This is sad, not because he is leaving the party, but because it is revealed that, although a life member, he has been troubled for years about the party’s direction on various issues. What angst is caused by party loyalty to men of sincere character!
In leaving, he has fulfilled the words of Shakespeare from ‘Hamlet’:
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
What a price is paid by men of conscience for ‘core’ and ‘non-core’ promises, and such-like spin! Many an honest man, and woman has had to leave politics, in frustration, leaving behind those more willing to compromise, selling their souls for political power—a ‘mess of pottage’.
In Winston Churchill's biography of his father, ‘Lord Randolph Churchill’, he wrote:
‘…in a clear reference to his own thinking, to an England 'of wise men' who gaze without self deception at the failings and follies of both political parties; of brave and earnest men who find in neither faction, fair scope for the effort that is in them; of 'poor men' who increasingly doubt the sincerity of party philosophy.’
It has been said that there can be no democracy without political parties. What a travesty of the truth! Why believe that, when the success of the secret ballot for elections, calmly, decisively settling who shall represent us in parliament, clearly indicates that ballots in parliament will replace party rivalry with calm, objective debate, leading straight to logical conclusions and action, making election platforms and promises totally irrelevant. May it soon be!
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
On the Way to Democracy
A funny thing happened on the way to democracy. We, in the South Seas, ran with the baton, but after 1900 we dropped it, when party politics loomed its head in 1911, with the formation of the Labor party, to combat the dominance of business and squatter interests.
As Ross Gittins observes (AGE comment 26/5), Australia and New Zealand have been serious innovators—Australia with the 1856 introduction of the ‘Australian’ secret ballot, and the Kiwis, first with the vote for women, 1893, each now widely adopted throughout the world. Then we believed in ourselves. Seeing clearly, we took bold steps and succeeded with worthwhile change.
As Gittins says: “Compulsory voting hasn’t caught on elsewhere, but why should we care? We don’t”. Now even the Brits are considering changing to the ‘Australian system’—preferential voting. Good luck Britain!
With growing problems, we are now confused and uncertain. Criticism of bold moves, such as, action to deal with climate change, and to return a fair return to the nation for the sale of mineral assets, is unnerving party government. It is said there should be much more consultation to get things right in the first place but, is that possible when the national interest is subservient to the vested conflicting interests of the political parties struggling over power. The parliament is supposed to be the authority for making the decisions needed to bring order out of chaos, but it can't.
As a nation we are therefore confused and weakened by the divisive nature of our party dominated political system.
We, the people, are baffled onlookers of the conflict, which has no legitimate part in a self-governing democracy. We are excluded from any informative process of participation in the making of decisions. We are, instead, landed with the impossible task, come the elections, of assessing which of the contenders will do us the least harm, let alone ‘advance Australia fair’.
Where are the forums which should take place in every electorate, to discuss and understand these issues, with the sitting member, and alternative candidates; participating with other constituents, in an educative process of freely sharing in the combined knowledge and wisdom of the people? Isn’t that what we need?
As Ross Gittins observes (AGE comment 26/5), Australia and New Zealand have been serious innovators—Australia with the 1856 introduction of the ‘Australian’ secret ballot, and the Kiwis, first with the vote for women, 1893, each now widely adopted throughout the world. Then we believed in ourselves. Seeing clearly, we took bold steps and succeeded with worthwhile change.
As Gittins says: “Compulsory voting hasn’t caught on elsewhere, but why should we care? We don’t”. Now even the Brits are considering changing to the ‘Australian system’—preferential voting. Good luck Britain!
With growing problems, we are now confused and uncertain. Criticism of bold moves, such as, action to deal with climate change, and to return a fair return to the nation for the sale of mineral assets, is unnerving party government. It is said there should be much more consultation to get things right in the first place but, is that possible when the national interest is subservient to the vested conflicting interests of the political parties struggling over power. The parliament is supposed to be the authority for making the decisions needed to bring order out of chaos, but it can't.
As a nation we are therefore confused and weakened by the divisive nature of our party dominated political system.
We, the people, are baffled onlookers of the conflict, which has no legitimate part in a self-governing democracy. We are excluded from any informative process of participation in the making of decisions. We are, instead, landed with the impossible task, come the elections, of assessing which of the contenders will do us the least harm, let alone ‘advance Australia fair’.
Where are the forums which should take place in every electorate, to discuss and understand these issues, with the sitting member, and alternative candidates; participating with other constituents, in an educative process of freely sharing in the combined knowledge and wisdom of the people? Isn’t that what we need?
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Mining Super tax.
They don't want the tax of course but, the miners are against the super tax on ‘pre-tax (net) profits’ I believe. These might come first (as a virtual cost) with income tax on the balance. First or last the money outcome remains the same. E.g 1000 less 40% = 600 less 30%= 420. Again 1000 less 30%= 700 less 40% = 420 – the same. Super tax on ‘pre-tax profits’ coming early on, suggests a cash flow reason. They want to have maximum funds available for immediate expansion while prices are high. That’s my guess.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
A Democratic World Government
Tension mounts in many lands as political systems fail to bring order, with oppression and protests, guns and bombs, cruelty and terror, crime and murder. Is it at all likely that real political solutions will mature in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Currently reported troubles in Thailand and South Africa and the failure to resolve the Israel/Palestinian crisis are other prominent cases of political failure. What is the answer to a world full of problems, with the failure of democracy to take its rightful control of the world?
While there is no doubt that much good work is being done by the UN, it is also clear that the world situation demands some drastic change to enable and the UN as a world government to bring order out of chaos wherever it exists in the world.
The Israel/Palestinian situation has defied the efforts of various American presidents, who have been thwarted by strong internal opposition. Likewise the efforts of various European powers have been stymied by America’s veto Power in the Security Council.
The Security Council is a relic of the Cold War, along with its power of veto for the founding members. But it is high time that the nations of the world joined together to create a suitable form of democratic world government, which properly constructed, could dispense with the old Security Council. That would mean giving each nation voting rights in the Assembly to match the size of its population, (not too daunting a problem), giving all nations a voice but a varied voting power. (Further on, the large nation’s votes might be divided amongst multiple representatives.)
The Assembly’s executive functions would soon be determined by vote, and the present power of sovereign nations to ignore world opinion on abuses of individual rights etc. could not hold out against the authority of the UN Assembly and its police force. Fair, strong government would remove excuses for war, and any reason for the possession of destructive armaments. The future is just ahead of us. Reach for the stars!
Currently reported troubles in Thailand and South Africa and the failure to resolve the Israel/Palestinian crisis are other prominent cases of political failure. What is the answer to a world full of problems, with the failure of democracy to take its rightful control of the world?
While there is no doubt that much good work is being done by the UN, it is also clear that the world situation demands some drastic change to enable and the UN as a world government to bring order out of chaos wherever it exists in the world.
The Israel/Palestinian situation has defied the efforts of various American presidents, who have been thwarted by strong internal opposition. Likewise the efforts of various European powers have been stymied by America’s veto Power in the Security Council.
The Security Council is a relic of the Cold War, along with its power of veto for the founding members. But it is high time that the nations of the world joined together to create a suitable form of democratic world government, which properly constructed, could dispense with the old Security Council. That would mean giving each nation voting rights in the Assembly to match the size of its population, (not too daunting a problem), giving all nations a voice but a varied voting power. (Further on, the large nation’s votes might be divided amongst multiple representatives.)
The Assembly’s executive functions would soon be determined by vote, and the present power of sovereign nations to ignore world opinion on abuses of individual rights etc. could not hold out against the authority of the UN Assembly and its police force. Fair, strong government would remove excuses for war, and any reason for the possession of destructive armaments. The future is just ahead of us. Reach for the stars!
Friday, May 14, 2010
Election Hysteria
As the elections inexorably approach, we can see all the warts of the party system, even more clearly. On the 730 report, Kerry O'Brien gets aggressive and rude to the PM. Then Rudd's ‘warm’ response becomes a big talking point, judged by some to mean he is out of control! But Leunig’s cartoon is a jeering response. Do we want our politicians, elected by the people, to just be doormats for any Tom, Dick or Harry?
Again, a change in policy by a party government is criticised as a ‘back flip’, without substantive consideration as to whether it is justified or not. Brumby rethinks ‘suspended sentencing’ – a policy of the opposition, and the opposition becomes upset. Which is the first priority, the interest of a political party or the public interest that is constantly hindered by the shenanigans of the political parties, as they grasp for power?
Again, the mining resource tax will add to the federal pre-election bun-fight, controlled by emotions rather than facts. To the claim of some that the resources tax on mining will drive mining offshore, it has been pointed out that that will not happen unless the mineral resources themselves go offshore!
Thank goodness there are still some sensible people around!
Will ballots in parliament eliminate some, or even all, of this rubbish? You bet! The people will be in charge. How, you say?
With parliament controlled by electronic ballot, all MPs will be independent and have the power to together elect, and sometimes sack, each and every minister, including the Prime Minister although the PM, being already elected as the most respected member of parliament, will not be likely to ever be a target.
And all MPs themselves will be under the regular, direct scrutiny of their constituents in public meetings, as they caucus to examine together the best way to tackle each issue.The net result of this is that controversial issues will be thrashed out at the local level and the representation of the electorate in parliament will substantially reflect considered public opinion.
In parliament the electronic ballot will enable precise polling of every variation of opinion during debate and thus enable the real public (educated) view to reach conclusions with substantial (unarguable) majorities, which might well vary constitutionally where a decision once made cannot be amended - e.g.war. In that kind of decision the constitution might demand a 90% majority!
Stable, intelligent decision-making in our democracy can be confidently anticipated from converting the operation of all our parliaments to electronic secret voting.
Again, a change in policy by a party government is criticised as a ‘back flip’, without substantive consideration as to whether it is justified or not. Brumby rethinks ‘suspended sentencing’ – a policy of the opposition, and the opposition becomes upset. Which is the first priority, the interest of a political party or the public interest that is constantly hindered by the shenanigans of the political parties, as they grasp for power?
Again, the mining resource tax will add to the federal pre-election bun-fight, controlled by emotions rather than facts. To the claim of some that the resources tax on mining will drive mining offshore, it has been pointed out that that will not happen unless the mineral resources themselves go offshore!
Thank goodness there are still some sensible people around!
Will ballots in parliament eliminate some, or even all, of this rubbish? You bet! The people will be in charge. How, you say?
With parliament controlled by electronic ballot, all MPs will be independent and have the power to together elect, and sometimes sack, each and every minister, including the Prime Minister although the PM, being already elected as the most respected member of parliament, will not be likely to ever be a target.
And all MPs themselves will be under the regular, direct scrutiny of their constituents in public meetings, as they caucus to examine together the best way to tackle each issue.The net result of this is that controversial issues will be thrashed out at the local level and the representation of the electorate in parliament will substantially reflect considered public opinion.
In parliament the electronic ballot will enable precise polling of every variation of opinion during debate and thus enable the real public (educated) view to reach conclusions with substantial (unarguable) majorities, which might well vary constitutionally where a decision once made cannot be amended - e.g.war. In that kind of decision the constitution might demand a 90% majority!
Stable, intelligent decision-making in our democracy can be confidently anticipated from converting the operation of all our parliaments to electronic secret voting.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Share markets chaos
Friends
Today we have bad news on the share market front. Two adverse situations
could be working together here to create chaos. In Greece, the
government and people have fallen down on the job. And despite the large
Euro loan on offer, Greek government deficits are set to worsen, while
there are wild public protests against government attempts to bring
order and chaos. The public is not ready and willing for additional
taxes and cuts to public services, which might gradually resolve the
problem.
At home, we are looking at a new era of share trading at lightning
speeds, by high-speed Internet, using algorithms, mathematical formulae
which simulate a human being making financial share trading decisions,
the difference being that with the high-speed computers and Internet,
the decisions can be multiplied in fractions of a second. Share market
regulators are obviously at a loss to be able to comprehend the problems
occurring and take satisfactory action. It makes one think again of the
old Greek quote: “Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.”
These complex situations obviously present horrendous problems for
government to maintain order in society, while human intellectual
ability and financial activity escalate at an enormous rate. Can our
government system, which was settled in the horse and buggy age of 1901,
cope satisfactorily with these problems, in a manner conducive to peace
and harmony in the world today?
When our manner of government and constitution were set in 1901, three
months was allowed for certain actions of the Senate, because senators
coming from Perth and Brisbane were coming by sailing ship! What a
contrast to present day flights by plane! We have a big problem ahead of
us to bring our government style and operation up to operational speed,
in line with the complexity of modern technology and social practices..
In the face of such problems, it has been said that when a crisis
occurs, change will be made. However, history demonstrates that when
crisis occurs changes can be made, but they are rarely for the better,
and often much worse. Crises are not capable of producing intelligent
change to complex situations.
In Britain, we have an interesting but tricky situation with the Liberal
Democrats in a minority situation, but with the power to do deals with
the other parties. The electoral system is antique with
first-past-the-post voting, which has produced the present situation.
Will one of the parties accede to the Liberal Democrat wish for
electoral reform.
What might happen? Would Britain be likely to adopt preferential voting,
as we have in the House of Representatives, or perhaps a ‘proportional
representational’ system, as we have in the Senate, with large multiple
electorates? Either of these changes would profoundly change the face of
British politics.
Today we have bad news on the share market front. Two adverse situations
could be working together here to create chaos. In Greece, the
government and people have fallen down on the job. And despite the large
Euro loan on offer, Greek government deficits are set to worsen, while
there are wild public protests against government attempts to bring
order and chaos. The public is not ready and willing for additional
taxes and cuts to public services, which might gradually resolve the
problem.
At home, we are looking at a new era of share trading at lightning
speeds, by high-speed Internet, using algorithms, mathematical formulae
which simulate a human being making financial share trading decisions,
the difference being that with the high-speed computers and Internet,
the decisions can be multiplied in fractions of a second. Share market
regulators are obviously at a loss to be able to comprehend the problems
occurring and take satisfactory action. It makes one think again of the
old Greek quote: “Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.”
These complex situations obviously present horrendous problems for
government to maintain order in society, while human intellectual
ability and financial activity escalate at an enormous rate. Can our
government system, which was settled in the horse and buggy age of 1901,
cope satisfactorily with these problems, in a manner conducive to peace
and harmony in the world today?
When our manner of government and constitution were set in 1901, three
months was allowed for certain actions of the Senate, because senators
coming from Perth and Brisbane were coming by sailing ship! What a
contrast to present day flights by plane! We have a big problem ahead of
us to bring our government style and operation up to operational speed,
in line with the complexity of modern technology and social practices..
In the face of such problems, it has been said that when a crisis
occurs, change will be made. However, history demonstrates that when
crisis occurs changes can be made, but they are rarely for the better,
and often much worse. Crises are not capable of producing intelligent
change to complex situations.
In Britain, we have an interesting but tricky situation with the Liberal
Democrats in a minority situation, but with the power to do deals with
the other parties. The electoral system is antique with
first-past-the-post voting, which has produced the present situation.
Will one of the parties accede to the Liberal Democrat wish for
electoral reform.
What might happen? Would Britain be likely to adopt preferential voting,
as we have in the House of Representatives, or perhaps a ‘proportional
representational’ system, as we have in the Senate, with large multiple
electorates? Either of these changes would profoundly change the face of
British politics.
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
Henry tax review
The critical reception of the government’s response to the Henry tax review highlights once more the inherent popular dissatisfaction with, and distrust of, government by rival political management teams—left and right, see-saw government.
Especially in an election year the rivalry between our major political parties produces unhelpful public and business angst, not entirely free of bitterness.
Problems are endemic and decisions to resolve them have to be made at each level of government in the context of a struggle for power.
Publically, opinions are myriad, but there is no way for them to bear on the ultimate decisions, to give assurance to various interests in the community that at least the process is fair—which of course it isn’t to the people at large.
Can party governments, with the pressures of vested interests, ever provide fairness of legislation, to give the whole community confidence in government, in today’s climate of problems? The incumbent having the major power to decide the whole range of issues of foreign ownership, business and workplace interests, tax and public services, poverty and distribution of wealth, hospitals and health, law and order, high housing costs and excessive private debt causing family problems and bankruptcies, etc.etc— not to mention the rising problems of aging population, climate change, future resource exhaustion, population explosion and Islamic Shariah law, isn’t it patently obvious that only a non-partisan parliament of independent MPs, drawing on the effective involvement and wisdom of a participating people, will be able to rally the people to face the future with confidence. Only parliamentary voting by ballot can do this.
Citizens must have the opportunity to be involved on the fringe of government, as economic, social and political problems crowd our future.
Switzerland, that so-stable country, has answered the problem by giving access to the community to achieve legislation for neglected issues by their process of public petition for Citizen Initiated Referenda (CIR), while New Zealand has adopted a similar CIR provision, effectively providing a plebiscite, which can powerfully influence government , but falls short of mandating law.
Especially in an election year the rivalry between our major political parties produces unhelpful public and business angst, not entirely free of bitterness.
Problems are endemic and decisions to resolve them have to be made at each level of government in the context of a struggle for power.
Publically, opinions are myriad, but there is no way for them to bear on the ultimate decisions, to give assurance to various interests in the community that at least the process is fair—which of course it isn’t to the people at large.
Can party governments, with the pressures of vested interests, ever provide fairness of legislation, to give the whole community confidence in government, in today’s climate of problems? The incumbent having the major power to decide the whole range of issues of foreign ownership, business and workplace interests, tax and public services, poverty and distribution of wealth, hospitals and health, law and order, high housing costs and excessive private debt causing family problems and bankruptcies, etc.etc— not to mention the rising problems of aging population, climate change, future resource exhaustion, population explosion and Islamic Shariah law, isn’t it patently obvious that only a non-partisan parliament of independent MPs, drawing on the effective involvement and wisdom of a participating people, will be able to rally the people to face the future with confidence. Only parliamentary voting by ballot can do this.
Citizens must have the opportunity to be involved on the fringe of government, as economic, social and political problems crowd our future.
Switzerland, that so-stable country, has answered the problem by giving access to the community to achieve legislation for neglected issues by their process of public petition for Citizen Initiated Referenda (CIR), while New Zealand has adopted a similar CIR provision, effectively providing a plebiscite, which can powerfully influence government , but falls short of mandating law.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Islam and Dress Sense
Last night on ABC1 Emma Alberici interviewed a Muslim woman clad in a
burka, only gradually allowing her eyes to be seen. Her primary reason
for wearing the burka was that as a child, and in her teens, she was
sexually harassed. Her husband said that it was her choice.
France proposes a new law banning the face covering burka as intimidatory to others. Perhaps they
also need a law to ban sexual harassment!
In a democratic society, minority groups’ concerns are entitled to be
heard—'the love of democracy is the love of others'. Thus the arrival of
substantial numbers of Muslims, with a wide spectrum of beliefs
challenges the strength and wisdom of our society—of us as a people—of
our democracy.
When freedom (of dress) becomes license, as it has, we have a serious problem. Laws
can be made, but they are only successful if society's values and
principles do in fact support them. As a door-to-door salesman once, I was advised that one's mode of dress
should be good but not such as to draw undue attention. I am sure that
was a good rule - for both male and female - in any age.
Government can only make really good laws for a better society if there
is a much greater opportunity for popular participation in public
affairs. I believe that, in community face to face discussion, our best
values and principles will prevail, leading to better representation and
good (parliamentary) government, away from conflict, to a consensus
which strongly represents us at our best—a real democracy—where ‘the
love of others’ prevails.
burka, only gradually allowing her eyes to be seen. Her primary reason
for wearing the burka was that as a child, and in her teens, she was
sexually harassed. Her husband said that it was her choice.
France proposes a new law banning the face covering burka as intimidatory to others. Perhaps they
also need a law to ban sexual harassment!
In a democratic society, minority groups’ concerns are entitled to be
heard—'the love of democracy is the love of others'. Thus the arrival of
substantial numbers of Muslims, with a wide spectrum of beliefs
challenges the strength and wisdom of our society—of us as a people—of
our democracy.
When freedom (of dress) becomes license, as it has, we have a serious problem. Laws
can be made, but they are only successful if society's values and
principles do in fact support them. As a door-to-door salesman once, I was advised that one's mode of dress
should be good but not such as to draw undue attention. I am sure that
was a good rule - for both male and female - in any age.
Government can only make really good laws for a better society if there
is a much greater opportunity for popular participation in public
affairs. I believe that, in community face to face discussion, our best
values and principles will prevail, leading to better representation and
good (parliamentary) government, away from conflict, to a consensus
which strongly represents us at our best—a real democracy—where ‘the
love of others’ prevails.
Islam and Freedom of Speech
THIS IS WHAT FREEDOM OF SPEECH MEANS TO THEM. (Extract from email)
Pictures from London -- this is beyond scary...
Pictures of Muslims marching through the STREETS OF LONDON during their recent 'Religion of Peace Demonstration.'
Makes you wonder doesn't it...can you imagine having a Christian demonstration against Islam in downtown Baghdad !
These were the placards:
‘Slay those that don't believe in Islam.
Europe, you will pay. Demolition is on its way will stop
Butcher those who mock Islam
Islam will dominate the world
Behead those who insult Islam
Freedom go to hell
Europe take some lessons from 9/11
Europe, you will pay 9/11 is on its way]
Be prepared for the real Holocaust
Massacre those who insult Islam’
I don’t think we want to insult Islam any more than they should insult Christianity. We think of the gentleness of Jesus, in whom we believe, who said on the Cross, “Father forgive them they don’t know what they do”.
Muslims have stated that England will be the first country they take over!
Pictures from London -- this is beyond scary...
Pictures of Muslims marching through the STREETS OF LONDON during their recent 'Religion of Peace Demonstration.'
Makes you wonder doesn't it...can you imagine having a Christian demonstration against Islam in downtown Baghdad !
These were the placards:
‘Slay those that don't believe in Islam.
Europe, you will pay. Demolition is on its way will stop
Butcher those who mock Islam
Islam will dominate the world
Behead those who insult Islam
Freedom go to hell
Europe take some lessons from 9/11
Europe, you will pay 9/11 is on its way]
Be prepared for the real Holocaust
Massacre those who insult Islam’
I don’t think we want to insult Islam any more than they should insult Christianity. We think of the gentleness of Jesus, in whom we believe, who said on the Cross, “Father forgive them they don’t know what they do”.
Muslims have stated that England will be the first country they take over!
Friday, April 16, 2010
Immigration and the Boat People
‘Getup’ describes Australia’s suspension of processing of the boat people as a return to the ‘Howard years’ with refugees’ frustration and rejection, (www.getup.org.au/).
But many here resent the problem. And the exclusion of the public from active participation in politics means that party governments live in fear of the public reaction at the next election. Moral leadership in government is thus made difficult and fear dictates decisions which can be cruel, instead of compassionate.
Engraved upon the pedestal of the American Statue of Liberty is a poem by Emma Lazarus, ‘The New Colossus’, (http://www.libertystatepark.com/emma.htm) from which comes the quote: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”. In those days refugees were offered freedom, not wealth, and they built America—and Australia—as we are today. New countries were then able to offer large potential for economic growth through massive natural wealth, (although the respective Indigenes suffered enormously).
But today, as well as the fear of persecution, world television offers the dream of a much better standard of living in Western societies. So there are two forces driving the poor of the world to emigrate. But, there are also two strands of public thinking with regard to refugees. And only one of them is compassion.
There again, increasing world population demands an urgent answer. But what is it?
But many here resent the problem. And the exclusion of the public from active participation in politics means that party governments live in fear of the public reaction at the next election. Moral leadership in government is thus made difficult and fear dictates decisions which can be cruel, instead of compassionate.
Engraved upon the pedestal of the American Statue of Liberty is a poem by Emma Lazarus, ‘The New Colossus’, (http://www.libertystatepark.com/emma.htm) from which comes the quote: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”. In those days refugees were offered freedom, not wealth, and they built America—and Australia—as we are today. New countries were then able to offer large potential for economic growth through massive natural wealth, (although the respective Indigenes suffered enormously).
But today, as well as the fear of persecution, world television offers the dream of a much better standard of living in Western societies. So there are two forces driving the poor of the world to emigrate. But, there are also two strands of public thinking with regard to refugees. And only one of them is compassion.
There again, increasing world population demands an urgent answer. But what is it?
Monday, April 05, 2010
Democracy shortchanged
The Age today (5/4) editorialises pathetically:
‘In our democracy, majority doesn’t always rule’, drawing attention to the fact that votes cast for parties in ‘safe’ and ‘marginal’ seats can so vary the result that often the party achieving the less overall votes gains the greater number of seats, while the role of ‘opposition’ falls to the major winner of actual votes. Is there really no way out of this crazy and socially destructive mockery of democracy?
It is patently clear Abraham Lincoln’s three specific requirements of a satisfactory democracy—‘government OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people’—are far from being realised.
‘In our democracy, majority doesn’t always rule’, drawing attention to the fact that votes cast for parties in ‘safe’ and ‘marginal’ seats can so vary the result that often the party achieving the less overall votes gains the greater number of seats, while the role of ‘opposition’ falls to the major winner of actual votes. Is there really no way out of this crazy and socially destructive mockery of democracy?
It is patently clear Abraham Lincoln’s three specific requirements of a satisfactory democracy—‘government OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people’—are far from being realised.
Saturday, April 03, 2010
Stability and Minority Power
Following the American War of Independence, President Washington sent John Adams (who followed Washington’s presidentcy) as America’s first Ambassador to the English throne—a conciliatory gesture after a bitter war. As he was retiring from the audience with King George III, the King commented: ‘I pray Mr Adams that the United States will not suffer from the want of a monarchy.’ This is a knotty point for both Monarchists and Republicans to ponder. Stability primarily depends on strength with fairness, even benevolence in government, whatever its form. What success has America enjoyed?
The US White House is currently being pressured by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which wants the US administration to settle their differences ‘behind closed doors …quietly, in trust and confidence’—of course, when clever manipulation of congressmen has so far stymied the best efforts of each US administration, and the UN, to achieve a free and separate state for the Palestinians. We certainly hope Obama can be strong and pull off a settlement of this ancient tussle.
Tasmania now has a hung parliament, following an inconclusive election, due to the public’s problem with the government’s ‘unhealthy relationship’ with the all-powerful Gunn’s forestry company. In a recent public meeting, Getup reports, a timber consultant asked a pertinent question which was answered with the threatening comment, accompanied by a fist in her face: ‘don’t you ever ask a question like that in a public meeting.’ Questioned as to a complaint to the police, her reply was that next morning there was a box of matches in her letter box, with the implication that her house could easily be set on fire. What madness is this? ‘Whom God wishes to destroy He first makes mad.’ Seneca. A society ignoring God will certainly unravel.
The US White House is currently being pressured by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which wants the US administration to settle their differences ‘behind closed doors …quietly, in trust and confidence’—of course, when clever manipulation of congressmen has so far stymied the best efforts of each US administration, and the UN, to achieve a free and separate state for the Palestinians. We certainly hope Obama can be strong and pull off a settlement of this ancient tussle.
Tasmania now has a hung parliament, following an inconclusive election, due to the public’s problem with the government’s ‘unhealthy relationship’ with the all-powerful Gunn’s forestry company. In a recent public meeting, Getup reports, a timber consultant asked a pertinent question which was answered with the threatening comment, accompanied by a fist in her face: ‘don’t you ever ask a question like that in a public meeting.’ Questioned as to a complaint to the police, her reply was that next morning there was a box of matches in her letter box, with the implication that her house could easily be set on fire. What madness is this? ‘Whom God wishes to destroy He first makes mad.’ Seneca. A society ignoring God will certainly unravel.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Saving our System - CIR
Friends,
Seeing government, here and around the world, is in such a horrendous state, I think we should examine some of the current options to improve it.
The US state of Arizona, apparently has a constitutional provision that, after the government has passed a law, there is a period in which the population can object by petition. If the required number of signatures is reached, the matter must be resolved by referendum, possibly at the next election.
There are other American states, perhaps twenty or so out of the forty nine, which have adopted similar provisions, possibly with variations. It is not unusual to see car stickers – e.g. ‘Vote NO for number 5’, referring to a referendum to be held based on CIR
The notion of CIR springs from the Swiss ‘Initiative’ which has been in vogue there for many years. Considering that they have three major ethnic groups, German, French and Italian and have managed to stay calm and clear while two world wars raged around them, their government has worked very well with this very real involvement of the people.
New Zealand has also recently adopted CIR. It is usual that a matter passed by a CIR becomes law automatically - only alterable by referendum, but in this case enactment is not mandatory! Nevertheless, a government taking no notice of such a widely expressed popular viewpoint would be foolish to ignore it. Thus the power of the people through CIR can usefully constrain rash government even if it is but rarely used. CIR requires a degree of responsibility on the part of the people not to misuse its power – e.g. to cut taxes. It is recently reported that California has financial problems, with its law, (passed by CIR), preventing any increase in tax without a two thirds majority in the legislature.
One problem with CIR is that it makes no provision for discussion in local forums to deepen the peoples understanding of the issue, leaving the media to be too influential. But it does give some involvement of the people.
What do you think?
Seeing government, here and around the world, is in such a horrendous state, I think we should examine some of the current options to improve it.
The US state of Arizona, apparently has a constitutional provision that, after the government has passed a law, there is a period in which the population can object by petition. If the required number of signatures is reached, the matter must be resolved by referendum, possibly at the next election.
There are other American states, perhaps twenty or so out of the forty nine, which have adopted similar provisions, possibly with variations. It is not unusual to see car stickers – e.g. ‘Vote NO for number 5’, referring to a referendum to be held based on CIR
The notion of CIR springs from the Swiss ‘Initiative’ which has been in vogue there for many years. Considering that they have three major ethnic groups, German, French and Italian and have managed to stay calm and clear while two world wars raged around them, their government has worked very well with this very real involvement of the people.
New Zealand has also recently adopted CIR. It is usual that a matter passed by a CIR becomes law automatically - only alterable by referendum, but in this case enactment is not mandatory! Nevertheless, a government taking no notice of such a widely expressed popular viewpoint would be foolish to ignore it. Thus the power of the people through CIR can usefully constrain rash government even if it is but rarely used. CIR requires a degree of responsibility on the part of the people not to misuse its power – e.g. to cut taxes. It is recently reported that California has financial problems, with its law, (passed by CIR), preventing any increase in tax without a two thirds majority in the legislature.
One problem with CIR is that it makes no provision for discussion in local forums to deepen the peoples understanding of the issue, leaving the media to be too influential. But it does give some involvement of the people.
What do you think?
Friday, March 26, 2010
President Netanyahu’s visit to President Obama
The reports of this visit indicate that President Obama is not inclined to give Israel just what it happens to want. Good for him! This is plainly upsetting to Israel, and some of its friends in the West. Israel has become accustomed to getting whatever it wants.
At particular issue at the moment is the area of East Jerusalem which Palestine sees as essential for its eventual capital. Israel sees it as just another bit of their land, pretty much the same as any other, e.g. Tel Aviv they say— nothing special to Israel just another part of their land—but very important to the Palestinians. To Israel it is plainly ‘dog-in-the-manger’ stuff.
What is very plain is that the reasonable Palestinian desire for a sovereign state will never be possible without refusing some of the Israeli demands. It is hoped that President Obama will be able to stand fast on a just solution. That is a tall order as there are far too many ‘friends of Israel’, not only in the US, but here as well. I was startled to hear Rudd say: ‘I’ve been a friend of Israel all my life!’ Exactly, why is that?
Do the sufferings of the Palestinians from the invasion of their land sixty years ago mean nothing to us? Sure, the UN was justified in helping the Jews. But the UN has quite reasonably sought to help the Palestinians too over many years, but has been consistently blocked from doing so. Why can that be?
At particular issue at the moment is the area of East Jerusalem which Palestine sees as essential for its eventual capital. Israel sees it as just another bit of their land, pretty much the same as any other, e.g. Tel Aviv they say— nothing special to Israel just another part of their land—but very important to the Palestinians. To Israel it is plainly ‘dog-in-the-manger’ stuff.
What is very plain is that the reasonable Palestinian desire for a sovereign state will never be possible without refusing some of the Israeli demands. It is hoped that President Obama will be able to stand fast on a just solution. That is a tall order as there are far too many ‘friends of Israel’, not only in the US, but here as well. I was startled to hear Rudd say: ‘I’ve been a friend of Israel all my life!’ Exactly, why is that?
Do the sufferings of the Palestinians from the invasion of their land sixty years ago mean nothing to us? Sure, the UN was justified in helping the Jews. But the UN has quite reasonably sought to help the Palestinians too over many years, but has been consistently blocked from doing so. Why can that be?
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Unproductive conflict
Friends,
The state of the world and the incompetence of the present standard of democracy—based on competition and conflict—here and worldwide sadden me. With politicians doing to each other ‘whatever it takes’ to gain or retain power, ethics, morality go out the window. And the last resort is guns and bombs.
Leaders in conflict achieve far less than a cooperative team in our parliament would be able to do—with far less personal angst and far more positive outcomes.
Ballots in parliaments can cure all this, by opening up the decision-making processes to the people. Non-party government based on a secret-ballot system of voting in parliament will certainly be much stronger, much wiser, and longer sighted than all current democracies.
Ministers would be free to devote their full attention to their departments, having been elected thereto by their fellow members. Parliamentary debate would be free of invective, very objective, and swiftly arrive at the best solutions to difficult problems, gaining the respect of the people; including many members of the population, at various levels, who are in practical revolt against authority, requiring an escalation of laws and increased problems and responsibilities for law-enforcement agencies.
This vision awakens hope for representation by independents, chosen by the people, each in a practical partnership with constituents in regular local forums, involving significant numbers of concerned citizens, and a much better informed electorate.
The Secret Ballot Party seeks members from among responsible citizens to pursue this vision of open, sensible, and effective government. Membership is presently free. Apply by email or telephone 61 03 9800 2561.
The state of the world and the incompetence of the present standard of democracy—based on competition and conflict—here and worldwide sadden me. With politicians doing to each other ‘whatever it takes’ to gain or retain power, ethics, morality go out the window. And the last resort is guns and bombs.
Leaders in conflict achieve far less than a cooperative team in our parliament would be able to do—with far less personal angst and far more positive outcomes.
Ballots in parliaments can cure all this, by opening up the decision-making processes to the people. Non-party government based on a secret-ballot system of voting in parliament will certainly be much stronger, much wiser, and longer sighted than all current democracies.
Ministers would be free to devote their full attention to their departments, having been elected thereto by their fellow members. Parliamentary debate would be free of invective, very objective, and swiftly arrive at the best solutions to difficult problems, gaining the respect of the people; including many members of the population, at various levels, who are in practical revolt against authority, requiring an escalation of laws and increased problems and responsibilities for law-enforcement agencies.
This vision awakens hope for representation by independents, chosen by the people, each in a practical partnership with constituents in regular local forums, involving significant numbers of concerned citizens, and a much better informed electorate.
The Secret Ballot Party seeks members from among responsible citizens to pursue this vision of open, sensible, and effective government. Membership is presently free. Apply by email or telephone 61 03 9800 2561.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Israel hardens stance against US demands
There are two fallacies in the above heading (The Age 18/3).
Firstly, Israel’s hard-nosed insistence that it was chosen by God to possess all of Palestine has never changed in sixty years. What has changed is that the Obama administration is putting a new pressure on them to agree to a two state solution, and
Secondly, ’Demands’ suggests that the US will be able to insist on a satisfactory solution. Let’s face it; the idea of a Palestinian sovereign state terrifies Israel. A sovereign Palestine would have an army and exclude the IDF, leaving the settlers at the mercy of the new state. But successive American presidents (and the UN) have tried their best to turn around Israel’s refusal of a two-state solution and the tide of aggressive settlement in the West Bank, to no avail. So Hilary Clinton’s claim ‘that the two nations “shared common values and a commitment to a democratic future for the world”’ is ridiculous!
The majority of Americans would certainly want to see a just solution, but why is it that ‘the most powerful democracy on earth’ can do nothing? Do these ‘shared values’ include a religious conviction that God did indeed promise the descendants of Abraham all the land from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates? God's promises have never have been unconditional. So,let’s remember the times God directed their expulsion for ignoring the conditions of the promise – godliness.
The outcome of the ‘US demands’ will be informative.
Firstly, Israel’s hard-nosed insistence that it was chosen by God to possess all of Palestine has never changed in sixty years. What has changed is that the Obama administration is putting a new pressure on them to agree to a two state solution, and
Secondly, ’Demands’ suggests that the US will be able to insist on a satisfactory solution. Let’s face it; the idea of a Palestinian sovereign state terrifies Israel. A sovereign Palestine would have an army and exclude the IDF, leaving the settlers at the mercy of the new state. But successive American presidents (and the UN) have tried their best to turn around Israel’s refusal of a two-state solution and the tide of aggressive settlement in the West Bank, to no avail. So Hilary Clinton’s claim ‘that the two nations “shared common values and a commitment to a democratic future for the world”’ is ridiculous!
The majority of Americans would certainly want to see a just solution, but why is it that ‘the most powerful democracy on earth’ can do nothing? Do these ‘shared values’ include a religious conviction that God did indeed promise the descendants of Abraham all the land from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates? God's promises have never have been unconditional. So,let’s remember the times God directed their expulsion for ignoring the conditions of the promise – godliness.
The outcome of the ‘US demands’ will be informative.
‘Power but no passion’
‘Power but no passion’ Shaun Carney writes (The Age 17/3), about our fearless leader, Kevin Rudd. But power and passion are the hallmarks of those in history responsible for the most mess—and carnage—Napoleon, Hitler etc. Lesser people have to pick up the pieces and start again.
Tony Abbott, criticised on all sides over his ‘paid-parental-leave’ extravagance, insists that ‘the government’ is the main issue—i.e. the policies are not so important—the real policy being to attack, disrupt, and dislodge the government—and take power, banking on the help of a fickle electorate
Presumably, passion is all you need to win the ‘hearts and minds’.
Is it any wonder that governments never have the political capital necessary to successfully conquer the hard problems? Charismatic leaders may (temporally) win our hearts and minds, but intelligence; drive and ethics would surely be preferable qualities for leadership.. However, our present system of government does not lean that way.
In fact, although politics is a mess, and generally regarded with something like contempt—sometimes amused, sometimes angry—the ‘politics industry’, whether in media or academia, studiously avoids any question of a need for change— in contrast to every other field of human endeavour.
Democracy needs revision from time to time, to keep up with changed social and economic conditions. Well, this has always been the responsibility of the people or, shall we say, of responsible people.
Tony Abbott, criticised on all sides over his ‘paid-parental-leave’ extravagance, insists that ‘the government’ is the main issue—i.e. the policies are not so important—the real policy being to attack, disrupt, and dislodge the government—and take power, banking on the help of a fickle electorate
Presumably, passion is all you need to win the ‘hearts and minds’.
Is it any wonder that governments never have the political capital necessary to successfully conquer the hard problems? Charismatic leaders may (temporally) win our hearts and minds, but intelligence; drive and ethics would surely be preferable qualities for leadership.. However, our present system of government does not lean that way.
In fact, although politics is a mess, and generally regarded with something like contempt—sometimes amused, sometimes angry—the ‘politics industry’, whether in media or academia, studiously avoids any question of a need for change— in contrast to every other field of human endeavour.
Democracy needs revision from time to time, to keep up with changed social and economic conditions. Well, this has always been the responsibility of the people or, shall we say, of responsible people.
Knives at School
With the government proposing random search for knives etc, the opposition cries foul, for stealing its policy. How ridiculous, and childish! Moreover, it makes plain that the parties‘competition for political success and power takes preference over the serious need for good governance. Will the politicians ever pull together, short of the country being invaded?
We live in a world with a desperate need for good governance, but the best we have come up with so far is a tainted and corrupt democracy.
The Secret Ballot Party is a call for the reformation of parliament, for a much Better Democracy, which alone can, with a significant opportunity for involvement of the people, provide the good governance we need, and can proudly show the world how strong government and ‘the fair go’ are compatible goals - (having resolved the plight of our indigenes of course). ‘The love of democracy is the love of others', refusing power for the wellbeing of all.
When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will finally know peace. Jimi Hendrix US rock musician & singer (1942 - 1970)
We live in a world with a desperate need for good governance, but the best we have come up with so far is a tainted and corrupt democracy.
The Secret Ballot Party is a call for the reformation of parliament, for a much Better Democracy, which alone can, with a significant opportunity for involvement of the people, provide the good governance we need, and can proudly show the world how strong government and ‘the fair go’ are compatible goals - (having resolved the plight of our indigenes of course). ‘The love of democracy is the love of others', refusing power for the wellbeing of all.
When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will finally know peace. Jimi Hendrix US rock musician & singer (1942 - 1970)
Taxation + Climate change
Taxation
In an intriguing article, Chris Middendorp (The Age 22/2/10) claims that taxation is a privilege of membership in our society, because of all the services undertaken by government to enhance our quality of life.
Despite the elaborate efforts of many to reduce their tax bill, what he says is quite true. The problem of course, boils down to this - what does the government do with the money it collects. As has been said, people would be happier about taxation if they were more confident about the way governments spend it.
Here we see the age-old problem of our dissatisfaction with our democracy. Good though it is, there is still far too much room for our politicians to push ahead with their own ideas without listening to the public point of view.
Our democracy is badly in need of revision, to enable the people at large to have some real say in government, during the period between elections, making government far more accountable - all the time.
This,of course, as we have said so many times, requires a radical revision of the voting system in parliament to make all representatives independent, and the ministers all answerable to the vote of all the members.
To indulge in a little fantasy, people might then be proud to have their tax contribution to society open to the public gaze, their contribution to society being just as honourable as large charitable donations.
Climate change
'Political power plays deliver short-sighted policy stand-offs’ (the Age 22/2 p 10). How can we get good government, with good long-term policies being embraced and implemented, while we still have the nonsense of party politics? Isn't it about time to wake up Australia, and deal with this nonsense?
Where is the trumpet blast calling us to national revival?
In an intriguing article, Chris Middendorp (The Age 22/2/10) claims that taxation is a privilege of membership in our society, because of all the services undertaken by government to enhance our quality of life.
Despite the elaborate efforts of many to reduce their tax bill, what he says is quite true. The problem of course, boils down to this - what does the government do with the money it collects. As has been said, people would be happier about taxation if they were more confident about the way governments spend it.
Here we see the age-old problem of our dissatisfaction with our democracy. Good though it is, there is still far too much room for our politicians to push ahead with their own ideas without listening to the public point of view.
Our democracy is badly in need of revision, to enable the people at large to have some real say in government, during the period between elections, making government far more accountable - all the time.
This,of course, as we have said so many times, requires a radical revision of the voting system in parliament to make all representatives independent, and the ministers all answerable to the vote of all the members.
To indulge in a little fantasy, people might then be proud to have their tax contribution to society open to the public gaze, their contribution to society being just as honourable as large charitable donations.
Climate change
'Political power plays deliver short-sighted policy stand-offs’ (the Age 22/2 p 10). How can we get good government, with good long-term policies being embraced and implemented, while we still have the nonsense of party politics? Isn't it about time to wake up Australia, and deal with this nonsense?
Where is the trumpet blast calling us to national revival?
Our future problems – population etc.
Our future problems – population etc.
Kerry O’Brien quite reasonably tackled Kevin Rudd on the 7.30 Report tonight over the government’s acceptance of a high level of population in coming years.
There are many concerns over water sufficiency, land use and food, urban planning, schools, hospitals, and transport infrastructure, not to mention green house gases, and pressures on social cohesion, all of which raise serious questions about the wisdom of allowing the increases in population mooted -35m by 2050.
Such an increase means sustained migration levels are likely, but economic benefits can also follow, including a mitigation of skills shortages and the economic effects of population aging.
Then again we have an important role to play internationally as a leading, stable democracy, which will benefit from such increases in population.
With regard to social cohesion Rudd was able to draw attention to the number of times we have received waves of migrants from various countries but difficulties have generally vanished in the next generation. This reflects our solid social stability which manifests itself through the schooling of the young.
However, what really stands out is that there are a mammoth number of problems to be resolved in the coming years and raises the question of how these had best be faced. The style of our politics is reflected in the aggressive nature of the questioning of the Prime Minister on the 7.30 Report. The business of holding the government to account, which is the nature of our adversarial system, prompts the question: can we afford the hindrances and distractions created by having two sources of political power, in what appears to be a useless competition for the privileges of power.
We hear good reports of Singapore and its government, tackling the modern problems of youth disorientation, having long ago resolved the problem of rubbish in the streets!
What can we do to have a more efficient mode of governance, to successfully deal with the many problems looming – without conflict or resort to limiting the freedoms we hold dear. There must be a way – surely.
Kerry O’Brien quite reasonably tackled Kevin Rudd on the 7.30 Report tonight over the government’s acceptance of a high level of population in coming years.
There are many concerns over water sufficiency, land use and food, urban planning, schools, hospitals, and transport infrastructure, not to mention green house gases, and pressures on social cohesion, all of which raise serious questions about the wisdom of allowing the increases in population mooted -35m by 2050.
Such an increase means sustained migration levels are likely, but economic benefits can also follow, including a mitigation of skills shortages and the economic effects of population aging.
Then again we have an important role to play internationally as a leading, stable democracy, which will benefit from such increases in population.
With regard to social cohesion Rudd was able to draw attention to the number of times we have received waves of migrants from various countries but difficulties have generally vanished in the next generation. This reflects our solid social stability which manifests itself through the schooling of the young.
However, what really stands out is that there are a mammoth number of problems to be resolved in the coming years and raises the question of how these had best be faced. The style of our politics is reflected in the aggressive nature of the questioning of the Prime Minister on the 7.30 Report. The business of holding the government to account, which is the nature of our adversarial system, prompts the question: can we afford the hindrances and distractions created by having two sources of political power, in what appears to be a useless competition for the privileges of power.
We hear good reports of Singapore and its government, tackling the modern problems of youth disorientation, having long ago resolved the problem of rubbish in the streets!
What can we do to have a more efficient mode of governance, to successfully deal with the many problems looming – without conflict or resort to limiting the freedoms we hold dear. There must be a way – surely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)