I was talking with colleagues yesterday about the economics of the Olympics of the medals and speculated that, with the East Germans gone, we spend more to enhance our chance of winning gold medals than any other country. This morning I received, from Jack Strocchi, a column on the topic from Andrew Bolt which makes exactly the same claim, giving an estimate of $50 million in public expenditure per gold medal.
Read More »
FTA vs PBS as the election issue
It’s looking increasingly possible that the conflict between the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement will become the central issue of the election. It is also increasingly apparent that, contrary to all the reassurances we got when the agreement was announced, that the FTA and the PBS are in mortal conflict, and that only one of the two can survive.
Today’s developments include a statement from US Ambassador Schieffer that the US may not certify that our legislation implements the FTA and more commentary from sources close to the government, all suggesting that this is a really big deal.
Reading Christopher Pearson’s column in particular, it is notable how thoroughly it undermines the claim that the FTA presents no danger to the PBS. He talks about the remedies available to the US in relation to Labor’s amendments. In addition to the possibility that the Americans will walk away from the agreement altogether, he points out two further possible courses of action.
The second aspect of the amendments likely to cause concern is that trade agreements are negotiated on the basis of “standstill”. In other words, once an agreement is reached, the parties are expected not to introduce legislation that would alter their relative positions.
Finally, the Americans could argue that the amendments are likely to give rise to a dispute under the “reasonable benefits” clause, in the event that their drug companies are unable to realise benefits that they anticipated would flow from the agreement.
What’s critical to note here is that these points have nothing to do with the specific content of Labor’s amendments. They apply to any legislation concerning the PBS that an Australian government might seek to introduce in the future and, arguably, to any administrative decisions made by Ministers. If Pearson is correct[1], the FTA gives the Americans an effective veto power over anything we might attempt to do to improve the functioning of the PBS. It’s notable that Pearson’s points are almost identical to those that have previously been made by critics of the deal, and pooh-poohed by the government.
It is critical, in both policy and political terms, for Labor to hold its ground. Even without the threat to the PBS, this was a lousy deal. If the Americans refuse to certify, Labor should announce its intention to renegotiate the entire deal, this time on equal terms.
fn1. Pearson is clever and well-informed, but he’s never shown any previous knowledge of international treaty law. In the absence of references to independent experts, I think it’s reasonable to take these claims as coming from sources inside the government.
Year zero
Turning to trivia for a moment, I thought I’d raise the question of when the 21st century began. The commonsense view is that it began on 1 January 2000, and I think the commonsense view is right. Against this we get a bunch of pedants arguing, that, since there was no year zero, the 1st century (of the current era) began in 1CE, and therefore included 100CE. Granting this, the 21st century began on 1 January 2001.
Read More »
Sympathy for asylum seekers
This opinion poll, reported in the Oz is encouraging, and supports my view that the upsurge in support for Howard over Tampa was the result of a temporary panic, stirred up by a combination of racial/religious prejudice and law-and-order politics. Of course, Howard’s success was enhanced by the total failure of leadership on the Labor side, epitomised by Kim Beazley, who is quoted in the story, as lame as ever.
The poll (taken before the latest news showing Howard knew the children overboard story was false), shows that more voters now disagree with the Howard Government’s handling of the Tampa issue than agree with it — 43 per cent versus 35 per cent, and that most favor allowing at least some boatpeople into Australia.
I think the reaction against the policy has been driven in part by the obvious nastiness of the government’s campaign against asylum seekers, amplified a thousandfold in some sections of the press, not to mention the blogosphere. It is hard to imagine any decent person reading some of the stuff that has been turned out by pro-government commentators on this issue and not reacting with disgust.
It is now clear that the vast majority of those on the Tampa and other boats were genuine refugees. Even those who were not were desperate people willing to risk everything to make a better life for their families. None[1] had committed a crime justifying the kind of treatment of they received.
fn1. No doubt I’ll get someone pointing out that some of these people might have been criminals, political or common. I wonder if the same people protested when Ruddock used his ministerial power to allow a large group of members of the South Lebanese Army, an outfit with plenty of crimes on its record, to jump the refugee queue.
A rare show of national unity
Having posed the question directly here, and had a look around the blogosphere, the opinion pages and so on, I’ve come to the conclusion that there isn’t a single person[1] in Australia who believes that John Howard is telling the truth[2] in regard to the children overboard story. Given that large percentages believe that Elvis lives, and a non-zero number believe themselves to be Elvis (or similar), I think this is an impressive level of unanimity.
fn1. Obviously, the relevant set includes Howard himself
fn2. That is, in the time-honored phrase, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The Iraqi National Congress Conference – a mixed bag
The meeting of the Iraqi National Conference has wound up in Baghdad, leaving, from the limited reports available, a very mixed record. Given the series of disasters we’ve seen in the last eighteen months or so, a mixed record is certainly better than the par outcome of total failure.
It was certainly good that the gathering was held at all, and appears to have encompassed a much broader and more representative sample of Iraqi opinion than anything of the kind held since the overthrow of Saddam (or, of course, while Saddam and his Baathist predecessors were in power). This report on the televised proceedings,at Healing Iraq gives an idea of what it was like.
On the other hand, the supposed purpose of the Conference, to elect an advisory council of 100 members to oversee the Allawi government, degenerated into farce. It appears that the Conference was presented with a slate of 81 members agreed by the big parties and a US-imposed decision that 19 members of the old IGC (originally 20, but Chalabhi was excluded after falling from grace). In the absence of any alternative, this slate was accepted by default.
But the biggest success (still not a sure thing, but promising) was the intervention of the Conference in the Najaf crisis, demanding that the assault by the US and the interim government cease and that Sadr withdraw from Najaf, disband his militia and enter the political process. Clearly, if it were not for the Conference, there would have been little chance of a peaceful outcome here, and the potential consequences were disastrous. Sadr has stated acceptance of the Conference’ demands, though it remains to be seen what that means.
Read More »
Google again
Scepticism about the capital market (as opposed to social) value of Google, led by econobloggers, and followed, much later by the financial press, seems to have had some impact.
Google said the new estimated share price range was $US85 to $US95 ($119 to $133), down from $USUS108 to $USUS135 previously. It also sliced the number of shares on offer to 19.6 million from 25.7 million.
The maximum the internet giant can now rake in, excluding over-allotments, is $US1.86 billion, a stunning climbdown from initial expectations of $US3.47 billion.
The new maximum price values the entire company at $US25.7 billion, down from $US36.6 billion.
Thanks to FX Holden for the alert.
Has anyone asked Costello ?
Has anyone asked Costello about the PMs “children overboard” claims? Maybe he’d respond along the lines of John Anderson, saying Prime Minister John Howard is a trustworthy individual and most Australians know it. Or maybe we’d get one of the more equivocal formulas (perhaps a quote from Howard himself) of which Costello is so fond. Unless things get drastically worse for Howard, I can’t see Costello making a challenge (Chris Sheil discusses this further) but I also doubt that he’d be willing to tie his own credibility to Howard’s.
As the story keeps running, I’m beginning to think it possible, albeit remotely, that Howard might be forced to ‘fess up. There’s been a new development every day, and there’s at least one more to come – the Liberal Party dirt unit’s campaign against Scrafton for having porn on his computer here’s an old newspaper article [PDF], linked by Crikey which reports the dirt unit’s role (hat tip to Ron, commenting on Ken Parish) This story gets a blogospheric run from Bernie Slattery here. This may damage Scrafton, but it will also remind everyone of previous similar campaigns, against Mick Keelty, the “doddering daiquiri diplomats” and so on.
In addition Howard’s attempt to parse as supporting his own story a statement from the former head of the Defence Department public affairs unit, Jenny McKenry, confirming Scrafton’s story invites a clarification from her.
And so far, I have yet to see a single person, no matter how vehemently they support Howard, willing to say that they believe he is telling the truth[1].
fn1. To be clear here, I don’t mean something “morally true” or “true enough to satisfy the Australian people” or “true in the postmodern sense”, or “true, given appropriate rules of grammatical construction”. I mean that when Howard says something like “at no time during his telephone calls with Mr Scrafton had he discussed photos relating to the sinking of Siev4 on October 8, 2001”, this actually means that the photos were not mentioned by either party.
The triumph of postmodernism
The Institute of Public Affairs has been an eager participant in History and Culture wars, vigorously assailing postmodernist notions of “multiple truths”. Plenty of people, including me, have made the obvious tu quoque pointing out that, in practise, truth for the IPA is whatever happens to be convenient at the time[1]. Now the embrace of postmodernism is official, or at least as official as it can be for such a slippery and ambiguous doctrine. In today’s Fin, IPA Fellow (and, I think, former Liberal apparatchik) John Roskam writes
One doesn’t necessarily have to believe in the post-modern idea that ‘there is no such thing as truth’, to appreciate the difficulty of establishing precisely what was said, or what was thought to have been said, three years ago
It sure helps, though.
I think what I like best in this passage is the ironic use of ‘necessarily’, a fine appeal to the postmodern sensibility. It adds eloquently to the ambiguity of Roskam’s position, with the hint that his adoption of postmodernism is the result of aesthetic choice rather than necessity. Roskam goes on to articulate the postmodern notion of “socially determined truth”, arguing that the election outcome will retrospectively make Howard’s position true in the only snese that matters.
To take him seriously, if we suppose that it’s impossible to determine the truth of clearly-defined events three years ago, with multiple witnesses, and plenty of additional evidence (for example, as regards the truthfulness or otherwise of one of the key witnesses), we might as well admit that no historical fact can ever be known.
As I’ve said previously, it would be much more sensible for the government and its defenders to come straight out and say “We lied, everyone knew it, and we still won. Get over it”.
fn1. For example, the IPA assails anti-science opponents of GM foods, but denounces the scientific establishment as a left-wing conspiracy when it comes up with the “wrong” answers on global warming and the Murray-Darling.
A syllabus of errors
The WashPost runs an Op-Ed piece byPradeep Chhibber and Ken Kollman, claiming that the failure of third parties to do well in the US is due, not to plurality voting or other institutional factors but to excessive political centralisation. The claim is that since third parties
once competed successfully in congressional elections, winning significant portions of the popular vote and often gaining seats in Congress. This was true for most of the 19th century and even the early part of the 20th
the cause of their subsequent failure must be something new – political centralisation[1].
Chhibber and Kollman seem to be well-regarded political scientists. But their argument here is riddled with errors, or at least large logical gaps.
Read More »
