Support NeoGAF

[catmincer]

As a Kiwi, we have suffered through an awful government for the last 5 years . Whilst Labor in no way are perfect, they do seem to be the lesser of two evils. I hope that they do end up somehow clawing back some votes and get in power again.

 

[Fredescu]

Screw you anti statite.

Says the guy that doesn't even live in a state.

 

[Vormund]

When Labor loses, I'll sign up for cable internet.

I'm probably stuck on cable forever now. Or fork out $5000.

 

[markot]

Says the guy that doesn't even live in a state.

If they were all run like Canberra or would be ok.

But I don't like feds having to much power, as someone in a territory that has had laws over turned cause the Fed govt didn't like it...

 

[BowieZ]

Anyone else getting the Zinger Pie tomorrow?

 

[Jintor]

With negativity like that I have to assume most of you have just given up and are voting liberal.

My electorate is safe Liberal with 20% margin lol. If it weren't for election funding possibilities I'd just donkey vote...

 

[senahorse]

I don't get the blind faith thing. Doesn't that just make it harder to deal with when it happens?



When you said blind faith, you weren't kidding.

The way I see it, there is no use getting upset about something that hasn't happened nor can I change. It's not going to be any worse if it does happen.

 

[favouriteflavour]

This is fucked. No policies for 6 years, just criticism and they will now coast through on policies that are awful. Fucking the poor in Australia wasn't enough they now want to fuck the poor overseas as well. All on top of refusing to help the ones coming here.

 

[Fredescu]

The way I see it, there is no use getting upset about something that hasn't happened nor can I change. It's not going to be any worse if it does happen.

I'm not upset, I just accepted it slowly as the polls gradually got worse, rather than denying it and then taking in the defeat in one big hit when it actually happens. We all have different ways of dealing with things, I'm just interested in your particular mechanism because it seems like a few people are the same way.

 

[lexi]

This is fucked. No policies for 6 years, just criticism and they will now coast through on policies that are awful. Fucking the poor in Australia wasn't enough they now want to fuck the poor overseas as well. All on top of refusing to help the ones coming here.

I console myself that it could be worse. 2010 LNP could have won. 2010 LNP Broadband policy was to tear up the existing cables and replace it with Maccas wifi units everywhere. What a fucking joke that was.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

It all comes down to this: Labor factional kings pulling down a sitting first term Prime Minister.

Rudd would have gone into the 2010 election with the simplest election winning line ever 'Whole world had a recession except for us'.

But Labor muddied themselves permanently by doing what they did. They didn't actually win the last election, it's just that the Libs were complete pricks so the hung parliament went to Labor because the indies were not complete retards.

Now Rudd was back but it was too little far, far too late. Labor look compromised and Rudd didn't have any time to actually put his stamp back on anything. So he's had to run as if it's 2010, on his actual record.

Basically, this whole situation is Bill Shorten, Gillard and co's fault. If they didn't like Rudd, they should have engineered something well after the 2010 election and with much more transparency. Instead they fucked themselves so hard the country has had to turn to a guy who should in almost any other circumstances be unelectable.

I agree with pretty much all of this post apart from your assessment of things post Rudd's reinstatement. He built some momentum after returning to office by negotiating with Indonesia, announcing the PNG solution, bringing forwards the ETS, reforming the ALP etc... then came a few weeks of uncertainty about when the election would be called, followed by 4 weeks of listless and erratic campaigning. The Rudd of the campaign launch and Q&A would have stood a much better chance if he'd showed up in the first week rather than the last.

 

[bomma_man]

Cutting only $6 billion? That's it? Doesn't seem like much of a budget crises if you can only cut six billion. That's not even half of NASA's budget, and NASA gets one half of one percent of our federal budget. (Should be far more, but that's another discussion).

Haha, yeah. Yeah...

Which leads me to a question, if I may. I've been looking at the structure of your guys' government, and what strikes the most is how similar Australia's government is to the US...except that it seems more democratic. You guys have a House, but have preferential voting for single-member districts whose boundaries are determined by a nonpartisan federal board. The largest party in the House also elects the head of government. You guys have a senate, but with twelve Senators per state (instead of our two), with proportional representation instead of FPTP. More people's interests in their state get represented. Also, I don't think you guys have a filibuster of any kind (from what I can find).

So, my question is, if you could, are there any major structural changes you guys would make to your government? Eliminate the Senate? Do you guys have any problem with gridlock? Like, something passing the House but not moving along in the Senate?

It's a far superior to the US's or the UK's but it still has it issues. I'd love it if Hare-Clark was used for both houses as it is both proportional and removes power from the parties. As mentioned above there are some constitutional issues with the senate, but other than that our institutions are strong. We're incredibly lucky to have proportional voting (which funnily enough was bought in after two conservative parties split the vote, so you should be praying for an official Tea Party split) and the AEC to prevent any gerrymandering.

More broadly I'd like publicly funded election campaigns (unfortunately made unlikely by an old High Court decision) and Canadian style charter of rights.

 

[toddhunter]

I agree with pretty much all of this post apart from your assessment of things post Rudd's reinstatement. He built some momentum after returning to office by negotiating with Indonesia, announcing the PNG solution, bringing forwards the ETS, reforming the ALP etc... then came a few weeks of uncertainty about when the election would be called, followed by 4 weeks of listless and erratic campaigning. The Rudd of the campaign launch and Q&A would have stood a much better chance if he'd showed up in the first week rather than the last.

Probably fair points, but there is only so much one guy can do by himself. Having all those people leave when he got back in was really a blow to the chances.

Do people think he'll stay on or is he gone again?

 

[shanshan310]

My electorate is safe Liberal with 20% margin lol. If it weren't for election funding possibilities I'd just donkey vote...

And then nothing would change :/

I'm sick of all this bullshit pessimism. At least wait till the votes are counted before you all start lamenting about the inevitability of having to buy expensive cable.

 

[bomma_man]

Probably fair points, but there is only so much one guy can do by himself. Having all those people leave when he got back in was really a blow to the chances.

Do people think he'll stay on or is he gone again?

I think they need to bookend this era and start afresh... but with who? The exodus made it pretty difficult.

 

[wonzo]

BludeTrack updated yet again, this time showing Labor gaining a few more seats in QLD though not enough to offset the losses elsewhere. The Primary vote of both major parties still on the decline.

 

[toddhunter]

I think they need to bookend this era and start afresh... but with who? The exodus made it pretty difficult.

I tend to agree. Normally it would make sense to keep him on and attack Abbott to take the shine off him becoming prime minister...but really that isn't needed is it?

Suppose we have to see who actually keeps their seat first :|

 

[senahorse]

I'm not upset, I just accepted it slowly as the polls gradually got worse, rather than denying it and then taking in the defeat in one big hit when it actually happens. We all have different ways of dealing with things, I'm just interested in your particular mechanism because it seems like a few people are the same way.

That wasn't directed at you, more my own feelings. I have resigned to the fact it's probably going to happen (TA in), but the way I am looking at it, Labor is still in government until further notice. Also, I don't for a second underestimate the stupidity of Tony Abbott, he may run over a dog yet. There is also the point that there are a fair amount of undecided voters out there, so although extremely unlikely there is a chance. My opinion and feeling is very skewed as I don't know anyone that is voting for the coaltion, through my family/friend circles nor at work, my gf has found the same. Small amount of anecdotal evidence sure, but my mistrust for the media provides me with a little hope, if misplaced.

 

[Dead Man]

It all comes down to this: Labor factional kings pulling down a sitting first term Prime Minister.

Rudd would have gone into the 2010 election with the simplest election winning line ever 'Whole world had a recession except for us'.

But Labor muddied themselves permanently by doing what they did. They didn't actually win the last election, it's just that the Libs were complete pricks so the hung parliament went to Labor because the indies were not complete retards.

Now Rudd was back but it was too little far, far too late. Labor look compromised and Rudd didn't have any time to actually put his stamp back on anything. So he's had to run as if it's 2010, on his actual record.

Basically, this whole situation is Bill Shorten, Gillard and co's fault. If they didn't like Rudd, they should have engineered something well after the 2010 election and with much more transparency. Instead they fucked themselves so hard the country has had to turn to a guy who should in almost any other circumstances be unelectable.

I like the Ages take on it:
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/th...-our-values-20130905-2t828.html#ixzz2e3L2BorQ

The Age has long held that policy, not personality, is the core of our democracy. It is on this basis that we advocate a vote for Labor in the federal election on Saturday. We do so fully acknowledging that the Coalition under Tony Abbott has run a disciplined and competent campaign, and that after six years of Labor government the electorate is wary and weary of Labor's infighting. Yet we cannot endorse a party that advocates policies with which we fundamentally disagree.

Yeah, Labor are wankers, but they are wankers with better policies. People who vote gaainst their policy interest are as much to blame as the wankers in Labor.

Cutting only $6 billion? That's it? Doesn't seem like much of a budget crises if you can only cut six billion. That's not even half of NASA's budget, and NASA gets one half of one percent of our federal budget. (Should be far more, but that's another discussion).

Haha, yeah. Yeah...

Which leads me to a question, if I may. I've been looking at the structure of your guys' government, and what strikes the most is how similar Australia's government is to the US...except that it seems more democratic. You guys have a House, but have preferential voting for single-member districts whose boundaries are determined by a nonpartisan federal board. The largest party in the House also elects the head of government. You guys have a senate, but with twelve Senators per state (instead of our two), with proportional representation instead of FPTP. More people's interests in their state get represented. Also, I don't think you guys have a filibuster of any kind (from what I can find).

So, my question is, if you could, are there any major structural changes you guys would make to your government? Eliminate the Senate? Do you guys have any problem with gridlock? Like, something passing the House but not moving along in the Senate?

It's actually designed to encourage cooperation in a lot of ways. I do love that so many aspects of government are non partisan here compared to the US, judges and every state official being judged politically makes me shake my head.

This is fucked. No policies for 6 years, just criticism and they will now coast through on policies that are awful. Fucking the poor in Australia wasn't enough they now want to fuck the poor overseas as well. All on top of refusing to help the ones coming here.

Yeah, it has to be the least convincing election victory on the basis of policy I have seen. Pure fear and hate campaign.

If you're interested, you could read up on the "constitutional crisis" of 1975: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

If a bill can't get through the senate, they have to negotiate in order to get it through. It is quite rare for a single party to have a majority in the senate, so this kind of negotiation is the norm. If the government fails to get a bill through the senate on multiple attempts they can call (or, technically, "request") a "double dissolution" election, which means that the whole senate is up for re-election as opposed to normally just half of it. We haven't had one of those since the 80s. If the Greens and Labor have a senate majority in the new senate, we may be up for one again next year, depending on how hardline Abbott wants to get about pushing his stuff through. The senate result is hard enough to predict, let alone what goes through that mans head, so we can't really say yet.

As for changes, at the very least we need to change the way senate voting works. We have a preferential voting system for the house, but for the senate we either choose one party, or have to number every single candidate, which is as high as 110 this year. If you vote for the single party, because of the weird way senate votes are counted, they choose their own preferences, which can be a little weird and not what you really want. 95% of people vote for the single party though. This needs to be improved.

One of our state governments eliminated the senate. I won't talk about state politics too much, but see what happened in Queensland since the last election, I would never want to get rid of the senate.

As far as pie in the sky changes that will never ever happen goes, I think they should abolish state governments. It's an extra layer that we don't need.

I could get behind getting rid of states, WA would probably secede though LOL

It's a far superior to the US's or the UK's but it still has it issues. I'd love it if Hare-Clark was used for both houses as it is both proportional and removes power from the parties. As mentioned above there are some constitutional issues with the senate, but other than that our institutions are strong. We're incredibly lucky to have proportional voting (which funnily enough was bought in after two conservative parties split the vote, so you should be praying for an official Tea Party split) and the AEC to prevent any gerrymandering.

More broadly I'd like publicly funded election campaigns (unfortunately made unlikely by an old High Court decision) and Canadian style charter of rights.

What? Damn it, that is a thing I am very much in favour of.

 

[Fredescu]

I'm sick of all this bullshit pessimism.

It's realism. This isn't a sporting event or the economy. Elections are relatively easy to predict.

 

[lexi]

ALP primary vote up 2% in QLD is something, though, right?

RIGHT?!

 

[Moxx19]

Did not expect more seats in Queensland of all places.

 

[Fredescu]

ALP primary vote up 2% in QLD is something, though, right?

It is, I'm still clinging to the hope of an ALP+GRN senate majority.

 

[shanshan310]

It's realism. This isn't a sporting event or the economy. Elections are relatively easy to predict.

Doesn't make it not pessimistic.

 

[Fredescu]

Doesn't make it not pessimistic.

It does if you're Ventron.

 

[DrSlek]

I wonder if you could list the $5000 cost of having fibre connected to the premesis as a tax claim?

A man can dream.

 

[Dead Man]

For a more optimistic, if somewhat cynical view:

Why An Abbott Election Victory Would Be Good

But when I think of an Abbott victory, I think the following:

Good.

Not good because he’ll be a great leader – we’re about to get our own George W Bush, a man who can’t open his mouth without providing the world with a new malapropism and who is prepared to destroy his country rather than entertain the possibility that his political and economic philosophy is flawed, not to say straight-up mistaken.

Not good because it will be a positive time for anyone who's not a mining magnate or a media baron. If you’re not wealthy, you’re in for a difficult few years – and if you like things like education, healthcare, environmental protection, workers rights, refugee rights, gender equality or any of that kind of thing, you’re going be getting angrier and angrier.

And that’s what’s good. That’s what we need.

Think about it. Even if Rudd sneaks in on Saturday via some mathematically-improbable fluke, what’s the likely scenario?

We'll get three years of Labor desperately trying to keep the middle ground – no shift on asylum policy, probably some destructive efforts to get an entirely-symbolic budget surplus – with a probably uncooperative Senate and a stronger opposition leader – my money's on Joe Hockey – with the weight of the Murdoch press behind them hammering home the message that everything would have been better if you’d just voted a Coalition government in. Rudd will be an ineffectual leader in an even weaker position than Gillard was in, there'll be another election, a Libslide, and we will welcome another Howard-esque conservative dynasty.

But if Abbott wins?

We already know he can’t open his mouth without saying the exact wrong thing. We already know that he’s terrible on policy, can’t think on his feet and dodges responsibility. At the moment he can largely get away with blaming the government; once he’s Prime Minister, that’s not an option anymore. He will look like what he is: a man of narrow views and narrower knowledge woefully out of his depth.

And look at the Abbott front bench: it's a viper’s nest. They’re not supporting Abbott because they think he’s an inspiring leader, since he’s demonstrated comprehensively that he’s not: they've backed him because the greatest strength they have had against Labor over the last 18 months has been in presenting a united front.

Once they’re in power this bunch of smart, ambitious and shrewd politicians are going to be a lot less forgiving of a leader who's an obvious and embarrassing liability. Hockey isn’t going to fade back into the benches. Neither is Turnbull. Neither is Bishop. Neither is Morrison. Those squabbles have been sublimated for the time being because they had a common enemy: Labor. Once in power, they’ll have a different common enemy: each other.

Abbott will also almost certainly face a hostile Senate, with Greens and most of the sitting independents already indicating an unwillingness to pass many of his tentpole promises. He's already implied that he'll ask for a double dissolution if his agenda is not passed, which means that Labor, the Greens and the minor parties now have a chance to buy themselves another year of campaigning ahead of another election. Don't worry about winning on Saturday, hopefuls: worry about winning after the Libs implode a bit down the track.

If there's a double dissolution we will see an ineffective leader throwing a tantrum, and the Australian public are not going to thank him for calling us all back to another Saturday at the polls before we absolutely have to (and incidentally, it's easier for a Senator to get up in a DD scenario as the quotas are halved. Want to get more independents and small parties clogging up your upper house? Call a double dissolution).

Meanwhile Labor in opposition will be stripped back to the MPs and Senators who’ve kept the faith of their electorates. The embarrassments and the dead wood that have made the last two years so difficult for the party will be gone. And those that are likely to survive – Anthony Albanese, Penny Wong et al – are no fools.

So what do we do for the next three years? We fight. We hold on to every asinine headline in the Murdoch press this week, and we use it as a stick to beat them with when the Coalition fail to deliver. We stop bitching on Twitter and start campaigning for the progressive causes we support (hell, it's an early summer, the weather's lovely for marching). We give Labor an incentive to move back to the left, because there are enough of us to be worth listening to.

Not sure it is worth having Abbott for, but he does make an interesting point about the long game. Labor certainly need to move mast Rudd/Gillard even if they won this election, they need to get people in that aren't tainted in the public eye.

Edit: Just showed up on my FB feed

 

[CrazedProfessional]

hmmm, I wonder if Labor hitting 70 is a possibility.

 

[Jintor]

ABC is being weird.

So asylum seekers are technically 'illegal' in that it is a description of their entry status but are not illegal in the criminal sense of the term because they haven't broken any criminal/civil laws. So in other words, there is a legitimate use of the term which pollies use but they never actually clarify that they mean it in that sense because it's far easier to let the criminal connotations flow with it so the public can all be angry at them damn boat people.

Wonderful.

 

[shanshan310]

It does if you're Ventron.

lol.

 

[Dead Man]

ABC is being weird.

So asylum seekers are technically 'illegal' in that it is a description of their entry status but are not illegal in the criminal sense of the term because they haven't broken any criminal/civil laws. So in other words, there is a legitimate use of the term which pollies use but they never actually clarify that they mean it in that sense because it's far easier to let the criminal connotations flow with it so the public can all be angry at them damn boat people.

Wonderful.

What a crock of shit. As soon as you claim asylum you are no longer illegal. So yes, you can be illegally here if you don't have a visa, but asylum seekers aint them. Go yell at British backpackers Morrison. If as ABC claims the devil is in the detail, then Morrison is still fucked as he never included the detail and was content to let the bullshit assumption that the people were guilty of a crime flow on.

 

[lexi]

ABC is being weird.

So asylum seekers are technically 'illegal' in that it is a description of their entry status but are not illegal in the criminal sense of the term because they haven't broken any criminal/civil laws. So in other words, there is a legitimate use of the term which pollies use but they never actually clarify that they mean it in that sense because it's far easier to let the criminal connotations flow with it so the public can all be angry at them damn boat people.

Wonderful.

What a fucking joke.

 

[Kreunt]

I'm just hoping all the people that are polling LNP are lazy bogans that don't turn up to vote.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

Probably fair points, but there is only so much one guy can do by himself. Having all those people leave when he got back in was really a blow to the chances.

Do people think he'll stay on or is he gone again?

There is only so much that one person can do, but this election has been pretty unusual. As for Rudd staying on, at this stage there's doubt over whether or not he'll even keep his seat. If he does, then resigns as leader and from politics, Griffith would probably be a write off for the ALP in a by-election.

On the topic of seats, The World Today's panel gave these estimates.

Nick Minchin: Coalition 85, on the basis of a 3% swing.
Mark Latham: Coalition 97, Labor 50, Ind 3, on the basis that the swing against the government in the marginals is running above the national trend.
Tony Windsor: Coalition by 12 (so I guess 88?) plus Independents in Indi and New England (backing his anointed successor), Adam Bandt to retain Melbourne.

 

[CrazedProfessional]

BludeTrack updated yet again, this time showing Labor gaining a few more seats in QLD though not enough to offset the losses elsewhere.

I find it interesting that despite this, Rudd is still trailing in the polls for Griffith. Labor seems likely to win Brisbane too for some reason so Queensland is very unpredictable when it comes to saying who wins and who loses. Though, LNP losses are far more likely due to uh, the very very very thin margins in some of those seats. If Palmer picks up some HoR seats I will laugh hard.

 

[lexi]

Tony Windsor: Coalition by 12 (so I guess 88?) plus Independents in Indi and New England (backing his anointed successor), Adam Bandt to retain Melbourne.

That would be a nice silver lining.

 

[bobnowhere]

Tony Windsor: Coalition by 12 (so I guess 88?) plus Independents in Indi and New England (backing his anointed successor), Adam Bandt to retain Melbourne.

...and this would make the whole thing worthwhile!

 

[favouriteflavour]

I got to find a source but I did hear Tony Abbott at a cafe somewhere yesterday on the radio saying "see everyone in this cafe is enjoying wireless internet, we don't need to dig up the streets and lay cable!"

Man has no clue.

 

[CrazedProfessional]

...and this would make the whole thing worthwhile!

It probably won't happen, I read an article that the LNP has been carpet bombing the place with signs and pamphlets which are all

LABOR/GREENS = INDEPENDENTS
DON'T VOTE FOR CHAOS

 

[Fredescu]

A bit of Heather Scripture. Too little to late if you ask me, but you didn't, so here it is:

Now’s a really good time to re-think voting Abbott

Australia. Don’t fucking ruin it for everyone. Sometime in the next couple of days you are all going to do that weird dance with the little cardboard houses and the scrawling of runes on scrolls, and like a magical phoenix sewn from boredom and Windsor knots, a new government will be formed. According to what I’ve read in the newspapers owned by one guy, and seen in the polling of people his age who still have hand-cranked telephones, enough of you are going to vote for Liberal or National candidates that Tony Abbott will be installed as Prime Minister.

What I really, really wonder is whether you’ve thought this through.

If you are planning to vote Coalition, I’d love you to actually read the following and think about it, rather than scrolling straight to the comments for a pre-emptive gloat. Because your choice would be a very poor one, for you and for the rest of us, on policy alone.

On one thing we agree: I too would love to see Labor booted soundly from office. To go over their failings would take more time than I could spend without punching myself repeatedly in the face for light relief. But if Labor’s last term served up a bowl of curdled fuckslaw, the Liberals have taken a dump on top, stirred it in with salad tongs and are telling you it’s called chou Parisienne. But even my view here requires a disgust at Labor’s ethical failures, like deep-throating the pokies industry or joining in the fake panic about a handful of poor fuckers in shitbox watercraft. On these ethical issues, middle-ground voters – the self-appointed pragmatists of the electoral landscape – are often found without a great many fucks to give.

Which means? The reasons you want to vote out Labor make up precisely none of the reasons they should be voted out. Your key issues involve the economy, the general standard of life in Australia, our position in the world and our prospects for the future. If you consider yourself a conservative, your choice is easy. Labor has been a great conservative government. The radicals and the cowboys, especially in terms of economics, are found in Abbott’s Coalition.

Firstly, the NBN is the most important infrastructure project in decades and we cannot afford to fuck it up. No one thinks twice about spending money on highways, railways and power grids, because our society can’t function without them. Internet connectivity is already central to so much of our industry and economy, and will only become more important in the years ahead. If Australia is to compete internationally it needs the best possible infrastructure, and rural Australia needs the same access. This isn’t feelgood pamphlet shit: the NBN has the potential to bring dying towns and regions back to life, as connectivity makes living and working there far more appealing and viable. It’s also designed with the capacity to adapt to the massive data increases the future will bring. It’s a costly and ambitious project, because quality and comprehensive projects are.

Abbott’s alternative is a cheery two-fingered salute to every one of us. It uses technology that will be obsolete before it’s built, require far greater maintenance, and deliver slower internet speeds by 2019 than other countries have now. The speed could lag 20 times behind the NBN. Even Malcolm Turnbull thinks it’s horse-shit, and he’s the guy in charge of shovelling it. Saying we can’t afford infrastructure is criminally short-sighted when that infrastructure will pay for itself many times over. Then there’s the bizarreness of Abbott’s constituency including the country areas represented by the Nationals, whose voters and MPs are apparently happy to help kick holes in the bottom of their own rowboat. It’s not that Abbott opposes the NBN, he’s just duty-bound to oppose anything that Labor came up with first. But to let that partisan mentality threaten a project of such genuine national importance is unforgiveable from a man who wants to lead that nation.

And that’s just one part of Abbott’s wider economic fuckery. For a party that is supposed to stand for economic management and sense, the last three years have been a self-parody escalating in intensity and weirdness with each passing news cycle. After years of panic about the carbon tax, the economy absorbed it without a ripple, while industrial carbon emissions have already fallen. Cost of living increased less than half as much under Gillard as it did under Howard or Rudd – yes, true, and motherfucking incredible given the way that carbon whatsit was going to make us sell our kids to Origin Energy.

Nonetheless, Abbott still has an economic agenda more insane than the Greens’ most radical fringe-dwellers could muster at the end of a week-long meth binge. The blood pledge to repeal all carbon penalties is still in force, ditto for the mining tax, though he still intends to pay for the associated expenses, only without having the money, and he can’t tell us how. Businesses that were supposed to be ruined have said they weren’t adversely affected – see BHP’s response to Abbott’s monumental Olympic Dam fuck-up. Whatever you thought of carbon pricing beforehand, removing it now only causes more headaches and instability. Then, rather than businesses paying for the carbon they emit, Abbott’s Direct Action policy has taxpayers directly funding billions in handouts to these same businesses, who will be asked nicely to spend it on emitting less. And to top it off, after the warnings of how taxes on business would ultimately ruin us all, Abbott plans to fund billions in unnecessary parental leave by… imposing an extra tax on business.

The fact that Abbott’s costings weren’t released until two days before the election should alone disqualify him from contention. No one pulls a bullshit stunt like that unless they have an army of skeletons to keep buried. Then there’s the fact that the costings were just a list of numbers with no indication as to how they were reached. A man who has talked endlessly about trust expects an electorate to accept his policies and promises based on pure faith.

But faith is what Abbott is all about. His work in opposition has been a simple matter of making statements. The carbon tax is toxic. Australia has too much debt. The cost of living is rising. It doesn’t matter how empirically this shit is disproved; somehow, like a fucking average horror movie, the same tiresome desiccated monster pops its reanimated head up and starts roaring once more. Like Bloody Mary in the bathroom mirror, the mere act of saying the thing enough times makes it real.

Take the question of debt. A deciding factor for many in this election will be a fear of national debt. In their minds, we had a budget surplus, now we don’t, this means things are bad and it has to be corrected. If you are one of those people, let me give you a really quick economics primer. In an economy with the risk of slow growth, government investment is an ideal form of stimulus. Investment in infrastructure is good because you purchase something that keeps being useful in the long term, while generating further revenue for the private individuals or companies who use it, which in turn helps raise government revenue via tax. So when my e-phone rings, I can hand-deliver one internet via the information superhighway on my cyberbike, and I have more income.

These investments are funded by borrowing against the prospect of future benefit. Government capital is raised (and debt incurred) by routine issuing of bonds. There aren’t any loan sharks out there waiting to break our national knees. In boom times, when revenue is higher, there’s less need for government stimulus which means deficits reduce. And after all that, turns out Australia’s ratio of debt to GDP (the best indicator of troublesome debt) is one of the lowest of all developed nations. Well fuck me, it’s true.

In the meantime, after three years bemoaning Labor’s wasteful big-spending approach and promising to do better, Abbott’s costings – if all goes perfectly to his plan – have tweaked three budget lines to identify $6billion in savings over four years. That’s 0.3 percent of the budget. Over four motherfucking years. In Federal terms, that’s change you find down the back of the couch. Deeper and uglier cuts will have to follow, but clearly he doesn’t want us to know what they are. Either that or he doesn’t know yet. The prospect that Abbott just spits raw mince at a brainstorm wall-chart and picks policies based on gristle-clusters has never left my mind. Even the firmly right-wing Economist, focusing specifically on finance and economics, has warned that Abbott’s policies are dangerously unclear and untested, and heralded the work of Labor’s last two terms. That’s like Choc Mundine volunteering at a library.

However he gets there, Abbott’s policy will be to cut spending and produce an austerity budget – for no other reason than ‘budget surplus’ sounds nice to uninformed voters. The likely result will be a recession, as government spending drops, jobs are lost, community spending drops, welfare claims increase, and tax receipts fall. In many situations having a surplus is actually irresponsible policy – there’s nothing sensible about failing to invest when investment is required.

As well as downgrading the NBN, this will involve cutting clean energy investment at a time when even the great scapegoat of China is pumping unprecedented cash into the sector. Basically, Australia in global economic terms will become more isolated, more backwater, and increasingly left behind to scatch our nuts, chew grass stems, grow our front teeth long and head to the hayloft to fingerbang our sisters. Great work, fuckos.

But the talk on debt betrays the biggest problem of all. The biggest problem is Tony Abbott. Even ignoring the personal quirks, like his incessantly creepy weirdness with women, or the fact that he mostly looks like he’s about to slurp a fly out of midair, Abbott is a negative, uninspired, uninspiring, ruthless and mean-spirited person with a desire for power. Rudd loves the spotlight, but this occasionally has the side effect of him doing good things to get it. Abbott does not give a fuck what anyone thinks. Even if you do like Tony Abbott, Tony Abbott does not like you.

An example is lying about the problems with debt, when debt is how most countries function. An example is lying about Australia’s credit rating being at risk, when the country was ranked AAA. An example is claiming carbon dioxide couldn’t be measured because gas is weightless, which is right up there in scientific nuance with saying the sun revolves around the earth. Abbott knows these lines aren’t true – he’s many things, but not stupid. Still, he’s happy to lie to those who might vote for him, banking on them not knowing any better. The condescension to his own supporters is truly offensive. But he gets away with it, not because people are stupid, but because they don’t have the time or inclination to cross-check. In short, Tony Abbott thinks that you, the person voting for him, are a fucking idiot. He is happy to take advantage of this to mislead you. While intellectuals are often derided as snobs by the conservative side of politics, this attitude is far more poisonously elitist.

*****

Australia, for the love of all that is holy, do not jam this clusterfuck of a political career into the most prominent role in Australian democracy. Much as I’d love to be proud of my country, it’s not likely to happen this election, given how low both sides have crawled and our own willingness to get on all fours to follow. But we cannot afford someone as unpredictable and unaccountable as Tony Abbott. In three years of complaining about lies he hasn’t spoken one straight word. He hasn’t made one election promise specific enough to be held to. His list of disgusting comments is long and distinguished, and he would start making those as our representative to the world. Like so many on the conservative fringe, Abbott manufactures ideological enemies out of people whose only offence is to advocate generosity or restraint. He has a tenuous grasp on reality, and a perverse view of a great deal of social interaction and moral questions.

Personal qualities notwithstanding, he’s an intensely dangerous politician who is likely to do economic and social damage to a level beyond even the incompetent Labor of Joe Hockey’s wettest dreams. The sealer is that Hockey is a far more decent human than Abbott can ever hope to be, yet is willing to ape the steps of the bullshit dance. Abbott has shown an absolute willingness to make any moves necessary in order to gain power, for no other reason than gaining power. He has no articulated vision, no aims, no agenda aside from winning and being in charge. But power for the sake of taking power is completely fucking pointless. Power because you don’t like another group having it – a group who, on any terms or indicators that you yourself would value, are doing a very capable job – is reckless and selfish as well.

If you are conservative, Tony Abbott is not your man. If you’re concerned about the economy, Tony Abbott is not your man. If you want truth and accountability in politics, Tony Abbott is not even a man, he’s some kind of protozoa living in a sulphur vent. And if you give any thought to how our country is perceived internationally, Tony Abbott will never be our man. Ethically, personally, and in terms of policy, he’s someone our country should be deeply ashamed to even consider electing, let alone to elect. For the love of all that’s holy, please spare us three years of that.

From http://heathenscripture.wordpress.com/2013/09/06/nows-a-really-good-time-to-re-think-voting-abbott/

 

[bomma_man]

Dead Man: I can't remember the name if the case but I'm fairly sure it had to do with an ACT scheme. From memory it was a Mason era decision too, and if any court was going to support a law like that it would've been his.

 

[paile]

ALP primary vote up 2% in QLD is something, though, right?

RIGHT?!

Elections always tighten at the end. The gap is too great to make up though, it's over.

 

[Mr. Tone]

I don't mean to go around handing out false hope, but I thought this was interesting: Labor gains ground on Coalition, says new mobile-only poll

 

[TriangleOfCorruption]

The gall to call yourself the infrastructure Prime Minister while cutting over $700m from rail.

 

[Dead Man]

Dead Man: I can't remember the name if the case but I'm fairly sure it had to do with an ACT scheme. From memory it was a Mason era decision too, and if any court was going to support a law like that it would've been his.

Cheers, I might try and find out more, my legal knowledge is less than zero though. A bit disappointing to learn.

 

[lexi]

Not to go around handing out false hope, but I thought this was interesting: Labor gains ground on Coalition, says new mobile-only poll

a rise in the Greens’ House of Representatives vote to 14%

14%!!!!! If that is anywhere near indicative that's something to get excited about.

 

[shanshan310]

Not to go around handing out false hope, but I thought this was interesting: Labor gains ground on Coalition, says new mobile-only poll

shhh, apparently the election has already happened.

 

[CrazedProfessional]

The gall to call yourself the infrastructure Prime Minister while cutting over $700m from rail.

Wait wait wait, Infrastructure involves more than just roads? I better tell Joe!

 

[bomma_man]

Cheers, I might try and find out more, my legal knowledge is less than zero though. A bit disappointing to learn.

I found it (Australian Capital Television v Commonwealth), but I obviously misremembered it. It's about restrictions on political advertising on television and radio during certain times not monetary contributions. Having said that our implied freedom of political speech does leave the door open for some horrible Citizens United esque decision in the future.

 

[Elaugaufein]

I don't mean to go around handing out false hope, but I thought this was interesting: Labor gains ground on Coalition, says new mobile-only poll

Mobile and internet polls will generally give an inflated values to Labor and the Greens just like landline polls will lean conservative , unless they are corrected. So I wouldn't place any more hope on that than you place on the idea that the landline polls are misleading.