When I posted on the Liberal leadership, I assumed that the right wing of the Liberal party was organized enough to persuade Abbott to go quietly and to install Bishop rather than Turnbull to replace him. Neither assumption looks safe now, and my overestimation of LNP organizational capacities has been shown up by the fiasco in Queensland. So, I’ll sit back and enjoy the fun, leaving you to offer whatever thoughts you have on the topic, or on related issues.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
John Quiggin 
And if we are going to milk the German vocabulary and Nazi analogies then this takes the cake.
remove the brackets from (www)
(www).youtube.com/watch?v=6MwHmbuwTjM&feature=share&app=desktop
Slightly off topic but, Tony Abbott hitched his wagon to King Coal in a vain hope that trickle down would make us all rich. Citibank have taken a long term view of coal and it’s not good.
I hope that Abbott emerges wounded from the next Liberal Party room meeting – Tuesday.
We need a good 6 months of slow-cooking the Coalition. This will shift swinging voters away from Abbott to the ALP, Greens and Independents. We need 6 months of media speculation and questioning senior Liberals every time they make a door-stop, or other appearance. This will block their message.
If Abbott is turfed out soon, the whole episode will be more of a media storm, that will have passed from the memories of swinging voters by polling day.
Poor ‘ol Malcom, if he challenges, he will be blocked by Julie Bishop who has said she reserves the right to move if someone else challenges. Abbott’s party-room votes will, presumably go to her.
Possibly there will only be a first flanking attack on Abbott on Tuesday. Andrew Laming is moving a motion opposing knighthoods. The numbers on this motion, the split within 102 MP’s, will indicate the current balance of forces.
Abbott is now doing the rounds of redneck radio – Ray Hadley (2GB) etc.
AFAICT, AFR demonstrated complete economic ignorance in its editorial today when it complained about the RBA cutting rates that “ultra-cheap money would distort the allocation of scarce capital”. If capital was scarce, money wouldn’t be ultra-cheap.
@Nevil Kingston-Brown
Read Marx.
Interest rates are based on expected profitablity. As capitalist accumulation, (NB) accumulates out of proportion to wages, profitability must fall – ceteris paribus.
The key symptom of a Marxist crisis, is too much capital, no profitable opportunities – interest rate collapse.
Pure Marxism.
The Senate Inquiry into the Newman Government continues today, sitting in Brisbane.
It is livestreamed and has just begun. It is scheduled to go until 2pm today.
An Economist from the Australia Institute is giving evidence at the moment.
He is talking about major projects and how Newman favoured the Coal industry with questionable cost/benefit analysis.
At all previous hearings LNP’s McDonald has made an absolute pig of himself, arrogant and insulting and attempting to derail proceedings. So far he, and the other LNP senator, has been strangely silent.
Live audio of inquiry here:
http://www.aph.gov.au/News_and_Events/LiveMediaPlayer?type=1&vID=287883EB-755D-4DF2-9C98-D45A17121844
I don’t feel much schadenfreude. Lack of competence and stability in govt hurts us all. If Malcolm Turnbull, Julie Bishop or Bill Shorten were any good, I might be more inclined.
My expectations have fallen so low that even an LNP government that was competent would please me, at least for a while.
“Sadly, we are now coming up to 5 years when the burning political question in Canberra has been what the prime minister of the day can do to stave off a looming leadership challenge. ”
Representative democracy is well past it’s used by date. Vote 1 for senator on-line, and representative on-line, or, just put up with these things. We don’t need any of these clowns.
Either Bishop or Turnbull would be mad to challenge now when Abbott is imploding right before our eyes. Why taint your leadership with the old ‘blood on the hands’ problem when soon enough the party room will be begging one of them to step in? As to Turnbull, if he gets up, his first words to the party room need to be ‘climate change is real, deal with it’. If he doesn’t do that then it will a stinking albatross around his neck for the entirety of the term till election. He won’t do that because so many of his colleagues are stupid believers and group identifiers that they won’t cop it. Therefore Bishop in the hot seat and Credlin working in NY for Murdoch, hopefully as a pa to Brookes.
@Ivor
Certainly, the system is heading towards a final crisis. You can tell people that but they will not believe you. What is required is for the salutary first stage of collapse to play out. This will give people the required dose of reality. This first collapse stage will arrive inevitably from the programmed logic of the current system. It will be what we do from that point on that will decide our future.
Stupid rich people are a prime demographic for advertisers, and advertising-funded media can be expected to be framed to attract them.
@John Brookes
Once upon a time, they tended to do that, even when the government had an absolute majority. Abbott is not entirely to blame, but his performance as opposition leader was so relentlessly negative and utterly unreasonable, I think he set the new low bar for an opposition party’s behaviour. Pretty difficult to negotiate behind closed doors if in public you are spewing bile upon the government’s attempts at new policy direction. This take no prisoners, no quarter given, approach is a complete anathema to good democratic governance and government. Tony Abbott owns that strategy; he was the architect of it. The MSM wear the rest of the blame for not only putting up with this opposition strategy of Abbott’s, but for facilitating its undeserving success. If the MSM had stood up and said collectively that they, as journalists, weren’t going to put up with being lied to day after day, that would have forced a complete change in behaviour—and probably in opposition leader, too. The trouble is, the MSM is run by people who benefit from a particular type of government: the MSM’s owners have significant skin in the game, rather than being independent. No doubt this beef has been made ever since a “free press” sprang into existence…
With regards to PM Tony Abbott’s possible demise as leader and PM, I don’t want Abbott gone just for another cut of the same cloth to take over: no, I want all of them gone. Chuck the lot of them.
Schadenfreude would be even better if followed by blocking of supply and/or a double dissolution. A complete shake-up for all the pollies. Yeah, I’m a tad irritated by politics 🙂
Ah, but if replacing Abbott gets you another one of the same cloth, it becomes obvious that it’s a party-wide problem, not just a tony problem.
Replacing Abbott gets you closer to getting rid of them all, I think.
The crisis is an international one. People are talking about the same issues (loss of faith in and exhaustion of democratic institutions) in many countries, not just here. I’ve just been reading a review on the Washington Post website about a new book ‘The End of Power’ by the former Venezuelan central banker Moises Naim, who argues political players are frustrated they can no longer impose their will as they might once have.
@Mr Denmore
It is not democracy as such that is failing. It is one particular form of “democracy” that is failing and I will come back to that.
Let me start with an analogy first. If one of your tyres goes flat which of the following do you hold to be true?
(A) This particular tyre has failed.
(B) The whole idea of tyres is a failed concept.
Clearly, the correct answer is (A).
Now apply this to democracy. If a form of democracy starts failing us what do we say?
(A) This particular form of democracy has failed.
(B) The whole idea of democracy is a failed concept.
The correct answer is again (A).
Our current form of democracy, namely bourgeois representative democracy is failing under a set of new challenges. These new challenges are bound up with the dynamics of late stage capitalism and oligarchic / corporate power. Power is certainly not ended. It is being transferred. Power is being transferred from poorly conceived, poorly maintained democratic institutions away to the oligarchs and corporations. The correct action is not to give up on democracy but to re-invent and re-invigorate it. The correct interpretation is not to pretend that power has leaked away to nowhere by some ineffable process but to realise is has been deliberately siphoned away by certain actors (the oligarchs) to fill a new reservoir: the oligarchs’ reservoir of power.
The problem that democracy now suffers is that capitalism, which is wholly anti-democratic, has been given free rein to decide matters by capital ownership rather than by democratic decision making. We cannot re-invigorate democracy until we rein in the power of capital.
@Mr Denmore
It is a strange word – democracy.
Central banker never use democracy to impose their will.
Does the book intend that democracy is the problem?
@Mr Denmore
Thanks for book recommendation, gonna give that a crack. Had been wondering lately whether it isn’t politicians that have got worse, but that governing has become more complex. Maybe this book will say something similar?
@Nevil Kingston-Brown
Spot on. In fact the RBA is cutting precisely because there is a distortion in the allocation of capital in the form of people wanting to allocate all their capital into government bonds.
I personally think the RBA should have been cutting earlier than this, BTW – in fact it is getting to the stage that they ought to be quietly reminding people that they possess nukes and aren’t afraid to use them. Have the Minutes say something like “Some members stated that further fiscal contraction and deterioration in conditions could require a future resort to unconventional monetary policy”. That is, threaten QE if the bloody governments and markets won’t behave.
Although my personal wish is for the LNP to shift more to the middle, perhaps even giving rational thought a consideration, putting a little more trust in scientific and expert opinion, etc, I know I’m not going to see that any time soon.
From the perspective of the LNP, they really should stick with PM Tony Abbott, at least for another twelve months (give or take). If they chuck the leader now, they have to have another reshuffle of the portfolios, and the new leader will need a bloody good narrative as to why Tony had to go. The ALP demonstrated how fraught with risk that path can be; therefore, they have very little option but to stick with the Abbott. What they can do is to enforce some cabinet democracy, giving the PM but one vote on policy; if they did that, they could shift the emphasis of their current policies, and they could rein in the PM, done without the public witnessing political bloodshed. The PM would remain a talking head, but on the cabinet’s terms, not the PM’s.
As far as I can see, any other strategy poses much greater risk of making the LNP a one term government.
One possible alternative strategy, a bit riskier but might work, is to keep Tony on until just before an election is called, then spill him for someone more liberal, less theo-neo, less conservative, and run on a platform of more middle of the road policies. That would require keeping Tony in the dark, letting him think he is going to lead them in the next election campaign. Ditching Tony just before the election campaign and altering the policies to be more liberal (socially minded) would give them the narrative used by a lot of companies when they switch CEOs, namely they are making some structural change and it requires a CEO with specialist talents suiting the transformational strategy. In other words, PM Tony suited the austerity strategy, now someone else better suits the post-austerity strategy.
I wouldn’t buy it, but the public at large just might.
@Ikonoclast
Staying with your analogy with tyres, one might conclude that your tyres were inadequately designed or engineered and that you need better designed and engineered tyres, because sooner or later, the others will also fail.
Although it’s common to describe what we have now as ‘democracy’ I regard the term as either a misleading description of our current governance or else democracy itself is not fit for the bona fide purposes that warrant sovereignty of one person at the expense of another (governance).
Our system was a step forward by comparison with autocracy because a space has opened up between the rulers and the ruled. The ruled need not attest fealty to the rulers, and may even challenge them within limits, relying on divisions of interest amongst the rulers to create space for autonomy.
This is a kind of liberal pluralist society based on the defence of capitalist property characterised by voting behaviour and its usages as a first pass filter for the right to participate directly in governance. In practice, the usages preclude almost everyone from participating directly in governing privileging those with property, those who are male, those who are of European descent, and those who are older than 45.
Certainly this system fails the ‘of the people, by the people, for the people’ test, unless ‘the people’ can be described by the categories above. As an egalitarian, I would say not.
So when describing what I’d like to see, I speak of inclusive governance. The aim is to empower the entire citizenry to participate in their governance, by resort to processes that educate them, making participation meaningful, and then select them regardless of their property, gender, ethnicity or age.
Would this be democratic? I’d say so, but it would be radically at odds with what is done now.
To address the above bloviation:
“Capitalism … is wholly anti-democratic”
Compare the pair:
East Germany socialist + totalitarian
West Germany capitalist + democratic
North Korea socialist + totalitarian
South Korea capitalist + democratic
Natural experiments in living tell it like it is.6
That’s as useful as concluding that countries prefaced by “West” or “South” are democratic but those prefaced by “East” or “North” are not.
Capitalism is not, in and of itself, democratic.
I’m stunned by the lack of basic English language comprehension skills of some commenters. I never said or inferred that capitalism is democratic, l merely rebutted the visibly false claim that it is wholly anti-democratic. China is now unarguably capitalist and whilst it is no longer as brutally totalitarian as it was when socialist, it obviously is not democratic.
The two (democracy and capitalism) can quite obviously co-exist.
That does not have any bearing on the truth or otherwise of the statement that capitalism is wholly anti-democratic, or wholly pro-democratic or any other claim in between for that matter. Some people are less proficient in comprehension than they are at sneering insults it seems.
@Megan
Human suffering under totalitarian rule = system failure.
Human suffering in a capitalist economy = individual failure.
And your point is, Cpt M?
I’m stunned at the lack of basic English language production skills of some of the commenters here who are stunned by the lack of basic English language comprehension skills of some of the commenters here. “Inferred” has one meaning, and “implied” another. It’s clear what was meant, but statements that are ridiculous deserve ridicule.
Jungney says human suffering in a capitalist economy equals individual failure. What an odd thing to say. Certainly i wouldn’t take seriously anyone capable of such verbal flatus.
Megan, i think we take it that iko thinks our democracy is a sham, hence the undergraduate reference to bourgeois democracy.
Personally i would agree that a vast inequality in wealth power and status means democracy is limited. Some capitalist countries have dealt with this better than others.
Felix, im typing on an iPhone and proof reading everything i write and auto correct is sometimes a nuisance.
That reminds me of a passage from a satirical british novel the name of which escapes me.
The hero is in trouble with the police and makes some faintly disguised remark about the ‘bobby’ he is dealing with. The Bobby says: “Are you inferring that I’m stupid?” to which he replies: “Not at all. I implied it, you inferred it.”
@captain moonlight
No, I didn’t say what you allege. I reflected back to you my perceptions of a particular ideological interpretation of history in which human suffering under totalitarianism is regarded as a form of system failure while human suffering under capitalism is, hey presto, not attributable to systemic faults but rather to individual inadequacy. I mocked what you wrote by, like you, using numerical symbols in order to reduce what I wrote to something barely comprehensible and therefore unarguable. Just like you.
This:
…is the intellectual equivalent of sh*t smearing in a psyche unit. It’s symptomatic.
Not at all, jungney. Iko said capitalism is wholly anti-democratic, a statement that can’t be true because in our two best natural like-with-like experiments, capitalism and democracy have proved congenial companions while socialism has only been able to flourish in the presence of totalitarianism.
And it is charming to see you make fun of the disabled. You r a classy guy
@captain moonlight
No, he was making fun of you.
Is English your second language?
According to you then S. Korea is wholly democratic, is it? Despite long periods of oppressive rule and rule by proxy of the military?
@captain moonlight
Most sentient beings will not base themselves on strange twists of logic like this. Surely, looking back, I read:
I never said or inferred that capitalism is democratic, l merely rebutted the visibly false claim that it is wholly anti-democratic.
The necessary test for being undemocratic is not being democratic.
The necessary test for being democratic is not being undemocratic.
By rebutting false anti-democratic, you have just tied yourself up in a juvenile knot.
Maybe you do not even understand the intent behind what others are saying?
@Nitch34
Sorry folks. I unintentionally got captain moonlight started. It’s hard for persons who conflate democracy and capitalism to understand that these are different phenomena entirely. To use a chemistry analogy, democracy and capitalism are miscible in all proportions, for example like water and alcohol. The next step is to understand that when you have a high percentage of one you have a low percentage of the other.
> Is English your second language?
I think there’s a more-likely explanation of problems with implicature and a tendency towards black-and-white thinking, you know.
@Nitch34
“Maybe you do not even understand the intent behind what others are saying?”
I think this is the problem, CM does not understand intent, his own or others.
Ikonoclast is a classic Marxist troll, whining about capitalism, eating its fruits then dabbing a chubby finger at the keyboard.
Wonderful natterings from the various reptiles over the Abott-alypse.
Abbott came in to save the Coalition from Turnbull, and now the only thing that can save the Coalition from Toxic Tony is Turnbull….who will tear the Coalition asunder.
Salad days.
Just for a bit of cultural variety here is Mother Jones take on Half Term Tony.
@nawagadj
+1 Replacing a loose cannon with a loose cannon. The other contenders are Bishop and Morrison, either of whom will be revealed to be completely out of their depth within weeks. My own secret hope is that Pyne will emerge as a compromise candidate. At any event, the LNP will be out of office for a decade. The Juliar meme is revealed to the electorate as trivial distraction, whereas the depth of LNP mendacity is near bottomless.
It’s interesting to see just how baffled Tony is by his unpopularity. When he was health minister, the party did whatever it wanted, the PM said “terrorism” a few times, and everything was fine.
Now the magic words aren’t working and he doesn’t have anything else.
Rob
I didn’t know there was a classic version. 😉 Are there non-classic Marxist trolls or are you doing pleonasm?
That aside, Ikono isn’t a troll and I doubt he can fairly be called a Marxist. It’s possible to oppose capitalism from a communitarian perspective without being a Marxist. Last I heard, Ikono was favouring a steady state economy as the key tool with which to delay/prevent social collapse. That’s clearly not a Marxist position.
I’d say he was some sort of radical communiarian populist democrat, were I forced to characterise his politics.
As to him being ‘a troll’ … that’s simply unfair. He states his ideas firmly but follows forum rules, and doesn’t seek to provoke the kinds of negative interactions typical of trolls.
oops \
{ radical communitarian populist democrat}
No, no, Fran. Marxism always and only means “what Stalin did”.
On the right, anyway.
OK, nothing more on topics other than LNP leadership please.
Captain Moonlight, you’re banned. I haven’t got the time to rein you in or check whether you are a returning sockpuppet, but you are not adding anything to the discussion, and seem unlikely to improve.
@Hal9000
A courageous prediction, as Sir Humphrey might say, given the current volatility in politics.
@Sancho
Yes, there is the sense that the Abbott Government thought they were following a tried-and-true programme first established in 1996, and can’t understand why it isn’t working.
@Hal9000
I wish I could agree that they’ll be out of office for a decade. I was fairly confidently making that prediction on Rudd’s election, and we all saw how that worked out 😦