Horse 3471 - The Worst Team In Australia

 As I stand on a train to the city in temperatures outside the train which will not climb into double digits until well after Morning Tea time, I am clad in a cheesecutter hat, a big black scary Crombie Coat, and the brown and yellow scarf of the Hawthorn Football Club.

In my lifetime, the Hawks have won 9 Premierships, which is in addition to the 4 that they had previously won; making a grand total of 13. The Hawks are not by any stretch of the imagination or statistics, the worst team in Australia.

I make mention of this because objectively there has to be a worst team in Australia. And no, I do not mean in terms of quality because very obviously Melbourne City could easily wail on a group of 11 year olds and that wouldn't at all be remarkable. Being the worst team isn't therefore a matter of the absolute quality of a team but rather, their proven ability to do the job which all teams have as their telos - to win championships and flags.

In the A-League, there are four teams which have never won the league. They are Auckland FC, Western United, MacArthur FC, and Wellington Phoenix. Of these four teams, one of them only just joined the league, two arrived in 2018 but Wellington Phoenix who arrived in the third season have been there since 2007.

In the NRL, if we ignore the Redcliffe Dolphins which only arrived in 2023, then every other club has won at least one Premiership except for the New Zealand Warriors. They have been around since 1995; which means that in 30 years, they have won nothing.

Likewise, in the AFL, the Gold Coast Suns, Greater West Giants, which showed up in 2011 and 2012, are both relative newcomers but the Fremantle Dockers arrived in 1995; which means that just like the Warriors in the NRL, in 30 years they have won nothing.

This is where I have a philosophical problem. Never winning a Trophy, which means that you have failed at the entire telos of your team is empirically bad. Is it better or worse to have never won a Trophy at all, or to have won one which it is literally impossible for you to remember?

St Kilda have but a single Premiership Flag to their name and that came in 1966. This means that they have the dubious honour of appearing twice on the table for the period of longest premiership droughts at 69 years from 1897 to 1966 at now 59 years from 1966 to date. St Kilda also holds the equally dubious honour of winning the most wooden spoons of all major sporting codes in Australia at 27.

So this is where the dilemma lies. This is similar to Alfred Lord Tennyson's famous quote, that: "Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all".

How do you qualitatively compare the thought of never winning a flag with winning a flag but it being literally impossible to remember? I shall assume that these things are identical because therein lies the solution.

The nearest analogue that I have to this is watching Australia as opposed to watching England at the World Cup. Australia is unlikely to ever win a World Cup but we're still insane and mad enough to believe that it is an outside possibility. England has had a number of oh-so-nears and the shadow of 1966 still looms large over the possibility of making it two. Perhaps it is coincidence that St Kilda also won their only flag in 1966.

As for where these three teams sit now?

NZ Warriors - 3rd

Fremantle Dockers - 8th

St Kilda - 14th

The Warriors are highly likely to make the finals this year, Fremantle are dancing on the cusp of success/failure, and while St Kilda are not yet woeful enough to be in contention for the wooden spoon they will not be seeing finals footy this year. Herein is contained the answer. As we are still in the regular season, the one thing that remains is that most absurd of concepts: hope.

"Hope" is the thing with feathers -

That perches in the soul -

And sings the tune without the words -

And never stops - at all -

- Emily Dickinson 

In my lifetime, St Kilda have made the Grand Final three times. The NZ Warriors have made the Grand Final twice. However, the Fremantle Dockers in their entire history have only made the Grand Final once, and not only did they lose it but they were behind in all four quarters. To make your only Final and know that you were never going to win it, is surely worse than making multiple finals and be leading at some point. At least St Kilda have a trophy sitting in the cabinet even though it is from so long ago that you probably need to be a minimum of 60 years old to remember it.

The Fremantle Dockers are officially the worst team in Australia; which is why as a casual fan, you should jump on that bandwagon. I can guarantee that the dull pain of losing will be continuous and sad but when the payoff of winning does happen it will be euphoric. 

Horse 3470 - We Need A Big Glowing G

 In the twenty-first century and because we have all been trained for the last 25 years to care about percentage rates of charge in our mobile phones, when people then decide to get an electric car, it appears as though the anxiety about rates of charge has also translated one-to-one to cars. As I do not have an electric car I do not experience this and can only hear about this as second hand information but it appears to me as though range anxiety is not only real but pervasive among electric car owners.

It doesn't need to be.

I currently operate cars within the architecture of the petrol based built environment. To that end, it doesn't matter if I jump into my wee ickle Mazda 2 or someone else's big ol' Truckosaurus Chunkmonster 350, if we're both pootling down the motorway then what happens is that we burn down the miles, the needle on the petrol gauge slowly falls from 1 to ¾, ½, then ¼, and finally E for "Eh, there's not much left" and we're eventually greeted with a big glowing Shell, or stupid Big Green Flower Sun, or a big Pegasus. See one of those and we're fine. 

Petition Stations, like the giant yellow arches, or Col. Sanders smiling face, are all designed to be seen by people from hundreds of metres away; before you whizz past them at 100km/h. The whole point of the very big glowing thing in the night, is to get you to see them and then respond.

I do not think that I have ever seen an electric charging station with anything like that kind of visibility. There are no glowing yellow lightning bolts, or giant light bulb signs; which surely means that as we the general public in our petrol cars are blissfully unaware of exactly how much petrol that we have left and do not care, our motoring brethren in their electric cars must always be in a constant state of panic.

This could very easily be solved with two very simple measures.

Firstly, get rid of the percentage numbers of charge left on the dashboard. Do electric car drivers really need to know or care if the amount of charge that they have drops from 64% to 63% ? If not, then get rid of it. Three-quarter, Half, A Quarter: is good enough. It is only really when you get below about 15% or 10% that discrete granularity matters.

Secondly, since people have to stop on the motorway anyway, then why not install big glowing icons for the temples of automotive electric charge? I don't know if Apple or Google own or operate electric charging stations but if you had a forecourt of sixty charging points and a restaurant/burger joint, then people are hardly going to feel anxiety while they bite into beefy cheesy yumminess. If this sounds ridiculous, then just remember that motorway services already have big forecourts where cars come and go as well as restaurant things where cars are then parked as well. 

An Apple branded charging station with its big white apple with one bite taken out, glowing into the night, would already have massive amounts of brand recognition. As for Terry Google And Sons, his glowing G already fits into a whole design language which already includes Chrome, Home, Lens, Authenticator and what not; so a Google branded charging station is not out of the ordinary.

If all of this sounds silly, then just remember that once upon a time, the whole idea of petrol stations was utterly unknown. An electric charging station is just the latest iteration of the various kinds of staging posts and houses which have existed for thousands of years. It used to be before the advent of mass motoring, that if you wanted to fill up your petrol car then you needed to visit a chemist or pharmacist who had access to petrochemicals and other motor spirits.

Of course this means to say that a place like Westfield which already has thousands of car park spaces, could just as easily turn every single spot into a charging station and charge a small amount for people to charge their cars while they shop; instead of the half dozen or so spaces which they currently have. The difference between a motorway services with electric charging stations and a Westfield, is really only a matter of location.

The mere existence of these roadside shrines to the motor car, has been the solution to range anxiety for petrol cars since 1913. That's so much of a long time that it rarely even enters people's psyche. The existence of petrol stations as the solution, negates the initial anxiety caused by having highly granularly graduated charge status numbers in the first place.

Anxiety is a very useful thing in the world of marketing because you can induce people to slide their wants into needs. However anxiety which is impossible to satisfy, isn't particularly useful at all. Also, since the vast majority of profits at petrol stations actually come from the sales of all of the incidentals at massive markups, then it seems to me that inventing some kind of charging/restaurant which satisfies the need while taking in profits, is the most obvious solution.

Horse 3469 - Rocket Bombs Turn Israelis And Iranians Into Chunky Marinara For No Reason At All

 "As I write, highly civilized human beings are flying overhead, trying to kill me.

They do not feel any enmity against me as an individual, nor I against them. They are ‘only doing their duty’, as the saying goes. Most of them, I have no doubt, are kind-hearted law-abiding men who would never dream of committing murder in private life. On the other hand, if one of them succeeds in blowing me to pieces with a well-placed bomb, he will never sleep any the worse for it. He is serving his country, which has the power to absolve him from evil."

- George Orwell, The Lion And The Unicorn (1941)

As I write this, some 84 years later, the nations of Israel and Iran are flinging rocket bombs at each other; presumably for the gratification of people like Benjamin Netanyahu and Masoud Pezeshkian, so that they can go back to their respective people and use this as a propaganda device to justify flinging more rocket bombs at Tehran and Tel Aviv.

The trigger for this was that before dawn local time on Friday the 13th of June, Israel started chucking rocket bombs at several places in Iran in what they called Operation Rising Lion.

Allegedly this caused damage to key nuclear sites and killed Iran's top military leadership, though I wonder what kind of pleasure that the Israel Defense Forces and Mossad, actually get from attacking of ordinary Iranian citizens under the excuse of supposedly the private residences of senior officials, military installations, and imaginary nuclear facilities. Given the glee that they have taken from turning Palestinians into chunky marinara and making Gaza flow with red milkshake like slop, then doing this against Iran also seems like fun for them. 

This isn't to say that Iran is somehow a rolled gold voice of peace and integrity though. Iran has essentially been a rogue state since the ayatollahs seized power in 1979, and has repeatedly conducted terrorist attacks all over the world; including places like Berlin, Buenos Aires, London, Paris; and was probably at least partially responsible for the October 7 attacks as well. As an aside, Iran is also the largest external supplier of drones to Russia in the ongoing conflict for fun and profit against Ukraine; so that Vladmir Putin can get his jollies and can go back to his own people and use that as a propaganda device.

The usual chorus of idiots in the United States who have turned what used to be Twitter into a constant raging bin fire of hatred for brown people, all think that if they treat God like a vending machine, then if they pray a bit and support Israel unblinkingly, then they will receive blessings. Push button, receive bacon.

Meanwhile, arms manufacturers like Raytheon, McDonnell Douglas, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, et al. think that this is lovely. They are mostly the reason why Americans don't have basic universal health care as well, because it is too hard to pay for the things that make people's lives happier, if you are busy paying for the profits of weapons manufacturers. I say this without a hint of dramatic irony, as 14th June 2025 also just happens to be the 250th anniversary of the United States Army. As they have a giant military parade which looks all the world like it could be in Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, or Israel, the band plays "Hail To The Chief" while the United States wraps itself in the flag and congratulates itself.

As all of this goes on, the United Nations secretary general General Antonio has called on Iran and Israel to stop the "escalation", adding "peace and diplomacy must prevail". I can't help but feel that this is like a nerdy kid in the schoolyard asking politely that the two bullies who are currently engaged in pugilism, stop for a bit. The UN when it comes to this kind of thing is historically impotent, and given that the United States, Israel, and Iran have all consistently defied any instruction from the UN which they find inconvenient, then the UN's impotence must invariably continue. 

Meanwhile:

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-857619

The Wing of Zion, Israel’s own version of Air Force One, took off from Ben-Gurion Airport on Friday morning as Israel initiated an assault on Iranian nuclear facilities as part of Operation Rising Lion, Israeli media reported.

The aircraft, which serves Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Isaac Herzog as their official vessel of transportation during international visits, departed for Athens on Friday morning amid fears of an Iranian retaliatory attack.

- Jerusalem Post, 14th Jun 2025.

If you ever needed proof that the leader of Israel in addition to being a worthless knave, was also a complete and utter coward, then this is it.

This is the attitude of the leader of Israel?

Having thrown the people of his own nation into harm's way, he is able to get his own gratification as he watches Jews, Iranians and Palestinians all get turned into chunky marinara.

I'm even going to go so far as to say that Netanyahu is so much of a cussjack, that he is secretly happy that his own people are being killed. I think that he actually wants this. His government would be happy if Iran massacred thousands of Israelis because then it would give him an excuse to go full out against Iran and drag America into the war.

When oppression goes unchecked for decades, consequences become inevitable.

Iran didn’t start this, but they’ve shown they won’t be silent either. This is what resistance looks like when it's backed by resolve. Both sides in this conflict are deeply evil; and the price is not paid by any of the leadership of any of these countries but by innocent people. 

Unless the leaders stop this immediately, I can only hope that their respective nations get rid of them.

Horse 3468 - I Don't Get Pet Sounds

 On the day that Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys died, invariably there was always going to be remarks on social media inevitable mentions of their 1966 album "Pet Sounds"

https://x.com/cosmicjester/status/1933007646036275528

"Listening to ‘Pet Sounds’. It’s pretty good"

- Cosmic Jester, via X, 12th Jun 2025

https://bsky.app/profile/bencrazy.com/post/3lrem5kxqlk2x

 "Took a nice long walk listening to Pet Sounds, Smile, and Pacific Ocean Blue"

- Ben, via BlueSky, 12th Jun 2025

There is something that I just don't get about the Beach Boys album "Pet Sounds" but rather than just have an opinion, I am reminded by something that my Year 7 English teacher said: which is that it is perfectly okay to have an opinion about something, provided that you can reasonably articulate why you hold the opinion. This is distinct and slightly different to the premise that people can like what they like and dislike what they dislike, without having to justify why. I neither like nor dislike Pet Sounds for the simple reason that I can not get attached either way.

Pet Sounds is an undeniably and unequivocally pretty album. The harmonies on the album are very tight, the instrumentation was basically unheard of in 1966, and the musical density of the album is a technical wonder. 

I absolutely understand why Pet Sounds is seen as a defining point in popular music, and it absolutely deserves its place as a hinge point in music history; so much so to the point where we are still talking about it 60 years later. Aspects about this have been emulated, copied, parodied, and pastiched again and again and again.

But all of that still doesn't get at my core problem with the album. Even though it is pretty, and technically brilliant, I still don't get it at all. It remains somehow inaccessible to me. 

From a lyrical standpoint the first song sounds interesting and I think that it was clever if the lyrics are intentionally ironic. If they are not, then they are still amusing enough to be memorable. 

Beyond that though, most of the album is pretty standard fare: boy wants girl, boy can't stop talking about girl, boy has sad existential crisis. It's the kind of cheesy and relatively unsophisticated stuff which knows exactly where it is on a pop album.

I'm not even complaining that it sounds nothing like The Beatles, Rolling Stones, or Bob Dylan. It is perfectly acceptable that this isn't psychedelic, or savage, or raw. This is designed to be something else; I just don't understand what that something else means, or what its telos is. 

Pet Sounds is an album that is trying to sound like it is pure and wholesome; without bitterness or rage or angst. It sounds as though it wants to sound innocent or evoke some kind of beauty. Maybe that's why I don't get it. 

People make art because they like making art. People like listening to music because they enjoy listening to the art which has been made. The impression that I get from Pet Sounds though, is that deliberate choices were made for an audience in mind, and that audience is not me.

I like some music that is tragically pretty. I understand and get why Erik Satie or Claude Debussy are trying to pull silk through your head. I even think that Procol Harum who were contemporary to the Beach Boys, totally nailed a piece similar to "Air on the G String". Pet Sounds sounds like it should be as good as any of this, and it is extraordinarily well executed, but it just can not make me care. 

I think it's because I like The Beach Boys earlier albums, which is why I think that Pet Sounds misses that one important thing that they had: Fun.

I have a similar kind of problem with The Beatles after "Revolver". Sgt Pepper is a landmark album but it simply isn't fun. "With The Beatles" is not really an album but a collection of songs that they played and I think that it is their best work because it is the funnest.

Pet Sounds sounds mature and pretty but I just don't have fun listening to it. Perhaps they hinted at this when they sang that "she'll have fun fun fun, 'til her Daddy takes her T-Bird away". Well that has already happened by Pet Sounds. Daffy took her T-Bird away and now she works in a shirt with her name tag on it, drifting apart like a plate tectonic; all she wants to be, is a million miles from here and somewhere more familiar.

Horse 3467 - The Others - 4: On Poverty

 One of the interesting things about having a class system is that it works pretty much identically to having a racist system. In some respects, a class system is a kind of advanced form of racism because it allows you to discriminate against people who look like you.

Perhaps more importantly, unlike rascism and to a lesser degree religious intolerance, is that if you are in possession of the vast majority of capital and the rewards of other people's labour, then you can actively rig the game in your favour in the long run. Working hard produces a smallish reward. Controlling other people's labour gives you the reward which would otherwise be due to them. However, controlling capital and especially other people's money, means that the rewards which would be due to wages, rents, dividends, and management fees, condensate to you far harder and faster than to anyone who has to actually work for a reasonable living.

Let's assume that it costs ₱10,000 to live a rudely boring and middling life in Pallet Town.

If you get a job at Silph Co. making Silph-scopes and other gadgets and widgets, on a wage of ₱10,000, then: 

₱10,000 - ₱10,000 = ₱0.

This is in fact the set of conditions most people, in most cases. They earn a wage to live, and there isn't really a lot left over.

However, someone who owns ₱250,000 can expect to get a 4% return on capital in the long run (being the average rate of inflation since 1 Anno Urbitae). Thus: 

₱250,000 x 4% = ₱10,000.

Yes, ₱10,000 - ₱10,000 = ₱0 but such a person would still be able to work and earn their own wage; which means that in the long run, the gap between people who need to work as opposed to those who could in theory merely live off the interest, must invariably widen.

If you are in possession of capital, then you can also 'invest' in the apparatus of society itself, such as schools and universities, guilds and associations, by making these fee collecting institutions. Fees are a barrier to entry; which means that you can keep out the people who have to actually work for a living. This also has the added benefit of acting as a set of economic signals; which means that future employers can actively discriminate on the grounds of things like postcodes and where someone went to school, to actively keep entire classes of people out of your places of privilege.

Of course if you are in possession of capital, then you can also change the narrative and openly lie about the fact. Since people believe that working hard is what generates rewards, then you can hold out the lie that if people work hard, then they will be rewarded. This is despite the fact that you by virtue of controlling other people's labour and capital, already collect their rewards as well.

It is even better if you can actually make poorer people subsidise your schools and universities, guilds and associations. If you can manipulate government so that they will pay your preferred institutions subsidies (using the narrative that all children deserve an education), then not only can you exclude poorer people from entry but you can make them pay for the places that they are excluded from. 

Since buildings are very big pieces of capital infrastructure, then if you pay people so very little wages that they have no choice but to rent somewhere to live from you (because while being homeless is an option, it is not desirable), then you can take away their wage almost immediately after you've given it to them. 

The really fun thing about all of this is that if you are in possession of media outlets, then you can gently wash the general public's mind in the marination of "personal responsibility". People will naturally resent having to pay anything in taxation, so by constantly purring the message that you should be responsible for your own fate (even though all of the above suggests that that isn't actually true), then you can actively make the moral argument that poverty is actually their fault. Furthermore, because richer people also resent having to pay anything in taxation, then you can also poison their minds into actually othering all of the poorer people to the point where they are seen as less than, and maybe even subhuman. 

Since we've already established that there are different schools and universities, guilds and associations, then we've already segregated people since birth. Because people never have to look at poorer people, then they don't even have to imagine them as being people with lives. They are just economic units to be plugged in where (and if) appropriate. That's the most hilarious thing of all because then we can come after their ₱10,000 and take that away by replacing them with machines which cost ₱100 per year, and it will also be poorer people's fault for not working hard enough.

Horse 3466 - The Others - 3: On Nationalism

 If you have a place which is sufficiently big enough that it has many different kinds of people who are racially diverse, or you have a place which has people who are religiously diverse, then a fun way to demarcate who is "Not Us" is simply to wrap everything up in a flag and make up some myths about the founding of your nation.

It does not matter if there were native people who were there before you lot showed up. It does not matter if you exacted violence upon them, or if you engaged in systemic clearance and genocide (and still have the accounting records to prove it). It does not matter if the people who came after you decided to declare your national project also engaged in systemic extermination of people. As long as you are able to tell some kind of story that people will sign up for (it doesn't even have to be coherent or logical), then congratulations, you have just invented a sense of nationalism.

It helps if you have either some founding fathers whom you can turn into demi-god like figures, because then you can project whatever your current political aims are upon them and because they are all dead, they can not sue you for defamation. It helps if you have some kind of constitution (don't worry if you have never read it, or if it is objectively bad legislation) because then you can employ strict constructionism or invoke the spirit of law, even if you have no idea whatsoever what either of those things mean. 

Nationalism is handy because it means that you can go to war on the premise of lies, and then have some veterans left over, whom you can continually refresh the mythology with. Again, it doesn't matter if as a nation you honestly couldn't give a cuss what happens to them afterwards (shell-shock, battle fatigue, PTSD), because you can decry any of them who step out of line as being not patriotic enough.

Then after having gained some token veterans, you are free to invoke the caterwaul of 'freedom', any time you like; all while demonising anyone whom you don't like.

Nationalism is handy because it comes with a set of visual language and maybe some songs. This means that you can reduce your followers to unthinking plebs who will even sing along to your hymn sheet. Anyone who dares protest, is a heretic and you can them accuse them of hating your nation. It is even better if they choose to wrap themselves in anything other than your flag. If they even as much dare to wave a different flag, then you can accuse them of being self-confessed demons, and then use your military on them with impunity.

If you can find a few token members of the people whom you hate, then you can drag them out in front of your propoganda machines, as examples of what 'those' people should look like.

If you run the line of nationalism far enough, then you can strip people of their humanity and your followers will keep on singing your praises while you do it. You can deport people who have arrived 'illegally' (you can make up the rules on a whim), and if you have gone far enough down the line, you can exterminate them.

You can even subvert the church if you like. Since your followers can be relied upon neither to read the constitution nor the scriptures which they supposedly follow, then you can pick and choose whatever you like as proof that you are in the right. Remember, a lie can run half way around the world, even before the truth has had a chance to put its boots on.

Taken far enough and you can even exact violence upon the people whom you don't like, paint them as less than, maybe even kill a few and spin their deaths as though they deserved it, and because you've wrapped the whole thing in the flag, your unthinking followers won't even so much as bat an eyelid. You have provided the designated enemies, you have othered them to the point where whether they live or die is irrelevant, concepts like justice and truth need not trouble your followers minds, all while the band plays the songs of your nation and your praises. 

Horse 3465 - The Burning Of The Angeles

 The United States in its mad dash to the far right, has taken a few more steps down the school corridor and like all true madmen, is armed. After successfully removing the shackles from the law, and with the Supreme Court and the Congress choosing to remain silent and impotent, what is occurring in Los Angeles at the moment is nothing short of barbarous and the perfect excuse for the Federal Government to send the military on its own citizens.

President Donald Trump’s rush to deploy California National Guard troops upon the citizens of Los Angeles, was so quick that they hadn't even arranged proper sleeping arrangements, with troops being forced to pack together in one or more federal buildings, resting on the floors of what appear to be basements or in loading docks.

The state troops federalized by the Trump administration over the weekend to confront immigration protesters, without the approval of California Governor Gavin Newsom, were wildly underprepared. The deployment is so makeshift that they arrived without federal funding for food, water, fuel, equipment or lodging.

What I find utterly disappointing is that this kind of thing is more or less exactly how one might imagine that the United States drifts inexorably to the right. It has had its equivalent of the Enabling Acts of 1933, this is its Burning Of The Reichstag, and soon to follow will be its World Cup and Olympics which look like Italia '34 and Berlin '36 but in the same country.

To be honest, I do not understand California Governor Gavin Newsome doesn’t activate the rest of his army guard to prevent the president from it or force him to overrule it. He could then take the fight to the Supreme Court on Second Amendment grounds, which guarantees a state a right to a militia. The question then posed before SCOTUS would be how can a state have a militia if the president can simply federalize it?

From a cultural standpoint, anyone claiming that the United States is a "Christian" nation, or resembles anything like one, is either deliberately stupid, dog ignorant, or seriously delusional.

The folks hollering about “family values” are out in the street tearing families apart with unlawful ICE raids, militarized police, & the weaponization of government; all while ripping away food & healthcare from working-class families.

This is all coloured by the fact that this has been baited and egged on by the right wing media who must be absolutely beside themselves after having gained some official designated enemies for whom people can direct their Two Minutes Of Hate at, and they can sell advertising space. 

For decades the NRA and other gun nuts told the American public that their guns were to protect everyone from a tyrannical government. So when a tyrannical government actually does arrive, all they do is either all sitting on their hands, or applaud. Meanwhile, the people who want gun control have to take to the streets to defy the tyrannical government instead.

I am not condoning violence. Setting cars on fire and causing damage to property is not acceptable and should be condemned. What does need to be made clear though, is that this doesn't happen in a vacuum and the right wing media and the people cheering this on, because they can now claim some kind of moral high ground, are evil.

If you think a guy standing on a vandalized Waymo car with a Mexican flag is a bigger issue than the president calling for the arrest of a Governor for no reason, you may have lost the plot...

...or you might very well be one of the howling masses trying to sleepwalk and goosestep at the same time. We have seen this before. 

Horse 3464 - The Others - 2: On Religion

 Literally everyone in the kosmos and everyone who has ever lived, has had at lease some basic belief set about how they expect the kosmos to operate. It is impossible to literally believe in nothing whatsoever. This means that while it is possible to believe that there are no god/gods and be an atheist, it is impossible to be an apistist. As religion is a set of practises based upon what one believes (indeed the word 'religion' comes from the Latin 'religare' which is an observance), then even atheists have some kind of religion because they act in the kosmos.

What is up for contention is how those practices are played out. While there is a common assertion that religion is responsible for more deaths and wars in history than anything else, that kind of immediately falls to pieces under even the lightest of interrogation, when you consider that apart from diseases like cholera, tuberculosis, smallpox, plague, influenza, and dysentery, the actual thing that casus the most wars is weaponised selfishness. That is: "You have what I want; I am prepared to kill you and your family/nation to take it." Then there is the argument over what constitutes a person; in which case abortions conducted in both capitalist and communist countries, both voluntary and involuntary, might in fact change the numbers by hundreds of millions of not billions of people.

Setting all of that aside, the subject of this post is about the demarcation line of who is 'Us' and 'Not Us', is the subject of religion. Already we are off to a tenuous start as we can and have put a very very big asterisk on the subject.

Organised religion (as opposed to the disorganised religion of an individual - see above) usually comes with a set of scriptures/mantras/rules/laws/covenants et cetera, which readily inform the adherents of their belief set. This ready cut intellectual material is really useful in defining who is 'Us' and 'Not Us' and does so on all kinds of grounds such as race, geography, gender, and even observance to the physical things that the intellectual material demands.

The internal problem and the big question which results is: does a religion actually give someone licence to hate someone else, as opposed to what they do, or what they are, or what they decide, or is this the excuse to hate someone else? In deciding who is 'Us' and 'Not Us', the follower of a religion not only has to filter this choice through the intellectual material of their religion, but also decide if the intellectual material lends itself to this conclusion, or even if the intellectual material is internally consistent and/or valuable enough to apply.

Here is where the entire field where religion becomes the excuse to condemn people as other. In very many circumstances, we can find that someone is prepared to accept their own kith and/or kin who happens to do something which violates the moral code of their religion but if someone is more than a couple of arms' lengths away, it suddenly becomes acceptable to wish not only existential hellfire upon them in the abstract but immediate and present harm and danger in the here and now.

Think about the so-called "religious wars" that have happened. Was the Catholic v Protestant fighting in Ireland really over the practice of religion? Not a bar of it. The English has invaded Ireland under William III and everything which followed including "The Troubles" has been about the control of Ireland. Not once have I ever heard even so much as a peep of reference to anything in scripture. The current war in Gaza also has nothing to do with religion. Hamas and Likud are about as far away from Qu'ran and Torah as you can possibly get, and the current Netanyahu Government has openly stated that this is about land clearance; with the destruction of innocent people as collateral damage. The people of Gaza have been othered to the point where they are no longer seen as people.

On the other hand, the great waves of the Islamic Caliphates, were also never really about promoting Islam. Rather, they were about conquering land, controlling resources, and finding new and cheap sources of labour to do the dirty work; all with the threat of the sword and the power of the state. This is hardly a new concept at all. Whether it was the Arabs in the 600s, the Spanish in the New World, or the British in the immediate wake of the Industrial Revolution, money and power are what drive the rise of Empire; with religion being used as a paintbrush after the fact.

The "religious right" in the United States which appears to be in the ascendancy right now, also likes to cover itself with the iconography of Christian Nationalism, which is ironic given that they also want to weaponize the state to destroy their designated enemies. Say what you like about the moral conception of and treatment of gay people, trans people, illegal immigrants and whatnot, because it all seems to ring a bit hollow in a nation that on one hand wants to kill unborn babies for economic convenience and on the other thrown poor people to the weeds, also for economic convenience. Caring for the poor and vulnerable, all looks like anathema to the so-called "religious right".

I do not know how you can hold the ideas of civic philos and charitable agape in the same hand as a gladius. I do not know how you can demonstrate love for someone while actively banishing them. I do not know how you can show respect for your god/gods while at the same time othering someone else who is made in the same humanity as yourself.

However, I can understand all of these things if you made the decision to other someone else, to put them outside of your religious space, and to render them as less than human. Because if you render someone as less than human, then you are at perfect liberty to take their money, their house, their bodies, their dignity, their land, and their lives, because if they are less than human then it isn't really stealing, is it?

Horse 3463 - The Others - 1: On Race

People seem to forget that the entire of the twenty-first century, all follows on from the fallout of the Sep 11 attacks in the United States in 2001. The need to fund two wars based upon the premise of lies, meant that the US Government borrowed money from the general public by issuing Treasury Bonds which were then sold to financial institutions, who then saw it fit to sell cheap unregulated housing loans which then caused the Global Financial Crisis of 2008. 

On the back of trying to find any kind of hope in the midst of the worst economic downturn of that generation, the people of the United States voted in Barack Obama as the first black president; which then gave rise to the TEA Party and then Obama's one misstep in making fun of Donald Trump in the 2011 White House Correspondents Dinner.

That act of provocation became the single hinge point which led to Trump deciding to run for the Presidency  and finding compliant token sycophants who know that they are being used on a contractual basis in return for their fealty.

Trump was not the first white president but he was the first explicitly white president in direct opposition to a black president. Trump's rhetoric almost from the get go of announcing his candidacy has always been firmly grounded in race; which included one of his very first press conferences containing the assertion that "some Mexicans are rapists, some are good people"; as well as trying to blame China for any and all of the United States' woes.

Trump was also not the first explicitly racist President but he was the first in a while; which seems to indicate that racism was always bubbling away under the surface. The very existence of the United States as a nation was predicated on punitive taxation measures which were designed by the Lord North Government to bring the 13 Colonies to heel, over the issue of slavery; to the point where slaves were considered to be "three fifths of a person" within the bounds of the Constitution and because this issue was never properly resolved, arguably even with the Civil War, the existence of Trump is a symptom rather than a root cause of the current wave of racism. What he has done is given permission on the world stage, for various kinds of explicitly white nationalist causes to flourish in other countries.

The big through line here, is that racism which is closely linked to nationalism, is about demarcating lines to divide those people who are 'Not Us' from 'Us'. The anarchists who would like to smash the patriarchy almost hint at the root of the thing that they are fighting against. The 'patriarchy' defines its terms by the 'pateras', that is the big question of 'who is our father?' and 'who is our father's children?'. If we are children of a common father, then the people over there who are not, are 'Not Us'.

In fact many nations explicitly have their national stories defined either by some founding fathers, or by some mythos which defines the nation itself as the 'Fatherland' or the 'Motherland'. Within the context of empire, the 'Mother Country' is often the one which decided to go off on its path of conquest; the irony here is that after having arrived and convinced local populations that they should be like the Mother Country, it is the children of the shadow of Empire who are often the most resentful and explicitly racist if those peoples then show up in the Mother Country. 

To wit: In Australia there is quite an explicit undercurrent of overt racism who resents people from India and the sub-continent arriving here. Usually the excuse is that these people refuse to 'assimilate'; when in actual fact it is the children of Indian migrants who are out on the sporting fields playing cricket of an afternoon. I find it somewhat ridiculous to accuse people of not assimilating when they are better at actually living out your culture than you are.

At the vanguard of this movement are organisations like Advance, which as far as I can tell is a front company of some kind and largely funded by former Liberal Party operatives. If it was set up in opposition to GetUp as an astroturf group, then it has expanded beyond its original remit. 

Racism at its core, is the incredibly lazy form of othering based upon the outward appearance of people. It exists to create the "Not Us" through nothing more than looking at people from the outside and then deciding that they do not fit the imagined ideal of what "Us" should look like. To that end, depending on what the "Us" actually is, people can be scaled as being not enough of "Us". At various stages, Jewish people, Chinese people, and Eastern European people have either been determined to be enough or not enough of us depending on circumstance and the current political climate. Of course this assumes that we view the world through a white lens. In some parts of Africa the lens is differently coloured and reversed. 

Speaking as someone who lives in Western Sydney, where there are people who look different to me all over the place, I really do not understand either the point or the effort required to enforce racism. I also work in a firm in which everyone else can speak Chinese and I can not; which means that there are many conversations which occur which I have no idea what is being said; and that's totally fine. Even doing a simple count of the number of nations where people from my local church came from, I count 17. 

"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus"

- Galatians 3:28

I am assuming that most people who read this are not people of faith and that is fine. This part is not directed at you. This part is directed at the people who supposedly believe in "Judeo-Christian values" but then immediately start spewing nonsense, which demonstrates that they really do not understand the "values" which they like to cosplay in. The Old Testament contains many many commands in Torah to look after the vulnerable, widows, orphans, and aliens. The New Testament, which was written entirely underneath the rule of the Roman Empire, very much is about opening up the The Way to people who are not the same as "Us". Explicitly, the Roman Empire which was the biggest superpower of the day, stood as the overarching enemy; which meant that issues such as race dissolved in the face of the common foe. Of course, Christianity itself stands in stark opposition to racism; by virtue of the fact that it declares that there is one race, the human race, and we are all sinners in need of salvation.

Private corporations are different in that the members and owners of the corporation, have an interest because they chose to buy into the organisation through the purchase of shares. The nation state which owns itself, doesn't really have that kind of subscriber model; nor does it make sense to define who is "Us" and "Not Us" by those same terms. Being born into a family at a particular place and time is entirely a lottery. Literally nobody chooses where they are born. Nobody chooses who their family are. The nation state is different in that people who are not automatically citizens by accident of birth, can choose to join another national project (subject to rules of course). The nation state, especially when it is made up of people of various kinds of races, both internally and externally, is completely agnostic and apathetic to the notion of race entirely unless otherwise and/or explicitly stated. 

Yes, I understand that the nation state exists because there are things like language and religion which mean that people have been sorted, but the nation state itself in essence is just a very big collective purchasing and organisation tool; which is one of the biggest pieces of community and commonwealth there is.

I do not know how you can look at other people and come to the conclusion that they are not worthy of dignity. I do not know how you can look at other people and come to the conclusion that they are not worthy of decency. I do not know how you can look at other people and come to the conclusion that they are not worthy of being considered your confederate.

In short, while I understand why racism exists, I think that the people who want to engage in it, do so because they are cruel knaves who refuse accept the notion that someone who looks different to them, can ever be included as "Us".

Horse 3462 - Unchain The Indy 500

 In an act which has been quite rightly seen as 'cheating', the two cars of Joseph Newgarden and Will Power were pulled up before qualifying for the 2025 Indianapolis 500, were denied their runs and will start from the last row of the grid.

Joseph Newgarden and Will Power, both of Team Penske, were found by the IndyCar technical inspectors to have filled a seam to close off airflow over the rear attenuator.

The rear attenuator is a safety device designed to absorb and reduce the force of impacts. Most likely the seam was filled in an attempt to gain an aerodynamic advantage; in a sport where even a thousandth of a second makes a difference.

One thousandth of a second at 200mph, is about 4 inches. Multiply that over the course of the Indianapolis 500 and you have the length of a cricket pitch.

Of note here is that IndyCar is a spec series which uses spec parts and the rear attenuator is one such spec part that is not allowed to be modified.

Now while I understand the desire to create a level playing field because we want to maintain the veneer of sporting competition, I think that the Indianapolis 500 in particular is a race looking for a series and the very act of trying to make the sport fair, runs counter to what the spirit of the event should be.

When the Indy 500 started back in 1911, the rules set was such that the bound box which competitors found themselves in was massive; and they basically got to play with whatever they wanted. 

Various engine capacities limits have come and gone, in some cases there was turbocharging and supercharging allowed, but probably the most impressive things that were ever raced in the Indy 500 were Freddie Agabashian's Cummins Diesel Special of 1952, and the series of gas turbine cars which culminated in the Lotus 56 'red wedge' of 1968. The fact that Joe Leonard's Lotus 56 retired from the race while leading; just eight laps from the finish was enough to scare the organisers into regulating gas turbine cars into extinction.

As someone who is interested in the history of motorsport and how that relates to what we get on the road, that's tragic. Companies like Chrysler and General Motors both experimented with gas turbine cars and the fact that this line of innovation was semi-killed by motorsport, kind of resigned us to missing out on what could have been a jet car future. 

If I was Grand Poohbah and Lord High Everything Else, then the rules set that I would run the Indianapolis 500 by would be to give the teams a central safety cell, a set of standard tyres and maybe brakes, and then tell them to have at it. 

I think that the Indianapolis 500 should be the laboratory of speed where the most bonkers mental hatstand ideas should be allowed to flourish. If you can build a car which uses the safety cell and can rip around the famous two-and-a-half mile speedway at 307 mph, and you can find someone daft enough to sit in the driver's seat, then go for it.

Because if the rules set is so loose that practically anything is possible and allowed, then not only does this remove the entire argument about cheating, but we'd get to see the actual greatest spectacle in motorsport. 

Horse 3461 - Nobody Sensible Is In Charge: Let's Eat Milo Out Of The Tin

 If you'd have asked me a week ago, who the worst leader of the Liberal Party was, I would have said Peter Dutton. As a leader, he led the Opposition to the lowest primary vote in the party's 80 year history, and also the fewest number of members on the floor of the chamber, ever.

However, it turns out that the Liberal Party had even lower to fall, and in their attempts to scrape the bottom of the barrel in order to find a new leader, they picked upon Sussan Ley.

Apart from being an absolute punkwomble and a cussgibbon, she has proven to be so bereft of actual leadership ability that under her tenure, the Opposition has snapped in half.

The relatively new leader of the National Party, David Littleproud, stunned Canberra this afternoon, when he formally announced that as of 20th May 2025, the Coalition would be suspended.

This is not necessarily a new thing in Australian politics. In Queensland the National Party decoupled itself from the Liberal Party under the tenure of Sir Joh Bielke-Petersen, and ruled in Queensland in its own right for a while.

In contrast, in the 2001 Queensland State election, the Liberal Party won a paltry 9 seats, and in 2004 they actually achieved complete electoral extinction. By the 2007 election in Queensland, the Liberal National Party was not just a formal enmeshing of the two parties, it was the admission that the Liberal Party was unelectable but still had the necessary resources to be able to run a political party. The Queensland LNP is essentially 100% National Party members using the Liberal Party's stuff. 

It is therefore not surprising at all that David Littleproud and the National Party has decided to bail on the Liberal Party. Littleproud is a Queenslander; so this means that this is nothing special to him. 

Naturally it left Sussan Ley fuming. Having just realised that she was not in control of the smaller of the two parties of the coalition, her reactions to the press were both curt and acrid. Being Opposition Leader was already a pretty horrid job, being the first Opposition Leader after a party has just lost an election is a degree worse; this is one step beyond.

So what does any of this mean for the numbers on the floor of the parliament?

93 - Labor 

28 - Liberal

15 - National 

1 - Green 

1 - Central Alliance 

1 - Katter 

9 - Independents

Take note of that. 15+1+1+1+9 = 27

The absolute insanity of how the numbers on the floor currently sit, is that all it would take would be one member of the Liberal Party to slide up the chamber and join the National Party, and suddenly the Green/Green/Orange/Brown/Teal/Grey peloton could form their own spite coalition. Remember, a Westminster parliament cares not even an iota about the makeup of parties or members who sit inside it.

In fact, if I had a seat in the whole sort of general mish-mash (WSOGMM), then I'd seriously be canvassing for the most hilarious thing of all - to form the WSOGNM Coalition and install Bob Katter as the Opposition Leader. 

If politics is a game, and all the men and women merely players, then why not go for the most hilarious outcome possible. If we don't do it then Australia faces untold horrors because "in the meantime, every three months, a person is torn to pieces by a crocodile in north Queensland."

... if not politically by north Queensland. 

Horse 3460 - Forbidden Chocolate Milk

 I am now ten days into a new job; which is interesting because already my mind has become accustomed to the fact that the world looks different. Just like my previous workplace, where although the world that waits outside exists, because I mainly look at a wall and screen, the only indication that I have of time actually passing is the occasional glance at the bottom right hand corner of the screen and noticing that the numbers have changed.

I have the immediate job of transferring information from one accounting system to another and for the most part, this first task is either a series of cut and paste jobs, or trawling through 30 years' of documental detritus to find someone's email address, or phone number, or company number, et cetera et cetera cetera. Already I am the "calm" one of the office. As I am used to having to fend for myself for most jobs, then if something doesn't make sense, or doesn't fit, or can not be explained, then I just see that as a mere puzzle piece that has to be found. Quite literally, nobody else can help me in this case because they do not understand the systems which I previously used; nor will they be ever asked to do so.

The weirdest thing though is how my perception of time has changed. Time used to be a thing which swung one way and then then other. What is really curious about time now, is just how much it drags while I am aware of it, and how much it just doesn't exist when am not. To go from 0830 to 1230 is like every minute is extracting teeth; then 1230-1330 passes in an instant, and then 1330 to 1645 is equally infuriating; before in an instant the clock jumps from 1646 to 1707.

Some of this is likely due to the threshold effect, where having entered a new environment, one's brain does an immediate info dump of what went before and tries frantically to absorb everything which is new. Except in this case, I not only need to retain the information which I previously held, but as I am now responsible for holding and transferring information which I previously did not need to know, I guess that my brain is trying to accommodate all of the change in circumstances through some kind of mental time dilation. 

I imagine that this kind of thing is what Formula One drivers report when they say that they can slow down time while in the motor car. With so much information screaming at you constantly and the pressure to deliver, my guess is that this is what is happening in their mind. It is actually probably easier to be a Formula One driver, if you consider the fact that they generally are paid many millions of dollarpounds to do what they love, whereas in comparison each of my seconds are remunerated by less than a pennycent. The other major difference is that a Formula One driver otherwise lives quite a comfortable existence when they are not at work, whereas I like the great grey glob of people who have to do work to keep the rent collectors away, am decided not.

I am also not quite at the stage where my lunch hour is sensible. Notwithstanding the fact that I have the CBD of Chatswood which is perpetual funland of a thousand businesses all wanting to sell me something, which I can not afford to buy; and which tries desperately to vomit a thousand colours into every single possible space. This for me is not a sensory overload problem but rather palace after palace of pure irrelevance. I have found a bookstore, a post office, a park, and the rest of it need not bother to exist. I am not prepared to spend as much money for lunch, as the myriad of places want me to spend.

What has made this all the more irritating is that on top of having a body which constantly screams out in pain (which likely isn't even real) because of an accident from three years ago; my guts have decided all on their own, to rebel and hold some kind of mutiny. Anyone who has worked on a motor car knows that when you see the forbidden chocolate milk coming out of the tail pipes, then something has gone wrong. In my case, when forbidden chocolate milk is coming out of the tail pipe, then something has also gone wrong.

Once again I am confronted with the fact that in many respects, I am a consciousness enclosed inside meat, with a mind/body/soul/spirit set of operating systems, which I do not understand and which I am mostly not conscious of. It is also weird that a great deal of the biome which also lives within the bag of meat, shares no DNA with me whatsoever. This is the kind of thing which aught to drive essayists and novelists who deal with the metaphysical insane, but it does not. I find it frustrating that there is precious little literature which is able to even deal with what it is like to feel pain, in any meaningful way at all. In fact, the only major work that I have ever read on anything like this is by Virginia Woolf:

“Considering how common illness is, how tremendous the spiritual change it brings, how astonishing, when the lights of health go down, the undiscovered countries that are then disclosed, what wastes and deserts of the soul a slight attack of influenza brings to view, what precipices and lawns sprinkled with bright flowers a little rise of temperature reveals, what ancient and obdurate oaks are uprooted in us by the act of sickness…it is strange indeed that illness has not taken its place with love and battle and jealousy among the prime themes of literature.”

- Virginia Woolf, "On Being Ill" (1925)

Perhaps the weirdest thing of all about this current bout of unpleasantness is that I now have a mental map of where all the toilets at at home, a Blacktown, Parramatta, Strathfield, Central, and Chatswood Railway Stations, where they are in the new building where I work, and in the juggling game of time, where I need to be in order to make best use of any of them. Both time and my guts are currently broken... which indicates that something has gone wrong in operating systems which I do not understand.

Horse 3459 - Why Preferential Voting And Instant Run-Off Voting Are The Best

Say what you will about the policies or complete lack thereof of the various political parties, the 2025 Federal Election has returned Albanese's Labor Government with a resounding majority. Even as I write this on Monday morning and the dust is beginning to clear and the dregs of pre-polls start to have their influence on the final tally, Labor will surely hold government in its own right; without needing to rely on the crossbench for supply and confidence. 

There is one thing about this election which none of the newspapers will even dare to look at, as Nine Ent Co and News Corp are even loath to admit that the election even happened; that is that Preferential Voting is not only good but overwhelmingly excellent.

It is only partisan hacks who think that First-Past-The-Post voting is good for anything, because they are motivated by the raw numbers which suggest that their particular football team should have one. In any Tweet, Skeet, or Toot online where the person expresses a preference for First-Past-The-Post voting, it is never based on the fitness of purpose for the system. 

Likewise, there appears to be a cohort of psephologist cheerleading that thinks that Score Voting/STAR voting, is also a good idea. When you boil both of these down, what you actually get is a modified First-Past-The-Post and maybe with an additional run-off which is based upon the existing votes cast. While I understand why people might like this, usually the reasons of fitness of purpose involve some degree of outright lying (which is bad).

What Preferential Voting and Instant Run-Off Voting has done in the 2025 Federal Election which neither First-Past-The-Post nor Score Voting/STAR voting are capable of doing, is that one thing which is essential in an election and that is, determine the level of consent of the governed. 

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

- Declaration of Independence, 4th July 1776

Setting aside the various "He has" statements within that document which are mostly lies, the United States' Declaration of Independence contains occasional nuggets of truth within it. If we assume that the principle that governments deriving their from the consent of the governed because this is just, then it follows that the best method of conducting an election is not to ask "who do you most want to govern?" but rather "who will you eventually agree to govern you?". Neither First-Past-The-Post nor Score Voting/STAR voting are either capable of doing this, nor do their advocates seem to think that this is a goal worth pursuing.

If you just look at the raw numbers of the 2025 Federal Election as a whole, what we see is this:

34.8% - Labour

32.0% - Coalition

11.9% - Greens

 6.2% - One Nation

 1.8% - Trumpet of Patriots

13.3% - All others

First-Past-The-Post and Score Voting/STAR voting will tell you that these blocs exist. They may even tell you which one of these blocks people like. They do not tell you which one of these blocs that the electorate has a visceral hate for. Marking an X or even some kind of Score does not actually give you a value for discrete hatred from a voter. 

It can not be stated enough but the 2025 election was not won by Labor. The result did not swing on the 1s of the roughly 1/3rd of the electorate who put the Greens/One Nation/Trumpet/Others as their top pick. This election mostly swung on the 2s and 3s across a vast number of electorates. This result is far more granular and precise than First-Past-The-Post and Score Voting/STAR voting could ever hope to tell you.

The actual meaning of this result, is that as roughly 9% of the electorate has moved to a more nativist position, and about 14% is quite progressive, the number of Teal Seats within urban areas and the swings to Labor on 2s and 3s in the outer suburbs of cities, tells you that the electorate HATES the coalition more than it hates Labor.

This election was not a clash of two great iconoclastic parties fighting for control of some ideological future. This election was a fight between Winnie The Pooh and Skeletor. That's fine. People are allowed to like Skeletor. What the 2s and 3s have delivered is the result that people hate the idea of Skeletor being in charge of anything. Moreover the result of Peter Dutton losing his own seat of Dickson, was a rejection by his electorate personally; who have collectively decided  that he is not for them any more.

What preferential voting and Instant Run-Off Voting has done, is tell us who the 33.2% of the electorate would eventually agree to, to govern them. They objectively do not like either Labor or the Coalition as their first choice. What they will eventually agree to though, is that they will accept a Labor Government and they will do that time and time again across the country.

The really idiotic thing is that people on the political right in Australia, still complain about media bias despite and in spite of the fact that all of the newspapers, and most of the TV and Radio stations, are either owned by and/or toe a Coalition line. News Corp, Seven West Media, Nine Ent Co, all lined up behind the Coalition and most of the ABC was either too afraid or not concerned enough to properly question them. The people on the other hand, have spoken differently; with some indicating with their vote that the Coalition weren't nativist enough and some indicating with their vote that the Coalition were too far to the right. The hard core seats basically always remain with their respective parties, but it is the great cloud in the middle that has swung this election. 

Ultimately, the Coalition has not been consented to; which given that incumbency is an advantage is probably to be expected but the degree which they were shown disdain, both in the lowest number of 1s in their history and the flow of preferences which went the other way, shows that Preferential Voting and Instant Run-Off Voting have given us a more discrete view of the level of that disdain; which is something that neither Score Voting/STAR voting are capable of doing.

Horse 3458 - Election 2025: Bin Night

 1930

ALP 29

L/NP 26

GRN 0

OTH 6

At half past in the evening, when the first 5% of the vote has been counted, there is already a 9.9% swing against Peter Dutton; which means that not only is he unlikely to be the next Prime Minister but he is in real danger of losing his own seat. 

The 'wedge' of voters who have decided to vote for someone other than the majors is now standing at about 37%; which is the largest since the 1910 election.

2000

ALP 29

L/NP 26

GRN 0

OTH 6

At 8pm there has not been any vast change in the projected seats that the parties are likely to win. 

As for my seat of Chifley, 'Red Ed' Husic is holding a staggering 74% of the primary vote; which means that in all likelihood the seat isn't even going to go to second preferences at all. 

If in fact Eden-Monaro retains its position as the bellwether seat, then at this stage of the count, then the Labor Party retains government but it is still unknown in what capacity.

2030

ALP 76

L/NP 34

GRN 3

OTH 10

At Labor HQ there has been a lot of bouncing about as Antony Green declared that there is no way for the Liberal/National Parties to form government.

The big question at this point is whether or not the Labor Party wins government in its own right, if it can form some kind of coalition of supporters for supply on the floor, or if the Governor General will simply give Anthony Albanese the commission@ for the Premiership despite having only minority government.

Based on only 22% of the vote, while I can not project out the full results, it is reasonable to assume that most of the votes that follow, also follow the same trends.

2100

ALP 77

L/NP 33

GRN 2

OTH 10

This late into the evening it is entirely possible that the swing was so bad, that the wipeout of coalition seats is enough to lose even those already tallied.

Probably the most interesting thing which I did not predict was that the L/NP did not gain ground against the teals and the independents.

If you ignore the swing towards the Greens on primary vote (which is now standing at about 13%) then the swing towards the others generally (which includes One Nation and the Trumpet Of Patriots) is tracking at at least 20% and well on the way towards 25%.

Bob Katter in the seat of Kennedy has such a grip on primaries, that he is likely to waltz in with more than 75% of the vote. 

Ian Goodenough who was disendorsed by the Liberal Party in the Western Australian seat of Moore, might very well win as an independent. With only 7% of the vote counted, it is still not enough to declare anything with any certainty. I would expect though that without the Liberal Party behind him, it will be unlikely that he scores more than about 15% because brand recognition is often stronger than personal reputation.

2130

ALP 78

L/NP 33

GRN 1

OTH 9

At half past nine, Peter Dutton gave a concession speech to the nation and I have to say that if we saw this level of graciousness at any point during the past three years, he may very well won his own seat and led the party to victory.

If Peter Dutton is not in the parliament, then the immediate question is who is going to lead the Liberal Party. Apart from the obvious problem of who actually has a seat to be able to do the job, I do not think that there is an obvious leader. Maybe Dan Tehan is the most senior member? Who knows?

2200

ALP 87

L/NP 39

GRN 1

OTH 9

It has become obvious that in Tasmania there has been a double digit swing towards Labor and that all five seats are likely to be held by them. 

More generally, with Tasmania and Victoria where the Labor Party is not popular at state level, this kind of result is unheard of. This is not so much a Labor win but the worst result for the Liberal Party since its inception in 1944.

This late in the evening, the possibility of there being a minority government has faded. Even if all of the remaining 14 seats still in doubt by my count fall to the Liberals, then Labor still holds government in its own right. 

2230

ALP 87

L/NP 39

GRN 0

OTH 11

By my count through Wikipedia, apart from Stanley Bruce and John Howard, I think that Peter Dutton is the first Opposition Leader to have lost his own seat in 125 years. 

Albanese actually becomes the first Prime Minister since 2004 to have won back to back elections. Admittedly it should be nominally easier to win an election with the benefit of incumbency but the fact that since 2007 we have had knives out all the time, suggests that maybe the idea of doing boring governance might have returned. 

Since I last plugged the AEC data into my spreadsheet, although Sarah Witty is not ahead in Melbourne, she has so many 1s that I can no longer call Greens' MP Adam Bandt as retaining the seat.

I am not Albo's biggest fan by far, but I don't think you can pin this result entirely on the failed campaign of the Coalition. You don't win 80+ seats just because the opposition is useless. Although having said that, Peter Dutton is officially the most damaging leader of the Liberal Party in federal history.

2300

ALP 87

L/NP 40

GRN 0

OTH 12

Perhaps the craziest result in this election was that former Labor Senator Anne Urquhart has been pitted against Mal Hingston for the seat of Braddon. The AEC is currently reporting that this is a 15.1% swing against the Liberal Party.

Broadly speaking, what we have seen is that of the 18 million voters in this country, 12 million have voted for the majors but 6 million have not. Those 6 million are likely to be Gen-Y and Gen-Z, who have long been thrown overboard by the major parties. 

2312

ALP 87 (86)

L/NP 51

GRN 0 (1)

OTH 12

This is how I think that the final count will shake out.

I do not see any new seats flipping to Labor but even so, this is a stonking majority for the Labor Party. Is this a landslide? Maybe.

I have no idea who is likely to attempt to be the Liberal Party leader after this, and it may even be that the immediate Opposition Leader could very well be David Littleproud as the National Party hasn't seemed to be affected at all.

Either way, Albanese has boringly been reinstalled as Prime Minister and the Australian people have decided that it was bin night and have chucked out a potato.

Horse 3457 - In Which I Predict The Winner Of The 2025 Federal Election

The 2025 Australian Federal Election is in theory the hardest to predict the result for, since the 1906 Federal Election. The reason for this is the same though. Before 1910 when the two big massive flocks of political groups starting flying in the same kinds of directions, the Westminster System which is both apathetic and agnostic to the results that it throws up, produced a series of parliaments where the wedge between the two flocks was so big that government was hard to form.

Australia since about the time of Howard, has had an increasing amount of displeasure and distrust in the two big flocks, such that the spread and scope of the wedge has grown. In 2010 when Ms Gillard took Labor to victory, the wedge was smallish but because the two big groups were perfectly poised, it was a crossbench of 4 of 5, which returned the Labor Party to government.

In 1906, the wedge between the Labor Party led by Chris Watson and George Reid's Anti-Socialist Party, was mostly made of former Prime Minister Alfread Deakin's Protectionist Party and former Premier of Western Australia John Forrest who led a party of two. In 2025, the wedge consists of 16 seats. 

I have a spreadsheet which by taking the results of the previous election and the results of the NewsPoll, YouGov, and Morgan polls, assumes a uniform swing across the country to determine what the outcome is. The problem with this kind of methodology in 2025 is that it has as it's base assumption that a Two-Party Preferred (2PP) basis is good enough to calculate uniform swing, and then populate the results downwards across the board. The wedge is now so large, and the expected primary vote for both of the two big flocks, that my spreadsheet is now spitting out #DIV/0 errors in 22 seats. That's larger than the wedge, and larger than any possible sensible set of calculations for the result can handle. 

So in producing my prediction, I have had to override many of the equations which go into the various cells; then use the 2PP basis to calculate the result, even though I know full well that the result is going to be idiotic. This is a "Garbage In, Garbage Out" set of calculations because the the quality of any output is directly determined by the quality of the input. In this case, even though the equations used to generate a uniform swing calculator are perfect because the data is in essence flawed, the results are also flawed. You can not make a silken purse from a sow's ear.

Be that as it may, this is my prediction for the 2025 Australian Federal Election. I have an 80% success rate for picking Australian Federal Election results in broad terms (definitely not numbers); which I put down to the fact that it becomes really obvious late in the piece as to whom is unelectable.

Labor 79 (+2)

L-NP 64 (+6)

Green 1 (-3)

Other 6 (-5)

I think that the Liberal Party in particular will claw back seats from the Greens and the Teals, but I doubt that even a single Labor held seat will flip from red to blue. 27 seats did not even come close to finishing as winnable contests in 2022 and ironically, given that the wedge of votes is getting wider, I think that that hard core unswingable base will only grow on both sides. I think that Bennelong is the seat that will flip back to red and that Eden-Monaro will retain its status as bellwether. Kennedy will remain Bob Katter's seat. Warringah will remain Zali Steggal's seat. Dr Helen Haines will remain as Member for Indi.

If there is going to be any surprise on the night, it will be if Peter Dutton is so on the nose that he loses his seat of Dickson. Nominally it would take a swing of 1.5% to displace him which is less than 1700 votes. He might survive because of name recognition or fall precisely because of that same thing.

What would be really weird is if the wedge proves to be massive and blue at the same time. If the wedge is bigger than 9% across the country, then as many as 43 seats could be in play; which means that government might swing on the basis of 3rd and 4th preferences. There is a remote possibility that Ali France wins the seat of Dickson for Labor but the Labor Party loses. If that happens, then there is a chance that Peter Dutton would be given the commission as Prime Minister but with no seat, and then either win a seat in a by-election or take up a seat in the Senate upon the resignation of a Liberal Party sacrifice.

Always the ticking time bomb in the background is Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026; which currently has a status of "Not Proceeding" and "Lapsed at dissolution" upon 28th Mar 2025. As it was introduced on 25th Mar 2025, then the six months given for the Senate to reject or fail to pass it, ends on 26th Sep 2025.

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7327

This means that the weirdest possible timeline of all is a Labor Government, with Peter Dutton as Leader of the Opposition from the Senate, blocking the budget, to send us back to the polls in October or November. 

I think that the most likely scenario is either the Labor Party winning majority with a margin of 3 or less, or having to negotiate with the big wedge, hoping to scrobble about for the 2 or 3 seats necessary for a majority on the floor to secure supply and confidence. 

Ho and Hum.

Horse 3456 - The Youth Are Not "Strongly Attached" To ANZAC Day? GOOD.

As the Murdoch press gradually loses its cultural reach over normal people, mostly because newspaper circulation is falling and the number of people who actually watch Sky News is numbered in the tens for some programs (not tens of thousands, just tens); after having tried to cause moral outrage over Australia Day and Easter, the Daily Telegraph and the Courier-Mail tired to attack Gen-Z over its apparent apathy over ANZAC Day.

Citing a Newspoll, the papers concluded that less than 25% of people in Gen-Z, presumably Generation Alpha, and probably all of Generation Beta (the oldest of those being about four months old), were "strongly attached" to ANZAC Day, whatever that is supposed to mean.

To that I say... good.

Tired old men, from a tired old war.

And the young people ask:

"What are they marching for?"

And I ask myself the same question.

...

And the band played 'Waltzing Matilda'.

Let's put this in perspective shall we?

VJ Day, was the 9th of September 1945. If someone had turned 18 on the very last day of WW2, then they would be 97 years old now. That means that although there are a few people who might be veterans of the Second World War, there are not many. If someone had turned 18 on the very last day of WW1, then they would be 124 years old today. As there are no people who are that old, the actual memory of the First World War has not only faded but been extinguished entirely. There are no dodecagenarians.

This means that the right to claim who gets to decide what kinds of moral outrage should exist, and who gets to claim that same moral outrage, is certainly not owned by the Murdoch press. About the only moral outrage which can or should be claimed by anyone within the Murdoch press, was ironically Keith Murdoch himself; who expressed shock at the conditions endured by the soldiers at Gallipoli. He bothered to turn up and report what he saw on the battlefield itself.

In fact, isn't that the very point of ANZAC Day itself?

25th April was was declared 'ANZAC Day' by the federal government in 1916. They knew full well of the bloody pointlessness of the campaign which saw 12,401 ANZAC soldiers die for literally zero gain whatsoever. This was not the glorious dead but a campaign which saw at minimum 480,000 people flung at machine gun fire, merely to result in an Ottoman victory. So for the Murdoch press to somehow make sport of the "ANZAC Spirit" or whatever they were trying to do, is not only to completely misread what the whole deal was about, but also to spit in the face of their own former proprietor.

The fact that younger people are not "strongly attached" to ANZAC Day is testament to the fact that the people who saw the horrors of war, twice in some people's lifetimes, didn't want to revisit that again on their children and grandchildren. Organisations like the EU and NATO, now decried by the children who were born in the peace and prosperity that their parents created, were designed not so much to be glorious pieces of cooperation but to gum up the gears of war so that they didn't revolve in the first place.

A few Baby Boomers fought in Vietnam but by the time that the two Iraq Wars and the Afghanistan War arrived, the armed forces were entirely run by professional soldiers. Those wars at least from an Australian perspective, were not fought by conscripts or en masse volunteers. That makes a massive difference. 

The people of Gen-Z who were born from 1995-2009, and Generation Alpha from 2010-2024, have only really come of age within the past 10 years at most. Of course they will not be "strongly attached" to a commemoration for a thing which happened 80 years before they were born. In the case of Generation Alpha, the entire generation was born after the last World War I veteran died. The light had already gone out. For them, the First World War and ANZAC Day is only ever going to be something that they will see on film and in print. There are no veterans left to share any experiences.

For Gen-Z, not being "strongly attached" to ANZAC Day may as well be like me not being "strongly attached" to the Battle of Hastings in 1066. I literally can not remember anything before I was born either and 912 years may as well be 100. I was friends with a veteran from the Second World War who flew Liberator B-24 bombers in Italy and had three battle stars, but him relating stories to me was not the same as something that I could actually experience.

Quite frankly, younger generations should not be "strongly attached" to ANZAC Day. In fact becoming increasingly apathetic to the First World War and to its cause, is actually the best policy. We should be horrified when politicians send soldiers off to die. People's lives are the coin of the battlefield and I find it downright horrible and evil that men behind desks and who end up being decorated, spend that coin of the battlefield as though it means nothing to them; especially considering that they are the ones who never actually have to pay.

But as year follows year, more old men disappear

Someday no one will march there at all...

GOOD!

Horse 3455 - When All Cussing Is Pointless

In what will be the very Last Family Law matter that the firm I currently work for will ever do before it closes its doors due to the boss retiring, we have encountered a particularly delightful piece of 'elegant variation'. Yes, that it the genuine term for this.

A 'sobriquet' is when you replace a name/nickname for a specific person; such as "The Bard" for William Shakespeare. A 'metonym' is when a thing stands in for the whole; as in "Washington" standing in for the US Government. An 'elegant variation' is when a word stands in for another word, or multiple other words; which is distinct from a placeholder term which is designed to conceal.

The Elegant Variation in the case of Apple v Banana (2025) is 'cuss' for every single cuss word which is being said by both Ms Apple and Mr Banana. We have sat through multiple days of cussation which would make sailors blush, which would give rise for ejection from parliament under standing order 94A for being unparliamentary, and which would spray so many blue steaks across the sky that they would write letters a thousand feet high.

There has been so much cussing used of the word 'cuss' that even the cussing lawyers and the cussing judge, have taken to using the word 'cuss' in their replies. It as been abso-cussing-lutely fan-cussing-tastic. Moreover, the transcripts of the case have instead of merely censoring the proceedings, have been inserting the word 'cuss' as an elegant variation into the official transcript. 

The really curious thing about the use of the word 'cuss' as an elegant variation, not only in print but as a spoken device, is that the number of cusses has decreased as the case has gone along. This very much suggests that the micro-culture built up within the case has been enough to change people's behaviour. I do not know how long into the future that this will last but if Ms Apple and Mr Banana have been changed by this, then perhaps they might be more pleasant to be around.

I do not know if the lawyers and judges are aware of the stop-motion animated film of Roald Dahl's 'Fantastic Mr. Fox', which was directed by Wes Anderson in 2009 but it has been around long enough that it must have entered at least someone's subconscious by now. Again, I do not know exactly how many times that the word 'cuss' is used as an elegant variation in the film for the various cusses by Messrs. Fox, Badger, Mole, Boggis, Bunce, and Bean, et. al. but as best as I can determine there are 17. Wes Anderson himself said that in the initial drafts of the script, that there were three times this amount; which means that the elegant variation in the film was designed to be a running gag from the outset, and then pulled back for comedic timing purposes. Ms Apple and Mr Banana are not even remotely comedians.

As someone who has wrangled many words and has forced them to dance in my strange menagerie of sentences and paragraphs, I quite like the elegant variation of 'cuss' in place for cuss words. While I think it is useful to have cuss words and parts of speech that are generally taboo, continued use of them in everyday conversation, especially to the degree that Ms Apple and Mr Banana were using them, is just gauche. There are different devices and far more pointed turns of phrase that you can use if you want to spit bile and acid at various targets. 

I actually wonder if Mr Banana's rampant cussing actually contributed to the break-down in their relationship. By laying the formwork of this case through the use of language, Mr Banana cussed his way to a new tone. Ms Apple probably though "cuss that" because she had enough, and decided to get the cuss out. That's probably a good thing as Mr Banana has repeatedly demonstrated that he is not a nice person; which probably explains the colour of his language. I am not suggesting that he does not know any better how to behave; in fact quite the opposite. All of this seems like a choice.

So it goes I suppose. Clearly Mr Banana has long been desensitised to his own use of language to the point where all of his cussing may as well be meaningless. It doesn't seem to act as an intensifier or even as a modifier of language, rather his cussing is being used in the same kind of way that "Um" or "Like" are used primarily as a filler words, to buy time and signal to the listener that the speaker is still thinking and hasn't finished speaking. Maybe this kind of temporary placeholder is actually being used in during moments of uncertainty and/or while Mr Banana is trying gathering their thoughts. Then again, he doesn't seem to actually think very far ahead; or else we wouldn't have been here in the first place. 

Horse 3454 - Dystopias, Dead Worlds, Detritus, Death

As the number of days that I have remaining left in my current job very quickly winds down, my thoughts have once again turned to the realm of literature and the idea of the Dead World. 

I do not mean a Dead World in the sense of a dystopia like 1984, Brave New World, or Fahrenheit 451, but in the sense of Night, Till A' The Seas, Hothouse, Rainworld, Waterworld, or The Gone World. A dystopia tells the story that the world exists but is bad. A dead world, which is either placed towards the end of time or after some hideous apocalyptic event, tells the story where the kosmos itself has either ceased to function or the kosmos which used to function now no longer does so.

Science fiction generally likes to tell stories of worlds imagined; either based upon some glorious and amazing future which will go wrong, or some future which has already gone horribly wrong and someone is trying to cope. The reason for this has to do with the fact that narratives are constructed on the basis that you need conflict in order to move forward, and conflict and complications that need to be solved because that's how stories work. Even children know that all stories have a beginning, middle, and end, and in order for the end to work, the middle needs logical points of order to swing upon.

Dead worlds though in telling stories of worlds imagined, usually come pre-packaged with conflict and complications with either describe how the world got to be that way and/or how to either restore or solve the problem, or how to rebuild the world after if has been destroyed. In some cases, the world is so irreparably gone, that the characters who inhabit it, will come to realise that they like the world are already doomed, and that the conflict and complications are resolved by them coming to realise this as fact.

Why do we like to tell stories like this? Science fiction generally, dystopias in particular, and dead worlds in minutiae, reflects a little of the hopes that we hold, and a lot of the fears that we carry. Humans are highly limited in both space and time, in that they can only live in the hear and now; and although we really hate to admit it, this thing that we call 'life' is merely only temporary and fleeting and can be snuffed out in an instant. Religion in general holds out a hope that this is not all there is, but a dead world in fiction certainly does not. 

The biggest existential horror that we have is that none of us know what it is actually like to die. Dead people almost never come back to report what they have found on the other side of the veil. A dead world though, is when all the people who would have reported what it is like on the other side of the veil are gone, and all that is left is the detritus that has been left behind. In some respects, a dead world is semi-analogous to history, which is a different kind of story telling where the world that has been left behind has not only remained alive but we are left in the alive kosmos to receive the stories of the past.

When my current job dies and I move to a new one, the world that I will used to inhabit will be dead. I will have to carry forward the detritus to some degree but most of the old kosmos will only live as a memory on my head. Almost certainly it will not only be dead but closed to everyone except me and even then only living on in the archives of my mind. I am hardly unique in this. Moreover, when I die and my place remembers me not, even the archives of my mind will be closed; which leads us straight back to that central point of existential horror.

The dead world in principle, holds the mirror up to our existential horror and forces us to stare at it. Good fiction, good scripture, good ideas, good facts, good lore, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, all have the property that just like a piece of grit which is trapped inside an oyster, forms a pearl of wisdom. A dead world in fiction makes us to face things like mortality, pain, disappointment, and maybe even our responses to those things like anger, sadness, ennui; and then forces us to either decide what we intend to do with those responses or manufacture new ones.

That is maybe just as big an existential horror. All evidence that we have thus far suggests that being dead is actually pretty easy. Being alive on the other hand, is sometimes hard. When we point the mirror at ourselves, we often have to consider what (if anything), goes on within our interior life. Some people at least from the outside, show no evidence that anything goes on behind blue eyes. Great philosophers try and take the various pieces of the things that they have manufactured as a result of their interior life and build them into some kind of schema. I think that I am too stupid to do this. I like to be entertained by the horror itself.

Additional and Aside:

I do not understand what is actually so bad about living in the classic dystopias.

Mildred in Farenheit 451 although she does try to commit suicide is probably an edge case to contrast Montag. For everyone else in the novel, being constantly entertained and being totally untroubled by the kosmos, seems like a kind of lovely existence.

I do not understand why The Matrix would not give the people who are stuck in the simulation, a lovely time. What is actually to be gained from giving them horrible experiences? If the intent is to keep them unaware and they have literally no other inputs, then wouldn't the The Matrix want to keep them inside? To that end, giving people a lovely existence seems like the best way to do that.

In Brave New World, what would be so bad about being an Epsilon semi-moron? It is in the interests of the people who want you to work in the factories to keep you happy because that way the system perpetuates. If you are actually too dumb to know what is happening to you, then that's probably a semi-lovely existence, isn't it? Likewise if you are an Alpha-plus, wouldn't that also be nice?

Everyone in the Inner Party in 1984 is clearly having a lovely time because they already control everything. Also, most of the proles in the prole sector also seem to be happy enough. It is only Winston Smith who thinks that he has a problem.

Depending on where you are in the classic dystopias, you are either having a lovely time because you have everything you want, or you are either having a lovely time because you have everything you want by virtue of having your expectations blinkered so very much that you don't want very much. Combine all of them, who wouldn't want to be a prole with Mildred, watching the Screaming Clown Show, drinking Victory Gin, and occasionally going on a Soma Holiday... wouldn't it be lovely? 

Horse 3453 - Prime Minister Peter Dutton, Senator for Queensland?

If I plug in relevant polling data into my swing calculator, then I have results of the May 2025 election as thus:

77 - Labor

68 - Coalition

6 - Others (KAP, Green, IND)

That means that the Coalition claws seats back from the Independents and Greens but that practically no Labor seats move at all.

If there was a swing towards the Coalition, then it is possible that there could be a Coalition but that the current member for Dickson would not be returned. The balance of probabilities for Dickson suggests that Peter Dutton would hold the seat but it would only take a swing of 1.7% for the Labor candidate Ali France, to topple him.

If this unlikely outcome happens, then we are in the unique position of a Leader of the Opposition losing their seat but the party winning government. 

So what would happen in such a scenario?

Section 64 of the Constitution states that:

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Practice_and_Procedure/Constitution/chapter2#chapter-02_64

The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish.

Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council, and shall be the Queen's Ministers of State for the Commonwealth.

Ministers to sit in Parliament

After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a Senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

- Section 64, Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (1900)

As the "Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State" and they "shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General" then there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Governor-General appointing literally anyone and anything in the world to the office of Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has no other definition at Constitutional law other than being a Minister of State. This means that as there is no other definition, then the Governor-General may appoint anyone they like.

If a minister lost their seat at an election they would no longer be a member of parliament. They could still be the Minister, provided that they were then able to attain a seat within 89 days. Likewise if Mr Dutton were to lose the seat of Dickson, then presumably he could contest some other seat in a by-election assuming that a Member of the House resigned, or be appointed to the Senate provided that some other Senator resigned.

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Practice_and_Procedure/Constitution/chapter1/Part_II_-_The_Senate#chapter-01_part-02_15

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.

- Section 15, Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (1900)

The idea that a Senator is Prime Minister is unusual but not Constitutionally invalid. In the current arrangement of the Albanese ministry, there are 10 Senators who are either Ministers, Assistant Ministers, or Special Envoys. The idea that a Senator is Prime Minister is also not new.

When John Gorton was appointed as the 19th Prime Minister of Australia on 10th January 1968, after Harold Holt's disappearance in December 1967, he became the first and thus far only senator to assume the office of Prime Minister. Granted that he did contest and win the seat of Higgins which Harold Holt previously held, but there was no Constitutional demand for him to do so. Gorton was even Prime Minister without even holding a seat in Parliament for 38 days; which is longer than Frank Forde and John McEwen's time in the office put together.

Nominally the Prime Minister, as the leader of the government, would want to be a member of the House of Representatives because this is where government is formed. However as there is no mention of the existence of a "Prime Minister" and no rule that the Prime Minister can not be a Senator, then this is only by mere convention and tradition. As we saw when Scott Morrison became minister for Health; Finance; Industry, Science, Energy and Resources; Home Affairs; and Treasury, then even within the 20s mere convention and tradition holds only as long as mere convention and tradition holds.

Prime Minister Peter Dutton, Senator for Queensland is not beyond the realms of possibility because out there in the unknown future and if your dare, all things are possible.