Joe Hockey's week of distractions

Peter FitzSimons, rugby union international, author and bandana wearer, spoke at the National Press Club this week. The topic? The rebirth of Australian republicanism. Now, this may not have been a particularly notable speech - a lot of people go through the NPC, and there are quite a number of disgruntled republicans around FitzSimons' age - were it not for FitzSimons' announcement that the Treasurer, Joe Hockey, was leading a Parliamentary Friendship Group on the issue.

I suspect most of the community was not even aware of the existence of such groups. We are told that the groups exist so that members of both major parties can discuss issues that they share positions on. Apart from the question of why MPs need such groups to discuss issues with members of other parties (surely a sign of our Parliament having descended into petty sport, if further proof was needed), the elephant-in-the-room question is why now?

For starters, the republican movement is not doing particularly well at the moment. The most recent poll done on the issue, from Newspoll last year, shows that republicanism has been trending downwards since the 1999 referendum, and is now neck and neck with monarchism. Most worryingly for the movement, the level of strong support has significantly ebbed, especially amongst the young. The largest amount of strong support comes from middle-aged men (like FitzSimons and Hockey).

I suspect there are two reasons for the lack of strong support among the young. Firstly, they do not remember the bad old days for the monarchy during the 90s, particularly between the annus horribilus and the death of Princess Diana. Secondly, they're quite taken with the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, to say nothing of Prince Harry, quite possibly the only royal today who could become Governor-General of this country without too much fuss being made (not that he will). The young royals also make their older relatives look better. I suspect even Charles is more popular today than he was a decade ago. (Note: these are not the only reasons for young people (or older people) to support a monarchy, but they do help explain the changing levels of support.)

Maybe it's this waning republican fervour that has avowed republicans determined to make it an issue again, presumably thinking that as long as young Australians are made to think about the issue, that the 'incontrovertible logic' of an Australian republic will easily turn them to the cause. Given that young Australians also care less for democracy than any other age group, I'm not so sure this is the case. 

If it is this desire to get republicanism waxing again before its too late, then there is still the question of why, specifically, right now? This was the week which the Treasurer began by announcing that he would be focusing on cutting income tax, and began setting out the case for such a move, explaining why it was that this must be done and why it must happen now. What logic is there in announcing this policy, proclaiming that it is important, and then two days later allowing another topic - one which has neither widespread support nor a pressing need to happen right now - to distract from this supposedly important issue?

The thing is, even the issue of income tax cuts appears to be a distraction. The case for it is not strong. Yes, bracket creep is an issue - a given when tax brackets do not keep pace with inflation - but it isn't one that is going to change the fundamentals of the economy (which are in desperate need of attention). Nor, in the short term, does it do anything for the deficit, which the government promised to deal with, or assist public services, which every federal government continues to expand, therefore requiring a larger tax base. If the money isn't coming from a healthy economy or income tax, where will it come from? 

Furthermore, who benefits the most from cutting the income tax? At face value, this depends on how it is delivered. If it is simply from increasing the tax-free threshold, then anyone on the edge of a tax bracket benefits, from the poorest to the richest. If it is actually about cutting rates, then the government is presumably most interested in using it to gain votes from middle-income earners - but there's also no way they wouldn't then also cut the taxes of high earners, as that would just give the latter more incentive to take their earnings offshore (and also stop donating to their traditional party of choice). Given high earners are, by design, the largest individual contributors to the government collections of tax, this would create a shortfall that needs to be made up somewhere.

At another level, though, any income tax cut is likely to hit the affect the poor the most, not directly, but through indirect results. The shortfall can be made up in two ways: increasing income and reducing spending. Increasing income can only come from some other form of taxation which, given this government's record, is unlikely to be a form of company tax. Instead, it will likely be some other form of individual taxation, which isn't reliant on income. The thing is, flat taxation naturally affects the poorest more than it affects the richest, as it takes away a higher proportion of their wealth. This will essentially mean that cutting income tax will be a redistribution of taxation away from the rich towards the poor. Reducing spending can only come through cutting the amount of things the government does - that is, government services - which, proportionally, are also most used by the poorer. So, this important policy is simply a way of changing the degree to which wealth is redistributed amongst the population. It does nothing to change the structure of the economy. Or, to put it another way, it's a distraction.

The republican issue served to distract from the distraction of income tax cuts. Is it any wonder so many seem disenchanted with the government?

Australia joining the air-strikes in Syria was only a matter of time

Last week we were told that the United States had formally asked Australia to join the coalition of nations bombing the Islamic State in Syria, with Australia already participating in air strikes in Iraq. Today, Fairfax reported that the Prime Minister's office had lobbied for the United States to ask Australia in. This has been denied by the PM and the Treasurer, while a spokesman from the US government refused to comment.

I don't see how it matters which country asked which first. ISIS does not care about national borders, so there is very little reason to engage in air strikes on the western side of their territory, but refuse to do the same on the eastern side. All it really achieves is that it allows ISIS more breathing space in Syria than in Iraq. How could it possibly be a big deal if Australia decides to cover Syria as well?

Some would say that the government is lying to the public if they claim that the US government asked for assistance, and that they intend to carefully consider the request, if they had in fact lobbied to join in in Syria. If this turns out to be the case, then they certainly are being loose with the truth. However, you would expect that they would only request such a thing if they believe the ADF is fully capable of doing the job. Furthermore, it isn't the same as asking to join a war. The war is already joined, it's simply a matter of how far the operations are going.

To be honest, I don't see how there is any way countries could realistically attack ISIS in Iraq but not Syria for a prolonged period of time. ISIS simply can't be beaten that quickly, and the ground troops fighting against them need support on all sides of their territory. There is no point wasting time on figuring out who said what to whom, and the fact that it is being brought up at all makes it sounds suspiciously like another leak from somewhere in the government.

The question that we should really be asking is whether we should be in the Middle East at all, as that it is a topic that is genuinely worth debating, and of importance both for us and for the world. 

Who's afraid of Jeremy Corbyn?

For a number of months now, the British Labour Party has been going through a leadership contest. It has more than a whiff of American presidentialism about it, with the focus on how the leaders would take the party back to power (an interesting, modern choice of words. Once upon a time, it was about being in office, not in power). Perhaps not coincidentally, given America's mood for Trump and Sanders at the moment, the comfortable front-runner for the Labour leadership is a man called Jeremy Corbyn.

Corbyn is more-or-less the antithesis of Tony Blair. Labour has been inching this way since Blair's retirement. But Gordon Brown and Ed Milliband tried to offer a kind of balanced approach, accepting much of the basic economic policy in particular that New Labour embraced, and then trying to retrofit 'socialist' ideas into that framework.

Corbyn offers no such thing. He is passionate, he is internally consistent, and he loathes much of modern politics. He is doggedly anti-austerity, which will serve him well if(/when) the UK economy collapses. The unions like him, as they see him as the last of the old Labour union men. The people seem to like him too, partly for his ideology and partly for his honesty and personality.

This is also a big problem for the top dogs within the Labour Party. According to them, politics works on a left/right scale, and the way to win power is to be able to be 'electable' by grabbing as much of the 'middle ground' as possible. That is, after all, what New Labour did, and it worked. But they also recognise that the name of New Labour has been muddied as history has examined it more closely, and that the electorate isn't that interested in another Blair. Therefore, the party leadership wants someone who is not quite New Labour, but still close enough not to scare away modern Conservative voters.

Their favoured options are therefore Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham. Neither offers anything particularly interesting, either in policy or leadership, with Cooper being particularly difficult to grasp. But both are considered safe options because of the blandness they present, and the two were considered the favourites after the candidates were announced. Liz Kendall is the fourth option, considered the smokey to begin with and now believed to have no chance. Kendall was quite happy to present herself as the continuation of New Labour, seemingly unaware of the damage that would cause her. She will finish last.

And then there is Corbyn. Corbyn is not 'electable'. According to the Labour apparatchiks, he is 'hard left'. His economic policies are meant to be unworkable, and his leadership will apparently destroy Labour and, thereafter, the entire country. At the start of the campaign, his odds of winning were 100/1. They are now 1/2.

It seems that the Labour membership does not actually care what their leadership has to say. They see that Labour has lost the last two elections by presenting a plan of nothingness, and that their party now stands for very little. They want their party back, and are responding to the man who is offering that. This is quite remarkable in and of itself, but what is just as remarkable has been the response of the Labour big wigs.

Tony Blair got it all started by suggesting that Labour would be 'annihilated' if Corbyn won. Since then, prominent figures past and present, such as Neil Kinnock, Peter Mandelson, Alastair Campbell, David Milliband, Harriet Harman, the vast majority of Labour MPs who think one of the other candidates would be better and Gordon Brown (without naming Corbyn directly.)

This speaks of an enormous political disconnect. Remember, MPs are supposed to be representative - that is, the represent the people of their electorates. And if they are a member of a party, it presumably because they believe in the ideology that the party supports. If Corbyn, a man who both has support of the people and holds to a clear ideology that is meant to be that of Labour, also has a very small proportion of sitting Labour MPs on his side, what does that say about the Labour Party?

So, as Corbyn's first preference polling has now hit over 50%, the other candidates are now turning on each other with each suggesting, publicly or privately, that one of the others should resign, so they can take on Corbyn head-to-head. Meanwhile, while they're all attacking each other, Corbyn continues to tour the country, talking to packed meeting halls about his beliefs.

The UK, and indeed much of the Western world, is currently in a societal deadlock. Corbyn is, if nothing else, someone who can help break the deadlock, one way or another. Perhaps this is what Labour is so afraid of.

The unnecessary confusion of 'extravert' and 'introvert'

I do not know why, but lately I have heard a lot of people using 'extravert' and 'introvert' to describe themselves and others. It may simply be that I have been paying more attention to this distinction, or it may just be a coincidence.

Of all the things Carl Jung has given the world, the concept of humanity being divided into extraversion and introversion is probably the most well-known and used.

It's a fairly simple idea, which has probably helped it gain such a large following. The idea is as follows: All humans are either extraverted or introverted. Extraverts are gregarious and love being around others. In fact, they cannot get enough of being around others, and therefore want to be out and about all the time. They are more worried with things that are happening around them than they are in exploring ideas or taking time out alone in their head. Introverts, on the other hand, are quieter and are quite happy to be on their own. They spend more time in their head, focusing on concepts and ideas, and find being around others too long to be tiring.

This is a convenient way to describe people, but it doesn't seem to me to accord with reality too well. The first problem with it is that it essentially marginalises 'introverts' as loners who would rather be in their own, in their head all the time. Now, this wasn't necessarily Jung's intention, but it is what it has turned into, in no small part due to the work of Isabel Myers in the field of personality types. The thing is, from my experience those would define themselves as 'introverts' still tend to enjoy being around people, and many actually prefer the here and now instead of getting lost in the world of ideas. It seems more accurate to say that the E/I distinction is one purely to do with how involved a person wishes to be with others, and for how long.

This leads onto the second problem, in that both Jung and Myers believed that this distinction was the single most important part of a person's personality. I do not see how this can be so. Of all the parts that could potentially define someone's personality, the level and style of their interaction with others cannot be the most important distinction. If you were to observe a group of people over a long period of time, you would notice that while some people were clearly 'extraverted' and others 'introverted', many of the group would theoretically oscillate between the two depending on their mood, at best leaning one way or the other. Furthermore, the 'extraverts' would express themselves in a significant variety of ways, as would the 'introverts'. If this were the single most important factor, you would expect all the 'extroverts' to be not only obvious, but also more or less on exactly the same wavelength. They are not.

So, if the E/I distinction is neither as accurate nor as important as it is often assumed to be, is there any use in it? Well, I believe there is, but the terminology has to be changed a bit. My preference is for what David Keirsey has done in his temperament theory. Extravert and introvert are replaced with expressive and attentive. The difference between these two is portrayed as being both less distinctive and of the least importance in the traits that make up the whole of our personalities. The difference is most simply explained thusly: 'expressives' prefer talking, 'attentives' prefer listening. This says nothing about whether they prefer abstract ideas or concrete reality, or whether they prefer having things settled or leaving some wriggle room - that is, the kinds of things that have more impact on personality. It is simply a basic judgement on how people prefer to interact with others.

Personality and temperament is a field worthy of more attention than it gets, but the bigger problem seems to be that there are a large number of theories out there on how personality works, which makes it rather difficult for society to understand the way everyone within it works. If we were able to do this, relationships between people wouldn't suddenly be perfect...but they would be better. A simple way to get this ball rolling is to ditch the extraversion/introversion stuff, and focus on more relevant things.