Same Same...but different?

Finally, someone more naive than Sea Shepherd has made an appearance in Australian politics. We all knew that Governor Palin could see Russia from her house, just as well as we knew that Abbott had it in him. Shadow Cabinet met on Friday to discuss its climate change policy - the first such discussion since their leadership change - and while the policy will not be announced until after the full party room meeting on Tuesday, Abbott has told us that his policy will meet the Government's promises in emissions reduction - but at no cost.

Abbott says that Rudd is one for "soft options" (today's Herald, page 2), but seems to be getting pretty squidgy with this announcement. What he's effectively saying is "we'll take the good parts of your policy and leave out the bad ones" - something that you can say in opposition. As a matter of policy, however, he must realise that everything comes at a cost. If Abbott is to create no new costs, how can he reduce emissions? What deterrent will he put in place? How will he fund it? Living in NSW, I see that little money can be taken away from the hospital system, so no luck there. Maybe they could use the proceeds from suing the Herald over MySchool?

T II reminded us not long before his semi-departure that he was the first Australian minister to come up with an ETS - maybe Abbott needs to listen to his predecessor. To establish anything that's going to work, a long-term commitment is needed: not one that's going to be made in the long-term as Howard would have preferred, but one that will address it. A self-sustaining policy, achieving funding from itself, is the most logical long-term option. Perhaps Rudd's plans for 2020 and as far as 2050 are being put in place just in case a the Liberals get in the way.

I digress now not to a case of "whodunnit" but of "hedunnit", and one that we are all familiar with. There are few arguments to say that whaling in Antarctic waters should be condoned, but nor should the actions of anti-whalers. Yes, a Japanese ship caused severe damage to Ady Gil, but when you've been harassing a vessel twice your size for a couple of days and then rush in front of it, what else can be expected? Luckily the manoeuvre paid off - the gimmick brought them all the publicity they could have wanted. It did, however, come at a cost. With two leaders abandoned this term and divisions remaining over the same policy that destroyed Turnbull, will Abbott cry foul play when he finds himself in the path of the HMAS Rudd?

Et Tu, Heralde

In case we weren't sure there are too many stupid people in the world and that the media does whatever they can to take their money, the Sun-Herald has proven it. What some claim to represent the greatest constitutional change in NSW's history is a farce generated by those with no right to instigate it and supported by those who must know that it will fail.

I'm getting the impression that I haven't read far enough to pick up on this before - I often only read a page or two to get the big things - but here's a rough outline for those in the same boat. The Herald is calling on voters to sign a petition stating that they should have a right to have an election called before the end of the fixed four-year term. This is done in the name of accountable government and democratic 'rights'. It also represents slander of the government from the media, which is theoretically objective, and designed to report on issues - not create them and not support them.

The bulk of the article is not so great a deal, but two things stand out. Firstly, the petition itself - more to come. Secondly, the statement of the Sun-Herald's support for the SMH's 'robust campaign to open public debate'. Great objectivity there.

The petition is a direct attack on the NSW government. Its reasons for promoting an election are not a claim that the current constitutional framework is failing, but one that the current government is failing. The constitution exists to prevent such action. Constitutional law is based on stability and definition of function - not on changes to suit opinions and breach of standard practice to achieve them. Currently, accountability is ensured through the media (when it acts responsibly), freedom of information laws and fixed terms. Through fixed terms a government cannot choose to call an election when it is at a high point, nor others lodge a vote of no confidence when they feel the government will be toppled.

If the government is failing, there are two things that can be done. The mainstream option is to wait until the end of the term, at which point their performance can be evaluated without such situational prejudices as the Herald is advocating. Should the government be so irresponsible as to breach the Constitution, the Governor can sack the Premier in the same way that the Governor-General can sack the Prime Minister. That is responsible, democratic and constitutional democracy. The Herald proposes this to be done in a flurry.

The timing of the petition is another show of bad taste, with the new Premier barely a week into the job. A month into Rees' premiership, voters indicated that while many were not pleased with his performance, a majority wanted to 'give him a go', as the Australian ideal would prescribe. Iemma was elected in 2007 based on the same ideal: NSW was not perfect, but the incumbent government was working on it. Keneally realises that things have not been a fairytale so far and is likewise going to do what she can to repair the damage and continue progress.

One question remains: why do both Keneally and O'Farrell support open discussion of this issue? Three reasons come to mind. Firstly, to get the Herald on side, since it is already displaying a willingness to breach principles in the interests of the editors and their political ideas. Secondly, to avoid alienating members of the general public who support the idea. Thirdly, and most importantly, because they know that it will fail. Mechanisms to ensure responsible government are already in place, and if there is any revision to be made it will be the reduction of four year terms to three year terms. Beyond that, there is no way in which a government can logically be led to decide that it will call an election based on public outcry against them, nor a logical mechanism by which a legal and objective election can be called by any group other than the government or one of its branches. Should one be fashioned, it will still need to gain popular support. From a political viewpoint, why not support the idea? It promises support from the masses in a policy that neither side will have to follow up on, only a repeat of the 1996 federal referendum: support for the idea without the ability to realise it.

I am not betrayed by my government, which is working with what resources it has to address the issues of the state. I am betrayed by the Herald's editors who think it their place to take an active political role when they are prescribed to report facts. To those who support this notion, I find relief in knowing that your voices will not be heard, or if they are, they will soon be forgotten. As there is no means provided by the Herald to show that its proposition is not supported, I hope that the watchdogs - other media and statutory bodies - will take note of this farce, and the editors be shown their place.

Well, what's wrong with it?

Anyone who concludes from this post that I'm heavily biased is right, and frankly a little slow. But that's postmodernism for you.

Yesterday I wrote about the role of opposition, so today, the role of government. First, a little political philosophy for those who haven't encountered John Rawls. Imagine that you are in a position where you know nothing of yourself, your abilities, or how well off you are. You realise that there will be differences between people, their talents, and as a result their wealth - so naturally want to protect yourself from being at the bottom of the pile. You reach the conclusion that there should be differences in society (otherwise it wouldn't function), but society should be geared to benefit the least well off group (in case that were you). If that doens't make sense, Rawls offers a fair bit more depth in A Theory of Justice.

Though awkward to explain, the theory is simple in application: give help to those who need it most, from those who need it least. But put a different spin on things and it's far more sinister. Jessica Irvine in today's Herald identified that 'priority employment areas', "those with the highest regional unemployment rates, the biggest number of Centrelink payments and communities with exposed industries such as manufacturing" received the bulk of government employment scheme funding. Irvine then stated: "These characteristics are also common to Labor electorates."

Obvious, one would think. But when matched with the headline, "ALP seats scoop the pool of job funds", it becomes much more. A constructivist argument if nothing else - show the facts your way, and they'll prove your thesis. Thus we return to my criticism of feminist history: so what?

Historically, employees support the ALP and employers the Liberals. As it happens, it's mostly workers who get sacked in recessions, not decision-makers. If you look objectively at the criteria quoted directly from Irvine's article, it's obvious that the areas being targeted are the areas that need employment boosts. Targeting areas of high welfare payments could even allow the government to redirect funds that would have otherwise been taken in unemployment benefits. The role of government is to provide for the people, regardless of how one thinks that should be done. Perhaps K-Rudd's demands of Abbott should be applied: the policy will be debated when there is an alternative policy.

The decision of where to direct funds was made by government, not by politicians, and went to the areas where it was needed most. Perhaps the government is biased towards Labor areas, but being biased doesn't make you wrong.

Robert Menzies rolling in Sun Tzu's Grave

Peter Hartcher (the best political journalist in the country on Annabelle Crabb's bad days) quoted Robert Menzies today - "the duty of an opposition is to oppose selectively." Perhaps this could be said of the Liberal party, since only a selection of them are actually opposing an ETS. But Abbott (quoting the same article) has taken on a policy of "throwing jabs from all directions", saying that he is "asking questions here, not making policy." If that were how the art of war is conducted, entire armies would be made of archers.

Abbott seems to be doing well as leader of the Liberals - in a group who don't know where they're going, he seems to have the least idea. As a debater, I find that the best way to pursue the negative argument is to find one word of the topic or one flaw in the definition and form a case around it, but Abbott would rather attack any word of any piece of legislation without anything behind it.

Howard had a case at the 2007 election that he was the best option for the economy - not a very strong case, but a case nonetheless. Turnbull argued that the ETS (with amendments) was in the national interest, even if it wasn't in accord with Liberal policy. Nelson unfortunately didn't have time to form a policy while he was in office - other than to support Rudd (perhaps the best and certainly most effective Liberal policy this term). Abbott thus far is looking like failing faster than any of the above. He might think he's acting as the Duke of Wellington would, but while his troops were always on the move, they always stayed in formation.

Will Abbott then give us a break from T II's Napoleon Complex? O'Farrell seems to be doing well in NSW having whatever he can in a column behind him, but Turnbull's shown what happens to leaders when the columns scatter. Abbott now needs to learn something from the last NSW election. How did Iemma win? Because there was no viable alternative. Labor had lost if only there was something to win. Until the Liberals can offer some policy at a federal level, Rudd is sure to triumph.

But who am I to complain?

Things that get done after midnight

Those who know me well enough will remember the speech I did a few years ago on structured procrastination. Those who think they know me well but do not remember it had better come up with a good reason.

To recap - everything of any use gets done when you should be doing something else. As John Lennon put it, "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans". Exercise and piano practise are done at exam time. Last year I could have met the HSC with Chopin's Nocturne in E Flat Major (Op. 9 No. 2), or half of Debussy's La Cathedral Engloutie. Right now, I return to blogging with a desk resembling lasagne too small for the baking dish - in seemingly neat piles, but spilling over at the edges.

As a uni student, the idea of structured procrastination has grown stronger, using free time and internet access as the excuse. But again, its not what isn't done, but what is that matters. I now have the ability to put everything (i.e. cleaning my desk) off because I have been up until 12:30 every night this week (though it is only Tuesday) working out what courses to do next semester. Plan one, one of the courses isn't being offered. Plan two, one of the courses was a prerequisite for another. Plan three, just do what everyone else is doing and stop trying to fit in an extra subject (for now). Whatever the answer, it's turned out that first years aren't as independent as they think they are, and I had to ask four people for advice.

After midnight, things become far more important than they should be. Especially if they're a week away. Or entirely unnecessary - yet another tribute to blogging! Readers, I hope you're doing something useless that you think is important - otherwise, where is this age of technology taking us?

And, 8 months on...

Another academic year over, another attempt at blogging. Which the-girlfriend-who-may-not-wish-to-be-named will find quite sad. Some brief updates - the Premier now is female, I don't study history, and the next post may well involve some political philosophy (here's to left-oriented Politics majors!)

My inspiration for today's entry is the fearless non-leader, Malcolm T. An attack on the man who deposed you is perhaps not the best political move, and frankly one that we would expect from Mr. Hockey (if he were leader in the first place). Some people (this may be you!) need to learn when they have lost an argument - and having a party room vote you out of office is a fairly strong indication that you're in the minority of a group that was the minority in the first place. So who's listening to Mr. T Mk. II? It might be Mrs. T, although she was the one who advised him to fake the email in the first place.

So now to Hope'n'Hagglin'. A bunch of fairly important people talking about what most of them see as a very important topic to reach what most of the world thinks will be an inconsequential resolution. Or a suggestion. Or at least a notice of motion. The real problem we're facing is the 'self-fulfilling prophecy' of Realism - the idea that the only person out there for you is yourself, so there's no point doing anything for somebody else. Wilson and Roosevelt would be appalled to see the world in the hands of people like Bush and Powell, whose policies still dominate. Hope and Change give textual integrity to Obama and Hope'n'Hagglin', but it remains unlikely that world leaders are going to turn against each other in a bitter fight to make the greatest sacrifices for the planet.

What we now have is an attempt at good old-fashioned liberalism being destroyed by a Realist Liberal or three. Or 84. It's still unclear. As a liberal though, I remain realistic: T II's blog is going to have a far greater impact than mine, even if it is a load of bullshit. If there's a problem, proactiveness is the solution: not slogans, not self-interest, and perhaps not Hope'n'Hagglin'. But we'll give it a go, and call whatever we get out of it 'progress' rather than tax - because if one of them is going to become more certain, one should lean away from death.

Shut Up, Get on With It

The first of my rants is on people who complain about their lot in life, and I have two groups to target: the first is feminists, and the second is public school teachers. I do not mean to say that I am opposed to either feminism or the public school system: the latter is the backbone of society so far as youth are concerned, and the former keeps the neck in place. The way that people involved in these groups act on issues, however, isn't making anything better.

I'll start with the feminists. In my first post I refered to my hatred of Australian feminist historian Miriam Dixson, after encountering her introductory essay to The Real Matilda in History Extension. Both her text and my response can be found by following the links to my wiki, History Nerds! However, I am not here now to raise historical arguments, just to point out why I am an anti-feminist. I support equality between the sexes, but the way that people such as Dixson go about trying to acheive it only creates arguments that leave women 50 years behind. While there are some interesting points raised - many of which I oppose, but they are nonetheless interesting - Dixson goes out of her to way to find them. For example, a 'matilda' is a name given to a napsack that just happens to a girl's name, and Phar Lap might be male, but he's also a horse. Dixson's work demonstrates that you can argue anything you want with the right [sic] perspective, whereas those of us in the real world understand that sure, women have had a rough time, but things are a lot better and they're certainly not being oppressed.

Last week I argued with a fellow UNSW student over a petition opposing war crimes in the Gaza Strip. The argument was partly for fun, and partly to find out what is what that my signature was going to acheive, considering that neither the Israeli government nor Hammas are likely to notice that a few foreign students have signed a piece of paper, and I remain sceptical that it would have any impact on bringing the UN to hold talks between the warring groups. Noting that my opposition argued well on my moot point, I signed the petition, seeing no harm in doing so, but also stated that I did so without commenting on who was in the wrong. Naturally, this sparked a historical argument which my fellow took back to 1945 and I took back before the birth of Christ, but then he stated that Israel were clearly the opressors. The logic behind this astounded me - that Israel has money and weapons, therefore they are the opressors. I concede that they have the opportunity, but being rich doesn't make you wrong, as much as being poor doesn't make you right. A true Leftist would suggest that if a poor person steals what they need to live off it's not really stealing, but that doesn't extend so far as blowing someone up.

My point here is that this student, much like Dixson, saw one of the groups involved in the kerfuffle (although in the case of Gaza, on a much larger scale) as being in the wrong because of a minor point and therefore accused them of oppressing the other group. So arises my opposition to the feminist school so far as history is concerned: it may be correct to say that women have been in a position under men for the past millenia (and feminists reading this may well notice my poor expression here, although John Stuart Mill did point out that men had unlimited rights over their wife and this continued into the 1980s when sexual assault between spouses was recognised as illegal), but that's not to say that they are now. Both the Deputy Prime Minister and Deputy Premier are female. The Young Australian of the Year is female. Germaine Greer is hated by damn near everyone. The world for women is just as it should be so far as being equal with men goes. There may be a few things left to iron out - women still have far greater domestic responsibilities than men, and society is still in the mindset that men make better leaders - but these are not the result of oppression, merely the way that society has always thought and will continue to think. The work of Dixson might show us that it is wrong for society to think this way, but the only way to fix it is to accept it and move on in the hope that it will eventually change. Pointing out every minor detail that she can find will only result in Dixson being labelled as a bra-burner, with men (not unlike myself) taking opposition to her - although others out there will take further exception to her arguments and be even more chauvinistic than they were before.

The far shorter Round two: Public Education. It might be time to give it more, but let's think about where and how. I am politically active, attending my meeting most months, and have found that at these meetings the only people to complain about the public education system are teachers and former teachers. If you see a problem, feel free to point it out, but these people have an amazing tendency to nitpick everything, start arguments in which they almost instantly state that they agree with each other and subsequently end up making inside jokes during general business. My real problem, however, arises from the fact that public school teachers have, during my lifetime and according to my recollection, had more days on strike than any other group in Australia. There are things to fix about public education, and the main thing that they need to fix them is money - both for schools and for teachers. The same can be said, however, about roads, hospitals, and any other government body or government-funded initiative with the exception of the (thankfully rejected) Fishing Hall of Fame. If you really want the problem fixed, get on with life and do what you can to fix it from within until the funds are available to do some more.