My Take: Where’s the Vision?

With the Australian Labor Party ahead of the Liberals in the polls at both state and federal government levels, you would think the future of Labor couldn’t be rosier. However, the party’s status as the social democratic party of Australia, coming under threat with such inhumane policies as their take on asylum seekers, and a lack of leadership and vision from their leaders. The issue of particular focus in this article is the lack of vision. Every successful political party, whether on the left, centre or right needs an understanding and a vision of what their perfect country would look like. The centre-right Liberal Party of Australia sees an Australia which adheres to laissez-faire capitalism, a land where individual wealth isn’t taxed, and people who can’t pay for services are left behind in society. The middle left Greens sees an Australia where the environment is preserved for future generations. Who knows what Labor wants? One minute they’re passing the carbon tax, next minute, when Liberals attack it, they just let it die a miserable death. Gough Whitlam, when he was elected in 1972, had the vision of a multicultural social democratic country, with healthcare for everyone with Medicare and an Australia that controlled more of its resources through the failed nationalisation of mining and other resources. Bill Shorten and the modern Labor party have become the party without a vision, apart from simply attacking the Liberal Party.

My take on Labor is that under its current caucus and senior leaders, it will not become a party of vision, like the one Whitlam was a part of. Ever since the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd fiasco it has constantly tried to simply restore its reputation, rather than take the opportunity to revitalise the party and revamp its image. Politically, they have been the whipping boy for the Liberals and a party that even though it is the biggest in Australia, its vision means right now the political landscape is very much favouring the party in blue. This is seen, most clearly by the barrage of attacks on everything from workers rights to the environment to education and healthcare. Right now, the party with a vision to change the world isn’t the Labor party, it’s the Liberals.

Penny Mackieson On: Equalisation in the AFL

The Australian Football League (AFL) oversees the most popular and lucrative sporting competition in Australia, and that’s no mean feat in this sports-crazed country. Yet the AFL knows that to continue its dominance over the other football codes – soccer, rugby league and rugby union – it must ensure the ongoing viability of each of its 18 constituent clubs. There are a variety of means by which this may be achieved and the AFL has been devoting considerable time and effort to exploring the off-field options, including a fact finding tour in the United States. The primary focus has been on the financial elements – how to maximise club memberships and sponsorships; whether to cap football department spending by clubs (similar to the salary cap for players which has long been in place); how to maximise gate takings from attendances at matches and ensure a fair distribution of the profits to the clubs; how to balance maximisation of profits from sale of the match broadcasting rights with match fixtures that facilitate strong spectator attendances and fair allocation of the profits and preferred broadcast times among the clubs…

It all sounds very complex and it is, especially when also taking into account the vested interests and inordinate power of the larger – and, by definition, more financially successful – AFL clubs, which have already indicated their determination to hang on to their wealth, rather than commit to financial redistribution measures.

Frankly, I think the AFL is on the wrong track. To my mind the best way to facilitate equalisation is on the football field, rather than off it.

Australian rules football has evolved from a simple game with only 10 rules when first conceived in 1859 by members of the Melbourne Football Club to a complex game with well over 100 rules and an AFL ‘Laws of the Game Committee’, which regularly adds new rules and disseminates videos at the beginning of each season in order to explain the key rules and the ‘interpretations’ of those rules expected to be made by the umpires. These days AFL umpires have to be almost superhuman. The pace of games has become so fast that the umpires run marathon distances in order to keep up with the play, as evidenced by the prevailing body type within the umpiring ranks – small and lean. In addition to pounding up and down the spacious fields, the umpires must simultaneously remain alert to potential infringement of any of the 100-plus rules of the game with every play of the ball and every exchange between the combined 36 players of the two opposing teams. Truly, the umpires also need to be multi-processing computers as well as elite distance athletes – in effect, sophisticated robots. But, of course, they are only human and the result is consistently inconsistent ‘interpretations’ of the rules, not just between seasons but between matches and between, and even within, quarters!

Again, it all sounds very complex and it is, especially when also taking into account that the AFL has (at least since May 2007 when the then head of its umpiring department, Jeff Gieschen, discussed the matter during a media interview), a ‘protected species’ list of star players, or ‘ball movers’, which it believes draws spectators to attend AFL games. In conjunction with this list, the AFL holds the philosophy that when play during a match slows down the umpires should adjudicate with a view to getting the ball into the hands of one of its identified star players. The AFL now, as would be expected, verbally denies such a thing, tantamount as it would be to admitting systemic bias in matches and institutionalised match-fixing.

I genuinely pity the umpires, not least because so many of us passionate football supporters can’t help but vent our frustrations on them in regard to their erratic decision-making. I’m not proud of my inability to contain my anger at times, though I do not blame the umpires personally and appreciate that they are doing the best they can in impossible circumstances.

The solution is, to me, a no-brainer. The AFL should ditch both its ‘protected species’ list and its philosophy of umpiring to get the ball into the hands of the players on that list; it should stop adding ever more rules to the game; it should encourage the umpires to blow the whistle each and every time they see an infringement of the rules, regardless of the rule or the player who commits the infringement.

In this way the apparently unintended on-field favouritism towards the already large and financially robust clubs, which have – by definition – more star players, will be eradicated. The umpiring will be simplified; as a consequence there should be more consistent adjudication of the rules of the game; and so supporters who have fallen away through frustration will return to the stands in greater numbers to enjoy the spectacle of a truly fair sporting contest each and every time our great AFL game is played. It might even widen the field of contenders for the Brownlow Medal, the AFL’s award for the fairest and best player each season voted upon by its umpires.

My Take: Cochran vs. McDaniel, Mississippi Senate 2014

Establishment Republican Thad Cochran’s recent win over Tea Party firebrand Chris McDaniel in the Mississippi Senate Republican runoff, isn’t getting much press in Australia. Not surprising given the lack of coverage on U.S events full stop, but this could be one event that is interesting to note, given yesterday’s strange alliance between Clive Palmer and former VP of the U.S.A Al Gore.
The reason this is interesting was Thad Cochran’s strategy of reaching out to African American voters, a demographic that overwhelmingly votes Democrat. During the original primary, Chris McDaniel got 49.5% of the vote, to Cochran’s 49%, which forced a runoff due to no candidate getting 50%. In the runoff, Cochran got 50.9% to McDaniel’s 49.1%. The runoff had 60,601 extra voters than the original, many of these African Americans who didn’t want to see the Tea Party gain ascendancy in the state.
My take is that there are two things to take away from this:
1) The major party’s blatant attempt to attack third parties in any way they know how.

2) The people’s willingness to keep the major parties in power

Now the Tea Party might well one of the largest third parties in terms of popularity worldwide, and certainly the largest one in the United States, but still the Republican Party sees the need to cheat or at least push the boundaries of the rules. In most primaries, including in Mississippi, you are supposed to vote in the primary of the party you are going to vote for in the general election. This makes the large surge of African American voters, up to 40% in some counties, look awfully suspicious. One last point is that even with all of Thad Cochran’s enticing and political game playing, voters still had go to the booth and maybe put in a vote for a party and a person they had never voted for before. Imagine if we had public primaries in Australia, and there was a crazy radical leftie, running for let’s say, the Australian Labor Party nomination, and because this socialist could get in, Liberals started putting their vote in for a more moderate Labor member. This is what happened in Mississippi and it goes to show the power of a grassroots movement, like the Tea Party, that it can scare the stuffing out of a mainstream party to such an extent, that they had to cheat.

Radwanska defeats Dellacqua in R2 Wimbledon

4^th seeded Agnieszka Radwanska last night defeated unseeded Casey Dellacqua 6-4 6-0 in a match that went to schedule. Radwanska only really had one scare, in which Dellacqua came back from 5-1 to 5-4, before Radwanska broke Dellacqua’s serve to win the set.

Quick Wrap: A Sad Day for Journalism

Yesterday in a Cairo court, Al Jazeera journalists Peter Greste, Mohamed Fahmy and producer Baher Mohammed were given 7-10 year sentences for what can only be described as responsible journalism. The Egyptian government, with Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has made its intentions clear from the outset, to eliminate all traces of the formerly ruling Muslim Brotherhood party from public life. They have already given a death sentence to 182 of the group’s followers, and Mohamed Morsi, the party’s leader, is currently on trial for murder, inciting deadly violence and espionage. What, in effect, el-Sisi is trying to do in ridding Egypt of the ruling party and its followers, is to do to the Muslim Brotherhood what the United States under George W. Bush did to the Ba’ath party in Iraq during the war from 2003, through imprisoning and killing members, including Saddam Hussein himself. This, in Iraq’s case just led to more sectarian violence and a situation now, where Barack Obama has to face a similar situation as President of the U.S as Bush did back then. All I’ll say is, for the sake of the Middle East, I hope history doesn’t repeat.

Wickmayer defeats Stosur in R1 Wimbledon

Samantha Stosur’s first round defeat to unseeded Belgian Yanina Wickmayer 6-3 6-4 means the 3rd time she has been knocked out before winning a match in the past 5 years at arguably the biggest stage in tennis. The 69 minute match in which Stosur looked shaky continues her dismal run on grass.

My Take: The Republican Party in 2016

The Republican Party in the United States faces an interesting decision heading into the 2016 election. Do they go with a candidate who is a known heavyweight (Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, or even Chris Christie) or do they go for someone a little out of left field (Ted Cruz, Mike Lee or Rand Paul). This has been a decision Republicans have had to make ever since the Tea Party and even further back to Barry Goldwater. In 2012, as we know, they chose former Salt Lake City mayor Mitt Romney from the heavyweight group to run against the incumbent President Barack Obama. He lost in what was a tough race. Ever since the election, Republicans have been searching for their next candidate.

My take is that they should end up going for someone like Rand Paul or Chris Christie, due to a couple of reasons.

1) Mitt Romney will surely not be given a second go, given his 2012 failure and political baggage.

2) Mike Lee is too much of an unknown quantity to a party that knows it will face an experienced campaigner.

3) Ted Cruz is unpopular in many critical swing states due to his part in the Government shutdown last year, and is one candidate who, due to his age, will be around for years to come, and therefore their will be more opportunities for him to run later down the line.

Of course, another name to discuss is Jeb Bush, who to my mind is the dark horse in all of this, because he is just far enough away from his brother, George W. Bush to have negative political baggage. However, many people do still remember his role in 2000 election when he was Governor of Florida. It is for this reason that I don’t see him as a main contender for the Republican nomination.

Which gets us down to two, libertarian Rand Paul from Kentucky and Governor Chris Christie from New Jersey. Right now, in the aftermath of Bridgegate, I think Chris Christie would do well to play his cards close to his chest, due to the potential negative popularity impact from that fiasco. Rand Paul is not the Governor of a state, instead a humble Senator, who has steadily been building popularity not only with fellow Republicans due to his ability to stand with the Constitution, but also with the average person, due to his attacking of the Iraq invasion in 2003 and solid beliefs.

To my mind, Rand Paul would be a very difficult candidate for Democrats to hit hard, due to a lack of political baggage. Unlike many Republicans, he is not a Tea Party maniac, who the average voter can’t identify with, and he’s also not an ultra-establishment Republican who the average person is fed up with. Another thing that augurs well for Rand is that he doesn’t seem to be the enemy of Fox News and conservative talk radio shows that his father, Ron, used to be. This is a major plus for Rand, who has just seen the fall of ultra-establishment GOP heir apparent Eric Cantor to Tea Partier Dave Brat, due in no small part to Brat’s endorsement by such personalities as Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin.  It is this backing by conservative personalities that will be one of the more interesting subplots as we get closer to 2016.

In closing, I think Rand Paul would be my pick if I were the Republican Party nominating a candidate for the 2016 election.

 

 

What the Paddy File is all about

The Paddy File is going to be a blog about difference, not afraid to have a different opinion from the rest. Independence will always be the main aim here, because at the end of the day, the most truthful side of the story isn’t always the one you get spun. Here you’ll hear every issue from the AFL’s problems to why politics is all about vision.