Debatable

I listened intently and not so intently at times to the farce that passes for a budget debate in the country. Debate, Ah! What a freaking joke. A debate as I understand it - and not in the strictest of definition, involves one party putting forward a position, an opposing party deconstructing the position taken, highlighting the weaknesses in the position, this should then be followed by some defence of the position initially put forward; usually with some empirical evidence to bolster that position.

Clearly I misunderstood what a debate should be. There were some sprinklings of good and fair presentations on the estimates, but the majority of the presentations left much to be desired - not only for substance but also for the butchering and mangling of the English Language. I am no scholar of English but one would expect the basic ability to construct a sentence and pronounce simple words to be a pre-requisite to be a Parliamentarian.

It made me wonder whether the people who elected these cognitively challenged individuals to represent them were intellectually comatose at the time - perhaps chemically/spiritually induced - seriously. I also found myself in momentary disbelief (although I should not have) by the continuous referral to the the members of the house as "honorable" - they past and current behaviour clearly not in sync. What's that saying " no honor..."

Seriously haven't we moved past the point of rhetoric, regurgitation, rehashing (rather languishing in) the past, picong and all the other non-sense which passes for debate. Perhaps a name change might help. I suggest next year we call it "The Constructive Discourse on the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure" or "Intelligent Discussion on the Estimates" - of course some members of the house would be excluded by default. Or if the "honourable members" insist on maintaining the status quo it should be aptly renamed the "Budget Diatribe"