|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MAY
2016
TRUMP
Trump's
appeal
seems
to
be
that he has rewritten the requirement that a politician should be
"Consistent" and "politically correct".
Other
politicians
extol
as
a
virtue that they are consistent. This is perceived by voters not as
"strength" or "honesty" as those politicians seem to think, but as
loyalty to their sponsors. Voters understand that it costs a lot
of publicity to get elected, and the sponsors who provide that have an
expectation of promised regulation.
Consistency
in
politicians is not a virtue, it is payback for electoral funds
provided, and that payback is generally not a benefit to the mass of
the electorate.
Consistency
is
not something that the electorate values as much as
responsive. As new facts come to life, the electorate's
perception of the best response change. We would like our
political masters to recognize that they should change as their
constituency changes.
Donald
gives
the feeling that his responses will evolve as his constituent's perceptions
evolve. He does not owe favours to sponsors.
There
are
dire
predictions
that
his progress will falter against Hillary because he has alienated
too many constituencies. The Spanish. Women. Gays.
I
think
Hillary Supporters are mistaken. Trump and his supporters
are not misogynists. It is wishful thinking by Hillary supporters
who are Philogynists. I am barracking for Hillary because I think
she has less chance than Bernie against Trump.
With Trump, what you see is not what you get. He evolves. The manoeuvres in the South China Sea may well be in anticipation of a Trump Ascendancy. Xi wants a strong position.
BREXIT
I
am
becoming suspicious of the integrity of the British Voting
system. Consider the "NO" vote on the Scotland exit. Even before
that vote, 19% of Scottish people forecast that the vote would be
rigged. And there were quite a few more who became convinced
after the vote. Theories on how the rig was applied included Labor
unions stuffing ballot boxes with fake votes (See e.g. UK Electoral Commission) to unspecified
actions by MI5.
Now
I
anticipate
the
same
forces will stop Brexit. As with Scotland partition, Brexit
polling is showing an equal balance before the vote. As with
Scotland exit, our rulers do not want partition.
Big
states
are
loved
by
those who rule. In big states, we the people can be bundled
into neat little boxes. We lose our individuality. Our say
is smothered, or even censored. No islands of dissension are
permitted.
As
an
example
of
the
blanding effect of concentrated governance. Compare Los
Angeles, San Francisco, Manhattan and New Orleans with say Melbourne,
Sydney and Newcastle in Australia.
Those
US
cities
have
widely
diverse cultures, building codes, and citizens. Visit the
Chinese quarter in LA. Nobody speaks English! Placed in an
unknown part of any of those cities, most US citizens would know where
they were. New York by the people, New Orleans by the french
accent. LA by the cars. SF by the building codes. Place any
Australian in those same cities, and he might work out it was
Melbourne, but only because of the weather.
"Why
is
the
US
different?"
you might ask. The answer is simple. US cities
have independent governments. Things like building codes, land
releases, schools are determined by local (Council) government.
The States or the Nation have no power over those codes and
amenities. In Australia, local governments are totally controlled
by State governments. (Which means that the state politicians get
to decide on land releases and school locations and policies and
incidentally get first refusal on any bribes if they just happen to be
offered).
As
a
result
there
is
virtually no difference in building codes and schooling between
Melbourne and Sydney and Newcastle. You would only know if you
were in Melbourne by the weather.
In
the
US,
San
Francisco
citizens get to decide building codes and all the rest that
determines the city's character. And similarly in Manhattan, LA,
etc. In Australia the State governments rule. They even
decide that their party would gain by amalgamating councils, so they do
that, even though at the last election (3 months ago) they promised not
to. Next state election is in 3 1/2 years!
Those
who
rule
can
be
guaranteed to fight the forces that preserve humanity's
individuality. And they have a formidably arsenal.
The
internet
might
well
turn
out to be the destruction of Media barons like Murdoch. However
given the sheer volume of data about each and every person, and the
ability to run a campaign based on accurate prediction and manipulation
on a personal level from that data, it is
Google and Facebook and their sociologists that will determine our
future.
I
call
on all Australians to vote FLUX
at the next election.
Considering
recent
events
in
Austria,
I do think that having a Muslim become Mayor of London will
polarize the vote.
TURNBULL
Malcolm
Turnbull
is
an
example
of the new breed of English speaking politician. Like
Palmer and Trump, he was a successful businessman before entering
politics. His money was not mainly inherited wealth and/or union
provided like various other politicians.
In
the
eyes
of
voters
in a democracy, independently earned wealth is reassuring.
We suspect corruption in our democracy. Someone who has entered
politics after having earned his wealth in business is not somebody
whose sole ambition in life was to live his or her life as a political
animal and "deal" the way into wealth. Someone
who
is
already rich is less likely to enter politics to enrich
themselves. On the other hand, someone who has inherited wealth
has frequently inherited a political position as well.
Getting
back
to
Malcolm.
We
are only a couple of weeks into a long campaign. I am deeply
suspicious. There is talk of "secret NBN papers" obtained in a
police raid. Malcolm is shtum. (=yiddish for quiet). The Labour
team (Plibersek et al) are crowing uncertainly. I suspect that
matter might yet be detrimental to Labour.
Murdoch
is
quiet.
His
media
is inactive. I have a suspicion that Rupert has been
whiteanting Malcolm so that he can be built up. In the words of
the sage Lao Tzu "What is to built up must first be pulled down".
Because
since
the
TPP
Rupert
owes Malcolm. When Malcolm wins, look for some little
revenge/return. Maybe something from the ABC?
MIKE BAIRD
Last
November I wrote about IPART and the merging of NSW Councils.
Just recently I learned of another brilliant
initiative aimed at Sydney Mayor Clover Moore. The Sydney Morning
Herald reported on 21st May, "Voting Changes that allow businesses to
have double the votes of local residents have been widely tipped to
threaten Cr Moore's grip on the Mayoral Chains when thousands of
Liberal Leaning business votes flood next year's elections".
Mike very cleverly used existing legislation (City
of
Sydney Act 1988) that allows the non resident owners, lessees or
occupiers of premises within the City a vote. That law was based
on the notion that Business owners pay a substantial part of council
income, (80% of City of Sydney rates income) and should therefore have
a say in council matters. That law did not compel businesses to
register. Baird has made registration compulsory.
By my reading, the requirement for a non
resident person to qualify to vote in the City of Sydney is not
onerous. A person or corporation may be a ratepaying
lessee and needs only to qualify to vote in Australian federal
elections and pay $4,000 p/a in rent for the period of 3 months prior
to the relevant date. So (to my non-legal understanding) a person
who, for instance, works in the city and parks in a parking place in
the city that costs $80 per week that covers their lease and share of
council rates would qualify. A corporation gets two votes.
Of course Mike wasn't all that smart. In
his position, I would have made voting "pro rata" with rates
paid. So for every (say) $1 million of property value or $10,000
of rates paid, the business owner should get an extra vote. Come
to think of it, that test should also be applied to NSW voters
statewide.
LIST OF SHAME
NSW
Just
so
we
don't
forget,
I am listing all the members of NSW Cabinet as of today 24 July
2016, a date in the period during which the merging of Councils is
proposed. In future, all of these politicians will be listed on
the internet as having been in power and not resigned, or made any
overt move to disassociate with this flagrant abuse of power and
breaking of promises.
| Mike Baird | Troy Grant | Gladys Berejiklian | Adrian Piccoli | Duncan Gay |
| Anthony Roberts | Jillian Skinner | Andrew Constance | Brad Hazzard | Robert Stokes |
| Dominic Perrottet | Gabrielle Upton | Pru Goward | John Ajaka | Stuart Ayres |
| Victor Dominello | John Barilaro | Mark Speakman | Niall Blair | Paul Toole |
| David Elliott | Leslie Williams |