This is something I was thinking of doing for a while, but since Possum has started a “What if?” over at his joint, this is as good a time as any to launch Australian Alternate History Week and hope it is taken up across a few more blogs.
In short, I want participants to create a brief alternate history scenario in Australian history. There need not be a single hinge event that creates a point of divergence, it can be as many different changes you want to support an on going speculation. It’s an exercise to think about what dynamics have made Australia he way it is and how they could have been different – so the fun is in trying to extrapolate what would happen than merely asking the “what if?” by itself.
For example;
Read more »








An honours student approached me to interview me on an interesting thesis she is writing currently entitled “The conceptualization of political participation by advocates of Government 2.0″. Naturally enough I agreed to what turned out to be an excellent interview (I do like it when people actually ‘get’ what I’m saying even if it’s a bit subtle, a bit conceptual). The distinction between government and politics is a difficult one and something that I’ve given quite a bit of thought to, even though it only appears implicitly, and even then very sotto voce in the Taskforce report.
The world’s most inscrutable man?
to create a city in which rent seekers and speculators would not prosper by allowing the increased value of land to accrue to the government (and by extension the common weal) instead of owners who had not contributed to rising prices.
I know how powerful internet and Web 2.0 technologies are, so I don’t need any proving. Because if 
Whilst details of the different schemes are available in the media, there’s little discussion of motivation to help a reader to decide which is best for a given purpose, only what is best for speculative electoral reasons.




One of the things I’d like to do in this election campaign is to draw attention to all the (most egregious) cases where the press engage in the mindlessness of “he said – she said” journalism. That is where they report various sides accusations of the other as if that then finishes their job. Obviously us voters want information to help us tell which of the two sides stories is more plausible. And obviously enough sometimes even a hard working journalist can’t find out the information necessary to throw light on the subject. But often they can. 

I don’t have time to make the point I want to make at any length, but