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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)