It’s time for the Monday message board, where you are invited to post your thoughts on any topic. Civilised discussion and no coarse language please.

Since some readers want to debate these issues more or less continuously, I’m putting up a special-purpose post covering all issues related to the war on terrorism and the Howard doctrine (whatever you think it is) and also on Genetically Modified crops. Maybe there will be some cross-fertilisation or other exchange of genetic material.

For the record, my view on Iraq is that elections must go ahead in January come what may, and that the occupation forces should be withdrawn as soon as possible thereafter. On GM foods I favor stringent safety testing and compulsory labelling, and would like to see more effort put into developing products that would actually benefit people in poor countries and less into political point-scoring.

Having set this thread up, I’ll keep it running as long as needed, and will move or delete comments on these topics from posts on other issues.

It’s time for the Monday message board, where you are invited to post your thoughts on any topic[1]. Civilised discussion and no coarse language please.

fn1. Except for GM foods, the Iraq war and Israel-Palestine. I’ve put up posts specially to accommodate those who want to debate these issues at length. Feel free to comment on whether this a good way to handlle this kind of topic, or to suggest any other innovations you’d like to see on the blog.

In victory or defeat, the sun still shines and the weeks roll on. So, it’s time for the Monday message board. Post your thoughts on any topic. Civilised discussion and no coarse language please.

It’s time for the Monday Message Board, where readers are invited to post their thoughts on any topic (civilised discussion and no coarse language, please). There will be plenty of posts from me on the election, and plenty of room for discussion, so I’d encourage Message Board comments on other issues.

It’s time for the Monday Message Board, where readers are invited to post their thoughts on any topic (civilised discussion and no coarse language, please). There will be plenty of posts from me on the election, and plenty of room for discussion, so I’d encourage Message Board comments on other issues.

It’s time for the Monday Message Board, where readers are invited to post their thoughts on any topic (civilised discussion and no coarse language, please). There will be plenty of posts from me on the election, and plenty of room for discussion, so I’d encourage Message Board comments on other issues.

It’s time for the Monday Message Board, where readers are invited to post their thoughts on any topic (civilised discussion and no coarse language, please). There will doubtless be plenty of posts from me on the election, and plenty of room for discussion, so I’d encourage Message Board comments on other issues.

Rafe Champion alerted me to this piece by John Stone on the politicisation of the public service, and the role of retired public servants. Stone makes some valid points, but since he refers to his own dealings with government, I think it’s reasonable to point out that Stone himself is responsible for the first big breach in one of the most important conventions that used to prevail in Australia; namely that retired public servants and politicians should retire fully, or at least not take jobs that involve a potential conflict of interest with their previous positions. Stone had barely retired as Secretary of the Treasury when he started attacking the government vigorously in newspaper columns, and not long after that he was elected to the Senate for the National Party (as I recall, double-dipping his public service pension in the process). Since then, we’ve seen a steady erosion of the notion of the public service as a lifetime career, and of political office as the final stage in a career, preferably one marked by achievements outside politics.

A stint in politics or the public service is now seen as a routine stepping-stone to a more lucrative career in business, particularly highly-regulated businesses or lobbying and PR firms, where the contacts and inside knowledge acquired in the public sector represent a valuable asset. Given that people are starting with that expectation, it’s bound to affect their dealings with the business sector. Everyone they meet there is a potential future employer. And, of course, as the transition approaches, the temptation to do some more explicit mutual backscratching becomes stronger. The disgraceful behavior of former Health Minister Michael Wooldridge[1] before his departure for the private sector is one of the more egregious examples.

fn1. As noted here, Wooldridge approved a $5 million grant to the Royal College of GPs for a building to help co-locate several doctors’ groups. That same organisation subsequently employed him as a consultant.

It’s Monday again, and time for the Monday Message Board. Post your comments on any topic (civilised discussion and no coarse language, please). I’d be interested in general reactions to the Olympics – too much sport or not enough?