RSS

Category Archives: politics

Three unrelated items

73420_159175 1. Someone has to do it…

I see from SameSame that William Yang has been photographing Matthew Mitcham. “William Yang’s ‘Photographing Matthew Mitcham’ exhibits at Barry Stern Galleries, 19 Glenmore Road, Paddington NSW 2021, from December 14.”

I think I’ll check that one. 🙂

William Yang has appeared on this blog before: Very rare and special: pics from M’s Chinese New Year Party 3.

2. Tony Blair and the WMD Fantasy.

So many have commented on Tony Blair’s latest admissions, but one of the best I have seen comes from the Legal Eagle blog cooperative: BLiar: Warmonger by his own admission. It’s one of DeusExMacintosh’s excellent visual entries.

…And no, I’m not just being funny. There are now grounds for thinking that the 45 minute claim – the sole direct threat posed by Saddam’s regime to British interests – featured in the dodgy dossier and heavily promoted by number 10 spin-doctors, now seems to be based on gossip from an Iraqi taxi driver that had been clearly flagged as unreliable.

3. OMG: I agree with Paul Sheehan

You don’t see that every day! Sirdan and I were discussing the current push for recall elections, which has been brought on by frustration with the NSW government’s performance in recent years. Sounds a good idea, but I had doubts and it seems Paul Sheehan shares them exactly.

As for constitutional change, switching from four-year to three-year terms makes sense for NSW. But creating the capacity for recall elections is problematic. In California, even a popular governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has been overmatched by the state’s structural crisis.

During a visit to California this year I saw the problem at first hand. The state constitution allows an unusually diverse array of grass-roots participation, with voter initiatives, referenda, voter ratification and recall elections. The result has created burdensome requirements on government, which should be allowed to govern.

California also has term limits. Members of the state assembly are restricted to three two-year terms and state senators are restricted to two four-year terms. But this, too, has had unintended consequences. It has served to gut the culture of compromise and the culture of experience.

The Herald, to its credit, has devoted a lot of space on its letters page to readers bucketing its petition for the introduction of recall elections. People think the media already has too much power.

Many also know that California is proof there is such a thing as too much democracy. They know not all that glisters in the golden state is gold.

Advertisements
 

Brer Abbott and The Undead

What a good name for some Gothic band to take!

I refer of course to Tony Abbott’s ghost cabinet — a cabinet of Dr Caligari.

An Abbott, two Bishops and Nick the Impaler
A Cadaver, a Barney and Kevin the Tailor

That refers to the famous couplet on Richard III:

A Cat, a Rat, and Lovell the Dog
All ruled England under the Hog

Yes, we have an alternative at last: the pit or the pendulum, the devil or the deep blue sea, Scylla or Charybdis, Hitler or Stalin… Of course the latter is particularly unsavoury, is it not? Unfair on both counts — but don’t blame me: I’m not the one who compared Copenhagen to Munich while fully aware of the spurious nature of the analogy but nonetheless knowing it would push the right buttons in punter-land. That was Tony yesterday to Alan Jones. And interviewed on Lateline last night the neuro-linguistic triggering got a typically Abbott overkill: he even underlines the cue words by raising the stress above the rest of the utterance, a kind of phonological CAPITAL LETTERS TRICK.

Peter Hartcher noted inThe Sydney Morning Herald:

…He has rejected the counsel of the Liberal Party’s founder, Robert Menzies, that ”the duty of an opposition is to oppose selectively”…

Abbott will not engage on Rudd’s terms. He will not mount an intellectual case. He will not present detailed policy alternatives.

He will circle Rudd, throwing jabs from all directions, never presenting a stationary target. He proposes deregulating the job market, for instance, but refuses to be specific: ”I am asking questions here,” he told Sky News yesterday, ”not making policy.”

”I want to make a fight of things,” he said. ”I think I have got the frontbench to do that.”

With the climate sceptic Nick Minchin in resources, the hardliner Eric Abetz in industrial relations, Barnaby Joyce free-ranging and veteran warriors like Bronwyn Bishop and Kevin Andrews on the front line, nobody would disagree with him.

Blogged with the Flock Browser
 

Not quite the promised climate change post

I need to pause before I attempt the summation I promised yesterday, so below I will list some additional resources.

But first some preliminary observations.

1. While “MAGIC PUDDING POLITICS” (Rudd on Brer Abbott) is not nearly as effective a mantra as “GREAT BIG TAX ON NEARLY EVERYTHING” (Brer Abbott on Rudd) the greater truth is in the Rudd mantra. The idea of a costless response to climate change is a sick joke. I do in fact believe that nuclear power should be in the mix, siding to that extent with Brer Abbott (and James Lovelock), but that has to be seen in a context too.

THE Opposition’s desire to embrace nuclear power in the absence of an emissions trading scheme or carbon tax would result in electricity price rises of between 10 per cent and 33 per cent, according to estimates by the Howard government’s nuclear energy expert, Ziggy Switkowski.

In a report for John Howard in 2006, Dr Switkowski found nuclear power would never be commercially viable unless fossil fuel-generated electricity was made more expensive using an ETS or carbon tax.

This resulted in Mr Howard embracing an emissions trading scheme as a way to reduce greenhouse gases while keeping open the nuclear option for the future.

In a dramatic departure from policy, the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, has abandoned support for any market-based mechanism, such as an ETS or a carbon tax, as part of the Coalition’s greenhouse strategy…

2. It is such a shame the whole issue has become politicised, but I suppose that is inevitable in a democracy. Fact is, however, that there are limits to what “debate” can actually achieve in the face of phenomena that really do not depend, in the long run, on our ideological positions or the wheelbarrows we choose to push.  Dithering is one of the less savoury outcomes of a democratic process, not that I prefer the alternative really – but a country like China is actually better placed to act decisively, for good or ill. Such a shame we are mere humans and not gods, isn’t it?

3. Given the abysmal level of much of our dithering both here and overseas, and given the importance of the issue, nothing is to be gained by censorship of the kind that apparently has happened at the CSIRO or by fudging data, as apparently happened at the East Anglia CRU. While we would all do well to forget unlikely scenarios like the movie The Day After Tomorrow and must all concede that Al Gore oversimplified in An Inconvenient Truth, we should also realise that what happened at the CSIRO or East Anglia does not invalidate the overall truth of the IPCC reports. The IPCC does not engage in research; all it does is weigh the research and gather together the implications of that research for our consideration. There was much more input to its reports than East Anglia.

Hence comments like this on the latest offering (for climate change action I hasten to add) of Sojourners, a “left evangelical” site, really are tragic.

I think it is useing a lie to push their ideas. there is no man made global warming. yes take care of the environment, being a christian this should be second nature, shouldnt need to push for eco-prophets. nature changes all the time. thats life. honesty is important and there isnt much of that in this environment "emergency" that is being pushed. The other point is that the UN has no concern for the poor. they people they have chosen to make us believe in global warming are liars. and the proposals they want to accomplish will Not help the poor but make it harder for them. If you cant see that then you have blinders on.

There are so many prejudices running through that comment one hardly knows where to start.

4. Check some recent stories in the Sydney Morning Herald.

5. Realise that there are left as well as right-wing critiques of “market strategies” like cap and trade or carbon tax.

The Same Boat

Imagine 10 rabbits lost at sea, in a boat carved out of a giant carrot.

The carrot is their only source of food, so they all keep nibbling at it. The boat is shrinking rapidly – but none of them wants to be the first to stop, because then they’ll be the first to starve. There’s no point in any of them stopping unless everyone stops – if even one rabbit carries on eating, the boat will sink.

This is the international climate crisis in a (Beatrix Potter-flavoured) nutshell: action by individual nations achieves little unless we all act together. Of course, reality is a little more complex. While it’s easy to imagine the rabbits reaching a simple agreement where they all learn to dredge for seaweed instead, our situation involves massive global inequalities, differing levels of responsibility, and a history of exploitation and broken international promises.

Perhaps, then, we shouldn’t be too surprised that the international climate negotiations – which began in earnest in 1990 with the talks that created the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – have not yet got us a workable global solution. The best we’ve managed so far has been the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, under which industrialized nations (known as ‘Annex 1’ countries) pledged to cut their CO emissions by a completely inadequate 5.2 per cent by 2012. The US famously pulled out of the deal, and most of those who remained in are unlikely to achieve even these small cuts…

Down with Kyoto

We shouldn’t get too hung up on Copenhagen – we’re far more likely to create lasting change by building powerful national and international movements than by pouring all our energy into specific summit meetings. But it’s hard to deny that we need some sort of international framework for tackling this global issue. Despite its flaws, the UNFCCC is the only one we’ve got, and the urgency of the climate issue requires us to work with it.

However, the Kyoto Protocol has been a dismal failure. Should we demand that governments scrap it completely and start again from scratch? It’s tempting, but would be unlikely to gain the crucial support of Southern negotiators, who fear that a brand new deal would see them lose their hard-won ‘differentiated responsibility’.

A better approach might be to create space within the existing talks for alternative, fairer systems and ideas – such as GDRs, Kyoto2, community-led solutions, indigenous rights, strings-free clean development assistance, patent-free technology transfer – to get a hearing. Currently emissions trading, private financing and market-based mechanisms are seen as the only route to greenhouse gas reductions, and are crowding everything else out of the debate.

This suggests a simple, effective starting point for developing a successful – and just – global agreement: we need to get rid of carbon trading…

Confused yet? One tip though: if anyone has all their ideas on the subject from Quadrant or Ms Devine or Mr Bolt they aren’t worth taking too seriously. The entries immediately above, on the other hand, are predicated on an anti “free market” perspective. They are putting their faith in sustainables as the answer. I don’t really see either as being much practical help, though more is to be said for the New Internationalist stance than Quadrant’s.

OK, I’ll try again later on…

See also: entries here tagged “environment".

 

Tags:

Love it!

r479205_2430568Tim Madden, ABC (linked)

 

And the winner is… an ongoing post

abbott_hockey_turnbull

ABC pic. Who’s the mad looking guy on the left? Left…???

One of them is the next leader of the Liberal Party

8.45 am

We all wait. Amusing bits in the Sydney Morning Herald.

  • Gerard Henderson: “It is not clear why either Hockey or Turnbull or any other influential Liberals would seek advice on leadership issues from Howard. In fact, Howard is primarily responsible for the Liberal Party’s present leadership problems.”
  • Minchin pleads for “compassion”: “IN ONE of the more ironic moments in the Liberal leadership saga, Nick Minchin, kingmaker and attack dog of the party’s right wing, addressed Coalition senators yesterday morning.There Minchin, with blood on the walls after a week’s intense infighting, urged them to keep things civil and to treat each with ‘tolerance, kindness and compassion’.”

8.55 am

Turn on TV… Guess what? All our UHF channels are down!

9.14 am

Go to ABC Internet Radio. Gerard Henderson and Antony Green.

9.32 am

UHF back on. And off…

9.37 am

Back to Internet Radio. The party room meeting is still going on…

9.44 am

No tweets or sms messages emerging from the party room. Must have had their Blackberries confiscated… Radio “filling in” with news of K Rudd and B Obama on Afghanistan.

9.50 am

Shit! Hockey was eliminated. TONY ABBOTT won by ONE vote on second round, 42-41! First vote Turnbull 26, Abbott 35 and Hockey 23. To the Right, quick march! Gerard Henderson notes the two sets of figures don’t add up…

Will the Senate Libs hold? Who knows: remember last night?

KERRY O’BRIEN: So, tell me now, how many Liberal senators do you believe feel strongly enough about this bill to vote for it?
IAN MACFARLANE: Well certainly more than nine or 10. It’s in that vicinity. There are 12 that have indicated to Malcolm that they will vote for the bill when it comes to a vote. So, I guess as I say, Malcolm is saying to them, "Well, the Liberal Party does not have a future without a climate change policy and we need to get this off the table and get back to the economy and to border protection."

abbott

ABC pic. Now we know…

I suspect Joe Hockey may well feel very relieved, mind you…

Here’s how Tony did it, by appearing thus on national TV. 😉

212259-tony-abbott-091130

Update

Just watched the video here of Joe Hockey after the events. I am impressed.

 

I suspect Malcolm Turnbull would lose at poker…

He does seem just lately to have shown the cards in his hand rather too much… Perhaps he secretly wants to make way for Joe Hockey rather than see Abbott succeed him? Who knows?

AFTER a weekend of extreme pressure to challenge for the leadership of the Liberal Party, Joe Hockey last night succumbed and is expected to challenge Malcolm Turnbull tomorrow as a poll shows he is more liked than the Opposition Leader.

Two-thirds of voters also want Australia to have an emissions trading scheme.

As an ailing Mr Turnbull accused lead climate change rebel Nick Minchin of wanting to destroy the Liberal Party, the latest Herald/Nielsen poll finds Mr Hockey is preferred by 36 per cent of voters as the Liberal leader. Mr Turnbull has the backing of 32 per cent and Tony Abbott has 20 per cent.

Support for Mr Turnbull has nosedived among Coalition voters but has leapt among Labor voters.

If Mr Hockey baulks, Mr Abbott will challenge. But the poll finds little enthusiasm for Mr Abbott. In a direct match-up, 51 per cent of voters prefer Mr Turnbull and 37 per cent prefer Mr Abbott.

The poll of 1200 voters was conducted on Friday and Saturday, as the Liberal Party meltdown over climate change peaked with mass defections from the frontbench and a defiant Mr Turnbull refusing to step aside…

Sydney Morning Herald

RUDD-table-420x0

Paul Sheehan is interesting today. See also Newspoll: 57-43; Nielsen: 56-44 on The Poll Bludger.

Update 7.45 pm

I dips me lid to Ian MacFarlane. Very impressive on the 7.30 Report tonight*. And should (as everyone expects) Turnbull get done over, may Joe Hockey get up and may the rumour he will allow a free vote on the ETS be true!

… KERRY O’BRIEN: How do you feel about the possibility, if there are three contenders after a spill motion gets up tomorrow – Malcolm Turnbull, Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott – the possibility, the humiliating possibility for Malcolm Turnbull that he comes third in that ballot?
IAN MACFARLANE: Oh, look, I’m not commenting on the numbers, Kerry. I mean, Malcolm will make a good fist of a ballot tomorrow. Whether or not he can win it in a three-way contest is what we’ll find out tomorrow.
KERRY O’BRIEN: Are you saying in blunt terms that Joe Hockey cannot afford to take the leadership if it means delaying the deal?
IAN MACFARLANE: Well, you can’t walk away from climate change, Kerry. The party room has acknowledged that. Everyone in the Liberal Party accepts that we would have done a better deal if we were in government. A Liberal Party without a climate change policy is not a party that’s in touch with the community at the moment. Joe knows that; Malcolm’s known that for some time. I guess at the moment what people are trying to do is come to terms with how they deal with that in the context of a potential leadership change.
KERRY O’BRIEN: Did you expect the strength of backlash from grassroots Liberals that appears to have emerged in the last week? Do you accept that the whole of that backlash is spontaneous and not orchestrated?
IAN MACFARLANE: Well, some of it is orchestrated, there’s no doubt about that. But, I mean, in the end, we’re put in Parliament to represent the people of Australia, and the people of Australia is broader than the Liberal Party base….

* On Twitter: Bernard Keane “Unbelievable to hear Ian Macfarlane say ‘you can’t walk away from climate change.’. Amazing change from five years ago.” And great to see, as he has obviously had a more open mind than most of the trogs.

 

Stats on Australians and climate change

Just out of interest, there are some stats gathered in a PDF accessible at Recent history of climate change polling. (May 2009)

cchange

cchange2

I suspect it’s time to keep an eye on The Poll Bludger again too.

 

Tags: