Senatus Populusque Martialis

The Pope-of-Mars-elect (or should that be the Pope-elect-of-Mars?) has graciously vouchsafed to inform me as his unworthy servant and private secretary that, once his reign begins after touch-down, he will be assisted in his temporal duties by several officials and institutions sensibly based upon those used in the Eternal City down through the ages. After all, the Papal States on Earth were known for their good governance, weren’t they? 

Oh dear… anyway, the Empire worked well, till it declined and fell, and the same is true of the Republic before that, not to mention the present Italian Republic and former Italian Kingdoms and petty states too, as exemplified by many famous political theorists and statesmen such as Berlusconi, Mussolini and Machiavelli. Hmmm… But in any case, Mars will certainly be run better – it won’t be very difficult to surpass the current low level of governance on Earth!

Sancte Michaël Archangele, defende nos in prœlio!

By the way, another proposed decision of His future Holiness ought be mentioned, prior to its official promulgation: idle googling having revealed the embarrassing fact that the planet Mars is associated by some bad folk with Azazel (to whom the scapegoat was driven off into the desert), all such nasty nonsense is going to be quashed and replaced with St Michael Archangel as Patron and Guardian of Mars.

Phobos eclipsing Deimos in real time

But to return to what is the topic of this update: to advise His Holiness in matters political, and in honour of the two moons of the Red Planet, two Consuls, the Deimotic and the Phobic, will be appointed each year; suffect Consuls will be appointed as replacements as needed, taking the place of one or the other. Likewise, in the New City, or Fourth Rome (the first three* having been on the Third Planet, naturally the fourth must be on the Fourth), there will be established a Martian Senate of six hundred, the lists of its members to be wisely chosen and regularly revised by the diligence of the Holy Father, though all such need not attend sessions – it being understood that Senators, as in Old Rome during the Empire, should attend the House only when they have agreed to vote placet (“yes”), just as is expected in Roman synods today.

There’s always one who won’t vote how they’re expected to...

[* For the moment, let us not worry about including in this count either the multifarious localities named Rome in sixteen of the United States of America, or the Paris Métro station of the same name.]

In addition to this, it will now be clear why St Paul VI in a pathetic yet ultimately prophetic gesture all but abandoned the Papal Nobility, as that has left open a void (quod Natura abhorret) for the soon-to-be-elected Supreme Pontiff of Mars to fill by creating many new Princes and Princesses, Dukes and Duchesses, Marquises and Marquises, Counts and Countesses, and Barons and Baronesses of the Holy Martian Church – some titles to be hereditary, some to be granted ad personam (depending on the merits displayed and/or level of financial contribution provided). Similarly, various equestrian orders will be established (for knighthoods, only modest talents or fees will suffice).

A Martian in native dress

It goes without saying that all of these serried ranks will be merely nominal dignities and sinecures of the sort beloved by those Catholic laity most likely to seek a one-way ticket to Mars. Of course, all actual and meaningful power of governance, temporal as well as spiritual, will remain in the Martian Sovereign Pontiff: after all, the Church has long recognised that the only sure, safe and certain guarantee of orthodoxy and the tranquillity of order is to ensure that the First See is judged by none, no matter what. What could possibly go wrong?

For utterly the same reason, the right of electing the Sovereign Pontiff (so frivolously and so foolishly exercised on Earth, as history sadly teaches) will be taken away from the Cardinals, and each Pope of Mars will simply name his own successor in his last will and testament, to be read out to the Cardinals in Conclave assembled after the Pope’s demise, but kept meanwhile in pectore, so as to preserve the traditional surprise of the announcement Habemus Papam by the Dean of the College of Cardinals. Prior to this, the incineration of the late Pope’s will will supply the necessary very small puff of smoke, oxygen being at a premium on Mars.

A Prince-Bishop (of Andorra, not Mars)

Finally, as settlements spread across Mars, the principle of subsidiarity dictates that local forms of government be introduced: and for this reason, in due season ecclesiastical principalities large and small will be established under the rule of Prince-Archbishops, Prince-Bishops, Prince-Abbots and Princess-Abbesses.

Speaking of Princess-Abbesses, it is good to see that consecrated women will assert their lawful authority on one planet at least; indeed, what on Earth has for many centuries past been granted only to Carthusian nuns will be extended on Mars to all women in solemn vows and Papal enclosure – they will all be consecrated as deaconesses. Amazonis Planitia is one of the youngest and smoothest of the great northern plains of Mars, after all.

Naughty Brits

I am more and more staggered by the way news outlets these days but mouth elite propaganda. Apparently, to paraphrase my betters, the Brits (well, the English and Welsh, or more particularly of those persons all ignorant peasants and poor fools, not the nice and rich overlords amongst them) have been very naughty to vote Leave, and now Nanny Reichskanzler will have to spank them. Let that be a warning not to permit referenda nor plebiscites, as they only lead to hate speech.

On a more positive note, the Scots, having voted throughout their realm to Remain, look likely to press for independence (in order to remain in the EU and give the English a bloody nose), and as I support both Brexit and an independent Scotland, I am happy. All I need now is for Scotland to pass a law whereby all those of Scottish descent can apply for a Scottish passport and I'll be content.

My predictions? In five years' time, England and Wales, possibly still referred to as the United Kingdom (but UKEW not UK), possibly still united to some or all of Northern Ireland, will be perfectly well-off and won't have slid into the sea. And the Kingdom of Scotland will also be quite content as a member of the EU.

Bunyip Aristocracy

Aristocracy, as the Philosopher says, is the rule of the best; to-day, we have representative democracy, whereby certain elite groups compete to receive the fabled popular mandate. Tolkien said that he would prefer unconstitutional monarchy – and rulership of the sort displayed in his fiction, which seemed to mean that day-to-day affairs were almost unaffected by any government at all, most of all in the Shire, seems an excellent suggestion in these days of creeping totalitarianism. O for the days when the tithe was all the tax we paid!

Wentworth was lampooned when, in the debates before New South Wales (and several other Australian colonies) attained responsible government in the 1850's, he proposed an hereditary Upper House, after the model of the Lords in London (not of Lord's in London). This was thought ridiculous, a bunyip aristocracy of jumped-up Rum Corps profiteers and squatters, as odd as a platypus and about as useful.

But since our Prime Minister has fittingly restored knighthoods in the Order of Australia, our own home-grown system of awarding merit in right of the Crown, it amuses me to speculate on yet further prime ministerial largesse, should a Menzies-like longevity attend his time as the Queen's First Minister Downunder. Just what would an Australian peerage look like?

Peerages these days are titles and nothing else: I seem to recall that the last time a nobleman used the privilege of trial by his peers – the House of Lords – was back in the fifties or earlier; rights such as personal access to the Sovereign have fallen into desuetude; and the right most associated with power and authority, that of sitting in the House of Lords, has been taken away – only ninety or so hereditary Lords (elected by polling the peerage) still ornament that chamber named after their number. Of course it all went downhill when the mitred abbots were removed at the Reformation…

No rival to the Senate is proposed; merely that the particularly great and good (let's be honest, those great in donating to worthy causes, such as political parties, as well as those actually or merely seemingly good according to this world's passing standards) ought get not merely a knighthood but a dukedom. After all, who doesn't like Downton Abbey?

Having inquired to a very small degree, I find the surviving aristocracy of the Old Country has a little over eight hundred members (including Irish titles). For some reason, there are almost 70% more earls than viscounts, despite viscount being a lesser title than earl (then again, the name of viscount is a Continental importation, as is marquess, a rank for those not really suitable as dukes); otherwise, there are very roughly half as many peers in each succeeding rank, from the 450 barons (or Scottish Lords of Parliament) to the 24 non-royal dukes.

Now, as Australia has about one-third the population of the British Isles, it seems fair and proportionate to imagine a future local meritocratic peerage of about 280 members, allotted in proportion to state and territory populations, allowing each state at least one (so Tasmania would one day have a duke – no, not that impostor the Duke of Avram, a former state parliamentarian – even though our population is so small). I spare gentle readers the calculations; suffice it to say that Her Majesty would be asked to ennoble sufficient persons of merit that this nation gain 10 dukes, 19 marquesses, 36 earls, 71 viscounts and 143 barons…

Succession to these peerages would, of course, be open to the oldest child or nearest relative regardless of gender (a fraught issue these days in any case), unless, say, Countess Greer would wish to place her earldom off-limits to males. And it would be a matter for ecumenical consultation to see how Catholic and Anglican bishops (and abbots) would be ranked alongside the Lords temporal. Do cardinals outrank dukes?

I predict that, whatever the whining of lefties and the cultural Irish (it pleases me to imagine the outpourings of bile at the ABC), it would be quite remarkable how many fervent republicans would snap up the titles on offer; and titles would be all they would be, in plain truth, so how cheap and cheerful a present to offer to leading persons - it could help Lord Carr get an upgrade on Emirates from business to first class, for example, lest he suffer, poor man. After all, the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition was fairly muted in his criticism of knighthoods, since his mother-in-law was the first to receive one and is now a Dame.

I would retain but one restriction corresponding to the very nature of the British nobility - as they cannot sit in the House of Commons, not being commoners, neither should any future Australian title-holders be permitted to hold elected office (needed, a declaratory Act to this effect): thus Clive, Marquess of Coolum, would have to relinquish his seat in the House of Representatives upon his accession to so titanic a dignity; but of course he could still manipulate his and another party's Senators behind the scenes, in the best tradition of the Whig and Tory aristocrats of old. Many likewise would rejoice at a peerage for Senator Abetz, not least his colleagues.

Finally and most nobly, in parallel to their British titles, the members of the Royal Family could each receive a royal dukedom here: Charles could be fittingly created Duke of New South Wales (for like a Botany Bay convict he's certainly doing his time, if not in exile, yet in waiting for the throne so many years), Philip Duke of Queensland (a nice pun, that), Anne Duchess of Victoria (fittingly for a female descendent of that monarch), Andrew Duke of Tasmania, Edward Duke of South Australia, William Duke of Western Australia (full of Poms as it is), Harry Duke of the Northern Territory (given his wild adventures), and dear little George Duke of the Australian Capital Territory – how fitting for our future King George VII, long may he one day reign.

I assume there is no need to pass legislation to enable all this fantasy, since the Sovereign is the fount of all honour and it would need but the respectful advice of the Prime Minister to move the Crown to issue the patents of nobility of some bunyip aristocracy. Unlike the American, our Constitution does not forbid such grants being one day made; and Malaysia, for example, has not merely its several state sovereigns, but an elected monarch and also titles of honour and nobility, so we would be but better inculturating ourselves into the Asian area – is not Thailand, too, a monarchy? Japan an Empire (I mean, a land with an emperor)? and Brunei the equivalent of a grand duchy? does not a Sultan still reside at Yogyakarta and hold court? – by developing our own analogues to such titles.

We nowadays solemnly recognise the fabled Dreamtime, its Rainbow Serpents and mythic creatures, in ritual moments opening civic and state occasions; likewise we love and retell tales of the bunyip and the banksia men; we mock not but value the platypus and the echidna, lament the passing of the Tasmanian tiger, and emblazon the kangaroo and emu as the supporters of our national coat of arms (as neither animal can walk backwards).

Forwards then to such a future, towards a true culture of entitlement!

Compline and Honours

Though unfortunately our priest was unable to attend, and so we didn't have Benediction last night – at which I served at the city church on Monday night in any case, since the weekly Rosary devotions include Benediction this Lent – we did keep the feast of the Annunciation with special care, by singing the Litany of Loreto after Compline, and ending with the hymn "The Angel Gabriel from heaven came".

In other good news, the pre-eminent rank of Knight and Dame in the Order of Australia has been restored by our Prime Minister, just as the title of Queen's Counsel for senior lawyers is in process of being restored in certain State jurisdictions when it had been replaced with "Senior Counsel". We are a monarchy after all...

War and Peace

Matters in the Ukraine have reached breaking point; Russia is acting just as the USSR did – I think of the cynical and lying manner in which Stalin proclaimed peace while bloodily occupying the Baltic States, for example. That said, I think Ukraine might be well advised to let the Crimea go, since Russia is in de facto control there already.

How upsetting, to think that the pro-Russian President of Ukraine would turn tail and run, and those pro-Europe scum came suddenly to power! How upsetting – to the Kremlin, not known for fondness toward would-be overthrowers of authoritarian regimes.

The real danger comes if Putin (think Stalin, think Lenin, think Ivan the Terrible – Russian autocrats are all the same, just like those Russian dolls all nested inside each other) decides to take more than the Crimea: perhaps the easternmost Donetsk and Luhansk regions, to begin with.

After all, to the detritus of the old Soviet Empire (I mean Kaliningrad Oblast, between Poland and Lithuania), several puppet states "protected" by the Russian military have been added since the breakup of the USSR:

• Transnistria, between Moldova and Ukraine: 4,163 sq km (protected since 1990)
• Abkhazia, formerly north-western Georgia: 8,660 sq km (protected since 1992-3 and especially since 2008)
• South Ossetia, formerly north-central Georgia: 3,900 sq km (also occupied since 2008)
• Crimea: 26,964 sq km (de facto occupied as of late February 2014)

It appears the bear is getting hungrier.

May we expect ethnic cleansing, or just bashings and like cruelty, once the Crimea "overwhelmingly votes to reunite joyfully with the Motherland"? If I were a Crimean Tatar I'd be afraid.

Russia's government of course assumes that the European Union, the US and NATO are all as gormless and spineless as they have so far appeared; which seems a fair assessment. But hand-wringing will not scare away the bear, only a bloodied nose will. At least the Lithuanians have realised what's at stake, and have invoked Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

If NATO mobilised, and the US and UK declared they were willing to enforce, militarily if need be, the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, a "piece of paper" signed also by Russia (perfidy again), which guaranteed the borders and territorial integrity of Ukraine against the threat of force – then Putin might draw back.

Then again, NATO might prove itself the loser in such a conflict, should conflict come. Or Russia. Who knows what may happen? And didn't something very nasty transpire in similar circumstances in 1914?

Do pray for peace:

Aña. Da pacem, Dómine, in diébus nostris: quia non est álius qui pugnet pro nobis, nisi tu, Deus noster. 

V/. Fiat pax in virtúte tua. 

R/. Et abundántia in túrribus tuis.

Oremus. 

Oratio. Deus, a quo sancta desidéria, recta consília, et justa sunt óреrа: da servis tuis illam, quam mundus dare non potest, pacem; ut et corda nostra mandátis tuis dédita, et hóstium subláta formídine, témpora sint tua protectióne tranquílla. Per Christum Dóminum nostrum. R/. Amen. 

Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccáta mundi, dona nobis pacem.

Regína pacis, ora pro nobis.

****** 

Ant. Give peace in our time, O Lord: because there is none other that fighteth for us, but only thou, O God. 

V/. Peace be in thy strength. 

R/. And plenteousness within thy towers. 

Let us pray. 

O God, from whom all holy desires, all good counsels, and all just works do proceed; Give unto thy servants that peace which the world cannot give; that both our hearts may be set to obey thy commandments, and also that by thee, we, being defended from the fear of our enemies, may pass our time in rest and quietness; through Christ our Lord. R/. Amen. 

O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, grant us thy peace.

Queen of peace, pray for us.

Restore the House of Assembly

Given the expected vote for a change of government when Tasmanians next go to the polls in March 2014, I would propose that the new House of Assembly take up the important matter of electoral reform. 

Now, the Legislative Council has ever fulfilled its role of a properly and admittedly conservative check on the more progressive tendencies of the House; and to this end, each year a few of its fifteen members are chosen anew in local elections, so that all Legislative Councillors serve six year terms; the Council itself cannot be dissolved nor can its veto over legislation be overruled; and, uniquely in Australia, nearly all of its members are independent, and not members of any political party.

Given the fact that it works admirably, and has been but little changed since 1856 (a portrait of the young Queen Victoria still looks down upon the Council), with such minor reforms as the introduction of preferential voting in 1907, the breaking up of its two multi-member electorates in 1946, the gradual expansion of its franchise to full adult suffrage in 1968, and the equalisation of the number of voters in each electorate in 1998 (when also the original number of fifteen members was reinstated, after having slowly grown to nineteen), it seems to require no tampering with, but instead high praise.

However, the same cannot be said of the House of Assembly. This began with thirty members, a number that increased slightly, then was restored to thirty in 1907, albeit with the then-beneficial redivision of the State into five multimember electorates, each returning six members by the Hare-Clark system of proportional representation. Given the fine balance between Labor and Liberal, sometimes causing the House to be divided fifteen-fifteen, the number of members was increased to thirty-five in 1959, with seven elected per division.

But the rise of the Greens, and the consequent fracturing of politics in Tasmania, led to a somewhat cynical reduction in the number of members to twenty-five, with only five elected per division, in 1998, with the hope that minor parties would less likely hold the balance of power – though that has continued to occur, as demonstrated by the current presence of Greens as cabinet ministers. Worse still, in a House with only twenty-five members, the Government members may number thirteen or less (as presently), resulting in a distinct dearth of talent.

The time has come to secure stable, majority government for Tasmania, since minority government, though beloved of minor parties and those elements who vote for them, has proven deleterious to the State - as I would confidently predict the coming landslide victory for the previously not well regarded Liberals will confirm, given public displeasure at the continuing train wreck of a Labor minority Government in a marriage of convenience with the Greens: a Government more concerned with giving civil recognition to unnatural liaisons, and facilitating the murder of the unborn, elderly and ill, than with more mainstream priorities, such as diminishing the number of persons on welfare by in all ways assisting the economy to grow, that the dignity of gainful employment be extended to all (a human right more valuable than a pretended ability to marry oddly or just give up and die). Premier Giddings, after all, is but Gillard writ small (not literally, but figuratively).

I therefore propose - and hope I am not alone in so doing - that the House of Assembly mutatis mutandis return to its state before 1907, and abandon its distinctive but fatally flawed Hare-Clark electoral system (since proportional representation, while fine in theory, has produced weak coalition governments for too long in recent decades).

Instead, let thirty single-member electorates be established: a simple way to do so would be to divide each of the Legislative Council electorates into equal halves, so there will be the same number of electors in each, as near as may be. These would then be used henceforth to elect the House of Assembly at each future general election. This would bring the electoral system of the House into conformity with that in every other State, and the Northern Territory too, leaving only the ACT still beholden to the questionable blessings of proportional representation.

I make no apologies for the fact that this return of the House of Assembly to what was its basic structure for its first fifty years (though using preferential voting as elsewhere in Australia for the lower house of each parliament) would both guarantee a workable majority for the winning party, and eliminate the bad influence of the Greens in State politics. There would ensue the wailing and the gnashing of teeth, no doubt (no teeth? teeth will be provided!).

I can but confess my Schadenfreude at the upset this would deliver to the secularist elite. There is something sanctimonious and irritating about the holier-than-thou attitude of the Greens, redolent of the Pharisees of old: I felt sorry for Prime Minister Gillard having to sit through weekly sermons delivered by Senator Brown, I mean meetings between her and him. No doubt symbolic protests by the self-consciously left-wing and unemployed would be mounted to no effect whatsoever; and the usual suspects would wail and whine in the Fairfax media, while the Murdoch press would gloat: c'est la vie.

Jokes aside, there is every prospect that the Legislative Council would gladly vote in favour of such a reform, as would the Liberals in the House (and maybe even the Labor members too, though I assume they would secretly delight in thus disposing of their parasitic coalition partners, while publicly lamenting such an affront to democracy: it would be a strategy best designed to secure them sympathy and future votes).

Preferential voting would all but guarantee that whichever major party won a majority of the two-party-preferred vote would gain a majority, and a clear one at that, in each future general election for the House: and that both Labor and Liberal would be mighty pleased about. I do hope that common sense prevails and this my speculation comes to pass.

Professor Palmer goes to Canberra

Please pray that Clive Palmer, that outspoken representative of an oppressed minority (there are, after all, few billionaires in Australia), will hang on to his slim lead in the battle to win the seat of Fairfax in Queensland, and thus – by three votes mayhap, as the current count indicates – he will take his rightful place in the House of Representatives, as just the sort of media-savvy and always entertaining politician that Australians in sober truth so richly deserve.

Apart from anything else, the service he provides to the populace, by disseminating such important revelations as links between Greenpeace and the CIA, the military’s involvement in attempting to frustrate his election, and a certain Ms Deng’s status as a Chinese spy, can only be further improved once he is protected by parliamentary privilege.

This blog can now exclusively reveal that the refounder and leader of the Palmer United Party (whose former leaders include Billy Hughes and Joseph Lyons, according to its website) plans to travel to Canberra on board that apple of his eye, his private ocean liner, a faithful replica of the ill-fated Titanic, currently under construction to his exacting specifications at an undisclosed location somewhere in the People’s Republic of China.

Work on the project has been accelerated in order to permit Clive to be conveyed in appropriate comfort from the Gold Coast to Australia’s capital in time for the state opening of Parliament, and repeal of the carbon tax (which ought assist his coal mines’ profitability).

Apart from a transient burst in dredging activity at Murray Mouth on the day the Titanic II sails in, some deepening of the main channel of the Murray, Murrumbidgee and Molonglo Rivers will be necessary to allow passage of the great ship up to our nation’s capital, as also reinforcing and extension works at the various locks along the Murray (beginning at the Goolwa Barrages), to which several more are to be added along the Murrumbidgee and Molonglo, including a new ship-lift at Scrivener Dam for the final ascension into Lake Burley Griffin.

It is understood that Professor Palmer’s company engineers have drafted all necessary plans, which his loyal employees stand by to complete at any moment – once his election is confirmed, and the already-chartered steam locomotives send them south to begin these capital works. 

(The alternative, a ship canal from Jervis Bay, is considered impracticable at this stage, but is viewed favourably as a vital nation-building infrastructure project suitable for implementation during the first term of the Palmer Government, once he becomes the Queen’s first minister.)

Rows of animatronic dinosaurs, specially shipped south from his luxury resort and Jurassic Park replica at Coolum in the cargo hold, will first be arrayed to line the streets from the jetty to Parliament House. They (and his employees and other loyal voters) will roar, cheer, bare their teeth and claw the air in triumph as his motorcade brings this Living National Treasure up Capital Hill.

It is understood that the festivities will be streamed online, and a documentary made to immortalize it, suitable for screening on the dedicated television channels at his many resort properties.

Election Night - the Morning After

I was a bit disgruntled at having to miss the first hour of the election night ABC coverage by going to the vigil Mass – not my normal reaction to missing television! – but singing in the choir, assisting at the Sacrifice and receiving the Sacrament restored me to a more supernatural outlook. That achieved, I went home, cooked an omelette, and settled back for a marathon viewing session beginning at about a quarter past seven, armed with my laptop (connected to the ABC's excellent election website) for further reference. I turned the TV off shortly after midnight.

Well, the news was no news of course: the Coalition defeated Labor, and Tony Abbott will be the new Prime Minister (I assume Mr Rudd must first formally tender his resignation to the Governor General, and then Mr Abbott will be summoned to take the oath of office).

In my own State, the swing against Labor was more than 10%, which presages a defeat of the Labor-Green State government here come March. It's a pity that Michael Hodgman died this year, not quite making it to see his son, Will, become Premier, as now appears almost certain.

When (after confession) I went to cast my vote yester-day (at my old primary school, as it happens), it was sad to see a rather crestfallen Geoff Lyons, MP, the (entirely forgettable) local member, rather pathetically trying to persuade someone, anyone, to vote for him. I snapped a great shot of him standing in front of one of the Liberals' "Labor: failure" banners...

After filling in the House ballot (numbering the candidates from 1 to 8) and then the Senate ballot (rather than numbering all 54 candidates individually, I chose the lazy option and simply numbered the party of my choice with a "1" above the line), I was glad to come out into the fresh air, and buy a nice fresh egg-and-bacon roll from the school parents and friends BBQ, and also a cappuccino from another stall. How civilized. Then I had to fill in the day – the farmers' market, a bush walk – before Mass and Election night.

It's not a proper federal election without some nonsense emanating from Queensland: quite apart from the defeat of our just-reinstated Prime Minister (he's retained his seat, but has announced he will not lead the Party in opposition), a titanic figure has appeared, bestriding the political stage as a behemoth: the somewhat eccentric and fulsome figure of Clive Palmer (as a cartoon titled him, "Professor, VC, QC,..." – he has a weak spot for laying claim to titles). 

It appears that this reputed billionaire may well win a seat (hopefully large enough) in the House – to the undying thanks of comedians everywhere – and also has snared for his eponymous party (Palmer United: according to its website, former leaders include Billy Hughes, Joseph Lyons and Bob Menzies) not one but two Senate spots; to my chagrin, not only one for banana-benders (he having shrewdly stood a former rugby great, and scored a hefty haul of votes), but one for apple-growers down here in Tasmania!

At least the comedy will continue.

The Senate, it appears from current predictions, will – thanks to a proportional voting system in serious need of reform – end up a real dog's breakfast. 

Recall that half the State Senators (six from each State, for a total of thirty-six) are elected every three years, for a six year term, while the Territory Senators (two from each, for a total of four) are elected at every general election, for a term of a maximum of three years – meaning that forty, or just over half the Senate, is freshly chosen every three years. For the sake of convenience, these half-Senate elections are made to coincide with elections for the House, though the State Senators chosen yester-day will not take office until the 1st of July next year (the Territory Senators take office at once, however).

Now, the remaining thirty-six Senators, those elected back in 2010, took office in mid-2011, and will retain their seats until mid-2017: by party affiliation, they are divided into sixteen Coalition, thirteen Labor, six Green and one minor party (DLP) Senator.  However, according to present calculations based on the computer modelling of preference distributions so far ascertained, the new crop of forty will instead have an almost farcical rainbow distribution: seventeen Coalition, twelve Labor, four Green and no less than seven minor or indeed micro-party Senators. 

The seven Senators from the minor parties may be as follows: Senator Xenophon (a well-respected independent); two Palmer United Senators (well, at least they'll be entertaining), one Liberal Democratic Senator (it appears that, by sheer luck, that tiny party snared first spot on the NSW ballot paper, and many voted for them thinking they were the Liberals), one Family First Senator (that party being a conservative Christian group that formerly had a Senator from 2005-2011, who was known then as "Senator Fluke" for somehow snaring election despite a minuscule first-preference showing), and then two real non-entities: one Senator each from – how embarrassing – the "Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party" and the "Australian Sports Party".

I am one with the respected psephologist Antony Green in saying that the cynical preference deals that are being used to engineer the election to high office of minor party candidates of whom no one has heard are making a mockery of the Senate electoral system. Fair enough, Senator Xenophon all agree won a large share of the votes, as have Palmer United candidates; but as for the all-but-unknown LDP, FFP, AMEP and ASP, they have only come to within coo-ee of winning (for the final cut-up of preferences won't be known for weeks) because of a quirk of the electoral system, whereby such minnows, thanks to complicated mutual preference swaps as specified by their party tickets, snare votes.

Green suggests – and I hope a like reform is passed through the new Parliament – that, instead of the seductive option, whereby perhaps 95% of voter did as I did, and simply number one party box "above the line" on the Senate paper, rather than face numbering off correctly all the massed candidates below, that numbering above the line be modified. Why? because by the current system, by marking a 1 in the box for, say, the Loony Party, that means that the Loony Party's official distribution of preferences will be automatically followed when calculating how your vote is distributed; and that makes the system open for exploitation by micro-parties, which have proliferated recently, to the point that up to fifty such unknown organizations run tickets.

The suggestion is that voting above the line be changed to signify instead optional preferential voting for each party's candidates, and no others. Thus, to number 1 Loony, 2 Monster and 3 Raving would mean that your first few preferences would go to the candidates of the Loonies, then the next few to those of the Monsters, and the last to those of the Ravings – and that would be where it would stop, you having resisted the urge to allocate any preferences to the Greens, Liberals or Labor (for example). Optional preferential voting already exists in several Australian states, and would effectually stamp out the oddity of the selection of Senators on the basis of minute first-preference votes augmented by sundry second-, third-, fourth- or even forty-ninth-preference flows.

This may prove highly relevant, if the new Abbott Government cannot get its repeal of the hated Carbon Tax through the Senate, or likewise its extremely generous paid parental leave scheme. The Prime Minister-elect has made it clear that he will not hesitate to call a double-dissolution election next year if the Senate proves obstructive: and that means all seventy-six Senate spots would be up for grabs, and – because of the quota being only half its normal value – that makes the current electoral system even more vulnerable to such gaming or, to be frank, manipulation by minor parties.

At least the new Senate – if it meets – will no longer have the Greens holding the balance of power. Their tyrannical and authoritarian tendencies, as also their sanctimoniousness, are odious.

Return South

Looking at the thick clouds out of the airplane window, it looked like Antarctica... but I am happy to have returned to Tasmania, after "a little drive" – it turned out to be, not 2000 kilometres, but 2000 miles (a bit more than 3200 km according to the odometer) that I've motored around Queensland, from Daintree to Sunshine Coast; and to think the deepest inland I went was only Charters Towers (memo to self: not a town worth revisiting!). I think next July I'll do Adelaide to Darwin – on the train – and do Ayers Rock and all that (on a package tour).

It was jolly thoughtful of His Holiness to gift the Archdiocese of Hobart a new Archbishop at last: I have happy memories of a front-row seat at the Cathedral in Sydney for his episcopal consecration  some ten years ago (owing to a bizarre misunderstanding, as some friends and I had walked in in the company of an Eastern-rite Dominican priest, God rest him, we ended up directed to a spot just under the pulpit, in front of all the ecumenical representatives – the poor usher must've thought Fr was some sort of oriental potentate, and we his menials).

I recall the Cardinal's sermon, mocking the secular news reportage's horror at revealing that one of the two men to be consecrated bishop (Antony Fisher, O.P.) was staunchly anti-abortion – "I have news for them," he boomed, "they both are!" Please read Bishop Porteous' blog site to discover what a strong and true pastor he is and will be, being unafraid to speak out against the current nostrums and madnesses afflicting our miserable and naughty world. Now that Porteous is an Arch., I suppose Parramatta won't have Fisher too long; he'll be Archbishop of Melbourne or Sydney in due course, good man that he is.

Having been in Queensland, I am relieved to report that I survived Sunday Mass there; clearly the horror stories are somewhat exaggerated. Mass at Townsville Cathedral was quite devout, with servers in cassock and surplice, incense and everything (a pity the M.C. and thurifer stood talking together in a corner throughout the Eucharistic Prayer!); Mass at Noosa too was fairly reasonable, albeit with dreadful modern songs, but I'm sure the singers meant well.

Having been in Rudd's home state, I also must admit, most reluctantly, that he has worked a (morally dubious) triple miracle, having gotten rid of (1) Gillard, (2) the carbon tax and (3) the boats – what a supremely cynical move, given his odiously-repeated claims to saintliness, to send all the asylum seekers to Papua New Guinea, whether they be economic migrants or actual refugees; that'll win him the election, just as Tampa worked for Howard; he can unblushingly claim that, as they come from Third World countries, they'll fit in better in one!  How upset Abbott must be, to see the golden prize slip from his eager fingers... will Rudd call the election tomorrow? The longer he dithers, the greater the risk he'll lose after all, once the allure of his return to the prime ministership wears off and he slides in the polls again.

Now that I'm back, I can now settle into a new book (which arrived while I was up north) about the history of the Liturgy of the Presanctified in the Byzantine Rite, once I finish off my holiday reading about cosmology, dark matter and dark energy (those main constituents of our universe about which modern science admits it knows little to nothing); it was nice to see reference to the very international collaboration (PLANET) that I had had a minor role in during my time at university studying astronomy, thanks to my thesis supervisor – I haven't thought about gravitational microlensing for years.

Return of the Rudd-bot

So poor hapless Gillard is gone, three years and two days after she took over the Prime Ministership from her dysfunctional predecessor, now spurned by the same fickle Caucus that promoted her in the first place – and smirking self-righteous Rudd is back from the dead to lead Labor again, like some Lazarus lookalike (but surely, "by this time he stinketh" – John xi, 39).

Roll on a vote of no-confidence in the House to-morrow, and an early election. Let the people decide!

Ditch the Witch versus Ding Dong the Witch is Dead

Over in the Old Country, those not remembering Baroness Thatcher with happiness have been promoting the old song "Ding Dong! The witch is dead" – forgetting for the time being their manners and the old advice to speak not ill of the dead.  I have not heard anyone pointing out the lack of common decency in this, let alone crying that it is a misogynistic attack on a woman. Instead, I have seen commentary to the effect that, despite her being the first female British PM, the Iron Lady was no feminist (and thus her gender was irrelevant). Presumably, then, labelling her as a witch, and rejoicing over her death, is "alright", at least in lefty circles.

Here in Oz, meanwhile, a year or more ago some unhappy munchkins notoriously waved placards bearing slogans such as "Ditch the Witch", when calling on our own tin-eared PM to go away (others referred to her in still more derogatory language, implying she had an unseemly relationship with the then leader of the Greens – a man uninterested in women). This, in contradistinction to the mockery of Thatcher, was apparently deeply hateful and misogynist; and Gillard herself has played the gender card against "that dreadful man" (as a close female relative of mine refers to Abbott, unconscious of her own gender stereotyping of the Leader of the Opposition).  Apparently such a verbal attack upon our Labor Prime Minister is an unconscionable act of gender aggression.

Is it simply that Thatcher was of the right wing, and this means she is fair game for mockery on the part of her left wing foes – whereas Gillard is of the left wing, and thus it is vile wickedness on the part of her right wing opponents to use similar words against her? This no doubt implies that the media takes a left-wing slant on these issues: imagine that!

Benedict and Konrad

So far as I know, no one* has compared the pontificate of Benedict XVI to the chancellorship of Konrad Adenauer, but it struck me this morning that such a comparison is a fruitful one.

[* I discovered late yester-day that my insight is not a new one: Bruce Walker discussed this seven years ago!]

To start with, both men are devout Catholics! - one from Bavaria, one from the Rhineland.  Secondly, both men endured the Nazi dictatorship - Benedict as a young man, Adenauer as a man in his late fifties and sixties.

Thirdly, both men came to high office somewhat unexpectedly, and late in life, after their earlier careers - Benedict had been a university professor prior to his appointment as Archbishop aged 52, followed by his transfer to Rome and lastly his election as Pope aged 78, something quite unexpected (and hardly dared hoped for by many); Adenauer, having had a long career as Mayor of Cologne, could have been expected to enjoy his retirement when Hitler fell (he'd spent the twelve years of the Third Reich narrowly avoiding execution), but instead formed the CDU, chaired the constitutional convention, and then, aged 73, became the first Chancellor of post-war (West) Germany, a post he held until he retired, aged 87.

Adenauer was famously known as Der Alte, "the Old"; he presided over the rebuilding of a shattered nation, and the "economic miracle" that transformed Germany - her economy continues strong to-day.  Many have commented on the grandfatherly quality of our dear Pope; none I've heard have named him Der Alte, but they would be right in saying it, with all the specifically German connotations attached: for Konrad Adenauer remains the best-regarded Chancellor, given all his achievements.

We already see Benedict referred to as the Pope of Christian Unity, given his initiatives to bring back "groups of Anglicans" and, please God, the SSPX.  May Pope Benedict "repair what is shattered, for it sways" (Ps 59(60):4b), that is, rebuild Mother Church, broken as she is by the misdeeds of the past decades: God send him new saints such as St Francis and St Ignatius to assist him.

Sink the Slipper?

Is the centenary of the Titanic's sinking not rather over-exploited?  That doomed vessel seems to sink every hour on the hour, such are the endless films, documentaries and dramas about it crowding our televisions and cinema screens.   But in Canberra, other ships seem to be taking on water, listing more and more every passing moment...

In charity to our Prime Minister, she does seem (poor cow) possessed of the most terrible run of bad luck. Brown having decided to retire at least spares her his sanctimonious weekly lectures (in return for Green support in Parliament), but instead she will have ex-teacher Milne in to raspily castigate her each week in his place, as if Gillard were still Julia the schoolgirl; and what benefit will accrue? With Brown out of the way, at the next election the Green vote will be bereft of his drawing power, and commentators aver in amaze that Abbott could win the holy grail of a Senate majority - so no benefit at all to our beleaguered P.M.

While she also needs support, lest she loose majority support in the House and therefore Government, from two independent M.P.'s, Oakeshott (that smiling "useful idiot", to use the customary phrase) and Windsor (who is far more shrewd), who have said that unethical behaviour could cause them to change their votes, yet at one and the same time she is stuck both with Thomson, one of her own party, very much tainted with the odium of corruption in his former union (a person or persons unknown having cunningly misused his union credit card to purchase the services of ladies of the night, or so Thomson has pleaded, he doubtless instead being at the side of his then-pregnant wife; police and similar investigations continue in two States and federally into this and much else alleged against him), and with Slipper, who deserted his own Liberal National Party to gain the Speakership, thus shoring up the Government's numbers – and who I read to-day in the newspapers is about to be prosecuted for harassing and propositioning a young male staffer with lewd messages and massages and worse.

Slipper, readers may recall, is a member and indeed an ordained priest of the Australian branch of the Traditional Anglican Communion - ordained, one assumes, by John Hepworth, who has recently resigned as head thereof, but, so far as I understand, is Archbishop of their Australian church.  As Hepworth has made public allegations of appalling sexual abuse inflicted upon himself by Catholic priests living and dead, it would seem that Hepworth - if he is still in charge of Slipper and other members of his flock - has a duty to instigate his own investigation into these accusations.

Who will sink Slipper? and will the Government turn out to be but rearranging the deck-chairs on board the ship of state?  The Titanic sank within 3 hours of scraping alongside an iceberg; how much longer will Gillard remain afloat?  If she loses the confidence of the House – and the Speaker may well be constrained to resign, given these latest grave accusations against him, further threatening her razor-thin majority – there could be a General Election sooner rather than later.  Polling suggests that Labor would indeed be sunk to the bottom of the sea.

******

UPDATE: Sunday afternoon, 22nd April 2012

Slipper has "stood aside" as Speaker until the criminal allegations against him – that he misused certain perquisites of office – are decided; he denies all allegations against him, both criminal and civil (those of harassment, not to say perversion).  The Labor deputy Speaker will take his place, he will remain away from Parliament: this means that, saving the deputy Speaker's casting vote, left and right, Government (and supporters) and Opposition (plus Wilkie), are tied.  No doubt the Opposition will continue to hammer the Government over the stench arising from Slipper and Thomson's alleged misdemeanours.  The ship of state remains above the waterline – just.

******

UPDATE: Monday, 23rd April 2012


Archbishop Hepworth of the Traditional Anglican Communion (no longer Primate thereof, but still the Ordinary of its Australian arm) has asked Peter Slipper to "stand down" as a priest under his authority, stating that he asks this in sorrow – as Slipper and his wife are friends of his – but that Slipper must now face a canonical investigation into the serious moral accusations against him.  Apparently Slipper has been a deacon in the TAC since 2003, and a priest since 2008, but only licensed to celebrate Mass in private – whatever that means.  I must say, it puzzles me!

Restore the Queensland Legislative Council

A landslide victory for Queensland's Liberal National Party!  Congratulations to them.  But O how lopsided the result: a mightily humiliating seven seats for Labor (their worst result ever I suppose), losing  government and 44 of their previous 51 seats, while the LNP has over eleven times as many, seventy-eight if the results in three remaining doubtful seats pan out as predicted.  Now, it cannot be good for democracy to have a governing party holding 78 out of 89 seats, with but a scattering of independent members and the few remaining Labor faithful: that's the sort of Parliament one expects to find in a one-party state.

Queensland went through something like this before, back in the days of the notoriously corrupt Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen (aided by a gerrymander).  When one party has gained an overwhelming advantage, the end results are not always beneficial at all.

What the answer?  Restore the House of Review!  For Queensland – alone among Australian States – has but a unicameral Parliament.  The old, appointed Legislative Council was abolished back in 1922; arguably, if it had been retained, but made an elected chamber (as was done in other States) it would have served as a valuable mechanism for moderating the one-party petty authoritarianism of previous Queensland governments ever since its abolition.  Elected tyrannies are still tyrannies.

The old Legislative Council, as is the usual practice, had about half as many members as the Lower House did; on that model, I suggest a chamber of 44 members, with the M.L.C.'s to be elected by some system of proportional representation (as done nowadays in W.A., S.A., Victoria and N.S.W. when choosing their own Legislative Councillors), whether in multimember electorates or "at large" as the Americans say.

Assuming, as a first estimate, that voting for such a hypothetical chamber had taken place at Saturday's General Election in Queensland, and the votes for each party roughly paralleled those cast for seats in the  Legislative Assembly, then the resultant Legislative Council would now have the following composition on a proportional basis:

22 LNP

12 Labor

  5 Katter's Australian Party

  3 Green

  2 Other*

(*in practice, these two remaining seats would probably be split between the LNP and Labor also)

Such a House of Review, with half its members not from the governing party, would be better able to keep an eye on the new Newman Government than the pitiful six Labor M.L.A.'s, two Katter creatures and two independents that will together constitute what passes for an Opposition (the latter groups, while technically on the cross-benches, will be jammed into a corner in the chamber with the remnant ALP).

While I am not so fond of the Greens myself, it seems only just that, as one in nine voters put them first on the ballot, they should have some representation in Parliament on behalf of those who like them.

An Upper House is a valuable check and balance, and one Queensland – now blessed with a new Premier and governing party – would do well to seriously consider restoring.

Thus Returns...

What to title this post?  "Attack of the Ruddbot"?  "The Ruddbot Strikes Back"?

No, I thought of an antique illustration of London in flames beneath an anarchist airship raining bombs upon the helpless populace – captioned "Thus returns Hartmann the Anarchist" (from E. D. Fawcett's 1893 novel Hartmann the Anarchist; or, The Doom of the Great City) – as the best, most apt image of the impending return to Australia of our just-resigned Foreign Minister, the aforementioned Ruddbot (as his pointy-headed character was satirized) who, coveting the Prime Ministership taken from him by his former Deputy, seeks to represent himself as the innocent, much-wronged white knight, alone able to deliver the nation and the Party from threats internal and external... when he himself is such a threat!  "Fair is foul, and foul is fair."

Narcissism, or Asperger's?  Rudd returns, declaring he had to resign since Gillard had no confidence in him - when in reality the lack of confidence was the other way around.  Our late F.M. (and still earlier P.M.) returns bearing gifts – gifts he no doubt wishes to share with us poor souls, groaning under Gillard's hapless rule; gifts including, as Blind Freddy would know, a nice knife in the back for her, one bad turn deserving another (as Saruman said).  Dear Kevin is known to present an oh-so-nice public persona, while being notoriously foul-mouthed and bad-tempered in private, brow-beating all and sundry (which goes a good way to explaining why he was dumped by his colleagues in favour of Julia Gillard back in mid-2010).

The Parliamentary Labor Party will meet on Monday morning to vote on the leadership thereof, and thus select he or she who would be the Prime Minister, if the shaky coalition of Labor plus cross-benchers and the Greens hold together much longer.  Surely Rudd can't win?  But Gillard is sorely wounded already in any case.  Would Rudd himself resign from Parliament?  Or take to the backbench (as Keating did to Hawke), there to carp and criticise and still further destroy?  But Kevin Rudd now reminds me far more of another former Labor leader, Mark Latham, whose love for the Party turned to hate, than of Paul Keating, a man much his superior in every respect.

I suspect that Rudd is indeed mad and self-centred enough, as proven by his destructive campaign of leaks against Gilllard during the last Federal Election and ever since, especially in the last weeks leading up to this strike against her, to destroy the Labor minority government if he fail to win back the Prime Ministership.  Better that all go down in flames to Hades, than his backstabbing successor stay in power!  

The same could happen if, as seems less likely, he surprises Gillard and wins the ballot: for there is at least one Labor M.P. on record as declaring repeatedly that, rather than have Rudd back as P.M., that M.P. will resign forthwith, bringing on the collapse of the Labor government and an early election. (However, I have since read that this threat was conveniently withdrawn only last week.)

We are left with the grossly disedifying spectacle of Gillard and Rudd locked in suicidal combat, tearing apart the Government in the process.  Narcissistic power-plays, ending in anarchy!

$100 Bet: My Money's on Tony

Tribal loyalties run deep - my mother cannot even conceive of the possibility of voting Liberal, whereas I have often done so!  (Non-Australians please note: in Australian political terms, to a first approximation "Liberal" doesn't mean liberal, but conservative.  I am no liberal, but I am a conservative.)  Ideology aside, given the maladministration evident in both the State and Commonwealth Labor governments, to vote the opposite way just to register a protest vote would seem reasonable. 

Mum has (I say this in charity) an unreasoning dislike of the Federal Opposition Leader in particular.  Is this a gender issue, whereby men prefer Tony, and women prefer Julia?  Jokes aside, after an exchange about Abbott, she has bet me $100 that he ("that dreadful man") will never be Prime Minister – to which I replied, "I will collect the money on election day" (though technically he will need to be sworn in first, of course).

Kate, would you care to participate in this little wager?

Condign punishment!

The gross disrespect and physical violence shewn to the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition yester-day, and now the outrageous burning of the Australian flag, by malcontents, demands the full force of the law: arrest, trial, and an exemplary sentence if convicted. As for that illegal squatters' "embassy" dirtying Canberra, it ought be cleared away forthwith, a blot well overdue removal.

UPDATE: Now it transpires that all this was provoked by a leak from the Prime Minister's office, a staffer of hers having decided to stir up trouble; the protesters turn out to have been dupes and pawns,  their passions inflamed and manipulated by a whispering campaign.  At least the man so far revealed to have been responsible has resigned.  Would that politicians, when caught out, would do so!

Parity... with the Euro?

I suppose some might think it selfish that, not content with encouraging the breakup of the U.K., I also keep among my other intentions the desire that the Euro continue to fall in value (as it surely will for well-known reasons, such as the unaccountable refusal of the Greeks to accept German expertise in balancing their books – after all, matters in Athens are a real polnische Wirtschaft, surely requiring incorrupt outsiders to take over the complete mess that their finances have fallen into, just as the Imperial Maritime Customs Service of the late Chinese Empire was largely administered by foreigners – and the foolish stubbornness of the rest of the E.U. in trying to maintain the Euro, rather than forcing those unsuited to it to revert to their drachmas and like play-money, or at the least stop taking siestas and start working harder, pay their taxes and live within their means).

Given the refusal of European bureaucrats and the political elite to face reality, rather than concoct yet another sweetheart deal that solves nothing, it appears more and more likely that the Euro will continue to sink; which just happens to perfectly suit my holiday plans for mid-year (so long as rioting and social unrest doesn't break out in France and Italy, which would make my trip unpleasant).  The Australian dollar (thanks to the Chinese buying up our exports – please God their economy doesn't keel over – and our own dumb luck in being in a much better situation than the rest of the West, in not being entirely overburdened by debt), already worth more than the U.S. dollar, is trending upwards, being at present worth 81 eurocents, if I heard correctly; if only this continues, I'll holiday in style.  Parity, please!

Farewell Christmas, Arise Scotland

Farewell, Christmastide, till next year! – or so I thought, having done with the last of the Christmastide Offices (that of the Octave of the Epiphany, and the Lord's Baptism), and now this morning reading Lauds of St Hilary; but of course Candlemas, due in a few weeks, is the last echo of Christmas, 40 days after...

******

On a political note, I am delighted to read that a referendum on independence for Scotland will be held within the next few years; being of Scottish descent, I would counsel voters to say "aye".  Whatever benefits being part of the U.K. has brought will still be provided by the membership of both in the E.U.; I read that Scotland would remain part of the Queen's dominions, and that they would keep the pound (the Euro being about to collapse, as all men know), while of course free trade would be assured.

The current position of Scotland (and, in a sense, of Wales and Northern Ireland), with a devolved legislature still subordinate to the national Parliament, a Parliament whose primary concern is with, and whose vast majority of Members represent, a country – England – with no legislature of its own, and in which therefore the strange spectacle exists of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish M.P.'s having a vote on bills governing English affairs only, since in their own countries local legislatures deal with such questions instead (famously termed the "West Lothian question"), is anomalous: such a lopsided quasi-federal structure is inherently unstable.  Devolution – granting legislatures to Scotland and Wales (N. Ireland already having had one, on and off, for most complex reasons) – far from killing nationalism, has enlivened it; when the United Kingdom had but one Parliament to legislate for all parts, due consideration given to the differing arrangements in each, matters were stable; now they are not.  The logical alternatives are independence or unitary government; devolution is a half-way house at best.

The reason Australia works as a federation is that no one State contains a majority of the population, each State has its own Parliament and powers, and the federal Parliament legislates on national affairs equally for all.  If, say, Victoria and Queensland had never seceded from New South Wales, and as a result Australia consisted of only four States, one of which contained three-quarters of the population, and furthermore the Australian Parliament was simply the N.S.W. Parliament supplemented by a few extra Members from the other three smaller States, then there would be just such a strange quasi-federal imbalance: the three smaller States would legislate for some of their own affairs, but would chafe at the fact that "national" laws were made by a body in which their representatives were a perpetual minority; while the people of such a greater N.S.W. would find it irritating that their State laws were made by the national Parliament, a body in which numbers of "foreigners" had a say.  Or to look at matters in another light, it is unlikely that New Zealand would ever take up the standing offer in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia to join as a State: though New Zealanders and Australians are very close in so many ways, they are distinct peoples, and it would seem to Kiwis that to join a federation in which they would be the minority, to be dominated by Aussies for ever, perceiving the other six States as one foreign land as they would, would be repellent.

To point the moral further: the Federation of the West Indies collapsed because Jamaica, by far the largest of its members by population, withdrew rather than be dominated by a congeries of small island states, in a move rather the reverse of what is now contemplated in the U.K. – it was as if England left the Union!  And, if Québec should ever secede from Canada, the remainder would be both geographically divided, and dominated by Ontario (which would have a majority of the remaining population) – so it seems all too likely that the other provinces would choose to break with confederation themselves, even going so far as to look south...

Lopsided federations or quasi-federal bodies do not last: Nigeria barely survived the Biafran bid for independence, and has hardly been a beacon of democracy or of federalism; the Federation of Central Africa collapsed in the lead up to the Rhodesian U.D.I; examples could be multiplied.  Only in the case of very lopsided quasi-federal arrangements, such as that permitting autonomy from Finland to the Åland Islands, or the autonomy afforded the few remaining British colonies such as Bermuda, do the interests of the metropolitan power and its associated autonomous region(s) coincide.   It is indeed staggering that the Union has lasted so long between Scotland and England, and now that Scotland has had a Parliament again for more than a decade, the centrifugal forces are ineluctably building: Scotland is neither so small by comparison to the rest of the U.K. (in other words, to England, the other parts being really negligible) that it will be for ever content to be a specially autonomous outlier, nor of rough equality with the other parts of the Union so as to permit a true federal arrangement (as if England were not so much more populous than all the rest combined).

All that said, Scottish independence is still not a foregone conclusion, but the mere fact that what once was but a fantasy of a few in that land is now the settled policy of the party with an absolute majority in its Parliament seems to suggest that the momentum of history is with Salmond – as he, canny man, never ceases to imply.  I read that the First Minister is a keen and talented gambler on the horses: may his pick romp home!  

New Speaker is TAC Priest

Not without some controversy, a new Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia has just been elected – and he, Peter Slipper, or rather The Hon Fr Peter Slipper MP, is not only Speaker, but also Chancellor of the Anglican Catholic Church in Australia, part of the Traditional Anglican Communion, and (since 2008) a priest thereof.  (Consult an interview with him from a few years back wherein he declares his fulsome support for Anglicanorum cœtibus.)

No doubt, when the projected Australian Ordinariate is set up, he will have to reconsider his political career  if he desire to be accepted for Holy Orders in the Catholic Church, given what the Code of Canon Law has to say about the incompatibility of those two callings...