Then the horrible realisation dawned on me. With neither party able to control the House of Representatives, Bob Katter could wind up holding the balance of power.
Oh ..... my .... God.
How did things degenerate to the point where this ghastly eventuality could come about? Unfortunately, after what must surely qualify as the most negative election campaigns of all time, the major parties have only got themselves to blame for the mess they find themselves in. And frankly, they fully deserve it. As the computer geeks know, if you feed garbage to someone or something, then you're likely to get garbage back in return. That's what now awaits the party which manages to convince an eclectic bunch of independents to support them - 3 years of garbage where they have no real mandate to implement their legislative agenda (whatever that is) and where it could well be a major battle to get even the most simple bits of legislation through both houses of Parliament.
I have to say that unlike the 2007 campaign which offered the tantalising prospect of seeing John Howard lose both the Prime Ministership and his seat, this time I lost interest very early on in the piece. Judging by the whopping 20% of voters which one poll determined as "undecided" only 2 days out from the election, I wasn't alone. Why did voters react in such an apathetic manner? I can only speak for myself but frankly, I think a lot of it had to do with the dreadful campaigns run by both major parties and the utter contempt they showed for the electorate's intelligence by doing so.
This was a campaign which was dominated by banal platitudes and was almost entirely bereft of policy. Is it any surprise that any voter with half a brain switches off when you consider some of the dross that was served up during the campaign:
- Gillard overusing the hackneyed and ultimately meaningless expression "moving forward" (or "Mervyn Ford" if you want to adopt the phonetic spelling) to such an extent in her opening speech that it became instant Chaser-fodder and had to be dropped by the spin doctors. Subsequent attempts to appropriate Barack Obama's "Yes we can" were equally pathetic and self-defeating.
- Abbott visibly wincing at the leader's debate because his PR people had told him to present a restrained, moderate facade when we all knew he wanted to cut loose and box Gillard round the ears.
- The complete failure of either leader at the debate to go into any policy issues, and then subsequently refusing to engage in any further debates except when polling showed their party slipping behind.
- Abbott refusing to be drawn at all on how he planned to pay for any of his measures because he well knew that they would involve deeply unpopular cuts to spending, and Labor failing utterly to take him to task on that.
- Gillard coming out at the start of week 3 of the campaign and announcing that she was going to be the "Real Julia"; well, that was terrific because the Julia who was behaving as the puppet of whatever focus group Mark Arbib and Karl Bitar told her to sure sucked big time. However, shouldn't we voters be entitled to see the "Real Julia" all the time? How can we be expected to trust her otherwise?
- The ridiculous focus of the both major parties on the 2000-odd boat people who arrive here each year and a piddling government debt of 2% of GDP as opposed to critically important issues such as tax reform, infrastructure building and climate change.
On the night of the election, Gillard borrowed Bill Clinton's line after the 2000 presidential election to the effect that the people had spoken, but she just wasn't quite sure yet what they'd said. Well, if she doesn't get it, the number of undecided voters 2 days out from the election, the Greens winning their first ever House of Representatives seat and the election of possibly 4 independents from rural Australia should give her a few hints. If not, I'll spell it out for her:
- We are sick of having politicians running the country whose policies and behaviours are directed not towards doing the right thing but instead towards getting themselves re-elected and who therefore let their actions be dictated by PR consultants, the media and focus groups. Here's a news flash - you are elected by the people, so start governing for the people instead of simply trying to appease a bunch of contemptible parasites.
- We elect leaders to lead the country, not to manage it. If we thought solid economic management was all that was needed to bring about a happy and prosperous society we probably would have left Howard in charge. However, it is not that simple and the government has much more responsibility for its citizens than just growing the economy at 3% per annum. It is up to you as the appointed leaders to determine the right social policies for the country and implement them decisively and without fear of the possible consequences.
- Pushing political "hot buttons" like attacking boat people is not a winning strategy except for bigots and xenophobes, people whose votes you shouldn't want anyway. Most people with half a brain and any sort of moral compass will see through these cheap shots and punish you electorally. Put forward genuine, well-thought out policies and people will give you the benefit of the doubt.
- Be yourself, not someone the spin doctors want you to be. It worked for Bob Hawke, Jeff Kennett and even Joh Bjelke-Petersen. The voters want to see the real person, not some plastic, made-over robot who speaks McKinsey-style management gobbledegook instead of plain English.
There are a few pointers for you, Julia. It may however be too late for her to take notice. As at the time of writing, both parties are fiercely lobbying the different independents in a bid to gain power. Bob Katter aside, my initial impressions of them were fairly favourable. They appear to be fairly genuine and passionate representatives of their electorate who obviously some time ago looked at the party machine and made the moral decision that staying in that system was not the best way for them to look after their constituents. How ironic it is now that real people like this now look like having a say in the country's affairs instead of a conditioned backbench hack involved with one of the major parties.
Despite both major parties getting their just desserts, this election result isn't a good outcome for the country. Both domestically and internationally, we will likely suffer in some ways as a result of the inevitable political uncertainty we now face. Locally, much needed legislative reforms may not occur now for 3 years or at least be so badly compromised as to not be worth passing in the first place. Internationally, companies who would have otherwise invested here may now face uncertainties over things like tax or changes to foreign investment laws which may now deter them from investing. Whichever party does win power will have to work twice as hard to keep the country on an even keel.
One can only hope that when the Cabinet is locked up in a room deep in negotiations with Bob Katter on climate change legislation at 2am on a cold Canberra morning, they reflect on their behaviour during the 2010 campaign, curse themselves silently and then vow to never let this sort of thing happen again. Who knows, by being his usual capricious self, Bob might yet force significant behavioural change on the major parties. What a delicious irony that would be.
In the meantime, get ready for 3 more years of garbage in, garbage out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ_zYZBDmls
ReplyDeleteYou can’t possibly think this bloke holding the balance of power is a good thing.
As for the greens, their basis policies are way too left at best, and downright crazy if you read into it. Some little gems include:
• They want to establish an ‘intersex’ gender and provide free gender reassignment surgery
• Re-establishing death taxes (dropped by even the most socialist left governments since 1977). Visy would have been sold off on Pratt’s death and if you want the painting Granny bought back in 1950, you would need to pay for it. Dont even get me started on the wine collection.
• Legalise dope and support state supplied heroin on prescription.
• They did not support the ETS despite the lack of a credible alternative at the time (which 60% of people support it)
• Their asylum seeker policy has merit, but in the next breath they are cutting immigration. So if you are skilled and wanting to come to Australia, jump on a boat, no need to queue.
• Increase income and company tax by 10% and cap executive salaries. Way to encourage the best people the world has to offer. And to make matters worse impose a foreign currency exchange tax, they will encourage the lenders.
• Bob Brown has attacked the trade agreements with the US and is hostile to China and Japan on current agreements, who is that going to hurt more? The Seppo’s will be shivering in their shoes when big Bob flexes his muscles.
• Their andering to the hard left trade unions is also a way to ensure economic productivity moving forward.
Katter is bad, but do we really want a bloke who tried to stop himself being gay through giving himself electro-shock therapy controlling the balance of power???? I agree with your comments on both parties, but surely anything is better than these half wits and loonies controlling the world. 88% of us will not vote for the Greens but they are in control of what legislation is passed in this country. That is not democracy at work.
Oh dear...now that is a rant! I have just watched an interview with Bob Katter and share your concerns about him based on his incoherent, vitriolic demeanor.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with you that we need real leadership. I further agree with your sentiments that one party's campaign was simply intellectually offensive and the other fairly uninspiring, but there were some distinguishing features about the campaign that separate the parties, both in terms of what they represent and how they attempted to appeal to the voting public.
First, in facing annihilation according to their own polling after the first two weeks of the campaign, Labor representatives resorted to making a serious of bare-faced lies about Tony Abbott and the Liberal party. The most pathetic of these lies was invoking the threat of that hoary old chestnut, Workchoices. Now, the Liberals admitted repeatedly that they lost the last election because of this contentious industrial relations approach and so Tony Abbott rejected the notion of any change to the current status quo under Labor's Fair Work approach. To do otherwise would have been political suicide and the Liberals knew this. There were other numerous lies expounded by Labor during the campaign, most of which were directed at Tony Abbott. Labor engaged in deceitful behaviour and played the man and not the ball. Further, as the campaign drew to a close, these lies and the personal attacks became frenzied - Labor was clearly more interested in its political future than what would be best for the future of the country. On the other hand, Tony Abbott and the Liberals refused to get personal, did not attack Julia Gillard (save for certain negative advertisements) and played the ball and not the man. These things that Labor engaged in, at least to my mind, were disingenuous and were, in certain instances, disgraceful.
Secondly, there are issues of economic and program management. Whenever Labor has been in power from the time of Whitlam, it has been the party of deficit and since Liberal was in power under Howard, it has been the party of surplus. Further, Labor's mismanagement of programs under Rudd/Gillard demonstrated incompetence. I find it incomprehensible that Lindsey Tanner could possibly say that acceptable mistakes occurred in rolling out the pink batts program. On the contrary, Lindsey Tanner's position was and is unacceptable. Four people DIED as a result of the mismanagement of that program and Labor was warned by Minter Ellison BEFORE the program commenced that this was likely to occur. Further, 200 homes burnt down and up to 1,500,000 more homes may be at risk, with a bill to investigate and rectify the problem running into billions.
Thirdly with respect to programs, mismanagement, but also misrepresentation, the Building the Education Revolution was a blatant attempt by Labor to establish a legacy for itself in bricks and mortar, dressed up as economic stimulus during the GFC. However, this fiction is belied by the fact that the first sod of earth in the BER program was turned in October 2009 when all economists agreed that the effect of the 2008-2009 GFC was over. Then Labor proposed the NBN. Apart from the fact that the NBN is an attempt by Labor to re-create a government owned telecommunications monopoly after Telstra has been privatised, The Australian reported on Saturday 21 August 2010 that the cost of connection to the NBN will be $3,000 per household. I certainly won't be signing up for this - my copper cable connection is very efficient, thanks very much. Accordingly (and I imagine most households would, like me, refuse to spend $3,000 for optic fibre), under Labor's NBN, taxpayers would be paying for optic fibre cable being installed in every street without it being connected to households. This outcome constitutes an irresponsible policy and a waste of taxpayer's money.
ReplyDeleteFourthly, Labor is beholden to internal factions and the unions. How is it democratic for the unions, who represent less than 16% of the Australian working population (and considerably less than that in terms of the voting public) to dictate government policy and who our political leaders will be? The axing of Kevin Rudd demonstrated just how the Labor party is really the "Union Party".
Fifthly, there are other credibility issues, particularly with respect to Julia Gillard. One the one hand, Gillard admitted that the government had lost its way and had made mistakes from which lessons had been learnt (without specifying what those mistakes were) and then subsequently advised that if she went back in time, she wouldn't have done anything differently. The inherent absence of logic and the inherent contradiction of these statements are gob-smacking in their absurdity to the point that, collectively, they constitute a pseudo-epistemological proposition.
Sixthly, Labor's election promises were apparently funded from the deficits they ran up in 2009 and 2010 and not funded from savings and efficiencies, as they ought to be. I cannot recall any government hoarding borrowed money for which we are, as a nation, paying $100M per day, to fund their policy promises. While you might say the Liberals may not have costed their election promises, their election promises were said to be funded from $41B of savings identified from cutting Labor programs that haven't worked and have cost billions of dollars. As you agree, Howard and the Liberals have a past history of surpluses and good economic management. Labor, both in the past and under the Rudd/Gillard government, has been the party of deficit and, in the case of the Rudd/Gillard government has also been the party of mismanagement. On that basis, I know who I would be more inclined to believe on the question of election costing promises.
ReplyDeleteSeventhly, Labor under Rudd/Gillard has become the big taxing party. The mining tax would impose, cumulatively, a 40 - 50% tax impost on profits. It can be reasonably assumed that mining companies would seek to recoup their tightened profit margins by increasing the price of resources. The tax applies to all minerals (excluding the petroleum rent tax), including coal. The significant majority of Australia's power stations are coal fired. It is therefore logical to expect that a likely increase in the price of coal as a consequence of the mining tax would correspondingly translate into an increase in the price of electricity to households and businesses, increasing our stretched costs of living through higher electricity prices and the cost of groceries and pretty much everything else we buy and rendering Australian businesses less competitive internationally. The proposed carbon tax would have the likely, but more direct consequence, of increasing electricity prices further, with the flow on effect to living costs and Australia's international competitive position already mentioned.
So there you have my take on all this.