The Last Election

The Last Election

Introduction

We claim to live in a democratic society, largely due to the fact that we have elections, but is it really democratic? Is merely voting in a Government having our say, or are we hoodwinked into the illusion of it? How much of a voice do we have in the long period between elections? About one day in a thousand is ours to cast a vote in. The rest are for pollies to ignore us. What are the odds of that ever changing?

Pollies are Politicians. I usually take the lazy route with words, seeing I’m practically a two-finger typist.

There’s an old saying that goes something like if voting mattered, politicians wouldn’t have anything to do with it. I agree. Voting doesn’t matter, so long as we only vote for pollies. What this book will attempt is to show that pollies are even less relevant than voting for them. Democracy is a misnomer and we drastically need a new model – before someone picks up a gun. In an information age, we have the power to vote regularly on many important issues – not just once every three years on who gets the front bench and who is relegated to the backbench. We can dispense with voting for people and begin voting for issues. The book’s title only refers to elections. In a true democracy we would have many more referendums, where we really have a say. Do politicians have a part in this new way? Not at all. We don’t need them.

Before I continue let me say a little about myself, and where I’m coming from. I am Eric Lawton (should be on the cover but I adopted the pen name of Horry Plotter for a previous book – a lousy marketing ploy that wasn’t worth the effort). Very few people have heard of me – for good reason - I have never been involved in politics and my first book only reached friends and relatives. I have about 160 in the garage. The only reason I vote is to avoid the fine. For most of my life I have had no interest in party politics. Incidentally, that life spans half a century – yes, I’m an old codger. I have always read the paper and watched the news, taking a general interest in world events, but tuned out when politics was the issue. So, if it was about an election or anything remotely political I ignored it, and if it was a decision to send troops to Iraq I noted troops were going to Iraq, but any political aspect of the PM’s decision meant nothing to me. World events were the points of interest. That’s why I never watch the ABC News or read The Australian. Having no interest in politics doesn’t mean I don’t care about the state of the nation. I have five children and dearly want to reverse the spiralling trend towards that banana republic Paul Keating predicted for us about a decade ago, for their sakes. My reasoning is; getting involved in the organisation that is the root cause won’t help. If it can’t be healed, it must be amputated. This book is all about amputation.

That seems to leave me unqualified to discuss politics, but not so. It has been in my face for a long time. Like hearing the swearer, I am affected without willing it. In spite of a genuine disinterest, the constant bombardment of all things political, even on commercial stations, plus a disposition to be acutely aware of my universe has left me cognisant of the political circus. The great thing about awareness sans interest is that I can be objective – no heart-strings attached; no emotional baggage. Perfect.

On sending troops to Iraq: whether the PM decided on his own, got Peter Cosgrove’s advice, or listened to his local fish ‘n chip shop owner (no intended reference to Pauline H) makes no difference to me. However he did it, the Australian people had no say. Being elected made no difference to being a dictator. He may as well have been a career public servant for that matter, and a public servant who holds referendums often would be much more democratic than the PM. Iraq is just a simple example of the decisions made autonomously on our behalf. The reality is that almost every decision is made – not just without our input – but without regard to what we might want, as a nation. Personally, I happened to agree on that particular issue, but I recognise that my thoughts were irrelevant and had no sway – just lucked it. I would rather a national vote and be happy to support the wishes of the majority, no matter which way it went. I am certain our illustrious leader doesn’t know what we want and probably doesn’t care, to boot. If he may for some issues, he doesn’t for everything.

In completion of who I am (essentially, nobody) and where I am coming from, I would like to present the notion of sacking all politicians and handing over the country to us. Yes, US, the adult, voting citizens. We would run the public service. A simple concept (once you have read it, you will be surprised), but how do you execute it? That’s just one sticking point in many issues the notion raises. Hopefully, there’s enough to write a book about. This won’t be an academic literary work so don’t look for footnotes and references. I’m a common man, and casual, at that. Reading this will be a no-brainer. That’s probably a good thing, given the literary standard we have reached as a nation. However, don’t let a casual style, my own literary shortcomings, personal disinterest in politics or any negatives you may encounter deter you from taking the proposition seriously. We can take control of our destiny – a destiny that is fast-tracking destruction – and, hopefully, turn it around for the better. It really is a worthy cause.

An evolving eBook

I have read my own eBook and decided I need two new chapters. That's the beauty of an eBook. It can evolve easier than the old fashioned hard copy, and I have what I regard as a very important, and costly addition, to the tune of $2,585. So I slip in these chapters, after which nothing has changed. This eBook has been online about a year and only one sold and less than a hundred viewed. There is no return for my $2,585 and I hold no hope of ever seeing it come via this eBook. No matter. The story is interesting enough and relevant to the cause. For the record, it is now November 2014.

The first thing I notice on my re-read is that I lack clarity. What was clear in my head became vague on the pages. Before I get into my new and costly addition, I will attempt to clarify the reason for this eBook.

The primary purpose is to offer an alternative form of government, hence the title The Last Election. It is written in Australia, but is applicable to any democratic and technology driven Country. The USA, NZ, England and most European countries could easily use my alternative, even if the examples used are unfamiliar outside of Australia.

The primary reason for my alternative is because democracy is failing. Unfortunately, the system is designed to stay the same, so alternatives need to be imaginative to get around built-in defences. History has mainly used violent means to initiate change. I propose a non-violent solution.

This eBook presented what I now see as a muddled set of reasons why democracy in its present form has failed us. I will now state the core reasons up front.

Our voting gives one Government power to act independently of our wants for a set period. Making election promises is no guarantee of getting them. The will of the people is so removed from the acts of Government that there is no relationship whatsoever. Our wants are never met. Are they even considered? I have no idea.

Events show that outcomes are never as good as they should be. What do I mean by this? Well, if we are not getting what we wanted, it would not be so bad if what we were getting was very good. My eBook is replete with scattered examples of bad outcomes, used as though-provoking motivation to want change. It suggests we can do it better. It suggests a plan that actually improves democracy while removing the need to elect politicians and their parties. It suggests sweeping reforms that will save money and turn the economy around.

Those points are the succinct outline of what the eBook is about. Why I read my eBook again was because I had one more example of a bad outcome. This happened to me, personally, and was another angle that had little exposure in the sum of my examples used in the eBook. I regard it as one very strong reason why change would be an improvement. It will be detailed in the next new chapter.

My examples of bad outcomes asked questions that really cannot be answered. They were:

Are our politicians dumbing down?

Is complexity overcoming their capacity to solve problems?

Is greed (covert syphoning of funds) robbing the taxpayer of services?

Has 'Empire Building' gone way out of hand?

There are these and many more issues that could be reasons for why things go wrong, and knowing which is the reason for any one bad outcome is never easy, however, my costly encounter with the Australian Tax Office cemented another reason which I though warranted inclusion. It is that Government has lost its moral compass so far that it is incapable of handling the simplest moral issues. That has cost me $2,585, and that is what my next chapter is about. I expect it will be long.

A Moral Obligation

Before I tell the sad tale that is my encounter with the tax office (ATO), I will relate another story that I was fortunate to catch during the many months that my problem has festered.

I usually watch the news on TV and sometimes miss it, due to being out at 6pm. On one particular day, I knew I would not get back in time and set to record it on my hard drive. As I watched it the next day I noticed an article about a convention under way in Cairns that had a very interesting comment by Treasurer Joe Hockey. It was so interesting to me, I cut the interview from the recording and saved it.

The convention was about tax evasion, or at least that is what appears a main item on the agenda. Hockey was interviewed whilst walking down the street and said "big businesses had a moral obligation to pay a fair amount of tax". Keep this in mind and you will see why it interested me - after you hear my story.

Now for my new story. At work I was given an offer I couldn't refuse, as the Mafia would say, but it was far less sinister - I was offered a redundancy package at 57 years of age. The thought of being paid to not show up for work, and the even better thought of not showing up for work was more than I could resist, and I took the package.

I was probably too young and definitely too poor to retire, but I wanted it so badly. I thought that it was time to make an effort. I would have to find ways and means to live frugally, which was little deterrent because I am not, nor ever have been a person who's focus is getting rich. The best things in life are free. I appreciate the trappings as much as the next man, but I don't need them.

I was told by the State Government that employed me that they were giving me three years' pay to walk away, and that I was not to apply for social security or any state government position in that time. I took them at their word and three years has passed with my full compliance on both counts.

I got a refund in the 2011 tax year, which I nominated as my last return. My wife duly filed the notice. This was a mistake of mine, as I barely scanned it and did not see a particular fee in the summary of the return. All was forgotten until nearly a year later I get a phone call from someone in the ATO telling me I may have to pay more in Medicare levy. I ask why and he questions me about some item on the form I filled in. He said it was the number of days either exempt or liable (I forget which) for Medicare, out of 365. He tried to explain that I should have put more or less than I did. Again, I forget which. This call caught me off guard and I regarded it as insignificant. He said the mistake of mine was probably why they think I should pay more levy, and that he will correct the date and I should be OK. Well, that was not how it turned out.

Soon after that call, I get a bill for over $1,700. The new date adjustment had been applied and I was stung for a motza. On the adjusted summary, which I read this time, I noticed another fee, one for $2,500 for a flood levy. I immediately rang them to question this. Since the bill was less than the flood levy, I first thought the difference was less Medicare and a new flood component, but I was wrong. I was told the Medicare levy was increased and the flood levy was charged on the original return. I got it out and, sure enough, I had been charged the same flood levy amount first up. I should have read it properly when I got it nearly a year ago.

I asked how I was charged $2,500 to pay flood victims and was told it