Election Time in the West

The great state of Western Australia has a new Premier. Congratulations to Mark McGowan on a well run campaign. Mr McGowan was the longest serving opposition leader in the country prior to his victory. The outgoing Premier, Colin Barnett, was the countries longest serving Premier. 

In the immediate aftermath, its clear Mr McGowan has a difficult task ahead. I hope that the government he will lead gets straight down to the task. The early signs seem hopeful.

The Labor party campaigned hard for a stop to the contentious Roe eight project. Mr McGowan has already reaffirmed that the project will stop. That decision will cost the government a reasonable amount of money. Considering the States challenging economic position I expect he will face some criticism, but that was going to be the case regardless.

There has been some talk form Union officials in the wake of the election (1). Christy Cain has gone on record suggesting, “I reckon the campaign was won largely by the union movement,” he said. “He really owes the unions re privatization’s, re putting Australian jobs first, re not selling the port.”

Thankfully, the issues that the Unions have suggested the government ’owes’ them for are existing Labor policy. As to why someone would say what Mr Cain said, well, his comments are easily the silliest I’ve heard post-election.

I suspect the biggest issue the incoming Labor government will face is a fractious Legislative Council. Whilst it’s still too early to tell, it looks like the Labor government will require the assistance of the Greens and one vote from either One Nation or the Shooters and Fishers party to pass any legislation. 

Whilst the Labor party gets on with the job of governing the bloodletting has started in the Liberal Party. Deprived of Ben Morton for the first time in a decade the Liberal campaign was a shambles. To be fair it would have required nothing short of a miracle for the Liberals to win a third term.

Liza Harvey has wisely withdrawn from any talk of the leadership. I expect she will challenge after the 2021 election or perhaps a year prior to it if the Liberals think they have a chance at winning. A Liberal win in 2021 seems unlikely though and the Liberals would benefit from a period in opposition to reorganise.

Mike Nahan is firming as the opposition Leader. Hopefully he remains as responsible in opposition as he has been in the role of Treasurer. As I’ve said before, to have good government you need to have good opposition. I wish him well.

The Nationals vote has held up surprisingly well given their disastrous policy position on mining royalties. The only casualty was their Leader Brendon Grylls who lost his seat to the Labor Challenger. The loss was down entirely to the proposed royalty increase, the Nationals vote held up everywhere else across the Assembly and the Council.

The Greens benefitted from some small swings in the Legislative Assembly but it was nowhere near enough to pick up a seat. In the Legislative Council, their vote appears steady. I imagine the Greens would be disappointed with their performance.  

The big story though has been the last of the minor parties, One Nation. Whilst the media has been doing their best to hose down One Nations performance, they have made gains, particularly in the council.

Whilst they secured under five percent of the vote in the Assembly, they only ran a candidate in half of the seats. Had they run in every seat, their primary vote may even have doubled. Had that occurred they would have held the third highest primary vote.

In the Legislative Council One Nation actually has the third highest primary vote presently, although the Greens may just catch them. They are set to have two members of the Council and will absolutely have the ability to affect legislation in Western Australia.

With their strong result comes an increase in government funding. That will allow One Nation to run a much stronger campaign in 2021. Double digits in both houses is possible. If the Liberal Party cannot win back the more conservative members of the electorate, One Nation will establish itself as a long-term threat.

Of course, One Nation could implode, or perhaps stagnate as the Greens have. Much depends on how hard both major parties work to include the less reasonable elements of society. Much also depends on the wider voting publics satisfaction with the two major parties.

Let’s hope that the Premier Elect can formulate some effective legislation based upon the mandate upon which he was elected. Let’s hope he can successfully navigate it through the uncertain waters of the council. Let’s hope that his leadership is inclusive, rather than divisive.

Lastly, let’s hope that his opposition remembers that whilst the politics of division may hurt the government of the day, they can cause real damage to our society. They encourage the more radical and less responsible people in society. They rarely translate into a viable, alternative government.  

1. https://thewest.com.au/politics/state-election-2017/unions-take-credit-for-win-ng-b88412928z

A Democratic Decision

I’m worried. It’s not the kind of casual concern that flitters across ones consciousness. It’s a nagging dread. I worry about the way that we are governing ourselves. I used to be sure that a democracy was the best way forward – the only way forward. I still believe that it is but I’m no longer as sure as I once was.

It’s because of this dread that this year I’m going to focus more heavily on political theory. I’ll still be writing about other issues, but regular readers can expect five or six pieces over the course of the year touching on a range of issues around how we govern ourselves.

2016 gave us the Brexit. It gave us Trump. Many people wondered how these things could happen. These events gave rise to many questions. I fear those questions might have answers our society will find uncomfortable.

One such question is at the knot in the centre of my nagging dread. Is the rule of the majority the best way to ensure that we get the best outcome for the majority? Such a simple question. So many answers.

On the one hand, it seems farcical to believe that the most popular answer to any problem is the correct answer. Sixty-four percent of people could believe that Mars does not exist. That Mars is ‘fake news’. Mars will still exist. We can measure it. We can scientifically prove that it is there. The majority is clearly incorrect.  

If sixty-four percent of people don’t believe Mars exists, should our government disregard the possibility of exploring Mars?  What if there are Martians on Mars?  What if they are coming to slaughter us? What if they plan to steal all the Earth’s broccoli?

(Disclaimer – I do not believe there are Martians on Mars. If they exist, It’s doubtful they would steal our broccoli.)  

One of the many criticisms levelled at the clever people of the world by the less clever majority is that they are ‘out of touch’. Many Trump supporters fall into this category in my view. In a sense, the criticism is accurate. The scientific community is out of touch with the mainstream. This does not make the mainstreams view correct.

Explaining to the majority that they are in fact misguided is one of the great challenges we face. So far, we as a community are failing to meet it. That’s why there is a disconnect. Logical, scientific thought is important. The scientific method has delivered a world measurably superior to the past. What I muse is perhaps forgotten is the art of communicating that logical thought to the less educated.

Having said that, I believe the challenge has become greater as our overall scientific knowledge has increased. The gap between a physicist and someone who has not studied any science is significant. I struggle at times and I’m someone who genuinely tries to better himself despite a lack of formal tertiary qualification. Where does that leave someone who isn’t interested? Someone who just wants the politicians to fix it?

Whilst the scientific view is important, on the other hand people’s views are also important. Attempting to force someone into doing something they don’t want to do isn’t going to work. It doesn’t matter how noble the goal is.

Furthermore, what happens when the science isn’t clear? As much as we know about the world there is still so much that we don’t understand. We could be wrong about so much. One thing we can be certain of is that some part of existing scientific orthodoxy is currently wrong.

Much of what we know the least about is how the human mind works. Why we form the social and cultural groups that we do. How much of that is determined by genetics? How much is learned behaviour?

All of these things are likely crucial to determining the most effective way for our species to organise and govern ourselves. With no clear scientific consensus, the only thing we have left is majority rule. We have a democracy.  

So we come back to the central question. How does government respond when what people actually want to do is not the sensible option based upon our scientific knowledge? What do our politicians do? If they ignore the majority, they run the risk of being voted out by a public who will feel that their views haven’t been well represented by those they elected.

If they ignore the scientists, they will likely deliver measurably worse outcomes for the people that elected them. People that they are trying to help. Once it becomes obvious that their lives are in fact worse, the elected officials will once again find themselves turfed out of office.

It truly is a damned if you do damned if you don’t situation. Who’d be a politician? We should all be a little more forgiving of them.

I suspect that some type of overarching global government is inevitable. There is so much that we can all agree on. Sadly I’ve no idea how we should elect it as this piece shows. I also believe that underneath that global entity there is room for highly diverse small governments, governing relatively small groups of people. Once again, I’m not sure how that will work much less how those two governments fit together.

I am sure of three things. One, There is a very real risk that our world might suffer some type of dramatic collapse if we don’t get this right over the next thirty or so years.

Two, the only way to progress, to avoid the collapse, is to talk about it. Scientists need to research. People need be educated on that research. We will probably need to make some mistakes.

Three, should we avoid our ‘Roman empire moment’ future historians will be looking at pieces like this wondering how on earth it took us so long to figure this stuff out.

Nostradamus? Not Likely!

My wonderful wife and I like to engage in some fairly robust debate. This often occurs over a bottle of wine. We usually start out discussing a recent news event and the implications it might have. Where we wind up is, well, difficult to predict. This ‘shit talk’ is one of the cornerstones of our relationship.

Of late though my wife has challenged me to put some of my predictions down on paper. In this way, we can have a good laugh at them in thirty years’ time. One of us will get to say ‘I told you so’. What could possibly go wrong?

The piece will outline five ‘predictions’ which I think will occur sometime between 2050 and 2070. I hope that the future generations who might read this will be kind as I am not French, have no scrying device and my predictions are not organised into quatrains.

Prediction One - A universal basic income will become the norm for western countries

 A universal basic income (UBI) is a basic level of income, which every citizen within a state receives at regular intervals on a permanent basis. There are many reasons why this is a good idea. The best of them is that the welfare states currently maintained are expensive and wasteful. The structural changes such a scheme would usher in to the world economic system would also greatly reduce global wealth inequality. I plan to talk more about UBI in more detail this year.

Prediction Two – Driverless cars will be the norm

This one really is inevitable. Driverless cars will be safer. They will free up the time we spend travelling each day to do other pursuits. They will be better for the environment. They will be cheaper. The fact that so many still doubt the fact that driverless cars are the way forward is testament to people’s fear of change, even when that change is hugely beneficial to them.

Prediction Three – We will be able to upload our consciousness

I wrote a piece on this last year. To fulfil this prediction we need to emulate the human brain with artificial components. This is a possibility that often terrifies people.  Failing a nuclear induced Armageddon we will at some point in the future be able to emulate a human brain. We know it’s possible, because I wouldn’t be typing this if it was impossible. The only variable is time. How will it take us to discover the secrets of what makes our brain operate in the way it does. I’m suggesting around forty years.   

Prediction Four – The primary cause of global warming is not fossil fuels

This one is sure to put me firmly in the lunatic fringe. I’m good with that and there is a growing body of people who share my view (1). Most of these dissenters argue that the sun has a greater impact on global temperature than fossil fuel emissions. There is compelling evidence that the dissenters have it right (2). The contortions of those supporting the fossil fuels theory go into when trying to deny what is becoming increasingly obvious is truly amusing.      

The fact that those supporting the fossil fuels theory are so dismissive of any criticism is one of the markers that something is dreadfully wrong here. It’s simply not scientific to say things like ‘the debate is over’.  

Humans need to feel like we are in control. We are not. We are very good at deluding ourselves into thinking we can control that which we cannot. Religion is perhaps the best example of this. Over time, the evidence will show how thoroughly we have deluded ourselves over climate.

Prediction Five – They will look back and call the period between 1990 and 2020 the ‘PC’ age

All societies mock those that have come before them. Much as we mock the cultural traditions of the 60’s those in the 2070’s will find elements of our culture befuddling. I suspect the thing we’ll be mocked most widely for is that which I would loosely describe as the ‘politically correct’ movement.

This movement is responsible for identity politics. It’s responsible for free speech crushing ‘safe spaces’. It’s responsible for the scientifically ridiculous idea that we are all absolutely equal. It is utterly oblivious to the fact that people are in fact different. It’s ok to be different. It’s ok to not be equal.

We don’t have to have equal outcomes in every single area of society. We need to embrace our differences. Celebrate our differences. I’d argue that celebrating those differences is the hallmark of a truly tolerant society as opposed to the dangerously authoritarian one we are at risk of becoming.

Concluding thoughts

I’m sure some will see this as some kind of wish list. That’s not unfair. Most of these kinds of prediction lists are at least to some degree a reflection of what the writer would like to see. Few people, with the possible exception of the doomsday cultist, make predictions that they don’t want to see come to pass. In any case it’s been an interesting exercise. I hope I’m still out here blurbeling away when 2050 rolls around.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

2. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

A Harmonious Holiday

I apologise. It’s been a little while since my last post. That’s because I’ve been on a truly awesome holiday where I did very little. It was glorious for the most part and my very favourite part was the first week.

My family and I are fortunate enough to live a few hours north of the very beautiful Margaret River region. We drove down for the first week and stayed at a wonderful location. It’s the location which I’ll spruik for the remainder of this piece.

We stayed at the Harmony Forrest Margaret River Cottages (1). They are located just south of Witchcliffe, which is fifteen kilometres south of the Margaret River town itself. The cottages themselves are in the middle of a karri forest.

Many locations harp on about being ‘off the beaten track’. Their advertising waxes and wanes about getting in touch with nature and or away from the bustle of city life. I’d like to stress at this point that the Harmony Forest cottages themselves are literally in the middle of a karri forest.

Not some recently planted grove. Not a man-made construct. Nothing manicured. Each cottage is enclosed by forest accessible only by a gravel track. Each of the eight cottages is separated by a couple of hundred metres of dense forest. The dirt track running around all eight cottages is a little over a kilometre long.

When you look out of the window of your private spa, the forest is about five metres away. If you are quiet when you are outside you will see a number of tiny local birds fluttering about. The residents guide advises that if you leave fruit out after dark local possums will visit. I can confirm this is the case.

There are a number of trails cutting through the area. When I went for a run, I saw kangaroo’s metres away from me. Sometimes they hopped away from me, once they hopped along in front of me on the track. Rabbits bounded out from one side of the track to the other in front of me.

You can just manage to get some mobile reception in the forest itself. I can’t imagine why you would want to use your mobile phone except for perhaps the odd call. There is so much else to see. There is so much that is wonderfully peaceful about the place.

When you do leave the forest to explore the Margaret River area you find that the forest itself is quite perfectly situated. It’s close to the well credentialed vineyards of the region such as Voyager, Leeuwin and Cape Mentelle.

If wine isn’t your thing the caves are close by and the Augusta lighthouse isn’t far to the south. Margaret River itself is of course close by to the north. You are near to everything that the region is famous for.

Lastly, the cottages themselves are a great place for kids. There is a generous naturally grassed area around each cottage. Furthermore there is the forest itself to explore. I cannot recommend the place highly enough. So if you find yourself travelling in that part of the world check out for just a short time by in to the Harmony Forrest Margaret River Cottages.

1. http://www.harmonyforest.com.au/