Bastardry sems to be the term most applied by commentators to the machinations currently going on inside the Liberal Party. Christine Wallace* has applied the term to describe Peter Costello's moves, indicating that Costello had twelve years to watch the master.
Christine does a nice line in analysing the trials of opposition and advances what she calls the peloton theory of leadership, that you let someone else make the early breaks and wear themselves out before breaking from the pack late. She refers to this as the approach used by Rudd, Howard, Hawke and Fraser and suggests only Whitlam did the hard yards.
It is useful, but misses some facts. Rudd wasn't the organiser of the peloton in opposition, that was Swan, Smith and others. Howard was a spent early leader who taught Costello the "wait till they beg" strategy. And Hawke really had no earlier opportunity.
Meanwhile Dennis Shanahan in the Oz gets stuck into Malcolm for turning his attention to the structures of his party.
The indignation apparently prompted one Liberal to say "This party was founded by Robert Menzies and any attempts to turn it into a personal fiefdom will be resisted", which is stunning in its incomprehension. What is the relevance of Menzies? Is it that it was his personal feifdom and can never be any other's? Is Menzies to be elevated to the same level as Marx - the Liberals are no longer liberal nor conservative but "Menzieists"?
Has this poor sod reflected on how little the Liberal Party of the late 40s looks like that of today? Think federal structure, think reforming after disaster, think of the need to distance the party from the control of big business that bedevilled the UAP. If that is not enough think that the opponents were all true socialists (and included a fair number of communists) none of whom questioned that their mission was the "socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange".
As Shanahan goes on "they also fear jostling for the meagre benefits in Opposition may unleash a damaging series of recriminations and factional fights, which paralysed the Liberals in the 1980s." He could have pointed out that this was also the ALP approach from 1996 to 2001.
One prize is the seat of Bradfield to be vactaed by Brendon Nelson. Imre Salusinszky, also in the Oz, has written about the array of candidates for the seat ranging from right-wing ideologues to faithful party servants. He includes Janet Albrechtsen in his list, but says she is not a member of the party and is not interested.
Interestingly Albrechtsen doesn't mention this in her own column, despite otherwise trawling through the list provided by her colleague. She gives a little run through of the history of the seat including two long-serving bench-warmers. Her call is that the seat calls out for a future leader, and that in making the choice;
the party should not make the mistake of confusing commitment to principles with commitment to party. Commitment is not necessarily about being a long-standing member of the party. On the contrary, the best political warriors may be among those who have worked outside the party and politics demonstrating a history of believing in the principles that underpin the Liberal Party as the dominant conservative force in Australia. John Howard may have left the political stage, but many of the principles he pursued during his long career have prevailed. On the battlefields of welfare reform, indigenous politics, history, economics, citizenship, national sovereignty and values generally, conservative ideas have proven remarkably resilient. The Liberal Party cannot lose sight of that as it pursues renewal.
Sounds like JA would meet those criteria admirably!
However, in her history of the seat she left out the very first member for Bradfield, for one term, the one and only W.M.Hughes, Labor rat, thorn in the side for librals ever after. That means 50% of the members for this safest of conservative seats were once members of the ALP. Will that be the position for the next member?
While the Liberals continue their turmoil, it is worthwhile reflecting on what really is going on here. Governments once elected are usually very hard to unseat. The vigorous internal competition in opposition is a selection process that continually refines and strengthens the opposition. It is this combat, not planned leader based strategy, that eventually presents a convincing "alternative government" to the people. It was one of Brendon Nelson's mistakes to think that because he was the leader of the opposition he was the leader of the alternative government - the one does not automatically follow the other. The latter title has to be earned. It is not earned merely by "policy formulation" though that helps, it is also earned by developing character and presenting more than just "the leader".
The difficulty for analysts and pundits alike is that these aspects of character are not easy to measure in standard opinion polls. John Howard went from being strong and resolute to tricky and distrustful. He and Mal Brough could never understand why the NT intervention did not give them the poll lift they expected - it was simply because it played into the tricky and distrustful mindset rather than strong and resolute. It had been first identified in the Shane Stone memo, gained strength in the "Not Happy John" era and turned into a tide by 2007.
Politics is a lot more complex than most commentators will admit.
* While I'm at it I should give a plug to Christine's really useful morning news service called Brakfast Politics. My only suggestion would be that she develops the morning e-mail to actually be an HTML e-mail that contains the updated home page.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Disability Equipment Program
In a speech today Senator Conroy has advised that he is conducting study into a single comprehensive telecommunications equipment program for people with disabilities. He said;
Therefore, the Government will now undertake a feasibility study into whether a disability equipment program—independent of telecommunications carriers—should be established. The Department has already done some preliminary scoping work for the study. It will involve a detailed market analysis of the current arrangements for providing equipment to eligible people with disabilities.
The study will assess the estimated demand for specialised equipment over the next 10 years, and what eligibility criteria might apply to accessing that equipment at subsidised rates. It will also include a technology analysis of what sort of equipment might be required, and whether some equipment not currently available in Australia, should be made available. An analysis of projected operational costs and funding options will also be undertaken. I have asked my Department to ensure that there is comprehensive public consultation.
Not before time, I say. Disability and consumer groups have long lobbied for one program. However, first Telstra and then Optus developed their own programs. The consequence of this has been that there is not enough volume in the whole rest of the industry for anything significant.
At last Senator Conroy has realised that there are aspects of the current marketplace that mean "requesting" industry programs won't work. However, it is also to be hoped that he and his Department don't go the reverse and try to actually BE the single program. "Industry" can do this well, once the large players realise they get no credit for doing programs on their own.
(A related but inconsequential issue has been a long running presumption that the USO levy funds the disability program that Telstra runs and so everyone should benefit. Telstra simply argues that the USO levy is so short of costs it doesn't cover everything. The solution, of course, is quite simply to separately ear-mark the money. And while industry might argue about who should fund this, the Disability Discrimination Act would requuire tecos to pay for it themselves.
In fact the whole area is a case study on how we've got the regime wrong. If we didn't mention disability in the telecommunications act at all, then each provider would be required to make arrangements for a disability equipment program. Clearly Telstra's market power enables it to conduct a program more cheaply than anyone else. In an effective market structuring regime a regulator would be able to instruct Telstra to make its scheme available to others - an access regime to the equipmet program. But we don't have that - let's hope that the Departmental enquiry gets us somewhere close).
Therefore, the Government will now undertake a feasibility study into whether a disability equipment program—independent of telecommunications carriers—should be established. The Department has already done some preliminary scoping work for the study. It will involve a detailed market analysis of the current arrangements for providing equipment to eligible people with disabilities.
The study will assess the estimated demand for specialised equipment over the next 10 years, and what eligibility criteria might apply to accessing that equipment at subsidised rates. It will also include a technology analysis of what sort of equipment might be required, and whether some equipment not currently available in Australia, should be made available. An analysis of projected operational costs and funding options will also be undertaken. I have asked my Department to ensure that there is comprehensive public consultation.
Not before time, I say. Disability and consumer groups have long lobbied for one program. However, first Telstra and then Optus developed their own programs. The consequence of this has been that there is not enough volume in the whole rest of the industry for anything significant.
At last Senator Conroy has realised that there are aspects of the current marketplace that mean "requesting" industry programs won't work. However, it is also to be hoped that he and his Department don't go the reverse and try to actually BE the single program. "Industry" can do this well, once the large players realise they get no credit for doing programs on their own.
(A related but inconsequential issue has been a long running presumption that the USO levy funds the disability program that Telstra runs and so everyone should benefit. Telstra simply argues that the USO levy is so short of costs it doesn't cover everything. The solution, of course, is quite simply to separately ear-mark the money. And while industry might argue about who should fund this, the Disability Discrimination Act would requuire tecos to pay for it themselves.
In fact the whole area is a case study on how we've got the regime wrong. If we didn't mention disability in the telecommunications act at all, then each provider would be required to make arrangements for a disability equipment program. Clearly Telstra's market power enables it to conduct a program more cheaply than anyone else. In an effective market structuring regime a regulator would be able to instruct Telstra to make its scheme available to others - an access regime to the equipmet program. But we don't have that - let's hope that the Departmental enquiry gets us somewhere close).
How not to do customer support
Interesting story that happens to be about WiMAX, but is really about customer support.
The modern on-line business model which is all about self-install and phone or on-line support sounds great in theory, but as the case study demonstrates can fall apart in practice. And it doesn't instill confidence in customers when you tell them they have to source from third parties equipment necessary to make the network happen.
As to the relevance of the article to WiMAX, this actually reflects another interesting aspect of telcos, that the support model chosen is usually deficient for the problems discovered on the network early. Even Telstra with its 3G network had problems with the device choices of consumers for connection and the need for external antennae.
The modern on-line business model which is all about self-install and phone or on-line support sounds great in theory, but as the case study demonstrates can fall apart in practice. And it doesn't instill confidence in customers when you tell them they have to source from third parties equipment necessary to make the network happen.
As to the relevance of the article to WiMAX, this actually reflects another interesting aspect of telcos, that the support model chosen is usually deficient for the problems discovered on the network early. Even Telstra with its 3G network had problems with the device choices of consumers for connection and the need for external antennae.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Try that again
I nearly choked when I read that Senator Minchin had issued a press release breathlessly reporting on the $1.1M the Rudd Government had spent on building "new websites to promote itself."
Minchin went on "While Governments have a responsibility to provide up-to-date information to the Australian public and the internet is an effective way of doing this, the costs associated with some of these individual sites seem to be quite extraordinary". Please - 36 sites for $1.1M, the biggest expense listed being $180K on something as sexy as promotion of accounting standards.
Let's not trawl over the 1 billion dollars that were spent by the previous Government over ten years in its promotion of everything from "alert not alarmed" to "Work choices" (the latter costing taxpayers $116M, the Liberals Government and Howard his seat). The Rudd Government has even announced clear guidelines on Goverrnment advertising campaigns to restrain that excessive expenditure.
As to the $1.1M, it's been my experience that people expect Government to overpay for these kinds of developments, but all up those bills look quite reasonable.
Minchin went on "While Governments have a responsibility to provide up-to-date information to the Australian public and the internet is an effective way of doing this, the costs associated with some of these individual sites seem to be quite extraordinary". Please - 36 sites for $1.1M, the biggest expense listed being $180K on something as sexy as promotion of accounting standards.
Let's not trawl over the 1 billion dollars that were spent by the previous Government over ten years in its promotion of everything from "alert not alarmed" to "Work choices" (the latter costing taxpayers $116M, the Liberals Government and Howard his seat). The Rudd Government has even announced clear guidelines on Goverrnment advertising campaigns to restrain that excessive expenditure.
As to the $1.1M, it's been my experience that people expect Government to overpay for these kinds of developments, but all up those bills look quite reasonable.
Public statistics
Our good friends at DBCDE in putting together a Digital Economy discussion paper have talked about access to Public Sector Information. Meanwhile the folks at Crikey provided a really good example of the use of statistics in their video of the day today (see below).
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Factions, Philosophy and Names
Shortcons and Left-Right-Outs? If you are having trouble keeping up with
factional maneuvering in the Victorian ALP, the NSW ALP and even the Liberal party, you might like to know that these refer to the break-away right group (led by Shorten and Conroy) that has done a deal with the left and the group that is left behind. At the same time the Shortcons are reportedly registering an association called Labor Unity to effectively claim that name.
This has of course been matched with the turmoil in the NSW ALP. This reaches even further into the lolly-bag of names - with labels of Terrigals, and Troggs.
At least these names are more distinctive than Left or Right, because these factions don't any longer have much at all to do with ideology. While the Left/Right split has its historical base in the relationship between the labour movement and its political wing with communism, there is blessed little philosophical difference between the factions.
People join factions because you can't get nominated or elected to anything without being part of one. Once in it is about deploying that patronage.
For the true true believers the Communists are making a comeback!
At least the Liberal Party turmoil does seem to revolve around philosophy. What is frightening is that there are any left in the party who can seriously believe the extreme US conservative model. But clearly Tom Switzer does.
I think the period of global turmoil will see some development of political philosophy. Kevin Rudd's attempt in The Monthly is worthy but as the Piers Ackerman article notes it has received flak from former ALP right heavies Mark Latham and Michael Costa.
factional maneuvering in the Victorian ALP, the NSW ALP and even the Liberal party, you might like to know that these refer to the break-away right group (led by Shorten and Conroy) that has done a deal with the left and the group that is left behind. At the same time the Shortcons are reportedly registering an association called Labor Unity to effectively claim that name.
This has of course been matched with the turmoil in the NSW ALP. This reaches even further into the lolly-bag of names - with labels of Terrigals, and Troggs.
At least these names are more distinctive than Left or Right, because these factions don't any longer have much at all to do with ideology. While the Left/Right split has its historical base in the relationship between the labour movement and its political wing with communism, there is blessed little philosophical difference between the factions.
People join factions because you can't get nominated or elected to anything without being part of one. Once in it is about deploying that patronage.
For the true true believers the Communists are making a comeback!
At least the Liberal Party turmoil does seem to revolve around philosophy. What is frightening is that there are any left in the party who can seriously believe the extreme US conservative model. But clearly Tom Switzer does.
I think the period of global turmoil will see some development of political philosophy. Kevin Rudd's attempt in The Monthly is worthy but as the Piers Ackerman article notes it has received flak from former ALP right heavies Mark Latham and Michael Costa.
Hyperbole
I had a recent crack at journalists over accuracy. Today's topic could go under that heading or merely "hyperbole".
Piers Ackerman writing in the Tele has stated;
No matter how much Prime Minister Kevin Rudd furrows his brow and adopts a serious mien, memories of Labor governments past will bedevil his efforts to sink the nation under a red tide of debt that will take generations to clear.
Generations? Really? A generation is thought of usually being 25 years or so. Generations is therefore 50 years or more!
Later he points out that the debt position Howard inherited from the ALP was $96B. An amount that was cleared over the decade, and more. It was in the end cleared even without the proceeds of the Telstra sale.
What part of keeping the budget in balance "over the course of the economic cycle" that was the mantra of Howard/Costello before being adopted by the ALP don't commentators and conservatives get?
Piers Ackerman writing in the Tele has stated;
No matter how much Prime Minister Kevin Rudd furrows his brow and adopts a serious mien, memories of Labor governments past will bedevil his efforts to sink the nation under a red tide of debt that will take generations to clear.
Generations? Really? A generation is thought of usually being 25 years or so. Generations is therefore 50 years or more!
Later he points out that the debt position Howard inherited from the ALP was $96B. An amount that was cleared over the decade, and more. It was in the end cleared even without the proceeds of the Telstra sale.
What part of keeping the budget in balance "over the course of the economic cycle" that was the mantra of Howard/Costello before being adopted by the ALP don't commentators and conservatives get?
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
About race
There were a couple of interesting stories about race over the last few weks. The first is Janet Albrechtsen with her reverse racism. She as made it her personal crusade to get everyone to focus on Obama as not black, but the President. She could be Martin Luther King "let not a man be judged by the clour of his skin, but by the character of his heart" (see below)
She has a swing at the media in general;
But when opinion leaks into news coverage and straight analysis, as so often happens, something altogether more dangerous is happening. The media forfeits their place as the fourth estate when they forget their primary duty to report the facts so the average reader, as well the commentariat, can form their own judgments.
Regrettably, much of the mainstream media in the Western world have abandoned this trusted role. They want to be players, not mere observers. Intellectual scepticism, which should sit at the heart of good political analysis, is too often a rarity in an increasingly liberal (in the American sense of that word) media.
Indeed, for Odrama to present himself in this way as Lincoln’s heir hints at the sort of hubris that usually sets in only towards the end of a presidency. To do so at a time in his career when he still has no executive track record of any kind and precious few achievements as a legislator suggests a vast presumptuousness.
But this has gone largely unremarked. For much of the media, the cocktail of colour, left-wing politics and grand rhetoric is enough to secure him immortal presidential greatness, whether or not he achieves anything.
All of which seems to imply her belief that Obama will prove to be an ephemera. One does wonder if anyone is paying much attention to exactly what a basket case has been left in the US by thirty years (including Clinton) of effectively conservative Government.
Meanwhile a more rational conservative took aim at an anti-semitic rant that had leached its way into the business section of The Age. I don't rightly know how to place Michael Ronaldson yet, but this piece was a good statement about the standards one might hold writers to.
But the headline "Broadsheet no place for narrow minds" could really apply to Janet A.
She has a swing at the media in general;
But when opinion leaks into news coverage and straight analysis, as so often happens, something altogether more dangerous is happening. The media forfeits their place as the fourth estate when they forget their primary duty to report the facts so the average reader, as well the commentariat, can form their own judgments.
Regrettably, much of the mainstream media in the Western world have abandoned this trusted role. They want to be players, not mere observers. Intellectual scepticism, which should sit at the heart of good political analysis, is too often a rarity in an increasingly liberal (in the American sense of that word) media.
Indeed, for Odrama to present himself in this way as Lincoln’s heir hints at the sort of hubris that usually sets in only towards the end of a presidency. To do so at a time in his career when he still has no executive track record of any kind and precious few achievements as a legislator suggests a vast presumptuousness.
But this has gone largely unremarked. For much of the media, the cocktail of colour, left-wing politics and grand rhetoric is enough to secure him immortal presidential greatness, whether or not he achieves anything.
All of which seems to imply her belief that Obama will prove to be an ephemera. One does wonder if anyone is paying much attention to exactly what a basket case has been left in the US by thirty years (including Clinton) of effectively conservative Government.
Meanwhile a more rational conservative took aim at an anti-semitic rant that had leached its way into the business section of The Age. I don't rightly know how to place Michael Ronaldson yet, but this piece was a good statement about the standards one might hold writers to.
But the headline "Broadsheet no place for narrow minds" could really apply to Janet A.
Monday, February 02, 2009
Those crazy Yanks
This week will obviously create lots of opportunity for endless discussion on capitalism, social democracy, market fundamentalism and all given that St Kevin is going to save capitalism.
There are a couple of books I've read recently that I think are essential reading for anyone trying to make sense of events of the last three decades. I will write more about each over coming weeks. hey are Supercapitalism by Robert Reich, and The Wrecking Crew by Thomas Frank.
It is the latter book that fully details the process of dismantling the institutions of Government by the US conservatives. This is far more extreme than anything occurring in Australia. As an example the conservatives hired people in to run institutions inimical to the interests of the institution.
The case of Nancy Nord of the Consumer Product Safety Commission is one example. Three articles from the Washington Post describe her rule. The first reviews her testimony before a House committee following the Chinese lead paint scandal, and her approach which seemed to be that the market would take care of product standards.
She was then called on to resign following her opposition to legislation that followed the lead case. It noted that "[m]any of Nord's arguments were echoed yesterday by a coalition of business groups." This was standard form for a conservative regulator.
This was followed by the unsurprising revelation that she and others in the regulator had had "business trips" paid forby the firms she regulated.
Australia has seen nothing of this ilk. While Howard Government was perceived to be trying to achieve these kinds of outcomes with some appointments, such as onald McDonald as chair of the ABC or Grame Samuel as chair of the ACCC, all their appointees ultimately still pursued the statutory requirements of their organisations.
While we might think that the collapse in the USA might make everyone retink the conservative agenda, it is not that simple. Take the "musings" of Tim Andrews, a self described "Australian classical liberal living in Washingtom D.C."
This is the fundamental cancer that is infesting the conservative movement: the willingness to play to media elites through ‘bipartisanship’ and ‘compromise’. Odiously selling out your beliefs and politically prostituting yourself to climb the greasy poll to success. It is morally repugnant. But, not only that, it does not work. Howard was Australia’s second-longest serving Prime Minister. He gained this honor for a reason. For conviction. For standing up for the values of what is right.
There are a couple of books I've read recently that I think are essential reading for anyone trying to make sense of events of the last three decades. I will write more about each over coming weeks. hey are Supercapitalism by Robert Reich, and The Wrecking Crew by Thomas Frank.
It is the latter book that fully details the process of dismantling the institutions of Government by the US conservatives. This is far more extreme than anything occurring in Australia. As an example the conservatives hired people in to run institutions inimical to the interests of the institution.
The case of Nancy Nord of the Consumer Product Safety Commission is one example. Three articles from the Washington Post describe her rule. The first reviews her testimony before a House committee following the Chinese lead paint scandal, and her approach which seemed to be that the market would take care of product standards.
She was then called on to resign following her opposition to legislation that followed the lead case. It noted that "[m]any of Nord's arguments were echoed yesterday by a coalition of business groups." This was standard form for a conservative regulator.
This was followed by the unsurprising revelation that she and others in the regulator had had "business trips" paid forby the firms she regulated.
Australia has seen nothing of this ilk. While Howard Government was perceived to be trying to achieve these kinds of outcomes with some appointments, such as onald McDonald as chair of the ABC or Grame Samuel as chair of the ACCC, all their appointees ultimately still pursued the statutory requirements of their organisations.
While we might think that the collapse in the USA might make everyone retink the conservative agenda, it is not that simple. Take the "musings" of Tim Andrews, a self described "Australian classical liberal living in Washingtom D.C."
This is the fundamental cancer that is infesting the conservative movement: the willingness to play to media elites through ‘bipartisanship’ and ‘compromise’. Odiously selling out your beliefs and politically prostituting yourself to climb the greasy poll to success. It is morally repugnant. But, not only that, it does not work. Howard was Australia’s second-longest serving Prime Minister. He gained this honor for a reason. For conviction. For standing up for the values of what is right.
Accuracy
Those who know me will understand that I have a problem with the concept of "fact", because everything is preceived through the filter of the observer's existiong set of beliefs, presumptions and values.
However, there are some "errors" which simply do stand out. They are particularly embarassing when they are by supposedly reputable commentators in major newspapers. I have two today, neither of which is a particularly significant "fact" in the argument being constructed, but each detracts from the substance of the article.
The first is Paul Sheehan writing in the SMH. He starts;
When Federal Parliament resumes for the first session of 2009 tomorrow, two large egos will face each other across the red chamber; two men with Napoleonic habits of thought and action.
Oh dear! The House of Reps is green like every other lower house.
The second is John Durie in the weekend Oz. Writing about the Telstra succession he writes;
The leading internal candidates, David Moffatt and Kate McKenzie, were considered last time around and rejected.
As talented as Ms McKenzie might be, there is no way she was considered for the CEO's job in 2005. In fact, at that point she wasn't even a direct report to the CEO, as she was still heading Regulatory and reporting to Bill Scales.
One really would hope for better on the simple bits.
However, there are some "errors" which simply do stand out. They are particularly embarassing when they are by supposedly reputable commentators in major newspapers. I have two today, neither of which is a particularly significant "fact" in the argument being constructed, but each detracts from the substance of the article.
The first is Paul Sheehan writing in the SMH. He starts;
When Federal Parliament resumes for the first session of 2009 tomorrow, two large egos will face each other across the red chamber; two men with Napoleonic habits of thought and action.
Oh dear! The House of Reps is green like every other lower house.
The second is John Durie in the weekend Oz. Writing about the Telstra succession he writes;
The leading internal candidates, David Moffatt and Kate McKenzie, were considered last time around and rejected.
As talented as Ms McKenzie might be, there is no way she was considered for the CEO's job in 2005. In fact, at that point she wasn't even a direct report to the CEO, as she was still heading Regulatory and reporting to Bill Scales.
One really would hope for better on the simple bits.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Something strange about Peter
You might already have seen the video of Peter Costello addressing the Light the Fire mob on Australia Day.
But it is not the message I find strange (well, I do find it a bit strange, modern Christianity can't be literal) - it is the fact that the shelves behind him ONLY contain photos. Strange for two reasons. The first is that you'd think you'd put books or something there. The second is that it would be cheaper and prettier to have the pictures on the wall and no shelves.
Maybe it used to house all that stuff that he was supposed to know about as Treasurer, and houses nothing now because he stands for nothing and knows nothing.
Any other ideas? Why are there no books on Costello's bookcase?
But it is not the message I find strange (well, I do find it a bit strange, modern Christianity can't be literal) - it is the fact that the shelves behind him ONLY contain photos. Strange for two reasons. The first is that you'd think you'd put books or something there. The second is that it would be cheaper and prettier to have the pictures on the wall and no shelves.
Maybe it used to house all that stuff that he was supposed to know about as Treasurer, and houses nothing now because he stands for nothing and knows nothing.
Any other ideas? Why are there no books on Costello's bookcase?
About language
Two fascinating pieces on "language" today from two of Australia's self-confessed Right commentators, one on free speech and the other on rhetoric.
The first is by Janet Albrechtsen writing in the Oz. She discusses the case of a Dutch politician who has been found guilty of inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims in a film. Albrechtsen claims that if we prosecute people for their offensive words three tings are sure to happen;
1. The opinions may be suppressed but they won't go away, they go underground and hence avoid the robust public debate that could puncture them.
2. When we prosecute people for their words people unwittingly create martyrs.
3. It creates perverse incentives as people increasingly seek legal protection from the mildest affront.
There is much to agree with in this list, but the fmajor observation I'd make is that there are laws that each of them could apply to. For example the third is an argument that could be used against any product safety laws, or professional registration requirement (e.g. of lawyers Janet). The state protecting consumers results in consumers overly relying on the state for protection.
The first is a semi-standard libertarian argument - suppression only leads to further illegality, actually commonly used by harm minimisation theorists in relation to drugs. On the flip side tough, allowing the debate also gives the views credibility.
The issue around prosecuting people for inciting hatred is interesting when compared, say, to the crime of assault. An assault is any act which intentionally or recklessly causes another person to fear immediate and unlawful violence. The action of striking someone s technically battery. I can therefore commit asault only with words or words and actions. But assault is an action against a individual.
"Hate crime" is a logical extension of that to an action that is exclusively in words and is focussed on a group of people rather than an individual. Perhaps it might be better constructed as a charge of multiple assaults. The question is not so much whether the crime of "inciting hatred" should exist as to whether the standard of proof is being set high enough.
The second language discussion was provided by Andrew Bolt in the Herald-Sun. In it he is having a go at those members of the commentariat going gooey over Obama's oratory. Bolt tries to demonstrate that Obama's oratory is the same as Bush's by providing a number of side by side quotes.
What he actually achieves is the demonstration that the difference between a "dangerous liberal" and a "crank conservative" isn't all that much in terms of their core acceptance of concepts of liberty and democracy, but that actually their way of saying it is vastly diffrent.
1. Obama is crisp and clear, Bush was wordy. Try this comparison offered by Bolt in which Obama uses two short phrases where Bush went for the longer form.
Obama: We will not apologise for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defence . . .
Bush: We will work with our friends and allies across the world to defend our way of life.
2. Obama focussed on actions, Bush labelled opponents.
Obama: Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.
Bush: Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists . . .
3. Obama focussed on equality, whereas Bush focussed on "freedom". This comparison shows the difference - both see resort to divine authorisation, but only Obama mentions equality.
Obama: . . . the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free . . .
Bush: Freedom is a universal gift of almighty God . . .
The worying thing is that a wordsmith like Bolt apparently doesn't see the differences.
The first is by Janet Albrechtsen writing in the Oz. She discusses the case of a Dutch politician who has been found guilty of inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims in a film. Albrechtsen claims that if we prosecute people for their offensive words three tings are sure to happen;
1. The opinions may be suppressed but they won't go away, they go underground and hence avoid the robust public debate that could puncture them.
2. When we prosecute people for their words people unwittingly create martyrs.
3. It creates perverse incentives as people increasingly seek legal protection from the mildest affront.
There is much to agree with in this list, but the fmajor observation I'd make is that there are laws that each of them could apply to. For example the third is an argument that could be used against any product safety laws, or professional registration requirement (e.g. of lawyers Janet). The state protecting consumers results in consumers overly relying on the state for protection.
The first is a semi-standard libertarian argument - suppression only leads to further illegality, actually commonly used by harm minimisation theorists in relation to drugs. On the flip side tough, allowing the debate also gives the views credibility.
The issue around prosecuting people for inciting hatred is interesting when compared, say, to the crime of assault. An assault is any act which intentionally or recklessly causes another person to fear immediate and unlawful violence. The action of striking someone s technically battery. I can therefore commit asault only with words or words and actions. But assault is an action against a individual.
"Hate crime" is a logical extension of that to an action that is exclusively in words and is focussed on a group of people rather than an individual. Perhaps it might be better constructed as a charge of multiple assaults. The question is not so much whether the crime of "inciting hatred" should exist as to whether the standard of proof is being set high enough.
The second language discussion was provided by Andrew Bolt in the Herald-Sun. In it he is having a go at those members of the commentariat going gooey over Obama's oratory. Bolt tries to demonstrate that Obama's oratory is the same as Bush's by providing a number of side by side quotes.
What he actually achieves is the demonstration that the difference between a "dangerous liberal" and a "crank conservative" isn't all that much in terms of their core acceptance of concepts of liberty and democracy, but that actually their way of saying it is vastly diffrent.
1. Obama is crisp and clear, Bush was wordy. Try this comparison offered by Bolt in which Obama uses two short phrases where Bush went for the longer form.
Obama: We will not apologise for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defence . . .
Bush: We will work with our friends and allies across the world to defend our way of life.
2. Obama focussed on actions, Bush labelled opponents.
Obama: Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.
Bush: Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists . . .
3. Obama focussed on equality, whereas Bush focussed on "freedom". This comparison shows the difference - both see resort to divine authorisation, but only Obama mentions equality.
Obama: . . . the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free . . .
Bush: Freedom is a universal gift of almighty God . . .
The worying thing is that a wordsmith like Bolt apparently doesn't see the differences.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Dem funny Dems
Back when the US election was being held the President of the Australian Democrats jumped on You Tube and under the title "what's cooking" promoted that we should stay tuned for something new, "New Democrats."
I was waiting for something big to happen, but nothing seems to have emerged.
Following that though, there was also posted to YouTube one of the ads made as part of the Gruen Transfer weekly competition to market the unmarketable. This is the "bastard ad".
Seems like the ever eager Democrats have brought these two ideas together - what's cooking and bastard - in their grill a bastard game that was advertised on Crikey and is found on their Bastard Watch website.
They promote this through their website as well. I copped some criticism from my earlier comment that the Ryde by-election for the Democrats was probably their last hurrah. The "bastards" campagn is a really good bit of marketing, but my question is, what are they marketing? The only thing of substance on the website was a media release by the departed but unlamented Sandra Kanck about the Rudd Government needed to "go further" than merely calling for a ceasefire. Instead the Prime Minister needed to "strongly condemn Israel". All a bit irrelevat from a retiring South Australian upper house member.
More troubling is that the release ended with a link to the party's "action plans", which is an incredibly large collection of documents prepared by the former Senators. This isn't the policy process for which the Democrats and its long ago predecessor The Australia Party were renowned.
Conclusion: Some reassuring signs of life, but a lot of work to be done yet.
I was waiting for something big to happen, but nothing seems to have emerged.
Following that though, there was also posted to YouTube one of the ads made as part of the Gruen Transfer weekly competition to market the unmarketable. This is the "bastard ad".
Seems like the ever eager Democrats have brought these two ideas together - what's cooking and bastard - in their grill a bastard game that was advertised on Crikey and is found on their Bastard Watch website.
They promote this through their website as well. I copped some criticism from my earlier comment that the Ryde by-election for the Democrats was probably their last hurrah. The "bastards" campagn is a really good bit of marketing, but my question is, what are they marketing? The only thing of substance on the website was a media release by the departed but unlamented Sandra Kanck about the Rudd Government needed to "go further" than merely calling for a ceasefire. Instead the Prime Minister needed to "strongly condemn Israel". All a bit irrelevat from a retiring South Australian upper house member.
More troubling is that the release ended with a link to the party's "action plans", which is an incredibly large collection of documents prepared by the former Senators. This isn't the policy process for which the Democrats and its long ago predecessor The Australia Party were renowned.
Conclusion: Some reassuring signs of life, but a lot of work to be done yet.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Hagiography gone wrong
Gough Whitlam has apparently made some kind of achievement by now being the person who had at some time been Prime Minister to have lived the longest. Why this is particularly memorable I have no idea - it is not as if the job itself is noted for its impact on longevity, unlike (say) working with asbestos.
But it has created an excuse for another round of hagiography. The piece in the Oz contains this para;
Mr Whitlam's creation of the foundations of the modern welfare state, his promotion of multiculturalism, his establishment of the Family Court and Medicare are all still intensely debated in Australia today. His abolition of conscription, withdrawal from the Vietnam War and promotion of a university education for all who sought it made him a hero to many baby boomers.
It is wrong in so many ways. The first is that Gough did NOT create the foundations of the modern welfare state. In Australia the two big thrusts were the Deakenite settlement at the start of the century that built a foundation of protectionism and the minimum wage (the two being linked in ways the HR Nicholls Society conveniently ignores). But the second great wave was under the joint tutelage of the Chifley and then Menzies Governments following World War II.
Both Deakin and Menzies faced with the populrity of socialism and/or communism needed to accomodate the principles of social democracy and social justice or face a real competitive threat. Hence both Liberal governments took the big steps to create the foundations of the modern welfare state.
As to the specifics of the Whitlamite achievement, the Family Court was a great achievement but far greater was the supporting mothers pension. It is easy to forget that prior to that time women either had to stay with their husbands in fear because they economically had no way out. At the same time it was common for women to be abandoned by their partners with no support.
Whitlam did not introduce Medicare but Medibank. It has been such a popular scheme that after the Fraser government effectively killed it off and the scheme was re-introduced as Medicare by the Hawke government, the Howard government at most fiddled with the incentives for private insurance.
The greatest addition to the opportunity to participate in tertiary education was the massive expansion of the sector under Menzies. The much vaunted "free" education was ephemeral being ultimately withdrawn by another Labor government and replaced by HECS.
But two big achievements were economic and are too often forgotten. They were the 25% across the board tariff reduction and the Trade Practices Act. These were the two acts that set Australia down the course of an open competitive economy, a path that was followed through in a measured way by Hawke and Keating and that thankfully Howard did little to destroy.
Gough was a great man, but his single biggest flaw was the myopic belief that he had to continue to implement "the program" irrespective of the economic circumstances. This sounds familiar with the Rudd government still determined on delivering its election commitments.
But it has created an excuse for another round of hagiography. The piece in the Oz contains this para;
Mr Whitlam's creation of the foundations of the modern welfare state, his promotion of multiculturalism, his establishment of the Family Court and Medicare are all still intensely debated in Australia today. His abolition of conscription, withdrawal from the Vietnam War and promotion of a university education for all who sought it made him a hero to many baby boomers.
It is wrong in so many ways. The first is that Gough did NOT create the foundations of the modern welfare state. In Australia the two big thrusts were the Deakenite settlement at the start of the century that built a foundation of protectionism and the minimum wage (the two being linked in ways the HR Nicholls Society conveniently ignores). But the second great wave was under the joint tutelage of the Chifley and then Menzies Governments following World War II.
Both Deakin and Menzies faced with the populrity of socialism and/or communism needed to accomodate the principles of social democracy and social justice or face a real competitive threat. Hence both Liberal governments took the big steps to create the foundations of the modern welfare state.
As to the specifics of the Whitlamite achievement, the Family Court was a great achievement but far greater was the supporting mothers pension. It is easy to forget that prior to that time women either had to stay with their husbands in fear because they economically had no way out. At the same time it was common for women to be abandoned by their partners with no support.
Whitlam did not introduce Medicare but Medibank. It has been such a popular scheme that after the Fraser government effectively killed it off and the scheme was re-introduced as Medicare by the Hawke government, the Howard government at most fiddled with the incentives for private insurance.
The greatest addition to the opportunity to participate in tertiary education was the massive expansion of the sector under Menzies. The much vaunted "free" education was ephemeral being ultimately withdrawn by another Labor government and replaced by HECS.
But two big achievements were economic and are too often forgotten. They were the 25% across the board tariff reduction and the Trade Practices Act. These were the two acts that set Australia down the course of an open competitive economy, a path that was followed through in a measured way by Hawke and Keating and that thankfully Howard did little to destroy.
Gough was a great man, but his single biggest flaw was the myopic belief that he had to continue to implement "the program" irrespective of the economic circumstances. This sounds familiar with the Rudd government still determined on delivering its election commitments.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Telstra as my PR machine
A journalist asked my boss today, "since when has Telstra been your PR machine?"
He was referring to an item from Telstra today which seeks support for Telstra's regulatory stance on the basis of criticisms we made in a submission to the ACCC.*
Interestingly in the podcast with the Telstra item they claim I said that the ULL pricing decisions were "preventing" us making an investment, rather than the regime was "working against" the investment.
The Unwired submission covered other matters, including that the ACCC had erred in granting exemptions to Telstra ffrom the WLR and LCS services. This error was compounded by their using the continuing high prices of fixed to mobile calls to justify not further dropping MTAS charges. Seemlessly in his "interview" Mr Quilty goes on to describe the position of Stephen King on the same decisions, this time in praise of Mr King's somewhat unsurprising statement that he disagrees with the Australian Competition Tribunal overturning that decision. I've shared with Stephen my views in brief on his blog.
Finally, Mr Quilty goes on to outline the "agenda" that Telstra will be persuing this year, referring to the "Global Access Partners" approach. Mr Quilty has spoken of this before but not revealed that GAP isn't some global network of thinkers but is instead a private company associated with Peter Fritz. Another company in that association is Kiah Research that made a submission on the regulatory requirements of the NBN.
It has remained fascinating to me that the Kiah Research submission bears such a striking resemblence to the GAP "taskforce" report. I have asked GAP who constituted the taskforce but have been advised that as it met under the Chatham House rule that the names of participants would not be disclosed.
At least the Kiah Research submission (and a final version of the GAP paper they sent to me) included the acknowledgement of the assistance of Concept Economics and the book (that was then only forthcoming) by Henry Ergas titled Wrong Number. My assessment of that book has been published in a review for the Telecommunications Journal of Australia.
I would like to think we can make reasoned contributions to the regulatory debate without having those stances co-opted by Telstra in its desperate search for credibility. As I said back in April 2007, "Telstra is like a giant broken washing machine - the only cycle that works is spin."
* Note at the time of writing our submission had only been posted to the ACCC in the context of the MTAS pricing principles and not in relation to the ULLS decision, which is whre it garnered the most comment.
He was referring to an item from Telstra today which seeks support for Telstra's regulatory stance on the basis of criticisms we made in a submission to the ACCC.*
Interestingly in the podcast with the Telstra item they claim I said that the ULL pricing decisions were "preventing" us making an investment, rather than the regime was "working against" the investment.
The Unwired submission covered other matters, including that the ACCC had erred in granting exemptions to Telstra ffrom the WLR and LCS services. This error was compounded by their using the continuing high prices of fixed to mobile calls to justify not further dropping MTAS charges. Seemlessly in his "interview" Mr Quilty goes on to describe the position of Stephen King on the same decisions, this time in praise of Mr King's somewhat unsurprising statement that he disagrees with the Australian Competition Tribunal overturning that decision. I've shared with Stephen my views in brief on his blog.
Finally, Mr Quilty goes on to outline the "agenda" that Telstra will be persuing this year, referring to the "Global Access Partners" approach. Mr Quilty has spoken of this before but not revealed that GAP isn't some global network of thinkers but is instead a private company associated with Peter Fritz. Another company in that association is Kiah Research that made a submission on the regulatory requirements of the NBN.
It has remained fascinating to me that the Kiah Research submission bears such a striking resemblence to the GAP "taskforce" report. I have asked GAP who constituted the taskforce but have been advised that as it met under the Chatham House rule that the names of participants would not be disclosed.
At least the Kiah Research submission (and a final version of the GAP paper they sent to me) included the acknowledgement of the assistance of Concept Economics and the book (that was then only forthcoming) by Henry Ergas titled Wrong Number. My assessment of that book has been published in a review for the Telecommunications Journal of Australia.
I would like to think we can make reasoned contributions to the regulatory debate without having those stances co-opted by Telstra in its desperate search for credibility. As I said back in April 2007, "Telstra is like a giant broken washing machine - the only cycle that works is spin."
* Note at the time of writing our submission had only been posted to the ACCC in the context of the MTAS pricing principles and not in relation to the ULLS decision, which is whre it garnered the most comment.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
LTE vs WiMAX
First a declaration of interest - I am currently employed by Unwired who is in the process of developing a WiMAX network for Australia.
Today's iTWire contains a story trumpetting that LTE will be here sooner than we think. It had a really helpful link to an interview with Telstra's Hugh Bradlow.
He nicely summarised the real difference between LTE and WiMAX, which is about "a whole ecosystem of infrastructure" in which he includes "base stations, your switching systems, your HLRS etc., your authentication systems, your roaming systems, your OSS support, all those things, they are all carried forward from generation to generation and frankly those are the things that make network deployment difficult."
Those who watched the process of resolving 3G standards between the CDMA and GSM world would note that the 3G networks with HSPA represent the same outcome, the adoption of the superior CDMA air interface with the GSM "back end".
The deep question is whether it makes sense to continue on that backend into the wireless data world. That back end is inherently a voice centric model, with even the burgeoning SMS product just a part of the signalling network. As Bradlow notes 4G will handle voice entirely as Voice over IP, so how much of that back end is really necessary? It will be a great pity if the desire for backward capability results in the perpetuation of outmoded concepts. Bradlow is not proposing to retain ANY of that switching core for the all IP fixed network.
But more importantly, in the Australian context, the item goes on to say that 100MHz is really needed to make LTE or WiMAX fly, and there just isn't anything available till 2012 in Australia other than the spectrum owned by Austar and Unwired.
Today's iTWire contains a story trumpetting that LTE will be here sooner than we think. It had a really helpful link to an interview with Telstra's Hugh Bradlow.
He nicely summarised the real difference between LTE and WiMAX, which is about "a whole ecosystem of infrastructure" in which he includes "base stations, your switching systems, your HLRS etc., your authentication systems, your roaming systems, your OSS support, all those things, they are all carried forward from generation to generation and frankly those are the things that make network deployment difficult."
Those who watched the process of resolving 3G standards between the CDMA and GSM world would note that the 3G networks with HSPA represent the same outcome, the adoption of the superior CDMA air interface with the GSM "back end".
The deep question is whether it makes sense to continue on that backend into the wireless data world. That back end is inherently a voice centric model, with even the burgeoning SMS product just a part of the signalling network. As Bradlow notes 4G will handle voice entirely as Voice over IP, so how much of that back end is really necessary? It will be a great pity if the desire for backward capability results in the perpetuation of outmoded concepts. Bradlow is not proposing to retain ANY of that switching core for the all IP fixed network.
But more importantly, in the Australian context, the item goes on to say that 100MHz is really needed to make LTE or WiMAX fly, and there just isn't anything available till 2012 in Australia other than the spectrum owned by Austar and Unwired.
Should Reporters be Barred from War Zones
Barring reporters from war zones is apparently the novel idea of "Joe the Plumber" - while masquerading as a reporter.
The thesis is that if you don't report the war then the Generals can simply get on with it. This is a simple version of elite theory - that we he masses should just leave the elite to get on with looking after us.
But the history of war reporting andnew communications technology is a long one. We are familiar with the idea of the Vietnam War being the first televised war, and the first Iraq war being the first satellite war. The consequences of that reporting were different mind. But the earliest instance was the impact of the telegraph on the Crimean War. For the first time news of the war was being received as it was waged - resulting in a much lesser appetite for the conflict in Britain.
An article in Ithiel de Sola Pool's Social Impact of the Telephone claims that Alexander raeme Bell wrote that if the telephone had existed at the time of the Civil War that hostilities would never have broken out between North and South. The irony that he was writing in 1915 seems to have escaped him (though in fairness an issue in the start of that war was the reversed order of two telegrams from Billy to Nicky (German Kaiser Willhelm II to his cousin Tzar Nicholas II) which arrived in reverse order of sending credited by some with delaying the Russian advance and lengthening the war).
The thesis is that if you don't report the war then the Generals can simply get on with it. This is a simple version of elite theory - that we he masses should just leave the elite to get on with looking after us.
But the history of war reporting andnew communications technology is a long one. We are familiar with the idea of the Vietnam War being the first televised war, and the first Iraq war being the first satellite war. The consequences of that reporting were different mind. But the earliest instance was the impact of the telegraph on the Crimean War. For the first time news of the war was being received as it was waged - resulting in a much lesser appetite for the conflict in Britain.
An article in Ithiel de Sola Pool's Social Impact of the Telephone claims that Alexander raeme Bell wrote that if the telephone had existed at the time of the Civil War that hostilities would never have broken out between North and South. The irony that he was writing in 1915 seems to have escaped him (though in fairness an issue in the start of that war was the reversed order of two telegrams from Billy to Nicky (German Kaiser Willhelm II to his cousin Tzar Nicholas II) which arrived in reverse order of sending credited by some with delaying the Russian advance and lengthening the war).
One State?
A New York Times item has asked whether there could be a one-state solution in Israel/Palestine.
The two-state solution is what has been officially pursued since 1948 after the British allowed massive Jewish immigration to its Palestine teritory after World War I. The 1948 solution of the creation of an independent state of Israel was meant to solve the problem, and to salve the consciences of all those European leaders who had been complicit in the Holocaust by not believing what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf and hence did not act earlier (or worse, actually shared his anti-semitism).
The concept of the "nation state" was a creation of mid 19th century Europe. Most of the world has at some time or other been incorporated in some way into someone else's empire. It got impetus post World War I as a part of the unwinding of the empires of the losing side (German, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman), though some territories merely transferred to other (especially the British) empire.
In practical reality most of the planet is made up of people of mixed nationality including mixed religions living together. The genius of the European renaissance was the creation of the secular state.
Policy makers and commentators need to move on from outdated notions of "nations" and promote instead the concept of peaceful co-existence, the secular state, and religious tolerance. Bring on the independent state of Israel-Palestine!
The two-state solution is what has been officially pursued since 1948 after the British allowed massive Jewish immigration to its Palestine teritory after World War I. The 1948 solution of the creation of an independent state of Israel was meant to solve the problem, and to salve the consciences of all those European leaders who had been complicit in the Holocaust by not believing what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf and hence did not act earlier (or worse, actually shared his anti-semitism).
The concept of the "nation state" was a creation of mid 19th century Europe. Most of the world has at some time or other been incorporated in some way into someone else's empire. It got impetus post World War I as a part of the unwinding of the empires of the losing side (German, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman), though some territories merely transferred to other (especially the British) empire.
In practical reality most of the planet is made up of people of mixed nationality including mixed religions living together. The genius of the European renaissance was the creation of the secular state.
Policy makers and commentators need to move on from outdated notions of "nations" and promote instead the concept of peaceful co-existence, the secular state, and religious tolerance. Bring on the independent state of Israel-Palestine!
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Whatever happened to NOIE?
In asking the question What happened to NOIE I know that the technical answer is that it was "split in two in March 2004 when Daryl Williams was the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. And I also know from this interview that it had been Labor policy at the time to abolish it.
But in the context of responding to the Labor Government's consultation paper it is more than a little surprising that NONE of the work of either NOIE or the Office of the Information Economy in the old DCITA gets referred to.
Now NOIE was dysfunctional by including procurement with policy. But I've never quite understood why the IE part was folded into the Department. Was it because the Minister found the number of reports (ABDC, SBS, ACA, ABA, NOIE, DCITA in just the ICT part) too much? Was it a professional rivalry thing between the NOIE agency people and Departmental officers.
I'm keen to know because it looks to me to be the logical next step on Digital Economy policy to have another agency like the old NOIE. It needs to be that kind of semi-autonomous research and statistics house that is missing these days.
So if any of my readers know anything please fill me in.
But in the context of responding to the Labor Government's consultation paper it is more than a little surprising that NONE of the work of either NOIE or the Office of the Information Economy in the old DCITA gets referred to.
Now NOIE was dysfunctional by including procurement with policy. But I've never quite understood why the IE part was folded into the Department. Was it because the Minister found the number of reports (ABDC, SBS, ACA, ABA, NOIE, DCITA in just the ICT part) too much? Was it a professional rivalry thing between the NOIE agency people and Departmental officers.
I'm keen to know because it looks to me to be the logical next step on Digital Economy policy to have another agency like the old NOIE. It needs to be that kind of semi-autonomous research and statistics house that is missing these days.
So if any of my readers know anything please fill me in.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
A likely pair
Great item by Matt O'Sullivan in the SMH on the weekend. Really interesting take on the story of management at Telstra.
Some very good work - nearly investigative journalism level stuff - to figure out where Sol has been and when. But the character who comes through as more troubling is the Telstra chair. There are two particular quotes I want to address.
He is also dismissive of suggestions of a leadership change at Telstra.
"I don't think that's a serious issue at all, frankly. We have got the plan B. I think what you are looking at there is a lack of understanding on the part of a few of the analysts."
That is a really, really big call. The level of angst out there about Telstra, what the CEO and Chair are up to, is just "a lack of understanding" from some analysts. That's the kind of statement that could be interpretted as arrogance, the kind of arrogance that leads to the consequence that he was denying.
Australia is a tiny market where none of this technology is produced. All of the technology . . . all of the major players in the industry are outside Australia; and bare in mind we have got 20 per cent of our shareholders outside Australia.
"You don't win the big prizes without playing in the big game and being able to have access to the very best technologies. And you don't have that sitting in Sydney or Melbourne. Keeping those relationships, keeping in touch with the industry, I just can't tell you how important it is.
This, as some readers might know, really annoys me. Australia is the 15th largest econmy in the world, Telstra is one of the top 20 telcos in the world. We are not tiny.
Yes, we don't produce the technology here - no thanks to Telstra's predecessors who actually at their labs developed one of the first digital switches but decided we were to small to commercialise it. Nokia grew out of Finland, ricsson from Sewden.
Sccess is about mindset, not about size. The Chair of Australia's biggest telco has a "client state" mentality. Maybe he should talk to his business partner Rupert Murdoch about how you grow from a newspaper in Adelaide to being the man who owns the media!!!
Please Telstra shareholders, replace the Chair.
Some very good work - nearly investigative journalism level stuff - to figure out where Sol has been and when. But the character who comes through as more troubling is the Telstra chair. There are two particular quotes I want to address.
He is also dismissive of suggestions of a leadership change at Telstra.
"I don't think that's a serious issue at all, frankly. We have got the plan B. I think what you are looking at there is a lack of understanding on the part of a few of the analysts."
That is a really, really big call. The level of angst out there about Telstra, what the CEO and Chair are up to, is just "a lack of understanding" from some analysts. That's the kind of statement that could be interpretted as arrogance, the kind of arrogance that leads to the consequence that he was denying.
Australia is a tiny market where none of this technology is produced. All of the technology . . . all of the major players in the industry are outside Australia; and bare in mind we have got 20 per cent of our shareholders outside Australia.
"You don't win the big prizes without playing in the big game and being able to have access to the very best technologies. And you don't have that sitting in Sydney or Melbourne. Keeping those relationships, keeping in touch with the industry, I just can't tell you how important it is.
This, as some readers might know, really annoys me. Australia is the 15th largest econmy in the world, Telstra is one of the top 20 telcos in the world. We are not tiny.
Yes, we don't produce the technology here - no thanks to Telstra's predecessors who actually at their labs developed one of the first digital switches but decided we were to small to commercialise it. Nokia grew out of Finland, ricsson from Sewden.
Sccess is about mindset, not about size. The Chair of Australia's biggest telco has a "client state" mentality. Maybe he should talk to his business partner Rupert Murdoch about how you grow from a newspaper in Adelaide to being the man who owns the media!!!
Please Telstra shareholders, replace the Chair.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)