Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
Congratulations!
Today is your day
The election is here
You look shiny today!
We have great expectations
Our future rests upon it
Triennial amnesia
We all suffer from it
You’ll race to the bottom
With no element of care
You will pander to many
With souls that are bare
You will target the sectors
That need help the most
While preening to pundits
We’ve found savings! you’ll boast
You will go all imperial
On the arse of our neighbours
You’ll then act all wounded
When there aren’t any favours
You will denigrate, malign
You will put down and pester
While our national problems
Like sores they will fester
You’ll both strive to keep
Your true feelings under wraps
And in a moment of weakness
That façade it will lapse
You’ll kiss your constituents
Young bubs will be scarred
Back of envelope policy
When thinking’s too hard
But then you will realise
Three year cycles can’t fix it
As you walk through the door
One eye’s on the exit
You’ll rally against anyone
Who dares to find error
Experts are subjected
To weak minded terror
You’ll put on your best polish
And announce a new way
And then finally, the public
Knows it’s been led astray
Your fate will be chosen
By rich men with much ink
‘Robust media coverage’
You’ll either glow or you’ll stink
So as you make do
With a mandate democratic
If you remember one thing
Just keep it dramatic.
Why didn’t she go early, never had the caucus
Then when Kevin triumphed, he really hit the skids
He started with the fluoros, compared AUs to Euros
The polls went really badly, Libs then got the shits
They said we’re not standing by, to watch us slowly die
So Tony gloved up, and punched the wall, punched the wall, punched the wall
And he said calm down now I’m just punching the fucking wall
He went to all the factories, did a little fruit work
More photo opportunities, still spreading all the fear
Then Malcolm wrote a letter, said I want to see you
He started a petition, get Tony on the scare
Flew to Canberra on a plane, in the pouring rain
They said Tony, there’s no more
There’s no more
There’s no more
There’s no more
He called a special meeting, Malcolm looking peachy
Colleagues looking downwards, Tony packing shit
Did he have a future?
Had he lost momentum?
Where was all the traction? The dream had turned to shit.
Malcolm rose up from his seat a ballot was complete
Tony gloved up and punched the..
Denouement complete, he couldn’t feel his feet
Tony gloved up, and punched the wall
Punched the wall
Punched the wall
Punched the wall
An Uneducated Guess
Posted on: July 11, 2013
I’m not exactly raising any eyebrows when I say the Herald Sun is an easy target. But even today’s front page gave me a sore neck as I strained to read the front page headline.
BORN TO RULE: Report say rich kids do better because of ‘inherited abilities’
A 246 page report by the Australian Government Productivity Commission, released publicly today, outlines the myriad factors that determine the academic and employment trajectory of a child. The Herald Sun ran a front page article (an exclusive one no less) on one factor, based not on its importance and relevance, but on what would turn heads.
Which inherited abilities? Educational assets such as ‘parents’ cognitive abilities and inherited genes,’ as the report quotes, or the family’s bank balance? Is a financially stable environment genetically inherited? Anyone reading this would know someone flush with funds due to their parents’ hard work and good luck whilst being a bun or two short of a burger. Will their children inherit their abilities?
The report outlines in great detail the factors that go to explain the multidimensional concept of disadvantage, not just in the financial sense but in the context of a lack of opportunities and their effects longitudinally on the ongoing academic and employment performance of a child.
To quote two key points from the report:
Disadvantage has its roots in a complex interplay of factors. Many of these factors, when combined, can have a compounding effect. The probability that any one person will experience disadvantage is influenced by: their personal capabilities and family circumstances; the support they receive; the community where they live (and the opportunities it offers); life events; and the broader economic and social
environment.A child’s earliest years fundamentally shape their life chances. Gaps in capabilities between children from socio-economically disadvantaged families and their more advantaged peers appear early in life. Starting school ‘behind the eight ball’ can begin a cycle of disadvantage that sets a trajectory for poorer outcomes later in life.
The amount of print dedicated to the impact of genetics is proportionally small in the report,.I finally found a mention of genetics on page 93:
While inherited genes influence their development, the quality of family environments, and the availability of appropriate experiences at various stages of development, are crucial for building capabilities.
The report confirms what we all know. A child in a financially stable home will have a leg up in many respects. It also says that children subjected to deep levels of social exclusion and disadvantage will likely remain in that state. Yet children do surpass what their financially restricted environments should in theory allow, just as children in financially stable households disappoint with easy access to tutors and significant resources. There must be many well off parents who wring their hands, asking”‘where did we go wrong?”
The child must want to achieve. You know, like from within.
I can only speak from my own experience in terms of academic and employment trajectory. Genetics are important, but the brain is so infinitely plastic that experience upon experience and encouragement to try, fail and learn are essential. These are not factors that are purely down to money. How many migrant parents created, at great cost, the environment for their children to have access to as many of these interactions as possible? Many.
My main beefs with the article are that it (a) cherry picked a mere paragraph from a 246 page report to fill a void when there are so many factors at play, and (b) confused (or rather likened) financial inheritance with genetic inheritance.
Papers of all persuasions cherry pick, and papers of all persuasions are becoming increasingly irrelevant, lazy and ho-hum in what they spit out.
Mike Woods, the Deputy Chairman of the Productivity Commission, said this morning that “it was unfortunate” that the paper had decided to run with this aspect of the report given its overall significance and multi factorial nature.
A diplomatic understatement if there was ever one.
Tourniquet
Posted on: June 28, 2013
Tourniquet
Yesterday’s events were fascinating to watch. Barrie Cassidy called the spill two weeks ago on Insiders. Watch a pair of horses manoeuvring for first place can be more absorbing than watching a field of ten.
Whether a petition was circulated or not, Julia Gillard sniffed the wind and moved to end the saga once and for all, setting absolute sequelae for winner and loser. To Kevin Rudd’s credit, he agreed to the terms set out. The loser would exit this time. No, really.
The spill itself was a slow self-fulfilling prophecy. When Bill Shorten switched camps, it was confirmed. The stakes are so high that he saw fit to torch his short, medium and possibly long term leadership aspirations. To her great integrity, Julia GIllard was true to her word and immediately vacated the post without rancour or the sobfest that accompanied Kevin Rudd’s deposition in 2010. Then again, she had more time to compose herself. This spill had the same slow inevitability of the planet Melancholia contacting earth and destroying all on it.
Anyone who thought that Kevin Rudd was willing time to pass while sitting in the ‘nether regions’ as he termed it was seriously mistaken. His sound performance in Question Time yesterday was an clear message to the coalition that they will actually have to work for this. In the still likely event that we wake up to an Abbott government, the majority will be smaller, their mandate less overwhelming than anticipated in the last 6-12 months.
As the myriad post mortems on the Gillard period fill the web, the following were my conclusions:
The whole misogyny issue over the last 24 months has been overemphasized by the left and predictably dismissed by conservative commentators. Some of the twitter chat (of which I am a sad, sad addict) has brought up some overly emulsified emotional claptrap by blind GIllardistas who fail to see her flaws as a prime minister but instead only the attacks on her on the basis of gender by Alan Jones, Graham Morris, and numerous others. This is not to say that the said attacks were acceptable. Far from it. They were vile, sexist remarks from a bygone era when men were men and men were stupid. However it should always be possible to dissect the latter from the former.
Solely by virtue of her sex, it read like an absolute division by gender lines. I am certain there were feminists who found her decision to address the Australian Christian Lobby or as an atheist, to claim that her strong morals were from her Baptist upbringing as nothing short of bizarre. Did she speak for all women? Of course not, but not all men felt she didn’t speak for them either.
Pledging ongoing support (and tax payer funds) for the National School Chaplaincy Program is something I will never agree with, and logic prevailed with Ron Williams’ successful challenge in the High Court. Whether a believer, agnostic or atheist, placing the mental health of all children in the hands of one religious approach was simply an incomprehensible path to take, unless of course you are rather a fanatic.
Her stance on gay marriage was interesting given her justification of ‘traditional values’ that had roots in a Baptist upbringing, despite declaring herself to be an atheist.
Women are and have been for years ready and able to assume and execute positions of high office, despite Tony’s Abbott’s comical assertions of physiological difference. Australian though, to our detriment, was not ready for a female PM. This backlash from the aforementioned contrarians and others shaped Julia Gillard as much as she shaped the nation during her tenure.
On the evidence that she managed to oversee 485 passed bills (87% of these bipartisan) in a hung parliament speaks volumes for her tenacity in the face of the nauseating behaviour of Tony Abbott, Christopher Pyne et al who have spent valuable time with points of order, suspensions of standing orders and other means to simply enforce an early poll. The consumption of Question Time in the last sitting of 2012 by Julie Bishop’s wild goose chase on matters AWU was a blatant abuse of parliamentary resources, as were the almost comical volumes of electricity bills illustrating the carbon price’s immense adverse effect. Clive Palmer’s revelations on his meetings with Joe Hockey and Mal Brough show how intent the Liberal Party was to destroy the GIllard government by whatever means.
Should the ALP, as is likely, lose with an admirable swing (whatever that equals), or pull off a Keating, they can thank Gillard for tenacity in navigating through hostile waters. They can also thank her for committing to infrastructure, education and most importantly the NDIS as a worthy legacy. It is a great shame that both herself and her party could not sell those positive messages to the people. How much of that is mainstream Murdoch media and how much is the ALP’s doing is an argument that will never be won.
From here we are faced with a government that should have been returned on the sole achievement of positive jobs growth, avoiding a recession and achieving triple A ratings. But along the way there the disasters of pink batts and shall we say, rather non-selective approach to stimulus cheques. They have failed to address the highly complex problem of people smuggled to our shores. It has spent an ostentatious amount of time looking at itself rather than managing the ‘economy in transition’ that seems to be the line of the moment. If anything, the move to Rudd will hopefully refocus those remaining MPs who haven’t resigned or who are not resigned to defeat to put in one last effort.
But we have an opposition who has expended much of its intellectual and parliamentary resources trying to knock a house down instead of outlining how they would design it better. SInce Kevin Rudd PM v 2.0, Coalition MPs have been swift to outline policies released thus far, with Malcolm Turnbull at pains this morning to outline the Coalition’s vast roll call of policy announcements. A slower NBN, repealing the carbon price and mining tax and a paid parental leave scheme that has business folk unsettled hardly sells as an array of policies. Nor does saying ‘we are not them’.
What we have now is a coalition that will have to work for the right to govern instead of the three columns of no, a pamphlet of aspiration and an as yet unknown algorithm to manage the economy. Given that Australia votes out governments (with the exception of Whitlam), this will probably suffice on polling day. The only worse in prospect than a hung parliament is a massive mandate for either party.
Northern Exposure
Posted on: June 21, 2013
Yep, we get it Tony. We’re a bloody big brown land that is crying out for exploitation. Especially north of Cameron’s Corner. Ore to be dug up, gas to be fracked, and all the infrastructure to support it. But even Johnny had the sense to see how zappydoo crazy the idea of a separate and distinct tax zone sounds. And he was no slouch as a populist.
Your White Paper estimates a possible $150B in clean efficient energy exports from measures to develop Australia’s ‘next frontier’. Hmmm I don’t see Gina liking that last sentence with the word clean in it. Don’t forget the soundtrack from any of the Duke’s movies to give us that ‘next frontier’ feel while you’re at it. It’ll go well with the low wages Gina has decreed for the ‘special tax benefit zone’, so special in fact that you don’t pay tax in peanut wages. And with peanut wages there’ll be little GST revenue flowing in from discretionary spending. But you and Joe have crunched all the numbers haven’t you? Goodie gum drops.
I can appreciate your desire to satisfy economic rationalists everywhere, their jowels dripping with anticipation and impatience for a reverse Gough change. Wasn’t Ju-Liar going to be bumped off early Tony? Why are we waiting? I mean, the country is just crying out for greater productivity (shit wages) and efficiency gains (shit wages + longer hours).
If you are so keen to plunder the virgin north, why not solar panel a prescribed area where the solar energy could supply the north, or even beyond? Hope you’ve explained to land owners how you’ll stop foreign companies from exporting the produce their capital creates. But you’ve got the balls to stand up to owners of foreign capital don’t you Tony? You’re a rugger-ride all day-physical sorta bloke aren’t you?
Listen, the ALP givernment has been a mess and is clearly on the way out. They have tried to maintain jobs and fund infrastructure your last government seemed reluctant to get involved with. Goodwill generated in guiding Australia through the GFC (yes we know it was 5 years ago, thanks Joe) has been replaced by derision at their internal bullshit.
But is this the best you have for us Tony? A Travelling North type feel good recipe that satisfies Gina and creates tax inequities by geography? (not to mention a de facto Workchoices at work)
Add this to your risible and comical NBN and yet-to-be-confirmed turn-back-the-boats-to-a-country-we-haven’t-discussed-it -yet policy and we feel, well, a tad uninspired. No amount of pamphlet branishing and declaring át least we’re not them’ BS will convince me otherwise. God knows you’ve had long enough to develop policies. Instead you’ve devoted untold resources to destroying a government that was doing a pretty good job on their own. Pretty dumb Tony.
Paul Keating was right Tony when he asked ‘is that all there is?’
Who wouldn’t be excited by a day of this calibre of content?
ELECTION 2013 GLOSSARY
Posted on: March 25, 2013
ARSE CLENCHER
Any sitting ALP MP with a majority of 9% or less.
BLACK HOLE
A budgetary discrepancy between money intended to be spent and money intended to be raised. Curiously, black hole estimates are rounded numbers, always ending in zeros. Usually the consequence of having one’s promises assessed by H&R Block. A term used to indicate suspicion of opponent’s budget figures without bothering to properly understand underlying factors Can also describe a person with no redeeming features. See also Eleventy
CARTOONISTS
BY far the most clever bastards in the world. Able to distill and express scenarios and moods in brilliant fashion with neither regard nor favour to the figures they depict. Like wine, very subjective. For the purposes of this definiton, I list Alan Moir, @firstdogonthemoon, Ron Tandberg & Bill Leak as starting points.
CABINET RESHUFFLE
A realigning of Ministers, usually after happy times (election wins), or sad times (see also Circuit Breaker, Spill, Faceless Men, Soft Cock, PSCRs). Spun by the leader as a fresh team while the media do their best to invoke the ‘deckchairs on the Titianc’ euphemism (for the 1,232,000th time). A glimmer of metal in the turdstream of political life for young MPs.
CIRCUIT BREAKER
A well intended and altruistic gesture whereby a politician, with no apparent motivation other than the love of his party, calls for the leadership to be decided once and for all. Often ends in ends in tears, offering more questions than answers. See also Spill, PSCRs.
ELECTION DEBATE
A misnomer whereby the leaders of the prominent parties strive for definitive one liners and gotcha calls like pensioners yearning for that 5 game free spin at the Casino. Usually hosted by Ray Martin or his stunt double, with viewers able to SMS their views in Australian or Ostrayan. Contributes sweet FA to proper political debate.
DIXER
A partisan question from a back bencher concocted for no other reason than to tee up the front bencher for political point scoring, The best point in Question Time to make another cuppa or trim those rogue nails.
ELEVENTY
Just as Pluto was deleted as a true planet, the number eleventy was invented by Joe Hockey in the name of explaining budgets to lay people, who, not surprisingly, can count and therefore discount the term as a royal fuck up. This man will probably be our treasurer.
FACELESS MEN
Bipeds that roam corridors whispering bitter nothings. Not a new term, but one that 60’s political hack Alan Reid coined to describe a core group of factional heads that told ALP leaders what policy to run on. In the modern day, it describes the same thing.
FOURTH ESTATE
A collective term for the media/press that report on political events. Contains many self-titled game changers who think that their mutterings are the shit. See also WInd Assistance.
FREE SPEECH
A nebulous term for the ability to say whatever the fuck you want without fear of retribution. Advocated as a core element of a true liberal ethos. Unless of course someone says something a true liberal objects to. eg Bob Ellis v Peter Costello & Tony Abbott. Free speech carries with it the responsibility of using it intelligently and wisely, unless of course you work on 2GB.
GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS (GFC)
A cascading series of events representing the failure of the economic rationalist assumption that the free market is pure and fixes all. Ignored by ring wing pundits and adherents in Australia and placed into the hands of Social Democrats everywhere to clean up while the aforementioned eco-rationalists berate them. A fine mess as Oliver Hardy would say.
INSIDER
A has been or wannabe figure with claims to know the inner workings of a party. In some cases, the best Insider is in fact an outsider for their views are too close to home (eg Mark Latham). In others, the insider has been inside so long, he doesn’t kow which way is north (Peter Reith, Graeme Richardson). Most insiders though are more often than not anonymous assistants who see making coffee for a Minister as the big chance. Held in higher regard by Journos who use heresay in place of proper questioning from the source. (See also Fourth Estate)
MENDACIOUS (Men-day-shus)
An unnecessarily long word for lying. Sounds great in Question Time and usually flows from right to left as you sit in the Speaker’s chair. In Christopher Pyne’s land it would be salacious. Often the cue for a wee tipple for those folks playing at home.
POINT OF ORDER (POO)
A tool employed during proceedings questioning the non adherence to rules. Or, in the case of Christopher Pyne, an opportunity to preen to the Speaker in the manner of a prefect if he is on thin ice or to simply waste everyone’s time.
POLITICAL FLUFF
A three minute slot in between ads on a commercial TV station that is hard hitting as Xavier Doherty bowling into a gale. Usually handled expertly by Karl Stefanovic or his superior, Lisa Wilkinson. A banana skin for Tony Abbott.
POLLS
Figures that indicate the collectove hypothetical intention in an artificial setting for an event that is yet to occur. Often has fatal implications, proving that what happens tomorrow can harm you today. See also Facless Men.
PRESUMED MESSIAH (PM)
A figure lauded by political followers of both persuasions. Does little to hose down any adulation thrown their way, but prefers that his followers stay simmering slowly to keep his ego in a perpetual flux of engorgement.
PSCR (POST SOFT COCK RESIGNATION)
The inevitable cost of being a soft cock after the anti-climax. Usually the drop is big but the person forgotten.
QUESTION TIME
Prescribed hour allocated to questions to the government from within or from the opposition relating to policy and direction. This strict definition is adhered to approximately 10% of the time. The remainder is regrettably dominated by slur, derision, interjections, inappropriate employment of props and abuses of process. A politicophile’s nirvana. (See also Robust Debate)
ROBUST DEBATE
Euphemism for harsh and uncompromising debate or nomenclature by the Parliament and the Fourth Eatate, usually in the form of aggressive and belittling the intended target while showcasing it as the reason why free speech exists.
SOFT COCK
A collective or individual who declares anonymously that they have a new direction for a party and the numbers for their idol (who often thinks they are the Presumed Messiah). Often followed by numerous PSCRs.
SPEAKER
The referee, DRS and thried umpire of the collective goat fuck we know as Question Time. A well respected position in Parliament, In cartoon terms, the Speaker is Sam SHeepdog and the MPs are the collective analogue of Ralph Wolf, trying to score advantage by sailing as close to the wind as possible before they are detected and booted. Brought to you by the number 94 and the letter A.
UNSEEN SNIPER
Callous and cowardly figure who heckles a member opposite with the belief that they a true ventriloquist. Can never understand why they should withdraw a slur that raises the ire of the Speaker.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS (SSO)
A motion requesting the abrupt halt to porceedings in Question Time to discuss a matter of great urgency to the opposition. SSOs are motivated either by a genuine need, or, as is usually the case, by a narrowly outnumbered opposition to stifle debate and offer unhindered negative commentary on the government of the days. See also POO, Mendacious
TROLLS
Nasty pieces of work of all political persuasions who literally sit under the bridge (often anonymously), waiting for a comment to pass their way so they can pounce and respond disproportionately. The distinguishing characteristic of the foul troll is the combining of foul language with the grammar of a 3 year old. See also Twitter
The medium and messenger for our hate, aspirations, opinion, like mindedness and media sharing. Will be owned by cats. One day.
WHITEANTING
The practice of internal destabilisation from within. Requires more deception than Machiavelli and better time management than Tiger Woods. Often ends in a farcical anti-climax. This term has replaced the rather quaint euphemism ‘Pissing In The Tent‘. See also SOFT COCK.
WIND ASSISTANCE
Vested interests masquerading as freedom of the press urging for a change of government or dropping of policy they find disagreeable through emotive and inflammatory means.
ME ME MEDIA
Posted on: March 14, 2013
The Daily Telegraph’s now viral front page juxtaposing Senator Stephen Conroy with Stalin, Mao, Mugabe, Castro, Kim-Jong Un and Ahmadinejad was ironically an argument for and against free speech. Going in this hard on the man would not occur in most countries around the world, yet its crassness and overt sensationalism puts in question the Telegraph’s judgement.
The Telegraph has shown lateral thinking by putting its cartoon on the front page but loses points for being sloppy and not including Hitler. One imagines the response if Sen Conroy had taken the harder line advocated by the Finkelstein Review.
That gold mine I call twitter provided two gems by way of response, from @geeksrulz and @firstdogonthemoon:
The reforms announced by Senator Conroy include:
- stronger self regulation via a Public Interest Media Advocate (PIMA)
- a new public interest test for future media mergers via a reach rule
- an incentive to increase Australian content
- an update to the ABC and SBS to factor in their online content
The PIMA would be a single person sitting above the existing Australian Press Council to ensure that complaints are appropriately managed, in addition to assessing whether any future media mergers are in the public interest. Given that News Corp already owns 68% of the Australian newspaper circulation, it could hardly be argued on an objective basis that some ownership restriction takes place. Malcolm Turnbull argues that the Hawke Government opened the doors for media ownership grabs when they allowed the HWT merger to proceed. Well, that was 22 years ago, and no internet.
The other question that lingers is why is print news remains unregulated where television and radio is?
The fact is that the proposed reforms represent a three pronged attack on the Murdoch and Fairfax interests. The body overseeing the body that oversees the media is seen as a threat to executive media operations and would seek to subject them to closer scrutiny. It could be argued however that the ACCC’s powers could be boosted to avoid unfair competitive advantage. Secondly, the PIMA would, in the media companies’ view, restrict market opportunities and hence trade. Thirdly, shock horror, such a person would demand that all reporting be balanced and fair minded, not just a mouthpiece for its owner’s market fundamentalism and unashamed Americaphilia.
The News Corp publications have done a fine job in directing traffic in this way, starting with unwavering support for the Iraq War that resulted in anywhere up to 400,000 deaths for an invasion predicated on at best hopeful evidence of WMDs. More recently, the campaign against the ALP’s response to climate change has been sustained and, as Robert Manne calls it, ‘intellectually incoherent’. It has provided the Opposition with the wind assistance that has supplemented its feral negativity since the ALP formed government with cross bench support. The News Corp media have also made the portrayal of the changes as an attack on free speech almost too easy. It has employed tactics like the above front page to convey to its readers this fallacious and sensational message. So we have idiotic symbiosis where the media provides a dog’s breakfast and the reader digests it.
The Reach Rule proposed by Sen Conroy prevents a City based television broadcaster from purchasing regional interests where they would be able to broadcast to more than 75% of the population. How measurable this is remains unclear. Muddying the waters even more is the increasing uptake of digital content. When was the last time you recorded a program when you knew it was available online the next day?
Providing incentives to television stations by halving their licences in return for 1,490 more hours of Australian television in 2015 is a welcome one that surely must be the piece which does attract the most bipartisan support. The updating of the ABC and SBS charters in the digital climate is also logical.
So will these reforms ‘impact heavily on the way that journalists work’ as Malcolm Turnbull suggests? It is an attempt to address concerns that the media can be too concentrated in the power of a few. There are doubts about its rushed timing and execution (an unfortunate characteristic of this Government), and it has attracted the inevitable criticisms of ‘changing the media when you don’t like the message.’ If that were the case, these reforms would have been announced long ago.
The impression I get via twitter is that some News Corp contributors feel that these reforms are a severe check their ability to produce factless diatribe and not be scrutinised. I await the snide IPA tweets with interest.
There will be some heavy lifting to convince those cross bench MPs who are upset that the reforms do not go far enough. If it causes angst to the MPs whose support it needs as well as the interests it is serving notice to then it seems to be somewhere close to an unhappy medium.
Writing this has served to crystallise in my mind what the media is. Jonathan Holmes makes the point that it is hard to believe the media anyway, let alone in their treatment of these reforms. Find out for yourself by reading seems to be the take home message. Read widely, follow people whose views challenge you and your opinions, not just those you unreservedly agree with .
These next two weeks will be fun reading and viewing.
Thanks to @geeksrulz and @firstdogonthemoon for their images.
Is The Grass Greener?
Posted on: February 27, 2013
A simple analogy.
A family live in what was once an exciting house. It functioned well and seemed a right fit at the time.
Then little things start to stop working. The weatherboard panels have begun to rot and the water goes cold when you want hot and vice versa.
The area changes as your street becomes a major thoroughfare and you start to question your purchase with every intake of smog concentrated air.
The decision’s made easier when some of the local stoners take up residence on your nature strip.
A new estate offering an escape from this chronology of annoyances presents itself. New and safe, green and serene, but with few details beyond this attractive shopping smell.
When you chip away with some questions, you are simply told you won’t be sorry and asked if you really want to stay where you are.
You commit to an unknown change of circumstances simply on the promise that at least it’s not what you have now.
As we count down the 199 days before we decide whether to vote out the Gillard government, Australia is presented with a similar choice to the scenario above.
Phase one of Operation Abbott has fulfilled its objectives of discrediting and delaying the ALP’s legislative process through destructive, combative and often frivolous means. I have lost count of Opposition Managerial abuses of points of order and how many times the Member for Cook has been booted from Question Time. Quite apart from bad behaviour, it would have been redeeming, if only a little, had the Shadow Ministers for say Education and Foreign Affairs asked questions relevant to their portfolios instead of the latter consuming all of 2012’s final Question Time fixated on the PM’s AWU involvement and the former had asked a question relating to Gonski.
Phase Two sees a supposed change in the LNP MO. Primarily through a cuddlier and less combative Tony Abbott who at times looks like paid Sam Newman a visit for botox advice and then rolled in a barrel of Cheezels. There seems to be no accompanying slow drip of policy details, other than the repeal, reverse, rinse and repeat mantra.
The Government has, to quote the PM, lost its way. Numerous articles have canvassed this and the polls reflect just how on the nose it really is. Despite steering Australia through the GFC, they remain destined to a slashed representation in the Lower House, with many good minds set to be wasted in a two to three term opposition. Stay with Julia Gillard and things stand as they are. Rewind to Kevin Rudd and the contempt will only boil over more. As Tony Strangio writes, this Messiah worship and a shift from leader-centred politics (as opposed to politics-centred leaders) has only weakened the ALP’s chances of a shock win on September 14.
So if we then move to the estate in the analogy above, what do we expect? If the LNP are on track for a landslide, is it any less important that we ask the strong favourites to outline their vision? They have relied heavily on the anyone but the ALP rote message. They owe us more. Tony Abbott is obliged, if not by any political or legal imperative, but by his contract with the Australian people to outline what he intends to do.
After dismantling the Carbon Price mechanism and the farcical MRRT, what then in terms of raising the revenue to backfill the void?
What tax measures does he see as appropriate in this landscape, both direct and indirect?
What educational measures will he implement from the Gonski report?
How does this Direct Action measure we first heard of 3 years ago work?
How fast will our broadband be?
Is Workchoices under that or another name really dead, buried etc? (ie what does a flexible labour market really mean for those in it?)
Many, many questions. For every day that the LNP play the small target game, the media will slowly speculate, only making the job of selling the message more difficult. Since Tony Abbott’s double spook effort with Leigh Sales and Lisa Wilkinson, he has been reluctant to appear anywhere. Or rather, Peta Credlin has told him not to.
The ALP’s best media strategy would be to play the numerous Abbott moments on a loop, and God knows the man has been generous in his contributions. And for everyday he remains under cover, on Peta Credlin’s tight leash, these are the things we will associate with him. It is time for him to stand in the spotlight and provide either more LOLs or some leadership and vision. If he is as equipped with Economics/Law degrees and a Rhodes Scholarship, then this should be the minimum requirement.
All yours, Tony and friends.
The Last Straw
Posted on: February 12, 2013
I posted my resignation to the ALP’s electoral fate last July. One writes these things often with fingers crossed that fortunes will change and that the LNP and all that comes with it will not prevail. The Gillard led government would perhaps, largely on the back of deep unpopularity of Tony Abbott, earn a second chance it hardly deserved.
The LNP has had some degree of wind assistance via the mainstream media and some success in lying low post AshbySlipperRaresGate. While its AWU attacks failed to bear fruit, the Obeid NSW fiasco has provided enough public scorn of the image of unions and ALP corrupted, and that with little effort on behalf of the Shadow Foreign Minister (Julie Bishop in case you had forgotten).
When Paul Keating trailed John Hewson in 1993, he had some good fortune in watching the latter tangle himself in a purist economic vision that failed to translate past a chook or birthday cake, and with persistence and luck came the ‘sweetest victory’ of them all.
The last straw seems to be the recent underwhelming return on the MRRT. A paltry $126M return in its first 6 months seems to indicate that the forecasted $2B return over its first 2 years is, to put it mildly, unrealistic. The loophole of credits to mining companies for state royalties paid against any MRRT money has upset the independents and Greens (Rob Oakeshott in particular) to the point of a mooted amendment to the tax to close this loophole. Hardly an ideal scenario for the ALP heading into the never ending election campaign. Factor in more pissing in the tent by former PM Kevin Rudd and you have more ammo for an opposition that has done little heavy lifting in attacking the ALP’s execution of policy. I even found myself agreeing with George Brandis (yes, read it again it’s true) on Q and A last night as he reminded Chris Evans that ‘it was you that designed it’. Nowhere to run. And just quietly, when I agree on anything said by Brandis in criticism on the ALP, it is game over. You could even argue, as Rhys Muldoon tweeted cheekily, that the MRRT was effectively whatever number Marius Kloppers wrote on the back of a napkin. To change the MRRT now though appears to concede poor original planning (while keeping the Rudd fires burning), while staying put appears pig headed. It’s either a shit sandwich with white bread or one with wholemeal.
For all the discontent, scaremongering and protests the watered down version created, it would have been worth the opposition and vitriol to ram the Rudd version through to at least generate some return to shut the opposition up and limit their arguments to partisan policy lines.
This government has passed many good pieces of legislation under difficult conditions. It reacted quickly and appropriately to the GFC which the LNP remains amnesiac to, maintained sound economic KPIs that still makes other OECD nations envious only to fluff their lines again and again. Poor economic KPIs, with interest rates and unemployment high mean your hands are tied. To not navigate through the electoral period with what Joe Hockey described as ‘good numbers’ is the real tragedy of this government.
There seems no other path than mutual scare campaigns, with the LNP afforded enough momentum to issue costings late in the process and without due consideration and scrutiny.
I only hope that there is a birthday cake, 2013 style.
paforclive 