Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

« Older Entries

End days for dead paper and “Murdochracy”?

Monday, August 1st, 2011

The intensity may have reduced since James and Rupert Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks appeared before the UK Parliament’s Culture, Media and Sport Committee, but the crisis besetting News International is still burbling along in the background, bunted doggedly onwards from time-to-time by The Guardian and the BBC. As the embarrassing allegations continue to slide out, one gets a clear sense (as Kim has observed) that things will never by the same for the tabloid press again – in the UK, at least. The saga has been that rare civil society event that unites everyone from all walks of life in moral outrage (whether real or confected) – from Nick Griffin’s BNP and David Cameron’s Tories, through to Ed Miliband’s Labour, the Greens, and everyone in between, even including the Murdochs themselves!

There are a few key interlinking threads here that I think invite some serious discussion: the state of the Murdoch brand, the UK media context and finally the Australian media context.

The News International media brand, in the United Kingdom at least, has been positively smashed, perhaps irrevocably. When News of the World published its final edition, with all proceeds going to charity, it had trouble finding charities willing to accept its money. The details of recent formal and informal meetings between the Prime Minister and the Treasurer with members of the Murdoch family are now being pored over with genuine distrust and disdain in the public, rather than the indifference that is typical. James Murdoch, the youngest Murdoch scion (strangely relatively unknown in Australia), has had his character brutally tested and his reputation as an executive dragged through the mud by all the allegations of wrong-doing on his watch. Rupert Murdoch’s image has morphed instantly from the powerful media mogul to end all media moguls into a tottering 80 year-old man who you wouldn’t be overly surprised to find in your local nursing home. Corporate dynasties suddenly seem just a little “last century”, relics of a more feudal, slightly more despotic capitalist era. If I were a financial advisor or a stock market activist, I would have some serious concerns about the transparency of the dealings of the various family members perched around the top of the News hierarchy, and advising my clients accordingly.

In the UK, the phone-hacking scandal has emerged in an age where circulation is in decline and newspapers seem on the fast track to extinction in their current form. Prices are being forced down (The Sun is just 20p!) and so is quality. Travelling on the underground in London, it quickly becomes apparent that the majority of people who bother to read a newspaper read the Metro, a free rag churned out by Associated Newspapers, who own the right-wing Daily Mail. Dead paper is – let’s face it – nice on a lazy weekend, but in this age of portable, wireless technology, really quite dumb. Personally, I’ve just subscribed to the Guardian Kindle edition – and boy does it make massive sense: cheaper than the paper edition, more convenient (downloads automatically each morning, readable on a packed train), and so much more environmentally friendly to boot. Is this the future of news?

If indeed it is the future of news, from what I can gather (admittedly from several thousand miles away), it might take Australia more than a little time to catch up. Australian newspaper circulation is of course also in long-term decline. Evolution in the Australian publishing market is also restrained by its diabolical levels of concentration; Fairfax and News Limited dominate the scene to such an extent that their half-life as newspaper publishers in the traditional sense is probably going to exceed that of their UK counterparts. I am not getting the sense that the Daily Telegraph or the Herald Sun are suffering from any significant amount of backlash from the exploits of the News of the World (please correct me if I am wrong in the comments!).

Will this saga be the watershed for publishing and the media/political nexus in Australia that it seems it will prove likely to be in the UK?

Cross-posted at Larvatus Prodeo.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Towards conservative oligopoly; east and west

Friday, December 31st, 2010

State political journalists in New South Wales are doing it tough just at the moment. Generating vaguely interesting material from a government that most people have written off and an Opposition that assumes (correctly) that it will dawdle into government in March 2011 must be pretty challenging. Even the disturbing developments surrounding Premier Keneally’s proroguing of parliament seem like a footnote to a book that was published and swiftly remaindered a year or two back. Most ordinary folks one talks to apropos of nothing are weary of politics, but when it comes to politics in New South Wales, they are livid. The trail of disappointments, petty infighting, incredulous scandals and broken promises has not just served to damage the Labor brand, but smashed the democracy brand altogether. The credibility of democracy in New South Wales is pretty much sub-zero; democracy as a celebration of mediocrity.

The most recent [PDF] bi-monthly Newspoll from early December painted a frankly disastrous picture for Premier Keneally and NSW Labor; Labor is sitting on just 39% of the two-party preferred vote – and a primary vote of just 24%. The pain that Labor feels is undoubtedly going to be sharpened by the optional preferential voting system that we have in New South Wales, whereby electors are able to exhaust their preferences in the lower house if they wish. One gets the feeling that there are going to be quite a few voters out there who cast a vote for a independent or minor party and neglect to preference either Labor or Barry O’Farrell’s evidently vision-free Opposition. Given the general ill-feeling out there in the electorate, it is difficult not to see this mentality strengthening O’Farrell’s hand and his grip on a massive parliamentary majority.

Interestingly enough, it is not just New South Wales where it seems that the conservatives have a whip hand in state politics. Anna Bligh’s team is struggling in Queensland. Ted Baillieu has of course recently lead the Coalition into power in Victoria, slightly surprisingly. A recent Newspoll [PDF] in Western Australia has Eric Ripper’s Opposition on the ropes, with Labor commanding just 29% of the primary vote and 42% on two-party preferred. Western Australia is arguably a unique case; although we always like to assume that people treat state and federal politics separately, it is difficult not to view politics in the West through the prism of the great mining tax kerfuffle that Federal Labor have yet to find a wholly decisive resolution to. I don’t think there is much doubt that some of the unseemly scuffles that Rudd and Gillard have been trying to fight through during the last couple of years have oozed into the consciousness of people weighing up their vote at a state level.

In New South Wales, of course, we will have a resolution first. In my view, the best argument for a vote or preference for Labor is that democracy in the state stands to be damaged further if the O’Farrell Opposition are gifted a monstrous majority by political circumstances. I’m not sure its in the interest of people in any state for a government to be crushingly controlled by any one party or coalition. The mandate that Barry O’Farrell will have, presuming his team takes power in March 2011, will be a mandate borne out of the chaos of the previous government, and hardly an ounce of his Coalition’s political ingenuity or vision. This hardly augurs well.

Cross-posted at Larvatus Prodeo.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

On philosophies of giving

Friday, December 17th, 2010

It’s that time of year again. A time when we commemorate the birth of Jesus Christ, embark on a consumerist frenzy, get together with family and friends, set out milk and cookies for the patron saint of Coca-Cola, or at least some of the above. It’s probably a good time of year to reflect on giving; how we like to give, how much we give, and whether or not we’re each individually giving enough back to society.

(more…)

Tags:
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Mirror mirror, on the wall…

Wednesday, November 3rd, 2010

… who hadst the most inanely self-evident safety instructions of all? I refer you to bullet-point #3:





Really?

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

In defence of compulsory voting in Australia

Tuesday, October 12th, 2010

Compulsory voting is one of the more idiosyncratic features of democracy in Australia, enforced as it is at state and federal levels of government, as well as at local elections for all states and territories except South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. In “coercing” citizens to participate in the democratic process, Australia is somewhat unique; as a research paper published by the UK Electoral Commission in June 2006 [PDF] notes (p.21):

Australia is widely considered to be, and is often identified as, the leading example of an effectively functioning compulsory voting system with compulsory registration.

By far the most common criticism of Australia’s compulsory voting system relates to the coercive element; the fact that the state is forcing individual citizens to do something. In a twisted philosophical sense, one could even argue (as many hardline libertarians, cynics, and just plain lazy folks do) that Australian governments impinge the human rights of citizens by forcing them to participate in the democratic process. It is an ironic commentary on the bodypolitik down under. In the developing world during the last century, thousands or perhaps even millions of activists gave up their lives or livelihoods for democracy and the right to vote, to select the people who govern them. In contrast, in first world Australia, we are probably more likely to get organised and fight for the right not to vote; to not have a say. Or perhaps more realistically, to just switch off, tune out, and coalesce with the couch.

Peter Brent, the author of the excellent Mumble blog (now resident at The Australian) recently posted an alternative critique of compulsory voting, focusing on the negative implications our current system has for participation. Brent observes:

… fewer young people are enrolling. Many assume it’s something that’s done automatically by “the government” and are surprised to find they can’t vote.

At last month’s election some 370 thousand people tried to vote but couldn’t, mainly because they weren’t on the roll. And more (we don’t know how many) simply turned around and left the polling place upon finding they weren’t on the roll.

The argument goes, in essence, if both enrolment and voting were voluntary, young people and other slightly addle-brained, unenrolled folk who rocked up at a polling place on the day of the election could have their vote counted. Furthermore, the coercive element so distasteful to libertarians would be removed from the picture, and potentially a greater proportion of people who wanted to have their say, could do so.

It is a fair point to make, but let’s take a step back and remind ourselves of the reality of compulsory enrolment and compulsory voting in modern Australia. One would have to think that it is in the interests of a functioning democracy to maximise the number of people who involve themselves in the democratic process. A democracy where less people participate is, almost by definition, less legitimate then one where a greater proportion of people participate. Even considering the additional 370,000 people who theoretically could have cast their vote at the August 2010 election if enrolment was simplified and voluntary, it seems certain that this figure would be dwarfed by the likely millions of people who just wouldn’t bother turning up if they didn’t think they had to. Voter turnout in the UK at the 2010 general election was around 65%, and in the United States presidential election of 2008, around 61%. Contrast this to the 93% of enrolled voters who turned out for the August 2010 federal election in Australia. That’s not a reflection of the Australia’s fervour for democracy, sadly, that frankly laudable figure is a product of compulsory voting.

Secondly, squarely blaming compulsory voting and enrolment for our electoral system’s failings seems a bit wrong-footed. If there are indeed thousands of electors out there who were unaware that they had to be enrolled at their current address in order to vote, surely this is suggestive of a failure in electoral education or “ease of use”, as much as anything else. Technology-wise, clearly the AEC needs to allow people to directly update their enrolment online; this need has been underscored by GetUp’s legal victory just prior to the election. The bottom line is that the AEC should be granted the wherewithal by government to ensure that people know their democratic responsibilities. Where feasible, interdepartmental information (e.g. records of address changes) could be leveraged to assist this process, and to prompt people to ensure that their enrolment information is up to date.

Finally, let’s reconsider the “coercive” line of argument. Really, when it comes to the crunch, our system of compulsory enrolment and voting is not really very coercive at all. We’re not talking carrot and stick here; we’re talking carrot and wet noodle. One could even successfully argue that both enrolment and voting are effectively voluntary in Australia already. The fine for not voting federally is a not particularly catastrophic $20. People who decide to vote on the day but who do not want to support a particular candidate as a “protest” can vote informal if they so choose. For those who find it logistically difficult to vote on the actual election day, there are a myriad of excuses one can provide to the AEC in order to vote early or via the post. That are quite literally a barrel of ways to skin the coercion cat for those self-absorbed voters who are really interested in doing so.

Do we want a political system where more people have a say in who forms government, or one where less people have a say? Obviously its a rhetorical question, and to the extent that we can greater empower the AEC and government departments to help people exercise their democratic responsibilities, compulsory voting is not something we should be whinging about. The right not to participate in keeping democracy healthy in Australia is not a right people should be wasting valuable intellectual energy fighting for.

Tags:
Posted in Uncategorized, democracy | 4 Comments »

Time to put the miners in charge?

Thursday, September 16th, 2010

Whichever way you look at it, it is difficult to avoid the fact that the Rudd Government’s botched framing of the Resource Super Profits Tax (RSPT) was one of the key factors behind both the Gillard “putsch” and Labor’s poor result at the polls on Saturday August 21. The Minerals Council of Australia, with the help of some of the deepest pockets in Australian business, rivalled the success of the union movement’s anti-WorkChoices advertising during the 2007 federal election campaign. In terms of opinion-making, one could even argue that the mining lobby’s campaign was more singularly effective than that run by either the ALP or the Coalition during the election campaign proper.

Immediately after dethroning Rudd, Julia Gillard was compelled to seek a temporary advertising “truce” with the mining industry, which is testament to the brutal impact the campaign was having on Labor. She then wasted little time brokering an agreement with the big miners on a watered down regime, carving up the RSPT into a 30% Mineral Resource Rent Tax (MRRT) for iron ore and coal projects, and a proposed addendum to the existing 40% Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) for oil and gas projects. This deal “stopped the rot” politically and placated the most vocal amongst the mining lobby, but realistically, a lot of damage had already been sustained to Labor’s credibility in the minds of voters. Furthermore, vocal billionaires Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest and LNP backer Clive Palmer continued to publicly attack the government, and the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, representing many smaller mining companies, quite vocally (and rightly) criticised Labor for not inviting it to the negotiating table for the revised regime.

So with the miners having pretty much dictated play on one of the most hotly contested political issues of 2010, its rather interesting that BHP Biliton CEO Marius Kloppers is evidently now seeking to do the same on climate change. Kloppers, strangely enough, is now making the case for unilateral climate action independent of other countries, and for a local carbon price to be established. It is quite a remarkable intervention, particularly when one considers that previously the mining industry had by and large toed the conservative line on climate change, at best recommending that Australia only act on climate change as part of a binding multilateral agreement.

Given the pussy-footing and focus-group gabbling generally favoured by the major parties with respect to climate change policy during the past year, it really does make you wonder whether we should just cut out the middlemen and middlewomen in parliament altogether, and let the mining industry run the country? When one considers the influential interventions made by the miners during the last six months of politricking and electioneering, once gets the sense they already do, at least in a de facto sense. Perhaps it is time to end the charade and install Mr. Kloppers, Mr. Palmer or Mr. Forrest as our “Prime Miner” in chief?

At least we know they’ll run some killer ads come 2013.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

He’s a loathsome, offensive brute, and yet we can’t look away

Monday, August 16th, 2010

There’s now less than a week left to go in the campaign, and at least as far as I can tell, all parties of note are out of puff. The grandiloquent vision phase of the campaign [momentary or illusory as it was] is behind us, and what lies ahead is merely mad scrambling and pork scratchings. We are living in the curious purgatory that exists between the meaningful cut and thrust of the campaign and the Australian people’s collective decision. Despite my fleeting engagement with the whole shebang, and my geographical detachment (I am typing this from my hotel room in Gloucester), this feels like it has been a really long campaign. It has felt like a campaign about nothing, echoing the bilious taunts of Mark Latham leading into the November 2007 election; funnily enough an election that really did mean something to a lot of people. It’s certainly important to keep Tony Abbott and his intellectually malnourished team out of The Lodge, but it’s a bit of a shame that Labor’s driving urge in this campaign has been reduced to this.

But back to Mark Latham. The latest gem to emerge from Iron Mark, television journaliste extraordinaire, is that voters should leave their ballot papers blank “as a protest” when they vote in this Saturday’s election. This is a shameful contribution to the public debate that lays bare the depths to which 60 Minutes and indeed Channel Nine has sunk during the last year or two. An informal vote is a wasted vote; a vote for ignorance, disengagement and ultimately, recklessness. In order to perform its function as the “least worst” system of government available. a democracy needs to embody the will of the people. In a regulated, ordinated democratic environment like Australia’s, mass delinquency at the ballot box fundamentally undermines this principle.

Everyone – even Mr. Latham – ultimately has a preference. He can spin all the pseudo-anarchist bullshit that he wants to out to all of us, but at the end of the day, he is only lying to himself by arguing that he doesn’t have any preference between the major parties in this country. If he really believes he hates them equally, then he should opt for change and preference the Coalition, and stop being such a fence-sitting coward.

Tags: ,
Posted in Election 2010, Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

With gritted teeth, a parental leave scheme

Thursday, June 17th, 2010

Today the Rudd Government managed to deliver on one of its major pre-election promises by sealing the passage of a parental leave scheme through parliament, with the begrudging support of the Opposition. Breaking the cycle of negative news that the government has had to contend with in recent weeks, the passage of the scheme is not only a good thing for Australian families, but also a good thing for Federal Labor’s credibility heading into a fiercely fought election campaign. It is a tangible, practical achievement worthy of a Labor Government.

The behaviour of the Coalition on this issue has proven particularly interesting. The Coalition, has, since anointing Tony Abbott as Opposition Leader, been characterised by an unflinching negativity, an eagerness to play the man rather than the ball and a reluctance to announce policy positions lasting longer than a few press conferences. All of this makes the Opposition’s prolonged willingness to play ball with the government on parental leave rather surprising. For a number of months now, the Coalition has indicated that it would support the passage of the government’s scheme, despite proposing an alternative plan of its own earlier in the year.

One senses some disingenuousness in the Opposition on this issue. Despite the family friendly angle of parental leave, it runs counter to the “small government” economic mantra of the Liberal Party. There is a sense that the Opposition’s alternative scheme was cooked up purely as an attempt to gain traction with women voters and to try to out-point the government. With little doubt, Abbott would prefer to deny the government its scheme, leaving Federal Labor with one less policy hook to hang its hat on heading into an election campaign. The decision to break the cycle of negativity and support the government is undoubtedly in part motivated by fear that any opposition to the scheme could be politically fatal.

There is no policy conviction at all from the Coalition on this issue.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

An unexpected Christmas bulldog

Wednesday, June 9th, 2010


Unexpected Christmas bulldog

Tags: ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Tony Abbott‘s “great big new fail”

Saturday, May 15th, 2010

Tony Abbott’s budget reply speech [PDF] yesterday evening was a cynical exercise in smear, and as far as Australia’s economic future is concerned, practically ideas-free. This was not a speech that sought to respond to the Government’s proposals and to proffer alternatives – this was a speech squarely focused upon doing further political damage to the Prime Minister. The Treasurer, Wayne Swan, was not mentioned in the speech. The Henry Review report – the most substantial tax reform blueprint produced in decades -was barely mentioned. The Opposition’s well-worn “great big new tax” catchphrase was thrown in there no less than five times. And the only new policy offering alluded to was the introduction of a two-year freeze on back office hiring in the public sector.

Interestingly, it has been revealed today that there may have been one additional policy offering intended for inclusion in the speech – a cash payment of $10,000 to stay-at-home mothers. Abbott made an ass of himself on Neil Mitchell’s radio show this morning, attempting to avoid admitting that he had raised the idea in Cabinet, but wound up back-pedalling to the extent that he was forced to insult himself to stem the barrage of questions. As Joe Kelly relates for The Australian:

Mr Abbott said he didn’t think it was “fair construction” to say he was “rolled” by his colleagues.

When asked to put a fair construction on the discussion, he replied by saying: “I’m just not going to do that.”

And then: “Well, Neil, I’ve done the best I can. And I’m sorry if I’m a disappointment but I’ve done the best I can.”

A frustrated Mitchell fired back by telling Mr Abbott not to “play that trick”.

Mr Abbott laughed loudly and delivered a damning self-assessment.

“Yeah, I’m sorry mate. I’m being a wimp – OK?”

A momentary silence followed before Mitchell said “um, yeah… OK” and the conversation shifted on to Mr Abbott’s plans to freeze 12,000 public sector jobs to save an estimated $4 billion.

That Abbott allegedly even thought fit to raise such a policy as a suggestion in the current climate speaks volumes about his political nous and indeed his leadership abilities.

No wonder there was a big hole in his speech where a constructive policy centrepiece should have been.
Clearly, playing the “attack dog” and engaging in constant carping is one thing; policy formulation and setting out a positive vision for the nation is something else entirely.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

« Older Entries