In Australian politics, the word mandate can be both a shield and a weapon. It can be a single sentence defence of a complex or controversial issue in government and it can stone hurled back by an opposition when circumstances change. It is also vague. There is no direct measure of what entails a mandate. Generally if a party gains a majority in the House of Representatives, then they institute their policy plan, because they have a mandate from the Australian public to do so.
That is rather simplistic though. It assumes that if you vote for a party you agree with its entire platform. Policies are not voted on individually, it's all or nothing, so the mandate defence can generally only be used for policies that were front and centre during the most recent election. Oppositions however, will use the mandate attack whenever a government does something even slightly different from what they said they would do.
When it comes to close elections, everything becomes vague.
In 1998 John Howard took the GST tax package to an election. He won, just, so he claimed a mandate and introduced the tax. But did he actually have a mandate? Howard received 49.02% of the two-party preferred vote to Beazley's 50.98%, but had won more seats. In other words, if there had been a referendum GST (which was the central issue of the campaign), on those numbers it would have been voted down. That however, is not how Australian politics works, and the tax was implemented. Rightly so. He was in government, so he did it even if claiming that the Australian people had 'spoken' was a bit rich.
The current situation involving Julia Gillard's reversal on a 'carbon tax' is a bit different, but the issue probes the same grey area as to what a mandate actually is. Julia Gillard said that if she won the election, her government would not institute a carbon tax. The thing is, she didn't really 'win' the election in the traditional sense. She is currently leading the government with the help of another party and independents who were not party to her election platform. She cannot be expected to institute her entire program 100%, because the 'Australian people', like some unconscious hive mind, decided that any government would have to be tempered by the Greens and four mostly agricultural gentlemen. Basically, a hung parliament means that it is open season on policy, and crapping on about mandates in this situation is ridiculous.
After the government was formed, Gillard invited all parties to join the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee to discuss a national response. This is what they came up with: Carbon Tax. The Liberal and Nationals refused to join that particular committee, and thus missed an opportunity to have any input. Why? Because to do so would have been participating in the process of governing, and the Liberals are so obsessed with pointing out the 'illegitimacy' of the government that they dare not take part in anything that would actually acknowledge Gillard's leadership. Tony Abbott is scaling new heights of hypocrisy. It was only a few months ago that he was decrying this government's lack of mandate, now he's bitching that they've had to turn around on one policy. His demand for an election on this issue reveals his complete inability to accept that he is not the Prime Minister.
If Labor had a majority, then maybe they'd still be pushing for an ETS straight away, rather than having a carbon tax first, but they don't have a majority. They have to negotiate policy across the political spectrum with other parties and individuals. They will have to make many alterations to promises made at the last election. In a lot of cases we are going to see better policy. This is what politics is: Negotiation and compromise. Particularly in hung parliaments
It's going to happen a lot this term and it's time to get used to that.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Monday, February 21, 2011
Splitsville, Population: Everyone
Roughly six months after the collective shrug of the hung parliament and the creation of the patchwork Gillard Government, federal politics has once again tread new grounds of confusion. There are splits everywhere; in Cabinet, in the opposition leadership group, in the senate, and in Barnaby Joyce's top ten head voices.
In Cabinet, there is a near continuous fire sale of Kevin Rudd's programs and policies. Disaster rebuilding has provided the perfect excuse to dismantle much of his legacy, and Rudd is noticeably and justifiably pissed. He recently stormed out of a cabinet meeting, but quickly got his staff to book a plane that he would be late for, just in case anyone asked why.
In general, Government policy is fluid. A bill to appropriate money was passed without its consent, to avoid a constitutional crisis they meekly acquiesced and amended their own bill, setting an appalling precedent. Health reform is now whatever the State Premiers will sign. Thus the agreement entitled "Hey, do you want free money for shit?" was enacted. The Premiers looked as if they had tripped over bag of unmarked non-sequential $100 bills on there way to their car that morning, the PM looked like a senior citizen who hands out lollies to children just to get attention.
The Opposition meanwhile, smell blood in the water, but they can't decide what to do about it. They cannot decide whether they should be overtly or covertly racist, whether to blow a dog whistle or commit the political equivalent of a hate crime. Andrew Robb cannot decide whether he can stand the sight of Joe Hockey for another two years, Joe Hockey can't decide whether 'humanity' in politics is a good thing or not, Abbott is unsure whether Scott Morrison is a just a dick or a portrait of Machiavellian brilliance. Julie Bishop is just unsure, but she sure can stare at things.
The upshot of all this is that we can't decide what to make of all this either, the nation is currently split exactly 50-50 on two-party-preferred. Does anyone care? Probably not. To paraphrase one of the world's great fictional drunken cynics, maybe we're just hoping that when we flip the coin it will explode and kill us.
In Cabinet, there is a near continuous fire sale of Kevin Rudd's programs and policies. Disaster rebuilding has provided the perfect excuse to dismantle much of his legacy, and Rudd is noticeably and justifiably pissed. He recently stormed out of a cabinet meeting, but quickly got his staff to book a plane that he would be late for, just in case anyone asked why.
In general, Government policy is fluid. A bill to appropriate money was passed without its consent, to avoid a constitutional crisis they meekly acquiesced and amended their own bill, setting an appalling precedent. Health reform is now whatever the State Premiers will sign. Thus the agreement entitled "Hey, do you want free money for shit?" was enacted. The Premiers looked as if they had tripped over bag of unmarked non-sequential $100 bills on there way to their car that morning, the PM looked like a senior citizen who hands out lollies to children just to get attention.
The Opposition meanwhile, smell blood in the water, but they can't decide what to do about it. They cannot decide whether they should be overtly or covertly racist, whether to blow a dog whistle or commit the political equivalent of a hate crime. Andrew Robb cannot decide whether he can stand the sight of Joe Hockey for another two years, Joe Hockey can't decide whether 'humanity' in politics is a good thing or not, Abbott is unsure whether Scott Morrison is a just a dick or a portrait of Machiavellian brilliance. Julie Bishop is just unsure, but she sure can stare at things.
The upshot of all this is that we can't decide what to make of all this either, the nation is currently split exactly 50-50 on two-party-preferred. Does anyone care? Probably not. To paraphrase one of the world's great fictional drunken cynics, maybe we're just hoping that when we flip the coin it will explode and kill us.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Towards Rock Bottom
The refugee issue has long been tagged a hoodoo for the Labor Party. That’s pretty much correct. It’s a wedge issue, and a particularly sensitive one as well. It neatly bisects the educated left wing voters and the traditional Labor base of the blue-collar working-to-lower-middle class. This situation is made particularly difficult because the issue generally splits the MPs themselves from their constituents in the traditional base. So it’s a divisive issue, and Labor is still spooked by it. The Liberals know this, so they bring it up a lot.
This has gone on for so long that it is becoming a problem for the Liberals as well. When it comes to parsing comment on refugee issues, the Libs have become caricatures of themselves. Every Liberal MP who has taken a stint as Immigration Spokesperson, whether in government or in opposition has instantly become an arse. Off the leash, and desperate to keep the issue alive, they will take any opportunity to make Labor talk about it. Even if this includes the sort of deplorable comments usually reserved for boozy BNP Christmas lunches and NRL season launches.
The more Labor has felt the need to compromise itself and its principles on the issue, the more the Liberals have moved to the edge, desperate to maintain an unattainable air of unreasonable bastardry. Scott Morrison’s reprehensible politicisation of the funerals of asylum seekers killed in December’s Christmas Island boat tragedy is a prime example. His mean spirited bitching about close relatives being flown in at government expense to attend these funerals, including those of two children aged 3 months and 8 months, is the latest low for a party blinded by a policy to be ‘tough’ on asylum seekers. ‘Tough’ should never equal ‘cruel’, but the Liberals are way past thinking logically.
Joe Hockey has spoken out, calling for the party to retain its humanity, it’s astonishing it has taken this long. Humanity is something that has been missing from the Liberals on this issue for ten years, but unfortunately it will take more than the calls of a moderate leadership aspirant to soften the majority of the Liberal caucus who are desperate to ‘keep’ an issue with which they have so much traction. At least Hockey finally has taken a stand on something, and shown that he is more than an empty suit.
Nothing will change until they hit rock bottom, and finally cop a backlash from the public for the shit they’ve been spouting. You’d think Morrison’s latest escapade would do it, but you’d be wrong.
This has gone on for so long that it is becoming a problem for the Liberals as well. When it comes to parsing comment on refugee issues, the Libs have become caricatures of themselves. Every Liberal MP who has taken a stint as Immigration Spokesperson, whether in government or in opposition has instantly become an arse. Off the leash, and desperate to keep the issue alive, they will take any opportunity to make Labor talk about it. Even if this includes the sort of deplorable comments usually reserved for boozy BNP Christmas lunches and NRL season launches.
The more Labor has felt the need to compromise itself and its principles on the issue, the more the Liberals have moved to the edge, desperate to maintain an unattainable air of unreasonable bastardry. Scott Morrison’s reprehensible politicisation of the funerals of asylum seekers killed in December’s Christmas Island boat tragedy is a prime example. His mean spirited bitching about close relatives being flown in at government expense to attend these funerals, including those of two children aged 3 months and 8 months, is the latest low for a party blinded by a policy to be ‘tough’ on asylum seekers. ‘Tough’ should never equal ‘cruel’, but the Liberals are way past thinking logically.
Joe Hockey has spoken out, calling for the party to retain its humanity, it’s astonishing it has taken this long. Humanity is something that has been missing from the Liberals on this issue for ten years, but unfortunately it will take more than the calls of a moderate leadership aspirant to soften the majority of the Liberal caucus who are desperate to ‘keep’ an issue with which they have so much traction. At least Hockey finally has taken a stand on something, and shown that he is more than an empty suit.
Nothing will change until they hit rock bottom, and finally cop a backlash from the public for the shit they’ve been spouting. You’d think Morrison’s latest escapade would do it, but you’d be wrong.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
In the Gutter, Shit Happens
Yesterday, Tony Abbott's office received a request for comment from Channel 7 with regards to something he said in Afghanistan last year. They agreed to an interview and two and a half hours later, on the grass outside Parliament house Mark Riley, that shining beacon of fair reporting, pulled out his metaphorical knife and began practice-stabbing.
The result was one of those moments that every politician dreads, when a journalist says: "I've got some footage I'd like you to watch." Riley produced edited footage of Abbott in Afghanistan, uttering the phrase "shit happens" while talking about the death of an Australian soldier, Riley then bluntly insinuated that he (Abbott) was making light of the situation. Abbott said it was out of context (it was an edited video after all), Riley proceeded to ask what the context was and the result was: silence.
Silence.
Abbott appeared to be in a trance. Rocking back and forth, quietly willing Mark Riley's head to explode. From the angle Channel 7 aired he appeared to have had a stroke, but from Riley's point of view it was the death stare to end all death stares. It was a combination of embarrassment, speechlessness and unrelenting fury.
I don't have a lot of time for Tony Abbott. I think he's a cynical, opportunistic bastard with a bit of a nasty streak. His position on asylum seekers makes me sick. Post-election, he has acted with supreme arrogance, like he leads the Government in exile. He is a Howard zealot, and if he ever becomes Prime Minister I will strongly consider leaving. But, this is bullshit. This is a beat-up and Mark Riley should hang his head in shame.
His hypocrisy is astounding.
"Hey Mr Abbott, do you think the widow will be offended by this video WE'VE shown? What do you have to say to the widow who will be offended by this video WE'VE shown and are now insisting you talk about? Will you apologise? Because you've clearly offended her…via us of course, but we're only reporting on the video we dug through and edited after waiting months for an FOI application. It wasn't what we were actually looking for, but we saw this part and thought 'Hey, do you think the widow might find that offensive? Let's ask her and see if she does.'"
Abbott phoned Jared MacKinney's widow and apologised. She accepted his explanation and said there is no issue. If she doesn't have a problem then nor should you.
What I suspect will be most damaging to Abbott is not the comment, but the stare. That aggro, deathly stare will haunt him forever. His judgement will be questioned, as will that of his staff. Mark Riley will sleep soundly of course, satisfied that he has made the world a better place.
The result was one of those moments that every politician dreads, when a journalist says: "I've got some footage I'd like you to watch." Riley produced edited footage of Abbott in Afghanistan, uttering the phrase "shit happens" while talking about the death of an Australian soldier, Riley then bluntly insinuated that he (Abbott) was making light of the situation. Abbott said it was out of context (it was an edited video after all), Riley proceeded to ask what the context was and the result was: silence.
Silence.
Abbott appeared to be in a trance. Rocking back and forth, quietly willing Mark Riley's head to explode. From the angle Channel 7 aired he appeared to have had a stroke, but from Riley's point of view it was the death stare to end all death stares. It was a combination of embarrassment, speechlessness and unrelenting fury.
I don't have a lot of time for Tony Abbott. I think he's a cynical, opportunistic bastard with a bit of a nasty streak. His position on asylum seekers makes me sick. Post-election, he has acted with supreme arrogance, like he leads the Government in exile. He is a Howard zealot, and if he ever becomes Prime Minister I will strongly consider leaving. But, this is bullshit. This is a beat-up and Mark Riley should hang his head in shame.
His hypocrisy is astounding.
"Hey Mr Abbott, do you think the widow will be offended by this video WE'VE shown? What do you have to say to the widow who will be offended by this video WE'VE shown and are now insisting you talk about? Will you apologise? Because you've clearly offended her…via us of course, but we're only reporting on the video we dug through and edited after waiting months for an FOI application. It wasn't what we were actually looking for, but we saw this part and thought 'Hey, do you think the widow might find that offensive? Let's ask her and see if she does.'"
Abbott phoned Jared MacKinney's widow and apologised. She accepted his explanation and said there is no issue. If she doesn't have a problem then nor should you.
What I suspect will be most damaging to Abbott is not the comment, but the stare. That aggro, deathly stare will haunt him forever. His judgement will be questioned, as will that of his staff. Mark Riley will sleep soundly of course, satisfied that he has made the world a better place.
Monday, February 7, 2011
ManipuLatham
Mark Latham will now truly do anything to get a headline. He will lie, manipulate, say deliberately offensive things to smear his subject, grandstand, ambush and spew bile all while pursuing a vicious personal vendetta against those he feels have wronged him. No wonder Channel 9 hired him as a political commentator. He's perfect.
His comments regarding Julia Gillard's lack of empathy due to the absence of miniature, half-breed versions of herself can be taken for what they are – garbage, but we must take notice of the reasons why Latham said what he did. Firstly, Mark Latham does not believe that if you don't have children you don't have 'much love in you'. He is not Bill Heffernan. He said that because he wants to hurt Gillard, and hurt her in a very manipulative back-door sort of way.
Some will believe that because of the outrage at his comments, his plan has backfired and achieved the opposite of his intention. It didn't and it hasn't. Latham's intention was not to make everyone think that Julia Gillard is brutal fembot whose emotion chip is on the fritz, but rather to remind everyone that Julia Gillard is not performing the 'traditional' role of her gender and that she is different in that regard to many women in Australia. Outraged or not, every person who read or heard of Latham's comments was reminded that Gillard does not have children and that she is not married, closely followed by the fact that she is an atheist. Mark Latham does not give a shit about any of that, but he knows that there are some people out there that do. He made it as offensive as possible to make sure he got the headline, and the effects are still playing out.
The article was timed with commentary on Julia Gillard's performance in the aftermath of the Queensland floods and Cyclone Yasi. Gillard did what any PM would do really, she let Bligh (who was actually in charge of managing the crisis) do her thing and offered as much Federal help as possible. The appearance of the Prime Minister in such situations is purely for background support, it was not her place to pull 20 hour days and direct the troops, if she did so she would have just got in the way. The public however, clearly expected a rougher, more emotional response from the PM.
Obvious comparisons were made between her performance and Anna Bligh's, who managed to turn an angry mob of haters into a bunch grudging admirers. The consensus seemed to be that Gillard was not emotionally affected enough by the disaster, she was dressed too neatly, and she didn’t cry. The Australian public and media are still getting used to having a female national leader and such issues are not usually in focus when male leaders deal with disasters. So Latham's article was timed perfectly to add a kick to this sort of analysis. Just when the media and the public are contemplating how a female PM should behave in such situations, he makes sure everyone knows that Gillard doesn't 'fit the mould' as far as a 'woman' goes in this country. In doing so, he hints that the reason Gillard 'performed badly' during the crisis, is that she is out of touch with the values of 'middle Australia' (i.e. all of Australia). He has turned a natural disaster into an opportunity to point out Julia Gillard's marital status and 'wasted' womb; to blow a dog whistle for people he would usually punch in the face.
Offensive, opportunistic, bitter and…pure Latham.
His comments regarding Julia Gillard's lack of empathy due to the absence of miniature, half-breed versions of herself can be taken for what they are – garbage, but we must take notice of the reasons why Latham said what he did. Firstly, Mark Latham does not believe that if you don't have children you don't have 'much love in you'. He is not Bill Heffernan. He said that because he wants to hurt Gillard, and hurt her in a very manipulative back-door sort of way.
Some will believe that because of the outrage at his comments, his plan has backfired and achieved the opposite of his intention. It didn't and it hasn't. Latham's intention was not to make everyone think that Julia Gillard is brutal fembot whose emotion chip is on the fritz, but rather to remind everyone that Julia Gillard is not performing the 'traditional' role of her gender and that she is different in that regard to many women in Australia. Outraged or not, every person who read or heard of Latham's comments was reminded that Gillard does not have children and that she is not married, closely followed by the fact that she is an atheist. Mark Latham does not give a shit about any of that, but he knows that there are some people out there that do. He made it as offensive as possible to make sure he got the headline, and the effects are still playing out.
The article was timed with commentary on Julia Gillard's performance in the aftermath of the Queensland floods and Cyclone Yasi. Gillard did what any PM would do really, she let Bligh (who was actually in charge of managing the crisis) do her thing and offered as much Federal help as possible. The appearance of the Prime Minister in such situations is purely for background support, it was not her place to pull 20 hour days and direct the troops, if she did so she would have just got in the way. The public however, clearly expected a rougher, more emotional response from the PM.
Obvious comparisons were made between her performance and Anna Bligh's, who managed to turn an angry mob of haters into a bunch grudging admirers. The consensus seemed to be that Gillard was not emotionally affected enough by the disaster, she was dressed too neatly, and she didn’t cry. The Australian public and media are still getting used to having a female national leader and such issues are not usually in focus when male leaders deal with disasters. So Latham's article was timed perfectly to add a kick to this sort of analysis. Just when the media and the public are contemplating how a female PM should behave in such situations, he makes sure everyone knows that Gillard doesn't 'fit the mould' as far as a 'woman' goes in this country. In doing so, he hints that the reason Gillard 'performed badly' during the crisis, is that she is out of touch with the values of 'middle Australia' (i.e. all of Australia). He has turned a natural disaster into an opportunity to point out Julia Gillard's marital status and 'wasted' womb; to blow a dog whistle for people he would usually punch in the face.
Offensive, opportunistic, bitter and…pure Latham.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)