An open thread, where at your weekend leisure, you can discuss anything you like.
Archive for October, 2009
John Quiggin has posted a withering critique of the arguments that Anna Bligh has put forward for her privatisation program.
The Bligh’s government’s original case for the asset sales announced in the June budget was that the state’s finances had deteriorated drastically since the previous assessment at the time of the March election, as part of the generally declining outlook for the world economy. That argument has collapsed as the Australian and global economies have strengthened with the result that the Queensland state budget managed a surplus for 2008-09, as opposed to the projected $500 million deficit.
It would be possible to argue for some (though not all) of the proposed privatisations on the grounds of economic efficiency, but of course arguments of this kind are no more (and, given the epic failure of financial markets seen over the past two years) arguably less valid than they were before the crisis, at which time Labor rejected them.
That leaves the argument that the asset sales will improve the state’s finances. Such arguments depend on showing that the value derived from selling the assets exceeds the value realised by keeping them in public ownership. In this opinion piece, Bligh attempts to make such a case, but the arguments involve hopelessly invalid apples-and-oranges comparisons. When a policy is defended by such obviously shoddy arguments, the only reasonable inference is that the correct assessment comes out the wrong way.
Read the whole thing!
My previous post on Clive Hamilton’s selection as The Greens’ candidate in the Higgins by-election has sparked a thread largely devoted to Hamilton’s views and suitability as a candidate, rather than the party’s electoral chances, or indeed, the strategy of using the by-election to highlight climate change as an issue. That sorta proves my point about the lack of wisdom – whatever one thinks of Hamilton – in selecting a controversial, high profile candidate (… though presumably, it will enable The Greens to make an argument that national or global issues trumped local issues – should he do well, that is).
While Possum appeared to believe that The Greens had a shot at Higgins (and blew it with the preselection of Hamilton), Antony Green is much more sceptical. In a new post on his election blog, Green highlights historical data demonstrating that the margin in Higgins somewhat belies how safe the seat probably is in reality. He also argues, on the basis of a number of federal and state by-elections, that a prominent local may well have been a better pick, a point I also made in my post.
In both Cunningham and Fremantle, the Greens ran candidates with local credentials who could concentrate on local issues, classic think global act local politics. Yet in Higgins the Greens have done the reverse, choosing a candidate who lives in Canberra and has no links to the electorate, and is running on a climate change agenda that can only be described as act global politics. It is the exact opposite of a previously successful Green strategy.
That is the name of a new book of academics Robert and Brenda Vale specialising in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand. The title is intended to shock rather than be taken literally, which is a mercy. It’s meant to concentrate the mind on the environmental implications of keeping pets, which are considerable.
According to an article in the New Scientist they’ve worked out the ecological footprint required to produce the meat and cereals consumed by individual pets. A medium-sized dog, for example, requires 0.84 hectares. A German shepherd requires a humungous 1.1 hectares. They compare this with a Toyota Land Cruiser’s eco-footprint at 0.41 hectares. Cats come in at 0.15 hectares, slightly less than a Volkswagen Golf. Even a humble goldfish is the equivalent of two cellphones.
A quick post to plug a couple of things for the Centre for Policy Development:
The Centre for Policy Development is pleased to announce we are seeking applications for a new Sustainable Economy Fellowship. The fellowship is generously sponsored by Slater and Gordon and is offered through Centre for Policy Development’s new Sustainable Economy Program which aims to research and develop options for Australia to make a rapid transition to an economy that works within environmental limits and is socially sustainable.
The successful applicant will:
* Receive $10,000 financial support to work on a mutually agreed research project over a period of 3 – 6 months
* Have access to the CPD office and resources for the period of the fellowship.
* Have her/his research published as a CPD paper and launched at a high profile public event
* Receive intensive assistance in placing relevant opinion pieces in media outlets
* Receive media training if required
* Be mentored by leading experts in the field.Could this person be someone you know?
We are looking for someone prepared to imagine what a truly sustainable Australia might look like – and to research the policy ideas that can help us get there. This fellowship is suited to PhD/masters students or early-career researchers with an interest in connecting their work to current Australian policy debates.Applications close on Friday 6th November. Click here for more info and the online application.
Readers interested in sustaining the CPD’s activities might also care to vote in a poll being conducted online by Ethical Jobs, which will influence the distribution of $2000 to a number of non-profits this month.
Today’s Fin led with the news that the upturn in consumer spending has put pressure on the market in RECs, whose price is a kind of scoreboard for the renewable industry cage match initiated under the Howard Government. Rudd’s reforms, discussed previously, saw the inclusion of solar hot water and ‘phantom’ PV certificates, however this effectively destroyed any pretense that a certificate represented a ‘real’ megawatt-hour. Continue reading ‘REC Market inundated with consumer credits’
Just because somebody is a hypocrite doesn’t mean their argument is invalid. But when they’re a hypocrite and a high profile campaigner for a particular cause, it’s wise to look closely at the argument they are making.
For instance, just because Julian McGauran doesn’t believe in the rights of certain women and doctors to make a choice that fits with their ethical framework doesn’t necessarily mean that he doesn’t have a point about protecting the rights of a different group doctors to make a choice that fits with their ethical framework.
But that aside, I reckon it’s still a good rule of thumb to assume that a man who is willing to release a woman’s private medical files to journalists who have no right to see them is probably not the go-to guy for a discussion of law and ethics.
So what’s his problem this time? The fact that the new Victorian abortion laws require that a doctor who chooses not to perform abortions must still provide information to a woman seeking one about where to find a doctor who can help her. And that in emergency life-threatening situations no doctor or nurse may refuse to perform an abortion.
Just about everyone in the world must know that the Maldives government decided to hold a cabinet meeting under water. (Scroll down for video of the president’s message.) Strangely none of the news items carried an image of the meeting that I saw, but here’s one:
(The image was from Tumblr but the link doesn’t work any more.)
The problem, of course, is that the place is barely above sea level. As Wikipedia says:
The Maldives holds the record for being the lowest country in the world, with a maximum natural ground level of only 2.3 metres (7 ft 7 in), with the average being only 1.5 metres (4 ft 11 in) above sea level, although in areas where construction exists, this has been increased to several metres.
Not a lot of leeway in the context of new concerns about sea level rise.
Continue reading ‘Maldives pulls a stunt, but is anyone listening?’
It seems that a proposal to reward doctors for “enrolling” patients with higher care needs, such as young children and those with chronic diseases, has caused a bit of debate amongst the community of general practitioner community.
The idea first came to attention in the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission’s final report, which proposed that such individuals “have the option of enrolling with a single primary health care service to strengthen the continuity, coordination and range of multidisciplinary care available to meet their health needs and deliver optimal outcomes.”
The Greens are running Clive Hamilton in Higgins.
As Andrew Norton observes, Hamilton criticising seems to be a politically ecumenical practice in the blogosphere.
Guy Rundle puts a contrary view.
I’m by no means enamoured of some of the ideas Hamilton has put forward over the years, but I don’t know that judging him on that basis is necessarily the most appropriate mode of evaluating his prospects as a political representative. I was also struck by Guy Beres‘ comment:
It’s all a bit incestuous when you think about it. The Greens famously courted Peter Garrett on numerous occasions before his controversial decision during the (pre-explosion) Latham era to join the Labor Party. In years past, high-profile players within the Labor Party organisation seriously entertained the idea of Malcolm Turnbull joining the ALP’s ranks. One does wonder whether Clive Hamilton would be considered an asset as a candidate by the Labor Party. Clearly his strong views on the nature of modern capitalism, climate change and stringent opposition to nuclear power paint him as more of a natural Greens candidate. Leaving aside the much debated travails of Peter Garrett for a moment, just what sort of impact could a few high-profile leftish intellectuals have on the parliamentary Labor party?
My other observation would be that I’m not sure that high profile candidates necessarily fare better in by-elections, where the name of the game isn’t really to attract national media attention, but grass roots campaigning on the ground. I have no knowledge of the degree to which Hamilton has or has not been involved in community politics and campaigning on a local level in the suburbs encompassed by Higgins, but my general view would be that such a candidate would be a good bet for an increased vote. In light of the commentary around the Higgins by-election as a barometer on climate change policy, The Greens might have been thinking that’s the better tack to take.
It’s going to be an interesting contest, whichever way it pans out.
Previously on LP: A couple of earlier posts on the Higgins contest.
Update: Legal Eagle.
Update: Hamilton on Hamilton.
Update: En Passant.
Update: Since this post has largely focused on Hamilton rather than electoral strategy and the likely outcomes in Higgins, I’ve put up a new one on that topic, linking to a recent analysis from Antony Green.
One of the sharpest sociological observers of social media on the block, danah boyd, has written a cracker of a post at apophenia pointing out that people actually tend to use Facebook status updates and Twitter for different purposes, and that the social context of each is quite distinct. It’s refreshing to see this kind of analysis, when many so-called ’social media experts’ are just obsessed with whether x is the new y. There’s space for all sorts of things in a healthy digital culture ecology.
If Mad Max 2 was the Sistine Chapel of Punk as J.G. Ballard once quipped, then perhaps the Last Judgement is at hand! George Miller is going to commence pre-production of Mad Max 4 immediately in NSW. I’m guessing he’s taking a punt on the state most likely to provide, erm, free extras; what with rivers running dry and planning incompetence running rife. Add a liquid fuel disruption and we’ll see who has the last laugh…
A terrific video tribute to the first Maxes set to Motorhead’s Ace of Spades is below the jump. Parental supervision recommended for those easily offended by car accidents
(via Simon Sellars) Continue reading ‘Mad Max 4 to Rescue NSW Government or vice versa’
Since we don’t live by politix alone (I sincerely hope), what did people get up to this weekend? Join in, share some tales, regulars and lurkers all!
Asylum seekers and Indonesia
Lateline last night featured the best and worst of public debate. On one hand, Melbourne lawyer and refugee advocate Jessie Taylor was interviewed about her own footage of the conditions under which asylum seekers in Indonesia are attained. In a way, Taylor was acting as a citizen journalist with the emphasis on citizenship in the best sense of the word. Conversely, viewers must have been scratching their head at the alarming spectacle of Tony Abbott taking a pseudo-humanitarian line in criticising the Rudd government over the detention of children… following on from news vision of a visibly angry Philip Ruddock defending his honour over the Howard government’s treatment of refugees in Parliament.
The disjunction between the facts presented passionately and the dispassionate observation of the mad contradictions of the political debate between Labor and the Liberals over asylum seekers was telling.
What was interesting as well was a clue to why the debate is playing itself out differently this time around, despite the Liberals’ apparent belief that boat people were some sort of eternal return to the land of Howardia (“we determine…” etc). The fact that Abbott was batting on the government’s pitch should have enlightened the dullest observer to the truth that the issue is now framed differently – because both the government and public sentiment have shifted.
As Guy Rundle observed last week, the way in which the media, after lurching madly in search of an angle, has begun to apply what is objectively pressure from the left on immigration policy, is testament to that shift, even if its recognition has been both belated and (I suspect) unconscious. The context for highlighting humanitarian concerns is now quite different, and Andrew Bartlett is right to discern a tipping point in the policy debate.
We live in more interesting times than some people seem to think.
Elsewhere: Rundle on Abbott.