That is "The Elite" who (think they) know better than the rest of us what should be done about refugees, global warming, drugs, crime, terrorists and consulting "we the people" on legislation.  That is the same elite as was mentioned in the August blog who have been the power behind the scenes.  The elite that is influencing both Democratic and Republican lawmakers to dump Trump.


Last August I wrote:

Against all the promises made before the last election, Mike has dissolved local government with the intent of making it more user friendly to the major political parties by amalgamating local government areas.  (In Australia, local government is a department of state government.)  To quell the outraged public objections, he has cancelled the racing greyhound industry, a change that has occupied the media to the exclusion of the much more important amalgamation issue.  Mike is playing the greyhound issue as "principled" and based on his moralistic religious outlook.

So Mike is an extreme example of a changeable politician, in that he has made major reforms against the promises of his party, and opportunistic legislation calculated to take the heat off the very important amalgamation issue.

Now that the councils are amalgamated, the diversionary tactic is being reversed.  Done properly, it will look like a premier bowing to public pressure.  Watch Mike's polling go up like a rocket.  He is apparently also about to reverse Barry O'Farrell's drink laws. More public kudos?

Mike could well look like future PM material.


The Donald is still scoring, despite the Elite big guns focused on him.

The evidence is in the Australian media narrative.  Only Matt Drudge is visibly pro Trump from Australia.  Our ABC is so incredibly negative that if anyone took the ABC spin at face value, they would have to doubt the sanity of everyone (Including Afro & Hispanic) in the USA.

Donald is a compelling speaker.  He makes valid political and economic arguments.

Against him we have the filthiest scuttlebutt.  Stuff from more than a decade past.  Stuff that the media replay on a loop.  Arguments about his prejudices.  I wonder how much the holders of that stuff were paid?

The even more compelling scuttlebutt on Bill and Hillary barely gets a mention.  And:


That's what Hillary did.  We only hear the scuttlebutt about Hillary because Trump says it in the Hillary debates.

I suspect Hillary will find some way of dodging the third debate.

Instead she will rely on the HUGE war chest that her elite backers (both Democrat and Republican) have built.

Expect dirty trix, including massive misdirection, ballot fraud.  And if Trump even looks like winning, for god's sake, have the Secret Service on overtime.


The third debate was, to my eye, a clear Trump victory. 
A Trump victory is not how it was reported in Australia.

However it should be noted that:
  • Voter fraud is where money works most efficiently.
  • Ecuador's silencing of Assange could well be due to a presidential threat.
  • There is much ado about Trump's quite reasonable reservations as to whether he would question the election results.
  • If we could see how Hillary's warchest is being spent it might give a clue as to why Trump is cited as a loser. 
I suspect the media hype is purchased positive feedback combined with the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I predict that, like Brexit, the polls will be an inaccurate guide to the final result.  Whether the media-bias effect will be great enough to have Hillary win remains to be seen.  But I suspect that a winner Trump may well look closely at the persons behind those attacks.  And I think those potential targets are well aware of Trump's likely actions if he wins.


The trouble is, in the eyes of elitists, Malcolm (Turnbull) is nearly as bad as Tony (Abbott) was.  Both seem to not want money as much as a place in posterity.  And the major party alternative (Shorten) does not shine, even with so much onside media that Labour & the CFMEU are being viewed less negatively.

On top of that, the minor parties and independents are making inroads.  If it gets any worse, the only way for the elite to get anything legislated will be by having their
opposition voting with their government.  (not a joke)

At the micro level, the plebiscite on LGBTI marriage is the way to go.  The LGBTI crowd have realized that a plebiscite just might not go their way.  Especially with all those codicils that mean people might be forced to provide services against their principles.  Given a plebiscite, a majority of Australians could well baulk at the following:
  • Despite ethical objections, those licensed to marry will be forced to marry all applicants.  One church is reportedly thinking of giving up their right to marrying people.
  • Some cake makers reportedly find it abhorrent that they might be forced to provide LGBTI cakes.
The list could go on.  But we do not have a "First Amendment" in Australia, and the memory of Andrew Bolt's "free speech denied because of hurt feelings" case is still fresh.

So that is why we are not having a plebiscite vote. Because the LGBTI might well lose that vote.

I again refer to my suggestion of last February.  The PM should hold an online plebiscite.  He does not need Parliamentary permission.


Kate Warner is the governor of Tasmania.  She is reported as having entered the political arena by speaking out against Pauline Hanson on Muslim immigration.

In Australia the governors have the power to sack parliament. They also have to power to rule by decree.  It is so nice to know that Mz Warner will have the power to sack a government that disagrees with her stated politics.  The fact that she has broken informal rules already may be taken as the likelihood that she would use her sacking government powers in the future.

Following his comments on the matter it is obvious that the incumbent government of Phil Hodgman is not concerned.


Rowan Callick wrote (Australian, 24 October 2016 P11) a detailed critique of the path being followed by China under the elitist Xi government.  Memorable highlights were:
  • Arrest and extended questioning with "incentives" to confess.
  • The loss of open to the public judicial process.
  • The loss of reporting of some cases.  Selected cases reported in detail.
  • Political enemies are being targeted.
  • For the last three years, 730 party members were detained each day for questioning.

I would imagine that China correspondent Rowan is not planning to visit China until after Xi has left.


Our education system is being subsidized by the offer of government loans to students wishing for further education.  The problem is, opportunistic educators are offering extremely expensive training in skills which have a very low chance of the graduate obtaining remunerative employment.

I think that the training and qualifications model needs revision.

Back in 1999 I presented a paper at the IVETA conference.  In it's conclusion I predicted:

What paradigm will come to dominate education?

There will ultimately be only two or three certifying organizations for each vocation. These organizations will produce marque qualifications of trusted standard, like Coca-Cola or Pepsi for soft drinks; McDonald's for Burgers.

The race has started. Microsoft and Novell have become the certifying organizations for certificates in computing. They have achieved this by publishing a syllabus and franchising a worldwide testing network. City & Guilds are paralleling that evolution. They seek trainers, and already offer franchised testing all over the world. The University of Minnesota has recently taken the first step toward becoming a worldwide agricultural university.

There is room at the top of each vocation for two or three testing authorities. Whoever captures recognition as the quality examiner will come to be the possessor of a marque that is comparable in value to the Netscape or Amazon or even Microsoft domain marques.

I would like to see our Federal and State governments offer open examinations that would count towards a qualification recognized for employment within the government and by government contractors.  Such professional bodies exist already, e.g. The Legal Profession Admission Board.

Ideally the qualifying institution would be separate from the training institution.  In fact, I would like to see the examining organization sell syllabii to the various subjects, and permit students to study texts at home or attend classes offered by third parties on the individual subjects.

So Malcolm, Mike et al. How about it?

mail responses to: barvennon@hotmail.com