Well, having opened a thread that perhaps proves that Ute Man is still out there but not actually supporting Emo Man, it behoves me, I guess, to have a bit of a say about the tenure of the Rudd government to date. To some degree all these sorts of anniversaries are somewhat artificial, as you can easily see in the United States with the fetish of the “first hundred days”. Governments will eventually be judged by the electorate in due season, as Kevin Rudd would say, and as almost all politicians intone (particularly those who are dissatisfied with their contemporary popularity), in the end they will be judged by history – whose verdict is perhaps as mythical as the Judgement of Paris, but never mind that. However, as I was suggesting, if politics and public discussion is cruelled by the vagaries and obsessions of an ever shorter media cycle, a year really is a long time in government, and it is worth taking stock.
It can also be interesting to compare first term governments at this stage of the electoral cycle, and here the obvious contrast – despite all the media beatups – is the absence of major scandal and ministerial resignations compared to both the Hawke and Howard governments. That doesn’t, of course, imply that all the Labor ministers are fabulous, but it is worth observing.
One of the things that’s interested me in the discussion that had already began quite a while before we reached the actual milestone is that in both comments on this blog and in conversations with some friends I’ve seen the sentiment expressed that simply avoiding hearing a daily litany of horrors from the Howard crew is Rudd’s greatest achievement. It might, and no doubt will, be objected that – “lefties would say that, wouldn’t they?” But I think there are a couple of points here. First, there is no doubt that a government with a more humanitarian tinge and an appreciation of propriety and ethics is to be welcomed, and that sentiment – along with the promise keeping – will be a contributor to Labor’s continuing lead in the polls. Secondly, I think The Howard Years has been interestingly timed to stimulate some comparison and to reinforce the whole sense of relief that we don’t have that turgid mob to kick around any more.
But, again, one thing that wore out the Coalition’s welcome with the electorate was the constant “rabbits out of the hat” and the whole bag of divisive tricks, along with the internal ructions and the cockiness of ministers. I agree that the Liberals are still playing at the same game in many ways. John Howard was elected in 1996 as a safe pair of hands and the Libs were “the party of order”, if you like. By the end of their fourth term, they looked like the risky and unsafe proposition and Kevin Rudd’s calm demeanour undoubtedly contributed much to Labor’s victory. WorkChoices was also probably the biggest single mistake the Coalition made, and the related apprehension that worse would follow and more leadership instability also condemned the Howard government to defeat.
But what of policy, and that shibboleth beloved of the punditariat, “the narrative”? First, there’s the irony that Paul Keating – through one artifice or another – succeeded in setting the critical tone for assessment of the next Labor government after his fall from power. So it probably wasn’t surprising to see Rudd – in an interview with the Fin on Saturday – insist that the government does have a narrative. In fact, I don’t think that’s ever been in doubt. The three themes Labor laid out last year – broadly speaking – human capital and infrastructure, modernisation and social inclusion have continued to be a leitmotif of the government’s program. Rudd himself encapsulated the major tones somewhat differently, including security and defence for instance, but in practice that hasn’t been a domain that’s been at the forefront of public debate.
One could spend a lot of time assessing all manner of policy initiatives and announcements – and the symbolism which actually unifies those three themes (think of Quentin Bryce’s elevation or the Closing the Gap initiative associated with the Apology). But, when forming an overall view, probably the most significant single political factor has been that people really have – on the whole – got what they thought they would get, and that even though the ship of state now has to be steered through some rather more stormy waters, the promises have been kept. It’s almost impossible to underestimate the political importance of this one fact. That’s why, or the biggest reason why, Labor and Rudd have continued to enjoy – monotonously for the punditariat – a level of support somewhat in excess of the election winning vote.
Forget about almost everything that’s been written about politics this year – politics has in effect been on hold. Labor ministers really have been able to play the requisite game in their sleep, and Malcolm Turnbull’s elevation hasn’t changed much. It’s also been accompanied by a maturing of the government’s communications and strategy and sense that a tighter outfit is emerging less obsessed with winning the daily media cycle. It really would be a waste of effort to examine which groups and demographics have shifted slightly or whatever – at least from the perspective of the bigger picture. The reality is that it’s highly likely that a substantial majority of electors are happy with the decision made last year and despite all the counterfactuals and scenarios the media love to play with, the truth is that it would likely take a lot to reverse that satisfaction and comfort level.
It may be, of course, reasonable to borrow one of the punditariat’s favourite notions and remark that the hard decisions lie ahead – two of the most important being the final shape of the emissions trading scheme (and the stance adopted in international negotiations) and the industrial relations changes (with Julia Gillard introducing the legislation tomorrow). As well as the obvious questions about economic policy, service delivery and improvement will be another key yardstick for judgement. But we need to recognise that Rudd plays a long game, and that if the planets align, all the criticism of government by review and so on will appear very ephemeral and fleeting.
My punt is still that Labor are dug in for a long innings. But the continued salience of the “not Howard” factor suggests to me that we do have to wait somewhat longer to discern the true shape of the government elected one year ago.
Yes, they are dug in ’till stumps 2018, unless the economic situation produces some rapid turn thru a quick break up of the current flat top. Particularly if the technique stays consistent on against an innocuous and poorly directed attack, but it’s a bit Geoff Boycott, just the same and easy runs are being passed up. Lots of socially conservative defensive shots for the mortgage belt and padding up of the sort Gullard performed for education, earlier tonight.
If schools are running rough through being stripped of resources to prop up the colleges, over a decade of Tory rule, you don’t then turn around with more “shame and blame” for these hardpressed state school troops with publicised ratings; a neolib nonsense if ever there was one.
Hey, funny thing. I turned up here after reading the QLD govt is leaving in place laws that allow smacking of kids. The tide is a long way out from things in the ‘nineties.
Well put, Mark. I think it is fair to say, however, that we won’t have a rounded picture of Rudd until we see him faced with the ‘tough decisions’, which is to say, politically unpopular decisions. When he faces decisions that challenge his base but are good for the country, then we will know if this holding pattern will give way to better things, or will be the status quo.
Shorter Mark: despite finding it difficult to point to any actual outcomes from the 1st year of the Rudd government he’s still popular with the left because he’s not Howard.
The scars of 11 years of Conservative government run deep!
I don’t care much about that Rudd feller either way now – long as they keep makin’ sure HOLDEN and FORD keep racin’ at Bathurst and he don’t frighten the horses.
I’m still waitin’ for Joe Hockey to take over the libs – he’s been on Sunrise too and has the Mel ‘n’ Kochie seal of approval. Then the real debate is gonna start: who went up Kokoda faster?
I think you guys might find you are condemned to clasping to a “at least he’s not Howard” view and I suspect your American colleagues in 12 months will be clinging too “at least he’s not Bush”. Not a lot to crow about really.
It swings both ways though as if Rudd stays anchored to the Centre we on the Conservative side will be consoling ourselves that Rudd hasn’t changed too much.
If this was the 1970’s I think Rudd would be a Liberal Party PM. I wonder for instance what significant policy differences Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Fraser have?
Still to give Rudd his due the wheels are still on and we are in a far better position than most to weather the storm. He inherited the bulk of that fiscal strength but he hasn’t gone and blown it all away either, well not yet anyway.
I’ll give Rudd a B minus.
As a member and office bearer in the Liberal Party in the 70s and early 80s (I left it because of John Howard), I seem to remember it, in a general sense, as definitely being left of today’s ALP government.
Apart from important symbolic and necessary actions, I am yet to really know what federal Labor stands for these days. And in all honesty they did get my second preference (I voted Greens) simply on the basis of ‘at least they are not Howard and his Liberal Party thugs’.
As this is, I gather a politics thread, I’ll bring up the question of the frequency of Rudd’s overseas trips.There’s nothing wrong with Prime Ministers making lots of overseas trips to commune with world leaders, theoretically. Its one of the things we elect them to do. Whitlam did it in spades, Hawkie did it, but I can’t remember him doing it much as I was buried in a thesis and cut off from world affairs, and Howard did it in spades in the last years of office, mostly to see George W. (What’s the G20?) Bush and increase his tocks with American RWDBs so he could make a bit of spare cash on the American lecture circuit. (And if you don’t think that’s profitable, look at Bill Clinton.
Now Rudd’s doing it in spades, mainly to save us and the world from the GFC.
The problem is, as we learned with Whitlam, Labor Prime Ministers swanning it overseas is seen mor as the working class swanning (no pun intended) it overseas, while for the Libs its ok even when the PM is a narrow-minded, bigoted, racist suburban lawyer, because, as we all know, the Libs are born to rule. The electorate, or perhaps only the MSM are asking, why is Our Kev o/s so often. I don’t think it really mattered until Lima, where he started spouting about free trade. The US Australia Free Trade agreement, was, IMHO, a sleeping no-no for JWH which contributed to his defeat, not least because it was seen as some sort of attack on Oz culture. We didn’t talk much about this, unless we were in the film industry, but we felt it all the same. The film industry made us feel like we were punching above our weight. (Look at the reaction to Baz Lurhman’s Australia, and it hasn’t even opened yet.) And now our Kev is over there with all the others warning Barrack Obama, the hope of the Western World, not to ditch free trade principles. Supporting The American Imbecile’s Last Stand so to speak.
But even worse, was Kev in a poncho in Peru while TV stations were loudly announcing it was the first anniversary of the Rudd Government. And here was me thinking, why isn’t he here at home in Australia? It didn’t look good. It was bad politics.
Despite the lightness of tone in the above, I’m deadly serious.
One of the hallmarks of the Howard was reckless policy, IMO. The anti-gun stance was in a sense reckless politically and I believe Howard only pulled it off because the press decided to co-operate.
East Timor was definitely reckless. At the time East Timorese leaders like Jose Ramos Horta were counselling a less confrontational approach. Howard was lucky Clinton decided to back him.
The MV Tampa and the Pacific solution was similarly reckless, as was later the joining of the COW in Iraq, which put us front-of-mind in terms of international terrorism.
The GST was reckless politically and again Howard was lucky to find an accommodating Meg Lees. Then there was support for Patrick, dogs and balaklavas against the MUA, brinkmanship and stubbornness over Kyoto and a mass of other more minor examples of recklessness.
He finally did himself in by adopting an industrial relations policy that gave the most rampant anti-union employers more than they’d ever hoped for.
Apeaking of reckless, those comparing Rudd with Fraser appear to have very short memories, for the hallmark of Fraser’s tenure was the ruthless and reckless abandonment of constitutional convention. It’s difficult to imagine Rudd reacting in a similar fashion in similar circumstances.
“I seem to remember it, in a general sense, as definitely being left of today’s ALP government.”
This is true for economics. Both major parties got carried to the right in the general tide of neoliberalism/deregulation/pro market/anti government sentiment that swept the world from circa 1978 to now. So it’s not really relevant whether the Liberal Party of the 1970s was to the left of today’s ALP government.
What may happen, brought about the present crisis, is a long sweep back to the left, but we’ll have to wait and see.
On social policy over the past 30 years, the tide has swept the other way, at least in Australia. In the 1970s, the Liberal Party, almost to a man (or woman) was pro South African apartheid (Fraser being one of the rare exceptions); solidly homophobic, misogynist and anti-abortion; and could not have cared less about the environment. The Labor Party was a little better, but not much. It was then, if not under the control, very heavily influenced by its clerical-fascist wing. Today, that wing still exists, but is pretty marginal. There would have been no way at all that the vast majority of Labor members in any parliament would have voted to decriminalise abortion in the 70s, as Victorian Labor just did.
Today’s Liberal Party is also light years to the left on these issues of what it was in the 70s. Of course there are holdouts, sch as in NSW, but back then they were mainstream. Of course the LP on the whole is to the right on the Labor party on social issues.
Comparing a party’s left or right positioning with what it was a generation ago is not a useful exercise. Political parties reflect the zeitgeist much more than they shape it. In a democracy, you can’t expect anything else. What matters is their positioning relative to each other.
Brian – listing of a “reckless” policy after “reckless” policy supposedly surviving on luck alone kind of undermines your argument. If there was a 50:50 chance of each of those blowing up then the chances of surviving 5 or 6 of them minimum is very slim. If by reckless you think the chances of them “blowing up” in his face where even higher than 50:50 then the odds of surviving multiple “reckless”policies becomes far slimmer still. He should have been a one term wonder if you were right.
Adrian that maybe so on constitutional issues but it is but one issue and they obviously aren’t clones. The question is are they substantively different and I’d say no.
Andrew, Kingsley and others wrote:
I think there’s a major misunderstanding of exactly what “not Howard” means – it carries a huge amount of baggage and is shorthand for a lot revolting and amoral behaviour:
- Dog whistling on racist platforms.
- Sanctioning use of force for political mates businesses
- Politicising the police, the courts and the defence forces.
- The end of Australian foreign policy independence
- Sanctioning of corruption via entities like AWB
- Flouting of our international obligations on refugees
- The completely amoral attitudes of Howard, Downer, Ruddock, Sinodinos, Minchin, Reith, Max Moore-Wilton and other revolting scumbags whose only yardstick of decency was “is it legally defensible or plausibly deniable?”
Do I need to go on?
We’ve had an entire year without that kind of bullshit and it makes a huge difference, no matter how much I might grumble about the details.
David, fair point, but absence of negatives only gets you so far. Undoing the damage created by your predecessors is necessary, but it won’t be enough.
There’s no big story yet about where Rudd wants to take the country. I suspect he has one, and he’s preparing for its rollout. We’ll know next year, unless the world economic crisis overwhelms everything.
Well said, David.
Watching those ‘revolting scumbags’ on the Howard Years was truly depressing. While it would be naive in the extreme to expect a moments reflection or self-analysis from this lot, their smug, self satisfied blatherings brought home with startling clarity exactly what kind of scum we elected for 11 long years.
Rudd cannot be compared to Fraser, but then again, despite the way he came to power, I don’t recall Fraser behaving in any way like Howard. David Rubie has given an excellent summation of what Not Howard means.
Though I was delighted at Fraser’s stalwart opposition to Howard, I am still apalled by Fraser’s inability to see the wrogfulness of his behaviour in the constitutional crisis of 1975. (Though lets not get into a debate about that.)
Fraser was always – so his biographers say – somewhat haunted by the legacy of his actions in 1975 and concerned therefore to try to act with propriety. But, and Spiros is right that the whole spectrum of politics was somewhat different back then and the internal coalitions that made up the major parties (and let’s not forget the Country/National Party was much more influential), from the point of view of “the left” back then, he was certainly right wing. The dismantling of Medibank, the beginnings of anti-union IR laws, “fight inflation first” – there were a lot of people protesting on the street if people recall. My recollection of being a 15 year old kid in 1983 was that there was a lot of rejoicing in the Bahnisch household (and a pizza and a six pack) when Hawkie was elected! Hawke’s theme of “reconciliation and reconstruction” probably says a lot about what the public perceived about the Fraser government – as with Howard (and indeed Keating) a lot of continuing negatives crystallised and were accentuated in the public mind in Fraser’s last term. And he had a near miss in 1980, let’s not forget either.
“(Though lets not get into a debate about that.)”
We shouldn’t. Though it is worth noting, if you look at the rabble that is the current opposition, there is little doubt if blocking supply were still an option they would surely give it a go. They are very happy to piss on the economy, regardless of any damage it might do, for any little hit of political advantage.
The point made about the fact that they haven’t had any major Ministerial blunders or resignations in the first year is a very thin meme. The fact that they haven’t got themselves into to any tight spots is becasue most of the Ministers had done little outside of the ALP and Unions before politics and have done little since taking up their Ministries.
The only one who has done a whole lot before entering Parliament is the Chrome Dome and he is continously held up to ridicule depsite operating in a stright jacket.
Apart from symbolic touchy feely things and Howard-lite policies announced in the election campaign, please name three major things of substance that this government has done. (And you probably should ignore anything to do with the credit crisis becasue that is externally imposed rather than proactive policy.)
Razor, really, that’s a weak point. You almost imply that anyone who has been in business or the professions is bound to end up dodgy or that the concept of conflict of interest can’t be expected to be easily grasped by them! In any case, ministerial scandals and resignations are hardly limited to share portfolios (which were only responsible for some of Howard’s) as any contemplation of state governments more recently should remind us. And the reforms to process and disclosure and code of conduct stuff (as well as to the electoral laws) initiated by John Faulkner are very worthwhile.
What makes Garrett’s performance so bad? I’m not saying he’s going great but I would like to know why people think he’s no good, other than some vague notion that because he was a rock star he should be a rock star minister.
Is he no good in Parliament?
Has he made bad decisions? (If so, which ones?)
Is he unable to make a decision?
Is he obviously not on top of his brief in public?
…continuing …
I think Garrett was written off as a dill by the punditocracy following his unfortunate “we’ll change everything” remarks during the campaign and the punditocracy is too lazy to check on whether their snap judgment still holds.
The ANAM thing is probably a good example, Spiros. Closing it down appears to be in part a response to bureaucrats applying reporting rules too strictly, and partly as a way to do Glyn Davis a favour. So we’ve got poor decision making and a weak Minister exemplified. The actual goals of the funding allocated to ANAM have either been lost sight of, or will now struggle to be met, and a huge amount of unnecessary disruption has been caused to students’ plans, reputational damage has been done in the world of classical music, etc. etc. Even if you accept the rationale for the decision, the implementation is appalling, and the communication and consultation pathetic.
I could think of other examples if I had time – in policy areas where people have to deal with Garrett, “weak” is the most common word uttered!
http://greensmps.org.au/blog/what-peter-garrett-doing-academy-music
Mark, what does “weak” mean? Is it unable/willing to stand up to forceful people who want bad stuff to happen or good stuff not to happen?
If so, I agree it’s a problem.
But I suspect that what people mean by weak is that Garrett has not imposed his stomping around the stage, beds are burning persona to government. But that was never going to happen. Recall that when Garrett went into politics it was predicted by many that his (alleged) egotism and selfishness, so typical of rock stars and environment celebrities, would prevent him from being a team player.
To the surprise of many, he has very much been a team player, perhaps too much, to the detriment it seems of his reputation.
Perhaps also people thought being a musician by background he would never do anything as philistine as shutting down the ANAM. Maybe people in the arts community thought that he’d be a soft touch, since he was One Of Them. But his brief is the national interest, not the interest of any particular community, however deserving they may be. (The way it was handled is another matter.)
The best thing that Rudd could do for Garrett (if he cares about Garrett’s career, which he may not) is to move him to a portfolio where he had no public profile before he went into politics, so he can be judged the same as everyone else in the cabinet. Then he could make use of his skills without the baggage of expectations from his fans from a previous life; expectations that will never be met.
David, fair point, but absence of negatives only gets you so far. Undoing the damage created by your predecessors is necessary, but it won’t be enough.
Agreed Spiros, but I think we all also need to realise that 1 year is not very long at all to a) dismantle 11 years of conservative legislation & policy where you disagree with it (that’s a lot of policy & leg!) and b) also implement your own ideas when faced with c) a public service that has been politicised and rigorously trained out of presenting multi-faceted views and options by the previous government in key policy areas.
The Rudd Gov’t has disappointed me in several areas, and quite badly for some of them (and yes Garrett is one of the worst offenders), but as a public servant I know just how difficult it is to turn around major policy in 12 months, and more importantly smoothly implement major policy changes without causing major societal upheaval. Rudd’s caution is driving me spare in some areas and concerns me greatly that he has been ideologically captured – eg gay marriage, ‘clean coal’ – but in others as stupid and boring as review after review looks, there’s really not a lot of choice.
We really need fixed, 4 year terms so that governments have time to do policy research and implementation effectively, and so that the public has a very clear date to make their dis/pleasure heard as it fits.
Personally I hope – forlornly I suspect – to see Rudd et al grow in confidence in their second year, and realise it really is ok to come out of the closet and admit to being (at least) centre- …..left (in some areas at least); and at the same time, open their ears to some of the cutting edge debates, particularly in climate change, that are happening. 11 years out of government has left them dangerously out of touch in some areas.
Garrett – his one, best policy decision has been to increase the national reserve system. This is sincerely fantastic. The rest of his portfolio – my god what a waste of space he is. Couldn’t effectively fight his way out of a paper bag, or ban a plastic one.
OK, Mark, fair enough on the lacjk of baggage related SNAFUs.
Can you name three proactive policy things that the Rudd government has done that wasn’t announced as Howard-lite election policy, isn’t just a symbolic gesture and isn’t related to credit crisis forced decision making (which has appeared almost panicked and has caused multi-billion dollar unintended consequences)?
Razor:
You only have to go as far as the wiki to answer your own question.
1. A Rudd Labor government audit in early 2008 found around 100 Commonwealth laws where gay couples faced discrimination. These changes would not affect marriage, IVF access, and adoption rights. The last of the legislation to remove said discrimination passed the Senate in November 2008.
2. $20 billion dollar infrastructure fund. A distinct improvement in addressing productivity rather than calling for dogs and balaclavas.
3. Major changes to mandatory detention for refugees.
None of them symbolic, all of them worthwhile and all of them impossible under Howard.
4. Signing Kyoto
5. Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme
6. Withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq
7. End of Workchoices
Oh yes and then they decided to put the fingerprints of all asylum seekers and even those of their teenage children into the criminal database. Its two steps forwards, one step back.
Overall, they’ve done a pretty good job of it, in my view.
They hit the deck running on Kyoto and the Apology and there’s been none of the smug exceptionalism of the Howard crew at a comparable point in the life of the Government. I suppose it helps if you don’t have lying twats like Peter Reith in Cabinet.
The only beef I have is that they seem to be taking ages to action some rather pressing problems (like the Murray-Darling). Also, the WorkChoices repeal amendments are a wet noodle and go nowhere near far enough to returning some sort of balance to the Federal IR system.
The best thing about them, however, is that I can wake-up of a morning and remind myself that that miserable bastard Howard is gone.
A year-on and it’s still a joy.
You can also add Rudd’s funding of 26,000 extra cases of elective surgery – they could not have happened under Howard’s gut-the-hospitals strategy
that’s 26,000 people who are a great deal happier than under Howard
“that’s 26,000 people who are a great deal happier than under Howard”
Not quite that many, because some have or will die in surgery.
Spiros – you’ve obviously forgotten um, that Dunstan, Wran, Whiltam were Labor Leaders in the 1970’s.
After Don and SA, NSW was the centre of the universe – the NSW Anti-Disrcimination Act of 1977 (?) basically changed EVERYTHING. Abortion was decriminalised in NSW – I think Wran moved a private members bill himself, and of course homosexuality was legalised in 1984 (?).
Once we were um, the Premier State..
Jo, abortion was not decriminalised in NSW by Wran. In fact, it’s still on the criminal statutes. The 1984 homosexuality bill was a breakthrough, but it squibbed on the age of consent (18 compared to 16 for straight sex.)
I take your point though about Dunstan, Wran and Whitlam as individuals. But they were way ahead of their party.
There was a private member’s bill to decriminalise abortion put to the Federal Parliament when Whitlam was PM. It got a handful of votes from Labor members and none from the Liberal and Country parties.
Oh yes and then they decided to put the fingerprints of all asylum seekers and even those of their teenage children into the criminal database. Its two steps forwards, one step back.
I don’t think the fingerprinting – egregious as it may be- is quite in the same league as mandatory detention. I’d say more like a sideways shuffle to the right for no good reason (or at least one hasn’t been particuarly well articulated, but I wish there’d been some more thorough journalism on the topic, ’cause I do wonder with regards to very practical issues such as the almost total lack of ID that most asylum seekers arrive with).
Interestingly enough, it was Palmer – investigating the Cornelia Rau clusterf*ck – that recommended the fingerprinting system, because CrimTrac (the new national fingerprinting database) is also being used to try & find missing persons etc.
see from page 97 of Palmer for his rationale. The bit about how the Immigration Act got amended to allow for fingerprints to be taken, by reasonable force if necessary, actually makes me more uncomfortable.
/ end sidetrack
It’s interesting how this is one of the most respectable Left wing blogs yet you guys still come out with the “scumbags” “Howard was amoral” blah blah.
We can all play that game so why bother with it? Rudd’s little effort on Bush and the G20 comes to mind.
The left always seem so desperate to bundle up morality with their positions.
All of David Rubie’s supposed proofs of Howards moral bankruptcy are nothing but biased opinions. Claims of politicisation are just that claims, apparently Patricks benefitting from the waterfront dispute is terrible but the MUA’s manifold abuses for decades are ignored and we get the old chestnut that our foreign policy lost its independence, that’s hard to take seriously. Fascinating that when our leaderships view coincides with a Conservative POTUS we’ve sold out, I wonder what you’ll be saying when Rudd agrees with Obama? No doubt it will be “inspirational”. Clearly so much of this criticism is just in the eye of the beholder.
It just amazes me how you don’t read “I disagree with Howards decision on X” but rather “I was disgusted at Howard’s amoral heinous blah blah … views on X”
It undermines your credibility because it looks hysterical and it looks suspiciously like whatever Howards said/did I’m opposed.
1. A Rudd Labor government audit in early 2008 found around 100 Commonwealth laws where gay couples faced discrimination. These changes would not affect marriage, IVF access, and adoption rights. The last of the legislation to remove said discrimination passed the Senate in November 2008.
Whoopeee – hardly impacts on the vast majority of Australians. Symbolic. No points.
2. $20 billion dollar infrastructure fund. A distinct improvement in addressing productivity rather than calling for dogs and balaclavas.
The surpluses created by the Howard Governemnt’s good management were already being put into these sort of funds – Howard-lite. No points.
3. Major changes to mandatory detention for refugees.
Doesn’t impact ont he vast majority of Australians – symbolic. No points
27 Liam — you should have read the rules – no symbolism, or Howard-lite elction policies – we want new stuff.
Nov 25th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
4. Signing Kyoto
Symbolic and election policy – no points.
5. Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme
Hasn’t actually happened yet (thankfully) – therefore symbolic. no points. (What has happened to global temperature in the last decade with rising CO2? Global (Artic and Antartic) ice coverage is just about spot on the rather arbitary 1979-2000 mean)
6. Withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq
Wrong – the Battle Group was withdrawn. Combat troops remain operating in Iraq. Doesn’t impact on the majority of Australians. Therefore symbolic. No points.
7. End of Workchoices
Election policy. And as I understand it a lot of the Unions are saying that what is proposed is not enough – no points.
So far nothing new that impacts on the majority of Australians has been able to be identified.
Razor, I’ll defer to you on the troops in Iraq—though I’ll point out that by your standard of affecting-the-majority-of-Australians the ADF participation in the 2003 invasion was also mere symbolism—but I’ll have to take you to task on the others.
You can’t argue that the repeal of Workchoices is Howard-lite, when it was the major point of difference in the election.
Symbolism: I’m not sure it means what you think it means.
The repeal of Workchoices was ALP Election platform – a platform that was Howard-lite.
I am looking for major policy action from the ALP that is wa not announced before the election and has impacted on the majority of Australians. You know – the stuff that you would expect from strong leaders with a vision for the nation, rather than policy wonk administrators.
So far – nothing.
Razor – all your objections are bogus (calling stuff symbolism doesn’t make it so, your definition of symbolic as Liam pointed out is a crock).
It was trivial to find three things not on the election platform that weren’t symbolic.
Here’s a clue stick to whack yourself with:
1. You didn’t like it is not a reason to call it “symbolic”
2. “doesn’t affect the majority of Australians” is a bullshit clause you introduced after losing the challenge.
3. Calling everything you can’t find an objection to “howard-lite” is dishonest.
If you don’t want to bother arguing in good faith, GTFO.
Razor, by those rules, even most of the achievements that the Howard Government would claim would be ruled out.
Gun reform? Doesn’t impact the majority of Australians.
GST & tax reform? Election policy.
Waterfront battle with the MUA? Doesn’t impact the majority of Australians.
10-point plan after Wik? Doesn’t impact the majority of Australians.
Response to people smuggling/Pacific Solution? Doesn’t impact the majority of Australians.
Participation in Afghanistan & the COW’s invasion of Iraq? Doesn’t impact the majority of Australians.
NT Intervention? Doesn’t impact the majority of Australians.
Workchoices? Election policy.
By your rules, the Howard Government—which I think both you and I would agree was a very actively reforming Government—achieved little or nothing.
Missed your comment, DR.
GT Ferrari Operator? You know, that’s exactly how I’ve always pictured Razor.
You have the wrong party Razor. The ALP tends to plan and think through the big vision stuff – like ahead of time, discussing the pros and cons, seeking advice and holding reviews and building consensus…you must be thinking of the other side – The Born to Rule Us mob – which basically means fronting and up dealing with whatever appears on their desk and a few core policies like smashing the other side’s power base – ie. the unions. But other than that, no planning needed -just a cookie cutter ’strong leader’ routine and bob’s your uncle. Haven’t you been watching the Howard Years? Most of the ‘big strong-man’ leadership decisions were based on oversights, stuff-ups or were announced purely to deal with flagging popularity. No vision required.
And v. interesting that anything that doesn’t effect you personally is ’symbolic’ -there are technical terms for people who can’t feel empathy, it’s not considered a positive personality trait.
Careful with the use of ‘reform’ please. It is commonly misused, but suggests a change for the better – obviously not the case with Howard.
Otherwise wot David and Liam said.
Heh Liam.
Perhaps “Gormless Tool, Found Out”
Although I was really thinking of this – plenty of good definitions there.
Razor,
I’m not happy with the height you’re setting the bar at: “affecting a majority of Australians”. There are huge mobs of Aussies who (as a single mob) don’t constitute a ‘majority’ and yet they deserve good policies.
Examples: everyone is potentially a customer for elective surgery; the numbers currently on waiting lists are tiny. Schoolkids: nowhere near a majority, but worth improving their education, don’t you think? Ditto TAFE students, Uni students.
Working mums: not a majority. Stay-at-home mums, ditto. Farmers, ditto. Rural dwellers. Scientists. Homosexuals. Recent immigrants. Refugees. NSW residents.
And occasionally there’s a policy that you could on similar grounds adjudge inadequate; the Apology was given to Aboriginals, a small % of our population, but given with the strong support of millions of non-Abortiginals.
Sorry Spiros, of course you are right about abortion still being on the statute books – what was I thinking! – anyway you got my point – and AFAIC the day the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act was passed, is the day white blokes lost total control of the wheel in this country, and man, have they been bitchin’ ever since.
Jo, I’m not sure we’re watching the same Howard Years. Do you really see the previous Government as so driven and narrow? It’s reminding me just how completely they changed the political agenda in the country. As to consensus building with sought-out advice from experts, I’ll keep an eye out for it from any ALP Government, but I think it’s been missing since about 1991.
Adrian, that’s a matter of point of view. Radical change in the direction that I like, of course, is progressive reform.
Also, Razor’s neither arguing in bad faith nor showing lack of empathy. Let’s lighten the f&*k up.
OK – I’ll take the point on majority being a very high bar, but that said – their hasn’t really been much done. Even their greatest triumphs in Sorry and Kyoto have resulted in no discerible change in anything.
jo – I find your inference that I am either a sociopath or psycopath really more a demonstration of your state of mind than my empathy or otherwise. Lift your game.
David Rubie – if you feel the need to use profanity then be adult enough to just come out with it and show your true colours.
Whatevs Razor, although your indignance is no cover for the embarrassment you caused yourself.
I disagree Liam – Razor’s post at 37 is entirely devoid of empathy for any group which doesn’t consist of Razor.
As to the Howard Years. Non-existent vision beyond Tax and IR – that was it – John Howard all summed up. If you look at your own list at 41…Beyond Tax and IR, it’s smashing unions and dealing with circumstances as they arise (and winding back hated ALP policies like universal health). And that’s more than enough to change the country. He even got to be the Man of Steel.
As to the ALP and consensus – yeah, probably wrong word and wrong decade. At a federal level however, they do tend to consider a wider range of stakeholders than merely the big of town and marginal seat voters and look to outcomes which aren’t entirely tied up with the next election.
I’m hoping for a big second year from this Govt.
“Adrian, that’s a matter of point of view. Radical change in the direction that I like, of course, is progressive reform.”
Not true Liam. The meaning of “reform” is clear and is to do with actual improvement, despite it’s constant media misuse.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reform
Liam – thank you for your comment on the level of debate.
Look, I didn’t vote for them, but I don’t think they are doing a bad job. Only thing they have really buggered up is the Bank deposit Guarantee, which is Ireland’s fault anyway, and then it is a matter of degree not the actual policy. At the same time the fact is that both the ALP and the Coalition want basically the same things for the Nation with the differences at the margin. And most people are actually very nice once you get to know them, no matter their politics.
Leadership is about making decisions. The Rudd governemnt had demonstrated it’s competence so far as administrators. They are now paying the dues owed to the ACTU for the very effective $30 million marginal seat campaign after one full year. But what new leadership have they embarked on? The speed of change is glacial with these guys.
Joe2, you are not disagreeing with me. Improvement is a relative concept when you apply it to politics. Unless of course you see the political Right as Snidely Whiplashes, bent on comic evil and moustache-twirling, I suppose.
Razor, for once we agree. I was hoping for a post-election Thunderbirds-style switch (flipped trees! drained lakes! beaches to airstrips!) from third-wayist Ruddy caution to at least some kind of radicalism or at least Fabianism, but I’m still waiting for the revolution.
Industry, production, distribution and exchange still not democratically socialised as per the ALP Platform. Not happy Kevin.
Well OK Liam, if you think that the Howard government improved Australia through the policies that you mentioned, then you used the term correctly. If you don’t, then you didn’t!
As Joe2 correctly points out, the media has consistently misused this term over the past decade or more to imply that any change is an improvement, which obviously is not the case.
O grate!
Another Liam and Adrian talking at cross porpoises stoush!
No, adrien, what you would like is for the press and electronic media to refer to only those things you and I would see as improvements as “reforms”, as if there were a normative, measurable Good and Bad in political science.
Of course I’d quite like that too, but we should be clear about our aims before setting out to do What Must Be Done.
Excuse me—adrian.
Don’t make me get out the Youtube, FDB.
Don’t want to turn this into a stoush, but forget the press, Liam. What you said was:
“which I think both you and I would agree was a very actively reforming Government”
So in what sense did you use the word ‘reform in that sentence?
Why, a Government which embarked on radical change in the direction of its own ideology and convenience, of course. And they were correctly loved and hated in equal amounts.
(I couldn’t resist)
“And most people are actually very nice once you get to know them, no matter their politics.”
.
Does this type of thinking actually apply these days ? Has the fire gone from belly of the reformists? Are modern ALP party operatives all heading for futures in lobbying and PR ?
.
Liam wrote – ” I was hoping for a post-election Thunderbirds-style switch (flipped trees! drained lakes! beaches to airstrips!) from third-wayist Ruddy caution to at least some kind of radicalism or at least Fabianism, but I’m still waiting for the revolution.
Industry, production, distribution and exchange still not democratically socialised as per the ALP Platform. Not happy Kevin.”
.
Didn’t Rudd make a big point out of not being answerable to the factions prior to the election? That is big reform if it’s true .
A great post – thanks Mark. I’m actually very happy with the Rudd government’s performance thus far, with only minor complaints (if they could indeed be called that).
Unlike others I think the government has had substantial outputs, notably in the areas of health policy, housing and first home owners, early childhood, and revitalising COAG so that it isn’t just an annual, tokenistic get-together for states and commonwealth. I also approve of the community cabinets and hope these continue. I’ve also been impressed with the performance of certain ministers, who have certainly stepped up to the plate after being either nobodys or questionable in opposition (Jan McLucas, Nicola Roxon, Jenny Macklin, Kate Ellis, Wayne Swan). However one could argue the absence of an effective opposition hasn’t hurt their cause either.
Perhaps the government’s biggest achievement however, is in its approach to policy development. Consultation, inclusion, review of evidence, and submission-based approaches. I would argue this produces far better policy than the one man show ‘making decisions’ that was John Winston Howard. Those who want ‘decisions’ without all the consultation would do well to remember Workchoices and how well that decision worked out for the former government. This government has also shown it is willing to look beyond the partisan divide for advice, something the former government seemed loath to do.
All in all, a solid effort for the first year in my view.
I’m still a fan – and today’s a great day – the IR legislation contaisn some compromosies but its stronger than I expected.
My only fail mark (and resonates with what Hugh McKay just said on 7.5): not enough engaging the citzenry with climate change action measures that recruit a widespread popular desire to do something, and feel like we’re doing somehting . Personally, if anything, I feel less engaged by the fed govt (was going to get solar, but we aren’t eligble for the rebate now).
The internet censorship issue is a large minus, along with Rudd’s kneejerk social conservatism (even the Libs quietly shelved clean feed proposals when they emerged on that side of the house). Queenslanders probably knew just how socially conservative Rudd is personally, but not the rest of the country. That said, clean feed was a genuine (if less important) election promise. We’ll just have to wait and see how badly it falls over before making any further judgments.
Apparently some or one of the crew Swan has been consulting on banking guarantees have/has been leaking like a sieve to Malcolm. Perhaps some of the ALP’s consultants need a bit of de-Howardification – though it does seem, quite unintentionally, that the GFC might have done the job.
Why is he using consultants anyway – isn’t that what the public service is for? IIRC they heavily criticised the Howard government for its use of consultants.
Q: “So in what sense did you use the word ‘reform in that sentence?”
A: “Why, a Government which embarked on radical change in the direction of its own ideology and convenience,….”
Good question, good answer.
Trouble is the media used the ‘R’ word to apply to whatever ideological convenience the Coalition had dreamed up, as if it were free of such ideologocal clothing, as if we, ALL the public, should regard whatever it was as positive.
Which is why I used to uselessly shout ‘Deform! Deform! its DEE-form not REE-form” at the TV and radio. But they took no notice.
In assessing progress of the Rudd government, its important to understand the context. We have good public administration in this country particularly at the national level, and regardless of the government many good things keep happening.
In the last 15 years Federal Government ministers have mostly changed things at the margin, because the system has not needed radical change. Howard did make some things worse and a few things better, but mostly it was business as usual. And so for the Rudd Government there’s not a lot that needs to change. There have and will be changes with mandatory detention, IR etc. The carbon trading reforms will be a little difficult to get through, and there will be reforms in health, education, public housing etc, but it won’t be radical reform, because radical reform is not needed.
Its quite hard to get credit for not doing things, but the Rudd Government should get credit for not turning upside down a system which has been working pretty successfully.
The biggest problem with our system is that it is not in the interests of the media to portray how successful the system has been, so much of the time we get beat-ups trying to show how bad things are. And then the success of the government is judged in terms of how it deals with these beat-ups.
“Which is why I used to uselessly shout ‘Deform! Deform! its DEE-form not REE-form” at the TV and radio. But they took no notice.”
But you are generally spared the use of the term now, by the media, except when speaking of the Howard years because a Labor government is never engaged in “reform”.
Which, incidentally, is the deeper reason why Liam has been challenged for using the word so freely. The term is so bloody loaded.
It’s been better than Howard. Improvements include fairer IR Laws, apology to the stolen generation, signing Kyoto, a start on improved policy on climate change and energy, fairer policy for same-sex couples, consulting thoroughly with a range of different groups of people on policy etc.
Negatives include internet censorship plan, stupid cuts to ABS, de-funding ANAM, maintaining unfairly low funding levels to public schools, doing much less than they hype, general loose regard for the environment etc.
On the ANAM situation, Senator Christine Milne released a couple of statements about this, which I entirely agree with:
http://christine-milne.greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/anam-must-stay-open-2009-interim-solution-completely-inappropriate
http://christine-milne.greensmps.org.au/content/minister-garrett-dont-close-national-academy-music
I believe It’s totally uneccessary action by Garrett and is detrimental to classical music training in Australia. His handling of this matter has shown him to be quite incompetent as the Minister for the Arts
Oh come on. Liam is using the word ‘reform’ according to its modern Australian usage, which (for better or worse) is as a synonym for ‘change’. Ask The Punter whether there is such a thing as a bad reform, and she’ll probably say yes. And then she’ll mention WorkChoices (even the AWU used the phrase ‘Howard’s extreme industrial relations reforms’). Confusion arises only for those hauling tonnes of ideological baggage and for the relentlessly boring pedants among us.
BBB
“First, there is no doubt that a government with a more humanitarian tinge and an appreciation of propriety and ethics is to be welcomed…”
Propriety? In the main, yes. But episodes of blatant impropriety like the following will add up over time:
But wait, that’s not the best bit:
Umm, yeah. So who are the other men considered qualified for the role?
Yes I see now. Without Gillard’s man the crucial hairdresser segment would have gone unrepresented.
Where was the control freak Rudd on this? And doesn’t this bring into serious question Gillard’s judgement?
BBB
Bingo Bango etc.,I agree, but then names like Albrechsen come to mind ….
Don’t forget Windschuttle and the original (and still the best) Donald McDonald! Indefensible ideological/political appointments all, sure. But not as bizarre and obviously stupid as Roxon’s effort.
BBB
Ever so cutting BBB!
But have you considered that the position young Tim has taken on might be voluntary and unpaid?
Excuse me while I reform my shirt BBB. And as a self confessed ‘boring pedant’, I’ll try to reform my character so as not to offend your delicate sensibilities.
Oh and it will make a reform if you can refrain from making a Labor molehill into a Labor mountain, as is your tendency. See, we can all reform if we really want to.
But I guess the more things reform the more they stay the same.
BBB,
Nicola says the Tim possie is unpaid; she says it’d have been quite different had it been paid. Governor de Kretser has a medical background by the way. No hairdressing experience there…..
Lefty E wrote: “Personally, if anything, I feel less engaged by the fed govt (was going to get solar, but we aren’t eligble for the rebate now).” I agree, this was an area where householders, plumbers, electricians & real estate agents ["look, it's got solar water heating, that'll save you $XXX every year on your bills"] could have got into one reputedly new, socially-responsible contribution to reducing total CO2 emissions.
My guess is that the cut-off to the rebate (from full to zero if family income exceeds $100,000] was a very rushed job. Why? Because many rebates “phase out” with rising income. They don’t go from full to zero instantly. So why didn’t the Govt have a phase-down, e.g. from full to zero for family incomes from (say) $70,000 to $120,000? No extra paperwork needed. Highest subsidies to lower income families. More households installing solar water heating. Positive incentive to participate in a minor but positive change. Win-win.
Then if you also really wanted to help low-income renters, you’d give a subsidy to landlords and state housing authorities, to install solar hot water heating for rental houses and flats. Social democratic policies, anyone? Reducing low-income persons’ monthly costs, anyone?
So it only took a year for the ALP to slide back into political nepotism. And yes, it is wrong, and Gillard’s a fool for doing it. Because one of the biggest things the Rudd Government has (had?) going for it was its honesty.
Attempting to justify this stupidity by saying Howard did it is no justification at all. We expected Howard to do it! We knew he was dishonest and into political manipulation. We don’t expect, and shouldn’t tolerate the Rudd Government doing it. They should be compelled to keep to the standards they’ve set for themselves.
I agree with all those who say Garrett is a hopeless git.
Ambigulous, Green Loans up to $10,000 will be available to low income households at the beginning of next year. I just say so because this positive plan has gone pretty much off the radar. With a loan say, under 5 grand, combined with the existing solar rebate it could work quite well to further direct funds to those who need it most.
The solar rebate with the means tested changes that the government introduced in the budget have not, it must be remembered, slowed down much the take up of the grants.
Whoops…
Link to Green Loans for those interested.
http://www.environment.gov.au/greenloans/index.html
skepticlawyer wrote:
Just in case we’re not loudly denouncing Conroy enough over this clean feed stupidity, SL is right.
This is one bit of policy the Liberal party got right – offering free client side filters was both sensible and practical and the one tiny sliver of actual small l liberal policy they implemented. Therefore, I conclude it was an accident.
Nepotism implies that there is financial or other advantage gained by the nepotee(?).
In this case there is no salary or payment of any kind. Apart from a bit of publicity that I am sure he can do without, the position has no benefit, so no nepotism.
Don’t know how long it’s going to take the opposition (and their fellow travellers) to work out that these peurile hyperbolic attacks are counter productive. They’ve been indulging themselves ever since Rudd was elected opposition leader. It hasn’t worked in the past and it aint going to work in the future if this latest outrage to parliamentary democracy, not to mention common decency, is any guide.
The more things reform…
This will not stand, man, this aggression will not stand.
Reform as a positive category that is correct only referring to change in one direction is a *specific* use of the term. It can refer to religious reform—for instance, there can be no such thing as a Reform of Judaism towards Orthodoxy, just as the reaction to early Protestantism was the Counter-Reformation—or to the ninteenth and early twentieth century movements for political Reform in Great Britain.
…
…
…
Also, I suppose, Voltron.
Ambigulous @ 79 – I think you might have got solar PV mixed up with solar hot water systems. There are different rebates for them, and although they are both means tested now, I believe the one on solar hot water was introduced by the previous government.
But the sums look pretty straightforward on solar hot water systems, pay off time is quite short and it really doesn’t need a subsidy at all now. I think it would be an improvement to change the PV subsidy so people don’t qualify for it until they have installed a solar hot water system first. The gains are much better for the latter.
Liam is correct in that the Howard years shook this country up almost as much as the Whitlam years. I would go so far as to call it a revolution. The current government will do no more than tweak the edges, then continue with the same neoliberalism, except sullied with an ever more authoritarian social agenda.
1. Education. As we type, Julia Gillard is wining and dining the US neocon Joel Klein who runs NYC’s public schools. Gillard is over-the-moon about getting big business into Australian public schools; she is hell bent on neutering the AEU; and I predict she will go down in Australian history as the pollie who got school vouchers up and running. Gillard will be to public schools what Howard was to consumption tax. Whether or not any of this will be good or bad remains to be seen. I think Gillard is a goddess and will push through all this stuff with a finesse and eye to social justice that commentators so far have not realised. OTOH….
2. The Apology. Howard’s biggest mistake was not making it himself. It was absolutely necessary and yes morally right. Yes, it was symbolic to the extent it did not involved major construction, billions of dollars etc. but in a stroke expelled so much toxic culture war oxygen from our society that we cannot put a price on. So, it was far from ‘mere’ symbolism.
3. Symbolic apology good, but Rudd Labor has embraced Howard’s assimilationist authoritarianism towards aborigines and pumped it with steroids. At heart, Kevin Rudd has no time for identity politics of any hue. In fact he is constitutionally contemptuous of them. He is a true “one nation” type. Once again, he is extremely lucky that he inherits all the support and enthusiasm for this agenda that Howard was able to build with aboriginal leaders in the twilight of his reign.
4. The withdrawal from Iraq – while great – was even less a “Rudd” achievement than was Whitlam’s apocryphal pulling out of Vietnam.
5. Foreign policy: Much is made of distancing Australia from Howard’s all the way with Dubya, but this ignores that Howard’s love affair with Bush was totally rooted in a very specific and momentous geopolitical moment – Sep.11, 7/7, Bali, and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Will we are all right to slam Iraq, the fact is Howard did what all Australian PM’s do and that is contribute to wars for diplomatic reasons. Remember, the UK and many other nations went as well. Thus, there is no need for Rudd to copy Howard as the same imperatives have largely gone.
5. The soft-ball “critique” in the OP above lacks integrity from a left-wing blog, bordering on hagiography that all of us see through. It will do not do much for this blog’s reputation. More honest commentary should be the order of the day from now on, with no punches pulled.
You call this aggression: should insert appropriately amusing you tube clip but can’t be bothered.
BBB claimed that reform is a synonym of change, which it obviously isn’t unless you want to change the definition of synonym as well.
I know that dictionaries are a bit passe in this postmodern world, but here’s the Macquarie definition:
1. Improvement or amendment to what is wrong, corrupt etc.
2. an instance of this.
3. the amendment of conduct.
4. to restore to a former or better state.
5. to cause a person to abandon wrong or evil ways of life or conduct.
6. to put an end to abuses, disorders etc.
7. to abandon evil conduct or error.
Now I hope that that settles it, but I doubt it.
I did and it’s why I wasn’t happy to see him get the leadership. I think he and his ministers are doing a good job so far with most things, but the social conservatism — which is very bad news for women — and the philistinism about art, which is much worse than I thought and which seems to have spread to Peter Garrett (my main objection to Peter Garrett is what was revealed about him by the funding cut Mark’s link at #22 explores, closely followed by the plastic bag affair) both affect me directly and not in a good way.
joe2 thanks.
You’re right, Chris (vive la difference): I got solar PV and solar hot water mixed up because we were thinking of doing both (and still may) but it really took the Fed Govt subsidy + feed-in tariff for solar PV to make it a good investment.
Of course, monetary return isn’t its only desirable feature.
My understanding (and someone who knows more about Labor politics and Peter Garrett please fill me in if you have a spare minute) is that Garrett is actually a very strong Christian, opposed to abortion and quite a few other causes often considered ‘progressive’.
Adrian, I’m not sure postmodernism means what you think it means.
Political reform—or amendment of something to a “better” state—does not cease to be reform merely because you or I disapprove of it. Insistence on “correct” use of “reform” will only get you to joe2’s point, shouting DEFORM! at the wireless like a demented old metallurgist.
I call you out, by the way, under the spanking new No Postmodernism Rule. A worthy addition, I think, to the famous Three Paragraph Rule. I suggest trial by combat.
“Then if you also really wanted to help low-income renters, you’d give a subsidy to landlords and state housing authorities, to install solar hot water heating for rental houses and flats. Social democratic policies, anyone? Reducing low-income persons’ monthly costs, anyone?”
Great idea, BBB. You’d need an assurance it would remain rental porperty for a period, but yes.
On social democratic & green: I gather from some of the more technically minded enviro-posters that larger scale is more cost efficient when it comes to solar. This, I’ve been wondering lately whether local councils couldn’t use council property and land to host larger solar panels -covering their own power use and returning some to the grid to benefit ratepayers (ie tariff earnings are used to offset likely rise in power bills at council levels; through either reduced rates or even direct power bill payments to ratepayers’ providers).
Ambigulous – in the ACT the feed in tarrif is very generous – the rate was based on almost 4 times the retail rate price and its based on gross production rather than net. So you can pay off a 2kw system without the fed govt subsidy in about 10 years – even quicker with interest rates dropping – so its not a totally unreasonable payoff time for a system which should last at least 20 years.
Skepticlawyer, you are right. Garrter is a very serious christian who not only opposes abortion, but does not drink alcohol.
Garrett is pro-choice.
That’s true Liam. I did not mean to imply he would be anti-choice in parliament, but I think it is relevant to be informed of just how constitutionaly conservative he is as a man.
SL @ #91, yes, I did know that about Garrett, but was aware of the statement Liam quotes, so it’s not as bad as it could be. It is however still so bad that I had completely repressed it, or I would have put it, on the badness scale, somewhere between the plastic bag debacle and the attempt, apparently largely through ignorance, to wipe out classical music studies.
Not surprising really when you remember that popular music is still, even now, a dirty big can of sexist worms.
Chris (a different one): yes, that’s a generous feed-in tariff. I think in Victoria it’s a bit less generous and to be paid on net feed-in. Which is good for working persons who are out of the house during the sunniest hours, with appliances drawing minimal power; not very good for unemployed or retirees or young mums-at-home or those who work from home or part-time workers.
Pavlov’s: Peter G isn’t trying to wipe out classical music studies, forsooth. There are still conservatories, plenty of private tuition, and active orchestras, etc. He wants to cut funding to ONE institution. BTW, I too oppose that change he wants to make; but see it in less dire terms. I hope you’re not becoming a “Garrett-hater”.
Thanks Liam – he’s obviously shifted in recent years. Just to be clear, I have no problem with people who oppose abortion and therefore choose not to do it, as long as they don’t stick their opposition in everyone else’s way.
Smiley – I didn’t know about him being teetotal, so there you go.
I hadn’t heard of Garrett being teetotal either.
I’d be interested to know where you heard that, smiley—though of course Garrett’s own choice of drug use is his business and nobody else’s.
“Insistence on “correct” use of “reform” will only get you to joe2’s point, shouting DEFORM! at the wireless like a demented old metallurgist.”
I have been DEFORMED!…gads.
That was actually hannah’s dad @68, Liam.
You’re right, joe2, I apologise.
SL – Yes Garrett is Christian, though from what i remember i think he is more aligned with those of the Tim Costello, Bono, Jim Wallis ilk than the James Dobsons who i imagine even Jesus would struggle to hang out with.
He did an interesting speech in 2006 – Peacemaking for Christians in the 21st Century at one of the Anglican colleges as i recall – its on his webpage, as well as linked around different blogs. (Sorry i cant post the link here, as the site wont let me for some reason without sending me into the spaminator).
Speaking of Rudd, my daughter is getting the ‘Kevin Rudd award for LOTE’ (chinese) at her school next Monday. How cool!
Congratulations to the sublime calfgirl.
Now, while we’re chatting about those men’s health “Ambassadors”,….http://www.theage.com.au/national/health-ambassadors-wrote-gay-hate-document-20081126-6ib6.html
teh gays wouldn’t let me link http://www.theage.com.au/national/health-ambassadors-wrote-gay-hate-document-20081126-6ib6.html
The so-called “gender disorientation pathology” is particularly choice.
Now as it happens, I don’t particularly like cats. Don’t hate them, just prefer not to share a bed with one. Is that evidence that I suffer from “furry feline attachment failure” {FFAF}?
Hey who spilled the beans about me being a metallurgist?
Don’t mind the ‘demented’ or ‘old’ bit but why ‘metallurgist’?
Ambigulous – thanks on her behalf _ although she doesn’t know she
is getting the award as yet! She’ll find out Monday unless she reads this first.
I read your link btw, but think it just may be a beat up/misunderstanding by the AGE.
From what i can see the authors are not saying all people who are gay have what they term Gender disorientation pathology, just some people who are, do.
If thats the case, its a very important distinction.
“Gender disorientation pathology, as in the form of sexual addictions, is often a symptom of family dysfunction, personality disorder, father absence, health malfunction or sexual abuse,” the paper states.
From a psycho-analytical POV i have no prob with that statement any more than I would have about describing compulsive heterosexual promiscuity as a pathology at times (if i was one to pathologise things – which is debatable).
I happen to subscribe to the spectrum idea of human sexuality. Some people are polarised at either the straight or gay end, most of us are in between.
The number of lesbians i know who have experienced hetrosexual abuse in their formative years is striking, and some of these people are pretty messed up in a number of ways, including in their own subsequent parenting, lifestyle and substance abuse issues. I think it may be possible to say some people in this cohort may not be hard wired lesbian, had they not suffered past abuse at defining points in their development. Which is quite different to saying all people who are lesbians have experienced sexual violence, or that people who have experienced sexual violence are necessarily same sex attracted.
I think (without reading the paper – always dangerous i know) what the authors were possibly getting at is more along the lines of Sinead oConnor coming out as lesbian, then not, before her diagnosis of bi-polar disorder? Or those people who have had gender reassignment, then deeply deeply regretted it?
So i think it is possible to say that perhaps a number of people who are same sex attracted, are not biologically/genetically gay (if you subscribe to that idea) or actively choosing to be gay as a gender preference, but are acting out of a place of damage, which may not necessarily a healthy and constructive choice for them and their same sex experience in fact be may be symptomatic of dysfunction. I dont think that is the same as being a gay-hater is it?
However, that is absolutely NOT to say that it is necessarily different for hetrosexual relationships, and there is no doubt a larger number of people who find themselves in hetro relationships for a myriad of problematic and compulsive reasons, quite apart from what may be developmentally healthy for them. (Just watch Jerry Springer).
Am i gonna regret this comment?
Peter Garrett has displayed total incompetence in his actions with regards to the Australian National Academy of Music. Even one of his own parliamentary party colleagues – Michael Danby MP, the member for Melbourne Ports, has spoken out publicly against Mr Garrett’s handling of the matter:
http://www.danbymp.com/index.php?article=333
Good on Mr Danby for showing the guts to openly stand up to one of his senior colleagues on this matter. The sheer incompetence of Mr Garrett’s handling of this matter is bewildering. I believe he made a dreadful mistake. Now he should admit he was wrong and keep the Australian National Academy of Music open.
For those of you who are not aware, there is an online petition to keep the ANAM open:
http://www.petitiononline.com/saveanam/petition.html