Still trying to come to grips with the Costello Follies, which he appears to be determined to keep alive.
I’m having trouble working out who wins out of all of this. John Howard doesn’t, because he always had Costello where he wanted him. Costello doesn’t, just look at the quotes coming out of the Liberal Party back and front benches.
One of my colleagues has a good “cock-up” theory. Prime Ministerial intimate Graeme Morris makes some un-guarded remarks on TV about the succession, these are seen by Costello as being part of a strategy to put off a leadership challenge, even though Howard knew nothing of them in advance. Costello gets angry, gives the McLachlan story to Milne who publishes it. The pressure then goes on McLachlan to confirm, which he does. And things flow from there with no-one, least of all Costello, prepared to back-down.
Another of my colleagues has a good “conspiracy” theory. Who benefits from this turn of events?
“Howard would have to be first suspect, but he is risk averse, has plenty to lose and probably is of the view that he can (and is ) managing Costello where he is – so probably not him.
Downer – has indicated a desire to be Treasurer, apparent recent dreams of taking on the top job, seems to be emerging as the Howard preference, would have become aware of the Howard/Costello/MacLachlan meeting and was the leader in Jan 1995 whose deputy told him he was supporting the Howard push.
As with all good conspiracies, there is no evidence but Downer has the motive – ambition and revenge – and it wouldn’t have been too hard to place the story through a third party with the journalist seen as being the major Costello booster on the whole planet – all very neat.”
I’m open to other theories, having none worth retailing of my own.
July 12, 2006 | Graham
Cui bono?
July 10, 2006 | Graham
Costello move pre-meditated and self-defeating
When will Peter Costello resign? This afternoon’s press stories make this necessary, but difficult for him to achieve with dignity or credibility. You cannot effectively say that the Prime Minister lied, as Costello does in this report and this one, and stay in your job as 2-I-C. At any rate, not if you’ve got it in you to be boss yourself one day.
The Costello revelations look to have been planned. There’s been a slow build-up: a jaunt to The Solomon’s to bolster his claim on statesmanship, and comments on federal state relations to prove his reformist domestic credentials; Ian McLachlan’s left-field revelations; and now, after 24 hours of tease, Costello’s confirmation of their details. All of this in the winter recess when politicians don’t have parliamentary business to worry them.
But while it might be premeditated, it’s no coup. If it was a coup there’d be a quiet spill in the party room. The Costello camp’s resort to this sort of tactic demonstrates just how far from having the numbers they are. They appear to have taken a position that John Howard’s electoral standing, and the government’s, is going to worsen, and they want their man clear of any problems and in a position to pick-up the pieces.
How convincing will a Costello resignation be? Not very. While Costello has put himself in a position where he really has to resign, he actually needs Howard to demand his resignation. If Howard doesn’t, then Costello will have to resign himself, but on what basis? If the commitment was broken it was broken about six years ago, in 2000. What’s the quality of the PM in waiting that it takes 6 years for him to make a stand?
And a resignation taken for ambition rather than principle will not resonate well with electors.
These events may have been planned, but they bring to mind Paul Keatings comments on John Hewson’s plan – Fightback! “Yes, but it’s the wrong plan.”
July 10, 2006 | Graham
Wallets and Diaries
What a classic quote:
“Well it makes you wonder, doesn’t it, why a person like McLachlan would carry around some notes in a diary for 12 years and then produce them. I mean Ian McLachlan is not known for opening his wallet, let alone his diary.” – Liberal backbencher Alby Schultz commenting on the latest round of Liberal Party leadership speculation on 4BC news.
Howard must be pleased with the way things are running – it’s tending to keep IR off the front page.
And all this at a time when Costello’s inept strategy and tactics tend to make him less, not more, suitable as Liberal Party leader.
There are two things that the party rank and file never want to see in a Liberal leader, irrespective of what the public might want – republicanism and centralism. They might be able to live with one of the two, as long as it is only quietly confessed in the intimacies of polite dinner conversation, but never both.
Of course, when Howard goes, they probably won’t have much choice, but Costello’s policy positions will conspire to make him a short-term leader. A bit like John Gorton, but without the pizazz or the crags.
Of course, there’s nothing much in the current speculation. Whatever Howard said 2 years before he was elected has got to be largely irrelevant. And if John Hewson, who has a strong dislike of Howard, thinks there’s nothing to it, as does Andrew Bartlett, I don’t think there’s too much more that needs to be said. You’d certainly be hard-pressed to find anyone in the Queen Street mall who would think that Howard should just pass over the Prime Ministership on the basis of a conversation that occurred before he was PM, or even in a position to deliver on it.
The man and woman in the street is looking for a safe pair of hands, and if they had to choose between athletic, handsome Peter Costello and dull, dour and plodding John Howard to be sitting waiting for the “mark”, they know which they’d rather have.
July 07, 2006 | Graham
Big Brother convergence
Everyone seems to be talking about that “turkey slap” (what a wonderfully evocative term, and I must be getting old because I’d never heard it before) but no-one seems to be getting the point. There’s nothing really to be scandalised about, it’s just a case of convergence.
Unless of course you think that pornographers don’t have the right to make legitimate productions.
Many a glittering career has been launched on the basis of hard or soft pornographic movies or photo-shoots, or sustained on the same basis, yet we don’t criticise broadcasters for showing the non-pornographic works of these actors.
Normally the producer of the pornography and the producer of the legit material are entirely different entities, but they don’t have to be. There’s been more than the odd movie that has had to have scenes cut from it for Australian distribution but which is available in all its glory on the screen overseas, or here on DVD or on the Internet.
What’s happened in the Channel 10 case is that Ten is simultaneously producing material for two different media – broadcast and the ‘net. The “turkey slap” was narrowcast to a pay audience, like most pornography on the ‘net, but only the more wholesome material was broadcast. So the scenes deemed not fit for public consumption were effectively cut, but made available for an audience that was interested in it and qualified to see it under our laws. Not much difference here to the situation where you have the movie, and then you have the “director’s cut” or the DVD with some of the excluded scenes on it as a special feature.
This is just one aspect of convergence, an aspect to which Lawrence Lessig applies the hip term “remix culture”, and which those of us more prone to jargon call “repurposing”. We’re going to see much more of it, and unless you are going to characterise the nature of the polished product on the basis of what is excluded from it rather than what it contains, there is no way around it.
Or characterise all the work of the actor on the basis of what they do in their private lives. The other aspect of the Big Brother case is that because these actors/people are living their private lives out where we can see them, we tend to confuse reality and production. Looked at in another way, what happened on Ten is little different to what happens in the real life of Paris Hilton, for example. Paris and boyfriend shoot a home video which finds its way onto the Internet. Women’s magazines and newspapers report on this, while not showing the video. They also continue to report on all the other goings-on in Paris’s life.
Do we stigmatise all the reporting of the Paris Hilton reality show because of a hand-held video cam job, or just continue to buy the magazines? The only difference between Paris and BB is that Paris had to do her own filming rather than contracting it out to New Idea, whilst BB did the whole package.
That the government, and the media, are tying themselves in knots about this indicates that both have a long way to go before they understand that the old publishing world where everything sat in discrete boxes called broadcast, video, print, wireless and so on has disappeared. Now there is only product, bandwidth and audience, and the same material will be cut-up and polished for different audiences using whatever delivery system provides the appropriate bandwidth.
As long as no-one is breaking the criminal law, this is a situation that is to be embraced, not regulated. If it is legal to “turkey slap” a willing partner, then it’s OK to allow it to be shown, as long as the “actors” agree and the audience consents, and is legally able to consent. BB is showing us the future of media, and there is no point trying to stop it, despite the fact that to some this future is just as confronting as being “turkey slapped”.
July 06, 2006 | Tom
The Differing Economic Policies of Menzies and Howard Government
The Australian Historical Association is holding its 2006 Conference at the Australian National University on July 3-7. …
One item of note is the session 11 am to 12:30 pm, Thursday “Comparing Menzies and Howard”, with:
Professor Stuart Harris: The Differing Economic Policies of Menzies and Howard Government
There are few similarities between Menzies and Howard.
During the Menzies era wool and similar exports to the UK was paramount. There was state paternalism, immigration and the welfare state. Menzies supported the welfare state via the private sector. Much of this was inherited from the Labor Chifley government. Exchange rates were tight as we were fixed to Sterling, making economic management difficult. The budget was the major economic instrument, with mini-budgets.
Howard didn’t initiate 1980s market reforms, but supported those of the Hawke government. The change in freeing the exchange is significant as is interest rate setting by an independent reserve bank. The federal budget is almost a non-event now. The Howard government has been mostly concerned with microeconomic reform, started by Hawk. Even the GST was foreshadowed by Keating. Howard has been able to move further than Hawk or Keating.
There is a gradual learning by Howard of the importance of Asia for Australia’s economic future.
July 06, 2006 | Tom
Foreign Policies in the Menzies and Howard Years
The Australian Historical Association is holding its 2006 Conference at the Australian National University on July 3-7. …
One item of note is the session 11 am to 12:30 pm, Thursday “Comparing Menzies and Howard”, with:
Richard Broinowski, writer and Adjunct Professor at the University of Sydney:
Menzies had an embarrassing attachment to the UK. After WW2, Menzies sent Australian forces to the Malaya confrontation and the Vietnam War. Howard has followed a similar pattern. He sent forces to East Timor, Afghanistan, and to an (illegal) invasion of Iraq.
Menzies and Howard have common beliefs: Australia needs defending and is incapable of defending itself. Howard did not need to invoke the ANZUS treaty after 911, as it is a Pacific Treaty. The concern expressed about North Korean missiles is not justified.
Menzies supported apartheid South Africa and avoided Asia. Howard “shed no tears” when Indonesia abrogated the military treaty with Australia. Howard sees the relationship with Asia as being economic only, not cultural.
Menzies had a contempt for international organizations: “UN a disunited blamange”. But Menzines had a respect for the rule of law and would have sent David Hicks home. Howard has refused to ratify international treaties on human rights.
Menzies didn’t want nuclear weapons. Saw a balance between USA and USSR. Howard has a similar perspective of the USA as a great and powerful friend. Blair is an acolyte of Bush.
Australian is buying landing ships, a fighter jet which falls between two stools, both weapons to fight a conventional war. But the risk seen by the USA and Australia is of a suitcase nuclear bomb.
July 06, 2006 | Tom
Differing uses of ASIO Comparing in the Menzies and Howard Years
The Australian Historical Association is holding its 2006 Conference at the Australian National University on July 3-7.
One item of note is the session 11 am to 12:30 pm, Thursday “Comparing Menzies and Howard”:
Frank Cain ADFA:
Ninety years ago Billy Hughes introduced sophisticated political surveillance system in Australia. This used state police forces and British MI5. It was used against the anti-subscription protesters during WW1.
In WW2 the US Army broke into USSR communications in Canberra, probably with the help of Australian Army intelligence. The Australian Labor PM knew nothing of this until later. Chifley set up ASIO in response, based on MI5, but with oversight by a Judge. These protection was watered down by Menzies.
ASIO came to prominence during the Petrov affair. The head of ASIO drafted legislation to make ASIO an official agency and part of the Commonwealth superannuation scheme. 😉
Cain argued that ASIO was an old boys school, closely aligned with the Liberal Party. Witlham tried to change this in 1972, but the Hawke government introduced reforms and accountability.
With the end of the cold war the Howard government was wondering what to do with ASIO. This was solved by 911, with a new mandate against terrorism. ASIO got new powers to hack into computers, put people tracers on cars. Howard increases the anti-terrorism legislation before the Iraq war. Andrew Wilkie, a former Australian intelligence officer, wrote Axis of Deceit, published by Black Ink in Melbourne. ASIO raided the publisher and smashed their computers, as documented in an SBS documentary.
July 06, 2006 | Tom
Comparison of the Menzies and Howard Electoral Strategies
The Australian Historical Association is holding its 2006 Conference at the Australian National University on July 3-7. …
One item of note is the session 11 am to 12:30 pm, Thursday “Comparing Menzies and Howard”, with:
MACKERRAS: Comparison of the Menzies and Howard Electoral Strategies …
At the start Associate Professor Malcolm Mackerras handed out a survey table. Ian Mackallaster, Australian Election Study. Contrasted with Menzines in relation to the senate. Each is a ten year PM, from the liberal party, and had their best election late in their term. For Menzies 1959 is the same as 2006 for Howard. Mackerras suggests that the next election will be Howard’s worst. In December or January Howard will “cut and run”, resiging on Australia Day next year, leaving Costello to lead the Liberal party. There will be a 4.6% swing to Labor at the subsequent election, giving them government.
Recent newspaper headlines have “why Labor keeps loosing”, but this was the case in 1960. The Labor party will win the seats Bennalong and Wentworth. This is due to the “doctor’s wives effect” and boundary changes. Unlike the USA, where the electoral boundaries are gerrymandered in favour of the Republican party.
Chifley made electoral changes which would have made a Senate victory for Menzies impossible. So Menzies called a double dissolution. In contrast Howard ran a propaganda campaign saying the Senate had been irresponsible. This only convinced the Liberal Party. Having got a majority in the Senate, Howard introduced work choices legislation. This legislation didn’t match the legislation previously rejected by the Senate. Howard got away with this due to incompetence in the Labor Party.
To come:
CAIN: Differing uses of ASIO Comparing in the Menzies and Howard Years
BROINOWSKI: Foreign Policies in the Menzies and Howard Years
HARRIS: The Differing Economic Policies of Menzies and Howard Government
July 06, 2006 | Tom
Comparing Menzies and Howard, Canberra, 6 July
The Australian Historical Association is holding its 2006 Conference at the Australian National University on July 3-7
The program includes items such as “Pool Politics: the emergence of a distinctive swimming pool culture in suburban Sydney” and “The early Chinese Restaurant and ‘White’ Australia”.
One item of note is the session 11 am to 12:30 pm, Thursday “Comparing Menzies and Howard”, with:
MACKERRAS: Comparison of the Menzies and Howard Electoral Strategies
CAIN: Differing uses of ASIO Comparing in the Menzies and Howard Years
BROINOWSKI: Foreign Policies in the Menzies and Howard Years
HARRIS: The Differing Economic Policies of Menzies and Howard Government
I thought I would take my wireless modem along and do a “live” report of the session on OnLineOpinion. Anyone with a question they would like asked at the forum can send it to me and I will try to report the answer back.
Here is some background about the first speaker:
* Associate Professor Malcolm Mackerras “…is well known for his interest in Australian elections, and has written and contributed extensively to radio and television on most federal and state elections. …”
Some papers by and about him are on Google.
ps: I have done a live Internet report from a hot air balloon with a Senator over parliament house, so how much harder can this be? 😉
July 04, 2006 | Graham
It officially is a war on terror now
This morning we published a very interesting article by Ted Lapkin on the US Supreme Court decision invalidating the military commissions set-up to try prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.
Not having read the judgement I was rapidly gaining the misapprehension from news commentary and reports that the Bush government had been told to close Gitmo. Ted had read the judgement, and I now understand that instead, the ruling is relatively narrow, dealing only with the form of trial that the inmates “may have”. I don’t say “must have” because the judgement also apparently supports the principal that habeas corpus doesn’t apply in this case and that the US is entitled to intern enemy combatants without trial.
I remember waking one morning to an ABC Radio news bulletin (what other would I wake for?) and taking umbrage at the journalist referring to the “so-called war on terror”. It appears to me that the most significant thing about the judgement is that it essentially validates the term “war on terror” by holding that the detainees are subject to the Geneva Convention, and validates the point of view that I hold that in this situation there is justification for infringements on civil liberties which in a peaceful time would be unjustifiable.
Which is not to say that I agree with the Howard government’s stance on Hicks (nor some of the legislation they have passed). He seems to me to be an unfortunate young man who is probably more a danger to himself than to anyone else, and one who should be evicted from Guantanamo forthwith and repatriated to Australia. He was just unlucky to get caught in the first place.