Australia's Busiest Airports 2005-2006

Over on the Regional Living Australia blog I decided to look at the busiest airports in Regional Australia. The list shows quite clearly the importance of mining and tourism in driving traffic.

Having done this and with the stats still in front of me, I decided to look at the overall Australian pattern to see what it told us.

Dealing with total numbers first, in 2005-2006 there were 103,997,499 revenue passenger movements. This was an increase of 37,781,964 (57 per cent) since 1995-1996.

Of total passenger numbers, international accounted for 21,096,951 or 20 per cent of all passengers, an increase of 8,417,500 or 66.4 per cent since 1995-1996. So international traffic has been growing faster in percentage terms than domestic traffic.

Then I looked at Australia's top ten airports. Ranked by size, they are:

One. Sydney, with 28,996,263 revenue passenger movements. This was an increase of 9,118,526 over 1995-1996, up 45.9 per cent.

So Sydney traffic has been growing more slowly in percentage terms than the national average of 57 per cent over the same period. Reflecting this, Sydney's share of national traffic has fallen from just over 30 per cent in 1995-1996 to 27.9 per cent in 2005-2006.

Sydney is Australia's major international airport. In 2005-2006 Sydney had 9,667,554 international revenue passenger movement, up 3,473,913 or 56 per cent. Again, below the national average of 66.4 per cent. As a consequence, Sydney's share of total international traffic fell from 48.8 per cent in 1995-1996 to 45.8 per cent in 2005-2006.

Two. Melbourne, with 21,040,864 revenue passenger movements in 2005-2006, up 8,969,045 or 69 per cent, well above the national average. In 2005-2006 Melbourne had 4,253,268 international revenue passenger movement, up 2,169,546 or 103.6 per cent, miles above the national average.

In terms of the eternal pecking war between the two cities, it appears that over the last decade Melbourne has out performed Sydney in this as in many other areas.

Third. Brisbane, with 16,015,923 revenue passenger movement in 2005-2006, up 6,780,037 or 73.4 per cent since 1995-1996, well above the national average of 57 per cent. Brisbane's international traffic grew from 2,065,369 to 3,646,891 during the same period, an increase of 1,581,522 or 76.6 per cent, again above the national average of 66.4 per cent.

Fourth. Perth, with 7,005,254 revenue passenger movements in 2005-2006, up 2,860,382 or 69 per cent. While this is higher than the national average, I had expected it to be higher still because of the mining boom.

Perth's international traffic grew from 1,236,091 in 1995-1996 to 1,979,750 in 2005-2006, an increase of 743,659 or 6o per cent. Again a surprise, because this is below the national average.

Fifth. Adelaide, with 5,766,504 revenue passenger movements in 2005-2006, up 2,023,766 or 54.1 per cent. This is below the national average of 57 per cent, but not by as much as I had expected.

Adelaide's international traffic grew from 206,267 in 1995-1996 to 347,064 in 2005-2006, an increase of 140,797 or 68.3 per cent, just above the national average.

At this point, we drop outside the major state capitals.

Sixth. Cairns in North Queensland, 3,731,178 revenue passenger movements, up from 2,594,857 in 1995-96. This total includes 855,949 international passengers, up from 694,650 in 1995-1996.

Seventh. Gold Coast, 3,515,021, up from 1,992,862 in 1995-1996. This total includes 210, 495 international passengers, up from zero in 1995-1996.

Eighth. Canberra, 2,550,129, up from 1,749,608 in 1995-1996.

Ninth. Hobart, 1,605,978, up from 850,295 in 1995-1996. Hobart used to have a small number of international flights, but these stopped during 1997-98.

Tenth. Darwin, 1,219,376, up from 931,578 in 1995-1996. This total includes 116,454 international passengers, down from 141,703 in 1995-1996.

A companion post to Lexcen

Photo: Lexcen's family, Australia 1955.

I do like writing companion posts. I do it a fair bit with Neil because we come from different positions and often end up the same point. This time I am responding to Lexcen.

I have Lexcen on my weekly favourite blog list on the side bar. Three recent posts show why I value Lexcen even when I disagree with him.

A little while ago Lexcen wrote a post on his family. Now he has followed this up with a further post, one that provides further information.

I have made the point time and time again on this blog that Australians are not a single whole, but a whole complex of people and experiences. Lexcen's family came to Australia from Greece via Egypt. Their experience puts a family and personal face on historical events, reminding us that there are different ways of seeing the same thing.

The, too, Lexcen is a painter. In another post he explored examples of his art, centered on his muse but copying various styles. I called youngest across and insisted that she review the post. We are agreed that Merlin with muse, pictured, was our favourite.

In another completely different post, Lexcen explored the story of the Grand Mufti.

Three posts, three very different themes. I enjoyed them all.

Welcome Visitor 18,000

Visitor 18,000 arrived today, someone from the University of Queensland searching through Google Australia on Australia's population growth. Welcome.

When I first set the counter on this site on 26 November 2006 I did not write down the starting number of visits, this was drawn from other stats, so I would have to go back through my papers to find out what the opening number was and hence the number of visits since then.

I can tell you, however, that there have been 21,653 page views since then. This is not a huge total by some blogging standards, but I am still happy.

Interesting discussion on LinkedIn bloggers about the survival rate among blogs. There is a very real attrition factor even among longer term bloggers. It all becomes too hard. We have seen this in the immediate group that I (we) follow.

What I have noticed, however, is that there seems to be a settling down process as each of us finds our niche. So long as we are satisfied with that niche, then things jog along pretty well.

At some point I must write some more about the content creation process in the on-line world. This is important for those of us who aspire to be professional bloggers.

Professional does not necessarily mean making money. To do that, you have to focus on the business of blogging. Rather, I am referring to professional as in approach.

Muck-up Day - a few suggestions for the kids

Photo: Boot Camp, Muck-up Day 05. Mads, Jenny, Laura, Helen

Last month I ran a post on Clare's, youngest's, Muck-up Day. I have got some hits on this, so I thought that I might do a post with a few suggestions addressed especially to the kids.

First, have some fun. It's your day.

Second, make sure that there are lots of cameras around. You will want the photos later.

Third, a unifying theme helps in the design of costumes and stunts. Eldests was boot camp. Clare's The Great Escape. Both had lots of possibilities.

Fourth, remember that most schools now suffer from paranoia.

I know it's dumb. Half the things that I did at the same period are now illegal, immoral or fattening! But this is still the modern reality for schools with their problems with risk, legal liability and the fear of looking bad. You do have to take this into account. Work around it, so to speak.

Fifth, remember that younger kids can get scared. Not as scared as some schools think, but still something to take into account. If my daughters are any guide, Muck-up day was a school highlight from year seven. You want the kids behind you to remember the day as special.

Sixth, balance the good and the bad.

Muck-up day is a day to thank the really good teachers, especially any who might be going. Youngest's class did a thank you video for one retiring teacher that reduced her to tears. She will treasure that moment for the rest of her life.

On the other side of the ledger, don't be too cruel.

Kids know their teachers incredibly well. In this last final event free of normal restrictions, they can do things that will hurt and hurt. Oddly, some of the most sensitive teachers are also the most insensitive. Life is too short to leave a scar behind.

Seventh, keep things tight especially if you are running a final year assembly.

Last, spend some time thinking about, then working out, your stunts.

Time to stop being so serious

I think that I have spent enough time on serious matters for the moment, although I will of course respond to comments.

Not all my time is spent on serious matters. I am always interested in life's oddities.

I have decided, partially as a test of my own very weak self discipline, that for the next week I am going to ignore very serious issues and instead explore some of the other things I notice as I go along.

Mr Andrews, Racism and our Sudanese Refugees - put the man out of his misery

I was not going to comment further on this issue, I suppose because I felt that nothing that I could say would make any difference to what I saw as a twisted discussion. Then I got a comment from Dylan Nicholson.

Now the thing that I liked about Dylan's comment is that while he had strong views, he expressed them in a courteous fashion and did mount a case to support them. So I thought that I would pay Dylan the compliment of treating his comments very seriously as the entry point for a new post. In doing so, I was not going to attack his views. Rather, I wanted to use them to continue the process of disentangling issues.

I always try to check my facts. This time I looked at the later interview transcripts. I have now put a line through the entire post plus four hours careful work.

Both Mr Andrews and the media who started all this need to be taken up the back paddock and shot. The media for starting the trouble, Mr Andrews for mishandling it. I do not resile from my conclusions and will repeat them in a moment. But I have lost patience with Mr Andrews.

Again so that you can make your own judgements, you will find the various transcripts here. Look especially at the John Laws interview, by far the toughest of them all.

Looking at the material, I have no doubt that the original decision to alter the refugee mix, a decision taken some time ago, was based on sound or at least defensible public policy reasons. But the way Mr Andrews has handled this matter has given us all a huge black-eye.

Look, first, at the fact that the decision was taken some time ago. I wonder how many overseas people, or for that matter Australians, think that this was a decision (a racist decision) just taken in the context of the current controversy?

Now look at Mr Andrew's later words. He simply did not need to bring in some of the factors he did. When Mr Laws queried him on crime issues, he was forced back to reliance on unspecified reports. And this does not wash after the Haneef matter, if indeed it ever did.

So why did he mishandle it all so badly? I do not think that it had anything to do with the race card.

One of the things that has always puzzled me with some of the discussion on "the race card" is that I know of no evidence that racist views as such attract votes. With the exception of One Nation which tapped a deeper sense of alienation within certain groups in Australia, those groups with explicitly racist over-lays do not attract votes. Even Pauline Hanson and One Nation itself felt the need to back off the more explicitly racist comments of some of its supporters, to deny that it was a racist party, in its efforts to attract a broader vote.

Things become a little easier to understand if we put aside the racist tag for the moment and look instead at other threads in Australian political life that reflect the bundle of views held by many Australia voters.

I have long complained about the political obsession with "law and order". This is not new, it existed and made me very uncomfortable when I ran for preselection all those years ago. But it, has I think, got far worse in recent years.

This links to a second strong trend, aversion to risk, a desire for security, a belief that life can and should be controlled. We can see this way that Governments respond on issues, in the ever growing web of regulations and controls.

Then there is a third thread, xenophobia. Xenophobia is not racism, although it may manifest itself in this way. In simplest terms, it is fear of outsiders. In my view, and it is only an opinion that is subject to test, Australians do appear to have become more xenophobic, more inward looking, over the last thirty years.

The media plays to these concerns.

If we look at some of the reporting on the Sudanese issue we can see all these threads, the law and order focus, the emphasis on threats to personal security, the attribution of behaviour patterns to particular groups. Fear sells papers, increases ratings. In doing so, it plays to and reinforces, even creates, prejudices within the Australian community. Because in this case the target is an unidentifiable racial group, the reporting itself in my view becomes racist.

Mr Andrews was caught in all this and handled it very badly, getting defensive when he should have been in control. I also cannot rid myself of the feeling that Mr Andrew's response linked to the need to play to the law and order and security issues.

Now in all this I said that I had not altered my conclusions. Just to restate them.

First, the way we have to come to use the racist and racism epithets is not only outside the original definitions of the words, but is also twisting discussion because of the emotional content attached to the words themselves.

Secondly, we need to be far more sensitive about the way the rest of the world interprets domestic discussions on things such as racist and racism. They interpret it as confirming that all Australians are racist, when the opposite is closer to the reality.

Finally, the big losers out of this are the Sudanese along with the broader Australian community, both of whom have been vilified.

The winner? Our media who have gained circulation (viewers).

"Race" and "Racism" in Australia

I had not intended to comment again about Australian attitudes to race and racism so soon after my post on Mr Andrews and the discussion on African refugees. Indeed, I have a lot of things that I should be doing instead. However, because of a discussion with Neil Whitfield in the comments section of the Andrews' post I feel a need to make my personal position as clear as possible.

Bluntly, I think that the way many Australians - and especially those in the media - use the terms "race" and "racism" as epithets creates confusion and has become poisonous and damaging to both our reputation as a country and to civilised discussion itself.

To start by clearing some undergrowth.

Does racial prejudice exist in Australia? Yes, it does and has. Is it a bad thing? Yes, it is. Does it exist in other places? Yes, it does. Is it worse in Australia than other places? I do not think so. Is modern Australia itself a racist country? On any objective definition it is not, even though individuals or even groups in Australia may experience racism.

Next, we need to recognise and distinguish between Australian debate on things such as the Andrews matter and the way that debate is perceived and interpreted overseas.

We live in a post-colonial world. To Australians, that colonial past has become remote. This is not the case in, say, Africa where previous European assumptions of superiority grate and grate hard. You only have to read some of the African discussion around Mr Mugabe, to compare Australian and African responses to the Mugabe regime, to see this.

The domestic discussions that we Australians have carry round the world and are transmuted to fit within the ideas, perceptions and prejudices held by others. Among other things, this reinforces previously formed views that Australia is a racist county.

Does this mean that we should not have such discussions? Does it mean that we should not be aware of our own past mistakes and injustices? No it does not. All that I am saying is that we need to be more sensitive, to recognise that we do live in a global gold fish bowl, that the use and abuse of the racist epithet does us global damage.

Turning now to the confusions that surround the terms "race", "racist" and "racism". You will find source material here and here.

Growing up, the terms "racist" and "racism" seemed quite simple and clear-cut.

This was a world in which long held prejudices against the Jews, Darwinian concepts of natural selection and of eugenics had turned into a pseudo scientific racism leading to the horrors of places such as Belsen and the systematic mass murder of Jews and Gypsies. In response, this was also a world which saw the first international action against racism, decolonisation as well as the emergence of the US civil rights movement.

In this world, racist meant prejudice based on concepts of racial superiority, racism the application of those prejudices in practice.

Even then, there were confusions surrounding the terms.

Were the prejudices of some Australians against southern Europeans at the start of the modern mass migration program racist?

Yes if you considered southern Europeans to be a different and inferior race from those further north. No if you considered southern Europeans to be Europeans. In this second case we were dealing with ethnic and cultural prejudices.

The White Australia policy was clearly racially based, but was it racist?

While some of its supporters held views about racial superiority, others presented it in terms of the preservation of a homogeneous culture and society. To those from outside prevented from entering the country on grounds of race the answer seemed clearly yes.

Were policies towards Australia's Aboriginal people racist? In this case I would say clearly yes, because here we did have assumptions about racial superiority expressed in action. Yet there was also a constant and earnest thread running through discussion that did not focus on race, but culture. Are prejudices about different cultures racist?

Confusions abound.

Because of this, Wikipedia records that as early as 1950:

UNESCO suggested in The Race Question —a statement signed by 21 scholars including Ashley Montagu, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Gunnar Myrdal and Julian Huxley, etc. — to "drop the term race altogether and instead speak of ethnic groups". The statement condemned scientific racism theories which had played a role in the Holocaust. It aimed both at debunking scientific racist theories, by popularizing modern knowledge concerning "the race question," and morally condemned racism as contrary to the philosophy of the Enlightenment and its assumption of equal rights for all. Along with Myrdal's An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (1944), The Race Question influenced the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court desegregation decision in "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka".

If there was confusion in 1950 about the terms race and racism, it is far worse in Australia today when the term has come to cover so many forms of perceived discrimination and prejudice.

As I write, one of the Sunday TV review programs has been discussing the Andrews' matter. I had to laugh when youngest said so the Sudanese adults drink and the young men make a lot of noise? As my wife responded, they are clearly through to the semis as Australians!

Yet I also felt sad because my family, too, interpreted Mr Andrews' remarks within the racist frame set by previous reporting.

By global standards, we live in a remarkably open, pluralist, tolerant, polycultural society. We have transformed ourselves as a country and a people. Yet based on our own reporting of ourselves, an outsider could be forgiven for thinking that this is a place were racial bigotry runs rampant.

Mr Andrews is not known for his ability to handle things in a sensible and tactful fashion. Yet when I look at the facts, the ones who introduced and then followed up the race issue were the media and commentators more broadly. They created the problem.

There are a small number of genuine old style racists in the Australian community who do try to take advantage of this type of event. They did so in Tamworth following the controversy. As happened with Tamworth, they will fail.

There is a larger group who feel threatened by the pace of change and who fear becoming aliens in their own country. Alienated during the changes of the eighties and nineties, this was the group that One Nation appealed to. Most were in no way racist in the true meaning of the term, but their alienation made them vulnerable to messages with racist undertones.

Then there is everybody else all of whom have varied mixes of prejudices.

Some Australians are prejudiced against Muslims, some are prejudiced against Christians, some prejudiced against anyone of faith. Some are prejudiced against city people, some against country people, some against Sydney's eastern suburbs, some against the western suburbs. Some are prejudiced against Americans, some against Chinese, some against Indians, a number against anything to do with anglo-celtic Australia. The response to Mr Andrews is itself an example of prejudice.

If you want an extreme example of cultural prejudice you only have to look at the word bogan, a term that I had not even heard of until a few years ago when I heard some of my daughters' friends use it.

My point in all this is that all Australians are a mix of sometimes conflicting prejudices of which attitudes towards race is just one element. Any prejudice can derail sensible discussion. This is just what happened in Tamworth and now in the current case where views expressed in the media and by commentators derailed sensible discussion. In the meantime, core issues about the way we resource and manage refugee resettlement programs go unresolved.

God, football and the church

I was greatly struck during the week by the story that the Italian Bishop's Conference had acquired a controlling interest in Italian third division side AC Ancona with the aim of bringing more morality into soccer.

As part of this, the Vatican apparently plans to introduce an ethical code that will punish Ancona players for any foul play. Further, ticket prices for home games will drop in price, with all profits going to projects in the third world.

Now this really got me thinking about the transformation that might take place in soccer. Yes, Virginia, I still call it soccer. After all, I am still an unregenerate Rugby fan, although I do enjoy watching soccer.

Think, among other things, of the loss to the world of theatre should players no longer be able to take those spectacular dives, writhing in agony on the ground. Our family habit of awarding points out of 10 for dramatic art would no longer be possible.

There may, however, be a small teensy weensy problem in all this.

Last year Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, a fanatical soccer follower and the Vatican secretary of state, established the Clericus Cup tournament for priests and seminarians in Rome. While this was a great success, it appears that there was rather more dirty play than expected!

I must say that as one who has played football in his dim and now very distant school boy past against two saintly Sydney GPS schools with their priestly trainers, I have always been struck by their kind and gentle game. Still, as a breakaway I did get my own back from time to time!

I will follow developments with interest.

Mr Andrews, Tamworth and Sudanese Refugees

I found the sudden outbreak of controversy on Sudanese refugees very puzzling. My first concern was that, as with Tamworth, the treatment of the issue was going to do us global harm. Then I thought, just what are we talking about, how did this happen? So I started digging down.

I will talk about this in a moment. First, a reminder note on Tamworth.

A little over twelve months ago, a decision by Tamworth City Council to reject participation in a refugee resettlement program created national and international controversy. Tamworth was presented as racist. This did us great damage as a country. When I dug down, I found a far more complicated issue than that presented by the media. Those that are interested will find my last comment here, the main entry point here.

Mr Andrews has a bad habit of putting both feet in his mouth and then stomping around. We saw this in his treatment of the Haneef case where he just made things worse by his defensive comments. Even so, given the international firestorm created by Tamworth, I found the newspaper reports strange.

I started by checking blog postings because they give a time sensitive response pattern in a way that is much easier to follow than the normal Google searches. The first blog post that I could find was on 2 October. By 5 October, this had grown to nine pages.

I then checked Mr Andrews' ministerial web site. You will find the Minister's releases and door stops etc here. The first reference is in an interview on 2 October with Neil Mitchell on 3AW Mornings. Reading between the lines from Legal Eagle's post as well as the content, it appears that Mr Andrews' was responding to a Melbourne media beat up.

Now I do not think that Mr Andrew's handled Mr Mitchell's aggressive questioning especially well. But if you look at the transcript, I cannot see anything especially racist in the response.

Now look at the interview by the ABC's Lindy Burns later in the day. She is trying very hard to make it all an issue, including the previous but apparently unannounced reduction in the African refugee quota in the current financial year to 30 per cent of the total. Again, I cannot see anything especially racist in the Minister's response.

Note, by the way, Mr Andrew's reference to the cost of the refugee resettlement program. There are some issues here that I will come back to in a moment.

3 October began with an interview with Jon Faine, ABC Melbourne. Mr Faine's opening question set the tone: Why punish the African refugee community because of the acts of a few in experiencing difficulties assimilating in Australia? Mr Andrews responded: Well we're not doing that and can I start with the facts?

Again read the transcript carefully. There is nothing racist here, no race card. Note, too, the reference again to the extra $200 million put in to support to support refugee, especially African, refugee resettlement.

With this issue running hot, Mr Andrew's felt obliged to call a doorstop interview that same day. You will find the transcript here. Look at the tone of the questions. Mr Andrews is trying to explain that there are particular problems linked to background and education. Again, I can see nothing racist here.

Then later on the same day in a a radio interview with Philip Clark, Mr Andrews again states the special problems faced by Sudanese refugees.

Under all this pressure, the next day (4 October) Mr Andrews felt obliged to put out a special press release dealing with the problem. This is, I think, the release that The Age headlined on 5 October as Minister's African dossier renews racial tensions. Again read the release carefully. The release refers to problems and some complaints from communities. I can see nothing racist in it.

Now I want to leave this press controversy and return to the Tamworth story. As I do so, remember the extra $200 million.

There were two key issues in the Tamworth case.

The first is the rules of the refugee resettlement required community support. When Tamworth Council conducted a survey, they found conflict. The second issue was the perceived inadequacy in the Immigration Department back up for the program, given the refugees special problems.

Having rejected participation in the program, the media storm forced the revocation of the decision. So what has happened in Tamworth since now out of the media spotlight?

On 6 February, the Northern Daily Leader reported Armidale seeks greater resources for refugees. The story went on:

Tamworth came under fire for rejecting the Department of Immigration and Citizenship’s refugee resettlement program but self-proclaimed “refugee welcome zone” – Armidale – isn’t jumping head first into the program either.

Armidale and Tamworth are old rivals, a bit like Sydney and Melbourne. Unlike Tamworth, the more politically savvy Armidale had agreed in principle to accept refugees around the same time Tamworth was approached, but only if the required support was there. Further, Armidale had formed a committee including refugee support groups to consider the issue. The net effect was the same.

On 20 February 2007, the Northern Daily Leader reported that a group of Sudanese refugees had arrived in Tamworth to a warm welcome. However, these refugees had not come under the refugee program. Rather, all four had come to Tamworth under the family re-union program.

There is then a long gap until 4 May when the Mayor claimed that Council was not dragging the chain on refugee resettlement. According to the Mayor:

...the next move was up to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, which he said "has some serious problems".

"There's been a change of minister, a change of policies. [Council] hasn't heard anything at all," Cr Treloar said yesterday.

"The Department of Immigration and Citizenship has our proposal on the resettlement program and we are waiting for a response. We are not looking at any proposal from the department; we are waiting for them to consider ours."

There has been nothing since.

Link all this to the $200 million in new funding that I referred to.

If I read all the tea leaves correctly, the core problem is nothing to do with all the current press stories. Rather, the problem is that even with the spend of an extra $200 million, we do not have the money to support the resettlement program.

Here Armidale people have argued that the Sudanese refugees require what is essentially a major training program to give them the skills they need to settle into Australia. This is not a criticism of the Sudanese. Rather, it is an assessment of a skills gap.

This is what Minister Andrews has been referring too and quite explicitly in some of his remarks. The real story is not a furphy about racism, but really the amount of money we are prepared to spend to help people.

My personal view is that we should be prepared to develop the new approaches and to spend the cash required to help people settle in. But that is just my view

Why I remain a New England New Stater - reasons for the series

I have been running a series on the New England Australia blog as to why I am still a New England New Stater.

When I mention this to people in Sydney or even in New England, eyes glaze. They struggle to see the relevance.

I cannot overcome this through individual argument. Instead, I have started to build a case file based on my own experience, just giving examples of current systemic weakness. Each case can be argued on the facts. Here I have tried to be fair, giving people the opportunity to challenge.

One case can be argued. Six cases - my current number - can be argued. But twenty examples, fifty examples, one hundred examples? At some point the body of evidence should become overwhelming to the point that the issues must again be addressed.

I am one of the few people who can do this simply because I have worked inside and outside the system, at community, business and official level, for so long.

But I do get depressed. I did so in writing my recent post on the case of Tourism NSW. Here I have collected material based on my own experience, but I have also read the NSW Hansard and talked to people in the industry.

I dealt with Tourism NSW as Chair of Tourism Armidale. The people of Tourism NSW are not bad. They are, to my mind, just working in a sick system that saps creativity and is, in any case, unworkable.

I don't want to debate the detail of Tourism NSW. I am not close enough to the current organisation, among other things. But I can show, I think, the fundamental conflicts that are built into the present way they work.

For those that are interested, you will find the introductory post in the whole series here.

Alternative Histories - the War of 1812

Photo: Major General Sir Isaac Brock

I have a confession. I love alternative histories. You know, the what if kind.

Perhaps all this started with my love of science fiction with its multiple alternative worlds. Or, more likely, my love of science fiction came from my habit from an early age of wondering what might have happened if things had gone differently at a point in history.

Take Major General Sir Isaac Brock as an example. If Brock had not been killed at Queenston Heights, then it seems quite likely that the war of 1812 between the US and the British would have ended as a crushing US defeat instead of something closer to a draw. The US invasion of what is now Canada failed, Washington was burnt to the ground, but the US did consolidate its hold across the continent.

Well, in eighteen and fourteen we took a little trip

along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip.

We took a little bacon and we took a little beans,

And we caught the bloody British near the town of New Orleans.

I kind of objected to this Johnny Horton song when it first came out in 1959 - it won the 1959 Grammy Award for Song Of The Year (awarded in 1960 for musical accomplishments in 1959) and also the 1959 Grammy Award for Best Country And Western Performance. You see I cheered for the British Empire and Canadian colonies.

The War of 1812, actually 1812-1815, is now largely forgotten outside the US and Canada. There it can still cause controversy, as evidenced by the Wikipedia discussion on the article.

This neglect is a pity. Not only was it a major conflict, but it was also something of a historical turning point. Had Brock not been killed, then it is quite possible that the war would have taken a different course and that, consequently, continental US that we know today might not have come into existence, or at least would have taken a different form.

The big losers of the War of 1812? The Indian tribes fighting for their homelands because, as I see it, they lost their last chance with the re-establishment of the status-quo.

End Month Traffic Review - September 2007

Another end month, another blog traffic review. I have spent a bit of today reviewing traffic patterns and preparing end month material for my various blogs.

Overall visitor numbers across the blogs follow as at end September. The totals exclude my own visits.

• Personal Reflections - 17,550
• Managing the Professional Services Firm - 10,530
• New England, Australia - 8,426
• Regional Living Australia - 5,073
• Management Perspectives - 3,909
• New England's History - 448
• History of Australian and New Zealand Thought (joint), 41
• Total - 45,977

Hard to believe that there have been just under 46,000 visits since I began.

Another measure is page views. Here according to the Google figures September was a clear record with 6,733 page impressions, largely because of the APEC stories. October will certainly drop back.

It is hard to compare blog figures with print media figures. The nearest I can get is to think of my blogs as specialist magazines. I am not trying to be an A list blogger. Still, in combination with the two web sites I do get some traction, including cross-platform traffic.

Looking forward, I am setting no particular targets for October. I will be happy if the numbers hold up and, most importantly, if I continue to get some response.