The PR Blog

When I was young, I had the honour of voting in my first election.  It was in New Zealand back in the 1970's when there were two parties that most people voted for. Right or Left, I voted for neither. I cast my vote for a thing called Social Credit. 

Now don't confuse this with the modern perception  of China's Social Credit system..... in fact the two could not be more different. In fact, the very name that Douglas chose was something that gave it a bad reputation before it ever really got off the ground. 

The Social Credit system, proposed by C.H. Douglas in the 1920s, aimed to solve a common economic problem: people often don’t have enough money to buy everything businesses produce, which leads to waste and financial hardship. Douglas’s solution involved giving everyone a basic income, called a “National Dividend,” and adjusting prices to make goods more affordable. By putting money directly into people’s hands and controlling the money supply through government rather than banks, Social Credit envisioned a fairer, more stable economy without taking away individual freedom or relying heavily on taxes.

You see, back then, I actually trusted my government to do the right thing.

Was  I right or wrong? I will never know. I have voted staunchly conservative in every election since then. Was it the folly of youth? But my young ideological brain rather liked the idea and I have obviously become far more cynical since those heady days of youth. 

Phar Lap, the legendary Australian racehorse, and Donald Trump, the American business magnate turned political figure, share a unique legacy of resilience and controversy that captivates people worldwide.

Phar Lap defied the odds to become a symbol of hope during Australia’s darkest economic times, achieving legendary status through sheer speed, strength, and a fighting spirit. Similarly, Trump, rising from the business world to the highest office in the U.S., has become a polarising figure whose defiance of political norms has sparked both fervent support and heated opposition.

While one’s fame comes from winning races on the track and the other’s from dominating the political stage, both embody an unstoppable drive that either inspires or divides, showing how champions...of the racetrack or of the ballot box... leave lasting marks on history.

When I was a lad in Western Australia, the 5th of November used to be an eagerly awaited event. 

That was Guy Fawkes Night, commemorating the apprehension in 1605 of conspirators who plotted to blow up the British Parliament and were hanged and quartered.

Just the sort of thing a young Flysa could get excited about. 

The Catholic conspirators led by Fawkes, placed thirty-six barrels of gunpowder in an undercroft beneath the House of Lords in order to assassinate the Protestant King James 1 during the opening of Parliament, and place his young daughter Elizabeth on the throne as a puppet Queen.

Of recent days, it has come to my attention that being thrifty is something that is not much admired these days. And it all started with a teabag..... 

There’s a razor-thin line between prudence and being, well, a miser.

And it got me thinking about the leprechaun ... Leprechauns, with their legendary pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, seem to be poster figures for hoarding wealth. But are they truly misers, or are they just exceptionally prudent?

So here we go down a Shaydee rabbit hole all about Leprechauns, teabags and misers.... 

Let’s be real: Leprechauns don’t exactly share their wealth freely. They guard their pots of gold like it’s the only thing tethering them to reality. 

Much like we feel today when our banks refuse us access to our money. Are leprechauns merely little chaps who got a handle on it long before we did?  

A recent court decision has left many Australians angry. 

The case involving Senator Pauline Hanson and Senator Mehreen Faruqi highlights significant issues around racial discrimination and freedom of speech in Australian politics. In September 2022, after Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi criticised Queen Elizabeth II and the legacy of British colonialism in the wake of her death, Senator Hanson responded on social media, telling Faruqi to “piss off back to Pakistan.” This comment sparked widespread debate and led to legal action, with Faruqi pursuing a complaint under Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act.

A federal court judge recently ruled that Hanson’s statement did indeed constitute racial discrimination, as it implied that Faruqi did not belong in Australia due to her Pakistani heritage and Moslem background. The court found that Hanson's remark was not simply a response to political discourse but was instead tied to Faruqi’s race and ethnicity, making it discriminatory. This ruling underscores the limits of public officials’ comments, even under the protection of parliamentary privilege and free speech in Australia.

Well, I feel moved to write about this from an Australian perspective.