It is truth universally acknowledged that Helen Coonan was not a terribly progressive Communications minister. During her tenure, cross-media ownership laws were diluted under the principle of not making existing media owners cross via the figleaf of 'increased outlets of new media'. Negotiations to build a high speed national broadband network went precisely nowhere and open warfare was declared by Telstra's head honcho, Sol Trujilo.
Coonan had one other vaunted policy, the NetAlert campaign. NetAlert was conceived to appeal to the 'Christian Right' and poach traditional Catholic 'values voters' (to use despised American political jargon) from Labor, possibly via the agency of Family First. The original centrepiece was an audacious plan to filter undesirable content, primarily porn, from impressionable eyes. If that was the aim, then they would have been better off leaning on the moguls running the media, with platforms such as ninemsn frequently making available images of not especially clothed celebrities.
To Coonan's credit, the final mailout became a self-help guide to educating parents on the dangers of the internet and advised supervision. The plan to filter the net was deemed a quixotic quest when logic took hold. The thing could only be done by using a list of undesirable sites and checking the site requested against the list, a slow and cumbersome process reducing processing speed by between 16 and 78% for ISPs.
Enter Stephen Conroy. Conroy is the man charged with bringing Rudd's fabled fibre-to-the-node broadband network into reality. He also has carriage of the Beazley-era acquiescence on Coonan's NetAlert scheme. This contradiction should have been immediately obvious to someone of Rudd's intellect and logical thinking capability. However it has been retained presumably to protect against a Coalition scare campaign.
As Rudd is now ascendant, good policy dictates that he abandon this bizarre nanny-state filtering scheme. Government - corporate filtering of the internet has much the same connotations these days as imprisonment without trial or taxation without representation once did. It is a sign of intrusion and unfettered exercise of power which people simply do not like.
Leaving aside the philosphical issues, the hindrance of broadband speed makes a mockery of Rudd's vaunted vehicle to prosperity. The worst part of the filter plan is that the biggest delay happens to fast stream connections. A filter system does not appear compatible with a high speed network, particularly when that network will already be compromised by transmission loss over large areas. Rudd's best course is to first delay the implementation of the policy and then make it very, very clear that there are no feasible options for filtering.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Trend still missing in campaign blizzard
Following on from this blog's recent reviewing of the US Presidential candidates, the situation is no more clear a month later.
Given the need for early momentum, it is imperative that candidates do well in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries. Except if you are Rudi Guiliani, who has figured that he has zero appeal in the smaller states and is better off pursuing a winner-take-all strategy in California, New York and Florida. Guiliani, while a formidable opponent does have a plethora of skeletons on public display and may be a tempting target for Democrats. Following his own tradition, John McCain is attempting to repeat his primary success over Bush in New Hampshire. However McCain has to have a win or a highly competitive second here otherwise other states may be less keen on him.
Competiting for the 'Christian Right' mantle are Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Romney and Huckabee have overwhelmed Fred "Blokeman" Thompson, but effectively split the CR vote three ways. Romney looks the more polished candidtate, but his campaign may be just a little slick and convenient given his 2007/08 conversion on big conservative issues like gun control and abortion. To evoke Holden Caulfield, Romney wants to be real careful those folks don't think he's a phoney. Otherwise he is roadkill. One would suspect that Romney will probably win in Iowa, picking up a fair swag of Guiliani's support while Thompson takes enough CR votes from Huckabee to push him down to second. Expect to see a lot of Huckabee - Romney or Huckabee - McCain preferences, given Huckabee is probably viewed as a wishful thinking candidate rather than a genuine election chance.
On the Democrat side, John Edwards represents the ideal candidate with Barack Obama running as the Kennedyesque counterpoint to Hillary Clinton's establishment figure. To elude to Le Tour, Clinton's breakaway campaign is getting reined in in the mountains of the Mid-west. Iowa is likely to give Edwards a large number of supporters due to his Southern charm. I suspect that Clinton will probably win with enough of Edwards' idealistic supporters swallowing the realism of Clinton's ticket and giving her their preference. Obama is a very good chance in New Hampshire, but the race remains very close with the presence of two front runners in Clinton and Obama drawing Edwards back into competition.
Given the need for early momentum, it is imperative that candidates do well in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries. Except if you are Rudi Guiliani, who has figured that he has zero appeal in the smaller states and is better off pursuing a winner-take-all strategy in California, New York and Florida. Guiliani, while a formidable opponent does have a plethora of skeletons on public display and may be a tempting target for Democrats. Following his own tradition, John McCain is attempting to repeat his primary success over Bush in New Hampshire. However McCain has to have a win or a highly competitive second here otherwise other states may be less keen on him.
Competiting for the 'Christian Right' mantle are Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Romney and Huckabee have overwhelmed Fred "Blokeman" Thompson, but effectively split the CR vote three ways. Romney looks the more polished candidtate, but his campaign may be just a little slick and convenient given his 2007/08 conversion on big conservative issues like gun control and abortion. To evoke Holden Caulfield, Romney wants to be real careful those folks don't think he's a phoney. Otherwise he is roadkill. One would suspect that Romney will probably win in Iowa, picking up a fair swag of Guiliani's support while Thompson takes enough CR votes from Huckabee to push him down to second. Expect to see a lot of Huckabee - Romney or Huckabee - McCain preferences, given Huckabee is probably viewed as a wishful thinking candidate rather than a genuine election chance.
On the Democrat side, John Edwards represents the ideal candidate with Barack Obama running as the Kennedyesque counterpoint to Hillary Clinton's establishment figure. To elude to Le Tour, Clinton's breakaway campaign is getting reined in in the mountains of the Mid-west. Iowa is likely to give Edwards a large number of supporters due to his Southern charm. I suspect that Clinton will probably win with enough of Edwards' idealistic supporters swallowing the realism of Clinton's ticket and giving her their preference. Obama is a very good chance in New Hampshire, but the race remains very close with the presence of two front runners in Clinton and Obama drawing Edwards back into competition.
Defiant but defeatist? India's half-hearted conviction
At the risk of inciting most of the subcontinental cricket community, Peregrine (whose best performance was taking three or four wickets in a school game bowling considerably slower medium than Ganguly) offers the following observations on the Test series to date.
India have been determined to take the game up to Australia and not be intimidated by their opponents, the conditions or the media. The problem is that this very determination belies an internal siege mentality which afflicts most of the teams which arrive here. This attitude has manifested itself with the bizarre tactic of permanently stationing fielders on the boundary for any recognised batsmen, the quick removal of attacking fielders, the reluctance for spinners to flight the ball except within a few overs of taking a wicket and the adoption of two defensive openers at the start of the innings.
On top of these defensive tactics, there appears to be a great tendency to blame the umpires for making poor decisions and the administrators for their scheduling. It is well known that umpiring consistency is something of a chimera at present. Today, Symonds got one life from a caught behind, a second from a borderline lbw and was a split second from being stumped. However, India also failed to run him out from short extra cover, an opportunity Symonds may easily have taken himself. Ponting got a fairly ordinary lbw decision which triggered a collapse. He was batting imperiously at the time, having earlier got a caught behind go his way. Umpiring clearly needs to be improved either by better personnel or better use of technology.
On the administrators' front. Witness Stuart Clark's complaints that Cricket Australia held Perth back as the venue for the Fourth Test. Clark, not enamoured by the MCG pitch proceeded to wreck the Indian batting line-up on it. Despite being handed a low, bouncing and turning MCG pitch, India complained about inadequate acclimatisation. Possibly jetlag, but not bounce. The MCG pitch was exactly the kind of surface McGrath, Gillespie and even Kasprowicz plagued Indian batsmen on. Similarly, the Second and Third Tests are at Sydney (India have had the better of their last two tests there) and Adelaide where Dravid and Laxman carried India into a match-winning position.
Australia's attitude is quite simply to back their ability and work hard for their teammates. That is why it is almost impossible for most teams to put them away. On paper, Australia have a team of cast-offs and suspect performers, yet as an outfit they are extremely hard to beat. Only when England put the blowtorch on Ponting, losing bowlers left right and centre, did the team start to fray.
India must ensure they use attacking fields and maintain their spirit throughout the full day, not just when the wickets fall. They must bat with conviction and keep scoring runs. Australia rely on exhausting the opposition's patience as much as anything else, and failure to score runs keeps the bowling side on top.
India have been determined to take the game up to Australia and not be intimidated by their opponents, the conditions or the media. The problem is that this very determination belies an internal siege mentality which afflicts most of the teams which arrive here. This attitude has manifested itself with the bizarre tactic of permanently stationing fielders on the boundary for any recognised batsmen, the quick removal of attacking fielders, the reluctance for spinners to flight the ball except within a few overs of taking a wicket and the adoption of two defensive openers at the start of the innings.
On top of these defensive tactics, there appears to be a great tendency to blame the umpires for making poor decisions and the administrators for their scheduling. It is well known that umpiring consistency is something of a chimera at present. Today, Symonds got one life from a caught behind, a second from a borderline lbw and was a split second from being stumped. However, India also failed to run him out from short extra cover, an opportunity Symonds may easily have taken himself. Ponting got a fairly ordinary lbw decision which triggered a collapse. He was batting imperiously at the time, having earlier got a caught behind go his way. Umpiring clearly needs to be improved either by better personnel or better use of technology.
On the administrators' front. Witness Stuart Clark's complaints that Cricket Australia held Perth back as the venue for the Fourth Test. Clark, not enamoured by the MCG pitch proceeded to wreck the Indian batting line-up on it. Despite being handed a low, bouncing and turning MCG pitch, India complained about inadequate acclimatisation. Possibly jetlag, but not bounce. The MCG pitch was exactly the kind of surface McGrath, Gillespie and even Kasprowicz plagued Indian batsmen on. Similarly, the Second and Third Tests are at Sydney (India have had the better of their last two tests there) and Adelaide where Dravid and Laxman carried India into a match-winning position.
Australia's attitude is quite simply to back their ability and work hard for their teammates. That is why it is almost impossible for most teams to put them away. On paper, Australia have a team of cast-offs and suspect performers, yet as an outfit they are extremely hard to beat. Only when England put the blowtorch on Ponting, losing bowlers left right and centre, did the team start to fray.
India must ensure they use attacking fields and maintain their spirit throughout the full day, not just when the wickets fall. They must bat with conviction and keep scoring runs. Australia rely on exhausting the opposition's patience as much as anything else, and failure to score runs keeps the bowling side on top.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Merry Christmas (and/or festive season of your choice)
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!
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!
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)