MrGareth’s Missives

<Nasel twang> "Now I like a punt as much as the next bloke, but..." 

In reality I'm pretty indifferent to gambling.  I do like a punt on the Melbourne Cup once a year, just as I used to on the Grand National in the UK, but I'm not much good at it.  While I've picked the winner more times than not, I've often bet on so many other horses through indecision that I rarely come out on top.  But its not really about the money, I like to join in with "the race that stops the nation" and I like the sport.  I've also got a lot of time for a game of Two-up on ANZAC day for precisely the same reasons.  I'm not very good at it and so I've never been adicted to it. 

So when it comes to Pokies - those foul, noisy and ugly machines that spoil most pubs in Australia - I really don't understand the attraction.  It's a bad look and a very private experience - so there's no aspect of joining in, but more importantly, there's no sport.  They are mathematically programmed to win 8 or 9 times out of ten.  Where's the sport there?

I found this comment quite stark from a detailed examination of the mathematics of pokies:

"On of the most important points to note is that there are no pokies with a pay back set to over 100%. This means that the longer you play the more you are likely to lose. There is no way to consistently win on the pokies."

So, I don't understand it, and to be honest I don't understand the mathematical equation on which they operate either, being almost completely inumerate!  So perhaps I shouldn't get on my soapbox about something I understand so little about?  But what I do get is that a lot of organisations - pubs and clubs - make a huge amount of money out of sending some people bankrupt and destroying their families.  That so much of Australian society is organised around this principle - exploitation of the stupid, the desperate and the weak-willed - is something I find quite abhorent and distasteful about life down-under. 

Here's some stark facts: In 2008 Australians lost $12 billion dollars on the pokies - 40% of which lost by those with a gambling problem, i.e. they couldn't afford to lose that money.  Furthermore, it is horrifying to note that Australia - a population of 20 million, has more than five times the number of machines as in the United States, a nation with a population of over 300 million!  One quarter of ALL the world's poker machines are in New South Wales.

So even though I've only a limited amount of time for Andrew Wilkie, whom I find to be more than just a little self-righteous and sanctimonious, I do applaud his bill to impose a license-system on those using the pokies.  Having to set your own limit is really rule one for the sensible gambler and if people can't figure out on the fly when it is time to stop than I'm all for helping them to do it.  Problem gambling is a horribly sad state of affairs and that a family member might make the rest of their family homeless by a simple inability to get across the maths and know when to say "that's enough", then perhaps society should step in to assist - ESPECIALLY when the rest of society is benefiting so very well from their addiction! 

Society is taking a role in helping to reduce the amount people smoke and drink and through another license system, ensures that when driving, people are responsible and sober.  I see no difference.  (I just wish I think that this crusade - if successful - be attributed to Nick Xenophon, the independent Senator, who's been waging this campaign far longer and far more sensibly and without narcicism.)

In all honesty I'd like to see Pokies banned.

I do like Malcolm Farr's comments on Insiders this week, "When someone says something is 'Un-Australian', that's a clear sign they've run out of coherent argument." How can a country so obsessed with mateship, think it is Australian to fund whole aspects of society from the misery and degradation of a vulnerable few?

I'm not going to read this book.  I'm not even going to flick through the pages in a bookshop.  But I must say I'm enjoying the apparent open season on John Howard the publishing of his memoirs has prompted.  So much so that as a passionate Howard-hater, I thought I'd add my own voice to the chorus of derision and criticism deservedly heading his way.

Among a bag of other enjoyable barbs, Jeff Kennett concluded that John Howard had no legacy. I disagree slightly - the only legacy he has in my opinion is his longevity - the second longest serving Prime Minister in Australian History in fact.  This is no doubt because that is all John Howard put his mind to: his longevity.  The John Howard Prime Ministership was focussed on one outcome alone - the preservation and survival of the John Howard Prime Ministership.  I feel that this book is very similar, designed to contribute nothing to the national record but for the preservation of his legacy.  (Somewhat in vain given the lack there-of.)

How can I say all this without reading it?  Well, John Brown's words on "Party Liners" on @702Sydney this morning helped me to that conclusion.  He does not, apparently, address in the book any of the following:

- His refusal to say sorry to the aboriginal population when political consensus was agreed that it was time

- His complicity in the invasion of Iraq based on a fallacy that there were WMD when there weren't - despite the warnings of the now Independent Senator and then ASIO analyst Andrew Wilkie, whom he derided and victimised

- His complicity in the unforgiveable Children Over Board scandal

These three crimes are his legacy if there's anything, and to gloss over them is frankly irresponsible for one attempting historical documentation. This goes somewhat to Kennet's further - and amusing - accusation that he has a Christlike image of his own infallability.  Naturally, his view of history sees himself only as a virtuous and unmalignable national hero; those events that conflict with that are seen through/over/passed.  This smacks of outrageous hubris.

Moving to the great Costello debate, I tire of this ordinarily as I dislike Costello as much as Howard and in fact find his self-serving, arrogant whines even more grating than Howard's.  However, in this case even Costello has joined the fray to set the record straight.  Howard maintains that he welched on the leadership deal between them based on Costello's behaviour around its publication in July 2006.  Doesn't this smack of childish petulence?

As to leadership he always stuck to the convenient line that he would stay as long as his party wanted him to.  Yet summary of his decision to fight the 2007 election, and the failure of those around him to persuade him to resign, is that his wife and children persuaded him to fight so he didn't look as if he was running from a fight with Rudd.  His own family overuled his party?  Doesn't this inconsistency smack of a woeful lack of integrity?

In fact, given my premise above, that his only interest was his own political survival and that of the party was irrelevant, it is actually no surprise that he welched on both commitments to a. pass the leadership batton to Costello and b. resign when his party clearly no longer wanted him.  How his party fared in the 2007 election was unimportant to him if he was not there to lead it.

(Its worth reading both Leo Shanahan's article on Punch about this, as well as Phillip Coorey's in the Herald.)

Further thoughts from Kennett about how he squandered an historical economic boom by indulging only in debt-management, middle-class welfare expansion and international aggrandisement are valid also I feel.  A complete lack of investment in infrastructure was pure irresponsibilty; and his shameless sychophancy towards George Bush position Australia as Infidel-puppy in the minds of much of the muslim world when it needn't be. 

All I'd say is that from what I understand, his battle over firearms early on in his tenure is about the only thing that doesn't look like self-serving machinations and is instead genuine national leadership.  But his disgraceful and calculated behaviour over the Tampa alone is enough to completely invalidate this as a virtue.  I think Mr Kennett sums up Mr Howard's psychological short-comings rather well so I feel I should leave the last word with him:

"John must believe that he had all the answers, and that he was almost infallible.  He joins only one other individual on earth's surface over history that can claim that credit, the rest of us are mere mortals and we do our best."