The ideal PM: half Brown, half Turnbull
Elizabeth Farrally argues that what we're really looking in a national leader is someone with intelligence and integrity. Why are such people pushed to the margins while we allow poll-puppets who put sound bites over sound policy to run the show?
Posts
16 comments:
I reckon people with alleged intelligence and integrity are far more dangerous...
So you'd vote for a duplicitous imbecile just in case?
Note my use of the word 'alleged'.
Yes, which I took to mean that not all those who seem to have intelligence and integrity do indeed have them. So, my question was, you'd rather vote for someone who obviously doesn't have them just in case the first candidate turned out to not have them either?
Or are you suggesting that a known duplicitous imbecile will be given less power than someone who is respected for (possibly) having intelligence and integrity and so it's safer to cobble the power of politicians lest they get a messiah complex?
Stateside, one reason I can't judge Obama as harshly as otherwise is that it is so refreshing to have an intelligent leader after Bush. I just wish he were more progressive economically and would end the Afghanistan war.
Still better than McCain would've been, though.
I should have mentioned for non-Australian readers that Bob Brown is the leader of the Australian Greens and Malcolm Turnbull is the former leader of the Liberals and who was kicked out for sticking to his principles on climate change, even when a (slight) majority of his party didn't like it.
I just don't buy silly dichotomy on offer in this discussion. I'd rather the pragmatic pollie than the ideologue anyday. And the current 'Saint Bob' thing in the media is making me barf.
By pragmatic, do you mean "follows the polls"? Or simply "is willing to compromise to secure partial victories"? If the latter, then I'd agree (some of the time). But the comparison between Turnbull and Abbott (for instance) isn't over the latter.
I haven't seen any of the Saint Bob stuff, but I assume it is typical media move once they've grown sufficiently cynical about the other two leaders (and my didn't it happen quickly with Gillard?) and need a new good guy.
Or if you're referring to Elizabeth Farrally, then her support for Brown isn't a new thing. She wrote a book called Blubberland: the dangers of happiness. Have you seen it? A critique of the emptiness of consumerism. At least Brown (unlike Gillard and Abbott) doesn't call for the intensification of consumerism as the greatest national goal.
Mmmm...
Been away for awhile, but now back on deck.
This comment is spot on:
I just don't buy silly dichotomy on offer in this discussion. I'd rather the pragmatic pollie than the ideologue anyday.
Byron, Michael's comment lies at the heart of our difference over climate change. Have a think about it.
Cheers
David
Welcome back David.
I assume you also read my response where I (partially) agreed with MPJ?
I'm all for compromise and doing the best that it is possible to do. I guess I just think that neither of the major parties has been offering anything close to that.
I was also just thinking how ironic it is that the party of the "left" was offering a very unambitious market based scheme (which they then backed away from) and the party of the "right" was offering an even less ambitious command and control scheme. It was the Republicans under Reagan who championed the idea of market-based environmental strategies and so it's ironic that they (and the Libs) have now walked away from that approach.
Hi Byron,
I think the problem with market-based environmental strategies is that they are open to Governments playing favourites in setting them up in the first place, and then subsequently they are wide open to manipulation/corruption.
When Senator Wong responded to Pielke's analysis that Australia would need x nuclear power plants to meet the Government's emission targets by saying that industry could purchase carbon offsets overseas (ie from developing nations), I knew 2 things - a) she didn't have a clue and b) the Government's CPRS was a scam (OK, not the best choice of words but you get my drift).
Read this recent AP story on the investigation being proposed for the UN's Clean Development Mechanism scheme.
Setting ridiculous emission targets is not the way to go - the technology simply does not exist and you and me moving into 10 square homes with 25W equivalent light globes in every second room is not going to cut the mustard either.
What we need to see is a (lowish) carbon tax with revenue dedicated 100% to the R&D necessary to get new sources of energy developed commercially equivalent in cost to fossil fuels.
As we have discussed before climate change is a wicked problem not a tame problem as exemplified by cigarettes, ozone.
David - We've basically agreed before on the desirability of a carbon tax (though might disagree on its size and what should be done with the money (most of it should be returned to consumers in the form of other tax cuts - i.e. so that it is not a new tax, but simply shifting the tax burden from those who earn the most to those whose activities and consumption emits the most carbon)) and are certainly agreed on some of the shortcomings of the ALP's CPRS (though I do think that a well-designed ETS that doesn't leave such large gaping holes as the one put forward might be a second-best option).
I was simply noting the irony that you're embracing what was traditionally the centre-left response (taxation reform), while the Libs have embraced what was traditionally the further left response (command and control, a.k.a. direct action), while the ALP puts forward a mechanism originally developed and championed by the Republicans.
Monbiot: "Since way back. In the US the Republicans also favour green incentives for industry, without caps or regulation. Worldwide, subsidies for fossil fuels are twelve times greater than subsidies for renewable energy(17). Many of the most generous hand-outs are awarded by right-wing governments (think of the money lavished on the oil industry under George W Bush(18)).
"Yes, man-made climate change denial is about politics, but it’s more pragmatic than ideological. The politics have been shaped around the demands of industrial lobby groups, which happen, in many cases, to fund those who articulate them. Right-wingers are making monkeys of themselves over climate change not just because their beliefs take precedence over the evidence, but also because their interests take precedence over their beliefs."
Post a Comment