Reading about the crisis in Greece and Spain at the moment I can't help thinking there is a simple solution to the mess, and one which would simultaneously help with a lot of other problems as well.
I'm very much a believer in the line "for every complex problem there is a simple solution - and it's usually wrong'. But I keep wondering if this is not the exception.
With the exception of Ireland, the Eurozone countries in the biggest trouble are those around the Mediterranean, blessed with lots of sunlight (and in Spain's case wind). According to Paul Krugman, who I tend to believe on such matters, the way out of the Global economic crisis is for creditor countries like Germany and China to start spending more.
So isn't the answer to have the Germans invest big time in solar-thermal and wind projects in Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece, as well as upgrading the European Grid to bring that power to other parts of Europe.
Results: Lots of jobs for the countries that most need it; tax revenues for Greece and others who might otherwise be in danger of defaulting; German investors get assets that will be worth a lot as the energy crisis hits; Europe becomes to a large extent energy independent removing the danger of being held hostage by Russia and cutting the flow of funds to oil rich enemies; a major dent is put into global warming.
And the downside is?
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Monday, December 7, 2009
Misreading the By-elections
One of the odd things about the post-mortems written on the Higgins and Bradfield by-elections is the common assumption that the starting point for the Greens should be the combination of the Green and Labor votes in 2007.
In some cases this is just people who hate the Greens setting an ridiculously high bar so they can gloat about it not being reached, but the extraordinary thing is that some people actually seem to believe it, including some Greens who are downcast that it was not achieved.
It’s rather hard to imagine why anyone would expect such a thing. The ALP is many things, but amongst those it is the party of Martin Ferguson and Michael O’Connor, of Dick Adams and Gary Gray and Peter Walsh. It is the party which for 15 years sent Graeme Campbell to Canberra. On the issues the Greens ran on - climate change and refugees – all these people are well to the right of Malcolm Turnbull and some of them are more hardline than Tony Abbott. It’s unlikely any of them would vote Green ahead of a Liberal, particularly a moderate such as Kelly O’Dwyer. Why would one expect the voters they represent to do so?
The people who voted Labor in Higgins in 2007 had 12 options before them. To vote Green, or Liberal or for one of eight other candidate, or informalise their vote or to not turn up and risk a fine. By far the largest portion chose the Greens. We’ll have to wait for all the prepoll and postal votes to come in, but it appears that those who didn’t turn up are a very, very comfortable second. Those who chose the Liberals don’t seem much more numerous than those who chose the DLP or the Sex Party.
In Bradfield there were 24 options, and the Greens again streeted the field, although it seems the fine-riskers may have been closer to the rest of the pack.
The closest thing I can find to a justification for the expectation that the Greens will pick up almost all Labor voters is the theory that voters are tribal, and with generations of hating the Liberals in their blood Labor voters will always back the most obvious opponent. It’s an odd theory, when you consider that the Liberal vote has declined in Higgins over recent years. Some of this may be new people moving in, but mostly its former Liberal voters shifting their first preference. Not a lot of tribal loyalty there.
What’s more the conclusion is totally a-historical. Consider two elections in Liberal held seats in which neither the Greens nor Labor ran. In Menzies the Democrats took 22%, and two other candidates got 10.2%, of which a little over half flowed to the Democrats on preferences. The combined Labor and Democrat vote at the previous election had been 39.5%, so the Democrat primary was barely half this figure.
In Warringah in 1993 the ALP and Democrats combined for 38.1%. Two years later the Democrats got 15.9%. An extraordinary 13.5% voted informal. If so many Labor voters wouldn’t support the Democrats over a Liberal when the Democrats were in their hey-day, why would you expect them to all back the Greens now? Note that the Liberal candidates in those cases were Kevin Andrews and Tony Abbott – possibly less attractive figures to Labor votes than O’Dwyer.
In some cases this is just people who hate the Greens setting an ridiculously high bar so they can gloat about it not being reached, but the extraordinary thing is that some people actually seem to believe it, including some Greens who are downcast that it was not achieved.
It’s rather hard to imagine why anyone would expect such a thing. The ALP is many things, but amongst those it is the party of Martin Ferguson and Michael O’Connor, of Dick Adams and Gary Gray and Peter Walsh. It is the party which for 15 years sent Graeme Campbell to Canberra. On the issues the Greens ran on - climate change and refugees – all these people are well to the right of Malcolm Turnbull and some of them are more hardline than Tony Abbott. It’s unlikely any of them would vote Green ahead of a Liberal, particularly a moderate such as Kelly O’Dwyer. Why would one expect the voters they represent to do so?
The people who voted Labor in Higgins in 2007 had 12 options before them. To vote Green, or Liberal or for one of eight other candidate, or informalise their vote or to not turn up and risk a fine. By far the largest portion chose the Greens. We’ll have to wait for all the prepoll and postal votes to come in, but it appears that those who didn’t turn up are a very, very comfortable second. Those who chose the Liberals don’t seem much more numerous than those who chose the DLP or the Sex Party.
In Bradfield there were 24 options, and the Greens again streeted the field, although it seems the fine-riskers may have been closer to the rest of the pack.
The closest thing I can find to a justification for the expectation that the Greens will pick up almost all Labor voters is the theory that voters are tribal, and with generations of hating the Liberals in their blood Labor voters will always back the most obvious opponent. It’s an odd theory, when you consider that the Liberal vote has declined in Higgins over recent years. Some of this may be new people moving in, but mostly its former Liberal voters shifting their first preference. Not a lot of tribal loyalty there.
What’s more the conclusion is totally a-historical. Consider two elections in Liberal held seats in which neither the Greens nor Labor ran. In Menzies the Democrats took 22%, and two other candidates got 10.2%, of which a little over half flowed to the Democrats on preferences. The combined Labor and Democrat vote at the previous election had been 39.5%, so the Democrat primary was barely half this figure.
In Warringah in 1993 the ALP and Democrats combined for 38.1%. Two years later the Democrats got 15.9%. An extraordinary 13.5% voted informal. If so many Labor voters wouldn’t support the Democrats over a Liberal when the Democrats were in their hey-day, why would you expect them to all back the Greens now? Note that the Liberal candidates in those cases were Kevin Andrews and Tony Abbott – possibly less attractive figures to Labor votes than O’Dwyer.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Cap and Trade: Good, BAD, BAD, Good
The Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade Bill has passed the US has passed the US House. There's two bits of good news here and two bits of bad. Unfortunately the bad news is a whole lot bigger than the good, but I think one of the good pieces is maybe the most interesting.
First the first good news - something passed. That's a big step forward for America, and sends a signal to the rest of the world that everyone has to get on board about doing something about global warming.
Bad 1. It's a watered down bill, that will end up doing as much for the profit lines as some big polluters as it will about actually slowing climate change.
Bad 2. It barely passed, 219 to 212. That's not a good sign for getting through the Senate. Although it should have 50 votes, getting the 60 needed to break a Republican filibuster will be much harder. The margin is slightly deceptive - at least three people voted against it because it wasn't tough enough, but they (and maybe some others) probably would have come on board if their votes were needed. Equivalent people in the Senate would probably help bring it to a vote. Nate Silver discusses the prospects.
Good 2. It does suggest that Obama knew what he was doing. His failure to press for a better bill was to me perhaps the greatest failure of his administration so far. Was he doing this because he knew he couldn't pass a stronger bill, even if he used his authority? Or because he just didn't care that much about climate change compared to other priorities? This outcome suggests the former is more likely. Why does this matter? Well for one thing I think there is a high chance that Obama's power is going to grow. If his healthcare bill passes, the economy picks up, and there are no terrorist disasters he is going to develop an authority that may be very hard Congress to resist, particularly if the Republican's keep losing their leadership.
There's another reason though. Billions of people around the world have invested a log of hope in Obama. If he fails because he is blocked by Congress or other forces some will be disillusioned, but others will just redouble their efforts. But if he fails because of a lack of personal commitment, that will be a very hard blow to take, and may do a lot of damage to the idea that change can be achieved through democratic means. The possibility he's doing all he can may just be symbolic, but its a very important symbol.
First the first good news - something passed. That's a big step forward for America, and sends a signal to the rest of the world that everyone has to get on board about doing something about global warming.
Bad 1. It's a watered down bill, that will end up doing as much for the profit lines as some big polluters as it will about actually slowing climate change.
Bad 2. It barely passed, 219 to 212. That's not a good sign for getting through the Senate. Although it should have 50 votes, getting the 60 needed to break a Republican filibuster will be much harder. The margin is slightly deceptive - at least three people voted against it because it wasn't tough enough, but they (and maybe some others) probably would have come on board if their votes were needed. Equivalent people in the Senate would probably help bring it to a vote. Nate Silver discusses the prospects.
Good 2. It does suggest that Obama knew what he was doing. His failure to press for a better bill was to me perhaps the greatest failure of his administration so far. Was he doing this because he knew he couldn't pass a stronger bill, even if he used his authority? Or because he just didn't care that much about climate change compared to other priorities? This outcome suggests the former is more likely. Why does this matter? Well for one thing I think there is a high chance that Obama's power is going to grow. If his healthcare bill passes, the economy picks up, and there are no terrorist disasters he is going to develop an authority that may be very hard Congress to resist, particularly if the Republican's keep losing their leadership.
There's another reason though. Billions of people around the world have invested a log of hope in Obama. If he fails because he is blocked by Congress or other forces some will be disillusioned, but others will just redouble their efforts. But if he fails because of a lack of personal commitment, that will be a very hard blow to take, and may do a lot of damage to the idea that change can be achieved through democratic means. The possibility he's doing all he can may just be symbolic, but its a very important symbol.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
They Couldn't Get It Right, Even When It Benefited Them
The outbreak of swine flu is frightening. It may peter out (although that will still mean hundreds of deaths. Or it could kill millions.
One reassuring thought is that it seems to be fairly susceptible to Tamiflu and Relenza, the drugs based on the work of Graeme Laver. This will mean a lot of people who would have died otherwise will be saved, and even those who would have lived will have a much less hellish experience.
So the citizens of all those countries that stocked up heavily against the Avian flu threat should be feeling very grateful. That doesn't really include the US. While they probably hold the largest stocks in the world, on a per capita basis they're way behind. The funny thing about his is that apparently Dick Cheney held many shares in Hoffman La Roche, the company marketing Tamiflu. I remember reading (and responding angrily to) emails claiming the stockpiles were a conspiracy to enrich him.
So even when Chaney stood to benefit, the Bush administration couldn't do the right thing and create appropriate defenses against dangerous threats.
BTW, at one point Australia was lagging well behind the rest of the developed world in building a stockpile. Bob Brown became alarmed and asked a lot of questions in the Senate. He was told the situation had changed, and our stockpiles were being rapidly added to, and we would soon have the 2nd or 3rd largest per capita stocks in the world. It's not clear if Bob's pushing contributed to this, but naturally I like to think so.
One reassuring thought is that it seems to be fairly susceptible to Tamiflu and Relenza, the drugs based on the work of Graeme Laver. This will mean a lot of people who would have died otherwise will be saved, and even those who would have lived will have a much less hellish experience.
So the citizens of all those countries that stocked up heavily against the Avian flu threat should be feeling very grateful. That doesn't really include the US. While they probably hold the largest stocks in the world, on a per capita basis they're way behind. The funny thing about his is that apparently Dick Cheney held many shares in Hoffman La Roche, the company marketing Tamiflu. I remember reading (and responding angrily to) emails claiming the stockpiles were a conspiracy to enrich him.
So even when Chaney stood to benefit, the Bush administration couldn't do the right thing and create appropriate defenses against dangerous threats.
BTW, at one point Australia was lagging well behind the rest of the developed world in building a stockpile. Bob Brown became alarmed and asked a lot of questions in the Senate. He was told the situation had changed, and our stockpiles were being rapidly added to, and we would soon have the 2nd or 3rd largest per capita stocks in the world. It's not clear if Bob's pushing contributed to this, but naturally I like to think so.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
The Demise of Family First
After the last election Kim at Larvateus Prodeo joyfully announced that Family First's poor result was finished. I considered it to early to be so sure. In many ways the FF position in 2007 mirrored that of the Greens in 1998. Similar vote, each party left with one ongoing Senator.
The Australian Greens had 2 state MPs and one member in the ACT assembly at this point, while Family First has two in South Australia. Granted the WA Greens, technically a separate party had 3 state MPs. However, the Christian Democrats are almost as closely aligned with Family First as the two Green parties were, and they've got two members in the NSW Legislative Council. All up the situations look pretty comparable.
Given the subsequent rise of the Greens I wasn't confident Family First were dead.
However, circumstances have changed.
Post 98 the Greens needed some wins, and they got them. First electing avid Risstrom to Melbourne City Council (not only the first Green Party local councilor in Victoria, but to the most prestigious and powerful council). Then Lee Rhiannon was elected to the NSW Upper House. Some good by-election results (along with some bad ones) kept things rolling along until WA added another couple of state MPs and Queensland got a big swing at the 2001 election. All this before Tampa.
Family First's situation has been the opposite. They didn't run in the ACT or NT elections, did badly in WA and failed to make much impact at the various by-elections.
Now the Queensland result has been devastating. In 2006 Family First got over 4% in almost every seat they contested in Queensland, and broke 10% in two. This time they are currently above 4% in four seats (although to be fair they will probably creep over in two more). No result is above 5%.
Let's acknowledge two things. Firstly it was a harder election for them. There were more independents running than last time, the Daylight Saving Party gave a bit of competition in the South-East and they had a Green in every seat (last time their best results were where Greens didn't run). A close election also usually makes it harder for smaller parties.
On top of this Family First no doubt knew they couldn't win anywhere and would not have tried that hard.
Still, all that taken into account this is a terrible result for them. They've been outvoted by the Daylight Saving mob, on totals if not averages. They've dropped totally off the radar at a time when their Senator's profile has never been higher. They've demonstrated they have no serious party machine in Queensland and should not be taken seriously as able to deliver on preference deals.
Prior to the next federal election there are two more state polls: Tasmania and South Australia. Family First didn't run in the last Tasmanian poll, and I don't expect to see them contest this one. In South Australia they will probably hold the seat that is up for re-election, but unless they can go forwards in a big way they will be entering the federal election at a very low ebb. A half senate election will see them wiped out, with the two SA state MPs hanging on as a strange reminder of times past.
I have argued elsewhere that in a Double Dissolution they have a chance of winning a seat or two, and I still think this is correct. However, even this will just delay the inevitable, since they will certainly be short term Senators.
I think we can now be pretty confident right-wing religious influence in our parliament will soon be confined to the ranks of the major parties.
The Australian Greens had 2 state MPs and one member in the ACT assembly at this point, while Family First has two in South Australia. Granted the WA Greens, technically a separate party had 3 state MPs. However, the Christian Democrats are almost as closely aligned with Family First as the two Green parties were, and they've got two members in the NSW Legislative Council. All up the situations look pretty comparable.
Given the subsequent rise of the Greens I wasn't confident Family First were dead.
However, circumstances have changed.
Post 98 the Greens needed some wins, and they got them. First electing avid Risstrom to Melbourne City Council (not only the first Green Party local councilor in Victoria, but to the most prestigious and powerful council). Then Lee Rhiannon was elected to the NSW Upper House. Some good by-election results (along with some bad ones) kept things rolling along until WA added another couple of state MPs and Queensland got a big swing at the 2001 election. All this before Tampa.
Family First's situation has been the opposite. They didn't run in the ACT or NT elections, did badly in WA and failed to make much impact at the various by-elections.
Now the Queensland result has been devastating. In 2006 Family First got over 4% in almost every seat they contested in Queensland, and broke 10% in two. This time they are currently above 4% in four seats (although to be fair they will probably creep over in two more). No result is above 5%.
Let's acknowledge two things. Firstly it was a harder election for them. There were more independents running than last time, the Daylight Saving Party gave a bit of competition in the South-East and they had a Green in every seat (last time their best results were where Greens didn't run). A close election also usually makes it harder for smaller parties.
On top of this Family First no doubt knew they couldn't win anywhere and would not have tried that hard.
Still, all that taken into account this is a terrible result for them. They've been outvoted by the Daylight Saving mob, on totals if not averages. They've dropped totally off the radar at a time when their Senator's profile has never been higher. They've demonstrated they have no serious party machine in Queensland and should not be taken seriously as able to deliver on preference deals.
Prior to the next federal election there are two more state polls: Tasmania and South Australia. Family First didn't run in the last Tasmanian poll, and I don't expect to see them contest this one. In South Australia they will probably hold the seat that is up for re-election, but unless they can go forwards in a big way they will be entering the federal election at a very low ebb. A half senate election will see them wiped out, with the two SA state MPs hanging on as a strange reminder of times past.
I have argued elsewhere that in a Double Dissolution they have a chance of winning a seat or two, and I still think this is correct. However, even this will just delay the inevitable, since they will certainly be short term Senators.
I think we can now be pretty confident right-wing religious influence in our parliament will soon be confined to the ranks of the major parties.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Why the Queensland Election Matters
Many blog commentators are running with the theme, “The Queensland election hardly matters. State governments don’t do much these days anyway.” This line is perhaps a little stronger than usual because the powers of Brisbane City Council, for example over transport, mean the Queensland Government is arguably less powerful than its equivalents.
Nevertheless, I think the claim is wrong. This isn’t just because I think state governments still do a lot of important things, although I do, it’s because I think this election has far more significance for the future of Australian politics than most. For that reason its disappointing that those in a position to know regard the electorate as more than usually disengaged.
The background to this is that I have thought for some time that the Liberal Party is in danger of collapse as a serious political force. I doubt the collapse will come quickly, and I expect them to keep winning occasional state elections for some time to come. Nevertheless, I think without external salvation the combination of a declining talent base and an inability to face up to the implications of climate change will discredit them as a serious possibility for government, and without this the Liberals whole raison d’être ceases.
When I proposed this theory some time ago I noted that a global economic crisis in Rudd’s first term of government could change this, and give the Libs the liferaft they need. I’m sure I’ve seen one of those around here somewhere, so I think there is a real chance the Libs can avoid the fate I have predicted for them, but I still think it will be touch and go.
So why does this Qld election matter? For two main reasons. Firstly it is the first outing of the Liberal National Party, formed in a less than ideal manner. If Springborg wins then winners are grinners, all the internal nastiness associated with the formation of the LNP will be forgotten and the new revived force will breathe life into the Coalition north of the Tweed, providing them with great assistance at future federal elections.
If they lose, however, there will be deep recriminations. It should be easy to beat tired fourth term governments, particularly when the economic situation is not good. All the elements in the Liberal Party who were done over in the process of forming the LNP will reappear full of recriminations and the battle will rage throughout the period when federal preselections should be taking place. With a tiny membership in marginal Brisbane seats, branch staking will run rife. The federal campaign will be a shemozzle, and after that the recriminations will be even worse. Many areas of Brisbane already lack the healthy party infrastructure to cope if someone of talent does turn up. Give it two years of infighting and there’ll be almost nothing left, both in Brisbane and a number of regional centres.
I’d make an exception here for the loss by one or two seats. In this case its possible the party will hold together as people see themselves as being just a by-election or two away from victory.
So this election could go a long way to determining whether the Liberals are a serious force in one fifth of the country. A fifth, moreover, that is particularly heavily endowed with marginal seats.
The other major reason I think it matters is in regard to the Greens. If the Liberals do collapse I don’t believe this will usher in some sort of permanent Labor rule. But it is a bit hard to see what would represent the alternative. One possibility is the rise of the Greens to the status of major opposition party, with the ALP becoming the dominant party of the right. The obstacle to this is the way the Greens keep flunking opportunities to gain toeholds in the Lower Houses of mainland state parliaments (and of course the House of Representatives).
If the Greens could win a few Lower House seats, and their MPs be seen as doing a good job, public perceptions could really change when people are desperate for an alternative to Labor Governments. The following election could see a raft of Green MPs, and one or two elections later government ceases to be ridiculous. But at the moment, ridiculous is exactly the word.
The problem is particularly acute in Queensland. Lacking a state Upper House, and without a senator, the Queensland Greens have much less of a party structure than the other states. Historically, the quality of their candidates has also been lower on average, and this is hardly surprising. The absence of any local councillors compounds the problem.
Having temporarily acquired an MP through Ronan Lee’s defection this election offers an unusual opportunity for the Greens to make that breakthrough. Doing so would put the Queensland Greens on an entirely different footing, and provide a significant boost for efforts to win lower house seats in other states. The fact that Lee is not the favourite candidate of many Greens is unfortunate, but would not necessarily diminish the significance of such a victory. If Larissa Waters were to be elected in Mt Coo-tha, with or without Lee, the achievement would be unambiguous.
Now let me state that I consider the chance of a Green victory small in either case, and negligible anywhere else. I consider the chance of LNP failure much larger. But both will be worth watching on Saturday night.
Nevertheless, I think the claim is wrong. This isn’t just because I think state governments still do a lot of important things, although I do, it’s because I think this election has far more significance for the future of Australian politics than most. For that reason its disappointing that those in a position to know regard the electorate as more than usually disengaged.
The background to this is that I have thought for some time that the Liberal Party is in danger of collapse as a serious political force. I doubt the collapse will come quickly, and I expect them to keep winning occasional state elections for some time to come. Nevertheless, I think without external salvation the combination of a declining talent base and an inability to face up to the implications of climate change will discredit them as a serious possibility for government, and without this the Liberals whole raison d’être ceases.
When I proposed this theory some time ago I noted that a global economic crisis in Rudd’s first term of government could change this, and give the Libs the liferaft they need. I’m sure I’ve seen one of those around here somewhere, so I think there is a real chance the Libs can avoid the fate I have predicted for them, but I still think it will be touch and go.
So why does this Qld election matter? For two main reasons. Firstly it is the first outing of the Liberal National Party, formed in a less than ideal manner. If Springborg wins then winners are grinners, all the internal nastiness associated with the formation of the LNP will be forgotten and the new revived force will breathe life into the Coalition north of the Tweed, providing them with great assistance at future federal elections.
If they lose, however, there will be deep recriminations. It should be easy to beat tired fourth term governments, particularly when the economic situation is not good. All the elements in the Liberal Party who were done over in the process of forming the LNP will reappear full of recriminations and the battle will rage throughout the period when federal preselections should be taking place. With a tiny membership in marginal Brisbane seats, branch staking will run rife. The federal campaign will be a shemozzle, and after that the recriminations will be even worse. Many areas of Brisbane already lack the healthy party infrastructure to cope if someone of talent does turn up. Give it two years of infighting and there’ll be almost nothing left, both in Brisbane and a number of regional centres.
I’d make an exception here for the loss by one or two seats. In this case its possible the party will hold together as people see themselves as being just a by-election or two away from victory.
So this election could go a long way to determining whether the Liberals are a serious force in one fifth of the country. A fifth, moreover, that is particularly heavily endowed with marginal seats.
The other major reason I think it matters is in regard to the Greens. If the Liberals do collapse I don’t believe this will usher in some sort of permanent Labor rule. But it is a bit hard to see what would represent the alternative. One possibility is the rise of the Greens to the status of major opposition party, with the ALP becoming the dominant party of the right. The obstacle to this is the way the Greens keep flunking opportunities to gain toeholds in the Lower Houses of mainland state parliaments (and of course the House of Representatives).
If the Greens could win a few Lower House seats, and their MPs be seen as doing a good job, public perceptions could really change when people are desperate for an alternative to Labor Governments. The following election could see a raft of Green MPs, and one or two elections later government ceases to be ridiculous. But at the moment, ridiculous is exactly the word.
The problem is particularly acute in Queensland. Lacking a state Upper House, and without a senator, the Queensland Greens have much less of a party structure than the other states. Historically, the quality of their candidates has also been lower on average, and this is hardly surprising. The absence of any local councillors compounds the problem.
Having temporarily acquired an MP through Ronan Lee’s defection this election offers an unusual opportunity for the Greens to make that breakthrough. Doing so would put the Queensland Greens on an entirely different footing, and provide a significant boost for efforts to win lower house seats in other states. The fact that Lee is not the favourite candidate of many Greens is unfortunate, but would not necessarily diminish the significance of such a victory. If Larissa Waters were to be elected in Mt Coo-tha, with or without Lee, the achievement would be unambiguous.
Now let me state that I consider the chance of a Green victory small in either case, and negligible anywhere else. I consider the chance of LNP failure much larger. But both will be worth watching on Saturday night.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Music To Change The World By
Thornton McCamish quotes David Nichols in The Age today on U2. "This was a band that was made for people like me - middle class male, with a social conscience. And that annoys me even more. I don't need a soundtrack to my social conscience."
This annoyed me quite a lot, as does a lot of the criticism of Bono and U2. I'm also middle class and male and I bloody well do need a sound track to my social conscience. I find activism rewarding, but also bloody hard. Music, particularly music with political lyrics, helps inspire me to do what needs to be done.
Now I don't know David Nichols. I have no idea what he has done with his social conscience. I couldn't find evidence in his latest blog posts when I googled him. If he achieves a lot without the need for political lyrics good for him, but I resent the sneering condemnation of anyone who finds music reaffirming in their beliefs.
I'd add here that U2 have never been the most important band for me in sparking my activism. As my introductory post indicates, I prefer a much more obscure solo artist. And there are plenty of others who've meant more to me than the Irish foursome. I only own two of their albums, and can't find one of those. But I like the Joshua Tree and listening to it is more likely to raise than lower my next donation to Oxfam. I'd add that lyrics opposing violence or poverty don't seem so bad when you compare them with the self-indulgent paeans to one's current love object that make up the bulk of the music industry's output.
This whole thing seems to me to go with the frequent dissing of Bono for his activism. Now there are many, many ways I think Bono could be a better spokesperson for the movement to abolish poverty. Constructive criticism is good. Even carping criticism is fair enough if it comes from people at the coalface - representatives from the world's poor or the NGO workers who spend years in hell to make a difference. But you seldom hear it from those places.
The NGOs aren't always happy with Bono (still less with Geldof), but they don't go in for slagging the pair off as Irish millionaires who should shut their mouths except to sing. They know the two have saved millions of lives. If they'd been smarter and less arrogant they could have saved more, but I'll take their achievements any day over most of their critics, who can't seem to do a damned thing to make the world a better place other than sneer at the most visible representatives of those who are trying.
This annoyed me quite a lot, as does a lot of the criticism of Bono and U2. I'm also middle class and male and I bloody well do need a sound track to my social conscience. I find activism rewarding, but also bloody hard. Music, particularly music with political lyrics, helps inspire me to do what needs to be done.
Now I don't know David Nichols. I have no idea what he has done with his social conscience. I couldn't find evidence in his latest blog posts when I googled him. If he achieves a lot without the need for political lyrics good for him, but I resent the sneering condemnation of anyone who finds music reaffirming in their beliefs.
I'd add here that U2 have never been the most important band for me in sparking my activism. As my introductory post indicates, I prefer a much more obscure solo artist. And there are plenty of others who've meant more to me than the Irish foursome. I only own two of their albums, and can't find one of those. But I like the Joshua Tree and listening to it is more likely to raise than lower my next donation to Oxfam. I'd add that lyrics opposing violence or poverty don't seem so bad when you compare them with the self-indulgent paeans to one's current love object that make up the bulk of the music industry's output.
This whole thing seems to me to go with the frequent dissing of Bono for his activism. Now there are many, many ways I think Bono could be a better spokesperson for the movement to abolish poverty. Constructive criticism is good. Even carping criticism is fair enough if it comes from people at the coalface - representatives from the world's poor or the NGO workers who spend years in hell to make a difference. But you seldom hear it from those places.
The NGOs aren't always happy with Bono (still less with Geldof), but they don't go in for slagging the pair off as Irish millionaires who should shut their mouths except to sing. They know the two have saved millions of lives. If they'd been smarter and less arrogant they could have saved more, but I'll take their achievements any day over most of their critics, who can't seem to do a damned thing to make the world a better place other than sneer at the most visible representatives of those who are trying.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
The Real Threat
In the last few weeks I have, by implication, been called a murderer at least twice. Once was by Miranda Devine (with slightly more toned down versions by the usual suspects). She was alleging that environmentalists had sacrificed the lives of the people who died in Victoria's terrible bushfires by opposing fuel reduction burns. That very few environmentalists do oppose fuel reduction burns was irrelevant to her, as was the fact that the Victorian government seldom listens to the things the environment movement is pushing for anyway. Oh and that many of the most lethal fires went through areas that had been burnt recently anyway.
All this is old news. However, we've now had the spectacle of a Green Party member calling all those Greens who don't oppose flouridation murderers as well. Now I, like most of the fellow Greens I have spoken, to had a pretty open mind on flouridation. The opposition to her motion to condemn flouridation came from people who were concerned that process was being steamrolled and there was not adequate time to assess the issues. Only a handful had actually made up their mind in favour of flouridation.
I have read what appear to be intelligent arguements that conclude that overall the damage from flouride is larger than the benefit, and I was prepared to consider that these might be right. I knew that anti-flouridation campaigns had been discredited by some of the nutters who were involved, but tried to put this aside. Just because crazy people believe something doesn't mean it is necessarily crazy.
But the more the anti's spoke the more concerned I became. Many of the "facts" they claimed were things I was pretty sure were wrong. For example that the WHO was opposed. So I did a little research.
It didn't take long. I'm told National Greens policy on the matter is for a thorough inquiry into the issue, although I can't actually find it in our policy volume. However, if this policy exists its now out of date, because the NHMRC has done just such a study. It's a metastudy of all the recent research in the field (which is far more substantial than I had been lead to believe) and concludes that the only negative effects are aesthetic (discoloured teeth). As someone who suffers from this I don't trivailise its significance - if it affects one's love life it matters - but its certainly better than endless painful (and expensive) dentistry.
It's true that some studies have found small increases in serious conditions such as bone fracture rates in fluoridated areas, but even more have found reductions. Overall assessment is no net effect, and this applies for all the alleged forms of damage.
The important point here is not the issue of fluoridation itself. While the dangers are vastly less than opponents allege, it is also clear that the benefits are smaller than was originally thought, and are smaller still where good dental services exist. Much of the country has survived for many years without fluoride. If it was blocked it would not be a tragedy.
The danger is to the Greens. It is essential as a party that we make our decisions based on good science. The consequence of abandoning that path are all to clear in the last, unlamented, US administration.
This doesn't mean we should jump at every technology that has been proved "safe". There are arguments against Genetically Modified foods that go well beyond safety. Even if one considers the science settled here (and I'm not convinced it is) there is a case for opposition, at least temporarily. Even with fluoride, one can argue that philosophically people should not be forced to drink something they don't want, even if their fears are groundless.
But if we oppose these things we need to do it for good reasons, not because someone read something on an unreferenced website produced by an individual with clear mental health issues. If we go down that path we are in serious danger, because we will attract to the party people who don't understand how science works, and scare of those that do.
All this is old news. However, we've now had the spectacle of a Green Party member calling all those Greens who don't oppose flouridation murderers as well. Now I, like most of the fellow Greens I have spoken, to had a pretty open mind on flouridation. The opposition to her motion to condemn flouridation came from people who were concerned that process was being steamrolled and there was not adequate time to assess the issues. Only a handful had actually made up their mind in favour of flouridation.
I have read what appear to be intelligent arguements that conclude that overall the damage from flouride is larger than the benefit, and I was prepared to consider that these might be right. I knew that anti-flouridation campaigns had been discredited by some of the nutters who were involved, but tried to put this aside. Just because crazy people believe something doesn't mean it is necessarily crazy.
But the more the anti's spoke the more concerned I became. Many of the "facts" they claimed were things I was pretty sure were wrong. For example that the WHO was opposed. So I did a little research.
It didn't take long. I'm told National Greens policy on the matter is for a thorough inquiry into the issue, although I can't actually find it in our policy volume. However, if this policy exists its now out of date, because the NHMRC has done just such a study. It's a metastudy of all the recent research in the field (which is far more substantial than I had been lead to believe) and concludes that the only negative effects are aesthetic (discoloured teeth). As someone who suffers from this I don't trivailise its significance - if it affects one's love life it matters - but its certainly better than endless painful (and expensive) dentistry.
It's true that some studies have found small increases in serious conditions such as bone fracture rates in fluoridated areas, but even more have found reductions. Overall assessment is no net effect, and this applies for all the alleged forms of damage.
The important point here is not the issue of fluoridation itself. While the dangers are vastly less than opponents allege, it is also clear that the benefits are smaller than was originally thought, and are smaller still where good dental services exist. Much of the country has survived for many years without fluoride. If it was blocked it would not be a tragedy.
The danger is to the Greens. It is essential as a party that we make our decisions based on good science. The consequence of abandoning that path are all to clear in the last, unlamented, US administration.
This doesn't mean we should jump at every technology that has been proved "safe". There are arguments against Genetically Modified foods that go well beyond safety. Even if one considers the science settled here (and I'm not convinced it is) there is a case for opposition, at least temporarily. Even with fluoride, one can argue that philosophically people should not be forced to drink something they don't want, even if their fears are groundless.
But if we oppose these things we need to do it for good reasons, not because someone read something on an unreferenced website produced by an individual with clear mental health issues. If we go down that path we are in serious danger, because we will attract to the party people who don't understand how science works, and scare of those that do.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
For The Record
Some people are celebrating the news that Hugo Chavez is free to run for another term as president of Venezuela. Not me. This is not to say I think everything Chavez has done is bad. Far from it. My understanding is he has reduced poverty dramatically at home, and some of his foreign interventions have been positive as well.
But I don't trust the guy. He shows every sign of being a demagogue. Power corrupts, and Chavez strikes me as more than usually corruptible. I expect a steady decline in the quality of his governing. At some point he may just cancel elections altogether
A lot of Chavez's opponents are much nastier than he is, but there are plenty of good people who are against him as well. We shouldn't assume that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
I'm putting this here so I can point to it in a few years time when the Right are using Chavez's failings as a stick to beat the left. But I also hope that any starry-eyed lefties reading it pay attention. We've been down this road far too many times before.
But I don't trust the guy. He shows every sign of being a demagogue. Power corrupts, and Chavez strikes me as more than usually corruptible. I expect a steady decline in the quality of his governing. At some point he may just cancel elections altogether
A lot of Chavez's opponents are much nastier than he is, but there are plenty of good people who are against him as well. We shouldn't assume that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
I'm putting this here so I can point to it in a few years time when the Right are using Chavez's failings as a stick to beat the left. But I also hope that any starry-eyed lefties reading it pay attention. We've been down this road far too many times before.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
The Limis of Consensus
One area where I am not fully in tune with the party I belong to is the issue of consensus (I'm referring to the decision making process here, so maybe it should be capitalised). I think it has its place, and the world would be better if it was used more often, but I don't hold with the view (common in the Greens) that it should be used in all cases.
Consensus only works with fundamentally reasonable people, who have a commitment to working together in future for common goals, and are therefore willing to make compromises to maintain the relationships. Some people seem to think this is really always the case, its just that some people don't realise it and behave badly. But if they could just be brought to see...
We now have a consensus advocate in the most powerful position in the world, and we've seen just how limited its use can be. Even from a position of very little power, the Republican leadership were willing to block and frustrate, even though they knew that it would only take 2-3 defections for their strategy to come undone. Eventually it did, but they were so committed to opposition they prefered to take this risk than negotiate reasonable compromises.
Of course, within the Greens you seldom encounter people as nasty as Senate Republicans. Nevertheless, I think this is a demonstration that consensus is limited in its application. I'm glad Obama tried it, and I'd still like to see it used more widely, but also with caution.
Consensus only works with fundamentally reasonable people, who have a commitment to working together in future for common goals, and are therefore willing to make compromises to maintain the relationships. Some people seem to think this is really always the case, its just that some people don't realise it and behave badly. But if they could just be brought to see...
We now have a consensus advocate in the most powerful position in the world, and we've seen just how limited its use can be. Even from a position of very little power, the Republican leadership were willing to block and frustrate, even though they knew that it would only take 2-3 defections for their strategy to come undone. Eventually it did, but they were so committed to opposition they prefered to take this risk than negotiate reasonable compromises.
Of course, within the Greens you seldom encounter people as nasty as Senate Republicans. Nevertheless, I think this is a demonstration that consensus is limited in its application. I'm glad Obama tried it, and I'd still like to see it used more widely, but also with caution.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Do Nuclear Weapons Reductions Matter?
Inspired as I was by Obama's campaign, and his inauguration speech, I've had my heart broken by politicians too many times before, so I've felt plenty of caution as well. His appointments have been mixed. Some great, some terrible.
In terms of the moves he has made so far, they've mostly been good, but not surprising. Removing the global gag rule was wonderful, but we all knew he'd do it. Clinton did the same thing. But there are two things he's done that have given me hope that here we have someone more FDR than WJC.
The first is the more even-handed rhetoric on the Middle East, and the appointment of George Mitchell. I'm pessimistic this will work, but its great to see him trying. Even more exciting is the proposal to slash nuclear weapons by 80%, with the sweetner to the Russians of an abandonment of the missile defense shield on their borders.
Pretty much anyone who values peace will think this is a good thing, but I suspect most people will see it as a fairly small move. Cutting nuclear weapons on each side from 5000 to 1000 still gives us the capacity to wipe out civilization and cause suffering on an unprecedented scale. If the other 4000 bombs were (literally) overkill, does it really help if we get rid of them?
I'd argue yes, for several reasons. Combined these make the proposal a huge step forward.
1. Every weapon is a danger. It can be stolen, misfired or the vehicle carrying it could be in a crash. The US has had several near-misses. I'd imagine the Russians have had more so. Getting rid of 80% cuts this risk by 4/5ths. Probably more, since the remainder will be better guarded.
2. The message it sends to the world is very potent. Bush's pause on weapons reductions has legitimated the quest for nukes by Iran and North Korea and the expansion of India and Pakistan's programs. Demonstrating that grown-ups get rid of weapons, not add to them, is an invaluable message. Particularly to those nations that are at least partially democratic.
3. Should the worst happen and we really do have an all out nuclear war 1000 bombs on each side is enough to destroy the world. But there's a lot of evidence that in this circumstance quite a large proportion of the bombs won't go off. The technology will fail, or the human operators will resist. A few hundred bombs from each side would still add up to more deaths than from all the wars in history combined, but there might be something left to rebuild. Five times as many - no way.
4. The missile defense shield Obama is offering to give up in the deal is a destabilizing influence. Getting rid of it bolsters the chance of peace.
5. Keeping nukes is expensive. Building the defense shield much more so. The money saved will be very, very useful elsewhere.
6. Nuclear weapons contain highly enriched uranium, or plutonium. When they are decommissioned this is burnt in nuclear reactors. In the process there is less need to dig up new uranium. Since uranium from the ground has only 0.7% U235, while bombs are mostly 235 one bomb will power a lot of power stations for a long time. Avoiding digging up all that uranium is good for the environment, and for the indigenous people on whose land many of the mines sit. It also means there is a lot less depleted uranium sitting around waiting to be used. And the uses DU is put to are generally pretty nasty.
7. If you want to get to zero nuclear weapons, you have to go through the stage of having 1000 first. Obama may not be able to take us down entirely, but this move can pave the way for his successors, if they wish to follow through.
Of course the plan may fail. If Putin won't come to the party then Obama isn't likely to get rid of the bombs unilaterally. But even if that happens we still get something good out of the whole thing. Putin's ethical bankruptcy is exposed to the world, and the global population still sees Obama showing real leadership, which may encourage them to demand the same thing from their leaders.
All in all, I think its really good news.
In terms of the moves he has made so far, they've mostly been good, but not surprising. Removing the global gag rule was wonderful, but we all knew he'd do it. Clinton did the same thing. But there are two things he's done that have given me hope that here we have someone more FDR than WJC.
The first is the more even-handed rhetoric on the Middle East, and the appointment of George Mitchell. I'm pessimistic this will work, but its great to see him trying. Even more exciting is the proposal to slash nuclear weapons by 80%, with the sweetner to the Russians of an abandonment of the missile defense shield on their borders.
Pretty much anyone who values peace will think this is a good thing, but I suspect most people will see it as a fairly small move. Cutting nuclear weapons on each side from 5000 to 1000 still gives us the capacity to wipe out civilization and cause suffering on an unprecedented scale. If the other 4000 bombs were (literally) overkill, does it really help if we get rid of them?
I'd argue yes, for several reasons. Combined these make the proposal a huge step forward.
1. Every weapon is a danger. It can be stolen, misfired or the vehicle carrying it could be in a crash. The US has had several near-misses. I'd imagine the Russians have had more so. Getting rid of 80% cuts this risk by 4/5ths. Probably more, since the remainder will be better guarded.
2. The message it sends to the world is very potent. Bush's pause on weapons reductions has legitimated the quest for nukes by Iran and North Korea and the expansion of India and Pakistan's programs. Demonstrating that grown-ups get rid of weapons, not add to them, is an invaluable message. Particularly to those nations that are at least partially democratic.
3. Should the worst happen and we really do have an all out nuclear war 1000 bombs on each side is enough to destroy the world. But there's a lot of evidence that in this circumstance quite a large proportion of the bombs won't go off. The technology will fail, or the human operators will resist. A few hundred bombs from each side would still add up to more deaths than from all the wars in history combined, but there might be something left to rebuild. Five times as many - no way.
4. The missile defense shield Obama is offering to give up in the deal is a destabilizing influence. Getting rid of it bolsters the chance of peace.
5. Keeping nukes is expensive. Building the defense shield much more so. The money saved will be very, very useful elsewhere.
6. Nuclear weapons contain highly enriched uranium, or plutonium. When they are decommissioned this is burnt in nuclear reactors. In the process there is less need to dig up new uranium. Since uranium from the ground has only 0.7% U235, while bombs are mostly 235 one bomb will power a lot of power stations for a long time. Avoiding digging up all that uranium is good for the environment, and for the indigenous people on whose land many of the mines sit. It also means there is a lot less depleted uranium sitting around waiting to be used. And the uses DU is put to are generally pretty nasty.
7. If you want to get to zero nuclear weapons, you have to go through the stage of having 1000 first. Obama may not be able to take us down entirely, but this move can pave the way for his successors, if they wish to follow through.
Of course the plan may fail. If Putin won't come to the party then Obama isn't likely to get rid of the bombs unilaterally. But even if that happens we still get something good out of the whole thing. Putin's ethical bankruptcy is exposed to the world, and the global population still sees Obama showing real leadership, which may encourage them to demand the same thing from their leaders.
All in all, I think its really good news.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
How Moving Are These?
Of all the areas on which one might hope the US President would work for change, the Middle East was perhaps the one that inspired least optimism, at least in me. I figured that Obama would be too scared to take on the more hardline Israeli partisans, given the "broken alliance" between American Jews and blacks, and the pressure of the republican rumours on his religion. It certainly seemed that way during the campaign and the period between election and inauguration.
But his words since then inspire hope even here. I've been a strong supporter of Israel since I was a child, but the behaviour of its governments in recent years make clear that for its own good, as well as that of the Palestinians, it needs a president who can pull it into line. If Obama can do that, what can't he do?
Thursday, January 22, 2009
The Compulsory Inauguration Post
I didn't want to just be repeating what everyone else was saying, so I wasn't initially going to post on the inauguration. However, there are so many rich gems in this event I don't see any harm in holding them up to the light to catch yet another glint.
One point that has been made before is that Obama's heritage is about more than being black. When he was born it was still illegal for black men to marry white women in quite a few states. His election isn't just going to mark a breakthrough for blacks, its going to make what used to be called miscegenation completely legitimate, indeed actually cool.
I was reminded how significant this is when something triggered a memory of the sitcom CBS "Kate and Allie", about two single mothers who move in together. In one episode one of the characters finds herself at the dentist when the lights go out, combining her two worst phobias. She's talked through her fears by a charming sounding man, who eventually she asks out. He's doubtful, but agrees. Then the lights come on and it is clear he is black (and very good looking).
He warns her that they will experience racism going out together, but she initially thinks she'll cope. However, eventually she decides it is all too hard. When breaking it off with him she says, "You know my kids thought it was great we were seeing each other. Maybe soon it won't matter." I was surprised when I saw this episode. This was the late 80s. In Greenwich Village. Surely such things were now the province of Deliverance country?
The actors who played Kate and Allie's kids would be past thirty now, too old even to have been the shocktroops of Obama's campaign. But they're part of the generation that did this. And their children won't understand the episode at all.
Update: I looked up the show on Wikipedia and discovered that one of the kids went onto play Leo's daughter Mallory in The West Wing. How sweet is that?
One point that has been made before is that Obama's heritage is about more than being black. When he was born it was still illegal for black men to marry white women in quite a few states. His election isn't just going to mark a breakthrough for blacks, its going to make what used to be called miscegenation completely legitimate, indeed actually cool.
I was reminded how significant this is when something triggered a memory of the sitcom CBS "Kate and Allie", about two single mothers who move in together. In one episode one of the characters finds herself at the dentist when the lights go out, combining her two worst phobias. She's talked through her fears by a charming sounding man, who eventually she asks out. He's doubtful, but agrees. Then the lights come on and it is clear he is black (and very good looking).
He warns her that they will experience racism going out together, but she initially thinks she'll cope. However, eventually she decides it is all too hard. When breaking it off with him she says, "You know my kids thought it was great we were seeing each other. Maybe soon it won't matter." I was surprised when I saw this episode. This was the late 80s. In Greenwich Village. Surely such things were now the province of Deliverance country?
The actors who played Kate and Allie's kids would be past thirty now, too old even to have been the shocktroops of Obama's campaign. But they're part of the generation that did this. And their children won't understand the episode at all.
Update: I looked up the show on Wikipedia and discovered that one of the kids went onto play Leo's daughter Mallory in The West Wing. How sweet is that?
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Those Awful 60s
Conservatives hated the 60s, and they hate them even more in retrospect. But whatever their problems with feminism, black rights, anti-war protests and the beginnings of environmentalism, no one blames the people actually born in that decade. They were too young to be involved, and often too young even to be accused of being brainwashed.
But in Australia the people born in the 60s are giving the Liberal Party another reason to hate the decade. Because when they put someone of that group in a leadership position the outcome seems to be pretty consistently disastrous. Let's look at the list:
* John Brogden. The right hated him, but he looked the best thing a state Liberal party had until he called Bob Carr's wife a "mail order bribe" and resigned. Leading to them losing the unloseable election.
* Matt Birney. It's not obvious what was so bad about Birney, but he didn't last long as leader of the WA Libs, and is now out of parliament.
* Troy Buswell. It certainly is obvious what was wrong with Buswell. A lot of politicians hate women, but most manage to hide it better.
* Will Hodgman. Hasn't done too badly yet, but hasn't really been tested either.
* Iain Evans was considered an effective minister, but the shortness of his term as leader of the SA opposition says a lot.
* Lawrence Springborg. The Libs now have to admit some ownership of him now that they agreed to be assimilated. He's lost two elections so far, but if he wins the third all will be forgiven. However, if he loses this one it will be no ordinary defeat. The LNP will likely fracture into many shiny pieces, far worse off against a fifth term government than if they had stayed as two.
There are a few, such as WA Libs deputy leader Steve Thomas, who have been in positions of some significance without drastically screwing up, but also without covering themselves with glory.
Federally there are a few figures of note. Joe Hockey, Chris Pyne, Greg Hunt. But its noticeable how short the talent is compared to those born in the later half of the 50s.
It could be argued that this is simply a function of timing. It's hard to look good when you are the leader of the opposition, particularly against a relatively new government. But the thing is that these guys have actually had it a lot easier than their predecessors. They've been up against state Labor governments that were showing signs of tiredness, yet they couldn't hold it together.
Of course there is still time for newcomers to save the decade for the Liberals. The youngest members are not even 40. But the signs are not good. The Vic Libs have barely a member of the state parliament born in that decade. When Baillieu goes, possibly after a period under the 50s born Terry Mulder, they'll probably hop straight to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_O%27Brien_(Victorian_politician), born in the 70s. There are not a lot of names on the tips of people's tongues in other states either.
But in Australia the people born in the 60s are giving the Liberal Party another reason to hate the decade. Because when they put someone of that group in a leadership position the outcome seems to be pretty consistently disastrous. Let's look at the list:
* John Brogden. The right hated him, but he looked the best thing a state Liberal party had until he called Bob Carr's wife a "mail order bribe" and resigned. Leading to them losing the unloseable election.
* Matt Birney. It's not obvious what was so bad about Birney, but he didn't last long as leader of the WA Libs, and is now out of parliament.
* Troy Buswell. It certainly is obvious what was wrong with Buswell. A lot of politicians hate women, but most manage to hide it better.
* Will Hodgman. Hasn't done too badly yet, but hasn't really been tested either.
* Iain Evans was considered an effective minister, but the shortness of his term as leader of the SA opposition says a lot.
* Lawrence Springborg. The Libs now have to admit some ownership of him now that they agreed to be assimilated. He's lost two elections so far, but if he wins the third all will be forgiven. However, if he loses this one it will be no ordinary defeat. The LNP will likely fracture into many shiny pieces, far worse off against a fifth term government than if they had stayed as two.
There are a few, such as WA Libs deputy leader Steve Thomas, who have been in positions of some significance without drastically screwing up, but also without covering themselves with glory.
Federally there are a few figures of note. Joe Hockey, Chris Pyne, Greg Hunt. But its noticeable how short the talent is compared to those born in the later half of the 50s.
It could be argued that this is simply a function of timing. It's hard to look good when you are the leader of the opposition, particularly against a relatively new government. But the thing is that these guys have actually had it a lot easier than their predecessors. They've been up against state Labor governments that were showing signs of tiredness, yet they couldn't hold it together.
Of course there is still time for newcomers to save the decade for the Liberals. The youngest members are not even 40. But the signs are not good. The Vic Libs have barely a member of the state parliament born in that decade. When Baillieu goes, possibly after a period under the 50s born Terry Mulder, they'll probably hop straight to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_O%27Brien_(Victorian_politician), born in the 70s. There are not a lot of names on the tips of people's tongues in other states either.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
The Year To End All Wars
Mark 2068 in your diaries. It’s the year humanity will achieve its crowning glory – an end to war.
• We have a general tendency to think bad news is increasing, even when it is not
• Wars are now more reported than ever before, so we hear about atrocities in far off lands of which we know little.
• The wars that are occurring may well be becoming more bloody – at least in absolute terms – which creates a perception there are more of them.
There is no doubt new technology is allowing killing on a greater scale than ever before, and as the world’s population grows it is to be expected that death tolls will rise.
But the happier side of the coin is that the number of wars in the world is on the decline, and has been for quite a while. My very rough estimate is that every three years two wars are ended and one new one starts. A slightly less rough assessment is that there are 20 wars in the world today. On this basis it will take 60 years to end war entirely, thus the date above.
Now there are many, many things one can quibble over in these figures. The definition of war is not that easy, as is defining when many conflicts start and finish.. I’m sure I’ve also left out a few wars from the table below, and would be grateful for corrections (although of course I’d prefer that there are no more horrors to confront) I’ve put my definitions at the bottom. Feel freed to disagree with them, but I’m fairly confident that on almost any consistent definition you can use my broad conclusion is robust – the number of wars in the world is in long term decline.
The obvious fly in this ointment is that environmental degradation increases conflict and will lead to more wars. Already the Dafur conflict may well have been caused, at least in part, by desertification of the Sahel.
But against this there is the fact that wars tend to breed more wars, and peace breeds more peace. Conflicts on a nation’s borders lead to destabilisation, most clearly seen in the way civil war in Liberia engulfed surrounding nations. On the other hand, the more countries there are that are free of wars the more support there is for the humanitarian and peace-keeping missions, as well as the trade sanctions and moral pressure which collectively have contributed to ending quite a few of the world’s conflicts.
I think we’re in a race, to get the number of wars in the world down to the point where virtuous circles take over and war is put behind us like smallpox before global warming fans the embers of an unstoppable number of blazes.
I’m far from certain we’ll win this race, but there is a much better chance than most people realise that we might.
Nation’s experiencing wars[1] begun since 1993 (5)
DRC
Dafur
South Ossetia/Abkhazia[2]
Iraq
Ivory Coast
Nations whose experience of war stopped since 1993 (12)
Aceh
Algeria
Angola
Bosnia
Bougainville
Djibouti
East Timor
Guatemala
Liberia
Northern Ireland
Peru
Sierra Leone
Nations experiencing continuing wars (15)
Afghanistan
Burma
Casmance
Chad
Columbia
Eritrea
Israel/Palestine
Kurdish Turkey
Lebanon
Mindanao
Niger Delta
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Uganda
West Papua
Wars that started and ended between 1993 and 2008 (7)
Burundi
Chechnya
Guinea-Bissau
Kosovo/Servbia
Nagorno-Karabakh
Nepal
Rwanda
I’ve chosen 1993 as the starting point because it gives us as long a timeline as possible while still avoiding the events surrounding the ending of the Cold War, which stopped quite a few conflicts, while starting several others. If you take the starting period back to 1983 you’ll find the ratio of wars ended to wars begun is even more promising.
There are also a couple of wars I’ve found difficult to classify. Officially the war in South Sudan is over, but I’m not confident enough to put it in the second column. I’m also not sure whether Pakistan belongs in the first or the third column or should not be listed at all since it is more a powderkeg than an active war. The South Thailand insurgency is another puzzle – it started well before the era, but has spiked since 2004.
On these numbers we’re actually doing slightly better than my estimate, but several of the wars that have been brought to a close were quite small, so I’ll round down.
If I’m right, by 2023 we should have ended around ten of the current wars, although five new ones will have started. This doesn’t strike me as incredible at all. Certainly some of the wars listed in columns 1 and 3 look intractable (it’d be a braver blogger than I who predicted the end to the Israel/Palestine conflict, or peace in Somalia). However, many of these look like they could come to an end a good deal earlier. The peace treaty for Mindanao was defeated on an 8-7 vote. The Columbian FARQ and the LRA in Uganda look close to collapse and I’m pretty confident South Ossetia and Abkhazia will end up as peaceful independent states. It’s quite likely historians will judge that war already over.
It’s true three of the new wars are a whole lot bloodier than the ones that have come to an end, but if we can get the number of active conflicts in the world into single figures I think we’ll see fresh enthusiasm for positive global intervention.
And just think – if we could cut the number of wars in the world by a fifth in a period where George W Bush was president, imagine what’s possible when we actually have a president desirous of peace.
[1]I use the term “Nation’s experiencing war” to refer to situations where a political conflict is killing more than 1 person per hundred thousand per year. I think its important to look at the actual costs, rather than whether war has been officially declared. Of course the cost of war is measured in injuries and economic damage as well, but deaths per head of population are easier to measure and seem a pretty good starting point. The rate of 1/100,000 is completely arbitrary. However, as I have said I think the general conclusion stands up whether you use a higher or lower rate as long as one is consistent.
I have excluded from this definition cases such as Zimbabwe where a government is killing large numbers of its people, but the killing pretty much all goes one way. Whatever this should be called, I don’t think it is war. It’s pretty easy to demonstrate however, that atrocities of this form are also in long term decline – another reason for optimism.
A more difficult exclusion is conflicts that are not based on national or religious feeling, or political ideology, cf the Mexican battles over control of the drug trade. I’ve left these out because they’re harder to track, but also because, horrific as they may be, the death rate is usually lower than “proper” wars.
[2]The conflicts in South Ossetia and Abkhazia are so linked in cause and likely outcome I am counting them as one. Even combined, the death toll is still one of the lowest on the list.
OK, I’m not actually serious with that. The date is based on a calculation so rough it barely deserves the name, but I’m trying to make a serious point. Unlikely as it may seem, we are on target to end perhaps the greatest blight on human happiness in history, and in the life time of some people alive today.
• We have a general tendency to think bad news is increasing, even when it is not
• Wars are now more reported than ever before, so we hear about atrocities in far off lands of which we know little.
• The wars that are occurring may well be becoming more bloody – at least in absolute terms – which creates a perception there are more of them.
There is no doubt new technology is allowing killing on a greater scale than ever before, and as the world’s population grows it is to be expected that death tolls will rise.
But the happier side of the coin is that the number of wars in the world is on the decline, and has been for quite a while. My very rough estimate is that every three years two wars are ended and one new one starts. A slightly less rough assessment is that there are 20 wars in the world today. On this basis it will take 60 years to end war entirely, thus the date above.
Now there are many, many things one can quibble over in these figures. The definition of war is not that easy, as is defining when many conflicts start and finish.. I’m sure I’ve also left out a few wars from the table below, and would be grateful for corrections (although of course I’d prefer that there are no more horrors to confront) I’ve put my definitions at the bottom. Feel freed to disagree with them, but I’m fairly confident that on almost any consistent definition you can use my broad conclusion is robust – the number of wars in the world is in long term decline.
The obvious fly in this ointment is that environmental degradation increases conflict and will lead to more wars. Already the Dafur conflict may well have been caused, at least in part, by desertification of the Sahel.
But against this there is the fact that wars tend to breed more wars, and peace breeds more peace. Conflicts on a nation’s borders lead to destabilisation, most clearly seen in the way civil war in Liberia engulfed surrounding nations. On the other hand, the more countries there are that are free of wars the more support there is for the humanitarian and peace-keeping missions, as well as the trade sanctions and moral pressure which collectively have contributed to ending quite a few of the world’s conflicts.
I think we’re in a race, to get the number of wars in the world down to the point where virtuous circles take over and war is put behind us like smallpox before global warming fans the embers of an unstoppable number of blazes.
I’m far from certain we’ll win this race, but there is a much better chance than most people realise that we might.
Nation’s experiencing wars[1] begun since 1993 (5)
DRC
Dafur
South Ossetia/Abkhazia[2]
Iraq
Ivory Coast
Nations whose experience of war stopped since 1993 (12)
Aceh
Algeria
Angola
Bosnia
Bougainville
Djibouti
East Timor
Guatemala
Liberia
Northern Ireland
Peru
Sierra Leone
Nations experiencing continuing wars (15)
Afghanistan
Burma
Casmance
Chad
Columbia
Eritrea
Israel/Palestine
Kurdish Turkey
Lebanon
Mindanao
Niger Delta
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Uganda
West Papua
Wars that started and ended between 1993 and 2008 (7)
Burundi
Chechnya
Guinea-Bissau
Kosovo/Servbia
Nagorno-Karabakh
Nepal
Rwanda
I’ve chosen 1993 as the starting point because it gives us as long a timeline as possible while still avoiding the events surrounding the ending of the Cold War, which stopped quite a few conflicts, while starting several others. If you take the starting period back to 1983 you’ll find the ratio of wars ended to wars begun is even more promising.
There are also a couple of wars I’ve found difficult to classify. Officially the war in South Sudan is over, but I’m not confident enough to put it in the second column. I’m also not sure whether Pakistan belongs in the first or the third column or should not be listed at all since it is more a powderkeg than an active war. The South Thailand insurgency is another puzzle – it started well before the era, but has spiked since 2004.
On these numbers we’re actually doing slightly better than my estimate, but several of the wars that have been brought to a close were quite small, so I’ll round down.
If I’m right, by 2023 we should have ended around ten of the current wars, although five new ones will have started. This doesn’t strike me as incredible at all. Certainly some of the wars listed in columns 1 and 3 look intractable (it’d be a braver blogger than I who predicted the end to the Israel/Palestine conflict, or peace in Somalia). However, many of these look like they could come to an end a good deal earlier. The peace treaty for Mindanao was defeated on an 8-7 vote. The Columbian FARQ and the LRA in Uganda look close to collapse and I’m pretty confident South Ossetia and Abkhazia will end up as peaceful independent states. It’s quite likely historians will judge that war already over.
It’s true three of the new wars are a whole lot bloodier than the ones that have come to an end, but if we can get the number of active conflicts in the world into single figures I think we’ll see fresh enthusiasm for positive global intervention.
And just think – if we could cut the number of wars in the world by a fifth in a period where George W Bush was president, imagine what’s possible when we actually have a president desirous of peace.
[1]I use the term “Nation’s experiencing war” to refer to situations where a political conflict is killing more than 1 person per hundred thousand per year. I think its important to look at the actual costs, rather than whether war has been officially declared. Of course the cost of war is measured in injuries and economic damage as well, but deaths per head of population are easier to measure and seem a pretty good starting point. The rate of 1/100,000 is completely arbitrary. However, as I have said I think the general conclusion stands up whether you use a higher or lower rate as long as one is consistent.
I have excluded from this definition cases such as Zimbabwe where a government is killing large numbers of its people, but the killing pretty much all goes one way. Whatever this should be called, I don’t think it is war. It’s pretty easy to demonstrate however, that atrocities of this form are also in long term decline – another reason for optimism.
A more difficult exclusion is conflicts that are not based on national or religious feeling, or political ideology, cf the Mexican battles over control of the drug trade. I’ve left these out because they’re harder to track, but also because, horrific as they may be, the death rate is usually lower than “proper” wars.
[2]The conflicts in South Ossetia and Abkhazia are so linked in cause and likely outcome I am counting them as one. Even combined, the death toll is still one of the lowest on the list.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Good News From Switzerland
In Switzerland, over two-thirds of voters supported heroin provision to heavily addicted people. This is good news for those with a heroin problem, as the program saves lives, and it is also good news for the Swiss burghers who won't have their houses burgled as a result.
More importantly, it's good news for people in equivalent situations in a whole lot of countries. The overwhelming nature of the vote will send a message to jelly-backed politicians elsewhere. It is regrettable that a bill for legalization of cannabis went down at the same time, but in the long run I suspect the success will count for more than the defeat.
This is also very good news for the Greens. Personally I don't believe our policies are the major bar to electoral success. Lack of money and an absence of experience in government are bigger problems. Where our policies do get in the way its usually because they are badly written and need to be rethought.
However, there are some policies that do hurt our chances, and drugs and law and order are chief amongst them. The problem is that our policies here are basically right (give or take a bit of tweaking). They would save lives, cut crime and save money. We can't abandon them without selling our soul. Electorally they are a burden we have to bear, although of course writing them more clearly would reduce the damage.
So Switzerland's vote is very good news. For one thing it proves these are not policies the population will never accept. For another it gives us something to point to. Most people won't listen, but for a few, the fact that 68% of a developed nation backed something might make them question their knee-jerk opposition.
More to the point, this is a tide that will be very hard to hold back. Several other nations are considering adopting something similar. In a globalised world it will get harder and harder to scaremonger about a policy that not only exists in many comparable countries, but is demonstrably saving lives.
More importantly, it's good news for people in equivalent situations in a whole lot of countries. The overwhelming nature of the vote will send a message to jelly-backed politicians elsewhere. It is regrettable that a bill for legalization of cannabis went down at the same time, but in the long run I suspect the success will count for more than the defeat.
This is also very good news for the Greens. Personally I don't believe our policies are the major bar to electoral success. Lack of money and an absence of experience in government are bigger problems. Where our policies do get in the way its usually because they are badly written and need to be rethought.
However, there are some policies that do hurt our chances, and drugs and law and order are chief amongst them. The problem is that our policies here are basically right (give or take a bit of tweaking). They would save lives, cut crime and save money. We can't abandon them without selling our soul. Electorally they are a burden we have to bear, although of course writing them more clearly would reduce the damage.
So Switzerland's vote is very good news. For one thing it proves these are not policies the population will never accept. For another it gives us something to point to. Most people won't listen, but for a few, the fact that 68% of a developed nation backed something might make them question their knee-jerk opposition.
More to the point, this is a tide that will be very hard to hold back. Several other nations are considering adopting something similar. In a globalised world it will get harder and harder to scaremonger about a policy that not only exists in many comparable countries, but is demonstrably saving lives.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Are They Really That Dumb?
Today I received two emails about Steve Conroy's mandatory ISP filtering plan. One of them from someone I have a massive crush on, which usually helps when trying to get petitions signed, no? But I just can't get excited about signing the petition (although of course I sign a lot of petitions that make me depressed rather than excited).
Because this idea is so dumb I kind of hope they do it. I imagine at the moment there is a fair level of support for the idea - I mean filtering out child prOn or stopping kids seeing ordinary p0rn sounds like a good idea huh? But the consequences will be so disastrous, and so ineffective, that any government that does it is going to take some serious heat. And not just from a small minority of libertarians and techno geeks who're currently worried. No if they actually do this thing everyone who uses the web will hate them. Which is a lot of voters.
Ok the heat will be shared because the Coalition will have voted for it too, but the government will still get the blame, and the Greens in particular will stand to benefit.
So what is going on? Well one possibility is that they are so stupid they don't realise what a disaster it will be, despite every technical person warning them. Well it is Stephen Conroy we're talking about here, but its still a bit hard to believe.
Next option is that they can see the train wreck coming, but are so stubborn they just won't let go. Ahh, here's the part where the Steve Conroy bit starts to make sense. Still, surely there are more senior ministers who aren't willing to throw away 5% of the vote and the country's economic competitiveness to satisfy one man's obsession.
Which leaves us with option three. They know it is a dog, but for the moment a popular dog. So what they want is to be seen pushing it as much as possible, and then have it sunk by someone else. They can say "we tried, we really tried" to all the people who think it is a good idea until they have to use it, and blame its failure on someone else. Since the Liberals and Greens are both currently opposing the idea that works well. It probably won't hurt the Greens - they'll lose a few votes, but gain a roughly equal number.
On the other hand the Libs will probably be hurt whichever way they go. Vote against it and they will be tarred with supporting kiddie fiddlers or something. Vote for it and they will be part of the problem that put the country into the computer stone age. But if they let it through they'll be a small part of the problem, with Labor getting most of the blame.
So the whole thing becomes a giant game of chicken, watching to see whether the Libs lose their nerve and wave it through.
The country may have changed a year ago, but wedge politics didn't die.
Because this idea is so dumb I kind of hope they do it. I imagine at the moment there is a fair level of support for the idea - I mean filtering out child prOn or stopping kids seeing ordinary p0rn sounds like a good idea huh? But the consequences will be so disastrous, and so ineffective, that any government that does it is going to take some serious heat. And not just from a small minority of libertarians and techno geeks who're currently worried. No if they actually do this thing everyone who uses the web will hate them. Which is a lot of voters.
Ok the heat will be shared because the Coalition will have voted for it too, but the government will still get the blame, and the Greens in particular will stand to benefit.
So what is going on? Well one possibility is that they are so stupid they don't realise what a disaster it will be, despite every technical person warning them. Well it is Stephen Conroy we're talking about here, but its still a bit hard to believe.
Next option is that they can see the train wreck coming, but are so stubborn they just won't let go. Ahh, here's the part where the Steve Conroy bit starts to make sense. Still, surely there are more senior ministers who aren't willing to throw away 5% of the vote and the country's economic competitiveness to satisfy one man's obsession.
Which leaves us with option three. They know it is a dog, but for the moment a popular dog. So what they want is to be seen pushing it as much as possible, and then have it sunk by someone else. They can say "we tried, we really tried" to all the people who think it is a good idea until they have to use it, and blame its failure on someone else. Since the Liberals and Greens are both currently opposing the idea that works well. It probably won't hurt the Greens - they'll lose a few votes, but gain a roughly equal number.
On the other hand the Libs will probably be hurt whichever way they go. Vote against it and they will be tarred with supporting kiddie fiddlers or something. Vote for it and they will be part of the problem that put the country into the computer stone age. But if they let it through they'll be a small part of the problem, with Labor getting most of the blame.
So the whole thing becomes a giant game of chicken, watching to see whether the Libs lose their nerve and wave it through.
The country may have changed a year ago, but wedge politics didn't die.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Victory
It's probably impossible to make any genuinely original contribution to one of the biggest stories of all time. So I'll leave it at this short note on one point I haven't seen made explicitly before or after the election:
Besides all the other reasons to celebrate, its worth noting that one of the hardest jobs in the world right now must be being an Al Queda recruiting agent, particularly in Africa. That has to be good for almost everyone.
Besides all the other reasons to celebrate, its worth noting that one of the hardest jobs in the world right now must be being an Al Queda recruiting agent, particularly in Africa. That has to be good for almost everyone.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Playing For Peace
At the bottom of this post are links to two of the most inspiring articles I've read for a while. Australian readers may want to go straight there. Anyone from overseas might need a little background to make sense of them.
Australian Rules Football is an odd sport. Until about 30 years ago it was only really played in southern and north-western Australia, areas that include about half the national population. Americans sometimes describe it as a mix of basketball and soccer, although its more accurately a mix of soccer, rugby and a game played by the Indigenous population of Western Victoria. It's most similar modern sport is Gaelic football, which appears to be a derivative created by Irish gold diggers returning from the Victorian gold rush.
In the late 70s the people who ran the major leagues decided a little local game would not survive as more than a curiosity in the face of competition with global sports like rugby and what most of the world considers football. So they started an aggressive expansion campaign, joining up all the state-based leagues and making a push into the rugby playing north-east of Australia. Now they're moving on, trying to spark interest overseas.
Where this really gets interesting is that some of their expansion strategies have caused them to act in ways that are having some remarkable spin-offs. Football is something of a religion in many Aboriginal Indigenous communities, and the league realised that the skills of players from some of these areas form one of the game's greatest attractions. They've set up coaching programs in places that have been desperately under-resourced by the government. Children are only allowed to play if they attended school the previous week, and this has been the most successful program in Australian history in addressing truancy in remote communities.
More suprisingly, the league singled out South Africa as the best prospects for growth. They've approached schools in some of the poorest townships offering to supply sporting gear and administration money on the condition the schools teach Australian rules. For these schools battling parental unemployment over 50%, soaring rates of HIV and drastic underfunding this is a godsend. Some inspirational and hilarious stories have come out of this program.
One aspect of the international push is the creation of an international cup for all nations playing our rules other than Australia. None of these nations are remotely competitive with the local teams, although there is an on-again, off-again competition with Ireland in a hybrid of Aussie rules and Gaelic football. However, for teenagers and young adults from many developing nations getting a flight to Australia paid to come and play is pretty exciting. Soon, the AFL hopes, we'll have players from these countries playing at the highest level.
A joint Israeli/Palastinian team has been created to compete in the cup. Most of the players had never heard of Australian rules football before they were invited to play, let alone seen a game. They'd probably be thrashed by a weak team in an outback country league. One might think that you'd be better off doing the same thing with soccer or basketball teams. I believe such things are happening too, but as one of these articles makes clear, the very fact that the sport is new to the players can be a strength not a weakness, and of course the assistance from the League might be harder to obtain for an established sport.
When your team loses as badly as mine did this weekend its easy to hate football for a few days. But reading these pieces was as good as the best wins.
Ready. Here they are.
Australian Rules Football is an odd sport. Until about 30 years ago it was only really played in southern and north-western Australia, areas that include about half the national population. Americans sometimes describe it as a mix of basketball and soccer, although its more accurately a mix of soccer, rugby and a game played by the Indigenous population of Western Victoria. It's most similar modern sport is Gaelic football, which appears to be a derivative created by Irish gold diggers returning from the Victorian gold rush.
In the late 70s the people who ran the major leagues decided a little local game would not survive as more than a curiosity in the face of competition with global sports like rugby and what most of the world considers football. So they started an aggressive expansion campaign, joining up all the state-based leagues and making a push into the rugby playing north-east of Australia. Now they're moving on, trying to spark interest overseas.
Where this really gets interesting is that some of their expansion strategies have caused them to act in ways that are having some remarkable spin-offs. Football is something of a religion in many Aboriginal Indigenous communities, and the league realised that the skills of players from some of these areas form one of the game's greatest attractions. They've set up coaching programs in places that have been desperately under-resourced by the government. Children are only allowed to play if they attended school the previous week, and this has been the most successful program in Australian history in addressing truancy in remote communities.
More suprisingly, the league singled out South Africa as the best prospects for growth. They've approached schools in some of the poorest townships offering to supply sporting gear and administration money on the condition the schools teach Australian rules. For these schools battling parental unemployment over 50%, soaring rates of HIV and drastic underfunding this is a godsend. Some inspirational and hilarious stories have come out of this program.
One aspect of the international push is the creation of an international cup for all nations playing our rules other than Australia. None of these nations are remotely competitive with the local teams, although there is an on-again, off-again competition with Ireland in a hybrid of Aussie rules and Gaelic football. However, for teenagers and young adults from many developing nations getting a flight to Australia paid to come and play is pretty exciting. Soon, the AFL hopes, we'll have players from these countries playing at the highest level.
A joint Israeli/Palastinian team has been created to compete in the cup. Most of the players had never heard of Australian rules football before they were invited to play, let alone seen a game. They'd probably be thrashed by a weak team in an outback country league. One might think that you'd be better off doing the same thing with soccer or basketball teams. I believe such things are happening too, but as one of these articles makes clear, the very fact that the sport is new to the players can be a strength not a weakness, and of course the assistance from the League might be harder to obtain for an established sport.
When your team loses as badly as mine did this weekend its easy to hate football for a few days. But reading these pieces was as good as the best wins.
Ready. Here they are.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
More Liberal Doom
Having for a long time hidden their declining numbers behind secrecy laws the Vic Libs are now letting it all hang out. Some statistics worth keeping in mind from today's Age (can't find online):
Of the 13,373 "members" almost 2000 became unfinancial recently. Presumably some of them just haven't got round to rejoining, but quite a few may never be back.
6% (not a typo) are under 30, while 27% are over 75. In other words their numbers will be below 10,000 in a few years. There's simply no way they will get the new recruits to replace those who are not long for this world.
A quarter are in 3 electorates - Kooyong, Higgins and Wannon. They don't have a single member or Kororoit. I'm not sure if there is a single seat where the Greens membership is zero. The Age mentions having just 153 members in Gippsland, but this doesn't seem that bad to me - its a National seat and I'd imagine there are plenty of people who will join whichever arm of the coalition is dominant there. But that would only depress their numbers in two seats. Clearly there are a lot of state electorates where they would struggle to have a viable branch going.
Of the 13,373 "members" almost 2000 became unfinancial recently. Presumably some of them just haven't got round to rejoining, but quite a few may never be back.
6% (not a typo) are under 30, while 27% are over 75. In other words their numbers will be below 10,000 in a few years. There's simply no way they will get the new recruits to replace those who are not long for this world.
A quarter are in 3 electorates - Kooyong, Higgins and Wannon. They don't have a single member or Kororoit. I'm not sure if there is a single seat where the Greens membership is zero. The Age mentions having just 153 members in Gippsland, but this doesn't seem that bad to me - its a National seat and I'd imagine there are plenty of people who will join whichever arm of the coalition is dominant there. But that would only depress their numbers in two seats. Clearly there are a lot of state electorates where they would struggle to have a viable branch going.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)