I’m not always in tune with the political zeitgeist, but my decision to run a post advocating a dignified resignation for Julia Gillard was made just ahead of the rush. Of course, the option of voluntarily stepping aside has now been foreclosed. When Gillard goes (I don’t think there’s a remaining question of “if”) it will be as a result the usual messy and unpleasant process of assembling a sufficient number of votes (not necessarily a majority) to render her position untenable.
Both because I don’t want to see any last-minute stuffups, I hope the carbon tax and mining tax legislation is passed before she goes. Certainly, whether or not she supported these measures, she did the hard yards to get them through.
On the question of her replacement, I had previously dismissed Rudd, on the basis that his abrasive personality and micro-management tendencies (not apparent in his public persona, but well-attested) would make him unacceptable to his colleagues. However, the High Court decision on asylum seekers changes all that. Rudd has more credibility on this issue than anyone else in the party. Labor has no choice but to revert to a more humane position and stress the point that the Court decision undermines Abbott as well as Gillard. It now seems highly unlikely that a policy based on long-term detention of people who have already been assessed as refugees can stand up, wherever they are held.
Stephen Smith seems like the natural choice for deputy, and it would be sensible to find a ministerial spot for Gillard, all of which would permit a reshuffle.
No one can tell for sure, but I think the return of Rudd would put the spotlight on Abbott’s total fraudulence, maybe even paving the way for the Rudd vs Turnbull election we should have had last time.
John Quiggin 
Is this a joke? The labor party bosses despise Rudd. Even more than the liberals hate turnbull (who was a pathetic failure as opposition leader). The idea of a Rudd vs turnbull election is totally ridiculous. The high court decision changes nothing.
Furthermore, the independents have a personal deal with gillard, not with labor. If she goes the deal is off and there will be an immediate election, at which labor will be crushed. At least if gillard stays they can postpone being crushed until 2013.
There cannot be an election until a prime minister who has the confidence of the house advises the governor-general to call one.
An immediate election would crush those same independents, except Windsor. It would be in their interest to negotiate a fresh confidence and supply arrangement with the new Labor leader. Negotiating with the new leader would also accord with their long-held demand that the parliament serve its full term.
I find it difficult to believe the Federal caucus would re-instate Rudd. From all the writing about Rudd’s time as PM that I have read over the past year or so, he appears to have been the most widely hated leader of the ALP in its history.
The ALP faces a meltdown at the next election. Progressives and left-wingers within the party should spend the next year or two pondering if persisting with a decaying and deeply corrupt party machine is really the only possible future.
Time to take a deep breath and stop deluding ourselves that the ALP offers a credible vehicle for any form of left-wing politics. The alternative is that after the next election we waste our time re-building a party that will then only treat us with utter contempt.
Michael, I would not take any of the media hype to seriously.
Yes, if they keep repeating the same hype, they will be eventually be correct one day, that either the PM is replaced or an election called.
Now, they are only guessing or more likely wishul thinkng on their part.
Gosh, I hope you’re wrong John – as a loyal ALP member and a supporter of the govt’s policies (excepting asylum seeker policy), I think changing leader now would just make us a laughing stock.
We would be either burning a talented future leader (Combet) or appointing a caretaker (Crean) ahead of rebuilding after an inevitable loss.
I’d like Julia Gillard to abandon offshore processing, decree that we will look after asylum seekers humanely here, and give up trying to placate the racist xenophonic suburbanites – and then put the hard word on the advocates of a humane refugee policy to get behind Labor or get ready to fight an Abbott govt all over again.
And stop pussy-footing around with News Ltd – they are relentlessly biased and that needs to be said plainly, bluntly – and cancel their govt advertising too.
As for Tony Abbott, his name should always be tied to Alan Jones – never mention one without the other – Tony Abbott Alan Jones, Alan Jones Tony Abbott.
Julia is right when she says she’s the best person for the job – hang in there, sister.
Gillard will always struggle with authority given the way she knocked Rudd off. In politics, it is public perception that counts so his well-attested micro-management style does not mean anything to the public. My perception at the time was and probably still is the nerd knocked off by the bullies. So a return to Rudd is the only option if there is a change regardless of the situation. With Swan in Treasury and bringing Stephen Smith in as Deputy would only remind everyone of Latham’s Roosters comments and you would have to wonder how Swan would have to feel about it unless you think it would be happy with keeping Treasurer.
When Rudd was knocked off I would have preferred to see him as Deputy as that would have stabilised public concern about the way it was done. Perhaps a return to Rudd should keep Swan as deputy. Just floating the idea as it occurs to me, I do not necessarily endorse the move.
A return to Rudd would make me happy but any other party member will damage Labor for good. Also a return to Rudd may not necessarily be a good political mood.
Overall what Labor needs is someone with decent oratorical skills.
[Furthermore, the independents have a personal deal with gillard, not with labor.]
This is Gillard spin
[The three independents are still backing the government, and the Prime Minister, but at least two don’t rule out supporting a Labor administration led by someone different.]
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/pm-looks-wobbly-as-talk-turns-to-alternatives-20110902-1jq7e.html#ixzz1Wqu5rASJ
Mr Quiggin appears to have succumbed to the group madness that is the msm political commentariat….
The obscene preoccupation with everything Julia says and does….viewed as it is through the distorting lens of whatever hallucinogenic substances political opinionistas are handing around in their psychotic echo chamber….needs to stop before we ALL go mad!!
Most of the msm has become toxic and dangerous to our mental health…
I think John is spot on.
Moreover even if people in the caucus are not keen on Rudd they will still be looking at their future at present. Only those sitting on margins on 15% or more can really be comfortable and even those in “green” areas may be worried. Senators just third on the ticket will also be nervous (panicked).
Ultimately if they think Rudd can save the furniture they will go with him. Gillard I think can survive at most two more bad newspolls.
The next one is likely to be awful. If the one after that stays down then she will have to move on.
The notion that Rudd is detested throughout the party is actually not true. This was a insider and media assisted narrative to undermine Rudd.
It suited one group of people within Labor and the media to undermine Rudd to the effect of installing Gillard, which came to pass.
Sure, Rudd was a tough and demanding cookie, but grown adults shouldn’t have a problem with a hard working dedicated leader who demands the very best.
These same adults given their union background shouldn’t have trouble confronting any leader they were miffed with. In fact this puts a lie to the stories about Rudd. He was so tough and strong that former Union and Party heavies were too scared to confront and deal with him?
There may be personality conflict problems with a number of the members, not just Rudd, but the notion that he is detested or loathed widely is in fact untrue.
@Janet
“Only those sitting on margins on 15% or more can really be comfortable”
Janet, if any Labor MPs are really that self-centred I’ll personally attend their offices and give them a good slapping.
If we go down in a screaming heap in 2013, so be it – in the meantime the Gillard govt has the opportunity to do some good and their duty is to do it – that’s why we elected them and that’s why 3 independents and a Green continue to support them.
The PM would do well to toughen her language –
“We’re not going to waste time and money on an early election, I’m PM for another 2 years, get used to it”; and,
“I’ve had a gutful of Tony Abbott’s deceitful crap, he needs to stop sucking up to Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt”; and,
“We’re not going to keep pouring millions of dollars of advertising into The Australian if they are going to keep up their relentless bias.”
I think that would win her more respect than the overly polite manner we’ve seen so far.
This is all just utter madness.
This is just a figment of Liberal Party, jock radio, and News Ltd imagination, jostled along by mischievous cretins in the media – see SMH link at #7.
It is a TOTAL rightwing beatup to disrupt and cultivate public opinion, and John Quiggin falls for it, hook, line, sinker, rod and all.
Gillard is being attacked because of the government policies which would not change under any hypothetical, non-existing, dreamt-up “alternative”.
I think anyone who wants Gillard’s job right now would be mad.
The problem with the Ron E Joggles thesis is that no one questions Gillard’s toughness. It is her judgment that worries us. She is extremely good at talking tough, especially if she is saying something that appeals to voters who will never vote Labor. Unfortunately she is less good at persuading traditional labor constituencies that she and they have much in common.
Threatening to withdraw public advertising from The Australian would be suicidal. It would be rightly seen as trying to muzzle the press and lead to a large and amply deserved backlash.
Pr Q said:
Eh tu, John?
Changing leaders will not change the public’s gloomy post-GFC economic forebodings or the ALP’s critical legitimacy deficit run-up as a result of its dodgy coalition deal with notionally Right-wing rural Independents and Left-wing urban Greens.
Gillard’s supposed poor record as a government is mostly a right-wing media/left-wing academia generated myth. She got a lot more good policy done than Rudd, and even the ever-industrious Howard, in a much shorter time under much more adverse circumstances. Gillard’s lower mining and simpler carbon tax policies are much better than Rudd’s from a policy and political perspective. Hartcher takes the reality-check:
My gut feeling is that the government’s popularity poll slump is the political “hangover” from nearly two decades of borrow-and-spend affluenza. Everyone is mortgaged to the hilt and concentrating on amortising debt in preparation for when the GFC finally hits our shores.
Unfortunately the carbon-tax is a victim of poor timing in that the public views it as another cost of living impost ontop of skyrocketing charges from oppressive oligopolies (bank interest rates, supermarket shopping bills, utility charges, petrol station price cycles and telco rip-offs)
At these moments the ALP usually elects a female to carry the can.
Its sad to see Pr Q driving the band-wagon for leadership changes. She won the election, let her go the full term.
I’ve never voted Liberal in my life and never will, yet I hate the current Labor party more, and here’s why. Adopting misanthropic policies is precisely what one would expect from Tories, because let’s face it, they’re Tories.. Labor don’t have that excuse. They’ve become the antithesis of what they’re supposed to stand for.. Disgusting. They deserve an extended period in the wilderness now, and their sycophantic supporters should be cast out.. This Labor party is a festering boil that must be lanced
i a suggestion for all you labor lovers
what’s wrong the the Labor party – from the perspective of normal everyday Australians?
1. we are still backing the war-mongering crazy USA in our military policy – we should withdraw from all theaters of involvement with the USA
2. the boat people issue has made both parties look like complete and utter fools – the reasons we don’t want the boat people? because they either represent the regions we have been terrorising or because they are poor. Sorrry, but was not Australia built on POOR immigrants and not rich ones?
3. the carbon tax is loathed not because people don’t believe in climate change but because of the hypocrisy of exporting enormous reserves of coal and gas while telling everyone we have to pay more for electricity etc – you can’t have it both ways – you either stay in one camp or another and if one lobby group doesn’t like it tough
4. the PM’s hasty attack on wikileaks – any attack on the concept of free speech no matter where it comes from – makes people immediately realise in crystal clarity that their government has something to hide – and remember politicians are considered the most dishonest of all people
5. the Labor party does what the opposition does – a ceaseless cry of “we are better managers than you” it is so constant and so dishonest – and so obvious – who would vote for either unless it’s the choice of the less of two evils? Both parties should simply be stating policy and let the people decide which policies they wish to vote for – nothing else – attacking the other persons policy is just proof that you have no valid policy of your own or that you have no commitment – both are suicidal
6. the manipulation of immigration quotas to meet the needs of property market – anyone with kids who is not rich already, no matter what the claims of economists, sees the immigration system as a way of channeling rich foreigners into property – those who struggle to explain their discomfort at these policies are inevitably seen as racists and quashed
i could go on
it’s time that the power was taken away from politicians and put in the hands of the people – we have the technology
we just don’t have leaders with any training worth a damn except their training to be in power
pop
Two comments:
i) Given the recent ruling on the “Malay solution” – a correct ruling, I believe – the ALP should immediately test the off-shore processing at Nauru, to see if it withstands a legal challenge. If it doesn’t (survive a legal challenge), then it shoots down the original Howard solution and the opposition’s preferred policy. Labor can then opt for the more humane approach of Australian on-shore processing, and telling the Australian people that the cost of a more humane practice is necessarily that more boats will arrive. On the other hand, if the Nauru solution is tested and passes any legal challenge, the opposition wins the point that Nauru is a solution, and Labor can move on, once humble pie is amply consumed. However, a policy of doing nothing more now is a policy of losing the election and also the current leader (just the order of those events is in doubt). Personally, I always thought that at the first election where Labor put this up as an election issue, they should have said they would do on-shore processing as the humane solution and warned Australians that it would come at a cost of more boat arrivals, in the short term. At least that would have been a morally correct and honest stance, whatever its other merits or failings.
ii) I don’t believe the ALP should switch horses at this point, but they should get hold of some better media managers, that’s for sure. If the ALP do switch leaders, I believe that the only candidate with all of the essential skills to achieve a win at the next election is Greg Combet. He is the only ALP member with the capacity for honest toil, diplomacy, negotiation skills, and coalition building ability. He projects the character traits that any mother would be proud of in their child. Personally, I don’t think Bill Shorten comes close, however gifted he may be; unfortunately Shorten sometimes feels a little too clever by half, whereas Combet’s intelligence is applied to problem solving, not (obviously) to furthering himself by backroom deals. Shorten just feels a bit like more of the same, whereas I think Combet carries himself with the solidity that goes with integrity.
I’m wrong most of the time, so these are comments for amusement only 😛
I might be wrong that the independents are personally attached to gillard and it’s probably true that they’d be crushed together with labor if they went to an early election.
Still, if there are people in the ALP seriously contemplating a second PM assassination in as many terms, they must be crazy. Shorten and combet wont suddenly unsink this ship. And Crean, of all people… I dont think I’ve ever heard a worse suggestion. And the idea of Rudd coming back exists only in Rudd’s fantasies and in the columns of some particularly worthless Newscorp pundits. Rudd may be liked by the ALP membership but the powerbrokers loathe him and will never admit that the knifing was a mistake.
The only thing more wrong than talking about Rudd returning is talking about Turnbull returning. Abbott has been super-effective as opposition leader, nobody could have predicted it. Turnbull by contrast was a complete loser.
I think this is crazy talk. If Gillard can hang on til 2013 I think she could be held in similar regard to Menzies. Australia has got it all .. quality of life, financial stability. What more do people want?
As for Rudd his dummy spit on the ETS was unpardonable. You don’t go to international conferences big noting yourself then renege on your main promise. If carbon tax, albeit flawed but a start, gets ditched I for one think things must go to a new level of nasty. Actual scientists (as opposed to media boofheads) tell us we must do something. Gillard has been the only one with the cojones to do anything.
And while everyone was distracted by this silly beat up Peter Slipper is considering going independent. So which leader has a crisis now?
The Rudd ‘dummy spit’ on the ETS was because members of the inner cabinet refused to support it. Lindsay Tanner says he was not one of them. The only other members were Gillard and Swan. That is the background to Gillard promising no carbon tax before the election.
What nonsense:
I suppose Bolt will probably report in the near future rumours that:
… there are people named GERALD who are seriously contemplating eating babies.
Still if there are people named GERALD who are seriously contemplating eating babies then they must be crazy.
Then we can interview neighbours;
“Would you be concerned if people in your street eat babies”
Then the Press headlines are;
PUBLIC CONDEMN POSSIBILITY OF BABY EATING IN GERALD’S HOUSE.
Mutterings about baby eating have been exposed in Gerald’s street. It now looks like his position is untenable.
etc
etc
People, people, this is personality politics which is utterly meaningless. Leaders are unimportant wooden figureheads wheeled out by the people who really own our parties. The major parties (Liberal and Labor) are both in the pockets of corporate mining capital and pander to focus group xenophobia so their policies scarcely differ in most major respects.
Unless you are prepared to vote for a genuine new paradigm you will get the same old, same old from Illiberals and the Unlabors.
@Ikonoclast
Yeah right, and Twiggy Forrest is the AntiChrist. I’ve met Julia Gillard and she’s definitely made of meat. Tony Abbott’s made of bone.
So what … we should eat her, but throw Abbott to the dogs? Or is Gillard the sort of meat you make glue out of, but Abbott would make a fine base for a soup? What is the nutritional value of Gillard and Abbot, Joggles?
WTF are you on about Chris? are you trying to make some sort of point, perhaps that you think the idea that some ALP people have considered dumping Gillard is as far-fetched as baby-eating?
Hermit – If we assume that your first sentence is a description of your second sentence then this makes sence. Otherwise you’re spouting crazy talk.
Sage words.
http://wikileaks.org/cable/2009/09/09PORTMORESBY180.html
Leader of the Opposition and former Prime Minister Sir Mekere Morauta told us he fears a `social implosion’ if Government proceeds from Exxon Mobil’s LNG project flowing into
Government-supervised trust accounts is misspent. …
Mekere opined that a Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea enjoys greater powers than a President of the U.S. or Prime Minister of Australia. In Australia and the U.S., he explained, there are well-developed political parties, including organized factions within ruling parties, which limit a leader’s power. …
As an example of poorly planned assistance, he cited money spent on various infrastructure projects such as road building, new schools and hospitals. `Our problem is not a need for new
infrastructure. At this point, we cannot even maintain the infrastructure we have. Instead of building new hospitals, we need to maintain the ones we have. Instead of new roads, we must
repair the ones we already have. …
The carbon tax remains the most fatal policy for Labor simple because they promised (vocally and repeatedly) not to introduce one. There is no point dumping the leader and keeping this policy unless it’s just an act of spite towards Gillard. Labor can’t redeem itself whilst that lie is seen to linger. And all the attempts to explain away the lie just annoys people more.
Disclosure: Although I have a hundred bucks riding on Turnbull being the next Liberal Party Prime Minister (laid the day he lost to Abbott) I supect it may be lost and I am now looking at a suitable recovery wager. One day I might choose to learn something about loss chasing.
oops a great chunk of my comment disappeared I will try again in a moment.
Professor Q,
thanks for sponsoring in interesting discussion.
There are many contradictions and paradoxes to take into account around any discussion about ‘should she stay or should she go’
The Labor Party’s best option is for Abbott to remain as leader of the Liberals and for someone else (probably Rudd) to lead the party.
The Liberal Party’s best option is for Gillard to remain as leader of the Labor Party and someone else (probably Turnbull) to lead the party.
Neither party apparently has the cojones or stomach to change the (apparently) best person to lead their respective parties. Neither party can admit (at least publicly) that their current leaders are (apparently) albatrosses around their necks.
Mexican standoff.
Opinionistas, most particularly Cassidy (I think), opined toward the end of last year that the only thing we could be sure about this year in politics was that one or other of Abboot and Gillard would still be leading their respective parties at the end of this year but not both. Two thirds of the way through the year and it is looking less and less likely that either side will ‘blink first’ and change leaders and thereby possibly ensure their electoral demise. Or is it that neither is able to admit it was a mistake to admit that it was a mistake to change to the leaders thet now have?
It is most unfortunate that we seem to have two sides that are better at playing short term political games with varying degrees of success than in governing for the medium and longer term benefit of the country.
The first one to ‘wake up’ and play the game for the better, or hopefully best, interests of the country will win out in this round of the game. Policies based on good principles rather than short term political gain would help immensley. (Yes I am particularly thinking of asylum seeker/refugee policy but there are others)
Despite the polls and betting markets I think the odds are tilted very marginally toward Gillard and Labor if only because they are in government and there is a very slim chance that tey may actually learn something from the disaters and bad luck that has come their way in the last twelve months.
Without an early election there is still a long time to go. Gillard is damaged goods, both through her own actions and apparent lack of moral compass, and the relentless but apparently effective negativity of Abbott and the coalition. But as far as damaged goods go, so was Howard before he won in ’96. Things don’t look good for Gillard or Labor, nevertheless many things might happen over the next couple of years. Two more years will be two more years for Abbott to resist his ‘Lathamite’ tendencies. People might even get sick of his attempts to walk both sides of the street, his relentless negativity and opposition for the sake of it. Wouldn’t it be nice if we had a third option and ended up with none of the above?
@The Peak Oil Poet
So you think Australia has the right to dictate to the countries it exports coal to, China etc., how much Carbon they are allowed to emit and Australia shouldn’t have to reduce its per capita emissions one iota until those countries start reducing their already much lower per capita emissions. I’m sorry but this is sheer arrogance on the part of Australians with their profligate per capita emissions. What gives you the right to tell the Chinese they should produce far less Carbon emissions per person than yourself?
Very interesting arguments, but nothing to convince that we won’t be stuck with BOTH Gillard and Abbott until the next election.
Why not? They are happily locked in a weird kind of death roll (our democracy’s death, not theirs) which suits the people internationally who actually decide the big decisions about what happens in Australia – ie. Wall St., Neo-Cons and that place near Lebanon we may not speak of.
@Chris O’Neill
What gives China the right to expect 1.3 bn people can each account for even a modest amount of emissions? If China (and India) had smaller populations there may not be such a problem. Global resources will run out well before the bottom billion in China and India are within sight of making it to the middle class. Therefore we should ease up on the resource scramble and try a different approach.
The belief that “leaders” are important is a naive misreading of human history and how it proceeds. Human history in toto proceeds as the net outcome of human mass actions in interaction with the world environment and natural forces. In the modern context, to believe that replacing one leader with another leader within one party or swapping between parties which are functionally equivalent in their politics (as suborned lackeys of corporate capitalism), will have any effect is naive and simplistic. It’s like believing that the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria caused WW1, or that if Adolf Hitler had died in WW1 then WW2 would never have occurred. In both cases, the large historical events (mass wars) had millions, probably billions of contributing causes and the chain of causes runs back hundreds of years.
Only the mass actions of the mass of the people (in interaction with the forces of the environment) will determine human history. Yes, in that context, democratic voting is a mass action but probably more important as a barometer of what the masses wish and intend (intend in their own many actions) than as a selection of a “leading” person and a “leading” party. Until people begin en masse to reject consumer capitalism and/or until the resource base of the world depletes sufficiently to force a retrenchment from consumer capitalism, the position with regard to carbon pollution will not change. The “leaders” (ineffectuals all) whom people waste time arguing over will make no difference to this equation.
The view that human history is directed by leaders is part of the fallacy of voluntarism. Voluntarism regards the “will” as the directing force of human behaviour and superior to the “intellect” and “emotion”. In turn, the fallacy of voluntarism rests of the general fallacy of essentialism and the particular fallacy of “free will”.
To deal with these fallacies I would have to write a wall of text in this blog which few would read and less would understand or be convinced by. This would simply demonstrate that notions of the effectiveness of intellectual or philosophical “leadership” are just as farcical as notions of the effectiveness of political “leadership”.
I despise Gillard for the same reason I despise Rudd-her Rightwing ideology that removes any choice whatsoever from the electoral contest. The differences between Rudd, Abbott, Gillard or Turnbull regimes are miniscule. All serve the money power, all bow down before the USA/Israel global hegemon, all are willing to be dragged into the US confrontation with China, all represent climate destabilisation policy that is risibly inadequate. The current talk of ructions inside Labor may very well be nothing but a typical News Corpse lie, their stock-in-trade. Who would want the job? I just about think that this country deserves Abbott, and the decimation of Labor may lead to a real Leftwing, ie sane and humane, alternative arising from the ashes. The continued global and local absolute dominance of a psychotic Right guarantees human oblivion within decades, so all we have left are long-shots.
@TerjeP
Nonsense with knobs on. She did no such thing. She was committed to a price from before the election. The minority government accelerated the timetable. That was the vote of the electorate. You can only continue this trope by using the word tax accoriding the the inactivist definition.
This campaign is simply LNP trolling, after the fashion of “BER fiasco”, “Pink Batts disaster”, “Boats”, “debt”, “government waste” etc.
Ikonoclast, what drives human history, as we have just been reminded by NATO in Libya, is high explosive delivered from the air. You know, ‘Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun’, the Western credo for 500 plus unbroken years. The nauseating hypocrisy and mendacity that surrounds the killing is a long Western tradition, also.
Fran, I wouldn’t call the concerted disinformation peddled by the LNP and its News Corpse co-conspirators ‘trolling’. I’d call it cynical and malicious lying, the absolute prime modus operandi of the Right.
The Chinese are no fools, and their leaders are technocrats who have risen meritocratically and can read scientific reports and comprehend them. Have you noticed that there are no denialist movements in China? The Chinese are making a great effort to reduce their carbon emissions, and are not allowing ideological knuckle-draggers bent on gaining power to threaten their effort. In our ‘capitalist democracy’ in comparison, every raging Dunning-Krugerite senile delinquent infected with enough ‘passionate intensity’ by their Rightwing thought controllers, can rage and splutter, determined to destroy their grandchildren’s lives for thirty pieces of silver.
Mulga, I understand where you are coming from. However, I would be inclined to say, “The nauseating hypocrisy and mendacity that surrounds killing is a long human tradition.” It’s not limited to the West or any particular cultural or racial group.
Yes, political power grows from force. Taking the different kinds of force, we are then led to ask naively what do those forces grow from or what are their causes? This line of questioning if we follow it properly then makes us realise that causes (for complex phenemonena) are extremely complex, multi-stranded and linked in effectively endless chains to earlier and earlier events and phenomena. We begin to realise that cause and effect thinking (while useful for many limited material problems) is reductionist when applied to complex phenomena involving mass, energy and consciousness. At this level, the best we can deduce is “Laws” which relate certain phenomena. The laws of physics are the prime example of course from hard science.
As an example of deducing laws from experience we could say;
1. Humans are capable of cooperation and nuturing.
2. Humans are also capable of violence and killing.
These are simply laws derived from observation and make no pretence of imputing causes for these behaviours nor of judging by taking any moral philosophy stance. Then rather than looking for causes we should look for correlations (not necessarily the same thing as causes) which can be developed into laws; in the case of human behaviour these are likely to be laws of statistical correlation. It is interesting that only the laws of macro physics appear to demonstrate a quality of precision that is near “absolute” or “classical”. At both the quantum level and the conscious/biological/behavioural level we find that “Laws” are statistical laws, laws of the probability of correlation rather than absolute, invariable correlation. Either this is true because we cannot get to a fineness of measurement which would allow classical correlation or it is true because aspects of the universe are truly indeterminate. I strongly tend to the latter view (indeteminancy).
The best way for us to work is to try to find the statistical Laws which correlate conditions of social and cultural existence with a high incidence of cooperative and nuturing behaviour as opposed to excessively competitive and violent behaviour. For example, it is clear that (at least within a nation) that high unemplyment and lack of basic necessities (foodstuffs etc.) correlates with high levels of civil unrest, destruction and violence. The work that Bill Mitchell and his colleagues and students have done at CofFEE (Centre of Full Employment and Equity, Uni of Newcastle, NSW) in relation to the recent UK riots illustrates this. There is a clear and strong correlation (R = at least 0.7 I think from memory) between areas of high unemployment and high levels of social exclusion and areas of riots.
Thus, we ought to be studying, developing and using our understanding of these laws of correlation to direct our economic and social policy. We ought to be remember too that economic policy should be an arm of social policy and not make economic policy the tail the wags the social dog (to mix metaphors).
I could write much more but as usual I am getting too prolix for a blog.
@Ikonoclast
Thanks Ikonoclast – now I know where you’re coming from, and I agree entirely.
To risk a prediction – “people begin en masse to reject consumer capitalism”, this is never going to happen, there won’t be any rational collective push to deal with overpopulation and the climate change it is causing, there will ultimately be a population crash due to degradation of the biosphere – as I’ve said before, humans are a plague on the Earth, and our cities are teeming sores.
But none of the above justifies any of us sitting on our hands – we have to deal individually with present local realities, and that means discriminating between political alternatives.
And I hope you didn’t mind my little attempt at levity in response to your comment.
@Ron E Joggles
I agree. There seems no credible prospect of humans en masse using foresight and “voluntary” action to move from the population growth and consumer capitalism set-up to a steady state, sustainable set-up of any kind. Thus logic suggests natural forces and natural processes will have to effect this change. Resource depletion, species extinction and climate change as well as the more traditional four horsemen, Conquest or Pestilence (White) , War and Violence (Red), Famine (Black) and Death (Pale or Green), will ensure the population reduces to a sustainable level. Extinction of homo sapiens is also a distinct possibility in the very near geological future of say 100 to 10,000 years.
@Ikonoclast
Some good news for you guys
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=world+fertility+rate
@Fran Barlow
Fran – even if I fully accepted your version of events it is clear that the bulk of the country isn’t buying it. Dumping the carbon tax isn’t necessary due to what I think (I’m actually sympathetic to the idea). However the ALP are on the nose in a very large part because the punters believe they were lied to and they find explanations such as yours to be a mincing of words. In essence they are saying don’t try and bamboozle us with double speak, no carbon tax means no carbon tax. If you meant something else then you mislead us and we don’t like being tricked.
@TerjeP
What “the bulk of the country buys” doesn’t change what is. If the bulk of the country has been misled by the LNP/Murdochracy, then the challenge for the government is to acquaint the bulk of the country with reality in the time allowed (2 years). Pandering to ignorance is wrong in principle and can only encourage those whose business is the production of self-serving lies to continue to subvert public policy. A government that ran dead on this would be, by definition, failing in its duty to future generations.
It’s also clear that a large portion of those “not buying it” are not buying it for tribal reasons rather than out of any misapprehension about what they were promised. Abbott repeatedly told them that Gillard would introduce “a Great Big New Tax on everything”. They believed him and voted for the LNP. Those that didn’t vote LNP did so thinking that Gillard would introduce a carbon price in some form or another sooner or later (possibly after the 2013 election and the so-called “citizens assembly” which was designed, it was said, to achieve “deep consensus” on the matter.
It’s doubtful that this group cared all that much about what form the carbon price took. Most people either think pricing carbon is a good idea or it isn’t. Hardly anyone who thinks pricing carbon is a good idea would vote ALP only is they go straight to an ETS and is oibjecting because the fixed price permit phase seems to them like “a carbon tax”. Well there might be half a dozen such persons, but I’m yet to read of any. The harpies squawking about this now don’t like the idea of any price on carbon and are merely cherrypicking Gillard’s phrase as cover. They are the ones guilty of word mincing.
They weren’t tricked at all. Some people have been conned by the press into thinking bad stuff will happen if Australia prices carbon. Third world regimes will get money. Jobs will go off-shore. Carbon traders will get rich. Somehow, they will be worse off.
Others simply don’t like Gillard, and to be fair, she’s not the most charismatic of figures. But dropping carbon pricing would make zero positive difference to the government’s standing now (it might even decline further) and would almost certainly seal the government’s fate in 2013. Many would think that if the LNP is in charge of policy, de facto, then they might as well have it de jure. After all, if the government doesn’t believe in its own policy, why should anyone else? Perhaps it really was just a game after all? Bear in mind that the compensation would have to go as well, so most poorer folk would be worse off.
The only chance for the regime is to go hard on positive policies and invite people to ask themselves whether they’d want these things to continue after 2013. If they get some important positive stuff done, then even if they are beaten, it wasn’t a total loss. But to throw everything out in a futile attempt to protect some of the “furniture” would make no sense at all.
Extreme weather events have become more and more frequent, almost year by year. The costs are already considerable, and insurance, at any price, will become harder and harder to get. The choices are pitiful, Labor or the Coalition. Simply because one of them is finally doing something, regrettably modest, on climate change, to me at least, makes the choice a no contest. Maybe action is already too late. If Abbott wins the next election there will be a further three year delay. His magic pudding direct action policy is simply a policy screen for doing little if nothing. He is on record concerning his beliefs about the validity of climate change. And it takes a lot to change the mind of a ‘faith-based’ person.