An emerging new trend that I have noticed amongst the Australian populace is a penchant to attach seasonal decorations to their car windows to advertise their participation in the relevant national event or public holiday of the day. While adorning your car with reindeer antlers, whilst tacky, is harmless, flying our national flag on Australia Day raises more complicated questions. This practice is particularly concerning given that two days post Oz Day, a significant percentage of this morning's traffic still retain their patriotic banners. While one can be forgiven for leaving the Christmas tree up deep into January, packing away the window flag does not appear to require significant effort. It concerns me that many drivers do not see a problem with year round flag flying. Some may ask, what is the problem with showing pride in your nation? The symbolism of national flags needs to be discussed to answer this question.
Do you remember the old Loony Tunes cartoons where Marvin the Martian would dig his flag into the ground and proclaim “I claim this planet in the name of Mars”. Whilst amusing, it does highlight that one of the original purposes of a flag was to proclaim possession over a given area or object. In paint ball games, for example, the mission is to capture the opposing team's flag. For some absurd reason, my next door neighbour has an almighty flag pole in his back yard. This metaphorical marking of your territory, a la the neighbourhood pooch squirting his piss on the stobie poll, smacks of either an insecurity of or hostility to outsiders. One's mind is drawn back to the hysteria surrounding the Mabo decision, with Joe Public fearing that Ernie Dingo (the most famous Indigenous Australian of the time) would be able to come along and pitch a tent in his front yard. The flying of a flag on a car, a moving item of property, however, is more analogous to naval matters.
While I am not an expert in the laws of the sea, I do know that in naval voyaging, the flying of the flag sent important messages to fellow travellers about the intentions and origins of the particular vessels. My sense is that at least on a a sub-concious level, citizens with window flags are trying to send a message to fellow citizens. Do they feel that they are more patriotic than the rest of us? Are we inferior Australians if we don't join in. And what sort of message does this send to visitors or recent arrivals to our country. I suspect that if German immigrants all started flying their flag on their VW's, there would be a slight controversy. If a Sudanese or Afghani started flying their national flag, I suspect there would be a major uproar. The carrying of national flags at soccer games was outlawed last decade in this country because of the ethnic disunity that it created. With the Cronulla riots still relatively fresh in the memory, I would argue that the recent proliferation of union jacks and southern crosses is not desirable.
Some commentators on this issue have been more extreme in their views, and have drawn comparisons to the Nazi obsession with symbols of nationality and affiliation. While I am not quick to draw such parallels, I think that it is healthy and necessary to have a discussion about the path that we seem to be embarking upon. While not everyone flying the flag is a right wing nationalist, extremist Australian groups do use symbols such as the Southern Cross to advance their prejudiced views. I believe that it is necessary to continue to debate the rise of nationalist sentiments in our country, especially given that our world is becoming smaller and more interconnected every day.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is
The battle within the ALP to be anointed successor to Kevin Foley (and ultimately Mike Rann) is reaching fever point. Much of the media commentary on the issue has focused on the fact that the Right faction controls the numbers within caucus, and can therefore impose their preferred outcome upon the minority Left. While this is technically accurate, much of the Right’s success over the years (driven by Don Farrell) has been due to their reluctance to exert its supremacy in situations where negotiation is possible. The young Turks within the party have long advocated a “rape and pillage” approach, but the wiser monkeys foresaw that this would lead to an irreparable break down of the “Machine” factional arrangement. My sources suggest that the old Vikings are heading towards Valhalla, and the newer, more brutal incarnation are preparing to stampede through the Left’s village.
For many years Jay Weatherill has been introduced at Left events as “the next Premier of South Australia”. Disgruntled backbench MPs have endured the WorkCover reforms and harsh budgets, soothed by the thought that it would all be ok when Jay takes over. This idealistic fantasizing is symbolic of the Left. Jay never had the numbers, and his haughty and superior visage caused spite amongst the Right. Now that the crucial moment has arrived, Left wing back benchers are confronted with a decision. They can continue to enjoy the spoils of office, and the associated responsibility for the decisions which they profess to “oppose”. Or they can put their money where their mouth is.
Nothing irks me more than Left wing back benchers such as Steph Key, hypocrites that stand “in solidarity” at protests against the Government, then waddle inside and park themselves on the comfy seats of power. The time has come for them to either make a stand. Advancing their view from within the party and the Government has clearly fallen on deaf ears. They need to accept that they don’t have the numbers to make change within caucus, so they must take drastic measures during these drastic times.
It seems that many in the Left are willing to take drastic action. It is my understanding that late in the week a tentative deal was made between the Left and one portion of the Right faction to allow Jay Weatherill to become Treasurer. It is likely that this deal was in response to threats by Left backbenchers to resign from the ALP and/or the Parliament. By Saturday, the deal was off. I can only speculate that anger within the “slash and burn” faction of the Right won the day over the “defend the fort” faction. The Right is banking upon the Left being all talk and no action, which certainly has proven to be the case in the past e.g. WorkCover debate. While it is now likely that Weatherill will quit the frontbench in disgust over the reneged deal, time will tell how Left members in the twilight of their careers will react. My question is, what does someone like Steph Key have to lose from calling a spiteful by-election in her seat? Not much.
Political commentators in this State are slow to react to the changing dynamics in SA ALP politics. They continue to seek comments from SA Senator and power broker Don Farrell, and then take these words as gospel. While Don Farrell still exerts significant control within the faction, he is no longer the only force within the faction. It is my assertion that the thwarted Weatherill deal is a result of a battle between opposing forces within the faction to control the destiny of the State Government.
For many years Jay Weatherill has been introduced at Left events as “the next Premier of South Australia”. Disgruntled backbench MPs have endured the WorkCover reforms and harsh budgets, soothed by the thought that it would all be ok when Jay takes over. This idealistic fantasizing is symbolic of the Left. Jay never had the numbers, and his haughty and superior visage caused spite amongst the Right. Now that the crucial moment has arrived, Left wing back benchers are confronted with a decision. They can continue to enjoy the spoils of office, and the associated responsibility for the decisions which they profess to “oppose”. Or they can put their money where their mouth is.
Nothing irks me more than Left wing back benchers such as Steph Key, hypocrites that stand “in solidarity” at protests against the Government, then waddle inside and park themselves on the comfy seats of power. The time has come for them to either make a stand. Advancing their view from within the party and the Government has clearly fallen on deaf ears. They need to accept that they don’t have the numbers to make change within caucus, so they must take drastic measures during these drastic times.
It seems that many in the Left are willing to take drastic action. It is my understanding that late in the week a tentative deal was made between the Left and one portion of the Right faction to allow Jay Weatherill to become Treasurer. It is likely that this deal was in response to threats by Left backbenchers to resign from the ALP and/or the Parliament. By Saturday, the deal was off. I can only speculate that anger within the “slash and burn” faction of the Right won the day over the “defend the fort” faction. The Right is banking upon the Left being all talk and no action, which certainly has proven to be the case in the past e.g. WorkCover debate. While it is now likely that Weatherill will quit the frontbench in disgust over the reneged deal, time will tell how Left members in the twilight of their careers will react. My question is, what does someone like Steph Key have to lose from calling a spiteful by-election in her seat? Not much.
Political commentators in this State are slow to react to the changing dynamics in SA ALP politics. They continue to seek comments from SA Senator and power broker Don Farrell, and then take these words as gospel. While Don Farrell still exerts significant control within the faction, he is no longer the only force within the faction. It is my assertion that the thwarted Weatherill deal is a result of a battle between opposing forces within the faction to control the destiny of the State Government.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Training Wheels
Yesterday morning I found myself in the toy section of Big W. The warning “Not for children under 3” was affixed to the various bubble blowers and doctor’s kits. Recent events in South Australian politics suggest that such a warning should be attached to the SA Parliamentary Labor Party. The impending Cabinet reshuffle is the first public evidence of the transition in power from the old guard (Farrell, Atkinson, Holloway) to the new guard (Malinauskas, Koutsantonis, Snelling). It has been said that the true test of a master’s legacy is the quality of their pupils. I will now outline several glaring errors in the “generational change” process, and the damage that the “grown ups” can inflict upon the factional adolescents.
Error 1. Keeping Foley in the Cabinet
While the full details are yet to be finalized and publicized, it seems likely that Kevin Foley will remain within the Cabinet until 2014. It is likely that this compromise was reached partly to avoid a by-election and partly because of the bro-mance between Malinauskas, Koutsantonis and Big Kev. While this serves to remove Kevin from the key Treasury portfolio, his gentle landing fails to appease the blood lust of the public. It must be remembered that in centuries past, people would flock to public executions to see the beheading of enemies of the state. The current strategy deprives the public of closure. It also will make matters difficult for his successor.
Keeping Foley in Cabinet is akin to keeping Atkinson on the back bench. Political creatures accustomed to calling the shots find it difficult to deal with their loss of relevance. Atkinson has dealt with this by continuing to pester talkback stations, commenting on his former portfolio areas, which must irk John Rau no end. By keeping Foley in Parliament, he will make life difficult for Snelling, the likely successor. The media scrum and Opposition will goad and question Kev, asking whether he would have acted in the same way as Jack. The short term pain of a by-election would have been difficult, but allowing Kev’s political career to bleed out over 3 years will be agonizing.
Error 2.
Tarring Rau and Snelling with the Rann brush
The Marble Bar incident brought forward the axing of Foley, but the party wasn’t ready to go “the whole hog” and remove Rann as well. While the logic is that it will allow Rau and Snelling a chance to find their feet, there is a reason why leadership challenges usually involve the appointment of a new leader and deputy, rather than a piecemeal approach. Public perception of both Foley AND Rann has grown toxic. Rau and Snelling will be required to be the loyal deputy to Mike for at least six months, tarring them with the toxic stench emanating from Rann. This only serves to poison the successor/s. They will also be plagued with questions about their ambitions, such as when they are going to launch their coup. Mike doesn’t seem ready to go on his own accord, so the successor will be torn between loyalty and progression.
Error 3
Seeking to appoint Bernie Finnigan as Holloway replacement before Bernie has Ministerial experience
I would argue that Paul Holloway, leader of the Government in the Upper House, has the heaviest workload of any Government Minister. The ALP is starved of talent in the Legislative Council, and Holloway has to daily fend of attack dogs such as Rob Lucas, Family First and Mark Parnell, assisted only by the useless Gail Gago. Paul is capable of achieving such a workload because of an Aspergers-esque mastery of even the most minute policy detail. While Bernie is more intellectually capable than the majority of the ALP caucus, he faces an uphill battle going straight from backbench duties to leader of the house.
Holloway’s mastery of detail has allowed his office to be staffed by naïve and inexperienced advisers, such as Nicole Cornes (mining adviser, ironic when mining was the policy area which stumped her when Boothby candidate). Bernie will need expert advisers to assist him in dealing with the new workload that he is faced with. It is rumoured that Bernie was kept from the Ministry earlier because Mike Rann had concerns about Finnigan’s weight. Political reporters can be harsh, honing their poison pens on the shape of Gillard’s nose or hairstyle. The rough time faced by Kim Beazley during his time as Federal leader shows that (rightly or wrongly) physical appearance is considered fair game.
Error 4
Not axing Michael Wright from the Ministry earlier
Michael Wright today stated in the Australian that powerbrokers would need to “blast him out” of Cabinet. This isn’t the first time that the Right faction has tried to remove Wright from the Ministry, and he has responded in a similar manner, albeit privately. His shift from the Left faction to the Right faction was also caused by an attempt to remove him from Cabinet. It must be asked, given his profound sense of entitlement and previous betrayal of previous faction, why did the Right expect him to go gently into the night this time? It would have been much wiser to blast him out earlier, at a time that wouldn’t cause such damage to the party. Wright is covered by the old Parliamentary Super scheme, and as such can freely ditch the party, trigger a by-election and spend his retirement at the races. Don’t expect him to consider the fortunes of the ALP if indeed he is blasted out.
Error 5
Appointing Rau and Snelling instead of Weatherill
The Right faction is following the same formula as NSW ALP post Bob Carr, appointing their preferred candidate rather than the best candidate for the job. While Rau is less of a factional beast than Iemma, the “who the hell is John Rau campaign” has already begun. The left wing unions have already indicated that they don’t intend to remain silent on this factional nepotism. It remains to be seen how much resonance their argument will have, but given the national attitude towards the ALP “faceless men”, it is possible that the left will poison the chalice of the anointed.
Any hopes for a purely bloodless and united “generational change” process are futile. On February 8, Pandora’s Box will be opened. It will take some very poor work by the Liberal Opposition to enable the ALP to survive beyond 2014.
Error 1. Keeping Foley in the Cabinet
While the full details are yet to be finalized and publicized, it seems likely that Kevin Foley will remain within the Cabinet until 2014. It is likely that this compromise was reached partly to avoid a by-election and partly because of the bro-mance between Malinauskas, Koutsantonis and Big Kev. While this serves to remove Kevin from the key Treasury portfolio, his gentle landing fails to appease the blood lust of the public. It must be remembered that in centuries past, people would flock to public executions to see the beheading of enemies of the state. The current strategy deprives the public of closure. It also will make matters difficult for his successor.
Keeping Foley in Cabinet is akin to keeping Atkinson on the back bench. Political creatures accustomed to calling the shots find it difficult to deal with their loss of relevance. Atkinson has dealt with this by continuing to pester talkback stations, commenting on his former portfolio areas, which must irk John Rau no end. By keeping Foley in Parliament, he will make life difficult for Snelling, the likely successor. The media scrum and Opposition will goad and question Kev, asking whether he would have acted in the same way as Jack. The short term pain of a by-election would have been difficult, but allowing Kev’s political career to bleed out over 3 years will be agonizing.
Error 2.
Tarring Rau and Snelling with the Rann brush
The Marble Bar incident brought forward the axing of Foley, but the party wasn’t ready to go “the whole hog” and remove Rann as well. While the logic is that it will allow Rau and Snelling a chance to find their feet, there is a reason why leadership challenges usually involve the appointment of a new leader and deputy, rather than a piecemeal approach. Public perception of both Foley AND Rann has grown toxic. Rau and Snelling will be required to be the loyal deputy to Mike for at least six months, tarring them with the toxic stench emanating from Rann. This only serves to poison the successor/s. They will also be plagued with questions about their ambitions, such as when they are going to launch their coup. Mike doesn’t seem ready to go on his own accord, so the successor will be torn between loyalty and progression.
Error 3
Seeking to appoint Bernie Finnigan as Holloway replacement before Bernie has Ministerial experience
I would argue that Paul Holloway, leader of the Government in the Upper House, has the heaviest workload of any Government Minister. The ALP is starved of talent in the Legislative Council, and Holloway has to daily fend of attack dogs such as Rob Lucas, Family First and Mark Parnell, assisted only by the useless Gail Gago. Paul is capable of achieving such a workload because of an Aspergers-esque mastery of even the most minute policy detail. While Bernie is more intellectually capable than the majority of the ALP caucus, he faces an uphill battle going straight from backbench duties to leader of the house.
Holloway’s mastery of detail has allowed his office to be staffed by naïve and inexperienced advisers, such as Nicole Cornes (mining adviser, ironic when mining was the policy area which stumped her when Boothby candidate). Bernie will need expert advisers to assist him in dealing with the new workload that he is faced with. It is rumoured that Bernie was kept from the Ministry earlier because Mike Rann had concerns about Finnigan’s weight. Political reporters can be harsh, honing their poison pens on the shape of Gillard’s nose or hairstyle. The rough time faced by Kim Beazley during his time as Federal leader shows that (rightly or wrongly) physical appearance is considered fair game.
Error 4
Not axing Michael Wright from the Ministry earlier
Michael Wright today stated in the Australian that powerbrokers would need to “blast him out” of Cabinet. This isn’t the first time that the Right faction has tried to remove Wright from the Ministry, and he has responded in a similar manner, albeit privately. His shift from the Left faction to the Right faction was also caused by an attempt to remove him from Cabinet. It must be asked, given his profound sense of entitlement and previous betrayal of previous faction, why did the Right expect him to go gently into the night this time? It would have been much wiser to blast him out earlier, at a time that wouldn’t cause such damage to the party. Wright is covered by the old Parliamentary Super scheme, and as such can freely ditch the party, trigger a by-election and spend his retirement at the races. Don’t expect him to consider the fortunes of the ALP if indeed he is blasted out.
Error 5
Appointing Rau and Snelling instead of Weatherill
The Right faction is following the same formula as NSW ALP post Bob Carr, appointing their preferred candidate rather than the best candidate for the job. While Rau is less of a factional beast than Iemma, the “who the hell is John Rau campaign” has already begun. The left wing unions have already indicated that they don’t intend to remain silent on this factional nepotism. It remains to be seen how much resonance their argument will have, but given the national attitude towards the ALP “faceless men”, it is possible that the left will poison the chalice of the anointed.
Any hopes for a purely bloodless and united “generational change” process are futile. On February 8, Pandora’s Box will be opened. It will take some very poor work by the Liberal Opposition to enable the ALP to survive beyond 2014.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)