LEADERSHIP

Once upon a time there was a man who the world watched with envy as he transformed his patch from just plain broke to one marching towards success.  He was a great leader and people admired him for the dedication he showed to making every post a winner.  Other leaders aspired to garner some of his charisma as they said nice things and longed for photo opps. His record on respect for all was just shoved under the carpet because the world could see what he was doing and how he needed to do it.   Then he invaded Poland.

Fast forward 80 or 90 years and we have another leader, a great leader, a leader immersed in cementing his patch as indefatigably supreme. Just like the previous leader, respect for all was low on the list of priorities as he spread his patch’s control by land grab and economic stealth whilst making others dependant on his endless treasure chest.  The world watched exponential growth, strength and fortitude whilst others sought photo opps.  Unlike the last leader this man was quiet, enigmatic and focused with no shouted rallies or look-at-me antics.  One could say inscrutable.  Then he invaded …

How about yet another leader who espouses narcissism and self along with absolute distain for anyone outside of his narrow thinking - the blond spinnaker man with his finger on the red button but without the intelligence to determine just.   A man without letters from a long line of leaders without letters leading a country already shamed with indeginous genocide and sovereign invasion.

This dysfunction happens because we let it.  Indeed, even on a local level, we have a so called leader who is irresponsible and weak as well as being on a power trip with no one to stop him.  He confuses strength with stupidity, maintenance with strategic growth and public safety with an inability to appear strong. Mouth noise replaces lucidity.  Allowing 10,000 people to protest shoulder to shoulder whilst banning groups of more than 10 people in say restaurants under strict social distancing rules during a pandemic is insane. Pity.  

 What does it take for us to recognise a pattern?

The sad thing is that all the above mentioned men are self promoted leaders seemingly doing wonderful things for their own patches albeit at the expense of anyone who stood in their way.  But, in the end, at the expense of their own patch.  They all self promoted greatness but reality disagreed.

History is full of these people and at all levels of government yet we continually turn a blind eye hoping it will get better.  America is currently imploding where respect has left the building and plague terrorises.  The shallowness of past glories laid bare to reality.  Indeed, a new reality in which ‘others’ seek a foothold through quiet, focused and specific incretion.

So, who are the good guys?  Is it Mr Enigmatic, the blond flyover, the lost premier or perhaps our man from Hill song or is it perhaps just everyone and anyone who actually gives a toss?

The media get away with rabidly stupid comments, statistics and data which a 10 year old could see though - yet people believe.  They want to believe because even someone as dysfunctional as those mentioned above are better than wimp after dodgy after hopeless.

What a day for the human race. Not.

Belt & Road Dan strikes out!

Rowan Dean [AFR] wrote of Premier Andrews - “.. a cesspit of self indulgent cosmopolitan culture and disastrous financial management.. ” and “… secret deals signed with Beijing overlords …” and “… his bungling treasurer …” .  His opinion of his Federal counterpart was not much better.  “… the scheming eunuch Al-Bo and his insane proclamations which would send Australia into a death spiral [paraphrased but not much] …”.

Victoria, from a debt free prosperous and viable state to one of eye watering debt owed to ‘someone’ who will expect interest and security.  That someone will own some $50 billion’s worth of Victoria.

Apart from secret deals with a regime which has, does and is proving on a daily basis to ignore the world in which it sits [HK, Taiwan, S^th China Sea, global trade rules, Australia, USA, et alia] possibly putting our sovereignty at risk and, spending billions of our money on a power trip whilst ignoring funding from the Federal government on independently identified essential infrastructure [East West link] and funding the destruction of heritage properties [Sandringham golf course] and proving a lack of rational thought by banning activities during our exposure to the global pandemic such as fishing, golf and archery which are all, by their very nature, social distanced.  All as a “look at me I’m doing something to stop this pandemic all by myself”.  

A laughing stock from Canberra and even from the other states who have not followed his bizarre behaviour.   He is on his own in the real world and out of control but out of control threatening our sovereignty, our financial security and our future.  He even claims to have closed the borders despite the Prime Minister doing just that.  Perhaps it didn’t occur to him that he CAN’T close ‘national’  borders or claim credit.

We need a return to slightly right centrist and intelligent government.  A government which supports labour initiatives albeit with a dose of reality and professional management. 

Where is the liberal party currently?  Where are the voices of dissent?  I can’t remember anyone with enough presence and basic gumption since Kennett.  Stop this Premier before he destroys Victoria. 

Last thought, how about spending say a billion on solving Victoria’s homeless ‘crisis’ instead of funding level crossing ‘maintenance’ projects.  Priorities are wrong.

Covid, Golf, Archery, Business...

One of the things about being human is that we tend to self preserve.  For example, driving a car we don’t swerve into oncoming traffic or we don’t go too near the edge of a cliff.  This is a given even for the dross but always excepting those fantastic people who put themselves in harm’s way for others - like any person dealing with Covid19 on the front line.

The other axiom about being human is the fact that it enables the ‘bullshit’ meter.  We can tell/feel when something is array or doesn’t meet the common sense test despite that something being touted as true and correct by the pontificators often with an obvious brain / mouth disconnect.

Add Covid19 to these two axioms and the pressure mounts on those charged with preserving our way of life to get it right whilst taking people along with the logic on the way to getting it right.  If that fails then people will ignore any edicts seen as failing the so called ‘pub test’. 

There is no ‘one size fits all’ when we discuss protecting ourselves from Covid19.  Blanket restrictions are easy but will be ignored with the instigators mocked.  But, there are always exceptions – closing our borders quickly was a great move and if there were doubters the Ruby Princess validated that position. 

But, pontificating without substance is a crime against humanity because it treats people as idiots and we are not!  Self preservation and the bullshit meter kick in and we begin to see just how lacking in common sense those in charge are and/or the ‘look at me’ lengths they will go to try and prove they are actually intelligent and doing something.

Just as examples.  People need an outlet or they will go troppo and disobey.  As far as I understand it, staying at home is a blanket restriction to stop interaction thereby stopping exponential infection.  We have the experts telling us that Covid 19 can live on surfaces we touch and can only spread by close contact with an infected person or off that surface.  1.5 m being the distance of safety and face masks are not necessary.   Therefore, it follows that as long as we sanitise by alcohol or soap and keep 1.5 m apart total isolation is not necessary. Why is this important?  Because the economic damage caused by ‘over the top’ restrictions is haemorrhaging our country.  The exception to this is isolating people returning from a known ‘hot spot’ or identified as possibly infected. 

How about Victorian [only Victoria] golf courses being closed costing millions of dollars in job keeper / seeker and lost revenues.  The way I and most others play golf is in absolute isolation spending far more time in the bushes than anywhere near others or indeed real grass.  With a few simple rules golf can help people avoid going troppo.  For some reason, golf driving ranges were also shut down.  Driving ranges are designed around self isolation with each person in their own bay at least 1.5m apart.  This is a no brainer as it’s basic self preservation against getting your head knocked off.  The people shutting driving ranges down are seen as stupid pontificators avoiding actual thought.

The other activity / sport is archery which was shut down and now suffers from a 10 person per acre edict.  In archery each target is roughly 1.5 m to 2.5 m apart centre to centre with easy changes to separation.  This automatically complies with the 1.5 m rule yet archery was shut down.  Now it seems archery can only have 10 people at one time in a field of over an acre.  Where is the common sense?  Archery is another activity which automatically practices self distancing.  Logical really as no one wants to be shot!  More millions lost.  Now, do we count the number of people on a train, tram or bus to make sure there are just 9 before we jump on? There goes a few more million.

People will self preserve.  Just look at the behaviour of people walking on a footpath.  They will go to great lengths to make sure they keep 1.5m apart.  I do.

The key to people protecting themselves seems to be the 1.5 m separation and fanatical hand washing.  This is easy.  As Patsy from ABFAB said, “I would never have thought my hands would consume more alcohol than my mouth.”

It is imperative we protect ourselves whilst doing stuff such as golf or archery to stop going stir crazy and both make and spend money.  OUR government is not a separate financial entity, it’s our money they are taxing and spending and it needs to be both sourced and judiciously spent.  I reckon our State’s debt alone with our current government will approach $100 billion with a small part being due to Covid19.  The interest alone on these borrowings is eye watering.

If I can make a plea – think through edicts before proclamation because they can be too encompassing remembering we will self preserve and one size does not fit all.  The excuse, erring on the side of caution, just shows a lack of thought.

People will protect their patch given logic and proof.  As they are doing with 1.5m separation and hand washing.

We need to return to normality ASAP for our countries’ sake.   Business and personal activity must be preserved.

Our restaurant is take away only and my wife and I now play extremely competitive table tennis for money [$1] on the dining room table.  The first stops us haemorrhaging too much money and the second keeps brain and reflexes alive.  We went to the driving range yesterday as it’s now open – no change in talent [ho hum] – look forward to scrabbling through the bushes on the course – ‘preserving’ the grass.

Reverse Parking

There is a trend, a somewhat dysfunctional and stupid trend, to reverse park rather than park front in.  This is both selfish and dumb for two basic and very obvious reasons - traffic flow and vehicle access.

What goes through the mind of  someone who rocks into the car park at say South Melbourne market to fill the boot with vegetables, groceries and bottles of cheer to hold up all traffic so they can attempt a reverse park into a tight spot when they know they will be unable to eventually get their shopping trolley between parked cars or anywhere near the boot - if they can open the tailgate at all!  Apart from a lack of thought for other people they foil the very purpose of going shopping – making it easy to get the stuff home.  Instead, why not just spy a car park and zip forward into the space with no traffic hold up leaving the boot with easy easy access then, when leaving, wait for a break in the traffic and zip out.  Simple and thoughtful of others.

Still I suspect thought and a propensity to reverse park are mutually exclusive.

Not dead yet

Does that term conjure up images of a ‘really focused future’?  It should!

Many of us [I am 71] are looking to continue our bad habits of a lifetime in a place of style and comfort surrounded by our ’toys’.  Some of which we may even remember using.  Not the McMansion but efficient utilisation of space and clever design with low overheads.  Simple.

Retirement is a dirty word especially given a future life that is full of challenges yet to be fulfilled.  Indeed, this ‘place’ is not about tennis, skiing or golf or anything other than walking into a self felt nirvana whilst being surrounded by the ‘stuff’ of a lifetime including toys with which we can remember, fondle and dream.  Simple!

So, we need a double plus garage to take the brace of Ferraris [or Ferrari feel a-likes], a library to gather dust, a one-level bathroom with steam room to sooth the aches, a second room come office with fold down bed for those horrible visitors who won’t go home, an open fire to warm the bum, a bloody big TV to watch golf, a usable kitchen with a big dining table for the aforementioned freeloaders, multiple places to hang ‘art’, a security system God couldn’t get past and a small outdoor area where the live-in pooch can deposit their DNA.  Simple!

Boundary build with no waste space to mow or weed except the controlled DNA patch, 14m * 12m, prefab everything, erected to lockup with built-ins in a heartbeat, interiors and surface finish within weeks. Simple!

An internal focus of space and delight from which to leap into a future.  Build anywhere!  Simple!

Life is for living and it starts with human architecture.  Architecture which feeds the soul.

Owning a restaurant

Be in no doubt.  Owning and running a restaurant is not purgatory or life threatening.

What it is, is fun, profitable and enables a lifestyle the envy of most.

People who perhaps should rethink their ability to be successful tend to blame mutually exclusive factors for their demise such as restaurant over-supply , long hours or even Uber-eats.  It’s simply not true.

People tend to blame ‘others’ after they have failed to deal with all the ‘fun’ challengers.  Beware the pontificating dross!   

The first key concept is that owning a restaurant is actually real hands on work not to be confused with just sitting at home directing the minions to achieve.  They won’t!

Secondly, restaurants fall over because they can’t deal with inevitable quiet times or their offering does not meet the ‘wow’ factor or they remain undifferentiated with no discernible focus to attract spenders.

Thirdly, there never were days gone past when all you had to do was open the door and people would throw money in.  It’s a myth perpetrated by those seeking solace or the ‘oh woe is me’ syndrome.

It’s not what happens, it’s how you deal with it!  Obviously there are no guarantees and success can be sometimes a fleeting goal but these failures are nothing compared to the many restaurateurs having a ball.  We had a failure a few years ago but we dealt with it and moved on to more fun than you can shake a stick at.

Currently we have a tiny bistro seating just 16 people which we open 5 days and perhaps 30 hours a week for around 44 weeks a year and we have just been awarded out of London, ‘Australian restaurant of the year’.  Our product is differentiated with just my wife and I working, open short hours, travel the world and, we own the bar!  Did I mention having fun?

The thought challenged with a distracted ego fail on many fronts to deal with all the issues involved expecting to just open the doors and all will be tickety boo.  Life and restaurants are not like that.

I play golf badly, failing all the time to whip that grass into shape.  But it’s still God’s sport and it’s fun.  There is no greater challenge in playing against an opponent you can never beat!  And, it’s just bloody grass!  Restaurants are the same – good days, bad days, fun days and abject misery days.  

Good, isn’t it!

FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT BY BANKS

The dysfunction surrounding financial assessment of a proposed borrower is currently NOT about the borrower per say but about ‘productivity system intervention’ of the process designed to reduce staff costs for the FSP.  Indeed, to achieve ‘productivity’ targets everyone is lumped into categories and ‘assessed’ by software with little ability by people to press anything other than button a or b.  Quick?  Yes  / Simple? Yes / Accurate?  No.

As a matter of fact, it’s rubbish.

For example, I had occasion to shop around for a new home loan with a major bank and was unfortunately transferred to an idiot with no capacity for rational thought [indeed 3 times with 3 banks].  The monthly expenses that they insisted we incurred were a bank construct by a team of further idiots divested from reality [See AFR Sat 17/8/2019 report damning banks incompetence].  He / they just couldn’t understand the fact that we run a company with tax implications affecting our expenses.  He did not want to understand pre and post tax expenses.  A simple concept for anyone with half a brain but not for this bank employee making decisions between A and B. 

Dysfunctional for both the bank and the client!

To further this dysfunction it has been adjudged [same case – see comment on Caviar] that a client can actually self assess their expenses with some degree of alacrity.  ASIC lost the case to Westpac because the judge said that a prospective purchaser could adjust their spending habits to suit their commitments quite easily.  He virtually threw out the banks system of personal assessment.  Drive a Porsche before the house purchase but drive a VW after because there is only so much money. 

Simple.

There is no such thing as one size fits all and no such thing as a low level bank loans assessor with enough knowledge to make informed decisions.  Pushing button A or B doesn’t cut it.

They deal with a financial process over common sense.   So called productivity gone rampant.

The fix?  Training, training, training.  Front line bank staff need to understand finance.  Not just how to press button A or B. 

Assessment is all about risk factors.  Risks for the bank albeit now the impetus is shifting where bad advice and or bad process negatively affecting a client is also seen as a breach of fiduciary duty by the loan assessor / bank with responsibility subsumed by the bank and the application of pecuniary penalties. 

However, in effect, the banks risks are low because they have assurity through say a mortgage guarantee.  The problem for the banks is when the value of that guarantee slips below the outstanding loan as they would then be trading insolvent.

All the risk is on the client being able to make payments.  In the beginning by good financial analysis [not the aforementioned idiot] but no one can predict future events.  We all hope life is tickety boo and that we remain the person our dog thinks we are and we remain financially fluid.  This is where good planning comes in.  There must be a safeguard built in to protect people against short term issues.  A ‘nest egg’ by any other name.  The availability of money to pay loans in times of stress.

These are readily available with products such as offset accounts and interest only loans.  Both allow a financial hiatus in times of stress.  The trick for a lot of people is to keep the ‘de-stressing’ contingency balance without spending it. 

This is where the whole financial system needs to be adjusted and thought through.

We all want our own home and the Porsche returned but banks lending 95%+ disallows this life ambition as there is no risk contingency.  Really, only unemployment can cause headaches because without a contingency the Porsche is gone once again followed by the home.  Not good.

In an expanding market, the banks risks are low as is the overall financial position of the borrower because asset value increases will leave a balance to start again in the event of default.  Not good but not life threatening.  However unemployment in a contracting market will be devastating for the opposite reasons.

Therefore it is critical to factor in say a two year contingency balance to cover expenses in the case of unemployment et alia.  This is not available money to retrieve the Porsche but a controlled fund by the bank [not the idiot] to be made available with proven hardship.  A de-stressing fund.

Let’s assume the idiot gets retrained and becomes human and has to assess John & Mary's home loan application.  Financial alacrity is critical in understanding the expense patterns of the borrowers.  Understanding, not computer driven assumptive rubbish.

John sold the Porsche, structured his finances through a holding company and had the minimum deposit [the sacrificed Porsche].  The assessor analysed past credit card statements to ascertain willingness to repay debt, analysed EBIT to ascertain capacity to repay including pre and post tax expenses, and, sought a credit rating to ascertain past issues.  All keeping in mind that the client wants his house and will fight tooth and nail to make sure it’s kept in the family.  In the same way we drive a car just metres from death yet we have a self preservation instinct stopping us taking risks.

The big difference we need to initiate is the contingency balance concept where the borrower and the bank are assured of financial survival over say a two year default cycle through no fault of John or Betty.

It’s simple and it’s based on an assumption that values will always increase in the long term with short term fluctuations being irrelevant. 

The assessor has figured out that John & Mary pay their debts on time most of the time, have no ‘material’ credit defaults and have a steady income able to sustain a 95% mortgage with the Porsche sale as deposit.

The assessor has also calculated 2 years of expenses for John & Mary as a total figure which happens to come to 5% of the purchase price.

He then offers John & Mary a loan with an interest rate based on a REAL risk assessment [not by the idiot].  In this case they needed 90% leverage for which they received a nice lumpy cheque.  However, their debt was actually 95% with the 5% reinvested by the bank as an offset only to be accessed in a proven emergency such as unemployment.  All these 5% ‘s can reside in a special bank fund controlled by the bank with offsets automatically deducted for outstanding debt.  In this way the client is not tempted to spend it and they receive the benefit.

Simple.

Everyone wins!

This simple change almost eliminates risk for both the bank and the borrower as well as de-stressing everyone because everyone knows there is a ‘2 year nest egg’ of available money if …. !!

I urge the FSP’s to think this through by real breathing humans analysing risk, returns and the provision of a ‘forced’ safety buffer.  It’s a much a psychological comfort system as a financial safety net which would allow everyone to relax just a little bit more toward that tickety boo nirvana.

John & Mary have their house, a dog who believes they are close to God, two expensive kids and John has his Porsche back.  Life is good. 

Security through planning.

DEEMING CLAUSES AND UNCONSCIONABLE CONDUCT - A LAY PERSONS OPINION

Submission and argument that Financial Services Providers reliance on deeming clauses within their terms and conditions is misfounded … [many sources and paraphrased quotes]

 ‘Deemed’ – to adjudge a point of view as fact [my df].

 “Can an action or intention to action be deemed as unconscionable if that act or intention is against good conscience but as yet has no victim”.  The corollary is that there is no unconscionable intent until someone is affected? [Has the tree fallen if no one sees it fall?].

Take for example a contract and in the fine print there is a clause which stipulates that one party has the right to terminate the contract if they ‘deem’ any issue they wish a breach of that contract and the contract becomes null and void without loss of benefit to the author of the contract.   An obvious nonsense.

Now let’s assume, in the normal run of events, that a company is in a strong position with services in demand or people needing those services.  People sign off the contract including the ‘deeming clause’ because they have little choice.  Say a tenancy lease or a credit card contract.  At what point and under what circumstances does the enforcement of the deeming clause become unconscionable and do we even need an enforcement to recognise this term as unconscionable and to be read down?

I believe that it is enough to make such clauses unconscionable even if there is no victim just because it may confuse, coerce and mislead people and it has the intent of doing just that and advantaging the author unconscionably at the expense of others.

Take most credit contracts.   They will all have a similar deeming clause somewhere in their terms and conditions which allows an FSP to summarily terminate an agreement and demand instant repayment of a loan.  Yet there are provisions within the Code of Banking Practice, the Australian Consumer Law and the ASIC act which specifically preclude an FSP from actioning their deeming clause without due process.

So, on one hand we have the FSP with their deeming clauses and alleged cancellation rights and we have the law on the other stopping or at least modifying the same alleged rights.  As the FSP is well aware of the law and well aware of the way their deeming clause is inappropriate then isn’t the inclusion of such a clause by definition, unconscionable and unlawful because the intent of the clause is to take unconscionable advantage - even if it’s never acted on!

Therefore the precursor to any litigation is whether or not the deeming clause is unfair because the intent of the FSP is unconscionable.  I would say that any clause which purports to allow one party to just deem a contract null and void to someone’s disadvantage must be read down as it would be unconscionable to leave it there.

Now, an FSP acts on the deeming clause and we have a victim.  Mr Victim had a credit contract and was using his ‘card’ for everyday things and accumulating frequent flyer points and paying his monthly commitments.  He was late a couple of times but fixed the arrears and all was well.  Then someone from the FSP decided to change policy and deemed the victim’s card cancelled and the victim had to repay the entire debit within a few days because that’s what the deeming clause said.

This put the victim instantly in a state of special financial disadvantage for at least two very important reasons.  Firstly, he had to find the money elsewhere to pay the loan [if he could] and secondly he had relied on the line of credit and had no other money to live on or pay bills.  In effect he had relied on the FSP acting conscionably and in compliance with all parts of the law. Mr Victim complained but the FSP just pointed to the deeming clause as justification for the cancellation.  The FSP was well aware of the law but chose to mislead and coerce the victim into believing they had the right.  Now, not only is the deeming clause unconscionable but the FSP has acted on that clause in the full knowledge of its effect on the victim.  The act is also unconscionable and caused Mr Victim to lurch into a state of special financial disadvantage.

Perhaps Mr Victim has an actionable case against the FSP on at least two grounds.  Firstly, the FSP included such a clause with obvious unconscionable intent and secondly, it acted on it possibly outside the provisions of law.  I would say that pecuniary penalties apply for both inclusion and act and the victim needs to be compensated.

Further …Unconscionable conduct - irreconcilable with what is right or reasonable and show no regard for conscience. [pecuniary penalty circa $1.1m]

Recent decisions (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Lux Distributors Pty Ltd [2013] FCAFC 90) made it clear that for conduct to be seen as unconscionable the determining factor was the respondent’s conduct and not the applicant’s response. It is the ‘conduct’ which is at issue and not the applicant else it could be said that the applicant is being tried for the conduct of the respondent.  A nonsense. 

Whilst it is noted that it is not sufficient for unfair, unjust, wrong or unreasonable conduct by itself to be deemed unconscionable it is quite sufficient when that conduct involves deliberate wrongdoing.

The newly amended prohibition on unconscionable conduct now makes it clear that the statutory prohibition against unconscionable conduct is not limited by the common law concept of unconscionable conduct.  The amendments also make clear that inherent systems or patterns of such conduct are prohibited, whether or not an individual is disadvantaged by the alleged behaviour. The focus, therefore, is on conduct which may offend good conscience, whether or not a "victim" is involved.  Importantly, there is now no distinction between consumer and business transactions in the factors the court may have regard to for the purpose of determining whether conduct is unconscionable.

A clause in a contract can also be declared unconscionable, even if there was no unconscionable conduct in the way the contract was signed. For example the Victorian Supreme Court has held that a clause in the fine print of a contract that created an onerous obligation was unconscionable.

Therefore, given the weight of discussion, why do FSP’s continue to include transparent ‘deeming’ clauses when that very inclusion seems to labeL  them as unconscionable?

Andrews out of control

Our State Government is out of control - again.  Like 5 year olds having found the lolly jar and woofing without thought, the Premier has no fear about ruining Victoria’s heritage or spending what he doesn’t have plunging us once again into massive debt.

The iconic bathing boxes are but a further example of his lack of a history led vision. 

How about Andrews turning an internationally recognised St Kilda ‘go to’ icon into a tram stop.  Acland street has gone and so has the history because some idiot thought it appropriate to build a tram super stop  a hundred meters or so from the already existing super stop outside Luna Park.  This is lunacy and vandalism of our history. 

How about Andrews giving $10m to destroy the last inner Melbourne sand-belt ‘peoples’ golf course being Sandringham.  A public course for over 80 years and what should have been treated as a national icon and lauded as a traditional test of golf.  One of his excuses was that women couldn’t play golf on a normal course and needed a shorter course.  This in itself is sexist and demeaning.  The course should have been treated with respect and with professional grounds people creating excellence.  Not so.  Sandringham golf course is now bulldozed and another slice of our history gone with it. 

How about permits being issued from the State Government at odds with the local council to destroy 2 Victorian mansions at 23 Brighton Road St Kilda and replacing them with 17 by 2 story dog boxes thereby also creating access nightmares .  How about wasting $1.2b of our money by NOT building something being the East West link which will have to be built anyway.  This is lunacy!  And, where is the money coming from to fund all the spending?  This is a big question!!

History proved that Cain / Kirner sent us nearly broke and smashed our international credit rating  – “ Ms Kirner was, of course, a senior member of a deeply dysfunctional government [Cain] which presided over the Pyramid, Tricontinental, State Bank and Victorian Economic Development Corporation financial disasters which undermined the state’s economy and saddled the government with a significant debt burden.” [Australian] – The damage was massive and it seems nothing has changed.

The world wants to impeach Trump before he destroys it.  He is a laughing stock as is Andrews amongst anyone who actually thinks.  Neither are funny.  Perhaps we can impeach Andrews?

How about a proper parliamentary enquiry into ‘our’ finances? 

How about Heritage Victoria actually doing something to preserve our history and planning decisions being transparent before the event? 

How about so called ‘developers’ locked up for frenetic night time demolition of historic buildings? 

How about ‘real’ public debate on contentious issues not just so called consultation ‘after’ the event has been actioned?

Kennett had to rescue us the last time from an out of control government including their unions who were also at their dysfunctional worst.  Think how many tram strikes, power blackouts and sheer angst we had to put up with before Kennett.

Now, who is going to challenge Andrews?

I hope someone will step up.

Sigmund Jorgensen Ave atque vale amicus meus

Here is Sigmund 'at home' plodding around in his workshop at Montsalvat.

I first argued with Sigmund at his restaurant Clichy in the late 60’s [I think] for letting people smoke cigars whilst we were eating.  He just looked at me with his typical ignominious smile, almost said something and moved on, swanning between tables, as he did.

That smile didn’t change.  Indeed, for the past 16 years we have argued, sledged and shared life at Mon Ami restaurant maybe 1 or 2 times a week over most weeks.  That’s 500+ arguments all in good humour and friendship.  

How good is that!

Sigmund, always out there enjoying life and conversation and wine and food and memories.

Ave atque vale amicus meus