This will be a quiet week for posts on this blog, mainly links to other writing.
Having completed the second post on Don Aitkin's book What was it all for? I woke up this morning thinking about one issue.
At the end of the book, Don talks about the need for Australians to have a conversation about a new Australian dream to replace the now defunct social compact that used to underpin Australian life.
I woke up thinking about the importance of compassion.
The word most commonly used in recent years to describe Australia is tolerant. Australians are, or are at least meant to be, tolerant. I think that this is important, especially at a time society is becoming in some ways less tolerant.
However, tolerance of itself simply means accepting difference. Compassion is a stronger word because it means understanding other's misfortunes and indeed errors.
A society without compassion may be succesful in economic terms, but it will be poorer in human terms.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Sunday Essay - What was it all for? part 2
This post continues my review that I began in Train Reading - Don Aitkin's What was it all for? 1. Just a reminder that the book looks at social change in Australia over the last fifty years in part through the prism set by the Armidale High School Leaving Certificate class of 1953.
No one would deny, I think, that the position of women has improved enormously. The women in the class of 53 had far fewer opportunities open to them than their equivalents today. I also suspect, although this one is less certain, that few would would want to go back to some of the hard physical labour that still existed in the 1950s before machines reduced the load.
All this said, the working world today is in some ways less pleasant, less secure, harder, than it was when the class of 53 began work.
Working hours have increased. The once stereotypical easy going casual Australian has been replaced by a far more competitive and driven person.
To my mind, and I have monitored this quite closely, actual working hours have not increased as much as people think. What has happened is that somewhat longer working hours have combined with longer travel time to get to work. Then, most recently, the new communications technologies have led to an invasion by work into previous domestic space. We all know the people unable to put their blackberries aside.
Increased working hours have been associated with another trend. Don puts it this way:
Another feature of the world of work has been the the parallel rise and fall of the professions.
Professions and sub-professions have proliferated. There are now more professions and professionals than at any previous time in human history. Yet the prestige of the professions has declined in parallel. The social cachet once associated with being a professional has largely gone.
In some ways the saddest group in the class of 53 were the school teachers. Saddest is my word, not theirs. They loved their work, yet most seem to have taken early retirement. The issue was not money, although teachers' salaries have declined in relative terms and are unlikely to recover. Rather, the fun went out of it as they coped with increasing rules and complexities.
The teachers were not alone. The same pattern occurred across other professional groups and for the same reasons. In a sense, the class of 53 were lucky in that they were on old style super schemes, making it easier for them to exit. The loss to the community from early retirement, from people opting out even while working, is one of the unseen costs of social change.
Throughout the book, Don traces the rise of new concepts.
In 1951, economy was something that households and individuals practiced. Fifty years later it was one of three great collectives. Again to quote Don:
This concept did not exist, or did not exist in the same form, in 1953. Then Governments were simply trying to provide a basic common standard of service. Then, too, the range of options open to people was less. Whether the emphasis on choice has in fact delivered better results is open to question.
Another word Don mentions is 'compliance', indeed a very popular word today. In the professions, for example, he suggests that compliance has in fact replaced the old concept of professional independence.
He also suggests, and I found this interesting, that there has been a direct link between withdrawal of Governments from activities (another feature of the last fifty years) and the rise of compliance. As Governments withdrew, they placed greater emphasis on compliance as a way of still enforcing their position.
The last chapter in the book is entitled what happened to the dream?
While Don is positive about many of the changes that have taken to place, he also points to the way that the old social compact that used to underpin Australian has gone without anything coming in its place. He suggests, and I agree, that we need a national conversation about the ideals that should underpin the way Australia works.
It is men, rather than women, who have been the notable casualties in the transformation of work. It is certainly the case that nearly 30 per cent of men aged 25 and more cannot find full time work, while part-time work has to some extent been colonised by women and the young (p121).While Don's view of the changes that have taken place in Australia is generally positive, he also recognises the negatives. Here his chapter on the world of work provides a quite penetrating picture of the changes that have taken place.
No one would deny, I think, that the position of women has improved enormously. The women in the class of 53 had far fewer opportunities open to them than their equivalents today. I also suspect, although this one is less certain, that few would would want to go back to some of the hard physical labour that still existed in the 1950s before machines reduced the load.
All this said, the working world today is in some ways less pleasant, less secure, harder, than it was when the class of 53 began work.
Working hours have increased. The once stereotypical easy going casual Australian has been replaced by a far more competitive and driven person.
To my mind, and I have monitored this quite closely, actual working hours have not increased as much as people think. What has happened is that somewhat longer working hours have combined with longer travel time to get to work. Then, most recently, the new communications technologies have led to an invasion by work into previous domestic space. We all know the people unable to put their blackberries aside.
Increased working hours have been associated with another trend. Don puts it this way:
for one overwhelming change to the world of work in the second half of the twentieth century was the end of security of tenure (p101).I do not think that the importance of this can be overstated. During a period of rapid change, jobs vanished, new one appeared. Again to quote Don:
one sad rule is that the people displaced are hardly ever the people who gain the new jobs (p102).The casualisation of work, the rise of contractors, the loss of jobs, have all combined to create a pervasive sense of uncertainty. Incomes have increased, driven in part by the rise of two income families, but this has come at a cost.
Another feature of the world of work has been the the parallel rise and fall of the professions.
Professions and sub-professions have proliferated. There are now more professions and professionals than at any previous time in human history. Yet the prestige of the professions has declined in parallel. The social cachet once associated with being a professional has largely gone.
In some ways the saddest group in the class of 53 were the school teachers. Saddest is my word, not theirs. They loved their work, yet most seem to have taken early retirement. The issue was not money, although teachers' salaries have declined in relative terms and are unlikely to recover. Rather, the fun went out of it as they coped with increasing rules and complexities.
The teachers were not alone. The same pattern occurred across other professional groups and for the same reasons. In a sense, the class of 53 were lucky in that they were on old style super schemes, making it easier for them to exit. The loss to the community from early retirement, from people opting out even while working, is one of the unseen costs of social change.
Throughout the book, Don traces the rise of new concepts.
In 1951, economy was something that households and individuals practiced. Fifty years later it was one of three great collectives. Again to quote Don:
'society' describes us as individuals, families and organisations; 'polity' refers to us as citizens, voters and democrats; and 'economy' includes us as workers, spenders and investors (p41).One of the words that Don looks at is 'choice'. Today, the concept of choice has become a central justification for many measures: people must have choice.
This concept did not exist, or did not exist in the same form, in 1953. Then Governments were simply trying to provide a basic common standard of service. Then, too, the range of options open to people was less. Whether the emphasis on choice has in fact delivered better results is open to question.
Another word Don mentions is 'compliance', indeed a very popular word today. In the professions, for example, he suggests that compliance has in fact replaced the old concept of professional independence.
He also suggests, and I found this interesting, that there has been a direct link between withdrawal of Governments from activities (another feature of the last fifty years) and the rise of compliance. As Governments withdrew, they placed greater emphasis on compliance as a way of still enforcing their position.
The last chapter in the book is entitled what happened to the dream?
While Don is positive about many of the changes that have taken to place, he also points to the way that the old social compact that used to underpin Australian has gone without anything coming in its place. He suggests, and I agree, that we need a national conversation about the ideals that should underpin the way Australia works.
A little more on CHOGM 2009
Further to my post, The importance of the Commonwealth, it seems that Mr Rudd agrees with me. Australia will host the 2011 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM).
If the Australian reporting is correct, Mr Rudd appears to have played a significant role in the climate change outcome, chairing the group that drew up the climate change communiqué.
The importance of the Commonwealth
I have a post coming up later today completing my review of Don Aitkin's book What was it all for? and so had no intention of posting.
Then driving through the early morning light to take Clare to work, I listened to the BBC World Debate, this week on the question the Commonwealth at 60: does it have a future? The program was live, so it is not up yet.
Yesterday in Saturday Morning Musings - Liberal implosion, the importance of the Commonwealth I mentioned the decline in knowledge in Australia about the Commonwealth. Listening to the program, I actually got annoyed with myself because it revealed my own lack of knowledge, showed how out of touch I was getting.
Like most of us in a time poor world I rely to a degree on the Australian media for my knowledge of the world. I do check beyond, but the Australian media is still my first source.
As I listened to a panel discussion including the foreign ministers for UK and Bangladesh, I realised that the almost complete absence of Commonwealth reporting meant that my own knowledge had atrophied. To illustrate what I mean, I thought that I should look at some of the issues covered in the panel discussion. I leave it in your hands to judge whether these issues are important from an Australian perspective.
The timing of this CHOGM (Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting) just before Copenhagen gave it added importance.
Climate change has been an important issue within the Commonwealth for some years simply because so many Commonwealth countries are affected. We know of the Pacific island states, but (and as the Bangladesh Foreign Minister pointed out) Bangladesh faces the possibility of 20-30 million displaced people.
Successive Australian Governments have in fact been quite dismissive of the concerns of the smaller nations whether expressed through the Commonwealth or other bodies such as the Pacific Island Forum. To those nations, the Commonwealth has been important in a way outside Australia's ken because it provides a vehicle through which they can at least press their case.
The importance of this CHOGM from a climate change perspective was marked by the presence of the UN Secretary General, the Prime Minister of Denmark and the French President at the summit.
The presence of the French President was quite striking.
France has its own Francaphone equivalent to the Commonwealth and has been deeply suspicious of the Commonwealth as a threat to the French language and culture. Further, this CHOGM is considering an application for membership by Rawanda, a country that has been trying to join the Commonwealth for six years and even changed its official language from French to English to support its case! Yet there was the French President.
As Neil noted in To Senator Nick Minchin, the Queen Elizabeth's opening address set the tone:
And on this, the eve of the UN Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change, the Commonwealth has an opportunity to lead once more. The threat to our environment is not a new concern. But it is now a global challenge which will continue to affect the security and stability of millions for years to come. Many of those affected are among the most vulnerable, and many of the people least well able to withstand the adverse effects of Climate Change live in the Commonwealth.
The Queen always speaks carefully because of her multiple roles. However, there can be no doubting her commitment on this issue, nor that of her husband and son.
There is, as Neil implied in his post, a kind of delicious irony in the fact that some of the strongest supporters of monarchy in Australia are leading the anti-climate change push. There is an almost more delicious irony in the fact that some of those in Australia who are most anti-monarchy and who want to dismantle traditional ties, Mr Turnbull comes to mind, find a base for support for their environmental positions within those institutions that they want to do away with!
As it happened, the French President got the support he wanted for a joint French/UK initiative to establish a climate change fund. Commonwealth leaders also called for a "legally binding" agreement on climate change to be reached in Copenhagen next month. Fifty three nations are not to be dismissed. The CHOGM did , I think, improve Copenhagen's chances.
The climate change discussion links to one of the issues canvassed in the BBC forum,the extent to which the Commonwealth can or should play an international role beyond that of talking shop. Here the British Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary made a very important point.
The Commonwealth is not a United Nations. All Commonwealth countries are members of multiple bodies. Their Commonwealth ties are one and not normally the most important of their international linkages. What, then, is the use of the Commonwealth?
David Miliband suggested that it lay in the exercise of soft-power, the way the Commonwealth facilitated dialogue. I do not find this a fully satisfactory answer from a personal perspective. It is too wishy-washy.
There is no doubt that the Commonwealth is facing something of a crisis of confidence, of self-reflection, of uncertainty. In some ways the organisation reached its peak during de-colonisation where it played a key role. The very idea of international election monitors is a Commonwealth invention. Now, as the body turns sixty, people question its relevance in a more complex world.
The very fact that I did not know, nor I think do most Australians, that this year's CHOGM marked the sixtieth anniversary of the Commonwealth is a sign of the organisation's decline in popular perception.
I cannot give you a clear and unequivocal answer as to the future relevance of the Commonwealth. I can, however, point to some of the reasons why I think the Commonwealth should and probably will survive.
The first is that countries still want to belong. Even Australia, where the Commonwealth has to some degree become a dusty memory of what is now seen as an increasingly irrelevant past, has no particular desire to withdraw. Membership is simply useful.
Actually, the question of whether countries like Australia should be excluded from the Commonwealth was raised by the moderator during the BBC discussion. The argument went this way: if Australians were no longer interested, should they then remain?
The question got short shrift and indeed it was partially rhetorical. It is in the Commonwealth's interest for Australia to remain. However, if Australia is to remain a member, then we do need to address the question of our contribution.
Beyond established developed countries like Canada or Australia where Commonwealth support has been declining, the continued wish of new countries to join the Commonwealth is a sign of continued perceived relevance.
Rawanda is a case in point. Here six year's work is likely to pay off at this CHOGM with a positive decision on membership. African members support Rawanda's application, as does at least the UK, Canada and Australia.
The issue of new Commonwealth membership is a complicated one and highlights some of the interesting tensions within the Commonwealth. What began as an Empire club began to change with the admission of the Cameroon and Mozambique in 1995.
The thought that countries outside the old Commonwealth and Empire would wish to join would have seemed inconceivable sixty years ago. Yet the combination of the Commonwealth's infrastructure (the huge web of Commonwealth institutions) with its role as a forum has attracted new members.
Joining the Commonwealth is not easy. Existing members wonder how the institution will retain its coherence. There are very specific issues about the maintenance of shared values.
The question of shared values links to democratic and human rights. Many Australian critics of the Commonwealth point to the presence of continuing human rights abuses in Commonwealth countries. Why, they suggest, should Australia belong to a club some of whose members have practices that our alien to ours? And what does the Commonwealth do about this?
I think that it is useful here to compare the UN with the Commonwealth.
The UN is a world governing body. It's role is manage the relations between nations to minimise conflict and to facilitate the achievement of joint aims. To this end, UN membership is essentially open to all, and has to be, regardless of the system of Government.
As a club, the Commonwealth is very different.
The Commonwealth is quite diverse. In religious terms, for example, its major religions are Hindu (800 million), Muslim (500 million) and Christian (400 million). It is not a governing body, just a club. The challenge is how to manage this.
In many ways the Commonwealth is a force for human rights and democratic values in a way that the UN cannot. Its strength is intangible.
There is a glass half full, half empty issue here.
The Commonwealth's failure, its inability to act at times, has been well documented. Its only weapon is exclusion from membership. Zimbabwe is no longer a member of the Commonwealth, Fiji's membership has been suspended.
So long as countries want to remain members of the Commonwealth, then the institution's commitment to human rights and democratic values remains important. This is not a small thing, even if far from perfect. In simple terms, it places pressure on national leaders and on governing institutions.
The case of Rawanda is instructive. The central issue with membership is whether that country has improved its human rights position to the point that membership can be supported. Some argue no, many national governments including Australia argue yes. If Rawanda's membership is accepted, then that country enters into an arrangement that exposes it to further scrutiny.
In all this, one of the reason why I remain such a Commonwealth supporter is the way membership can facilitate interaction between different cultures. I just love the diversity!
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Saturday Morning Musings - Liberal implosion, the importance of the Commonwealth
This week can best be described as a blogger's nightmare, just to much to write about!
In Australia, the Liberal Party implosion over the Emissions Trading Scheme has understandably dominated news to the immense, almost unseemly, pleasure of Thomas on blog, Twitter and in Facebook. Thomas, a political tragic from way-back who is usually more immersed in US events, has written some interesting stuff.
For my part, I simply don't understand the Liberal Party factions. Factions used to belong to Labor. Their emergence in the Liberal Party over the last fifteen years is a significant story because of what it may say about the nature of change within Australian society. Perhaps Thomas will explain to me some day.
One of the interesting features of the whole affray has been the inability of the media to properly understand Mr Turnbull. He has been playing the game a little outside the rules as understood by the journalists, creating interesting (to me) tensions in reporting.
I have no idea how things are going to play out. I simply don't know enough about the internal world of the Liberal Party.
Just guessing, Mr Turnbull will try to get the ETS legislation through Monday. If he does, then the dynamics of Tuesday's Party meeting will shift. If he fails, then he will certainly fall Tuesday and the Government will probably go through to a double dissolution election. All very fascinating.
The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting is being held this weekend in Trinidad and Tobago, drawing together the leaders of 53 Commonwealth countries.
As an aside, I really hate Flash. There was a rather great photo of the leaders grouped in front of the flags with the Australian PM in the front row on the far right. But is it unusable, at least to me.
CHOGM has been associated with a large variety of events - youth forums, business meetings etc, drawing together people from this very disparate entity. In population terms, the Commonwealth is the largest and most varied global entity after the United Nations. It is also a body that has been struggling to some degree to redefine itself after its earlier successes in aiding the de-colonisation process.
A major survey carried out by the Royal Commonwealth Society as part of its Commonwealth Conversation program pointed to some of the problems. Support for the Commonwealth is highest in developing countries, lower in developed countries. In all cases, there is a lack of knowledge of the Commonwealth.
Of all Commonwealth countries, Australia appears to have the least knowledge of and support for the Commonwealth. I accept that I am old fashioned, but I think that's a pity.
At a purely practical level, the Commonwealth provides an entry point into a variety of cultures that are different yet linked through history. Love or hate the Empire, its imprint is still with us.
My daughters and indeed my wife might challenge this, but I knew far more about other countries than my daughters do at the same age. Yes, it was a partial slice, the world coloured pink on the map, but it was still knowledge outside the confines set by Australia.
Things change. Yet, perhaps, I can be forgiven for continuing to argue that things like the Commonwealth are worth preserving because they broaden us.
Friday, November 27, 2009
CEC - strangeness on the fringes
I simply report this gem from the Australian Citizens Electoral Council without comment.
Isherwood: Who would have thought? British genocidalists are liars too
The British oligarchy’s depopulation charity, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), established in 1961 by Prince Philip and “former” Nazi Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands to realise their wet dream of reducing the world’s population to two billion or so people, is a key paymaster of the lying scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU).
The CRU basically cooked up the whole global warming fraud: in another time, before hackers exposed their true nature last week, Britain’s former chief scientific adviser Sir David King happily gushed that the CRU “set the agenda for the major research effort” in climate change; its “scientists” are the leading authors of the IPCC reports cited as the bible on global warming.
Well, well.
DeusExMacintosh's "I am not an underclass"
DeusExMacintosh is one of the three skepticlawyer bloggers. She is disabled, something I had not known. Her post, I am not an underclass, provides a very personal perspective on what it is like forced to live on UK disability benefits.
The problems that she refers to are not limited to the UK. We find them in Australia where structures and attitudes are not disimilar.
For reasons I won't bore you with except that they are professional rather than personal, I know the Australian benefits structure quite well.
In the absence of access to social housing or some personal income or assets, it is pretty well nigh impossible for a person outside a very low rent area to live on benefits at other than a most basic subsistence level. And I mean basic.
We then create a benefits structure that works against advancement. In social housing, for example, if you earn above a certain and low figure that varies with household type you may lose your house. If you are a single person and go off benefits, then you lose your Commonwealth Rent Assistance as well.
Of course there are people who rip the system off. However, we spend far more time chasing them, a very small minority, than we do in trying to fix the system up.
Our Federal Government has acquired the NSW habit of attaching labels to changes that confuse if not mislead.
Recent old age pension changes were announced under the mantra Secure and Sustainable Pensions. Do you know what this means?
I accept that the problems involved - technical and financial - in designing a more effective system of social services are complex.They are going to get more complicated as the population ages.
The concept of "underclass" that DeusExMacintosh refers to is, I think, relatively new so far as Australia is concerned. Until quite recently, underclass was seen as something that existed in other places, not here.
I will write further on this one in my We need to reform Australia's approach to public policy series.
Postscript:
Please do browse the discussion on DEM's post. There are some thoughtful comments there that I plan to use in later posts.
The problems that she refers to are not limited to the UK. We find them in Australia where structures and attitudes are not disimilar.
For reasons I won't bore you with except that they are professional rather than personal, I know the Australian benefits structure quite well.
In the absence of access to social housing or some personal income or assets, it is pretty well nigh impossible for a person outside a very low rent area to live on benefits at other than a most basic subsistence level. And I mean basic.
We then create a benefits structure that works against advancement. In social housing, for example, if you earn above a certain and low figure that varies with household type you may lose your house. If you are a single person and go off benefits, then you lose your Commonwealth Rent Assistance as well.
Of course there are people who rip the system off. However, we spend far more time chasing them, a very small minority, than we do in trying to fix the system up.
Our Federal Government has acquired the NSW habit of attaching labels to changes that confuse if not mislead.
Recent old age pension changes were announced under the mantra Secure and Sustainable Pensions. Do you know what this means?
I accept that the problems involved - technical and financial - in designing a more effective system of social services are complex.They are going to get more complicated as the population ages.
The concept of "underclass" that DeusExMacintosh refers to is, I think, relatively new so far as Australia is concerned. Until quite recently, underclass was seen as something that existed in other places, not here.
I will write further on this one in my We need to reform Australia's approach to public policy series.
Postscript:
Please do browse the discussion on DEM's post. There are some thoughtful comments there that I plan to use in later posts.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Welcome to visitor 65,000
Visitor 65,000 arrived at this blog this afternoon searching on the importance of family history.
Welcome
Welcome
Australian responses to climate change - a background briefing
I have watched the manoeuvring on climate change within the Australian Opposition with fascination. I thought that it might be of interest to look at some of the background dynamics involved.
The views that follow are impressionistic, based on my overall knowledge. I stand to be corrected on errors of fact and interpretation.
I suppose that I should begin by making my own position clear. I have always been cautious about some of the climate change arguments. However, I have also felt that we simply cannot keep pumping gasses into the atmosphere without having some effect.
Given this, my personal opinion has been that we should accept the majority scientific view as a starting point and therefore focus on possible responses. This, to my mind, is the safest course. We can always alter our position should the later evidence in fact point to a contrary view.
Two years ago, it seemed that the climate change supporters held the high ground. Those with the opposite views were increasingly marginalised, driven to the fringes. They retained some influence, but had become islands surrounded by a rising climate change sea. Unseen, however, were different forces that would lead to some unravelling of the previous majority position. The degree of that unravelling has still to be seen.
Climate change is first and foremost a scientific issue. However, the responses to it are not. Yes, there is a science based measurement question, but the possible responses involve far broader issues.
The first problem with climate change is the way it moved from a scientific to an almost theological question, one enmeshed in ideological divides of left and right. A person's position on climate change became a label to to which other things might be attached. You were either pure or not pure, with the definition of purity depending on the personal position of the observer on the issue.
The attachment of so many things to the label carried across into "discussion" on possible responses. Climate change became a weapon to be used to support a variety of already existing positions and causes.
Those supporting forests now argued that maintenance and extension of forests were required to fight climate change. Those concerned about the Murray argue that recent droughts were linked to climate change and that, given future continuing lower rainfall, action must be taken now to free water flows. Those supporting Sydney's somewhat silly water restrictions justified their stance in part on climate change.
These types of responses became remarkably pervasive, generating growing resistance. Those opposed to or affected by the responses transferred their distaste from the response to the concept of climate change itself. Faced with an argument that went a (climate change) then b (stop irrigation or whatever), it is far easier to simply reject a than it is to establish that a and b are unrelated or, at least, not related in the way presented.
Rebellion began in the bush. Normally below the media horizon, dismissed as rat-baggery when it did pop up, it spread. Partly ideological, it also reflected growing dislike and resentment at the way that proposed "solutions" adversely affected the bush, a growing frustration at the way that alternatives such as carbon sequestration in soil were ignored.
There has always been a strong environmental concern in the country. Three years ago listening to programs such as the ABC's Landline from my home office I heard this all the time. However, the willingness of country people to accept arguments about climate change has been eroded by the blind and unthinking nature of some of the responses.
This concern has been capitalised on. A week or so back, for example, Professor Ian Plimer visited Armidale to speak to a packed local meeting. Professor Plimer is a well known skeptic. His visit was paid for by local rural supply companies.
The apparently combined opposition of the National Party to the proposed emission trading scheme has been treated by the media as an example of irrationality. It is not. It may be wrong, that is another issue, but it also reflects concerns in the Party's voter base.
I sympathise. After all, I have pointed in my posts to the way that certain decisions have adversely affected country people. I have also discussed new approaches.
In Sunday Essay - Farming, green house gases and the importance of practical experiments- Part One and then in the sequel (the link to this is in the post already quoted), I looked at new farming techniques. If the proponents of soil sequestration are to be believed, and I am not capable of making judgements here, the process has the capacity to remove as much carbon as the ETS while improving soils at the same time. I think that's kind of important.
Australia as an urban country thinks urban responses. Even here, if the daily conversations I hear are to be believed, the climate change case has been losing ground. It's partly a matter of ideology, but it's also partly a matter of an increasing number of people seeing themselves as potentially adversely affected.
This is where the increasingly energetic and funded special interest groups come in. While the Green groups had their way initially, now those on the other side of the fence likely to be affected by the proposed ETS are arguing their case. Their arguments are affecting other elements in the Opposition.
We are now starting to talk about serious money. We are also talking about specific seats.
The Green belt inner suburbs in Sydney and Melbourne can be ignored for practical purposes. They are rusted on Labor/Green. It is swing seats potentially affected by the responses to climate change that start to become important. And the responses do stand to affect a very wide variety of people. Once people start to pay more, once they start to lose their jobs, then things become interesting.
Take the Hunter mining seats, as an example, or the La Trobe valley. Or, for that matter, the retirement belt seats.
In the Hunter, the unions are generally backing the Government position despite reservations among their membership. The unions argue that new "green" jobs will emerge to compensate. This may be true, although I have some doubts. What is true based on the experience of the last fifty years, is that those who lose their jobs through structural adjustment are not those who get the new jobs. Those losing jobs often go to the industrial scrap heap. Should this begin to happen in the Hunter in the way forecast, then expect voting changes.
It is very hard for the ordinary citizen to work their way through all this. Here, I think, another important factor comes in.
Most of the biggest changes of the last fifty years, mass migration is an example, have succeeded because they enjoy a measure of bi-partisan support. That is why Mr Rudd was wise to offer a deal to the Opposition, why Mr Turnbull was right to accept. However, the divisions in the Coalition that then resulted show just how much things have spiraled out of control.
It is easy to type those in the Coalition who oppose the deal with unfavourable epithets. Some, I must asmit, do lend themselves to this course. It is also easy to put all this in terms of left-right divides. Yet the venom and sheer size of the anti-forces, far larger than any one really expected, says there is a problem.
Assume, for the moment, that this group can be isolated and marginalised, treated as Howard supporters and yesterday's men. That would be most unwise. It creates a group that may later capitalise on the costs and uncertainties that will certainly be associated with climate change.
I am not saying that you have to agree with them, simply listen to what they have to say.
Most of all, if climate change is as projected and if it is in fact connected with human activity, we are going to need imagination and creativity - not simply the mechanics of economics - to deal with it.
Postscript
Life continues to get tougher for Mr Turnbull as things spiral out of control. Today's (26 November) sudden resignation from the Opposition front bench by Tony Abbott just adds to the pressure.
The Age story simply ends More soon....
And so there was.
According to ABC news, Tony Abbott, Sophie Mirabella, Tony Smith and Senators Nick Minchin and Abetz have all quit their shadow portfolios because they cannot vote for the legislation. Senate whip Stephen Parry has also relinquished his position.
Now Mr Turnbull has held a press conference asserting his position.
Who knows what will happen? I certainly don't!
A further postscript
Earlier in this post I referred to the growth of opposition below the radar. I focused on the country because I know this best. However, I also said:
The views that follow are impressionistic, based on my overall knowledge. I stand to be corrected on errors of fact and interpretation.
I suppose that I should begin by making my own position clear. I have always been cautious about some of the climate change arguments. However, I have also felt that we simply cannot keep pumping gasses into the atmosphere without having some effect.
Given this, my personal opinion has been that we should accept the majority scientific view as a starting point and therefore focus on possible responses. This, to my mind, is the safest course. We can always alter our position should the later evidence in fact point to a contrary view.
Two years ago, it seemed that the climate change supporters held the high ground. Those with the opposite views were increasingly marginalised, driven to the fringes. They retained some influence, but had become islands surrounded by a rising climate change sea. Unseen, however, were different forces that would lead to some unravelling of the previous majority position. The degree of that unravelling has still to be seen.
Climate change is first and foremost a scientific issue. However, the responses to it are not. Yes, there is a science based measurement question, but the possible responses involve far broader issues.
The first problem with climate change is the way it moved from a scientific to an almost theological question, one enmeshed in ideological divides of left and right. A person's position on climate change became a label to to which other things might be attached. You were either pure or not pure, with the definition of purity depending on the personal position of the observer on the issue.
The attachment of so many things to the label carried across into "discussion" on possible responses. Climate change became a weapon to be used to support a variety of already existing positions and causes.
Those supporting forests now argued that maintenance and extension of forests were required to fight climate change. Those concerned about the Murray argue that recent droughts were linked to climate change and that, given future continuing lower rainfall, action must be taken now to free water flows. Those supporting Sydney's somewhat silly water restrictions justified their stance in part on climate change.
These types of responses became remarkably pervasive, generating growing resistance. Those opposed to or affected by the responses transferred their distaste from the response to the concept of climate change itself. Faced with an argument that went a (climate change) then b (stop irrigation or whatever), it is far easier to simply reject a than it is to establish that a and b are unrelated or, at least, not related in the way presented.
Rebellion began in the bush. Normally below the media horizon, dismissed as rat-baggery when it did pop up, it spread. Partly ideological, it also reflected growing dislike and resentment at the way that proposed "solutions" adversely affected the bush, a growing frustration at the way that alternatives such as carbon sequestration in soil were ignored.
There has always been a strong environmental concern in the country. Three years ago listening to programs such as the ABC's Landline from my home office I heard this all the time. However, the willingness of country people to accept arguments about climate change has been eroded by the blind and unthinking nature of some of the responses.
This concern has been capitalised on. A week or so back, for example, Professor Ian Plimer visited Armidale to speak to a packed local meeting. Professor Plimer is a well known skeptic. His visit was paid for by local rural supply companies.
The apparently combined opposition of the National Party to the proposed emission trading scheme has been treated by the media as an example of irrationality. It is not. It may be wrong, that is another issue, but it also reflects concerns in the Party's voter base.
I sympathise. After all, I have pointed in my posts to the way that certain decisions have adversely affected country people. I have also discussed new approaches.
In Sunday Essay - Farming, green house gases and the importance of practical experiments- Part One and then in the sequel (the link to this is in the post already quoted), I looked at new farming techniques. If the proponents of soil sequestration are to be believed, and I am not capable of making judgements here, the process has the capacity to remove as much carbon as the ETS while improving soils at the same time. I think that's kind of important.
Australia as an urban country thinks urban responses. Even here, if the daily conversations I hear are to be believed, the climate change case has been losing ground. It's partly a matter of ideology, but it's also partly a matter of an increasing number of people seeing themselves as potentially adversely affected.
This is where the increasingly energetic and funded special interest groups come in. While the Green groups had their way initially, now those on the other side of the fence likely to be affected by the proposed ETS are arguing their case. Their arguments are affecting other elements in the Opposition.
We are now starting to talk about serious money. We are also talking about specific seats.
The Green belt inner suburbs in Sydney and Melbourne can be ignored for practical purposes. They are rusted on Labor/Green. It is swing seats potentially affected by the responses to climate change that start to become important. And the responses do stand to affect a very wide variety of people. Once people start to pay more, once they start to lose their jobs, then things become interesting.
Take the Hunter mining seats, as an example, or the La Trobe valley. Or, for that matter, the retirement belt seats.
In the Hunter, the unions are generally backing the Government position despite reservations among their membership. The unions argue that new "green" jobs will emerge to compensate. This may be true, although I have some doubts. What is true based on the experience of the last fifty years, is that those who lose their jobs through structural adjustment are not those who get the new jobs. Those losing jobs often go to the industrial scrap heap. Should this begin to happen in the Hunter in the way forecast, then expect voting changes.
It is very hard for the ordinary citizen to work their way through all this. Here, I think, another important factor comes in.
Most of the biggest changes of the last fifty years, mass migration is an example, have succeeded because they enjoy a measure of bi-partisan support. That is why Mr Rudd was wise to offer a deal to the Opposition, why Mr Turnbull was right to accept. However, the divisions in the Coalition that then resulted show just how much things have spiraled out of control.
It is easy to type those in the Coalition who oppose the deal with unfavourable epithets. Some, I must asmit, do lend themselves to this course. It is also easy to put all this in terms of left-right divides. Yet the venom and sheer size of the anti-forces, far larger than any one really expected, says there is a problem.
Assume, for the moment, that this group can be isolated and marginalised, treated as Howard supporters and yesterday's men. That would be most unwise. It creates a group that may later capitalise on the costs and uncertainties that will certainly be associated with climate change.
I am not saying that you have to agree with them, simply listen to what they have to say.
Most of all, if climate change is as projected and if it is in fact connected with human activity, we are going to need imagination and creativity - not simply the mechanics of economics - to deal with it.
Postscript
Life continues to get tougher for Mr Turnbull as things spiral out of control. Today's (26 November) sudden resignation from the Opposition front bench by Tony Abbott just adds to the pressure.
The Age story simply ends More soon....
And so there was.
According to ABC news, Tony Abbott, Sophie Mirabella, Tony Smith and Senators Nick Minchin and Abetz have all quit their shadow portfolios because they cannot vote for the legislation. Senate whip Stephen Parry has also relinquished his position.
Now Mr Turnbull has held a press conference asserting his position.
Who knows what will happen? I certainly don't!
A further postscript
Earlier in this post I referred to the growth of opposition below the radar. I focused on the country because I know this best. However, I also said:
Australia as an urban country thinks urban responses. Even here, if the daily conversations I hear are to be believed, the climate change case has been losing ground. It's partly a matter of ideology, but it's also partly a matter of an increasing number of people seeing themselves as potentially adversely affected.It seems that I was far more correct here than I realised. While many things are involved, it seems clear that Malcolm Turnbull has been side-swiped by a grass-root revolt that no-one recognised.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Climate change and a fascinating day in Canberra
Yesterday's events in Australia's capital were quite fascinating, varying between high drama and high farce.
As it happened, I had a part completed background piece looking at the growing opposition to climate change. I will try to finish this tonight.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Train Reading - Don Aitkin's What was it all for? 1
My train reading now is Don Aitkin's What was it all for? The Reshaping of Australia. (Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, 2005). This is a remarkably good book for reasons I will explain in a moment.
For the benefit of international readers, Don Aitkin is a very senior academic, an historian and political economist. From his beginnings at the University of New England, he was Professor of Politics at Macquarie University in the 1970s, and then Professor of Political Science in the Research School of Social Sciences in the ANU. In 1988 he was appointed the foundation Chairman of the Australian Research Council, and it was from this post that he joined the University of Canberra in 1991 as VC.
Again for the benefit of international readers, this book is almost completely accessible to the non-Australian. It will, in fact, give you an extremely good introduction to this country in terms of post war history and society.
Don did the Leaving Certificate, the precursor of the High School Certificate, at Armidale High School in 1953. Fifty years later, he went back for a reunion of the class of 53. This led him to think of an article that became a book looking at change in Australia since the Second World war through the prism set by the experiences and attitudes of the class of 53.
Don is a very skilled writer. His two early books on the NSW Country Party have strongly influenced my own writing, although my focus is a little different. Don focused on the Party, whereas I came to see the Party as a part of what I called the broader regional movements and especially the New State movements.
His introduction provides an overview to the whole book. This is followed by a snapshot of Australia and Armidale at the time the book starts.
I found this valuable because it provides a benchmark against which to measure change. It is also, I think, a useful technique to use in general histories. Don also uses overviews to set a context for his deeper and more personal analysis.
In many ways, the lives of the class of 1953 breaks into two halves.
The first half begins with a conservative, regulated, socially constricted society. Yet this was also a world of low unemployment (2% was considered a Government breaker), of economic security and opportunity.
The second half is a word of change, of de-regulation, of downsizing, the end of permanent jobs. It was also a world of greater social freedoms, of advancements in a whole range of fields, of substantial increases in wealth. The class of 53 would generally not go back to the old world, but it is clear that by the end of the period under study a sense of unease had developed, along with a deep weariness at the pace of change.
One of Don's points is the remarkable capacity of Australia to accept social change, including especially the presence of so many migrants. Here he uses Canada as an equivalent benchmark, arguing that only Australia and Canada among developed countries went through such large social change, a remodeling of society, although the relative scale was greater in Australia.
He suggests that one reason Australia was able to absorb so many migrants from different backgrounds lay in the national consensus welcoming migration.
The term New Australian is no longer used and might today be seen as very suspect. The point, however, is that the term applied to all new migrants. They were new, but were also seen as Australian, at least Australians to be.
Today, the term Australian is applied only to citizens. There is no modern equivalent to New Australians, a term that applied regardless of formal citizenship.
I will finish this story in a later next post (here).
For the benefit of international readers, Don Aitkin is a very senior academic, an historian and political economist. From his beginnings at the University of New England, he was Professor of Politics at Macquarie University in the 1970s, and then Professor of Political Science in the Research School of Social Sciences in the ANU. In 1988 he was appointed the foundation Chairman of the Australian Research Council, and it was from this post that he joined the University of Canberra in 1991 as VC.
Again for the benefit of international readers, this book is almost completely accessible to the non-Australian. It will, in fact, give you an extremely good introduction to this country in terms of post war history and society.
Don did the Leaving Certificate, the precursor of the High School Certificate, at Armidale High School in 1953. Fifty years later, he went back for a reunion of the class of 53. This led him to think of an article that became a book looking at change in Australia since the Second World war through the prism set by the experiences and attitudes of the class of 53.
Don is a very skilled writer. His two early books on the NSW Country Party have strongly influenced my own writing, although my focus is a little different. Don focused on the Party, whereas I came to see the Party as a part of what I called the broader regional movements and especially the New State movements.
His introduction provides an overview to the whole book. This is followed by a snapshot of Australia and Armidale at the time the book starts.
I found this valuable because it provides a benchmark against which to measure change. It is also, I think, a useful technique to use in general histories. Don also uses overviews to set a context for his deeper and more personal analysis.
In many ways, the lives of the class of 1953 breaks into two halves.
The first half begins with a conservative, regulated, socially constricted society. Yet this was also a world of low unemployment (2% was considered a Government breaker), of economic security and opportunity.
The second half is a word of change, of de-regulation, of downsizing, the end of permanent jobs. It was also a world of greater social freedoms, of advancements in a whole range of fields, of substantial increases in wealth. The class of 53 would generally not go back to the old world, but it is clear that by the end of the period under study a sense of unease had developed, along with a deep weariness at the pace of change.
One of Don's points is the remarkable capacity of Australia to accept social change, including especially the presence of so many migrants. Here he uses Canada as an equivalent benchmark, arguing that only Australia and Canada among developed countries went through such large social change, a remodeling of society, although the relative scale was greater in Australia.
He suggests that one reason Australia was able to absorb so many migrants from different backgrounds lay in the national consensus welcoming migration.
The term New Australian is no longer used and might today be seen as very suspect. The point, however, is that the term applied to all new migrants. They were new, but were also seen as Australian, at least Australians to be.
Today, the term Australian is applied only to citizens. There is no modern equivalent to New Australians, a term that applied regardless of formal citizenship.
I will finish this story in a later next post (here).
Monday, November 23, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
