It's hard to think of another time when a government has had to fight so many battles, on so many fronts, at the same time, and seem to be losing all of them. Julia Gillard only appears to enjoy being PM when she's overseas, and it's for good reason. Being Prime Minister of Australia, and being in Australia at the same time really fucking sucks. I mean REALLY sucks. I don't know why anyone would do it to themselves. And if, on top of that, you're a Labor Prime Minister, then shit gets real.
It's particularly bad at the moment. You know it's bad when Bill Shorten is seen to be snapping at your heals for the leadership. That's right. Bill Shorten. If I have to hear him say something like "We're getting on with the businessly business of being a business government" again I'm going to suffocate him with his own bomber jacket.
Immigration is an issue again, like it ever went away. If Australians get overcharged for milk twice in a row you can pretty much guarantee immigration will become an issue. "I just payed $4 for 2 litres of semi-skimmed, so fuck those idiots who've lost everything and are burning their makeshift prisons in a justifiable act of pure frustration. Send them back to their war-torn 'nations', or somewhere that's not here, to ease my milk-based expenses/existential despair." As always, this is a no-win situation for Labor and true to form they are not-winning the shit out of it.
The Carbon Tax has become the one of the worst sold policies in recent memory. It's like they wrote 'Carbon Tax' on a big piece of white construction paper and asked Tony Abbott to fill in the gaps. I'd try to defend it, but I don't know what it is. Rest assured the Australian public wouldn't want it anyway, even if it was good, well thought out policy. They do not have a history of that.
Wayne Swan is preparing for the most cutting budget of all time. Lindsay Tanner has written a book saying Julia Gillard dyes her hair. Peter Garrett just said something. Q and A is having a Royal Wedding special. Another State Labor MP reasoned that looking at child porn is good for career advancement. The only joy Julia Gillard is getting out of her job at the moment is going to China and saying 'Human Rights' 700 times.
You think the 2010 election was bad? 2013 is going to be off the hook. Set your baths to warm and your wrists to slit, we're not waking up after this one.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
Where Will We Be...?
It's morning in Australia. The Prime Minister awakes to his breakfast of GU Rochtane Blueberry energy gel and two Electrolyte Rehydration Shotz tablets. He neatly slips into his lycra body suit as he watches Sunrise and listens to Sydney's most recent talkback abomination simultaneously. He notes Kochie's ever changing face; that laser surgery did not go well.
He's off, out on his Merida carbon fibre road bike; very light, lighter even than a small starving child.
As always his ride is enjoyable, although he pines for Canberra and the world record sized velodrome he had installed on the recently drained Lake Burley Griffin. People complained, but it's a man-made lake, so who cares? He wanted a man-made velodrome. Same thing.
Canberra had recently found a firm place in his heart; the scene for so many of his victories. Juliar gone, knifed by that bloke in the bomber jacket on the back of constant opposition sniping. Heavy Kevie, fleeing to the UN in a self important rage, furious at everyone's inability to catch on to his obvious hints. And of course good old Wayne Swan, living underground with the Green insurgents, in love with a fat man his deranged mind believes is a beautiful woman.
Canberra; scene of his historic "You're Welcome" statement to Indigenous Australians. He still remembers that sunny day in February, Andrew Bolt standing there, tears in his eyes, holding aloft a picture of the newly animated corpse of Rupert Murdoch.
Canberra; where he completely destroyed the progressives; both real and pretend. They litter the courtyards of parliament, vanquished by a combination of hubris, ineptitude and the habit of speaking unpalatable truths. They disgust him. Carbon taxers, welfare apologists, public healthcare evangelists and gay marriage sympathisers. Irrelevant, everyone of them, to his new nation of the individual. Autonomy reigns, safety nets are banned and the die is cast.
The boats are gone, turned away in their hundreds. Many sunk, but no one cares, for we are now alone. And Empty.
Empty to the core.
He's off, out on his Merida carbon fibre road bike; very light, lighter even than a small starving child.
As always his ride is enjoyable, although he pines for Canberra and the world record sized velodrome he had installed on the recently drained Lake Burley Griffin. People complained, but it's a man-made lake, so who cares? He wanted a man-made velodrome. Same thing.
Canberra had recently found a firm place in his heart; the scene for so many of his victories. Juliar gone, knifed by that bloke in the bomber jacket on the back of constant opposition sniping. Heavy Kevie, fleeing to the UN in a self important rage, furious at everyone's inability to catch on to his obvious hints. And of course good old Wayne Swan, living underground with the Green insurgents, in love with a fat man his deranged mind believes is a beautiful woman.
Canberra; scene of his historic "You're Welcome" statement to Indigenous Australians. He still remembers that sunny day in February, Andrew Bolt standing there, tears in his eyes, holding aloft a picture of the newly animated corpse of Rupert Murdoch.
Canberra; where he completely destroyed the progressives; both real and pretend. They litter the courtyards of parliament, vanquished by a combination of hubris, ineptitude and the habit of speaking unpalatable truths. They disgust him. Carbon taxers, welfare apologists, public healthcare evangelists and gay marriage sympathisers. Irrelevant, everyone of them, to his new nation of the individual. Autonomy reigns, safety nets are banned and the die is cast.
The boats are gone, turned away in their hundreds. Many sunk, but no one cares, for we are now alone. And Empty.
Empty to the core.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
What's Good for the Goose...
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a piece on Tony Abbott's segue into welfare bashing; a bashing that was particularly focused on the long term unemployed and those on disability payments. Abbott's sudden topic change has been put in context today, as Julia Gillard is set to release what sounds like a similar policy. Abbott was clearly in the know, and thought it best to pre-empt Gillard so that everyone will think that kicking the unemployed and the disabled was all his idea. Because you wouldn't want to miss out that title would you? You know, Nation's Biggest Bastard.
It would be remiss of me if I didn't give the same pasting to Gillard that I gave to Abbott for what I believe is a cynical attempt to smooth over other cuts to the Budget with the general populace. Obviously the Government believes that it cannot make the big cuts it needs to make to achieve next year's promised surplus without throwing a bone to those morons who think people on welfare are living it up playboy style. You know the guy they're thinking of; he's fat, he has a beard, smokes weed, plays Xbox all day, goes for a swim in his Olympic size swimming pool at his beach house AND IS FICTIONAL. He is fictional. He doesn't exist. The real guy on welfare may have a beard, but he's probably eating dog food and swimming in a puddle outside his sharehouse. It's not that ritzy stuff like My Dog he's eating either, I'm talking about that stuff that stays can-shaped when you tip it into the bowl. He lives off $250 a week, how is that even possible? That guy is MacGyver.
Anyway, as was stated in the previous piece, the long term unemployed are hardly a budget drag. They account for roughly 15% of the unemployed population and there has been a steady reduction over the past ten years. The supposedly ubiquitous 'Welfare Cheats' are another piece of misdirection. Focusing on fraud is not going to balance your budget, forcing people on disability pensions 'who can work, but don't want to' out into the workforce won't do it either. It will however, smooth it over for people who will be affected by the 'real' cuts.
Services will be cut. Funding for research will be cut. There is surely to be cuts to middle-class benefits (maybe that's hoping too much), and perhaps to education. People will be mad, but not as mad as they would be if you didn't also go after that 'bong-smoking hippie in a wheelchair living next-door watching his big screen TV all day.'
This is all for nothing as well. This is so the Budget can be in surplus next year. Why does it need to be in surplus next year? The answer is this: it doesn't. It 'needs' to be because the Government said it would be. It has no material affect on anyone, but for some reason people cannot stand the Government being in debt. They would prefer they cut everything rather than spend another day in the red.
I've tried to understand it, but I can't. Personal debt is through the roof, people live well beyond their means. Why do you care if the Government has to borrow more money? I certainly don't.
Mind you, I'm caring about less and less these days.
It would be remiss of me if I didn't give the same pasting to Gillard that I gave to Abbott for what I believe is a cynical attempt to smooth over other cuts to the Budget with the general populace. Obviously the Government believes that it cannot make the big cuts it needs to make to achieve next year's promised surplus without throwing a bone to those morons who think people on welfare are living it up playboy style. You know the guy they're thinking of; he's fat, he has a beard, smokes weed, plays Xbox all day, goes for a swim in his Olympic size swimming pool at his beach house AND IS FICTIONAL. He is fictional. He doesn't exist. The real guy on welfare may have a beard, but he's probably eating dog food and swimming in a puddle outside his sharehouse. It's not that ritzy stuff like My Dog he's eating either, I'm talking about that stuff that stays can-shaped when you tip it into the bowl. He lives off $250 a week, how is that even possible? That guy is MacGyver.
Anyway, as was stated in the previous piece, the long term unemployed are hardly a budget drag. They account for roughly 15% of the unemployed population and there has been a steady reduction over the past ten years. The supposedly ubiquitous 'Welfare Cheats' are another piece of misdirection. Focusing on fraud is not going to balance your budget, forcing people on disability pensions 'who can work, but don't want to' out into the workforce won't do it either. It will however, smooth it over for people who will be affected by the 'real' cuts.
Services will be cut. Funding for research will be cut. There is surely to be cuts to middle-class benefits (maybe that's hoping too much), and perhaps to education. People will be mad, but not as mad as they would be if you didn't also go after that 'bong-smoking hippie in a wheelchair living next-door watching his big screen TV all day.'
This is all for nothing as well. This is so the Budget can be in surplus next year. Why does it need to be in surplus next year? The answer is this: it doesn't. It 'needs' to be because the Government said it would be. It has no material affect on anyone, but for some reason people cannot stand the Government being in debt. They would prefer they cut everything rather than spend another day in the red.
I've tried to understand it, but I can't. Personal debt is through the roof, people live well beyond their means. Why do you care if the Government has to borrow more money? I certainly don't.
Mind you, I'm caring about less and less these days.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Hot Slots
Poker machine reform has been talked about on and off for years now, but it has never seemed to get off the ground. With sports gambling, on the internet in particular, becoming more and more pervasive, it looked as if the pokies would take a back seat when it came to gambling reform. The intrusion of betting into people's homes, with odds constantly thrown at them as they watch their Saturday football, where they don't even have to move to make a bet, seemed a more likely target. However, it's back on the table and it's all because of Andrew Wilkie.
Being from Perth, pokies are essentially alien to me. They are banned here, even the ones at our casino take a bit longer to play and involve an actual game of poker. Our pubs are free of them, there's no dingy back room populated with one aged pensioner and the local masturbator. We don't have them in our RSL or Leagues Clubs, because we don't have any RSL or Leagues Clubs, well we have RSLs, but nothing happens there. In fact we never leave our houses. If you've got mineral wealth we'll take you for all you've got, we'll even disenfranchise large communities just to get it, but we haven't based our economy on ripping off people who can't afford it.
From my position poker machine reform is a no-brainer. I find the large scale defence of poker machines to be utterly staggering. I cannot believe that anyone, particularly MPs, can be in favour of the current situation. I find the Liberal's position absolutely ridiculous. They are in favour of full welfare quarantining for Aboriginal People in the Territory, where people are registered, given cards and forced to shop at Woolworths, but try to make someone do something far less onerous so they can throw a pre-determined amount of money away in Sydney and they scream nanny state. Bull. Shit.
Clubs Australia, the association of clubs that rely on pokies for revenue, has launched a multi-million dollar campaign to sink the reforms. Obviously, they believe that allowing people to pre-determine their potential losses will lose them money, enough money to blow $20million on advertising without blinking. This is as clear as an admission that they primarily make their coin off people losing more than they intended. Claiming that the money goes back into the community is not a defence, you could argue the same thing for a community run heroin dealer, it doesn't make it right. Feeding off misery is feeding off misery.
Andrew Wilkie has come out this morning and stated that he has received death threats and attempts at blackmail over this issue. The response from Clubs Australia almost immediately was to essentially call him a liar, ask him for proof and feign outrage at an accusation he hasn't made. Their CEO Anthony Ball stated that there is no way this came from one of their members. Really? No way at all? I mean, Clubs Australia is probably a pretty tight ship, there's absolutely no possibility at all that one of their 4000 members didn't read the 'No Death Threats or Blackmail' memo in the bimonthly newsletter. There's no way that someone might take the law into their own hands. That never happens.
This is a passion project for Andrew Wilkie. He made it part of his deal to support the Government, so I suppose it's a passion project for them too now. It will be a hard road. Certain State Governments make millions in taxes from these machines, and Tony Abbott's position has more than a whiff of hoping that cultivating opposition to this may get him into the Lodge.
An opportunist to the end.
Being from Perth, pokies are essentially alien to me. They are banned here, even the ones at our casino take a bit longer to play and involve an actual game of poker. Our pubs are free of them, there's no dingy back room populated with one aged pensioner and the local masturbator. We don't have them in our RSL or Leagues Clubs, because we don't have any RSL or Leagues Clubs, well we have RSLs, but nothing happens there. In fact we never leave our houses. If you've got mineral wealth we'll take you for all you've got, we'll even disenfranchise large communities just to get it, but we haven't based our economy on ripping off people who can't afford it.
From my position poker machine reform is a no-brainer. I find the large scale defence of poker machines to be utterly staggering. I cannot believe that anyone, particularly MPs, can be in favour of the current situation. I find the Liberal's position absolutely ridiculous. They are in favour of full welfare quarantining for Aboriginal People in the Territory, where people are registered, given cards and forced to shop at Woolworths, but try to make someone do something far less onerous so they can throw a pre-determined amount of money away in Sydney and they scream nanny state. Bull. Shit.
Clubs Australia, the association of clubs that rely on pokies for revenue, has launched a multi-million dollar campaign to sink the reforms. Obviously, they believe that allowing people to pre-determine their potential losses will lose them money, enough money to blow $20million on advertising without blinking. This is as clear as an admission that they primarily make their coin off people losing more than they intended. Claiming that the money goes back into the community is not a defence, you could argue the same thing for a community run heroin dealer, it doesn't make it right. Feeding off misery is feeding off misery.
Andrew Wilkie has come out this morning and stated that he has received death threats and attempts at blackmail over this issue. The response from Clubs Australia almost immediately was to essentially call him a liar, ask him for proof and feign outrage at an accusation he hasn't made. Their CEO Anthony Ball stated that there is no way this came from one of their members. Really? No way at all? I mean, Clubs Australia is probably a pretty tight ship, there's absolutely no possibility at all that one of their 4000 members didn't read the 'No Death Threats or Blackmail' memo in the bimonthly newsletter. There's no way that someone might take the law into their own hands. That never happens.
This is a passion project for Andrew Wilkie. He made it part of his deal to support the Government, so I suppose it's a passion project for them too now. It will be a hard road. Certain State Governments make millions in taxes from these machines, and Tony Abbott's position has more than a whiff of hoping that cultivating opposition to this may get him into the Lodge.
An opportunist to the end.
Monday, April 11, 2011
The Question
When an issue gets done to death and everyone's sick of it; there's always the leadership question. When there's column that's nearing deadline and the thought of talking to Wayne Swan about the Budget makes you want to crack skulls and feast on the goo inside; there's always the leadership question. When someone goes on Q and A, performs well and the audience's shoes stay on; there's always the leadership question. Whenever there's nothing to ask or if the answer would be so boring that it amounts to the same thing; ask about the leadership.
When you've got to write something, but can't think of anything, play the leadership card – but you can only use it as much as you like.
Not only does it get you out of jail for one story, it creates heaps of other stories as well. There's the follow-up article where you get some shifty looking guy to say 'That's ridiculous, I fully support someone'. If you can wait long enough for a new poll to come out – so, you know, 24 hours, you can get another story like "Leadership Tensions Reflected/Not Reflected in Latest Whatever". Even if the poll's main numbers don't say what you want them to say you'll be able to find some obscure question or interesting dichotomy that you can again throw at that shifty looking guy from earlier.
By now some friends have probably jumped on the band wagon and your away; you'll now have some filler next time you've got half a story – You: "Does the issue with the Budget/refugees/angry senate/carbon tax/NBN/something have anything to do with the ongoing leadership tensions? Shifty guy: 'That's ridiculous'. You: 'Do you fully support…?" Shift guy: '…Someone, yes." His darting eyes and innate sweatiness will take care of the rest.
This fundamental practice of political journalism was on show yet again this past week. Kevin Rudd goes on Q and A, and all of a sudden he's popular again. "Hey, remember that guy we really hated a year ago? He's pretty awesome." So of course, some wise arse asked the question everyone loves to ask politicians: "Do you want the leadership?" The reason this is everyone's favourite question is because no matter what the situation, no matter what side of politics they're on, whether they're in government or opposition, the answer is always yes. Watching a politician answer it while trying not to sound like some destabilising rabble-rouser seems to be some people's idea of a good time.
Getting an honest answer is not the intent of the question. Shit stirring is the intent of the question. Think about it; divorced from politics the question is: "Do you want a promotion that could possibly/will lead you to the very pinnacle of your profession, and provide you with a place in history forever?"
How much thinking time would you need? The answer is obvious, the questioner just wants to see him squirm and try to hide his pants bulge of ambition.
Does want to be Prime Minister again? Hells yeah. Will he do anything about it is the question that is important. He probably won't, but if he was gifted the opportunity it would be wacko the diddli-yo and sucking sauce bottles all over again, I guarantee it.
When you've got to write something, but can't think of anything, play the leadership card – but you can only use it as much as you like.
Not only does it get you out of jail for one story, it creates heaps of other stories as well. There's the follow-up article where you get some shifty looking guy to say 'That's ridiculous, I fully support someone'. If you can wait long enough for a new poll to come out – so, you know, 24 hours, you can get another story like "Leadership Tensions Reflected/Not Reflected in Latest Whatever". Even if the poll's main numbers don't say what you want them to say you'll be able to find some obscure question or interesting dichotomy that you can again throw at that shifty looking guy from earlier.
By now some friends have probably jumped on the band wagon and your away; you'll now have some filler next time you've got half a story – You: "Does the issue with the Budget/refugees/angry senate/carbon tax/NBN/something have anything to do with the ongoing leadership tensions? Shifty guy: 'That's ridiculous'. You: 'Do you fully support…?" Shift guy: '…Someone, yes." His darting eyes and innate sweatiness will take care of the rest.
This fundamental practice of political journalism was on show yet again this past week. Kevin Rudd goes on Q and A, and all of a sudden he's popular again. "Hey, remember that guy we really hated a year ago? He's pretty awesome." So of course, some wise arse asked the question everyone loves to ask politicians: "Do you want the leadership?" The reason this is everyone's favourite question is because no matter what the situation, no matter what side of politics they're on, whether they're in government or opposition, the answer is always yes. Watching a politician answer it while trying not to sound like some destabilising rabble-rouser seems to be some people's idea of a good time.
Getting an honest answer is not the intent of the question. Shit stirring is the intent of the question. Think about it; divorced from politics the question is: "Do you want a promotion that could possibly/will lead you to the very pinnacle of your profession, and provide you with a place in history forever?"
How much thinking time would you need? The answer is obvious, the questioner just wants to see him squirm and try to hide his pants bulge of ambition.
Does want to be Prime Minister again? Hells yeah. Will he do anything about it is the question that is important. He probably won't, but if he was gifted the opportunity it would be wacko the diddli-yo and sucking sauce bottles all over again, I guarantee it.
Monday, April 4, 2011
The Lament of an Armchair Commentator
Somehow I ended up watching Q and A last night. Something which I usually avoid because screaming at the TV is apparently only acceptable during the final moments of vaguely consequential football matches. Every time Tony Jones said that it was time to move on and another subject was raised, I audibly groaned and writhed in my chair, like a depressed toddler with irritable bowel syndrome. There was not one topic that I could bear to listen to without flying into a rage. I commented to a friend that I couldn’t decide what crushingly depressing issue to write about today. I still can't, so I think I'll just be crushingly depressed.
I have expressed my dislike of Q and A in past pieces; the smug questioners, the applause for the obviously flawed populist statement from someone who only half knows what they're talking about, the questions that turn in statements, the increasing frequent party plants reading their questions scrawled on their inner forearms. It is consistently infuriating.
But recently I've found everything infuriating. The constantly polled electorate, consistently inconsistent with everything: We hate Julia and like Tony, we hate them both, kinda middling on Julia but starting to dislike Tony, like Rudd again, hate Julia middling on Tony, love Turnbull, we want Turnbull and Rudd at the same time because 2009 was kick-arse, the carbon tax is good but it sucks and will destroy us. Do people really change their minds like this constantly? Has everyone just become pure id?
Mark Latham has done away with the pretence of being a conniving, manipulative bastard and has just become pure bastard. Julia Gillard has obviously received some polling that she's seen as too close to the Greens so has therefore decided to call them names; because, well because…they're smelly and dobb on her all the time, I don't know…maybe 5 year olds will buy it and vote for her in 13 years.
I don't think I like anyone in politics anymore. The week before last I watched the full coverage of the NSW Election, just to feel something. I ended up sitting on my couch in the dark giggling softly at some Labor guy saying "It's a big loss, I'm not going to lie." He should have lied; it would have made for better TV. Only the ridiculous claims that the entire result was due to the carbon tax could get me going and yelling 'Bullshit' to no one in particular, but it was fleeting.
The media is too obsessed with the political soap opera for there to be any real debate about policy. No wonder no one knows anything. The public just seem to have vague notions of things, like they fell asleep in front of the TV and it made them dream about something Ross Garnaut said. I know 'the media never talks about policy' complaint is an old chestnut spouted by wankers like myself when no one agrees with me, BUT IT'S TRUE.
I know this blog usually attempts to be funny, and maybe Steve Fielding will say something ridiculous on the weekend and we'll get past this. But until then please take a moment to consider just how well and truly fucked we all are.
I have expressed my dislike of Q and A in past pieces; the smug questioners, the applause for the obviously flawed populist statement from someone who only half knows what they're talking about, the questions that turn in statements, the increasing frequent party plants reading their questions scrawled on their inner forearms. It is consistently infuriating.
But recently I've found everything infuriating. The constantly polled electorate, consistently inconsistent with everything: We hate Julia and like Tony, we hate them both, kinda middling on Julia but starting to dislike Tony, like Rudd again, hate Julia middling on Tony, love Turnbull, we want Turnbull and Rudd at the same time because 2009 was kick-arse, the carbon tax is good but it sucks and will destroy us. Do people really change their minds like this constantly? Has everyone just become pure id?
Mark Latham has done away with the pretence of being a conniving, manipulative bastard and has just become pure bastard. Julia Gillard has obviously received some polling that she's seen as too close to the Greens so has therefore decided to call them names; because, well because…they're smelly and dobb on her all the time, I don't know…maybe 5 year olds will buy it and vote for her in 13 years.
I don't think I like anyone in politics anymore. The week before last I watched the full coverage of the NSW Election, just to feel something. I ended up sitting on my couch in the dark giggling softly at some Labor guy saying "It's a big loss, I'm not going to lie." He should have lied; it would have made for better TV. Only the ridiculous claims that the entire result was due to the carbon tax could get me going and yelling 'Bullshit' to no one in particular, but it was fleeting.
The media is too obsessed with the political soap opera for there to be any real debate about policy. No wonder no one knows anything. The public just seem to have vague notions of things, like they fell asleep in front of the TV and it made them dream about something Ross Garnaut said. I know 'the media never talks about policy' complaint is an old chestnut spouted by wankers like myself when no one agrees with me, BUT IT'S TRUE.
I know this blog usually attempts to be funny, and maybe Steve Fielding will say something ridiculous on the weekend and we'll get past this. But until then please take a moment to consider just how well and truly fucked we all are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)