After a long break, it’s time for another weekend reflections, which makes space for longer than usual comments on any topic. Side discussions to sandpits, please.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
John Quiggin 
This week I went to a talk by Ross Garnaut about Piketty. Garnaut said he is optimistic about redressing the inequity trend here if the political system can be “rescued” by structural reform, and nominated NSW premier Baird’s call to end interest group (business and union) funding of political parties. Others like John Hewson I note seem to agree.
Garnaut said he had no interest in Baird’s motivation, just the effect of his proposals. But the wider effect would likely be to irreversibly cut the vestigial links of the main parties to capital and labour and accelerate the process of them becoming purely “management teams” rather than some attenuated expression of class interests. This of course is consistent with the economic “structural reform” of the 80s which he was so influential in bringing about.
By expunging from the political system the avenue for people to declare their identity through a “class prism”, it says that class analysis is not a legitimate way to see the world. Is it a good thing to eliminate Labor reformism, or does it reduce the prospect of a workingclass-biased Left ever occupying centre stage?
Just a quicky. The Murdoch empire is suppressing an internal report that shows that their Australian newspapers are in a death spiral.
Surely under the ASIC continuous disclosure rules they should have to make this report public? After all, it is information that would affect the share price…
John. the report is described by News as commercial in confidence – they do not have to disclose all known information.
Much is made about the revelation in the ‘blue book’ that the Oz lost $27 million in 2013. But this was probably money well spent. Influence is not cheap. What did the MCA spend to defeat Rudd’s MSRT? The loss making newspapers are investments.
So who or what is a Keynesian capitalist today?
Obviously Australia has produced or imported socialist economists – ted Wheelwright, Frank Stillwell, Bruce MacFarlane. Could you label any of these as any type of Keynesian – I doubt it.
The economists – trying to prettify capitalism, are the ones who seem to still stick by keynesianism, without really specifying what they mean. It is a set of words that can be dragged out when needed. even as the world heads towards economic catastrophe. These are the ones who seem to hover around rightwing dirty cartoons literature such as “Red Plenty” by F Spufford.
Economics is now split between the mathematical economists and political economists.
Mathematical economists (Quiggin, Keen, etc) support capitalism with or without Keynes, the good guys have gone one step deeper in analysis – political economy.
This issue has been building ever since the turn of the 20th century but probably came into greater focus in the late 60’s leading to Nixon jettisoning the gold standard.
However the basic framework for what needs to be done was obvious even in 1973. See:
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/marx-versus-keynes
It may be useful, in the light of earlier stagflation, various regional financial crisises, and now a semmingly permanent GFC, to reflect on the meaning of Marx compared to whatever theory Quiggin, Steve Keen, Treasury and Productivity Commission advisors and etc throw up.
As economics was once split between
I should have mentioned Mike Beggs – editor of Jacobin magazine. I have only recently become aware of this source.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2012/10/eric-hobsbawm-and-the-next-left/
I am a member of the Cloudland Collective so I recommend their seminar on Thursday, 11 September, 7pm, 41 Peel St, brisbane, on Political economy of inequality.
Are there any similar community based fightback in other centres?
Inspirational stuff:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/religious-leaders-reject-negativity-directed-at-australian-muslims-20140822-107fuy.html
The Monthly on the bastardry of “Colesworths”.
@Sancho
Yes, and right-wing people try to tell us capitalism does not naturally tend to monopoly or duopolies which are just as bad. The vertical domination of the food chain by Colesworths is anti-competitive and highly inefficient at many levels. Witness the farmers forced to destroy what they do not sell to Colesworths under contract. This country needs some anti-monopoly / anti-trust laws with some real teeth. WTH (What The Heck), is the ACCC doing??? Deliberately underfunded and asleep at the wheel I would say.
I might add, I once bought fruit (for making fruit salad) from one the major supermarkets. I examined each piece of fruit well. It all looked perfect on the outside. I took it with other groceries (overpriced of course) to my elderly parents’ house. They were frail, one had dementia and I knew they were not cooking or eating properly. I made lunch and went to top it off with a healthy fruit salad. EVERY piece of fruit was rotten inside except for a few of the grapes. I had to toss virtually the whole lot out. I was so angry I did not trust myself to go back to the supermarket and make a considered and effective complaint. I simply never shopped there (that chain) again. In fact, I rarely buy fresh fruit except apples.
Most fresh fruit in Brisbane is garbage. Much of the veg is dubious too. My fresh fruit and veg purchases I now limit to a relatively few varieties of each where I know the quality is passable. I mean does anyone know a good fruit and veg on the Northside? Can’t say I have ever found one myself. Much of Brisbane’s meat leaves a lot to be desired too except for the odd butcher shop that is good. I have travelled and lived in NZ, Canada, UK and much of Europe. Nowhere was the food as bad in Brisbane’s except in Russia. Yes folks, you have to go as far as Russia to find food as bad as Brisbane’s. It’s a disgrace.
There’s a large market for imperfect greens.
@Ikonoclast
I believe that Coles fruit buyers deliberately get a good price by buying fruit that looks good and is bad.
@Patrickb
The really important thing is for everyone to stand with moderate muslims. They will be bullied by extremists. They will need the full protection of the police and the law.
The Qld ALP conference has finished.
After getting wiped-out in 2012 they haven’t learned a thing, apparently. They seem to have no idea of the basic reasons they were thrown out in 2012 and no idea of the basic reasons the electorate currently hates the LNP.
Here, from the reporting, are their grand plans to right the wrongs once they get back into power:
– Slightly change the rules around WHS access to worksites!
– Give employers a payroll tax rebate of 25% for hiring apprentices!
– Scrap asset sales (of course since the ALP & LNP have already sold everything, that shouldn’t be too hard)!
– Not put school principals on short term contracts!
– Ensure funding to learn English in schools is “fair”!
– Re-open a closed mental health centre!
They have no idea.
@kevin1
That sounds rather frightening. the fact that the pollies are all for business, appearances be damned, is part of the problem not the solution. not matter what lse ‘money talks’.
I’m disappointed Senator X thinks we should buy international permits to mop up the remainder should Direct Action not achieve the magnificent 5% emissions reduction 2000-2020.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/25/direct-action-could-meet-emissions-target-if-coalition-allows-changes
The trouble with international permits is they seem to be based on Magic Pudding economics. A perennially ‘developing’ country like China chooses Plan B over more emissions intensive Plan A. The resulting imaginary savings can then be sold as a credit under the Clean Development Mechanism. The European scheme then certifies the credits and was selling them recently for 50c per tCO2. At the time our official carbon price was $25.40.
In short
1) the 5% target is pissweak
2) cheating to achieve it doesn’t help.
Agree entirely Hermit. We have to reduce our emissions by 5%. The idea of buying permits off some other country to “achieve” our target is laughable.
@Megan
What should they do/propose, Megan?
@Dave Lisle
Hi Dave
Would s 1041E of the Corporations Act be violated if The Australian was telling porkies about its finances?
CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 – SECT 1041E
False or misleading statements
(1) A person must not (whether in this jurisdiction or elsewhere) make a statement, or disseminate information, if:
(a) the statement or information is false in a material particular or is materially misleading; and
(b) the statement or information is likely:
… (iii) to have the effect of increasing, reducing, maintaining or stabilising the price for trading in financial products on a financial market operated in this jurisdiction…”
@Phil
Don’t get me wrong, those things seem to be basically good ideas.
This shouldn’t be taken as an exhaustive list, but “What should they do/propose?”:
1. Admit they ran rough-shod over the electorate, e.g. with asset sales, Traveston dam, fracking, privatization of water retailing, council amalgamations and many other things;
2. Apologise and promise to genuinely consult on any big issues they haven’t taken to an election as clear policy – and “consultation” will be real, not expensive glossy PR exercises in BS;
3. Fully repeal the anti-rights laws and let the criminal law, the police and the courts do their job when it comes to crime;
4. Abandon PPPs & neo-liberal economic policies;
5. Transparency and accountability in government contracting (e.g. IBM health department payroll, Cubix public transport ticketing etc..);
6. Allow farmers etc.. some reasonable say in fracking on their property and take proper steps to ensure protection of aquifers – and put the onus of proof on the proposer rather than the objecter;
7. Respect the separation of powers especially re: the judiciary (e.g. mandatory sentencing, judicial appointments);
That would be a start. Personally, I’d like to see a policy of free public transport, a plebiscite on re-introducing an upper house, decriminalizing abortion and some very strong stuff on environmental protection and GHG reduction – but the basics I listed would be a start and something that would present genuine alternatives to the ALP and LNP “choice” we have now.
I don’t believe “small target” is any way to run a democracy.
Fran Barlow :
Even this is weird because the latent heat necessary (ie absorbed) to melt 500 cubic kilometers (500 x 10^14 KG) is comparable to the solar radiation entering on the eARTHS SYSTEM (1.36 kwh/m3 or 1kwhr/m3 to surface per hr).
So when the available ice melt is zero, where does the energy go next?
@Megan
Personally I would give a very low rating to the electoral chances of any party which ran an election campaign saying ‘Last time we were in government we did dreadful, terrible, awful things; we were a disastrous government and totally stuffed things up; but vote for us this time and our next government will be much better, honestly, we promise, we’ve really learned our lesson.’ I just can’t credit that a message anything like that would sell to many voters. A few, maybe.
The difference between LNP and Labor is that the LNP actually believe in the conservative-neocon program right to the marrow of their bones. They believe in rich privilege, greater inequailty, sectional interest, despising the poor, exploiting the poor and pillaging the environment. They don’t believe in ecological or climate science. The LNP majority is quite genuine in its beliefs.
Labor on the other hand, espouse conservative-neocon policies too because they no longer believe they can win an election without such policies. However, their problem is that there are enough of them who know deep down that these policies are scientifically, economically, socially and morally wrong. Thus they lack conviction and belief in their program and it shows. I have given up hope that the ALP will re-develop a conscience and a backbone so I will offer no advice. I hope they wither and die thus making room for genuine parties of the left.
@J-D
I’m guessing you don’t live in Qld.
Apologising for doing dreadful, awful, terrible things and promising to de better worked electorally for Beattie for quite a few years. Even Newman has started to do it (just a little bit – i.e. VLAD might expire, hints at laying off the judiciary a bit, return to bi-partisan appointments to CMC, further asset sales to go to an election).
In the end the ALP stopped either apologizing or promising to improve. Of course, it only works electorally if it has some convincing ring to it and gets carried out in some concrete way.
@J-D
Doubtless that’s so. That probably isn’t what Megan recommends. Perhaps she’s merely recommending they draw a line through the scoresheet, accept that the policies they had in the past are a poor fit for any party focused on equity and declare what they would now do differently and better. In Queensland, after all, most of the offenders are no longer in parliament, so the argument that they are starting afresh would be easier to put.
@J-D
Changing someones words – and then provoking them, is a foul trick.
You should apologise.
@Megan
I admit my memory may be deceiving me, but the way I recall it, Beattie apologised for specific government actions or decisions that he considered to have been errors or failings without suggesting that the general direction of the government was mistaken. But perhaps you are not suggesting that the ALP should take the stance that the general direction of the previous ALP government was mistaken?
There is another difference, however, where there isn’t the same chance of my memory deceiving me in the same way and which I think is of major importance: Beattie apologised for government failings while in government. A party that is already in government can announce that it is going to change its policies or programs and then prove it in action without delay. A party in opposition cannot use this strategy. It can only say that it will be different in government in the future, which can never be as immediately convincing.
@Fran Barlow
I think it would be poor strategy for any opposition party to take a description of its actions when previously in government and use that (alone) as a description of its intentions if re-elected to government. I think it’s close to essential for an opposition party to offer something new. If that is all Megan is suggesting — or all you are suggesting — then I agree. I have a strong impression, though, that Megan was suggesting more than that. My impression is that she thinks that the last ALP government was a bad government and that she thinks the ALP should say so. I continue to doubt that strategy would bring the ALP electoral success.
@J-D
You say:
The ALP is, in essence, going beyond that and doing the opposite by omission. It is offering nothing new – small target, “we’d be much the same as them”, “in fact we acknowledge nothing wrong with our last term at all and we’re ready to carry on when it’s time for us to have another go”.
If the ALP stay on that track they will definitely lose the next Qld election and probably the one after that. If, as seems to be the case, they really don’t care and are happy to just wait until it’s “their turn” again then of course one day they will “win” again.
I am saying that they should acknowledge what they did, where they went, wrong prior to March 2012 – they haven’t even pretended to do that and obviously have no intention of doing so.
Qld is ripe for something, pretty much anything, to come along as an alternative to the indistinguishable ALP/LNP duopoly. Sadly, because the ALP has a hold on a chunk of the electorate that is willing to put up with absolutely anything as long as it has “ALP” written on it and they can pretend that’s the ‘left’, that force is likely to be of an ugly right-wing type.
@Megan
I was not arguing about whether the strategy currently being pursued by the ALP is a good one. However, to argue that the strategy you recommend must be a good one because the one it is currently pursuing is a bad one is the fallacy of false dichotomy. If you are recommending the ALP denounce the performance of the previous ALP government, I continue to doubt that strategy would bring the ALP electoral success.
We have discussed previously a prediction of yours about decline in the duopoly of the ALP and the Coalition parties, and agreed to compare notes again when there are some election results to provide some empirical test.
@J-D
Oh, and speaking of empirical tests:
Was an evaluation of the shortcomings of the previous Labor government an important feature of Labor’s Federal election campaign in 2007, 1983, or 1972; or in New South Wales in 1999 or 1976; or in Victoria in 1999 or 1982; or in Queensland in 1998 or 1989; or in Western Australia in 2001 or 1983; or in South Australia in 2002 or 1982; or in Tasmania in 1998 or 1989?
Conversely, was an evaluation of the shortcomings of the previous Coalition government an important feature of the Coalition parties’ Federal election campaign in 2013, 1996, or 1975; or in New South Wales in 2011 or 1988; or in Victoria in 2010 or 1992; or in Queensland in 2012 or 1995; or in Western Australia in 2008 or 1993; or in South Australia in 1993 or 1979; or in Tasmania in 2014 or 1992?
I don’t have clear memories of all of those, but I have a feeling the general answer is No.
I was surprised that Abbott yesterday gave operational details on a border protection matter viz. that 80 officers will be stationed at Australia’s international airports, to intercept persons on the national security watchlist (presumably Australian residents/citizens joining the ME wars.) It was also announced that Melbourne and Sydney have staff already. Bit strange that these people are stationed at airports when their job is not physical security but data-matching.
Was release of this information endorsed by the relevant security agency? Why would the government (including Morrison on air this morning) telegraph their punches, enouraging an avoidance strategy eg. an exit via NZ? Or is the terror card being played for domestic political advantage, with the result that Abbott and Morrison are a liability to security objectives?
To provide some national comparisons of attitudes toward suicide bombings directed at civilian targets, Andrew Leigh’s new book (p. 141) reports 2013 poll results from the respected PEW organisation: the “justified response” figure was 62% of Palestinians, 27% Malaysians, 6% of Indonesians, 3% of Pakistanis. What is notable, and would be surprising to many, is the huge attitude difference between those from the theocratic Islamic monarchy of Malaysia, a member of the British Commonwealth, and the secular, yet Islamic majority, republic of Indonesia.
It may be in coming years that Australia’s view of Indonesia becomes more benign relative to Malaysia, whose repressive political establishment, limited press freedom, economic and budget policies criticised by the World Bank, and racialist institutional bias will limit its economic and social growth.
The RET Review has been released, with no surprises. The question is: will the Government go through with it?
@J-D
Unfortunately the feeling cannot in general be ‘no’ – in fact noone knows.
The Coalition operates as a secret society compared to the ALP.
There is no source how they really evaluated their performance.
However key Liberals – Malcolm Fraser expressed his view by walking away in disgust.
@Ivor
I’m not talking about what they did, or do, privately — I’m talking about how they campaign publicly. The suggestion I regard as unlikely is that Labor could gain electoral support by public denunciation of past Labor governments — or that the parallel technique would be electorally effective for any political party. As far as I can tell, Megan thinks that Labor’s public presentation is not gaining it electoral support and that a different public presentation would work better. How political parties present themselves publicly is not secret at all.
@J-D
In Queensland on 24 March 2012 the ALP suffered, as far as I’m aware, their worst ever defeat at the polls.
I’ve already said that they will probably get re-elected to government at some point even if they just play “we’re the same as them”.
Yes, I suppose I do make a distinction between “gaining electoral support” and simply waiting for the other side to lose electoral support. I’m not interested in playing silly games, I want better governance and a better functioning democracy. We can’t have that with the current duopoly – there is no practical difference between them and our elections simply become unpopularity contests with the loser taking office and the runner-up becoming the opposition.
That should, of course, be:
…our elections simply become unpopularity contests with the loser taking office and the winner becoming the opposition.
Which reminds me of a scene from the TV news back in the late 1980s at a point when the remnants of Joh days had “lost” an election and whoever the leader was (perhaps Russell Cooper?) staunchly declared: “Tonight the people of Queensland have elected us to become the Opposition and we will fulfill that role”.
@Megan
I perceive a distinction between somebody saying ‘You should do X because you will get results you like better’ and somebody saying ‘You should do X because you will get results I like better’. Obviously it would please me if Labor adopted the policies I would prefer; it would please me if every party adopted the policies I would prefer. I don’t criticise you (or anybody) for feeling the same way. However, I don’t imagine that the policies I prefer are also policies that would help a political party to achieve success from its own point of view. I perceive an important distinction there. I think you may be missing it.
Tony Abbot’s ‘key moments in Australian history’ includes the founding of The Australian newspaper and the publication of The Lucky Country – has he read the latter ?
““Any attempt to nominate defining moments will inevitably be contentious,” Abbott said. “For instance, I hope that the defining moments of World War I might include the capture of Jerusalem and the achievements of General Monash as well as the landing at Gallipoli.
“I hope that the defining moments of 1964, for instance, might include the launch of the Australian newspaper as well as the publication of The Lucky Country.”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/29/tony-abbott-says-first-fleet-arrival-is-the-defining-moment-in-australian-history
@J-D
Why on earth would you expect Liberals to run an “evaluation of the shortcomings” in public?
Are you saying you have no memory of Liberal campaigns or of Liberal evaluations?
So what was the basis for your “general feeling” of no?
You are not making much sense.
@Ivor
I do not expect the Liberals to run an evaluation of their shortcomings in public; on the contrary, what I expect is the exact opposite.
The question I am choosing to discuss is this (and if you aren’t interested in discussing the same question, of course you’re not obliged to): What strategies are likely to improve parties’ chances of winning elections?
Megan seemed to me to be suggesting that Labor could improve its chances of winning elections (at least in Queensland) by a strategy of denouncing the performance of the previous Labor government. (If that’s not what Megan meant, I hope she will make an explicit statement to that effect, in which case I will accept the correction.)
I think that a strategy of denouncing the performance of your own party when previously in government would not increase an opposition party’s chance of winning an election.
I also think that no opposition party has ever used that strategy successfully. But I don’t remember every past election campaign, so there may be an example of an opposition party using that strategy successfully that has escaped my attention. If you know of an example, I hope you will let me know about it.
J-D
These issues are mainly dealt with in various internal party policy committees, and factional negotiations leading up to State and National conferences.
The commentariat in the blogosphere is far removed.
I would expect that the ALP will have a better future if it moved away from Bob Carr, Wayne Goss-Anna Bligh, Keating-Hawkes, “Accord”, free trade and privatisation strategy.
Whitlam had a massive popular success in effect denouncing traditional Labor. Subsequently Australian labour has been sacrificed by Labor to enhance capitalism in its era of need.
JD introduced the term “denounce”. Strictly, that could be used to describe the prescription I gave for what the ALP could do – especially in the context of Qld., which is what I was talking about. “Denounce” can be defined:
Which seems to suit JD’s argument (i.e. that the ALP should do no such thing, and neither should any other party).
I didn’t use that word and, for the point I was making, I prefer “acknowledge”:
and “apologise”:
@Megan
You seemed to me (and still do seem) to be suggesting that Labor could improve its chances of winning elections (at least in Queensland) by a strategy of saying that the previous Labor government was a bad government. (If that’s not what you meant, I hope you will make an explicit statement to that effect, in which case I will accept the correction.)
I think that a strategy of saying that your own party performed badly when previously in government not increase an opposition party’s chance of winning an election. I also think that no opposition party has ever used that strategy successfully. But I don’t remember every past election campaign, so there may be an example of an opposition party using that strategy successfully that has escaped my attention. If you know of an example, I hope you will let me know about it.
Yes
“Denounce” is not the appropriate word.
This just shows how bloggers like J-D conduct themselves.
I am sorry I associated this with Whitlam.
@Ivor
Do you think that the ALP could improve its chances of winning elections in Queensland by a strategy of saying publicly that the previous ALP government was a bad government? I ask because I think not, and I’m curious to know whether you disagree.
Do you know of any instances where an opposition party made successful use of the strategy of saying publicly that it had performed badly when previously in government? I ask because I can’t think of any, and I’m curious to know whether anybody else can.
@J-D
But no one but you thinks this is a sensible or relevant question?
All parties change their policies as time moves on and conditions change and the changes are handled professionially.
Not in a cartoon fashion you have not grown out of.
@J-D
What “seems” to you is whatever it is, but you’re trying to attribute to me something I didn’t say (“a strategy of saying publicly that the previous ALP government was a bad government”).
What I did say is just up there at #20 in black and white (specifically at points 1 & 2).
@Ivor
Megan’s exact words (at the beginning of the first of her list of suggestions) were these: ‘Admit they ran rough-shod over the electorate’.
I do not think any opposition party would improve its chances of winning an election by admitting they ran rough-shod over the electorate. I do not know of any instance in which an opposition party has made successful use of the strategy of admitting they ran rough-shod over the electorate. If you think that admitting to having run rough-shod over the electorate is a ‘cartoon-fashion’ way of changing policies, I repeat that those were Megan’s words, not mine.