That's the story of, that's the glory of…

Fifty years ago, the film Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner challenged social…

Day to Day Politics: “IT'S TIME” – Marriage…

Sunday 24 September 2017 At the time of writing the following countries supported…

Australia's shameful treatment of refugees and asylum seekers…

By Julie Grint Many issues about human rights are dear to me as…

Benjamin Netanyahu, Penguins and the United Nations

“That’s why Israel’s policy regarding the nuclear deal with Iran is very…

Bernardi and Abbott: a shared pyschosis

And the week finished on a spectacularly self-mutilating note for the No…

The strategies of a madman

By Dr George Venturini Heinz Alfred ‘Henry’ Kissinger obtained a Ph.D. at Harvard…

Subsidies, blackouts and rising energy prices, but it…

While the Coalition blame blackouts and rising energy prices on renewable energy…

Day to Day Politics: Is Tony never to…

Saturday 23 September 2017 In writing this I will probably be accused of…

«
»
Facebook

Tag Archives: National Broadband Network

Day to Day Politics ‘Electorally What chance Labor’

Sunday January 17 2016

 Foreword.

This election I will be voting for the 41st time. I can’t imagine how many promises parties have made in that time. I do know that if they had all been kept then I should be living in utopia. I am not.

1 What chance does Labor have of victory at the next election? I am not talking policy, strategy but simply votes required.

If you go by the polls you would say Labor has very little chance of winning. But then Polls only ever give us a snapshot of how people are thinking at the time. They can change very quickly.

There are some important lessons to be learnt from the last election.

None more so than the political apathy that now grips the electorate. There is something fundamentally wrong when, despite a huge recruitment drive by the Australian Electoral Commission at the last election 1.22 million citizens failed to enrol to vote and 400,000, or one-third of the non-registrants, were aged 18 to 24.

Additionally, 760,000 House of Representatives ballots were informal – about 6 per cent, – up more than 0.3 per cent from the 2010 election.

3 Million Didn’t bother to cast a vote. A kick in the guts for our democracy.

It would seem that a large portion of eligible voters no longer have any interest, or confidence in the institution of our parliament, or politics in general for that matter.

The big challenge for both parties should be to engage more people in the process. I use the word should because I fear the right of politics has little interest in doing so.

But the wipe-out of the Labor Party at the last election as predicted by the pollsters did not occur and it highlighted the implausibility of polling small samples in individual seats.

Now if we take a dispassionate look at the last election results we find that Labor did not suffer the resounding defeat that many commentators have suggested. The landslide argument doesn’t stand up in light of the figures. The figures simply do not support the assumption.

Fifteen of the Coalition’s new seats are held on very thin margins. Eleven seats have margins of less than 4000 voters. In essence the election was a lot tighter than was first proposed. In effect this means that it would only take about 30,000 people to change their vote to change the government. This of course can be misleading because ups and downs vary from election to election.

Note that under proposed redistribution by the AEC announced Friday 15 January Labor gained three notional seats in Barton, Dobell and Patterson and would lose one. The percentages I quote below represent the state of the seats after the election.

Anthony Green the ABCs guru of all statistics on elections and anything else says that for Labor to win it would need a uniform swing of 4.3%

‘In summary, the round of redistributions reduces the Coalition from 90 to a notional 88 seats, while Labor increases from 55 to a notional 57 seats. Assuming a uniform swing, the Coalition can retain majority government despite losing 14 seats on a swing of 3.0%, while Labor need to gain 21 seats on a uniform swing of 4.3% for majority government.’

This is how the seats stand.

Barton (NSW) (**) LIB 0.3%  Petrie (QLD) (**) LNP 0.5%  Eden-Monaro (NSW) (**) LIB 0.6% Dobell (NSW) (**) LIB 0.7%  Capricornia (QLD) (**) LNP 0.8%  Reid (NSW) (**) LIB 0.9%  Lyons (TAS) (**) LIB 1.2%  Solomon (NT) CLP 1.4%  Banks (NSW) (**) LIB 1.8%  Hindmarsh (SA) (**)  LIB 1.9%  Page (NSW) (**)  NAT 2.5%  Braddon (TAS) (**) LIB 2.6%  Gilmore (NSW) LIB 2.6%  Lindsay (NSW) (**) LIB 3.0%  Robertson (NSW) (**) LIB 3.0% > Deakin (VIC) (**) LIB 3.2%  Bonner (QLD) LNP 3.7%  Corangamite (VIC) (**) LIB 3.9%  Bass (TAS) (**) LIB 4.0%  La Trobe (VIC) (**) LIB 4.0%  Brisbane (QLD) LNP 4.3%  Forde (QLD) LNP 4.4%  Macquarie (NSW) LIB 4.5%  Hasluck (WA) LIB 4.9%  Dunkley (VIC) LIB 5.6%  Leichhardt (QLD) LNP 5.7%  Herbert (QLD) LNP 6.2%  Flynn (QLD) LNP 6.5%  Swan (WA) LIB 6.5%  Dickson (QLD) LNP 6.7% Longman (QLD) LNP 6.9%  Boothby (SA) LIB 7.1%  Casey (VIC) LIB 7.2%  Cowan (WA) LIB 7.5%  Dawson (QLD) LNP 7.6%  Bennelong (NSW) LIB 7.8%  Pearce (WA) LIB 8.1%  Aston (VIC) LIB 8.2%  Ryan (QLD) LNP 8.5%  Bowman (QLD) LNP 8.9% Hinkler (QLD) LNP 9.0%  Fisher (QLD) LNP 9.8%  Paterson (NSW) LIB 9.8%  Higgins (VIC) LIB 9.9% Sturt (SA) LIB 10.1%

2 Yet another Jamie in trouble. This time the Labor figure Jamie Clements has quit as the general secretary ( NSW) after facing mounting pressure over harassment allegations, while insisting he had “done nothing wrong”. It’s all alleged of course and we shouldn’t pre judge but what is it with men that they cannot keep their hand off women.

An observation

‘Most problems that society faces arise from the fact that men have never really grown up’

3 The rebellious right, or Abbott’s attack squad of the Liberal Party seem intent on antagonising Turnbull in every way they can. Pure of heart and leading Christian right-wing advocate for war Kevin Andrews criticises Defence Minister Marise Payne advocating that our troops should be head butting ISIS on the ground. Eric Abetz, aggrieved former Minister comes out in support.

Whilst backbenchers are entitled to air a view Andrews crossed the line when, as the former minister he disclosed information he had received in the job. That is totality inappropriate.

Why is that when the shelf-life of politician’s passes we simply don’t digest what they say?

4 For those of you interested in the future of our NBN and its progress here is an excellent piece by Mark Gregory.

It has been an inauspicious beginning to 2016 for NBN Co and the year only promises to go from bad to worse as the rest of the world moves ahead with NG-PON2 Fibre to the Premises (FTTP) rollouts and Australians slowly realise that the spin from Turnbull about how his NBN was going to be fast, affordable and here sooner is nothing more than a bad joke.’

And it really is very strange that the ABC has made no mention of Turnbull’s stuff up.

5 Further to my post on ‘’free speech’’ yesterday. There is no guarantee of free speech in the Australian constitution. It is only implied.

My thought for the day.

‘Life is an experience of random often unidentifiable patterns and indiscriminate consequences that don’t always have order nor require explanation’.

 

Are you being served?

MOR-health-website-wide-620x349

Democratic governments provide two fundamental functions in the service of a single overriding responsibility. When a government, through the performance of its two functions, betrays the single responsibility it holds, it has lost its mandate to govern. There is a case to be made that our current Coalition government is in exactly this position.

The raison d’etre for democracy, without which the very concept of democratic government would not exist; is to provide a means for the community as a whole to configure the kind of society in which they wish to live. Inevitably this involves winners and losers: government exists primarily to put checks on the powerful and support the weak. Governance is thus about promoting equality. The cut and thrust of politics is about thresholds – how much is too much? How much is too little?

Governments fulfil this basic purpose through the actions of their two primary functions: legislation and national defence. Legislation allows a government to protect its citizenry from internal threats; national defence protects us against external threats. Since coming to power, Tony Abbott’s Coalition government has continued a long history in Australian politics of continuing and sustaining Australia’s military, and in this way the government is carrying out its remit for national defence. Good for them.

In the field of legislation against internal threats to society, their record is not so good.

The Big Bad: the Food Industry

There is a growing recognition amongst public health bodies that food manufacturing and marketing in Australia, and the west in general, is promoting unhealthy eating habits and contributing materially to public health issues such as obesity and diabetes. History has shown us that industries acting counter to the best interests of the people eventually face opposition and attempts at control and harm minimisation by societal groups, and that eventually governments come to the party and assist in such opposition. The tobacco industry is the cause celebre but alcohol and junk food are both likely to follow. It is in this light that on 14 June 2013, COAG – the Council of Australian Governments – announced the implementation of a packaging labelling scheme in Australia. This was the culmination of a long discussion and negotiation process beginning in December 2011.

The Front of Pack food star rating scheme is a compromise solution painstakingly agreed and laboriously (and expensively) developed over two years. COAG is the federal council that brings together Australian state and federal governments in a single body. The scheme, initially intended to be voluntary, will provide consumers an easily understood guide to the nutritional value of their foods. The scheme was brokered between COAG and the Public Health Association with ongoing consultation with the food industry. The food industry, represented by such bodies as “Australian Public Affairs” and the Food and Grocery Council, has cooperated in its development despite being trenchantly opposed to the scheme and seeking any means possible to delay its introduction.

The Abbott government has been accused of deliberately delaying the introduction of the scheme until after State elections in South Australia and Tasmania on 15 March, for exactly this purpose, hoping that the composition of COAG would change sufficiently to allow the cancellation of the agreement. Cancellation or amendment of a COAG agreement requires the majority of State and Federal governments and the current makeup of the council is narrowly in favour of the food labelling scheme.

Included in the star rating scheme is a food ratings website that is intended to provide consumer advice on the nutrition of packaged foods. The website also includes a calculator for food manufacturers to use to calculate the star rating for their packaged foods for voluntary inclusion in labelling. The website was completed and went live on schedule, on February 5 2014. Many public health groups and industry groups were expecting its arrival and awaiting its commencement and it seems a minor miracle that such a website, developed over two years by the public service in conjunction with the Public Health Association, should have been completed on time.

Assistant Health Minister Fiona Nash personally intervened to have the site taken offline by 8pm the same night.

Nash’s publicly stated reasons for pulling down the website is that “the website will be confusing for consumers as it uses a star rating that is not yet ‘up and running’.” She has also claimed that it was a draft put online by accident. But it was her chief of staff, married to the owner of the business lobby group Australian Public Affairs, who personally intervened to have the site unilaterally taken offline.

Protecting the interests

This is not the first example of Ms Nash protecting the interests of corporations and business lobbies at the expense of public health or public interest initiatives. It’s tempting to make personal judgements that Ms Nash is not an appropriate candidate for the position of Assistant Health Minister, but she operates within a government with a strong track record of supporting business interests rather than public good regulations that limit them.

Democratic government is designed to serve the interests of the People – not individual people, but the community as a whole. Conservative governments are wont to argue that making life easier for businesses allows them to create more jobs and thus serves the interest of the people, and there is some justification for that; however, there are cases where public interest and corporate interest clearly come into conflict. These include areas of workplace health and safety; of environmental protection; and of protection of public health against goods which, in excess, can be harmful.

In a capitalist society, companies are fighting two major opponents. The first major opponent a business faces is its competitors. Companies need to compete against other companies to turn a profit. The role of government in this is simply to be even-handed; to not preference one company at the expense of others. The litmus test should be whether any proposed change operates across the board. If competition is seen as a public good, then sympathetic treatment may be justifiable towards the underdog. The second major opponent a company faces is the community.

Companies are beholden to the public that buys their goods, but are not above manipulating and mistreating those customers. Marketing might sometimes be righteous – if people have an identified need, promoting a product which can meet that need is perfectly legitimate. But in our materialistic society with many competitors for the purchaser’s dollar, much of marketing is about creating the need prior to seeking to fulfil it.

In the context of coercive or manipulative commerce, government’s role should always fall squarely on the side of the People’s interest. Regulations and laws exist to put limits on what companies can get away with, because it will never be the companies themselves that impose limitations.

An emerging pattern

The cancellation of the food star ratings website is a clear case of corporate interests being favoured at the expense of the People, and a clear abrogation of the politician’s responsibilities. However, it is merely the latest in a long line of government actions from the Abbott government that favour the interests of corporations rather than the People. Prominent examples include:

The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). This is the grand-daddy of corporate interests into which both recent governments, Labor and Coalition, have been driving us headlong. Whole articles can be written about the TPP – and indeed they have been.

The National Broadband Network. It has been convincingly argued that the main reasons for the Coalition’s opposition to Labor’s model for the NBN is that it will do harm to entrenched corporate interests.

The mining tax. To attempt to redistribute some of the wealth of the largely overseas-based megacorporations involved in strip-mining this country and put it to use across the community and small businesses makes logical sense, but it goes against Coalition ideology of protecting the corporate interests of those who make profits.

An internet filter. The idea of an internet filter is not new; Steven Conroy was rightly excoriated by the left for this idea that is tantamount to censorship. George Brandis’s vision of the filter, however, is not so concerned with protection of children and our moral virtue; it is aimed directly at protecting the existing media corporations, in the guise of protecting copyright. Whilst this is an issue with some justification, you might think we would have learned by now that protecting the rights of intellectual property holders by draconian regulation always hurts both the eventual consumers of media products as well as innocent bystanders who want to use file sharing for legitimate purposes.

Attacks on unions. The Abbott government’s ideological crusade against trade unions is not really about corruption and they are not really friends to the honest worker. The primary and overt aim of the coming Royal Commission is to damage Labor – both its reputation and its source of funding. But the chief outcome in any conflict between corporations and the unions which exist to protect workers and the community from the corporations’ excesses will always be to the detriment of the community. For evidence of the government’s allegiances in this field, look no further than the recent case of SPC, where the government attempted to push SPC to reduce staff conditions to the minimum allowed by the award before any assistance would be possible. In some strange way, this equates in the government’s mind to being “best friend to the honest worker”.

Credit where credit is due

It must be said that the Abbott coalition government seems to genuinely believe that promoting the interests of corporations will be for the good of Australia; they are not being deliberately harmful to the people they govern. But there does not appear to be any kind of “public good” test being applied to decisions. Corporations have the ear of the government through lobby groups and donations, and it certainly seems that the government’s ear has been turned. But when both government and public opinion can be swayed by the corporations that government ought to be protecting the public against, the very purpose of democracy is being subverted. Whether or not the coalition government (and its predecessor in Labor) are being malicious or merely unduly influenced, whether there is corruption or nobly-held ideals, it is the community that suffers. The only question remaining is how far the imbalance will go before the people wake up to the fact that the People and the Corporations are not on the same side?

In Defence of “Abbott’s Form of Social Engineering”

Image by mad security.com

Image by mad security.com

My recent piece “The Abbott Form of Social Engineering” seems to have struck a chord with a number of people. Mostly the comments have been positive however some observations have been critical. This of course is to be welcomed because none of us has an ownership of righteousness. So writers at THE AIMN welcome considered critique. As an example fellow writer Dan Bowden, whose work I have much respect for, said this about my piece.

“We’re all social engineers. Labor engages in social engineering as much as anyone. It all depends on one’s socio-political ideology as to whether we like it or not.”

We went on to have a short exchange.

Me:

“True Dan. It is however a question of degree and intent and of course what serves the common good. I think one has to search ones conscience to find where that is.”

Dan:

“Oh, I agree with that totally. Complications arise, however, with respect to things like the notion of “common good”. There being no objective way to define such a thing, there will always be a battleground on which differences of perspective will fight for supremacy. Life is, in many respects, a battle of values. Questions of ethics of engagement with regard to “war” have always haunted humanity and will continue to do so forever, I suspect. What we’re seeing from the Coalition currently gives us a bit of an insight into how far they’ll go to win.”

Me:

“If I might clear one thing up. The title of the piece is “Abbots Form of Social Engineering”. The title itself acknowledges other forms. Dan is correct in saying it is practiced by other political ideologies, corporations, institutions ourselves and even the advertising industry. I used the term “Common Good” as a thought of demarcation. If Labor’s form results in National Health, Superannuation. Marbo, Equal pay for women, an apology to our indigenous people, equality in education, sexual equality and Disability Insurance. Policies that serve the common good. Then that form of social engineering is worthwhile.”

Then I read some rather extensive comments from a person by the name of Mitch. Who Mitch is I have no idea and generally speaking I prefer talking to people who identify themselves. At least it gives them credibility of identity. Mitch’s comments are abusive in so much as he mixes his criticism of the substance of my piece with personal invective.

Normally I don’t respond to tirades from unidentifiable morons, but I have always believed that sometimes one has to stand on one’s dig and speak up. What follows is the full text of Mitch’s comments with my response in bold type.

Mitch:

Is this article not a piece of social engineering unto itself?
Stating that social engineering is a realm confined only to that of politicians/political parties is the first piece of misinformation you are enacting that reinforces the notion that this article is indeed your own (somewhat limited attempt)at social engineering. More over social engineering is a tool often associated with those seeking to use psychological manipulation to commit fraudulent acts. Quite fitting when reading this article. For mine this article reeks of hypocrisy as ideologically it seems evident that you feel that your political stance (extrême-gauche) is the only one that holds true to modern Australia. I’m not too sure how this fits into your definition of “democratic”.

Obviously Mitch did not take the time to read the companion pieces to this one, otherwise he would have a broader grasp of my argument. Nowhere in my piece do I state that social engineering was the sole domain of politics. The title of the piece itself suggests there are others. Perhaps Mitch skipped the title and didn’t read people’s comments.

Why is it so irresponsible for the government of the day to discuss the notion that debt, in an uncertain global economic climate is something that they ideologically believe might leave Australia vulnerable structurally to changing headwinds? Why is it so offensive to mention boat arrivals and border security in the same sentence? Why can’t we have a discussion about cost of living pressures and seeking to implement measure to ease such pressures (if you don’t feel there are cost burdens on families these days then I am afraid you are simply a pseudo academic who is not in touch with reality)? Seemingly your point of view is the only one that has any merit moving forward, all the while implementing rhetoric to reinforce this and perpetuate your gross manipulation. The phrase social engineering springs to mind.

1. Nowhere do I say it is irresponsible to discuss debt. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the government condemning debt on the one hand and raising it at the same time. 2. I didn’t tie boat arrivals together with border security. I simple said that it is silly to suggest that our thousands of miles of coastline are under threat from a few unarmed asylum seekers. 3. Yes I said Australians have never had it better. That includes this pensioner who is grateful for the rises that ONLY Labor has given us. Perhaps Mitch is confused with the cost of lifestyle as opposed to the cost of living. 4. I will skip the personal inflection. Often our opinion are based on our values rather than our understanding and the difficulty is separating the two.

A theme of this article appears to be that Abbott Co are seeking to implement some form of class warfare aimed at breaking the backs of lower and middle income earners through adjustments to various mechanisms of social welfare whilst ensuring high income earners are given tax benefits that would befit the tea party. Further to this noting “when the commission of audit reports I should think the assault on the middle and lower income earners will be on in earnest” A blatant attempt to create a perceived fear of something that may never occur. Social Engineering?

I supplied the evidence to suggest this is the case. You use the expression ‘’ adjustments to various mechanisms of social welfare’’ I was talking wages. You are just making words up to fit your argument. There has been much talk of this in the media. Perhaps you missed it all. And it’s reasonable to assume based on the evidence thus far that whatever cuts occur, they will not be directed at the rich or big business.

Commentators such as you seem determined to spell out a yawning divide in the Australian political spectrum, when in fact I think any informed/rational individual would take a more moderate approach that in general terms we all sit slightly left or right of centre. But invariably are open to crossing the floor depending on the subject matter, personally for me gay marriage is a “no brainer” and should be legislated ASAP as to move on to other pressing issues. Individuals such as yourself however seem adamant that Armageddon is about to ensue because a moderate conservative is our prime minister and you are more than happy to use misinformation and deception to convey your opinion. This is social engineering.

If you think Tony Abbott is a moderate conservative leader and that the LNP are the parties of bygone years then you must occupy some sort of time warp. Robert Menzies would turn in his grave at the doctrine of neo conservatism. Malcolm Fraser describes him as the most dangerous politician in Australia. You don’t identify my misinformation and deception so I cannot comment. Now isn’t that deceptive.

Your most blatant and insidious manipulation of the truth is “The very premeditated, deliberate government induced exodus of GMH”. This is by far the most unashamed attempt at Social Engineering by trying to influence the attitudes of the masses through pure fallacy. This statement is simply not true but further to this why is it our responsibility as tax payers to prop up an industry that has not and in all likelihood will never be profitable? I would have thought these funds would be better used to initiate structural change to ensure the viability of our economy on a holistic level as well as creating sustainable industry meaning improved job security for an entire nation. Not throw good money after bad so the saying goes. But more importantly this was clearly not the decision of the government. This aside you seem to be very forgetful of what the previous government did with Ford and Mitsubishi.

1.You were obviously not watching question time on Tuesday 10 December when the treasurer and the Deputy PM both unashamedly suggested they go. This was well documented by the media. Perhaps you don’t read or watch the news. 2. I never mentioned the rights or wrongs of the argument. You have.3 The decisions of Ford and Mitsubishi to leave our shores were made during the tenure of the Howard Government and executed during Labors term.

I think an underlying life principle that you do not seem not to understand is that if you cannot afford something, you simply can’t afford it. NBN is a prime example of this. It was poorly costed, poorly implemented and poorly run. Why is it so shocking when something that is going to cost as much as the NBN does for the government to say “wait a minute this is too much we can’t afford this”? This in comparison to the “there will be no carbon tax” lie is comparing apples with oranges. The former being an honest appraisal and to say otherwise is to go to the fraudulent nature of this article. This is social engineering.

1. I never mentioned affordability. I spoke of inequality. 2. When the former Prime Minister said “I don’t rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism”, “I rule out a carbon tax”, did she actually tell a lie? Clearly she showed an intent to keep her options open. You have been influenced by Abbots social engineering.

The final insult you throw us is to put your name alongside and truly great minds like Thatcher, Lincoln and Roosevelt indicating that you are nothing but an ill-informed narcissist seeking to spread fallacy and singular opinion in your own vain attempt at social engineering. It would appear that you are indeed a hypocrite.

I will leave you to ponder:

You make no mention of my quote and its worthiness or otherwise to stand alongside the others. Instead you attack me as an individual you disagree with. I hear my family and friends laughing at the thought of me being a narcissist. And of course mine is a singular opinion. Is not what you have written, or did you have collaborators?

I welcome differing opinions however, I detest being attacked personally. Alas some people revert to their feeling when they can’t substantiate the facts.

Mitch (whoever you are) I have been as civil as I can be and leave you to ponder a couple of my quotes

“Perhaps a greater understanding of what I am saying might be obtained by exercising a greater willingness to think more deeply”.

“We have so much to gain from people we disagree with that it’s a wonder we don’t do it more often”.

PS: And my thanks to Kaye Lee who so adequately came to my defense in comments.

The Abbott Form of Social Engineering

campaigningIn recent weeks I have written on three subjects relating to what I shall loosely call “The Psychology of Politics.” The first was titled Hidden Persuaders, the second You’re Being Manipulated and the third Political Lies and Who Tells Them. This one deals with Social Engineering.

This week I posted on Facebook the following statement.

“I have seen many governments come and go in my lifetime. All incoming governments naturally implement their policies within the constraints that exist within the two Australian Houses of Parliament.

The Abbott Government, however, seems to have embarked on some form of social engineering.”

I was taken to task for this statement by one person in particular and I told him I was writing an extended piece this week. To put my piece in some sort of context I begin with some quotes.

In one of his most influential essays, (Milton) Friedman articulated contemporary capitalism’s core tactical nostrum, what I have come to understand as “the shock doctrine”. He observed that:

“Only a crisis – actual or PERCEIVED – produces real change”. . . A variation on Machiavelli’s advice that “injuries” should be inflicted “all at once” – Naomi Klein, “Shock Doctrine”

In other words, manufacture a sense of crisis and you can get away with anything starting with maximum harm. Therefore, the conservatives are manufacturing a non-existent debt crisis.

Margret Thatcher said this (paraphrased):

“There is no such thing as society. There are only individuals making their way. The poor shall be looked after by the drip down effect of the rich”.

Abraham Lincoln said this:

“Labor came before capital and is not related to it. Capital is what’s acquired from labour, and would never have come about if it were not for labour. Therefore, labour is superior to capital and deserves the higher significance.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt said this:

They who seek to establish systems of government based on the regimentation of all human beings by a handful of individual rulers . . . call this a new order. It is not new and it is not order.”

This is one of mine:

“The GST burdens the poor and those with the least capacity to pay. It discriminates against the poor and the pensioners who are living a hand-to-mouth existence and spending the bulk of their income on the necessities of life—food, clothing, rent, heating, power etc”.

Before addressing the issue of Social Engineering I should say exactly what I think a Government should be regardless of its ideology.

Good government is about making and implementing decisions that serve the common good. That give security to the people it governs. Follows the rule of law and is truthful about its intentions. When making decisions it must be responsive to the will of the people. It should allow its citizens to be participatory in the function of government. It should be inclusive, equitable and supportive of the people’s right to know. By equity I mean the people have a right to a fair reward for the fruits of their labour. And above all it should be answerable to the people.

What is ‘Social (political) Engineering?’

Social Engineering is when a political party seeks to use selective deceptive, manipulative and insidious psychological techniques to influence and bring about a change in the attitudes of masses of people to its point of view.

Now let’s get to the crux of the matter. You cannot possibly believe in democracy if you believe that your party is the only one who should win. Therefore, any party who wins an election is entitled to govern.

My problem with the Abbott Government is that it has embarked on a programme that is ideologically targeted at changing the way we think. This is social engineering.

Tony Abbott, for six years in Opposition created a negative image of our nation. He has never had a positive word to say about his country. He uses simplistic slogans to talk about complex problems and in doing so suggests he has answers when he doesn’t. He has spread negativity like rust throughout the community. This is because he sees a need to promote a sense of crisis, an Armageddon about everything. Everything is wrong and he is the only one who can fix it. There is a budget crisis when none exists. There is a debt crisis (while adding to it) when none exists. There is a crisis about the cost of living when Australians have never had it better. It’s a deliberate tactic of social engineering. Create an illusion of disaster and people will believe the perception is in fact a reality. And of course keep on doing it when you attain government.

Another form of social engineering is making the people feel threatened. Tell them that the poor souls seeking asylum are below humanity, demonise them so that the people hate them. Take away all their rights and appeal to the base instincts of ordinary people and the racists. Apply a code of conduct and treat them like animals. Even take away the basic human right of association. Tell the people the absurd lie that their borders are under threat. And keep repeating the same slogans in government. Perpetuate the lie that you have stopped the boats when in all probability it was the other party’s policies that were responsible. It’s called social engineering.

The conservative Abbott Government has taken away from middle and low income earners, the School bonus and a superannuation discount to low income earners, mainly women. In addition they have blocked a pay rise to low income Child Care Workers. The annual small lump sum to pensioners to pay for unexpected bills was also abolished. And when the commission of audit reports I should think the assault on the middle and lower income earners will be on in earnest. The abandonment of all these benefits in the name of austerity is a smoke screen. It is taking from one group to give to another. The Paid Parental Leave Scheme comes to mind. Also the 15% tax rebate for the highest wage earners. This is not equity, it is social engineering. If the budget truly demands cuts, they should be equitable.

When a Government seeks to backtrack on election promises like the Gonski reforms and reimpose its own elitist inequitable policy with not the slightest thought for those who can least afford a better education: it is practising social engineering.

When it deliberately downgrades a policy like the NDIS on the basis of unaffordability but at the same time gives tax breaks to the wealthy industrialists including the richest women in the world: it is applying social engineering.

This Government came to office saying they were adult and trustworthy. That there would be no surprises. Yet what we have seen is an attack on the less well-off. It is making it very clear that there are untouchable cohorts and there are those that will have to support the untouchables.

The refusal to pay a miserly pay increase to Child Care Workers was an attack on Unionism. Taking money from aged care workers by dumping the Workforce Compact which provided a $1.2 billion fund to give aged care workers a much-needed 1% pay rise is another example.

The very premeditated, deliberate government induced exodus of GMH is not just the expulsion of the car industry but also a government attempt to rid the country of unions. There will be no government assistance for companies with union shops. It’s called social engineering.

If there were just a few instances of stamping a Governments ideological philosophy on the community you would say, fair enough. But there is a have, have-not form of serfdom running through this government’s work. They came to government without any policies and are more intent on destroying Labor’s legacy than governing for the common good.

We now have a Prime Minister for undoing, not for doing.

It seems the Abbott Government is attempting to socially engineer the minds of people. Nowhere is this more evident than its willingness to downgrade education and in particular, science. Any pretext to the scientific understanding of environmental impacts has been thrown out the window to appease the sponge of capitalism. We have seen in the past few days the reversal of Australia’s ocean reserves. A policy hailed throughout the world. God only knows what they intend for the Murray Darling.

To belittle science in order to create doubt in the community is social engineering of the very worst kind. And to suggest that excellent learning should only be available to the well-off is yet another example of social engineering.

In the area of communications we have a concerted attempt to eliminate the reasoned voice of opposing views. The dual attack on the ABC by the Murdoch Empire is an attempt to stifle debate. When a government condemns a perceived bias of one outlet without acknowledging the bias of another it is practicing social engineering

And when it appoints a person like Tim Wilson from the right wing think tank, IPA to the position of Australian Human Rights Commissioner at $330,000 a year (an institution that he and the IPA advocate eliminating) they are saying loud and clear that they are intent on telling you how to think. It’s called social engineering.

On his appointment he tweets this.

“To those who have welcomed my appointment, I give thanks. To those that have not, I welcome the chance to defend your free speech.”

Lying of course is the Social Engineers most effective tool. Throughout his career Tony Abbott has used this tool most effectively. He admits it and the people accept it but its effectiveness is in its persistency and continuity. Abbott has reached a stage in his Social Engineering where he is convincing people that truth is what he convinces us to believe rather than truth based on fact.

Here is an example:

“Let’s be under no illusion. The carbon tax was socialism masquerading as environmentalism”.

The statement has no basis in fact.

Another tool of Social Engineering is secrecy and the Abbott Government has displayed a propensity for it. It’s called lying by omission.

We also see Social Engineering in policy and decision making. Here are a few:

– The broken promise on the NBN will effectively mean that those who can afford it will become information rich and those who cannot will remain information poor.

= Done deals with every state and territory government to gut and downgrade national environment laws by giving approval powers to state premiers further erodes the public’s capacity to disagree. It removes the community’s right to challenge decisions where the government has ignored expert advice. By removing funding to the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia it has taken away the participatory role of the people in government.

– By challenging the ACT Marriage Equality laws in the High Court it has ensured the ongoing discrimination against same-sex couples despite the vast majority agreeing with the proposition. By moving to repeal protections in the Racial Discrimination Act it is flaunting public opinion. By scrapping the Advisory Panel on Positive Aging, established to help address the challenges we will face in coming years as the number of older Australians grows it has taken away the voice of the people. And in abolishing the Climate Commission it has sought to silence science.

All of these things contribute to how we think act and feel. By manipulating society into thinking that the entire realm and ownership of knowledge is found in one ideology, one individual or cohort of individuals is a form of Social Engineering.

Collectively I believe these four pieces make a solid case that Abbott in Opposition and in Government is embarking on a course of Social Engineering. A course of inequality, of privilege and serfdom. Of manipulating society into believing that if the rich become richer their lot will advance at the same rate.

I remember Peter Costello being asked at the end of his tenure as Treasurer about the widening gap between the haves and the have-nots. His answer was to say “but at least the poor have not become poorer.”

I will leave you to ponder that.

PS. And I didn’t even mention the malevolent treatment of women. Yet another example of Social Engineering.

Letter to the Editor: “Morrie Hits Back”

LETTERS

Image by Keybridge Communications

Editor’s note:

Last week, with my permission John Lord published a letter from Morrie Moneyworthy. It is fair to say that it drew a number of derogatory remarks. Again in the interest of balance I thought we should give Morrie a right of reply.

A letter to the editor.

All those comments were just what I would have expected from the left wing latte sipping loonies of the proletariat. The chardonnay drinking Bolsheviks without any intelligence. All they could do was criticise a few grammamatical errors. Nothing better to do.

The thing is, you commies don’t understand the fundamentals of conservatism. The free market and capitalism. Conservatives (LNP) believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty and traditional values. We believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals unhindered by government regulations. Just before I go on. I read that piece by John Lord: “Why are the Right so Feral”.  (https://theaimn.com/2013/05/21/why-are-theright-so-feral/).

Fair dinkum. He wouldn’t know shit from clay. I’d suggest he gets himself a manager. It’s obvious he’s been handing himself too long.

Surely it’s clear to everyone that we need to be free to pursue wealth. I mean I needed the freedom to accept my inheritance. The same with Gina. There will always be haves and have nots. Even Jesus said that. And Ronald Regan said. If we keep giving more money to the rich, everyone will have more money. It’s called tickle down economics. The poor will just have to wait a little longer to see it work.

Conservatives were born to control capitol. Labour comes after capital. Not everyone can be effluent. Had we had less regulation and let market forces have their way we wouldn’t have had a Global Financial Crisis. Now look at the mess Tony has to get the world out of

Oh and another thing.

I didn’t appreciate all the sarcastic remarks from that women Kaye Lee. I can only say that good manners is a basic tenant of conservatism. So she needn’t worry about what people think of her if she only knew how little they did.

Now where was I? Yes? There is no inequity in society. It’s just that some deserve more than others. We were born to rule. If we don’t have poor people who’s going to do the work.

That’s why I admire Christopher Pyne. It talks a lot of courage to change one’s mind and do what’s best for the country. The audacity to suggest that he told a lie before the election is ludicrous. I mean two many educated people can be dangerous for society. They might all want to be wealthy.

Well I don’t mind wealthy people so long as they aren’t as wealthy as me. If that makes sense.

It’s like my friend Wyatt Roy (I’ve always loved his name. It gives me the erps) said. ‘’Baby Boomers should stay in work longer. We are sick and tired of our generation propping them up’’

In Tony Abbott we have just what this country needs. An undoer. And there’s so much to undo that there will be little time left for doing anything else. That’s what conservatives value most. At this point in time we need an undoer, not a doer. That’s what Tony is.

And while it’s on my mind. I do hope Tony has the good sense to appoint a man as our next Governor General. I mean, fair dinkum, that sheila should resign now. Fancy supporting gay marriage and and a republic. Its bad enough being overrun by Asians and Muslims without giving in to poofters and Republicans. I truly don’t know what’s become of the Lucky Country.

He should appoint John Howard. He would make an excellent GG. Someone needs to saddle up against all these things. Just think, I mean really think about the contribution the Queen has made to our country. And I’m sure Charles will keep up the good work. When we see him.

I will finish with a few comments about the nasty things said with regard to my last letter.

I wont be writing again because I get the impression I am not welcome on this blog. I am at a loss to understand why because all I bring is wisdom and unbiased opinion.

carol sheridan

Surely that is not someone’s REAL thoughts???

I can only speak the truth Carol. There is no need to be so bloody cruel. I have feelings you know. Even if I am wealthy. I think you are so mean that if I paid you a compliment you would probably ask for a receipt.

Jessica

Hilarious! So terrifying that this is how some people actually think – and that they’re running the joint! ‘Morrie’ should post this as a note of support on some LNP Facebook pages and see how many likes and ‘hear, hear’s and ‘bravo, old chap’s he can get!

You’re disrespect is just revolting.

I think you’re that dumb that you must be three bricks short of a load or not the full two bobs worth. Either that or your three sanwhiches short of a picnic.


mludowyk

This has to be a joke – no-one can be that stupid and arrogant, unless they are members of the Liberal Party.

Well, whatever your name is. I could describe you as a pain in the neck but I have a much lower opinion of you.

There were over seventy comments regarding my letter on this blog last week. All of them in such poor taste that I feel I cannot avail myself to share my wisdom with you again. I can only hope and pray that someday the working classes will come to their senses and show their appreciation for the effluence we share.

Morrie Moneyworthy. Malvern.

Opiate of the masses

There has been a lot of angst in left-wing circles since the election of Tony Abbott and his Coalition into government. Blogs, Twitter and Facebook are all agog with posts indicating that Tony Abbott is going to be a wrecking-ball for a wide range of policies, organisations and social expectations. Under the Coalition, employee power will be smashed, unions will be outlawed, annual leave will be abolished, people on incomes under 100K will lose the right to vote, laws will be passed requiring coal-fired power stations to burn brown coal exclusively even when the power’s not needed, just in case, and small animals will be tortured in an attempt to prove that cigarettes cure cancer.

It’s not unreasonable for the left to have some fears about the approach Tony Abbott will take to government now he’s attained it. After all, the Coalition has some hard-nut right wing extremists in its fold, some even in Cabinet. Tony Abbott has been described by Kevin Rudd as “one of the most extreme right-wing conservative leaders or politicians that the Liberal party has thrown up”. The Coalition is on public record as supporting most of the ideology and specific policy suggestions of right-wing think-tank the IPA. And Tony Abbott and his Coalition have single-mindedly pursued one of the most negative agendas in history over the past term of government. So there’s reason to expect that he is now going to go early, go hard, and get many of his less popular initiatives under way while the next election is still far off.

Here’s why I think he won’t be doing that.

The first few actions of the incoming Coalition government – some of them even before swearing-in – have been viewed as the thin edge of a vindictive wedge; the first steps in the wholesale destruction of all we hold dear. But they can be viewed from a different angle, which is perfectly consistent with Tony Abbott’s approach to Opposition, to the election campaign, and now to government.

For this Coalition government, it’s all about perception. Policy and outcomes are secondary. This government knows as well as we do that the fundamentals of our economy are relatively good, in global terms. It knows that its hyperbole about a budget emergency was a politically expedient concept that now needs to be locked away. You won’t hear the Coalition talking about a budget emergency from now on, that concept has had its desired effect, and dwelling on it will raise questions about why the Coalition is not making more significant changes to the budget outlook. The Coalition knows that the NBN is not a huge issue for Australian debt, and that their alternative is inferior, and that the public actually likes the idea of fast broadband delivered to their door, so you can expect obfuscation, reviews, examinations and not a lot of actual change. The rollout will continue apace, and when it’s good and ready the Coalition just might think about a judicious adjustment to bring in some elements of its own model, just so it can say that it’s done something at the next election. The Coalition knows that the Direct Action plan is not going to work, and that the ETS has been working and has not been a “wrecking ball through the Australian economy”; it also doesn’t believe that Australia can have any impact upon global climate change even if it is real. So you can expect the repeal of the carbon tax, as one of the big ticket items on which it swears it got elected, but not a lot of Action from the Direct plan.

The most important priority for this government is not doing things. The vast majority of its election promises are to undo things, after which we’ll be back in a nice pre-Labor state of comfortable hiatus. The Coalition does not expect to make Australia better by making changes. It expects to make Australia better by letting people calm down. As Abbott has said:

“…happy the country which is more interested in sport than in politics because it shows that there is a fundamental unity, it shows that the business of the nation is normally under reasonably good management…”. (Interview with David Koch and Samantha Armytage, Sunrise).

Tony Abbott, the ex-journalist, wants to control the conversation again. For the last three years, the failings, alleged failings, ructions and supposed dishonesty of Labor have been the story. Aided and abetted by a hostile media, the Opposition has made politics continual front-page material, and has deliberately fostered interest and concern in all manner of things. Asylum seeker dog-whistling, budget emergencies, NBN appalling waste, class warfare – none of these things had very much reality to them, and all of these things were blown enormously out of proportion by the outrage of the Opposition and the media’s eternal search for the Story-of-the-Day. The net effect is a populace energised, outraged, horrified, and politically engaged – exactly what an Opposition wants, going in to an election.

The Coalition knew that elections are lost, not won. Particularly in 2013, where the one actual policy on offer from the Coalition (Tony Abbott’s PPL) was roundly debated and opposed even by some within his own party, the Coalition did not win the election on promises to build things. It won the election on its promises to undo the things that Labor had already done. Labor lost the election over the past six years, with a particular emphasis on leadership issues – issues which have no actual bearing on the governing of a country, but which added to the Coalition’s continuing barrage of concern.

Tony Abbott does not intend to lose the next election.

In order to make sure that he does not, the priority is to calm the conversation down. To take things in a “methodical, measured, calm” way. To use rhetoric that includes the words “adult”, “sober”, “calm” and “deliberate” to shape the political conversation, rather than “disaster”, “emergency”, “appalling”. To some extent, this is the transition faced by every incoming government; opposition almost demands the use of hyperbole, and government requires a more defensive approach. But with the Coalition in 2013, what may have been a necessity of politics has become a deliberate strategy.

Calming things down means keeping politics out of the media. Thus, fewer press conferences, no pandering to the 24-hour news cycle, a slower pace (compared to Kevin Rudd, this is almost a given). It means adopting a culturally neutral middle ground – one where the older white men are in charge, where success is measured in a well-turned wife and obedient children, and where men are men, women are women, and small furry animals are kept in the back yard.

Calming things down also means controlling the news. Thus the first actions of the incoming government are not actually about reducing costs or winding back bodies based on the ‘fiction’ of climate change, but rather about controlling who says (and knows) what. The new approach to boat arrivals – in that the Coalition will now give the media a weekly digest, rather than notifications upon arrival – ensures that the story of boat people will wither. The daily news cycle won’t be fed with regular news of boats, and the issue will fade off the front pages. The abolition of the Climate Commission gets rid of the body charged with providing “an independent and reliable source of information about the science of climate change, the international action being taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the economics of a carbon price” to the Australian people. It saves a pittance – the budget for the Commission was $5 million over five years. More importantly, it deprives Professor Flannery of a source of authority, it deprives the environmental movement of a source of authority, and it deprives the Australian people of a source of information. By itself, it won’t remove climate change from the front pages of the news. But the wholesale dismantling of government climate bodies will have that effect.

Tony Abbott wants you compliant, and comfortable, and happy, and smothered in marshmallow. The last thing he wants is to go making big changes that will upset people. He wants Australia to get used to the dichotomy: under Labor, you get an endless barrage of waste and fear and concern; under the Coalition you get a country that just gets on with it and lets you focus on your own life. So there will be no changes to the GST. There will be no remorseless cuts into health and education. There will be no overt attack on worker’s rights. In three years’ time, when the next election comes around, the only things the left will be able to criticise in the Coalition’s term of government will be that they dismantled the things they said they would dismantle, the things that Labor built.

Once again, the media will be an enormous assistance to the Coalition. Endless, deafening silence will help Abbott smooth the ruffled waters of Australia’s concerns. An appearance of calm and control will likely lead to actual calm, to an improved consumer and business confidence, and to better economic outcomes. The Coalition will be aided in this by circumstance. Just as Labor came to power in 2007 on the cusp of a real budget emergency – the Global Financial Crisis – the Coalition is coming to power just as Australia is showing signs of growing into a new prosperity.

Calm… or panic?

So what is the way forward from here for left-leaning progressives? The Coalition has attained government, and their ideal is to retain power for several terms at least – to be a long term government. They will attempt to do this, I believe, by not rocking the boat; by adopting and retaining many of the structural reforms that Labor put in place; by maintaining some distance from the news cycle and lulling the populace into a drowsy state of contentment. It now falls on Labor to prevent the Coalition succeeding in this. There are a couple of possible approaches that could be taken.

Labor can choose to adopt the same tactics that Tony Abbott pioneered with such success. Endless negativity, endless opposition, endless noise and fury, intended to blow up every little foible and failure of the new government into a thousand thorns of discontent. The strategy is to make sure the Coalition can’t get any clear air. After all, it worked for Tony Abbott between 2010 and 2013. Unfortunately, Labor is at a disadvantage in this battle. The mainstream media is dominated by opinions and owners hostile to Labor’s approach, and success at the Abbott model of opposition requires the involvement of the media. The media is hungry enough for stories that it might nonetheless be a viable strategy, but in a hostile environment it may prove an uphill battle.

Alternatively, Labor could attempt to rise above the example that Tony Abbott set. It could maintain a stately disdain, reserving its ire for any overt missteps or vandalism or ideologically-driven extremes emanating from the Coalition, but generally supporting or ignoring the Coalition for much of its term. Further, it could concentrate on building a new vision for the future, a policy platform that by its successes demonstrates the failures of the Coalition’s status-quo approach. The problem with this method is that it relies on missteps by the Opposition, and Tony Abbott has been astoundingly successful to date with keeping his party in line. There are many on the Coalition benches who would go too far given an opportunity, but with a deliberate don’t-offend political strategy at the helm, they may never get that opportunity. And it is astonishingly hard to win government on the basis of what you intend to do. In addition, three years of stately silence is not likely to be sufficient to prevent Tony Abbott pointing back to the hot air of 2010-2013 and blaming it all on Labor. Thus the Coalition would be bound to achieve another term or two, and this would simply reinforce the impression that ‘everything’s running smoothly, unlike under the previous mob’.

It may sound like heresy to some on this site, but the question must be asked: is it really so bad for us to have a Coalition government at the helm when they’re so intent on not offending anyone?

The answer to this depends on your expectations for a long-term future under the Coalition. To date, Tony Abbott’s opposition and government has shown no practical answer to the two-speed economy – indeed, Coalition policies will undo what little progress Labor has made in refocusing Australia’s approach to this problem. The Coalition is certainly no more supportive of education, of R&D, and of high-technology industries than were Labor. Clever country, we are not. The Coalition’s approach to climate change and mitigation of carbon emissions is well understood, and will withdraw Australia from even what little it has the ability and commitment to do in this field. And by promising to slow or halt the rollout of the NBN, if the Coalition actually intends to follow through on this promise, it is engaging in a deliberate sabotage of one of the most critical pieces of national infrastructure in history. All of these things give me no confidence that Australia’s future beyond the immediate three-year electoral cycle is at all promising.

Are we locked in to this cycle? Does life, the economy, industry and Australia’s status have to slowly stagnate under the Coalition until another inspirational Labor leader comes along with grand visions of what we might have if only? Or is there a third way?

Give Tony a chance! You’re kidding me!

Image courtesy of news.com.au

Image from news.com.au

I quite like the Sydney Morning Herald journalist with the acid wit, Mike Carlton. He’s one of the only journalists left in the country in touch with us common folk and besides, any journalist who refers to Andrew Bolt as Melbourne’s village idiot is worth listening to.

Yesterday he asked that we give Tony Abbott a chance to prove himself as Prime Minister. Suggesting that Tony Abbott entered the job the least credentialed of any in living memory he reminds us that:

. . . history shows that the prime ministership can sometimes have transformative powers, elevating those who attain it. Bob Hawke abandoned his boozy larrikin ways to become Labor’s most electorally successful leader. Paul Keating, with no formal education beyond the age of 15, rose to a dazzling command of the policy heights. John Howard, like Abbott also once seen as unelectable, was the towering conservative figure of his generation for nearly 12 years.

It seems only reasonable to wait and see what Abbott makes of it.

It’s a valid point.

I’ve waited four days. He’s the same idiot. Even the Irish have recognised four days of failure with the Irish Times reporting:

Australia’s new prime minister Tony Abbott spent the last past three years destabilising the Labor administration at every opportunity, saying it was the country’s “worst government ever”.

For a thousand days there was no respite from the Abbott attacks, which made it seem like the longest election campaign to date. But when the actual campaign began, Abbott suddenly shifted gear.

The tough campaigner who said the Labor carbon tax would ruin the economy (it didn’t), and whose scare tactics warned of Labor’s “debt and deficit”, accused Rudd of being “so negative”.

The Australian public could have been forgiven for saying, “Mr Pot, let me introduce you to Mr Kettle”. But they didn’t notice, or were way past caring.

Days before the election, the “budget crisis” Abbott said was Labor’s legacy was forgotten. Knowing the election was in the bag, he backed away from his promise to balance the budget within one term. Now it was “within 10 years” (by which time the Liberal-National coalition will be on its fourth term of government if it is still in power).

Having secured victory with a 32-seat majority, Abbott and his cabinet were not sworn in until 11 days after the election. The supposed budget crisis was now just a memory and the asylum-seeker boats he had pledged to stop from day one of winning power kept on coming. Seven of them in fact, containing more than 500 men, women and children from Iran, Afghanistan and other troubled regions of Asia.

But the Liberal Party chief has been true to his view that climate change is “crap”. The climate commission, an independent body set up by the previous government “to provide reliable and authoritative” information has been abolished.

Former chief commissioner Prof Tim Flannery is disillusioned: “We’ve just seen one of the earliest ever starts to the bush-fire season in Sydney following the hottest 12 months on record,” he said.

Not only an idiot but a powerful one.

But let’s not be candid. Give Tony Abbott a chance and he’ll do what?

In his election victory speech Mr Abbott promised no surprises. He’s had the chance to prove his word is true but that has already been broken to the detriment of at least one set of disadvantaged Australians. He has also broken his word by not following through with his pre-election commitment to Indigenous Australians.

But it is even more frightening if he doesn’t break his word. True to his form will he succumb to the wishes of the IPA and:

Lower the tax-free threshold from $18,200 back to $6000. This will drag more than one million low-income earners back into the tax system. It will also increase the taxes for 6 million Australians earning less than $80,000.

Save families $300 dollars a year of Carbon Tax but cost them $2,300 per year in reinstated tax.

Privatise Medibank.

Privatise the Snowy-Hydro Scheme.

Privatise Australia Post.

Privatise the SBS.

Break up the ABC and put out to tender each individual function.

Privatise the Australian Institute of Sport.

End all public subsidies to sport and the arts.

Privatise the CSIRO.

Immediately halt construction of the National Broadband Network and privatise any sections that have already been built.

Abolish the means-tested School kids Bonus that benefits 1.3 million families by providing up to $410 for each primary school child and up to $820 for each high school child.

Abolish the Baby Bonus.

Repeal the mining tax.

Withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol.

Repeal the Fair Work Act.

Repeal the carbon tax, and don’t replace it.

Repeal the marine park Legislation.

Repeal Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

Abolish the low-income superannuation contribution.

Reject proposals for compulsory food and alcohol labeling.

Reduce the size of the public service from current levels of more than 260,000 to at least the 2001 low of 212,784.

Abolish the Clean Energy Fund (done already).

Repeal the renewable energy target.

Introduce voluntary voting.

End mandatory disclosures on political donations.

End media blackout in final days of election campaigns.

End public funding to political parties.

Eliminate the National Preventative Health Agency.

Abolish the means test on the private health insurance rebate.

Repeal the Alcopops tax.

Means-test Medicare.

Cease subsidising the car industry.

End all corporate welfare and subsidies by closing the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education.

Introduce a special economic zone in the north of Australia.

Remove anti-dumping laws.

Abolish the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).

Abolish the Office for Film and Literature Classification.

Abolish the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).

Eliminate laws that require radio and television broadcasters to be ‘balanced ‘.

Abolish television spectrum licensing and devolve spectrum management to the common law.

End local content requirements for Australian television stations.

Eliminate media ownership restrictions.

Give Tony Abbott a chance and he’ll also risk the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef. According to The Huffington Post:

“Australia is facing a hard choice right now whether to make a quick buck from coal exports or whether to preserve an economically, long-standing national treasure.

” . . . Tony Abbott could overturn all the steps that have been taken domestically to protect the environment, to instead fast track coal export developments and drastically weaken environmental laws that were created to protect the country”.

Give Tony a chance! You’re kidding me!

Mike, it’s insulting to Hawke, Keating and Howard to be compared in some small way with Abbott. Even Howard waited a few years before unleashing his hunger for power and his pandering to the big end of town. Those three men are intellectual giants compared to our new Prime Minister. They also believed, rightly or wrongly (with the exception of Howard on occasions) that most of their actions were in the best interests of the country. Give Tony Abbott a chance and he’ll show us the complete opposite.

Mike, I also think it’s irrelevant if the prime ministership makes a good man out of Tony Abbott. He won’t be remembered for it. Instead, he’ll be remembered as the bloke we gave a chance to run this country and who blew it. Spectacularly.

 

Two Weeks with Tony Abbott

TONY ABBOTT

‘’Has Australia ever elected a Prime Minister so ignorant of technology, so ill informed of science, so oblivious of the needs and aspirations of women and so out of touch with a modern pluralist society?’

A week is a long time in politics. Tomorrow we will have had two with Tony Abbott. What can we deduce from his period in power thus far?

I wonder when Mr Abbott meets the Indonesian President whether in fact the “Turn back the boats” policy will actually be raised. And how will we go about buying their 750,000 boats. I assume we will use eBay, or maybe Scott Morrison will stand on the shore will a megaphone and a fistful of rupiah?

Then of course we have had five boats in six days since the election but zero headlines which suggests to me the normal honeymoon period accorded to new governments might cover the duration of the first term. Consider that. No, on second thoughts don’t. Just leave it to Rupert.

Now it seems that Morrison might not even reveal how many boats arrive. Now there’s open government for you.

And didn’t Joe Hockey tell us that the budget was in crisis and in need of urgent repair. Debt and deficit was out of control. Now it seems he is embarking on a stimulus package. And further to that, the much credited Costello Charter of Budget Honesty is no longer credible. It appears the mid-year fiscal outlook will be delayed until the January holiday period. At my age I wish I could delay a thing or two.

What about his first ministry? Only one women to be seen but of course it fits in with Abbotts anti women statements and image. Julie Bishop has always been the deputy who got the job, if only as a token of female representation. This must be a monumental embarrassment to the conservative parties. Half of the population are women, so how are they to be represented?

By a middle aged colloquium of wealthy middle aged Christian males who have not the faintest idea of the needs and aspirations of young women in particular. They say that the cabinet is selected on merit. If that’s the case then it makes matters worse. They have no women of merit? Not even one with more brains that Barnaby Joyce. And if that is so, how come three National Party members get a guernsey regardless of merit? If the Coalition believes that quotas for women would be demeaning, what does that say about their quotas for the Nationals?

Now I agree that parliamentary behaviour needs some attention but to elect Bronwyn Bishop as Speaker of the House when she herself has been guilty of the most flagrant breaches of the standing orders makes a mockery of Abbott’s desire to bring more civility to the house.

For Abbott to even suggest the need for more politeness when he alone over the past three years have been the biggest perpetrator in bringing the house into disrepute is extraordinary, or cunning. I think the latter. Or is he re casting his image?

Now about the new ministry. Bill Lord (not related) had this to say on Facebook.

‘’You probably won’t have even noticed, but Abbott’s cabinet does not have a Minister for Science, Climate Change, Energy, Youth, Disability, Status of Women, Aged Care, Mental Health, Early Childhood and whole lot more of those things that I think most educated people would think are important. Instead we have a Minister for Immigration and “Border Protection”. What do we need PROTECTION from? Half-starved men, women and children fleeing for their lives? I feel sick to admit to being an Australian. My only consolation is that I DID NOT vote for these crypto-fascists. Think that’s a bit extreme? Just wait six months’’

We have had a science minister since 1931. This just shows what a fraternity of oldish male luddites of a ministry we have with views unrepresentative of a vigorous forward looking Australia. I know half of the government don’t believe in climate science, but this is going too far. I wonder if they know how to use pop up toasters. Really, no science minister and the only complaint on the government side is from a climate denier.

So in effect there is no voice in this ministry for the disabled, nor one for the elderly, nor one for youth, nor one for the homeless. But there is a female Bishop to represent the collective views of millions of women.
Well at least we have two Bishops and an Abbott in case there is need of confession.

Now here’s a good joke: “what has nineteen men, one woman and doesn’t want emphasis put on science, mental health, disability or climate change?’ The punch line is Tony Abbott’s new ministry. The joke is on all of us.

Of course they all swore allegiance to a woman unlike Rudd’s cabinet who did so to the Australian people. I suppose Liz will be happy.

Isn’t it interesting that during the election there was never a women out of Abbott’s sight. Now there are none to be seen. Perhaps they are invisible. Just like that substance Tony keeps talking about.

Already Tony Abbott in his desire to slow things down gives every indication of looking over his shoulder at a past long gone.

Which of course does not go well for the ACT’s and the Northern Territory’s announcements that they intend proceeding with legalisation for gay marriage. What will Tony do? I bet Catholicism wins. Goodness knows what he will say to the new American ambassador when he arrives with his husband.

On top of that we were told that the conservatives plan to go ahead with their Direct Action Plan to reduce carbon emissions even though they have not the foggiest idea of how it works. We know from such imminent institutions such as the Grattan Institute and many other experts that meeting the 5% target of cutting greenhouse using direct action methods is highly improbable. So Tony Abbott really does need to come clean (pardon the pun) and tell the public the truth of his intentions. Does he intend faking some action and then dropping it altogether? Highly probable I think.

The decision to abandon the carbon tax might yet prove to be the single worst decision ever made by an Australian Prime Minister. How appalling it is that something as serious as the planets future can be reduced to people’s denial of science.

It rather reminds me of how for so many years the South Africans denied that HIV caused aids.

I can only hope that Labor sticks to its principles on this one and that it’s more difficult than unringing a bell.

Which in turn leads me to this unrepresentative swill that is called The Senate.

Richard Dennis of the Australia Institute has this to say.

‘’Ok – here is my serious suggestion for how to reform the senate voting/micro party preference ‘problem’. What if all parties who poll less than X per cent (I would go with 2 per cent) can only distribute, but not receive preferences from other parties. That would mean that no-one’s vote would ever be wasted, but at the same time it would give the micro parties an incentive to join together and work hard to explain their policies and earn primary votes rather than keep dividing into smaller and smaller parties in order to improve their chances in the ‘Senate Lottery’. Thoughts? Share if you like it’’

Then we had Malcolm Turnbull talking about a mandate on the NBN in the face of a 250,000 petition against the Coalition plans. The fact is Labor lost the election not on policy but because it presented a perception of dysfunction. Now it seems Turnbull will delay new laws until the new senate sits next July.

Under the Governments plan some suburbs and country towns will have a digital divide. Half of Ballarat for example has fibre to the home. How will the other half react when they find they will have to pay $5000 for the same service? And this will happen all over the country.
And of course the first few days saw the vindictive sacking of former Victorian Premier Steve Bracks before he could pack his bags for the states.

And who sacked him?

“We had to fight even for the right of dying cancer victims to get a speedy trial. I recall sitting in the WA Supreme Court in an interlocutory hearing for the test cases involving Wittenoom miners Mr Peter Heys and Mr Tim Barrow. CSR was represented by Ms Julie Bishop (then Julie Gillon). (She) was rhetorically asking the court why workers should be entitled to jump court queues just because they were dying.”

Australian Doctor Magazine, 2007.

Why would you then be surprised at a cheap vindictive decision to sack Steve Bracks.

However that wasn’t the end. The day after being sworn in three department heads were sacked. Victims of long Liberal memories no doubt. They happened to believe in science.

I could have added a few more examples of what to expect from this new government. My wife however cautioned me to be more sanguine.

‘’Never be as negative as him’’ she said whilst shaking her fist at me.

The one redeeming feature of the fortnight was that at least Sophie Mirrabella has lost her seat. That might add a diminutive touch of graciousness to the house. But wait, later in the week I read that the LNP are blaming the lack of women and a science minister on the new member for Indi, Cathy McGowan. Figure that out.

Then someone on The Drum suggested that she lost her seat because too many of her constituents met her. That’s more like it.

Oh, and they have just announced a high court challenge on gay marriage, the Climate Commission is gone as to is The Clean Energy Corporation.

‘’Thanks love, yes I think I will have a couple of Bex and a lie down”

P.S. I was going to title this piece ‘’In Bed with Tony” but I thought that was taking things too far.

I Hate You. So Shut Your Face.

hate speech

A recent article in The Australian newspaper asserted that Tony Abbott planned to roll back Labor’s laws that limit free speech. It said that if elected, he would work with his attorney-general, George Brandis, to champion, instead of restrict, the right of free speech in Australia. This would involve amending the Racial Discrimination Act, which prohibits remarks that offend others on grounds of race or ethnicity. This was the provision used to prosecute newspaper columnist Andrew Bolt.

Mr Abbott was reported as saying:

“Any suggestion you can have free speech as long as it doesn’t hurt people’s feelings is ridiculous. If we are going to be a robust democracy, if we are going to be a strong civil society, if we are going to maintain that great spirit of inquiry, which is the spark that has made our civilisation so strong, then we’ve got to allow people to say things that are unsayable in polite company’’

So does decency matter?

On the surface these words may be acceptable to those of a conservative bent, but to people such as myself who like to scratch the surface, they are but a disguise. A permission or dispensation to insult, or assault another’s emotions or even worse.

It is positively unlawful to assault someone physically but perfectly fine to assault them emotionally.

The words of Mr Abbott reminded me of the now famous decision by the US Supreme Court in the Westboro Baptist Church vs. Albert Snyder. Mr Snyder’s son was a marine who died in Iraq. The Church pickets the funerals of servicemen, brandishing the most outrageous signs imaginable and shouting the putrid wrath of God at the families with all the vengeance they can muster.

The court effectively said that it was their duty to protect free speech even if it offended the grieving parents of American heroes. Even if it drove people to the brink of suicide or further. That people should have the right of freedom of expression no matter how evil their intent.

That it didn’t matter how loathing or despising your language was, or what harm your actions caused. You had under the first amendment every right to act in that manner. It’s called free speech.

Now it cannot be overstated just how vile this church is. I call it ‘’The Church of Hate’’ and is very active in many areas of American society. They say the most abominable loathsome things imaginable but the court says its fine and it is there to uphold the churches right to do so.

There is something wrong with a society that condones hate speech and it is what Tony Abbott and his ilk are wanting for Australia.

Mr Snyder’s response was thus:

“My first thought was, eight justices don’t have the common sense God gave a goat.” He added, “We found out today we can no longer bury our dead in this country with dignity.”

Only those who have been abused by it truly understand what free speech is.

I could rightly, I think, argue that it is impossible to understand the harm unrestrained free speech does to people until we have personally suffered from the abuse of it. I could also argue that we do not appreciate the value of free speech whilst we allow it to be exploited the way it is. I would even suggest that free speech is completely misunderstood.

If as a society our collective intention is the attainment of a better humanity. Then surely hand in glove with that must be our social intercourse. Using this precious gift of free speech to vilify others is not consistent with egalitarian pursuits and a fairer and sophisticated social order.

You can read the court finding in this article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/westboro-baptist-church-w_n_830209.html

What it comes down to is what the Australian public wants. Free speech is one of the many gifts that democracy gives us and should be sacrosanct. However, at the same time the right to use it should carry a heavy individual and collective responsibility. We need to enshrine a greater appreciation of it on our citizens together with an indebtedness of the individual’s entitlement to use it.

I mean by that, that along with the right to use it also comes a requirement on people to display decorum, moderation, fact, balance, reason, tolerance, civility and respect for the other point of view. Free speech does not mean it should be free from ethics. Like truth for example. Sadly, this seems to have been forgotten both here and in the United States.

Of course the pedlars of verbal violence and dishonesty, the likes of Bolt, Jones, Hadley etc are the most vigorous defenders of free speech because it gives their vitriolic nonsense legitimacy. With the use of free speech, the bigots and hate-mongers seek to influence those in the community who are susceptible or like-minded.

And conservatives support their own particular concept of free speech because it caters for division untruth and above all keeps the proletariat in its place.

The original intent of free speech was to give a voice to the oppressed and to keep governments honest. In the United States, the first amendment is now used as a justification to incite racism, validate hatred and promote both religious and political bigotry.

In the Australian Constitution free speech is only implied. It is time we decided what exactly that means and in doing so, decide how it might shape the sort of society we want to be.

One where free speech is a force for needless destruction or one where it is used for the betterment of society.

Sure it can be vigorous and robust but let’s keep it respectful.

Why Labor Lost

Image courtesy of fbider.com

Image courtesy of fbider.com

Firstly

The truth of the matter is that my Party is at times its own worst enemy. For the six years it has been in power it governed well in spite of the enormous inconvenience of minority governance. This is indisputable when you look closely at its economic record, the legalisation passed and reformist policy from within a minority framework.

Its problems though did not originate from everyday governance. In this sense it has been no better or worse than any other government. Rather its problems stemmed from personality conflict and the pursuit of power.
Politics by its very nature is confrontational and uneasy with those with ego who pursue power for powers sake, or those who think they have some sort of ownership of righteousness.

Labor had two formidable intellects in Rudd and Gillard. In fact, combined they would total much of the opposition front bench’s intellectual capacity. It is one thing to replace a leader but a different thing when the leader happens to be the Prime Minister who the voters perceive they have elected. Hindsight is of course a wonderful thing so it is easy to say that Rudd should never have been replaced. That Rudd undermined the 2007 election campaign and continued to undermine Julia Gillard for most of her tenure.

He never showed the grace in defeat that Turnbull displayed.

So we had two leaders of sagacious intellect. One a ubiquitous narcissist, who couldn’t listen and who couldn’t delegate. On the other hand we had a women of immense policy capacity (and history will judge her that way) but would be hard pressed to sell a Collingwood Guernsey to a rabid supporter.

Minority government has enormous day to day difficulties without having ones leadership frequently undermined. And we can speculate about a myriad of other possibilities but it won’t change the fact that ego destroyed any chance Labor had of winning the 2013 election. And this is the main reason why Labor lost. Not because they didn’t govern well. As Tanya Plibersek said 10/10 for governance and 0/10 for behaviour. But because life is about perceptions, not what is, but what it appears to be. We painted a picture of irrational decision making, of dysfunction and murderous disloyalty. Rightly or wrongly that is the perception. In other words we committed political suicide.

Secondly.

There are of course other factors that contributed to our downfall.

Despite the growing influence of the Fifth Estate the Main Stream Media still packs an enormous punch. In advertising the success of one’s spend is measured by the resulting sales. The media can measure its influence in the Polls. Labor was the the victim of the most concerted gutter attack ever insinuated upon an Australian political party. And from all sections of the media, although one in particular, News Corp, has gone well beyond the realm of impartiality.

Labor was drowned in an avalanche of lies, repugnant bile, half-truths and omissions. The media lost its objectivity and news reporting in general became so biased that it no longer pretended to disguise it. The MSM has forsaken truth, justice and respectability in its pursuit of the protection of privilege. They printed and told lies with such reprehensible consistency that a gullible and politically undiscerning Australian public never really challenged it.

As a famous businessman once said.’’ I spend a lot of money on advertising and I know for certain that half of it works’’ Clive Palmer has won a seat because he had the money to promote himself. He proved the power of persuasion with money.

The Fifth Estate (including me) attempted to counter these nefarious attacks but in my view we are three years away from reaching full potential. Having said that I plead some degree of ignorance, and I must say, I am absolutely astounded at how many people participate in social media and the voice it gives them. However in three years’ time its ability to influence the younger generation will have risen exponentially. Added to that will be a declining older generation.

Thirdly.

Tony Abbott successfully adopted an American Republican style shock and awe approach in his pursuit of power. Main stream media hailed him the most effective opposition leader in Australian political history. This was solely based on his parties standing in the polls and said nothing about the manner in which he lied and distorted fact and science to bring about this standing. Perhaps they should rethink the criteria they use.

On a daily basis and in the parliament he sought to abuse, disrupt proceedings and tell untruths that normal men would not. His gutter style negativity set a new benchmark for the behaviour of future opposition leaders. Luckily though, he may be the only one of his characterless ilk, and future opposition leaders may be more affable. However, the consistency of his negativity had an effect on an electorate in a state of comatose.

From the time the election date was announced he portrayed himself as a different person. An indifferent public was fooled by this chameleon disguise. He was and still is by his own admission a liar.
David Marr used these words to sum up the character of this would be Prime Minister.

“An aggressive populist with a sharp tongue; a political animal with lots of charm; a born protégé with ambitions to lead; a big brain but no intellectual; a bluff guy who proved a more than competent minister; a politician with little idea of what he might do if he ever got to the top; and a man profoundly wary of change.

“He’s a worker. No doubt about that. But the point of it all is power. Without power it’s been a waste of time.”

How one appraisers the reasons for Labor’s loss might differ from individual to individual and there will undoubtedly be many thousands of words written on the subject. For me it can be rather succinctly summed up in a sentence or two.

A political party, union of workers, sporting team or board of directors is only as good as the total sum of its parts. A good leader facilitates, emboldens and inspires the team, but a leader with self-interested ambition can destroy it all.

This is the first in a series. Next week Labor reform.

John Lord’s Final Election Diary Update No.13

Image courtesy of abc.net.au

Image courtesy of abc.net.au

Tuesday AM August 27

Posted No 12 of my Election Diary. Spent all afternoon preparing the vegetable garden for spring planting. Thoughts of the election never left me.

Wednesday August 28

Thinking

Thursday August 29

I have decided that tomorrow’s diary will be my last post. I have very much valued the comments of those who have taken the time to read my diary however, it has not had the far-reaching influence I had hoped for. With that in mind I think I will throw caution to the wind and abolish my normal ‘’Facts before feelings’’ policy.

Friday August 30

If the polls are correct the LNP will have a comfortable win next Saturday and we will have a new Prime Minister. That being the assumption, I feel free to opine on various matters more vigorously than usual. Or at least in a different manner
The Coalition will command a vote of around 53% of the Australian people. Of these a fair proportion will be locked in conservative voters. Some will be last minute deciders or swinging voters. Others will be, what is in it for me voters. A fair proportion will be elderly despite the coalition having never done anything for them. Many will have been victims of Murdoch’s abhorrent version of his future Australia.

All of them will have one thing in common. A blindness to the common good, and an ignorance of virtuous policy.

I have asked myself a perplexing question. If I were voting for a conservative government, what would I be voting for?
This is an impossible task for a dyed in the wool social democrat, so my answers will necessarily be tinged, with ridicule that expresses my compassion for a better society. And of course my age of 74 together with whatever wisdom I have, will also influence my answers. I might also add that my desire for a better Australia stems not from a need of comfortable final years. But rather from a deep concern for my grandchildren and the future they might face.

Let me repeat the question and then some random observations.

”If I were voting for a conservative government, what would I be voting for? What are my expectations? ‘’
In case it doesn’t register I’m Just pretending.’’

I know in my heart that my party’s Direct Action Plan is a nonsense but I don’t give a shit because climate change isn’t real. Tony doesn’t believe it and most of the cabinet don’t. Well except for Malcolm of course but he tends to be blinded by science of all things. I know the plan won’t work and after three years we won’t spend any more money on it. If the rest of the world decides to do something later on then we can join them. Yes I know Labor’s plan is working but it costs that much and we could be spending that on things that make the wealthy more so. After all they create the jobs. Tony can even see things that others cannot. Even the invisible.

And as far as those poofters go Tony is absolutely right not to give our party a conscience vote on Gay Marriage. After all he’s a Catholic and knows all about these issues of morality. No it doesn’t matter that 70% of people want it. Tony knows what’s right. I trust him.

And speaking of equality I know that Tony will do the right thing and make education more equal. He has promised that if I vote for him I will be getting exactly the same Better Schools program. Oh yes, I know he won’t spend the same amount but Tony reckons it will be the same thing, and I can trust him.

Character of course is most important and for three years Tony has been exhibiting it. He has actually invented a new concept in opposition strategizing. You just pretend to be a negative personality, create havoc in the parliament, invent crisis, exaggerate everything and call the government the worst ever. That way you create a perception of catastrophe. Takes a lot of character to do that. Of course it helps if your friends with one of the world’s richest media barons. And to top it off you simply transform from negative to positive and present the real you to the electorate at election time. It works a treat. Character, that’s why I’m voting for Tony. I can trust him.

I know the Labor Party are claiming the NDIS policy as their own but it’s not true. We have always been part of it. It is a bi partisan policy. Yes I know we were a no show in the house when the legislation passed but we fully support it. And we are the best party to make sure it works. We might have to re hash it but I’m sure we can do it a lot cheaper and more efficiently. I’m sure Tony will re shape it in the Conservative mould. After all we have shown an historical concern for those less well of. Just ask pensioners. Yes Tony will fix it.

Speaking of concern for others I agree with Tony that if we lower the Tax Free Threshold to $6000 we can pick up a lot in tax from about 6 million workers on $80,000 or less. And if we abolish the low-income superannuation contribution. This will reimpose a 15 per cent tax on superannuation contributions for people earning less than $37,000.

You have to give it to Tony, he thinks things through. This will mean we can have a decent Paid Parental Leave Scheme. I know that there are those in our party who think it’s unaffordable at $5 billion a year but its Tony’s idea and I know I can trust him. There are other ways to help pay for it.
Tony knows this. That’s why he is getting rid of the Schools Bonus. Really who needs it? Not the working class. After all prospective mothers on $150.000 will need our support. Trust Tony, he knows best.

And I like his idea to abolish the proposed 15 per cent tax on income from superannuation above $100,000 a year. The combined effect of these two superannuation changes is that 16,000 high-income earners with superannuation savings in excess of $2 million will get a tax cut while 3.6 million workers earning less than $37,000 will pay more than $4 billion extra in tax on their super over the next four years. This is grossly unfair on the wealthy. This way we can redistribute the money to the people who make things happen. It all adds up if you listen to Tony. You can trust him to put the money where it matters most.

What about the NBN. Yes I know we had 13 goes to get it right when we were in government but we have it spot on now. It took Tony to get it right. And he had the man who invented the internet to help him. It’s going to cost a lot less and it will work just as well. Ask anyone over 80 and I bet they will agree. When it’s finished they will be able to sell it. Prospective buyers will have to foot the bill for the replacement copper wire and upgrade requirements. That way it avoids the current budget crisis. Shit it’s in a mess. But a formidable mind has Tony. I know I can trust him.
Then of course if we vote for Tony we won’t have to worry about all the crass morons wanting us to become a republic. Thank God he will never let it happen. Fancy contemplating our own head of state. Where do people get these foolish ideas from? King Charles will serve us well. Even if a large proportion of the country will have to be reminded of who he is. But Tony will fix it. He has character. I trust him.

And Tony is the only one who is capable of stopping the boats. I know this to be true because he has told me so. In fact I cannot remember how many times he has told me over the past three years. When he says he will stop the boats I believe him because I trust him. He is a Christian man with high morals. The same goes for Scott Morrison. I have come to adore that slogan. ‘’Stop the boats’’ I reckon it should be written into the history of Australian political folklore.

Now I know Joe did say he wanted to end ‘’the age of entitlement’’ but fair shake of the sauce bottle, Tony’s entitled to reward those who vote for him. That’s why he is taking from the poor to reward the rich. I mean fairs fair. Tony knows about class because he’s a Rhodes Scholar. And how much bloody time to people need to check out the costing’s and savings. Next thing they will expect him to supply everyone with a calculator. Why can’t people just trust him? I do, Tony has impeccable integrity. Ask anyone?

I know all these policies, the NBN, Better Schools, Addressing Climate Change and NDIS are major reforms and are Labor initiatives but Tony will make them happen. I know people will say we are being elected to implement Labor policy, but I wouldn’t trust Labor with their own ideas. But I would trust Tony.

One last thing, and it’s the main reason Tony will get my vote. He is the only one I trust to do something about these silly freedom of speech laws

I mean really. Andrew, Ray Alan, Piers and others need more freedom to express their reasoned commentary. On top of that he needs to do something about all these bloggers (including that bald headed dickhead who writes for the AINM) from infiltrating the internet and imposing their opinions on thinking people. I mean why should all those writers have 100% freedom of expression when Rupert only has 70%? It’s just unfair but Tony will fix it. I can trust him.

After all 53% of the people agree with me on all these matters.

My final entry

Its 10.30 Friday and my well-worn fingers have no desire to go on. Normally I would post next Tuesday however mid-week postings of my diary, for whatever reason don’t get a huge response. There is little more to add other than (and it goes against my nature) to say I sincerely hope I am mistaken.

That it might turn out like it did in the states where the polls were wrong and the people decided that science was important and that truth mattered.

Before I go please read this excellent piece by Alan Austin.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/we-really-must-talk-about-murdochs-tame-economists/

I conclude with this final thought.

‘’A well balanced Aussie is one with a chip on both shoulders’’

Thanks comrades for all your comments and support.

John Lord’s Election Diary Update No. 11

howardWednesday August 21

56 plus reasons to make you think about Tony Abbott.

In writing this diary, my format has been to chronologically list things as they occur, make some relative comment, and perhaps add a link for further information.
For example, since last writing the International Panel for Climate Change has released its 5th assessment confirming that they are 95% certain that humans are responsible for global warming. I would usually add a comment about my faith in the science.
Then I might say something about Murdoch’s latest tweet and Rudd’s daughters brilliant reply, or I might raise the question of why Christopher Pyne didn’t show up for the Education Debate at the National Press Club. A large looming scandal.
Or the resignation of the candidate for Charlton, Kevin Baker and the fact that British MP Tom Watson will appear on Q & A next Monday.
Then I would have added some commentary on Wednesday’s debate.

I have decided to dispense with that format for this diary entry.

By their very nature diaries are a personal thing. Some write for purely personal reasons and never allow the light of outside eyes. Others, like me share their innermost thoughts, and in doing so make ourselves vulnerable to condemnation.

I am not someone who has a natural emotional makeup for the hatred of another, but leadership, and the characteristics required for leadership interest me enormously. This election is not only about policy, (as important as that is) but also about which person is best suited to lead us. There will be those will say that I am only looking at one side of the coin, that Rudd also requires critical examination. This is true, and I am open to anyone’s thoughts.

However, in this instance I am asking the question ‘’who is Tony Abbott?’’

“Character is a combination of traits that etch the outlines of a life, governing moral choices and infusing personal and professional conduct. It’s an elusive thing, easily cloaked or submerged by the theatrics of an election campaign, but unexpected moments can sometimes reveal the fibres from which it is woven.”

I came across this assessment of Mr Abbott in an article titled ‘’Is Tony Abbott a Liberal’’ at macrobusiness.com.au

Abbott is socially conservative and there is little evidence to suggest he is economically liberal either. His carbon policies are based upon regulation not markets, his parental leave plan is based upon tax and redistribute, his northern Australia development plan has all the hallmarks of central planning and favoured vested interests. He’s adopted the Labour Party’s overly restrictive industrial relations laws, education policies and disability insurance scheme. His current budget position is some $35 billion more generous than that of Labor so, at this stage, he looks more Keynesian than fiscal conservative.

There’s a few tax cuts that suggest Tony has a penchant for miners and the wealthy which rudely approximates some kind of Thatcherite “trickle down” economics and maybe a bit of bastardised Lockean libertarianism.

When you digest these words you cannot help but be left with the impression of a man who is a contradiction in terms. A man who is not a true blue conservative in the traditional sense but someone who is able to dispose of his ideology if it stands in the way of power. So what motivates him?

David Marr in his quarterly Essay ‘’Political Animal’’ gives us the answer.

“An aggressive populist with a sharp tongue; a political animal with lots of charm; a born protégé with ambitions to lead; a big brain but no intellectual; a bluff guy who proved a more than competent minister; a politician with little idea of what he might do if he ever got to the top; and a man profoundly wary of change.

“He’s a worker. No doubt about that. But the point of it all is power. Without power it’s been a waste of time.”

On the other hand John Hewson described him as lazy and indolent.

Or consider my view the man.

‘’Tony Abbott if nothing else is a very colourful character. He is aggressive both physically and in the use of language. His negativity is legendary, and he has little consideration for any ideas other than his own, and says NO to his opponents policies regardless of their worthiness. He is by evidence and his own admission a liar of some regularity. Added to that he has a political gutter mentality and little respect for the institution of parliament and its conventions.’’

When looked at in isolation the lies and indiscretions of Tony Abbott, his problems with women, and even his negativity could perhaps all be written off as just Tony being Tony. Or that’s just politics. However my focus here is on character and whether Mr Abbott has enough of it to be the leader of our nation. My contention is that because we are looking at a litany of instances of lying, deception and bad behaviour over a long period of time he simply doesn’t have the essence of character which is one of the main ingredients in the recipe of leadership.

The evidence for this assertion follows. None of these events are in chronological order. They are just as they come to mind, and are listed randomly in order to build a character profile.

1 When the President of the US visited he broke long standing conventions by politicising his speech as opposition leader.

2 He did the same when the Indonesian president visited.

4 He did the same when the Queen visited.

6 He could not help but play politics with the death of an Australian icon in Margaret Whitlam.

8 He would not allow pairs (another long standing convention) so that the minister for the arts could attend the funeral of painter Margaret Olley. Another Australian icon. Malcolm Turnbull, a personnel friend was also prevented from attending. There have been other instances of not allowing pairs.

10 More recently he refused a pair whilst the then Prime Minister was on bereavement
leave following the death of her father.

11 Then there were the callous and inappropriate remarks he made to Bernie Banton.

12 At university he kicked in a glass panel door when defeated in an election.

13 Referred to a women Chairperson as “Chairthing”

14 He was accused of assaulting a women at University and later acquitted. He was defended by a QC and the girl defended herself.

15 Another women accuses him of throwing punches at her. And hitting either side of a wall she was standing against. He says it never happened but others collaborate her story.

16 He threatens to punch the head in of Lindsay Foyle who disagreed
with him on a women’s right to an abortion.

17 In 1978 a young teacher by the name of Peter Woof bought assault charges against Abbott. He punched him in the face. It never went anywhere. Abbott was represented by a legal team of six and the young man could not afford to defend himself.

18 And he did punch out Joe Hockey’s lights during a rugby match.

19 He established a slush fund to bring down Pauline Hansen and then lied about its existence.

20 He was ejected from the House of reps once in obscure circumstances. Hansard is unclear why but it is alleged that he physically threatened Graham Edwards. Edwards lost both his legs in Vietnam.

21 In the year 2000 he was ejected from the House along with six others. Philip Coorey reports that he was headed toward the Labor back benches ready to thump a member who had heckled him.

22 Abused Nicola Roxon after turning up late for a debate.

23 Then there was the interview with Mark Riley where he had a brain fade that seemed like it would never end. I thought he was deciding between a right hook or a left cross. Something that I found mentally disturbing and worrying at the same time. After all this was the man who could be our next Prime Minister.

24 Together with Pyne seen running from the House of Reps to avoid embarrassment at being outwitted.

25 Being the first opposition leader to be ejected from the house in 26 years because he repeated an accusation of lying after withdrawing it.

26 The infamous “Sell my arse” statement verified by Tony Windsor. Will Windsor ever release the mobile phone transcript?

27 The interview with Kerry OBrien where he admitted
that unless it was in writing he didn’t always tell the truth.

28 And in another OBrien interview he admitted lying about a meeting with the catholic Archbishop George Pell.

29 During the Republic referendum he told many outrageous untruths.

30 His famous “Climate change is crap” comment and later saying that he was speaking to an audience. This of course elicited the question. Is that what you always do?

31 His almost daily visits to businesses with messages of gloom and doom about the carbon tax. None of which have come to fruition. His blatant lying often repudiated by the management of the businesses. The most notable being the CEO of BHP and their decision not to proceed with the Olympic dam mine. Whole towns being closed down. Industries being forced to sack thousands. The end of the coal industry etc.

32 And of course, there is the now infamous Leigh Sales interview where beyond any doubt he lied three times and continued to do so the next day.

33 Then there was his statement that the Aboriginal embassy at parliament house be closed. To call his statement an error in judgement is too kind. It almost sounded like an incitement to riot.

34 He is quoted as saying in the Parliament that Prime Minister Gillard and Minister Albanese had targets on their heads. He later apologised.

35 And of course there is also the lie about asylum seekers being illegal.

36 Added to that is his statement that the PM refused to lay down and die. His dying of shame comment.

37 His “lack of experience in raising children” comment.

38 His “make an honest women of herself” comment.

39 His “no doesn’t mean no” comment.
Plus these.

40 ‘Jesus knew that there was a place for everything and it’s not necessarily everyone’s place to come to Australia.’

41 ‘These people aren’t so much seeking asylum, they’re seeking permanent residency. If they were happy with temporary protection visas, then they might be able to argue better that they were asylum seekers’

On rights at work:

42 ‘If we’re honest, most of us would accept that a bad boss is a little bit like a bad father or a bad husband … you find that he tends to do more good than harm. He might be a bad boss but at least he’s employing someone while he is in fact a boss.’

On women:

43 ‘The problem with the Australian practice of abortion is that an objectively grave matter has been reduced to a question of the mother’s convenience.’

44 ‘I think it would be folly to expect that women will ever dominate or even approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons’

45 ‘I think there does need to be give and take on both sides, and this idea that sex is kind of a woman’s right to absolutely withhold, just as the idea that sex is a man’s right to demand I think they are both they both need to be moderated, so to speak’

46 ‘What the housewives of Australia need to understand as they do the ironing is that if they get it done commercially it’s going to go up in price and their own power bills when they switch the iron on are going to go up, every year…’

On Julia Gillard:

47 ‘Gillard won’t lie down and die’

On climate change:

48 ‘If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax.’

On homosexuality:

49 ‘I’d probably … I feel a bit threatened’

50 ‘If you’d asked me for advice I would have said to have – adopt a sort of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy about all of these things…’

On Indigenous Australia:

51 ‘Now, I know that there are some Aboriginal people who aren’t happy with Australia Day. For them it remains Invasion Day. I think a better view is the view of Noel Pearson, who has said that Aboriginal people have much to celebrate in this country’s British Heritage’

52 ‘Western civilisation came to this country in 1788 and I’m proud of that…’

53 ‘There may not be a great job for them but whatever there is, they just have to do it, and if it’s picking up rubbish around the community, it just has to be done’

On Nicola Roxon:

54 ‘That’s bullshit. You’re being deliberately unpleasant. I suppose you can’t help yourself, can you?’

55 And we should not leave out his insensitive comments about the attempted suicide of John Brogden.

56 And the deliberate lie he told to the Australian Minerals Council that the Chinese intended increasing their emissions by 500 per cent.

Add the finest judge’s comment.
Birth mothers
Law suits.

Regretfully, the list is not up to date AND MY READERS MIGHT LIKE TO ADD TO IT
.
If politics is fundamentally about ideas, it is also about leadership. In these comments I have deliberately steered clear of policy argument in order to concentrate on character. On three occasions I have invited people on Facebook to list five attributes of Tony Abbott that would warrant his election as Prime Minister of Australia. I have never received a reply. And when you look at the aforementioned list is it any wonder.
He is simply bereft of any character at all. He has been described as the mad monk and many other things, but essentially he is a repugnant gutter politician of the worst kind. In following the American Republican parties example his shock and awe tactics associated with perpetual crisis has done nothing other than degenerate the standard of Australian politics, and the parliament generally. In the public eye he is most effective in attack dog mode. However, he is found wanting when he needs to defend himself and simply reverts to stuttering hesitation and lies. Or just walking out on press conferences when he stumbles over tough questions. This is particularly noticeable when he tries to explain the complexity of policy detail.

The future of this country is of vital importance.

So much so that its leadership should never be entrusted to a politician of such little virtue and Character. A man who has failed to articulate a narrative for Australia’s future other than a personal desire to occupy the lodge. Given his performance of late he would do well to consider these words. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. It’s easy to understand what Abbott says because he only speaks in slogans. The difficulty is knowing what he means.

I have used this line in one of my short stories and it aptly sums up the character of Honourable Leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition.

As he spoke, truth came from the beginning of a smile or was it just a sneer of deception.

Back to the usual diary format next week. I just wanted to get that off my chest.

John Lord’s Election Diary Update No. 10

Image from australianconservative.com

Image from australianconservative.com


Saturday August 17

I awake this morning feeling morose. A friend on Facebook has said that my writing is biased.

‘’To be honest I agree with a lot of what you say, but I’m trying to also look for the good in the bad and bad in the good, if you know what I mean. So I guess what I’ve seen of your posts has been looking a little like the flip-side of a Murdoch-type Liberal bias. However like you said you’ve tried hard to find something positive in the Libs and haven’t been able to find anything, so that’s fair enough.’’

I’m upset enough to take Zach (our dog) for a longer walk than normal and do some critical self-analysis.

Music has always held a special place in my heart. I have a collection of over 600 CDs and 150 live concert DVDs. I play piano (badly) and have composed a number of songs. I have no bias to any particular genre of music and appreciate it all.

Books are like children to me and I have a family of hundreds. I treat them with a fatherly love but I show no bias or favour to any. I have read the political thoughts of Hasluck, Menzies, Howard and Costello and many others on the right. Again my reading has no bias. Fiction and text books comfortably interchange.

In the AFL I support two teams, so I could hardly be called biased. And I have played a variety of sports.

But of course my friend is referring to ‘’Political Bias.’’ So, what is ‘’Political Bias’’ I would say it is either an inability or unwillingness to want to understand an opposing point of view. In my defence on that count I plead not guilty. I have studied conservative ideology and rejected it. I have studied current conservative policy from Climate Change to the NBN and rejected it all. Not because of any biased view, but rather because I have studied each on its merits. A biased person rejects everything out of hand and is incapable of objective reasoning. Anyway I will let others judge. Who knows, next thing someone will say I’m a communist and that Karl Marx’s grave is a communist plot.

The little things we miss.

1. Did you know that replacing Telstra’s copper wire is not included in the LNPs broadband policy?

2. In the debate Tony Abbott used imperial measurements.

“We cannot go on for another decade the way we have over the last six years and we’ve had a Government which has not advanced us one inch, one yard over the last six years on this.”

Advancement! Ummmmmm. Perhaps he should have used notes or are metrics just a fashion of the time. See this.

Tony, how far back do you want to take us?

3. It is worth noting the current Sportsbet odds for the next GG are as follows:

1. Peter Cosgrove: $1.30
2. Angus Houston: $4.00
3. John Howard: $8.00
4. Michael Kirby: $11.00
5. Penelope Wensley: $13.00

If Tony makes the appointment Kirby wouldn’t be on the short list. He is a gay man. Which of them is Catholic? And Penelope would be disqualified on the basis of sex, even with sex appeal. And Angus isn’t in favour of turning the boats. Thus Peter should be odds on.

The Polls yet again.

Newspoll, Fairfax and others suggest an impending disaster. Main stream media has a field day creating stories within stories. Some of the polls have margins that are simply not believable. No one questions the veracity of them. As long as they deliver a story who cares.
They seem bizarre. 252 people in Dobell and 253 people in Robertson, rung on landlines, out of 170,000 voters all up show that,000 of them have changed their minds and now think Abbott a better PM than Rudd. How can this be? A statistician friend of mine once told me never to believe a survey or poll under 1000 heads.

We should ban the bloody things for the duration.
England actually bans all forms of political advertising.

Ashbygate. I am still outraged.

I have written a number of posts on this subject and my anger has not abated. The three judges hearing this matter have yet to reveal their judgement and one has to wonder about the delay. I should hope it is not politically motivated. I have always felt that this matter, this conspiracy to overthrow a government always had the potential for a far reaching scandal.

Independent Australia have uncovered some prospective evidence or allegations that if proven will shock this nation to the core. This is like a balloon waiting for some kid to put a pin in it.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/ashbygate-emerging/

Sunday August 18

The other assassin of hope, Morrison is on Insiders and I toss up whether to turn it off so as not to spoil the remainder of the day. Then they cross to a press conference of Abbott introducing his Parental Leave scheme. There is little new in it but he insists it is fully costed by the budgetary office, in fact he repeats it about ten times. It won’t start until 2015 which is somewhat of a mystery.

The costing’s

But the subject of budget honesty is ever present. Previously I have conceded that both parties use costing’s as a last minute distraction. This time there is an imperative. It’s about the economy stupid. We are being asked to elect the best party to manage the economy. How do we trust a party that is unequivocally trying to hide everything? Abbott’s decision to leave it until the final days to reveal how he will pay for his promises probably reflects his confidence. But his reluctance to come clean casts grave doubts on his and his party’s credibility.

My tip is that he will release the figures on the day all political advertising is banned.

Posted on AIMN this morning was an immensely well-articulated piece of writing on this topic.

https://theaimn.com/2013/08/18/worse-than-disrespect/comment-page-1/#comment-21075

On the subject of porkies

Last Thursday evening on the ABC Tony Abbott quoted the “respected” website PolitiFact to help rebut claims by Labor that the Coalition has a $70b hole in its costing’s.
The website – designed to hold pollies to account – labelled the attacks by Labor as “false”.

It got me thinking, if Abbott is so inspired by the judgments on the site, has it criticised any of his comments on the campaign trail as being false?
Here are seven of the best, but don’t worry there are many many more:
1. False: Abbott’s comment that “the world is moving away from carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes.”
2. Mostly false: the GST can’t be changed without the agreement of the states.
3. Mostly false: that there are 20,000 more bureaucrats than in 2007 when Labor was elected.
4. Mostly false: Abbott’s claim that abolishing the carbon tax, the mining tax and getting productivity up could “produce 1 million new jobs in five years, 2 million new jobs in a decade”.
5. Mostly false: Abbott’s claim Rudd’s “spend-a-than” has the budget “blowing out by $3 billion a week”.
6. Mostly false: That red tape has increased under Labor with 21,000 new examples of it and just 300 areas where red tape has been removed.
7. Mostly false: That whether the carbon price is fixed or floats it is still a tax.

The power of words.

I am always impressed with people who can condense a volume of thoughts into a few sentences.

This from Stuart Whitman.

There is still hope
The polls aren’t looking great for Labor but I cannot accept that the Australian people in all their good sense will reward Tony Abbott for his sole contribution to our country in recent years of manufacturing a false sense of crisis and chaos. Every family who has been touched by disability, every teacher who knows the needs of their schools and students, every parent with children in the state education system, ever IT specialist who gets the importance of the digital future, every gay and lesbian person yearning for legal protection of their love, every public servant whose jobs are under threat from Coalition cuts, every pensioner who has seen their pensions increase under Labor, every worker concerned to keep good wages and conditions and every one of us concerned about the growing impact of global warming, will vote this election. How could any of us vote against our own interests and the welfare of Australia?

4PM Sunday I turn over to ABC 24 to hear Kevin Rudd making an impassioned speech to a group of people in Sydney’s Western Suburbs. That’s more like it Kevin.

Main Stream Media

I came across an article on Crickey about the latest disastrous newspaper sales. No wonder they are worried.This is my view of how they are trying to arrest their sales crisis.

“It is said of pornography (and I am not expert in this field) that in order to maintain the viewers or readers interest it needs to progressively become more outlandish – more tantalising – more seductive-more flirtatious-more provocative – more stunning and more enticing. And in their desire to maintain some dominance, that’s exactly what main stream media is doing. It has chosen to prostitute itself in the forlorn hope of remaining relevant”

Let’s hope the bloggers can pick up the pieces.

Newspaper circulation results shocker: the contagion edition

And another on the same subject

http://loonpond.blogspot.com.au/

Monday August 19

Morgan shows Labor trailing the LNP 51% to 49% and Newspoll have the LNP on 54% to Labor 46% both TPP. Both are not good but the disparity needs some explanation. Newspoll only poll landlines. I don’t know any 20 to 30 year olds likely to pick up a phone on the kitchen wall. Morgan poll Landline, face to face, social media and mobiles. I will leave it to the reader to discern the difference.
Perhaps the Australian is afraid to change its methodology to reflect a more modern society in case it produces different results. And I have to say, some of the methods used to poll individual electorates almost borders on the fraudulent. None the less, trends are important and I confess to an overwhelming feeling of ambivalence.
When I finish writing this I look up the Essential Poll of six days ago. It has Labor on 49% and the LNP at 51%.
Parental Leave Scheme

I found this comment on Facebook:
Simon Grubb
Got to love it. A fully costed policy Abbott reckons. On one hand he gives Big business a 1.5% tax cut cross the board. Then gives some of them a 1.5% tax increase to fund his richies paid maternity. Gives them all a tax cut, then taxes a small % of them, and somehow he has raised the 5 Billion to fund his ridiculous scheme. Where an Enrolled nurse, who works her ass off gets only $18,000 to have a baby. Whilst some rich bitch, sitting on her ass selling insurance gets $75,000 to have a baby. $ 83,000 with super. Making one child nearly 4 times the value of another. Sounds fair Tony. How will he fund this, the biggest high class welfare check in the history of the world? You can see now why 90% of people on $150,000 or more vote Liberal.

The other thing that puzzles me with this announcement is the absence of a big complaining business voice. Has a promise been made? I’m thinking ‘’Work Choices.’’

Tuesday August 20

6AM The alarm goes off and the ABC News tells me that WA Premier thinks the Coalition’s Parental leave scheme is a bad idea and will not contribute toward it. It seems the plan is under sustained attack.

There is a very considered piece by Kay Rollison on this subject at the AIMN
https://theaimn.com/2013/08/19/inequitable-rubbish/

Where is the money coming from?

The costing’s thing just won’t go away for the opposition and the longer they leave it the more their credibility suffers. I have always said that detail is one of Tony Abbot’s weaknesses. This article, by Michael Gordon aptly demonstrates this to be the case.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/coalitions-lack-of-detail-on-cost-is-damning-20130819-2s7e7.html

10 Am. I had better post this and mentally prepare myself for the policy spray I am going the coalition tomorrow. And I have to catch up on Q&A from last night.

Oh before I go I thought I should include another poll. This one from The Guardian Lonergan. ALP 48% LNP 52% It had the Greens on 12% with preferences flowing to Labor.

One last thought.

“Debate is not of necessity about winning or taking down ones opponent. It is an exchange of facts ideas and principles. Or in its purest form it simply the art of persuasion”

Now a biased man wouldn’t say that. Would he?

NBN: Redefining Possible

Guest post by Ozfenric.

There’s been a lot of noise in certain corners of the media about Rupert Morlock Murdoch and his opposition to the NBN in Australia, which translates to his pulling out all the stops to bury the Australian Labor Party’s chances of electoral victory. It is unknown whether he will be successful in this effort. It’s certainly possible; by the American model of politics, it is possible to buy elections, and he wouldn’t be using such prime broadsheet real estate if it wasn’t at least somewhat effective. It’s also unclear whether the sudden ramping up of hysterical anti-Labor rhetoric is specifically due, as Fairfax posits, to a fear of the NBN’s commercial impact upon Murdoch’s cash-cow, Foxtel, or simply because News Ltd papers have been steadfastly against Labor since day one and the announcement of an election was a bait they couldn’t resist. But let’s, for the moment, accept the former proposition: this is all about the NBN and Foxtel. What a great excuse to examine the potential benefits of the NBN under Labor’s FTTP model.

(Technical note for lay people: FTTP = Fibre to the Premises – wherein NBN Co foots the bill for not only laying optical cable along every street, but also for wiring it to your property, like your current fixed-line telephone cable. Assuming you have one, which is no longer a given in the modern age. The Coalition’s alternative will run the cable along the streets, but it will terminate roughly on each street corner, and if you want to use it you’ll use a connection between your existing copper phone cable and the closest Node to your property, with physical limits on the speed that you can achieve over copper, even assuming it to be in good condition. Alternatively you can pay for optical fibre to be run from the node to your premises, at an estimated cost of up to $5000…  ahem. Enough proselytising: we’re here to talk about the plan as it exists now, not the hobbled version of a Coalition future. The costs of the two models, and the technical merits thereof, are beyond the scope of this post.)

Detractors of the government’s FTTP NBN model often make the claim that its primary uses will be for “more interactive gambling or more movie downloads” (Tony Abbott: 2011, and just about every comment troll on this subject, everywhere, ever.) The image invoked is of greasy-haired teenagers in their parent’s basements, only pausing from downloading Game of Thrones and playing World of Warcraft for a quick spot of pornography before moving on to the next map in Counterstrike. If that were all that the NBN offered, I would find myself hard pressed to justify the investment too. (Although I wouldn’t make the continued mistake of calling it a massive waste of taxpayers’ money, seeing as taxpayers are actually not paying for it.) But as some have said, the NBN is a case of “build it, and ideas will come“. We don’t know the majority of uses the NBN will eventually be put to. They haven’t even been thought of yet. We need to have the capacity before people will start thinking of the opportunities it will offer.

That said, it is reasonable to use the leading edge of technology practice today to make some informed guesses about the technological directions that might be in use in the world of tomorrow. A lot of the ideas that follow are already here or just on the horizon. I’m also looking specifically at uses that will affect the everyday user in their suburban home, rather than offices; the need for fast broadband in office buildings is pretty much a given. When the accusation is made that all uses of the NBN will be for trivial purposes, it’s couched in terms of homes, so let’s focus specifically on that environment.

Entertainment

Let’s start with Tony Abbott’s “more interactive gambling or more movie downloads”. It’s certainly one area where current users can benefit from the increased bandwidth on offer from Labor’s FTTP model. The Coalition must have a few MPs with streaming foxtel, because they are certain that “25MB per second will be more than sufficient for most users”. But obviously their MPs haven’t upgraded to UltraHD TVs, which have four times the resolution of standard HD. Personally I’m not intrigued, but if television that eats 25MB/s is already available in the stores, I’m not taking a bet that the next generation of entertainment devices (perhaps holographic? Smellovision?) will require significantly more again. And yes, faster bandwidth means faster downloads of torrented material as well as the legal stuff. But this is hardly forward-looking.

Videoconferencing and telecommunications

Most top ten lists of NBN uses talk about e-Health. Some also list e-learning. A few might talk about videoconferencing. It all boils down to the same thing: long-distance high-speed communication with pictures. Whether it’s high-def imagery of a mole or a wound so your doctor can make an informed decision, or streaming the operating theatre so the surgeon can remotely control the robot arm that’s taking out your appendix, or interactive whiteboards and teleconferencing with your teacher, the possibilities of this use alone are endless. Imagine what today would be like if we were still restricted to the telegraph. That’s how today is going to look from the perspective of the future. (Note that unless someone has a really bad morning before drafting legislation, video content on your phone calls will still be optional in the future.) Videoconferencing is already here and in wide use in business circles. As an IT professional, I can attest to the poor quality currently offered even in an office equipped with high-speed current-generation broadband. At its simplest, this is because the quality of the communication depends upon two things: the quality of the connection for every participant, which is why ubiquity of service is important; and the upload bandwidth available. Most current “broadband” uses a technology that gives reasonably fast download speeds to your computer, but much slower speeds on upload back to the internet. For most internet use this isn’t a problem, all you’re sending is small requests for content. But in videoconferencing, you’re sending as much data as you’re receiving, and current technologies don’t cut it. The NBN is a symmetrical technology, meaning that your upload speeds can be as fast as your downloads, so now the person on the other end of the call can see and hear you as well as you them.

The Internet of Things

This current buzzword refers to internet functionality being built into all kinds of household devices. There is a trend in this direction, with entertainment devices leading the charge, but being followed closely by refrigerators (new models which can maintain an inventory of contents and automatically order replenishments when stocks are getting low) and remote household control of lights, central heating, and checking if you left the oven on. Electricity and water smart meters will require connectivity. Your answering machine will be video capable, connected to your front door camera, and available to stream the video of the Jehovah’s Witnesses leaving that pamphlet on your doorstep despite your “no junk mail” signs. It’s even feasible that you might be able to answer the door or your home phone while you are in the office. None of these applications will require huge amounts of bandwidth or speed, but taken together they add to a low level noise that is always on.

Telecommuting

Many people currently work from home. In an ever more connected world, where workers in many fields are continually mobile and supplied with laptops and tablet computers, the maintenance of a dedicated office may become more and more an extravagance. But there are limitations and hurdles to overcome, not least being the requirement for home workers to have access to the resources they need. Often these resources are tangible – computers, printers, phones. But these things can be purchased and are increasingly simple to support and manage from a central location. More difficult are information and data resources.

Internet bandwidth is already a limiting factor for many teleworkers. Architects need to regularly download, work on and then re-upload plans and diagrams. CAD operators, 3D modellers, graphic artists – these creative or information-reliant jobs are the kinds of jobs most suited to working from a remote location, but also the most reliant on the traffic of large amounts of data. Some workers currently migrate from rural areas to the cities in order to acquire the bandwidth they need. Others simply give up on teleworking and base themselves in an office, with all of the impacts on travel time and work/life balance that this entails.

Again, it is upload speed that is often the killer. Information workers and creative experts often spend many hours building, drawing, sketching or designing highly detailed outputs, creating very large files. Hard disk space is cheap. Your personal computer is more than powerful enough to data-crunch rendered 3D animated scenes with aplomb. But getting the resulting terabytes of data back to the office is where it all falls down. The NBN to your home will allow you to send those files back to your office in blinding speed, allowing you to download the next set of files and get back to work quicker. The only thing that suffers under this proposal is your spare time to play with your children while you might have otherwise been waiting an hour for the files to finish uploading.

One of the downsides of teleworking is the lack of presence with the team. This is another area where the NBN will unleash potentials. Multi-party videoconferencing with collaborative editing of a document is currently the reserve of advanced companies within their offices. In the future, being at home will be no barrier to being a part of the team brainstorming session or the design project team.

The future of computing

All of the above ideas are currently in practice to some extent. Some are in use in business which can afford the bandwidth and equipment requirements. Others are in their first stages of development into the domestic market. But all of them will benefit from increased investment and phenomenal increases in usability and functionality once they are adopted much more widely. Now we can start to think a bit more ambitiously.

Software as a Service (SAAS)

Recently Adobe Software discontinued the production and sale of boxed versions of their software applications. They are part of a growing trend towards digital distribution of software. But this is old-school: you still install the software on your local hard drive and from that point you run it from your own computer. Even if it requires always-on internet (generally not received very well in internet-challenged Australia) it’s not really SaaS.

Microsoft’s Office365 offering is a much better example of consumer-level SaaS. If you have a license for 365, you can open, edit and save Microsoft Office files from your cloud storage on a computing device with nothing but an internet browser. This includes your Android tablet, internet kiosk computer, or your iToy of choice. You can even use your touchscreen phone if you’re feeling masochistic. The web server does all the work of generating the interface and accepting your commands. There are clear benefits for users in the freedom from dependence upon a specific computer; all you need is an account and an internet connection.

Office365 is late to the game, of course. Google Docs has been doing this for years, allowing users to create, edit and share word processed documents, spreadsheets and other files in the cloud. The recent Chromebook computers that the search behemoth has brought out don’t include an operating system to run Office, Pages or other traditional software. They rely entirely upon internet-served software including Google Docs. Clearly, local hard drives and installed software are not a big part of the future Google sees.

In addition to sending and receiving your working files, though, this model requires regular transmission of the data that forms the applications you’re using. As more and more software companies make the switch to serving their application through the web, rather than requiring installation, fast broadband will become ever more important.

Platform as a service (PAAS)

The logical extension of SaaS is Platform as a Service. PaaS spells the end of the computer as we know it. The idea is driven by the need for control and standardisation. As any IT systems manager knows, IT management is largely a matter of disaster prevention. Computer users have a long and proud history of installing anything and everything on their computers, up to and including a file for showing cute pictures of cats, named “Cat-Haxxor-lmfao!1!.exe”. In order to prevent this, or to easily repair the damage once it’s occurred, large organisations adopt Standard Operating Environments: a set of accepted software from operating system to installed programs. Anything else is not allowed to install, and if disaster strikes it’s easy to wipe the slate clean and reinstall the whole package.

The NBN will allow large companies to control the systems environments of their employees, in the office or at home, by streaming a new copy of the whole package every time you log onto your computer for work. Employees will only be able to log onto the work network with an appropriately controlled and safe computer. With the NBN, a home-based Australian employee of a US company will share exactly the same operating environment as everyone else in the organisation.

It’s not too much of a stretch to see this concept extended beyond the realm of work; where Microsoft or another company will offer a complete virtual computing experience. Windows 8 is already moving down this path; you log on to the computer using your Microsoft account, and your account is synchronised between any Windows 8 computers you log into. When this happens, it really will be the end of the desktop PC. It will probably also be the end of laptops and possibly tablets as well. Why carry a screen with you, when any surface can be turned into a desktop? When every house and every office and every shopping centre has connected terminals that you can log into to stream either your work environment or your personal (play) environment? The recent remake of Total Recall, despite its various flaws, showed this kind of computing future. It may be another thirty years away – it equally might be less than ten. But it won’t happen in Australia if we don’t have ubiqitous fast broadband.

Haptics

What’s video conferencing and ultra-high-definition holographic entertainment without utilising the sense of touch? There is already plenty of work being done in the area of touch feedback. From sensory gloves to complete virtual reality systems, the ability to add vibrational and motion feedback has good potential to be a major part of future computing. But touch feedback, like video conferencing, requires fast data transmission in both directions: a remote computer needs to sense what you’re doing pretty much instantly and feed back the appropriate response. A delay of even a few milliseconds may be enough to break any suspension of disbelief that working on a remote machine may require. Fast broadband will make all sorts of things possible, from remote driving of mechanical suits in hazardous areas to fine motor control over surgical instruments, to virtual reality and, naturally, a revolution in the experience of online pornography.

3D printing and fabrication

Domestic 3D printing is all the rage these days. 3D printers use detailed CAD plans to build physical objects using a substrate – often a kind of plastic. The technology has been in development for well over a decade, and is now reaching the exponential stage. What are now large, expensive and fiddly machines and processes will become ever smaller and faster and more useful over time. It won’t take too long before 3D printers will be available to buy at Harvey Norman, and not too long after that potentially even embedded into wearable devices. The possible uses of 3D printing are still being discovered, but could easily include assembly parts (from tools to clips and screws; from panels to electronics), 3D models, even musical instruments. People have succeeded in printing their own weaponry. For some kinds of online shopping in the future, you won’t need to wait for delivery; you’ll instantly download a 3D plan and send it to your printer for fabrication. Once again, scads of data transmission is required for every downloaded plan, and if the technology takes off it will add to the ongoing demand for bandwidth.

While we’re talking Star Trek technology, let’s go one step further. If transporter technology is ever developed, it will entail disassembling an item (or a person) at one location and reassembling an exact replica at the destination. Whilst the actual method of accomplishing this is still unknown, you just know that it’s going to require the near-instantaneous transmission of quintillibytes of data. Believe it or not, there are people currently working on this kind of technology. If they succeed, it will be decades before it becomes commercially available. But the thing about the fibre cable that forms the NBN is that it won’t be outdated; it will likely still be around and in daily use.

The future is an exciting place and the technological possibilities seem endless. But life and society will increasingly revolve around fast, ubiquitous, and always-on network connectivity. Labor’s NBN sets Australia up to be a part of this, and potentially to be a leading developer of the technologies that will shape the lives of the next generations.

First posted 9/8/2013 on the Random Pariah.

 

John Lord’s Election Diary Update No. 9

Image by climate-change-guide.com

Image by climate-change-guide.com

“After digesting the lead article in the Fairfax papers (Friday Aug 16) I am apt to wonder just what sort of a country Tony Abbott intends turning us into. What a disgusting excuse for a human being he is. This racial hatred has gone too far. Are we to be the laughing stock of the world.”

Tuesday August 13

My Thought for the Day

“The right to participate in an election is the gift that democracy gives. Therefore, it is incumbent on the voter to at least have a rudimentary understanding of politics and to take an interest in the political landscape”

I turn on the ABC at noon to find that Treasury has released its budget update PEFO. The bottom line is that it is in line with the forecasts for the economy revealed by the Government. So the experts are saying that contrary to the picture painted by Abbott and Hockey the Government has not lost control of the country’s finances. Quite the opposite. Assuming normal growth over the medium-term, they see the budget returning to surplus in 2016-17, reaching a substantial surplus of roughly 1 per cent of GDP (gross domestic product) by 2019-20, and then staying there.

Now under the Charter of Budget Honesty (originated by Peter Costello) the opposition must surely come clean. If this election is about the economy then we have a right to compare apples with apples. And if their economic strategy is based on debt (the reduction of it) and deficit then the opposition will have to say where and what they intend to cut. The longer they delay the more the public pressure will build.

To quote Tim Colebatch:

‘’It is good for Australia that we are run by officials like that. If the Coalition does not succumb to hubris, it will realise it will also be good for a Coalition government to have senior officials who will tell it the truth, and not what it wants to hear.’’

‘’This PEFO contains no smoking gun. Quite the opposite: our two economic officials have confirmed that the numbers the government has published were the numbers prepared by the experts at Treasury and the Department of Finance.’’

So how will Abbott and Hockey react? Last week they were calling the Treasury Department incompetent fools. Abbott said that the public could determine the budget bottom line themselves. I felt that was a preposterous thing to say. Insulting actually.

So will they continue to berate the very people they will have to work with? Yes it will be a question of credibility if they cannot produce plausible costing’s. And trust also.

Another Poll

The Essential Poll published today:
2 Party Preferred: ALP 49 (0) L/NP 51 (0)
Primary Votes: ALP 39 (+1) L/NP 43 (0) GRN 8 (-1)

Greasy Still

Behind the counter was one of Australia’s most divisive political figures – a woman regularly accused of racism and xenophobia?
Today, it is a migrant success story, run by a Vietnamese couple who came to this country 20 years ago. Pauline Hanson says she hopes to pop in one day, say hello and pick up a few dollars’ worth of chips. It’s a scene few would have imagined in 1996.

Yes it was all of 17 years ago. I still have a newspaper article criticising her maiden speech. A speech in which she wrong on 22 point out of the 24 she made.

The Suppository of Wisdom.

The suppository of wisdom
Is a curious little thing
It’s placed in nether regions
To make you look quite dim
It’s used by Abbott’s LNP
To produce their fiscal charts
And explains the gross stupidity
Of Abbott’s great brain farts

So what is a suppository?
And what’s it supposed to do?
You shove it up your botty hole
To clean out all the poo
It’s not a thing of wonder
And it’s not a thing of class
And it’s not usually a wisdom thing
Cos you shove it up your arse
So was it just a Freudian slip
Or something much more telling
As the lack of Abbott’s costing’s

For the remaining verses go here. It gets better depending on whatever medication you’re on.

http://truthseekersmusings.wordpress.com/

Another Abbottism

On his first trip to the key marginal seat of Lindsay in western Sydney, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott was asked how Liberal candidate Fiona Scott compared with her Coalition predecessor Jackie Kelly:

“They’re young, they’re feisty and, I think I can probably say, have a bit of sex appeal,” Mr Abbott told reporters.

Ms Scott laughed uncomfortably and took it in her stride, but the comment predictably caused a stir on Twitter. Tony Abbott’s daughters described his sexist remark as a dad moment. Perhaps they meant a bad moment.
In isolation one might be inclined to forget the remark however, on top of his previous remarks you could only conclude that he has form. And on top of his suppository remark, which has gone viral around the world I feel I’m have one of those cringe moments. Perhaps he was inferring that he was indeed in a race to the bottom. Gaffs are a normal part of his persona and I am thinking about international diplomacy.

Dave Gaukroger @dfg77 3h

If I were in Abbott’s camp I’d be recommending a “gaffe” every day, perfect distraction from policy and costing’s, journos lap it up.

More from Murdoch

The daily Telegraph were at it again today. Just when you think their bile has a limit they extend their biliousness to the Prime Ministers family. A picture of his 19 year old son Marcus is published with cigar in mouth with a reference to the increase in the cost of fags. Why should a young man barely out of his silly teenage years be subjected to ridicule for what looks suspiciously like political point scoring? As one person opined on Twitter: “If this is newsworthy, I can assume he is pregnant”.

James Diaz

Well he made another tongue tied appearance today with Tony Abbott. We deserve better.

And it looks like Malcolm is playing loose with the truth.

$20,000 for 1Gbps: Turnbull’s Lateline lie

Wednesday August 14

Despite the mendacious Murdoch media and the Coalition framing it as a dangerous disaster, Labor’s pink batts scheme was an outstanding success, explains

Alan Austin

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/we-really-must-talk-about-the-pink-batts/

Preferences

In a bold move designed to eliminate the possibility of another hung parliament Tony Abbott has decided not to preference the Greens in any seat. This will make it exceedingly hard for Adam Brandt to retain his seat of Melbourne. The decision will however shore up Labors vote in other seats and in effect might give Labor three seats.

A brave gamble and one he will pay a heavy price for should he lose. What Abbott is saying is that the minority government of the past three years was a monumental failure. This of course is (if you look at the record of legislation past) is fundamentally untrue. Now of course in placing the Greens last he actually prefers the marijuana Party, the Smokers’ Rights Party, the Australian Sex Party, the Pirate Party, the Equal Parenting Party, the Voluntary Euthanasia Party, the Animal Rights Party, the Socialist Equality Party, the Communists and the Coke in the Bubblers Party to the Greens.

Hockey rejects surplus date

How insulting to the department you will rely on to give you economic prediction and analysis if you win government. So it now appears that Hockey has rejected PEFO and will go to the election with idea of when it might return to surplus. Mr Hockey’s excuse is that the figures are too volatile. To quote the Financial Review:

The pre-election economic and fiscal outlook released on Tuesday shows the Coalition would punch a $16 billion revenue hole in the budget should it abolish the carbon price, the mining tax and changes to fringe benefits tax on motor vehicles as promised. That hole would grow to more than $20 billion if a Coalition government refused to enact the $5.8 billion tobacco tax increase recently promised by Labor.
In short Mr Hockey has dismissed treasuries analysis of the nation’s economic status.

The fact is that PEFO shows the carbon tax ¬abolition would cost $9.7 billion in gross revenue over the forward estimates. The removal of the mining tax would cost another $4.4 billion and reversing the FBT decision another $1.8 billion, totalling $15.9 billion. Tony Abbott has already promised to offset the cost of abolishing the carbon tax by axing other government programs so he could keep the associated household compensation worth $4 billion a year and fund a company tax cut, worth $2.5 billion a year. The costing details are still to be released.

He has a lot of explaining to do and my prediction is that his final costings will be handed in two days before the election and that the main stream media will allow him to get away with it.

I Fear the Audit Review.

Another excellent read from Alan Austin.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/we-really-must-talk-about-this-debt-nonsense/

Abbott on Marriage Equality

I think I’m having a quiet afternoon until this hits Facebook. I reach for a couple of blood pressure tablets. Then I decide on a Becks and a lay down. Did he really say that? No politician would say that. Would they? He did.

In an interview with John Laws Tony Abbott describes marriage equality as being ‘’The Fashion of the Moment’’. What a disgusting thing it is for a political leader to describe same sex folk in loving relationships as being involved in a “fashion of the moment”. How disingenuous is that. That’s his third gaffe in three days and I for one would be happy if he would just shut his mouth. Every time he opens it he just insults people.

Thursday August 15

I’m wondering what on earth there is to write about. The Murdoch press is full of its never ending tirade of anti Labor drivel. Then I turn on ABC 24 to find Tony Abbott giving a news conference and proclaiming that his Direct Action Plan will reduce carbon emissions by 5%. Good I think to myself, now the journalists can ask some pertinent questions. Questions like What species of trees will be planted? How long will they take to mature? Who will water them? If the plan doesn’t work, what is plan B? Now I could go on but I think I have made my point.

I wait in anticipation but instead of climate questions they start asking questions about Katy Perry.

Shit I say to myself, doesn’t anyone care. I don’t even think they have a Climate Policy. My guess is that after their audit (should they win) will be along the lines of un affordability. Or when the rest of the world decides then we will join in.

I ask myself why it is that Greg Hunt prefers to listen to the 1 % of scientists, whilst describing the other 99% as ‘silly’

My thought

‘In terms of the environment. I wonder what price the people of tomorrow will pay for the stupidity of today’

Then I read in the SMH that the Coalition will need to spend $4 billion more than it has budgeted under its direct-action climate policy to meet Australia’s minimum 5 per cent emissions cut by 2020, new economic modelling has found.

The results – drawn from analysis by consultants SKM MMA and Monash University’s Centre of Policy Studies – finds under the Coalition plan Australia’s emissions would increase unless more money was committed.

By 11am I am becoming disillusioned. We don’t seem to be making any traction at all. When is Rudd going to go on the attack? We should be focusing on Abbott’s character and his propensity for telling lies. Instead we are allowing him to do the reverse. And we should be hammering a no policies no costings theme.

I have decided on an aspirin and a lay down.

In the afternoon I hear Joe Hockey say the following

”If the whole election’s going to be about costing’s rather than about policies like we’re announcing today, then I think everyone is going to bore the Australian people to death and we don’t want to do that”

This is the man who expects to be the next treasurer. In any case I would welcome being bored to death, just so long as they are telling the truth about where and what they are going to cut.

It is fair to say that Labor in the past has held back its costing’s. This election however, is a test of economic credibility. Another way of looking at it is.

A Facebook comment.

‘’I’d rather be “bored to death” with the costing’s…..than to be left wondering just how the Coalition will pay for all their “promises”. We need to know where you’re getting the money from Tony. You want voters to just trust you to do the right thing……without telling them how you’re going to fund everything. That’s like asking someone to come and work for you without telling them up front how much they will be paid, or what their working conditions will entail. Nobody in their right mind would take on a job, sign up for 3 years, to a job they don’t know the details of.’’

Friday August 16

Last night I watched 7.30. Under some duress. I had two grand kids crawling all over me but did I get the following right. Something about school principals getting a budget and ‘’HE’’ can make his own decisions.

Not another one I think. God the man suffers from foot and mouth decease. Does he think that women exist only for sex appeal.

I then go to the front pages of the Fairfax press:

‘’Residency for refugees ruled out’’

Just when you think the race to the bottom has been reached, Abbott and Morrison find a way to plunge deeper into the abyss.

I respond on Facebook thus:

‘’After digesting the lead article in the Fairfax papers I am apt to wonder just what sort of a country Tony Abbott intends turning us into. What a disgusting excuse for a human being he is. This racial hatred has gone too far. Are we to be the laughing stock of the world.’’

‘’In my lifetime I cannot think of two Christian politicians who have done more to incite racial hatred than Abbott and Morrison.’’

“You cannot possibly believe in democracy if at the same time you think you’re party is the only one that should ever win”

As a democrat I used to wholeheartedly embrace that. But I’m sweeping it under the carpet for this one.

I am so disgusted, revolted and offended that I cannot write another word.

I’m not sure that I want to continue.

Scroll Up