Saturday, March 03, 2018

South Australian State Election 2018 and other Thoughts

So for some reason the other day I received a message from the electoral commission, indicating a election in coming weeks, and the availability of an app. General indications from reviews was that the app is flawed. If download app, then you will not be sent voting card. Apparently voting card, provides a number which speeds up finding name in the registers: I didn't know finding name and address was that difficult or slow. Probably the real reason is large population of people with non-European names, which most people crossing names off in the register cannot understand, nor spell. Apparently the app will provide the required number, if it works for you. Anycase I don't know why I got the notification, I guess I must have registered my phone number when I changed my address online. The electoral commision also has a app which is a pseudo simulator for filling in the ballot slip: pseudo because it doesn't simulate the real world allowing a voter to abstain, rejecting all candidates, by making their vote null and void.

So We Have an Election

So we have an election: your chance to ride roughshod over everyone and become a dictator. No that's not right we have a democracy. So!?

Not sure what the South Australian constitution is or if we have one. But from school social science a long time back, the basic structure of the South Australian system seems to be the same as the federal. Thus we the people, elect representatives which form a government, from which an executive council is selected by the governor. The executive council is then responsible for executing the will of the government through the provision of services to the public by government agencies.

If everyone is happy with the status quo, then all that is required is to transfer funds from the state treasury to meet the budgets of the government agencies so that they can continue operations as usual. All that we need for that to occur is the governor.

Part of the reason for representatives and parliamentary debate is to prevent the "tyranny of the majority". Each representative argues the wants and whims of their electorate, they don't just turn up at parliament and listen to the party platform. The task of the executive council is to bring all these wants and whims together into a consolidated whole, and present something that the government will then agree on.

Just to clarify. Members of both the Labor party and the Liberal both sit in the House of Assembly. There is no government and opposition: both these sets of jokers and incompetents constitute our government. The governor should select and executive council fairly from all political parties to properly represent the diversity of the government. Under my proposal in previous post no political party would be permitted more than 20% of the vote: the executive council would have to be formed with representatives from at least 5 parties.

Right now we can only have a Labor government if the Labor party has hijacked the electoral process and dictates to the government: debate is a sham and all bills will be pushed through, as a consequence of the peoples representatives ignoring the people and following party lines: the party platform. We the people are not duly and properly represented: we are dictated to.

It is extremely inefficient. Labor is in, Liberal comes along and displaces them, dismantling everything in their path and implementing something else. Then Labor hijacks parliament again dismantles everything Liberals did and builds their own stuff back. Everything oscillates between black and white. With due and proper representation, we get a compromise, a murky shade of grey. No one is ecstatic, but everyone is fairly served. The disgruntled will largely be the greedy, irrespective of whether rich or poor: those that want more than their fair share.

Meanderings on Needs

I take the primary purpose of the tax system is to keep the money system working. Money isn't entirely earned, it flows and accumulates to those who are fortunate to control those things for which all have a need. Ultimately there is potential for the whole system to grind to a halt. The market doesn't have any planned or designed circulatory system which ensures money flows around and benefits all that it passes. Money can just flow from, or through and provide no benefit to the entity it passes (could be a person or organisation).

So taxes are to take money from where it is unacceptably accumulating and circulate it to where it is unacceptably disappearing. Also it is not possible to provide everything at a profit, or even for everything to be self-sufficient through user pays. Thus once again an issue of taking from where money accumulates and placing it where it is needed.

Government isn't a business, so not business as usual, but operations as usual.So consider we have a nation, the nation is developed, the nation is built: as such there is no need for anything new. However, the environment the nation operates in is dynamic, therefore it has to be dynamically adaptive. There is thus need for occasional change, adaptation to new circumstances, but not change for changes sake. therefore expect an occasional upheaval as everything adapts.

Thus knowing that there is necessary change some 20% of the available funds could be put aside for discretionary needs, nonrecurring. Whilst recurring needs are met by 80% of the budget, each government agency in turn puts aside 20% of its funds for discretionary needs. Any government agency using more than 80% of its funds to meet ongoing operations is thus ineffective: forget about efficiency its barely capable of meeting its objectives.

So for example we should have government agencies providing services with no changes occuring unless there is a bill passed to implement. So for example the following stock journal article: Inspection confusion causes rural concern. Why? The article has a call for all political parties to have a policy on such issue. Once again why?

Do farm vehicles travel along suburban streets from one household garden to another? No! Farm vehicles travel along rural roads from one rural property to another. The issue is one for rural regions, the representatives of rural regions. It is not a party political issue: it is a geographical issue, a regional issue. If agricultural machinery is damaging rural roads, it is still a regional issue. The region needs funds to maintain roads.

So roads maybe under the jurisdiction of local government authorities (LGA's), state government or Federal government. Either way, each level of government has certain responsibilities to provide roads and maintain them once constructed. Construction of a new road is a discretionary cost, maintenance then becomes a necessary ongoing cost. Funds for maintenance of roads cannot, or should not be redirected to construction of hospitals. Each new road, and new hospital increases ongoing maintenance costs. At first sight the only place to get these funds from is the 20% put aside for discretionary expenses. A developing nation is rapidly going to lose the reserve funds, and run out off funds for further development. On the other hand heritage becomes a foundation on which to build the future: if its a solid foundation. Some things don't need replacing for 100 years, other things need  replacing every year. However, we cannot neglect that in 100 years time, we will need funds to replace such systems, if our civilisation is not going to collapse.

Australia is not a developed country, most of the interior is wilderness, even if used for large sheep and cattle stations it is still largely undeveloped wilderness. The central strip of Australia is certainly a neglected region: the central strip comprising Northern Territory and South Australia.

The state of South Australia is largely under too much influence from the Adelaide council, with state development policies being to concentrate population around Adelaide: to contract the population and stop urban sprawl.

But what is urban sprawl? It isn't really about remote towns being connected to capital cities. It isn't really about cars. It is mostly a consequence of multistorey buildings and large facilities located in a central business district: and needing population far greater than can or does reside in the vicinity of such facilities.

For example consider the World Trade Center as an extreme example: 110 storeys accommodating 50,000 workers, and with 200,000 daily visitors. So South Australia with a population of approximately 1.5 million, only needs 30 such buildings for workers assuming all are working. But then we also need additional buildings for workers to live. We probably could collapse the entire population into the main hub of Adelaide city. We probably can stuff people into concrete beehives, assimilate them to the borg and wire them to the matrix. But it is highly unlikely that they would want such. If we do such then South Australia is irrelevant, cease talking about the state, it is wilderness, the only region of relevance is the city of Adelaide.

Australia is considered to be a primary producer, and such is where we should focus. Why? Around 2.5% of the population is employed in agriculture, and around 2.5% involved in mining. The definition of industrialised nation is less than 10% employed in agriculture. So if people are not employed in agriculture and growing their own food, what are the rest of the people to do in exchange for their food? Apparently be employed by government agencies, employed in health care, education and retail. Apparently manufacturing is not important. Though construction industry always wanting more land to be released for house construction. Why? Household occupancy is less than 3 persons per household, and car ownership is also around 2 vehicles per household. Have no real need for houses, nor for cars. One vehicle assembly plant could provide that 3rd person with a vehicle and private space in 5 years. The housing industry would take some 25 years to provide a house, so that occupancy is 2 persons per household. Apparently we have a housing shortage. But is it real? Do we need to reduce occupancy to 2 persons to each household: what is a household? Is a household an isolated building, or an isolated room?

Working with my 5 km diameter cells: at least one person per cell to define occupation of land. Then SA has about 50,088 such cells, and a population which would permit around 34 persons per cell. Australia has enough such cells that it could appoint one person per cell, and eliminate unemployment. What do they do: they take responsibility for development and maintenance of the cell or otherwise protecting the natural wilderness. The person is the assigned representative and custodian of the cell. Which raises another issue should our representation be proportional to land area of an electorate or proportional to population? For further consideration the Yorke Peninsula council area has a population to appoint 37 people to each cell.

Consider that instead of people merely belonging to some massive electorate they are assigned responsibility for a 5 km cell. They don't have to live there, they are just responsible for the area. A cell has a defined usage or purpose, such purpose has required resources and thus necessary funding. The cell cannot be neglected. Its purpose maybe maintained wilderness. However even though it is wilderness, should there be any human habitat, should there be a through road? If there is human habitat then need some means of getting people in and out, as well as needed resources. At the very minimum all the cells should be connected by footpaths: not necessarily paved/sealed, but an obvious and passable track.

Back to the Government

Ok! Enough with the diversion. Point is that the government is off the people and off the land. The government does not exist without connection to land. An organisation can be global, can be universal, it has no geographical constraint. A government, a nation, however is tied to the land. The government's task therefore is to manage that land. It is therefore not acceptable for the government to focus on the needs of a single city in that land.

The government is the appointed custodian of the land and all its living occupants, and all the resources the land provides. The government's first task therefore is to appoint an agency to monitor and account for all the occupants and resources. To then determine the needs of the living occupants, and the conflicts between those needs. Once the agencies are appointed there is no longer need for the representative government. The government only needs to be assembled when change is necessary: when the established systems are failing.

So currently Labor and Liberal sit in government. No they don't! Ok! Labor currently dictates to the government, and you may desire to change the situation so that Liberal dictates to the government. If you believe that such dictatorship is acceptable you are part of the problem. After the election we will in the main still have the same bunch of jokers representing the Labor and Liberal parties sat in parliament and forming the government: they will have merely changed seats. Shifting the bunch of jokers from one side of the house to the other doesn't achieve effective change. Changing who dictates policy does not constitute effective nor efficient government.

The mess we have is not because of Labor, it is because both Labor and Liberals sit in the house. To effect change both bunch of incompetents need to be removed. We need to limit the number of votes any party can get: we need at least 5 parties in the house. And when no political party can hijack parliament and appoint itself as the executive council: then we are one step closer to due and proper representation. We should not consider such situation a hung parliament: it isn't a problem, it is what should occur. The governor then as the task of selecting members of the executive council: the executive council is not the government. The executive council is selected from the members of the government: to execute the will of the government.  The will of the government should properly represent the will of the people: not the wants and whims of political parties.

So we have rural region, with needs for hospitals, schools and roads. How does it get them? Does it need a political party with a rural platform? No!

The proper function of government is to provide for the needs of the people who occupy the land it governs. The people in the city get their food from the rural regions don't they? Probably not, the retailers probably import everything. In which case probably don't need rural communities, so we can implement a massive exodus and migrate all the rural communities into the city of Adelaide. Import all our food and be heavily dependent on mechanised transport, political instabilities in foreign countries. Sounds like a plan. Also sounds like a major security and defence issue. Free markets have no care for society. The wants and whims of markets does not provide for effective supply of needed goods and services. No buts, doubts or maybes. It doesn't, it hasn't, it isn't.

So we have one representative for a region what can they do? What can they do if they belong to a party? If they belong to a political party do they really have a voice for their electorate and its needs? I doubt they do, everything which happens biased towards Adelaide city (eg. Hospital which cannot effectively service the rural regions), indicates they don't. So toss the political parties, they are obsolete, they have had their day.

Local MP's

It's time for a revolution. Your local MP is part of the government, irrespective of whether they are a member of the executive council, or the political party which has hijacked government. You voted for them to represent you. If you voted for them because some ancestor, intelligently made the right choice for themselves, then you are a fool, and should not be permitted to vote. You should vote for the person who will properly represent your needs, your communities needs: the person who will get things done, if it is possible to get the things done.

Are healthcare needs a Labor or Liberal party issue? No! Healthcare is a people's need. How it is effectively provided is the issue. Can private enterprise effectively provide the healthcare services the population needs? I doubt it. And I doubt it because the modern business mantra is not about satisfying needs it is purely about monetary profits. No profit, no extortionate profit, then no supply.: business shutdown. And we are told we should think about all the ma and pa shareholders. No we shouldn't.

In effect the government is little more than a corporation, a limited company, and we are all shareholders. The government are the board of directors: we the shareholders can sack each and everyone of them if they are not considered competent to do the job we have appointed to them. The nation is a Co-op, and we expect certain goods and services from them in exchange for the taxes we pay. More over the government provides a safety net, a universal insurance policy. Most especially the government provides insurance for those situations when the market fails to achieve, what wishful thinking hopes it will achieve.

If you as an individual do not know what you need, then how can your representative properly know what you need? How many people does one representative represent? What happens when 50,000 drowns, bombards one representative with their needs? What happens when 50,000 people stand on the steps of parliament and demand their needs are met? Such number of people clearly out numbers the politicians. The population of Yorke Peninsula council area also clearly out numbers the members of the LGA, as do the people of Copper Coast and Barunga West council areas.

You start with your LGA, put pressure on the state, and then pressure on the nation. So say the LGA says hospitals are state issue. So what? Is there a state embassy in the LGA area? No! Is there a state MP? Possibly. But who cares? The local community needs one or more hospitals, similarly for schools, housing, and employment. It needs roads, shops and other facilities. The people pay the LGA, and the LGA is the local central planning authority. The LGA is the one place we can centralise all our visions for the area. So sure the hospital maybe state or federal issue: but the need is a local requirement. The state and federal electorates cross LGA boundaries: preferably with no overlap.

So several LGA's make up a state or federal electorate. The representative of the region therefore, has to determine and balance the needs of several LGA's. Do all the LGA's get a hospital, or just one with centralised accessibility to all the others.

... [(03/03/2018) 18:01] Tea time

Related Posts

[03/03/2018] : Original