Very rarely am I embarrassed to be Australian

Jan 8, 2020 | Leadership, rant

 

Craig Kelly created such a moment this week, spouting idiotic nonsense on British morning TV.

Kelly is the MP for Hughes, at the southern end of Sydney’s metropolitan area, which he won in 2010, succeeding well respected liberal  Dana Vale when she retired.  The electorate includes a lot of bushland, some of it national park. As such, it is bushfire country.

 Kelly has been a continuing goose, making statements that range from dumb and ill informed, to just plain stupid for the whole time he has been an MP.   Despite this, Scomo intervened to save his pre selection prior to the last election when he was almost certain to lose it to a more moderate candidate who seems to accept that facts do have a place in public debate.  

I am no scientist, but after Kelly’s interview, thought I would relate a few facts about climate change undisputed by the vast majority of scientists around the world. The exceptions being only those who know the holocaust is a figment of Zionist propaganda.   It is however realistic to acknowledge the contradictions and paradoxes littering the climate change landscape (pardon the poor pun) that can be grabbed selectively to make a contrary case, should you be so stupid as to do so.

Hello Craig!

  • The human impact on the environment is increasing: there are simply more of us, consuming increasing amounts of finite resources every day, and producing accelerating amounts of waste.
  • A key waste is CO2, which has the effect  of warming the earths atmosphere. Scientists used  basic physics to work that out in the mid 1800’s, it is not new information. CO2 in the atmosphere is transparent to the radiation from the sun, so it lets it through, warming the earths surface, but unfortunately, when the warming earth radiates the energy back, the wavelength is different, and the atmospheric CO2 does not allow it to pass through. Therefore, it bounces back, further warming the earth. Anyone who has stood in a glasshouse understands the impact, it is exactly the same, hence the term, ‘greenhouse gas’
  • While every one of that increasing population exhales CO2, as do the animals we grow to feed us, the effect we have had is dwarfed by the impact of the burning of fossil fuels. Starting with the coal that powered the industrial revolution, and progressing to oil, and gas, we are now pumping billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. 
  • Some of the CO2 produced gets captured by the earths oceans, stored as carbonic acid. This increasing acidity of the seas has the impact of dissolving coral, which acts as the nursery for sea life, the main source of protein for much of the worlds population, as well as protecting low lying tropical and sub tropical areas from the impact of cyclones.
  • The warming of the atmosphere tends to suggest, even should I say, to Craig, that this leads to an increased ‘dryness’ of the earth, sometimes called drought. Could this increased dryness  lead to fires? Perhaps even Craig can catch the logic of that one. It also, logically, leads to ice melting. take some cubes out of the freezer Craig, and see what happens. It is unarguable that the ice at both poles, and on mountain ranges is melting. Given the amount of fresh water tied up in ice across the planet, the progressive melting  has a range of nasty consequences. For example, there will be new locations for seaside resorts created, although the price will be paid by some places from small islands around the world, to mainland locations from the Bay of Bengal to Florida, for which snorkels and fins will be required to get to the front fence. This should cause a few very emotional arguments in parts of the world not renowned as friendly, accommodating negotiators.
  • While the average temperature of the planet is unarguably warming, averages do tend to be misleading. The incidence of extreme weather is increasing, at both ends. Extreme heat, and extreme cold, and the time between these extremes is decreasing. The locations of these extremes are also scattered, impacted by the melting ice affecting the weather patterns so dependent on sea temperatures, and more specifically, the temperature of the major currents that flow around the world. 
  • The sad fact is that the lag between cause and effect is long. Were we to totally stop emitting CO2 today, it would be years before there was any measurable impact on the climate. This is like the dilemma faced by obese people. It is really easy to keep doing what you are doing, and getting fatter, very hard to change habits sufficiently to stop the increasing weight, and even harder again to reverse the trend, and it takes time for the impact to be seen. However, the longer you leave it, the harder it gets.

Enough of this, point made.

However, it is also a good place to point out, if you have read this far, that politicians whine that we, the great unwashed who vote, do  not trust them any more. Even ambulance chasing lawyers rate higher on the popularity scale, as Scomo found out trying to find a hand to shake amongst the ruins of Cobargo last week.

Climate change is not Scomo’s fault. However, his failure, and that of his predecessors to reconstruct the broken processes that catapult an idiot like Kelly into a position to make me feel embarrassed to be an Aussie, is his fault.

 

My thanks to David Rowe for the header, who as usual, manages to draw the most disturbing cartoons that make a statement.

A pox on their houses!

A pox on their houses!

Aug 14, 2019 | Marketing, rant, Strategy

 

It seems that ‘Influencers’ are chasing me everywhere.

I have been receiving messages from one who needs me to be rescued by using the product she flogs. Perhaps it will make me look younger, but I doubt it, and I certainly would not pony up the absurd amount of money to buy it from her special friend, at the special once off price, only available to her followers.

I am not a follower, nor am I a 24 year old female millennial, and I have been around way too long for the nonsense about scarcity to have any effect at all on me.

All I would like to know is who the hell sold her my mobile phone number, and why does she think I am interested?

There is nothing wrong with using a celebrity, someone with real influence, to provide a spokesperson for your product. It has been a valuable element in the marketing armoury since the advent of advertising.

However, it is dumb to use a celebrity in the absence of a creative idea, born of a strategy.  A way of communicating the value your product can deliver to those who may buy and use it.

I am perhaps old and cranky, but the hugely increasing use of so called ‘influencers’ self styled gurus of nothing important, gives me the Tom Tits. 

If you want to demonstrate the paucity of your strategic marketing chops, go pay some silly Instagram influencer a pile of money to post your rubbish on their site, so the bots can like it and they can charge you piles of money that could be put to better use.

It is lazy, lazy, and no substitute for doing the hard work of diagnosis of the problem or opportunity, followed by the development of an appropriate strategy. This necessitates hard work,  making difficult choices, accepting risks, and implementing, learning, and going again.

Too often I see silly marketing people convincing themselves that an influencer campaign, whatever the hell that may be, is the solution to, well,  whatever, which is normally all about being seen to be doing something.

Do the work instead.

 

Cartoon credit: Courtesy Tom Fishburne at marketoonist.com

 

 

 

Have the Liberals crossed their Rubicon?

Have the Liberals crossed their Rubicon?

Aug 29, 2018 | Governance, rant

In 49 BC Julius Caesar led his legions across the Rubicon river, the line that separated ancient Gaul from Roman controlled Italy. Ever since, the term ‘Crossing the Rubicon’ has entered the lexicon as describing passing the point of no return.

Last week the Liberal Party crossed its Rubicon, and I guess we will all get to judge the result in May next year. However, history tells us exactly what will happen.

Bill Shorten is in the middle of his “Steven Bradbury’ moment.  If he keeps his head down, he will be the last man standing, and as such, he will be PM next year. Perhaps not the next PM, that may be some apparatchik from the depths of the Liberal party, just before Christmas, but the next one to face the electorate rather than their mates in the house.

In this case, the Rubicon is not a river, and not even about the leadership, screwed up as that is, it is about that most elusive and challenging to define words: Trust.

We the electorate needs to trust our elected leaders to do as they say they will, and to act in our best interests.

Political parties in a democracy rely on trust to gain and retain power, trust in the institution the party represents, and in the people who are its face.

Both sides of politics have utterly blown it!

A political brand is a most fragile construction. In the Australian context, with compulsory voting and an institutionalised two party system, change is really hard, so to successfully make it, trust is an absolute pre-requisite..

Two words are missing from the whole debacle, which together go a long way towards building trust, along with the behaviour exhibited on a daily basis. The trouble for the political classes is that they are also a foundation of trust, acting in a virtuous circle,———-or not, as the case may be.

Courage

Honour.

Courage is something you find on the football field, or in the face of some adversity, according to the popular press, but is it, really? I suggest not of the sort we are seeking in our leaders.

Truly courageous people find moral courage, which is being prepared to stand against the tide for something you believe in.

There seems to be a significant lack of moral courage in the big house, just as we are facing problems that need it to be exercised.

I see very little evidence of honour on display, just tides of expediency and self interest, although there are a few small green shoots in the desert to give hope. Warren Entsch is one prepared to speak his mind, and my local member Craig Laundy stood himself down from the new ministry, it seems on principal. I am sure there are a few others, voices smothered by the political bullshit blanket.

Were any of our current crop of political ‘leaders’ to drop off the perch today, would they attract the sort of words that have accompanied the death of John McCain on Saturday? I doubt it very much. It would just be another scramble for pre-selection and a chance to jump onto the gravy train.

The long term challenge is how do we, as a community,  attract good people, those with the moral fibre we so desperately need, to the political table. The same disease seems to infect leadership in many places, as evidenced by two Royal Commissions currently in the headlines.  I do wish I had some sage and positive advice to replace the sarcasm and disaffection I feel.

 

Cartoon credit: nicked from the great David Rowe in the Fin Review.

 

Who will pay for tomorrow’s hospitals?

Who will pay for tomorrow’s hospitals?

May 23, 2018 | Governance, Leadership, rant

I did not watch the royal wedding. That does not mean I am a republican, or anti-monarchist, it simply means I am not interested.

If they want to get married, let them get on with it, they do not need the approval of the masses. After all, they are both adults, both famous for being famous, and one has already been there and done that!

I am also not interested in going to church. That does not mean I have no moral compass, or personal code that has as a base what could loosely be termed the 10 commandments. They make sense irrespective of your brand of faith.

What I am interested in is the replacement of important questions and issues, such as how we live together, how we treat others, and who pays the piper, by this wild and to my mind absurd, emotional response to two thirty somethings getting married.

It seems to me that the things that got us were we are, no longer hold any sway.

We have a tax system that is broken, at a time when we voters appear to be demanding more and more. Those with the power, which really means those few individuals running multinational corporations, hold the power to, and are personally paid to ensure the institutions they run pay as little tax as possible, and they have the resources to find the cracks in the system through which they can wriggle.

Amazon is a prime example, along with their digital multinational friends. They are disrupting retail, and a host of other domains, while investing heavily in new services in the cloud. Great you say, they deserve to be successful, and they do, but Amazon is doing it by more than just being the smartest in the room, they are being subsidised by their competitors.

Amazon trades at what  is effectively break even, yet it will probably  become the most valuable company in the world very soon. It has grown by reinvesting their profits into becoming bigger and more powerful across their areas of operation, and as investment is a tax deduction, they pay no tax.

Their competitors do pay tax, they are largely those who were around before Amazon emerged, but will not be around much longer to pay for the schools and hospitals we all want.

Who will pay for them then?

Not Amazon or Apple, or Google, or Netflix, they are reinvesting in growth at the expense of their competitors, and in the process denying our kids a place to go to school.

Amazon has flipped the system.

Listed companies are usually judged by their profitability, usually on an absurdly short term basis.  Companies sweat the books and beat up their staff to deliver on optimistic forecasts of quarterly profitability. By contrast, Jeff Bezos makes no or negligible profits and has made vision and the long term the source of share value.

Amazing!

Any business that pays more tax than it is legally required to do is not acting in the best interests of shareholders, or so the mantra goes, as was so dramatically stated by the late Kerry Packer in 1991. Therefore  in this day of internationalised supply chains, and low tax regimes in fly blown little islands scattered around the place, they register as businesses, and engage in legal but morally bankrupt practises.

In Australia we have in addition the sight of personal greed, cronyism, and utter lack of personal and corporate integrity being brought into the light by Royal Commissioner Hayne and colleagues. I am sure that this level of malfeasance exists elsewhere, most probably in greater volumes, but that does not make the sight any more palatable. Most probably nobody will go to gaol, a few will be banned from being directors for a while, and there will be mutterings of regret forgotten almost before the words are out. Then we have the competing pollies promising handouts of money we do not have, a bill our kids will have to pay in one way or another.

Who will pick up the real bill for tomorrows hospitals?

 

 

 

 

 

What have Facebook and Marjory Stoneman Douglas got in common?

What have Facebook and Marjory Stoneman Douglas got in common?

Apr 12, 2018 | Change, rant

Beyond the usual menu of war and pestilence in the Middle East, and which celebrity is bonking which, that usually dominate the headlines, two very significant items have emerged over the last short period.

  • The reaction of students at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland Florida after the shooting on February 14 that killed 17 students, and wounded 17 more.
  • Facebooks relationship with the truth and your personal data.

Both have the potential to be tipping points, but the question is can they really generate sufficient traction to  result in lasting change.

The students at the MSD High school seem too have generated a response not seen before. The ‘March for our lives‘ rallies across the US, end even here in Australia are mobilising sentiment against the idiots who claim their unfettered right to own guns is inalienable, as never before. This shooting, terrible as it was, is just one of a very long line of mass shootings in the US, each met with political weasel words and sorrow for the victims, but nothing more.

But something has changed. Somehow.

Enough people seem to be prepared to say ‘enough‘ that some sensible changes may happen that will save a few lives.

Facebook has had its bum spanked by the only people who really count, those cloistered manipulators hiding in Wall Street, and a few high profile advertisers. The current congressional hearings may make for dramatic headlines, but unless regulation with teeth emerges, they will be just window dressing and a forum for congress members to get their names in the media.

The Facebook IPO in  May 2012 was at the time one of the biggest ever, valuing the company at 104 billion, $38 a share, to the surprise of many pundits, myself included. Since the IPO, immediately after which the $38 a share seemed very generous, Facebook has cracked the advertising monetisation code  and the share price was $185 as Cambridge Analytica emerged last week, then dropped like a stone to $162 before recovering a bit, wiping billions off the market value, and prompting Mark Zuckerberg to apologise in what seemed to be a pretty genuine manner.

The question is, will either be sufficiently sustainable to  generate change?

I think ‘Maybe’ on both counts.

US Attorney General Sessions has proposed a formal ban on ‘Bump Stocks’ the device that turns a normal semi-automatic weapon to become a machine gun, used with such effect in the Las Vegas shooting last year. A small but sensible step in the right direction, but perhaps more tellingly, businesses, large and small, are now publicly shunning the NRA, and adding their voice to the calls for change.

Momentum is building.

Facebook, as well as all other platforms for digital advertising,  has been under increasing pressure for some time, so much so that Zuckerberg released his new years resolution to ‘Clean up Facebook‘ on January 5. Early in 2017 P&G CMO Mark Pritchard took a huge swipe at the digital advertising industry in his address to the IAB, and there has been some changes emerging as a result, driven by other big advertisers taking Pritchards advice on board.

My view.

The ball is rolling on both counts, and momentum is building. Change will come slowly, and for some painfully, but common sense and decency will win in the end.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What governments can learn from small business.

What governments can learn from small business.

Jan 29, 2018 | Governance, Leadership, rant

Apart from the obvious, of doing sufficient due diligence on the important detail, such as knowing your nationality, there are many other lessons to be learnt.

Amongst the key ones is the depth of consideration small business owners need to give to the deployment of their very limited financial and operational resources. In most cases, some level of financial and strategic consideration is applied, and trade-offs are always necessary and usually painful. Governments on the other hand are not similarly constrained, spending is welcome, and rewarded, whereas constraint and tough choices are avoided, and there is no bank to refuse an increase in the overdraft.

Those I work with are encouraged to consider their commitments from three buckets:

  • What is required to keep the business going, which includes operational and necessary capital expenditure.
  • What is required to build the resilience and agility of the current business, enabling it to grow and prosper at the rate, and in the manner necessary to be commercially sustainable.
  • What is required to move the business to the ‘next level,’ whatever that may be in the context of their competitive and strategic environment.

Those that give this sort of framework deep consideration generally come out on top.

By contrast, Governments seem to consider their expenditures only in two buckets.

  • Sustain operations and get elected. In other words, never take anything away, but find creative ways to rebadge it so that it seem you are always giving.
  • Who is entitled to what from the bottomless purse of money to be spent. Joe Hockey when delivering the 2014 budget referred to ‘The end of the age of entitlement’ and look where it got him, and the Abbot government. A bad dose of adversarial short term politics by the opposition, and marketing incompetence by the government ensured that the age of entitlement continues, to this day.

 

Let’s hope that in this new year we see some common sense and vision emanating from Canberra. A big ask, but after a year of utter and complete chaos, irresponsibility, and self-congratulatory bullshit in 2017, I think we all deserve more.