Morning!
I'm just wondering what kind of political impact you think blogs and online media are having on politics in Australia in general.
Are they encouraging political engagement, or it is only a media savvy minority who use them as an alternative to mainstream media?
Are they even a legitimate source of information?
I would be interested to hear your thoughts or find links to any info you have come across.

I think politicians are using blogs as sounding boards for their ideas. Sometimes you hear politicians repeat phrases or ideas that you first heard on OnlineOpinion. I think we are being used as a kind of focus group to road test ideas. And we have seen politicians do back flips when they are way out of line with public opinion

Mark Bahnisch http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4721 thinks that there’s a revolution under way – new media are mobilising political involvement. As well he should, since he started Larvatus Prodeo http://larvatusprodeo.net/, a political blog.

I reckon that if anything, he’s understating this change. First, the new media are giving us access to news and opinion items that simply don’t make it into mainstream media: see http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/06/16/1023864377517.html

Second, as we see here on OLO, the internet has given voice to legions of hitherto silent folk, many of whom only recently learned to switch on a computer. Here, anyone who cares to can speak to an audience of 4,000-odd registered OLO users, plus the unknown number who visit without signing in.

Third, the new media are connecting like-minded individuals across the country, who in turn are able to gather and influence their elected representatives en masse. GetUp http://www.getup.org is a fairly wide-ranging example. Less interactive, but quite influential, is the Australian Christian Lobby, which uses its website http://www.acl.org.au/ as a platform for political action. Now at 1.3 million hits, Rodney Croome’s gay activism blog http://www.rodneycroome.id.au/weblog punches well above its weight as a one-man operation. It probably doesn’t get more specialised than the Kidney Blog, http://www.kidney.org.au/blog/, which aims to raise community awareness about kidney donation, and dialysis.

Where’s this all leading? Hard to say. However I reckon that these tools will increase the pressure for more direct democracy, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=17#256

As a result, we need to get moving on protections from derailed democracy – notably a Bill of Rights: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=483

Oops, something went wrong with that last link.

It should be http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=483

I don't believe this. Third try:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4837

I think blogs and online media are having a highly positive affect on politics. However I see the road to ruin.

If the rich and powerful – those with vested interests in promoting ever-bigger demand for their goods and services, or particular agendas – start to get organised, they could flood this medium with their views. Or they could perhaps pressure governments into making moderators of forums like this much more carefully vet posted material.

At the moment it seems pretty free to all sorts of views being expressed, and in a manner that approaches some sort of true representation in the wider community.

As a long-time writer of letters to the editors of several newspapers, I was pleasantly surprised to find that I could post stuff on OLO that was just rejected by editors. The views on this forum seem much more environment/sustainability oriented than stuff you see on the letters page of most newspapers.

We saw the rise on environmentalism in the 80s. But we then saw it stagnate or even decline due I believe to a more strategic approach from big business, and their effect on media and government. Some of the environmental message has remained, but it certainly didn’t continue to develop like it appeared to be doing following Hawke’s stop to the Gordon below Franklin Dam project and into the Goss era in Queensland.

I fear that the same sort of thing could happen with this medium.

This discussion is interesting for me because you all seem to be discussing On Line Opinion as a blog. I guess it is, at least by definition, but I don't tend to think of it in quite that way.

Not sure why not. Perhaps it is because of the relatively higher degree of editorial control than I see on most blogs. Or the fact that authors can't just enter text into the system.

But perhaps we should embrace the blog paradigm more consciously?

What else would politicians run on but public opinion, is that not the definition of democracy. As for the use of this forum as a source information into the opinions of the public, I can only say that I hope so, because the truth is, political persuasion and leadership in Australia is far to focused on entertaining the majority of the Australian public, A majority that cannot think about the long-term effects of government policy today, A majority that can only see as far as their own hip pockets, as enforced by current media. I believe that Education is the key to the realisation of what is really beneficial to the welfare of Australia. When will current government entertain the minority of Australians who understand effective economic policy and effective government leadership?

“What else would politicians run on but public opinion, is that not the definition of democracy”

What else? One or more of the following….

They run on the power of big business to get their wishes, by way of political donations and other forms of reward, and the threat to shift big financial backing to the opposition if they don’t get their wishes.

They run on self-interest, like the majority of ordinary folk. They are very often real estate or business people themselves, so their decisions affect their own businesses

They think they know better than the average citizen and can make decisions against the wishes of the majority, especially early in their term.

They believe the guff that big business espouses and turn it into their own doctrine: – that we have to have constantly increasing productivity or else the whole country will stagnate – that economic growth is the bottom line, not quality of life – that monetary policy rules the roost, not the quality our environment and resource base, etc, etc.

All of this means that our form of democracy is far from the real thing.

But as I said last time, OLO and the internet in general are perhaps helping to break this undemocratic stranglehold down a bit….. although I fear that it may not last.

"that we have to have constantly increasing productivity or else the whole country will stagnate – that economic growth is the bottom line, not quality of life – that monetary policy rules the roost, not the quality our environment and resource base, etc, et"

LUDWIG, you seem to be missing some basic economic knowledge so let me enlighten you. In relation to the sustainment and improvement of the quality of life economic growth IS the bottom line, as high economic growth breeds low unemployment and economic prosperity. Monetary policy IS THE MEANS by which to direct funds into the preservation and conservation of our resources and natural environment. Also that microeconomic policy relates directly to efficiency and productivity that construct the foundations of a booming economic cycle.

Gamble, you wrote:

“In relation to the sustainment and improvement of the quality of life economic growth IS the bottom line, as high economic growth breeds low unemployment and economic prosperity.”

So what do you make of economies that have essentially remained stable for a long time, but have continued to provide a high quality of life, a high rate of employment, a high rate of old-age security, a high rate of health care, and so on…. in countries such as Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Finland, etc?

“Monetary policy IS THE MEANS by which to direct funds into the preservation and conservation of our resources and natural environment.”

Yes – for as long as this monetary policy represents an increasing average per-capita return. If the pile of money is forever bigger, but the population is also forever bigger, and the problems with our environment and social infrastructure are forever bigger, to the point where the average per-person share of the money is not bigger…then we are on a losing trend…well and truly. And that is where we are at in Australia, Gamble.

I think you need to very seriously question your belief that continued unending economic growth is the bottom line. Let’s have real per-capita economic growth for a while and then stabilise the size of the economy at a point that provides a sufficiently high quality of life for the majority of us to be happy with, and that is in harmony with the ability of our resource base and our technological abilities to provide that level of comfort.

Gamble ,
just an observation- i think GROWTH is NOT necessarily good for society. Unbridaled growth for growth's sake,it produces too much damage to the environment which we depend on and locks us in to a destructive way of life which won't last and is hardly ideal.
As for the extra jobs you say it produces ,I think many people work too hard for too long producing something that is going to be thrown in the rubbish tips around the world .Shorter hours can produce more jobs and hopefully happier workers . We should make better "stuff" and hang onto it , perhaps become a bit more selective in the posessions we buy .I am working hard on this aspect!
It would be better to have working people learn to relax more - say contribute to OLO and other forums and engage with their children and friends at the local parks or clubs [if there's still one left ].Be happy to help the Missus in the house a bit more and get onto the Pollies to spread our scarce resources around in a fairer way .

“Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Finland"

Ludwig... do you have any idea about the amount of taxation generated in these economies? It is three times the amount paid in Australia. These economies also don’t believe in what we call "the equal distribution of income and wealth", meaning, that there is a hell of allot of hungry and homeless people walking the street with bad physical health. The homeless and long term unemployed, in these countries, are also considered not apart of general society, As also in America, and, therefore conveniently, are not shown in the annual statistics that you and I judge these nations on.

“if the pile of money is forever bigger, but the population is also forever bigger, and the problems with our environment and social infrastructure are forever bigger”

This comment is complete and utter crap! If the value of the Australian monetary policy is rising and population growth is rising, supported by the lowest unemployment rates that Australia has had in thirty years, then the economy would be in a situation were the Australian dollar is appreciating. In this circumstance environmental management and infrastructural improvement would be given the highest of priorities. This circumstance underlines economic growth, yet you make comments like “you need to very seriously question your belief that continued unending economic growth is the bottom line”.

“Let’s have real per-capita economic growth for a while and then stabilise the size of the economy at a point that provides a sufficiently high quality of life for the majority of us to be happy with.

First of all, if the Australian government restricted the growth of the economy then the value of the Australian dollar would fall. Secondly, our resources base is the biggest it has ever been with continued trade deals with China, America, England, and Japan for our natural resources. thirdly the situation to “stabilise the size of the economy” would cause stagnation were growth would fall, employment would fall, value of the dollar would fall, value of trade deals would fall, QUALITY OF LIFE WOULD FALL!

Hold on Kartiya, I thought we were talking economics here, not misconceived opinion fuelled by emotion. As I have outlined to Ludwig, economic growth is the bottom line. Without it, the value of the dollar would fall, employment would fall, exports would fall, inflation would rise, the quality of life would fall and the distribution of income and wealth would become even more warped. I understand you views of an ideal situation but it is simply NOT possible without significant economic growth supported with the Non Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment.

It may be hard to realise, but, there is only a set amount of difference the Australian economy and government can make on environmental management while still remaining a high income economy.

You also made a comment that “Shorter hours can produce more jobs”. You are exactly right in this. However, is it appropriate at the sacrifice of many full time employees? In context, the availability of part time jobs is rapidly increasing at the sacrifice of many full time jobs at the back of new industrial legislation laws. Just because there are more jobs does not mean that these jobs are appropriate to the needs of the labour force.

I thank you for your opinion Kartiya.

Gamble

The fact is that some countries with the highest living standards have the lowest rates of economic growth.

Good on them for having higher taxes than we do. That presumably assists greatly in the overall provision of services and average quality of life.

Rates of homelessness and long-term unemployment are not significantly different to those of the US, which is predicated on rapid continuous economic growth, so you can hardly hold them up as consequences of stable economies.

“This comment is complete and utter crap!"

For goodness sake, our resource base and environment are being rapidly degraded to keep up the rate of economic growth. Of course some of the profits or taxes are being put back into environmental issues. But far too little compared to the damage being done.

The value of the dollar, low interest rates, low inflation, high overall economic growth (but low or zero or negative per-capita economic growth) are things built upon the unsustainable notion of continuous growth, on a continent with obvious finite resources. They are predicated on an extremely flimsy foundation. In fact it is starting to crumble with rising fuel crisis; the first really significant resource-stress issue to affect us, which causing rising interest rates, rising inflation, rising personal stress rates, and will soon lead to rising unemployment and real problems with many peoples’ ability to make ends meet.

Exports are booming at the moment. But obviously this rate cannot be maintained. And yet we will come to rely on it, and then scream foul when it starts to decline. Politicians will then be severely criticised for rising unemployment, interest rates and the rest, when the real cause of these things will be our grossly unsustainable system that is built on this short-term growth as though we can sustain it forever.

Let’s get the hell off this crazy system that is built on the premise that the whole kaboodle has to be forever bigger, and direct it onto a stable sustainable basis.

In the end your premise is a fantasy that cannot be achieved no matter how hard we argue the toss. The simple fact is that the advantages of continuing economic growth far outweigh the disadvantages of environmental damage. Should the Australian government implement policies that would break the Australian economy and thus destroying the quality of life to redirect our attention conservation and preservation, or should the government do everything possible to conserve the environment where practical? There is only one real answer. We both have equal and different points of view, although they may be slightly different. You do seem to make ridiculous and unsupported arguments through.

You pointed out the "rising fuel crisis". Are you unaware that the concept of running out of oil in the near future is a myth? All this concern has stemmed from a supplier created shortage in the 1960's and 70's and has continued to be of increasing concern. What most people don’t know is that there is still about 90% of deep water that has not been researched and that new technologies are being created everyday to reach these new depths of rich oil reserves. So there is hardly a "rising fuel crisis" its just what the major oil companies would expect you to believe and what the media thrives on reporting. Even if the fuel does run out there will be alternatives available. A USA company has developed a car that runs on water and Liquid Propane Gas sales have tripled over the last year.

We both have equal and different points of view, although they may be slightly different.??

typo!

we both have equal and different point of view

This is completely bizarre. Gamble, even politicians, business people and others who would dearly love to maintain rapid economic growth are admitting that rising fuels prices are resulting directly from the stabilisation of the supply rate of oil compared to the still rapidly increasing demand.

We are not actually running our of oil….yet. But the ability to provide this finite resource at the enormous rates required is faltering, resulting interminably rising prices. Of course, prices are not going to rise evenly. They will dip and jerk. Currently they are dipping back, but we can expect a jerk forward at any time.

There has been a lot of debate about peak oil on this forum. It seems that you haven’t encountered any of it.

The changing economics of this one resource alone is going to greatly affect our whole economy…..and even more severely affect economics on a personal basis, for a large portion of the population.

I have not struck anyone on this forum who has the extraordinary belief that economic growth is the be-all and end-all, or that it can just continue forever, or that we should be striving to uphold it for as long as we possibly can in a world of obvious finite and stressed resources.

You seem to just have no understanding of the laws of supply and demand or the concept of finite resources, or of potentially renewable resources that are being consumed at non-renewable rates.

And you are in the most amazing denial syndrome that the most obvious, the highest-profile and one of the most important of our finite resources – oil – is displaying grave symptoms of the untethered economic growth that it has facilitated over the last century and will not be able to facilitate for very much longer at all

Gamble, here is something you may be interested in.

Professor Ian Lowe’s address to the National Press Club at http://www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=921

“The increasing economic production from the natural systems of Australia is coming at an environmental cost. We are funding unsustainable levels of material consumption by running down our natural capital. Or, to put it in economic terms, we are operating our ecological accounts at a heavy deficit for which our children will pay.”

Also, there has apparently been a ‘vast’ new oil discovery in the Gulf which could hold between 3 billion and 15 billion barrels of oil. Fantastic news eh?

Well, even at 15 billion barrels, it would only provide oil the US for about an extra 2 years and 8 months at current consumption rates!! And of course consumption rates continue to increase there.

Just a couple of things to help indicate how utterly necessary it is to get the hell off our continuous growth paradigm and develop a stable sustainability-based society.