I chanced upon some television last Friday that pitted Graham Morris against Tim Gartrell in a discussion of the recent wave of boat people headed for Australian shores.
A debate on "illegal immigration" is hardly going to be edifying, much less one that involves ex-heavyweights from each side of politics. And it's particularly daunting when the participants are the above two. (For the ALP, ex-National Director Gartrell put in an especially disgraceful turn in rolling up wetness, rightwing thuggery, and knee-jerk populism into an unpalatable ball. But that's another story.)
Graham Morris was once John Howard's chief of staff when Howard was Prime Minister. He leaves little impact on the world, judging by his web presence, but he has been a Howard adviser, Howard defender, and now PR flak. His latest appearance of note was on the ABC documentary The Howard Years.
And what a small man he was in the above debate. He displayed a manner and pettiness of spirit that was directly reminiscent of... John Howard. He could have been the doppelganger that took over from Howard when the latter got booted out - if Morris hadn't already been given the boot some years back - an apparent head rolled in the travel rorts affair of 1997.
But it's so damned uncanny! Such a close approximation of John Howard in a man who ostensibly shared such a brief stint on stage with him. The ingratiating yet supercilious mannerisms. The arrogant yet populist meanness. And the nasty streak behind him. For someone who has been apparently out of the corridors of power for so long, he wielded attitude like a big stick. Towards the end of his time, he appeared to directly threaten the preselection or senate position of anybody in the Liberal Party that held a view differing from the one he'd expressed.
In all, Graham Morris purveyed just the sort of dogmatic determinism you'd expect from the small man behind a small man.
Links: of the few traces I find of Graham Morris, you can pursue the following if you feel so moved:
- His entry on Zoominfo, a personal profile aggregator;
- ABC's The Howard Years is available here, although you'd have to trawl for Morris' appearances.
Showing posts with label John Howard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Howard. Show all posts
Monday, October 19, 2009
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Dredging up John Howard's legacy
Drawn to it by professional whinger and nitpicker Gerard Henderson, I watched the final part of the SBS series Liberal Rule, on the nature of John Howard's Prime Ministership.
After living through those years, dredging the past may seem too academic. Still, the documentary (of mainly talking heads) drew together some narrative arcs of the time, and made some connections that are clearer with hindsight.
One point was the effect on Australia of the 2001 destruction of the World Trade Center. Howard was in the US at the time, and the personal effect on him both solidified his commitment to US interests ("This would lead to war - the only question was, who with?"), and reinforced his approach to the divisive politics that was a hallmark of his tenure.
The Australian election took place a scant two months after that. This was the Tampa campaign, where a premature conjecture that refugees were throwing their own children overboard was turned into a political football that was deliberately carried by Howard's coterie (particularly the smarmy Peter Reith) far faster than the truth could chase after it. This was the flipside to Howard's consistent efforts to bend Australia to his own mould of uncritical nationalism. An election ad extolled Australia as the greatest country on earth, and "we must do more for border protection and defence to keep it that way".
Footage was shown of refugees from persecution in Afghanistan, who were patently pleased to disembark their boat for a safe shore, not knowing they were being corralled straight into a prison.
We know that Howard deliberately dissembled about his intentions to send troops to Iraq if asked by Bush. But we may remember the footage that showed Howard personally perpetuating the baseless line that Al-Qaeda was influential in Iraq - with even less backup "evidence" than Bush.
This confluence of forces global and local ended up benefiting only Howard - but it wasn't a zero sum game, as the refugees and Australian muslim victims of racist attacks would bear witness.
As the narrative of Howard years drew to a close, one reason for the end was his very politics of fear: "fear runs out if the threat doesn't eventuate" - so Howard's message ultimately fell out of step with the electorate.
That was not before his ideology had taken its toll on the Australian political landscape. Despite Australian muslims being forced to vociferously declare their Australianness, Howard's dogged campaigns at one point had resulted in 50% of high school students believing "muslims are terrorists".
Another stark piece of footage showed Howard responding bluntly to a journalist's question: "I always tell the truth". Yet pollsters found through most of his tenure that the electorate's response to the uncovering of his lies was "tell me something I don't know". Despite a majority believing him to lie, of themselves those lies didn't stop him winning elections until 2007.
Career diplomat Richard Woolcott, who served extensively under both Liberal and Labor, had the final word when he said that when the history books are written, "the legacy... will not be substantial". That could be said to be a truism for a conservative leader - but it needn't be, for anyone. Yet such is Howard's ultimate mark.
PS Answer to yesterday's puzzle: dreamboat (no, it's not boardmate!)
After living through those years, dredging the past may seem too academic. Still, the documentary (of mainly talking heads) drew together some narrative arcs of the time, and made some connections that are clearer with hindsight.
One point was the effect on Australia of the 2001 destruction of the World Trade Center. Howard was in the US at the time, and the personal effect on him both solidified his commitment to US interests ("This would lead to war - the only question was, who with?"), and reinforced his approach to the divisive politics that was a hallmark of his tenure.
The Australian election took place a scant two months after that. This was the Tampa campaign, where a premature conjecture that refugees were throwing their own children overboard was turned into a political football that was deliberately carried by Howard's coterie (particularly the smarmy Peter Reith) far faster than the truth could chase after it. This was the flipside to Howard's consistent efforts to bend Australia to his own mould of uncritical nationalism. An election ad extolled Australia as the greatest country on earth, and "we must do more for border protection and defence to keep it that way".
Footage was shown of refugees from persecution in Afghanistan, who were patently pleased to disembark their boat for a safe shore, not knowing they were being corralled straight into a prison.
We know that Howard deliberately dissembled about his intentions to send troops to Iraq if asked by Bush. But we may remember the footage that showed Howard personally perpetuating the baseless line that Al-Qaeda was influential in Iraq - with even less backup "evidence" than Bush.
This confluence of forces global and local ended up benefiting only Howard - but it wasn't a zero sum game, as the refugees and Australian muslim victims of racist attacks would bear witness.
As the narrative of Howard years drew to a close, one reason for the end was his very politics of fear: "fear runs out if the threat doesn't eventuate" - so Howard's message ultimately fell out of step with the electorate.
That was not before his ideology had taken its toll on the Australian political landscape. Despite Australian muslims being forced to vociferously declare their Australianness, Howard's dogged campaigns at one point had resulted in 50% of high school students believing "muslims are terrorists".
Another stark piece of footage showed Howard responding bluntly to a journalist's question: "I always tell the truth". Yet pollsters found through most of his tenure that the electorate's response to the uncovering of his lies was "tell me something I don't know". Despite a majority believing him to lie, of themselves those lies didn't stop him winning elections until 2007.
Career diplomat Richard Woolcott, who served extensively under both Liberal and Labor, had the final word when he said that when the history books are written, "the legacy... will not be substantial". That could be said to be a truism for a conservative leader - but it needn't be, for anyone. Yet such is Howard's ultimate mark.
PS Answer to yesterday's puzzle: dreamboat (no, it's not boardmate!)
Friday, February 20, 2009
Chris Pyne is a Liberal, after all.
Whenever an MP of the Liberal Party of Australia refers to the party as a "broad church", you know there's disunity in the parliamentary ranks.
Although it is one of the few right-wing Liberal parties in the world, its founding basis (in the 1940s) means it sometimes attracts what is known in Australia as "small-L liberals", ie those that are not really right wing.
Former Prime Minister John Howard recently referred to the party as "centre right" - which is ironic, given he led it on a lurch to the right over his 11-year tenure.
As it happens, Malcolm Turnbull, who is currently warming the leadership seat, is a small-l liberal. In a few bouts of turmoil over the past week, he elevated a couple of colleagues who were of the same ilk, Joe Hockey - now shadow Treasurer - and Chris Pyne. The latter in particular rankled the hard right and conservatives, including Pyne's fellow South Australian and factional opponent Cory Bernardi. Bernardi published a newsletter in which he mentioned that an unnamed Liberal MP once mentioned to him that he could easily have joined the Labor Party instead, but he joined the Liberals because he lived within a Liberal seat.
The nameless one was quickly identified as Pyne, and Bernardi was seen (by Turnbull at least) as fanning the flames of disunity, and was asked to apologise. Of course, what he said was true, and he hadn't named the MP, so Bernardi stood his ground, and for his sins was forced to resign from the front bench.
The point of it all is that, yes the Liberal Party is a broad church. And Labor, too, has left and right - it's easy to call it more right than left. However, in the dichotomous spectrum of Australian politics, Liberal is clearly the party of the conservative/right, and Labor is clearly more the party of the left. If you join the Liberals, you should expect to be working with, and to, a right-wing agenda.
My political sympathies see a stark delineation between left and right. And from that perspective, someone who is out of step with that is simply a quisling. Having said that, it's easy to see that in the wake of the Liberals' electoral defeat, there would inevitably be forces trying to bring the party back from the hard right, and I can't complain about that.
Although it is one of the few right-wing Liberal parties in the world, its founding basis (in the 1940s) means it sometimes attracts what is known in Australia as "small-L liberals", ie those that are not really right wing.
Former Prime Minister John Howard recently referred to the party as "centre right" - which is ironic, given he led it on a lurch to the right over his 11-year tenure.
As it happens, Malcolm Turnbull, who is currently warming the leadership seat, is a small-l liberal. In a few bouts of turmoil over the past week, he elevated a couple of colleagues who were of the same ilk, Joe Hockey - now shadow Treasurer - and Chris Pyne. The latter in particular rankled the hard right and conservatives, including Pyne's fellow South Australian and factional opponent Cory Bernardi. Bernardi published a newsletter in which he mentioned that an unnamed Liberal MP once mentioned to him that he could easily have joined the Labor Party instead, but he joined the Liberals because he lived within a Liberal seat.
The nameless one was quickly identified as Pyne, and Bernardi was seen (by Turnbull at least) as fanning the flames of disunity, and was asked to apologise. Of course, what he said was true, and he hadn't named the MP, so Bernardi stood his ground, and for his sins was forced to resign from the front bench.
The point of it all is that, yes the Liberal Party is a broad church. And Labor, too, has left and right - it's easy to call it more right than left. However, in the dichotomous spectrum of Australian politics, Liberal is clearly the party of the conservative/right, and Labor is clearly more the party of the left. If you join the Liberals, you should expect to be working with, and to, a right-wing agenda.
My political sympathies see a stark delineation between left and right. And from that perspective, someone who is out of step with that is simply a quisling. Having said that, it's easy to see that in the wake of the Liberals' electoral defeat, there would inevitably be forces trying to bring the party back from the hard right, and I can't complain about that.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Keith Windschuttle, hypocrite historian
Keith Windschuttle is the Australian equivalent of a holocaust denier. His publications on history (especially 2002's The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Volume One) claimed there were no massacres (let alone genocidal) by white settlers of aboriginal Australians. He has claimed that oppositional historians have fabricated evidence, misrepresented facts, and insufficiently researched the sources.
Since that book's publication, Windschuttle has repeated promised imminent publication of a Volume Two, which has never emerged, no doubt due at least in part to the extensive rebuttals that have been published of Volume One.
Of course, Windschuttle's heyday was in the era of Australia's arch-conservative Prime Minister John Howard (1996 - 2007). Howard warmly embraced Windschuttle's views (both railed against a purported 'black armband' view of history), to the extent of appointing him - a contemporary at Canterbury Boys High School - to the board of the ABC, Australia's national broadcaster (previously mentioned here).
Windschuttle was also appointed editor of the conservative journal Quadrant. And he has now fallen victim to his own vituperations. Without checking sources - or the author's bona fides - he published an article on genetic engineering that turned out to be a deliberate hoax. This was more Sokal than Ern Malley - the writer followed Alan Sokal's temptation to an editor: does it sound good, and does it reinforce the editor's ideological preconceptions?
Enthusiasm for such an article is not a hanging offence. But the bait was too good for Windschuttle, and he published on sympathy rather than rigour.
So what does he do now? Hang on in case the Quadrant board doesn't boot him out? It'll be hard for him to fall back on Volume Two: his work would be subject to fine scrutiny. Shame he remains festering like a carbuncle on the ABC. But it can't last forever.
A footnote on bad science: both climate change sceptics and creationists are these days clutching at straws, rather than engaging in rigorous analysis (SMH Columnist Michael Duffy is a case in point, often arguing with incomplete understanding of the presentation of facts of climate change). It can't take much to tempt such people to hang their hat to anything that sounds to them plausible. They would be more deserving of this treatment than scientists, since they do not foster debate by constant analysis and refinement through exchange and testing of ideas - more by grabbing at plausibility that suits a perspective.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Australian's weak carbon emission targets
A smart, visionary government, with a lot of hard work, could come up with a major industrial restructure package that could go a large way towards addressing climate change. For major emitters, a carrot-and-stick approach could include:
a) large financial incentives to move towards carbon-neutral technology;
b) large taxes - yes, taxes - on a sliding scale based on carbon emissions, which would pay for the above.
In general, those initiatives could be supplemented by:
c) major incentives for meaningful research and investment in clean technologies, particularly relating to energy generation and efficiency, coupled with equivalent large disincentives to research and investment in high-carbon-emission activities;
d) a clearly-flagged, steady increase in carbon emission taxes.
It's hard to get it right, and disruption (read: change) is always politically painful. But it is an ideal time. the government is consistently very high in the polls, and can afford to spend some of that political capital - ie it can afford to lose some favour. And economic downturns are accompanied by significant capital and industrial restructure, as companies are forced to adapt, change, or go under. If managed well, the government could direct that restructure process.
But Kevin Rudd is not a great visionary - only a minor one - and he is more managing the affairs of government than propelling Australia forward. He doesn't want to squander his political capital, and he doesn't want to given the blame - fairly or not - for any of that inevitable pain of industrial restructure. Today's announcement on carbon targets maps out a paltry 5% carbon reduction by 2020, with an option of progressing to 15%. And it positively panders to the vested interests that have held Australia back. Although there are elements of my suggestions above, the overall package is designed to follow a path of least resistance rather than lead. Pathetic. It's a tragedy that the announcement has no relationship to the government's frequent declarations of the absolute urgency of the issue.
It has to be said that this issue has never brought out the best in Australian governments, and that could have something to do with our great reliance on the dirtiest of energy generation - coal, in particular, alongside other high-carbon sources such as oil and gas. As Environment Minister in the Keating government, the left-wing John Faulkner was effectively reined in by the large coal producers and consumers. For successive Howard governments, of course, it wasn't even an issue.
But history does not excuse a lack of vision and political will. Those with vision break from the past.
I retain some optimism, however, in looking to Obama for that vision and will. His tasks are Herculean, but he has displayed some of the leadership the world needs right now.
a) large financial incentives to move towards carbon-neutral technology;
b) large taxes - yes, taxes - on a sliding scale based on carbon emissions, which would pay for the above.
In general, those initiatives could be supplemented by:
c) major incentives for meaningful research and investment in clean technologies, particularly relating to energy generation and efficiency, coupled with equivalent large disincentives to research and investment in high-carbon-emission activities;
d) a clearly-flagged, steady increase in carbon emission taxes.
It's hard to get it right, and disruption (read: change) is always politically painful. But it is an ideal time. the government is consistently very high in the polls, and can afford to spend some of that political capital - ie it can afford to lose some favour. And economic downturns are accompanied by significant capital and industrial restructure, as companies are forced to adapt, change, or go under. If managed well, the government could direct that restructure process.
But Kevin Rudd is not a great visionary - only a minor one - and he is more managing the affairs of government than propelling Australia forward. He doesn't want to squander his political capital, and he doesn't want to given the blame - fairly or not - for any of that inevitable pain of industrial restructure. Today's announcement on carbon targets maps out a paltry 5% carbon reduction by 2020, with an option of progressing to 15%. And it positively panders to the vested interests that have held Australia back. Although there are elements of my suggestions above, the overall package is designed to follow a path of least resistance rather than lead. Pathetic. It's a tragedy that the announcement has no relationship to the government's frequent declarations of the absolute urgency of the issue.
It has to be said that this issue has never brought out the best in Australian governments, and that could have something to do with our great reliance on the dirtiest of energy generation - coal, in particular, alongside other high-carbon sources such as oil and gas. As Environment Minister in the Keating government, the left-wing John Faulkner was effectively reined in by the large coal producers and consumers. For successive Howard governments, of course, it wasn't even an issue.
But history does not excuse a lack of vision and political will. Those with vision break from the past.
I retain some optimism, however, in looking to Obama for that vision and will. His tasks are Herculean, but he has displayed some of the leadership the world needs right now.
Monday, December 08, 2008
The lying ways of John Howard
The final episode of The Howard Years (shown on ABC on Monday night; available here) was a rather pleasant experience - if you don't mind running through a rogue's gallery of cabinet members from Howard's time as Prime Minister. It was a condensed riffle through the final times of one of the more dishonest PMs Australia has ever had, enabling us to savour the end of him again.
A politician, yes, and so he was adept at bending his words when it suited. But there are few who have been so willing to distort the truth in such words as to satisfy himself that he wasn't telling an outright lie... when he was, really.
He won the 2002 election by exploiting 'national security' and effectively lying about a boatload of refugees that were so heartless as to threaten to throw their own children overboard. So Howard characterised it.
He lied about his intention to commit Australian troops to Iraq. He had fully intended to send them off months before the announcement.
He lied privately and publicly about his agreeing to hand over the reins to Peter Costello.
These are not a comprehensive catalogue, nor perhaps his most egregious set of lies. But they were arguably the lies that defined his time in office.
One more significant detail was added to the litany by The Herald's Phillip Coorey here. Coorey outlines the tale of a monument to Robert Menzies, Prime Minister for 16 years. At the time, Howard's tenure was approaching the ten-year mark. The plaque was to note that Menzies was Australia's longest-serving Prime Minister since Federation. Howard was quite insistent on adding the words 'so far', and would not back down. Finally a compromise was reached, and the words 'to date' were added.
It is thoroughly significant that Menzies was one of John Howard's biggest heroes. He would never have had any intention of belittling Menzies - per se. But as witnesses recalled, this was an obvious signal that Howard - whose aim in life was only ever to be Prime Minister, and who clearly desired for his mark to be recorded on history - was fully determined to break Menzies' record. This puts some perspective on his thoroughly stubborn attempt to cling to power when all the signs were against him. So much so that he lost his own seat.
This would not stand up in a court - somewhat characteristic for this ex-lawyer. Yet to avoid being caught out directly is not always enough to win the case in court. History will not be as kind to him as he wishes.
A politician, yes, and so he was adept at bending his words when it suited. But there are few who have been so willing to distort the truth in such words as to satisfy himself that he wasn't telling an outright lie... when he was, really.
He won the 2002 election by exploiting 'national security' and effectively lying about a boatload of refugees that were so heartless as to threaten to throw their own children overboard. So Howard characterised it.
He lied about his intention to commit Australian troops to Iraq. He had fully intended to send them off months before the announcement.
He lied privately and publicly about his agreeing to hand over the reins to Peter Costello.
These are not a comprehensive catalogue, nor perhaps his most egregious set of lies. But they were arguably the lies that defined his time in office.
One more significant detail was added to the litany by The Herald's Phillip Coorey here. Coorey outlines the tale of a monument to Robert Menzies, Prime Minister for 16 years. At the time, Howard's tenure was approaching the ten-year mark. The plaque was to note that Menzies was Australia's longest-serving Prime Minister since Federation. Howard was quite insistent on adding the words 'so far', and would not back down. Finally a compromise was reached, and the words 'to date' were added.
It is thoroughly significant that Menzies was one of John Howard's biggest heroes. He would never have had any intention of belittling Menzies - per se. But as witnesses recalled, this was an obvious signal that Howard - whose aim in life was only ever to be Prime Minister, and who clearly desired for his mark to be recorded on history - was fully determined to break Menzies' record. This puts some perspective on his thoroughly stubborn attempt to cling to power when all the signs were against him. So much so that he lost his own seat.
This would not stand up in a court - somewhat characteristic for this ex-lawyer. Yet to avoid being caught out directly is not always enough to win the case in court. History will not be as kind to him as he wishes.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Costello: no doesn't mean no?
Despite his protestations, Peter Costello doesn't necessarily mean what he says.
The Herald's Peter Hartcher believes Costello has firmly ruled out leadership, and is set to exit parliament.
Yet there are a few clues that demonstrate Costello is hedging his bets. Cast into the political wilderness after the Liberals lost office, he retreated to the back bench, but has remained in his parliamentary seat longer than expected; longer than he flagged. He has written and just released a book of memoirs, whose prime aim is generally described as being to blame the election loss on John Howard.
And his exact words on his options for leadership? "I will not seek, nor am I being drafted, and I am not seeking it."
He has expressly refused to actively seek the Liberal leadership. But he has avoided refusing to be drafted - so he is leaving his options open. Brendan Nelson is widely regarded as nothing but a seat-warmer; the only other open option is Malcolm Turnbull - who is a devisive figure for the Liberals' parliamentary team, those who actually vote for leader. They could always choose a dark horse. Or Turnbull. But although Costello has made it clear he will not do the numbers, he has not ruled out allowing someone else to run the numbers for him.
Late News: Nelson is to call a spill at the Liberal caucus tomorrow. I would think it is unlikely to resolve anything because nobody is ready to move against him yet. But I could be wrong: Turnbull lost the last leadership ballot to Nelson by only three votes, and oppositions get nervous in their despair.
Update 16-Sept: Nine months - and Nelson's dismal performance - is enough to win over a couple of votes. Turnbull's in. A recipe for disaster, unless he can rein in his arrogance. A tall ask.
What does this mean for Costello? Don't count him out, says the Herald. But in reality, he will slip out, unless Mal botches it big and fast. Which is always possible - much more so than for Nelson.
Fortunately, this is a win for the environment. Nelson flagged recidivism on climate change resistance - which might have been enough to cost him the leadership. Turnbull has been quite progressive by comparison.
The Herald's Peter Hartcher believes Costello has firmly ruled out leadership, and is set to exit parliament.
Yet there are a few clues that demonstrate Costello is hedging his bets. Cast into the political wilderness after the Liberals lost office, he retreated to the back bench, but has remained in his parliamentary seat longer than expected; longer than he flagged. He has written and just released a book of memoirs, whose prime aim is generally described as being to blame the election loss on John Howard.
And his exact words on his options for leadership? "I will not seek, nor am I being drafted, and I am not seeking it."
He has expressly refused to actively seek the Liberal leadership. But he has avoided refusing to be drafted - so he is leaving his options open. Brendan Nelson is widely regarded as nothing but a seat-warmer; the only other open option is Malcolm Turnbull - who is a devisive figure for the Liberals' parliamentary team, those who actually vote for leader. They could always choose a dark horse. Or Turnbull. But although Costello has made it clear he will not do the numbers, he has not ruled out allowing someone else to run the numbers for him.
Late News: Nelson is to call a spill at the Liberal caucus tomorrow. I would think it is unlikely to resolve anything because nobody is ready to move against him yet. But I could be wrong: Turnbull lost the last leadership ballot to Nelson by only three votes, and oppositions get nervous in their despair.
Update 16-Sept: Nine months - and Nelson's dismal performance - is enough to win over a couple of votes. Turnbull's in. A recipe for disaster, unless he can rein in his arrogance. A tall ask.
What does this mean for Costello? Don't count him out, says the Herald. But in reality, he will slip out, unless Mal botches it big and fast. Which is always possible - much more so than for Nelson.
Fortunately, this is a win for the environment. Nelson flagged recidivism on climate change resistance - which might have been enough to cost him the leadership. Turnbull has been quite progressive by comparison.
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Australia to remain a climate change laggard
Ross Garnault, who the Prime Minister has tasked with delivery of a series of reports mapping out Australia's climate change response, has delivered his latest, and the news is not good.
In an outcome that can only be described as strongly politically influenced, Garnault has re-claimed Australia's status as a special case amongst developed nations, and posited only a 10% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020. Unsurprisingly, industry groups have railed against even this low figure, with one of them wailing that this was equivalent to Australia's entire electricity generation industry. Well boo hoo. That industry could do with radical overhaul anyway, since most of it is coal-fired and so quite carbon-dirty. Unfortunately there are no signs such an overhaul will happen.
The 10% figure could have meaninful context in the Government's lack of control of the Senate, with timing perhaps also being an influencer, as implementation of carbon cap-and-trading was flagged for close to the next election (2010). Rudd doesn't seem to be the kind to relish a head-on stoush, possibly a relic of the nature of Labor's election loss at the hands of Keating, and the subsequent decade in the wilderness.
If John Howard had not been booted out of office, Australia's position would have been even worse - but not by an awful lot, at this rate. PM Rudd has consistently retained climate change high on his list of pressing issues, but that does not seem to guarantee optimal outcomes.
In an outcome that can only be described as strongly politically influenced, Garnault has re-claimed Australia's status as a special case amongst developed nations, and posited only a 10% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020. Unsurprisingly, industry groups have railed against even this low figure, with one of them wailing that this was equivalent to Australia's entire electricity generation industry. Well boo hoo. That industry could do with radical overhaul anyway, since most of it is coal-fired and so quite carbon-dirty. Unfortunately there are no signs such an overhaul will happen.
The 10% figure could have meaninful context in the Government's lack of control of the Senate, with timing perhaps also being an influencer, as implementation of carbon cap-and-trading was flagged for close to the next election (2010). Rudd doesn't seem to be the kind to relish a head-on stoush, possibly a relic of the nature of Labor's election loss at the hands of Keating, and the subsequent decade in the wilderness.
If John Howard had not been booted out of office, Australia's position would have been even worse - but not by an awful lot, at this rate. PM Rudd has consistently retained climate change high on his list of pressing issues, but that does not seem to guarantee optimal outcomes.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Keating's wide-ranging speech of ideas
Paul Keating gave a speech to the Melbourne Writers' Festival on Sunday. He took the opportunity to wrestle with the shifting sands of world power in our era.
As I read it, I was reminded of the time, now more than ten years past, where national debate took place in a more robust, colourful atmosphere. He was Prime Minister for a scant three years, sandwiched between the reigns of Hawke and Howard, who by comparison each ground down the weighty issues of the day, made public discourse itself rather moribund, and certainly didn't contribute to outcomes as momentous as, for example, the Wik and Mabo decisions (His 'Redfern speech' - available here - strongly signalled his sympathies with these issues, and directly set the context for Kevin Rudd's impressive apology speech in Parliament).
Although I find much of the speech quite insightful in the issues and perspectives canvassed, there's a fair bit that I disagree with (eg the significance of the EU) - I'm sure most would say the same, although the points of departure will differ. Also, I find the closing stages about as weak as the beginning is strong.
But for me, the value of Keating's speech is in a welcome sharpness and turn of phrase, and the breadth of ideas presented. Again, a call for vision.
Full text is available here.
As I read it, I was reminded of the time, now more than ten years past, where national debate took place in a more robust, colourful atmosphere. He was Prime Minister for a scant three years, sandwiched between the reigns of Hawke and Howard, who by comparison each ground down the weighty issues of the day, made public discourse itself rather moribund, and certainly didn't contribute to outcomes as momentous as, for example, the Wik and Mabo decisions (His 'Redfern speech' - available here - strongly signalled his sympathies with these issues, and directly set the context for Kevin Rudd's impressive apology speech in Parliament).
Although I find much of the speech quite insightful in the issues and perspectives canvassed, there's a fair bit that I disagree with (eg the significance of the EU) - I'm sure most would say the same, although the points of departure will differ. Also, I find the closing stages about as weak as the beginning is strong.
But for me, the value of Keating's speech is in a welcome sharpness and turn of phrase, and the breadth of ideas presented. Again, a call for vision.
Full text is available here.
Friday, July 04, 2008
Climate change: Rudd is not buckling - and nor is Garnaut
In the leadup to today's release of the Garnaut report, PM Kevin Rudd talked to Kerry O'Brien on The 7.30 Report (here) last night.
O'Brien tried hard to pin down Rudd on the issues. Action is urgently needed, yet the voting public is clamouring for an easy way out on petrol prices. They don't want more pain instigated by climate change action.
Rudd came out of the election with a sizable mandate, particularly in terms of his popularity level, which has remained high. That political capital can be used to invest in longterm vision, yet to date, Rudd has largely avoided the harder calls.
However, he came to the party last night: for every point pressed by O'Brien, he showed he was going to do the hard yards. And coming out of the Howard era, where misleading and lying was the order of the day, Rudd has shown himself to be scrupulously honest.
This is the best hope so far that Australia will indeed act on climate change.
(my take is that the only viable course is to trade carbon emissions, cap the totals, and then reduce allocations over time - focusing on the biggest emitters first. This will force industry adjustments; they don't have to be that painful if the industries know what's coming, so it needs to be announced soon.)
Postscript: The report is out now - available here. The language is strong and impressive, about the need to act. Emission trading is, of course, a central plank. Rudd has hitched his future on this report, and it looks good.
O'Brien tried hard to pin down Rudd on the issues. Action is urgently needed, yet the voting public is clamouring for an easy way out on petrol prices. They don't want more pain instigated by climate change action.
Rudd came out of the election with a sizable mandate, particularly in terms of his popularity level, which has remained high. That political capital can be used to invest in longterm vision, yet to date, Rudd has largely avoided the harder calls.
However, he came to the party last night: for every point pressed by O'Brien, he showed he was going to do the hard yards. And coming out of the Howard era, where misleading and lying was the order of the day, Rudd has shown himself to be scrupulously honest.
This is the best hope so far that Australia will indeed act on climate change.
(my take is that the only viable course is to trade carbon emissions, cap the totals, and then reduce allocations over time - focusing on the biggest emitters first. This will force industry adjustments; they don't have to be that painful if the industries know what's coming, so it needs to be announced soon.)
Postscript: The report is out now - available here. The language is strong and impressive, about the need to act. Emission trading is, of course, a central plank. Rudd has hitched his future on this report, and it looks good.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Politics: Australia's election analysed
Some new analysis of last year's federal election has given some interesting insights into the reasons for the change of government.
A team from ANU (Australian National University) conducted the Australian Election Study, reckoned by the Herald to be the most definitive exit poll, and one that seems to have been conducted for some years. It was a postal survey of 1873 voters.
Voter decisions are based on a rather disparate set of reasons, most of which to my mind are far more about bread and circuses than fundamental values or ethics. Sometimes on issues of the day, but like interest rates, they are often issues for which there's little difference between the two sides. Often, too, there is is too much presidential emphasis on the personality of the leaders, which doesn't per se speak to the basic value differences between the ALP and the Coalition. All this seems to result in rather an amount of cognitive dissonance, not just for the aggregate of voters, but for individuals.
Here's some of the findings.
Industrial Relations
This was the most important issue in voting decisions: 70% said it had been important in their decision-making. Of those, 62% disapproved of the Coalitions WorkChoices legislation. Interestingly, 17% of those who disapproved of WorkChoices actually voted for the Coalition.
Global Warming
This was the second-biggest issue. 67% of voters wanted the Kyoto protocol ratified (ALP policy); 8% said no (Coalition policy), while the remainder had some ambivalence. Of those supporting ratification, 30% voted for the Coalition.
Interest Rates
This is an issue for which effective difference between the two sides has eroded over time, as ALP policy has become more economically rationalist, and interest rates are now independently set purely on the basis of their effect on inflation. There remains a marginal difference between the two - the ALP's social justice bent would result in slightly higher rates - but this is not something that most voters could tell if it were possible to subject them to a double blind test. For this reason, where half of the electorate was concerned about interest rates, 47% of those voted ALP, while 42% voted Coalition - simply an attack on the incumbent's record of rate rises.
Prime Ministers present and past
Leadership
Support for Howard was quite divided, with 49% liking him and 41% disliking him. Rudd had 63% approval, with a nett approval rating of 43 points, compared with Howard's eight points. Rudd's rating was the highest in the 20 years of the survey; Howard's rating was his personal lowest in that time. By contrast, Costello's nett rating was -18, which might suggest a late change in leadership would not have made any difference. However there was no indication how much of a vote-changer this point was. On the other hand, when Keating lost the 1996 election, his nett approval was -15, not as bad as Costello's.
The Election Campaign
The Coalition opted for an extended campaign, which seems to be somewhat typical for a government on its way out. Yet 70% of the electorate had already decided before the campaign; those who made up their mind in the heat of the campaign were pretty evenly split.
Battlers
In 1996, John Howard made a perverse - and successful - pitch for the "battlers", effectively those less-well-off workers. This time around, 51% of unskilled and semi-skilled workers voted for the ALP, and 37% for the Coalition, effectively the reverse of 1996's result. If you roll in One Nation's temporary electoral success, the "battler" vote had stayed fairly consistently with the Coalition over their four election victories - until this time around. It's plausible that these voters were more convinced by the ACTU's "Your Rights At Work" campaign over the year leading up to the election, rather than the Coalition's scare ads about "union heavies" in the workplace and "union bosses" in the ALP front bench. It was, after all, rather brash of the Coalition to try to tell these people what was happening in their own workplace.
A team from ANU (Australian National University) conducted the Australian Election Study, reckoned by the Herald to be the most definitive exit poll, and one that seems to have been conducted for some years. It was a postal survey of 1873 voters.
Voter decisions are based on a rather disparate set of reasons, most of which to my mind are far more about bread and circuses than fundamental values or ethics. Sometimes on issues of the day, but like interest rates, they are often issues for which there's little difference between the two sides. Often, too, there is is too much presidential emphasis on the personality of the leaders, which doesn't per se speak to the basic value differences between the ALP and the Coalition. All this seems to result in rather an amount of cognitive dissonance, not just for the aggregate of voters, but for individuals.
Here's some of the findings.
Industrial Relations
This was the most important issue in voting decisions: 70% said it had been important in their decision-making. Of those, 62% disapproved of the Coalitions WorkChoices legislation. Interestingly, 17% of those who disapproved of WorkChoices actually voted for the Coalition.
Global Warming
This was the second-biggest issue. 67% of voters wanted the Kyoto protocol ratified (ALP policy); 8% said no (Coalition policy), while the remainder had some ambivalence. Of those supporting ratification, 30% voted for the Coalition.
Interest Rates
This is an issue for which effective difference between the two sides has eroded over time, as ALP policy has become more economically rationalist, and interest rates are now independently set purely on the basis of their effect on inflation. There remains a marginal difference between the two - the ALP's social justice bent would result in slightly higher rates - but this is not something that most voters could tell if it were possible to subject them to a double blind test. For this reason, where half of the electorate was concerned about interest rates, 47% of those voted ALP, while 42% voted Coalition - simply an attack on the incumbent's record of rate rises.
Prime Ministers present and pastLeadership
Support for Howard was quite divided, with 49% liking him and 41% disliking him. Rudd had 63% approval, with a nett approval rating of 43 points, compared with Howard's eight points. Rudd's rating was the highest in the 20 years of the survey; Howard's rating was his personal lowest in that time. By contrast, Costello's nett rating was -18, which might suggest a late change in leadership would not have made any difference. However there was no indication how much of a vote-changer this point was. On the other hand, when Keating lost the 1996 election, his nett approval was -15, not as bad as Costello's.
The Election Campaign
The Coalition opted for an extended campaign, which seems to be somewhat typical for a government on its way out. Yet 70% of the electorate had already decided before the campaign; those who made up their mind in the heat of the campaign were pretty evenly split.
Battlers
In 1996, John Howard made a perverse - and successful - pitch for the "battlers", effectively those less-well-off workers. This time around, 51% of unskilled and semi-skilled workers voted for the ALP, and 37% for the Coalition, effectively the reverse of 1996's result. If you roll in One Nation's temporary electoral success, the "battler" vote had stayed fairly consistently with the Coalition over their four election victories - until this time around. It's plausible that these voters were more convinced by the ACTU's "Your Rights At Work" campaign over the year leading up to the election, rather than the Coalition's scare ads about "union heavies" in the workplace and "union bosses" in the ALP front bench. It was, after all, rather brash of the Coalition to try to tell these people what was happening in their own workplace.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
New ethics in Australian government?
It's easy to postulate that there's a clear pattern to the practical ethics of a government: when newly incumbent, it's easy to create distance with the previous administration by instituting a raft of new measures that speak to the ethics of rule. Later, as the government finds itself somewhat hamstrung by its own rules, it relaxes those standards. By the time the government is ready to be turfed out, it can be seen as positively venal, and an easy target for the next administration.
In 1996, although I don't recall any strong lapse in ethics of the Keating government, incomer John Howard promulgated a Ministerial Code of Conduct, only to relax it after seven (!) Ministers (Jull, Sharp, etc) were obliged to resign due to undeclared conflicts of interest and misuse of allowances. Peter McGuaran, for one, made it back to the cabinet.
Kevin Rudd sounds like a very principled man. He is sticking to a number of electoral promises that he'd probably rather not keep (eg tax cuts), and that others would prefer he didn't keep (eg retaining superlatively generous funding for a number of private schools as instigated by Howard).
His appointment of Harry Jenkins as Speaker of the House of Representatives made a stark departure from the previous office-holder, the partisan David Hawker. It could even be said that Rudd didn't know what he was in for: Jenkins has been particularly rigorous in keeping his own government in line (for example, requiring Ministers to answer the actual question that was asked of them!). Against that argument is the fact that Jenkins was Deputy Speaker in the last Keating government.
It remains that Rudd is highly principled. An article in today's Herald gives some insight into the man, which speaks of a significant break from the previous Prime Minister, and not just due to this "early days" syndrome.
And his government is also set to sign the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture, which Howard balked at, probably because the consequent laws may apply to "Australian officials overseas who co-operate with foreign intelligence agencies known to engage in torture".
I still have strong reservations about Rudd's ability to handle the reins of government. Of overriding importance is the setting of carbon emission caps as soon as possible - providing industry with clarity and leadership. And the commitments to tax cuts and those special private schools were wrong to make in the first place, campaign or no*.
Yet... it's early days.
Postscript 3-March: I've heard rumours from high-level public servants (across departments)that Rudd has been very difficult to get to commit to decisions. This would jibe with his apparent propensity to set up committees on a welter of issues. But it doesn't make sense in the context that it's his ministers that should be making the specific departmental decisions. One example given was in relation to the budget - yet I wouldn't be surprised if these ones take time to sort out. Still, something to watch out for.
*In mitigation is some analysis on the decreased commitment over time of the Australian public to a particular side of politics (mentioned last year). I would expect this to lead to an increased "what's in it for me" vote, which would make it hard to opt out of a tax cut auction at election time.
In 1996, although I don't recall any strong lapse in ethics of the Keating government, incomer John Howard promulgated a Ministerial Code of Conduct, only to relax it after seven (!) Ministers (Jull, Sharp, etc) were obliged to resign due to undeclared conflicts of interest and misuse of allowances. Peter McGuaran, for one, made it back to the cabinet.
Kevin Rudd sounds like a very principled man. He is sticking to a number of electoral promises that he'd probably rather not keep (eg tax cuts), and that others would prefer he didn't keep (eg retaining superlatively generous funding for a number of private schools as instigated by Howard).
His appointment of Harry Jenkins as Speaker of the House of Representatives made a stark departure from the previous office-holder, the partisan David Hawker. It could even be said that Rudd didn't know what he was in for: Jenkins has been particularly rigorous in keeping his own government in line (for example, requiring Ministers to answer the actual question that was asked of them!). Against that argument is the fact that Jenkins was Deputy Speaker in the last Keating government.
It remains that Rudd is highly principled. An article in today's Herald gives some insight into the man, which speaks of a significant break from the previous Prime Minister, and not just due to this "early days" syndrome.
And his government is also set to sign the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture, which Howard balked at, probably because the consequent laws may apply to "Australian officials overseas who co-operate with foreign intelligence agencies known to engage in torture".
I still have strong reservations about Rudd's ability to handle the reins of government. Of overriding importance is the setting of carbon emission caps as soon as possible - providing industry with clarity and leadership. And the commitments to tax cuts and those special private schools were wrong to make in the first place, campaign or no*.
Yet... it's early days.
Postscript 3-March: I've heard rumours from high-level public servants (across departments)that Rudd has been very difficult to get to commit to decisions. This would jibe with his apparent propensity to set up committees on a welter of issues. But it doesn't make sense in the context that it's his ministers that should be making the specific departmental decisions. One example given was in relation to the budget - yet I wouldn't be surprised if these ones take time to sort out. Still, something to watch out for.
*In mitigation is some analysis on the decreased commitment over time of the Australian public to a particular side of politics (mentioned last year). I would expect this to lead to an increased "what's in it for me" vote, which would make it hard to opt out of a tax cut auction at election time.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Sorry: A historical act of reconciliation
When the band Midnight Oil played at the Sydney Olympics in 2000, they wore costumes emblazoned with "Sorry". Many watching from overseas wouldn't have known that it was a gesture of reconciliation to Aboriginal Australia, the Stolen Generations in particular.
Today, Oils singer Peter Garrett was in parliament as a Minister in the government that brought about a historical event.
When Kevin Rudd said sorry on the first full day of parliament sitting under his leadership, it brought much of Australia to a standstill. Many workplaces, mine included, watched live.
I didn't think I would be so moved, but tears came to my eyes several times in the course of his apology and his speech on the matter immediately afterwards. The cameras cut to audiences in the public gallery and outside parliament, and it was very moving to hear the words and see the reactions.
All Australia's living Prime Ministers from both sides were present - bar the last, John Howard, whose 11 years of obduration made this moment that much more poignant.
Opposition leader Brendon Nelson gave a reply that started off well, according to aboriginal people watching, but sank into partisanship and defending the previous government. The response was boos and backs turned, around the country. One news commentary: "Dr Nelson spent the first half of his speech apologising for the removal of Aboriginal children, and the second half implicitly suggesting that there should be more of it today."
Nevertheless, it was a historical moment, and Rudd's words will live on - particularly his subsequent speech outlining initiatives to turn around the appalling housing, health, and education situation of many aboriginal people.
Rudd's performance wasn't great oration, but the words mattered. At a reception afterwards for representatives of the stolen generations, he relaxed more and was much warmer.
The words were not actions, but what they symbolised was welcomed around the country, a very important step in aboriginal reconciliation. And they came with commitments.
The reactions of Aboriginal Australians to this day were warming. Their expressions and gestures, their words afterwards, demonstrate the real power in this act.
Some background stories on the eve of the apology.
One-time Aboriginal tennis player Yvonne Goolagong's response.
Other comments include: Maureen Riches, who travelled to Canberra from Shepparton, Victoria: it is "by far, the most momentous day" in Australia's history.
"I've been working for this for 11 years, ever since [John] Howard refused to apologise," she said.
Elder Beryl Gambrill said Mr Rudd was sincere and respectful.
"It brought back memories of what happened to our people when Kevin Rudd was talking about saying sorry to families," she said.
"I didn't think it was going to be that powerful. But I thank Kevin Rudd for what he said in his speech and thank him for all Aboriginal people."
"I've been working for this for 11 years, ever since [John] Howard refused to apologise," she said.
Elder Beryl Gambrill said Mr Rudd was sincere and respectful.
"It brought back memories of what happened to our people when Kevin Rudd was talking about saying sorry to families," she said.
"I didn't think it was going to be that powerful. But I thank Kevin Rudd for what he said in his speech and thank him for all Aboriginal people."
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Climate Change conference: Rudd's hard call
The current Climate Change conference in Bali would test anyone's mettle.
This year's IPCC reports demonstrate the problem is more urgent than previously acknowledged, and carbon emission targets need to be more stringent.
The developed world has four big issues that sound simple, yet are nigh on intractable politically.
First, agreement on targets for developed countries. The European Union recognises the need for greater urgency, and is aiming for 25% to 40% emission reductions by 2020. New Zealand is in line, but the US, Canada, and Japan are likely holdouts. Australia's delegation signalled that it supported that goal. However, PM Kevin Rudd subsequently hedged, saying he will "take advice on whether the targets are workable".
Second, the industrial world has a clear responsibility to support the developing world in meeting targets. The current problem is almost entirely due to the rich nations, both in their industrialisation, and in their decimation of their own wilderness. And from a letter in today's Herald:
"Appealing to self-interest alone will fail as the countries with the best capacity to bring about change face proportionately fewer effects from climate change and have greater capacity to adapt than the countries that are the smallest polluters." - Simon Biddle
So, the challenge lies specifically with the rich countries: in industrial restructuring, and in supporting others with technology and money. I am quite confident political will is going to be thin on the ground. Except with the EU and New Zealand.
Third, China. China has to agree to real emission goals, and this is going to be hard. To make any sense at all, they need to cut emissions, however they can cogently argue that they are not properly industrialised yet, and so should not cut, or should be treated as a developing country. The pragmatic solution lies in treating them as a special case, with a bit of both in the mix.
Fourth, the US. Bush will absolutely remain a holdout, and will only agree to tokenism. That is, aspirational but not real goals. Two of Bush's delegates to the conference (mentioned here) are James Connaughton, one-time energy-sector lobbyist, and current stooge in the Council on Environmental Quality, and Paula Dobriansky, neo-conservative Under Secretary of State and staunch defender of the US's refusal to ratify Kyoto.
What chance do we have? What will Australia do, now that we are no longer as firmly glued to US policy as we were under John Howard?
Rudd is caught in a bind. His election campaign presented two principles that are apparently diametrically opposed: commitment to climate change, and economic [fiscal] conservatism. Quite a big test so soon after taking the reins.
There is one clear answer to that, as demonstrated by the Stern Review: the cost of action is far less than the cost of inaction.
I'm quite pessimistic about seeing an appropriate outcome. It is clear that Stern will be treated as a Cassandra - correct but unheeded. But... there remains hope. We still have the leadership of the EU to look to: I believe they are capable of forging ahead, and waiting for the world to catch up.
This year's IPCC reports demonstrate the problem is more urgent than previously acknowledged, and carbon emission targets need to be more stringent.
The developed world has four big issues that sound simple, yet are nigh on intractable politically.
First, agreement on targets for developed countries. The European Union recognises the need for greater urgency, and is aiming for 25% to 40% emission reductions by 2020. New Zealand is in line, but the US, Canada, and Japan are likely holdouts. Australia's delegation signalled that it supported that goal. However, PM Kevin Rudd subsequently hedged, saying he will "take advice on whether the targets are workable".
Second, the industrial world has a clear responsibility to support the developing world in meeting targets. The current problem is almost entirely due to the rich nations, both in their industrialisation, and in their decimation of their own wilderness. And from a letter in today's Herald:
"Appealing to self-interest alone will fail as the countries with the best capacity to bring about change face proportionately fewer effects from climate change and have greater capacity to adapt than the countries that are the smallest polluters." - Simon Biddle
So, the challenge lies specifically with the rich countries: in industrial restructuring, and in supporting others with technology and money. I am quite confident political will is going to be thin on the ground. Except with the EU and New Zealand.
Third, China. China has to agree to real emission goals, and this is going to be hard. To make any sense at all, they need to cut emissions, however they can cogently argue that they are not properly industrialised yet, and so should not cut, or should be treated as a developing country. The pragmatic solution lies in treating them as a special case, with a bit of both in the mix.
Fourth, the US. Bush will absolutely remain a holdout, and will only agree to tokenism. That is, aspirational but not real goals. Two of Bush's delegates to the conference (mentioned here) are James Connaughton, one-time energy-sector lobbyist, and current stooge in the Council on Environmental Quality, and Paula Dobriansky, neo-conservative Under Secretary of State and staunch defender of the US's refusal to ratify Kyoto.
What chance do we have? What will Australia do, now that we are no longer as firmly glued to US policy as we were under John Howard?
Rudd is caught in a bind. His election campaign presented two principles that are apparently diametrically opposed: commitment to climate change, and economic [fiscal] conservatism. Quite a big test so soon after taking the reins.
There is one clear answer to that, as demonstrated by the Stern Review: the cost of action is far less than the cost of inaction.
I'm quite pessimistic about seeing an appropriate outcome. It is clear that Stern will be treated as a Cassandra - correct but unheeded. But... there remains hope. We still have the leadership of the EU to look to: I believe they are capable of forging ahead, and waiting for the world to catch up.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Drawing accurate conclusions from polls
The latest NewsPoll puts the government at 45% vs 55% for the ALP. This gives comfort to the Liberals on three counts:
Yet it should be making them nervous for five more salient reasons:
Reason number five is the fact that the same opinion poll asked how people how wedded they were to their voting intentions. Adding together the “absolutely” and the “only slight chance of change” gives the Liberals 39% and the ALP 49%. Not an election-winner, this close to.
The same day that brought ostensibly good news brought a couple more clangers. First, a large employer, Spotlight, is rolling back its industrial relations policy from the Liberals' model to a collective system, as being less distracting and more efficient for the business.
Then the Murdoch press reports the Reserve Bank's flagging of an impending interest rate rise. Not what anyone wanted to hear, but not unexpected.
Next day was no better. The headline issue, that under the Liberals, university funding had slipped to the lower rungs of the OECD, is traditionally not a vote-changer. The second item was hidden in a poll on the website for Murdoch's the Australian: 24% gave all or most credit for Australia's economic strength to the Liberals (specifically, Costello as treasurer), while 59% gave little or no credit. The bias in this poll: overall, respondents would be tech-savvy educated conservatives. Which is not where the election will be won and lost, but it gives some insight into the lack of traction the Liberals are getting on that issue.
- It’s 5% up on the last few polls;
- The result is equivalent to the figure Keating clawed back to win the “unwinnable” election of 1993;
- The commentators on the Murdoch Australian are all back to cheering the Liberals
Yet it should be making them nervous for five more salient reasons:
- It’s anomalous compared to other poll results;
- It comes after a damaging week of internal sparring among the Liberals;
- Keating had a punching dummy: the Liberals’ GST policy;
- It gives the Liberals grounds to remain indecisive on a leadership spill.
Reason number five is the fact that the same opinion poll asked how people how wedded they were to their voting intentions. Adding together the “absolutely” and the “only slight chance of change” gives the Liberals 39% and the ALP 49%. Not an election-winner, this close to.
The same day that brought ostensibly good news brought a couple more clangers. First, a large employer, Spotlight, is rolling back its industrial relations policy from the Liberals' model to a collective system, as being less distracting and more efficient for the business.
Then the Murdoch press reports the Reserve Bank's flagging of an impending interest rate rise. Not what anyone wanted to hear, but not unexpected.
Next day was no better. The headline issue, that under the Liberals, university funding had slipped to the lower rungs of the OECD, is traditionally not a vote-changer. The second item was hidden in a poll on the website for Murdoch's the Australian: 24% gave all or most credit for Australia's economic strength to the Liberals (specifically, Costello as treasurer), while 59% gave little or no credit. The bias in this poll: overall, respondents would be tech-savvy educated conservatives. Which is not where the election will be won and lost, but it gives some insight into the lack of traction the Liberals are getting on that issue.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Howard brought to book
Funny old world, innit?
After a phony election campaign all year, the wave of opinion polls has been rolling consistently all year, to dump the Liberals bruised and humiliated on the shores of September with nothing between them and oblivion bar the few short weeks of delay that they can claw out of what remains of the year.
John Howard is a venal, heartless, grubby little man with a small soul, whom history will remember most unkindly whenever it's sadly obliged to recall him at all.
Disappointingly, the year and the time and tide have been carrying us to this point for all the wrong reasons. Debate focused on materialism rather than the size of the soul. In a less metaphysical sense, retiring MP Carmen Lawrence gave a particularly lucid explanation for the things that do matter – the real agenda. Well worth a read of her summation.
The actual reasons for the switch are much more mundane. The Australian electorate, at the outcome-deciding margins, has little political consciousness beyond the man at the top, and finds the issues too confusing to be able to add together the apples and oranges of policy to understand what ideology means, and what impact it has on their very lives.
John Howard is a petty man whose biggest single ambition is to be Prime Minister, and to stay Prime Minister. It's been shown that even in the face of political suicide, he can't let go, and he'll undermine his own ostensible commitment to helping the Liberals assess their situation with honesty, openness and fortitude. Those traits are not so much anathema to him, but a foreign country.
Fortunately. Because what sliver of a chance the Liberals do have lies in getting rid of Howard – and he won't let it happen and they won't do it. If Costello was not just given the reins, but seized them, he would instantly improve his stocks with the electorate. And although his popularity is not high, his ability is sufficient to be able to use those last few weeks to instil himself on the public consciousness – positively. Fortunately, that cossetted claque of Liberal MPs is oscillating wildly between acting the headless chooks and staring like rabbits at headlights.
In such a maelstrom, anything can happen. And once the battle is over and the wounded set about deepening each others' wounds, that Anything will be the Liberals' ultimate poison: choosing Malcolm Turnbull to be their leader. He's a nightmare of a politician: ostensibly smart and capable, but a man of such blithe arrogance that his presence alone will add another term to the Liberals' electoral wilderness hell.
And, for what they've done to Australia, it's what John Howard and the Liberals deserve.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
The APEC Climate Change Con
It was pointed out that the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, held in Sydney over the past week, brought together leaders of 60% of the world's economy - ie China and the US in particular.
And their announcement on Climate Change talked of "aspirational" goals and "clean coal technology" - the very language favoured by George Bush's pet crony, Australia's soon-to-be-ex-Prime-Minister John Howard.
As weasely as Howard has ever been, the declaration doesn't commit anyone to anything. It hopes people will treat climate change a little bit seriously. They're aiming for a stabilisation that means, as new research has indicated, that Greenland's ice reservoir will melt in 300 years odd.
That's a rise in sea level of seven metres, folks.
We can only hope that the political demises of Howard and Bush will see more realistic action. This can only be achieved by firm national and international action, and those men are not the right leaders.
And their announcement on Climate Change talked of "aspirational" goals and "clean coal technology" - the very language favoured by George Bush's pet crony, Australia's soon-to-be-ex-Prime-Minister John Howard.
As weasely as Howard has ever been, the declaration doesn't commit anyone to anything. It hopes people will treat climate change a little bit seriously. They're aiming for a stabilisation that means, as new research has indicated, that Greenland's ice reservoir will melt in 300 years odd.
That's a rise in sea level of seven metres, folks.
We can only hope that the political demises of Howard and Bush will see more realistic action. This can only be achieved by firm national and international action, and those men are not the right leaders.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
The World Won't Listen 1: PM to lose his own seat
Polling in the Prime Minister's electorate has suggested that John Howard will lose his seat.
The important caveat is that it's six months away from the election.
Even so, there's good reason to expect Howard will be only the second PM in Australian history to be dumped by his electorate.
His opponent, ex-tv journalist Maxine McKew, has a high profile, is very intelligent - yet tempered with humility - and is, well, a listening sort of person.
But the most telling indicator is the general polls. With the opposition getting bad press in recent times, and last week's Budget spreading the money around, the government should expect a bounce back in the polls, at the very least.
But it didn't happen. Each successive poll solidifies the consistency of the results.
One comment made about this election was particularly apt: it's very much like the 1996 election, where PM Keating was behind. Both sides of politics were expecting him to pull a rabbit out of the hat, as he had done before.
But it didn't happen.
The clearest rationale for the poll results: voters are not listening to Howard's government any more. The Budget's largesse had no nett effect. And if the electorate as a whole can't even be swayed by money, then it's obvious that the prevailing sentiment is fundamental and entrenched.
I expect this to be the turning point. Watch the Liberals get increasingly desparate. Break ranks. Do stupid things.
Education minister Julie Bishop was not answering the questions put to her on last night's Lateline. She was instead keeping on song with the government line, ignoring the question. It is a common tactic, it has happened for years, but right now it's simply whiffy. It's not that the electorate is starting to recognise this form of dishonesty for what it is - it's more that they have stopped putting up with it coming from the government.
This is precisely the time not to play politician, but that's all they have left to do. That, and panic.
Update 16-May-07: Contrast Bishop above with Peter Costello's performance on The 7.30 Report last night. His words left no useful impact, but I certainly noticed he was a lot more relaxed than his colleagues. Of course. Election loss is the only way he'll succeed Howard as Liberal leader. Costello wins either way.
Update 29-May-07: subsequent to this post, there have been a few comments about the electorate no longer listening to Howard. Pretty obvious, really, as an explanation for the opinion polls being so sticky. Well, now Howard has cottoned on, and made the same observation to the caucus. Not that he could identify a solution... the parallels are very strong with the 1996 election, which produced the landslide that propelled Howard to power in the first place.
The important caveat is that it's six months away from the election.
Even so, there's good reason to expect Howard will be only the second PM in Australian history to be dumped by his electorate.
His opponent, ex-tv journalist Maxine McKew, has a high profile, is very intelligent - yet tempered with humility - and is, well, a listening sort of person.
But the most telling indicator is the general polls. With the opposition getting bad press in recent times, and last week's Budget spreading the money around, the government should expect a bounce back in the polls, at the very least.
But it didn't happen. Each successive poll solidifies the consistency of the results.
One comment made about this election was particularly apt: it's very much like the 1996 election, where PM Keating was behind. Both sides of politics were expecting him to pull a rabbit out of the hat, as he had done before.
But it didn't happen.
The clearest rationale for the poll results: voters are not listening to Howard's government any more. The Budget's largesse had no nett effect. And if the electorate as a whole can't even be swayed by money, then it's obvious that the prevailing sentiment is fundamental and entrenched.
I expect this to be the turning point. Watch the Liberals get increasingly desparate. Break ranks. Do stupid things.
Education minister Julie Bishop was not answering the questions put to her on last night's Lateline. She was instead keeping on song with the government line, ignoring the question. It is a common tactic, it has happened for years, but right now it's simply whiffy. It's not that the electorate is starting to recognise this form of dishonesty for what it is - it's more that they have stopped putting up with it coming from the government.
This is precisely the time not to play politician, but that's all they have left to do. That, and panic.
Update 16-May-07: Contrast Bishop above with Peter Costello's performance on The 7.30 Report last night. His words left no useful impact, but I certainly noticed he was a lot more relaxed than his colleagues. Of course. Election loss is the only way he'll succeed Howard as Liberal leader. Costello wins either way.
Update 29-May-07: subsequent to this post, there have been a few comments about the electorate no longer listening to Howard. Pretty obvious, really, as an explanation for the opinion polls being so sticky. Well, now Howard has cottoned on, and made the same observation to the caucus. Not that he could identify a solution... the parallels are very strong with the 1996 election, which produced the landslide that propelled Howard to power in the first place.
Friday, June 16, 2006
World: Windschuttle: it's like having a holocaust denier oversee the BBC
Startling news that the Howard government has appointed Keith Windschuttle, radical rightwing history revisionist, to the board of the ABC, Australia's public broadcaster.
This is really shocking. A lurch to the extreme for Australian cultural life. Windschuttle is the equivalent of a holocaust denier, pretending that wholesale slaughter of aboriginals by early Australian settlers didn't happen. Surprising that the Wikipedia article on him doesn't do justice to the heinous ideas that he perpetrates. Well, here's a critique of his fabrication of history in a mainstream paper; just to be fair, here too is a critique from the right: Gerald Henderson, arch conservative, has a go at him.
The worst of all is that, even if his views have marginal effect on the ABC, this appointment helps legitimise his nonsense. Do you think even Howard intended to go that far?
This is really shocking. A lurch to the extreme for Australian cultural life. Windschuttle is the equivalent of a holocaust denier, pretending that wholesale slaughter of aboriginals by early Australian settlers didn't happen. Surprising that the Wikipedia article on him doesn't do justice to the heinous ideas that he perpetrates. Well, here's a critique of his fabrication of history in a mainstream paper; just to be fair, here too is a critique from the right: Gerald Henderson, arch conservative, has a go at him.
The worst of all is that, even if his views have marginal effect on the ABC, this appointment helps legitimise his nonsense. Do you think even Howard intended to go that far?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)