The Albanese government

[JohnDe]

And $53k from memory for a basic trades job that took less than a day, almost all that payment being for labour not materials.

But before anyone gets too excited......

That money was almost entirely gobbled up by a big name primary contractor. Not the tradie doing the work and not the union. And it was done after the hospital was open.

Back to my oft made point that government's better off employing it's own trades for maintenance and minor works directly and cutting the contractors out completely, because they always get ripped off.

Like another project not far away where the electrical was done incorrectly and has never been fixed. It works but it'll eventually fail that's a given, it's not up to scratch.

Which aligns with SirRumpole point "I wonder what can be said about the quality of the constructions if contracts were granted on the basis of bribes rather than competence?"

The RAH was a Labor Government build, plenty of snouts in the trough in an attempt to not have a repeat of the Myer Centre fiascos. But it still went over budget, over time, build issues galore, and a death of a workman even with the unions strict safety and pay rates. They even forgot to consult medical specialists about room sizes and requirements.

Whereas the Calvary Adelaide hospital was a private build, with everyone involved in the build and the end users sitting down together and worked out a plan, signed contracts, and then got on with it. No budget blow-outs, no extreme delay, no issues with medical equipment not being able to fit, etc.

 

[IFocus]

Meanwhile....

 

[JohnDe]

It all starts here...

I'm starting to think that it all started with Albanese trying to be too strategic, here's a perfect example -

In truth, this is the report on how the nation managed Covid when you don’t really want the report. The pandemic was the greatest health challenge Australia faced for a century and the greatest potential economic challenge since the Depression and what do we get? A federal government that lacks the honesty and courage to properly assess what happened. It is beyond pathetic.​

​

In truth, this is the report on how the nation managed Covid when you don’t really want the report. The pandemic was the greatest health challenge Australia faced for a century and the greatest potential economic challenge since the Depression and what do we get? A federal government that lacks the honesty and courage to properly assess what happened. It is beyond pathetic.​

​

The inquiry was hampered by the outrageous term of reference that it must not examine “actions taken unilaterally by state and territory governments” – which covers the bulk of the Covid health measures. In this sense, the review is a macabre joke – it bemoans the “lack of transparency” in the pandemic measures yet the entire report suffers from a lack of transparency.​

​

In truth, this is the report on how the nation managed Covid when you don’t really want the report. The pandemic was the greatest health challenge Australia faced for a century and the greatest potential economic challenge since the Depression and what do we get? A federal government that lacks the honesty and courage to properly assess what happened. It is beyond pathetic. ​

Flawed report safeguards two of the worst state governments in decades​

People queue for Covid testing in Melbourne in 2022. Picture: NCA NewsWire/David Geraghty

‘Trust is easily lost; it’s hard to regain – this is going to be a long, hard process.” With these words federal Health Minister Mark Butler identified this week the enduring negative from Australia’s largely successful navigation of the Covid-19 pandemic crisis.

The panel reviewing Australia’s performance documents a list of consequences from the experience of Covid-19: busted trust in official advice; unjustified lockdown measures; a deficit of transparency about the impositions on people; the shutting of schools against medical advice; inequitable burdens on the disadvantaged; and – with pandemics predicted to occur on average every 20 years – the need for reforms to ensure a better policy response next time.

The release of the 871-page report commissioned by the Albanese government came with a surprise – despite instructions in the terms of reference to ignore unilateral actions by state governments – the authors, while not identifying the premiers, have issued a powerful critique of their punishing policies. It is a welcome and overdue step on the road to accountability for the blunders and overreach in the nation’s pandemic response with the premiers bearing the chief responsibility.

But this is a flawed report. It is inadequate primarily because of the political protection the Albanese government insisted on to safeguard the reputation of the Labor Party, notably the former Andrews and Palaszczuk governments, two of the worst state governments in decades.

Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk announces an amber alert for Covid-19 in 2022. NewsWire / Sarah Marshall

The inquiry was hampered by the outrageous term of reference that it must not examine “actions taken unilaterally by state and territory governments” – which covers the bulk of the Covid health measures. In this sense, the review is a macabre joke – it bemoans the “lack of transparency” in the pandemic measures yet the entire report suffers from a lack of transparency.

In truth, this is the report on how the nation managed Covid when you don’t really want the report. The pandemic was the greatest health challenge Australia faced for a century and the greatest potential economic challenge since the Depression and what do we get? A federal government that lacks the honesty and courage to properly assess what happened. It is beyond pathetic.

The report, however, did have the gumption to say the “decisive and difficult decisions” taken by prime minister Scott Morrison and other ministers at the outset of the crisis “demonstrated courageous leadership and actions” that “protected Australian lives in the first wave”, that set the nation on a path that “reduced the overall negative impacts of the pandemic”, and that the critical decisions involved closing the international border, agreeing a national lockdown and creating a national wage subsidy scheme in JobKeeper.

While the review is geared to how Australia should manage future pandemics, some of its assessment of our Covid experience is flawed – notably the economic evaluation, which makes a number of highly dubious claims, seized on by Jim Chalmers to launch a political attack on the Coalition.

The brief given the review means it is weak in discerning the precise strengths and flaws of Australia’s response. However, the critical legacy is the conclusion that the erosion of trust is such that “many of the measures taken during Covid-19 are unlikely to be accepted by the population again” – a devastating judgment.

The review says that in future the only lockdowns the public will accept “if at all” will need to be “short” and “sharp” – and there would probably be “decreased public compliance”. Many may be pleased by this view yet it testifies to a profound cultural legacy that must limit future health options.

In reality, the low profile given this report, the absence of accountability by the states and the denial of responsibility by most of the media that fanned the Covid hysteria with exaggerated claims suggests Australia may lack the motivation to learn the lessons for next time. The review recognises Australia’s overall Covid accomplishment in health and economic terms, says people “should be proud of what we achieved”, but says the delay in vaccine procurement and distribution was a flaw that cost an extra $31bn in additional lockdowns.

In presenting the report, Butler emphasised Australia’s successful navigation of the crisis judged by international comparisons but recognised that “our data and disease surveillance systems were, frankly, not up to the task”. Butler identified an “important insight” from the report – the lockdowns and restrictions necessary in the early phase failed to evolve over time into an evidence-based response “that balanced risks and benefits”.

This failure is sheeted home to leaders and governments that didn’t adjust as the pandemic continued but persevered with punitive policies. But the report is insufferably polite; it cannot name names. It implies but is not allowed to speak the truth: the pandemic was consumed by politics, the real power lay with premiers, and the three dominant ALP premiers, Daniel Andrews, Annastacia Palaszczuk and Mark McGowan, went their own way with lockdowns and border protections and became populist heroes.

The real power lay with premiers like Daniel Andrews during the pandemic. Picture: NCA NewsWire / David Crosling

The report, however, has no truck with the libertarian fantasy that all lockdowns and social distancing were blunders – its critique is that the measures eventually became disproportionate, unscientific, non-transparent, did more damage than good and ruined public trust. In this sense, it is evidence-based, not ideological. The review recognised Morrison’s efforts to try to secure consensus in the national cabinet and a reopening plan but the “unity of purpose” waned as the emergency continued and “trust between the leaders eroded”.

The report names the factors that “diminished trust and eroded public confidence” as “lack of transparency, fairness, compassion and proportionally”. It says: “People felt they were unable to criticise or question government decisions and policies. Focus groups described how fear-based, patronising and heavy-handed communication from political leaders added to the perception that restrictions were not up for debate.”

The federal Treasurer mobilised the report for a political assault on the Coalition, a move that only reinforces questions about the integrity of its economic sections. While saying a “big, substantial economic response” was justified, Chalmers said the economic response was “badly implemented and poorly targeted”, that it should have been rolled out faster, that billions were wasted and that JobKeeper was poorly designed.

Citing modelling from the report, Chalmers said “peak inflation was at least two percentage points higher than it could have been”, thereby attributing the high inflation inheritance of the Albanese government to fiscal and monetary policy under the Coalition government. That’s a potent charge in the coming election context.

While Butler said the report’s purpose was to get a better playbook for the future and “not to second guess the decisions of the past” Chalmers didn’t get or didn’t want to get this message. His claims are on shaky ground. For instance, in Chalmers’ early ministerial statement of July 28, 2022, on the economy, he said the International Monetary Fund was expecting global inflation to reach 8.3 per cent and attributed Australia’s inflation primarily but not exclusively to global forces. He warned: “We can’t control the war in Ukraine or China’s Covid policies.”

The report’s claims on inflation are short on realism; it quotes modelling by Chris Murphy that inflation could have been reduced by 2.1 per cent if macro-economic policy had better matched the health restrictions and the Reserve Bank had started lifting interest rates in May 2021, not May 2022. This is superb hindsight but devoid of any practical consideration at the time.

While Chalmers had some valid criticisms of JobKeeper at the time, and the scheme did overcompensate some businesses, former treasurer Josh Frydenberg hit back at Chalmers this week, accusing him of hypocrisy and saying of Labor: “They wanted the government to expand taxpayer assistance to wholly foreign government owned companies, buy an airline and extend JobKeeper beyond its 12-month life. When JobKeeper was coming to an end, Chalmers said it would have ‘diabolical consequences’.” Frydenberg tells Inquirer: “While the Covid inquiry was designed to navigate a way forward to prepare for the next pandemic, Jim Chalmers is busy trying to rewrite history for blatant political gain. He is entitled to his own opinions but not to his own facts.”

Chalmers’ own department, the Treasury, commissioned an independent report of JobKeeper delivered to the Albanese government in September last year that found JobKeeper cost $88.8bn, was effective in delivering its goals, provided “value for money” and offered support to around four million employees.

The Covid review endorses the Coalition/Treasury position that it was “better to err on the side of providing too much support than too little” to combat the pandemic’s economic impact. The review says the economic response “demonstrated extraordinary agility – economic support was set up very quickly in response to a rapidly evolving pandemic”. It says the speed with which JobKeeper was set up was “extraordinary” and “the government delivered an unprecedented amount of economic support very rapidly and in proportion to the size of the downturn”.

Independent economist Steven Hamilton, who along with economics professor Richard Holden is the author of Australia’s Pandemic Exceptionalism, tells Inquirer: “I’d note – and this was lost in the review – that Australia probably had the best designed and targeted economic supports of any country in the world. We can quibble, but let’s not forget the bigger picture. We achieved a huge success. I’d advise the government to do much the same if there was a pandemic outbreak tomorrow.

“It’s worth noting the government showed a commendable degree of fiscal restraint as the crisis went along. They scaled down JobKeeper after six months and got rid of it entirely after 12 months, when at the time many were calling for it to be extended and it wasn’t clear ending it was the right call. I recall at the time being impressed by their degree of restraint – a willingness to hold the line against endless calls for more support.

“That’s been lost in the wash-up and got no credit from the review. The review somehow makes the opposite argument. I disagree. The Treasurer’s response to the review findings is appalling and reeks of hypocrisy.” Hamilton says the Coalition government at the time showed “good judgment” in ignoring Chalmers’ advice and “had they listened to him, the inflationary situation would have been even worse”.

In relation to inflation, Hamilton and Holden write in their book: “Public health officials were warning of a worst-case scenario in which 150,000 Australians could die of Covid-19. In the end, Australia handled the public health side of that first wave better than anyone could have anticipated. Had we known, we might not have spent so much; but then, how could we have known? So we took out some insurance. Like any insurance, it came with a premium. That premium is inflation.”

Hamilton says the Murphy modelling is “not evidence of any kind” but relies critically on an unknown counterfactual – what would the economy have been like in the absence of the measures? That’s something we have no idea whatsoever about.

The review was chaired by a highly experienced former public servant, Robyn Kruk, supported by Professor Catherine Bennett and Dr Angela Jackson. Its central recommendation, accepted by the government, is for the creation of an Australian Centre for Disease Control that would have “an authoritative voice” on technical and health issues relating to the threat and responses to future pandemics.

The CDC would have ties to the states and territories and would be intended to build transparency, trust and independence. But under questioning, Butler said the CDC would not have the power to direct states. The states would retain their powers, their public health laws, their own systems of advice coming from their chief health officers to health ministers and premiers. “We’re not seeking to take that over,” Butler said.

In short, the core framework will remain in place. The federal government cannot take over the constitutional powers vested in the states. The upshot is that many people will ask: what’s really different? The ultimate lesson from the virus is that premiers will exercise the power they have the way they want.

The review says future planning must be based on “rebuilding trust and resilience with populations”. It says compliance has to be reassessed, notably the use of police and the Australian Defence Force. It found the different restrictions across different states undermined public confidence when everybody said they were following the science but running different policies.

The report says national cabinet agreed on July 2, 2021, that lockdowns were to be used only as “a last resort”.

Yet, shortly after, “stringent lockdowns were introduced in Victoria (and they were already in place in NSW) and they remained until vaccine targets were met and Australia began to open up”. The panel is explicit: lockdowns have “lost credibility with the Australian public”.

It says: “The city of Melbourne was kept in lockdown for 112 days in the second wave in 2020. The final 30 days of that lockdown had either single-digit case numbers or zero cases reported, and most were contacts of known cases in quarantine.

“This is one of the few examples globally of an extended Covid-19 outbreak where the virus was eliminated through the application of non-pharmaceutical interventions. For more than half of the latter part of that wave, most cases were directly linked to aged care facilities outbreaks. The rest of the population were kept in lockdown to reduce the risk of outbreaks spreading back into the community via workers or their household contacts.

“Use of statewide lockdowns where there had been no recent cases outside a capital city, rather than localised lockdowns, contributed to the loss of credibility.”

The report is too polite to state the obvious: Victorians were the victims of a huge experiment in mass population control conducted by Andrews and his health bureaucrats, without explanation or evidence being produced for their prolonged lockdowns that were devoid of any effort to balance the gains and losses.

One of the worse decisions during the pandemic was the extent of school closures: “The panel notes that while the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee never recommended widespread school closures, a lack of early and clear communication on the risks undermined public confidence, particularly for parents with school-aged children, teachers and unions. This created the environment for subsequent state-based decisions to transition to remote learning that impacted the quality and accessibility of education throughout the pandemic.”

Morrison fought hard to keep schools open. The report barely touches on this – consistent with its avoidance of any of the details in the conflicts within national cabinet. As a case study the schools issue is a shameful example of the premiers responding to public pressure and taking decisions based on politics, not the health advice or the best interests of students.

 

[JohnDe]

Just being objective

While you're being objective, and having started this thread, do you mind sharing your thoughts on who should be the next PM, who from your list of candidates?

Social order depends on smart and sensible politics. Weak leadership at the top risks sending discordant ripples down through the ranks of government and administration, resulting in poor vision and bad decisions that disrupt the smooth and efficient workings of an economy and the more generalised ways of life of the people. Fundamentals become overgrown with weeds.​

​

The first task of government is to look after the people, which means securing their prosperity and wellbeing, future planning, and defending the country. Each of the three challenges has sunk into neglect as sober good sense seems to have fled the political stage.​

​

Leadership is about making hard decisions. Anthony Albanese seems constitutionally evasive, incapable of making the tough call, his characteristic look blank with uncertainty. He is stranded indecisively between three powerful and clashing forces—big business and economic dynamism, the unions, and the Greens. Bill Kelty, with his frontline experience of strong leadership in the Hawke/Keating years, judged the government as ‘mired in mediocrity’.​

We’re living through the bad times

How are things going in the public world of Australia? What is our current historical trajectory? Let me hazard an overview. We have, it seems, become submerged under a seeping mist of disorder, a miasma creeping in from the ocean, one hardly noticed over time.

One sign is the rising temperature of dissension. Fracturing multicultural cohesion is highlighted in mass demonstrations against Israel, demonstrations disapproved of by 90% of Australians. Shameless anti-Semitism has become ever-present and tolerated, with an upside-down logic accusing Jews of genocide when it is Hamas and Hezbollah, echoing Nazi doctrine, and with the covert support of most Palestinians, who want to destroy another race. ‘Lest we forget!’ is itself forgotten.

The time is skew. Things are not right. I’m mindful of the Jeremiah temptation—the prophet storming in from the desert to rant at the people to repent of their sins, or they’ll all be damned. The Australian bush poet equivalent is the resigned: “We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan, in accents most forlorn. Ranting is unhinged, as is self-indulgent pessimism.

Further, on the surface, in any realistic comparative historical terms, things look pretty good. The nation is prosperous, the shops are full, unemployment is low, and there is no imminent threat of war. The long peace since 1945 of growth, wealth, progress, and relative social harmony continues unabated, interrupted by modest cycles.

Social order depends on smart and sensible politics. Weak leadership at the top risks sending discordant ripples down through the ranks of government and administration, resulting in poor vision and bad decisions that disrupt the smooth and efficient workings of an economy and the more generalised ways of life of the people. Fundamentals become overgrown with weeds.

Economic historian, Ian McLean in his 2013 overview Why Australia Prospered, concluded that the country’s economic success has been due to wise policy response and the quality of institutions in relation to the abundance of resources and fluctuating international economic conditions. Australia has usually been good at seizing opportunities offered internationally and been resilient to shocks, both positive (gold discovery) and negative (world wars and depressions). Political scientist A. F. Davies concluded, decades ago, that Australia had a talent for bureaucracy. I doubt either judgment holds today.

The first task of government is to look after the people, which means securing their prosperity and wellbeing, future planning, and defending the country. Each of the three challenges has sunk into neglect as sober good sense seems to have fled the political stage.

Leadership is about making hard decisions. Anthony Albanese seems constitutionally evasive, incapable of making the tough call, his characteristic look blank with uncertainty. He is stranded indecisively between three powerful and clashing forces—big business and economic dynamism, the unions, and the Greens. Bill Kelty, with his frontline experience of strong leadership in the Hawke/Keating years, judged the government as ‘mired in mediocrity’.

Symptomatic was the contrast that came with the announced retirement of Bill Shorten. In the outpouring of praise, and from across the political spectrum, Shorten suddenly seemed like a statesman. Bungled leadership was forgotten. And indeed, in today’s political landscape, he has looked like one of the few competent, industrious ministers, and a rare rational Labor voice on the question of Israel and Gaza.

PM Anthony Albanese seems constitutionally evasive, incapable of making the tough call, his characteristic look blank with uncertainty. Picture: Nikki Davis-Jones

The Federal government steers an ailing economy. Growth is negligible, inflation is stubbornly high—this used to be called stagflation. It responds to low productivity with new industrial relations laws guaranteed to worsen the problem. It seems to be doing its best to dampen the animal spirits that Keynes characterised as key to a vigorous economy.

Inflation has pitched large sections of middle Australia into ongoing cost-of-living pain, for many crippling—mortgage stress, high insurance, jumped food and petrol prices, and steep energy bills. The country has a basic need for hundreds of thousands of new homes, yet recent surges in building costs, inflated trades pay, and state and council inertia deter developers.

Leadership could bring the price of energy down. But a blind ideology of reducing carbon emissions whatever it takes, has left an administration flailing around, incapable of planning for base-load electricity generation. Here is a neglected fundamental. The relevant minister, Chris Bowen, fulminates and blusters while he dithers in contradiction. As the government dreams of a country covered in wind farms and thousands of hectares of solar panels, feeding the cities through non-existent transmission lines, it may be realising that the reality of summer blackouts will not endear it to the electorate. So, instead of caring for the people, it throws an insulting crumb at households, in the form of a one-off $300 electricity credit.

The Victorian Labor Government has projected wilful impracticality in flashing neon lights. The leading example of policy folly is gas. Victorian households and businesses are particularly dependent on gas appliances and machines, having benefited from low-cost gas from Gippsland for decades. There remain vast untapped reserves under the ground there, ones that don’t need fracking, yet the government continues to ban exploration, and now even furtively admits it may have to import gas. It thereby has cursed households, suffering hardship, to paying double to triple the price they might be paying. It is forcing businesses such as Sorbent to shift overseas—due to its gas price tripling. One of the elementary laws of economics holds that if a place has a comparative advantage over other regions and countries, in this case cost of energy, it should exploit it. One can only shake one’s head in disbelief, that the Victorian government has proudly capsized the State’s precious competitive advantage.

Energy Minister Chris Bowen could bring the price of energy down. But a blind ideology of reducing carbon emissions whatever it takes, has left an administration flailing. Picture: NCA NewsWire / David Swift

Still in Victoria, mental disorder and domestic violence were aggravated, even precipitated by unnecessarily severe COVID lockdowns. It became known early on that children were at negligible risk from the pandemic, but schools and playgrounds were closed. It became known that open-air infection was unlikely, yet golf courses became off-limits. A ring of steel imprisoning Melbourne was the ultimate signal that the Premier held his own citizens in contempt. Admittedly, in the early days, the government did need to protect its fragile health system (another example of poor administration) from being swamped, as had happened in northern Italy and New York. But, as time passed, the Premier seemed to relish his draconian lockdown powers, implementing new ones at will. Still today, years later, the effects linger—in school truancy, teenage mental disturbance, family schism, and almost certainly, in the general mood.

Turning to defence, the first national threat since 1945 has produced grandstanding rhetoric, accompanied by a policy vacuum apart from the nebulous far-distant promise of AUKUS: little practical action, little increase in proportional GDP expenditure, lethargic planning by a risk-averse defence bureaucracy, and even more complete dependence on the United States. Here is the high-tide mark of a government taking its mandate about as seriously as the Queen of Hearts took croquet in Alice in Wonderland.

One characteristic of good government and worthy leadership lies in its moral compass, which should only need to show rarely. The Prime Minister has spoken repeatedly about our traditional ally Israel, which is fighting for its life, spoken with evasive mealy-mouthed embarrassment. When HAMAS shot six innocent hostages two months ago and paraded its own atrocity with brazen affrontery before the world’s eyes, Anthony Albanese looked away. It seems the Prime Minister had spent all his moral energy on his failed Voice campaign. One can only imagine in what regard many of our Jewish citizens hold him. Bob Hawke would turn in his grave.

Shameless anti-Semitism has become ever-present and tolerated. The Nazi swastika is pictured graffitied outside a supermarket in South Australia. Picture: Supplied

I have been rehearsing particulars, which taken together reflect a general state. There is a mood that comes over a nation, hard to register with precision. Shakespeare, the supreme master at giving form to almost every conceivable human experience, evokes such a mood, subtly in the second part of Henry IV. The old king is mortally sick, and his kingdom is afflicted by civil war. Although his troops are prevailing, his dour temper is hardly lifted by good news. The heroic swashbuckling of the recent past is gone.

The dominant stage presence, Sir John Falstaff, has become gloomy, Falstaff the loveable, immensely fat drunken buffoon, thief, coward, but always with sharp tongue and quick wit ready to parry off the endless mockery to which he is subjected. This jolly braggart, who had always charmed with being resolutely cheerful, is now worried about his waters—his doctor tells him they are fine, but the housing body may be riddled with disease. Falstaff complains about gout. Vomit, pox, apoplexy colour the times, which are dull and heavy, sleepy and even sordid. There is no honour, promises are not kept, debts are not paid. Taverns have become brothels. The climax comes when the newly crowned Henry V rejects Falstaff, his old friend and companion mentor of his wayward youth, with the cold, heart-piercing cruelty of:

I know thee not, old man. Fall to thy prayers.

How ill white hairs becomes a fool and jester!

I have long dreamt of such a kind of man,

So surfeit-swelled, so old, and so profane,

But, being awakened, I do despise my dream.

Presume not that I am the thing I was

The mood colouring 2024 Australia shares similarities with Henry IV’s England, but the setting is different. Soft times can make people silly. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that political revolutions never emerge from among the oppressed and the poor, but rather from those on the rise, ones with increasing expectations that are thwarted. Robert Putnam, in his definitive study on social capital, Bowling Alone, observed that the peak of social capital—the degree to which people socialised, joined clubs and associations, and volunteered—occurred in the 1960s and 70s. The main factor was a generation who had experienced the Great Depression and war and had learnt through hardship the importance of community engagement.

Hard times force a reality principle. The day-to-day pressure of working to pay bills to feed, clothe, house, and educate a family, with all its attendant worries, is likely to focus the mind and wean it from remote fantastical causes. Likewise, big business finally seems to be ditching its virtue-signalling poses as it wakes up to the threat of a high taxing and regulating, old-style socialist government.

Emblematic of today’s bad political times is the emergence of the new-look Green party, shed of its part-practical environmentalism, reborn as megaphone for radical left dissent. 1960s student rancour is reborn, as if in a geyser of vitriol hatred of the society that has spawned its young members, educated them, fed and clothed them, their parents indulging them, giving them opportunities that virtually none of their ancestors enjoyed. Vandals who have never grown up shout tantrum obscenities, throw rocks and acid at police and their horses.

The rocks and acid may well come from a small rabble minority, but they reflect the ideological rage of a significant slice of generation Z. Green politicians defend attacks on police who are just doing their job—in effect attacks on social order and the authority necessary to maintain it. If they were true to their principles, they would resign from office.

The Greens are ideology addicts with no stomach for the facts of history or the reality of hard slog, day-to-day political management. They champion phony egalitarianism, narrowing roads for bike lanes to be used by 5% of the population, whilst handicapping the less well-off who live in outer suburbs and are car dependent, oblivious to the fact that Australia’s cities lack the density of Rome or Copenhagen. Greens likewise champion phony multiculturalism, idealising the oppressed of the current hour—far distant Palestinians—while condoning attacks on local Jewish citizens and businesses. They are anarchists in spirit, with a discontented lust for mayhem and riot camouflaged under the smoke of high ideals.

Greens leader Adam Bandt addresses the crowd at a Free Palestine Rally in Melbourne. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Valeriu Campan

There is one genuine grievance the Greens may exploit. Generation Z, with those immediately preceding it, may be waking up to the fact they have been largely excluded from the Australian dream of owning their own home—traditionally seen as the foundation for happy family life and social stability. They have been truly disadvantaged. Only one in seven houses are now affordable for average-income households. The Green policy cap on rents may thus seem to address a need, although unintended consequences are likely to nullify the effect.

Bad times that have not resulted from external shock such as war, must somehow reflect education in the broad having gone wrong. Such serious impairment of collective wisdom is the fault of elders. But where are the elders; indeed, who are the elders today? Kafka told the parable of a kingdom in which children were given the choice of being kings or couriers for kings. They all chose to become couriers, so, in the absence of kings, life in the kingdom became one of people rushing around carrying meaningless messages.

In terms of the responsibility of elders, our children are the hope of the future, for it will be their task to renew the world they inherit. But little care has been taken of those tasked with nurturing them, the teachers. Mainly held in poor regard, our front-line educators are left to fend for themselves in classrooms where the old aura of authority that once supported them has thinned.

Universities are the source of where all went awry. In the lecture halls, wisdom resides, if anywhere, in a collective ethos shared by academics. In the old order, they saw their mission in the humanities as transmitting Western culture, as expressed through the finest literature, art, philosophy, and methods of thinking of the past. The privilege of being the repository imposed a noblesse oblige, of honouring the past, and introducing young minds to its ways, to give them the capacity to forge their own pathways.

Then a new disposition appeared, especially after the 1960s, overturning the old order, with love for the culture replaced by hate. The new watchwords became tear down, destroy, cancel. Those who came before were despised, not revered, as was the world they had built. Lecturers and professors were swept away in a fervour of resentment, blaming their own society and its ways for their suffering from what can only have been some deep personal disappointment. That disappointment may have been a spiritual crisis in which they had lost their old faith—whether in God; in truth, beauty, and right order; or ultimately in themselves. So, they sowed the whirlwind.

Current bad times might well attract the disdain of So surfeit-swelled, so old, and so profane. The metaphor is, I suggest, more apt than it may seem. However, the new king that is longed for will not appear in the guise of one brilliant individual, a Henry V. It will require much, much more, a sea change in the elite domains of the culture and its institutions.

John Carroll is professor emeritus of Sociology at La Trobe University.

 

[SirRumpole]

While you're being objective, and having started this thread, do you mind sharing your thoughts on who should be the next PM, who from your list of candidates?

Sure.

I think Labor needs more than one term to make a difference and one that isn't hobbled by obstruction by the Greens and the LNP.

To me, Albo looks as though he's tiring of the job and is thinking more of life after politics with Jodie so we need someone with the energy and motivation to go another 3 years at least. Chalmers would be my choice, he appears to have energy and vision and has done a good job as Treasurer in my opinion.

What do you think?

 

[JohnDe]

Sure.

I think Labor needs more than one term to make a difference and one that isn't hobbled by obstruction by the Greens and the LNP.

To me, Albo looks as though he's tiring of the job and is thinking more of life after politics with Jodie so we need someone with the energy and motivation to go another 3 years at least. Chalmers would be my choice, he appears to have energy and vision and has done a good job as Treasurer in my opinion.

What do you think?

I think that Chalmers lacks experience and the toughness required to lead the country, he would be another version of Albanese. We would be better off having Albo in for another term, bouncing off the experience he has acquired from his first term.

From the list that you made, the only one that looks like a strong leader with the required skills is Shorton. Sadly, he’s had enough of the politics and is retiring to another field.

 

[Smurf1976]

John Carroll is professor emeritus of Sociology at La Trobe University.

Referring to the article, I agree with the overall point and most of the detail but I think he's gone very close to another issue, education, but failed to hit that nail on the head.

I won't challenge his knowledge on sociology, I'm sure it's far better than mine. I dare say my understanding of electricity generation's a fair bit better than his however.

The point there not being a personal contest or anything like that, but simply that we need the right person for the job and that's where so much is going wrong. There's a great many issues where public debate is outright cringeworthy from the perspective of a professional or even an enthusiastic amateur who knows their stuff.

We seem to have gotten into a situation where anyone with an impressive sounding title is deemed to be an expert on everything and where broad theories or concepts are assumed to universally apply. A scenario that's equivalent to assuming an orchestra conductor must know about rap, because it's all music, right? Err, no, not really......

Pick pretty much any issue of public debate and it ends up with those who actually do have the answers forced to the sidelines, watching politicians run around trying to come up with something that sounds plausible. That's not the way to do it if the aim is to achieve high performance.

We really need to stop viewing tertiary education as a general intelligence test, which has never been, and instead seek out real knowledge and expertise on any subject of relevance. If the subject is, for example, road safety well relevant people include traffic engineers, automotive technology experts, people who know about human behaviour and how to influence it and so on. Trouble is, the way we're doing things at the moment government would end up putting someone from the legal or economics professions in charge of it then a decade later wonder why the road toll hasn't come down. Not because lawyers or economists are evil, just because it's not the right knowledge base to be addressing the issue at hand.

My observation is that's where much is going wrong. People who are intelligent and well educated as such but they're not well educated on the subject at hand, so what they come up with ends up being a disaster. That isn't aimed at the author of that article, just that it's a situation I've seen plenty of. Smart people getting involved in things they're really no smarter on than the average layperson.

Much like corporate boards and this video, especially the first bit and also towards the end, is worth watching:



A lot of the same goes on in government. People put in high places not because they're right people but for "other" reasons and it's not serving us at all well.

 

[sptrawler]

This one's complex and it's a discussion I've actually had with a few younger people in recent times.

A few comments:

Technology would've happened regardless, it was a product of science and business not politics.

As adults people get on with their lives, they adapt to the circumstances and make it work as best they can. That doesn't stop them being aware of what those circumstances are however.

Young people aren't as keen on university as you might be assuming. For those not actually working in a recognised profession, they're seeing it as more akin to extortion - pay the uni a fortune to get a degree in order to do a job that any previous generation could've obtained and done without the degree. They see it as a complete waste of 4 years and a lot of money, forced upon them by society. The exception being those who actually are working in a profession that requires a degree

Beyond that it's a general sense of malaise, a sense that everything's just all a bit weak, a lame, slow and really quite second rate compared to the past.

There's a lot of awareness gained via the internet of just how much previous generations got done despite lacking any modern technology to do it with, having to endure really quite miserable circumstances in order to make things happen. Against that backdrop, there's a real sense of disappointment that society isn't progressing, that things aren't being done, and that even the simplest things end up mired in politics and bureaucracy.

Same personally. The previous generations got a house with a big backyard, two cars and a big Hi-Fi in the lounge room. Whilst they might accept it out of necessity, the younger generation knows they've been done over when they end up with an apartment, one car and can't even turn the music up loud or host a party without breaching strata rules. They recognise shrinkflation when they're literally surrounded by it.

That's not to say it's all terrible, I mean people aren't starving and of course there are some who never wanted a house anyway, but there's a definite perception that society's going backwards on various measures.

That absolutely nails it, 20 odd years ago everyone was sold the concept that kids would have to go to university to be able to get a job, hurdles were put in place to stop kids leaving school at 15 to do apprenticeships and technical colleges were changed to universities.

Now we have to import tradespeople, kids leaving school at year 12 can't afford to live on apprentice wages and employers can't afford to pay them more, because for the first two years they are a burden.

When kids started an apprenticeship at 15 they lived at home didn't have a car and their parents subsidised them.
When they got to 17 they were earning reasonable wages, because they were actually useful by then and paying their way.

Nursing a similar situation, previously year 12 leaving certificate was a pre requisite for a hospital based RN traineeship, then the training was caried out at a recognised training hospital with a school of nursing, where the student received both theoretical and practical training on the wards under supervision. The trainees received wages and experience, now the nurses come out of uni older, in debt and inexperienced.
Teaching has the same issues and problems.
As with most things, no one wants to admit there is a stuff up and things need changing, it is easier to just keep kicking the can down the road.
Fortunately the young are starting to see the fall out of an idelogical driven education system.

 

[JohnDe]

To me, Albo looks as though he's tiring of the job and is thinking more of life after politics with Jodie so we need someone with the energy and motivation to go another 3 years at least. Chalmers would be my choice, he appears to have energy and vision and has done a good job as Treasurer in my opinion.

The bath water is definitely heating up for Albanese, you may see Chalmers putting his hand up for the job.

My opinion is that the Labor party will ride this out to the election, Albanese's figures aren't the best but they're also not the worst. And if the party rolls the PM the voters may not be happy. However, if Albanese steps down, that could be a different matter.

Mr Albanese remains at 45 per cent as the preferred prime minister.​

​

However, Mr Dutton lifted four points to 41 per cent. This is now the closest margin between the two leaders since the last election.​

​

Mr Albanese’s net approval ratings have dipped to a new low since becoming Prime Minister.​

​

While his approval ratings remained unchanged at 40 per cent, those dissatisfied with the Prime Minister rose one point to 55 per cent. This gives the Labor leader a net approval rating of minus-15 – his worst result.​

 

[farmerge]

The bath water is definitely heating up for Albanese, you may see Chalmers putting his hand up for the job.

My opinion is that the Labor party will ride this out to the election, Albanese's figures aren't the best but they're also not the worst. And if the party rolls the PM the voters may not be happy. However, if Albanese steps down, that could be a different matter.

View attachment 187679

Mr Albanese remains at 45 per cent as the preferred prime minister.​

​

However, Mr Dutton lifted four points to 41 per cent. This is now the closest margin between the two leaders since the last election.​

​

Mr Albanese’s net approval ratings have dipped to a new low since becoming Prime Minister.​

​

While his approval ratings remained unchanged at 40 per cent, those dissatisfied with the Prime Minister rose one point to 55 per cent. This gives the Labor leader a net approval rating of minus-15 – his worst result.​

View attachment 187680

Any one but The Elbow.

 

[SirRumpole]

Any one but The Elbow.

Could be worse. Plibersek, Mccarthy, Aly...

 

[IFocus]

This is priceless West gives everyone a serve "scam of the week"

Kissing the ring of The Donald | Scam of the Week - Michael West

Bridget puts shade on Upgrade Albo, a surge in kowtowing to the Donald, the RBA blames students and tourists for inflation. It’s a surfeit of scams. Support Us here https://linktr.ee/michaelwestmedia.com.au

michaelwest.com.au

 

[farmerge]

Could be worse. Plibersek, Mccarthy, Aly...

How about the Organ Grinder's Monkey for PM.
We did have an utterance from a former pollie that the Drover's Dog could have won an election many years ago.

 

[mullokintyre]

I am somewhat siurprised to say the least that Albanese has come out in complete support for Rudd.
Despite another video emerging where he calls trump " a Village Idiot", Albanese has expressed continuing support for Rudd.

Although its nice to stick up for your mates, in this case, having your ambassador pour crap on the POTUS, even if it may be deserved, does not help Australia's cause.
Trump is if nothing else, a man who likes to seek revenge on his detractors, and I cannot for the life of me see Trump accepting any invitations from the Oz embassy for a little tete a tete.
Cut you losses Albo, bring him back, give him another cushy job somewhere else, and appoint a diplomat who has not opened his fat mouth on all and sundry.
Mick

 

[SirRumpole]

I am somewhat siurprised to say the least that Albanese has come out in complete support for Rudd.
Despite another video emerging where he calls trump " a Village Idiot", Albanese has expressed continuing support for Rudd.

View attachment 187788
Although its nice to stick up for your mates, in this case, having your ambassador pour crap on the POTUS, even if it may be deserved, does not help Australia's cause.
Trump is if nothing else, a man who likes to seek revenge on his detractors, and I cannot for the life of me see Trump accepting any invitations from the Oz embassy for a little tete a tete.
Cut you losses Albo, bring him back, give him another cushy job somewhere else, and appoint a diplomat who has not opened his fat mouth on all and sundry.
Mick

Why not send Malcolm T? He and Trump got on so well. LOL.

 

[wayneL]

Why not send Malcolm T? He and Trump got on so well. LOL.

You want to get us nuked?

 

[SirRumpole]

You want to get us nuked?

Might be quite interesting to see how a clash of two gigantic egos would work out.

 

[farmerge]

I am somewhat siurprised to say the least that Albanese has come out in complete support for Rudd.
Despite another video emerging where he calls trump " a Village Idiot", Albanese has expressed continuing support for Rudd.

View attachment 187788
Although its nice to stick up for your mates, in this case, having your ambassador pour crap on the POTUS, even if it may be deserved, does not help Australia's cause.
Trump is if nothing else, a man who likes to seek revenge on his detractors, and I cannot for the life of me see Trump accepting any invitations from the Oz embassy for a little tete a tete.
Cut you losses Albo, bring him back, give him another cushy job somewhere else, and appoint a diplomat who has not opened his fat mouth on all and sundry.
Mick

Push him off to China. He just may incite them enough to lock him up!!!!!!!!

 

[farmerge]

Might be quite interesting to see how a clash of two gigantic egos would work out.

Karboom

 

[SirRumpole]

Karboom

MAD, mutually assured destruction.