a zillion times.
Let's face it there are people out there who doubt the worth of the NBN. Don't feed Abbott by giving him the position of being the logical home. Acknowledge the concerns of those who might doubt the value, identify the value and move on.
Meanwhile her comments have largely overshadowed the good work the shadow Treasurer did in admitting that once there is a Telstra/NBN Co agreement there really isn't a viable alternative policy for the coalition. This perhaps reflects the reality that their coalition partners are probably telling them they have no hope in regional Australia without it.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Monday, May 16, 2011
A crazy suggestion for the Gillard Government
Phillip Corey in the SMH this morning reckons "If this government had a duck, it would drown."
He was commenting on yet more bad poll numbers for the Government and how even a good budget has been harshly treated (and hoe the Tele can on one day accuse the budget of not being tough enough and on the next day criticise the modest restraint of "middle-class welfare".)
But he really nails the Government's malaise when he writes;
The government's inability to sell its policies and defend itself, combined with muddling its messages, especially over asylum seekers, is compounding its woes. So is its infatuation with Abbott and his inconsistencies. Yes, Labor needs to put the acid on him more than a government usually would for an opposition leader because it is just a heartbeat from a byelection and a change of government - but there is a limit.
It is rare, if not non-existent, now for the Prime Minister or a minister to give an interview or a press conference and, without prompting, to start talking about Abbott. They appear intimidated. It is little wonder that Abbott feels he has only to reinforce the negatives.
Here is a suggestion for the ALP, much of which is straight out of the spin book they should understand.
Stop referring to coalition spokespersons by name. at most use their titles. Mr Abbott is never Mr Abbott, he is the leader of the opposition, Joe Hockey is just the shadow treasurer. Using their titles will show up the absence of substance.
Also as far as possible try to refer to them as "the alternative government" or simply "coalition" rather than opposition or liberals. Don't feed their brand.
And above all just don't mention them if you can avoid it. When asked about the carbon tax explain it without trying to talk about other points of view. Talking about the coalition means ascribing to them a policy credibility that they don't have on their own.
And on the way through find a really good media coach for Wayne Swan. he is having too many "John Kerin" moments. Ministers should accept that the public accepts they don't know everything. So when asked "when was the last time the ALP brought in a budget surplus" either say "I'm not focussed on the past, but on the present and the future. The Government took the budget into deficit to provide stimulus to the economy. As a consequence we have only 4.5% unemployment, not nearly 10% like the US and many other developed countries. The task now is to return to surplus and this budget outlines how we will achieve that."
There is almost no question a journalist can come up with that you can't have a response to. But the responses need to be a bit better than just parrotting the official "phrase of the day".
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
He was commenting on yet more bad poll numbers for the Government and how even a good budget has been harshly treated (and hoe the Tele can on one day accuse the budget of not being tough enough and on the next day criticise the modest restraint of "middle-class welfare".)
But he really nails the Government's malaise when he writes;
The government's inability to sell its policies and defend itself, combined with muddling its messages, especially over asylum seekers, is compounding its woes. So is its infatuation with Abbott and his inconsistencies. Yes, Labor needs to put the acid on him more than a government usually would for an opposition leader because it is just a heartbeat from a byelection and a change of government - but there is a limit.
It is rare, if not non-existent, now for the Prime Minister or a minister to give an interview or a press conference and, without prompting, to start talking about Abbott. They appear intimidated. It is little wonder that Abbott feels he has only to reinforce the negatives.
Here is a suggestion for the ALP, much of which is straight out of the spin book they should understand.
Stop referring to coalition spokespersons by name. at most use their titles. Mr Abbott is never Mr Abbott, he is the leader of the opposition, Joe Hockey is just the shadow treasurer. Using their titles will show up the absence of substance.
Also as far as possible try to refer to them as "the alternative government" or simply "coalition" rather than opposition or liberals. Don't feed their brand.
And above all just don't mention them if you can avoid it. When asked about the carbon tax explain it without trying to talk about other points of view. Talking about the coalition means ascribing to them a policy credibility that they don't have on their own.
And on the way through find a really good media coach for Wayne Swan. he is having too many "John Kerin" moments. Ministers should accept that the public accepts they don't know everything. So when asked "when was the last time the ALP brought in a budget surplus" either say "I'm not focussed on the past, but on the present and the future. The Government took the budget into deficit to provide stimulus to the economy. As a consequence we have only 4.5% unemployment, not nearly 10% like the US and many other developed countries. The task now is to return to surplus and this budget outlines how we will achieve that."
There is almost no question a journalist can come up with that you can't have a response to. But the responses need to be a bit better than just parrotting the official "phrase of the day".
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Friday, May 06, 2011
The Liberals
The confidence with which Dennis Shanahan assert in this morning's Oz that the coalition will stick with its current front bench team almost guarantees a spill in October.
More importantly, aren't we all heartily sick of "journalism" that reports politics as if it is about the politicians and not the policies? Do journalists have no responsibility for the fact that Abbott got to do his "mini campaign tour" while the PM was out of the country but still managed to say nothing?
In response to questions spilling from Joe Hockey's absurd claims about being able to balance the budget earlier than the ALP, Abbott again got away with the old - "there isn't an election in the offing so we don't have to tell you details" line.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
More importantly, aren't we all heartily sick of "journalism" that reports politics as if it is about the politicians and not the policies? Do journalists have no responsibility for the fact that Abbott got to do his "mini campaign tour" while the PM was out of the country but still managed to say nothing?
In response to questions spilling from Joe Hockey's absurd claims about being able to balance the budget earlier than the ALP, Abbott again got away with the old - "there isn't an election in the offing so we don't have to tell you details" line.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Politics, Economics and Climate Change
Following the idiotic controversy over the comments of Kevin Rudd on climate change it is time for some more analysis of the fundamentals.
Writing in the SMH today Jessica Irvine did a very good job of describing the difference between "income effects" and "substitution effects" of a tax on a specific good, and how you could both impose a tax and pay compensation and hence get a change in behaviour.
She notes that Tony Abbott has said "At best it's a giant money-go-round" but retorts "Sorry Tony, but good economists know better."
In this she is putting more economic theory around the straight-forward explanation that I praised the PM for in her appearance on Q&A.
But is the economics as simple as that? There are two ways of pricing carbon - one is the straight tax, the other is emissions trading. The latter is the ultimate economic orthodoxy on dealing with a negative externality. We lost that because the Greens didn't support it, not because of the coalition.
The Greens have preferred the tax route because they want to spend money directly on climate abatement programs. Gillard has been forced to go the direct tax route because that is the price of Greens support.
All of which makes the slagging off about the Greens and economics interesting. Gillard thinks they "wrongly reject the moral imperative to a strong economy", Albanese says they "tend to be a grab-bag of issues, tend not to have a coherent policy that adds up" while (M) Ferguson says they want to "sit under the tree and weave baskets with no jobs".
Yet the Greens are closer in their policies to the prescriptions of the Henry tax review than anyone else on death duties, health rebates,and higher taxes on super profits.
The criticism of either emissions trading or a carbon tax has a very wide support base - because people just don't understand how it works.
Frank Stilwell in a thoughtful piece outlined a very good reason for this lack of belief in response to price. He wrote;
In the real world market responses can operate quite differently. For example, you would expect to see a market disincentive incentive effect happening now as the price of petrol rises to $1.50 a litre and beyond. However, I don't observe less crowded roads. The availability of good, readily available alternatives to the car is a precondition for getting people to switch. And those alternatives do not just arise spontaneously.
To put it bluntly - for their to be a substitution effect there has to be a satisfactory substitute. In the case of carbon those substitutes will take time to be available.
Industry has argued that it won't make the investments in the alternatives until there is certainty on the price for carbon. But as Henry Ergas has neatly argued (yes I said that)there are reasons why investors should not have faith in the price for carbon being increased to reach the desired levels.
There is nothing in the mere fact of introducing an MBM that irrevocably commits to steadily and progressively increasing the implied tax on emissions. Moreover, it would not be rational for a potential investor in technology development today to assume such an increase in the implied tax rate would indeed occur.
This can be seen by considering two broad scenarios.
In the first, the technologies needed to dramatically reduce emissions do not become available in the relevant future. In that event, it is implausible that governments, merely so as to honour commitments made many years earlier, would increase tax rates on emissions to levels that would cripple their economies. Rather, the likelihood is that any commitments made would be revised or ignored, so that effective tax rates on emissions would remain low.
In contrast, in the second scenario new effectively decarbonised technologies become available at some relevant future date. In that event, governments could, if they so chose, abide by commitments to substantially increase the tax on carbon; however, it is still unclear whether they would do so.
This is quite simply because once those technologies are available, even a modest tax will suffice to create an incentive for their deployment in the marketplace.
While much of this is the kind of reasoning Jessica Irvine pointed out explains why an economist will not bend down to pick up a $100 note (if it were really someone would have already picked it up). But it does flag the fact that there are plenty of reasons why the tax MAY NOT (rather than will not) have the desired behavioural effect on R&D investment.
The error here is probably in thinking that the solution has to be exclusively one or the other - either pricing carbon or merely regulating industry, or regulating down output while compensating for investment in alternatives (the latter being as best I can understand the Abbott alternative).
It seems to me that the best outcome is a bit of everything.
Oh, and one final point for the "we shouldn't act unilaterally brigade". Irrespective of climate change the world's fossil fuel reserves continue to decline. Investing now in creating new energy industries from Australia's abundant resources is the way to building new comparative advantage for the future.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Writing in the SMH today Jessica Irvine did a very good job of describing the difference between "income effects" and "substitution effects" of a tax on a specific good, and how you could both impose a tax and pay compensation and hence get a change in behaviour.
She notes that Tony Abbott has said "At best it's a giant money-go-round" but retorts "Sorry Tony, but good economists know better."
In this she is putting more economic theory around the straight-forward explanation that I praised the PM for in her appearance on Q&A.
But is the economics as simple as that? There are two ways of pricing carbon - one is the straight tax, the other is emissions trading. The latter is the ultimate economic orthodoxy on dealing with a negative externality. We lost that because the Greens didn't support it, not because of the coalition.
The Greens have preferred the tax route because they want to spend money directly on climate abatement programs. Gillard has been forced to go the direct tax route because that is the price of Greens support.
All of which makes the slagging off about the Greens and economics interesting. Gillard thinks they "wrongly reject the moral imperative to a strong economy", Albanese says they "tend to be a grab-bag of issues, tend not to have a coherent policy that adds up" while (M) Ferguson says they want to "sit under the tree and weave baskets with no jobs".
Yet the Greens are closer in their policies to the prescriptions of the Henry tax review than anyone else on death duties, health rebates,and higher taxes on super profits.
The criticism of either emissions trading or a carbon tax has a very wide support base - because people just don't understand how it works.
Frank Stilwell in a thoughtful piece outlined a very good reason for this lack of belief in response to price. He wrote;
In the real world market responses can operate quite differently. For example, you would expect to see a market disincentive incentive effect happening now as the price of petrol rises to $1.50 a litre and beyond. However, I don't observe less crowded roads. The availability of good, readily available alternatives to the car is a precondition for getting people to switch. And those alternatives do not just arise spontaneously.
To put it bluntly - for their to be a substitution effect there has to be a satisfactory substitute. In the case of carbon those substitutes will take time to be available.
Industry has argued that it won't make the investments in the alternatives until there is certainty on the price for carbon. But as Henry Ergas has neatly argued (yes I said that)there are reasons why investors should not have faith in the price for carbon being increased to reach the desired levels.
There is nothing in the mere fact of introducing an MBM that irrevocably commits to steadily and progressively increasing the implied tax on emissions. Moreover, it would not be rational for a potential investor in technology development today to assume such an increase in the implied tax rate would indeed occur.
This can be seen by considering two broad scenarios.
In the first, the technologies needed to dramatically reduce emissions do not become available in the relevant future. In that event, it is implausible that governments, merely so as to honour commitments made many years earlier, would increase tax rates on emissions to levels that would cripple their economies. Rather, the likelihood is that any commitments made would be revised or ignored, so that effective tax rates on emissions would remain low.
In contrast, in the second scenario new effectively decarbonised technologies become available at some relevant future date. In that event, governments could, if they so chose, abide by commitments to substantially increase the tax on carbon; however, it is still unclear whether they would do so.
This is quite simply because once those technologies are available, even a modest tax will suffice to create an incentive for their deployment in the marketplace.
While much of this is the kind of reasoning Jessica Irvine pointed out explains why an economist will not bend down to pick up a $100 note (if it were really someone would have already picked it up). But it does flag the fact that there are plenty of reasons why the tax MAY NOT (rather than will not) have the desired behavioural effect on R&D investment.
The error here is probably in thinking that the solution has to be exclusively one or the other - either pricing carbon or merely regulating industry, or regulating down output while compensating for investment in alternatives (the latter being as best I can understand the Abbott alternative).
It seems to me that the best outcome is a bit of everything.
Oh, and one final point for the "we shouldn't act unilaterally brigade". Irrespective of climate change the world's fossil fuel reserves continue to decline. Investing now in creating new energy industries from Australia's abundant resources is the way to building new comparative advantage for the future.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Politics 2 - Federal
Last night the PM graced Q&A. As the transcript shows she did a remarkable job on handling the climate change/carbon tax question.
I'm actually glad you asked me that question because it gives me an opportunity to explain and I do want to talk to the Australian people about what I said in the last election. Now, I did say during the last election campaign - I promised that there would be no carbon tax. That's true and I've walked away from that commitment and I'm not going to try and pretend anything else. I also said to the Australian people in the last election campaign that we needed to act on climate change. We needed to price carbon and I wanted to see an emissions trading scheme. Then we had the election and the 17 days that were and we formed this minority government. Now, if I'd been leading a majority government I would have been getting on with an emissions trading scheme. It's what I promised the Australian people. As it is, in this minority parliament, the only way I can act on climate change by pricing carbon it to work with others and so I had a really start choice. Do I act or not act? Well, I've chosen to act and we will have a fixed price, like a carbon tax, for a period and then get to exactly what I promised the Australian people, an emissions trading scheme. Now, when I said during the election campaign there would be no carbon tax I didn't intend to mislead people. What I believed then is an emissions trading scheme is right for this country. I believe that now and we will get to that emissions trading scheme.
I think technically though she didn't lie! When she said there wouldn't be a carbon tax under the government she led she really meant "if I have an absolute majority". I think it is perfectly reasonable for her to say "my interpretation is this is the what the Parliament will support, and the Parliament is the expression of the wishes of the Australian people".
She also did an admirable job of explaining that the point of a carbon tax is to change relative prices not to increase costs.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Prime Minister, isn't the whole point of having a carbon tax to affect the prices that consumers pay? If there's no change in consumer behaviour, you're not going to achieve what you're trying to achieve to reduce carbon pollution. So if it's compensating households, aren't you simply undermining the effect that your tax is going to have and ultimately make no change?
JULIA GILLARD: That's a very perceptive question and I think a lot of people are thinking about his, about how does it work? If I'm getting compensation, what's actually changing? Let me just explain that. The carbon price affects the big polluters. Yes, they will cause some price impacts for consumers. That's true. We will then assist consumers and I can understand why people then intuitively go, well, how does all of this work? Isn't, you know, sort of money going in and money going out? What's the effect? Well, the effect is that in the shops when you come to buy things, products that are made with relatively less carbon pollution will be cheaper than products that are made with more carbon pollution. So you're standing there with your household assistance in your hand. You could still keep buying the high carbon pollution products if you want to or what you're far more likely to do is to buy the cheaper, lower carbon pollution products. That means that the people who make those things will get the consumer signal, gee, we will sell more, we will make more money if we make lower pollution products. That drives the innovation. So I want you to have that household assistance in your hand but I also want you to see price effects which make cleaner, greener things cheaper than high pollution commodities. That's why it works.
Meanwhile Tony Abbott seems to get off still saying carbon dioxide isn't the enemy, but having a policy of direct intervention to reduce it.
His policy is to incur massive Government expenditure on these programs - but not to raise taxes. Presumably he will just cut expenditure on other things.
But also, you and I don't get the choice. It is not then determined by how we are prepared to modify our behaviour but what young Tony and his guys decide.
It is mighty odd that it is the ALP that is promoting market mechanisms and the coalition that is promoting centralist planning. It is mighty odd that it is the ALP promoting a budget neutral approach and the coalition proposing massive public expenditure.
Meanwhile the Assange question was just pure unadulterated nonsense. Yes, the Australian government does share information with other Governments about potential security risks that might involve Australian citizens. We WANT IT TO DO THAT.
Meanwhile Dennis Atkins has dreamt up Labor's ten time bombs. They are:
1. Selling the carbon tax.
2. Selling/finalising the mining tax.
3. The tax summit promised to Oakshot.
4. The May Budget.
5. Finalising the Feb 13 health agreement.
6. Offshore processing centre.
7. Managing the onshore detention problem.
8. Same sex marriage.
9. Debating taking back cacus' power to appoint Ministers.
10. Managing/controlling K Rudd.
Actually written like that without the prose they aren't much at all. The PM in the first term rolled back work choices and ran education - including national testing and my school.
For Julia that is simply a "To Do List" - not a list of "time bombs."
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
I'm actually glad you asked me that question because it gives me an opportunity to explain and I do want to talk to the Australian people about what I said in the last election. Now, I did say during the last election campaign - I promised that there would be no carbon tax. That's true and I've walked away from that commitment and I'm not going to try and pretend anything else. I also said to the Australian people in the last election campaign that we needed to act on climate change. We needed to price carbon and I wanted to see an emissions trading scheme. Then we had the election and the 17 days that were and we formed this minority government. Now, if I'd been leading a majority government I would have been getting on with an emissions trading scheme. It's what I promised the Australian people. As it is, in this minority parliament, the only way I can act on climate change by pricing carbon it to work with others and so I had a really start choice. Do I act or not act? Well, I've chosen to act and we will have a fixed price, like a carbon tax, for a period and then get to exactly what I promised the Australian people, an emissions trading scheme. Now, when I said during the election campaign there would be no carbon tax I didn't intend to mislead people. What I believed then is an emissions trading scheme is right for this country. I believe that now and we will get to that emissions trading scheme.
I think technically though she didn't lie! When she said there wouldn't be a carbon tax under the government she led she really meant "if I have an absolute majority". I think it is perfectly reasonable for her to say "my interpretation is this is the what the Parliament will support, and the Parliament is the expression of the wishes of the Australian people".
She also did an admirable job of explaining that the point of a carbon tax is to change relative prices not to increase costs.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Prime Minister, isn't the whole point of having a carbon tax to affect the prices that consumers pay? If there's no change in consumer behaviour, you're not going to achieve what you're trying to achieve to reduce carbon pollution. So if it's compensating households, aren't you simply undermining the effect that your tax is going to have and ultimately make no change?
JULIA GILLARD: That's a very perceptive question and I think a lot of people are thinking about his, about how does it work? If I'm getting compensation, what's actually changing? Let me just explain that. The carbon price affects the big polluters. Yes, they will cause some price impacts for consumers. That's true. We will then assist consumers and I can understand why people then intuitively go, well, how does all of this work? Isn't, you know, sort of money going in and money going out? What's the effect? Well, the effect is that in the shops when you come to buy things, products that are made with relatively less carbon pollution will be cheaper than products that are made with more carbon pollution. So you're standing there with your household assistance in your hand. You could still keep buying the high carbon pollution products if you want to or what you're far more likely to do is to buy the cheaper, lower carbon pollution products. That means that the people who make those things will get the consumer signal, gee, we will sell more, we will make more money if we make lower pollution products. That drives the innovation. So I want you to have that household assistance in your hand but I also want you to see price effects which make cleaner, greener things cheaper than high pollution commodities. That's why it works.
Meanwhile Tony Abbott seems to get off still saying carbon dioxide isn't the enemy, but having a policy of direct intervention to reduce it.
His policy is to incur massive Government expenditure on these programs - but not to raise taxes. Presumably he will just cut expenditure on other things.
But also, you and I don't get the choice. It is not then determined by how we are prepared to modify our behaviour but what young Tony and his guys decide.
It is mighty odd that it is the ALP that is promoting market mechanisms and the coalition that is promoting centralist planning. It is mighty odd that it is the ALP promoting a budget neutral approach and the coalition proposing massive public expenditure.
Meanwhile the Assange question was just pure unadulterated nonsense. Yes, the Australian government does share information with other Governments about potential security risks that might involve Australian citizens. We WANT IT TO DO THAT.
Meanwhile Dennis Atkins has dreamt up Labor's ten time bombs. They are:
1. Selling the carbon tax.
2. Selling/finalising the mining tax.
3. The tax summit promised to Oakshot.
4. The May Budget.
5. Finalising the Feb 13 health agreement.
6. Offshore processing centre.
7. Managing the onshore detention problem.
8. Same sex marriage.
9. Debating taking back cacus' power to appoint Ministers.
10. Managing/controlling K Rudd.
Actually written like that without the prose they aren't much at all. The PM in the first term rolled back work choices and ran education - including national testing and my school.
For Julia that is simply a "To Do List" - not a list of "time bombs."
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)