Horse 3009 - Operation Blue Line - The Station That Never Was

Over a very long period of time, I have visited every single station on the Sydney Trains network. I have also visited the locations of stations which used to exist and have long since been abandoned such as Ropes Creek, Dunheved, Sandown, Goodyear, Hardees, and Pipita. On ANZAC Day, I visited a station which was not abandoned but one that was never completed. It sort of asks the existential question of whether or not you can have a ghost station if the station never was a station.

Woollahra Station sits in the Avaricic Republic of Woollahra and just like the Insanic Republic of Mosman on the other side of the harbour, its avarice and hubris yells into the world and especially on railway maps by being completely and stubbornly absent. 

The only clue that there ever were plans for a railway station around here is a park on Edgecliff Road; which has a sorry looking bench with multi-million views of a railway line way way way down at the bottom of a very big hole. This curiously exactly station sized hole is what remains of the abandoned and never was, Woollahra Station.

The Eastern Suburbs Railway Line is just one tale among many in this city, which tells the story of the true nature of Sydney. Every since 1788, Sydney has been ruled by a small select group of people who can manipulate the power of the state to get exactly what they want, at the expense of the scum class who they walk over the heads of. 

Plans for the Eastern Suburbs Railway Line had been suggested decades before by John Bradfield but a war, a worldwide pandemic, the Depression, and another war, gave successive governments successive excuses to do exactly nothing. The Cahill Government in its blundering ineptitude managed to destroy the legacy and heritage of the world's largest tram network and the Heffron Government which followed, faced massive amounts of opposition from an organised group of very rich and well-connected NIMBYs who simply couldn't bear the thought of a low-class railway station in their high-class neighbourhood. They took their NIMBY case all the way to the High Court of Australia and lost; which meant that the people who now live there should have won but they too, lost.

In 1963, the Heffron Government announced that the Eastern Suburbs Railway Line would be completed in sections; with the first section to Bondi Junction being finished in 1974 and the rest of the project extending through Randwick and then presumably making use of the Botany Goods Line in 1976. The total cost of the project was to be £29m.

Over the next decade, construction work on the Eastern Suburbs Railway line stalled for a number of reasons including industrial action, imposed restrictions on working hours because of NIMBY groups, and massive cost blow-outs of the project due to the physical problem of cutting through so much rock. Edgecliff Station and the formwork for its buildings and station entrances was finish in 1969 and work moved to Woolarha; which is when the project faced the loudest voices of opposition.

Woollahra Station probably would have had the lowest patronage on the line because it is so close to both Edgecliff and Bondi Junction, but even though the NIMBY groups took their case against the NSW Government to the High Court of Australia to oppose the opening of the station, and even though considerable construction work took place and what is very obviously basic railway station infrastructure having been completed, ultimately the NSW Government decided that abandoning this particular station would be a good cost cutting measure and so it remains to this day as one glorious hole in the ground.

This photograph shows that some formwork which describes where the platforms would have gone, was laid down. The station is very clearly meant for normal 8-car suburban stock and indeed, that is what passes through the station which never was. I imagine that access down to the platforms that deep would have been by escalator and elevator; which means that it would have been step-free and fully accessible to people with mobility difficulties. 

This end of the station shows not only the other set of tunnel exits but also kind of hints at a possible layout of the station. Probably the park would have continued right over the top of the station and that would have quietened the station even further, with possibly a sunken concourse below the park and then the station proper below that. I can imagine three levels.

Probably the station would have been dressed in that strange sad tiled neo-brutalist style which the rest of the Eastern Suburbs Railway line all received; with Woollahra appearing in sets of three times on the walls and supporting barrels. 

I wonder if the people of 2022 would like to thank the NIMBYs of fifty years ago. If there was a proposed railway line that was coming through your suburb, can you honestly say now that you would protest against having a local station? This was one of the hardest to get to stations that I have visited; not only because it is on the other side of Sydney and because the terrain would have made it unpleasant to walk to but because I drove there and found that on a quiet day which was a public holiday, the roads are narrow and congested. If this was the legacy that the NIMBYs wanted to give future people of Woollahra, then they have achieved it.

Maybe there's something about the character of the people of Woollahra that I just do not understand. Having worked in Mosman for not quite two decades, I have seen (but not experienced) open racism on the streets. There could be something about the demographics of Woollahra which in spite of a railway station being really desirable, still makes it non-viable. It could be that just like the people of Cherrybrook and Castle Hill who objected to the North West Metro being connected to the Richmond Line at Schofields, that the small select group of people who can manipulate the power of the state to get exactly what they want, at the expense of the scum class who they walk over the heads of, still exist here. 

Maybe I've got it wrong and the idea of installing Woollahra Station as a finished project is an idea worth revisiting? I don't know. I hope that it would be dressed in that same strange sad tiled neo-brutalist style and that it would get a 1970s echo trim. 

As it currently stands though, I now have no reason to come back here. Having ticked Woollahra Station off the list, there is literally no need to go to a station which never was and doesn't exist.

Horse 3008 - Constitutional Survey - II

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution/chapter1/Part_II_-_The_Senate

7. The Senate

The Senate shall be composed of senators for each State, directly chosen by the people of the State, voting, until the Parliament otherwise provides, as one electorate.

But until the Parliament of the Commonwealth otherwise provides, the Parliament of the State of Queensland, if that State be an Original State, may make laws dividing the State into divisions and determining the number of senators to be chosen for each division, and in the absence of such provision the State shall be one electorate.

Until the Parliament otherwise provides there shall be six senators for each Original State. The Parliament may make laws increasing or diminishing the number of senators for each State, but so that equal representation of the several Original States shall be maintained and that no Original State shall have less than six senators.

The senators shall be chosen for a term of six years, and the names of the senators chosen for each State shall be certified by the Governor to the Governor-General.

The creation of Section 7 was a series of contentions and controversies inside the convention, which is akin to having a bin fire in a fireworks factory. The quick way to describe the fight over Section 7 is that everyone involved, did their part in adding petrol, gunpowder, fireworks, wood, coal and anything else that they could think of to the fire, just for the sole purpose of keeping the fire raging.

The first statement is simple enough. The Senate should have Senators from each state. The next clause is dynamite. The House of Lords at Westminster is an unelected body. The Senate in Canada is an unelected body. Various upper houses in the six colonies were unelected bodies. To then suggest that the Senate of the Commonwealth should have members who are directly chosen by the people was deeply offensive to those who thought that the Senate should remain a quiet house of dignity and review. The next word 'voting' is the direct result of argument and insult; which finally resulted in people's will being broken.

The next clause is interesting. By making the states as a single electorate for the purposes of the Senate, what we get is multi-member constituencies. The idea of Duverger's Law which says that single member districts tend to produce two-party systems of government, probably wasn't thought of at the time and given that the first Federal Parliaments were a dispirit mess of parties it probably wasn't even imaginable at the time.

The operation of Section 7 with the states being multi-member constituencies is the reason why the big parties today, never really have control over the upper house. The Senate instead of an august house of review, actually turned out to be a house of amendment where different voices get their say rather than the party machines spitting out whatever law they want without pause.

The states however, especially Queensland, wanted the right to retain the ability to split their allocation of Senators. Rather, only Queensland wanted the right to do this. 

Queensland is a strange place. Queensland not only doesn't like the rest of the country, it also doesn't really like itself and since 1852, which before Queensland even became their own colony, there have been agitations that Queensland be split into two or three subdivisions.

The argument was never ever resolved and so the Constitutional Convention of 1899 finally threw their hands up in the air and kicked that issue down the road; stating that the Constitution would allow the State of Queensland to be split into divisions in the future that the Parliament of Queensland itself would determine the number of Senators of each division. This is your stupid problem; you can deal with it.

Section 7 also hints that if a State should split into smaller states, that those new states rather than be given a whole new allocation of Senators, would have to negotiate with the states that they left to work out how many they would be given.

Upon Federation, there were six states and each of the Original States were given six senators. Again this has always been a point of contention because it means that a state as small in population as Tasmania has equal weight in the Senate as a very populous state like New South Wales. Prime Minister Paul Keating decried the Senate as being "unrepresentative swill" and to be fair, he was right. It was and is unrepresentative.

By giving the little states the same amount of power in the Senate as the big states, this means that they can't be simply pushed out of the way when it comes to the passage of legislation. If New South Wales and Victoria ever got their act together and worked together as a massive bloc, they could in theory just dictate legislation. It is kind of a happy safeguard that New South Wales and Victoria can't agree on anything and hate each other's guts.

Lastly, Section 7 attempts to remove the fevers of the general public by having Senators elected for fixed six year terms. That's sufficiently long enough for any immediate outrage to blow over and burn out; which means that Senators should (in theory) be better tempered and more sensible in their deliberations as a house of review. In practice, the fact that the Senate is a collection of multi-member constituencies instead of single-member constituencies means that it is far from tempered and sensible. Instead of banana-choc and choco-banana we get banana-choc and choco-banana and just choc and just banana as well as all kinds of fruits and nuts; and being appointed for six years means that they can not be got rid of in a hurry.

----------------

8. Qualification of electors

The qualification of electors of senators shall be in each State that which is prescribed by this Constitution, or by the Parliament, as the qualification for electors of members of the House of Representatives; but in the choosing of senators each elector shall vote only once.

The Constitution had to deal with an issue which seems so strange now as to be barbarian. At the time of Federation, the franchise wasn't universal (women didn't have the right to vote in some states) and on top of that it wasn't extended to Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders in some states (especially Queensland).

Again this is classic kicking the can down the road stuff from the Constitution because by leaving the states to define who their 'electors' were, this was not a problem for the Constitution to bother with.

The operation of Section 8 really only means that if you get a vote for the House of Reps, then you also get a vote for the Senate but only once for each house. 

----------------

9. Method of election of senators

The Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws prescribing the method of choosing senators, but so that the method shall be uniform for all the States. Subject to any such law, the Parliament of each State may make laws prescribing the method of choosing the senators for that State.

Times and places

The Parliament of a State may make laws for determining the times and places of elections of senators for the State.

The Constitution imagines that there is going to be some kind of Commonwealth Electoral Act but kicks that can down the road, into our rapidly increasing pile of cans. It stands to reason that the Parliament of the Commonwealth should be able to make laws with regards the choosing of Senators and it makes sense that those laws should be the same across Australia. It still, for the moment, left the ability for the states to do that job in the mean time.

The passage of that Commonwealth Electoral Act in 1918, more or less rendered this specific clause with regards the time and place of a Senate election, redundant. Since the Constitution will go on to say that Federal law trumps State law (in so far as there is a disagreement), then whatever laws that the states may have made, no longer apply after the passage of the Commonwealth Electoral Act in 1918.

----------------

10. Application of State laws

Until the Parliament otherwise provides, but subject to this Constitution, the laws in force in each State, for the time being, relating to elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State shall, as nearly as practicable, apply to elections of senators for the State.

We have just kicked another can down the road and into the pile. Section 10 says that until the Commonwealth gets around to passing legislation with regards elections, then the state laws will apply.

What this means is that in effect, Women's Suffrage isn't extended in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and Tasmania until the the Parliament did provide otherwise with the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902. Some Aboriginal people in Queensland wouldn't get the vote until 1967; due to the interaction of this section, Section 41 and Queensland State Law.

----------------

11. Failure to choose senators

The Senate may proceed to the despatch of business, notwithstanding the failure of any State to provide for its representation in the Senate.

I find this amazing. Let's assume for a second that it is 1906 and that a Commonwealth election is going on. Tasmania has sorted out who is going to the Senate because it is only a little state and doesn't have very many votes to count. New South Wales on the other hand, is still counting the votes and has no idea who its Senators are.

Section 11 provides that even if the state can't get its electoral results together, then the Senate is allowed to proceed with its normal business without the Senators from that state being present.

Either the Constitutional Convention couldn't have foreseen that some states were late to the party when it came to the results of the referendum on the Constitution itself, or (and this is scary) is that the The Constitutional Convention very much did foresee the referendum rabble in Western Australia owing to the fact that to get from either Perth or Brisbane to Melbourne was a major sea voyage. In 1901 there were no sensible national highways yet built.

----------------

12. Issue of writs

The Governor of any State may cause writs to be issued for elections of senators for the State. In case of the dissolution of the Senate the writs shall be issued within ten days from the proclamation of such dissolution.

Section 12 is largely redundant now because of the Australian Electoral Commission and it has to be said that the AEC is arguably the world's best when it comes to the holding of an election. I do not think we realise just how fantastic the AEC is, or how good the electoral system is.

This section though, even in 1901 was incredibly narrow in terms of its scope. The members of the Senate sit for fixed terms; so while I guess that there is provision for a state to have conducted its own elections at a different time to everyone else (which still might be the case, who knows?), once the Governor-General has issued the command then the state Governors must have followed suit.

The reason why a state might want to hold an election for the Senate at a different time to the rest of the country, may have included their own state elections, where the state Governor in discussions with their own State Premiers, may have wanted to avoid date clashes. Although this is such an edge case as to be trivial.

----------------

13. Rotation of senators

As soon as may be after the Senate first meets, and after each first meeting of the Senate following a dissolution thereof, the Senate shall divide the senators chosen for each State into two classes, as nearly equal in number as practicable; and the places of the senators of the first class shall become vacant at the expiration of three years, and the places of those of the second class at the expiration of six years, from the beginning of their term of service; and afterwards the places of senators shall become vacant at the expiration of six years from the beginning of their term of service.

The election to fill vacant places shall be made within one year before the places are to become vacant.

For the purposes of this section the term of service of a senator shall be taken to begin on the first day of July following the day of his election, except in the cases of the first election and of the election next after any dissolution of the Senate, when it shall be taken to begin on the first day of July preceding the day of his election.

We are currently within an election period. The elections for the Senate which were the impetus for us to go to the polls on May 21, are happening as a direct result of the operation of this section. There must be an election on or before the 21st of May because of various provisions in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and Section 13 lays out that next term will begin on July 1st.

As the next term will begin on 1st July 2022, then the election for the next term could have happened as long ago as the first Saturday on or after 1st July 2021. In practice this means that House and Senate elections normally happen together and that the synchronisation of the election cycles of the House and Senate is a pretty good fit; with House elections usually also occurring about every three years because no political party wants to gamble with sending the electorate to the polls twice in a year.

----------------

14. Further provision for rotation

Whenever the number of senators for a State is increased or diminished, the Parliament of the Commonwealth may make such provision for the vacating of the places of senators for the State as it deems necessary to maintain regularity in the rotation.

In practice Section 14 only really means that when the number of Senators has been increased, the Senators have been either one class or the other with respect to which election cycle they are on. 

----------------

15. Casual vacancies

If the place of a senator becomes vacant before the expiration of his term of service, the Houses of Parliament of the State for which he was chosen, sitting and voting together, or, if there is only one House of that Parliament, that House, shall choose a person to hold the place until the expiration of the term. But if the Parliament of the State is not in session when the vacancy is notified, the Governor of the State, with the advice of the Executive Council thereof, may appoint a person to hold the place until the expiration of fourteen days from the beginning of the next session of the Parliament of the State or the expiration of the term, whichever first happens.

Where a vacancy has at any time occurred in the place of a senator chosen by the people of a State and, at the time when he was so chosen, he was publicly recognized by a particular political party as being an endorsed candidate of that party and publicly represented himself to be such a candidate, a person chosen or appointed under this section in consequence of that vacancy, or in consequence of that vacancy and a subsequent vacancy or vacancies, shall, unless there is no member of that party available to be chosen or appointed, be a member of that party.

Where:

in accordance with the last preceding paragraph, a member of a particular political party is chosen or appointed to hold the place of a senator whose place had become vacant; and

before taking his seat he ceases to be a member of that party (otherwise than by reason of the party having ceased to exist);

he shall be deemed not to have been so chosen or appointed and the vacancy shall be again notified in accordance with section twenty-one of this Constitution.

The name of any senator chosen or appointed under this section shall be certified by the Governor of the State to the Governor-General.

If the place of a senator chosen by the people of a State at the election of senators last held before the commencement of the Constitution Alteration (Senate Casual Vacancies) 1977 became vacant before that commencement and, at that commencement, no person chosen by the House or Houses of Parliament of the State, or appointed by the Governor of the State, in consequence of that vacancy, or in consequence of that vacancy and a subsequent vacancy or vacancies, held office, this section applies as if the place of the senator chosen by the people of the State had become vacant after that commencement.

A senator holding office at the commencement of the Constitution Alteration (Senate Casual Vacancies) 1977, being a senator appointed by the Governor of a State in consequence of a vacancy that had at any time occurred in the place of a senator chosen by the people of the State, shall be deemed to have been appointed to hold the place until the expiration of fourteen days after the beginning of the next session of the Parliament of the State that commenced or commences after he was appointed and further action under this section shall be taken as if the vacancy in the place of the senator chosen by the people of the State had occurred after that commencement.

Subject to the next succeeding paragraph, a senator holding office at the commencement of the Constitution Alteration (Senate Casual Vacancies) 1977 who was chosen by the House or Houses of Parliament of a State in consequence of a vacancy that had at any time occurred in the place of a senator chosen by the people of the State shall be deemed to have been chosen to hold office until the expiration of the term of service of the senator elected by the people of the State.

If, at or before the commencement of the Constitution Alteration (Senate Casual Vacancies) 1977, a law to alter the Constitution entitled "Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) 1977" came into operation, a senator holding office at the commencement of that law who was chosen by the House or Houses of Parliament of a State in consequence of a vacancy that had at any time occurred in the place of a senator chosen by the people of the State shall be deemed to have been chosen to hold office:

if the senator elected by the people of the State had a term of service expiring on the thirtieth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and seventy-eight – until the expiration or dissolution of the first House of Representatives to expire or be dissolved after that law came into operation; or

if the senator elected by the people of the State had a term of service expiring on the thirtieth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and eighty-one – until the expiration or dissolution of the second House of Representatives to expire or be dissolved after that law came into operation; or, if there is an earlier dissolution of the Senate, until that dissolution.

Whoa. 

Section 15 is the result of what happens after you have kicked a can down the road, the contents have rotted inside, and the can has exploded due to botulism. The 1977 referenda came not only in the wake of the 1975 Constitutional Crisis but the unpleasantness of the years beforehand, where after a vacancy in the Senate, the Governor of Queensland filled the vacancy with a member of the opposite political football team than the one who had gone. 

The amendments which were made to the Constitution following the 1977 referenda changed the existing procedures by providing that:

- when there is a casual vacancy, the state legislature has to replace a an outgoing Senator with a member of the same political party 

- that that new Senator's term continues and completes the end of the original senator's term

The 1977 Amendments are supposed to prevent major changes in the balance of power in the senate in the middle of a parliamentary term but rather than finishing the job properly, it has kicked a brand new can down the road. The 1977 Amendments don't actually provide any time frame or limits within which the new appointment has to be made. It leaves the possibility open for a particularly nasty state legislature to do nothing and simply refuse to fill the vacancy. 

As stated above, Section 11 gives the Senate permissions to proceed with its normal business without the Senators from that state being present. This means that after a Senate position becomes vacant and if a state legislature refuses to fill any vacancy, then by default the Senate can carry on its merry way despite the failure. The 1977 Amendments didn't completely solve the problem.

---------------

16. Qualifications of senator

The qualifications of a senator shall be the same as those of a member of the House of Representatives.

In principle this sets out an equality between the two houses except in the provisions in which the House of Representatives has special jurisdiction; which is mainly the introduction of money bills (ie. the budget). 

Sounds innocuous, right? Wrong!

As with Section 10 above, what this meant in effect is that women were not allowed to stand as a candidate for the Senate until the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 and in some cases first peoples weren't allowed to stand as a candidate until 1967.

---------------

17. Election of President

The Senate shall, before proceeding to the despatch of any other business, choose a senator to be the President of the Senate; and as often as the office of President becomes vacant the Senate shall again choose a senator to be the President.

The President shall cease to hold his office if he ceases to be a senator. He may be removed from office by a vote of the Senate, or he may resign his office or his seat by writing addressed to the Governor-General.

This is mostly a procedural issue where the Senate chooses someone to sit in the big chair at the head of the chamber. The President is almost always a member of the government; which is odd considering that government is formed by a majority of members in the other place.

As the President is a procedural position, then Section 17 provides that upon someone ceasing to be a member of the Senate, they also cease to be the President. This is different to being a Minister of The Crown, where a person can still be a Minister even after losing a seat or resigning a seat. This will be important later in another one of these survey posts.

What I think is particularly delightful about this, is that Australia has a President. It is one of the strange quirks of being a Constitutional Monarchy, that we have a position which has the same name which is usually reserved for the head of executive government in other nations but here, they are just a person with a big chair and the power to yell.

---------------

18. Absence of President

Before or during any absence of the President, the Senate may choose a senator to perform his duties in his absence.

There are some sections of the Constitution which really make you scratch your head until you read through the transcripts of the Constitutional Conventions. The fact that this needed to be explicitly spelled out is the direct result of insult and nastiness within the Conventions and from what as far as I can tell, what should be grown man acting like six-year old children arguing over who has the most wooden building blocks. 

---------------

19. Resignation of senator

A senator may, by writing addressed to the President, or to the Governor-General if there is no President or if the President is absent from the Commonwealth, resign his place, which thereupon shall become vacant.

Well that's fair enough. If you want to quit being a Senator, then put it in writing.

---------------

20. Vacancy by absence

The place of a senator shall become vacant if for two consecutive months of any session of the Parliament he, without the permission of the Senate, fails to attend the Senate.

I know of no occasions when anyone has fallen foul of Section 20 and the only conceivable way that this could happen in my imagining, is if a Senator were to die and it took two months before anyone realised that they weren't there. That may have been possible in 1901 but in 2022 when it takes only mere hours to cross thousands of miles by air, then the chances of this being a thing are non-zero but close to it. I suppose that a Senator could just, not show up for two months but honestly, what would be the point of that? 

---------------

21. Vacancy to be notified

Whenever a vacancy happens in the Senate, the President, or if there is no President or if the President is absent from the Commonwealth the Governor-General, shall notify the same to the Governor of the State in the representation of which the vacancy has happened.

This is the chain of notification if for some reason there is a vacancy in the Senate. The Senator has to tell the President that they want to resign. The President or the Governor-General then has to inform the relevant Governor of the State so that they can arrange a replacement and fill the vacancy. 

---------------

22. Quorum

Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the presence of at least one-third of the whole number of the senators shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the Senate for the exercise of its powers.

 

At the moment, that quorum happens to be 26 members. It means in the event of a massive catastrophe such as a nuclear war, that in addition to annihilation, we'd end up with anarchy as well. Though I suppose that if there was a massive catastrophe on the scale of a nuclear war, the last thing that you'd be thinking about is the passage of legislation after it had been through the House of Representatives. 

----------------

23. Voting in Senate

Questions arising in the Senate shall be determined by a majority of votes, and each senator shall have one vote. The President shall in all cases be entitled to a vote; and when the votes are equal the question shall pass in the negative.

This is pretty easy. When a vote is required in the Senate, there is a division and people shuffle around the chamber. If more than half the members (50% + 1) are on one side of the chamber, then that is the result of the vote. The Senate and the House both engage in open visible caucusing for voting decisions. They could just as easily push a button or pass ballots or tokens but this is the way things have been done for centuries and this is the way that they will continue to be done.

Horse 3007 - Constitutional Survey - I

Last year Horse worked its way through Clauses 0-9 of the Australian Constitution (yes, I did just mention Clause 0) and since then I have received four emails asking when I would go through the rest of the Constitution. At 128 Sections, this is a considerable task but seeing as so many of them are straight forward, it is not insurmountable. 

I think that even more interesting than the Constitution itself, is the series of debates in several Constitutional Conventions which took place in the two decades before Federation. The six Australian colonies were granted responsible government from about 1855 onwards and as the six sets of government became more competent, they also became more petty.

One of the reasons frequently given for the cause of Federation is the mutual benefit of defence against foreign powers and perhaps there is cause for this in the late part of the nineteenth century when Germany acquired New Guinea but I think that it's more likely, given the transcripts of the Constitutional Conventions, that the six colonies' biggest fears were each other. To this day we don't exactly live on an island nation of governmental friends but one which becomes openly hostile across borders depending on the colour of the political stripes of the state governments.

The Constitution was not a holy document handed down by cherubim from on high but rather, it was a document which was the result of two decades of petty squabbling in sweaty, freezing, drafty, and smelly rooms full of beardy men who also liked the theatre of politics even when nobody was watching.

Having inherited traditions from the United Kingdom and the six colonial governments which were already here, as well as being informed by the constitutions of Canada, the United States, and Switzerland, the Australian Constitution is a very conservative document and one which has only been amended 8 times since Federation. I think almost by accident that we ended up with the best parliamentary system in the world and yet the agitations of politics of the day still manage to make what is otherwise a stable system, look poisoned.

I will refer to the copy as published by the Office of the Parliament:

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution/chapter1/Part_1_-_General

1. Legislative power

The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is hereinafter called The Parliament, or The Parliament of the Commonwealth.

Having jettisoned both Fiji (who thought that Australia was too far away) and New Zealand (who justly thought that they could end up being bullied by the new Federation), the six colonies made no attempt to re-invent the system of government which they were familiar with. What we were given in 1901 was essentially a seventh parliament which functioned identically to the existing colonial parliaments who were now going to be called 'states' but with a few small differences.

Section 1 mentions nothing about where the new Federal Parliament is to be located and I know that this is going to sound strange but it doesn't really define who the 'Queen' is either. The names of the Senate and the House of Representatives are clearly copies of the names used in the United States, as the Constitutional Conventions looked heavily at the Constitutions of the United States, Canada, and Switzerland.

2. Governor-General

A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.

Just like the Federal Parliament was a copy of the six existing colonial parliaments, the Governor-General is a copy of the the six existing colonial Governors. The actual powers of the Governor-General remain undefined in some respects to this day and I happen to think that this is a strength of the system.

Because no-one really knows what the actual powers of the Governor-General are, it means that the Governor-General also doesn't really know what their actual powers are either. Because they don't really know what their actual powers are, Governors-General have been loathe to use them; to the point where the only times that anyone can name anything that the Governor-General did anything are the 1901 Hopetoun Blunder and the 1975 Constitutional Crisis which isn't really a crisis but the Governor-General of the day acting in a way which is entirely consistent within the provisions of the Constitution.

I think that a system which has produced only 2 points of contention in 121 years, is by operative demonstration very very stable. For this reason, I want to dismiss any claims by republicans on the basis that there is no way in Hades that they can invent or design as such a stable system as this.

3. Salary of Governor-General

There shall be payable to the Queen out of the Consolidated Revenue fund of the Commonwealth, for the salary of the Governor-General, an annual sum which, until the Parliament otherwise provides, shall be ten thousand pounds.

The salary of a Governor-General shall not be altered during his continuance in office.

Shock! Horror! A Governor-General being paid a sum of money for his public service? Wow.

£10,000 was an extraordinary amount of money in 1901. Adjusted for inflation, that is more than $1.1m a year now; which is more than double the salary of the Prime Minister (who by the way isn't even mentioned within the Constitution or even if there needs to be one).

Section 3 is mostly inoperative now as the Parliament has otherwise provided a different salary for the Governor-General, and it's kind of an untested question of whether or not the money is paid to the Queen who then hands that money to the Governor-General or if the Governor-General is paid directly out of the budget as a line item.

4. Provisions relating to Governor-General

The provisions of this Constitution relating to the Governor-General extend and apply to the Governor-General for the time being, or such person as the Queen may appoint to administer the Government of the Commonwealth; but no such person shall be entitled to receive any salary from the Commonwealth in respect of any other office during his administration of the Government of the Commonwealth.

In other words, the Governor-General is in effect only allowed to have one paid job. Particularly late in the piece, the delegates from Victoria appear to be concerned that the Governor-General would get a salary for that job as well as a second paid position within the civil service. Presumably they expected that by paying such an extravagant amount of money, that the kinds of people who might be attracted to the post, would also be avaricious enough to want other money and power.

5. Sessions of Parliament, prorogation and dissolution

The Governor-General may appoint such times for holding the sessions of the Parliament as he thinks fit, and may also from time to time, by Proclamation or otherwise, prorogue the Parliament, and may in like manner dissolve the House of Representatives.

Summoning Parliament

After any general election the Parliament shall be summoned to meet not later than thirty days after the day appointed for the return of the writs.

First session

The Parliament shall be summoned to meet not later than six months after the establishment of the Commonwealth.

This is a massive power which has been assigned to the Governor-General. This is the power to call, to close, to raise the parliament and dissolve the House of Representatives at any time; no matter how inconvenient for anyone else in the world.

In fact, two of the imagined charges against King George III have to do with the exercise of a similar power, though truth in point there has never been any evidence of these charges.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

- Declaration of Independence, 4th Jul 1776

At any rate, by placing this power in the hands of the Governor-General, the Constitution of Australia safeguards itself against an imagined or pretended charge like this by explicitly laying out said power. 

In the weeks running up to the 2022 General Election, the commentariat had devolved into a slanging match over when the Prime Minister would call the election. The truth is that while convention says that the Prime Minister as the effective head of the Federal Executive Council can advise the Governor-General when they would like to dissolve the parliament, the actual power to do so always lies with the Governor-General. We were always at least going to go to an election for the Senate on or before May 21 because of the fixed-terms of that chamber but even if the Prime Minister had said nothing, the Governor-General would have been the one to make that call.

The Governor-General could have in theory called the election without advise from the Prime Minister and again, while there would have been public outrage because this has never been done in 121 years of the Commonwealth, the Section 5 power would have allowed the Governor-General to do that.

Probably the clause demanding that the parliament shall be summoned within six months of a general election and the return of the writs, stems from the unpleasantness of Charles I (long since our of the memory, even then). Likewise the demand to call that first parliament within six months of the Commonwealth, is not only a practical demand on the Governor-General to call the parliament but a call to the members who would be elected to get on with the business of governing the Commonwealth.

6. Yearly session of Parliament

There shall be a session of the Parliament once at least in every year, so that twelve months shall not intervene between the last sitting of the Parliament in one session and its first sitting in the next session.

The only critical demand upon the parliament with respect to the passage of legislation, is to table and pass Appropriation Bill No.1. That is, the parliament's first function and indeed only absolute core function is to pass the Federal Budget and make sure that the normal business of the Commonwealth can continue.

Even if the Parliament were to achieve exactly nothing else, because this chapter asserts that the Governor-General must be paid a salary, then that by default suggests that there has to be an Appropriation Bill for at least that one thing. 

The things which the Parliament can legislate for are a different set of items to what it absolutely must legislate for and since as we shall see a lot later on, the payment of a Salary (and presumably an implied taxation bill of some kind) is as far as I am aware the only absolutely non-removable item. 

Admittedly, the Parliament has never not been busy in passing legislation and so this has never been an issue but I imagine that the reason why this has been included is because of fears of things like military coups, or soft coup where a party in charge simply refuses to call parliament, abject disaster, or a situation where the mix of seats and parties is so fractured and chaotic that nobody can form government. I think of Belgium quite recently which went more than 500 days without a government forming. A parliament not sitting under those circumstances would fall foul of the Constitution.

Horse 3006 - The Australian Christian Voting Fishing Company 'Polls' Voters

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/christian-lobby-fires-first-shot-in-campaign-at-mps-who-crossed-floor-on-religion-20220415-p5adrj.html

The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) has fired the opening shot in a campaign targeting rebel Liberal MPs who crossed the floor to amend the federal government’s religious discrimination bill.

The peak group has launched polling to ask voters in two marginal seats whether they knew how their local members voted on “protecting faith-based schools” two months ago, when five Liberals backed an amendment to prevent schools from discriminating against transgender students.

- Sydney Morning Herald, 16th Apr 2022

What a strange time we find ourselves in. The Australian Christian Lobby polled voters in the two marginal seats of Higgins and Wentworth; with the sitting members of Katie Allen and Dave Sharma respectively. The only problem that I have with this is, is the motive of the poll. Is this a poll which is designed to find out what voters think? Or is this (as I suspect that it is) a poll which is designed not as a fact finding instrument but a shame generating instrument. My suspicion is that the ACL wants to generate shame in someone who was thinking about voting for someone other than the Liberal Party in these electorates and to generate shame in the candidates themselves by reminding them of who really pulls the strings.

The Division of Higgins used to be a blue ribbon seat, as it was the seat of both former Prime Ministers Harold Holt and John Gorton as well as former Treasurer Peter Costello. Likewise, the Division of Wentworth was the seat of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and former Opposition Leader Dr John Hewson AM.

The Australian Christian Lobby seems to subscribe to some kind of self-serving prosperity gospel. The bottom line is the bottom line and the ugly truth is that children can can only go to a faith based school if their parents have the means to pay. Sure, the students of these schools might be taught about helping the needy/marginalised but in reality, they get more funding then the people they’re taught to help. If we look at the kinds of people that these schools train and release into society, then we get a greater proportion of graduates who then get into parliaments and pass legislation to maintain the status quo. 

Even stranger is that it is public schools which actually educate the vast majority of the children of the poor. I wonder what Christ would make of this. 

By means of background, the Australian Christian Coalition (ACC) was founded in 1995 by John Gagliardi who was once the editor of the Townsville Bulletin, the Chief of Staff of National Nine TV News in Brisbane and Assistant Features Editor of The Telegraph in Brisbane. He was joined by a retired Baptist minister named John McNicoll, and John Miller who was a lay leader in his Canberra church.

In 2000, the chair passed to ex SAS officer Jim Wallace; who then re-modelled the company, on Christian hard right lobby groups in the USA. In 2001, the ACC then changed its name to the Australian Christian Lobby. The Australian Christian Lobby describes itself as "Peak Group" even though it is a public company limited by guarantee. 

https://www.abr.business.gov.au/AbnHistory/View?id=40075120517

Entity type: Australian Public Company

- ABR, as at 16th Apr 2022

A "Peak Group" is an advocacy group or trade association, which has a membership structure made up via an association of industries or groups with allied interests but the Australian Christian Lobby has neither of those things. It is just a public company.

Funding for the company comes from about 200,000 individuals and while it states that it no political affiliation that is kind of betrayed by the fact that they swung behind the re-election of John Howard in 2004 and the election of Family First to the Senate (Family First would eventually merge with the  Australian Conservatives). 

More recently the self appointed Conservative Christian lobbying company has found even closer connections to the Pentecostal right of the Liberal Party and in particular the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison. 

Here's the rub: I do not believe that the Australian Christian Lobby necessarily actually cares about the issues of dog-whistle politics which they purport to lobby for. I find it strange that these people appear to believe that poverty is a choice and that poorer people should be demonised. I suspect that the ACL is very different to the ACC which it was started as. 

The ACL in 'polling' marginal seats in this election, looks less like it actually cares about the issue at hand and more about using guilt to get people in the seats of concern, to vote in the ways that the company wants.

I think that what we've seen in the United States, where Christianity itself is viewed by politics as less as a set of doctrinal principles and more as a bloc of voters who can be identified as having a group identity. In the United States, polling companies and marketing drives were largely behind the swing since about 2008 to the Republican Party of so-called nominally 'evangelical' voters; so much so that the word 'evangelical' is tainted in the mouths of Christians who would have used it as a technical word.

One of the things that happens when you have had the wool pulled over your eyes is that its easier to fleece you. That's somewhat easier to do when it comes to Christians because they are on the whole, more kind, more caring and more agreeable than the general population and as such, are also easier to push around as a herd. The sad fact is that employing rather simplistic citations from the Bible in public discourse is neat trick and is often wrong and disingenuous.

The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.

An evil soul producing holy witness,

Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,

A goodly apple rotten at the heart.

O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!

- Venetians 1:3 

Horse 3005 - Martinsville And The Black Art Of Boredom

The general sentiment flying around the NASCAR commentariat at the moment is that the the 2022 Blue-Emu Maximum Pain Relief 400 (actually held over 403 laps because of a late overtime period) at Martinsville Speedway, was categorically the most boring race of the 2022 NASCAR Cup Series. As this is also the first season of the Gen-7 car, questions are also being raised about whether or not this is just one of those things that happens occasionally, whether this is a thing which is going to happen more often, and whether or not this is a function of the car -itself. There have been a whole raft of changes between Gen-6 and Gen-7; which include both the construction and the body shape, as well as the entire drivetrain and tyres. About the only thing which didn't change is the engine.

The race at Martinsville featured just 5 lead changes among 4 different drivers and that by NASCAR standards is abysmal. In contrast, we saw exactly zero lead changes in the Formula One Australian Grand Prix; which Charles Leclerc scoring les grand chelem, of winning the race, starting from pole, leading every lap, and getting the fastest lap of the race. The Formula One race was generally agreed to be quite entertaining but the NASCAR race was not; thus proving that people's expectations are powerful things.

The reason for the lack of on track action was attributed to a bunch of things including the news six-speed gearbox which meant that the drivers were constantly shifting gears, or the fact that the ambient air temperature was only sitting in the single digits Celsius for the entire weekend, or that this was a brand new car and the drivers are still cautious not to tear them up.

I would like to add my own theory and throw my pamphlet onto the burning pyre of public opinion and suggest that the reason why this race was such a snorefest, was mostly due to the black art of tyres and the inescapable fact that they work better than ever before. Yes, I am blaming the objective improvement of the tyres for a worse quality motor race.

For the 2022 season, NASCAR changed the tyre specification from a 12-inch width tyre to a 14.37-inch tyre and increased the wheel size in the middle from 15-inches to 18-inches. What we now have is a slightly wider tyre, with a lower profile and that has all kinds of implications.

If the tyre is wider, then that means that there will be a larger contact patch on the ground. A larger contact patch means that there is more grip because grip has to do with force due to friction. Since the only point of contact between a car and the road is the underside of its tyres, then a larger contact patch on the ground means that the amount of grip and is increased.

Changing from a 15-inch to an 18-inch wheel, also means that the profile of the tyre is lower. If a tyre has a low profile, then that means that the height sidewall of the tyre is shallower, relative to a higher profile tyre. A lower profile tyre will be hotter because it can not dissipate heat as well, however because there is less flex in the sidewall, then the amount of cross slew forces across the face of the tyre will be reduced. Less cross slew forces across the face of the tyre also equates to more grip.

Having more grip means that the driver is able to turn the car faster and more positively, as well as being able to hold a tighter line through any given corner. Increased grip can either be achieved by having massively sticky rubber as in the case of Formula One, or in the this case, by presenting a larger contact patch that slips less, to the surface of the road. 

This is especially important at a place like Martinsville Speedway because at just 0.526 miles (0.847 km) in length, it is the shortest track in the NASCAR Cup Series. That means that a car is spending a far larger proportion of its lap, turning through a corner and since the fastest way through a corner is usually to take the inside line and drive the shortest distance, then hugging the bottom line as much as possible is going to be the way to achieve the fastest lap times. Guess what? It is.

It has been known for years that the fastest way to go around Martinsville is to hug the bottom of the racetrack.  If you go back through the races that are up on YouTube, the winner of race is almost always someone who can find allies and/or team teammates, to block and keeping one's opponents and rival on the outside for as long as possible. Entire races have been won and lost by holding the bottom.

Maybe once upon a time Martinsville may have been a two land racetrack but those day are long gone. Since well before 2010, there has been at most a lane and a half which is a useful groove around Martinsville.

For the race at Martinsville last weekend, we saw the odd instance of someone being pushed up the racetrack and while the bump and run was an option, there were in fact no spins. A spin happens when you get a complete loss of adhesion between tyre and the road and the fact that there weren't any at all, is proof that the mechanical grip of the cars is higher than ever before. 

When you also factor in the fact that this year the cars now have a better aero package, larger rear diffusers and increased grip pushed forward, then that means that together that every car in the whole field was working better from a grip perspective.

Unfortunately, when every car is working better than ever before, when the useable groove to eke out some kind of advantage has become narrower than ever before, then the expected result should be that cars will tend to form longer and longer trains, with nobody behind having any ability to mount a sensible challenge.

A motor race where the lead doesn't change hands that often is almost always a function of one car/team having a massive advantage and nobody else being able to bridge the gap, or everyone being so incredibly close in performance that even the smallest advantage is enough to hold command of the race. What we have at the moment is the latter and since the advantage isn't coming from the cars themselves, then it is coming from being able to hold track position; hence the leader stays in the lead, which is precisely what we saw.

Horse 3004 - When Parliament Actually Was A Place Of Fowl Play

A consequence of the Bill of Rights Act 1689 is that the proceedings in parliament are free and the right to free speech, which has the peculiar specific title of 'parliamentary privilege', is absolute. The rules of defamation, racism, slander, untruth, public secrecy, incitement etc. simply do not apply in the same way that they do out in the real world.

As the normal rules of etiquette, the normal rules of law, and the normal rules of common sense do not apply, discussion within Westminster parliaments is almost universally loud and rude. In fact, the NSW Legislative Assembly has the nickname of "The Bearpit" because the Members are so unruly. The only rules of etiquette and decency which apply are the rules which the parliament has decided for itself in a series of Standing Orders and even then, Members of Westminster parliaments still cross the lines of normality on a regular basis. There are many stories of Members of Westminster parliaments bringing in strange props, or being dressed in very strange attire.

One of the weirdest incidents of a Members of Parliaments being dressed in very strange attire, happened on November 25th, 1985 when a Member turned up in a chicken suit and sat in a place that wasn't his according to the standard seating arrangement. 

The Hawke Government presented the Petroleum Revenue Bill 1985; which was put forward to make changes in the Federal take of excise on petrol at the pump. This was one of those rather boring and otherwise mundane pieces of legislation that would have gone through the first, second and third readings with almost no fanfare at all. However, the Parliament came to an uproariously grinding halt in proceedings when a man in a chicken suit walked into the House of Representatives and assumed a place on the government front bench.

The Speaker of the House, Harry Jenkins, then immediately ordered the Sergeant-At-Arms to remove the "chicken" from the floor of the chamber; citing that the standing orders do not permit strangers to sit on the benches in the chamber. Since the chicken refused to identify himself, he left. 

I have seen members arrive in hi-vis clothing to make a point about working conditions, I have seen one member arrive in a niqab to make a rather absurd point about the attire of Muslims, I have seen members of parliament bring in props which have included, coal, scissors, a clipboard, umbrella, fishing pole, cans of baked beans and a jar of jam, and I have even seen a member of the House be ejected for refusing to take off a top hat on the floor. The only reason that I found out about this was because of one photo in a Twitter account and I wanted to know more. This chicken on the floor of the House of Representatives is probably the strangest stranger to have ever sat in the House.

I can only imagine that on the Monday, that the Members of Parliament were amused, bemused and confused by what had happened and left work that day wondering what the jinkies had happened. I can also imagine the abject flapdoodle that must have happened when they read who had been unmasked in Tuesday's newspaper. This was not a member of the government but Tasmanian Liberal Party member, Bruce Goodluck, who made a self-confession to the Mercury; which is possibly one of the very rare occasions when they broke a story.

On the Tuesday, Bruce Goodluck took his place in his normal place in the House and the Speaker, Harry, Jenkins said he was disgusted at the "outrageous behavior of Monday night". The Mercury in its reporting states that when questioned why Goodluck entered the chamber in a chicken suit and on the wrong side of the chamber, he replied "I don't remember".

As the House of Representatives is a place of political theatre and as the old chamber was so small, Question Time in the House on the Tuesday devolved into a rather corny cornucopia of corn about the conniption. When you have chicken in the corn, then the corn can't grow, no more. The Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, was keen to play up to the absurdity of the situation and said: "I don't think it was an opposition member because it wasn't headless."

Searching Hansard for an incident which went by with practically no words being said is notoriously difficult, though it made the top of proceedings for Question Time:

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F1985-11-26%2F0001;query=Id%3A"chamber%2Fhansardr%2F1985-11-26%2F0089"

Mr SPEAKER —Order! Honourable members will have become aware of an incident in the chamber last night when a person dressed as a chicken entered the chamber and sat on the ministerial bench. Although a number of honourable members have been approached by officers of the House in an attempt to identify the offender, there has been a universal denial of any direct knowledge of the incident. I wish to indicate to the House my disgust that any honourable member would show so little respect for the institution that the honourable member would behave in this way. In addition, one of the chamber officers was spoken to by an honourable member in an extremely abusive manner in the course of his inquiries. This is deplorable conduct on the part of the honourable member. Those concerned in the incident are guilty of bringing the House into disrepute. I hope that my views on this matter have the support of the majority of honourable members and will help to prevent any similar outrageous behaviour in the future.

- Hansard, 26th Nov 1985

What makes this story even more extraordinary as opposed to being just silly, is that it was the Mercury newspaper in Hobart which broke the story open and not a media outlet on the mainland. I mention all of this because newspapers like the Hobart Mercury don't tend to have their archives digitised and placed online. I had to track down crumbs and look through a roll of microfiche in the library to find out anything about this story, some 37 years' later. 

This little story about a chicken in parliament, also highlights the importance of public libraries. Commercial outlets simply refuse to make their archives available to the public without them paying a fee. This story in particular is trivial but public libraries, in the role of public archivists, ensure that information which might be relevant to current day events, is at least available in some form.

Horse 3003 - Qantas CEO Alan Joyce Should Steer The Fault Light Somewhere Else

There is this very old adage which says "The Customer Is Always Right". It is worth remembering that even if the customer is an objective idiot, even if they think that there are three planets in the solar system, and even if they believe that the earth is a flat disc, that they are the ones who pay the invoices that you sent out and they are the ones who buy your products and services. This adage is so old that on Roman public toilets which people had to pay to use, some of them bear the legend "Pecunia Non Olet" which loosely translated means "Money does not stink."

Of course it makes sense that customers' money does not stink. Money is possibly the most fungible thing in the world because one dollar is exactly interchangeable with every other dollar and once the customers' dollars become your dollars, they are then exchanged by you for your dinner. 

For this reason, I really do not understand Qantas' CEO Alan Joyce's comments about passengers, who are his customers and by virtue of having paid for their passage in advance, have already in effect put dinner on his table.

https://australianaviation.com.au/2022/04/now-alan-joyce-blames-not-match-fit-passengers-for-queues/

Qantas CEO Alan Joyce has risked the ire of frustrated passengers by blaming “not match fit” travellers for the long queues forming at airports on Friday.

“I went through the airports on Wednesday and people forget they need to take out their laptops, they have to take out their aerosols … so that is taking longer to get through the queue,” he said in comments reported by the Sydney Morning Herald. He added COVID close-contact rules were causing “high level of absenteeism” of up to 18 per cent.

It follows Sydney Airport chief executive Geoff Culbert similarly highlighting “inexperienced passengers” for the travel chaos seen around the country.

- Australian Aviation, 8th Apr 2022

Probably the only people who are frequent flyers are those people who travel on the coin of their workplace. Those people to some degree are already pampered and have access to better systems of ingress, progress, and egress through the airport. Qantas CEO Alan Joyce wouldn't want to insult those people because they have the power to tell their corporate benefactors who then have the power to withdraw their custom.

Who exactly are "inexperienced passengers"? Given that the vast majority of us out here in the real world, don't travel by air all that often, given that the regulations in a world of constant change which has included terrorism and pandemic have also changed, and given that airports themselves are complex places with complex systems, does it really behoove the CEO of an airline to insult the people who put the dinner on his table? Remember, because one dollar is exactly interchangeable with every other dollar, then that means that as a customer, we have the power to vote for what we will purchase and if we are treated badly or insulted, then collectively that leads to you not having any more dinner.

Mr Joyce obviously likes having dinner and so, within the day he was already trying to undo his messaging.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/qantas-ceo-blames-passengers-for-sydney-airport-delays-amid-shortage-of-security-staff-20220408-p5abyd.html

Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce has walked back his criticism of passengers for contributing to the mass delays at Sydney Airport, amid a critical shortage of security screening staff during one of the busiest ever Easter school holiday periods.

Thousands of people were trapped in long queues at the airport on Friday, as domestic travellers headed interstate for the school holidays and to the Formula One Grand Prix in Melbourne.

- Sydney Morning Herald, 8th Apr 2022

Well, well, well. There's a thing. If you are processing the passage of 300 people and their baggage at a time, then that is going to take time. At one person per minute, processing the passage of 300 people and their baggage will take five working hours. If something takes that long, you might want to think about employing more people to get the work done faster. 

What this says is that one Friday last week, Qantas CEO Alan Joyce was effectively trying to blame his customers for understaffing. Are we to take it that if you can’t blame the workers, blame the customers instead? If the CEO of an airline thinks that it is appropriate to insult the people who put the dinner on his table, then those of us out here in the real world, the scum class who own our dollars, can just as easily vote with our dollars and give them to someone else. 

I really think that corporate people, having achieved some level of power, become so removed from the front of house of their own business, that they no longer see their customers as anything other than a life support system for a bank account. As a customer out here in the real world who has virtually zero loyalty to most companies, then treating me like that, will instantly lead to me walking out of the door and taking my money somewhere else.

I also think that corporate people in management, having achieved some level of power, become so removed from the front of house of their own business, that they no longer see their employees as anything other than a life support system for their bank account. Employees demand things like wages and safe working conditions and we have more than ample evidence from history that corporate people in management will pay their employees literally nothing if they can get away with it, own people as chattel if they can get away with it, and even lock their employees in a burning building to save on insurance costs if they can get away with it.

In principle, that's more or less what Qantas CEO Alan Joyce tried to do. Employees demand things like wages and safe working conditions and Qantas just wasn't prepared to pay.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-17/qantas-twu-ground-crew-outsourcing-legal-federal-court-decision/100709612

Qantas workers who lost their jobs due to outsourcing have been told they will not be able to get their roles back after the Federal Court ruled in one of the largest reinstatement cases ever heard. 

In July, the Federal Court found in favour of the Transport Workers Union (TWU) against Qantas in a landmark case challenging the outsourcing of about 2,000 ground crew jobs by the airline.

While Qantas has said it will be appealing that decision, this week the court held remedy hearings to determine if workers who want their jobs back will be able to get them.

- ABC News, 17th Dec 2021.

The key point of this Federal Court case is that although the Federal Court ruled against Qantas over the outsourcing of about 2,000 ground crew jobs by the airline, it didn't make any remedial orders on the airline to reinstate the workers.

If should have always been expected that the Transport Workers Union would appeal the decision and as far as I am aware, the Federal Court has not heard the case for reinstatement; much less decided whether or not the workers are owed compensation.

Forgive my ignorance here but at one person per minute, processing the passage of 300 people and their baggage will take five hours. If you as the CEO of an airline have deliberately chosen to outsource the workforce and then presumably paid less for the provision of the labour that those people do, then simple economics says that you're going to get less labour provided.

If Qantas CEO Alan Joyce shouldn't blame the customers because they are the ones who out the dinner on his table and he can’t blame the workers because of a critical shortage of security screening staff and they weren't there, then who should he have blamed?

Himself.

Horse 3002 - The Trolley Problem

There is a big shopping mall near where I live which has a Woolworths, Coles, Aldi, Big W, and a Target, as well as a Tong-Li supermarket and it is also in close proximity to a K-Mart. During the worst of the pandemic when we were in a very very tight lockdown and the only acceptable excuse to leave the house was either for exercise or to go to the supermarket or a pharmacy, these places inside the shopping mall were the only bright lights in an otherwise darkened place. The lockdown also meant that the car parks were shockingly empty and that the unheralded scourge plaguing our parking did not happen. Now that things are back to normal, we have yet again unchained that most horrible of problems: The Trolley Problem.

Ahah, the trolley problem - that hypothetical cliché involving a speeding thing, and the active choice of killing people in order to save others. It's a favourite problem for philosophy and ethics classes precisely because it is a hypothetical problem which has passed into cliché. 

Let's hack the problem further. What if instead of a street car, it was a shopping trolley? What of instead of pulling a switch or pushing a very fat man in front of it, the choice that you had was to return the shopping trolley to the Trolley Return Bay, or leave them strewn willy-nilly all through the car park and in the bus station on the other side of the railway line. That's an experiment that we have performed again and again and we can come to the conclusion that if returning a trolley to the proper place requires even the smallest amount of effort, then lots of people will turn into lazy trashgoblins and just leave the trolley where ever they happen to be.

Leave them in the middle of the car park taking up space. Leave them in a disabled car park space; not only taking up space but actively making life harder for the people who already have life made difficult for them. Leave them in a lift. Leave them at the bus station. Leave them out on the street. The number of lazy trashgoblins who just leave the trolley where ever they happen to be, is a number much bigger than some and certainly a non-zero number.

You would think that there would be pressure from either store owners or shopping mall owners, who then have to carry a dead loss in collecting all of the shopping trolleys that have escaped into the wild for a five mile radius around (leave the shopping trolleys in a canal, if you are a nasty, bored and lazy teenager trashgoblin), that there would be at least one util of effort in trying to standardise shopping trolleys so that they'd at least pack together nicely, right? Wrong!

Woolworths has trolleys that are wider than Coles and so the Woolworths and Coles trolleys will only pack together one way. Aldi has a different basket size which sits lower and deeper than either Woolworths and Coles; so its trolleys refuse to pack nicely with anyone else's. You'd think that Woolworths and Big W which are owned by the same company would have the same trolleys but again, no, 

Big W's trolleys are made of plastic and just like Aldi's also refuse to pack nicely with anyone else's. Target has a more different and different coloured plastic trolley which also refues to pack nicely with anyone else's. Tong-Li has a fun size trolley which presumably means that they expect that their customers don't buy very many bulky things and so just like everyone else, it doesn't pack nicely either. K-Mart which isn't even in the shopping mall proper but a stand alone complex on the other side of the street, has its own trolleys with a lower shelf.

When you have by my count seven different shopping trolleys, all of which mostly refuse to pack together. They collectively make an absolute mockery of the trolley return bay. At another local shopping mall of which Woolworths is the only business with any trolleys, you will see trolley collectors wrangle an insane number of trolleys together with octopus straps; forming giant snakes of trolleys which might be as much as 50 feet long. There are legends in shopping trolley lore about the head of an occy strap coming off and it snapping back and slicing a trolley collector in half but the amount of evidence for that is exactly nil.

Why can't we come to some kind of Australian Standard for shopping trolleys, so that they all pack nicely? Does it really matter if a trolley is branded for a particular company? Does anyone out here in shopping land honestly care if their trolley happens to match the choreographed "shopping experience" that the shop wants to give you? Why can't we have some standard pool from which all the shops draw their shopping trolleys?

The stupid thing about this that actively led to the problem, was to do with competition where there shouldn't have been any. The market for shopping trolleys is admittedly small but there are a number of significant buyers in the market. There are also quite a number of sellers in the market and together this means that you have significant differentiation in product. The problem which stems from this is that differentiation in product is the worst possible outcome.

In the case of shopping trolleys, then end user doesn't ever buy the product and so they have no say at all in voting with their dollars about how that product should be shaped, even though without them, then raison d'être of the shopping trolley would cease to exist. The consumer (albeit a use who doesn't pay for the service in most cases) has to live with whatever trashgoblin choices are imposed upon them by management who very obviously doesn't care or concede that there is a problem - or else they'd have fixed it. We do not need seven different kinds of shopping trolley in the shopping mall and it could be argued that because supermarkets are generally the same across the country, that we do not need seven different kinds of shopping trolley across Australia either.

If this sounds like communism, then guess what? I don't care. The company CHEP with its blue pallets practically everywhere, almost through force of will was able to get pallet sizes conformed to its standards and by inference, forklift standards also conforming to its standards. Nobody out here in the real world, honestly gives anything more than a small huff about pallets. Why can't it be the same for shopping trolleys? If CHEP is a private company which almost single handedly set the standard for palletisation because of its market power, then from where I stand, fascism and communism look identical. What we're living with is some kind of anarcho-free market libertarianism. Why can't they be all the same?

Then we could pack all of the shopping trolleys together nicely in the shopping trolley bay. Then the lazy trashgoblins who just leave the trolley where ever they happen to be, wouldn't have an excuse any more. The people who already find life difficult, would have even more difficulty imposed on them by having as many trolleys just being left in disabled car park spaces.

Horse 3001 - Why Report Obviously Non-News?

You know that a government is in trouble when the newspapers who form their cheer squad, start publishing obvious non-news.

This week alone there are at least five major scandals which if politics wasn't being directed by the proprietors of media outlets, would have made the front pages of both the tabloids and the broadsheets. These are scandals which include the sexual illegalities of members within Parliament House itself, the mismanagement of billions of dollars, bullying allegations, court proceedings to do with the disenfranchisement of rank-and-file members, and historical allegations relating to the performed racism of the Prime Minster's own preselection.

Given all of this, what did the Daily Telegraph decide to run with as a major story arc?

"Inflation Australia: Rising cost of a supermarket shop between 2019 and 2022"

Seriously? We've got several things which should warrant either a Royal Commission or investigations by the Federal Police and the hard-hitting journalism of the Daily Telegraph chooses to run pieces which once upon a time would have belonged in the newspaper's own "Happy Shopper" columns.

https://www.news.com.au/finance/money/costs/inflation-australia-rising-cost-of-a-supermarket-shop-between-2019-and-2022/news-story/3ccecf0a9927ceadc35c31f9185d8f6f

Inflation Australia: Rising cost of a supermarket shop between 2019 and 2022

It’s no surprise that the cost of filling up your trolley has soared in three years, with certain products nearly doubling in cost.

It’s no surprise the cost of filling up your trolley costs more in 2022 than it did three years ago.

However, the exact difference three years makes to a trip to Woolworths is startling.

Comparing the 2019 receipts from a pre-pandemic supermarket shop of an inner-city Sydney couple with a five-year-old child, an 18-month-old infant and a cat, the same shop costs $45.90 more in 2022.

- Daily Telegraph, 4th Apr 2022

Of course it's no surprise the cost of filling up your trolley costs more in 2022 than it did three years ago. That's like saying that water wets things, or that trees are a good source of shade, or publishing a handy hint that if you put a brick in the cistern of your toilet that it will take up space and you will end up using less water when flushing the toilet. Pointing out an obvious thing while obvious, isn't news.  

Take a deep dive into the article in question and the list of items that they have compared came to a total of $236.07 in 2019. 

"However, the exact difference three years makes to a trip to Woolworths is startling."

Is it? If you apply the basic interest formula and assume a rate of inflation of 3% then you get the following calculation:

A = P(1+r)ⁿ

A = $236.07 (1.03)³

A = $257.96

Actual A = $259.97

Allowing for inflation, that's what? One Mars Bar in two years? 

Ergo, inflation is running at about 3% which is less than the historical average since about 476AD. The reason why I have chosen that date is that that was the date that the Roman Empire snapped in half and it's pretty safe to say that the passing of a hundred generations of people sort of constitutes the long run in economics.

The general rate of inflation since the end of the Roman Empire runs at about 4% over the very long run; that includes the entirety of the industrial revolution, mass production, computerisation, as well as the discovery of the entire New World. Here though, inflation is running at about 3% which seems completely normal; especially given that we've just passed through a major pandemic and still have come out the other side fully.

Of course it's no surprise the cost of filling up your trolley costs more in 2022 than it did three years ago. That's like make the equally obvious statement that prices in general rise. In fact if we want to be exact about it, the headline should read: "Prices Of Consumer Goods In Line With Consumer Price Index". This is so much of a non-news item that it should be laughable.

There's also something else that's subtly interesting here:

"Comparing the 2019 receipts from a pre-pandemic supermarket shop of an inner-city Sydney couple with a five-year-old child, an 18-month-old infant and a cat, the same shop costs $45.90 more in 2022."

An "18-month-old infant"? I have bad news for the Daily Telegraph. That is that an 18-month-old infant, didn't even exist in 2019. An 18-month-old infant was born in October 2020. I know that this may shock the staff at the Daily Telegraph and I don't really want to have the conversation about where babies come from but it should be pretty obvious that if you are carrying the costs associated with a person who didn't even exist during the previous period of comparison, then those new costs should add to the overall costs and make the total bigger. I have no idea how old the cat is and there is no comment on whether or not the couple in question got it before or after 2019. I assumed that when questioned, the cat provided no useful comment.

Why even run an article like this? Why run an article in a newspaper which is in no way newsworthy at all? Maybe it is possible that articles like this are kept in a kind of buffer in case the newspaper needs to pad out the content. Local newspapers used to do this a lot with almost a trope of articles where you'd have a local person looking either sad or angry and pointing at something. The "local person points at a thing" is a classic of the genre. It is possible but unlikely. This was given prominence at the front of the newspaper and made to look very important indeed.

The thing about newspapers and even more so in the age of the internet, is that the sacred and the silly, the grave and the garish, the banal, the boring, and the brutal, can all be paraded along side each other. Media like radio and television which is linear has the problem that there can only be one thing shown at a time but in print or an infinite scroll, a seemingly equal weight of importance can be placed on anything. 

That's especially important if you are engaged in the art of political manipulation of the public. We live in a kind of Huxwellian future, which is not overtly oppressively as the idea of Big Brother in Orwell's '1984' and neither is it as controlled as Huxley's 'Brave New World'. The public who are naturally individually selfish, are mostly Delta-Middles who want to be left alone, who want government to be there when they need need it but don't want to pay for it. The object of the rich and powerful is to maintain being rich and powerful and mass media is an excellent was to sell whatever narrative is sufficiently good enough to that end.

The one fly in the ointment here is that people tend to have a sense of conscience or at very least a sense when they are being taken for rubes. An article like this exists as a lollipop of distraction so that people won't notice what's going on; even when there are at least five scandals which has there been an objective media would have been reported on.

It’s no surprise that the Daily Telegraph which is owned by the son of the former proprietor of the political party now embroiled in things as serious as sexual illegalities of members within Parliament House itself, the mismanagement of billions of dollars, bullying allegations, disenfranchisement of its own members, and historical allegations relating to the performed racism, should want to run a screen for all of this. If they can be made to be aware of their own wallet, for just long enough, they won't bother looking up and around at what's going on in the world.

Horse 3000 - Morrison Canned Preselections: Now With Extra Spam

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-02/federal-liberals-intervene-to-make-nsw-preselections/100961474

Liberal candidates have been selected and endorsed in nine NSW seats following months of party infighting and factional brawling. The selections were long overdue, with campaigning well underway in many seats and a federal election imminent.

The choices were made by a committee made up of Prime Minister Scott Morrison, NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet and former federal Liberal Party president Chris McDiven. This committee was appointed by the Liberal federal executive in lieu of the normal process that would see grassroots NSW Liberal members make the decisions.

- ABC News, 2nd Apr 2022

I think that the electorate as a whole has had a gutful of the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison. Almost certainly the Morrison Government is facing down the barrel of electoral wipeout and while I do not think that it will be as bad as 90-55 as the polls have been suggesting for months (because there will be an attempt to rehabilitate the Liberal Party, by the Murdoch Press, Nine Ent Co, and Seven West Media), I still think that the Labor Party will hold government with at least 80 seats.

The previous excuse as to why the the Liberal Party hasn't yet made its preselections for the various seats in New South Wales, was that the Member for Mitchell, Alex Hawke, was otherwise unavailable to attend meetings to review candidates. The fact that the Federal Liberal Party fought a court case through the NSW Court of Appeal re the validity of disenfranchising its own paid-up rank-and-file members is neither here nor there. 

Alex Hawke himself has had to deal with another problem concerning the church that he attends, which itself has had a colossal failure of leadership and he has had to lie low because of the possible political fallout which may have engulfed both him and/or the Prime Minister (Scott Morrison).

This meddling in preselection, in which specifically the federal executive has trampled the state division, comes on the back of outgoing Liberal senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, dropping a final stream of invective, after she was dropped to the number 3 position on the probable NSW ticket for the Senate in assigned preferences. Not only did Ms Fierravanti-Wells personally accuse Scott Morrison of corrupting the state executive, but she also accused him of being a bully and then put on Hansard, a reminder of the process used for his own preselection for the Division of Cook - a process which involved telling fellow party members that his rival was rumoured to be "a Moslem" who would damage the party’s chances; in the wake of the Cronulla race riots.

In the interests of balance, I would like to see every single journalist and media outlet that wrote hit pieces on the alleged supposed bullying by members of the Labor Party of the late Senator Kimberley Kitching, also do an equal amount on Scott Morrison bullying Michael Towke out of the chance for the seat of Cook. No? Aw well. 

Of course the question is why the federal executive feels the need to run roughshod over the top of the paid-up rank-and-file members of the party and the answer here is reasonably obvious: it doesn't trust the members. The federal executive which is made up of the Prime Minister, the Premier and a former federal Liberal Party president, doesn't trust the people who pay its upkeep to make decisions which they agree with. If I was a rank-and-file member of the Liberal Party, then the demonstration of that kind of disdain for the people who pay actual money to run the party, would be enough for me to cancel my membership immediately and forever. Why else would you join a political party, if not to have a say in the politics and policies of that party?

If there is any justice, then the rank-and-file members who form the grass roots of the Liberal Party, and who have been shamefully shamfully shafted by Morrison and Alex Hawkes’s bullying intervention, should now encourage the candidates who they wanted to represent them to run as Independents, and get behind them.

Although we don't actually know when the 2022 election will be called, the last possible date for a normal election is on 21st May.

The last possible dates for the writs to be issued for a normal House and half-Senate election are:

11th Apr - for 14th May

18th Apr - for 21st May

With the federal election expected to be called imminently, that means that the nomination process is urgent because nominations for candidates close 10 days after writs are issued. The seats which as far as I am aware which still need to be written off are:

Grayndler - ALP - +47.6% (Albanese's seat - ludicrously safe)

Warringah - IND - +14.5% (very safe)

Parramatta - ALP - +7.0%

Greenway - ALP - +5.6%

Eden-Monaro - ALP - +0.8%

North Sydney - Lib - -19.1% (very safe)

Hughes - Lib - -19.8% (very safe)

Farrer - Lib - -26.6% (very safe)

Mitchell - Lib - -37.3% (very safe)

That percentage is the swing required towards the Liberal Party if they want to win the seat. In some cases, they just not bothered to post a candidate because they probably think that the seat is unwinnable and in the case of the four seats that they hold here, they are probably looking for the right candidate because they will be given a soft landing via golden parachute. 

In some respect, the fact that the federal executive is only made up of the Prime Minister, the Premier and a former federal Liberal Party president, speaks to the possibility that Morrison thinks that he might have a chance of winning the election and by dictating nine members he effectively remakes the party in his own image. The old is gone; the new has come. The former Liberal Party would be no more and what we would be left with, is the party of Morrison the almost autocrat.

I think that we can say that the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, is running scared and more than likely has real fears for his own position. This is the structure which put him in the position of the Prime Minister and he personally very well knows just how quickly that structure can turn on its own. His predecessor Malcolm Turnbull, was a perfectly good Prime Minister who lost the job thanks to the festival of the thirsty knife and just as quickly as that knife falls asleep, it can be woken up again.

Horse 2999 - Three Thousand Posts

The next post will mark the arbitrary milestone of 3000 posts. That number should be taken with a grain of salt because the first 200 or so editions of Horse, were multi-piece things that were stitched together into something which kind of resembled a four column newspaper. I abandoned that idea quite some time ago and by the time of the migration from GeoCities (which I'd coded myself) to Blogger, a Horse post was already just a single piece.

The entire archive on Blogger is still available (look on the right hand side of this website) but the GeoCities portion only exists on a single CD which exists somewhere in my study, collecting dust.

This being post 2999, I thought I'd rewind the clock to see what was happening back when the other 000th posts were uploaded.

Horse 2000 - October 2015

In the seemingly intractable Syrian Civil War, reports emerged that the Russian Air Force had made a series of air-strikes on positions held by United States backed Syrian rebels in rural areas of northern Syria. At the time, the town of Jisr al-Shughour was being held by a coalition of Islamist militant groups including the Al-Nusra Front which was a quasi proxy for Al-Qaeda. At the same time, both Iran and Hezbollah were deploying their own troops in an effort to drive back and destroy the Syrian rebel groups.

The then Iraqi prime minister Haider al-Abadi, made a public endorsement of the Russian air-strikes against ISIS forces in Iraq while expressing disappointment with the efforts made by the United States.

The Syrian Civil War was/is one of those cases where even trying to establish who was on anyone's side at any given point in time was a difficult exercise and it makes/made following the conflict really difficult. 

Also that month in the equally intractable Palestine–Israel conflict, in retaliation for rockets fired on the Israeli city of Ashdod, the Israeli Air Force carried out its own airstrikes on suspected Hamas positions in Gaza. I do of course realise that this could have been posted from any point in time from about 1967 onwards and seven years' on from this, it still could have equally have happened yesterday.

In October 2015, the World Health Organization made another recommendation to everyone diagnosed with HIV, and pleaded that they receive antiretroviral therapy. At the time, the WHO was hopeful that a future mNRA would become available within 5 years, as there had never been any kind of effectively treatment against the whole class of coronaviruses; of which HIV ias just one.

In the 2015 Rugby World Cup, England fell 33-13 to Australia and became the first host nation and first former finalist to be to be knocked out of a Rugby World Cup during the group stages. To say that the England side found new and exciting ways to be rubbish in that World Cup, is an understatement.

Horse 1000 - June 2009

The Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) was asked to refuse the purchase of Chrysler Corporation by the Italian car maker, FIAT. General Motors had recently restructured itself under Chapter XI Bankruptcy proceedings in the wake of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis and Chrysler wanting to find any buy so that it wouldn't suffer a similar fate, looked equally sad.

The World Health Organisation Director-General Margaret Chan, made the announcement that the 2009 swine flu outbreak had probably reached the point that it had been confirmed in enough countries to be classified as a pandemic. In addition to the fallout from the Global Financial Crisis, governments now had to deal with this problem as the Ethiopian Government announced that swine flu was uncontrollable in that country and Slovenia became the first country in Europe to confirm that it had cases.

Fighting continued in Pakistan in Kashmir concerning a border dispute with India and the Pakistani government feared that they would be fighting a war on two fronts as the Taliban unilaterally rejected a ceasefire in the north of the country, by starting a skirmish which killed 30 Pakistani soldiers.

Also that month in the equally intractable Palestine–Israel conflict, in retaliation for rockets fired across the border into Israel, they the Israeli navy intercepted and detained a ship carrying humanitarian supplies headed for Gaza, which was at the time under a blockade.

Horse 0000 - February 1997

The government of Papua New Guinea in trying to deal with an armed insurgency, brought paid mercenaries onto Bougainville Island to try and crush the uprising. The Australian Government when asked officially for help in the matter, did its level best to do nothing in the crisis and maintained that this was a local problem.

The Howard Government in Australia was beginning its project of stealing everything from the people of Australia and selling it out to the lowest bidder. The talk of the day was the discussion re the privatisation and sale of Telstra. Telstra had just recorded an Australian corporate record profit and there was no way that that kind of money could be allowed to remain in public hands. Private Telstra abandoned plans for the then National Fibre Optic Network and it was to be sold for the pitiful sum of $8bn; which was just two years of ongoing profit.

1997 still had the throes of the breakup of Yugoslavia which would lead to yet another war in Bosnia, Russia was experiencing a kind of economic freefall as the former leaders of the Soviet Union now bought all the ex-state owned enterprises for a song, the United Kingdom had John Major's Conservative Government with no idea what it was doing anymore and facing electoral wipeout.

I had been recently released from high school into a world which was quite frankly kinder, precisely because it didn't care. 

Back to today...

Horse 3000 - April 2022.

What if anything can we learn from the past 25 years?

Firstly that the intractable wars in the world such as is the case between Palestine and Israel are that way because the two sides simply refuse to accept the humanity of the other and therefore refuse to do anything to recognise that humanity. Whatever your position is, it is wrong.

Secondly that there are diseases which pop up from time to time which due to the nature of the world being complex, means that there is always going to be some kind novel disease for which we will always be chasing the cure or a treatment for.

The big problems of poverty, pollution, climate change, racial and gender equality still exist; not because we can not find answers to them but because those people with money and power don't see any profitable reasons to address those problems, so they don't get solved.

I think that people are mostly selfish; which is caused by the fact that everyone is at the centre of the universe as they observe it and can not view the universe from any other perspective ever. To some degree we are slaves to the electro-biomechanical meatbags which we live in and our minds constantly yell out about what those electro-biomechanical meatbags desire (food, drink, sleep, sex, money, power, pride, etc). Likewise, I reject the notion that truth is relative. You will not find it within in you. It does not reside in you. You can not learn it from inside of you because truth is external to you.

I think that we can also take it as fact that when it comes to any of the big intractable problems of the kosmos, there are no final defeats and no final victories. Progress does not automatically trend upwards to a kinder and better future. It must be fought for and boy, do we like fighting.