A choice between the Devil and the deep red sea...

With 2 weeks to go in this farce of an election I have reached a point of utter dejection - there's almost nothing that I can see anyone doing about the fact that I just can't in good conscience cast a vote confidently for anyone at all.  The only people making the slightest sense is the Australian sex party, which as fun as it might sound is obviously no basis for serious government.

I completely trust the Liberal party under Tony abbot to competently and cost effectively implement policies that deeply shame me and make me question my very decision to live in Australia - just like the seven years of Howard Government I lived through before.  At the same time, I trust Labor to have principles I wholeheartedly agree with, but to develop policies that are half-cut compromises to satisfy various factional vested interest and then completely fail to competently implement them.  In terms of leaders, it's a choice between Mad Monk Abbott and Julia Gillard's 'government by Kath and Kim' - with the mercurial Ruddbot lurking spookily in the shadows and the delusional Mark Latham popping up randomly like some Pythonesque jack-in-the-box. 

(Come back Malcolm Turnbull and Kim Beazley – all is forgiven!)

And the greens? While I would like to donate my very first Australian vote to the Greens, I cannot forgive them for conspiring with the Coalition to kill the ETS (in a remarkable case of ‘letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.’ ).  I can't remember if they could or couldn't provide the numbers to get that through - but its the principle of the thing.  Besides, I do find that to a man and woman, their self-righteousness is stomach churning.

Its a depressing and exasperating proposition which leaves me mulling a really bizarre set of options since voting in this country is mandatory

- the positive: vote green purely to keep the Liberals out while making sure Labor gets a bloody nose
- the creative: turn up to vote but defile the ballot paper. The main challenge here is to decide what to defile it with.  All suggestions welcome in the comments box below
- the negative: not turn up and register a protest by paying the $100 fine
- the comical: vote for the Australian sex party afteral; (somewhat dependent on whether they sell out to share preferences with the puritanical 'family first' party)
- the insane: lobby the Queen to revoke Federation so we can re-establish British rule

The last option of course is an echo of this comical letter from the Queen circulated after the debacle of the 2000 US election. 

Same as The Old Boss?

“Frankly, the nation is being governed by amateurs.”

Nothing pains me more than to agree with Tony Abbot but on this observation, we seem to be in agreement.  Now don’t get me wrong, I’m comfortably left of centre and with the Greens’ self-righteousness perennially turning me off supporting them, Labor is really all I’m left with.  But this government has lost all of my faith.  I am struggling to think of anything they have done that has been well thought-through, suitably socialised and then well executed.  If anything, were Homer Simpson to be Prime Minister, its unlikely there’d be fewer laughs.

They will immediately point to their management of the GFC, which admittedly is without parallel in the world in terms of its success.  However, I am one of those people that believe they benefitted from a strong Liberal Party legacy – albeit mostly ill-gotten.  Furthermore they were for once decisive and acted very quickly and secured a complete avoidance of recession in either the literal or the conceptual sense.  However, they did hurl a staggering amount of money at it – somewhat I feel like a father and householder losing a bet for $100 and mortgaging the house to pay for it.  It must also be remembered that much of that execution has been abysmal.  One can;t of course forget the disastrous “pink bats” scandal which, far from being badly managed almost seems not managed at all.  Not only did people die – about as bad an achievement a project could score – but untold amounts of money have been wasted in training, litigation and damage.

Fundamental to their management of the GFC has been the Buildings for schools program, and we must never forget who was responsible for that if we are to suitably judge just how much of an improvement we can expect in Labor’s change of leadership.  Appallingly run – or rather again, not run at all – the program has not only wasted hideous sums of tax-payer’s money, but is highly questionable in the way it provided Labor with countless valuable local photo-opportunities around the country.  For a period of time Kevin Rudd disappeared from the national press but instead scored a front page photo-story on the front page of every local rag coast-to-coast.  In time, it may be that in the dictionary they may define the term “pork barrel”  with the simple reference: “...see BER

Outside of this, the Health reforms are stalled with the whole of West Australia refusing to be part of it.  The still-born Resource Profits Tax was antagonistically announced by-passing any kind of consultation and then desperately diluted in fear of a damaging fight with the mining industry.  There was the Apology and Kyoto of course, and they should not be sniffed at, but in terms of execution – Kevin saying a word or signing a all-but-superseded and impotent Treaty – they are not going to be remembered as radical reforms.

I’ve already described  how Kevin Rudd lost me after his scrapping – or rather never-never-ified – the ETS.  But after only a few weeks we can see that the style of this government has not dramamtically changed.  Bad process, a lack of consultation, spin-obsession and no stomach for an argument seem already to remain key planks of this government’s modus-operandi.  The Internet Filter has finally been shelved after two years of ever-circular debate and procrastination.  The Green Loans program  has also been dumped on the basis of, not surprisingly, poor management and budget blow-out.  Julia Gillard’s Regional Solution to the immigration problem (which isn’t really a problem with a flow equal to filling the MCG every second decade )– started off with a ring of quality.  To co-ordinate a program fastened to the UNHCR has an aura of credibility and seemed almost to seek the higher ground for a 24 hour period.  Her speech did almost seem as if it might be a watershed in the miserably xenophobic tone of the traditional migration debate.  However, as soon as the surface was scratched a wave of disappointment swept across the nation – as if they had all been collectively let down by the same scratchy card.  It was a nice-sounding though-bubble that was not properly consulted and given Labor’s track record, has almost zero chance of getting properly executed.  It wasn’t a solution, it was a political fantasy that had been brought no more reality than the voicing of someone’s “desire” to travel the world.  The East Timorian Prime Minister’s reaction to questions about the plan summed up its integrity – “Plan, what plan?”

For me, this sounded too much like The Old Boss.  Lots of high-minded rhetoric primarily focussed on generating satisfyingly positive and applauding headlines.  There’s nothing unusual about that in politics but that’s more or less where the Labor’s Party machine begins and ends.  There’s very little policy execution and what policy execution there has been has come to a grinding halt in the last six months.

The Prime Minister said, “I’m happy to be judged on what I say.”  Sadly Julia – like your predecessor - you’ll be judged on what you do, and to date your government has achieved very little of lasting quality but abject incompetence.  Expect more eggs.

<script type="text/javascript">

  var _gaq = _gaq || [];
  _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-7069961-2']);
  _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);

  (function() {
    var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
    ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
    var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
  })();

</script>

Retro Politics...the 1970s revisited in London and Canberra?

A good friend of mine in London pointed out something that had already been rattling around my head: "the BA strikes are the fourth part of our return to the 70s....anything else we could copy from then? 3 day week???"

It seems there’s a couple of unique political scenarios in play right now that mirror the mid-1970s in remarkable clarity, and who knows how these retro-scenes will conclude.

So it seems today that what has amusingly become known as the “ConDem” alliance between the Tories and the Liberal Democrats has unravelled.  I think its wise for Mr Clegg to open discussions with Labour – afterall, if he and David Cameron can’t reach agreement with the lure of the keys to Number 10 Downing Street as the elephant in the room and with the media spotlight fuelled by an expectant nation as bright as it is; what chance do they have holding a government together in the melee of the day to day?

It turns out that parallel negotiations  between The Liberal Party and The Conservatives in 1974 to solve another hung parliament collapsed on exactly the same issue – electoral reform.  Its staggering that in 35 years this impasse is still not solved.  That break down in talks let the Labour party back into government as I hope it will today.

Of course, that situation is a slight reverse of what is happening now though – that scenario prevented the incumbent party from retaining government and allowed the opposition in the door.  Today of course, the reverse is – hopefully – happening: the challenging Conservatives might be denied power and the sitting government saved by Liberal collusion, bitter at their denial of electoral reform from the Tories.

Another major factor of course in this is Gordon Brown’s resignation (poor chap: "gifted man, ground down") – obviously a key condition of Clegg’s for negotiations to open.  Talks have already begun and David Miliband’s absence a clue as to who might be Gordon’s successor.  Of course Ted heath didn’t resign and was ultimately thrust out by his arch nemesis, Margaret Thatcher.  I often think that the relationship between Heath and Thatcher is a mirror of Brown’s and Blair’s.  I suspect Brown will now impersonate Heath’s grumpy back-bench grand-father demeanor for the remainder of his career.

But down under there’s another kooky mirror in play with those times.  Articles have started emerging drawing attention to the similarities between Kevin Rudd and 70s PM Gough Whitlam  – essentially boiling down to ‘lots of big ideas and good intentions; but executional incompetance’.  In fact, so much so that in a recent interview with Julia Gillard,  echoes of the great 1975 constitutional crisis of 1975 were heard.  The Labor party will – potentiall - nail the controversial Resources Tax to the Budget which Wayne Swan hands down today, thereby daring Tony Abbott to block it as Menzies did back then – triggering political crisis (known as “blocking supply”).

In fact, a half-way-house for Clegg is a mere “confidence and supply” agreement with one party or the other – agreeing only to support the government in confidence votes and in passing the budget. 

It struck me as odd though that while the Queen was able to solve the 1975  back then by empowering the Governor General to sack the Whitlam Government; she is not empowered right now – thankfully – to ask Mr Cameron to just get on and form a government according to what is clearly a popular mandate, if not a technical majority.

So while the famous line from Whitlam then: “God save the Queen, for no one can save the Governor General” one wonders who will save Nick Clegg from his very uncomfortable rock/hard place, Devil/deep-blue-sea dilemma.

(Fortunately, one parallel with the mid-1970s completely reversed is that England have qualified for the 2010 world cup which is more than they could manage in 1974.  Not only that but they are seeded for once!)

RIP ETS? Rudd-imentary Cowardice

WARNING: POLITICAL RANT - I have to vent spleen about this.  But Rudd's back-flip on climate change is one of the worst examples of political cowardice I've ever seen.  Not only cowardice, but betrayal as well.

So he has postponed an Emmissions Trading Scheme until 2013 - a waste of three years.  The price of carbon will not change for three years.  Therefore, our habits and behaviours will not change for three years.  Climate change will march on unabated.  When Lateline last night asked all three ministers with environment in their portfolios - Penny Wong, Peter Garrett and Greg Combet - to come and explain this outrageious back flip - they all declined.  Ducking a fight is one act of cowardice.  Hiding from explaining why makes it so much worse.

Rudd may have forgotten that one of the top three reasons he was elected to replace the Howard Government was to do something about climate change - but I haven't. Now he's just utterly failed.  God's teeth, even Howard would have done something about the environment by 2013!  

We've listened to him harp on in his traditional high-horse, self-righteous tone about how it is the "moral challenge of our generation"; contrasting his position with Abbott's <yawn> "absolute crap".  But at least Abbott has taken action and has a policy.  I don't agree with any of it, but at least he's assertive, decisive and committed.

For me, I agree with the Liberal analysis of Rudd position on the ETS.  His impressive sense of urgency in October/November to get it passed was so he could walk tall on the world stage and laud it over his peers.  Now, post-Copenhagen, its fallen off the agenda for him - particularly since its turned into a fight.  Rudd's principle concern: not Australia, not even Labor.  Its Kevin Rudd.

Rudd has a double-dissolution trigger.  The reason I imagine these things exist is that if a government is being stonewalled by an intransigent opposition from passing something for which it has an undisputable poltical mandate to achieve - then it can re-draw the parliament along lines that will get the job done.  Rudd says he won't pull the trigger because he has committed to serve a full term.  I say that is a cop-out.  I say thats because he's frightened of fighting Abbott on a subject he can't articulate.

Whats more, instead of believing in the threat of climate change and argueing against the scepticism that has emerged in recent months, he has watched it fall off the political agenda and as a result neglected it as an issue.  He responded to the problem when he perceived it was a vote winner, whelched on it now it isn't.  That isn;t leadership, thats just cyncial.

Through his behaviour on this issue, Rudd has lost me.  I'll always support Labor - probably - but not Rudd.  Bring on Gillard or someone else (not sure who!) But I'm over Rudd as of today.  I find it difficult to accommodate his patronising, aloofness and his arrogance.  But when this is combined with spineless cowardice and cynical opportunism, he becomes the worst of all monsters.