Prev
Next

The moral of this story is politicians are immoral

James Arvanitakis

by James Arvanitakis

16 Aug 05:40am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Julia Gillard, London Riots, Morality, Politicians, Politics, Tony Abbott

36 comments

I have a regular segment on a community radio station in Sydney that often takes its subject matter from listeners’ email requests.

At least ours aren't THAT bad. Pic: Daily Mail

Unsurprisingly, this week I received a number asking me to explain the causes of the London riots.

My initial response was that the causes are complex, and we should ignore the many knee-jerk reactions emerging.

Yes, there are thugs and looters. Yes, there is a certain degree of anger built up because of unemployment levels and austerity measures. And yes, there is a section of the British population who have no experience of hope: their outlook is so bleak that such actions are undertaken without consideration for the future.

I wanted to emphasise that none of this excused what was happening: it was just that it will take a while to understand the complex mix of issues that led to these events.

The one thing British politicians from Prime Minister David Cameron and Opposition Leader Ed Miliband down have been citing is today’s young people lacking of moral fibre. Here is what David Cameron said during the emergency sitting of the House of Commons:

“We will restore a stronger sense of morality and responsibility – in every town, in every street and in every estate.”

Morality is an issue that many politicians seem all too ready to draw on when judging others, but the truth is moral disintegration is something that begins in the highest levels of societies. The moral compass is something that is easy to talk about, but can only be portrayed through actions.

There are many examples of British politicians failing the morality test with the MP expenses scandal an obvious one.

Likewise in Australia, many of our political leaders have shown a lack of moral fibre.

If we begin with the Prime Minister, she has failed to acknowledge that she broke her no carbon tax pledge. As an economist, I support the need to place a price on negative externalities including pricing pollution, something that we have failed to do adequately so far.

But the Prime Minister needs to honestly acknowledge her changed position.

Likewise, we have seen the Opposition Leader clearly state his support for a carbon tax, then in Monty Pythonesque-type style, simply argue that’s not what he said.

Both the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader have shown no moral fortitude when it comes to refugees.

Both Gillard and Abbott have attempted to make political mileage from some of the world’s most vulnerable people rather than take a position that would solve some of the problems at their very source.

For example, there is more effort in the ludicrous Malaysian, Pacific and Papua New Guinea solutions, than putting pressure on the Sri Lankan government to end the persecution of the Tamil population.

We do not have to look far to see the way morality has made way for political expediency.

Abbott supports the false advertising campaign against the pre-registered limits on poker machines. Scott Morrison made political mileage out of the Christmas Island refugee tragedy. Political donations continue to influence the major parties. Our democracy is for sale.

Tony Abbott argues that when elected Prime Minister, his first phone call will be to the President of Nauru to re-open the refugee detention centres.

Maybe while they are chatting, Mr Abbott can also chat about Australia’s moral obligation to Pacific nations who are most vulnerable to human induced climate change: something that the President of Nauru has noted many times.

Then there is the way our economic realities have given way to our moral obligations: Australia continues to have a thriving arms export industry. According to Austrade, Australia’s arms trade is estimated to exceed $600 million: where is the morality in that?

Then there is the decision by Treasurer Wayne Swan to rule out placing any ethical guidelines on Australia’s $74 billion Future Fund - even though it has invested in firms producing ‘cluster bombs’.

This is made worse by the way that the Australian government has found a way to skirt around the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions. While Australia is one of more than 100 countries to have signed the convention (including many of our allies), the US remains the key exception.

In attempting to keep onside with our most powerful military ally, the government drafted legislation filled with loopholes that undermine both the spirit and intention of the convention. This is because the proposed legislation paves the way for our forces to assist in activities that are explicitly prohibited by the convention.

None of these things are meant to justify a brick through a store window to snatch and grab a handful of mobile phones. Rather, any moral fibre that is said to be lacking in such acts seems small fry compared to some of the actions noted above.

If our leaders want to see our actions encased in morality, then they need to lead by example.

Most commented

36 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • adam says:

      07:55am | 16/08/11

      Or, maybe we don’t want our leaders to act in a moral way, instead we want them to act in the nations best interest. If that is also moral so much the better but that’s secondary. I’d rather they attempt to ensure full employment and through the taxes gathered from that workforce provide such things as a decent healthcare system. If that means supporting an arms trade so be it.

      Reply

    • Chris L says:

      09:08am | 16/08/11

      Of course such attitudes would disqualify us from being able to criticise other countries for what we would consider immoral actions. Then again perhaps we should just mind our own business.

    • adam says:

      09:37am | 16/08/11

      Chris, we most assuredly need to mind our own business. What right allows us to criticise others?

    • TChong says:

      08:05am | 16/08/11

      The LNP and the ALP are as odios as each other.
      Each is seeking to claim the loyalty of the lowest common denominator.
      The modern extreme right LNP is totally different from the party of Fraser and Anthony, the same as the ALP of Whitlam , or even Hawk is not the ALP of today.
      Both parties would sell every hectare of OZ to foreign investors.
      Both parties use push polling and single issue focus groups to determine reactionary policies.
      Both parties fall over each other to be seen as the US militarys most fanatical unquestioning ally.
      A pox on both houses.
      To quote Homer-
      “Dont blame me, I voted for Kodos”

      Reply

    • John A Neve says:

      09:23am | 16/08/11

      TChong,
      Surely our elected leaders are the face and voice of the people?
      Having elected them , we pay them to represent us, they are therefor a reflection of ourselves.
      Sad really, isn’t it.

    • Tom says:

      11:38am | 16/08/11

      The ALP has the pedophiles. Have you any proof that the LNP also has them?
      Sorry TChong, the ALP is far more foul and odious.

    • Erick says:

      08:51am | 16/08/11

      This article starts off with a token nod to bipartisanship, but then rapidly degenerates as the author defines opposition to his own pet issues as “immoral”.

      Reply

    • Chris L says:

      09:27am | 16/08/11

      I take it, Erick, you agreed with all the examples of moral deficiency from Labor politicians but thoroughly disagreed with all the examples from Liberal politicians?

    • fml says:

      10:34am | 16/08/11

      Why is it when Gilalrd changes her mind she is a liar. But when Abbot does, he hasnt made his mind up about policy?

    • TomZ says:

      01:21pm | 16/08/11

      fml, she didn’t just “change her mind”, she intentionally misled.

    • fml says:

      04:22pm | 16/08/11

      Sooo maybe we should get politicians to write down their policies and never change them?

    • Loxy says:

      04:36pm | 16/08/11

      TomZ – where is your proof that she intentionally misled? When pollies make their claims they assume they will be leading a majority government and have the power to fulfil those promises. I’m aware that Julia haters simply ignore the lack of power Julia has in a minority government, however if you could get over your prejudice you might just see it’s a half decent argument.

      Now I’m sure you will read this and call me a Labour hack, however whether you choose to believe it or not I’m a swinging voter. Last election I voted Julia simply because I can not stand Abbott. However, if the Liberals had Turnbull as their leader they would get my vote in a heartbeat!

      On another note, can you put your mind-reading skills to the test and tell me if Howard intentionally mislead about the GST or did he just change his mind?

    • TomZ says:

      05:56pm | 16/08/11

      Loxy, no comparison between Howard and Gillard. He took his tax to the electorate. Gillard didn’t.

      Can we please have the next Labor apologist defending the indefensible.

      “However, if the Liberals had Turnbull as their leader they would get my vote in a heartbeat!” .... bwaahahahahah. Pull the other leg, Labor hack.

    • Howards biographerq says:

      07:38pm | 16/08/11

      Actually Howard did lie - he promised he would NEVER EVER introduce a GST. He subsequently did so - despite taking it to an election, what he said at the time WAS a lie, since he made a statement and did the opposite. Whether or nor you think it’s legit because he went to election on it, is another matter

    • TomZ says:

      08:46am | 17/08/11

      @Howards biographerq, yes and someone told me that Howard once farted in a lift.

    • Nathan says:

      04:47am | 18/08/11

      TomZ you said “yes and someone told me that Howard once farted in a lift.” did you believe it just think it was another ALP conspiracy

    • Richard M says:

      08:56am | 16/08/11

      This is pompous, self-righteous rubbish, and typical of the sort of holier than thou hypocrisy you get from the Australian media.  I have spent much of my life working with and for politicians (Federal Ministers) and believe it or not they are just people like everyone else, mostly just trying to do a very difficult job to the best of their ability.  Government in this country, especially given the fact that we have the laziest, shallowest, most sensationalist, most ignorant and most unjustifiably self-regarding media in the world, is very, very hard.  The choices and decisions, and balancing the arguments on the many sides of them, is mostly extremely difficult, but the media portrays all issues as simplistic black and white and invariably presents them in the shallowest manner.  By the way, most of Arvanitakis’s examples of alleged moral turpitude by Australian politicians are simply rubbish.  Let’s take Julia Gillard.  To claim that she has never acknowledged that she “broke her carbon tax pledge” is the greatest piece of mythical garbage I have heard for a long while.  She has acknowledged and explained it on countless occasions.  Whether you agree with her explanation is another matter, but claiming she hasn’t done so is either a big fat fib, or demonstrates that Arvanitakis hasn’t been listening.
      On the refugee issue, Arvanitakis statements are little more than simplistic sloganeering, and fail to acknowledge, again in typical Australian media style, the difficulty and complexity of the issues.  It is all very well to take the high moral ground and condemn the plans the Government has developed, but I wonder what he would do if he was in Government.  Would he adopt policies advocated by some which would simply encourage more and more people to pay people smugglers to undertake hazardous voyages, leading undoubtedly to more deaths at sea, or would he, like the Government, try to find methods of discouraging the boats, while still demonstrating its commitment to refugees, as in the Malaysian deal?  Disagreement with the policies is one thing, but to present it as a simple black and white issue involving moral turpitude is absurd.
      The same applies to almost all of the rest of his so-called “examples”.  They are complex issues on which it is entirely possible to hold different views, without morality being called into question.  This article is full of the kind of shallow, ignorant arrogance and hypocrisy which is so typical of the Australian media.

      Reply

    • Freeman says:

      10:41am | 16/08/11

      I think we have a dyed in the wool ALP voter here.

      “To claim that she has never acknowledged that she “broke her carbon tax pledge” is the greatest piece of mythical garbage I have heard for a long while.  She has acknowledged and explained it on countless occasions”

      Not true, when asked why she broke the promise she just breaks into Rhetoric to this effect ” I won’t be dragged into silly debates, I have always said, the best way to tackle cliiiimate chaaaiiinnge is to put a price on caaaarrbon”

      Find us a transcipt where she explains what changed between the promise and the carbon tax announcement. where she explains why it is ok to promise not to introduce a tax days out from an election then introduce it a matter of months later and how she rationalized that decision.

    • Richard M says:

      11:27am | 16/08/11

      Well, this is just rubbish, Freeman.  There are none so deaf as those who will not hear.  You are just perpetuating media mythology.  I have heard her on many, many occasions say things like: “yes, I did say that, and I meant it at the time, but circumstances have changed.  I didn’t expect to be having to deal with the Parliament as it is, but I had to make a choice after the election whether to abide by what I said before the election and, as a result, achieve nothing, or change my mind and make progress on climate change.”  This is both a clear acknowledgement and an explanation.  You may approve or disapprove of her explanation, but to claim that she hasn’t acknowledged and explained is utterly untrue.

    • Richard M says:

      11:55am | 16/08/11

      Further to my reply above: I refer you to the transcript on the ABC site of Gillard’s appearance on Q&A on 11 July, specifically her answer to the second question, in which she said almost precisely what I have quoted above.

    • Freeman says:

      01:36pm | 16/08/11

      Media mythology?  it aint a myth.

      your invented quote, even if she were to say it, is vague at best. it’s also very inconsistant.  for example; “I had to make a choice after the election whether to abide by what I said before the election and, as a result, achieve nothing”

      So what, before the election the plan was to do nothing!!!???

      in this imaginary sentence she points out that there is a hung parliment. so what? she does not explain why that changes things. This is not an explanation, it’s a lame excuse!

      Don’t you get that when you make a point of fronting the media to make such a solemn promise you either have to;

      A) keep it
      B) make a solid case to change your position.

      Not nearly good enough, Richard. you should expect more from the PM.

      also, there is no better explanation in the transcript from Q&A, and I did read it. http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3263582.htm

    • Richard M says:

      04:18pm | 16/08/11

      No Freeman.  Let me try and explain in the clearest and simplest terms possible, so you can understand.  Now make sure you read this slowly and carefully.  Before the election, ALP policy was to introduce an ETS, not a carbon tax.  This was the policy the PM was espousing before the election , when she made the statement in question.  Following so far?  After the election, there was a hung Parliament.  What this means is that the Government, if it wants to get anything done, has to negotiate with those who hold the balance of power and, on many issues, compromise to take into account their aims and policies.  This is normal, not to say essential, practice in a minority Government situation if the Government of the country is not to be trapped in a state of utter paralysis.  This is what the Government did on the question of pricing carbon.  It compromised its pre-election policy to the extent of agreeing that there should be a tax on carbon for 3 years, leading to the introduction of a market- based price (ie an ETS) at that stage.  As the PM has explained, not to have done so would have resulted in there being no action to impose a carbon price, which the Government considered very important .  For this reason, the PM was prepared to take the heat for going back on her undertaking not to introduce a carbon tax, if only for an introductory period.  I would have thought this constituted more than a “solid case to change your position”.
      I know this is all quite complicated for those who see the world in simplistic black and white, “my side good, other side bad” terms, but let me assure you that this sort of decision is really what Government is all about, as anybody from either side who has experience of government will tell you, if they are being honest.
      Charges of moral turpitude based on necessary political compromise in a minority government situation simply reveal the ignorance, arrogance and naivety of those making them.

    • Freeman says:

      05:04pm | 16/08/11

      That’s awesome Richard, Except that it is your explanation and not the PM’s. and gillard wouldn’t be so stupid to offer that up as an explanation as it would be picked apart.

      If the ALP’s policy before the election was an ETS then the alternative is not “to do nothing”  is it? Are we supposed to just accept that a hung parliment meant that only a carbon tax could be implemented? And if this was the case we deserve an explanation as to how the fictional “negotiations” arrived at this point. Who wanted the carbon tax? the greens, the indies? what was put forward? what was rejected? EXACTLY how did the government arrive at the decision to bring in a tax just months after the main players in that government solemnly promised not to. you see this wasn’t a passing comment. it was a definitive promise in order to affect the election result.

      You cannot expect the public to swallow this without presenting a solid case as to why it was necessary and Gillards response, as well as yours has been dismissive and incomplete.

    • fairsfair says:

      11:40am | 16/08/11

      Thanks for that link Chris L, well worth a read.

    • Chris L says:

      06:53pm | 16/08/11

      I must admit, I only knew about that article because a fellow puncher posted it in a previous article.

      Also, I’m annoyed at having misspelled “thoughtful”!

    • Richard M says:

      09:51am | 16/08/11

      Oh dear - have I done it again?  Have I committed the sin of criticising the author and the media generally, and thus been moderated out?  I constantly forget just how extraordinarily hyper-sensitive the media is in this country.  They who pour vitriol on everybody else, especially all politicians, can’t bear to be criticised themselves.  Surely, this facile, arrogant article deserves to be criticised on the basis of some facts?  No- the comments will be given over to the usual ignorant sycophants to preach to the converted.  Sickening.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      10:12am | 16/08/11

      Umm - I think you owe the editors an apology - that is, if the article that you claim was moderated out is the one posted up above.

    • Richard M says:

      10:12am | 16/08/11

      OK - I admit to being guilty of premature exasperation here.

    • fml says:

      10:44am | 16/08/11

      What ever happened to real journalism? you know like the ones that infilitrate soviet russia and kill like 20 dolph lundgrens to get the video of atrocities out to the world?

    • the hubris of clueless says:

      10:34am | 16/08/11

      “Unsurprisingly, this week I received a number asking me to explain the causes of the London riots.”
      mmm ... did you get many asking what on earth made you think you’d have the first idea about the causes of riots in the UK?
      You certainly appear perfectly clueless about everything else you touch on. Must be all that high grade sociology.

      Reply

    • Tombowler says:

      10:58am | 16/08/11

      @hubris of clueless

      Fantastic… Bloody fantastic.. This arrogant, know-nothing is genuinely suffering delusions of grandeur that the hip-tards that listen to his turd of a commgunity radio show are representative of anything other than hip-tard, community radio listeners…

      There is a great article by Brendan O’Neil on the manner in which tools like the above thinly veil their apologetics for the scum in London whilst attacking those that, while not perfect, are a far cry from the free-sneaker-and-jeans twats that deserved nothing short of a bullet in the face for being so sociopathic so as to destroy their own communities.

      I personally couldn’t give a f#ck about their ‘social dettachment’, certainly on par with how much of a f#ck I give about the chattering classes and their views on ‘neoliberalism’ (whatever that is).

      This clown thinks that because of a few rotten apples such as Thomson et al, the dross of society somehow lacks the free will to not burn the shit out of their communities…

      Pathetic.

      Cameron should institute policy make these pricks press number-plates to pay for their housing or sleep rough.

    • Fiddler says:

      11:42am | 16/08/11

      I dunno about the pic, I reckon Silvio Berlusconi would be an awesome PM.

      As for the $600 million in arms exports, I think you will find that by and large the majority of that will be support vehicles and electronics. We really don’t have an arms industry

      Reply

    • Nathaniel Harris says:

      02:48pm | 16/08/11

      Perhaps political conduct is an expression of the erosion of the morality of the wider community; perhaps politicians don’t set the bar for moral conduct but are themselves a product of moral conduct their constituents accept? ... Demos Kratos at work.

      Reply

    • stephen says:

      08:36pm | 16/08/11

      ‘Moral obligations’ are not nearly intent, (as of course, your notice of cluster bombs are, which only just makes it, by the way) but the riots go all the way ; they’re action : damaging, life-threatening, livelihood-extinguishing, violent, and I think truly frighfull.
      And may I suggest that the reason why so many people guilty of these crimes had a smirk, and knew, deep down, they would be excused, is because some many muddle-headed thinkers would excuse crime, for political action, and that to mention warfare, economic deceit, and MP’s quirks in the same breath as trash-conscience gives these rats any worthiness.
      They were no more concerned with others - under any circumstances - than was Saddam Hussein.
      And that is the point.

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 23 May 13 07:14PM

RT @newscomauHQ: Hazel Hawke, the former wife of Bob Hawke, has died surrounded by her family | http://t.co/wSl6QrnOtU

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 23 May 13 07:00PM

@_Tors @pollietracker you tell your newspaper to behave Tors

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 23 May 13 06:59PM

"@newscomauHQ: Hazel Hawke, the former wife of Bob Hawke, has died surrounded by her family | http://t.co/JdRfQUB1lZ"

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 23 May 13 06:42PM

@ClaireRPorter get out

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter