Australian DIARY


ARCHIVES 1997-2007  --- ARCHIVES 2007 +

MAY 2016


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.


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.


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?


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.


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

mail responses to: