The accidental Australian

There are certain things that many old-standing football supporters in Australia never forget and forgive. Many years of being seen to follow a code of a ‘lesser God’ has created in some a sense of persecution complex. I myself sometime fall in this mental set and I have always to be careful that I don’t become one of those annoying football fans that see enemies against the world game at every corner.

However there is one ‘enemy’ that is etched forever in our minds, and that is Channel 7. In the bad old days of Soccer Australia Channel 7 was given the rights of broadcasting the National Soccer League. I think this was seen by Soccer Australia as a way to give the sport some legitimacy. That is being on a mainstream commercial channel like the AFL and the NRL. Not on the ‘wog tv’ of SBS, which had been doing a sterling job up to that point.

Channel 7 promptly buried the sport. I don’t remember ever showing a game live. Initially it showed an highlight package on a Monday night at midnight. And after a while not even that. It disappeared completely and to add to the injury Seven have informed all networks that they will only provide ‘grabs’ of NSL matches for a fee of $300 per game.

No other network did this, and Seven didn’t do it for any sport other than Association Football. The result was that other networks had to pay well over a thousand dollars a week if they were to continue to show footage of the games in their bulletins, a ridiculous situation that, unsurprisingly, meant that the other networks didn’t show any NSL at all. Ten discontinued their NSL weekly round up on Sports Tonight, and SBS could only read out the scores during their coverage - leaving their six-hour World Game show without even a second of Australian football video.

Football fans smelt a conspiracy. And this was confirmed during the infamous C7 Court Case, where the owner of the Seven Network, Kerry Stokes, accused his key media rivals of conspiring to put the nascent ‘Channel 7 Sport Channel’ C7 channel out of business by denying it the rights to the AFL.

An article published in ‘The Age’ in December 2005 by Roy Master explains this.

An email from C7 executive Steve Wise, cited in the Federal Court, makes it clear the network bought the rights to football only to bury it, to please the AFL.

Written in November 2000 when Channel Seven still had the AFL rights, it lamented the AFL’s ingratitude, saying: “There is no credit that we have secured the soccer rights and sufficated (sic) the sport, much to the chagrin of its supporters.”

Football Federation Australia chief executive John O’Neill, asked to comment on the email, said: “At the time Soccer Australia chairman David Hill trumpeted the Channel Seven-C7 deal as an absolute lifeline for mass entertainment soccer . . . if the email is interpreted literally, it appears their intention was to bury soccer.”

He added: “Taken on its face, it’s an incredibly alarming retrospective on how disadvantaged soccer was in a highly competitive market. Twenty-two months ago, we had no content; the NSL was in the last days of its history but not televised and the Socceroos had not played at home for 31 months.

“When you compare this with the visibility of the other three football codes, remembering the popularity of sport is inevitably measured by hours on TV, we weren’t even on the radar screen.”

There were many protests made by fans. Stickers were made with the slogan ‘Nobody screws soccer like Channel 7′ as a variation of the Channel 7 slogan at that time “Nobody Knows News/Sydney/Melbourne (whatever) like Seven”.

Even banners were made and shown at NSL matches. The irony was that security was instructed by Soccer Australia to remove them because they felt they ‘insulted a major sponsor’. The fact that Soccer Australia was sensitive to protect a TV station that was effectively burying the sport underground was even more galling.

The contract from memory was a long one. Fortunately the inept Soccer Australia was disbanded and replaced by the Football Federation Australia and the A-League was established thus rendering the arrangement between Channel Seven and Soccer Australia redundant.

However the attempts of Channel Seven are not forgotten and echoes are cited regarding how they are treating football at the Olympics.

As I stated briefly on another post, Channel Seven won’t show live coverage of the first Olyroo group game against Serbia on Thursday August 7.

Seven also confirmed that the Olyroo v Serbia game will be interrupted “at some point” to cross to the AOC team reception for the flag bearer announcement. (and what a crucial information that will be).

What’s more, according to the network’s coverage details, the crunch match for the Olyroos against Argentina on Sunday August 10 will begin at 7pm, however, by 8.30pm - that is with around 15 minutes to go of the crunch match - the coverage is set to switch to swimming.

For the Olyroos’ final group match against Ivory Coast on Wednesday August 13, the game’s coverage will be shared with women’s basketball.

Many fans are already mumbling about another Channel 7 conspiracy against Association Football.

I don’t see it as that, as I think other team sports such as basketball and hockey will suffer the same fate. However the broadcast rights are shared with SBS, a station that has a long and illustrious tradition in football coverage. I am sure they would be delighted to cover the Olyroos matches in full. Why Channel 7 don’t give it to them? I they feel that they won’t rate as much as other sports then there should be no problems.

As Mark van Aken writes on the Green and Gold Army website:

Channel 7 can’t handle a whole Olympics on one channel, which is why they engaged SBS for ’spill’ coverage, and they are showing a fair slice of football. So if Seven can’t or won’t fully cover the Olyroos, why aren’t these Aussie games on the traditional football broadcaster? Seven is completely half-pregnant on this. Either Olyroos football rates and they want it on their network or it doesn’t and it is dispensable. What they are running with is a disgraceful patch-work quilt.

On the other hand it could be a blessing in disguise. There is a belief amongst many football fans that the Olyroos are going to get whipped in this tournament as they believe that Arnold is not up to coaching a team at this level, as many top Australian players seems to think as well.

An article in the Sun Herald (unfortunately not on line, so I can’t link it) stated that the relationship between Graham Arnold and some of our leading football players is at rock bottom.

It turns out the bad memories of the Asian Cup debacle - and that’s putting it mildly - are still very fresh in the players’ minds. Privately some admit they are not keen to be involved in a team coached by Arnold. As Australian captain, Kewell has been very diplomatic about his decision to make himself unavailable. But the truth about his feelings towards Arnold emerged from his manager, Bernie Mandic. When asked about Kewell’s relationship with Arnold, he said: “Kewell changed his mobile number immediately after the Asian Cup with express instructions that it was never to be given to Arnold. That just about tells you everything. For Arnold and his media mates to try and spin it otherwise typifies the self-delusion.”

Of course whatever is Arnold’s abilities I which the Olyroos the best tournament ever.

Updates: The Sydney Morning Herald Football blog questions the decision of Channel 7.

Meanwhile the football website FourFourTwo reports exclusively that Channel 7 has threatened legal action against The Green And Gold Army.

FourFourTwo also reports why SBS can’t broadcast the matches.

If you have a Facebook account you can join the ‘We want proper Olyroos coverage on TV‘ group.

I am sure that many people will be happy that the Pope has gone home to Vatican City (not Rome, as many erroneously say) and most of them would be Catholics. I guess that the dictum ‘all publicity is good publicity’ wasn’t really true in this case. The presence of the Pope highlighted many issues of what is wrong with the Catholic Church.

I guess that Sydneysiders are also happy that the throng of excited and overly happy young Catholics are also gone to their parishes.

So the next WYD will be in Madrid. I thought that was an interesting choice. Spain may be seen as a very traditional Catholic country, but again a bit like Italy, people from outside, especially in the Anglosphere may be deceived.

Of course we all remember the ‘Spanish Inquisition‘ and under Franco the Church had initially a strong supporter (although it changed in later years).

Today, Spain has some of the most progressive legislation in regards to lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered persons. It is one of the five countries around the world that allows same-sex marriage and adoption by same-sex couples is also legal. Spanish Gay culture has been exported internationally with film directors such as Pedro Almodóvar and events like the Europride celebrated in Madrid in 2007.

So I wonder, considering that Australia was seen by the Vatican as one of the most secular countries in the world there is a WYD list to target countries where secularism may be seen as a ‘problem’.

There has been lots of blogtalk about World Youth Day, Catholicism and the like.

I have already made a comment on this issue. One interesting blog to read at the moment is that of Father Bob of ‘Speaking In Tongues’ fame (youtube link).

In an amusing post, Father Bob recounts when he was asked early one morning whether his church would be available in the afternoon for 100 pilgrims, as they wanted to ‘do’ Mass at the end of a hectic day of touring. But these were not average Catholics, they were ‘neo-cats’

These were the “neo-cats”, a recent development in Catholicism, well disciplined and behaved, heavily dependent on worship and morale sustaining singing and dancing.

We wouldn’t have thought at the start of the week that our parish church would be sought out a safe place by THREE separate groups of one of the world’s most militant catholic associations – the “neo-cats” (short for Neo-Catechumenal Way)….

I can see how this mob’s admired and feared. They’re charismatic, religiously well educated and always on the lookout for converts.

Not converts to wishy washy Catholicism as practised here and in most other parishes – wishy washy as far as these zealots are concerned, anyway – but converts to the NEOWAY.

It must be daunting for anyone born or recruited into the NEOWAY if that person wants to leave the community. That’s a story yet to be told by investigator Safran on Triple J.

I realise, now, after this week’s dose of the NeoWay, that the groups’ enthusiasm is seductive to a bunch of parishioners, but could be fatal to the bored and boring survival of a local church doing its best to be the heart and soul of the neighbourhood, not just an “Amway” or “Hillsong”, “in house” self-indulgence.

So that’s why Guy Sebastian was at WYD!

The whole post is here

From ‘I prefer a Tram Conductor‘

After being going out on a limb by disagreeing with mostof by fellow left wing bloggers for stating that the Catholic Church is not all a bunch of pedophiles, misogynist poofter bashers (even though as I said in my previous blog I am no fan of the Catholic Church, far from it.) I decided that I may as well go for broke.

What I have got to lose? Maybe that is why my blog doesn’t receive the same number of comments as those who have strong opinions. So I am now really being controversial, especially for a Melbournian. And what I am saying is: What is all this crap about Tram Conductors?

Again I have to say (bloody hell…why do I have to consider ‘the other side’ all the time?) that re-introducing Tram Conductors is a great idea, and taking them off was a bad idea.

But it seems that in their absence the connies have somewhat gained some sort of mystical quality. In yesterday’s Age Louisa Deasey wrote ‘Conductors were like gentle stand-by guardians’. In today’s Age Catherine Deveny writes how much our spirits would lift if they came back.

Imagine if they did reinstate the connies. Imagine if they publicly said: “We got it wrong. Not only did it rip the soul from our trams but it ended up costing us money.” Who cares about the money. Imagine the feeling of our spirits being lifted, it would be like turning back time. Patching up a broken friendship you’ve always regretted losing. Finding your favourite watch in the pocket of a jacket you haven’t worn for 20 years. Coming home and finding your dog missing since 1999 was sitting on your doorstep. Imagine that day!

And of course you have websites such as ‘I prefer a Tram Conductor‘ which state that ‘Tram conductors were custodians of Melbourne’s soul.’

Another example is from letter writer (which I think I have met in a previous job, actually a nice bloke) Larry Stillman from Elwood.

OH TO bring back the joy of conductors, many of whom we knew by name, instead of the grim bouncer wannabes who monitor us. I grew up with Frenchie, who kept us in fits as he monkey-barred his way up and down the old W-class trams, and Roberto, who amused my son. But bean counters and Kosky can’t see the point that human service actually means better service and that people might then feel like paying for their tickets.

It’s another sad example of how this Labor Government is a do-nothing government when it comes to public transport. John Brumby, ever defensive, is in for a hiding at the next election. That’s a warning from a frustrated life-long Labor voter.

Now I have met Frenchies and Robertos when I was riding trams, but I also met some some real bastards in my time. Especially as a high school student you were often treated shabbily by some pseudo-nazi connie which felt that finally they could exercise some authority because they were wearing a uniform and a leather bag.

Of course all the nice conductors probably went on to become gardeners and kindergarten teachers, while the pseudo-nazis went on to become the current ticket inspectors where they can exercise even more nasty power on commuters.

I remember connies refusing to help mothers with prams (where passengers had to do this), groaning if anyone asked for help or sadistically pull the cord even if there were passengers running for trams and being tantilisingly close to them.

The fact that while many enjoyed their job, many looked like they hated it. I suspected that it wasn’t their first choice, being on their feet all day selling tickets to passengers, who were mostly nice, but were also obnoxious and drunk.

So let’s not get all misty eyed through the nostalgic lens of the past. Conductors are a symbol of when governments were more willing to provide a service, rather than the philosophy of the bottom line and user pays. And that’s fine. But connies were like us. Some nice and some nasty. They were human, not some metropolitan transport angels.

UPDATE: More on this issue from Darlene on Larvatus Prodeo and Andrew Norton.

The advent of World Youth Day has created a number of comments in the blogosphere and in the media in general about the role of the Catholic Church, and also about Catholicism in general.

Before I say anything I will disclose my personal link to Catholicism. Like any child in Italy I was baptised and received some sacraments. From memory it was First Communion when I was six and Confirmation at eight I think.

But this was done not because of any particular conviction, but because it is what everyone else did. I stopped going to Church on any regular basis about eight as well. I did go to Sunday School but because there was a playground and a free movie afterwards. Of course there were no ‘Catholic Schools’. The education system was well ensconced in the state.

I could now go on about what I think about the relationship between Italians and the Catholic Church, something that non-Italians misread like lots of things about Italy, but this is not the point of this post. Maybe for another time.

Sufficient to say that this has rendered me very secular. I have a partner and a son and I never got married. One of my son’s mentors at his ‘name day’ (no christenings here) is very much involved in the progressive lesbian/gay scene.

On the other hand, apart from my irritation of the Catholic Church interfering in Italian politics, I have no hatred of the Catholic Church, and I have been surprised by the vehemence of some of the attacks on the Catholic Church in the eve of the Pope’s visit.

You had to wonder, as Cardinal Pell did, why the allegations against Father Terrence Goodall surfaced just before the Pope coming here. My understanding is that these allegations are not new.

The reaction against the silly ‘anti-annoying’ laws introduced by the NSW Government seems to have aroused plenty of anti-Catholic feelings as well. This was picked up in an article by Catholic lawyer Greg Craven in last Saturday’s Age titled ‘An excuse to bash the Catholic Church‘. According to Craven, the special laws for World Youth Day, were requested neither by the Catholic Church nor the WYD organisers. Craven does not object to people protesting against these laws, but he feels that the determination to paste the deficiencies of these laws on to Catholics and Catholicism itself is deeply obnoxious.

He writes:

…..why are there battalions of activists and civil libertarians so eager to cast the Catholic faith as a rights-abusing consortium?

The sad answer is that religious prejudice is alive and well in Australia. In the good old days, it was possible to attack Catholics as the fifth column of a pyre-lighting Pope. But along with overt anti-Semitism, this type of cheerful bigotry is no longer fashionable or legal.

So those with a problem with Catholics — or with religion in general — need to find more acceptable outlets for their hobby. Along with writing dull tomes on the joys of atheism and engaging in comic mockery of most religious and moral positions, putting the Catholic Church in the human rights dock is dead handy.

Indeed, Catholics — along with Evangelicals — always will be particular targets for the non-religious fundamentalist. Some other churches have made a separate peace with rampant secularism. Let us believe in God they say, and quietly worship, and we’ll try not to bother you too much with that stuff about morality and resurrection.

But the Catholic Church stands adamantly in the way of proselytising materialism. Little wonder its denigrators are not too concerned with the truth around the World Youth Day legislation. If Paris was worth a Mass, Sydney is certainly worth a dissimulation.

But Craven touches upon a point that I also found problematic. I believe that the slogan by some of the anti-youth day protesters is ‘Human Rights, not religious rites’ as shown at the start of this blog is misplaced. The freedom of religion is a basic human right. Many people around the world are persecuted and killed for their religious beliefs.

The Catholic Church is a complex organisation. You are bound to have plenty of hypocrisy, cruelty, and suffering in something that is 2000 years old. I agree with the protesters that the Catholic Church is creating more suffering with its stance against birth control and abortion around the world.

You can only see the case of the Catholic Church’s refusing to give a funeral to a man who was suffering from muscular dystrophy was paralysed for two decades and for the past five years had been kept alive by a tube in his throat that pumped air into his lungs. For years he had publicly demanded to be allowed to die, finally a doctor sedated him and turned off the air pump.

The Rome diocese, of which the Pope is bishop, denied him a Catholic funeral rite. The decision was seen as pointlessly cruel by many Catholics.

Also the rule that priests have to be unmarried and celibate have created many cases of sexually disturbed priests that have abused their power and prayed on children that they were supposed to protect.

However to paint the Catholic Church as an evil empire is just wrong. There is also lots of good that comes out of the Catholic Church. From Bishop Carlos Belo protesting in sermons against the brutalities of the Indonesian regime or by providing sanctuary in his own home to youths escaping the Santa Cruz massacre.  To Melbourne’s priest Father Bob (the one that was on SBS with John Safran) where he looks after intellectually disabled people, single mothers and people affected by substance abuse.

We need to keep a sense of perspective. Otherwise, as Greg Craven states, protesting against the Catholic Church is such a way may look like echoing back to the demonstrations during the ‘Papal Aggression Crisis‘ of 1850 in England where “Protest meetings were organized in almost every county and images of the pope and his new cardinal replaced Guy Fawkes in that November’s bonfires”.

The Saturday edition of a serious broadsheet paper such as ‘The Age’ is pretty important. After all it has all those extra bits as people have more time to read it.

So the front page would give an indication of what is the main issues that face the nation or the world. So what could we expect as the main story on the front page? Global warming? Petrol prices? Interest raises from the banks? No we had a football story from Caroline Wilson. But not just a normal football story. It was about the considering a radical proposal to launch an Irish-dominated team in Sydney’s western suburbs, which would perform before an international audience under the Celtic brand name.

What? Initially I though I had been delivered a preview copy of ‘The Chaser’ Annual 2008. The article seemed to be taken straight out from the satirical sport website ‘The Bladder’.

But no it was deadly serious, it was labelled as an ‘exclusive’ no less.

You can go and read the whole article from the link, but here are some bits.

The Celtic proposal would bring an expanded television audience in Ireland and across Britain. The Celtic brand could also open a marketing bonanza given the international cache afforded the Boston Celtics (a basketball team) and the Glasgow Celtics (sic)(a soccer team)………

“When it was first raised I saw it as a soft but effective way of internationalising our game and growing it domestically. Clearly there are some incredible structural challenges but I saw it as worthy of referring on … As a blank canvas I think it has merit.”……………

There are plenty of issues with this proposal. Some in the AFL think that they can solve two ‘problems’ they think will confront the AFL in the next few years with this proposal, the lack of an international dimension of the sport and having a presence in Western Sydney. What they risk is to do neither and waste a lot of money.

Trying to get people interested in Australian Football in Western Sydney would be a tall order in any case. The only way it can be done would be to establish a grassroot support in the area where people would feel that their area is represented nationally in the AFL. This will take time. But to put a foreign team which is defined Irish is not the way to get the locals on board, considering that most of the population would be from Asia and the Middle East.

As someone from the ‘Bigfooty’ board stated:

Huh? What appeal would an Irish team have to Viets, Chinese, Lebanese, Italians and Greeks, who make a up a sizeable proportion of expanded Sydney’s demographic mix, and - the single most important point - don’t already follow the AFL?

“Here’s a new side for you guys, playing a sport you don’t already watch but we want you to, hopefully filling that stadium just around the corner week after week, and just to make it even more baffling, we’ll name it after a country representing hardly any of you and still try to convince you it’s your team…”

Fallacy number two is the delusion that as Caroline stated the “proposal would bring an expanded television audience in Ireland and across Britain. The Celtic brand could also open a marketing bonanza given the international cache afforded the Boston Celtics (a basketball team) and the Glasgow Celtic (a soccer team).

The Boston Celtics play a major international sport in the biggest economy in the world. Celtic (you know what Wilson calls the ’soccer team’) is one of the major football teams in Europe. It was created by Irish migrants in Scotland in any case so it’s understandable that has a following in Ireland. But the concept that a team 18,000 Km away, in an area of Australia that is not known for its ‘Irishness’ playing a sport that is not part of the national tradition in Ireland, and I am pretty sure hardly known in Britain, would open a ‘marketing bonanza’ is delusional to the extreme.

There are certain sections of the AFL media, and it seems in the AFL itself, that believe that the world is just waiting for the true faith of Aussie Rules to be revealed. This missionary zeal is somewhat touching but it is so outside reality that borders on the insane.

And this isn not saying that Australian Rules is not a great game, because it is. But alas I believe it’s international attraction will be limited to a curiosity. It is like lacrosse here.

The third aspect, and it is really ironic. Is that after years of being told by Australian Rules journos and some fans how, Aussie Rules is truly ‘Australian’ because unlike soccer in Australia, it has no ethnic teams or ethic origin the AFL would introduce such a team.

The AFL must be losing the plot if in their desprate attempt to make the game ‘international’ they even think of these half-baked ideas. Australian Football is a great game, but its strenght is because it is uniquely Australian. The idea to make it an international game is bound to fail. The AFL should try instead to expand the game in those areas of Australia where it is not yet popular, rather than deluding itself that people overseas would see Australian Rules anything more than a peculiar game from the land of the kangaroos.

In fact they did more than annoy the Pope.

From UPI.com

Pope, Italian officials blasted at rally

ROME, July 9 (UPI) — An Italian lawmaker said he was sorry after comedians performing at a Rome rally he sponsored provoked ire by attacking the pope and political figures.Italy of Values opposition leader Antonio Di Pietro apologized Wednesday for remarks by comics Beppe Grillo and Sabina Guzzanti at a rally he held to protest government justice policy, Italian news agency ANSA reported.

ANSA said Guzzanti caused the most consternation at the Tuesday rally by attacking Pope Benedict XVI, saying, “In 20 years he’ll be dead and he’ll go to hell to be tormented by two gay devils.”

Grillo, meanwhile, attacked Italian President Giorgio Napolitano for approving a measure that would give legal immunity to Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, finishing his set by telling the president to “fuck off.”

No one got fined. I wonder if anyone at a ‘anti-pope’ rally in Sydney said what Ms. Guzzanti stated in Rome would would be the reaction. Maybe Morris Iemma should have been there.

While I am sure that the fairly strong comments by Ms. Guzzanti are not shared by many Italians, I showed this piece of news, to highlight the fact that the Pope and the Catholic church is not the revered untouchable institution that many outside Italy, especially in the anglosphere tend to believe. Only about 15% of Italians go to church regularly.

I guess most Italians respect the notion of ‘church’ as Australians do of ‘mateship’.

The first game played by the Australian Football Olympic team against Serbia will be shown on Ch 7 at 9:00pm (2hrs delayed) and will be commentated by Gordon Bray (Rugby Union guru) and Mike McCann.

The Serbia game is on before the opening ceremony. Therefore it doesn’t clash with any other major Olympic events.

It doesn’t look good for live football coverage at the Olympics. If Channel 7 wants to show something else give it to SBS. At least they know about the sport, it would be commentated by a football person and they would show it live, I’m sure.

I am sitting here on one of my favourite days. It is a real Melbourne winter’s day. It is currently eight degrees outside and a few flakes of snow have been sighted in the outskirts of the city.

On a day like today global warming may be the furtherest thing on people’s mind. However with the release of the Garnaut Report climate change is the topic of the week.

There are many currents of debate going on. There is a lot of discussion is about the political implications of implementing the recommendations of that report. This also translates in the enthusiasm of the media in finding unions or Labor politicians poo pooing the it and the glee of some commentators and blog respondents that this issue will make the Rudd Labor Government a one term wonder.

One of the major issues is the short term pain for long term gain issue. The government has to hope that enough people out there are ready to experience some pain in terms of higher fuel prices in order to create a situation where the benefits to the world climate can be seen decades in advance and won’t be dramatic.

The opposition has gone for a populist approach. Guy Beres comments on Nelson’s approach to this issue.

Brendan Nelson’s populist response to the draft report indicates that he either does not understand this point, does not really accept mainstream scientific opinion, or otherwise (most probably) has decided that there is more to gain politically from opposing any climate change policy that might involve short-term economic pain:

“It will be an act of environmental suicide, an act of economic suicide, if Australia were to be so far in front of the world implementing an ill-considered, not yet properly developed and tested emissions trading scheme if we haven’t got a genuinely global response,” he [Nelson] told journalists.

Whether this will benefit the Coalition in the long run remains to be seen. I know for one that it seems to me that there is more cynicism and more of ‘this is going to stuff Rudd up’ commentary than the GST when it was introduced by Howard, where many commentators hailed as one of the most courageous policies since federation. Lots of talk about ‘conviction politician’ there. I don’t seem to hear much of that about Rudd. Maybe the jury is out.

However the determining factor is whether people see a link between their actions and global warming. This is a hard sell, because I believe that while most people believe generally that ’something must be done about global warming’ and probably Rudd got some votes because he was perceived to be more effective in this area, I wonder what the opinion will be when it comes to the crunch and energy prices are affected.

The other factor is that emission trading is a complex issue that cannot be explained in a quick easy to digest method. As polls have shown while there is a general support for something to reduce global warming, many people don’t know much about what is being proposed, and I don’t blame them, because it is not an easy policy to grasp. I for instance haven’t fully understood it. Maybe the government should all get us a copy of this.

I believe that the danger here is that many are unaware of any connection between their behaviour and global warming.

In the mid 80’s I completed a Masters thesis titled: The relationship between planning and the environmental perception, attitudes and behaviour of residents in the Dandenong Ranges: a case study approach

I devised a questionnaire which tested how residents living near Sherbrooke Forest in the Dandenong Ranges viewed their environment and whether their behaviour was consistent with those attitudes.

While almost all respondents were very positive about their environment, there was a dissonance about how their behaviour and living styles impacted on that same environment.

Many disliked power lines citing them as unsightly and a fire danger. But their lifestyle included dryers, multiple TVs, etc. which required plenty of electricity. They bemoaned that there were weeds in the forest when in their gardens they had plenty of exotic plants that could propagate into the forest by wind or by birds. They were unhappy that lyrebirds numbers were not what they were but left domestic pets out at night to roam at will.

I wonder whether this disconnection is present in the Global Warming debate. The fact that they may want the government to ‘do something’ about the drought, or the fact that dams are drying because the rainfall has diminished so much, but are unaware that their actions are partly responsible for these events and therefore may react negatively when energy prices are increased to reflect the real cost to the environment.

The Journal Climate Change (vol. 77 (1-2): 1-6 JUL 2006) titled this edition as “Global Warming: The Psychology of Long Term Risk” where the perceptions of global warming were examined.

In one of the articles by Elke U Weber titled: “Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: why global warming does not scare us (yet)” she writes that

Recent personal experience strongly influences the evaluation of a risky option. Low-probability events generate less concern than their probability warrants on average, but more concern than they deserve in those rare instances when they do occur.

Personal experience with noticeable and serious consequences of global warming is still rare in many regions of the world. When people base their decisions on statistical descriptions about a hazard provided by others, characteristics of the hazard identified as psychological risk dimensions predict differences in alarm or worry across different classes of risk.

The time-delayed, abstract, and often statistical nature of the risks of global warming does not evoke strong visceral reactions.

And I wonder whether people are that concerned about global warming here in beautifully cold Melbourne, and only another horrible hot, dry, bushfire prone summer will create any ‘visceral reaction’ to accept higher energy cost as a price to pay to reduce global warming.

After what the mainstream media has described the Gippsland by-election disaster for Labor that wasn’t, there is speculation whether Labor should avoid another swing against it and give the Mayo by-election a miss.

Anthony Green in his blog ponders on this issue, and writes that the Howard government avoided by-elections in unwinnable seats like the plague.

On a hiding to nothing, it would therefore be no surprise if Labor chose to opt out of contesting Mayo. It was the usual approach taken by the Liberal Party during the 11 years of the Howard government. Of the nine by-elections between 1996 and 2007, the Liberal Party only contested the three seats it held, Lindsay (1996), Ryan (2001) and Aston (2001). The Liberal Party did not nominate candidates for Blaxland (1996), Fraser (1997), Holt (1999), Isaacs (200), Cunningham (2002) or Werriwa (2005). The Liberal Party also opted out of the Newcastle supplementary election 1998.

There is plenty of reasons why the ALP may give Mayo a miss. The seat is blue ribbon Liberal, and standing can be argued would be wasting money and risk another ‘backlash against Rudd’ headline thus feeding this narrative that the Rudd government is in trouble with voters after only seven months.

I am no strategist, but if I was the ALP I would step up to the challenge and give Mayo a go.

But it would have to be done properly. No late minute choosing of a candidate or the ubiquitous party hack that is given a dry run. I would chose someone that is respected locally, has connections in the electorate, and can be seen as electable in a very conservative seat.

I think what the ALP should say that unlike the Howard government they are not afraid of contests, even if they are unlikely to win, and also state that ALP voters should have an opportunity to vote for their candidate, no matter what.

This would send out a strong positive message, that the Government is not afraid to put itself in front of voters. Unless there is a massive 15%+ swing against Labor, I think this would be a positve for Labor in the long run.