text:
Political conviction comes apart at the seams
Why is Labor advocating cruelty to asylum seekers? Why is the Coalition trying to featherbed parental leave? In the battle for the centre, ideology is all too quickly put to the side, writes Jonathan Green.
It's not for all of us.
There are 42 of a possible 150 electorates in the country held by margins of less than 5 per cent. It's for them.
Let's refine that further. There are 20 electorates in the country held by Labor or independents with a margin of 5 per cent or less. It's for them. It's all about them, this entire panoply.
The 5 per cent is a bit arbitrary, and quite probably a little low, but you get the point: politics is a game played at and for the margins and the marginals.
What's in it for the rest of us exactly? What return do we get for our engagement, conviction and concern?
Come Saturday most of us will just add our votes to well-established and largely unchanging piles, an empty ritual for that majority of us whose entrenched loyalties can be assumed and taken for granted.
That's one element of the sad hollowness of Australian politics; that awkward sense of emptiness that feeds that broad sense of disengagement that has been the subtext, not just of this election season but of the past several years in public life.
But there's more to it than the simple fact that most of us are simply disenfranchised by the obsessive - and all but exclusive - targeting of marginal electorates. More to it than the system's instinct to preference the voters who form the pivots of power over the vast bulk whose votes tip into the deep foundations of our long-standing political divide.
More significant has been the continuing refinement of professional political craft to enhance and manipulate this effect through the continual sharpening of its processes and tools. The result: a narrowing of an increasingly effective political gaze.
The desire to appeal to those undecided voters of marginal Australia has reshaped our politics. It has dragged the points of political and policy contest to the centre, blurring the distinctions between the opposing political forces.
It is no coincidence that in this counterintuitive 2013 campaign we see the Labor party running hard on institutionalised cruelty to asylum seekers and the Coalition on the featherbedding of parental leave. It is clear that both parties aim to make their appeal as broad as possible, a strategy guided by the fact that their pitch is to voters whose minds could yet be made up in either direction, voters who are by definition of the centre.
Which is not to say that our rival parties make permanent camp in that congenial ideological centre. Both cling to their root beliefs: conservatives to a steady doctrine of small government, free markets, individualism, lean budgets and hostility to the distorting evil of organised labour; the Labor party to big government, the redistribution of wealth, and a core belief in the protective social merit of unionisation.
But these are the ideological shells both parties leave behind when they move to that central gutter of Australian politics, the narrow stream in which the modern general election is fought.
The candidates are not armed with the time-worn shibboleths of their party's ideological core: this is a contest between individuals, the leaders, decked out in the anodyne indistinguishability of the presidential campaign. It is a test of personality. Of character.
The ideologically driven vision for the country that both sides truly represent is not forgotten, it's simply put to one side for the duration, filed under "potentially polarising" and pointedly ignored.
It's an approach that suits both the on-message, tight control of professional politics and also the politics as entertainment focus of the populist mass media, a media whose preference will always be for personality over policy detail, for gaffes and gotchas over reason and informed argument.
But somewhere deep down we the people sense the deception inherent in all of this, the hollowness of that contest for the middle ground between champions of two sides whose true core of belief and support lives closer to either extremity than might be palatable to the voters who decide.
It's the inherent disengaging tension in our politics: that at some fundamental point between the bland professional contest and its underlying core of masked conviction, we can see that in some profoundly troubling way, that it's all little better than a lie.
Jonathan Green is the presenter of Sunday Extra on Radio National and a former editor of The Drum. View his full profile here.
More on politics:
- Annabel Crabb: Call yourself a Christian: private faith, public politics
- David Hardaker: The cynical politician and the lost tribe
- Greg Jericho: Policy costings about more than the final figures
- Sandy Grant: How could a Christian PM call the Bible pro-slavery?
Topics: federal-elections
Comments (379)
Comments for this story are closed.
Stephen Morey:
05 Sep 2013 7:09:38am
What Jonathan Green says about the whole election being for the voters in the marginal seats is true as far as the House of Representatives is concerned.
The HofR electoral system - single members - is one in which most districts are 'safe' and nearly the half the voters cast 'wasted votes', votes for candidates who do not get elected.
But we also have a vote for the Senate, and that's a real contest in every state and for which every vote counts. The problem there is that most of us will vote 'above the line' and we won't know what is happening to the preferences of our chosen party unless we have checked the 'Group Voting Tickets' on line or at the polling booth.
Australia has examples of best practice electoral systems - Hare-Clark in Tasmania and the ACT - where every voter in every electorate has a real chance to influence the outcome.
05 Sep 2013 8:12:06am
Not really. 'Marginal seats' is just a technicality. Bennelong was never marginal until John Howard was defeated.
Upset the core constituency and there will be more 'marginals'. Simple logic really.
This is just the despair driven musings of a Labor tragic who has refused to listen for six years and is now stunned that it has come to this.
05 Sep 2013 8:42:54am
I believe in this case, boundary shifting had an impact here too though in creating a marginal seat, along with placing a high profile media identity in as an opponent, even though that does not necessarily make for a good politician.
05 Sep 2013 8:59:34am
I see that is what you were saying anyway. Apology.
05 Sep 2013 9:07:17am
Agreed it is the tried and true that is at play as any change is incremental.
The percentage of that are in the hype will never change and the media has something to pursue will never change.
It is a game and it is all in the timing - that has never changed.
As people we have never really changed - for all the gadgets and for all the electronic toys and access to news radio - nothing has changed.
So the whole struggle is like the mating ritual of two birds trying to improve their plumage and their call to the electorate to have their way with them.
At the end of all the words we vote for the personality of the party and primarily the one we think we can trust to improve our future.
Read Ecclesiastes and you might get the picture.
Have a great Sep 7.
05 Sep 2013 4:31:19pm
The bit about vanity, I take it?
In the end, all is vanity, since we'll all cark it eventually but politics is not just for us and for now, is it?
05 Sep 2013 10:02:44am
Tony, I am in the Bennelong electorate. The boundaries were changed prior to the 2007 election. The boundaries were generally moved to the west which meant that a considerable slice of 'blue ribbon' liberal voters from the east went to another electorate whilst the western boundaries were expanded to take in a large slice of the Parramatta electorate. Parramatta was a safer labor seat but went marginal because of the loss and Bennelong became more marginal because of the 'safe' Labor vote going int it.
Having said that, Howard was always going to lose. Because of workchoices his blue rinse rusted on liberal voters turned to Labor. I know this for a fact because I scrutineered at a very safe Liberal booth in the electorate which Howard was expected to win easily but it went to McKew, the count not even being close.
The liberals won the seat back in 2010 with John Alexander who is a wasted space. He has hardly been seen in the electorate since 2010 (he promised to live within the electorate if he won, but I don't think this is the case) and has hardly made any waves in Parliament. A few days ago I saw JA challenged to name the five major road bottlenecks in the electorate and he couldnt name one, but blusterd on about high speed rail which everyone here knows has nothing to do with us here as we are on a suburban line.
That being the case I think that he will get back in on the back of the Abbott surge but I expect that the Labor candidate might pull back a few votes which could make it interesting next time around.
05 Sep 2013 11:02:59am
In fairness Trevor, JA's role is purely & simply to sit behind Abbott within camera shot during question time. He's got that down to a tee!
In terms of what he has achieved, well, let's just say he is making as much impact in politics as he did on the tennis court!
05 Sep 2013 1:26:20pm
We could also say the he makes as much impact as McKew did, none.
05 Sep 2013 2:18:57pm
Joe Hockey will be making a lot of impact on economic policy from next week because he will be the federal Treasurer, I think he's too heavy for the tennis court.
05 Sep 2013 1:08:34pm
i reckon thats the case with most politicans.
I dont like my current member, but I will still vote for him since i dont want the politics of the other side.
plus labor has committed self inflected wounds in Bennelong. Didnt the first labor candidate get canned by labor due to corruption. and now the current one is in trouble for something that he printed
Lucy original:
05 Sep 2013 2:10:36pm
I think that you are speaking from deliberate ignorance.
"Deliberate ignorance" is the tactic of prefacing an untrue and unspecific claim with "I think ..."
Yes, the first choice for a Labor candidate for Bennelong was withdrawn for local government involvement. He has not been charged with, let alone convicted of, any criminal corruption. He is not the candidate whose name Bennelong voters will see on their ballot papers on Saturday.
The real endorsed ALP candidate in Bennelong is Jason Li who is not in trouble for anything at all.
Paul Sheahan, a long time openly right wing journalist on the SMH, accused Jason Li of being (not just playing, but being) the race card because he was Chinese, in an article published in the SMH. This was much condemned as a deliberately racist article. You should read it and make your own decision as to Sheahan's intent.
The Herald accorded Jason Li the right of reply. You should read that to, and again make up your own mind.
After you have read both these articles, and searched the media for any other reports that would justify your "thinking" that Jason Li "PRINTED" something that has got him "INTO TROUBLE", then perhaps you could post back with some justification for your, at present, unjustified, undetailed slurs on the Australian born and educated, highly qualified and experienced Jason Li, ALP candidate for Bennelong.
05 Sep 2013 4:34:52pm
I love the self inflected wounds of Labor in Benie! They love their nouns down there!
05 Sep 2013 3:30:16pm
I know where you are coming from TrevorN. I live in the Tangney electorate in WA. As far as I know it has always been a safe Liberal seat. I have received several pamphlets in the post over the past few weeks. Nothing personal or local just the generic party guff. It is the first I have heard from or of him since the last few weeks before the last election.
05 Sep 2013 6:35:15pm
Not quite right TrevorN, Bennelong has barely changed its boundaries since the 1991 redistribution. All that has happened is tinkering a bit around the edges. When McKew bought into the electorate after preselection, Howard knew he was almost certainly going to lose. He acknowledged in the two elections before that he was lucky to win. It had nothing to do with workchoices, that was a national thing not a local thing.
Have a look a the local press at the time which listed the impressive list of firsts he achieved in his last 4 months. McKew achieved more in 6 months for Bennelong than Howard did in 33 years!
Alexander was embarrassed to move to the electorate 18 months ago. He's useless has spoken twice in the parliament, was outed for lying in one of those. Then again his hacks lied for him at will in the 2010 election.
Peter the Lawyer:
05 Sep 2013 8:42:46pm
If you must tell porkies, at least tell creditable ones. Bennelong has moved a lot in redistributions since 1991. see https://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/benn/
05 Sep 2013 3:13:00pm
Wrong again Tony. Marginal seats are more than simply a technically. They are about the balance of the core voters of each party plus the ones whose votes are more likely to shift. Plus there are two factors that tend to change that balance, especially in urban electorates.
One is population growth within each electorate. And the other is the redesign of that electoral boundary by the Electoral Commission to account or manage that population growth. Now if you lived in Queensland through the Bjelke Petersen era you would understand why that is important.
It is important for any democracy to limit the impact of Gerrymandering where you end up with some MP's being elected in Electorates with a much smaller number of voters. The idea being to try and keep Electorates similar in size as to population numbers.
It is also preferable to try and balance out electorates so that one political party does not completely dominate that electorate from election to election. If their is no real choice for voters it lessons democracy itself.
05 Sep 2013 6:26:10pm
Wrong tony, Howard turned it into a marginal seat, It was marginal after the 1998 and should have lost it in 2001 except for Tampa and 2004 except that oaf Wilkie stood for the Greens. The boundaries of the seat barey changed from 1991 when it was held by the Liberals by 18%.
He was seen more and more as a useless local member who treated the place like a fiefdom.
Peter the Lawyer:
05 Sep 2013 8:51:04pm
Wrong ALgernon, Bennelong became more ALP friendly as it shifted West
Sydney Bob:
05 Sep 2013 8:33:57am
With the Senate Paper why is it not possible to mark below the line to the number of candidates you want and not have to mark all 150 spaces. So below the line I could mark say 5 candidates who I want to give a preference to and then my vote is used up. Would that not work?
05 Sep 2013 10:56:11am
Check out the following website
You can print out your state with all the candidates and their parties, and take it with you so you don't make mistakes.
I agree with you about just marking some of them, or numbering each box ABOVE the line for your preferences.
That way your preferences are used, not the political party
05 Sep 2013 1:10:42pm
Add a third person who agrees
I'm going to do a 1 above the lines to enure my vote isnt informat. But i would have perfered to number just 6 below the line for the 6 empty spots that are up for grap, not the full 100+
John Coochey :
05 Sep 2013 8:36:07am
Well it is not just the two major parties, the Greens are putting the strife prone Craig Thompson second on their how to vote care having called him an excellent candidate.
05 Sep 2013 10:01:48am
If he were in my electorate he would be a clear last on my list.
Chris L:
05 Sep 2013 12:39:46pm
If he were in my electorate he would be high up on my preference.
This is because I've listened to his address discussing his work for the past ten years, I've noticed the accusations against him have dropped to less than a fifth of the original claims, his accuser is now under investigation for fraud and the "smoking gun" receipt had his name spelled wrong.
05 Sep 2013 5:35:19pm
By accuser you mean the police prosecution? Because last time I checked his defence team has decideded not to contest the claim he spent union money on prostitutes, but weather he had the RIGHT to spend money on the credit card for whatever he wanted.
Still think he's worth a high preference?
05 Sep 2013 1:48:03pm
Unless of course you are in Sophie Mirabella's electorate in which case you would put him 2nd last.
I'm sure we can all agree on that?
05 Sep 2013 11:23:18am
Goes to shop the damaging effects of drugs on the brain when it came to picking that person (with 1790+ charges against him) as second .
05 Sep 2013 12:02:30pm
The Greens put extreme pressure on Nick Xenophon in South Australia to preference them ahead of the major parties complained bitterly when he didn't, but then when on to preference Palmer United party above Labor.
Preference deals are definitely not for the squeamish, although calling Craig Thompson an excellent candidate is arguably a new low . Craig is most likely only standing for the increased benefits a defeated member receives over a retiring one.
05 Sep 2013 12:06:42pm
craig Thomson hasn't been found guilty of anything. be careful of believing anything you read in news ltd papers.
05 Sep 2013 1:16:39pm
isnt he standing as an independent ?
if thats the case, can we at least confirm that being thrown out of a party since the people at the top reckons you are not a suitable person for their party isnt a good look.
05 Sep 2013 2:35:01pm
Hang on, those same party members only a couple of months ago said Rudd was toxic, had no labor values and was a destructive and divisive person.
But then they voted him back in as leader. Work that one out!
It either proves labor really has no party values or that the party is so deluded they think the majority of Australian voters have a low IQ or collective amnesia.
The clock is counting down your final days Kev.
05 Sep 2013 2:30:58pm
This election there are plenty more protest vote parties so watch the Green's primary vote drop.
No doubt it will be the fault of Murdoch and the Liberals. *sigh*
05 Sep 2013 5:43:13pm
Thomson has never been convicted of anything and won't be.
05 Sep 2013 9:16:31am
Stephen, you make an excellent point. Our system of single member electorates in the lower house ensures that the vast majority of our first preference votes are completely wasted, and nearly half the time we don't even get our preferred candidate from the two major parties, once it comes down to the usual two-party preferred outcome. It would be more democratic if we had multi-member electorates, so that my choice is not effectively limited to the red or blue team every time.
05 Sep 2013 9:59:54am
If any vote for a candidate who is not elected is a "wasted vote", then about two thirds of all votes are "wasted votes". I don't think that can be true. A vote for the Greens on Saturday will generally be wasted, but a vote for a losing labor or Liberal candidate - surely not!
Andy B:
05 Sep 2013 1:10:27pm
unfortunately so many Australians think that if they haven't voted for the winner they have wasted their vote. I had an argument the other day with my father about this. He said he didn't know who to really vote for but had to choose one or the other. I said don't vote for either of them, vote for an independant or a minor party, well he couldn't bring himself to consider it as he felt he was wasting his vote. I argued the less primary vote the 2 major parties get, they might start thinking about how they campaign in the future & might try to include all seats when creating policy, not just marginal ones. I think its also a reason why opinion polls should be scrapped. Australians are too apathetic as a whole, they'll hear the opinion polls & think the safet thing to do is 'back the winner'. The average Australian is just too disengaged with politics for it to be taken seriously or have any chance of a decent public policy debate, but there is no doubt that we will get what we deserve come Saturday night.
Judy Bee:
05 Sep 2013 12:06:12pm
Hello Stephen Morey,
I like your comment about the 'wasted votes'cast in 'safe' seats. I have lived in a safe seat for a number of decades now, and the only time it turned over was when a prospective candidate for the Liberal Party was not endorsed and he managed to manipulate the vote (he had a large number of supporter constituents) in a by-election. The result was, a very competent Labor female candidate was elected for the first time in that seat. The Liberal party, duly chastened, selected the manipulator to run in the Federal Election that followed. Of course he won, and went on to engineer a leadership spill over the ETS that threw out Malcolm Turnbull and saw Tony Abbott voted leader by one vote.
Thousands of people in this seat vote Labor or Green and as you say, their vote is 'wasted'.
The result is, nothing happens to benefit the constituents in that safe Liberal seat, no progress, no new infrastructure, impossible traffic gridlock every single day.
The footnote to this is that the disgruntled and eventually successful Liberal candidate was disendorsed by the Liberal Party for questionable use of his parliamentary benefits. This man got Tony Abbott elected to the leadership.
Peter the Lawyer:
05 Sep 2013 1:29:32pm
Infrastructure is a State responsibility. So don't bring it up in a federal context.
In any case, it is well known that if the ALP federal government gives money to the States for infrastructure they make sure the infrastructure is in ALP seats.
05 Sep 2013 2:53:31pm
What about Howards targeting of marginal liberal electorates and bombing them with cash from the Future Fund in the 2007 election?
05 Sep 2013 3:40:00pm
"Infrastructure is a State responsibility. So don't bring it up in a federal context"
Have you seen Abbott's 'Plan"
"You will see cranes over our cities as we get on with the job of building more modern infrastructure, with a special emphasis on reducing the bottlenecks on our gridlocked roads and highways."
Looking forward to the Shelley Bridge being widened to three lanes to eliminate the bootleneck on Leach Highway on the back of this promise
05 Sep 2013 4:31:12pm
So Pete why does Abbott want to be known as an infrastructure Prime Minister?
Have just seen Hockey and Robb on TV. I think their performance will ensure that the election will be closer than expected. They both went into a melt down, probably embarrassed about the fraud they were trying to give legitimacy to.
And Hockey wants to be Australia's next Treasurer!
05 Sep 2013 1:20:25pm
Which marginal seat is Labor targeting with homosexual marriage?
05 Sep 2013 2:45:35pm
The seat of Melbourne?
05 Sep 2013 7:18:19am
That's a fair summary.
Presidential style campaign between two centre moderate parties.
Being relatively close to the centre it is inevitable that policies will cross the centre boundary.
Anon E Mouse:
05 Sep 2013 2:47:21pm
CC. I don't believe it is as simple as that.
Rudd has shifted his views, on a few topics much as I have. On Gay marriage I changed my mind a few years ago, much earlier than Rudd (judging by his statements).
The asylum seeker policy has changed simply because the circumstances surrounding boat arrivals have changed. The callousness of 'people smugglers' and the stupidity of relatives in Australia paying these smugglers, has been a game changer.
Much as I hate the thought, my mind began to shift on refugees and asylum seekers. I believe that the PNG solution is a wise move as it enables us to be more supportive in helping our neighbor while also placing refugees there to contribute to developing PNG.
Surely Jonathan Green must have figured this out.
However on Abbotts maternity Wealthfare scheme, I figure he is too stupid to figure out that this thought bubble was just a dumb idea.
Either that or he is spending too long fantasizing that he is still young enough for this to be personally relevant.
05 Sep 2013 7:22:08am
Here is Labor's political convictions for you.
Today the Coalition release their costings. So when will Labor release their costings? Labor is well known as the party of waste and new taxes, so what new taxes will Labor bring to the table?
It is interesting how Labor is attacking the Coalition Parental Leave Scheme as being unfair and excessively expensive. Yet this is the scheme that public servants receive, but I hear no words from Labor, nor have I ever heard from Labor that they would abolish the scheme for public servants?
As yourself why would a parental leave scheme that public servants and politiicians receive be too good for the rest of us?
Labor would clearly prefer you waste your money instead for example on Labor's education spending that Gonski no longer wants his name associated with. And this is after Labor's last mad schemes for education with double priced school halls and slow laptops (now dropped) that lead to a fall in our international ranking in literacy.
So clearly it is not about how much you spend, but about how well you spend. On this, just like conviction, Labor gets a huge fail.
05 Sep 2013 8:09:55am
You have to get in a few falsehoods Raven, deliberately of course.
You must have some peculiar slant on Labor's costings straight from liesforlibs.com if you reckon those costings are still to come.
Public servants get up to 12 weeks maternity leave at full pay while Plastic Tony and Sloppy Joe are giving 26 weeks at full pay. Which is greater? 12 or 26?
Teachers who now have school halls where they didn't before don't agree with you. Building contractors whined like beaten puppies that money was being wasted and they could do it cheaper but the audit showed little or no wastage.
Of course it's how well you spend. Plastic Tony is taxing all of us to spend on wealthy women's babies, nothing for stay at home mums.
05 Sep 2013 9:09:03am
You will not being taxed one cent to spend on anybody's babies. Maybe you should be worried about spreading falsehoods.
05 Sep 2013 10:04:58am
Dividends are paid out of company profits, which are already taxed at 30 percent. There are no franking credits for levies paid out of profit.
So while not a "tax" on individuals per se, Abbott's scheme still cuts into investor returns.
05 Sep 2013 11:13:54am
The reduction in franking credits is because company tax is being reduced not because of a PPL scheme. I guess (under this logic) if they increased company tax, that would be a good thing.
05 Sep 2013 3:59:36pm
Abbott today admitted Self-funded Retirees and Pensioners will be pick-pocketed $1.5B to pay for Billionaires to have Babies.
Not sure the Retirees and Pensioners will be happy about that.
Evan Elpus:
05 Sep 2013 8:21:57pm
'Not sure the Retirees and Pensioners will be happy about that'. JT, further to your observation, herewith an intriguing demographic. My wife has a number of self-funded retiree customers, all rose pruning, bowls, annual jaunts OS etc. On three occasions last week, some of them approached her, not only initiating talk of politics, (unheard of) but complaining loudly of their incomes going to support Abbott's PPL and then defiantly announcing their intention of voting Green!
After the above, no longer assume the Pope is a Catholic anymore....
05 Sep 2013 10:32:57am
The maternity leave payment will come from the government, to pay for it big business will be levied 1.5%, but all business receives a 1.5% company tax reduction as compensation.
So yes, salary earners and other taxpayers will be paying for wealthy women to have six months leave to have a baby, with no requirement that they return to work and with the payment capped at the extraordinary level of $2884 a week!
Compare that to the supporting mother's payment of $430 a fortnight!
I do greatly resent extreme welfare payments. That's female executives with their nose in the trough to the tune of 14 times other welfare recipients. There is no rationale other than class warfare. Take from the poor and give to the rich.
05 Sep 2013 11:15:21am
Let's get rid of PPL for Public Servants and ABC employees then. We currently pay for all of that.
05 Sep 2013 1:33:07pm
If you try that, Barge, you'll have to start paying them market value salaries in line with their skills which are generally above those of the technicians at the commercials who don't produce much, just run tapes from overseas, instead of their current salaries which are below current market rates for high-skill workers.
Swings and roundabouts, Barge.
05 Sep 2013 3:20:09pm
As an ex Public Servant, I know how productive they are. As we have seen in Qld, 14,000 less and you don't even notice that they are missing.
the truth:
06 Sep 2013 12:04:32am
Shame on you .. try explaining that to the Abused Children in Queensland.
Campbell Newman's "Commission of Audit" reduced the number of Child Abuse Investigators from 30 to 6, he called them waste.
05 Sep 2013 2:19:11pm
Abbott is getting rid of PPL for public servants and ABC employees.
He's replacing their 12 weeks with 26 weeks PPL, all on the taxpayer and the employers pay nix.
Happy now?
05 Sep 2013 2:06:32pm
If businesses are taxed 1.5% but their taxes are reduced by the same percentage, what revenue is used to pay for the scheme?
Isn't this just creative accounting?
C Ash:
05 Sep 2013 3:30:53pm
So what is the problem with the high achievers being given the same parental benefits as the lowest paid? Why do you say female executives have their nose in the trough? People generally get paid what they are worth, I would wager that are on a low wage and envious of those who studied hard and have worked hard to get where they are, sounds like the politics of envy or wayne swan type thinking.
PS What percentage of woman who get the new scheme do you think would earn above $100.000, not many, however since it bothers you so much perhaps you would like to tell me.
Adelaide Rose:
05 Sep 2013 11:19:50pm
You are absolutely right! Every single mother should be paid $75,000 when their baby is born. Then and only then would Abbott's plan be fair!
05 Sep 2013 11:00:36am
Well, who will be paying for it?
1.5% levy, and 1.5% tax break!
Do your sums.
06 Sep 2013 12:19:56am
Barge, somebody has to pay.
C Ash:
05 Sep 2013 9:38:10am
Regardless of the fact that Abbotts scheme will give public servants more than they got before, at present they get a lot more than the rest of the population. Was there ever any concern from public servants before that they where at an advantage and is there a documented case of any not accepting the money on the grounds that they where being given favourable treatment? Now the playing field is being levelled there is a whinge from the left, still that's what the left are best at. Rudd is no longer whinging about Abbott being negative, that's because he has cornered the market in negativity, still only two sleeps to go and Rudd will be gone.
05 Sep 2013 10:39:56am
Many private corporations provide maternity leave as part of the employment package. Not just public servants.
Now Abbott's absurd scheme will have us taxpayers paying for 26 weeks maternity leave for all working women who meet the criteria, ie who have been employed about a year before having a baby.
Do you see what they have done? They have taken the burden of paying maternity leave off the companies and put it onto taxpayers.
C Ash:
05 Sep 2013 2:53:47pm
Yeah, well where do you think the rest of the money that all governments spend for benefit comes from?
05 Sep 2013 3:11:35pm
Public Sector workers are highly unionised and have won considerable benefits through collective bargaining. That's whats being in a strong Union is all about.
If you want the same, join a Union, pay the fees and get involved in the industrial campaigns.
I am heartily sick of people who whinge about other workers getting better working conditions but who won't join a Union or do anything about taking collective responsibility and action to win them.
All we get instead are whingers who want to see others dragged down to their own miserable level. Grow up, if you want a better deal then fight for it.
05 Sep 2013 10:05:44am
Twelve weeks at full pay is the same as 24 weeks at half pay - about eight per cent less than 26 weeks at half pay. Pretty close. I would say.
05 Sep 2013 11:07:35am
What do you mean half pay? Abbott's scheme pays 26 weeks at full pay, capped at $2884 a week, which is the weekly salary of a woman on $150k a year.
05 Sep 2013 12:14:17pm
Where is this woman earning $150K per year? I imagine she pays taxes commensurate with salary.
05 Sep 2013 2:45:34pm
Exactly - her tax contribution probably pays for two or three welfare dependent families to sit back and whinge about how tough they have it.
05 Sep 2013 5:46:48pm
No her taxes pay for hospitals,roads, schools and other essentials just like everyone else's do.
05 Sep 2013 4:05:03pm
She will be the wife or daughter who owns the Business !!
She may even be the niece or grand-daughter of the Business owner, a good friend even.
Just like Abbott's Indonesian Buy Back the Boats Policy this PPL will be open to corruption and chaos.
But don't worry, Abbott has thought of that as well, that's the real reason he wants to cut 'Red tape' and bureaucracy.
Working Australia, vote him in at your peril.
Kevin Wunterm:
05 Sep 2013 4:18:01pm
"Public servants get up to 12 weeks maternity leave at full pay while Plastic Tony and Sloppy Joe are giving 26 weeks at full pay. Which is greater? 12 or 26?"
You obviously missed Fran Kelly interviewing Tony Abbott a few days back when she got totally owned and ended up in a flustered splutter. It was laughable. ABC journos blithering about how "unfair" it is while at the same time having access to paid parental leave almost as generous and at the tax payer's expense while others in the private sector get nothing. Disgusting hypocrisy.
Roll on Saturday....2 more sleeps... enjoy the show
Wining Pom:
05 Sep 2013 8:12:31am
'Here is Labor's political convictions for you.'
The article was about both sides, but of course only Labor is bad.
I think Abbott will be good for Labor in the long run. Things will get so bad that the Liberals will be in the wilderness for a long time.
05 Sep 2013 9:20:18am
"I think Abbott will be good for Labor in the long run. Things will get so bad that the Liberals will be in the wilderness for a long time."
In your dreams Pom. Labor will be running about in the wilderness like headless chooks for at least the next decade.
05 Sep 2013 10:09:01am
Alfie, you need to lift your level of figurative language.
Here is something from T S Eliot (remember him?) that describes Abbott. Hockey and Company very well:
"We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!"
05 Sep 2013 12:39:33pm
And, for Rudd, Shakespeare seemingly wrote about his campaign launch:
"It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing."
And, describing Rudd himself:
"I have no spur to prick the sides of my intent, but only vaulting ambition, which o'erleaps itself, and falls on the other."
Of course, quotes about the murder of King Duncan could also be cited to describe the 'knifing' of Rudd, then Gillard.
05 Sep 2013 11:06:59am
Ha, that's a laugh.
Abbot and his team are in for tough times and they know it - just look at the speed at which they are backing away from their promises. They realise that many of the commitments they made can't be achieved by them or anyone else, and they are desperate not to look like oath breakers lest they run foul of the tactics they used on Labor.
The won't "stop the boats", will have more trouble than they think repealing the taxes (and polls indicate the public don't care that much anyway), and the only way they can effect the budget bottom line is to make massive unpopular cuts.
They are going to take the hit from the downturn we are just starting to see building now, and while I'm not silly enough to make specific predictions about the next 3 years, I know things will definitely be rough for the coalition.
05 Sep 2013 12:13:47pm
The problem Nik is that its not just Abbott and his team who are in for a tough time-all but the "few" are.
Like sheep with wool pulled over our eyers we shall be led over a cliff by a dog named Rupert- an Abbott in wolve's clothing-a Bishop with a stare that kills- a Joyce with no joy- a Truss with no trust- a Cormann who is really a corpsman- a Hockey with a bent stick- a Mirrabella with no Bella or the alternative -a Rudd with no rudder.
Beats me how retirees who have seen their income vanish or Western Sydney ites/Banana benders who have been causalised and seen their income drop having to work-harder and longer for less will vote for either of the majors.
Both have relied on increase in debt- private and Government to "grow" the economy.
Both have allowed the biggest fraud in history to occur.
the egg:
05 Sep 2013 10:33:44am
Back in 2007 I told my wife that an ALP win was one too soon and she didn't see it but she does now !!!
A LNP win back then would have consigned the LNP , and probably 250,000 jobs to the dustbin of history and all this garbage from Abbott et al would never have happened.
Who remembers that financial genius Bishop saying that it's not a real crisis and "We should just wait and see what happens". What a sick joke she made of finance along with Gazillions and billions Joyce and now she's doing a little something with foreign affairs !! God help us all for the next three years or so.
Malcolms Leather Jacket:
05 Sep 2013 12:54:38pm
I can't wait until Tony has to go overseas and Barnaby will be P.M.
Many happy days ahead.
05 Sep 2013 11:04:28am
Abbott has been the leader of the opposition since 2009 which is longer than the current PM or that of Gillard....Abbott brings form, stability, discipline and humility unlike Rudd who is all about revenge and himself.
Come this Saturday at about 20:30h the labor party will commence the mother of all self inflicted meltdowns..
Watch Rudds face when this happens..and see who he blames!
05 Sep 2013 1:07:34pm
Somebody who has known Abbott since uni days knows he would do anything to win high office and power. Anything.
Which is why he is perfectly content to deceive us all, including those in the Liberal party who think a surplus is important.
05 Sep 2013 1:31:40pm
RayS, and that makes him different from anyone else who aspires to win high office how?
05 Sep 2013 4:10:52pm
Like all working Australians Chip, Abbott is asking you to hand over your wallet so he can then conduct his Liberal Commission of Audit.
Abbott will remove whatever he needs to pay back his Small and Big Business backers and then he will hand your wallet back.
Do you Trust him ?
Frank of NQ:
05 Sep 2013 2:57:05pm
A Prime Minister must have ambition. Look what we get when a party member refuses to lead the party and has leadership thrust upon him. Do you remember the spill when Gillard had no opponent?
05 Sep 2013 3:41:48pm
Ray as a supporter of the Labor Party (assuming here) how happy would you be with an ALP leader who didn't go all out to win? You'd be just a touch disappointed wouldn't you? The voters put an enormous amount of pressure on their preferred leaders to win. Only some personality types could thrive in that environment. Nice guys, fair guys, wouldn't last and their dumping would be celebrated by their party's supporters. The voters must accept their share of responsibility for the politics they are served up. (Guys being a unisex term of course).
05 Sep 2013 12:49:26pm
Wining Pom,
Yes the article was about both sides and how tactics are used to gain advantage.
So what do you do, start rambling on about how one party will be in the wilderness for a long time.
How about commenting on the article, not the most recent comment that you disagree with.
05 Sep 2013 8:16:10am
Please get the facts on this matter. You will see that Labor have provided their costings. Everything is laid out for us the voter. The Coalition are treating us like fools and some of us are falling for it. The rules for providing costings have recently changed and the Coalition have ignored it just as they have ignored expert opinion on the economy and climate change.
05 Sep 2013 9:00:10am
Labor have a long record for getting their sums wrong. Costings ? Yeah right !
05 Sep 2013 9:40:11am
Done by Treasury
chipinga :
05 Sep 2013 12:53:53pm
30 billion out in 10 weeks.. My bet is labor have created their own rubbery forecasts and ignored treasury. Only in the last week have we see labor tell some huge porkies over supposed black holes found by treasury from the coalition only to see the unprecedented move from treasury to speak out and deny Rudd/labor claims!
mao trostsky-marx-lenin:
06 Sep 2013 2:00:32am
Where were the $75 billion surpluses Costello always promised in the forward estimates? His best effort ($28 bil) was just under $50 billion below his estimate. He must have been the most crap treasurer ever by your reasoning.
05 Sep 2013 12:54:11pm
Base on Treasury's performance of late I wouldn't call that a plus.
05 Sep 2013 1:40:00pm
The Australian Treasury, RoxyR, doesn't control the whole world's financial sector nor the Chinese resources market.
The corporate governance rules of the ASIC don't apply to shonky overseas corporazzi either, worse luck, so they're not held to the same legal standards as our resident companies are.
And you wonder why local dodgy companies (James Hardie, Rupert Murdoch's News Ltd, Bluesteel that used to be BHP) move their operations overseas where they can get away with financial chicanery? Hint: it's not about the wages they have to pay workers.
Treasury may be the best on the planet, but when the rest of th planet plays offside and there's no ref....
05 Sep 2013 4:38:52pm
My comment relates purely to Treasury's methods of preparing cost estimates for government; they have been found wanting.
What provoked your ramblings about control of the world's financial sector nor China's resource market I have no idea. The pressure as we get to zero hour seems to be getting to you.
I'm not privy to why those companies have moved overseas but I suspect that wages that are a fraction of those that we enjoy here along with conditions might have quite some impact, despite your protestations to the contrary.
05 Sep 2013 2:48:38pm
The same Treasury that Rudd, Wong and Bowen attempted to discredit through a series of lies?
That ended well didn't it... ;-)
05 Sep 2013 9:13:51am
The reporting that I have seen, indicates that Labor has NOT released all of its costings, and that there is great paucity of detail in the ALP costings that have been released. As an observation, the question of costings is just an integral part of the scare campaign being run by the ALP. Late release of costings has historically been the ALP way but the ALP should not be criticised for this scare campaign; it has always been thus, and sometimes these scare campaigns work.
05 Sep 2013 10:09:37am
In addition to lacking costing detail, Labor has failed to update its NBN costing. Rumours abound that this could be $96 billion. At the current rate of progress, I would expect it to be even more.
05 Sep 2013 2:09:26pm
The LNP won't provide any on their NBN.
05 Sep 2013 2:49:28pm
What about a cost benefit analysis?
Then again, that's probably a foreign term to anyone in the ALP.
mao trostsky-marx-lenin:
06 Sep 2013 2:03:45am
A rumour which was issued by the inventor of the internet in Australia (according to Abbott) Malcolm Turnbull. No other pundit has touched it with a barge pole, it seems to be the biggest sh*t sandwich ever produced.
05 Sep 2013 9:39:26am
If you go to the treasury and the PBO website electionscosting's.gov.au you find both labour and green costing's but no coalition costing, the only place I found coalition's costing's are on the liberal website which I assume are there own figures unless I can see them on the PBO or Treasury website I can't believe them because by not putting up there I believe they may trying and hide something I will look again after they are released.
05 Sep 2013 11:30:06am
and the ALP have only some of their costings their. Like the last two elections, we can be certain that the damaging costings will only be handed over at 5:00pm on Friday!
05 Sep 2013 11:08:04am
It has been reported that about half of Labor policies were not costed as they were submitted too late.
05 Sep 2013 1:23:26pm
Thats the alp way.
mao trostsky-marx-lenin:
06 Sep 2013 2:07:51am
It has been confirmed that even with the help of the
Parliamentary Budget Office the Libs can't even produce a budget for the next four years. An even more woeful attempt than 2010 which was a new low, having their auditor done over for their dodgy audit.
05 Sep 2013 1:24:58pm
so remind me again how Rudd is paying the 6 billion to move the navy base from NSW to Qld ?
this was the one that Gillard and Swan knocked back since they didnt have the money for it.
or remind me how is Rudd paying for the NT tax deal that was a surprise to the local members ?
As for the 114billion for the very fast train on the east coast, you would be dreaming if you think thats going to be costed, even if it was already announced in a previous election (and nothing happened), and Rudd is only thinking of spending a few millions in the next term of government,
at least Swan tried his best to limit expenses. Rudd is just making unfunded promises that he cant keep.
James in Brisbane:
05 Sep 2013 9:12:23am
Ravensclaw, you're a perfect example of everything that is wrong with partisan politics. You go on about Labor, but you're completely incapable of critiquing your own party. The problem with the parental leave scheme is that it is wasteful. From a right wing perspective, it's abhorrent because it's big government socialism. You need high taxes to sustain such big spending. The Liberal party is supposed to be about low taxation and small government, and here is it espousing policies that require big government and big spending. And here you are, a rusted on Liberal voter, not having any problem at all with such an amazingly left wing policy from your allegedly right wing party.
05 Sep 2013 10:11:00am
I am a rusted on right winger and I agree with you on this point. TA should abandon this policy.
05 Sep 2013 12:55:58pm
I can accept the policy per se, but it is far too generous.
05 Sep 2013 10:17:36am
Well put James. Partisan politics is the problem, because it leads us to view everything in terms of our entrenched and often unconscious loyalties and prejudices. It's bad enough when the politicians engage in party-political spin, but at least they have a vested interest in sticking to the party line. We citizens will benefit from good policies, regardless of who is in office, so our comments in public forums like this should aim to shift the focus from spin to objective analysis of policy, even it is unfavourable to our preferred party.
05 Sep 2013 10:21:35am
Except for those in the public service, the PPL easily pays for itself and encourages work force participation by women - who will pay taxes on their current and future earnings that are based on productive (except for much of the PS) economic outputs.
05 Sep 2013 12:29:32pm
But it's still welfare, and we're supposed to be stopping the 'age of entitlement'. If it is to be a work-place entitlement, fine, but then the entire cost should be on the employers, as other leave is.
Now 'big taxes' are supposedly a bad Labor thing, this is a big tax. And if it's not a 'big tax' then it's middle class warfare, not a mark small Government at all.
And as many others point out, if you want to spend big on kiddie policies, child care, which is needed for years and years, is a much bigger issue than a few months maternity leave.
05 Sep 2013 2:12:01pm
And there's the answer as to who pays for the PPL: women.
The scheme takes 1.5% as a levy from businesses to provide funding, but the overall tax is reduced by 1.5% as compensation for paying the levy. Women receive the equivalent of full pay from the government for a year and are taxed on the payments. It's a pyramid scheme.
05 Sep 2013 10:32:17am
You've hit the nail on the head. The inability of 'rusted ons' to objectively consider their own Party is mond-boggling. If the Lib's PPL was a Labor policy there'd be howls of outrage, same with their 'direct action' climate change plan.
That should be 'test' for anyone who generally is a one Party voter. If the 'other side' had this policy would I support it ?.
05 Sep 2013 2:51:29pm
But that makes the assumption that everyoneis a single issue voter.
I don't agree with all of the Liberal's policies but I agree even less with Labor's.
My voting intention is clear and based on analysis.
It's my vote and I can use it how I please.
05 Sep 2013 11:03:03pm
That's fine. My point is some people automatically think everything from their 'side' is good, and everything from the other 'side' is bad, without the slightest bit of analysis. It's never as simple as that, and drives me nuts !.
05 Sep 2013 2:57:21pm
If "the other side" had the PPL as a policy Business would have funded buses to Canberra to express their opposition, as they did with the mining tax and carbon pricing.
Why the silence from Business now on the PPL? Perhaps because they know that the PPL will never happen if they have anything to do with it.
05 Sep 2013 3:53:26pm
Mond boggling actually sounds like fun.
Supporters of both sides of politics will be restrained with their criticism of their own party in the run-up to an election. Understandable enough.
05 Sep 2013 9:21:30am
"Today the coalition will release their costings".
Right. Just two days (possibly less) before the election. Yeah, that will give us time to properly scrutinize them, won't it? Just remember Ravensclaw how this dirty trick was played on you, me and everyone else if your beloved Tony and his thugs actually win outright. Not to mention his obvious lie about not negotiating with anyone, should the matter not be clearly decided. This man is blatantly power mad and will do absolutely anything to get his hands on the keys to the lodge. That includes negotiating with parties whose ideology he does not share to form government. Just you wait and see. There are Tony's political convictions for YOU.
05 Sep 2013 10:17:13am
Well I suppose they could have waited until 6pm on Friday night, like Labor did in 2007.
Wining Pom:
05 Sep 2013 12:02:09pm
'Well I suppose they could have waited until 6pm on Friday night, like Labor did in 2007.'
So you don't mind if they act as irresponsibly as Labor then?
05 Sep 2013 1:27:06pm
I care about the budget, i aleady know both sides make election promised that they wont do.
but its a bit rough for labor to complaining about the liberals when they do it themselves
05 Sep 2013 4:01:38pm
It will be very hard for the Coalition to complain if Labor does the same thing in opposition. Then again it hasn't stopped Labor. A politician needs to retain a certain degree of flexibility I suppose.
the yank:
05 Sep 2013 11:18:37am
Actually they are not releasing all their costings.
The detail of key programs will not be released, until after the election.
05 Sep 2013 12:25:25pm
So typical of Labor to not release all of its costings until its too late. It has form on that matter. Anyway, it won't matter when Labor releases its coatings after Saturday.
05 Sep 2013 12:54:46pm
Anyone who believes opposition costings (regardless of who is in opposition) are of much value is living in fantasy land. How can an opposition possibly take into account the fluid nature of the state of the finances?
Look at how wrong the finance predictions have been over the last x number of years. How would an opposition know what the real situation is?
Better to stop them and the government of the day making rubbish promises.
Kangaroo Edward:
05 Sep 2013 1:45:00pm
You're in LNP apologist la la land 'Fred', if they can't tell anyone where the money for their rolled gold middle class handouts are coming from they're not fit to run a kiosk let alone an economy.
05 Sep 2013 8:28:42pm
Au contraire Kangaroo Edward
How about a rational discussion. Just to note, I am a lot further from being an LNP apologist than you are from being an ALP apologist. I respectfully suggest that I at least consider that both major parties have significant failings (and always have). I see no evidence from any of your posts that you are equally objective.
And stop with this "middle class handout" crap that you ALP apologists are always banging on about. What's wrong with giving money back to people who earned it when it's not needed. Or if it is needed, it's because of waste - maybe that's a big contributing factor to the structural deficit in the budget.
While we're on that subject, what recourse do we have for the government racking up deficit after deficit for the last 6 years? What have we got to show for it. Part of it probably helped us through the GFC (certainly not the only factor). Anything else? NDIS, GONSKI, NBN - not paid for? Hmm..... So, they've already proven without doubt that they can't run an economy (except into debt).
Do I really believe it's as black and white as that? Maybe I'm just putting a bit of balance in the discussion.
05 Sep 2013 8:30:06pm
@Kangaroo Edward
By the way, it looks like there are at least to "Freds" contributing to these posts.
Maybe you were having a go at the other one.
05 Sep 2013 2:54:16pm
I think government costings and projections (particularly over the past three years) have proven to be far more rubbery.
Perhaps the financial elements of government are simply beyond labor's comprehension?
Continually SAYING you will deliver a surplus doesn't make it happen. Just ask Gillard, Swan and Wong.
05 Sep 2013 12:58:46pm
When you raised the point about power mad I thought you'd switched to describing the PM.
05 Sep 2013 4:32:50pm
Oh yes. Silly me, you are quite correct. They are both power mad and unfit to be PM.
05 Sep 2013 11:52:59am
Have the 'eminent persons' who will be verifying that the Coalition's costings are all completely kosher, revealed which political party they belong to and if not why not?
05 Sep 2013 4:17:19pm
What is it that makes Labor people think everyone is prepared to sacrifice their integrity for the sake of a political party?
Why do you project your inadequacies onto everyone else?
These people have long histories of service to the public and eminent qualifications but for you it comes down to "which party do they support"! Not everyone has the morals of Eddie Obeid or Craig Thomson.
05 Sep 2013 3:03:26pm
Well Craw, your KAOS subversive methods have been exposed by the good guys from Control and you know what Tony thinks about the bad guys v the other bad guys. Now that you have done his bidding by spouting his liberal propoganda and probably got him elected on Saturday he will be free to turn on you and your ilk and turn all your predictions into bluster and lies. Come on the Drum in a few weeks time and get ready to cop the sniggering "I told you so" comments of commie leftist Mao rabble rousers like me. I'll be waiting!
By the by, its now 1500hrs EST and still no Costings...
05 Sep 2013 7:32:31am
And that Jonathan sums it all up - which I have said also before and roundly criticized and even for those who do recognize what is going on they just excuse it as being part of the 'norm' we should expect - the electioneering we are seeing is all about the Bogans - the dumb who lemming like will jump over the cliff if it is considered popular to do so - the so disengaged or could not care less people the only way you can get their attention is use shock jocks, fowl newspaper articles appealing to the lowest common denominator.
This is actually part of a trend line which started some time ago - the drop to the mediocre appealing to anti-intellectuals and Luddites - that is why we have so many crackpot fringe parties whose sole purpose and encouragement even by the majors are redirected preferences from their crackpot followers.
It is the reason Tony Abbott acts dumb, talks dumb stumbling over words hardly able to put a sentence together - he said 'politics is all about acting' - a revealing remark and he knows who his true audience is.
It has been a truly bizarre Kafkaesque election with the only relief coming from some ABC programmes which see through it all and give us a good laugh of relief in the face of this nightmarish ritual. One could go on to describing the actual makeup of the parties and the kinds of left over, use by date persons still around not having the decency of allowing a good burial to cover the stench arising from their neanderthal beliefs to the groupies, apparatchiks left over previous advisers and scrap heap persons who could not get a real job any where else. Study the background of some of these persons, even listen to if you can bear it their speeches - less painful sometimes to just read them - ask 'what have they on their own account achieved in real life situations outside the incestuous off the planet world of politics' and you just go away shaking your head - no wonder many the ex politicians have to rely on 'their mates' to get a job after finally having the decency to lie down, die and be buried - no one with sense would employ them tossing their resume in the rubbish bins to which many of them should be duly assigned.
The last three or so years have been bizarre by any scorecard - the next three years? But all of us get the government we deserve not because of the wrongs we may have done but because of the failure to do that which ought to be done - something about 'evil' reigns when good men fail to do nothing. Something about being condemned not for wrongs but for the failure to do the good we should have done in a completely unselfish sacrificial way but did not. And I guess that applies to me also.
05 Sep 2013 8:31:08am
Wandererfromoz, well done, with your reference to Bogans you further the wedge between the suburban blue-collar workers who founded the ALP and the inner-city "progressives" who now believe they own it. Clearly the usual progressive virtue of diversity only applies to others. Images of Tony Abbott being embraced by traditional Labor voters yesterday illustrate perfectly where that wedge leads.
Perhaps you could explain why "evil reigns" when "good men fail to do nothing". What is it that they do?
05 Sep 2013 9:00:29am
Sorry 'evil' reigns when good men do nothing is the correct quote. Some persons have actually expended an incredible amount of effort - thousands and thousands of hours - scores of thousands of dollars in time, effort and money - to do something to make our society as it were 'much better than it is ' - but then turn away in disillusionment when eventually they realize that 'power does corrupt etc - and that too often 'the love of money (of self) is truly the root of all 'evil'. 'Evil' being simply defined to the opposite of what is good and narrowed as such - not the kind of evil generally referred to re the worst of crimes events etc.
All you have to do is look at the kind of material printed on front pages of rat tag newspapers fighting for survival and join the dots to see that is exactly what politicians do = 'fight for their own survival" - to hell with statesmanship - its the politicians I condemn - not the Bogans to which I refer - who often could not care less as they read their rag tag dying print media rubbish.
05 Sep 2013 9:56:09am
Politian's will never change this costing's debacle because it suits them. There is only one way something may be done is to use electronic media.
Start telling them all, it needs to be changed when I was younger I had to rely on newspapers etc. never had the advantage of computers, news papers back than were believable not like now(I think).
Changed to something like "policy and costing's to be released 1 week before voting day" that gives 1 week for scrutiny and for each party to defend them.
05 Sep 2013 9:12:11am
"fowl newspaper articles" - this from a supposed intellectual. I'm sure most of us 'Luddites' at least know how to spell basic English words.
05 Sep 2013 10:12:42am
Yes it is about acting and Rudd is a good actor. Unfortunately for him, we all know he is acting.
Wining Pom:
05 Sep 2013 12:06:08pm
'Yes it is about acting and Rudd is a good actor. Unfortunately for him, we all know he is acting.'
Partisan politics again.
I think Abbott has done a brilliant job of acting during this campaign. His advisers have kept him in check and he has listened to them.
All politicians are on the stage.
05 Sep 2013 2:59:05pm
Actually listening to advisers is not a new thing. If theya re any good, they certainyl earn their $.
Abbott's advisers are obviously far more experienced, switched on and (from the political commentators) prepared to be honest with him.
Far better approach than employing kids with five years work experience as your key advisers, hey Kevin? But at least no-one will question you, further fuelling the ego and 'confirming' (in your own mind at least) that you are doing everything right.
05 Sep 2013 4:29:22pm
Suddenly you don't like partisan politics WP? Are you feeling all right? Are you running a temperature?
Don't despair. Assuming a Coalition win Labor can have a lot of fun in opposition, freed from the burden of office and the weight of the little Green monkey riding on its back. I genuinely think a win for Rudd would cause even more damage to the Labor brand if he did pull off a miracle win. Labor needs time for renewal, federally and in QLD & NSW.
05 Sep 2013 2:29:47pm
And Abbott is a bad actor. But that has a double meaning perhaps you're not aware of - or choose not to be.
05 Sep 2013 10:14:56am
Well said. There are some Australians who are willing to close their eyes to Abbott's lowest common denominator attacks. I guess they feel the end justifies the means. Mud, however sticks and it will be very hard to wrest any dignity for the Coalition out of the past few years. Labor has had its share of bad eggs but at least they are outed for who they are. When I am asked who I will vote for on Saturday I say the party that will help me and my family as well as my fellow Australians who through circumstances cannot help themselves. That is not the Coalition.
Peter the Lawyer:
05 Sep 2013 1:37:24pm
I'd love to see an example of these attacks by Abbott that weren't correct.
On the other hand the ALP MPs have lined up to personally abuse Tony Abbott and other COalition MPs. Pyne was said to be Abbott's poodle by Ms Gillard, for example.
Malcolms Leather Jacket:
05 Sep 2013 5:55:00pm
You need to get your fact checker out of mothballs.
Very important that lawyers should have a firm grasp of facts and correct information.
Pyne was actually likened to a mincing poodle when made the 'manager of opposition business' compared with Abbott's macho doberman back when Malcolm was the boss.
"In a choice between macho and mincing I would have gone for macho myself," she said.
"The leader of the Opposition faced with the choice of a doberman or the poodle has gone for the poodle."
05 Sep 2013 2:18:38pm
It's always been thus, as far as I can see. The so-called conservatives convince some portion of the population that they'll be better off and then pull the rug out, increasing the size of government, increasing taxes, spending everywhere but where it will help the very people who pay the most into the system. And yet those people still believe the story they've been sold. It can take a long time to wise up and see these charlatans for what they are: beholden to the wealthy and the special interests and lobbists. And the further right the once liberal parties move the less choice we have but to believe the narrative we've bought into. I don't buy Abbott's stories and I despise where Rudd's taken Labor. I won't vote against my own best interests, but I can sure as hell vote against these clowns.
Joseph B:
05 Sep 2013 7:41:19am
Can any government in a democracy behave in a financially responsible manner when voters want more spending and tax cuts that will only result in deficits?
James in Brisbane:
05 Sep 2013 9:14:43am
As it stands, I'd say no. Democracy is antithetical to good governance. It's like parenthood. You can be a good and sometimes deeply unpopular parent, or you can be a popular but bad parent: let the kids do whatever they want, coco pops for breakfast, nutella sandwiches for lunch and ice cream for dinner - you'd be amazingly popular but a terrible parent. Government is no different.
05 Sep 2013 11:34:35am
James you have nailed it mate. Everyone seems to want more but pay less for it. This is something that has been built up by both the major parties for some time. But we just cannot have it all.
John Howard was a master of getting people in to think that they could have everything. He spent money freely in providing hamburger and milkshake tax cuts but set the scene for structural deficits when the good time finished. Politicans became gun shy. We have tax reviews where the GST the major compnent of our tax system is off the table. No way will any government take on the unsustainable superannuation largesse, nor will the unfair negative gearing be addressed. Look what happened when Gillard did something real about climate change.
What has occurred is that instead of looking at solutions to structural issues we find scapegoats. Asylum seekers are easy targets and are demonised. Xenophobic bogans prolifigate in marginals and politically the message resonates well. This is why we have a race to the bottom on this issue.
We are also being told that we need to become more productive despite the fact that we work harder here than almost anywhere in the developed world. The real message is that we need to work harder for less and mark my words we will have a new IR system before much longer.
People should be careful about what they wish for.
hour. This will
05 Sep 2013 1:02:44pm
Keating addressed negative gearing but found he had to retreat on that one.
Peter the Lawyer:
05 Sep 2013 1:41:06pm
The Howard Government presided over the most properous period in our history. All the economic indicators were the best we've ever had and there was no 'structural deficit.' The tax cuts Howard gave were brilliant. When Keating left office, the top marginal rate kicked in at $50,000. When Howard left it was $180,000. So stop believing in the silly left-wing prpaganda and look up some real history. You will learn to appreciate just how good the Howard Government actually was.
the truth:
06 Sep 2013 12:15:34am
Yes what you have written is indeed Rubbish Peter.
Howard has been confirmed as the most wasteful PM in Australia's history !
Please stop spouting rubbish.
mao trostsky-marx-lenin:
06 Sep 2013 2:34:06am
The Howard term such a nirvana he became only the second Prime Minister in history to lose his seat.
05 Sep 2013 5:07:14pm
I am not frightened of paying a bit more tax to ensure infrastructure and services are properly funded.
Which is more than I can say for those on much higher incomes than me! I don't even earn an "average" salary. But the tax cuts bestowed on the wealthy by Howard have now led to a structural deficit and all some can think of is a hike in the GST (a regressive tax).
Those at the top end want all of the handouts given to the poorer members of this country (health care rebates, massive PPL schemes paid for out of my meager super earnings, private school benefits, etc). The well off frequently want a user pays system, but I bet they would baulk at paying for their own bit of leafy Toorak street all by them selves, instead of the cross subsidy they get from all taxpayers.
Frank of NQ:
05 Sep 2013 7:43:54am
Good article Jonathan. I think what is troubling many of us is the speed at which we can now distinguish the difference between a backflip and a barefaced porky. Many of us would have been happier not knowing. An opposition can sometimes get away with a lie but we will punish severely a government that treats us like idiots.
05 Sep 2013 1:05:06pm
Frank of NQ,
What concerns me is that even if a politician changes his/her mind or policy for good reasons, ie changed circumstances, the newspapers will always have in big letters "Backflip"
No wonder politicians are gun shy about changing anything.
Frank of NQ:
05 Sep 2013 2:20:48pm
RoxyR, yes, we are partially responsible for the behavioural characteristics of our politicians. The party leaders make a judgement call based on what they think voters want. A byproduct of a tight election or hung parliament , maybe. Anyway, how did we get to this point, where media is more believable and trustworthy than our Politicians?
05 Sep 2013 8:51:56pm
I suspect the 24 hour media cycle where the stations have to keep coming up with 30 second grabs is part of the problem
05 Sep 2013 7:46:22am
Funny that the two states that you laud have probably had the worst governments of any jurisdiction in Australian in recent times. As much as the two major parties have their fair fair share of corrupt or incompetent members experience shows that governments with a working majority and a rigorous opposition are more likely to provide good governance than a minority government relying on a coalition of the sort of fringe dwellers that proportional representation often throws up.
Brief Comment:
05 Sep 2013 8:22:56am
I agree with Henry. Proportional representation creates governments that need to rely on support from extremists that represent small minorities (like the Greens). It is much better to have a centrist party that can govern in its own right. This system has served Australia extremely well.
Mark James:
05 Sep 2013 9:49:00am
I guess it depends on how you prefer your democracy, BC.
The tyranny of the majority model may offer sounder, more consistent governance, but it betrays the notion that democracy should be representative of the people on a one-person-one-vote basis.
It's ironic, too, that your complaint about Governments depending on support from minority parties overlooks the fact that the Liberals could not govern in their own right without the Nationals, who received far les less votes than the Greens.
05 Sep 2013 11:48:06am
Mark James,
Perhaps Henry would prefer first past the post voting. Would you be happy with it?
Mark James:
05 Sep 2013 1:17:43pm
sidlaw, I'd say 'first past the post' is effectively more a tyranny of the majority that what we have in Australia.
The UK, with its first-past-the-post system, saw Margaret Thatcher radically change the country even though no less than 56.1% British voters voted for somebody other than her. (If you include those who didn't vote, Thatcher's best result was 1987, when 67.5% eligible voters didn't vote for her).
I'd say Australian democracy is far more representative than that, but could be even more so if it were possible to break the stranglehold of the two main parties by adding a proportional representation component into the lower house while still having elected members directly elected by constituents.
05 Sep 2013 2:15:22pm
Perhaps we would have more Representative government if we got back to the constitution which defines the senate as existing to represent the interests of the individual states.
Allowing party politics in the senate in my view negates the intention and letter of the constitution. Senators should not be members of any political party and should not receive funding from political parties if they are to do their job and represent all of the voters in their state.
Peter the Lawyer:
05 Sep 2013 1:46:39pm
Democracy is not about giving everyone a voice in government, but in selecting representatives to do that. It is no more democratic to have every party represented proportionally than it is to have our current system. The problem with proportional voting is that it gives crackpots like the Greens power far beyond the vote they got. Thus in the Senate, the Greens with 9 senators can get their carbon tax plans through by pressuring the :Labor party, when 90% of Australians voted against a carbon tax.
If we have p[roportional respresentation, how do we dicide which policies have a amndate? If the Greens get 75 of the vote, do they get the right to have 7% of their policies turned into law? Of course not. it is far better to have our current system where it is quite clear that the party that wins in the lower house should be allowed to introduce its program and the other parties should not.
Mark James:
05 Sep 2013 4:22:08pm
Fair enough, Peter, you prefer the 'tyranny of the majority' model.
But I'd say that, if democracy is supposed to be about representation along the lines of one-person-one-vote, then your preferred model may serve a rump collective, but does nothing for the individual outside of that collective.
Why, for instance, should the Nationals have a greater say in government policies than the Greens, when the Nationals only get a fraction of the Greens vote? Just because they've done a sweet-heart deal with a major party?
As for your "90% of Australians voted against a carbon tax", where did you get that figure?
It could also be said that the majority of Australians (those who gave first preferences to Labor, the Coalition and the Greens) voted for an ETS in 2007, a policy that was overturned in 2009 by one Coalition vote in a leadership ballot.
mao trostsky-marx-lenin:
06 Sep 2013 2:40:48am
Democracy sometimes means doing stuff the majority aren't in favour of because it is right to do so. Because the Greens might get more representatives in parliament is hardly a reason to not introduce it. One Notion or the Shooters Party or any of the other flaky right wingers like the DLP or CEC might also get seats so that even you are represented.
Peter the Lawyer:
05 Sep 2013 1:49:02pm
I almost forgot, your comment about the Nationals is rubbish. There is a formal coalition agreement between the Liberals and the Nationals which means that they are in effect one party. The reens and Labor could do the same and form a formal coaliliton whereby they do not challenege each other in any seats except for those where a Coalition MP has retired.
05 Sep 2013 4:57:05pm
So, Pete, how come Joe Hockey labled the Nationals in WA as being a "...protest group..." just a day or two ago? Seems to me the only sure thing is that the Libs will give the Nats a few insignificant portfolios and a couple of big white limos to drive around in and then ignore them and their issues like they always do when in government.
Brief Comment:
05 Sep 2013 3:27:12pm
MJ - The point you raise on one-person-one-vote is a fair one. But for me, preferential voting is the best compromise between the advantages & disadvantages of first past the post & proportional representation.
I don't think your point on the Nationals is right. In practise they just get the vote of people in country areas who would otherwise vote Liberal. There are not many 3 cornered contests.
05 Sep 2013 9:05:09am
Indeed, this is the general failing of idealists; they can see the weaknesses of the present system but never of the reform they propose. Churchill's much quoted least worst aphorism applies, and Churchill always felt that the two party system, with a majority government but ferocious opposition was best. The failures of the British system between the wars when awkward coalitions (eg Labour/Conservative) ruled and of the universally corrupt fluid coalition governments of the Mediterranean show the dangers of fragmented multiparty systems. Both Labor and Coalition have served well as Australian governments - bad decisions have been made at federal and state level when there has been a need to pander to minority parties (hunting in National Parks and the carbon tax as a carbon pricing mechanism being obvious examples).
05 Sep 2013 11:17:45am
Don't get me wrong, I think Winston lived one of the more extraordinary lives of the modern age and who's legacy endures still.
As grandson of the Duke of Marlborough (nephew to a later one), born in Blenheim Palace, son of the Chancellor of the Exchequer/ Secretary of State/ Speaker fo the House/ Secretary of state for India, Winston was educated at Eton and Oxford.....held pretty much everyone other than white English speakers in distain, re-drew borders at a whim (some of which still haunt us) and was prepared to use lethal force to maintain the commercial interests of a crumbling empire in the most casual and offhanded manner.
In short, Winston may have been a expert of getting ahead in the British parliament but he's not an authority on the institution of democracy.
UK democracy was the best form of government for him.
05 Sep 2013 1:44:57pm
Dove, the truth is that Churchill was not a nice man and really was a bit of a bastard but he did one thing that makes him the greatest man in the 20th century and that was to refuse to bow down to Hitler at a time when that seemed to be the prudent course to take. In doing so he most definitely saved the world from nazi domination, imagine a world where Hitler won.
Peter the Lawyer:
05 Sep 2013 1:50:16pm
Winston was educated at Harrow and Sandhurst
05 Sep 2013 4:27:51pm
My error. You are correct. I was too caught up looking at his father's bio.
Mike M:
05 Sep 2013 7:53:43am
Yep, that just about sums it up for me. So I'm voting for Clive...at least he will force the two carbon copies of each other to talk about policy and our future. The glib campaigns of little substance that we are being served up right now are a disgrace.
05 Sep 2013 11:49:43am
Peter Beattie was depicted as a clown recently. I have seen a lot more clownish behaviour from Clive. What a waste of a good vote!
Forrest Gardener:
05 Sep 2013 7:57:09am
Jonathan, Labor's incompetence and dishonesty is reason to lament. Labor's ceaseless opposition of the opposition rather than governing is reason to lament.
By all means be disillusioned with Labor, but don't suggest that everybody should be disillusioned with everything just because you are.
Try to find some positive reason for Labor to exist.
05 Sep 2013 9:05:52am
Hey Jon knows that he will never loose his job. Read today that apart from public servants in canberra having already parental leave on full pay at taxpayer expense they will now get an added 4 weeks leave on full pay if they claim they have been subject to domestic violence. How dare a person working in small business have the benefit of parental leave.
Maybe it would be desirable if all workers were employed by the public service and enjoyed the benefits.
05 Sep 2013 9:26:11am
Forrest, don't you worry, there are many positive reasons for Labor to exist. Not so sure about the Liberals.
Forrest Gardener:
06 Sep 2013 6:36:41am
Rabbie, can you name one such reason or do we have to trust you on that one?
05 Sep 2013 9:32:58am
Here's a reason for Labor to exist: to keep that other nutcase out of the hot seat!
The current ALP sucks and I know I'm not the only "rusted on" ALP voter who won't be putting a '1' in their box on Saturday. At the same time, I know of a few (and there will be a few more out there, I'd imagine) LNP voters who feel the same way about the current state of their party as I did when Latham was at the helm of the ALP (ie "how did this nutter end up in charge!?").
It seems pretty clear that while campaigning is taking place in marginal seats, both sides are focusing their overall national campaigns at people who don't pay attention to politics beyond tabloid headlines and aren't all that bright.
Forrest Gardener:
05 Sep 2013 4:00:03pm
Jess, what I asked was a positive reason for Labor to exist.
Your reason was entirely negative.
the truth:
06 Sep 2013 12:19:20am
To do what is best for the country.
It is interesting that Abbott has now been caught red-handed with his hand in the wallets of Self-funded Retirees and Pensioners to the tune of $1.6B to fund his Billionaires to have Babies Scheme.
There's that also if you need negative.
05 Sep 2013 9:38:13am
Forrest- I am not a rusted on like you and actually think Labor's policies as far as climate change, education, the NBN and the use of Government deficits in time of economic stress; are far superior to those of the LNP but having said that its politics have been awful, But worse than that-its surrender of our values to the fringe and joining the LNP in the race to the bottom is abominable.
So the positive I take in the reason for Labor to exist is that it will act as break albeit possibly a weak one- to the excesses of an arrogant mean LNP.
And in time- in the not too distant future it will unschakle itself from the neo liberal economics it has become wedded to. It will no longer be a prisoner to the financial machine which has made debt slaves of so many of us.
And rather than be scared of the Murdochs -of this world- the fossil industry and corporatism it will help lead the fight towards the coming Third Industrial Revolution of the merging of communications technology- like the NBN- and renewable energy, which in turn wil lead to new economic and social structure thinking.
I was pleased to see religious leaders from every denomination come out in favour of a price on carbon today- they have more economic sense and mid-long term vision than all of the LNP put together.
Peter the Lawyer:
05 Sep 2013 1:52:30pm
But the IMF has just reported that the use of stimulus during the GFC did nothing to improve economies. In fact countires that used less stimulus seem to have done better than us.
05 Sep 2013 4:20:56pm
And which countries are they? What has been their economic growth rate over the last 5years? What levels of debt do they have? Please explain!!
the yank:
05 Sep 2013 11:21:26am
Tell me how many more lies Abbott and co. have to tell you before you understand that you have been had?
After months of promises to release their costings well in advance of the election they have now just released them ... or have they actually no.
The costings of key programs like their NBN policy have not been released.
05 Sep 2013 1:03:45pm
But yank, we now know they're "bulletproof" so who needs costings or modelling? Get with the new zeitgeist baby!
the truth:
06 Sep 2013 12:24:31am
Hmmm . Today caught ripping off Self-funded Retirees and Pensioners to the tune of $1.6B by double-taxing them to pay for his Billionaires to have Babies Scheme.
Also introducing retrospective taxing of Superannuation, look out Australia .. Here Comes TONY !!
05 Sep 2013 1:14:26pm
the yank,
I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't really matter; the electorate is not listening, they just want to kick Rudd out.
I think the electorate is not voting for Abbott, rather it is anyone but Rudd.
Also you only have to listen to what his political colleagues and those who had to work with him said when he was replaced by Gillard, yet they brought him back as leader. What message does that send.
05 Sep 2013 5:09:07pm
I think you're right Roxy. My niece, now 22, told me she was paying attention to the issues and reading the policies this time around. She's the earnest type. I didn't want to discourage her by telling her pretty much the same thing, that this election is about getting rid of Rudd and Labor, that the issues are secondary. So I shut up.
05 Sep 2013 1:25:26pm
@Yank - see my post above.
A facetious answer to your questions would be something like "about as many lies as we have heard from the Government". We've been had by them too!
Seriously, why do people believe that one side is better than the other? I put it to you that we need both the major parties to take it in turns governing, which hopefully evens out the negative aspects of both in the long term. And boy, they both have some negative baggage.
05 Sep 2013 1:31:32pm
i suggest you get out more
we already know the expected cost of the liberals NBN, and why its cheaper than the labor version.
maybe the latest blowout of the labor NBN will cause the liberals NBN to also blow out ? Since both versions have a lot in common.
the truth:
06 Sep 2013 12:27:46am
Yes we do know why it is cheaper.
It will deliver a Network already slower than most advanced countries, that will be obsolete before it is even finished.
Once Abbott gets in I'd say he will scrap the whole NBN.
More important things like the Indonesian Boat-Building Industry to fund and deliver.
05 Sep 2013 7:57:36am
Whats new here every election I can recall is the same the party identifies the seats they need if they are to win and start with three word slogans and kissing babies not forgetting the Dick and Dora how to vote cards.
If Australia want's smarter politicians and better government they should do away with compulsory voting.
05 Sep 2013 8:37:29am
If Australia wants smarter politicians and better government we should make more and better use of excellent tools such as Vote Compass.
05 Sep 2013 9:11:11am
Haderak:The ABC has a very small market share and who else would bother with a vote Compass most would want to know what boat it came from.
05 Sep 2013 10:23:16am
Actually, getting rid of how to vote cards and above the line senate voting would be a good start. Maybe the sheep would have to make their own decision for once.
05 Sep 2013 11:17:01am
I agree that we need to get rid of compulsory voting. At the moment we give minimal real debate on policy, cheap slogans that are meant to appeal to the undiscerning and politicians who can coast to victory without any real scrutiny.
05 Sep 2013 8:02:23am
Who would know what Labor's core beliefs are nowadays. Do they even know anymore?
Oh well only a couple of days to go and they can have a nice think about it in oppositon for a few terms.
05 Sep 2013 8:34:02am
Labor has wedged itself by trying to represent both inner city wealthy, humanities educated, authoritarian Leftists, and working class suburbia and it's looking increasingly unviable. The risk is that there will be permanent shift of the old working class to the Coalition. There is no way to compromise on issues like the carbon tax, gay marriage, and asylum seekers. To win government you have to hold the centre, which means ditching the inner city types, and let them be the Green's they really are. There are far more votes in the burbs'.
Peter the Lawyer:
05 Sep 2013 1:55:39pm
I think you will find that the inner city leftists are really one step up from Bogans and are incredibly philistine. Nor are they wealthy. They are the kind of people who love government because it gets them a little more than the average wage. It's the Liberals who are the rich and classy ones. That's why Bellevue Hill and Point Piper (Australias richest and best suburbs) always vote overwhlmingly Liberal. And both are inner city.
05 Sep 2013 4:22:43pm
People who were once ignorantly and unthinkingly conservative are today ignorantly and unthinkingly progressive.
05 Sep 2013 4:08:50pm
A permanent shift of the working class to the Coalition could be expected, as their is no real working class any more. Unionism is more or less dead and suburban workers live now in substantial affluence while assuring everyone they are in fact 'battlers' as a means of securing the benefits of big government spending through electoral blackmail. This incredibly self-obsessed group of people, whom have absolutely no sense of good will other than that of their immediate interests, through moving to the Coalition have transformed it into a Whitlamite party which practices a variation of social democracy mixed with the crass elite authoritarianism exhibited by both parties. There is no real conservative party. Conservatism around the world is non-existent, at least in the western world.
05 Sep 2013 9:14:35am
maus: I agree it's time Labor went back to it's roots and cleaned up the union movement their will be many workers in the coming years looking for good union representation.
05 Sep 2013 1:28:43pm
The roots of the union movement were thugs and standover men. We can do better than that I hope, given they have not changed in all these years.
05 Sep 2013 5:08:46pm
Actually, the Union movement was championed by those well known British religous leaders, the Wesley Brothers, who at the height of th eIndustrial revolution urged workers to unite and collectively bargain through the formation of trade unions. Unionists and their organisers were branded thugs and etc by the bosses just so they could justify their use of violence and intimidation against unionised workers. Nothings changed, either. There is just a more subtle misuse of power and propoganda being used on the masses. We never hear the reverse side of the arguement - I mean the employers who rip off workers and treat them like s... for as long as they can get away with it.
05 Sep 2013 3:06:08pm
'Good union representation'. That is an oxymoron.
Union members are simply a stone to be stepped on (or sh*t to scrape off a shoe) by union officials in their desperate, self-serving race to a safe political life.
05 Sep 2013 11:42:35am
Labor's MPs and PMs have maintained the ALP core belief throughout the last 6 years, POWER AT ANY COST!!!!!!!
05 Sep 2013 8:09:35am
Oh dear! Another Labor tragic desperately trying to come to terms with reality.
Guess what Jonathan - It is not all about you!
As for this pearler "an empty ritual for that majority of us whose entrenched loyalties can be assumed and taken for granted"
Well there is an admission of how 'rusted on' is Jonathan! But it is also Labor's problem in a nutshell. They have been taking entrenched loyalties for granted and treating the faithful like mugs.
Saturday will demonstrate the flaws in that strategy. Bring it on!
05 Sep 2013 12:29:59pm
Jonathan is part of the electorate and it is about us. Parliament is supposed to be about democracy and representing the interests of the people, not big coal, big pharma and the military-industrial interests that would have us constantly at war.
And being taken for granted if you live in an electorate that largely votes for candidates from one or other major party is not simply an ALP problem. The LNP treats its rusted on supporters the same way.
05 Sep 2013 4:20:04pm
So Jonathan, a member of 'big media', is part of the electorate but all those others aren't?
You tie yourself in knots ranting about those you nonsensically fear.
05 Sep 2013 8:13:03am
This Saturday we remember that voting is a right, but it seems that more than a "right" we have simply forgotten that democracy is actually a responsibility. Democracy is something far bigger that simply working out what a 50%+1 looks like at the ballot box.
The environment shapes the species!
We focus a lot on the person (species) but we tend to ignore the role played by the environment that shapes the person. In politics today we have a highly adapted species of politician. They stay on message, never let anything slip and never get caught unaware.
But we have created the environment which has shaped these politicians. You an me. We are all shapers of this. We only pay attention to the soundbite and ignore the longer discourse. It's time to turn off a bit and seek out the longer discussion. It's time to allow a calm discussion rather than that the quick quick quick debating trick used to unseat our opponent. Take the oppositional element out of the discourse. Argument by emotional manipulation.
Take what happened on Q&A this week, when Kevin did a Jed Bartlett on that pastor who asked the question on gay marriage. This guy was flustered, or to use a psychological term, he was severely fragmented. Typically it looks like anger, but there is also a freezing sort of helplessness. Caught in the spotlights if you will. And what happened on twitter and in the audience, we heard Kevins astute reply and applauded and proceeded to march all over this guy. I myself am aligned to marriage equality, but I can also see that some people have strong unintegrated emotions (disgust and desire) around the whole issue.
We did not get to the underlying emotional inconsistency within this person, it was simply seen as weakness and then exploited ruthlessly.
"Ruth-Less", meaning without "ruth" which is translated as "love". Oh and the irony, that in a debate about "love" we all act in a way that is totally devoid of it.
And THIS is exactly what I mean by the "environment". Don't blame anyone else, we are all responsible for creating this environment which only allows a hardened political machiavellian to survive... we are all responsible for this democracy!
05 Sep 2013 8:40:34am
"Don't blame anyone else, we are all responsible for creating this environment ..."
And to my mind, this is the best proof that we have a system that works. It's representative of us.
That's a good thing. It means that when we change our minds - indeed, our mindset - that change will be reflected in our governments.
Changing mindset isn't easy, but it's nice to know that we don't need to change systems as well.
05 Sep 2013 12:13:18pm
Not talking about the short term mindset, I am referring to the long term system itself.
The current environment has evolved with a media landscape that is broadcast in nature, ie: one to many, in an asynchronous form where feedback is scant and infrequent. But the media landscape itself is changing to a more network one-to-one (or many-to-many), where the feedback is more immediate (synchronous).
The existing crop of pollies have adapted to the old and are struggling in the new, on top of this we have print media becoming obsolote as the environment changes and both these things have resulted in the old methods being applied more ferociously than before. It is this ferocity, this growing discontent that is the threat to our democracy because the system itself may not be able to adapt.
Anger breeds anger, hate breeds hate, and maybe there will be a short respite after the election, but I bet it will all be on again before the end of the year.
It's fair to suggest that the electioneering periods have been getting longer, and not just due to hung parliaments. but I'd like to know objectively if there is more bile, anger and hatred today than there was say 30 years ago, maybe there isn't in which case your point is sound, but if there is then we are wearing away at the thin veneer of our civilisation, simply by virtue of the fact that we are being less civil when it matters.
I'm crying out for a politician that is brave enough to accept the arguement of their opposite and work calmly with them in a simple debate, rather than just foaming at the mouth as they sing from the spin doctors hymn book. Ask yourself if this was ever possible, and why it's not possible now.
05 Sep 2013 8:24:05am
Jonathan Green's disillusionment following the fall of Julia Gillard continues. There is no doubt that the contrast between Gillard and Rudd, between conviction and expediency, is stark. The problem however is that Julia Gillard was massively unpopular. As Abbott has demonstrated, poor personal poll ratings are not necessarily politically fatal, but the polling figures of the ALP as a whole were. When MPs see numbers like that, they get very nervous. Expediency looks like a pretty good alternative.
The problem now for the ALP is that expediency hasn't really paid off all that well. The argument at the time was that Rudd would "save the furniture" and might just even win. Unfortunately following the "Gillard's gone" bounce, the polls have slowly, steadily declined. This has now reached a point where those who stood by Gillard to the end could argue that she could have done as well or even better. What's more, with Gillard they could have defended their record and set up a conviction narrative for the future.
With Rudd they've progressively discarded their recent record. Just as Gillard discarded Rudd's achievements, so Rudd has done the same with her record. As Rudd has found, it is hard to defend your record when your own side has panned it. Now this applies to both 2007 to 2010 and to 2010 to 2013. This won't end with Rudd. Whoever succeeds him will be undermined by this for a very long time.
The departure of both Rudd and Gillard from the political scene won't end this dilemma. Just as the polarity between "the light on the hill" and "whatever it takes" didn't start with Rudd and Gillard, it won't end there. Bill Shorten will have his work cut out to begin healing the wounds and arriving at a viable compromise.
05 Sep 2013 9:27:22am
Thanks Jonathon and all replies.
My view is this.
Labor has the best and fairest policies except for refugees and in regard to this TA and JHs history of fear/scare tactics, neglect of bi partican debate and a more human way of caring for these people are even worse.
Also you JG and abc you have not given us enough information over the past years about the GOVTS POLICIES.
I believe in the reforms that JG and the labor party have worked hard on achieving for the good of all of us.eg
kept us our of a recession, AAA ratings
high employment, trying to reduce difficulities for small business, restore funds to TAFESs,smarter,and a more equitable education system.
NDIS,NBN and ETS. I do acknowledge that Labor have made some mistakes but I so proud of there history of ensuring that all of us in our great democracy do get a good health, environment, jobs for all and a health system. There is much more to be done and a fairer coverage of factual policies of Labor and a respectful discussion from all of us. So I guess you know who I will be voting Labor.
05 Sep 2013 8:31:44am
"But these are the ideological shells both parties leave behind when they move to that central gutter of Australian politics, the narrow stream in which the modern general election is fought."
Jonathan there is also a bigger process underway which is about changing the language of the debate so that the centre will move closer to the ideological shell.
The conservatives have been winning this war largely because they understand the way language can be used to move the discourse. They are not writing three word slogans for the far left, they are writing them for the centrist who is politically disengaged.
Sure, both sides do this, but the right seem to me to be largely more successful over time. That's why Labor has moved to right on asylum seekers. But on issues like parental leave, I suspect a much more nefarious motivation against women is actually at play, that or an undisguised attempt to increase population for reasons of economic growth. And whilst I hear Labor saying it is "fiscally responsible" I don't hear much from the right about freedom to organise in the work place, no instead it's called "work choices", which is exactly what it isn't.
Also on the asylum debate, did everyone notice how it stopped so much being about "border security" and instead became a drive to prevent a "dangerous sea voyage"... "Yeah, that's right" we all cried, "we don't want them to drown". It became an excuse we like to tell ourselves, that we are being compassionate when really we'd rather the white Australia policy to return.
So there is the short term battle for the centre, but there is also the longer term strategy to move the centre to where you want it to be. This was at the heart of Abbot's "Battlelines". Thing is, the left hasn't worked it out yet, even though cognitive scientists like George Lakoff have a pretty good understanding of what's really happening when we "frame the debate".
Peter the Lawyer:
05 Sep 2013 2:07:13pm
Maybe Labor has moved 'to the right' on asylum seekers because that is the correct policy. After all Mr Rudd admitted that since the ALP dimantled the Pacific Solution, somewhere between 2000 and 3000 asylum seekers have died trying to get Australia.
05 Sep 2013 5:34:14pm
There is no "correct" policy on asylum seekers.
It either errs on the side of compassion, or errs on the side of preventing overpopulation in our country.
Don't pretend for a minute that it's about people dying at sea, if you actually wanted to prevent deaths at sea, then an Australian run ferry service would be more than adequate to solve said problem. But you don't actually want that because like I said that would cause a problem with overpopulation.... or is it racism, I don't know you, so I can't say so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and say "border protection" or "being swamped by the 40million refugees in the world" or some other frame for the debate that makes it more palatable.
Either way the whole debate is only ever looking at SHORT TERM solutions for what is a global problem of wealth inequality, corruption and over population. I contend that this LONG TERM problem will only get worse as we sit in our country, put our collective hands to our collective ears and yell "I'M NOT LISTENING TO YOU! I'M NOT LISTENING TO YOU!..."
05 Sep 2013 8:37:34am
You are describing why democracy will eventually crumble. We already have the example of the EU, awash with unemployment, no growth, debt & deficits.
In our own back yard the Rudd/Gillard/greens/Rudd government has never been held to account with respect to either 1,200 refugee deaths or $300bn of avoidable debt that will be a cancer on any social programs for at least a decade.
Currently we have two socialist contenders who have similar policies with respect to unaffordable, middle class, ABC social policies that will take us further down the road to debt serfdom.
On Saturday when we of the ABC/Left will have our asses kicked & donkeys shot; Sunday will present us with the opportunity to humanely put down the remaining donkeys in order to prepare for the coming double dissolution.
We can then choose an able leader & realistic candidates to offer appropriate policies of equitable cut, cut, cut to the bone to get this nation back on track.
To fail in our responsibility will finally finish my ALP/ABC & we will have become Europe by PNG, with no Angela to bail us out.
Common Jonathan will you join us in this worthy cause or is the lure of the fat, white, middle class too strong. the revolution must start from within my ABC, with a rational leftist, fair & objective approach.
Do you aging lefties have the conjones or are you all oh so clever, gruen transferees?
Tony from Q&A has already ditched the rudster.
If he can do it so can all of us lefties, we have nothing to fear but debt itself.
And our new leaders will know where the buck stops.
05 Sep 2013 8:40:31am
The labor party , all of them should have a conviction, for leaving our country the way it is at the present time, they are just a shambles from top to bottom, come saturday evening the country WILL have a government that knows how to run a country, good riddons to bad rubbish.
Hung One On:
05 Sep 2013 9:24:42am
What? In good shape. Yes good riddons to bad rubbish!
05 Sep 2013 8:49:32am
Cruelty to asylum seekers. What in the hell do you mean by that? Austral has no cruelty to asylum seekers. We take a large number for permanent settlement.
You are out of touch if you believe that we will take anyone who wants to arrive on a boat with no identification and make up a story about how they fear that they may be persecuted. If they are in "fear" for their life surely they would be greatfull for a TPV. As we know this is not the objective. Send one and bring the rest. Better if it is a minor. I guess that the "fleeing" person who leaves his family to be subject of persecution is not very caring. However under Rudd"s policy get one here and all will follow on family reunification policy.
A big problem now is that the model will not work as they will have a TPV. No ability to go back home and wave a permanent residency permit to your friends. If you leave your TPV is terminated.
Not able to understand why the refugee lobby has a problem with this as surely they would be greatfull if a person if fleeing in fear of being killed was given temporary protection. I wonder if this was true in most cases why would they leave their family to be killed.
05 Sep 2013 10:13:30am
Don't you realise Peter than not accepting every single refugee (and person claiming to be a refugee) in the entire world, and then providing them with a standard of living at least matching that of the average Australian, is cruelty?
In the same way that any restriction placed on a criminal (such as a fine or detention) creates mental anguish and is therefore torture?
And that a word can mean anything you like? Ie "misogyny" means "to disagree with a woman".
You must keep up with the modern world!
05 Sep 2013 10:31:00am
Imagine living life on a bridging visa. Not being permitted to work, not knowing whether to build a family or not, not being able to make plans for the future, not knowing whether you'll be able to stay here or be evicted from this country to any number of uncertain, scary future scenarios....
Not cruel?
05 Sep 2013 11:32:12am
Imagine living in an African refugee camp. For years. Imagine breaking your leg in a village in the highlands of PNG, when it's a five day walk to the nearest hospital. Imagine being one of the nearly two million who die every year frm malaria, a preventable and curable disease. Imagine living on a few dollars a day and earning a living scavenging from rubbish dumps.
You keep worrying about the suffering masses who turn up unannounced and uninvited and proclaim Australians evil and wicked. Life goes on outside your blinkered view. A mosquito net costs a few dollars. Think of that next time you upgrade your phone or buy a coffee: You've put a price on compassion, too. But let's save the lucky few with $10000 to spare and not worry about how much it costs. Just so we can say we care.
05 Sep 2013 11:38:13am
Come through the front door and you can become a citizen. Crew jumping should not be tolerated, especially when the occasional leaks from the UNHCR and Carr show that you would be lucky to find a genuine asylum seeker on the boats.
05 Sep 2013 10:54:04am
Peter; I think your post reflects exactly what in the hell is meant by cruelty to asylum seekers.
You demonise ALL asylum seekers as I guess 'economic refugees" in that you are being cruel to those who are escaping tyranny, death and destruction and you are being even more cruel to those who like you or your ancestors sought a better life.
Demonise people smugglers and do everything you can to prevent deaths at sea but but do not demonise asylum seekers-that is cruel- and shows gross ignorance of the facts.
05 Sep 2013 2:39:01pm
I certainly demonise people who turn up uninvited with intent to colonise. Nobody waiting for a boat in Indonesia or Malaysia is facing the persecution they fled from; the problem is already solved. Anything more than physical safety is seeking economic enrichment. There is simply nothing special about people who arrive in boats. We save many lives through foreign aid with simple things like medicine. 'Facts' do not help the advocates cause; assessments have no credibility, and many are arriving from countries without conflicts. Our leaders have admitted the system is being gamed. It is simply not morally defensible to privilege these people because of some sentimental vision of the worlds' weary falling into your safe arms. If you were honest, you know you would be horrified by the sorts of oppressive belief systems these people usually hold.
05 Sep 2013 7:40:10pm
Well then - you must demonise yourself, your ancestors and everyone who arrived uninvited and colonised Africa- Asia-the Americas and Australia.
05 Sep 2013 11:19:40am
Serious question: what do we do with refugees in camps who have no identification?
05 Sep 2013 12:40:30pm
You asked.
We find the serenity to accept the things we can't change (that's for the Greens).
We find the courage to change the things we can (everyone else).
On the short term issues of identification. It's still a type I, type II error problem of minimising false negatives and false positives. This sort of threshold problem is ubiquitous in science and the same calm rational should be applied. This would look like asking the right questions and doing what's called a 360 degree check.
What is they native language? Can someone else interpret their speech as being native in that tongue (ie did they lie). Did they work? What was the work? If you can, ask for a phone number, check the number is accurate call the place and ask them. Put the answers in a database and compare a previous applicants answers to new.
There are any number of ways to verify a persons background, but this has to be left up to TRAINED investigators. The people doing the discernment need to be able to do their job they are trained for, and not get hung out to dry by everyone else.
On the long term issue of asylum seekers in general.
The dozen or so nations that have refugee resettlement need to get their collective act together or it's going to get worse. Declare a portion of Aus (an the other nations involved) to be a Special Administrative Region. A U.N. run global state where refugees could even seek to earn a living. The worst part about refugee camps is that the inhabitants are prevented from working (by the host country). This needs to change.
After a while, we (the accepting nations) could then act in a multilateral way to seize very small portions of other countries entering strife, ie where we know more refugees will be created, and make these zones part of the UN Special Administrative Region. Enforce the peace and allow the most basic of things to occur ie: health and education, for which there will be more need for work. Currently 7% of Afghans have fled the country to elsewhere, why then should we not seize 0.7% of Afghanistan in order to prevent the distress of travelling in leaky boats and also reduce the politicisation of human suffering in the current UNHCR receiving nations.
Of course a cost benefits should be done first.
05 Sep 2013 4:36:32pm
Is your answer that somebody askes them where they are from and tries to make a phone call? How is that materially different to what Dept Immigration officials do for boat arrivals that have burned theirs?
05 Sep 2013 3:05:12pm
Dove, their time in a refugee camp is their identification, or at least proof that they are genuine refugees and not frauds, because no economic migrant is going to wait years in a camp for, possible, resettlement in Australia.
05 Sep 2013 8:50:30am
In a two party majority rule system, the leaders of the two major parties will always target the "median voters" - the ones at the centre of the ideological continuum, no matter how incongruous with party principles.
That's why their stated policies and promises usually converge, especially as polling day approaches. The only way out of this dilemma is to build some alternative parties to become viable competitors.
big joe:
05 Sep 2013 8:55:27am
As predicted we have had weeks of the most negative labor campaign I have ever seen, now we come to the beg, I just saw Wong being interviewed on Sky News and all she could say was "What is Abbott hiding, what is Abbott hiding" a lot of stuttering and nothing at all of any substance. It would appear that she is begging for the sympathy vote. Hopefully after Saturday we won't be seeing her again.
05 Sep 2013 11:40:56am
We can only live in hope that we will not see the $100 billion waster again, because our grandchildren will be dealing with the results of her incompetence.
05 Sep 2013 11:56:41am
yes, saw the same interview/press conference. Finf it hard to believe that anyone can even believe a word she says, her credibility is shot to pieces. Here is a woman who
a) denigrated Rudd but when the leadership jumped ship like a rat to hitch onto Rudd, so much for her hand on heart loyalty to Gillard, obviously all she cares about is her pension accumulating at a minsters wage level
b) has been responsible for miscalculations of 106 billion in the last 3 budgets, and she expects us to listen to her about the LNP costings
as I said no integrity or credibility, as least all the others that said Rudd was impossible to work with (apart from Plibersek) has had the good grace to resign their portfolios and some even get out of parliament, not these 2 though
05 Sep 2013 2:21:49pm
Penny Wong is one of the few politicians who actually believes what they say and she's the finance minister. Good grief!
05 Sep 2013 6:17:45pm
Wong has had a dream run up until now mainly due to peoples reluctance to being labeled a misogynist or of being homophobic if they dared question her competence. The fact that she swore her loyalty to Gillard and then backstabbed her for some perceived political advantage which has proven to be an illusion gives some indication of her moral turpitude. Hopefully she will disappear from public life next Sunday.
Frank of NQ:
05 Sep 2013 2:40:08pm
Wong also said that everyone in the Labor Party would be fighting hard for Australians to get a fair go right up until 6pm on Saturday. David Spears, of course asked Ms Wong, "what happens after that?"
05 Sep 2013 8:58:10am
We know where you sit about this issue but why do you never suggest a solution. Why don't you state "open our doors" Let anyone come. Jon is there a limit on numbers? How about 1 million? Would denying another million "safe haven" be cruel?
Well after Saturday anyone arriving by boat will get a TPV or sent home. About time that the nonsense stopped.
05 Sep 2013 10:05:03am
The best part of TPV's is that it will stop family reunion which should discourage many. However, TPVs are a bluff; they typically end in permanent settlement anyway. Assessments need to made on evidence too, instead of just waving them through with a likely story. It will be interesting to see if the Coalition can stop appeals to courts. There are 101 ways to stop this benefit of the doubt crap at every step that sees nearly all stay, and encourages more to come. There could be a flood of Syrians soon so its good timing to have a government that won't be gamed, and put Australia's interests first. Morrison is saying that leaving the Refugee Convention is a possibility if need be to restore the borders. Also watch out for much violence in detention as the new government cracks down on this rort.
05 Sep 2013 10:33:19am
Perhaps a fair answer to your numbers question might be for countries to commit to granting asylum to a given number of refugees as represents a specific, internationally agreed cost per person according to each country's GDP.
05 Sep 2013 12:43:06pm
Nice, I like it. N defined by something as a ratio.
But you still have to deal with the N+1 person.
Mark James:
05 Sep 2013 10:57:32am
Actually Peter, if the Coalition win on Saturday, we might not know if any boats arrive because Morrison has said that the decision as to whether boat arrivals will be announced will be a "defence decision", left to the 3-star general.
It's quite feasible that Abbott won't actually "stop the boats" as he promised to do, but rather stop us knowing about the boats.
Problem solved.
Except, Sydneysiders would then need to find somebody else to blame for the traffic congestion and hospital waiting lists.
05 Sep 2013 9:01:41am
"a steady doctrine of small government, free markets, individualism, lean budgets and hostility to the distorting evil of organised labour"
Nearly, got me in one sentence. Drop the word conservative & add emphasis on the liberal part (ie freedom of choice & less government interference) and you would have me at hello.
Sex Party is truly liberal, if they build a credible economic platform (merge them with the IPA) & I would be a rusted on supporter.
Half Past Human:
05 Sep 2013 9:02:46am
The hard core majority voters & supporters of two main parties are scared of each other already. Those people will always vote for their own political parties in every election regardless of how well or bad their parties fared in the scheme of all things life & politics in the past. In fact, I should say that they will always cast their votes to prevent the other side from getting into the office.
And then, we have the marginal voters in the middle. They are the ones who determine the outcome of an election. This group of people are the worst type of voters as they bend with the political wind of the day usually. They are persuaded by million dollar glitzy and scary political advertisements aimed especially at them just before the elections. These people do not possess any significant political & philosophical conviction in the first place. They are short term thinkers and they care only about themselves -what is best for me? They rarely ask the question, "What is best for my country?"
So, of course "both parties are more than happy to leave their political convictions behind when it comes to appealing to the only voters who matter: the marginal ones."
05 Sep 2013 10:04:04am
We need a new party Malcolm Turnbull as leader and Julia Gillard deputy.
05 Sep 2013 9:03:20am
It was the ALP who decided to make this election 'presidential', airlifting experts on presidential campaigning from their ideological cousins, the US Democrats. History doesn't relate what these experts thought when they got to meet their Australian raw material. Alas, Rudd just doesn't come across as 'presidential' - more geeky and slightly dishevelled than reassuring and paternal.
The problem for Labor is that thanks to Rudd's coup, the ranks are massively thinned of leadership talent. It is inconceivable that a defeated Rudd will stay on as opposition leader, even if he retains his seat. Departure via yet another hissy-fit seems the likely order of the day.
This leaves Gillard's assassin Shorten as the heir-apparent, awaiting the call. The Australian electorate would be greatly unsettled by the prospect of a prime minister receiving his commission from his mother-in-law. Quentin Bryce would need to consider retirement to prevent such a scenario.
Fortunately it seems unlikely that the ALP will rebuild as an effective force within one term, if at all.
05 Sep 2013 11:21:41am
"Presidential" in the Australian context means voters make a voting decision based on their prefer leader rather than their local candidate.
It's been around long before Kevin was born.
sir grumpalot:
05 Sep 2013 9:08:21am
The move to the "central gutter" (I like that term btw) is cynical at best, and often ill-conceived.
If you want to appeal to marginal electorates you should propose policies which will actually benefit those electorates. Instead we get dog whistles to rednecks and middle class welfare bribes from parties who should know better. No wonder the Greens and Palmer United etc are increasingly eating into the Labor-Coalition duopoly.
Of course, large sections of our mainstream media play a huge role in dumbing down the electorate and misdirecting voter's attention to issues that really aren't all that important. But that just makes it all the more important for political candidates to have charisma, a clear vision, and an ability to communicate effectively with people.
Malcolms Leather Jacket:
05 Sep 2013 9:10:29am
Where's 'the yank' and his gallery of howling conservatives?
Don't give up 'rusted on Labor lefty luvvies', there isn't a snowflakes chance in hell the coalition will release their costings while they can still savour their sense of anticipation.
05 Sep 2013 9:11:13am
My biggest disappointment in this campaign was the Coalitions advertisements.
I barely saw the glowing endorsements of Rudd from his closest colleagues, after being sacked the first time & challenging then failing. They were one of the few times I thought Wayne Swan was accurate & Peter Garrett was tolerable.
Frank of NQ:
05 Sep 2013 2:34:45pm
mikc, Labor's advertising cost was much higher than the LNP's. You would think with all that money they could have at least said something nice about the boss. Maybe Rudd does a whole bunch of that stuff himself and doesn't leave Labor folks much to add? Get real. It's in the unions DNA to dislike the boss. If you want to rise up through the Union/ALP ranks then always obey rule number one. Stand with your back to the wall at all times.
05 Sep 2013 9:11:45am
I live in a blue ribbon seat- always has been and probably always will be- so full rusted ons who actually HATE anyone who they consider a threat to to their priviliged position.
But-there are a singificant number of small L Libs who see beyond the economics and take their social responsiblity to their fellow man seriously.
They abhor the LNPs position on climate change and asylum seekers- the unfairness of its PPL and its servititude to the fossil industry and other BIG money.
They do feel disenfranchised but like me will do what they can to mitigate the damage they think extreme capitalism has caused.
Even on economics-they like me think the LNP encouraged a debt driven economy and hearing Joe Hockey- it still does.
On that I quote Nick Hubble who in the Daily Reckoning Australia yesterday wrote
"Much of America's and Europe ( and Australia's) economic growth over the past few decades was simply an increase in debt ( please note-he means PRIVATE debt as well as Govt debt) China is in the same boat recently.
Instead of investing in productive assets ( The Norwegian Goverment INVESTS in its resources) welfare ( incl. middle class welfare like the PPL and negative gearing) and warfare dominate government budgets. Credit cards and mortgages fund consmuption in many households"
Note the UK Government is trying to reinflate property while ours is trying keep houss prices high with lower interest rates-madness!!
Do NOT vote for more of this madness -kick both majors in the butt. Be careful with your senate vote.
05 Sep 2013 1:33:24pm
I believe you are wrong in saying "..ours is trying to keep house prices high with lower interest rates - madness."
The RBA is lowering interest rates to try to stimulate the economy. It knows that this may well result in increased house prices and will monitor it carefully, but if inflation remains low it will keep rates down despite that, so as to get the non mining sector stirring (no pun intended.)
05 Sep 2013 5:11:05pm
Roxy R Is the home building industry not part of the non mining sector? And are young home buyers not being enticed to borrow so as to "stir" building.
Did Joe Hockey not lament the fact the people cannot borrow up to 100-110% of valuation any more-but around 80-90% is still too high.
How much of household income committed to mortgage repayment do you think is not madness?
It was PRIVATE debt which destroyed economies- that IS the madness. Not recognising that is lunacy!!
05 Sep 2013 9:03:00pm
There is logic in your latest post, but that is not what you said before, namely, "..ours is trying to keep house prices high with lower interest rates"
So that says the aim is to keep house prices high, but you are now saying it is to stir the building industry - they are very different objectives.
05 Sep 2013 1:59:53pm
Yes, that is how it works. Borrow money, invest, wait for the returns to roll in. That is why growing the economy is so important to the financial markets. Without growth, they can not pay their debts. Unfortunately, the era of economic growth is over. Peak oil mate, peak oil.
05 Sep 2013 4:50:03pm
I wouldn't hold your breath on peak oil, not in our lifetime.
US gasoline consumption is reducing, car efficiency is increasing and US tight oil/gas may have them eventually become an exporter rather tha importer, certainly for most transport fuels and possibly crude and gas.
05 Sep 2013 5:14:47pm
Never mind peak oil pal- its peak debt- economic growth which was simply an increase in debt- and boy is that still peaking $100Trillion globally.
The world runs on oil and DEBT!!
05 Sep 2013 9:13:14am
Elections need to be won; too state the obvious the target is always towards concentrating efforts on the seats with the lowest margin.
With this in mind it would be a strange strategy to ignore pandering to the needs and desires of the electorate - a bit of pork barrelling invariably surfaces. It's all a natural consequence of an adversarial system.
With the lower house about to be handed to the Coalition it would be interesting to see some analysis and commentary of how the upper house is shaping up and how the numbers (quantum) in the lower house could influence what happens.
Thus far we've been told little through the usual sources from the ABC's political commentary; likewise from the MSN - such has been the fascination in the tussle between Mr Negative and Mr Positive despite the fact that we no longer know who of the two leaders is now Mr Positive or Mr Negative; it would seem there has been a role reversal with Rudd being Mr Negative.
So how about it Jonathan and all you other commentators could we get a few articles before Saturday on the machinations occurring in the upper house.
05 Sep 2013 1:35:27pm
An article in The Age said that it is likely that the major parties will lose seats in trhe Senate (no comment on how many) to minor parties because of tight preferences deals being arranged between the (many) minor parties.
05 Sep 2013 9:13:51am
"But somewhere deep down we the people sense the deception inherent in all of this..."
Yes, I agree. However I, and no doubt many others, don't have to dig too deep to reach this conclusion. We can always tell if either TA or KR are lying - it happens when their lips move.
05 Sep 2013 9:17:00am
I believe that we should collect all the names of Labor voters this Saturday, then we can send them a bill for their portion of the $300b debt they have foisted on us.
Malcolms Leather Jacket:
05 Sep 2013 10:29:37am
Good ol' LNP eh?
Us and them.
05 Sep 2013 12:52:02pm
Why not. It's good enough for the Good ol' ALP.
They started the class war.
05 Sep 2013 1:54:47pm
Not to mention the $billions of resources that have been pillaged from us. More than enough has been stolen from our mines to get all of us out of debt.
Judy Bee:
05 Sep 2013 2:24:08pm
Oh Alfie,
Collecting names of all Labor voters? Sounds a bit creepy and makes me kind of pleased I am not voting LNP (The Queensland experience is a big lesson in slippery deceitful politics) .
I will be in good company because Millions of fellow Australians will not be buying a ticket and sailing on the LNP Ship of Fools.
05 Sep 2013 9:02:40pm
"The Queensland experience is a big lesson in slippery deceitful politics"
It sure was. That is why the entire Qld ALP now comes to work in a Tarago.
Nick Bryce:
05 Sep 2013 9:24:44am
depressingly true as you have described, with the most of us unimportant to the two main parties' sell that is uniquely offered to the marginal electorates. But I would add: "Have you met the party incumbents of the safe-seat electorates?" If you don't want to be heard, then live in a blue/red ribbon electorate. Welcome to the muted. But not neutered; there is our vote in the Senate.....
05 Sep 2013 9:27:08am
It seems to be a bit of a popular theme at the moment that the Greens have run a wrecking ball through the Tasmanian economy.
The truth of the matter though is that combined, the Labor and Liberal parties hold somewhere around 95% of the seats in the State parliament.
The tiny, incy, wincy, Greens aren't so much performing some sort of magical trick where by there influence blows out to unimaginable proportions that is the problem.
It's the massive, unrecognised (and unreported) side effect of a political system being dominated by two combative political majorities.
The Greens are reluctant to point this out because it diminishes their influence.
The Labor and Liberal parties won't mention it either as it undermines their internal structures.
After all, if the Labor and Liberal parties did cooperate in the interest of good governance then you might as well disband the parties and be voting for independents.
It would seem that we now (has it always been this way?) hold elections to support the existence of political parties rather than the interest of the country and it's people.
05 Sep 2013 9:34:58am
the best ( not perfect) electoral system is an open list proportional ballot , like the Netherlands and some Scandinavian countries. there you have most views represented. Of course you also get the extreme ones as well, but they are part of the population too ! the job of politicians and the media , then, is to EDUCATE the people, inform them, so that they can vote in an intelligent manner.
05 Sep 2013 9:37:17am
As a long term Labour supporter, like Mr Green I dislike the prospect of the thrashing it is about to receive. Unlike him, I recognise it as being deserved.
Lamentations about the style of modern electioneering are no doubt a source of solace for him, but it does not address the real problem. And that is that Mr Green and his ilk are part of the problem.
The average voter is not some mindless moron whose only source of information is Fox News and Facebook. The average voter does not care how many Twits Mr Rudd has. The traditional ALP voter who saw the party as the representative of the worker, the poor, the less fortunate, has seen that party hijacked by the trendy and fickle self elected elites. (And of course the carpet-bagging minor crooks who have flourished when the traditional values were abandoned).
My hope is that the almighty slap in the face that the ALP is about to get will serve to wake it up. My fear is that the shameless reservation of safe seats for party hacks and numbers men and women will see the "elites" and crooks protected.
What the part needs is more real people, people who have held real jobs in the real world. Unfortunately it looks more likely it will get more lawyers, ex-union officials, academics and professional politicians. Not that there is anything wrong with any of those: many fine MPs have come from those areas. But the bulk of the party's MPs should be closer to those it represents.
Get back to solid policies that help Australians, leave the chrome and the shiny minority issues for the single issue parties. The vast majority of the time spent in this campaign had been on peripheral issues that affect few if any Australians. Campaign on basics: the voter is giving its elected representatives power to fix minor issues
That is why the ALP, with all its skill and professional targeting and focussing, is going to lose.
People know what Mr Abbot represents. The opposition may not have revealed all its policies and costings but it doesn't have to. The electorate knows how Mr Abbot will behave, regardless of the issue. It knows how he thinks, what he stands for.
Can one say the same for Mr Rudd? Or the ALP?
Malcolms Leather Jacket:
05 Sep 2013 10:06:36am
Ive purchased my ear muffs to block out the Liberals crowing in victory for the next three years.
It will be shameless and unrelenting much like the dummy spitting of the last three.
05 Sep 2013 10:28:49am
Unfortunately Terry, in the seat of Melbourne where our ALP has the opportunity to pick up a seat from the greens, a party hack has been nominated.
I just think that the ALP/ABC doesn't get it.
They seem to be old school white Australia, yet they tell us that this is the Asian century.
Obviously they think that we are idiots.
We can turn this thrashing to advantage as Abbott, though a formidable opponent is more into deficits & debt than Rudd/Wong. All we need do is take the Hawke/Keating/Howard legacy & update it for the Asians. It is achievable.
05 Sep 2013 10:45:07am
Well said Terry. The ALP must rebuild from the ground up and get these union/ex lawyer crooks out of their party. There are many good union people out there who actually care for the people they represent. Sadly, they have been crushed by the crims.
Get people like Kathy Jackson into power and they may win back some trust.
05 Sep 2013 11:01:26am
Good grief! I misspelt "Labor"! Apologies. I blame my education which insisted on correct spelling of words.
05 Sep 2013 11:23:07am
Oh come on! I've called you out once already on this faux "I used to use brand X, now I chose brand Y and here's why you should" routine before.
Just have the pride to stand up for the Coalition, if that's what you believe.
05 Sep 2013 3:29:02pm
Not only can you tell what I think, you can tell what I have done!
Sorry to disturb your world view, but you are wrong on both counts. There are actually a lot of people like me - disappointed in the way Labor has become a party for trendy (and apparently mind-reading) latte socialists
05 Sep 2013 4:51:59pm
No Dove, I'm sure Terry (and Maynard and Joe) will be at ALP headquarters Monday morning with their sleeves rolled up and ready to rejuvenate the "Labour" Party.
05 Sep 2013 1:41:06pm
Well said.
If the defeat occurs (hasn't happened yet) let's hope it is big enough to cause the sole searching you say is needed, but not too big. Big wins don't lead to good government, good government comes in part from having an effective opposition.
If Rudd loses his seat that would help.
05 Sep 2013 1:52:19pm
We keep voting them out and they keep coming back with the same old unsustainable same old.
05 Sep 2013 2:43:51pm
People believe they know what Mr Abbott represents, but if they believe he represents them, they are mistaken.
The electorate knows how Mr Abbott will behave, but they are mistaken that his behaviour will result in a favourable outcome for them. Regardless of the issue, Mr. Abbott thinks and acts on behalf of the rich and powerful, against the interests of the middle and lower classes. Those are the people who will pay for his actions, but they are not those who will benefit.
And they will continue to be deluded long after they've been fleeced.
Labor's future will be predicated on serving their base instead of the LNP's. Rudd went the wrong way.
05 Sep 2013 9:44:19am
Voting is a right we are told. Voting is a responsibility we are reminded. Actually the universal truth of the American century is voting is a business.
There was a time when the system served the philosophy and the conviction as espoused by people like John Stuart Mill or John Locke but Americans have shown us that voting is not about right or or duty its about getting the most bang for your buck.
Perhaps it can be best explained by looking at the Law. Once we believed a trial is about justice and society and the Rule of Law but the American capitalist mentality soon worked out that the system was more important than the principle. They developed what has been called the " American Realist" school of jurisprudence . This maintains that one should ignore the Law and concentrate on the psychological and behavioural patterns that influence the judge and jurors. The aim of lawyers is not Law but big bucks for the most favourable outcome. There is something inherently grubby about this but it is justified by the American gospel of ?It Works!!"
Politics is the same parties no longer care about anything except bums on seats. That is the American way and ideology and philosophy are luxuries that cant be indulged in and honesty is a poison to be avoided.
The majority of voters are voting to get Labor out for no reason except a gut feel shaped by visceral advertising campaigns and anger stoking. Eventually the Liberals will go a step to far in their policies of supporting the interests of the rich and corporate to the determent of working people and the anger will see them out. So it goes.
Benjamin Franklin is supposed to have said " Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." the creation of which in people is the job of the opposition with the result as Fanklen observed "Whatever is begun in anger ends in shame."
You will notice that the there have been two themes in this campaign: First both parties vying to be crueller to refugees than the other stoking our worst side of racism and barbarity. This will serve us badly in time to come.
The second has been piling on upper class welfare while playing to urban legends of evil overpaid lazy civil servant's and teachers.
Secondly as Franklin observed
?Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." and inevitably " When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
What follows this election is the price we pay for resigning our power to those professional spinners of webs of lies employed by the parties to play us the way lawyers play the judges and the juries.
05 Sep 2013 10:40:27am
"First both parties vying to be crueller to refugees than the other stoking our worst side of racism and barbarity."
I prefer to allow a Sudanese family which has spent years in a refugee camp in Africa to enter Australia rather than a group of cashed up Iranian young men looking for a better future for themselves away from a theocracy.
How is this racist and barbaric?
Perhaps it would be good to take both, but that unfortunately is not possible. A difficult decision I admit. (I too would hate to live in an Islamic dictatorship). But how is it racist? Is there some sort of racial hierarchy we are breaching? Are Sudanese less worthy than Iranians? And barbaric? I struggle to see anything even remotely barbaric.
At the risk of guilt by association: "Please explain"
05 Sep 2013 12:22:09pm
Terry: "Perhaps it would be good to take both, but that unfortunately is not possible."
Why is it not possible? I'm going to use your terms here so as not to frighten you off as we break down and try to rationalise your argument.
The deterrent element of detaining cashed up Iranians in Australia didn't work. Detaining them offshore didn't deter them either. Refusing them the right to work for five years once their approved so they have no money to send home hasn't deterred them, and neither has the promise of sending them to PNG where they will be settled permanently IF approved. They seem pretty determined to me! So, the deterrent element doesn't work.
Okay then, is it a numbers thing? Tens of thousands of (white) tourists every year overstay their Visas and rip holes in our economy by working cash in hand jobs in hospitality and service industries, not to mention the amount of overseas student programs that have been shown to be complete rorts as they charge people to do unpaid full time work to obtain residency. Yet these aren't seen as major issues, even though the numbers (and impact) involved dwarf the issue of cashed up Iranians. Okay, so the numbers isn't the problem.
Is it the cost of processing these cashed up Iranians? Well, the cost of community processing works out to be about 10% of the cost of offshore processing. Oh, and who do you think is going to foot the bill for the PNG program? Do you really think someone else is going to be paying for these cashed up Iranians to stay in PNG? Of course we are. So, the cost can't be the issue, or else community processing would be the flavour of the day.
So what else is left? In the real world, there is no queue so that's that argument done. The only things I can see left to oppose them is their method of arrival or their race and you say you're not racist. So what are you opposed to? Do the boats upset you? By the way, if these people really are cashed up Iranians who aren't at risk of being hunted down and killed and just want leave their country, why not come to Australia by plane and then claim asylum once you reach Tullamarine (which, by the way, plenty of people do!)? Surely safer than coming by boat, and maybe their arrival wouldn't offend you as much because there would be no boats involved.
So why are both parties on board with this nonsense? Because they take us for the idiots that we are!! Opening the flood gates and giving every man, woman and child in the world a free pass into Australia will not work, but the current system (as well as the system under the Howard government) have completely failed also. My point is that maybe we should be looking for a new approach (and maybe focusing on some more important issues - manufacturing industry, anyone?) instead of trying to appeal to the almighty intellect of xenophobic bogans.
05 Sep 2013 3:23:43pm
Deterrence certainly worked when it was done properly (the Pacific Solution).
Visa overstayers are almost always found and sent home and the student rort was stopped a couple of years ago.
Community processing is a sham where people of unknown origin and character are set loose and impossible to control. To ensure that only genuine cases come in costs money.
And stop this myth about there being no queue. The only reason boat people advocates say this is because to admit there is a queue is to admit that boat people are queue jumpers.
05 Sep 2013 3:39:24pm
No real deterrent has been used. People still sell tickets to Australian citizenship. Labor has talked, but nobody believes anything Labor says.
We have some control over those who enter legally. If necessary, we can tighten control. At the moment, there is no real need. As you point out, those that overstay visas generally are self-supporting. They speak English, have jobs. They do not qualify for assistance, nor for citizenship
We have no control over the self-selected immigrants. They are generally not able to support themselves and represent a net cost.
Why this urge to bring race into this issue? It has nothing to do with race, except in the minds of those who see race everywhere. How do you know that those overstaying visas are white? I don't. Does it matter?
And please, don't be simplistic. You know, as well as I do, that the relaxation in controls by Labor led to an explosion in number arriving in just a few years. A whole business grew up sending people to Australia. Give it a few more years and we would have thousands arriving per week. The aim is to retain control of our refugee program, not outsource to Indonesian middlemen. Why is that considered so extreme?
05 Sep 2013 1:02:44pm
"cashed up Iranian young men"
Where have you found this information?
Or do you mean the 10-12 year-olds who their family have sent in the hope that they at least have a better life than there own.
How would you like to live as a christian in a muslim country?
When you've seen a member of your family killed in front of your eyes?
Tell me, where are the Australian embassies in these countries?
How can they get their papers from the governments that hate them and want to kill them?
When you've lost all hope, anything will seem better. That's what's caused suicide bombers. Take away all hope, and you become either suicidal or homicidal.
Well, there's also hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees at the moment. What about them?
05 Sep 2013 3:47:40pm
One must have cash to pay to fly to Indonesia and to buy a ticket on a smuggler's boat.
As I said, I would hate to live in a Muslim dominated country. Are you claiming that all those arriving are Christians? My belief was that most of the arrivals are not Christian. Have you seen those arriving? Had a look at the statistics of age and gender? Not the photos designed to tug the heartstrings: the facts.
Not that it matters who is arriving. The issue is who decides our refugee policy.
And please, not the "they can't get papers" line. How can one buy an airline ticket with no papers?
And suicide bombers are not people with no hope. They are people indoctrinated to believe that killing others is a good thing. They hope this will change the world. Generally to make it worse. People with no hope do not go out and kill others.
People with hope, however, might consider acting to overthrow the governments that they dislike. Unfortunately the West will no longer help them - mainly thanks to those who prefer to stick on a Band-Aid (take refugees) than cure the disease (get rid of dictators and theocracies).
05 Sep 2013 2:45:26pm
Why do you think it's your right to choose who deserves help and who does not? On what moral basis do you make that choice? Or is it just "economics"?
05 Sep 2013 3:45:06pm
An excellent example of professional spin. First it ignores the argument by introducing a pile of personal baggage that has nothing to do with political parties policies. Secondly it reinforces racist hurrah and boo stereo types of persecuted Sudanese Christians vs evil Persian capitalist Muslims ( it is of course not thought through. If you are a Right-wing Abbott voter because the cashed up Iranians are going to be more desirable - neo liberal wise- than poor Christian Africans but racism isn't logical it visceral like everything else that?s spun).
Why couldn?t we take both? Other than its not a vote winner of course?
Finally it pretends to have the form of rational argument while ignoring logic. Relying on fallacies and reinforcing emotional stereotypes. With the especially satisfying image of rich sneaky Muslims retched in our client states concentration camps har har har yum yum!
The sad thing is it could have sprung from LNP or ALP we cant tell.
05 Sep 2013 1:49:09pm
Don't worry mate, there's always the footy on Saturday.
The dumbing down of our nation was no accident.
05 Sep 2013 9:44:48am
The title says it.
The rhetoric of every election brings with it has a bag of motherhood statements from almost every candidate.
An almost inevitable part of that is a pitch that we need to endure something now for the sake of the future. It usually has an element of truth but is seldom subject to a 'cost benefit analysis'.
In reality that future seldom comes, except that some sweeteners accompany the introduction of those longer term policies.
Political compromise is a reasonable reality but the parties are selling their souls to be redeemed once in power. Once in power that future may never come.
05 Sep 2013 9:59:59am
I want some conviction from Bowen and Wong, I want to see their costings and plans to pay back the money they have borrowed, spent and wasted rather than worrying about whether or not the LNP's costings are bodgey, after all that is at least 200 billion, possibly 300 billion and could be more, come on Chris and Penny show as much conviction about telling us those plans than worrying about the LNP, or is it that you are resigned to losing Saturday and know you don't have to tell us your plans
05 Sep 2013 1:07:36pm
Well, go to the Australian Treasury website and you might find them, and the green's, but not the LNP.
"borrowed spent and wasted"
well, we have survived the "global financial crash", which is a term only used here.
Look at all the other countries that are now in recession because they followed what Abbott would do, but the Labor party kept us upright.
Did you get any of the benefits of the government hand-out. Did you spend it on Australian products, made by Australians?
I did. I could have bought something from overseas, but my conscience wouldn't allow me. I knew what this bonus was for.
05 Sep 2013 3:17:29pm
seriously, how can you honestly believe anything Wong says, she was out by around $106 billion in three budgets, she has no concept of accounting or even mathematics. Then there is here integrity. She is one of those thtat bad mouthed Rudd but when push comes to shove she put her own pay packet and pension in front of her integrity, like em or loathe them at least Swan, Garrett, Conroy and a couple of others showed they have some integrity and didn't sell their soul like Wong did by rolling over and taking a job from a man she had bad mouthed. Wong has no integrity or credibility left, same for Plibersek another sister sellout
Hudson Godfrey:
05 Sep 2013 10:04:05am
I would love to think the the major parties in particular are going to receive a huge shock on Saturday from the non-marginal seats turning on them, but it is probably unlikely. There is science behind polling techniques. I'm not sure the science behind their campaigning is nearly so reliable, there seems to be a decided absence of passion to the whole business lately.
However I doubt anyone would deny on the very figures the vote compass shows there isn't a significant divide between the South Eastern States as opposed to Queensland and WA. I think it's a great tool for drawing a comparison. With the chart we see linked to here; of interest is what is loosely defined as a marginal seat and its geographic location. I really like to see it displayed in map form.
It's not the middle in my view that is the problem. There are a lot of coalition marginals in Queensland and quite a few Labor could possibly lose. If Labor's lurch to the right has failed then they've just about managed to entrench divisions that it?s hard to see them getting back from in a decade.
I think as far as Queenslanders are concerned mining jobs and the Hansonite stain appeal to conservatism in a way that may add up to making attempts by Labor to either meet the opinion polls halfway or outflank the coalition on the right simply wind up confirming some people's suspicions that their natural allegiances were always with the coalition.
No wonder the Liberals are keeping it low key. Their main concern would be to avoid Abbott making gaffes and hanging on to those elusive costings until after the advertising blackout. Labor's mistake has been that they should have provided the kind of choice between two different things that is now only available if you go over to the Greens.
The Greens are by no means a major party so most people probably won't do that, simply because they want to pick a government rather than to cast a protest vote. For those with no other satisfactory choice or who will in lodge protest votes in droves then I think the battleground may well be in the Senate. It will be very interesting to see whether the Australian people are willing to leap so blindly into the arms of the LNP as to trust them with a less hostile Senate, or indeed as I suspect whether the eternally unpopular Abbott looms merely as the lesser of two evils in voter's minds.
It's that refusal to release costings that to me breaks faith with the electorate in a way I think has to cost the LNP any hope of control in the Senate.
05 Sep 2013 11:13:57am
yes they want you to trust them, but show no trust in you, what a joke another cantdo newman con job
Lehan Ramsay:
05 Sep 2013 10:30:20am
Mister Abbott said that if he doesn't win the election he will resign.
So we can get Mister Turnbull?
And nobody will have to do anything mean?
That's lovely.
05 Sep 2013 11:12:15am
that's good we wont have to listen to all the negativity he has become noted for, wont be any sort of a loss, but god help us if the hachett takes over another ms thatcher
Lehan Ramsay:
05 Sep 2013 1:50:38pm
Just spray and wipe maggie, it's a no-fuss solution. Mr Rudd gets to do the things he really really set his mind to, and we know that even if he were dead he would still be bloody doing them it's very clear that it will be a Shakespeare kind of a thing for us all if we don't let him finish those things, and while he's doing that Mister Turnbull can get over his copper fixation and that'll be good for all of us. So it's a win-win really. I know that Margaret Thatcher would be very, very pleased with the way things have turned out, she was like that.
05 Sep 2013 10:31:02am
You write about 'the Labor party running hard on institutionalised cruelty to asylum seekers'.
Sincerely held but naive views such as this give great credence to reducing ABC funding after the election. The ABC and its coverage of asylum seekers is based on a falsehood: basically you want to give precedence to people who can afford to pay people smugglers not to increased humanitarian intakes.
Furthermore, most people in Australian want orderly procedures for those who come here: not just pay smugglers, turn up, demand entry with tax-payer supported legal assistance, and trash the buildings if you don't get a quick response.
The cruelty that you refer to is minor compared to what many people around the world are suffering and to whom we should be reaching out: you just want to preference the moneyed ones. Shame
05 Sep 2013 10:45:28am
"Battle for the Centre"??
what a joke!
The Australian Democrats were the centre party and they were called left wing!
Now it is a battle for the less Right wing group: Labor & LNP
Malcolms Leather Jacket:
05 Sep 2013 12:36:15pm
Left wing Australian Democrats? Now I've heard everything.
That is disenchanted Liberal Don Chipp's; 'Liberal lite' give the bastards their G.S.T right wing nut jobs that were consigned to the dust bin of history and on the way handed Howard a senate majority Australian Democrats you're calling a centre party right?
05 Sep 2013 10:48:16am
Let's bring a little balance back into the debate over the release of budget costings. When last in opposition in 2007, Labor released their costings at 5pm on the Friday eve of the election. It is a standard ploy of both parties to allow as little time as possible for their opponents to criticise the figures and it minimises the danger of the spreading of false rumours and scare tactics. In this case is it not hypocritical of the Government to criticise the Opposition for something they themselves have done?
Regarding the claim that Labor have revealed all their own costings in accordance with the so-called Charter of Honesty, what about all the promises made by the Government during this election campaign since their figures were released, amounting to billions of dollars? Have they been added to the released budget and forward estimates? I don't think so.
Mark James:
05 Sep 2013 12:55:56pm
thook, there's been a fairly comprehensive analysis over at The Guardian of the election promises made by both parties (see Election Promises Spending Tracker).
As it stands, Kevin Rudd has promised $2.4 billion over the forward estimates, while Tony Abbott has promised $16.1 billion (the bulk of it in marginal electorates).
Obviously the "budget emergency" isn't quite the emergency it was made out to be.
05 Sep 2013 3:16:25pm
That's because the bulk Rudd's campaign promises are uncosted and all start in five or ten years time. Maybe Bowen will have a surplus to play with then? {erhasop Wayne can lend his treasurer's expertise to assist? ;-)
Nice distraction but how about we have less grandstanding and more reality?
Mark James:
05 Sep 2013 5:58:57pm
Felix, forward estimates are traditionally 3 years ahead of the budgeted fiscal year.
Rudd's $2.4 billion in promises and Abbott's $16.1 billion promises are both, as I said, over the forward estimates.
05 Sep 2013 10:58:28am
Tony Abbott can count his lucky stars. He will become our next PM by default. He is lucky to have to win a government from a treacherous, shallow waffler, who has bitterly divided his own party and who is hated even by his closed colleagues. I think that all he needs to say: "I am not Kevin Rudd.' and that would be sufficient to win him government.
Yes, Tony Abbott will be our next PM by default, because no sane person could imagine Kevin Rudd and the bitterly divided 'Rudd Labor Party' back in government.
05 Sep 2013 11:01:16am
A good concise article. Some good turns of phrase but much of this is not new to us. And there is some cynicism too:
"the Labor party running hard on institutionalised cruelty to asylum seekers"
Thats harsh on Labor. Rudd has emphasised that the previous policies have resulted in large numbers of people drowning at sea, while being fleeced of their money. That Labor has upped the intake considerably via acceptable transportation modes, and that the PNG solution is to shut down those deaths at sea.
"The ideologically driven vision for the country that both sides truly represent is not forgotten, it's simply put to one side for the duration" - That is Tony Abbott's valid point about trusting the Coalition with regard to prudent spending, while waiting for the precise costings. That's no where near a lie.
05 Sep 2013 11:08:51am
To tell the truth AUSTRALIA will return the HOWARD dark years mk2 with ABBOTT as the puppet good luck to you all like QUEENSLAND voters who got a CANT DO government who gave us a massive power rise then gave themselves a massive pay rise and done nothing else for QUEENNSLANDERS. Also sacked thousands of people that's LNP DNA.
05 Sep 2013 11:09:43am
Where the Coalition will save $31.5 billion
Discontinuing the School Kids Bonus - $4 billion
Reducing public service head count by natural attrition by 12,000 - around $5 billion
Two year delay in phasing of superannuation increase from 9 to 12 per cent - $2.1 billion
Discontinue low income super contribution - $2.9 billion
Rescind increase in humanitarian intake - $1.3 billion
Discontinue supplementary allowance to unemployed, students and parents - $1 billion
Scrapping Clean Energy Finance Corporation - $1.6 billion
Paid parental leave (PPL) scheme, which would replace existing programs - $1.1 billion
Abolition of Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT) and associated costs - nearly $5 billion
Dumping carbon tax, which would include ending associated programs - $7.5 billion
Malcolms Leather Jacket:
05 Sep 2013 12:40:27pm
Don't forget the fire sale to come along with any spare change they find down the back of the couch.
Mark James:
05 Sep 2013 1:00:26pm
maggie, you forgot to include the introduction of the confidence genie - $21.4 billion.
05 Sep 2013 2:20:37pm
oh- you mean like the same confidence genie which saw the counry's private debt grow to $2.18 TRILLION and houseold debt rise by 300% under confidence genie of th last LNP Goverment.
More like a confidence trick to me!!
Talk to me about "confidence" when the housing and job slump occurs-unless of course Joe and Tony throw more money at the top end and extend their budget surplus promise to past 2030.
Mark James:
05 Sep 2013 6:02:56pm
That's the one, Rob. The confidence genie always accompanies the illusion of affluence, whereby easy credit and an artificially inflated housing bubble makes people feel they're ahead of the invisible curve.
06 Sep 2013 7:13:12am
Sorry Mark got most of it though, can any one tell me where I can go and actually read the full costings of the Abbott government, seams he thinks we are stupid enough to agree to a summary with out actually reading it, Hockey the jock was pretty nervous about it when he put it out as he knows its a heap of bloody lies but the ever faithful will go along blindly, you know the blind leading the blind. Reminds me of Homer Simpson DUH
05 Sep 2013 1:09:37pm
Umm, how can they save money on the PPL?
Add an extra few billions of COST, not saving.
05 Sep 2013 11:13:40am
Jonathan, when you leap from the accurate observation that the election is all about "marginal seats" to the claim that "politics is a game played at and for the margins and the marginals" you fail to understand your own language.
A "marginal seat" is not on any margin -- far from some notional "centre", out among the ratbags -- it's one that's held by a very narrow margin. The more accurate conclusion is that politics is a game played at and for the centre, to persuade voters in finely balanced seats to cross the centre line and so change the outcome. That's why the parties have merged on so many issues, and why Abbott has been playing "me too" for months. It's about the centre.
05 Sep 2013 11:18:58am
Jonathan, you have perverted sense of justice and compassion.
Why parental leave? Because mothers of Australia need to be equal to all other employed people. If you take annual leave you get full wage payment. Why shouldn't mothers have the same entitlement for parental leave? Simple logic that even you Jonathan should understand if you only try to remove your politically coloured glasses.
Cruelty to asylum seekers?
The current system 'inviting' people to their own death by drowning on the open sea is the cruellest system possible. If the government took your mistaken compassion, it would actually be inviting many thousands more to their death. Some compassion. Government must remove the 'sugar of the table' to stop the current carnage on the open sea.
I just cannot understand people who insist to claim for themselves some higher moral grounds when in actual fact they are such hypocrites because they preach only what 'feels good' rather than consider consequences of their preaching. Frankly pathetic.
05 Sep 2013 12:37:10pm
Tan, have you considered that the word 'parental' leave implies the possibility of PARENTS taking that leave?
By writing about 'MOTHERS' it shows where the discussion in Australia is parked: with mothers staying home and fathers going to work.
If you speak up against perceived inconsistencies in others you might want to double-check your own argumentation too.
05 Sep 2013 11:21:02am
'It is a test of personality. Of character'.
Tony Abbott has many suits, many disguises, but we can always detect a wolf in sheep's clothing.
His choice of words during last night's screening of Big Brother indicates real problems of 'maturity' and 'popularity'.
Inappropriate behaviour has dogged him throughout his parliamentary career.
If he creeps out the young folk, you can be sure that a lot of mums and dads and extended family members will also be creeped out.
That adds up to lots of votes.
As the quotes below indicate, many people world-wide are asking if Tony Abbott is up to the job.
sea mendez:
05 Sep 2013 11:25:03am
Does Labor really believe in big government any more? Do they really believe in redistribution? Do they even believe in safety nets? Id say the last 30 years demonstrates not.
I'd say Howards featherbedding went beyond attracting votes at the margins. I reckon he used the tax system and redistribution to reward people he liked. Stay home mothers. I modelled two scenarios once. A 15k pay rise for me and a 10k rise for my wife. We lost more FTB under the second scenario. Subsidies for the mega-rich and their schools.
Peter of Melbourne:
05 Sep 2013 11:28:01am
The politicians or their party get paid for each primary vote a sum of $2.49 (could be more, that was last I heard though). If you do not think our politicians are doing the job you expect why would you pay them even more ontop of their well above average wages?
If you don't think they deserve the bonus then just mark your ballot papers with the word "NO". It is not illegal to spoil your vote and it appears that is the only message the current crop have the wits to understand.
05 Sep 2013 11:38:13am
Jonathan the "marginal seats" have and always will be the political advantaged seats. My electorate (Brand) has always been in Labor hands and not surprisingly occupied by Politicians who are only focused on themselves and how far they can climb their own internal party ranks. Beazley and now Gray, only about themselves than the battlers they claim to represent votes were easily bought with the same old "token grants, a training centre pledge here and there, meaningless photo opportunities so they appear weekly in the local press, and threats of job security if people dared to vote for another party". Mr Gray does not even live in the electorate and (as the Gay marrige issue demonstrates) would rather consult his family on policy than his constituents. Well for the first time Gray and Labor might find themselves ousted and the seat finally becoming one of those politically advantaged swinging seats. Labor has only itself to blame for it's impending political demise, and instead of talking them up (and the Coalition down) all the time Jonathan, maybe you should be writting about the cleanout that has to happen if they are to become political force in future.
Waterloo Sunset. 2014:
05 Sep 2013 11:40:06am
well of course it's a battle for the centre. In Australia, that's what there is now. The child chimney sweeps and underpaid dockers have gone. People like Doug Cameron have no one to champion ant more - so he's jumped on The Asylum seeker bandwagon, to vent his Celtic ire.
The central plank is "The Economy", because if it isn't we can't pay for everything that we have created.
Notice how even the various ethnic groups are rallying to Liberal thinking.
They don't want to be shouted down; told they're poor and must have welfare.
Latham picked tit up. They are aspirational voters - NOT left wing, anymore. the left has become trite, windbaggy and sanctimonious, blundering around like Swan spruiking class warfare.
Nobody wants that. We want to be achievers, not recipients. The Young have picked up on that too.
Now: Climate Change: well what do we know? Only that it is likely because the boffins tell us that, and guess what? We all except it. However, we are not sure that it is Anthropogenic and it's hard to supply proof.
So what shall we do? Well the majority don't know and we now know that Labor and The Greens didn't either. They advocated taxing a selection of Australian taxpayers. It was a dishonest tax, and couldn't possibly have ameliorated carbon output on the planet that we share with Euraisia, who,s output is increasing.
The only solution for a physical change, is another physical change; one engineered by us (like the Duct dykes par ex). Some controls over environmentally clever construction; a moratorium on beach building; changing building codes; mandatory solar; planning for divers agribusiness.
You can't redistribute middle-class Australian's tax to change the Eurasian business models.
05 Sep 2013 6:03:50pm
'Latham picked tit up.' What?
'Now: Climate Change: well what do we know? Only that it is likely because the boffins tell us that, and guess what? We all except it. However, we are not sure that it is Anthropogenic and it's hard to supply proof.' No, not hard to supply proof, if you have the education. then you can 'except' it!
Learn to spell...your rants may make more sense.
Waterloo Sunset .2014:
05 Sep 2013 7:18:40pm
That was a waste of a post. Sometimes (most actually) I don't bother to check my spelling.
It's hard when one is writing several hundred words a day around this warming planet. Quickly.
Well, I accept that this planet appears to be warming, however, there are many 'educated' people that are not convinced that it is Anthropogenic. I don't need to be convinced to agree to action.
What one realizes when one is educated, is that taxes don't necessarily cause actions.
05 Sep 2013 11:41:05am
Hey all the rusted ons. Labor lost the AAA Credit rating and it took the Libs until 2003 to regain it. By hell the ALP is doing all it can as usual to loose it again. The GFC savour Rudd is also a lie. They have had the best terms of trade in 100 years but squandered it all plus built up the largest debt in Australia's history. Fact that price for iron ore was $40 per ton when Rudd came to power and rose to $180 during the GFC. Coal exports and volumes and prices were also at record highs during this period..
Rusted ons don't talk about the NDIS and Gonsky as the real costs only start in 4 years. Also the NBN is a disaster. Lets spent $4000 per house to connect millions who will never use it let alone obtain any benefit from it above what they have now. Sorry forgot that it will keep the elderly in their home in place of a nersing home. What bull.
Judy Bee:
05 Sep 2013 4:15:35pm
Bitterness and spite is becoming the currency of the LNP. If Abbott wins, we will get some rest. Please vote for Abbott, the smirk will be better than the venom.
05 Sep 2013 12:04:43pm
A political party that wants to form government must appeal to a big chunk of voters first. They are most likely to be found in some region close to the centre. However, the Party that wins elections is the one that is able to attract the undecideds, the swingers, the extreme fringes or any combination of those. I truly worry about the trend started by John Howard (using Abbott as major foot soldier) to shift the emphasis towards attracting the fringes. Some times even the pretty loony fringes. If Abbott wins, the strategy will be vindicated, if he loses our Democracy may have some hope of salvation. The fringes must be helped and given education and information, not nurtured to remain exactly the same, fulfilling their "purpose" of getting Conservative governments elected.
Waterloo Sunset. 2014:
05 Sep 2013 2:12:04pm
The help to the underdog will continue when The Coalition gets in Alpo. It's fraudulent to try and make out that only the ALP has the skill to distribute taxes from the private sector.
What we need is more tax and the way to do it is to stimulate the economy, not rape it.
05 Sep 2013 4:01:57pm
Howard didn't win elections by chasing the fringes. No one ever does in Australia. Howard won in places like western Sydney, full of blue-collar workers. You know Alpo, people like the ones who founded the ALP. People who voted for Hawke but couldn't face voting for Keating any longer. Rudd won them back in 2007 but then Julia Gillard alienated them again with policies borrowed from the Greens. You know the Greens Alpo, they're the ones on the left fringe 10% of Australian politics. TV images last night of Tony Abbott being embaced by former Labor voters show what happens when the ALP takes middle Australia for granted. Still keep up the illusion; much harder to fix the problem when you misinterpret the cause.
05 Sep 2013 5:21:47pm
"the Party that wins elections is the one that is able to attract the undecideds, the swingers, the extreme fringes or any combination of those. "
I though the strategy was vindicated in 2007 and 2010.
The primary vote of the ALP is much lower than the coalition. Therefore the ALP has a much higher reliance on your extreme fringes etc than the coalition.
No doubt with your logic by virtue of voting ALP in 2007 and 2010 they were no longers exptreme fringes?
The funny thing is that you are annoyed because the extreme fringes are abondoning the ALP!!
The extreme fringes are "goodies" if they vote ALP and baddies if they vote for the coalition.
Of corse if the fringes go left and vote green you will take their preference vote.
05 Sep 2013 12:05:24pm
Those that are the cause of the problem, journalists, can not see it.
Shame on your profession Jonathan for feeding us that rubbish put out by our politicians.
Stage managed circus events. Stage managed by politicians and the media throngs the circus. I'll let you figure out who are the clowns.
Simon Eldridge:
05 Sep 2013 12:20:03pm
Stephen Morey is right on the money when he refers to the very democratic nature of Tasmania's Hare-Clark electoral system and that operating in the ACT. real democracy prevails when people can vote in either a new Government or return a Government but with significant changes in personnel, as happened in the Tasmanian election in 1986 where the then Liberal Government led by Robin Gray was returned but a number of underperforming Government members were dumped in favour of other Liberal candidates. The 'Robson roll' also ensures that the 'donkey vote' is distributed evenly so the system is as democratically fair as it is possible to make it for every candidate. Australians could do worse than examine the practicality of applying the Hare-Clarke system to federal elections. It is potentially one way to address the issue Jonathan identifies.
05 Sep 2013 12:26:32pm
It is not "cruelty".
It is doing what has to be done to stop an absolutely ludicrous, lawless, destructive and unsustainable border control/asylum seeker situation.
It's easier to resort to hysteria, simplistic notions, labels, slogans and posing, and smearing of opponents with labels of racist, etc. Mature people realise it is an unfortunate and complicated situation, with no easy answers, but that the current circumstance cannot be tolerated ... and implementing measures to stop the current circumstance is not "cruelty" and it is not racism.
05 Sep 2013 12:37:12pm
It would be an interesting exercise to get a group of people that haven't been exposed to the Australian political scene for say, 5 years, and ask them the following questions:
1) Which major party do you believe supports 6 months PPL on full wage and which major party supports a minimum wage PPL for 18 weeks?
2) Which major party believes that a market driven carbon price is the best way to tackle climate change and which major party believes the best way is for the Government to provide direct grants to polluters?
3) Which major party proposes increasing tax breaks for small businesses by increasing instant asset write-off, allowing loss write-backs and annual BAS payments? Which major party proposes reversing all of these positions?
4) Which major party is advocating an asylum seeker policy whereby all entrants by boat are sent offshore for offshore settlement and which major party is proposing a scheme whereby all entrants by boat are offered at least 3 years protection in Australia?
5) Which major party is forecasting a return to surplus by 2016/17 and which one is saying that it could take up to a decade?
The major parties are devoting that much effort to wooing the other side that they have effectively swapped sides!
05 Sep 2013 3:33:18pm
Andrew, add to that:
6) Which major party has a leader married to a billionaire
7) which major party has a leader who abuses stewards and hairdressers
8) which major party has a leader who does regular charity work and serves as surf life saver
9) which major party has a leader who spends time in remote indigenous communities, and has done for years
The stereotypes seem less reliable as time goes on.
05 Sep 2013 4:35:01pm
Good one Andrew. Or more succinctly:
If you don't like labour vote Labor.
If you are a conservative vote for the Liberals
If you are interested in the regions vote for the national party
If you are red vote Green
If you want more division vote for the United party.
That leaves the sex party as the most honest party in terms of their name!!
Another Aussie:
05 Sep 2013 12:38:39pm
Labor is not advocating cruelty to illegal immigrants (also known as asylum seekers to the bleedy hearts in society). So your open border bias has let you down, Jonathan, because the non-entry into Australia will discourage the practice of safely travelling thousands of kilometres.
You'll be aware, even though you may not admit it, but these people can still seek asylum. They just need to do it closer to their homeland. As you know, asylum claims do not give the seeker the right to determine where they wll be settled. The convention simply permits recognition of the claim and settlement then depends on which signatory country will resettle them.
The asylum industry would do well to start dealing with the truth so they can actually help asylum seekers. The first thing the asylum industry could do is relieve the burden on taxpayers and pass the hat around amongst themselves.
Jonathan Carroll:
05 Sep 2013 12:46:18pm
I don't think that Labor's policy on asylum seekers is actually that far away from Labor's longer term (pre-Whitlam) view on immigration.
05 Sep 2013 1:08:59pm
Personally I hope the ALP get trashed so that they at last realise that the future of Australians is more than union hacks and that real government is about as our friends tell us is for the people by the people.
Right now they are gone for 2 maybe 3 terms. the next generation will grow up asking who the hell are the ALP.
There will be some initial pain to some people but 4/5 years from now the rest of us will be asking ALP who???
it will get to the stage when the opposition ALP will need to become more strident and desperate in order to create alternative policies. This ALP may have blown it for ever
Too many acolytes are living in the socialist past.
Lets have the debate now about how a future ALP will look. How does the man on the corner get to say what the real needs are.
Australian democracy is at stake here. There is no real believable, honest, trustworthy opposition. Unless the ALP are able to interact with the other 83% of the population its goodbye and farewell to a great party.
As for the budget cuts well all Abbot will say is that they need to fix the ALP stuff ups.
Its going to be a long wait....comrade
05 Sep 2013 2:08:35pm
Bugger a debate on how a future ALP will look or a future LNP- lets have a debate on how a future Australia will look like.
Unless it and and the rest of the Western world comes to grips with DEBT- whicb is now some $100 trillion( at least 50% of it is private debt) and growing- unless we come to grips with the fact that the economic growth of the past few decades was simply an increase in debt-unless we accept that debt funded over consumption in a finite world is NOT sustainable and unless we accept the possibility- if not the certainty of adverse effects of climate change there will be NO future-unless its one dominated by the few in economc dictatorships.
Therefore the debate we need is whether we need to refigure the current economic and social systems of the 18th century to ones relevant to the 21st.
To do that we need the punters to do a little more thinking than merely accepting political or MSM inspired b/s
05 Sep 2013 10:09:39pm
Exactly. So who's going to fix the debt problem? The Pope? Is there going to be a sudden realisation from the great populace that we cant spend any more and that the eternal future is save, save, save. Only governments can do that and respectively both sides of politics need to understand that its our future they're messing with whether its ALP or LNP.
As an example. Abbot says he will abandon the carbon tax. Will all those retailers out there be reducing their prices, particularly in the provision of gas, electric and water, that they were so quick to hike up without a breath of an excuse or any thought about the damage done to the living standards particularly of older Australians? Don't hold your breath.
'Therefore the debate we need is whether we need to refigure the current economic and social systems of the 18th century to ones relevant to the 21st.'
I agree but isn't that what governments do?
And my question is. Don't we or rather both political parties need to be more in touch with the common man and woman. How both wings of the political parties react and interact with the man and women in the street will be critical, and my view is that the ALP will find it more difficult partly because they have been speaking to we poor wretches with 'forked tongue". At least they will have a long period of contemplation because they wont be making any decisions on the future of Australians for quite a while.Time for a revolution.
05 Sep 2013 1:36:53pm
"But these are the ideological shells both parties leave behind when they move to that central gutter of Australian politics, the narrow stream in which the modern general election is fought"
Yet another article that points out an all too obvious situation regarding Australian politics but stops short of explaining why it has come to this.
The simple reality is that our politics is the way it is because over the decades we, Australians, have clearly demonstrated that this is what we want. If politicians have moved to the ?gutter?, then they have only done so because that is where the votes are.
A dab of racism, dumbed down short term policy, repetitive three word phrases, reality TV style media and a large dose of unsustainable middle class welfare. We?ve got it because we wanted it.
And as for the environment, well let?s leave that one to the kids.
Welcome to the rise of the new Australian. Welcome to the rise of the Bogan.
Ita A.:
05 Sep 2013 1:46:16pm
Jonathan, there are 42 million asylum seekers panting to get to Oz. Yet we have over 105.000 and more than 650.000 people
here doing it more than tough. Unless we all undertake to give
three asylum seekers a place in our homes we could only accommodate 12.000 asylum seekers p.a. And that we already do. If you are kind to everyone in the world, you're kind to noone, Jonathan. We see plenty of doccos about asylum seekers and refugees but none about our homeless and jobless, the most vulnerable people in Australia. Why is that? Just know that there is no gap between NewStart and the pavement.
05 Sep 2013 1:49:56pm
Yes the people are disinherited: Just watched Kevin Rudd at the National Press Club........What a joke and really does demonstrate how detached Labor has become. He just rambled on saying nothing really except himself.......Couldn't answer anything directly or sucsinctly and even the nodding heads and smiling faces (including Paul House) must have been thinking "does this guy ever shut up". With two days left this appearance by Rudd showed more than ever.......He is a Dudd and a fraud on the Australian people (let alone his own Labor Party faithful).
Lehan Ramsay:
05 Sep 2013 1:56:30pm
And what could be better. With Mister Turnbull at the helm in 2018 we can see political convictions reach astounding heights and we all want that.
05 Sep 2013 2:08:31pm
While Australian politics have progressivley moved from conviction based to expedience, Australian voters have become lazy and willing to accept whatever is peresented in the media as truth.
A great example is the Liberal assertion that Labor has not managed the economy well when all evidence contradicts this fallacy. All other OECD countries, UNESCO, global rating agencies rate Australia as the shinning example of how to manage an economy.
As a wealthy socialist, I am saddened that the current Liberal party hacks will be managing the economy from next week, as life for the majority of Australians will get harder and their standard of living will drop.
On the other hand, I'm going to do well from tax breaks, my business will be able to write off more of my toys, more travel and less restrictions. I feel lucky that I am going to be happy regardless!
Bit sad about Australia though..
05 Sep 2013 2:28:40pm
I wonder if the problem is as we as a society are losing the ability to 'discuss'. I work in the science field. As a scientist we rely on a common understanding to discuss ideas and share knowledge. But more and more we are competing as it is current wisdom that brings the best results which prevents discussing. But the problem is throughout society. Anyone who have different ideology from the political correct are label as immoral on the fringe below contempt and dis-regarded. Now Big Business has gotten in on the act. Through the media discussion is now actively being discourage. Notice the we are sold the image of Tony looking like he has step out of the page of men cologne add rather than content of what he has to say.
05 Sep 2013 2:29:57pm
I noticed something about the political convinction of the rusted on neo cons Jonathan- it is all based on hot air and slogans.
Whenever you raise factual issues-like the damage to the economy LNP inspired private debt does-or ask where the money is coming from in a scenario of wage, borrowing and Governmest spending restraint- they all go quiet.
You can never reason with rusted ons (extremists) - of any sort. Funny thing- booze and drug addicts deny their addictions too.
05 Sep 2013 2:50:58pm
"But somewhere deep down we the people sense the deception inherent in all of this, the hollowness of that contest for the middle ground".......
Jonathan, I have to wonder if the majority of us really do. If the majority of us really did we would actually do somthing about it instead of too often going along with it. Maybe we would even vote on policy instead of personalities, fear campaigns and narrow self interest. Who knows maybe the majority would even vote for the good of all of the country rather than the few.
05 Sep 2013 2:56:37pm
What is every electorate were paired with another electorate and all voters in them elected two local reps to the lower house on a preferential basis? That way it would be very unlikely that anybody's vote would be wasted and parties would have to field viable candidates in all races to attract the second preference. Dud candidates would be punished. Minor parties would stand a good chance of securing the second seat, representing the interests of everyone in that electorate who didn't like the main candidate.
Polysemantic Pete:
05 Sep 2013 2:58:51pm
" politics is a game played at and for the margins and the marginals."
Johnathon, could you explain margin and marginal. They aren't the same thing if you think about it. I can be marginally Left, not quite supporting the Right, or I could be someone on the margin far away from the centre.
05 Sep 2013 2:59:23pm
Jonathan, those who saw the PM in action today at the National Press Club would have seen the best performance given by any PM since Gough Whitlam. The PM's speech touched many topics but it is the LNP's failure to produce their policy costings which the voting public should now be aware of. What many do not understand is that the LNP is all pro-business & in the first year the middle class in ie the western suburbs of Sydney which will be targeted putting many out of work. That's right folks those who have saved for a mortgage on a house & the roof over their head will be at the mercy of employers for the LNP is about to change the industrial landscape with the so-called new Worchoices whereby future payrises will be linked to productivity on the one hand but if employers choose to take the other route they will have the option of sacking those currently in employment & then seek the subsidised unemployed. The choice in this election is very clear a vote for Labor is a vote for fairness & the chance to keep your job & a roof over your head & a vote for the LNP is for uncertainty. All the best on election day.
harry snr:
05 Sep 2013 3:16:43pm
THE CHOICE IS EASY : Democracy or Theocracy, Secularity or Approved Conviction, Social Concern or User-Pays, Accountability or Secrecy, Justice or User-Pays, Environment or Dig-Up-First, Press Freedom or Tycoon Monopoly, Gender Equality or Gender Divide, Public Broadcasting or Advertiser Monopoly, Public Transport or Roads and Tunnels, Being Governed or Being Ruled, Government Assets or All Private Assets, Compassionate and Engaged Public or Passive Consumers of Privatised "Services".
TRUST this incomplete enumeration will be of assistance in your number crunching this Saturday. I like to close with my personal, most favourite, 400-year-old quote from GALILEO :
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use !!!
05 Sep 2013 3:33:09pm
The ALP has always been cruel to refugees, it was Hawke who started the queue line in 1989 when some Cambodians didn't agree with Thatcher, Reagan and Evans that the Khmer Rouge were just naughty boys and decided to seek asylum here.
Both parties have loved institutionalised torture since, they must because they could stop it tomorrow with an amnesty for all those we have been cruel, inhuman, degrading and lawless to over the past decades.
Fraser always claims he was good to the Vietnamese, but the SBS program on Cabrammatta showed that to be a lie.
05 Sep 2013 4:25:03pm
First the cry of Labor was "No policies". Then it was a $90 billion black hole", "a $70 Billion black hole", "a $10 billion black hole" and then after being slapped down by Treasury and Finance the cry was "No costs",
The LNP have now released and costed more than 200 policies!
So now the cry is "Who would believe them anyway!"
Meanwhile Labor have detailed and costed how many policies exactly? I think it is not that difficult to tell just who the charlatans are and who is telling the lies. Saturday can't come soon enough!
05 Sep 2013 4:25:53pm
Hell, it is not that deep .... those who get into office wish to stay in office as long as possible to maximise their pensions. So they will do and say anything to stay right next to the trough. It is no accident that Julia set the election date so far ahead .... to ensure that she got 3 years PM-time up. This issue of pensions to government employees, politicians, judicial officers and the like is a huge cost to the taxpayer. They have got us by the short and curlies and we cannot get rid of the cost of them until they die. Don't give me any ideas, now.
Ted O'Brien.:
05 Sep 2013 4:47:35pm
The senate voting paper is very unsatisfactory, and the rules should be simplified.
1. Allow voters to vote at least 1 and up to 6 above the line,
2. Require only a minimum of 12 votes below the line, more optional.
3. Allow one or up to five votes below the line, to be completed with at least one vote above the line, numbered in sequence, with maximum of six in total.
05 Sep 2013 6:00:23pm
Watching Abbott and his Goons over the last 3 years was like watching re runs of Dumb and Dumber.
05 Sep 2013 6:13:14pm
Too true Jonathon. I live in a "safe" seat for a party I despise and my vote doesn't count for anything in the Reps anyway.
Why isn't there any party pushing proportional representation ? Maybe the Greens are but as Jonathon says it doesn't suit the major parties. Convincing a small number of people is easier than convincing a larger number. Unless there is a fourth party or more pushing P.R. nothing will be done.
05 Sep 2013 6:22:19pm
Whenever a refugee nutter uses the words like 'cruel' and 'compassion', I instantly resist anything else they say. It is just emotional blackmail.
The real 'cruelty' is the cruelty inflicted by the UNHCR and 'refugee advocates' on the ordinary people of Australia and elsewhere in the western world. The UNHCR, which I regard as essentially a jihadist front organisation, has forced mass third world immigration on us. We have the UNHCR and the refugee nutters to thank that we now have thousands of people in our suburbs who think women can be raped with impunity if they are not wearing tents, who think that democracy is evil and should be replaced by theocratic tyranny, and who worship an imaginary 7th century pedophile and threaten with death anyone who questions their sick beliefs.
Gee thanks, 'refugee advocates'. Face it: YOU are the ones being 'cruel'.
coded language:
06 Sep 2013 3:51:07am
Where is your evidence of the behaviour of majority of Muslims as you describe?
I am sure you are aware Australia's neighbours; Indonesia and Malaysia are democratic Muslim countries.
It seems sadistic to imprison men, women and CHILDREN indefinitely; without due process, without independent counsel and without a limited sentence.
Murders, paedophiles, rapists and terrorists are more humanely treated; they have access to lawyers, have their day in a court and if found guilty, given a limited sentence with parole.
Medical reports, figures from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC), testimony from staff and former asylum seekers on Nauru all paint a shocking picture of psychological damage for the prisoners.
Cornelia Rau received $2.6 million in compensation. An immigration system in which public servants are "judge, jury, executioner and jailer".
247 cases identified by the commonwealth ombudsman in which people had been wrongly detained by the immigration department.
Then there is the case of Iranian child who won $400,000 in compensation:
05 Sep 2013 6:50:24pm
I seem to recall NZ?s remarkable David Lange acutely observing that elections campaigns were all about doing ?whatever it takes? to win power, and that government was about the party executive wielding that power as they saw fit. Participatory democracy essentially only occurred on polling day when a citizen cast their vote.
So why the fuss Jonathon, when elections are plainly more about marketing and number crunching than principles and policies?
Check out the Wind Industry bankrolling the Greens. It is all about power and control, (and stuff the rural neighbours) not about democracy at all. Bring on the Royal Commission to sort out what is rotten about this industry.
Mark James:
05 Sep 2013 8:44:06pm
Windscam, Tony Abbott has declared a "war on red tape" and promised to decrease the regulatory burden on industry. So that means the wind industry should be less bound by manufactured local concerns and vague NIMBYist protestations, no?
Comments for this story are closed.