If "the Greens" hold the balance of power

after the next election, and some of the pundits think they could, then we will be in serious trouble as a nation.

The so-called "Greens" are not the friendly, tree hugging environmentally committed party of my earliest political days. They are now a far left group with old style communist type policies.

They want "free" visits to the GP, to the dentist, to a psychologist and for the nurse to visit you. Someone has to pay for this of course but, according to the Greens, someone else will pay. It won't be the person voting for them. Similarly they want all abortions to be publicly funded nationwide.

They want a complete transition to "renewable" energy with the same sort of funding. Someone else will pay and of course, under the Greens but nobody else, our power supplies will more than meet the demand and be completely reliable.

They want public schools to be funded so well that even the wealthiest fee paying schools will look on them with envy. They also want to wipe all student debt. (They have no plans to reimburse those who would have incurred the same level of debt if they had not paid upfront.) Don't worry about who is going to pay for this or that the Greens want to spend $150m a year on Disability Pride events rather than on Disability Services. 

They want "old growth" forests to be left untouched - although I have been reliably informed that this is not the best thing to do for the forests if you want them to survive and be healthy. (Trees have a natural life cycle and culling old trees and replanting actually assists the environment.) Similarly they would like us to do away with cows and sheep and all associated products and return a great deal of farmland to "nature". I am not sure what they think we will eat. There are too many of us to eat as the aboriginal community once did. And, talking of population, they think we should greatly increase our migrant intake. Where we will get the water from I am not sure but they have the housing policy all sewn up - but of course that will be paid for by someone else.

I am not sure how all their policies could possibly work - and I am worried that just enough people might like them enough to give them far too much power.  

"Will the ceasefire last?"

One of the regular dog walkers asked me this a few minutes ago. I will miss these brief early morning conversations.

I know this man has thought long and hard about the situation between Israel and Hamas. He sees fault on both sides but has no doubt about which side started the most recent conflict. He has no time at all for the support our present federal government is effectively giving to Hamas.  He also blames Hamas for the death of the aid workers, not Israel. 

"They should not need aid workers there," he tells me, "They should be getting on with the job of sorting out what's going on inside their own country instead of expecting the rest of the world to do it for them. Most people who live in that place (he means Gaza) probably just want the same thing."

I have no doubt that his last statement is correct. Gaza is a war zone. It is an absolute disaster area. Hamas has been dictating what can and will be done - and most of the population is too frightened to do anything other than obey. There are individuals who are ready to resist - often with fatal consequences - but there has been no large scale uprising against Hamas.  I doubt there will ever be any such thing. You need some sort of structure for that sort of thing to occur.

It makes me realise yet again how fortunate I have been in living in two countries where there is a democracy of sorts. Neither place has a perfect system of government but they are both vastly better than being governed by a group like Hamas. 

There is no effective opposition in Gaza. The ceasefire will last as long as the leaders of Hamas think it is in their favour for it to last.  

"Withdrawing an ambassador"

is not something which should be done lightly. Yes, occasionally there is a small spat and one country will say to another "I'm not playing with you anymore." It is when there is a much more serious breach in  affairs that we need to be concerned.

We have not yet withdrawn the current Ambassador from Moscow but perhaps we should. If the Russians are murdering prisoners of war them they are committing a very, very grave offence indeed. It is a matter for the International Criminal Court and those responsible should be locked away for life. Murder is never right. 

The problem with withdrawing an ambassador from anywhere is that lines of communication are lost - often when you need them the most. From my own observations of diplomats at work I suspect those lines of communication are vital. If you want to do your job you need to know people, the relevant people best of all. They won't necessarily be other diplomats or high ranking people. They will be "smaller" people as well. 

I remember being invited to dinner one evening at the home of the Senior Cat's cousin. Among the guests was a very new, very young member of the staff of the South African embassy.  I was asked to take special care of him during the evening. It was a very difficult evening to begin with because this was some years before 1994 and Mandela becoming president and this young man was one of the "blacks". Even in our largely very tolerant nation's capital there could be issues. In the end we had a very pleasant time. We found we knew people in common from a university there and from their time and mine in London. 

Eventually he decided a diplomatic career was not for him and a career in politics would not be right either. He went on to teach at a university there and we corresponded spasmodically until his death. He worried about the diplomatic world and the manner in which people are expected to serve it. I remember him writing, "I am withdrawing my service before I am asked to do so. There will be things lost to me but I hope to gain others with my return to teaching."

Yes, he lost all his lines of communication from his previous position and that was inside the system and with no wrong doing on his part. He commented later on how much harder it must be for people and countries when ambassadors are withdrawn or, worse, sent home because they are no longer welcome. 

It is not something to be done lightly. It affects many people. Doing business and helping those in trouble is so much more difficult but it needs to be done if murder has taken place. 

How well do you know your local MP?

 Have you actually ever spoken to them...or even been to their electorate office? Would you recognise them if you saw them in the local shopping centre or at a football match?

I realised with some alarm yesterday that I am not on a "casual-friendly" basis with either my local member or my federal member. This is the first time in many, many years that I can remember this being the case. The last time it happened was when I was away for so long that I was not voting. I soon remedied the situation when I came back.

No, I didn't pounce on them in the shopping centre or the library or anywhere else. I was introduced to both by someone who thought I might have an answer to something - I have forgotten what the problem was.  I remember the MPs being polite in the way that people who want something from you but really can't be bothered with you are. They really made no secret of the fact they did not want people fawning over them.

I am not the fawning type. It is much easier for me to write a letter than make a phone call. Asking for an appointment to see my local MP is the sort of thing I will avoid even when I know I should not. I don't think I am shy. Someone I know has actually said I come across as "assertive" on these pages. I am not in the least bit assertive and will go out of my way to avoid confrontation of any sort. I am not in the least bit like Middle Cat who challenge anyone.

But the MPs? I have known a few in my time, known a few quite well. I have known them well enough that they know my name and will discuss a problem with me. Their secretaries have called me and asked me to do a rough draft of a letter they need to send. I have been asked to talk to X family or Y individual of Z group and get things together so the MP can do something about a situation. I have never minded helping out in such situations - for MPs on both sides of the political divide.

So, what has happened now? I have tried to work it out and failed. All I can come up with is that they are failing to do their job. I was convinced of it when someone who is at very least moderately politically aware could not name his state or federal representative.

"I don't know Cat. They sort of aren't there. They aren't making any sort of noises. "

I realised he was right. The current two would probably be pleasant enough if I met them but, so far, they are not representing me in any meaningful way. They have sent out a couple of "newsletters" but that is all the contact I have had.

There has to be a federal election this year. If the current incumbent wants me to vote in their favour they will need to do a better job of representing me.

It is not the role of the police

to care for the mentally ill or the homeless. Their job is, or should be, much more about law and order and the safety of the population at large.

Apparently the police are being used to try and keep mental health patients under control before they enter emergency departments. The police are now helping ambulance officers do their jobs. It is taking them away from the other jobs they should be doing but this sort of work is deemed "essential" because it involves public safety.

I know what emergency departments in hospitals can be like. I have experienced them in a number of places both here and in England.  They can be chaotic places, especially if there are multiple injuries from an incident like a road traffic accident.  When that occurs those working there on other issues do not need to be distracted by very disturbed mentally ill patients. It is sufficiently difficult to deal with everything from a nail through a finger to a heart attack, a stroke or the suspected serious concussion from the football game. 

My doctor nephew worked for a while in the "walk in" clinic for the mentally ill in the city. Concerned for his own safety he eventually left and other people went as well. They really need police there full time but some people will not go there if there is an obvious police presence. That of course means that some people will delay getting help they know they need. Some of them will then end up in the Emergency Departments in a far worse state.

We closed the hospitals which helped the mentally ill. We put the people who once attended them "back in the community" so now they have nowhere specialist to go. The police cannot take them somewhere like that and hand them into the care of people who are trained to help. There are more and more people taking drugs of one sort or another and they seem to be more freely available than ever. Covid and the resultant lock downs seem to have made the problem, if not worse, at least more visible.

I am wondering if closing the hospitals was such a good idea. Some people with mental illnesses find it impossible to live "in the community" at least at times. The regular hospital emergency departments may be adding to their stress.  Being there under police guard is only likely to make matters worse.  

Emergency evacuations

in a fire zone or in any other situation must be planned to include everyone. 

There has been much made here of the fact that a father and son did not make it out of the fires in Los Angeles and that they were both disabled. The father was apparently in a wheelchair. His son had visual and mobility issues. 

Someone should have been assigned to help them not on the day of the fire but years ago. There should have been a relative, a friend, a neighbour, someone from an organisation who had the first responsibility to evacuate them. If that person was not available then they should have the responsibility of passing the message on. "I am out of the city X...and Y.. need to be evacuated."

One of the reasons I have never wanted to live in the hills behind us is the fire danger. I would not be able to get in a car and drive out in an emergency. I would be dependent on someone else. I could only pedal so far - and perhaps not pedal at all. 

Here in the suburbs I would have more chance of reaching safety but even then I am conscious that leaving quickly and doing so independently is nor an option for me. I will not simply run from my place of residence and seek safety - but I can leave. 

Making sure people have access to a phone for emergencies will help of course but not everyone has such access in an emergency. If the system fails then other measures need to be put in place, tested and tried before there is an event which puts lives at risk. 

And there need to be very special measures for people who cannot communicate easily - or perhaps at all. I know of a non-verbal man who works in a small family orchard. He knows how to do all sorts of things around the property but it is unlikely he would be safe alone in an emergency. His adopted family have a system in place and hope it will be enough if there is ever an emergency. It has been a lot of work and involved teaching more than one other person how this man communicates. I hope all that preparation is never needed but I also know that those who care deeply about this person are happier knowing that they might be keeping him as safe as possible. 

There are also the very young, the very old, those who are frail in other ways and others who may need help. It is all very well to try and rely on mobile phones, on "alerts" and more but nothing can replace human to human contact and preparedness. 

And when people are safely evacuated we need to be aware some of them might still need more help than others need.  I can remember all too well the occasion on which my friend J.... was stuck in a corner in a crowded room at a conference. I finally managed to reach him and his first words were, "Cat, could you please get someone to give me some water?" That was just at a conference. It was not an emergency setting. J... had a doctorate in mathematics but he could not get himself a drink and needed a straw to be able to drink at all. We raised the issue then and all these years later, more than twenty years after his death, I am still having to raise it.

Emergency evacuation procedures and after care are not working unless they include everyone.  

Scanning a QR code

is something I have never done. I simply do not have the right sort of phone to do that. 

My phone is an old style "flip top" with the capacity to make and receive calls, receive text messages and (if I could actually do it) send text messages.  Possibly I could do other things on it. I have never bothered to find out. 

The idea of using my phone as a sort of mini-computer with access to the internet and as a means of paying for my milk and cat biscuits is not something I want. The news that scammers are now using fake QR codes over actual codes in an effort to get people to part with their money is even more reason not to do it.

I am finding it increasingly difficult to find ways around the ever growing number of demands to do things "with your phone". Even the local bakery expects people to be "loyalty" customers by using their phones. Why? The idea that you might get a "reward" of some sort is ridiculous. Someone is paying for the reward - almost certainly you in the prices you pay. 

Many years ago my mother made everyone in the family get "Fly-buy" cards - and expected us to use them. I dutifully handed the card over when asked for it and eventually reached about eighteen points - only to lose them again because I did not "use" them in time. Eventually I tossed the card in the bin because I know I will never spend the sort of money which will earn me the "reward" of even a reduced fare. I am simply paying for others to do it.

There are people who might get something from all this I suppose. A local man retired a couple of years ago. About once a week he flies interstate and then drives a car back for someone who needs a car brought into the state. He has set it up as a legitimate business  and it pays well. He likes driving but he is also adding to what are now "Frequent Flyer" points which he apparently plans to use for a holiday of some sort. 

But do I really need to do this? No, I do not. It is the consumer world which wants me to do it. Instead of being a nicely anonymous and cash paying customer they want to know more about me. They want to be able to "guide" my expenditure into areas I do not need or want. They want to make sure I spend what little money I have and make even more sure I spend it with them.

Now I am puzzling over the requirements to enter the UK. Apparently it requires access to a phone that can scan something in order to get the necessary documentation. The site says get someone else to do it if your phone cannot do it. That seems wrong to me. There should not be a requirement to do these things when they put us at risk. It is not going to stop fraudulent behaviour. Criminals will find a way around such things very quickly. The rest of us need to be constantly alert for the unseen nefarious activities of others.

I managed to get through Covid without using a QR code to check in anywhere but how much longer am I going to be able to avoid all this?  How soon before I get caught up and harmed?