Thursday, June 30, 2005
Human nature.
We humans are strange beings and political aspirants are more strange than most.
Politics is a tough game - no arguments there. The people that you are forced to mix with are most likely persons that you normally wouldn't choose to and it is wise to count your fingers after shaking hands.
When someone undermines work we have done or works against us we take that as a personal attack. It isn't necessarily so.
We are prone to mistake a rival's ambition to win with a desire to see us lose. The two are very different and I see the ability to differentiate between them as a mark of political maturity.
People who strive to win a contest often adopt a "if you aren't with me you're against me" mentality. They fail to understand that a rival might not want to see you fail so much as they want to see themselves win. It isn't necessarily personal.
Another quirk of human nature is that we condemn others for acts we are prepared to commit ourselves.
A candidate will see nothing wrong with stacking branches to ensure their own delegates are appointed to a selection committee but will condemn a rival for doing excactly the same thing.
Only those who choose not to take part are entitled to complain about such activities.
A candidate will see nothing untoward in trying to undermine the position of a rival but will complain bitterley when the rival does the same thing to them.
What needs to be understood - and it's a pretty basic concept - is that a rival is entitled to use the same tactics as you and that it is OK for them to do so.
No one has a "right" to win any contest. Your work to manipulate a system to your advantage doesn't entitle you to a free run.
Others work just as hard, have just as much desire and have just as much, or more, to offer.
Politics is a tough game - no arguments there. The people that you are forced to mix with are most likely persons that you normally wouldn't choose to and it is wise to count your fingers after shaking hands.
When someone undermines work we have done or works against us we take that as a personal attack. It isn't necessarily so.
We are prone to mistake a rival's ambition to win with a desire to see us lose. The two are very different and I see the ability to differentiate between them as a mark of political maturity.
People who strive to win a contest often adopt a "if you aren't with me you're against me" mentality. They fail to understand that a rival might not want to see you fail so much as they want to see themselves win. It isn't necessarily personal.
Another quirk of human nature is that we condemn others for acts we are prepared to commit ourselves.
A candidate will see nothing wrong with stacking branches to ensure their own delegates are appointed to a selection committee but will condemn a rival for doing excactly the same thing.
Only those who choose not to take part are entitled to complain about such activities.
A candidate will see nothing untoward in trying to undermine the position of a rival but will complain bitterley when the rival does the same thing to them.
What needs to be understood - and it's a pretty basic concept - is that a rival is entitled to use the same tactics as you and that it is OK for them to do so.
No one has a "right" to win any contest. Your work to manipulate a system to your advantage doesn't entitle you to a free run.
Others work just as hard, have just as much desire and have just as much, or more, to offer.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Candidate Selection.
Many aspiring politicians put a great deal of effort into ensuring they have "the numbers" before they nominate for candidate selection. It isn't surprising really given that they generally learn the craft under the tutelage of some serving member in the State or Federal Parliament and serve an apprenticeship organising support for their master.
Some very ordinary and otherwise uninspiring members are expert at the process - one only has to look at the way a small clique has effectively gained total control over the Liberal Party and now sees the Party as their own enterprise that exists solely to ensure their own re-election.
Only the most idealistic would kid themself that there is anything that vaguely resembles merit based candidate selection in the Liberal Party - it simply doesn't happen. What does happen is that prospective candidates are put through a farcical exercise where delegates who have already been told, sometimes ordered, how to vote sit through an address by each candidate, ask some questions to give the process an air of sincerity then ignore everything they have heard to vote for the person who installed them as a delegate.
Delegates are quite open about it. They readily confess their vote was pre-arranged. Not only does this mean that the best candidate might fail to win selection, often the worst candidate is successful.
The whole process is designed to select the person most prepared to manipulate the system rather than the person best equipped to represent the Party or the electorate. It is no wonder that the voting public generally and accurately feels that our Parliaments are full of mediocre, self-interested hacks.
Who might want delegates to vote for a certain candidate? Well, for example, it might be a powerful businessman frustrated at what they see as a hostile Government blocking a pet project. They might think a conservative Government full of appreciative members would be more likely to grant the approvals they need to proceed.
Branch stackers fail to realise that HAVING to stack a branch to get the support of delegates means they probably don't have much to offer in the first place. They know they could never win the support of an impartial panel. Fortunately for voters, they can't stack the ballot box!
Similarly, a Parliament full of members beholden to powerful businessmen is hardly going to act in the interests of voters.
Some very ordinary and otherwise uninspiring members are expert at the process - one only has to look at the way a small clique has effectively gained total control over the Liberal Party and now sees the Party as their own enterprise that exists solely to ensure their own re-election.
Only the most idealistic would kid themself that there is anything that vaguely resembles merit based candidate selection in the Liberal Party - it simply doesn't happen. What does happen is that prospective candidates are put through a farcical exercise where delegates who have already been told, sometimes ordered, how to vote sit through an address by each candidate, ask some questions to give the process an air of sincerity then ignore everything they have heard to vote for the person who installed them as a delegate.
Delegates are quite open about it. They readily confess their vote was pre-arranged. Not only does this mean that the best candidate might fail to win selection, often the worst candidate is successful.
The whole process is designed to select the person most prepared to manipulate the system rather than the person best equipped to represent the Party or the electorate. It is no wonder that the voting public generally and accurately feels that our Parliaments are full of mediocre, self-interested hacks.
Who might want delegates to vote for a certain candidate? Well, for example, it might be a powerful businessman frustrated at what they see as a hostile Government blocking a pet project. They might think a conservative Government full of appreciative members would be more likely to grant the approvals they need to proceed.
Branch stackers fail to realise that HAVING to stack a branch to get the support of delegates means they probably don't have much to offer in the first place. They know they could never win the support of an impartial panel. Fortunately for voters, they can't stack the ballot box!
Similarly, a Parliament full of members beholden to powerful businessmen is hardly going to act in the interests of voters.
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Federal Election Mystery???
In the lead-up to the 2004 Federal Election, Liberal candidate for Swan, Andrew Murfin, made the headlines for all the wrong reasons.
Readers may recall Murfin was embroiled in a scandal where allegedly bogus letters were submitted to local newspapers. One in particular that was critical of Labor incumbent Kim Wilkie, was published in the name of 87 year-old Emily Dickman.
Apparently Dickman was a member of the Liberal Party branch where Murfin was the President. (apparently she was also one of a swag of members transferred into the South Perth branch to knock out that branch after it had been hijacked by an aspiring candidate under the questionable guidance of the branch Vice-president)
Ms Dickman at times claimed no knowledge of any letter and that Murfin had written it for her. Murfin denied any knowledge of the letter or of any letter campaign.
The Liberal strategy was to deny everything, lay low and let the whole affair blow over.
Despite a huge swing against Labor in almost every other electorate in the country, Murfin failed to win the seat by around 110 votes.
Given the very slender margin, a recount would ordinarily be automatic however the Australian Electoral Commission refused Murfin's request for a recount(http://203.2.218.61/wa/news/200410/s1228696.htm). In any event it is sufficiently unusual to be newsworthy.
Curiously this received virtually no coverage in local media. It was reported on the Brisbane Courier Mail website but apparently not in The West Australian. Despite the obvious contradiction highlighted by the link above, there was no mention on any local TV news programs nor on any local radio news heard by the author at the time.
One possible reason for the AEC to refuse a recount would be if there were something that would prevent Murfin from taking up his seat if he were elected. From the link, it is apparent that the AEC provided reasons for the refusal to Murfin but were not prepared to divulge those reasons to the general public.
As the AEC says, Murfin is free to make the reasons public if he chooses. It seems he has chosen to keep them to himself.
Now ordinarily one would think that someone with Murfin's talent for disaster would be dropped like a hot potato. However Murfin continues to enjoy strong support from persons in positions of power in the Liberal Party in Western Australia. One report says Murfin has the 100% support of a well-known Federal member if he wants yet another shot at getting into Parliament.
Murfin could well re-appear as a future Liberal candidate for a prize Liberal seat, or he could throw his support behind a close friend with political aspirations and similar talents to his own.
Can anyone shed any light on this mystery?
Readers may recall Murfin was embroiled in a scandal where allegedly bogus letters were submitted to local newspapers. One in particular that was critical of Labor incumbent Kim Wilkie, was published in the name of 87 year-old Emily Dickman.
Apparently Dickman was a member of the Liberal Party branch where Murfin was the President. (apparently she was also one of a swag of members transferred into the South Perth branch to knock out that branch after it had been hijacked by an aspiring candidate under the questionable guidance of the branch Vice-president)
Ms Dickman at times claimed no knowledge of any letter and that Murfin had written it for her. Murfin denied any knowledge of the letter or of any letter campaign.
The Liberal strategy was to deny everything, lay low and let the whole affair blow over.
Despite a huge swing against Labor in almost every other electorate in the country, Murfin failed to win the seat by around 110 votes.
Given the very slender margin, a recount would ordinarily be automatic however the Australian Electoral Commission refused Murfin's request for a recount(http://203.2.218.61/wa/news/200410/s1228696.htm). In any event it is sufficiently unusual to be newsworthy.
Curiously this received virtually no coverage in local media. It was reported on the Brisbane Courier Mail website but apparently not in The West Australian. Despite the obvious contradiction highlighted by the link above, there was no mention on any local TV news programs nor on any local radio news heard by the author at the time.
One possible reason for the AEC to refuse a recount would be if there were something that would prevent Murfin from taking up his seat if he were elected. From the link, it is apparent that the AEC provided reasons for the refusal to Murfin but were not prepared to divulge those reasons to the general public.
As the AEC says, Murfin is free to make the reasons public if he chooses. It seems he has chosen to keep them to himself.
Now ordinarily one would think that someone with Murfin's talent for disaster would be dropped like a hot potato. However Murfin continues to enjoy strong support from persons in positions of power in the Liberal Party in Western Australia. One report says Murfin has the 100% support of a well-known Federal member if he wants yet another shot at getting into Parliament.
Murfin could well re-appear as a future Liberal candidate for a prize Liberal seat, or he could throw his support behind a close friend with political aspirations and similar talents to his own.
Can anyone shed any light on this mystery?
