Rich and Poor: It's a Matter of Perspective

 Greetings,

There is a divide in our societies between "the rich" and "the poor" and this divide is only getting wider. The access to services from either side of this divide is also only getting more and more divided as well as those who end up in government are those from "the rich" rather than the poor as the system is bent in their direction. This will be an examination of the concept of "the rich" and "the poor" and how it is most often a matter of perspective.

When most people think of "the rich" they think of people like the now notorious Elon Musk, possibly Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch and other such wealth individuals who influence life in society, or at least attempt to in various ways. These people can more easily be classified as the "ultra-rich". They could stop working and simply wait for their income to roll on in with little effort on their part, still making multi-million dollars from their assets. This is a perspective of those who are reasonably well-off.

Consider politicians. According to public government records, a retiring Australian politician is paid a minimum of $185,000 per annum, with an additional percentage of their annual pay indexed by their years of service, paid for life. This payment is made by legislation, i.e., can be increased by a vote of the same politicians. Their basic salary is $211,250, again adjusted by different service, and adjusted by different methods, and voted by the same politicians who are getting paid the salary. This does not include the various perks they claim, including travel, food and accommodation.

If we then compare this to the average salary in Australia, which is $1,250 per week, or $65,000 per annum (calculated at 52 weeks), it shows a stark contrast between the "average Australian" that these politicians are supposed to represent and the amount they earn. Is it any surprise that politicians in Australia are out of touch with the people they are supposed to represent? 

If we then make a further comparison between the most "vulnerable" in Australian society there is an even starker contrast between the politicians and the people they are supposed to represent. The Age Pension, maximum basic rate, $936.80 per fortnight, or $24,356.80 per annum. The Disability Support Pension, i.e., those who have been declared unable to work, is the same at its maximum rate, in both cases if you are partnered, the rate drops for both of you, resulting in about the same amount. For a single person looking for work, i.e., unemployed, the basic rate is $668.40 per fortnight, or $17,378.4 per annum. With these numbers is it any wonder that politicians have no clue about the situation of people looking for work, or maybe the reason they have little motivation to do so? Most of the people on these payments are too busy worrying about how they are going to survive.

Now, all of these numbers can be found on government websites, as you will find if you click on any of the links. I have not pulled them from social media, or other forms of media, they are not hype or anything, they are the cold, hard facts. 

If we examine the numbers that are presented, a person on the maximum rate, consider that the maximum rate for either the Age or Disability Support pension is getting less than half the average salary of the average Australian. In one case the individual has already worked their entire life, in the other case they have been deemed unable to hold a standard occupation, unable to hold full-time employment. 

Moving entirely away from figures and comparisons between them...

A person may be sitting on a pension of some kind, and be quite happy. Having completed a their work for their career, they may have paid their house off, planned their retirement and be sitting happy with their pension. They could be entirely unconcerned about such things as the gap between how much they are getting as compared to someone else.

In contrast...

A person working at a job may be sitting at some relatively comfortable salary above the average and still not be happy. They could be concerned about how to get their next promotion; once they do that then they can afford the house that they think that they are entitled to; move out of the apartment which is draining a part of their income. They are concerned about all of these things yet could be earning well above the pensioner described above.

Happiness, in my opinion, has nothing to do with how much money you earn. The young working person may be more fiscally-wealthy but I would say that the pensioner has a richer life.

We make comparisons between ourselves on the basis of our fiscal worth, which in many cases are arbitrary, and based on elements of fortune and social statuses. Are there not values which we hold more dear more important? Can we not value each other more on the basis of our worth to society, what we give or gave to society?

The comparison between "rich" and "poor" is a matter of perspective. A person who is of a much lower socio-economic position may find a person who is of a middle-level of socio-economic standing quite wealthy in comparison to themselves, even though the person who is at this middle-level may not consider themselves to be wealthy, especially in comparison to those who are above them. When questions about who is "rich" and who is "poor" eventuate, it is a matter of comparison, a simple matter of perspective. 

Our society is run by those who are at the top, who we call "the rich" I would say that these individuals are more qualified as the "ultra-rich" in reality, well beyond the "average" individual's capacity, if there is such a thing as an "average" individual. If we examine our politicians and where they stand, while they are not quite in this "ultra-rich" position, they surely aspire to join them, and thus approve measures which assist those in such positions, along with themselves to improve their fiscal position. These are the individuals who we need to take a hard, long, look at and decide whether or not they, or the systems which they promote, are truly in the interest of the people they purport to serve.

Cheers,

Henry

Of Public Health

 Greetings,

I have seen a lot on social media about the public health systems of various countries, especially in the wake of the decisions made in the United States in regard to abortion and so forth. There has been much touting about the Australian Public Health system and how wonderful it is. There are wonderful things about it, and there are also things which are not so wonderful about it, so lets have an examination, at least from my perspective.

You can go to an Australian hospital, as an Australian citizen, carrying a Medicare card and get emergency medical care without having to pay for the medical care you receive. You can attend any of the outpatient clinics at Australian hospitals without having to pay for them, so long as you hold a Medicare card, and a Health Care card. The second being issued to those with a low income, or those who are on government payments.

The problem with this, if General Practitioners out in the community refuse to bulk-bill their patients, even those on Health Care cards. Then the same individuals go to the hospital for non-emergency reasons and the lines extend out the doors at emergency departments. The other choice for these individuals is to choose between eating and getting non-emergency medical assistance. This is only the state for the physical medical needs.

It is near to impossible to find a bulk-billing Psychiatrist, or a bulk-billing Psychologist, forcing people to either remain untreated for mental health problems, or wait until they are so bad they need crisis help services. Once again, for low income earners or those on government payments it comes down to seeking mental health treatment or eating in many instances. This means that such crisis help services, or outpatient services at hospitals are also hemorrhaging patients, or resulting in long wait periods for help.

At the hospitals, even with the outpatient services, which were mentioned before, there is a triage process, meaning that the people who need the services get them first. This is a good thing. In this case they go by Category, with Category 1 (Cat. 1) being the first to be seen and Cat. 3 being seen at the end because they are considered least on the triage scale. A person on Cat. 3 has a wait of anywhere up to 365 days to be seen by a an outpatient service. In some instances, unless you keep track of it, you can occasionally "fall off" the waiting list, and have to start the process all over again. 

So, there are some wonderful things about the Australian Public Health system, there are also some not so great things. Some people can afford Private Health, and thus can afford to pay for medical and mental care, there are others who cannot. The Public Health system was built for those who cannot afford to pay for such services. There is a limit, however to where the Public system simply cannot support the load and the Private system has to bear some of it.

If the Medicare rebate was increased to make it affordable for professionals, medical and mental, then they might be more available in the Private system, and this would take some of the pressure off the Public Health system. Another alternative would be to increase the government payments to reflect the current state of affordability of such medical systems, to make such payments actually livable. Of course, it would seem that the government has other priorities (paying off their campaign supporters, for one), focusing on other projects other than Public Health.

Cutting into the soft underbelly of society is much easier than taking from the top where there is much more to spare, but they might not get funding for their next campaign. Maybe if the governments actually focused on running the country rather than winning the next election, or staying popular with "important" people, things might actually get somewhere and society might actually improve as a whole. Of course, such a radical move would take a brave set of politicians, and there don't seem to be any of those out there anymore.

Cheers,

Henry. 

Australia Day: What's In a Date?

 Greetings,

Every year when the 26th of January rolls around there are celebrations and protests about "Australia Day", or what some people now call "Invasion Day" in empathy for the indigenous peoples who were present on the continent when the Europeans arrived and settled. This is a contentious subject of dates and questions of what will make people happy, and in the end there will always be a group of people who will be unhappy about the date or the celebrations.

26th January is commonly known as "Australia Day" and the beginning of the country, is not accurate, even from an historical perspective. It may have been the date of arrival for settlers to the Colony of New South Wales in 1788. I say "may" because unless someone pulls the logs from Captain Arthur Philip's ship or his personal diary, or some equivalent, we will never know the date of disembarkation.

Either way there is a problem, I say the Colony of New South Wales because "Australia" did not exist until 1901, when it was federated, so historically there is kind of a problem to start with. "Australia" cannot technically count its birth-date back to 1788, but only 1901. Federation, the creation of the Commonwealth of Australia occurred on 1st January. This is kind of an inconvenient day for a celebration of national pride considering the celebrations that already occur on that day.

Almost 100 years before Federation, the 26th of January was more significantly as it marked the beginning of the Rum Rebellion, Australia's only coup d'état, where Governor Bligh (Yes, that Bligh, the one infamous for the mutiny on the "Bounty") was forcefully removed from office by the next governor Governor Macarthur. Australians tend to only get up in arms when they really have had enough, have a look at the Eureka Stockade. Maybe the date should be set to the date of either of these, well it is for the first, 3 December is the other end of the year, for Eureka. Again, not Australia, all before Federation. They do, however point toward the Australian psyche as the larrakin.

Consider that one of the most famous, and beloved folk-heroes in Australian history is one Edward "Ned" Kelly, a bushranger (who attempted to start a rebellion of his own, according to his letters and some of his most ardent historians), and you have much of Australian mentality down; rebels, but lazy ones. Fight for the underdog, but not quite enough energy to stand next to them all that often.

Any date that is chosen is going to annoy some one. There are some who are campaigning to change it to May 8, "Mate Day", Australians are colloquially known as saying "G'day mate." and calling each other "mate" so it is trying to harness this idea. It will coincide with World Red Cross Day and also VE (Victory in Europe) Day, among other days. If it is left the same it will annoy, if it is changed it will annoy. As with any matter of contention, it is a matter of choosing who you are going to annoy, and what's the point of doing it in the first place?

Personally, I think it is more the purpose of the day which is important, not its date, not the remembrance of some small fleet of boats which arrived in some bay some 200+ years ago. It is the gathering of all the people of a nation together, regardless of where they originally came from, where their ancestors were from, and recognise that we are all from here, this is our nation, this is a place which we hold dear to our hearts. Find the things that we have in common with one another, not the differences; find the ways in which we can work together, not against one another; find the ways that we can truly be friends and communities together for the benefit of our nation.

Cheers,

Henry.

One Day Causes and One Day Politics

 Greetings,

So, Australia Day is upon us again, as per usual there is the protest about how Australia's indigenous people have been treated in the past. It should not be doubted that I think that they were treated poorly in the past, they were. Native peoples were treated poorly by colonial powers as a rule rather than an exception and this is seen throughout the world. Some were treated worse than others, but this is not the time nor the place to make comparison. This is an examination of the current protests, and protests in general, and their sustainability. Or more to the point, those who participate in them on a populist basis...

Why is that one day a year people feel that they can get all cross about how people have been treated, because it happens to be a particular celebration that day, yet they do nothing about the same cause for the rest of the year? I find this particularly populist and weak. We find this with many political issues and many causes. People will get on the bandwagon while it is popular, but as soon as it is out of the public eye, i.e. off the media, or finished for that particular day, then they stop making their complaints and demonstrations. This can be seen with many different political issues and many different causes.

I will cite a few causes to begin with... first let us begin with, the big one, Climate Change. This one seems to be on people's minds whenever there is a Climate Change Summit, or some government makes some decision about which way they are going on some paper, but then it dies down pretty quickly again. So, this one affects the entire planet. Yet, there is little said about it on a regular basis, only when the media picks up on some story and spreads it around the world for people to get agitated. So this one is left to the dedicated people, and us to recycle as we do normally.

Terrorism. Another global phenomenon. So everyone thinks that because COVID-19 has struck that the terrorists are all going to go back into hiding and give everyone a break? The extremists in countries are just going to put down their weapons? No, sorry, doesn't work like that. Even when the cameras are not pointed at the latest terrorist incident, they are still occurring. People don't get to hear about the thousands of terrorist incidents which happen in countries because they don't involve the right people, so there is no media coverage. Is anyone voicing protest about these incidents? Campaigning for their right to live in peace? 

Black Lives Matter. Months ago you could not go on social media without seeing posts about the horrid way people of colour were being treated by the law enforcement agencies in the United States. This spread all over the world, there was nowhere you could escape it. Now, you see the occasional bumper sticker, if you manage to get outside. The occasional post on social media, but this has died down. Not popular any more, who is doing anything about it?

Gun Control. One that always stirs the pot. There is a shooting at a shopping mall, or mostly at a school, mostly in the United States that gets screened around the world, thanks to the internet and the media, and people start looking at gun violence. Then they start trying to compare their own gun control laws with the United States. This one only rears its head when some person shoots lots of people. Other than that it is not popular enough, so who bothers?

Income Gap. Not as sexy as all the rest so it rarely gets media time. The media still has the policy, "If it bleeds, it leads." There is still an income gap, and it is only getting worse. The gap between the rich and the poor is not a gap it is a trench and it gets wider and wider and the politicians do not want to know, "In Australia there is no official measurement of the extent of poverty." (Parliament of Australia) Where is the fight and protest for them? Where is the argument for these people? Where is the action?

These are five causes which have been pointed out, all of which are current. Yet there is no media coverage. There is no social media coverage for them. There is only what is popular to complain or be offended about today, depending on what celebration day it is. If people were serious they would continue their protest beyond the single day causes, beyond the popular protest, beyond the popular media coverage and make it part of their lives, take political action, but most don't and most won't. This is the problem with the world. People care only when it is convenient and when it is popular, then it is forgotten. Words are cheap. When action is asked, then you find out who cares. There are a lot of keyboard warriors out there, few real ones.

Cheers,

Henry.

On the Same Day...

Greetings,

I am writing this particular article because it is my way of airing my feelings about my current government and their attitudes toward the lower classes, nay the underclass which they have caused to be created as a result of filling the pockets of their fat cat friends. Here I will present two news articles which will present our Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison not in a particularly good light, as it will show the hypocrisy that the Australian public has had to endure under his leadership and indeed under the leadership of every Liberal Prime Minister to date.

The first article points toward his idea of rolling out deductions from welfare payments, forcibly taking rental payments and other payments from welfare recipients (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/rent-to-be-automatically-taken-from-welfare-payments-in-shakeup/ar-AAH1T12?li=AAgfYrC ). This is not long after he was discussing a "cashless card" in which 80% of the recipient's payment was held that "cannot be used to withdraw cash, buy alcohol or gamble" (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-10/scott-morrison-defends-expansion-of-cashless-welfare-card/11493626). This card was is supposed to be rolled out and imposed on recipients of welfare payments, by the looks, regardless of whether they have a history of drug or alcohol abuse, or regardless of of whether they have a history of being homeless or defaulting on their rental payments. He is thus again placing all of those people who are on welfare payments in the same group.

The claim is because the states lose $30 million a year through unpaid rent for social housing. So there is some sort of financial reason for this then along with the "its better for the community" thing? Then he should really explain the tax-payer funded $250 million upgrade that he just got to his official plane (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/inside-shark-one-scott-morrisons-new-dollar250million-plane-is-revealed-after-a-commercial-jetstar-airbus-a330-is-transformed-into-a-100-seater-tanker-for-the-prime-minister/ar-AAH1PYT?li=AAgfYrC). So, we all have to tighten our belts and watch what we spend but he is allowed to go and spend money which is not his on his comfort. Of course the claim will be that future Prime Ministers will benefit from this, but why was it needed? I am sure that $250 million would go a long way or at least some way to creating jobs for those people he so desperately wants to "have a go".

The arrogance of this individual and his government is insulting. They give donations and tax breaks to the corporations and "big money" and then complain that the most vulnerable of society are a drain on society. Even though if the tax breaks and perks were cut off the welfare system would easily be funded. They take money away from education and wonder why the country is not keeping up with other countries in the quest for technology and new ideas. They take away from health and complain that people are being a drain on the public health system and also allow private companies to hike up private insurance. Is it any wonder the nation is having troubles?

Write to the Prime Minister and your local Member of Parliament, I already have. Tell them that what you think they are doing is wrong and tell them the reasons why. Explain to them that they are hurting the nation that they are supposedly trying to help. Hopefully, eventually, they will listen to us and we won't have to wait until election time to get scared into voting for them again.

Cheers,

Henry.

All Queensland's Fault?

Greetings,

Australia has just voted for 2019, and the results are in and they are not what some people wanted. So as a result there is a lot of throwing around of blame as to whose fault it is. Several people who I have seen on Facebook and other media have been blaming the result on Queensland, due to its some what conservative nature, hence its backing for One Nation and other conservative parties. To this there are somethings that need to be set straight.

First and foremost, where I live in Rankin, the Labor candidate is being returned, so it was not my electorate who can be blamed for this mess. So the fingers can stop being pointed in this direction for a start.

Next, we have a look at some numbers, there are 151 electorates in Australia, 30 of these are in Queensland, it is a fifth of the electorates. What about the rest of the country? What about the other states? There are more electorates in Victoria and New South Wales. To gain what it required the Labour-National Party would require more than just Queensland. The evidence points to them getting it too (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-19/federal-election-map-coalition-defies-polls-retains-power/11127084?section=politics).

So before everyone tries to go blaming one state for the failure of an election maybe they should look at home first for the blame, if any blame should be leveled at all. Clearly the Coalition ran a better campaign than did Labor and other parties. What now?

My question for all those people who don't like it is, what are you going to do about it? When these politicians do something you don't like, what are you going to do about it? Just sit there and complain? When was the last time you wrote to your local Minister or Shadow Minister? When was the last time you marched? Australia is generally politically apathetic, and our politicians know it. This is the reason why the know they can get away with what they do. If you think that the vote is your only power then you are underestimating yourself.

Cheers,

Henry.

Another Remembrance, Another Article: Response to: "Comment: The incontrovertible truth about World War I"

Greetings,

Why is it that every time Australians decide to pay respect to their fallen soldiers some journalist has to jump up and down about war and what a waste it is? It happened on ANZAC Day, and big surprise there is an article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Peter FitzSimons doing the same thing, you can find the article here (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/comment-the-incontrovertible-truth-about-world-war-i/ar-BBPxljn). Like most journalistic articles about the First World War it focuses on the loss of life during the war and the damage to the soldiers which existed long after the war. Well, the same goes for all wars before and after, including the ones which we are fighting right now as I write.

I have a family history which is somewhat connected with wars. My great-uncle fought and died in France in the First World War, and my grandfather fought in the Second World War. I also have a cousin who is currently serving in the Royal Australian Navy, and I could not be more proud to be related to all of them. Further, I have friends who are or were soldiers, and I am proud to call these my friends. Needless to say, when someone like Mr FitzSimons, who mind you makes part of his money selling books about war, goes and "reveals the truth" about the First World War in such a fashion it tends to strike a nerve, especially on this day of all days. It could have been left for tomorrow, but then it would not have caused an impact and that is what he was looking for.

A person does not write a book about the exact war he is calling a waste without knowing the details of it. What also needs to be known is that this Remembrance Day is not just for World War I, though today is special as it is the centenary of the Armistice, but it is for all wars. It is a time to pay respect for what our servicemen and women have done for us, and also for what our servicemen and women are still doing for us to this day and into the future. Any school-child who has studied their history, and who has sat through the lesson on the First World War knows that the tactics were not appropriate for the technology, and that the loss of life, on all sides of the conflict was severe. An entire generation of young men was lost, what more needs to be said?

To be sure there was a catastrophic loss of life between 1914 and 1918, and I am not sure whether we have really learnt the lessons which this war taught. It sure taught us some lessons which were taken in, but it also delivered some others which were to result in another war some 21 years later, that could be clearly laid at the feet of the so-called "victors" of this war. War and civilisation are something which go hand in hand throughout history and cannot be separated. We have the propensity for killing one another for one reason or another.

However, within that horrible story though, there are stories which can be told which were not even mentioned as they might have showed some level of achievement. There is one, toward the beginning. To put into contrast against Mr FitzSimons, there is another article, "Australian Diggers more likely to have fought as heroes for king than Allies, research shows" (https://www.news.com.au/national/australian-diggers-more-likely-to-have-fought-as-heroes-and-for-king-than-allies-research-shows/news-story/e26f51e39e6d9669ec5bb8eb21e2015f). It discusses how knowing that they were limited to 66 characters on their headstones, the families of the fallen Australians wanted them to appear as heroes, as according to a British study of headstones. To be sure the positive stories and the stories of heroes and self-sacrifice for another are the rare ones, but this is the same for all wars.

To put it in perspective, this day of all days, aside from ANZAC Day, is a day where the servicemen and women should be honoured. They should be placed in positions of honour. On these days servicemen and women should be thanked for their service. Thank for what they have done whether they have seen battle or not, because in joining the services they have committed themselves to putting their bodies on the line if called. This is what it means to be in the military and anyone who has not been in the same situation has no right to be saying anything negative about any service personnel on this of all days.

Cheers,

Henry.

Weapons Control... Not Just Guns

Greetings,

The subject of gun control is not one I usually post about simply because it does not seem to be a subject which it is possible to have a calm discussion about as people become too emotional about it. Before I begin the core of this discussion I will note some important biases which will colour my opinions with regard to this matter. I have a family history with regard to firearms. My father was a part-time gunsmith, both my parents were licensed shooters. I fired my first rifle at the age of 8 years old and was taught my first lessons about firearm safety at the age of 7. I am also a Life Member of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (SSAA). With all of these details noted, we move on.

The first thing that needs to be noted is the subject of terminology, we are not talking about guns, we are talking about firearms. Firearm is the term knowledgeable people use when discussing this particular subject, gun is the generic term. Firearm is also the one which appears in the Weapons Act.

With regards to our Weapons Acts, as we have one for each state and territory of Australia. Almost every time there is some sort of mass shooting in the United States or elsewhere, people get up in arms about tightening our weapons laws. Why? Did it happen in Australia? How will tightening our weapons laws prevent something from happening in another country? Further, it should be noted that the last time we had a mass shooting in Australia, primarily in 1996, the Port Arthur massacre, and then in 2014 after the Lindt Cafe siege, some 18 years apart. Incidences such as these are used as "evidence" for the need for tighter weapons laws. In both instances the weapons were illegally obtained, thus obtained outside the law so tighter weapons laws would not have stopped them anyway.

Likewise to compare the SSAA and the NRA is ludicrous. Both organisations have their similarities but they also have their stark differences. From my own personal point of view, I am proud to be a member of the SSAA, I would never become a member of the NRA. I personally think that what the NRA does is push the bounds of the reasonable way too far. Needless to say Australia does not have gun ownership enshrined in its constitution unlike the United States, and this aspect is what gives the gun lobby in the United States its power. The gun lobby in Australia is not such a fearsome beast.

What needs to be noted is that the legislation in each of the states and territories in Australia is a Weapons Act not a Firearms Act. What does this mean? What this means is that they do not just cover firearms but other weapons as well. Crossbows are legal in Queensland so long as you are licensed, in New South Wales they are prohibited, they are not firearms. Swords are fine to be carried in a normal bag and taken care of as any other piece of sporting equipment, and so long as you are not waving it around in public without a good reason you will not be hassled about it. In Victoria, they need to be locked away in a lockable container in a similar way to firearms. This goes for the blunt weapons we use for medieval and Renaissance recreation as well. At one point in time consideration was made toward legislating bows, but was considered too difficult to enforce.

Firearms may be the popular target when it comes to the Weapons Act, but it does not mean that government agencies are not looking to restrict other weapons. This is one of the reasons why it is vital that anyone who is involved with any sort of weapons whatsoever is careful and treats them with respect. All it needs is for someone to draw the wrong sort of attention and restrictions can be brought against other weapons not just firearms.

When you consider your support for tougher firearms laws, or weapons laws as the case truly is consider what you are really asking for. Consider what you are asking the politicians to do. Consider that they may decide that the weapons which belong with your medieval and Renaissance hobby are too dangerous and you should not be able to use them anymore, or not without severe restriction. When we take action for a cause we should always consider what sort of flow-on effect this may have with other aspects which are related to that cause, things are more connected than you realise. It also means that we should all take care to ensure that we do not perform any action which may draw any unwanted attention our way. There is always someone willing to get annoyed with any excuse with what we are doing.

Cheers,

Henry.

Democracy or Oligarchy?

Greetings,

Is Australia a democracy or an oligarchy? It is a question which must be asked when we look at how our country is run. There seems to be a lot of top-down thought being used, with the people at the bottom often being forgotten in favour of the people at the top.

A democracy is a system in which each person has a say in how the country/nation/state is being run. This is regardless of gender and with the only restrictions in our system being that you need to be an Australian citizen, and of legal age. This allows you to vote once every four years on average. The system also has no barring to political office based on class or financial status, or so it says, or so it is supposed to be.

An oligarchy is a system in which only the top echelons of society have a say in how the country/nation/state is being run. There is a system to ensure that only the upper echelons of society have any say in what is happening in the system and most other people sit below and have to put up with the decisions made by the top echelons.

With these pseudo-definitions in place I can point out a couple of things with regard to the system in Australia. Examine firstly how often we actually get a say as voters, this is really only every four years or so when we make our selection of the individuals who happen to be running for office at that time. This is the same at local, state and federal levels. These people who we pick and chose from are the people who actually run the system. Sure we can send messages in different forms to our local members to have our problems looked at. But what are the results? Who's opinions really get heard? Sure if we don't like it we can run for office, but then there are the chances of actually getting in.

This is where the system begins to feel a little oligarchic in nature. First part of this is the question of who really gets heard. Businesses get heard. So-called interest groups get heard. And if enough "normal" people get together (usually requiring thousands) they get heard. The first two groups mentioned get heard because they have an effect on the economy, they have power, they are part of the upper echelons. So the upper echelons get heard more than the "normal" people.

For a person to run for office they need to make themselves known. Indeed they need to make themselves known before they start to run for office, before the next election is due. Examine our politicians, see how many of them are known leaders of the community, be that community leaders, people in business, or people who help the less fortunate, or in some instances sporting stars. These people are known in their community because they do things. Often these things take money and bring a lot of media attention. How does the average Joe compete with that level of publicity? Media campaigns take money. Getting to be known takes money. The wider that you want to be known the more money this will take. Quite frankly in the end the one who makes the bigger noise is more likely to be heard, and elected. Without some sort of financial backing you are quite frankly bought out of the race. Sound familiar? Restriction of access to politics to the upper levels? As I have said oligarchic in nature.

Interestingly even the cradle of democracy did not have true democracy. In Athens everyone was equal? Nope. In order to stand and be heard you needed to be male of the age of majority, and a free-man. Still even in this system the loudest was still heard. You talk loud, you get most attention, more people listen to you, your point of view is more likely to be heard. The idea of the political campaign is nothing new. So even the original system was somewhat limited.

This is not an attempt to change the way that things are. For the most part the system actually works and things get done, so long as the politicians get rid of the personal crap. I am not advocating some sort of rebellion. I am advocating that we open our eyes and see how the system really works, to see what can be done with our voice, and for pity's sake vote how you believe.

Cheers,

Henry.