All ready to go to the election with no-one to vote for

formersnag says:

11:30am | 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:

01:05pm | 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:

02:16pm | 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:

07:19pm | 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:

10:13pm | 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.

Seano says:

07:22am | 03/03/10

So unlike the a conservative, to be blinkered…

Macca says:

08:34am | 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:

01:42pm | 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.

Peter says:

09:02am | 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:

10:23am | 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:

10:51am | 03/03/10

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

And it’s a Dell.

Meh says:

11:56am | 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:

12:00pm | 03/03/10

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

Macon Paine says:

12:32pm | 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:

01:34pm | 03/03/10

@ Paully B
Cheers im glad someone got that reference!

George says:

07:10am | 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:

07:30am | 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:

07:42am | 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:

08:12am | 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:

08:19am | 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:

08:58am | 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:

09:31am | 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:

10:03am | 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:

12:01pm | 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:

12:50pm | 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:

01:22pm | 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:

01:31pm | 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:

03:26pm | 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:

04:10pm | 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:

05:06pm | 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?

Macon Paine says:

08:17am | 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:

08:34am | 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:

08:41am | 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:

01:17pm | 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:

10:41pm | 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.

woman says:

10:15am | 03/03/10

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

Eric says:

10:46am | 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:

09:29pm | 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.

Adam Diver says:

10:28am | 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.

persephone says:

08:23am | 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:

09:50am | 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:

10:46am | 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:

01:18pm | 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.

Gavin says:

09:04am | 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:

09:42am | 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:

10:07am | 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:

10:33am | 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:

10:54am | 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:

12:47pm | 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:

02:17pm | 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.

Seano says:

08:39am | 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:

08:56am | 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:

08:58am | 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:

01:08pm | 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.

Eric says:

09:00am | 03/03/10

Democracy is such a pain, isn’t it?

Pete from Sydney says:

09:28am | 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:

10:48am | 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:

06:11pm | 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?

acker says:

09:59am | 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:

10:29am | 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:

10:39am | 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:

10:55am | 03/03/10

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

Zeta says:

11:09am | 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.

persephone says:

10:57am | 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:

11:44am | 03/03/10

@ Persephone
Ouch! Harsh but true atm Persephone.

AdamC says:

11:55am | 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:

02:08pm | 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.

Henry says:

11:04am | 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.

Adam Diver says:

10:44am | 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:

11:02am | 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:

01:31pm | 03/03/10

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

luke09 says:

11:13am | 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.

Seano says:

01:25pm | 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?

Henry says:

12:03pm | 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:

01:26pm | 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:

02:22pm | 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:

05:12pm | 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.

Willy K says:

12:08pm | 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:

12:11pm | 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!

persephone says:

01:35pm | 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:

11:39pm | 03/03/10

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:

07:39am | 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.

formersnag says:

04:54pm | 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.

Justin says:

05:51am | 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:

08:41am | 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:

04:58pm | 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.

S.L says:

09:55am | 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)