The Forum > Article Comments > Could a Labor government escape the Liberals' legacy > Comments
Could a Labor government escape the Liberals' legacy : Comments
By Miriam Lyons, published 12/11/2007A future Labor government will need to escape the memory of past defeats and seize this opportunity to reimagine the future.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
-
- All
Posted by keith, Monday, 12 November 2007 12:17:36 PM
| |
a good thing this person is at a center for policy development, would be a danger to herself and others if in a center for policy execution.
i wonder if she gets paid for writing down her wishful thinking? Posted by DEMOS, Monday, 12 November 2007 12:51:36 PM
| |
Well of COURSE Labor needs to develop a new style. Heaven help us if they continue on with more of the same approach of the last decade.
I hope and pray that they’ll change a great deal after they win the election, starting off with the formulation of policies to end expansionism. That is; cap population, strive for a healthy economy that doesn’t have to be continuously growing, and gear everything that can possibly be adjusted towards a genuinely sustainable platform for the whole country. I hate to even begin contemplating what would happen if they don’t do this, and with great urgency! Surely Miriam Lyons is working hard on how best to achieve this policy shift ?? Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 12 November 2007 1:39:00 PM
| |
Very good.
Loved the 'flea imprisoned in a jar' analogy. My article "Can Labor bring about a just society?" at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6395 of 24 September may also be of interest. --- Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" (RRP $32.95) is essential reading to understand what is going on now in Australian politics. It is almost impossible to praise this book too highly. Even though neither Australia nor New Zealand are covered in detail in this book, one can easily extrapolate from the examples of Bolivia in 1985, Poland and the USSR and South Africa, in order to imagine how parties like Labor, which supposedly represent the less wealthy have been transformed by the remorseless efforts of well-funded right wing think tanks (including the Centre for Independent Studies) into servants of the world's rapaciously greedy and selfish elites. Having said that the choice we face at th elections is still very important. If Howard were to win, then any hope we now have of being able to achieve good, accountable and democratic government before it is too late will have been lost. So, whatever you do, be sure to put the Liberals last on your ballot forms. For further information about "The Shock Doctrine" see: http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/reviews http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/reviews/advance-praise Posted by daggett, Monday, 12 November 2007 1:56:15 PM
| |
Ah the usual socialist drivel
As for “Once it has learned to limit itself, the flea can never escape the jar.” I thought that was one of the central edicts of socialism, no one is allowed to develop or learn to leap higher than the rest, in case they make the other fleas look inferior. So “Could a Labor government escape the Liberal's legacy” Well should they come to power, let us consider what they will inherit, a balanced budget, running in surplus with high employment and a buoyant economy What “legacy” did the liberals inherit from the last labor government back over a decade ago Near economic ruin, high unemployment, a government budget running at billions a year in debt. That is what Keating left for the liberals. Now the liberals, through sound and prudent management, having turned the economy around – the legacy (should the floating fools put the socialists back into power) which the socialist spawn might inherit is a gift, compared to the blight they left behind them last time ( a bit like the corruption and incompetence which the pompous git, Whitlam left). As for “to mimic the command and control style of its predecessor, and instead focus on collaboration, adaptive policy-making and citizen engagement.” I hate to say this but whilst the socialists remain in the pocket of their union masters, expect nothing other than incompetence, union influence peddling and economic stupidity. Ludwig "Miriam Lyons is working hard" The notion of a political analyst in a socialist thinktank, "working hard" is an oxymoron Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 12 November 2007 2:11:55 PM
| |
Dear all,
Just in case Keith or others interpret my hope that Labor will escape the narrow worldview that currently constrains thinking on both sides of politics as a desire for them to break their election promises, I should just clarify that I mean no such thing. Even though I think some of Labor's election promises are badly thought out and unsustainable, we need to build the integrity of the democratic process more urgently than we need to reform any particular policy. However, I think it's important to remember that this election is really about a small (albeit growing) group of swinging voters in marginal seats - both major parties are focusing most of their attention on trying to buy off this group of people and have taken the majority of people who have already made up their minds for granted. (Many of our recent elections have had this quality to them, and I think it has a lot to do with why so many of us have become disengaged from politics.) It is for this reason that we get an election debate that focuses on tiny shades of difference: will people on $38-100K a year be 2-13 dollars better off under Liberal than Labor by 2013? (source: http://andrewleigh.com/?p=1661) Do we want a 'commitment' or an 'obligation' from developing countries before we sign Kyoto? Dull, unimaginative, and so very distant from the real debates we need to be having about Australia's future (I'm writing another article for OLO on the debates I think we should be having instead). So yes, while I do hope that Labor will keep faith with the minority of voters who will actually decide this election, I also hope that they, or indeed the Coalition if they win, start pitching some better products to a much broader demographic. Or better still, start treating us a little less like a target market and a little more like citizens. Posted by Miriam Lyons, Monday, 12 November 2007 6:09:29 PM
| |
“…we need to build the integrity of the democratic process more urgently than we need to reform any particular policy.”
Why do you say this Miriam? It suggests that you don’t see any particularly strong need to change any policy and that our democratic system is just fine and needs to be protected. I’d suggest that there is the most urgent need for major policy shifts and that our brand of democracy is one of the problems that has got us into a position where our future wellbeing is under grave threat and enormous change in governance is needed. What we need is a government that can show strong leadership and guide us in the new direction that I mentioned in my last post, and do it in such a way as to gain the support of the people. As you say, this campaign is; “Dull, unimaginative, and so very distant from the real debates we need to be having about Australia's future” So isn’t this a sad indictment of our political process – that droll issues take precedence over big-picture issues? I wonder if you could give us an idea of the sorts of policy development you are involved with. Is it big-picture sustainability-oriented stuff, or deck-chair rearranging stuff? Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 12 November 2007 8:23:01 PM
| |
"Ludwig: “…we need to build the integrity of the democratic process more urgently than we need to reform any particular policy.”
Why do you say this Miriam? It suggests that you don’t see any particularly strong need to change any policy..." I can't speak for Miriam, but I see it such that for Labor to get into a position of being able to 'do anything', like address policy changes, they have to play the game. That is - They have to win the election first. That is the democratic process - winning over a democratic majority. The fatal flaw of any democracy is that the majority can be idiots and aresholes. It is not a perfect system of governance, but its the only one we got. And the votes of all those idiots must also count for it to be democratic. Back to those ever so powerful marginal seat swinging voters, in a minority, yes, but holding the whole country by the short & curlies. They sell their votes to the highest bidder - they are a petulant spoiled brat minority with "whats in it for me?" attitudes, full stop, end of story. They dont care about policy, and they wont vote for it. So they have to be *bought* in the democratic way. And that also means, for it to be genuinely democratic Rudd needs to to 'keep faith' by honoring the bribes, at least for the first term. And which also means, I have to be double-taxed to subsidise their kids private school fees. But I would have to do that under Liberals anyway *sigh* Posted by Rain, Monday, 12 November 2007 10:23:03 PM
| |
Hi Ludwig, I do see a strong need to change all kinds of policies, and I don't think our democracy is in a particularly healthy state.
But as I wrote at the end of the article, I think a lot of the most important problems we have to deal with (climate change for example, or entrenched social exclusion) are what's known as 'wicked problems' (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problems for a definition). For such problems there may be no perfect technocratic solution - you need to find common ground between multiple conflicting stakeholders, and some groups may need to accept changes that aren't in their own immediate best interests. The only way we can reach this acceptance is if everyone believes that the process is fair, and that their concerns have been taken into account. That requires a reinvigoration of the democratic process - including a genuine rebuilding of trust between citizens and policy makers. Breaking promises isn't a good way to start building trust. So, apart from the obvious ethical reasons, I think that's a good argument for an incoming government to keep its promises - even the bad ones. Posted by Miriam Lyons, Monday, 12 November 2007 11:30:09 PM
| |
Hi Miriam
Pleased you cleared that up. I agree the focus of both parties far too inhibited and lacking immagination. But then again why would we expect either to be immaginative ... since they both operate on a 'let's scare them' basis. I look forward to your article. Posted by keith, Wednesday, 14 November 2007 9:39:29 AM
| |
Miriam
The first really wicked problem for a government is how to be elected and then be able to make the necessary changes without going back on any promises, commitments or stated policy directions that it thought were necessary to make in order to get elected!. Or at least not back on too many commitments as to cause a significant loss of support. Sounds like an impossibility to me, at least in this election. Yes a genuine rebuilding of trust between citizens and policy-makers would be great. But that trust hasn’t been there for a long time (has it ever really been there?) and our system continues to function reasonably well. So I wonder how important it really is. In fact, I wonder if a significantly higher level of trust than we have now is even possible, as there will always be mistrust and antipathy between normal people and politicians, as there is between the average person and bureaucrats, law enforcers, banks and other sections of private enterprise, etc, etc. I think it is more important for a government to show strong leadership in the right direction while striving to convince the populace that it is necessary and that if some commitments and policy directions stated in the campaign have to be compromised, well so be it. Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 14 November 2007 11:34:57 AM
|
Let's tell them something they'll swallow so we can get elected ...and once elected we'll change focus onto all those things we didn't tell the people about during the election.