23 September, 2015

Brendan O'Neill Nail's It

Lesson for Tony Abbott: think like an elite or quit public life

Whenever a party topples its leader, our first instinct is to go looking for the knife-wielders.
Who plotted this? Who landed the first blow? Who played the Brutus role, siding with the ousters despite being mates with the doomed leader?
We look behind the scenes. We wonder what was said in corridors at the dead of night. We try to piece together how the new factions were formed and the old ones were elbowed aside.
But we mustn’t lose sight of the other key ingredient of all polite, bloodless coups: how they come to be talked about in public; how they get mythologised.
It’s never enough only to look at who said what to whom in a smokeless committee room at midnight. No, to fully understand a party’s removal of its own head we must also look at what is happening in front of the scenes, in public discussion.
A coup has two parts: the hidden skulduggery and the public justifications for such skulduggery. It’s only by considering both that we may arrive at a clear-eyed understanding of what happened, and why. If we do this for the Malcolm Turnbull-Tony Abbott scrap, then something very interesting — and worrying — starts to emerge: a feeling that Abbott was dumped not because he was an ineffective leader but because his world view failed to conform with what political and media insiders consider to be proper and progressive.
There’s more to this than Liberal infighting; it also feels like a chattering-class coup, the exiling of a leader for daring to think things that opinion-shapers consider heretical.
If we look in front of the scenes of the Turnbull-Abbott drama, one consistent message takes shape: a key problem with Abbott was that he was “out of touch” on certain issues, most notably climate change and gay marriage.
This has shaped the coverage of the coup around the world. Virtually every news piece on the drama Down Under prominently tells us that Turnbull supports gay marriage (though he seems keen to stick with Abbott’s idea of having a plebiscite) and that he is “far better” on climate change.
London’s Daily Mail made a list of the battling leaders’ attitude to issues. Turnbull, the Mail said, was a “firm believer in climate change” and a “vocal supporter of gay marriage”, while Abbott “once said ‘climate change is crap’ ” and would not allow a “free vote on same-sex marriage”. The two men’s thinking on the economy and international affairs came much further down the article.
That the Mail referred to Turnbull as a “firm believer” in climate change confirms the pseudo-religiosity swirling around that issue.
In recent years, belief in climate change and support for gay marriage have become chattering-class litmus tests. These are secular gospel truths you must embrace to gain entrance to polite society. Fail to embrace them and you’re a “denier” and a “homophobe”, to be cast out.
The judgment of Turnbull and Abbott via the green-gay gospel was repeated across the media, from CNN to The Sydney Morning Herald. CNN ran a piece headlined “Five things to know about Australia’s new PM”. No 1 was that he had challenged Abbott before. Guess what No 2 and No 3 were? Yep, “He’s strong on climate change” and “He supports same-sex marriage”.
The implicit message of this global obsession with how Turnbull differs from Abbott on those two issues is that he’s someone we can do business with; he has embraced modern, PC orthodoxies.
The mantra of “He supports same-sex marriage” — uttered everywhere — is the new way of saying: “He goes to church every Sunday.” It marks him out as “one of us”, unlike Abbott.
Pink News, Britain’s most widely read gay magazine, went so far as to celebrate the “toppling” of Australia’s “anti-gay marriage leader”. Well, if he doesn’t support gay marriage he doesn’t deserve to run a country, right? Hound the heretic.
Whatever the internal Liberal machinations that led to the ousting of Abbott, the public mythologisation of his removal is revealing and terrifying.
It speaks to the new intolerance, where anyone who refuses to buy into chattering-class orthodoxies can expect ridicule, and maybe even the termination of their careers.
And the small matter that two years ago the Coalition got five million votes with Abbott as their leader, and with his views on climate change and same-sex marriage known? Never mind that. What does democracy matter in comparison with doing what the media and political elites consider to be right?
And so have the parameters of public debate shrunk even further. It isn’t only Abbott who has been given his marching orders. Through this coup we’re all warned that if we hold views that the elite considers foul, or old-fashioned, we’ll be marked “unfit for public life”.

18 September, 2015

The Renewable Energy Dilemma

Renewable energy claims are unsustainable

Renewables also hurt the poor through higher prices

September 9, 2015 by Larry Bell

Whereas “renewable energy” conjures up visions of wind, solar, and tidal power, “clean” energy sources that will last forever to power the world into a “green,” sustainable future, it won’t happen without an Orwellian restructuring of the world’s social and economic fabric as envisioned by the UN’s Commission on Environment and Development more commonly known as the Bruntland Commission.
Chaired in the late 1980s by Gro Harlem Brundtland, a former prime minister of Norway, the commission set about to advance what appeared to be a noble and desirable cause.
Its foundational report, titled Our Common Future, stated: “Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable in order to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations.” So far, it seems pretty hard to argue with a goal like that.
Unfortunately, while it would be great if wind and solar power could accomplish this, their potential capacities and reliabilities just aren’t there.
As for tidal power, applications for utility scale power generation are both unproven and doubtful. Ditto for geothermal, which is another geographically and capacity-limited source.
In other words, none of these “renewables” offer anything remotely close to a sustainability panacea . . . either now or likely ever. Nuclear power, breeder reactors in particular, come much nearer to making a real difference, yet never seem to get the same credit.
As Roger Andrews observes in his August 26 Energy Matters: Environment and Policy blog, the Brundtland Commission went on to link sustainable development objectives to eradicating world poverty . . . again something that sounds really good. Its report stated: “Poverty is not only an evil in itself, but sustainable development requires meeting basic needs of all and extending to all the opportunity to fulfill their aspirations for a better life. A world in which poverty is endemic will always be prone to ecological and other catastrophes.”
Sure, let’s all agree that poverty is a truly tragic condition.
The big rub here is that eradicating poverty won’t be accomplished by depriving desperate world populations of access to affordable and reliable energy — those who now depend upon animal dung fuel for heating, cooking, and water purification — people who lack electricity essential for refrigeration to keep perishable food safe or provide periodic lighting.
And that’s exactly what is happening through international lending programs that emphasize costly and anemic “renewables” while denying vital funds needed to develop abundant local fossil fuel resources.
So the Bruntland Commission offered another condition. In order to raise underdeveloped countries out of poverty, “Sustainable global development requires that those who are more affluent adopt lifestyles within the planet’s ecological means — in their use of energy, for example.” In other words, the solution is for rich countries to send money and become subordinate to a U.N.-run world government which will ensure equal distribution of financial and natural resources.
Needless to say, that world government would also decide what common lifestyle levels and ecological means are acceptable.

Such decisions must include social engineering to control optimum population size. As Our Common Future admonishes: “Sustainable development can only be pursued if population size and growth are in harmony with the changing productive potential of the ecosystem.”

Hey, it’s merely a guess, but perhaps limiting access to affordable energy might be a very effective means to accomplish that desired population reduction.
If any of this sounds familiar, you might understand that the Brightland Commission’s sustainable development mantra provided the foundation for the UN’s Agenda 21 program, which calls for reorienting lifestyles away from consumption, encouraging citizens to pursue free time over wealth, resource-sharing through co-ownership, and global wealth redistribution — beginning with ours.
A 1993 UN report, titled Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet, proposes “a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced — a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources.”
The report emphasizes that “this shift will demand a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”
Last year President Obama’s Council on Sustainable Development was organized to develop recommendations for incorporating sustainability into the U.S. federal government. Predictably, grant programs issued through HUD, the EPA, and nearly every other alphabet agency will spread their Kool-Aid policies throughout the nation.
As Tom DeWeese forewarns in a “Reality News Media” blog, while such grants will be represented as voluntary, expect ongoing restrictions on energy use, development, building material, plumbing and electric codes, land use and water controls, public transportation, and light rail subsidies, and pressures for communities to impose politically correct and economically disastrous and socially unsustainable Agenda 21 development plans.
Welcome to life in the ant colony they have in mind.

07 September, 2015

Cheer Up: The True Mother Of Invention Is Optimism

Cheer Up: The True Mother Of Invention Is Optimism
The Sunday Times, 6 September 2015

Luke Johnson

Always remember that throughout history the pioneers have been exalted, while the doomsayers are forgotten.


IT IS easy to fall into a slump at this time of year. Returning to rain, darker evenings and the daily grind after a summer holiday in sunnier climes — there are plenty of excuses to feel gloomy. Such seasonal dips in mood are entirely forgivable. But in the long run, for both your health and wealth, research shows it pays to be an optimist. Positive thinkers live longer and enjoy higher incomes.

In general, despite the pessimism of the media, academics and socialists, things are getting better. Andrew Haldane of the Bank of England gave an excellent speech in February about growth. He discussed the challenges society faces — inequality, short-termism, poor infrastructure, high levels of debt, worsening demographics and so forth — but overall he argued that each generation has been about a third better off than its predecessor — and there are no fundamental reasons why this progression should not continue.

One of my favourite optimists is Matt Ridley, who has written a new book called The Evolution of Everything: How Ideas Emerge. He argues that the key ingredient for higher standards of living is innovation, and that this is a bottom-up phenomenon, an emergent property of human nature — and will therefore always be with us.

It covers some of the same territory as Mass Flourishing, by the Nobel prize winner Edmund Phelps. His book suggests that individuals matter much less than overall culture and social values. The subtitle of Phelps’s text is How Grassroots Innovation Created Jobs, Challenge and Change.

His thesis is that most industrial discoveries were not pioneered by a few isolated visionaries. Instead, progress has been driven by huge numbers of citizens empowered to create and sell thousands of incremental improvements — from craftsmen and farmers to traders and factory workers.

Similarly, Ridley argues: “The growth of technology, the sanitation-driven health revolution, the quadrupling of farm yields so that more land could be released for nature — these were largely emergent phenomena. So was the internet, the mobile phone revolution and the rise of Asia.”

In many other aspects of life, the world is improving. According to the Office for National Statistics, Britain’s violent crime rate is less than half what it was in the mid-1990s, while life expectancy in wealthier nations has risen by six years over the past 25.

Steven Pinker argues in The Better Angels of Our Nature that war and homicide have been in decline for thousands of years. The world is a much safer place.
Another new book to lift the spirits is Ronald Bailey’s The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-First Century. He tackles overpopulation, GM food, peak oil, climate change and other apocalyptic visions. He claims that free enterprise and technology can solve mankind’s problems, just as they have in the past. He also attacks the “precautionary principle”, which distorts so much institutional behaviour and leads to fatuous overregulation and organisational timidity.

The forerunner of all these authors was Julian Simon, who wrote The Ultimate Resource in 1981, puncturing myths of scarcity and despair. It remains essential reading.

I have come to the conclusion that the worst almost never happens — the vast majority of dire predictions by negative commentators and supposed experts are simply nonsense.

Mankind developed a capacity to imagine terrible outcomes as an insurance policy so we could avoid threats and disasters. But being constantly in dread of fresh catastrophes is impractical and taints our judgment. Those who expect to be unhappy or ill or a failure are more likely to succumb to their anxieties.

Indeed, the neuroscientist Tali Sharot in her book The Optimism Bias: Why We’re Wired to Look on the Bright Side, shows how people taking irrational risks can benefit humanity as a whole.

Many entrepreneurs I know say they would never have embarked on the slog of building a business from scratch had they known at the beginning how difficult the journey would be. But thank God they did: that is how invention happens, how new machines and drugs come about, how material advances are made.

The world is full of opportunity, and its resources remain abundant. Improvements take place incrementally and rarely form headlines. By contrast, calamities capture our attention but they can also distort our perspective in harmful ways.

Some might say: “Aren’t you worried about the market collapse in China?” Or, indeed, whatever is this month’s big panic.

But the answer is not to dwell on matters over which you have no control, and instead focus on the limitless possibilities that lie ahead, seizing your personal chances as they arise.

Always remember that throughout history the pioneers have been exalted, while the doomsayers are forgotten.

Luke Johnson is chairman of Risk Capital Partners and the Centre for Entrepreneurs.

27 August, 2015

Submission to the Select Senate Committee on the Murray Darling Basin Plan

From the time that the Howard Government, in an attempt to garner "green" votes, decided to throw $10bn at the Murray Darling Basin, the management of the Basin has been a political football. This vote chasing initiative arose as the great Millennium Drought was biting hard and water shortages, the natural consequences of drought, were being erroneously blamed on extractions for irrigation. The term "over-allocation" entered the national lexicon.

In the years preceding the drought there was extensive reform of water regulation throughout the Basin. "The cap" limiting extractions to the 1993/4 level was introduced and John Anderson's National Water Initiative was passed introducing property rights and market trading of water entitlements and water allocations. These were all positive moves and reinforced Australia's international reputation as a leader in effective water management.

It is fundamental to a proper understanding of water management to recognise the difference between entitlements and allocations. Entitlements grant the holder an ongoing share of consumptive water when there is an allocation. An entitlement without an allocation is phantom water. For each of the Basin rivers there is a water sharing plan which guides the granting of allocations. These plans give priority to critical human and animal needs, followed by assIessed environmental needs and then and only then, are allocations for irrigation extractions even considered.

These principles are applied in a regime of massive natural variability. Our rainfall and run-off is arguably the most variable in the world. Given this variability, asking CSIRO to come up with single figure "Sustainable Diversion Limits" is really nonsense and only demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of our rainfall variability. Averages are really meaningless when one looks at the spreads around the average. Our major dams and the Snowy Scheme diversions have "flattened out" some of this variability, particularly in the southern Murray catchment, and have provided additional water to the west, but compared with the severity of our droughts and the magnitude of our floods, we really only "fiddle at the edges". 

Additional dams, with appropriate by-passes to allow small flows to pass, would further assist and would only "hold back" a tiny percentage of our big flood events.

Our ecology is geared to this extraordinarily variable environment and there is no better example than recent years with the severity of the Millennium Drought and the big flood events that followed.

To gain the necessary authority over the States in the Australian federation the Commonwealth relied on international environmental agreements. As a consequence we have a Commonwealth Water Act which lacks proper balance between social, economic and environmental needs. We have tarnished our previous reputation to be world leaders in water management. The Act should be repealed.

Against this backdrop it can be seen that the Government’s massive purchase of entitlements ("phantom water") will do nothing for the environment in the lean years, when allocations will be limited or non-existent. But in better years, with the Commonwealth now being by far the biggest holder of entitlements and an active player in the allocation market, we are likely to see decisions made for political reasons at the expense of sound commercially driven decisions, had the entitlements remained in private hands.

The most negative human induced environmental issue in the Millennium Drought was the management of the Lower Lakes in South Australia and the controversial Barrages which close-off the Murray River estuary from the sea.

With the piping of fresh water from upstream to the Lower Lakes environs there is now no reason for the South Australian obsession with keeping the Lakes always fresh to prevail. Failure to open the Barrages during the drought and allow salt water to enter, when there was simply no upstream fresh water available for any purpose, quite unnecessarily allowed the emergence of acid-sulphate soils. The huge evaporation of fresh water from the Lower Lakes is a wicked waste of a precious resource.

The commitment of additional water to the Lower Lakes in the latter part of the Plan negotiations and the target of keeping Lake Alexandrina open to the ocean 90% of the time, is a classic example of the political football approach at the expense of objective analysis, which has pervaded the whole Murray Darling Basin issue.

Sadly, the management of the Snowy Scheme has been expressly excluded from the MDB deliberations of recent years. There needs to be more focus on the original water storage/irrigation objectives. Improvements could be made without detracting from the all important hydro/electricity production objectives. If Snowy Hydro is to be privatised, a prerequisite should be a new operating agreement which gives greater weight to water storage for food and fibre production.

Failure to achieve a better balance between environmental and economic/social needs will unnecessarily limit Australia's productive capacity at the great expense of future generations and a growing world hungry for additional production.

(David Boyd is the former Chairman and C.E.O. of Clyde Agriculture Limited and a former General Manager of the Rural Division of Dalgety Australia Limited. Clyde was a major irrigator on the Barwon/Darling River in NSW, a dryland grain producer and the nations largest wool producer. Mr. Boyd has had a lifelong interest in inland Australia's water flows and had had first hand experience in rural Queensland,NSW,Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. He was until recently a Director of Tandou Limited a major irrigator on the Lower Darling and Murrumbidgee Rivers and is Chairman of agricultural research fund the McGarvie Smith Institute.)

JDO(David) Boyd
7A Eastern Arterial Road,
St Ives NSW 2075

11 July, 2015

The Indulgent Cricket Tragic Tries Again

 The Indulgent Cricket Tragic Tries Again

(I should warn the casual reader that the following is written for my family, particularly grandchildren, so you may find it bores the pants off you!)

I have only attended two England/Australia Test Matches at Lord's-the last two which England have won. These are the only occasions Australia has lost in the last 80 years! Some say I should stay away. But, I think I should put matters to right by attending again! Since Australia's previous loss in 1934 there have been 20 matches-Australia have won 9, 9 have been drawn and England have won the last 2 in 2009 and 2013. When England won in 1934 it was their first win since 1896 and was greatly assisted by a sticky uncovered wicket which Verity took full advantage of. So another way of expressing recent events (2009 and 2013) is to say those two matches give England only three wins at Lord's in the last 119 years!

Saturday,11th July,2015
Here we are climbing out of Sydney on CX (Cathay Pacific) 162 bound for Hong Kong.Speed up to 460knts with a 10 hour flight ahead. ETA HK 7:00pm local time which is the same as Perth-i.e. 2 hours behind Sydney. Distance 7300 kms.Altitude 33,000 feet. About to fly over the Liverpool Plains where the approval of a large open-cut coal mine is presently creating great controversy. I am delighted to be in Business Class, but don't like the herring-bone lay out-seats too far from the window for keen navigators like me! Navigation app on the mobile 'phone working well, but light cloud cover not good for viewing. Track quite a long way east of the Darwin route, perhaps keeping well clear of the erupting Indonesian volcano to our north. A break in the clouds just revealed us flying over Coxs Creek-an important tributary of the Barwon Darling which joins the Namoi River at Boggabri, downstream of Keepit Dam. We are about to fly over "Milton Downs" the massive grain farm west of Bellata that I tried hard to buy for Clyde-even got to the lawyers beginning the contract exchange when the vendor pulled the plug. Now west of Moree and cloud breaking up. Country looks nice and green. Air beautifully smooth. Now flying just west of Bengerang, a name I'd never heard of until the recent successful takeover bid for Tandou by Websters. They simultaneously bought the company Bengerang (Prime  Ag renamed) which owns amongst others the property of the same name.

Flew just east of "Binnerwell"  ("Nariel" the next door neighbour and Godfather's brother-in-law, is marked on my navigation map) where at the tender age of 16 years I worked for my Godfather as a first year jackeroo in the droughty year of 1957/8; thence over Injune and Roma, the Carnarvon Range, Springsure and west of Emerald as the clear air became turbulent and the cloud closed in well below us. Now at 38,000 feet. I wish I could see the ground. But, no one else cares-every blind in the Business Class cabin except mine and one other is closed. I suspect that they know nothing of inland Australia and furthermore they don't care. It reminds me of my good friend Allan Farrar's story about the father who asked his son "What is the difference between ignorance and apathy?" and the reply came 'I don't know and I don't care"!

According to the map we are now flying over the headwaters of the Burdekin River east of Charters Towers

Just got a glimpse of the coast somewhere north of Townsville, south of Ingham. Later,I can still see the coast and it seems we are going to fly up to the tip of Cape York, we are presently west of Mareeba.You can see a long way from 38,000 feet.

We have just changed course and are now flying up the western side of Princess Charlotte Bay and are heading further inland. Great view of the eastern Cape York coast. Air beautifully smooth again.
We have now been flying for over three hours, nearly a third of the total trip and are still over Australia! It's a big country! Very glarey and can't make out the ground properly, but we are about to fly over Weipa and out over the top of the Gulf of Carpentaria.

As we departed the Australian mainland the effects of two magnificent chardonnays induced a certain somnolence so I put my seat/bed into the horizontal position and slept like a baby for an hour or two.

The view was blocked by cloud over most of Indonesia and the Philippenes, but I noticed a dispersing vapour trail 1,000 or so feet below us. It got increasingly more defined and I reckoned we were to catch up with another jet. Sure enough after about half an hour a Qantas aircraft came into clear view and it took quite some time for us to gradually overtake it.

We encountered several periods of unpleasant clear air turbulence, with fastening of seat belts required. First impression of Hong Kong was heavy smog and very hot. Got a taxi into the East Hotel with high expectations of booking in to the magnificent glass corner room overlooking the harbour, I had on my last visit and had requested for this one. I was dismayed to be ushered to a corner room at the back looking out over those ubiquitous high rise Hong Kong tenements. I was then led to a lower level room facing the harbour, with the view blocked by more tenements, and instead of modern electric blinds was equipped with a heap of tired, black venetians! So,here I am with the hope of better things tomorrow.

Sunday,12th July
The moral of today is never be frightened to complain! 'The Mother' (Gail) would not agree! I am now in a magnificent room with panoramic views in all directions. Possibly better (higher) than last visit. Still a bit smoggy, but not as bad as yesterday. Stinking hot so am not venturing too far from the air-con. Given the smog issue I wonder why they built all of these high rise units and painted them white. The older ones are looking dirty.
I decided the large hotel pool and the stinkingly hot weather called for a swim. So, I ventured next door into the CityPlaza, with the hotel all part of this massive Swire Property development, bought myself some very plain swimming togs and ventured in. The first time I have somewhat self consciously revealed my grossly overweight, massively scared torso to strangers. I noted no repulsive reactions!
Feeling much refreshed I ventured to the Sugar Bar (remember this hotel is on the site of the old Swire Sugar Refinery) on the 32 nd (top) floor, my room is on 30th, where I enjoyed a beer and some very tasty crocquetes, which comprised my dinner. Whilst contemplating the spectacular scene it occured to me that I was mad not to have booked the morning London flight tomorrow rather than the afternoon flight which means you arrive London at 3:00AM Hong Kong time whereas if I took the morning flight I could arrive around 9:00PM Hong Kong time and mid afternoon London time. It is a 12 hour flight and London time is 7 hours behind Hong Kong.In other words I could use the wasted morning hanging around Hong Kong putting miles under my belt. So with the help of a very efficient "Customer Experience" team, elsewhere known as the concierge, I changed my booking to the morning flight.

Monday 13th
The change of booking probably cost me the chance of an upgrade to Business Class! However, with persistence I managed to get a last minute upgrade to Premium Economy which was an aisle seat in the front of the PE section with added leg room. My companion was a rather feisty little 85 year old Welsh lady, who had been visiting Australia for her sister's 90th birthday and to see her son and grandchildren. The sister lives at Camden and the son is a builder on the Gold Coast, she was good company. Like me she objected to us being treated like children with meals at odd hours followed by almost compulsory sleep time with insistence that blinds be drawn (shades of home), when it was mid morning and bright sunshine outside. To make matters worse the passenger navigation (maps) wasn't working so I couldn't do my usual navigating thing. When I good naturedly asked the steward if this meant we would get a partial fare refund he told me that the refund would be a little earlier arrival in London-presumably because of tailwinds. It intrigues me that the prevailing assumption by all airlines is that passengers have no interest in geography and taking in the countries they fly over, but are only intertested in sleeping and fast trips.
Arrived in London feeling absolutely exhausted. Indulged myself in a taxi to Buckingham Gate and was welcomed by a familiar reception face (male) and found my way to this very tastefully furnished (red wine coloured decor) Flat C on the 5th floor. I partially unpacked, did some shopping, including a UK sim card for my spare phone and went to bed.

Tuesday 14th
I slept fitfully and  awoke much refreshed,donned my Wallaby football jersey and at 6:30AM headed off down Victoria Road past Westminster Abbey, and in front of the Palace of Westminster (Houses of Parliament) came face to face with a very fit looking Alistair Cook, the English Cricket Captain running in the opposite direction! I hope he was intimidated by the energetic Wallaby jersey as he looked hard at me. I wasn'tquick enough to tell him to watch out on Thursday!
I attempted to make contact with my Australian medico friend John Russell who I met at Lord's in 2013 and have been in contact with since, who is here with his commercial artist friend Anita Bentley.
After a too generous very healthy breakfast at the flat I walked to Green Park and then down to Piccadilly to correct the mistakenly coded Oyster card purchased at Westminster Tube Station earlier. Got the tube out to St. John's Wood, walked down to Lord's to pick up my Test Tickets. Reminds me of that sick joke which plays on the confusion between test tickets and testicles! On the walk down to Lord's I ran into a posse of Indian Television News guys who were looking for directions to Lord's. They engaged me in conversation and revealed that they were running a story on the very recent Indian Court finding that the IPL Indian team of the President of the ICC had been involved in cricket betting. They were clearly looking for his scalp. I gave in to their pressure to do a TV interview on a subject I knew nothing about and all I cautiously said twice that "it was not a good look" and made a pathetic pun on ethical standards and the English expression "it isn't cricket". Got my tickets without a problem and got a bus back to Victoria via Park Lane. Always intrigues me how the old game Monopoly gave us a firmly implanted view on London real estate values!

After a light lunch at the flat I ran into Merlin S in the foyer. Had a very pleasant conversation followed by a longer equally pleasant talk with brother Sam in his office. Whilst there also spoke with Jonathan. Feeling very weary again, I rested before heading down to the Abbey for Choral Evensong at 5:00PM.
I mentioned to both brothers that if they were coming in to the office I would love to say hello to their parents. I was thus delighted when Sam subsequently rang to say they would be in at 2:30PM tomorrow and would like to see me if I was available. I assured him I would make sure I was available!

Wednesday 15th
Did my usual walk then attended to emails and reading. Met with A and J as arranged and was delighted to see them again. Afterwards I diid another long exhausting walk before reverting to my old practice of dinner across the road at "The Albert".

Thursday 16th Day 1
The BIG day arrives! Tube from Green Park to St. John's Wood and down the road to the North Gate. Met Martin Whitaker as arranged, looking not a day older and took out seats in the Grand Stand where we were joined by John Russell. My hopes for the day were that Australia would win the toss and bat and score a heap of runs to put some pressure on the Poms. These hopes were fulfilled in bucket loads! I wont write a commentary here, but as always with cricket, particularly at Lord's, it will be recorded elsewhere. Suffice to say Rogers and my favourite Smith batted brilliantly and it was heaven. Unlike at Cardiff what luck that there was, was with Australia. 1/340 odd at the end of the day was highly satisfactory. Had a very pleasant Thai dinner with my Adelaide (and Mildura) friends John Russell and Anita Bentley in Camden Town, near where they are staying before getting a cab back to the flat. A great day in all respects!

Friday 17th Day 2
Same procedure and Ausralia poured on the runs. Smith a double century and Rogers 170 odd. Australia  decared at 8/566. The Australian fast bowlers, particularly Johnston, really clicked and England were at one stage 4/30! At close of play they were 4/80 odd. All of my wildest dreams came true!
Had a very nice dinner with John and Anita at a tiny restaurant down the road from Lord's and again returned to the flat by London cab.

Saturday 18th Day 3
Recieved an unexpected, but welcome call from Gail at 4:00AM. She was trying to ring Kate! Ralph Godsall rang to say that his 93 yer old mother had had a stroke and he was a doubtful starter for tomorrow.
Initially England through Cook and Stokes put up some strong resistance, but they were dismissed shortly after Tea for 312. Australia did not enforce the follow on and at stumps were 0/108, a lead of 362. the weather forcast has been toned down and we expect Australia to declare about lunch tomorrow with a lead of about 500, with 1.5 days left to play. During the morning Mike text me a running commentary of the Australia/South Africa rugby test which was of much interest to some of the Aussies sitting around us and which Australia managed to win with an 80 minute try.
Very tired!!

Sunday, 19th Day 4
The weather forecast was rain early. When I looked out at 5:15AM it was fine so I showered and went downstairs. As I stepped out is started to rain! Today was to be our first day in the famous Member's Pavilion  with reciprocal rights applicable and I had my eye on the same seats as we (John Russell, Ralph Godsall, and me) had last time (2013) on the middle deck of the Pavilion under the TV cameras, directly behind the bowlers arm. I  proceeded to Lord's by taxi and joined the queque about 200 metres from the gate at 6:15, under cover of my newly acquired mini umbrella. After about an hour the rain cleared and blue sky appeared. As usual in cricket ground queques enjoyed good conversation, mostly with an ex Army Officer come educator from Cambridge. 
We were admitted to the ground at 8:30 and I briskly found my way to the desired seats. I found John right behind me. We secured them with our bags and went down to one of the many eating places in a small annex between the Long Room and the Bowler's Bar which Ralph Godsall had introduced us to last time. We had no sooner sat down and I spotted Ralph in the food queque so we kept him a seat. His mother is to have an operation and unbloc an artery and he thought he would have to leave at lunch time. He was sitting with his brother. Foor old times sake we arranged to meet at the Bowler's Bar at 12:15PM. Meanwhile Australia batted brightly as they poured on the runs in preparation for a declaration. Rogers had a dizzy spell and went off "retired hurt". Warner, Smith (again!), Clark and Mitch Marsh batted with increasing aggression so that Clark could declare 20 minutes before lunch with a lead of over 500.
Ralph was his usual bright self as we consumed two of those giant English pints standing at the foot of the stairs below the balcony and the bell of the Bowler's Bar. When he departed John and I had a sandwhich at one of the two eateries/come bars at the very top of the Pavilion. England held Australia at bay in the ten minutes before lunch. This turned out to be their high spot!

After lunch English wickets fell with great regularity to our fast bowlers led by Johnston with Lyon chipping in for two of them. England was dismissed for a paltry 103 to lose by a masive 400 plus runs about an hour after Tea. Mission accomplished!!

We had a celebratory drink back in the Bowler's Bar before heading off. As we walked behind the Allen Stand we came face to face with John Howard, Wally Edwards and Steve Waugh. John greeted me warmly, I suspect he recognised my face we having met many times, but didn't recall the name. Likewise Wally Edwards (Chairman of Cricket Australia) seemed to remember me as we have had many Adelaide encounters when I have been enjoying Ian McLachlan's hospitality. Steve Waugh and others wandered on as we chatted to John and Wally. They were in high spirits loving the Australian win. I complimented John on his Keith Joseph lecture given earlier this week and which I had picked up on the IPA's website and much enjoyed.

John Russell and I walked thru' Regents Park on our way bck to his "pad' where we picked up Anita, had another enjoyable meal at a pub on the edge of Camden Town before we found a cab and I returned to Buckingham Gate.

Monday 20th
With a spring in my step after yesterday's win, I headed off clad in my usual Wallaby jumper and drew some unwelcome glances. Did an extra kilometre. About 10:00AM I cheekily again donned my rugby jersey and went down the steps to the management floor immediately below. I think Merlin and Sam saw the joke and we briefly discussed the cricket. Had a brief encounter with former Chairman James as he passed thru'. Afterwards I had a sleep and then spent the rest of the day watching the British Open Golf Championship. I had a pleasant conversation with Anita Osborn, my cousin Michael's widow who is now over 90. She complained of physical disabilities, but sounded her usual sprightly self mentally. Received a 'phone call from brother-in-law Barry Dugan who had just arrived and with Felicity his girlfriend is making his first visit to London. They are staying at a hotel near Marble Arch.

Tuesday 21st
Did another long walk and then arranged to meet Barrry and Felicity at Buckingham Palace. As it turned out this was a great unplanned idea as our nominated meeting time (11:30AM) coincided with the Changing of the Guard Ceremony. It seemed to me very appropriate that their introduction to London should be The Changing of the Guard. Barry didn't appear unduly impressed, but to my delight Felicity was very enthusiastic. We had lunch in a small Pub, appropriately "The Colonies", which I had spotted in a street off Buckingham Gate. Great decor and "good pub food". Wish I had discovered it six years ago when I first had the privelege of staying at Buckingham Gate. After two pints I was drowsy and Barry and Felicity were keen to return to their hotel for more jet lag recovery.
So now I'm organised to depart for Heathrow first thing tomorrow. Somewhat sadly and I wonder whether I will ever return to England. I have now been here five times- 1969/70/ 2002, 2009 2013 and now. It has changed enormously, particularly ethnically, since Gail and I were here for seven months in 1969/70, 45 years ago.I continue to love the place, particularly its cultural traditions, something imbued in me by my anglophile mother, who sadly never made it here.
Link to photos