So it's begun, the worst kept secret in Albany is now official. Local Labor folk selected Rebecca Stephens as their candidate some months ago & it anger some Labor members. Its been simmering for ages and today (19/02/2020) it was finally announced. Well the other night at a Labor do.
Rebecca sits as a councillor on the City of Albany. She had an interview on the radio this morning.
Someone is going to mention she says "um" a lot so we might as well get this out of the way...she sure does, in under 8 minutes she said "um" no less than 63 times.
She said she knows "our community" because she's born & bred here. But when pressed what she'd add she said she's connected & embedded in the community saying she's interesting in everyone getting a fair go.
When asked has she always been a Labor follower she said "Not overly" she said her family didn't grow up with politics. Which might explain the suggestion that just after getting the nod to run for Labor she didn't know there were 2 houses of Parliament in WA. If true, bit concerning.
She's been on Council and is connected, embedded to the community & yet couldn't add one thing on tricky subjects like stating a position on 7 Day Trading. Peter Watson said it's a City of Albany thing. She wouldn't commit.
Rebecca Stephens - "Yep I'm not going to comment on that"
Tyne Logan - "Why not?"
Rebecca Stephens - "Because I'm not in a position to comment"
She hasn't been instructed what Labor position wants her to stick to.
She claimed to be on board for mere 48 hours and was looking forward to getting out into the community to see what the community wants.
Ahhh did she not do this as a City of Albany Councillor. She was asked for a vision but could give anything specific but people had opportunity to get involved.
She wasn't sure she'd support a wave energy project.
When asked "Would you like to see that programme continue to be funded by the McGowan Government?"
She said she wasn't aware of the ins & outs of that programme, but was aware there is a meth problem in WA, that the government has an action plan but something needs to be done whether its in the form of that programme or not.
She possibly is also unaware that in the first McGowan Government they budgeted more money in one year on basketball courts in the Premier's electorate than TWO YEARS funding to help the Albany meth rehab programme called Ice Breakers.
There remains more Labor problems.
Peter Watson has spent the last 3 years as Speaker of the House so effectively he has had no part in Government Business for 3 years as he's the umpire in Parliament. He cannot vote unless there's a tie and as a result has had no input of vote on Albany's behalf for THREE WHOLE YEARS.
So we've gone from no representation or vote in Parliament for 3 years so Peter Watson retires on a much higher salary to pick up higher superannuation contributions upon leaving Parliament & we got nothing for it.
An ineffective Member of Parliament to be replaced but one who'll try to do more without having any idea what to do or how to do it.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote Labor.
Tuesday 18 February 2020
Saturday 8 February 2020
If you want to get bogged down in detail then Socialism is a great place because its like an onion in a way, lots of differing layers & levels but its all onion just the same.
There's varying strains of Socialism before & after Marx going back to the French Revolution and even earlier but after the Marx/Engels efforts its come to broadly mean (to most not all people) the opposition to Capitalism and the advocating for an alternative to capitalism which includes the state ownership of the means of production. Some times the words state & workers are interchangeable but it means no enterprising entrepreneur is really going to have a good chance of building a small business into a large business.
For a nation to be a proper Socialist Nation, so far its not been tried without being a totalitarian state.
That means harsh authoritarian rule. There is the seemingly glib but still rather accurate idea that socialism can only work until other people's money last & then follows brutal force and killings.
Then there's communism. Like socialism, it opposes capitalism. Like socialism it will need brutal force to survive. It will centralise power to one party, it will make even less concessions to free markets than Socialism and it will repress any dissent. Communism is more about all wealth & production controlled by the state, Socialism more along the lines of equal distribution amongst the people.
Its all hair splitting to some and there's a lot of strains of either. But again, its what Socialism, Communism, Marxism all share that's important.
They oppose capitalism
They oppose free choices of the individual to the point where the state is more important than any individual or group of individuals. (Some will argue groups of any individuals will be dissuaded or banned)
They do require lots of other people's money.
They oppose the free market
The State rules over everyone, it needs authoritarian/totalitarian rule to survive
So what is the difference between that and Nazism/Fascism?
A lot and not a lot.
look for the things in common & the differences. Socialism & communism is seen as the left, Nazism is seen as the far right. Are they?
Well Fascism was really firstly formed by Giovanni Gentile and from there strains developed.
But whilst Socialism was based on being anti class & then forming one class (in theory until the ruling class then develops and takes control) Nazism was based on extreme Nationalism & Race.
Whilst they spring board from different points, they share commonalties
They oppose capitalism
They oppose free choices of the individual to the point where the state is more important than any individual or group of individuals. (Some will argue groups of any individuals will be dissuaded or banned)
They do require lots of other people's money.
They oppose the free market unless the market is benefitting the chosen few.
The State rules over everyone, it needs authoritarian/totalitarian rule to survive
Both Socialism/Communism and Nazism/Fascism are more than willing to kill their own people to keep the system pure.
The accepted "Western" model of nations will allow free movement, citizens have individual rights, they can work, buy & sell as they choose. They can profit & after paying tax can do whatever they want with their profits no matter how big or small the amounts are. Migration is allowed, racism is banned, they are free market based.
So its pointless arguing whether Fascism is of the left or the far right. Both need brutal totalitarian rule, the power to take anything & everything from whomever the state dictates. Both are horrid political forms of brutal tribalism that eventually will cost lives to sustain itself.
In the free market country no one is forced into re-education camps because of race, religion or political views. The Marxist/Fascist countries...standard operating procedure.
Here's the saddest point, which is considered worse these days Communism or Nazism?
Easy, Nazism. They caused the holocaust, tried to conquer the world, caused the death of many through systematic genocide.
But going wider, who killed more, Stalin, Mao or Hitler & who got demonised the most?
Well the numbers are irrelevant but because all caused the death of millions, the real question is, why aren't Stalin & Mao not demonised as much as Hitler?
Easy. Hitler was defeated. All were brutal genocidal regimes.
No one asks how many people a British PM caused because they haven't had an totalitarian regime committing war, mass murder & genocide.
In fact if you're going to put Stalin, Mao & Hitler in the same boat (you should) you probably should put North Korea's Kim dynasty in there, plus Pol Pot, Cuba, Venezuela...
The argument should not be "Is Nazism of the left or the right?"
Its probably like Stalinism, Marxism, Socialism, Communism et al in that they're brutal anti free market murderous totalitarian regimes of death, heresies of humanity.
There is no safe harbour or perfect high moral ground for any form of government, however the western capitalist one doesn't build re-education camps, dispossess individuals assets, commit mass murder and control all means of production.
Capitalism isn't perfect, but its non oppressive and murderous.
If its not a western based, free market based, individual rights preserved type of society, its either murderous or soon will be.
There's varying strains of Socialism before & after Marx going back to the French Revolution and even earlier but after the Marx/Engels efforts its come to broadly mean (to most not all people) the opposition to Capitalism and the advocating for an alternative to capitalism which includes the state ownership of the means of production. Some times the words state & workers are interchangeable but it means no enterprising entrepreneur is really going to have a good chance of building a small business into a large business.
For a nation to be a proper Socialist Nation, so far its not been tried without being a totalitarian state.
That means harsh authoritarian rule. There is the seemingly glib but still rather accurate idea that socialism can only work until other people's money last & then follows brutal force and killings.
Then there's communism. Like socialism, it opposes capitalism. Like socialism it will need brutal force to survive. It will centralise power to one party, it will make even less concessions to free markets than Socialism and it will repress any dissent. Communism is more about all wealth & production controlled by the state, Socialism more along the lines of equal distribution amongst the people.
Its all hair splitting to some and there's a lot of strains of either. But again, its what Socialism, Communism, Marxism all share that's important.
They oppose capitalism
They oppose free choices of the individual to the point where the state is more important than any individual or group of individuals. (Some will argue groups of any individuals will be dissuaded or banned)
They do require lots of other people's money.
They oppose the free market
The State rules over everyone, it needs authoritarian/totalitarian rule to survive
So what is the difference between that and Nazism/Fascism?
A lot and not a lot.
look for the things in common & the differences. Socialism & communism is seen as the left, Nazism is seen as the far right. Are they?
Well Fascism was really firstly formed by Giovanni Gentile and from there strains developed.
But whilst Socialism was based on being anti class & then forming one class (in theory until the ruling class then develops and takes control) Nazism was based on extreme Nationalism & Race.
Whilst they spring board from different points, they share commonalties
They oppose capitalism
They oppose free choices of the individual to the point where the state is more important than any individual or group of individuals. (Some will argue groups of any individuals will be dissuaded or banned)
They do require lots of other people's money.
They oppose the free market unless the market is benefitting the chosen few.
The State rules over everyone, it needs authoritarian/totalitarian rule to survive
Both Socialism/Communism and Nazism/Fascism are more than willing to kill their own people to keep the system pure.
The accepted "Western" model of nations will allow free movement, citizens have individual rights, they can work, buy & sell as they choose. They can profit & after paying tax can do whatever they want with their profits no matter how big or small the amounts are. Migration is allowed, racism is banned, they are free market based.
So its pointless arguing whether Fascism is of the left or the far right. Both need brutal totalitarian rule, the power to take anything & everything from whomever the state dictates. Both are horrid political forms of brutal tribalism that eventually will cost lives to sustain itself.
In the free market country no one is forced into re-education camps because of race, religion or political views. The Marxist/Fascist countries...standard operating procedure.
Here's the saddest point, which is considered worse these days Communism or Nazism?
Easy, Nazism. They caused the holocaust, tried to conquer the world, caused the death of many through systematic genocide.
But going wider, who killed more, Stalin, Mao or Hitler & who got demonised the most?
Well the numbers are irrelevant but because all caused the death of millions, the real question is, why aren't Stalin & Mao not demonised as much as Hitler?
Easy. Hitler was defeated. All were brutal genocidal regimes.
No one asks how many people a British PM caused because they haven't had an totalitarian regime committing war, mass murder & genocide.
In fact if you're going to put Stalin, Mao & Hitler in the same boat (you should) you probably should put North Korea's Kim dynasty in there, plus Pol Pot, Cuba, Venezuela...
The argument should not be "Is Nazism of the left or the right?"
Its probably like Stalinism, Marxism, Socialism, Communism et al in that they're brutal anti free market murderous totalitarian regimes of death, heresies of humanity.
There is no safe harbour or perfect high moral ground for any form of government, however the western capitalist one doesn't build re-education camps, dispossess individuals assets, commit mass murder and control all means of production.
Capitalism isn't perfect, but its non oppressive and murderous.
If its not a western based, free market based, individual rights preserved type of society, its either murderous or soon will be.
Thursday 6 February 2020
Current State of Politics in Australia
Its pretty easy to stereotype a group & demonise them. For many years politicians, real estate agents, used car salesmen, insurance brokers, government bureaucrats...there's groups we sling off about. But why are we so down on these groups as a whole when there are in those groups quite a few people who are thoroughly decent & honest human beings?
I think they could just possibly reflect society as a whole and every day people in Australia who have a little anti-Authoritarian streak in them see those people having more power & control than they have. One possibility.
Other is, they have something in common with every other Australian citizen. They're humans.
As a result they can have some leanings & beliefs, aims & goals that might differ from others. Some are in politics are genuine, in there to make a difference and improve things. Some however are there because they view it as their job & career and therefore smell the wind regularly to see which way to face will lessen their chances of a re-election loss.
Politics has great, good and bad people amongst its ranks.
In recent decades we've seen not only a record amount of PM turnovers from leadership spills but more leaders change since the day John Howard retired than any other era of the same length of time in Australian Political History.
Yes, there's "Kingmaker Syndrome" that's swept into all parties like a contagion where some back benchers believe they can call some shots, they can rule from the shadows and indeed there's been quite a few times where the cut n thrust triumphed over greater party goals and greater national interest.
No party is immune, all have had it, I think all still do,
Why?
We probably have a less than helpful media. They need blood and disgust to sell a headline. Currently there's front page interest in a long retired West Coast Eagle champion being found drunk & asleep on the street in Kalgoorlie.
It's tragic & horrific for his friends & family and I'm not suggesting it needs a cover up, but I think it's in no one's interest, neither his nor the general public's to report it. It was front page & would help sell some copy & therefore some advertising in an age when paper is reducing and online newspaper with required sensationalised click bait...well you see that is going to sell better than a purely factual report on stock market movements.
Aside from that, the politicians and their supporting party framework have to take some blame too. Sadly whilst many parties still have a "Party Whip" they mainly attend to helping arrange party business in parliament. In the old days it was different. Whilst its a dark comedy/drama piece the old TV mini series out of the UK "House of Cards" showed lots of cloak & dagger but lots of scandal or trouble prevent or kept in check by a ruthless, fearless party whip. Cross the Whip and the Whip very much crossed you, sometimes crossed you out.
It can reduce factional wars to an extent but humans are humans and they will still go to war.
But the PM revolving doors, the Leadership Spill Pandemic through all parties & the odd avoidable scandal & spill could have been avoided with the old fashioned ruthless Whip.
But they're a soft version these days, discipline is sporadic at best, at worst accidental when it does happen. Then there's the slightly variating party machine which MPs should be answering to. When I say Party Machine I mean the part of a respective party that is the lay members conduit to the elected members. When that becomes distant & token, that further adds to the rise in scandals and unhelpful promotions, demotions, scandals, spills, public fights or threats to cross the floor.
Until all the parties get their act together, their structure of accountability right the problems will continue.
This might be amplified by those media outlets that want Churnalists not Journalists, that want controversy to sell because it does sell. Churnalists become influencers not reporters. They try to become protagonists & players instead of observers & commentators.
This means those who're struck with King Maker Syndrome use the media and the media use them to help create angst and controversy to their own gain.
I don't expect the media to change anytime soon & strange as it seems I think it's the political set that has to raise the bar & stop leaking which adds fuel to avoidable fires that are really of no beneficial public interest. All the parties have a organisational structure with flaws, less accountability and shared vision. That's not a team, its at best several competing teams within a party.
So yes "journalism" is very much at fault, but so too are the MPs and their parties. Once the lay members are disconnected and the MPs not as answerable...well its give an inch and take a mile without any resistance.
Solution is more peeved off people should decide which party is more to their liking & join up so as to have a say. If you're firing a shot off on Twitter or in the local paper its not influencing against the problem. As I was told "No point pissing on the tent pegs when you'd be better off inside the tent throwing sh*t everywhere"
Quite a picture painted there, but a gloriously high amount of truth in it.
If the country is to do better, lay members need to be in control of their parties and their MPs need to be answer to their party.
Simple answer, but trouble is there exists the same common denominator that ruins everything.
Humans doing what humans do...
I think they could just possibly reflect society as a whole and every day people in Australia who have a little anti-Authoritarian streak in them see those people having more power & control than they have. One possibility.
Other is, they have something in common with every other Australian citizen. They're humans.
As a result they can have some leanings & beliefs, aims & goals that might differ from others. Some are in politics are genuine, in there to make a difference and improve things. Some however are there because they view it as their job & career and therefore smell the wind regularly to see which way to face will lessen their chances of a re-election loss.
Politics has great, good and bad people amongst its ranks.
In recent decades we've seen not only a record amount of PM turnovers from leadership spills but more leaders change since the day John Howard retired than any other era of the same length of time in Australian Political History.
Yes, there's "Kingmaker Syndrome" that's swept into all parties like a contagion where some back benchers believe they can call some shots, they can rule from the shadows and indeed there's been quite a few times where the cut n thrust triumphed over greater party goals and greater national interest.
No party is immune, all have had it, I think all still do,
Why?
We probably have a less than helpful media. They need blood and disgust to sell a headline. Currently there's front page interest in a long retired West Coast Eagle champion being found drunk & asleep on the street in Kalgoorlie.
It's tragic & horrific for his friends & family and I'm not suggesting it needs a cover up, but I think it's in no one's interest, neither his nor the general public's to report it. It was front page & would help sell some copy & therefore some advertising in an age when paper is reducing and online newspaper with required sensationalised click bait...well you see that is going to sell better than a purely factual report on stock market movements.
Aside from that, the politicians and their supporting party framework have to take some blame too. Sadly whilst many parties still have a "Party Whip" they mainly attend to helping arrange party business in parliament. In the old days it was different. Whilst its a dark comedy/drama piece the old TV mini series out of the UK "House of Cards" showed lots of cloak & dagger but lots of scandal or trouble prevent or kept in check by a ruthless, fearless party whip. Cross the Whip and the Whip very much crossed you, sometimes crossed you out.
It can reduce factional wars to an extent but humans are humans and they will still go to war.
But the PM revolving doors, the Leadership Spill Pandemic through all parties & the odd avoidable scandal & spill could have been avoided with the old fashioned ruthless Whip.
But they're a soft version these days, discipline is sporadic at best, at worst accidental when it does happen. Then there's the slightly variating party machine which MPs should be answering to. When I say Party Machine I mean the part of a respective party that is the lay members conduit to the elected members. When that becomes distant & token, that further adds to the rise in scandals and unhelpful promotions, demotions, scandals, spills, public fights or threats to cross the floor.
Until all the parties get their act together, their structure of accountability right the problems will continue.
This might be amplified by those media outlets that want Churnalists not Journalists, that want controversy to sell because it does sell. Churnalists become influencers not reporters. They try to become protagonists & players instead of observers & commentators.
This means those who're struck with King Maker Syndrome use the media and the media use them to help create angst and controversy to their own gain.
I don't expect the media to change anytime soon & strange as it seems I think it's the political set that has to raise the bar & stop leaking which adds fuel to avoidable fires that are really of no beneficial public interest. All the parties have a organisational structure with flaws, less accountability and shared vision. That's not a team, its at best several competing teams within a party.
So yes "journalism" is very much at fault, but so too are the MPs and their parties. Once the lay members are disconnected and the MPs not as answerable...well its give an inch and take a mile without any resistance.
Solution is more peeved off people should decide which party is more to their liking & join up so as to have a say. If you're firing a shot off on Twitter or in the local paper its not influencing against the problem. As I was told "No point pissing on the tent pegs when you'd be better off inside the tent throwing sh*t everywhere"
Quite a picture painted there, but a gloriously high amount of truth in it.
If the country is to do better, lay members need to be in control of their parties and their MPs need to be answer to their party.
Simple answer, but trouble is there exists the same common denominator that ruins everything.
Humans doing what humans do...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)