What is “Australia 2020″ then?
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says a summit involving 1000 Australians will be held to tackle 10 major problems that are facing Australia.
One interesting tidbit:
Mr Rudd said the 1000 people would be expected to pay their own way to Canberra and would not be representative of large organisations.
“We want people to be selected on the basis of individual merit,” the prime minister said.
While you can see how he doesn’t want it to be depicted as a jaunt, that’s actually questionable in terms of its seriousness – how many people “selected on individual merit” (how?) are going to want to fly to Canberra at their own expense for this – since presumably non-large organisations may not pay their way? There was a recent article which suggested that there’d been a huge response to the “submission on the budget” call – over 5000, but the writer also queried whether anyone in Swan’s office or Treasury would be reading them? If not, and if this thing is just a stunt, it’s hard to see it as anything else but media and opinion management to demonstrate how good the Rudd government is at “listening” or whatever.
He said the ideas created at the summit would not immediately become government policy and he also promised that already announced Labor policy was sacrosanct.
As Trevor Cook says, if it’s genuine, “Why not do something wild Kev like put the whole thing online and let millions of us participate, if we want to?”
pay your own way
so lots of university people, Public servants, Unions, employees of large companies
basically anyone who can get their organization to pay.
Maybe even a few entrepreneurs too ?
Telstra will flood em in for the digital technology bit.
No, K08 says no representatives of large organisations.
The selection process will cause envy-triggered meltdowns in each area he cites, no matter how and by whom it’s done.
Just to personally illustrate my point here, I’m guessing squeaky wheels will get greased comme toujours, and I’d be willing to bet $1000 on at least one of the “arts” people who will get a guernsey. Not sayin’ who, though, as I do not wish to be sued.
Putting it online sounds good. That way everyone who wants a say can have one (assuming they have access to a computer with internet connection) even if they ignore what you have to say. Which they probably would, but hey, why not?
Yeah, I was thinking that.
While I was earlier arguing against seeing some of the consultative moves by the Rudd government through a cynical lens, it’s pretty hard not to agree with Trevor that this is a wank. If it really is democratic, do it online. If it’s seeking to tap expertise, tap expertise through the usual means of tapping expertise. It seems like it’s caught between two poles.
“Australia 2020″ resonates very strongly with Mahathir Mohamad’s Vision 2020 for Malaysia from the early 1990s. The notion of rule-by-technocrats and the deeply conservative implications of a selected “elite” 1000 are also a reminder of how steeped Rudd is in the neo-liberal free-market global politics of the 1980s – a world of suits, conferences and boardrooms. This era is marked the emergence of Japan and the entry of China into the global economy in the 1980s, best expressed in Australia by the Garnaut report “Australia and the North East Asian Ascendancy” from 1989. It is very anti-populist and possibly anti-democratic, a world away from street or local political practices, global social movements, or Latham or even Howard-style populism. Hmm…
MH, I think I said in my New Matilda preview of Oz politics in 08 that the Rudd era will be an interesting test of how effective bureaucratic managerialism is as a governing style!
Well, when we look at Malaysia, Singapore or China we might say that bureaucratic managerialism works within narrowly defined terms of consumerism and economic growth, but the narrowness of the terms are the problem. One assumes, or one hopes, we won’t see Mr Rudd using libel laws against those who object too loudly to his policies.
Howard was about dividing, wedging, etc. Wars, Elites, Envy and the like.
Rudd is about uniting, healing, apologising etc.
Symbolic? Of course. New Leadership. Predictable.
I wondered how Davis would fit into the equation given their past associations.
The real question is of course whether anybody in government will take notice of anything that comes out of it.
Furthermore, I very much doubt that there’s time for serious consideration of any one issue in such a general talkfest over one weekend.
I agree with you on Howard, but I can only hope you’re right about Rudd.
I don’t think this type of workshop would work as well online where input from the monomaniacal etc can dissuade others from perceiving the exercise as worth their time.
I think it’s a great idea. Get a thousand people up to Canberra and let ‘em hammer out a few issues in a conducive environment.
Nothing beats face to face.
I don’t know, but it will certainly fuel further the rumours that he might be looking to jump ship from Melbourne to a job with Rudd. If he’s a sensible lad, he’d wait until they’ve been safely re-elected. Presumably the package he’d be on at Melbourne would be north of 600k, and that would be a big disincentive to leaving, and also a big political issue if Rudd matched it to secure his services.
I also imagine that Davis will get his airfare paid to Canberra by the Commonwealth, and probably a nice little consultancy earner into the bargain, while the rest of the talkfestees do it all for the love of their country.
Sounds like a slightly longer version of those godawful Insight talkfests on SBS. One hour of people shouting at one another, with Jennie Brockie trying her best to look satisfied at how productive things have been.
“rumours that he might be looking to jump ship from Melbourne to a job with Rudd”
Rudd couldn’t afford Glyn and Margaret. They are a ‘package’. Would have to be north of a million. Not politically possible.
Glyn, like Rudd is into ‘good government’. I suspect that’s an important motivation. And it would be something for the CV.
Look for an international appointment.
Though she was at RMIT when he was still at Griffith, I think. So they don’t necessarily have to be co-located in the same city.
But yes, perhaps something international.
The rumour mill is running hot around academia about Davis. I think it’s a useful thing for Rudd actually because it makes academics vicariously feel loved and wanted unlike in the Howard era!
Yeah, nothing more tedious than when a bunch of ppl get together to argue the toss.
Actually I don’t mind Insight at all. Truly awful was that abomination “Difference of Opinion” which was the one with the “experts” – like the Rudd talkfest.
There’s a lot of value in some of the deliberative democracy experiments. Even if air fares and hotels aren’t being paid for, this thing will cost dosh which if public consultation is the aim, I think could be much more creatively spent.
I did a quick image search of Davis which allowed me to see me old mate Dr.Peter Hollingsworth ,and a lot of Muslim faces,Jewish ones and others I couldnt quite pick.I suppose if you looked up just the word Davis, on the Google search one would be international beyond detail.I think,Rudd isnt about Futurology so much,but,having at least the Chosen Ones as a sort of parrot line, a sort of to paraphrase Carr.. Praetorian Guard, a 1000 experts associated with Rudd,and then by extension the whole political body invited.Ask The Senators if they have been invited,where reviewing government choices of expertise is a regularity.Sometimes the unknown,couldnt give a stuff about experts, gets the nod from Senators.Naturally enough this is an unspecified background of detail ,and lacking evidence of the motivations for doing so explanation on my part.Ask anyone that has exercised their minds more than once,about the word expert as a definition of its character and it doesnt last very long!?
Mark, while technically, Margaret might have arrived at MIT before Glyn, I suspect his appointment preceded hers. Almost sure.
You may well be right, wpd. I do recall now he stayed at GU for a year or so after he’d got the gig at Melbourne and they had someone filling in.
Indeed. I wonder how many indigenous, poor, homeless, young, elderly and non-English speaking folk will get a look-in?
It will be the usual parade of talking heads from the quality current affairs telly. Though many of these people are of course admirable, they are hardly representative of the foot-soldiers.
Using the Internet for the 70% of Australians online is good, but what of those I have mentioned, most of whom are not online? Are their voices to be heard or is it going to be left to “representatives” (who will not be “representatives” at all for the most part, since I am not aware that any electoral process is envisaged)
What you will probably have are the usual suspects from Difference of Opinion and Insight panels. OK I may be comfortable with Gittins, Hamilton and McCarthy, but deeply disturbed at Tankard, Arndt and Hendy.
In any case social policy will figure largely. Most likely it will be discussed by a bunch of comfortable city-dwellers from nice homes in good suburbs. I look forward to their penetrating insights on homelessness.
Ah go on Pav, one of the resident briefs here will represent you pro bono with pleasure.
Exactly.
Sorcerer – you may have got the wrong end of the stick about this 2020 workshop. It’s not a forum to hear people experiences – it’s to work for solutions. It’s not a listening tour which is already another different part of the Rudd process.
Thus the selective nature of input is by definition desirable rather than a flaw in the process. This is a chance for non-party/non-govt/non-SIG problem solvers to contribute to the national outcome. I reckon there may just about be a thousand in this wide brown land who care enuff to turn up.
Read the link to the article:
“I wonder how many indigenous, poor, homeless, young, elderly and non-English speaking folk will get a look-in?”
I suspect a ’significant’ number.
The evidence is that neither Rudd nor Davis are political dills.
But who are they and what are the selection criteria
The demand for payment of elected parliamentarians was a fundamental element of every democratic platform in the 19th Century. This would seem to be one example where the neo-liberal managerial consensus has led us back to the real elite politics of that time. The well-heeled amateurs will deliver their sage opinions and all us folk can do is hope that they are appropriately endowed with noblesse oblige. A bit of Kevin 1907 methinks.
But all this goes to what I see as being the confused nature of the idea.
On one hand, it could be an exercise in deliberative democracy (and aspects of its structure make it sound like that’s an inspiration) – where it would be par for the course to invite a representative not an “expert” sample of Australians.
If it’s an exercise in problem solving, it doesn’t seem to me to make a lot of sense to get 100 people from a particular field to workshop stuff for a weekend. What’s the basis for the discussion? You can’t just give people a brief that says “come up with ideas to fix social exclusion” or whatever. It would need an enormous amount of thought and work to make it work. You’d need a very well designed agenda, professional facilitators, preliminary papers, etc. Will that be done? Glyn Davis won’t be spending every day between now and April on it.
It really is hard to escape the conclusion that it’s a pr exercise.
Sorry, comment crossed with Robert’s and was meant to respond to the ones immediately prior. Though I have similar concerns to his!
Yeah, problems with the format can be imagined, no doubt. But if we take the exercise as it is, and not compare it unfavorably to another equally arbitrary configuration, we are still left with the possibility that a bunch of motiavted citizens can achieve something of worth that will be delivered neatly packaged as “Suggestions from the 1000″ and which can be leveraged for good policy outcomes.
The PR element is there – this is not another report from “fusty unaccountable” academics – or the slanted garbage of big business etc.
There’s a necessary PR benefit here. Public perception of popular legitimacy.
it will be disappointing if it turns out be a PR exercise – though there were similar sentiments prior to hawke’s first national economic summit – held only a month after the ‘83 election.
the economic summit had seemingly a narrower brief, but at the time – it didn’t seem that way, and the participants were basically fed/state govt’s, business and unions.
a link to bob’s opening speech – interesting to read from today’s perspective and in relation to rudd’s proposal: http://docushare.unisa.edu.au/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-160/1-6-4-1.pdf
Sure it’s a PR exercise in one way but on the other hand enough non-aligned, media-savvy major players with their own barrows to push are gonna be invited – and they’ll be first and loudest out the door regardless of the corrobbee findings.
What Rudd’s up to here is to create a grand symbolic gesture that will also work behind the scenes in terms of brainstorming and then getting some of the brainstormers to walk the talk. Some good ideas may come out of it or not, but what it should do is provide a big gaudy umbrella for the people behind the people (Tier 2 invitees)to do some circuit-breaker and networking shit behind the scenes in an open-ended arena.
It could be a titanic tit wringing exercise or it could create some unlikely yet productive ideas and connections. Or probably both. Basically harmless is my verdict. Let the lad have his fun..for a while.
That’s not a focus group, THIS is a focus group; Crosby Textor on steroids; 31b me too stays (inherited of course) and 22b annual Dopes Managing Overthetop stays; phew, Rustle Hill, safer by the mill err minute…walk this way please…
A rain then B rain…you know it makes sense. The bbq your having when your not having a bbq…just a stopper.
Hey Nabs, ‘brainstormers’ settle…the policy change mugger lies in wait thataway.
Everyone:
” God bless the squire
and all his relations,
And keep us all
in our proper stations”
I heartily agree with Blacklight [1].
MH [6 & 8]
Mahatir Mohamed’s Wawasan 2020 worked in Malaysia because it was Malaysia – and yes, we can learn SOME lessons from Malaysia, especially those in giving the whole populace a worthwhile vision and something to strive for. Australia is not Malaysia though: different economy, different society, different opportunities …. and different problems [though I don't expect many Australian businessmen and policy-makers who just flit in and out of Malaysia to comprehend those differences].
Robert Merkel [10]:
Of course nobody in Canberra will take any notice at all of what comes out of it …. that’s what shredders are for.
This show will have an agenda welded in place [and heaven help anyone who dares question the agenda or deviate from it]: reliable delegates will be preselected to read their script; the famous will appear for their photo-opportunities then immediately bolt …. sorry, the whole thing stinks to high heaven of Australia’s moribund fake “elite”[??] up to their same old stunts.
Great concept – pity about it being turned into yet another rubber-stamp.
And who is to say that the teeming and normally powerless masses out there are not able to work for solutions?
Are only the normal academic, political and media beauty contestants able to workshop ideas?
I think it’s an interesting idea, although there potentially are a few pitfalls there. There will be a lot of pressure on the government to make it more than just a big “open democracy” PR exercise, and then afterwards, to act on the forum’s recommendations.
“why not put it all online”
Well, there’s the public vs. privacy issue – if you want to ensure only Ozian’s are participating then there’s going to have to be a security system of some sort. So no privacy/anonymity. Which may be a good thing but maybe not if we really want some new thinking.
Or should we go for true open source governance – let the world get involved in the governance of Oz? Yes, that would be so demographically representative of the Oz public (cough, cough).
And then there’s ‘digital divide’ issues.
Let alone actually project managing an online forum to produce something viable after the trolls have been sifted out.
No, simpler by far just to have a bunch of people go to Canberra. Probably cheaper too.
GetUp! seems to have measures in place to overcome that problem. The ATO regularly processes thousands of online tax and BAS submissions which require authentication. The security aspects are not insurmountable.
The digital divide aspects are a problem, but the opportunity should be made available, even if it is done say through local councils working with the TAFE system, or by community forums in remote areas.
Depends who they are. There are many Australians who are simply not going to be interested since it is not footy, celebrities or shock-horror news stories. In any case if those who are “chosen” (presumably by Glyn Davis) are not felt to be representative then the danger is that other Australians whose contributions may well be valuable are going to turn their backs on the whole process.
lol, how could it not be a pr stunt? I mean, I appreciate the gesture and all, but as Sorcerer says, there aren’t gonna be too many poor people in the 733t 1000.
But furthermore, listening to what the public thinks is great for democracy, and awesome come election time, but policy development? Please. I can predict what people will say: We want more of everything, except tax. [insert anything here] should be free and [insert demographic here] don’t get enough breaks.
I can only assume Rudd will use this gabfest as a mandate to institute policies he believes in; I can only hope things like national dental schemes, pulling back on Centrelinks slow migration to a poor-house organisation, and stopping the pack rape universities have endured for the last ten years.
I think Rudd does not want to be seen to be like Ratty who was to a large extent controlled and directed by Janet.I think Kevvy can see problems with Therese because she has a penchant for making money from government largesse. Solution? ostentatiously shift his advice source from the intimate and private to the percieved best democratic think tank money cannot buy.
Tony D… “after the trolls have been sifted out” – yeah, that’s the problewm with online forums, talkback radio, isn’t it?? You give idiots a chance to participate… ohmigod, there’s an idiot having his say !!!
I agree with Mark @ 10.22pm: “Difference of Opinion” was a disaster. Experts shouting at each other, and whyohwhy did they think we needed an instant cartoonist? was it because the public can’t be expected to listen to serious stuff for 20 minutes??
On Australia 2020 ~ The selection of the 1000 will be contentious, the weekend is too brief; anyone who’s been foreced to attend “Workshops” in public service or academia is aware they can be pointless, tedious, shonky and an opportunity for shameless preening by egotistical twerps.
One feature of this is, I think, an improvement on Bob Hawke’s Economic Summit. That was organised on a trilateral basis: business reps, union leaders, govt. It forced unions to sit down with business (and v versa) in public. But then critics said Hawke was running a ‘corporatist’ model where huge busineess/union bureaucracies were grabbing the agenda. No room for the poor, the indigenous (and women were poorly represented and poorly served by unions around 1983).
Kevin’s model seems designed to be more ‘inclusive’, various,… But Glyn Davis runs an elite organisation, does he not? Does he sup with impoverished aboriginals in Smith Street Fitzroy? Or the working poor in Niddrie? Or the chroming youth in Morwell? Perhaps he does. His “Melbourne Model” seems aimed at well-heeled and trusting Year 12 students with high ENTER scores. Yep, a few of these would come from poor families, but not many.
Guys, if I may put the Devil’s advocate case for a moment, there’s plenty of reason to talk to the improverished Aboriginals on Smith Street, or indeed the chroming youth in Morwell. But if you want to determine, for instance, what the impediments in current urban planning policies for energy-efficient cities are, I’d suggest that people who have dedicated their lives to studying that topic might have some perspectives which might be valuable, and the chroming youth in Morwell might be limited in what they can contribute on that topic.
Ignoring expert advice has gotten the Bush administration into all manner of trouble. Whether this specific idea works or not, it’s nice to know that here the Rudd government isn’t intending to make that mistake.
But, Rob, as I said, is this the best way to get expert advice?
Aside from the points I made at 29, consider the scope of the categories. For instance:
Do you reckon 100 people talking about all that for two days (perhaps for ten hours all up) will produce anything but motherhood statements and/or barrow pushing.
Re – Dr Cat’s point at 3, I have just seen the first self-nomination in a blog post from someone as the “best and brightest” in three areas. That shameless. Asking people to lobby on their behalf to have their brilliance recognised to get a trip to the talkfest. I won’t link.
Interesting points made by Tim Dunlop, with which I’m inclined to agree:
http://blogs.news.com.au/news/blogocracy/index.php/news/comments/deliberative_democracy#27051
Pay your own way. Don’t come if you’re – poor, black, a druggie, homeless, on the dole, disabled, a single mum, a low waged worker etc etc. Definitely don’t come if you actually expect us to do something to roll back the inequities of the Howard years, or anything else that is too hard or will cause some kind of fuss politically. Do come if you’re one of the usual middle class wankers. We’ll welcome you with open arms.
All it proves is that Rudd, like Howard, is gfood at bullsh*t.Not impressed.
It’s easy to be cynical about this, but I’m for anything that gets people talking about long term issues, so I’m not so hasty to write it off.
But I’m concerned about who’s going to get a guernsey. I think it’s necessary to have impoverished Aboriginals and chroming youths, because they may actually have solutions to their problems. And you can be sure any solutions to their problems won’t work if it doesn’t include them.
Gawd it’s tempting
Actually former Labor MP now regular political commentator Gary Punch put himself out of the running on ABC702 local radio this morning.
How about you Mark? As a policy wonk with a respectable body of work you should be one of those who gets the call.
But we know how these things are generally done….nepotism…or maaaates. Or tit size…
Moving beyond the bureaucracy as did jwh, but gesturing to a different constituency, (the involved, concerned and informed, as opposed to the merely well heeled and well connnected) Rudd is simulataneously conjuring the ‘end of ideology’ (returning to a key theme of 1960’s social democracy), gesturing towards the superfluity of ‘party politcs’ in the age of the internet, mass interconnectedness and convergence, and giving himself a great big umbrella which is neither Party, nor the traditional mandarins, nor the ‘big end of town’, under which he can shelter, when questions are posed about directions, underpinnings etc;
This is his ‘Obama’ moment’. Moving on, getting beyond, leaving behind etc etc etc.
I look forward to the development of a ‘position’ by the usual suspects in the media. I suspect we will hear very little until it becomes clear who has been invited, then we will know how clever Mr Rudd really is, by the identities of those who feel discombobulated. I am happy to predict that only the truly tinfoil hat maddies of the Right will be against it, and both the ‘idea’ and the guest list, will accommodate a very broad cross section of the earnest and committed.
He is cleverer than even I gave him credit for, and his Blairite ‘moment’ will not receive a fraction of the criticism it would otherwise, since anyone with the capacity to criticise, will hold off for fear of not being invited. Ha ha ha
As a sessional academic, I’m too poor to be able to fly to Canberra and stay in a hotel!
Mark: I’ll concede all of that, as well as Tim Dunlop’s points (as noted in my earlier comment). You could do this a lot better online with more open participation.
But I also strongly disagree with the tone of some of the comments here that expert opinion is of limited import. I’m sorry but the “best and brightest” do have insights into their areas of expertise that your random person on the street just doesn’t have, mainly because that’s what they devote much of their lives to. And forums which get their input – when well designed, which I’m not sure this is – is well worth the time, certainly not as the only source for poilcy ideas, a a source.
And if that makes me a middle-class wanker, let me start pressing the badges and printing up the bumper stickers.
It’s very party-centric – ‘new ideas’ has for a long time been part of Labor rhetoric, as has the bland notion of ‘inclusion’, which has in turn helped to strengthen and give meaning to the idea of ‘community representatives’. It’s good politics insofar as it gives a superficial appearance of being inclusive and forward thinking, and of (to use another political cliche) ‘giving a voice’ to the community.
As PC has pointed out, jealousy over inclusion and exclusion in the final 1000 will be one of the inevitable consequences of this summit – discussion over who will be included and excluded is already evident on this thread. My personal quibble is with the idea that chromers and other addicts are good representatives of the poor and therefore should be included in this summit; but then, the argument that the poor will inevitably end up being the only group that is disenfranchised by not being able to attend this summit is wrong. There’ll be plenty of community reps who will be annoyed at not being included.
You could always hitchhike there and stay in a caravan park, Mark
I was unfair to Professor Davis. In today’s “Aust” he is quoted as wanting: “participants to represent a range of views – not merely ‘the usual suspects’” [does that immediately exclude most of the noisiest public commentators, interviewees, TV panel guests, newspaper columnists?? I hope so. I've thought for some time that ABC RN and ABC TV draws its Australian commentators from too narrow a range.]
Continues Prof Davis: “We want to make sure there is genuine disagreement – it’s not worth doing if there aren’t lots of contesting ideas..
Reporter adds: he wants a range of people – including the young and the old – and says gender will be important. “I’m very much hoping there can be a significant number of young people there, so it’s not the national elders.”
This is sounding better. Keep the paid lobbyists, the media darlings out. Experts, strong advocates, wide range of persons and views.
Let a Thousand Kevins Bloom! Let a Dozen Schools of Thought Contend.
No doubt about it: that nice Mr Rudd is clever.
Rob, it should be clear from what I’m saying that I’m very far from dissing government seeking expert opinion in general.
Mark: absolutely, wasn’t trying to claim otherwise and I’m sorry if I gave that impression. But there are other people on this thread who seem to be taking that position.
Mark and Robert, I agree wholeheartedly that experts have much to offer, but I think this gathering is being sold as a convocation of the best and brightest, which is supposed to include a wider sample than the technical experts (in whatever field they hold expertise).
TimT: quite right – it won’t be only the poor who may feel excluded; many other groups may be left out in the cold. I meant by mentioning “the poor” (as a symbolic and undefined group) that talkfests can never be wholely representative or inclusive. But really, that may be a pathetically pedantic quibble if this one should turn out to be a huge success in practical terms and policy-progress terms.
Sounds like a recipe to get every barrow-pushing crank in the country in one place. If Joe Vialls was still alive, he’d be there yelling “It woz the jews wot dun it”.
What alarms me more is this. Why anyone would talk about rushing legislation based on the inevitable nonsense that will come out of this is beyond me.
I doubt that the “random person on the street” for reasons I have mentioned, would be all that fussed about attending.
Nor are the chrome-heads and crack addicts likely to be tearing themselves up that they were not invited.
We would expect to see, say, Lowitja O’ Donohoe, on a range of issues affecting indigenous people such as health, education and housing. She’s a great representative of her people and of Australians generally, but I doubt she dwells in a humpy, a trashed government house or a camp in the bed of the Todd River.
Likewise we might see a parade of mental health gurus like Jonathan Phillips or Louise Newman or the Governor of NSW herself, but will any of their clients be there to tell us what they want and need?
What I am concerned about is that we do not have a set of selection criteria for those who are going to be chosen to sit at the right hand of Kev. If this fest is developing public policy that is going to affect me outside of the normal elected Parliamentary representative democracy process then I damn well want input.
At the moment if I don’t like something the Government does, or I want the Government to do something, theoretically I can write to my local member or take it to the Ombudsman, or HREOC, or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This is called transparency and accountability
We know it’s an unwieldy beast that sometimes (often?) does not work, and which is often not accessible to those ignorant of the mechanism of government, but it is there.
Now this forum is supposedly “representative” in some way but how? What selection process is used? What are the checks and balances? What inputs are we the powerless going to have? Through what mechanism? Are we the powerless allowed to engage directly with these “experts”?
Well Craig Mc, it seems to me that if you are going to have this fest, it would be foolish not to commit to something coming out of it at the end of it all. Is your discomforture because you suspect the people going to the event won’t hold your views on economics or because you distrust such ‘conversations’ tout court, as being inevitably dominated by what you would no doubt describe as ‘wankers’ on the basis that they are not all ‘bankers’?
One thousand poeple who know what they are talking about but who look just like the rest of the country, albeit more comfortable and ‘integrated’ than a lot, sounds like the perfect description of the role political parties used to play. How appropriate that in this age of the ‘end of ideology’, such a gathering should be convened to tell us what we should be thinking about.
According to ABC this morning, funds will be provided for those who genuinely can’t afford to attend.
Apart from that, haven’t we’ve become a negative lot, even comparing it to a failed TV show, FFS! Even if this ends up merely being a forum to air ideas and promote discussion on the future beyond the electoral cycle, surely it is a positive thing.
A lot of this knee jerk negativity and dismissal of expertise as somehow elitist is quite depressing.
No one is dismissing expertise as such. But without degenerating to the Pauline Hanson level of cluelessness, we need people to be able to say to the experts’ faces “Yes, but why?”
No no no. You’re all approaching this from a very cynical direction. I’d run the symposium thus:
Ideological Martial Arts Master Warlord Lu Kewen is to hold a secret tournament on an island in Lake Burley Griffin. Experts in every school of punditry are invited to take part in fights to the death, in round-robin pairs drawn by lottery. Extra honour and glory will go to round winners who can execute “fatality” moves on their opponent’s point of view (ie. pulling the spine out through the neck). The last survivor will be appointed Specialist Minister of State and will be worshipped by Treasury officials as a living God.
The destroyed bodies of defeated expertises will be taken to the edge of the desert and fed ceremoniously to Martin Ferguson, where they will be digested in his sotomach over a thousand years’ Left Caucus meetings.
Undercover detectives of the Hong Kong Police and their comic-relief Western sidekicks need not apply.
Cool. Excuse me while I practice my Deep Freeze Uppercut…
But if one was passing by while visiting his mother’s grave in Canberra…
“The last survivor will be appointed Specialist Minister of State and will be worshipped by Treasury officials as a living God.”
Wasn’t it “…will be chased through a catacomb of mirrors by Edward Scissorhands”?
Why not an alternative conference for 1000 of our worst and most stupid?
Sure, both seminars would need to happen in Canberra, at the same time, because of the necessity of camp jumping.
Results from both conferences could be then carefully compared.
Yes indeed Robert. What good Government needs is less futile partisan indecision and more down+down-right+right+punch.
Haaaaaa-douken!
… good policy ideas developed by the end of this year …
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/policy-by-years-end/2008/02/04/1201973777251.html
doesn’t sound like a hasty, rushed job.
“I’m sorry but the “best and brightestâ€? do have insights into their areas of expertise”
The problem is Robert, that we don’t have 1000 experts on anything in Australia.
In reality, it will be 2-5 experts from a multitude of areas, whilst 998 other people variously try to shoehorn their expertise/prejudices/ignorance into the area in question.
I have no doubt that experts make good policy – that’s what good policy is based on – the expert opinion of the department (when it’s not some knee-jerk populist bollocks).
But experts can’t have expert opinions on everything; they’re not experts than, they’re op-edders. And I don’t believe that being smart in one area qualifies anybody to be considered above average in another, unrelated area, which is what this will be.
I’m a big fan of deliberative polling, etc. But good deliberative polling places a huge emphasis on education; my problem with this is that it seems to be assumed, a priori, that 1000 of ‘the best and brightest’ don’t need education in the issues they will debate, they will just know. Thanks but no thanks, these ubermenschen need to have some qualifications beyond good teeth and bright eyes, otherwise, there isn’t much of a difference between these idiots blathering on about something they know nothing of, and your average pub-chat, which in my opinion ain’t a great base for policy development, even if it’s a nice pub.
There’s no guarantee that the “best and brightest” will be experts at all. The participants will be selected on a casual, non-competitive basis, presumably on the basis of whether Glyn Davis thinks they’re cool. That doesn’t select experts.
It’s also curious that the event has been announced before participants have been selected, thus encouraging competition among public figures to gain the attention and favour of Davis and Rudd.
Mark, I suspect some prominent bloggers will be enlisted as part of the spin, so you will probably get an invitation.
Glyn Davis is probably on $1 million in his current gig. But that won’t stop him jumping if the timing and the job are right.
“doesn’t sound like a hasty, rushed job.”
It isn’t for obvious reasons Ambigulous. Kev needs to bring out the flowers and the best suit. He has been lucky. No control in the Senate means he can smooz, listen and glide the voter to the next election without dropping his pants early.
Seems to me that this is a perfect opportunity for the Ozblogiverse to lend a critical hand. The leading lights of LP, who have created here a very well-designed, efficient, and stimulating vehicle for creative discussion, should lend their talents to creating and moderating a linked series of similar mini group-blogs, each devoted to a parcel of the 1000 attendees, to help them sort out basic issues and approaches through extended leisurely dialog before the conference begins. Which will lead to a more efficient and creative conference when it does begin, and avoids a lot of traffic jams and wasted time.
So let’s say there are 1000 people, discussing ten major policy areas, 100 people each. Let’s say that each policy area breaks down into 4 major sub-groups of questions and approaches, with 25 attendees discussing each one. So, you offer to create and moderate a bunch of linked blogs like this one, that each group of 25 can use to jump-start the kind of detailed discussion that won’t happen over a long weekend: on the various threads, definitions of terms can be debated and refined, dead-end roads can be identified in advance, major tendencies can be outlined, networks and alliances can be gamed out and revised as needed. And each sub-group can link, where appropriate, to other sub-groups, and to parallel questions in other major groups (water to industry to science education, etc.)
It’s the perfect use of the blog as an actual political tool: it doesn’t provide innate solutions, it offers efficiency and ease of discourse. You guys have demonstrated that you are leaders in the field, and you have the numbers and the reputation to back it up. Get on the phone to Rudd. Have his robot call your robot.
…..”that won’t happen over a long weekend:”
Wow, big call there j_p_z., maybe an official workfree week to discuss, but your ideas are good and Rudd seems to be open to a laptop future.
There’s a lot of confusion in how this is being characterised – Glyn Davis said it would represent “the common people”. Selected on merit as the best and the brightest. Whatever.
I’m inclined to agree with the concerns about democratic accountability.
David McCormack in Crikey today is right:
JPZ @ 73. Excellent proposed use of the medium.
Where’s the bit where we get to look at porn again?
And yes, McCormack is dead-on with the donations bit. And the rest, for that matter.
Me, I like The System we have. We don’t need new-fangled mechanisms that bypass, leapfrog, supercede or supercharge it. We just need to flush The System of the shit, piss and wind that has clogged it up over my lifetime.
This talkfest will likely give us more of all three, I suspect. But good luck to it, anyway. Surprise us, Elite 1000!
My understanding was that the civil service was composed of many experts employed precisely because they were able to give educated and balanced opinions about our problems.
Ably supported by other staff members they analyse policy initiatives presented to them by parliamentary committees tasked with formulating solutions to these same problems.
If the PM sees fit to by-pass his own system it is hardly a vote of confidence in the people who will at a later stage be asked to implement the 1000 experts’ eventual agreements.
Why not look inside the civil services first ? We are paying them to do this work at the moment aren’t we?
For the record I think the exper5s in the various civil services do a great job on the whole and find this entire proposal very confusing.
How you generate new ideas by getting a 1000 people together in one place is beyond me?
>
Oh. It’s ten groups of a hundred! Oh I see. Oh that’s different then.
>
How you generate new ideas by getting a 100 people together in ten places is beyond me?
Ben Eltham’s take at PollieGraph:
http://www.newmatilda.com/polliegraph/?p=228
“Putting it online sounds good. That way everyone who wants a say can have one (assuming they have access to a computer with internet connection) even if they ignore what you have to say. Which they probably would, but hey, why not?”
Nay. This sounds bad. I think the central idea behind this is to gather together 1000 extraordinary people, not to engage in the fairly useless debacle of canvassing the hoi polloi to find out what they reckon. Perish the thought. We’d have capital punishment back on the agenda within nanoseconds, the wholesale deportation of large groups of people and a zero immigration policy.
Kim, you get a letter from the Prime Minister’s office, inviting you to participate. Would you really not go because you had to fork-out for the airfare?
I think its a very positive development if only as a realistic and believable concession that, lo and behold, the PMs’ cabinet don’t necessarily have all the answers and are open to at least listening to the received wisdom of people who are not primarily politicans, or who necessarily have barrows to push. (I’m sure the whiff of ‘barrow pusher” would be smelt a mile off and would lose credibility fairly quickly).
It is in stark contrast and a delightful ‘up yours’, to to their predecessors who drew only on their collective stupidity, bigotry, whacky notions and heinous prejudices with the occasional perceived interests of big business thrown into the mix, resulting in the worse ‘governing’ this country has seen for a long time.
Maslow would be well pleased.
Caroline, I’d want to be very sure indeed it wasn’t going to be a waste of time before I spent my money and time going to Canberra.
It’s certainly been a pr masterstroke, I’ll grant Rudd that. Couldn’t have had better coverage in the meejah today. Makes a nice change from all those nasty headlines about inflation and stock market woes!
Nothing at all to do with the invite being extended to “media leaders”, I’m sure. Will they be picked on merit? Now that could be interesting.
Murph the surf. You’ve obviously never watched “Yes, Prime Minister”?
I think its a very positive development if only as a realistic and believable concession that, lo and behold, the PMs’ cabinet don’t necessarily have all the answers and are open to at least listening to the received wisdom of people who are not primarily politicans, or who necessarily have barrows to push.The trouble is that most people.
The trouble is that I think most Australians will have had an experience with this type of forum before – the political talkfest. They’re good as PR exercises (proving that politicians ‘listen’ to people’s concerns) but achieve little of substance. (It will probably end up with different groups arguing with one another).
What I don’t get is, why don’t they just read LP … doesn’t everyone knows that’s where the bright sparks already are?
“What I don’t get is, why don’t they just read LP … doesn’t everyone knows that’s where the bright sparks already are?”
Trouble is, even on this fantastic site, you get smacked for sayin’ bugger all.
We will endure.
I went to the Housing Roundtable held in the run-up to the election. I was very pleased to be invited on the basis of expertise and having some handy connections. There were about 200 of us. The people who really got to input were the speakers. Rudd stayed for the whole day and, overall, I’d have to say it was a good thing. Not least because we talked constructively about solutions to housing affordability and homelessness for the first time in ten years.
That said, my contribution on the day ended up being one short statement, a plea to not forget those most marginalised, and assent to the general direction. Before that I’d spent 20 years banging on about housing and I like to think I helped get it on the front page.
I reckon it’s worth doing.
Everyone:
There is a saying
“Never hold a Royal Commission
unless you are certain of its outcome”
Does that also apply to a Festival of Failures and Fakes?
Robert Merkel [back at 43]:
By all means invite people who have spent their lives studying a topic …. but all that knowledge, useful though it may be, will not guarantee either INSIGHT or VISION. Some unkind souls may even feel that there is a negative correlation between insight and a talent for merely amassing and regurgitating facts.
It is people with insight and vision who are needed.
Failed U.S.President George Bush got into trouble because he is an incompetent dill. Wilfully and repeatedly ignoring good advice was merely a manifestation of his stupidity, one of his many serious personal defects; however, that is clearly an idiosyncratic personal thing, not a systemic thing. Therefore mentioning Bush is not really relevant to the issue.
“and the chroming youth in Morwell might be limited in what they can contribute on that topic.”
Robert is not interested and quite clearly dismissive of hearing different opinions and how people ended up in that sad situation.
Everyone:
What’s say we upstage what looks like becoming a carnival of yes-men by staging something that really will bring forth vision, insight, innovation, progress, savings and who knows what else?
Instead of one rigidly controlled meeting of one thousand polite dependable photogenic participants – what’s say we have a thousand meetings of all sort of people in all sorts of places [both on the internet and out there on the other side of the digital divide] with but one aim: to imagine an Australia we [or younger generations] would like to live in BEFORE 2020?
And what would be wrong with inviting regular “visitors” to Australia, like j-p-z, to have their say?
Let’s give it a go.
Joe2 [89]:
My oath! I’ve heard brilliant things that were expressed poorly by unexpected individuals. There’s not much of a correlation at all between glibness and genius.
What I don’t get is, why don’t they just read LP … doesn’t everyone knows that’s where the bright sparks already are?
Including, one might also ask, the aforementioned Chroming Youth of Morwell?
Maybe time to give him a guest post…
So somebody who has expertise in a subject is now glib, Graham?
But you’re right about the lack of correlation between glibness and genius, as your glibly oft repeated assertion that there’d be no elelection, proves.
TimT [91]:
Doesn’t Chroming Youth of Morwell already have regular columns – under another nom-de-plume – in respectable papers and up-market magazines?
You mean Gerard Henderson, Philip Adams, Miranda Devine, Andrew Bolt, John Pilger, David Marr, etc, etc?
You’ve found
themhim out!TimT [94]:
That was easy. The empty spray-cans all over the desks was a dead giveaway.
Adrien [92]:
Glibness is usually a prominent feature of much of what is served up to us as “expertise” – whether it is actual expertise or not.
[off-topic a bit]…. My comments – which were certainly not glib – on the likelihood of the election being delayed or suspended were based on a hell of a lot more than just wild guesses. When the election was called and then held, I raced in to tell everyone that my analysis was wrong and how delighted I was that the election had taken place. No glibness at all there …. or would you have preferred me to explain away my error with a fanciful story or two?
L-O-L
It’s interesting to compare this thread with my earlier one on community cabinets and the petitions committee. There are two coherent political positions jostling with each other on this thread – one which puts democracy over expertise and one which puts governance over populism. They’re not strictly opposed, but articulated without nuance will often cause conflict because they reflect really different orientations (and do have some but not an exclusive class aspect). If you think about it, a lot of the same people dissing the petitions committee and community cabinet are praising the 2020 talkfest and vice versa. And that makes sense. It’s not just “cynicism” but different orientations to the locus of policy making and the forms of accountability and dialogue.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/01/20/the-first-community-cabinet/
Useful or not, its another welcome signal of the wholesale demoliton of Howardism.
Steadily, and quicker than expected, Rudd’s intiating his own quiet revolution in the political culture. No less than Howard following Keating. Possibly more so.
Here we are witnessing the death of that ridiculous “leaders are elected to govern and make all decisions without any popular reference or deliberation whatsoever – only a judgement 3 years later” creed that Howard trumpeted – as if it was somehow a good thing.
Whether it achieves much, who knows. But the culture of governance shifts.
Oh, I don’t disagree, Lefty E. But I’m old fashioned – I’m inclined to see ideas as a means to an end not the efflorescence of some technocratic Ruddtopia – call me an ideologue but I’d prefer some good old style social democratic thinking to define the way forward and the role of the experts to be advice and implementation – not a celebration of the era of the “common expert” with their ideas as some sort of stock in trade.
MH and amused made very good points way up the thread, I thought.
Everyone:
I wonder …. I just wonder if this Assembly of 1000 Experts [or, this Carnival of Clones, if you like] might be part of an overall strategy to turn the Commonwealth Parliament into a UNICAMERAL one. The Senate does a lot of things, including a lot of mundane, unspectacular but very useful committee/inquiry work – innovative ideas often turn up there.
If handled with skill, this proposed Gathering of The Select And Decent could well make the Senate appear irrelevant – another nail in the coffin of a bicameral Commonwealth parliament.
Furthermore, [and here I am seeking nomination for the 2009 Larvatus Prodeo Agicourt Award for the Longest Bows
] …. given the relative political success of Peter Beattie’s shire amalgamations in Queensland [pity about the economic, environmental and social effects though] which has led to local mini-states, a few more bold moves and states, as such, could be abolished except in Sheffield Shield cricket. Goodbye states, hello changwats – or whatever name you give to new local polities.
The Australian Labor Party lacks the absolute unity of purpose of the CPSU or the NSDAP, however, Labor is in power everywhere. The rare opportunity is there. A powerful combination of inspirational vision, ruthless arm-twisting and smooth diplomacy could see the states voting themselves out of existence in order to establish something infinitely better than the present Federal system – which was cobbled together by rich fat white elderly inebriated males in the late Colonial period.
Kim [82]:
But you would go to this Australia 2020 ….. if you were invited?.
Mark and LeftyElitist [96~98]:
Very well put.
Hurrah for j_p_z @ 73. OK, Mark and Crew, there’s a challenge. In parallel to all the topics you’ll be posting in any case, why not run a mini-forum here on each of the Ruddfest areas of inquiry?
It’ll give us all a go. Many of us are pretty sure we’ll not be invited to Canberra for the big gig
It might even tempt experts and such to wander over here to LP for a bit of a chin wag.
From “The Age” online [Monday 4th]:
“The problem in the past has been that previous governments have been partly short-sighted in their approach to these long-term challenges which are there staring us in the face.”
The areas to be discussed are the economy, economic infrastructure, sustainability, rural industry, health, social inclusion, indigenous people and services, the arts, governance and national security.
Within those areas there a whole range of issues that have not been put on the national agenda before including the long-term adequacy of Australia’s foreign language capabilities, how to encourage emerging industries such as video game design and how to better harness the power of volunteers.
They’ll talk etc until 2010, which will give us a 10-point/10-year plan decided by soviet. Har har har.
Ambigulous,
(contented sigh)
Fair enough Graham (95), but please don’t confuse me with Adrien!
Mark, you mentioned your post on the community
cabaretcabinet and the petitions committee; I recall being a bit violently cynical on that thread as I have been here about the Grand Grand.I want to agree in retrospect that the Petitions Committee is a lot more valuable than the other two PR exercises, because it has the distinction of actually involving citizens in the process of Parliament.
…
Graham:
No.
…
BTW, I use and recommend “Autosol” abrasive cleaner for polishing chrome and stainless steel.
Hey, Chroming Youth of Morwell! Great to have youse back, maaaate !!!
Are the others gunna show too?
Misrepresented of Moe,
The Pig’s Head Crew of Newborough West,
Toffee-nosed Smartarse of Traralgon, and
Bonzer of Bairnsdale?
Maaaaaate !!
I’m not dismissive of the notion that Ms. Chroming Youth of Morwell might have a great deal of useful input on social services in Morwell, police attitudes to youth in Morwell, the quality of the local schools, and so on. They can also remind politicians on what issues are really important to people – like, for instance, poverty reduction.
Furthermore, for what it’s worth I want Ms. Chroming Youth of Morwell assisted to become Ms. Formerly-Chroming Youth at Gippsland TAFE in Morwell, and I’d like prospective Ms. Chroming Youth of Morwell assisted well before it gets to that stage in future. I find rather annoying, and frankly a bit insulting, the assumption that because I’m a little bit cynical about the amount of detailed policy wisdom on issues not in their immediate daily life you’ll find in random citizens, that I somehow don’t care about their problems.
Does anybody seriously expect Ms. Chroming Youth of Morwell to have a particularly considered opinion on whether the Australian Research Council’s funding model for research grants is a good one? Whether the four pillars policy remains appropriate? Whether cap-and-trade or a carbon tax is a better model for placing a price on carbon? Whether we should reduce funding for our pavilion at the Venice Biennale and redirect the money to a better marketing effort at South By Southwest? Whether Australia’s efforts to maintain a defence shipbuilding industry are worth the billions of dollars of extra costs over just buying them off the rack? Not terribly useful. But they’re all questions, that ultimately do impact the lives of Australians into the future, that I’d hope the government can form good policy on.
Mark has a good point with regards to the contrasting positions on the community cabinet and the 2020 talkfest – and, clearly, I come down rather more “let the wonks commune on the top of the mountain to derive the best policy”, and, yes, I’m a middle-class academic who’s never had to worry about where his next meal was coming from. And, surely, the point of technical experts is to assist more in the “how”, not the what. To take an example, a climate scientist can only tell you what the consequences of various carbon levels are – they can’t tell you what level of impact is acceptable to the community. But I would argue that the last three years of the Howard government have (WorkChoices excepted) a classic example of a government governing on the basis of what sounds immediately appealing to voters, rather than what’s actually sound long-term policy formed with substantial input from experts.
Mmmmm… autosol.
Just the ticket for shinin’ up your cymbals too.
The phallic ones?….
Ouch!
Robert, experts are terrifically useful, great to have them along. BUT should the 1,000 be restricted to experts? I think that’s what many here are asking. I suspect that Kevin07 WILL want some poor/homeless/addicted/single parents (etc) along to his Fest, given his instruction post-election that every Labor MP should visit at least one homeless shelter in her electorate.
BTW, good luck in your endeavours to help Chroming Youth become ex-Chroming Youth, and enrol in a useful course at Gippsland TAFE. She deserves better than she has now.
Ambigulous: My argument is that a convocation of wonks (though I’m not sure this is the best format) locked in a room somewhere, is a useful exercise on its own. Amongst the “experts” will presumably be experts who have devoted their careers to synthesizing knowledge about the poor/homeless/addicted.
Anything that comes out of it can, and should, go through the political process, including meetings with youth in Morwell. And some of it will undoubtedly be dismissed as policy wonkery with no regards to the actual impact on people at the coalface.
Robert, the proverbial Chroming Youth of Morwell probably won’t have anything useful to say about the subjects you mention.
But they may well have expertise in the areas the affect them most. It would be completely appropriate to have them in the mix of any group that’s there to talk about the issues of poverty and alienation. Surprisingly, people affected by a problem often have solutions to it, if they;re listened to. And those solutions may be applicable nationally. That doesn’t preclude policy “wonks” as part of the group, it just means they’re not the only source of expertise.
Robert Merkel: “Does anybody seriously expect Ms. Chroming Youth of Morwell to have a particularly considered opinion on whether… we should reduce funding for our pavilion at the Venice Biennale and redirect the money to a better marketing effort at South By Southwest?”
Dude! Right on! Um, on behalf of my, um, distinguished counterpart of Morwell, I believe I can provide the answer to that question. Send More Bands!
[staggers away down Congress Ave., to see if that awesome quintet is still playing at the Elephant Room]
Heh, Drunken Youth of East Sixth Street – great ta seeya, man! In our yoof we had a pithy expression here at the arse-end of the globe:
“SUCK MORE PISS!!!”
which in polite terms was held by some perceptive sociologists to mean: “Would you be so kind as to supply me with further examples of your finest ales, please? That I might savour, and perchance consume, their lustrous amber fluidity…”
cheerio
Hey j_p_z, you lucky bastard!
[I assume I'm correct about your identity, #112, and you're actually at SXSW]
And Robert – that’s a lovely little dichotomy you’ve set up, one which means a lot to me. There are grants available to get over to Austin (or at least to help with it) but really… let’s get a contingent together every year. Like an olympic team, only immeasurably cheaper and with potential national benefits beyond jingoism, crass sponsorship deals and getting to see somebody swim slightly faster than somebody else.
Speaking of bands (<- 112)…. who will get the gig to play the Best’N'Brightest Ball, or whatever they call the Conference’s 60/30 Dinner Dance?
Surely no-one would be so mean-spirited as to object to the Treasurer’s daughter’s outfit getting a guernsey? The ALP, nepotistic? Never!!!
But what I’m holding hopes for is the dynamic duo themselves, Glyn and Kev, putting on a bit of an act. Kev is apparently a dab hand on the ivories, and the VC with the Mostest, is known to have trod the boards.
What sort of material could those two possibly jam on? Tom Jones meets Chopin? As long as Kev keeps away from the mic… his campaign rendition of The Seekers was truly appalling.
Will they do requests? Such as…
Ambigulous at 101] and Mark and Kim:
Now there’s an idea.
Put up specific topic or visionary paths or new directions on Larvatus Prodeo. Mark each title clearly as being related to – or alternative to – Rudd’s Australia 2020 to mark it from the usual run of L P topics. Mark each with Roman numerals I, II, II, IV, etc. so they can be easily retrieved from the L P archive …. then let it fly.
Of course, the brilliant ideas and very practical concepts will be plagerized and plundered – always unattributed, naturally – by the usual scoundrels but if these ideas, suggestions, possibilities and concepts are out there in the public view then the government and its minders cannot use the excuse for inaction, sometime in the future, that nobody had mentioned this-or-that before.
Go on – give it a go.
AdriAn [103]:
Oooops. Sorry. Freudian finger-slip.
Not AdriEn. Not Adrien. Not Adrien. x 100 times.
Thanks Graham Bell @ 116]
Yes, I think j_p_z meant it as a serious suggestion. But it’s not my blog, and not j_p_z’s, so we’ll await the Pleasure of the Blogmeistern (blog masters)
116 <- “Go on – give it a go”…. too right!!
You could re-deploy the “LP In Exile” vehicle for “Best’N'Brightest in Exile” purposes, and put a sticky link to it on the main site.
Danny [119]:
Wouldn’t re-running LP In Exile cost hard cold cash – in excess of that needed for running Larvatus Prodeo itself?
Fine [111]:
Exactly!
Graham –
I’d just like to say I have never knowingly inferred that my glibness is expertise of any kind. I’m a generalist and only expert in the fine art of irresponsibility.
I can think of one such correllation off the top.
>
I have nothing to declare but my glibness.
GB: I dunno, I thought “LP in Exile”, languishing as it is at
http://larvatusprodeo.wordpress.com/
is a generic freebie ( albeit gorgeous and erudite) wordpress.com site.
Reason for suggesting taking B’n'B in Exile off(main)site is:
I would anticipate a site with B’n'B, topics I – X, framework generating a fair bit of traffic, taking a lot of oxygen from LP sujets du jour: B’n'B post comments will always be on top of list of latest.
But most likely, I am wrong.
’sujets du jour’ – oh Danny – {{sigh}} – quand tu parle en francais – I go weak at the knees!
I agree with your reasoning @ 121. I too would prefer B&B posts not to swamp LP’s usual fare.
OK lads: suggestions at 73, 100, 116, 119 : looks like we have a working LP majority, or a very noisy minority!
Any response from the blog-owners?
We’ll have a think! Doing it off the main site probably is a neat idea.
Thanks Mark,
cheerio
123 <- “I go weak at the knees” …
There was a special on Radio National’s Health Report yesterday
“The knee files – part one”
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2008/2151831.htm
Maybe there’s something there that will be of help with those weak knees. The extract of rooster-comb lubricant sounds a bit deviate to me, but you can’t doubt a bloke with Professor in front of his name can you, no matter how strange his ideas.
Good luck with those knees.
Merci beaucoups Danny,
the transcript is fascinating. Will the Professor get a guernsey at Australia 2020?
Fixing dodgy knees’d have to be a National Priority, n’est-ce pas? And he’s clearly an expert.
Maybe the Chinese could help out their friend Ideological Martial Arts Master Warlord Lu Kewen, by supplying 600 million rooster combs?? Strictly for medical purposes.
Herbal Alternative:: Danny am doing new treatment of weak knees using Kim’s Collective Herbal Tea remedies – eight cups each day from good doctor naturopath special supplies under counter – taste like grass clippings so must be very very good, and Chinese rooster combs special today dried in sun in China ship to you special price no GST you grind in wok – rooster must be dead first OK, hah hah hah!! – then you shred with big chopper – then mix with ginseng and ginger and you root, OK mister? You very health then. OK. Lu Kewen number one.
“Amongst the “expertsâ€? will presumably be experts who have devoted their careers to synthesizing knowledge about the poor/homeless/addicted.”
Robert, most careers made in that, area over recent years, tend to be of the religious, god bothering variety that the last government made a point to parade; just say “no” and all will be good. Any alternative views have been demonised as green inspired and unlikely to be even considered.
Addicts, family members of addicts have been sidelined for years and i would not trust those you would seem happy to give the nod to speak on their behalf. Our over-trust, in so called “experts”, is proving dangerous in many areas. And i am not bagging academics or knowledge.
Adrien [121]:
Generalists and polymaths are most welcome – Australia is desperately short of both.
If you are a good generalist you certainly do have more to declare than glibness alone.
Thanks for the link; waited ages to get to the forehead of the ?portrait? [dial-up here goes at 4 kilobytes/week]; couldn’t complete it. If it was of Oscar Wilde then your point is well made – genius and glibness can indeed co-exist in a few [but not most] outstanding people. My mistake in not considering such people.
Danny [122] and Mark and Teh Kollektiv:
If L.P. In Exile can be resurrected, doesn’t cost a squillion and doesn’t overload whoever is the duty troll-basher …. let’s give it a grease-&-oil-change, fill the tank, check the tyres and let her rip.
Kevvy08: If you just happen to be lurking here [that'd not impossible], pick yourself a moniker to preserve your anonymity ["Hawaiian Driver" or "Zuikuaide Kuaizi" are two suggestions that come to mind] and join in the fun.
““Amongst the “expertsâ€? will presumably be experts who have devoted their careers to synthesizing knowledge about the poor/homeless/addicted.â€?
Robert, most careers made in that, area over recent years, tend to be of the religious, god bothering variety that the last government made a point to parade; just say “noâ€? and all will be good.”
Joe2, I reckon you can have a perfectly good career railing AGAINST the government without ever having their imprimateur. And indeed, I hope some of them get invited. I’m thinking
Everyone:
Objections to the Australia 2020 show include:
Timewasting . A lot of Australians, of all classes, have been to a dozen too many conferences, seminars, toolbox-meetings or courses and come away annoyed and frustrated at how time, opportunities, effort and money have been wasted holding them. Annoyed and frustrated, too, at gaining nothing out of being there and also at having their own sensible, relevant questions and comments ignored, scorned or misrepresented.
Manipulation. Selection of participants will be rigidly controlled so as to admit only the reliable and the token but to exclude the unpredictable and the potentially troublesome.
Agenda will be rigidly controlled – there will be scripted outbursts as well as name-calling on cue for the cameras, of course, but …. there will be no awkward questions, no brilliant suggestions that might save the nation but alarm the party’s backers.
Format will be rigidly controlled so as to befuddle and silence those unfamiliar with the way such shows are run – and yet give full voice to the Chosen Few
Outcomes will be rigidly controlled too – each of the thousand participants will notice the difference between what actually happened at this show and what was published about it …. but will be unable to correct the errors, omissions and misrepresentations..
Perhaps the outcomes will be written up even before the show starts.
Cynical? My oath!! They just can’t help themselves [and that's one of the reasons Australia is in the mess it is in now]..
Expertise too narrowly defined. Of course there is a need to have participants who are established leaders in their particular field …. but not at the cost of EXCLUDING all those with real insight, those of humble or inappropriate[??] backgrounds but with brilliant ideas, those with personal experience on the ground. Worse yet, there will be experts on one field, who are not also generalists or polymaths, who will be pontificating in fields about which they know next-to-nothing and have their ignorant opinions published far-and-wide solely on the basis of their title or their membership of a favoured clique.
Australia 2020. Great concept – pity about the Dead Hand of the Past killing it off before it got started. A bit of political courage and risk-taking and it would have lived and flourished and done us all good.
[[Kim: Sorry about having to exceed the LP 3 paragraph rule .]]
A bit of political courage and risk-taking and it would have lived and flourished and done us all good.
Governments consult with all manner of experts all the time. So there’s no reason why we should be particularly impressed at Kevin Rudd’s headline-grabbing ‘ideas’ forum – it’s principal function is to sound impressive, and to win over some of the Labor Party doubters in the intellectual, arts, and scientific communities. It won’t achieve anything of substance.
You sure you’re not talking about Parliamentary Question Time?…
Graham Bell @ 122
“Timewasting . A lot of Australians, of all classes, have been to a dozen too many conferences, seminars, toolbox-meetings or courses and come away annoyed and frustrated at how time, opportunities, effort and money have been wasted holding them. Annoyed and frustrated, too, at gaining nothing out of being there and also at having their own sensible, relevant questions and comments ignored, scorned or misrepresented.”
Graham, I agree wholeheartedly, and though it may seem a fairly mundane topic for LP, I’d welcome a separate post on this. My wife and I both work in publicly-funded organisations. The amount of taxpayer-funded “workshop”, “seminar”, “strategic planning” sessions that go on, for infinitesimal benefit, to the boredom and occasionally anger of the dragooned participants, is staggering. It’s an insult to the staff, and (indirectly) an affront to the taxpayers.
“Share out the butcher’s paper and the Textas, we’re going to “brainstorm” blah blah blah”: hearts sink, The Mexican Yawn ripples across the room; known satirists avoid eye contact lest they burst out laughing in desperation.
“The Office” episode on “Training” http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/theoffice/epguide/series1/s1ep4_feature.shtmlcaptured much of the w**king, but each of us has our own sorrow to live with. OK, so “What Is To Be Done?” [ta, Lenin]
Sorcerer [134]:
Same firm. Different product. Same quality.
Ambigulous [134]:
Aaah. So you and your wife are a true veterans of seminars too. Were you at the same one where they gave handouts on ….
The Soviet union went down the gurgler not because of the economic contradictions with a Communist system nor because of the costs of the Cold war. They went down the gurgler because everyone was at meetings and nobody was at work. [IMHO, anyway].
TimT [133]:
The really sad thing is that it does have the potential to achieve a lot of things of substance. It won’t be allowed to though.
RE Australia 2020 – Delegates to…
Re: The Chosen Kilo.
I’ve just started a temporary site called Who should be the Chosen Kilo.
>
Obviously I’m not exactly taking it seriously. It’s an experiment.
>
However the site is designed to act as a receptacle of suggestions for delegates. Log on, post a comment telling us who you think should go and perhaps why.
>
Feel free to do so using a false name and email address.
>
If enough suggestions pop up I’ll organize a poll so we can vote for ‘em. I’ve also promised to send Kevvie the list when it’s done.
I heard Corey’s been signed to organise the accompanying Best’N'Brightest’s Ball.
Corey, eh?? If Peter Beattie was a media TART, that guy’s a f’n legend. Media PUDDING (at the very least) I’d reckon.
You said:
Probably because Oz netters are such an apathetic bunch, as proven by the response to the inquiry about setting up just such an Australian Government Consultation Blog.
How many people made responses? Just 20, despite being open for submissions for a few months (Sep-Dec 2007).
(Bob Merkel of LP, I know you contributed, which is why I specifically excluded you from my damnation of most Oz political bloggers)
David Bath [140]:
Hey, fair go. I myself had never heard of any “Australian Government Consultation Blog” Inquiry or anything like it until now. Was it hidden away in the classified ads of a metropolitan paper – or on a link from an obscure government site? In other words, did you not only have to know of its existence but also the exact name by which it is known?
Anyway, since I’m not on your blogroll, I can’t be damned along with the rest.
Everyone:
Still chuckling over Ambigulous’ concise, savagely accurate and brilliant description of seminars/conferences/courses up there on post 135. It deserves to be put in a display case in the Larvatus Prodeo Hall of Excellent Posts.
Why thank you, Graham.
You’re very generous, but I still feel a deep sadness (and anger) arising every time my wife and I reminisce about the worst of the workshops/seminars/”strategic planning retreats” we’ve attended. Mind you, about 4% were OK. It’s the other 96% that stick in my craw.
I kid you not, if the taxpayers knew how their hard-earned is WASTED on this expensive silliness, the proposed cancellation of the Fishing Hall of Fame by nice Mr Lindsay Tanner would seem small beer, methinks.
Off topic, but I nominate post [15] by Decius Sarcasticus Banal and post [27] by his friend Paulus, both on the Afghanistan thread, for the (alleged) Larvatus Prodeo Hall of Excellent Posts
Everyone:
Who said Social Darwinism is dead and buried?
My guess is that in not paying for the transport and accommodation of participants, the Commonwealth government is not only “saving”[??] the taxpayers’ money [Oh no! Not again!] but that they are also living out a fantasy where they imagine they are applying a sifter to sort out who is fit to be there and who is not, who has commitment and who has not, who will do anything to get into the show and who will not.
Pity the real world doesn’t quite fit that computer-game model.
Larmarckianism on the right, Phlogiston theory on the left and Erastianism just down the corridor …. for this is Canberra and we know what we are doing.