I’ve tried to avoid the obvious “let’s pick apart the participants” angle on the 2020 summit in my column for New Matilda today. I’m trying to keep an open mind on it, really I am! But I just can’t see how you get 1000 ideas and run them through a sausage machine and end up with anything other than something that was probably worked out in advance or otherwise bland. I tend to think the most successful sessions might be ones like health where there’s a pre-established policy discourse that’s fairly clear – which would enable discussion to be productively structured.
I guess I tend to be a cynic about these sorts of things overall – as I’ve argued before, I don’t think they’re either properly elitist or demonstrably democratic. So I suspect there’s a worst of both worlds element to it – and the pr moves are very see through indeed.
I would also add, Mark, that the whole thing is a PR time bomb, very badly thought out.
Come election time, or a few years, the opposition will say, “Rudd you’re all talk! How many recommendations were made?”
To which the answer of course will be none or very little. So either they look shit and wishy washy,
OR
The only defense will be (in one form or another): most of the recommendations were shithouse (which, let’s face it, they will be).
At which point the opposition can say: “Then why did you waste millions hosting it!”
Bad move, caught up in some fuzzy-eyed new government excitement. They don’t need PR wankfests like this so early in the term, all they have to do is keep not fucking it up at this point.
Funny you should say that, patrickg. I was just emailing one of the summitteers who contacted me about my article and I wrote (inter alia):
“Anyone with any experience of these talkfests knows that you don’t get sensible outcomes from packing 100 people into a room, and that if you’re going to break the larger cohort down into small working groups, you need a very tight agenda in order to achieve anything real.
Those who will have the real power to shape the outcomes of the 2020 summit will be those who are in charge of setting the agenda”
I think you nailed the problem with those two sentences.
“It suggest that there are two tiers of participants – those whom the Government and the steering committee really think are the best and brightest, and those who took the thing seriously but are in effect relegated to the second tier.”
Rudd’s government might have a real PR problem if alot of those second tier participants come away from this feeling that it was a waste of their time because they were never really allowed to contribute. Conservative media might be all to willing to paint this as an unrepresentative elitist love in, especially if it produces recomendations that they don’t like.
Not to mention the 6000+ who applied and didn’t get a guernsey!
If disclosures are in order, I should mention that I had the chance to nominate for the thing but passed up on it. Someone (other than Andrew Bolt) has to be on the outside looking in!
Actually, I’ve managed to obtain an advance copy of the resolutions from the 2020 summit. Just reading from the top, they go:
1. This gathering affirms that the assembled delegates represent the best and brightest of Australia. (Passed with 956 votes.)
2. This gathering affirms that universities such as Melbourne represent the best of Australia’s intellectual endeavour and are deserving of whatever public funding is necessary to achieve a standing comparable with the world’s best universities. (Passed with 788 votes, 1 abstention by Glyn Davis.)
3. This gathering agrees not to hassle Kev baby or any of his Ministers for the next 18 months without first seeking dialogue with the Liaison Office for Privileged Elites in the PM’s office.
4. There is no Rule 4.
“I should mention that I had the chance to nominate for the thing but passed up on it”
How do you know you have been chosen if you had nominated? Hmmm?
I may well not have been, but I could obviously ensure non-attendance by not nominating!
What I really want to know is whether Glyn’s payment includes alterations to the HECS legislation, thereby providing an unexpected soft landing for the high dive into a sponge that is the Melbourne Model. That the 2020 has a chairperson of such myopic foresight as to implement a two stage under-graduate degree without securing governmental support for the second stage does not bode well.
Always comes across as a nice man, Professor Davis, can’t count but a nice man.
Tony Healy
It will be most diverting to watch as it plays out: months of entertainment to be had.
Mark, if I may be Peter Pedant for a moment, “1000 ideas” may be an underestimate. Many of these brightest may be many-ideas types. You know, a bit like the very versatile on LP: simply brimming over with good ideas.
Even if they are only allowed to talk about the idea(s) they brought to their particular session…… more ideas than you could poke a stick at.
Kevvie just doing some healing. After all those years of Johnnie Boy saying the elites were out of touch with the average Aussie bloke (and of course 99% of the country are average Aussie blokes) Kevvie saying: come back we love you. It’s important there are physics professors who’re crying in their morning coffee over this. The PM doesn’t love me! And so many broken-hearted performance artists.
>
The new politico-cultural spectrum – the Libs are the Party of Joe Sixpack and the ALP are the Party of the Elite. Very innerestin’. Meaningless but innerestin’.
I see now that not only is there going to be a special Jewish 2020 but Kev’s having one tonight for expatriates in Washington. Will this be a hallmark of the Rudd prime ministership? Everywhere he goes, groups of thinkers will be invited to gather and submit ideas. I wonder if he has a special idea capture device like the one they used in ‘Ghostbusters’. Just as Howard was identified by his tracksuit, Rudd will forever be associated with the whiteboard and the Ishikawa diagram.
Seriously, why don’t they at least use a Delphi technique or some other slightly useful methodology instead of this ‘put ‘em all in a room and see what happens’ nonsense? If we know anything at all about innovation, we know it doesn’t come from mass meetings.
I know a company that used to have a program about the future called ‘101 Great Ideas’ … they went broke.
By the way, I don’t have a problem with taking the obvious angle. Coming up later tonight, an annotated list of all the news that’s fit to Google on the delegates to the sustainability sub-summit…
Look mate that the most un-’Strayin thing I’ve heard anyone ever say. What are ya? If this country means anything it means that masses and masses of blokes (and some sheilas) are the way to go. If youse wannabe an innivitual ‘r somefink why doncha move to Nowf K’reea.
>
Oy oy oy. Now what could be more innufatif ‘n that?
Yes and considering that good ideas are basis for muchous mullah $$$$ in this Digital Economy I’m sure we can count on these people coughing up heaps of good ideas at the Jabberfest for absolutely nothing.
>
They love their country.
Adrien, for no pay indeed! But lotsa photo opps.
Weekend story said Public Servants are not (yet) volunteering in droves to assist at the KevFest for no pay! Silly duffers.
Now here’s a quote from Mr Jeff Kennett, in last Saturday’s “Age”:
[Former Premier Jeff Kennett, who didn't apply to go and wasn't asked, said Mrs Kirner was only Premier for a brief time] “so I can only assume she was asked for other reasons than her premiership. Steve Bracks was there for a long time but did nothing…..”
Jeff, maaaaate!
1. Yes plenty of other reasons for Joan: “Emily’s list”, haeding school support organisations before parliament.
2. Steve was not only elected Premier by a whisker – ummmm can you recall that election Jeff?? – but was then re-elected TWICE. Your colleagues failed to unseat him TWICE, Jeffrey.
3. The Victorian voters must have had some reasons for 2., Jeff. Did they value the quieter, less frenetic Jeffless state? Did they prefer a Premier who didn’t gag his Ministers during election campaigns?
what’s that they say about blokes who can’t learn from history?
cheerio
Sorry Kennett’s got a point. What the fuck is Joan Kirner doing there? I think Jeff and Steve Bracks should be there however. And then people can vote on them.
>
Steve, Jeff. Which was the one that did the most…..
>
Which one did the most to promote Ridiculous Hair.
>
It’s a tough choice but I think I’ll go with Jeff.
>
And Morris Iemma should be there as well. This event needs a piñata.
Well Bob Carr is on the “Future Directions for the Australian Economy” summit. Looking at the state of NSW I can’t work out what he has done that suggests he has good ideas to contribute.
He doesn’t. He’s got a wonderful speaking voice. I think he’ll be a most eloquent advocate for Steve Bracks in the most ridiculous hair category. I do think the Bracks/Kennett contest is sexist tho’. Bronwyn Bishop should’ve been a contender as well.
>
I am looking forward to Kevvie foreign policy speech: “China’s Ass Smells Just As Good As America’s”
Monty Python was onto this summit a long time ago.
Youtube clip
The most accurate portrayal of Australian intellectual life ever.
Is there a problem with just waiting and seeing?
There’s a snark quota to bet met at the summit, people are just getting in early.
We’re just doing what we can to help by lowering expectations.