The Final 2PP Count

For anyone who's wondering why we think a number of journos are educationally challenged, Pollbludger points out some of the more amusing commentary we've been provided with over the last few weeks here.

Essentially, despite a number of political commentators warning that the two-party preferred count isn't finalised (including ABC's Anthony Green), these journalists decided to run with their own fictionalised version of events. Last I checked, their jobs are to report on facts not fiction - they should probably be fired for lack of due diligence.

A number of coalition MPs have also used the 2PP figure like so (though I think Abbott has been careful to always say "it looks like we're winning the 2PP"). And while that is no less erroneous, it's at least to be expected from the opposition.

The Authoritarian Monster raises its Head

I missed this last night - apparently the New Zealand parliament unanimously passed the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill allowing the Governor-General to make Orders-in-Council at the advice of the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, effectively allowing him to repeal or modify any existing law without consulting Parliament, his Government, or even the Cabinet.

While the intention is undoubtedly good, there has nonetheless been a bit of an uproar by online commentators over whether or not New Zealand is now a dictatorship, as the nation's legislation can now be changed at the whim of a single man.

I'd have to agree that removing a lot of obstacles during the rebuilding process is a wonderful idea, but I can't shake the ominous feeling that the disaster has softened the Kiwi opposition to authoritarianism. It's a scary thought that the seeds have now been sown, and all it takes is for someone to step in and harvest them at an opportune time.

Here's the take on the situation from various blogs:

From those more than a little concerned...
Kiwipolitico
Andrew Geddis
No Right Turn
Not PC

To those who voted for it or think it's good...
Greens
Labour
National
Kiwiblog

Aussie Politics - state of play

I really didn't want to make a comment on the election result until things were finalised, but seeing as the end looks like it's still a week away I can't really wait any longer.

Firstly, I gotta say, Aussie media is strongly biased, with News Ltd supporting the Coalition and SMH and the Age backing Labor. Personally I read the right-wing Oz because I like to see what outrageous things are being said about the Left. But you only need to switch to the other website to go from one party about to form government, to the other one having the advantage. No wonder the public are confused.

Secondly, I don't understand the desire that Aussies feel about having to form a government asap. I'd prefer an agreement between the parties that work, and which will hold for a good two to three years rather than something that'll just crash and burn within the year. And look, in New Zealand negotiations often take two weeks or more, and in the Netherlands it's been more than two months and there's still no agreement on who forms government. Patience, Australia, good things take time.

Now on to the Greens. I'm a rusted-on Greens voter, I can't envision voting for anyone else in the forseeable future. And it is because of this that I'm worried for the party as we look ahead to the next election.

With sole balance of power in the senate, it becomes very easy for one of the major parties to blackmail the Greens into voting for bad legislation, or alternatively if they don't cooperate, they can just as easily blame the Greens for inaction. Additionally, with most of the Greens coming from a Labor base, it will only take a small shift to the left by Labor and the Greens vote are at risk of collapsing.

I strongly believe that to maintain a strong status as the third party in the Australian political landscape, the Greens need to appeal to a broader range of voters. The real winning quality of the party is their social and environmental policies, and the pragmatic stance to take would therefore be to appeal to both social liberals and classical liberals.

Yet, the success of the NSW Greens in getting a senator up is that they are very heavily socialist in economic policy. Whilst Bob Brown can win votes from both social and classical liberals, the presence of Lee Rhiannon in the senate has the potential to turn off a lot of classical liberal voters. It's really a double-edged sword. As it is, the Greens already struggle in NSW, and I'm not sure that having a so-called "red-green" in the federal senate is really a good idea.

Don't get me wrong, I'd belong to what is commonly referred to as the red-green faction, that is, I believe in the ideal of anarcho-communism. Yet from a practical vote-winning point of view, I just don't see socialist economic policy appealing to the masses in this day and age. Malcolm Turnbull offhandedly attacked the Greens last month on Q&A with "there is none more pure than the impotent", yet it rings truer than it would first seem. Call it what you will, horse-trading or otherwise, but the Greens can't remain a mainstay in Australian politics if they are not willing to compromise on certain legislation.

We aren't likely to see anarchism nor communism in this country any time soon, and most certainly not a combination of both. In the meantime, I just hope that the Greens will be willing to make some sacrifices to appeal to the Liberal base. There are environmental and social votes to be gained, if only the party would take a break from offering such divisive economic policies...

My take on...

Labor's Climate Change Policy

Apparently I'm not the only one worked up over this, but really was it necessary to even announce a policy that does nothing?

Clearly the ALP has given up on their left-leaning voters. Julia Gillard is one smart politician and she knows that as long as the ALP's policies remain equal to or better than the Coalitions, then it won't matter if people want to vote Greens first, the preferences will still trickle back to Labor. Logically this makes sense, because the Greens aren't going to become a major party and govern on their own any time soon.

Yet despite this, it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. Effectively we have seen a commitment today to take no action from climate change, whoever wins the election.

My take on...

The Election Campaign Week 1

So Julia "Ginger Ninja" Gillard assassinated Krudd and blindsided the Greens (who would have a considerable youth vote) by calling an election allowing less than 72 hours for everyone to get on the roll. As an added bonus she managed to blindside the Coalition who for some absurd reason didn't seem prepared for the announcement even though the media called it well in advance.

The Greens and the ALP made a preference deal which we knew was going to happen five and a bit years ago when Steve "Fundies First" Fielding made his debut in the senate.

We haven't seen any good policies from the majors who seem more than happy to focus on vote grabbing and soundbites like "asylum seekers", "little Australia", etc.

Not what I was hoping for from Julia but I still have hopes for her to swing back to the left if she wins. Tony "Mad Monk" Abbott is actually not looking as crazily conservative for now, but if he wins I fear Australia will take a big leap to the right anyway.

Everyone fears the effect of the Greens' Nick Clegg potential so Bob Brown will have to continue sitting on the sidelines.

All in all a disappointing week.

Abbott to lead Liberals to a landslide defeat?

I spent the whole day at work laughing with glee at the prospect of further in-fighting within the Liberals due to Tony Abbott's win in the partyroom today. I'd imagine that ALP MPs must also be trying hard not to beam brightly in parliament considering that they have effectively just won a second term in Government.

Abbott is a religious zealot, a climate-change skeptic, and a conservative anachronism left over from the Howard era. His Catholicism is so intense he finds it hard to treat his own female colleagues with decency as befit another human being. I wonder what crossed the mind of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition when she was called a "loyal girl". Yes indeed.

Some of the new Liberal policies are denying the existence of climate change and bringing back WorkChoices under a different name. Yes, because the Australian public really won't recognise the laws if you sugar-coat it enough. /sarcasm

The outcome of the vote is also brilliant. 42-41, (almost) neatly split down the middle. The sign of a bitterly divided, fractious caucus. It certainly would make for good entertainment next year when the elections roll around.

Liberal Party Blues

Every single newspaper homepage is covered with this story today - the Liberals are having a meltdown over the ETS (and Kevin Rudd is giggling with glee like a little girl), and there will be a leadership challenge on Monday.

I had a certain appreciation of Malcolm Turnbull. The guy is so progressive on social issues he makes Kevin Rudd look more conservative than John Howard, although that's pretty damn close to the truth anyway. His economic policies are classically right-wing but hey, nobody's perfect.

How a classic liberal like Turnbull ever managed to grab the reins of the conservative Liberal party is beyond me, but the fact is that he was always going to polarize the party over social issues anyway. It just so happened that the ETS came first, and was just as divisive an issue.

What interests me is whether or not the Liberal party will remain united going forward. The factions within the party appear to be much more disparate on social policy than the corresponding factions within the ALP. It makes me wonder if the party should break up to form an true liberal wing similar to the ACT party in New Zealand.

Of course, come election time I'd love to see the centre-right collapse, but in the long run I know that it is imperative for a range of views to be represented in Parliament, and whilst the Australian political scene is more diverse than some others around the world (eg. US) there is certainly room for improvement.

Marriage Equality Law in Maine stopped by referendum

It was always going to be close, but nonetheless the result is disappointing for a vote that took place in a region of the US that has been very progressive with respect to marriage equality legislation.

NY Times
TIME Magazine

Religious Freedom

The debate over a national charter of rights in Australia often involves the opponents declaring that such a charter would endanger the religious freedom that all Australians enjoy. The arguments all sound very convincing - secular views will be imposed upon those of us who wish to practice religion, thereby narrowing the scope of rights we are entitled to.

There is a fair bit of spin in this argument. "Freedom" can an emotive word, in the sense that it often generates positive feelings; but when these people talk about "religious freedom" they are not talking about anything positive. This latter definition represents the freedom to oppress minorities, discriminate based on gender and sexuality, and to deny essential services to those in need on the basis of superior morality.

The real implication of the opposing argument is that such oppression and discrimination currently exists within religious and religious-affiliated institutions. A bill of rights should not impose restrictions on ideas and on faith, but it should impose restrictions when the rights of citizens are threatened by others. Yes, it will interfere with the machinations of the churches or mosques or temples, but the problem lies in the religion, not a bill or charter of rights.

My biggest concern with this debate is that the religious majority of Australia will be swayed by the misleading statements brought forth by the religious leaders. Those who believe have a propensity to ignore the truth at the best of times.

I certainly hope that a national bill of rights be developed, because despite our claim to have strong social values of equality and fairness, there is currently no framework that reinforces these values in the eyes of the law.

Human Rights Act campaign website
News link: Bill of rights desirable but not urgent: voters
News link: Rights charter runs into religious opposition

National Equality March in the USA

Today is the National Equality March through Washington D.C., in a demonstration of solidarity for equal protections to be established in civil law across all fifty states of America. We in Australia cannot attend this rally, but please give it some thought nonetheless. It's worth paying attention to its outcomes as Australian politics are inevitably influenced by those of our more powerful ally.

So whether you're part of the equality movement or not, spare a thought today for those of us who are yet to have access to equal treatment under the law.

Edit: Another policy from the US to get worked up about is its "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" anachronism. An interesting (if anecdotal) article about it here.

The fundamental flaw in the first amendment

Hmmm... so much for not blogging before Monday.

Anyway, my blood boiled when I read this article tonight.

The Americans sure are proud of their Constitution, and most especially the first amendment to the Constitution, the one that protects the freedom of religion, of the press, of assembly, to petition, and of course, freedom of speech. There is much to appreciate, as surely much of these rights are fundamental human rights.

However, according to the article, the law also protects the freedom to discriminate, harrass, and incite hatred. Does this sound like the foundation to an advanced, civilized nation?

This has always been a flaw in classical liberalism / individualism, where the freedoms of one individual impinge on the freedoms of another. No, this form of liberalism is nearing the end of its useful life and I hope that soon the world's most influential nation will adopt to a more socially responsible form of liberalism.

Sue Bradford's resignation

Big news indeed. There's been a press release on this, and various blogposts with different opinions, and I'm not sure what there is to add except a personal perspective on the whole issue.

I'm personally very sad to see her go. A very effective politician, a very effective activist working within parliament to generate change from within. Certainly one of the best MPs in the last ten years.

I'm sad, but not disappointed. She's given ten years of service to New Zealand, which, even as a backbencher, is a fair chunk of time. Losing the leadership was, in her own words, "personally disappointing", and that is understandable. I don't think you can begrudge someone their right to resign given that she felt that she had lost the support of her own party's members. (The Greens democratically elect their co-leaders.)

On the other hand, this may not be a loss for the Green Party. Bradford polarised the nation over S59 - and public opinion was mostly against her, as demonstrated by the referendum. A comment on the Greens blog said that she "lives in the wrong century". I agree, she's a century ahead of our time, and in a few decades we will probably wonder why we as a nation fought so hard to defend our right to assault our children. But right here, right now, she's a political hindrance to a party that is trying to extend their influence beyond their traditional grassroot activist voter base.

The woman who beat her to the co-leadership is no slouch either. She's green left through and through, but Norman and Turei are so politically adept that they just might reach through to the centrist but environmentally-concerned vote. They are also more than capable of touching base with the younger professional vote, and indeed I envision that the Greens will become a mainstay of Left politics in the future, especially whilst Labour with Goff sinks into irrelevance.

In summary; it's a big loss to New Zealand, but a politically smart move for the Greens.

link: Dumb Racist Americans!

Check this out!

http://lookatthisfuckingteabagger.tumblr.com/

The uneducated bigoted filth of America crawls out from the dirt and shows itself for the world to see!

Highlights:

"Abort Obamacare"
- Because universal healthcare is such a bad idea!

"'Cap' Congress and 'trade' Obama back to Kenya!"
- Somewhat witty but at the end of the day it's just more racist crap.

"Arrest our communist, racist, fascist, lying president now!"
- Hmmm please explain what a communist fascist is? And last I checked it was you white Americans being racist...

"Where's your birth certificate?"
- When you can't think of anything good to say, say something racist!

On Governments and Apologies

Every now and then a Government will come out and apologise for significant historic events, not least of which was Rudd's apology to the stolen generations right after his election in 2007. That event, in particular, was of national significance and was an emotional event for all Australians.

This week another such apology by another Government, albeit on a far lesser scale than the aforementioned, caught my eye.

Being a mathematician I am familiar with the name Alan Turing. His work in cryptanalysis was crucial to Allied efforts in breaking the German Enigma codes, and he also worked with some of the earliest computer, with concepts named after him such as the Turing test and Turing machines.

What I was unaware of was that he was also gay, and a few years after the War was one of many homosexual men who were treated abominably by the British. In this day and age it is inconceivable that a Western country could be publicly permitted to commit such atrocities.

And thus Gordon Brown apologised on behalf of his country's government for the treatment of this wartime hero. A small gesture, a token gesture, but nonetheless one that I can appreciate.

Food for thought: Must we be paid to work?

A friend of mine made an interesting comment today:

"Ideally everyone would work to their capacity, and everyone would get appropriate/fair remuneration, but there’s really no point in championing one without the other."

This rather innocent statement hit me as an indication of how strongly capitalism has been drilled into our minds.

I'd like to ask: Is it truly necessary to be paid in order to do work? Is it not sufficient to work for the good of society?

I wonder if we had grown up in a different time, a different place, perhaps society would provide for everyone, and that in turn, everyone would work to provide the labour in order for society to function.

Ideally multicultural

Multiculturalism. Embracing different cultures, a melting-pot of peoples from varied backgrounds living together in harmony, sharing traditions and identities. It's great, isn't it?

Well I'm not so sure.

In my perfect world, we would all be respectful of our fellow humans, irrespective of whatever social groupings they may belong to; irrespective of their ethnicity, nationality, sexuality, spirituality. The underlying belief would be social liberalism and upon that foundation we are free to be whoever we wish to be. Multiculturalism is inherent and ubiquitous in this ideal society, and because it is so commonplace, it would not exist as the political concept it currently is.

The very fact that our government feels the need to promote multiculturalism highlights a weakness in the fabric of our society. It seems to me that this word was invented because we are afraid that, should without it, we would find ourselves assimilating with popular culture. That we would degenerate into monoculturalism, the monoculturalism which breeds intolerance and grows into discrimination.

And let's be honest, there's a basis to this belief. The story from New Zealand that I posted last week highlights the reluctance of society to accept new cultures or practices.

Even I baulked at the thought of cooking and eating dog, and here I am sitting at my computer pretending that I'm open-minded!

Truth is, our perceptions are shaped by the dominant culture with which we spend our childhood and formative years. It is then that we learn what is "socially acceptable" or otherwise, and often we carry these restrictive etiquettes with us as we grow older.

I believe that as a society, we will never break free of these moulds if we continue to educate our children to follow the same social norms. Surely the better alternative should be to teach them to embrace and respect alternative cultures? Perhaps then they would be able to teach that to their children, and multiculturalism as a policy would no longer be necessary.

link: This Is Oz

Just discovered this website, This Is Oz. While the concept isn't new, it's still a joy to see all these people who take a stance against homophobia.

Interesting to see the submissions from politicians, especially so many from the Australian Labor Party. If only they could convince their own party that equality is the way rather than homophobia.

link: cultural protectionism

A bit tired to write up a long post today, so I'll be lazy and link to an interesting post on another blog.

This post from Kiwipolitico caught my eye:

Resentful reactionary ethnocentric cultural protectionism

Whilst not the point of the post, it does make me think about the role that assimilation plays in our society as a counter to multiculturalism, and whether cultural tradition equates to cultural protectionism.

Smacking Referendum

"Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"

Wow, is this a terribly ambiguous question or what? No, you think it's straightforward? Well I guess I'd better give a bit of background info for non-Kiwi readers.

New Zealand's Crimes Act 1961 Section 59 previously allowed a legal defence of "reasonable force" for parents prosecuted for assaulting their children. Intended to protect parents' rights to use reasonable force to discipline their children, this law was ultimately interpreted by a NZ jury to allow violent parents to beat their children with metal pipes and other large objects.

In 2005 a member's bill was introduced (by Sue Bradford, a NZ Greens MP) which was to amend Section 59 to disallow this legal defence. This bill was passed on 16 May 2007 at its third reading, but not without great controversy as "family-friendly" groups such as Family First NZ were concerned that they would no longer be able to harshly beat their children in order to discipline them without threat of prosecution.

And so we have this referendum. And as I stated at the start, how ridiculously ambiguous is this. I respect that sometimes - not all the time - it is useful to give a child a light smack, like when there's a little arm reaching for the frying pan and it'll save a lot of tears. Sure, a light smack in order to prevent greater pain for the child should not be a legal offence.

But wait we're not talking about a "light smack" here. The word in question is simply - "smack". Not to mention "good parental correction" is open to interpretation also.

No, this isn't a fair question. My initial reaction (and I'm sure most people's) would be to vote "No", because that's the way it's intended to come across. In reality, we're looking at a current law which has removed the ability for parents to get away with physical abuse of their children.

I mailed my "Yes" vote in today - hopefully it gets to NZ in time.

Edit: Here are links to both sides to the argument - both make some excellent points (and some not-so-good points).

"Yes" vote - "No" vote