I'm still in that guilty post-Christmas mode where I feel that I need to walk more & minimise short trips in the car. I love walking, but walking leads to thinking, & walking along footpaths leads to thinking about driving (strangely) - other people's.
Being someone who can sufficiently balance to hold a two-wheel (bike) licence as well, it never ceases to amaze me just how insane those who obviously only hold a four-wheel (car) licence are. When you're on a bike, you know that there are only two things that can kill you - your own stupidity, & any car driver's. When you're riding & someone does something immensely stupid in your vicinity - whether it threatens your life or not - you've got enough time to mutter an expletive before your concentration is back on the job at hand: riding.
However, if you take this rider's awareness with you when you're walking, you've got all the time in the world to contemplate the stupidity of a driver. For that matter, you can just stop & stare at them for five minutes determining whether whatever is controlling the vehicle is human or else some phone-holding, chain-smoking, arm-waving, make-up-applying, kid-threatening, dial-twirling robot. You've got that contemplation time because, if you're a walker, you've always got plenty of time on your hands. Obviously, those in cars have somewhere very important to get to, & they're always running late. They've barely got time to update their facebook status before the lights change.
In a way, I'm glad that I have that time to walk. I think it's sometimes too stressful to be in a hurry because you're in a car & you need to launch your four-wheel-drive over car-park speed-humps like a speed-boat. Speed-humps are just one of those minor nuisances of the "outside" world - slightly firmer than pedestrians.
Maybe you just have to get to that parking spot thirty metres away, but the car in front insists on blocking your way because they stupidly want a spot right there in front of you!
This is another moment the walker can savour by just stopping to wonder what is going through the head of the obviously frustrated 4WD owner hooting at the P-plater to reverse faster than they feel comfortable doing. All the while, 4WD is swearing at the inconsiderateness of others. "Look kids!" you can imagine him saying "That <expletive> teenager just doesn't know how to drive! They need my <expletive> encouragement to get better at <expletive> parking!" You can hear the response from the child-restraint, too - "Daddy, will you teach me to be a good <expletive> driver?" "'kin oath!"
29 March 2014
01 March 2014
Sydney, Where Art Thou?
A while back, I read an article ...
http://smh.domain.com.au/real-estate-news/one-in-five-sydney-suburbs-now-has-a-sevenfigure-median-house-price-20131019-2vtlt.html
For those living outside of Sydney, this seems sensationalist, but it is probably "true" in some sense, until you start to think deeply about how the one-in-five number came up. It quotes that 123 suburbs now have that median price, meaning that it is no longer an indicator of prestige.
There are a few questions that come out of this - does Sydney have around 600 suburbs? Who defines Sydney? Are other cities measured in the same way when they say that Melbourne has 26 such premium suburbs? Actually, what defines a suburb?
The City of Sydney is a tiny thing where business people by day rub shoulders with trendy inner-city dwellers by nigh. It contains a handful of suburbs. It has a Lord Mayor(ess). It has no actual control over anything outside of that area - so where is Sydney?
I remember when I was growing up that Brisbane was considered bigger in area than Sydney because it was defined as reaching out to Ipswich. Most people wouldn't have known that. But then, most people, if asked, couldn't name ten percent of Sydney's suburbs, let alone indicate how big it is. If you'd asked me before I started this journey, I would have waved my hands about & said that it's more or less encompassed by the George's River & the Hawkesbury-Nepean River. Simple. Wrong. Google gets close with its dotted outline when you ask for a map of Sydney - but they're missing two (large) areas.
Another nice definition would be Cumberland County. Strangely, this is too big (much bigger than I expected) - it encompasses bits of Wollongong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumberland_County,_New_South_Wales
It would appear that, since 2012, at least, the Sydney Metropolitan area is defined as a collection of LGAs (Local Government Area = Council = Shire/Municipality) - 40 of them. Most of these are cities in themselves (population over 100000).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rdr2012305/s4.html
This is one of very few places where you will see an outright definition, as "everyone knows" what is meant by Sydney.
But I now had a task - to find & count the suburbs of Sydney - the Sydney Metropolitan Area.
I've seen people try to define Sydney as a series of postcodes. I'm not sure how you can do that nicely, but it probably made sense once (postcodes were introduced in 1967). AusPost is a very good place to start for a list of "places" which are suburbs, or else suburb-like places. When I used to work in data quality, these latter were known as "vanity addresses" - quite a valid way to indicate where you live, but essentially hiding the fact that your neighbours have a bad reputation. Try working out where Round Corner's boundaries are, for example, because it doesn't exist.
Before they changed the telephone numbers, Telstra had a definition of Sydney for the purposes of charging people for non-local phone calls. Unfortunately, since telephone numbers were first issued, there have been some changes to the definition of Sydney & its LGAs, & changes to the numbering scheme since 1994. Thus, Campbelltown City (once outside Telstra's Sydney) now includes areas that used to be in Ingleburn Council, which was inside Sydney (after a council merger in 1948).
So, to find Sydney, it should be just a matter of looking over the 40 LGAs & listing out their suburbs ... not that easy. Each LGA will make proposals to the Geographical Names Board (GNB), which go through an approval process with requirements like having a distinct sense of community in that proposed area & independent facilities (post office, community hall, ...). This process takes time, but the council's proposal is quite public, so people can make assumptions about suburbs "about to happen". You only expect a suburb a year to pop out of this process. The state government can create whole communities with housing developments (out of nothing) every so often.
But how do you find the definitive lists of councils & suburbs? It is within the purview of the Division of Local Government (DLG) to co-ordinate LGAs. They divide councils across the state into regional groups - inner Sydney, outer Sydney, & Sydney surrounds, for example - but these are outdated groups, as half of the last group are in the metro area. The DLG get their council/suburb breakdown from the Division of Land & Property Information (DLPI), but that info is out of date. Some older suburbs stretch over two or more councils thanks to various redistributions (under the control of the state government), so there's no direct correlation to LGAs. Fortunately, within Sydney, there have been no doughnut councils created or re-amalgamated.
After working through an exhaustive process, I found 746 suburbs in Metropolitan Sydney. So, unfortunately, the original article was wrong - it's more like one in six. Does that make me feel better? Superior to the journalist? Happy that I don't live in one of those suburbs? Happy that I live in Sydney regardless?
No. It just gives me a warm feeling that I think I know where Sydney is. It also makes me a little sad that I may be the only one.
Postscript - I'm updating my estimate to 854!
http://smh.domain.com.au/real-estate-news/one-in-five-sydney-suburbs-now-has-a-sevenfigure-median-house-price-20131019-2vtlt.html
For those living outside of Sydney, this seems sensationalist, but it is probably "true" in some sense, until you start to think deeply about how the one-in-five number came up. It quotes that 123 suburbs now have that median price, meaning that it is no longer an indicator of prestige.
There are a few questions that come out of this - does Sydney have around 600 suburbs? Who defines Sydney? Are other cities measured in the same way when they say that Melbourne has 26 such premium suburbs? Actually, what defines a suburb?
The City of Sydney is a tiny thing where business people by day rub shoulders with trendy inner-city dwellers by nigh. It contains a handful of suburbs. It has a Lord Mayor(ess). It has no actual control over anything outside of that area - so where is Sydney?
I remember when I was growing up that Brisbane was considered bigger in area than Sydney because it was defined as reaching out to Ipswich. Most people wouldn't have known that. But then, most people, if asked, couldn't name ten percent of Sydney's suburbs, let alone indicate how big it is. If you'd asked me before I started this journey, I would have waved my hands about & said that it's more or less encompassed by the George's River & the Hawkesbury-Nepean River. Simple. Wrong. Google gets close with its dotted outline when you ask for a map of Sydney - but they're missing two (large) areas.
Another nice definition would be Cumberland County. Strangely, this is too big (much bigger than I expected) - it encompasses bits of Wollongong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumberland_County,_New_South_Wales
It would appear that, since 2012, at least, the Sydney Metropolitan area is defined as a collection of LGAs (Local Government Area = Council = Shire/Municipality) - 40 of them. Most of these are cities in themselves (population over 100000).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rdr2012305/s4.html
This is one of very few places where you will see an outright definition, as "everyone knows" what is meant by Sydney.
But I now had a task - to find & count the suburbs of Sydney - the Sydney Metropolitan Area.
I've seen people try to define Sydney as a series of postcodes. I'm not sure how you can do that nicely, but it probably made sense once (postcodes were introduced in 1967). AusPost is a very good place to start for a list of "places" which are suburbs, or else suburb-like places. When I used to work in data quality, these latter were known as "vanity addresses" - quite a valid way to indicate where you live, but essentially hiding the fact that your neighbours have a bad reputation. Try working out where Round Corner's boundaries are, for example, because it doesn't exist.
Before they changed the telephone numbers, Telstra had a definition of Sydney for the purposes of charging people for non-local phone calls. Unfortunately, since telephone numbers were first issued, there have been some changes to the definition of Sydney & its LGAs, & changes to the numbering scheme since 1994. Thus, Campbelltown City (once outside Telstra's Sydney) now includes areas that used to be in Ingleburn Council, which was inside Sydney (after a council merger in 1948).
So, to find Sydney, it should be just a matter of looking over the 40 LGAs & listing out their suburbs ... not that easy. Each LGA will make proposals to the Geographical Names Board (GNB), which go through an approval process with requirements like having a distinct sense of community in that proposed area & independent facilities (post office, community hall, ...). This process takes time, but the council's proposal is quite public, so people can make assumptions about suburbs "about to happen". You only expect a suburb a year to pop out of this process. The state government can create whole communities with housing developments (out of nothing) every so often.
But how do you find the definitive lists of councils & suburbs? It is within the purview of the Division of Local Government (DLG) to co-ordinate LGAs. They divide councils across the state into regional groups - inner Sydney, outer Sydney, & Sydney surrounds, for example - but these are outdated groups, as half of the last group are in the metro area. The DLG get their council/suburb breakdown from the Division of Land & Property Information (DLPI), but that info is out of date. Some older suburbs stretch over two or more councils thanks to various redistributions (under the control of the state government), so there's no direct correlation to LGAs. Fortunately, within Sydney, there have been no doughnut councils created or re-amalgamated.
After working through an exhaustive process, I found 746 suburbs in Metropolitan Sydney. So, unfortunately, the original article was wrong - it's more like one in six. Does that make me feel better? Superior to the journalist? Happy that I don't live in one of those suburbs? Happy that I live in Sydney regardless?
No. It just gives me a warm feeling that I think I know where Sydney is. It also makes me a little sad that I may be the only one.
Postscript - I'm updating my estimate to 854!
11 January 2014
Democracy & Responsibility
Many people don't "get" democracy. They think that it means that they personally get to decide how the country is run. These are the most disappointed & bitter people you will meet. Others think that democracy is where public opinion sets government policy. If that were the case, you could replace the parliament with a survey company, & it would still be cheaper. I think I've seen frightening Sci-Fi stories like that.
Democracy means that everyone has an equal say in which of several candidates represents them in the parliament - at the time of elections. Nothing more. Parliaments are not there to follow the will of the people. In fact, we have parliaments to make the decisions that the average person could not make & would not make if given the chance - the hard decisions. We often forget this when a new law is unpopular. The media might label a government as courageous if they make that hard choice & implement a policy that makes them unpopular, but that they believe is right in the long run. It takes courage, sometimes, to do what's right. That's why we should elect a particular government in the first place.
We should support governments that can & do make those hard decisions, rather than the weak ones who constantly bow to public opinion over matters that aren't "courageous". Public opinion itself is too often whipped up by a media frenzy when complex issues are over-simplified, or when the uneducated & loud (not mentioning any shock jock in particular) demand that people listen to his (never her) opinion. The alternative way to spur the slow-moving populace into action is by rallying the troops - whether that means unions, students, interest groups or communities. Painting a picture over an issue in a particular manner is a great way to garner support for your opinion. That doesn't make it worthy of the support of everyone else. It doesn't make it right.
It is the role of the government to take advice from experts - usually the public service, but often committees of specialists - & act accordingly for the good of the nation. By all means, they should keep an eye on the polls to see just how far from public sentiment the hard decisions are - & act accordingly by leading the public & educating them as to why the decision was right. For a government to simply turn turtle as soon as their popularity slides is worse than cowardice - it's turning their back on the responsibility given to them when they were elected by the democracy.
Democracy means that everyone has an equal say in which of several candidates represents them in the parliament - at the time of elections. Nothing more. Parliaments are not there to follow the will of the people. In fact, we have parliaments to make the decisions that the average person could not make & would not make if given the chance - the hard decisions. We often forget this when a new law is unpopular. The media might label a government as courageous if they make that hard choice & implement a policy that makes them unpopular, but that they believe is right in the long run. It takes courage, sometimes, to do what's right. That's why we should elect a particular government in the first place.
We should support governments that can & do make those hard decisions, rather than the weak ones who constantly bow to public opinion over matters that aren't "courageous". Public opinion itself is too often whipped up by a media frenzy when complex issues are over-simplified, or when the uneducated & loud (not mentioning any shock jock in particular) demand that people listen to his (never her) opinion. The alternative way to spur the slow-moving populace into action is by rallying the troops - whether that means unions, students, interest groups or communities. Painting a picture over an issue in a particular manner is a great way to garner support for your opinion. That doesn't make it worthy of the support of everyone else. It doesn't make it right.
It is the role of the government to take advice from experts - usually the public service, but often committees of specialists - & act accordingly for the good of the nation. By all means, they should keep an eye on the polls to see just how far from public sentiment the hard decisions are - & act accordingly by leading the public & educating them as to why the decision was right. For a government to simply turn turtle as soon as their popularity slides is worse than cowardice - it's turning their back on the responsibility given to them when they were elected by the democracy.
16 December 2013
OK, It's My Fault
A friend recently complained about the outrageous cost of moving a phone number to a new residence. I sympathised, explaining that it's all to do with a lack of competition in the telecommunications infrastructure, & how this leads to inefficiencies, or at least a lack of interest in improving the service. I went on to describe how it is fundamentally a federal government issue, & how regulation is probably the only way out of the monopolistic mess we're in - that we need a fundamental philosophical shift to invest in (or encourage investment in) infrastructure differently.
He asked me how my grand plans for fixing the problem were received by the powers that be. I thought about it - I had, in fact, made a complaint to the ombudsman as a direct result of a particularly bad experience moving house. That, however, doesn't change policies. I hadn't offered my suggestion to Telstra directly, or complained to my local MP in the hope of it becoming government policy because ...
The more I thought about it, under the insistent gaze of my interlocutor, the more confused I got. How on earth did you get a good idea - not just a complaint - before the eyes of decision makers? In the case of MPs, they are supposed to represent their electorates, so why wouldn't they be a valid repository of voters' suggestions? I suspect that my MP's policies are more representative of his party's than his voters'.
You don't have to be too cynical to be of the opinion that sending a suggestion to the CEO of Telstra is probably less useful than having a quiet beer with an acquaintance whose happiness state makes him more likely to agree with you. That's why it's preferable to float such brilliant ideas in alcohol first.
So I have come to the conclusion that everything is my fault. I have solutions to many of the problems we face in day to day life, but I haven't bothered to express them to the appropriate powers that be. Line up & take a pot-shot at me the next time you move house & get slugged with a service charge for your phone, gas, or electricity. I'm also responsible for your mobile drop-outs, broadband data costs, the price of petrol & milk, late trains, the poor bus service, overhead power lines, roadworks, stray cats, & that weird smell down at the park.
Until I get around to telling the people in charge about all my great ideas, you're all going to have to put up with the problems.
He asked me how my grand plans for fixing the problem were received by the powers that be. I thought about it - I had, in fact, made a complaint to the ombudsman as a direct result of a particularly bad experience moving house. That, however, doesn't change policies. I hadn't offered my suggestion to Telstra directly, or complained to my local MP in the hope of it becoming government policy because ...
The more I thought about it, under the insistent gaze of my interlocutor, the more confused I got. How on earth did you get a good idea - not just a complaint - before the eyes of decision makers? In the case of MPs, they are supposed to represent their electorates, so why wouldn't they be a valid repository of voters' suggestions? I suspect that my MP's policies are more representative of his party's than his voters'.
You don't have to be too cynical to be of the opinion that sending a suggestion to the CEO of Telstra is probably less useful than having a quiet beer with an acquaintance whose happiness state makes him more likely to agree with you. That's why it's preferable to float such brilliant ideas in alcohol first.
So I have come to the conclusion that everything is my fault. I have solutions to many of the problems we face in day to day life, but I haven't bothered to express them to the appropriate powers that be. Line up & take a pot-shot at me the next time you move house & get slugged with a service charge for your phone, gas, or electricity. I'm also responsible for your mobile drop-outs, broadband data costs, the price of petrol & milk, late trains, the poor bus service, overhead power lines, roadworks, stray cats, & that weird smell down at the park.
Until I get around to telling the people in charge about all my great ideas, you're all going to have to put up with the problems.
28 November 2013
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):
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
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):
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.
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?"
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.
30 October 2013
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)