I can vividly recall a quote by the late veteran Baloch politician Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti from the 1990s when I used to cover parliamentary proceedings in Islamabad. Commenting on the deplorable state of affairs and the apathy of legislators, he had said on the floor of the house: “Give me 217 crores, and I will buy you the entire parliament.”
He was referring to the number of members of the National Assembly then, and their eagerness to fall in line for a price tag. Incidentally, the then Speaker of the National Assembly Syed Yousuf Raza Gillani, who is Prime Minister now, had expunged the remarks. A decade down the line, Mr Gillani admits that all is not well in the Republic of Pakistan, and the curse of corruption has eaten up its vitals.
Despicable enough, the Who’s Who list of corrupt people comprises people belonging to the ruling hierarchy of the country. Moreover, it doesn’t stop there, and runs deep into many of the political parties, serving and retired bureaucrats and ex-services personnel. The staggering number of people accounted for, who had benefited from an impugned piece of legislation granting them immunity from prosecution runs into more than 8,000. Though the so-called National Reconciliation Ordinance, promulgated by former president General Pervez Musharraf, has exhausted its lifespan and has not been legislated into law, possible prosecution of the corrupt still remains a distant possibility. The list of beneficiaries, dished out by the office of Prime Minister, points a finger at President Asif Ali Zardari, many of the cabinet ministers, allies and opposition politicians, serving ambassadors, armed services personal, government secretaries, corporate bosses, top-notch bank executives, and pen pushers in the rank and file of bureaucracy.
Though corruption is hardly a secret in Pakistan, the fact that the country has risen in the dubious hierarchy to be ranked by the Transparency International at 42nd among the world’s most graft-prone countries is worrisome. The dubious distinction, as well as the corrupt reigning supreme, is not only a dilemma, but also a shame for a proud Pakistani nation. Not only the rot needs to be cleaned, the Augean stable cleared as well. Unfortunately, there is hardly any office or person to which the nation can look up to in realising such a goal. Judiciary, civil society and the media — to which the nation looks with awe — can neither dispense with their role nor take refuge behind the big leaf of excuses. The corrupt not only need to be exposed and prosecuted, but also ensured that they do not have any role in representing the nation.
It’s high time for a resilient nation to take the reins in its own hands. It has for long been taken for a ride in the name of national security, democracy and religion. Its chequered history is one of deception, dismemberment and dictators. And even today, all those at the helm of affairs have shamefully compromised with the nation’s future to enjoy the privilege of being in power to protect their petty interests. This is simply unacceptable to a nation, which is reeling under terrorism, political instability and a worsening economic crisis. Bad governance, and one with bias and discrimination, has further exacerbated the problem. Pakistan’s biggest drawback has been that it has failed to build institutions and strengthen the rule of law, and had unnecessarily relied on personality cult. The trend needs to be reversed, and made sure that it begins with a process of stringent accountability across the board. No sacred cows should be spared under any pretext.
Though not much can be expected from parliamentarians, who have their own political compulsions, this house has to act differently from its predecessors. Unlike its counterparts in the past that truncated people’s sovereignty over the affairs of the state by investing powers in a coterie of selected men, current National Assembly has to take a different approach. The NRO should never become a law in any sense. We must make sure that its beneficiaries, and the corrupt under any benchmark, are made to pay for their actions. Pakistan has an opportunity in disaster, and the parliament needs to ensure that opportunists and freebooters do not undermine its vitality and jurisdiction. As an immediate recourse, many of the controversial legislative and executive decisions taken by previous, and for that matter the present, governments need to be reviewed, and if necessary, reversed. The stigma of corruption, and the extra-burden of the corrupt, in our body politik need to be shunned. The looted billions belong to the impoverished nation, and they have every right to recover them from the pinnacle of presidency to the con artist on the street. Otherwise, late Bugti will have many a reason to laugh at in his
eternal abode.
Showing posts with label Politik. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politik. Show all posts
Monday, December 7, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
One-way politik: Scotlands schools in crisis?
You’d be forgiven for thinking so given todays headlines.
Labour and the Liberal Democrats called for education secretary Fiona Hyslop to quit after figures showed the total number of teachers fell by almost 1,000 in the space of a year.
The total number of teachers in pre-school, primary, secondary and special schools and in visiting specialist posts, was 53,584 – 975 fewer than in 2007.
The councils responsible for hiring the teachers have responded by saying that it would be madness to employ more teachers when confronted by falling school rolls.
Well?
They are right you know. School rolls are falling and the result of this is that the net ration of teachers to pupils is rising… The pupil teacher ratio in schools increased from 12.9 in 2008 to 13.2 in 2009. So why all the shouting about lower numbers of teachers?
Might one venture to suggest it’s just a simple number for the opposition to mindlessly shout about which doesn’t really tell us anything about the state of education in Scotland?
Aren’t the local authorities correct to not be employing new teachers? Money is tight – if class sizes can be kept at a reasonable level (where there is little conclusive evidence to suggest smaller class sizes are beneficial) what it the problem?
To my mind it’s an example of something I would describe as “one-way politics” the kind of politics that lead to there being no effective opposition to the war on terror because no one wanted to be seen as soft on terrorism. Essentially it seems there are certain issues on which rational thought is trumped for the emotive impact of a catchy soundbite. No one really cares about the numbers they care about making the other side look bad. So far, so what’s new? Politics has “progressed” in such a way for many a year hasn’t it?
Depressingly enough probably but there is one particularly pernicious aspect to one-way politics that annoys, frustrates and worries me more than the childish point scoring of tribal party politik. That is that on certain issues – education, crime and immigration to name a few there is only one direction that policies and initiatives can move in. Generally towards some arbitrary consensus based on little more than Daily Mail editorials and the opportunity to trump the opposition.
It’s why every debate about immigration at least has to address vague concerns about the negative effects while immigration itself probably isn’t that much of a problem – indeed some research has suggested people moving from the North of the country to the South puts more of a stretch on resources – 2.5 million people have moved to the South East from the rest of Britain and around 1.4 economic immigrants have come to the whole country. But immigration is a huuge perceived problem – much like crime. So rational and reasoned responses cannot be relied upon.
It’s why crime laws, particularly drug legislation, appear to get harder and harder. You can’t seen to be soft on these issues as that gives the opposition an opportunity to attack. Just look at what happened to Prof. Nutt. Sacked for daring to suggest (in unrelated academic work) that cannabis classification did not relate to the level of harm it actually caused… One-way politics trumps even scientific evidence.
Frankly its a ridiculous system and the sooner someone points out how ridiculous it is in gubmint (and we all listen) the better.
Labour and the Liberal Democrats called for education secretary Fiona Hyslop to quit after figures showed the total number of teachers fell by almost 1,000 in the space of a year.
The total number of teachers in pre-school, primary, secondary and special schools and in visiting specialist posts, was 53,584 – 975 fewer than in 2007.
The councils responsible for hiring the teachers have responded by saying that it would be madness to employ more teachers when confronted by falling school rolls.
Well?
They are right you know. School rolls are falling and the result of this is that the net ration of teachers to pupils is rising… The pupil teacher ratio in schools increased from 12.9 in 2008 to 13.2 in 2009. So why all the shouting about lower numbers of teachers?
Might one venture to suggest it’s just a simple number for the opposition to mindlessly shout about which doesn’t really tell us anything about the state of education in Scotland?
Aren’t the local authorities correct to not be employing new teachers? Money is tight – if class sizes can be kept at a reasonable level (where there is little conclusive evidence to suggest smaller class sizes are beneficial) what it the problem?
To my mind it’s an example of something I would describe as “one-way politics” the kind of politics that lead to there being no effective opposition to the war on terror because no one wanted to be seen as soft on terrorism. Essentially it seems there are certain issues on which rational thought is trumped for the emotive impact of a catchy soundbite. No one really cares about the numbers they care about making the other side look bad. So far, so what’s new? Politics has “progressed” in such a way for many a year hasn’t it?
Depressingly enough probably but there is one particularly pernicious aspect to one-way politics that annoys, frustrates and worries me more than the childish point scoring of tribal party politik. That is that on certain issues – education, crime and immigration to name a few there is only one direction that policies and initiatives can move in. Generally towards some arbitrary consensus based on little more than Daily Mail editorials and the opportunity to trump the opposition.
It’s why every debate about immigration at least has to address vague concerns about the negative effects while immigration itself probably isn’t that much of a problem – indeed some research has suggested people moving from the North of the country to the South puts more of a stretch on resources – 2.5 million people have moved to the South East from the rest of Britain and around 1.4 economic immigrants have come to the whole country. But immigration is a huuge perceived problem – much like crime. So rational and reasoned responses cannot be relied upon.
It’s why crime laws, particularly drug legislation, appear to get harder and harder. You can’t seen to be soft on these issues as that gives the opposition an opportunity to attack. Just look at what happened to Prof. Nutt. Sacked for daring to suggest (in unrelated academic work) that cannabis classification did not relate to the level of harm it actually caused… One-way politics trumps even scientific evidence.
Frankly its a ridiculous system and the sooner someone points out how ridiculous it is in gubmint (and we all listen) the better.
Friday, November 27, 2009
The Art of Politik
SPECIALfeature: Obama's Big Unemployment Problem: A Threat to re-election
SUMMARY
*persistent high unemployment may mirror Jimmy Carter and shape perception of Obama administration.
*expert economists agree the stimulus package wasn't sufficient and more direct help from the Federal government is needed.
*Obama's priorities will be tackled in a specific order, but the order they are arranged in is a mistake and may cause him and democrats big problems.
*returns on huge investments need to come sooner, rather than later at the risk of endangering the administration's agenda and possible re-election.
We remain only eleven months after Obama's inauguration, and while we find ourselves in a much better position than we were during Obama's first few weeks in office, there is widespread discontent at the state of the economy as perceived by the common man.
We've freed ourselves from the recession, but the pain felt at home-still without real income except for an unemployment check makes it difficult to look at stock market numbers and agree with Robert Gibbs and Tim Geithner that the economy is getting better.
The erosion of patience is understandable when the ambitious promises behind much of the measures passed this year turned out to be overly optimistic.
Surely, there is no doubt that the real economy is improving, that there is more money being pumped into the economy by consumers in almost all sectors relative to this same time last year when we were in dire straits. The housing market in October saw a ten point one percent increase in home sales and car sales have come back strong even after the government's Cash for Clunker's program ceased to exist.
As extraordinary and confidence inspiring signs that these are, the administration's initial goal with the stimulus program was to avoid the jobs market slipping into ten plus percent unemployment rate territory; a big point of sale for the stimulus program. However optimistic you may want to be about what the stimulus has done for the economy, in this respect, it has been an utter failure.
It has also failed to spur consistent increases in retail sales, instead resulting in seesawing months were there is alternating growth and contraction. Retail sales tend to be important because growth in retail jobs fueled a lot of the job growth in years past.
What is the most worrying and most alarming is to see that this far through the stimulus package and being at the point where the economy is showing some strength (2.8% GDP growth revised in the third quarter), the job market is STILL shedding jobs. We have a long way to go before the unemployment rate gets back to normal. The longer that takes, the longer it will take for consumer spending to pick up. The longer that takes, the longer it will take for robust economic recovery to take hold.
If we all really wanted to be honest with ourselves, we can't say we didn't know that the unemployment rate would still reach ten percent. Expert economists, Paul Krugman and Mark Zandi both had testified to the congress and made it known to the president that the stimulus bill needed to be bigger. They warned that if the goal was to keep the jobs market in check, barring a bigger stimulus bill, the congress would need to come back to consider a second round of stimulus. Failure to do this would result in high unemployment for several years to come.
Zandi and Krugman both also predicted then and still do now that job growth will be stunted if there's no more stimulus, and thus real GDP growth will be flat because of stagnating consumer spending. So far they have consistently been proven right. Despite all this, there is seemingly little more focus from the administration except to hold a so called 'jobs' summit, giving Americans little reassurance that the economy will begin show visible signs of a recovery.
It is apparent that the Wall Street and bank bailout in combination with the stimulus package has left the country with no appetite to digest further government spending to save the economy, especially when it seems like the returns on our investments are either lost or too slowly materializing. The administration's handling of the TARP program ended too similar to George Bush and former Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson; mismanaged and riddled with loopholes that gave banks the upper hand on important issues to taxpayers such as bonuses.
Because of this, the Obama administration is going to have a very tough time finding the votes to get any type of necessary second stimulus passed.
While it is of utmost importance that the Obama administration get to health care and reshaping one sixth of the country's economy as soon as possible, it is of even greater importance to the overall economy and even for Obama's re-election for the labor markets to recover.
Obama has already spent most of his political capital on health care. It seems like critics who claim the order of Obama's priorities are a mistake might have a point. Health care truly could've waited a few months, but those already unemployed for almost two years truly have no more time that they can spare.
If the state of the job market remains the same, regardless of what Obama accomplishes on health care, his presidency may mirror Jimmy Carter's and be defined majorly on persistently high unemployment and perhaps threaten chances of democrat's and his own re-election.
Those who worry about deficits and debt have legitimate reasons to worry, big deficits and debts are definitely not sustainable for long periods of time. However, most economists including Mark Zandi and Paul Krugman point towards the United States having an eighty percent debt to GDP ratio in 1950, they point to Italy and Belgium's around ninety percent debt to GDP during World War II, and they point to the ease they all had in getting out of the debt. Krugman correctly argues that the key to these types of debts aren't paying them off, but managing them and letting economic growth handle the rest.
Projected growth in the economy for the next several years dwarf the debt levels that economists believe are needed to really get the labor market back on track. America and congress simply need to get past the flawed notion that government stimulus and Keynesian economics doesn't work, when clearly, history proves otherwise.
There is some good news for the Obama administration. The recent jobs reports are showing that the job markets have slowed job loss and may within a relatively short amount of time begin adding jobs again, albeit at a likely slow pace.
It's unfortunate to say that at this point there is no honeymoon to protect the president. Patience has worn out with independents and patience is wearing thin even with the most loyal supporters. Despite what opposition may come, Obama really needs to take the reigns and really put the foot to the gas on the jobs situation at the risk of undermining his and the democratic party's agenda.
There is a definite opportunity for Obama to take this jobs summit and rally support for job stimulus even if it must be done under the guise of something else. This is going to take some incredible maneuvering, creativity, and leadership by the president.
This may turn out to be the administration's biggest flop or it may turn out to be its biggest accomplishment. There is still time to make this a victory, but whether or not the administration begins to see the need to again address the problem instead of giving the situation more time will really determine if they fail or are successful in 2012.
SUMMARY*persistent high unemployment may mirror Jimmy Carter and shape perception of Obama administration.
*expert economists agree the stimulus package wasn't sufficient and more direct help from the Federal government is needed.
*Obama's priorities will be tackled in a specific order, but the order they are arranged in is a mistake and may cause him and democrats big problems.
*returns on huge investments need to come sooner, rather than later at the risk of endangering the administration's agenda and possible re-election.
We remain only eleven months after Obama's inauguration, and while we find ourselves in a much better position than we were during Obama's first few weeks in office, there is widespread discontent at the state of the economy as perceived by the common man.
We've freed ourselves from the recession, but the pain felt at home-still without real income except for an unemployment check makes it difficult to look at stock market numbers and agree with Robert Gibbs and Tim Geithner that the economy is getting better.
The erosion of patience is understandable when the ambitious promises behind much of the measures passed this year turned out to be overly optimistic.
Surely, there is no doubt that the real economy is improving, that there is more money being pumped into the economy by consumers in almost all sectors relative to this same time last year when we were in dire straits. The housing market in October saw a ten point one percent increase in home sales and car sales have come back strong even after the government's Cash for Clunker's program ceased to exist.
As extraordinary and confidence inspiring signs that these are, the administration's initial goal with the stimulus program was to avoid the jobs market slipping into ten plus percent unemployment rate territory; a big point of sale for the stimulus program. However optimistic you may want to be about what the stimulus has done for the economy, in this respect, it has been an utter failure.
It has also failed to spur consistent increases in retail sales, instead resulting in seesawing months were there is alternating growth and contraction. Retail sales tend to be important because growth in retail jobs fueled a lot of the job growth in years past.
What is the most worrying and most alarming is to see that this far through the stimulus package and being at the point where the economy is showing some strength (2.8% GDP growth revised in the third quarter), the job market is STILL shedding jobs. We have a long way to go before the unemployment rate gets back to normal. The longer that takes, the longer it will take for consumer spending to pick up. The longer that takes, the longer it will take for robust economic recovery to take hold.
If we all really wanted to be honest with ourselves, we can't say we didn't know that the unemployment rate would still reach ten percent. Expert economists, Paul Krugman and Mark Zandi both had testified to the congress and made it known to the president that the stimulus bill needed to be bigger. They warned that if the goal was to keep the jobs market in check, barring a bigger stimulus bill, the congress would need to come back to consider a second round of stimulus. Failure to do this would result in high unemployment for several years to come.
Zandi and Krugman both also predicted then and still do now that job growth will be stunted if there's no more stimulus, and thus real GDP growth will be flat because of stagnating consumer spending. So far they have consistently been proven right. Despite all this, there is seemingly little more focus from the administration except to hold a so called 'jobs' summit, giving Americans little reassurance that the economy will begin show visible signs of a recovery.
It is apparent that the Wall Street and bank bailout in combination with the stimulus package has left the country with no appetite to digest further government spending to save the economy, especially when it seems like the returns on our investments are either lost or too slowly materializing. The administration's handling of the TARP program ended too similar to George Bush and former Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson; mismanaged and riddled with loopholes that gave banks the upper hand on important issues to taxpayers such as bonuses.
Because of this, the Obama administration is going to have a very tough time finding the votes to get any type of necessary second stimulus passed.
While it is of utmost importance that the Obama administration get to health care and reshaping one sixth of the country's economy as soon as possible, it is of even greater importance to the overall economy and even for Obama's re-election for the labor markets to recover.
Obama has already spent most of his political capital on health care. It seems like critics who claim the order of Obama's priorities are a mistake might have a point. Health care truly could've waited a few months, but those already unemployed for almost two years truly have no more time that they can spare.
If the state of the job market remains the same, regardless of what Obama accomplishes on health care, his presidency may mirror Jimmy Carter's and be defined majorly on persistently high unemployment and perhaps threaten chances of democrat's and his own re-election.
Those who worry about deficits and debt have legitimate reasons to worry, big deficits and debts are definitely not sustainable for long periods of time. However, most economists including Mark Zandi and Paul Krugman point towards the United States having an eighty percent debt to GDP ratio in 1950, they point to Italy and Belgium's around ninety percent debt to GDP during World War II, and they point to the ease they all had in getting out of the debt. Krugman correctly argues that the key to these types of debts aren't paying them off, but managing them and letting economic growth handle the rest.
Projected growth in the economy for the next several years dwarf the debt levels that economists believe are needed to really get the labor market back on track. America and congress simply need to get past the flawed notion that government stimulus and Keynesian economics doesn't work, when clearly, history proves otherwise.
There is some good news for the Obama administration. The recent jobs reports are showing that the job markets have slowed job loss and may within a relatively short amount of time begin adding jobs again, albeit at a likely slow pace.
It's unfortunate to say that at this point there is no honeymoon to protect the president. Patience has worn out with independents and patience is wearing thin even with the most loyal supporters. Despite what opposition may come, Obama really needs to take the reigns and really put the foot to the gas on the jobs situation at the risk of undermining his and the democratic party's agenda.
There is a definite opportunity for Obama to take this jobs summit and rally support for job stimulus even if it must be done under the guise of something else. This is going to take some incredible maneuvering, creativity, and leadership by the president.
This may turn out to be the administration's biggest flop or it may turn out to be its biggest accomplishment. There is still time to make this a victory, but whether or not the administration begins to see the need to again address the problem instead of giving the situation more time will really determine if they fail or are successful in 2012.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
High-powered Italian opposition politician resigns after scandal with prostitute
Italian politician quits after sex scandal
ROME — A prominent opposition politician embroiled in a scandal over his encounter with a transsexual prostitute resigned his high-profile job Tuesday as head of the region that includes Rome.
Piero Marrazzo has said he made mistakes and that he had been living a “nightmare” since the encounter in July in a Rome apartment. Four policemen have been arrested for allegedly attempting to blackmail the 51-year-old Marrazzo, who is married and has three daughters.
“My personal condition of extreme suffering makes my stay at the helm of the region not longer useful for the Lazio citizens,” Marrazzo said in a statement announcing his resignation.
He said the resignation was “final and irrevocable.” He also maintained that he had always acted for the good of his citizens, “whatever personal mistakes I may have committed in my private life.”
In previous statements, he had admitted to “weaknesses.”
Marrazzo had already handed over his responsibilities to his deputy last weekend, after the scandal broke.
Media reports say there is a video evidence, though the video has not been publicly seen.
Marrazzo said he wrote three checks to the alleged blackmailers, although they weren’t cashed. He said he did not go to the police out of fear and shame.
The scandal was the latest blow to the already weak Democratic Party, the main opposition force to Premier Silvio Berlusconi’s conservatives. Marrazzo has suspended his membership in the party, but the scandal has overshadowed the election of a new party leader in a primary vote this weekend.
Media reports said Tuesday that Marrazzo, seeking to drop out of the public eye, wanted to spend some time at a Benedictine monastery or some other religious institute near the capital. His whereabouts were not made public.
ROME — A prominent opposition politician embroiled in a scandal over his encounter with a transsexual prostitute resigned his high-profile job Tuesday as head of the region that includes Rome.
Piero Marrazzo has said he made mistakes and that he had been living a “nightmare” since the encounter in July in a Rome apartment. Four policemen have been arrested for allegedly attempting to blackmail the 51-year-old Marrazzo, who is married and has three daughters.
“My personal condition of extreme suffering makes my stay at the helm of the region not longer useful for the Lazio citizens,” Marrazzo said in a statement announcing his resignation.
He said the resignation was “final and irrevocable.” He also maintained that he had always acted for the good of his citizens, “whatever personal mistakes I may have committed in my private life.”
In previous statements, he had admitted to “weaknesses.”
Marrazzo had already handed over his responsibilities to his deputy last weekend, after the scandal broke.
Media reports say there is a video evidence, though the video has not been publicly seen.
Marrazzo said he wrote three checks to the alleged blackmailers, although they weren’t cashed. He said he did not go to the police out of fear and shame.
The scandal was the latest blow to the already weak Democratic Party, the main opposition force to Premier Silvio Berlusconi’s conservatives. Marrazzo has suspended his membership in the party, but the scandal has overshadowed the election of a new party leader in a primary vote this weekend.
Media reports said Tuesday that Marrazzo, seeking to drop out of the public eye, wanted to spend some time at a Benedictine monastery or some other religious institute near the capital. His whereabouts were not made public.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Memo to Turnbull: Politics has its own skill set.
As I type, Malcolm Turnbull is probably sinking back into his office chair after just about the worst day of his leadership. Todays meeting was supposed to go for 4 hours, and sources expected he would get 2/3rds support. Instead it went on for about 10 hours, and he has gotten just half, if not having a majority oppose him in the party room. He has emerged battered and bruised, but at least has a deal. As he was at pains to remind everyone he is still the leader, but does he actually know how to practice politics?
Despite the fact that Turnbull has held the superior hand (the science, the polls, even Govt support) he has been consistently out maneuvered on this issue. He is being out played, if he does escape beyond this week it will have more to do with others lack of interest in his job(for the time being), than a sign of capability. (Word is that Tuckey and Jensen have written to ask for a leadership spill on Thursday morning) So why is it that a man who could outwit the intelligence services before the High Court, take on the Packers and Fairfaxes in the Business world, has crumbled before former real estate agents like Barnaby Joyce and cardigan wearing mofos like Minchin? Indeed only his decision to simply declare the discussion over tonight around 8pm has left him with any credibility, and seems his best move of the entire day.
The press like to think leadership is a beauty contest, with them able to define beauty, and the polls just the public endorsing their narrative. But it’s also about brains and using the system. To lead you need not be older, wealthier, more capable, more sucessful or even better looking, you only need to be able to consistently out politik your opponents.
Howard was a great politician not just because he could be populist and give the media/people what they want, but he also used the rules and settings to his advantage. In the republican convention he set up a fight between direct and indirect electionists to ensure the referendum failed. In 2007 whilst on the nose with the polls, media and colleague, having set up Downer to see if he should quit (the infamous APEC hotel meeting) he then turned and demanded that if he was to go they would have to force him. Though a majority were against him, he knew this would be too hard and he kept his job.
Obama is another one you see who understands the need for rat cunning as the basis of leadership. He won his first Illinois legislature seat by having voting registrations for his opponents tossed out, allowing him to be elected unopposed. It might jar with his rhetoric of hope, but his skills are the best hope progressives have for real change.
The ethics of this form of hardball are always of course debatable though hardball politics needn’t be wrong. More importantly however is that to do it you first need to be able to see it, imagine it. To be able to read the lay of the land, the personalities and circumstances and politik your way into a superior position.
What does this have to do with Turnbull ? Well, constantly we have seen him be out thought and out manouvered by his own party members, who are in many ways still playing soft on him. He faces an opponent in Rudd who knows very well how to play such politics, and there is no way he should be allowed to represent Australia to the world, facing the elite of the Chinese, Americans, or Indonesians if he can’t out think those around him in far easier domestic circumstances. We know he branch stacked like crazy to win his seat in Wentworth, but it must now be doubted how much of that was his own effort.
All this points to the fact that while we decry the lack of plumber/teacher/cafe owner turned politician, politics itself is a profession. It needs to be learnt, it needs to be experienced, it has its own norms, skill sets and oddities that have to become second nature if you are to obtain and weild power. If you cant, then you are just wasting everyones time.
This is why I’m not that concerned about the number of politicians who have never done anything else, and why though I like Turnbull, he has seemed headed for a humiliating defeat ever since thinking about running for the leadership. When Costello baulked on election night Turnbull began challenging for the job, finally rolling Nelson, all for the thankless task of being leader during a first term opposition. Since then, despite numerous government mistakes (groceries, nbn, school stimulus, debt, asylum seekers, utegate, cprs) Turnbull has failed to land a solid punch. All the pain for Rudd has been either self or media inflicted.
Politics is a skill that needs to be learnt, and Turnbull is proving the classic case of a man who didn’t respect this. Like many, esp from the business world he simply presumed that skill in other areas directly translates, or that sheer force of personality will get you through. He is clearly a brilliant man, but political skill has never been about just sheer intelligence, but out thinking those around you and using the circumstances to leverage the best outcome for yourself/your position. Turnbull’s learnt a lot very quickly, but it is not quick enough if he wants to remain.
That could mean he has only 36 hours to find a new way to control his party. It saddens me to say it, but I think it would be best he lost the vote (if it occurs). If he sticks around he could take some time to lick his wounds and re-run in 2012 for the leadership. If not, then best to go out now rather than leading to an election debacle. Its not a fun club to have been leader without ever going to an election (think Crean, Downer), but right now, Nelson seems the smarter (and happier) politician than Turnbull.
Despite the fact that Turnbull has held the superior hand (the science, the polls, even Govt support) he has been consistently out maneuvered on this issue. He is being out played, if he does escape beyond this week it will have more to do with others lack of interest in his job(for the time being), than a sign of capability. (Word is that Tuckey and Jensen have written to ask for a leadership spill on Thursday morning) So why is it that a man who could outwit the intelligence services before the High Court, take on the Packers and Fairfaxes in the Business world, has crumbled before former real estate agents like Barnaby Joyce and cardigan wearing mofos like Minchin? Indeed only his decision to simply declare the discussion over tonight around 8pm has left him with any credibility, and seems his best move of the entire day.
The press like to think leadership is a beauty contest, with them able to define beauty, and the polls just the public endorsing their narrative. But it’s also about brains and using the system. To lead you need not be older, wealthier, more capable, more sucessful or even better looking, you only need to be able to consistently out politik your opponents.
Howard was a great politician not just because he could be populist and give the media/people what they want, but he also used the rules and settings to his advantage. In the republican convention he set up a fight between direct and indirect electionists to ensure the referendum failed. In 2007 whilst on the nose with the polls, media and colleague, having set up Downer to see if he should quit (the infamous APEC hotel meeting) he then turned and demanded that if he was to go they would have to force him. Though a majority were against him, he knew this would be too hard and he kept his job.
Obama is another one you see who understands the need for rat cunning as the basis of leadership. He won his first Illinois legislature seat by having voting registrations for his opponents tossed out, allowing him to be elected unopposed. It might jar with his rhetoric of hope, but his skills are the best hope progressives have for real change.
The ethics of this form of hardball are always of course debatable though hardball politics needn’t be wrong. More importantly however is that to do it you first need to be able to see it, imagine it. To be able to read the lay of the land, the personalities and circumstances and politik your way into a superior position.
What does this have to do with Turnbull ? Well, constantly we have seen him be out thought and out manouvered by his own party members, who are in many ways still playing soft on him. He faces an opponent in Rudd who knows very well how to play such politics, and there is no way he should be allowed to represent Australia to the world, facing the elite of the Chinese, Americans, or Indonesians if he can’t out think those around him in far easier domestic circumstances. We know he branch stacked like crazy to win his seat in Wentworth, but it must now be doubted how much of that was his own effort.
All this points to the fact that while we decry the lack of plumber/teacher/cafe owner turned politician, politics itself is a profession. It needs to be learnt, it needs to be experienced, it has its own norms, skill sets and oddities that have to become second nature if you are to obtain and weild power. If you cant, then you are just wasting everyones time.
This is why I’m not that concerned about the number of politicians who have never done anything else, and why though I like Turnbull, he has seemed headed for a humiliating defeat ever since thinking about running for the leadership. When Costello baulked on election night Turnbull began challenging for the job, finally rolling Nelson, all for the thankless task of being leader during a first term opposition. Since then, despite numerous government mistakes (groceries, nbn, school stimulus, debt, asylum seekers, utegate, cprs) Turnbull has failed to land a solid punch. All the pain for Rudd has been either self or media inflicted.
Politics is a skill that needs to be learnt, and Turnbull is proving the classic case of a man who didn’t respect this. Like many, esp from the business world he simply presumed that skill in other areas directly translates, or that sheer force of personality will get you through. He is clearly a brilliant man, but political skill has never been about just sheer intelligence, but out thinking those around you and using the circumstances to leverage the best outcome for yourself/your position. Turnbull’s learnt a lot very quickly, but it is not quick enough if he wants to remain.
That could mean he has only 36 hours to find a new way to control his party. It saddens me to say it, but I think it would be best he lost the vote (if it occurs). If he sticks around he could take some time to lick his wounds and re-run in 2012 for the leadership. If not, then best to go out now rather than leading to an election debacle. Its not a fun club to have been leader without ever going to an election (think Crean, Downer), but right now, Nelson seems the smarter (and happier) politician than Turnbull.
Monday, November 23, 2009
BODY POLITIK
A good friend of mine came to me and said she needed a site to display her collection. She explained it to me and the details of what she was trying to do and I was both impressed and excited. Body Politik is a unique and interesting concept and I would like you to check it out and be part of it // MORE INFO and PICS AFTER THE JUMP + enjoy
www.bodypolitik.net
www.twitter.com/bodypolitik
Body Politik is not what one considers a traditional fashion house/label. What is called a proper collection seems forced and foreign. Perhaps later on we will create one but for now items and projects come and go pretty organically.
At the moment everything is made in-house…except for the dyes and fabrics. However we do dye the fabrics, mix our own colors as needed, make patterns, cut and sew. And as we grow, our goal is to maintain in-house/domestic production. What makes us unique is our passion, eagerness to learn/perfect our craft, and our intimacy with our clients and projects. What also sets us apart is our exclusivity to sustainable materials and commitment to clean clothes through a close watch on our domestic production.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Americans Want Obama Pal Tim Geithner Gone
More trials and tribulations from the utter FAIL that is the Obama administration:
Adding to lawmaker criticism of U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's performance is a new survey released on Friday showing 42 percent of Americans say he has done a "poor job" handling the credit crisis and federal bailout programs.
The survey by Rasmussen Reports, a polling and electronic publishing firm, found that 20 percent rated Geithner's performance in these areas as "good" or "excellent", while 16 percent were not sure how he was performing. Twenty-two percent rated his performance as "fair".
Rasmussen said these findings were largely unchanged from a survey done in March just after the passage of the Obama administration's $787 billion stimulus plan and disclosure that American International Group would pay out $165 million in bonuses despite a massive government bailout.
Investors polled has stronger opinions: 47 percent said Geithner was doing a poor job , while 24 percent said his handling of crisis was good or excellent.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Fewer People Believe In Global Warming
ManBearPig and lies are finally starting to make folks scratch their heads:
A recent Pew Research survey showing a sharp decline in the proportion of the public saying there is solid evidence of global warming has triggered considerable speculation about why these views are changing. The poll was released a day after 18 leading scientific organizations released a letter reaffirming what they see as scientific consensus on climate change.
The survey found 57% saying there is "solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades." In April 2008, 71% said there was solid evidence of global warming, and in 2006 and 2007, 77% expressed this view.
Why do fewer Americans believe the earth is warming? No single factor emerges from Pew Research Center surveys, but rather a range of possible explanations, including a sour economy and, perhaps, a cooler than normal summer in parts of the United States.
First, it is important to note that signs of a change in public opinion -- on the environment generally and global warming more specifically -- were evident long before Pew Research's new survey. In March, Gallup's annual environment survey found an increase in the percentage of Americans who say the seriousness of global warming is "generally exaggerated" -- from 30% in 2006 to 41% this year. Similarly, Fox News found the percentage of registered voters saying they "believe global warming exists" has fallen from 82% in January 2007 to 69% in May of this year.
Pew Research surveys show that as economic concerns have surged, fewer people view the environment as a top policy priority. In our annual survey on the public's policy agenda, just 41% rated protecting the environment as a top priority; just a year earlier, 56% rated it as a top priority. Yet other issues also were overshadowed as more people focused on the economy and jobs. There were sharp declines as well in the proportions rating dealing with illegal immigration (down 10 points), reducing health care costs (10 points) and reducing crime (eight points) as top priorities for the president and Congress. Notably, there has been no change in recent years in the proportion of the public saying that stricter laws and regulations are needed to protect the environment. Fully 83% expressed that view in Pew Research's political values survey, released in May. At the same time, far fewer people viewed protecting the environment as a priority if it meant slower economic growth and job losses, or higher prices.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
The Art of Politik
preview SPECIAL FEATURE: The Obama DelusionThis is a preview of an upcoming piece that will be titled "The Obama Delusion". The piece will be posted sometime this week.
With the familiar and infamous closing line to virtually every presidential speech, "..and may God bless the United States of America", new President, Barack Obama waved goodbye to a packed crowd in Chicago's Grant Park with the understanding of the 'change' mandate that he had just gotten from America's voters.
The president surely knew the change he was going to bring, but as sure as America was of who they wanted to be their 44th president, few people understood what it was that he would do. Failing to understand that resulted in really low or exceedingly high expectations for him and inevitably has caused some reservations among those who voted for Obama. People naturally resist change, so to have so much of it already done has caused unease about gambling on such an ambitious agenda with so much change at a time when a turn for the worse could have proved disastrous.
Progressive democrats embraced his message, taking to heart his words and having a perception of Obama's agenda being more ambitious and more leftist than any president has tried in the past.
Centrist independents couldn't separate the incumbent republican candidate to his predecessor, and thus they took the mantra of change to simply mean something other than George Bush. In making this judgment, independents seem to have underestimated how much change Obama intended to bring. This is partly to blame for increased calls for the president and congressional democrats to slow down their efforts to make significant changes to address monumental problems.
Mainstream democrats on a whole tend to be quite satisfied with the president's job performance, however, they also seemed to miscalculate how hard he would push for bipartisan votes, whether or not the piece of legislation necessitated a republican to cross over for passage. This route has angered many, battered the patience of others, and it has caused dissatisfaction at the concessions being made for the sake of bipartisanship that it almost makes one forget the democratic party has super majorities in the congress.
It seems like the only group who didn't underestimate where the president intended to go with his agenda were republicans, but even they didn't expect Obama to be as pragmatic as he has been. His pragmatism has caused him the most problems within the party and within the congress. Republicans supported his first Afghanistan surge in almost greater numbers than democrats. Today, this is being repeated as he nears another troop decision. His moderate stance on gay marriage has angered part of the base and his support of second amendment rights has forced conservatives to claim the stance as a facade.
When it comes right down to it, most people simply projected their own perception of change and led themselves to miss the mark...
Monday, November 16, 2009
Nazri denies selective prosecution
KUALA LUMPUR, The arrest of controversial ex-Perlis mufti Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin last night provoked a debate on “selective prosecution” in Parliament this morning even as he was facing charges for allegedly holding an Islamic lecture in Selangor without a permit.
“The minister said there's no selective prosecution... but why was Dr Asri arrested?” said the Umno MP for Kalabakan, Datuk Abdul Ghapur Salleh, in a question directed at Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department in charge of law and parliamentary affairs.
Nazri was taken aback at the unexpected attack from his fellow Barisan Nasional (BN) colleague.
“I actually don't know about this case,” he admitted.
“I don't want to accuse anyone of selective prosecution,” he said, after regaining his composure.
“But we know that in a state, if we want to give a lecture, especially on Islam, we need permission first,” the Padang Renggas MP added.
The straight-talking Mohd Asri was briefly held at a religious lecture in Ampang last night on claims he had held a public lecture without a permit from the Selangor Islamic Affairs Department (JAIS).
He was freed at 1.10am on police bail but ordered to turn up for further questioning at the Gombak JAIS office later in the morning.
The maverick Islamic scholar, who had recently returned from further studies in Britain and is being courted by Islamist party PAS to join them, is claiming blatant persecution.
During Question Time earlier, Nazri denied that the federal government practised “selective prosecution”.
Kubang Kerian PAS MP Salahuddin Ayub had noted the increasing public perception that the government had acted with bias in charging certain parties with legal action, based on a book “Malaysia: Sejarah Kenegaraan dan Politik”.
He wanted to know what the government was doing to counter the public's poor impression of the judicial system and the national anti-graft body.
He noted that even the BN MP for Sri Gading had last week attacked the government for its poor performance in dealing with graft.
“Is it because the salary is not enough? Do they need new incentives?” Salahuddin asked, before adding: “Or a new government to solve this problem?”
Nazri replied that the book cited by Salahuddin dealt with the past, before the age of the Internet when “many things could happen and be hidden”.
He pointed out the present was different because there was greater freedom of expression, as proven by the publication of the very same book held up by Salahuddin.
“On selective prosecution, there's none,” he said.
He defended the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), pointing out that the anti-graft body was “colour blind” when carrying out its duty.
Nazri noted that in the past, 12 men from the ruling coalition had been arrested for corruption compared to only one from the federal opposition.
“Don't tell me we must arrest 100 per cent Barisan Nasional to show there's no selective prosecution?
“Unless you feel there's no corruption in Pakatan Rakyat. That's impossible,” he lobbed back at the PAS MP.
“The minister said there's no selective prosecution... but why was Dr Asri arrested?” said the Umno MP for Kalabakan, Datuk Abdul Ghapur Salleh, in a question directed at Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department in charge of law and parliamentary affairs.
Nazri was taken aback at the unexpected attack from his fellow Barisan Nasional (BN) colleague.
“I actually don't know about this case,” he admitted.
“I don't want to accuse anyone of selective prosecution,” he said, after regaining his composure.
“But we know that in a state, if we want to give a lecture, especially on Islam, we need permission first,” the Padang Renggas MP added.
The straight-talking Mohd Asri was briefly held at a religious lecture in Ampang last night on claims he had held a public lecture without a permit from the Selangor Islamic Affairs Department (JAIS).
He was freed at 1.10am on police bail but ordered to turn up for further questioning at the Gombak JAIS office later in the morning.
The maverick Islamic scholar, who had recently returned from further studies in Britain and is being courted by Islamist party PAS to join them, is claiming blatant persecution.
During Question Time earlier, Nazri denied that the federal government practised “selective prosecution”.
Kubang Kerian PAS MP Salahuddin Ayub had noted the increasing public perception that the government had acted with bias in charging certain parties with legal action, based on a book “Malaysia: Sejarah Kenegaraan dan Politik”.
He wanted to know what the government was doing to counter the public's poor impression of the judicial system and the national anti-graft body.
He noted that even the BN MP for Sri Gading had last week attacked the government for its poor performance in dealing with graft.
“Is it because the salary is not enough? Do they need new incentives?” Salahuddin asked, before adding: “Or a new government to solve this problem?”
Nazri replied that the book cited by Salahuddin dealt with the past, before the age of the Internet when “many things could happen and be hidden”.
He pointed out the present was different because there was greater freedom of expression, as proven by the publication of the very same book held up by Salahuddin.
“On selective prosecution, there's none,” he said.
He defended the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), pointing out that the anti-graft body was “colour blind” when carrying out its duty.
Nazri noted that in the past, 12 men from the ruling coalition had been arrested for corruption compared to only one from the federal opposition.
“Don't tell me we must arrest 100 per cent Barisan Nasional to show there's no selective prosecution?
“Unless you feel there's no corruption in Pakatan Rakyat. That's impossible,” he lobbed back at the PAS MP.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Sosyo – Politik Aktivizm Internet
Within every society, groups of individuals come together to support deserving causes. Social activism is most common in the political arena, where groups bound by shared public interests act in concert to deliver votes for political parties. Societal and technological change has accelerated the evolution of such large scale instances of social collaboration with the advent of Internet. In particular, the internet has transformed the value of information, by distributing it across interactive platforms which facilitate unprecedented participation from users and in the process enhancing the value of information multifold. One area where the Internet has significantly empowered groups of individuals with information is the socio-political scenario of the nation. As the voting public of the United States looks forward to the Presidential election on November 4, 2008, all of the information gathered and analyzed about the activities, policies of and public attitudes towards both Barack Obama and John McCain acquires immense value. Election web sites now encompass a wide range of topics and services, including debate analysis, poll results, voter turnout ratios, and predictions about voting behavior. The newspaper industry represents one form of media that has maximized the access and reach of election information over the internet. Opinions, blogs and buzz are all examples of new forms of media and information dissemination which have been spawned by the internet, and which empower groups with the means to reach new members and influence election outcomes. For instance, the New York Times has a dedicated section on politics that caters to all citizens, delivering market analysis, and blogs with news and commentary serving local markets. Additional services provided by publications like the New York Times also offer online, interactive and live chat rooms with market analysts and electoral consultants who provide deeper insight into the economical policies of each Presidential candidate. Social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter now host a diversity of forums that are dedicated to the posting and sharing of ideas and opinions about the coming election and each candidate. On Facebook you can find photos, discussion boards and career biographies of both Obama and McCain. The network also empowers local groups with the organizational tools to host events, and a powerful platform for promoting candidates and their respective policies using posters and cards. Featured also are blogging arenas, and the capability to host national call groups for each candidate, to which friends and family can be invited, and which make it much easier to reach out to other like-minded people across the country. These sites also nurture friendships within groups by gathering together women, veterans and students and giving them the tools to form their own communities. On Twitter, there are streams of messages from users about each candidate’s performance on the campaign trail. Both Obama and McCain have also used services like Facebook and Twitter as forums to generate support, solicit funds and propagate their policies and opinions. Minekey, Facebook’s popular application which fuels a discussion community of over two million people, recently launched its own election site to provide a forum for U. S. and global citizens to discover, vote upon and discuss the policies and positions of both candidates. Clearly, the internet is the driving force contributing to the promotion and advance of public awareness of national issues. Socio-political activism on the net has instigated widespread cultural change, by surfacing all election campaign activities, events and issues available in the virtual world – to all people, wherever they live.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
