- In: ACT OPINIONS | Health | Politics
- Leave a Comment
A brief personal message
As you know, due to illness my last blog was posted on 3 September. That it was posted at all was due to a colleague who for a few weeks had been posting my blogs to help ensure my blog would continue.
The blog being published today has been written and posted personally and I will continue to write one as long as I am able. So thanks to all who, during the past weeks, have continued to read it.
Let me end by saying you will find out more by Googling the following website: http://www.actaads.org
The BLOG
My Death has been t suspended Temporarily)
Today that I am sitting in front of my computer at home writing this blog would have seemed inconceivable to me at around 2.30am, Sunday 8th September. That it was inconceivable is due to the fact that I was lying on bed being looked after by paramedics who in the dead of night had transported me by ambulance from my home to Canberra Hospital’s Accident and Emergency Station. That I am alive and not a lump of dead meat was due to the care they exercised on the way from home to hospital. I have now reached the conclusion that, although the words of Dr Samuel Johnson’s were used in a slightly different context, I agree with him that the thought of imminent death concentrates the mind wonderfully.
In a sense I concentrated my mind so that it became my personal mental Google as it recalled my past life. Although unable to speak properly many thoughts reverberated in my mind and made decisions that would never be acted on. Then, mercifully, unconsciousness arrived.
Many hours later I awoke in a bed in the hospital’s acute coronary care unit where I was ministered to by a team of nurses who, as the rest of that day went by, helped encourage me to believe that my life wasn’t about to end immediately. Other people, Cardiologists and consultants led by Chief Cardiologist, Dr Ren Tan, also played a major role in reinforcing that assurance. Indeed no praise is too much for him, his staff or the nursing staff.
And let me also say thanks to my colleagues and friends who, when they visited, helped restore my confidence that life still had something to offer albeit that it was likely to be of limited duration. I say that because only a few weeks before when, less dramatically, I had been hospitalised with another heart attack.
In a non-medical sense, however, I reserve the greatest praise for my wife Valerie and daughter Elizabeth who, between them, make life worth living.
There are many other actors in this story of life and death such as the Community Nurses who every morning come to my home to administer a life sustaining injection. Of the many others, too many to mention, my colleagues in ACTAADS Inc (the ACT Association for Advancing Disabled Sport and Recreation) particularly Chairman Jeff House, Deputy Chairman Luke Jansen, Committee Members Ian Meikle, Michael Mecham, Mark O’Neill, and Liberal MLA, Steve Doszpot.,all of whom deserve my thanks for giving up valuable time to visit and help keep my spirits up
And let me not forget Chuck Lundquist who, during my time in hospital and since my return home, appointed himself chauffer to me and my wife. Other people who need thanking also are Merylanne and Peter Baxter, Dinny Killen and neighbours.
In part I have written this tribute to emphasise that becoming a patient at Canberra hospital is not to be feared, a fear that some people may have acquired after reading letters to the editor about difficulties faced by loved relatives and friends. It is true, no doubt, that mistakes have been made at Canberra Hospital but I suspect they occur due to inadequate management and administration procedures as well as staffing and resource shortages.
That said let me make the point that doctors and staff are not miracle workers but people dedicated to delivering the best care with the tools at their disposal. They do their best but clear they will do even better that if the tools and administrative procedures they work with and to, are improved.
Being frank, I think Canberra’s public would be happier if much of the money being spent on public art was spent on Canberra Hospital.
Comment welcome.
If you would like to receive these Articles automatically you can RSS it or become a follower by using the ‘follow’ connection at bottom right of the published page.
Temporarily out of action.
Posted on: 9 September 2013
Sincere apologies to readers but I won’t be able to be online again until further notice.
At the moment I’m in hospital but hope to be back blogging again shortly.
Best regards
Don.
Politics breeds prejudice
Posted on: 6 September 2013
- In: ACT OPINIONS | Democracy | elections | Government | Politics
- Leave a Comment
My latest blog is always available at: https://donallan.wordpress.com. To make direct contact e-mail me at: dca@netspeed.com.au
Politics breeds prejudice
The idea for this article has long been circulating in my mind but I decided to write it because I’ve now come to the conclusion that the best examples of prejudice I can find are political parties. Political parties are great accommodators of people with prejudices. Strangely however political parties cover up their prejudices by saying they are a broad church.
Conveniently this claim to being a broad church allows them at times to be indistinguishable from the political opponents which is why, come election time, one of the almost constant claims it is difficult to decide which party to vote for because it is hard to tell one party from another.
However, when voters level this accusation at a party in answer, they get a glib explanation that, taken at face value, sounds logical. Unfortunately, because the average voter, the real determiner of which party will gain government, usually accepts these glib explanations, a party’s facade as different from its opponents and a broad church is maintained.
As I write this very scenario is being played out in Australia where, tomorrow, voters will determine which of the two major parties will be the voters’ choice. Let me stress it is a party that will be elected, not an individual, even if the leaders are recipients of all the publicity. Perhaps this is a pre-emptive push to change Australia from Constitutional Monarchy to a Republic.
But the broad church concept is important. This concept has been adopted by major parties because it disguises the fact that within the party there are people who group together in factions of common interest. Although these common interests are often abstract they can radiate to people outside society’s sphere of influence the joy of being part of what they see as a powerful group and as we all know power can be addictive. Indeed, some people within factions become addicted to the acquisition of power and move to what they think a more powerful faction
One shouldn’t be surprised that factions often grow within factions. This, in turn can lead to favouritism, possible party destabilisation and fights for power between men and women ambitious for power. Not to put too fine a point on it, even in Australia, a stable democracy internal power struggles led by factions have taken place recently.
The Labor Party with more factions and thus a greater spread of policy interests lays claim to be the best arbiter of what is good for the people. This is not a view with universal appeal as the Liberals also with factional interests claim their views are more widely held. While this can make for interesting politics it does not necessarily make for good policy or good government. And let’s not forget all of the other parties that think the interests they hold dear are the most important in the world.
The other thing about factions of course, is not just the separation of interests. Factions also represent the division of power within a political party. Make no mistake; despite the rhetoric from politicians, politics is no longer about making the world a better place but about power.
And because politics today is about power it is a dangerous profession. Indeed in the more democratic of the worlds’ democratic countries, the danger might be an assault on the eardrums but in countries where democracy is still growing, physical violence is often the norm.
While for some people politics is simply a means of acquiring power if you want politics to play a role in creating a fairer and more peaceful world you need to be perpetually on guard and avoid electing people with ambitions for power.
Comment welcome.
If you would like to receive these Articles automatically you can RSS it or become a follower by using the ‘follow’ connection at bottom right of the published page.
- In: ACT OPINIONS | elections | Environment | Politics | Religion
- 1 Comment
My latest blog is always available at: https://donallan.wordpress.com. To make direct contact e-mail me at: dca@netspeed.com.au
Ideas constipation is a political ailment
One thing’s become clear to me during the current election campaign: the side that will win Saturday’s election is the one giving voters a sense of confidence that the future will be better than the past.
One would think political parties would have learned this lesson by this time. Labor however, has chosen to continue in the same vein by producing ideas they say are innovative and the basis of new and constructive policies for the future but which, when examined seem like echoes of past ideas and policies that were tried and found wanting, which is why I say ideas constipation is a political ailment.
More to the point, Labor tried to cure its constipation when its Treasurer increased its dosage of financial debt medication and changing Prime Ministers. But the new Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd instead of suffering from constipation, seemed to suffer from verbal diarrhoea with words tumbling from him in torrents.
And did voters understand him? Unfortunately, he was the only one who seemed to understand them with opinion polls not only suggesting they did not understand him but wished him gone. Unfortunately for him, many ministers in his government felt the same.
His opponent Tony Abbott started off with the same level of popularity as Kevin Rudd is now enjoying though I doubt based on his narcissistic persona, he’s finding it enjoyable. Clearly too, Mr Abbott read the electorate better than Mr Rudd. Indeed in some respects the race to the finishing line in the election could be likened to that fabled race between the tortoise and the hare because despite Abbott’s slow speed it looks as if he will get there before Rudd.
Of the other parties none, except the Palmer United Party, expect to win. But not does its constant optimism lighten the political arena it is one of the best examples of political bravado I’ve seen for a long time, even that of the Greens.
The Greens are an odd party. Apart from members with a strong left wing socialist bias it attracts the odds and sods of politics. How any sane person can think the adoption of its policies will keep the world of the future in its current environmental state is beyond belief. And its fanciful ideas on how to cure global warming are in the same category. A world powered by windmills is symptomatic of its delusional fancies and total disregard of Mother Nature’s role in guiding the world since it began which includes the attraction of opposites and the creation of children, which brings me to its push for gay marriage.
I am sick to death of hearing that unless “LOVE” between members of the LGBTI can be translated into marriage they do not have equality in society. Nor do I have time for religious zealots who think marriage a religious sacrament.
Not being of any religious persuasion myself, I do not believe love is necessary for marriage and if LGBTI people cannot understand that, then they really don’t understand marriage and alsoy clearly have little understanding of what equality means.
Comment welcome.
If you would like to receive these Articles automatically you can RSS it or become a follower by using the ‘follow’ connection at bottom right of the published page.
- In: ACT OPINIONS | Democracy | elections | Government
- 2 Comments
Has verballing become the political norm?
While candidates in the Australian Federal Election have another three days to chew anxiously on their fingernails voters are breathing a sigh of relief that the winner of this competition in lying and political verballing will soon be known. Will it be the Liberals Tony Abbott or Labor’s Kevin Rudd who will have the honour of carrying on Machiavelli’s political legacy, loosely called Democracy, on Capital Hill, Canberra?
I say loosely because it seems clear to me that after speaking on the phone to many voters, a good many of them have no clear idea of the policies of the various parties. Indeed, in some respects they will cast their votes for Labor or Liberal based on two things: verballed policies and dislike of the Rudd or Abbott, with the latter playing a large part in their choice.
Without a doubt the election has a presidential focus that is American in style but whether or not it is a system that fits Australia’s political culture is another matter? It may well come to pass that Australia will adopt a presidential system but I think a lot of water will flow under the bridge and a couple of new generations be born before that occurs.
It seems funny also that Australians condemn verballing when done not only by police but by people in various other professions such as media, the law and welfare, to mention but a few. However, during this election campaign verballing has run riot.
It is not unusual for politicians being interviewed to attribute false statements to opponents without verifying their accuracy which, in many cases, had already been shown to be false. Worse still, when the politician is making the false statement, they will, figuratively, hand on heart declare their honesty and integrity.
Over the past hours I have seen television adverts made by allegedly non-political groups supporting a particular party, based mostly on verballed statements. This is not to blame the person speaking the composer of the words and the apparatchiks behind the scene.
A good example of verballing are the words used by the Prime Minister, cut, cut, cut, to describe what he says will see 30,000 jobs disappear in the Public Service, Canberra’s biggest employer, if his opponent in the Prime Ministerial stakes won the election. Well I have heard his opponent say 12, 000 jobs would go by attrition but nowhere have I read or heard him say 30,000.
And in case you think I’m going to let Mr Abbott off, I’m not. He, too, is guilty of verballing but not on the same grand scale as Mr Rudd perhaps because voters already seem to think he is more trustworthy than Mr Rudd and who they would prefer as Prime Minister.
In Canberra itself however, the main battle is for a senate seat between Mr Seselja, Liberal and Mr Sheikh of the Greens, the party that sees itself as politically virtuous. Unfortunately, because Mr Sheikh’s exaggeration and verballing sinks to an even lower level than that of Labor I find my belief in the honesty and integrity of politicians weakening daily along with my belief in democracy.
- In: ACT OPINIONS | Democracy | elections | Politics
- 1 Comment
My latest blog is always available at: https://donallan.wordpress.com. To make direct contact e-mail me at: dca@netspeed.com.au
The unknown candidates in Saturday’s election
Not high profile and also unlikely winners of seats in Saturday’s election, l must apologise to the following candidates for omitting them from yesterday’s blog; they deserved better. They deserved better because they are the people who, without hope of reward put their daily lives on line to put forward ideas they believe can solve problems affecting voters.
And though some of their ideas might possibly solve voters’ problems, sadly they get little opportunity to put them to voters because the media tends to concentrate on candidates from the major parties although it will select a few of the unknowns to avoid being labelled biased.
Unfortunately in yesterday’s blog I contributed to their being disadvantaged further by not recognising them in yesterday’s’ blog. And though this blog may not be of any great help I getting them votes, let me remedy that lack of recognition today.
By the way I am only giving the names of the number on candidates on the ballot paper because they are the candidates the parties hope will be elected. To add to the names in yesterday’s blog you should add the following candidates to your senate list: Palmer United Candidate – Wayne Slattery; Katter Australia Party – Steven Baily; Sex Party – Deborah Avery; Socialist Peoples’ Party – Mark O’Connor; Australian Justice Party – Marcus Filinger; Aust Inds – Anthony Fernie; Rise Up Australia Party – Irwin Ross; Euthanasia Party- Philip Nitschke; Bullet Train for Australia, Chris Bucknell; Drug Law Reform – Paul Cubitt; Ungrouped – Emmanuel Ezekial- Hart.
Inexplicably, I omitted Darren Churchill as a candidate for the house of Representative seat of Fraser. In a sense Darren deserves a seat for trying. Despite his lack of success in many previous campaigns and when many others would have given up, Darren has not only maintained his commitment to Canberra but also maintained his commitment to the Democrats when many previously high profile representatives on the national scene such as Kernot and Bartlett who didn’t fit the profile of when the going gets tough the tough get going, quit the party by decamping to parties in which they hoped to prosper. Unfortunately we have too many soldiers of fortune in today’s ranks of politicians.
I hope many uncommitted voters try and read what these candidates have to say. Perhaps there’s a Socrates – the man who gave democracy to the world- or two among them. And could I discourage them from giving preferences to any party other than Labor or Liberal if only because it’s better preferring the devil you know to the devil you don’t.
Comment welcome.
If you would like to receive these Articles automatically you can RSS it or become a follower by using the ‘follow’ connection at bottom right of the published page.
- In: ACT OPINIONS | elections | Politics
- 2 Comments
My latest blog is always available at: https://donallan.wordpress.com. To make direct contact e-mail me at: dca@netspeed.com.au
The Election Show – Saturday 7 September
Roll Up! Roll Up! Is the cry the electoral office should be using to encourage voters to turn up at polling booths a week from now because during the past three years the behaviour of some Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives seemed better fitted to the circus than parliament. So will this election improve things?
The ACT is the electorate of particular interest to me so a few brief comments on Senate Candidates. Senator Kate Lundy – Labor is a sitting member and unless she makes some catastrophic mistakes during the next week (unlikely) she can start planning her future senatorial programme.
Canberra’s home grown Zed Seselja – Liberal, will, I think claim the vacant second senate seat. He has the necessary political experience gained from a decade in the ACT Legislative Assembly and has practical knowledge of a how a Federal department works having been a lawyer with Transport and Regional services. With five children he want a government that will give them opportunity.
The only other candidate with a chance is Simon Sheik – Australian Greens. Apart from disliking Tony Abbott, the CV I’ve seen shows little by way of motivation. Says he’s passionate about climate change, social justice and closing the gap between the rich and the poor. How will he do it?
ACT candidates for the House of Representatives are more interesting. In Fraser, sitting member Andrew Leigh – Labor, is also likely to win without getting up a sweat which says more about the voters who consistently vote Labor than about Andrew Leigh’s talents. Before politics he was a Professor of Economics at the ANU and briefly a Parliamentary Secretary in the Gillard Government.
Then we have Elizabeth Lee- Liberal. Clearly talented, she is currently a lecturer in law at the Australian National University and University of Canberra and has led both the ACT and Young Lawyers committees and served as an ACT Law Society councillor. Originally from South Korea, I think of her as a model for how a Non- European migrant can succeed in Australia and given the chance, also succeed in Federal Parliament.
As the remaining candidates, Freddy Alejandro Alcazar, – Palmer United Party; Jill Elizabeth Ross – Rise Up Australia Party; and Adam Verwey – Australian Greens seem unlikely to get anywhere in this election, I shall save time by not writing about them.
The ACT’s other electorate Canberra, has more interesting candidates. Gai Brodtmann – Labor. On the basis of Canberra’s political history unless some of the following candidates show outstanding political skills and flair, Ms Brodtmann seems sure of re- election.
Of the other candidates her min challenger will be Tom Sefton – Liberal. A commando officer during two tours of Afghanistan, a Bachelor’s degree in Asian Studies and Law from the ANU and a job as a strategic analyst in Defence Intelligence in his kit bag he clearly has knowledge and skills he can bring to the political battlefield.
Next Julie Melrose – Australian Greens. Because like other Greens her main reason for standing seems hatred of Tony Abbott and as hate is not a policy I can’t see having any chance of success.
Now for Tony Hanley – Palmer United Party. Because he says he has ideas makes him different from many other candidates who effectively iterate policies created by others. But even if you think his ideas wacky at least he has been prepared to put them to the test.
Damien Maher – Bullet Train for Australia, is a small business man who might garner some votes even although unlikely to be successful. He says he says he sees a high speed rail link between Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne as part of the future and because many people in Canberra agree with him, the number of votes he secures will be interesting.
Last but not least, Nicolle Burt – Secular Party of Australia. Nicolle is dissatisfied with both the Labor and Liberal Parties, saying Labor takes voters for granted while the Liberals distrust the ACT. I offer no opinion on her views but they scarcely amount to policy. Nevertheless, she is to be congratulated on standing up and putting them forward.
Comment welcome.
If you would like to receive these Articles automatically you can RSS it or become a follower by using the ‘follow’ connection at bottom right of the published page.
- In: ACT OPINIONS | elections | Government | Politics
- 1 Comment
If you would like to receive these Articles automatically you can RSS it or become a follower by using the ‘follow’ connection at bottom right of the published page.
What is a politician’s first interest?
I always thought I knew the answer to this question but as this federal election drags on to Saturday, 7th September, when our vote will determine which party will govern Australia for the next three years and who will be Prime Minister my original view is changing.
I’ve always thought that, in a federal election, the interest of all candidates, regardless of their personal philosophy or political ideology, would be the country itself. Indeed, from what I hear and read that no longer seems to be the case.
Elections today have become stages where many would be politicians without talent strut while spouting bad rhetoric that lacks sincerity and thus does not stir the emotion of voters. Indeed at times their speeches sound like the inane ramblings of people who have escaped the tower of babel. On the other hand, the same rhetoric delivered by good orators could stir the emotions of listeners and make bad rhetoric sound good.
In days gone by party leaders were chosen because they could deliver stimulating speeches because such speeches were the bread and butter of election campaigns. But the art of making speeches is being lost.
Fewer and fewer politicians are good orators. Facebook and Twitter are fast becoming their stages because their limited capacity for word use makes these allegedly social communication channels the ideal vehicles for politicians many of whose word skill are limited.
Indeed one of the silliest defences an inadequate politician used to defend Twitter and Face-book that I’ve heard was that everyone knows what E= mc2 means but when he was asked to explain he couldn’t. I did say it was a silly defence.
Another thing that has changed is that once upon a time politicians could explain when asked to explain to voters how they would benefit from a policy. Today, unfortunately, many politicians today cannot explain the benefit of policies and why a particular policy will be more beneficial than the equivalent policy of their opponents.
The reason for this is that they have had little or no hand in developing policy. Policy is being created by backroom boys. This becomes evident to such an extent that the phrase the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing springs to mind.
But let me answer the question posed by the blog’s caption. Today, it seems to me the first interest of politicians, particularly those seeking re-election, is self – interest. In speech after speech the interests of the party and their place in I but not in the country take precedence as if the country wouldn’t exist without the party.
At the same time, they try to secure their personal future by asking voters to mortgage their future voting intentions to the party they represent on behalf of their children. They use the iron hand in the velvet club technique with voters by preaching fear that if they don’t elect them, the future of their children will be bleak.
In the process the Australian Government which is seeking re-election today made mistake on mistake because in its haste to make the opposition look dishonest and incompetent they were unprepared when its promises were exposed as worse. They faced the difficulty that faces all political parties when they make policy on the run as they would have know had they been familiar with the Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám that says:
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
Comment welcome.
If you would like to receive these Articles automatically you can RSS it or become a follower by using the ‘follow’ connection at bottom right of the published page.
Elections are now devils’choices
Posted on: 28 August 2013
- In: ACT OPINIONS | Democracy | elections | Government | Politics
- Leave a Comment
My latest blog is always available at: https://donallan.wordpress.com. To make direct contact e-mail me at: dca@netspeed.com.au
Elections are now devils’ choices
The least shamed devils In Australia must surely be the devils assigned to the candidates engaged in Australia’s current election campaign.
No doubt you’ve heard the saying “Tell the truth and shame the devil.” This phrase has a number of alleged sources of origin starting with its biblical one in Matthew: 5:33-37. Its second alleged source is English preacher Hugh Latimer who used it in his Twenty Seven Sermons of 1555 and last but not least, in 1597
Shakespeare has Hotspur using it in Henry 1V.Part 1. You can take your pick but I’ll settle for its biblical origin.
On the basis of speeches and promise made by the two principal protagonists Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbot, both of whom hope the parties they represent, Labor and Liberal respectively, will have enough candidates elected to enable them to form government with one or the other of them as Prime Minister.
Even if all minor party candidates were elected, collectively their number would be insufficient to form government so leaving the field open for Labor or Liberal to form Government by default. Though I can’t swear to it, I feel sure that what we have today is not exactly what Socrates had in mind when enunciating his fledgling ideas of a Democratic system to Plato.
Nor do I think Matthew, Socrates or Shakespeare would be supporters of today’s democratic process in which election candidates who tell the truth seem to be regarded as political liabilities. Worse still not only do voters seem to expect it, they seem suspicious of candidates who tell the truth. And much as voters might deny it the fact is that the list of candidates who have been prosecuted for misusing the privileges of office and lying about it when questioned is lengthening.
Unfortunately the lying starts at the launch of election campaigns as candidates with the subconscious help of their attendant lying devils, shamelessly make false promises and accusations about their opponents and lie also about what their opponents have promised. More unfortunately nary a word is published about these lies that get told so often that as Goebbels said (long before recognition of the Stockholm Syndrome), if you keep telling people the same thing for a long time, they will come to believe it.
Adding to this is that elections have become popularity contests judged by newspaper, TV Polls, and a plethora of political fact checking organisations all of whom claim to be independent. But what do they mean by Independent? At the same time we have sociology, education, science and health experts, et al, queuing up to get on radio and TV who are only too eager to give their opinion on which party is offering the best policies. What is missing with this approach is, do they support a particular party?
With our elections taking on an American flavour and trivia taking the place of serious political discussion perhaps we will soon see female cheer squads, batons twirling, leading cavalcades of candidates to the stage in televised debates as they seek your votes. After the debate viewers will then be asked to vote on who they thought the best candidates.
I can see a new industry blossoming from this suggestion as entrepreneurs set up acting schools for the training of people with political aspirations. On the basis that many people think they can do better than the elected politicians, business should be brisk.
Comment welcome.
If you would like to receive these Articles automatically you can RSS it or become a follower by using the ‘follow’ connection at bottom right of the published page.
- In: ACT OPINIONS | Democracy | elections | Government | Politics
- Leave a Comment
My latest blog is always available at: https://donallan.wordpress.com. To make direct contact e-mail me at: dca@netspeed.com.au
Does Australia want a showground spruiker as PM?
Although I am as yet undecided as to how I will vote on Saturday 7 September, I find myself thinking of putting the Liberals, Labor and the Greens last on the voting paper and giving my vote to one a minor party candidate or an Independent. I’m thinking of doing so because I’ve come to the conclusion that Labor, Liberal and the Greens all think they have the answers to the country’s problems and each think that giving your vote to a candidate for a party other than theirs is tantamount to wasting it.
The logic of this argument is beyond me which isn’t surprising because I think democracy itself is anything but a logical process.
In fact it seems to me that military warfare differs little from political warfare except in one way. Military battles are won by the best fighters whereas the verbal political fights are won by the party whose ranks are filled with the greatest number of political troops.
Sadly, in such battles, logic takes a back seat to sanity leaving the enlightened troops distraught while the unthinking and unenlightened troops march in celebration of a nonsensical victory.
Over the years I have witnessed also, the deterioration of quality in politics. Once upon although politicians told a few lies, in general one could rely on the truth of their statements. Today however, that situation has changed. Lies now seem to be the order of the day. Regularly, too, opposition statements are quoted out of context in an effort to portray the leader as the equal of history’s legendary and monstrous dictators.
By accepting these statements as true, voters send good candidates to the political gallows from whence they will be cut down, drawn and quartered, never to arise again. Others escape the gallows but do not escape their honesty and integrity being so impugned they become political lepers. The fact is that in many cases, the people who should become political lepers are senior members of the political hierarchy.
As an example of what I mean the Liberals have been accused of having a $70 billion black hole they will need to fill and that they will fill it with money saved by cutting public service jobs. Senior non-aligned economists have already said this statement is false as have some of the politifact groups that have now been established.
In a world awash with violence that perhaps could be described in terms of the biblical Armageddon our politicians should take a calm and serious approach to solving the problem. Unfortunately many of our politicians – and politicians elsewhere, seem anxious to escalate the problem in a display of the militancy that democracy was supposed to overcome.
Let me now focus briefly on party leaders in this election. It is clear that the next Prime Minister will be either Kevin Rudd or Tony Abbott. At the moment I am watching Mr Rudd being interviewed on TV and I must say that, on the basis of what I see and hear, I have serious reservations about his genuineness.
He seems to think himself some kind of political genius and has not been slow to cast Mr Abbott in the role of political dolt, not the kind of behaviour I expect from a man who wants to be Prime Minister. As this probably is one of the reasons he was deposed by his party during his first incarnation in the post it also raises the question do they really want him now?
As for Mr Abbott, I watched him the other night on television when he launched his campaign for the Liberal/National Coalition to become Government and him to become Prime Minister. Clearly he does not see himself as a political genius but equally clearly he is not a fool or as glib as Mr Rudd. But then: does Australia want a glib Prime Minister?
Unfortunately Australia has watched as glib politician after glib has feathered their nest even as they protested they were working hard on behalf of constituents. That said I am left with the uneasy feeling that it would be wrong to make Mr Rudd who is as glib as a showground spruiker, to again become Prime Minister.
Comment welcome. If you would like to receive these Articles automatically you can RSS it or become a follower by using the ‘follow’ connection at bottom right of the published page.
- In: ACT OPINIONS | Democracy | elections | Government
- Leave a Comment
My latest blog is always available at: https://donallan.wordpress.com. To make direct contact e-mail me at: dca@netspeed.com.au
Today’s Byzantine Politics are killing democracy
During my recent incarceration in hospital a friend brought me “A short History of Byzantium” a book by John Julius Norwich to read.
The book is a condensed view of three books by the same author that cover the history of the Byzantine Empire, founded by Constantine the Great, on Monday, May 11th 330 that lasted until Tuesday 29th May, 1453, a total of 1,123 years and 18 days. This led me to wonder how many of us will leave a mark of our presence that will still be written about 100 years later, never mind 1,123 years late. I suggest that unless we make some claim to notoriety our names are unlikely to be remembered for more than two or three generations.
You might wonder however, why Allan Takes Aim, a political blog, is interested in Byzantium. Well, I’m interested because Australia’s current political scene is also Byzantine the main difference being that power today is gained through a democratic process that theoretically gives citizens the right to vote. But one thing remains constant: today’s rivals for power share the same common slogan as\ Byzantine rivals: might is right – plus ça change plus c’est la même chose.
It is alleged that the advent of democracy eliminated the idea that might is right. Unfortunately, history shows that, despite democracy, many politicians today achieve power using the might is right principle and/or by being as devious as many of the characters whose names are stamped indelibly on the 1.123 years of history in the Byzantine Empire.
That might is right is not confined to wars on the political battlefield; it is also practised by wannabe leaders in the political armies as they fight on behalf of their personal favourites. This happened recently in Australia when one group of wannabes successfully removed the Prime Minister and replaced her with their favourite.
The similarities with Byzantium are many. As they pursued power, Byzantine leaders formed alliances with junior army officers by promising both them and the civilian population better times in return for their allegiance. These promises, which they had they had no intention of keeping were really barefaced lies told as a matter of expedience to soothe people’s minds
Politicians today in their quest for power do the same. Leaders of political parties make promises to people that party candidates re-iterate to voters. If it is then up to voters to analyse the promises of each leader and decide which of them they think is telling the truth.
This will prove difficult during these last two weeks of the current campaign as promises flow like a river in spate and armies of advisers, sycophants, and political carpetbaggers try to bolster support for their chosen leader hoping they will be successful in the hope that some of that success will flow to them. This makes a voter’s task of analysing what they hear or read difficult as they try to sift the truth from the lies.
Sadly today democracy, the progenitor of votes for citizens, is practiced more in the breach than the observance. Indeed some politicians only mention democracy when they need to bolster their image as people of integrity.
I suppose we should count ourselves fortunate that more by accident than design, some politicians of real integrity still manage to get elected.
Comment welcome.
If you would like to receive these Articles automatically you can RSS them or become a follower by using the ‘follow’ connection at the bottom right of the page.
- In: ACT OPINIONS | elections | Government | Politics
- Leave a Comment
Allan Takes Aim at: https://donallan.wordpress.com. For direct contact e-mail: dca@netspeed.com.au
Don’t listen to the songs of the Fat Ladies
You’ll all be familiar with the phrase it ain’t over ‘til the Fat Lady sings which means that one should not presume to know the outcome of an event which is still in progress. And while normally it is used in a sporting contest I think it has particular application to the political contest between Kevin Rudd Labor and Tony Abbott Liberal to become Prime Minister of Australia. However, any attempt to describe it as a sporting contest is to diminish all real sporting contests. .
More precisely, it describes the situation the phrase when it appears to be nearing its conclusion although it cautions against making the assumption that the current state of an event is irreversible and determines how it will end. However, as the contest to be Prime Minister is between two men shouldn’t there be an alternative phrase.
That apart, most of the Fat Ladies singing today are male political columnists and journalists who have already decided the winner. Even most letters to the editor are from males. Not that this will come as a surprise because most MPs and Senators are men. However, the situation changes in the electronic media where women hold their own although again it must be said the chief commentators on the electronic are mostly men.
This raises the question: how did this male – female imbalance occur; it seems contrary to Mother Nature. Indeed, it has always struck me as odd that women, who influence every man, have, over time, been sidelined for the benefit of men. Just think of it: they are the mother of men and the wives of men, notwithstanding that some men wish to be seen in the same light. But that’s another argument.
More to the point, at his stage in the race to be Prime Minister, I think even the most biased voter will concede that Abbott and the Liberals are ahead of Rudd and Labor. On the other hand there are still two long laps to go in the race and who knows if during these laps Abbott will stumble and allow Rudd to catch up or will Rudd stumble oftener than Abbott and so fall further behind.
While one expects outlandish ideas and outrageous promises from wannabe members of parliament in every election, voters have no one to blame but themselves if any of them get elected. Sadly because our record on this matter is not something to shout about, I suspect the status quo will be maintained at this election.
Of course, as to who will become Prime Minister is not a matter of which we have charge. We can but hope Australian voters will not give political chancers, populists, sycophants and candidates of questionable capacity the opportunity to display their venality or lack of talent to occupy that position but elect people of honesty and integrity.
And let me plead with voters to judge candidates because they feel they can trust them and not elect people who seem to think parliament is a permanent theatre of the absurd where they can act out their absurdities but a theatre of the serious that sometimes is funny.
A final comment: of one thing you can be sure many of the fat ladies who have started singing early will suffer from laryngitis after the election result is known.
Comment welcome.
If you would like to receive these Articles automatically you can RSS them or become a follower by using the ‘follow’ connection at the bottom right of the page.
- In: ACT OPINIONS | elections | Politics
- Leave a Comment
Allan Takes Aim at: https://donallan.wordpress.com. For direct contact e-mail: dca@netspeed.com.au
Who’s for the long drop: Rudd or Abbott?
It was Samuel Johnson who made the following remark with regard to a clergyman he had tried to save from hanging: “depend upon it, Sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, in concentrates his mind wonderfully.”
I think this phrase could usefully be brought to the attention of Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott only because in just short of a fortnight’s time if they haven’t persuaded Australians that their policy promises are true, as voters leave the jury room of the ballot box on Saturday 7 September, on they could have helped consigned one of them to taking the long drop from the top of the political gallows.
But perhaps all is not lost. Perhaps they will heed what George MacDonald Fraser’s cowardly hero Harry Flashman has to say on the subject of death: “ Some wiseacre once said that the prospect of death concentrates the mind wonderfully, but I’m here to tell you the chance to work for a reprieve concentrates it a whole heap more.”
With the election but a short time away can voters hope Rudd and Abbott will be more truthful than they have been so far about their policies so that voters can make up their mind about who they want as Prime Minister? Being a realist, I know one will become Prime Minister but won’t hold my breath waiting for the former to happen.
It being more than possible that I might not be around come the next election, I sincerely hope the centuries that have gone into creating viable democratic systems have not been wasted. Indeed, to some extent what is happening in politics today, not just here in Australia but across the western world, is reminiscent of wars in the middle-ages.
It could be argued that in some respects our ancestors did it better. They followed their leader onto the battlefield and at the end of the battle the spoils of the war went to the victor. The victor then went on to govern until a new challenge arose. This still happens, of course, but without the violence. However as to whether or not the aftermath today is better would make a good argument.
And nor has the cause of the wars changed much. They are still be being fought between people who have gained the wealth by ancestry, trade or commerce and those who helped them produce that wealth but think not enough of it stays with them or helps provide the better services they think their efforts deserve.
And this is where the real battle begins. How to measure what share of the wealth do the latter think they are entitled to and to what services should some of the wealth they had helped create be the Government’s first priority. Should the Government’s first priority be the building of a better and more successful economy because without a successful economy where will the Government find the money necessary to create or improve services?
At this point the argument about which came first the chicken or the egg arises. It is also at this point where common sense should play a leading role. Unfortunately, this is also the point at which common sense becomes noticeable by its absence and greed on both sides colours the debate.
So which of the Prime Ministerial protagonists, Rudd or Abbott, will win on 7 September? This is the real difference between the wars of the middle ages and today’s wars because in today’s wars it should not be winner takes all.
On Saturday 7 September that decision is yours. Who will you consign to the long drop?
Comment welcome.
If you would like to receive these Articles automatically you can RSS them or become a follower by using the ‘follow’ connection at the bottom right of the page.
Be afraid, be very afraid
Posted on: 21 August 2013
- In: ACT OPINIONS | elections | Politics
- 1 Comment
Allan Takes Aim at: https://donallan.wordpress.com. For direct contact e-mail: dca@netspeed.com.au
Be afraid, be very afraid
The phrase “Be afraid, be very afraid”, is used to describe the decline of all leaders and the empires they build. Generally it is used with the intention of being funny and a warning of imminent danger. However, I use the phrase not with the intention of being funny but with the intention of warning Australian voters that, at the next election if they choose the wrong Prime Minister, not only is danger imminent but likely.
As for the phrase, it comes from the short poem “Ozymandias” by Shelley ,which paraphrases the inscription at the base of the statue, given by Diodorus Siculus in his Bibliotheca historica, as “King of Kings am I, Osymandias. If anyone would know how great I am and where I lie, let him surpass one of my works.”
Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) is one of the most controversial psychiatric disorders with no clear consensus regarding its diagnosis or treatment. Research on treatment effectiveness still focuses mainly on clinical approaches and case studies. Dissociative symptoms range from attention lapses, becoming distracted by something else and daydreaming, to pathological dissociative disorders. No systematic, empirically-supported definition of “dissociation” exists.
I am not a psychiatrist but of the two men I see on television news broadcasts who are in contention for the job of being Australia’s next Prime Minister, I am convinced one of them is suffering from DID and that if by any mischance he became Prime Minister, then he is even more dangerous to Australia’s future than in his first incarnation as Prime Minister. I won’t beat about the bush: the man I’m talking about is Kevin Rudd.
He displays all the traits of an Australian Ozymiandas who sees himself as leader and King. Indeed, which profession, other than politics, can offer them the same opportunity and which profession other than politics can give them virtually untrammeled power to control people’s lives and foist political fantasies on them and bring despair not joy.
Perhaps Tony Abbott the other Prime Ministerial contender also has traits of DID but if he has they are less obvious? It could be of course that perhaps every politician, regardless of party suffers from DID to some extent. Indeed, the more I think of it the more likely it seems. The problem for Mr Rudd is that he seems to have these traits in spades.
I know of a few narcissistic politicians who think themselves great philosophers, visionaries or great leaders. Some of them also think they are great orators or great actors although most are great hams and leads to the question: if you think a politician with just one of these traits is deluded what is a politician who when giving a performance (isn’t that always?) displays them all of and also adds what they think are meaningful gestures and what passes as sympathetic facial expressions that look more like grimaces.
Earlier in the piece I said that although DID is one of the most controversial psychiatric disorders, there is no clear consensus with regard to its diagnosis or treatment.
However, when it comes to voting it seems to me that if we want to save Australia and also save Mr Rudd from himself and from leading the Labor Party into political Siberia, the best treatment we can give him is to turn him down at September’s election.
Do so and you will have no need to be afraid or be very afraid.
Comment welcome.
If you would like to receive these Articles automatically you can RSS them or become a follower by using the ‘follow’ connection at the bottom right of the page.
- In: ACT OPINIONS | elections | Global Warming | Government | Politics
- Leave a Comment
Allan Takes Aim at: https://donallan.wordpress.com. For direct contact e-mail: dca@netspeed.com.au
Which political tall tales are true is for you to decide.
The federal election is five fabulous five weeks away. I say fabulous weeks because the tales being told by Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott, the leaders respectively of Australia’s two major parties Labor and the Liberal/Coalition who are vying to become Prime Minister, seem bent on outdoing the tales of fabulists like Aesop – African; John Gay – English; and Hans Christian Andersen – Danish.
But there is a difference. While morality is the basis of the latters’ tales it is clear that what allegedly forms the basis of the formers’ tales is not morality but lust for power. This applies particularly to Rudd who, regardless of the fact that earlier he used it to justify the carton tax in his statement that Global Warming is the greatest moral challenge of our time, then allowed it to become prisoner of his lust for power when it became a political inconvenience.
Not that the major parties are alone in telling tall tales. There is a third party, The Greens, whose leader, Christine Milne, seems equally bent on power but whose tall tales have found limited acceptance among voters. And there are other small parties whose leaders share the hope of being Prime Minister. But despite hope springing eternal, at this election their hope is running last. Last but not least are the Independents or ‘Gadflies’ as described by Socrates to Plato as uncomfortable goads to the Athenian political scene which he compared to a slow and dimwitted horse, who do the same to the power seekers.
More to the point: the saying ‘you’ve got to speculate to accumulate’ is not a fable but a phrase that describes people whose capital is ambition and intelligence that they use to speculate. It is the speculation of people such as this this describes that has been the source of Australia’s growth and prosperity.
After examining the policies of the various parties it seemed to me the policies of the Liberal/Coalition come closest to that of the people who speculated to accumulate and led Australia down the twin paths of growth and prosperity. On the other hand, many Labor politicians seem to think that all they needed to do was convince gullible people (voters) to let them spend their money on grand plans that would take them on a magic carpet ride to a life if not of ease, then of comfort.
So you’re not gullible you say. Well I hope not, but in the days and weeks after the Federal Election, Saturday 7th September, it will be too late to say I knew the promises sounded too good to be true. However, they will face the harsh reality that the promises were worthless and that the magic carpet will never take off but stay firmly grounded in the hanger that serves as the very large Museum of Political Promises. Indeed, as they will find out, the only things that will take off will be the politicians who made the promises.
With regard to this election and politicians’ promises which of the two, Tony Abbott or Kevin Rudd will take off. With respect to Mr Abbott, will he be the politician to take off. If he is, he will merit a paraphrase of Lady Bracknell’s famous saying: To lose one election, Mr Abbot, may be regarded as a misfortune. To lose both looks like carelessness.
But if it is Mr Rudd who takes off what will he merit? Now that opens up a galaxy of ideas. Being host of Tell the Truth, a new TV show, springs to mind. And no doubt rederswill have many others. If you have, make a comment.
Comment welcome.
If you would like to receive these Articles automatically you can RSS them or become a follower by using the ‘follow’ connection at the bottom right of the page.
Let’s re-democratise politics
Posted on: 7 August 2013
- In: ACT OPINIONS | elections | Government | Politics
- Leave a Comment
Allan Takes Aim at: https://donallan.wordpress.com. For direct contact e-mail: dca@netspeed.com.au
Let’s re-democratise politics
The thought came to mind that perhaps it’s true that the older you get the less you come to understand what people are talking about. The thought was spurred when, despite my having been around politics for more years than I care to remember, I found that trying to understand what politicians today are talking about is getting harder and harder.
In fact as I listen it seems to me that some of them don’t really understand politics. This is noticeable some don’t seem able to answer questions they’ve been asked but give answers to questions they haven’t been asked. Indeed it seems they only want to answer questions on topics within their comfort zone.
Although these answers are of little use to voters these politicians continue to parade their honesty, truthfulness and integrity as prime reasons to vote for them. Unfortunately, their shiftiness in answering questions is likely to lose them votes whereas if they say they don’t know but say they will find out, their image with voters might improve.
It seems to me that the latter have been politicians too long and have forgotten who they represent. And that they have little knowledge of what is happening in their own constituencies or have any knowledge of what is happening outside their little world makes them political bludgers.
I can only add that they should be removed from office because in these days of advanced technology not only can their lack of performance be seen and judged by a local audience but also by a worldwide audience with a poor performance not only working to the detriment of their party but also to Australia.
Indeed the day has long gone when parties value this kind of politician because they can be relied on to spring to attention and support what their leader says on any given issue. In this complicated world where technology grow more quickly every day, parties need politicians with a vision of the future not the past.
Unfortunately, democracy has not progressed at the same rate as technology. Even in our allegedly advanced societies politics is still a system that seems mired in the feudalism of the middle ages. While parties pay lip service to democracy they remain fiefdoms controlled by people with a love of power and the wish to control others. Importantly even though they appear to delegate some of that power they still retain control because they want to control how society functions. Of course, such a system is not particular to political parties; it is also inherent in trade and business organisations.
While technology will continue to play a major role in society does not mean that Government should be determined by statements on Twitter and Facebook. So what if a putative President, MP or Senators have a million followers on Twitter or Facebook does not mean that a million people read what they have to say.
The fact is many Twitterers and Facebookers have had nothing to do with the site since becoming subscribers. And when the various political parties target them and send then messages, it is more probable than not that the messages are never read. But don’t the figures look good. In fact much of the hype surrounding this form of campaigning is hogwash.
Comment welcome.
If you would like to receive these Articles automatically you can RSS them or become a follower by using the ‘follow’ connection at the bottom right of the page.
- In: ACT OPINIONS | ACT Politics | elections | Government | Politics
- Leave a Comment
Allan Takes Aim at: https://donallan.wordpress.com. For direct contact e-mail: dca@netspeed.com.au
Australia a brave new world: or is it?
Although the campaign for electing a new Australian Parliament has only just started, I’m already fed up listening to candidates who make promises to voters clothed in fake sincerity, such as on the day they elect them and their party to government and on every day thereafter, as they wake up they will find themselves beneficiaries of policies that will bring them never ending joy. And the band played, believe it if you like.
But cynicism aside what are we to believe? As the disturbed world in which we live gets even more disturbed, the choice we make when electing the next government becomes even more important.
Should we elect a government led by Tony Abbott, who believes in a strong work ethic and people doing things for themselves and promises to help them live happily in this land of opportunity because of policies introduced by what he says will be his just and socially aware government or a government led by the current Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who seems to believe that popularity equates to ability.
Clearly Mr Rudd is not a fan of Wilkins Micawber in Charles Dickens novel, David Copperfield who said : “Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness; annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery” And because Mr Rudd seems bent on continuing to spend more money than the government has in its coffers let me resume my cynicism and suggest Mr Rudd should consider establishing a Department of Misery. Indeed, he seems to want to remodel Australia as old world.
Over the next five weeks voters will get a chance to make their own decision as to who they would rather have at the helm of government. Advert after advert In support of and extend the messages in the adverts, Abbott and Rudd will make personal appearance after personal appearance in the hope they impress enough voters to think of them as trustworthy and in doing so gain their vote at the ballot box come election day.
It is important however, that voters analyse Abbott and Rudd’s policy promises in detail and sort out those that will benefit Australians long into the future and despatch the expedient promises designed to paper over policy deficiencies to cyber space. This is important if they want to ensure Australia will continue to benefit because, as time goes by, nations we foolishly think inferior, will catch us up and perhaps as the evidence of history has sown with other countries shows, make us pay for our foolish idea.
And while important that we listen to media reports on the policies of the major parties, it is also important to remember the only reports that voters should pay attention to are the factual statement of candidates. Anything else is merely opinion and there’s lot of that. Examples: ABC’s The Insiders and Q&A; Ten’s The Bolt Report (though Bolt doesn’t hide his political affiliations). In radio media, Radio National and various other ABC programs do the same as do many commercial radio programmes. While in the press I doubt if voters would be confused as to the political sympathies of Fairfax and News Limited.
And much as the Federal election is important, many ACT voters think the election of. ACT candidates such as Greens, Liberals, Labor, or small party candidates and Independents to Federal Parliament more important. And why shouldn’t they?
Small polity it might be but sadly the campaigns of the two major parties in the ACT, Labor and Liberals, as well as the Greens are copying the campaigns of their national brethren, more slanging match than explanation of policies.
Allan Takes Aim at: https://donallan.wordpress.com. For direct contact e-mail: dca@netspeed.com.au
.
Destroyers of Democracy
Posted on: 2 August 2013
- In: ACT OPINIONS | elections | Government | Politics
- Leave a Comment
Allan Takes Aim blog is always available at: https://donallan.wordpress.com. For direct contact e-mail: dca@netspeed.com.au
Destroyers of Democracy:
Group Think politics plus Facebook and Twitter
The date of Australia’s federal election has a Christmas feel about it: it’s still coming, which has nothing to do with this blog. Incidentally, I think the title of the blog title would make for a good political debate. The only problem is that while the idea of the debate might be good, the debate’s promoter would not be able to guarantee its quality as the quality would depend on the calibre of the politicians agreeing to participate.
It is said the age of miracles has not yet passed but after hearing many would be and current politicians speak recently, I am not too sure the quality of the debate would be such that apart from a few masochists that it would attract much of an audience. It might also be equally difficult to get a promoter to stage the debate.
But being an optimist, I think the election date will be announced soon at which time the wannabes politicians whether new, or making another attempt at re-election, will be out on the hustings even if the hustings are all inside these days, expounding on policy.
However if they follow the same path on the hustings I wonder if any of them will have anything new to say or will it be the same as pre the start of the election campaign where their performance suggested they had undergone hypnosis and been programmed with sets of words, triggered by a question, that are identical with words uttered by party colleagues elsewhere. In fact I felt they knew little about many of the issues they were talking about. .
The suggestion of being controlled by hypnosis, the equivalent of group think, would avoid candidates making speeches that could have a catastrophic effect on a party’s chances at the ballot box. But even if some candidates do care, often they bow to the might of the party executive to avoid being cast in the role of political leper.
The sad effect of this is, that many voters never get to know the qualities of candidates at State, Territory and Federal elections and what they think the most important issues facing local communities or the nation. In reality what is happening is that the principle of real Democracy is being replaced by what party executives call democracy.
Helping this process is the increasing emphasis political parties and candidates put on those so called social communication tools called Facebook and Twitter. Coming face to face and having a discussion about policy or new ideas with a candidate is rapidly becoming something obsolete. This suits many putative politicians because anything that limits their conversation to 140 words or not many more, is welcome.
Facebook and Twitter are welcome for another reason. If the number of people who click on ‘follow’ in a Party or candidate’s Facebook or Twitter website is big they can legitimately claim they have a big audience for their ideas. This is nonsense of course: while many people will follow once out of curiosity and never visit the site again ,the number of registered followers will not decrease.
Some people will disagree with what I’ve written. If you are one of them and wish to make your disagreement known you can write up to 700 words in rebuttal.
Comment welcome.
If you would like to receive these Articles automatically you can RSS them or become a follower by using the ‘follow’ connection at the bottom right of the page.
Allan Takes Aim Blog 