Let’s be honest and admit that any discussion of mandates, either by a
government or an opposition, is always going to be an argument of
convenience.
The rest of this piece can be read at AusOpinion.
Showing posts with label Election 2013. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Election 2013. Show all posts
15 September, 2013
08 September, 2013
Fair’s Fair
I have had many unflattering things to say
about Mr Abbott.
However, according to our rules of
government and the Westminster system, he will form government and become our
28th prime minister.
Therefore, he deserves all the respect that
he afforded previous prime ministers who came to power under exactly the same rules.
Which translates and demanding a redo every
day for three years if you didn’t like the outcome.
Go for it!
06 September, 2013
Other “poorly worded” Liberal policies
Thursday was a real dog-ate-my-homework day for the Coalition.
First there were the long-awaited policy costings which, by their own calculations, offer a measly $6 billion in savings over four years. Then there was the internet filter fiasco. The mandatory internet filter which everyone, including the Liberal party opposed when Labor proposed it, and which was quietly dropped by Labor last year would have been back under a Liberal government. I say “would have been” because they reversed the policy a couple of hours later. Tony Abbott said that he quickly read the policy the previous night and though that it meant optional PC-based software (presumably there isn’t a Mac version) and shadow communications minister Malcolm Turnbull tweeted that the policy “wrongly indicated” support of an opt-out system.
It can only lead one to wonder what other “poorly worded” policies the Liberals have rushed out that give a misleading view of their intentions and may not be picked up in the next 24 hours…
First there were the long-awaited policy costings which, by their own calculations, offer a measly $6 billion in savings over four years. Then there was the internet filter fiasco. The mandatory internet filter which everyone, including the Liberal party opposed when Labor proposed it, and which was quietly dropped by Labor last year would have been back under a Liberal government. I say “would have been” because they reversed the policy a couple of hours later. Tony Abbott said that he quickly read the policy the previous night and though that it meant optional PC-based software (presumably there isn’t a Mac version) and shadow communications minister Malcolm Turnbull tweeted that the policy “wrongly indicated” support of an opt-out system.
It can only lead one to wonder what other “poorly worded” policies the Liberals have rushed out that give a misleading view of their intentions and may not be picked up in the next 24 hours…
- “WorkChoices dead, buried and cremated” should read: “Dead, but being resurrected.”
- “Paid Parental Leave,” is a typo. Should be, “Maid parental leave,” which is the coalition’s policy for compensating the head of the house when their domestic staff take leave.
- “Operation Secure Borders,” actually refers to safer online book shopping.
- “Stop the boats,” has a word left out. Should read: “Stop reporting the boats.”
- “Direct action,” is not actually a policy but a page from the script of one of their television commercials that fell into the wrong folder.
03 September, 2013
The new Australian history
Following the news that Tony Abbott wants to rewrite the history curriculum, I wonder what a Liberal-approved Australian history curriculum would look like…
Once upon a time, there was a big wide country with nobody in it.
Then one day, some enterprising young men set out on an expedition to see what there was in part of the world that couldn’t be seen. Led by Captain Cook, they discovered a land of boundless riches and claimed it for His Majesty the King, as was the culture.
Labourers were needed to maximise the value of this wonderful new continent. As luck would have it, the Mother Country had an oversupply of nasty people. So they decided to send the nasty people to this wonderful new continent. It was to everyone’s advantage. Great Britain got to have its nasty people taken away, and the nasty people got to see the world and learn the value of hard work. Their hard work was rewarded with their eventual freedom and some were even allowed to own some parts of the new country to help develop both their own and the nation’s potential.
The plan worked so well that eventually Great Britain didn’t need to send nasty people there any more and the new country didn’t need to have them sent and everyone was happy. The new country still received many great gifts form the mother country such as western civilisation, the Westminster system of government, and rabbits.
Eventually, it was time for this great new place to become an independent country called Australia, but you are always a part of your family and although Australia was no longer governed by Great Britain, there were ties that could never be broken.
The strength of these ties was shown in 1915 when, as Britain went to war, so did Australia and in this way, Australia became a man. The first operation was Gallipoli and there was forged the Anzac spirit of always obeying your betters. A few things went wrong but the war was won.
In the 1930s, there was the great depression. Back then, they understood that it would be foolish to try some left-wing scheme of stimulating the economy. We came out stronger for it. Many people would have starved to death if it weren’t for the rabbits that were brought over many years earlier, which tells us that the wisdom of our ancestors isn’t always apparent at the time and that we should not question the judgement of those in authority.
The 1930s also introduced us to the greatest ever Australian, Sir Donald Bradman. For those of you with older books that mention Henry Lawson or Weary Dunlop, cross those out. Sir Donald Bradman was a man who was very good at playing cricket and he was the greatest ever Australian. Yes, even greater than John Howard. That’s how great he was.
There was another war and this time, while Australia was defending Britain, Australia herself was attacked and was placed in the sad position of having to bring her soldiers back from Europe in order to defend herself.
After the war, Australia’s equal greatest prime minister Sir Robert Menzies founded the Liberal Party of Australia as a new alternative to union thugs. He ushered in a Golden Age of prosperity and happiness throughout the 1950s and 60s. Of course, someone had to build all this prosperity, and because Great Britain wasn’t sending us her nasty people any more, we had to let others into the country. They weren’t really nasty, just foreign, and that was nasty enough at a time when people were used to being just like Great Britain only sunny. Eventually, the foreigners learned to be proper Australians so that was alright.
To maintain the balance, Australia made it easier for nice people from Great Britain to come here, and that’s how we got great Australians like Tony Abbott.
Sadly, Sir Robert Menzies could not govern forever and things went downhill after his retirement. Firstly, some people started saying that there actually were people in Australia before it was discovered by Captain Cook, but that’s all in the past now so there’s no point dwelling on it.
Then in the 1970s, after decades of irrelevance, the unionists came to power in Canberra and immediately started dangerous and irresponsible policies like free education and national health cover. Eventually, the Liberal opposition was forced, for the good of the country, to block the government’s money bills. In the face of this crisis, Governor General Sir John Kerr did the only thing he could do and dismissed the government, prompting a new election and thankfully, order was restored.
Apart from Australia winning the America’s Cup, nothing much happened after that until the election of Australia’s other equal greatest prime minister, John Howard, who brought with him a second Golden Age of safety, stability and security.
Unfortunately for all of us, Mr Howard lost the 2007 election and the incoming government reversed many of his policies because they weren’t “politically correct.” Write that down now, and be sure to use the inverted commas, they are very important.
These days, Australia has lost her way, having lacked the strong guidance of business and free enterprise, which is why we should redouble our efforts to return Australia to the greatness she enjoyed during the Menzies and Howard years.
And now for the test:
Australia is…
A: Awesome
B: Totally awesome
C: The greatest country in the world
D: I’m a “politically correct” leftie unionist thug and I hate Australia
Once upon a time, there was a big wide country with nobody in it.
Then one day, some enterprising young men set out on an expedition to see what there was in part of the world that couldn’t be seen. Led by Captain Cook, they discovered a land of boundless riches and claimed it for His Majesty the King, as was the culture.
Labourers were needed to maximise the value of this wonderful new continent. As luck would have it, the Mother Country had an oversupply of nasty people. So they decided to send the nasty people to this wonderful new continent. It was to everyone’s advantage. Great Britain got to have its nasty people taken away, and the nasty people got to see the world and learn the value of hard work. Their hard work was rewarded with their eventual freedom and some were even allowed to own some parts of the new country to help develop both their own and the nation’s potential.
The plan worked so well that eventually Great Britain didn’t need to send nasty people there any more and the new country didn’t need to have them sent and everyone was happy. The new country still received many great gifts form the mother country such as western civilisation, the Westminster system of government, and rabbits.
Eventually, it was time for this great new place to become an independent country called Australia, but you are always a part of your family and although Australia was no longer governed by Great Britain, there were ties that could never be broken.
The strength of these ties was shown in 1915 when, as Britain went to war, so did Australia and in this way, Australia became a man. The first operation was Gallipoli and there was forged the Anzac spirit of always obeying your betters. A few things went wrong but the war was won.
In the 1930s, there was the great depression. Back then, they understood that it would be foolish to try some left-wing scheme of stimulating the economy. We came out stronger for it. Many people would have starved to death if it weren’t for the rabbits that were brought over many years earlier, which tells us that the wisdom of our ancestors isn’t always apparent at the time and that we should not question the judgement of those in authority.
The 1930s also introduced us to the greatest ever Australian, Sir Donald Bradman. For those of you with older books that mention Henry Lawson or Weary Dunlop, cross those out. Sir Donald Bradman was a man who was very good at playing cricket and he was the greatest ever Australian. Yes, even greater than John Howard. That’s how great he was.
There was another war and this time, while Australia was defending Britain, Australia herself was attacked and was placed in the sad position of having to bring her soldiers back from Europe in order to defend herself.
After the war, Australia’s equal greatest prime minister Sir Robert Menzies founded the Liberal Party of Australia as a new alternative to union thugs. He ushered in a Golden Age of prosperity and happiness throughout the 1950s and 60s. Of course, someone had to build all this prosperity, and because Great Britain wasn’t sending us her nasty people any more, we had to let others into the country. They weren’t really nasty, just foreign, and that was nasty enough at a time when people were used to being just like Great Britain only sunny. Eventually, the foreigners learned to be proper Australians so that was alright.
To maintain the balance, Australia made it easier for nice people from Great Britain to come here, and that’s how we got great Australians like Tony Abbott.
Sadly, Sir Robert Menzies could not govern forever and things went downhill after his retirement. Firstly, some people started saying that there actually were people in Australia before it was discovered by Captain Cook, but that’s all in the past now so there’s no point dwelling on it.
Then in the 1970s, after decades of irrelevance, the unionists came to power in Canberra and immediately started dangerous and irresponsible policies like free education and national health cover. Eventually, the Liberal opposition was forced, for the good of the country, to block the government’s money bills. In the face of this crisis, Governor General Sir John Kerr did the only thing he could do and dismissed the government, prompting a new election and thankfully, order was restored.
Apart from Australia winning the America’s Cup, nothing much happened after that until the election of Australia’s other equal greatest prime minister, John Howard, who brought with him a second Golden Age of safety, stability and security.
Unfortunately for all of us, Mr Howard lost the 2007 election and the incoming government reversed many of his policies because they weren’t “politically correct.” Write that down now, and be sure to use the inverted commas, they are very important.
These days, Australia has lost her way, having lacked the strong guidance of business and free enterprise, which is why we should redouble our efforts to return Australia to the greatness she enjoyed during the Menzies and Howard years.
And now for the test:
Australia is…
A: Awesome
B: Totally awesome
C: The greatest country in the world
D: I’m a “politically correct” leftie unionist thug and I hate Australia
02 September, 2013
The adults in the room
Another morning, another press conference from Tony Abbott talking about how “adult” he is.
Do you know how to spot an adult?
They’re the ones who don’t need to brag that they’re adults.
Maturity, like intelligence, is self-evident. Have you ever seen Bob Hawke, Kim Beazley or Malcolm Turnbull waving their Rhodes scholarships in people’s faces in order to counter a perception that they’re a bit dim? Of course you haven’t, because their knowledge, education and intelligence is obvious, regardless of what you think of them politically.
Adulthood is not poking your tongue out at the speaker of the house.
Adulthood is not telling the nation that they should vote for you because someone in Corangamite dropped his dacks and then following it up by quoting a bum joke.
Show me someone who talks a lot about how mature and adult he is, and I’ll show you a petulant child with ambitions above his ability.
Do you know how to spot an adult?
They’re the ones who don’t need to brag that they’re adults.
Maturity, like intelligence, is self-evident. Have you ever seen Bob Hawke, Kim Beazley or Malcolm Turnbull waving their Rhodes scholarships in people’s faces in order to counter a perception that they’re a bit dim? Of course you haven’t, because their knowledge, education and intelligence is obvious, regardless of what you think of them politically.
Adulthood is not poking your tongue out at the speaker of the house.
Adulthood is not telling the nation that they should vote for you because someone in Corangamite dropped his dacks and then following it up by quoting a bum joke.
Show me someone who talks a lot about how mature and adult he is, and I’ll show you a petulant child with ambitions above his ability.
28 August, 2013
I invite you, if you can stomach it, to listen to, or read, the speech of the deputy opposition leader and shadow minister for foreign affairs, Julie Bishop MP at the LNP's campaign launch in Brisbane last Sunday:
In a Abbott government, this wannabe comedian would be our head diplomat.
Vote for whoever you want.
In a Abbott government, this wannabe comedian would be our head diplomat.
Vote for whoever you want.
24 August, 2013
Tony Abbott has gone mad
Tony Abbott has gone completely MAD!!!
Now he's offering cash for boats!*
Fishing boats, passenger boats, a leaky old tinnie - Tony's buying the lot!
It doesn't matter if you're an honest fisherman or a callous people smuggler. If you've got something that will float, Tony Abbott offering you cold, hard, Aussie cash!**
If that's not the craziest thing you've ever heard, then Tony guarantees it's all Julia Gillard's fault.
*No, Really!
** Offer only available in Indonesia.
Once again, unless you're from Victoria and of a certain age, you might need this to get the reference:
Now he's offering cash for boats!*
Fishing boats, passenger boats, a leaky old tinnie - Tony's buying the lot!
It doesn't matter if you're an honest fisherman or a callous people smuggler. If you've got something that will float, Tony Abbott offering you cold, hard, Aussie cash!**
If that's not the craziest thing you've ever heard, then Tony guarantees it's all Julia Gillard's fault.
*No, Really!
** Offer only available in Indonesia.
Once again, unless you're from Victoria and of a certain age, you might need this to get the reference:
22 August, 2013
If Abbott had kept going...
Matthew da Silva wrote a great observation on Tony Abbott’s ‘shut up’ moment last night, that it was basically Abbott reverting to type. I agree completely. Anyone who has ever been to high school has come across the kind of meathead with more ambition than talent, who likes to suck up to the crowd with bullying. And anyone who has ever been to school can probably imaging what would have come next if Abbott hadn’t quickly remembered that he’s trying to keep himself nice – or at least keep plausible deniability for his boorishness.
Probably something like this…
Does this guy ever shut up?
I mean c’mon, does he ever bloody shut up! On and on and on!
“Oh look at me! I’m Kevin Rudd. I wear glasses, that means I’m smart. I go on about programmated special whatsits.”
I mean, what you’ve gotta remember about old Ruddy here is… He was beaten by a girl!
No shit! He was dead set beaten by a girl! And not just any girl. He was beaten by a redhead! How pathetic can you be?
[sings]
Kev got beat by a giii-irrrrl!
Kev got beat by a giii-irrrrl!
Kev got beat by a giii-irrrrl!
Oh no, I’m sorry Kev. I didn’t mean it. I don’t wanna make you cry again.
But you’ve got to admit it’s pretty pissweak that it took you three years to get her back. And now that you’ve finally got her back for beating you, now you’re getting your arse kicked by a bunch of darkies in boats. I mean, who cares if they drown or if they’re getting shot at. It’s not our problem, is it?
Kev’s big idea now if that we ought to allow queers to marry each other. Who cares? Why’s Kev so friendly with poofters now? Makes ya wonder, doesn’t it? You a poofter, Kev? I reckon Kev might be a poofter.
He keeps whingeing about policy detail. What a dropkick! We’re not all as boring as you, Kev! Some of us have lives. Some of us know how to have fun. You want costings? Okay mate, you know what? I’ve got your costings RIGHT HERE [grabs crotch].
Oops. I probably shouldn’t do that around Kev. He might think I’m a bit of alright. I’d better keep my back to the wall in case he wants to give me one up the arse.
Australians want a real man for prime minister. Just get a load of this [lifts shirt]. Pure Aussie muscle, that! I got that ’cos I was out surfing and doing triathlons while Kev was practicing how to talk ching-chong. I’ve driven fire trucks. I bet Kev hasn’t even driven a Tonka truck! [pauses to laugh at his great wit]
You’ve got a clear choice at this election. You can have boring old mister nerdy four-eyes brainiac here, or you can have someone who looks like a real Aussie, acts like a real Aussie and talks like a real Aussie.
Now I’ll see you all in the bar where it’s my shout.
Bye, Kev! Say hi to your boyfriend for me!
Remember that a “gaffe” is usually when you forget to not say what you really think.
Probably something like this…
Does this guy ever shut up?
I mean c’mon, does he ever bloody shut up! On and on and on!
“Oh look at me! I’m Kevin Rudd. I wear glasses, that means I’m smart. I go on about programmated special whatsits.”
I mean, what you’ve gotta remember about old Ruddy here is… He was beaten by a girl!
No shit! He was dead set beaten by a girl! And not just any girl. He was beaten by a redhead! How pathetic can you be?
[sings]
Kev got beat by a giii-irrrrl!
Kev got beat by a giii-irrrrl!
Kev got beat by a giii-irrrrl!
Oh no, I’m sorry Kev. I didn’t mean it. I don’t wanna make you cry again.
But you’ve got to admit it’s pretty pissweak that it took you three years to get her back. And now that you’ve finally got her back for beating you, now you’re getting your arse kicked by a bunch of darkies in boats. I mean, who cares if they drown or if they’re getting shot at. It’s not our problem, is it?
Kev’s big idea now if that we ought to allow queers to marry each other. Who cares? Why’s Kev so friendly with poofters now? Makes ya wonder, doesn’t it? You a poofter, Kev? I reckon Kev might be a poofter.
He keeps whingeing about policy detail. What a dropkick! We’re not all as boring as you, Kev! Some of us have lives. Some of us know how to have fun. You want costings? Okay mate, you know what? I’ve got your costings RIGHT HERE [grabs crotch].
Oops. I probably shouldn’t do that around Kev. He might think I’m a bit of alright. I’d better keep my back to the wall in case he wants to give me one up the arse.
Australians want a real man for prime minister. Just get a load of this [lifts shirt]. Pure Aussie muscle, that! I got that ’cos I was out surfing and doing triathlons while Kev was practicing how to talk ching-chong. I’ve driven fire trucks. I bet Kev hasn’t even driven a Tonka truck! [pauses to laugh at his great wit]
You’ve got a clear choice at this election. You can have boring old mister nerdy four-eyes brainiac here, or you can have someone who looks like a real Aussie, acts like a real Aussie and talks like a real Aussie.
Now I’ll see you all in the bar where it’s my shout.
Bye, Kev! Say hi to your boyfriend for me!
Remember that a “gaffe” is usually when you forget to not say what you really think.
How to succeed in business, media and politics* without really trying
(*assuming there is still any difference)
There’s an old saying, attributed to several different sources but that’s not really the point, that the secret to success is sincerity, and once you can fake that, you’ve got it made.
This no longer applies. Observable evidence suggests that nobody really cares about sincerity any more.
Between Rupert Murdoch behaving like he’s the little guy fighting the toffs,
Andrew Bolt, whose ’blog hosts some of the most hateful comments this side of 4chan, and whose own posts are sometimes only slightly less ugly, dismissing Twitter as a “sewer of hate,” (Warning: links to Bolt’s ’blog)
and Tony Abbott. Where to even begin with Tony Abbott?
He has claimed that turning the needy away is in line with Christian teachings. He and his front bench are complaining that Labor is not giving details on its policies despite not released any details of his own policies and insisting that all will be revealed “in good time,” with just over two weeks to go until the election. Then there was last night’s second leaders debate with the venue, host, broadcaster and format of Abbott’s choice. In this forum, after spending three years chanting mantras about boats, carbon tax and demanding an election, Abbott fell back on a pathetic, frat boy tactic of pointing to Rudd and asking, “Does this guy ever shut up?”
Tony Abbott gets his statesman on
Forget faking sincerity. The secret to success is, whether by accident or design, to be completely and utterly oblivious to your own rank hypocrisy.
Update:
Anyone who hasn't spent their whole life in a bubble will tell you that the first refuge of a bully is to accuse your target of your own worst behaviour. We should be beyond being shocked at Tony Abbott's unmitigated gall, but his accusation that it was Julia Gillard of turning political discourse into "crude political head-banging" has got to break some kind of record
Any real man who would say THIS after standing in front of THIS should die of shame.
Vote for whoever you want.
There’s an old saying, attributed to several different sources but that’s not really the point, that the secret to success is sincerity, and once you can fake that, you’ve got it made.
This no longer applies. Observable evidence suggests that nobody really cares about sincerity any more.
Between Rupert Murdoch behaving like he’s the little guy fighting the toffs,
Andrew Bolt, whose ’blog hosts some of the most hateful comments this side of 4chan, and whose own posts are sometimes only slightly less ugly, dismissing Twitter as a “sewer of hate,” (Warning: links to Bolt’s ’blog)
and Tony Abbott. Where to even begin with Tony Abbott?
He has claimed that turning the needy away is in line with Christian teachings. He and his front bench are complaining that Labor is not giving details on its policies despite not released any details of his own policies and insisting that all will be revealed “in good time,” with just over two weeks to go until the election. Then there was last night’s second leaders debate with the venue, host, broadcaster and format of Abbott’s choice. In this forum, after spending three years chanting mantras about boats, carbon tax and demanding an election, Abbott fell back on a pathetic, frat boy tactic of pointing to Rudd and asking, “Does this guy ever shut up?”
Tony Abbott gets his statesman on
Forget faking sincerity. The secret to success is, whether by accident or design, to be completely and utterly oblivious to your own rank hypocrisy.
Update:
Anyone who hasn't spent their whole life in a bubble will tell you that the first refuge of a bully is to accuse your target of your own worst behaviour. We should be beyond being shocked at Tony Abbott's unmitigated gall, but his accusation that it was Julia Gillard of turning political discourse into "crude political head-banging" has got to break some kind of record
Any real man who would say THIS after standing in front of THIS should die of shame.
Vote for whoever you want.
16 August, 2013
Absolute power
After three years of saying ‘Let the people decide,’ (ignoring the fact that the people did decide in 2010 only it was a decision that he didn’t like) Tony Abbott seems to have amended his position to ‘Let the people decide, so long as it’s a decision we approve of.’ This appears to be his strategy in deciding to preference the Greens last, behind Labor on LNP how-to-vote cards.
Of course, it’s the Liberal party’s prerogative to distribute their preferences however they see fit and it doesn’t mean that anyone who votes Liberal first will distribute their own preferences according to how the card advises. It’s likely to have the most impact from people who vote above the line in the senate.
However, dressing this tactic up as some kind of righteous stand is rather disturbing. Naturally, Abbott and the Liberals want a clear majority. Every party does. Everyone in politics wishes to be able to enact their agenda unhindered by boring stuff like having to convince a majority of the people’s representatives that it’s a good idea, but Abbott’s insistence that an outright majority is the only workable outcome suggests that we should perhaps add ‘democracy’ to the list of things that Tony Abbott doesn’t quite get.
Abbott insists that the hung parliament has been a failed experiment – an assertion that is clearly incorrect if only because of the fact that it went full term despite the opposition’s insistence that it wouldn’t last and all their efforts to ensure it wouldn’t. The hung parliament may have been a novelty to a pair of parties that have both become used to either controlling the house of representatives or not, but it is neither an experiment, nor a failure. It’s the way things are supposed to work.
Last week, Tony Abbott addressed voter concern that’s he’s a risky prospect by saying that in a Westminster system, you elect a team, not a leader. It was an astonishingly hypocritical comment after his lines about voting for Kevin and getting Julia, then voting for Julia and getting Kevin. It was also completely wrong. We don’t elect leaders. We don’t elect parties. We don’t elect governments. We elect representatives. That is all.
I have written about this before, but it’s worth repeating: The parliament IS the government. In this parliament that has just been dissolved, there was no constitutional reason why we couldn’t have had Julia Gillard as prime minister, Tony Abbott as deputy prime minister, Kevin Rudd as leader of the opposition and Bob Katter as speaker. There is nothing to stop the parliament appointing the best MP for each position except partisan intransigence. The notion of separating government and opposition is mere convention, but it’s a comfortable and familiar convention.
It’s a convention that voters are familiar and comfortable with as well, which is why I am not going to pretend that who will form government and who will be prime minister are not usually higher considerations for most voters than who will make the best local representative. I am in the situation myself of having a local member who is a good person and a decent representative but standing for a party that I absolutely do not want in government and therefore, I am going to have to put him last.
Such strategic voting is the reason behind the Liberals’ decision to put the Greens below even their arch-rival, the ALP, only they’re trying for it en masse. They have decided that government should be a binary choice between one mob and the other mob, even if it means possibly helping the other mob over the line in a couple of marginal seats and senate places. In Abbott’s mind, the party that forms government should be able to do exactly as it pleases. Well alright, as mentioned, every party wants that deep down. Both major parties are guilty of trying to stack the parliament with generic McCandidates who are there to represent the party in the electorate, not the electorate in the government.
It comes back to the perennial dilemma of representative democracy. Do we vote for those who we trust to represent us best, or do we vote for those whose agenda we most approve of and authorise them to enact it? Is this a participatory democracy, or merely an elective dictatorship?
Although it may be the most honest thing he has said on the campaign, with his demand of all or nothing, Tony Abbott has made it clear that he errs on the side of the latter on both questions. This would not be quite so worrying if he had presented any kind of detail on his very broad policies. If he is genuine about not being prepared to negotiate his agenda through another hung parliament, should there be one, then one has to wonder why not. It goes against the spirit of parliamentary democracy. It’s one thing to put all your policies on the table and say, “These are our plans, take it or leave it!” It’s quite another to say, “Just give us carte blanch or else and we’ll work out the details later.” That should worry people, no matter who it is.
PS: I realise that this is the third post in a row criticising Abbott. Lest anyone think I am showing partisanship, if Kevin Rudd or indeed anyone not in the Liberal party says anything equally shocking, then you can rest assured I’ll have something to say about it.
Frankly, the election campaign so far has been The Tony-Abbott-Said-WHAT?? Show. Whether this plays better for the Coalition or Labor or the minors is yet to be seen.
Of course, it’s the Liberal party’s prerogative to distribute their preferences however they see fit and it doesn’t mean that anyone who votes Liberal first will distribute their own preferences according to how the card advises. It’s likely to have the most impact from people who vote above the line in the senate. However, dressing this tactic up as some kind of righteous stand is rather disturbing. Naturally, Abbott and the Liberals want a clear majority. Every party does. Everyone in politics wishes to be able to enact their agenda unhindered by boring stuff like having to convince a majority of the people’s representatives that it’s a good idea, but Abbott’s insistence that an outright majority is the only workable outcome suggests that we should perhaps add ‘democracy’ to the list of things that Tony Abbott doesn’t quite get.
Abbott insists that the hung parliament has been a failed experiment – an assertion that is clearly incorrect if only because of the fact that it went full term despite the opposition’s insistence that it wouldn’t last and all their efforts to ensure it wouldn’t. The hung parliament may have been a novelty to a pair of parties that have both become used to either controlling the house of representatives or not, but it is neither an experiment, nor a failure. It’s the way things are supposed to work.
Last week, Tony Abbott addressed voter concern that’s he’s a risky prospect by saying that in a Westminster system, you elect a team, not a leader. It was an astonishingly hypocritical comment after his lines about voting for Kevin and getting Julia, then voting for Julia and getting Kevin. It was also completely wrong. We don’t elect leaders. We don’t elect parties. We don’t elect governments. We elect representatives. That is all.
I have written about this before, but it’s worth repeating: The parliament IS the government. In this parliament that has just been dissolved, there was no constitutional reason why we couldn’t have had Julia Gillard as prime minister, Tony Abbott as deputy prime minister, Kevin Rudd as leader of the opposition and Bob Katter as speaker. There is nothing to stop the parliament appointing the best MP for each position except partisan intransigence. The notion of separating government and opposition is mere convention, but it’s a comfortable and familiar convention.
It’s a convention that voters are familiar and comfortable with as well, which is why I am not going to pretend that who will form government and who will be prime minister are not usually higher considerations for most voters than who will make the best local representative. I am in the situation myself of having a local member who is a good person and a decent representative but standing for a party that I absolutely do not want in government and therefore, I am going to have to put him last.
Such strategic voting is the reason behind the Liberals’ decision to put the Greens below even their arch-rival, the ALP, only they’re trying for it en masse. They have decided that government should be a binary choice between one mob and the other mob, even if it means possibly helping the other mob over the line in a couple of marginal seats and senate places. In Abbott’s mind, the party that forms government should be able to do exactly as it pleases. Well alright, as mentioned, every party wants that deep down. Both major parties are guilty of trying to stack the parliament with generic McCandidates who are there to represent the party in the electorate, not the electorate in the government.
It comes back to the perennial dilemma of representative democracy. Do we vote for those who we trust to represent us best, or do we vote for those whose agenda we most approve of and authorise them to enact it? Is this a participatory democracy, or merely an elective dictatorship?
Although it may be the most honest thing he has said on the campaign, with his demand of all or nothing, Tony Abbott has made it clear that he errs on the side of the latter on both questions. This would not be quite so worrying if he had presented any kind of detail on his very broad policies. If he is genuine about not being prepared to negotiate his agenda through another hung parliament, should there be one, then one has to wonder why not. It goes against the spirit of parliamentary democracy. It’s one thing to put all your policies on the table and say, “These are our plans, take it or leave it!” It’s quite another to say, “Just give us carte blanch or else and we’ll work out the details later.” That should worry people, no matter who it is.
PS: I realise that this is the third post in a row criticising Abbott. Lest anyone think I am showing partisanship, if Kevin Rudd or indeed anyone not in the Liberal party says anything equally shocking, then you can rest assured I’ll have something to say about it.
Frankly, the election campaign so far has been The Tony-Abbott-Said-WHAT?? Show. Whether this plays better for the Coalition or Labor or the minors is yet to be seen.
13 August, 2013
The Rules: Glass Houses of Representatives
The world barely blinked when we changed prime ministers late last June. But now that there's an election campaign on, the world outside Australia has started to notice things are happening here.
So far, the moments that have been the most noticed internationally have been...
Some poor muppet who didn't know what his own party's policies were even though he was holding them in his hand.
A candidate for the loony right One Nation party being compared to Sarah Palin. This is most unfair. Even Sarah Palin isn't so stupid as to think Islam is a country or that Jews follow Jesus.
And Tony Abbott's suppository.
Many may point out that this is nothing by trivia and a distraction from the real issues. And they would be absolutely right. But a trivial and distracted world is watching.
Australia, it's time to stop laughing at the United States.
Back around the time the offensive menu story broke, one of my US correspondents remarked to me that Australian politics had become even uglier than the US. He was right. Now we're pulling ahead of them in the idiot stakes as well.
I know Australia likes to punch above its weight and beat the rest of the world, but could we let somebody else win this one? Please?
So far, the moments that have been the most noticed internationally have been...
Many may point out that this is nothing by trivia and a distraction from the real issues. And they would be absolutely right. But a trivial and distracted world is watching.
Australia, it's time to stop laughing at the United States.
Back around the time the offensive menu story broke, one of my US correspondents remarked to me that Australian politics had become even uglier than the US. He was right. Now we're pulling ahead of them in the idiot stakes as well.
I know Australia likes to punch above its weight and beat the rest of the world, but could we let somebody else win this one? Please?
12 August, 2013
Who’s fair dinkum?
To truncate a quote from Donald Rumsfeld, there are known knowns, there are known unknowns and there are unknown unknowns. Although he said some rather laughable things, this was actually one of the wisest things he ever said.
In this election campaign, there are also things we know and things that we don’t know.
We know that Tony Abbott has been demanding an election every day for the whole three years since the last one.
We know that for all that time, he has insisted that the coalition has a boatload of policies and costings waiting to be released as soon as the election is called.
We knew that the election would have to be called for some time before the end of November this year.
We know that Tony Abbott knew this. Wait, scratch that. That’s actually my assumption that he knew it. It should be a pretty fair assumption, but it’s an assumption nonetheless.
We know that the Coalition’s ‘Real Solutions’ document has a starbust saying “Fully Costed” on almost every other page.
We know that the election date has been announced for Saturday 7th September.
Putting together all of the above, we know that we now have the conditions under which Mr Abbott said he would release his policies and costings.
And we know that in the first debate last night, a full week after the election was called and with less than four weeks until polling day, when pressed on the costings of his policies, Mr Abbott said,
This seems like a funny definition of “in good time” for someone who has spent three years demanding an election next week and who has given the impression that all the details have been sorted out and they were just waiting for an election date to release it all. What we don’t know is what would have happened if there had been an election a year earlier.
What we don’t know is what on earth “in good time” means.
Of course, 5pm on September 6th is technically before polling day. You just have to ask yourself, to use Mr Abbott’s own words, who is fair dinkum?
Vote for whoever you want.
 |
| Picture credit |
We know that Tony Abbott has been demanding an election every day for the whole three years since the last one.
We know that for all that time, he has insisted that the coalition has a boatload of policies and costings waiting to be released as soon as the election is called.
We knew that the election would have to be called for some time before the end of November this year.
We know that Tony Abbott knew this. Wait, scratch that. That’s actually my assumption that he knew it. It should be a pretty fair assumption, but it’s an assumption nonetheless.
We know that the Coalition’s ‘Real Solutions’ document has a starbust saying “Fully Costed” on almost every other page.
We know that the election date has been announced for Saturday 7th September.
Putting together all of the above, we know that we now have the conditions under which Mr Abbott said he would release his policies and costings.
And we know that in the first debate last night, a full week after the election was called and with less than four weeks until polling day, when pressed on the costings of his policies, Mr Abbott said,
“You will see in good time before polling day exactly how much we're going to spend and exactly how much we’re going to save and exactly how much better the bank balance will be under the Coalition than under the Labor Party.”
This seems like a funny definition of “in good time” for someone who has spent three years demanding an election next week and who has given the impression that all the details have been sorted out and they were just waiting for an election date to release it all. What we don’t know is what would have happened if there had been an election a year earlier.
What we don’t know is what on earth “in good time” means.
Of course, 5pm on September 6th is technically before polling day. You just have to ask yourself, to use Mr Abbott’s own words, who is fair dinkum?
Vote for whoever you want.
11 August, 2013
What would Rupert Murdoch do?
Before we go any further, spare me any nitpicking over whether the screaming headlines we’ve seen from News Ltd are actually representative of Rupert Murdoch’s personal point of view. We have 50 years of history to tell us how Murdoch operates. Did he get on the blower to newly parachuted-in head honcho Col Allan and say, “Listen son, get yer biro out. This is what the front page is gunna say…”? Of course he didn’t. He doesn’t have to. Rupert Murdoch is many things, but he’s not stupid. He doesn’t employ people who have to be told what to do. He employs people who know what to do, what the company’s position is and what’s expected of them. There’s no shortage of people who will tell you what happens if you try to flout the company policy. Like any good organised crime syndicate, there are plenty of buffers between the commanders and the footsoldiers to give the head of the family plausible deniability. So if you want to point out that we can never be completely certain that the papers would look exactly the same this week if Rupert himself were editing them, save it for the debating society. If you honestly have genuine doubts that Murdoch wholeheartedly approves of these front pages, then please leave your credit card number, expiry date and security code in the comments so that I can send you your prize.
The broader question, which is worth debating, is whether this campaigning by media is going to make any difference either way. Who cares what Rupert wants? The overwhelming majority of voters have absolutely nothing in common with him. Does anyone really go into a polling booth asking themselves, “What would Rupert Murdoch do?”
I fear the answer may be more people than anyone would like to admit.
This can be partly illustrated by this motivational poster quoting Steve Jobs.During last year’s U.S. presidential election, some wondered why people would vote against their own interests – why the poor would vote in the interests of the rich. I read an article then (which I can no longer find, I’m sorry), which theorised that while the great majority of voters in any election may not be rich, most of them hope that one day they will be and that some of them work on the logic that if they vote in the interests of the wealthy, that’s going to put them one step closer to becoming like them.
Sure, the thinking voter may look at this kind of logic and say, “dream on!” but the fact is, celebrity endorsements work. If you don’t believe me, have a look on a bus or a train station and count how many people have paid over $400 for a pair of headphones because they were allegedly designed by a rapper. Never mind the fact that they’re probably being used to listen to badly encoded mp3s or, worse still, streaming services. If you’ve got a sound system like Dr Dre’s, then you might notice the difference but if you’re listening to Spotify on your iPhone, then I’m afraid you’ve wasted your money. That doesn’t stop people from proudly displaying on their heads the fact that they have more disposable income than judgement. This is why people buy shoes according to which sportsmen wear them. This is why you can’t go hear a shopping centre without the giant grinning mug of someone called Gok staring at you from every direction. This is why people are happy to take home budgeting advice from Status bloody Quo! And they all have the vote.
There are plenty of people who consider being rich and powerful to be virtues in and of themselves. To them, Rupert Murdoch is the ultimate role model. The fact that he upsets lefties and academics is a bonus to them. The endorsement of Murdoch and his company, while being of no material interest to them, could still help them make their decision, figuring it will get them a little bit closer to being like someone they admire, as depressing as that may be.
09 August, 2013
BREAKING NEWS... BREAKING NEWS...
British MP Tom Watson, who became a hero to many for his pursuit of News International over the phone hacking scandal and his grilling of Rupert and James Murdoch at inquiries related to the scandal, has announced via a series of tweets that he will be visiting Australia during the election campaign to counter Murdoch's influence.
Upon hearing of the visit, News Ltd newspapers published a series of editorials slamming the visit, saying, "What right has some foreigner got to try an influence an Australian election?"
07 August, 2013
GST changes? Do you feel lucky?
Whether or not the Liberal party has any actual plans at this moment to increase or broaden the base of the GST, we can learn from history.
We know that the original GST as proposed by John Hewson in the “Fightback!” policy document (and whatever you thought of the contents, that really WAS a policy document) was 15%.
We know that John Howard and Peter Costello originally wanted the current 10% GST to apply to everything including basic food until it was taken off in a deal with the Democrats to get the rest of the GST through the senate.
We know that when the Liberal/National coalition unexpectedly gained control of the senate in 2004, they initiated the deeply unpopular WorkChoices policy, despite having made no mention of any such policy during the election campaign. When John Howard was asked why he was instigating a policy he never took to the people, he said that everyone knew that workplace relations reform had always been his policy.
We know that many on Tony Abbott’s front bench were part of the Howard government that implemented WorkChoices. Indeed, they like to remind us of that fact.
We know that Tony Abbott has said it’s sometimes better to ask forgiveness than permission.
So whether or not there is any substance to the rumours that the Coalition plans to increase the GST or apply it to food or both, you have to look at their history and ask yourself a question:
“Do I feel lucky?”
We know that the original GST as proposed by John Hewson in the “Fightback!” policy document (and whatever you thought of the contents, that really WAS a policy document) was 15%.
We know that John Howard and Peter Costello originally wanted the current 10% GST to apply to everything including basic food until it was taken off in a deal with the Democrats to get the rest of the GST through the senate.
We know that when the Liberal/National coalition unexpectedly gained control of the senate in 2004, they initiated the deeply unpopular WorkChoices policy, despite having made no mention of any such policy during the election campaign. When John Howard was asked why he was instigating a policy he never took to the people, he said that everyone knew that workplace relations reform had always been his policy.
We know that many on Tony Abbott’s front bench were part of the Howard government that implemented WorkChoices. Indeed, they like to remind us of that fact.
We know that Tony Abbott has said it’s sometimes better to ask forgiveness than permission.
So whether or not there is any substance to the rumours that the Coalition plans to increase the GST or apply it to food or both, you have to look at their history and ask yourself a question:
“Do I feel lucky?”
14 June, 2013
How to do damage control
This week provided a study in contrasts of how to manage an embarrassing story from the Liberal Party and the Australian Defence Force.
When news broke of a menu from a Liberal Party fundraising dinner which made offensive sexual references to the prime minister, the member who the dinner was raising funds for, Mal Brough, apologised and Liberal leader Tony Abbott condemned it. Rightly so.
Then, that evening, the restaurant owner claimed that the menu was an in-house joke that was never distributed to attendees. That set Brough up to deny on Thursday ever having seen the menu which he apologised for the day before and which, as Latika Bourke tweeted, he was aware of when she asked him about it. Tony Abbott then said it was time for everyone to move on, despite the fact that the Liberals' story of the menu never making it out of the kitchen just doesn't add up. It's also despite the fact that Tony Abbott had a fit of the vapours last year over sexist text messages sent by Peter Slipper, who Mal Brough is running against. It was Abbott's opportunistic outburst about Slipper's texts that led directly to Julia Gillard's misogyny speech. Whether it was distributed or not, was this menu a window into the Liberals' minds?
So the opposition is left looking like a bunch of headless chooks. That's how not to do it.
Here's how to do it:
A video made by army chief Lieutenant General David Morrison went viral last night. It's a response to new allegations of sexual abuse in the defence force. In it, he tells any serving soldier who would participate in, or even tolerate sexual and sexist abuse to get out and find another job. He didn't try to deny the problem. He didn't try to rationalise or minimise the problem. He spoke directly to the perpetrators and told them they were not welcome in his organisation.
And today, everyone loves the ADF. By confronting the situation and not insulting our intelligence by telling us it isn't happening, or accusing critics of playing gender politics, he did far more for the ADF's image than a year of weaseling and spin from Tony Abbott could do for his party. Australians know when someone is bullshitting. Lt Gen Morrison knows this. Mr Abbott still doesn't.
When news broke of a menu from a Liberal Party fundraising dinner which made offensive sexual references to the prime minister, the member who the dinner was raising funds for, Mal Brough, apologised and Liberal leader Tony Abbott condemned it. Rightly so.
Then, that evening, the restaurant owner claimed that the menu was an in-house joke that was never distributed to attendees. That set Brough up to deny on Thursday ever having seen the menu which he apologised for the day before and which, as Latika Bourke tweeted, he was aware of when she asked him about it. Tony Abbott then said it was time for everyone to move on, despite the fact that the Liberals' story of the menu never making it out of the kitchen just doesn't add up. It's also despite the fact that Tony Abbott had a fit of the vapours last year over sexist text messages sent by Peter Slipper, who Mal Brough is running against. It was Abbott's opportunistic outburst about Slipper's texts that led directly to Julia Gillard's misogyny speech. Whether it was distributed or not, was this menu a window into the Liberals' minds?
So the opposition is left looking like a bunch of headless chooks. That's how not to do it.
Here's how to do it:
A video made by army chief Lieutenant General David Morrison went viral last night. It's a response to new allegations of sexual abuse in the defence force. In it, he tells any serving soldier who would participate in, or even tolerate sexual and sexist abuse to get out and find another job. He didn't try to deny the problem. He didn't try to rationalise or minimise the problem. He spoke directly to the perpetrators and told them they were not welcome in his organisation.
And today, everyone loves the ADF. By confronting the situation and not insulting our intelligence by telling us it isn't happening, or accusing critics of playing gender politics, he did far more for the ADF's image than a year of weaseling and spin from Tony Abbott could do for his party. Australians know when someone is bullshitting. Lt Gen Morrison knows this. Mr Abbott still doesn't.
Watch and learn, Tony
01 May, 2013
Reading between the lines, Part 2
The latest line from the Liberal party and their leader is that, should they win the election, Tony Abbott expects to “grow into the job,” of prime minister. They back this up by reminding us that John Howard grew into the job.
Translation:
1: After nearly four years as opposition leader, Tony Abbott is still not ready to be prime minister and he knows it.
2: John Howard was a naïve git before he became a cynical arse.
26 April, 2013
Clive for Canberra? Why not?
Why not?
There are a lot of positive aspects to this.
For a start, comparisons are already being made with the Joh for PM campaign of 1987. In fact, it’s being referred to now as the “disastrous” Joh for PM campaign, which is nonsense. It was disastrous for John Howard. It was great for Labor. And for Bjelke-Petersen himself, it was neither here nor there. For him it was just a massive ego trip which ultimately never became a real campaign anyway. So if Palmer’s actual campaign manages to bugger up Tony Abbott’s then I’m all for it.
Lest people get the idea that this is going to be partisan, I’ve said before that I’m a swinging voter and I’ve also said I’d love to be able to vote against Labor this election, but I honestly believe an Abbott government would be dangerous. Anything that mitigates that risk is something I see as a positive.
Palmer has said that the policies of his rebooted United Australia Party would be very similar to the Liberal Party’s. That should be instantly attractive to people who naturally swing Liberal but can’t abide the race-to-the-bottom antics of Tony Abbott – and there are plenty of them around. The major difference Palmer has laid out between his party and the two majors is treatment of indigenous people and asylum seekers. That won’t be enough to counter the natural suspicion progressives have of the big business interests Palmer clearly represents, but it’s a start.
The most notable aspect of Palmer’s campaign is that it’s another massive rebuke of the Liberal party from someone who should be (and until very recently has been) a natural ally of the party and someone the Liberals would claim to represent. If someone like Palmer, who was previously one of the Liberal party’s chief benefactors, has decided they’re not worth the money and that he could do a better job himself, then that should cause a rethink for anyone who was considering voting Liberal on the grounds of their economic management skills and business-friendliness.
What Palmer is really doing here is cutting out the middle-man. Mum & Dad party donors may do so because they think it’s for the greater good, but when billionaires donate to parties, they want a return on their investment. This means that they are buying influence over government or potential government. If Palmer is prepared to bypass that system, put his policies to the people and be accountable to the people, then that is to be commended whether you agree with him or not. More people who demand a say in the political process, from mining operators to talkback radio hosts to columnists to ’bloggers should do this.
I’m not here to cheer for Palmer – I’m sure I’ll be able to find lots to disagree with him on. I’m just trying to look beyond the knee-jerk, “he crazy,” reactions. There’s little joy for Labor here. The UAP will doubtlessly preference the Liberals and in the event that they end up holding the balance of power in the lower house, then they will surely support a Liberal/National government. Of course, Tony Abbott is on record saying that minority governments don’t work. He will jettison that comment like so much of the other drivel he comes out with if it means he can become PM. The media will also completely fail to call Abbott a liar for making compromises in order to form a stable and functioning government.
This perhaps unlikely scenario offers some hope for progressives. Given Palmer’s stated positions on indigenous affairs and asylum seekers, the UAP may force any potential minority Abbott government to be less disgraceful on those issues in a similar way to how the Greens and independents managed to arrest Labor’s lurch to the right, for a time at least. In the really unlikely event that the UAP forms government and Palmer becomes prime minister, then if we have to have government by and for big business, then better to have the real thing than a bunch of opportunistic political hacks doing their masters’ bidding.
Yes, it’s all conjecture but either way, this election just got a little less depressing.
25 April, 2013
News from the future…
[some time between May and September, 2013]
Mr Abbott was part way through answering a seemingly innocuous question about how the Coalition plans to pay for abolishing the carbon and mining taxes without reducing the tax-free threshold to pre-2012 levels, when Ms Sales leapt across the desk, drove her fist clean into Mr Abbott’s chest, tore out his heart and showed it still beating to his dying eyes.
Sales then calmly resumed her seat and turned to camera to introduce a report on the human cost of the drugs in football scandal.
The following morning, social media was abuzz with accusations from the left and hardcore Labor that Sales and the ABC had sold out and become puppets of Rupert Murdoch and the IPA for allowing Tony Abbott to prove that he had a heart.
31 March, 2013
Reading between the lines
In a week when Fitch reaffirmed Australia’s AAA credit rating, making Australia one of only 9 countries in the world with a AAA rating from all three major ratings agencies, the news (and I use the term in its loosest possible meaning) from the Liberal party is that Tony Abbott’s daughters like him in this curiously un-paywalled story on news.com.au.
This is a follow up to the media blitz we had in October where Margie Abbott said Tony was a nice bloke too.
Abbott has faced a lot of charges of misogyny, all of which he has brought upon himself. Personally, I don’t know if he is an actual misogynist or if he’s just stuck 50 years in the past, but if his main response is that his wife is a woman and so are his daughters, then that’s not much of a defence.
I have no comment on the Abbott family. They’re not relevant to the issues. Of course Tony Abbott’s wife and daughters love him and want him to succeed just as much as Julia Gillard’s partner and family love and support her. Bridget and Frances Abbott are no more credible witnesses for Tony Abbott than the late John Gillard would have been for Julia Gillard. That is no disrespect to any of them, it’s simply not news. If this were the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy, then this report would have been published by MISPWOSO – The Maximegalon Institute of Slowly and Painfully Working Out the Surprisingly Obvious.
The only way this can possibly be news, even at a human interest level, is if it’s based on the premise that Tony Abbott is so completely out of touch with women and with youth that it’s actually remarkable that his daughters like him.
There’s one other consideration:
We are constantly being told that despite Australia’s glowing economic performance mentioned above, the Labor government is headed for a wipeout and it’s a foregone conclusion that an Abbott-led Liberal party will win in a landslide. All Abbott has to do, so goes the narrative, is remain standing and make sure he doesn’t punch anyone in the mouth, and he’ll be prime minister six months from now.
Something doesn’t add up though.
A leader of the opposition who is in a commanding position against a government in crisis doesn’t have to pull the “but my children like me,” trick. Yes, I’ve seen the polling too, but this can only make one wonder why the Abbott family, the Liberal party and News Ltd (oh, but I repeat myself) felt the need to do this if their position is so strong already.
First rule of media management: change the story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)