Compromise

One wonders what history will make of the Australian political compromises made on global warming.
Will it condemn Abbot’s Liberal party for getting rid of the only leader who took the issue seriously and replacing him with a political opportunist?
Or it will it laugh at Rudd’s Labor Party which haled it as the most important issue of the century and then downgraded it for three years when it saw there were no votes in it.
Either way, neither of these political strategies will do anything to actually encourage Australians to act responsibly.

Counting the score

As amusing as it might be to score the government on its first year, it only serves to add to the general paranoia that ministers must feel. Is that a good thing? Probably not. It is rather, as I say, cruelly entertaining.
Governments need to be scrutinised rather than rated, but we see inevitably that Rudd is rated 8/10, Gillard 9/10, Garrett 6/10 (and dubbed the 'Minister for Nothing' )(The Weekend Oz). What does it mean? Nothing really, it is one person's impression and is akin to the 30 second grab, a not too sophisticated analysis of  complex issues; designed not so much to illuminate as to provoke discussion and not necessarily constructive discussion.
People will probably split along party lines (listen to Matt and Dave and the Two Chrises if you don't believe me...but I am sure you do), but this sort of stuff serves to seek short term results for what are obviously long term issues.
I personally think that there is much to be said for fixed governmental terms in a stable democracy like our own, so that although we can be amused by short term ratings we can actually appreciate that governments aren't going to have to pander to the need to amuse the fickle electorate when there is a long term job to be done.

Carrying the torch

It is, I suggest, a vain hope that the Olympic will be free of political interference or issue. Even the Sydney Olympics had the question of who would open them, our Head of State or our benevolent dictator!
That question is mild by comparison with the complex of issues that surrounds the Chinese dragon, not the least of which is Tibet.
Although we have Olympic representatives like Monsieur Rogge wanting us to believe that there should be no protests, and that some how they should be kept free of politics, this is rather laughable. There will be protests (here), because the Olympics are political.
China, in wanting to stage sthe Olympics, is acting politically (when has it not). But it is nto alone in doing that. The IOC uses its not considerable influence to curry favour and influence in the whole process of country selection, it (if you like) plays the politcial situation off against itself.
The idea that 'sport' is some how pure and above the mortal plain is clearly laughable in these days of doping, sponsorship the billion dollar industries it spawns.
We should get real.
I think Rudd is right in not getting too alarmed by the possibility of protest. By saying that in Australia it is OK, and indeed we expect the right, to protest we are doing more for democracy than whisking the torch into some warehouse so that it is not some how 'defiled'.
China likes to do wrong in the world's eyes, and to use its might to forbid discussion.
That doesn't sound to me like new found freedom or emergent democracy, it looks rather like bullying and tyranny!

Reverse psychology

The question of the day is whether or not the startling revelation that Kevin Rudd had a naughty night out will work for him or against him. My immediate reaction, far too cynical to be true I suppose, is that this is probably a reverse psychology leak by the Labor Party. The electorate will be so outraged by this leak that they will deem it dirty politics, and it will end up working in Rudd's favour.
It was noticeable that key players were remarkably silent, Abbot Abbott (not known for his caution when bad-mouthing people) declared himself to be a Trappist monk (here)and implemented a self-imposed vow of silence.
The reason?
Well it has long since been understood that once the sexual immorality card is played there is no stopping the flood of damaging revelations to both sides of politrics. It will be interesting to see how this reverse/reverse/reverse psychology plays itself out. Though I would much prefer to get on with the election and just simply get it out of the way.

Waste of Question Time

Yesterday, as I quite often do, I sat down with my sandwich and watched the beginning of Question Time. A couple of things of interest... I will not say interesting things....happened.
First, the broadcast began about thirty seconds after the first question had been asked. (This didn't actually matter as it turned out that the same question was to be asked over and over again).
This caused the PM about three or four minutes in to actually deliberately recap on his opening remarks...ie. let's not talk about what our government has done but about what the Hawke-Keating did.
This interested me because the recap was obviously done because somehow the PM must have found out his introductory remarks had not been broadcast, and he actually said something like ...For the benefit of those who may have missed it and for the broader audience...and then repeated his opening statement.
I didn't see anyone giving him any note to tell him that his opening marks had been missed. And I wondered whether he was wired so that someone was speaking into an earpiece (this would be the most satisfactory explanation of his seamless segue (pron: sɛgweɪ), but if it was so then it is a little sinister. To be fair I couldn't detect any such device. But it does make you wonder who this 'broader audience' is and why this was necessary.
Any way the second thing of interest, or disinterest really, was that Rudd just kept asking the same question about Howard's promises about not allowing interest rates to rise. Howard just refused to admit that he had made such a promise and deflected everything to talk about the Hawke-Keating government.
Rudd kept asking the same question. Howard gave the same answer.
It does make you ask: what is the point?
I know there is an argument that asking government questions is a democratic freedom we should treasure, but it has become so stylistic and predictable that a pretty good argument can also be made for the fact that it is simply a waste of time. Even if you add the paid time of Rudd and Howard together it seems something of a waste. Pity really!

Don't expect me just to roll over!

If we had thought that Howard was just going to fatalistically accept polls and roll over and over and then acquiesce to the will of a disgruntled electorate, resign and force Costello to become a leader of the Opposition (surely he would resign rather than do this?) then signs are that this is not going to happen.
Let us not forget that this man, whether we agree with his policies or not, is one of the finest political animals that we have ever seen. He will play his cards like the champion he is and not go out without a fight.
As I watched crowds in Devonport yesterday enthusiastically cheer him (here) there could be little doubt that they appreciated the fact that he was going to intervene to ensure that they would not lose medical facilities. In a marginal seat it will make a difference.
Prediction: We will see the most strategically placed 'cherry picking ' (as Rudd so aptly named it) of projects in marginal electorates that we have ever seen. Will it work?...well we shall see. The voice of opposition in the Cabinet, Costello, to this sort of pre-election-spending has been effectively silenced in the last fortnight.
You can just hear his protestations. This is inflationary. And little Johnny's response...I know we can't afford it but if we don't buy it then we will be out of government, and if we are out of government then we won't be buying anything.

More sinister I fear is the fact that we actually may be about to witness something far more exploitative and cynical than the Tampa with regard to Dr Haniff. The trickle of dubious information that Andrews blessed us with yesterday, may just be the beginning of the political round to end all rounds.
Already (if talk radio is anything to go by) the public voices are changing...Well we have to err on the side of caution, so the PM was right. A News Poll yesterday firmly agreed with the way the Government had dealt with the issue...Yikes!!
There is now a slow flow of information from India which is, I suggest, exactly where the Government wants him to be...Haniff must have known about Terrorist Organizations...and of course he does have a beard and dark skin. And being on the subcontinent he is far away and unable to effectively access any real media presence. But then it's not really about him.

Amidst all this, I suspect Rudd has just to keep his cool; which will be easier said than done.
But let's not just expect fatalistic acquiescence from the PM

Why I will never be PM or I just don't get it

The worst thing about Peter Costello is that smirk. You know the one that says "Well I have said just about the smartest thing that could ever be said, and everyone else is stupid."
This is only tempered by the fact that usually when he does it he has just shot himself in the foot and not realised.
Bang! Such an incident occurred on the 7.30 report last night. You can watch the podcast on their website under the title "Government ridicules Labor's Grocery Plan".
Totally missing the point that Rudd was (rightly or wrongly) tapping into community Angst about skyrocketing grocery costs, their fluctuation, and their ever-upward moving direction.
Bang!"Rudd is wrong the Bureau of Statistics has been giving this information for a decade".
The interviewer, Ali Moore, gives him a way out "But those statistics don't tell you which shop or chain is more expensive."
Bang! "What Mr Rudd wants is to know the price of Bread, biscuits and baked beans.Well I've been on to the Bureau of Stats today and the average price of bread is $3.21 in Sydney and $3.20" he also reeled off the obviously staffer-researched figures for biscuits (dry and sweet) and baked beans.
She gave him a way out again..."But that's not the point Treasurer, people want to know which chains are more expensive."
But so fixated was he on making a point ...."But that is the point....no no let me finiish."
Bang! He had already done it . His audience was saying but that IS the point you smirking fool.
Bang! We had already watched him declare that he didn't understand that people with limited money will actually try to not pay $3.21 for bread. Even at the relatively expensive BD bakery with the lovely fresh bread, ordinary bread is only $2.90
In the supermarket next door you can get it for $1.90
Bang! Now this doesn't matter if you earn over $200,000...and that is rather the point, he has, at the very least, given the impression that he does not understand what low and middle average income people deal with every day.

This is why he will never be PM. While Howard may be as unaware, he is not so naive. While Rudd may be in actually the same financial circumstances, he is not so smug.
The Liberal party would at any stage be foolish to commit their leadership to such a one. But starnger things have happened.

Playing it straight

On the face of it, Rudd's declamations this week that Pacific aid should be constructively targeted to improve the lot of our neighbours, is reasonable. (here) His point being that it is better to foster strong community than to mop up the mess afterwards.
The PMs point that there is a great weakness in this system needs also to be taken into account. He, supported by such luminaries as the ANU's Hugh White, makes the point that governance structures in the South Pacific are weak and just throwing more money at the system won't work unless there is corresponding improvement in these structures.
But how you do this beats me/Perhaps we need to listen more carefully to what the South Pacific wants from Australia and not simply use our aid budget to further our own influence. It is this latter attitude that our neighbours find so patronising.
I am not suggesting that we should just become a sort of political Santa Claus and address the self-interest of the powerful with gay abandon, but we should also recognise (and this I think is Rudd's point) that it is to our advantage to have strong, independent neighbours. Every parent has to learn this about their children. We need to learn it about the South Pacific

Tibetan confluence

In one of those rare moments of agreement both Rudd and Howard are now falling over each other to meet HH The Dalai Lama (here).
One can only imagine that their discernment machines have some how revealed to them that the popular mood is that the electorate wiull not take kindly to Australian leaders submitting to Chinese bullying.
The man himself said today....To me it is not a very big issue but you (referring to the media at the National Press Club) seem to think it is very important. hahaha....with that insane cackle that he has

Believing your own mythology

The ABC reports (here)that "Federal Labor leader Kevin Rudd will provide some major wattage for the final stages of the New South Wales Government's re-election campaign today".
The introduction of boyish faced Federal politicians into State electoral campaigns is always a tricky issue. There have been times (on all sides of politics) when the Federal heavies have been told to bow out State elections because although the State party may have been doing well sometimes the Feds have been seen to be a bit on the nose. And poiliticians aren't always the best judges of how well they are perceived in the electorate at large.
Any way, obviously that is not the case in NSW and Rudd is perceived as a Good Thing (a la Simon de Montfort who although only a Frenchman was still also a good thing). It is dangerous, one wonders if the PM or the Treasurer, or Dr Nelson will be wheeled out on the other side...and suspects not.
The problem is not so much whether or not this or that politician is a "good thing" the problem is when they start believing the same. And strangely there are times when the instinctive political radar is off-beam. Thus have we witnessed the discgraceful spectacle of polioticians belittling each other in a self-righteous fashion about particular goings on, and we the bewilderati of the electorate are left wondering why they are so foolish to trumpet the faults of others when they are only a hairs-breath away from the same issue.
Closer to the ecclesiastical home a lot of people have obviously taken a recent article in church newspaper Market Place to heart. In it the all too obvious issue of the Nigerian leader, Dr Akinola , pontificating about the immorality on the Western Church's doorstep whilst being remarkably silent about matters on his own.
Two issues present themselves. One is that the Nigerian Government is presently promoting laws against homosexual people that would seemingly contradict the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Akinola far from condemning this seems to be actively promoting such injustice. It is noted that this must make the devotees of Dr Akinola in Australia, the UK and particularly the US decidedly uncomfortable. A number of American parishes driven by priests of curious conviction (which nevertheless ought to be respected) [Read Ruth Gledhill's article about this here] are seeking the misnamed "alternative primatial oversight" of the Nigerian Church whilst remaining in the comfort of the US of A. Do they also seek to align themselves not only with this man's conservative interpretation of scripture, but also his advocacy of the persecution and imprisonment of any homosexual. Roundly denounced by Amnesty International and other advocacy groups, Dr Akinola seems to have no difficulty believing his own mythology. That he and he alone is capable of interpreting truth.
The Market Place article notes that he is remarkably silent about a critique of certain aspects of Nigerian culture which are foreign (and even repugnant in the West). One of these is polygamy. Which is clearly condemned in the scriptures.

But much more serious is the cultural practice of 13 year old girls (the youngest SC is 13!!) being married off to much older men. In this country this would not only be illegal, but would bring the strongest condemnation. And rightly so. Some have called it "legalised paedophilia". Where is the Primate of Nigeria's voice raised against this particular evil. He seems to suggest that this is a cultural aberration that is permissible
You see it is a quagmire.
I am not suggesting. That pollies and churchmen (it's usually men) should never say anything about anything. Or shouldn't say anything that someone else will disagree with.
But we should stop pretending that our side is the only side, and rather seek not to belittle their opponent through personal slur, but rather to seriously address arguments and to respond to genuine rebuttal of their own hypocrisy.
This may be a vain wish!

Call me incredulous

I love the Sunday political interviews; obviously with nothing better to do (why don't you go to church you alleged Christians?) they do the rounds of interviews snippets of which are then replayed on various news bulletins short of genuine stories. {I know from my days as a Synod Media Officer that I used to love Sundays and desperately hoped no one would get eaten by a shark and so gazump us on the 6 oçlock news).
Any way this morning we see the Rudd-slurring machine was out in full force.
First doubt was cast on Kevin's version fo what happened to his family when he was a child. Did they get evicted from their farm or not. Now, anyone knows that we get curious ideas of what may or may not have happened. When a parent dies and you share stories with your siblings you often realise that you often have a different perspective. You may even, because of youth, totally misunderstand things. Now that is different for example than lying about whether or not you actually got a PhD, or stretching the truth about whether or not you avoided military service (as Mr Bush appears to have done). So let's get real fellahs and start talking about this guy is on about, not about how naive he was when he was 10.
Ah say the aptly named Abbot and Costello's of this world with their mate Alex (yes the one who likes to wear tights and high heels) but it goes to the fact of whether you can trust him.
So push me over and make me eat a banana covered in mustard if yesterday I didn't hear also Costello and Downer say two of the most bizarre things I have heard in this current round of mud-slinging.
Costello: Nobody's hurled more mud in the Parliament than Mr Rudd.
WRONG- You Mr Costello are mud thrower extraordinaire!
Downer: This is a man who will say absolutely anything to get elected
WRONG-You Mr Downer will say, and are saying, anything.

What has caused this total distortion of the truth? The truth is they have been in office too long and have begun believing their own version of reality. It is a strange (forgive me if I have told you this before) I met Downer briefly a couple of times at school functions. In one conversation when he was pontificating about the Keating government I was surprised how vitriolic he was.
The things is, he said, they are so arrogant!
It's true PaulKeating was, but so was Hawke and Fraser and Menzies and who ever. I realised then that political arrogance is not so much a personal characteristic as a part of the baggage of office. I predicted that within a few years of election we would say the same thing about a Liberal government. It is called, I suspect, hubris.

We are witnessing political game playing at its absolute worst when the mud thrower extraordinaire will accuse his opponent of his own most obvious fault. And when the mouth in fish net stockings will likewise accuse the same of saying anything to get elected.
Surely, as titillating as this is, the electorate must demand more of its politicians than this demeaning name calling which says more about the absuers than the absued.

Weekly curiosities

In a mixed week there are numerous things to think about as it draws to a close. As with all these things they are of mixed importance and quality, but here goes:

• In a week in which it looked as though we were having real political debate in the Federal Parliament we descended into name calling. I was enjoying the toing and froing about what is happening with regard to the war in Iraq, and the coal vs.nuclear power debate.
• BUT inevitably when the Opposition started to make inroads we now find ourselves discussing why Mr Squeaky Clean Rudd was meeting with Mr Nasty Western Australia Burke. Well done to Rudd for not trying to brazen it out but rather to admit that it was a mistake. I don't imagine the electorate will be so forgiving.
• The arrival of Ms Maxine McKew on the scene has brought a little leaven to the lump. One can only think that the next election will be more interesting with her presence along with Malcolm Turnbull, and Peter Garrett. My great fear is that these high-calibre high-profile won't become disillusioned with the ridiculous antics of the pollies which the Costellos, Albaneses, Pines, Abbotts and Swanns of this world seem so skilled at.
• Surprise, surprise the solution to our water problems..The Wellington Weir..which was going to cost $20 million (not!) is now going to cost six times that and indeed as it is supposed to be removed..it is going to cost more than the original cost to remove!!

• Further conversatioin with ecumenical colleagues yesterday clearly demonstrated that everyone was experiencing a massive increase in off the street callers seeking handouts . One of my fellow ministers made the observation that recent publicity about central city agencies (eg. The Magdalene Centre, and other agencies) having nothing on the shelves may well have precipitated this. I doubt an exact correlation but it is a contributing factor. It raises the question about what is the nature of our Brave New World which is now having systemic dysfunction flowing through to me!...I suppose I need to grow up and stopping being so naive.

• I had the curious experience in trying to deal with the after effects of the fire at St John's of seeking to ensure that things proceeded apace. My goal has been to try and ensure that everything like this happens twice as fast as it has normally done. [This might mean that things get done at only slightly slower than it should actually take] Part of this involved making an appointment with a senior churchman who needed to be consulted about changes that may need to be made. It took ten days to finalise the actual appointment time. In my last discussion with his secretary I was offered two times, one of which was a semi-spontaneous offerto appear on a Sunday morning. It seemed strange to me that in grappling with getting a time, such a prime time was being offered ...normally we would want to be more prpeared. Maybe we shouldn't need to be. But that's sort of the way it goes. When honoured guests come to visit you want to do it right. Changing times.
• Also I have been having thoughts and some preliminary discussions about the desire of another Anglican parish wanting to plant a congregation within the parish I serve. (Not wanting to join our parish but be separate).The more I think about this, the more it troubles me. We are having a fundamental shift in the name of trying to find modern responses to changed circumstances. As with all these things we need to be pretty careful about babies and bath water
  

• Further, and more importantly we have another family baby to protect. Zara (new great niece) is presently staying at the Adelaide Hilton. These days its cheaper to keep mother and baby in luxury than in the hospital!! Crikey Moshe!! Hope mother and baby don't get thrown out with the spa water!
  

Trainers by any other name

The news that PM Howard will be sending 70 more "trainers" to Iraq is a gauntlet down-throwing exercise. Equally well Mr Rudd's declaration that the Labor party's position is now the opposite, and that no more troops should go to Iraq is no surprise. The 70 trainers are a drop in the bucket in the scheme of things, but the amount of heat that this discussion generates indicates one unfortunate feature and that is that this is not about Iraq but about votes and the posturing is about creating a sense of political difference rather than about solving the problem. In realityt they could do this by saying "I say black" and the other could then say "White!" and the same dynamics would be playing out.
It is sad to say that this opportunism, rather than problem solving, will only be resolved when something truly awful happens. When 10 Australians are killed and their bodies brought home in coffins, the debate will be galvanised in an astonishing way that we should be smart enough to envision before it actually takes place.
Each day the Jim Lehrer Newshour from American public broadcasting play back photos in silence of American soldiers killed in Iraq. They do this in silence and it is deeply moving.
As their names, ranks, places of origin and ages flash by it is the ages that impact.
Marine Joseph Cruz-22, Corporal Terry Blenh-25, Captain Mark Harris-28, Private Louis Ouinh-19 (not their real names)...and so it goes on.
Last week Senator Kate Ellis asked ...Why do we persist in sending our finest and our best to theatres of war?
There is a sad, sad answer: It is the political game that old men play with our children.
I want better from both of our parties and our leaders. But I don't hold out much hope.

Let the games commence

Some will groan at the sparring that has begun between Messrs Howard and Rudd, like some macho show of strength.
It does seem to me that the quality of debate has lifted, and we are witnessing what happens when an Opposition works in some way appraching the way it should.
We have for too long had such weak opposition that the PM has said and done what he liked and (by and large) not had to answer for any of the more outrageous things he has said.
Part of the purpose of adversarial politics is to demand that leaders should have to justify everything. And that in so doing there is a considerable process of refinement and strengthening. While that could be perceived as tiresome for a sitting power broker ny and large (an I think we are witnessing it now) it is not just nit-picking it is for the good of all concerned.
That Messrs Howard and Co have not had satisfactory opposition for the last two or three years (at least) shows, and so he has become rather used to acting autocratically and has gone unchallenged. There was in the Parliament yesterday something of a sugegstion that he didn't like being questioned over and over again and became rather patronising and peremptory with his answers. It is not a good look, and could I suggest ultimately be his downfall as he is perecived by the electorate to be arrogant and unaccountable.
Ultimately politicians pay the price for that sort of hubris.

Resisting temptation

It's always challenging to continue a stream of blogging, but I have resisted many temptations this week

• I have resisted the temptation to blog about either Kevin Rudd or Julia Gillard. And to say how there is a real danger that amidst all the hoo-hah about generational change, the real problem is that it may just be more of the same
  
• I have not even touched Australia's famous Test Cricket victory. Or to say how diufficult it is for a "former Pom" (and I use that expression advisedly, I think after spendiong 40 years here I am entitled to no longer be a Pom. Though it was interesting how the visit of relatives recently brings a slide back into former accentual patterns.
• Further to that I have resisted commenting on my current reading Mother Tongue by that amazing dilletante Bill Bryson , who seems to know enough about most things to keep me (and others) interested (some humourous stuff here)
• I certainly have resisted talking about the weather. Even though there have been four seasons in one week and it's going to be 38 tomorrow.
• I have resisted the temptation (because it only just crossed my mind) to remind those who need to be shriven to go to the box...because I forgot I was supposed to be going last night!!
• I certainly resisted the temptation (Vicky) to talk about Borat, which I did go to see. And I agree with David Stratton's comments that for a film that was 1 hour and10 minutes, it was about 60 minutes too long. And I am afraid I am too much of a rememberer of Auschwitz to find any anti-Semitism funny.
• I have resisted the temptation to discuss Fiji, or how it is remarkable that tourists coming back seem to have been largely unaffected by the coup.
• And I have definitely not talked about Christmas, Which is only 18 days away.