The ALP and Fatso The Fat-Arsed Wombat

Cast your minds back, dear readers, to the dawning of the new millennium - the year 2000. 'Twas a time of happiness and joy for those of us blessed to live in the Harbour City for a momentous event was ready to take place - the Sydney Olympic Games! Even the most jaded got into the spirit of things for that glorious two weeks. We shined our shoes, put away the Drop Bears routine, and tried to be as helpful as possible to the Unwashed Foreign Filth who had come for the celebrations and were trying to understand the complexities of our public transport system.

But 20 million Australians couldn't be on their best behaviour for that long! Someone was going to have to take the piss in a major way at some point. There were, naturally, only two men for the job...

Olympic Mascots have had a certain amount of Groan Factor for a number of decades now. Perhaps since LA '84 no-one has paid them much respect, but they are acknowledged as part of the kitsch that goes along with hosting the Games. For the Sydney Games the organizers came up with a particularly uninspiring set:

Not only were these nauseating natives extremely ugly, but the fact that there were THREE of the buggers screamed loudly that the Games Committee were less than optimistic about making their money back and had put the family silver on tripling their merchandising revenue. Such a balloon was ripe for bursting.

Enter "Rampaging" Roy Slaven and H.G. Nelson! Visitors to our shores (particularly those from the USA) were bewildered at the fact that not only were these two loonies conducting a public satire of this prestigious event (including merging Greco-Roman wrestling with Barry White music), but that they were allowed to be broadcast on the Official Television Channel in prime time! If American comedians had attempted something similar (assuming that they understood the concept of "satire") they would have been subject to a long stint in Guantanamo Bay.

Roy and H.G. unmasked the Official Mascots for what they were - a symbol of the fact that the Games had been removed from the control of the People. Australians would never have voted for these critters (soon dubbed "Syd Ollie & Dickhead") if they had been given a free choice. So Roy and H.G. put up their own mascot. One that could be embraced by the Australian Public. The Little Guy, the People's Prince...

Fatso The Big-Arsed Wombat!!!

Fatso was a sensation. His fame spread throughout the land, while the Games Committee did their best to stop it. The Australian athletes entered into the spirit of the rebellion, bringing Fatso up onto the podium and throwing him off the high diving board. In the end the Games Committee admitted defeat. A statue of Fatso is now a permanent fixture outside the Main Stadium at Homebush. To my knowledge, no memorial of Syd Ollie and Dickhead has yet been erected.

This morning a former Prime Minister, who was elected on a huge wave of popular support, was denied the opportunity of returning to the highest office by the same cabal who had knifed him in the back 20 months ago. Australian Labor Party ministers and members spewed forth vitriol of the most poisonous type over the weekend to defend their view that Kevin Rudd should never again be given the keys to the Lodge, even as the party heads towards a massive electoral defeat and the return of a conservative government. At the same time, popular support seemed welded solid to Mr Rudd, even as tales of mismanagement and temper tantrums flooded the airwaves. His polling has been significantly above that of Prime Minister Julia Gillard for well over a year. Overnight busloads of True Believers headed to Canberra to protest outside Parliament House, hoping against hope that their chosen leader, Kevin Rudd, would be brought back to lead our nation. Those hopes have now been dashed, and it is unlikely that they will ever be revived. Our elected representatives have chosen Syd Ollie & Dickhead over Fatso.

I am not a member of the ALP, my political loyalties lie elsewhere. I don't think the ALP made a bad decision today, I think they made bad choices long ago and today's leadership ballot was a consequence of repeated and systematic failures.

Note: I also think Kevin Rudd is in the wrong party. Kev, call me! It's not too late.

What the events of the last 5 days have taught us is that something is fundamentally wrong with the manner politics in our nation is being conducted. People have been complaining about the system, as though it is the system's fault that the will of the people is failing to be heard. But there is something much more rotten in the state of Orstrailya. The power is out of our hands. We can't choose who leads us. Faith is put in political parties that have long since stopped being accountable to the people they represent. What happened this morning should not, by all political logic, have happened - members of Parliament have voted in a way that has guaranteed that they will lose their seats in another 18 months. They no longer represent their electorates but their political masters. I'm not just picking on the ALP; the Libs are just as bad. But they have us all convinced that we have No Other Option but to go for the lesser of two evils when we put the slip of paper in the box. This, my friends, is a lie!

Fatso The Fat-Arsed Wombat has achieved something that few characters in Australian culture have - he has a Legacy. I imagine I will be explaining that statue at Homebush to my grandchildren one day. Whether Kevin Rudd will have a similar monument dedicated to him remains to be seen. He probably deserves one, given that he walked into the lion's den this morning on a matter of principle knowing that it was the will of the People, his true masters. Somehow, I don't think that those who have retained power today will be getting a monument of any sort.

Tools and Carbon Taxes

When I comes to climate change I believe that I am neither an alarmist nor a skeptic.

Having done a bit of science at university level, I am aware that there is precious little about scientific knowledge that could be deemed Uncontested. Absolute scientific proof can usually only be determined in Controlled Lab Conditions, something that the global atmosphere distinctly lacks. Scientific tests can give at best imperfect results when attempting to prove abstract theories in Real Life. Moreover, long range climate predictions given by scientists who have only the vaguest idea as to whether it will rain next Tuesday need to be taken with a large shaker of salt.

On the other hand, it is only common sense that an increasing global population that consumes a growing percentage of natural resources and is only moderately interested in cleaning up after itself may have some negative impact on future generations. It would be nice, if not polite, to at least make some attempt at considering consequences and acting appropriately.

It seems as if the weight of Conventional Wisdom in our antipodean nation has swung towards the idea of a Carbon Tax as THE way to curb carbon emissions into the future. Levels of carbon emissions over a certain amount by the Big Polluters will incur a government levy under this scheme, the idea being that companies want to keep their running costs low and so will avoid behavior that lands them with a large Pay Now Or Else bill from Ms Gillard. If there is to be a solution to environmental Armageddon then it must come by and through the Market, the final arbitrator of all that is Good and Right in our modern times. Economic experts are almost unanimous, we are told, in declaring that this will be the most Cost Effective way of lowering greenhouse pollution in our nation.

So why am I uncomfortable about all this?

The story starts in my granddad's shed. Pa spent most of his retirement years making furniture out of wood (one of his chairs has a special place in my office). The beauty of his handiwork was partially achieved through personal skill, but just as important was the use of the right tool for the right job. Pa impressed this upon me from an early age, and the sheer number of tools in his workshop was a testimony to his belief in this principle. Using, for example, a spanner to knock in a nail would not only produce a dodgy job but would also damage the tool so that it could not do the job that it was made to do.

My point is this: trusting in Economics to solve a Social Problem is a case of using the wrong tool for the job at hand.

The way that economists and politicians (not only from the Left) talk you would be forgiven for mistaking the Market and Society for the same thing. This is a bleed from early 20th Century socialists, who had no problem in reducing individuals to the status of economic units. It is assumed that what is good for the Market must, by definition, be good for Society. If society needs a little tweak of its direction, then it is only natural that a push of the economic tiller will adjust our social direction.

I didn't do much study in economics in high school or any at all at university, but there is one thing that appears blatantly clear: the only function that the Market has in this world is Making Money.

Markets are under no obligation to fix the environment. Share prices don't care if you bought a hybrid car or a 4WD. Balance sheets aren't interested in whether the polar ice caps are melting. Corporate boards do not serve secondary agendas, only the bottom line. Implying that a federal tax on an aspect of business production will necessarily deliver the social change desired is a Hit And Hope scenario of major proportions. It's using the wrong tool for the job. In fact, it's worse than that, as it is using the tool most likely to deliver the opposite outcome from the one intended.

A carbon tax places the responsibility for environmental solutions in the hands of those that even the politicians admit are principally responsible for the present situation. It requires corporations to be proactive in cutting emissions rather than simply passing on associated costs and eventually to trade carbon credits as a viable commodity (one that has had a distinctly rocky track record where it has been tried so far). The only way this ends is with those already with Market Power growing stronger while the government rakes in more money from the pockets of working Australians while crowing about The National Interest. Local innovation and small business will be crushed under the weight of higher prices across the board. Those who have swallowed the socialist view of Market=State, whether they currently sit on the Left or Right, are equally responsible.

Surely the more prudent approach should be to take the power away from the corporate giants who have no vested interest in change and instead place it where it will achieve lasting results: community solutions arising from local innovation and small business. Economic regions must be given the power to decide what is in the best interest of those living within them rather than the interests of international corporations or foreign investors. Development grants for clean energy research and implementation need to be front and centre. Planning for energy generation needs to be taken out of central administration and given to those who know their areas best - wind, solar, geothermal or nuclear solutions could be possible while making long-term investments in regional education, thereby cutting reliance on Chinese or American conglomerates.

We need to think Smaller not Bigger. The disadvantages to this way of doing things are obvious: it will cost more and take longer. This is true. But didn't our parents always tell us that if something was worth doing it was worth doing right the first time? There is a reason that old growth forest logging has endured so long - it's Cost Effective! It's easier and cheaper to chop down an old tree than plant a new one and wait for it to grow. This is where Market Forces always let us down.

Those on the Left love centralized solutions because it feeds their need for total social control and those on the Right can be happy to go along with it if it makes their rich mates happy in the meantime. But the time has passed for self-interest. Along with looming environmental challenges, Australia faces a growing concern for its economic independence, with the manufacturing sector battered at every turn and growing rates of youth unemployment.

The answer for our environment lies in communities taking ownership of how they are impacting their environment and harnessing the know-how of those who have a vested interest in success. The solution is in our youth, who demonstrate again and again that they care about the future of their planet and are champing at the bit for an opportunity to make a difference. The solution is in local business and community empowerment, together a mighty combination that could move mountains if given enough room to show what they could do.

This is why I hope our leaders vote No on a Carbon Tax. Not only is it the wrong tool for the job, it would destroy the only tools we have that could do the job properly.

There Must Be Some Kinda Way Outta Here...

OK, this post may only be of interest to my Australian readers (if any such exist). My international readers (if any such exist) may get a slight insight into the workings of Australian Government, a wild and unpredictable beast now entering strange new territory.

It's been a week and the sky has not fallen in. Granted, Parliament has not sat yet, and not being in ancient Gaul the sky falling in is not a principle national concern. But it looks as if the Labor minority government is set to at least have a go at governing our country. We must, however, remember that the whole house of cards could tumble at any time. We are only one by-election away from meltdown. Even without this, if legislation fails to get through because of cracks in the hastily constructed alliance with regional independents who share only marginal ideological ground, we could be going back to the polls in less time than we all would have liked. Certain former political leaders have given the current state of affairs a maximum of 18 months. Nothing like stable government can be said to exist at all for the next 3 years.

But my next question is more interesting: how will the electorate solve the problem? At some point we will have to line up again and fill in another slip of paper, so which way will we jump? There are two possibilities.

First, the electorate will become more 'conservative'. I don't mean that we will all start voting for the Shooters and Fishers (though I note the remarkably high vote they appeared to get this time round). What I mean is that the garden variety Aussie voter has a general preference (no pun intended) for how they will vote unless they have a good reason to vote otherwise. This election much was made of the 'protest vote', an unavoidable byproduct of both major parties having divisive leaders and a lack of positive vision. When the next election comes around will the electorate swallow its pride and go back to their old voting patterns in order to produce a more 'representative' parliament? This would be seen in a drop in primary vote for the Greens or corresponding conservative parties in order to make sure that at least one of the major parties gets to govern in its own right.

Second, the electorate will become more 'radical'. The alternative option is that, if the current government falls into utter farce, the voters will vote for someone who will Get Something Done, even if it means opening themselves up to other political action that they might wish to avoid. This would see minor parties and independent candidates boosting their primary vote. Such an outcome is likely, especially if the independents who hold the balance of power are seen to be driving policy. The electorate might then prefer to go for strong local independents who might be able to gain local development advantage (i.e. pork barreling in exchange for support).

Whadda youse all reckon? What's a voter to do in these circumstances?

Haven't We Met Before?

Citizens and Legal Immigrants,

If you have been following developments in the noble art of politics (a passtime in Australia something akin to cage fighting) and you live in NSW you may have felt a slight twinge of deja-vu as you pondered the papers over your morning Weetbix. For the second time in a week a major political party facing electoral oblivion took the risky step of ditching a progressive yet flawed leader in favour of a risky conservative. Enough has been written about how this might affect elections in the next 2 years. But it occurs to me that for both the federal Liberals and the NSW ALP the election of new leaders may represent a conservative shift of the political spectrum.

Let me lay my own cards on the table. I believe that the language and policies of modern politics reflect an economic perspective on society with which I don't see as primary. Labels of 'right' and 'left' I find generally misleading as these have come to have economic and sociological implications that I believe need to be reexamined more broadly. As someone who takes a more communitarian view I find myself identifying more with the Democratic Labor Party side of the Labor split that occurred in the 1950s. The DLP's position was that while the rights of the working classes should be protected the way to do this was through supporting community interests rather those of trade unions. The DLP had a large role in Australian politics through to the 1970s and their demise left a void later filled by the Democrats, who were always a party of pragmatism than ideologies (something which ultimately led to their downfall). That said, it is good to see the DLP making a return in Victoria and we may see a return in the Federal Senate in the next decade if forces favour. In summary, I personally have no strong affinity for either the ALP or Liberals as I feel that their policies are derived from a faulty view of society and the role of government. That said, I do support our leaders and try to see the best side in all who step up to a difficult job.

So, what about the changes we have witnessed in the last week? What does this say about our nation and state? There is no denying that social changes have pushed these major parties to take unusual steps regarding their leadership. Despite almost a decade of War On Terror we are no closer to having real stability in our region, seen by ongoing political tensions and high numbers of refugees. Climate change has started to seriously impact our economy and industry is being pushed to change. Add to the fact that despite weathering a major economic crisis amazingly well Australians are nervous about what the next few years may bring. Have our political leaders read the entrails and determined that we need to put on the social brake? Have they perceived the Australian Public as scaredy cats so they brought in The Boxer and The Cheerleader to boost our egos? Is it a preemptive strike to prevent a threat of rising nationalism with burning crosses and pogroms and annexations?

On the other hand, they might all just be completely mad...