Crash through or crash
How prosaic are our political scandals! The Ozcar affair, which those who like to affix "-gate" to every scandal have labelled "Utegate", alleged that Kruddy and Swannie had done favors for a used-car-dealer mate who'd lent Kruddy a ute (a pick-up). The Tories charged into this one feet-in-mouth when the magnificently named Godwin Grech, a Treasury official, revealed the alleged existence of an email that he said demonstrated interference in the allocation of a government subsidy to a mate of the PM's. Opposition Leader Mal went at it like a Turnbull in a china shop (or indeed a Turnbull at a "-gate"), and ended up looking very embarrassed when the email turned out to be a fake. Subsequently his approval ratings dropped twenty per cent in one survey - a new record for futility - and has continued to fall.
The Libs are making a real hash out of exposing Kruddy's weaknesses, of which there are many. They are too often seen as unremittingly negative, and have had to back down on most of the issues on they have opposed the ALP. The position Mal has adopted on the carbon emissions scheme is typically self-defeating. Having got the government to move to his position, he then changed his position and asked for more. Having to appease those within his party who are climate change deniers, as well as try and keep those with the semblance of some sense happy, has left him in an untenable position. When even Tony Abbott admits that the Libs will have to cave in eventually, you know they are in trouble. It's a case of poor Mal: he is astute and intelligent, and a success in just about everything he has undertaken. But he seems to be victim of the Peter Principle and has found, as Leader of the Opposition, his level of incompetence. He comes across as unduly negative and carping. Like Nigel Tufnel, Turnbull seems to have a gauge permanently set to "11" and this has not helped his cause. He has surrendered the possibility of the Liberals participating in setting policy by reflexively opposing everything the government says. He acts as if the November 2007 election never happened and that those born with the right to rule continue to rule.
Kruddy, by being calm and methodical, has benefitted from the Libs' ill-discipline and, even as we make fun of his orotund locutions and prolix terminology, he has maintained the political ascendancy.
Dismal scientists 0 - Anti-Hanrahans 3 (aet)
Just when I was prepared to concede a draw in the debate about the imminent Australian recession, it turned out, in extra time, that the 'recession' was illusory, ephemeral and non-corporeal. While the rest of the world has pretty much caught the US cold, after that country's incredibly loud sneeze, Australia, boosted by strong pre-emptive action from the government through stimuli and by the Reserve Bank through interest rate cuts, has managed to stave off the disease. This was assisted by the fact that our financial system retains sufficient protections to ensure that the worst impact of the growth of toxic assets on banks' books was avoided and by the fact that it is the one issue on which Kruddy has taken early and competent action that has actually worked. Negative growth in the December quarter was followed by positive growth in the March quarter. It now looks unlikely that we will have two successive quarters of shrinkage and, therefore, no recession. Given that the Hanrahans had Kruddy down for a fall by June 2008, the fact that we have reached August 2009 without such a fall calls for some recanting; for some admission that their views were unduly pessimistic and, as such, wrong. But I won't hold my breath.
Stranger things in the strange land
Talk about a slow count! Comedian turned politician Al Franken has finally been declared the winner of last November's Minnesota Senate election. It only took a count, a recount, an appeal, and two court cases before his Republican opponent finally threw in the towel. I cannot imagine this drawn-out process occurring in any other country. In many places, as the recent Iranian election showed, the actual vote is quite irrelevant to the declared result and the concept of a close vote is not contemplated. In other countries, such as the UK, NZ and Australia, the election result would stand, subject to any subsequent court decision. Nor would litigation likely be the first resort of the defeated. But, following the way in which the Repubs were able to thwart the will of the voters in Florida in 2000, it seems likely that more and more USAmerican elections will be decided by "unelected judges" (the term has become one of opprobrium here as our local Tories like to describe anyone with any sense of independence of thought - in the USA, where judgeships are much more political in nature, there is a greater danger of judges being far less disinterested in the outcome). Such shenanigans, combined with the lack of impartiality of those charged with running the elections (again Florida in 2000 is a prime example), the increased possibility of rigging through computers and vote machines, and the prevalence of gerrymandering, mean that less trust will be placed in the integrity of elections in the US. How long before we need to send teams of UN observers to ensure fairness in USAmerican elections?
Franken's election gives the Democrats 60 votes in the Senate, a super-majority, if only they could agree on how to use the power they now have. The congressional leadership is hardly inspiring, particularly Harry Reid, the senate majority leader. I trust that the Democrats take their majority out for some exercise, and don't squib the necessary legislative agenda, especially in the areas of health care reform, addressing climate change, and dealing with the continuing inequality to those in what is now called the "GLBTI community". But I'm not confident.
Sonia Sotomayor is probably the best-qualified nominee for the US Supreme Court in yonks. So, naturally, the wingnuts are going ballistic about her nomination, asserting her guilt on various high crimes and misdemeanors, especially that she is (1) female and (2) Hispanic. This meant, by the tortured logic used by the quasi-religious right, that she was a chauvinist and a racist. The real cause for concern was, of course, that their apprehension that she might well stand on the "wrong" side of Roe v Wade, the case that guarantees minimal termination rights to pregnant USAmerican women. Her performance before the relevant Senate committee demonstrated how qualified she was - a fact that was evident for her decades of judicial success on lower and higher courts, and the fact that she had previously been endorsed as an appeal judge by the very same committee, at a time when it had a Republican majority. The ultimate irony - and you just have to love the ways in which USA politics keeps throwing up such ironies - was that the ranking minority member of the committee (ie the senior Republican leading the anti-Sonia push) had two decades earlier been refused endorsement by the same committee when he'd been nominated to an appeals court, on the demonstrable grounds of his expressed racism.
Have I Got No News For You
Gordon Brown is more likely than ever to lose the next election. Labour may finish no better than third according to some polls. Beaten by the Lib-Dems: there's a memorial for the mess that Brown has inherited from Blair and managed to make worse. Even so, given everything going on in the world, it is amazing how boring British politics really is. Even their series of MP expenses scandals involves picayune amounts and is even more boring than Ozcar. The only way that anyone can stand it is by seeing it through the lens of Paul Merton and Ian Hislop.
Worst politics; best satire.
From the oval office
The universe remains fairly well in balance. And sport provides the fulcrum. Le Tour de France 2009 was one of the least interesting races, because it was dominated by two very strong teams and most of the rest had little chance. It was highlighted by the comeback of Lance Armstrong and the assumed intermittent problems he had with his team leader, and eventual winner, Alberto Contador. The Astana team, of which they were a major part, was about the best that money could buy and, if it hadn't been for Saxo Bank, with the climbing ability of the Schleck brothers and the preparedness for domestiques like Stuart O'Grady to sacrifice themselves on the flat, there would have been no opposition for Astana. Two Brits did well, Bradley Wiggins, who showed an unexpected ability to climb, and sprinter Mark Cavendish won six stages. The latter was ably assisted by an Aussie lead-out man, Mark Renshaw, who set up five of his six wins. Amongst the Australians, Renshaw and O'Grady shone. Their success and Armstrong's brilliant comeback from retirement was balanced by the failure of Cadel "Mr Whingey-pants" Evans, who again managed to find plenty of reasons for his failure - other than his own lack of success, of course. Evans could learn a lot from the way in which Lance Armstrong behaved throughout the event and his calm demeanor.
There were 'comebacks' other than Lance's in the last few months as well, showing that age does not weary all of us, nor the years condemn. Tom Watson, who is almost my age, led until the very end of the recent British Open and only lost the title in a play-off, while the supposedly unbeatable Tiger Woods failed to make the cut; and Roger Federer, despite incipient fatherhood, and advancing age, has won two successive grand slam titles, while the youngster Rafael Nadal has suffered injury and lost the number-one ranking.
In addition to all these good news stories from the world of sport, there has to be some balancing material to demonstrate that sport reflects the worst as well as the best of the world. The umpires and the AFL have won the battle of Hall Hall. Barry Hall has been driven from the sport. Unsurprisingly, his short fuse has been lit by the consistent failure of the umpires to recognise that Hall's head (and other body parts) might have, from time to time, been attacked by defenders. While it is hard to justify the violence of some of his actions, one can understand why Hall became more and more frustrated as the umpires and the League declared open season on the Sydney full forward. There are some players who are protected and some who are not. (It is interesting to compare Hall's treatment with that of Cameron Mooney, the short-tempered thug playing for Geelong. He's had almost as many Tribunal appearances as Hall but is painted as an eccentric, rather than a danger to kiddies. To an extent the media coverage of Hall has assisted the pillorying of the player.) Hall was definitely in the not-protected category and his retirement helps make the AFL even blander, in keeping it seems with the League's aim of avoiding all controversy. Fortunately Hall's retirement has a silver lining, with the emergence of a number of good young players to fill the void, including Jesse White, Matt O'Dwyer and Heath Grundy - players who have been making a strong impression in the Reserves and deserve their chance in the limelight.
On the other hand, it is hard to find a balance for the debacle that is the 2009 world swimming championships, where the governing body has allowed the use of technology, through advanced swimsuits, to pervert the idea of a sporting contest. Not only are some competitors advantaged by having better technology, but the concept that they can set world records in performance-enhancing equipment is ludicrous, and meaningless. The governing body is banning the artificial material from January 1 and allowing only natural fabrics - but the performance-enhanced records will stand. Just goes to show that, no matter how good the athletes might be, the governing bodies of sport have the ability to cock everything up. FINA is an even more egregious example than the AFL.
First written: August 2009
return to Raves/Essays index