Who thinks Denniss is a menace

I've heard it all before from Richard Dennis but the question is, of course, is he right? He's certainly clever at identifying the inconsistencies in arguments for neo-liberalism and highlighting them with catchy images. That both parties are influenced by neo-liberalism but neither are ideologues, so the LNP wants to sponsor coal and the Greens will use a market mechanism for carbon reduction, and Labor already has. Or the LNP will attack regulation for business but happily regulates unions and the unemployed. Or that Rudd's $900 GFC-era cheques were denied to just one group, the unemployed (that was on I didn't know). So the market-is-always-right thinking is dead but to call them ideologues was always to "flatter them unfairly" anyway. One thing I hadn't heard was his answer to Ebony Bennett's question on climate change: first up, stop doing bad stuff and measure. But I've many times heard the "we're lucky: we can do anything but we're trained that we can't" because "we are the wealthiest nation at the wealthiest time in our history". We just need to consider what we want and our priorities. He gave a lovely story of the deco baths at his boyhood home of Newcastle, built beautiful and for free and wide use by the community, when, during the depression, when we were our poorest. Essentially he was arguing for a public conversation on "which public policies spark joy" in place of the endless TINA (Thatcher's There Is No Alternative) thinking. And to be aware of numbers, like spending "$50b for 12 subs to replace 6 we never used" (another good line!) and how defence is never presented as a problem for the budget (yes, and fully indexed, unlike the rest of government). Or that the cost of some generosity with the unemployed would be a "rounding error" in the budget (Comm budget $2t, forecasting error is $5-10b, Newstart increase is $2b). And to be careful with unquestioned ideas, as in "we need to minimise costs so we can compete" and yet Volvos are imported into China. Then some questions. Water as a disgraceful and corrupt scheme, and how Howard promised $10b to "save the Murray" without even consideration of Cabinet. About GDP, that the discussion should be much wider: on what we want, not just a one holied figure to rule them all with the assumption of trickle down. Then spreading the word; influences of behaviourism vs economics; inequality and the bigger gap between rich and poor as a greater incentive for the poor (while highly paid people are incentivised by higher salaries), or how work gives dignity despite many of the truly wealthy never having worked a day in their lives. How "neo-liberalism tells confusing stories", as in "inequality not as a problem but as part of the solution". What follows the downfall of neo-liberalism? RD suggests "democratic engagement" rather than another ideology. Neo-liberalism gave us TINA, which offers trivial choices to individuals but denies society-wide choices. It must be the run up to the election, but I was amused when he said "I'm sounding very optimistic at the moment; apologies for that". His reason was that we now have some alternatives to vote for, after Barnaby and Tony and others "took the party right out into LaLa land". Yep, I'd heard and read a good deal of this before from Richard, gathered some factoids that are worthy of consideration as are a string of inconsistencies in argument. Is he right, not just persuasive? I think so but it's more significant what Australia thinks and we'll know that pretty soon.

Richard Denniss was interviewed by Ebony Bennett (both of the Australia Institute) at the ANU PopUp for a Politics in the Pub as a preview of his upcoming book Dead Right : How neoliberalism ate itself and what happens next.

Enough already

Some people just can't get enough, even after the longest election campaign in yonks. Obviously, I'm one of them because I attended the Australia Institute Election wrapup. It was hosted by Ebony Bennett of the AI with journos Gabrielle Chan and Malcolm Farr. I realised after some time that I had perhaps had enough. I had mostly heard all these thoughts and mostly agreed with them. I cavilled once at MF; that may have been my partisanship, but I don't think so. Eight weeks should be enough for anyone, so this will be a very quick run through. The public was angry, disinterested and unengaged (some journos and pollies felt the same). Disengaged is how Turnbull wanted it. The close outcome is "not such a bad thing". It was a gruelling test for journos (especially for those who had to travel the pollie buses) if not as intense as shorter campaigns. Given it was winter, there were colds and flus. Turnbull had no fun, but Shorten gained energy and won the campaign if not the election. Issues came and went. Labor's issues touched voters. On the Lib side, but what was the role of the budget, did they really "have a plan" and why was their central, almost only, plan to hand $50b in tax relief to companies. [It's not as if trickle down has been a resounding success over recent decades]. Interestingly, MF suggested Scott Morrison now wants to get the whole budget through, so "no more Mr Nice Guy" [is that something new?]. The Senate outcome was "not envisaged at all". Expect deals with Labor and Greens and Xenophon. MF accepted that the Senate voting system is improved, if this Senate composition is worse than before. Obviously, the major party vote declined and this is international (think Trump, Brexit). Stability was a big issue on voters' minds. Questions. ABCC not mentioned during the campaign [well, just a very little when prompted]: it was "just an excuse" (MF). Someone suggested minor parties lacked media coverage, but the presenters disagreed (Di Natale, Oakeshott, McGowan, Windsor were fairly commonly covered). The Greens went backwards, and some "characters" (Hanson, Hinch) are "there for a good time and a long time". Bullying is not likely to work for this Senate; it "certainly didn't work for the voters" [referring to Turnbull's last minute argument not to vote for small parties]. The result can be seen as a correction after the 2013 election. One Nation go directly to voters; they were "very defensive" when GC approached them before the election. What would have happened if Julia Gillard wasn't "backstabbed"? "I have no idea; no-one will ever know" (MF). I had problems with MF arguing that Libs failed with content and message: he seemed to suggest they had policies, but what were they other than a big tax reduction for business and an unjustified promise of trickle down benefits? Turnbull was failing months before when he argued for trust in government then was all over the place on policies [remember the "thought bubble" (not originally my words) policies that changed daily at COAG?] Is Turnbull under the Right wing or just gutless? "Still waiting to see" (GC). Predictions? See more coal [not sure I understood this message]; Libs will [have to] talk more with Labor and Greens (GC); Turnbull will [have to] be more decisive, the quick action on a Royal Commission on NT Youth Justice is an example (MF). Enough already...

Ebony Bennett discussed the Federal Election 2016 with journalists Gabrielle Chan and Malcolm Farr at Politics in the Pub for the Australia Institute.