Incompetents, Bunglers and Expedient Lies

There are many ways to categorise jobs. Blue-collar jobs and white-collar jobs, for example. My favourite, however, is between those jobs where incompetence and failure are easily spottable and those where they are not. Examples of the former are airline pilots, brain surgeons, civil engineers and most trades. Examples of the latter are bankers, public servants and, sadly for us, politicians. In this latter group of jobs, incompetence and failure can fester for years upon years without discovery or penalty.

In case you think otherwise, the distribution of les incompétent among jobs is not random. Pot luck doesn’t apply when it comes to the degree to which the various jobs attract bunglers. For example, jobs which give people power over others, like policing, can attract thugs; as the Victorian police showed during the barbaric lockdowns. Similarly, jobs which disguise incompetence attract the incompetent. This isn’t some brilliant observation. It’s evolution in practice; the bleedingly obvious. Look at the leader of the Free World and his sidekick. Neither would survive very long in jobs demanding competence.

I don’t want to get conspiratorial at this point. However, it bears mentioning that bad intent can more easily hide among the incompetent than the competent. I mean, did that disaster, say soaring energy prices which badly affect the poor, result from incompetence or bad intent? Are the recent sharp increases in interest rates, which have put many young homes buyers into desperate circumstances, due to Reserve Bank incompetence or something else. Hold on, in this case, we can rule out something else. But how about some American prosecutors, helped to office by funding from George Soros, who continually let criminals go free to terrorise new victims. In this case, bad intent seems the much more likely explanation.

Thus, I was struck by two recently reported comments of the Prime Minister. How can they be characterised, I ask myself? This is the first; on the topic of the so-called Voice. “Of course, they [Australians] will know how it [the new body or third chamber] works, but the truth is it’s a pretty simple proposition.” And what is the “simple” proposition to which Mr Albanese refers? “The proposition is where matters affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, then those people, First Nations people, should be consulted on it.”

Let me be kind. Albanese might not be the brightest kid on the block. A Bob Hawke he ain’t. At the same time, he must surely know that the proposition is not simple. I am a self-funded retiree, among other things. Self-funded retirees are not given any special status in the Constitution; nor are pensioners; nor are the sons and daughters of Greek or Chinese migrants. So, the question arises, why should any particular racial group be given special status?

Possibly, you could say that indigenous Australians past and present — note past as well as present — should be acknowledged, apropos Tony Abbott’s formula, in Australia’s founding document. Beyond that the proposition is not simple; it’s as complex as you can possibly get. Not just the detail, like who votes, how often, for whom, and on what does the whom have a say, and what kind of say? But, the very racist idea that a section of citizens with a particular racial background should have a greater say than others.

To wit, Article 1, Section 2 of the US Constitution, dealing with state populations as the basis for apportioning members of the House of Representatives among the states. As originally written: “…whole number of free persons [and] three fifths of all other persons [namely, black slaves].” How about this for part of a comparable new Article in the Australian Constitution:

…those who can’t establish Aboriginal ancestry are disallowed from any form of say in the ‘third’ representative body / chamber which nevertheless may make recommendations which bear on the rights and privileges of those unable to claim Aboriginal ancestry.

What, not even a three-fifths say?

Regrettably, I conclude that Albanese is being deliberately deceptive in pushing his political line. He is setting out to deceive. That is not just incompetence on this occasion.

The second comment was made in a speech at the ABC’s Ultimo headquarters, as part of the marking of the ABC’s 90th year. “A government that chooses to attack a public broadcaster does so motivated by either ideology or fear, or a toxic cocktail of the two … No government should fear the ABC unless it fears the truth,” he reportedly said.

Albanese must know of the intractable left-wing bias of the ABC. He must have seen countless Q&A episodes, the 7.30 Report, Sarah Ferguson’s hammy (un)exposé of the Putin-Trump non-entanglement, the one-eyed persecution of the innocent George Pell, etc. Albanese must have read at least two or three of Gerard Henderson’s masterly accounts of the staff collective, which is their ABC. It seems fair enough to say that on this occasion he’s being disingenuous.

I think we need to keep a weather eye on Mr Albanese. Sure, he may be limited and incompetent, and in that respect be little different to many across the parliament. And this may lead him into making extremely silly remarks, like the ABC being the bastion of truth. But he also might himself have a particularly loose attachment to the truth.

All politicians lie routinely, you might say. I simply don’t think that’s true. Lying isn’t saying something you have to back out of later when the going gets tough. Lying is deliberately saying something you know is wrong at the time in order to gain advantage. Of course, Albanese might  deny bad intent because his desired end justifies the means. Might have come across that before.

17 thoughts on “Incompetents, Bunglers and Expedient Lies

  • PT says:

    What about his other pearler? That electric cars will be charged by solar panels overnight?

  • geoff_brown1 says:

    Is Albo prepared to rule out any reparations as part of any treaty?

  • Brian Boru says:

    We are a land of migrants, from the very first in their canoes or who even walked here. Those who came in chains, those who fled famine, those who fled or survived genocide and war and it’s consequences. To those who came by jet plane yesterday. We acknowledge that in our past, as in most nations, bad things have happened. But we strive to be one people, equality of opportunity for all, no privilege by birth or class, truly one people.
    No special racist Voice.

  • Stephen Due says:

    The ‘anti-racists’ have been promoting division along lines of race for decades. Hence we have the Aboriginal flag, by definition a racist symbol, proudly flown outside federal, state and local government offices. Now we are going to get a racist constitution. Since the pseudo-pandemic fiasco, I’m convinced there’s no low to which the Australian people will not sink, given half a chance.

  • DougD says:

    “I’m convinced there’s no low to which the Australian people will not sink, given half a chance.” Stephen Due, confirming your opinion, have a look at the fine print at the bottom of your Coles supermarket receipt.

  • BalancedObservation says:

    I didn’t vote for him but I’ve been somewhat relieved to watch Anthony Albanese actually in power as distinct from the small target effigy of an opposition leader Labor presented to the people to vote for.

    We’d better hope that Peter Smith is wrong about Anthony Albanese’s level of intelligence – because he’s likely – going by the pathetic performance of Peter Dutton so far – to be PM for two terms or as long as Peter Dutton remains opposition leader.

    “I think we need to keep a weather eye on Mr Albanese.” Agree. Peter Dutton certainly isn’t.

  • loweprof says:

    Speak for yourself, Stephen Due.

  • Daffy says:

    I’ve always thought the right moral thing for the Aborigines at Philip’s time was to welcome the forced refuges from England with open arms. Indeed, some did! After all, that’s what the left expects of us now with illegal economic migrants.

  • Stephen says:

    Dear Daffy, the Aborigines of Phillips time may well have welcomed refuges from England but they would have certainly reconsidered if they had to provide public housing, unemployment benefits, free medical care et al.
    The Welfare State and open borders are fundamentally incompatible.

  • maxpart27 says:

    loweprof, Stephen Due speaks for me as well.


    Indigenous Voice. Another of those euphemisms of which all Australians need to be suspicious.

  • Geoff Sherrington says:

    Peter Smith,
    While I was re-reading your article about incompetents, I heard on talkback radio from a senior investment adviser, words to the effect that “One investment option is the share market. It has been down lately. However, a low in the market is often followed by a high a year or two later.”
    Broadly, sadly, we are a poorly-educated country now. We do not need massive immigration of unskilled people to do the work our own people should be doing. The shortage in Australia is in education and training. It is not about numbers of people, not about immigration as we know it now (but let us press to reduce immigration). Education and training deficiencies should not be involved with the stupidity of diversity and inclusion programs, whose presence reinforces and demonstrates our lack of education.
    Geoff S

  • 27hugo27 says:

    Agreed, Stephen Due, and I’ve said so in Quadrant and other websites. As Smith says, Vicpol is exhibit A. And the still high percentage of mask wearers bodes ill for society. I have been a long time Coles shopper, but the patronising drivel on their receipts along with their sickeningly woke ads have driven me to Woollies.

  • Peter Marriott says:

    Good, original categorisation method Peter, and one I can easily identify with having seen so many “white boiler suit” types all over the world…..usually, but not always, the union representative.
    Also if PM Albanese can identify the ABC with the truth then he’s obviously sucking up to them, or he doesn’t mean the whole truth and nothing but the truth, or else is not aware of some of the ways they train journalists in University in the method of “attachment”, as I have read . It’s the teaching course where the journalists are shown how their own opinion can be worked into their report in the most tendentious way possible, and the words “objectivity”and “truth”are never really mentioned in the course in a stand alone context. The truth then really reduces to opinion and most people can see it, at least those who care to look can……and no rocketry science needed.

  • lbloveday says:

    Coles should consider the environmental damage they do by printing that message for each of their claimed “more than 20 million customer transactions each week” and the associated Carbon-footprint – electricity, trees, ink…..

  • lbloveday says:

    My last line did not appear in the post so repeat:

  • lbloveday says:

    Failed again! It was the standard indicator for “sarcasm”.

Leave a Reply