The Inside Outside Dilemma

It's interesting to step back & watch a changing of the Government. It's not just the list of promises that will inevitably be broken - because the party that makes the biggest promises generally wins, by definition - but the rapid change in gears from being in Opposition to being in Government, being an outside observer pointing out mistakes to being the one supposedly with the hand on the tiller.

Some new Governments do it well. Some get lucky, so decimating their opposition that there is no-one left to effectively heckle. Some ... just have to grin sheepishly & make excuses as to why statements they made in opposition were based on insufficient information, or that they weren't aware "how bad things were" until they took the reins.

Worse, sometimes there has to be an about-face where politicking gets in the way of governing. Then we see a change from "our economy is stuffed - we will fix it!" to "hey, Mr Trading Partner, our economy is actually a great investment", or "we will force our neighbours to comply with our border protection plans!" to "hey, Mr Neighbour, we're in desperate need of your assistance because we can't actually do anything without you".

It's not naivety that makes an Opposition say stupid things. It is naivety that makes people believe them. That's the sad part. Oppositions will get away with outrageous lies as long as they can - that seems to be their sole purpose after being elected to parliament without being able to form the majority.

We often think that Governments lie because they break promises. The reality is that Governments rarely make promises they don't keep - they are in Government & are empowered to act. It's only Oppositions who can make outlandish claims without any need to back them up with evidence. They just need to make an emotional appeal through the media, who know full well what a good story looks like - & that really correlates with, or contains, the truth.

We - the voting public - are to blame for the quality of our Oppositions as much as for the Government. We elected them all at exactly the same moment.
Perhaps we should have a review of the voting system whereby people could mark off their choices with more than a tick - a truly preferential system, for example (number these for each candidate):

• I think this candidate would perform well as an effective member of the Government
• I think this candidate would bring the Government to task as a member of the Opposition
• I think this candidate is excellent entertainment, but should never be a member of a major party
• I think this candidate should be locked up
• I think this candidate is the least dangerous of the options before me

That would truly turn things inside out.

Skeptics in the House

Much to my wife's shock, I recently made the claim that the Liberal Party is the natural governing party for Australia - not just because we're right of centre politically - just a little bit conservative - but because, fundamentally, we are a nation of skeptics.

There's nothing wrong with those classic Strine responses to any statement (with optional rising inflection):

• "Ya reckon?"
• "Ya think?"
• "Ya don't say"
• "Are you f***ing kidding?"

These are obviously a direct result of a level of skepticism ingrained in the Australian psyche.
But sometimes, you just have to accept that you're talking to (or about) someone who knows more than you, is an actual (recognised) expert in their field, or simply is right.

There's a lot of talk these days about mandates - & I don't just mean in politics, where having the support of a third of the voting population is seen as clearly being able to speak for all. Popularity is not the seal of approval that you are right - only that people will listen to (or watch) you.

Is anyone really of the opinion that, say, Kim Kardashian should be politically active? I have no idea what her politics are, but I suspect that she could run for the Party Party Party Party & people would vote for her.
That doesn't give her a mandate. That doesn't even mean that people agree with her platform. It just means that, say, she's prettier than the alternative.

But I've gotten off track - & I would never suggest that our current PM is pretty. Australia would not vote for KK because she's not a skeptic.
Clive Palmer is a skeptic. Bob Katter is a skeptic. The Democrats were skeptics ("Keep the bastards honest!"). Pauline Hanson was a super-skeptic.

The Liberal party are also conservatively skeptic. Along the skeptic spectrum, a lot of the above were left-wing (radical) - even if they were right-wing from a political point of view. The Liberal Party is centre-right skeptically & politically.
I'm not talking about the actual Liberal Party here, but the theoretical one. Individuals within a party at any time may make it appear more skeptical or more radically skeptical.

Now, for the kicker. Why on earth are we such a nation of skeptics? Why can't we just admit that someone else could be right for once, or could be an expert?
It's not the English overseers that are the experts anymore, it's normal Australians who happen to be highly educated or experienced experts in a given field. They do not hold a position of privilege that has to be undermined simply because it's fun to do so.

If only we could embrace knowledge, wisdom, expertise. If only we could look up to people who have dedicated their lives to some facet of human endeavour who is willing to share that experience. I think that would make us the clever country we always wanted to be.

However, as long as the average Australian is a skeptic, they need fair representation in the parliament(s). Thus, regrettably, the Liberal Party is the natural government.

Class Struggle

An acquaintance of mine is a staunch supporter of the Labor Party because it is the party of the working class person. I almost laughed when he said that, because I have for some time seen it as an amalgam of unionism & socialism - an uneasy alliance. He, however, believes that, by definition, the Party is there to fight for the rights of the common worker, etc, & that the fight is far from over.

On the other side of the coin, the Liberal party is an uneasy alliance between the landed conservatives & the middle class greasy pole climbers.

This is where it gets interesting.

Those who support the Labor Party expect structure - bureaucracy - layers of society or administration, where they start at the bottom, & some lucky few can be hoisted to the heights of political recognition. This takes a party headquarters that works like a war office on the basis that unions are always heavily organised, & therefore the party structure has local & regional gatherings, etc, layer upon layer.
Labor party members believe in their structure. They believe that there needs to be structure. They believe in the public service because it's just another structure. They believe in a sizable government, because that's what it takes to run a country.

Those who support the Liberal Party don't like structure. They believe that it holds them (personally) back, oppresses them, stunts their growth as human beings, impinges on their freedom of expression. They believe that the party structure should be flat, & that government should be small.
As a consequence, they believe that they know better than any structure, because they are cleverer than the working class, & don't need structure to protect them from big bad business.

The independent thinking of a semi-educated middle class will always be its own downfall. Fundamentally, they don't know better, & they refuse to be taught.

I am reminded of C S Lewis' "Forbidden Planet" series, where one of the characters is writing for the newspapers. He only needs to write for papers that aim at the middle class. There's no point writing for the upper class, because they can't be told anything, & writing for the lower class won't be understood. The object was to write in such a way that the middle class was convinced that it was coming up with the ideas for itself, & then they would embrace the notion as their own.

This is the basis of shock-jocks, who are always right wing - they convince middle-class people of what they are thinking, encouraging a particular point of view (only), as if it was a ground-swell of awareness, rather than a version of broadcaster push-polling.

So, my acquaintance is correct - the Labor Party, in all its unionist bureaucracy is the party of the working class - the kind of party that workers can believe in, because it is the kind of structure that they need to believe in, producing the kind of government that they expect to make decisions for them.

Taxing Facts

Sometimes I think of myself as too conservative to be a socialist, or too left-wing to be liberal. Think of that what you will. My politics don't follow party lines, so I'm just being me.

I was thinking about taxes. I don't care how much I get taxed, because I see that as a part of society that I contribute to. I don't like the tax dollars being wasted, but can't see how it is. In fact, I suspect that the professionals in the public service do as good a job as they can.
Make of that what you will.

The fixed price for carbon, which became known as the Carbon Tax in Australia, was considered at first a step in the right direction for bringing down the production of carbon emissions by increasing the cost of producing said emissions.
In theory, this is a direct effect.
The reality is that the increased cost of producing the service that produced the emissions was passed directly on to the consumer, & the consumer was then compensated for the increase by the government that collected the revenue ... but there was no correlation between between the rise in one & the offset of the other.

Fundamentally, although the idea of taxing the polluters is a good one, it doesn't encourage anyone to do anything about it, but shifts the money around. I believe that there was an effect on carbon emissions, but this could be more about people looking for cheaper alternatives & lowering demand, rather than any polluter changing their ways.

To ensure that things really change, you need to encourage investment in, & therefore availability of, alternatives. You can also discourage investment in pollution.
The easiest way to do this is to change the way that people are taxed on the profits in carbon-emission-oriented industries.
That's radical. It's also time-consuming, because it requires an assessment at the polluters end to determine how profitable the carbon-emitting aspect of the business is, & therefore what tax should be applicable to the profit of the company.

This sounds too hard, but the theory goes that people (investors) will move away from those companies who aren't investing their energy into lower-emission alternatives.
Tax concessions in green energy (for example) companies' profits would redistribute that investment appropriately.

Rather than applying a tax to the primary producer, hitting the secondary investor would have less of an impact on the end user, & would seem to be less of an administrative nightmare because there are fewer people involved in the process overall.

The end user would simply see less availability of high-emission products, or else cheaper low-emission products. Do they need to care more than that?

Now you see my political dilemma - I'm fundamentally all for climate change awareness & taxation, but don't believe it's been done right so far.

Government - What's it good for?

Here's a fundamental question, especially in a country that has just gone through elections - what does the parliament do?
You can see that the title I used above is different. At first, that's what I was thinking - "government" - but then I realised very quickly that I didn't mean those that don't get elected. There are public servants, appointments, etc, who get on with the job they were expected to perform (to some degree) with interference only from those that we, the people, elect.

What has evolved as a parliament has a strange history from the two conflicting needs to counsel the monarch & to ensure that the monarch doesn't overstep the rights of the people. Here, of course, "the people" were those with property & money, with things at stake.
As soon as you have reviewing the monarch, you end up with a monarch who is always trying to test their limits, & thus parliament becomes a shaggy dog.
Essentially, we can't get rid of the one we've got. It's also grown since its inception to take over the roles of many other political functionaries.

Direct monarchy doesn't happen in Australia, & even the Vice-Regal has very fine teeth. Therefore, the parliament isn't counselling anyone - it seems to be a self-perpetuating process of navel gazing, that is, reviewing itself.
This is all well & good if it had well-defined functions on which to base its review. It seems to be there just "to rule".

Other things that happened to Australia is the true separation of Church & State, & a theoretically independent Judiciary.
The latter is not quite true, because the laws (the Queen's Law, in fact) come from the parliament.
The interpretation is left to judges, whose experience is relied on thereafter - unless the parliament decides to do something about them as individuals.

There is no Church. There are some left-overs from a once-Anglican dominance (we talk of parishes within an electoral boundary), but there are now so many churches that there seems no relationship between any one of them & a given parliament.
This, to me, means two things - there is no social cohesion on questions of morality & ethics (or even debate), & the parliament thinks that it should step into the gap (heaven forbid!).

I think gay marriage is a classic example here. Why does the parliament decide on the social representation of people's relationships?
Can a church not recognise & perform gay marriage within its separate articles? How can a parliament then say what marriages that church can perform (or will be "recognised")?
Australia is a special case where de facto relationships are already recognised by the parliament (& the government) as equivalent to marriage.
How can the parliament interfere with a church in that way?

If a bunch of ordinary people elected to create laws (or review them) is given the power to determine what a church can do - or the judiciary - then they have too much power, & surely we should have some kind of review on that process itself to ensure that the parliament doesn't overstep the rights of the people (not just those whose support got them there).

This seems to be going around in circles - meet the new boss: same as the old boss.

Not My Fault

Call me an arch-conservative (go on - be the first!), but I don't like whining liberals who complain about the world & how so many wrongs need to be righted.
This is, fundamentally, a revenge mentality - there is a wrong, someone needs to be punished, & then "we" will feel better.
It doesn't matter if we are talking about law, politics, or sport, people think they have a right to retribution in matters that don't actually concern them or directly affect them.

Let's do this with examples.

Law.

Although I'm all for victim impact statements & assessments, let's limit the range of victim defined. Perhaps I should say that we could leave it in the hands of professional victim assessors, rather than broadcasting "Hey, who wants to be a victim here?"
In a murder, there is generally one victim. They are dead. That's a big impact, but nothing can be done to change that.

No parent can get their child back. No parent should expect blood money. I say "expect" intentionally. Society may punish the perpetrator in such a way that it "profits", & these funds should then be pushed towards ameliorating the grief associated with the victim's loss, definitely.
However, buying a new house doesn't count.

The old Gaelic concept (& I'm sure it existed elsewhere) of blood money was to compensate a family for the loss of a worker - in the same way that you would compensate if you'd killed someone's cow. This is no longer relevant to our society, but we keep acting as though it is.

Don't even get me started on the precedence principles in the legal profession - where once judgement was by the King, then by his representatives, & now must look as consistent as if that was still the case.
I doubt if HM feels it is like that now.


Politics.

In a recent Australian election - & it's not the first time I've heard it - voters "punished" the government due to their unhappiness with various aspects of its organisation or its policies.
In what way did "punishing" a political party improve the lot of those voters?
Regardless of the opposition's policies, voting with revenge in mind is stupid.

I'm not even going to continue with how the new government then systematically removed any public servant or office with the taint of their predecessors.
Government is meant to be the stability that rules the country & keeps it from dissolving into anarchy & chaos.
I believe that seeking revenge on the temporarily unpopular former ruling tribe can lead only to further retribution down the track.


Sport.

This story seems to have legs for so many reasons. When one football team lost a game "because" the referees failed to notice an infringement by the other team, all hell broke loose.
Someone had to be held responsible for the tragedy - remember, this is football.
So, who perpetrated the "crime"? Obviously, the side that infringed, right?

I doubt that the infringement was intentional, but it also reflects on the reliance by that team on the referee to ensure that they didn't infringe - that is, they weren't clever enough to self-monitor.
The team that lost didn't notice until after the game, & only then protested that they had lost because of the unnoticed infringement, & that someone had to be held to account.

This is football! It's entertainment for the masses! Do we really need to "punish" someone for not imposing the rules perfectly? Does there need to be revenge?
Do we need to hold someone ultimately responsible for what is, at the base level, a small number of men trying to keep two teams of bigger angrier men from killing each other by pointing out the limits to which they can apply their aggression?

Schrodinger & the Numbers Game

A few things have popped into my head recently, & I've managed to put them together - diets, election platforms, & rugby league. Stay with me on this.

I believe that people (humanity) will focus on concrete things to try to corral the abstract. This is obvious pattern-matching behaviour which was wonderful when survival was a day-to-day struggle, but not so helpful now when we have a lot more structure in our existence - culturally & environmentally.

Case number 1: dieting.
Everyone "knows" that a lower calorie diet will help you lose weight. In general, this is true. For most people this is almost a given. For some, it just isn't.
Some seemingly low calorie foods just stop some people from losing weight due to biochemical interactions that make them store fat regardless, or don't let them burn it off - without going to extreme measures like starvation.
On the surface, this makes sense. However, if you play the numbers game - low calorie = weight loss - then you can quickly get to the point of "if I eat less meat, I can have a chocolate", which is probably not good, because the essential fats & proteins in meat is good for you (in small doses), but the chocolate isn't.
Same calories. Different outcome. No weight loss.
Don't play the calories. Look at the bigger (fatter) picture.

Case number 2: political campaigning.
Although it was riotously funny to hear Australia's Liberal Party claim that their platform was to "stop the boats" (boats of asylum seekers arriving via Indonesia) in a state election on the other side of the country (in NSW), having it echoed on a national level was no surprise - unless you noticed the opinion polls which suggested that almost no-one cared about that issue.
Because the Liberal Party had the platform, they made a case for it being on the agenda. You can't argue against something that doesn't exist. The policy stood. The party got kudos (without explaining how boats would be stopped).
Overall, nothing much changes.
The policy was irrelevant, but the electorate fell for it because the Liberal Party seemed so sure of themselves that it was important, therefore it must be. The Labor party did not make any such claims in their platform.
The Liberals played the numbers & won.

Case number 3: rugby league.
With finals afoot, every match becomes sudden death, & a bad refereeing decision can be a season-ender. Thus it has happened, unfortunately to a team two years in a row. The followed the rules - played the numbers - but the referee didn't. They should have won.
Rather, they should have been concentrating on the game, which they lost.
The referee is there to impose the rules. There is a common understanding of those rules between the teams & officials. It is for the officials to interpret them.
If they make a mistake, then it's between them & their higher powers - & no-one else.
Rules are there to minimise the chaos, & there is rarely divine retribution when a rule within a game is not followed - in fact, they have a whole set of rules around how to interpret breaking the rules - called penalties.
Look at the scoreboard. Suck it up, losers. Maybe next year.

Oops - the Schrodinger reference ... if you stop worrying about the cat, it won't enter into your head that it's probably dead. Get on with your life.