Sunday, August 29, 2010
Why indipendent reps (IR's ) and not Nationals are in the ascendancy
The Nationals are becoming irrelevant because they aren't distinctive in their thinking. By not thinking differently about economic and industry policy they continue to be swamped by the simplistic notions of the major parties and the comfortable Libs in particular. What's disturbing is that few in parliament can see that our governments monocultural approach to extraction and exploitation ( a clone of the most successful elements of secondary and tertiary industries ) is destroying the distinctive niches for development and progress in the bush ( the primary ). Its ruthless, careless and unacceptable to the green thinkers who are a growing in number and influence.
This sucking of the country dry need not happen. Handouts ( the last refuge of the new libertarians ) are not an acceptable form of feedback in ecologically sound systems;Libertarian dctrines just won't last . Independent innovation ( the country party claim )is a sustainable feature of sound ecomia policy .
Apart from the independents, our reps do little to create the diversity of economic thinking that is needed to keep Australia from becoming a complete clone of high speed quick fix.( "Our coal will save us, just like the Oil will save the Arabs? ) The Nationals are in a unique position to do something about the great long term efficiency arguments of economic innovation, so why aren't they ?
Its a big job for a small party from the bush to tackle the heavies on this.
The way to tackle it is to recognise that its an intellectual battle first and once one ( like an independents seat ), better practice will follow.
Even the Nats know only too well that you can't rely on farmers to drive this debate .The first intellectual battle should be to tackle the economic and agricultural advisory system . Find some institutions of learning and practice in the bush who study these things better than the Canberra clones .
To give you some idea of the challenge though , its clear many of our government advisors on agricultural and environment policy have been dumbing down this debate for years . (Its the key to the political stupidity and uniformity of nearly all major parties on this subject in particular)
The current advisors are wrong because their first love is not the environment, but simplicity and uniformity . Its easier to keep the old blinkered love affair with extracting the last drop out of production systems going than have diversity in economic and regional planning policy . To give the regions a handout is to insult the very culture that cloned the very best of what Australasian innovation and independent economic initiative can produce.
The main Economic and environment advisors are blinkered,and they are chosen because they are blinkered. Myopia is a respected skill in many industries, but its plain dangerous in ecomia. Myopics can talk small picture, but get lost with the big one . ( That special place we call our environment)
Because the recent crop of advisors come from the city ( I went to University with quite a few ) and they haven't moved beyond the economic and educational myopia that suffices in many industries in the city, they can't even see the problem we are trying to outline here. Our econ mic and agricultural advisors are trained at the school of mere description (SMD)and their advice comes from the misplaced concreteness ledger of a two column page. "We'll look into it they would say "as if a microscope or a telescope was the only way to find things out.
The school of mere description says anyone who can't get a better return to capital than farmers are backward . What would they know eh?
Farmers are not backward. All farmers the world over need high equity and get a normally low return to capital to remain sustainable, flexible and responsible in the sensitive "factories" within which they work. God help the country if the economic rationalists keep draining our resources .
SMD graduates can teach their robust machines to go harder and faster because only mere men and machines get broken down in their factories . If farmers take too much advice from SMD they go broke and the country is deeply and badly broken too . More here
That's why IR's are not your normal reps.
Simple economies of scale do not apply to ecosystems; nor do the simple drop kick laws of competition policy. Cooperation is part of the place and needs no introduction to this efficient productive space.
Are the myopics in government worried? Of course they are; quite fanatical in their defence of their high position and their commitment to speed and greed.
Slowing down will not kill the country - it may well help to save it .
Will IR's ever come to the dominant city centric view of common sense?- I hope not.
I hope
-our country grows up to recognise the range of unique diversity of ecosystems and production systems .
- that our accountant rich management class get told that there is a world beyond 2 columns.
--that more city people will abandon a mono cultural view and recognise that extracting the last drop does not drive a fit place for life;
Let our masters show respect for ecosystems by not offering us speed and greed - we don't naturally push our systems to the limits, like economic and technophobic rationalists do .
The greens have a lot more in common with the IR's than the major parties realise . The major parties are stuck with dumb old simplistic blinkered paradigms on environmental planning that are borrowed from secondary industry; paradigms that don't work in the real world of ecosystems planning .
Please don't patronise the people who look after the earth - They know a lot about many ledgers and many symbiotic relationships well beyond them ; reason with them and hear them out . The city and its SMD's have still got a lot more to learn about the basis for a proper balance between co-operation and competition, symbiosis and sustainability-- and that's only for starters .
This sucking of the country dry need not happen. Handouts ( the last refuge of the new libertarians ) are not an acceptable form of feedback in ecologically sound systems;Libertarian dctrines just won't last . Independent innovation ( the country party claim )is a sustainable feature of sound ecomia policy .
Apart from the independents, our reps do little to create the diversity of economic thinking that is needed to keep Australia from becoming a complete clone of high speed quick fix.( "Our coal will save us, just like the Oil will save the Arabs? ) The Nationals are in a unique position to do something about the great long term efficiency arguments of economic innovation, so why aren't they ?
Its a big job for a small party from the bush to tackle the heavies on this.
The way to tackle it is to recognise that its an intellectual battle first and once one ( like an independents seat ), better practice will follow.
Even the Nats know only too well that you can't rely on farmers to drive this debate .The first intellectual battle should be to tackle the economic and agricultural advisory system . Find some institutions of learning and practice in the bush who study these things better than the Canberra clones .
To give you some idea of the challenge though , its clear many of our government advisors on agricultural and environment policy have been dumbing down this debate for years . (Its the key to the political stupidity and uniformity of nearly all major parties on this subject in particular)
The current advisors are wrong because their first love is not the environment, but simplicity and uniformity . Its easier to keep the old blinkered love affair with extracting the last drop out of production systems going than have diversity in economic and regional planning policy . To give the regions a handout is to insult the very culture that cloned the very best of what Australasian innovation and independent economic initiative can produce.
The main Economic and environment advisors are blinkered,and they are chosen because they are blinkered. Myopia is a respected skill in many industries, but its plain dangerous in ecomia. Myopics can talk small picture, but get lost with the big one . ( That special place we call our environment)
Because the recent crop of advisors come from the city ( I went to University with quite a few ) and they haven't moved beyond the economic and educational myopia that suffices in many industries in the city, they can't even see the problem we are trying to outline here. Our econ mic and agricultural advisors are trained at the school of mere description (SMD)and their advice comes from the misplaced concreteness ledger of a two column page. "We'll look into it they would say "as if a microscope or a telescope was the only way to find things out.
The school of mere description says anyone who can't get a better return to capital than farmers are backward . What would they know eh?
Farmers are not backward. All farmers the world over need high equity and get a normally low return to capital to remain sustainable, flexible and responsible in the sensitive "factories" within which they work. God help the country if the economic rationalists keep draining our resources .
SMD graduates can teach their robust machines to go harder and faster because only mere men and machines get broken down in their factories . If farmers take too much advice from SMD they go broke and the country is deeply and badly broken too . More here
That's why IR's are not your normal reps.
Simple economies of scale do not apply to ecosystems; nor do the simple drop kick laws of competition policy. Cooperation is part of the place and needs no introduction to this efficient productive space.
Are the myopics in government worried? Of course they are; quite fanatical in their defence of their high position and their commitment to speed and greed.
Slowing down will not kill the country - it may well help to save it .
Will IR's ever come to the dominant city centric view of common sense?- I hope not.
I hope
-our country grows up to recognise the range of unique diversity of ecosystems and production systems .
- that our accountant rich management class get told that there is a world beyond 2 columns.
--that more city people will abandon a mono cultural view and recognise that extracting the last drop does not drive a fit place for life;
Let our masters show respect for ecosystems by not offering us speed and greed - we don't naturally push our systems to the limits, like economic and technophobic rationalists do .
The greens have a lot more in common with the IR's than the major parties realise . The major parties are stuck with dumb old simplistic blinkered paradigms on environmental planning that are borrowed from secondary industry; paradigms that don't work in the real world of ecosystems planning .
Please don't patronise the people who look after the earth - They know a lot about many ledgers and many symbiotic relationships well beyond them ; reason with them and hear them out . The city and its SMD's have still got a lot more to learn about the basis for a proper balance between co-operation and competition, symbiosis and sustainability-- and that's only for starters .
What do the greens and the independents have in common?
It's 30th August and we have a hung parliament with at least 3 independent reps (IR's) with a very clear history of seeking to represent people-- not parties . (The way the parties talk you would think Parties represented the people ) .
You mean there are only 3 people who really seek to represent their people in Federal parliament ? No wonder our current structural hypocrisy called democracy is not taken seriously by the major parties or the people.
The talk from true independent reps has got to do our democracy some good - lets hope it lasts a while !
The two groups above agree about the primacy of the environment, but disagree substantially about what to do about it . One group majors on theory , the other majors on practice .
Can we really regard the green party as independents ? If disunity is death, then not talking about real differences is death also. As Oakeshott said last week "The sky will not fall in if we disagree. Obviously news to the chicken little gallery .But how will greens fair when their will is tested ?
The greens on the other hand are clearly a party whose unity and ability to open disagree has yet to be tested. What would Brown Milne and Brandt really agree on ? They claim to be a broad church, but on some issues of policy they are clearly quite partisan. Parliament last year assented to the reinforce the traditional view of marriage-
The greens unity, as far as one can tell e , is based on the sharing of great and good intentions. Sounds fine on the surface but that famous old fabian Shaw would have none of the pretence of unity between greens and labour because the only effective political force is one with its feet firmly on the ground . The greatest evil is done in the name of the best intentions ( book of that name by Shaw .
More importantly Labor lost power cause it lost its way on the very matters that Labor and greens share. There is more than a little disunity there-- hidden by "the best of intentions" talk .
The Greens would claim they now have their feet on the ground in Melbourne. The centre of the city they have . They can clearly win more seats in the city, but what does it mean ?. What it means is that the city is more worried than the the mixed economies are about green issues . The city would run out of supply in a few days if IR's weren't willing to share any more, but Brandt is not going to talk about that .
The tough stuff of ground truthing is not what Adam Brandt is wanting to talk about - he's not talking realistically about grass roots action on environment but that "can of worms" that only cities can invent - "the need for government to do everything" -carbon taxes He's not talking action for the people in his electorate but action by the government for the worriers in his electorate; He's not talking justice for the people in his electorate but just a few people in all electorates who he is trying to represent. More confusion and clouds to prevent a clearer picture.
Until the greens can cut it where it counts in real world environments their electorate wins seem to be misresenting the onground issues . After all, what would the centre of Melbourne really know about how to save the ground around them? The greens amy represent the fears of those in the electorate in the cities but would the greens really know how to save the worriers? ?
You mean there are only 3 people who really seek to represent their people in Federal parliament ? No wonder our current structural hypocrisy called democracy is not taken seriously by the major parties or the people.
The talk from true independent reps has got to do our democracy some good - lets hope it lasts a while !
The two groups above agree about the primacy of the environment, but disagree substantially about what to do about it . One group majors on theory , the other majors on practice .
Can we really regard the green party as independents ? If disunity is death, then not talking about real differences is death also. As Oakeshott said last week "The sky will not fall in if we disagree. Obviously news to the chicken little gallery .But how will greens fair when their will is tested ?
The greens on the other hand are clearly a party whose unity and ability to open disagree has yet to be tested. What would Brown Milne and Brandt really agree on ? They claim to be a broad church, but on some issues of policy they are clearly quite partisan. Parliament last year assented to the reinforce the traditional view of marriage-
The greens unity, as far as one can tell e , is based on the sharing of great and good intentions. Sounds fine on the surface but that famous old fabian Shaw would have none of the pretence of unity between greens and labour because the only effective political force is one with its feet firmly on the ground . The greatest evil is done in the name of the best intentions ( book of that name by Shaw .
More importantly Labor lost power cause it lost its way on the very matters that Labor and greens share. There is more than a little disunity there-- hidden by "the best of intentions" talk .
The Greens would claim they now have their feet on the ground in Melbourne. The centre of the city they have . They can clearly win more seats in the city, but what does it mean ?. What it means is that the city is more worried than the the mixed economies are about green issues . The city would run out of supply in a few days if IR's weren't willing to share any more, but Brandt is not going to talk about that .
The tough stuff of ground truthing is not what Adam Brandt is wanting to talk about - he's not talking realistically about grass roots action on environment but that "can of worms" that only cities can invent - "the need for government to do everything" -carbon taxes He's not talking action for the people in his electorate but action by the government for the worriers in his electorate; He's not talking justice for the people in his electorate but just a few people in all electorates who he is trying to represent. More confusion and clouds to prevent a clearer picture.
Until the greens can cut it where it counts in real world environments their electorate wins seem to be misresenting the onground issues . After all, what would the centre of Melbourne really know about how to save the ground around them? The greens amy represent the fears of those in the electorate in the cities but would the greens really know how to save the worriers? ?
