Much more is at stake in the noise around the RSPT than whether the mining industry ends up paying more tax. A whole host of serious public issues entwined with the proposal – including but not limited to the adequacy of our corporate tax architecture, the desirability of a two speed boom bust economy, an increase in workers’ superannuation, the need to invest in infrastructure, and the fly-in, fly-out regional economy – have been thoroughly obscured by the so-called ‘debate’. Each one of these inter-related questions needs serious consideration on its own, but none is receiving anything beyond an occasional distorted mention to serve the partisan needs of the almighty narrative.
We face, as Shaun Carney suggests today, a fundamental disjunction between the pressing problems facing our nation and the infantilism of public debate:
The tendency towards verbal infantilism is so ingrained in our politics that it’s not even remarked upon in the media. Politics is more and more about marketing, and less and less about ideas. It’s just a given.
This all comes at a terrible potential cost. Our political system is at a crucial juncture: can it still function effectively or will it go down the American road, where there are no agreed facts, only rejection and abuse, and the legislative process becomes dysfunctional? What is at stake in the resource rent tax controversy is the authority and legitimacy of not just this government, but any Australian government.
Carney is quick to condemn the marketing-speak of politicians. But it may be, as Tim Dunlop argues in a piece at The Drum, that our institutions more generally are failing us. Chief among them, he suggests is the political media:
The problem is not just leadership. It is that politics (broadly understood) is governed by practices and conventions that are not up to the task of solving our problems. We can barely discuss issues meaningfully any more.
Governments try and sneak through change by underplaying the problems because they know the media will treat every issue in either a partisan or a superficial manner (often both) and play a mindless game of gotcha. Oppositions will tell people what they want to hear, oppose for the sake of opposing, and attack wherever possible because it is easier to smear the other side than present a legitimate alternative.
So what is the key to change?
It lies with the media. To all intents and purposes they are the public sphere and until they do their job better, we won’t get anywhere. What’s more, they are the only ones with at least a theoretical commitment to disinterested discussion and objective assessment of the facts.
I’m not arguing for some ideal-type, ivory-tower approach to public debate, some mythical situation where pros and cons are weighed dispassionately and the answer found. But I am saying we deserve better than we are currently getting.
Amen to that.
The media is responsible in its way, yes, but it is also operating under pressures of its own. I’ve heard a lot from independent media about the dearth of public debate in the mainstream. Not a lot about what is to be done about it.
The media is responsible in its way, yes, but it is also operating under pressures of its own. I’ve heard a lot from independent media about the dearth of public debate in the mainstream. Not a lot about what is to be done about it.
The domination of the media by Murdoch probably plays a role. But what about the ABC? Isn’t it supposed to provide high quality coverage, isolated from market forces?
The domination of the media by Murdoch probably plays a role. But what about the ABC? Isn’t it supposed to provide high quality coverage, isolated from market forces?
The first politics essay I wrote about 40 years ago at uni was :
“The ALP is in government.
Is it in power?”
Not much has changed since.
The first politics essay I wrote about 40 years ago at uni was :
“The ALP is in government.
Is it in power?”
Not much has changed since.
@1 –
I can easily see a site like this one having the capability to draw on people who are experts in a particular policy area to stimulate debate, and to contextualise it. But the rub is always resources – both in terms of time, and in terms of dosh to expand the audience reach.
To some degree there’s a bit of fact checking that goes on in independent media (for instance, Bernard Keane has shown how easy it is to prove that the mining industry is all bluff by comparing public statements to market disclosures – and that should be core business for any media). But less of policy debate.
@1 –
I can easily see a site like this one having the capability to draw on people who are experts in a particular policy area to stimulate debate, and to contextualise it. But the rub is always resources – both in terms of time, and in terms of dosh to expand the audience reach.
To some degree there’s a bit of fact checking that goes on in independent media (for instance, Bernard Keane has shown how easy it is to prove that the mining industry is all bluff by comparing public statements to market disclosures – and that should be core business for any media). But less of policy debate.
There are a few people in MSM who have taken a responsible approach to the complexities of the RSPT, notably Peter Martin, George Megalogenis, Ross Gittins, Ian Verrender and Shaun Carney. I suspect Laura Tingle of making good sense also, but she is paywalled.
Unfortunately their analyses are probably not receiving the exposure needed to inform the broader community debate. I don’t know whether other operators in MSM are too busy/lazy to acquaint themselves with the excellent accounts available – many more on blogs ( Tim Dunlop, Bernard Keane, GrogsGamut, Political Sword, Larvarus Prodea)- or they are interested only in the political bloodsport, not the issues.
Some are, as expected, adhering to an ideological viewpoint, but the sloppy, less than professional, journalism of others is disappointing and discouraging.
There are a few people in MSM who have taken a responsible approach to the complexities of the RSPT, notably Peter Martin, George Megalogenis, Ross Gittins, Ian Verrender and Shaun Carney. I suspect Laura Tingle of making good sense also, but she is paywalled.
Unfortunately their analyses are probably not receiving the exposure needed to inform the broader community debate. I don’t know whether other operators in MSM are too busy/lazy to acquaint themselves with the excellent accounts available – many more on blogs ( Tim Dunlop, Bernard Keane, GrogsGamut, Political Sword, Larvarus Prodea)- or they are interested only in the political bloodsport, not the issues.
Some are, as expected, adhering to an ideological viewpoint, but the sloppy, less than professional, journalism of others is disappointing and discouraging.
There’s a conflict there though – the law is that bought media must work for the enrichment of their shareholders, not the public domain. Sure, if we had some privately owned media companies their owners could do whatever they wanted to, but we don’t. Even Murdoch is legally restricted in just what he can do.
So a reporter or editor who wants to focus on having a rich public sphere is handicapped by that brutal reality as well as the various myths and legends that define our public spaces. We’re not quite living in a libertarian world, but we have reached a point where it’s very hard to express values that can’t be measured in dollars. Pushing those values over the top of dollars is even harder.
My exposure to this stuff is admittedly limited – I read the text version of the Sydney Morning herald / The Age most days (they’re very similar) but that’s about the limit of my exposure to bought media. Then I read blogs like this one. Oh, and the odd episode of Media watch on iView. Reading stuff like this does not persuade me to seek more exposure.
There’s a conflict there though – the law is that bought media must work for the enrichment of their shareholders, not the public domain. Sure, if we had some privately owned media companies their owners could do whatever they wanted to, but we don’t. Even Murdoch is legally restricted in just what he can do.
So a reporter or editor who wants to focus on having a rich public sphere is handicapped by that brutal reality as well as the various myths and legends that define our public spaces. We’re not quite living in a libertarian world, but we have reached a point where it’s very hard to express values that can’t be measured in dollars. Pushing those values over the top of dollars is even harder.
My exposure to this stuff is admittedly limited – I read the text version of the Sydney Morning herald / The Age most days (they’re very similar) but that’s about the limit of my exposure to bought media. Then I read blogs like this one. Oh, and the odd episode of Media watch on iView. Reading stuff like this does not persuade me to seek more exposure.
Sorry for the typo in 5 above – blog should be Larvatus Prodeo – shamefully squiffy fingers on this very blog.
Sorry for the typo in 5 above – blog should be Larvatus Prodeo – shamefully squiffy fingers on this very blog.
@7 – I thought it was another nickname!
@5 –
Tingle’s one of the reasons it’s worth shelling out 3 bucks for the Friday Fin Review.
With respect to the others you mention, a lot of Peter Martin’s best stuff is on his blog, which raises some interesting questions in itself. I might have missed something, but the other questions raised in the post don’t seem to have received much coverage even from these folks, and to the degree they have, there’s still the problem of them being lost in the noise of the media meta-narrative that you identify.
@7 – I thought it was another nickname!
@5 –
Tingle’s one of the reasons it’s worth shelling out 3 bucks for the Friday Fin Review.
With respect to the others you mention, a lot of Peter Martin’s best stuff is on his blog, which raises some interesting questions in itself. I might have missed something, but the other questions raised in the post don’t seem to have received much coverage even from these folks, and to the degree they have, there’s still the problem of them being lost in the noise of the media meta-narrative that you identify.
Moz – we are a long, long, long way away from a libertarian world.
Moz – we are a long, long, long way away from a libertarian world.
TerjeP – we’re much closer to it than I’m comfortable with. We have a well-established idea in the public sphere that values are measured in dollars and only the rich matter. More accurately, that it’s important to talk democracy but legislate financially.
TerjeP – we’re much closer to it than I’m comfortable with. We have a well-established idea in the public sphere that values are measured in dollars and only the rich matter. More accurately, that it’s important to talk democracy but legislate financially.
Moz @ 10, That is so true. The mighty dollar and the power that goes with it is so much more important than anything else.
Moz @ 10, That is so true. The mighty dollar and the power that goes with it is so much more important than anything else.
The way in which most people access the news almost requires that it be presented in simple terms which leads the media to present situations too simply. I think a lot of the fault – if it can really be described as such – lies with the general public who if given the choice prefer entertainment to education. Thus there’s little money for media companies to spend on journalism.
There’s an article in Wired magazine about how in japan they use cartoons to explain quite complicated problems. Perhaps that is something that could be tried in Australia to present debate in a more accessible form that they will pay for? More edutainment?
The way in which most people access the news almost requires that it be presented in simple terms which leads the media to present situations too simply. I think a lot of the fault – if it can really be described as such – lies with the general public who if given the choice prefer entertainment to education. Thus there’s little money for media companies to spend on journalism.
There’s an article in Wired magazine about how in japan they use cartoons to explain quite complicated problems. Perhaps that is something that could be tried in Australia to present debate in a more accessible form that they will pay for? More edutainment?
Who governs Australia?
Whomever the Monarch of England, via powers delegated to the GG, requests to form a government…
..Murdoch’s paper is just shilling for its main advertisers such as Rio Tinto. The ABC are so cowed that they repeat the mining industry bulldust uncritically. We have now in Australia the situation that Noam Chomsky has long-lamented in the USA: that large swathes of the population can be convinced by a media-corporate complex to vote against their own interests.
But at least Lizzie can lend the whole show some…class
/sarc
Who governs Australia?
Whomever the Monarch of England, via powers delegated to the GG, requests to form a government…
..Murdoch’s paper is just shilling for its main advertisers such as Rio Tinto. The ABC are so cowed that they repeat the mining industry bulldust uncritically. We have now in Australia the situation that Noam Chomsky has long-lamented in the USA: that large swathes of the population can be convinced by a media-corporate complex to vote against their own interests.
But at least Lizzie can lend the whole show some…class
/sarc
Sure the media is going through a particularly terrible phase and the headline writers for the OZ in particular don’t see any need to write headlines that reflect the data in the articles. It is also easy to say that Rudd isn’t doing a good job of arguing the case for his policies. However, it is not as simple as that.
For example, consider the RSPT. It is a complex mix of pain and sweeteners that is by its very nature difficult to explain and easy for oppositions and mining companies to distort. It would have been a lot smarter to have simply adopt the same system and settings as those used for offshore oil and gas. Much harder to lie about the effects of a system that has been running successfully for years.
Alternatively Swan could have simply added a fixed percentage to the company tax for mining activities. Crude but easy to explain.
What the government needs is a few simplifiers in positions of influence to cut out the complexities that add nothing to policy and confuse the public and the media.
Sure the media is going through a particularly terrible phase and the headline writers for the OZ in particular don’t see any need to write headlines that reflect the data in the articles. It is also easy to say that Rudd isn’t doing a good job of arguing the case for his policies. However, it is not as simple as that.
For example, consider the RSPT. It is a complex mix of pain and sweeteners that is by its very nature difficult to explain and easy for oppositions and mining companies to distort. It would have been a lot smarter to have simply adopt the same system and settings as those used for offshore oil and gas. Much harder to lie about the effects of a system that has been running successfully for years.
Alternatively Swan could have simply added a fixed percentage to the company tax for mining activities. Crude but easy to explain.
What the government needs is a few simplifiers in positions of influence to cut out the complexities that add nothing to policy and confuse the public and the media.
I think that, whilst it’s very easy to attack the pathetic op-edders (and whilst they do deserve it, the shit they shovel up is pathetic. If Carney has such a problem with it he should quit fairfax), I think it ignores the larger picture.
Op-edders aren’t the problem, it’s the six o’clock news. It’s the public that watches the six o’clock news. It’s the nation state that encourages such disaffection and ignorance from its citizens, that they become easy pickings for lobbyists, shock jocks, soft & slushy piles of anecdotes from mates. It’s the paucity of an electoral system where no one respects the people elected to represent them, their role as parliamentarians, the branches stacked and candidates parachuted. It’s the parties that loath their constituents, pander to their worst instincts and operate on a basis of achieving and retaining power above any moral consideration. It’s the unvoiced question of how do we want to live, and the inability of anyone – journalists, politicians, public – to even ask it, let alone attempt some kind of answer that anyone can understand or worse believe in. It’s the inability of people to communicate, distribute, understand complex issues – or to want to.
Apologies for the somewhat hyperbolic tone, but singling out any one person, institution, vocation to blame for this is I think reductive and more than a little positivist. The problem is a cultural one, I believe, and as such encompasses more than any one view can accomodate. I don’t know what the answer is – I don’t even know that it wasn’t ever thus – but I do hope for better. The idea of our state slipping further to resemble something as dysfunctional – dystopian – as the United States scares me. I have hoped – still do, on the good days – that the colossal and imminent threat of climate change could prove the circuit breaker to this, but have thus far been proven wrong.
I think that, whilst it’s very easy to attack the pathetic op-edders (and whilst they do deserve it, the shit they shovel up is pathetic. If Carney has such a problem with it he should quit fairfax), I think it ignores the larger picture.
Op-edders aren’t the problem, it’s the six o’clock news. It’s the public that watches the six o’clock news. It’s the nation state that encourages such disaffection and ignorance from its citizens, that they become easy pickings for lobbyists, shock jocks, soft & slushy piles of anecdotes from mates. It’s the paucity of an electoral system where no one respects the people elected to represent them, their role as parliamentarians, the branches stacked and candidates parachuted. It’s the parties that loath their constituents, pander to their worst instincts and operate on a basis of achieving and retaining power above any moral consideration. It’s the unvoiced question of how do we want to live, and the inability of anyone – journalists, politicians, public – to even ask it, let alone attempt some kind of answer that anyone can understand or worse believe in. It’s the inability of people to communicate, distribute, understand complex issues – or to want to.
Apologies for the somewhat hyperbolic tone, but singling out any one person, institution, vocation to blame for this is I think reductive and more than a little positivist. The problem is a cultural one, I believe, and as such encompasses more than any one view can accomodate. I don’t know what the answer is – I don’t even know that it wasn’t ever thus – but I do hope for better. The idea of our state slipping further to resemble something as dysfunctional – dystopian – as the United States scares me. I have hoped – still do, on the good days – that the colossal and imminent threat of climate change could prove the circuit breaker to this, but have thus far been proven wrong.
Yes Terje, about ten thousand miles. Send us a postcard!
Yes Terje, about ten thousand miles. Send us a postcard!
patrickg has smacked the nail on the head…surely any discussion about informing the public and promoting discourse on the issues of our time has to include the one eyed god that sits in every room. And if people here are rightly lamenting the decline in editorial independence and journalism in the written word then what about a medium whose sole purpose these days is to entertain (distract)?
Terje, what planet do you live on? Are you posting on this blog via some parallel world?
patrickg has smacked the nail on the head…surely any discussion about informing the public and promoting discourse on the issues of our time has to include the one eyed god that sits in every room. And if people here are rightly lamenting the decline in editorial independence and journalism in the written word then what about a medium whose sole purpose these days is to entertain (distract)?
Terje, what planet do you live on? Are you posting on this blog via some parallel world?
“TerjeP – we’re much closer to it than I’m comfortable with. We have a well-established idea in the public sphere that values are measured in dollars and only the rich matter.”
Moz, time to update your knowledge on what is, and what isn’t, libertarian. You too, Mercurius.
“TerjeP – we’re much closer to it than I’m comfortable with. We have a well-established idea in the public sphere that values are measured in dollars and only the rich matter.”
Moz, time to update your knowledge on what is, and what isn’t, libertarian. You too, Mercurius.
But how many are actually offered the choice? After all, anti-RSPT propaganda in a Murdoch rag isn’t really educating the public. But then it isn’t really entertainment either. The media will spruik Sex and the City 2 not because it’s a good movie (I hear it isn’t) but because there’s advertising money in all the associated perfume and clothing.
In practice, it’s less either-or than neither-nor.
But how many are actually offered the choice? After all, anti-RSPT propaganda in a Murdoch rag isn’t really educating the public. But then it isn’t really entertainment either. The media will spruik Sex and the City 2 not because it’s a good movie (I hear it isn’t) but because there’s advertising money in all the associated perfume and clothing.
In practice, it’s less either-or than neither-nor.
More seriously, Chris – Shaun, Time, Mark and others prefer analysis over opinion. To the MBA hive mind, they’re the same, except opinion is cheaper – as in zero cents at The Punch, and quicker to write. Which one will get the more resources? Which one will get the chop?
I have some concern that we’ll go down the American route, with no agreed facts to hold us together. But then American has a big problem with identity politics, where ineffective spectacles, historical grievances and historical amnesia rule the day. Australia does not have these problems to the same degree. And our education system is still better on average.
More seriously, Chris – Shaun, Time, Mark and others prefer analysis over opinion. To the MBA hive mind, they’re the same, except opinion is cheaper – as in zero cents at The Punch, and quicker to write. Which one will get the more resources? Which one will get the chop?
I have some concern that we’ll go down the American route, with no agreed facts to hold us together. But then American has a big problem with identity politics, where ineffective spectacles, historical grievances and historical amnesia rule the day. Australia does not have these problems to the same degree. And our education system is still better on average.
Much of this discussion leads me to a question with which I have fundamentally wrestled for the last 35 years — is sustainable socially inclusive reform even possible within current capitalist governance-based systems? The experience of 1975 pushed me hard in the direction of answering that question in the negative and from there the step towards revolutionary communist politics was not a large or difficult one. I knew that the system suffered from a fundamental design problem and that it was based on the primary division between the those who held social property and those bound to do their bidding, and everyone else.
Yet it was also clear that revolutionary communist politics, as best I understood it, was simply not something that significant numbers of people I was interested in engaging were interested in. If we were right, they ought to have been a lot more interested than the piddling numbers of people declaring for this course implied. The important doctrinal disputes aside, even adding us all together yielded an utterly unimpressive share of the working populace. Plainly, the doctrine is no good if it doesn’t pass the primary test of ever being plausible in the eyes of its intended beneficiaries. By 1989 this had become hard to ignore and by 1991, it was impossible. It was clear to me that if we didn’t rethink what was needed and come up with something that was plausible in the eyes of the beneficiaries, we would be stuck with what we had — and yet that way led to entrenching misery and possibly a return to barbarism on a world scale. The rise of Islamism as the main challenge to the western capitalist system seems to underscore that point. And yet, the Islamists look forward to a barbarism to make western capitalism look progressive.
It is clear to me that one cannot found a system on the social and political exclusion of the mass of the producers from power and insight and hope that progressive reform will be enacted with anything like the speed and certainty needed to foreclose a calamity. If you want sustainable and socially inclusive reform, the intended beneficiaries must be able to author the system. Not only can’t that be done by them right now — but the consequences of the current arrangements double down and reinforce this exclusion. The interests of the primary stakeholders in the system suffuse the entire body politic and taint all of its discourse much as the foul smell of necrotic tissue forces most of us to wince. We wince and hold our noses and look for something to allow us to dull our senses, but finally, there’s no place to run.
That is what this campaign against the current government’s writ is about. It doesn’t really matter that the RSPT doesn’t at all threaten capitalism. This campaign is a shot across the bows of the entire polity — a declaration of who controls the system in practice, as opposed to in theory. The boss class does, and specifically here, the richest fraction of the boss class — rather than the “mum and dad” businesses on whose behalf we hear so much bleating. None may speak against the untrammelled rule of extractive industry without calling forth mountains of calumny and uncorrected hysteria from their mouths for hire. What chance has the untutored public against this when the government itself has embraced the boss class and their paradigm for so long, and indeed, helped keep the mass of the populace away from involvement in policy formation? The ALP fashioned this rod for its own back, and truly, it loves the rod.
The mass media is just one more stinking suppurating pustule on a system of social arrangements that is utterly bankrupt as a vehicle for meeting the social needs of working people on a world scale. Sadly, we lack the resources to reconfigure it and with each passing day it seems more likely that the only way towards something better involves allowing the system to discredit itself in the eyes of the working people by falling into palpable chaos and disorder, with all the misery and suffering that that entails. The role of progressives in this view ought to be to point out how it might be different and better, if working people empowered themselves, so that we will not be tainted along with the system’s evident apologists.
Much of this discussion leads me to a question with which I have fundamentally wrestled for the last 35 years — is sustainable socially inclusive reform even possible within current capitalist governance-based systems? The experience of 1975 pushed me hard in the direction of answering that question in the negative and from there the step towards revolutionary communist politics was not a large or difficult one. I knew that the system suffered from a fundamental design problem and that it was based on the primary division between the those who held social property and those bound to do their bidding, and everyone else.
Yet it was also clear that revolutionary communist politics, as best I understood it, was simply not something that significant numbers of people I was interested in engaging were interested in. If we were right, they ought to have been a lot more interested than the piddling numbers of people declaring for this course implied. The important doctrinal disputes aside, even adding us all together yielded an utterly unimpressive share of the working populace. Plainly, the doctrine is no good if it doesn’t pass the primary test of ever being plausible in the eyes of its intended beneficiaries. By 1989 this had become hard to ignore and by 1991, it was impossible. It was clear to me that if we didn’t rethink what was needed and come up with something that was plausible in the eyes of the beneficiaries, we would be stuck with what we had — and yet that way led to entrenching misery and possibly a return to barbarism on a world scale. The rise of Islamism as the main challenge to the western capitalist system seems to underscore that point. And yet, the Islamists look forward to a barbarism to make western capitalism look progressive.
It is clear to me that one cannot found a system on the social and political exclusion of the mass of the producers from power and insight and hope that progressive reform will be enacted with anything like the speed and certainty needed to foreclose a calamity. If you want sustainable and socially inclusive reform, the intended beneficiaries must be able to author the system. Not only can’t that be done by them right now — but the consequences of the current arrangements double down and reinforce this exclusion. The interests of the primary stakeholders in the system suffuse the entire body politic and taint all of its discourse much as the foul smell of necrotic tissue forces most of us to wince. We wince and hold our noses and look for something to allow us to dull our senses, but finally, there’s no place to run.
That is what this campaign against the current government’s writ is about. It doesn’t really matter that the RSPT doesn’t at all threaten capitalism. This campaign is a shot across the bows of the entire polity — a declaration of who controls the system in practice, as opposed to in theory. The boss class does, and specifically here, the richest fraction of the boss class — rather than the “mum and dad” businesses on whose behalf we hear so much bleating. None may speak against the untrammelled rule of extractive industry without calling forth mountains of calumny and uncorrected hysteria from their mouths for hire. What chance has the untutored public against this when the government itself has embraced the boss class and their paradigm for so long, and indeed, helped keep the mass of the populace away from involvement in policy formation? The ALP fashioned this rod for its own back, and truly, it loves the rod.
The mass media is just one more stinking suppurating pustule on a system of social arrangements that is utterly bankrupt as a vehicle for meeting the social needs of working people on a world scale. Sadly, we lack the resources to reconfigure it and with each passing day it seems more likely that the only way towards something better involves allowing the system to discredit itself in the eyes of the working people by falling into palpable chaos and disorder, with all the misery and suffering that that entails. The role of progressives in this view ought to be to point out how it might be different and better, if working people empowered themselves, so that we will not be tainted along with the system’s evident apologists.
Fran, in this context it seems to me that countries like Chile and Brazil, who have opted to stay inside the capitalist paradigm, may see a resource rental like the RSPT as a viable middle ground, rather than the approach of Venezuela and Bolivia, which are attempting to break or significantly bend the paradigm.
The mining majors, IMHO, are alive to this threat. I see them as going all out for a knockout punch here in Australia with a media campaign and throwing their weight behind Abbott and the Coalition in the forthcoming election. Rudd said the other day that the RSPT will not be legislated for at least another year and has a starting date of 2012. So in terms of strategy I’d suggest that there won’t be an accommodation from the miners’ side until the election phase is worked through.
On the broader scale there are a few potential game changers. First there was the GFC which demonstrated the unwisdom of markets that are based on greed. Following on this we now have a shift to concern about sovereign debt first in Greece, then in the PIIGS, then in places like the US and the UK, and eventually in transitional economies. Satyajit Das was interesting on this on PM and also on Late Night Live the night before. It’s interesting that he mentions the lack of capital as a problem which Immanuel Wallerstein saw as a characteristic of the last days of the capitalist system at a time when no-one believed him because there seemed unlimited funds to be lent.
The bottom line, though, is change does not come from a system designed on a clean sheet of paper. we have to move from where we are now with all the vested interests active in an ever-changing dynamic system. It’s going to be messy.
Another potential game changer is the Gulf oil spill. It may have put a massive portion of the future oil reserves effectively out of reach.
A third, of course, is climate change if some of the dire effects start to become manifest to the populace at large. As Clive Hamilton says in his latest book, doing something about climate change involves changing ourselves as compulsive purchasers of unneeded goods and services. These have become a major factor in the construction of self.
That’s the hardest bit.
Fran, in this context it seems to me that countries like Chile and Brazil, who have opted to stay inside the capitalist paradigm, may see a resource rental like the RSPT as a viable middle ground, rather than the approach of Venezuela and Bolivia, which are attempting to break or significantly bend the paradigm.
The mining majors, IMHO, are alive to this threat. I see them as going all out for a knockout punch here in Australia with a media campaign and throwing their weight behind Abbott and the Coalition in the forthcoming election. Rudd said the other day that the RSPT will not be legislated for at least another year and has a starting date of 2012. So in terms of strategy I’d suggest that there won’t be an accommodation from the miners’ side until the election phase is worked through.
On the broader scale there are a few potential game changers. First there was the GFC which demonstrated the unwisdom of markets that are based on greed. Following on this we now have a shift to concern about sovereign debt first in Greece, then in the PIIGS, then in places like the US and the UK, and eventually in transitional economies. Satyajit Das was interesting on this on PM and also on Late Night Live the night before. It’s interesting that he mentions the lack of capital as a problem which Immanuel Wallerstein saw as a characteristic of the last days of the capitalist system at a time when no-one believed him because there seemed unlimited funds to be lent.
The bottom line, though, is change does not come from a system designed on a clean sheet of paper. we have to move from where we are now with all the vested interests active in an ever-changing dynamic system. It’s going to be messy.
Another potential game changer is the Gulf oil spill. It may have put a massive portion of the future oil reserves effectively out of reach.
A third, of course, is climate change if some of the dire effects start to become manifest to the populace at large. As Clive Hamilton says in his latest book, doing something about climate change involves changing ourselves as compulsive purchasers of unneeded goods and services. These have become a major factor in the construction of self.
That’s the hardest bit.
Well, I guess this current debate about the mining super tax will show us once and for all. If Rudd wins, maybe governments do govern Oz. If the mining companies and the Liberals win, it simply goes to prove my suspicion that big business governs Australia and lets the pollies prentend they actually govern, so the rest of us won’t wake up to what a capitalist crock we’re being sold.
Well, I guess this current debate about the mining super tax will show us once and for all. If Rudd wins, maybe governments do govern Oz. If the mining companies and the Liberals win, it simply goes to prove my suspicion that big business governs Australia and lets the pollies prentend they actually govern, so the rest of us won’t wake up to what a capitalist crock we’re being sold.
Thanks Fran and Brian for those comments.
Part of what is wrong with our society is its addiction to growth. Part of this comes from the thrill of consumption and buying new things. Part of this comes from CEO’s that find it easier to provide shareholders with rising diversion in a growing economy.
However, the important reason for the addiction in growth is that we organize labour in a way that means that growth and unemployment rates are closely linked. If the available work drops the outcome is that the hours worked by most people change very little and the adjustment to the reduction in available work is made by pushing a limited number of people out of the workforce and, these days, by dramatically dropping the hours of another unlucky few.
Think about it. If the available work dropped by a massive 10% and was handled cutting every-ones hours and annual pay by 10% most of us could handle this pain with a bit of grumbling (and many of us would be delighted by the 5 weeks extra holiday a year.) But, for most of us, being laid off in a recession is a frightening prospect.
Coming back to the RSPT the fear campaign against the RSPT is all about the potential loss of jobs. Ditto the campaign against the CPRS, the latest pay rise and all the other things the CMFEU add mentions as causes for future ROOOON. The bite of these campaigns would be far less if the threat we were supposed to fear was a few more days holiday a year.
Thanks Fran and Brian for those comments.
Part of what is wrong with our society is its addiction to growth. Part of this comes from the thrill of consumption and buying new things. Part of this comes from CEO’s that find it easier to provide shareholders with rising diversion in a growing economy.
However, the important reason for the addiction in growth is that we organize labour in a way that means that growth and unemployment rates are closely linked. If the available work drops the outcome is that the hours worked by most people change very little and the adjustment to the reduction in available work is made by pushing a limited number of people out of the workforce and, these days, by dramatically dropping the hours of another unlucky few.
Think about it. If the available work dropped by a massive 10% and was handled cutting every-ones hours and annual pay by 10% most of us could handle this pain with a bit of grumbling (and many of us would be delighted by the 5 weeks extra holiday a year.) But, for most of us, being laid off in a recession is a frightening prospect.
Coming back to the RSPT the fear campaign against the RSPT is all about the potential loss of jobs. Ditto the campaign against the CPRS, the latest pay rise and all the other things the CMFEU add mentions as causes for future ROOOON. The bite of these campaigns would be far less if the threat we were supposed to fear was a few more days holiday a year.
The problem runs far deeper than that John D. What we have here are populations who have been subject to industrial-scale emotional and cultural abuse for generations. We are the metaphorical cultural equivalent of those kids in the Fritzl household and large swathes of the populace have developed a kind of Stockholm Syndrome response to policy.
That’s not going to be easy to break down, and indeed, it may simply be impossible to overcome. At best, it could take generations and yet we must have change on a timeline far shorter than that.
I’d like to be more optimistic but this side of changing my nym to Pollyanna, I don’t think I can say with confidence that a social and political catastrophe is out of the question. On balance, it seems much the most likely outcome by the middle of this century.
I’d love to be proved wrong but I can see nothing in the foreseeable future that recommends optimism.
The problem runs far deeper than that John D. What we have here are populations who have been subject to industrial-scale emotional and cultural abuse for generations. We are the metaphorical cultural equivalent of those kids in the Fritzl household and large swathes of the populace have developed a kind of Stockholm Syndrome response to policy.
That’s not going to be easy to break down, and indeed, it may simply be impossible to overcome. At best, it could take generations and yet we must have change on a timeline far shorter than that.
I’d like to be more optimistic but this side of changing my nym to Pollyanna, I don’t think I can say with confidence that a social and political catastrophe is out of the question. On balance, it seems much the most likely outcome by the middle of this century.
I’d love to be proved wrong but I can see nothing in the foreseeable future that recommends optimism.
“The problem runs far deeper than that John D. What we have here are populations who have been subject to industrial-scale emotional and cultural abuse for generations. We are the metaphorical cultural equivalent of those kids in the Fritzl household and large swathes of the populace have developed a kind of Stockholm Syndrome response to policy.”
Top points Fran. My wife & I both nodded our heads when I read this out to her.
N’
“The problem runs far deeper than that John D. What we have here are populations who have been subject to industrial-scale emotional and cultural abuse for generations. We are the metaphorical cultural equivalent of those kids in the Fritzl household and large swathes of the populace have developed a kind of Stockholm Syndrome response to policy.”
Top points Fran. My wife & I both nodded our heads when I read this out to her.
N’
I’m glad it spoke to you both Nasking … Perhaps if enough people can understand the quality of the challenge we face, together we can work out a way of connecting with the disempowered and equipping them to acquire a modicum of socio-cultural autonomy.
I’m glad it spoke to you both Nasking … Perhaps if enough people can understand the quality of the challenge we face, together we can work out a way of connecting with the disempowered and equipping them to acquire a modicum of socio-cultural autonomy.
Hands up who would take the job of being a top politician if it were offered to you? Ok, no hands up among the wise for those of you who are so you will see that the responsibilities that go with such a job are tremendous. For instance, from the welter of criticisms that always flow, you would be expected to be on the job 24/7 and not make any mistakes (whatever the critics might consider as being a mistake). Yes, we demand, depending on your political leaning, a largely error-free performance from either (K)Rudd or (R)Abbott, and when they trip up, for any sharp journo or opposition polie anxious to score point, it is “gotcha.”
Now let’s face it, we are all merely human, and that includes our pollies! As such we must to sleep, eat, read, relax and so forth. Also, all top pollies are all dependent on an almost invisible echelon of public servants to feed them the so-called facts, or whatever shaky data that can pass as a fact. This is the nature of the beast we call Parliament which is really a hang-over from the 19th Cent when everything was simpler, slower, and no-one was in a great hurry to get things done. Today, with instant emails and crises that develop in a flash, mistakes can be easily made and hard to correct.
But what alternative have we got?
The big danger is that if we keep treating our top polies as fair game for ridicule we will end up with only psychopaths who will stand for parliament and perhaps even bask in the heat. Watch out and be careful that our comments are fair.
Hands up who would take the job of being a top politician if it were offered to you? Ok, no hands up among the wise for those of you who are so you will see that the responsibilities that go with such a job are tremendous. For instance, from the welter of criticisms that always flow, you would be expected to be on the job 24/7 and not make any mistakes (whatever the critics might consider as being a mistake). Yes, we demand, depending on your political leaning, a largely error-free performance from either (K)Rudd or (R)Abbott, and when they trip up, for any sharp journo or opposition polie anxious to score point, it is “gotcha.”
Now let’s face it, we are all merely human, and that includes our pollies! As such we must to sleep, eat, read, relax and so forth. Also, all top pollies are all dependent on an almost invisible echelon of public servants to feed them the so-called facts, or whatever shaky data that can pass as a fact. This is the nature of the beast we call Parliament which is really a hang-over from the 19th Cent when everything was simpler, slower, and no-one was in a great hurry to get things done. Today, with instant emails and crises that develop in a flash, mistakes can be easily made and hard to correct.
But what alternative have we got?
The big danger is that if we keep treating our top polies as fair game for ridicule we will end up with only psychopaths who will stand for parliament and perhaps even bask in the heat. Watch out and be careful that our comments are fair.
So they’ll move across from big business, Rex? Not enough money.
So they’ll move across from big business, Rex? Not enough money.
Good points, Fran.
On the direct topic, however… The only way out of this for Rudd & co is to engage emotionally with the issue. A start would be to adopt the slogan Mark put at the head of this post – a slogan usually deployed against militant unions. However, knowing the Rudd crew as I do, I very much doubt they have the stomach for it. The saddest thing about the ALP has been how quickly it converts firebrand class warriors into apologists for the status quo.
Good points, Fran.
On the direct topic, however… The only way out of this for Rudd & co is to engage emotionally with the issue. A start would be to adopt the slogan Mark put at the head of this post – a slogan usually deployed against militant unions. However, knowing the Rudd crew as I do, I very much doubt they have the stomach for it. The saddest thing about the ALP has been how quickly it converts firebrand class warriors into apologists for the status quo.
I’d recommend the old anti-union favourite of the media:
“Holding the country to ransom!!!!”
I’d recommend the old anti-union favourite of the media:
“Holding the country to ransom!!!!”
Or who is running the country — the voters or the unelected mining bosses?
Or who is running the country — the voters or the unelected mining bosses?
HAL9000 said:
When were they last in the former phase?
HAL9000 said:
When were they last in the former phase?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/christopher-pine-backs-clive-palmer-to-speak-his-miind/story-e6frg6n6-1225876081967
No doubt where the Oz’s sympathy’s lie.
Jesus fu**ing christ.
Is this our future?
Christopher Pyne?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/christopher-pine-backs-clive-palmer-to-speak-his-miind/story-e6frg6n6-1225876081967
No doubt where the Oz’s sympathy’s lie.
Jesus fu**ing christ.
Is this our future?
Christopher Pyne?
fran writes
I concur.
Somewhere in my recent readings of this blog I have come across an idea that political analysis based on traditional class structures is a prerequisite for any “real” discussions. Yet this is despite the bleeding obvious that formal or academic analysis of the politics of our country in the 21st century seems stuck in a notion that somehow the concentration of power in the hands of an elite and away from our public systems of government is a non-issue.
Of course this issue is not of interest to the mainstream media, they are servants of the powers that be. And acting against the issue on numerous levels are the various social mechanisms embedded in a consumer economy and a cult of individualism. It’s not just the overt blatant right wing propaganda peddled my the mass media, its an attack on concepts crucial to any alternative from the left, sharing, mutual obligations, collective action, equity and so on.
It’s not just classic marxist economics at stake. The system is so badly skewed against the long term interests of the majority that it is almost impossible to envisage a peaceful change of directions. Reducing politicians to just another job, albeit one that has special requirements, completely misses the point of government. Democratic government is IMO the exercise of state power for the protection and benefit of its citizens and not to be confused with managing the sheep so that the wolves can get fatter.
fran writes
I concur.
Somewhere in my recent readings of this blog I have come across an idea that political analysis based on traditional class structures is a prerequisite for any “real” discussions. Yet this is despite the bleeding obvious that formal or academic analysis of the politics of our country in the 21st century seems stuck in a notion that somehow the concentration of power in the hands of an elite and away from our public systems of government is a non-issue.
Of course this issue is not of interest to the mainstream media, they are servants of the powers that be. And acting against the issue on numerous levels are the various social mechanisms embedded in a consumer economy and a cult of individualism. It’s not just the overt blatant right wing propaganda peddled my the mass media, its an attack on concepts crucial to any alternative from the left, sharing, mutual obligations, collective action, equity and so on.
It’s not just classic marxist economics at stake. The system is so badly skewed against the long term interests of the majority that it is almost impossible to envisage a peaceful change of directions. Reducing politicians to just another job, albeit one that has special requirements, completely misses the point of government. Democratic government is IMO the exercise of state power for the protection and benefit of its citizens and not to be confused with managing the sheep so that the wolves can get fatter.
I think there are a number of problems here, some addressed by some of the posters above, others not.
A major issue in Australia is depoliticisation. And I don’t mean that simply in the class sense of the word, I mean that in general. Two sad facts to think about: nationally, there is no Australian political party with a membership base larger than the Hawthorn Football Club (with its 50,000 members). Similarly, the Hawthorn footy club has more members than the Victorian branch of the ALP and the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party combined.
What that suggests to me is that most Australians – regardless of class – aren’t even active politically against their interests; they’re not active politically full stop.
This depoliticisation, in turn, allows the branch stackers and factional big wigs to control the major parties. The depoliticisation allows vested interests to buy off the parties cheaply, because there are no significant grass roots campaign donations to speak of.
The other thing for pretty much anyone reading this to keep in mind is that, by virtue of reading a blog like Larvatus Prodeo, you are part of a very small section of Australian society that does engage with political, social, and environmental issues. The vast majority of Australians do not. The vast majority of Australians get their news and analysis off the commercial TV news and current affairs programmes if they watch the news at all, read a daily tabloid newspaper if they bother reading a newspaper at all, topped up by the half hourly news updates on commercial FM radio news or from AM talk radio. It is a distinct minority of the population that even bothers with either ABC News, SBS News, or a daily broadsheet (be it Murdoch’s Oz or one of the Fairfax broadsheets).
And what they get in these “news” offerings is politics as a battle of who has the best six second sound grab, politics as a battle between the blue team (Liberals) against the red team (the ALP), where the fortnightly opinion polls serve as a scoreboard between elections. And the reality is that – even if everyone were acting in good faith, the very short amount of time available in a 3 minute news story or a 6 second grab precludes anything other than the grossest of oversimplifications when you’re dealing with something very complex (such as the Australian tax system) or something that runs into the thousands of pages (as tax reform packages tend to do).
I don’t think that centralisation of everything is the ideal alternative. In fact, it could be argued that because it is so distant and far away, it allows the Governance of our society to be turned into a spectator sport. I think the answer may be more devolution of power to grassroots bodies closer to the people affected by decisions. At this time, I don’t think the Anarchist ideal of a federation of workplace and community councils is practical for the same reasons that Marxist revolution isn’t possible. But even given this, I’m sure that there is a lot more scope within the public service for more participatory decision making. (As an aside, Kevin Rudd’s health reform including local health councils is a step in the right direction, so long as health workers and local communities get to directly elect or appoint the delegates which run them).
And even without structural reforms, I think the challenge is to break apathy and get the great mass of suburbia engaged – for better or worse – in political issues beyond the six second soundbites they hear on the evening news. Easier said than done.
Finally, the term “libertarian” actually originally meant something more akin to what we would dub “left libertarian” today, although was hijacked by the Ayn Rand brigade. And we are indeed a million miles away from the left libertarian ideal of how society should run, and the overemphasis of the wealth of a few isn’t moving us in the right direction.
I think there are a number of problems here, some addressed by some of the posters above, others not.
A major issue in Australia is depoliticisation. And I don’t mean that simply in the class sense of the word, I mean that in general. Two sad facts to think about: nationally, there is no Australian political party with a membership base larger than the Hawthorn Football Club (with its 50,000 members). Similarly, the Hawthorn footy club has more members than the Victorian branch of the ALP and the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party combined.
What that suggests to me is that most Australians – regardless of class – aren’t even active politically against their interests; they’re not active politically full stop.
This depoliticisation, in turn, allows the branch stackers and factional big wigs to control the major parties. The depoliticisation allows vested interests to buy off the parties cheaply, because there are no significant grass roots campaign donations to speak of.
The other thing for pretty much anyone reading this to keep in mind is that, by virtue of reading a blog like Larvatus Prodeo, you are part of a very small section of Australian society that does engage with political, social, and environmental issues. The vast majority of Australians do not. The vast majority of Australians get their news and analysis off the commercial TV news and current affairs programmes if they watch the news at all, read a daily tabloid newspaper if they bother reading a newspaper at all, topped up by the half hourly news updates on commercial FM radio news or from AM talk radio. It is a distinct minority of the population that even bothers with either ABC News, SBS News, or a daily broadsheet (be it Murdoch’s Oz or one of the Fairfax broadsheets).
And what they get in these “news” offerings is politics as a battle of who has the best six second sound grab, politics as a battle between the blue team (Liberals) against the red team (the ALP), where the fortnightly opinion polls serve as a scoreboard between elections. And the reality is that – even if everyone were acting in good faith, the very short amount of time available in a 3 minute news story or a 6 second grab precludes anything other than the grossest of oversimplifications when you’re dealing with something very complex (such as the Australian tax system) or something that runs into the thousands of pages (as tax reform packages tend to do).
I don’t think that centralisation of everything is the ideal alternative. In fact, it could be argued that because it is so distant and far away, it allows the Governance of our society to be turned into a spectator sport. I think the answer may be more devolution of power to grassroots bodies closer to the people affected by decisions. At this time, I don’t think the Anarchist ideal of a federation of workplace and community councils is practical for the same reasons that Marxist revolution isn’t possible. But even given this, I’m sure that there is a lot more scope within the public service for more participatory decision making. (As an aside, Kevin Rudd’s health reform including local health councils is a step in the right direction, so long as health workers and local communities get to directly elect or appoint the delegates which run them).
And even without structural reforms, I think the challenge is to break apathy and get the great mass of suburbia engaged – for better or worse – in political issues beyond the six second soundbites they hear on the evening news. Easier said than done.
Finally, the term “libertarian” actually originally meant something more akin to what we would dub “left libertarian” today, although was hijacked by the Ayn Rand brigade. And we are indeed a million miles away from the left libertarian ideal of how society should run, and the overemphasis of the wealth of a few isn’t moving us in the right direction.
Right on, Amish, that’s precisely what I was getting at. I find deliberative polling as a form of participatory democracy and a facet of policy development very interesting (essentially, inform your sample about the pros and cons of a policy, then let them decide) quite interesting. But you’re correct in that there is certainly no silver bullet.
Right on, Amish, that’s precisely what I was getting at. I find deliberative polling as a form of participatory democracy and a facet of policy development very interesting (essentially, inform your sample about the pros and cons of a policy, then let them decide) quite interesting. But you’re correct in that there is certainly no silver bullet.
Who governs NSW?
Jokes aside, come the day, will it make any difference when Tripodi and Obeid are no longer in the NSW Parliament? Something is deeply wrong, when the Opposition is widely seen a bridge too far, a leap of faith without foundation.
Who governs NSW?
Jokes aside, come the day, will it make any difference when Tripodi and Obeid are no longer in the NSW Parliament? Something is deeply wrong, when the Opposition is widely seen a bridge too far, a leap of faith without foundation.
I think the answer is simple: It’s the Chinese!
When they rat-f**ked the climate change talks at Copenhagen they were obviously trying to get their deep cover agent Tony Abbott into power in Canberra!
The Central Comittee likely view Abbott as pliable moralistic politician who will sell China all the dirt it wants at the price it wants – a useful idiot – as opposed to that highly dangerous Mandarin-speaking former diplomat.
I think the answer is simple: It’s the Chinese!
When they rat-f**ked the climate change talks at Copenhagen they were obviously trying to get their deep cover agent Tony Abbott into power in Canberra!
The Central Comittee likely view Abbott as pliable moralistic politician who will sell China all the dirt it wants at the price it wants – a useful idiot – as opposed to that highly dangerous Mandarin-speaking former diplomat.
Amish – it’s even worse than that.
Increasingly, those people who ARE members of political parties are less and less willing to put their mouth where their money is, so to speak. Especially in country areas, many ALP branches struggle to make a quorum at meetings – regardless of the number of members in the branch – even when meetings are pushed out to quarterly rather than monthly.
You organise an election fundraiser and so few people RSVP you have to cancel it.
And one thing that gets me scratching my head with bewilderment every time I have to make up a polling day HTV-card roster is the total apathy of party members in terms of givng their time to help out, even for a measly hour. So why put your hand in your pocket and pay your own hard-earned cash to be a member of a political party if you aren’t even prepared to help them at election time? Isn’t that the whole raison d-etre of political involvement, especially with a party that can form a government? So they can remain in opposition forever and you can just boo the government from the sidelines?
I just don’t get it.
Amish – it’s even worse than that.
Increasingly, those people who ARE members of political parties are less and less willing to put their mouth where their money is, so to speak. Especially in country areas, many ALP branches struggle to make a quorum at meetings – regardless of the number of members in the branch – even when meetings are pushed out to quarterly rather than monthly.
You organise an election fundraiser and so few people RSVP you have to cancel it.
And one thing that gets me scratching my head with bewilderment every time I have to make up a polling day HTV-card roster is the total apathy of party members in terms of givng their time to help out, even for a measly hour. So why put your hand in your pocket and pay your own hard-earned cash to be a member of a political party if you aren’t even prepared to help them at election time? Isn’t that the whole raison d-etre of political involvement, especially with a party that can form a government? So they can remain in opposition forever and you can just boo the government from the sidelines?
I just don’t get it.
Shaun Carney was spot-on when he said
Just think of all the now-serious problems and issues that were ignored or trivialized at a stage when they could have been rectified: aboriginal health, unauthorized immigration, the so-called skills shortage, the strangling of small rural towns, the unstable whimsical tax “system(?)”, etc. And add to that the unreported self-destruction of almost all of Australia’s soft power in the past decade(Listen or download ABC Radio National’s latest Background Briefing for a useful description of effective soft power).
My suggestion is that all media and political wallahs be forced to do a sabbatical year out in the real world …. though ther shock of reality might be more than some could bear.
Shaun Carney was spot-on when he said
Just think of all the now-serious problems and issues that were ignored or trivialized at a stage when they could have been rectified: aboriginal health, unauthorized immigration, the so-called skills shortage, the strangling of small rural towns, the unstable whimsical tax “system(?)”, etc. And add to that the unreported self-destruction of almost all of Australia’s soft power in the past decade(Listen or download ABC Radio National’s latest Background Briefing for a useful description of effective soft power).
My suggestion is that all media and political wallahs be forced to do a sabbatical year out in the real world …. though ther shock of reality might be more than some could bear.
Chinda why does it surprise you when both parties are so morally bankrupt? I would argue that those people are members not to the party as it exists, per se, but as it has existed, as it may exist again one day. I mean, honestly, how many people would honestly campaign for Kenneally in nsw? Come on.
Also, I think you will find (at least, such is my experience with branches): most of them are old, many of them are pensioners. Standing around with a htv is not only deeply unappealing to them (and I agree with them there!), but also not perhaps even physically possible.
Chinda why does it surprise you when both parties are so morally bankrupt? I would argue that those people are members not to the party as it exists, per se, but as it has existed, as it may exist again one day. I mean, honestly, how many people would honestly campaign for Kenneally in nsw? Come on.
Also, I think you will find (at least, such is my experience with branches): most of them are old, many of them are pensioners. Standing around with a htv is not only deeply unappealing to them (and I agree with them there!), but also not perhaps even physically possible.
Also Chinda, why would you show up, when your opinions and votes for the branch and the party more broadly will be ignored, over-ridden, ridiculed, etc. Don’t blame the victim, here.
Also Chinda, why would you show up, when your opinions and votes for the branch and the party more broadly will be ignored, over-ridden, ridiculed, etc. Don’t blame the victim, here.
Amish: Finally, the term “libertarian” actually originally meant something more akin to what we would dub “left libertarian” today, although was hijacked by the Ayn Rand brigade.
Was that before or after they decided they weren’t anarchists?
Jarrah, I suspect you mistake my critique of what libertarians commonly stand for for ignorance of the history and political theory. The gulf between the usual libertarian “I’ve got mine and I’m going to keep it come hell or high water” and the underlying claims to fairness through free contract-making are enormous, even if you accept the notion that unequal individuals can fairly contract with each other in the absence of external controls.
I think the point that Somalia is closer to being a “Libertopia” than the US is is both accurate and fair. That country really does have a small government that’s primarily concerned with making sure the wealthy get to keep their wealth. Which I think is a primary concern for most libertarians.
Australia being overly influenced by business and considered as primarily an economy just means that it’s closer to Libertarianism than I would like. If you take that to mean I want a big government, strongly progressive taxation and a great deal of protective legislation you’d be right. Having done enough research to satisfy myself, I’m convinced that that way lies maximum freedom for each individual. It’s a significant restriction of the freedom of the tiny to gain much more freedom for each of the many.
Amish: Finally, the term “libertarian” actually originally meant something more akin to what we would dub “left libertarian” today, although was hijacked by the Ayn Rand brigade.
Was that before or after they decided they weren’t anarchists?
Jarrah, I suspect you mistake my critique of what libertarians commonly stand for for ignorance of the history and political theory. The gulf between the usual libertarian “I’ve got mine and I’m going to keep it come hell or high water” and the underlying claims to fairness through free contract-making are enormous, even if you accept the notion that unequal individuals can fairly contract with each other in the absence of external controls.
I think the point that Somalia is closer to being a “Libertopia” than the US is is both accurate and fair. That country really does have a small government that’s primarily concerned with making sure the wealthy get to keep their wealth. Which I think is a primary concern for most libertarians.
Australia being overly influenced by business and considered as primarily an economy just means that it’s closer to Libertarianism than I would like. If you take that to mean I want a big government, strongly progressive taxation and a great deal of protective legislation you’d be right. Having done enough research to satisfy myself, I’m convinced that that way lies maximum freedom for each individual. It’s a significant restriction of the freedom of the tiny to gain much more freedom for each of the many.
This just in:
As the monkey titters, so does the organ grinder …
This just in:
As the monkey titters, so does the organ grinder …
Who governs Australia?
Why the ruling class, of course!
Why must liberals continually re-invent the political wheel?
Go on, swallow your pride and admit Marx was right. It’ll hurt at first but you’ll feel much better for it afterwards…
Who governs Australia?
Why the ruling class, of course!
Why must liberals continually re-invent the political wheel?
Go on, swallow your pride and admit Marx was right. It’ll hurt at first but you’ll feel much better for it afterwards…
Chav @ 46,
Chav @ 46,
Australian politics has evolved from domination by the squatocracy with their useful idiots in the ‘muddle class’, to the US system of whoever pays the biggest campaign donations/most lobby groups/greatest funding of politicians’ retirements/etc.
Ah progress. From a class driven, incompetent and moderately corrupt system to a modern meritocracy of systemic corruption.
Pleas come back Chiefly all is forgiven .. you were right about the banks
Australian politics has evolved from domination by the squatocracy with their useful idiots in the ‘muddle class’, to the US system of whoever pays the biggest campaign donations/most lobby groups/greatest funding of politicians’ retirements/etc.
Ah progress. From a class driven, incompetent and moderately corrupt system to a modern meritocracy of systemic corruption.
Pleas come back Chiefly all is forgiven .. you were right about the banks
“Who governs Australia?”
Who are the only people interested enough in politics to ask that question? Is there any right wing equivalent to this blog? Why are there people born to the Labor party, but the coalition is made up of (sometimes) gifted amateurs?
You reap what you sow – and decades of leftist activism have left us with an ideologically disabled media which is unable to distinguish right from wrong or truth from fiction. Most Australians are conservative, and the major party that gives them voice will deserve to govern.
“Who governs Australia?”
Who are the only people interested enough in politics to ask that question? Is there any right wing equivalent to this blog? Why are there people born to the Labor party, but the coalition is made up of (sometimes) gifted amateurs?
You reap what you sow – and decades of leftist activism have left us with an ideologically disabled media which is unable to distinguish right from wrong or truth from fiction. Most Australians are conservative, and the major party that gives them voice will deserve to govern.
Last night on Four Corners Sarah Ferguson disqualified herself at the outset IMO with this comment:
Firstly, the Government is not squirming under a mountain of debt. Its debt levels are the envy of most in the OECD.
Secondly, Swan made it very clear at the outset that the RSPT had nothing to do with paying back debt. Nothing at all. It was to be used for specified purposes which would not go ahead if the tax was not passed by the parliament. That’s all.
Later in the program there was this exchange:
But this was introduced by Ferguson with this framing comment:
Pathetic.
Last night on Four Corners Sarah Ferguson disqualified herself at the outset IMO with this comment:
Firstly, the Government is not squirming under a mountain of debt. Its debt levels are the envy of most in the OECD.
Secondly, Swan made it very clear at the outset that the RSPT had nothing to do with paying back debt. Nothing at all. It was to be used for specified purposes which would not go ahead if the tax was not passed by the parliament. That’s all.
Later in the program there was this exchange:
But this was introduced by Ferguson with this framing comment:
Pathetic.
PeterTB asked:
Catalepsy? I’ve never been there, but based purely on the reports of those who claim to have been there …
Then again, I regard this as a high quality left-of-centere blog, whereas some of the reports of that one suggest it is not merely right-of-centre but sub-intellectual, in which case it wouldn’t be a right-wing counterpart to this one.
I have no idea what you can mean when you speak of parties deserving to govern. Desert, in this context sounds metaphysical. If parties are to govern, then they should embody the legitimate interests of those on whose behalf they act. To some extent that is subjective (are we talking short, medium or longterm; do we allow for dynamic effects of policy and if so how; how do we weigh intangible benefits?).
It is arguable that describing the current populace as conservative rather than liberal is the less inaccurate descriptor, but it is surely the case, given that “the current populace” is not a single mind or identity that part of community is a continuous process of challenge, interrogation, reflection, invention and reinvention. Accordingly, what the community is roughly now says nothing useful about who should govern.
PeterTB asked:
Catalepsy? I’ve never been there, but based purely on the reports of those who claim to have been there …
Then again, I regard this as a high quality left-of-centere blog, whereas some of the reports of that one suggest it is not merely right-of-centre but sub-intellectual, in which case it wouldn’t be a right-wing counterpart to this one.
I have no idea what you can mean when you speak of parties deserving to govern. Desert, in this context sounds metaphysical. If parties are to govern, then they should embody the legitimate interests of those on whose behalf they act. To some extent that is subjective (are we talking short, medium or longterm; do we allow for dynamic effects of policy and if so how; how do we weigh intangible benefits?).
It is arguable that describing the current populace as conservative rather than liberal is the less inaccurate descriptor, but it is surely the case, given that “the current populace” is not a single mind or identity that part of community is a continuous process of challenge, interrogation, reflection, invention and reinvention. Accordingly, what the community is roughly now says nothing useful about who should govern.
Well spotted Brian.
I have taken a little to filtering out these constant interruptions of editorialising by ABC correspondents, for my own sanity, and missed that one on Four Corners last night.
I was nevertheless glued to my seat watching raw footage of Clive Palmer feeding the chooks and seemingly oblivious to the unfavourable impressions he was making.
It is always fascinating viewing someone, who sincerely believes they are a legend and ever so clever, make a total fool of themselves.
Well spotted Brian.
I have taken a little to filtering out these constant interruptions of editorialising by ABC correspondents, for my own sanity, and missed that one on Four Corners last night.
I was nevertheless glued to my seat watching raw footage of Clive Palmer feeding the chooks and seemingly oblivious to the unfavourable impressions he was making.
It is always fascinating viewing someone, who sincerely believes they are a legend and ever so clever, make a total fool of themselves.
Brian @ 50 – if the idea behind the RSPT wasn’t to raise more money rather than change the way in which the tax is collected then they could have made the changes in a revenue neutral way which would have been a lot less controversial. For various reasons the government has allowed itself to get backed into a corner regarding the deficit so they did need a way to raise money to spend on election time goodies.
joe2 – Clive Palmer does a better job of selling the government’s message than any of their adverts. They should be paying him to get on to prime time tv
Brian @ 50 – if the idea behind the RSPT wasn’t to raise more money rather than change the way in which the tax is collected then they could have made the changes in a revenue neutral way which would have been a lot less controversial. For various reasons the government has allowed itself to get backed into a corner regarding the deficit so they did need a way to raise money to spend on election time goodies.
joe2 – Clive Palmer does a better job of selling the government’s message than any of their adverts. They should be paying him to get on to prime time tv
On the slightly O.T. subject of government advertising, Chris, it was interesting to see John Hewson give his blessing, on Four Corners, to the RSPT info campaign as a reasonable counter to mining company propaganda.
As far as Clive Palmer is concerned, I will be surprised if he is not used as fodder when Labor really lets loose, with it’s own private election advertising.
On the slightly O.T. subject of government advertising, Chris, it was interesting to see John Hewson give his blessing, on Four Corners, to the RSPT info campaign as a reasonable counter to mining company propaganda.
As far as Clive Palmer is concerned, I will be surprised if he is not used as fodder when Labor really lets loose, with it’s own private election advertising.
“Last night on Four Corners Sarah Ferguson disqualified herself at the outset”
Brian, I agree w/ joe2. Well spotted. So much for objective reporting. Far too much opinion-making on the ABC these days.
N’
“Last night on Four Corners Sarah Ferguson disqualified herself at the outset”
Brian, I agree w/ joe2. Well spotted. So much for objective reporting. Far too much opinion-making on the ABC these days.
N’
joe2 @ 54 – yes I wasn’t surprised by that (and there seems to be little dispute among economists that its the right approach). After all he’s the one who tried push the GST tax reform through and got done in by a scare campaign. And from someone who in the past had wanted to introduce a GST anyway.
joe2 @ 54 – yes I wasn’t surprised by that (and there seems to be little dispute among economists that its the right approach). After all he’s the one who tried push the GST tax reform through and got done in by a scare campaign. And from someone who in the past had wanted to introduce a GST anyway.
Chris
“election time goodies”. It is so easy to trot out cliches. What the government is trying to do is to plant seeds which will bear fruit over differing spans of time. Company tax reduction for small business would be effective almost immediately upon implementation of the legislation and would allow these many businesses to better afford capital purchases, increase staff and generally expand. Provided of course that they don’t just put the savings in their pocket. The phase-in of company tax reduction for all businesses will follow soon after with all of the above benefits. And remember the more money there is floating around in the economy, the better off we all are. Incidentally, this will bring prices down and reduce inflation thereby making RBA interest rate rises less likely. More of this same mining money will go in to an Infrastructure Fund which will create jobs in the short term and increase our productivity in the longer term. This is not altruistic. More jobs means more people paying tax. More productivity means more company tax revenues. What goes around comes around. And finally, increased Super contributions will take pressure off hospitals, decrease the huge amount due to be forked out on pensions in coming decades and much much more.
I share your disdain for election time goodies and they abound but I do wish that it could be made clear that these particular changes will still be having beneficial effects in fifty years time when today’s teenagers reach retirement.
And where are we to get the money to fund this reform. I know. How about we put up the price on our finite natural resources while there is still a good market for them.
Chris
“election time goodies”. It is so easy to trot out cliches. What the government is trying to do is to plant seeds which will bear fruit over differing spans of time. Company tax reduction for small business would be effective almost immediately upon implementation of the legislation and would allow these many businesses to better afford capital purchases, increase staff and generally expand. Provided of course that they don’t just put the savings in their pocket. The phase-in of company tax reduction for all businesses will follow soon after with all of the above benefits. And remember the more money there is floating around in the economy, the better off we all are. Incidentally, this will bring prices down and reduce inflation thereby making RBA interest rate rises less likely. More of this same mining money will go in to an Infrastructure Fund which will create jobs in the short term and increase our productivity in the longer term. This is not altruistic. More jobs means more people paying tax. More productivity means more company tax revenues. What goes around comes around. And finally, increased Super contributions will take pressure off hospitals, decrease the huge amount due to be forked out on pensions in coming decades and much much more.
I share your disdain for election time goodies and they abound but I do wish that it could be made clear that these particular changes will still be having beneficial effects in fifty years time when today’s teenagers reach retirement.
And where are we to get the money to fund this reform. I know. How about we put up the price on our finite natural resources while there is still a good market for them.
Yes, Brian, I should have looked at the whole transcript after coming late and reluctantly to 4 Corners expecting much worse than I subsequently saw. There are so many sweeping and incorrect assumptions from journos across all media these days. Surely somewhere someone some body is responsible for monitoring bias and assumptions to say nothing of deliberate distortion? I seem to remember that the ABA had a role in the past? Censorship or even continuous overview may not be the answer, but balance needs to be restored somehow. Do we have to wait for orderly resignation and replacement of ABC board members and for Rupert Murdoch to die and a war of print media succession to break out before we can hope for change?
Yes, Brian, I should have looked at the whole transcript after coming late and reluctantly to 4 Corners expecting much worse than I subsequently saw. There are so many sweeping and incorrect assumptions from journos across all media these days. Surely somewhere someone some body is responsible for monitoring bias and assumptions to say nothing of deliberate distortion? I seem to remember that the ABA had a role in the past? Censorship or even continuous overview may not be the answer, but balance needs to be restored somehow. Do we have to wait for orderly resignation and replacement of ABC board members and for Rupert Murdoch to die and a war of print media succession to break out before we can hope for change?
I think the ABC are still reacting as though Senator Richard Alston was minister for communications and he hasn’t been since 2003. There was also that Liberal Party machine man, forgotten his name, who then went to the UK to stuff up the Conservatives election strategy. He used to complain about ABC bias about once a day.
The ABC should be smarter. I we get the Libs back again it will cost them funding.
I think the ABC are still reacting as though Senator Richard Alston was minister for communications and he hasn’t been since 2003. There was also that Liberal Party machine man, forgotten his name, who then went to the UK to stuff up the Conservatives election strategy. He used to complain about ABC bias about once a day.
The ABC should be smarter. I we get the Libs back again it will cost them funding.
Indeed, Brian. Labor was quite generous to Aunty when they came to power with a large funding increase after they had been squeezed for years.
Instead of using the money to improve standards of journalism they have run to mimic the easier Murdoch tabloid style, complete with conservative bias.
Indeed, Brian. Labor was quite generous to Aunty when they came to power with a large funding increase after they had been squeezed for years.
Instead of using the money to improve standards of journalism they have run to mimic the easier Murdoch tabloid style, complete with conservative bias.