He seems determined to eliminate colour out of politics entirely, with the result that his Cabinet is collectively about as interesting as a vanilla milkshake (the feisty 'ranga, Julia Gillard aside). Draining all the charisma and mojo out of someone like Peter Garrett is a big ask, but K-Rudd seems to have managed it. There is a lot of talk - far too much for my liking - on issues such as becoming a republic, climate change and improving the lot of aboriginals, but precious little action.
However while I find Rudd mildly irritating, the prospect of Tony Abbott becoming Prime Minister fills me with horror. This is because despite being leader of the Liberal Party, Abbott is not a liberal thinker - he is a conservative. And not just a small "c" conservative, he's right up there on the political Richter scale among the likes of Bush, Reagan and Thatcher.
Worryingly given it's an election year, Abbott seems to have made a reasonable start as opposition leader. The buffoon who went round picking fights with asbestos victims at the last election has had a makeover from the spin doctors and the 2010 version comes across as much more polished, cuddly and moderate.
Don't be fooled though. It is all a front designed to recapture the middle ground. Abbott is about as cuddly as an echidna with a bad case of psoriasis. If he gets elected, we will be right back where we were when we finally saw the back of that pox on society, John Howard. Let's be absolutely clear here - a vote for Tony Abbott is not a vote for the liberal party; it is a vote for the conservative party. To illustrate my point, let's consider the differing viewpoints of conservatives and liberals on a range of issues:
- Conservatives believe steadfastly in God, however only one that is Christian and protestant. Maybe a Catholic one at a pinch; but certainly not a Jewish or Islamic God. A fair few liberals also practice a faith of some sort; but also recognise that their faith isn't the only one out there and that we need to show tolerance to peoples of other creeds.
- Conservatives think the White Australia Policy was a terrific idea and should still be going today; liberals recognise that blatantly racist policies like this are entirely inappropriate in the modern era.
- Conservatives believe in capital punishment for certain crimes; liberals believe that no crime could be so heinous as to merit such punishment, and that the punishment is probably worse than the crime itself.
- Conservatives believe that welfare shouldn't be the government's responsibility and should be provided solely by charity groups; liberals recognise the need for government to provide a reasonable safety net.
- Conservatives think that homosexuality is an abomination against God; liberals believe that while it might not be for them, what happens in people's bedrooms is their own business.
- Conservatives think that any trade union or other employee association which stands in the way of big business making money should be outlawed; liberals believe big business should be entitled to make money, but recognise the need for a fair working arrangement between employer and employee.
- Conservatives think all boat people are cynical queue jumpers who should be sent straight back to their wartorn home countries on the first available 44-gallon drum. Liberals, while concerned about border protection, realise things are not that simple and that certain asylum seekers ought to be allowed to settle here.
- Conservatives think government should be as small as possible and taxes as low as possible. Liberals recognise that governments have certain basic obligations to their citizens and need to provide certain services to enable society to function properly.
- Conservatives think the monarchy should continue forever; liberals are genuinely puzzled as to why our head of state isn't Australian.
- Conservatives think that climate change is a load of piffle dreamed up by socialists to stop big business making money; liberals deal in reality.
I could go on ad nauseam, but I'm sure you get my drift. This is not to say that I don't agree with conservatives on some things (capital punishment for driving at 40kph in the right lane is something I would like to see), but when you go through the list above, I definitely don't want one of them running the country. The scary thing is that Tony Abbott probably believes most of this stuff and if he gets elected, he is going to be driven to do what he believes. Why wouldn't he? That's what we all do, isn't it? Spin doctors are pretty adept at dressing up a donkey and calling it a stallion, but they aren't miracle workers. They can't do personality and conscience transplants.
It's a very human trait to quickly forget what went on in the past and move on with our lives. After a gruelling 2 years going through the GFC and listening to Kevin spout incomprehensible nonsense, people might start scratching their heads and begin thinking that John Howard wasn't so bad after all. Well, don't. In case you have forgotten, here are some of the things that Howard and his bunch of morally bankrupt bovver boys did:
- Locked up refugee children in hell hole camps in the middle of the desert, or sent them off to that lovely island paradise, Nauru. That's after they falsely accused their parents of throwing them off the boat.
- Got us involved in two costly and unnecessary wars with countries that posed no threat to Australia, merely because George Bush had a whim that Saddam Hussein had some peashooters and Osama Bin Laden was hiding under a rock somewhere in Afghanistan.
- Along with - guess who, George Bush - failed to sign the Kyoto protocol or develop any policy to address climate change until he realised too late it might be a vote winner.
- Cynically played up non-existent terrorist threats with the express purpose of scaring the bejesus out of the population and ensure they wouldn't vote him of office.
- Implicitly approved of Pauline Hanson, and annoyed our important Asian trading neighbours to the extreme by letting her run unchecked around the country stirring up racial hatred.
- Failed to do anything to advance the health and wellbeing of aborigines and let them wallow in squalid camps in the Northern Territory.
- Gave away millions as a "baby bonus" to bogans to spend on plasmas in pursuit of a misguided view that a country that is 90% desert somehow needs a lot more people.
- Subtly sabotaged what was meant to be a bi-partisan republic debate and ensured the republic referendum never had a prayer of succeeding.
- Frittered away the windfall benefits of the biggest mining boom in a century on unnecessary tax cuts and pork-barrelling. Don't blame K-Rudd for the deficit; blame Costello.
- Made Islamic Australians feel unwelcome in their own country.
- Hobbled the ABC and the CSIRO by putting in McKinsey-trained halfwits to run them like businesses instead of how they were meant to be run.
- Brought in employment legislation so draconian and odious that it ultimately proved their undoing.
Again, I could go on, but I'm afraid I will burst a blood vessel if I do. Still, if you think all this stuff is terrific, then go ahead and vote for Tony. After all, it's not like the incumbents are that inspiring, are they. Just don't come crying to me if the Chinese cut all trading ties with us and we spend billions invading some country ending in "Stan".
How depressing. Neo-Con Tony or Kevin "Programmatic Specificity" Rudd. It's a bit like choosing between sticking your fingers in a paper shredder or, to quote Blackadder, beating your tongue wafer thin with a meat tenderiser, then stapling it to the floor with a croquet hoop. Maybe I'll pick up my family and go live somewhere else where they have a decent government.
Hmm, let me think. The only place that comes to mind is Mars.
Mate,I cannot find fault in anything you say. God forbid Abbott getting into power. Australia would be a laughing stock of the world.I think I would prefer Mark Latham as a PM.
ReplyDeleteWeaver,
ReplyDeleteYou know my view that all politicians are untrustworthy opportunists acting out of expediency.
KRudd & co are undemocratic (and arrogant). After watching question time over the past year, clearly KRudd & co counter any opposition on the basis that this is not in Australia's best interests. EG, when the opposition expressed concern over KRudd's cash splash (in weeks following the tax-based payments, casino revenues went up by 60%, as did sales of LCDs). It is unacceptable that a government seeks to deny the democratic right of an opposition to keep it honest.
Garrett's incompetence over the solar panel/insulation is disgraceful - ignoring over 13 safety warnings & not consulting relevant interested parties. This resulted in: (a) an unsafe scheme causing 3 deaths & 100 incinerated houses, (b) shonky operators using untrained staff were not properly vetted & authorised by the scheme, & (c) houses with solar panels have been issued with huge numbers of carbon certificates, undermining the REC and carbon credits markets & driving down certificates from about $40 to $28, damaging environmental energy generation for the next three years & risking the proposed RET of 20% by 2020. Lindsay Tanner commented that the GFC posed such a crisis the program had to be rushed through & some of the "i"s were not dotted and some of the "t"s were not crossed. 3 people DIED. Labor has a history of promoting workplace safety, mainly through their union power base & responding to changing demands to improve OH&S. Tanner's response is more akin to an 18th century industrialist at a midlands coal mine.
While I am not a climate change skeptic, but I am suspicious. Much of the data, such as from the UN International Committee for Climate Change, is based on MODELING, not MEASUREMENT. It posits data into a model in such a manner that the outcomes are pre-determined. Climate change proponents treat anyone who questions their "beliefs" as that's what they frequently are, as being immoral, unethical & irresponsible. These people are also often acting from self-interest because they work in the climate change industry/policy development/environmental movements. That does not promote scientific & open debate. It is also consistent with KRudd's approach to any opposition to his climate change legislation which is a thinly veiled social revenue distribution scheme that, if adopted, will bankrupt Australia or drive business offshore with little environmental results.
These are not just my views. They are backed up with facts. When the UK government proposed to disseminate the Al Gore video to all UK schools, a group of scientists opposed this & took the matter to the UK High Court. The judge concluded that most of the video was simply factually wrong. In fact, in certain claims, such as polar bears are drowning because the arctic ice cap is shrinking, were straight lies. Many scientists believe we are about enter into an ice age, which has occurred periodically over the earth's history. Over the past nine years the earth has actually cooled down. Indeed, contrary to popular delusion (and again perpetuated by Al Gore), the arctic and antarctic have increased in size since 2001, not decreased. Further, Mount Kiliminjaro has more snow on it than it did in 2001. Greenland has a greater ice flow than it did in 2001. These matters are clear from satellite images.
Perhaps global warming might be necessary to slow down a possible ice age.
In any event, the whole debate is misguided. The real issue is capturing polluting particulate that damages humans, animals & plant life and not the generation of CO2.
Anyway, you now have my rant.
Cheers,
Searby
...and while I'm on a ranting roll about this, KRudd& co's irresponsible spending over the GFC will haunt us for years to come in the form of increased taxes and higher interest rates. Like many others, I believe over the coming years there will be unstable economic conditions arising from the debt levels incurred and the manner in which our surplus was spent and our futures mortgaged.
ReplyDeleteEG, I happen to know from a number of builders that the money spent in the school reconstruction initiative has been mindlessly wasted on inappropriate projects. This has also been reported in the media and in parliament.
I have noticed since the GFC, Sydney's previously 3rd world residential road system has suddenly been resurfaced and upgraded. While this should occur in the ordinary course of maintenance (but hasn't due to the incompetence of the NSW government), I simply fail to see how this will effect any increase in productivity. In fact, it would probably see a decrease in retail sales of shock absorbers and brakes.
Another utter nonsense is Lindsay Tanner's productivity initiative through the digital broadband project. He alleges this project will create jobs. It won't. Increasing broadband speeds incrementally won't create new industries as he alleges. It is nonsense.
KRudd & co have also demonstrated a totally inappropriate use of the public service for developing policy - that is the government's role, not the fat cat's role. However, who do you see providing the government's policy basis for tax change? Ken Henry. KRudd & co are using the public service like consultants or, worse, ministerial advisors. It politicises public servants.
It may be Tony Abbott will prove disappointing, but I believe we've all had enough of the preaching, dogmatic, dictatorial, arrogant, undemocratic twaddle of KRudd & co.
Interestingly, given your well-known love of Pauline Hanson, I have just heard from the news she is emigrating to the UK. They can have her.
Searby