I've been known to let off steam about the idiocy that is Ayn Rand and her "philosophy" that she called "objectivisim."
The forthcoming film adaptation of Atlas Shrugged has seen an excellent column in today's SMH by Paddy Manning titled Ayn Rand's hatred of humanity drove ideology based on fiction.
Apart from the need to put what Manning calls a "clunky, drawn-out book, running to 1100-plus pages" into three films, I'd really like to know how the screenwriters dealt with "unreadable, 60-page speech on objectivism by the godlike protagonist, John Galt".
Manning does a neat job of vilifying Rand for her careless view that the deaths in one scene are effectively pay-back for the characters inadequacies, writing;
She then walks the reader through the train, listing the ideological flaws of the passengers, mostly women and intellectuals - a professor who would abolish private property, a schoolteacher who held the majority was always right, a ''snivelling'' playwright who insinuated ''all businessmen were scoundrels'', a housewife who believed she had a right to ''elect politicians of whom she knew nothing'', a worker who believed he had a "'right' to a job''
This is strangely reminiscent of the list of jobs of people on the "advance party" in the HHGTTG series - but that was merely the likes of hairdressers, advertising execs and phone sanitisers. And it was in jest, and they weren't slaughtered - not even fictionally.
I first read Fountainhead and then Atlas Shrugged twenty years ago on the recommendation of someone in business. The books themselves are a sorry reflection on how many in business see themselves. I hate to confess that they are also incredibly seductive - I spent a number of years being even more uncaring than I normally am on the justification of the characters even though I rejected the philosophy.
Unfortunately the tea-party set in the US will love the film. Enough said!
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Friday, April 15, 2011
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Gallipoli
It is that time of year again - getting close to Anzac Day - where the skirmish in the so-called "History Wars" where the significance of the Dardanelles campaign aka Gallipoli is debated.
One side - let us call it the left - argues the whole of WWI was a disastrous consequence of the pathetic European escapade to form global empires, and that the campaign in the Dardanelles in particular was a folly and that it represented the worst of imperialism (as so many tropps came from the colonies) and of the class system (the troops were regarded as expendable).
On the other we have the conservatives who think that the campaign was the making of Australia as a nation, where we came into our own and that it was a noble action as part of a noble cause.
An interesting point is that these two views don't necessarily have to be in opposition. It is just that the conservatives are so desperate to cling to the ANZAC glory story that they cannot admit that the Australian troops may have performed well and learnt a lot from a campaign that was itself futile.
VicN has previously put me on to the truly great The Pity of War
by Niall Ferguson. It is an excellent account of the accounts of the war, suggesting in turn that it wasn't as easily avoidable as some might think, nor was it any easier to end. But that its till was monumental.
The latest contribution is from Ross Cameron in the SMH. In a deviation that also seems to want to embrace the "great man" theory of history, his take is to try to defend Churchill's role in the campaign.
It is a trite point to suggest that it was "an empire ending" decision by the Ottomans to enter the war on the side of Germany. An alternative history with the Ottoman's staying neutral probably results in the victors coming down to take them lout anyway, and the decision to side with the Germans was really created by the hostility from the British to begin with.
Both Bobbitt and Ferguson (see earlier posts)label the war that started in 1914 a long war that ended in 1990, it was the war that almost had to happen to end the era of empires, and to decide between totalitarian and democratic states.
The suggestion by Cameron is that if the Dardanelles campaign had been successful, the West could have supported Russia and then the Russians would never have been under the strain that led to the 1917 revolution(s).
The leap that Cameron goes through on communism is extraordinary. To argue that the presence of only 10 people at Marx's funeral in 1883 means that he was an "obscure radical" is to ignore the reality of how widespread socialist and communist organisation was in the first decade of the twentieth century. The revolution in Russia of 1917 merely followed that of 1905. The trigger in both cases was war, but just as France in 1789 ultimately it requires some national pressure to trigger the revolution.
But the fact the Dardanelles campaign failed is the important part, not whether its motives were right. The question is not whether getting relief for Russia was good, but whether this campaign was the way to achieve it.
The short answer is "no". It was a campaign that effectively relied upon accuracy of execution and speed - it failed because it was delayed six weeks waiting for troops from the UK, people were landed in the wrong place and the Turks were able to get defences in place (also in part because the extent of the Turkish defences were under-estimated).
The second planning error was to not have a plan B. What were they to do if they did not succeed in capturing the heights immediately? (That should be plan C because the land invasion was Plan B after the attempt using naval forces alone failed).
Cameron extends his Churchill praise to the calls he made to support the White Russians after the revolution. That intervention had disastrous consequences, as it more than anything else fueled the isolationism that was the hall-mark of the USSR. Leaving the revolution to the Russians was probably the better chance the West had of the eventual government being more democratic and less totalitarian.
Churchill was neither a goose nor a hero. He was a man in history who happened to be in roles requiring decisions, some of which were good and some of which were bad. Even his decisions that turned out good may well not have been the best available.
It is really hard to escape from the conclusion that the British with their empire and US friends were victorious over first the militaristic and imperial Prussian led Germans and then the totalitarians of left and right because of the strength of the idea of the democracies they ran.
Gallipoli was a stupid campaign, but no more stupid than the rest of that stupid war. For better or worse it was the first time the united colonies of Australia exercised themselves as a unified body in an external affairs way (one of the twin purposes of federation) and did okay. They might have done better in a different battle or with different leaders. But the very nature of that war was of pointless endeavour between armies that were able to incredibly damage each other without prosecuting victory.
It should be remembered for what it was - a tragic loss of life.
Note: I think Cameron seriously errs in writing "Three naval-only attempts failed to secure the Dardanelles so troops (principally Aussies and Kiwis at first) landed on Ottoman soil on April 25, 1915." They were Aussies and Kiwis at what is now known as ANZAC Cove but British and others in the main landing at Cape Helles.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
One side - let us call it the left - argues the whole of WWI was a disastrous consequence of the pathetic European escapade to form global empires, and that the campaign in the Dardanelles in particular was a folly and that it represented the worst of imperialism (as so many tropps came from the colonies) and of the class system (the troops were regarded as expendable).
On the other we have the conservatives who think that the campaign was the making of Australia as a nation, where we came into our own and that it was a noble action as part of a noble cause.
An interesting point is that these two views don't necessarily have to be in opposition. It is just that the conservatives are so desperate to cling to the ANZAC glory story that they cannot admit that the Australian troops may have performed well and learnt a lot from a campaign that was itself futile.
VicN has previously put me on to the truly great The Pity of War
by Niall Ferguson. It is an excellent account of the accounts of the war, suggesting in turn that it wasn't as easily avoidable as some might think, nor was it any easier to end. But that its till was monumental.The latest contribution is from Ross Cameron in the SMH. In a deviation that also seems to want to embrace the "great man" theory of history, his take is to try to defend Churchill's role in the campaign.
It is a trite point to suggest that it was "an empire ending" decision by the Ottomans to enter the war on the side of Germany. An alternative history with the Ottoman's staying neutral probably results in the victors coming down to take them lout anyway, and the decision to side with the Germans was really created by the hostility from the British to begin with.
Both Bobbitt and Ferguson (see earlier posts)label the war that started in 1914 a long war that ended in 1990, it was the war that almost had to happen to end the era of empires, and to decide between totalitarian and democratic states.
The suggestion by Cameron is that if the Dardanelles campaign had been successful, the West could have supported Russia and then the Russians would never have been under the strain that led to the 1917 revolution(s).
The leap that Cameron goes through on communism is extraordinary. To argue that the presence of only 10 people at Marx's funeral in 1883 means that he was an "obscure radical" is to ignore the reality of how widespread socialist and communist organisation was in the first decade of the twentieth century. The revolution in Russia of 1917 merely followed that of 1905. The trigger in both cases was war, but just as France in 1789 ultimately it requires some national pressure to trigger the revolution.
But the fact the Dardanelles campaign failed is the important part, not whether its motives were right. The question is not whether getting relief for Russia was good, but whether this campaign was the way to achieve it.
The short answer is "no". It was a campaign that effectively relied upon accuracy of execution and speed - it failed because it was delayed six weeks waiting for troops from the UK, people were landed in the wrong place and the Turks were able to get defences in place (also in part because the extent of the Turkish defences were under-estimated).
The second planning error was to not have a plan B. What were they to do if they did not succeed in capturing the heights immediately? (That should be plan C because the land invasion was Plan B after the attempt using naval forces alone failed).
Cameron extends his Churchill praise to the calls he made to support the White Russians after the revolution. That intervention had disastrous consequences, as it more than anything else fueled the isolationism that was the hall-mark of the USSR. Leaving the revolution to the Russians was probably the better chance the West had of the eventual government being more democratic and less totalitarian.
Churchill was neither a goose nor a hero. He was a man in history who happened to be in roles requiring decisions, some of which were good and some of which were bad. Even his decisions that turned out good may well not have been the best available.
It is really hard to escape from the conclusion that the British with their empire and US friends were victorious over first the militaristic and imperial Prussian led Germans and then the totalitarians of left and right because of the strength of the idea of the democracies they ran.
Gallipoli was a stupid campaign, but no more stupid than the rest of that stupid war. For better or worse it was the first time the united colonies of Australia exercised themselves as a unified body in an external affairs way (one of the twin purposes of federation) and did okay. They might have done better in a different battle or with different leaders. But the very nature of that war was of pointless endeavour between armies that were able to incredibly damage each other without prosecuting victory.
It should be remembered for what it was - a tragic loss of life.
Note: I think Cameron seriously errs in writing "Three naval-only attempts failed to secure the Dardanelles so troops (principally Aussies and Kiwis at first) landed on Ottoman soil on April 25, 1915." They were Aussies and Kiwis at what is now known as ANZAC Cove but British and others in the main landing at Cape Helles.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Payback
High Grant has suffered at the hands of the paparazzi and celebrity journalism and has paid back in an article in New Statesman.
On one level it simply feels like payback - a topic on which I'll return to in this post.
But while he's used the tools of payback by secretly recording the conversation he has used the interview to skillfully reveal the moral question at the heart of this. As Hugh Grant says his job is acting not being a celebrity, the intrusions cannot be justified on the grounds that his job is being a celebrity.
The former journalist's other defence is based on the wealth of the celebrities - which feels like it is some kind of "social interest tax" argument. It is the same kind of distorted morality that I outlined in an itNews story on copyright.
As I'm want to actually spend time considering morals, this is an opportune time to consider the theory of "payback".
The biblical adage of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is often used as a justification for an approach to justice that extracts direct revenge. As first introduced in the bible at Exodus 21:24 it reads just like that, that the punishment is to be exactly that.
But it is interesting to note that the verse before basically carries the instruction that (in a case where a woman miscarries due to being injured) the victim (well, being patriarchal, the husband of the victim) can set the penalty.
In this context then Exodus 21:24 can be read as an instruction on the MAXIMUM penalty that can apply. That is, you should not exact two eyes for an eye (or cut off the hand of a thief, etc).
Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount used the text in one of his "you have heard it said..." pieces. He repudiates the general tenor and introduces the concept of "turning the other cheek" (Matthew 5:38).
Justice is not retribution. Justice is not about the psychological gobbeledy-gook of "closure" nor about "victims rights". Justice is about the process of getting everyone to follow the rules and having appropriate consequences for not following them. The twin biblical invocations are that the punishment should never be more extreme than the crime, and that the punishment should not be motivated by revenge.
This is the version of "judeo-christianity" that has been successful in building the modern democratic market economy state. But to get there you have to accept that you need a system of rules. That's what the newspapers and their staff in the UK seem to have completely forgotten.
Finally, we return to the question of Murdoch. I've noted the weazel words that News Limited has used thus far. The question remains "did Murdoch know"? If the answer is "yes" he needs to be far more direct about owning up and admitting the error. If the answer is "no" he needs to explain the failure of governance in the corporation and what he is doing about it. But he can't just stay silent.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
On one level it simply feels like payback - a topic on which I'll return to in this post.
But while he's used the tools of payback by secretly recording the conversation he has used the interview to skillfully reveal the moral question at the heart of this. As Hugh Grant says his job is acting not being a celebrity, the intrusions cannot be justified on the grounds that his job is being a celebrity.
The former journalist's other defence is based on the wealth of the celebrities - which feels like it is some kind of "social interest tax" argument. It is the same kind of distorted morality that I outlined in an itNews story on copyright.
As I'm want to actually spend time considering morals, this is an opportune time to consider the theory of "payback".
The biblical adage of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is often used as a justification for an approach to justice that extracts direct revenge. As first introduced in the bible at Exodus 21:24 it reads just like that, that the punishment is to be exactly that.
But it is interesting to note that the verse before basically carries the instruction that (in a case where a woman miscarries due to being injured) the victim (well, being patriarchal, the husband of the victim) can set the penalty.
In this context then Exodus 21:24 can be read as an instruction on the MAXIMUM penalty that can apply. That is, you should not exact two eyes for an eye (or cut off the hand of a thief, etc).
Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount used the text in one of his "you have heard it said..." pieces. He repudiates the general tenor and introduces the concept of "turning the other cheek" (Matthew 5:38).
Justice is not retribution. Justice is not about the psychological gobbeledy-gook of "closure" nor about "victims rights". Justice is about the process of getting everyone to follow the rules and having appropriate consequences for not following them. The twin biblical invocations are that the punishment should never be more extreme than the crime, and that the punishment should not be motivated by revenge.
This is the version of "judeo-christianity" that has been successful in building the modern democratic market economy state. But to get there you have to accept that you need a system of rules. That's what the newspapers and their staff in the UK seem to have completely forgotten.
Finally, we return to the question of Murdoch. I've noted the weazel words that News Limited has used thus far. The question remains "did Murdoch know"? If the answer is "yes" he needs to be far more direct about owning up and admitting the error. If the answer is "no" he needs to explain the failure of governance in the corporation and what he is doing about it. But he can't just stay silent.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Prospectus reform
ASIC has announced a review of the regulatory requirements for a prospectus targeting retail investors.
Unfortunately, ASIC still lives in the 20th century - as the prospectus is still envisioned as a document on paper. An electronic format would be so much better - including the use of hyperlinks so that cross-references can be easily made, and financial data in accessible tables that can be accessed for further analysis.
I won't even start on the ASIC model for both lodging and accessing forms relating to companies. Let's just say they haven't embraced Gov 2.0.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Unfortunately, ASIC still lives in the 20th century - as the prospectus is still envisioned as a document on paper. An electronic format would be so much better - including the use of hyperlinks so that cross-references can be easily made, and financial data in accessible tables that can be accessed for further analysis.
I won't even start on the ASIC model for both lodging and accessing forms relating to companies. Let's just say they haven't embraced Gov 2.0.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Right Wingers brains are different?
My daily fix Breakfast Politics of links to good stories today titled one "Science reveals right-wingers brains are different".
I ask,does that give the preferred orientation of the writer away? After all it implies that left-wingers brains are therefore the same...but the same as "what"? The logical conclusion is the same as the author's. Unless, of course, each right-winger's brain is different from each other one while all left-wingers' brains are the same as each other.
The article itself carried the more revealing title "Left or right: Which side is your brain on?" and led
Yet another study has found evidence linking conservative thinking to fear, and small ‘l’ liberalism to openness.
University College London researchers considered previous research that found “conservatives are more sensitive to threat or anxiety in the face of uncertainty, while liberals tend to be more open to new experiences”.
They decided to look at the brain’s structure to see whether this was reflected physically, and found it was - people who identify as liberal have larger anterior cingulate cortexes while conservatives have larger amygdalas, which is exactly what I always say.
Question though - how revealing is it to conclude that conservatives fear change while "liberals" are open to new ideas and possibilities? Isn't that actually the definition.
The article suggests that on climate change it is the reverse, that fear comes from the liberals. But really it is the conservatives fearing the consequence of any policy change to respond to climate change while the liberals are open to the possibilities.
The question remains open though, which came first - the different approach or the brain difference? A person with large biceps usually exercised them, they didn't just happen!
Meanwhile the researchers are still looking for the brains of the New South Wales Right....
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
I ask,does that give the preferred orientation of the writer away? After all it implies that left-wingers brains are therefore the same...but the same as "what"? The logical conclusion is the same as the author's. Unless, of course, each right-winger's brain is different from each other one while all left-wingers' brains are the same as each other.
The article itself carried the more revealing title "Left or right: Which side is your brain on?" and led
Yet another study has found evidence linking conservative thinking to fear, and small ‘l’ liberalism to openness.
University College London researchers considered previous research that found “conservatives are more sensitive to threat or anxiety in the face of uncertainty, while liberals tend to be more open to new experiences”.
They decided to look at the brain’s structure to see whether this was reflected physically, and found it was - people who identify as liberal have larger anterior cingulate cortexes while conservatives have larger amygdalas, which is exactly what I always say.
Question though - how revealing is it to conclude that conservatives fear change while "liberals" are open to new ideas and possibilities? Isn't that actually the definition.
The article suggests that on climate change it is the reverse, that fear comes from the liberals. But really it is the conservatives fearing the consequence of any policy change to respond to climate change while the liberals are open to the possibilities.
The question remains open though, which came first - the different approach or the brain difference? A person with large biceps usually exercised them, they didn't just happen!
Meanwhile the researchers are still looking for the brains of the New South Wales Right....
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Monday, April 11, 2011
Blogs
Just been going through some old blog posts to put Tags on them all (for me really - hate it when I can't find one I know I wrote X years ago).
Came upon this one from May 2006. It was an SMH list of ten top blogs.
All but one seems to be still alive and very good - and one just sold for $315M US.
And another in which I quoted Guy Rundle from Crikey writing of blogs
Those blogs that survive will and are evolv(ing) into multi-person sites, some with collective and decentred ways of uploading, others with hierarchies essentially identical to paper editing. This repeats the birth of newspapers out of the "pamphlet wars" of the 17th century – the latter a product of the creation of a cheap, single operator platen press. This may be the necessary stage of development required to create a media sphere which genuinely overturns the mass media model – one in which a range of well-edited moderate circulation outlets can charge and get subscriptions. Whether they could turn into full newsgathering organisations remains to be seen.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Came upon this one from May 2006. It was an SMH list of ten top blogs.
All but one seems to be still alive and very good - and one just sold for $315M US.
And another in which I quoted Guy Rundle from Crikey writing of blogs
Those blogs that survive will and are evolv(ing) into multi-person sites, some with collective and decentred ways of uploading, others with hierarchies essentially identical to paper editing. This repeats the birth of newspapers out of the "pamphlet wars" of the 17th century – the latter a product of the creation of a cheap, single operator platen press. This may be the necessary stage of development required to create a media sphere which genuinely overturns the mass media model – one in which a range of well-edited moderate circulation outlets can charge and get subscriptions. Whether they could turn into full newsgathering organisations remains to be seen.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Why does Sheehan bother
Paul Sheehan in today's SMH tried to write something withering about feminism.
One commenter on the article noted;
A derivative article, with ideas lifted from two recent articles in the "New Yorker" magazine on Betty Friedan and Christian Laboutin. You'll have to work harder, Mr. Sheehan. Some of us subscribe to the same sources you pinch your ideas from.
Sheehan himself gave his game away writing;
Academic feminism in the West has turned out to be little more than another flag of convenience for the left, in the way the Greens use environmentalism.
That is he was just trying to bluster about the left ... again.
Apart from some crazy polemic about the fact the fashion industry (continues) to exist the crux of the analysis seemed to be;
All the great recent advances made for women have been made by people - men and women working together. Most of the legislation that seeks to advance the progress of women has been passed by legislatures dominated by men. And no amount of government social engineering is going to stop women behaving badly to women, which happens all the time. Women bully women. Women block women in the workforce.
Of course all the great advances by women have included men in their making - heck it was men who had to vote to give women the vote! And whoever said feminism was about stopping women behaving badly to women? The "sisterhood" is actually a myth of male construction - denigration - to talk about feminism.
The debate is about power - not jobs, or careers or anything else. That's what makes feminism a left issue - it is a challenge to a pre-existing (and enduring) unequal power structure.
PS Why when the SMH publishes Henderson, Sheehan and Hartcher is it usually labelled a left publication?
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/scarlet-soles-are-a-red-rag-to-feminists-ideology-20110410-1d97i.html
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
One commenter on the article noted;
A derivative article, with ideas lifted from two recent articles in the "New Yorker" magazine on Betty Friedan and Christian Laboutin. You'll have to work harder, Mr. Sheehan. Some of us subscribe to the same sources you pinch your ideas from.
Sheehan himself gave his game away writing;
Academic feminism in the West has turned out to be little more than another flag of convenience for the left, in the way the Greens use environmentalism.
That is he was just trying to bluster about the left ... again.
Apart from some crazy polemic about the fact the fashion industry (continues) to exist the crux of the analysis seemed to be;
All the great recent advances made for women have been made by people - men and women working together. Most of the legislation that seeks to advance the progress of women has been passed by legislatures dominated by men. And no amount of government social engineering is going to stop women behaving badly to women, which happens all the time. Women bully women. Women block women in the workforce.
Of course all the great advances by women have included men in their making - heck it was men who had to vote to give women the vote! And whoever said feminism was about stopping women behaving badly to women? The "sisterhood" is actually a myth of male construction - denigration - to talk about feminism.
The debate is about power - not jobs, or careers or anything else. That's what makes feminism a left issue - it is a challenge to a pre-existing (and enduring) unequal power structure.
PS Why when the SMH publishes Henderson, Sheehan and Hartcher is it usually labelled a left publication?
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/scarlet-soles-are-a-red-rag-to-feminists-ideology-20110410-1d97i.html
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
More on the future of the ALP
We are all doing it, writing about the future prospects for the ALP. Writing for National Times a Melbourne lawyer and long-time ALP member poses the question Should the ALP labour on, or is the party over?.
It is probably best described as a classic in its analysis. It trumps out the whole "the market has won" but the ALP has lost its social voice. I think he is right to point out that without an ideology the ALP doesn't stand for anything ... or stand a chance. The NSW Right displaced the achievement of power for any other goal, and so once it achieved power the only thing it knew how to do was to distribute the rewards of power.
But the Left I may say was not much better. Before my departure from the ALP the first time (in the early 90s largely because of time commitments) I had been revolted at the site of Senator Bruce Childs proclaiming to the Bennelong FEC (he was duty Senator) how great two wins for the Left had been. The first was against a broad-based consumption tax and the latter retention of tariffs to protect the Clothing, Textiles and Footwear industry. He didn't seem to get the contradiction between believing the price of goods to consumers should not be driven up by policy and yet advocating protection that drove up the price of goods. It didn't have a coherent economic narrative.
The writer draws on the Fukuyama thesis in The End of History
that the great debate of the twentieth century had been settled saying;
The collapse of the centrally planned economies discredited that model of society and vindicated market economies, in which the role of government was to regulate lightly to ensure the efficient function of the market.
However he goes on to express his own reservations with markets and expressed the view that;
Had that direction [of Hawke and Keating] continued, Labor might have produced a coherent ideology for the 21st century, based on the idea that the market is a good servant but a bad master and reserving sufficient scope for government intervention to underwrite basic living standards: capitalism with a heart, if you like.
He goes on to suggest that social policy alone might not be the saviour,
Having embraced the right's economic policies and been wedged out of any meaningful differentiation from the right, can Labor find salvation in social policy? The answer is a resounding ''no'' and the reason, ironically, is because the right has converged with the left on social policy, thereby creating a strong consensus similar to that which prevails in economic policy.
Firstly I think that the conclusion of the victory of market economies needs to be seen in the broader context of Phillip Bobbit's work - in particular Terror and Consent: The Wars for the Twenty-First Century
. This is his analysis of the issues confronting us now based on his historical analysis in The Shield of Achilles
. That work advances what could be seen as a modern rework of dialectic materialism, arguing as it does that the "world" (read Europe and the European invaded world) has gone through a series of revolutionary phases out of which a new system of government has emerged.
The last phase of this was the war that ran from 1914 to 1990 between totalitarianism and market economies (as best described in Fergusson's The War of the World
).
But we don't really know what the market state needs to look like, and it is incredibly exposed to terrorism. I'd extend the definition of terrorism though to include "corporate terrorism" by which I mean the actions of Transnational Corporations and their ultimate disregard of social institutions.
One difficulty for the left in all this is finding out what it stands for. One consequence has been a modern version of the "left" that defines itself by opposing anything the USA stands for - and hence will side with misogynist and oppressive regimes in opposition to the US (in particular the left's view of the war in Iraq).
Part of the difficulty is created by thinking that only the left has "compassion", which is not true. It is not even as simple as the left's greater belief in equality over the right.
Ultimately what should unite the left is the concern over power. Unions represent the need to empower workers against the interests of capital, feminism is a response to the power of men in society, the new left concern about the US is a dual concern over its single power as a "super-power" and the economic power of the many TNCs that call it home.
There is a place, indeed a need, for a strong social democratic party. It needs to be internally structured democratically for internal governance, the development of policy and the selection of candidates. But it needs a political philosophy and core set of beliefs that it seeks to promote.
That could be the future for the ALP if it is willing. Or it is an opportunity for an entirely new structure.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
It is probably best described as a classic in its analysis. It trumps out the whole "the market has won" but the ALP has lost its social voice. I think he is right to point out that without an ideology the ALP doesn't stand for anything ... or stand a chance. The NSW Right displaced the achievement of power for any other goal, and so once it achieved power the only thing it knew how to do was to distribute the rewards of power.
But the Left I may say was not much better. Before my departure from the ALP the first time (in the early 90s largely because of time commitments) I had been revolted at the site of Senator Bruce Childs proclaiming to the Bennelong FEC (he was duty Senator) how great two wins for the Left had been. The first was against a broad-based consumption tax and the latter retention of tariffs to protect the Clothing, Textiles and Footwear industry. He didn't seem to get the contradiction between believing the price of goods to consumers should not be driven up by policy and yet advocating protection that drove up the price of goods. It didn't have a coherent economic narrative.
The writer draws on the Fukuyama thesis in The End of History
that the great debate of the twentieth century had been settled saying;The collapse of the centrally planned economies discredited that model of society and vindicated market economies, in which the role of government was to regulate lightly to ensure the efficient function of the market.
However he goes on to express his own reservations with markets and expressed the view that;
Had that direction [of Hawke and Keating] continued, Labor might have produced a coherent ideology for the 21st century, based on the idea that the market is a good servant but a bad master and reserving sufficient scope for government intervention to underwrite basic living standards: capitalism with a heart, if you like.
He goes on to suggest that social policy alone might not be the saviour,
Having embraced the right's economic policies and been wedged out of any meaningful differentiation from the right, can Labor find salvation in social policy? The answer is a resounding ''no'' and the reason, ironically, is because the right has converged with the left on social policy, thereby creating a strong consensus similar to that which prevails in economic policy.
Firstly I think that the conclusion of the victory of market economies needs to be seen in the broader context of Phillip Bobbit's work - in particular Terror and Consent: The Wars for the Twenty-First Century
. This is his analysis of the issues confronting us now based on his historical analysis in The Shield of Achilles. That work advances what could be seen as a modern rework of dialectic materialism, arguing as it does that the "world" (read Europe and the European invaded world) has gone through a series of revolutionary phases out of which a new system of government has emerged.The last phase of this was the war that ran from 1914 to 1990 between totalitarianism and market economies (as best described in Fergusson's The War of the World
).But we don't really know what the market state needs to look like, and it is incredibly exposed to terrorism. I'd extend the definition of terrorism though to include "corporate terrorism" by which I mean the actions of Transnational Corporations and their ultimate disregard of social institutions.
One difficulty for the left in all this is finding out what it stands for. One consequence has been a modern version of the "left" that defines itself by opposing anything the USA stands for - and hence will side with misogynist and oppressive regimes in opposition to the US (in particular the left's view of the war in Iraq).
Part of the difficulty is created by thinking that only the left has "compassion", which is not true. It is not even as simple as the left's greater belief in equality over the right.
Ultimately what should unite the left is the concern over power. Unions represent the need to empower workers against the interests of capital, feminism is a response to the power of men in society, the new left concern about the US is a dual concern over its single power as a "super-power" and the economic power of the many TNCs that call it home.
There is a place, indeed a need, for a strong social democratic party. It needs to be internally structured democratically for internal governance, the development of policy and the selection of candidates. But it needs a political philosophy and core set of beliefs that it seeks to promote.
That could be the future for the ALP if it is willing. Or it is an opportunity for an entirely new structure.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
On Gambling
Andrew Wilkie has made his support for the Gillard Government conditional on action on poker machines. The PM is now facing the prospect of an intense media campaign by the club industry, a campaign that Wlikie rightly points out is misleading.
An interesting question is whether such a campaign - though intended to be political - could be argued to be "in trade or commerce" as the real purpose is to protect revenue streams, and hence the misleading conduct would breach clause 18 of the Australian Consumer Law.
Irrespective of that, the real question is how reasonable it is to expect the Federal Government to act. The Productivity Commission report on the matter was commissioned by COAG and the Federal Government's response embraced the idea of pre-commitment saying;
The Productivity Commission found that pre-commitment is the most effective way to target problem gamblers and at-risk gamblers without impacting upon the wider gambling community and that's why the Government has committed to developing a pathway towards implementation for pre-commitment. ...
The first priority for the Australian Government will be to progress a nationally consistent pre-commitment model for electronic gaming machines.
Wilkie's demand is for the Feds to go further.
I haven't read the full PC report. It clearly notes that the biggest problem gambling pool is poker machines, but it is by no means the only one. There are problem gamblers on horse racing. But the prevalence of problem gamblers here might be as much due to their availability as to their inherent design.
It is well known that the reward structure of gambling machines and their venues (frequent low pays, quite irregular, lots of noise to reinforce the win, design of venues to restrict natural light, even hard to find exits) increase the behavioural training to play. But the switch from pass-time to addiction is harder to tell. And ultimately the best solution for any true addiction is abstinence not harm-minimisation.
But do we have to wait till other gambling forms become a problem before we act? Online sports betting is relatively new. In the US sports betting (at least in popular culture) has long been a source of problem gamblers. Now in Australia you cannot watch a sports event without being saturated with adds for gambling, and reports in the commentary of odds - run as if they are information but really they are "advertorial" or "product placement."
The Federal Government is responsible for the regulation of broadcasting. I for one would like to see a complete ban on the advertising of ALL forms of gambling on television and radio, including the images of poker machines in adds for clubs or pubs.
I'm happy to engage in a long banter about the benefits that "clubs" provide to the community, the employment in the sector or that 70% of Australians enjoy a non-problem flutter. Here all I'll say is that even if these are as good as their promoters would argue, they do not make a case against a simple advertising ban.
It would also seem to be a simple suggestion that clubs on-going tax exempt status could be linked to their demonstrating their corporate citizenship by implementing pre-commitment. Unfortunately Governments have already allowed Electronic Gaming Machines (EGMs in PC-speak) into commercial hotels.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
An interesting question is whether such a campaign - though intended to be political - could be argued to be "in trade or commerce" as the real purpose is to protect revenue streams, and hence the misleading conduct would breach clause 18 of the Australian Consumer Law.
Irrespective of that, the real question is how reasonable it is to expect the Federal Government to act. The Productivity Commission report on the matter was commissioned by COAG and the Federal Government's response embraced the idea of pre-commitment saying;
The Productivity Commission found that pre-commitment is the most effective way to target problem gamblers and at-risk gamblers without impacting upon the wider gambling community and that's why the Government has committed to developing a pathway towards implementation for pre-commitment. ...
The first priority for the Australian Government will be to progress a nationally consistent pre-commitment model for electronic gaming machines.
Wilkie's demand is for the Feds to go further.
I haven't read the full PC report. It clearly notes that the biggest problem gambling pool is poker machines, but it is by no means the only one. There are problem gamblers on horse racing. But the prevalence of problem gamblers here might be as much due to their availability as to their inherent design.
It is well known that the reward structure of gambling machines and their venues (frequent low pays, quite irregular, lots of noise to reinforce the win, design of venues to restrict natural light, even hard to find exits) increase the behavioural training to play. But the switch from pass-time to addiction is harder to tell. And ultimately the best solution for any true addiction is abstinence not harm-minimisation.
But do we have to wait till other gambling forms become a problem before we act? Online sports betting is relatively new. In the US sports betting (at least in popular culture) has long been a source of problem gamblers. Now in Australia you cannot watch a sports event without being saturated with adds for gambling, and reports in the commentary of odds - run as if they are information but really they are "advertorial" or "product placement."
The Federal Government is responsible for the regulation of broadcasting. I for one would like to see a complete ban on the advertising of ALL forms of gambling on television and radio, including the images of poker machines in adds for clubs or pubs.
I'm happy to engage in a long banter about the benefits that "clubs" provide to the community, the employment in the sector or that 70% of Australians enjoy a non-problem flutter. Here all I'll say is that even if these are as good as their promoters would argue, they do not make a case against a simple advertising ban.
It would also seem to be a simple suggestion that clubs on-going tax exempt status could be linked to their demonstrating their corporate citizenship by implementing pre-commitment. Unfortunately Governments have already allowed Electronic Gaming Machines (EGMs in PC-speak) into commercial hotels.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
How not to admit your mistakes
Heaps of coverage of News International (the UK outfit of News Corp, the publishers of both The Times and News of the World) and its apology and compensation scheme over the phone-tapping scandal in the UK.
It takes some work to find it, but the full release makes an interesting read.
The key para reads;
That said, past behaviour at the News of the World in relation to voicemail interception is a matter of genuine regret. It is now apparent that our previous inquiries failed to uncover important evidence and we acknowledge our actions then were not sufficiently robust.
"Genuine regret" is probably the weakest apology that could be made, and it appears the greatest regret is about their investigation of the matter rather than the tapping in the first place.
The release goes on;
News International’s commitment to our readers and pride in our award-winning journalism remains undiminished. We will continue to engage with and challenge those who attempt to restrict our industry’s freedom to undertake responsible investigative reporting in the public interest.
There is no element here of the words one might expect to see. That is "News International's commitment is to the ethical standards of journalism and respect for the law." Instead it is to "praise" their journalists and to suggest that they are up for a fight on any attempt to restrict them.
News Corp globally, and Rupert Murdoch in particular, would be amongst the first to employ the standard right-wing littany that "rights come with responsibilities". But here they argue that their "rights" should not be infringed no matter how irresponsible they have been.
I hope this release gets a good airing on the ABC's Media Watch, or even the original Media Watch run by Gerard Henderson!
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
It takes some work to find it, but the full release makes an interesting read.
The key para reads;
That said, past behaviour at the News of the World in relation to voicemail interception is a matter of genuine regret. It is now apparent that our previous inquiries failed to uncover important evidence and we acknowledge our actions then were not sufficiently robust.
"Genuine regret" is probably the weakest apology that could be made, and it appears the greatest regret is about their investigation of the matter rather than the tapping in the first place.
The release goes on;
News International’s commitment to our readers and pride in our award-winning journalism remains undiminished. We will continue to engage with and challenge those who attempt to restrict our industry’s freedom to undertake responsible investigative reporting in the public interest.
There is no element here of the words one might expect to see. That is "News International's commitment is to the ethical standards of journalism and respect for the law." Instead it is to "praise" their journalists and to suggest that they are up for a fight on any attempt to restrict them.
News Corp globally, and Rupert Murdoch in particular, would be amongst the first to employ the standard right-wing littany that "rights come with responsibilities". But here they argue that their "rights" should not be infringed no matter how irresponsible they have been.
I hope this release gets a good airing on the ABC's Media Watch, or even the original Media Watch run by Gerard Henderson!
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Nice to be part of a winning team
itNews, for whom I'm a columnist, won "Best Title" at the Microsoft IT Journalism Awards on Friday.
They are called Lizzies (I gather from 'lizards of the press') and this is one of the two "Gold Lizzies" though it is actually a hunk of glass or perspex.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
They are called Lizzies (I gather from 'lizards of the press') and this is one of the two "Gold Lizzies" though it is actually a hunk of glass or perspex.
Back row (L-R): Canberra correspondent John Hilvert (finalist for 'Best News Journalist'), Telecommunications expert David Havyatt (finalist for 'Best Columnist'), Haymarket B2B Editor-in-chief Nate Cochrane, iTnews advertising manager John Kovacevic.
Front Row (L-R): iTnews scribe Liz Tay (finalist for 'best business journalist' and 'best tech industry journalist'), fellow newshound Ry Crozier (finalist for Best News Journalist and Best Tech Industry Journalist), and iTnews editor Brett Winterford (finalist for 'Best Columnist' and 'Best Business Journalist'.)
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)