Well, I did predict it wouldn't work, but I have to admit that I wasn't expecting it to be scuttled quite like that.
As much as I hate to say it, this is a pretty bloody good argument against democracy of the more direct kind at the moment. You simply cannot have such complex issues decided on plebescite at short notice. You will always get the wrong outcome due to the subtleties being missed - subtleties which are the most significant part of the game.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Friday, 4 November 2011
Thursday, 27 October 2011
The European bailout package
Won't work IMO.
I base this on a mixture of sceptical criticism at the details of the plan itself (100 billion Euros being raised in six months, two thirds of which are coming in banks from the worst-hit countries including Greece... hmm) and sheer intuition.
We'll see whether I'm right or not soon enough.
I base this on a mixture of sceptical criticism at the details of the plan itself (100 billion Euros being raised in six months, two thirds of which are coming in banks from the worst-hit countries including Greece... hmm) and sheer intuition.
We'll see whether I'm right or not soon enough.
Thursday, 22 September 2011
Wednesday, 21 September 2011
Death to Question Time
I know it's lazy of me but I can't help but plug this wonderful article by Greg Jericho on the ABC Drum website.
Ordure, Mr Speaker, ordure. Let's call the whole thing off
In it is a witty, comprehensive and pretty much incontrovertible elocution of why as a political process of any genuine use "in the national interest", it's bereft of any substance whatsoever. The comparisons with the briefer, sparser but to-the-point UK question time are telling.
But as a key plank of the political process and the main conduit between the Parliament and the public (due to the ABC broadcast), we can do a hell of a lot better than this.
Ordure, Mr Speaker, ordure. Let's call the whole thing off
In it is a witty, comprehensive and pretty much incontrovertible elocution of why as a political process of any genuine use "in the national interest", it's bereft of any substance whatsoever. The comparisons with the briefer, sparser but to-the-point UK question time are telling.
The problem of course is that Question Time is pure politics. It is geared so that those inside the Canberra bubble can talk about the issues that they wish to talk about because they think those issues will provide the best grabs in the quick segment of the nightly news that is devoted to what our Government and Opposition are doing.
This leads into the worst impact of the Question Time – namely that media will talk about who won or lost (and I'll admit to have fallen into this trap many a time as well). A Government wins or loses in parliament by whether or not it gets its legislation through – question time has nothing to do with that. But if your leader "does well" in Question Time, the troops feel buoyed, leaderships are secured and so on and so forth…I will freely admit that this is what makes QT such fun to watch, and why I'll continue to watch it when I can.
But as a key plank of the political process and the main conduit between the Parliament and the public (due to the ABC broadcast), we can do a hell of a lot better than this.
Wednesday, 14 September 2011
The Political Compass
Those who know about my work on various forums over the years - namely, none of you - will be well aware of my disaste for political labels. Traditional political labels, I mean. Liberal, conservative, even more arcane ones such as libertarian and whatnot.
My issues with labels are two fold.
Firstly, anyone whose political opinions are so regimented, standardized and predictable that a single word can completely described them are, in my view, political sheep. Their views lack the critical depth, clarity, flexibility and adherence to the nuances and complexities of the real world that separates pure, mouth-breathing ideologues from genuine political thinkers. Fortunately, however, few people exist, because we are not talking about political automatons (for the most part), we're talking about people. Human beings. With their own lives, perspectives and opinions. A card carrying ALP member, for example, may not agree one bit with the current Australian government's attempts to try and defuse the singularly embarrassing and depressing asylum seeker debate via the Malaysia process, just because they are a card carrying ALP member. Likewise, there are plenty of born-and-bred GOP (Republicans for the rest of you) members who would never think of voting blue (or anything other than red) once in their lives, but have deep reservations about the social lunacy of the extreme social right of the GOP. So these labels such as liberal, conservative, left-wing, right-wing, start to lose meaning when the positions they refer to become vague. "Oh yeah, he's a liberal" - what does that even mean? What positions does he hold that makes him a liberal? If - well, when - he disagrees with some of those, do we call him 80% liberal, 10% conservative and 10% green? What?
Number two. More important. I've seen, so, so, so often, labels used as a byword for good/bad. Think guilt-by-association, or, erm, glory-by-association. A self-description of "libertarian" does not often mean "adherence to a political policy emphasizing limited (but not zero) government interference or control in all facets of a society and economy", but rather a tag to big up oneself by associating with the intellectual-highbrow school of libertarianism. A nice crutch for many far-right social conservatives seeking to show off their intellectual values whilst completely ignoring the "society" aspect, and hence appeal to the often genuinely libertarian centre. (not to mention that libertarians, generally speaking, show something approaching a social conscience. Being against public funding of hospitals is one matter. Advocating the refusal of treatment on financial grounds...).
The result is that many of these basic labels become, in the words of one poster on one forum I no longer frequent, anti-words. They actively obstruct meaning, and are often used as blunt instruments with purposes far beyond and far more insidious than merely summing up one's political views.
Which brings me to the original point of this post (I assure you, it had one!) - the Political Compass. For, oh I don't know, six years? now, I've regularly performed the test on the Political Compass website, to see how my views shifted. The test is available here:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
What I like about it is that as a simplification tool, it works so well. It treats your views on the two fundamental scales - social and economic. It formulates your overall position based on your opinion to specific questions, and on specific issues, which is the only true way to gauge someone's opinion. It doesn't allow you to sit on the fence, it makes you think. Most of all, by giving it a weighted numerical scale, it avoids the whole vagueness and misinterpretation issue that a simple "left/right" label will end up, without immense qualification ("centre left-leaning social libertarian" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue).
And my latest result is (x-axis is the economic scale, y-axis is the, erm, state-control or social scale):
Yes, I'm surprised too. This is the first time I've been right-of-centre economically, just left-of-centre (although I have been shifting that way for a while). Just goes to show that you can't pigeonhole people's opinions when your own are constantly shifting.
My issues with labels are two fold.
Firstly, anyone whose political opinions are so regimented, standardized and predictable that a single word can completely described them are, in my view, political sheep. Their views lack the critical depth, clarity, flexibility and adherence to the nuances and complexities of the real world that separates pure, mouth-breathing ideologues from genuine political thinkers. Fortunately, however, few people exist, because we are not talking about political automatons (for the most part), we're talking about people. Human beings. With their own lives, perspectives and opinions. A card carrying ALP member, for example, may not agree one bit with the current Australian government's attempts to try and defuse the singularly embarrassing and depressing asylum seeker debate via the Malaysia process, just because they are a card carrying ALP member. Likewise, there are plenty of born-and-bred GOP (Republicans for the rest of you) members who would never think of voting blue (or anything other than red) once in their lives, but have deep reservations about the social lunacy of the extreme social right of the GOP. So these labels such as liberal, conservative, left-wing, right-wing, start to lose meaning when the positions they refer to become vague. "Oh yeah, he's a liberal" - what does that even mean? What positions does he hold that makes him a liberal? If - well, when - he disagrees with some of those, do we call him 80% liberal, 10% conservative and 10% green? What?
Number two. More important. I've seen, so, so, so often, labels used as a byword for good/bad. Think guilt-by-association, or, erm, glory-by-association. A self-description of "libertarian" does not often mean "adherence to a political policy emphasizing limited (but not zero) government interference or control in all facets of a society and economy", but rather a tag to big up oneself by associating with the intellectual-highbrow school of libertarianism. A nice crutch for many far-right social conservatives seeking to show off their intellectual values whilst completely ignoring the "society" aspect, and hence appeal to the often genuinely libertarian centre. (not to mention that libertarians, generally speaking, show something approaching a social conscience. Being against public funding of hospitals is one matter. Advocating the refusal of treatment on financial grounds...).
The result is that many of these basic labels become, in the words of one poster on one forum I no longer frequent, anti-words. They actively obstruct meaning, and are often used as blunt instruments with purposes far beyond and far more insidious than merely summing up one's political views.
Which brings me to the original point of this post (I assure you, it had one!) - the Political Compass. For, oh I don't know, six years? now, I've regularly performed the test on the Political Compass website, to see how my views shifted. The test is available here:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
What I like about it is that as a simplification tool, it works so well. It treats your views on the two fundamental scales - social and economic. It formulates your overall position based on your opinion to specific questions, and on specific issues, which is the only true way to gauge someone's opinion. It doesn't allow you to sit on the fence, it makes you think. Most of all, by giving it a weighted numerical scale, it avoids the whole vagueness and misinterpretation issue that a simple "left/right" label will end up, without immense qualification ("centre left-leaning social libertarian" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue).
And my latest result is (x-axis is the economic scale, y-axis is the, erm, state-control or social scale):
Yes, I'm surprised too. This is the first time I've been right-of-centre economically, just left-of-centre (although I have been shifting that way for a while). Just goes to show that you can't pigeonhole people's opinions when your own are constantly shifting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)