With an election to be held sometime this year, it’s time to start pondering that important but not necessarily easy question: who to vote for.

Inspirational stuff. The Australian's Peter Nicholson

This is simple for those born into a political party or otherwise partisan, a non-issue for the apathetic but problematic for those who care but dislike Labor and Liberal in equal measure.

I used to be a traditional Labor voter by default as I would rather have bicycled from Perth to Sydney for no reason than voted Liberal. But it’s just as hard to vote for Labor these days.

Voting Liberal is difficult for those with an aversion to conservatism. At best, conservatism is a timid way to achieve continuity, but at worst it’s regressive and stunts natural progress.

Why would anyone want to be stuck in the past when the future can be glorious lump of moldable clay? And yet Tony Abbott likes to promote his conservative bona fides as if he is proud of it.

But Australia’s past is not all glory. We are a country yet to cut the imperial umbilical cord and we have a poisonous history of race relations. Surely we can do better than use the past as a blueprint for the future.

As some in the Labor Party are every bit as conservative as those in the Liberal Party, a second reason is probably needed to justify an anti-Liberal stance.

For me this is that the Liberal Party will always be associated with John Howard and his politics of division. As Prime Minister, Howard appealed to people’s lesser angels in regard to race and refugees and pandered to white riffraff because he thought them an important constituency. It’s a shame for his legacy because Howard was at times a dignified leader.

But Labor has been more disappointing in recent years than this summer’s One Day cricket.

The Rudd Government doesn’t even pretend to live up to the economic reform legacy of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating.

The Labor Party failed to support a Productivity Commission recommendation to lift restrictions on the parallel importation of books which would have reduced book prices for consumers. Although the extra few dollars book-lovers spend on their weekly pilgrim to Borders may not rival indigenous hardship as a matter of national concern, it’s telling that the Government favoured rent-seeking publishers over competition and consumers.

And yet the Government has no qualms about spending money like a drunk expends dignity. It’s easy to splurge on infrastructure and national broadband when you possess a tax-payer funded credit card but harder to prudently spend on targeted projects after a cost-benefit analysis. A colossal $6.2 billion was also given to the car industry to protect it from nothing but market forces.

After its ultimately wise stimulus spending, the Rudd Government is continuing to act like bad old Labor with a money twinkle in its eye and the financial restraint of Tiger Woods in a girly bar.

The Prime Minister is also doing his best to impersonate an ideological undergraduate who swallowed a political theory book with his silly essay on the global financial crisis in The Monthly.

Those unable to vote Liberal and uninspired by Labor are in a voting quandary and have no choice but to swallow major party pride and look the way of minor parties.

The Greens are superficially appealing if you’ve grown attached to this planet, and see some merit in preserving it for future generations. But unfortunately a spokesperson from the Greens will invariably open their mouth and you are reminded that just as a leopard cannot change its spots, neither can a kooky left-wing party.

Family First and Steve Fielding are also amusing and that is all that will be said about them.

The Shooter’s and Fishing Party is not the most logical candidate for those who don’t shoot, fish or have time for absurd single issue parties.

The Citizen’s Electoral Council at least have a broad focus and a website. But it quickly becomes apparent that they are further left on economic matters then the Greens, which is no mean feat, and seem to worship US rabble rouser, Lyndon LaRouche, as some sort of prophet.

With political parties like these, democracy isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be, and a benevolent dictatorship seems more palatable.

An election will be called sometime in 2010 and you may be none the wiser as to who to vote for. All I hope for is that Mary MacKillop performs her third miracle and installs Julia Gillard as Prime Minister and Malcolm Turbull as Opposition leader, the Labor Party re-owns Paul Keating and disowns Kim Carr and one of the major parties morphs into a political party you actually want to vote for. 

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Get The Punch on Facebook

132 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Public Record says:

      07:05am | 03/03/10

      Give us a break. Please, not that old fudge, the national credit-card. Yawn. Oh well, best we run a comparison over that, then. Again.

      In comparative terms,  we’ve got an income of around $100,000 to $200,000 and, thank heavens to careful management, rising already. The limit on our card was about $100,000. We put $9,000 on it. That’s already shrinking, as our income is going up and our expenses are falling, thanks to swift action started a year or so back.

      We won’t count the reserves in the RBA piggy bank and in the Future Fund piggy bank. They’re locked up to make revenue now (RBA) , and to pay off future expenses (Future Fund).

      Are we done with the credit card and piggy bank nonsense, then?

    • formersnag says:

      12:30pm | 03/03/10

      Every interest rate rise, past, present & future is coming from economic stimulus spending on 4 dead tradesmen, nearly 100 burnt down houses & a string of school halls, nobody needs. Not Garrett’s or Rudd’s fault, either, the entire red/green/labour coalition’s fault. It was their official party policy. Sought & supported by all of them.

    • Dingo says:

      02:05pm | 03/03/10

      Public Record, what a load of rubbish.

      I assume by “income” you mean GDP which is about $1 trillion. However, this is not the Government’s available “income”, it is he total net production of the economy and is not available to pay of this Government’s debt, except through taxing it at various points of production.

      Government debt now stands at approx $62 billion and is increasing by $162 million a day.

      “Expenses” are not falling as the Rudd Govt intends to keep spending. They haven’t yet accounted for the $43 billion they plan to spend on the NBN and that’s before this May’s budget which will again be a deficit.

      The “reserves” at the RBA are largely statutory funds that provide for the solvency of the banking, superannuation and insurance industries. Hence the strength of our banking sector throughout the GFC. They’re not funds for the Govt to raid at will.

      The Future Fund was established (when we had budget surpluses) to provide for the future superannuation payments of public sector workers and is required to be maintained so that earnings can be used to meet these on-going obligations.

      So to use your analogy; we have an income of $100,000, expenditure in the last year of $106,200, so we put $6,200 on our credit card, and this year we’ll be spending even more, plus having to pay interest on the credit card.

    • Public Record says:

      03:16pm | 03/03/10

      C’mon Dingo. It’s a fair analogy. And far better than the maxed-out credit card bull.

      Outlays are already far less than first expected. Personal & company taxes and resources revenue are all recovering , unemployment (and outlays on that) are far below what was expected and falling.  Outlay on on other parts of the stimulus wind back in the coming year.

      Future fund, already explained. There’s more than one, and they cover a range of future expenditures. RBA reserves - yes, but remember, they also return profits to revenue. Substantial returns.

      Sovereign debt payment: revenue, productivity, inflation, currency appreciation/depreciation and surpluses:  *all* help to pay down sovereign debt.

      Keep a sense of perspective, please: how often/how long in the past 100 years have we been sovereign debt free? How often/how long has our debt been this *low*?  Check, please. You’ll find it among Reserve Bank studies. We’re doing OK.

      The piggy-bank and credit-card cliches for our national ecnonomy are a cruel joke on the less-informed. They’re a cold-blooded simplistic deception. Await the Budget papers with…ahem… interest!

    • Dingo says:

      08:19pm | 03/03/10

      Public Record, I think you’re being a little mischievous.

      It’s very simple. Nations are not that different to individuals. If you spend more than you earn you go into debt. If you keep spending more than you earn on things that don’t produce any income you have to use your other income to pay the interest. Now you don’t have enough to cover what you were spending so you have to borrow more. Eventually you owe more than you can repay and you still have to pay the interest on the debt plus you need money to live on.

      Take a look at Greece to see how quickly a nation can get into this mess.

    • Public Record says:

      11:13pm | 03/03/10

      No mischief on my part. Never any point in that. I’m being quite straight forward, as is my habit.

      Dingo knows perfectly well that our budget and sovereign debt situation is nothing whatever like that of Greece. Nothing like it at all.

      But then, as he didn’t like my summary, he could have just as easily done his own basic check, by looking it up on the public record. It’s not too hard to find, among the papers of the Reserve Bank and the Senate Estimates Committee for example.

      Had he troubled to do so, he’d have found find I’m broadly right. Our current and projected levels of sovereign debt are emphatically not a problem. And the credit card analogy is a cold blooded deliberate distortion.

    • Eric says:

      07:19am | 03/03/10

      The two best things about this article are the splendid caricatures of Garrett and Gillard in the accompanying cartoon.

      The rest is just bog-standard soft left drivel.

    • Seano says:

      08:22am | 03/03/10

      So unlike the a conservative, to be blinkered…

    • Macca says:

      09:34am | 03/03/10

      Excellent Caricature, crap article

      To summarise, Labor is struggling at the moment but I find Abbott uninspiring so I’ll keep my blinkers on.

      How about a constructive analysis about the strengths and weaknesses of each of the policies of the major parties?

      Penbo, make it happen… as long as it is not delivered by a Former Howard Staffer or Union Organiser

    • Grumbles says:

      02:42pm | 03/03/10

      How about mentioning the LDP (liberal democratic party) the only true liberal party in Australia, and the only option for those that want the government to shrink not grow.

    • John A Neve says:

      07:36am | 03/03/10

      Brendan,

      I have always has trouble voteing for the major parties. As I fail to see any clear distinction in their policies or lack thereof.

      What is required is a new vison, some honest politicians and an ubiased Speaker in the parliament.

      It would also be nice if local people or local party branches could chose their own candidates without fear of being over ruled by head office.

      Putting it bluntly, it would be nice if this country returned to Democracy.

    • Peter says:

      10:02am | 03/03/10

      If you are a Socialist, vote Labor.

      If you are a conservatiove, vote Liberal.

      If you are a libertarian, vote Liberty and Democracy.

      If you are insane, vote Green.

      Pretty simple, Brendan.

    • Macon Paine says:

      11:23am | 03/03/10

      @ Peter
      “If you are a Socialist, vote Labor.”
      Zing! I think Persephone could be in the market for a new apple iMac now. She probably spat her piping hot Latte all over the screen after reading that one.
      “If you are a conservative, vote Liberal.”
      Hey what about the Fred Nile group or whatever those muppets are called, anyone, guys, ah c’mon!
      “If you are a libertarian, vote Liberty and Democracy.”
      Im down with LDP, yeah you know me! No really I am.
      “If you are insane, vote Green.”
      Insane in the membrane indeed! I remember reading somewhere fairly recently that the 9/11 troof members of the greens are agitating for “the troof” to be brought up and are frustrated that Bob Brown refuses to talk about it.

    • persephone says:

      11:51am | 03/03/10

      Hate really hot coffee. Life is too short to drink hot coffee.

      And it’s a Dell.

    • Meh says:

      12:56pm | 03/03/10

      LDP is the choice for anyone who hates the government controlling how much money you’re allowed to own, whether you need a permit to camp in your back yard, what you’re allowed to read on the internet etc. Currently, both sides of government support interventionist, moralistic government. The Greens are also completely bonkers. That is all.

    • Paully B says:

      01:00pm | 03/03/10

      @ Macon Paine
      Who’s down with LDP? Every last homie!

    • Macon Paine says:

      01:32pm | 03/03/10

      @ Meh
      Well said I agree. I wasn’t deriding the LDP by the way.
      I’ve voted for them in the past and I plan to vote for them this year and in the 2011 NSW state election as I think there is a real need for a Libertarian prescence in Australian politics.

    • Macon Paine says:

      02:34pm | 03/03/10

      @ Paully B
      Cheers im glad someone got that reference!

    • persephone says:

      07:36am | 03/03/10

      A bit hint here: you’re actually not supposed to be voting for a party.

      Our constitution was designed around the idea that you were voting for a representative for your seat - that is, an individual - rather than for a group.

      So, come election time, gather all the information you can about the various candidates running, regardless of the party they represent. Look at their backgrounds, where they personally stand on issues (hell, give them a phone call or drop them an email and actually ask them for this information), then cast your vote.

      If you were shopping for a major item, you’d do your research before you spent your dough. (Of course, you’d still sometimes make a mistake, but that’s life). Why people cast their votes with less care than they buy a cut of meat is beyond me.

      I recognise the broader picture of ‘which party should run the country’ is also important, but since you don’t seem to think the differences between the two don’t matter that much, then go for the picking the candidate option.

    • George says:

      08:10am | 03/03/10

      @persephone - the reality is that the Australian voting public does vote for a party. 

      Krudd and his cohorts will be voted back into office in the next election b y virtue of the ALP brand.  The Unions are gearing up to roll out the ‘big smear and scare’ media campaign (see the AFR today)  all in favour of the ALP brand of which KRudd is the face of ( or is it Julia). 

      Much of the voting public abdicate personal responsibility and suffrage and allow gangs like the ALP and the Unions make their electoral decisions for them.

    • John A Neve says:

      08:30am | 03/03/10

      Persephone,

      Sadly your idea does not work, why? Because irrespective of the candidates views as a party member they must toe the party line. To fail to do so means loss of preselection.

      Maybe the party machine should give members a conscience vote on all issues. But wait on, that would be democratic and we can’t have that. can we?

    • james says:

      08:42am | 03/03/10

      I generally disagree with a lot of what persephone has to say, however, in this case she is 100% correct. We vote for our local member, not for who will be running the country. Voters from all spectrums will be wise to remember that.

      In Fraser we’ve had a party hack for umpteen years and with his retirement are likely to get another. The only time this political animal is ever seen is in the three months before election time. Then again, there really is no real alternative so the voters are treated as mugs.

      I’m sure it is the same in safe liberal seats as well.

      Do your research people, vote for the person who is best for your electorate, the person who will stand up as your voice in parliament, the person who puts your interests at heart, after all, that is why they were elected.

      Yes, it is important who runs the country, but there seems to be gross incompetence on both sides of the political fence, one is currently in power and proving this whilst the other has not yet had a chance to also prove it, so the it begs the question, does it matter who is in charge if it means you are giving up local represenatation? After all, if schools and health system are failing in your region do you really care if someone 1000 kilometres away is getting a new tuckshop in their school?

      I’m looking forward to this election. I reckon we’ll see quite a few smokies, ie, independents running strongly, which is good for us all.

    • persephone says:

      09:12am | 03/03/10

      If everyone voted in the way I outlined, the parties would have to improve the quality of its candidates. It would also give individual candidates more power in the party room if they have been elected in their own right, rather than owing their seat to the party.

      The only other solution is to join a party and work for change from within. But that’s a lot harder, needs commitment and change can be very slow (although I hasten to add, from my personal experience, that it certainly is possible).

    • Old Clive says:

      09:19am | 03/03/10

      For once I agree with you, could this be your description of a swinging voter. It makes me wonder how some of these politicians ever came to be where they are. The reason why they were paid in the first place was so that we could get good candidates, when I see some of the bimbos sitting in their seats during question time I wonder what went wrong.

    • Gavin says:

      09:58am | 03/03/10

      The problem is, the party is quite right in saying “well we funded a big part of your campaign and frankly, you were elected by party votes rather than personal appeal so you stay unified with this party so that we can govern and not work against each other in the House.” And this is quite correct. A party’s agenda is to gain majority of the seats and properly govern without worrying about an obstructionist opposition. Like a sports team, there is little place for self-expression as opposed to the team effort.

    • Sir Codrington III says:

      10:31am | 03/03/10

      Actually you are wrong, Persephone. The Australian Senate receives its representatives from a system of proportional representation, which means we really do vote for ‘parties’ in the upper house, and seats there are awarded accordingly.

      The lower house is a different matter.

    • persephone says:

      11:03am | 03/03/10

      You are perfectly free to vote below the line in the Senate if you wish, so you can still vote for a good candidate regardless of party affiliations.

      I do it at every election (I know I can count to 100, so it’s not that much of a challenge).

      Admittedly, after the first twenty or so I fall back on party linkages.

    • Nathan H says:

      01:01pm | 03/03/10

      Speaking of voting below the line, if you are against a Senator who holds private consultations with the Austalian Christian Lobby, and despite opposition from within his own party seeks to put a madatory and opaque filter on The WWW; you could vote below the line and ensure he comes last. If there are any other senators you don’t like, that would do the trick as well.

    • formersnag says:

      01:50pm | 03/03/10

      Dear persephone, your voting suggestion, while well intentioned and half right, won’t force major parties like the red/green/labour coalition or the liberal/national coalition to improve their candidates. Only voting #1 for “real” minor parties and directing your preferences against the sitting member in all electorates will do that.

      However, if you really, are, one of the “true believers”, truly deceived, more like. Genuinely want to improve the ALP from within. Then you should be numbering conservative coalition candidates last, labour 2nd last, greens 3rd last, and putting everybody else ahead of them.

      You should also be saying this publicly at your local branch meetings and encouraging all other members to do the same. Maybe then, party hierarchy will get the message, about how truly sick of them, most of us are.

      John A Neve, i have read many of your comments on “the punch”. Every word of them, could have come straight out of the “Australian Democrat’s” book of principles & policies. You are an honest, decent, man & would make an excellent candidate. They are the only party to have never broken an election promise & are run in an open democratic manner. All pollies, always having, a conscience vote on every issue. Don’t believe me, then check their history for yourself, read the hansard for yourself, read the party constitution for yourself,  its all there.

      James, Thank you for your concern, was not fun being forced to watch my children being abused & being able to do nothing about it, at the time. What keeps me going every day is my anger & hatred. The radical, extremist, loony, left, lesbian, feman-nazis have a lot, to answer for. They have totally infiltrated the red/green/labour coalition, politically, bureaucratically, in all states & territories, especially DOCS. But i am not the only father to have been put through this, there are hundreds of thousands of us out there, we are networking & building a class action to sue DOCS for our children, the “left behind” generations.

      What i have seen of your comments? The same as what i said about John A Neve also applies to you. If you really can’t see yourself working with John to rebuild the “Australian Democrats” Then try the DLP or the AFP, the greens never were a real party, having been formed by far, loony, lefties to fool disgruntled labour voters into thinking they can have a protest vote & bring the preferences back to labour anyway.

      Both major parties have put up fake “independents” & protest groups to fool you & bring home the preferences.

    • John A Neve says:

      02:22pm | 03/03/10

      Formersnag,

      Don’t get me started on our Constitution please. Succesive governments have gone out of their way to circumvent the Constitution added and abetted by GG’s who have followed precedent rather than the written word.

      Just look at our water policy, if you can call it that.

    • Philip Crowley says:

      02:31pm | 03/03/10

      Nathan H, That is very good advice I hope is well heeded come the good senators re-election time. If that didn’t send an undeniable message, nothing would.

    • formersnag says:

      04:26pm | 03/03/10

      John A Neve, true, but i was not talking about Australia’s constitution, but the party constitution of the Australian Democrat’s which is set up to make it’s running, policy, candidate choice, etc as democratic & transparent as possible.

    • John A Neve says:

      05:10pm | 03/03/10

      Formersnag,

      Sorry, misread your post. Cannot comment on the Democrats’ constitution as I have not seen it. Must look it up. But all constitutions are only as good as those that implement them.

      It’s pity the Democrats fell by the wayside, the question is, will they rise again?

    • formersnag says:

      06:06pm | 03/03/10

      John A Neve, the “Australian Democrat’s” could rise again, kind of depends on whether good men like yourself, James or any of the other, “sick of the majors” join up and do something about it. If not there is “family first”, AFP, some people are even talking about resurrecting the DLP. Go for it. Use your preferential vote. Put the majors last & second last. Do you also blog on OLO?

    • Seano says:

      07:38am | 03/03/10

      This is exactly how I feel. Disappointed in Labor but knowing a Liberal party returned so quickly under the mad monk will a disaster returning us to the worst of the Howard years.

      I’d consider voting dems but they’ve made themselves irrelevant.

      So like many I’ll stick with Labor and hope for an improvement.

      The situation is even worse in NSW where we desperately need to boot out the state Labor party but the Libs are such a complete bunch of no hopers I wonder if I’ll bother voting at all.

    • Macon Paine says:

      09:17am | 03/03/10

      @ Seano
      “This is exactly how I feel. Disappointed in Labor but knowing a Liberal party returned so quickly under the mad monk will a disaster returning us to the worst of the Howard years.”
      In fairness to Abbott, can you explain this “mad monk” nonsense? Attacking him because he’s a committed catholic is a ridiculous circumstantial ad hominen. Also what do you mean by “the worst of the Howard years”?
      “I’d consider voting dems but they’ve made themselves irrelevant.”
      Agreed, they totally lost the plot.
      “So like many I’ll stick with Labor and hope for an improvement.”
      I understand this line of thinking, Kevin is a real disappointment so far even Labor voters admitt this but there are parallels with Howards first term here, Kevin may bounce back better in his second term like Howard did.
      “The situation is even worse in NSW where we desperately need to boot out the state Labor party but the Libs are such a complete bunch of no hopers I wonder if I’ll bother voting at all.”
      I think we should just abolish compulsary voting but you could always vote for the Liberal Democratic Party. Why do you say the Libs are a bunch of no hopers? Surely they would at least be the lesser of 2 evils considering what Labor has done to this state over the last 15yrs.

    • Seano says:

      09:34am | 03/03/10

      “In fairness to Abbott, can you explain this “mad monk” nonsense? Attacking him because he’s a committed catholic is a ridiculous circumstantial ad hominen.”

      I disagree. Abbott wears his religion and his beliefs on his sleeve. One of the major problems with Abbott are his archaic views.

      “Also what do you mean by “the worst of the Howard years”?”

      A return to do nothing, devisive, dog whistle politics. One thing I can say about Rudd is I don’t miss the “Australian Government - we’re great!” ads that we were paying for under Howard.

      I honestly hope that Rudd will see the current situation as a foot up the bum and lift his game. He could start by sacking Conroy.

      As for NSW, I could vote for a small L liberal party but that’s not what’s on offer.

    • Joe says:

      09:41am | 03/03/10

      Have to agree, both choices are equally disappointing in their own way and is very much the problem with our two-party system.

      I still very much associate the Liberals with the Howard Government and its policies, especially with Abbot as their leader and many of the other members of the former government still present, who maintain the same position on many issues.  I still don’t think I could vote Liberal and am still opposed to their approach, with a very bad taste left in my mouth from the Howard era.

      Then the Labor government under Rudd certainly seems to have failed in delivering a lot of what they promised and just try too hard to appeal to populist ideas, the same way Howard did, yet have moved far more to the centre than the Liberals ever did.  I think it’s very much part of Rudd’s background as a diplomat, trying to be all things to all of the people and seeking to appease everyone, yet rarely arriving at sensible ideas or simply making a mess of them in their implementation, meaning they never actually get anything done.  You only have to look to the UN to see how well that sort of approach works.

      While I also voted Democrats too when they were a viable alternative and think they would serve well with a Labor government, more so than the Liberals, without the current Government having to keep other independents like Family First or Nick Xenophon happy.  Sadly, the Democrats are no longer an option and perhaps is part of the problem the current government has in the Senate.  Always having to get at least some of the independents on side, along with the Greens, which not only must be difficult, but contribute to poor policy and the implementation of it, or simply their inability to have it pass.

      Finally, as a NSW voter, I also have to agree, i don’t think it is possible to be more disillusioned with the current state government and their years of incompetence.  Yet the state Liberal party have no ideas, policies or position themselves and seem to simply complain or oppose whatever Labor does with a complete lack any form of leadership.

    • Seano says:

      02:17pm | 03/03/10

      Agreed Joe. I wonder if the Dems can get themselves back into the mix by presenting a sensible alternative at the state level, NSW would be a good place to start.

    • Robert Smissen says:

      11:41pm | 03/03/10

      Seano You are a wishful thinker if you think Little Kevvy/Red Julia even have a clue to improve things. Just what didn’t you lie about the “glorious Howard years”? Was it almost full employment or the fact that we had a strong economy after Keating almost sent us broke? To my mind we are about to revisit the Whitlam years although instead of selling us to the Arabs Little Kevvy will sell us to the Chinese.

    • acker says:

      07:42am | 03/03/10

      Ministers..Kim Carr, Martin Ferguson, Jenny Macklin, Stephen Conroy and Simon Crean are about as helpfull to Labors re-election cause as 5 extra anchors would have been for the Titanic. Ditch the baggage Kev.

    • David says:

      07:43am | 03/03/10

      The lesser of two evils is the best bet . My supply of antiemetics is very low and I can’t stand that Rudd creature any more . From the first time he appeared on stage and said ‘’ My name is Kevin and I’m here to help ‘’ I started stocking up on antiemetics .
      My initial judgment of him , regardless of politics , has been vindicated .
      He should resign before the election .

    • Eric says:

      08:15am | 03/03/10

      On an election-related note, I was amused to see the top link in the Today’s News Headlines section is titled “Rudd’s got women trouble in Sydney”. http://bit.ly/c4g1mA

      Quote: “The research, which is believed to have been conducted across key marginal Labor held seats including Lindsay and Macquarie as well as marginal Coalition seats of Greenway and Macarthur, also revealed that women had also begun to sour on Mr Rudd”

      So much for the “women hate Abbott” meme that Labor has been desperately pushing.

    • woman says:

      11:15am | 03/03/10

      Trust me Eric women do hate Abbott…as much as you hate women.

    • Eric says:

      11:46am | 03/03/10

      In that case, “woman” my position is unaltered.

      I don’t hate women, and women don’t hate Abbott. The polls provide evidence to confirm my point.

    • Alice says:

      10:29pm | 03/03/10

      I’m a woman, I haven’t seen any meme, and I also hate Abbott. And I won’t be forgetting the RU486 debacle any time soon.

    • iansand says:

      08:44am | 03/03/10

      “Whoever you vote for a politician always gets in” and “I never vote - it only encourages them” do it for me.

      I last voted Labor in 1972 when I was 18 and facing a lottery for my life.  I last voted Liberal a couple of decades ago.  I bet that surprises a few people.  I stopped voting Liberal when they moved away from liberalism to a sort of introspective, petty meannness as their guiding principle.  “Principle” may be giving them more credit than they deserve. 

      I now try to find a decent independent in an attempt to send a message that I am disgusted with the way party politics is played.  I am disgusted with the lies, deceit and misrepresentation.  I am disgusted with government by sound bite.  I am disgusted with politics with a guiding principle of avoiding the hard but necessary decisions to protect power.  I am disgusted by the politics of attempting to frighten me into a vote at the cost of rational exposition.

      My personal challenges are the Senate and Legislative Council.  Which of the fringe loonies to put last.

    • Adam Diver says:

      11:28am | 03/03/10

      “I am disgusted with government by sound bite.  I am disgusted with politics with a guiding principle of avoiding the hard but necessary decisions to protect power.”

      Could not agree more. Nothing annoys me more than seeing a politician repeat a phrase over and over hoping for a sound-bite. Why don’t the media outlets make a montage of it and expose the politician for the fool that they are.

      Do you thin as a society we are smart enough to have hard decisions taken for the benefit of the society? I don’t think so that is why if a partys aim is to be re-elected we wll never have proer governance. This country does not want, what it needs.

    • Phil says:

      08:45am | 03/03/10

      That is the best cartoon featuring the labor circus I have seen

    • Jason says:

      08:55am | 03/03/10

      Exactly my thinking! I hate conservatives but Labor is just as bad these days.

    • Bruce the Trucky says:

      09:08am | 03/03/10

      I’ve voted Greens all my life for this particular reason, an inability to find a major player worth my vote.

      I’m not 100% aligned with their manifesto, but I do respect their fight and the pressure it puts on the Government of the day to moderate some policies

    • persephone says:

      09:23am | 03/03/10

      Err, such as?

      In my experience, any pressure for change on environmental issues has come from within the Labor party, not because of pressure from the Greens.

      Very frustrating to spend months campaigning within the party to get a particular environmental result and then read the media reports creditting it to the ALP’s desire to gain Green preferences!

    • Charles Kelly says:

      10:50am | 03/03/10

      Surely you MUST be aware Bruce the Trucky, that a vote for the Greens is a vote for the ALP? You’ve been effectively voting Labor all along.

    • Macon Paine says:

      11:46am | 03/03/10

      @ Persephone
      “In my experience, any pressure for change on environmental issues has come from within the Labor party, not because of pressure from the Greens.
      Any examples you can give us? There’s no doubt some truth to what your saying but Persephone ultimatly the Labor party cant form government without Greens preferences. The Greens know this and are using it to their advantage

    • persephone says:

      02:18pm | 03/03/10

      Well, they’re doing it in a very funny way, Macon.

      The Victorian government has been a big promoter of windfarms. Often this is in the teeth of some local NIMBY opposition. Not once have the Green politicians (and there are now three in the Upper House) shown any support for the actions of the Victorian government.

      In fact, Bob Brown is on the record of opposing wind farms in Tasmania.

      A few years ago, the Victorian government banned cattle grazing on the High Plains. Nearly everyone who opposed this said the ban was to appease the Greens. Yet no Green politician spoke out in support of the ban.

      Both of these decisions are examples where Labor is accused of acting to gain Green preferences, when in fact the Greens as a party have exerted absolutely no pressure on Labor to deliver the outcome.

      I believe it’s much the same case at the moment with the National Parks along the Murray - no evidence of support for this from the Greens as a party, but the government is accused of only acting to secure Greens preferences.

    • Maq says:

      09:10am | 03/03/10

      Wait wait wait…“The Rudd Government doesn’t even pretend to live up to the economic reform legacy of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating…”?

      You’re aware of the Cooper and Henry Reviews right? You know, those things examining our super and tax systems fairly closely… I’d say that’s a pretty good place to start for the government - you can’t pursue a reform agenda without examining the state of play, so to speak. These are pretty substantial reviews all on their own - it shows a government willing to consider how to improve systems that were specifically geared toward high-income earners (almost exclusively) for the entirety of the Howard years.

      “After its ultimately wise stimulus spending, the Rudd Government is continuing to act like bad old Labor with a money twinkle in its eye and the financial restraint of Tiger Woods in a girly bar”

      Huh? What do you base that assertion on? You mention spending on infrastructure and the NBN like it’s a bad thing. You do know that these positively impact on the economy, right? And FYI - a “big four” accounting firm was tasked with performing an implementation study. They’re not just throwing in the air yelling “money fight!” with the NBN - it’s a serious piece of infrastructure that will do much for this country.

      You seem to think that the operation of a political party is to please your specific demands in every policy area. Unless you set up your own political party, be prepared to be disappointed with democracy a whole lot if that’s the case. I think the current government has done a pretty good job so far - I don’t agree with every aspect of policy (I mean filtering the internet? Come on!) but that’s what you get with political parties operating in a democracy - a melting pot of ideas and perspectives.

    • Gavin says:

      10:04am | 03/03/10

      Exactly right, it wouldn’t matter if all MP’s and Senators were independants, eventually they would need to form some sort of coilition to vote in bloc. Otherwise Parliament would be even more of a circus full of individuals pushing an agenda. It would be a melting pot of ideas that do not want to be clumped together. At least with the parties, they hold a caucus meeting each day of Parlieament, thrash out their ideas on certain Bills and motions, acknowledge that there are differences in thought but then cast a vote on how they will vote on the floor and play as a team. It sounds bastardised, but it’s the only way to govern under the Westminster system. It is, and should be, the vote of the majority which creates an action.

    • John A Neve says:

      10:42am | 03/03/10

      Gavin,

      It is just not true to suggest the current way is the only way to “govern under the Westminster system”.
      All members of parliament could have a conscience vote.
      Minor parties could vote on the facts as presented.
      Independents could caucus.
      The current two party system, is in my view, killing this country, we are going down the American path. Where power is bought and big business is more powerfull than politicians.

    • Maq says:

      11:07am | 03/03/10

      John,

      “we are going down the American path” - that’s not necessarily true. The US has a huge problem with political donations (specifically with “soft money”) that Australia is certainly moving away from. In terms of state politics, there’s a real shift away from donations all together (especially in NSW and QLD), and federally there’s the lobby register. You might think these moves are not transparent enough, but it’s a far cry from the “American path” that you seem concerned about.

      Though you’ve implied a false dichotomy in the Australian political landscape, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with a two party system. It actually gives a lot more power to an opposition to oppose the government, and allows for the public to more readily vote a government out (because there already exists an alternative). If the opposition doesn’t take the opportunity to grab at public opinion when it turns, that’s their own fault and not the fault of the system. Bomber was particularly bad at this when public opinion swung substantially away from Howard.

      And it really is a false dichotomy that the Australian system is “two party” - the Greens and independents certainly have a voice in parliament, and on polling day you can vote (and give your preferences to) who ever you want - not just the two majors.

    • Adam Diver says:

      11:33am | 03/03/10

      A review and an implementation of that review are to totaly different things. Just cos I write out a to-do list every day doesn’t mean I am actually going to get anything done.

      A reform of welfare and tax and I would switch my vote to either party.

    • Maq says:

      11:54am | 03/03/10

      Adam,

      True - but comprehensive reviews drive appropriate reform. The government can’t do a thing without first assessing the likely impact. They’ve made that mistake already when trying to wind back abuse of employee share schemes in the 09 budget - the set up a ridiculously low income and $1000 limit which basically froze out a lot of legitimate schemes. It took a few months and two incremental changes to bring the policy to where it should have been. Why did that happen? Because the government didn’t assess the likely impact correctly.

      I would rather the Henry and Cooper reviews assess the tax and super systems comprehensively before any action is taken on either front. Caution doesn’t mean the reform agenda isn’t there - and your analogy is a bit simplistic when you consider the size of what’s being undertaken, in the order of trillions of dollars.

    • John A Neve says:

      01:47pm | 03/03/10

      Maq,

      Firstly, not all registered parties stand candidates in every seat. So you cannot “give your vote to whoever you want”.

      As to voteing a government out “because there already exists an alternative”!!!! Right now we have an alternative between worse, worser and worstest still.  Maq, you must be kidding me?

    • Maq says:

      03:17pm | 03/03/10

      John,

      By “give your vote to whoever you want” of course I mean “cast your vote for any of the available candidates”. If you judge your candidates to be of poor quality, that’s not the fault of the system, nor is it indicative of a two party system. There are plenty of independents that grow tired of the majors and strike out on their own, or never join a major in the first place.

      If you’re so sure that you’re being failed by each candidate available to you, and are disenfranchised with the political process, then you have two options - start your own political party or leave the country.

      As I said in my first comment - it’s naive to think that a party/candidate will conform to all of your specific viewpoints. If you’re hoping to find one you’ll be sorely disappointed with democracy, no matter the circumstances. That doesn’t mean our patch of democracy is a bad as you make it out to be - accept that all political party will disappoint you sometimes (yes, ALP I’m looking at your internet censorship policy), because their views won’t always be consistent with yours.

    • Nick says:

      09:17am | 03/03/10

      My feeling is Abbott, like Latham, will crash and burn on election day. The choice is completely uninspiring, but despite his roof fires, net censorship and hot air on climate change, Kevin07 is by far the lesser of the two evils. Malcolm Turnbull was a good alternative Prime Minister. It’s disappointing his ego didn’t let him make a better fist of it.

    • Seano says:

      09:39am | 03/03/10

      Well said. Only I think Abbott is well on the way to crash and burn having already offended large segments of the electorate.

    • Joe says:

      09:56am | 03/03/10

      Howard certainly had a gift for presenting and selling his arguably far right approach to the masses most of his time as Prime Minister. Somehow appearing far more moderate than he actually was, something Abbot definitely lacks.

      Abbot or Latham on the other hand, hold equally extreme views or personalities, on opposite ends of the political spectrum, just are not able to hide them as well and appeal to the majority of voters, both with a tenancy to slip up and get caught out saying something which reveals their true character and position.

      I agree Turnbull or even Hockey, probably would of been a better choice for the Liberal leadership and would of appealed to a wider audience, than Abbot is able to.

    • Eric says:

      09:58am | 03/03/10

      Latham didn’t crash and burn on election day. He lost by a fairly small margin, then went into a prolonged sulk. I don’t think that losing would have the same effect on Abbott, since nobody expects the Coalition to win in 2010 anyway.

      Contrary to Seano’s wishful thinking, Abbott is rising in the polls as Rudd is slipping. Probably not enough to change the outcome this year, but the trend is not what you want to believe it is.

    • Seano says:

      02:08pm | 03/03/10

      Funny how conservatives can turn Abbott’s approximately 30% approval rating into some sort of victory. Talk about wishful thinking. Abbott is unelectable and rightly so.

    • no more media please says:

      09:36am | 03/03/10

      the biggest problem is the SENATE
        think if the senate had not blocked everything under the sun more and could of been done.

    • Eric says:

      10:00am | 03/03/10

      Democracy is such a pain, isn’t it?

    • Pete from Sydney says:

      10:28am | 03/03/10

      almost right Eric…the Senate is such a pain is what you meant to say right?
      Let the government that the country elected govern….

    • Eric says:

      11:48am | 03/03/10

      Democracy, the Senate ... not much difference. The Senate is the most democratic part of the Australian Parliament, and has proven its worth once again.

      I can just hear little kevvvy grumbling: “I would have got away with it, if not for those meddling Senators”.

    • Gavin says:

      07:11pm | 05/03/10

      Eric, is obstructionism (deliberately obstructing a Bill, not for national interest, but to halt Government business for the sake of politicism) really democracy?

    • Simon says:

      10:08am | 03/03/10

      Rudd has proven he is all about being a politician and will do whatever he can to secure a 2nd term ... Abbott is all fluff and no substance… I agree with Brendan that its time for Julia Gillard to take over the leadership and with Turnball to reclaim his post of opposition leader!

      Whoever becomes the PM - please, please change the law to what it used to be regarding foreigners ability NOT to own more than 1 property in this country… they are land banking and are a major reason for the inflated house prices and then rental squeeze!

    • Father John Fleming says:

      10:19am | 03/03/10

      Brendan Brown says: “At best, conservatism is a timid way to achieve continuity, but at worst it’s regressive and stunts natural progress.”  If this represents Brendan’s level of political knowledge and sophistication, then he should not be allowed out at night, or in the daytime either!  The political philosophy of conservatism is about holding onto all that is good in society in terms of its values and practices which, in turn, allow society to flourish.  You may not agree with that philosophy, but there is no excuse for misrepresenting it.  Under a conservative government Australia progressed economically and politically (cf Howard and Menzies governments).  That political parties overreach and even, from time to time, act in manner contrary to their philosophy, is a testimony to parties being run by human beings who are no better and no worse than the the best of us.  Underestimating Tony Abbott would be as great a mistake as too easily getting rid of Kevin Rudd in favour of Ms Gillard.

    • Zeta says:

      10:22am | 03/03/10

      Hey here’s an idea Brendan Brown - don’t vote.

      Compulsory sufferage erodes the value of voting, and ultimately damages democracy as people are forced into a polling booth to make an arbitrary mark on a piece of paper. If we are all forced to vote, the outcome is meaningless because none of us actively chose to participate in democracy.

      In an open market, if you do not feel strongly about either competing product, you simply don’t buy them. In Australian politics, we force you to choose the lesser of two evils. It’s a recipe for mediocrity.

      Now real anti-compulsory suffrage activists would cop the fine in protest, but I hate paying the Government money as much as I hate being forced to vote, so if I find the candidates don’t set my world on fire, I simply walk into the polling booth, tick my name off, and walk out again.

      In the Federal Election, where the Liberal Party inevitably fails to inspire with their choice of candidate for my safe Labor seat, I usually draw a funny picture next to Tanya Plibersek’s name. Sometime’s I’ll write messages to the poor party hacks you have to scuitineer the vote at my booth.

      Since 2001, I’ve only voted in State and Local Government elections, until my electorate has a Federal candidate of either stripe that is inspiring.

      I encourage other people to do the same.

    • acker says:

      10:59am | 03/03/10

      So your into making the people at the polling booth on set wages have to work extra time on election night because you thought it would be funny to write some inane message on your ballot paper…??

    • Michael says:

      11:29am | 03/03/10

      But I can’t stand the idea of any non-voter whing about the Government. They have no right, and even though people do so anyway, this would be legitmising them. By all means vote then whinge, but I could forsee under optional voting that we would have a huge number of non-voting whingers among us. Plus, the non-voters would still wish to send their children to school, use the roads, hospitals, emergency services without contributing to democracy. That would be fine, but they would have no right to complain or be heard…but would anyway.

    • Adam Diver says:

      11:39am | 03/03/10

      “In an open market, if you do not feel strongly about either competing product, you simply don’t buy them. In Australian politics, we force you to choose the lesser of two evils. It’s a recipe for mediocrity. “

      So much sense in todays comments. If governments stop pandering to the masses of stupidity for thier votes I thik thier could be a far different outcome in performance. Does anyone remember the early chaser where they had the “this person votes” scenes.

    • persephone says:

      11:55am | 03/03/10

      As one elderly woman once said to me, “If I don’t vote, I can’t complain, can I?”

    • Zeta says:

      12:09pm | 03/03/10

      @ acker - Actually, my inane message is usually hilarious, and I don’t think it takes that long to write it off and bin it.

      @ Michael - The fact that you are a voter does not entitle you to be heard. It entitles you to participate in a lottery by which we choose which lawyer / union representative / rock star / journalist or garbage collector will make decisions that will have limited effect on your life anyway.

      I don’t vote for contestants in Australian Idol, but I’m still allowed to whinge constantly about how inane they are.

      Suffrage doesn’t entitle you to your share of Government services either. Taxes do. Why should I, as a taxpayer, also give my political support to the same people who tax me? That’s the exchange of responsibility we’re talking about.

      The Government expects you to be a fat, happy consumers of goods and services, to pay taxes from your purely theoretical taxable income, and to not do or say anything that might jeopardise this system. In return, they give your State represenatives schools, hospitals and roads. And ceiling batts. Occasionally they plug wads of cash straight into your face hole in case it looks like you might speak out.

      Why should I then turn around and help these same people get into Parliament using the system they created if I don’t believe in the system at all?

      State and Local Governments are where you should invest time and political capital. It is those places where genuine changes to our lives are made.

      The Federal Government is just a machine that takes your money and turns it into things you don’t need. Like a trophy wife.

    • Bruce says:

      10:50am | 03/03/10

      Zeta; Agree with your third last paragraph. Unfortunately, many people in “Blue Ribbon” Liberal or Labor seats vote like trained monkeys. They will only vote for their brand because mummy and daddy told them to. Therefore either party is not going to put up a candidate and waste time and money trying to win an unwinable seat.

    • AdamC says:

      10:53am | 03/03/10

      I don’t understand why Kruddy is so reluctant on reform. The Cooper and Henry reviews mentioned about hardly count. Cooper is worthy but not a headliner, Henry has already been neutered by government commitments and, in any event, reviews are not reforms. Between dinosaurs like Kim Carr, empire-protecting state premiers and his union paymasters, Rudd seems to be in a bit of a corner.

      That, and the fact he gambled on the ETS as a headline agenda item and lost. And he has seemingly realised health reform is too hard. I just don’t think he is that interested.

    • Henry says:

      10:58am | 03/03/10

      Geez what a pathetic article.

      Why is that 99.9% of people that say they do not know who to vote for or hate both parties/both parties the same rubbish are, in reality, ALP voters?

      Just vote Labor and don’t feel guilty about it.  They are totally sh*te, their record is never as good as they Coalition, they are Socialist based (but dont let that stop you saying they are the same as the Libs), but you come from a rusted-on ALP background so just do it!

      So sick of whinging swinging voters (embarrassed Labor voters) that slag the whole political scene here just because they cannot reconcile their beloved ALP with the fact that they are hopeless.

      If you stopped with the mindless slagging of the Coalition and analysed their policies then you mind find an alternative.

      Or simply just don’t vote!  Just get off the fake fence!

    • persephone says:

      11:57am | 03/03/10

      And analysing the Liberal party’s policies will only take you a few minutes, there aren’t many of them.

    • Macon Paine says:

      12:44pm | 03/03/10

      @ Persephone
      Ouch! Harsh but true atm Persephone.

    • AdamC says:

      12:55pm | 03/03/10

      I totally agree with you, Henry. It is always ALP voters who decry that the parties are too similar. As a Coalition voter, I am not always happy with Coalition policy (or Coalition leaders) but I never think they are anywhere near as bad as Labor!

    • Dingo says:

      03:08pm | 03/03/10

      persephone, the Liberal party are in opposition. The role of the opposition is to analyse the Government’s policies and hold them to account.

      The time for the opposition to produce alternate policy is when an election is called and the Government goes into care taker mode.

      I know we’d be better off if Liberals continued to produce policies (like indicate their health policy would include bringing back local boards to manage hospitals) so Rudd could copy them and take credit, but they’re not there to do Rudd’s job for him.

      After two and half years of having the policy stage to themselves the best the Rudd Government has come up with is a successful website on schools (that I don’t remember anyone really asking for) a debacle of a school “knock down classrooms and rebuild them” program, an insulation scheme comprised of rorts, sub standard work and 4 very tragic deaths and a reopening of Australia’s borders to people smuggling.

    • Marvin H says:

      11:14am | 03/03/10

      I am voting Labor, I don’t like Abbott, that my prerogative but voting is an individual choice and no-one has the right to tell anyone who to vote for. Just vote for who will you feel will give you the best for you and your family. Abbott lifting the retirement age to 70 and bringing back work choices under another name is not the best for me. I also have no confidence in their Global Warming plan

    • Henry says:

      12:04pm | 03/03/10

      Sorry Marvin I wasn’t aware that Tony Abbott was PM and that he had already put into action all those new policies.

      Really Marv, you need to stop listening to the spin of the ALP and do some very very very basic research.

    • megan says:

      11:19am | 03/03/10

      This article captures exactly how i fell at the moment. Voting Labor used to be an automatic choice to me but so much of Kevin’s reign has been disappointment. While I don’t mind a little bit of crazy in office, as a woman with a daughter I will never Never NEVER vote for Tony Abbott. Democrats are useless so for me that means Green…. but what if everyone does that? I dont actually want them in power!

    • Adam Diver says:

      11:44am | 03/03/10

      Good idea because if Tony becomes PM he will start stalking all the women in Australia and keeping track of thier movements via facebook. I cant believe your allowed to vote. Vote on policies not that it means anything these days as most are never implemented anyway.

    • Henry says:

      12:02pm | 03/03/10

      megan - the logic in your post sums up why we have Kevin Rudd!

      You admit the incompetence and utter insanity of Labor and the Greens, and the waste of space of the Dems.  Then you spoil it all with a bizarre, unfounded and hysterical rant concerning Abbott and your daughter??

      I know being rusted-on Labor is hard to break but get over your petty passed down bigotry against the Libs and you will find that they are the only credible, competent alternative.

    • Seano says:

      02:31pm | 03/03/10

      That’s not what she actually said Henry but don’t let that get in the way…

    • Willy K says:

      11:26am | 03/03/10

      Look at all the rats deserting the sinking ship when their beloved ALP once again implodes under the weight of its failed ideologies and incompetence.

      I really feel sorry for all of you poor rusted-on ALP lovers that can’t find a party worthy of your vote.

      Nice try.

      Call a wahhhbulance.

    • luke09 says:

      12:13pm | 03/03/10

      I feel sorry for the union members, their money once again will have to fund another labor election campaign. Six months ago, the Rudd government looked likely to increase their majority without the need for funds from unions. Now with Tony Abbott getting closer to perferred PM with each new pol,l they are likely to lose seats and further control of the senate, meaning they have to dig deep into the union funds.
      Kevin Rudd’s fake persona will help bring down the government, I am hoping that the ALP don’t replace Kevin Rudd with the more compentent Julia Gillard, Bill Shorten or Greg Combet. wink

    • Seano says:

      02:25pm | 03/03/10

      How can we be rusted-on and deserting the sinking ship?

      Isn’t the fact that Labor supporters expect better or they will look elsewhere better for our democracy than mindlessly towing the Liberal party line?

    • E says:

      12:08pm | 03/03/10

      Theyre all trash, thats how they manage to survive in the social garbage piles that are the major parties.

      Vote independent at all costs.

    • Grant says:

      12:09pm | 03/03/10

      What am I to do…

      Labor to me =

      Pro internet censorship with Stephen Conroy and Rudd’s inability to govern.

      Liberal =

      Abbott, even stronger religious overtones, moral dictating, backwards.

      Greens =

      Throws preferences to Labor and is associated with Clive Hamilton who is supportive of internet censorship.

      I simply cannot rationalize voting for any of them.

    • Henry says:

      01:03pm | 03/03/10

      How is Abbott strongly religious in relation to his politics???  Lib style smalll govt is not moralising - the ALP do that with their big govt and nanny state style

      backwards?  more pro market reforms than all the ALP govts put together!  You really are ass up.

      You probably think sorry day was good too.

    • persephone says:

      02:26pm | 03/03/10

      Henry, really, you should be ashamed of yourself.

      But I guess all that spinning must leave you a little dizzy.

      So far, the very few policies put forward by Abbott and co have had at their core the creation of more bureaucracies - for example, the ‘Direct Inaction” policy virtually starts with saying a national body will need to be created to run it; simply adding local boards to existing State structures will create more bureaucracy.

      And the Coalition’s record in government was a huge increase in the number of public servants.

      As for nanny states, it was Abbott who wanted to ban RU486 and he was part of a government which imposed flagpoles at schools, dictated the teaching of a set of Australian values (using a poster featuring a Kiwi and a quote from a female English author who pretended to be a man), and intervened to prevent the NT legalising euthanasia.

      As for pro market reforms, what Hawke and Keating put in place was so thorough that Costello only tweaked the edges.

      And, yes, both Sorry Days were fantastic.

    • Henry says:

      03:22pm | 03/03/10

      persephone

      You are hilarious!  A sad little rusted-on ALP voter spinning yourself up your own a**-hole!  So the ALP are the better fiscal manager now?  Rewriting history again just like the Stolen Generations myth, and lying when the Coalition outspent the ALP on health - year in year out.

      Might want to check facts rather then stick your head out of the nest and let Uncle Kevin sick something up into your mouth every 5 minutes.

      Uncle Kevin is a serial liar and fraud.

    • persephone says:

      06:12pm | 03/03/10

      Gee, Henry, I throw some facts at you and rather than disputing them you indulge in abuse.

      Guess I won that round.

    • shere khan says:

      12:31pm | 03/03/10

      We are many with this thought, though I voted for Kevin.
      Australia is suffering from a loss of resources in the Political count.
      None of our Politicians have the qualities of an International Statesman.
      Rudd is trying so desperately to impress the world that he has taken his eye off the ball at home in Australia.
      Mr Abbot and his team are not even “High School Material” when it comes to debating.
      The Greens, who many of us would like to “come out of the trees” and include other serious issues in their Policies, don’t seem to notice the opportunity that is open to them at the next election.
      Is it time for the Immigration Department to put them on the “wanted” list and import some from abroad?

    • Willy K says:

      01:08pm | 03/03/10

      As has been noted below you are simply an ALP supporter jacked at the incompetence of your party and blind to the logical alternative.

      ALP is shite therefore ALL politics in nation is shite.  With that sort of nut-job logic no wonder we have Kelvin Dudd wrecking the joint.

      Just suck it up and vote Labor like you always do regardless.

    • Saskia says:

      01:11pm | 03/03/10

      Yeah I guess the successful business people, lawyers, CPA’s, and Rhodes Scholar are not fit to debate Rudd and the Public Servant and Union hacks in his cabinet.

      Nice own goal there!

    • exzilerate says:

      12:42pm | 03/03/10

      Any Pensioner who votes for Abbott risks losing all the new benefits the Rudd government has bestowed, Remember Abbott opposed the Pension increases !!!

    • Steve of Cornubia says:

      12:46pm | 03/03/10

      So you’re still a Labor voter then, through and through. You’re just wishing for a Labor party that meets your requirements.

    • shere khan says:

      01:08pm | 03/03/10

      Rudd’s Government is filled with bureaucracy and soul-less blockheads (And I voted for him!)
      Our Country is falling about our ears with Bureaucratic stuff-ups.
      We have no decent Pollies on the horizon, what can we do?  We want an Independent with no ties to ALP or L/N Coalition, but preferences to The Greens.  the Greens however, must not pass their preferences on to ALP or L/N Coalition.

    • TB says:

      01:27pm | 03/03/10

      I plan on submitting a blank ballot this election, and probably every other one I participate in for the rest of my life. Not because I think that nobody is worthy of my vote, but because I’ve lost all confidence in the political process. It’s not that I don’t care about what happens to me or to my fellow citizen, it’s just that since the last grand charade of democracy (the last election) I have come to the following conclusions:

      i) Pretty much all politicians lack any form of relevant education (the best examples I can think of out of the present government are those absolute dunderheads Conroy and Garrett),
      ii) Politicians are probably the biggest bunch of self-serving egomaniacs (not exactly an epiphany),
      iii) Elected politicians generally don’t give a **** about their electorate (see point (ii)),
      iv) Democracy as we know it is an illusion.

      I’d never thought I would gain such dissatisfaction with democracy and politics so quickly.

    • persephone says:

      02:35pm | 03/03/10

      So you’re just going to sit on your hands and do nothing, and take that as a somehow virtuous position?

      It’s like that awful song ‘Waiting for the world to change” - I’ll just sit here and wait until someone else fixes things up, meanwhile I can’t be bothered doing anything.

      It’s frankly a cop out. It’s wimpy.

      Get active. Do something about it. Things have never changed by themselves, but through the action of individuals.

      Or shut up.

    • TB says:

      12:39am | 04/03/10

      You seem to have confused my disillusionment with apathy, Persephone. I apologise for not being more transparent. There are certain activist organisations with which I am affiliated, and I am doing my (currently) small part - I certainly am not just “sitting on my hands and waiting.”

      And how is my position “wimpy?” I certainly regard it as honest from my perspective. For here are my choices:

      (i) Vote at the next election, and by the very act support a system that I believe is broken beyond repair or,

      (ii) Don’t vote, and by the very act reject the aforementioned broken system.

      In my mind, action (i) would make me a colossal hypocrite. While action (ii) seems like an empty, futile gesture, it is only one component of my activism.

      And I’d also like an explanation as to why people think that the right to criticise government/politics/politicians is somehow reserved strictly to those who vote. I’ve gone over it in my head a couple of times, and to me the whole concept is a logical fallacy.

    • persephone says:

      08:39am | 04/03/10

      Because by chooisng not to vote, you have abbrogated a key responsibility.

      You’ve done the citizenship equivalent of storming off to your room and slamming the door because the system does live up to your standards.

      It really is a big call to say that because the system doesn’t operate the way you as an individual want it to, therefore its the system that’s wrong.

      Yes, democracy is a rather clumsy instrument. Representative democracy is even more clumsy. But it is not only the ‘best’ system anyone has come up with, but the empirical evidence is that its the ‘best’ system for people - the one that they’re happiest with, and under.

      It would be interesting to see what you think can replace it.

      As for the ‘broken’ nature of our democratic system, again, that’s been a complaint since democracy began.

      Politicians behave in certain ways because democracy demands that they do.

      It’s a trade like any other trade and its practitioners often behave in what seem like mysterious and counter productive ways because centuries of experience has shown that that’s what the trade demands.

      So, to address you points:

      i. It is impossible for anyone to have the kind of education for their role you’re talking about. To get elected, politicians have to have a broad range of knowledge on multiple topics. To specialise in one area would make them unelectable (for example, if all you bang on about is health, your constituents are going to want to know whether you know anything about education).

      Furthermore, being an expert in a particular area can blind you to the faults in the existing system and make you dismissive of other viewpoints.

      All a politician should have is an inquiring mind and the ability to listen to different points of view and ask the right questions.

      Unless you’re proposing that we pick our politicians from birth (“Oh, I think she’ll make a good Health Minister!”) and start training them from then, this problem can’t be solved.

      (ii) Yep. Because the job is very bruisng to the ego.

      Ask a local councillor, for example. Very small fish in the scheme of things, but they can’t go anywhere without someone noticing what they’re wearing, who they talked to, whether they drank too much beer, etc etc.

      You have to have a tough hide to go into politics. Egomaniacs have tough hides.

      Again, what alternative do you suggest? People who burst into tears and run away every time someone criticises their policy position?

      iii. Well, that’s where you can be active and make a change. You can force them to. (See my comments on voting at the start of this thread). You can go really beserk and support good candidates who think along the lines you like, thus putting pressure on the incumbent to lift their game. You can write nasty letters to the editor of the local paper, pointing out where the incumbent is failing. You can ring their office or email them and demand that they take their electorate seriously.

      iv. Yeah, man.

    • Matt says:

      01:34pm | 03/03/10

      I’m so sick of the double standard when it comes to calling people racist.

      On the one hand you accuse Howard of being racist because of the tough stance he took not letting other people decide could migrate to Australia without the Australian Government or people having a say in it. Maintaining the integrity of our national borders and determining our own immigration policy has nothing to do with race.

      Then you accuse him of pandering to white riffraff. Australian’s are mostly decent, honest, hardworking people whatever the colour of their skin. The white riffraff that you so casually offend played a very significant role in establishing the society we have today that makes it possible for you to be a freelance writer. Pull your head in Brendan.

    • VinceOZ says:

      01:47pm | 03/03/10

      The problem with our system is the preferential voting. Unless you vote for a major party you can end up voting for something like the idiot people hating Greens.
      As far as I’m concerned the only real mistake the Howard government made was taking away guns, that truly scares me. Otherwise, I’m voting Nationals.

    • formersnag says:

      05:54pm | 03/03/10

      @VinceOZ, wrong buddy, preferential voting is wonderful. It gives you the opportunity to vote #1, for “the shooters party”, #2 for “family first”, #3, for “the nationals”, #4, for “the liberals”, just put “the greens” last, “labour” 2nd last and all other candidates in between.

      As long as you have the major party, that you hate the most, numbered last, and the other major party ahead of them, then, if the minor parties or independents (that you might prefer) don’t get up, your preference vote goes to the major, party you prefer, over the major party you hate most of all.

    • Nicki says:

      01:53pm | 03/03/10

      People will have the government they deserve, if the people are stupid they will have stupid government, if the people are smart they will have smart government. You will get what you deserve. Around the world where people are educated,cultural,fair just,,caring,economical,practical and think not only about today but tomorrow , most of the time they elect government that will provide those things for them.  Every 3 years people have a chance for their wishes to come true.

    • Justin says:

      06:51am | 04/03/10

      Yes but what comes first, education of informed citizens who will choose the right government, or the right government that educates its citizens to be informed and make the right decisions? Both have to be improved at the same time. Unfortunately in Australia, our education system doesn’t create an informed citizenry that will ensure good governance. This encourages short term thinking by the incumbent government, as shown in the illustration above.

    • persephone says:

      09:41am | 04/03/10

      Justin - neither.

      The first thing you require is citizens who care.

      If they don’t, if they’re not interested, if - dare I say it - they’re pretty much happy with things as they are and dont’ think there’s any need to change, no amount of edumicating or information will change a thing.

      Don’t worry, citizens who aren’t happy usually find very effective ways of getting their point across.

      If most people are happy with the way they’re governed and you’re not, chances are that you’re the one who’s being unreasonable.

      I agree that people are far too apathetic about politics, but they have chosen to be. There’ s nothing stopping them being informed if they want to, and - providing they hung around at school until they were at least twelve - they will have had a good grounding in the way our system works.

    • Justin says:

      05:58pm | 04/03/10

      No you’re wrong about this Persephone. People are apathetic about politics in the first instance for two main reasons: (1) our education system and (2) the structure of our media. On the second point, we have two few owners of the main media networks, and our entertainment media is supporting and further deepening the apathy and listlessness of our public.

      When these two reasons direct the body politic towards a lack of interest in politics and policies, they will only vote in a government that supports the current system. That’s why we have short term thinking - governments that care more about reelection than making long term structural change.

      We need leadership that has the capability to rise above party politics and make the changes that will better prepare our future generations for some of the world’s greatest problems we already know about - nuclear proliferation, environmental degradation, third world poverty - and also create an informed and nimble citizenry to be be better prepared for problems we don’t yet know about.

    • Not Interested says:

      01:58pm | 03/03/10

      I have the same problem, but coming from the other side.  I’ve always been a Liberal voter, but can no longer bring myself to do it.  Thankfully, just before the last state election I moved house without telling the AEC and I got struck off the electoral role.  Now, I don’t have to vote.  I believe in democracy, there is just no one I want to vote for.

    • Harquebus says:

      02:03pm | 03/03/10

      It is the continuing erosion of our liberties which stops me from voting for the major parties. A Sex Party sounds good to me.

    • Public Record says:

      02:57pm | 03/03/10

      Don’t/won’t vote, eh. How responsible. Well, don’t complain then.

      Vote only for independents, eh. So somehow these fringe wallies are all smart, selfless and representative are they? Sure they are. Two hundred and twenty six S Fieldings running the country. Try and imagine that.

      As for interest rate rises, formersnag is a flat-out liar. The RBA reduction of the cash rate to sustained emergency lows was *part* of the recovery package. Now that’s being would back as we recover, as it must be, as the RBA, the Treasury, and every competent commentator have consistently explained.  Matter of public record. All rises *more* than RBA moves are big biz profiteering, pure and simple.

      We can start poking the Government about interest rates when they rise above the normal range. We’re still about 100 to 150 basis points (1 to 1.5%pts) *below* normal - as the RBA, the Treasury, and every competent commentator have also explained. All on the public record. 

      Still, when you can’t make your point with the truth, a few big fat fibs might do, eh, FS. Maybe no one will notice.

    • Zeta says:

      03:30pm | 03/03/10

      @ Public Record - Wait, there’s a ‘normal’ range for interest rates? Why didn’t anyone tell me? Here I was thinking interest was scam concocted by the banks to turn money into more money without actually doing anything with money. I thought the ‘normal’ amount of interest would be ‘zero’ on account of the very concept of interest being immoral, which is why the early Christian church the Koran both probhibit it.

      But then what would I know. I still think money is a lie created by banking conglomerates to justify the endless greed kick they have the world addicted too. A theoretical concept that only exists in the minds of people who want it, like quantum physics, or the career of Danii Minogue.

    • Marie says:

      04:38pm | 03/03/10

      I can understand why the Liberal Party does not publish policies. The Labor Party just picks them up, tweeks them and calls it their own. eg Health Suggestion to the Liberal Party, stop given the labor party ideas.

    • ab says:

      05:44pm | 03/03/10

      Vote Democrats: a wise alternative.

    • A-Bomb says:

      06:00pm | 03/03/10

      I have the same problem as the author. I don’t like the Liberal’s core privatisation and “user pays” health and education philosophy, although I am aware that Paul Keating started the privatisation thing. 
      As a Victorian I am angry and frustrated at the Labor party’s arrogance and contempt for any questioning of its policies or governance.
      The Greens would be a disaster if they ever formed a majority government, but before that happens they would cease to be recognisable as the Green party. So….

      Find an independent candidate you agree with, because if they get enough votes the AEC will give them a tidy sum for having a go. It’s kept Pauline Hanson out of the Centrelink queue for about a decade.

    • S.L says:

      07:23pm | 03/03/10

      Brendon Brown your profile here says you are a freelance writer but it didn’t say what planet you are from. Without the boredom of paraphrasing you, you say Labor didn’t support lifting tarrifs on books which would mean lower prices. What uni lecturer who’s never had a real job sold you the virtues of that crap? Every example of taffif reduction I’ve seen in the real world has meant loss of local jobs and higher prices. I worked for a company in the 80s who assembled imported goods from a TKD (totally knocked down)state. Us and the Argentina agent were the only two outside head office in Europe who did this and we both had better quality control than the home factory. In the early 90s some Einstien ended tarrifs on this product and overnight 20 people lost their jobs. A mate who still works their doesn’t mind though as he was transfered to the warranty section and he has more work 20 years later than he can poke a stick at!
      Also you mention the spending of the current government. Well it’s a pleasant change from the over taxing and finincial hoarding of the last lot. What infrastructure was started under their watch?
      I agree with your comment on single issue parties though.

    • Bonni says:

      12:10am | 04/03/10

      Labor equals failure, always has been and always will be. Rudd had his chance to achieve but he did a good job failing.

    • Ben says:

      09:58am | 04/03/10

      I find it interesting that in just over two years, the reality that Labor inherited an economy that is the envy of the world has been erased from peoples psyche and all that occurs is constant harking back to the ‘dark ages’ of the Howard government.

      No government is perfect, that should be blindingly obvious given the team we have in charge at the moment. Putting aside the usually evident political tendencies displayed on The Punch, even lifetime Labor and union fans must concede that we survived the GFC largely predicated on the strong financial platform presented to them on a platter. To claim they have been a force for any economic good is simply false.

    • S.L says:

      10:55am | 04/03/10

      Ben I’m not reffering to any great economic management by the Rudd government but what was the use of hoarding billions in surplus? David Koch has mentioned a few times government should be not for profit organisations.
      The Howard/Costello economic model was inherited from the much maligned Paul Keating. (minus the GST)

    • jimmy says:

      01:41pm | 04/03/10

      stick your head in the sand, keep up the good work influencing the labor
      party from the left (not) but dont blame anyone else when nothing changes for the better.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

@joekiely @pjlogue @franksting @cowoods I love 100. The dead man was known to the Garda.

Paul Colgan

A history of Ireland in 100 excuses http://t.co/YK5tblI6 cc @pjlogue @franksting @cowoods

Paul Colgan

Wow the official Chewbacca website looks like it was designed by... a wookie http://t.co/SCTBVbVt

Paul Colgan

@GrogsGamut We need a government quackdown

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Would you kill for a job?

Would you kill for a job?

Who would work in an abattoir? Most of us have done jobs we didn’t want to do because we needed…

Friday Dilemma: child cruelty or harmless fun?

Friday Dilemma: child cruelty or harmless fun?

Parenting. It’s the new oneupmanship. Ah, how quaint the days now seem when parents could raise…

Hipsters with hip replacements

Hipsters with hip replacements

Someone once told me that when people reach a certain age they begin dressing in the manner they did…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Punch on: Open thread 09/02/2012

marley says:

I'm one of the older ones, so I've certainly seen a few changes in my time. When I started school I learned to write with a nib pen, dipped in an inkwell (no, I'm not kidding). My mother became a dab hand at getting inkstains out of my clothes. Flicking ink at one another in the classroom was an essential… [read more]

From: I’d rather have a piece of toast than listen to crap lyrics

Erick says:

Led Zeppelin are responsible for my all-time favourite mixed metaphor: "There you sit, sit and stare, like a book on a shelf rusting." (Misty Mountain Hop) I laugh every time I hear it. Hmmm, I believe I've decided what to play on the way to work today. [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more

152 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter