How far does Tony Abbott want to take us back? Ten years? Twenty years? Some people say 50 years. Warwick O’Neill suggests it might be even further.
By now we’ve all heard the arguments against Tony and Joe’s budget; claims that it favours the rich, creates a two class society and it’s taking Australia back fifty years. Although I agree with most of these claims, I can’t support the theory that Australian society will regress 50 years with the impact of this budget. That is way too short sighted. Any student of military history will see that this budget is indeed taking us back nearly 200 years to a politically endorsed situation designed to ensure the status quo so only the wealthy (ie upper class) can prosper.
For those who don’t understand military hierarchy, a commissioned officer is a soldier who essentially starts their career half way up the rank structure. In this day and age in Australia, young men and women apply to Duntroon or ADFA, and on successful completion of their training, enter the army with the rank of Lieutenant. They then progress through the ranks and after 25-30 years they become Generals and run the whole show. The rest of the soldiery join up, complete their training, and enter the army with the less than impressive collective name of OR’s (Other Ranks). An OR can rise through the ranks and become an NCO (Non Commissioned Officer), and after 25-30 achieve the dizzy heights of Warrant Officer . . . and still be out ranked by the freshly hatched Lieutenant. Sounds strange, I know, but it does work.
Now, back in the late 1700’s and through to the mid-late 1800s in England, Commissioned and Non Commissioned ranks existed but unlike today when anyone, regardless of background can become a Commissioned Officer, in those days only the wealthy upper class , regardless of their ability, could obtain a Commission. The lower classes could only join the army as ORs.
Why? Surely even people of humble birth can be talented leaders?
To put it simply, this was put in place to ensure that only the rich could maintain control of the British Army. “You see Old Bean, those chaps across the channel, the Froggies, they promoted people based on merit. On how well they did their job, of all things! So some of those dashed peasants rose in rank to a point where they actually controlled the army. That’s when their damnable common blood compelled them to use the army to over throw the French aristocracy, and found a society based on liberty and freedom for all, regardless of their birth. Can you imagine such a ghastly thing, Curruthers?”
So, to ensure no such state of affairs could occur in England a system of purchasing rank was introduced. Essentially, a young chap uses part of his family’s fortune to purchase a Commission in the best unit that he can afford. So maybe he starts as a Cornet in the 12th Hussars. He bides his time until and Lieutenancy becomes available, and he purchases that, recouping some of the money by selling his former rank. If, inconveniently, the Hussars are sent overseas to do some actual soldiering, you simply take leave on half pay and stay home. This way a man could rise through the ranks, but because each higher rank was more expensive than the last, only the disgustingly wealthy could rise to the top, usually without seeing any real warfare.
This situation is what led to the disastrous Charge of the Light Brigade during the Crimean War. The three men who were mostly responsible for the Charge had all risen through the ranks through the purchasing system, and at the time of the Crimean War were in positions of Command. None of these men had any experience in leading a campaign and the end result was the heavy losses of experienced, but less wealthy officers, and men.
So how is this relevant to the 2014 Budget in Australia? Let’s examine the parallels.
What would happen to the increasingly wealthy rich classes of Australia if too many of us “common people” received the best possible education, regardless of our limited means. Why, we might flood parliament with representatives from the lower socio-economic backgrounds. If that were to happen, we might even take control and introduce policies which might spread the wealth on a slightly fairer basis. Oh the horror.
They then put their wealthy, educated minds together to figure out how to stop this. “Let’s make it difficult for the peasants to obtain a full education. Let’s make them pay for a visit to a GP, even though they’ve already paid their Medicare Levy. Let’s jack up the fuel excise a couple of times a year. Let’s make the pension age higher, so that young people will have to spend money on taking care of their elderly parents who can no longer work but can’t get Government assistance. Let’s deregulate University fees. Let’s cut funding to Government schools while protecting Government funding of Private schools. Let’s cut support from the unemployed, so they’ll have to resort to crime to support themselves and we can then lock them away. We’ll add a couple of token measures which only us wealthy types have to pay, but will hardly notice, to make it all seem fair (they’ll never catch on – they’re peasants). Surely all this will keep them in such a poor financial position, that they will be unable to afford an education, then can’t make it into parliament thereby maintaining the status-quo for the wealthy ruling class.”
“Well done chaps, pass the Chardonnay. Now, how do we get the women back into the kitchen, and force all non-Christians back to the one true faith?”
I don’t know about you, but I can see some dangerous parallels here. The British Aristocracy actively prevented talented working class people from threatening their rule by imposing financial obstacles. Obstacles that only the rich could overcome. Is the Abbot Government not doing the same thing here, today? Is Australia heading for our own Charge of the Light Brigade, metaphorically speaking?
Isn’t he who forgets the past, condemned to repeat it?
