I reckon Julia Gillard will lose the next election, or possibly even be replaced by someone from the right like Bill Shorten before then. I know that the second suggestion sounds implausible, but I think her leadership is terminal. The reasons for this are partly her own fault, but partly not.
I was discussing Gillard with a group of colleagues not long after she became PM, and specifically how awkward and contrived she seemed. It was before the whole 'real Julia' fiasco. A colleague who knew her during her university days said that her image wasn't contrived, this was actually how she was. She is naturally not a particularly charismatic person. The more I have watched her since, the more I believe this is actually the case. Not only does she appear uncharismatic, I think she even comes across as quite shy and uncomfortable in the spotlight. She has learned to force herself to engage with people when she's out and about, but always looks ill at ease doing so.
This is not a fatal flaw necessarily - many people are like that, but learn to push through it in their professional life. But it is highly unusual for someone to rise to high office with such a lack of charisma.
Previous Prime Ministers have not all been hugely charismatic. Hawke was, Keating was in a pompous sort of way. Howard wasn't, but was comfortable meeting and greeting and speaking to large crowds. Rudd was larger than life in a nerdy kind of way.
I've long believed that political commentators usually underestimate these factors. The public are more superficial than the experts take them for, and often form their view on things like appearance and tone of voice. The latter is certainly not a plus for the PM. The way someone presents on TV is hugely important - even more so than their competence - in terms of elector-ability. That's why I reckon someone like Wayne Swan will never be PM - too easy to mock.
Gillard has other factors working against her. She has not made a single strong decision since being elected, and despite being from the left, seems totally beholden to the right wing powerbrokers who put her there, when it comes to policy. Her cowardly capitulation in selling out Julian Assange's rights under pressure from the US, was the final straw as far as I'm concerned. She is giving all the signs of being a weak leader who stands for nothing but power.
People who know her say this is not the case, and that she is a quietly determined person of great integrity. Sadly I don't see it, and I don't think the public do either.
I think the polling will bare this out in the coming year, and late this year or early next, the powers that be will face a choice similar to that which they faced a few months out from the last election. They will know that knifing another leader will not go down well - it will be seen as ruthless and give the impression of a party run on mutiny and chaos. But the other alternative will be to go to the polls with a leader who is miles behind.
And there is no shortage of ambitious people who would have a dip. King Billy will be doing his best to increase his profile over the next year. He is definitely charismatic, albeit in a slightly sleazy way. I could be wrong. I hope I am, as the prospect of Abbott as PM fills me with horror. But I reckon the writing is on the wall.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Yet Another Opinion About Wikileaks
Listening to the various media commentary about the wikileaks revelations relating to Australian politics, it occurs to me that none of the commentariat seem to appreciate the bigger issues around free speech or democracy, or are at least unwilling to discuss them. On the 7:30 Report they interviewed Hugh White and Alexander Downer. Both of them were talking about the revelations that Arbib and co were discussing delicate political and governance matters with US diplomats, and revealing to them things that the Australian public did not know. They both said that such behaviour was normal and unremarkable, but it was also embarrassing. On The Drum, Thom Woodroofe and Annabelle Crabb agreed.
I find this completely incredible. None of them seemed to see the incredibly obvious contradiction in these propositions – if it is normal and OK, then why is it embarrassing? We’re not talking about the kind of embarrassment one might experience if they realised their fly was undone, or they called someone the wrong name. It is embarrassing because a part of their conduct has been made public, that they would rather was not public. We need to ask why it is that Mark Arbib would have sworn when he saw this morning’s headline, and the answer is that there is something seriously dodgy about what he did. The same applies to Cesar Melham and Kathy Jackson. If they were comfortable with their actions and had a clean conscience about them, then why would they have neglected to mention it to their members? Why would they prefer their members didn’t know? Of course everyone is entitled to a degree of privacy, and to hold private conversations. But if you are acting in your role as an elected representative, you clearly should not be doing anything that you would not be comfortable disclosing in the future.
These commentators must be incredibly out of touch if they cannot see anything wrong with this. In the case of Arbib, he was telling the US that Rudd’s position was not secure in October 2009 – eight months before the challenge. So he was happy for a foreign government to know, but not the voters he was elected by, and who pay his wages. This attitude that this is somehow OK, is extremely arrogant. It shows how out of touch this ruling class are, and the contempt with which they hold democracy. It doesn’t even seem to occur to them that there might be a problem with keeping the public in the dark about such matters.
An interesting result of the wikileaks controversy of recent times, is that it flushes out those who do not have democratic instincts from those who do. There are many, many people who are unashamedly outraged that the public have found out all this stuff, and think it is treason. And there are those mentioned above, who just have a cynical disregard for democracy. I get the feeling that in another place and time, under a totalitarian regime, the above two groups would be the appeasers, or the enthusiastic supporters of repression. They would be the ones who would unquestioningly participate and assist the Government.
On the other hand, there are a great many people – possibly the majority, who are supporting wikileaks as an act of democracy, and are outraged by the repression of Assange, and the behaviour of our elected leaders. These people are the ones I trust.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
“This is what you get, when you mess with us...”
At the risk of being accused of being a bush lawyer, it occurs to me that I may have identified the commission of a very serious offence by a number of people. I think it is my patriotic duty to see to it that these law breakers are held to account, and as such I intend to notify the appropriate authorities.
I refer of course to Tom Flanagan, an adviser to the Canadian Prime Minister, National Review‘s Jonah Goldberg and even Sarah Palin. All three, and no doubt many more, have publically called for the extra judicial killing of Julian Assange. According to my reading, this is in clear breach of the Criminal Code Act 1995, specifically the crime of incitement. (I have included the relevant section of the act below).
I therefore call on the Australian Government to invoke our extradition treaties with the US and Canada, so that these dangerous terrorists can be brought to account.
Now I imagine there might be complications such as the fact that the acts weren’t committed in Australia, and they probably couldn’t be extradited under these circumstances even if there was the political will to do so. But the point is that there isn’t such political will – nor will there be any time soon. There is however the political will to have Assange extradited somewhere on some flimsy pretence to face some obviously concocted charges – none of which is any less ridiculous than my suggestion about incitement.
As the letter signed by so many prominent Australians today points out – our Government must defend Assange’s rights as a citizen. But we all know they won’t, because he has taken on the most powerful people in the world, and nobody does that and gets away with it.
As the letter signed by so many prominent Australians today points out – our Government must defend Assange’s rights as a citizen. But we all know they won’t, because he has taken on the most powerful people in the world, and nobody does that and gets away with it.
Criminal Code Act 1995
Chapter 2 General principles of criminal responsibility
Part 2.4 Extensions of criminal responsibility
Division 11
11.4 Incitement
(1) A person who urges the commission of an offence is guilty of the offence of incitement.
(2) For the person to be guilty, the person must intend that the offence incited be committed.
(2A) Subsection (2) has effect subject to subsection (4A).
(3) A person may be found guilty even if committing the offence incited is impossible.
(4) Any defences, procedures, limitations or qualifying provisions that apply to an offence apply also to the offence of incitement in respect of that offence.
(4A) Any special liability provisions that apply to an offence apply also to the offence of incitement in respect of that offence.
(5) It is not an offence to incite the commission of an offence against section 11.1 (attempt), this section or section 11.5 (conspiracy).
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Wikileaks - Assange for Australian of the Year!
Predictably the affected Governments are up in arms about the latest series of leaks coming from Wikileaks. The US Government has described it as “reckless and dangerous”.
“To be clear -- such disclosures put at risk our diplomats, intelligence professionals, and people around the world who come to the United States for assistance in promoting democracy and open government," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement.
President Barack Obama "supports responsible, accountable, and open government at home and around the world, but this reckless and dangerous action runs counter to that goal," he said.
"We condemn in the strongest terms the unauthorized disclosure of classified documents and sensitive national security information," he added.[1]
Clearly the ruling elites around the world are embarrassed. The leaks reflect badly on such figures as Saudi Princes, The Duke of York, and Vladimir Putin. The question is whether the rest of us ought to be concerned. To my mind, the answer to this depends on whether or not it is in our interests for Governments to keep secrets from us and each other. What we must keep in mind, as a starting point, is that Governments are there to serve us. As a general rule, if a Government figure is embarrassed by a particular revelation, it is probably a good thing that it has been revealed. [2]
One of the main arguments put forward by Governments, is that these revelations might place lives at risk – of soldiers, agents etc. Whilst it may be possible that one of these documents might reveal a tactic or location to an ‘enemy’ army, it seems fairly unlikely. This argument is especially disingenuous when it is made by the US Government – Republicans in particular – when it comes to the safety of their troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. They put hundreds of thousands of their own soldiers in danger, while the anti-war movement begged and pleaded for them not to. Both wars have been unmitigated disasters, resulting in the deaths of many thousands of their soldiers. So in this context, it is the height of hypocrisy to become ecumenical about troop safety now.
The argument around endangering agents, spies, informers and so on seems more plausible. However these are people whose roles carry inherent dangers. And as yet no evidence has been produced of any suffering as a result of the leaks. I’m sure if it was available, it would have been produced.
There is a third argument implicit in all this - that Governments ought to be able to keep secrets from each other. Or more specifically, that it's in my interests for my Government to be able to keep secrets from another government. There are a whole range of reasons why this might be important - anything from trade reasons, diplomacy, and military and security reasons. Regarding international trade, this is a massive topic that I won't get into in any detail here, except to say that over the past few decades it has become increasingly clear that international trade is not conducted in the interests of the citizens within nation states, rather it has been liberalised in order to serve the interests of a wealthy and powerful few. Regarding security, I am yet to see any evidence that any of this could compromise Australia's national security, and find it hard to imagine that it could, although we probably cannot eliminate that possibility altogether.
The information that has been released by Wikileaks this year is enormous in both the quantity of the information revealed, and their broader significance for democracy and the internet. Integral to the power of Governments is the control of information. These leaks are being revealed, and subsequently read, by people who are very much outside the powerful ruling class. The powerful feel threatened by the idea that ordinary people can access large amounts of information that they intended to keep secret from them. This is what is driving the reaction.
These latest leaks from Wikileaks ought to be understood as profoundly democratic actions. The people are being given access to information that Governments do not want us to have. Are we to seriously believe that it’s counter to our interest to read it? That would require enormous faith in the Governments of the world, and it is hard to make the case that they deserve it. The very fact that they don’t want us to see it ought to make us suspicious of their motives. It is a fundamental tenet of liberal democracy, that any power that others have over us, ought to be able to be shown to be in our own interests. Interesting that the Americans quickly abandon their liberalism and libertarianism when traditional power structures are challenged.
It is worth noting the role that an unfiltered, uncontrollable internet has played in this. If not for the internet, this would not be possible. Attorney-General Robert McClelland has requested that media organisations self censor, and refrain from publishing any potentially dangerous content. This is obviously futile, as anyone with connection to the internet can access the information. If a ‘terrorist’ wanted it, they could get it. Now imagine that Senator Conroy’s dream of a Government controlled internet filter were a reality. They would censor this stuff in a flash, arguing that it’s in ‘the national interest’. The internet has just made a big step forward in realising its potential as a democratic force. Long may it continue.
I hereby nominate Julian Assange for Australian of the Year.
“To be clear -- such disclosures put at risk our diplomats, intelligence professionals, and people around the world who come to the United States for assistance in promoting democracy and open government," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement.
President Barack Obama "supports responsible, accountable, and open government at home and around the world, but this reckless and dangerous action runs counter to that goal," he said.
"We condemn in the strongest terms the unauthorized disclosure of classified documents and sensitive national security information," he added.[1]
Clearly the ruling elites around the world are embarrassed. The leaks reflect badly on such figures as Saudi Princes, The Duke of York, and Vladimir Putin. The question is whether the rest of us ought to be concerned. To my mind, the answer to this depends on whether or not it is in our interests for Governments to keep secrets from us and each other. What we must keep in mind, as a starting point, is that Governments are there to serve us. As a general rule, if a Government figure is embarrassed by a particular revelation, it is probably a good thing that it has been revealed. [2]
One of the main arguments put forward by Governments, is that these revelations might place lives at risk – of soldiers, agents etc. Whilst it may be possible that one of these documents might reveal a tactic or location to an ‘enemy’ army, it seems fairly unlikely. This argument is especially disingenuous when it is made by the US Government – Republicans in particular – when it comes to the safety of their troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. They put hundreds of thousands of their own soldiers in danger, while the anti-war movement begged and pleaded for them not to. Both wars have been unmitigated disasters, resulting in the deaths of many thousands of their soldiers. So in this context, it is the height of hypocrisy to become ecumenical about troop safety now.
The argument around endangering agents, spies, informers and so on seems more plausible. However these are people whose roles carry inherent dangers. And as yet no evidence has been produced of any suffering as a result of the leaks. I’m sure if it was available, it would have been produced.
There is a third argument implicit in all this - that Governments ought to be able to keep secrets from each other. Or more specifically, that it's in my interests for my Government to be able to keep secrets from another government. There are a whole range of reasons why this might be important - anything from trade reasons, diplomacy, and military and security reasons. Regarding international trade, this is a massive topic that I won't get into in any detail here, except to say that over the past few decades it has become increasingly clear that international trade is not conducted in the interests of the citizens within nation states, rather it has been liberalised in order to serve the interests of a wealthy and powerful few. Regarding security, I am yet to see any evidence that any of this could compromise Australia's national security, and find it hard to imagine that it could, although we probably cannot eliminate that possibility altogether.
The information that has been released by Wikileaks this year is enormous in both the quantity of the information revealed, and their broader significance for democracy and the internet. Integral to the power of Governments is the control of information. These leaks are being revealed, and subsequently read, by people who are very much outside the powerful ruling class. The powerful feel threatened by the idea that ordinary people can access large amounts of information that they intended to keep secret from them. This is what is driving the reaction.
These latest leaks from Wikileaks ought to be understood as profoundly democratic actions. The people are being given access to information that Governments do not want us to have. Are we to seriously believe that it’s counter to our interest to read it? That would require enormous faith in the Governments of the world, and it is hard to make the case that they deserve it. The very fact that they don’t want us to see it ought to make us suspicious of their motives. It is a fundamental tenet of liberal democracy, that any power that others have over us, ought to be able to be shown to be in our own interests. Interesting that the Americans quickly abandon their liberalism and libertarianism when traditional power structures are challenged.
It is worth noting the role that an unfiltered, uncontrollable internet has played in this. If not for the internet, this would not be possible. Attorney-General Robert McClelland has requested that media organisations self censor, and refrain from publishing any potentially dangerous content. This is obviously futile, as anyone with connection to the internet can access the information. If a ‘terrorist’ wanted it, they could get it. Now imagine that Senator Conroy’s dream of a Government controlled internet filter were a reality. They would censor this stuff in a flash, arguing that it’s in ‘the national interest’. The internet has just made a big step forward in realising its potential as a democratic force. Long may it continue.
I hereby nominate Julian Assange for Australian of the Year.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
State Election 2010
It is becoming clear that the Liberals will win Bentliegh, thus handing them the 45 seats they need to form a majority in the Legislative Assembly, and so to Government. It seems clear the Labor Party were resigned to this as early as 9pm last night. I suspect the reason they haven't yet conceded is just to create the impression that it was closer than it actually was, so it doesn't look like a massive failure.
Of course they will do plenty of naval gazing, and many theories will be put forward as to why they lost. The message already coming out is that after 11 years, it just becomes too difficult to keep the message fresh - the 'time for change' argument. I don't think this is accurate. I certainly don't believe the Liberals convinced the public that they were a better alternative. I think the public wanted to punish Labor for their mistakes, and there was an ever growing perception that they had become arrogant and incompetent. Whatever their failings, I think this was exaggerated. The Herald Sun ran an anti Labor campaign for a long time. Scarcely a day went by without articles about 'Public Service fat cats' and most of them were blown out of all proportion.
I also think there was another problem with their campaign, which hasn't yet been identified by the experts. Too much of the party's resources were devoted to the inner Melbourne seats where they were under threat from the Greens, and this cost them dearly in the outer suburbs. The main reason for this is that many of the ALP apparatchiks live and work in inner Melbourne. They mix in circles of like minded people, and have a blinkered view of the mood of the electorate. To them, the battle actually was between the ALP and the Greens. The debate that raged amongst them and their type was about whether the drift to the Greens is a resurgence of the left, or a dangerous splintering of the left. They seemed blissfully unaware that out in the suburbs, people couldn't give a stuff about these debates. Rightly or wrongly they were preparing to punish the Government.
The other factor at play here was the fact that the threatened incumbents in inner Melbourne were high profile, senior members of the Government. The members in the suburbs on the other hand were people like Kirstie Marshall.
But it's not just the profile of the candidates, and the fact that few Brunswick residents could point to Forest Hill on a map that prevented these people fighting on the front line. The other factor at play here is resentment. I have lost count of the amount of discussions I had with inner suburban Labor people, during this and the Federal Election campaign, about this very issue. Their focus on the Greens was often bitter and venomous, and also irrational. They seemed to have saved their anger and hatred for a party that appeared, for all intents and purposes, to be similar ideologically to themselves. The Greens have surged in popularity as a direct result of people abandoning the left of the ALP. These are voters who are primarily concerned with social justice issues and the environment. Many come from within the Union movement - Labor's traditional heartland. I think they particularly annoy the rusted on party members, because they stand as a stark reminder of what the Labor party has abandoned. It is painful for them to be reminded that they belong to a party that has sold them out, and so they want to blame the messenger. I think many of them remain in the party just out of blind loyalty - their parents and grandparents were members, and they just can't bring themselves to quit. They come up with every excuse under the sun for Labor's increasingly right wing agenda, and hold on to this futile hope that if enough like minded people joined, they might be able to bring them back. Unfortunately, that ship sailed long ago, and it's not coming back.
So it seems they have succeeded this time. They all banded together and denied the Greens a lower house seat. Meanwhile, out in those suburbs beyond Burke Rd, the real enemy has won Government.
Nero fiddled, while Rome burned.
Of course they will do plenty of naval gazing, and many theories will be put forward as to why they lost. The message already coming out is that after 11 years, it just becomes too difficult to keep the message fresh - the 'time for change' argument. I don't think this is accurate. I certainly don't believe the Liberals convinced the public that they were a better alternative. I think the public wanted to punish Labor for their mistakes, and there was an ever growing perception that they had become arrogant and incompetent. Whatever their failings, I think this was exaggerated. The Herald Sun ran an anti Labor campaign for a long time. Scarcely a day went by without articles about 'Public Service fat cats' and most of them were blown out of all proportion.
I also think there was another problem with their campaign, which hasn't yet been identified by the experts. Too much of the party's resources were devoted to the inner Melbourne seats where they were under threat from the Greens, and this cost them dearly in the outer suburbs. The main reason for this is that many of the ALP apparatchiks live and work in inner Melbourne. They mix in circles of like minded people, and have a blinkered view of the mood of the electorate. To them, the battle actually was between the ALP and the Greens. The debate that raged amongst them and their type was about whether the drift to the Greens is a resurgence of the left, or a dangerous splintering of the left. They seemed blissfully unaware that out in the suburbs, people couldn't give a stuff about these debates. Rightly or wrongly they were preparing to punish the Government.
The other factor at play here was the fact that the threatened incumbents in inner Melbourne were high profile, senior members of the Government. The members in the suburbs on the other hand were people like Kirstie Marshall.
But it's not just the profile of the candidates, and the fact that few Brunswick residents could point to Forest Hill on a map that prevented these people fighting on the front line. The other factor at play here is resentment. I have lost count of the amount of discussions I had with inner suburban Labor people, during this and the Federal Election campaign, about this very issue. Their focus on the Greens was often bitter and venomous, and also irrational. They seemed to have saved their anger and hatred for a party that appeared, for all intents and purposes, to be similar ideologically to themselves. The Greens have surged in popularity as a direct result of people abandoning the left of the ALP. These are voters who are primarily concerned with social justice issues and the environment. Many come from within the Union movement - Labor's traditional heartland. I think they particularly annoy the rusted on party members, because they stand as a stark reminder of what the Labor party has abandoned. It is painful for them to be reminded that they belong to a party that has sold them out, and so they want to blame the messenger. I think many of them remain in the party just out of blind loyalty - their parents and grandparents were members, and they just can't bring themselves to quit. They come up with every excuse under the sun for Labor's increasingly right wing agenda, and hold on to this futile hope that if enough like minded people joined, they might be able to bring them back. Unfortunately, that ship sailed long ago, and it's not coming back.
So it seems they have succeeded this time. They all banded together and denied the Greens a lower house seat. Meanwhile, out in those suburbs beyond Burke Rd, the real enemy has won Government.
Nero fiddled, while Rome burned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)