Prev
Next

My vision for the future of Australia is… yours

Peter Best

by Peter Best

23 Jul 06:00am

Must Reads

Facebook’s being a boob over breastfeeding pics - this is a caption

Facebook’s being a boob over breastfeeding pics

100

Don’t blame the beautiful game for riot shame - this is a caption

Don’t blame the beautiful game for riot shame

35

Can you be a “different kind of girl” when you’re 53? - this is a caption

Can you be a “different kind of girl” when you’re 53?

22

Filed under: Election 2010, Peter Best, Politics, Spin

41 comments

People stop me in the street all the time and say, “Peter, what on earth are you doing?” And if they don’t then I stop them in the street and they say the same thing.

The point is running for Prime Minister is a tough gig. The hours are long, the work often thankless and you know that chances are no matter what you do nearly half the people in the country are going to hate you.

But I decided to enter this race for a reason, and I carry that reason with me every single day I’m out there.

And that reason is simple: Nobody believes in anything anymore.

You see, it used to be that politicians and political parties stood for something. You might not have liked what they stood for but at least you knew what it was.

Labor used to be the party of the worker; Liberal used to be the party of free enterprise. Labor was compassionate; the Libs were tough. Labor spent money on health and education; the Coalition cut spending and focussed on economic growth.

And so when elections came around there was a genuine debate about ideas and values and believes and policies. It was a chance for people to have a good old fashioned argument about what was best for the country. Of course you didn’t agree with both parties – that’s the whole bloody point: You had a real choice.

But what have we got now? We’ve got a left-wing Prime Minister backed by a pro-refugee union leader who is dragging the ALP to the right on asylum seekers. That’s not real.

And we’ve got a neo-con Opposition Leader who wants to force welfare recipients to the other side of the country now saying that he doesn’t want to change the Fair Work Act. That’s not real.

So why are these two so-called “leaders” going around saying this stuff if they don’t even believe it?

It’s because that’s what they think people want them to believe. That’s what they think people want them to say.

Well, I thought to myself, what crap.

If you’re not going to believe in anything strong enough to stick to it, then at least be honest about it. That’s what I did.

And if you’re going to do what the people want, then you should at least be upfront about that too.

And maybe you should start by asking them what they want.

So that’s why I have entered this campaign: So that you, the people, have a real voice. You don’t have people trying to second-guess what you’re looking for or trying to sneak through policies without you noticing.

It’s simple: You tell me what to do, and I’ll do it. If you want fixed paid maternity leave that’s what I’ll fight for. If you want companies to pay a carbon tax I’ll fight for that too. If you change your mind I’ll fight for the other side.

Maybe I’ll win this race and become PM, maybe I won’t. But at least my two competitors will see what a true voice of the people looks like.

And maybe when they realise they can’t be more popular than me they might try sticking to their principles instead.

Disclaimer: Peter Best is a perfect politician and therefore can’t possibly be real. We really wish he was though.

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

Get The Punch on Facebook

Most commented

326Is it sexist? We've got nothing to compare it to
305Dog ownership laws a load of total bullpit
298It takes selective memory to call Howard era a golden age
296Why do our universities teach shonky "magic"?
249Gillard's mapping a route but will probably still be routed
172Friday dilemma: Should smacking be illegal?
170A comedy of errors that's not very funny
163Julia Gillard is on the highway to the danger zone

41 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      08:13am | 23/07/10

      I’d vote for this candidate. After all, democracy through polling is better than an autocracy elected every three years, then left to do whatever it feels like.

      Our system of representative democracy has deep flaws that mean governments can rarely carry out the people’s wishes.

      Suppose for example that you favour both policies A and B. The Labor candidate in your electorate is for A and against B. The Liberal candidate is for B and against A. No matter who you vote for, you will not be able to express your real wishes through your vote.

      Some other countries try to ameliorate this problem through citizen-initiated referendums. That might be a good course for Australia, too.

      Reply

    • John A Neve says:

      08:48am | 23/07/10

      Eric,
      For once we agree!!! Our current system is deeply flawed, so what can we do about it? Well for a start we could send the major parties a message by voting for Independents or one of the minor parties. Or we could just not vote at all.

      We could also cap the amount spent by any candidate or spent on their behalf. It could be legistlated that registered political parties stand candidates in all seats, so the voters could exercise their rights. A right to a citizen initiated referendum could be incorporated into our Constitution.

      There are many ways we could improve the system, but sadly we won’t, we’ll just keep whinging.

    • Mary says:

      09:29am | 23/07/10

      Could be the answer but I lean towards the aboltion of preferential voting. The fact that I can’t guarantee where my vote will end up is a concern. Increasingly, voters are in the dark with small factional parties and independents: especially the independents. They promise the world but have no power. Their votes can be cast according to their whim. Independents should have to declare their allegiance so voters know which party they really are voting for. Independent Z promises Policy A but Z’s votes go to the party that is offering policy B without the voter knowing this. Open to manipulation by major parties.

    • iansand says:

      09:42am | 23/07/10

      Mary - You can vote however you want.  Ignore the How To Vote cards and vote below the line in the Senate.  The problem with that is that, once you actually seek out the policies of all those little parties, working out who to put last.

    • People are stupid. says:

      10:17am | 23/07/10

      Democracy through polling is a bad idea because people are morons.

      People should be told what to like and the reasons for liking it.

      People don’t have the faintest concept of contractionary and expansionary economic policies let alone when each one should be used and wouldn’t know of the money multiplier effect if it bit their elbow.

      People don’t understand how the greenhouse effect works and some are doubtful of it’s existence. They are not environmental scientists.

      Democracy by polling it like asking a child what it wants for dinner. The child will say pizza or lollies. A proper parent feeds it lean meat and vegetables and tells it to eat it or go without and send it to it’s room for being disobedient.

    • James1 says:

      11:27am | 23/07/10

      100 percent agree Eric.  That is the exact position I find myself in every single election.

    • Brad Price says:

      04:30pm | 24/07/10

      @People are stupid.

      You sound like the leader of a socialist political party. We used to have one here once. It’s called the Labor Party. Perhaps you should change to the Greens who have filled the vacuum of misplaced lefties and their radical ideas.

    • Evan Findlay says:

      09:14pm | 25/07/10

      John A Neve,
      No offence mate but is there any other songs in your repertoire. You apply the same response to every question, and whilst your point has merit it is politically naive to think that it will ever succeed.
      The most substantial element of your argument is your final sentence and reciprocally it vindicates my point.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      09:00am | 23/07/10

      Yeah right, I can see the citizens poll now- more middle class welfare, no new taxes and let’s defer the hard decisions until later. Citizen initiated referendums could be the reason why California is a basket case or it could be that it is simply California. Mind you, I’ve never met a politician who could make the hard decisions either, so I couldn’t tell you what the solution is.

      Reply

    • BobM says:

      11:14am | 23/07/10

      ‘more middle class welfare, no new taxes and let’s defer the hard decisions until later’

      Sounds a lot like Labor’s policies.

    • DeadMyAzz says:

      11:39am | 23/07/10

      We are all fed up with “working families” getting all the goodies. The singles and empty nester’s and elderly get nothing. If want to give it all to one section of the community the rest of us should not have to pay taxes.

    • Reg says:

      09:23am | 25/07/10

      DeadMyAzz, I read your words to indicate that you are NOT one of the working families or anything at all now that I read on. I’m OLD and lost 60% of my savings to the Australian Business Sector in the financial collapse. One of which is a prominent insurance company that now promises to punish people younger than fifty for being inexperienced. Oh hang on, they put it the other way. those OLDER than 50 are so much more experienced that can have insurance at cut rates. That’s BUSINESS stratification. Perhaps the government should supply Meals on Wheels with wine on the side to 21 year olds?

    • Evan Findlay says:

      09:23pm | 25/07/10

      BobM,
      The only policy the Liberal party implements is middle class welfare. Baby bonus, FHG, 30% rebate for private heath, inflation bearing tax cuts (Just not for small or large business though) Paid Parental scheme is a tax and other than the GST name other economic or tax reforms of the Howard/Costello government.
      More delusional rantings Bob!!!

    • LMB says:

      09:03am | 23/07/10

      The imaginary Peter Best is far from the perfect politician - he’s just the ultimate populist - a terrible kind of politician.

      While having an ‘ear to the ground’ is not only important but essential, just acting upon these soundings is hardly a smart method of governing.

      The reason governments don’t fully follow this approach is not necessarily because they can’t - it’s because it’s bad governance. C’mon, any drone can do what someone else tells them to. Is what they are being told to do actually right?

      Established instruments of government provide our executive with greater insight into running a country - these instruments may complement or contradict the voice of the electorate, and so we should supposedly see governments make ‘tough decisions’ (unfortunately, another politically-hijacked term) from time to time.

      The key is to balance the will of the people with the broader interests of the country.

      rant complete

      Reply

    • John A Neve says:

      11:10am | 23/07/10

      LMB,
      Just what is the difference between “the will of the people” and “the broader interests of the country”?
      Surely “the people” are the country? Without people all you have is land.

    • Steely Dan says:

      01:44pm | 23/07/10

      Agreed, LMB.

      This is populist nonsense completely devoid of actual solutions.  I’ve got no problem with the article pointing out the (very obvious) flaws in the parties’ policy or conduct, but anybody who thinks this candidate would be worth voting for is being ridiculous.

      Thankfully, by election day most people have snapped out of the delusion that voting for Honest Joe Utopia of the ‘I Don’t Lie And Puppies Are Wonderful’ Party achieves anything more than proclaiming your indifference.

      Unless you’re casting an informal (or you can OPV), one of the majors gets the full benefit of your vote anyway.  Protest voting for a minor party/independent first does give feedback to the majors, but only if your chosen minor/independent actually stands for something a party can actually implement.  Populism isn’t policy, it’s just whinging.

    • Rosie says:

      09:34am | 23/07/10

      Sorry Peter but it is people like yourself and the media that confuse the issue even more for those that are waiting to hear what they want from the two major parties and their leaders. Give us some credibility and let us judge for ourselves.

      What I don’t understand are my female counterparts who are voting Labour because Julia Gillard is of the same gender. It is such a poor shallow excuse when in the 21st century we have access to all that has been said and done by the two major parties and their leaders, eg Adelaide where in today’s Advertiser the headline reads something like this; “Abbott scorned by female voters.” I have never in my life feel so embarrassed to be of the same gender and the only excuse I can think of is that these women sometime in their lives have been hard done by our men folk.

      Reply

    • Reg says:

      03:03pm | 25/07/10

      Sorry to be so similarly shallow Rosie, but is it just possible that she has a quick wit and a shining personality despite the efforts of the Liberals to depict her as something less?  You sell your gender short my dear. smile

    • Jules says:

      09:44am | 23/07/10

      Pwah! Is it right what they say about bald guys and testosterone? If it is… Pwah!!!! That’ll get the fertility rate up!

      Reply

    • iansand says:

      09:47am | 23/07/10

      One problem with government by poll is providing the populace with all the information necessary to make correct decisions.  Without that we would be swayed by our incompetent (or deliberately venal) media.  You cannot trust the media to provide balanced or accurate material. 

      We will never have all the economic data required to make appropriate decisions, or the expertise to analyse it.  The same with foreign policy - there is material that could never be released to the public.  And so with all other atreas of government.

      It is why we subcontract the process of government to those whom we permit to govern us, and only worry ourselves every three years.

      Reply

    • John A Neve says:

      10:44am | 23/07/10

      Iansand,
      Not true, we “worry ourselves” (whinge), all the time. It matters not who is in power, the others could always do better. It matters not that we elected them, whatever is wrong is their fault.
      Short of trying the ideas I’ve suggested above, a benign dictatorship is the only way to go.
      Democracy, Just what is that?

    • iansand says:

      11:38am | 23/07/10

      Yeah, but you worry yourself in the midst of a swamp of misinformation.  Or a vacuum of information.  No one can make a correct decision in those circu,mstances, except by good luck.  I am prepared to accept that this is the current situation but that the luck or otherwise is confined to those whom we permit to govern us.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      02:55pm | 23/07/10

      Benign dictatorship is better than democracy - the problem is keeping it benign

    • Kordez says:

      10:54am | 23/07/10

      Giving Australians what they want… lol! Just Crazy!

      Reply

    • Nicole says:

      10:56am | 23/07/10

      So, anything and everything I want I’ll get??? Excellent. I’ll just go and put my wish list together. And I tell you what Mr Best, if I don’t get it, look out !

      Reply

    • AK says:

      10:57am | 23/07/10

      Sorry must have slept, which party is this guy with? I can’t find any policies to get behind, what do i want? I want to live in a house made of chocolate

      Reply

    • john says:

      05:12pm | 23/07/10

      Chocolate houses for everyone!

    • iansand says:

      11:44am | 23/07/10

      I was just thinking - Ms Gillard’s climate policy is apparently to have another chat with a few people a bit down the track.  A 2023 Summit, I suppose.  Perhaps she is adopting this policy.

      Reply

    • S.L says:

      11:52am | 23/07/10

      I wondered what happened to Peter Best since Ringo Star replaced him on drums for the Beatles!

      Reply

    • Dave Sag says:

      12:05pm | 23/07/10

      So the media tell us what we want Peter Best to be via a sham of democracy. Hooray. Nothing to see here folks, move on. 

      Would Peter Best have fought the Nazis?

      Reply

    • Sheedy's Left Foot says:

      01:02pm | 23/07/10

      Make the number of votes everyone has based on merit. and knowledge of the issues.

      You are someone who votes pary x because your Dad always voted party x is 1 vote
      You are somepone who has an appreciation of the issues facing Australia and understands a little of what is going on economically, socially, politicaly and technologically you get 10 votes, or a lsiding scale back to 1 based on what you know.

      The problem with one person one vote is that it makes a level playing field when in all reality the decision is slightly more important than that.

      Reply

    • Jack says:

      01:25pm | 23/07/10

      This just made me groan.

      The point about politicians is that we elect them as much for their judgement as we do for their representation of us. After all, you can’t be everything to everyone.

      Reply

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      03:00pm | 23/07/10

      I would vote for this candidate too!
      All our politicians, Federal, State & Territory, claim they want to do what is best for Australia & the People.
      Take the Federal Parliament. After this farce of “An Election for No Good Reason” is over why can’t all the politicians sit down, put their Party Political bullshit, Political Point Scoring & all the other nonsense they indulge in, to one side and calmly, collectively & intelligently (Yes, some of them are just that) discuss & enact laws which are Best For Australia?
      Like them or loath them the previous Coalition Government was, overall, very, very successful on the economic front, just as it was inhumane, cruel & sadistic when it came to those pesky people coming in on leaky boats without passports or visas. They lasted for what? 11 or 11.5 years.
      The ALP Government had some good ideas. Maybe they had too many & that was the cause of their problems.
      Why is it that under our system all the good brains, when in Opposition, be they Coalition or ALP , who have wrought such magic for this country over the years are suddenly put out to pasture by the in-coming government? Why are they denigrated and constantly put down as if they had done nothing of any substance or benefit to Australia nor had the ability to continue to contribute?
      Both the major Parties do it.
      Why are we not using the combined strengths of all Parties?
      Why do we. the People, have to put up with weak, ineffectual, unintelligent morons holding positions of great power when there are other elected people who have all the qualifications, effectiiveness, intelligence & brains which think clearly & can make sensible decisions &, for the most part stick to them & get the Parliament of Australia to endorse them. With, of course, the proviso that if the implementation of the legislation, after say 2 or 3 years, results in undesirable outcomes that the legislation can be tweaked, altered, re-regulated?
      Industrial Relations is a point in question. The Parliament passed the ALP’s FairWork IR Legislation. On the surface it appears to be good legislation but, & I think even the most die-hard ALP supporter would agree, until this legislation has been fully tested & put into actual practice within the workforce itself no-one will know whether or not it unfairly discriminates for, or against, either employer or employee. No legislation or the regulations attached to it are perfect. It has to be tested & both employees & employers given the chance to comment upon it’s effectiveness. To really iron out the problems probably requires a 2-3 years trial. If Abbott had prepared his speech properly I think this is exactly what he meant to say.

      Reply

    • Soames says:

      05:59pm | 23/07/10

      One can always rely on the political handbook for politicians, of which they feel no need;  the Yes Minister series,  to provide most political answers, i.e,

      “If people don’t know what you’re doing, they don’t know what you’re doing wrong.

      “Two kinds of government chair correspond with the two kinds of minister: one sort folds up instantly and the other sort goes round and round in circles.”

      “It is sometimes difficult to explain to Ministers that open government can sometimes mean informing their Cabinet colleagues as well as their friends in Fleet Street.”

      “Minister’s language: ‘We have decided to be more flexible in our application of this principle’ means ‘We are dropping this policy but we don’t want to admit it publicly.

      “Politicians must be allowed to panic. They need activity. It is their substitute for achievement.”

      “The argument that we must do everything a Minister demands because he has been ‘democratically chosen’ does not stand up to close inspection. MPs are not chosen by ‘the people’ - they are chosen by their local constituency parties: thirty-five men in grubby raincoats or thirty-five women in silly hats. The further ‘selection’ process is equally a nonsense: there are only 630 MPs and a party with just over 300 MPs forms a government and of these 300, 100 are too old and too silly to be ministers and 100 too young and too callow. Therefore there are about 100 MPs to fill 100 government posts. Effectively no choice at all.”

      The Official Secrets Act is not to protect secrets, it is to protect officials.

      “It is only totalitarian governments that suppress facts. In this country we simply take a democratic decision not to publish them”.

      And in support of Mr. Rudd’s persona, paraphrasing, from Sir Humphrey,

      “Certain informal discussions took place involving a full and frank exchange of views, out of which there arose a series of proposals which on examination proved to indicate several promising lines of inquiry which when pursued lead to the realisation that the alternative courses of action might in fact in certain circumstances be susceptible of discrete modification, leading to a reappraisal of the original areas of difference and pointing a way to encouraging of compromise and co-operation, which if bilaterally implemented with appropriate give and take on both sides might if the climate were right would have a reasonable possibility, at the end of the day of leading rightly or wrongly to a mutually satisfactory resolution.

      Installing Cabinet Ministers: the 5-stage formula
      1. The administration is in its early months and there’s an awful lot to do at once.
      2. Something ought to be done but is this the right way to achieve it?
      3. The idea is good but the time is not ripe.
      4. The proposal has run into technical, logistic and legal difficulties which are being sorted out.
      5. Never refer to the matter or reply to the Minister’s notes. By the time he taxes you with it face to face you should be able to say it looks unlikely if anything can be done until after the election.”

      “The Opposition aren’t really the opposition. They are only the Government in exile. The Civil Service are the opposition in residence. “

      “Civil Service language: ‘Sometimes one is forced to consider the possibility that affairs are being conducted in a manner which, all things being considered and making all possible allowances is, not to put too fine a point on it, perhaps not entirely straightforward.
      Translation: ‘You are lying’.”

      “The Prime Minister doesn’t want the truth, he wants something he can tell Parliament.

      One is tempted to say, the more things change, the more they say the same. But one resists this temptation.

      Reply

    • DD Ball says:

      06:11pm | 23/07/10

      It is misrepresentative of Mr Abbott’s policies to say that he doesn’t want to fix the problems that many acknowledge exist with Fair Choices. Mr Abbott has promised not to do so in a first term of his government, which is fair, considering he can still improve things through administrative, not legislative means. You are right to point out that Gillard stands for nothing that anyone can believe. The sad fact is the Liberals lost government partly on Work Choices, and so time must pass, and this electoral cycle is not the right one for the Liberals, but if the ALP choose to fix up their bad mistakes they could do so right now.

      Reply

    • stephen says:

      12:54pm | 24/07/10

      Don’t agree. Who needs vision is the rest of us. The People, in our own lives and in everyday dealings with each other.
      I want my Politicians to be sensible, careful and jolly toward important guests.
      Our Economics and Foreign Policies should take precedence over all talk of ‘vision’, or ‘moving forward’ or some such tripe, and i don’t trust pollies who need crystal-balls. (Or any other sort, fer that matter).

      Reply

    • Timmo says:

      01:27pm | 24/07/10

      Now the Boat people problem could be fixed very quickly by the Anti boat people liberals. If they win the election they could very quickly convert Christmas Island into another Nazi type concentration camp and just make them disappear. They could do the same in centrelink as well. Just think, no more dole bludgers, pensioners and other bludgers on the system. Then all that money saved could be put to good use by promoting really really good government. Now all you Liberal Nazis out there would agree with that wouldn’t you?. Come on admit it, you’d love it. The punch would support it as it is noticable that they support the Liberal Nazis on here. Now, how could the so called Labor Commos beat that for a policy on the run.

      Reply

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      08:53pm | 25/07/10

      I’d be in favor of a covert operation against Goldman Sachs…...

    • Teri says:

      06:33pm | 25/07/10

      A lot is said above and I agree that we dont really have the best people standing for election.  Our choices of whom to elect are very limited.  We have an ultra right wing canditate and a union appointed left winger.  We need a person who governs for all of us.  The greens have disapointed as they didn’t work with the present Government to achieve a suitable climate policy most people in this country want.

      Reply

    • Peter Best says:

      11:13am | 30/07/10

      Hey, I’m the real PETER BEST and I’m representing the Greens in WA. I have real policies and a vision for the future. The election campaign gives me the opportunity to talk with people about their values. I hope to encourage people to make their decisions in life consciously, aware of all the implications, for their relationships, for the environment, for the community. See my blogs at http://greens4tangney.blogspot.com/  and   http://comobeach.blogspot.com/

      I’m really interested in the responses your’e getting from people in this participatory democracy exercise ... and can I have my name back, please?

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Colgo 07 Feb 12 07:22PM

RT @latikambourke: Yes, @PeterSlipperMP is genuine.

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 07 Feb 12 06:41PM

It's terribly unfashionable to admit but my Cityrail train just left on time again

Paul Colgan

Colgo 07 Feb 12 06:16PM

Can't believe this yoghurt mob thought they'd get away with the John Butler trio sound-a-like http://t.co/Hn0rMchs

tory_maguire

_Tors 07 Feb 12 04:37PM

Irritated by barrage of articles about mummy guilt, mums in crisis blah blah blah. Am I only noticing now or is this a newish avalanche?

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Interest rate barney barely even rates as interesting

by Tory Shepherd

59

Interest rate barney barely even rates as interesting

Stop all the cheering, cut off the champagne. Prevent the pollies from barking and silence the drums.…

Life slips away while you’re filming it on your phone

by Tory Maguire

70

Life slips away while you’re filming it on your phone

Some friends of mine had lunch on Saturday with a mate who spent so much time artfully composing photos…

Other stuff to be angry about today (with chorizo pic)

by Anthony Sharwood

34

Other stuff to be angry about today (with chorizo pic)

That dopey Spaniard. Three-time Tour de France winner Alberto Contador has been banned for two years,…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: City vs country: What would you change your life for?

Dieter Moeckel says:

We made the tree change from Darwin to Wonbah more than 15 years ago. After fencing, a road, and couple of dams our money was gone. Super is enough to live comfortably. We have geese growing old and stringy the only one that made it to the pot committed Kamakazi by flying into a tree; the chooks are… [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]

Light weight

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

150 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed