Liberals are scratching their heads about the new demand by Bruce Scott, the Queensland Nationals’ new State President, that they form a Coalition with the Nationals before the Redcliffe and Chatsworth by-elections. Is this deliberate sabotage, or just incompetence?
What our polling (rtf) shows is that Queenslanders want a decent opposition and don’t think they are getting one at the moment. They would like the Liberals and Nationals to work together, although they are not overwhelmingly in favour of a coalition, favouring a number of different arrangements. But they do agree that they don’t like fighting between the two non-Labor parties.
The Nationals also should know that there is virtually no chance, even at the best of times, of a coalition agreement being concluded in three weeks. With two crucial by-elections being contested, and the Liberal President one of the candidates, the odds of that are now lower than ever. The inevitable result is that the Liberals will rebuff the Nationals drawing attention to their divisions.
So, with two by-elections giving the Liberals a chance of showing they are learning from their errors, and increasing the number of opposition seats by two, why would the Nationals do this?
One theory is that they are so obsessed with their own convention (held this weekend) and their own constituency that they are impervious to anyone else’s concerns. Another theory, closely aligned to the first, is that they are politically incompetent. There’s two good arguments not to get too close to them.
Another theory is that this is a deliberate move. The Nationals might get lucky and convince the Liberals to do a hasty and ill-advised deal, just so they can increase their chances of winning the two seats. Or, by raising the spectre of Coalition in-fighting, ruin the Liberals’ chances. That would enable them to mount an argument that the Liberals can’t win seats in South-East Queensland, strengthening their position in negotiations before the next state election on what seats each should contest. And it would weaken the Liberals’ position in any coalition negotiations because they would still have 5 rather than a possible 7 seats.
If your potential partner was this treacherous, that would be an even better reason to refuse a coalition.
So,whichever theory you accept, the Nationals have made a new coalition less, rather than more, likely.
July 31, 2005 | Graham
By-election? I’ll have a coalition with that!
July 25, 2005 | Graham
Primo amigo?
The resignation from parliament today of Queensland Treasurer Terry Mackenroth forces Premier Peter Beattie to take a position on a by-election quinella. It also gives Liberal Party State President Michael Caltabiano a decisive part to play in proving that the Queensland Liberal Party is fit to help provide Labor with a decent opposition.
In a blog post entitled “Los Trios Amigos” I suggested that Mackenroth would go this term (one for my nascent experts database?) and that Caltabiano should contest the seat. The two other amigos were Councillor Tim Nichols and Senator Santo Santoro, but I was hesitant about those two predictions.
Here’s what I said:
Some parts of this rumour have more substance than others, such as the one involving Caltabiano. There is a general expectation that MLA for Chatsworth, Terry MacKenroth will retire some time before the next state election. Michael Caltabiano, who is also the Liberal Party State President, represents the ward of Carindale which includes much of MacKenroth’s territory. Caltabiano’s vote is north of 60% and the Liberal Party won two of the three federal seats in the area. Caltabiano is jaded with council. He is ambitious, but with Campbell Newman as Lord Mayor his options in council are limited.
He could be interested in getting out altogether and going back into the engineering business. According to some of his colleagues on a recent trip to China he made business contacts in the road paving industry. Before entering the council he had been a civil engineer with a company thats business was laying hot bitumen from recycled pavement.
But political ambition is still said to burn brightly, so a move into state politics could also be on the cards, which makes sense of the Chatsworth option. If he wins the seat, he would have a position on the Liberals’ frontbench and prospects of becoming leader, and maybe even premier, one day. If he loses he would go out on a high note, attempting to wrest a much needed seat from Labor, and he could settle down to make a mint.
Mackenroth’s seat has been represented by the Liberal Party before, and given the demographics of the suburb of Carindale, which it wholly contains, it ought to be Liberal. So it’s a reasonable risk for Caltabiano and one he can hardly refuse. Certainly if he does refuse he shouldn’t be able to look for a safer state seat preselection at a later date. This is his one and only opportunity.
The one problem that he does face is that Brisbane electors are not keen to see their representatives change from one level of government to another, particularly if they are a good representative. Clem Jones’ failed attempt to defeat Don Cameron in the 70s is a good example of this. Caltabiano therefore needs to position himself as being the only person who can take this opportunity to make Beattie more accountable, as well as quickly find a credible successor with community credentials for his ward. At least one name springs to mind, but I won’t put the kybosh on him by putting it in print.
BTW, as chance would have it I’m attending a function that Terry Mackenroth is addressing tomorrow morning. If anyone has any questions they’d like me to ask please send me an email or leave a comment. No guarantees, but all contributions will be thoughtfully considered.
July 24, 2005 | Graham
Can Queensland Opposition capitalise on Redcliffe by-election?
Queensland’s Labor Party appears to believe it is born to rule, and that could help the Queensland Opposition to win the Redcliffe by-election. That’s as long as the opposition can convince the public that they are not born losers – and the signs are not good on that front – which is probably the reason for the ALP’s belief in the first place.
Saturday’s Courier Mail reported the resignation as Health Minister of Gordon Nuttall. The headline was actually “Nuttall dumped from Cabinet”. But when you looked a little more closely it appears to be the case that the erstwhile Health Minister is just being moved to another portfolio. Some dumping! The public would have a right to think that they were the ones being dumped. Nuttall is actually being rewarded for his incompetent handling of the portfolio as his salary and super will presumably stay intact at the same time that he gets something with an easier ride.
What’s more, Nuttall was so keen to face the music that he gave his press conference in Sydney, a fact that was disguised by some kind television cameraman apparently pulling curtains across the picture of the Harbour Bridge that would otherwise have framed his conference. That’s neither good journalism on the TV station’s part, nor accountable government on Nuttall and Beattie’s.
These are signs of arrogance which continued on last night’s television news bulletins. Beattie is using this “dumping” to reshuffle his cabinet, and apparently move some ministers out who will not be recontesting the next election. This in itself is an admission of failure, as Beattie was only elected 12 and a bit months ago which was the correct time to move the retirees on. Either that or just before the next election, but not half-way through his term.
On top of that, Beattie is so sure of retaining government that he was portrayed by the television news as setting the scene for Anna Bligh, the Education Minister, to succeed him. Succession planning is always a good idea, but not too obviously, or the public, and your party, may think you are taking them for granted.
Still, the move is characteristic Beattie spin. After Speaker Ray Hollis resigned he had no choice but to sack Nuttall. Not only had Hollis shown the proper way under the Westminster system, but he has given the opposition a potential leg-up by causing a by-election in his seat of Redcliffe. This is a seat which was not traditionally Labor until 1989 when then Liberal Leader, Terry White, lost to Hollis. With the right circumstances it could swing back, despite the government’s present healthy margin, particularly as it has experienced demographic change over the last few years which is seeing it transform into Brisbane’s premier bayside location.
If Beattie hadn’t moved Nuttall his presence would have made a loss almost certain, which would have caused further problems in health. So Beattie moves him, and then uses the opportunity to shuffle the whole thing, distracting attention away from the incompetence of his government and giving an impression of vigour. It’s a classic Beattie move, turning a disaster into a “triumph”.
But, on the basis of our polling over the last few years, it still leaves plenty of room for the opposition in Redcliffe, if only they can get their acts, and their lines, together.
First the Nationals should leave the seat to the Liberals to contest. They can stand some three-cornered contests in a general election, but not in a by-election, particularly as the vote is likely to be contested by a whole slew of minor contenders who will tend to splinter the vote. Under Queensland’s optional preferential system this will tend to favour the party with the largest bloc of votes, which in this electorate should be Labor. Redcliffe is not the sort of territory where the Nationals will do well, so they should leave it to the other non-Labor party. A loss attributed to conservative party bickering will poison the next general election and reinforce negative public perceptions.
The Liberal party then has to get its lines right. Those lines have to be that this election is about two things. First making Beattie accountable on health, and second, building back up so that they can give Beattie a good opposition. They can draw a line between the first and the second issues because one of the biggest problems in keeping Beattie accountable is the lack of opposition seats. Whatever else it is, they should resist the temptation to label it as the beginning of the end of the Beattie Government. With all his faults, people want him to stay.
The other big problem is a perceived lack of opposition ability. This perception will not be solved by making megalomaniacal claims about how the Liberal Party “is about to [be] lift[ed]…to conservative political dominance in Queensland, consigning the Nationals to second fiddle,” as Liberal Senator George Brandis does, also in yesterday’s Courier. The Liberal Party has to demonstrate that it is interested in electors, not itself. That means that the campaign has to concentrate on health, and the other areas where Beattie needs to be brought to account, not on anything else. They might also pay a bit of attention to the Redcliffe Base Hospital. Some of the comments in our research were less than complimentary to it, and this is an electorate with an older demographic where health is going to be an even more important issue than elsewhere in the state.
July 22, 2005 | Ronda Jambe
Faith to Faith? I’m sweating it out
Most of the US is sweltering, my pink and soft Canberra body (and spirit) no longer able to easily deal with the combination of heat and high humidity. It was hot in London, too, when we departed our hotel in Russell Square just a few days before the bombings.
I was late joining my spouse on the plane because I was selected for a bag search and a full pat down. I joked to him that it was because ‘I look scary’. We had a chuckle, not imagining that within a day, some very scary people would indeed slip through the net of urbanity, tolerance and trust that to me were the defining traits of London life.
From our hotel room in Dublin, I cheered when the Olympics were given to London, proud just to have been part of the calm humanity I had observed there. My spirit wilted when it became clear that the Underground had been attacked. How can people hate so much?
After a 35 year gap between visits, London had been an inspiration, a living example of balance and kindness. Of course, I’m a sentimental fool, easily brought to tears by the thousands we saw on a Sunday fun run, streaming past when we exited Embankment station, the music from Chariots of Fire broadcast above them and supporters lining the pavement. The 30% open space was another source of gentility, and the traffic was not as oppressive as much of Sydney. Of course, it took the Brits more than 1000 years to stop hacking each other to pieces, but they got over it. As should the Irish. As should we all.
Now, less than two weeks later, still mourning that atrocity, I’m sweating my way through a lunch meeting in a Turkish restaurant. It is a not very salubrious section of New Jersey that reminds me of the Sopranos. Sure enough, someone says a funeral parlour in the area was used for one of the episodes.
The occasion is a meeting of an interfaith discussion group, and God only knows what I’m doing there. Maybe He told my local Pastor to invite me. My friend, the local Presbyterian Minister, introduces me as an ‘Australian professor’, and it’s too warm to correct him. I wipe my brow, thinking of the manneqin I saw in the shop next door displaying a full chador, floor length with long sleeves and head covering in a lovely sky blue.
Our handsome host is generous, the food is delightful, and the discussion soon matches the weather. A Methodist Minister says he has been waiting for the Muslim faith to issue a fatwa on violence. Another Christian takes the bait, and enquire whether the Christian faith has issued an equivalent edict against torture. A black Minister eventually chimes in, saying how we are always seeking to blame ‘the other’. We can never forget ‘who killed who’ if you appreciate the reference.
Much of the group is surprisingly critical of US. Most are waiting for their own government to act, squirming uncomfortably as lies are obfuscated (as with the CIA agent outing), rights are eroded (as with the recent US Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain) and security is diminished (as Social Security pensions are pushed towards privitisation).
As a blow-in, I mostly observe. I suggest ‘Faith to Faith’ might meet their need for a less formal name.(no lisping allowed) In this protected setting, it feels ok to open up a bit. Some of them are meeting each other for the first time. The talk turns to the way the media shapes information, and how power can become an addiction. We discuss the separation of church and state, and issues for common groud such as parenting, environment.
Fresh in the news is the life sentence for a fundamentalist Christian who murdered someone at an abortion clinic and at the Atlantic Olympics. We talk about how you don’t generally hear the words ‘Christian’ and ‘terrorist’ in the same breath. Someone mentions the Oklahoma bombing as a another example.
The gentleman next to me, retired from his ministry, now restores ecclesiatical stained glass. He listens politely to my mantra about the TV series, The Sopranos: firstly, it is a comedy. Oh yes, it’s a farce he agrees. But it is also an allegory for the US government, as the ultimate Gangster Nation. He doesn’t blink, but tells me about the recent Supreme Court decision that permits councils to take over any land they want, not for clear public benefit, but simply to give to developers if it will generate taxes. Ah, there will be a lot of media guff on that one.
The luncheon finishes, the dialogue will continue. These are good thoughtful people, I am privileged to sit at their table. As I edit this, more horror news breaks in London. Back on the street and watching the news of still more slaughter in Iraq, I cannot feel confident that good intentions will prevail. Or that another 1000 years will see humanity grow up at last.
July 21, 2005 | Graham
Model mummies the fat problem
I was just playing and trying to provoke with my recent post asking whether obesity was a product of “mummy culture”. I thought it was probably the truth, but not the whole truth. And I thought it was more to do with Mum being seduced into supersizing our lunch boxes and dinner plates and driving us to school, in both cases to avoid risks, rather than anything else.
University of Sydney researchers have turned up a whole new area where mums influence obesity – modelling. The sort of modelling where children copy their mothers. According to yesterday’s Australian (as reported in U Syd’s In the Media email):
Australian
p6 Mums take fat flak (Prof Louise Baur, Paediatrics and Child Health, The Children’s Hospital, Westmead)
The Nepean Cohort study has shown how mothers eat and how much television they watch determines whether or not their children will become fat adolescents. Project leader Louise Baur a paediatrician with the Children’s Hospital at Westmead said modelling healthy behaviours influences the choices children make.
I wonder why they don’t model Dads as well?
July 19, 2005 | Graham
Howard and Caesar’s Slave
The latest Newspoll shows the Coalition winning the same proportion of the vote now as at the last election (within the statistical margin for error). This is a very bad result for Labor as it comes at a time when popular commentary suggested that the Government was in trouble over its IR changes. If that was the case there should have been some statistically measurable decrease in the Government’s vote.
There appear to be a number of reasons for this. First, based on the online research we have done the IR issue only appears to be biting with Labor voters. The sample is a far too small to be definitive, but as it does tend to confirm what I think should be the case, I’ll go with it, subject to a larger sample. Coalition voters (Libs more than Nats) appear to be cool with them. (Don’t normally borrow from my kid’s slang, but in this case it is appropriate as while they don’t appear to mind the changes, they’re not particularly fussed about them either.) So, as an issue it is polarising the already polarised on the left, but it is not converting any from the right.
Second, John Howard appears now to be in “the zone”, that metaphysical space where he can do no wrong. In as much as people oppose his industrial relations changes, for a significant minority it is probably almost a virtue that he is doing something they oppose. “We might not agree with him, but at least we know where he stands.” For the last 4 years our research has shown that voters don’t like John Howard, don’t like what he promises to deliver, but vote for him because, at least, he will deliver. It’s perverse, but effective for Howard.
This leads onto the third point, which is that the ALP is at the moment struggling to prove it is relevant. Yesterday Kim Beazley was having trouble coming up with a position on the national ID card leaving Liberal backbenchers to run the civil liberties arguments. He allowed the same thing to happen on the refugee issue, with Petro Georgiou coming out the hero. Even on the IR issue, it is the unions running the campaign, not Labor.
A strange dynamic has occurred with the government’s control of the Senate. Now that the opposition and cross-bench senators are all emasculated, coalition senators have rushed to fill the vacuum. As a result we have almost a one-party universe where most voters can find most shades of opinion within the government. At the moment I suspect that this has the propensity to increase the government’s vote. A bit of disunity is good leavening for the Coalition loaf, but tends to deflate the Opposition because they have lost their power to amend.
Now I’m not saying that the next election is a foregone conclusion for the government, in fact their very success is their greatest risk as the signs are already there that it is leading to hubris. Which is why it is probably a good idea that Peter Costello is touring Australia trying to drum up support for his leadership bid. Costello wouldn’t think of it this way, but it is probably performing the same function for Howard as the servant that Roman Emperors took around with them to whisper in their ear “Remember Caesar that you are only human”. It’s another function that a Liberal Party representative has taken over from Kim Beazley!
July 18, 2005 | Graham
Is obesity a product of mummy culture?
When I defended fast food against the charge that it was to blame for our increasing obesity, most comments said that obesity was the result of lack of exercise. I think that is a superficial explanation too, so I wanted to throw some more straws in the wind which suggest to me that culture in general, and mums in particular, are to blame.
In her new book French Women Don’t Get Fat: The Secret of Eating for Pleasure Mireille Guiliano tackles the question of why the French, whose diet is relatively high in fat, don’t get obese. Her answer is that they eat smaller portions and don’t gorge. Why? Because they have a culture where they love food and they eat for enjoyment, not to get full. So far, so good. If calories in equal calories out, you don’t get fat, so tinkering with the “in” side of the equation – eating – can be just as effective as tinkering with the “out” side – exercise.
So why does our culture tend to gorge? Is it because we hate food, or is something else at play? I’d suggest it is because we are living in cultures which have lost their confidence and this is the root cause of obesity. Here are a couple of examples.
The Movie Supersize Me shows what can happen to a man who lives only on Macdonald’s and eats the largest portions that they will serve him. But almost every suburban household I know plays its own version of supersizing. Cooks (almost always mothers, but fathers do the same thing with the barbeque) habitually over-cater. Why? For an older generation it could have been related to the Depression, but these days it’s “all about the cook”. If plates aren’t full to over-flowing someone might think they don’t care or love their children enough.
Fear, as various commentators have noted, is a potent factor in selling political solutions. It is also a factor in selling food profitably. “Family size” returns greater profits. It allows for economies of scale in packaging and distribution, at the same time that it insures suburban providores against the fear that people will think poorly of them because their children are too thin. A win for food manufacturers, and for fearful mums and dads.
Fearful mums and dads are also not just pumping additional calories into kids, but when the inevitable adipose tissue turns up they’re not prepared to talk to kids about it. The children might get a complex about food, and eat even more, or worse, become anorexic. This is not just an abstract issue for me. I’ve been told by mothers and teachers that I can’t talk to a young lady close to me about her weight because “you will give her anorexia”. Doctors (who should know better) have even produced graphs to prove she is within average parameters, thus conjuring away the need to talk, even when the pinch test proves conclusively she is not average. How do you sensibly discuss good food attitudes with children when you fear that the whole of society will blame you if those kids later develop health problems despite, not because of, your intervention? Too hard for most. Better to lie.
Fear also works on the output side. Yesterday’s Sunday Mail carried a story headed “Enemy at the gate” about the fears that suburban parents have that their children will be abducted if they let them walk to school. Despite the fact that there has not been a rise in crime, or abductions of children, since the 60s and 70s when most of us did walk to school, parents have worked themselves into such a state they they want their children to live in a bubble. And children who live in bubbles inevitably become fat, especially if they are being super-sized at home.
The SM article quoted a survey into attitudes and said that it showed similar results to surveys taken in the US, Canada and Britain – all the major Anglo-Saxon countries. Is it coincidental that there is also a “fat epidemic” in all of these countries? I don’t think so. I think it is a product of a lack of confidence in ourselves and our culture. Perhaps the real reason the French don’t get fat and we do, is that they have never for one moment doubted that Paris is the centre of the world. It’s time to get comfortable in our skins, before we burst out of them.
July 13, 2005 | Graham
The obesity villain isn’t fast food
I’ve been described as a food fascist, and while I don’t sit down at the dinner table singing “Tomorrow belongs to me” I do watch what I eat. And sometimes what I am watching is a Macca’s Quarter Pounder. They have never done me any harm (photos on request, “commercial in confidence”), and at least you know when you’re eating in St Ronald’s domain that the toilets will be clean. So, on the basis of personal experience and occasional personal preference, I’m antagonistic to claims that the reason we are getting more obese as a nation is because we are eating too much fast food.
Yesterday’s Sun Herald carried a story which started:
FAST food could be subject to a new tax of up to 50 per cent under a plan to fight Australia’s worsening obesity epidemic.
The proposed fat tax would, hopefully, steer consumers away from calorie and sugar-laden foods and force them to choose cheaper, healthier options.
Similar to hefty tax rises on cigarettes, the move aims to slash illness and death caused by obesity.
The tax would bring the price of a Big Mac up from $3.25 to $4.88, and a $3 bucket of chips would rise to $4.50. Sydney sociologist Dr John Germov will float the plan at the Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology in Sydney tomorrow.
“We need a way of addressing the obesity problem because diets are notoriously unsuccessful — 95 per cent of diets fail,” Dr Germov said.
If Dr Germov was proposing a corresponding carrot (more calories required to eat them raw than they yield up)in the form of a subsidy for those of us who exercise, I might have been interested. But punishing people for eating fat, which is a necessary part of a diet, seems absurd.
If Dr Germov were a nutritionist, rather than a sociologist, he would know that Vitamin D is fat soluble – no fat, no vitamin D, and lots of babies with rickets. Recent research shows that to get the value of flavinoids from tomatoes you need to cook them in oil. Flavinoids also are fat, not water, soluble. So, to compare eating fat, which is beneficial in moderation, to smoking, which is not beneficial in even the smallest quantities, is absurd.
It’s also not fair to beat up on MacDonalds. I’ve done a bit of research on the subject, and it turns out that we eat fast food on average less than once a week, at least according to research by AC Nielsen. Nielsen says:
30 per cent of Australians ate at a take away restaurant at least once a week, and 64 per cent said they ate fast food at least once a month. This compared to a global average of 24 per cent and 51 per cent respectively.
What does fast food do to the calorie intake of the 30 percent who eat at a take away at least once a week? Well assuming that most are closer to once rather than 21 times a week, not much. Macdonalds handily provide a calculator where you can work out what you are consuming. My quarter pounder, large fries and inadvertently non-diet large Coke Sunday evening on the way back from Forster set me back 1,350 calories (US site, so unrepentantly wedded to imperial measures, which those of us over 45 can still relate to).
Given my build and activity levels this is probably a bit over half my daily requirements, but then it was only one meal. I probably eat 1,000 calories for dinner normally, so we’re only 350 up for the meal, and as it’s the only takeaway one in the week, 350 up for the week. But we’re only 350 up if we assume that I eat my exact calorie requirements every day for the rest of the week, which I don’t. Some days I’m over, and some I’m under, and in the total 14000 to 17500 calories that I consume, 350 is not going to turn me into a Tele Tubbie.
Actually, if I’d had the diet coke rather than inadvertently being served the sugared one, then I’d be bang on my normal 1,000 calories, and there wouldn’t be a problem. So, if you want to blame anything, blame the sugar, not the fat.
The reasons for national obesity are multiple, but they largely centre around what we eat in the home, not what we eat when we’re out, and the fact that we don’t walk anywhere much anymore. And I suspect that Mum is the biggest villain (which is why it is handy to have fast food as an alibi). But then, my Mum hasn’t learnt to logon, so she’ll never read this, and I’ll be OK, but then, she has the photos as well!
July 12, 2005 | Graham
Brian Ray
There is a thesis in why some deaths are more newsworthy than others. 50 people die in London and it is high news, more than that number die every week in Iraq, and we barely notice, while our need for mobility led to an average 31 deaths each week on the road last year, and only the ATSB appears to care. I’m not going to attempt that thesis in a blog post, but I am going to write about Brian Ray whose death was noted on the front page of two of the newspapers I get every morning.
I never met Ray, but he did have an impact on my life, and perhaps without him, there would be no On Line Opinion. So, while I normally ignore frontpage deaths, either because I don’t know the people involved, or feel it would be prurient to pay too much attention to the detail, I’ve read the stories about Ray.
Back in the 80s my family owned a property at Currumbin, on the Gold Coast. They’d actually owned a part of it since 1926 when my Great Gran and Grandmother had bought a shack on the beach front that lacked even a road access. Since then it had been added to and we ended up with an acre with absolute beach frontage.
Mum hated it; it was an essential part of dad’s existence; and as kids we hadn’t known anything else, although we did resent cleaning houses and cutting grass in the mornings when the best surf was running. In the 70s and 80s we frequently had approaches from developers, and from the point of view of us kids, there’s been a number of close shaves. There was more than a little tension between Mum and Dad on the issue of whether to sell or hold.
As I got older, and more commercially knowledgeable, Dad and I fell into a strategy. I thought about saying “devised”, but it was more a habit than a device. When an offer would come along Dad would ask me what the property was worth. I’d make some inquiries and assessments, then we’d put at least 20% on top of what we thought was absolutely top-dollar. That meant that the property was always for sale, which kept Mum happy, but at a price that no-one would pay, which was fine by the rest of the family.
That was until Brian Ray came along in 1986. From memory, and that is fallible, I don’t think anyone paid more per unit for a three story walk-up in that boom than he did for that site in Currumbin. It seems to be the story of his life – pushing the envelope on everything.
The result was that our beautiful patch of land became blighted by a pretty ordinary development and our family took the cash and started a property development business of its own. That gave me sufficient time and resources to be a senior office bearer in the Queensland Liberal Party, which led ultimately to the publishing of On Line Opinion.
So I read the front page stories and wonder about the web of happenstance that sometimes joins us together. Ray was a risk-taker, and he died taking a risk. If he hadn’t been that sort of a person Dad might still be pottering around his beloved houses, and I’d be doing something entirely different to what I am now.
So, I feel as though I know Ray, even though I don’t, and that means it is OK to inquire about how things are with him by reading the paper. At the same time I can’t help a little twinge guilt, because in some strange way I feel that I have benefited by his death, in a way taken advantage of the risk-taking that was eventually fatal to him. It’s a little like the twinge of guilt that I feel taking the wheel of the car in the morning knowing that four people are likely to die that day so that I can enjoy the right to drive. Or the feeling of relief that we perhaps all feel that we weren’t in that tube station in London, and that someone else paid the price for us.
July 11, 2005 | Graham
Primate monkeys around with industrial policy
How’s this for a variation on pundits predictions? If I had blogged on it I would have predicted that Philip Aspinall would become Primate of Australia, so can I count it as a successful prediction even though I never got around to committing a word to electrons?
It was obvious. The Archbishops of Sydney and Brisbane were the only real contenders, and no-one was going to back Jensen from Sydney. (Actually I was partly wrong there, almost half the bishops did, but the rest of the numbers were Aspinall’s way.)
The retiring primate, Peter Carnley had been Archbishop of Perth, and Perth’s new Archbishop, Roger Herft was only just into the job and the archdiocese couldn’t sustain another primate so soon. So Herft wasn’t a contender. Melbourne is soon to be vacant and Adelaide is vacant as a result of the ousting of Ian George because of his handling of sexual abuse cases, so no offering from those cities either. So, by a process of elimination Jensen and Aspinall were the only two possibilities. Jensen is too low church, opposed to women clergy and homosexuals, and with an interesting twist on who should be able to consecrate communion, so that left Aspinall.
But Aspinall is only 45, and you wouldn’t want him being primate for the next 20 years. But there’s a good Anglican fix for that – make the appointment for 2 years only and propose a review of the whole situation so that you push the problem off into the future, and don’t embarrass the new primate too much. Not that this solution was purpose built for Aspinall, it could have equally well catered for Jensen if he had won.
Does this sound like a church in good shape? The successor wins by default. The field is limited partly because of scandals. The most successful candidate, at least in terms of church attendance, finances and influence, loses because of deep spiritual and theological schisms. And everyone has such faith in the decision they want it to only last for two years. In these circumstances, what should the successful candidate do?
Take on the government on the first issue that looks vaguely popular – IR reform – to divert attention from your fundamentally weak position. That might be good short-term public relations, but I doubt whether it is in the long-term interests of the church. Not only is it a failure to acknowledge that the primary job of the primate is to resurrect the church, but it reinforces the view of many church-goers that the church is more interested in posturing in areas of social policy where it has no expertise, than in preaching the gospel, where it hopefully has pre-eminent expertise.