Launching yet another book on the current malaise of the ALP Kevin Rudd has provided his own analysis. Much of this is confused, and what he calls for is indistinct.
He starts by asserting a distinction between Labor good and the other side evil as;
A Party that has painted most of the nation’s history on a wide and expansive canvas; its economic reforms, its social innovation, the centrality of the environment, the place of indigenous Australians, as well as Australia’s independent place in the affairs of the world.
And just as we have painted this great canvas for the nation, the conservatives’ historical mission has been, wherever possible, to erase it.
Ours, a positive agenda of building the nation. Theirs, invariably a negative agenda to tear down what we have built up.
Because in the end, our creed is about the rights of the many – theirs being about the privileges of the few.
This is blatantly not true at the level of history - a good many of the reforms were introduced by conservative governments, and very few reforms have ever been torn down. Even the great reform of arbitration is only occassionally demolished by conservatives.
But secondly, the conservatives (Rudd's term - as previously discussed the non-Labor side are not always conservative) often just place a different emphasis on the order of redistributing wealth and growing it (to use Button's description that Rudd does). They regard this as a positive agenda of growth, and are especially wary of central planners.
Rudd is right to say that open debate lets the sunshine in. But the enemy is not the factions as such, there will always be groupings, but that the factions align around the way to exercise power not philosophy.
Rudd notes that there are three areas for reform;
It is time therefore for an open debate on the Party’s future. Its values. Its policies. And critically, its structure.
He places great store in "direct election." He doesn't go as far as the call Sam Dastyari is now making for membership election of the State Parliamentary Leader, though in a later interview he says he has an open mind on it.
People who favour this option should look to not only the recent disaster in the UK where they got the wrong brother, but read Alison Rogers The Natasha Factor and see the consequences of trying to impose on the Parliamentary Party a person other than the person they would choose to lead themselves.
Unfortunately on values Rudd is full of the same weak waffle as Gillard. He quotes his own Chifley Research speech.
The speeches are rendolent with talk of opportunity and fairness. At least Gillard's speech talked of the collective orientation of Labor, while Rudd saved this for his spray on neo-liberalism.
The backdrop of the current ALP malaise is a declining membership. However, this is not really a novel issue for the Labour Movement. In 1890 in Queensland there were 54 unions with 21,379 members, which by 1894 had declined to 9 unions and 780 members (McMullin The Light on the Hill P.26). Ten years after that the movement celebrated the (brief) first ever national Labor government in the world.
The history of the ALP is always fascinating reading, filled as it is with larger than life characters like Watson, Hughes, O'Malley, Scullin, Theodore, Lyons, Lang, McKell, Curtin, Chifley, Evatt, eddie Ward, Clyde Cameron, Whitlam, Cairns, Keating , Hawke, both John Cain's, both TJ Ryan's.
An enduring theme in that history has been the tension in the party between electoral politics designed to achieve power and a wider policy aim that variously goes under the name "socialism" but isn't recognisable as socialism in most other parts of the world. It is a very individualistic kind of socialism - a socialism founded more on the assumption of egalitarian values than of attacking the powerful "class".
These debates raged in the early years of the party, especially Federally. But the same debate can be identified as what - until the 1990s - divided Left and Right in NSW. The Left wanted purity of philosophical position, the Right any position that achieved power.
Labor has been at its best when this debate has been allowed to flourish, because it creates the idea of both short term and long term goals otherwise missing from politics. Labor has been at its worst when - like the Victorian ALP post split - it was able to be painted as just a socialist idealist party. Labor has been at its worst when - like NSW Labor over the last decade - it has imagined that politics is all about focus groups and mirroring back to people what you think they want.
The other part of Labor history is the role that early unionists and party members played in education - they took to their fellow workers the concept of unionism, of collective action, of the ideals behind socialism and the need to constrain capital. The rot seems to have set in once the movement could afford paid organisers, rather than merely to start paying existing organisers. Today an "organiser" in a union or the party is an organiser of numbers for internal battles and disputes - rather than an organiser focussed on education and motivating support.
The relationship between the political and the industrial wing of the Labour movement has always been tense. From the very earliest elections where Labor candidates were successful those representatives have found themselves caught between representing the interests of their electors and the interests of the unions. Different states resolved this in different ways - but NSW at least decided at itts conference in 1893 that the Trades and Labor Council that had formed the party would not control it (McMullin P.18). It was not until a 1916 NSW conference that the industrial wing gained control (McMullin P.105). Five years later the socialist objective was written into the platform.
Adding to the melting pot the ALP Right has issued its plan for party reform. It talks long on increasing democratisation, but gives twenty delegates on a new National Policy Forum to representatives of affiliated unions chosen by National Executive. When added to the parliamentarians and other officers they dwarf the twenty directly elected rank and file members.
Nothing else in the document offers much hope. More vague discussion of policy ideas, campaigning and engagement without any re-commitment to philosophy. More shadow democracy, and online tools (these exist already - they just don't achieve anything).
The Labour Movement's origins are entirely embedded in advancing the cause of the workers against those of capital. The origin of democracy was in freeing individuals from the arbitrary power and control of others. In the 21st century we suffer from the fact that too many "workers" don't identify themselves as such. A person running a small plumbing business, an owner-operator truckie, an IT contractor, a salaried professional are all workers. They are not capitalists like the old pastoralists. But capital has also changed - the interests of capital are now advanced by a managerial class not by real business owners.
Labor's modern view of socialisation should not be state owned enterprises - we have seen how these enterprises degenerate into the perception that state ownership's purpose is to over reward the worker rather than to constrain market power. Labor's modern view of socialisation needs to be grounded in the idea that no one in society should be able to acquire and exert power over others - be that physical, coercive or economic.
True reform of the ALP can only begin by removing affiliated unions from having any formal role in the governance of the party. True reform of the ALP needs to start by developing a better narrative of what it stands for. True reform of the ALP needs to embrace a return to the struggle to balance electoral success and long term goals, and to embrace the role of the party to educate not just respond.
So far none of the formal proposals from right and left, or the thought bubbles of various people in leadership roles amounts to anything more than mere posturing.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Showing posts with label Gillard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gillard. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Sunday, November 13, 2011
PM's Armistice Day Address
I had the opportunity to attend the Armistice Day ceremony at the Australian War Memorial on Friday (at the same time as my number two daughter was on a battlefields tour where her great grandfather Walder fought in WWI).
I finalised the iTnews column by e-mail from my phone just before it started - and would like to think that one day I could write a speech as good as the one the PM delivered.
Unfotunately it appears on the PM's website in the format used to write a speech to be read, so I reproduce it below using paragraphs of more than one sentence....
Your Excellencies
Mr Acting Chief Justice, Ministerial and parliamentary colleagues, Member of the Australian Defence Force past and present, Custodians of the Australian War Memorial,
Friends of peace all,
On May 5 this year, a frail old man died in Perth, the sort of death that happens in nursing homes every day.
But this was no ordinary loss. With the passing of Claude Choules, the final link to World War One has been broken.
Around 70 million people fought in that dreadful conflict. Mr Choules was the last; a mighty bond, worn down to a single slender thread, itself now broken. An age ended; its sole surviving voice forever mute.
Claude Choules was there on this day, 93 years ago. The day the guns fell silent. The day that peace began.
But if November 11 was the end of war, it was the end of innocence too. Never again the ‘laughter of unclouded years’.
The armistice forged that autumn morning was a bitter, partial peace. But then again, it always is, because human nature is weak and the summons to war lies never far away.
That is how this memorial to one war came to be opened in the midst of another. And how hardly a day has passed since 1941 when Australians have not been abroad on active service, half of that time in combat operations.
The truth is we are a good nation in an imperfect world.
A people of peace so often called to war. Fighting other nations; but really fighting deeper foes - tyranny, injustice, persecution and greed. Never for national gain; never for purposes other than what we judged to be right.
Surveying these walls and the immense sadness of 102,000 names written on them, it is right to conclude that our nation – and especially the young people of our nation – have always accepted the cost and burden of war, as seen in Afghanistan this very day.
If we pay that price willingly, we never pay it lightly; because war is a profound responsibility for any nation to undertake.
Is it not surprising that men like Claude Choules and Charlie Mance who saw the worst of war became the most fervent sons of peace, and so often shunned observances such as this. They knew what we only see ‘through a glass darkly’.
Privy to the joyless irony of conflict; that the aim of war is peace – and the price of peace is all too often war. An unbearable paradox witnessed by endless rows of pale, identical gravestones, and mud-soaked fields that even now still yield up their dead.
There are many tributes to war – memorials, wreaths, poems and songs. All of them reaching for the un-sayable; all of them falling necessarily short.
Perhaps the only memorial that fully touches the enormity of war is silence.
It was in silence that so many of our veterans wrapped themselves when they came back. Having seen and done things too awful to ever bring into the sanctity of their own homes; or to share with people who could never understand the things of which there is nothing left to be said. Things for which words and symbols fail, and contemplation remains our best and only gift.
In the wisdom and dignity of our silence, therefore, let us not forget.
It is little enough to ask of us who gained so much, from those who gave so much. So in our still and grateful hearts, let there be only silence. That on this day, and on every day, in every month and season, we will remember them.
Lest We Forget.
I finalised the iTnews column by e-mail from my phone just before it started - and would like to think that one day I could write a speech as good as the one the PM delivered.
Unfotunately it appears on the PM's website in the format used to write a speech to be read, so I reproduce it below using paragraphs of more than one sentence....
Your Excellencies
Mr Acting Chief Justice, Ministerial and parliamentary colleagues, Member of the Australian Defence Force past and present, Custodians of the Australian War Memorial,
Friends of peace all,
On May 5 this year, a frail old man died in Perth, the sort of death that happens in nursing homes every day.
But this was no ordinary loss. With the passing of Claude Choules, the final link to World War One has been broken.
Around 70 million people fought in that dreadful conflict. Mr Choules was the last; a mighty bond, worn down to a single slender thread, itself now broken. An age ended; its sole surviving voice forever mute.
Claude Choules was there on this day, 93 years ago. The day the guns fell silent. The day that peace began.
But if November 11 was the end of war, it was the end of innocence too. Never again the ‘laughter of unclouded years’.
The armistice forged that autumn morning was a bitter, partial peace. But then again, it always is, because human nature is weak and the summons to war lies never far away.
That is how this memorial to one war came to be opened in the midst of another. And how hardly a day has passed since 1941 when Australians have not been abroad on active service, half of that time in combat operations.
The truth is we are a good nation in an imperfect world.
A people of peace so often called to war. Fighting other nations; but really fighting deeper foes - tyranny, injustice, persecution and greed. Never for national gain; never for purposes other than what we judged to be right.
Surveying these walls and the immense sadness of 102,000 names written on them, it is right to conclude that our nation – and especially the young people of our nation – have always accepted the cost and burden of war, as seen in Afghanistan this very day.
If we pay that price willingly, we never pay it lightly; because war is a profound responsibility for any nation to undertake.
Is it not surprising that men like Claude Choules and Charlie Mance who saw the worst of war became the most fervent sons of peace, and so often shunned observances such as this. They knew what we only see ‘through a glass darkly’.
Privy to the joyless irony of conflict; that the aim of war is peace – and the price of peace is all too often war. An unbearable paradox witnessed by endless rows of pale, identical gravestones, and mud-soaked fields that even now still yield up their dead.
There are many tributes to war – memorials, wreaths, poems and songs. All of them reaching for the un-sayable; all of them falling necessarily short.
Perhaps the only memorial that fully touches the enormity of war is silence.
It was in silence that so many of our veterans wrapped themselves when they came back. Having seen and done things too awful to ever bring into the sanctity of their own homes; or to share with people who could never understand the things of which there is nothing left to be said. Things for which words and symbols fail, and contemplation remains our best and only gift.
In the wisdom and dignity of our silence, therefore, let us not forget.
It is little enough to ask of us who gained so much, from those who gave so much. So in our still and grateful hearts, let there be only silence. That on this day, and on every day, in every month and season, we will remember them.
Lest We Forget.
Wednesday, November 02, 2011
More on Qantas
As accusations flow about when people were told of the Qantas lock-out it is pretty clear that Joyce was so obsessed with the security risk that he never really made it clear to the Government. Ultimately he was speaking in code.
But Joe Hockey reckons;
(Qantas has) been saying it around parliament house for the last few weeks. They've been saying it privately and publicly around parliament house for weeks.
Perhaps there might be something based on this fact you'd have found about Qantas PR and Govt Relations Head Olivia Wirth if you'd followed the links in my earlier post.
A veteran of the Australian Tourist Commission and its successor, Tourism Australia, Ms Wirth was also an adviser to former tourism minister Joe Hockey and worked for the industry lobby group Tourism Council Australia.
Meanwhile Qantas is reported to have gone inot "damage control mode" as it tries to patch up strained relations with Gillard and Albanese. Ms Wirth was reported to have made a "flying visit to Canberra" to "repair a relationship which insiders now describe as toxic."
This is a prelude to an appearance Alan Joyce is going to make before a Senate committee on Friday. I would like to be a fly on the wall of the preparation session for that appearance. Only the very rare CEO can pull off the kind of beligerent performance Packer made before the print media inquiry.
My own thoughts would be that Joyce should try to drown the committee in facts about the global international air services market. He should take the approach that says he is willing to hear from anybody alternative strategies to save Qantas from the oblivion it faces; to remind them of the fate of other iconic airlines (Ansett domestically, Pan-Am globally).
More importantly he should not make Industrial Relations out to be the core issue - the core issue is the future of the airline, that future is in the national interest not just shareholders interest. The IR policy settings are just part of the "external environment" within which management has to make its decisions. The decision on the weekend was made to bring about an end to the dispute, and the lock-out was necessitated by the safety concerns. Others may have different views, but that was their view as the operators of the airline. (Emphasise more concerned about risks from stress than deliberate sabotage).
Finally note that thought they WERE flagging the possibility of the action they took, but were insufficiently clear in communicating it because they didn't want to inspire the fear. Could go as far as suggesting concerned that the Govt was too close to the unions in the matter.
But first and foremost - go hire a lobbyist!!!!!!! They need the "back-channel".
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
But Joe Hockey reckons;
(Qantas has) been saying it around parliament house for the last few weeks. They've been saying it privately and publicly around parliament house for weeks.
Perhaps there might be something based on this fact you'd have found about Qantas PR and Govt Relations Head Olivia Wirth if you'd followed the links in my earlier post.
A veteran of the Australian Tourist Commission and its successor, Tourism Australia, Ms Wirth was also an adviser to former tourism minister Joe Hockey and worked for the industry lobby group Tourism Council Australia.
Meanwhile Qantas is reported to have gone inot "damage control mode" as it tries to patch up strained relations with Gillard and Albanese. Ms Wirth was reported to have made a "flying visit to Canberra" to "repair a relationship which insiders now describe as toxic."
This is a prelude to an appearance Alan Joyce is going to make before a Senate committee on Friday. I would like to be a fly on the wall of the preparation session for that appearance. Only the very rare CEO can pull off the kind of beligerent performance Packer made before the print media inquiry.
My own thoughts would be that Joyce should try to drown the committee in facts about the global international air services market. He should take the approach that says he is willing to hear from anybody alternative strategies to save Qantas from the oblivion it faces; to remind them of the fate of other iconic airlines (Ansett domestically, Pan-Am globally).
More importantly he should not make Industrial Relations out to be the core issue - the core issue is the future of the airline, that future is in the national interest not just shareholders interest. The IR policy settings are just part of the "external environment" within which management has to make its decisions. The decision on the weekend was made to bring about an end to the dispute, and the lock-out was necessitated by the safety concerns. Others may have different views, but that was their view as the operators of the airline. (Emphasise more concerned about risks from stress than deliberate sabotage).
Finally note that thought they WERE flagging the possibility of the action they took, but were insufficiently clear in communicating it because they didn't want to inspire the fear. Could go as far as suggesting concerned that the Govt was too close to the unions in the matter.
But first and foremost - go hire a lobbyist!!!!!!! They need the "back-channel".
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Is it weird?
Four resolutions were voted on at the Telstra AGM; the NBN transaction, the re-appointment of the Chair and another Director and the remuneration report.
99.45% supported the NBN agreements. Is it weird that it received the biggest majority of the four votes?
As the Telstra meeting was going on the Prime Minister announced the release by NBNCo of the twelve month schedule.
Was it weird that the Government blurred the message? By waiting a day it could have been messaged as either "good news we can release the schedule with more confidence the agreement with Telstra will come into effect" or, if the result had been bad, "we continue regardless."
Was it also weird that the Prime Minister announced anything? This is NBN Co's schedule, it is their job to do it. The Government should be not politicising the schedule so much - save its moment to stand in the sunshine when there are more services and an election is looming.
I've also said before that the PM has got to stop wanting to announce everything. Let Ministers announce without her. Maybe even go back to the Whitlam-esque once weekly press conference and do a weekly sweep of "all the good things our Government ids doing" - build the image of a team of achieving Ministers.
So I think the answer to all of the above is - yes it is weird.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
99.45% supported the NBN agreements. Is it weird that it received the biggest majority of the four votes?
As the Telstra meeting was going on the Prime Minister announced the release by NBNCo of the twelve month schedule.
Was it weird that the Government blurred the message? By waiting a day it could have been messaged as either "good news we can release the schedule with more confidence the agreement with Telstra will come into effect" or, if the result had been bad, "we continue regardless."
Was it also weird that the Prime Minister announced anything? This is NBN Co's schedule, it is their job to do it. The Government should be not politicising the schedule so much - save its moment to stand in the sunshine when there are more services and an election is looming.
I've also said before that the PM has got to stop wanting to announce everything. Let Ministers announce without her. Maybe even go back to the Whitlam-esque once weekly press conference and do a weekly sweep of "all the good things our Government ids doing" - build the image of a team of achieving Ministers.
So I think the answer to all of the above is - yes it is weird.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Monday, September 05, 2011
Repeating myself on the ALP and Leadership
Ahh Joe Hildebrand, having spent weeks trying to make the Craig Thomson matter into a crisis that it is not, now blames Labor for its timidity. He seems to think they should launch a pre-emptive attack to make any election a carnage, or that it should surrender meekly.
More reasoned is the view coming from Malcolm Colless, that canvasses the options and considers that the only two credible strategies, Rudd and Smith, provide no real option.
Hildebrand in a fine piece of illogic says;
The impending death of the Labor Government is now an absolute certainty. There is no way on earth that the ALP will win the next election, if indeed it is able to make it that far in the first place.
I'm pretty sure that the next election will be either 2013 or the day that the ALP leader decides they no longer have the confidence of the Parliament and visits the GG and advises that the GG should call an election. The option of an early election rather than inviting Abbott to form Government would be presented to the GG as (1) able to better realign the next Reps and Senate election and (2) recognise that the Abbott minority Government would be even less able to secure its legislative program given the composition of the Senate. To the ALP it means that Abbott doesn't get the Fraser advantage of running the campaign from Government.
Given this fact, and given the likely outcomes for some of the independents, they will not be moving any time soon. (Also if the ALP faces a prospective losable by-election the PM should also recommend a full election).
That means the ALP should assume it has two more years.
The ALP has one option left to it - and that is the option that I think they thought they were pursuing in displacing Rudd. The Government has to stop being "Presidential". There is nothing more pathetic than the PM fronting press conferences with relevant Ministers on matters of policy. Let Ministers do that themselves.
The PM did not need to make the comments critical of the High Court, but not because they were an attack on the judiciary. But they gave the discussion more air.
The simple statement is "The Government is of course disappointed in the decision. Clearly we were not expecting it, our advice on these matters was different but wrong. This is an expression of how our system works and works well.
The Court's decision leaves no party in Australia with the ability to promote an offshore processing solution, be that Malaysia, PNG or Nauru.
We will continue to review options that will discourage people from making the expensive and dangerous journey to Australia by boat."
In particular get a core group up whose job it is to talk about all aspects of the Government.
A mini-reshuffle would help. Not to move Bowen in immigration he is doing OK and better than Burke, but Simon Crean and Jenny Macklin need to be retired. And Wayne Swan needs to be replaced as Treasurer, and as Deputy PM. Shorten as Treasurer - Rudd or Smith as Deputy PM.
Creating a diffuse target and not talking about the opposition will deprive Abbott of air.
I first wrote of this in May, and my views haven't changed.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
More reasoned is the view coming from Malcolm Colless, that canvasses the options and considers that the only two credible strategies, Rudd and Smith, provide no real option.
Hildebrand in a fine piece of illogic says;
The impending death of the Labor Government is now an absolute certainty. There is no way on earth that the ALP will win the next election, if indeed it is able to make it that far in the first place.
I'm pretty sure that the next election will be either 2013 or the day that the ALP leader decides they no longer have the confidence of the Parliament and visits the GG and advises that the GG should call an election. The option of an early election rather than inviting Abbott to form Government would be presented to the GG as (1) able to better realign the next Reps and Senate election and (2) recognise that the Abbott minority Government would be even less able to secure its legislative program given the composition of the Senate. To the ALP it means that Abbott doesn't get the Fraser advantage of running the campaign from Government.
Given this fact, and given the likely outcomes for some of the independents, they will not be moving any time soon. (Also if the ALP faces a prospective losable by-election the PM should also recommend a full election).
That means the ALP should assume it has two more years.
The ALP has one option left to it - and that is the option that I think they thought they were pursuing in displacing Rudd. The Government has to stop being "Presidential". There is nothing more pathetic than the PM fronting press conferences with relevant Ministers on matters of policy. Let Ministers do that themselves.
The PM did not need to make the comments critical of the High Court, but not because they were an attack on the judiciary. But they gave the discussion more air.
The simple statement is "The Government is of course disappointed in the decision. Clearly we were not expecting it, our advice on these matters was different but wrong. This is an expression of how our system works and works well.
The Court's decision leaves no party in Australia with the ability to promote an offshore processing solution, be that Malaysia, PNG or Nauru.
We will continue to review options that will discourage people from making the expensive and dangerous journey to Australia by boat."
In particular get a core group up whose job it is to talk about all aspects of the Government.
A mini-reshuffle would help. Not to move Bowen in immigration he is doing OK and better than Burke, but Simon Crean and Jenny Macklin need to be retired. And Wayne Swan needs to be replaced as Treasurer, and as Deputy PM. Shorten as Treasurer - Rudd or Smith as Deputy PM.
Creating a diffuse target and not talking about the opposition will deprive Abbott of air.
I first wrote of this in May, and my views haven't changed.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
News Limited and a Media Inquiry
Suggestions for a "media inquiry" have arisen from the combined perception of the control of all print media in two camps, and the perception coming from overseas that the largest of these has institutionalised illegal practices and has been beyond scrutiny because of its own political power.
The most recent event in Australia has centred around The Australian and publication of a very meandering column and its retraction.
The PM has come out fighting, which News found disappointing. News seems to think it is okay just to apologise and move on.
This contrasts with the position of Andrew Bolt who has been unleashed and writes a snivelling little piece that suggests that the rehashing of the relationship between a young Ms Gillard and a union official is okay because "questions are raised about Gillard's judgment in having had this relationship".
So as far as the News bosses are concerned you make an error, apologise and move on. As far as Bolt is concerned your entire history must be blemish free.
The Bolt defence ignores the real problem with the stories - which is as I wrote before to act like Mark Antony's soliloquy and have the reader believe the things about which the article says "no accusation is being made."
Cabinet is considering what to do about News Ltd. It has to in any case since Bob Brown has already moved for one.
The challenge for the Government is what could productively come from a "media" inquiry. There is very little room to move on directly regulating content, both through a lack of Federal powers on print media and due to the implied free speech protections the High Court would find on any regulation that could be interpreted as limiting political commentary.
At the last print media inquiry News Ltd produced impressive arguments for why cities would in the future support only one print title. Thus far the market has reflected their forecast.
The two avenues that could be useful would be to formalise the alternative dispute resolution methodology that is the Press Council. Bolt's complaint that not everyone could ring John Hartigan to complain is reasonable. The response is to make it easier for everyone to complain, not make it reasonable to not respond to the PM.
The second would be to contemplate the extent to which the market power of the various news organisations extends vertically and horizontally. If I wanted to publish a new newspaper in, say, Adelaide, it would be far more viable if I could use News Ltd's printing and distribution facilities.
Cross media ownership restrictions will be reviewed by the Convergence Review. But these restrictions don't affect the growth of power through attrition.
So an inquiry could productively consider the possibility and benefits of an "access regime" and divestiture powers to ensure media diversity.
There is significant latitude as Bob Brown has only given notice that he will move "That the Senate establish an inquiry into media in Australia."
An inquiry focussed on complaint mechanism and market structure tools could indeed be productive.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
The most recent event in Australia has centred around The Australian and publication of a very meandering column and its retraction.
The PM has come out fighting, which News found disappointing. News seems to think it is okay just to apologise and move on.
This contrasts with the position of Andrew Bolt who has been unleashed and writes a snivelling little piece that suggests that the rehashing of the relationship between a young Ms Gillard and a union official is okay because "questions are raised about Gillard's judgment in having had this relationship".
So as far as the News bosses are concerned you make an error, apologise and move on. As far as Bolt is concerned your entire history must be blemish free.
The Bolt defence ignores the real problem with the stories - which is as I wrote before to act like Mark Antony's soliloquy and have the reader believe the things about which the article says "no accusation is being made."
Cabinet is considering what to do about News Ltd. It has to in any case since Bob Brown has already moved for one.
The challenge for the Government is what could productively come from a "media" inquiry. There is very little room to move on directly regulating content, both through a lack of Federal powers on print media and due to the implied free speech protections the High Court would find on any regulation that could be interpreted as limiting political commentary.
At the last print media inquiry News Ltd produced impressive arguments for why cities would in the future support only one print title. Thus far the market has reflected their forecast.
The two avenues that could be useful would be to formalise the alternative dispute resolution methodology that is the Press Council. Bolt's complaint that not everyone could ring John Hartigan to complain is reasonable. The response is to make it easier for everyone to complain, not make it reasonable to not respond to the PM.
The second would be to contemplate the extent to which the market power of the various news organisations extends vertically and horizontally. If I wanted to publish a new newspaper in, say, Adelaide, it would be far more viable if I could use News Ltd's printing and distribution facilities.
Cross media ownership restrictions will be reviewed by the Convergence Review. But these restrictions don't affect the growth of power through attrition.
So an inquiry could productively consider the possibility and benefits of an "access regime" and divestiture powers to ensure media diversity.
There is significant latitude as Bob Brown has only given notice that he will move "That the Senate establish an inquiry into media in Australia."
An inquiry focussed on complaint mechanism and market structure tools could indeed be productive.
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
Monday, August 22, 2011
The ALP - two views
Interesting to see so soon after my comment triggered by Rod Cavalier's report from annual conference two pieces in the media on related themes. The first is on management of national conference, the second is on union control.
Matthew Franklin reports in the Oz today that the ALP heavies have come up with a strategy to avoid a conference debate on same sex marriage. The ploy is to declare it a "conscience" issue. The supposed reasoning is that there is no value in looking to have conference dominated by a Greens issue.
But as a former ALP staffer tweeted on the story "Not sure how a majority of the FPLP voting against the PM is politically better than a majority of conference doing so."
I agree with the sentiment of the tweet - that where the division between ALP members takes place has no significance. I disagree with the import that the party can never be seen to be "disagreeing" with its leader pro tem.
Good politics would find a way to maintain the national conference as the supreme policy body, to recognise that members should be bound by the pledge on social and moral issues as much as economic ones. But good politics would also recognise that community opinion is still heavily divided.
A more useful and productive compromise would be an inquiry into relationships and the legal recognition of relationships in Australia. It could encompass a review of de facto relationships, and the now messy state of the legal recognition of de facto relationships that occur at the same time as marriage. That is, we have legally recognised a kind of polygamy.
Separately Bruce Hawker in the Oz has called for further reform of the ALP to reduce the union block voting power from 50% to 18% (the latter number to reflect the proportion of the workforce that are members of unions).
It is a good reflection of how futile was the Crean reform that took union control from 60% to 50%. But the move needs to be absolute. Political parties cannot be seen to be agents of external agents. The break needs to be complete.
I should note that Crean's poor judgement on this issue, the burning of political capital to achieve an insufficient reform, is a good reason why Ross Cameron is wrong in thinking the ALP might turn to Crean as a sacrificial leader.
Note: Long range prediction. If the next election is held in 2013 with Julia Gillard as PM, the ALP will win.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Matthew Franklin reports in the Oz today that the ALP heavies have come up with a strategy to avoid a conference debate on same sex marriage. The ploy is to declare it a "conscience" issue. The supposed reasoning is that there is no value in looking to have conference dominated by a Greens issue.
But as a former ALP staffer tweeted on the story "Not sure how a majority of the FPLP voting against the PM is politically better than a majority of conference doing so."
I agree with the sentiment of the tweet - that where the division between ALP members takes place has no significance. I disagree with the import that the party can never be seen to be "disagreeing" with its leader pro tem.
Good politics would find a way to maintain the national conference as the supreme policy body, to recognise that members should be bound by the pledge on social and moral issues as much as economic ones. But good politics would also recognise that community opinion is still heavily divided.
A more useful and productive compromise would be an inquiry into relationships and the legal recognition of relationships in Australia. It could encompass a review of de facto relationships, and the now messy state of the legal recognition of de facto relationships that occur at the same time as marriage. That is, we have legally recognised a kind of polygamy.
Separately Bruce Hawker in the Oz has called for further reform of the ALP to reduce the union block voting power from 50% to 18% (the latter number to reflect the proportion of the workforce that are members of unions).
It is a good reflection of how futile was the Crean reform that took union control from 60% to 50%. But the move needs to be absolute. Political parties cannot be seen to be agents of external agents. The break needs to be complete.
I should note that Crean's poor judgement on this issue, the burning of political capital to achieve an insufficient reform, is a good reason why Ross Cameron is wrong in thinking the ALP might turn to Crean as a sacrificial leader.
Note: Long range prediction. If the next election is held in 2013 with Julia Gillard as PM, the ALP will win.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
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
Monday, August 15, 2011
The PM and the Party
Nice to see a couple of former ALP heavyweights in the press today.
Stephen Loosely has joined the fray with a piece arguing that Gillard may be doing a Keating in fighting the hard policy yards, and so long as she gets the time she will get the outcome.
Meanwhile John Kerin has thrown his hands up in horror at the organisational state of the ALP.
It is hard not to see a link between the two. To fulfil Loosley's statement "Keating always observed accurately that good policy is good politics," the "good policy" that the PM wants to pursue needs to be told in a way that attracts dedicated support to the party.
The irregular arrivals (asylum seekers/boat people) issue is a good place to start. The policy the Government is currently pursuing aims to INCREASE the number of people we settle as refugees, while discouraging people from making a dangerous voyage.
This is the story that message that needs to be repeated (and maybe calling those arriving "irregular arrivals" might be a good place to start).
The PM should aim to win this on its merits, not just win it because it is a safe course between the extreme Left and extreme Right.
The other issue is the insane moment developing for the "new election" position. Paul Sheehan gives it a good run this morning. Interesting to note that this is a trucker initiative - and quite frankly we've had so many truckie protests over the years that no one will notice.
But more seriously, where did we get this idea that just because a Government mid-term becomes unpopular there should be an election? I've long been an advocate of annual elections and actually think they could work. But the current thinking is sheer lunacy.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Stephen Loosely has joined the fray with a piece arguing that Gillard may be doing a Keating in fighting the hard policy yards, and so long as she gets the time she will get the outcome.
Meanwhile John Kerin has thrown his hands up in horror at the organisational state of the ALP.
It is hard not to see a link between the two. To fulfil Loosley's statement "Keating always observed accurately that good policy is good politics," the "good policy" that the PM wants to pursue needs to be told in a way that attracts dedicated support to the party.
The irregular arrivals (asylum seekers/boat people) issue is a good place to start. The policy the Government is currently pursuing aims to INCREASE the number of people we settle as refugees, while discouraging people from making a dangerous voyage.
This is the story that message that needs to be repeated (and maybe calling those arriving "irregular arrivals" might be a good place to start).
The PM should aim to win this on its merits, not just win it because it is a safe course between the extreme Left and extreme Right.
The other issue is the insane moment developing for the "new election" position. Paul Sheehan gives it a good run this morning. Interesting to note that this is a trucker initiative - and quite frankly we've had so many truckie protests over the years that no one will notice.
But more seriously, where did we get this idea that just because a Government mid-term becomes unpopular there should be an election? I've long been an advocate of annual elections and actually think they could work. But the current thinking is sheer lunacy.
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
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Climate Change and a new Conservatism
I have elsewhere addressed commentary that focuses on the idea of need for reform as if it were an end in itself, and in particular the idea that the reform needed was more "microeconomic" reform.
In an earlier piece I labelled the NBN and addressing climate change as great Gillard reforms.
Today Shaun Carney writing for the Fairfax press declares a wider death of the "reform era" and hence the struggle that Gillard will face. In doing so he notes the incredible shift in support over the last four years on the proposition of a price on carbon.
Today I want to suggest we need some clarity of language to discuss the issue, and then see how various campaigners operate in this space.
The first language to define are the three policy stances of "reactionary", "conservative" and "progressive". These are all stances in the way policy should respond to change, and hence how policy should respond.
A reactionary believes that the new changes and problems we face are due to errors in our earlier responses and hence seeks a return to an earlier policy. Work Choices can be fairly described as reactionary - based as it was on the H R Nicholls society and its fixation on the Harvester judgement.
A conservative believes that the new changes and problems we face are possibly transitory, certainly not as great a threat as imagined and that things will sort themselves out. A neo-liberal faith in markets can be seen as a mark of a conservative, they might acknowledge a crisis but that it is better to let the market work through the problem than to intervene.
A progressive believes that the new changes and problems we face require new solutions and that good public policy is made by rapid and targeted response. The words attributed to Keynes "When the facts change, I change my mind" typify this approach. The embrace of competition policy and free trade in the 1980s was progressive not reactionary, as the kind of market envisioned had not existed before.
These three terms actually define different concepts than the concepts of Right and Left. These terms more correctly refer to the policy position taken on the issue of equity. The Left are typically the champions of "social justice", a desire for which leads to calls for greater intervention by the state in the organisation of economic affairs.
Given that the starting point for modern western political philosophy was first a feudal system and then an imperial system, the political Right has historically been made up of reactionaries and conservatives, while the Left in advocating change is progressive.
The importance of the distinction can perhaps be seen in the politics of climate change. The move to put a price on carbon is politically right not left biased - because the "efficiency of markets" is antithetical to equity. It is however progressive.
The response of many environmentalists is a call for less energy consumption - a simpler life, embracing permaculture, home veggie patches and local markets. This looks largely a policy of the Left in that it focuses on equity, but it is also reactionary - it harks back to "simpler times".
The third kind of response is the conservative response. That can range from Nick Minchin's view that there is no problem (it is all a Left conspiracy) or that action by us alone is insufficient (a kind of Left argument that action by us is inequitable).
Where politics gets interesting is how the three strands of reaction, conservatism and progress interact. The development of democracy in the UK offers many great examples of how strange coalitions formed between the three groups - which often coincided with the interests of aristocracy, the middle class and the workers.
The significance now of this analysis is the claim of Carney that we face a new conservatism. It is my contention that what we are seeing is the use of a well-worn playbook from the conservatives on this issue.
The best prior example to look at was simply the republic debate. In the early phases of the push for a republic the conservatives demanded the progressives be specific about their model before they were prepared to debate it. Once a model was chosen the conservatives successfully attacked the model because it was conservative - the attack on "the politician's republic" ignored the fact that it modelled the reality of how Governor-Generals are already chosen.
In the climate change debate the conservative response really did wait for the firm proposals to emerge before reacting. In the process they allowed those wanting change free range to express their different stances. Those stances range all the way from the most market oriented (emissions trading) through carbon tax through various levels of non-market "direct action" proposals. A strand of the Left favours direct action. The Greens actually sank the Rudd ETS because they don't trust the market mechanism. This week we still saw a respected competition commentator adopting the Left anti-market view.
While allowing the progressives to diverge, the conservatives have taken up the cudgels to question the need for action. First there are the attacks on the principle that there is climate change, or if there is that it is man made.
The Fairfax press gave sceptic Bob carter two cracks at this recently.
These attacks do highlight an error of the hubris of the scientists - a detailed debate about actual warming is the wrong debate. The discussion needs to be that if the theory is right, by the time temperature changes become significant enough to be conclusive proof the opportunity for all action will be over. That is that conservatism as a philosophy needs to be attacked, we simply can't risk waiting to see.
Carter does try to attack the underlying theory, but as Sou notes this is where he fails. But there are still too few people making defences like this one rather than simple abuse.
As a last crazy act the conservatives are embracing the Left policy of direct action - but only for the reason identified by Malcolm Turnbull. Direct action is the easiest policy to unpick, it is progress that permits future reaction.
The Australian public has not become more conservative, it is just that they understand more about convincing the public and playing to their base fears. Declaring loudly that "the science proves it" doesn't cut it in a world where many don't "believe in evolution", where the health risk of mobile phones is assessed using the logic "I have cancer, I used a mobile phone, therefore my phone caused my cancer".
The progressives need to repeat the fact that by the time the evidence on climate change becomes irrefutably conclusive it will be too late.
When the standard of scientific debate is to assert that because CO2 is a colourless odourless gas it cannot be poisonous you need to use more than just science to win.
Finally, the ALP finds this a particular challenge since it hasn't tried to market a philosophical stance for about thirty years!
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
In an earlier piece I labelled the NBN and addressing climate change as great Gillard reforms.
Today Shaun Carney writing for the Fairfax press declares a wider death of the "reform era" and hence the struggle that Gillard will face. In doing so he notes the incredible shift in support over the last four years on the proposition of a price on carbon.
Today I want to suggest we need some clarity of language to discuss the issue, and then see how various campaigners operate in this space.
The first language to define are the three policy stances of "reactionary", "conservative" and "progressive". These are all stances in the way policy should respond to change, and hence how policy should respond.
A reactionary believes that the new changes and problems we face are due to errors in our earlier responses and hence seeks a return to an earlier policy. Work Choices can be fairly described as reactionary - based as it was on the H R Nicholls society and its fixation on the Harvester judgement.
A conservative believes that the new changes and problems we face are possibly transitory, certainly not as great a threat as imagined and that things will sort themselves out. A neo-liberal faith in markets can be seen as a mark of a conservative, they might acknowledge a crisis but that it is better to let the market work through the problem than to intervene.
A progressive believes that the new changes and problems we face require new solutions and that good public policy is made by rapid and targeted response. The words attributed to Keynes "When the facts change, I change my mind" typify this approach. The embrace of competition policy and free trade in the 1980s was progressive not reactionary, as the kind of market envisioned had not existed before.
These three terms actually define different concepts than the concepts of Right and Left. These terms more correctly refer to the policy position taken on the issue of equity. The Left are typically the champions of "social justice", a desire for which leads to calls for greater intervention by the state in the organisation of economic affairs.
Given that the starting point for modern western political philosophy was first a feudal system and then an imperial system, the political Right has historically been made up of reactionaries and conservatives, while the Left in advocating change is progressive.
The importance of the distinction can perhaps be seen in the politics of climate change. The move to put a price on carbon is politically right not left biased - because the "efficiency of markets" is antithetical to equity. It is however progressive.
The response of many environmentalists is a call for less energy consumption - a simpler life, embracing permaculture, home veggie patches and local markets. This looks largely a policy of the Left in that it focuses on equity, but it is also reactionary - it harks back to "simpler times".
The third kind of response is the conservative response. That can range from Nick Minchin's view that there is no problem (it is all a Left conspiracy) or that action by us alone is insufficient (a kind of Left argument that action by us is inequitable).
Where politics gets interesting is how the three strands of reaction, conservatism and progress interact. The development of democracy in the UK offers many great examples of how strange coalitions formed between the three groups - which often coincided with the interests of aristocracy, the middle class and the workers.
The significance now of this analysis is the claim of Carney that we face a new conservatism. It is my contention that what we are seeing is the use of a well-worn playbook from the conservatives on this issue.
The best prior example to look at was simply the republic debate. In the early phases of the push for a republic the conservatives demanded the progressives be specific about their model before they were prepared to debate it. Once a model was chosen the conservatives successfully attacked the model because it was conservative - the attack on "the politician's republic" ignored the fact that it modelled the reality of how Governor-Generals are already chosen.
In the climate change debate the conservative response really did wait for the firm proposals to emerge before reacting. In the process they allowed those wanting change free range to express their different stances. Those stances range all the way from the most market oriented (emissions trading) through carbon tax through various levels of non-market "direct action" proposals. A strand of the Left favours direct action. The Greens actually sank the Rudd ETS because they don't trust the market mechanism. This week we still saw a respected competition commentator adopting the Left anti-market view.
While allowing the progressives to diverge, the conservatives have taken up the cudgels to question the need for action. First there are the attacks on the principle that there is climate change, or if there is that it is man made.
The Fairfax press gave sceptic Bob carter two cracks at this recently.
These attacks do highlight an error of the hubris of the scientists - a detailed debate about actual warming is the wrong debate. The discussion needs to be that if the theory is right, by the time temperature changes become significant enough to be conclusive proof the opportunity for all action will be over. That is that conservatism as a philosophy needs to be attacked, we simply can't risk waiting to see.
Carter does try to attack the underlying theory, but as Sou notes this is where he fails. But there are still too few people making defences like this one rather than simple abuse.
As a last crazy act the conservatives are embracing the Left policy of direct action - but only for the reason identified by Malcolm Turnbull. Direct action is the easiest policy to unpick, it is progress that permits future reaction.
The Australian public has not become more conservative, it is just that they understand more about convincing the public and playing to their base fears. Declaring loudly that "the science proves it" doesn't cut it in a world where many don't "believe in evolution", where the health risk of mobile phones is assessed using the logic "I have cancer, I used a mobile phone, therefore my phone caused my cancer".
The progressives need to repeat the fact that by the time the evidence on climate change becomes irrefutably conclusive it will be too late.
When the standard of scientific debate is to assert that because CO2 is a colourless odourless gas it cannot be poisonous you need to use more than just science to win.
Finally, the ALP finds this a particular challenge since it hasn't tried to market a philosophical stance for about thirty years!
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
Monday, July 04, 2011
Will You Tube change pollie-speak
The talk Jenny Wilson gave to the ACS-TSA policy forum noted how our first use of technology is modelled on previous use, and then changes. For example, television was originally radio with pictures, the camera stayed stationary and news was read.
TV has adapted, in drama and entertainment the camera moves, and in news a clip to accompany the story has become all important. Once changed you can't go back.
The importance of television in politics has become clear since the mid 1960s. But it has only been in the last decade that the mission for a politician has been to repeat the same sound bite multiple times to try to ensure that the clip used for the news includes the "key message".
More recently satire shows like the 7pm Project will show edited bits from a press conference that shows the key phrase being repeated. Julia Gillard's "moving forward" from the announcement of the last election is one of the most famous.
More recently a journalist in the UK had the experience of Labour leaser Ed Millibrand providing the same answer to six different questions. Works well if the news is limited to finding one sound bite - but the whole thing on YouTube is embarrassing.
Memo to all media advisers - you need to catch up with the technology and be able to brief the spokesperson to be able to answer the questions better. The old "phrase of the day" will end in ridicule.
PS Note to Julia Gillard - "ripping up the NBN" is one you need to walk away from now. Actually the message of "stopping the NBN" will be more effective once some have it and others don't.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
TV has adapted, in drama and entertainment the camera moves, and in news a clip to accompany the story has become all important. Once changed you can't go back.
The importance of television in politics has become clear since the mid 1960s. But it has only been in the last decade that the mission for a politician has been to repeat the same sound bite multiple times to try to ensure that the clip used for the news includes the "key message".
More recently satire shows like the 7pm Project will show edited bits from a press conference that shows the key phrase being repeated. Julia Gillard's "moving forward" from the announcement of the last election is one of the most famous.
More recently a journalist in the UK had the experience of Labour leaser Ed Millibrand providing the same answer to six different questions. Works well if the news is limited to finding one sound bite - but the whole thing on YouTube is embarrassing.
Memo to all media advisers - you need to catch up with the technology and be able to brief the spokesperson to be able to answer the questions better. The old "phrase of the day" will end in ridicule.
PS Note to Julia Gillard - "ripping up the NBN" is one you need to walk away from now. Actually the message of "stopping the NBN" will be more effective once some have it and others don't.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
For the "reform" obsessed
Since the stunning "success" of a series of micro-economic reforms (mostly competition policy) under Hawke and Keating, and some IR reforms under Keating and Howard (the first lot)a vast array of commentators keeps braying for more "reform".
But they are never very clear about what they want. Marisse Payne writing in The Punch has at least been clear about the value of what could be called "second order Federation reforms". These are the things like national registration of the professions that reflect a twenty-first century single market in services.
Elsewhere a section of the coalition pushes with a certain zeal IR "reform". In Crikey today Bernard Keane has done a stunning job of explaining why there is simply no case for further IR reform - there is no economic upside.
Meanwhile real reform is being pursued by the Gillard Government. Reform to the fundamentals of our economy through the adoption of ICT to a Digital Economy is driven by the NBN and the Digital Economy Strategy - though incredibly under-represented in the budget papers. Reform of our energy security and the creation of new energy industries will occur through the development of a climate change policy that prices carbon.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
But they are never very clear about what they want. Marisse Payne writing in The Punch has at least been clear about the value of what could be called "second order Federation reforms". These are the things like national registration of the professions that reflect a twenty-first century single market in services.
Elsewhere a section of the coalition pushes with a certain zeal IR "reform". In Crikey today Bernard Keane has done a stunning job of explaining why there is simply no case for further IR reform - there is no economic upside.
Meanwhile real reform is being pursued by the Gillard Government. Reform to the fundamentals of our economy through the adoption of ICT to a Digital Economy is driven by the NBN and the Digital Economy Strategy - though incredibly under-represented in the budget papers. Reform of our energy security and the creation of new energy industries will occur through the development of a climate change policy that prices carbon.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Friday, June 17, 2011
Memo to Kevin Rudd
Should Kevin hold aspirations to again lead the ALP, and even be PM? The answer is clearly yes. But the ongoing speculation won't help.
His current position is incredibly reminiscent of John Howard after his first stint at leadership. Howard was dumped because of his insular style. To plan for his return he engaged with all his parliamentary colleagues.
A contrast is Peter Costello. As Howard makes clear in his memoirs he didn't step aside for Costello because Costello never won the support of his colleagues.
The problem for a Rudd return ever remains that they haven't forgotten the insular leadership. He won the leadership the first time by campaigning directly to the public (through Sunrise amongst other ways), but he won't win it back that way.
I've already given my gratuitous advice to the ALP, and in particular the need for a refresh on the front-bench and to move Swan on.
My advice to Kevin Rudd is that he can be an agent for this change. He can be the bloke who goes and visits all his colleagues, one by one, and explains to them the need to support the PM. In doing so he will show them the PM he can be.
Rudd's best chance of a return to leadership is by helping Julia Gillard over her current troubles and secure a smooth transition next term. If they lose an election the party will turn to Combet or Shorten.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
His current position is incredibly reminiscent of John Howard after his first stint at leadership. Howard was dumped because of his insular style. To plan for his return he engaged with all his parliamentary colleagues.
A contrast is Peter Costello. As Howard makes clear in his memoirs he didn't step aside for Costello because Costello never won the support of his colleagues.
The problem for a Rudd return ever remains that they haven't forgotten the insular leadership. He won the leadership the first time by campaigning directly to the public (through Sunrise amongst other ways), but he won't win it back that way.
I've already given my gratuitous advice to the ALP, and in particular the need for a refresh on the front-bench and to move Swan on.
My advice to Kevin Rudd is that he can be an agent for this change. He can be the bloke who goes and visits all his colleagues, one by one, and explains to them the need to support the PM. In doing so he will show them the PM he can be.
Rudd's best chance of a return to leadership is by helping Julia Gillard over her current troubles and secure a smooth transition next term. If they lose an election the party will turn to Combet or Shorten.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Monday, May 30, 2011
How bad can the right get?
It is a dreadfully hard line the Government has to tread on gambling reform. It is clear the public doesn't want "nanny-statism" like we used to have that outlawed almost all forms of gambling and resulted in a vibrant illegal industry (SP bookies and then the lovely illegal casinos that used to be dotted over Sydney).
But it is equally clear that the public is heartily sick of the social costs caused by problem gambling, and that the victims of this crime are the family members - especially children - of those addicted.
Therefore measures to require "pre-commitment" technology look like they achieve the right balance.
But today we read that the NSW Secretary of the Liquor and Hospitality workers union ("United Voice" more below) is lobbying against the proposal because it will put club workers out of jobs.
The evidence apparently cited by Tara Moriarty isn't some detailed research of her own, it is simply relying on the assertions of club managers. In her letter to the Prime Minister she is reported to state "the Twin Towns Services Club at Tweed Heads on the Gold Coast had told the union workers would lose their permanent employment status and suffer cuts in hours if the pre-commitment scheme went ahead." and that "workers at the Halekulani Bowling Club on the NSW central coast have been told their jobs are not secure".
Once upon a time the idea of unions and the labour movement was to act in the interests of workers generally, not only sectionally. The labour movement would traditionally support programs that limit the harm to workers, especially forms of gambling that make the bosses rich and the workers poor.
Poker machines are just that, highly addictive and as a form of revenue raising for Government highly regressive. They are not exclusively in clubs. Those in pubs are lining the pockets of private individuals - and corporations like Woolworths which continues to acquire pub licences.
And the "licenced clubs" are no longer the quaint local community hub with a few pokies to provide entertainment. They are fully fledged casinos now operating through ever expanding corporate structures. The amalgamations have been fuelled in part by the declining attractiveness of clubs. But despite being "not for profit" the growing revenues fuel payments to managers, consultants and various hangers-on.
But a NSW Right union clearly sees its mission as to lobby on behalf of the bosses against the interests of workers.
As for that crazy name "united Voice", exactly what part of the modern marketing theory of "branding" is consistent with any model of a political and/or industrial movement designed to advocate for workers. This is the model of a union that exists to create jobs for the political class.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
But it is equally clear that the public is heartily sick of the social costs caused by problem gambling, and that the victims of this crime are the family members - especially children - of those addicted.
Therefore measures to require "pre-commitment" technology look like they achieve the right balance.
But today we read that the NSW Secretary of the Liquor and Hospitality workers union ("United Voice" more below) is lobbying against the proposal because it will put club workers out of jobs.
The evidence apparently cited by Tara Moriarty isn't some detailed research of her own, it is simply relying on the assertions of club managers. In her letter to the Prime Minister she is reported to state "the Twin Towns Services Club at Tweed Heads on the Gold Coast had told the union workers would lose their permanent employment status and suffer cuts in hours if the pre-commitment scheme went ahead." and that "workers at the Halekulani Bowling Club on the NSW central coast have been told their jobs are not secure".
Once upon a time the idea of unions and the labour movement was to act in the interests of workers generally, not only sectionally. The labour movement would traditionally support programs that limit the harm to workers, especially forms of gambling that make the bosses rich and the workers poor.
Poker machines are just that, highly addictive and as a form of revenue raising for Government highly regressive. They are not exclusively in clubs. Those in pubs are lining the pockets of private individuals - and corporations like Woolworths which continues to acquire pub licences.
And the "licenced clubs" are no longer the quaint local community hub with a few pokies to provide entertainment. They are fully fledged casinos now operating through ever expanding corporate structures. The amalgamations have been fuelled in part by the declining attractiveness of clubs. But despite being "not for profit" the growing revenues fuel payments to managers, consultants and various hangers-on.
But a NSW Right union clearly sees its mission as to lobby on behalf of the bosses against the interests of workers.
As for that crazy name "united Voice", exactly what part of the modern marketing theory of "branding" is consistent with any model of a political and/or industrial movement designed to advocate for workers. This is the model of a union that exists to create jobs for the political class.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Swan
Further to my further gratuitous advice to the ALP it really does look like Wayne Swan is terminal as Treasurer.
Reshuffle in the Winter recess is a must! Macklin and Ferguson pensioned off, Swan to a large social portfolio and Shorten to Treasurer. If Swan won't go quietly then a challenge to him as Deputy by Combet or Shorten, and if it comes to that dump him from the Ministry.
PS The most telling line in the article "his propensity to always go for a political line or put down in an interview or in parliament led the Treasurer into trouble"...it sums up not only Swan, but the way the Government crafts so much of its narrative.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Reshuffle in the Winter recess is a must! Macklin and Ferguson pensioned off, Swan to a large social portfolio and Shorten to Treasurer. If Swan won't go quietly then a challenge to him as Deputy by Combet or Shorten, and if it comes to that dump him from the Ministry.
PS The most telling line in the article "his propensity to always go for a political line or put down in an interview or in parliament led the Treasurer into trouble"...it sums up not only Swan, but the way the Government crafts so much of its narrative.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
More gratuitous advice for the ALP
I know I'm on safe ground giving advice to the ALP, as they don't listen. So I know I'll never have to face the task of explaining how they failed after following my advice, and will always be able to say "If only they had listened ..." {and join the ranks of the great seer Bob Ellis}.
The current discussion is all about the crisis in Julia Gillard's leadership. Writing in Business Spectator Rob Burgess rightly points out that any move on the Gillard leadership would be terminal. He also points out the risk inherent in the large number of former NSW operatives now without gigs trying to influence Canberra. (There is a counter-view that the factional warriors that used to be on Ministerial staff to do factional work now have to have real jobs and hence no time).
There is no doubt that the Gillard Government needs to improve its narrative. Intriguingly just before the decision to roll Kevin Rudd I couldn't find a real weakness in the Ministry at large, yet now they seem to be everywhere. One glaring gap is the role Lindsay Tanner used to play as Minister for Finance and convincing spokesperson on everything.
Moving Penny Wong from Climate Change to Finance was a good move to get a different voice on climate change. She is also clearly very administratively good, but her personality is far more suited to something like Attorney-General.
More generally though the overall Ministry List shows the tendency to the State ALP disease of meaningless titles and administrative blancmange. Five Ministers with portfolios within PM&C is not so much a luxury as a farce. Meanwhile Senator Conroy carries DBCDE without so much as a Parl Sec. Most of these have actual real jobs as well, but it means that the administrative process is unnecessarily complex.
It is also time to move on a few of the old stagers. Jenny Macklin should be retired and Simon Crean needs to replace John Faulkner's role as Special Minister of State and Cabinet Secretary. Martin Ferguson is another who needs to be tapped now. The long snazzy titles need to stripped - Kim Carr as Minister for Industry and Science would be the same as Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Conroy as Minister for Communication would be the same as Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy.
Climate Change and the Environment are not and cannot be different portfolios. Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry, Resources and Energy should be one Ministry with a junior Minister assigned part thereof.
Deregulation belonged in the Finance portfolio only because it was a special interest of Lindsay Tanner's, but it is really part of Treasury. And that is the last real problem - Wayne Swan has
like so many of his colleagues been a very capable administrator of the budget and economic management. But he doesn't inspire confidence and the public has no idea what he says or does.
The ALP needs to create a strong praetorian around Gillard. A leadership team of Gillard, Smith, Rudd, Crean (as Special Minister of State), and Combet needs some extra spine on the Treasury/economy front. Given where he sits as Assistant Treasurer and given his ambition (and given that really Combet or Shorten is the logical next leader after Gillard retires as a long term successful PM or loses an election) Shorten should probably be given the Treasuer's gig.
This small group needs to lead the communication program of projecting the ALP's leadership credentials.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
The current discussion is all about the crisis in Julia Gillard's leadership. Writing in Business Spectator Rob Burgess rightly points out that any move on the Gillard leadership would be terminal. He also points out the risk inherent in the large number of former NSW operatives now without gigs trying to influence Canberra. (There is a counter-view that the factional warriors that used to be on Ministerial staff to do factional work now have to have real jobs and hence no time).
There is no doubt that the Gillard Government needs to improve its narrative. Intriguingly just before the decision to roll Kevin Rudd I couldn't find a real weakness in the Ministry at large, yet now they seem to be everywhere. One glaring gap is the role Lindsay Tanner used to play as Minister for Finance and convincing spokesperson on everything.
Moving Penny Wong from Climate Change to Finance was a good move to get a different voice on climate change. She is also clearly very administratively good, but her personality is far more suited to something like Attorney-General.
More generally though the overall Ministry List shows the tendency to the State ALP disease of meaningless titles and administrative blancmange. Five Ministers with portfolios within PM&C is not so much a luxury as a farce. Meanwhile Senator Conroy carries DBCDE without so much as a Parl Sec. Most of these have actual real jobs as well, but it means that the administrative process is unnecessarily complex.
It is also time to move on a few of the old stagers. Jenny Macklin should be retired and Simon Crean needs to replace John Faulkner's role as Special Minister of State and Cabinet Secretary. Martin Ferguson is another who needs to be tapped now. The long snazzy titles need to stripped - Kim Carr as Minister for Industry and Science would be the same as Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Conroy as Minister for Communication would be the same as Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy.
Climate Change and the Environment are not and cannot be different portfolios. Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry, Resources and Energy should be one Ministry with a junior Minister assigned part thereof.
Deregulation belonged in the Finance portfolio only because it was a special interest of Lindsay Tanner's, but it is really part of Treasury. And that is the last real problem - Wayne Swan has
like so many of his colleagues been a very capable administrator of the budget and economic management. But he doesn't inspire confidence and the public has no idea what he says or does.
The ALP needs to create a strong praetorian around Gillard. A leadership team of Gillard, Smith, Rudd, Crean (as Special Minister of State), and Combet needs some extra spine on the Treasury/economy front. Given where he sits as Assistant Treasurer and given his ambition (and given that really Combet or Shorten is the logical next leader after Gillard retires as a long term successful PM or loses an election) Shorten should probably be given the Treasuer's gig.
This small group needs to lead the communication program of projecting the ALP's leadership credentials.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Friday, May 20, 2011
On-Line Opinion and The Conversation or On distributions and variance
A colleague recently suggested that I should consider writing for On-Line Opinion as a way of getting my views more coverage. Separately Josh Gans has tweeted about The Conversation. So today I've had a bit of a look at both.
On-Line Opinion is self described as "Australia's e-journal of social and policy debate". It has been going for about six years now and is "professionally" edited though contributions are unpaid. The Conversation is very different having been started by former Age editor Andrew Jaspan, and drawing exclusively from academics for content and even using an *.edu.au domain.
Both carry the kind of material usually reserved for the Opinion pages of major newspapers, but reflect the fact that these are becoming mono-voice regions (follow the party line) and are declining in availability anyway.
They vary from the on-line "news" sources like Business Spectator, or Crikey in being exclusively opinion.
Anyhow, two items from On-Line opinion caught my attention, one questions whether markets can provide food security, while the other asserts that the world can't rely on alternative energy sources.
Ultimately both these items rest on the observation of the unpredictable variability of the weather. Food security can't be guaranteed by markets for the simple reason that the amount that is globally planned to be grown might not match the demand globally produced because of weather events. That problem exists, however, with or without international food trade. It just means that the impact of weather events is different and may not be felt in the location of the event, but elsewhere. A loss of production in a wealthy country results in more exports from a poorer country resulting in food shortages.
The energy case is equally built around the argument that the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. In common with most such arguments it makes assumptions that existing storage technologies are as energy efficient and as price efficient as they'll ever get - they aren't of course. It also dismisses each storage solution because it alone could not handle the storage task, whereas in reality the combined use could.
But variability and distributions are indeed everywhere. Elsewhere today there have been reports about the float of LinkedIn and surprise about comments reported from their prospectus that "...a substantial majority of our members do not visit our website on a monthly basis, and a substantial majority of our page views are generated by a minority of our members." Indeed there is a small minority of users that make up the dominant usage. One could say .... "derr".
The question though is exactly what kinds of distributions they are. Lots of people have started to realise that the normal or Gaussian distribution is an abstraction that isn't particularly normal at all. So books like Black Swan
and The Long Tail 
talk about other kinds of distributions. Unfortunately these too readily make assumptions about other kinds of distributions (notably Pareto or Power Law) ignoring that the small deviations from these that occur in things like log-normal distributions also happen in the hard to measure tail.
Meanwhile The Conversation had a learned article on Julia Gillard's voice and speech. It in part concludes that one of the difficulties is that the PM controls her speech too well, and it lacks sufficient variability to be engaging and convincing. Because the mode of speech is so unusual it is regarded as being artificial.
I've added these two to my daily reading list but I suspect I'm going to find more of these kinds of stories than things that provide any new insights.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
On-Line Opinion is self described as "Australia's e-journal of social and policy debate". It has been going for about six years now and is "professionally" edited though contributions are unpaid. The Conversation is very different having been started by former Age editor Andrew Jaspan, and drawing exclusively from academics for content and even using an *.edu.au domain.
Both carry the kind of material usually reserved for the Opinion pages of major newspapers, but reflect the fact that these are becoming mono-voice regions (follow the party line) and are declining in availability anyway.
They vary from the on-line "news" sources like Business Spectator, or Crikey in being exclusively opinion.
Anyhow, two items from On-Line opinion caught my attention, one questions whether markets can provide food security, while the other asserts that the world can't rely on alternative energy sources.
Ultimately both these items rest on the observation of the unpredictable variability of the weather. Food security can't be guaranteed by markets for the simple reason that the amount that is globally planned to be grown might not match the demand globally produced because of weather events. That problem exists, however, with or without international food trade. It just means that the impact of weather events is different and may not be felt in the location of the event, but elsewhere. A loss of production in a wealthy country results in more exports from a poorer country resulting in food shortages.
The energy case is equally built around the argument that the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. In common with most such arguments it makes assumptions that existing storage technologies are as energy efficient and as price efficient as they'll ever get - they aren't of course. It also dismisses each storage solution because it alone could not handle the storage task, whereas in reality the combined use could.
But variability and distributions are indeed everywhere. Elsewhere today there have been reports about the float of LinkedIn and surprise about comments reported from their prospectus that "...a substantial majority of our members do not visit our website on a monthly basis, and a substantial majority of our page views are generated by a minority of our members." Indeed there is a small minority of users that make up the dominant usage. One could say .... "derr".
The question though is exactly what kinds of distributions they are. Lots of people have started to realise that the normal or Gaussian distribution is an abstraction that isn't particularly normal at all. So books like Black Swan
and The Long Tail talk about other kinds of distributions. Unfortunately these too readily make assumptions about other kinds of distributions (notably Pareto or Power Law) ignoring that the small deviations from these that occur in things like log-normal distributions also happen in the hard to measure tail.Meanwhile The Conversation had a learned article on Julia Gillard's voice and speech. It in part concludes that one of the difficulties is that the PM controls her speech too well, and it lacks sufficient variability to be engaging and convincing. Because the mode of speech is so unusual it is regarded as being artificial.
I've added these two to my daily reading list but I suspect I'm going to find more of these kinds of stories than things that provide any new insights.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)