Relax. It’s just an Election.

164918-julia-gillard

Election campaigning is already underway for this year’s Federal election despite there being no formal launch as yet.

From here on in, we can expect a myriad of polls that will be keenly dissected by all sides of politics (and their advisers) while simultaneously fronting the media to insist that there’s only one poll that matters; election day.

In today’s world where appearance is everything, politicians are trained by PR experts before being allowed to front the media, and arrive at press conferences pre-prepared with carefully scripted “speaking points” and rehearsed responses to anticipated questions from the media.

Nothing is left to chance, from the carefully selected wardrobe through to make-up, setting, voice intonation and delivery.

The objective is to avoid any monumental stuff-up that can be broadcast live across the nation and then repeated ad nauseam by a compliant media desperate for a “gotcha moment” and corresponding headline.

Internal and external polling will be scrutinsed to determine whether the Government’s (or the Opposition’s) message is “on track” and “resonating” with the public.  Results will be monitored, and if necessary, the aforementioned carefully orchestrated media performances will be modified to optimise what marketers like to call “cut-through.”

All of this is nothing new, however in an environment where an off the cuff remark by the Prime Minister’s partner can dominate headlines for a day, politicians and their spin doctors are desperate to ensure that “message consistency” is received and “front of mind” amongst voters.

While Labor may be slowly gaining ground, if an election were held today, the Coalition would still win and Tony Abbott would be Prime Minister.

It’s a prospect that is anathema to many, with some predicting that an Abbott-led Government would drag Australia back to the 1950’s with Howard-esque policies.

I’m a little less convinced.  The current Gillard government abandoned its traditional “progressive” credentials some months ago with its abhorrent treatment of asylum seekers and persistence in pursuing a Howard-esque offshore processing model despite protests from the High Court.

Prime Minister Gillard remains resolutely opposed to marriage equality, effectively abusing her position of power and authority to perpetuate discrimination against an already marginalised minority.  With an overwhelming majority of Australians in favour of marriage equality, Julia Gillard’s stance against equal rights is not just draconian it’s tyrannical. So much for democracy and “equality.”

Many who fear an Abbott-led government worry that his Catholicism may influence his decision-making and blur the lines of Church and State.   The incumbent Prime Minister has demonstrated her propensity to pander to the concerns of conservative religious-right lobby groups meeting recently with Jim Wallace, the head of the Australian Christian Lobby and renowned homophobe. So what’s the difference?  None that I can see.

Ms Gillard assured Mr Wallace that religious groups would remain at liberty to discriminate on the basis of “religious beliefs” and remain exempt of anti-discrimination legislation.  Such assurances may appease the concerns of antediluvian conservatives however they do little to reassure “the rest of Australia” that Labor is a party concerned with ending discrimination and working towards a more equitable and inclusive society.

Is the prospect of an Abbott-led government really all that daunting when the current Labor government has abandoned its principles of human rights and championing the welfare of the marginalised and downtrodden?

From where I stand, it has abandoned that charter and left it to the Greens (much to their advantage).

No, the Labor Party has taken such a dramatic lurch to the right that it is difficult to differentiate it from the Coalition.

As once Labor Party supporter Tim Dunlop of Blogocracy lamented last year, many of us are now wondering “Who the fuck am I meant to vote for now?”



Categories: Politics

Tags: , , , , , , ,

70 replies

  1. the Labor Party has taken such a dramatic lurch to the right

    Reb, sad but true. I maintain that this is an attempt to ‘buy’ some bogan votes, which in my opinion is entirely unnecessary.

    Good post, BTW.

  2. As a green, I agree with much of what you say. But for me, the clincher in response to this:

    “…the Labor Party has taken such a dramatic lurch to the right that it is difficult to differentiate it from the Coalition.”

    is that Abbott and his supporters in the Opposition are climate change deniers and will undo the small but crucial policy changes the minority Labor Govt has instigated in relation to a price on carbon and to encouraging renewable energy targets. That’s always going to be a deal breaker for me.

  3. I agree. Unfortunately by chasing the bogan/redneck vote, they are bleeding votes to the Greens, and yet at the same time, the bogans “feel” that as this is not the true Labor position, their votes are lost anyhow.

  4. Margaret, I suspect that Abbott and his media friends are hoping it goes the other way.

    Hence, I don’t envisage seeing many items in the media this year that support the evidence of climate change.

    Sadly, the treatment of asylum seekers and the growing public support for same-sex marriage will be put on the back burner.

  5. “Abbott and his supporters in the Opposition are climate change deniers and will undo the small but crucial policy changes the minority Labor Govt has instigated “

    Well that’s a hypothetical…

    But with Gillard’s track record (ie Wilkie) perhaps those “small but crucial policy changes” were ever only offered to get support from the Greens in the first place.

    Gillard’s labels the Greens as “extremists” these days.

  6. Thanks for the article.

    While the ALP has behaved atrociously in relation to asylum seekers, marriage equality and the selling of uranium, I think if you can’t differentiate between our two major parties, you’re simply not interested in doing so.

    Labor recognises that there is a real need to invest in our future: infrastructure (including the NBN), climate change mitigation, education & training, disability insurance, aged care reforms… and that having money to spare at the expense of these things happening isn’t the sign of a good government.

    We don’t hear anything from the coalition on these issues.

  7. Reb,
    Are you still a member of the Labor Party?

  8. A fair and balanced post, reb.

    Miglo, could you elaborate on this sentence?

    ‘Hence, I don’t envisage seeing many items in the media this year that support the evidence of climate change.’

  9. “I think if you can’t differentiate between our two major parties, you’re simply not interested in doing so.”

    Well that’s a little unfair. I accept that there are a number of differences between Labor and the Coalition.

    However since 2007 Labor has abandoned many of its traditional principles in favour of lurching to the right on a number of significant issues, leaving a lot of traditional Labor supporters disillusioned with the current regime.

  10. ” this is an attempt to ‘buy’ some bogan votes, which in my opinion is entirely unnecessary

    Interesting and probably true.

    I find it difficult to decide what is more objectionable – having a traditional bogan constituency or selling out your principles in order to gain some traction with bogans and rednecks.

  11. Very good question, Tom.

  12. I think, Reb, you have now articulated what you intended to say in your article: not that the two parties cannot be differentiated but that many Labor voters are feeling disillusioned with what is now on offer. Given the coalition is, in my view, entirely un-voteworthy, it could still mean a very difficult decision for many left-leaning voters.

  13. Gee. There’s a lot to say. Firstly thanks for the article. It’s such a pleasure to read real people’s views (ie not reporters or trolls). Secondly I think history is our best teacher on this. Each party has a basic philosophy which they work towards tirelessly. On a basic level Labor represents the workers. LNP represents the big end of town. Look at what’s happening in Qld, Vic & NSW that’s the LNP cutting Education, The Arts, Health, Emergency services, Infrastructure etc. everything they can.
    Under the hardest of conditions (imagine having abbott and the media shout against everything you do) the Labor Party have taken us through the GFC and we’re sitting pretty. The media won’t tell you that. Abbott won’t tell you that. The BISONS will! (http://www.thefinnigans.blogspot.com.au/)
    If Labor can get a majority in the next election they’ll take us forward. They know what we want.
    On the other hand just imagine the horror of the slash and burn that the LNP is gearing up for.

  14. “Given the coalition is, in my view, entirely un-voteworthy, it could still mean a very difficult decision for many left-leaning voters.”

    Precisely kimh73…

  15. “Each party has a basic philosophy which they work towards tirelessly…On a basic level Labor represents the workers. LNP represents the big end of town. “

    That was my understanding of the “traditional” distinction too Teddy.

    So it puzzles me why Labor has now abandoned some of its traditional principles.

    As others above suggest, perhaps it is in order to appeal to redneck or bogan voters. Who knows, but it’s very disappointing…

  16. Really nicely worded Reb, it is good to see a post that points out some of the `sameness` of our beloved duopoly, that a non-rusted can enjoy too.

  17. Reb I don’t think Labor has abandoned it’s ‘big picture’ principles. I think the Labor Party is trying to work and govern with intense, unfair media scrutiny and within very tight restrictions. Unfortunately everything it does is purposely mis-represented in the murdoch media and we know the murdoch agenda is to smash the Greens and bring down Labor and the unions.

    This is not a boxing contest (with the Marquis of Queensbury rules) that Labor is involved in. It’s become a dirty, nasty contest where the opponent uses every dirty trick, the commentators only see what they want to see and the media reporting it make up their own negative story. There’s little doubt that the fight is fixed.

    The Labor party has had to adapt. I think they’re trying to roll with the punches in bending to the right. For me it appears to be a political move to stay in the contest.

    If Labor’s traditional supporters leave them because they’ve had to adapt to a seriously dirty fight then they’re goners.
    And we’ll be left with a bloodied and battered ‘hero’ who may never recover to again fight the ‘good fight’ for us.

  18. I must say I find it strange when people get upset with a party because its policies that are dear to their heart differ from their own. I disagree with the PMs stand on gay (see my article on this blog) equality but I believe that it will become ALP policy in the near future. I also get upset with the asylum problem and I cannot offer any solution. A solution is only possible with bi partisan support and it takes two to tango. So I have to accept what is for the time being. On the basis of these two matters to then say that the ALP has turned to the right is indeed drawing a long bow.

    It is my contention that this government is arguably the most reformist in history. And a minority one at that. The independents also need to be congratulated. To say that it is difficult to differentiate between the two I find simply astonishing. Carbon pricing, NDIS, Gonski , ABN etc compared with what. At this election there is a clear choice between a party who is intent on wrecking these proposals and one that (despite its faults) still has at its heart, the common good.

  19. So it puzzles me why Labor has now abandoned some of its traditional principles.

    labors ‘traditional’ principals has always been about the worker, and they have definitely not abandoned those. They have strengthened those in recent years.

    You might like to complain (correctly) about the current (abhorrent) position on asylum seekers, but recall who first introduced mandatory detention?

    Labor have always had an undercurrent of these ‘redkneck’ actions. What they are doing now is not completely out of character for it. It is just that the ‘debate’ itself has sunk to such abysmal levels.

    That’s not to say that it is right, it is just not this ‘lurch’, as you describe it. More a continuation of a poor record. It is hard to argue that a party that introduced the detention in the first place wouldn’t have ended up where they are now, no matter how much we might wish it otherwise

    No matter how ‘to the right’ you claim they are, I disagree, and see them as centrist, as they were more or less under Hawke and Keating (but more right than under Whitlam). And a far cry from the right wing nuttery to be found under the current opposition.

    They are choices, an they have been for a long time. The only difference is the libs have gone further right then ever before.

  20. “still has at its heart, the common good”

    I find it astonishing that you can believe that Labor has “a heart” when you consider its abhorrent handling of asylum seekers. Particularly when the approach they have taken surpasses the demonisation of asylum seekers they sought to condemn when it was Howard government policy.

    Additionally I find it extraordinary that you can claim that Labor has at its heart “the common good” when it perpetuates discrimination against marginalised minority groups and reassures organisations that they will be entitled to legally discriminate against those groups.

    That sort of entrenched discrimination leads to vilification.

    Unless of course the idea of “the common good” just isn’t all that common.

    But of course, if you are prepared to “overlook” those glaring inconsistencies, as many Labor supporters are, presumably because it doesn’t directly affect them, then yes, I guess Labor are doing ok.*

    However Gillard has proven herself to be a dishonest and untrustworthy leader; a political opportunist concerned with her own political survival above all else and happy to dispense with traditional Labor values for some perceived political mileage. In this respect she is no different to Tony Abbott.

  21. I find it astonishing that you can believe that Labor has “a heart” when you consider its abhorrent handling of asylum seekers.
    =
    l agree with reb, but would go a lot further. lf we drop the weasel words and micro details, Joolya`s mob, since 2010 has been riddled with hypocrisy. A lot of stuff, mining-tax, carbon-tax, nbn, education, were from Kevin`s vision and stuff Joolya has come up with seem to be Howard regime re-runs, grovel to religion, boat-people.

  22. However Gillard has proven herself to be a dishonest and untrustworthy leader; a political opportunist concerned with her own political survival

    In other words, a politician. I prefer to look at the outcomes in a messy situation

    Increased aged pension, introduced Carbon Price, less tax, NDIS, Paid Parenting

    Yea, I’ll take that, and more 😉

  23. ‘However Gillard has proven herself to be a dishonest and untrustworthy leader; ‘

    Ummm … I’m thinking that you have been, unwittingly and understandably, swayed by the constant murdoch media portrayal of the PM. The words ‘dishonest and untrustworthy’ don’t fit on those shoulders, they are in the DNA of Tony Abbott and the LNP.

    ‘a political opportunist concerned with her own political survival above all else and happy to dispense with traditional Labor values for some perceived political mileage. In this respect she is no different to Tony Abbott.’

    Even though that statement flows, is emotive, well written and phrased doesn’t give it any truth. Just to say it, without facts, is a suit without a body to wear it. It is a value judgement at best. At worst an emotive statement some murdoch media hack would use to ‘promote discussion’.
    JG and TA represent different worlds.
    Look at the history of the Labor Party. They work for the ‘common good’ and have ‘heart.’ JG is the currently elected leader of the Labor Party. She bears the Labor flag and philosophy.

    JG and TA are chalk and cheese on the big things .. the things that matter.

  24. When one throws the baby out with the bath water they are left with little.

    Maybe this government according to some, has jettison some labor principals. Not to sure what they mean.

    It also has done much good, It has removed much of Howards upper income earners welfare. It has aimed more at those in need, including the unemployed and single mums. Yes, not by increasing the dole, but in helping them get back to work.

    This government has addressed many of the issues facing us at this time.

    Yes, it has been far from perfect. It has to work within the limitations faced on it.

    A government does deserve to be judged in all it has done, not selective bits, that some see as the government failing completely. Is that fair.

  25. This sounds like a Labor Leader. I also expect howls of class warfare before the day is out.

    “…..JULIA Gillard will today promise substantial structural savings in the federal budget to pay for key Labor priorities such as the national disability insurance scheme and the Gonski education reforms in a declaration that will put big business and high-income earners on notice for further cuts to entitlements.

    In a speech to the National Press Club in Canberra that will set out priorities in Labor’s re-election pitch, the Prime Minister will promise that her big-ticket initiatives in disability and education will be funded according to “Labor values”, saying “fairness can only be funded through economic strength”…..”

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/treasury/julia-gillard-signals-cuts-to-fund-alp-values-as-business-and-wealthy-put-on-notice/story-fn59nsif-1226564620099

  26. “Just to say it, without facts….”

    Fact : Andrew Wilkie

  27. More , I suspect are Labor values. Ones that takes guts to put forward.

    “……he Prime Minister will promise to outline “new structural savings that will maintain the sustainability of the budget and make room for key Labor priorities” in and ahead of the May budget.

    Flagging a new round of savings, Ms Gillard will cite past cuts “in line with Labor values and purpose”, such as the dependent spouse tax offset, tax breaks for golden handshakes for business executives, superannuation tax concessions for high-income earners, means-testing of private health insurance, and the closing of executive fringe benefits loopholes.

    “This year we will make the tough, necessary decisions to ensure our medium-term fiscal strategy is delivered, and our centrepiece plans for Australian children and Australians with a disability are funded, in this new low-revenue environment,” Ms Gillard will say, pledging Labor will launch the NDIS on July 1.,,,”

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/treasury/julia-gillard-signals-cuts-to-fund-alp-values-as-business-and-wealthy-put-on-notice/story-fn59nsif-1226564620099

  28. and make room for key Labor priorities”

    Apparently, they are also liberal ones, except that they are promising to rescind them all 😉

  29. I seem to remember there was some poker machine legislation delivered.

    Yes, not all that Wilkie wanted. He also has a part to play.

    It seems he was also unable to get the numbers for his desires.

    How is this a lie.

    Not being able to deliver, does not mean one has lied.

  30. Election date 14th September. Now accused of calling it on an important Jewish day.

  31. Can someone suggest a more significant example of political duplicity that Gillard’s breaking her written word to a fellow MP in Andrew Wilkie?

    It wasn’t simply a ‘best endeavours’ commitment, Gillard provided specific undertakings, and the impact of those undertakings were as important as any made by a politician. Gillard got to be Prime Minister only because she provided them.

    Again, could some one nominate a more significant breach of trust?

  32. Can someone suggest a more significant example of political duplicity

    Perhaps we can ask Hanson for her opinion of tabot after the holiday he provided for her behind bars?

  33. ToM, you’ve already mentioned that. On numerous occasions. I think we get your message.

  34. …maybe to Pauline Hanson.
    ======
    True, that issue may have mentioned in one or 2 of my previous comments.

    It might even arise in the future in the informed, intelligent political discourse that this site encourages.

  35. lf you listen quietly, you can hear the rest of Credlin`s eggs dry up. #egg-stunt #sep-14

  36. “ToM, you’ve already mentioned that. On numerous occasions. I think we get your message.”

    I don’t think that people do get the message, as they simply overlook Gillard’s betrayal of trust with Wilkie and then revert to the usual mantra of “Abbott would be worse..”

    It says a lot about both leaders (and the state of politics in Australia) when we’re reduced to arguing the comparative “merits” of each leader’s respective dishonesty.

  37. Perhaps, reb, we could start a new trend: let’s talk about their good points. 😉

  38. But that’s what “you lot” have always done!

    Besides, where’s the fun in talking about people’s “good points” when you can focus on the negative…. 😉

  39. Except when it comes to Abbott of course, in which case “you lot” always talk his “bad points”…

    Maybe we could start a new trend and talk about Abbott’s good points?

    I mean, there’s the good work he’s done in promoting OH&S in the workplace, multi-tasking and fitness …Just for starters..

  40. Maybe we could start a new trend and talk about Abbott’s good points?
    .
    l hear where you`re coming from reb, but that`s what we get from their Lobbying machinery, trotting out wives etc,
    .
    the tony abbott l know … #egg-stunt

  41. Would love to talk about Mr. Abbott good points.

    Maybe someone can let me in on the secret.

    We have been asking on another site, including posts devoted to the question for months.

    Sadly, none yet have been revealed.

  42. reb, do you have any links.

  43. Abbott is good with a shovel . . . for two minutes max.

  44. “Not being able to deliver, does not mean one has lied.”

    “Not delivering on something one has promised, means that one has lied.”

    There, fixed it for for you CU…

  45. Take that back to not being able to, as that is what occurred.

    Therefore, not lying.

    It can only be seen as a lie, if the PM said she would, and had no intention of doing so. No evidence that occurred.

    Reb, I would love that link, That topic is a interest of mine.

  46. Those of us of the un-rusted-on type or, disappointed in out-comes, or are offered no `true` difference from the both sides of the duopoly, gain no comfort from arguing the toss over `micro-details` or definitions of weasel words.
    .
    lt doesn`t matter if you want to say `misrepresent` to what is commonly called a `Lie`. Wilkie got a written `pokie` promise from Joolya and she chose to break it to do something else.

  47. “Take that back to not being able to, as that is what occurred.”

    One day, when you’ve learnt how to write a coherent sentence, I might reply… 🙄

  48. Something else, she was able to amass the numbers for what Wilkie wanted. Wilkie himself was unable to get people to vote for his bill. . The PM promised to assist him. The PM did not promise to perform miracles.

    There is no way this government can afford to have any legislation on the books that allow a DD.

    Just think, if there was a trigger, and the PM lost the numbers on the floor of the lower house, and Abbott took over. What would he do with such a trigger.

    We do have some poker machine legislation, that can be built on at a later stage.

    Sometimes a bird in hand is worth more than two in the bush.

    Not playing semantic with words. A lie is when you say you are going to do something, knowing at the time, you won’t. You have no evidence that suggests this is the case.

    We have been over this one so often, that it is time to agree to disagree. Nothing is to be gained in going on with the rehashing.

  49. reb,m as usual, you find a let out cause. That is OK.. I was being nice. It seems that does not please.

  50. Take that back to “not being able to”, as that is what occurred.

  51. reb, you waste your time. Insults are like water off a duck’s back at my age.

  52. 730reportland,
    The PM offered what she could, the vote of the ALP in both houses promise kept! The fact that Wilkie couldn’t convince others is/was his problem not ours.

  53. “We do have some poker machine legislation, that can be built on at a later stage.”

    Such as…?

    There is nothing, CU, NOTHING.

    I realise that in your constant worship of she-who-can-do-no-wrong Julia Gillard, this may escape you but what EXACTLY has she done to address problem gambling this term as promised to Andrew Wilkie…??

  54. “The fact that Wilkie couldn’t convince others is/was his problem not ours.”

    Ah, now here we go, the TPS mob arrive to lay blame at Andrew Wilkie because somehow “in a parallel universe” it was somehow “his” fault that JG didn’t honour her “written binding agreement” with him to specifically act on pokie reform..

  55. “reb, you waste your time. Insults are like water off a duck’s back at my age.”

    I don’t mean to “insult” you CU, it’s just that I genuinely don’t understand what it is that you are writing.

  56. No one is blaming Wilkie. One is just pointing out a fact that his bill, as he wanted it was not possible, That is not his fault. The fault lies with those who refused to support it.

    It could be true, that the PM is not to blame for everything. No one has said she has been able to perform miracles.

    All that is being said, the PM has done pretty well. The fact that she is still in the job indicates this,

    All I am asking is just to keep to the facts.

    The PM did honour that agreement. She said she would do all she could to get it through. It appears that she and Wilkie were unable to convince others to go along with them.

    It is a democracy, in the house, made up of MPs that have one vote each.

    Even Mr. Howard came up with this problem on most of his legislation.

  57. “The PM did honour that agreement.”

    Oh how we laughed…!!

    The last time I spoke to Andrew he was positively livid…!

    Waiter: I’ll have what CU’s having……..!

  58. Time to drop the topic. It Is becoming tiresome and going nowhere. readers can make up their own minds.

  59. Joolya is as cunning as a shit-house rat. Examples, knifing-kevin, misogyny-speech and todays sep-14 election announcement. Joolya could and should have put effort into the Wilkie `pokie` promise. Trying hard and failed, always looks better than running away.

  60. “Time to drop the topic. “

    Says who…?

    The mysterious/anonymous collective “we” that you continually refer to…?

    Are you the self-appointed arbiter of the “collective” that you repeatedly claim to represent and therefore decide when discussion begins and ends……??

  61. Relax everybody. It’s just an election.

    I’m guessing that we’ve all made up our minds who we’ll be voting for anyway.

  62. Reb, I am dropping out. If you want to carry on, arguing with yourself, that is your problem.

    You appear to be doing that anyway.,

    I claim to represent no one. Never have.

    Your last comments makes no sense at all. I cannot answer, what I did not say. Good night. Happy dreams.

    I was stupid enough to think after all this time, we could exchange ideas.

    Obliviously, once slighted, as you see it, you never forgive or forget.

    All I said is that the readers can make up their own minds. I assume we have some.

  63. Catching Up – ”Something else, she was able to amass the numbers for what Wilkie wanted. Wilkie himself was unable to get people to vote for his bill. . The PM promised to assist him. The PM did not promise to perform miracles.

    Catching Up, I think you should read the detail of the written agreement. Gillard made specific, unequivocal commitments, no provisos, no best endeavours”. She became Prime Minister as a consequence.

    She specifically broke her word and did not even attempt to deliver her own party to the deal.

    The she either overreached to the point of incompetence in providing the written undertakings, or she was dishonest in providing them Personally, I’m not bothered which, but she is either one or the other.

  64. “I claim to represent no one. Never have.”

    Really…?

    Why then, when you post comments, you consistently refer to yourself as “we” and “us” and to others as “our visitors…?”

    If, as you claim that you “represent no one” why wouldn’t you just refer to yourself as “I”….?

  65. I never did like the idea of one person holding a government to ransom.

  66. one person holding a government to ransom.
    =
    lt`s much better having one party pretending to be two.
    Fill them both with hypocrites and we get
    1. atheist prime`meddler groveling to fundy religion
    2. penny wong not standing by her own sexuality
    much better

  67. Imagine nutcases like Family First, the Shooters Party or Fred Nile being in Wilkie’s position.

    Gawd strewth.

  68. I can’t agree more about the need to hold the ALP accountable for what it HAS done that is unacceptable in terms of looking at what is or isn’t ‘progressive’. But I don’t agree that the lurch to the right by them is making them indistinguishable from the Coalition.

    For me it’s more about disappointment with tactics as much as it’s about negative policy out comes from them in this parliament. Small target, first to the policy so you appear like the other side and such…..

    There’s a lot to be disappointed about from Labor but the unique status of this parliament and the fact it HAS gone close to full term is a good thing in general terms.

    To me the argument that they are exactly the same is part of a political campaigning schtick that tries to display some form of critical indifference to the politics of the day, but really doesn’t take into account it’s own role in the debate and it’s influence in spreading negative attitudes about politicians in general. I think it’s part of the media’s narrative that has poisoned this electorate so much as well.

    It seems to be a safe haven away from having to come to terms with the need to make government work….sadly that takes politics.
    It communicates a rather false objectivity too. You either want to be part of the process or you don’t.

    Can’t we have a radical center to Australian politics anymore??
    Maybe not, perhaps the pursuit of it has produced this very type of political situation.

    Anyway enough of my rantings. The frustration you express here in this post Reb is one I also share, and forms part o the reason why I might vote for a left leaning (including Labor candidate) or anyone else who is NOT a National Party one, but won’t campaign for them.

    The House of Representatives vote on the amendments to the Migration Act that brought about the return of Howard era asylum seeker detention regime on steroids is not something I wanted. Even the Independents voted for it……yes, the cross bench ones that back Labor. Tony Windsor included.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: