What’s the number one priority for politicians, more than anything else? Getting elected.

Just a quickie…

A senior politician (I won’t say who, or which side) once told me something which, at the time was somewhat surprising to hear, but in retrospect it’s obvious – and puts a lot of things into perspective:

For politicians, the number one priority is to get elected / to get re-elected / to get their side into power.

And this person specifically said that sometimes, the motivation to get elected trumps good policy.

I don’t suppose that it always goes for all politicians, but often, particularly when in opposition, you can see that on show.

You’d hope that more often than not, good policy would actually get them elected, but it’s not always the case.

Of course you can argue that for someone wanting to Do Good, there’s a limit to what they can do without being elected… so of course it could be seen as important.

And no doubt there are some idealist politicians out there who would genuinely risk their popularity or their position in the pursuit of good policy.

But remember, as you watch their actions, and hear their comments and sometimes incredibly overblown rhetoric, that for most politicians, getting elected and staying elected is their number one priority.

I’m voting yes.

Here’s what I think about the Same Sex Marriage postal survey: I’m voting yes.

The reality is that not everyone is attracted to the opposite sex. Who are we to deny them getting married if they want to? Despite how some others paint it, it doesn’t harm anybody else, and certainly doesn’t harm heterosexual marriages.

It’s not like marriage is ever purely for having children. My mother and stepfather got married well after their all kids had grown up.

And it’s not like it would overturn a centuries old law. It was John Howard in 2004 who changed the Marriage Act to specify a man and a woman.

I can understand why some people on the Yes side object to, and might boycott, a postal survey.

It should be a free vote in Parliament. But it’s not. And it’s not a people’s vote, it’s not a referendum, it’s not a plebiscite, it’s a $122 million survey. Ridiculous.

A win for Yes may not be binding on the Parliament, but whichever side wins, it will send an important message.

Some propose a boycott. That would only work if it was widespread, which doesn’t seem likely.

The last thing supporters of the cause need is the survey to come back saying No. Judging from recent polls that wouldn’t represent public opinion, but it would also discourage politicians on the fence from getting it done.

As for this:

“And I say to you if you don’t like same-sex marriage, vote no. If you’re worried about religious freedom and freedom of speech, vote no, and if you don’t like political correctness, vote no because voting no will help to stop political correctness in its tracks.” — Tony Abbott last week

This is a furphy. It’s pretty clear that both major parties want a level of religious freedom, that is, if a religious celebrant objects to same sex marriage, they won’t be forced to perform them.

And Abbott, like many arch-conservatives, seems to have confused “political correctness” for just having some basic respect for other people and their wishes.

Abbott campaigned hard on de-regulation. It seems he likes stricter laws when it forces people to conform to his own values.

So anyway, I’m saying Yes. If consenting adults want to get married, let them.

Update 15/11/2017:

Whinging with credibility

Following a little jaunt out to Caroline Springs on Tuesday (more on this in the next post), with some tweets along the way, I had an interesting Twitter conversation with a disgruntled Geelong line user.

One of my tweets noted that a huge crowd waiting at the platform for a Geelong train had in fact fitted into the train when it eventually arrived. (The exchange is reproduced below.) My correspondent took umbrage at this, thinking it implied the Geelong line is all fine.

My view is that showing a photo of one train that a platform that looks okay doesn’t imply that every train is fine. It doesn’t even imply that the train in question didn’t become overcrowded down the line when it picked up more passengers.

Here’s the thing:

I have been told repeatedly by those in power — ministers (from both sides), senior bureaucrats, operator staff (from the CEO down), that they appreciate (and pay attention to) my observations because I call out both the positive and the negative. Good, bad or ugly.

It’s also gained the PTUA credibility with the media, who know they will get an honest assessment of a situation.

Remember the boy who cried wolf?

If I was 100% critical all the time, it wouldn’t be credible.

If I claimed the entire public transport system is 100% stuffed, it wouldn’t be credible. (If it was 100% stuffed, so many people wouldn’t use it and rely on it every day.)

I do tweet plenty of pictures of packed services. But I also try to put it into context, and to understand why it is so.

  • Running late? Why?
  • Previous service cancelled? Why?
  • Short train/uncommonly small bus/tram? Fleet shortage or some other factor?
  • Unexpected or poorly planned special event?
  • Or is the regular service simply inadequate for the usual demand?

The nature and cause of the problem will determine the solution, and who’s responsible for fixing it.

It’s not in my nature to be relentlessly cynical and negative all the time. Not even on Twitter.

Fortunately it appears that this helps progress the debate to solutions, rather than just get bogged down in endless criticism and whinging.

So I’ll keep calling it as I see it.

Thoughts? As always, leave a comment.

~ ~

~ ~

The tweets in question:

Save the trees, or save the world?

While I work on a bigger post (or at least one requiring a bit more research), here’s a quickie on an interesting parallel observed last week.

Part one

In the same week that Minister for Energy and the Environment Josh Frydenberg joined in a parliamentary stunt playing with a lump of coal, he also launched a self-admitted flawed bid to save trees on St Kilda Road.

Part two

Meanwhile, the State Opposition’s Michael O’Brien thought that green activists gathering outside State Shadow Minister for Energy David Southwick’s office to protest the Opposition pledging to scrap the Victorian renewable energy target, should instead have been protesting the removal of trees in Murrumbeena for “skyrail” grade separation works.

O’Brien perhaps has a point of course. I bet it’s a lot easier to get a bunch of left-leaning protestors to gather outside a Liberal electorate office than a Labor one.

Save the world, or save the trees?

Two observations here.

1. Green shift: Arguably (at least in my probably overly-simplistic view) the green movement started out by (amongst other things) trying to save trees at a local level, hence the term treehuggers. For instance the Australian Greens party has its origins in 1970s protests in Tasmania.

Apparently, saving trees has become mainstream enough that Coalition politicians are calling for it, at least where it can help meet political ends. (Politicians never seem quite as concerned when tree removal is for one of their preferred projects.)

Meanwhile the green movement has moved to bigger things. The energy debate is closely related to emissions, and climate change. It has become about the future of the planet.

It would be nice if politicians on all sides started to address climate change with the urgency it deserves. But for now there are too many denialists and vested interests.

2. Activists tend to be from voluntary groups.

PTUA isn’t really a green group, but let me tell you from experience: you probably won’t get very far by demanding that a bunch of volunteers drop their chose campaign and instead do your bidding.

Some random thoughts on the Trump ascendancy

Well, this is fascinating to watch. I knew it could happen, but didn’t honestly think it would.

Nothing will change overnight. The inauguration isn’t until January, but even then… we’ll see how fast he moves after that.

I hope his tone will be more moderate now he’s not in campaign mode. So far he has appeared to be an extreme populist, saying whatever came into his head at the time, and what his audience wanted to hear.

His victory speech was more diplomatic. But then, they often are.

There’ll also be a lot more scrutiny now he’s in public office, compared to running a private company.

Hopefully the various checks and balances of the US governmental and political system will stop him doing anything too extreme. You’d hope his own party (given what some of them think of him) would keep him in check.

The challenge for law enforcement is to keep some of his supporters in check. The hate rhetoric shouldn’t be vindicated by his win, but those who practice it obviously feel that it is.

Remember that in the USA, the states have significant powers independent of anything the Federal Government might do.

And there are midterm elections in two years that may shift the balance of power.

American Presidential elections have ballot papers with a significant number of local referenda attached. Of interest to me is that a number included votes on public transport initiatives, and many of these passed, though some have noted many state projects in this area require Federal funding, which may dry up.

What will be fascinating is what Trump does for manufacturing jobs. Appealing to those who have lost those jobs was a major part of the campaign. But you can’t undo decades of economic continental drift in just 4 years.

Ditto some of the other bold claims he’s made. Even as President, you can’t just click your fingers and make it happen.

I’m not surprised if Obama isn’t delighted that some of his signature policies are likely to be rolled-back, particularly Obamacare. (One thing concerned Americans can do is lobby their representatives to not be too regressive.)

And the US might stall on climate science and other progress. (Trump said he’d halt Federal clean energy investment and climate change research.) The rest of the world will just have to keep pushing on.

In some ways, Trump reminds me a little of Clive Palmer. A billionaire with a taste for public office, elected on a populist ticket. Palmer never got that level of power, but he did run a senate crossbench bloc that was able to hold the balance of power.

Ultimately though Palmer got bored, and walked away, didn’t re-contest. It’ll be interesting to see what Trump does in four years.