Lessons Learned - So Far

Thursday and day 10 of my self-imposed challenge to write something every day for 30 consecutive days.

When announcing this challenge, I did not commit to actually posting the finished product, however I have so far done so and suspect I will continue to do so.

My reason for setting myself this challenge was to the practice the habit of regular writing. It was to feel the difficulty, the pressure that comes with producing something each and every day.

I was also interested to see if it became easier, more instinctive, more intuitive as each day passed.

What I have realised so far is it has become harder, but not in the way I imagined.

I thought I would run out of ideas, run out of topics to write about.

The reality has been quite different, and this is surprisingly much harder.

As each day passes, I have more and more ideas present for an article.

In the first few days it was easier – one idea, one article.

With an ever-increasing number of daily ideas comes a need to prioritise based on what might interest me or what I feel most strongly about.

I find myself starting an article on one topic, abandoning it and moving to another, and then another. The idea for this article materialised today after having started (and abandoned) 4 articles all of quite diverse topics.

I had a lunch meeting today with a colleague (and friend) some 20 years my junior. We discussed a number of things including treating the brain as a muscle. The more it is exercised, the better it becomes and specifically, targeted exercise, targets specific areas of improvement.

Perhaps I am experiencing evidence of this.

In just 10 days, my awareness of potential writing ideas is much sharper than it was, much, much sharper.

The variety of approaches that can be taken to an article covering one topic has grown, the different angles, conclusion and even challenges has grown tenfold. The result is each article taking far longer than the last, and not necessarily with a better quality outcome.

I appreciated the feedback that has been provided, the good and the constructive.

One area where my writing “exercise” has not improved is proof reading. Spelling errors and grammatical short comings continue to flow through to my initial posts.

A huge thank you to Toula Ainalis for her daily diligence and gentle feedback as to what can be “improved”. My objective over the remainder of this challenge is to have at least one article with no corrections. Much appreciated Toula.

My goal for the next 5 days is to better assess my ideas and make a single decision as to the day’s topic and then to stick to it no matter what.

Contest the Ideas

When did Politics around the World cease to be a contest of ideas?

When did Politics in Australia cease to have conviction?

When did our Politicians cease to stand for something?

The Hawke/Keating and Howard/Costello Governments played the Politics hard, very hard but they also developed ideas and executed policy.

I am not going to argue the merits of one or the other, just that they “did stuff”.

The move away from “ideas and policy execution” started with the Governments of Rudd and Gillard and has been continued, you might say perfected, by Abbott and Turnbull.

A few years ago, a friend and member of the Labour Party attended the State Conference for the first and what became last time. She came away both disillusioned and educated.

In simple terms, she explained to me the extreme difficulty the Party has reconciling the huge difference between the ideological extremes the party has to navigate. She explained the space between the right of the party and the hard left, and the pragmatic and the idealists, made achieving and keeping Government very challenging.

On the Liberal side, we are increasingly seeing the same, but opposite. The far right of the party and the moderates or “small L” Liberals are also separated by a great divide of equal magnitude.

In both Parties, the tendency has been to concentrate on “not upsetting” the different groups rather than standing for what is believed and allowing reasoned debate to win the day. The result has been to do nothing of conviction.

How do we get back to a contest of ideas and policy where we have Politicians arguing for our support based on what they believe in.

The Australian Conservatives Party has today achieved some substance with Family First folding in to it.

I would like to see the hard right members of the Liberal party leave and join forces with One Nation and the Australian Conservatives.

I would like to see the hard left or socialist left of the Labour Party join forces with the Greens.

This would leave four Parties of Politicians free to argue their beliefs and to develop ideas and policies based on their beliefs. Let’s call it – their conviction.

I mean, does anyone really believe Malcolm Turnbull supports new coal fired power stations?

Does anyone really believe Bill Shorten doesn’t want to investigate and eliminate alleged illegal behaviour of Union officials?

For example, I would like to see;-

• Tony Abbott free to argue his case for significant reform of work practices,
• Malcolm Turnbull support same sex marriage,
• Bill Shorten promote responsible industrial labour reforms and Richard Natalie arguing to significantly increase migration.

Being able to present their ideas and policy without the need to appease highly diverse party factions would be refreshing and valuable. We, the public would be better informed and have a clear choice to make come Election Day. Instead of being told what we want, we would vote for what we want.

Any chance this will happen?

Absolutely

Just take a look at who is in the big office in the White House as proof that anything can happen.

 

You Can Change the World - Launching "The Trickle Up Phenomenon"

ANZAC Day, 2017.

102 years ago, the ANZAC forces stormed the beach at Gallipoli.
 

We in Australia commemorate this day honouring it with a Public Holiday.
 

102 years on, we honour the bravery of so many young Men, rowing, running, climbing and fighting. We remember the 800 who lost their lives, and the subsequent loss of 8000 lives on that Peninsula in a far-off land. We honour Women that nursed the wounded.
 

We reflect on the subsequent losses of life and heroic deeds of the ANZAC and Allies throughout Europe, in conditions far worse than encountered at Gallipoli and in fighting far more brutal, dangerous and costly than anything imagined in Turkey.
 

We also honour those who have served in every theatre of battle since the Great War, the one that was to end all wars.
 

In many press articles, radio interviews and TV programs leading up to ANZAC Day, much is made of the deeds of the fighting men. Much is also made of the tactical ineptitude of the Commanders and their need to satisfy their political masters. A little is made of the motivation of the Political leaders to present a story to an electorate that will allow them to be re-elected.
 

This is an over simplification but it seems to me that Wars start and escalate due to a need to feed leader egos, justified by the support of, or need to destroy, a religious idealism.
 

I don’t pretend to understand religious differences. I have a broad understanding of Christianity and its basis. I understand the Protestants and Catholics worship the same God and read pretty much the same Bible. However, I have no idea what their differences are and why people have died supporting their side of the argument. Could they have not put aside their egos and had a chat. Surely the end objective is the same.
 

Germany in the 1930's used the Jewish as a lightning rod to excite the masses, but I don’t really understand what their religious Sin was supposed to be. They were a convenient target to motivate an uprising of popular support by a general public still struggling to recover after the first war and a worldwide financial depression.
 

We are meant to be an intelligent, pragmatic, creative, informed, educated and intelligent society, so why are we incapable of learning from the past?
 

Why are we still turning to State mandated violence to satisfy individual egos largely under the banner of religious righteousness?
 

Why do we so quickly default to killing each other to resolve differences.
 

North Korea is a problem, but to North Korea, we are the problem. Let’s talk not fight. Let’s remove the egos.
 

And we can all make a difference. We can all set an example. We can start the momentum and a “trickle up” phenomenon
 

Chances are we all have friends, past friends, acquaintances, colleagues and associates in our lives, in our world, who we have had a disagreement with, or we feel at some stage to have been “wronged by”. We may even not recall just what it was.
 

What has allowed these relationship breakdowns to manifest? Chances are it is our ego.
 

It is easy to do so today and far less confrontational than it was even 10 years ago. We can text and e-mail. We can message on a variety of media, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook just to name a few. Of course, a phone call or letter still works.
 

If you want motivation, re-visit the story of Eric Lomax and his forgiving of torturer Takashi Nagase. If Eric can forgive, surely, we can. * #

We can all make a difference. We can build what I am calling the "Trickle Up Phenomenon" by taking action within our own environs. We can re-establish relationships and friendships by casting aside the negative, restrictive and ultimately self-harming elements of our egos, initiating the first move and taking action.

We can go out in to our 0wn world and talk about the trickle up concept and encourage others to participate. We can provide an example to our leaders that bi-partisanship is a better way to finding common ground, giving and taking defines strength and seeking commonality rather than conflict is the way of the future.

After all, whatever is going on at the moment is not working

We can change the world by understanding and learning from the past and taking honest action within our own paradigm. We can contribute or we can wait for others to do whatever they decide to do and accept the consequences.

Look around you, look at the world around you.  What have we got to lose?

Let’s end on a negative. What is the worst thing that can happen?

 

*Eric Lomax is clear that while he forgives, he doesn’t forget

# The story is told in the Book by Eric Lomax, subsequently made in to a film, both titled The Railway Man.

 

 

Coffee Relationship

What is your relationship with coffee?

My first sip of coffee was in October 2010, on a Sunday morning in a Café in Rue de Rivoli, Paris.

I had been a lifetime committed tea drinker 'wearing' the fact I had never ever having had as a “badge of honour”.

I was well aware France and in particular Paris, is not known for good coffee. My debut was a “Café Creame” which is French for a Latte.

I decided to have a coffee as a celebration of the end of a wonderful 4 weeks cycling in France and Switzerland.

My second ever coffee was another Café Creame, this time in 2012 after cycling to the summit of Alpe d’Huez, an iconic climb (for a cyclist) in the French Alps.

I would joke that “I only drink coffee in France”.

My son convinced me to try a coffee at one of the best purveyors of coffee in Brisbane and after having several over a few weeks, I switched from Latte’s to Long Black and have never looked back. I do also splurge on the occasional Espresso or Long Macchiato

I quickly became somewhat a coffee snob. I have two suburban preferred outlets and four city venues. I have a preference for single origin options.

I have attended a 'one on one' introduction to being a Barista and discovered what a difference the coarseness of the bean grind and pour times make.

I can look at a Barista at work and critique their technique, purge consistency and the like.

I enjoy discussing different beans and the characteristics applicable to different countries.

My relationship with coffee, defined by the discussions I have and the analysis I enter in to is reminiscent of another relationship I nurtured between the the ages of 30 and 40 – my relationship with Red Wine.

Fortunately, I can take or leave both, although, if pushed, I think I enjoy coffee in my 50’s more than I enjoyed Red Wine in my 30’s.

Tony Abbott to Return as Prime Minister?

I caught up with a friend of 30 plus years yesterday.

We manage a coffee catch up every few weeks and on the occasions we connect on a weekend, it commonly extends for some hours and far too many coffees.

We share common interests including cricket, the industry we both work in, music and politics.

His move towards conservatism commenced with a very small step some 40 years ago when he ceased being a full time musician to join the then SGIO. His time as a professional musician was not without some success. His band recorded several records and achieved modest sales. He was the drummer in the Hoadley Battle of the Bands state winners and national runners up back in 1960something.

About 5 years ago he returned to music and is a member of a weekend warrior covers band.

We both wonder at the inability of modern day fast bowlers to achieve consistent line and length and ponder the benefits or otherwise of such strict coaching of young players often at the expense of natural flair and creativity.

The small step towards conservatism taken all those years ago has continued to gather momentum and this inevitably drives the more colourful content of our conversations.

He is of the view that Tony Abbott is one of our truly great Prime Ministers. I was amused when he said as Prime Minister he fulfilled his three key election promises and when I ask what they were, he could not name them. With some goading, he did recall “stop the boats”.

He cites the 2014 budget as being one of the most innovative of all time and is retrospectively being acknowledged as being so. He admits it was poorly sold but that is the medias fault, not Tony’s.

I put it to him that Malcolm Turnbull has managed to get more of the 2014 budget legislated than Abbott did and he went quiet when I supported my statement with evidence.

He believes in gaining information via what he swears is “balanced media” citing 4BC and Sky as evidence of reliable and balanced sources of information.

A report last week that Malcolm Turnbull stepped in to save Tony Abbott’s seat was addressed by him as being rubbish. He added that this story was leaked by Malcolm Turnbull. I suggested it could not be both rubbish and leaked.

As evidence of his view on the lack of validity of the report he referenced Tony’s 62% two party preferred result in his seat. I abandoned my attempt to discuss the preferential voting system when he admitted he did not know how it worked

However, it was this very story that had me thinking. Purely by accident, I heard analysis about the “saving of Tony Abbott” on the radio by two very different commentators. One was on Radio National where the commentator made the point that the Prime Minister wasn’t motivated by saving his predecessor as much as by saving himself; after all he achieved a one seat victory.

The second commentator was the 4BC breakfast host who was very clear that the entire story was a beat up.

If we consume our ‘balanced media’ from a single source, we are likely to be strongly influenced by that source. Also, we may well be inclined to select the media outlets that best supports what we fundamentally want to believe. This applies equally to the ‘left’ the ‘right’ and the ‘centre’.

We need a strong and diversified media across all medias. We need diversified ownership and diversified cultural influences. Above all, we need a strong, well-funded National Broadcaster.

My major concern is the latter, the National Broadcaster, is likely to be the first casualty. It is somewhat wounded right now, wounds inflicted by the current Prime Minister. However, the leader of the Opposition has been careful not to commit to restoring proper funding in Government.

Maybe Tony Abbott was a great Prime Minister and maybe he is set for a return to the job and maybe I am just listening and watching the wrong media. Perhaps the view so passionately held by my long term friend is representative of popular public opinion.

 

Is it?

ANZAC and the AFL

ANZAC day is a special day on the Australian and New Zealand calendar.

Some 20 years ago, Kevin Sheedy, then coach of AFL powerhouse club Essendon collaborated with Collingwood to play each other every ANZAC day. He garnered the support of the RSL and set up what has become a wonderful commemorative event.

Both clubs committed to playing each ANZAC day irrespective of the day of the week and how many days they had since their last game and before their next.

The game day pre-match ANZAC ceremony is moving and has contributed to many young people learning the story of ANZAC and growing to respect the deeds of the past.

The success of the ANZAC day game has been the source of jealously by other clubs. The enthusiasm for other clubs to get a share of the action has in my opinion resulted in the AFL disrespecting the history of ANZAC.

This round of AFL commenced on Thursday 21 April with a game in Adelaide between Port Adelaide and Carlton. There was a pre-game ANZAC ceremony including a minute of silence and the playing by a single bugle of the Last Post.

ANZAC is a full 4 days away. I have mixed emotions as to the appropriateness of conducting such a ceremony of ANZAC remembrance on a day other than 25 April and similar ceremonies will precede all games played in this round of AFL games.

Is it dis-respectful or in a strange way “commercialising” ANZAC?

Alternatively, is conducting the event across all AFL rounds extending the education of the ANZAC story across all ages and the diversity of cultures that come together in support and appreciation of our indigenous football code?

Retail Evolution or Revolution?

I visited Chermside Shopping Centre a weekend or two ago which in itself is not all that extraordinary.

Like many centres around the country, Chermside seems to be in a constant state of re-building and expansion. More stores, larger stores, more food to be sold and new, diverse food outlets.

I walked through the new area and sure, it was fine. JB HiFi had moved to a larger outlet, as had Kathmandu. Nike joins Adidas as specialist stores, the later having moved from the older area of the centre.

However, are there really that many more people, with the necessary disposable income or credit card capacity to justify this continual expansion.

In the subsequent weeks, several retailers announced disappointing sales figures and others announced update, reduced sales expectations for this year.

On-line sales continue to grow meaning many of our retail sales dollars are passing by traditional shopping centres.

And then Amazon announce they are taking on Australia, aggressively, warehousing goods on shore for delivery, quickly and cheaply. Amazon not only have a history of expansion success (see Spain for example), they research and plan meticulously, invest heavily and execute superbly and dare I say quite ruthlessly. The commit for the long term – they do it properly.

In Australia last year, on-line sales reached $20.8 billion, an increase of 14.2% over the previous year (source National Australia Bank Research).

According to Nielsen Omnibus, 56% of all Australians say they will consider purchasing from Amazon, a figure that must cause concern for traditional retailers, and in particular electrical and clothing outlets.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Shoppers are forever attracted to more convenience when shopping.

The self service supermarkets of today, offering the convenience of everything being under the same roof superseded a time where the first stop on the shopping trip was the greengrocer for fruit and vegetables, it was then off to the butcher for meat and finally the milk bar for milk, cream, ice cream and cheese.

Speak to those “experienced” enough to remember; they will talk of a time where the shop keeper knew you by name, everyone, where the greengrocer might say the carrots are not that good today but the parsnips are superb.

At each “shop stop”, there was a chat about the news and views, the goings on up the road and the latest film showing in the picture theatre on the corner. And if in Melbourne, no conversation is complete without debating the weather.

As much as shopping was an important communication and social activity, the sheer convenience of the one stop supermarket resulted in the demise of the local speciality retailer.

We are merely seeing history repeat itself. The convenience of on-line shopping could ultimately replace much of the need for Chermside style shopping centres, and it could be quicker than we expect.

At the start of 2017, American retailers Macy’s and Sears announced the coming closure of 218 stores. Worse still, another Mall based retailer, The Limited, suddenly closed down all 250 stores with 4000 staff losing their jobs.

The impact such closures has on the Shopping Centres they occupy is potentially crippling.

Australians are known for being rapid adopters of technology and change.

Amazon launching in Australia will have an impact, and one that could change our societal culture and behaviours, quickly.