For those who still insist on reading blogs on Christmas Eve - Merry Christmas to you, and may you have a relaxing and happy festive season. Thank you to anyone who may have read Peregrine over the last three months, and all the other tireless bloggers who have taken on the tyranny of computing to bring their unique collection of perspectives to the world at large.
Peregrine wants to know what those perusing its pages want to hear about. Please feel free to drop me a line at peregrinect@gmail.com on topics for discussion, analysis or amusement for 2008.
Merry christmas!
Monday, December 24, 2007
Does the present justify the past of monarchy?
UK historian David Starkey's incendiary remarks vis-a-vis Elizabeth II's cultural sophistication seem a timely segue into the republican debate. According to the Constitution, Australia's Head of State is Queen Victoria and her heirs and successors. This presupposes that the monarch continues to play a fundamental role in the governance of the nation.
The traditional purpose of monarchs was very clear. They were the apex of a feudal system, ultimate holder of all lands that were then effectively leased back to the various ranks. The monarch coordinated territorial relations and allowed a group of diverse regions to work together. The monarch thus played a major role in government, and in deed embodied the nation as a whole. However, as power gradually devolved to advisors and then to elected parliamentarians, the position became more ceremonial.
The purpose of a ceremonial monarch is to attend numerous functions and act as a symbol of continuity. Thus they are a living embodiment of both the present nation and its history. The question then becomes whether in a country like Australia whether the long tradition of English history is something we want to be tied to ad infinitum through our machinery of government.
In the current environment, a monarch represents the nation both on a ceremonial and economic level. This raises not just questions of identity but conflict of interest. Our constitution was written in the 1890s, as a cooperative agreement between a remote group of colonies. Over the last fifty years, the system has become inherently unbalanced, with the partner states being subordinated to the federal sphere. At the same time, the UK has become closely aligned to the EU rather than the old links of Empire.
In this climate, it is clear that the current arrangements are no longer suited to our present circumstances. On the domestic level, federal-state relations are imbalanced. States have responsibility for funding public health and education, massive systems to maintain and develop. The Commonwealth has control over the vast majority of the tax base. The GST transformed the state's residue independent tax collection into the benevolent grant of the federal government. The Commonwealth's chief sources of power are the external affairs power (implementing international conventions) and the corporations power. These two powers give a near total jurisdiction over most areas.
On the international level, it is hard to see a UK trade delegation actively pushing the claims of the Australian, Canadian or New Zealand exporter. As a matter of identity it seems disingenous for Australia to be represented by a largish power on the other side of the world.
Clearly the system needs renovation. Either the States need some form of guaranteed funding to justify their continued responsibilities or another method of delivery must be developed. On the national level, the monarchy does seem something of an anachronistic tie. A presidency based on a short-listing and direct election process, something like an elected Australian of the Year position, may deal with the partisan difficulties plus mass expenditure campaigning for the post.
The traditional purpose of monarchs was very clear. They were the apex of a feudal system, ultimate holder of all lands that were then effectively leased back to the various ranks. The monarch coordinated territorial relations and allowed a group of diverse regions to work together. The monarch thus played a major role in government, and in deed embodied the nation as a whole. However, as power gradually devolved to advisors and then to elected parliamentarians, the position became more ceremonial.
The purpose of a ceremonial monarch is to attend numerous functions and act as a symbol of continuity. Thus they are a living embodiment of both the present nation and its history. The question then becomes whether in a country like Australia whether the long tradition of English history is something we want to be tied to ad infinitum through our machinery of government.
In the current environment, a monarch represents the nation both on a ceremonial and economic level. This raises not just questions of identity but conflict of interest. Our constitution was written in the 1890s, as a cooperative agreement between a remote group of colonies. Over the last fifty years, the system has become inherently unbalanced, with the partner states being subordinated to the federal sphere. At the same time, the UK has become closely aligned to the EU rather than the old links of Empire.
In this climate, it is clear that the current arrangements are no longer suited to our present circumstances. On the domestic level, federal-state relations are imbalanced. States have responsibility for funding public health and education, massive systems to maintain and develop. The Commonwealth has control over the vast majority of the tax base. The GST transformed the state's residue independent tax collection into the benevolent grant of the federal government. The Commonwealth's chief sources of power are the external affairs power (implementing international conventions) and the corporations power. These two powers give a near total jurisdiction over most areas.
On the international level, it is hard to see a UK trade delegation actively pushing the claims of the Australian, Canadian or New Zealand exporter. As a matter of identity it seems disingenous for Australia to be represented by a largish power on the other side of the world.
Clearly the system needs renovation. Either the States need some form of guaranteed funding to justify their continued responsibilities or another method of delivery must be developed. On the national level, the monarchy does seem something of an anachronistic tie. A presidency based on a short-listing and direct election process, something like an elected Australian of the Year position, may deal with the partisan difficulties plus mass expenditure campaigning for the post.
When Historians Attack
This programme, while B grade in name, will probably not be hosted by Larry Emdur any time soon. However it is making the headlines of today's SMH. Self-appointed chronicler of the English Monarchy, David Starkey, has described the present Queen as 'a housewife' having a 'little bit of Goebells' in her dislike of culture. Suffice to say, Her Majesty's British press and public are not amused.
What does this highbrow Christmas pantomine mean? Starkey has a reputation as the rudest man in Britain, who in fact was considered so rude by the British public that they acquitted the much-maligned Richard III in a TV special based on Starkey's manner under cross-examination. Starkey specialises in the Tudor period (as did his mentor, Geoffery Elton). The Tudors essentially used the power of legal argument to imagine into being the Divine Right of Kings. The DRK is alien to an English legal system operating on the 'ancient common law' and supported by rights derived from Magna Carta.
He clearly appreciates power, education and force of personality. He clearly has at least two of these, and yearns for the third through his historical writings and television apprearances. He has the kind of attachment and admiration for Elizabeth I which makes him particularly vulnerable to unfavourable comparisons with Elizabeth II. As a Quaker Tory, he believes in the character of the individual as the predominant influence, and he no doubt had his nose put acutely out of joint when Elizabeth II showed acute boredom at his exhbition on Elizabeth I. When his great work made barely a dint on the attentions of his beloved monarchy, it is understandable that he would scorn the lack of education that Elizabeth II demonstrated.
Starkey must suffer acute frustration that his sovereign is mediocre compared with her historical forebears. However Elizabeth II is a product of her time. The monarchy has had no real power since the days of Victoria, and has been on the wane from the Glorious Revolution of 1688 when Parliament decided who should sit on the throne. Starkey's vision of Tudor power is a historical aberration. His criticism no doubt will generate further interest in his work and earn him a few more hundred thousand pounds a year, although one senses this is a secondary motivation. However, his true concern appears to be his relationship to power, as exercised through the royal line, rather than the short-term, populist and self-serving projects of the elected monarchy installed down the road in Westminister.
What does this highbrow Christmas pantomine mean? Starkey has a reputation as the rudest man in Britain, who in fact was considered so rude by the British public that they acquitted the much-maligned Richard III in a TV special based on Starkey's manner under cross-examination. Starkey specialises in the Tudor period (as did his mentor, Geoffery Elton). The Tudors essentially used the power of legal argument to imagine into being the Divine Right of Kings. The DRK is alien to an English legal system operating on the 'ancient common law' and supported by rights derived from Magna Carta.
He clearly appreciates power, education and force of personality. He clearly has at least two of these, and yearns for the third through his historical writings and television apprearances. He has the kind of attachment and admiration for Elizabeth I which makes him particularly vulnerable to unfavourable comparisons with Elizabeth II. As a Quaker Tory, he believes in the character of the individual as the predominant influence, and he no doubt had his nose put acutely out of joint when Elizabeth II showed acute boredom at his exhbition on Elizabeth I. When his great work made barely a dint on the attentions of his beloved monarchy, it is understandable that he would scorn the lack of education that Elizabeth II demonstrated.
Starkey must suffer acute frustration that his sovereign is mediocre compared with her historical forebears. However Elizabeth II is a product of her time. The monarchy has had no real power since the days of Victoria, and has been on the wane from the Glorious Revolution of 1688 when Parliament decided who should sit on the throne. Starkey's vision of Tudor power is a historical aberration. His criticism no doubt will generate further interest in his work and earn him a few more hundred thousand pounds a year, although one senses this is a secondary motivation. However, his true concern appears to be his relationship to power, as exercised through the royal line, rather than the short-term, populist and self-serving projects of the elected monarchy installed down the road in Westminister.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Garrett: Labor's environmental totem pole
Peter Garrett was originally recruited by Latham as the celebrity candidate to carry the disengaged into Labor'a arms. Curiously Latham, the long-time prime ministerial aspirant, disappeared like a magnesium flash, a momentary blinding light fading to nothingness. Garrett, the celebrity politician, considered to be the least suitable Labor recruit since Cheryl Kernot, is in government.
Much was made of Rudd splitting off climate change and water from Garrett's environment portfolio, interpreting it as a product of Garrett's gaffe-laden campaign. This completely misunderstands Garrett's role under Rudd Labor. Garrett's job is to be a human beacon for Labor's environmental credentials. In a word, he is Labor's environmental totem pole. He is well known both domestically and internationally as the long time head of the Australian Conservation Foundation. That role was an advocacy role, imploring government and community action on environmental matters...which is precisely what he does under his environment portfolio. Climate change and water require negotiation between a number of diverse stakeholders, something it appears the new minister Penny Wong is extremely good at.
Rudd is in the process of establishing education and environment as Labor's cornerstone issues upon which it basis its future vision for social health and economic prosperity. Gillard's mega-portfolio highlights the link between education, employment and the very workings of the nation. Garrett's role is to act as advocate for action on issues under his brief such as whaling and electricity austerity measures and give a symbolic presence when environmental matters cross over into other areas. Hence his presence standing by Stephen Smith as the foreign minister articulated the government's position on Japanese whaling. He was also present at Bali, frequently in the background while Penny Wong made statements.
The Garrett totem pole is a highly visible symbol of the Rudd Labor project. His environmentalist background gives clear expression to the core role environmental matters play in Labor. For Labor, the economy is seen through the environmental context, not the other way around. As a non-aligned candidate, he is a symbol of Rudd's breakdown of the faction system. He is also like Rudd a frequenter of Parliament's Christian fellowship. Despite the seeming awkwardness of his stance, both physically and on policy matters, Garrett is part of the unorthodox network Rudd has formed to renovate Labor for the new century.
Much was made of Rudd splitting off climate change and water from Garrett's environment portfolio, interpreting it as a product of Garrett's gaffe-laden campaign. This completely misunderstands Garrett's role under Rudd Labor. Garrett's job is to be a human beacon for Labor's environmental credentials. In a word, he is Labor's environmental totem pole. He is well known both domestically and internationally as the long time head of the Australian Conservation Foundation. That role was an advocacy role, imploring government and community action on environmental matters...which is precisely what he does under his environment portfolio. Climate change and water require negotiation between a number of diverse stakeholders, something it appears the new minister Penny Wong is extremely good at.
Rudd is in the process of establishing education and environment as Labor's cornerstone issues upon which it basis its future vision for social health and economic prosperity. Gillard's mega-portfolio highlights the link between education, employment and the very workings of the nation. Garrett's role is to act as advocate for action on issues under his brief such as whaling and electricity austerity measures and give a symbolic presence when environmental matters cross over into other areas. Hence his presence standing by Stephen Smith as the foreign minister articulated the government's position on Japanese whaling. He was also present at Bali, frequently in the background while Penny Wong made statements.
The Garrett totem pole is a highly visible symbol of the Rudd Labor project. His environmentalist background gives clear expression to the core role environmental matters play in Labor. For Labor, the economy is seen through the environmental context, not the other way around. As a non-aligned candidate, he is a symbol of Rudd's breakdown of the faction system. He is also like Rudd a frequenter of Parliament's Christian fellowship. Despite the seeming awkwardness of his stance, both physically and on policy matters, Garrett is part of the unorthodox network Rudd has formed to renovate Labor for the new century.
Reining in the Puritans
Brendan Nelson, aka The Human Cockatoo, has adopted the radical policy of 'listening to the Australian people'. The first two manifestations of this are his approval of Rudd's lodging of ratification papers to the Kyoto Protocol and his declaration that workchoices is dead. These are fine words, although Nelson has also refused to guarantee fulsome support for the ratification legislation for Kyoto nor the repealing of workchoices. Until we see an unequivocal commitment to do so, doubts over the substance of these statements will remain.
Nelson has one small problem. He is the compromise candidate to keep both Abbott (unelectable) and Turnbull (unpalatable) out of the leadership. His leadership is underwritten by one Julie Bishop and her posse of WA MPs. They happen to believe workchoices was endorsed by their constitutents and that the eastern states failed to follow the one true path. Their zeal for the policy verges on the puritanical, and they have been beneficiaries of the Howard era purging of traditional liberal sentiment from the party. Most of them are of the less enlightened side of the party on climate change.
The Liberals have a real problem. In order to look even vaguely relevant, they have to junk their main planks of policy difference, which will also alienate the very people supporting the leadership. However, if they do not, they will fall further behind in the polls and run the risk of becoming a splintered conservative grouping rather than a coherent party. At some point, the Liberals will not be able to rely on voters who formed their opinions when either Chifley or Whitlam was in office.
Whether Nelson can keep a veneer of party solidarity on these issues remains to be seen. However, it is unlikely that the pro-Howard forces will go quietly into the centre. More likely, if concessions are made on workchoices and Kyoto, the Puritans will want some serious stands in return. This may explain the continued tough talking on refusing an apology for the Stolen Generation. It seems pretty clear that Nelson will have to try and capitalise on any disquiet caused by climate change policy purely to maintain the illusion of his own competitiveness.
Nelson has one small problem. He is the compromise candidate to keep both Abbott (unelectable) and Turnbull (unpalatable) out of the leadership. His leadership is underwritten by one Julie Bishop and her posse of WA MPs. They happen to believe workchoices was endorsed by their constitutents and that the eastern states failed to follow the one true path. Their zeal for the policy verges on the puritanical, and they have been beneficiaries of the Howard era purging of traditional liberal sentiment from the party. Most of them are of the less enlightened side of the party on climate change.
The Liberals have a real problem. In order to look even vaguely relevant, they have to junk their main planks of policy difference, which will also alienate the very people supporting the leadership. However, if they do not, they will fall further behind in the polls and run the risk of becoming a splintered conservative grouping rather than a coherent party. At some point, the Liberals will not be able to rely on voters who formed their opinions when either Chifley or Whitlam was in office.
Whether Nelson can keep a veneer of party solidarity on these issues remains to be seen. However, it is unlikely that the pro-Howard forces will go quietly into the centre. More likely, if concessions are made on workchoices and Kyoto, the Puritans will want some serious stands in return. This may explain the continued tough talking on refusing an apology for the Stolen Generation. It seems pretty clear that Nelson will have to try and capitalise on any disquiet caused by climate change policy purely to maintain the illusion of his own competitiveness.
Variety or venom: which would put you off your Christmas turkey?
Australia has again failed to resolve the question of its spinning department for the Boxing Day Test and following series against India. Since the retirement of Warne and the injury and slow recovery of the less than vintage Macgill, Australia is left facing a gaping chasm in the quality of its next line of tweakers. Australia have been reticent to call on Hogg's services unless the pitch shows obvious signs of turn, preferring a pyjama battery of assorted medium and fast bowlers. This reluctance has now led to the team having no clear understudy considered suited to the Test spinner role.
The question then boils down to a choice between Hogg as the next best spinner or Tait as the next best pace bowler. Given the record of frontline spinners such as Warne and Macgill is not great and the record of bit-part spinners, namely Hogg and Robertson in India is positively awful, the smart money must surely be on Tait. Having variety is great. The question is whether that variety offers a competitive advantage to a captain who can call on the extra option as a viable wicket-taking or run-slowing option.
If India play Hogg without fear, then Tait must surely play. Tait is a law of nature, a whirlwind that either blows fiercely levelling batsmen and wickets with equal regularity or continually misses the target and gets carted to all corners. This unpredictability means Tait will only be seen as understudy to Lee or a fiery fourth bowler to unleash on bouncy tracks. Unless he is the more dangerous option.
The other aspect is whether Australia feel they need Hogg as back-up for Macgill until the next tier of spinners emerge. The situation is bizarre. Contracted spinner Bailey is playing second XI for South Australia, Cullen is on his way back, NSW has so many spinners but none in the side at the moment and poor White was injured at the worst moment. As an allrounder, White would have been a decent chance of selection if he was in good form.
This surfeit of spin options is a major headache for Australia, whose stocks more resemble South Africa's at the present time. Hogg may well have deserved his chance to play Test cricket by being the last man standing.
The question then boils down to a choice between Hogg as the next best spinner or Tait as the next best pace bowler. Given the record of frontline spinners such as Warne and Macgill is not great and the record of bit-part spinners, namely Hogg and Robertson in India is positively awful, the smart money must surely be on Tait. Having variety is great. The question is whether that variety offers a competitive advantage to a captain who can call on the extra option as a viable wicket-taking or run-slowing option.
If India play Hogg without fear, then Tait must surely play. Tait is a law of nature, a whirlwind that either blows fiercely levelling batsmen and wickets with equal regularity or continually misses the target and gets carted to all corners. This unpredictability means Tait will only be seen as understudy to Lee or a fiery fourth bowler to unleash on bouncy tracks. Unless he is the more dangerous option.
The other aspect is whether Australia feel they need Hogg as back-up for Macgill until the next tier of spinners emerge. The situation is bizarre. Contracted spinner Bailey is playing second XI for South Australia, Cullen is on his way back, NSW has so many spinners but none in the side at the moment and poor White was injured at the worst moment. As an allrounder, White would have been a decent chance of selection if he was in good form.
This surfeit of spin options is a major headache for Australia, whose stocks more resemble South Africa's at the present time. Hogg may well have deserved his chance to play Test cricket by being the last man standing.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Save the whales...from the international lawyers
Kevin Rudd made an audacious statement during the cut and thrust of the election campaign that he would be willing to take firm sction against Japanese whaling ships in the Southern Ocean. This promise got somewhat submerged under the other key election issues, but has now risen for air with the opening of the whaling (sorry, scientific research) season.
Rudd's position is that Australia needs to take firm action to gather evidence for presentation in a possible future action in the International Court of Justice. This is in line with his other policy promise to ask the ICJ to adjudicate on whether Iranian President Ahmenidjad's alleged statement that he would drive Israel into the Mediterranean amounted to genocide. Rudd clearly believes that international disputes should be subject to moral adjudication by international legal bodies.
The problem is that the situation vis-a-vis Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean is not clear cut. Japan claims a right to take whales for scienific purposes, conducting both lethal and non-lethal research to establish details about populations. Australia claims the right to intervene to protect the whales, for the purpose of preservation and conservation of living resources. Both claims derive from Article IX of the Antarctic Treaty.
It is arguable that Australia could employ military personnel and assets to further any peaceful purpose under the Treaty. Diplomatically it may not be terribly clever, given warships at ten paces is never the best basis for negotiation. However, the use of converted ships as coastguard patrols would arguably appear to come under actions allowable under the Treaty.
Domestically, one could see this, if one so chose, as a wedge issue. Nelson's Liberals are cautious in their support - opposition sets them against 90% of Ninemsn's readers. However, Peregrine does not believe that Rudd's aim is a Tampa-style conservation move, but genuine action to resolve a long-running international dispute. The other key point is that an Australian official presence will deter Greenpeace and other activists disabling Japanese whaling ships, actions that led Japan to warn it would seek Australia's cooperation to curb activists and even scramble Japanese police aircraft to protect whalers.
Rudd's position is that Australia needs to take firm action to gather evidence for presentation in a possible future action in the International Court of Justice. This is in line with his other policy promise to ask the ICJ to adjudicate on whether Iranian President Ahmenidjad's alleged statement that he would drive Israel into the Mediterranean amounted to genocide. Rudd clearly believes that international disputes should be subject to moral adjudication by international legal bodies.
The problem is that the situation vis-a-vis Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean is not clear cut. Japan claims a right to take whales for scienific purposes, conducting both lethal and non-lethal research to establish details about populations. Australia claims the right to intervene to protect the whales, for the purpose of preservation and conservation of living resources. Both claims derive from Article IX of the Antarctic Treaty.
It is arguable that Australia could employ military personnel and assets to further any peaceful purpose under the Treaty. Diplomatically it may not be terribly clever, given warships at ten paces is never the best basis for negotiation. However, the use of converted ships as coastguard patrols would arguably appear to come under actions allowable under the Treaty.
Domestically, one could see this, if one so chose, as a wedge issue. Nelson's Liberals are cautious in their support - opposition sets them against 90% of Ninemsn's readers. However, Peregrine does not believe that Rudd's aim is a Tampa-style conservation move, but genuine action to resolve a long-running international dispute. The other key point is that an Australian official presence will deter Greenpeace and other activists disabling Japanese whaling ships, actions that led Japan to warn it would seek Australia's cooperation to curb activists and even scramble Japanese police aircraft to protect whalers.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Hunt's frolic to outfox Rudd
During the Bali Conference, a rather extraordinary thing happened. The Greens' Christine Milne welcomed Greg Hunt, officially the shadow minister for the environment, appearing to accept the need to set 25-40% domestic binding emissions targets by 2020. Given until earlier this year it was not even certain his leader, the Colossus of Roads, John Howard, put climate change theory on a higher pedestal than the Easter Bunny and Santa, this would seem to be an almighty party conversion on the way to Damascus. Or Bali, which I presume some flights to Damascus have been known to stopover at.
Sensing a majoritarian issue, Hunt tried a remarkable piece of sophistry dressed up as environmental commitment. Rudd was welshing on his climate promises because he would not sign up for the 25-40% range. Hunt allegedly gave Rudd 'the green light' to sign up to a text stating a 25-40% negotiation range.
No he did not. Hunt got a licence from the party firm of Nelson, Turnbull and Downer to try and wedge Rudd. Nelson listed five criteria for the Bali text to meet the national interest:
So Hunt wanted to sign up to the text precisely because the targets were non-binding. Rudd firmly believes in a 60% binding target by 2050, regardless of the economic modelling. It is the interim that he seeks the modelling on, an approach which has drawn flak from both sides. The only modelling Brendan could conceivably do is either to find where in the 25-40% spectrum Australia could sit or to junk the Bali committment. The entire approach is either economically or diplomatically unsound.
A Liberal leadership constituted as a compromise to appease Howard loyalists and propped up by the kingmaker from WA, Julie Bishop's numbers is not going to take kindly to an emission reduction target set without any modelling. WA Liberals may behave something like their northern cousins in Alberta on such reductions and become positively mutinuous.
Greg Hunt clearly does believe that action is required on climate change. However he is constrained within a party where denial was de rigeur for the best part of a decade. Unfortunately, his attempts at autonomous policy are at best likely to be used as a good old Howardian wedge. At worst, they may have all the substance of a maringue - sugar-coated hot air. A serious Liberal climate conversion will not come until the party undergoes a major reexamination of its role in the new order.
Sensing a majoritarian issue, Hunt tried a remarkable piece of sophistry dressed up as environmental commitment. Rudd was welshing on his climate promises because he would not sign up for the 25-40% range. Hunt allegedly gave Rudd 'the green light' to sign up to a text stating a 25-40% negotiation range.
No he did not. Hunt got a licence from the party firm of Nelson, Turnbull and Downer to try and wedge Rudd. Nelson listed five criteria for the Bali text to meet the national interest:
The first was that no targets should be binding and the second that targets should not be set for each country. Dr Nelson also wanted to be able to have time to do economic modelling on any proposed targets.
So Hunt wanted to sign up to the text precisely because the targets were non-binding. Rudd firmly believes in a 60% binding target by 2050, regardless of the economic modelling. It is the interim that he seeks the modelling on, an approach which has drawn flak from both sides. The only modelling Brendan could conceivably do is either to find where in the 25-40% spectrum Australia could sit or to junk the Bali committment. The entire approach is either economically or diplomatically unsound.
A Liberal leadership constituted as a compromise to appease Howard loyalists and propped up by the kingmaker from WA, Julie Bishop's numbers is not going to take kindly to an emission reduction target set without any modelling. WA Liberals may behave something like their northern cousins in Alberta on such reductions and become positively mutinuous.
Greg Hunt clearly does believe that action is required on climate change. However he is constrained within a party where denial was de rigeur for the best part of a decade. Unfortunately, his attempts at autonomous policy are at best likely to be used as a good old Howardian wedge. At worst, they may have all the substance of a maringue - sugar-coated hot air. A serious Liberal climate conversion will not come until the party undergoes a major reexamination of its role in the new order.
US demonstrates why we need the UN to handle climate change
The Howard regime's constant refrain was that the best way to handle climate change discussions was through a series of regional pacts such as the Asia-Pacific Climate Partnership. Shadow Environment Minister Greg Hunt tried to attribute India and Indonesia's enthusiasm on climate change to another regional forum, the APEC talks. Perergine disagrees with Hunt's take as India's support is pretty lukewarm given its deep poverty below its still proportionally small middle class and Indonesia's support comes as much from the home-ground hero aura that comes over the host nation at such events. Hunt's clear import was that getting the big phase 1 emitters, the US, Australia and Japan around the table with the big phase 2 emitters, China, India and Indonesia would produce better results than the all-in environment of the UN.
The US position at Bali demonstrates the monumental flaw in this reasoning. The US has an imperial conviction in its own power and self interest. There is an abiding belief in the primacy of American values which principally include free enterprise and exploitation of resources. That said, the federal system of the US has worked to produce a gradual building of momentum towards an national environmental oonsensus. It may soon be impossible for a candidate to win enough electoral college votes for election without a clear vision on limiting the damage posed by climate change.
Unfortunately for the current global position, the last throes of the Bush administration, the most-pro capitalist government yet seen, coincide with the most urgent stage in climate negotiations. Bush is an oil man who does not comprehend curtailing either personal wealth or development or the conservation of resources, choosing to support the mining of Alaska for oil rather than renewable resources.
It is no surprise that the other northern oil mining nation, Canada, is supporting Bush to the hilt.
The US had consistently opposed binding targets in the Bali Conference communique, saying this 'prejudged' the outcome of two years of talks. Unfortunately for its credibility, it dropped support for non-binding targets appearing in the final draft. Worse, it did not like the reference to green energy aid to developing countries. This led to a chorus of boos, so much so that one suspected Bali had turned into an international pantomine.
Then the PNG delegate decided he had had enough and told the US if it could not lead, it should get out of the way. Within minutes, the US agreed to non-binding targets being mentioned in the final text. Under the US preferred system, PNG would not even have a seat at the table, and the views of the Alliance of Small States would have been relegated to the pages of the Green Left Weekly rather than the mainstream media.
In order to solve the problem of climate change, we must all accept the need to be efficient in our use of resources, explore different energy options and make a paradigm shift away from an economy reliant on excessive use of carbon-based fuels. Under its traditional philsophical outlook, the US, global superpower and master of most of the world financial, trade and military markets is ill-suited to playing the lead role in negotiations. Until we see such a paradigm shift in the US, it will still be playing the pantomine villain.
The US position at Bali demonstrates the monumental flaw in this reasoning. The US has an imperial conviction in its own power and self interest. There is an abiding belief in the primacy of American values which principally include free enterprise and exploitation of resources. That said, the federal system of the US has worked to produce a gradual building of momentum towards an national environmental oonsensus. It may soon be impossible for a candidate to win enough electoral college votes for election without a clear vision on limiting the damage posed by climate change.
Unfortunately for the current global position, the last throes of the Bush administration, the most-pro capitalist government yet seen, coincide with the most urgent stage in climate negotiations. Bush is an oil man who does not comprehend curtailing either personal wealth or development or the conservation of resources, choosing to support the mining of Alaska for oil rather than renewable resources.
It is no surprise that the other northern oil mining nation, Canada, is supporting Bush to the hilt.
The US had consistently opposed binding targets in the Bali Conference communique, saying this 'prejudged' the outcome of two years of talks. Unfortunately for its credibility, it dropped support for non-binding targets appearing in the final draft. Worse, it did not like the reference to green energy aid to developing countries. This led to a chorus of boos, so much so that one suspected Bali had turned into an international pantomine.
Then the PNG delegate decided he had had enough and told the US if it could not lead, it should get out of the way. Within minutes, the US agreed to non-binding targets being mentioned in the final text. Under the US preferred system, PNG would not even have a seat at the table, and the views of the Alliance of Small States would have been relegated to the pages of the Green Left Weekly rather than the mainstream media.
In order to solve the problem of climate change, we must all accept the need to be efficient in our use of resources, explore different energy options and make a paradigm shift away from an economy reliant on excessive use of carbon-based fuels. Under its traditional philsophical outlook, the US, global superpower and master of most of the world financial, trade and military markets is ill-suited to playing the lead role in negotiations. Until we see such a paradigm shift in the US, it will still be playing the pantomine villain.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Strengthening the weakest link in the climate chain
The Bali Conference is intended to produce a road map for negotiations to prevent the planet falling off a carbon emission-created cliff. It is about navigating through a minefield of national interest issues, innate political caution and diplomatic obfuscation in search of the common goal.
The recalcitrant parties here are the developed nations of the US, Japan and Canada. They are engaged in a game of me-first you-first with developing nations such as China, India, Brazil and South Africa which at first sight looks vaguely ridiculous. It threatens to stall progress as none of this alliance of inconvenience will accept the negotiation range of 25-40% targets for developed countries to be set as the parameters for negotiation without developing country committment.
Then one considers the Canadian predicament. Canada is the silver medallist behind tiny Austria for Kyoto non-compliance, a staggering 34% above its emissions target (6% reduction on 1990). Amazingly, given Howard's constant refrain of how Kyoto would damage industry, Australia would not even be in the same weight division as its northern cousin. Herein lies the root of the problem. Canada is actually being sued
by its own Friends of the Earth NGO for breach of its Kyoto committments. Interestingly, New Zealand is almost as lagging in its targets, having paid a rather large fine for its breaches. This has not deterred Helen Clark's push for binding targets.
Perhaps Canada may need to be bailed out - it is now so manifestly out of whack with developed country emissions it should almost be treated as a special case for the sake of getting a viable agreement. Canada could argue that countries like Spain got cover for their Kyoto sins from emissions being calculated under the EU umbrella. Canada has no friends to help it out here.
Compunding the difficulties is the fact that Canada has two provincial delegations, Ontario and Quebec, which are at Bali and embarrassed by Ottawa's position. What's more, they represent two-thirds of the population, namely the ones not directly responsible for most of the greenhouse pollution.
Canada's former Liberal government clearly took its eye off the ball and has committed the environmental equivalent of letting the chip fat skip out of the deep fryer. Instead of trying to quell the flames, the Tories have tried to evacuate the building and wait to collect on the fire insurance.
A target of 25%, the minimum demanded by the negotiation range, amounts to a 53% cut in emissions (on a severe upward trajectory) within thirteen years. Ouch. Methinks this seriously constitutes some recognition, albeit through gritted teeth, that Canada be allowed to chart a course towards a long term goal rather than the 25% range.
In an earlier post, Peregrine proposed that a successor instrument to Kyoto should include differed emissions targets for developing countries and a package of preliminary measures for developing countries. Canada should be read the Riot Act vis-a-vis its non-compliance and forced to sign up for afforestation, renewable energy and energy efficiency targets. It should also make a hefty contribution to the fund to cover the costs of climate amelioration in the developing world. Only then should the international community agree to place it in its own special box, with differed targets. Chastened by being put back on its international training wheels, it should be offered an incentive for participation towards binding targets in the near future.
The recalcitrant parties here are the developed nations of the US, Japan and Canada. They are engaged in a game of me-first you-first with developing nations such as China, India, Brazil and South Africa which at first sight looks vaguely ridiculous. It threatens to stall progress as none of this alliance of inconvenience will accept the negotiation range of 25-40% targets for developed countries to be set as the parameters for negotiation without developing country committment.
Then one considers the Canadian predicament. Canada is the silver medallist behind tiny Austria for Kyoto non-compliance, a staggering 34% above its emissions target (6% reduction on 1990). Amazingly, given Howard's constant refrain of how Kyoto would damage industry, Australia would not even be in the same weight division as its northern cousin. Herein lies the root of the problem. Canada is actually being sued
by its own Friends of the Earth NGO for breach of its Kyoto committments. Interestingly, New Zealand is almost as lagging in its targets, having paid a rather large fine for its breaches. This has not deterred Helen Clark's push for binding targets.
Perhaps Canada may need to be bailed out - it is now so manifestly out of whack with developed country emissions it should almost be treated as a special case for the sake of getting a viable agreement. Canada could argue that countries like Spain got cover for their Kyoto sins from emissions being calculated under the EU umbrella. Canada has no friends to help it out here.
Compunding the difficulties is the fact that Canada has two provincial delegations, Ontario and Quebec, which are at Bali and embarrassed by Ottawa's position. What's more, they represent two-thirds of the population, namely the ones not directly responsible for most of the greenhouse pollution.
Canada's former Liberal government clearly took its eye off the ball and has committed the environmental equivalent of letting the chip fat skip out of the deep fryer. Instead of trying to quell the flames, the Tories have tried to evacuate the building and wait to collect on the fire insurance.
A target of 25%, the minimum demanded by the negotiation range, amounts to a 53% cut in emissions (on a severe upward trajectory) within thirteen years. Ouch. Methinks this seriously constitutes some recognition, albeit through gritted teeth, that Canada be allowed to chart a course towards a long term goal rather than the 25% range.
In an earlier post, Peregrine proposed that a successor instrument to Kyoto should include differed emissions targets for developing countries and a package of preliminary measures for developing countries. Canada should be read the Riot Act vis-a-vis its non-compliance and forced to sign up for afforestation, renewable energy and energy efficiency targets. It should also make a hefty contribution to the fund to cover the costs of climate amelioration in the developing world. Only then should the international community agree to place it in its own special box, with differed targets. Chastened by being put back on its international training wheels, it should be offered an incentive for participation towards binding targets in the near future.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Defending the pass at Thermopylae
Kevin Rudd's debut on the world stage must be perplexing to his global audience. On the one hand, he has speedily entered the ratification papers for the Kyoto Protocol and made a number of statements which come straight from the Al Gore playbook. On the other, reports filter through from the negotiations that Australia is either 'not being as forceful as it might' or is actively watering down the text of the Conference communique to remove references to 2020 targets. In some quarters, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong is seen as spokesperson for the recalcitrants.
Rudd is in a bind to act responsibly. To act responsibly on climate change and stave off the eternal skepticism about Labor's economic management he needs to have the Garnaut report to hand to buttress its credentials domestically. This is basically what Rudd told the assembly yesterday.
Rudd's posse of ministers and diplomats is playing the role of the three hundred Spartans at Thermopylae. They are desperately defending the pass that links the global goodwill shown to Australia on ratifying Kyoto and condemnation for inaction on climate change. Like the Spartans, they are waiting for the token Athenian response, i.e. the Garnaut Report, to sweep in and save the day.
It is not clear how much carriage Rudd has of the negotiation strategy, but it appears that Australia is attempting to use the lag required between Bali and the Garnaut Report to strengthen its influence over the recalcitrant countries, namely the US, Japan and Canada. Rudd is clearly building on Australia's Howard-era tardiness alliance with the US (and latterly Canada) to build bridges towards a tenable agreement.
The federal system in the US is working well to counteract Bush's inertia, with a network of Pacific and Atlantic states developing a domestic emissions trading scheme and legislating mandatory targets. This has created a groundswell of opinion in favour of climate action by the next administration. At a Republican presidential debate, candidates were asked whether they agree with global warming - it is now an ethical issue relevant to candidates' credentials.
In Canada, the federal system is under pressure from the massive divergence between the eastern provinces, namely Ontario and Quebec which favour climate action and the vulnerable western (and very affluent courtesy of the mining and oil boom) provinces of Alberta and British Columbia which do not. Harper's climate-skeptic government is entirely composed of the western mindset, making it seriously unrepresentative in the international forum.
Peregrine suspects that the role of countries such as Australia and the US will be vital in getting any agreement. The key issue is going to be whether Canada can be dragged to the table. That in turn will require heavy influence from the US. Given Canada's outlier position, it does not seem likely that a text demanding immediate agreement to a 25-40% negotiation range will pass.
Rudd is attempting to use the same strategy on the world scale that he has to win domestic election. He is making a promise to sign up to 25-40% targets once the economic impact is in. It remains to be seen whether the UN will accept credit for its climate measures.
Rudd is in a bind to act responsibly. To act responsibly on climate change and stave off the eternal skepticism about Labor's economic management he needs to have the Garnaut report to hand to buttress its credentials domestically. This is basically what Rudd told the assembly yesterday.
Rudd's posse of ministers and diplomats is playing the role of the three hundred Spartans at Thermopylae. They are desperately defending the pass that links the global goodwill shown to Australia on ratifying Kyoto and condemnation for inaction on climate change. Like the Spartans, they are waiting for the token Athenian response, i.e. the Garnaut Report, to sweep in and save the day.
It is not clear how much carriage Rudd has of the negotiation strategy, but it appears that Australia is attempting to use the lag required between Bali and the Garnaut Report to strengthen its influence over the recalcitrant countries, namely the US, Japan and Canada. Rudd is clearly building on Australia's Howard-era tardiness alliance with the US (and latterly Canada) to build bridges towards a tenable agreement.
The federal system in the US is working well to counteract Bush's inertia, with a network of Pacific and Atlantic states developing a domestic emissions trading scheme and legislating mandatory targets. This has created a groundswell of opinion in favour of climate action by the next administration. At a Republican presidential debate, candidates were asked whether they agree with global warming - it is now an ethical issue relevant to candidates' credentials.
In Canada, the federal system is under pressure from the massive divergence between the eastern provinces, namely Ontario and Quebec which favour climate action and the vulnerable western (and very affluent courtesy of the mining and oil boom) provinces of Alberta and British Columbia which do not. Harper's climate-skeptic government is entirely composed of the western mindset, making it seriously unrepresentative in the international forum.
Peregrine suspects that the role of countries such as Australia and the US will be vital in getting any agreement. The key issue is going to be whether Canada can be dragged to the table. That in turn will require heavy influence from the US. Given Canada's outlier position, it does not seem likely that a text demanding immediate agreement to a 25-40% negotiation range will pass.
Rudd is attempting to use the same strategy on the world scale that he has to win domestic election. He is making a promise to sign up to 25-40% targets once the economic impact is in. It remains to be seen whether the UN will accept credit for its climate measures.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Certainty required, uncertainty required: the Bali paradox
The Bali Conference on climate change is now being described as a 'road map' for further negotiations re the setting of emission reduction targets. The UN Secretariat wish is for a text to be initialled 'KMR' et al sometime this week which contains a committment for developed countries to reduce targets by 25-40% by 2020. This appears to be what the UN is defining as proceeding within the Kyoto framework.
This is an indication of how serious the post-Kyoto round of negotiations are. The non-binding position advocated by the US, Canada and Japan demands that a 'global goal' be pursued to cut emissions by 50% by 2050. Canada and Japan are unequivocally telling developing countries they must accept targets before they will sign on. This fit of pique stems from the Canadian government's skeptic attitude to climate change - it attempted to repudiate Kyoto and was forced by the opposition Liberals to pass a bill binding the Canadian government to cut emissions at gunpoint. The Calgary based Conservatives could best be described as the lumberjack-oil drillers alliance.
Japan has lost face from the failure of Kyoto, and has experienced problems with nuclear energy since an earthquake damaged a plant earlier this year. It is also exposed to Chinese and Indian development.
The US position is schizophrenic. Like Canada, opinion is divided between the progressive states allied to the Democratic Congress and the regressive Bush administration. The official US delegation is under Bush's imprimatur, but US politicians attending the conference include the guru Al Gore and John Kerry. Kerry's role appears to be emissary for the Democratic administration-in-waiting, saying that the US would accept binding targets of 25%+ at some point in the future.
Australia's vaciliation on binding targets stems from Rudd's committment to be economically responsible while ushering in revolutionary change. Nelson's ploy of ratifying Kyoto and then exploiting angst over short-term target pain is cheap politics and a decided headache for the PM.
Against this backdrop, the EU's alliance with China and a group of developing countries such as India, Brazil and South Africa acknowledges the necessity for action and their common philsophical belief that developed countries must accept targets before developing countries.
Rudd's position is a diplomatic tightrope that requires either an expedient piece of fudging or a leap of good faith. The clear import of the UN's desired negotiation range is that 25% would be the minimum target. The range is merely the set of numbers available under the common-but-differentiated principle that Kyoto utilised. Rudd is not going to jeopardise a global agreement, but nor is he going to look like a fiscal gambler so early in his term. Given Rudd needs the Garnaut report, due in June, to set a target, he would surely push to settle the target question at the next COP. His '60% target by 2050' could be the circuit breaker: if he can push for a compromise for the US, Canada and Japan to accept a binding 50% target by 2050, rather than a global goal, it might satisfy the developing-EU bloc.
This would explain why Rudd is making a procession of statements stating Australia is fair dinkum about climate change. It also explains why Greenpeace are accusing Australia of not going hard in pushing for the binding 25-40% negotiation range in the Bali text.
In spirit, the Rudd government wants to support the binding target range, but practicality demands it delay. The US in a state of flux pending its next presidential epoch. The other procrastinating nations may not be so sanguine.
This is an indication of how serious the post-Kyoto round of negotiations are. The non-binding position advocated by the US, Canada and Japan demands that a 'global goal' be pursued to cut emissions by 50% by 2050. Canada and Japan are unequivocally telling developing countries they must accept targets before they will sign on. This fit of pique stems from the Canadian government's skeptic attitude to climate change - it attempted to repudiate Kyoto and was forced by the opposition Liberals to pass a bill binding the Canadian government to cut emissions at gunpoint. The Calgary based Conservatives could best be described as the lumberjack-oil drillers alliance.
Japan has lost face from the failure of Kyoto, and has experienced problems with nuclear energy since an earthquake damaged a plant earlier this year. It is also exposed to Chinese and Indian development.
The US position is schizophrenic. Like Canada, opinion is divided between the progressive states allied to the Democratic Congress and the regressive Bush administration. The official US delegation is under Bush's imprimatur, but US politicians attending the conference include the guru Al Gore and John Kerry. Kerry's role appears to be emissary for the Democratic administration-in-waiting, saying that the US would accept binding targets of 25%+ at some point in the future.
Australia's vaciliation on binding targets stems from Rudd's committment to be economically responsible while ushering in revolutionary change. Nelson's ploy of ratifying Kyoto and then exploiting angst over short-term target pain is cheap politics and a decided headache for the PM.
Against this backdrop, the EU's alliance with China and a group of developing countries such as India, Brazil and South Africa acknowledges the necessity for action and their common philsophical belief that developed countries must accept targets before developing countries.
Rudd's position is a diplomatic tightrope that requires either an expedient piece of fudging or a leap of good faith. The clear import of the UN's desired negotiation range is that 25% would be the minimum target. The range is merely the set of numbers available under the common-but-differentiated principle that Kyoto utilised. Rudd is not going to jeopardise a global agreement, but nor is he going to look like a fiscal gambler so early in his term. Given Rudd needs the Garnaut report, due in June, to set a target, he would surely push to settle the target question at the next COP. His '60% target by 2050' could be the circuit breaker: if he can push for a compromise for the US, Canada and Japan to accept a binding 50% target by 2050, rather than a global goal, it might satisfy the developing-EU bloc.
This would explain why Rudd is making a procession of statements stating Australia is fair dinkum about climate change. It also explains why Greenpeace are accusing Australia of not going hard in pushing for the binding 25-40% negotiation range in the Bali text.
In spirit, the Rudd government wants to support the binding target range, but practicality demands it delay. The US in a state of flux pending its next presidential epoch. The other procrastinating nations may not be so sanguine.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Bald eagle flys blind on election choices
Having seen the demise of the deputy, the quest (and it is a long and arduous journey, one half expects it to be directed by Peter Jackson) to find the global sheriff's replacement is on in, well, stage-managed, media confected earnest. Unlike our wonderful system of internal machinations, Americans are rather fond of ritually electing every position possible. Which brings us to the primaries.
Owing to the malignant albatross around Bush's neck, Dick Cheney, being the Vice-President and Condoleeza Rice showing no current interest in higher office following the 'pick up seashells' adventure in Iraq, the Republican candidature is about as clear as the chowder unfortunate candidates get served up on a myriad of campaign stops. So we have both the Republicans and Democrats running competitive primary races.
Both sides have apparent front runners. The Democrat juggernaut-in-chief is attached to one Hillary Clinton, Senator for New York. Curiously, the putative Republican frontrunner is former New York mayor Rudi Guiliani. Has some odd revolution occurred where people suddenly listen to the Yankee states again? Probably not, but the mid-term elections demonstrated the visceral hatred held for the Iraq deployment and disapproval at the abject presidency and behaviour of Congress.
Hillary's campaign is based around the idea that she is the professional, assured and experienced candidate from central casting. Peregrine's distant observation here is that it is Kevin07 without the self-deprecating humour. Hillary's rivals are Barack Obama, who seems to be trying to be the postmodern Kennedy with his appeals to a hope for a better America while being tough on terrorists, John Edwards, whose candidacy is towards the left of the US spectrum is the other frontline contender. Behind them are Bill Richardson, former energy secretary, US Ambassador to the UN and governor of New Mexico and Joe Biden, senator and haunter of foreign policy committees. Hillary's fanbase constitutes a solid bloc of Democrat voters in the larger states, but she has to rely on enough generic Democrats to feel she will provoke the Republicans marshalling to prevent her return to the White House. Hillary is viewed in the traditional Livia mould of the scheming hand behind the throne by her Republican adversaries.
In order to get the nomination, candidates need a coalescence of fundraising and consequent advertising capability and the ability to carry voter support in various states. On paper, Clinton and Obama are competing for the same solid Democratic areas on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, Edwards should pick up support in the Mid-West and the South and Richardson should do well in the South-West. Interestingly, Obama is doing better than Clinton in the Iowa polls. Peregrine suspects that the key factor will be whether nagging doubts about Obama's capability or concern over the polarising Hillary phenonmenon win the day.
On the Republican side...oh dear, oh dear. The party is wedded to bringing out the 'Christian conservative' vote for it to carry the day. The only reason the Republican party can ever even win a presidental election these days is because it relies on a lot of voters voting against their own economic interests. A big factor may well be the pain Iraq is causing to small town communities voting Republican. Early leader John McCain really won't do it again because of his hawkish attitude to Iran. After recent intelligence revelations, he is not likely to improve his ground. Rudi Guiliani has the 9/11 gravitas angle to run on, but has been accused of exploiting it. Not to mention his curious way with women (including one he announced his separation from via a press conference) which is not likely to endear him as a champion of family values. Still Guiliani does remain competitive as a moderate candidate with national security credentials.
Behind these two is the strange case of Mitt Romney, the Mormon who dare not speak his name about anything. On values, it is as though he took his paintball gun loaded with enlightened positions on abortion, gun control and taxation and traded it in for an NRA rifle, fully loaded with the views of the 'Christian Right' (or as Perergine prefers 'the Unchristian wrong'). Compared to Romney, the hapless Kerry was a model of consistency. Mitt might have a name for baseball but it is only the sheer apparent hopelessness of the Unchristian wrong's prospects that even led to his candidacy being taken seriously. What the Republicans really want is to have Schwarznegger run for president.
In the meantime, another Unchristian wrong pretender, Fred Thompson, was drafted to run. Fred reminds me of Comedy Inc's superhero Blokeman, who saves the day but doesn't work Sundays or me day off. Fred has a youthful wife who is a high powered operative, and is probably hoping to run as Messalina to Fred's Claudius. Only Fred seems by his lack of enthusiasm to be doing the pumpkinification for his opponents, even walking out of a campaign stop to eat a burger on his bus.
The search for a credible contender has led to Mike Huckabee, a hoky multi-term Governor of Arkansas. Huckabee is playing the Bush Trojan horse game of appearing folksy, conservative and ingenue. No he is not. A former Baptist minister, Huckabee espouses rejection of evolution and a flat tax policy. Huckabee has flown under the radar but one does wonder what the media might do with him once he gets into their sights.
Huckabee is going to do pretty well in the southern states. The critical question is whether he can eliminate Romney's plastic challenge and get into a direct fight with Guiliani. If he can, he has some hope of getting the nomination. If not, Guiliani has to be a strong chance.
When America finally votes, we will have some idea of the conviction the various campaigns have instilled in the voters.
Owing to the malignant albatross around Bush's neck, Dick Cheney, being the Vice-President and Condoleeza Rice showing no current interest in higher office following the 'pick up seashells' adventure in Iraq, the Republican candidature is about as clear as the chowder unfortunate candidates get served up on a myriad of campaign stops. So we have both the Republicans and Democrats running competitive primary races.
Both sides have apparent front runners. The Democrat juggernaut-in-chief is attached to one Hillary Clinton, Senator for New York. Curiously, the putative Republican frontrunner is former New York mayor Rudi Guiliani. Has some odd revolution occurred where people suddenly listen to the Yankee states again? Probably not, but the mid-term elections demonstrated the visceral hatred held for the Iraq deployment and disapproval at the abject presidency and behaviour of Congress.
Hillary's campaign is based around the idea that she is the professional, assured and experienced candidate from central casting. Peregrine's distant observation here is that it is Kevin07 without the self-deprecating humour. Hillary's rivals are Barack Obama, who seems to be trying to be the postmodern Kennedy with his appeals to a hope for a better America while being tough on terrorists, John Edwards, whose candidacy is towards the left of the US spectrum is the other frontline contender. Behind them are Bill Richardson, former energy secretary, US Ambassador to the UN and governor of New Mexico and Joe Biden, senator and haunter of foreign policy committees. Hillary's fanbase constitutes a solid bloc of Democrat voters in the larger states, but she has to rely on enough generic Democrats to feel she will provoke the Republicans marshalling to prevent her return to the White House. Hillary is viewed in the traditional Livia mould of the scheming hand behind the throne by her Republican adversaries.
In order to get the nomination, candidates need a coalescence of fundraising and consequent advertising capability and the ability to carry voter support in various states. On paper, Clinton and Obama are competing for the same solid Democratic areas on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, Edwards should pick up support in the Mid-West and the South and Richardson should do well in the South-West. Interestingly, Obama is doing better than Clinton in the Iowa polls. Peregrine suspects that the key factor will be whether nagging doubts about Obama's capability or concern over the polarising Hillary phenonmenon win the day.
On the Republican side...oh dear, oh dear. The party is wedded to bringing out the 'Christian conservative' vote for it to carry the day. The only reason the Republican party can ever even win a presidental election these days is because it relies on a lot of voters voting against their own economic interests. A big factor may well be the pain Iraq is causing to small town communities voting Republican. Early leader John McCain really won't do it again because of his hawkish attitude to Iran. After recent intelligence revelations, he is not likely to improve his ground. Rudi Guiliani has the 9/11 gravitas angle to run on, but has been accused of exploiting it. Not to mention his curious way with women (including one he announced his separation from via a press conference) which is not likely to endear him as a champion of family values. Still Guiliani does remain competitive as a moderate candidate with national security credentials.
Behind these two is the strange case of Mitt Romney, the Mormon who dare not speak his name about anything. On values, it is as though he took his paintball gun loaded with enlightened positions on abortion, gun control and taxation and traded it in for an NRA rifle, fully loaded with the views of the 'Christian Right' (or as Perergine prefers 'the Unchristian wrong'). Compared to Romney, the hapless Kerry was a model of consistency. Mitt might have a name for baseball but it is only the sheer apparent hopelessness of the Unchristian wrong's prospects that even led to his candidacy being taken seriously. What the Republicans really want is to have Schwarznegger run for president.
In the meantime, another Unchristian wrong pretender, Fred Thompson, was drafted to run. Fred reminds me of Comedy Inc's superhero Blokeman, who saves the day but doesn't work Sundays or me day off. Fred has a youthful wife who is a high powered operative, and is probably hoping to run as Messalina to Fred's Claudius. Only Fred seems by his lack of enthusiasm to be doing the pumpkinification for his opponents, even walking out of a campaign stop to eat a burger on his bus.
The search for a credible contender has led to Mike Huckabee, a hoky multi-term Governor of Arkansas. Huckabee is playing the Bush Trojan horse game of appearing folksy, conservative and ingenue. No he is not. A former Baptist minister, Huckabee espouses rejection of evolution and a flat tax policy. Huckabee has flown under the radar but one does wonder what the media might do with him once he gets into their sights.
Huckabee is going to do pretty well in the southern states. The critical question is whether he can eliminate Romney's plastic challenge and get into a direct fight with Guiliani. If he can, he has some hope of getting the nomination. If not, Guiliani has to be a strong chance.
When America finally votes, we will have some idea of the conviction the various campaigns have instilled in the voters.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Nelson in search of Trafalgar...he won't find it with Garrett
Possibly the best thing about the unlikely ascension of Brendan Nelson, possibly the only medical doctor to sit on a front bench and never go near the health portfolio, is the ready list of allusions to that great English naval hero. Nelson, whom Peregrine took to calling The Human Cockatoo some years back owing to his unique coiffure (perhaps the real reason why Bronwyn the anti-socialist has been recalled was as special advisor on hair care?), sounds like the sort of soft-spoken individual needed to soothe the ructions in the post-Howard Liberal party.
The key target at the minute appears to be Peter Garrett, who Nelson has promised to chase down every foxhole, alcove and locked vault Labor attempt to hide him from scrutiny. Aha! perhaps if Labor had gone after Tony Abbott when he was elevated to the frontbench many moons ago, it would have got itself elected prior to the Sydney Olympics. Nelson appears to be chasing a chimera. Rudd has separated out climate change and water from Garrett's responsibiities. This has much more to do with the fact that both the jobs require negotiation and economic management, whereas the environment portfolio is essentially cause-based. Hence appointing the negotiator, Penny Wong, to the job makes more sense than the advocate Garrett. If memory serves, there is no hard and fast relationship between answering questions in one house or the other and any similar portfolio.
Nelson has an unenviable problem in the fact that he has to balance 'the Howard legacy', the raging bull, Malcolm of Wentworth and a complicated set of factional rivalries. The Liberal kingmaker, Julie Bishop, is trying her darndest to model herself on Julia Gillard, shadowing her in both the deputy and IR roles. This should in no way surprise given both are IR lawyers. Meanwhile, the good doctor has decided to rely on the wisdom of another Kevin, the disembodied 'tremendous amount of wisdom' and former minister Kevin Andrews. Apparently he is an authority on federal-state relations. Given Andrews' views are best typified by his skillful use of s109 of the Constitution to invalidate the NT's voluntary euthanasia law, it appears the cooperation he will advocate will be of the jackboot variety.
Given the kingmaker's followers are WA work choices supporters, there is a serious question about how they are going to react on supporting Labor's legislation. Nelson is the compromise candidate elevated because Abbott is beyond redemption, not because anyone seriously thinks he is the best leader. He would look like a total mug given his ALP background if he rejected the legislation, but he could well lose support from Bishop's posse if he accepted it.
Malcolm's support comes from a very small group who actually believe in liberal principles (at most maybe ten or so), plus a somewhat larger share of pragmatists. Pragmatism plays a key role here as none of the candidates have both a core group of party supporters or widespread public appeal.
Personality-wise, Nelson conveys an image somewhere between calming and comatose. Depending on how things are going, this either works to his advantage or runs the serious risk of appearing like Crean without the character. Abbott is a hopeless case who will probably inadvertently end up apologising for everything. He is more like Latham than Michael Duffy ever knew and hence no one would put him in charge of anything. Malcolm has something of a Whitlam-esque pompousity to him. He very much conveys the idea of a crash or crash through persona. He undoubtedly has a high intellect and equally high opinion of his own capabilities. The question would be could he fashion sufficient stability in the party and his support base to justify his election.
All of this is a product of the chaos rent by Howard's treatment of Costello as a latter-day Tiberius. Howard did not want Costello to succeed him and did everything possible to set up alternatives. Abbott and Nelson were both elevated and both proved unelectable. Turnbull was then introduced, but he went feral. Brough was the last to be groomed, but he went down with the ship.
Nelson's column of support is made of less stern stuff than its namesake. His key challenges are to find a sensible and coherent partyline on workchoices and climate change. At the minute, the Liberals are behaving like they haven't lost the election, but mum and dad have popped out for the afternoon and left the kids running the house. Mum and Dad are never coming back and the kids have to grow up if they want to get themselves seen as a competent alternative government.
The key target at the minute appears to be Peter Garrett, who Nelson has promised to chase down every foxhole, alcove and locked vault Labor attempt to hide him from scrutiny. Aha! perhaps if Labor had gone after Tony Abbott when he was elevated to the frontbench many moons ago, it would have got itself elected prior to the Sydney Olympics. Nelson appears to be chasing a chimera. Rudd has separated out climate change and water from Garrett's responsibiities. This has much more to do with the fact that both the jobs require negotiation and economic management, whereas the environment portfolio is essentially cause-based. Hence appointing the negotiator, Penny Wong, to the job makes more sense than the advocate Garrett. If memory serves, there is no hard and fast relationship between answering questions in one house or the other and any similar portfolio.
Nelson has an unenviable problem in the fact that he has to balance 'the Howard legacy', the raging bull, Malcolm of Wentworth and a complicated set of factional rivalries. The Liberal kingmaker, Julie Bishop, is trying her darndest to model herself on Julia Gillard, shadowing her in both the deputy and IR roles. This should in no way surprise given both are IR lawyers. Meanwhile, the good doctor has decided to rely on the wisdom of another Kevin, the disembodied 'tremendous amount of wisdom' and former minister Kevin Andrews. Apparently he is an authority on federal-state relations. Given Andrews' views are best typified by his skillful use of s109 of the Constitution to invalidate the NT's voluntary euthanasia law, it appears the cooperation he will advocate will be of the jackboot variety.
Given the kingmaker's followers are WA work choices supporters, there is a serious question about how they are going to react on supporting Labor's legislation. Nelson is the compromise candidate elevated because Abbott is beyond redemption, not because anyone seriously thinks he is the best leader. He would look like a total mug given his ALP background if he rejected the legislation, but he could well lose support from Bishop's posse if he accepted it.
Malcolm's support comes from a very small group who actually believe in liberal principles (at most maybe ten or so), plus a somewhat larger share of pragmatists. Pragmatism plays a key role here as none of the candidates have both a core group of party supporters or widespread public appeal.
Personality-wise, Nelson conveys an image somewhere between calming and comatose. Depending on how things are going, this either works to his advantage or runs the serious risk of appearing like Crean without the character. Abbott is a hopeless case who will probably inadvertently end up apologising for everything. He is more like Latham than Michael Duffy ever knew and hence no one would put him in charge of anything. Malcolm has something of a Whitlam-esque pompousity to him. He very much conveys the idea of a crash or crash through persona. He undoubtedly has a high intellect and equally high opinion of his own capabilities. The question would be could he fashion sufficient stability in the party and his support base to justify his election.
All of this is a product of the chaos rent by Howard's treatment of Costello as a latter-day Tiberius. Howard did not want Costello to succeed him and did everything possible to set up alternatives. Abbott and Nelson were both elevated and both proved unelectable. Turnbull was then introduced, but he went feral. Brough was the last to be groomed, but he went down with the ship.
Nelson's column of support is made of less stern stuff than its namesake. His key challenges are to find a sensible and coherent partyline on workchoices and climate change. At the minute, the Liberals are behaving like they haven't lost the election, but mum and dad have popped out for the afternoon and left the kids running the house. Mum and Dad are never coming back and the kids have to grow up if they want to get themselves seen as a competent alternative government.
Rudd's rhetorical game of Twister
Kevin Rudd has been elected on a platform of responsible change. Herein lies his essential difficulty. He must plan major transformations to policy in the areas of education, the economy, health and perhaps foremost of all, climate change, while causing the minimum level of disruption and operating in an economic and historical straitjacket. Like the wayward partner given one last chance to prove he or she can change, Rudd must be on his economic best behaviour.
Rudd is effectively left trying to hold down a series of rhetorical committments without being able to committ to the substance necessary for their immediate fruition. This pattern is most obvious in relation to the education revolution that while criticising the Howard government's woeful performance, does not provide any additional funding for universities.
It is also now playing out on the world stage with Rudd all but suggesting he was verballed by his delegation at Bali. Rudd continually emphasises the long term 60% reduction target by 2050 and refuses to be drawn on specifics until the Garnaut report is released. Determined to be a leader and a honest broker with China and the developing powerhouses, he has to sign up to big cuts but cannot actually say that until Garnaut reports. Here again he is making grand rhetorical statements while fudging on the detail until the evidence of economic responsibility is available.
The perils of retail politics - particularly in a country given five years of successive tax cuts - means that Rudd was forced to offer some tax cuts. Swan is running two messages that are true but inherently contradictory, namely that Howard was the highest taxing PM in history and that the economy is subject to inflationary pressures. He cannot very well turn around and cancel the tax cut because he would look like a hypocritical Scrooge. This puts $31 billion of extra pressure on Rudd over the budget cycle which constrains his ability to close the gap between rhetoric and real spending. On the other hand, a number of economists have commented that while Rudd gets some credit for his dramatic end to the spendathon, his record is tarnished by acquiescing on the original tax cut.
Rudd is thus left with a sackload of aspirational promises with very tight constraints for their delivery. At some point, responsibility demands that the community will be asked whether it carea more about microlevel relief or solving problems on a national or internaional scale.
Rudd is effectively left trying to hold down a series of rhetorical committments without being able to committ to the substance necessary for their immediate fruition. This pattern is most obvious in relation to the education revolution that while criticising the Howard government's woeful performance, does not provide any additional funding for universities.
It is also now playing out on the world stage with Rudd all but suggesting he was verballed by his delegation at Bali. Rudd continually emphasises the long term 60% reduction target by 2050 and refuses to be drawn on specifics until the Garnaut report is released. Determined to be a leader and a honest broker with China and the developing powerhouses, he has to sign up to big cuts but cannot actually say that until Garnaut reports. Here again he is making grand rhetorical statements while fudging on the detail until the evidence of economic responsibility is available.
The perils of retail politics - particularly in a country given five years of successive tax cuts - means that Rudd was forced to offer some tax cuts. Swan is running two messages that are true but inherently contradictory, namely that Howard was the highest taxing PM in history and that the economy is subject to inflationary pressures. He cannot very well turn around and cancel the tax cut because he would look like a hypocritical Scrooge. This puts $31 billion of extra pressure on Rudd over the budget cycle which constrains his ability to close the gap between rhetoric and real spending. On the other hand, a number of economists have commented that while Rudd gets some credit for his dramatic end to the spendathon, his record is tarnished by acquiescing on the original tax cut.
Rudd is thus left with a sackload of aspirational promises with very tight constraints for their delivery. At some point, responsibility demands that the community will be asked whether it carea more about microlevel relief or solving problems on a national or internaional scale.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Drafting the Bali Protocol
The Kyoto Protocol was intended to be a test drive of applying market mechanisms to achieving environmental policy objectives. In addition to this, it has proven what happens when skeptical neoconservatives interfere in a process they never understood nor were party to in the first place. Given the Peugeot model neoconservative, Nicolas Sarkozy, is a firm believer in the need for climate action, there is hope this nonsensical stalemate will not detract from the main game.
The Bali Protocol is the main game. The IPCC's warnings on climate peril are now becoming so strong that it would be a monumental disaster to not at the very least get underlying agreement on a timetable for binding targets for all countries. The question remains how should this be done.
The crux of climate negotiations is how to accommodate both the need to cut greenhouse emissions and the right of countries to develop their economies. The fundamental principle here is that targets must be equitable both on an intergenerational and intragenerational level. Kyoto operated on the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, which in short means coal-fired Australia got a small increase entitlement on 1990 emission levels while hydro NZ got a small decrease.
Taking this principle up collectively, what the international community should do is divide the emission share of the developed world and the share of the developing world. The first step is to construct a business as usual baseline (BAU) for emissions by say 2100. Then using the IPCC science, establish a desired stabilisation level (DSL). The period during which greenhouse emissions have been sent into the atmosphere could then be broken up into a past and future industrialisation phase, representing the two ages of industrialisation, one for the developed and one for the developing world. The phase change could be the year 2000.
The past and future industrialisation phases can then be calculated by seeing when the DSL will be reached. Say the DSL is 500 ppm and this will be reached by 2050 on BAU. Developed nations could take targets based on both phases, while developing nations could take targets for only 2000 onwards. Developed nation targets could be effective immediately, while developing nations could be deferred until a phase-in date, such as 2020. In the interim, developing nations could sign up for a range of preliminary programmes such as renewable energy targets, afforestation targets or energy efficiency standards.
This would mean that developing countries would have probably met sizable targets during the non-binding period, giving them plenty of scope and development capacity to handle targets once the phase-in date was reached.
The Bali Protocol is the main game. The IPCC's warnings on climate peril are now becoming so strong that it would be a monumental disaster to not at the very least get underlying agreement on a timetable for binding targets for all countries. The question remains how should this be done.
The crux of climate negotiations is how to accommodate both the need to cut greenhouse emissions and the right of countries to develop their economies. The fundamental principle here is that targets must be equitable both on an intergenerational and intragenerational level. Kyoto operated on the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, which in short means coal-fired Australia got a small increase entitlement on 1990 emission levels while hydro NZ got a small decrease.
Taking this principle up collectively, what the international community should do is divide the emission share of the developed world and the share of the developing world. The first step is to construct a business as usual baseline (BAU) for emissions by say 2100. Then using the IPCC science, establish a desired stabilisation level (DSL). The period during which greenhouse emissions have been sent into the atmosphere could then be broken up into a past and future industrialisation phase, representing the two ages of industrialisation, one for the developed and one for the developing world. The phase change could be the year 2000.
The past and future industrialisation phases can then be calculated by seeing when the DSL will be reached. Say the DSL is 500 ppm and this will be reached by 2050 on BAU. Developed nations could take targets based on both phases, while developing nations could take targets for only 2000 onwards. Developed nation targets could be effective immediately, while developing nations could be deferred until a phase-in date, such as 2020. In the interim, developing nations could sign up for a range of preliminary programmes such as renewable energy targets, afforestation targets or energy efficiency standards.
This would mean that developing countries would have probably met sizable targets during the non-binding period, giving them plenty of scope and development capacity to handle targets once the phase-in date was reached.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Liberal recipe for chaos
Having just had the building Howard locked them in burn down around them, the remaining Liberals now have to regroup into something resembling an alternative government. At present, the temptation appears great that they will resemble Iraq after the fall of Saddam. Devoid of their strongman, tribal tensions and personality clashes will rent a suitably mindless civil war upon the landscape.
The problem the Liberals would always have was what would happen when they lost control of the agenda. Howard prospered by constructing his own virtual reality where ideology reigned supreme. Once Rudd became leader, Howard lost control permanently. The election merely made this official. His wise heads, Costello, Downer and Ruddock are so repugnant to the public and vulnerable to attack that none wanted the thankless job of heading Howard's faction.
During Howard's tenure there was a large majority backing him and a smaller group backing Costello. At various times, Abbott and Nelson rose briefly before proving unelectable. Late in the term, Turnbull arose to challenge Costello as successor-in-waiting. When Howard lost, a vaccuum arose which Abbott attempted to fill. Unfortunately for Tony, his not so good friend Bernie Banton had died and so his first official duty was likely to be attending the state funeral of a man he had accused of 'not necessarily being pure of heart' a few weeks earlier. Hence Nelson was drafted from the deputy candidate ranks to fill the Howard void.
Costello mused on his career prospects and then reinvented himself as party whip. Costello's former faction fell in behind Turnbull, who also picked up some of the more pugnacious realists in the party who considered him to be some kind of Australian Schwarzenegger capable of taking his green Wentworth appeal national. However Howard's faction could not swallow Malcolm's prescription and preferred Nelson's apologia to genuine contrition.
Complicating matters is the Thatcherite kindergarten teacher from Perth, Julie Bishop. Bishop seems to be labouring under the illusion that she has been elected leader of the autonomous state of Western Australia, primarily on a platform typified by workchoices. In her kingmaker capacity, she has the potential to create a mighty headache for her eastern leaders for whom workchoices is electoral poison. Methinks she rather fancies a celebrity death match with Julia Gillard and will stay in the deputy position until Gillard takes over. This raises the prospect of Abbott and Costello returning to create further mischief as bearers of the workchoices mantle. Costello's stocks may rise if the economy performs badly over the term and economic management comes back into vogue. Abbott has proven to be accident-prone, nasty and out of touch and is totally unelectable.
Given Turnbull lost by three votes, he is unlikely to give up the fight when so many observers consider him the best chance of unseating Rudd, not least the Australian newspaper, former loyal supporter of Howard's regime.
The problem the Liberals would always have was what would happen when they lost control of the agenda. Howard prospered by constructing his own virtual reality where ideology reigned supreme. Once Rudd became leader, Howard lost control permanently. The election merely made this official. His wise heads, Costello, Downer and Ruddock are so repugnant to the public and vulnerable to attack that none wanted the thankless job of heading Howard's faction.
During Howard's tenure there was a large majority backing him and a smaller group backing Costello. At various times, Abbott and Nelson rose briefly before proving unelectable. Late in the term, Turnbull arose to challenge Costello as successor-in-waiting. When Howard lost, a vaccuum arose which Abbott attempted to fill. Unfortunately for Tony, his not so good friend Bernie Banton had died and so his first official duty was likely to be attending the state funeral of a man he had accused of 'not necessarily being pure of heart' a few weeks earlier. Hence Nelson was drafted from the deputy candidate ranks to fill the Howard void.
Costello mused on his career prospects and then reinvented himself as party whip. Costello's former faction fell in behind Turnbull, who also picked up some of the more pugnacious realists in the party who considered him to be some kind of Australian Schwarzenegger capable of taking his green Wentworth appeal national. However Howard's faction could not swallow Malcolm's prescription and preferred Nelson's apologia to genuine contrition.
Complicating matters is the Thatcherite kindergarten teacher from Perth, Julie Bishop. Bishop seems to be labouring under the illusion that she has been elected leader of the autonomous state of Western Australia, primarily on a platform typified by workchoices. In her kingmaker capacity, she has the potential to create a mighty headache for her eastern leaders for whom workchoices is electoral poison. Methinks she rather fancies a celebrity death match with Julia Gillard and will stay in the deputy position until Gillard takes over. This raises the prospect of Abbott and Costello returning to create further mischief as bearers of the workchoices mantle. Costello's stocks may rise if the economy performs badly over the term and economic management comes back into vogue. Abbott has proven to be accident-prone, nasty and out of touch and is totally unelectable.
Given Turnbull lost by three votes, he is unlikely to give up the fight when so many observers consider him the best chance of unseating Rudd, not least the Australian newspaper, former loyal supporter of Howard's regime.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Washup on Howard's Wipeout
Peregrine has been on not so much a seven second as a seven day delay and hence this summary comes somewhat after the collective bloghorse has bolted (although no one has heard much out of Mr Bolt himself recently).
Rudd won this election because he found a persuasive narrative that gave concrete reasons why Howard had passed his use-by date. The key to his success was to restrict Howard's economic advantage to the Liberals' citadel seats. The swings in many citadel seats were lower in this election than the previous one with Latham as leader. It seems a proven leader is required to challenge generational incumbency.
Rudd's economic wedging of Howard first on microeconomic issues like grocery and fuel prices and housing affordability then on the macroeconomic issue of interest rates effectively neutralised the economic trump card in the marginals. Throw in workchoices resentment and a swag of outer suburban and regional seats voted Labor, particularly in Queensland where Rudd had both home ground advantage and a swelling band of former One Nation voters suspicious of economic reform. The fortuitous replacement of Peter Beattie seemed to diffuse the council amalgamations issue.
This also explains Rudd's curious assurance that he would not push for referenda on a republic or reconciliation during his first term in office.
This election was thus similar to 1998 - except the marginals preferenced Labor, not the Coalition.
Climate change acted largely as a consensus issue with most voters who turned on economic issues in agreement with Rudd on the environment. The seats of Corangamite and Eden Monaro fell largely on this issue, while swings in numerous South Australian and Victorian rural seats appear to correspond to water concerns. However due to the failure of citadel liberals to consummate their flirtation with progressive politics, few seats fell on this basis alone.
The net result is a clear rejection of workchoices and inaction on climate change. It also indicates a residual concern among liberals that Labor cannot manage the economy. Thus Rudd has a provisional licence to govern and prove his credentials to the community.
Rudd won this election because he found a persuasive narrative that gave concrete reasons why Howard had passed his use-by date. The key to his success was to restrict Howard's economic advantage to the Liberals' citadel seats. The swings in many citadel seats were lower in this election than the previous one with Latham as leader. It seems a proven leader is required to challenge generational incumbency.
Rudd's economic wedging of Howard first on microeconomic issues like grocery and fuel prices and housing affordability then on the macroeconomic issue of interest rates effectively neutralised the economic trump card in the marginals. Throw in workchoices resentment and a swag of outer suburban and regional seats voted Labor, particularly in Queensland where Rudd had both home ground advantage and a swelling band of former One Nation voters suspicious of economic reform. The fortuitous replacement of Peter Beattie seemed to diffuse the council amalgamations issue.
This also explains Rudd's curious assurance that he would not push for referenda on a republic or reconciliation during his first term in office.
This election was thus similar to 1998 - except the marginals preferenced Labor, not the Coalition.
Climate change acted largely as a consensus issue with most voters who turned on economic issues in agreement with Rudd on the environment. The seats of Corangamite and Eden Monaro fell largely on this issue, while swings in numerous South Australian and Victorian rural seats appear to correspond to water concerns. However due to the failure of citadel liberals to consummate their flirtation with progressive politics, few seats fell on this basis alone.
The net result is a clear rejection of workchoices and inaction on climate change. It also indicates a residual concern among liberals that Labor cannot manage the economy. Thus Rudd has a provisional licence to govern and prove his credentials to the community.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Plenty of room for Rudd's souffle
Galaxy's latest poll, which either shows we are all on Mars or David Briggs' outfit is polling the Andromeda system, provides just a dribble of sustenance for those Liberals bravely clinging to the-historic-16-seat margin argument as a reason why Labor will not win.
It is true that 16 seats is a very large buffer to make up. But it is by no means unprecedented. Labor oppositions have traditionally come off shockingly low bases, hence they have needed two steps to get close enough to win power. Whitlam won 18 seats in 1969 with a 7% swing. Hayden, while winning only 13 seats in 1980, did so from an appalling position. He received a 4.2% swing, mainly from minor party voters swinging behind him.
Hayden's result would give Rudd a statistical tie - 51.5 to 48.5 is the exact point on the pendulum where there is no clear majority. Whitlam's result gives Labor a 54.4to 45.6 win - in short a landslide. This is also almost exactly the current average of the four major polls.
History shows that when the opposition gets an insufficient swing to govern, the average swing since 1949 is 2.25%. That swing would give Labor 49.6%. Clearly, this is not your average election. Rudd's standing and perceived competence is daylight compared to Latham and he is on track to at least pinch votes from the Liberals. A conservative estimate would be a swing of 4.5% - and even that includes 1.8% for the anti-Latham swing, 2.25% for the average swing and only 0.5% for other factors.
Latham's result in 2004 was appalling. Labor achieved just 37.6% on primaries. Interestingly, because of the post-modern third party politics era, that awful primary left Labor at 47.3% of the two-party preferred vote. The Liberal-National vote cannot go much higher than its 2004 position. Labor can thus move from a terrible position to a very good position with a relatively small change in primaries.
The minimum primary vote swing from the polls is 4.4% (Galaxy) ranging up to 10.4% (AC Nielsen). Using the unscientific approach of avergaing these results gives a 7.4% swing - i.e. 45% on primaries. That is in line with a 1969-style swing.
Both in polling and qualitative terms, this election's trend looks more like 1969 than 1980. Rudd is not taking votes solely from minor parties - in fact he may be losing some of them back to the Greens. We know that 35% of unionists voted for Howard last time - bet they will not do that after being labelled thugs. We also know that there is a big swing among mortgage holders who may well switch straight from one major to another. This points to Labor gaining the majority of its new votes from the Liberal-Nationals and putting it in the box seat to take advantage of Green preferences to win marginal and safe seats alike.
On this basis, I predict that Labor will get around 45% of the primary vote, the Liberal-Nationals around 40.5% and the Greens around 9%. Labor to win 54.7-45.3% on two-party preferred around 90 seats.
It is true that 16 seats is a very large buffer to make up. But it is by no means unprecedented. Labor oppositions have traditionally come off shockingly low bases, hence they have needed two steps to get close enough to win power. Whitlam won 18 seats in 1969 with a 7% swing. Hayden, while winning only 13 seats in 1980, did so from an appalling position. He received a 4.2% swing, mainly from minor party voters swinging behind him.
Hayden's result would give Rudd a statistical tie - 51.5 to 48.5 is the exact point on the pendulum where there is no clear majority. Whitlam's result gives Labor a 54.4to 45.6 win - in short a landslide. This is also almost exactly the current average of the four major polls.
History shows that when the opposition gets an insufficient swing to govern, the average swing since 1949 is 2.25%. That swing would give Labor 49.6%. Clearly, this is not your average election. Rudd's standing and perceived competence is daylight compared to Latham and he is on track to at least pinch votes from the Liberals. A conservative estimate would be a swing of 4.5% - and even that includes 1.8% for the anti-Latham swing, 2.25% for the average swing and only 0.5% for other factors.
Latham's result in 2004 was appalling. Labor achieved just 37.6% on primaries. Interestingly, because of the post-modern third party politics era, that awful primary left Labor at 47.3% of the two-party preferred vote. The Liberal-National vote cannot go much higher than its 2004 position. Labor can thus move from a terrible position to a very good position with a relatively small change in primaries.
The minimum primary vote swing from the polls is 4.4% (Galaxy) ranging up to 10.4% (AC Nielsen). Using the unscientific approach of avergaing these results gives a 7.4% swing - i.e. 45% on primaries. That is in line with a 1969-style swing.
Both in polling and qualitative terms, this election's trend looks more like 1969 than 1980. Rudd is not taking votes solely from minor parties - in fact he may be losing some of them back to the Greens. We know that 35% of unionists voted for Howard last time - bet they will not do that after being labelled thugs. We also know that there is a big swing among mortgage holders who may well switch straight from one major to another. This points to Labor gaining the majority of its new votes from the Liberal-Nationals and putting it in the box seat to take advantage of Green preferences to win marginal and safe seats alike.
On this basis, I predict that Labor will get around 45% of the primary vote, the Liberal-Nationals around 40.5% and the Greens around 9%. Labor to win 54.7-45.3% on two-party preferred around 90 seats.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Will 'Lindsay-gate' be gold for Labor in Goldstein?
Andrew Robb, Liberal Minister for Mudslinging, appears to be suffering from a political case of papal infallibility. Not content with making unsubstantiated allegations that twelve Labor candidates has not properly resigned from their 'offices of profit under the Crown', he has now attempted to bury the disgusting leaflet distributed by Liberal party operatives in Lindsay.
Robb has point blank refused to withdraw or apologise for his earlier allegations, which even the Herald Sun were a 'glitch' to the campaign. In fact, he even repeatedly demanded Penny Wong, Labor's campaign spokesperson, apologise for stating the widely reported suggestion that a member of the NSW Liberal executive was involved in the leaflet scandal. He does not seem to realise that his seat of Goldstein is mentioned in numerous dispatches as one reliant on true liberals maintaining their allegiance to his party. Even with a margin of 10.1% he is not safe. Just ask Joe Hockey and Michael Johnson.
If the false allegations which eleven of the candidates promptly refuted were not bad enough, Robb has two scandals to contend with. Both of them try to make political currency out of the Bali bombing.
In the Melbourne seat of La Trobe, the high profile Labor candidate, Rodney Cocks won the Medal of Conspicious Honour for acts in the aftermath of the Bali bombing. Anonymous Liberal sources contacted The Age to offer 'discrepancies' between Cocks' account and a journalist's report on his actions.
The extraordinarily inflammatory pamphlet distributed in Lindsay thanked Labor for supporting clemency for the Bali bombers. The lame defences of retiring MP, Jackie Kelly, suggest she either has an extremely nasty sense of humour or other intentions. Somehow I do not think that the Bali bombing is a source of humour.
It is blatantly obvious to anyone viewing the demographics and politics of Western/Southern Sydney seats such as Lindsay, Macarthur, Greenway, Banks and Hughes that they have low proportions of non-English speaking residents, high proportions of identified Christians, high votes for One Nation and swung higher than average behind Howard in 1996 and 2001. It is also known that there is currently a considerable controversy surrounding a proposed Islamic school in Camden. The area is under one of the highest levels of mortgage stress in the country and polling puts Lindsay as a lost Liberal cause and Macarthur and Greenway in Labor's sights.
It does not take Einstein to make the correlation that pushing an anti-Islamic barrow might be worth a few votes for a desperate government. After all, the loss of seats like Macarthur and Greenway would be a total repudiation of Howard's economic program and undermine the fostering of religious and cultural intolerance.
With the news that the Labor candidate for Dobell, Craig Thomson, is now being accused of being of bad character because of evidence he gave in an industrial hearing a decade ago, it seems that Robb is leading a counter-offensive, seeking to knock Labor's national issue-based campaign off-balance by putting local candidates on the defensive on dubious character grounds.
The question is whether any of the tarnishing of Labor candidates in marginal seats will be offset by a true liberal backlash of Robb's mendacious behaviour. Will he become the poster boy for sleazy attacks in the same way Joe Hockey is paying as the face of workchoices?
Robb has point blank refused to withdraw or apologise for his earlier allegations, which even the Herald Sun were a 'glitch' to the campaign. In fact, he even repeatedly demanded Penny Wong, Labor's campaign spokesperson, apologise for stating the widely reported suggestion that a member of the NSW Liberal executive was involved in the leaflet scandal. He does not seem to realise that his seat of Goldstein is mentioned in numerous dispatches as one reliant on true liberals maintaining their allegiance to his party. Even with a margin of 10.1% he is not safe. Just ask Joe Hockey and Michael Johnson.
If the false allegations which eleven of the candidates promptly refuted were not bad enough, Robb has two scandals to contend with. Both of them try to make political currency out of the Bali bombing.
In the Melbourne seat of La Trobe, the high profile Labor candidate, Rodney Cocks won the Medal of Conspicious Honour for acts in the aftermath of the Bali bombing. Anonymous Liberal sources contacted The Age to offer 'discrepancies' between Cocks' account and a journalist's report on his actions.
The extraordinarily inflammatory pamphlet distributed in Lindsay thanked Labor for supporting clemency for the Bali bombers. The lame defences of retiring MP, Jackie Kelly, suggest she either has an extremely nasty sense of humour or other intentions. Somehow I do not think that the Bali bombing is a source of humour.
It is blatantly obvious to anyone viewing the demographics and politics of Western/Southern Sydney seats such as Lindsay, Macarthur, Greenway, Banks and Hughes that they have low proportions of non-English speaking residents, high proportions of identified Christians, high votes for One Nation and swung higher than average behind Howard in 1996 and 2001. It is also known that there is currently a considerable controversy surrounding a proposed Islamic school in Camden. The area is under one of the highest levels of mortgage stress in the country and polling puts Lindsay as a lost Liberal cause and Macarthur and Greenway in Labor's sights.
It does not take Einstein to make the correlation that pushing an anti-Islamic barrow might be worth a few votes for a desperate government. After all, the loss of seats like Macarthur and Greenway would be a total repudiation of Howard's economic program and undermine the fostering of religious and cultural intolerance.
With the news that the Labor candidate for Dobell, Craig Thomson, is now being accused of being of bad character because of evidence he gave in an industrial hearing a decade ago, it seems that Robb is leading a counter-offensive, seeking to knock Labor's national issue-based campaign off-balance by putting local candidates on the defensive on dubious character grounds.
The question is whether any of the tarnishing of Labor candidates in marginal seats will be offset by a true liberal backlash of Robb's mendacious behaviour. Will he become the poster boy for sleazy attacks in the same way Joe Hockey is paying as the face of workchoices?
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
King Canute and the Lucky Country
Our language is peppered with unique phrases harking back to other times. Fossilised imprints of ideas remain in the collective mind long after the actual knowledge they represent has died away. Often the intent of the phrase is ironic. Language is a subtle creature where the merest tilt of a word can provide sufficient wiggle room to squirm out of most predicaments.
The caretaker (or possibly undertaker PM judging by the tenor of the anti-union scare campaign) PM has attained the status of a Jedi knight for his use of lexiconic gymnastics. As a tribute to this virtuosity, I offer two such allusions which demonstrate the fragile nature of meaning: King Canute and the Lucky Country.
King Canute was a Danish king of England during the 11th century. He is best remembered for attempting to hold back the tide. The tide was not so obliging. A Canute in common parlance is one who resists the bleeding obvious to no avail, possibly involving a spectacularly conceited act of hubris. Only it does not really mean that at all. The whole point of Canute's placing his throne on the beach was to demonstrate to his sycophantic courtiers that there were limits to the king's power. The real cautionary tale is lost by losing the edge of meaning. It is a lesson that rulers of whatever colour forget at their peril. This is clearly the case with the aforementioned PM's contemptous treatment of workchoices and climate change.
The expression 'the lucky country' was popularised after the historian Donald Horne's book of the same name was released in the 1960s. Horne warned that an Australia blessed with agricultural riches should not be complacent and rely on utopian (or perhaps for Kevin Rudd, brutopian) abundance. The warning tone of the message seems to go missing at times, the title seen as a note of thanks or an observation that 'she'll be right' on a national level.
The current context of the 'lucky country' phrase relates to economic prosperity, particularly in relation to securing the future post the China/India boom. The binary opposite popularised in the 1980s was that Australia should become the clever country, an idea that seems to have collapsed on the Howard watch. Clearly a student of Horne's true meaning would advocate upskilling our students to function in an information economy and have a forward planning approach to issues such as climate change.
When next you hear one of those obscure allusions like Canute and his penchant for paddling consider the true meaning behind the easy phrase. It will surely be more enlightening than listening to 'working families' and 'union bosses' repeated five hundred times.
The caretaker (or possibly undertaker PM judging by the tenor of the anti-union scare campaign) PM has attained the status of a Jedi knight for his use of lexiconic gymnastics. As a tribute to this virtuosity, I offer two such allusions which demonstrate the fragile nature of meaning: King Canute and the Lucky Country.
King Canute was a Danish king of England during the 11th century. He is best remembered for attempting to hold back the tide. The tide was not so obliging. A Canute in common parlance is one who resists the bleeding obvious to no avail, possibly involving a spectacularly conceited act of hubris. Only it does not really mean that at all. The whole point of Canute's placing his throne on the beach was to demonstrate to his sycophantic courtiers that there were limits to the king's power. The real cautionary tale is lost by losing the edge of meaning. It is a lesson that rulers of whatever colour forget at their peril. This is clearly the case with the aforementioned PM's contemptous treatment of workchoices and climate change.
The expression 'the lucky country' was popularised after the historian Donald Horne's book of the same name was released in the 1960s. Horne warned that an Australia blessed with agricultural riches should not be complacent and rely on utopian (or perhaps for Kevin Rudd, brutopian) abundance. The warning tone of the message seems to go missing at times, the title seen as a note of thanks or an observation that 'she'll be right' on a national level.
The current context of the 'lucky country' phrase relates to economic prosperity, particularly in relation to securing the future post the China/India boom. The binary opposite popularised in the 1980s was that Australia should become the clever country, an idea that seems to have collapsed on the Howard watch. Clearly a student of Horne's true meaning would advocate upskilling our students to function in an information economy and have a forward planning approach to issues such as climate change.
When next you hear one of those obscure allusions like Canute and his penchant for paddling consider the true meaning behind the easy phrase. It will surely be more enlightening than listening to 'working families' and 'union bosses' repeated five hundred times.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
The Gore Election
Al Gore may have seemed something of a historical curiosity to most Australians when he was in power. As Vice-President, he did not seem particularly remarkable beside the charismatic Clinton. He achieved minor notoriety for allegedly claiming to have 'invented the internet'. At that stage, it seemed far fetched he may play a defining role in an Australian election.
The first stanza of Gore's influence is now fairly well-known. Gore's Oscar/Noble Prize winning An Inconvenient Truth, not so much polemic as persuasive pleading, crystallised the mist of concern Australians have long felt on climate change. Suddenly the issue became mainstream and Howard's economic colossus was left stuck with feet of clay. There is a major revolt on from true liberal voters, so much so that Howard is launching all manner of warnings of the 'red-green menace'. Undoubtedly, Gore played a key role in turning climate change into a mainstream issue.
What has previously not been apparent is the relevance of the flipslide of Gore's career. The reason Gore got the time to pursue climate change is because he lost the 2000 election to Bush in highly controversial circumstances. The Florida outcome came about because of the closeness of the election.
If one reviews the polls here, at first glance it looks like a rout. Look closely and Labor's vote is staggered, ever so neatly to give it enough seats to construct a decent majority. Seats like Bennelong (margin 4.5%), Robertson (6.9%) and Leichhardt (11.1%) could all conceivably fall to Labor by about one percent. The closeness of these contests creates a question of legitimacy, and if legal grounds can be found to challenge that election, Liberals playing from the Republican playbook are sure to find them. In the regard, the conservatives best friend is section 44 of the Constitution.
Under section 44(iv) no person occupying 'an office of profit under the Crown' can nominate for election. The key time is the time of nomination. The only problem is precisely what that means.
We have already seen this with the furore over George Newhouse's slipshod nomination in Wentworth. According to the Herald Sun, 13 other Labor candidates may be ineligible. This begs two questions: firstly, assuming it is correct, why are so many candidates so bad at crucial paperwork and secondly is the Liberal party planning to go quietly into the night or quietly into the Court of Disputed Returns. I find it highly unlikely that these Labor candidates did not resign from their positions or that they held them without seeking legal advice on the nomination requirements.
It beggars belief that so many candidates, at least seven of whom are in very tightly contested seats, could have made invalid nominations. The Parliamentary Library has expressed concern that using these provisions in an 'unduly technical manner' leads to costly by-elections which only return the original winner.
Either this does not bode well for the propriety of Labor MPs or it does not suggest the Liberal party will be overly keen to accept the umpire's verdict.
Either way, Al Gore and the two heads of his political career may have a big bearing on the outcome of the election.
The first stanza of Gore's influence is now fairly well-known. Gore's Oscar/Noble Prize winning An Inconvenient Truth, not so much polemic as persuasive pleading, crystallised the mist of concern Australians have long felt on climate change. Suddenly the issue became mainstream and Howard's economic colossus was left stuck with feet of clay. There is a major revolt on from true liberal voters, so much so that Howard is launching all manner of warnings of the 'red-green menace'. Undoubtedly, Gore played a key role in turning climate change into a mainstream issue.
What has previously not been apparent is the relevance of the flipslide of Gore's career. The reason Gore got the time to pursue climate change is because he lost the 2000 election to Bush in highly controversial circumstances. The Florida outcome came about because of the closeness of the election.
If one reviews the polls here, at first glance it looks like a rout. Look closely and Labor's vote is staggered, ever so neatly to give it enough seats to construct a decent majority. Seats like Bennelong (margin 4.5%), Robertson (6.9%) and Leichhardt (11.1%) could all conceivably fall to Labor by about one percent. The closeness of these contests creates a question of legitimacy, and if legal grounds can be found to challenge that election, Liberals playing from the Republican playbook are sure to find them. In the regard, the conservatives best friend is section 44 of the Constitution.
Under section 44(iv) no person occupying 'an office of profit under the Crown' can nominate for election. The key time is the time of nomination. The only problem is precisely what that means.
We have already seen this with the furore over George Newhouse's slipshod nomination in Wentworth. According to the Herald Sun, 13 other Labor candidates may be ineligible. This begs two questions: firstly, assuming it is correct, why are so many candidates so bad at crucial paperwork and secondly is the Liberal party planning to go quietly into the night or quietly into the Court of Disputed Returns. I find it highly unlikely that these Labor candidates did not resign from their positions or that they held them without seeking legal advice on the nomination requirements.
It beggars belief that so many candidates, at least seven of whom are in very tightly contested seats, could have made invalid nominations. The Parliamentary Library has expressed concern that using these provisions in an 'unduly technical manner' leads to costly by-elections which only return the original winner.
Either this does not bode well for the propriety of Labor MPs or it does not suggest the Liberal party will be overly keen to accept the umpire's verdict.
Either way, Al Gore and the two heads of his political career may have a big bearing on the outcome of the election.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
The real election contest
Kevin Rudd's Labor juggernaut has all but dispatched John Howard's spluttering Liberal machine (with unhinged National caboose) to the annals of history. However, Rudd's success is not total. The same political shift to the right that has facilitated Rudd's centralisation of Labor has opened up a new contest: with the Greens. Whereas Rudd has been fighting his battles on the right flank, neutralising Howard's wedges and attempts to posit him as economically irresponsible, the Greens have been agitating to be both the true believers on climate change and the 'third party insurance' in the Senate.
Labor lost a large number of disgruntled voters to the Greens at the last election, mainly disenchanted with the parties' incompetence as much as environmental policy. Under Beazley Mark II, Greens preferences elevated a pretty ordinary 40% primary vote to a stratospheric two party-preferred lead. Rudd's ascension consolidated Green defectors into Labor's primary vote. The Greens suddenly found an electorate focussed on water and climate change issues poised to turn away from it. On a micro level, this perplexed position may have given them something in common with Liberals facing annihilation in 2001.
The Tasmanian pulp mill - and specifically Garrett's forced acquiescence - is akin to the Tampa boarding for the Labor/Green dynamic. It focussed attention back on a physical environmental issue rather than the perception of Labor's competence. Just as in 2001 when children overboard reventilated the Liberals' Tampa show of strength, Rudd's perceived repudiation of Garrett's 'sign-first-and-ask-questions-later' approach on climate change solidified concerns on the Labor/Green faultline and caused Labor's credibility on environmental issues to fall.
The result is starting to show up in marginal seat polling. In Tasmanian seats, the pulp mill issue is felt most keenly. The seat of Bass has turned from Labor winning on primaries to heavily reliant on Green preferences. However, the real key may be on the mainland. Climate change is consistently rated among the top issues with Liberal voters, particularly in seats with a high proportion of 'tree/sea changers' such as Eden Monaro, Corangamite and Richmond. Seats such as North Sydney, Wentworth, Ryan, Sturt and Stirling have a high number of true liberals flirting with crossing the line to Labor.
It has been assumed that these voters are frightened to move across the 'Green barrier' on economic grounds. This may be the case, but the primary source of their disillusionment is inaction by Howard on climate change. If Rudd is seen as not a lot better, then it is possible that Liberal voters may go halfway and vote Green but preference their local Liberal. This probably won't affect the result: Howard's stocks with the 'battlers' are at an all-time low. However it might turn a potential annihilation into a close defeat. A primary swing of 4% from Labor to Green will cost Labor 1.2% of their margin in each seat, and in seats with big margins to make up that may be the difference between winning and losing.
In any case, a government elected heavily on the back of Green preferences will have to take serious notice of Green policy proposals across the board.
Labor lost a large number of disgruntled voters to the Greens at the last election, mainly disenchanted with the parties' incompetence as much as environmental policy. Under Beazley Mark II, Greens preferences elevated a pretty ordinary 40% primary vote to a stratospheric two party-preferred lead. Rudd's ascension consolidated Green defectors into Labor's primary vote. The Greens suddenly found an electorate focussed on water and climate change issues poised to turn away from it. On a micro level, this perplexed position may have given them something in common with Liberals facing annihilation in 2001.
The Tasmanian pulp mill - and specifically Garrett's forced acquiescence - is akin to the Tampa boarding for the Labor/Green dynamic. It focussed attention back on a physical environmental issue rather than the perception of Labor's competence. Just as in 2001 when children overboard reventilated the Liberals' Tampa show of strength, Rudd's perceived repudiation of Garrett's 'sign-first-and-ask-questions-later' approach on climate change solidified concerns on the Labor/Green faultline and caused Labor's credibility on environmental issues to fall.
The result is starting to show up in marginal seat polling. In Tasmanian seats, the pulp mill issue is felt most keenly. The seat of Bass has turned from Labor winning on primaries to heavily reliant on Green preferences. However, the real key may be on the mainland. Climate change is consistently rated among the top issues with Liberal voters, particularly in seats with a high proportion of 'tree/sea changers' such as Eden Monaro, Corangamite and Richmond. Seats such as North Sydney, Wentworth, Ryan, Sturt and Stirling have a high number of true liberals flirting with crossing the line to Labor.
It has been assumed that these voters are frightened to move across the 'Green barrier' on economic grounds. This may be the case, but the primary source of their disillusionment is inaction by Howard on climate change. If Rudd is seen as not a lot better, then it is possible that Liberal voters may go halfway and vote Green but preference their local Liberal. This probably won't affect the result: Howard's stocks with the 'battlers' are at an all-time low. However it might turn a potential annihilation into a close defeat. A primary swing of 4% from Labor to Green will cost Labor 1.2% of their margin in each seat, and in seats with big margins to make up that may be the difference between winning and losing.
In any case, a government elected heavily on the back of Green preferences will have to take serious notice of Green policy proposals across the board.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Market failure: Wood demonstrates inadequacies of economy-based approach to climate change
The Australian's Economics editor, Alan Wood, is a champion of the free market. His latest article targets the issue of clean energy targets and how they contradict the philosophy of an emissions trading market. In the process, he demonstrates precisely why a market approach to alleviating climate change will not work if its sole ally is economic principle.
He first makes the common mistake of eliding Howard's clean energy and Rudd's renewable energy targets. Clean energy encompasses clean coal and nuclear. As Guy Pearse has demonstrated, the locked in funding for coal companies means that the entire Howard clean energy target is subscribed to clean coal. This mistake is equivalent to allowing cordial as a substitute for fresh fruit.
Wood then makes the claim that the chances of meeting Rudd's target of 20% renewable energy by 2020 without 'massive taxpayer subsidies or a technological miracle' are negligible. The current market share for renewables is a tick over 9%, mainly contributed by hydro. In reality, the required scale-up is then 11% over 13 years. My understanding of Rudd's definition incoporates natural gas, which could feasibly be scaled up to provide equivalent baseload power in the required time. That aside, I will assume that on face value emissions-laden coal power is significantly cheaper than renewables.
The key phrase being at face value. Wood's analysis assumes that coal operates without subsidies from government as compared to renewables. Greenpeace estimated that the average annual subsidy to coal, oil and gas companies is $9 billion, whereas renewables receive $330 million. Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane justified this state of affairs on the principle of proportional representation, saying that renewables did very well for the share of power they produced.
Wood's premise is that the coupling of emissions trading schemes with renewable targets amounts to triple taxation of energy consumers, paying first for the cost of carbon through trading, then through higher renewable energy costs and finally being hit by having their income tax spent subsidising the renewables. Renewable energy targets pick winners which is by definition undesirable.
First, an emissions trading scheme adjusts the price of carbon. Renewables produce lessening levels of carbon and hence become more competitive in such a scheme. Secondly, as renewable market share increases, the cost of production decreases for consumers. Thirdly, if the true subsidy position is considered, taxpayers get a much better deal from renewables with future potential compared to a coal industry which will inevitably contract. If anything, propping up an industry by reducing competition and innovation is uneconomic and ultimately counterproductive.
Wood then has two further objections to the policy framework. He questions the efficacy of emissions trading altogether and then, telling, suggests that haste is not desirable as emissions can be stabilised at 650-700 parts per million. He may well have a point on emissions trading, which is susceptible to problems such as an inconsistent or inappropriate carbon price and integrity in monitoring emissions.
However, the 650-700 ppm is a dangerous theory which smacks of an unawareness of his material. Although past emission records are imperfect, current carbon levels exceed those of any of the interglacial periods during the most recent geological era. The IPCC has estimated that they exceed anything seen since prior to the most recent pattern of Ice Ages (20 million years ago). Nobody is quite sure when the carbon levels were last at 650-700 ppm, but the dinosaurs might have done fairly nicely in those conditions and they were cold blooded.
The argument that abatement will cost 'trillions of dollars' fails to recognise the level of subsidies given to fossil fuels and the ability of renewable energies to do a lot when given a bit of support by governments. It merely takes government allocation of trading permits, calculates their monetary value and adds them together, then factors increased fossil fuel prices across the economy. In other words, it misinterprets the starting baseline, leaves out the benefits, manufactures negatives and then extrapolates them unreasonably.
It is bad science dressed up as bad economics. The market does not have all the answers, but it at least needs to have all the information at its disposal to work properly.
He first makes the common mistake of eliding Howard's clean energy and Rudd's renewable energy targets. Clean energy encompasses clean coal and nuclear. As Guy Pearse has demonstrated, the locked in funding for coal companies means that the entire Howard clean energy target is subscribed to clean coal. This mistake is equivalent to allowing cordial as a substitute for fresh fruit.
Wood then makes the claim that the chances of meeting Rudd's target of 20% renewable energy by 2020 without 'massive taxpayer subsidies or a technological miracle' are negligible. The current market share for renewables is a tick over 9%, mainly contributed by hydro. In reality, the required scale-up is then 11% over 13 years. My understanding of Rudd's definition incoporates natural gas, which could feasibly be scaled up to provide equivalent baseload power in the required time. That aside, I will assume that on face value emissions-laden coal power is significantly cheaper than renewables.
The key phrase being at face value. Wood's analysis assumes that coal operates without subsidies from government as compared to renewables. Greenpeace estimated that the average annual subsidy to coal, oil and gas companies is $9 billion, whereas renewables receive $330 million. Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane justified this state of affairs on the principle of proportional representation, saying that renewables did very well for the share of power they produced.
Wood's premise is that the coupling of emissions trading schemes with renewable targets amounts to triple taxation of energy consumers, paying first for the cost of carbon through trading, then through higher renewable energy costs and finally being hit by having their income tax spent subsidising the renewables. Renewable energy targets pick winners which is by definition undesirable.
First, an emissions trading scheme adjusts the price of carbon. Renewables produce lessening levels of carbon and hence become more competitive in such a scheme. Secondly, as renewable market share increases, the cost of production decreases for consumers. Thirdly, if the true subsidy position is considered, taxpayers get a much better deal from renewables with future potential compared to a coal industry which will inevitably contract. If anything, propping up an industry by reducing competition and innovation is uneconomic and ultimately counterproductive.
Wood then has two further objections to the policy framework. He questions the efficacy of emissions trading altogether and then, telling, suggests that haste is not desirable as emissions can be stabilised at 650-700 parts per million. He may well have a point on emissions trading, which is susceptible to problems such as an inconsistent or inappropriate carbon price and integrity in monitoring emissions.
However, the 650-700 ppm is a dangerous theory which smacks of an unawareness of his material. Although past emission records are imperfect, current carbon levels exceed those of any of the interglacial periods during the most recent geological era. The IPCC has estimated that they exceed anything seen since prior to the most recent pattern of Ice Ages (20 million years ago). Nobody is quite sure when the carbon levels were last at 650-700 ppm, but the dinosaurs might have done fairly nicely in those conditions and they were cold blooded.
The argument that abatement will cost 'trillions of dollars' fails to recognise the level of subsidies given to fossil fuels and the ability of renewable energies to do a lot when given a bit of support by governments. It merely takes government allocation of trading permits, calculates their monetary value and adds them together, then factors increased fossil fuel prices across the economy. In other words, it misinterprets the starting baseline, leaves out the benefits, manufactures negatives and then extrapolates them unreasonably.
It is bad science dressed up as bad economics. The market does not have all the answers, but it at least needs to have all the information at its disposal to work properly.
The gap between self image and reality
John Howard was quite willing to stand before his entranced party on Monday and proclaim 'love me or loath me, the Australian people know what I stand for'. In light of this, I checked out the Liberal party's website for what the party publicly states it stands for. The website cites eight core beliefs which define Liberal party values:
1. We believe in the inalienable rights and freedoms of all peoples; and we work towards a lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives; and maximises individual and private sector initiative.
* Except we don't recognise the rights of Aboriginal people to self-determination which is why we abolished ATSIC and latterly the permit system and consistently attacked High Court decisions (Mabo and Wik) on native title.
* Except we have introduced the most draconian legislation to control payments to the unemployed, including single mothers and the disabled, where failure to perform fifteen hours of work a week can lead to losing payments for eight weeks.
2. We believe in government that nurtures and encourages its citizens through incentive, rather than putting limits on people through the punishing disincentives of burdensome taxes and the stifling structures of Labor's corporate state and bureaucratic red tape.
* Which is why we introduced the GST and Workchoices, two of the most hideous complicated legislative programmes in history. Not content with that we introduced the ad hoc fairness test with no guidelines as to what constituted 'fair compensation' for lost conditions.
* Into the bargain, we turned remote NT shopkeepers into micro-accountants, quarantining support payments based on printouts sent from Canberra.
3. We believe in those most basic freedoms of parliamentary democracy - the freedom of thought, worship, speech and association.
* Which is why we accept donations from the Exclusive Brethren which was implicated in interference in the NZ election, forcing the resignation of the opposition leader.
* Which is why large sections of the party actively discourage involvement by people from non-European backgrounds or anyone who has views contrary to those of the so-called Christian right.
* Which is why we are trying to destroy the remainder of the union movement by making it almost impossible for union organisers to visit workplaces and involvement akin to social death.
4. We believe in a just and humane society in which the importance of the family and the role of law and justice is maintained.
* Tell that to Izhar Ul Haque.
* As long as you are not actually suspected of either being involved in anything remotely close to terrorism or being disorientated from a non-Anglo Saxon background (Cornelia Rau or Vivian Solon).
* Families are so important we made it easy for workers to lose their penalty rates so they didn't have to be together on weekends.
5. We believe in equal opportunity for all Australians; and the encouragement and facilitation of wealth so that all may enjoy the highest possible standards of living, health, education and social justice.
* But if you did not have equal opportunity to start with, bad luck. University education should be confined to those who will use it responsibly and not flirt with radical ideas like postmodernism.
* Education should be about the 'three rs'. Nothing else, and Australian history.
* We really believe that the highest possible standard of living involves buying lots of stuff whether you can afford it or not.
* We believe everyone should get the best health care so long as it's private and the drug companies get a fair go at getting their R&D budget back.
6. We believe that, wherever possible, government should not compete with an efficient private sector; and that businesses and individuals - not government - are the true creators of wealth and employment.
* We really believe that there is no such thing as an inefficient private sector. All private sectors are by defintion efficient. Some just need support against public sectors.
7. We believe in preserving Australia's natural beauty and the environment for future generations.
* We like whales but we don't really think the environment is that important compared to the economy.
* We don't think climate change is a problem, but if it is, little old us can't do anything anyway. Windmills kill birds. If we need to protect the Barrier Reef, we will cover it in shadecloth.
8. We believe that our nation has a constructive role to play in maintaining world peace and democracy through alliance with other free nations.
* Except through anything that looks like the United Nations. National interest is the only way to go and we can only do that through other forums.
1. We believe in the inalienable rights and freedoms of all peoples; and we work towards a lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives; and maximises individual and private sector initiative.
* Except we don't recognise the rights of Aboriginal people to self-determination which is why we abolished ATSIC and latterly the permit system and consistently attacked High Court decisions (Mabo and Wik) on native title.
* Except we have introduced the most draconian legislation to control payments to the unemployed, including single mothers and the disabled, where failure to perform fifteen hours of work a week can lead to losing payments for eight weeks.
2. We believe in government that nurtures and encourages its citizens through incentive, rather than putting limits on people through the punishing disincentives of burdensome taxes and the stifling structures of Labor's corporate state and bureaucratic red tape.
* Which is why we introduced the GST and Workchoices, two of the most hideous complicated legislative programmes in history. Not content with that we introduced the ad hoc fairness test with no guidelines as to what constituted 'fair compensation' for lost conditions.
* Into the bargain, we turned remote NT shopkeepers into micro-accountants, quarantining support payments based on printouts sent from Canberra.
3. We believe in those most basic freedoms of parliamentary democracy - the freedom of thought, worship, speech and association.
* Which is why we accept donations from the Exclusive Brethren which was implicated in interference in the NZ election, forcing the resignation of the opposition leader.
* Which is why large sections of the party actively discourage involvement by people from non-European backgrounds or anyone who has views contrary to those of the so-called Christian right.
* Which is why we are trying to destroy the remainder of the union movement by making it almost impossible for union organisers to visit workplaces and involvement akin to social death.
4. We believe in a just and humane society in which the importance of the family and the role of law and justice is maintained.
* Tell that to Izhar Ul Haque.
* As long as you are not actually suspected of either being involved in anything remotely close to terrorism or being disorientated from a non-Anglo Saxon background (Cornelia Rau or Vivian Solon).
* Families are so important we made it easy for workers to lose their penalty rates so they didn't have to be together on weekends.
5. We believe in equal opportunity for all Australians; and the encouragement and facilitation of wealth so that all may enjoy the highest possible standards of living, health, education and social justice.
* But if you did not have equal opportunity to start with, bad luck. University education should be confined to those who will use it responsibly and not flirt with radical ideas like postmodernism.
* Education should be about the 'three rs'. Nothing else, and Australian history.
* We really believe that the highest possible standard of living involves buying lots of stuff whether you can afford it or not.
* We believe everyone should get the best health care so long as it's private and the drug companies get a fair go at getting their R&D budget back.
6. We believe that, wherever possible, government should not compete with an efficient private sector; and that businesses and individuals - not government - are the true creators of wealth and employment.
* We really believe that there is no such thing as an inefficient private sector. All private sectors are by defintion efficient. Some just need support against public sectors.
7. We believe in preserving Australia's natural beauty and the environment for future generations.
* We like whales but we don't really think the environment is that important compared to the economy.
* We don't think climate change is a problem, but if it is, little old us can't do anything anyway. Windmills kill birds. If we need to protect the Barrier Reef, we will cover it in shadecloth.
8. We believe that our nation has a constructive role to play in maintaining world peace and democracy through alliance with other free nations.
* Except through anything that looks like the United Nations. National interest is the only way to go and we can only do that through other forums.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Bigger crash than Ben Hur?
The faux Roman epic Ben Hur is famous for two key reasons. For both its spectacular length (in some quarters tedium) and its extremely nasty chariot race where most of the contenders get disposed of by a variety of means unknown to the Marquis of Queensbury. In fact, its shares much in common with the Coalition's election campaign.
The entire enterprise appears to be a barely disguised mirage rather reminiscent of the Bank of Queensland commercial where no sooner have a young couple signed their home loan papers than the desk, walls and personnel of the bank evaporate into dust. The message presented to voters, the campaign organisation and the visual presentation of the ads themselves borders on shambolic.
Rather than demonstrate any convincing alternative policy, Howard's launch chose to augment funding for Rudd's policies. This must surely have killed the 'me-too/ vision' debate where he was finally getting a hint of traction. Somewhere between Howard's 'go for growth' slogan and the wish to have an 'opportunity society', Howard's agenda-setting mojo failed to make its customary appearance.
However, today's newfound embrace of bipartisanship poker is only the latest episode where Howard and his campaign staff have failed to take a trick. Basic issues such as getting Tony Abbott to the church (or even the National Press Club) on time appear to be secondary to finding new and unusual ways of alluding to trade unions.
On policy, the obvious weakness is Howard having no clear plan for the future. The whole point is that Howard only had one plan he ever told the voters about in 1998, then surreptitiously introduced everything after he gained re-election based on Labor's perceived incompetence. Howard failed to realise that Rudd steadfastly refused to be wedged and did not adapt. Despite early attempts to turn climate change into an economic issue, Howard had no idea how to. A lame duck to the even lamer Costello.
The slogan 'go for growth' was absurd in the face of a workchoices mutiny and rising interest rates. Even the ads themselves are incompetent. The attack ads linking federal and state Labor go through the union hoop thus diluting their message. For some bizarre reason the Liberals are running the word 'grow' in italics. To paraphrase a Labor ad, people want a 'better' life, Mr Howard. They do not necessary care about nebulous ideas of 'growth'. Not only does this look painful, it reinforces the feeling of resentment those not sharing in the boom are feeling.
The most incompetent use of text in an ad must be the banners inserted into Howard's presentation on the ABC. Liberal party staff must have thought it would be great to emphasise Howard's key themes in the fashion of Sky News. Only someone forgot to tell them that the ad was broadcast in Widescreen format and most people still have ordinary analogue TVs. If anyone in plasma land was even watching Howard on the ABC at 9:30pm on a Saturday night, they would have got the old spiel about unions and states being the sources of all ills. What the plasmaless people for whom Howard has developed a tin ear saw was how 'ions' would ruin the economy and that 'ate' are to blame for interest rates.
Well, perhaps if we did pursue nuclear power and relied on fate to get us home, we would have economic and interest rate problems.
The entire enterprise appears to be a barely disguised mirage rather reminiscent of the Bank of Queensland commercial where no sooner have a young couple signed their home loan papers than the desk, walls and personnel of the bank evaporate into dust. The message presented to voters, the campaign organisation and the visual presentation of the ads themselves borders on shambolic.
Rather than demonstrate any convincing alternative policy, Howard's launch chose to augment funding for Rudd's policies. This must surely have killed the 'me-too/ vision' debate where he was finally getting a hint of traction. Somewhere between Howard's 'go for growth' slogan and the wish to have an 'opportunity society', Howard's agenda-setting mojo failed to make its customary appearance.
However, today's newfound embrace of bipartisanship poker is only the latest episode where Howard and his campaign staff have failed to take a trick. Basic issues such as getting Tony Abbott to the church (or even the National Press Club) on time appear to be secondary to finding new and unusual ways of alluding to trade unions.
On policy, the obvious weakness is Howard having no clear plan for the future. The whole point is that Howard only had one plan he ever told the voters about in 1998, then surreptitiously introduced everything after he gained re-election based on Labor's perceived incompetence. Howard failed to realise that Rudd steadfastly refused to be wedged and did not adapt. Despite early attempts to turn climate change into an economic issue, Howard had no idea how to. A lame duck to the even lamer Costello.
The slogan 'go for growth' was absurd in the face of a workchoices mutiny and rising interest rates. Even the ads themselves are incompetent. The attack ads linking federal and state Labor go through the union hoop thus diluting their message. For some bizarre reason the Liberals are running the word 'grow' in italics. To paraphrase a Labor ad, people want a 'better' life, Mr Howard. They do not necessary care about nebulous ideas of 'growth'. Not only does this look painful, it reinforces the feeling of resentment those not sharing in the boom are feeling.
The most incompetent use of text in an ad must be the banners inserted into Howard's presentation on the ABC. Liberal party staff must have thought it would be great to emphasise Howard's key themes in the fashion of Sky News. Only someone forgot to tell them that the ad was broadcast in Widescreen format and most people still have ordinary analogue TVs. If anyone in plasma land was even watching Howard on the ABC at 9:30pm on a Saturday night, they would have got the old spiel about unions and states being the sources of all ills. What the plasmaless people for whom Howard has developed a tin ear saw was how 'ions' would ruin the economy and that 'ate' are to blame for interest rates.
Well, perhaps if we did pursue nuclear power and relied on fate to get us home, we would have economic and interest rate problems.
Blank cheque mandate gives away to credit election
Nick Minchin's claim that 'our workplace relations policy last time set out the goals for the current laws' is partially correct. Technically speaking, the Liberals have long advocated removing unfair dismissal laws and constructing the labour market system around AWAs. However, the key question is the degree to which those reforms were impressed upon the Australian public.
The big change on unfair dismissal was the scope to which Howard's exemption applied. The Democrats had beaten back forty-one attempts to introduce laws abolishing unfair dismissal claims for small business between 1996 and 2006. However, the figures presented to the Democrats limited this exception to ten employees. Workchoices applies the exemption to all business employing less than a hundred people.
The key change on AWAs was the removal of the no disadvantage test. Prior to 2006, all AWAs had to meet a no disadvantage test. This test meant the employee did not suffer a disadvantage in comparison with the relevant award. In announcing the abolition of the test, the Coalition described it as 'absurd' and 'ridiculously complex'. The pale attempt to diffuse the furore these changes provoked, the so-called 'Fairness Test', merely provided for employees to receive compensation for lost conditions including leave and penalty rates. The catch was that this compensation need not be monetary and had to be determined on a case by case basis.
This arrogant view that the electorate granted the Coalition has aroused concern that governments not be given such arbitrary power in future. This is demonstrated by polls suggesting the Greens are getting traction as the party to hold the balance of power in the Senate. Rudd's approval rating seems to not be giving him the type of blank cheque voters offered a Coalition government running on 'keeping interest rates low' and border security. It is a loan that he has taken out on promises of taking concrete action on climate change, restoring the position of employees in the labour market, fixing the health system and improving the position of 'working families' on housing affordability, rents, grocery and petrol prices and child care.
The big question will Rudd have the political capital to pay up when the voters collect their debts.
The big change on unfair dismissal was the scope to which Howard's exemption applied. The Democrats had beaten back forty-one attempts to introduce laws abolishing unfair dismissal claims for small business between 1996 and 2006. However, the figures presented to the Democrats limited this exception to ten employees. Workchoices applies the exemption to all business employing less than a hundred people.
The key change on AWAs was the removal of the no disadvantage test. Prior to 2006, all AWAs had to meet a no disadvantage test. This test meant the employee did not suffer a disadvantage in comparison with the relevant award. In announcing the abolition of the test, the Coalition described it as 'absurd' and 'ridiculously complex'. The pale attempt to diffuse the furore these changes provoked, the so-called 'Fairness Test', merely provided for employees to receive compensation for lost conditions including leave and penalty rates. The catch was that this compensation need not be monetary and had to be determined on a case by case basis.
This arrogant view that the electorate granted the Coalition has aroused concern that governments not be given such arbitrary power in future. This is demonstrated by polls suggesting the Greens are getting traction as the party to hold the balance of power in the Senate. Rudd's approval rating seems to not be giving him the type of blank cheque voters offered a Coalition government running on 'keeping interest rates low' and border security. It is a loan that he has taken out on promises of taking concrete action on climate change, restoring the position of employees in the labour market, fixing the health system and improving the position of 'working families' on housing affordability, rents, grocery and petrol prices and child care.
The big question will Rudd have the political capital to pay up when the voters collect their debts.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Ignoring the lessons of Bill and Bertie
The latest descent into the gutter attributed to the Liberal party 'dirt unit' demonstrates yet again the spectacular stupidity of launching personal attacks on the character of politicians. The allegation that Julia Gillard was somehow involved in some kind of union fraud exercise are no more likely to garner voter support than 'Strippergate' or any other pile of dirt. Whoever is pedalling this and Strippergate has clearly failed to understand that recent character accusations have created public sympathy for the accused and been counterproductive for the accusors. In short, they have not learnt the lessons of Bill and Bertie.
Bill Clinton and Bertie Ahern come from opposite sides of politics. One was US President and as most of the known universe knows was subject to the most tawdry investigation in political history owing to his penchant for a certain intern. After initally denying the whole affair, Clinton admitted involvement with Monica Leewinsky then ran a technical argument over the issue of 'relations'. The net result was that Clinton received public sympathy. It was however, very useful in galvanising the Republican vote at the following election.
Bertie Ahern is the Irish PM who seems to have been involved in everything from signing blank cheques for his party leader to rather shady dealings with wealthy businessmen. Ahern was confronted with evidence of donations he had received and apologised to the parliament and repaid monies. When the opposition Fine Gael party tried to make capital out of the situation, the opinion polls showed a rise in Ahern's support earning a lecture from the Irish media. The dodgy dealings of the so-called Teflon Taoiseach were immaterial to the election outcome, if anything garnering public sympathy for the embattled leader who subsequently won the election.
It should by now be clear that unless an accusation comes with hard evidence of gross misfeasance by a public official, it is likely to backfire on the accusor. Enter Kevin Rudd and Strippergate. Rudd's wonkish image was feared in some quarters to be off-putting to the electorate, but when details of his inadvertent strip club visit became known, plus his public apology, the result was a surge in popularity.
Apart from effectively conceding that Rudd is untouchable by not concentrating their policy attacks on him, the attack on Gillard is extraordinarily stupid as there are valid policy reasons which should engender concern among some conservative voters. Gillard was intimately associated with Latham's uncosted Medicare Gold policy. This big ticket item seems to have been erased from the collective political memory. Couple that with her membership of the Left faction (which unofficially makes her ineligble to be Treasurer) and there is sufficient ground to instil doubt in voters.
Instead we have the bizarre strategy of treating her like some kind of Antipodean Hillary Clinton, complete with murky dealings during her legal career. I suspect Labor is quite happy to see her image as the Australian Boudicea, standing up to the evil empire of muck-raking journalists and unreconstructed misogynists such as Bill Heffernan get further support from such unfounded allegations.
Politics of 'smear and fear' may have some utility to galvanise one's (extremist) base, but they are unlikely to endear the accusor to the public at large. Unless someone does have some evidence that compelling ties an official to a heinous crime, then in the current climate they would be best advised to concentrate on policy.
Bill Clinton and Bertie Ahern come from opposite sides of politics. One was US President and as most of the known universe knows was subject to the most tawdry investigation in political history owing to his penchant for a certain intern. After initally denying the whole affair, Clinton admitted involvement with Monica Leewinsky then ran a technical argument over the issue of 'relations'. The net result was that Clinton received public sympathy. It was however, very useful in galvanising the Republican vote at the following election.
Bertie Ahern is the Irish PM who seems to have been involved in everything from signing blank cheques for his party leader to rather shady dealings with wealthy businessmen. Ahern was confronted with evidence of donations he had received and apologised to the parliament and repaid monies. When the opposition Fine Gael party tried to make capital out of the situation, the opinion polls showed a rise in Ahern's support earning a lecture from the Irish media. The dodgy dealings of the so-called Teflon Taoiseach were immaterial to the election outcome, if anything garnering public sympathy for the embattled leader who subsequently won the election.
It should by now be clear that unless an accusation comes with hard evidence of gross misfeasance by a public official, it is likely to backfire on the accusor. Enter Kevin Rudd and Strippergate. Rudd's wonkish image was feared in some quarters to be off-putting to the electorate, but when details of his inadvertent strip club visit became known, plus his public apology, the result was a surge in popularity.
Apart from effectively conceding that Rudd is untouchable by not concentrating their policy attacks on him, the attack on Gillard is extraordinarily stupid as there are valid policy reasons which should engender concern among some conservative voters. Gillard was intimately associated with Latham's uncosted Medicare Gold policy. This big ticket item seems to have been erased from the collective political memory. Couple that with her membership of the Left faction (which unofficially makes her ineligble to be Treasurer) and there is sufficient ground to instil doubt in voters.
Instead we have the bizarre strategy of treating her like some kind of Antipodean Hillary Clinton, complete with murky dealings during her legal career. I suspect Labor is quite happy to see her image as the Australian Boudicea, standing up to the evil empire of muck-raking journalists and unreconstructed misogynists such as Bill Heffernan get further support from such unfounded allegations.
Politics of 'smear and fear' may have some utility to galvanise one's (extremist) base, but they are unlikely to endear the accusor to the public at large. Unless someone does have some evidence that compelling ties an official to a heinous crime, then in the current climate they would be best advised to concentrate on policy.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Something does not add up
A quick perusal of the Newspoll marginal seat figures offers a beacon of hope for the Liberals. At first glance, it appears that the Ruddslide is making a mess of the Nationals vote while their city cousins are holding up.
Newspoll's survey covers the seats of Dobell, Bennelong, Eden Monaro, Lindsay, Parramatta and Wentworth. The average Liberal primary vote in these seats was 47%, while the average Labor vote was 34.8%. Newspoll has the current Liberal 6 seat average at 46%, a swing of precisely nothing, while Labor is at 47%, or around 12%. The upshot of this poll is that all the voters in the 'other category' have turned around and given their primary vote to the Libs during the campaign.
One would expect a high primary vote in Bennelong, given it is the Prime Minister's seat. Even if you buy this argument, one must assume Labor will pick up several percent off the Libs in Eden Monaro (swing seat), Parramatta (a Sydney version of seats like Adelaide and Brisbane showing big Labor swings) and Lindsay in Western Sydney (retiring MP, mortgage stress). I cannot believe that Labor's primary vote is 47% in Wentworth as this is a traditionally conservative seat with a multitude of candidates running on 'Turnbull Minister against the environment'.
I equally cannot believe the corollary of this, that Malcolm of Wentworth has picked up almost all of the (12%) of King defectors and lost none to either the Ruddslide or the bevy of environmental campaigners. An outside possibility is the seat of Dobell is holding something close to the 2004 result on the back of the retiree vote, but that would suggest that Central Coast voters are not under housing stress which is quite simply wrong. I suspect Dobell may end up with a line ball result, which means that the Liberal primary is probably 2-3% less than 2004, similar to the figures in Bennelong.
I suspect that Newspoll is underestimating both the others' vote (i.e. independents) and Green vote in these seats, particularly in Wentworth and Eden Monaro. This also points to an overestimate of the Liberal primary vote 1.5-2% and the Labor vote being exaggerated by 2.5-3%...which sounds remarkably like Galaxy's polling but for the Liberal primary vote.
From this analysis, I would put Lindsay, Parramatta, Eden Monaro in the definite gain category, Bennelong a line ball contest with Labor favoured and Wentworth coming down to preference flows, particularly from climate change candidates, leaning towards Turnbull. Dobell could go either way, although I suspect the figures may have been inflated by the proximity to Howard's grey vote seeking largesse.
Newspoll's survey covers the seats of Dobell, Bennelong, Eden Monaro, Lindsay, Parramatta and Wentworth. The average Liberal primary vote in these seats was 47%, while the average Labor vote was 34.8%. Newspoll has the current Liberal 6 seat average at 46%, a swing of precisely nothing, while Labor is at 47%, or around 12%. The upshot of this poll is that all the voters in the 'other category' have turned around and given their primary vote to the Libs during the campaign.
One would expect a high primary vote in Bennelong, given it is the Prime Minister's seat. Even if you buy this argument, one must assume Labor will pick up several percent off the Libs in Eden Monaro (swing seat), Parramatta (a Sydney version of seats like Adelaide and Brisbane showing big Labor swings) and Lindsay in Western Sydney (retiring MP, mortgage stress). I cannot believe that Labor's primary vote is 47% in Wentworth as this is a traditionally conservative seat with a multitude of candidates running on 'Turnbull Minister against the environment'.
I equally cannot believe the corollary of this, that Malcolm of Wentworth has picked up almost all of the (12%) of King defectors and lost none to either the Ruddslide or the bevy of environmental campaigners. An outside possibility is the seat of Dobell is holding something close to the 2004 result on the back of the retiree vote, but that would suggest that Central Coast voters are not under housing stress which is quite simply wrong. I suspect Dobell may end up with a line ball result, which means that the Liberal primary is probably 2-3% less than 2004, similar to the figures in Bennelong.
I suspect that Newspoll is underestimating both the others' vote (i.e. independents) and Green vote in these seats, particularly in Wentworth and Eden Monaro. This also points to an overestimate of the Liberal primary vote 1.5-2% and the Labor vote being exaggerated by 2.5-3%...which sounds remarkably like Galaxy's polling but for the Liberal primary vote.
From this analysis, I would put Lindsay, Parramatta, Eden Monaro in the definite gain category, Bennelong a line ball contest with Labor favoured and Wentworth coming down to preference flows, particularly from climate change candidates, leaning towards Turnbull. Dobell could go either way, although I suspect the figures may have been inflated by the proximity to Howard's grey vote seeking largesse.
Formula one economy driven by reckless P plater
I suspect that the Reserve Bank must be getting ever so slightly sick of warning the Coalition government to listen to its warnings regarding inflation. Lo and behold, John Howard admitted in the face of the imminent rise:
Costello has been telling anyone who listens that he is fiscally responsible in holding a surplus of 1% of GDP as a check on inflation. Perhaps this would be sufficient in a textbook ideal economic climate. Clearly an oil price of $90+ a barrell with an export sector weighed down by an agricultural depression and a high exchange rate does not fit this scenario. One would expect the 'greatest Treasurer in Australia's history' to do something different. But Costello sails merrily along, sitting on the Treasury benches doing...well, not much other than glorified administration.
According to the ABS, the main causes of inflation pressure are vegetable prices, housing and rents. The exponential oil price has not yet fed through, but is sure to put up the price of almost everything. Given the peak oil predictions, a prudent economic manager would be planning for the future, managing a carbon transition program so that oil dependence would be scaled back progressively and reducing our exposure to oil shocks.
On housing, rent and associated costs such as insurance, the Coalition's steadfast refusal to acknowledge the problem has created an inflationary cycle. Rates rise to slow inflation, which causes rents to go up to cover the rate rise. Meanwhile homeowners cannot afford a mortgage, so demand goes up pushing rents up.
If the IPCC climate predictions eventuate, Australian food prices will be permanently higher. This means that some serious planning has to occur to manage those price increases keeping both rural suppliers viable and urban consumers able to afford quality produce.
The main way that the impact of higher oil prices on inflation could be reduced is to encourage rail as a means to transport goods. Either this or greater use of biofuels or gas must be considered.
A major inflationary pressure is the capacity constraints on the economy. Simply put there is insufficient infrastructure (a product of Labor governments terrified of running deficits and Coalition disinterest) to maximise production through major ports such as Newcastle. A further pressure is the skills crisis, particularly in trades, causing wage pressure for those tradesmen.
Australia's economy does behave in some respects like a Formula One vehicle, growing at an average 3.6% a year for the past sixteen years. However, the government's continued insistence on spending money on a cynical basis without a wholisitic long term plan amounts to economic recklessness. It is notable that when Costello produced the Intergenerational Report plotting the challenges of the next 30 years, the main priority was the tax base adjusting for an aging population. There was barely a mention of the need to take any measures to alleviate climate change.
"If you have a strong economy, you have high world oil prices and you have a drought - some inflation in the system is unavoidable,"
Costello has been telling anyone who listens that he is fiscally responsible in holding a surplus of 1% of GDP as a check on inflation. Perhaps this would be sufficient in a textbook ideal economic climate. Clearly an oil price of $90+ a barrell with an export sector weighed down by an agricultural depression and a high exchange rate does not fit this scenario. One would expect the 'greatest Treasurer in Australia's history' to do something different. But Costello sails merrily along, sitting on the Treasury benches doing...well, not much other than glorified administration.
According to the ABS, the main causes of inflation pressure are vegetable prices, housing and rents. The exponential oil price has not yet fed through, but is sure to put up the price of almost everything. Given the peak oil predictions, a prudent economic manager would be planning for the future, managing a carbon transition program so that oil dependence would be scaled back progressively and reducing our exposure to oil shocks.
On housing, rent and associated costs such as insurance, the Coalition's steadfast refusal to acknowledge the problem has created an inflationary cycle. Rates rise to slow inflation, which causes rents to go up to cover the rate rise. Meanwhile homeowners cannot afford a mortgage, so demand goes up pushing rents up.
If the IPCC climate predictions eventuate, Australian food prices will be permanently higher. This means that some serious planning has to occur to manage those price increases keeping both rural suppliers viable and urban consumers able to afford quality produce.
The main way that the impact of higher oil prices on inflation could be reduced is to encourage rail as a means to transport goods. Either this or greater use of biofuels or gas must be considered.
A major inflationary pressure is the capacity constraints on the economy. Simply put there is insufficient infrastructure (a product of Labor governments terrified of running deficits and Coalition disinterest) to maximise production through major ports such as Newcastle. A further pressure is the skills crisis, particularly in trades, causing wage pressure for those tradesmen.
Australia's economy does behave in some respects like a Formula One vehicle, growing at an average 3.6% a year for the past sixteen years. However, the government's continued insistence on spending money on a cynical basis without a wholisitic long term plan amounts to economic recklessness. It is notable that when Costello produced the Intergenerational Report plotting the challenges of the next 30 years, the main priority was the tax base adjusting for an aging population. There was barely a mention of the need to take any measures to alleviate climate change.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Who do you trust to keep these rates under control?
In the midst of the interest rate rise commotion, there is another set of rates that we should be asking the leaders whether they have a plan to keep them under control.
The CSIRO reported in May this year that Australia has the most inefficient economy in the developed world in terms of GDP per ton of C02 emitted. The US economy is increasing its carbon efficiency at twice the rate of Australia. Not only that, Australia's carbon emissions have grown at approximately twice the global average over the last 25 years. If emissions proceed on a business as usual basis, they will increase by 70% by 2050.
According to the Prime Minister's Taskforce on Emissions Trading, the medium term outlook in stationary energy production and mining is bleak. The stationary energy sector's emissions are set to increase by 84% based on 1990 levels by 2020 and resources sector emissions by 97%.
I suspect these rates may be of considerable interest to voters, and not just in the so-called marginals.
The CSIRO reported in May this year that Australia has the most inefficient economy in the developed world in terms of GDP per ton of C02 emitted. The US economy is increasing its carbon efficiency at twice the rate of Australia. Not only that, Australia's carbon emissions have grown at approximately twice the global average over the last 25 years. If emissions proceed on a business as usual basis, they will increase by 70% by 2050.
According to the Prime Minister's Taskforce on Emissions Trading, the medium term outlook in stationary energy production and mining is bleak. The stationary energy sector's emissions are set to increase by 84% based on 1990 levels by 2020 and resources sector emissions by 97%.
I suspect these rates may be of considerable interest to voters, and not just in the so-called marginals.
Differing politics on interest rates
Today's interest rate rise should on paper be a free hit to Labor to attack the Coalition's economic credentials. However, the politics of the issue are far more complicated than this.
The Coalition, either through good luck or good management, has had the fortune to have held power during a period of unprecedented growth. On top of this, Labor has been terrified to engage the Coalition on economic management with Beazley reserving his attacks to the GST, Latham ignoring the issue entirely and Rudd offering that 'there is not a sliver of light between us and the government on economic management'. On the question of macroeconomic policy, Rudd has launched half-hearted attacks on productivity, skills and infrastructure and attempted to offer an alternative path via his high-speed broadband network.
Rudd's overall dominance over Howard allowed the gap to close on economic management, but recent speculation over rate rises appears to have closed the gap. This is hardening Howard's vote and probably saving him from total obliteration, but as Possum Comitatus has shown, this superior economic management does not effect the Liberals' national vote.
Rudd's key success in this area has been to wedge Howard using his claim that Australia has never had such a strong economy, therefore Australian families have never been better off. However, this wedge is vulnerable if the macroeconomic conditions supersede the microeconomic position of the household budget. The most likely seats where this dynamic is viable are ones where the mortgagors feel they are going forward with an increase in the value of their home.
New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland are the three states where the issue of economic management has played a major role in the Coalition's victories. One of the biggest trouble spots for the Liberals is the former 'battler-heartland' of western Sydney. The median house price in Sydney has dropped by 9% in a year, while interest rates have increased. This perceived gap between household pressure and wealth improvement is showing up in polling. Add the insecurity of Workchoices and it is easy to see a reversal of fortune. The seat of Lindsay is swinging around 9%, likewise the seats of Macquarie and Parramatta. There is even talk of seats such as Macarthur and Greenway, with high levels of mortgagee sales, going to Labor with swings of 12-14%. Ditto that for the Central Coast seats of Dobell, Patterson and Robertson, showing swings well over 6%.
Coalition sources had previously been confident that they would hold seats in Queensland. The multitude of issues in the Sunshine state (traffic/ infrastructure issues, health, council amalgamations, Rudd's Queenslander appeal and nuclear power) dilutes the dynamic somewhat on economic management. However it is no coincidence that it was the Lair from Blair, Cameron Thompson, who was caught on tape calling the interest rate rise a positive for the Coalition. Houseprices in the Ipswich area in Blair have risen by 10% this year. Given the equity improvement, this would give hope for the Coalition that they could counteract the micro experience of workchoices and interest rate rises with the macro trend of increasing prosperity. That sense of making families better off feeds into confidence in the Liberals' economic stewardship. It won't save seats like Bonner and Moreton, but may just muddy the waters sufficiently in bigger margin seats like Bowman and Dickson. Blair is right on the knife edge.
It is likely that the swings in seats like Aston, Dunkley and Casey in the outer suburbs of Melbourne will be curtailed by the effect of increasing house prices. They are certainly not going to behave like their Sydney cousins where all the indicators point down for the Coalition.
Thompson's Garrett-esque candour may be more successful than Rudd's interest rate con argument in reversing Labor's fortunes. Rudd's purely factual argument that Howard has overseen six interest rate rises since 2004 reminds voters doing it tough that Howard has failed to deliver on keeping interest rates low. Adding the 'con' comment might be counterproductive. If the Liberals overtly claim they are using the rate rise to get elected it may open up open hostility among some voters.
The net effect of the interest rate rise in the wider electorate may be to reinforce Howard's economic credentials to undecided voters by having the election conducted on his turf. This deprives Labor of the ability to focus on workchoices and climate change. This may trim margins in seats like Eden Monaro but is probably not going to stop too many marginals going to Labor.
The Coalition, either through good luck or good management, has had the fortune to have held power during a period of unprecedented growth. On top of this, Labor has been terrified to engage the Coalition on economic management with Beazley reserving his attacks to the GST, Latham ignoring the issue entirely and Rudd offering that 'there is not a sliver of light between us and the government on economic management'. On the question of macroeconomic policy, Rudd has launched half-hearted attacks on productivity, skills and infrastructure and attempted to offer an alternative path via his high-speed broadband network.
Rudd's overall dominance over Howard allowed the gap to close on economic management, but recent speculation over rate rises appears to have closed the gap. This is hardening Howard's vote and probably saving him from total obliteration, but as Possum Comitatus has shown, this superior economic management does not effect the Liberals' national vote.
Rudd's key success in this area has been to wedge Howard using his claim that Australia has never had such a strong economy, therefore Australian families have never been better off. However, this wedge is vulnerable if the macroeconomic conditions supersede the microeconomic position of the household budget. The most likely seats where this dynamic is viable are ones where the mortgagors feel they are going forward with an increase in the value of their home.
New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland are the three states where the issue of economic management has played a major role in the Coalition's victories. One of the biggest trouble spots for the Liberals is the former 'battler-heartland' of western Sydney. The median house price in Sydney has dropped by 9% in a year, while interest rates have increased. This perceived gap between household pressure and wealth improvement is showing up in polling. Add the insecurity of Workchoices and it is easy to see a reversal of fortune. The seat of Lindsay is swinging around 9%, likewise the seats of Macquarie and Parramatta. There is even talk of seats such as Macarthur and Greenway, with high levels of mortgagee sales, going to Labor with swings of 12-14%. Ditto that for the Central Coast seats of Dobell, Patterson and Robertson, showing swings well over 6%.
Coalition sources had previously been confident that they would hold seats in Queensland. The multitude of issues in the Sunshine state (traffic/ infrastructure issues, health, council amalgamations, Rudd's Queenslander appeal and nuclear power) dilutes the dynamic somewhat on economic management. However it is no coincidence that it was the Lair from Blair, Cameron Thompson, who was caught on tape calling the interest rate rise a positive for the Coalition. Houseprices in the Ipswich area in Blair have risen by 10% this year. Given the equity improvement, this would give hope for the Coalition that they could counteract the micro experience of workchoices and interest rate rises with the macro trend of increasing prosperity. That sense of making families better off feeds into confidence in the Liberals' economic stewardship. It won't save seats like Bonner and Moreton, but may just muddy the waters sufficiently in bigger margin seats like Bowman and Dickson. Blair is right on the knife edge.
It is likely that the swings in seats like Aston, Dunkley and Casey in the outer suburbs of Melbourne will be curtailed by the effect of increasing house prices. They are certainly not going to behave like their Sydney cousins where all the indicators point down for the Coalition.
Thompson's Garrett-esque candour may be more successful than Rudd's interest rate con argument in reversing Labor's fortunes. Rudd's purely factual argument that Howard has overseen six interest rate rises since 2004 reminds voters doing it tough that Howard has failed to deliver on keeping interest rates low. Adding the 'con' comment might be counterproductive. If the Liberals overtly claim they are using the rate rise to get elected it may open up open hostility among some voters.
The net effect of the interest rate rise in the wider electorate may be to reinforce Howard's economic credentials to undecided voters by having the election conducted on his turf. This deprives Labor of the ability to focus on workchoices and climate change. This may trim margins in seats like Eden Monaro but is probably not going to stop too many marginals going to Labor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)