Why I am striking today (30 November 2011)

Today I am joining hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of British workers who have taken the difficult decision to lose a day's pay in order to stand up for our rights. Not only our rights, but, as the picketer in the picture here is showing - it's for the services we provide, too. We are painfully aware of our former colleagues who have already lost their public sector jobs and are faring in different ways. To those of you still looking for work, my thoughts and best wishes are with you. Also to those who lost their private sector jobs and have yet to find employment again, and those who have yet to get their first job, or get on the first rung of their career ladder. All made far more difficult due to the global financial crisis, now in its fourth year.

Yes. The strike today is about public sector pensions. A subject guaranteed to make many people yawn. Or, unquestionably follow the path laid by the insinuations by government ministers. I have seen angry tweets and heard angry rants on buses and trains about the inconvenience caused by lazy public servants taking a day off, when all the government is trying to do is fix the economy. There's a deficit that needs cutting, after all, and we're all in it together to weather these bad times.

Or, they're furious because why should they, as private sector workers, pay for the amazing 'gold-plated pensions' of the non-taxpaying lazy public sector 'workers'.

I am striking today for many reasons, some of which should be obvious from this blog.

Taxpayers

First up, I am a taxpayer. Every public servant is a taxpayer. In fact, it is far more difficult for us to evade paying tax than it is for a lot more people in the private sector. Not that I would want to avoid paying tax, because, actually, paying taxes is cool.

Seriously.

Without taxes, there would be no roads for you to use, your health care would be a lot worse (doubt me? Look at the USA. Brilliant health care for those who can pay for it...), and even if you hated school, education is actually a good thing. If you are reading this, you benefitted from your education. Even if you went to a private school in the UK (and Australia), taxes contributed directly towards your education. There's loads more that taxes go to that you use, by the way.

Oh, and taxes go towards private sector pensions, too.

But, it's not just about taxes. It is all just a little bit more complicated than the soundbites and headlines.

This is obvious, but seems to get trampled on in the race to demonise the strike today.

Private sector employees are paid from the money made by the enterprise that employs them. In the UK, those are mostly service sector (tourism, retail, food - that sort of thing), with some manufacturing. They all rely on consumers buying a service or a product. And, who are the consumers again? Oh, yeah. The people who live in the UK. So, in other words, both public and private sector employees, and benefit recipients, pay for the salaries and pensions of those in the private sector. Through tax, all taxpayers (both in the private and public sectors) pay for the salaries and pensions in the public and private sectors.

So, can we please stop reacting to the deliberately divisive rhetoric from those who are partisan and ideological (i.e. the politicians)? It is their job to be partisan, by the way. As citizens, it's our job to question them and make up our own minds. The economy isn't the easiest (or interesting) of subjects, so let's not get distracted by stupid furphies like this.

Gold-plating

I get a fairly decent wage for what I do. I have just recently achieved a promotion, but the increase in my pay will actually mean that my pay will stay roughly what it was should the government's proposed pension and salary changes come in. That leaves me personally better off than many of my colleagues, for which I am grateful, but I do wonder at the justice of it.

But, when I compare it to what people get in the private sector for my skills, experience and capability, it's painfully tiny. Oh, and that's factoring in the work done outside contracted hours. Actually, though, there are so many things to consider when comparing private and public salaries, again the deliberately divisive rhetoric becomes nonsensical.

I don't have the time to work it out for myself, but I trust the various sources I've read who know statistics and how to compare them. According to them, the average public sector pension is about the same as comparable private sector schemes. Regardless, and I know so many people have tried to point this out - yes, there are worse schemes. Or, worse, no schemes in some private jobs. I add my voice to what they say: why does that justify making yet more people worse off? Why aren't those poor performing companies being asked to better look after their workers?

And there is the deafening silence around the MPs and their pensions. I'm someone who does appreciate the tough job MPs do, and I fully support the sensible remuneration of MPs designed to ensure people really do have the chance to stand for public office. And, yes, that includes their pensions.

But, if the government was serious about the reasons they give for why they have to take such drastic action against pensions that the Hutton Report, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee of MPs have shown are affordable and sustainable, then why haven't they looked at reviewing the incredibly generous pension scheme that MPs are entitled to? Even when they are millionaires independent of their MP-derived salary and pension?

Oh, and a final bit of myth-busting here in terms of the image of the retired public servant off on permanent five star holidays thanks to their over-generous pension - the current average public sector worker/middle manager's pension, when added to the basic state pension, is not even five pounds above the official government poverty line. What will the cuts do to that?

Shifting Blame

Listening to the government since it has been in power, one would be forgiven for thinking that the recession we're not actually in (although the OECD does think we're back in recession) was caused by the unusually early snow last year (it was snowing in the UK this day in 2010), the euro, or the irresponsible and mad spending by the last government.

Oddly, they don't mention the big banks and other global financial institutions and their irresponsible and (as is being proven in courts) criminal activities throughout the last decade. They don't seem overly fussed that even the executives in the banks that were bailed out by taxpayers received eye-watering bonuses this year.

No, it seems the only solution is to cut everything that supports the arts, poor people, etc. The things that don't really result in savings... Certainly don't revive the economy... The drive, though, does seem to be towards privatising everything, worryingly including parts of the public services left alone even by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher because even she seemed to understand the British Constitution, and how it's a fine balance between law makers (parliament), law reviewers (the judiciary) and law enforcers (the police). The cuts in the criminal justice systems are mind boggling.

Another question that would be good for this government to answer: is the cutting of the public sector pensions an early stage in preparing them to be privatised?

Big Society

Every time I see the Big Society mentioned, I must confess to raising my eyebrows and shaking my head a little sadly. It's not because I think it's a bad idea. I don't. I used to be an active part of it, before it got its name. That was before I got my first full time job, back in Australia. I was looking forward to getting more involved with volunteering as time progressed and my work-life balance could re-balance again. Even though my retirement is a good few years off, occasional thoughts of which charities to support through donating my time, experience, skills and labour did cross my mind.

One of the things I love about the UK is the third sector. The support of charitable causes both in donating money, but also time. All the things the 'Big Society' is, as I understand it, meant to be. Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with a government labelling one of the things that does make the UK a great place to be. What niggles is a political party taking credit for something already there, muddling away without any party-political basis.

What angers me is that so much of what this government is doing - and the attacks on the public sector pensions is only one example - is actually destroying any chance of building what they have chosen to call the 'Big Society'. The pay cuts my public sector colleagues and I have already taken have led to us seriously considering those charities we support. Oh, and before you think we must be on bloody good salaries to choose to donate hundred of pounds to a range of charities... no, we're talking about relatively small amounts to already carefully selected charities.

The Unions

Today, looking at some twitter feeds, I have 'learned' that my 'union masters' get more than pay than the 'evil bankers' with their bonuses. Those feeds then charge into a litany of anti-union invective where the 'what have the unions ever done for us?' is the least offensive.

In all my working life, I have been a member of the union that covered my workplace. But, I have never stood for any official post. My career path has just never gone down that way.

I am fully aware of the shortcomings of the union movement as a whole, and even more keenly aware of some of the shortcomings of the unions to which I have belonged. But, while I am no expert on labour law or history, I am aware of the basics. It is true that without unions the average worker would be a hell of a lot worse off.

To those who ask, so why do we need unions now? Look around you! It is not just this government that is taking away those hard won rights to reasonable pay, a pension for when you leave work, and reasonable working hours - and that includes the number of days a week worked, not just the hours worked during those days. To those who say, but I work unreasonable hours for nothing, I say - why? Is it really doing you any good? And how's your health? Your social life?

I admire my many friends who are freelance worker, and because I've looked into that myself, I appreciate the difficulties. My choice is to draw a wage, in a sector I've chosen for a lot more reasons than just financial benefit. I love my job, not least because it directly contributes to making the country I've adopted as my home better. I don't like the contempt my sector is viewed by the government (I also didn't like that in the last government, by the way, and that party's continuing lack of support for this strike action is perplexing even though I know the reasons they give).

Just so you know, there are unions in the private and freelance sectors. Check them out. You don't have to go it alone, even if you're self-employed. I'm already a member of one that actively works to ensure writers actually get paid a decent income for their work.

As for the nonsense about democracy in the unions... and the voting... and how the majority don't support the strikes. In the UK, it's not compulsory for people to vote (I grew up in Australia where it is). The majority of people don't vote in general elections, or council elections. Unions aren't allowed to ballot at workplaces - it's all postal votes, with all the problems that causes. But, the basic principle in common with general elections remains: the winner of the vote is the simple majority of those who cast votes. The whole then go with the majority, even if they voted against it. That's how the democratic systems works. It distresses me that people don't understand the democratic principles people died for - and continue to die for all around the world. It also distresses me that people can't be bothered to vote in any election, including union ballots if they're a member.

My union balloted us in advance of the 30 June 2011 strike, which carried over to this one because it's about the same issue and they didn't want to spend more money when it wasn't needed. Interestingly, those unions that balloted their members more recently have had much higher turnouts, and overwhelmingly higher support for striking today. Those unions include a few that have never been on strike before.

I've heard the question: Why don't the unions negotiate with the government? They have been. What doesn't help is when the government issues statements or media releases suggesting they've tabled amendments to their proposals. That's not negotiating. That happened back in June, and has happened again in the lead up to today. And the media need to check their facts and report responsibly.

The government has also been excited about the 'irresponsibility' of the strike, and minimising disruption. Trust me when I say this, emergency cover has been organised where it needs to be. I know my union and department have agreed principles in place respecting the right to strike. But, the point of a strike is to cause disruption. It was said back in June, and anecdotally the response to this strike seems even more panicked, the fact the government are announcing such bizarre things shows that actually the strike actions are achieving one aim, which is to get the issues out there. I remember the media barely reporting on strikes called under the previous government (fact fans, I've been on strike five times since arriving in the UK.)

Fortunately, a lot of people I follow on Twitter have been really cool. Caitlin Moran posted this morning the wise words, 'workers have to strike for what executives just help themselves to.' Ian Martin said, 'This is not just about pensions. It's about who we are and what we value.'

You want more info?

Good. I urge you to head to the union websites - e.g. PCS, TUC, Unison - and to Hansard for the official record of Parliament, to find out for yourself what has really been going on, and what this strike is really about.

Re stats, do check out Ben Goldacre's twitter stream over last weekend for a non-partisan, questioning look at the stats. Not just for what he said, by the way. There were some fascinating links.

Little Reminder: this is my personal blog and is a bit of a ramble. It doesn't cover everything. It can't. The issues are complex, and made even more complex by the insinuations and misrepresentations. Figures recorded in parliament have been questioned for their veracity.

My blog is political, but not party political. I'm a union member, and supporter, but not a union stooge. These are my views, my opinions, based on my observations. I do believe there are other ways to address the economic problems in the UK. A start would be collecting the taxes owed by those at the top. And, there are questions about restitution from those individual businesses bailed out by taxpayers that this year paid such high bonuses and increased salaries without addressing the problems that caused the financial crisis in the first place.

I welcome comments, but do moderate them (having received way too much spam in the past). I also welcome views contrary to mine, but I have a zero tolerance of 'flame wars' and 'trolls'.

.

Phew. Maybe time to blog again...

Gosh. July was a while ago. It has been a very busy year. But a fairly good one. I have a plan to tidy up this blog, and to get back into a pattern with writing it.

Yes. I did NoWriMo again. Just got through the 50,000 words, which is actually about two-thirds of the way through the novel I'm writing. It's book two of the trilogy I started during last year's NoWriMo. What was cool about last year's attempt was a publisher who read it and provided incredibly useful comments on it. Encouraged, the trilogy continues.

What was different between this year and last was the existence of two NoWriMo buddies - one a good mate in Australia, the other a good mate in London. I know we egged each other on via Twitter. I had three really productive writing "sprints" in the pub with my London mate. And fantastic natters about the weirdness that is novel writing.

To busy to blog...

Apologies for not blogging too often lately. I'm writing something for the Mslexia novel competition, which is taking up a lot of my time.

But, in the meantime, do check out a book about to be released, but can pre-ordered at Amazon. It's called Braaaiiinnnsss!: From Academics to Zombies and features essays showcasing various academic disciplines using Zombies as examples. I've read some of them, and their top fun. Highly recommended.

Review: British Museum Treasures of Heaven Exhibition

My dad has an interest in Christian art and iconography. He was visiting London at the end of June this year, and happened to have a clear diary on the day the British Museum’s new exhibition opened. I decided to go along with him, as it’s always extra enjoyable to see an exhibition with someone who knows a little about the subject. Not that you need to with this exhibition. The explanatory notes were more than adequate. What I particularly liked about them, too, was how they were informative, cheerfully written and - in common with the exhibition as a whole - didn’t have a proselytising agenda.

The exhibition showcases over 150 objects from around the world, including drawing on the British Museum’s own collections. Among those were the Roman mosaic depicting Christ as featured in the BBC Radio 4 / British Museum History of the World in A Hundred Objects. The Vatican and other major museums around the world also loaned some fascinating examples of exquisite art.

The exhibition takes a chronological approach. The older examples are simpler, possibly because at that stage Christianity was an underground religion in Roman Europe. The Medieval period is when things get excessive, and heading into the Reformation arguably ludicrous. It was fascinating to see how branches of the church started to blatantly make stuff up in order to increase pilgrimages and sell more stuff. I had quipped to Dad about if all the bits of the “one true cross” peddled in this manner were put together, it would have been huge! Then turned the corner to see a quote from one of the major reformers saying pretty much the same thing, only about how many heads some saints may have if you put together all the bits of skull purporting to be them.

Other reviews (e.g. Londonist, 24-VI-2011 and the Economist at about the same time) have made a note of the staging of the exhibition. It’s in the old Reading Room, and unlike some of the other exhibitions I’ve seen there this one does use the space and existing architecture to great effect. The music is suitable, too, being monastic chants.

All in all, if you are at all interested in the art inspired by Christianity - regardless of what you think about the religion itself - then this is a recommended exhibition.

Official website: http://www.britishmuseum.org/whats_on/exhibitions/treasures_of_heaven.aspx
.

You Can't Teach Kids to be Gay

Human sexuality is varied. That’s obvious.

Human sexual orientation, in contrast, is relatively limited. You’re either attracted to people who are the same sex as you, or the opposite, or both. Right? Well, it does dismiss people who are attracted to animals. It also discounts people who might be diagnosed as paraphiliac. It also waves aside people who genuinely are simply not interested in sex with anyone or anything.

Which actually means sexual orientation is also pretty amazing in its variations.

I am gay. I am a lady who likes ladies, “that way”. As it happens, I do wear comfortable shoes and don’t wear make-up or typical women’s clothes. I know plenty of ladies who like ladies who adore wearing and collecting high heels and feel odd without make-up or wearing trousers. That doesn’t make them any less gay or me more gay.

I know I was born gay, but I had boyfriends when I was a teenager because when and where I grew up I had to. My first official boyfriend was a Christian. So was I at the time. Comfortably, it meant sex was off the agenda. I don’t remember ever speaking about it with him, but the no-sex-before-marriage thing was convenient for me. My second boyfriend was delightfully camp-as and I wasn’t surprised when years later I found out he was gay. My third boyfriend, and actually the only one really worthy of that title, is bisexual, not that either of us knew that at the time. We had fun, we experimented, but looking back I know one of the reasons we got on so well was because sex itself wasn’t really an issue. I could write thousands of words as to why.

I went to uni in a different city to the one where I grew up, and I lived in the colleges. While I officially had a boyfriend in Sydney, my life on campus was quite different. I was still extraordinarily naive about my own sexual orientation, but I was beginning to learn about it all. Among my friends, there were two who stand out in terms of this. An Aussie lad and an American lass (an exchange student) who grew close, but were never actually boyfriend / girlfriend. The American returned to the States, and I became even closer friends to the lad. Even though we weren’t “going out” with each other, other students began to think we were fiances. Or, at least, would be once we graduated. It was on some level even then a convenience to us both - when we both reconnected some years out of uni when I was back in Sydney it wasn’t that surprising that we were both gay. (Post note: the American isn’t.)

Even though I know I was born gay, I didn’t realise it until I was 25. No point of reference, see. I knew about gay men (I was a teenager during the 1980s when AIDS was “the gay disease”; meaning, a disease only gay men got - not that it was, but it’s what people thought at the time). I didn't know about lesbians; this was a decade before gay women started to come out.

Kinsey is, so far as I know, the only vaguely scientific study into this, therefore the rest is anecdote. But, all that points to the idea that humans who like humans, “that way”, tend to be orientated towards the same sex, the opposite sex, or both sexes. If Kinsey’s research hold true, most people are more likely to be oriented to both sexes to varying degrees of fluidity. There is amazing variation that I personally know of through talking to people, listening to their stories, and reading about others experiences - throughout history. And not just in the West. It’s human, regardless of the colour of skin, language, culture. And humans aren’t unique. Many other animals exhibit sexual behaviours beyond male-female-for-procreation-only.

But, yet, there persists the bizarre notion that people can be taught to be gay, and therefore kids need to be “protected” from gay teachers and gay role models.

You can’t teach kids to be gay. That’s why there is no point in trying to stop educators from mentioning the realities of human life. In fact, it’s life threatening to do so. There are numerous studies on the numbers of suicides, self harm, bullying, assaults and murders that are the results of futile efforts to deny biological, observable facts.

Fortunately, now, in answer to anti-gay rants, there is the “it gets better” campaign. There are also Pride events, like the one in London today, which is where I’m heading.
.

Doctor Who: Year 48 part 1

Rather than reviewing each episode as aired like I normally do, this time I’m doing it altogether in blocks. If you’ve not seen the episodes, and want to, then don’t read this. It will spoil the surprises, and probably spoil the enjoyment you might well have otherwise got from this series.

There’s also speculation. And, actually, that tells you something about how I’ve reacted to this half of the season. I want to speculate. I can’t help but to play around in what Steven Moffat and the team have created.

The Impossible Astronaut starts with the Doctor being killed by an astronaut in a lake in an American desert. Only there are two Doctors. Two different time streams. And River Song. Possibly two of her (but you won’t know that until the end of this block, and are we really sure that’s the case anyway?). Amy and Rory have been home in married bliss. They, along with River, get a note. Unsigned, but they all think it’s from the Doctor. The note tells them to be at a precise set of co-ordinates at a precise time - Utah, 2011. The Doctor’s also got a note. And so has an old man named Canton Everett Delaware III. Everything is set up to ensure the viewer thinks the Doctor is dead. He can’t regenerate. His body burned, Viking warrior style. (Oh, I think I might understand something - Rory suggested that. They’re killing the warrior Doctor…). But there is still the younger Doctor, blissfully ignorant of his older self’s fate (or so we understand), and thus the TARDIS (well, River’s better at guiding her) is able to take the younger Doctor, River, Amy and Rory to 1969 Washington DC. The Oval Office, in fact, in the White House of President Nixon, briefing the young Canton Everett Delaware III to investigate mysterious phone calls he’s been getting from a “little boy” (so Nixon thinks). And just who or what are those creatures Amy keeps spotting, but vanish from her memory? Oh, and she might be pregnant.

The series opener has a lot going on. Frenetic activity, some great jokes (the whole scene with the Doctor first meeting Nixon is brilliant), and the Silence are an astonishingly good idea for a monster.

Day of the Moon is the concluding part of The Impossible Astronaut. There are answers, of a sort, and more questions. I think they are questions deliberately left to be picked up later. Unusually for a Doctor Who story, it starts three months later. Defeating the Silence is going to take a lot of ingenuity - even the Doctor forgets about them when he looks away. Just not quite as much as the humans do. So the set up is complicated, even though the solution is perhaps fairly easy. Kill the Silence. Genocide at the launch of Apollo 11. Hmm.

There’s other stuff going on, too. Amy is both pregnant and not, not that she knows that. She is plagued by images of a woman with an eyepatch looking through what looks like a prison door hatch. The child calling Nixon is the little girl inside the spacesuit. She escapes and at the end of the episode seems to regenerate.

I watched The Curse of the Black Spot pretty much straight after watching Robot and Pyramids of Mars. I think that’s the reason I rather enjoyed it. After the twists and turns of the first two weeks, this one was pretty straightforward adventure with a few scares and laughs along the way. I thought the explanation for the Siren was pretty cool (certainly less daft than the reveal that Kettlewell is a fascist scientist after all) and missed the mystery disappearance of the Boatswain.

I’ve read a few Neil Gaiman books, and enjoyed them, but I can’t call myself a fan. I was curious about his script for Doctor Who, given his reputation, and was one who loved The Doctor’s Wife. Having had a chat with the only person I know who didn’t enjoy it, I realise that a large part of my enjoyment was because I’ve always thought of the TARDIS as a sentient being. Well, okay. Not always. But since the early 1990s when I was writing Doctor Who short stories for fanzines and novels for the Virgin New Adventures range. When writing a bit of “adult material” (Nyssa and Tegan getting it on) I included the suggestion of the TARDIS being a bit pervy… I had no idea where that came from, but this story showed that wasn’t just me. Loved it, and not least because of where my brain took me - if the TARDIS responds better to River Song as she caresses her… Do I need to continue? Nah, didn’t think so.

The Rebel Flesh begins with what looks like an industrial accident. Fascinating mix of concern and what looks like callousness. Then the explanation. Then lots of running around a spooky old castle in the rain with doppelgangers a-plenty. The Almost People is the direct sequel and, nicely, didn’t suddenly change mid-step. It had some good ideas in it, and generally was well-done. Except for the weird CGI monster. Er, why? I thought the humanness of the Gangers, including the Ganger-gone-mad (and went physically monster-y), was actually scarier. But, one (or two) dodgy effects does not ruin Doctor Who stories for me. Oh, and I suspect the slightly odd left-hanging feel of the Ganger plot might turn up again. I don’t know this, it’s speculation.

Then there was the final scenes to do with Amy. The obvious explanation, really, and I thought beautifully played by all concerned.

Having thought about how a Good Man Goes to War begins, I understand the Cyberman thing, but it still leaves me cold. As in, I don’t really care. Perhaps a reference to the genocide that occurs in the first story of the season - oh, but I quip back to myself, the Silence are so forgettable. Cybermen aren’t, but they are “invincible”. But, that scene is but a single quick moment of a lot of moments of what I felt and thought were pure, brilliant, roller coaster. And I loved them, and the way they were all put together. The Sontaran was best in terms of what I mean - it’s like the amazing sequence in the film Up! in that you get the sense of a whole life in a relatively short time. There are glimpses of important things, both humorous and sad, and actually important for later (ah, story-telling). A Sontaran warrior-nurse telling Rory, the nurse-warrior, a few key things about healers and warriors. Well, I think they’ll turn out to be key.

I also loved Lorna, and my take on that was that she’s the “real Christian” among an army of zealots for daring to question the orthodoxy, the received wisdom.

Madame Vastra and Jenny are screaming out for their own BBC2 series. Seriously. It’d be better than Sherlock, which I love, by the way, and Tipping the Velvet combined. With a cheeky bit of V (the original, natch) thrown in.

It’s a good thing DVDs don’t wear out :-)

One thing has lodged in my mind and won’t let go. Too many of my friends hate Amy. Less so this series, but the hatred is still there. It’s a strangely intense hatred, that when questioned about it the response I tend to get is a, “Well, it should be self-evident why we hate her. She’s hate-worthy. In the same way as everyone hates Fear Her.” Only one mate has made any attempt to explain what in the character he doesn’t like (with some interesting points). What niggles me is that all these mates of mine are gay guys. Lesbian friends and acquaintances have a whole other reaction to Amy, and it’s not just Karen Gillen’s looks. There’s a similar thing with River Song (who I adore, and loved from her first appearance).

River Song says she’s in prison because she killed “a good man”. I am presuming that means the Doctor as a good man who goes to war. Healer/warrior - killing the warrior to save the healer? The Doctor? To get back to uncomplicated adventures?

We’ll find out in the northern autumn.
.

ANZAC Day Dawn Service, London

Yesterday was ANZAC Day. Last year I had plans to go to Hyde Park Corner at dawn to commemorate ANZAC Day. I didn’t make it for various reasons. But, as I wrote last year, I still marked the day.

This year I woke up at 3, walked to New Cross Gate to catch the 4 o’clock 36 bus. On the way, I dodged the drunken ravings of a white lad who had spotted I’m a lesbian and decided to shout his observation to whoever would care. Even his drunken friend seemed embarrassed.

It was unpleasant. Stupid (him, not me). I survived unscathed.

Being on a ‘night bus’ in reverse is odd. The mix of night life staggering about, living their lives.

At Oval, about 30 people got on the bus and they didn’t have to open their mouths for me to guess correctly they were Aussies and Kiwis. Sure enough, we all piled out into the pre-dawn cold at Hyde Park Corner. Nice to be in a throng as we made our approach to the little island with the various war memorials.

Quite a crowd gathered in front of the Australian war memorial, with the Union flag, Australian flag and New Zealand flag at half mast. So many others in the crowd were wearing medals, and it was with a little jolt I realised that many of these young men and women were wearing their own medals and not those of their grandfathers or great grandfathers.

As an atheist, the religiosity was difficult, but a small sacrifice when thinking of what happened at Gallipoli that day in 1915, which was the reason for being there at 5 am. And the speeches were balanced by a sense of loss, and of mourning. Not a celebration of martial pride, but of mateship in adversity. It was only marred by a reference to World War I being about a fight for liberty against tyranny when it was actually about empires.

A few speakers talked about Christchurch and Queensland and the mutual assistance given by the ANZAC descendents. One mentioned peacekeeping in Timor Leste and the Soloman Islands. They all mentioned Afghanistan, but no one mentioned Iraq.

I’m pleased I went, but I doubt I’ll go again. I’d much rather commemorate quietly and in solitude. And listen to the Pogue’s sublime version of Eric Bodle’s perfect And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda, which is all about ANZAC Day.

They shall not grow old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning,
We will remember them.
Lest we forget.