Progress Towards Systemic Change in Australia

Since my polemic against the inherent fault of the Westminster Parliamentary System in September 2015, which scarcely raised a murmur, a few significant events have occurred that prompt a revisit to the concept of a truly functional and representative system of government for Australia.

The first event in this cascade was the cynical but legal call the Governor-General to dissolve the parliament and issue writs for a general election.

Following this, two organisations already active in raising public awareness of the options for systemic change have ramped up their efforts to get popular support for their ideas.

Lastly, with growing disaffection for the major parties, a number of new independents (and some older ones including Tony Windsor) have begun nominating for what have been considered safe seats. In particular, Dr Stephen Ruff (North Sydney), Dr Van Davy (Robertson) and now James Mathison (Warringah) are challenging in what have been traditionally “safe” seats.

John Howard’s defeat as reigning Prime Minister in his “safe” seat is a salutary reminder that no seat, nor government, is safe – not even in the skewed Westminister system.

My take is that these  organisations I previously mentioned, are working within the current system to effect change, with the intention of gradually changing the machinery of government.

The only alternative is revolution, and that’s not likely to end well. The only (relatively) bloodless revolutions I’ve witnessed had a couple of ingredients missing in Australia:

Thailand:

• universal respect for the monarchy;
• fragmented and almost-universally unpopular government;
• a populace largely uneducated and disengaged from the political process;
• a strong military (rank of full-colonel and officers) with experience of military government;
• the will of the military and the tacit support of the monarchy.

I had the unusual experience of landing in Thailand as the military took over the airport during the 1977 coup, and the only casualties were a few corrupt politicians and student activists.

The Philippines:

• totalitarian and almost-universally unpopular government
• a popular alternative in Corazon Aquino ready to step into the breach
• a strong military (rank of full-colonel and officers) with experience of military government
• the will of the military to support regime change (they’d done it before)

I was there before and after the 1986 People Power Revolution and the only casualties again were a few of the corrupt politicians.

That process however won’t fly in Australia – we don’t have any of the key ingredients, ergo the need for a Plan B.

Change The System  is a non-profit, non-aligned independent group with a broad platform of reform and disdain for the two-party platforms. I strongly support their efforts. Watch this space!

Flux takes this concept to the next level. Flux has no policies, and never will. How cool is that? In a stunning use of technology, Flux has the potential to actually deliver a mechanism to achieve true democracy to a degree never seen before. Not ever.

“Open to manipulation” will be the most likely first response to this concept. Look to that crucible of modern democracy, that beacon of truth, justice and fairness as is the current U.S. presidential election and ask me again about the shortcomings of technology.

I am already supporting both organisations for change, as well as the independents I believe will bring honesty and decency to the present tawdry bipartite shambles.

I implore you, dear reader, to consider the options being presented and to support an independent in your own electorate who will support the policies that are important to you. View with care the pork-barrel promises of both sides of parliament.

 

Some thoughts on changing the system

There are so many fundamental flaws in the system that won’t be changed as long as we continue to bumble along enjoying our unearned relative prosperity.

Thomas Jefferson wrote “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” There is no will in this “I’m alright, Jack” society of ours as long as we still have our meat pies, kangaroos and Korean cars with Holden badges.

Which flaws?

• The Westminster system that created in turn the bi-partisan structure. The concept of Government & Opposition is so contrary to good management but I can see its value to a reigning monarch in keeping them fighting each other and leaving me alone.
• As a consequence, party loyalty and party interests trump the interests of the electorate.
• The federal system with the sovereignty of the states prevailing. It’s a pretty shaky nation when any of the sovereign constituents can pull the rug out from under it.
• Parliamentarians deciding their own remuneration, with real incentives for the (a) those of lesser worth going for the big pay & retirement benefits, and (b) the independently-wealthy seeking to protect their own interests and massage their own egos.
• Heavily skewed campaign funding propping up the party system through sponsorship, from both sides – business & unions.
• Massive replication of public services through redundant three-tiered government.

The solutions?

• By plebiscite the states cede sovereignty to the Commonwealth.
• The Commonwealth becomes a Constitutional Republic with an inherent Bill of Rights.
• The present three levels of government to be structurally similar with responsibilities largely unchanged in the early days so as to avoid frightening the horses, but with some major differences:
  • local government representation be based on one elected member and one selected member for each ward; with higher levels of administration elected from this pool, always with one elected and one selected so that elected & selected are equal in number at each level. At the highest level (“Cabinet”) this committee will be responsible for policy development, aided by salaried permanent heads of departments, whose tenure is determined by parliament on a three-year rollover of government.
  • in nomination for an elected position, the nominee must resign from and forswear allegiance to any political party; on selection the selectee must do likewise.
  • remuneration of representatives be set by an independent judicial tribunal and be directly proportional to the national minimum wage.
  • term of service of both elected and selected representatives be one year, with a limit of two successive terms and thereafter no further participation.
  • elections will be held annually on the same day of the same month, with selections taking place during the year for commencement of service at the same time as the elected representatives. Selection to be (as with jury service) from the electoral rolls at random, with exemptions permitted on any reasonable grounds, and with compensation payable for loss of earnings over and above the common remuneration.

Of course, this is just me dreaming – unless and until conditions for the majority of Australians deteriorate to the point of open rebellion, there’s no collective intelligence to contemplate any change. This is just so damned easy to implement with online voting already in place (my wife and I voted online in the last election) and a whole lot better security than just turning up to have your name struck off the roll.

Of course it’s an over-simplification, and I’m sure many faults can be found, but unless we effect fundamental change we’ll keep getting the same outcomes (who said that first?) – at least this comes closer to the true meaning of “demos” and “kratos”.

UPDATE

Perhaps my dream may be achieved in my lifetime. Perhaps not the way I envisaged, but capable of meeting my aspirations. Check it out here.

The Week That Was… April 17

Peter Broelman

View original post

Dr Karl and the Intergenerational Report…

Peter Broelman

View original post

Harnessing the power of waves

Tony the Mad Hatter: lies, falsifications and mistakes

“Tony Abbott’s prime ministership has entered its Mad Hatter phase. The table’s set, but as the mess, stains and sloppy work become evident, rather than address the problem he simply gets up and shifts the entire tea party one place to the right.

Everyone’s still pretending nothing unusual is going on and that Abbott’s speeches – such as his latest take on terror – are sensible reactions to the real world. They’re rubbish. They only possess meaning as increasingly desperate attempts to staunch the tide of support flowing from him. He’s banging cymbals and creating noise to prevent us focusing on what’s going wrong.

What happened in Martin Place was the act of one individual. The authorities had plenty of opportunities to prevent what happened and they were responsible for the death of one of the two hostages. Let’s get the current system working properly before we create a new one. But that’s not what Abbott wants. Desperate to create distractions, and just like the Mad Hatter, the PM inhabits a world of his own creation. It bears only passing relationship to our own.

The Duke of Edinburgh isn’t Australian and can’t be made a knight? Change the rules so he can. Word somehow gets out that you wanted to send troops to Iraq to “take on” ISIL? Describe the story as “fanciful” and choose your words carefully to imply the whole story’s wrong. Seize on the word “unilaterally”, because that provides the wriggle room to escape. But the PM’s form gives us cause to pause.

As he denied John Lyon’s devastating allegations, Abbott insisted our special forces are on an “advise and assist” mission. That’s true, but it would be more accurate to say they’re diplomats (on diplomatic passports) sitting behind the wire. He wanted to do more but the Iraqis won’t even have our aircraft land in their country. That’s why he couldn’t take Aussie journalists to visit Baghdad.

As a national security PM, Abbott has presided over a succession of disasters. After the new pay offer (less than inflation for the next three years) there’s nobody at Russell, in uniform or without, who thinks he’s competent. His financial decisions prove it. Strangling pay for three years isn’t good economic policy for an economy on its knees. People need to be encouraged, to view the future optimistically. The myopic Abbott sends us back underwater, which brings us back to the submarine imbroglio last Friday.

“As I understand it,” said Abbott, “the last Swedish submarine came off the production line in about 1996, so it’s almost two decades since Sweden built a submarine.” That’s a bizarre formulation. A statement ringed with qualifications, innuendos and suggestions so incorrect as to be completely misleading, if not an actual lie. Abbott’s redefining the world to fit his vision. Again.

When Defence Minister Kevin Andrews chose the words “competitive evaluation process” to describe the selection process for the new submarine, everyone thought he was stupid. No such process actually exists. But it turns out he chose his words very carefully.

Normally, you’d call for tenders. Companies that want to build the subs could have put forward bids. But that left two big problems for the government.

Firstly, the Japanese aren’t prepared to put forward an open bid. Buying Japanese is just a sweetheart deal between Abbott and Shinzo Abe. It’s got absolutely nothing to do with getting the best submarine. It’s about strategic geopolitics: locking Canberra into a deal with Tokyo and Washington against Beijing. The submarines are intended to last until 2050 and beyond. They won’t, of course. Technical developments will render them obsolete well before then, but Abbott doesn’t want to hear that. He wants to bolt us to Japan as tightly as he can; tie us into a close relationship of geopolitical dependency.

The second reason Abbott doesn’t want a real tender process is that it would be far too dangerous. SAAB would have demonstrated its advantages. One: they could build in South Australia; two, better range than the Japanese sub;  and three, a proven integrated combat system with the best of US and European design. It would be a submarine for our needs rather than Japan’s. Somehow, SAAB had to be prevented from tendering. The company had advantages the Japanese couldn’t match.

Our Collins subs already outclass the Soryu in range, speed and stealth. Abbott wasn’t really worried that his mate Vladimir Putin would tender; he was terrified that a fair competition would come up with the best solution.

So what future for South Australia? Well, as far as Abbott’s concerned they can all just grow grapes. Under him, our car businesses have announced they will close down. Abbott’s single-handedly presided over the closing of this country’s entire industrial capacity. He has no vision for the future and if you want to know why, look back at the subs. Don’t believe that rubbish about us keeping the maintenance here. When the time comes it won’t make sense not to do the mid-life refits in Japan. Adelaide will be left with the job of painting the hulls. That’s as high as Abbott believes we should aim. He’s still a proud Brit, deep down in his heart.

So if this is all true, why hasn’t Abbott gone yet? When he was pleading with colleagues for his political life he begged to be given a chance until the winter break. And, unlike her eyes, Julie Bishop’s position isn’t crystal clear. If Malcolm Turnbull challenged the PM there’s always the danger the right might swing behind her, just to stuff him. Divide and rule.

In the meantime the country goes to pot. Let’s hope Turnbull, Bishop and Scott Morrison come to some arrangement soon.”

This article is quoted verbatim from a story by Canberra writer Nicholas Stuart published by The Canberra Times on 23rd February, 2015.

An uplift in government of Australia

Here’s an idea: let’s send the whole front bench of government, no make that both sides, on a year-long holiday to a decent 3-star or better island resort. All expenses paid, spouses and dependent children included.

No telephone or email services. Leave the running of the country to the bureaucrats who are paid to do so.

Given the daily news of the constant stupidity or malice of the government, and the absence of anything vaguely resembling an alternative from Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, the bureaucrats simply MUST deliver better outcomes for the common folk.

Why I use the Apple eco-system

This is a very short post which will hopefully correct the first assumptions of personal computer users, and self-educated PC support people.

“You use Macs? I prefer Windows!”

“Oh really? So you’ve used the two extensively side-by-side and made a value judgement?”

“No, not really. I’ve never owned a Mac, but I have a friend who has one and I don’t like it.”

“That’s nice. Can we now talk about football or cars? Maybe religion?”

Here are my reasons for using Apple products as my primary devices:

1. although Apple’s pricing is exploitative, their products are demonstrably better built, and there’s a simple reason for that:
   1. Apple are obscenely proprietary – if you want Apple features you buy it from Apple – end of story;
   2. for that reason, Apple has no direct competitor and price-comparisons are impossible;
   3. because they are not consumer-market-driven on price, they are able to purchase better quality components in the main with a much longer mean-time-between-failure;
2. better components mean a generally longer product life –
   1. (My grand-daughter is using a 14-year-old Powerbook G4, which has been passed down through the family, I use an 8-year-old MacBook Air, and my desktop is a late-2009 27″ iMac Core i7 – this is the newest machine in the family, and it runs the latest Mac OS X 10.10 Yosemite operating system with multiple virtual machines – including Windows 10 Developer build)
3. a solid POSIX-compliant operating system kernel based on the open-source FreeBSD system;
4. with software development focused on the user experience (“UX”) Mac OS X and the mobile iOS is superbly simple, intuitive and aesthetically-pleasing and updates – even major OS versions – are free;
5. graphics rendering and overall visual experience is an order of magnitude superior to the best Windows consumer machines;
6. close integration across devices using Apple’s sophisticated but dead-simple to use utility software;
7. incomparable backup, archiving and restoring utility built in to the OS, and finally
8. commercial software is significantly lower-priced than equivalent Windows products, and Macs come bundled with a plethora of software which with Windows needs to be purchased separately.

Even if there wasn’t a compelling financial argument for Apple machines with the return-on-investment spread over a much longer useful life, I’d still buy Apple for the superior security, reliability & usability.

 

Tired of Windows, but afraid of the unknown?

Rusted-on Windows® user and wouldn’t ever consider other desktop or server options? Stop reading! This is not for you. Don’t be defensive – the majority of home and business desktop users struggle enough with Windows not to want any sort of change. Still on Windows XP? Forget that it’s no longer supported – it hasn’t truly been supported since the release of Service Pack 3 in early-2008. Don’t tell me you’re still reading….

Even though you have frustrations with Windows and:

• the Blue-screen-of-death;
• having to restart for each single minor change to software;
• having to upgrade your machine with each new major release of Windows;
• having to learn a new user interface (in desktop jargon, the “UX” or “User eXperience”;
• trying to convince an unhelpful call-centre operator that you’re not a software pirate trying to steal the intellectual property rights of Microsoft so that you can activate or re-activate software you purchased legitimately;

so you still don’t want to consider a change, because:

• the only alternative is to buy a Mac;
• Macs are too expensive;
• it’s hard enough to work out the latest Windows without struggling with a completely new and different operating system’s User eXperience;
• Mac users are all fanatics and you don’t want to be in that camp.

All of those points are fallacious, and before I tackle this I want to stress that the purpose of this article is not to make a sales pitch for Apple® devices, although there is a solid base of professional users who rely on their technology to do their jobs. Disclaimer: I am one of those professionals who rely on the Apple eco-system and consider the return-on-investment to be sound. I’m often asked why by people who think the only difference is the way it looks. So very wrong – the intuitive UX is a fringe benefit and I’ve written separately a short piece on why I use Apple products on the desktop, as well as using a notebook, tablet and smartphone from that same vendor.

This is not about Apple. This is about Ubuntu.

What is Ubuntu? Very simply, Ubuntu is a ubiquitous, free, open-source operating system for enterprise & web servers, personal computers, tablets, smartphones and smart television receivers. Ubuntu is one of many customised distributions (“distros”)  of the Linux operating system, itself the most ubiquitous of a family of POSIX-compliant, free open source operating systems. For more than 20 years YOU have been using Linux. You’re using it now – officeFocus® and WordPress.com both deliver web content to your browser from Linux servers. If you have an Android smartphone or tablet, you’re using Linux. If you have a smart toaster, microwave oven, refrigerator, washing machine, dryer or just about any appliance with electronics you’re probably using Linux.

With me so far? OK, now we’ve got past the fear that Linux is some scary new thing for computer nerds and has nothing to do with the normal home or small business user, why would you abandon the familiarity (comfort?) of Windows for something different? Here are the reasons:

• Linux is a mature, stable, reliable and SECURE operating environment;
• Linux is freely distributed and supported for almost 25 years – 10 years longer than Windows NT family (based on IBM’s OS/2 system) and will continue indefinitely without revenue-driven planned obsolesence;
• Linux is under a program of constant improvement by a global group of contributors and financially supported by major vendors including IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Apple and Google who all use the work product;
• All the familiar tasks the typical user undertakes look familiar and work much the same way on Ubuntu as with Windows or Mac OS X;
• The most popular free open source applications come in versions for Linux, and many of them are already installed with Ubuntu – these include
  • Firefox Browser
  • Google Chrome Browser
  • OpenOffice (works like and opens/edit/saves common Microsoft document file formats used by MS Office, i.e. DOC, XLS & PPT) but FREE and well supported
  • Dropbox and Google Drive cloud storage & sharing
  • VirtualBox virtualisation software to enable creating “virtual” computers within your Linux computer
  • many more free or low-cost apps from an online store (screenshot below) similar to Google Play and Apple’s App Store **
• Have I mentioned SECURE?

Many Windows applications will run on Ubuntu using a Windows emulator, however if you have either an essential, specific Windows-only software package, or a device (printer, scanner, or other peripheral) that is designed around Windows, don’t struggle with Ubuntu – you’re stuck with Windows. Good Luck and Good Night. For the typical user, the transition from Windows to Ubuntu is no more difficult than the transition from one version of Windows to another, or one version of MS Office to the next.

Conclusion: if you have an older personal computer that won’t run the latest Windows, don’t throw it away. Give it a whole new life as a Ubuntu device. If your local PC support provider doesn’t want to help, perhaps it’s time to look around. Many domestic and small business service providers are limited in their knowledge to only Windows and share your own fears, or they believe that Windows will give them a steady income stream patching up its inherent flaws. Don’t allow yourself to be locked in to the limits of your friendly local guru.

Happy to accepts comments and questions. If you’re a Windows support person, please be polite: I didn’t mean YOU – it’s the other gurus that give your business a bad name. Please feel free to correct any error of fact, but keep your opinions to those based on fact and not inherent prejudice from ignorance or lack of experience. The author has under-graduate and post-graduate qualifications in information technology, has more than 30 years commercial experience in IT, has designed and written commercial enterprise-grade software sold internationally, and has managed a global leader in large-scale news wire and newspaper publishing systems. I’ve shown you mine – you show me yours if you feel the need to attack my assertion in this post.

Footnote:

“Microsoft isn’t evil, they just make really crappy operating systems.” [ Linus Torvalds, creator of Linux, who gave it to the world royalty-free and enabled its remarkable development by his far-sighted generosity.]

 

It’s time to put the Blue-screen-of-death” out to pasture

Yes, it’s that old saw of mine again. Linux (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux) has been around for more than 20 years, and powers the majority of servers on the World Wide Web. It also powers the majority of smartphones and tablets (in the guise of Android) and almost every “smart” appliance.

So why doesn’t it dominate on the desktop, too?

There are a few factors:

• overwhelming majority of existing users for manufacturers to convert (too hard for their marketing departments);
• planned obsolescence of hardware works to the benefit of built-to-a-price commodity manufacturers;
• compatibility with “essential” desktop software, generally related to specific peripherals;
• Microsoft’s favourable OEM deals.

I frequently encounter the common obstacle in SME’s of software (usually Usonian) driving computer-aided machines. MY solution is all open-source, except for the specific application & associated device drivers.

1. Keep the original paid licence for the version of Windows supported.
2. Using VirtualBox, migrate the Windows image to an external drive if you retain the only computer (it’s easier if you have a new computer replacing the old, but still functional) machine.
3. Load Ubuntu Linux desktop on the old , then install VirtualBox on the the same machine.
4. Now create a new virtual machine from the previously saved Windows image.
5. Install a backup drive on your router or directly to the desktop machine.
6. Routinely backup at least the Windows VM.
7. When it dies (in my experience, far less frequently in the virtualised environment), just delete it and testore the last saved version.
8. Voilà! Windows fixed.

Technicians who make a living from repairing broken Windows machines will hate this. Sorry, fellas. Embrace the best and your customers will still love you.

It’s interesting to note that the world’s largest installation of Red Hat Linux Enterprise Servers is at the world’s largest software company: you guessed it – Microsoft in Redmond, WA. Why not Windows Server? Plenty of those, too – but their mission-critical applications all run on Linux.