Haven't they ever watched "The West Wing"?

Surely these two political leaders would be students of The West Wing. 

Surely they would have watched the presidential debate episode "Game On"

Surely they'd remember the moral of the story when Jeb Bartlett's wife Abbey cuts his tie in half moments before he goes on stage. To fire him up.

Surely they understand that passion matters in a debate!!

The misogyny poll bump

And weren't they there during PM Gillard's misogyny speech?

Of course they were there. It was fiery, passionate. You might even have said it was slightly out of control.

It generated a nearly 10 point bump for Labor in the polls as well.

Passion, fire, they work. Australians aren't stupid. We want to see the "real" Kevin Rudd and the "real" Tony Abbott.

Perversely, the hyper-controlled Abbott might just be the real thing; but this robotic Rudd?? No.

If you want us to pay attention, start believing in it - with passion. Last night was terrible :(

Let me know what you think

Mark S

Abbott's company tax cut is disingenous

First, let me make this clear, I am in favour of the lowest appropriate taxes for individuals and businesses. BUT, Tony Abbott's decision to cut company taxes in Australia by 1.5% is simply bad policy and worse, it wrongly appropriates the Henry Tax Review to justify it.

Why Abbott's use of the Henry Tax Review is wrong

The first of the key directions read:

Maintain the company income tax rate towards the lower end of the small to medium OECD economy average, with a reduction to 25 per cent over the medium term. This aims particularly to increase the level of business investment in Australia across all sectors, including foreign direct investment; promote more entrepreneurial activity; and reduce incentives for profit-shifting offshore.


So this would seem to support Tony Abbott...but wait, there's more.

Ken Henry also recommends sweeping changes to the tax system, including a land tax (and resources tax) and many other sweeping changes. So, Abbott's plan is to remove the resources tax, not add a land tax and cut the company tax rate.  That just doesn't stack up.

Abbott-nomics, Reaganomics and the Laffer curve

While he explicitly named the Henry review to support this cut, I'm more concerned about the implied throwback to the 1980s and Ronald Reagan's economic policies described by the great catchphrase "a rising tide lifts all boats". It didn't.

One of the big theories that Reagan used to support his policy was the Laffer curve.  This theory suggested that in some circumstances that a cut in tax rates would result in increased government revenues. Legend has it that one of his economics advisors, Arthur Laffer sketched this curve on a restaurant napkin.

Laffer Curve: suggests that revenue increases if high tax rates are cut

However, Laffer also pointed out that spending discipline is required in the short term, to increase government tax revenue in the long term.
The Laffer curve has been discredited for a long time. There are many papers that have been written to debunk the Reagan and Bush supply-side policies...yet Abbott thinks he can roll out the same discredited theories.

Spending cuts will be required

So, even if we put aside all of our misgivings about the Laffer curve, supply-side economics and Abbott's plan, there is one thing that can't be denied.

Spending cuts will be required. Even Arthur Laffer said so.

Tony Abbott. Be accurate. Treat us like adults. If you are going to cut revenue through company tax cuts, tell us what other revenue you will raise, or what spending you will cut. Reagan or Bush would.

Let me know what you think.

Mark S

It's an election so it's time to blog...about polls

Let's start with polls. Properly constructed polls don't lie. Yes, there are increasing challenges in polling now that people don't answer landlines but pollsters work their way around that.

However, there are differences between each of the polling techniques so that gives different results. At the moment, most of the major polls have the Coalition in front on both a primary vote and two party preferred basis.

Newspoll: L-NP 52%; Labor 48%
Essential: L-NP 51%; Labor 49%
Roy Morgan: L-NP 50.5%; Labor 49.5%
Galaxy: L-NP 50%; Labor 50%

The bounce has stopped

What's more important is that the Coalition has been in front for almost all of the past two years. PM Gillard got a fillip after the misogyny speech. PM Rudd got his recent bounce.

But there is no sustained trend. The Coalition has remained in front. One bounce does not an election win make.



How could Labor win from these polls?

There's only one way I can see for Labor to win. It comes from the Morgan Poll.

Morgan is the only firm to ask voters for their preferences. The other firms calculate it from the 2010 patterns. Morgan claims that the preferences from minor party votes will flow stronger to Labor than in 2010, and their poll has been showing a better result for Labor than the other polls as a result.

If they are right, Labor will hold seats that the other pollsters expect them to lose. If, if and if ... probably not.

From where I stand, the prospect of Tony Abbott as leader of Australia is not a pretty thought - but at least there appears no chance now of the Coalition controlling the Senate.

Let me know what you think

Mark S

Government report on micro-betting misses the mark again

Today the Federal Government's draft review of the 2001 Interactive Gambling Act was published.  I have a particular interest in this legislation as I used to be in the online gambling industry.  Now I am just an interested observer, and I'm still surprised at the misunderstandings that exist, like this big one...

Recommendation 25: Because of the greater harm associated with ‘micro-betting’ from a problem gambling perspective, ‘micro-betting’ should be prohibited irrespective of the electronic medium (that is, telephone, internet, etc.) by which the bets are placed.

You'd think this would be based on some research, or merit, wouldn't you?

Fear trumps evidence, again

In the same section of the report,

• Racing and Wagering Western Australia noted that: ‘in-the-run micro-betting’ ... would be akin to games of chance for the majority of the target audience and expose greater risks of problem gambling ...

AND

• Betfair noted: According to a report conducted by the UK Gambling Commission in 2009, there is no evidence that online in-play betting (including ‘micro-betting’ after an event has commenced) poses a “specific, identifiable risk to problem gambling as opposed to other forms of betting or online gambling.

So, a government department makes a scary claim, and a private organisation quotes a reputable study, but the report chooses to go with the scary claim with no evidence.

It's no wonder I got frustrated when I was in this industry.

The scary claim is wrong.  Plain wrong.

After the release of the report, various people have come out to have their say, including "independent gambling researcher, Sally Gainsbury" on the ABC.  She said:
"If you are looking at something that's like ball-by-ball betting on outcomes that are popping up within a game, this is a form of gambling where gamblers could chase their losses, could spend more than they intended, and it really could be an excessive form of gambling,"

Sorry Sally, but you are just guessing.

A screen shot of our micro-betting - live, real, online

Why do I know? Because I am the only person in Australia who has actually operated micro-betting, legally on the Internet.

Our company provided microbetting services to Ladbrokes, the UK's largest betting company.  And the results were clear.  These microbets were just novelty bets.  The punters placed small wagers.  They didn't increase their bets, and everyone just treated it as a bit of fun.

Our business made a very small profit - much less than we had expected - because the bets were small, and the punters' losses were very controlled.

Eventually, Ladbrokes replaced our service with an in-house product, and because we couldn't offer our service to an Australian operator, we went out of business.

You can lose more, faster, with the TAB!


What really makes me shake my head about all of this is that the betting we were offering is no faster than what is available right now with the TAB in any of the States.  Any day, you can place a bet every couple of minutes on a race.  On a Saturday, that would be at least every minute.

The microbet that we were offering is only available every 4 minutes or so - the average time it takes to play a game of tennis.  So, it's actually less likely to be a form of betting where punters will chase their losses than our beloved horse racing.

I have no qualms about being out of this business, but I do have concerns that wild claims will be believed over solid evidence.

We should be able to rely on our public servants to make considered decisions based on fact and not fear-mongering.



Let me know what you think


Mark S

Joe Hockey lies on Sunrise

Joe Hockey: you didn't tell the truth on Sunrise

This morning Joe Hockey blamed the increased cost of electricity on Labor's carbon tax. This is an outright lie.

He said to Tony Burke that people are "concerned about rising electricity costs, and it's because of your carbon tax"

The facts about electricity price increases

Here are the key facts about the electricity price increases:

• Electricity prices began rising from 2005, when the Liberal government was in power
• Electricity prices have risen 30% over the past four years
• The largest factor in price increases is the need to replace and upgrade the ageing poles and wires of the national electricity grid, some of which have been in service for more than 40 years.
• Increases in demand have increased wholesale prices and transmission and distribution prices
• Renewable energy certificates (RETs) must be purchased by energy retailers (nothing to do with the carbon tax) which have increased costs
• State and federal governments regulate the price of electricity through the National Electricity Market (except WA which has a separate regulator). They consider the cost increases incurred to set the prices.

References:

Clean Energy Australia
Reserve Bank of Australia
Roger Dargaville, Uni of Melb


Joe Hockey knows the facts

These facts about electricity pricing are well known to Joe Hockey, he just chose to ignore them when he made his claim this morning. He must be brought to account.

Politicians and other public figures cannot be allowed to make statements that are blatant lies

Let me know what you think.

Mark S

Behring Breivik shows how racism must not be given any air

I really don't like writing about evil people, it only gives them oxygen. Yet on the other hand, not commenting allows their evil to grow quietly. Anders Behring Breivik is evil. We need to talk about this.

I don't think he is insane. 

In fact, he was very successful.  It's a terrible conclusion I've had to come to.  To be insane requires a lack of normal mental functioning. That's not the case with Behring Breivik, he is considered and very logical. He thought about why he was taking action, how to do it, and what would stop him from achieving his goals. He executed his plan extremely well. Indeed, as horrible as the thought is, there are many lessons to take from his approach that can be applied to the successful execution of other projects. That's not insane. It's intelligent, sophisticated, rigorous and tough. All of the qualities we would want on our own side.

He is the latest in a long line of killers in the name of race or religion

Srebrenica massacre memorial

When Osama bin Laden masterminded the September 11 attacks, most of the world launched a war against him. But not all, he had tens of thousands or millions of supporters for his killing in the name of Islam and against the West.  When Slovodan Milosevic ordered the genocide of 8,000 Bosnian Muslims which was meticulously carried out by Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic the world was horrified.  The UN and international community have engaged in years of investigations, trials and convictions against the perpetrators. Yet again though, there were thousands prepared to support and carry out this atrocity directly against Muslims, because they were Muslims.

These are just two examples through time.  Most major racial groups have been guilty of shocking racial/religious crimes and often they have been victims as well, at different times in their history.  Christians, Jews, Protestants, Catholics, Hutu, Japanese, Turks, Indonesians, British, Germans, French, Russians, Chinese... Race, religion, ideology - all combining into considered deliberate attempts at genocide.

Breivik is no better or worse than all of them. We must stop all racial/religious intolerance. 

So Behring Breivik is just the same. He had a considered agenda. There are many Europeans with his Islamaphobia. He was the most recent to carry out a heinous act in the name of racial intolerance. We must stop all racial intolerance or we allow ourselves to be slaughtered, or to become the slaughterers.  Marine le Pen must be stopped in France. Ahmadinejad must be stopped in Iran. Rick Santorum must be stopped in the USA. But more importantly all the snide racial comments and jokes must be stopped in our living rooms.

Racism and religious fear and hatred must be stamped out before it takes its first breath. 

Let me know what you think

Mark S

Paul Howes - somebody IS benefiting from the higher dollar

Today Paul Howes has come out criticising the Reserve Bank's charter, and claiming that "One of the real issues that our country has to come to terms with is that a high Australian dollar is good for nobody."

Sorry, but that's just plain wrong.  Here is some proof that the Australian dollar is good for somebody.

Overseas travellers have benefited

Since the appreciation of the Australian dollar, overseas travel has boomed.  There are nearly an extra 200,000 people a month travelling overseas now compared to 2008.

ABS: Short term resident departures

People buying televisions and computers have benefited

According to the latest ABS data, Audio, visual and computing equipment is down 18.8% in the last year (to Dec 2011).  That means major savings for anyone who wants to purchase these products.  It means that equipment that may have been too expensive for some people, has fallen into an affordable range.  It means that the rise in the Australian dollar has been good for somebody.

Australians buying property overseas

With the higher Australian dollar, that means that Australians can buy property overseas at a much lower price than previously.  It is now in the realm of the middle class income earner, with properties in Europe now attainable for $100,000. Property buyers lured to foreign affairs

Whether it is a lifestyle choice, or an investment, this means that Australians are owning real assets in other countries.  This means that the higher dollar is benefiting those buyers.  Those people are somebody.

Paul Howes - are the Unions as economically inept as Katter

The calls from Paul Howes to review the charter of the Reserve Bank are echoes of Bob Katter's crazy claims to sack the RBA board.  The well managed Australian economy through the Hawke/Keating, Howard/Costello and Rudd/Gillard/Swan years has been nothing short of stellar.  And the independence of the Reserve Bank with its charter and formal agreement with the Treasurer to maintain underlying inflation in a target range of 2-3% PLUS achieve full employment has been a critically stable influence throughout.

Whenever radical statements are made by any side of politics, people listen and get confused between the nonsense and the sensible.  We must remain economically rational.

Let me know what you think

Mark S

Finally, even News Ltd concedes drug laws need to change

When a popular commentator such as Eddie McGuire calls for change to drug laws in a News Ltd tabloid like the Sunday Herald Sun, you know that public opinion is shifting.

McGuire's article:"Time for national debate on evil drug trade" is a major shift for a News Ltd paper.

Yes, it is time for Australia to seriously look at decriminalising drugs

As readers of this blog will know, I've consistently advocated decriminalisation and regulation of drugs.  The first article on this topic "It's time for a national debate on drug laws - decriminalise and regulate" said many of the same things as McGuire.

I'll repeat it again. Let's regulate, tax and manage.

The more recent article "Challenge the narcotics convention" discussed a very practical issue that our lawmakers will need to face to move down this path.

Who will take the lead?

So, now that we have the conservative tabloid contemplating change, will we see anyone from the Liberals supporting these calls? Given the Baillieu government's tough on crime stance, it still looks like the Victorian government is calling the shots from the old fashioned anti-drugs, anti-crime playbook.  Maybe, a kingmaker like McGuire can influence from the inside.  Working for James Packer as he does, he certainly has the connections, and I'd encourage him to have those quiet conversations that are so necessary to make political change happen.

On the Labor side, the social conservatives who still make up so many of the supporters are reluctant to head down this path either.  With Prime Minister Gillard under fire from multiple directions, it's highly unlikely she would be willing to take this issue on right now.

And the Greens have also been reluctant.  While their constituents are most likely to support a different drugs policy, the leadership hasn't wanted to be seen as a bunch of hippie pot smokers.  Again, from a pragmatic perspective, it's understandable, but with recent disappointing poll results for the Greens, I hope they can be encouraged to take more courageous action on socially progressive issues like drugs.  Especially now they can see that drug legalisation is becoming more of a mainstream view.

We will benefit by changing our approach

As Eddie points out, if we choose to spend money on "rehabilitation, advertising and teaching", society will end up millions (or up to $5 billion) in front of where we are now.  Thank you Eddie for bringing this thinking to the Sunday Herald Sun readers.  We need them on board to make these changes happen.

Let's keep discussing drug law reform sensibly.  We will get there.  We will benefit once we do.

Let me know what you think.

Mark S

Who will support Julian Assange for the Senate?

Last week, Julian Assange announced that he plans to run for the Senate next year. He has a high profile but who will support him.

The major parties won't

Obviously the major parties have their own agenda. There isn't much chance of either of them supporting a firecracker like Assange unless there are preference deals involved.

Assange has attacked Labor and Liberal with roughly equal venom. Neither would be included to help out now.

Socialist Greens v libertarian Assange

The Greens have certainly stood up for Assange. So on one level, he might have an ally there.

But economically, they are poles apart. Assange is a market libertarian. The Greens are economic socialists and protectionists.

All they really agree on is that the major parties are unaccountable. It's not really enough for a close political relationship.

GetUp! Occupy and the Socialists in the malls

Assange's most strident supporters have been the youth based activist groups such as GetUp! along with the various socialist groups who pop up at every rally.

These supporters who have set up the Occupy sites around the  country are even further economically left wing than the Greens.

Sure, they are strident supporters of Assange's open governance agenda but they would shudder if they heard his position in support of market economics.

Would some of them defect to the Assange camp? Maybe, particularly as they are starting to age from being Uni students to wage earners. Like many people moving through that phase, lower taxes are appealing when you are trying to climb the economic ladder.  Some may get behind him.

Independent or new party?

So, if alliances are unlikely, that leaves Julian with the decision of being an independent or starting a new party.  Independents have a tough time of it, so his best chance of success would be to start a new party.  He certainly sits in a space that isn't filled at the moment.  Pro-freedoms, market libertarian, but as he has mentioned in his interview today, he is still in favour of some protections for small business, which fits with his previous statements that you need to force markets to be free.

I welcome Julian Assange to the Australia political stage.  I hope he starts a new party.  I could see myself supporting him.

Let me know what you think

Mark S

A new era in politics after Queensland

The greatest landslide in Australian political history.  The election of 2012 will go down in the annals, and will be debated for decades to come.  I believe it is a watershed.

Time for a new party

Two weeks ago on Q and A, this question was asked by audience member Ralph Panebianco to Malcolm Turnbull:

"Malcolm, I think there should be a new political party in Australia. It should be socially progressive and economically rational... will you create it for us?"

Mr  Panebianco is right.  The Roy Morgan State of the Nation for 2012 reported that: As a nation, Australians are increasingly open-minded and ‘liberal’ and 'Australians are becoming more progressive'.

It also reported that after economic issues, the most important issues facing Australia are government, political and human rights.

So, we need a party that considers BOTH the economy and Australia's liberal and progressive social attitudes.  That sort of a party would represent most of us.  And it just doesn't exist.

Labor represents a dying breed

There are some very good people within the Labor Party (as there are also within the Liberal party and the Greens), but the Labor movement itself is far less relevant any more.  It was born from an era when manufacturing was the largest employing sector.  It isn't any more, and it is shrinking all the time.

It was also born in an era when workers viewed the bosses as the enemy, and power was heavily biased in favour of the employer.  Labour unions were needed. In the late 19th century and much of the 20th century, the power struggle between workers and bosses continued.  This was a hallmark of the Industrial age. Labour parties fought for and achieved much needed rights for workers. Indeed, because of the changes the ALP has achieved in IR laws in Australia, the balance of power is more equal.  The ideals of the labour movement are still relevant, but the movement itself has achieved most of its goals.

Now, the Industrial Age is over in advanced economies like Australia.  We are now in the Information Age, and the power relationships between workers and bosses are thoroughly different.

Queensland could never have voted this way if Labor was as relevant as it was 

Yes, there were very specific Queensland issues that influenced the rout yesterday.  Yes, Anna Bligh's government was punished for a raft of actions that were condemned by Queenslanders. But even some of the safest Labor seats fell.  This is virtually unthinkable.  The numbers don't lie - only the staunchest of Labor supporters stuck by the ALP.  And there are far fewer staunch supporters of the ALP, because the labor movement isn't relevant to them any more.

We need a new political movement.  We need a party that represents what Australians actually want - rational economics and a progressive society.

Let me know what you think

Mark S

Carl Katter fights back. Support him.

On Monday, I called on all Australians to:

Be loud. Reject homophobia. Reject Katter. Reclaim the fair go.

Today, Carl Katter (Bob's half brother) has done just that, and more.  He has got loud, with this ad, and he has made it clear that this is not about gay rights.  It is about rights for all of us.


He said it's not OK for politicians to get away with hatred and bigotry.
He said that we shouldn't have to put up with politicians seeking election by appealing to the worst in human nature.

We must support diversity. It's OK to be who you are.

He also said we should be electing politicans who support diversity and tell young Australians it's OK to be who you are.


This is a clear cut issue. Carl is right and Bob is wrong.  I've struggled with being different to others.  I have many friends who have struggled with being different to others.  I have friends and family members right now who are really struggling with being different to others.

All Australians deserve respect.

Let me know what you think.

Mark S

Homophobic Bob Katter shines a light on bigotry. Fight him!

Bob Katter's attack ads against Campbell Newman are a radical throwback to Pauline Hanson's attack on migrants. By using wedge politics, he is seeking to shift the agenda towards his bigoted anti-gay views.


When Hanson tried this, she succeeded in moving the agenda to an anti-migrant stance. It was harmful, and only now are we beginning to see a more balanced discussion, and more active inclusion of recent migrants into mainstream Australian culture.

Fight back against Katter

Don't let Katter achieve his ends. This deserves the vitriol that has poured out against him. The voices of equality must be heard louder than the scared little voice of an old bigot.

Support the Facebook groups. Add your comments to the criticisms. Write to politicians. Whichever is your choice. Just be loud and be often.

It's our fair go under threat

Katter and other establishment politicians often argue for the Australian concept of the fair go. They are right about that.  it has to be a fair go for all. A fair go for Aboriginals, British migrants, Construction workers, Disabled people, Economists, Financiers, Graziers, Homosexuals, Iraqi migrants ...

You get the picture.

By seeking to place any group below any other, this denies a fair go to all of us. We are all members of minorities. No group in Australia can claim to being Australians. Katter's discrimination panders to those who want to deny rights to others. Yet by doing so, they deny rights to their own little group.

No wedge politics

Australia is a fabulous country, because of our diversity and fairness. Don't let anyone take that away.  Katter will gain support from this attack. He may be elected. However, we must make wedge politics as socially unacceptable as smoking in offices or drink driving.

Be loud. Reject homophobia. Reject Katter. Reclaim the fair go.

Let me know what you think

Mark S

A little economic pain now is the perfect medicine

Deputy Reserve Bank Governor Philip Lowe gave a valuable speech to the Australian Industry Group yesterday.  You can read the detail at the RBA site here.

The implication of the speech is that the structural changes to the Australia economy are necessary, and will benefit us in the long run. Of course, he is absolutely right.

The recession ... I mean ... structural change we had to have

Just as Paul Keating honestly told us in 1990 that we were in the "recession we had to have", Philip Lowe is making it clear that the RBA sees this as the structural change we have to have.

Despite many comments by the Reserve Bank, and others, Australia's productivity is getting worse not better.

And what isn't so apparent to non economists is that the only way for Australia to sustain our improvements in our standard of living is to improve our productivity.

Productivity won't improve without significant change

At a business conference I was on some years ago, we were placed in groups on an oval, around a roped area with numbered squares scattered inside of it.  We had to find the fastest way to touch every square in order with each person only touching one square each time they entered the roped area.  We started by running into the area, touching a square and running out as quickly as we could.  This was pretty slow.  There had to be another way.  We had to be more productive.

Eventually, by looking at the other teams, we all figured it out - "straight line running".  Each person could run straight through the roped off area and touch their foot on one square.  This was much faster, and much more productive.  It was a very different approach.  It took significant change, and fast runners.  Yet, people who were agile but slow runners became less productive than they were when we all ran in and turned quickly to get out of the area. 

There were winners and losers, and everyone adapted as best we could to achieve a much better result.

Australia is going to have winners and losers too

Today, the most recent labour force data showed a small increase in unemployment.  This brought about a howl of concern from Joe Hockey and calls for lower interest rates from Bill Evans to stimulate the economy.  I had to shake my head.

Phillip Lowe explained that there would be winners and losers during this period of structural change.  To lower interest rates now would be to encourage people to keep running into the area and turning around inefficiently, rather than figuring out the equivalent of "straight line running". 

There actually has to be some pain, so change will happen.  There actually have to be some losers, so that they (and we) can all become winners.

Politically, it's a tough time to hold your ground

It's one thing for Phil Lowe to deliver the somewhat bitter pill to the country, and another for Wayne Swan is holding his ground on needing to deliver a surplus, or for Julia Gillard to resist the temptation to provide subsidies to those parts of the economy that are struggling through these changes. 

It's especially hard when the loss of 7 jobs, yes - 7, at Westpac's collection centre makes headline news (ok, so it was combined with 119 IT jobs going offshore, but the 7 jobs still made it into the headlines). The human story of even 1 person losing their job is so much easier and immediate for the average person to grasp that the much more important story that we will benefit from the structural change.

If you are reading this, or read Phil Lowe's speech, please evangelise.  More people need to understand that just a little medicine now will make us very strong in the future.

Let me know what you think

Mark S

Politics the bloodsport - off and racing - it's Gillard, from Abbott and here comes Turnbull

Call me naive, but one thing I didn't expect out of today's leadership ballot was the all-guns-blazing-go-to-your-corners-and-come-out-when-the-bell-rings aftermath that we have seen.

Gillard finest 15 minutes

Perhaps not enough people were watching, but Prime Minister Gillard's press conference and particularly her handling of the media questions was truly Presidential.  She was strong, bold and as she said "impatient".  This was not a Prime Minister who was apologising for her position.  This was not a Prime Minister in any doubt of who was in charge.  She has an agenda, and is going to see that agenda through.

Dare I say it, but that's one from the John Howard playbook.

The Q&A plants

While Tony Abbott was just the same-old negative Tony Abbott, Coalition voters in the Q&A audience really turned up the heat tonight.  Of course we expect each side to have a clear position, but this wasn't Q&A - it was a battleground. 

Yes, the outnumbered Labor voters tried to give as good as they got, but the normally balanced audience was as parochial as Janet Albrechtsen.

Could they sense the need to up the ante? How long before we hear from Clive Palmer again?

Turnbull - the Coalition's nuclear option

The Prime Minister will get on with her agenda.  Australia will have carbon pricing, and a mineral resources tax, and health and ageing reform and a disability insurance scheme, and as many more reforms as she can muster.

History shows that when a Prime Minister does get on with the job of getting things done, they attract the respect of the nation.  Take the Howard/Costello GST - a ballsy move if ever there was one - but it gained respect.  As Gillard passes these Bills, her rating and the ALP rating will rise.

So, the jungle drums will be beating.  Turnbull is sitting at the rear of the field like Phar Lap, ready to pounce.  For all the love Abbott has of polls, all he needs is for the pendulum to swing the wrong way, and his Parliamentary supporters holding marginal seats might exercise the nuclear option and switch their allegiances.

To quote Leslie Cannold's tweet:  Coalition could send Labor into the wilderness for a decade with @TurnbullMalcolm. Abbott will be Labor 2010 all over again #qanda

The real heavyweight battle in ready to begin

We've had the 2009 Libs battle, the 2010 Labor stoush, a Federal election and the grapple for the independents, the carbon tax brawl of 2011 and now the great de-Rudding of 2012.  But, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

None of those haymakers have landed a killer blow.  Gillard is solid on her feet.  Abbott believes he has the crowd behind him, but maybe he hasn't got the goods to knock her out.


Only a fool can confidently predict the next 18 months, but if Gillard gets strong, it could be Turnbull from the clouds in the shadow of the post.

Let me know what you think

Mark S

Kevin Rudd - you've let us down

Dear Kevin,

I've had plenty of jobs where I didn't get along well with my boss.  It becomes my responsibility to do my job to the best of my ability, and earn their support and trust.  Above all, I've always had clients to deliver to.  Regardless of my relationship with my boss, I had to do my best to deliver to my clients. 

Occasionally, I've felt like you that I didn't have the support of my boss, and it wasn't going to change.  So, I left and found another job.  That's your choice, Kevin.

More importantly, though, you have let us - your clients - down.  You are a very good Foreign Minister, and you've thrown in the towel.  You were not a good Prime Minister, and even if you win the spill, you will be leaving Australia with a weakened government.

Kevin, you have disappointed me.  I thought you had changed, I thought you had gained a backbone, I thought you had gained some maturity.  I was wrong.  You are none of those things.  Peter Costello was a great Treasurer who wanted the top job, and never got it from John Howard.  You could have been remembered as a great Foreign Minister. 

Now, you will just be remembered as a crybaby.

It affects me - that's why I must support the private health insurance means test

I want Australia to be more productive, more creative, more fair and economically successful.  Some of these goals require change - change that impacts on real people.

So, when the Gillard government proposed the private health insurance means test, I had to ask myself, does this fit the criteria? Will it make us more productive, or economically successful.  The answer is probably yes.  We need to afford a health system, we need a public dental care system, and for individuals earning over $83,000 or families over $166,000 it seems fair to reduce the rebate they are receiving for purchasing health insurance in return for a $2.4 billion saving over just 3 years.

And it affects me - so I can't very well argue for some changes that don't impact me directly if I won't support changes that do affect me.

Productivity changes affect real people - that's why we need them

If productivity changes didn't impact on anyone, then they are probably not doing anything.  At the moment, Australia is in a once in a century mining boom.  Yes, it's impacting on many industries.  Yes, a lot of people can't see that this is doing them any good.  But, the impacts are real, and they have the potential to transform Australia for the better.

If we want to preserve old manufacturing industries, who is going to pay for it? All of us.

If we want to protect old fashioned retailers, who is going to be affected? All of us.

If we want to continue to drive our economy with polluting, carbon-intensive fuels, who is going to be affected? All of us.

So, we need to embrace the changes that are needed and take advantage of the one in a century opportunity that we are being handed.

I might have to pay and we all might have to change

At the moment, my job isn't impacted by the changes to the economy.  It wasn't always that way - I've been made redundant when the Marketing industry went through change.  So, if you are a manufacturing worker at the Toyota plant, or a retail worker whose shifts are being cut, it would be natural to be concerned. 

For most workers, there are other opportunities.  95% of people who want a job currently are employed.  For the retail worker, you have sales skills - there are currently over 2,000 sales jobs being offered in Melbourne alone.  For the manufacturing worker, there are over 1,500 jobs in Manufacturing, Transport & Logistics in Melbourne.  Change can seem scary, but it's what we have to do as society changes.

For me, I have to pay more for my private health insurance.  I can't ask you to adapt if I won't.  We all have to share the journey.

Tony Abbott's position makes no sense

Given that I will have to pay more for my private health cover, I don't understand why Tony Abbott wants to give me a hand out. Here is his statement on radio...

"Private health insurance is in our DNA. It is our raison d'etre, that is why we exist as a political movement, to give more support and encourage for people who want to get ahead. So, look, private health insurance is an article of faith for us. We will restore the rebate in government as soon as we can.''

So, is he saying that if you are wealthy, we will give you more money to make you more wealthy? Huh?? Honestly, that makes no sense.

Or is he saying he wants to do away with Medicare, and just have private health insurance? That would make even less sense, and be even less equitable.

I'm really trying to understand his perspective, but frankly, I can't see it at all.  Then again, I can't see why Prime Minister Gillard insists on bailing out foreign car companies either ... but that's a discussion for another day.

Times are changing, and we all have to step up to the plate.

Let me know what you think

Mark S

I'm not a monarchist but thank goodness we've had Queen Elizabeth

I am a strong Republican, and still bemoan the squabbling that led to the failure of the 1999 referendum. So, I am not in favour of us having the Queen of England - a foreign country - as our head of State.

Quite separately to my view on a republic, I am very grateful that Queen Elizabeth II has been the head of state of Australia for 60 years.  I'm grateful, because she has been an exceptional person. So, on this diamond jubilee, let's celebrate the excellence of leadership that this individual has provided to our country, and forget for a moment whether she should have that power or not.

Great Queen Elizabeth qualities we can all aspire to 
Calmness under pressure
The classic pressure moment in our recent memory was the aftermath of the death of Princess Diana in 1997.  There has been much written about the Queen's response, but you cannot doubt that she kept her calm and focus, and ultimately responded appropriately.

Resilience
Growing up through World War II, Elizabeth learnt how to cope with circumstances much more trying than any of us living in the relative peace of 2012 can imagine.  That English resilience is shared by Queenslanders coping with floods, and Victorians recovering from bushfires (3 years ago today).  Having a resilient role model has certainly been a positive.


Responsive to change
Unlike many older leaders around the world, Queen Elizabeth has been responsive to change.  She has breached pre-existing royal protocols, held a huge party inside the grounds of Buckingham Palace for the golden jubilee, and moved with the times not against them over 60 years.  Yes, she has her views and would prefer some things to stay the same, but on the whole she has been very modern.

Loyalty
How could you be loyal to a bloke like Phillip? Really! Well, it shows that a strong relationship really can withstand all sorts of pressures, quirks, gaffes and according to some reports, even affairs.  For Queen Elizabeth, though, he has been her rock, and she has been his.  Of course, her loyalty extends beyond the personal, to the national.  She has been a staunch supporter of all of her peoples of the Commonwealth.

Good on you Elizabeth.  You are a great woman, a great leader, and we've been lucky to have you.  Long may you reign.

Let me know what you think

Mark S

Challenge the Narcotics convention

Richard Branson is in favor of drug law reform

I don't much like tattoos and men wearing their undies above their jeans. Other people dislike grunge, heavy metal and the Kardashians. All of these offences against taste are personal choices, with no impact on others. There have been suggestions that each should be banned or restricted, but such claims are regarded as frivolous.

There are many personal choices with no impact on others that are restricted or prohibited

Although those examples of behavior are allowed, almost every society restricts some behavior that is a personal choice. In every case, it is argued that allowing the behavior is harmful to society. Generally, it's a false claim. Blasphemy, homosexuality and topless bathing are all examples that have been banned in Australia and are still banned in some parts of the world.

Alcohol, gambling and drugs are other examples. Each has positive and negative consequences for the user, and yes, when misused, they have negative consequences for society. Yet drugs are prohibited while gambling and alcohol are not.

Prohibition does not work

Prohibition of alcohol failed terribly in the 1920s
Prohibition of gambling in Australia failed
Prohibition of drugs has failed

Like many countries, Australia is a signatory to the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961) which covers drugs with morphine-like, cocaine-like, and cannabis-like effects.  As a result, we are bound to abide by its restrictive principles.  Perhaps the Convention was appropriate 50 years ago.  It is no longer the right approach.

Australia should cease being a signatory to the Single Convention

A new approach to drugs is required in the 21st century.  For Australia to have the flexibility to pursue such an approach, we can longer be bound by the Single Convention. We have shown that by legalising gambling, and regulating it; by legalising alcohol and regulating it; by legalising tobacco and regulating it - that our society benefits.

We should take the same approach to drugs with morphine-like, cocaine-like, and cannabis-like effects, as well as other psychotropic drugs.

I would like to see a new approach to drug management globally.  The place to start is to dismantle the existing structures as they are causing more harm than good.

Let me know what you think

Mark S

Why I'm wrong and so are zealots like Santorum

If there is one thing I am sure about, it's that there are a lot of things I don't know.  Coming from a Science background, that's just sensible - if there is uncertainty around a topic, well, we just have to live with that.  When we get better information, then, we can be more certain - until then, I can have opinions, but I know that my opinions are simply educated guesses on the world.

Why I am sure that religious zealots like Rick Santorum are wrong

So, while I can live with uncertainty, there are a lot of religious zealots in the world who cannot.  Instead, they claim that their faith is right.  Their claims just lack logic.

In our world of 7 billion there are around 2 billion Christians, 1.6 billion Muslims, 1 billion Hindus and 500 million Buddhists.  Each of these believe different truths about the world.  Each is absolutely confident in their faith about those truths. So, they can't all be right.  In fact, because they are absolutists, they must all be wrong.

(As an aside, the Christians might like to claim that majority rules, and because there are more of them, they must be right.  I'd be reluctant to use that line of thinking dear Christians, as the growth rate of Islam is faster than Christianity, so at some stage in the future, this would mean the Christians would have to concede that the Muslims are right!)

Rick Santorum: a religious zealot

Which brings us to Rick Santorum, campaigning on "faith, family and freedom".  His view is that his biblical faith is a truth.  It's a view that was held by George W Bush and by millions of Americans (and other Christians around the world).  But he also claims that he is right and Muslims are wrong with claims such as “We need to define it and say what it is. And it is evil. Sharia law is incompatible with American jurisprudence and our Constitution.”

So, we have different groups passionately claiming they are right, just because ... well, because they say so.  That's why it is so clear that they all must be wrong.

Why it's important that I am not right

Being absolute about the state of the world prevents people from investigating how things can be done differently or better.  If one believes that a deity has cast the world in stone, there is no motivation to improve.  And whether there is, or isn't a God doesn't affect this either.  At its worst, holding such absolute views leads to violence, discrimination and terrorism - and this has been going on for thousands of years.

As productive members of society, we must remain questioning, thoughtful beings, not blind followers of others, or of a text written hundred or thousands of years ago.  By being respectful to alternative opinions, the likelihood of sectarian violence decreases close to zero, for their is no faith to have to protect.

The more I have learnt over the years, the more confident I am that I don't know a lot of important things.  I'm also confident that I should keep searching for a little better understanding, and not rely on blind faith.

The world needs leaders who encourage us all to question and grow, and not to be religious fundamentalists.  Rick Santorum (like Osama bin Laden) is wrong.

Let me know what you think.

The Iron Lady only had partial rights to do what she did

Meryl Streep deserves great praise for her portrayal of Margaret Thatcher in "The Iron Lady", despite the screenplay itself lacking from its superficial coverage of each of the important events in Thatcher's political life (unfortunately a more fulsome coverage would have run for too long for the average Oscar contender). She shows the leadership qualities that gained Thatcher her steely reputation, but also exposed the arrogance that is a leader's greatest enemy.

The fine line between leadership and tyranny

We want our leaders to lead.  We don't want them to dominate, terrorise or control our lives.  I don't agree with Thatcher on a range of her policies and approaches, but I respect her for stating her perspective and for being elected by the British people.  What I don't respect is her belief that her way was the only way.

As a hard-line conservative, Thatcher believed that all people had a responsibility to work, to earn an income.  Yet she went further, by stating it as a duty. 

"when people come and say:"But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!" You say:"Look" It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!" 1

This debate plays out in all democracies, and there is certainly truth to the sentiment - without people choosing to be productive, society would have no progress.  However, Thatcher puts her perspective as an absolute.  It is this "moral absolutism" that is of concern, rather than the view itself.

When leadership gives way to righteousness

Thatcher's downfall is often portrayed as the infamous cabinet meeting in which she chastised her colleagues as children.  While this obviously had a role to play, the (almost) equally famous resignation speech in the Commons by the Chancellor, Sir Geoffrey Howe, made it clear that it was Thatcher's refusal to consider any alternative views on integration with a European monetary union that was actually to blame.  As he said...

"Cabinet Government is all about trying to persuade one another from within". That was my commitment to Government by persuasion--persuading colleagues and the nation. I have tried to do that as Foreign Secretary and since, but I realise now that the task has become futile...The conflict of loyalty, of loyalty to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister--and, after all, in two decades together that instinct of loyalty is still very real--and of loyalty to what I perceive to be the true interests of the nation, has become all too great. I no longer believe it possible to resolve that conflict from within this Government. That is why I have resigned.

We can all take the lesson that leadership is no longer leadership when nobody is following any more.

Let me know what you think.

Mark S