Gerard Henderson has written an epitaph for John Howard, "Despite the views of some left-wing commentators, Howard did not get to the front line in the culture wars, let alone win a medal."
His basis for making an assertion of defeat for Howard is the suggestion that Howard failed in his "expressed aim" to reform the ABC. The question for me is why Henderson fails to really question whether it really was a Howard aim, and if it was whether it can ever succeed. Howard appointed his own Chair (twice)and a number of Board members. There were two selections of CEO (Shiers and Scott), and still "no change".
Could it perhaps be that the issue lies with the charter and not with the staff? The charter has as its objective the provision of programs that "contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflecting the cultural diversity of, the Australian community". But the ABC is also required to "take account of the broadcasting services provided by the commercial and public sectors".
That is, the ABC is not required to achieve the diversity of broadcasting within itself, but to provide diversity in the whole sector - that is including what is broadcast commercially. In that context it is not unsurprising that the ABC contribution is slightly left leaning given that the remainder is slightly right leaning.
Maybe Henderson would like to suggest a different charter?
Postscript. Former ABC director Ron Brunton has written a piece for Henderson's Sydney Institute Quarterly that has been reported on in the SMH. It is an interesting spray that in the coverage alleges that board members couldn't acvhieve much against the ingrained culture of the staff and their lying or "spinning" information for the Board.
It is an incredible claim. At its core it is Brunton admitting that Howard appointed Board members not up to the task, that is they couldn't do what Boards do - set direction, measure performance.
A more charitable interpretation though is the one above. To change the ABC you don't need to change the Board you need to change the charter. But to what?
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
What is a "European-style metro" system
Commentary on rail options in Sydney continue to mention a preference for a "European-style metro system".
I want to know what kind of rail system this is meant to be describing. Typically rail is described as "light" (like trams - think the light rail to Glebe)or "heavy" (which incorporates all the rest of the passenger and freight rail networks). Fundamental differences relate to the number of carriages, the kind of inclines they can handle and the frequency of service.
As far as I can tell the proponents of "metro" are really talking about the same thing as Asians would call a "rapid transit" system. Its features are, typically;
1. Carriages designed mostly for standing not sitting.
2. Carriages with lots of doorways for speedy exit and entry - some systems use one side of the train for boarding and the other for alighting.
3. Very frequent trains.
Sounds awfully like the early rail carriages I was still riding as a school boy with four doors per carriage. Then some idiot decided to deal with the congestion problem at city stations by building double deck trains - which are idiotic beasts that are impossibly slow to load, have very little functioning standing room (compared to any single deck carriage I have ever ridden on except for amn intercity style train).
So Sydney can be converted to a "metro" on this definition if we simply change the trains - and do something about creating another line through the city and/or improving the platform functionality at Wynyard and Town Hall (e.g. can we use both sides of the train at Wynyard? Could the Eastern suburbs line be dropped lower at Town Hall and have three sets of dual lines not two sets of three? Or perhaps could the city circle be rerouted under Town Hall and not stop there at all?)
The original North-West rail plan met many of the requirements, including a new Harbour Crossing. Let the engineers get on with it.
I want to know what kind of rail system this is meant to be describing. Typically rail is described as "light" (like trams - think the light rail to Glebe)or "heavy" (which incorporates all the rest of the passenger and freight rail networks). Fundamental differences relate to the number of carriages, the kind of inclines they can handle and the frequency of service.
As far as I can tell the proponents of "metro" are really talking about the same thing as Asians would call a "rapid transit" system. Its features are, typically;
1. Carriages designed mostly for standing not sitting.
2. Carriages with lots of doorways for speedy exit and entry - some systems use one side of the train for boarding and the other for alighting.
3. Very frequent trains.
Sounds awfully like the early rail carriages I was still riding as a school boy with four doors per carriage. Then some idiot decided to deal with the congestion problem at city stations by building double deck trains - which are idiotic beasts that are impossibly slow to load, have very little functioning standing room (compared to any single deck carriage I have ever ridden on except for amn intercity style train).
So Sydney can be converted to a "metro" on this definition if we simply change the trains - and do something about creating another line through the city and/or improving the platform functionality at Wynyard and Town Hall (e.g. can we use both sides of the train at Wynyard? Could the Eastern suburbs line be dropped lower at Town Hall and have three sets of dual lines not two sets of three? Or perhaps could the city circle be rerouted under Town Hall and not stop there at all?)
The original North-West rail plan met many of the requirements, including a new Harbour Crossing. Let the engineers get on with it.
Saturday, August 09, 2008
Leadership
Having come from the Corporate world I'm used to their being lots of talk about leadership and its distinction from management. However, I'm currently doing a stint in the public service and I'm getting to look at the question all over again.
My public service obsrvations can wait for another day. Today I wanted to simply point to a really great article by Cynthia Banham. As readers might recall Cynthis is a journalist who only just survived an Indonesian plane crash. I actually knew Cynthis some years ago as a journalist, very good at her craft but not yet standing out as a potential leader in the field.
Her tale is about more than leadership, but I do like her three main ideas about leadership.
1. One does not need an official title to be a leader.
2. An ethical leader must draw on a set of values and, to comprehend those values, must think and talk about them. A good leader treats others as the leader herself or himself would want to be treated; suggesting equality, egalitarianism, compassion, empathy (the Golden Rule is found in most religions).
3. The importance to good leadership of moral courage. It may manifest itself in willingness to speak the truth, even when others - more powerful people, perhaps - do not want to hear it. It is about making difficult and unpopular decisions because you know they are appropriate.
The article is well worth reading.
My public service obsrvations can wait for another day. Today I wanted to simply point to a really great article by Cynthia Banham. As readers might recall Cynthis is a journalist who only just survived an Indonesian plane crash. I actually knew Cynthis some years ago as a journalist, very good at her craft but not yet standing out as a potential leader in the field.
Her tale is about more than leadership, but I do like her three main ideas about leadership.
1. One does not need an official title to be a leader.
2. An ethical leader must draw on a set of values and, to comprehend those values, must think and talk about them. A good leader treats others as the leader herself or himself would want to be treated; suggesting equality, egalitarianism, compassion, empathy (the Golden Rule is found in most religions).
3. The importance to good leadership of moral courage. It may manifest itself in willingness to speak the truth, even when others - more powerful people, perhaps - do not want to hear it. It is about making difficult and unpopular decisions because you know they are appropriate.
The article is well worth reading.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Climate Change Sceptics
Don Aitken has got coverage in today's The Australian for a speech he gave on climate change.
Aitken has done a remarkably good job of dealing with the justifiable doubts about anthropogenic global warming. In particular I support his eminently justified critique of the attempt to be doctrinaire about the so-called consensus. I could also quibble about his description of Paul Feyerabend as a political theorist rather than a philosopher of science, and to simultaneously assuming there is an established “scientific method” while also quoting approvingly from Feyerabend’s Against Method, which was an argument that there is no privileged scientific method.
In the end all we can have are theories, and we can have theories that are largely useful or theories that have been useful but are now less so, and eventually some of those theories may become “discredited”. With climate change we have a theory of the Greenhouse Effect; a theory I first heard at an ANZAAS conference in 1975 as an argument for nuclear power and hence treated by me with excessive scepticism.
It is a plausible theory, it is a difficult theory to fully demonstrate and model; primarily because weather patterns are what we now call chaotic systems. To the extent that there is evidence to support the theory it is “patchy” – the ice core correlations don’t prove cause and effect, short run warming measures are hard to interpret.
But Aitken also wants to discount a “precautionary principle”, based on a simple criticism of Pacal’s reason for believing in God – namely that in doing his expected value analysis the father of probability theory left out some other possible future states. However, in this case while there are multiple alternate theories there is still a simple binary choice between the “Greenhouse Theory is correct” or “it is not correct”.
The matter is very like the Pascal’s though in pay-off – acting to reduce emissions has a relatively low cost compared to the catastrophic outcome if the theory is correct. And just like Pascal, we can’t wait to make the decision. If we wait to see incontrovertible evidence of warming then we are too late to stop the process escalating. The one thing we do know is that the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are already at monstrously high levels.
I have elsewhere likened the issue to a General who refuses to believe the intelligence reports of a paratroop invasion until he sees the first invader on the ground. By then the other thousands are in the air on the way down and there is nothing he can do about it.
Finally, climate change reaction may in the end be just what we need. The theory known as “peak oil” is that the global economy will receive a massive shock when energy demands keep increasing at the same time as oil supply starts to decrease. The steps taken to reduce reliance on fossil fuels will also ease the risks of that shock.
What I find a pity is that the climate change discussion has become clouded in the same kind of pointless dialectic as the so-called culture wars - where persons on either side seem to think direct attacks on the other as being wrong in method are productive or useful. Aitken is right to raise his concerns about the climate bandwagon - but his proposed solution of a giant process to decide the "right" scientific answer is also wrong. We have to accept that at this point multiple theories have degrees of evidentiary support - the question is how to act in the face of that, not on how to decide "the truth".
Aitken has done a remarkably good job of dealing with the justifiable doubts about anthropogenic global warming. In particular I support his eminently justified critique of the attempt to be doctrinaire about the so-called consensus. I could also quibble about his description of Paul Feyerabend as a political theorist rather than a philosopher of science, and to simultaneously assuming there is an established “scientific method” while also quoting approvingly from Feyerabend’s Against Method, which was an argument that there is no privileged scientific method.
In the end all we can have are theories, and we can have theories that are largely useful or theories that have been useful but are now less so, and eventually some of those theories may become “discredited”. With climate change we have a theory of the Greenhouse Effect; a theory I first heard at an ANZAAS conference in 1975 as an argument for nuclear power and hence treated by me with excessive scepticism.
It is a plausible theory, it is a difficult theory to fully demonstrate and model; primarily because weather patterns are what we now call chaotic systems. To the extent that there is evidence to support the theory it is “patchy” – the ice core correlations don’t prove cause and effect, short run warming measures are hard to interpret.
But Aitken also wants to discount a “precautionary principle”, based on a simple criticism of Pacal’s reason for believing in God – namely that in doing his expected value analysis the father of probability theory left out some other possible future states. However, in this case while there are multiple alternate theories there is still a simple binary choice between the “Greenhouse Theory is correct” or “it is not correct”.
The matter is very like the Pascal’s though in pay-off – acting to reduce emissions has a relatively low cost compared to the catastrophic outcome if the theory is correct. And just like Pascal, we can’t wait to make the decision. If we wait to see incontrovertible evidence of warming then we are too late to stop the process escalating. The one thing we do know is that the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are already at monstrously high levels.
I have elsewhere likened the issue to a General who refuses to believe the intelligence reports of a paratroop invasion until he sees the first invader on the ground. By then the other thousands are in the air on the way down and there is nothing he can do about it.
Finally, climate change reaction may in the end be just what we need. The theory known as “peak oil” is that the global economy will receive a massive shock when energy demands keep increasing at the same time as oil supply starts to decrease. The steps taken to reduce reliance on fossil fuels will also ease the risks of that shock.
What I find a pity is that the climate change discussion has become clouded in the same kind of pointless dialectic as the so-called culture wars - where persons on either side seem to think direct attacks on the other as being wrong in method are productive or useful. Aitken is right to raise his concerns about the climate bandwagon - but his proposed solution of a giant process to decide the "right" scientific answer is also wrong. We have to accept that at this point multiple theories have degrees of evidentiary support - the question is how to act in the face of that, not on how to decide "the truth".
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Double Vision
The good news is the gas bubble (with its edge of blood) has gone now. The bad news is that I seem to now have "fourth nerve palsy" which means my left eye doesn't point the same way as my right.
This means I see two images, and as my left eye vision improves the second image is getting stronger. The doc thinks it might have been pre-existimng but that my brain always compensated for it - but now we just have to wait to see if that is the case.
If not it is either glasses with a prism effect or surgery to remove a bit of muscle. What fun?
This means I see two images, and as my left eye vision improves the second image is getting stronger. The doc thinks it might have been pre-existimng but that my brain always compensated for it - but now we just have to wait to see if that is the case.
If not it is either glasses with a prism effect or surgery to remove a bit of muscle. What fun?
No Hope for Liberals
There is now conclusive evidence that there is no hope for the Liberal Party. They have announced that Henry Ergas will be undertaking a review of their tax policy.
Ergas in the article is given a title that I don't think he is entitled to, but the absebce of that qualification alone is insufficient to invalidate his role. It is more that his only area of expertise is really regulatory economics, not macro policy issues and certainly not tax. He has no access to a General Equilibrium model to assess the affects of any proposed tax changes across the economy. And most tellingly, his last foray into this territory was embarrassing.
In 2007 Ergas prepared a report for the Menzies Research Centre (no active website!) on the issue of State and Commonwealth expenditures. This was designed to underpin the Costello claim that it was the States putting pressure on interest rates with an old-fashioned crowding out argument. This ignored the fact that the capacity constraints in the economy were in part due to lack of infrastructure spending by the States.
But worse, he tried to argue that the GST windfall to the States had been frittered away on "unearned" wage increases, that is wage increases not tied to productivity improvements.
His analysis was flawed because the evidence was the States had to respond to the general movement in wages in the labour market, and in a tight labour market with skills shortages it was the private sector that was leading in wage settlements. This was not an era of Whitlamesque government led wage increases.
His second problem was that he had blessed little meaningful data on productivity in the major employing areas in the States - health, education and policing. Further he had no idea of how productivity gains (usually achieved through the introduction of new technology) could be achieved in those sectors.
It should be an interesting tax policy when it is released.
Ergas in the article is given a title that I don't think he is entitled to, but the absebce of that qualification alone is insufficient to invalidate his role. It is more that his only area of expertise is really regulatory economics, not macro policy issues and certainly not tax. He has no access to a General Equilibrium model to assess the affects of any proposed tax changes across the economy. And most tellingly, his last foray into this territory was embarrassing.
In 2007 Ergas prepared a report for the Menzies Research Centre (no active website!) on the issue of State and Commonwealth expenditures. This was designed to underpin the Costello claim that it was the States putting pressure on interest rates with an old-fashioned crowding out argument. This ignored the fact that the capacity constraints in the economy were in part due to lack of infrastructure spending by the States.
But worse, he tried to argue that the GST windfall to the States had been frittered away on "unearned" wage increases, that is wage increases not tied to productivity improvements.
His analysis was flawed because the evidence was the States had to respond to the general movement in wages in the labour market, and in a tight labour market with skills shortages it was the private sector that was leading in wage settlements. This was not an era of Whitlamesque government led wage increases.
His second problem was that he had blessed little meaningful data on productivity in the major employing areas in the States - health, education and policing. Further he had no idea of how productivity gains (usually achieved through the introduction of new technology) could be achieved in those sectors.
It should be an interesting tax policy when it is released.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Sydney and Plans
I had my first success in getting a letter published in the SMH for quite a while toda; Don't mess with the heart and soul of this great city. (You have to dig a bit.)
It was editted from the original which I share with you below.
It is remarkable the faith people have in the mythical Ability of planners to write wrongs. Supposedly in the city of Sydney those wrongs include the “chaos” created by the unplanned environment of the 50s and 60s.
It is fascinating that the same Premier who planned to give us an Opera House planned to give us the Cahill expressway. Fascinating that the citizenry continues to complain about The Toaster without reflecting how much more open the Opera House is now than it was with the original collection of East Circular Quay buildings.
And the politicians and media get seduced by the nice clean lines of the impressions of the new designs, without looking at the pieces of the impression that are areas that don’t change. The bulk of the improvement is like fashion magazine “before and after” shots, though in this case the after shot is the one improved by not colouring it all in.
Cities grow like organisms, their functions change and morph. Sydney is no longer a bustling wharf town to the disappointment of sum. But messy railways, aerial freeways and busy ferry wharves are visual expressions of the vibrancy of the city. It is not some airbrushed picture postcard of sentimentality. Please Clover and everyone else, let Sydney quietly evolve and banish your sterile visions.
The editted version really missed the bit about how misleading all the artists drawings of the "future" city look. I'll save that for another day.
It was editted from the original which I share with you below.
It is remarkable the faith people have in the mythical Ability of planners to write wrongs. Supposedly in the city of Sydney those wrongs include the “chaos” created by the unplanned environment of the 50s and 60s.
It is fascinating that the same Premier who planned to give us an Opera House planned to give us the Cahill expressway. Fascinating that the citizenry continues to complain about The Toaster without reflecting how much more open the Opera House is now than it was with the original collection of East Circular Quay buildings.
And the politicians and media get seduced by the nice clean lines of the impressions of the new designs, without looking at the pieces of the impression that are areas that don’t change. The bulk of the improvement is like fashion magazine “before and after” shots, though in this case the after shot is the one improved by not colouring it all in.
Cities grow like organisms, their functions change and morph. Sydney is no longer a bustling wharf town to the disappointment of sum. But messy railways, aerial freeways and busy ferry wharves are visual expressions of the vibrancy of the city. It is not some airbrushed picture postcard of sentimentality. Please Clover and everyone else, let Sydney quietly evolve and banish your sterile visions.
The editted version really missed the bit about how misleading all the artists drawings of the "future" city look. I'll save that for another day.
Gans and Housing
Unfortunately I can't link to Australian Financial Review stories but I thought I'd share this with my few loyal readers. The following was a letter submitted to the AFR Thursday that might I suppose still get a run.
The proposal by Joshua Gans and Christopher Joyce for the creation of an ‘AussieMac’ (“Home loans need an AussieMac” AFR 27 March) is based on the false assumption that mortgage lending is “as safe as houses”. The creation of a AAA rated credit pool to create competition in home lending makes sense if the asset, residential mortgages, really are that secure an investment.
The unfortunate reality is that house prices can be subject to price bubbles like any other asset. Once the bubble goes too far prices will fall, and frequently (or very frequently as now occurring in the US) the owner has negative equity, and the securitised mortgages contain more risk than ever envisioned. The problem with an AussieMac is that it compounds the problem by introducing moral hazard; no one really cares about the quality of the underlying loans if they are using Government guaranteed credit.
The way to stop bubbles is to increase the funding cost to acquire the asset, but in general raising interest rates is a very blunt instrument as it suppresses productive as well as speculative investment. If all housing finance was derived from deposit taking institutions one way to control housing price bubbles would be to reduce the 100% risk weighting given to residential mortgages in calculations of capital adequacy. This is not only effective, but logical, as it reflects the fact that prices now might not match prices in the future.
Securitised mortgages while increasing competition took away the effectiveness of the strategy. A Government backed securitised mortgage market may be worthwhile if it could also include a similar mechanism for dealing with housing price inflation.
Of course I'm jealous that Joshua got an invite to Australia 2020 - but I'm glad he is there, as is John Quiggin. A couple of economists who usually (not always) make sense. Meanwhile poor Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberals are relying on Henry Ergas for their economic advice. I guess he and Malcolm both know how to turn a quid from building and then selling advisory businesses - the search party is still out trying to locate Ergas' other expertise.
The proposal by Joshua Gans and Christopher Joyce for the creation of an ‘AussieMac’ (“Home loans need an AussieMac” AFR 27 March) is based on the false assumption that mortgage lending is “as safe as houses”. The creation of a AAA rated credit pool to create competition in home lending makes sense if the asset, residential mortgages, really are that secure an investment.
The unfortunate reality is that house prices can be subject to price bubbles like any other asset. Once the bubble goes too far prices will fall, and frequently (or very frequently as now occurring in the US) the owner has negative equity, and the securitised mortgages contain more risk than ever envisioned. The problem with an AussieMac is that it compounds the problem by introducing moral hazard; no one really cares about the quality of the underlying loans if they are using Government guaranteed credit.
The way to stop bubbles is to increase the funding cost to acquire the asset, but in general raising interest rates is a very blunt instrument as it suppresses productive as well as speculative investment. If all housing finance was derived from deposit taking institutions one way to control housing price bubbles would be to reduce the 100% risk weighting given to residential mortgages in calculations of capital adequacy. This is not only effective, but logical, as it reflects the fact that prices now might not match prices in the future.
Securitised mortgages while increasing competition took away the effectiveness of the strategy. A Government backed securitised mortgage market may be worthwhile if it could also include a similar mechanism for dealing with housing price inflation.
Of course I'm jealous that Joshua got an invite to Australia 2020 - but I'm glad he is there, as is John Quiggin. A couple of economists who usually (not always) make sense. Meanwhile poor Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberals are relying on Henry Ergas for their economic advice. I guess he and Malcolm both know how to turn a quid from building and then selling advisory businesses - the search party is still out trying to locate Ergas' other expertise.
Friday, March 28, 2008
A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum
A classic 60s slapstick-style comedy - but my blog is about Australia 2020.
You see I was vain enough to nominate for one of the committees, disappointed that I didn't receive a letter of invitation and then stunned when the final list was released today.
You see I nominated for what was announced on 3 February as "Economic infrastructure, the digital economy and the future of our cities". With the announcement of the steering committee on 26 February it was announced that Warwick Smith would chair the committee - on "Economic infrastructure, the digital economy and the future of our cities". And that was certainly the name of the committee in the on-line form I completed.
I was a bit concerned when the first twenty members were announced on 23 March, because none were listed for the committee on the digital economy, though at the bottom of the release it still said "Economic infrastructure, the digital economy and the future of our cities" was one of the ten critical areas for discussion at the summit.
But with the final release of the full 1000 participants today the first item "Future directions for the Australian economy – including education, skills, training, science and innovation as part of the nation’s productivity agenda" in all the earlier lists was morphed into two separate committees of 100 - one on the "Future directions for the Australian economy" and a separate one on "The Productivity Agenda (education, skills, training, science and innovation)". On the official lists Warwick Smith is now shown to be chairing this.
What we don't know is whether the original committee was dropped because of lack of interest from potential participants, or it was thought to be too diverse a group of topics (though I can easily link the three), or whether it was because the weight on nominations for the big headline "future directions of the economy" resulted in a need to find a way to accomodate them all.
But in the process the whole "critical area" has simply disappeared. So there is no explicit reference to economic infrastructure - it hasn't been added to one of the other economic lists. There is a whole committee to talk about the minority of Australians who don't live in cities - and no committee for those who do. And meanwhile - the digital economy doesn't exist - and it hasn't even been explicitly added to the 'productivity agenda".
I haven't had the time to go through the list in detail - but I do note the media coverage that James Packer has been added. That might be good because Packer and Lachlan Murdoch together perhaps equals one synapse. But heavens he's on the committee to talk about future directions for the Australian economy. We know his answer - gambling - or, as they call it down on the farm, "Prosperity through Probability" - a great slogan for the side of the barn.
To paraphrase the Bill Clinton 1992 election slogan "It's D-Economy, stupid." So much for Kevin Rudd "getting it" as his Minister for the Digital Economy keeps telling us.
(Note: It is also interesting to note how the order of the committees has changed - with health being top of the list now whereas the economy was originally. Was this designed to make it harder to note the change, or just playing to the warm inner glow of talking about health.)
You see I was vain enough to nominate for one of the committees, disappointed that I didn't receive a letter of invitation and then stunned when the final list was released today.
You see I nominated for what was announced on 3 February as "Economic infrastructure, the digital economy and the future of our cities". With the announcement of the steering committee on 26 February it was announced that Warwick Smith would chair the committee - on "Economic infrastructure, the digital economy and the future of our cities". And that was certainly the name of the committee in the on-line form I completed.
I was a bit concerned when the first twenty members were announced on 23 March, because none were listed for the committee on the digital economy, though at the bottom of the release it still said "Economic infrastructure, the digital economy and the future of our cities" was one of the ten critical areas for discussion at the summit.
But with the final release of the full 1000 participants today the first item "Future directions for the Australian economy – including education, skills, training, science and innovation as part of the nation’s productivity agenda" in all the earlier lists was morphed into two separate committees of 100 - one on the "Future directions for the Australian economy" and a separate one on "The Productivity Agenda (education, skills, training, science and innovation)". On the official lists Warwick Smith is now shown to be chairing this.
What we don't know is whether the original committee was dropped because of lack of interest from potential participants, or it was thought to be too diverse a group of topics (though I can easily link the three), or whether it was because the weight on nominations for the big headline "future directions of the economy" resulted in a need to find a way to accomodate them all.
But in the process the whole "critical area" has simply disappeared. So there is no explicit reference to economic infrastructure - it hasn't been added to one of the other economic lists. There is a whole committee to talk about the minority of Australians who don't live in cities - and no committee for those who do. And meanwhile - the digital economy doesn't exist - and it hasn't even been explicitly added to the 'productivity agenda".
I haven't had the time to go through the list in detail - but I do note the media coverage that James Packer has been added. That might be good because Packer and Lachlan Murdoch together perhaps equals one synapse. But heavens he's on the committee to talk about future directions for the Australian economy. We know his answer - gambling - or, as they call it down on the farm, "Prosperity through Probability" - a great slogan for the side of the barn.
To paraphrase the Bill Clinton 1992 election slogan "It's D-Economy, stupid." So much for Kevin Rudd "getting it" as his Minister for the Digital Economy keeps telling us.
(Note: It is also interesting to note how the order of the committees has changed - with health being top of the list now whereas the economy was originally. Was this designed to make it harder to note the change, or just playing to the warm inner glow of talking about health.)
A Bubble of Blood
Hope that got your attention.
This is an eye update. I had a one week check-up yesterday, and had a nervous morning because I started to get enough vision back in the eye that I noticed that I again had a dark view at the bottom of my eye - but this time like a straight line, unlike the arc of the detatched retina. I also noticed the line moved up and down as I tilted my head but still no idea.
The doctor explained that there has been a little post operative bleeding and this has gathered at the bottom of the eye. The line stays as a horizon even if I tilt my head to the side. Discovered today that I can see it sloshing around when I walk!
So that is all good. The detatchment was, as they say in the trade, macula off, but so far it is going well. Still another week before the gas bubble dissipates and we really see how it is going.
This is an eye update. I had a one week check-up yesterday, and had a nervous morning because I started to get enough vision back in the eye that I noticed that I again had a dark view at the bottom of my eye - but this time like a straight line, unlike the arc of the detatched retina. I also noticed the line moved up and down as I tilted my head but still no idea.
The doctor explained that there has been a little post operative bleeding and this has gathered at the bottom of the eye. The line stays as a horizon even if I tilt my head to the side. Discovered today that I can see it sloshing around when I walk!
So that is all good. The detatchment was, as they say in the trade, macula off, but so far it is going well. Still another week before the gas bubble dissipates and we really see how it is going.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
One-eyed Tahs Supporter
Please read on - this isn't about football.
On Monday 10 March the vision in my left eye was incredibly blurry. This was very strange because the Friday before I'd picked up new reading glasses and had a visual field test, and the Friday before that I had the eye test to get a new prescription and was advised I had no pressure problems (glaucoma), no catarats and they even took nice pictures of my retinas. I do have large optic nerve attacments but I have had for a while, and they aren't getting worse (that's why you have the field test), I also had slightly large veins in the eye. The optometrist asked if I had hypertension and I replied that my blood pressure was good.
On the Monday I made an appointment with my GP but didn't think it was an emergency, so the earliest I could get in was Monday 17 March. When I saw the GP that afternoon I also mentioned my blocked nose and the GP decided we should check to see if there was a sinus infection that could be causing the vision problem, this required a sinus CT scan The GP thought I'd be struggling to get booked in but that I had to insist, and made another appointment for me at 6:15 Thursday, which was of course the day before Good Friday. At this stage all I had was very blurry vision, so that seemed OK. By the time I left the surgery it was too late to call the Radiology place, but when I rang first thing Tuesday they said I could get in straight away.
I went about life as normal on Tuesday but on Wednesday morning I woke to have a green shadow circle segment in the lower right corner of my left eye. As this didn't clear I rang the GPs office - but he doesn't work Wednesday. By Wednesday night it was black and almost filling the whole of the eye.
So Thursday morning I rang to ask for an earlier appointment and got one for 11:15 am. As soon as I sat down and talked about the symptoms he realised something more was wrong (he simply thought a bleed) and booked me in to see an opthalmologist straight away. So down I went to the specialist and saw him at about 12:30 - on first examination he looked at my eye and said "yes you have a problem" then put more drops in my eye to dilate my pupil and sent me out for half an hour. Not a great wait I must say.
Then when I go back in after looking again he tells me I have a torn and detatched retina which is not good. He only sees two a year. I will need to see a retina guy, but they have one right there (and I discover later he only works there Thursday). They squeezed me in to his already busy schedule - plus gave me some more drops to further dilate the pupil.
While waiting they take pictures of my retinas - and wow - it really is ugly. About half the retina is detatched and it is masking the rest of the retina so it looks blurry. When I get to see the retina guy he tells me officially the bad news - and for some reason (possibly contributed to by not having eaten since breakfast, a high level of stress and having looked at the world through one eye) I start feeling incredibly dizzzy - so I lie on the floor and get the rest of the news lieing on my back. He tells me that I actually do have cataracts forming, which is sort of good because the surgery to fix the retina results in cataracts so it is less of a concern if I was geting them anyway. The surgery could be done at the Eye Hospital but Thursday night might be a problem because it is also the hand hospital and there is a five hour operation about to start to reattach a guys fingers. They can't tell what has happened to the macula and if it hadn't yet detatched then getting the retina back on would be better for recovery. I convinced the guy we should try for Thursday night.
It is now about 3:30pm and he tells me I should aim to be at the Hospital by 5 and present to Eye Emergency. He encourages me to take the train but I want my iPod so need to go home first and we figure driving will be just as fast. We very nearly made it except for a guy who just double parked in Hospital Rd and who took exception to us tooting - what part of he was blocking access to emergency didn't he understand.
Because we'd missed 5pm eye emergency was shut, so we went to ordinary emergency. Ordinary emergency didn't understand that while the hospital was expecting me I wasn't really booked in - they sent me up to the first floor who wanted to send us back down. I didn't move till she called her supervisor who was brilliant, took me back downstairs and explained to the triage sister what to do. It was still a long process to get admitted.
At 10pm the retinal guy and I remet in theatre, he'd been home had dinner and a bit of a sleep. Surgery was under a local anaesthetic but quite frankly I don't remember a thing (the good eye was covered and the optic nerve of the dud eye blocked by the anaesthetic).
Back to the ward at about midnight. Text to Marg to tell her I was OK - then try to sleep on my stomach with my face down. Out of hospital at about 10:00am the next day. Now my eye is full of gas, I can't catch a plane for a couple of weeks, have no vision out of the eye and have to wait to see if I'm one of the 90% for whom the retina reattaches.
All this trouble to become a one-eyed Waratah's fan and they still lost miserably to the Crusaders.
On Monday 10 March the vision in my left eye was incredibly blurry. This was very strange because the Friday before I'd picked up new reading glasses and had a visual field test, and the Friday before that I had the eye test to get a new prescription and was advised I had no pressure problems (glaucoma), no catarats and they even took nice pictures of my retinas. I do have large optic nerve attacments but I have had for a while, and they aren't getting worse (that's why you have the field test), I also had slightly large veins in the eye. The optometrist asked if I had hypertension and I replied that my blood pressure was good.
On the Monday I made an appointment with my GP but didn't think it was an emergency, so the earliest I could get in was Monday 17 March. When I saw the GP that afternoon I also mentioned my blocked nose and the GP decided we should check to see if there was a sinus infection that could be causing the vision problem, this required a sinus CT scan The GP thought I'd be struggling to get booked in but that I had to insist, and made another appointment for me at 6:15 Thursday, which was of course the day before Good Friday. At this stage all I had was very blurry vision, so that seemed OK. By the time I left the surgery it was too late to call the Radiology place, but when I rang first thing Tuesday they said I could get in straight away.
I went about life as normal on Tuesday but on Wednesday morning I woke to have a green shadow circle segment in the lower right corner of my left eye. As this didn't clear I rang the GPs office - but he doesn't work Wednesday. By Wednesday night it was black and almost filling the whole of the eye.
So Thursday morning I rang to ask for an earlier appointment and got one for 11:15 am. As soon as I sat down and talked about the symptoms he realised something more was wrong (he simply thought a bleed) and booked me in to see an opthalmologist straight away. So down I went to the specialist and saw him at about 12:30 - on first examination he looked at my eye and said "yes you have a problem" then put more drops in my eye to dilate my pupil and sent me out for half an hour. Not a great wait I must say.
Then when I go back in after looking again he tells me I have a torn and detatched retina which is not good. He only sees two a year. I will need to see a retina guy, but they have one right there (and I discover later he only works there Thursday). They squeezed me in to his already busy schedule - plus gave me some more drops to further dilate the pupil.
While waiting they take pictures of my retinas - and wow - it really is ugly. About half the retina is detatched and it is masking the rest of the retina so it looks blurry. When I get to see the retina guy he tells me officially the bad news - and for some reason (possibly contributed to by not having eaten since breakfast, a high level of stress and having looked at the world through one eye) I start feeling incredibly dizzzy - so I lie on the floor and get the rest of the news lieing on my back. He tells me that I actually do have cataracts forming, which is sort of good because the surgery to fix the retina results in cataracts so it is less of a concern if I was geting them anyway. The surgery could be done at the Eye Hospital but Thursday night might be a problem because it is also the hand hospital and there is a five hour operation about to start to reattach a guys fingers. They can't tell what has happened to the macula and if it hadn't yet detatched then getting the retina back on would be better for recovery. I convinced the guy we should try for Thursday night.
It is now about 3:30pm and he tells me I should aim to be at the Hospital by 5 and present to Eye Emergency. He encourages me to take the train but I want my iPod so need to go home first and we figure driving will be just as fast. We very nearly made it except for a guy who just double parked in Hospital Rd and who took exception to us tooting - what part of he was blocking access to emergency didn't he understand.
Because we'd missed 5pm eye emergency was shut, so we went to ordinary emergency. Ordinary emergency didn't understand that while the hospital was expecting me I wasn't really booked in - they sent me up to the first floor who wanted to send us back down. I didn't move till she called her supervisor who was brilliant, took me back downstairs and explained to the triage sister what to do. It was still a long process to get admitted.
At 10pm the retinal guy and I remet in theatre, he'd been home had dinner and a bit of a sleep. Surgery was under a local anaesthetic but quite frankly I don't remember a thing (the good eye was covered and the optic nerve of the dud eye blocked by the anaesthetic).
Back to the ward at about midnight. Text to Marg to tell her I was OK - then try to sleep on my stomach with my face down. Out of hospital at about 10:00am the next day. Now my eye is full of gas, I can't catch a plane for a couple of weeks, have no vision out of the eye and have to wait to see if I'm one of the 90% for whom the retina reattaches.
All this trouble to become a one-eyed Waratah's fan and they still lost miserably to the Crusaders.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Telstra's Big Loss
The High Court today gave its decision in Telstra's case challenging the validity of the telecommunications access regime.
It wasn't just a loss for Telstra though, it was really a big loss. The court ultimately had to decide whether the cutting over of local loops to competitors for the purpose of providing ULLS and LSS services was an acquisition of property, and if so whether the so-called "historic shipwrecks" provisions of the Act were sufficient to preserve the validity of the access regime.
Telstra lost on the very first limb, the acquisition of property. But they lost not on the technicality that was argued in the case of whether Telstra did or did not still have the ability to use the copper. They lost on the grounds that their property right to the copper had always been encumbered by the legislative framework, that when they acquired the PSTN it as acquired under a legislative regime that included the requirement to provide access. The Court didn't further dwell on the fact that any other asset invested in since the vesting was equally covered by the provisions of the act.
In an earlier post I said "Those who are resorting to property rights arguments might find out they have less than they ever imagined." This is certainly what has now happened to Telstra. There are some futher interesting questions about what the management and Board have been representing to shareholders in terms of the assets they own, and their probably could be some "good faith" defence. I know the Commonwealth was always very careful as vendor to state that in the sale process it was not changing any element of policy.
As a side benefit, the Court also ruled that had their been an acquisition, the historic shipwrecks provisions would have been sufficient to save the regime, though Telstra could still mount a challenge that the compensation wasn't just in the Federal Court. But that route is now eliminated.
This is a deceptively big decision, one that I think many corporations will have wished Telstra hadn't ever brought. It will certainly lify a veil of uncertainty over the scope of the legislative arrangements for telecommunications and could even further embolden Government.
It wasn't just a loss for Telstra though, it was really a big loss. The court ultimately had to decide whether the cutting over of local loops to competitors for the purpose of providing ULLS and LSS services was an acquisition of property, and if so whether the so-called "historic shipwrecks" provisions of the Act were sufficient to preserve the validity of the access regime.
Telstra lost on the very first limb, the acquisition of property. But they lost not on the technicality that was argued in the case of whether Telstra did or did not still have the ability to use the copper. They lost on the grounds that their property right to the copper had always been encumbered by the legislative framework, that when they acquired the PSTN it as acquired under a legislative regime that included the requirement to provide access. The Court didn't further dwell on the fact that any other asset invested in since the vesting was equally covered by the provisions of the act.
In an earlier post I said "Those who are resorting to property rights arguments might find out they have less than they ever imagined." This is certainly what has now happened to Telstra. There are some futher interesting questions about what the management and Board have been representing to shareholders in terms of the assets they own, and their probably could be some "good faith" defence. I know the Commonwealth was always very careful as vendor to state that in the sale process it was not changing any element of policy.
As a side benefit, the Court also ruled that had their been an acquisition, the historic shipwrecks provisions would have been sufficient to save the regime, though Telstra could still mount a challenge that the compensation wasn't just in the Federal Court. But that route is now eliminated.
This is a deceptively big decision, one that I think many corporations will have wished Telstra hadn't ever brought. It will certainly lify a veil of uncertainty over the scope of the legislative arrangements for telecommunications and could even further embolden Government.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
David is Sorry
I had the good fortune to be in Canberra on Wednesday 13 February 2008 and stand in Federation Mall to watch the apology to the stolen generations on the big screens. I turned my back on Dr Nelso when he tried to justify the intervention - a policy no doubt well intentioned by the militarist Mal Brough but only supported by John Howard (as with so much) in the hope it could "wedge" the ALP.
I was dismayed to find some of my acquaintances and one of the local papers still objecting - both I think because of the usage "stolen generation" and their observation there was no "generation" stolen. This objection is based on the use of the word “generation”.
Let's start with the definition of the word "generation" that means all those people in a family or group (or nation) born at about the same time. Clearly the facts state that most of the indigenous children born at any time in the first seven decades of the twentieth century got to live their lives with their parents. But we do know that between one in ten and one in three was taken from its family. That is a lot.
We talk freely of the generation that went to war - in reference to both the first and second world wars - yet the proportion was certainly below one in three and for most areas and age groups less than one in ten. Clearly ordinary usage permits the use of the word "generation" to refer to circumstances that affect a significant proportion of that population but not all of it. To use the word "generation' in the context of stolen generations is acceptable within ordinary usage.
A second meaning of "generation" is the period of time between one generation and the next - so we hear phrases like "a once in a generation opportunity". This period is usually considered to be 25-30 years, though it can be as short as 15 years in some usage (e.g. generation X and Y refer to two fifteen year periods).
The period of seventy years over which the policies applied constitute two or more generations in this meaning of the word and the "stolen generations" can be interpreted as referring to this time (and it is because of the length of time of the policy that the original "stolen generation" became "stolen generations" as used in the apology).
If you want me to go through all the other limbs of objection I will but let me summarise; They weren't stolen - well yes a lot could be argued to have been taken under the same conditions as DOCS would take kids today, but we do know there were some who were taken merely because they were half-caste, we know a different standard on separation was applied to blacks than whites and we know that after separation they were treated far differently than ay white children taken on the basis of inadequate home life - most especially the habitual separation of siblings from each other.
It was well intentioned - yes, but it was based on race and race alone in many cases and that is inexcusable in hindsight. Was Hitler "well intentioned" in seeking racial purity in Germany and does that justify his actions.
So "stolen generations" is arguably acceptable language to refer to the systematic removal of children from their homes on racial grounds, though it is not the language I would choose.
We aren't responsible for actions made by previous generations - we're not taking responsibility just expressing regret and apologising. When I say "I'm sorry" to someone whose close relative has died I am not saying I was responsible for their death. You could equally argue we shouldn't be proud of anything in history.
Finally, if just saying sorry is going to make the aggrieved people, many of whom are still alive, feel better then it is a good thing to do. .
I was dismayed to find some of my acquaintances and one of the local papers still objecting - both I think because of the usage "stolen generation" and their observation there was no "generation" stolen. This objection is based on the use of the word “generation”.
Let's start with the definition of the word "generation" that means all those people in a family or group (or nation) born at about the same time. Clearly the facts state that most of the indigenous children born at any time in the first seven decades of the twentieth century got to live their lives with their parents. But we do know that between one in ten and one in three was taken from its family. That is a lot.
We talk freely of the generation that went to war - in reference to both the first and second world wars - yet the proportion was certainly below one in three and for most areas and age groups less than one in ten. Clearly ordinary usage permits the use of the word "generation" to refer to circumstances that affect a significant proportion of that population but not all of it. To use the word "generation' in the context of stolen generations is acceptable within ordinary usage.
A second meaning of "generation" is the period of time between one generation and the next - so we hear phrases like "a once in a generation opportunity". This period is usually considered to be 25-30 years, though it can be as short as 15 years in some usage (e.g. generation X and Y refer to two fifteen year periods).
The period of seventy years over which the policies applied constitute two or more generations in this meaning of the word and the "stolen generations" can be interpreted as referring to this time (and it is because of the length of time of the policy that the original "stolen generation" became "stolen generations" as used in the apology).
If you want me to go through all the other limbs of objection I will but let me summarise; They weren't stolen - well yes a lot could be argued to have been taken under the same conditions as DOCS would take kids today, but we do know there were some who were taken merely because they were half-caste, we know a different standard on separation was applied to blacks than whites and we know that after separation they were treated far differently than ay white children taken on the basis of inadequate home life - most especially the habitual separation of siblings from each other.
It was well intentioned - yes, but it was based on race and race alone in many cases and that is inexcusable in hindsight. Was Hitler "well intentioned" in seeking racial purity in Germany and does that justify his actions.
So "stolen generations" is arguably acceptable language to refer to the systematic removal of children from their homes on racial grounds, though it is not the language I would choose.
We aren't responsible for actions made by previous generations - we're not taking responsibility just expressing regret and apologising. When I say "I'm sorry" to someone whose close relative has died I am not saying I was responsible for their death. You could equally argue we shouldn't be proud of anything in history.
Finally, if just saying sorry is going to make the aggrieved people, many of whom are still alive, feel better then it is a good thing to do. .
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Vale "The Bulletin"
So the Bulletin is no more.
This is sad news, especially because of the inadequate reasoning offered by the publisher - that it was effectively killed by the internet. The net is great for breaking news and some forms of extensive writing, but not for the kinds of article based journalism of which The Bulletin was a part.
Somehow I don't see Time or The Economist going the same way as The Bulletin. The Bulletin couldn't find its way to sustain the kind of writing found in those journals and had more in common with its Womans Day stablemate than either of them.
The early history of The Bulletin was of a highly nationalistic, populist rag - that employed some really great writers. One wonders why in its more modern guise the publishers didn't try taking it down the populist route - a bit more humour (why did The Chaser need to start their own outlet), a bit more depth in the politics (maybe sack some of the old columnists).
Now we don't have a news magazine - in my youth we also had a weekly news paper of Bulletin pretensions in Nation Review, then Fairfax did a good job with The National Times. There are the writers and the material - some of Quadrant and The Monthly would fit well in the weekly.
Given the magazine didn't compete with anything else in the stable - why not at least try to sell the masthead/brand? And was this a decision L. Murdoch new of before deciding to buy in?
This is sad news, especially because of the inadequate reasoning offered by the publisher - that it was effectively killed by the internet. The net is great for breaking news and some forms of extensive writing, but not for the kinds of article based journalism of which The Bulletin was a part.
Somehow I don't see Time or The Economist going the same way as The Bulletin. The Bulletin couldn't find its way to sustain the kind of writing found in those journals and had more in common with its Womans Day stablemate than either of them.
The early history of The Bulletin was of a highly nationalistic, populist rag - that employed some really great writers. One wonders why in its more modern guise the publishers didn't try taking it down the populist route - a bit more humour (why did The Chaser need to start their own outlet), a bit more depth in the politics (maybe sack some of the old columnists).
Now we don't have a news magazine - in my youth we also had a weekly news paper of Bulletin pretensions in Nation Review, then Fairfax did a good job with The National Times. There are the writers and the material - some of Quadrant and The Monthly would fit well in the weekly.
Given the magazine didn't compete with anything else in the stable - why not at least try to sell the masthead/brand? And was this a decision L. Murdoch new of before deciding to buy in?
Monday, January 21, 2008
Glad I'm not there
An item in the SMH describes the problems being experienced by AAPT's new call centre (and computer system).
You can bet the consequence will be a huge increase in TIO complaints, so I'll be able to bask in the glory of declining complaint levels while I ran the show and increases after I left.
The story really is a bit more complicated!!! However, one does question the wisdom of the whole "step out" change process that was employed. While the theory is great - maximise the benefits of the change by creating the opportunity to remove the most staff - the practical reality is that there really isn't such a thing as a "labour market". By that I mean that the skills required in a job are not ever actually available "off the shelf" in the marketplace.
What I'd really like to see is the report by the change management consultancy - Deloittes - on the change. Will the blame be laid at the door of management changes at AAPT, failure to properly implement the Deloittes change program or will it be a questioning of the Deloittes change methodology!
You can bet the consequence will be a huge increase in TIO complaints, so I'll be able to bask in the glory of declining complaint levels while I ran the show and increases after I left.
The story really is a bit more complicated!!! However, one does question the wisdom of the whole "step out" change process that was employed. While the theory is great - maximise the benefits of the change by creating the opportunity to remove the most staff - the practical reality is that there really isn't such a thing as a "labour market". By that I mean that the skills required in a job are not ever actually available "off the shelf" in the marketplace.
What I'd really like to see is the report by the change management consultancy - Deloittes - on the change. Will the blame be laid at the door of management changes at AAPT, failure to properly implement the Deloittes change program or will it be a questioning of the Deloittes change methodology!
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Ming's Legacy
In the Weekend Australian Christopher Pearson has a swing at the great Ming's legacy.
He has taken exception to an item in the Higher Education Supplement by Bob White which had harked back to the expansion of the Universities and the creation of Commonwealth funding under Menzies as the last time a Commonwealth Government had done anything positive for Universities. Perason's generally elitist critique is based on the assumption that the threefold increase in student numbers and the linked increase in academic posts came at the expense of quality because the expansion must have required admitting people of lower standards. He then makes the usual "cluture wars" critique of the academic sector being made up exclusively by rabid left-wingers who then supposedly have melded all thinking in the country in their own image. He includes the usual snide distinction of the 5 new "besser brick" universities from the "Gothic".
It is all pretty pathetic really. The first thing to note is the high population increase post war - both from baby boomers and from immigration. The second is that university places possibly simply hadn't kept pace with existing population growth, and certainly would have declined through the war. So the claim that the increase of places equals a reduction of quality is based on some assumptions that all other change had followed a "standard" path.
As for the so-called invasion of the left, this is and remains a myth. At least it is a myth that this has had any enduring effect on the make-up of intellectual debate, there are plenty of functioning right-wingers out there. Heck, even Tony Abbott survived the university system, and Peter Costello went through a Menzies University.
The idea that the five Menzies institutions are second rate is really getting confused. Yes that claim might be able to be levelled at the Universities spawned by the Dawkins reforms (of which the University of Western Sydney from which Bob White hailed is one) but then again if there are n universities one must be the best and one must be the nth.
Pearson simply is a big bag of wind. But also the likes of Bob White should get a little bit more real about the developments since - without the Dawkins reforms he'd be a Lecturer at a Teachers' College.
He has taken exception to an item in the Higher Education Supplement by Bob White which had harked back to the expansion of the Universities and the creation of Commonwealth funding under Menzies as the last time a Commonwealth Government had done anything positive for Universities. Perason's generally elitist critique is based on the assumption that the threefold increase in student numbers and the linked increase in academic posts came at the expense of quality because the expansion must have required admitting people of lower standards. He then makes the usual "cluture wars" critique of the academic sector being made up exclusively by rabid left-wingers who then supposedly have melded all thinking in the country in their own image. He includes the usual snide distinction of the 5 new "besser brick" universities from the "Gothic".
It is all pretty pathetic really. The first thing to note is the high population increase post war - both from baby boomers and from immigration. The second is that university places possibly simply hadn't kept pace with existing population growth, and certainly would have declined through the war. So the claim that the increase of places equals a reduction of quality is based on some assumptions that all other change had followed a "standard" path.
As for the so-called invasion of the left, this is and remains a myth. At least it is a myth that this has had any enduring effect on the make-up of intellectual debate, there are plenty of functioning right-wingers out there. Heck, even Tony Abbott survived the university system, and Peter Costello went through a Menzies University.
The idea that the five Menzies institutions are second rate is really getting confused. Yes that claim might be able to be levelled at the Universities spawned by the Dawkins reforms (of which the University of Western Sydney from which Bob White hailed is one) but then again if there are n universities one must be the best and one must be the nth.
Pearson simply is a big bag of wind. But also the likes of Bob White should get a little bit more real about the developments since - without the Dawkins reforms he'd be a Lecturer at a Teachers' College.
Saturday, January 05, 2008
For the record
This man taught my daughter to ride a bike, but I can promise you I am her biological father!!
Thursday, January 03, 2008
John Winston "Mr Right" Howard
A photo on page 2 of this morning's SMH that accompanied this carry-overed front page article was captioned spot the celebrity. (Unfourtunely I can't find the photo on-line.)
It featured the man who used to be the Prime Minister flanked by the NSW Shadow Attorney-General Greg Smith and his son Nathaniel. We guess the former PM was meant to be the celebrity - but it is the company he now chooses to keep which is telling.
Remember that Epping pre-selection in which Howard supposedly backed Pru Goward? Hard to believe that the PM really got rolled by the NSW Right. We'll never really know who the PM backed.
We know (see my earlier blog) where the Liberal Party in NSW stands. It looks like the former PM stands right beside it!!
It featured the man who used to be the Prime Minister flanked by the NSW Shadow Attorney-General Greg Smith and his son Nathaniel. We guess the former PM was meant to be the celebrity - but it is the company he now chooses to keep which is telling.
Remember that Epping pre-selection in which Howard supposedly backed Pru Goward? Hard to believe that the PM really got rolled by the NSW Right. We'll never really know who the PM backed.
We know (see my earlier blog) where the Liberal Party in NSW stands. It looks like the former PM stands right beside it!!
The Democrats in the SMH
It all started with an article by Laura Chipp. It is fair to describe this as a basically predictable "establishment" Democrat post-election justification and wishful future thinking.
The letter from Andrew Elder of Eastwood in today’s SMH has some interesting responses to the piece, some of which I agree with. (Elder also wrote about it in his blog - but I can't understand the gormless writing style. He comes across as obnoxious, but some of his observations are reasonable).
In the end the Democrats went to the election not standing for anything. "Bring Back Balance" isn't a campaign theme - it gives no indication of how you intend to act, especially when you know the biggest brand issue is the number of people who believe (wrongly) that the Democrats sold them out on workplace reform in 1996 and the GST in 1999.
Contrast that with the description of GetUp! also in today's SMH. I think it is a mistake to over-read the numbers involved in GetUp! It is not the vocal end of a larger group - this is the entire group of people concerned about these kind of social justice, civil rights, indigenous, refugee and democratic process issues. They are by definition "activists" because holding the views they do is already an "active" position - they have thought for themselves and resisted the mainstream view. Politically the "cartel parties" will mostly represent the "mainstream" view - that's what you do to get a majority of votes. And that mainstream view becomes self-reinforcing because the masses (a good Marxist term) get their biases reconfirmed for them by their political leaders. Howard was the master of that, sometimes described as the dog-whistle.
But GetUp! continue to kid themselves that they have influence. Sure they may get audiences with their local member about what they have discussed - but so will the local Right to Life group. Sure they generate some petitions and letter writing campaigns - but so do the Catholic lobby groups who want everything censored. And it remains my belief that their contribution on election day was negative for progressive causes...all they did was harass voters with their rating of parties on the issues they regarded as important. I saw wavering voters decide to vote Liberal after their GetUp! confrontation but no one do the reverse.
What those flocking to GetUp! meetings (and those enamoured by ideas like the Third Voice Alliance) need to do is to realise that what counts is getting votes for your cause. So campaigning without a candidate to support is pointless - as is some vague line like "Vote for Change". (I should note that the US system of primaries makes this slightly different - there external vote gathering groups can help).
On the flip side those who do have a plan to get candidates elected need to focus on all the work needed between elections. GetUp!'s constant campaigning works. The Democrats got seduced into thinking it was just up to the elected representatives to keep the party in the public consciousness, and didn't do anywhere near enough between election street level campaigning. And what they did wasn't capitalised on - signatures on petitions did not become a database of "fellow travellers". And they also fell for the trap of letting policy be something defined by the parliamentary representatives - as the GetUp! meetings showed people like the chance to do policy work. (It should be noted that the messy clash between the parliamentary and organisational wings of the party in the Lees/Stott-Despoja explosion can be identified as the source of this problem - a problem that will be resolved now on 1 July 2008).
Finally, many Democrats - Laura Chipp included - are now suggesting a role for the Democrats in local Government elections. This is especially tempting in NSW where the timing (September 2008) gives us something to do before the 2010 Federal Election (not getting a State election till 2011) (I personally discount the likelihood of a double dissolution - the Liberals would be insane to give Rudd a trigger). If the Democrats are serious about this then there is alot of policy, infrastructure and campaigning work to do now.
It is an interesting challenge - I hope there are people ready to take it on.
The letter from Andrew Elder of Eastwood in today’s SMH has some interesting responses to the piece, some of which I agree with. (Elder also wrote about it in his blog - but I can't understand the gormless writing style. He comes across as obnoxious, but some of his observations are reasonable).
In the end the Democrats went to the election not standing for anything. "Bring Back Balance" isn't a campaign theme - it gives no indication of how you intend to act, especially when you know the biggest brand issue is the number of people who believe (wrongly) that the Democrats sold them out on workplace reform in 1996 and the GST in 1999.
Contrast that with the description of GetUp! also in today's SMH. I think it is a mistake to over-read the numbers involved in GetUp! It is not the vocal end of a larger group - this is the entire group of people concerned about these kind of social justice, civil rights, indigenous, refugee and democratic process issues. They are by definition "activists" because holding the views they do is already an "active" position - they have thought for themselves and resisted the mainstream view. Politically the "cartel parties" will mostly represent the "mainstream" view - that's what you do to get a majority of votes. And that mainstream view becomes self-reinforcing because the masses (a good Marxist term) get their biases reconfirmed for them by their political leaders. Howard was the master of that, sometimes described as the dog-whistle.
But GetUp! continue to kid themselves that they have influence. Sure they may get audiences with their local member about what they have discussed - but so will the local Right to Life group. Sure they generate some petitions and letter writing campaigns - but so do the Catholic lobby groups who want everything censored. And it remains my belief that their contribution on election day was negative for progressive causes...all they did was harass voters with their rating of parties on the issues they regarded as important. I saw wavering voters decide to vote Liberal after their GetUp! confrontation but no one do the reverse.
What those flocking to GetUp! meetings (and those enamoured by ideas like the Third Voice Alliance) need to do is to realise that what counts is getting votes for your cause. So campaigning without a candidate to support is pointless - as is some vague line like "Vote for Change". (I should note that the US system of primaries makes this slightly different - there external vote gathering groups can help).
On the flip side those who do have a plan to get candidates elected need to focus on all the work needed between elections. GetUp!'s constant campaigning works. The Democrats got seduced into thinking it was just up to the elected representatives to keep the party in the public consciousness, and didn't do anywhere near enough between election street level campaigning. And what they did wasn't capitalised on - signatures on petitions did not become a database of "fellow travellers". And they also fell for the trap of letting policy be something defined by the parliamentary representatives - as the GetUp! meetings showed people like the chance to do policy work. (It should be noted that the messy clash between the parliamentary and organisational wings of the party in the Lees/Stott-Despoja explosion can be identified as the source of this problem - a problem that will be resolved now on 1 July 2008).
Finally, many Democrats - Laura Chipp included - are now suggesting a role for the Democrats in local Government elections. This is especially tempting in NSW where the timing (September 2008) gives us something to do before the 2010 Federal Election (not getting a State election till 2011) (I personally discount the likelihood of a double dissolution - the Liberals would be insane to give Rudd a trigger). If the Democrats are serious about this then there is alot of policy, infrastructure and campaigning work to do now.
It is an interesting challenge - I hope there are people ready to take it on.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Abolish the States?
In the SMH on 28 December (Sidestepping the seven-year itch) David Humphries wrote “This is not an argument for the states' supremacy, or their abolition, a constitutional nonsense given the effective impossibility of removing the states by referendum.”
I've heard lots of similar commentary over recent times, and would first claim that just because something is hard doesn't mean it is impossible - effectively or otherwise. It is possible that a requisite referendum could be past in every State.
However, there really is a relatively easy way to abolish the States, amend s51 of the Constitution so that the Federal Parliament isn’t restricted about the fields they can legislate in and slowly the States can be eroded into irrelevance. The operation of the provisions about Federal law having precedence over State laws mean the Federal Parliament can legislate the States out of "effective" existence.
I've heard lots of similar commentary over recent times, and would first claim that just because something is hard doesn't mean it is impossible - effectively or otherwise. It is possible that a requisite referendum could be past in every State.
However, there really is a relatively easy way to abolish the States, amend s51 of the Constitution so that the Federal Parliament isn’t restricted about the fields they can legislate in and slowly the States can be eroded into irrelevance. The operation of the provisions about Federal law having precedence over State laws mean the Federal Parliament can legislate the States out of "effective" existence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)