Other than that I have a copy of the original Telstra SMT Values that is ....
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Thursday, April 07, 2011
Caption competition
What was I lecturing former Telstra Group Managing Directors Doug Campbell and Steve Burdon on at the ATUG Gala awards evening?
Other than that I have a copy of the original Telstra SMT Values that is ....
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Other than that I have a copy of the original Telstra SMT Values that is ....
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
NBN Construction
NBN Co has scrapped its construction tenders and now its construction chief has resigned.
Way back when the NBN Co Board was first appointed I noted that the Board was long on deal makers but short on telco expertise and large construction project expertise.
It is not too late to fix it!
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Way back when the NBN Co Board was first appointed I noted that the Board was long on deal makers but short on telco expertise and large construction project expertise.
It is not too late to fix it!
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
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 ALP 2 - State
Every man and his dog has "come to the aid of the party" with their prescription for curing the troubles that ail the NSW Branch of the ALP.
Ultimately there are two issues in play. The first is the Right's definition of the objective, and hence how you approach the game and what you do with it. The second is that the Left doesn't know what it stands for.
The Right's position was best described in Eddie Obeid's recent attempt (in the SMH) at denial of the role of factions. His piece concluded;
The party will rebuild itself. There will be many new faces. We can rebuild but we need to listen to the community and advocate the policies they put forward.
That is the path to power is to reflect to the community the community's wishes. It is not to pursue a philosophical line, but to merely do - in Graham Richardson's words - "whatever it takes" to win power.
Writing in the SMH David Humphries nailed it as;
Rather than serve the ALP, Obeid was determined for it to serve him. Essentially a policy-free zone, his skills were limited to the assiduous pursuit of those vulnerable and hapless souls whose ambitions in politics far outweigh their talents, and to enforcing the consequences of disloyalty (that is, anything short of craven obedience) towards him and his clique. He who must be Obeid, went the line.
Humphries went on to recount a Michael Egan story that typifies this version of the right;
Another guest speaker was Mark Arbib, then the ALP assistant general secretary but later a Labor kingmaker and assassin, and a minister in the Gillard federal government after helping to elevate, then destroy, Kevin Rudd.
His speech to all those bright-eyed bushy-tailed kids was that they should follow the example of Joe and Reba and devote their time to endlessly recruiting numbers. ...
It struck me ... that Arbib had not once mentioned any policy achievement of any Labor government, or anything about the philosophical and policy differences between the Left and the Right.
A consequence of this tribal approach is then the nepotism that is so easily displayed. If you don't stand for anything other than the numbers, then you have to look after your mates.
The Left of the party is not much better. NSW avoided the split of the 1950s, but this really meant that the party remained in the control of the anti-communist Industrial Groups. To ensure an ongoing focus on the socialist objective a group formed inside the NSW ALP called the Steering Committee whose objective was support of the socialisation objective of the party.
In response to the Steering Committee the Right, under the name Centre Unity, organised to battle to keep this left suppressed. But technically at least the left formalised the factionalism first.
At some point (I'd need to check my Fruedenberg history) the right and left reached an "accommodation" that saw the spoils of the party distributed in a kind of proportional manner. Hence the Premier came from the Right, the Deputy from the Left. The General Secretary from the Right but an Assistant Secretary from each of the Left and Right. Similarly tickets for Senate and Legislative Council had their mix. A Senate ticket typically went Right, Left, Right, Right.
Having been accommodated the left largely then "went along" - they would ritually whinge and moan about annual conference, but would also do deals to ensure there was no great stoush. One memorable event though was over the stupidity of the way the power sharing rules meant that the Left's John Faulkner was not number 1 on a Senate ticket. It was also why with the departure of Carr the logical choice of John Watkins was not pursued.
Critics from outside the party interpret this "philosophy free zone" in different ways. Rick Kuhn has made another contribution urging Labor not to push unions away and to stay close to its working class base.
He writes of the proposed reforms of the party from the National Review;
These measures and the other recommendations won't lead to an expansion of the party's declining membership, largely a consequence of Labor's pro-business, racist and homophobic policies in government and opposition.
Over decades the ALP's connections with the working class have become more and more tenuous. A quarter of Labor's local branches in NSW have dissolved over the past 16 years and many that have survived are close to comatose. The ALP's working-class vote has not only contracted, it has also diluted. ...
The recommendations in the National Review will reduce the most important remaining connection between Labor and the working class: the role of affiliated unions in the party.
As I've noted before an issue for Labor is the decline in the numbers of that "traditional" working-class base. This is more so if, like Kuhn, you reject the idea of the validity of white-collar workers (including academics) as part of the working class. [See note below] In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels indeed drew the circle very wide;
The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers.
And it has always been an error to conclude that workers are not themselves "racist and homophobic". Let alone the massive conflict the ALP finds with environmental policies that can be seen as attacks on the jobs of the working class.
As I've said before the ALP needs to stand for something. It needs to stand for the (relatively) powerless in society. In doing so it needs to reflect to the "aspirationals" the reality that they may be successful but they are still not powerful, they might own shares but they are not capitalists.
It needs to go beyond the woosy words that Julia Gillard uses of being a party for a "Fair Go". Work Choices was battled against because it attacked the right of labor to organise while not attacking the right of capital to organise.
It needs to more explicitly state that it stands for empowering those who are powerless, that the socialisation objective is not anti-business but it is opposed to the narrow orthodox view that companies exist to create shareholder value.
It needs to stand for the rights of all groups that are otherwise powerless - that is what unites workers, gays, ethnic minorities, indigenous people and the environment itself.
There is no point in reforming the mechanisms of the party if you don't give people a reason to belong.
Note 1: Since writing the post I have been informed that Rick Kuhn's view is that white-collar workers are certainly part of the working-class. I mistook the paragraph below from an earlier article as suggesting that the party lost its worker focus with the influx of white collar workers.
After the split the blue collar membership of the Labor Party fell. In the late 1960s and 1970s this was offset by an influx of white collar workers and members of the professional middle class.
We certainly share the view, however, that the party has been more concerned with "Tammany" than policy.
Note 2: Jack Lang is an often reviled figure in ALP history because he tore the party apart in NSW in the 1930s. Bede Nairn's biography of Jack Lang The 'Big Fella' recounts the tales of the battles for the ALP leading up to the thirties. These were battles between communism, and industrial focus and outright "Tammany" (defined online as "a political organization within the Democratic Party in New York City (late 1800's and early 1900's) seeking political control by corruption and bossism. Lang had his faults, but despite the depiction of him otherwise he was no communist - he was also a vigorous opponent of Tammany. But eighty years later Eddie Obeid has shown you can't keep Tammany down without vigilance.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Ultimately there are two issues in play. The first is the Right's definition of the objective, and hence how you approach the game and what you do with it. The second is that the Left doesn't know what it stands for.
The Right's position was best described in Eddie Obeid's recent attempt (in the SMH) at denial of the role of factions. His piece concluded;
The party will rebuild itself. There will be many new faces. We can rebuild but we need to listen to the community and advocate the policies they put forward.
That is the path to power is to reflect to the community the community's wishes. It is not to pursue a philosophical line, but to merely do - in Graham Richardson's words - "whatever it takes" to win power.
Writing in the SMH David Humphries nailed it as;
Rather than serve the ALP, Obeid was determined for it to serve him. Essentially a policy-free zone, his skills were limited to the assiduous pursuit of those vulnerable and hapless souls whose ambitions in politics far outweigh their talents, and to enforcing the consequences of disloyalty (that is, anything short of craven obedience) towards him and his clique. He who must be Obeid, went the line.
Humphries went on to recount a Michael Egan story that typifies this version of the right;
Another guest speaker was Mark Arbib, then the ALP assistant general secretary but later a Labor kingmaker and assassin, and a minister in the Gillard federal government after helping to elevate, then destroy, Kevin Rudd.
His speech to all those bright-eyed bushy-tailed kids was that they should follow the example of Joe and Reba and devote their time to endlessly recruiting numbers. ...
It struck me ... that Arbib had not once mentioned any policy achievement of any Labor government, or anything about the philosophical and policy differences between the Left and the Right.
A consequence of this tribal approach is then the nepotism that is so easily displayed. If you don't stand for anything other than the numbers, then you have to look after your mates.
The Left of the party is not much better. NSW avoided the split of the 1950s, but this really meant that the party remained in the control of the anti-communist Industrial Groups. To ensure an ongoing focus on the socialist objective a group formed inside the NSW ALP called the Steering Committee whose objective was support of the socialisation objective of the party.
In response to the Steering Committee the Right, under the name Centre Unity, organised to battle to keep this left suppressed. But technically at least the left formalised the factionalism first.
At some point (I'd need to check my Fruedenberg history) the right and left reached an "accommodation" that saw the spoils of the party distributed in a kind of proportional manner. Hence the Premier came from the Right, the Deputy from the Left. The General Secretary from the Right but an Assistant Secretary from each of the Left and Right. Similarly tickets for Senate and Legislative Council had their mix. A Senate ticket typically went Right, Left, Right, Right.
Having been accommodated the left largely then "went along" - they would ritually whinge and moan about annual conference, but would also do deals to ensure there was no great stoush. One memorable event though was over the stupidity of the way the power sharing rules meant that the Left's John Faulkner was not number 1 on a Senate ticket. It was also why with the departure of Carr the logical choice of John Watkins was not pursued.
Critics from outside the party interpret this "philosophy free zone" in different ways. Rick Kuhn has made another contribution urging Labor not to push unions away and to stay close to its working class base.
He writes of the proposed reforms of the party from the National Review;
These measures and the other recommendations won't lead to an expansion of the party's declining membership, largely a consequence of Labor's pro-business, racist and homophobic policies in government and opposition.
Over decades the ALP's connections with the working class have become more and more tenuous. A quarter of Labor's local branches in NSW have dissolved over the past 16 years and many that have survived are close to comatose. The ALP's working-class vote has not only contracted, it has also diluted. ...
The recommendations in the National Review will reduce the most important remaining connection between Labor and the working class: the role of affiliated unions in the party.
As I've noted before an issue for Labor is the decline in the numbers of that "traditional" working-class base. This is more so if, like Kuhn, you reject the idea of the validity of white-collar workers (including academics) as part of the working class. [See note below] In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels indeed drew the circle very wide;
The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers.
And it has always been an error to conclude that workers are not themselves "racist and homophobic". Let alone the massive conflict the ALP finds with environmental policies that can be seen as attacks on the jobs of the working class.
As I've said before the ALP needs to stand for something. It needs to stand for the (relatively) powerless in society. In doing so it needs to reflect to the "aspirationals" the reality that they may be successful but they are still not powerful, they might own shares but they are not capitalists.
It needs to go beyond the woosy words that Julia Gillard uses of being a party for a "Fair Go". Work Choices was battled against because it attacked the right of labor to organise while not attacking the right of capital to organise.
It needs to more explicitly state that it stands for empowering those who are powerless, that the socialisation objective is not anti-business but it is opposed to the narrow orthodox view that companies exist to create shareholder value.
It needs to stand for the rights of all groups that are otherwise powerless - that is what unites workers, gays, ethnic minorities, indigenous people and the environment itself.
There is no point in reforming the mechanisms of the party if you don't give people a reason to belong.
Note 1: Since writing the post I have been informed that Rick Kuhn's view is that white-collar workers are certainly part of the working-class. I mistook the paragraph below from an earlier article as suggesting that the party lost its worker focus with the influx of white collar workers.
After the split the blue collar membership of the Labor Party fell. In the late 1960s and 1970s this was offset by an influx of white collar workers and members of the professional middle class.
We certainly share the view, however, that the party has been more concerned with "Tammany" than policy.
Note 2: Jack Lang is an often reviled figure in ALP history because he tore the party apart in NSW in the 1930s. Bede Nairn's biography of Jack Lang The 'Big Fella' recounts the tales of the battles for the ALP leading up to the thirties. These were battles between communism, and industrial focus and outright "Tammany" (defined online as "a political organization within the Democratic Party in New York City (late 1800's and early 1900's) seeking political control by corruption and bossism. Lang had his faults, but despite the depiction of him otherwise he was no communist - he was also a vigorous opponent of Tammany. But eighty years later Eddie Obeid has shown you can't keep Tammany down without vigilance.
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
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
Head of the River
My year at Sydney Grammar School did not produce any rowing champions. It did produce the only Australian to have won the America's Cup twice (Grant Simmer on Australia II and Alingi) and Oscar winning cinematographer Andrew Lesnie (Lord of the Rings).
Last Saturday the school won the rowing championship - the Head of the River.
I often embed video here but the formatting cuts off a bit. Today I ask you to follow the link to this video which is truly brilliant. Maybe another Lesnie in the making.
Note 1: But the school probably needs to work on spelling and use of apostrophes as one line of the subtitling through the (Barmy Army inspired I'd say) chant.
Note 2: We never needed that many Police to control us when I was at SGS.
Note 3: what does it say about the world that I only realised SGS won the Head of the River when sometime commentor here VicN sent me an e-mail to tell me - from Singapore!
(and in case you are too lazy to follow the link;
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Last Saturday the school won the rowing championship - the Head of the River.
I often embed video here but the formatting cuts off a bit. Today I ask you to follow the link to this video which is truly brilliant. Maybe another Lesnie in the making.
Note 1: But the school probably needs to work on spelling and use of apostrophes as one line of the subtitling through the (Barmy Army inspired I'd say) chant.
Note 2: We never needed that many Police to control us when I was at SGS.
Note 3: what does it say about the world that I only realised SGS won the Head of the River when sometime commentor here VicN sent me an e-mail to tell me - from Singapore!
(and in case you are too lazy to follow the link;
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Monday, April 04, 2011
The prescient Brian Perkins and NBN tale
I had the pleasure of attending the ATUG Gala Awards Evening and Conference last week.
I happened to be talking to last year's Charles Todd Medal winner (The Hon Senator Stephen Conroy, Minister for DBCDE), when this year's winner (Macquarie Telecom's David Tudehope) came over to introduce a former winner, AAPT's Brian Perkins.
David rightly introduced Brian as a role model for all the entrants who came after him. But I was able to trump that by saying Brian was also prescient. In AAPT's move from one end of George St to another various documents were being disposed of, but the secretary to the CEO, Rosemary Robinson, knew I liked history and sent some my way.
Included in it was a memo from Brian to AAPT CEO Larry Williams dated 4 August 1993, in which he says he was asked at ATUG what his views were on the Government's plans to initiate a fibre-to-the-home project.
He notes that ATUG submitted to the the ROSA review that Telecom be separated into three companies, but that the Government had opted for accounting rather than structural separation. He writes;
ATUG should propose a stand-alone company whose responsibility is to provide and operate an efficient and cost-effective fibre distribution network which will meet the needs of Australian service suppliers and users into the 21st century.
(Note: The note also makes reference to the troubles AAPT had in getting its 1414 access code configured. Technically the 1991 Act did not require the provision of PSTN Ingress and Egress (as it was then known - hence the PIE model), in fact, the view in Telecom was that to provide it was illegal. This did not stop then Minister Grahame Richardson ringing then GM CCD Sales John Brennan (who had responsibility for AAP as an account) and saying that Telecom had to "fix it or it was your job". Brennan passed it up the chain.)
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
I happened to be talking to last year's Charles Todd Medal winner (The Hon Senator Stephen Conroy, Minister for DBCDE), when this year's winner (Macquarie Telecom's David Tudehope) came over to introduce a former winner, AAPT's Brian Perkins.
David rightly introduced Brian as a role model for all the entrants who came after him. But I was able to trump that by saying Brian was also prescient. In AAPT's move from one end of George St to another various documents were being disposed of, but the secretary to the CEO, Rosemary Robinson, knew I liked history and sent some my way.
Included in it was a memo from Brian to AAPT CEO Larry Williams dated 4 August 1993, in which he says he was asked at ATUG what his views were on the Government's plans to initiate a fibre-to-the-home project.
He notes that ATUG submitted to the the ROSA review that Telecom be separated into three companies, but that the Government had opted for accounting rather than structural separation. He writes;
ATUG should propose a stand-alone company whose responsibility is to provide and operate an efficient and cost-effective fibre distribution network which will meet the needs of Australian service suppliers and users into the 21st century.
(Note: The note also makes reference to the troubles AAPT had in getting its 1414 access code configured. Technically the 1991 Act did not require the provision of PSTN Ingress and Egress (as it was then known - hence the PIE model), in fact, the view in Telecom was that to provide it was illegal. This did not stop then Minister Grahame Richardson ringing then GM CCD Sales John Brennan (who had responsibility for AAP as an account) and saying that Telecom had to "fix it or it was your job". Brennan passed it up the chain.)
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Safe Hands?
So the coalition is reported to be "war-gaming" a change in PM before the next election. Nothing wrong with that.
But the memorable quote is;
It is not confining its efforts to the two men most likely to battle for the leadership should Gillard be deposed - Bill Shorten and Greg Combet. It is also focusing seriously on the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, and the Defence Minister, Stephen Smith.
Both now qualify as elder statesmen and the thinking inside the Coalition is that should Labor change again, it would be such an act of desperation that the party would not opt for a raw recruit with a reputation as a machine man, such as Combet or Shorten.
Ummm. Have we forgotten that they were both labelled roosters for their machinations in the Beazley/Crean era?
Have we forgotten that before Parliament they were the State General Secretaries in Qld and WA respectively. They are just as much "machine" men as the other two.
It has been Gillard's and Rudd's strength that their CVs include real jobs, and while they may have been parliamentary staff they were not machine operatives.
The most likely alternative to Julia Gillard is Julia Gillard.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
But the memorable quote is;
It is not confining its efforts to the two men most likely to battle for the leadership should Gillard be deposed - Bill Shorten and Greg Combet. It is also focusing seriously on the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, and the Defence Minister, Stephen Smith.
Both now qualify as elder statesmen and the thinking inside the Coalition is that should Labor change again, it would be such an act of desperation that the party would not opt for a raw recruit with a reputation as a machine man, such as Combet or Shorten.
Ummm. Have we forgotten that they were both labelled roosters for their machinations in the Beazley/Crean era?
Have we forgotten that before Parliament they were the State General Secretaries in Qld and WA respectively. They are just as much "machine" men as the other two.
It has been Gillard's and Rudd's strength that their CVs include real jobs, and while they may have been parliamentary staff they were not machine operatives.
The most likely alternative to Julia Gillard is Julia Gillard.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Cyber-bowling in groups
Mark Bahnisch (of blog Larvatus Prodeo) had a nice piece in Crikey today (but behind the paywall).
He notes the consequence of Saturday being the talk of party reform within the ALP. He takes particular aim at the suggestions built on Putnam's Bowling Alone
that the collapse of "social capital" means you can't build an active party.
He says there are two problems, it’s not true and it avoids rather than engages with the problem.
The data actually shows there’s no lack of interest in political issues among many Australians, particularly among young Australians. But existing structures don't engage that interest. He draws attention to a UK Fabian Society report, Facing Out Online: How Party Politics Must Change To Build A Progressive Society and "the disjunction between frozen institutional structures and activist impulses."
He suggests that now is the time to engage with the issue by experimenting with new structures, including considering the kinds of things covered by Gov 2.0.
Certainly a better policy discussion can be had online in a forum than in a dusty school hall. Members can be engaged with the movement every day, not just once a month.
The ALP in NSW experimented with a "Central Policy Branch". The next step should be the "Virtual Branch". Active participation in the (or one of the) virtual branches should give you just as much right to vote in preselections etc as central policy or real branches.
Thanks Mark (and yes - if you want to read the whole original I'd back Mark and recommend a Crikey subscription).
PS And cyber-bowling in groups does happen - its just different kinds of games.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
He notes the consequence of Saturday being the talk of party reform within the ALP. He takes particular aim at the suggestions built on Putnam's Bowling Alone
that the collapse of "social capital" means you can't build an active party. He says there are two problems, it’s not true and it avoids rather than engages with the problem.
The data actually shows there’s no lack of interest in political issues among many Australians, particularly among young Australians. But existing structures don't engage that interest. He draws attention to a UK Fabian Society report, Facing Out Online: How Party Politics Must Change To Build A Progressive Society and "the disjunction between frozen institutional structures and activist impulses."
He suggests that now is the time to engage with the issue by experimenting with new structures, including considering the kinds of things covered by Gov 2.0.
Certainly a better policy discussion can be had online in a forum than in a dusty school hall. Members can be engaged with the movement every day, not just once a month.
The ALP in NSW experimented with a "Central Policy Branch". The next step should be the "Virtual Branch". Active participation in the (or one of the) virtual branches should give you just as much right to vote in preselections etc as central policy or real branches.
Thanks Mark (and yes - if you want to read the whole original I'd back Mark and recommend a Crikey subscription).
PS And cyber-bowling in groups does happen - its just different kinds of games.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
KM in the Oz
Kevin Morgan in the Oz today tries to neatly dust off a diatribe delivered through the pages of Communications Day yesterday. He seems to forget what he battled for all those years ago at the ACTU - which was Government control and social outcomes - and to have instead thought his mission was to preserve the behemoth Telstra.
The so-called "world wide" trends Australian governments followed in our deregulation cycle started in the UK, NZ and Australia. We were in the vanguard not the cravan. Just as we are now.
The single biggest achievement of the NBN policy is the structural reform of the industry that was not completed prior to privatisation - largely due to a union backed campaign by Telstra. Conroy to his credit has pursued this single mindedly. It was the one thing Telstra under Sol demanded be dropped to secure Telstra's participation in 2008, and Conroy, unlike every Comms Minister for the last fifteen years stood up to Australia's largest totally domestic corporation and chose consumers and public interest over thuggery.
In response to his longer piece in Comms Day I have written and submitted the following.
It is disappointing that my fellow student of telco policy history Kevin Morgan is prepared to be so wrong in his recollection of the seventies – and indeed the eighties.
We can ignore little things like Telecom getting a monopoly in the “1976 Act” when the Act was 1975, the same year Telecom was formed and Telecom2000 saw the light of day. The single biggest technology change that the report missed was not the growth of wireless but the development of the PC. While it did see a broadband fibre based future it was in either a circuit switched or broadcasting mode.
In his prelude to discussing the Davidson Inquiry, Kevin writes “Telecom could no longer rely on the Budget to support investment plans”. Unfortunately he is one of the few people who I know knows that Telecom had seen no support from the Budget for anything since 1959, the year that the PMG was required to become self-funding. The entire $4.5B debt of the PMG was assumed by Telecom Australia.
He is right to note that the Hawke Government did increase the interest rate payable by Telecom on that debt. Unfortunately for his argument though the discrepancy between the 13% and 7% is entirely explained by the difference in the applicable Government Bond (or risk free capital) rates then and now.
He goes on that “As Telecom became capital constrained in the late 1980s the fibre vision waned.” The fibre vision however at that time had been extinguished by the successful lobbying by the free to air television moguls against Pay TV. Pay TV only re-emerged on the policy horizon – according to Mark Westfield’s The Gatekeepers – at the insistence of Richard Li, then still working for his father at Hutchison. He told the Minister that there was no interest in bidding for AUSSAT if they couldn’t do Pay TV.
Finally, I was left confused by the foray into laws of physics and laws of economics. Wireless isn’t “challenging the laws of physics” – it is actually conforming to them. No part of standard electromagnetic theory has yet been challenged by the development of wireless, and even the information theory of the Shannon limit isn’t even tested.
The non physical laws of relevance are Moore’s Law that the capacity of microprocessors doubles every eighteen months and Cooper’s Law that the capacity of wireless systems doubles every thirty months – wireless capacity keeps falling behind demand which is why there are ever greater demands for more spectrum. The CEO’s of the three mobile networks – Thodey, O’Sullivan and Dews – are all on the record stating that wireless networks cannot meet the bandwidth requirements of citizens.
As for the economics of monopoly, there are plenty of examples where one technology has monopoly characteristics but inter-modal competition can be sustained. We have one electricity distribution network in our suburbs, and no one suggests we duplicate it. We have in some places one gas network, and no one suggests we duplicate it. But they compete to carry energy to premises, energy that has different features and characteristics (or strengths) just as fibre and wireless do.
Kevin started his piece with the saying that if you can remember the seventies you weren’t there. The real saying though is about the sixties and is variously attributed to Grace Slick, Robin Williams and others. What does it say about me that I too have a bookcase full of reports from the era, but my copy of In the Court of the Crimson King is a CD (a girlfriend used to own the record).
NOTE I hope to have a copy of Telecom 2000 up on the DigEcon website in the next day!
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
The so-called "world wide" trends Australian governments followed in our deregulation cycle started in the UK, NZ and Australia. We were in the vanguard not the cravan. Just as we are now.
The single biggest achievement of the NBN policy is the structural reform of the industry that was not completed prior to privatisation - largely due to a union backed campaign by Telstra. Conroy to his credit has pursued this single mindedly. It was the one thing Telstra under Sol demanded be dropped to secure Telstra's participation in 2008, and Conroy, unlike every Comms Minister for the last fifteen years stood up to Australia's largest totally domestic corporation and chose consumers and public interest over thuggery.
In response to his longer piece in Comms Day I have written and submitted the following.
It is disappointing that my fellow student of telco policy history Kevin Morgan is prepared to be so wrong in his recollection of the seventies – and indeed the eighties.
We can ignore little things like Telecom getting a monopoly in the “1976 Act” when the Act was 1975, the same year Telecom was formed and Telecom2000 saw the light of day. The single biggest technology change that the report missed was not the growth of wireless but the development of the PC. While it did see a broadband fibre based future it was in either a circuit switched or broadcasting mode.
In his prelude to discussing the Davidson Inquiry, Kevin writes “Telecom could no longer rely on the Budget to support investment plans”. Unfortunately he is one of the few people who I know knows that Telecom had seen no support from the Budget for anything since 1959, the year that the PMG was required to become self-funding. The entire $4.5B debt of the PMG was assumed by Telecom Australia.
He is right to note that the Hawke Government did increase the interest rate payable by Telecom on that debt. Unfortunately for his argument though the discrepancy between the 13% and 7% is entirely explained by the difference in the applicable Government Bond (or risk free capital) rates then and now.
He goes on that “As Telecom became capital constrained in the late 1980s the fibre vision waned.” The fibre vision however at that time had been extinguished by the successful lobbying by the free to air television moguls against Pay TV. Pay TV only re-emerged on the policy horizon – according to Mark Westfield’s The Gatekeepers – at the insistence of Richard Li, then still working for his father at Hutchison. He told the Minister that there was no interest in bidding for AUSSAT if they couldn’t do Pay TV.
Finally, I was left confused by the foray into laws of physics and laws of economics. Wireless isn’t “challenging the laws of physics” – it is actually conforming to them. No part of standard electromagnetic theory has yet been challenged by the development of wireless, and even the information theory of the Shannon limit isn’t even tested.
The non physical laws of relevance are Moore’s Law that the capacity of microprocessors doubles every eighteen months and Cooper’s Law that the capacity of wireless systems doubles every thirty months – wireless capacity keeps falling behind demand which is why there are ever greater demands for more spectrum. The CEO’s of the three mobile networks – Thodey, O’Sullivan and Dews – are all on the record stating that wireless networks cannot meet the bandwidth requirements of citizens.
As for the economics of monopoly, there are plenty of examples where one technology has monopoly characteristics but inter-modal competition can be sustained. We have one electricity distribution network in our suburbs, and no one suggests we duplicate it. We have in some places one gas network, and no one suggests we duplicate it. But they compete to carry energy to premises, energy that has different features and characteristics (or strengths) just as fibre and wireless do.
Kevin started his piece with the saying that if you can remember the seventies you weren’t there. The real saying though is about the sixties and is variously attributed to Grace Slick, Robin Williams and others. What does it say about me that I too have a bookcase full of reports from the era, but my copy of In the Court of the Crimson King is a CD (a girlfriend used to own the record).
NOTE I hope to have a copy of Telecom 2000 up on the DigEcon website in the next day!
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Nice to be noticed
More on Robbo and a bit on Eddie
Many thanks to Chris for providing me with this link to Paul Keating's famous letter to John Robertson in 2008 when he replaced Michael Costa as an MLC.
As the party meanders to the conclusion that seemed to be ordained months ago, let's repeat some of his prophetic words;
When I came to see you about the Iemma Government's electricity privatisation proposals in April 2008, you will remember me telling you that reckless indifference by you and Bernie Riordan to the Government's fortunes, may see the Government destroyed and for which, you and Riordan would be held accountable. ...
And if the Government goes down, the lethal tally of men and women who will have lost their seats will be to your account and that of the Party officers who were complicit in the melee; namely Riordan, Bitar and Foley. ...
Let me tell you, if the Labor Party's stocks ever get so low as to require your services in its Parliamentary leadership, it will itself, have no future. Not a sherrick of principle or restraint have you shown. You have behaved with reckless indifference to the longevity of the current Government and to the reasonable prospects of its re-election.
It may be a novel concept to you, let me say that the conscientious business of governance can never be founded in a soul so blackened by opportunism.
(Commas are all PFKs own work!)
Robbo's supposed claim to fame is the orchestration of the campaign against Work Choices and the proposition that he, not the ACTU nor Federal Labor, brought John Howard down. He seems to be the only person in history with a claim to destroying both a Liberal and a Labor Government (though I think Billy Hughes came close).
Meanwhile Eddie Obeid has attempted his own spin that the factions had nothing to do with how the NSW Parliamentary Party behaved.
Interestingly he is, to a degree right. Because factions tend to imply groups of people bound together by a common goal, usually philosophically based. In the NSW ALP the split between the original Left (the Steering Committee) and the Right was about the centrality of the socialisation commitment in the platform. What Obeid was up to had nothing to do with this. It was all to do with his personal ability to weild power and influence.
Three paragraphs reflect it all;
At that point, there was a loss of confidence in the leader. The Centre Unity faction wanted Thistlethwaite and Rees out.
Even so, Rees wasn't tapped on the shoulder by caucus but by Thistlethwaite. Thistlethwaite told me, ALP president Bernie Riordan and Tripodi in Joe's office that he'd told Rees to step down, with a vote on the new premier to be held the next morning. That was the first we'd heard of it.
We advocated Kristina Keneally; head office supported Sartor. There were no recriminations. So it's nonsense to say factions run the show.
Why should the General Secretary be briefing the President together with Eddie and Joe in Joe's office? Why does he think that Rees was going to "step down" because Thistethwaite tapped him on the shoulder? (In the end he didn't - he had to be thrown out by the Right - including Eddie and Joe - voting against him and for a spill).
To show exactly how vacuous this man is, his last para reads;
The party will rebuild itself. There will be many new faces. We can rebuild but we need to listen to the community and advocate the policies they put forward.
How about having a philosophy of your own?
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
As the party meanders to the conclusion that seemed to be ordained months ago, let's repeat some of his prophetic words;
When I came to see you about the Iemma Government's electricity privatisation proposals in April 2008, you will remember me telling you that reckless indifference by you and Bernie Riordan to the Government's fortunes, may see the Government destroyed and for which, you and Riordan would be held accountable. ...
And if the Government goes down, the lethal tally of men and women who will have lost their seats will be to your account and that of the Party officers who were complicit in the melee; namely Riordan, Bitar and Foley. ...
Let me tell you, if the Labor Party's stocks ever get so low as to require your services in its Parliamentary leadership, it will itself, have no future. Not a sherrick of principle or restraint have you shown. You have behaved with reckless indifference to the longevity of the current Government and to the reasonable prospects of its re-election.
It may be a novel concept to you, let me say that the conscientious business of governance can never be founded in a soul so blackened by opportunism.
(Commas are all PFKs own work!)
Robbo's supposed claim to fame is the orchestration of the campaign against Work Choices and the proposition that he, not the ACTU nor Federal Labor, brought John Howard down. He seems to be the only person in history with a claim to destroying both a Liberal and a Labor Government (though I think Billy Hughes came close).
Meanwhile Eddie Obeid has attempted his own spin that the factions had nothing to do with how the NSW Parliamentary Party behaved.
Interestingly he is, to a degree right. Because factions tend to imply groups of people bound together by a common goal, usually philosophically based. In the NSW ALP the split between the original Left (the Steering Committee) and the Right was about the centrality of the socialisation commitment in the platform. What Obeid was up to had nothing to do with this. It was all to do with his personal ability to weild power and influence.
Three paragraphs reflect it all;
At that point, there was a loss of confidence in the leader. The Centre Unity faction wanted Thistlethwaite and Rees out.
Even so, Rees wasn't tapped on the shoulder by caucus but by Thistlethwaite. Thistlethwaite told me, ALP president Bernie Riordan and Tripodi in Joe's office that he'd told Rees to step down, with a vote on the new premier to be held the next morning. That was the first we'd heard of it.
We advocated Kristina Keneally; head office supported Sartor. There were no recriminations. So it's nonsense to say factions run the show.
Why should the General Secretary be briefing the President together with Eddie and Joe in Joe's office? Why does he think that Rees was going to "step down" because Thistethwaite tapped him on the shoulder? (In the end he didn't - he had to be thrown out by the Right - including Eddie and Joe - voting against him and for a spill).
To show exactly how vacuous this man is, his last para reads;
The party will rebuild itself. There will be many new faces. We can rebuild but we need to listen to the community and advocate the policies they put forward.
How about having a philosophy of your own?
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Monday, March 28, 2011
BOF vs KK
As a follow-up to my earlier post I want to compare and contrast the two leaders - BOF and KK.
Interestingly for those like me who think the political rot starts with "professional politicians" - BOF is one whereas KK came later to the game.
KK was impressive with her energy though there is no leader in ALP history - other than perhaps Mark Latham - who hasn't been just as committed and eager throughout the campaign. But it really has been a bit rich for KK to talk about the people of NSW not leaving the ALP, but the ALP leaving them. She was, after all, a part of the sub-factional nonsense. Though, if memory serves me right, on the fateful day of Rees decline it wasn't a question of if he was going as who was replacing him and that Frank Sartor thought the prize was his till very late on the day.
But to endorse Walt Secord for the Legislative Council, when there isn't even a current vacancy - only the rumoured one of Eddie Obeid - is reflective of the same degenerate culture that brought the ALP to this place.
All the talk is now of KK heading to Canberra with even Bob Hawke joining the fray. (though there was the antithesis of the Latham/Howard handshake just before polling day, Hawke with Kenneally where you were pretty sure all he was thinking of was bonking her). Why it would be good for either I have no idea - and the words "Carmen Lawrence" should be enough to dissuade everyone of the idea.
And as for BOF. His strength was in getting the Liberals to focus on their opponents not themselves, on being prepared to make unprincipled decisions (electricity, school league tables) for the political value, and to stick to the plan of keeping the message simple.
It is notable that BOF thanked Mark Textor in his speech. So much of the NSW campaign was reminiscent of the last Federal campaign from the Liberals, including the concept of a "contract" with voters and the simple five point plan (previously critiqued here).
This formula has been frighteningly successful and Labor needs to start now thinking of ways to defeat it. The contract part overcomes any amount of counter ads about "real plans". It comes down to the fact that when you are in Government you should talk about (a) your record and (b) how you plan to build on it.
That might have been a problem for NSW Labor, but Bob Carr's piece talked about much of the good they did early. On Saturday KK chose to talk with pride about what had been done for people with a disability.
The ALP needs to fix its internal problems, but also learn the error of the Federal Party in 1996. The job starts now of building the story of a successful Government that got tired.
As Poll Bludger wrote today in Crikey "It has been more than three decades since a government stood before the people asking for an advance on 16 years, something that -- despite Bob Carr's audacious claim to the contrary yesterday -- seems objectively impossible to achieve in modern politics." The public does punish longevity, they want a change, but give them reason and they will come back.
The other thing we know about Mark Textor's campaigning is that in Government he runs a good fear campaign. So in 2015 expect lots of dragged up ads about the perceived disasters of the last four years. The ALP can and must start now convincing voters that really Labor wasn't "so bad" - even good. They need to make that their sole focus for the next six months and largely ignore BOF - the less like an opposition they look, the more he will over-reach (which means the Liberal play book of cut services).
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Interestingly for those like me who think the political rot starts with "professional politicians" - BOF is one whereas KK came later to the game.
KK was impressive with her energy though there is no leader in ALP history - other than perhaps Mark Latham - who hasn't been just as committed and eager throughout the campaign. But it really has been a bit rich for KK to talk about the people of NSW not leaving the ALP, but the ALP leaving them. She was, after all, a part of the sub-factional nonsense. Though, if memory serves me right, on the fateful day of Rees decline it wasn't a question of if he was going as who was replacing him and that Frank Sartor thought the prize was his till very late on the day.
But to endorse Walt Secord for the Legislative Council, when there isn't even a current vacancy - only the rumoured one of Eddie Obeid - is reflective of the same degenerate culture that brought the ALP to this place.
All the talk is now of KK heading to Canberra with even Bob Hawke joining the fray. (though there was the antithesis of the Latham/Howard handshake just before polling day, Hawke with Kenneally where you were pretty sure all he was thinking of was bonking her). Why it would be good for either I have no idea - and the words "Carmen Lawrence" should be enough to dissuade everyone of the idea.
And as for BOF. His strength was in getting the Liberals to focus on their opponents not themselves, on being prepared to make unprincipled decisions (electricity, school league tables) for the political value, and to stick to the plan of keeping the message simple.
It is notable that BOF thanked Mark Textor in his speech. So much of the NSW campaign was reminiscent of the last Federal campaign from the Liberals, including the concept of a "contract" with voters and the simple five point plan (previously critiqued here).
This formula has been frighteningly successful and Labor needs to start now thinking of ways to defeat it. The contract part overcomes any amount of counter ads about "real plans". It comes down to the fact that when you are in Government you should talk about (a) your record and (b) how you plan to build on it.
That might have been a problem for NSW Labor, but Bob Carr's piece talked about much of the good they did early. On Saturday KK chose to talk with pride about what had been done for people with a disability.
The ALP needs to fix its internal problems, but also learn the error of the Federal Party in 1996. The job starts now of building the story of a successful Government that got tired.
As Poll Bludger wrote today in Crikey "It has been more than three decades since a government stood before the people asking for an advance on 16 years, something that -- despite Bob Carr's audacious claim to the contrary yesterday -- seems objectively impossible to achieve in modern politics." The public does punish longevity, they want a change, but give them reason and they will come back.
The other thing we know about Mark Textor's campaigning is that in Government he runs a good fear campaign. So in 2015 expect lots of dragged up ads about the perceived disasters of the last four years. The ALP can and must start now convincing voters that really Labor wasn't "so bad" - even good. They need to make that their sole focus for the next six months and largely ignore BOF - the less like an opposition they look, the more he will over-reach (which means the Liberal play book of cut services).
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
What to make of it - and what now
The NSW election has delivered - mostly - the results expected. However, as Imre Saluszinsky succinctly reported in the Oz, the result was still more a vote for the Centre than extremes.
Pauline Hanson failed miserably to attract support - though her 1.85% was still double that of the remnant Australian Democrats. More interestingly the Greens again failed to win an inner-city lower house seat. Their nearly 11% Upper House vote includes large slabs from those seats on the North Shore where the Greens out-polled (by as much as double) the ALP.
But the real story was the destruction of the ALP - and a 2PP vote of about the 35% forecast in the polls.
Bob Carr provides an interesting account describing the route as a "work of genius" - but not by O'Farrell but by the ALP itself. Carr's take is that the ALP failed the "McKell model", saying
It was a symbolic repudiation of the McKell model, the style of NSW Labor since William McKell (premier 1941-47). McKell's moderate ethos was based on middle course policies which gave the party support in the bush as well as the city.It was possible because the machine supported the parliamentary leadership, the premier of the day. This pattern prevailed under Joe Cahill, Neville Wran and me.
Rodney Cavalier in Power Crisis (reviewed by me here) places the blame here the other way round. Under the McKell model the Parliamentary Party took the party with it, not, as Carr suggests, was the party machine always merely the lap-dog of the parliamentary party.
It is naive of anyone to ever believe that in a stoush between the parliamentary party and the party organisation that the parliamentary party will win. It is untrue of a party with the pledge like the ALP but ultimately is unsustainable even in a party like the Liberals (or more pertinently the UAP).
It isn't even hard to find divergent views on KK. ALP General Secretary Sam Dastyari wrote;
The one figure whose stature rose in everybody's eyes during the campaign was Kristina Keneally. A talented and polished performer when she rose to be premier, she excelled as a campaigner. Her energy and her will to fight to the end impressed voters across the spectrum. People kept telling us, again and again, that they admired how she stood up for what she believed in. That attitude and commitment needs to be the spirit of Labor in opposition.
While former Howard CoS Arthur Sinodinis wrote;
Kristina Keneally has proved to be a major disappointment. It is doubtful she has any real future in politics, state or federal. She may be a feisty and attractive campaigner but there is no evidence her political skills during the campaign added to Labor's vote. But her actions before the campaign proper began showed the absence of mature political judgment.
First and foremost was her failure to support Nathan Rees who at least was attempting, if only at the 11th hour, to reform the worst excesses of state Labor. Keneally gained the premiership over Rees's dead body. She was the revenge of Sussex Street power brokers on a reforming premier...
Her botching of the electricity sale to satisfy the ambitions of her Treasurer - and the treatment of parliament in that process - convinced the public that re-electing this government would change nothing. Indeed, there was a danger that rewarding bad behaviour would only encourage it.
The latter is a telling statement. There seemed to be no real benefit in pursuing the electricity privatisation so close to the poll - other than to let BOF off - he'll just say "oh terrible deal but too hard to undo". It would have been good to see the man who voted down the original proposals have to deal with the issue in the next four years.
Equally it would have been interesting to see the ALP vote with Nathan Rees having the full run. Mind you, even more interesting would have been John Watkins replacing Bob Carr instead of Morris Iemma.
The question is - what now. Predictably John Faulkner has called for factions and individuals to put the party first. In that he wants support for party reforms recommended by the 2010 Review.
The review report contains nice sentiments like;
The Review Committee believes developing a modern and meaningful role for members within a democratic party is the fundamental challenge facing the modern Labor Party.
For Labor to effectively develop and articulate a modern reform agenda, it must stay closely connected to the broader progressive community, and our connection to Australia’s youth must be revived. This is best done by ensuring that we are open and authentic about our values and committed to involving members and reaching out to supporters. Labor must reach out to the progressive movements which already exist in Australia and which previously have provided the Party with innovation in policy and ideas. ...
The Review Committee believes that the Party should also explicitly adopt an organising approach to growing the Party membership. ... The Party should also formalise training activities through the creation of a national organising and training institute or academy. This body would be responsible for organising classes and courses for members and supporters on building the
Labor presence in local communities, as well as becoming a new home for the Party’s campaign training initiatives.
While seeking a "modern and meaningful role for members", the report backs the current 50/50 representation between branches and affiliate organisations (unions). While it makes some recommendations about reducing the rorting of the 50% from members (by including in it parliamentary representatives, young labor etc), and electing Presidents from the membership, it doesn't address the fact that members know they are irrelevant at conference. And the key party position - just as it was for Joe Stalin - is General Secretary, not President.
The view of the review that Labor "must stay closely connected to the broader progressive community" can be contrasted with the view of those from the academic (and indeed Socialist Alternative) left. Rick Kuhn has recently opined that "the relationship between the ALP and the working class is certainly much less intimate now than it was a century or even fifty years ago." He builds on work he has done with Tom Bramble in their book Labor's Conflict
which was also summarised in an article in the Oz last year.
In both these pieces there is reference to " low-working-class combativity" leading Kuhn to conclude;
On the other hand, a revival in workers’ combativity may lead many of them to conclude that their own actions could challenge the logic of production for profits and the structures of Australian politics, both embraced by Labor, that create their immediate problems.
This analysis provides one of the alternative narratives about the ALP - that it is either doing too much or too little to (a) embrace all progressive movements or (b) focus on its blue collar base.
Either is simplistic. The "progressive" cause is too broad to provide a cohesive base - just ask the Australian Democrats. The 'blue collar base" is too narrow, representing something less than 20% of the workforce.
The alternative is to redefine a philosophy of the left to give new meaning to "the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange" to not focus on ownership but instead on purpose. The enemy is not profit, but the idea that the "purpose of the firm is to create shareholder value". The latter is not only bad political philosophy, it is economically and historically incorrect.
Finally let us return to the Dastyari analysis. He writes that;
We need to address the factional system at a state parliamentary level. In the past this served Labor and the state well as it brought internal discipline and clarity to the party's thoughts and actions.
He needs to look closer to home. The factional system pervades Sussex St, and every other organ of the party. If he really wants to make inroads he needs to first prohibit the “show and tell” voting arrangements used to ensure factional discipline.
Secondly he needs to show real commitment to rebuilding the party by returning it to a truly democratic party in which decisions ultimately come from members who chose to join the party. That means cranking down union representation at conference to where it was when the party was founded, zero.
Unfortunately the parliamentary party is expected to select the former head of Unions NSW as its new leader. As Morris Iemma is says "Robbo becoming leader is not a good start".
What do Unsworth, Costa, Della Bosca and Roozendaal have in common? They were either former General Secretaries of the party or heads of the NSW Union movement. Oh, and they were monumental failures in parliamentary politics.
(Mind you Costa is quoted as saying "In my opinion Robbo has neither the intellect nor the political courage required to be an alternative premier." Problem is that was true of Costa as Treasurer too. Too little has been written about the role of Costa as Treasurer in canning the original North-West rail proposal and backing instead the ludicrous "metro line" that cost about $500M.)
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Pauline Hanson failed miserably to attract support - though her 1.85% was still double that of the remnant Australian Democrats. More interestingly the Greens again failed to win an inner-city lower house seat. Their nearly 11% Upper House vote includes large slabs from those seats on the North Shore where the Greens out-polled (by as much as double) the ALP.
But the real story was the destruction of the ALP - and a 2PP vote of about the 35% forecast in the polls.
Bob Carr provides an interesting account describing the route as a "work of genius" - but not by O'Farrell but by the ALP itself. Carr's take is that the ALP failed the "McKell model", saying
It was a symbolic repudiation of the McKell model, the style of NSW Labor since William McKell (premier 1941-47). McKell's moderate ethos was based on middle course policies which gave the party support in the bush as well as the city.It was possible because the machine supported the parliamentary leadership, the premier of the day. This pattern prevailed under Joe Cahill, Neville Wran and me.
Rodney Cavalier in Power Crisis (reviewed by me here) places the blame here the other way round. Under the McKell model the Parliamentary Party took the party with it, not, as Carr suggests, was the party machine always merely the lap-dog of the parliamentary party.
It is naive of anyone to ever believe that in a stoush between the parliamentary party and the party organisation that the parliamentary party will win. It is untrue of a party with the pledge like the ALP but ultimately is unsustainable even in a party like the Liberals (or more pertinently the UAP).
It isn't even hard to find divergent views on KK. ALP General Secretary Sam Dastyari wrote;
The one figure whose stature rose in everybody's eyes during the campaign was Kristina Keneally. A talented and polished performer when she rose to be premier, she excelled as a campaigner. Her energy and her will to fight to the end impressed voters across the spectrum. People kept telling us, again and again, that they admired how she stood up for what she believed in. That attitude and commitment needs to be the spirit of Labor in opposition.
While former Howard CoS Arthur Sinodinis wrote;
Kristina Keneally has proved to be a major disappointment. It is doubtful she has any real future in politics, state or federal. She may be a feisty and attractive campaigner but there is no evidence her political skills during the campaign added to Labor's vote. But her actions before the campaign proper began showed the absence of mature political judgment.
First and foremost was her failure to support Nathan Rees who at least was attempting, if only at the 11th hour, to reform the worst excesses of state Labor. Keneally gained the premiership over Rees's dead body. She was the revenge of Sussex Street power brokers on a reforming premier...
Her botching of the electricity sale to satisfy the ambitions of her Treasurer - and the treatment of parliament in that process - convinced the public that re-electing this government would change nothing. Indeed, there was a danger that rewarding bad behaviour would only encourage it.
The latter is a telling statement. There seemed to be no real benefit in pursuing the electricity privatisation so close to the poll - other than to let BOF off - he'll just say "oh terrible deal but too hard to undo". It would have been good to see the man who voted down the original proposals have to deal with the issue in the next four years.
Equally it would have been interesting to see the ALP vote with Nathan Rees having the full run. Mind you, even more interesting would have been John Watkins replacing Bob Carr instead of Morris Iemma.
The question is - what now. Predictably John Faulkner has called for factions and individuals to put the party first. In that he wants support for party reforms recommended by the 2010 Review.
The review report contains nice sentiments like;
The Review Committee believes developing a modern and meaningful role for members within a democratic party is the fundamental challenge facing the modern Labor Party.
For Labor to effectively develop and articulate a modern reform agenda, it must stay closely connected to the broader progressive community, and our connection to Australia’s youth must be revived. This is best done by ensuring that we are open and authentic about our values and committed to involving members and reaching out to supporters. Labor must reach out to the progressive movements which already exist in Australia and which previously have provided the Party with innovation in policy and ideas. ...
The Review Committee believes that the Party should also explicitly adopt an organising approach to growing the Party membership. ... The Party should also formalise training activities through the creation of a national organising and training institute or academy. This body would be responsible for organising classes and courses for members and supporters on building the
Labor presence in local communities, as well as becoming a new home for the Party’s campaign training initiatives.
While seeking a "modern and meaningful role for members", the report backs the current 50/50 representation between branches and affiliate organisations (unions). While it makes some recommendations about reducing the rorting of the 50% from members (by including in it parliamentary representatives, young labor etc), and electing Presidents from the membership, it doesn't address the fact that members know they are irrelevant at conference. And the key party position - just as it was for Joe Stalin - is General Secretary, not President.
The view of the review that Labor "must stay closely connected to the broader progressive community" can be contrasted with the view of those from the academic (and indeed Socialist Alternative) left. Rick Kuhn has recently opined that "the relationship between the ALP and the working class is certainly much less intimate now than it was a century or even fifty years ago." He builds on work he has done with Tom Bramble in their book Labor's Conflict
which was also summarised in an article in the Oz last year. In both these pieces there is reference to " low-working-class combativity" leading Kuhn to conclude;
On the other hand, a revival in workers’ combativity may lead many of them to conclude that their own actions could challenge the logic of production for profits and the structures of Australian politics, both embraced by Labor, that create their immediate problems.
This analysis provides one of the alternative narratives about the ALP - that it is either doing too much or too little to (a) embrace all progressive movements or (b) focus on its blue collar base.
Either is simplistic. The "progressive" cause is too broad to provide a cohesive base - just ask the Australian Democrats. The 'blue collar base" is too narrow, representing something less than 20% of the workforce.
The alternative is to redefine a philosophy of the left to give new meaning to "the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange" to not focus on ownership but instead on purpose. The enemy is not profit, but the idea that the "purpose of the firm is to create shareholder value". The latter is not only bad political philosophy, it is economically and historically incorrect.
Finally let us return to the Dastyari analysis. He writes that;
We need to address the factional system at a state parliamentary level. In the past this served Labor and the state well as it brought internal discipline and clarity to the party's thoughts and actions.
He needs to look closer to home. The factional system pervades Sussex St, and every other organ of the party. If he really wants to make inroads he needs to first prohibit the “show and tell” voting arrangements used to ensure factional discipline.
Secondly he needs to show real commitment to rebuilding the party by returning it to a truly democratic party in which decisions ultimately come from members who chose to join the party. That means cranking down union representation at conference to where it was when the party was founded, zero.
Unfortunately the parliamentary party is expected to select the former head of Unions NSW as its new leader. As Morris Iemma is says "Robbo becoming leader is not a good start".
What do Unsworth, Costa, Della Bosca and Roozendaal have in common? They were either former General Secretaries of the party or heads of the NSW Union movement. Oh, and they were monumental failures in parliamentary politics.
(Mind you Costa is quoted as saying "In my opinion Robbo has neither the intellect nor the political courage required to be an alternative premier." Problem is that was true of Costa as Treasurer too. Too little has been written about the role of Costa as Treasurer in canning the original North-West rail proposal and backing instead the ludicrous "metro line" that cost about $500M.)
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Cultural Confusion
Julia Gillard's observation that it is hard to understand Western literature without an appreciation of the Bible has resulted in claims that by extension the PM should back changes to the proposed national curriculum to include "the Roman conceptions of individual rights under law, the role of Christianity in shaping our values as well its role in education and hospitals, and the development of liberal democracies and capitalist society."
The link is clearly untenable. I could argue that an understanding of medical illness helps to understand criminal behaviour, but that would not result in the need to include psychology in an ethics course.
More generally, Gillard's position as a social and cultural conservative has been positioned as "in conflict with" her position as an unmarried atheist.
The reality is, as Christpoher Hitchens and others show, that you can find far more evidence of the Christian religion - especially Roman Catholicism - as being an opponent of democracy and the rights of law as you can of it being the source of our "values".
It was Roman law as applied by Christians that took the position that "evidence" from a commoner could not be regarded as reliable unless it was delivered under torture!
It is indeed nice to see in Julia Gillard a poster child for the idea that there is NOT an essential link between "conservative morals" and a religious disposition.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
The link is clearly untenable. I could argue that an understanding of medical illness helps to understand criminal behaviour, but that would not result in the need to include psychology in an ethics course.
More generally, Gillard's position as a social and cultural conservative has been positioned as "in conflict with" her position as an unmarried atheist.
The reality is, as Christpoher Hitchens and others show, that you can find far more evidence of the Christian religion - especially Roman Catholicism - as being an opponent of democracy and the rights of law as you can of it being the source of our "values".
It was Roman law as applied by Christians that took the position that "evidence" from a commoner could not be regarded as reliable unless it was delivered under torture!
It is indeed nice to see in Julia Gillard a poster child for the idea that there is NOT an essential link between "conservative morals" and a religious disposition.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Customer Service, Social Media and the Cluetrain Manifesto
It was fascinating to read earlier this month that;
Vodafone Hutchison Australia CEO Nigel Dews has admitted that the company could have handled social media feedback much better in the early stages of the company's highly publicised network issues late last year.
In presenting evidence to the ACMA's Reconnecting the Customer inquiry on 27 November 2010, Cormac Hodgkinson, Director for Customer Service and Experience for VHA said (in part);
We need to remember when we talk about customder service that it is not just contact centres. We do a huge amount of servicing through our retail channel, through self-service channels and also through social media which is growing. So whenever we are looking at a review of standards for customer service we need to take that into account because there are thousands and thousands of customers a day who are walking into a retail store, be that Vodafone or 3, and getting servicing (sic).
He went on;
the numbers calling the centres pale into insignificance when you look at the amount of servicing that goes on through self-care. ... From a service perspective there's huge investment we're committing to next year in terms of what that self-service capability is. We've actually got a new product coming at the end of November - My Vodafone - which significantly increases the capability for a customer to self-service.
and
The growth in social media is huge and we've also had to have a dedicated team set-up to deal with that, be it Twitter, Facebook,.. We've got a team of ten people. We think by the end of next year that could well be in excess of fifty people because that's the way customers are choosing to do their servicing interactions.
That's not the view that Mr Dews thinks they took though, the article reporting;
The telco boss said that the company had originally approached social media as another means of selling; however, now the company had taken the approach of "service first rather than selling first"..
Today there is news that Vodafone is "creating its own social forum".
That's something vividwireless did fairly soon after launch. It was really driven by the very splendid Sandra Davey but landed in my lap for a while. It created great consternation when for a while it was a place where negative comment on coverage gathered. But the good news was it meant we really could understand the impact of network performance on customers.
The motivation for the forum though really came from the desire to support the unsupported - when something happens that involves the interaction of equipment and the network it can often be other end users who can sort out the issue.
It also was a recognition that customers are going to talk about you whether you like it or not. This is one of the core observations of the Cluetrain Manifesto. The first of their 95 theses is "Markets are conversations."
While the idea of 95 theses is probably to trigger the concept of reformation it is too many to digest - and actually a bit repetitive. Sandra Davey is a great fan of this and crunched the 95 down to thirteen. I have worked from her list to come up with a far briefer ten (also published here):
1. Markets are human conversations
Markets are conversations, they consist of humans who sound human. The tone of your voice is as communicative as the words that you speak.
2. The internet has made the network the dominant form of organization
The internet is enabling conversations that make the network the dominant form of organization, replacing both markets and hierarchies. The people in these networks are changed fundamentally – they are getting smarter, more informed and more organized than they were in markets or hierarchies.
3. People rely on their network not authority
People have figured out they get better information and support fro their network than from vendors. There are no secrets, the consumers rapidly know more about the product than the vendors.
4. Principles need to replace positions, and be at the centre of the conversation
Corporations’ homogenized voice that has been used to “motivate” the staff and “enthuse” the market sounds flat, hollow and unconvincing. Companies need to “lighten up”, not with affected humor but by adopting big values, a little humility, straight talk, and a genuine point of view. They need to replace “positioning” with adopting principles.
5. Loyalty is built on honest two-way communication
Brand loyalty is like a marriage and we forget that “divorce is always surpriseful” at our peril. Our partner can leave us before we know what we’ve done. Companies need to pay attention to all the clues their customers and staff provide. Companies can’t afford not to be honest with those they profess to care about.
6. Corporations need to belong to a community
Human communities are based on discourse – the conversation defines the community. Companies need to decide what community they want to be in and engage in the conversation.
7. The market and the company are not separate – they are one
There is not an external market and an internal hierarchy, there is one network of people playing multiple roles.
8. Marketing is not a mediator between the customer and the company
Customers and workers want to talk to the company that we’ve kept hidden behind a smokescreen of flacks and hucksters. Both want the same kind of open conversation with a partner they can trust. The customers want to be involved in all the conversations of the company, not just those mediated by “marketing” or market research.
9. The customer-centric organization is dead
The customer can’t be put at the centre of the organization, they need and want to be at every part of the organization.
10. The revolution is happening.
Responding to it is not a matter of strategic choice, it is a necessity.
Note: The author still owns shares in HTAL.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Vodafone Hutchison Australia CEO Nigel Dews has admitted that the company could have handled social media feedback much better in the early stages of the company's highly publicised network issues late last year.
In presenting evidence to the ACMA's Reconnecting the Customer inquiry on 27 November 2010, Cormac Hodgkinson, Director for Customer Service and Experience for VHA said (in part);
We need to remember when we talk about customder service that it is not just contact centres. We do a huge amount of servicing through our retail channel, through self-service channels and also through social media which is growing. So whenever we are looking at a review of standards for customer service we need to take that into account because there are thousands and thousands of customers a day who are walking into a retail store, be that Vodafone or 3, and getting servicing (sic).
He went on;
the numbers calling the centres pale into insignificance when you look at the amount of servicing that goes on through self-care. ... From a service perspective there's huge investment we're committing to next year in terms of what that self-service capability is. We've actually got a new product coming at the end of November - My Vodafone - which significantly increases the capability for a customer to self-service.
and
The growth in social media is huge and we've also had to have a dedicated team set-up to deal with that, be it Twitter, Facebook,.. We've got a team of ten people. We think by the end of next year that could well be in excess of fifty people because that's the way customers are choosing to do their servicing interactions.
That's not the view that Mr Dews thinks they took though, the article reporting;
The telco boss said that the company had originally approached social media as another means of selling; however, now the company had taken the approach of "service first rather than selling first"..
Today there is news that Vodafone is "creating its own social forum".
That's something vividwireless did fairly soon after launch. It was really driven by the very splendid Sandra Davey but landed in my lap for a while. It created great consternation when for a while it was a place where negative comment on coverage gathered. But the good news was it meant we really could understand the impact of network performance on customers.
The motivation for the forum though really came from the desire to support the unsupported - when something happens that involves the interaction of equipment and the network it can often be other end users who can sort out the issue.
It also was a recognition that customers are going to talk about you whether you like it or not. This is one of the core observations of the Cluetrain Manifesto. The first of their 95 theses is "Markets are conversations."
While the idea of 95 theses is probably to trigger the concept of reformation it is too many to digest - and actually a bit repetitive. Sandra Davey is a great fan of this and crunched the 95 down to thirteen. I have worked from her list to come up with a far briefer ten (also published here):
1. Markets are human conversations
Markets are conversations, they consist of humans who sound human. The tone of your voice is as communicative as the words that you speak.
2. The internet has made the network the dominant form of organization
The internet is enabling conversations that make the network the dominant form of organization, replacing both markets and hierarchies. The people in these networks are changed fundamentally – they are getting smarter, more informed and more organized than they were in markets or hierarchies.
3. People rely on their network not authority
People have figured out they get better information and support fro their network than from vendors. There are no secrets, the consumers rapidly know more about the product than the vendors.
4. Principles need to replace positions, and be at the centre of the conversation
Corporations’ homogenized voice that has been used to “motivate” the staff and “enthuse” the market sounds flat, hollow and unconvincing. Companies need to “lighten up”, not with affected humor but by adopting big values, a little humility, straight talk, and a genuine point of view. They need to replace “positioning” with adopting principles.
5. Loyalty is built on honest two-way communication
Brand loyalty is like a marriage and we forget that “divorce is always surpriseful” at our peril. Our partner can leave us before we know what we’ve done. Companies need to pay attention to all the clues their customers and staff provide. Companies can’t afford not to be honest with those they profess to care about.
6. Corporations need to belong to a community
Human communities are based on discourse – the conversation defines the community. Companies need to decide what community they want to be in and engage in the conversation.
7. The market and the company are not separate – they are one
There is not an external market and an internal hierarchy, there is one network of people playing multiple roles.
8. Marketing is not a mediator between the customer and the company
Customers and workers want to talk to the company that we’ve kept hidden behind a smokescreen of flacks and hucksters. Both want the same kind of open conversation with a partner they can trust. The customers want to be involved in all the conversations of the company, not just those mediated by “marketing” or market research.
9. The customer-centric organization is dead
The customer can’t be put at the centre of the organization, they need and want to be at every part of the organization.
10. The revolution is happening.
Responding to it is not a matter of strategic choice, it is a necessity.
Note: The author still owns shares in HTAL.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
I missed it
The wonders of having a unique identifier like "David Havyatt" is that Google Alerts finds you stuff about you.
Like this blog post about two AFR letters included scanned pages (probably breaching copyright) - the first page included a letter of mine that I thought the AFR hadn't used.
The letter was published 28 Feb and reads;
Your editorial highlights Australia’s recent productivity decline and reaches for the old grab bag of reducing business costs and enhancing supply-side responsiveness. (‘Productivity lift needed now’ AFR 24 Feb).
You manage to completely miss the recommendation of the Siemens report that “productivity improvements through the adoption of technology and innovation will alleviate this pressure”. The Grattan Institute also noted “slippage in Australia’s take-up of productivity-enhancing technologies.”
The Australian Financial Review’s response to the innovation challenge has been opinion pieces over recent weeks criticising the key infrastructure project identified to facilitate technology adoption and promote innovation, the National Broadband Network.
Senator Stephen Conroy has perhaps been too busy responding to the idiocy of the idea that a wireless or hybrid-fibre coaxial (HFC) solution could be a viable alternative to prosecute his other role as the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity.
It is time the Financial Review dragged itself out of the 1980s and 90s agenda and confronted the twenty-first century.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Like this blog post about two AFR letters included scanned pages (probably breaching copyright) - the first page included a letter of mine that I thought the AFR hadn't used.
The letter was published 28 Feb and reads;
Your editorial highlights Australia’s recent productivity decline and reaches for the old grab bag of reducing business costs and enhancing supply-side responsiveness. (‘Productivity lift needed now’ AFR 24 Feb).
You manage to completely miss the recommendation of the Siemens report that “productivity improvements through the adoption of technology and innovation will alleviate this pressure”. The Grattan Institute also noted “slippage in Australia’s take-up of productivity-enhancing technologies.”
The Australian Financial Review’s response to the innovation challenge has been opinion pieces over recent weeks criticising the key infrastructure project identified to facilitate technology adoption and promote innovation, the National Broadband Network.
Senator Stephen Conroy has perhaps been too busy responding to the idiocy of the idea that a wireless or hybrid-fibre coaxial (HFC) solution could be a viable alternative to prosecute his other role as the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity.
It is time the Financial Review dragged itself out of the 1980s and 90s agenda and confronted the twenty-first century.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Monday, March 21, 2011
Elections and Political Parties
NSW saw the absurdity of the modern campaign when married to fixed four year terms when the ALP held its official campaign "launch" yesterday - just six days from the election.
Meanwhile in the SMH we read that;
Today the Parliamentary Budget Office is due to release its audit of the government's election promises, but not those of the Coalition.
The Coalition has refused to submit its costings to the office, choosing instead to hire the former NSW auditor-general Bob Sendt. It is understood they will be released as late as Thursday, allowing as little as two days for scrutiny.
There is NO DOUBT that O'Farrell is running your classic promise nothing substantial campaign. His latest ad "the contract with NSW" ends with "most important of all - we'll be accountable". he doesn't tell us what that means, and really he will be just as accountable as the ALP - in 4 years time we get to vote.
But O'Farrell is pulling the same stunt as Tony Abbott in not getting his promises "costed" by a body with not only the skill, but also the resources to do so.
The issue for me is that we've completely changed our political system with fixed terms, public funding and the publication of party names on ballot papers and party replacement of upper house MPs without doing much more than requiring 500 membership forms to be submitted.
We really need a slew of reforms, covering party form, published platforms, longer campaigns and independent assessment of platforms.
The first is creating a legal entity called "political party" - so they don't have to decide whether to be limited liability companies or associations. They should be granted limited liability status in return for full disclosure of their financial position. The party rules must be entirely democratic - no party can be controlled by an individual (a la Hanson mark 1) or external bodies (the ALP) - in fact only people who take out membership can vote and it is one vote one value except in so far as the party can make its own rules for how the membership is "subdivided" except that geographic boundaries for election to governing bodies must be based on State and/or Federal electorate boundaries.
The register of political parties provides for a platform to be lodged with Elections NSW (Electoral Commission of NSW). This should be mandatory, the party deemed not to be registered for electoral purposes if it does not publish a platform.
The campaign times are currently designed with the idea of quick elections because they used to occur at times of hung Parliaments or Governments that had lost confidence of the Legislative Assembly. The haste of under three weeks from nominations closing to polling day does not suit fixed terms. Six weeks is a more reasonable timescale for nominations to close.
The cut-off for platforms being submitted would then be the five week period before the election. If the party hasn't submitted by that date then the party loses all other rights of being a party for the election (including invalidation of any nominations lodged by the party as a party).
The Parliamentary Budget Office should be replaced by an Electoral Proposal Assessment Commission to be made up of five commissioners elected using proportional representation from the Legislative Council ( which should result in the fifth person at least representing divergent views). One week prior to the election it is required to produce a report evaluating the budgetary implications of each platform and reporting on the relative "completeness" of the platforms lodged. It cannot evaluate anything promised by a party beyond that included in the registered platform, though it can comment on completeness of the platform in the context of the rest of the campaign.
That way we'd force political parties to start taking elections seriously.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Meanwhile in the SMH we read that;
Today the Parliamentary Budget Office is due to release its audit of the government's election promises, but not those of the Coalition.
The Coalition has refused to submit its costings to the office, choosing instead to hire the former NSW auditor-general Bob Sendt. It is understood they will be released as late as Thursday, allowing as little as two days for scrutiny.
There is NO DOUBT that O'Farrell is running your classic promise nothing substantial campaign. His latest ad "the contract with NSW" ends with "most important of all - we'll be accountable". he doesn't tell us what that means, and really he will be just as accountable as the ALP - in 4 years time we get to vote.
But O'Farrell is pulling the same stunt as Tony Abbott in not getting his promises "costed" by a body with not only the skill, but also the resources to do so.
The issue for me is that we've completely changed our political system with fixed terms, public funding and the publication of party names on ballot papers and party replacement of upper house MPs without doing much more than requiring 500 membership forms to be submitted.
We really need a slew of reforms, covering party form, published platforms, longer campaigns and independent assessment of platforms.
The first is creating a legal entity called "political party" - so they don't have to decide whether to be limited liability companies or associations. They should be granted limited liability status in return for full disclosure of their financial position. The party rules must be entirely democratic - no party can be controlled by an individual (a la Hanson mark 1) or external bodies (the ALP) - in fact only people who take out membership can vote and it is one vote one value except in so far as the party can make its own rules for how the membership is "subdivided" except that geographic boundaries for election to governing bodies must be based on State and/or Federal electorate boundaries.
The register of political parties provides for a platform to be lodged with Elections NSW (Electoral Commission of NSW). This should be mandatory, the party deemed not to be registered for electoral purposes if it does not publish a platform.
The campaign times are currently designed with the idea of quick elections because they used to occur at times of hung Parliaments or Governments that had lost confidence of the Legislative Assembly. The haste of under three weeks from nominations closing to polling day does not suit fixed terms. Six weeks is a more reasonable timescale for nominations to close.
The cut-off for platforms being submitted would then be the five week period before the election. If the party hasn't submitted by that date then the party loses all other rights of being a party for the election (including invalidation of any nominations lodged by the party as a party).
The Parliamentary Budget Office should be replaced by an Electoral Proposal Assessment Commission to be made up of five commissioners elected using proportional representation from the Legislative Council ( which should result in the fifth person at least representing divergent views). One week prior to the election it is required to produce a report evaluating the budgetary implications of each platform and reporting on the relative "completeness" of the platforms lodged. It cannot evaluate anything promised by a party beyond that included in the registered platform, though it can comment on completeness of the platform in the context of the rest of the campaign.
That way we'd force political parties to start taking elections seriously.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Friday, March 18, 2011
Mobiles across the ditch
I'm going to quote at length from TUANZ's e-mail TUANZ This Week because I can't seem to find it as web content.
It’s been a busy week with two of the industry’s biggest challenges being tackled within hours of each other.
First up we had a two-day conference on that most enduring of topics – mobile termination rates (now called Mobile Termination Access Services because why have a three-letter acronym when you can have a four).
A quick search of Computerworld’s archive talks of MTR way back in 2005 but by then it was a already festering sore.
This week should be the last nail in its coffin. The Commerce Commission has been given the remit to regulate, it has recommended that it should set the price, the Minister has agreed and the parties are now all jockeying for position.
The two-day conference was really the last chance for everyone to make clear their views on the matter at hand. The Commission’s draft report recommends moving to pure bill and keep (BAK) for TXT messages (that is, each company sets the price and bills its customers accordingly and keeps all the money rather than sharing with the other network if the TXT goes to another network), and a low level of roughly 4.5c/minute for voice calls (down from what is currently on a like for like basis about 18cpm) defined as being “cost based” (more on that later).
There is to be no glide path down to these rates (even though overseas that is typically the way it’s done) and there’s no difference to be had between calls from a mobile phone to a mobile number and a fixed-line to a mobile number. This is a good thing because it leads to nonsense with telcos routing calls oddly for best pricing.
The conference really came to life, however, around one extra element – on-net pricing.
In its submission, 2degrees called for a ban on on-net pricing for the two big guys Telecom and Vodafone. Its rationale, and one I think merits extra investigation, is that because of the huge difference in pricing between on-net and off-net pricing combined with the market share each telco has in various regional areas (2degrees calls them regional monopolies) then any new entrant has a double hurdle to clear. Not only does it have to offer sharper pricing, it also has to compete with a bigger problem in that individual customers can’t move to a new network because all their on-net friends will find they’re off-net and stop calling them.
The Commission put up a draft clause that could require the telcos to charge exactly the same for off-net calling as they charge for on-net. They’d be free to set that rate, but they wouldn’t be allowed to discriminate between calling types.
This caused immediate uproar from Telecom and Vodafone who went in lawyers blazing and if this clause is included in the final recommendation, I’d say we’re sure to see one or the other telco call for a judicial review.
Legal shenanigans aside, it’s an intriguing point. If I want to move to 2degrees (and I have) will my on-net buddies stop calling me from Vodafone (I use Vodafone because I’m based in Auckland where, according to various figures, Auckland’s share of voice traffic is over 70% and TXT is over 90%). If they do stop calling, there’s nothing 2degrees could offer me at that point to entice me over – those incoming calls (amusingly called “call externalities” by the industry) are too important for me to miss.
In our submission, TUANZ called for a different approach to TXT because of concerns around spam (we’d like to see some small fee retained – I’d originally thought a hybrid BAK system would work but Graham Walmsley from CallPlus said that would prove to be costly and complex so why not go for a low price point, say a third of a cent, and leave it at that. I quite like that and if Graham’s happy then that might work well).
On call pricing I’m happy with the drop and not too concerned about a glide path (Vodafone suggested that the glide path should be in there over two or three years if only so the Commission could look to see whether or not consumers are seeing pass through benefits from it. I like that, but I’m absolutely sure the telcos will pass on the savings to us because if they don’t we’ll vote with our wallets and I’ll put them on the wall of shame. So no to a glide path).
As for on-net price differentials, there’s definitely something there but having a morning’s chat about it at the end of the MTAS process doesn’t feel right to me. I’d rather we had some robust metrics, some clear understanding of how it would work in practice (and how long we would keep it up for) and its impact on the customer. Would we see Vodafone immediately withdraw BestMate and Family (and TalkZoneZero, it’s business calling group plan) or would it open them up to non-Vodafone numbers as 2degrees suggests.
Telecom is doubly unhappy because it sees its any-net regime as giving it a competitive advantage in XT and certainly having to not think about on-net and off-net is a big win for their customers. Telecom also suggested that such a decision would be open to other companies playing silly buggers with pricing – while they didn’t call 2degrees out on it, they’re clearly referring to 2degrees’ TXT ME race which has seen customers programming smartphones to spam the Telecom network and is costing Telecom tens of thousands of dollars a month.
Interestingly, 2degrees’ submission says that while on-net pricing will be banned for Telecom and Vodafone, it wouldn’t for … 2degrees! In Europe apparently it’s not uncommon to find regulators who will ban the incumbents from doing something but not the new entrant. So perhaps we’ll see 2degrees doing Best Mate while Vodafone can not.
If I was a betting man I’d say we’ll see about 4.5cpm for voice (the median figure or 25th percentile but definitely not 75th percentile for those that are following closely), a commercial deal between carriers for TXT backed up by a watching brief from the Commerce Commission (probably about one third of a cent per TXT) and a clause banning the differential between on-net and off-net for a three year period with annual reviews. Telecom and Vodafone will put in for a judicial review and that will go against them but make them look like lumbering giants behaving badly.
It is always hard to know where things will land in NZ. But I'm an absolute believer that on-net pricing is destructive of the formation of effective markets - if only because it makes it so hard to price compare. Also there is no justification for differential F2M and M2M rates - a matter I think the ACCC is considering. And the price should be "cost based" - but the more I think about it the more the original Gans and King proposition of marginal cost pricing not average incremental cost makes sense. That brings the number lower than 1c/min - not even 4.5c/min (though that 4.5c is in New Zealand zlotys).
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
It’s been a busy week with two of the industry’s biggest challenges being tackled within hours of each other.
First up we had a two-day conference on that most enduring of topics – mobile termination rates (now called Mobile Termination Access Services because why have a three-letter acronym when you can have a four).
A quick search of Computerworld’s archive talks of MTR way back in 2005 but by then it was a already festering sore.
This week should be the last nail in its coffin. The Commerce Commission has been given the remit to regulate, it has recommended that it should set the price, the Minister has agreed and the parties are now all jockeying for position.
The two-day conference was really the last chance for everyone to make clear their views on the matter at hand. The Commission’s draft report recommends moving to pure bill and keep (BAK) for TXT messages (that is, each company sets the price and bills its customers accordingly and keeps all the money rather than sharing with the other network if the TXT goes to another network), and a low level of roughly 4.5c/minute for voice calls (down from what is currently on a like for like basis about 18cpm) defined as being “cost based” (more on that later).
There is to be no glide path down to these rates (even though overseas that is typically the way it’s done) and there’s no difference to be had between calls from a mobile phone to a mobile number and a fixed-line to a mobile number. This is a good thing because it leads to nonsense with telcos routing calls oddly for best pricing.
The conference really came to life, however, around one extra element – on-net pricing.
In its submission, 2degrees called for a ban on on-net pricing for the two big guys Telecom and Vodafone. Its rationale, and one I think merits extra investigation, is that because of the huge difference in pricing between on-net and off-net pricing combined with the market share each telco has in various regional areas (2degrees calls them regional monopolies) then any new entrant has a double hurdle to clear. Not only does it have to offer sharper pricing, it also has to compete with a bigger problem in that individual customers can’t move to a new network because all their on-net friends will find they’re off-net and stop calling them.
The Commission put up a draft clause that could require the telcos to charge exactly the same for off-net calling as they charge for on-net. They’d be free to set that rate, but they wouldn’t be allowed to discriminate between calling types.
This caused immediate uproar from Telecom and Vodafone who went in lawyers blazing and if this clause is included in the final recommendation, I’d say we’re sure to see one or the other telco call for a judicial review.
Legal shenanigans aside, it’s an intriguing point. If I want to move to 2degrees (and I have) will my on-net buddies stop calling me from Vodafone (I use Vodafone because I’m based in Auckland where, according to various figures, Auckland’s share of voice traffic is over 70% and TXT is over 90%). If they do stop calling, there’s nothing 2degrees could offer me at that point to entice me over – those incoming calls (amusingly called “call externalities” by the industry) are too important for me to miss.
In our submission, TUANZ called for a different approach to TXT because of concerns around spam (we’d like to see some small fee retained – I’d originally thought a hybrid BAK system would work but Graham Walmsley from CallPlus said that would prove to be costly and complex so why not go for a low price point, say a third of a cent, and leave it at that. I quite like that and if Graham’s happy then that might work well).
On call pricing I’m happy with the drop and not too concerned about a glide path (Vodafone suggested that the glide path should be in there over two or three years if only so the Commission could look to see whether or not consumers are seeing pass through benefits from it. I like that, but I’m absolutely sure the telcos will pass on the savings to us because if they don’t we’ll vote with our wallets and I’ll put them on the wall of shame. So no to a glide path).
As for on-net price differentials, there’s definitely something there but having a morning’s chat about it at the end of the MTAS process doesn’t feel right to me. I’d rather we had some robust metrics, some clear understanding of how it would work in practice (and how long we would keep it up for) and its impact on the customer. Would we see Vodafone immediately withdraw BestMate and Family (and TalkZoneZero, it’s business calling group plan) or would it open them up to non-Vodafone numbers as 2degrees suggests.
Telecom is doubly unhappy because it sees its any-net regime as giving it a competitive advantage in XT and certainly having to not think about on-net and off-net is a big win for their customers. Telecom also suggested that such a decision would be open to other companies playing silly buggers with pricing – while they didn’t call 2degrees out on it, they’re clearly referring to 2degrees’ TXT ME race which has seen customers programming smartphones to spam the Telecom network and is costing Telecom tens of thousands of dollars a month.
Interestingly, 2degrees’ submission says that while on-net pricing will be banned for Telecom and Vodafone, it wouldn’t for … 2degrees! In Europe apparently it’s not uncommon to find regulators who will ban the incumbents from doing something but not the new entrant. So perhaps we’ll see 2degrees doing Best Mate while Vodafone can not.
If I was a betting man I’d say we’ll see about 4.5cpm for voice (the median figure or 25th percentile but definitely not 75th percentile for those that are following closely), a commercial deal between carriers for TXT backed up by a watching brief from the Commerce Commission (probably about one third of a cent per TXT) and a clause banning the differential between on-net and off-net for a three year period with annual reviews. Telecom and Vodafone will put in for a judicial review and that will go against them but make them look like lumbering giants behaving badly.
It is always hard to know where things will land in NZ. But I'm an absolute believer that on-net pricing is destructive of the formation of effective markets - if only because it makes it so hard to price compare. Also there is no justification for differential F2M and M2M rates - a matter I think the ACCC is considering. And the price should be "cost based" - but the more I think about it the more the original Gans and King proposition of marginal cost pricing not average incremental cost makes sense. That brings the number lower than 1c/min - not even 4.5c/min (though that 4.5c is in New Zealand zlotys).
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Dumb things about the calendar
The Letters section of this morning's SMH had one of those really dumb letters claiming some feature of the calendar was really rare and we should "savour it".
The letter was really short so I'll quote it in full.
By way of sustained research and learning I have discovered that July this year has five Fridays, five Saturdays and five Sundays. This happens every 823 years so we should savour it.
In reality July has three Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays any time that the 1st of July is a Friday. That happens on average once every seven years.
We can be more precise about when the next one occurs as the only variable is leap years. The 1st of a month progresses one day each year (as 365 = 52*7 +1) except in leap years.
The exact numbers are (starting where we are), when you are two years before a leap year, the 1st of July will next be on a Friday in 11 years, when you are 1 year before it is 5 years, when you are in a leap year or three years before it is 6 years. The average of these is 7 as we'd expect.
Where do these nonsensical ideas come from?
(Note: The above analysis does fall down on centuries which are not leap years unless the number of centuries is divisible by 4 as 2000 was.)
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
The letter was really short so I'll quote it in full.
By way of sustained research and learning I have discovered that July this year has five Fridays, five Saturdays and five Sundays. This happens every 823 years so we should savour it.
In reality July has three Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays any time that the 1st of July is a Friday. That happens on average once every seven years.
We can be more precise about when the next one occurs as the only variable is leap years. The 1st of a month progresses one day each year (as 365 = 52*7 +1) except in leap years.
The exact numbers are (starting where we are), when you are two years before a leap year, the 1st of July will next be on a Friday in 11 years, when you are 1 year before it is 5 years, when you are in a leap year or three years before it is 6 years. The average of these is 7 as we'd expect.
Where do these nonsensical ideas come from?
(Note: The above analysis does fall down on centuries which are not leap years unless the number of centuries is divisible by 4 as 2000 was.)
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)