In politics, I am extremely against extremism

Listen up, Australia. I am pretty sick of our recent political environment. We do not have to do extreme right, religious conservatism and introduce a sudden pro-gun agenda just because America does those things, okay?

Fixing MP Entitlements

The politicians are saying the problem is the rules are too opaque, and they need to be made clearer. I guess they need rules where they are not tempted to push the definitions of what is allowed to the absolute limit of shameless logic-twisting, intention-denying interpretation, just because everyone else in the parliament is doing it too.

In fact all this really needs is leadership: one decent PM who will say, at the beginning of his or her term in office, "Look, let's stop all this nonsense and all agree to just claim the bare minimum, and let me set up someone whose task it will be to check what you're claiming and disallow anything that would make a reasonable person go, 'Well, that's not reeeeally what the designers of this entitlement had in mind...' "

But since we don't have that, sure, I guess we need to tighten the rules and make them "more transparent".  So fine, it's not that hard.  In fact, the existing rules are actually pretty clear, except for spelling out what is an allowable business trip.

But ok, here are my new rules:

Travel and Accommodation:

• Business Class air travel is fine
• no charter flights or helicopters unless there is no commercial flight
• no air miles can be accrued (the same rule some companies have for business travel)
• you pay for any family traveling with you
• taxis or hire cars for urban travel but not for travelling between home and your electorate office
• no travel allowance for party fundraisers or social events
• if you have a "work meeting" at the same place as a social event, you pay half the travel cost (and travel rules as above still apply)
• you can't use your accommodation allowance to pay off your mortgage on a Canberra home. Yes you might have bought the home because you have to spend part of the year in Canberra for work, but the fact you are buying it gives you a personal financial advantage (property wealth) so you can't DOUBLE-DIP by claiming an allowance as well. 
• To achieve the above, change the flat dollar allowance MPs get for accommodation and food while in Canberra to two separate items, being a flat amount for food and a claim for accommodation, which is only paid for booked-and-paid accommodation 

Study Tours:

• Stop that nonsense

Superannuation:

• Same as the rest of us

Retirement allowances:

• existing redundancy arrangements for MPs who lose their seat are fine
• no funded office or driver. Use a home office
• Scrap the Gold Pass arrangements for free air travel within Australia for retired long-serving MPs - it's encouraging too many of them to stick around for too long. Let's make it 3 free Business Class trips a year for self and spouse, to attend the odd thingy. 

NOT HARD.


I also think it's a good idea as someone has suggested, to rename them from 'entitlements' to 'expenses' or 'claims'. If you are told something is an 'entitlement', you are apt to claim it. Just as many taxpayers routinely put in work expense claims for the couple of hundred dollars' stationery claims you are allowed to make without receipts - and can I just add, that I also think this is appalling. Don't do it, people.

There has been unhappiness about MP entitlements before, but this time it's the current government's own harsh budget and rhetoric ("The age of entitlement is over!" - oh, I love it) combined with Hockey's out-of-touch announcements ("poor people don't drive far", "people should get a good job paying good money") combined with the usual dubious expense claims by all of them, that is bringing this to a head.

To finish off: this is the funniest Bronwyn Bishop helicopter meme in my opinion:

Bronwyn Bishop says goodbye. #auspol pic.twitter.com/VuIQbpqY9q

— Tim Jones (@forthleft) August 2, 2015

Belt-tightening 101: the answer

I've been thinking about the question I posed yesterday: why don't politicians trying to convince the public on the need to cut spending cut some of their own salary or allowances to win hearts and minds?

And I think I know the answer.

In a parliamentary system one of the hardest jobs the leaders have is to rally, control and maintain unity among their MPs. These may include members who've worked very hard to win marginal seats, members on the back bench not earning big bucks, members already getting disillusioned or embittered and members on the rise looking for any excuse to either jump ship or try and take your job.

Most governments try and do the cost-cutting early in their term, aiming to get the pain - and public anger - out of the way early and betting that the electorate will have forgiven and moved on by the time of the next election.

So the most important hearts and minds the leaders need to win during this sort of program are those of their own MPs.

And of course, from a purely budgetary standpoint, cutting MP allowances won't deliver the same millions or billions beckoning them temptingly from the list of public benefits and subsidies, so they probably don't see it as worth the pain, considering the factors above. To sell a belt-tightening program and help you through all the hard work of your pet reforms, you need your MPs on-side and energetic, not bitter and angry.

Politics, eh?

Belt-tightening 101

I guess it's not news that Joe Hockey is out of touch. 

The man who insisted that "poor people don't drive" is now coaching first home buyers through the property bubble with the advice to get a well-paying job. Good idea Joe! I mean, why do so many people stick with their low or average wage jobs when they should just get a well-paid one? It just shows, people are not rational.

But more to the point.

As fascinating, in a train-wreck way, as these gaffes are, Joe Hockey's are usually explicable by remembering that instead of talking like a savvy politician, he usually talks like an economist, which can seem insensitive to a regular person. ("If housing were unaffordable in Sydney, no-one would be buying it," he said.)

What I find more interesting is how governments never - inexplicably in my view - offer to tighten their own belts while they claim the need to cut back on public spending.

It's quite amazing how many of our parliamentary leaders - one is tempted to say "all of them" - claim every monetary allowance their jobs entitle them to, even while: 

(a) they are rich 

(b) their claims are not really in the spirit in which the allowances were intended, and 

(c) the same politicians are operating a nation-wide belt-tightening manifesto and do not hesitate to chastise less well-off people for claiming less ambiguous entitlements.

Let's let point (a) slide, as I know, everything's relative. The richer you are, the more expenses you have, so sure, none of these guys feels rich I am sure.  And they work hard for us, right?

On to point (b). Sorry to harp on Joe Hockey, but I will anyway. Thanks to Nick Xenophon, we learn that Joe Hockey, like many other MPs, claims a $270 per day travel allowance while he's staying in Canberra, and uses that money (as he is allowed to), to pay off the mortgage on his Canberra home. 

Obviously, travel allowances for MPs to go to Canberra make sense. And maybe even this usage of them does too - when you get into the detail, it's hard to draw a line in the sand on these things.

But - point (c) - politicians don't find it hard to draw a line in the sand when it comes to entitlements paid to other people. Things like maternity payments, single-parent allowances, Newstart allowances, pensions, schoolkid bonuses, and all the rest that are paid to the leaners and double-dippers and bludgers of this nation, who neglected to secure themselves a well-paid job and a chauffeur and travel allowance.

In a liberal democracy where votes are bought with tax cuts and spending programs, the tax system and the government transfer system always get messy. Periodically a review is done over the whole system and changes are proposed, and by and large they never happen.  That's one of the drawbacks of the system and it will probably never be fixed.  Likewise, whether a particular payment is "middle class welfare" or "tax justice" for bracket creep, to what degree payments are undermined by rorting and to what level benefits should be paid, are all never-ending debates. 

But people are fairly reasonable. They won't buy a "budget emergency", but they will agree on the general necessity to limit spending and maintain a working budget. Disregarding the diehard left and right, most people agree that governments should not tax unreasonably, should support the needy and provide basic services, and should maintain a strong economy. 

So here is what I don't understand. If governments want to get people to accept spending cuts and a "belt-tightening" regime, why don't they ever reduce their own entitlements?  I mean just a little??  In my living memory, only Mark Latham ever did anything along these lines, when he cut MP super entitlements to match the public rate. (Maybe only the more... ah... out-there politicians attempt this stuff).

I would think that if Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott got up and said, "Look, we're cutting all these things, but also, we're cutting these travel allowances / placing a moratorium on any MP study tour that can't be managed with a couple of Skype calls / freezing MP salaries for three years", that they would win a lot more hearts and minds.

So why don't they do it? Just a little? Cutting just a few things would at least show MPs are tightening their belts too. They wouldn't even need need to cut that much - just offering SOMETHING would arguably only reduce their total compensation by a little, and yet would pay off hugely in the form of much-needed public support.

Seriously, I don't understand why this is never done. Can anyone enlighten me?

"Politics" according to a 9gag user

Threes

Time for something a little lighter. I quite liked this latest questionnaire meme on Sunday Stealing, which I came across on Princess Pandora.  Clean, short and simple.


1. Three things that scare me:

• poverty
• extremism: the ultra conservative right and the radical left
• fire

2. Three people who make me laugh:

• Phil Dunphy (Modern Family)
• Rebel Wilson
• John Stewart

3. Three things I love:

• solitude 
• dogs
• pens

4. Three things I hate:

• extremism
• boasting (including Humblebrags) on Facebook and Instagram
• loud noises

5. Three things I don't understand:

• How perfectly nice, decent people can be so hardcore unsympathetic to those less fortunate than themselves (eg the Americans' deep antipathy to universal health care; many people's attitudes towards asylum seekers; how people with good jobs and earning good money don't understand they are also lucky)
• men's rights activists 
• how The Greens would run a viable economy

6. Three things on my desk:

• towering pile of papers, DVDs, kids' drawings and notebooks
• pack of my daughter's Hubba Bubba
• a two-pole puncher that hasn't been used in years

7. Three things I'm doing right now:

• blogging 
• laundry
• re-watching Final Destination 2 on DVD

8. Three things I want to do before I die:

• write a book
• live for a year in Y's Greek village



iPad art by my daughter aged six

• get fit 

9. Three things I can do:

• data mining and analysis
• learn a language fast
• talk in rhyming couplets

10. Three things I can't do:

• sing
• mix colours into ready-to-roll icing
• watch cricket

11. Three things you should listen to:

• birdsong in the morning when everything else is quiet
• your favourite music, regularly
• opposing points of view, at least sometimes

12 Three things you should never listen to:

• talk-back radio
• advertising aimed to make you feel inadequate 
• anyone who claims to cure cancer with food 

13. Three things I'd like to learn:

• how to write a novel
• how to stay calm and relaxed
• ballroom dancing

14. Three favourite foods:

• chocolate
• spanokopita: Greek spinach and cheese pie
• steak

15. Three beverages I drink regularly

• coffee
• Coke Zero
• water

16. Three shows I watched as a kid:

• Bewitched
• The Flintstones
• Get Smart

The end of austerity?

So Greece is trying something new. The government swept to power on promises to stop the crippling austerity regime that has not improved Greece's debt or credit rating one bit and has brought the country close to ruin.

After a bit of a stand-off, Greece and the Eurozone and the IMF reached a compromise agreement on Friday which was less than the PM wanted but enough to (just) allow him to save face and present it as the first step in an ongoing campaign to end the austerity regime.

Austerity, in 2010, seemed the natural and only solution. Greece was, in the words of George Papandreou at the time, 'on the edge of the abyss'. Successive governments over the decades had run the economy on a toxic mixture of socialism, neglect and corruption, and the mess had been steadily exacerbated by its inclusion in the Eurozone. (Greece expected a free kick - instead it lost the little control it had over its crappy economy and got pummeled).

The first time I felt angry on behalf of Greece was when some Eurozone countries suggested kicking Greece out of the Eurozone in punishment for obviously cooking the books to get in in the first place. That made me angry because, HELLO, when Greece got into the Eurozone so early and so easily everyone KNEW they had obviously cooked the books, including EVERYONE IN THE EUROZONE. The fact was Europe wanted to get all the major countries in quickly and to build up its base and power and was quite prepared to overlook the fact Greece could not possibly, under any true test, have met the economic conditions required.

The second time was when the IMF advised the UK in 2013 to go easy on austerity measures because, hmm, as it turns out, austerity is damaging; the IMF then admitted to having underestimated the damage the Greek bailout conditions would wreak on the country.

I have also felt angry on behalf of the Greek people, most of whom, like any other people, are hard working and honest and have nothing to do with the crap their governments have created.


Of course, as a non-Greek who has learned Greek, married a Greek, lived in Greece and generally been steeped in Greek culture for many years, my feelings about Greece are complicated.

During the time I lived there, I liked and admired the Greek lifestyle, but find the spontaneity and constant socializing exhausting (what do introverts do in Greece?). I liked how hard working people are in small businesses and at home, but could not fail to notice the bloated incompetence rampant in the public service. (Go to a post office, or any government department, in 1996 and you will see what I saw. Ten people behind every counter smoking cigarettes and ignoring or yelling at the public).

When we visited in 2012, the country was visibly, badly struggling, Closed shop faces were everywhere, even down at prime real estate like on waterfront strips.

But, three anecdotes:

(1) When I broke my arm at Athens Airport I was treated initially at the airport's first aid clinic, a gleaming, impressive facility massively overstaffed and under-medecined. The people were all very nice but didn't seem to have a lot to do. While we waited outside for an ambulance to take us to hospital, two of the paramedics came outside and waited with us, smoking cigarettes and chatting to us the whole time, which was almost an hour.

(2) The ambulance workers and people at the hospital all did a great job. Even the scary bone-setter who I never want to see again. The hospital was terrifying, grimly under-resourced with the air of a third-world clinic. But even so, my treatment there was good - and completely free. Even though I am not a Greek citizen and I had full travel insurance, I wasn't charged anything for the clinic treatment, the ambulance ride or the hospital treatment, nor the follow-up hospital visit one week later.

(3) I still remember the wide-eyed horror on a friend's face when we told her that in offices in Australia we all work eight-hour days. "Like Germany," she said. "You must all fall into your beds exhausted each night!"

Of course, things are not so simple under the surface. Greek office workers might start work at 8 and finish at 2, but they come home and scrub their houses from top to bottom and cook two meals a day. Oh, I mean the women of course. But also, who knows what was going on behind the scenes of the things I could see? I can admit that one day's observation of the Athens Airport clinic is not a good enough basis from which to make any observations at all. And when a country is that far down the plug hole, who's to say that hanging onto too many staff isn't better than adding to the massive unemployment?

But even so, these three things all made me think, Holy shit, Greece, no wonder you're in trouble!

But, like France attempting the 36-hour work week, it is admirable at the same time, isn't it? I love the audacity of resisting the capitalist juggernaut, at least a little. God knows, we all do work too hard and too much, and some changes would be nice.


But the problem is, much as we lament the hamster wheel of working hard to pay for things we suspect we might not quite need, there doesn't seem to be an economically sustainable way to operate otherwise.

Or is there?  In recent times, thanks to the longest, deepest global recession since the 1930s, and thanks in part to poor, poor Greece, the tide has appeared to turn against 'austerity politics'.

It will be very interesting to see what happens in four months time, in the next round of negotiations between Greece and the Eurozone.  I am sure another compromise will be found, that will allow both sides to claim a win to their constituents. And if the compromises continue, as the tide continues to turn against the punishing austerity paradigm, then perhaps we'll start to see, some steady accumulation of relief for Greece as well.


As for the photo below, I don't know where it originally came from but I got it from @Circa on Twitter and it seems just perfect for meme treatment. Caption suggestions, anyone?
I'll start:

'How long are we going to play chicken?'
'I don't know, I wasn't thinking past the election.'

Ethics 101

What with everything going on in the world at the moment, there are far more terrible issues to contend with than the two local items below. But doing the right thing and taking responsibility for having done wrong are universally important. So, here are my opinions on two "case studies" (as both are no doubt already in text books by now), which highlight massive failures of ethics.

Essendon Football Club Supplements Scandal

The Essendon Football Club "supplements scandal" is in the news again (or should that be "still"?) because Essendon has taken its case against ASADA to court, and the case is being heard this week.

I guess it's inevitable when there are careers and money at stake, but it's amazing to me that Essendon/James Hird are fighting this at all.  The Essendon supplements scandal is a textbook case of unethical behaviour. They did wrong, and they need to accept it.

Let's put aside these aspects: the supplements were not effective; one of the prohibited supplements was not prohibited at the time; other clubs are or were using supplements too.

Those aspects are not really relevant to the fact that Essendon did wrong.

The charges against Essendon are listed here, and they can be summarised as:

• putting players at risk
• failing to adequately control and monitor the program
• acting against internal policy
• operating in a culture that was lax, uninformed, risk-taking, disregarding of rules and cavalier with players' well-being (2013 slogan: "Whatever It Takes")
• using prohibited substances!

The Essendon management in general were bad, but James Hird has been appalling. The correct stance when caught out in a scandal of this magnitude is contrition, immediate and heartfelt concern for the players' welfare, and humble acceptance of what was, in this case, an incredibly lenient punishment (initially, suspension for a year with pay, with agreement to return as coach the following season).  Only a massive ego would reject and fight such a punishment, and consistently refuse to accept he did anything wrong.


It's simple ethics:

1. There are good reasons for all those annoying rules. Always do the right thing, even if you're swimming in a culture that doesn't. Eventually, the tide will turn - and then things will not be pretty.

2. If you have a duty of care towards others, exercise care.

3. When you've done the wrong thing, take responsibility and take your medicine. 

LouisaChanYS/Flickr

HSU expenses scandal

I'll tell you one thing that has seriously annoyed me: the number of people on the left willing to ignore or downplay the abomination that is the Health Services Union expenses scandal. I've always been pretty solidly left (lately more like "centre left"), but I cannot see how anyone can defend criminal fraud and theft.

Those on the left who defend corrupt trade unions or dismiss Craig Thomson's theft because "the government gives more money to Rupert Murdoch" or some such terrible argument, are not helping the left.

(Example: a tweet from Helen Razer dismissed the Craig Thomson case as "a handful of knock-shop change".)

Yes we know that governments have and have had questionable arrangements with Rupert Murdoch and other power brokers.  But like the defense of Essendon that "other clubs are doing it too", it's not a defence. It is actually almost irrelevant.

I am fully aware that the current government Royal Commission into trade union corruption is political and the Liberal party's ultimate goal is to sneak in Workchoices by another name. Again, that's not a defence.

Corruption is a cancer, and the audacity and level of trade union corruption, in this day and age, where we're still reading about events that sound like they should come from thirty years ago, should appall everyone. Funds stolen from trade union "slush fund accounts" and fraudulent expense claims are money stolen from workers, who are ultimately duped and abandoned by the union they depend on.

There is a tendency on the hard left (not the sensible left) to absolve any wrong, downplay any crime, for "the greater good" of keeping the left in power. Leaving aside the fact that any side in power for too long becomes at worst dangerous and at best useless, it's a terrible position anyway.

The thing is, while in theory I can often agree that an isolated or limited bad deed might be justified or outweighed by the greater good, in practice I can't think of a single time I've ever felt that way.

Corruption and theft are always bad. They always have victims, and they always do damage. And left unchecked, they always get worse and endanger more people.

Ethics cannot be elastic.

So that's my rant for the week. What do you think? I know passions are high on both of these topics; do you see things differently?

Retaining optimism in front of Pandora's box

When I was young, I was pretty optimistic.

Not so much when I was a kid - my parents will tell you I lay awake at night worrying about the plight of the elephants in Africa and whether I'd grow up to be poor (guess what, I did!!)

But in my twenties, I do remember I was pretty laid back, tended to look on the bright side, believed that people were good, found everything fascinating (that part I still have) and was confident that everything would turn out well.

I'm a person now who is more pessimistic, but I do still tend to think things will work out okay. Except when I am engulfed by panic that they won't.

I think one of the jobs you have as a parent is to try and instill an optimistic frame of mind in your kids. I say try, because of course life is hard and circumstances can be bleak. But I do think most parents try.

But in this digital, 24-hour, instant-access world, and in the face of war and strife all over the world, how do you retain optimism and instill it in your kids?

It often seems now that we know too much. We are no longer cushioned by parochialism or ignorance - Pandora's Box has been opened and all the awful information of the world is constantly in our heads.

How do you retain optimism in the face of that?

Now that my kids are eight and a half, I don't shelter them from the news as I used to. It's important they know about climate change, war, asylum seekers, poverty, corruption, ineptitude, hypocrisy and the like. Though perhaps not all at once.  In the last year or so we've had discussions about all these things, and the kids have heard more through school and friends, and often ask questions.

But lately, just in the last couple of months, I have found myself once more switching off the news when they're around, as I used to when they were younger.

The last couple of months have been horrifying: the loss of flight MH30, the shooting down of MH17, the ongoing atrocities in Iraq and Syria and fresh ones in Gaza. The pictures circulating on Twitter and Facebook are truly horrific. And that's not even to mention the depressing state of politics at home, and growing poverty everywhere. Or how about the surrogate baby abandoned by its parents in Thailand? (The baby is arguably in a much better place with his loving surrogate mother, but what about the impact on both children when they grow up and learn what happened?)

If only...
Taken from The Age, Sunday 3 August

I know, I know - bad things happen all the time, and people have always despaired at the state of the world. I truly don't know if we are in a Dark Age right now, if it seems that way because of the constant global information and because we know so much more, or if the state of the world is no better or worse than it ever was. I can't tell. No one can, it seems. But I know, anecdotally, through conversations, Facebook, Twitter and blogs, that plenty of people are finding it all quite overwhelming.

image encountered in Facebook and all over internet

I guess the way I try and do it is to limit the bad news to my kids when it seems there's been too much, and to focus on the good stuff in my conversations with them. Every now and then of course, a topic is truly bleak, and you can't shy away from that or pretend there's a "bright side". All you can do is talk it through, or minimise it if appropriate, and otherwise throw as much positive, good stuff at them as you can find.

How do you retain optimisim?

Trickle-Down Economics

The trickle-down theory, also known as supply-side theory, is the idea - largely hated but still beloved by policy makers - that wealth 'trickles down' from the top to other levels of society.

The theory goes that if you provide tax cuts and investment incentives to business and the wealthy, business and investment increase and thereby provide economic benefit to everyone else.

There has always been opposition to this theory, and it has always been up for parody. Since the GFC, dissent has grown with the Occupy Wall Street movement and its powerful theme: "We are the 99%" . Current bestseller 'Capital in the Twenty-First Century' posits that instead of trickling down, wealth tends to accumulate at the top and stay there, forcing an ever-growing gap between rich and poor that threatens political and social stability.

Policy makers have a hard job these days. The world is more difficult to run because we all know now how complex it is. The digital world (24-hour news, social media, democratised commentary) doesn't give politicians a break. The Great Recession continues and shows no real sign of ending. And following the ambiguous results of stimulus programs since 2008, stimulus is out and economic tough love is back in.

We know we can't go back to high levels of taxation and over-regulated economies. Having lived in a stagnant, isolated economy (New Zealand pre-deregulation) I remember it doesn't work. But I also lived in an economy going through the throes of deregulation (New Zealand under 'Rogernomics') and it was painful to see the impacts: people suffering the blows of sudden, wrenching change and the government seemingly heartless in response.

So the market can't be left to run unfettered. Some level of 'tax-and-spend' is necessary to regulate, ensure a modicum of fairness, and pay for necessary infrastructure and services.

The trickle-down effect may work a little, but it's not very effective and it's not a solution in itself for managing an economy.

Here's my view of the trickle-down effect:

Budget Bugbears

When the federal budget was handed down this week my initial reaction was less anger than I have now.

No, there is not actually a "budget emergency", and the constant spam about Labor's "spending" is unfair given we are actually talking about economic stimulus following the GFC - but, we do have a big deficit and it has to be fixed, and that means cuts to things we don't want to cut.

So, cuts to the public service? Expected. Not good - in some cases no doubt, terrible - but expected.

Return of the fuel excise? Not that terrible, a sensible measure.

Cuts to renewable energy programs? Totally expected given we all know where this government stands on that.

Cuts to family tax benefits? Both sides have had this on the agenda and the cuts were less than expected.

The income tax levy on higher-income earners: surprising for a coalition government, though of course it's not permanent.

But these things make me angry, firstly because they're wrong, but perhaps even more than that, because they are lies - they are nothing to do with fixing a "budget emergency", but are about ideology:

• $20 billion medical research fund. Medical research and science are absolutely great and all, but this is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, if we are truly in the grip of a dire budget emergency and all sorts of cuts have to be made, why commit to this now? Secondly, it is funded by huge cuts to public health funding, and the outrageous GP "co-payment". Somehow I feel like this has Tony Abbott's health freakery stamped all over it. I don't know how, but you know, "it's the vibe of the thing".

• $7 GP "co-payment" - very harsh, will have unintended (but entirely predictable) consequences, and it goes entirely against what Medicare is. Plus, it is nothing to do with fixing finances. $2 will go to the doctors (probably just to cover the admin required) and $5 to fund the medical research future fund. It is wrong, and unfair. 

• Cuts to welfare generally. Abbott says we have to "break the welfare mindset". Well, there isn't one. Sure, there was in the past, from some people. But welfare bludging hasn't been a thing for years. People receiving disability pensions, Newstart and the like are already on the breadline. And also, why does "everyone" have to "chip in" to fix the deficit? Spread the pain, sure, but spare the very bottom. And yes, you could take a bit more from the top without hobbling business and waging class warfare.  

• Funding increased for school chaplaincy program (despite growing public resistance to it) with removal of the current option for schools to use the funding to appoint a secular student welfare officer. It's religion or nothing. Sorry, but are we, or are we not, a secular state? And how can increased funding be found for school chaplains when school funding itself is being cut and we are in a budget emergency? Because the program is less about student welfare than proselytizing, that's why.

Look, for most of us it's not the end of the world. Times are tough economically, and things need to be done. This budget is not a total horror. I get sick of the silliness that is pervading public debate at the moment - that Abbott is evil, that Labor did no wrong whatsoever, that the government is sure to lose the next election (two years out!) based on its current unpopularity.  I'm a measured person, and the truth for me is always in the middle.

But there are things that many of us are unhappy with, and I'll leave the last word to Mike Carlton at the SMH, who wrote this week:

It is a delicious irony that Abbott has destroyed the faith the voters placed in him. Endlessly blackguarding Julia Gillard for her broken carbon tax promise and trumpeting himself as a paragon of probity, he raised the bar.
On Tuesday he fell beneath it, face down in the mud, and will never be trusted again.

- Source: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/tony-abbotts-name-is-mud-20140515-zrd9w.html#ixzz31wwSjlOq

Budget Leaks

(For my American readers, Labor = Democrats, Liberals = Republicans)

God, I hate the week before Budget Day. All those orchestrated "leaks", and the government "refusing to rule out" the "rumored" cuts. All a strategy to drip-feed the painful bits to us so that no one is too shocked on the day and the government can hit back on criticism with messages they have practiced.

Aaargh - just give us the damn budget already!

And the whole malarkey both sides of politics play, known by everyone, played by everyone, annoying everyone on all sides equally:

• Current government [whoever it is at the time]: "Your side stuffed everything up; we're trying to fix it, but we're still dealing with the legacy of what you did"

• Opposition government [whoever it is at the time]: "How come when we tried to do [thing] you opposed it and now you're doing [same thing]?"

• If the Labor government attempts to introduce means testing for benefits, Liberals call this "class warfare".

• If the Liberal government attempts to introduce means testing for benefits, it is called "being responsible".

Liberal and Labor are different. They have different philosophies and they govern differently. But the people in charge of the economy on both sides are not too dissimilar in their basic economic beliefs, these days. Everyone knows and agrees that economies have to be lightly managed and vibrant, that business and entrepreneurship have to be encouraged, that growth is necessary, that everyone is better off when interest rates are low and business is booming. 

Everyone has been in broad agreement for some time that we have a deficit and it has to be brought under control. 

Everyone has been in broad agreement for some time that the tax system is too convoluted, there are too many transfers, and "middle class welfare" has got a little bit out of control.

Labor didn't ignore the deficit. They were unable to do much to fix it because (a) GFC required massive stimulus requirement, (b) their every move was thwarted by a hung parliament, and (c) internal in-fighting. 

Liberals accuse Labor of reckless spending and mismanaging the economy.  Labor for some reason (maybe because it does have a tendency to spend?) is terrible at refuting this argument, even when it is wrong and grossly unfair. 

Does no one remember 2008? After the GFC it was the mantra of every central bank and economist in the world: Spend! Spend! Stimulate the economy!

Unfortunately, Labor happened to be in power when that happened. Hence the horrific home insulation debacle (in which three contractors died), and the ridiculous "Building the Education Revolution" which has left every school everywhere with a state of the art building awkwardly placed and of indeterminate functionality. 

(Labor is its own worst enemy most of the time. Speaking of class warfare: Comrades, can we please agree not to use words like "revolution" perhaps?)

So Labor spent all that money because CRISIS and STIMULUS and GFC. And Liberal would have done the same thing, though no doubt would have spent the money differently.

One does leave oneself open to charges of "mismanaging the economy" when one's remit is based around social equity instead of trickle-down economics, I suppose.

So back to the Budget.

What do we have so far?

• Deficit levy:  a tax for four years on a scale based on taxable income, to pay off the national deficit. This one won't hit me with my current pay packet, so I'm going to mark it REASONABLE.  We are in debt after all, and everyone (earning more than me) has to chip in! (Heh heh...)

• Aged Pension: possible raising of the qualifying age from 65 to 70 (though more seems more likely now in a future budget). Has been talked about for some time, an evil we all knew was coming at some stage. Everyone my generation and younger expects to be working until they're eighty anyway. Very bad for people approaching retirement age now, and for workers like my husband who do back-breaking physical jobs. I'm calling this one HARSH BUT INEVITABLE.

• possible cuts to "middle class welfare" such as Family Tax Benefit, Schoolkids Bonus, Carbon Tax Offset, Childcare Rebate etc. Speaking personally, my family only just became eligible for these and now we may lose them. DAMN. 

• possible cuts to REAL welfare, such as Newstart, single parent payments, carers' pensions, etc. This is BAD. These benefits ceased being any kind of a loafer's gravy train years ago, and their recipients are on the poverty line. These are people who really need that support, and the payments go right back into the economy after all - not too many of these people socking their wealth away or sending it offshore. 

• Medicare co-payment: $6 to be paid for bulk billed doctor visits. WRONG. Undermines everything about what Medicare is and opens the door to effectively ending it. (Americans, imagine the OPPOSITE of your fears about Obamacare!). Instead of doing that, governments should make bulk billing means-tested.

• possible removal of private health insurance rebate: BAD. The rebate exists to encourage people to have private health insurance and reduce drain on the public purse for health. I guess it is debatable to what degree it actually achieves this though. Still, you remove this, you will see even more people jettisoning their private health cover, which is bad news for public health costs. 

• no tax cuts this time round:  quite right too. Tax cuts are a necessity to avoid bracket creep, but there's no place for them this time round. GOOD

• paid parental leave scheme: Do you know, I've come round a bit to this one. On the face of it it sounds a bit outrageous, but I have a feeling that it's one of those things that five years down the track I'll be embarrassed I didn't support. And it will mostly be funded by business, so it isn't that expensive to normal taxpayers. And women should be supported to take adequate maternity leave and to return to work. So that's all good. But if heavy cuts are going to be made to pensions, carers' pensions, the national disability insurance scheme and welfare payments, then I have to say the previous high threshold on this one was looking a bit on the nose, so I had pegged this one until this morning as DICEY.  But now it's been announced that the means-test threshold has been reduced to $100,000, which is better. Higher-paid women are most likely being given this by their employers anyway, and the main beneficiaries of this scheme will be lower-paid women, which everyone seems to forget. So this is now OKAY.

What do you think about the upcoming budget?

Accidental Diplomacy: John Kerry, Syria, Russia and Iran

The US didn't want to attack Syria, and neither did most of their allies. No one has any appetite for war after Iraq and Afghanistan.

From my far-away Australian suburban perch, I was in favour of going into Afghanistan, but never, ever, ever supported the Iraq war. The US squandered the goodwill of the world on that awful campaign. In the decade post-9/11, I often thought how different the world would be had John Kerry won the 2004 election instead of George Bush.

It took a full decade after 9/11 - and I think also the assassination of Bin Laden - for it to finally feel like we have moved out of that immediate post-9/11 era. It's like we've just caught up now, to how the world might have been had George Bush not won the 2004 election.

Anyway, this week there has been a win, of sorts, for diplomacy. Yes, yes, I know there is still no improvement in Syria - none - and Assad is still the most evil dictator in the world right now and has to go.

But remember back in the old days, when we used to try sanctions and diplomacy before war?
Worth a shot, right?

When Assad stepped over Obama's 'red line' and gassed the Damascan suburb of Ghouta last month, the US was forced to step closer to war.

It's not right to say that no one was outraged over Syria before the chemical attack. People have short memories don't they? The world has been outraged, and has been watching, over human rights abuses and atrocities over the last 2 years (remember the massacre in Houla last year?). But even the US can't just step in and remove every vicious murderous dictator who commits an atrocity (though you can bet plans began to be made). Then last month, Syria stepped over the 'red line'.

That doesn't mean the other atrocities aren't as bad as chemical attacks. And it doesn't make the US hypocritical. The US does not go to war because it wants Middle Eastern oil, nor for humanitarian reasons.  The Iraq war was for a stupid, bad reason: the US was acting under a kind of reverse domino theory in that war - the belief they could set up a 'democracy' in the Middle East to encourage the rest of the region to follow suit (and handily get rid of arch-enemy Saddam Hussein as well). The Iraq invasion was wrong, and also completely crazy. (Although, with the Arab Spring, will George Bush's believers claim some vindication?)

But there are lines in the sand that must not be crossed, or else the world is in danger from crazed psychopathic dictators whose rampages not only cause horrible suffering inside their borders but also threaten countries outside them. It's also as much about sending messages to others (Iran) as stopping the immediate offenders.

No one can be allowed to use chemical or nuclear weapons. Period. 

Before Saturday, I thought an attack on Syria was grimly inevitable, because with Russia and China supporting them, there was not even the option of economic sanctions to use instead.

Then John Kerry was asked if there was any way an attack could be averted and he said, more or less sarcastically, well, if Syria can give up all its chemical weapons and prove it has within like, a week, then yeah, there's a chance.

And Russia, somewhat surprisingly, stepped in to broker the deal, and the deal was done.

Supposedly. We hope.

The new Cold War is temporarily on hold, and strikes on Syria (at least by people other than their president) have been averted, at least for now.


Apology/Note: I have absolutely no experience in foreign policy, war or suffering and am writing from my comfortable suburban house in a far, far away country. I have no idea what I am talking about, and I hope this does not cause anyone any offence. Just my opinion, on my personal blog!

In defense of undecided voters

I'm getting a little tired of the criticism being dished out against undecided voters.

We live in a democracy.  We have compulsory voting in Australia, which ensures a level of political engagement across the board and guards against governments that don't represent the will of the people being voted in on a 30% voter turnout, like some other great democracies we could mention (*cough* America! *cough*).

Disengaged voters

Some people are not interested in politics, or believe the two major parties are "the same" or "both as bad as each other". Some people cast their vote based on who their spouse/family/friends vote for (or who they think those people are voting for), or on tangential things such as the way a leader styles their hair, or whether the leader is a woman, or who has a nicer smile, or whatever.   There are a fair number of those people, but I don't think they make up the majority of the electorate.  I don't believe these voters make up a big enough block to worry about (mostly), because many of them will vote informal**, and others will cancel each other out, as they exist across the political spectrum.

dan/freedigitalphotos.net

**Edit: I just realized this picture makes it look like I'm calling disengaged voters donkeys. It's meant to go with the last sentence about voting informal - the "donkey vote" (voting informal / donkey vote = spoiling your vote paper)

"Rusted On" voters

Some people are "rusted on". These are the most utterly committed, who see every election as critical and wouldn't change their vote no matter what was thrown at them. These are the most strident, opinionated voices, some of them sensing conspiracy in every news comment or poll result, and disaster and the collapse of society/the economy/human decency/the world should the other side win.  These are the ones who will say things like "I could never vote x", and they mean it. There are a lot of these people (especially on Twitter...) but again they are not the majority.

Ambro/freedigitalphotos.net

(Mostly) Committed voters

The majority of people (probably) are in general committed to one party, and will mostly vote that way. You most likely belong to this group. If you think about your personal ideals and beliefs around how work, the economy, social issues and to what degree government should fund health, education, infrastructure, opportunity, growth, investment and welfare, you can most likely work out pretty easily which way you lean.

Some of these people will vote differently in some elections, or may be "undecided" during part of the campaign, if things are different / better / worse than usual, or if, just to chuck out a hypothetical here, one party has been riven by infighting and destabilization and seems to be tossing out new contradictory policies every which way rather desperately, and the other party seems inadequate or ill-prepared, or the leader seems a bit embarrassing. You know, hypothetically speaking.

Swinging voters

Some people are truly "swinging voters", and it is often said disparagingly of these voters that they are self-interested and vote according to what will benefit them. As Lee Iacocca said of his family in his autobiography, "When we were poor we voted Democrat and when we were rich we voted Republican."
Here's the thing: there's actually nothing wrong with that. It's kind of how elections and democracies are built to work. No matter how fervently you believe you vote for the good of the country, there is some level of self-interest in the way you vote. YES THERE IS.

Political belief and self interest 

Think about it - really think about it. Where do you stand on welfare, industrial relations, infrastructure, health services, education, the environment, taxation, education, business, growth, social mobility?  OK. Now... what is your job? What do you want to do? How do you want to live? Do you have kids? How are your finances? What are your kids doing or what are you hoping for them?

It's entirely natural for your aspirations and circumstances, as well as your personal philosophies, to inform the way you vote.

I like to think I vote out of what I think the country needs at this time - "the greater good". But it's funny how often what I think is best for the country tends to correspond with what will be (mostly) better for me, or for what I aspire to, for me or my kids.  Analyzing my beliefs and my decisions I can admit I vote where I think the country needs to go which is also where I WANT the country to go, to fit my own ideals or goals.

Undecided voters and swinging voters make democracy work!

Yes they do! If everyone voted the same way forever there would be fewer changes of government, and no new policies ever.  Politicians would only target the youth vote to get all the new voters, and my god, imagine the consequences of that.

If no one was ever undecided or changed their vote, we would never get new leaders, or stirring oratory or debates or costings or any of it. Polls would be simpler, and so would the taxation system, but our whole economy would lose momentum and business would either eat us all (Liberal) or wither and die (Labor), and life would get horrible fast.


I'm not a swinging voter - not really. I've called myself that in the past, but I mostly vote the same way. Except sometimes, when I don't.

During this election campaign, I have been undecided (I'm not anymore).   I have not been undecided because I was disengaged, ignorant, selfish or stupid. At no point did I consider passing an informal vote.

I believe certain things and I believe this election and this campaign to be difficult. I also don't think you always vote in line with your core beliefs. That may sound weird or silly, but I think there are times when you feel things need to go a certain way and that's not a vote for forever; it's a vote for the next three years.


So there you are - you can probably work out which way I'm going to vote.

What do you think? Which kind of voter are you? Do you hate undecided voters? Have you ever changed your political leanings?

It's (mostly) just politics

This is a true story: on the night Julia Gillard was replaced with Kevin II as prime minister, my dog stood near me and shook himself vigorously, and a small piece of poo flew out of his butt and landed on my shoe.

He's such a misogynist.


International readers, please excuse this diversion into the past week in Australian politics. What follows may make little sense to you. Unless perhaps you read the UK Huffington Post.


Fellow Australians, what do we think of the role of gender in the deposing of Julia Gillard?

I think gender played a big part in the shabby treatment and lack of respect she was given by radio shock jocks and some of the public.  It took people a long time to get used to having a female PM, and sadly I felt we had just about reached the point of accepting it as 'business as usual' when she was removed.

But I don't think gender had much of a hand in forcing her out.

I certainly don't agree with this kind of opinion that implies female MPs should all have voted to keep Gillard because she's a woman. Wouldn't that be making it all about gender?


What about loyalty?
Politicians have never been loyal against numbers. It's always about winning the next election or jockeying for personal position. Always has been.


What about the role of the media?
Unlike many on Twitter and in the letters pages of the newspapers, I don't think the mainstream media, the ABC, The Age, the Murdoch press or the Canberra press gallery are to blame. They might have overdone the coverage of the Labor leadership issues, but that's how news works. As a journalist I once saw tweet to a critic who told him to write about 'the real story' and not the politicking responded: "It may not be what you WISH the story to be, but it IS the story today."

Oh, you expected the papers to ignore all the internal division and upheavals and talk up the government's achievements? You're annoyed they eulogized the achievements only after Gillard was gone?

Wouldn't you be a bit suspicious if journalists ignored real problems within government and started talking up government achievements while governments were in power? I think I would. Thankfully, I've never seen it happen.


So then?
No one could have governed well in the circumstances Gillard had to work with. The combination of global financial crisis, minority government and relentless undermining by the previously deposed PM made it impossible.

Gillard gets everyone's respect for her strength, her resolve and her hard work, for "getting on with it" and "getting things done." In my opinion she did well under impossible circumstances and delivered some good things for the country. But we also do need our leaders to be communicators, and charismatic to some degree. And one's not enough without the other.


Paul Strangio in The Age summed the whole thing up quite nicely in this piece, which reminds us:

the highwire act of public life almost inevitably ends in failure and defeat

Paul obviously got that idea from my blog post from 2010 where I said CEOs and other public leaders are paid so well as compensation for the fact that some day they will suddenly (and maybe unfairly) be judged as having failed and will be fired.

So Julia Gillard's turn came this week.

It made international news. Here it is in the UK Huffington Post:

And here is a selection of my favourite tweets from the night.

Young people in the office aghast at bloodletting. 'When was politics ever so ruthless'? Oh, Gorton/Fraser, Hawke/Hayden, Howard/Peacock...
— Mr Denmore (@MrDenmore) June 26, 2013

I don’t care what you think, it’s fun having a new prime minister
— Ben Pobjie (@benpobjie) June 26, 2013

Playing Pin the Tail on the PM in there? #spill
— Kim Yeomans (@kimyeo) June 26, 2013

Can I become PM of Oz as I have policies? #1 No Xmas decorations before Dec 1 #2 No hot cross buns on Jan 1 #3 Academic gown for teachers
— Adam Byatt (@revhappiness) June 26, 2013

Rudd: I will never again contest the leadership under any circumstances (unless I can become PM next time, obviously) #auspol #spill #liar
— Sam Jeffries (@SamJeffries) June 26, 2013

All these people lamenting the #spill seem to forget the sight of weeping politicians is hilarious.
— Leigh Milward (@leighmilward) June 26, 2013

This is like watching your parents fight over who's going to drive while the car fills with lake water. #spill
— Alice Wild Williams (@shutupalice) June 26, 2013

Looks like many folk are still at "anger". Give me a hoy when we reach stage five.
— our man in Canberra (@ourmancanberra) June 26, 2013

Kev’s first appearance and I’m already wanting Jules back.
— Bolt Comments (@boltcomments) June 26, 2013

Politics. Makes me glad I work in a gentle, nurturing industry like finance really.