Economic threads & the need for a new view

Tonight's brief post draws together a few recent economic threads. After having just watched Looper, I'm not sure  that I'm up to any more! It was far more violent than I expected, but it was Bruce Wills after all, and I'm still not convinced by the end.

To my mind, there are two distinct features of the end of the current mining boom that are different from previous booms. One is a softer landing because this boom did not ignite economic activity and speculation elsewhere in quite the same way as in the past. The second is the continuing strength of the Australian dollar linked to its new reserve currency status.

Normally, the first would be counted as a plus because there are fewer resulting excesses and imbalances. Other parts of the economy have more scope to expand to pick up the slack. However, the strength of the dollar impedes that process.

Over the last few weeks there has been a steady stream of reports dealing with what we might call the hollowing of the Australian economy. These are long term trends, including the progressive loss of service sector jobs that, in total, dwarf the loss of manufacturing jobs. The jobs that are going are especially mid ranking jobs in pay terms, solidly respectable middle class positions, although higher flying sectors such as finance have also been affected. One would expect the second, but the first is an issue.

I have been writing about some of these trends for a long time. The thing I don't know and that is currently exercising my mind is just what it all means. It would be easy to be negative, to conclude that Australia will go the way of Tasmania or New England. In the case of New England, the much vaunted benefits of economic restructuring may have occurred, but they didn't occur in New England. There there was largely just pain and economic decline.

A rather long time ago now I argued that Australia could not assume that economic reform would, of itself, benefit Australia. There was a real risk that the country would become an increasingly peripheral branch office player. The country has done rather better than I forecast at the time. but the trends that I forecast have occurred.

The world is different now. I am wondering what those differences mean to my own arguments. My feeling is that I need to reshape my position, that it's time for a fresh look.

Later this year, the Government will release its white paper on Australia in the Asian century. That will provide an opportunity for a more detailed review of the issues that I am talking about. 

Postscript

Follow up posts relevant to this topic:

• Demographic threads & the need for a new view, plus a taste of geology
• Sunday Essay - Australia's economic luck
• Three fundamental challenges to Australia in the Asian century
• Abu Dhabi, Australia and the Asian century
• Australian services in the Asian century

Saturday morning musings - gender & the possible rise of Mr Turnbull?

The new information emerging on the Slipper matter is tending to support the position I adopted in Abbott, Gillard - time to stop!. Peter Hartcher's Amid the fury, a quiet execution is an example. I couldn't help being struck by the irony that it appears that it was Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop's anger over the sexist nature of Mr Slipper's remarks that set in train the chain of events that led to the PM's attack on Mr Abbott.

I don't especially want to revisit the detail of who said what and why. Rather, I want to use the last paragraph of my previous post as an entry point to this post. There I said:

The comments on the Holmes piece are interesting because they show the way that discussion around this matter is affected by starting points. I am not saying anything profound here. At one level, my comment is obviously self-evident. However, the longer term effect depends on the way that those very different interpretations and weightings work their way through within an Australian domestic political and social frame. I actually have no idea just what the outcome will be.

I still have no real idea, but in this post I want to look at some of the dynamics involved. I am not talking about rights or wrongs, good or bad, simply seeking to understand with sufficient clarity that others can, if they wish, critique my views.

Public opinion about both Opposition Leader Abbott and PM Gillard is deeply polarised and has been for a long time. We see this in the polls, but it also comes through in commentary, in the flow of comments on social media and in private conversations. I haven't seen anything quite like it before, for the reactions are deeply personal. The nearest equivalent from my direct experience is the Whitlam period, but the divisive reactions then were rather more political than personal. As PM, Mr Keating attracted a visceral reaction as well, so did Mr Howard, but the present position is still unusual. It may be that all this is part of what I think of as the personalisation of Australian politics, but for the moment we can just take it as a given.

One side effect of the deep polarisation is that it makes sensible conversation very difficult. You try saying something nice about either leader to those in the opposite camp and you will see the effects of detestation at once. A second side effect is that to those with strong views, each development is interpreted within and used to support a mental frame based on dislike. This, the argument goes, is further evidence of (insert perception). One practical effect is that the views of perhaps two thirds of the Australian population can be largely ignored when it comes to considering the immediate political fall-out from recent events. However, those views cannot be ignored when it comes to consider the heat created within political discourse.

The evidence suggests, too, that opinion towards both leaders is polarised along gender lines and has been for some time in a way that we haven't seen before. Now that we have added misogyny wars to the list of cultural and social conflicts, this divide will be strengthened, but only at the margin. People are not one dimensional. We all have worries and concerns that extend beyond gender issues. It is actually hard to see Julia Gillard increasing her female vote, Tony Abbott increasing his male vote. The whole affair may increase the intensity of feeling among those who already have certain views, but won't have much impact on the placement of the dividing line between views.

It will affect the language of political discourse. No politician in his right mind interested in main stream votes would want to experience the vitriol and inevitable tarnish associated with the misogynist brush. The impact at the margin is less clear cut. This will also play out among fringe groups on the left and right who, seeing an opportunity to attract support, will add the matter to their political repertoire. On the fringe, it doesn't matter if you alienate the 95% if you can attract the 5%.

To my mind, the most important immediate political issue is whether Ms Gillard has been able to wound Mr Abbott to the point of political gangrene. We have seen this before. Political machines are pretty ruthless. Depending on the way all this plays out, there is a fair chance that Mr Abbott will be amputated before the next election, replaced by Mr Turnbull. That would change the dynamics at once, effectively taking the gender issue out of the equation.

On 1 October in Will PM Gillard win the next election? And possibly why I thought that events were swinging Ms Gillard's way. As they say, a week is a long time in politics. Now that both Mr Abbott and and Ms Gillard have effectively run onto each other's swords, who can say what will happen?

Postscript

The ripples from this affair continue. Here in NSW Cathy Stoner, the wife of NSW National Party Leader and Deputy Premier Andrew Stoner, received an abrupt lesson in the dangers of expressing personal views via Twitter (Politician's wife retweeted anti-Muslim tirades).

Cathy Stoner's views are not a-typical. I have a fairly diverse group of Facebook friends spanning left to right, along with multiple party persuasions. I generally avoid political comments on Facebook partly for that reason, more because I use Facebook in a purely personal way.  Others are more forthcoming, implicitly assuming that their Facebook friends actually share their views. As a consequence, I see similar views expressed quite often, as well as those diametrically opposed.

Meantime, Treasurer Wayne Swan also received a salutary lesson in the new political dynamics (Wayne Swan says he should have condemned joke) when he failed to leave a Union function after an off-colour joke about the relations between Mr Abbott and his chief of staff. Now this is actually a case of political correctness gone mad. The organisers weren't responsible for the joke - that was apparently done by the hired comedy team as a last moment insertion. What Mr Swan should have done is simply distance himself at the time from the joke, then proceed with the speech. But it's easy to be wise after the event.

Meantime, Lenore Taylor felt obliged to come to the defence of the press gallery in PM's speech did stir hearts, but remember the context. That's fine. She expressed somewhat similar views to me, then right at the end she felt obliged to add: And it could also be that one reason the feeling, the silent cheer, the thank-god-someone is-saying-it response was almost entirely missing on the day after the Prime Minister's speech was not because the writers lived in Canberra, but because on that particular day a lot of the most prominent commentary was written by men.

Mmm. Maybe I'm wrong, but we seem to be at the stage now where gender issues can only be discussed or responded too by women, and god help any man who comments and especially a man who defends a male position. I have got into trouble a couple of times here myself in exploring the social and personal implications of changing gender roles.

I am supporter of equality of opportunity and choice regardless of gender. That includes exploring the conflicts and choices that arise, as well as the implications of changing demography and the way that discrimination is sometimes exercised against men.

And as a final note before I put this one aside, Annabel Crabb's Grubby, grotty, silly and sexist, but misogyny is a sledge too far provides yet another take. Incidentally, interesting that Julie Bishop feels obliged to defend Tony Abbott against the possibility of a Malcolm Turnbull leadership change. 

Postscript two

Oh dear, I know that I am out of touch when I see this piece described on twitter, and I quote, as "the week in sexism & politics - this column by @bairdjulia is the best op-ed on the topic." Really?!

Blue Mountains Snow

It's been a cold day here in Australia's eastern states. My work friend JRB (I'm JDB) sent me this photo of his backyard. He lives in the Blue Mountains just to the west of Sydney. Quite Scandinavian, I told him!  

Abbott, Gillard - time to stop!

Here in Australia, the news has been dominated by Alan Jones and then the Slipper affair, including PM Gillard's remarkable attack on Tony Abbott. Legal Eagle's Alan Jones, feminism and Australian politics provides a lucid explanation of some of the issues raised by these events.

Rereading a post of mine from a bit over a months ago, Let's assert basic manners in Australian politics, I must say my heart sank. The sms messages between Mr Slipper and Mr Ashby are unsavoury. Messrs Windsor and Oakeshott appear to have behaved well in first voting against Mr Slipper's dismissal to prevent a forced dismissal and then in encouraging him to resign. Whether or not one agrees with their approach in a general sense, they have proved remarkably consistent in their approach over time. There is a certain irony in comments about the instability of minority government, given the general consistency among the independents even when they disagree. Beyond that, things are a mess.

Putting things as bluntly as I can, on all the evidence I have seen Mr Abbott is not anti-women, nor is Ms Gilllard  a totally devout exponent of women's rights. Both hold a mixture of views, both try to play to chords as they see them in their support base, both are determined to win. Neither will win this argument, both have lost, just as Messrs Slipper and Ashby have lost. In the desire to wound, to justify positions, in possibly righteous anger or the need for self-defence, they have all entered worlds dictated by dynamics that have little to do with objective reality but have their own special features that dictate events.

My personality means that I greatly dislike personalisation and directed hurt in whatever context. I find it hard to deal with. That may affect my judgement, but I know that am not alone. A large number of people feel as I do. I cannot say that Ms Gillard has inflicted terminal damage on herself, many Australians just like a good fighter, but this fight really does not help her in the longer term.

Mr Abbott's call back in 2010 for a kinder, gentler polity - a call that Ms Gillard appeared to endorse - now comes to back to haunt both of them. Get real, chaps. A lot of us are just tuning you out. If, as apparently appears to be the case, you want to hate each other, please do it in private.

Postscript

It's been interesting looking at the responses to this whole affair. My daughter, for example, does not share her father's view:   

Agrippina ‏@ClareAgrippina: @JimBelshaw Can't say I agree dad, I really think it was long overdue for someone to call Abbott out on his hypocrisy when it comes to women.

Aren't we a modern family, tweeting to each orher?!

Deborah Snow's Misogyny: it's still all Greek to male chauvinists presents one picture, Clementine Ford's  Playing the sexism card:a guide for politicians* another, Michelle Gratton's Misogyny war has no winner a third. Then Jonathon Holmes takes another line in Who has the ear of the 'ordinary people'?

The comments on the Holmes piece are interesting because they show the way that discussion around this matter is affected by starting points. I am not saying anything profound here. At one level, my comment is obviously self-evident. However, the longer term effect depends on the way that those very different interpretations and weightings work their way through within an Australian domestic political and social frame. I actually have no idea just what the outcome will be.   

Postscript two

I used the last paragraph above as an entry point for a post analysing some of the possible political impacts of the whole imbroglio -  Saturday morning musings - gender & the possible rise of Mr Turnbull?

Sleeper posts - memories of Jimmy Sharman's Boxing Stadium

All regular bloggers who have been around for a while have sleeper posts, posts that continue to attract interest and sometimes comments long after publication. Memories of Jimmy Sharman's Boxing Stadium is one such post. Posted on 19 July 2009, it has so far attracted 1080 visits.

That's quite a lot, but here it's not the numbers that count, but the continuing comments. Have a look at them. My feeling is that I should turn the comments and some other comments on related posts into a full new post to see if I can attract some answers. It's building into quite a nice human interest story.   

Franks, Firinghi & Farangs

Yesterday, torn between two choices, I finally grabbed Christopher Hibbert's The Great Mutiny: India 1857 (Penguin 1980) for my latest train reading. I had been torn between Turkey (I promised a Parramatta Turkish restaurant family that I would begin a Turkish series) and India.

I had been half planning to go to Turkey next year if I could find some way of at least funding my trip through writing. This time two years ago I was in Athens. Since then with the exception of a weekend in New Zealand to watch Australia get thrashed by Ireland (Ireland celebrates in the Rugby, Random musings on family & New Zealand), I haven't been out of the country. Since then, various members of my family must have visited a dozen countries. Now eldest is going to North Africa later in the month. I feel kind of left out!

Turkey was and still is on my list for it would enable me to extend my knowledge of past and present to the east. However, finally my history interests took me still further east, to India. I actually know a fair bit about Indian history, but I now want to extend my knowledge working especially west. The blurb finally decide me. suggesting that it was all, really, a ripping yarn. And, indeed it is. However, what caught my eye and triggered this post was the the word Firinghi or, alternatively, Feringhee for European. Surely, I thought, that's a variation on the word Franks, and indeed it is. According to dictionary.com it is a "name used in India for "European," 1634, from Pers. Farangi, from Arabic Faranji (10c.), from O.Fr. Franc "Frank" + Arabic ethnicsuffix -i. The fr- sound is not possible in Arabic." 

Now why on earth would that interest me? Well, we forget how ideas and concepts travel. In the days of the Byzantine Empire, the term Franks was used to describe the Roman Catholic people and principalities coming from the eastern part of the European peninsular. From there, the term went into Arabic and well beyond. The Thai word Farang for European comes from the same source, with equivalent terms in Kymer and Malay.

It's a good example of the way that ideas flow, and that's one of the things that I am interested in.  Little did Zahir-ud-din Muhammad Babur (1483-1530), the founder of the Mughal Empire, know that those incoming Franks or Firinghi who arrived during his reign posed such a threat. How could he? They were a hell of a long way away, living on the outer periphery of the world he knew as educated man. In that sense, they didn't count in the geopolitics of the time.    

Sunday Essay - an experiment with sardines

It appears that daylight saving has begun in NSW. The change had escaped me. I noticed it only because the time on my mobile and computer suddenly varied from the that on the microwave! However, that's not I want to write about today.

I am not a big fish person. Growing up away from the sea, we rarely ate fish except for some dreadful smoked variety that I absolutely detested. I didn't learn to like fish until Aunt Kay cooked some fresh rainbow trout that Uncle Ron caught on a fishing trip. New England has some good trout streams. Then I realised that fish could be okay. Since then, I have slowly added a variety of sea food to my diet. Oysters, prawns, mud crab, lobster and certain fish types.  

I say certain fish types. More accurately, I should say fish cooked in a certain way. More specifically, fish cooked in Asian style; crisp skinned and flavoured. I still don't have much time for conventionally Australian cooked fish - fillets with lemon and butter cooked in aluminium foil. To my mind, it tastes a bit like cardboard. And as for salmon steaks, that's just very expensive cardboard! It seems remarkably difficult to cook salmon properly.

I have always quite liked sardines. Initially, it was the tinned variety. They came in flat tins with curl back tops, lathered in oil. Later, I found fresh sardines in restaurants. Since then, I have eaten them quite often, although its a bit of a lucky dip; like salmon steaks, sardines seem to be quite hard to cook well.

I had noticed that my local Eastlakes fish shop often had fresh sardines and that they seemed to be quite cheap. As part of my current food campaign of something old and something new, I wandered into the shop the other day just to educate myself on fish varieties. "Can I help you?",  the Chinese woman in charge asked. "Just browsing", I said. "I want to learn what fish is around." She sniffed and walked away.

Yesterday I went back because I saw that they had sardines. I selected a few, although I felt a bit embarrassed a buying so little - they cost me $2.60! My Chinese lady just looked at me as I searched for change. But hey, I'm cooking just for me and on an experimental basis.

Clutching my little packet  I came home and went to Wikipedia to see how to cook my little haul. I almost gave up on the spot! It appears that sardines are rich in Omega 3, whatever that may be. It also appears that they deteriorate quickly and must be cooked absolutely fresh. Hastily, I checked my small victims; all displayed signs of early aging. Further, none of the recipes that I saw really explained how to get that crisp skinned texture that I wanted. Worse, the preparation instructions were daunting.

I had to take a fish knife to my poor remains and somehow fillet them. But I have never eaten filleted sardines in my life, nor have the bones been a problem. I hate fish bones. They were always part of the problem on those rare occasions when I ate fresh fish as a kid. But sardines did not seem to suffer from quite the same issue. What to do?

I sat there for a while and then went out to the garden. Under constant inspection by kvd and LE's chairs, the plants have raced away. I don't yet have a full range of veg, but lettuce is now always available. Grabbing a lettuce and a lemon, I came back in. Clearing the bench, I put the grill on high. Then, I took the sardines and rubbed them under running water, put them on a plate, added lemon juice and salt and pepper. Later, I threw on a generous dollop of olive oil.

While the grill was heating, I hastily tore the lettuce up, chopped french onion, tomatoes and cucumber and put the salad in a little bowl. With the grill now hot, I placed the sardines on it, turning them after a few minutes. Adding olive oil plus balsamic vinegar to the salad, I took the sardines off the grill and put them on the plate adding the salad. Then I went and watched Dr Who while I ate.

The verdict? Not too bad. But I need to get the grill right, for I didn't get that really crisp result that I wanted.          

A truly romantic proposal

I will let this post from another blog stand on it's own - October 1st: First day in New York - without comment beyond congratulations.

Saturday Morning Musings - Filipino libel laws, new technology in teaching & the dreaming

This morning's post here is just a round-up of things that have been drawn to my attention or that I have noticed in passing. Nothing profound, just a ramble across some of my interests.

Youngest drew my attention to this one because she thought that I and some of my friends would be interested. Thanks, Clare!

In Sister Machine Gun of Contemplative Meditation, a blog that I hadn't see before, By the Time You Read this, I will Be a Criminal. attacks the late inclusion of an on-line criminal libel provision in the Philippines new Cybercrime Prevention Act. If I interpret the piece correctly, the law in not just a Filipino problem. Any Australian blogger or twitterer who writes on Filipino matters may be guilty of a criminal offence under the Act.

Surely not, I thought. But yes. The law has created controversy in the Philippines. This piece in the Philippine Star (P-Noy stands by libel provision in cyber law) will give you a feel. I was struck by the words of President Aquino in defending the provisions: "Aquino said he was open to lowering the penalties for online libel but that the measure must be enforced soon, as authorities must have the legal means to prosecute people for Internet-related crimes." You have been warned!

Moving in a completely different direction, Neil drew my attention to this piece by Maximos62: A few thoughts on teaching about indigenous Australia. Maximos62 is always thoughtful. I found it an interesting piece because it crosses several of my interests.

The first area is the use of computing and communications technology in teaching, training and facilitation. This is a screen shot of the material that maximos62 developed. Pretty impressive, isn't it?  Further comments follow the shot.

    From time to time, I have been quite critical of the current obsession with computer based and especially on-line learning.  Here in Australia recently. some commenters (I didn't keep the link) have been arguing that Governments should stop funding University campuses since they were no longer necessary in an online world.

I thought that this was an especially silly comment since it failed to recognise that different delivery modes and indeed mixed modes had different strengths and weaknesses. The mode or modes should be selected for fitness of purpose. It's interesting in the private sector that big companies such as GE are retaining both physical facilities and face-to-face because it gives better commercial pay backs in training terms. They use online, but only in its place.

Maximos62 's course is, to my mind, an example of the proper use of technology. As Neil noted in a comment on one of our discussions. courseware like this can dramatically shorten learning times. More time is then available for things like discussion, thus creating a higher value course.

There is another problem, however. More and more time for teachers, trainers and staff in general has to be spent in learning the changing technology, in creating content, leaving less time for other things. Let me illustrate with a simple personal example.

One result of my return as a columnist to the Armidale Express (Belshaw's World - sharing a love of history was the first of the new series) was an immediate invitation to speak to a meeting of the Armidale North Rotary Club. I accepted, of course. In my promotion of the things that I am interested in I use every channel I can.

I then faced a quandary. Armidale North meets at a local club. Armidale being Armidale, that club has digital projectors etc, so I can use modern technology. Assuming, mind you, that it works. That can't always be taken for granted. There is nothing so devastating as arriving at a venue and finding the technology doesn't work!

Traditionally in speaking, I use the combination of words, voice and body language to try to entertain and get my message across. Should I now package for the newish technology?

It's actually not an easy question. That Armidale speech is going to cost me well over $1,000 in income foregone plus travel and accommodation costs, so I want to get value for money. To do this, I decided that I would package a presentation that could be re-used. But do I focus on traditional delivery or use technology? If I follow the second path, it's going to take me three times as long in content creation and in learning new approaches.

I might follow up on this one later, because it interests me. For the moment, I want to go to another element of Maximos62's post.

There can be no doubt that the work of Bill Gammage is having a rolling impact. maximos62 published his post on 2 October, A few days earlier, I posted  Train Reading - environment, mental maps & Bill Gammage.  Yesterday, I was talking to a senior NSW Aboriginal official about Bill Gammage. He had not read the book, so I am going to buy him a copy as a present. Thus the Gammage impact rolls on. Oh I so wish that my writing had the same impact!

In my discussion of Bill's work, I referred to my original honours thesis. There I complained about the obsession of some of the anthropologists I was using with kinship structures. Now I feel that the dreaming falls in the same class and for the same reasons. I suspect that I am entering into sensitive territory here, so I will leave that aside for I am out of time this morning.   

Roast leg of lamb Swedish style

In a comment on In search of Bombay Duck, JCW wrote:

And I still do coffee lamb as a special treat! It's a great favourite with my lot, but I'm naughty now and use cream rather than Carnation. Mind you, the redcurrant jelly can sometimes be hard to find. I also have an ancient Robert Carrier recipe (also called Swedish Lamb) which has the lamb in chunks, and involves carrots, so more a casserole, but nowhere near as nice as 'ours'. Gosh that brings back memories!

I promptly asked to be reminded of the recipe! However, it got me thinking.

I had vaguely thought that roast leg of lamb Swedish style was one my idiosyncrasies. I knew that I had got it from a recipe book, but that was about it. I hadn't heard of it since I stopped cooking it. So now I went searching. Here are some recipes for the dish:

• http://psoup.math.wisc.edu/dishes/dish45.html
• http://www.nytimes.com/recipes/2409/Roast-Leg-of-Lamb-Swedish-Style.html 
• http://www.food.com/recipe/lammstek-swedish-roast-leg-of-lamb-169069
• http://www.thedailymeal.com/web_recipes/roast-leg-of-lamb,-swedish-style-recipe/11129421954119737664

I am still looking forward to JCW's recipe. None of those I have read quite match my memory.

Postscript:

Carole  asked me to put up a link to her post - Food on Friday: Lamb.

Postscript two

JCW kindly supplied the following recipe for Roast Leg of Lamb Swedish Style.

Lamb: leg (whole or butterflied.Rub lamb with salt and mustard (yep, good old fashioned mustard powder), cut slits in flesh and insert slivers of garlic. Brown all over in heavy based pan, then transfer to rack in baking dish; cok until desired doneness in moderate oven or BBQ, but you must have a pan to catch the juices. Baste frequently with a strong coffee and sherry mixture (instant c and sherry de cuisine are fine; proportions about 1: 4coffee:sherry; you should need at least 1 cup ). Rest your lamb when done. Mix 1-2 tablespoons redcurrant jelly with enough cornflour to thicken sauce, then add cream, sour cream, or evaporated milk (abt 1/2 cup). Serve with your favourite veg - roast potatoes are a must, and wash down with an aged Hunter shiraz - bliss! This is very rich, so follow with some summer berries sprinkles with a little eg moscato (and drink the rest) or a fizzy sorbet soda; take a tall glass, add a small scoop of berry sorbet, and top up with a carefully poured nice domestic fizz. Toast old times and old loves!EnjoyJCW

Doesn't it sound luscious?! And, JCW, I will definitely toast old times and old loves! 

In a comment here, JCW added this correction: 

ooops, that's 4:1 coffee to sherry; sorry! Why is there never a good proofreader around when you need one? yes, and you cook it, not cok it, and there are probably some more idiocies, but I'm sure intelligent perusers can still make it out!

 

In search of Bombay Duck

Yesterday as part of my search for things both ancient (ancient in coming from my past life) and new, I went in search of Bombay Duck. I had already stocked up on the sweet chilli sauce. My Asian supermarket owner looked at me blankly. Bombay Duck? He asked his wife. I've heard of it, she said, but I don't know what it is. It's fish, I said, salted fish. It smells.

Sadly, I came home carrying my sweet chilli sauce, my sambal  (very hard to get a reasonable variety of sambal in Australia now), my bamboo skewers, my Tom Yum paste, my Malaysian sate sauce, my Vietnamese vermicelli and my mild curry paste. I fear that I can no longer cope with the very hot. It's actually getting harder to get proper curry paste in the normal supermarkets - its all sort of a mock version. I used to make my own. but that was some time ago. I also wanted, blush, keens hot mustard powder. Do they still make it?

That eclectic mix is a sad sign of a mental retreat to a now distant past, a desire to cook again some of the things that I used too. Roast leg of lamb Swedish style? I actually have no idea whether or not it was Swedish at all, but in crude terms it's lamb cooked in coffee. I liked it because it was a little different.

While Bombay Duck is now apparently banned in the EU, sort of an Indian version of the British sausage for those who know their Yes Minister, I believe that we can still get it in Australia. So I live in hope. 

People, groups & that pervading sense of pessimism

One of the interesting side issues this time of the decision by Australia's Reserve Bank to cut the official cash rate was the variation between the market and economists. The markets appeared to forecast a cut, while the majority of economists did not. The RBA's assessment of the economic outlook is much along the lines that I have been arguing for a little while, so I won't comment on that beyond noting that it is time that I really had a look at the stats in detail again.

The latest Ipsos Mackay Report on Australian sentiment suggests that the underlying somewhat grim mood in Australia continues. People recognise that the pessimistic way they feel is not necessarily born out by the present reality, but they still feel it. I have tried to explore some of the reasons for this in various posts in part to understand and test my own reactions.

In an apparent segue, Ross Gittin's thought piece How intuitive morality has challenged the rationalists explores some of his reactions on reading The Righteous Mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion, by Jonathan Haidt, a moral psychologist at the University of Virginia. The book suggests that decades of research by political scientists have concluded that self-interest is a weak predictor of voters' policy preferences. In Ross's words:

Why? Because people care about the groups they belong to - whether they be racial, regional, religious or political. They seem to be asking themselves not ''what's in it for me?'' but ''what's in it for my group?''. Political opinions function as ''badges of social membership''.

The fact that people care about others in a variety of ways and at varying levels of intensity should come as no surprise and also helps explain part of the reasons for the prevailing feeling of apparently irrational gloom. Each person belongs to a multiplicity of groups depending upon their particular circumstances. They respond not just to things that directly affect them, but also to things that affect the groups they belong too. Our political, business and organisational leaders with their constant desire to "improve" sometimes forget this.

Starting with a general comment, another piece today (Catherine Armitage and Rachel Browne's Toxic teacher' warning as debate rages on lifting uni entry marks) begins: "THE nation's elite universities warn that Australia is at risk of training a generation of ''toxic teachers'' who will pass their own deficiencies at school on to their students."

I will come back to this piece later, for the broader arguments involved add to my own feeling of disquiet. For the moment, I just want to quote one statistic from the piece. As a consequence of the casualisation of the workforce, there are now 30,000 casual teachers in NSW. A casual teacher is no longer one who fills gaps, who chooses to work as a spare. but a core element of the workforce.

If you at some of the things that I have tried to explore in my writing, you can actually see the whole process working at a purely personal level.

I write about the decline of Northern NSW, of the broader New England, and try to suggest how that might be turned around. I worry about the future of the University of New England in the face of policy instability, of competition and of the blind adoption of corporatist models. It's not just an issue of standards, but of a direct threat to the legacy that my family has helped build and that I have tried to maintain. In that sense, it's deeply personal.

As someone whose recent contract work, the work that supports my writing, has been in the public sector, I worry about the impact of restructuring not just on me, but on the people I work with. A Facebook friend and a former staff member of mine in another life gets laid off in Queensland because she is a casual. That's personal. I would like to help, but I can't beyond offering sympathy. Other work friends working in jobs on a placement basis are suddenly insecure and may be forced back into old nominal positions far below their current levels or in places they don't want to work. Yesterday, a notice came round advising of redundancy arrangements.

All this is personal. I worry for myself, realise that I have to change approaches, but I also worry for all the people I know.

My present contract work is in the social services area. Every change to benefit arrangements causes flow on effects. People know that nobody can live on unemployment benefits, we call it "Newstart" in this country in one of those euphemisms so beloved by modern Government, yet we make benefit changes that force  thousands of disability pensioners onto the lower benefit. The change may be good in principle, but its hardly good when you know that you are forcing more people into greater poverty.

I am a gregarious person. At the weekend I went across the road to introduce myself to some neighbours who live in the social housing estate across the road. They are often in the front yard. I didn't talk about some of the work I had done in recent years. Just to complicated. I didn't want to get into a discussion about policy.

I worry about the complexities and instabilities in personal relationships. I worry about my daughters. They are both strong women, well educated, competent. Yet I have seen modern processes work with or against them in ways I don't like. Frankly, modern recruitment processes are absurd, while the competition created for long term (previously permanent, but what is permanent today?) positions is now so intense, chaotic and lengthy that success is a almost a matter of chance.

I note that my daughters don't seem to worry themselves, but their father does. I also note that the idea of generation wars, of campaigns against actual or perceived intergenerational inequity, has suddenly become popular. I am not sure when I first wrote about the implications of an ageing population on economic and social structures, but it was some years ago. Now the issues are becoming important, popular, but are also phrased in terms of a zero sum game, of winners and losers. I think that's wrong.  

I am in danger of drifting from my main point and am also well out of time this morning. Let me finish by restating a few key points. Economic man is not a creature guided solely by his or her immediate self interest. Economic man is a social animal who belongs to, identifies with and is affected by a complex mosaic of social groups. People need a degree of stability. In a world of constant basic change that threatens more than it improves, that is hard to achieve. Is it any wonder people become4 depressed?  

Part of my argument on this blog has been that change has become has become institutionalised. We as individuals cannot affect that. We can only control  our responses.

In my new ways of working series I tried to address one aspect of that, My last post in that series, If you want loyalty, hire a dog, attracted a very personal comment that led me to stop for the short term. It came from someone who obviously knew me well, who knew my personal circumstances, it was hurtful, although the person who made the comment was obviously talking to me direct. Interestingly, that post has attracted huge traffic. It is not yet on my top posts of all time, but is starting to get quite close! Given the comment that I felt obliged to leave there under my comment rules, it's a bit embarrassing, actually.    

I will return to the series, for part of the message I wanted to get across lies in out ability to actually manage our responses. Here my own imperfections and failures are actually part of the positive message. We can do more than we believe. With that, I must finish. But I hope that I have illustrated why so many Australians are pessimistic but also confused.  

Postscript

This post is still bugging me.  So just to summarise elements in an argument that evolved while I was writing:

1. People (and organisations) need a degree of stability if they are to plan. We don't have that at present.
2. I accept that change is inevitable. As a change agent, I have made a fair bit of money out of preaching the need for change in particular contexts. Yet if everybody constantly wants to change, if the changes have a short term focus in particular, a negative feedback loop is set up that actually impedes effective change. It also leads to great negativity.  
3. As individuals, we can seek to improve the operations of the systems in which we are involved. That's good. But as individuals, we have to deal with the world as it is, not that we might like.
4. Loyalty cannot be demanded, but has to be earned. If we cannot trust our institutions to look after us, if we become just statistics in a system, then we have to protect ourselves.
5. As ethical people, and most of us are, we have to try to find ways of coping that will not damage others. We can't just withdraw into a world where we look after family first, the groups that we are involved in second, and devil take the rest. We have to find a better way.

In my own writing, I have tried to focus on both systemic improvement and the nature of personal responses that are ethical yet protect us and the things and people that we love. In a very real way, I have been preaching revolution, for the arguments that I have been trying to articulate involved a fundamental reshaping of approaches and institutions.