Theresa May had been banging on for weeks about how voting against her brexit plan would be a betrayal of democracy. And she was clearly wrong, wrong, wrong.
UK MPs voted against her plan - with no time left for a new plan - by a whopping 432 to 202.
May's concept of democracy is fundamentally flawed. Yours is too, probably.
It is most clearly not democracy to implement brexit when the margin of a generationally important vote is 52% to 48% - and after all this time is still that close [the other way].
As it stands, any move on this will be a betrayal for half the country.
A new way has to be forged - a new question/answer altogether. Yes, in/out of Europe is binary. But you CANNOT move forward blithely on an issue that is so hopelessly divided.
More work, more discussion is needed. And that is what will happen. Despite the anguish, even if it takes another five years true democracy will be better served by continuing the discussion.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 16, 2019
Saturday, December 31, 2016
Farewell 2016, Fidel Castro, democracy, and rational polity
Well, it’s been a real car crash of a year. To anyone who ever says “it can’t get any worse”,
this is a wry reminder that it can always get worse.
Electoral outcomes that were all disastrous for the
environment, voted for by people who are angry and disenfranchised, and thus
fodder for any demagogue that promises a solution without having any real
answers, or intention of carrying out what they promise anyway.
Habitat destruction continuing rampant – the single greatest
threat to biodiversity, as it has been for a long time.
In fifty years, when too few of those alive will have reliable
memory of these times, they will ask “what were they doing in the years 2000 to
2020, when they had a golden opportunity to fix things, with relatively little
cost?” All you can say is that venal,
self-interested people persuaded whole electorates that first, there was no
problem; then: we don’t know enough about it, or it’s not really a problem, or
we can’t do anything about it, or we can live with it.
Vale Fidel Castro, who gave the world a shining example on
how to improve health and education outcomes for the whole country (not just an
elite) with scant resources. And to all
those who whinged that he was a dictator: look at those outcomes, then look at health,
education and poverty in the USA, and how much worse they are and will
be. Then look at the US version of democracy: with just a small nudge from Russia (with help from
their stooge Wikileaks) you get an unethical, dangerous liar as president.
Things can always get worse before they get better. But as just one person, the very least you can do is vote wisely, act ethically, and do whatever you can locally to help global outcomes.
Wednesday, November 09, 2016
Trumped
2016 will be remembered by history as a year of inflection and singularity - and not in a good way.
Why did the polls get it wrong on the US election? That was probably the margin of Trump supporters who, when polled, didn't feel obliged to tell the truth. Like their candidate.
Trump has many more outrageous and incorrect things to say, and he'll do it. Much like Ronald Reagan, but with no semblance of class. And people won't mis-remember Trump like they do Reagan.
Will he build a wall and make Mexicans pay for it? No. He might add a smidgen to what's already there, just to tick off that item.
Will he clear the swamp? Of course not.
Will he put Clinton in jail? He'll probably try. He has a clear history of pursuing grudges. But I very much doubt he'll be able to make good on that promise, for all his efforts.
What's left? Global recession, unstable times, a nastier U.S. political landscape, a much worse time for America's working poor, let alone those without a job. One thing he'll be able to do (with a non-hostile Congress) is roll back Affordable Healthcare. An unstable polity in the hands of Clinton would be calmed; one under Trump will not. He's anti-science, anti-truth, anti-climate-change... and a good way to make money will be to sell asbestos to Americas (Trump tweet 2012: "If we didn't remove incredibly powerful fire retardant asbestos & replace it with junk that doesn't work, the World Trade Center would never have burned down")
Be resilient in very turbulent times.
Why did the polls get it wrong on the US election? That was probably the margin of Trump supporters who, when polled, didn't feel obliged to tell the truth. Like their candidate.
Trump has many more outrageous and incorrect things to say, and he'll do it. Much like Ronald Reagan, but with no semblance of class. And people won't mis-remember Trump like they do Reagan.
Will he build a wall and make Mexicans pay for it? No. He might add a smidgen to what's already there, just to tick off that item.
Will he clear the swamp? Of course not.
Will he put Clinton in jail? He'll probably try. He has a clear history of pursuing grudges. But I very much doubt he'll be able to make good on that promise, for all his efforts.
What's left? Global recession, unstable times, a nastier U.S. political landscape, a much worse time for America's working poor, let alone those without a job. One thing he'll be able to do (with a non-hostile Congress) is roll back Affordable Healthcare. An unstable polity in the hands of Clinton would be calmed; one under Trump will not. He's anti-science, anti-truth, anti-climate-change... and a good way to make money will be to sell asbestos to Americas (Trump tweet 2012: "If we didn't remove incredibly powerful fire retardant asbestos & replace it with junk that doesn't work, the World Trade Center would never have burned down")
Be resilient in very turbulent times.
Friday, February 13, 2015
The slide of a Prime Minister: why the knighthood?
The downward trajectory of PM Tony Abbott was sharpened by
the announcement on Australia Day that Prince Philip would be given a
(recently-resurrected) Australian knighthood.
This had a spillover effect on the Queensland State
Abbott survived a party-room vote for a leadership spill,
but has been left with the certainty of a harrowing descent from top dog to oblivion
before the next election. He had been consistently on the nose with the
electorate ever since he was elected, demonstrating his opposition skills did not
transfer to actual leadership. He has
clearly not grown with the job, as
recent media attested.
The biggest puzzle here is: why did Abbott give Prince Phillip a knighthood? The following is the only rational
explanation I can find.
First, a brief history.
Australia ’s
own honours awards were established in 1975; prior awards to Australians were
under the British system. However, it
wasn’t until the conservative Liberals were elected in 1976 that knighthoods
were awarded. These lasted only until
1983, when Labor abolished knighthoods again.
The next conservative PM (Howard) didn’t re-establish them, but Abbott,
a long-time monarchist, did in 2014, after a gap of 30 years.
This was “advised” to the Queen, signed and gazetted from
April 2014. Honours are awarded in June
(the “Queen’s Birthday” public holiday on the second Monday in June) and
January (Australia Day, the 26th).
Clearly, to give Prince Phillip a knighthood, it would have
to be squared with the Palace in advance, say four months. My thinking is that Abbott effectively gave
him a knighthood at the first available opportunity. But the question is, why?
I suspect that as a monarchist, Abbott had such a plan from
way back. He may have felt that the republican
sentiment of recent times was a little close to the bone, and the best way to
draw back from that was to bring the monarchy closer to Australia. A royal tour, yes, and we’ve had two since
Abbott was elected. But if a Royal with
sufficient gravitas was knighted, surely that would bring the two countries
closer together? Of course, this
excludes the younger ones who inhabit the pages of the gossip magazines. So who’s available?
Surprisingly enough, Charles was given an Australian
knighthood, in 1981 – possibly in anticipation of his wedding. So there’s a precedent. Can’t do the monarch, so who’s left?
Now Phillip’s not that bad.
Harmless, shows he has a sense of humour. And if he’s a bit of a duffer, surely the
larrikin in the typical Australian will warm to this as we draw him closer to
us.
So the plan was put in train as soon as possible after
Abbott became PM in September 2013.
However, that didn’t allow for Abbott’s poor reception with
the voting public – which only compounded when his actual policies floundered (and foundered) at the hands of a
less-than-sympathetic Senate.
Sometimes, when faced with unpopularity, Abbott spoke glibly of his prerogative to make “Captain’s calls”. Come January 2015, he didn’t want to lose face with the “Palace” by withdrawing the Sir Prince proposal, so he figured he’d just have to grit his teeth and take a tiny bit more flak for one more Call.
He must have known it was a stupid call, because he admitted
to “consulting” only one other person beforehand: the Chair of the Order of
Australia Council – Angus Houston – who, as it happened, was the only other
Australian whose knighthood was announced for the same day.
In the cloistered world of his own opinion, Abbott may have
thought Australians would put up with this Captain’s Call with few grumblings,
especially since the electorate had apparently voted in favour of monarchy in
1999. But the depth of the subsequent backlash
must have surprised many. Even within
his own party, a significant groundswell of opposition was publicly voiced.
So my story is one of a Prime Minister who came from a
presumption of prerogative, then later felt he couldn’t lose face with the
Palace and back down from a risky move, even at a dangerous time. It speaks to a particularly autocratic
leadership style, one that is not
inclined to the consultative. This is
reflected in both his Captain’s Calls, and his strong affinity to a chief of
staff (Peta Credlin) who is by all accounts particularly capable, but just as authoritarian
– even to Cabinet Ministers.
There is no Get Out Of Jail for Abbott by now. His several electorates have stopped
listening, and the slips he is still making are not being indulged.
Thursday, January 06, 2011
WikiLeaks: The news item of 2010
The leaking of sensitive information isn't new. But the actions of a certain US soldier in leaking truckloads of diplomatic cables is a clear game changer.
Those cables run the gamut of international relations, laying bare a huge number of sensitivities of a large number of nations. Yet there's irony that has largely been overlooked: next to none of the revelations are a surprise at all. They're pretty much what we expected to be happening behind the scenes: what governments really think of each other and of key world issues. (One might be seen as an almost-surprise: China being all but ready to ditch support of North Korea. But doesn't that make eminent realpolitik sense?)
Having a ready outlet for leaks means never having to scrounge around for a publisher. Anything is up for grabs, open to leakage.
This could lead to significant upheaval. At the very least, it renders gentle diplomacy potentially useless as a tool of international politics. The absence of that option is sure to lead to more direct conflict, if the only conversations to be had are necessarily open ones. More direct, honest communication, true, but more blunt and abrasive, too.
On the flipside, there is plenty of scope for abuse of this concept. Strategic release of disinformation may become the tool of choice for intelligence agencies. This can be an equally destabilising force in international relations.
It's not clear that all this will come to pass. But certainly that single massive leak action is having a global effect, and fallout both overt and covert is inevitable.
Those cables run the gamut of international relations, laying bare a huge number of sensitivities of a large number of nations. Yet there's irony that has largely been overlooked: next to none of the revelations are a surprise at all. They're pretty much what we expected to be happening behind the scenes: what governments really think of each other and of key world issues. (One might be seen as an almost-surprise: China being all but ready to ditch support of North Korea. But doesn't that make eminent realpolitik sense?)
Having a ready outlet for leaks means never having to scrounge around for a publisher. Anything is up for grabs, open to leakage.
This could lead to significant upheaval. At the very least, it renders gentle diplomacy potentially useless as a tool of international politics. The absence of that option is sure to lead to more direct conflict, if the only conversations to be had are necessarily open ones. More direct, honest communication, true, but more blunt and abrasive, too.
On the flipside, there is plenty of scope for abuse of this concept. Strategic release of disinformation may become the tool of choice for intelligence agencies. This can be an equally destabilising force in international relations.
It's not clear that all this will come to pass. But certainly that single massive leak action is having a global effect, and fallout both overt and covert is inevitable.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Issue of the year: intellectual dishonesty and ignorance
Climate change is, of course, the issue of the year. But to say why, it is necessary to look at the reasons for the poor outcomes for the Copenhagen conference.
It is easy to understand why poverty is a significant part of the problem. So easy, in fact, that it loomed large in the conference: even the complacent rich countries could understand this. If I am struggling to survive from day to day, how can I find the luxury to contemplate what the world will look like in fifty years? The necessity to survive can drastically narrow one's focus, as most people throughout history can tell you.
That's the issue writ large. Although it would be dishonest to suggest that it's a life-or-death question for everyone below 'developed nation' status, it remains that the worse off one is, the harder it is to broaden one's focus. Conversely - in theory at least - it is easier to adopt a longer-term perspective where self, heritage, and legacy stand a good chance of persisting.
That's not to say there's no intellectual dishonesty among those who are not so rich, yet have some wiggle room. They will inevitably reach for what they can get. But they do not wield the power of those in rich nations.
But why are the richest nations mired - to a large extent - in inaction? Part of the problem is reflected in what afflicts two of the more recalcitrant (albeit advancing) members of the rich club, Australia and the US. In both countries, it is because the politics of opposition reflects - to far greater an extent than is warranted by the facts - resistance to the very notion of climate change. Ignorance exists, but there is little to comfort such people other than the thought that others are making the decisions, and carrying the debate, for them.
Far greater then, as an issue, is intellectual dishonesty on the part of those whose duty it is to understand better.
I have heard enough recently from such people to make me sick. It is largely political, inasmuch as those who argue the contrarian case are largely politically conservative. And they are doing it wilfully, with no desire to properly understand science, nor how scientific theory and debate works, nor how the massive weight of evidence has accumulated over the past forty years.
It is simply put as follows. Yes, scientific understanding is a matter of constant adaption to changing facts, a revising of theories and, at times, paradigm shifts that are tantamount to revolutionary. But the way this happens is via an accumulation of evidence over time that comes to clearly delineate the new thought. But in this case, the fringe thoughts - and 'evidence' is fragmenting, and slowly dissipating over time, not uniting and increasing in significance. Each piece of 'evidence' on the margins has slowly disintegrated when further evidence arrives.
Why call it intellectual dishonesty? Because these climate change 'sceptics' have usurped the term without reference to how scepticism responds to further evidence. Because these people are mostly of a political bent. Because these people claim the right to deny the substance of the scientific debate, while clinging to the propriety of their own very particular articulation of what constitutes scientific debate. And because these intellectually dishonest people have had an effect on climate change outcomes throughout the world in the past three years that is vastly disproportionate to a) the accumulation of independent evidences; and b) the accumulation of independent analyses and voices.
To them, I ask: what burden do you place on your children and grandchildren with your intellectual dishonesty?
Are you prepared to sign your name to statements of your decisions and their ramifications, so that your descendants will know how to regard their parent and grandparent in years to come? 'Misguided' is one thing, but it is another to wilfully foist such a poor legacy on coming generations. How will your self and heritage be regarded in years to come?
Grow up. Think like an adult.
It is easy to understand why poverty is a significant part of the problem. So easy, in fact, that it loomed large in the conference: even the complacent rich countries could understand this. If I am struggling to survive from day to day, how can I find the luxury to contemplate what the world will look like in fifty years? The necessity to survive can drastically narrow one's focus, as most people throughout history can tell you.
That's the issue writ large. Although it would be dishonest to suggest that it's a life-or-death question for everyone below 'developed nation' status, it remains that the worse off one is, the harder it is to broaden one's focus. Conversely - in theory at least - it is easier to adopt a longer-term perspective where self, heritage, and legacy stand a good chance of persisting.
That's not to say there's no intellectual dishonesty among those who are not so rich, yet have some wiggle room. They will inevitably reach for what they can get. But they do not wield the power of those in rich nations.
But why are the richest nations mired - to a large extent - in inaction? Part of the problem is reflected in what afflicts two of the more recalcitrant (albeit advancing) members of the rich club, Australia and the US. In both countries, it is because the politics of opposition reflects - to far greater an extent than is warranted by the facts - resistance to the very notion of climate change. Ignorance exists, but there is little to comfort such people other than the thought that others are making the decisions, and carrying the debate, for them.
Far greater then, as an issue, is intellectual dishonesty on the part of those whose duty it is to understand better.
I have heard enough recently from such people to make me sick. It is largely political, inasmuch as those who argue the contrarian case are largely politically conservative. And they are doing it wilfully, with no desire to properly understand science, nor how scientific theory and debate works, nor how the massive weight of evidence has accumulated over the past forty years.
It is simply put as follows. Yes, scientific understanding is a matter of constant adaption to changing facts, a revising of theories and, at times, paradigm shifts that are tantamount to revolutionary. But the way this happens is via an accumulation of evidence over time that comes to clearly delineate the new thought. But in this case, the fringe thoughts - and 'evidence' is fragmenting, and slowly dissipating over time, not uniting and increasing in significance. Each piece of 'evidence' on the margins has slowly disintegrated when further evidence arrives.
Why call it intellectual dishonesty? Because these climate change 'sceptics' have usurped the term without reference to how scepticism responds to further evidence. Because these people are mostly of a political bent. Because these people claim the right to deny the substance of the scientific debate, while clinging to the propriety of their own very particular articulation of what constitutes scientific debate. And because these intellectually dishonest people have had an effect on climate change outcomes throughout the world in the past three years that is vastly disproportionate to a) the accumulation of independent evidences; and b) the accumulation of independent analyses and voices.
To them, I ask: what burden do you place on your children and grandchildren with your intellectual dishonesty?
Are you prepared to sign your name to statements of your decisions and their ramifications, so that your descendants will know how to regard their parent and grandparent in years to come? 'Misguided' is one thing, but it is another to wilfully foist such a poor legacy on coming generations. How will your self and heritage be regarded in years to come?
Grow up. Think like an adult.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
The world is going to the dogs. Discuss.
Australia's largest carbon polluters are back on comfortable ground, spending big on advertising to persuade enough Australians that "jobs" is a better motherhood concept than "global warming" or "brace yourself for very disruptive changes".
My memory tells me that the last time the coal-based industries stomped in to defend their patch, they focused on their political muscle rather than a public campaign. Still, they retain that in their arsenal if they aren't already using it.
And Kevin Rudd, as Australia's "more conservative than thou" Prime Minister, is gearing up for the climate change battleground by persistent abrogation of international principles on asylum seekers:
1) Continuance of the evil John Howard policy of excision of Australia's territory (to whit, Christmas Island) from the geopolitical State;
2) fear-mongering over the Sri Lankan asylum seekers sitting in on the Australian Customs ship Oceanic Viking. -again, attempting to follow Howard's lead.
And not only does Rudd perpetuate another disastrously short-sighted Howard policy of incentives to parents to participate in a renewed population boom; he also claims Australia can fit in many millions more people over the years. (the unspoken parameters: population is okay if it us, not them; we don't want a great influx of people who are too far removed from our culture; and - purportedly - baby booms protect us from our own ageing population, and provide the economic growth that makes us richer - that, perish the thought - asylum seekers couldn't do.
Which is all a load of alarmist claptrap, of course.
Meanwhile, the Government and Opposition are preventing implementation of any carbon emission policy by both arguing variants of the same weak stance on climate change.
Facing the pressing problems of the world... the wrong way.
This is just Australia. You can fill in the gaps for the rest of the world. Despite some valiant policy efforts from the European Union, nobody is going to the Copenhagen climate change talks with anything like the necessary power and will.
Brace yourself for decades of instability. If the world's governments can't cope with prevention, how will they fare with the effects of rising sea levels? The least of their worries will be the rich retirees already complaining about their crumbling coastline properties.
My memory tells me that the last time the coal-based industries stomped in to defend their patch, they focused on their political muscle rather than a public campaign. Still, they retain that in their arsenal if they aren't already using it.
And Kevin Rudd, as Australia's "more conservative than thou" Prime Minister, is gearing up for the climate change battleground by persistent abrogation of international principles on asylum seekers:
1) Continuance of the evil John Howard policy of excision of Australia's territory (to whit, Christmas Island) from the geopolitical State;
2) fear-mongering over the Sri Lankan asylum seekers sitting in on the Australian Customs ship Oceanic Viking. -again, attempting to follow Howard's lead.
And not only does Rudd perpetuate another disastrously short-sighted Howard policy of incentives to parents to participate in a renewed population boom; he also claims Australia can fit in many millions more people over the years. (the unspoken parameters: population is okay if it us, not them; we don't want a great influx of people who are too far removed from our culture; and - purportedly - baby booms protect us from our own ageing population, and provide the economic growth that makes us richer - that, perish the thought - asylum seekers couldn't do.
Which is all a load of alarmist claptrap, of course.
Meanwhile, the Government and Opposition are preventing implementation of any carbon emission policy by both arguing variants of the same weak stance on climate change.
Facing the pressing problems of the world... the wrong way.
This is just Australia. You can fill in the gaps for the rest of the world. Despite some valiant policy efforts from the European Union, nobody is going to the Copenhagen climate change talks with anything like the necessary power and will.
Brace yourself for decades of instability. If the world's governments can't cope with prevention, how will they fare with the effects of rising sea levels? The least of their worries will be the rich retirees already complaining about their crumbling coastline properties.
Monday, October 19, 2009
John Howard's Graham Morris: the small man behind the small man
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Peter Garrett: politics is hard on principles
Politics is hard. Rough and hard. Peter Garrett knows this better than most.
He's onto his third or fourth career now. From international success in the band Midnight Oil, he has had various roles in environmental activism, from president of the Australian Conservation Foundation to the board of Greenpeace international.
So what do you do if it's hard to make enough impact from the outside? Get on the inside, and know what real frustration is like. That must be life for Garrett as Australia's Environment Minister.
Last Saturday, an article in the Herald's Good Weekend (colour supplement) attempted to get to the core of Garrett's move. The results are predictable and disheartening: Garrett has learnt what it's like to be a politician.
His long-time associates do not doubt his sincerity and commitment to environment. However, the article stresses that in Garrett's position he is obliged to be a "team player". He's not rambunctious: he doesn't denigrate his colleagues either inside or out of cabinet, and he doesn't break ranks. All his politicking now takes place within cabinet, and he toes the line most strictly with whatever outcomes he has to swallow.
Case in point: in one of the "strongest speeches of his political career", Garrett has warned an international conference that some Australian animal species would have to face extinction. With 1750 threatened species, the government was moving from project-based ecology to preserving ecosystems - which would inevitably mean the death knell for some species.
That is understandable - quite rational, even, if cold-blooded. In fact, I cannot see the world changing course quickly enough to preserve all remaining species, let alone habitats. Human rapacity for land makes it inevitable that any ecosystem that is not explicitly preserved will be strongly threatened. Islands of wilderness are the only viable outcome of our present course.
But imagine being Peter Garrett, and having to announce the impending extinction of a random handful of species. And to keep that stony silence in the face of other environmental injustices that cabinet solidarity had demanded. At what point is one's voice sufficient on its own to sway outcomes? And by that point, are you then accustomed to compromising away your favoured outcomes for other factors?
My kids recognise Garrett more than other politicians - simply because he's our local MP, and he's been to their school. I'd hate them to come to understand him on the basis of what he can't achieve, rather than what he can. It's not his ideals that corrode - it's the political system that's corrosive. I still have hope he can sufficiently influence outcomes.
Update 06-Sep-09: A letter in today's Good Weekend in response to the above article vociferously sums up the attitudes of many:
It is worth pointing out that that writer fully misunderstand Garrett's situation. Despite being environment minister, he is bound by cabinet decisions - and so effectively has no say in many of his "decisions". The only options here available to him are to resign from cabinet - and so be able to speak out without any real effect - or to attempt to influence outcomes from within. I cannot comment on the actual machinations, but this process shows how politics can apparently corrupt (and actually corrupt the reputation of) even those with integrity.
He's onto his third or fourth career now. From international success in the band Midnight Oil, he has had various roles in environmental activism, from president of the Australian Conservation Foundation to the board of Greenpeace international.
So what do you do if it's hard to make enough impact from the outside? Get on the inside, and know what real frustration is like. That must be life for Garrett as Australia's Environment Minister.
Last Saturday, an article in the Herald's Good Weekend (colour supplement) attempted to get to the core of Garrett's move. The results are predictable and disheartening: Garrett has learnt what it's like to be a politician.
His long-time associates do not doubt his sincerity and commitment to environment. However, the article stresses that in Garrett's position he is obliged to be a "team player". He's not rambunctious: he doesn't denigrate his colleagues either inside or out of cabinet, and he doesn't break ranks. All his politicking now takes place within cabinet, and he toes the line most strictly with whatever outcomes he has to swallow.
Case in point: in one of the "strongest speeches of his political career", Garrett has warned an international conference that some Australian animal species would have to face extinction. With 1750 threatened species, the government was moving from project-based ecology to preserving ecosystems - which would inevitably mean the death knell for some species.
That is understandable - quite rational, even, if cold-blooded. In fact, I cannot see the world changing course quickly enough to preserve all remaining species, let alone habitats. Human rapacity for land makes it inevitable that any ecosystem that is not explicitly preserved will be strongly threatened. Islands of wilderness are the only viable outcome of our present course.
But imagine being Peter Garrett, and having to announce the impending extinction of a random handful of species. And to keep that stony silence in the face of other environmental injustices that cabinet solidarity had demanded. At what point is one's voice sufficient on its own to sway outcomes? And by that point, are you then accustomed to compromising away your favoured outcomes for other factors?
My kids recognise Garrett more than other politicians - simply because he's our local MP, and he's been to their school. I'd hate them to come to understand him on the basis of what he can't achieve, rather than what he can. It's not his ideals that corrode - it's the political system that's corrosive. I still have hope he can sufficiently influence outcomes.
Update 06-Sep-09: A letter in today's Good Weekend in response to the above article vociferously sums up the attitudes of many:
"Peter Garrett's plea that he was just following the party's orders is possibly the most famous dud defence known. Far from being the Faust or King Lear suggested, he appears to be the most common of political animals: the chameleon opportunist."
It is worth pointing out that that writer fully misunderstand Garrett's situation. Despite being environment minister, he is bound by cabinet decisions - and so effectively has no say in many of his "decisions". The only options here available to him are to resign from cabinet - and so be able to speak out without any real effect - or to attempt to influence outcomes from within. I cannot comment on the actual machinations, but this process shows how politics can apparently corrupt (and actually corrupt the reputation of) even those with integrity.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Trends in Australia's recessionary unemployment
I recently asserted that all recessions are different. Why so? The question is, why is economics not a science? Because it is wrapped up in human affairs, and is a product of human history, which is moving forwards, changing all the time. We are not entirely doomed to repeat mistakes of the past; moreover, economic events are responsive to the political tides, which are constantly changing.
One example: unemployment in Australia.
We have weathered the recession reasonably well, all things considered. The government's economic stimulus packages have had an effect... and unemployment has not shot up as fast as it might have (SMH's Ross Gittens notes here Australia's more favourable position than the major western economies - and that the estimate of peak unemployment has been revised downwards from 8.5 to 7.5%.)
Why? A recent survey has found that employers have largely avoided shedding jobs, and are using a number of strategies to avoid this. Altruism aside, this could be simply because the costs of redundancies are a sufficient disincentive.
About half the employers surveyed cut back worker hours; about 40% froze salaries - one in six reducing executive pay; others cut pay or introduced job sharing.
(On an anecdotal basis, over the past year I have frequently seen companies with resourcing needs that despite looking first at external options, subsequent choose to plug the gap from their existing labour pool.)
The reason for this is said to be immediate past experience with skill shortages, which encourages employers to hedge by retaining skilled staff.
In mitigation, University of Newcastle's Bill Mitchell noted that in the 1991 recession, employers reduced hours - but then subsequently cut jobs anyway.
Countering that: job losses to date have been largely in manufacturing, and another survey had found business confidence at a two-year high (!) - particularly in manufacturing.
Update 13-Aug-09: Boom times indeed! Commonwealth Bank has reported very strong results; now Telstra has too. And Australian consumer confidence has positively rocketed. Perversely, while these are flags for interest rates to rise,employment is likely to lag significantly, as it usually does. Not a good time for unemployment with a mortgage.
One example: unemployment in Australia.
We have weathered the recession reasonably well, all things considered. The government's economic stimulus packages have had an effect... and unemployment has not shot up as fast as it might have (SMH's Ross Gittens notes here Australia's more favourable position than the major western economies - and that the estimate of peak unemployment has been revised downwards from 8.5 to 7.5%.)
Why? A recent survey has found that employers have largely avoided shedding jobs, and are using a number of strategies to avoid this. Altruism aside, this could be simply because the costs of redundancies are a sufficient disincentive.
About half the employers surveyed cut back worker hours; about 40% froze salaries - one in six reducing executive pay; others cut pay or introduced job sharing.
(On an anecdotal basis, over the past year I have frequently seen companies with resourcing needs that despite looking first at external options, subsequent choose to plug the gap from their existing labour pool.)
The reason for this is said to be immediate past experience with skill shortages, which encourages employers to hedge by retaining skilled staff.
In mitigation, University of Newcastle's Bill Mitchell noted that in the 1991 recession, employers reduced hours - but then subsequently cut jobs anyway.
Countering that: job losses to date have been largely in manufacturing, and another survey had found business confidence at a two-year high (!) - particularly in manufacturing.
Update 13-Aug-09: Boom times indeed! Commonwealth Bank has reported very strong results; now Telstra has too. And Australian consumer confidence has positively rocketed. Perversely, while these are flags for interest rates to rise,employment is likely to lag significantly, as it usually does. Not a good time for unemployment with a mortgage.
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!)
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Two Hus, and China's hardball trade game
China's form of economic hardball is possibly unique in these times, a game that has emerged from a specific set of temporal factors, including their culture and their current global economic status.
The immediate context for this is the arrest in China of Stern Hu, an Australian executive of mining conglomerate Rio Tinto. Hu has been accused of, but not yet charged with, espionage. The Chinese government said Hu and three other Rio Tinto employees arrested "have already broken Chinese law and have violated international business ethics".
This was preceded by pricing negotiations that ended up being more favourable to Australian resource companies than had been generally expected. Further, on 5th June Rio Tinto backed out of a $AU25 billion deal with Chinalco, and instead joined forces with rival BHP Billiton. China's burning need for raw materials makes major dealings with resource companies extremely sensitive. Upon the deal's collapse the Chinese immediately convened a high-level political task force to "assess the political and economic risks" of large outgoing investment deals.
Yet: "This is certainly not 'revenge' for the Chinalco deal not going through," said a Chinese Government source. "It is part of a considered, all-of-government response to the general resources question that was made after considering the likely international response."
Maybe not specifically, but it could well be a tactical manoeuvre underpinning the Chinese government's overarching strategy on resourcing.
What happened is not clear yet. But it's obviously tied to the dangerously tricky nature of doing business in China.
The Sydney Morning Herald's John Garnaut noted : "Rio Tinto has strong rules and a strong corporate ethos that should mean that China's 'conclusive evidence' about the company paying bribes turns out to be unsubstantiated." But between Rio's official policy and China's "enormous system of laws that are seldom enforced", there is the traditional Chinese way of business. Another Herald journalist commented:"The immediate very public escalation of the arrest issue makes discreet high level use of guanxi - the uniquely Chinese concept of personal relationships - extremely difficult".
There is thus a wide chasm between the customary way of doing business, and how it should be done if legally enforced. That chasm constitutes an enormous manouvering space under the direct control of the Chinese government. So they are deciding when to enforce practices that would usually be seen to be corrupt or involving undue personal influence.
The deliberate revelation that President Hu Jintao personally approved the "investigation" that led to the arrest, signals an escalation in the politics of trade. Until the Chinese government becomes obliged to close the gap between customary practice and law in a uniform way, they control the playing field. Internation economic and political pressure will force the issue, but until then the Chinese government will be taking full advantage of it.
16-Jul-09 Update: Although PM Kevin Rudd's (public) response to the arrests has been characterised as lukewarm to date, as a sinophile ex-diplomat he is probably better versed than most in the intricacies of communication at that level. But his public words are now somewhat stronger: the world is watching. Meanwhile, a Chinese newspaper quoted an unnamed industry source that Rio had bribed executives of 16 steel mills to get access to industry data "which has become an unwritten industry practice" - which begs the question why those executives weren't also arrested. Lastly, the incident has caused a spike in the spot price for iron ore. Whilst economists can always give explanations for a sudden price jolt in either direction, in this case it could be said to reflect perception that the cost of doing business (with China) is higher than previously expected.
The immediate context for this is the arrest in China of Stern Hu, an Australian executive of mining conglomerate Rio Tinto. Hu has been accused of, but not yet charged with, espionage. The Chinese government said Hu and three other Rio Tinto employees arrested "have already broken Chinese law and have violated international business ethics".
This was preceded by pricing negotiations that ended up being more favourable to Australian resource companies than had been generally expected. Further, on 5th June Rio Tinto backed out of a $AU25 billion deal with Chinalco, and instead joined forces with rival BHP Billiton. China's burning need for raw materials makes major dealings with resource companies extremely sensitive. Upon the deal's collapse the Chinese immediately convened a high-level political task force to "assess the political and economic risks" of large outgoing investment deals.
Yet: "This is certainly not 'revenge' for the Chinalco deal not going through," said a Chinese Government source. "It is part of a considered, all-of-government response to the general resources question that was made after considering the likely international response."
Maybe not specifically, but it could well be a tactical manoeuvre underpinning the Chinese government's overarching strategy on resourcing.
What happened is not clear yet. But it's obviously tied to the dangerously tricky nature of doing business in China.
The Sydney Morning Herald's John Garnaut noted : "Rio Tinto has strong rules and a strong corporate ethos that should mean that China's 'conclusive evidence' about the company paying bribes turns out to be unsubstantiated." But between Rio's official policy and China's "enormous system of laws that are seldom enforced", there is the traditional Chinese way of business. Another Herald journalist commented:"The immediate very public escalation of the arrest issue makes discreet high level use of guanxi - the uniquely Chinese concept of personal relationships - extremely difficult".
There is thus a wide chasm between the customary way of doing business, and how it should be done if legally enforced. That chasm constitutes an enormous manouvering space under the direct control of the Chinese government. So they are deciding when to enforce practices that would usually be seen to be corrupt or involving undue personal influence.
The deliberate revelation that President Hu Jintao personally approved the "investigation" that led to the arrest, signals an escalation in the politics of trade. Until the Chinese government becomes obliged to close the gap between customary practice and law in a uniform way, they control the playing field. Internation economic and political pressure will force the issue, but until then the Chinese government will be taking full advantage of it.
16-Jul-09 Update: Although PM Kevin Rudd's (public) response to the arrests has been characterised as lukewarm to date, as a sinophile ex-diplomat he is probably better versed than most in the intricacies of communication at that level. But his public words are now somewhat stronger: the world is watching. Meanwhile, a Chinese newspaper quoted an unnamed industry source that Rio had bribed executives of 16 steel mills to get access to industry data "which has become an unwritten industry practice" - which begs the question why those executives weren't also arrested. Lastly, the incident has caused a spike in the spot price for iron ore. Whilst economists can always give explanations for a sudden price jolt in either direction, in this case it could be said to reflect perception that the cost of doing business (with China) is higher than previously expected.
Friday, July 10, 2009
G8 and the capacity to induce climate change
The G8 meeting has just agreed on a carbon emission reduction of 80% by 2050, and an aim of raising global temperatures by no more than 2%.
That's something, because the G8 represents 80% of (current!) carbon emissions.
But it's not enough.
I heard a bloke from India who, by way of commenting on climate change, asked what good is worrying about climate change if you have enough trouble trying to get enough to eat.
That's a very valid reason for people in underdeveloped nations not according enough urgency to the climate change issue (albeit somewhat less valid a reason for inaction from their leaders). They are too preoccupied with survival in the short term to consider the longer term. It could be said that a medium to longer term perspective is a luxury - if you are at the poverty line.
But what excuse for the rich nations to NOT set a far closer target? An 80% reduction is laudible, but for two things. First, it pushes the issue too far back onto later generations - our problem, maybe, but we'll make the urgency someone else's. Further, that target says nothing in itself of the trajectory of change. It permits a lackidaisical approach at the present.
And we can see why the issue becomes a rich versus poor argument.
The solution lies in the hands of the rich nations of today. But it has become apparent that global politics has not evolved far enough yet, and at this point I cannot see effective action being taken. At the rate they're currently talking, significant climactic change is inevitable this century. Not to mention changes in sea level, which will devastate on a global basis. A metre rise? - or three? So far, it has been too hard to quantify the change. There is a huge store of ice in Greenland waiting to melt, and the Russian permafrost has a vast carbon store just waiting to be released. On the cover of the latest New Scientist: "It's worse than we thought". Greenland already losing enough ice to raise sea levels by .8mm per year; 60 million people currently within one metre of sea level - and projected to double.
Humans will survive, of course, as will the planet. This will have a devastating effect on biodiversity. Human suffering - and dispossession - will skyrocket; that and shrinking land will increase conflict and war.
Adapt to a changing world without an explosion of human misery? If we can't get together to deal with poverty and population, that is just not going to happen.
I had thought that once the issue was properly acknowledged worldwide on a cultural and political level, the requisite action would be axiomatic. I hadn't accounted for the capacity of world leaders (and their voters) to allow the tragedy to proceed.
That's something, because the G8 represents 80% of (current!) carbon emissions.
But it's not enough.
I heard a bloke from India who, by way of commenting on climate change, asked what good is worrying about climate change if you have enough trouble trying to get enough to eat.
That's a very valid reason for people in underdeveloped nations not according enough urgency to the climate change issue (albeit somewhat less valid a reason for inaction from their leaders). They are too preoccupied with survival in the short term to consider the longer term. It could be said that a medium to longer term perspective is a luxury - if you are at the poverty line.
But what excuse for the rich nations to NOT set a far closer target? An 80% reduction is laudible, but for two things. First, it pushes the issue too far back onto later generations - our problem, maybe, but we'll make the urgency someone else's. Further, that target says nothing in itself of the trajectory of change. It permits a lackidaisical approach at the present.
And we can see why the issue becomes a rich versus poor argument.
The solution lies in the hands of the rich nations of today. But it has become apparent that global politics has not evolved far enough yet, and at this point I cannot see effective action being taken. At the rate they're currently talking, significant climactic change is inevitable this century. Not to mention changes in sea level, which will devastate on a global basis. A metre rise? - or three? So far, it has been too hard to quantify the change. There is a huge store of ice in Greenland waiting to melt, and the Russian permafrost has a vast carbon store just waiting to be released. On the cover of the latest New Scientist: "It's worse than we thought". Greenland already losing enough ice to raise sea levels by .8mm per year; 60 million people currently within one metre of sea level - and projected to double.
Humans will survive, of course, as will the planet. This will have a devastating effect on biodiversity. Human suffering - and dispossession - will skyrocket; that and shrinking land will increase conflict and war.
Adapt to a changing world without an explosion of human misery? If we can't get together to deal with poverty and population, that is just not going to happen.
I had thought that once the issue was properly acknowledged worldwide on a cultural and political level, the requisite action would be axiomatic. I hadn't accounted for the capacity of world leaders (and their voters) to allow the tragedy to proceed.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Turnbull performs as expected
Former Prime Minister Paul Keating offered current Prime Minister Kevin Rudd some advice about the then-new opposition leader: He's brilliant, he's fearless... and he's got bad judgment.
(Reported by Peter Hartcher in Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald.)
Keatings words could easily be Turnbull's epitaph. If you're going for the PM's jugular, it pays to have more evidence than a single email - as Turnbull found out, it could be forged.
The fact that Turnbull pushed it so hard - and with such personal arrogance in one or two conversations - is fully reflected in the three opinion polls released today, which show a plummet in support for Turnbull and the Liberals. Of course, he'll survive this... and could well lead the Liberals to defeat at the next election - for precisely the reasons I expected when Turnbull was on his way up.
(Reported by Peter Hartcher in Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald.)
Keatings words could easily be Turnbull's epitaph. If you're going for the PM's jugular, it pays to have more evidence than a single email - as Turnbull found out, it could be forged.
The fact that Turnbull pushed it so hard - and with such personal arrogance in one or two conversations - is fully reflected in the three opinion polls released today, which show a plummet in support for Turnbull and the Liberals. Of course, he'll survive this... and could well lead the Liberals to defeat at the next election - for precisely the reasons I expected when Turnbull was on his way up.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Iran's election result was doctored
Were the declared results of the Iranian election accurate? Did hardliner Ahmadinejad win resoundingly?
Western governments reacted quite cautiously to the announced results - primarily because they had no information (such as pre-election polls or exit polls) to gauge the fairness. Obama was excoriated by the American right for not speaking out, but as he said, he didn't want America to become the issue, and to have external and internal groupings close ranks simply because of an American pronouncement.
But as heard on BBC World Service radio, an analysis from the UK's Chatham House and St Andrews University has now cast serious doubts on the validity of the declaration. The research was conducted on declared results specifically on a province-by-province basis. Results indicate, inter alia, that:
- in two conservative provinces, a greater than 100% turnout was recorded.
- did an increase in voter turnout swing it? No, because the greatest swing to Ahmadinejad didn't occur in the provinces with greatest increases in turnout.
- For the official results to be true, in a third of the provinces Ahmadinejad would have had to take all previous conservative and centrist votes, all new votes, and 44% of previous reformist votes, which belies continued tensions between reformists and conservatives.
- Ahmadinejad was "markedly unpopular in rural areas", which belies the claim that he triumphed in the more rural provinces.
The BBC's report comprised an interview with one of the researchers, who added several years of recent anecdotal personal experience in Iran, which fleshed out and backed up the analysis of figures.
Further comment was offered that there was an equivalent divide behind the scenes. One aspect of this was that former president Rafsanjani, a reformist, is currently chair of the influential Assembly of Experts.
The Iranian ruling Guardian Council had been assessing some of the results, but this evaluation was of a relatively small number of votes, and didn't look at wider provincial results. They thus reported no major irregularities.
The BBC report also indicated that new (internet-based) media was playing a significant part in information dissemination, so press restrictions are, to some extent at least, not as effective as those in power would like.
The world is watching, yes. But at this point it's hard to see the status quo being overturned: current unrest in Iran is not - yet - at revolutionary pitch. When - if - it all settles, the only lasting effect may be a taint on the legitimacy of Ahmadinejad, and Iran's voice in the world.
Sadly, I can never find web references to the full BBC radio reports, but I found one BBC report on that analysis here; the Christian Science Monitor also has a summary here. Chatham House's full report is here.
Western governments reacted quite cautiously to the announced results - primarily because they had no information (such as pre-election polls or exit polls) to gauge the fairness. Obama was excoriated by the American right for not speaking out, but as he said, he didn't want America to become the issue, and to have external and internal groupings close ranks simply because of an American pronouncement.
But as heard on BBC World Service radio, an analysis from the UK's Chatham House and St Andrews University has now cast serious doubts on the validity of the declaration. The research was conducted on declared results specifically on a province-by-province basis. Results indicate, inter alia, that:
- in two conservative provinces, a greater than 100% turnout was recorded.
- did an increase in voter turnout swing it? No, because the greatest swing to Ahmadinejad didn't occur in the provinces with greatest increases in turnout.
- For the official results to be true, in a third of the provinces Ahmadinejad would have had to take all previous conservative and centrist votes, all new votes, and 44% of previous reformist votes, which belies continued tensions between reformists and conservatives.
- Ahmadinejad was "markedly unpopular in rural areas", which belies the claim that he triumphed in the more rural provinces.
The BBC's report comprised an interview with one of the researchers, who added several years of recent anecdotal personal experience in Iran, which fleshed out and backed up the analysis of figures.
Further comment was offered that there was an equivalent divide behind the scenes. One aspect of this was that former president Rafsanjani, a reformist, is currently chair of the influential Assembly of Experts.
The Iranian ruling Guardian Council had been assessing some of the results, but this evaluation was of a relatively small number of votes, and didn't look at wider provincial results. They thus reported no major irregularities.
The BBC report also indicated that new (internet-based) media was playing a significant part in information dissemination, so press restrictions are, to some extent at least, not as effective as those in power would like.
The world is watching, yes. But at this point it's hard to see the status quo being overturned: current unrest in Iran is not - yet - at revolutionary pitch. When - if - it all settles, the only lasting effect may be a taint on the legitimacy of Ahmadinejad, and Iran's voice in the world.
Sadly, I can never find web references to the full BBC radio reports, but I found one BBC report on that analysis here; the Christian Science Monitor also has a summary here. Chatham House's full report is here.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Climate change and the politics of pseudo-science
In the midst of the absurdity that constitutes current debate on climate change, Steve Fielding, an absurd Australian politician, has illuminated some of the reasons such a debate remains festering long after rationality has won through.
Fielding, a quixotic conservative (who scraped into parliament on preferences and votes from people who didn't realised where his 'Family First' party stood on anything), has latched onto an issue that he doesn't realise has left him all asea.
He had argued that a) debate on climate change had been stifled, and b) global temperature rises are not anthropogenic (human-caused) in origin.
Fielding's views - and the reactions to them - are discussed in this article. In a nutshell, he had based his understanding on a single, selective source: Heaven And Earth, a book by Adelaide geologist Ian Plimer.
Lessons:
1. Don't expect politicians to appreciate that their leadership position behooves them to at least attempt to act wisely.
2. Getting your information from a single source - and then not reading critiques of said source - does not make you wise.
3. As quoted in the above article, a book that is "an opinion of an author who happens to be a scientist" does not necessarily equate to a "work of science".
This last point is the most salient, as it gives some insight into how easily people's understanding gets hijacked if they don't a) don't appreciate how scientific consensus is formulated, and b) don't read much.
11-Jun-09 update: According to a more recent news report, "Senator Fielding's newfound scepticism is a result of his trip to the US to listen to the Heartland Institute of Chicago, an organisation that is funded by the fossil-fuel industry."
I would say that people are responsible for their own reputation, and are entitle to muck it up as they choose. Unfortunately, the ramifications are a little more severe: he is one of several people that hold the balance of power in the Senate, and so is uniquely placed to derail any government initiatives on climate change. Yet to pile irony upon irony, the government's plans are quite sub-optimal, so at this point it is hard for anyone to tell for sure whether Fielding's stumblings will help or hinder the cause.
Fielding, a quixotic conservative (who scraped into parliament on preferences and votes from people who didn't realised where his 'Family First' party stood on anything), has latched onto an issue that he doesn't realise has left him all asea.
He had argued that a) debate on climate change had been stifled, and b) global temperature rises are not anthropogenic (human-caused) in origin.
Fielding's views - and the reactions to them - are discussed in this article. In a nutshell, he had based his understanding on a single, selective source: Heaven And Earth, a book by Adelaide geologist Ian Plimer.
Lessons:
1. Don't expect politicians to appreciate that their leadership position behooves them to at least attempt to act wisely.
2. Getting your information from a single source - and then not reading critiques of said source - does not make you wise.
3. As quoted in the above article, a book that is "an opinion of an author who happens to be a scientist" does not necessarily equate to a "work of science".
This last point is the most salient, as it gives some insight into how easily people's understanding gets hijacked if they don't a) don't appreciate how scientific consensus is formulated, and b) don't read much.
11-Jun-09 update: According to a more recent news report, "Senator Fielding's newfound scepticism is a result of his trip to the US to listen to the Heartland Institute of Chicago, an organisation that is funded by the fossil-fuel industry."
I would say that people are responsible for their own reputation, and are entitle to muck it up as they choose. Unfortunately, the ramifications are a little more severe: he is one of several people that hold the balance of power in the Senate, and so is uniquely placed to derail any government initiatives on climate change. Yet to pile irony upon irony, the government's plans are quite sub-optimal, so at this point it is hard for anyone to tell for sure whether Fielding's stumblings will help or hinder the cause.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Gillard's rising star
(Finally opened up my spare keyboard and fixed it, so I can type out a few words.)
I've mentioned before our impressive deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard (including here and here). I'm not the only one to have perked up, though.
Peter Hartcher, The Sydney Morning Herald's political editor, gave her a warm writeup a few days ago, which placed her star in greater ascendancy than I could have expected.
Her biggest problem is that she comes from the Victorian left of the ALP, and the left would never have the numbers to get up their choice for leader - especially, Hartcher says, due to specific anomosity from the NSW right wing.
However, by Hartcher's account, she has won everyone over with her competence and intelligence. That would not normally be enough for the right wingers, but apparently she has proven her mettle to them by not being beholden to some on the union left (of particular note: standing up to the CFMEU against some of their shoddy practices in the building industry).
Hartcher characterises Gillard as moving from the left more towards the centre in recent times. Regardless,
I've mentioned before our impressive deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard (including here and here). I'm not the only one to have perked up, though.
Peter Hartcher, The Sydney Morning Herald's political editor, gave her a warm writeup a few days ago, which placed her star in greater ascendancy than I could have expected.
Her biggest problem is that she comes from the Victorian left of the ALP, and the left would never have the numbers to get up their choice for leader - especially, Hartcher says, due to specific anomosity from the NSW right wing.
However, by Hartcher's account, she has won everyone over with her competence and intelligence. That would not normally be enough for the right wingers, but apparently she has proven her mettle to them by not being beholden to some on the union left (of particular note: standing up to the CFMEU against some of their shoddy practices in the building industry).
Hartcher characterises Gillard as moving from the left more towards the centre in recent times. Regardless,
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Rationality on war
A fascinating interview with a counterinsurgency expert, David Kilcullen - an Australian who advised the Bush administration in its later times.
He's actually quite the opposite to what you'd expect - ex-army, but a doctoral graduate in anthropology, and an ethical expert on war, terrorism, and counterinsurgency.
You can listen to it here.
He's actually quite the opposite to what you'd expect - ex-army, but a doctoral graduate in anthropology, and an ethical expert on war, terrorism, and counterinsurgency.
You can listen to it here.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Counting your enemies in Australian politics
Arch conservative nitpicker Gerard Henderson is now one of the longest running columnists in the Sydney Morning Herald. He's happiest when the Liberals are in power, of course, but he's never beyond giving a spray to either side of politics, the ALP for the all the perceived failings of the left, and the Liberals for, well, just not being conservative enough.
Recently, he was rather miffed that the Greens won a state parliamentary seat in the Fremantle by-election in Western Australia. He was comforted by his own analysis that the Greens would never win a seat outside the inner city electorates. But what really got his goat was the Liberals' part in the affair: they didn't run a candidate.
Fremantle was, admittedly, a safe Labor seat. And there is a strong tradition of major parties not turning up in by-elections where a) they cannot hope to win, b) the overall poll numbers are not finely balanced, and c) there is no topical scandal.
So by Henderson's numbers, Labor got their usually tally, while "nearly all" traditional Liberal voters [must have] voted Green. He shafts responsibility home to the Liberals' practice of preferencing the Greens over Labor in close-to-the-wire electorates.
Of course, this assumes that Liberal voters either a) do what they're told, or b) see Labor as their worst enemy, and in either case, c) are pretty stupid if they're meant to be conservative or right-wing, but end up voting for a good solid left-winger.
Henderson characterises the Greens as "Australia's only left-wing party" - which, despite some on the left agreeing with that, is more a measure of his sniping at Labor (something he does at every opportunity). Of course, there are plenty of left-wing parties, but none (to my knowledge) have parliamentary representation in Australia, bar the Greens and the Australian Labor Party.
But it really depends on the conversation you are having as to whether you call the ALP left or right. Certainly anyone with clear left-wing sympathies would consider them right, but come election time, if it's a choice between two evils, left preferences mostly end up with Labor. Of course, there are those left fundamentalists who would rather attempt to foment revolution by ensuring those Labor quislings are out in the cold and waiting until the Liberals are sufficiently on the nose.
Unfortunately for them, the Australian electorate as a whole is rather conservative, and so will never - as a whole - go any further left that the ALP. Cold comfort for Henderson, whose nose is put even more out of joint by the actions of the Liberals at the margins.
The margin in this case is how-to-vote cards, which can have some influence on outcomes. From a purely party-political perspective the Liberals, of course, see their fundamental enemies as the ALP. So they will do anything to reduce their parliamentary presence, even so far as to encourage their own voters to go over the heads of Labor, even further left to the Greens.
So it depends who you consider your enemy - and this is where the equations go perverse. Labor is the enemy of the parliamentary Liberals, a fair few people on the left, and Henderson when it suits him. The Greens are the enemy of the far right, and the ALP when the Greens are too close at their heels. The Liberals are the enemy of the left and parliamentary Labor.
And Henderson, at times, seems to profess to being surrounded by enemies.
Recently, he was rather miffed that the Greens won a state parliamentary seat in the Fremantle by-election in Western Australia. He was comforted by his own analysis that the Greens would never win a seat outside the inner city electorates. But what really got his goat was the Liberals' part in the affair: they didn't run a candidate.
Fremantle was, admittedly, a safe Labor seat. And there is a strong tradition of major parties not turning up in by-elections where a) they cannot hope to win, b) the overall poll numbers are not finely balanced, and c) there is no topical scandal.
So by Henderson's numbers, Labor got their usually tally, while "nearly all" traditional Liberal voters [must have] voted Green. He shafts responsibility home to the Liberals' practice of preferencing the Greens over Labor in close-to-the-wire electorates.
Of course, this assumes that Liberal voters either a) do what they're told, or b) see Labor as their worst enemy, and in either case, c) are pretty stupid if they're meant to be conservative or right-wing, but end up voting for a good solid left-winger.
Henderson characterises the Greens as "Australia's only left-wing party" - which, despite some on the left agreeing with that, is more a measure of his sniping at Labor (something he does at every opportunity). Of course, there are plenty of left-wing parties, but none (to my knowledge) have parliamentary representation in Australia, bar the Greens and the Australian Labor Party.
But it really depends on the conversation you are having as to whether you call the ALP left or right. Certainly anyone with clear left-wing sympathies would consider them right, but come election time, if it's a choice between two evils, left preferences mostly end up with Labor. Of course, there are those left fundamentalists who would rather attempt to foment revolution by ensuring those Labor quislings are out in the cold and waiting until the Liberals are sufficiently on the nose.
Unfortunately for them, the Australian electorate as a whole is rather conservative, and so will never - as a whole - go any further left that the ALP. Cold comfort for Henderson, whose nose is put even more out of joint by the actions of the Liberals at the margins.
The margin in this case is how-to-vote cards, which can have some influence on outcomes. From a purely party-political perspective the Liberals, of course, see their fundamental enemies as the ALP. So they will do anything to reduce their parliamentary presence, even so far as to encourage their own voters to go over the heads of Labor, even further left to the Greens.
So it depends who you consider your enemy - and this is where the equations go perverse. Labor is the enemy of the parliamentary Liberals, a fair few people on the left, and Henderson when it suits him. The Greens are the enemy of the far right, and the ALP when the Greens are too close at their heels. The Liberals are the enemy of the left and parliamentary Labor.
And Henderson, at times, seems to profess to being surrounded by enemies.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Climate Change Australia: bad policy goes worse
Having Kevin Rudd as a Prime Minister has meant an era of management rather than leadership. Evidence is the revised but still tragic climate change policy: the Emission Trading Scheme is being delayed past the next election, emission prices are to be set at a low $10 per tonne, and industrial polluters are compensated even more.
Activist organisation GetUp! has the facts of the new policy. The Sydney Morning Herald gave an environment perspective and a political perspective on this change, which has been variously characterised as a backflip or a watering down of action over climate change.
The original plans were fundamentally flawed from an environmental perspective, such that Ross Garnaut, author of the government-commissioned report on the subject, said it might be better to hold off on implementation - in the hope that public pressure will yield better policy. Be careful what you wish for, Ross. Public opinion has had a long tradition of clamouring for contradictory outcomes, effectively leaving key issues up to those they vote for.
Rudd was juggling a number of balls over the issue: industry concerns (peak bodies had been holding the previous labour government to ransom on this specific issue, even before Kyoto), economic crisis, and pressure from environmental voices. That last was the weakest pressure, because traditionally the ALP has the environment vote in the bag (would you rather vote for something even more conservative, hey?). They also figured that the buildup of pressure on climate change remained weak despite the mammoth publicity over the last three years. Some justification for this view exists in the voting record at the last election, where green votes did not surge to reflect the apparent level of interest. Again, the public agrees there is a problem, but want "someone else" to do "something". How to break this toxic nexus? Same as ever, I guess: hope for good leadership, participate in public pressure (via GetUp!'s campaign, for example), and vote right. Political vision entails hard choices for the right reasons, and persuading the electorate to follow. Rudd was elected for a raft of reasons other than that, unfortunately. I have little confidence in anyone on Australia's political horizon (whilst holding judgment on Julia Gillard and Peter Garrett, who may well be hamstrung); fortunately, there remains hope in Obama.
06-Sep-09 Update: Two important points I mention in a later post:
1) There is a truly evil effect of the government's plan: any attempts by individuals to reduce their carbon emissions is used to offset the burden of the large corporate polluters, thus rendering individual action worse than useless.
2) The original bill for the Emission Trading Scheme was knocked back by the Senate; to date the government intends re-introducing it with little substantive change.
Activist organisation GetUp! has the facts of the new policy. The Sydney Morning Herald gave an environment perspective and a political perspective on this change, which has been variously characterised as a backflip or a watering down of action over climate change.
The original plans were fundamentally flawed from an environmental perspective, such that Ross Garnaut, author of the government-commissioned report on the subject, said it might be better to hold off on implementation - in the hope that public pressure will yield better policy. Be careful what you wish for, Ross. Public opinion has had a long tradition of clamouring for contradictory outcomes, effectively leaving key issues up to those they vote for.
Rudd was juggling a number of balls over the issue: industry concerns (peak bodies had been holding the previous labour government to ransom on this specific issue, even before Kyoto), economic crisis, and pressure from environmental voices. That last was the weakest pressure, because traditionally the ALP has the environment vote in the bag (would you rather vote for something even more conservative, hey?). They also figured that the buildup of pressure on climate change remained weak despite the mammoth publicity over the last three years. Some justification for this view exists in the voting record at the last election, where green votes did not surge to reflect the apparent level of interest. Again, the public agrees there is a problem, but want "someone else" to do "something". How to break this toxic nexus? Same as ever, I guess: hope for good leadership, participate in public pressure (via GetUp!'s campaign, for example), and vote right. Political vision entails hard choices for the right reasons, and persuading the electorate to follow. Rudd was elected for a raft of reasons other than that, unfortunately. I have little confidence in anyone on Australia's political horizon (whilst holding judgment on Julia Gillard and Peter Garrett, who may well be hamstrung); fortunately, there remains hope in Obama.
06-Sep-09 Update: Two important points I mention in a later post:
1) There is a truly evil effect of the government's plan: any attempts by individuals to reduce their carbon emissions is used to offset the burden of the large corporate polluters, thus rendering individual action worse than useless.
2) The original bill for the Emission Trading Scheme was knocked back by the Senate; to date the government intends re-introducing it with little substantive change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)