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.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
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.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Ethiopia At Risk
I got an email today about a crisis in Ethiopia. Again. The rains failed. Again. Millions are at risk. Again.
But this isn't just another gloom and doom story. Apparently UNICEF programs for treating malnourished children have been working, and infant mortality has fallen significantly (not sure if that is in the statistical sense or in common parlance).
Rather than asking for money, the email asked everyone to raise awareness, both of the dangers but also of the successes. To tell people that foreign aid can work, and if we move fast we can prevent another tragedy. One of the ways they ask us to do this is postings on our blogs.
Given that my webtracker is still telling me no one reads this site at all, which clearly is not entirely true, I've no idea whether I'm achieving much at all with a post on the topic, but I think its a worthy idea. Info here.
But this isn't just another gloom and doom story. Apparently UNICEF programs for treating malnourished children have been working, and infant mortality has fallen significantly (not sure if that is in the statistical sense or in common parlance).
Rather than asking for money, the email asked everyone to raise awareness, both of the dangers but also of the successes. To tell people that foreign aid can work, and if we move fast we can prevent another tragedy. One of the ways they ask us to do this is postings on our blogs.
Given that my webtracker is still telling me no one reads this site at all, which clearly is not entirely true, I've no idea whether I'm achieving much at all with a post on the topic, but I think its a worthy idea. Info here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)