Embittered Latham takes our democracy for granted

Dan says:

09:51am | 17/08/10

hmmmn, couple of popular myths there. Australia was never going to be invaded by Japan and the domino theory was bollocks

petem says:

11:13am | 17/08/10

I’m still digging the Reds out under my bed. Go Latham make them whine… and argue against freespeech…!

Bobster says:

11:17am | 17/08/10

War against Islam is a rather provocative way of putting it. I would prefer to think we are engaged in a war against religious extremists. Is it OK to be a violent fundamentalist if you’re Christian or Jewish?

And I agree with Dan, even Robert McNamara admitted the domino theory was completely ignorant.

But, on Eric’s point, what about the strikes at Broken Hill in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when the NSW Government sent armed strike breakers in because the miners had the temerity to demand reasonable working hours and safety equipment? Those were some fairly brave and stoic men and women there and people to whom all Australian workers are forever indebted.

Personally it doesn’t worry me if some people abstain (I’ve refused to vote in NSW elections in the past for the same reasons Latham puts forward), I’m of the opinion that if you don’t care (I once knew someone who voted Family First because the name sounded nice) you can stay out of it and not skew the result with your ignorance.

It’s up to the individual, the same freedom that allows us to vote should allow us to abstain and if enough of us abstain as to allow some real travesties, then I guess we’ve got what we deserved. 

But if you really care, give them hell and do it loudly and be sober and informed while you’re doing it.

Andrew says:

06:33pm | 17/08/10

1. People who start posts with expressions like “hmmmn” are up themselves.
2. The Japanese were invading everything left, right and centre, so it is obvious they would have done the same with Australia.

Eric says:

07:51pm | 17/08/10

Dan, I said “threatened”. Nobody at the time knew of Japan’s plans. And if Japan had won the war, Australia’s independence would not have lasted long.

As for the Domino Theory, I didn’t mention it. Please try to pay attention.

Bobster, I didn’t say “war against Islam”. I said “war against militant Islam”. There’s a difference.

And we are not currently under threat from violent extremists of Christian or Jewish religions. It’s the violent extremists of Islam who have murdered over a hundred Australians recently, and who continue to be a threat.

acotrel says:

10:24pm | 17/08/10

If Australia was never going to be invaded by Japan, why was my father bombed at Exmouth Gulf? The truth is the final decision was never made.  It obviously depended on opportunity, and after MacArthur got here that was greatly diminished!

Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

11:31pm | 17/08/10

Eureka Stockade was the 19th. centuries Cronulla riots. It was anarchy dressed up as an historic & heroic incident, next thing you’ll have Ned Kelly as hero instead of a back shooting coward that he was.

Kirk says:

06:29pm | 18/08/10

Australia was going to be invaded be Japan, the thing is though the British coudn’t have us believing that during the war as they wanted our resources devoted to tehir defense and not ours and after the war because if the truth came out then the resent that would be felt by Australia would cause a huge amount of resent and would most likely have led to us becoming a republic, thus denying the British the fine australian meat shields in the future. Much easier to deny everything.

Duff says:

08:56am | 17/08/10

DocBud, somebody has to run the country.  Maybe you are within your rights to lodge a blank ballot, but you are shirking your responsibility to the rest of us by opting out.  Democracy is a fragile thing and never perfect.  It is a whole lot better, however, when people take it seriously and one of the most important things you can do is simply cast your ballot for one of the parties on offer.  If you don’t like any of them, you pick the one you dislike the least.  At least in that way you move things forward in the direction you want them to be.

Amy says:

10:58am | 17/08/10

Actuallym DocBud, voting in this country is a right, *because* it’s compulsory.  Without compulsory voting, the silent majority would remain unengaged to the political process, a large number of people within the country could be prevented from voting by an outside force (like restrictive employers or even weather and transport), politicians could not engage in political issues, without first having to overcome the hurdle of getting people to vote in the first place and the same people would vote every time, meaning that one party would always be more successful. 

A true Democracy asks for its people to be engaged in the political process, and to educate themselves on the issues that matter to the entire country.

DocBud says:

11:19am | 17/08/10

“At least in that way you move things forward in the direction you want them to be.”

What it means, at best, is that things move slower in a direction I don’t want them to go.

A good start to reform the process would be optional preferential voting so that you are not forced to endorse a candidate who stands for things you are strongly opposed to in order for your vote to count.

DocBud says:

11:41am | 17/08/10

Amy,

If voting is voluntary, the silent majority can pick and choose whether or not it votes and wants to be heard. Being compelled to vote does not make one engaged in the political process. What it does do is demean the political process as parties know there are votes to be bought from those who don’t take an interest and so will vote for whoever promises them the most. Shameless pork-barreling in marginals is such a feature of Australian politics precisely because of compulsory voting.

In the modern day, any potential impediments to voting (including evil employers trying to corrupt the democratic process) can be overcome.

“the same people would vote every time, meaning that one party would always be more successful.”

Yep, that happens in all the countries that don’t have compulsory voting.

“A true Democracy asks for its people to be engaged in the political process, and to educate themselves on the issues that matter to the entire country.” The probelm with compulsory voting is those that respond to what a true democracy asks vote alongside those who are only voting to avoid a fine.

I’d suggest a true democracy would treat its citizens like adults, capable of applying their own judgement as to whether or not they wish to exercise their right to vote.

Duff says:

12:52pm | 17/08/10

DocBud, if the parties on offer are so repugnant to you because of all the spin, then at least mark your vote for the Sex Party.  At least they are offering the naked truth (boom crash).

meinsydney says:

06:59am | 18/08/10

I agree with DocBud re getting rid of compulsory preferential voting.  I would quite happily vote for the Greens or an independent on Saturday, however, the idea that I will have to vote for persons dealing with refugees in an inhumane manner, or anti-equal rights for gays and homosexuals bothers me a great deal.  Why should I be forced to vote for racists or homophobes?

Tracy, perhaps you just don’t understand how strongly some of us are opposed to off-shore processing of refugees, the “we will stop the boats” chants, and the “gays aren’t as good as heterosexuals and don’t deserve the same rights” rubbish.  Why should I be forced to vote for anyone who holds these fundamental views, that I am vehemently opposed to?  I find the idea that I have to support any person who holds these views repulsive and will have a very difficult time voting on Saturday.

Andrew says:

08:29am | 17/08/10

And Howard was the choice of leader until Kevin 07, at which point the Liberal party picked Nelson, then Turnbull, and now Abbott.

Can we really trust the liberals when their leaders have a shorter life expectancy in office than a soldier on the Western Front in 1916?

What a load of bollocks, honestly. If you’re goingt to make a point and proclaim yourself as ‘against the man’, and least have the cojones to say it straight up, rather than using weasally rhetoric.

DaisyDuke says:

09:39am | 17/08/10

The difference is that Krudd was voted in by the people. The electorate wanted Krudd yet he removed by “faceless men”. Nelson, Turnbull and Abbott were not voted into power by the people.

I believe the saying is “The PM belongs to the people, the opposition leader belongs to the party”

What was the point of Labor having a leader if it is just going ignore the mandate of the electorate and install whoever they want as leader?

Ginny says:

10:41am | 17/08/10

Andrew are you seriously comparing Nelson/Turnbull/Abbott to Latham? Latham is a loud mouth bully with no self respect. I feel sorry for him.

Hermoine says:

11:22am | 17/08/10

@Daisyduke - uhm, “The PM belongs to the people, the Opposition Leader belongs to the Party” was first used by either Tony Abbott or John Howard (or both) circa August 2010.  It’s hardly “so the saying goes” material, except if your sayings are written and authorised by Liberal Party headquarters.

Let’s just go back to the Howard Prime Ministership where the saying was “I will be Leader of the Liberal Party for as long as the Party wants me.”  The Party.  Not The People.  And, as a specific example, lets take September 2007 when John Howard asked Alexander Downer to ask his Cabinet colleagues whether JH should resign so they could have a better chance at the 2007 election. 

The Australian people vote for representatives in electorates and the Governor-General commissions Ministers to administer departments and advise him/her on the exercise of power.  They do not, in law, vote for the Prime Minister.  The Constitution has the Governor-General appointing a Council who will advise him/her and administer Departments.  It’s convention, custom and practice that the leader of the largest group of Members of the House of Representatives (or who can command the majority of votes in coalition or other arrangements) who is commissioned to form a Government. 

We don’t vote for and never have directly elected a Prime Minister.  We directly elect members of political parties and they choose who is their Leader.  In fact, Australia has ended up with Governments that they never voted for because the numbers on the House of Representatives supporting the elected Prime Minister changed.

iansand says:

11:54am | 17/08/10

Ginny - I don’t know Nelson, so can’t comment.  I do know Abbott and Turnbull.  Both are certainly loud mouthed, and both are prepared to bully if it suits their purposes.  They always have.  I first heard the line “Do you know who I am?” from Malcolm in a university cafeteria line when he tried to push in, and subsequent exposure over many years has not improved my opinion of him.  Abbott has also used bullying tactics since his days as a student politician.

stevem says:

11:57am | 17/08/10

Hermoine, in case you forgot the 2007 election didn’t have the slogan Labor ‘07 it was Kevin ‘07. It was the Labor party strategists who made the election ALL about the leader and not the party. It was those same strategists who stabbed Kevin ‘07 in the back saying it’s all about the party. They can’t have it both ways.

magnanimaus says:

04:52pm | 17/08/10

Hermoine.
Since this election campaign started i have read with interest the comments from all these know-it-all maggots who appoint themselves to stand up in front of the class and tell us all how the electoral process works - no doubt making the point that we are voting for a party and not a person because we are all dribbling morons and need these friendless intellectuals to point out the obvious.
People like you for instance.
Perhaps u could start up a new business - answering questions nobody asked - self-satisfied smug grin no extra cost.
You have a wonderful knowledge of the electoral system.
But you’re still a prat.

Chris L says:

06:58pm | 17/08/10

Now magnanimus, if you misunderstood how the system works don’t feel so bad and don’t attack the people who are trying to help you.

Johno says:

08:56pm | 17/08/10

<sarcasm> Yes, of course; anyone who actually knows how our electoral system works must be a “friendless intellectual”. After all, it’s such a confusing notion.</sarcasm>

Statements like magnanimaus’ highlight the reason we need to import so many skilled migrants, including doctors and engineers, to this country. Sadly, too many of the “native born” are proud of their ignorance and view anyone who is is literate and numerate as “elitist”.

Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

11:35pm | 17/08/10

Not forgetting that Ghoulia backed both Latham & Rudd, sounds like someone living so sort of purple haze to me

Reg says:

08:55am | 17/08/10

Quite right Steven, even the very thought of fiddling the voter interface bares to the world the dishonourable intentions of the Liberals and John Howard specifically.

While any TV channel that parades a village idiot for it’s side-show value in politics, should be charged with improper conduct and fined.

Reg says:

08:57am | 17/08/10

Quite right Steven, even the very thought of fiddling the voter interface bares to the world the dishonourable intentions of the Liberals and John Howard specifically.

While any TV channel that parades a village idiot for it’s side-show value in politics, should be charged with improper conduct and fined.

Bobster says:

11:19am | 17/08/10

You voted, you made the mess. Don’t blame those who stayed at home and had nothing to do with it.

Anyone who has lived in NSW over the past eight years and has lodged a ballot for either major party has nothing to complain about - it’s your fault, suffer the consequences.

This don’t vote then don’t complain argument is pure nonsense - don’t blame those with the sense to stay out of it for your stupid decisions.

Duff says:

01:01pm | 17/08/10

Yes, Bobster, better that none of us vote and nobody runs the country.  That way none of us are to blame!  We’d all go to our doom with clear consciences.

Bobster says:

01:28pm | 17/08/10

@ Duff, It comes back to the basic idea of democracy - we get the government we deserve.

If you care, if you think, then vote.

If you vote Green because it’s you favourite colour or Family First because you love your mum, I’d prefer you stayed out of it.

Last NSW election I had a screaming hangover, lived in an unshakeable Nationals seat and didn’t want a corrupt Labor Government or an incompetent Liberal Government.

So, safe in the knowledge my Green/FF/Independent vote would have no affect whatsoever, I watched Goodfellas. 

And lo, the next day, the sun rose.

Duff says:

02:01pm | 17/08/10

Bobster, actually, the LAST thing we want is for the people you describe to opt out of voting.  People with a sense of humour.  People who don’t take the process so seriously.  People who think most politicians are a bunch of tossers and maybe have a hangover on the day.  THESE are the people we need out and voting because they give the system balance.  They are normal.  We want normality.  And we want normality in our politicians, otherwise we end up like the Americans, waving little flags and keeping loaded weapons under our beds.

Bobster says:

02:19pm | 17/08/10

@ Duff,

I’m not telling them they can’t vote or even really that they shouldn’t, just that I don’t think wide-ranging ignorance is conducive to good government. This same problem caused even Socrates great concern - the will of the majority isn’t always correct or even smart, clever or considered.

My old next door neighbour (sadly deceased) was terribly disappointed with the our system because it precluded her from voting for Kevin Rudd at the last election.

Pointing out that she didn’t live in the seat of Griffith was a bit of a futile endeavour and, while I respect her right to vote, I question whether her contribution was useful.

Back to my point though - in a situation where every candidate is either a mad cocky, a mercantilist small businessman/poor man’s economist, a Labor apparatchik wannabe, a loony Green, self obsessed independent or a member of the Christian Taliban, and the outcome is already certain. What’s the point and why should I involve myself? In this case, I will - and did - opt to wash my hands of it.

However, I shall not be doing so on Saturday.

The Badger says:

09:53am | 17/08/10

“Lets try collaborative approaches - but then you have to remodel the Parliamentary sitting - they oppose each other, instead of sitting and looking in the one direction, together.”

I like it

If Labor win, we can look forward
If the Conservatives win we can look backward.

what confuses me is which way do we look if the greens or independents hold the balance of power?

Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.
Mark Twain

Reg says:

09:58am | 17/08/10

Your input calls to mind the greatest lesson in Democracy the Japanese ever learned.

General MacArthur, having built his authoritarian God-like image in the eyes of the Japanese, they were astounded and appalled when he was sacked by an authority even higher. 

The Prime Minister is a passing entity who is elected by his party and can be sent to the back bench as required. Let’s get over the idea that the PM is the greatest post in the land and immovable.

The division between capital and workers came out with the first fleet and was maintained as a social separation by those who regarded themselves as born to rule, not by the workers. The division was sharpened by the French Revolution 12 months later, providing a cautionary tale which then engendered a gradual softening of the separation by the “upper class” but which still waxes and wanes.

We can probably thank the French of 1789 for helping Australia avoid such a calamity.

Soultrader - from SA - Kingdom of Spin says:

12:00pm | 17/08/10

@Badger - obviously moving forward and yes we will is all you can see and hear. If you think that the ALP is your friend, then you are either high up in the union movement or related to somebody who is. Because they don’t give a frig about anybody outside their immediate circle of interest - a bit like the Libs.

@Reg
OK - it is not the highest post in the land. But it is head of state and represents the country.
Oh By the Way - Kevin07 was what? A vote for ALP or the fresh new unknown face of KR. The campaign was based around 1 man for 1 job. The voters agreed and voted for the party, led by KR. But then his ego jeopardised the re-election of the Labor Party. And basically when you get down to it, it is only about the party in power, not the person in charge, or at the front of the photo opps.
As for maintaining class division, the French Revolution did happen quite a while ago now. Can we move on? Not all the wealthy bosses are cruel task masters, not all employees are downtrodden and oppressed. Lets step into the light

Michael says:

04:18pm | 17/08/10

Actually, SoulTrader, the PM isn’t the head of state either.  Pursuant to the Australian Constitution, that title and position is reserved for a certain lady esconced with a coterie of small dogs (and corgis) in a rather large and ornate stone dwelling in the middle of London, or, as is more likely with each passing day, her rather oddball son who talks to plants and has expressed a desire to be reincarnated as a tampon.  The Governor-General, quite coincidentally another lady esconced with a coterie of small Masterchef contestants in a rather large and ornate dwelling, stands as said English lady’s representative, carrying (as 1975 showed) a rather large Constitutional stick with which to carry out castigation of rebellious Colonial governments.  All hail the Queen of Australia!

Hamish says:

10:43am | 17/08/10

Well said Angela. People are very silly when it comes to democracy because they think the idea of democracy is to get the best government, or the government they want the most. The idea of democracy is to get a government you can tolerate. By tolerate, I mean you don’t grab a gun and hit the streets or start looting and rioting. Australia’s preferential, Westminster system is very much based around this notion. It’s why Australia is so stable. And why people never like the government, but can tolerate it.

In the words of the PETA guy from South Park - ‘it’s always between a giant dusche and a turd sandwich.’

Reg says:

06:19pm | 17/08/10

Angela I share your passion and disgust that even a small portion of Australians should so under-appreciate the Democratic system of which they are part, as to dismiss it as not worth their time and consideration.

Hundreds of millions of people have died trying to achieve the right to participate in this process and yet we have an electoral drop-out of doubtful integrity, trying to sabotage it.

One of the major US problems is that it does not have compulsory voting thus allowing small sections of the community to take control and misrepresent the whole country. Even the most recent election with its record turnout did not represent the whole US population. Compulsory voting is one of those things that is necessary to minimise the problems of a democracy being wrested into the hands of a minority and the very reason for two party politics.

The Coalition is an example of two minorities setting some of their differences aside to offer a unified front.  In power, this means that those differences will probably never be addressed because they would cause disunity. Such differences are of vital interest to the community for no other reason that they represent areas of inaction in government.

Gerard says:

12:20am | 18/08/10

It’s said that if voting could actually change anything it would be illegal.
This would explain why optional voting is currently illegal in Australia.

Under the current compulsory voting system, the votes of those who want to make a difference are buried under a deluge of votes by those who couldn’t give a toss, those who don’t understand what they’re voting for and those who vote for a particular party out of habit. The “right” to vote in modern Australia is virtually worthless- certainly not worth dying for. The major parties are quite happy for this to continue, because it gives them a monopoly (well, a duopoly) on parliament until the voting system is changed- which of course it won’t be because it’s not in their interests.

As for getting a ‘tolerable’ government, is the government tolerable because they’re not that bad- or because of the knowledge that you participated in the process that brought them to power? Just asking.

Reg says:

09:19am | 18/08/10

Gerard, I’m sure you can’t be serious with your casual default position that authoritarianism is the only real option for Australian voters. That voting is redundant?  At least I see your were not so shallow as to suggest first-past-the-post voting. Yet without your mentioning preferential voting your argument is incomplete, Gerard. 

Lest we start a rash of this, as an example, without preferential voting, 10% of the voters choice could hold government while 90% preferred someone else. 

One could even build a case against the propriety of Coalition government as two minorities colluding to mis-representation their credentials to the electorate.

Station says:

02:29pm | 17/08/10

So true. I have worked at polling booths before, and trust me, when you are counting ballot papers, and you come across a blank one, the last thing anyone thinks is “Wow, here’s someone really sticking it to The Man.” It just gets dumped on the pile of ‘Informal’ papers, along with the nutjobs who write obscenities all over their papers. The total number of informal votes are recorded, but the AEC certainly doesn’t differentiate between blank “I’m sending a message to the pollies” votes and scribbled-on “I’m an imbecile” ballot papers.

Gerard says:

11:50pm | 17/08/10

The AEC won’t differentiate between different types of informal votes, but they do keep records of the numbers of informal votes, and this information is available to the public. It should be pretty obvious if there’s a big increase in deliberate informal voting now that Latham’s opened his mouth on the subject.

Bobster says:

06:08pm | 17/08/10

What? She should be judged for writing an opinionated opinion piece?

Tracy is wrong of course in that what Latham did was not illegal but can we stop with the communist rubbish already. It’s so 1960 and it makes you sound like a fool.

Next person to use the word communist loses.

The Badger says:

01:03pm | 17/08/10

I doubt whether he could have taken a punch.