What significance can a by-election in an English constituency 17,104 kms from Canberra possibly have for Australia’s next Federal election?
The by-election in North Shropshire on 21 December was won by the UK Liberal Democrats by a margin of 17,957 votes to 12,032 and cost the Tories the seat for the first time since 1832.
In 1948 the American polymath, Harold Lasswell, formulated five questions: Who says what, which channel, to whom, and with what effects. He later added two more suggested by a critic: For what purpose and under what circumstances.
In a world saturated with persuasive communications – for both legitimate and nefarious purposes – it is a useful tool to de-construct who is saying what, how and why.
Scientists’ reputations live or die by the quality of their research. Politicians think their careers live or die by the quality of their attitudinal research but forget that attitudinal research might be powerful but not unerring.
Scott Morrison, who is obsessive about market research and how it helps him craft three word slogans and position himself, seems to be having a bit of hard time actually putting whatever his research is telling him into practice.
Scott Morrison is all for can-do capitalism. But it’s a pity he’s not prepared to take on the lessons from some of the world’s most successful companies on how to produce a healthy, productive corporate culture.
Brian Donovan of Donovan Leadership recently did a small scale survey of Australian leaders on the subject and cited as amplification a Harvard Business Review article by Emma Seppälä, of Yale School of Management and Kim Cameron, the William Russell Kelly Professor of Management and Organizations at the University of Michigan.
The Truth and Integrity Project has released a major report – Disgust and Distrust…and what communities are doing about it.
The report says: “There is no greater manifestation of community disgust and distrust in Federal politics than the proliferation of independent candidates, community-based campaigns ranging across integrity, climate, the ABC, science, technology, education, trade unions and many other issues. “
There is probably nothing quite like making suggestions for Labor policies as a catalyst for generating even more suggestions.
Indeed, it seems there are so many more people out there with ideas about policy that it’s amazing Labor isn’t picking up on some of them rather than persisting with a series of inchoate and unconnected announcements which have no overall framing or narrative.
Recently over an abstemious lunch (the restaurant didn’t have a liquor licence) a friend and former colleague, Rob Gerrand and the blog talked – as many progressives do – about what on earth Labor should do in an election campaign.
Probably aided by the lack of alcohol – a substance that sometimes inspires more confidence than coherence – we tossed around some ideas which Rob wrote up. This is the result.
Since the passage of the Statute of Labourers, issued in 1351 by Edward III after the Black Death, it has been axiomatic among employers that wages have to be kept low.
During the 1347-49 plague a large proportion of labourers died and those left were able to command higher wages, thereby committing the egregious sin of damaging the wealth of the landed classes, who promptly appealed to the government.
G’day not sure if you’ve heard but, stone the bloody crows, some Kraut greenies reckon we’re dead last in the climate policy stakes.
But what do you expect when they’ve had a sheila running the place for 16 years? We did have one of those for a while but we got rid of her quick and lively with some help from Rupert and Jonesy.
If you had the opportunity to ask the CSIRO and Federal Treasury to model a net zero climate plan what would you do?
If you are the Morrison Government that’s a no brainer. You ignore them and give the $6 million job to McKinsey.
We only know the opportunity existed because it was revealed at Senate Estimates that the CSIRO had applied for a tender to conduct modelling work in relation to the Coalition’s net-zero plan but was rejected. We only know about the Treasury omission because of evidence to the same committee.