The first Newspoll result in three weeks, courtesy of The Australian, has Labor’s two-party preferred lead unchanged at 53-47, from primary votes of Coalition 36% (steady), Labor 37% (up one), Greens 9% (down one) and One Nation 11% (up two). The two leaders have recorded identical personal ratings of 32% approval and 55% disapproval, which in Malcolm Turnbull’s case means a three point drop on approval and a one point increase on disapproval, while Bill Shorten is respectively down one and up two. Turnbull’s lead as preferred prime minister is at 44-31, compared with 45-33 last time. The poll was conducted Thursday to Sunday from a sample of 1786.
The latest news reports seem to indicate that the van crashed into people sipping coffee at a cafe, possibly after mowing down some outside the mosque, although this last bit seems less certain.
I guess it could just have been a case of a drunk losing control of his vehicle, although the locale is suspicious.
It certainly wouldn’t be a good development if England starts to see tit-for-tat terrorist attacks between Muslims and non-Muslims. It takes me back to my youth when I lived in India and such attacks were a regular occurrence.
Citizen
Keane is part of the Gallery. The group think effects him as well.
meher baba @ #196 Monday, June 19, 2017 at 11:52 am
But only if they are inadequately funded it seems from your previous remarks.
‘Australia’s debt has double under the Coalition Not one journo is asking how. We have cuts and closures at every level where did savings go?’
We all know the answer to that question.
As for the journos, most of whom were quite happy to crap on about debt, debt, debt when Labor was in power, most are beneath contempt.
Anton,
The reaction from Andrews foes jot surprise me.
Support for Catholic education is a core pillar of liberal party doctrine. How Turnbull and Birmingham could even consider reducing thst support and expect to have the party room support it is amazing. Further, it appears the latest negotiations with the greens and the further concessions made to cut Catholic funding even more were done on the quiet and the first the back bench knew was the weekend MSM disclosure. Absolutely amazing.
If the detail was given to the MSM by Birmingham as some sort of strategic drop then the man is a fool. If Turnbull approved it then his tin ear is again is on show.
Cheers.
‘Turnbull desperate to govern from the centre, but foes won’t let him
Better than his overseas counterparts, Malcolm Turnbull has read the mood of electoral disillusionment, but his opponents are succeeding in preventing him from showing it.’
Does Keanne provide any actual evidence to support this widely held view among the CPG?
Or is it, you know, just a feeling…
Guytaur: “After all the evidence is in Neo Liberalism small government low taxes mantra has failed. Most spectacularly with the Grenfell tower incident. Trickle down just does not work.”
The problem with many people who oppose neo liberalism is that what they seem to want is a combination of lots more public sector jobs combined with an even more generous welfare system. But these things are desirable outcomes, not the solution to the underlying problems.
The current problems that are causing many people in western countries to feel the system has failed are:
1) globalisation, which is steadily eliminating large numbers of private sector (and some public sector) jobs in western countries which provided comparatively high levels of remuneration to workers with relatively low skills and low productivity (think production line workers, typists, filing clerks, bank tellers, etc, etc.)
2) relatively stagnant levels of global demand, due to a range of factors including a saturation of the market with all types of products.
I read a lot about the evils of growing inequality in western countries. And I think these two factors are the major causes of this: especially the second, which tends to reward investors in assets over those in productive enterprises.
Something needs to be done about these problems, but there are no easy solutions. Neo-liberalism might not have the answers, but nor does any other economic theory IMO.
So, where you and I would differ is that, until I see strong evidence of something else working, I’m sticking with neo-liberalism for now. The strongest anti-neoliberal forces in the world in the past few years have been Trump, and the push for Brexit (which brought together the far left and the far right). I’m not standing with those people.
Baba
In other words you are denying evidence. What evidence we have shows that neo liberalism has failed. What evidence we have shows that slashing the government role has deadly consequences. People die as safety for people is jettisoned as we have seen from the stark Grenfell Fire incident.
The same is true of environment regulations and the rest. But to you right wing lot all this actual evidence does not exist. It gets in the way of making money.
Doyley
It appears to me that Birmingham has two different proposals – one for the Greens and the other for the other non-Labor senators.
This govt is desperate to get this up and their only criteria is the cost – so f#ck the outcome for education and fairness.
Guytaur: “In other words you are denying evidence. What evidence we have shows that neo liberalism has failed. What evidence we have shows that slashing the government role has deadly consequences. People die as safety for people is jettisoned as we have seen from the stark Grenfell Fire incident.”
But where is the evidence that the government role has been slashed anywhere? Government spending and deficits around the western world are at historically high levels, not least in the US.
And the Grenfell building was not private sector accommodation: it was government-owned and its management was outsourced to a sort of pseudo-business: a not-for-profit supposedly “tenant-managed” NGO. I have no idea whether this arrangement was responsible for the fire, so it’s difficult for me to agree that it is the fault of neo-liberalism.
meher baba @ #198 Monday, June 19th, 2017 – 11:56 am
I feel that if the driver had been a brown ‘Muslim-looking’ person, and the pedestrians congregating in front of/near a church instead of a mosque, the headlines would have been instantly labeling it another religiously-motivated terrorist attack and no such thoughts about possible innocent (relatively speaking) motives would be entertained.
Gippslander, I re-read the article to see if I could decipher the section you had a problem with.
This is the section here
These are the numbers where a problem within an intimate relationship is seen as the primary cause of the murder. Women represent 79% of victims of murder committed by an intimate partner, and by extrapolation 21% would be men. I presume that could include homosexual partners but those numbers aren’t stated. Given men tend to be more violent I assume male homosexuals are more at risk from their partner than females.
On a brighter note, since we have started counting, you have never been less likely to be murdered. Despite all those ‘scary’ people we let into the country.
Fits with With Steven Fry’s video on Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW9R6jgE7SQ
Baba
Yeah all those cutting red tape legislation the LNP has done is a figment of imagination.
Good try on the Grenfell thing. Read the Guardian as you say you do and learn.
Meher,
Yeah nah.
As someone who cares about good policy more than which side wins the political argument du jour, I’m sad about the Gonski 2.0 debate.
First failure. Whatever the pros and cons of the actual proposal (and there are plenty of cons) in order for good policy to come out of our political system it is absolutely baseline critical that oppositions do not get to government on the back of wrecking the joint. That is how this government came to be. It is not just right, but essential that they not be given a free pass for their bastardry. If the Coalition gets positive reinforcement for what they inflicted on us all in opposition then we get a de facto one party state. If any government other than a Coalition government has it’s policies mindlessly blocked we can never ever have good policy. This is doubly so when the Coalition already is advantaged by the bias of the media environment that assists them to get away with shit no Labor government would even consider.
Given the current state of the government’s finances, it’s a pretty good package.
You talk like the current state of the government’s finances are utterly independent of decisions made by the government. Of course wider economic effects are critical, but this government chose to ditch Carbon pricing but leave the compensation, this government chose to cut taxes for the rich and business, and all the other choices that they have made. The senate has blocked measures, sure (see point 1), but this government sets it’s own priorities. Therefore they own their budget just as much as any other government ever has. They allowed no excuses in opposition, they get no allowances now.
Fact is, a bit like the SSM referendum bill last year, Gonski 2.0 is currently the only game in town.
Bzzzzzt. If the only game in town is pandering to the lunatic fringe of the Liberals then sensible people play another game. This is nothing like Rudd’s CPRS legislation which was essentially a bi-partisan position and had been well foreshadowed prior to the previous election, based on science and reality and stuff and been subject to wide consultation in an effort to bring as many of the players on board as possible. Then sabotaged by the loons for the basest of reasons.
Conski is a sham dreamt up to try and neutralise a political problem for Trumble with zero wider consultation. That it should blow up in the smug prick’s face is all to the good. Like with the phoney plebiscite it has everything to do with Trumble trying to keep his job and nothing to do with benefiting the people affected. (and that’s before we even get to the clear attack on our system of government, disgraceful dereliction of duty, and rank hypocrisy of proposing a plebiscite on this one issue and not other contentious issues that the SSM games represented). Not all oppositions are unscrupulous. Having been through the political pain of doing policy the right way (inquiry, consultation, compromise, legislation) in the face of rank political attack Labor has every right to assert their position in the face of a knocked up political fix. Labor won the fight on education. The Libs claimed to be on a unity ticket to try and stem the hurt, but as with everything they said it was bullshit. Now they want a free pass to cut billions out of agreements negotiated in good faith? They can get fucked. Liberal state governments agree with Labor on this.
And to assume that it is Conski or nothing is simply simple minded. Trumble came up with Conski because he was suffering political pain. That pain lasts until a bipartisan position is found. It is him that has to move, not his opponents. If he tries to say the kids get nothing he loses. Simple as that. Conski is an opening ambit claim, nothing more. Where we end up is simply going to be determined by how much Trumble wants the pain to go away. You don’t maximise your negotiating position by volunteering to reduce his pain. The final end point unless the Greens/x-bench cave will be something very very like Labor’s position.
If things suddenly go the way of Turnbull (or even a replacement PM), it might be a very long time until Labor next forms government.
It might be. Rolling over and giving Trumble wins on issues that are Labor’s political ground would certainly help to extend the time until Labor next forms government. Welcome to politics. These pricks deserve absolutely no assistance because their behaviour in opposition was completely detrimental to good governance. Any decision to assist them enact legislation that will be hard to reverse once in government (and so help them stay in government) is a net negative to the country. They were on a ‘unity ticket’. They didn’t have the courage to put this in front of the voters before the last election (and we all know why). So they have earnt the political pain their decisions bring on their own heads. They will cave or they will significantly reduce their chances of a recovery.
Beazley in the 1998-2001 period adopted a similar approach of promising to get rid of all the nasties and ladle out milk and honey all around, and not worrying a jot about the budget bottom line.
Um, maybe. But really you are talking about LOTO Abbott, not Shorten. We know you’re no fan of Labor’s Neg Gearing changes, but you cannot argue with a straight face that Labor has been all spend and no revenue. Business, income, and capital gains taxes have been proposed to be raised or deductions opposed. Labor has paid a political cost for these upfront and principled stands. They have more than earnt the right to oppose unprincipled stands from a government who deliberately withheld details of their nasties at two straight elections. Labor’s revenue and spending priorities are different to the Coalitions, but it is utter bullshit to pretend that Labor’s positions are detrimental to the budget bottom line in comparison to the government’s. That has been proven by treasury’s own PEFO where the difference between the Coaltion and Labor that Morrison crowed about was all due to the Zombie measures everyone knew were going nowhere as was confirmed on budget night.
If you care about public education, Gonski 2.o is a bird in the hand: just like the referendum was for people who care about SSM.
So no. It’s isn’t a bird in the hand. It’s a con. The downsides of giving Trumble a win just to help his political position far outweigh the bigger picture benefits. This is not a government, it is a fraud and allowing the political costs of the fraudulence of the way they came to power and remain in power to accrue to them is good for the nation in the long run. By not allowing the Coalition to get away with dirty dealing on education or SSM a better resolution of both issues will arise. (remember SSM is still being pushed around the Coalition because they know it is hurting them). On both issues the question isn’t anywhere near taking what’s on offer or get nothing (no matter how much Trumble might try to bluff). The option is to cave now, or get pretty much everything you want by keeping a vicelike grip on Brian’s bollocks. The right response is to squeeze.
It looks like the fate of Gonski 2.o might be sealed on the floor of the Coalition party room.
Also not mentioned is that Turnbull blows in the wind. After Trump’s victory he did not stand up against Hanson (indeed the WA preference deal had federal fingerprints all over it). He also happily jumped onto the Trump sycophancy train. When he realised it was a slow motion train wreck he then belatedly jumped straight off again, with help from his fans in the CPG, who have been gushing over his ‘self-deprecating wit’.
Guytaur: “Yeah all those cutting red tape legislation the LNP has done is a figment of imagination.”
Not particularly wanting to be argumentative, but actually it was. 90% of the legislation passed under Abbott simply got rid of laws and regulations that hadn’t been used for years.
Meanwhile, the bureaucrats of Australia continue unchecked on their merry way imposing more and more red tape on everyone: especially other bureaucrats. Ask anyone who works in the public education or health systems who is trying to find time in their busy day to produce performance and evaluation plans, risk management strategies, learning and development pathways, etc, etc.
Baba
Yeah yeah. There you go using the small government argument in full denial of facts.
Use the strawman of the out of date legislation that all agree with while we know the agenda.
We know the results. They are stark. The evidence is in. Neo Liberalism is a failed ideology. Destroy regulations you get disasters. Massive fires. Workplace deaths. Environmental disasters from oil spills. Global Financial Collapses and the list goes on.
You are in as big a denial on this as those that deny climate change science
It looks like the fate of Gonski 2.o might be sealed on the floor of the Coalition party room.
You say it like we didn’t predict exactly that fate on budget night if Trumble didn’t get his budget bounce.
The Grenfell tower tragedy is directly linked to austerity and winner takes all capitalism. Management did the brave heroic thing of putting cheap shit defective components on the building, and cutting down maintenance and safety upgrades to improve short term profitability or cost reduction. Sociopaths who can ignore human risk, death and suffering in order to gain short-term monetary improvement are highly rewarded. Outsourcing the costs, (financial, social environmental etc) onto most vulnerable and poor to provide benefit to the privileged is a feature of modern economic practice. So the Grenfell Tower fire horror is a normal product of our system.
Ratsak
Monday, June 19, 2017 at 12:34 pm
Well said.
MB
The result of the politicians they work for asking for more and more information?
Ratsak: I don’t disagree with you that Abbott and Credlin completely trashed the concept of rational political debate in 2010-2013, although I still believe that their approach would ultimately have fallen flat on its face without the assistance of the fifth column within the Gillard Government.
And therefore I also agree that the current Government (particularly when Abbott was still in charge) has absolutely no right to cry foul about Labor’s tactics. My argument is not based upon any sympathy I might have for Turnbull and his team. As Hamlet said after being advised of the deaths of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.
” Why, man, they did make love to this employment!
They are not near my conscience; their defeat
Does by their own insinuation grow.”
I just happen to think Gonski 2.0 is ok. And that, if it is defeated, we might not see a better proposal for a while. Or, alternatively, in order to get it through the Senate against Labor’s opposition, the private sector might end up with an unwarranted windfall.
meyer baba
Once someone starts with the ‘red tape’ meme. I know their argument is seriously flawed. It is just a convenient slogan. While laws should be updated, using an airy-fairy term like ‘cutting red tape’ as an excuse to downgrade safety and protections is like deciding to cut the top of a condom so it is easier to put on.
meher baba @ #222 Monday, June 19, 2017 at 12:53 pm
Is that the same fifth column that brought Rudd down?
What exactly is the situation with education funding if we do nothing? How many states already have established funding agreements?
Why don’t the L-NP try on the “unity ticket” they promised and stop pretending they are fixing anything more than a problem created by their own inability to keep a promise?
The starting point for any discussion of this government is to recognise that it is no improvement on the Trump administration.
Sure Trumble might not actually be pig ignorant enough to believe the shit he says and does, but how is that something to be applauded? He is just the new face of the same Abbott stupid, his ministry is essentially the same bunch of nutters and imbeciles. They are just as much in the pocket of vested (largely foreign) interests, elected on lies and destruction. They are just as addicted to using racism and culture war to camouflage the destruction they are intent on inflicting. Like Trump they thought it would be oh so easy, but reality has bitten them on the arse and exposed them as the buffoons they are.
Like here knocking Trump over for a less insane looking front man might gain the Republicans another term (which is why I think they will do exactly that next year). But that would be a rotten result for the US as much as it was and is for us.
As you can see with the Finkel stuff and now with Conski starting to fall apart, this clownshow is close to collapsing in on itself. It just needs a bit more of a push. Anyone who cares about our country should be happy to lend their shoulder to the job.
CTar1: “The result of the politicians they work for asking for more and more information?”
Yep, the buzz word of the day is “accountability”, and this is not simply measured by tangible results, but by analysis of a mass of paperwork. Eg, I read that the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation, which manages Grenfell Tower, consistently received very high ratings in various audit processes. Without being privy to the details of these processes, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they required the organisation to tick boxes on lots of forms, and to have up-to-date and detailed plans on a whole range of important but arguably not mission critical issues such as energy efficiency, rainbow tick standards, etc.
But it appears that, whatever sort of accountability process was in place, it might not have picked up issues such as the highly flammable nature of the building, and the inadequacy of its fire escapes.
What is the rationale for this?
Lizzie
I don’t see rationale. Just political game playing.
Mind you I said the same when tampons were taxed and not condoms. Of course Tampons should not be taxed. However while we are about it we should just scrap the GST and give a boost to the economy. Make up the revenue by being serious about taxing the revenue raises the multinationals and wealthy
I don’t disagree with you that Abbott and Credlin completely trashed the concept of rational political debate in 2010-2013, although I still believe that their approach would ultimately have fallen flat on its face without the assistance of the fifth column within the Gillard Government.
No argument. But Labor has clearly learnt the lesson that term had to teach them. The pain they suffered made the lesson stick.
The Coalition clearly aren’t smart enough to learn quickly so much more pain is required.
And look, it’s completely fair enough for you to think Conski is good enough. I vehemently disagree. Most education systems and players seem to vehemently disagree. If we wish to continue the fight then Trumble will either win or lose (and the converse), but we go into the fight with all the advantages and prepared to fight to win. Trumble however is in the fight to not lose too badly. We’re a long way from reconsidering the strategy at this point.
The Greens are indeed polling very poorly, trend wise. I wrote a piece on the Greens woes here: http://www.matthrkac.com/2017/current-greens-strategy-is-failing-to-cut-through
Since the last Federal Election, they’ve been unable to consistently score more than 10% with any regularity. By contrast, within a year following the 2013 Election, they were polling consistently higher than 10%, even in Newspolls.
That can be put down to the fact that they are failing to prosecute their case for being different from the business as usual – they are acting major party; and why would people vote for a pretend major party when two real deals already exist?
The dilemma for the Greens is whether they push a more radical platform, drop their clean skin attitude, and eschew its desire to rub shoulders with the establishment; or whether they continue down the current path of playing (pretend) party of government. Whether they push a platform that will appeal to working class voters fed up with business as usual politics, or whether they’ll continue to pander to wealthy voters in the inner east of Melbourne (to mixed successs).
For the Greens, they’ve already chosen their path and they have no desire to change course, and that will have dire consequences for the party, and could very well have dire sonsequences for progressive politics as a whole, especially if One Nation manage to gain the balance of power due to the Greens stagnation.
But it appears that, whatever sort of accountability process was in place, it might not have picked up issues such as the highly flammable nature of the building, and the inadequacy of its fire escapes
Perhaps because said issues might just have fallen into the jettisoned too much red tape box, which as PTMG pointed out, brilliantly, is all too often a ruse for issues impacting on profits, and here I name ‘fire-extinguishers’.
‘But it appears that, whatever sort of accountability process was in place, it might not have picked up issues such as the highly flammable nature of the building, and the inadequacy of its fire escapes.’
Yeah, just minor issues like these.
So the problem isn’t ‘red tape’ (a stupid expression if ever there was one) in itself, but its application to areas that don’t matter, and most importantly don’t affect the bottom line.
BTW, your use of weasel words like ‘appears that’ and ‘might not have’ does you no credit.
The building was clad in flammable, illegal covering and it had no fire escapes.
PMD: “Once someone starts with the ‘red tape’ meme. I know their argument is seriously flawed. It is just a convenient slogan. While laws should be updated, using an airy-fairy term like ‘cutting red tape’ as an excuse to downgrade safety and protections is like deciding to cut the top of a condom so it is easier to put on.”
There’s red tape and red tape. A lot of cowboy private sector types will consider things like protecting habitats for endangered species or emissions controls on cars to be “unnecessary red tape.” That’s all self-interested claptrap of course.
But, as I suggested in my last post, there is another, more insidious sort of red tape that is becoming more and more prevalent in our society, and particularly within government. If you ask any teacher or public hospital doctor or health worker who is over the age of 50 to compare what proportion of their day they now spend delivering services or preparing for the delivery of services as opposed to 25 years ago, they will tell you that it has reduced significantly. And the reason for this is that they now spend much more time on administrative paperwork.
And this is even in spite of the fact the proportion of hospital and school employees engaged in managerial or administrative work has also grown significantly. When I did a bit of school-teaching in NSW over three decades ago, most high schools had a principal, a deputy principal, and a couple of admin staff. Nowadays, there are often three or more deputy principals in a big school, quite a few more admin staff and teaching assistants, and computers to make it all easier. There are also a lot more staff in the head offices of education departments, including in some states a category of sort of “super-principals” who oversee the work of the principals.
And yet in spite of all this additional administrative “assistance”, the ordinary teachers seem to have to spend far more of their day on paperwork than ever before.
The answer, of course, is that all these additional layers of management and cadres of bureaucrats generate more administrative work for those at the bottom of the heap: ie, the front-line professionals. You can see this not only in schools and hospitals, but in the universities, the criminal justice system, the welfare system, etc., etc.
As far as I can see, the Australian Taxation Office stands out as a beacon in this darkness: sure, they have a lot more employees than they used to do, but they seem to have made a concerted effort to simplify their system rather than add layer after layer of complexity.
BTW, I think the political right is at least equally to blame for this trend as is the left. But this post is long enough so I’ll stop.
Guytaur
Such actions make it difficult to believe that Labor is genuinely about equality for women.
Adrian: “BTW, your use of weasel words like ‘appears that’ and ‘might not have’ does you no credit. The building was clad in flammable, illegal covering and it had no fire escapes.”
It certainly appears so, but I was going to wait for outcomes of the inquiry before pronouncing definite judgement.
lizzie: “What is the rationale for this?”
As a strong supporter of a consumption tax, the rationale would be that it should be applied to all purchases. That’s far more efficient for retailers, and, if lower income people are adequately compensated, is also fairer: eg, the current GST exemptions on health and education products and services disproportionately favour wealthier people who send their kids to private schools, use private hospitals, etc, etc.
But, given that health expenditures are exempt from the GST, I can’t see anything really wrong with exempting tampons as well. The medically-minded among us would argue that tampons are not medical products because menstruation is a physiological condition and not a medical one. But that’s getting nit-picking.
Lizzie
Yes such actions does make that hard to believe. However I do think Labor is doing the right thing by using targets for preselections and going for the 50:50 ratio.
Then things like this will change. I think Labor moves a little more slowly than society at times but they are improving and thats what counts.
The hard yards done by woman has paid off for other minority groups like muslims gays Etc. (I left First people out because Labor has been on same path as wth women) Labor is embracing equality however slowly that is taking effect within the party.
Nice try but no. Neoliberalism hides behind paperwork. The company I work for recently admitted that the reason it always got consistently high employee feedback scores year on year was because it adjusted the previous years’ results downwards so that the current years’ results showed “an improvement”. That is emblematic of how neoliberalism works: hide your gross immoral practices behind buzzwords and reams of mundane paperwork.
You CANNOT say that it was not known that this building was at risk of fire. A Tory minister REFUSED to implement fire safety standards, SEVEN years ago, that would have reduced the severity of this disaster. The residents’ association WARNED of the risk repeatedly. The company that manufactures the cladding WARNED that it should not be used for buildings over three stories. Grenfell is as story of a rich council and private contractors cutting corners to line their own pockets to the detriment of the poor – that is the story of austerity and neoliberalism writ large.
Meher
Thank you. Nit-picking indeed. Are condoms GST free?
madwixxy: Kathy Jackson is now facing 164 charges after more charges laid today in court #auspol #Jacksonville twitter.com/7newssydney/st…
Have a think about that timeframe, Meher. When did neoliberalism, the doctrine that government should be drowned in a bathtub and that the market should be sanctified, arise?
I would put it to you that this kind of “paperwork” is the direct result of neoliberalism. The rise of concepts such as “efficiency”, “competition”, and “accountability” all arose out of neoliberal contempt for the state, and a desire to prove their suspicion that all government activity was a waste of money. The end result has been that neoliberal policies and practices are strangling the state and obstructing good outcomes. You yourself have observed their effect in public health and education.
Hiding behind correctly-filled paperwork is very effective when your policies have led to a baby dying in hospital or a building catching on fire under your watch.
bemused @ #224 Monday, June 19, 2017 at 1:01 pm
Given that Rudd’s character was that Fifth Column – yes.
Now, having thrown the molotov cocktail, I will get on with my increasingly busy and multifaceted life. Sayoonara.
But, as I suggested in my last post, there is another, more insidious sort of red tape that is becoming more and more prevalent in our society, and particularly within government. If you ask any teacher or public hospital doctor or health worker who is over the age of 50 to compare what proportion of their day they now spend delivering services or preparing for the delivery of services as opposed to 25 years ago, they will tell you that it has reduced significantly. And the reason for this is that they now spend much more time on administrative paperwork.
Regulation is a chronic structural problem. The fallacy is to imagine that there is ever a ‘right’ amount of it. Both left and right can suffer from converse versions of the same fallacy. (more regulation is better, less regulation is better)
In practice we can only approach a regulatory ‘Goldilocks zone’ through dynamic equilibrium. We try removing some regulations when we see problematic side effects of ‘over-regulation’ arise, and then add new regulations when other problems from lack of regulation are encountered.
This is of course the bread and butter of government. A keen eye on where unintended consequences might be developing and appropriate changes to regulation before the problems become acute is what a good government would largely be about. What we often get is an ideological approach that uses one approach almost exclusively until a catastrophe demands a knee jerk response the other way.
I prefer Labor’s approach generally because I believe they are more discriminating in their changes to regulation than the Coalition. Less ideologically driven and far sighted. What we get from the Coalition to my mind is trashing of useful regulation in order to advantage their rich base, and an onerous overuse of regulation in areas of personal and cultural affairs to attract the votes of those not advantaged by their economic policies but who can be won over by culture wars.
but tl; dr regulation is impossible to get ‘right’
Meher – higher education is an excellent case-in-point. The corporatisation of our universities, meant to increase their “efficiency” and “competitiveness” and therefore reduce their reliance on public funding, has seen a ballooning in the number of functionaries, middle managers and admin staff dedicated to pointless work that pull money away from where it is most effective – education and research. Neoliberalism is strangling our universities.
It used to be that elected student unions were responsible for student happiness. Now universities send out pointless emails and paperwork asking students dozens of questions that middle management then inputs into “student happiness indexes” they then use in online ads and emails to try and sucker in the next lot of prospective students – all in the name of brand-marketing and competitiveness, of course.
The fact that universities spend any money at all on advertising and talking about their students as “consumers” is an absolute indictment of our current ideological framework. Neoliberalism is a cancer strangling the life out of civil society.
Ratsak – you are on fire today!
The medically-minded among us would argue that tampons are not medical products because menstruation is a physiological condition and not a medical one. But that’s getting nit-picking
Should you be male, I’d be wary of taking that attitude to a medically minded doctor complaining of a urinary tract infection from urinary stasis because your prostate has become physiologically enlarged, as normal prostates are physiologically inclined to do. In fact, I’d be very wary of getting old at all.
JimmyDoyle: “I would put it to you that this kind of “paperwork” is the direct result of neoliberalism. The rise of concepts such as “efficiency”, “competition”, and “accountability” all arose out of neoliberal contempt for the state, and a desire to prove their suspicion that all government activity was a waste of money. The end result has been that neoliberal policies and practices are strangling the state and obstructing good outcomes. You yourself have observed their effect in public health and education.”
As I posted earlier, I think that the political left and right each have to bear some of the blame for this trend.
The left, for its tendency to favour more or more government intrusion in our lives. (I would have once added “except in sexual matters”, although the whole LGBTIQ rainbow thing now seems to be necessitating a lot of extra government intervention on behalf of that set of communities).
And the right, as you say, for pushing the “accountability” bandwagon so hard: as we are seeing right now with all the delcons screaming: “don’t spend more money, raise teaching standards and make the teachers accountable” Which inevitably means more paperwork and therefore – ironically – more spending on bureaucrats.
But leading aside ideologies, we are all responsible for this dreadful trend. When something goes wrong in any aspect of our lives, we are less and less inclined to accept that “s**t happens.” Like traditional Aboriginal societies which did not consider there was such a thing as a “natural death”, we are always looking for someone to blame. And this tendency is pandered to by the media and, increasingly, by the courts.
In this environment of more and more finger-pointing, government and private sector organisations feel that, in order to be able to keep on delivering any sorts of services at all, they need to protect themselves behind an ever-growing mountain of paperwork.
Stopping this trend is not going to be easy. The best solution I’ve seen in a long while is the NDIS. If we can ultimately move all forms of compensation for disability and personal injury out of the blame-seeking court system and into a needs-based system, that would be a really good start.