politics
Cluster Up
Getup irritate me. I’ll make that clear from the start. As a died-in-the-nylon-wool-blend leftie this admission comes with some difficulty as they do mean well, are organised fairly cleverly, and generally side with the angels. They shit me, despite this, because they habitually simplify and misrepresent.
They’re against cluster bombs and in favour of the international treaty eliminating their use. Fair enough, so am I, so are lots of people. The premise of their campaign, however, is that the Australian Government is stalling on the treaty because wants to protect their own “cluster bombs”, despite the UK having “reversed” their position to protect their “own weapons”. To put it mildly, this is not the situation.
Children of the Left
From the 1960’s through the 1980’s, those of us in the US Army Special Forces, along with our interagency partners, successfully stunted communist-sponsored insurgencies throughout Latin America. One of our prouder moments was in 1967, when Bolivian solders, trained, equipped and guided by Green Berets and the CIA, captured and killed Che Guevara.
…
Today, we see the Children of the Left, now adults, (whose parents were disenfranchised or worse) finding their voices in Argentina, Chile, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and elsewhere. As a result, Latin America is increasingly drifting towards building new economic, diplomatic and military relationships, diminishing US influence in the region.
Get Your Mao On (III): Relations Between Officers And Men
Our comrades must understand that ideological remolding involves long-term, patient and painstaking work, and they must not attempt to change people’s ideology, which has been shaped over decades of life, by giving a few lectures or by holding a few meetings. Persuasion, not compulsion, is the only way to convince them. Compulsion will never result in convincing them. To try to convince them by force simply won’t work.
I don’t know why “ideological” has to be an epithet in these post-normative days of universal middle-class entitlement mentality. I was brought up on my parents’ knees to understand ideology as an identifiable system of beliefs or a worldview which prompted measurable behaviour in a society, nothing more and nothing less.
Get Your Mao On (II): Contradictions Amongst The People
Recently there has been a falling off in ideological and political work among students and intellectuals, and some unhealthy tendencies have appeared. Some people seem to think that there is no longer any need to concern oneself with politics or with the future of the motherland and the ideals of mankind.
Plus ça change and all the rest of the French deviationist cliché. It’s not the Chairman’s fault that we’re made to imagine politics as a leadership race of inconsequence and personality, and if our Parties compete in an arena of mediocrity, subsidised homeownership and baby production. At least we have moments of sublime insanity to keep us entertained (if also repelled).
Sadly for him, and Morrissetti-ronic for me, Gerard Henderson agrees with Zedong. The Conservative intellectual tradition in Australia really is pretty moribund—moribund in the arse, an unkind person might say.
So… intellectual dormancy. What’s the big fella’s solution?
To counter these tendencies, we must strengthen our ideological and political work. Both students and intellectuals should study hard.
Thanks Mao. That was useful.
Get Your Mao On (I): Correcting Mistaken Ideas
With victory, certain moods may grow within the Party - arrogance, the airs of a self-styled hero, inertia and unwillingness to make progress, love of pleasure and distaste for continued hard living. With victory, the people will be grateful to us and the bourgeoisie will come forward to flatter us… the flattery of the bourgeoisie may conquer the weak-willed in our ranks.
This is from the famous Little Red Book so well-used by the sincere soixante-huitards and insincerely by banally sarcastic smartarses (as here).
This post will be the first in a series in which I apply selections from the Quotations to the current state of the Party of which I’m a despairing member, out of their twentieth century context, with a faux-ironic sense of sneering detachment. I’m all for moving forward in a spirit of consultation, but let’s also have a bit of enlightened self-criticism too.
Let’s remember that the labour movement can also make good use of things made in China.
The Economic Challenges Facing a Rudd Labour Government - musings on the Fabian Society forum
The saying goes “ask five economists a question and you’ll get five different answers – six if one went to Harvard”. At Wednesday night’s Fabian Society forum, three interesting economists managed to produce a lot more than three answers to the question: “what are the key economic challenges facing a Rudd Labour government”. The general conclusion was: it’s going to be tough. The recurring theme was the upward trend in inflation, and the consequent need for fiscal restraint, tempered with concerns about the impact of a sharp downturn in the US economy, and the level of indebtedness in the Australian economy.
ANZ’s Chief Economist Saul Eslake identified inflation as the key short-term challenge, which is likely to see interest rates rise further, and require fiscal restraint by the Rudd government. He argued (as in a previous interesting speech) that settings of fiscal policy have in the past been too loose, and that revenue windfalls associated with the resource boom should have been spent more on enhancing the productive capacity of the economy rather than on cuts in income tax. (This presentation was also the most broad ranging of the three, also touching on longer term economic challenges including global warming and the ageing population.)
A similar line was taken by HSBC’s Chief Economist John Edwards, who noted that the Rudd Government has been elected in much less favourable economic circumstances than previous governments. The Hawke government took office at the trough of the 1980s recession, with economic conditions gradually improving though its first term. The Howard government’s first term was characterised by the emergence of the Australian economy from a mid-cycle lull. Edwards argued that the Rudd government, in contrast, faces significant short-term economic challenges: an overheating domestic economy, which will require contractionary monetary and fiscal policy, despite the possibility of a significant downturn in the US economy.
In contrast, Associate Professor Steve Keen of the University of Western Sydney focussed on the high and rising levels of household debt in the Australian economy, suggesting that – as in the US economy – a serious and protracted debt-induced recession may be on the horizon. In that context, he argued that higher inflation may in fact aid households, by reducing the real value of their debt. This was subject to some subtle criticism from Saul Eslake, who noted in discussion following the presentations that rising debt is also a consequence of the development of financial systems, and that it was not clear cut to argue that the level of debt per se is a problem, but rather the capacity of households to service that debt.
Post mortem deception
Brian Loughnane, in his National Press Club address the other day said:
Labor has been given a clear mandate by the Australian people based on specific promises and this will be the basis on which they will be judged at the next election.
Labor has set high expectations, and voters will expect the new Government to live up to them. They made very specific promises to prevent grocery prices going up, to prevent petrol prices going up and to prevent interest rates from going up. Our research shows the Australian people are watching carefully to see whether Labor’s promises are just more spin or whether they can deliver. The Coalition intends to hold Labor to the standards it set itself. Mr Rudd declared the buck stops with him – it will not be good enough or acceptable to the Australian people for Labor to try and blame the previous Government when times get tough. The Australian people have given Labor a go based on very specific promises and they expect them to be delivered. (Emphasis added)
Incredible really. The Libs are trying to say that the ALP made the same mistake this election as the Libs did in 2004.
My tip
My tip for the Liberal leadership is that Brendan Nelson will overtake all challengers.
In other news:
Mr Evans said the source had told him former prime minister John Howard had “desperately” wanted to leave politics four months ago.
“He was coaxed to stay on board, while the feeling for the past few months has been that Costello had alienated himself from the core constituency of Liberal voters,” Mr Evans said.
He said the source told him Mr Costello had been found to have been particularly unpopular with with older voters – those in the 35-60 age group.
Update:
Recriminations begin:
Senator Macdonald says he respects Mr Howard but he should have gone a year ago.
“It’s a tragic way for such an able, committed man and someone who’s been so good for Australia to leave,” he said.
“I think it would have been different had Peter Costello been leading the party for 12 months.”
He says the cabinet ministers should have that ensured Mr Howard went earlier.
“I’m very confident the Coalition would have won had Peter Costello been leading the party,” he said.
“I’m a little disappointed with some of our senior colleagues who didn’t have these discussions earlier in the piece.
Unleashed delusion
The ABC has given the soap-box to the lunatic fringe of the Liberal Party, with Julian Barendse’s foray into voodoo election commentary.
Two marginal seats in which the ALP appears to be facing a particularly tough battle are the seats of Deakin in Victoria, and Boothby in South Australia. Both these seats are held by members of the Liberal class of ‘96 and (according to the betting markets) are holding up well in their respective fights for re-election.
The pendulum puts Bennelong as the final seat needed for Labor to win. The two seats noted by Barendse as “encouraging” in so far as the seat by seat odds go, are both past the 4.1% swing needed by Labor to win (Deakin at 5.0% and Boothby at 5.4%).
Even if Labor didn’t win Deakin and Boothby (but was in the range of 5% or so), it could still pick up McMillan and Corangamite.
I’m sure I also don’t need to remind Barendse that the amounts being bet on the seat by seats markets is almost negligible. It’ll be much closer to 24 Nov before real money is bet on individuals seats to make the odds relevant.
As Unleashed commenter William says:
“Unleashed” has promised us satire as well as commentary. I can only presume that this is satire…