Cross-posted from Skepticlawyer.
Today my daughter was playing with her pink superball while my son was asleep (it’s small, so she’s only allowed to get it out while he’s sleeping). I heard her mutter to her toys while brandishing the pink superball, “This is the Prime Minister, and if you do something he doesn’t like, he will bounce in your eye.” My husband has pointed out that she may have learned the concept from a book entitled Blossom Possum (beautifully illustrated by Rafe Champion’s late wife, as it happens). I have also tried to explain to her what a Prime Minister does, but given the actions of the superball, I’m not sure if she quite “got it”.
Anyway, after I posted this incident on my Facebook page, the post started off a string of reminiscences about people’s childhood political memories. It transpires that an amazing number of my friends just loved Bob Hawke when they were kids. I don’t know if that means my friends’ families were generally Labor-leaning, or that Bob had a special appeal which made him loved by kids? When my sister was a little girl, she loved Bob. One general election, she asked Dad who he voted for, and Dad teasingly said he voted for Andrew Peacock because the Liberals gave him a shortbread round (actually he’d bought it at the school stall at the voting booth). My sister sobbed and sobbed, and said, “Now the forests will die because you haven’t voted for Bob!”
Mark Bahnisch commented that when he was in Grade 2, he wrote a poem about Gough Whitlam. Then Mark and I decided that we should write a joint post about what everyone’s earliest political memories are. I remember that I never liked Joh Bjelke-Petersen as a child. In addition, with a child’s merciless observation, I noted his head was shaped like a peanut, and thus I thought it was extraordinary that he was an ex-peanut farmer. Like my sister, I also loved Bob Hawke when I was little.
Do you remember whether you liked particular politicians when you were young? Or did you dislike particular politicians?
Parliament goes into recess next week, after a sitting whose most prominent contribution to political discussion was the unruliness of question time (aside, of course, from the usual shenanigans of opposition disunity, which are now customary).
Writing in Crikey yesterday, Bernard Keane observed:
I’ve been watching or listening to Parliament since the early Hawke years and I can never recall Question Time not being made a mockery of.
Speaking as a recovering question time tragic, I’m not sure I agree with that. It’s true if the ritual is compared to some sort of Platonic eidos – as if its essence (dignified accountability and/or razor or rapier sharp wit) must incarnate itself in the chamber on a daily basis. In truth, a lot of the mysticism about parliamentary discourse – and accountability – is just that. If some sort of conception of parliament as a pure space, an agora if you like, for the exchange of ideas and reasoning was a large part of the mythos of nineteenth century liberalism, that doesn’t mean that we should expect that it would have a lot to do with the pragmatics of twenty-first century Australian politics, though its traces remain.
Back in a more Aristotelian world, I think we can discard the Bagehot for a bit, and make some observations about precisely when and why parliamentary tempers boil over. Continue reading ‘Question time: The classical philosophy edition’
Picking up on Reserve Bank governor Glenn Stevens’ remarks about “borrowing to invest” and not being afraid of a deficit if there are good policy outcomes to be had, eight prominent economists (including a couple of blogging ones) have written an open letter to Kevin Rudd making suggestions for a further fiscal stimulus under three headings of policy – Superannuation flexibility, Building the nation and Preparing for climate change. The text is here at Troppo (one of the authors is Nicholas Gruen).
There’s been a bit of press coverage this morning, and no doubt it’s a worthy thing to stimulate debate by proposing substantive policy measures rather than just advancing critique. It may be an even worthier thing to shift the terms of the debate, regardless of the merits of the proposed policy directions. We don’t see enough of this sort of initiative.
But I do wonder if the economists stop and think about the political feasibibility of their proposals.
Continue reading ‘Fiscal stimulus: Eight economists and a few politicians’
Recent comments
Saint Furious of Ikea, Brett, Saint Furious of Ikea, Saint Furious of Ikea, Brett
Saint Furious of Ikea, Helen, Laura, conrad, murph the surf., Chris [...]
Ian Curr, Chav, Chav, Liam, Paul Norton, Fran Barlow [...]
Saint Furious of Ikea, David Irving (no relation), Deborah, David Irving (no relation), Pavlov's Cat, Deborah [...]
Ootz, desipis, John D, Fran Barlow, paul of albury, j_p_z [...]
John D, HuggyBunny, Chris, Tim Macknay, carbonsink, Elise [...]
Quoll, David Irving (no relation), Wood Duck, David Irving (no relation), Mark, josh [...]
Ginja, GregM, PD41, Enemy Combatant, Matilda, Mercurius [...]
Frankie V., armagny, sg, Robert Merkel, wilful
Caroline Church, Fran Barlow, Sam, Jenny, Sam, Kim [...]
Liam, anthony nolan, pablo, Ute Man, Col. Douglas C. Niedermeyer, Mindy [...]
David Irving (no relation), Roger Jones, David Irving (no relation), Elise, Paul Norton, Gummo Trotsky [...]