In 1996 the Howard Government, in response to the shocking massacre at Port Arthur, introduced a gun control policy that banned semi-automatic firearms. To assure that those who owned such weapons were not put at a financial disadvantage, Howard offered a 'buyback' scheme, where gun owners would sell their soon to be illegal rifles to the Government who would then destroy them. Howard had decided to use the political will of the moment to quickly introduce reform, a poll put national wide support of this action at around 90%.
The buyback was estimated to cost in excess of $500 million, the Government was in debt (as they kept telling us, remember 'Labor's black hole'?), and half a billion dollars back in the mid nineties was a lot of money (roughly 5% of the overall debt). They didn't want to pay for it, because they'd spent so much time whinging about debt and how they didn't like it. So if they borrowed money they'd look like what they were: hypocrites. So what did Howard do? He introduced a one-off levy, or more correctly he increased the Medicare Levy for the 1996-97 financial year to cover the cost. Aside from a bunch of farmers in North Queensland, clinging to the M16s they regularly use to blow a rabbit's arsehole through its face, there was a relatively low amount of bitching about the policy and the tax increase. Why? - Because it was a good cause, and a relatively small amount of money.
In 1999, Howard did it again, finding it necessary to increase the Medicare Levy to bolster the nation's defence budget for the upcoming excursion to East Timor after its independence vote. This time the increase levy would bring in $900 million. In both of these cases the opposition agreed almost without question.
Back to the present, and the Gillard Government is faced with an estimated $5.2 billion rebuild of infrastructure in southern Queensland. That cost is in addition to the millions already spent on emergency cash for flood victims and the rescue effort. The Government is in debt, and has spent a lot of energy saying they will have it paid off soon. So, like Howard, they've decided that a one-off levy in addition to the rollback of programs is in order. For some reason though, this has set everyone off, this has apparently never happened before and is some sort of shocking travesty. The Opposition isn’t playing ball either, instead preferring to drag out their same tired lines and score some points. Clearly Australia's collective memory has been pissed away on that rock at the back of Dave's house, during his last annual meat, beer and misogyny party.
The first issue raised is people who have already contributed to the various victim charity funds. "I've already given money (I'm awesome that way), so why should I have to pay more?" Well, you gave money to the victims of the flood (good on you by the way) BUT the cost of the flood to the victims is a drop in the ocean compared with fixing all the roads, rail, sewers, power, pipelines and other general infrastructure damaged by the flood. That's what the Government wants your money for, not for getting all the mud out of Nanna's kitchen. People have actually said they want their donation back, and to them I give a big middle finger…right in your eye you heartless prick. Charity is not conditional, either you give or you don’t. Do not swan around like you now own the place. You are not the messiah and your family secretly hates you.
The second issue raised is the financial heat on tax payers and a negative affect on consumer spending. I've got two words: bull and shit. If you earn $50 000 a year, admittedly not middle of the road, you will pay $1 dollar a week or around $52 extra tax for the year. So instead of the $9050 you would usually pay in tax (if you don't have a HECS debt) you will pay $9102. If you earn $100000 a year, you will pay roughly $5 a week or $260 extra for the year. So instead of the $26950 you would usually pay in tax (if you have private health), you will pay $27210. If that piddling amount reduces overall consumer spending for the whole year then we're already in deep shit.
The third issue raised is that the levy shows poor planning on behalf of the Government. Well…it perhaps shows a lack of flexibility in the budget and there is a reason for that. The implementation of such levies reveal how terrified Governments are of going further into debt, because some people hate Government debt so much they would rather sell every public asset in existence before the nation borrows fifty cents. The fixation on surplus in this country borders on the insane. People seem to think that if the Government is in debt, they will soon be living in a failed state. Like they think Government borrowing is the bureaucratic equivalent of failing at life. This view is juxtaposed with the fact that most Australians cannot wait to get into debt themselves by purchasing an over-priced monstrosity of a house, situated only 20 minutes from the middle of nowhere.
The Government had three choices after the flood: Borrow more money, cut $5.2 billion worth of Government services, or issue a levy. Given that the fist option is just plain unthinkable, they went with a combination of options two and three. Was that the right decision? Was it justified? All things being equal, the answer is no, but things are far from equal. This is politics.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Monday, January 24, 2011
Aussie, Aussie, Aussie Annoy-oi-oi-ing?
The flags are out. The clichés are flowing. Obnoxious, witless (yet rhythmic) chants dominating the first two rounds of the Australian Open. The lamb ads are set to intolerant. Just like End Times, Australia Day will be here shortly.
People with a sense of history will understand why nationalism can be bad, and there's probably no need to go into what seemingly innocent national pride can turn into. That doesn't mean that all nationalism is systematic of something darker, just that it can be disturbing to some people who have seen it in other contexts. Of course there are many ways in which people express nationalism, some of them harmless (demurely supporting your national sports team), some of them harmful (wearing your nation's flag as a cape and walking the streets in groups of 5 or more), and some of them creepy (waking your children up at 12.01am on Australia Day to sing Waltzing Matilda in hushed tones while worshipping a plastic idol of David Boon). Look you get the idea, you can like your country, just don't be an arsehole about it.
Many people like Australia Day, and well yeah…that's fine. I don't begrudge people a national day, but I just can't help but feel that this particular national day (i.e. January 26th) is somewhat tainted.
Now I know what you're thinking: "He's going to crank out the phrase 'Invasion Day', I'm going to roll my eyes and head over to Cracked or Failblog or somewhere else where funny stuff happens, not preachy leftist bullshit . I don't need this, what did I do? I don't even put flags on my car, who does that? I'm not the fucking Prime Minister. Yes, yes, yes colonialism, very bad, many indigenous people killed/dispossessed/disenfranchised/forgotten etc. I've been to uni and I've drunk that particular brand of Coolaid before."
Before that series of thoughts play out to completion, please take note: for once I'm not attacking anyone. All I'm saying is that if we're going to have a national day (and why not I suppose), why don't we have one which is inclusive and that does not actively alienate large swaths of the population. Let's have a day to mark the birth of a modern western democracy which still trying (well, some of us are trying) to right the wrongs of the past, present and future, instead of marking the arrival of English colonists with a bunch of rapists and murderers in tow who would later claim to have only been convicted of stealing bread. Many would have us believe that there was an epidemic of bread-stealing in that late 1700s, as opposed to the stuff that was actually happening.
Anyway, I for one think that the main reason that Australia Day has not been moved is that Federation (you know: the actually significant date for Australia's nationhood) occurred on New Years Day 1901 and there is no way in hell we are going to let them double-dip on a public holiday. Social awareness is good, but work days sure do suck a whole lot of arse.
The only solution appears to be to become a republic, and then to not be so stupid as to do so on any existing state or federal holiday. That day will become whatever we decide to make it, based on a date without historical baggage. Will it get rid of the flags? Will it rid us of the vile insular nationalism that has been creeping into the Australian consciousness? Will it finally make all your progressive friends shut their pie holes and have fun for once? Well, maybe not, but it would be something right?
People with a sense of history will understand why nationalism can be bad, and there's probably no need to go into what seemingly innocent national pride can turn into. That doesn't mean that all nationalism is systematic of something darker, just that it can be disturbing to some people who have seen it in other contexts. Of course there are many ways in which people express nationalism, some of them harmless (demurely supporting your national sports team), some of them harmful (wearing your nation's flag as a cape and walking the streets in groups of 5 or more), and some of them creepy (waking your children up at 12.01am on Australia Day to sing Waltzing Matilda in hushed tones while worshipping a plastic idol of David Boon). Look you get the idea, you can like your country, just don't be an arsehole about it.
Many people like Australia Day, and well yeah…that's fine. I don't begrudge people a national day, but I just can't help but feel that this particular national day (i.e. January 26th) is somewhat tainted.
Now I know what you're thinking: "He's going to crank out the phrase 'Invasion Day', I'm going to roll my eyes and head over to Cracked or Failblog or somewhere else where funny stuff happens, not preachy leftist bullshit . I don't need this, what did I do? I don't even put flags on my car, who does that? I'm not the fucking Prime Minister. Yes, yes, yes colonialism, very bad, many indigenous people killed/dispossessed/disenfranchised/forgotten etc. I've been to uni and I've drunk that particular brand of Coolaid before."
Before that series of thoughts play out to completion, please take note: for once I'm not attacking anyone. All I'm saying is that if we're going to have a national day (and why not I suppose), why don't we have one which is inclusive and that does not actively alienate large swaths of the population. Let's have a day to mark the birth of a modern western democracy which still trying (well, some of us are trying) to right the wrongs of the past, present and future, instead of marking the arrival of English colonists with a bunch of rapists and murderers in tow who would later claim to have only been convicted of stealing bread. Many would have us believe that there was an epidemic of bread-stealing in that late 1700s, as opposed to the stuff that was actually happening.
Anyway, I for one think that the main reason that Australia Day has not been moved is that Federation (you know: the actually significant date for Australia's nationhood) occurred on New Years Day 1901 and there is no way in hell we are going to let them double-dip on a public holiday. Social awareness is good, but work days sure do suck a whole lot of arse.
The only solution appears to be to become a republic, and then to not be so stupid as to do so on any existing state or federal holiday. That day will become whatever we decide to make it, based on a date without historical baggage. Will it get rid of the flags? Will it rid us of the vile insular nationalism that has been creeping into the Australian consciousness? Will it finally make all your progressive friends shut their pie holes and have fun for once? Well, maybe not, but it would be something right?
Monday, January 17, 2011
Come in Spinner
The frankly indescribable floods in Queensland, while far too serious a subject to be discussed in this 'forum', have presented a rather surprising turn of events: praise, and yes even fondness for Anna Bligh. It is of course, thoroughly deserved. Bligh has provided exactly what was needed in the face of impending and ongoing disaster: honesty, heart and information. What is surprising about it is that if Queenslanders were asked to list Anna Bligh's attributes a month ago, the exact opposites of those three words would have been used. Anna Bligh was gone, she was seen as disingenuous and incompetent, and people were pumped to vote her out. They were looking forward to it.
So what was different about the way Bligh presented herself over the last few weeks? Number 1: She was not thinking about how she was presenting herself. Number 2: The media were not thinking about how she was presenting herself and Number 3: No one in Queensland was concerned at all with anything to do with that sort of bullshit. What we witnessed was Government working without spin, the media reporting without spin and everyone being better off for its absence.
We must realise however, that there is a reason for that: The situation dictated it. Anna Bligh and the media did not just learn simultaneously that this is what people like. It is because that for once there is enough 'news' occurring to satisfy the 24 hour cycle, and that has simply removed the more speculative news journalism. Just like that, away goes the spin and the pseudo-psychological over-analysis of your local journalistic crumb-bum.
It's a common misconception that it is solely politicians and the corporate sector who deal in spin, but in fact it is the media itself who is the true master of the dark arts. Spin was invented by the media, and it has since leaked into every orifice of public and private bodies. Long gone are the days when an event happens and somebody reports on it. There are many 'phases' now to major news stories that tend to blow things out. They are: the 'pre-event speculation' phase, the 'event is about to start, I wonder if the speculation was right' phase, the 'event has started' phase, the 'event is continuing' padding, the 'approaching the middle of the event' further padding, the 'middle of the event' rest and recap, post-middle discussion, continuing post-middle, nearing climax, climax, post climax, repeat of what happened at climax in case you just joined us or were in a coma, nearing end, end, analysis, end of year montage preparation. These 16 phases must be filled with a narrative of some sort or the audience will get bored and turn over to Two and a Half Men or My Kitchen is Pretty Good to blast away their feelings of inadequacy with food, tears and quasi-humorous misogyny. If there's no actual narrative, you spin one. It's that easy!
Anyway, the point is (I think): if we like our politicians to be straight-forward, honest and to tell it like it is, if we like them to be rough around the edges and free of those greasy PR types, if we want them to speak like real people, then why aren't they like that all the time?
Why?
Because if they were, the news cycle would destroy them. The media would be more likely to punish them for it than praise them, and so would we. If it wasn't during an event of the magnitude of these floods, where people feel uncomfortable talking about something so debauched as politics, then we would punish MPs for exhibiting these qualities.
Making flippant remarks, being glib, wrong tie, looked funny, looked bored, was laughing, wasn't laughing, looked asleep, bad hair, no hair, fat, not fat enough, ate a burger, ate the wrong burger, mixed up the red heads, stumbled on a community leader's name, actually stumbled over a community leader, stepped in dog shit, drank a foreign beer, looked awkward hugging someone, hugged someone they weren't meant to, kicked a football badly, hit a kid in the nuts playing cricket, has an ugly family, has a hot family, has a second family, has one of those rat dogs, plays badminton, referenced a slightly daggy musical act, eats cheese…in bed, is one of those people who thinks the phrase 'rocket surgery' is still funny, drinks, doesn't drink, in middling on drinking etc. These are all the things that get jumped on when there is not enough real stuff going on to feed the media beast.
If you want to know why your representatives look like robots, and say the same keywords five times over every time someone shoves a camera in their gob, then there's your answer. The only thing that fights spin is more spin, with some repetition to boot. The less you say, the less interpretation there is, and the less bullshit you read about yourself tomorrow morning.
You have to go robot, just don't go full robot.
So what was different about the way Bligh presented herself over the last few weeks? Number 1: She was not thinking about how she was presenting herself. Number 2: The media were not thinking about how she was presenting herself and Number 3: No one in Queensland was concerned at all with anything to do with that sort of bullshit. What we witnessed was Government working without spin, the media reporting without spin and everyone being better off for its absence.
We must realise however, that there is a reason for that: The situation dictated it. Anna Bligh and the media did not just learn simultaneously that this is what people like. It is because that for once there is enough 'news' occurring to satisfy the 24 hour cycle, and that has simply removed the more speculative news journalism. Just like that, away goes the spin and the pseudo-psychological over-analysis of your local journalistic crumb-bum.
It's a common misconception that it is solely politicians and the corporate sector who deal in spin, but in fact it is the media itself who is the true master of the dark arts. Spin was invented by the media, and it has since leaked into every orifice of public and private bodies. Long gone are the days when an event happens and somebody reports on it. There are many 'phases' now to major news stories that tend to blow things out. They are: the 'pre-event speculation' phase, the 'event is about to start, I wonder if the speculation was right' phase, the 'event has started' phase, the 'event is continuing' padding, the 'approaching the middle of the event' further padding, the 'middle of the event' rest and recap, post-middle discussion, continuing post-middle, nearing climax, climax, post climax, repeat of what happened at climax in case you just joined us or were in a coma, nearing end, end, analysis, end of year montage preparation. These 16 phases must be filled with a narrative of some sort or the audience will get bored and turn over to Two and a Half Men or My Kitchen is Pretty Good to blast away their feelings of inadequacy with food, tears and quasi-humorous misogyny. If there's no actual narrative, you spin one. It's that easy!
Anyway, the point is (I think): if we like our politicians to be straight-forward, honest and to tell it like it is, if we like them to be rough around the edges and free of those greasy PR types, if we want them to speak like real people, then why aren't they like that all the time?
Why?
Because if they were, the news cycle would destroy them. The media would be more likely to punish them for it than praise them, and so would we. If it wasn't during an event of the magnitude of these floods, where people feel uncomfortable talking about something so debauched as politics, then we would punish MPs for exhibiting these qualities.
Making flippant remarks, being glib, wrong tie, looked funny, looked bored, was laughing, wasn't laughing, looked asleep, bad hair, no hair, fat, not fat enough, ate a burger, ate the wrong burger, mixed up the red heads, stumbled on a community leader's name, actually stumbled over a community leader, stepped in dog shit, drank a foreign beer, looked awkward hugging someone, hugged someone they weren't meant to, kicked a football badly, hit a kid in the nuts playing cricket, has an ugly family, has a hot family, has a second family, has one of those rat dogs, plays badminton, referenced a slightly daggy musical act, eats cheese…in bed, is one of those people who thinks the phrase 'rocket surgery' is still funny, drinks, doesn't drink, in middling on drinking etc. These are all the things that get jumped on when there is not enough real stuff going on to feed the media beast.
If you want to know why your representatives look like robots, and say the same keywords five times over every time someone shoves a camera in their gob, then there's your answer. The only thing that fights spin is more spin, with some repetition to boot. The less you say, the less interpretation there is, and the less bullshit you read about yourself tomorrow morning.
You have to go robot, just don't go full robot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)