And so it comes, more pushes for 7 day trading in country areas and always co-joined is the call for abolishing penalty rates. But what's it really work out to be?
Well the Federal Liberals and the State Liberals would be well aware of the Productivity Commission Report that Joe Hockey signed off on before he left politics and dived into the Diplomatic trough.
It stated that wages actually accounted for 47% of the cost of doing business. Now depending on how you closely crunch the numbers and which numbers you grab to crunch the effect is a little surprising.
Here's an indisputable fact...according to the report.
Wages account for 47% of a businesses cost.
Wages account for 100% of the workers income for working for the business. (yes being cheeky)
Abolishing penalty rates means the staff will take a pay cut of their 100% so as to reduce the business' 47%.
Now if, depending on the business they're effectively paying 8 days wages for 7 days work it comes out like this.
The wage earners in that case is taking a 12.5% pay cut.
The business will pickup a 5% saving on their whole budget.
Just check that again, the business is 5% wealthier and the staff are 12.5% poorer. If there's only 5% between being profitable and loss making I'd be very worried as a business owner about the business' model. Just wait until the Australian Interest rates get to 10 or 12% (they will eventually)
If the only place you can cut costs back is the wages and not from the other 53% then I'd be petrified.
One smart cookie has already suggested the business owners lessen their exposure by opening their doors on normal days & close on the days when penalty rates apply and go work for their opposition on those penalty days.
Think that's being cheeky, but it'd be a whole lot cheekier if it didn't have smart financial sense behind it.
Wednesday 30 November 2016
Tuesday 29 November 2016
Politics, Homer Simpson & Morality
ABC South Coast Radio Presenter Christine Layton today interviewed a UK Academic running a course that surrounds the idea that The Simpsons has some philosophical value, that Homer may be a "good" person. It may be a clever ploy by the academic to lure everyday people into paying for a one day course & generate some real interest into the often avoided field of ethics, morals & philosophy.
Then not long after I heard the news about protestors in the public gallery of Parliament House Canberra had super glued themselves to hand rails and were chanting "Where are your morals?" (among other things).
So it returns again to morals, what are they and where do they come from? I could go do a one day course but whilst it might cover numerous disciplines of philosophy or different schools of moral thinking it all might miss asking the question that pour sunlight onto the important foundations most won't touch when they utter the words moral, morals or morality in general.
Life & all creation has only 2 possible causes. Just two, not 3 or 4 just 2 and we don't have to go into evolutionary theory, Darwinism or anything to see some thinking doesn't have huge layers to it. Lets look at the 2 possible causes.
A personal cause or an impersonal cause.
A personal cause is for theists, those who believe in a literal creator God.
An impersonal cause is for non-theists, those convinced there is no God and all of the creation we see and know about (and no doubt more) came into being by accident, luck mixed in with scientifically understood processes.
God did it, or nature did it. There is no third option.
Morals however are very different. There is only one source of their beginning, a personal cause.
It cannot be a matter of scientifically known process, not physical, chemical or any other evolutionary trait. Morals came from SOMEONE.
Either God or in the case of an impersonally generated universe by a person who needed to help band people together for whatever reason/s.
In the case of God, they're expected to be Objective because what He says goes. They're not up for debate even though we might reject them, but if God made them its not subjective in nature, they're from a transcendent moral law giver who is perfect.
In the case of there being no God, well here's where the seat squirming for some can start. Now we get to a point of subjectivity. In fact go further, all the non God sources of morals or moral laws are now sitting under the term "Relative Morality".
Different people have different views on multiple wives vs one wife. Some cultures believed that cannibalism was not just fine but a part of their spiritual journey whereas the white explorer sitting in the pot might think its horrible immoral. Very relative, very subjective and centres around regional bias or localised cultural thinking.
Or even worse, all things are right if they're right for you...even if they're not right for others. Not common, but that's the logical extension of moral relativism. The vegan activist tells me it is immoral to eat meat. By what moral law, from what moral law giver?
The lion eats the antelope eats...has the lion breached a moral code?
Ironically I was told that I have no right to assert my dominance over another species and decide to relegate it to farm life so I can eat it. So I can take its life and eat it, that in doing so I'm being a wilful participant in slavery & murder through my vile act of Speciesism.
So the lion must be guilty under the same moral law. If the immoral slavery/murder we're guilty of is to be devoid of Speciesism then it must apply to ALL species. A lion eats an antelope, it needs to be charge for murder and if convicted sentenced to the same prison term as a person.
See how silly the Vegan Moral Premise is?
The other thing with Moral Relativism of the impersonal cause is, well it cannot be binding. Its a non binding thing because what you say is immoral & I say is moral are both right & neither are wrong, they're relative therefore a person with a different view cannot impose their moral law upon me, or they've been rather immoral by forcing me to adhere to a moral law I don't support. Much like me charging a big cat with murder for doing what animals do.
Whenever I hear someone claim something is immoral I fist wonder what the moral standard is they're using to make the moral claim. What system are they employing to make the moral judgement?
Strangely the Impersonal Cause type morality implodes, its a paradox that cannot sustain itself under its own rules.
Only the Personal Cause can. But even then if someone says something is moral or immoral and they have a Moral Code or Law given to them by a Transcendent Moral Law Giver they have to show where in their "Scriptures" its set out and how its supported by its own Scriptures.
Proper exegesis of the Quran will either support or condemn the act of terrorists.
In the case of the Bible, terrorists murdering innocent people is not support by the Bible, in fact its an abomination. The Spanish Inquisition, the burning of witches, the Crusades and a good number of other things ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE BIBLE.
Strangely though, under the impersonal cause, killing and stealing might not be ok, but they're not immoral technically. Whenever someone says something is immoral, ask "Immoral by what standard?"
Then not long after I heard the news about protestors in the public gallery of Parliament House Canberra had super glued themselves to hand rails and were chanting "Where are your morals?" (among other things).
So it returns again to morals, what are they and where do they come from? I could go do a one day course but whilst it might cover numerous disciplines of philosophy or different schools of moral thinking it all might miss asking the question that pour sunlight onto the important foundations most won't touch when they utter the words moral, morals or morality in general.
Life & all creation has only 2 possible causes. Just two, not 3 or 4 just 2 and we don't have to go into evolutionary theory, Darwinism or anything to see some thinking doesn't have huge layers to it. Lets look at the 2 possible causes.
A personal cause or an impersonal cause.
A personal cause is for theists, those who believe in a literal creator God.
An impersonal cause is for non-theists, those convinced there is no God and all of the creation we see and know about (and no doubt more) came into being by accident, luck mixed in with scientifically understood processes.
God did it, or nature did it. There is no third option.
Morals however are very different. There is only one source of their beginning, a personal cause.
It cannot be a matter of scientifically known process, not physical, chemical or any other evolutionary trait. Morals came from SOMEONE.
Either God or in the case of an impersonally generated universe by a person who needed to help band people together for whatever reason/s.
In the case of God, they're expected to be Objective because what He says goes. They're not up for debate even though we might reject them, but if God made them its not subjective in nature, they're from a transcendent moral law giver who is perfect.
In the case of there being no God, well here's where the seat squirming for some can start. Now we get to a point of subjectivity. In fact go further, all the non God sources of morals or moral laws are now sitting under the term "Relative Morality".
Different people have different views on multiple wives vs one wife. Some cultures believed that cannibalism was not just fine but a part of their spiritual journey whereas the white explorer sitting in the pot might think its horrible immoral. Very relative, very subjective and centres around regional bias or localised cultural thinking.
Or even worse, all things are right if they're right for you...even if they're not right for others. Not common, but that's the logical extension of moral relativism. The vegan activist tells me it is immoral to eat meat. By what moral law, from what moral law giver?
The lion eats the antelope eats...has the lion breached a moral code?
Ironically I was told that I have no right to assert my dominance over another species and decide to relegate it to farm life so I can eat it. So I can take its life and eat it, that in doing so I'm being a wilful participant in slavery & murder through my vile act of Speciesism.
So the lion must be guilty under the same moral law. If the immoral slavery/murder we're guilty of is to be devoid of Speciesism then it must apply to ALL species. A lion eats an antelope, it needs to be charge for murder and if convicted sentenced to the same prison term as a person.
See how silly the Vegan Moral Premise is?
The other thing with Moral Relativism of the impersonal cause is, well it cannot be binding. Its a non binding thing because what you say is immoral & I say is moral are both right & neither are wrong, they're relative therefore a person with a different view cannot impose their moral law upon me, or they've been rather immoral by forcing me to adhere to a moral law I don't support. Much like me charging a big cat with murder for doing what animals do.
Whenever I hear someone claim something is immoral I fist wonder what the moral standard is they're using to make the moral claim. What system are they employing to make the moral judgement?
Strangely the Impersonal Cause type morality implodes, its a paradox that cannot sustain itself under its own rules.
Only the Personal Cause can. But even then if someone says something is moral or immoral and they have a Moral Code or Law given to them by a Transcendent Moral Law Giver they have to show where in their "Scriptures" its set out and how its supported by its own Scriptures.
Proper exegesis of the Quran will either support or condemn the act of terrorists.
In the case of the Bible, terrorists murdering innocent people is not support by the Bible, in fact its an abomination. The Spanish Inquisition, the burning of witches, the Crusades and a good number of other things ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE BIBLE.
Strangely though, under the impersonal cause, killing and stealing might not be ok, but they're not immoral technically. Whenever someone says something is immoral, ask "Immoral by what standard?"
Sunday 27 November 2016
BackPacker Tax & Twitter
Twitter, new to it but its good to use now I'm getting the hang of it. It relays opinion & facts and often they're mutually exclusive but watching a few other twitter people a couple of things popped up regarding the Backpacker Tax which need collecting together.
Firstly I'm getting sick of certain word overuse. Words like narrative, paradigm and a few others but there's one I'm liking a whole lot.
DUOPOLY.
It applies to the Coles/Woolworths duopoly pressing prices down on farmers either directly or by pressuring processors.
It also applies to the Liberal & Labor party positioning or rather dominance.
During the recent Federal Election the Backpacker Tax came up. Our local member for O'Connor said they'd "look at it later" and after the election he said he supported something closer to 19% despite his party wanting 32.5%. WA Nationals candidate John Hassell was pretty upfront that he was happy to not only fight for WA over the unfair GST allocation but also the Backpacker Tax and would cross the floor without hesitation.
The Back Packer Tax was forced out at 35.5% then compromised down to 19% and now down to 15%.
Now we should point out, when there's a compromise its because pressure was brought upon the incumbent. Sorry to say, this pressure was not from Rick Wilson, its come from Jaqui Lambie, Pauline Hanson, Nick Xenophon, David Leyonhjelm & others. Sadly again Rick Wilson made his claim pre election & close to zero since.
Labor cannot cross the floor & Liberal MPs refuse to.
Overall its been an utter debacle. It was said no one has covered themselves in glory over this issue. Dead right. Utter debacle.
It could be argued that in the last Federal Election campaign Rick Wilson said what he thought people needed to hear to secure votes or lessened electoral damage. Remember he was the one who said they'd "look at it" after the election. But he said he favoured 19% but didn't pipe up in support when others suggested 19%. In fact, we're still looking for any comment from him since the election.
So why blame both Liberal & Labor parties? Why complain about the duopoly?
Well in the last federal election the Liberal & Labor Parties came together to work out a preference deal that would see preferences from the Labor Party go to the Liberals if the Labor was coming third. This was done federally with even many WA Labor members unaware until the announcement was made. Two well known WA Laborites were well embarrassed as they thought the NationalsWA candidate would probably get over the line with the Labor preferences.
The Nationals/Liberal preference deal was also done over east due to the Coalition deal. Ironically whilst it meant the Liberals candidate Rick Wilson was very well placed preference wise it also spells out clearly that both members of the Liberal/Labor duopoly detest the NationalsWA.
Local card carrying union locals were stunned when they found out about the Liberal/Labor deal & felt cheated. The NationalsWA were clearly shafted as the last NationalsWA federal MP was Tony Crook who famously did cross the floor for WA whilst he was a federal MP. A party &/or candidate who is prepared to fight for WA is not going to be popular with the duopoly because the duopoly favours solely positive east coast outcomes.
Did someone say WA's unfair GST allocation of 30c in the dollar?
Yes someone did but they weren't from the duopoly, it sure wasn't Rick Wilson MP or an other WA based federal MP.
Duopoly votes sell you and your state out every single time. There is no blood nose politics in the duopoly, none. Not one ounce, the only fight the WA MPs put up is the fight to deliver tactical replies to justify the eastern states centred decrees when they come home & front voters...rare as that is.
Its possibly unlikely but my personal view is I'd like to see the NationalsWA break away from the federal Nationals so the NatsWA can do their own preference deal to place our state first over Liberal & Labor Party objectives. It might only be an appearance of self determination but it'd be a damn good start.
Firstly I'm getting sick of certain word overuse. Words like narrative, paradigm and a few others but there's one I'm liking a whole lot.
DUOPOLY.
It applies to the Coles/Woolworths duopoly pressing prices down on farmers either directly or by pressuring processors.
It also applies to the Liberal & Labor party positioning or rather dominance.
During the recent Federal Election the Backpacker Tax came up. Our local member for O'Connor said they'd "look at it later" and after the election he said he supported something closer to 19% despite his party wanting 32.5%. WA Nationals candidate John Hassell was pretty upfront that he was happy to not only fight for WA over the unfair GST allocation but also the Backpacker Tax and would cross the floor without hesitation.
The Back Packer Tax was forced out at 35.5% then compromised down to 19% and now down to 15%.
Now we should point out, when there's a compromise its because pressure was brought upon the incumbent. Sorry to say, this pressure was not from Rick Wilson, its come from Jaqui Lambie, Pauline Hanson, Nick Xenophon, David Leyonhjelm & others. Sadly again Rick Wilson made his claim pre election & close to zero since.
Labor cannot cross the floor & Liberal MPs refuse to.
Overall its been an utter debacle. It was said no one has covered themselves in glory over this issue. Dead right. Utter debacle.
It could be argued that in the last Federal Election campaign Rick Wilson said what he thought people needed to hear to secure votes or lessened electoral damage. Remember he was the one who said they'd "look at it" after the election. But he said he favoured 19% but didn't pipe up in support when others suggested 19%. In fact, we're still looking for any comment from him since the election.
So why blame both Liberal & Labor parties? Why complain about the duopoly?
Well in the last federal election the Liberal & Labor Parties came together to work out a preference deal that would see preferences from the Labor Party go to the Liberals if the Labor was coming third. This was done federally with even many WA Labor members unaware until the announcement was made. Two well known WA Laborites were well embarrassed as they thought the NationalsWA candidate would probably get over the line with the Labor preferences.
The Nationals/Liberal preference deal was also done over east due to the Coalition deal. Ironically whilst it meant the Liberals candidate Rick Wilson was very well placed preference wise it also spells out clearly that both members of the Liberal/Labor duopoly detest the NationalsWA.
Local card carrying union locals were stunned when they found out about the Liberal/Labor deal & felt cheated. The NationalsWA were clearly shafted as the last NationalsWA federal MP was Tony Crook who famously did cross the floor for WA whilst he was a federal MP. A party &/or candidate who is prepared to fight for WA is not going to be popular with the duopoly because the duopoly favours solely positive east coast outcomes.
Did someone say WA's unfair GST allocation of 30c in the dollar?
Yes someone did but they weren't from the duopoly, it sure wasn't Rick Wilson MP or an other WA based federal MP.
Duopoly votes sell you and your state out every single time. There is no blood nose politics in the duopoly, none. Not one ounce, the only fight the WA MPs put up is the fight to deliver tactical replies to justify the eastern states centred decrees when they come home & front voters...rare as that is.
Its possibly unlikely but my personal view is I'd like to see the NationalsWA break away from the federal Nationals so the NatsWA can do their own preference deal to place our state first over Liberal & Labor Party objectives. It might only be an appearance of self determination but it'd be a damn good start.
Monday 21 November 2016
The Adler Matter in the Senate
Yes the Adler Shotgun issue rolls on & it's very bizarre. To the point where the actual gun will be overshadowed by other issues including the actual ban having done more to promote & sell the firearm than anything else.
Last night the issue was voted on, to drop the ban, with several Nationals MPs crossing the floor to vote with Senator David Leyonhjelm. In short it was defeated and the Import Ban remains in place. The promised sunset clause has been reneged upon, the ban remains in place.
So the status quo remains, the status quo is this. Currently...
Its turned into a fight without reasoning, its turned into an embarrassing stuff up by Tony Abbott's government, latched onto by many MPs with no idea what's right or wrong nor why. Are they thinking they're placating irate voters? It will continue to simmer. The problem still exists, its been made worse by the import ban yet the problem unsurprisingly hasn't created any increased threat at all.
Bizarre to the point of embarrassing to watch.
Net outcome is, if it lasts any longer and gets any bigger, the people keen on dumping the Political Duopoly ala Trump style will probably grow and they'll head for the minor parties
The Nationals, Shooters Fishers & Farmers Party & One Nation will gather traction on this and several other 2nd & 3rd Tier Issues. One Nation less so in WA as the possible negative "Rodney Culleton Effect" increases.
SFFP are gathering steam & traction but so too are Nats WA with their fight for GST fairness and the Lease Rental Fee. SFFP are unlikely to run Lower House candidates so the battleground will be the rural & regional Upper House seats.
So many people with far more experience in political matters have gotten things wrong in this last 12 months so my thinking could easily be Seriously wrong.
Pretty sure though, your vote is now worth far more than ever, don't waste it and don't waste the opportunity to discuss it with family & friends.
Seriously Think About Your Vote
Last night the issue was voted on, to drop the ban, with several Nationals MPs crossing the floor to vote with Senator David Leyonhjelm. In short it was defeated and the Import Ban remains in place. The promised sunset clause has been reneged upon, the ban remains in place.
So the status quo remains, the status quo is this. Currently...
- It is possible to legally buy, own, possess and use a 5 shot lever action shotgun in Australia.
- There's now a growing number of similar firearms available to choose from. Made by Emerald, IAC, Pardus, Winchester and several others. All 5 shot lever action unless they were 6 or 8 shot and been around for a decade or more.
- The Import of the 7 shot Adler (and any other brand) is impossible. The temporary ban remains in place until the states agree on its classification. They've been legal and available since, well since ever, that remains, its just that now only a 5 shot can be imported.
- It is perfectly legal to buy a 5 shot Adler (or other brand) and legally buy a magazine extension that turns it into a legal 7 or 10 round Shotgun.
- The Ban, the ongoing angst over it has heightened sales greater than any advertising ever could. The local gun shop here has 7 sold ones on the shelf awaiting collection and the man behind the counter said "We can't get them in quick enough, we get them in and they're sold"
The fact also remains that there's been no recorded use of a lever action shotgun being used in a crime or mass shooting. The Lindt Café shooting involved a shotgun, but it was an illegal sawn off pump action, bought on the black market by a person who did not and never has possessed a firearms permit.
Outcome -
Its logic is stalled, its a political football that is being maintained in a bizarre circling pattern.
If there is indeed a threat to the public from this firearm, the hazard has increased through heightened sales and legal modifications. To date, nothing.
Politically its achieved the exact opposite of what it was meant to achieve. Its sold far more of the "Perfectly OK, safe & approved 5 shot". Many of which are being legally converted to 7 or 10 shot magazines. Which are the somehow unsafe and a heightened threat.
Outcome -
Its logic is stalled, its a political football that is being maintained in a bizarre circling pattern.
If there is indeed a threat to the public from this firearm, the hazard has increased through heightened sales and legal modifications. To date, nothing.
Politically its achieved the exact opposite of what it was meant to achieve. Its sold far more of the "Perfectly OK, safe & approved 5 shot". Many of which are being legally converted to 7 or 10 shot magazines. Which are the somehow unsafe and a heightened threat.
And all the while one other factor gets missed...this is a blatant act of Sovereign Over Reach by the federal government into State legislation. The Federal Government could not ban this fire arm, it could only ban its import. The states couldn't agree, status quo remains.
And still I cannot get anyone from the Government, any government to say WHY it requires banning, why 5 is ok but 7 shot isn't.
It still remains that there are 4 broad types of firearms.
And still I cannot get anyone from the Government, any government to say WHY it requires banning, why 5 is ok but 7 shot isn't.
It still remains that there are 4 broad types of firearms.
- Single shot - One cartridge goes into it, its fired, you open the breach, remove the spent cartridge, put in another, take aim and fire again. Muskets also fall into this area
- Repeaters - These have a magazine that holds additional round. Bolt action, straight pull, pump action and lever actions fall into this grouping. Repeaters actually repeat. Still need manual loading of a single round, manual firing, manual ejection, manual reloading, manual firing. When the lever action first appeared over 150 years ago, what was it called? "Lever action repeater"
- Semi Automatic - Still needs a pull of the trigger. Each pull only fires ONE round. The recoil and/or gas ejects the spent load & reloads the next round for you, but you still have to pull the trigger for each bullet. In fact you have to release the trigger and actually pull it again to fire subsequent rounds.
- Fully Automatic - These are "machine guns" or "sub machine guns". If there's a group that is truly encapsulated by the bogus term "assault rifle" this is it. It ejects & reloads same as a semi automatic, but in this case it can fire as long as the trigger is held on. It can fire faster bursts. It was effective in battle to a point, but turns to stink because a soldier runs out of ammunition very quickly, most of it is wasted and it heats up the barrel and action. To be fair you would & should include "SELECT FIRE" firearms in this group. These are the semi automatics that have a switch that allows you to select from semi auto to full auto.
Its turned into a fight without reasoning, its turned into an embarrassing stuff up by Tony Abbott's government, latched onto by many MPs with no idea what's right or wrong nor why. Are they thinking they're placating irate voters? It will continue to simmer. The problem still exists, its been made worse by the import ban yet the problem unsurprisingly hasn't created any increased threat at all.
Bizarre to the point of embarrassing to watch.
Net outcome is, if it lasts any longer and gets any bigger, the people keen on dumping the Political Duopoly ala Trump style will probably grow and they'll head for the minor parties
The Nationals, Shooters Fishers & Farmers Party & One Nation will gather traction on this and several other 2nd & 3rd Tier Issues. One Nation less so in WA as the possible negative "Rodney Culleton Effect" increases.
SFFP are gathering steam & traction but so too are Nats WA with their fight for GST fairness and the Lease Rental Fee. SFFP are unlikely to run Lower House candidates so the battleground will be the rural & regional Upper House seats.
So many people with far more experience in political matters have gotten things wrong in this last 12 months so my thinking could easily be Seriously wrong.
Pretty sure though, your vote is now worth far more than ever, don't waste it and don't waste the opportunity to discuss it with family & friends.
Seriously Think About Your Vote
Friday 11 November 2016
Politics, Political & Politicians
Politics - When 2 or more people gather to discuss the best course of action for the majority
Political - An issue or topic requiring 2 or more people to come together & discuss what is the best course of action for the majority
Too Political - When the group you're in is discussing the best course of action for the majority but it results in the group not letting you get your way but allows the majority to decide.
When ever someone says "Oh it all got political" I grin because if 2 people chat, its already political, by the very nature of humans having an opinion of their own, albeit swayed and influenced by others.
The downside for me is if a society is very politically disengaged things can go bump in the electoral night. In the case of Trump its being dissected flat strap in a political autopsy that could run for decades but everyone's trying to find reasons. Most of the people looking got the prediction wrong so I hope they're learning as they travel along. I can't help feel that voluntary voting has a bit to do with it.
It is after all a numbers game. You get the most numbers you win. Did Trump plug into the receptors of "real America", or the disenchanted, the disillusioned, the whoever dislikes Hillary or the establishment? Yes probably but the Hillary camp, way to late realised every vote would count and told people to go out and vote. A lot of people don't and how many people voted this time who don't usually I don't know but it was the most polarising election I've seen.
Most nasty and to be honest it had 2 candidates that might be quite good in their own way, but they couldn't be the best the country has to offer surely to goodness. Is it just a matter of the best of the ruthless and cunning get to the top of their respective pre-selections, or the richest? Who knows, some of these things but we've seen past candidates lose who were better than both of these candidates.
Australia has a different measure at play in that voting is compulsory. Or rather attendance is. There's more than a few people who have never registered to vote and therefore never have but for the most part, most people of the required age do vote. Unconfirmed but I was told its compulsory attendance for registered voters, not compulsory voting for everyone. It seems that way, you only have to attend a poling booth, get your name ticked off and put your ballot paper in the box... you can draw pictures on it or leave it blank if you want to.
At one polling station at the 2016 Federal Election I saw a man walk in, get ticked off the roll, take his voting slips straight to the ballot box, bypassing the booth and put them straight in the box. His hand never touched a pencil. A definite invalid vote. He didn't break the law. A lot of very stupid things aren't illegal of course and unsure as to what he was hoping to achieve.
In a perfect world, everyone in society would join a political party and have a part in the processes of politics, even if its attending one meeting a year or 3 years but generally people join parties out of a sense of duty or a perceived call to arms so to speak.
Where people get churned up and spat out is when its never explained to them that the greatest rigour and "argy-bargy" of a politic sense is not in Parliament House, nr the Senate, or the party room or cabinet.
Its within the political party's organisation. It gets very political and factionalised or very narcissistic and self serving at time. If this was explained to people perhaps many wouldn't walk away thinking its stacked, packed or factionally tilted. It is politics working and it's difficult for all of us to reconcile that 90% of a party's stances are aligned with our view but one or two things are patently wrong in our mind yet we have to go with the flow & support the majority.
Indeed it gets worse for politicians who may have a deep moral conviction on an issue but they have to sell and opposing view which is the party position. Its not uncommon for party hack MPs to tell independent MPs that they're sorry they can't support them & they would if they could. That sort of secret confessional admission more common than you think. I often wonder what would happen if all MPs hit a Yes, No or Abstain button and no one can see which way they're voting.
Thing is, there's always the duty to the electorate so at some point we still do need to see how a member voted. Or do we?
I think the reason people like to see religion and politics as taboo subjects socially is they could force us to think and confront our own prejudices. It could cause us to see if we're wrong and make a concession to others views that are actually right. for some, its very confronting to have a view questioned, more so when its pre-suppositional and has no research or thought behind it, just knee jerk bias. It forces us to confront ourselves when confronting others.
Why is that so challenging. reminded how some people are so focused on their worldview, which they don't understand but prefer to another more dominant one they understand even less.
That's fine with sports teams, but religion and politics don't need blind followers or blind objectors who object to rational discussion. That sort of politics should be heralded as higher thinking but it can go missing in the front bar and the party room.
It is what it is...but it shouldn't be feared and if its process oriented it can always be improved, never perfected mind you but improved. If its not being improved its being manipulated so the more sulight you shine on it, the safer we'll all be.
Seems to me more people, if they really care, should join a party and those who don't shouldn't complain too loudly without proper rational reasoning. Politics is ok it seems, but its never perfect.
Political - An issue or topic requiring 2 or more people to come together & discuss what is the best course of action for the majority
Too Political - When the group you're in is discussing the best course of action for the majority but it results in the group not letting you get your way but allows the majority to decide.
When ever someone says "Oh it all got political" I grin because if 2 people chat, its already political, by the very nature of humans having an opinion of their own, albeit swayed and influenced by others.
The downside for me is if a society is very politically disengaged things can go bump in the electoral night. In the case of Trump its being dissected flat strap in a political autopsy that could run for decades but everyone's trying to find reasons. Most of the people looking got the prediction wrong so I hope they're learning as they travel along. I can't help feel that voluntary voting has a bit to do with it.
It is after all a numbers game. You get the most numbers you win. Did Trump plug into the receptors of "real America", or the disenchanted, the disillusioned, the whoever dislikes Hillary or the establishment? Yes probably but the Hillary camp, way to late realised every vote would count and told people to go out and vote. A lot of people don't and how many people voted this time who don't usually I don't know but it was the most polarising election I've seen.
Most nasty and to be honest it had 2 candidates that might be quite good in their own way, but they couldn't be the best the country has to offer surely to goodness. Is it just a matter of the best of the ruthless and cunning get to the top of their respective pre-selections, or the richest? Who knows, some of these things but we've seen past candidates lose who were better than both of these candidates.
Australia has a different measure at play in that voting is compulsory. Or rather attendance is. There's more than a few people who have never registered to vote and therefore never have but for the most part, most people of the required age do vote. Unconfirmed but I was told its compulsory attendance for registered voters, not compulsory voting for everyone. It seems that way, you only have to attend a poling booth, get your name ticked off and put your ballot paper in the box... you can draw pictures on it or leave it blank if you want to.
At one polling station at the 2016 Federal Election I saw a man walk in, get ticked off the roll, take his voting slips straight to the ballot box, bypassing the booth and put them straight in the box. His hand never touched a pencil. A definite invalid vote. He didn't break the law. A lot of very stupid things aren't illegal of course and unsure as to what he was hoping to achieve.
In a perfect world, everyone in society would join a political party and have a part in the processes of politics, even if its attending one meeting a year or 3 years but generally people join parties out of a sense of duty or a perceived call to arms so to speak.
Where people get churned up and spat out is when its never explained to them that the greatest rigour and "argy-bargy" of a politic sense is not in Parliament House, nr the Senate, or the party room or cabinet.
Its within the political party's organisation. It gets very political and factionalised or very narcissistic and self serving at time. If this was explained to people perhaps many wouldn't walk away thinking its stacked, packed or factionally tilted. It is politics working and it's difficult for all of us to reconcile that 90% of a party's stances are aligned with our view but one or two things are patently wrong in our mind yet we have to go with the flow & support the majority.
Indeed it gets worse for politicians who may have a deep moral conviction on an issue but they have to sell and opposing view which is the party position. Its not uncommon for party hack MPs to tell independent MPs that they're sorry they can't support them & they would if they could. That sort of secret confessional admission more common than you think. I often wonder what would happen if all MPs hit a Yes, No or Abstain button and no one can see which way they're voting.
Thing is, there's always the duty to the electorate so at some point we still do need to see how a member voted. Or do we?
I think the reason people like to see religion and politics as taboo subjects socially is they could force us to think and confront our own prejudices. It could cause us to see if we're wrong and make a concession to others views that are actually right. for some, its very confronting to have a view questioned, more so when its pre-suppositional and has no research or thought behind it, just knee jerk bias. It forces us to confront ourselves when confronting others.
Why is that so challenging. reminded how some people are so focused on their worldview, which they don't understand but prefer to another more dominant one they understand even less.
That's fine with sports teams, but religion and politics don't need blind followers or blind objectors who object to rational discussion. That sort of politics should be heralded as higher thinking but it can go missing in the front bar and the party room.
It is what it is...but it shouldn't be feared and if its process oriented it can always be improved, never perfected mind you but improved. If its not being improved its being manipulated so the more sulight you shine on it, the safer we'll all be.
Seems to me more people, if they really care, should join a party and those who don't shouldn't complain too loudly without proper rational reasoning. Politics is ok it seems, but its never perfect.
Saturday 5 November 2016
Why "Blood Nose Politics" Resonates So Soundly.
Brendon Grylls is not trying to introduce a new tax at all. Whilst the media refer to it as a "mining tax" the plan is actually the update of a state agreement and comes from the Nationals WA State Conference in Kalgoorlie last year. It was a good motion and set the Nationals on a path to bringing some outdated levels of payment, circa mid 1960s up to 2016 levels.
Yes its a pity we got to the point where this had to be improved. Yes we could have learnt a lot from Norway about managing the income from a mining boom. Regardless it is what it is and the plans start now at their point & place we're in. What it teaches us, some of what it teaches us, is we need to monitor both sides of the ledger. To forward drought proof the plan with both sides of the ledger working for us. Yes a sovereign wealth fund would be great, but we're years too late for that now, that will be something for the emergence stage of the next boom...whenever it is.
Now we have to look at both sides of the ledger and reduce spending where we can, curve borrowing where we can, make every dollar count. The important part to remember is its managing O.P.M. - OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.
If an income stream is still lagging and pegged to 1960s prices it begs the question why? Next questions is about changing & updating it to a fairer level and that question is why the hell not?
Whether the eastern states will get more income out of it is a mute point when you consider WA will. WA certainly won't get anything if the status quo from when the Beatles were in their early 20s is maintained. I'd rather WA got a small extra fair shot in the arm than mining companies export extra profits paid for by the state of WA.
Its brought forward the term of "blood nose politics", certainly not coined by Brendon Grylls but certainly being used now and its resonating widely for pretty obvious reasons. It means different things to different people but most widely it's meaning not backing down and not giving up on a principal.
Blood nose politics is really what is needed regardless of your political leaning. We need relentless rigour applied to all ideas and much less reliance on compliance to party decrees. In other spheres we'd call it free thinking.
Brendon Grylls is not Edward De Bono, he is a political leader and a political player but the true sense of Blood Nose Politics is on his menu and he plans to serve it up regularly.
Blood nose politics is overdue and whilst some who support it might be critical of it's absence for so long at least the Nationals are the first to place it on the agenda. They're also got history with wanting the back packer tax abolished, GST share for WA made fairer and now bringing a state agreement, a mining lease rental fee up to 2016 standards away from the peppercorn rent of the 1960s.
Whatever the composition of the WA Parliament is post March election, I hope the Blood Nose Politics approach is alive and rigor will bring back some thoroughness and professionalism to decision making we've seen rare in past issues.
Dark times, but there's still good torches of light.
To check for rigour, see if whoever you're listening to is calling it a "mining tax" or "iron ore tax" or actually it what it actually is. A Lease Rental Fee.
Yes its a pity we got to the point where this had to be improved. Yes we could have learnt a lot from Norway about managing the income from a mining boom. Regardless it is what it is and the plans start now at their point & place we're in. What it teaches us, some of what it teaches us, is we need to monitor both sides of the ledger. To forward drought proof the plan with both sides of the ledger working for us. Yes a sovereign wealth fund would be great, but we're years too late for that now, that will be something for the emergence stage of the next boom...whenever it is.
Now we have to look at both sides of the ledger and reduce spending where we can, curve borrowing where we can, make every dollar count. The important part to remember is its managing O.P.M. - OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.
If an income stream is still lagging and pegged to 1960s prices it begs the question why? Next questions is about changing & updating it to a fairer level and that question is why the hell not?
Whether the eastern states will get more income out of it is a mute point when you consider WA will. WA certainly won't get anything if the status quo from when the Beatles were in their early 20s is maintained. I'd rather WA got a small extra fair shot in the arm than mining companies export extra profits paid for by the state of WA.
Its brought forward the term of "blood nose politics", certainly not coined by Brendon Grylls but certainly being used now and its resonating widely for pretty obvious reasons. It means different things to different people but most widely it's meaning not backing down and not giving up on a principal.
Blood nose politics is really what is needed regardless of your political leaning. We need relentless rigour applied to all ideas and much less reliance on compliance to party decrees. In other spheres we'd call it free thinking.
Brendon Grylls is not Edward De Bono, he is a political leader and a political player but the true sense of Blood Nose Politics is on his menu and he plans to serve it up regularly.
Blood nose politics is overdue and whilst some who support it might be critical of it's absence for so long at least the Nationals are the first to place it on the agenda. They're also got history with wanting the back packer tax abolished, GST share for WA made fairer and now bringing a state agreement, a mining lease rental fee up to 2016 standards away from the peppercorn rent of the 1960s.
Whatever the composition of the WA Parliament is post March election, I hope the Blood Nose Politics approach is alive and rigor will bring back some thoroughness and professionalism to decision making we've seen rare in past issues.
Dark times, but there's still good torches of light.
To check for rigour, see if whoever you're listening to is calling it a "mining tax" or "iron ore tax" or actually it what it actually is. A Lease Rental Fee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)