There was nobody at the airport to meet him

but our Prime Minister was boasting about a meeting with a very senior figure related to AI. He has told us how important this meeting was. He has told us how that same person was listening to him say how important the new laws restricting social media access are.

Now our Prime Minister, popularity rating around thirty-two percent, is about to tell the United Nations this country needs a seat on the Security Council. This is the same Prime Minister who, just a couple of days ago, dismissed the problems of the care and well being of very young indigenous children as a "state issue, not a federal one". (Of course the issue of fighting fires was a federal issue rather than a state one when his then opponent was in power. We can ignore that...can't we?)

There are a couple of issues here. The first is that a seat on the Security Council means very little, if anything. The Security Council has no power. It can pretend it has but the decisions it makes mean nothing. Nobody has to abide by them. There was actually one of those rare unanimous decisions earlier this month. It related to Sudan and the effect of that decision on the ground has been zilch, zero, nothing at all. If anything the situation is worse than before. Recently an aid worker I had once written a communication board for lost his life there. He had spent a very long day trying to do something for severely malnourished children and was shot on his way to a few hours rest. That is how effective the Security Council is. A seat on it appears to be nothing more than something to boast about. It is not going to make any difference. Forget about it and do the real work, the hard work, elsewhere.

Then there is the issue of the attempts to stop under sixteens accessing social media. That sounds so good, so responsible. It is a real "look at us" moment.  I do not for a moment deny that social media harms but trying to stop young people from accessing it will not work. Trying to stop harm by curtailing their use of it and bringing in legislation to try and curb other types of "harmful" speech or "misinformation" is not going to work either. I may not like some, indeed many, things which are being said and done on social media but it is better it is out there. It is better seen by all so it can be countered rather than have it travelling at the speed of light through other channels. It is much, much better than giving any government control over what is seen and heard.

I suspect that, even among those who know who he is, our Prime Minister, is seen as being of no real consequence. He is seen as the little man he really is. He might appear to matter here but he does not have any real influence on the international stage. That he can fly to the other side of the world as leader of a supposed democracy, even a small one, and not get greeted by someone of importance says a great deal. 

Perhaps it was an oversight - but I doubt it. It is much more likely that others are looking at his moves to control us with some alarm.