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 Rudd. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rudd. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Fantasy from the IPA
Only an ideological puritan from the IPA could argue that the volatility in equity and other markets is all the fault of Governments.
The item notes
There is also international empirical evidence to suggest that share markets returns are lower and volatility is higher when legislatures are in session, which is not altogether surprising given the role of taxation and regulatory policies on the economic climate for private sector activity.
and
Economic growth, be it at a national or global level, can only be led from the front by a private sector unencumbered by the unsustainable debts, uncompetitive tax regimes and onerous regulations of big governments.
A fascinating read really that completely fails to address the actual problem, which is that markets have two means of valuing assets, and that one of them can result in incorrect movements. What I didn't say is that at heart the conditions identified by Keynes for creation of a depression is a case of just the same kind. When consumers think prices will decline in the future or their income is insecure they stop spending thus fulfilling the expectation. Such cycles are not broken by natural market forces.
The reported comment of Kevin Rudd that "the global economy as a 'wild beast,' and that the task of policymakers is to 'tame the beast to the greatest extent we can.'" can be read two ways. One - what I think is the intended one - is to act to ensure market rules are established so that markets work. The other would be to assume it means replace markets with something else. As all totalitarian regimes have found you can't replace markets, merely drive them underground.
It would be nice if fans of markets were to talk about real markets and real people.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
The item notes
There is also international empirical evidence to suggest that share markets returns are lower and volatility is higher when legislatures are in session, which is not altogether surprising given the role of taxation and regulatory policies on the economic climate for private sector activity.
and
Economic growth, be it at a national or global level, can only be led from the front by a private sector unencumbered by the unsustainable debts, uncompetitive tax regimes and onerous regulations of big governments.
A fascinating read really that completely fails to address the actual problem, which is that markets have two means of valuing assets, and that one of them can result in incorrect movements. What I didn't say is that at heart the conditions identified by Keynes for creation of a depression is a case of just the same kind. When consumers think prices will decline in the future or their income is insecure they stop spending thus fulfilling the expectation. Such cycles are not broken by natural market forces.
The reported comment of Kevin Rudd that "the global economy as a 'wild beast,' and that the task of policymakers is to 'tame the beast to the greatest extent we can.'" can be read two ways. One - what I think is the intended one - is to act to ensure market rules are established so that markets work. The other would be to assume it means replace markets with something else. As all totalitarian regimes have found you can't replace markets, merely drive them underground.
It would be nice if fans of markets were to talk about real markets and real people.
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
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Politics, Economics and Climate Change
Following the idiotic controversy over the comments of Kevin Rudd on climate change it is time for some more analysis of the fundamentals.
Writing in the SMH today Jessica Irvine did a very good job of describing the difference between "income effects" and "substitution effects" of a tax on a specific good, and how you could both impose a tax and pay compensation and hence get a change in behaviour.
She notes that Tony Abbott has said "At best it's a giant money-go-round" but retorts "Sorry Tony, but good economists know better."
In this she is putting more economic theory around the straight-forward explanation that I praised the PM for in her appearance on Q&A.
But is the economics as simple as that? There are two ways of pricing carbon - one is the straight tax, the other is emissions trading. The latter is the ultimate economic orthodoxy on dealing with a negative externality. We lost that because the Greens didn't support it, not because of the coalition.
The Greens have preferred the tax route because they want to spend money directly on climate abatement programs. Gillard has been forced to go the direct tax route because that is the price of Greens support.
All of which makes the slagging off about the Greens and economics interesting. Gillard thinks they "wrongly reject the moral imperative to a strong economy", Albanese says they "tend to be a grab-bag of issues, tend not to have a coherent policy that adds up" while (M) Ferguson says they want to "sit under the tree and weave baskets with no jobs".
Yet the Greens are closer in their policies to the prescriptions of the Henry tax review than anyone else on death duties, health rebates,and higher taxes on super profits.
The criticism of either emissions trading or a carbon tax has a very wide support base - because people just don't understand how it works.
Frank Stilwell in a thoughtful piece outlined a very good reason for this lack of belief in response to price. He wrote;
In the real world market responses can operate quite differently. For example, you would expect to see a market disincentive incentive effect happening now as the price of petrol rises to $1.50 a litre and beyond. However, I don't observe less crowded roads. The availability of good, readily available alternatives to the car is a precondition for getting people to switch. And those alternatives do not just arise spontaneously.
To put it bluntly - for their to be a substitution effect there has to be a satisfactory substitute. In the case of carbon those substitutes will take time to be available.
Industry has argued that it won't make the investments in the alternatives until there is certainty on the price for carbon. But as Henry Ergas has neatly argued (yes I said that)there are reasons why investors should not have faith in the price for carbon being increased to reach the desired levels.
There is nothing in the mere fact of introducing an MBM that irrevocably commits to steadily and progressively increasing the implied tax on emissions. Moreover, it would not be rational for a potential investor in technology development today to assume such an increase in the implied tax rate would indeed occur.
This can be seen by considering two broad scenarios.
In the first, the technologies needed to dramatically reduce emissions do not become available in the relevant future. In that event, it is implausible that governments, merely so as to honour commitments made many years earlier, would increase tax rates on emissions to levels that would cripple their economies. Rather, the likelihood is that any commitments made would be revised or ignored, so that effective tax rates on emissions would remain low.
In contrast, in the second scenario new effectively decarbonised technologies become available at some relevant future date. In that event, governments could, if they so chose, abide by commitments to substantially increase the tax on carbon; however, it is still unclear whether they would do so.
This is quite simply because once those technologies are available, even a modest tax will suffice to create an incentive for their deployment in the marketplace.
While much of this is the kind of reasoning Jessica Irvine pointed out explains why an economist will not bend down to pick up a $100 note (if it were really someone would have already picked it up). But it does flag the fact that there are plenty of reasons why the tax MAY NOT (rather than will not) have the desired behavioural effect on R&D investment.
The error here is probably in thinking that the solution has to be exclusively one or the other - either pricing carbon or merely regulating industry, or regulating down output while compensating for investment in alternatives (the latter being as best I can understand the Abbott alternative).
It seems to me that the best outcome is a bit of everything.
Oh, and one final point for the "we shouldn't act unilaterally brigade". Irrespective of climate change the world's fossil fuel reserves continue to decline. Investing now in creating new energy industries from Australia's abundant resources is the way to building new comparative advantage for the future.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Writing in the SMH today Jessica Irvine did a very good job of describing the difference between "income effects" and "substitution effects" of a tax on a specific good, and how you could both impose a tax and pay compensation and hence get a change in behaviour.
She notes that Tony Abbott has said "At best it's a giant money-go-round" but retorts "Sorry Tony, but good economists know better."
In this she is putting more economic theory around the straight-forward explanation that I praised the PM for in her appearance on Q&A.
But is the economics as simple as that? There are two ways of pricing carbon - one is the straight tax, the other is emissions trading. The latter is the ultimate economic orthodoxy on dealing with a negative externality. We lost that because the Greens didn't support it, not because of the coalition.
The Greens have preferred the tax route because they want to spend money directly on climate abatement programs. Gillard has been forced to go the direct tax route because that is the price of Greens support.
All of which makes the slagging off about the Greens and economics interesting. Gillard thinks they "wrongly reject the moral imperative to a strong economy", Albanese says they "tend to be a grab-bag of issues, tend not to have a coherent policy that adds up" while (M) Ferguson says they want to "sit under the tree and weave baskets with no jobs".
Yet the Greens are closer in their policies to the prescriptions of the Henry tax review than anyone else on death duties, health rebates,and higher taxes on super profits.
The criticism of either emissions trading or a carbon tax has a very wide support base - because people just don't understand how it works.
Frank Stilwell in a thoughtful piece outlined a very good reason for this lack of belief in response to price. He wrote;
In the real world market responses can operate quite differently. For example, you would expect to see a market disincentive incentive effect happening now as the price of petrol rises to $1.50 a litre and beyond. However, I don't observe less crowded roads. The availability of good, readily available alternatives to the car is a precondition for getting people to switch. And those alternatives do not just arise spontaneously.
To put it bluntly - for their to be a substitution effect there has to be a satisfactory substitute. In the case of carbon those substitutes will take time to be available.
Industry has argued that it won't make the investments in the alternatives until there is certainty on the price for carbon. But as Henry Ergas has neatly argued (yes I said that)there are reasons why investors should not have faith in the price for carbon being increased to reach the desired levels.
There is nothing in the mere fact of introducing an MBM that irrevocably commits to steadily and progressively increasing the implied tax on emissions. Moreover, it would not be rational for a potential investor in technology development today to assume such an increase in the implied tax rate would indeed occur.
This can be seen by considering two broad scenarios.
In the first, the technologies needed to dramatically reduce emissions do not become available in the relevant future. In that event, it is implausible that governments, merely so as to honour commitments made many years earlier, would increase tax rates on emissions to levels that would cripple their economies. Rather, the likelihood is that any commitments made would be revised or ignored, so that effective tax rates on emissions would remain low.
In contrast, in the second scenario new effectively decarbonised technologies become available at some relevant future date. In that event, governments could, if they so chose, abide by commitments to substantially increase the tax on carbon; however, it is still unclear whether they would do so.
This is quite simply because once those technologies are available, even a modest tax will suffice to create an incentive for their deployment in the marketplace.
While much of this is the kind of reasoning Jessica Irvine pointed out explains why an economist will not bend down to pick up a $100 note (if it were really someone would have already picked it up). But it does flag the fact that there are plenty of reasons why the tax MAY NOT (rather than will not) have the desired behavioural effect on R&D investment.
The error here is probably in thinking that the solution has to be exclusively one or the other - either pricing carbon or merely regulating industry, or regulating down output while compensating for investment in alternatives (the latter being as best I can understand the Abbott alternative).
It seems to me that the best outcome is a bit of everything.
Oh, and one final point for the "we shouldn't act unilaterally brigade". Irrespective of climate change the world's fossil fuel reserves continue to decline. Investing now in creating new energy industries from Australia's abundant resources is the way to building new comparative advantage for the future.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Memo to the ALP 1 - Federal
The saying "disunity is death" in politics is much over-rated. The masses won't reject you if the disunity reflects a genuine internal debate about policy. Where they will crucify you is when the disunity is about people and personality rather than policy.
So we come to Kevin Rudd, who on Q&A on Monday was asked;
My question is for Kevin Rudd. In 2010 you took the decision to delay implementing an emissions trading scheme; a scheme which had or appeared to have the support of the majority of the population and which contributed to your election of your government in 2007. In the light of the current acrimonious debate over a carbon price, do you regret making that decision?
His reply to his credit was an unequivocal "yes" he did regret it, and in his initial reply he fully owned the decision.
Yet the reporting of this has all the hall-marks of a classic Canberra beat-up of "leadership tension". Take your pick of the reports, but this sample from the SMH typifies it;
Kevin Rudd'S admission that senior ministers influenced him as prime minister to shelve the emissions trading scheme last year has outraged colleagues, who believe he should accept full responsibility for his decisions.
However, there was little doubt inside Labor that Mr Rudd's words were designed to wound the Prime Minister.
If you read the transcript of the show it is pretty damn clear that Rudd was dragged kicking and screaming to say anything other than his initial response - that he regretted the decision he made.
The fact that the leaked Caucus minutes from last year already exist makes it hard for anyone to pretend otherwise. And all Rudd did was to repeat the fact that there were divergent views, that delay seemed sensible given the parliamentary reality but that he now regretted the decision (because he underestimated the direct impact it would have on direct Labor support.
This is only potentially a story about leadership because of the way un-named sources are prepared to go on the record to state that they think Kevin is up to something.
In their fetid little ALP intriguing minds they probably imagine that trying to tag Rudd as a destabiliser damages Rudd, rather than realising the only thing they are hurting is the brand.
Every ALP parliamentarian needs to read the transcript and then go visit their favourite gallery journalist and say "Look, this is a beat up. Kevin clearly wasn't intentionally targeting the PM. He took full responsibility for the decision and added nothing that wasn't already known from the caucus leak. He certainly didn't ask himself the question."
(I will have more to write on climate policy shortly)
Then the next question for the ALP is the question of the national secretary. The Right's preferred candidate has had a rethink and we now hear that former Gillard COS Amanda Lampe is the right's new choice. We also hear that her passage is being blocked by the shoppies Joe de Bruyn.
This reflects so much that is wrong with Labor. Firstly there are lots of questions over Lampe's judgement - some of the low points of the last campaign - real Julia and the people's assembly on climate change - have been publicly attributed to Lampe. How could you then put her in charge of the campaign?
And exactly what value does the man who still belongs in the Industrial Groups of Bob Santamaria add to the considerations of the philosophy and direction of Australia's primary "progressive" or better "democratic socialist" party?
They really need to take a deep breath, decide that the assistant Secretary will act as National Secretary for six months and undertake an orderly "selection process" approach to the job.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
So we come to Kevin Rudd, who on Q&A on Monday was asked;
My question is for Kevin Rudd. In 2010 you took the decision to delay implementing an emissions trading scheme; a scheme which had or appeared to have the support of the majority of the population and which contributed to your election of your government in 2007. In the light of the current acrimonious debate over a carbon price, do you regret making that decision?
His reply to his credit was an unequivocal "yes" he did regret it, and in his initial reply he fully owned the decision.
Yet the reporting of this has all the hall-marks of a classic Canberra beat-up of "leadership tension". Take your pick of the reports, but this sample from the SMH typifies it;
Kevin Rudd'S admission that senior ministers influenced him as prime minister to shelve the emissions trading scheme last year has outraged colleagues, who believe he should accept full responsibility for his decisions.
However, there was little doubt inside Labor that Mr Rudd's words were designed to wound the Prime Minister.
If you read the transcript of the show it is pretty damn clear that Rudd was dragged kicking and screaming to say anything other than his initial response - that he regretted the decision he made.
The fact that the leaked Caucus minutes from last year already exist makes it hard for anyone to pretend otherwise. And all Rudd did was to repeat the fact that there were divergent views, that delay seemed sensible given the parliamentary reality but that he now regretted the decision (because he underestimated the direct impact it would have on direct Labor support.
This is only potentially a story about leadership because of the way un-named sources are prepared to go on the record to state that they think Kevin is up to something.
In their fetid little ALP intriguing minds they probably imagine that trying to tag Rudd as a destabiliser damages Rudd, rather than realising the only thing they are hurting is the brand.
Every ALP parliamentarian needs to read the transcript and then go visit their favourite gallery journalist and say "Look, this is a beat up. Kevin clearly wasn't intentionally targeting the PM. He took full responsibility for the decision and added nothing that wasn't already known from the caucus leak. He certainly didn't ask himself the question."
(I will have more to write on climate policy shortly)
Then the next question for the ALP is the question of the national secretary. The Right's preferred candidate has had a rethink and we now hear that former Gillard COS Amanda Lampe is the right's new choice. We also hear that her passage is being blocked by the shoppies Joe de Bruyn.
This reflects so much that is wrong with Labor. Firstly there are lots of questions over Lampe's judgement - some of the low points of the last campaign - real Julia and the people's assembly on climate change - have been publicly attributed to Lampe. How could you then put her in charge of the campaign?
And exactly what value does the man who still belongs in the Industrial Groups of Bob Santamaria add to the considerations of the philosophy and direction of Australia's primary "progressive" or better "democratic socialist" party?
They really need to take a deep breath, decide that the assistant Secretary will act as National Secretary for six months and undertake an orderly "selection process" approach to the job.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Monday, March 14, 2011
Who is out of control?
Our media has been full of reports like this that "Kevin Rudd is out of control".
Michelle Grattan tells us that "commonsense" tells you that the PM and the Foreign Minister should be talking directly not through officials. She doesn't say how commonsense dictates which has to make the midnight phone-call, or reflect that each actually have schedules where they are talking to third persons so they don't have unlimited freedom.
She doesn't admit that she's trying to suggest that Gillard should actually adopt the behaviour for which Rudd was dumped, that is, micro-managing a Minister.
But worse I think she misses the real story. She writes;
Meanwhile, an adviser to Gillard was quoted as saying the Foreign Minister was ''out of control'', issuing press releases without running them through Gillard's office..
How come she doesn't notice that the issue here is an advisor by the PM being quoted about ANYTHING to do with the relationship with a Minister. To think that Julia herself built her challenge on the strength of the snub that Alistair Jordan, Rudd's former CoS, was "doing his numbers".
It is the PM's office staff who need better control. A really good first solution would be to REDUCE the number of staff in the PMs office. Quality of staff is far more important than quantity. And office staff let Departmental staff duck accountability.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Michelle Grattan tells us that "commonsense" tells you that the PM and the Foreign Minister should be talking directly not through officials. She doesn't say how commonsense dictates which has to make the midnight phone-call, or reflect that each actually have schedules where they are talking to third persons so they don't have unlimited freedom.
She doesn't admit that she's trying to suggest that Gillard should actually adopt the behaviour for which Rudd was dumped, that is, micro-managing a Minister.
But worse I think she misses the real story. She writes;
Meanwhile, an adviser to Gillard was quoted as saying the Foreign Minister was ''out of control'', issuing press releases without running them through Gillard's office..
How come she doesn't notice that the issue here is an advisor by the PM being quoted about ANYTHING to do with the relationship with a Minister. To think that Julia herself built her challenge on the strength of the snub that Alistair Jordan, Rudd's former CoS, was "doing his numbers".
It is the PM's office staff who need better control. A really good first solution would be to REDUCE the number of staff in the PMs office. Quality of staff is far more important than quantity. And office staff let Departmental staff duck accountability.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Monday, March 01, 2010
National Curricula or Standard Texts?
The PM and Deputy PM have released first four draft national curricula (English, Maths, Science and History)for K-12. In doing so they have stated that;
Having an online curriculum means the curriculum will be dynamic, and easily updated, in contrast with the static, hard-copy format. The Australian Curriculum will be among the world's first curriculum delivered online.
From next year, students from all states and territories will be able to move schools, school systems and states and be taught the same knowledge, skills and understanding as part of a curriculum for the 21st Century.
In doing so they started a consultation process that can be accessed through this website. This is an interesting example of Gov 2.0 consultation that has the annoying feature that you have to register to participate. Maybe on the theme of identifiers we need to have an identifier we can use to acess any Government consultation. (I didn't mind registering except for when registering as "community member", "organisation {or was it instititution}" was still a mandatory field and the rules on password standards were only revealed if you didn't meet them).
The site has a little video explaining the overall approach. The Chair, Barry McGaw said, there is still a desire for flexibility in the classroom. The individual subjects had these emphases.
Science - less quantity more quality. Not four strands, return to more traditional sciences. Students have been losing interest, recapture interest. Provide opportunity to get excited, and opportunity for trachers to use it.
History - work for a wide diversity of students. Increasing Australia's understanding of the region, understand better through a "world history" perspective. Big theme is question of "sustainability" - (huh)?
Mathematics - inclusive of everyone - everyone able to do it till at least the end of Year 9. There should be less in it! Students will "engage" in mathematics in he classroom.
English - intensifying the continuity of learning across time. Deal with fewer texts more deeply. Teachers making choices of texts.
The curriculum documents have two key elements, content descriptors and achievement standards. Content descriptions include knowledge skill and understanding expected together with elaborations. Achievement standards specify the quality of learning expected.
The ambition of national curricula to facilitate the educational experience of kids moving interstate is fine. But the test will be in exactly how much the "flexibility" is retained. Currently a kid can be exposed to the same thematic content in any of a number of years and can experience the problem of repeating or missing something just moving suburb. This is the "price" of flexibility.
I worry about the whole flexibility thing and the idea that more kids can be inspired by going deeper but narrower, or that the syllabus is so simple that anyone can do it. The unfortunate reality is that the best students can and should get a lot more than this.
The ambition of an "on-line curriculum" is interesting. At least it makes it far more accessible to parents. The real challenge will be the attendent curriculum resources.
As a kid we had textbooks - they laid out the content in its logical order. Even a substitute teacher knew where to pick up from. In the new world order this doesn't happen. In Maths in NSW they introduced a new curriculum in the mid 80s for primary school that needed lots of resources of things to count, make shapes of etc and so different schools would have different stuff.
Without textbooks there has been an explosion in the industry of "black line masters" which get photocopied for kids to learn from (do exercises on).
A realy sensible approach would see the extension of the curriculum site to include (a) a textbook (b) a resource of additional "black line masters" and (c) the inclusion of additional resources including SHORT videos that support aspects of the curriculum, and extension material. (It is possible to provide extension material in most of these curricula areas that is not just accelerating the kids further. There are a plethora of interesting things in number and geometry that don't get later touched on. In the sciences there are lots of extra interpretations).
I also note that there is already concern that teachers (history in this case) won't have the capacity to master the new syllabus. Greater use of the curricula website to provide content could go a long long way!
It is also disappointing that there is nothing in the maths curriculu that talks about (in years 7 to 10)demonstrating the real world application of every element of this. The use of ICT also seems to be poorly conceived - by year 10 a student should be learning how the concepts of mathematics underpin the operation of a computer.
I need to read the Maths and History syllabus in more detail to see if it addresses Lindsay Tanner's call for better maths and science inspiration. I also think a $2M program as also announced today won't go far on helping get kids excited about science just by more teaching about climate change.
Having an online curriculum means the curriculum will be dynamic, and easily updated, in contrast with the static, hard-copy format. The Australian Curriculum will be among the world's first curriculum delivered online.
From next year, students from all states and territories will be able to move schools, school systems and states and be taught the same knowledge, skills and understanding as part of a curriculum for the 21st Century.
In doing so they started a consultation process that can be accessed through this website. This is an interesting example of Gov 2.0 consultation that has the annoying feature that you have to register to participate. Maybe on the theme of identifiers we need to have an identifier we can use to acess any Government consultation. (I didn't mind registering except for when registering as "community member", "organisation {or was it instititution}" was still a mandatory field and the rules on password standards were only revealed if you didn't meet them).
The site has a little video explaining the overall approach. The Chair, Barry McGaw said, there is still a desire for flexibility in the classroom. The individual subjects had these emphases.
Science - less quantity more quality. Not four strands, return to more traditional sciences. Students have been losing interest, recapture interest. Provide opportunity to get excited, and opportunity for trachers to use it.
History - work for a wide diversity of students. Increasing Australia's understanding of the region, understand better through a "world history" perspective. Big theme is question of "sustainability" - (huh)?
Mathematics - inclusive of everyone - everyone able to do it till at least the end of Year 9. There should be less in it! Students will "engage" in mathematics in he classroom.
English - intensifying the continuity of learning across time. Deal with fewer texts more deeply. Teachers making choices of texts.
The curriculum documents have two key elements, content descriptors and achievement standards. Content descriptions include knowledge skill and understanding expected together with elaborations. Achievement standards specify the quality of learning expected.
The ambition of national curricula to facilitate the educational experience of kids moving interstate is fine. But the test will be in exactly how much the "flexibility" is retained. Currently a kid can be exposed to the same thematic content in any of a number of years and can experience the problem of repeating or missing something just moving suburb. This is the "price" of flexibility.
I worry about the whole flexibility thing and the idea that more kids can be inspired by going deeper but narrower, or that the syllabus is so simple that anyone can do it. The unfortunate reality is that the best students can and should get a lot more than this.
The ambition of an "on-line curriculum" is interesting. At least it makes it far more accessible to parents. The real challenge will be the attendent curriculum resources.
As a kid we had textbooks - they laid out the content in its logical order. Even a substitute teacher knew where to pick up from. In the new world order this doesn't happen. In Maths in NSW they introduced a new curriculum in the mid 80s for primary school that needed lots of resources of things to count, make shapes of etc and so different schools would have different stuff.
Without textbooks there has been an explosion in the industry of "black line masters" which get photocopied for kids to learn from (do exercises on).
A realy sensible approach would see the extension of the curriculum site to include (a) a textbook (b) a resource of additional "black line masters" and (c) the inclusion of additional resources including SHORT videos that support aspects of the curriculum, and extension material. (It is possible to provide extension material in most of these curricula areas that is not just accelerating the kids further. There are a plethora of interesting things in number and geometry that don't get later touched on. In the sciences there are lots of extra interpretations).
I also note that there is already concern that teachers (history in this case) won't have the capacity to master the new syllabus. Greater use of the curricula website to provide content could go a long long way!
It is also disappointing that there is nothing in the maths curriculu that talks about (in years 7 to 10)demonstrating the real world application of every element of this. The use of ICT also seems to be poorly conceived - by year 10 a student should be learning how the concepts of mathematics underpin the operation of a computer.
I need to read the Maths and History syllabus in more detail to see if it addresses Lindsay Tanner's call for better maths and science inspiration. I also think a $2M program as also announced today won't go far on helping get kids excited about science just by more teaching about climate change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)