An aside twiddle.
Well said Sandy; mission impossible in a nutshell. But definitely food for thought.
If you take your analogy right down to grass roots – say to 'your family', property and impediments there is a duty of care. Food on the table, schooling, mortgages, etc; in short the 'well being' of those for whom you have the responsibility. How many men and women – today – are doing or trying their best to do that; sacrifices made, taking on any sort of work they are capable of doing to meet their obligations? There is little that will not be attempted or done to preserve 'the family'.
Take that up in size to say town council level; every possible avenue to make the town a better place should be explored; grants, business, transport, parks, sports facilities etc. Anything to make the 'town' that council is responsible for a better place and attract business should be done. It is after all a 'sworn duty' accepted by those elected by the townsfolk. It is an acknowledged fact that 'transport' (road, rail, air and sea) is an essential element to the prosperity of the town; business, goods and people in and out. The revenue being used to develop the town into a place people want to live in – or visit.
Kick it up to a federal level – apply the same principal. Take the transport portfolio. When a minister takes on the transport job; there is a duty implied, to make 'transport' as good as it can be. With the title goes great responsibility and power. At home, in your town or even in the 'big world' when something is wrong; you, being the one 'responsible' should get on with sorting the problem out. At home the dunny won't flush – you fix it or get it fixed; in town if a road is becoming dangerous, the council get it sorted, in transport if the system is collapsing you move heaven and earth to prop it up, it is essential to the nations well being. Aye, a matter of scale in every way bar one - the 'responsibility'.
At every level, abrogation of the responsibility which comes with 'the job' diminishes those affected, on a grand scale it has provoked revolution. Aviation has some extreme problems, problems which demand immediate dedicated attention. The responsibility for 'fixing' the problem, no matter the plausible excuses rest firmly and squarely on the shoulders of the incumbent minister. Perhaps it is time someone got of his backside and actually 'did' something about a collapsing industry, one this nation needs as a tool toward prosperity. Try facing up to the clearly defined and identified problems and do the job the nation expects a minister to – take care of those he is responsible for. Simplistic? No, it ain't; strap on a 777 full of people head off to the USA – you carry all that responsibility. Get the kids to school and make sure they have lunch – responsibility. No matter how one cuts it up -
“A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury.”
Toot – toot...
Well said Sandy; mission impossible in a nutshell. But definitely food for thought.
If you take your analogy right down to grass roots – say to 'your family', property and impediments there is a duty of care. Food on the table, schooling, mortgages, etc; in short the 'well being' of those for whom you have the responsibility. How many men and women – today – are doing or trying their best to do that; sacrifices made, taking on any sort of work they are capable of doing to meet their obligations? There is little that will not be attempted or done to preserve 'the family'.
Take that up in size to say town council level; every possible avenue to make the town a better place should be explored; grants, business, transport, parks, sports facilities etc. Anything to make the 'town' that council is responsible for a better place and attract business should be done. It is after all a 'sworn duty' accepted by those elected by the townsfolk. It is an acknowledged fact that 'transport' (road, rail, air and sea) is an essential element to the prosperity of the town; business, goods and people in and out. The revenue being used to develop the town into a place people want to live in – or visit.
Kick it up to a federal level – apply the same principal. Take the transport portfolio. When a minister takes on the transport job; there is a duty implied, to make 'transport' as good as it can be. With the title goes great responsibility and power. At home, in your town or even in the 'big world' when something is wrong; you, being the one 'responsible' should get on with sorting the problem out. At home the dunny won't flush – you fix it or get it fixed; in town if a road is becoming dangerous, the council get it sorted, in transport if the system is collapsing you move heaven and earth to prop it up, it is essential to the nations well being. Aye, a matter of scale in every way bar one - the 'responsibility'.
At every level, abrogation of the responsibility which comes with 'the job' diminishes those affected, on a grand scale it has provoked revolution. Aviation has some extreme problems, problems which demand immediate dedicated attention. The responsibility for 'fixing' the problem, no matter the plausible excuses rest firmly and squarely on the shoulders of the incumbent minister. Perhaps it is time someone got of his backside and actually 'did' something about a collapsing industry, one this nation needs as a tool toward prosperity. Try facing up to the clearly defined and identified problems and do the job the nation expects a minister to – take care of those he is responsible for. Simplistic? No, it ain't; strap on a 777 full of people head off to the USA – you carry all that responsibility. Get the kids to school and make sure they have lunch – responsibility. No matter how one cuts it up -
“A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury.”
Toot – toot...