Labor Hegemony Under Threat? Perspectives on the By-Election…

By Denis Bright The tidal wave swing against Labor in the Ipswich West…

Predictable Outcomes: Australia, the National Security Committee, and…

Archivists can be a dull if industrious lot. Christmas crackers are less…

Dutton's bid for nuclear power: hoax or reckless…

It’s incredible. Such is our love-in with Peter “Junkyard” Dutton, our former…

No wind power, no solar farms. Let’s go…

By Bert Hetebry Holidaying down at Busselton in the last week, enjoying time…

Racing the Sun

By James Moore “If you want to know the secrets of existence, do…

Israel government continues to block aid response despite…

Oxfam Australia Media Release International community resorts to sea routes and air drops…

Siding with Spotify: The European Commission Fines Apple

It will come as little surprise that colossal Apple has been favouring…

Plan to dump eight toxic oil platforms off…

Friends of the Earth Media Release Threat from mercury, lead & radioactive waste…

«
»
Facebook

John has a strong interest in politics, especially the workings of a progressive democracy, together with social justice and the common good. He holds a Diploma in Fine Arts and enjoys portraiture, composing music, and writing poetry and short stories. He is also a keen amateur actor. Before retirement John ran his own advertising marketing business.

Significant changes to a worn-out Australian democracy require some positivity from Peter Dutton (cont)

Continued from Significant changes to a worn-out Australian democracy require some positivity from Peter Dutton

Let’s envision a future where everyone has equal opportunities for growth and success. The key to achieving this noble goal is to let go of outdated social objectives and invest in a broader social and philosophical common good that benefits everyone. By embracing ideas, imagination and positivity, “we can reduce inequality and create a brighter future for all“. Together, let’s significantly impact society and work towards a better tomorrow.

The major parties have become fragmented, with Labor losing a large segment of its supporters to the Greens or independents.

Both parties have pre-selection processes rooted in factional power struggles that often see the best candidates miss out. Both need to select people with broader life experience. Not just people who have come out of the union movement or, in the case of the LNP, staffers who have come up through the party.

Our Parliament, its institutions and conventions have been trashed by Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison, and if he gets the chance, Peter Dutton will do the same.

Ministerial responsibility has at least been restored.

Political donations are out of control and should be recorded in real-time.

Question Time is just an excuse for mediocre minds who cannot win an argument with factual intellect, charm or debating skills to act deplorably toward each other. The public might be forgiven for thinking that the chamber has descended into a chamber of hate where respect for the other’s view is seen as a weakness. Where light frivolity and wit have been replaced with smut and sarcasm. And in doing so, they debase the Parliament and themselves as moronic imbecilic individuals.

Recent times have demonstrated just how corrupt our democracy has become. We have witnessed a plethora of inquiries and Royal Commissions, all focusing on illegal sickening behaviour.

We now have a National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), but after almost a decade of Conservative government, when corruption flourished, no one has been punished. The NACC has to date:

  • received 2561 referrals
  • excluded 1984 referrals at the triage stage because they did not involve a Commonwealth public official or did not raise a corruption issue
  • 159 referrals awaiting triage
  • 212 triaged referrals under assessment including 13 under preliminary investigation
  • assessed 232 referrals

I cannot remember when my country was so devoid of political leadership. In recent times, we have had potential, but it was lost in power struggles, undignified self-interest and narcissistic personality. Under Albanese, it has stabilised.

The pursuit of power for power’s sake by an Opposition devoid of any ideas has so engulfed the political thinking on the right that the common good is forgotten and takes away the capacity for bi-partisan public policy that achieves social equity.

Then there is a ludicrous Senate situation where people are elected on virtually no primary votes, just preferences. It is also a system that allows the election of people with vested business interests without public disclosure.

One cannot begin to discuss the decline of Australian democracy without aligning it to the collapse of journalistic standards and its conversion from reporting to opinion. Murdoch and his majority-owned newspapers, with blatant support for right-wing politics, have done nothing to advance Australia as a modern, enlightened, democratic society. On the contrary, it has damaged it, perhaps irreparably.

The advent of social media has pushed mainstream media into free fall. Declining newspaper sales have resulted in lost revenue and profits. It is losing its authority, real or imagined. Bloggers reflect on the feelings of grassroots society. Social media writers with whom they can agree or differ but at least have the luxury of doing so. As a result, newspapers, in particular, have degenerated into gutter political trash, hoping they might survive. Shock jocks shout the most outrageous lies and vilify people’s character with impunity and, in the process, do nothing to promote decent democratic illumination. They even promote free speech as if they are the sole custodian of it.

A number of people/ideologies have contributed to the decline in our democracy.

For starters, the Abbott factor and the death of truth as a principle of democratic necessity. I am convinced Tony Abbott, Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton believe that the effect of lying diminishes over time and, therefore, is a legitimate political tool.

Mr Abbott has long set a high standard for not keeping promises. On August 22, 2011, he said:

“It is an absolute principle of Democracy that governments should not and must not say one thing before an election and do the opposite afterwards. Nothing could be more calculated to bring our Democracy into disrepute and alienate the citizenry of Australia from their government than if governments were to establish by precedent that they could say one thing before an election and do the opposite afterwards.”

On the eve of that election, after crucifying Prime Minister Julia Gillard daily for three years, Abbott made this solemn promise:

“There will be no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS.”

This was an unambiguous statement that cannot be interpreted differently than what the words mean. To do so is to tell one lie in defence of another.

When you throw mud in politics, some of it inevitably sticks, but there is a residue that adheres to the chucker. That was Abbott’s and, in turn, a conservative dilemma, but the real loser was our democracy. In Australian political history, Abbott’s and Morrison’s legacy will be that they empowered a period emblematic of a nasty and ugly period in our politics.

Our democracy is nothing more or less than what the people make of it. The power is with the people, and it is incumbent on the people to voice with unmistakable anger the decline in our democracy.

People need to wake up to the fact that the government affects every part of their lives (other than what they do in bed) and should be more concerned. But there is a deep-seated political malaise.

Good democracies can only deliver good governments and outcomes if the electorate demands it.

“You get what you vote for” rings true.

An enlightened democracy, through its Constitution, must give its citizens a clear sense of purposeful participation. It must remain perpetually open to improvement in both its methodology and implementation. Importantly, its constitutional framework must be subject to regular revision, renewal, and compromise whenever everyday life demands it. There can be no room for complacency or stagnation in a genuinely effective democracy. Only through constant evolution and adaptation can a democracy truly serve the needs and aspirations of its people.

Unfortunately, without Peter Dutton’s cooperation, we can expect more of the same. Without it, constitutional changes and an Australian Head of State are just fantasies.

My thought for the day

The most objectionable feature of a conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge. science, in other words.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Significant changes to a worn-out Australian democracy require some positivity from Peter Dutton

Continued from Is Australian democracy at risk from an authoritarian leader?

One day on a tranquil Sunday, I found myself lost in thought as the rain gently tapped on the rooftop, prompting me with profound questions. The word ‘democracy’ keeps coming back to me, and though I have written about it before, my inner political self urges me to revisit the topic. Our democracy is in dire straits, but I hope it can be saved from its current state of decay. May my passion for this cause not falter.

Before presenting any ideas for rehabilitating a democracy on its knees, one must first acknowledge the difficulty. When Anthony Albanese was elected Prime Minister on May 21 2022, he was expected to clean up the current state of our democracy and the political culture that goes with it.

He discovered that there is only so much one can do about meaningful and significant change without a like-minded opposition leader’s sincere, earnest cooperation. Dutton must find some positivity. It may be foreign to him, but find it he must.

However, Albanese learned it would never be forthcoming from a man like Peter Dutton, whose sole interest is obtaining power. This was decisively confirmed with the recent “Voice” referendum: The moment Opposition leader Peter Dutton (unexpectantly for Albanese) uttered “No.”

That would be the end of it. And so it was for The Voice, but any proposal that warranted change carried the same threat.

If we want to become a nation, independent, holding its place in a world of hard-earned international goodwill, we must become a republic, one with an Australian as our head of state; it can only happen with the help of Peter Dutton.

But Dutton will have differing views rather than agree to any proposal to upgrade our Constitution via a standing committee putting forward recommendations for the public to consider.

It is just ridiculous that a document that doesn’t even mention women is still with little change since January 1, 1901.

In this period of our political history, the only way for vital issues to be updated is to have all political party leaders agree on the substance of any proposal. For any opposition leader to oppose, such a proposal would render it dead in the water.

Unsurprisingly, our two-party political system was born from this very dreary document written by men for men. Our current combatant political two-party system could serve us better but needs more positivity to change it. Members sit on opposite sides in an auditorium where pit bulls are let off the leash for a bit of snarling and hatred.

Nobody wants to improve the system because it suits them not to. Once they are the winner, they have the power.

Democracy should be a “Work in progress”: Never ending

A clear indication of an Australian democracy in decline is the fact that people are giving up this voting gift, literally saying: “A pox on both your houses”.

Tens upon tens of thousands did so at the last election by not voting.

Our political system is in crisis because our solicitations need to speak with clarity on issues that concern people.

To truly serve the needs and aspirations of its people, a genuinely effective democracy must constantly evolve and adapt. We must be bold and persistent in building a more inclusive and just society. We must remain compassionate and sympathetic towards each other and work together towards creating a better future for all. A functional democracy should give its citizens a definite sense of meaningful involvement. It should always be open to improving its methods and implementation. Crucially, its constitutional framework must be regularly revised, renewed, and subject to political compromise whenever the greater reasonable demands it.

But above all, its function should be that:

“… regardless of ideology the common good should be served first and foremost. A common good healthy democracy serves the collective from the ground up rather than a top down democracy that exists to serve secular interests. One that is enforced by an elite of business leaders, politicians and media interests who have the power to enforce their version. That is fundamentally anti-democratic.

Every facet of society, including the democratic process, needs constant and thoughtful renewal and change. Otherwise, we become so trapped in the longevity of sameness that we never see better ways of doing things.”

Unfortunately, Australia’s democratic process, as defined by its Constitution, is struggling to keep up with the changing times. It seems stuck in the past, and moving forward requires significant changes. Labor’s desire for a republic and a modernised constitution is understandable, but it may need help from others. It’s a difficult situation, and understandably, many people feel frustrated.

With his opposition to the Voice, Dutton has shown that nothing can be changed without his agreement.

In my previous article I wrote – and wish to repeat – that:

“I am not a political scientist, historian or a trained journalist. I write this as a disgruntled and concerned citizen who wants change to the Australian Constitution I grew up with. The demise of Australian democracy originates in a monumental shift by both major parties in how they now interpret their individual philosophies.

They are now tainted with sameness.”

The Liberal Party has been replaced by a neo-conservative one, actively supporting rich individual identities against a collective one, and old-style Liberalism no longer has a voice.

Labor, as is usual, has come to power during a crisis and is managing its wimpy grip on power, unable to make the hard decisions it knows it promised less Dutton denies his support yet again. There is little or no difference between the Liberals and the National Party, who seem irrelevant as a political force in doing anything that benefits our democracy.

Conservatives are going down the path of a defined inequality with a born-to-rule mentality that favours the rich.

Continued tomorrow …

My thought for the day

If there is an acceptance by both sides that negativity is the only means of obtaining and retaining power, then we will get nothing more than what we have now.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Is Australian democracy at risk from an authoritarian leader?

Continued from Authoritarianism is taking over the world. Will it snare Australia?

To recap, in Part 1 I wrote that:

In recent years, we have witnessed three individual politicians who have used the techniques of the authoritarian leader, fear, negativity, misinformation and lies. I refer to Tony Abbott, Scott Morrison and the now opposition leader Peter Dutton. All have used the methods of an authoritarian ruler.

The best way to guard against a takeover by a popular authoritarian is to create the best democracy possible.

Democracy is a complex political system that involves various components. Still, at its core, it is about individuals with similar beliefs and values collaborating to create a set of principles that guide their actions and decisions. It is a process that requires active participation and engagement from all members of the community, with a focus on inclusivity and equality. Democracy is a mechanism for achieving consensus and promoting the common good through dialogue, debate, and compromise.

They then become the foundation of political parties. These ideologies pull in different directions in a quest for majority approval by the people. It is a far from perfect system that has variations all around the world. It is elastically flexible, unpredictable and, at its worst, violent and highly combative.

The system of Australian Democracy, when it functions optimally, is characterised by a sense of dignity and constructive engagement. It effectively serves society’s needs and can accommodate a broad range of ideas and perspectives, regardless of their extreme. However, it is worth noting that the Australian democratic system is not perfect; it is far from ideal.

What’s wrong with our Democracy?

In their article The Global Expansion of Authoritarian Rule, Sarah Repucci and Amy Slipowitz contend that:

“Undemocratic leaders and their supporters in democratic environments have worked to reshape or manipulate political systems, in part by playing on voters’ fears of change in their way of life and by highlighting the very real failures of their predecessors. They have promoted the idea that, once in power, their responsibility is only to their own demographic or partisan base, disregarding other interests and segments of society and warping the institutions in their care so as to prolong their rule. Along the way, the democratic principles of pluralism, equality, and accountability – as well as basic stewardship and public service – have been lost, endangering the rights and well-being of all residents.”

In fact, it can sometimes be cumbersome and unwieldy, and there have been instances where it has failed to meet the expectations of its constituents. Despite its imperfections, the Australian democratic system remains an important and valuable institution that plays a critical role in shaping the nation’s future.

Common to most Western Democracies (without anything better), it has a capitalistic economic system. One that is badly in need of an overhaul.

In Australia, the right to vote is the gift that democracy gives. People are free to vote for whichever party (or individual) they support, but overriding this is the fact that people cannot possibly believe in democracy if, at the same time, they think their party is the only one that should ever win.

A clear indication of an Australian democracy in decline is that people are giving up this voting gift, literally saying: “A pox on both your houses”.

The 2022 election had the lowest turnout for a century:

“For the first time since compulsory voting was introduced for the 1925 federal election, turnout fell below 90%.”

Our political system is in crisis because our solicitations need to speak with clarity on issues that concern people, particularly women.

I would argue that an enlightened democracy should give the people a sense of purposeful participation. It should forever be open to regular improvement in its methodology and implementation. Its constitutional framework should be exposed to periodical revision, renewal, compromise, and bipartisanship when the common good cries out.

But above all, its function should be that regardless of ideology, the common good should be served first and foremost. A typical good, healthy democracy serves the collective from the ground up rather than a top-down democracy that exists to serve secular interests.

Every facet of society, including the democratic process, needs constant and thoughtful renewal and change. Otherwise, we become so trapped in the longevity of sameness that we never see better ways of doing things.

Unfortunately, Australia’s version of the democratic process has none inherent in it and is currently sinking into a quagmire of American Tea Party hypotheses.

I am not a political scientist, historian or a trained journalist. I write this as a disgruntled and concerned citizen because it seems that the Australian democracy I grew up with no longer exists.

The demise of Australian democracy originates in a monumental shift by both major parties to the right, with the result that neither seems to know exactly what they stand for.

They are now tainted with sameness.

The Liberal Party has been replaced by neo-conservatism, authoritarian leadership.

Labor has lost its zeal for change and how to go about it.

We have ended up with an individual identity against a collective one, and old-style Liberalism no longer has a voice. There is little or no difference between the Liberals and the National Party, who seem irrelevant as a political force. Conservatives have gone down the path of inequality with a born-to-rule mentality that favours the rich.

They still carry the “lifters” and “leaners” tags so popular with the Abbott era.

“It is a distillation of the idea that there is no such thing as society, that we are only responsible for our own circumstances”. (Tim Dunlop, The Drum, 4/7/2014).

Labor seems unable to walk over the shadow of its past, a time when it did great things to advance the nation.

The Labor Party needs to rid its party of outdated objectives and invest in a social, philosophical common good. And recognise that the elimination of growing inequality is a worthwhile pursuit.

To do nothing is to allow the authoritarian his or her way. I don’t wish to sound alarmist, but…

In recent years, we have witnessed three individual politicians who have used the techniques of the authoritarian leader, fear, negativity, misinformation and lies. I refer to Tony Abbott, Scott Morrison and the now opposition leader Peter Dutton. All have used the methods of an authoritarian ruler.

Next week: Ideas for change.

My thought for the day

We dislike and resist change in the foolish assumption that we can make permanent that which makes us feel secure. Yet change is, in fact, part of the very fabric of our existence.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Authoritarianism is taking over the world. Will it snare Australia?

It would seem that many countries around the world have decided that democracy has run its race. Russia, India, Hungary, Turkey, Poland, China, Slovakia, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Libya, Laos, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, United Arab Emirates and Uzbekistan have-authoritarian-governments.

An explosion of elections is due now or into the near future that will see far-right authoritarian leaders elected who have parroted:

“Amidst all the chaos and uncertainty in the world, it seems that some politicians are trying to gain our trust by making big promises. They pledge to tackle issues like promiscuity, immigration, and corrupt leaders. Do you think they’ll be able to follow through on their promises?”

Many people are concerned about the increasing popularity of right-wing populism, nationalism, and worldwide polarisation. In just a few years:

Within just a few years, we’ve witnessed the election of Donald Trump in the US, the Brexit decision in the UK, the rise of Matteo Salvini in Italy, Victor Orbán in Hungary, the Freedom party in Austria and the Law and Justice party in Poland. The world’s largest democracy, India, is menaced by a newly virulent nationalism and xenophobia.

And last year, the Philippines elected Ferdinand Marcos’ son as President, signalling their preference for strongman politics.

President Putin is expected to secure a victory in the upcoming Russian election. The President has criticised the Western concept of gender, labelling it as a “perversion” and a “complete denial of man.” According to him, the idea is part of an “overthrow of faith and traditional values” by the Western elites.

Many nations and their leaders have discarded democratic practices and turned towards authoritarianism, while some democracies have been shaken by populist forces that reject fundamental principles. Countries with authoritarian powers are banning opposition groups, jailing their leaders, and tightening the screws on independent media.

Findings, released as:

“… part of the 2023 ANU Crawford Leadership Forum, show 77.4 per cent of Australians say they are satisfied or very satisfied with Democracy compared to 81 per cent in 2008.”

Political scientists will tell us that:

“Authoritarianism is the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom. It has a lack of concern for the wishes or opinions of others.”

And that:

“An authoritarian government is also one that inflicts strict rules that limit the personal freedoms of its people. Citizens of countries that have an authoritarian government have diminished rights and privileges and are typically unable to freely practice their faith, fully express themselves, or choose their leaders through free and fair elections.”

When in 1991, the USSR collapsed, to the surprise of many in the West, what materialised was not a liberal democratic government. It was not the end of soviet history as we knew it, for what emerged was Authoritarianism. Since then, it has slowly crawled like rust into a world uncertain of its future.

To vote for these authoritarian, often corrupt figures, the citizens of democratic governments have to be monumentally dissatisfied, firstly, with the governance of their country, secondly, with their leader. Then, they give in to the favoured candidate.

After that, they are confronted with rigged elections.

Having accepted authoritarianism, the peoples of all the nations mentioned increasingly have less to say about their destiny. They are victims of their ignorance and the misinformation used to scare them.

Unfortunately, many voters lack sufficient political awareness, creating a situation where less informed voters outnumber the more politically aware. Consequently, conservative politicians often resort to misleading information to sway public opinion. Such misinformation contains many untruths propagated through various channels to achieve their political objectives. This phenomenon undermines the democratic process and may lead to detrimental outcomes for the general public.

If we are to save our democracy, we might begin by insisting that, at the very least, our politicians should tell the truth.

We have to ask why it was that when Russia tumbled, communism wasn’t replaced with some form of Liberal Democracy. Therefore, the invasion of Ukraine, a democratic European country, by an authoritarian regime should have come as no surprise.

Over the past 15 years, the principles of Liberal Democracy have been experiencing a decline and have rapidly retreated. This trend has recently reached a point that was once considered impossible to imagine. A study by Professor Nicholas Biddle said that:

“… the most significant change was fewer Australians being ‘very satisfied’ with Democracy than 15 years ago – 14.2 per cent compared to 23.4 per cent.”

Within many liberal democracies, authoritarian leaders continue to gain strength and popularity

A new report by The Global State of Democracy 2023 says that the erosion of democratic norms has been engineered by leaders claiming to speak in the name of and with the people’s authority.

In many parts of the globe, the fundamental principles of democracy are threatened by various populist leaders whose only interest is in the power they can obtain and the privileges that go with it.

When looking for those ingredients that make a democracy, ask yourself:

Are there free elections?

Is there an independent law system?

Is there a separation of powers?

Is there any transparency in government?

Is there a real opposition?

Who is in control of the budget?

Are ideas and diversity trashed?

Are those who vehemently oppose authoritarianism brushed aside?

I understand that it can be disheartening to see the decline of Liberal Democracy worldwide. It is difficult to accept that this trend has been ongoing for the last decade and a half, and understandably, such an outcome would be hard to imagine.

Is Australia at risk? Could we have a better Democracy?

In recent years, we have witnessed three individual politicians who have used the techniques of the authoritarian leader, fear, negativity, misinformation and lies. I refer to Tony Abbott, Scott Morrison and the now opposition leader Peter Dutton. All have used the methods of an Authoritarian ruler.

The best defence against authoritarianism is to create the best Democracy possible

Democracy is a complex political system involving rules and conventions with various other components. The essence lies in the coming together of people who share common beliefs and values, working in unison to establish a framework of principles that serve as a compass to direct their conduct and choices. It is a process that requires active participation and engagement from all members of the community, with a focus on inclusivity and equality. Democracy is a mechanism for achieving consensus and promoting the common good through dialogue, debate, and compromise.

They then become the foundation of political parties. These ideologies pull in different directions in a quest for majority approval by the people. It is a far from perfect system that has variations all around the world. It is elastically flexible, unpredictable and, at its worst, violent and highly combative.

Having declared authoritarianism a form of dictatorship, next week I will look at a better democracy and how to achieve it.

My thought for the day

We exercise our involvement in our democracy every three years by voting. After that, the vast majority takes very little interest. Why is it so?

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Sky News: where facts don’t seem to matter

At the risk of arousing my natural bias toward the truth, I have of late taken to reading Sky News. I have done so during the events surrounding Labor’s decision to change the settings for the stage three tax changes.

In doing so, I found a collection of half-truths, lies by omission and misrepresentation. I had to ask myself if we have reached the point in politics where truth is something that politicians have persuaded us to believe, “like alternative facts” rather than truth based on factual evidence, argument, and assertions.

I am convinced Peter Dutton and others of his ilk, including his supporters in the media, believe that the effect of lying diminishes over time, and they forget that they leave behind a residue of broken trust.

Take this piece by Caroline Di Russo, Sky News, 3 February 2024. At the foot of her piece, she runs out of words to condemn Labor for breaking a promise. She concludes:

“… Labor has opted for its tried and tested “class warfare” approach to politics.

The only change is a studious avoidance of the phrase “big end of town”, presumably because that didn’t work out so well for them during the 2019 campaign.

The politics of envy is the same though; it’s just a quieter version.

And I doubt we have seen the last of it.

During the Prime Minister’s National Press Club speech last week he refused to rule out changes to negative gearing.

Either it’s already on the cards, or the Prime Minister knew no one would believe him if he denied it so he just didn’t bother. Meanwhile, Treasurer Chalmers has since tried to reject such changes are on the cards.

Labor need to find more avenues to tax because they refuse to cut government spending – the true source of our domestic inflation.

Despite promising to go through the budget “line by line” to reduce government spending, Labor’s last budget included $185 billion in new spending commitments.

So instead of cutting spending to curb inflation, Labor will redistribute from the “top end of town” to pretend it is providing relief for lower- and middle-income earners.

The issue for voters is this: it’s not what Labor is giving with one hand today, it’s what they will take with the other tomorrow.”

Every time Labor tries to bring some counterbalance of fairness over Australian economics, the conservative response is always to shout at the top of their lungs, “class warfare”. When it is so evident that the wealthy and privileged enjoy wealth concessions way over that of the average citizen, why on earth do the conservatives not just admit it?

The country would be better off if politicians did change their minds when categorically demanded for the common good.

Why not just admit that the revised tax cuts are popular with up to 66% of the population and back them?

In my piece Money Money Money. It’s a Rich Man World I quoted research by the Australian Institute that is but one truth of how well the rich are looked after.

Last year, before legislation to fix the problem, their research showed that:

“… the cost to the federal budget of generous superannuation tax concessions was on par with the cost of the entire aged pension and more significant than the total cost of the NDIS as a whole in 2022-2023.”

My piece goes on to explain in detail just how advantaged the wealthy and privileged really are, so it’s a bit rich for Caroline Di Russo to cry “class warfare” every time Labor tries to make society a little fairer. But then it was that British lady with lousy hair who said, “There is no such thing as society, only individuals making their way.”

“Class warfare” is a terrible and disgusting term, and if anyone is carrying it out, it is the conservatives. They are doing all the complaining.

Labor need to find more avenues to tax because they refuse to cut government spending – the true source of our domestic inflation.

This statement by Caroline Di Russo is either an outright lie or a misrepresentation of the facts. One only has to do a search asking if Labor has made an effort to wind back Government spending, and you will find ample evidence that they have.

Shane Wright in the Sydney Morning Herald also noted:

“Almost $10 billion in federal spending will be either cut or pumped into other priorities in this week’s budget update as all levels of government come under pressure to reduce expenditure and ease inflation.”

And in another article for the same paper acknowledged that:

“In the space of 18 months, Treasurer Jim Chalmers has found the best part of $100 billion down the back of the budget lounge.”

Even way back in October 2022 it looked as though some in the Murdoch media were enthusiastic about Labor’s budget:

“Labor to slash $21 billion of government spending after audit of departments.”

And Ellen Ransey reported in the Great Southern Herald that Jim Chalmers and Katy Gallaher were to reveal $17.8 in savings in the 2023 budget.

There are other examples, but these make my point.

Returning to Caroline Di Russo’s article, her assertion that there were increases in spending is correct, but they were investments designed to start productivity and drive growth. Therefore, there is a return on investment. There are deficits, but they are designed to decline in dollar terms as a percentage of the economy yearly.

To assert as she has done that cutting government spending is the cause of high inflation is absurd. It is a far more significant problem and more complex than her analysis.

My thought for the day

When drafting a budget for the common good what should your priorities be?

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

What will the conservatives campaign on at the next election?

Now that Australians have, depending on where they live, gotten through fires and floods or too many days at the cricket drinking excessively, some will turn their attention to what’s happening over the dunes in the world around them.

It may be too early to discuss such an issue like the next election, but it is worth considering now that Labor has changed its mind on the stage three tax cuts.

Will the Prime Minister go for an early election later this year or wait until 2025?

The earliest date for a regular election is August 3, 2024. The latest it can be held is 27 September 2025. The stakes are high between a man who has broken a promise and another who is the most distrusted politician in the country.

No matter when Albanese chooses to go, it will be another election vital for the country’s future. I say “vital” because the country needs change. Changes that will make for a better society, a fairer one. Fundamental, meaningful changes. First, cab off the rank has to be tax reform, and then it has to be continuous reform. They have started, and Labor is the only party that can bring about the changes, but it needs three terms.

Peter Dutton has already demanded that the Prime Minister call one over Labor’s tax revisions, but that won’t happen.

The Labor Party has skillfully executed a political tactic known as a reverse wedge on the Opposition. This strategy has forced Dutton to agree with the government’s proposed changes, which are aimed at promoting equity. Despite being reluctant, Dutton had no other option but to give in. However, it remains to be seen whether he realises that most Australians aspire for a fairer distribution of resources and opportunities.

Opposing a tax break for every Australian taxpayer while simultaneously demanding that the government take steps to alleviate the burden of living expenses was not only embarrassing but also appeared contradictory. On the other hand, supporting the proposed changes would be seen as hypocritical.

Paul Bongiorno wrote that:

“The redesign of the stage-three tax cuts is a watershed moment in the conversation the nation needs to have over expanding the revenue base to pay for the sorts of things that a modern, healthy, educated, secure and caring nation demands.”

According to research by the Australia Institute, nearly three in five voters across all demographics supported the changes.

Richard Dennis, at the Press Club on Wednesday, 31 January, said that the Albanese government’s decision to change the tax cut was the most honest thing he had seen by an Australian politician for a decade.

So far, in its first term, any agenda Labor may have had toward significant changes to our democracy has been thwarted by a worldwide economic downturn over which they have had little or no control. It has spent much of its first term picking up the mess the conservatives left behind, as duly noted by the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers:

“Upon taking office, the Albanese Labor government inherited not only $1 trillion of coalition debt but also a massive skills deficit. This situation is so dire that according to the OECD Australia is experiencing the second-most severe labour shortage in the developed world.”

The latest inflation figures of 4.1% in the December quarter suggest we have turned the corner and will begin to see interest rates come down this year.

The conservatives will, of course, be subject to the same economic advantages or disadvantages that exist whenever the Prime Minister decides to go to the people. However, a fair assessment looking forward is that inflation will be under control and the economy will be in better shape.

The average person may have a question in mind that is related to the Opposition, its leadership, and its policies for the Australian people. Peter Dutton, the current leader, is not a trusted figure for many, and some may see him as a replica of the former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott. According to some, the Opposition may only have little to offer except for criticism and a lack of constructive policies.

They could hardly, as they had proclaimed in many elections, claim that they are the best managers of money when they left the country a trillion dollars in debt.

Their persistent denial of a climate and energy problem over nearly a decade has also left them in a tough spot. They are now tasked with devising policies that effectively address both issues despite their earlier reluctance to acknowledge the problem. For almost ten years, they refused to admit that there was a problem with our climate and energy. Consequently, they now find it extremely challenging to formulate policies that address both issues effectively.

And all the spooky ultra-right-wing deniers are still there, as are their media supporters.

Again, on economics. It will be challenging putting forward a position of superiority on economics when your leader needs to learn more about the subject.

And it would be tough to say you had an anti-corruption policy when your own party practiced it.

When debating social services, a Royal Commission has found the LNP comprehensibly at fault over Robodebt. It will feature in the campaign. Many protagonists stand for re-election, and others will face a higher court of opinion. Added to the who you trust question is one of greater importance: why are you there?

If you are watching the ABC programme Nemesis, you would have noted that Tony Abbott, Julie Bishop, Mathias Corman, and Peter Dutton all refused to participate. I would suggest at the risk of tarnishing their images any further. If so, you will have concluded, as l did, that the Coalition spent more time on leadership infighting than actual governance. This shone through despite their inability to see that what they were doing was beyond contempt.

Labor can also easily argue away the tax breaks as being not a broken promise but a more equitable share of the pie. The promise is kept, but the configuration is altered.

No doubt, given their expertise in the subject, the conservatives will throw in a scare or two. Still, they could be hit to the boundary without an accompanying truth.

Labor has, to a large degree, restored our trade relationship with China, and other relationships have been repaired. Needless to say, Foreign Affairs is a no-go zone for the LNP unless they intend to shirtfront a few leaders.

Dutton can hardly campaign on his party’s record when in office. In fact, it would be difficult for him to put forward anything that wasn’t touched by corruption.

There is nothing wrong with the narrative of being an innovative country with a creative economy. In fact, it should be a worthwhile pursuit. So Dutton may devise some promise he knows he will never be obliged to keep. By that I mean he may run dead.

There are three problems, though. Firstly, all innovation is generated by education. If Dutton takes the private school’s route, he will be accused of prioritising Christian and private schools. Inevitably, Labor will accuse him of religious preferentialism and class nepotism. Innovation born of educational privilege is a hard sell.

Malcolm Turnbull even once warned:

“I suspect no federal government would retreat from funding and continuing to support the non-government school sector because there would be a concern that they would not get a fair go from state governments who obviously would have a competing interest with their schools.”

Strangely, conservatives have never realised that kids from low socioeconomic backgrounds are our most untapped source of potential growth. They are the most undervalued resource.

My thought for the day

My wife and I, together with other welfare recipients, would like to apologise to Joe Hockey and his government for being such a burden on them. (In remembrance of the 2014 budget.)

Another thought

Promises are always contextual.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 

Money, money, money. It’s a rich man’s world.

The headline conveys a tale of acquisition, narcissism, and unimaginable wealth. The world is overflowing with money inherited, earned honestly or obtained through corrupt means. Nevertheless, little is acquired through equal opportunities. It is a world where the rich have a significant advantage. It is a rich man’s world.

Let’s begin our investigation with some sobering statistics.

Last year, before legislation to fix the problem, research by the Australia Institute showed that:

“… the cost to the federal budget of generous superannuation tax concessions was on par with the cost of the entire aged pension and more significant than the total cost of the NDIS as a whole in 2022-2023.”

And Oxfam’s latest report, “Inequality Inc.,” said that the income of Australia’s 47 billionaires doubled in the last two years to $255 million.”

If you are amazed by those numbers, you are not alone. I am, too. Never before have the wealthy been so well taken care of.

Tax avoidance through family trusts is also an industry unto itself.

“Earnings can be allocated to family members with low income from other sources so that the taxable income attracts the lowest tax rate possible.

In some circumstances it is possible to reduce the tax bill to almost zero.”

As if that’s not enough:

“The rich also get rewarded with tax concessions to employ armies of lawyers, financial consultants, and accountants to arrange their tax affaires to avoid tax.”

While Australians face a cost-of-living crisis, billionaires have been raking it in. One report said that 897 self-managed super funds produced $1 million or more in income.

We now have “more wealth in the hands of 47 people than around 7.7 million Australians,” – just absurd.

And the wealth of:

“… the three wealthiest Australians, Gina Rinehart, Andrew Forrest and Harry Triguboff, has more than doubled since 2020 at a staggering $1.5 million per hour.”

That inequality of such magnitude should exist in a wealthy country like Australia should open our thinking toward a wealth tax.

SOS Australia rightly points out that:

“… the rest of the community bears the “cost of these tax concessions. It siphons off revenue that would be better used to fund schools, TAFE and universities, as well as other services such as health care, mental health, public housing, unemployment benefits and so on. As the economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman have observed, tax avoidance is ‘the triumph of injustice.”

They add that:

“To compound the injustice, the wealthiest families in Australia also benefit from over $1 billion a year in government funding for the elite private schools they send their kids to. Figures published on My School show that 126 of the wealthiest schools in Australia received $1.25 billion in government funding in 2020. Not only do the rich avoid paying taxes, but they get massive subsidies from the taxes paid by the rest of the community. The sheer scale of the avarice is gobsmacking.”

The Australia Institute also points out that tax concessions for super items “such as medical benefits are $31.3 billion, and assistance to the states for hospitals is $26.6 billion.”

You have to wonder how individuals accumulate large sums in superannuation while receiving such generous tax benefits, not to mention negative gearing, franking credits, and CGT (capital gains) discounts.

When you stop to consider it, the situation is quite scandalous. How did we get here? Is it the result of consecutive conservative governments being too generous while in power? Or is it due to the Labor government’s reluctance to take action? Once you’ve given something, it’s tough to take it back.

I wanted to understand why significant wealth inequality exists in our society. I wondered why both conservative and left-leaning governments tend to reward those who already have a lot of money rather than support those with less. It seems counterintuitive that this pattern persists across different political ideologies.

A conservative philosophy might suggest they should, but it doesn’t say it should be unfair. Conversely, Labor philosophy unequivocally supports the less well-off.

I typed into my search engine, “Why do the rich in Australia receive so many tax breaks?” Google provided a multitude of headlines to peruse.

As I wrote this, news hit the airwaves that the stage three tax alterations would advance more equitably. The Opposition is now up in arms, of course, but logic has won over politics. They will shout broken promises, but Labor can hardly go against its philosophy and still maintain respect with its supporters.

The Australian started its salvo with six stories on its front page about the tax cuts the day after the announcement – none with equality in mind.

Distinguishing a change of mind from a broken promise is often precarious, particularly in politics. It takes courage to change your mind for the greater good.

Another article I read was by Aimee Picchi, from December 17, 2020, for MoneyWatch. Although it wasn’t Australian and a little dated, it contained a thread to what I sought. Picchi wrote that:

“The new paper, by David Hope of the London School of Economics and Julian Limberg of King’s College London, examines 18 developed countries – from Australia to the United States – over 50 years from 1965 to 2015. The study compared countries that passed tax cuts in a specific year, such as the U.S. in 1982 when President Ronald Reagan slashed taxes for the wealthy, with those that didn’t, and then examined their economic outcomes.”

The analysis discovered one significant change:

“The incomes of the rich grew much faster in countries such as the USA, where tax rates were lowered, but instead of trickling down to the middle class, the tax cuts for the rich accomplished much more. Reagan inadvertently or deliberately helped the rich become more wealthy and exacerbated income inequality.”

Although the report doesn’t cover the period of Trump’s Presidency, his tax cuts lifted the ultra-rich’s fortunes even further.

A piece by The Guardian’s Stephanie Convery from 2023 tells us that the:

“Australian data showed that a wealth tax of just 2% on the country’s millionaires with wealth over $7m, 3% on those with wealth over $67m, and 5% on billionaires would raise $29.1bn annually, enough to increase income support payments to the Henderson poverty line of $88 a day for 1.44 million people.”

We inhabit a system with flaws where the principles of capitalism do not guarantee an equitable distribution of economic resources. This leads to a small group of privileged individuals accumulating enormous wealth while most people grapple with poverty in some shape or form.

Tax reform is necessary to generate additional revenue for the government, which can then be used to reduce poverty and improve human services.

We need tax reform to help those struggling with poverty and improve access to essential human services. By generating additional government revenue, we can work towards creating a more compassionate society that supports and cares for all of its citizens.

My last Google search was surprising. I found it hard to believe that more than 250 ultra-wealthy individuals were urging politicians to increase their taxes. It happened at the World Economic Forum in Davos on January 15-19, 2024.

“Our request is simple: we ask you to tax us, the very richest in society,” the wealthy people said in an open letter to world leaders. “This will not fundamentally alter our standard of living, deprive our children, or harm our nation’s economic growth. But it will turn extreme and unproductive private wealth into an investment for our common democratic future.”

Like I said: I was surprised.

My thought for the day

Is it feasible for incredibly wealthy individuals with many advantages to comprehend what it truly means to be in poverty? It’s difficult to say for sure, but some of them may have some understanding of the experience.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 

It’s a nasty business this, being in Opposition

A few years back, 2016 to be exact, I wrote a piece for The AIMN suggesting that being in Opposition was a thankless, powerless task with few positives. However, enormous expectations from those who follow you and your party are always present. Bill Shorten discovered that the release of party policy is considered shaky before the election campaign begins.

I wrote that the media focuses on the incumbent, and often, a 10-second grab on the nightly news is about all one can expect. You will be dammed if you produce a good policy that is unpopular with the party but good for the country.

I was wrong because being in Opposition provides, particularly the LNP, many opportunities to regain government through lying and negativity. It works; take the referendum for establishing an Aboriginal Voice to Parliament, for example. From its inception, the right of politics denounced the idea comprehensively with no word of endorsement.

In 2016, I befriended Stuart Whitman on Facebook, and we had coffee together at the famous Federation Square in Melbourne.

We immediately recognised a common thread of humanity that we both shared. At the time, Stuart worked in his own business before taking up an opportunity to work with Mark Dreyfus and his team. From there, he moved on to the Institute for Religion, Politics and Society at the Catholic University.

In our conservation, l asked him about political motives and why people sought a political career; what made them tick? What made them do and say the ridiculous things they often do?

He suggested the primary motive was formed from two choices or a combination of both.

“I’ve spent enough years observing now to work out there are generally two motives for people who go into politics – those who enter politics for “who” they want to be, and those for “what” they want to do.”

I haven’t heard from Stuart for a few years, but our conversations are firmly embedded in my mind.

Stuart’s quote could easily be applied to politicians like Peter Dutton and Tony Abbott.

Was it for “who” they wanted to be or “what” they wanted to do that they entered politics? Their actions and words over many years suggest they were in it to do nothing but create a pathway to the top job.

Contrary to what l said about the Opposition back then, Tony Abbott made my thesis seem unremarkable. He proved that becoming the Australian prime minister was possible simply by opposing everything and being totally negative, telling lies with an absence of policy, and adapting to the requirements of a Trumpish personality.

Is it as simple as that? So far, Peter Dutton has followed Abbott’s example by being even more damaging. The media called Abbott the best Opposition leader ever and still needs to explain their criteria for doing so. If it was because being negative made him successful, then the Enlightenment never happened.

What motivates the right-wing media to do and say the things they do? A lust for power?

Is it purely to stir up hatred of those with a darker skin tone for political reasons? What pleasure do they get from their dalliances with sewer politics? Do they think that the public falls for their lack of compassion because they were both tough on asylum seekers and others? I now think they do.

Remember when Victorian Police described Dutton’s “African gangs” crime wave claims as “absolute garbage” and backed it up with facts? Dutton said that – because of these apparent gangs – people were so afraid they wouldn’t step outside their doors.

Kathleen Kildare tweeted at the time:

“Peter Dutton, Minister for Home Affairs, is a disgrace and should be stood down for manufacturing community discontent with the complicity of the Daily Mail.

Furthermore, his Trumpesque attacks on Victoria’s Judicial system smacks of authoritarian overreach, grr!”

Dutton is the politician Stuart Whitman describes as the “who” they want to be and not the “what” they want to do politician.

Dutton stepped up the rhetoric against the judiciary the following day, blaming “soft sentences” on appointing civil libertarians as magistrates and labelling one Supreme Court judge a “left-wing ideologue”.

The judge in question, Lex Lazarus, is one of Victoria’s most respected jurists, and Dutton would know that by convention, he cannot reply.

And the “who” they want to be as politicians during times of poor leadership is a most dangerous animal because the likes of Turnbull at the time had no power to stand up to them.

So, Dutton has kept up his sarcasm (except for when he sleeps) and other offensive expressions calculated to raise racial hatred and break down society.

 

We can only conclude that Dutton is not in it to help create a better society and future for all. He has failed at his two Ministries, has a reputation for laziness, and compassion has eluded him thus far in his career. I can only conclude that the Liberal Party believes they need a man of ill repute in charge, a mongrel, in other words, so Dutton was an easy choice.

I do not doubt that what Stuart Whitman says is correct, and when you look at the current Shadow Ministry, it’s difficult to imagine any of them being in the “what” they want to do category.

My thoughts for the day

Sometimes, it is good to stop, think, evaluate and formulate one’s own opinion instead of being influenced by the media and other vested interests.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

The Mystery of why Scott Morrison is still in Parliament

On May 21 2022, Scott Morrison and his corrupt bunch of cronies were thrown out of office.

Most Prime Ministers who have lost their hold on power take the quickest possible exit, get another job with a salary equal to or better than their current one and remark on things they ought to leave be. In recent times, the only exception to this once-fashionable convention has been the first woman to be elected as Prime Minister, Julia Gillard.

As time becomes the essence of history and one year turns into the next, Scott Morrison has become the enigma of the House of Representatives, with speculation ever present that he is ready to quit Parliament and trigger a by-election in his New South Wales seat of Cook.

Why is he hanging around? Does he harbour thoughts of returning to the top job? Is he unemployable in the private sector? Rumour has always been constant that he has been trying hard to get a job, but trust is an issue. He may believe that being in Parliament protects him from prosecution over Robodebt.

These days, leaders who lose elections don’t usually hang around lest they embarrass the new leader.

History shows us that in 1908, former PM William Morris Hughes stayed for three decades after he was bumped from office. The “Little Digger” (as he was known) lost office in 1923 but hung around until he died in 1952.

But in the modern era, former PMs have, after losing power, vacated their seats and hastily abandoned politics. Malcolm Fraser probably established this precedent.

He walked away from the top job, initiating a by-election in the seat of Wannon’s seat two months after his party lost to Bob Hawke in March 1983.

Paul Keating disposed of Hawke in December 1991; Hawke resigned in February 1992, with his seat of Wills going to independent Phil Cleary in the following by-election.

Keating also retired from the Parliament after his Labor government lost power to John Howard in March 1996.

Howard’s end came at the hands of Kevin Rudd, who finished his prime ministership in November 2007 and with him went more than three decades as a member of Bennelong.

Kevin Rudd stayed around after being thrown out by his Parliamentary colleagues in June 2010. Angered by his dismissal and convinced of his righteousness, he remained for another parliamentary term, regaining the prime ministership in June 2013 from his vanquisher Julia Gillard.

Three months after his reinvention, the voters gave him the flick, and he resigned his seat.

Gillard resigned as the member for Lalor only weeks after being ousted by PM Rudd. Tony Abbott, who was clearly not up to the job, is the exception. He was defeated in a challenge by party-unpopular Malcolm Turnbull in September 2015, a little under two years after becoming Prime Minister.

At the time, Abbott was the worst and most bizarre prime minister ever.

Haplessly, he recontested his seat of Warringah again at the May 2019 election but lost to the independent Zali Steggall.

Turnbull, never a true blue liberal, left Parliament like a shot out of a gun once the right-wing nutters had had their way. After being dumped from the leadership in favour of Scott Morrison in August 2018, he resigned as a member of Wentworth within a week and took his intimidating intellect with him.

So, an unofficial club of former PMs formed with Rudd and Keating on the left and Howard, Abbott and Morrison on the right, defending themselves and offering advice to anyone who would listen.

Instead of being a formidable resource for their respective parties, former Prime Ministers are often ostracised and become a blame mechanism. The media treat them as controversial taps to turn on and off at will.

Modern former leaders, when dethroned, take the opportunity to make the most of what is available to them. Book writing deals, lecture tours, ambassadorships, business ventures, highly paid jobs, NGO and think tank appointments.

Ex-Prime Ministers today enjoy opportunities that their predecessors never had. Not to mention a lifelong pension that is staggering to most of us.

But now, back to the compelling character of Scott Morrison. He believed that God had gifted him the prime ministership but never allowed the holiness of his belief to interfere with his ruthless politics.

A person with an opinion of himself larger than life itself must find it humiliating to sit on the backbench with other mortals. Why is he doing it? We would have to dismiss his often-quoted words, “I’m relishing being the member for Cook.” In a recent Morgan poll, he was found to be the most mistrusted politician in Australia, just ahead of Peter Dutton.

The longer he stays, the more humiliated he must feel when he takes his plush seat in the House of Representatives. But losing the 2022 election has only increased his capacity for making headlines. Firstly, we had the astonishing revelation that he had commandeered several portfolios while PM and, secondly, because of the adverse findings against him by the Robodebt Royal Commission. Thirdly, the news that documents were missing from the annual release of cabinet papers.

What next?

Sky News Australia host Andrew Bolt has claimed the Coalition must “bring back” former Prime Minister Scott Morrison to the front bench and reshuffle the entire shadow cabinet to defeat Labor at the next federal election.

Would Dutton risk such a move? If Morrison and he are the most untrusted politicians in the country. Such a move would not be publicly unacceptable.

Another reason for his remaining in Parliament might be that as a sitting member, he might be entitled to financial assistance with legal fees should any Robodebt charges be laid against him.

Of all his options, as complicated as they may be, it takes guts to apologise to the House for past and present scandals, and it isn’t a gift conservatives carry in their top pocket. Intestinal fortitude doesn’t become them.

Retreating when faced with unresolved issues is like a priest unwilling to listen to a confession.

Of all his options, none has dignity attached to it. His sullied reputation is of his own doing. Never has an Australian leader shown such little regard for our democratic institutions, conventions and principles.

Indeed, staying on isn’t an option and would only damage the Liberal Brand more, but it wouldn’t be a surprise. It would only reinforce just how Trumpish they have become. Does Dutton really want him to stay? That is political madness.

I’m afraid the mystery of why he stays will be with us a little longer. Solving this requires intelligence, and it doesn’t apply here.

My thought for the day

The Australian Parliament is just an excuse for conservative, mediocre minds who cannot debate with intellect, charm or wit to act deplorably. And in doing so debase the Parliament and reveal themselves as moronic imbecilic individuals. Dutton and Morrison are two such individuals.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

2024: A Year of Change for Labor

It seems that whenever Labor comes to power, it is under the worst possible economic conditions. If you have a long memory, you will recall the period known as the world oil crisis. It began in 1973 and inflicted on the Whitlam Government a period of economic mayhem.

By 1975, inflation was 15%, and Australia was teetering on the edge of a recession that eventually transpired and continued throughout the seventies. The oil crisis of the 1970s was:

“… brought about by two specific events in the Middle East: the Yom-Kippur War of 1973 and the Iranian Revolution of 1979.”

In 1983, the Hawke Labor government:

“… came to office with inflation still at 11.5%, unemployment at 10.3% and Australia in the middle of a long-lasting recession.

Hawke’s treasurer, Paul Keating, would later say about his early period as treasurer that there needed to be a prominent place to look for an answer to the economy’s problems.”

During this period, I had an overdraft with 19% interest. Remarkable, I hear you say, but running a business without one was nigh on impossible.

Kevin Rudd was in power briefly when extreme stress in global financial markets and banking systems happened between mid-2007 and early 2009. It was known as the “Global Financial Crisis.”

Through no fault of his own, Anthony Albanese has grappled with the worst worldwide cost of living surge in decades. However, none of these events, a pandemic and a war, have elicited a word of sympathy from a media intent on saying that Labor couldn’t manage money. It has been the LNP’s catchcry for as long as I can remember.

After leaving the country a trillion dollars in debt 18 months ago, the LNP has sarcastically repeated, “Labor cannot manage money.” But even the Murdoch muck tabloids and others from the far right agree that it would be inflationary to just hand out money.

After almost a decade of perpetual political controversy and inept governance, the Opposition parties and their media friends have dared to emerge from a period of disgraceful, immoral and corrupt Government and say: “Elect us again, and we will fix the problem.” And just 18 months without even apologising for the damage they caused to our institutions and democratic principles. It is laughable that they are being touted as a real possibility to return to power. What were they doing when they were in power?

The only evidence for a LNP re-election is a victory was in The Voice referendum and in the bad economic news worldwide. Sure, Labor has struggled with the cost of living, rents and interest rates, but they seem minuscule against the backdrop of the 70s and 80s.

Indeed, inflation is higher than people under 40 have experienced. Their parents lived through sharper price hikes in the 1970s and ’80s, but the media paints the worst possible canvas of today. Those experiences should help shape the way today’s economy is viewed in comparison. But it doesn’t because the world of conservative commentators and media sluts doesn’t do such fairness.

We haven’t even entered a recession, which means today’s economic conditions bear no comparison with the bloody awful circumstances of previous times.

Favouring a Labor victory is that the hatred of Peter Dutton is still there, and it exposes his vile political nakedness every time the words ‘immigration’ or ‘First Nations people’ are used. His history is still very much alive with the policeman’s authority.

The Roy Morgan 2023 politicians distrust list has:

“… former Prime Minister Scott Morrison on top, Peter Dutton at two. Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong took the most trusted title for a second straight year, and Jim Chalmers was a strong second.

“The very high levels of distrust in Peter Dutton, and others in the opposition make it unlikely they would be able to win government in the current climate,” Roy Morgan chief executive Michele Levine said.

As we leave 2023 and meander our way through the summer sojourn into 2024, both parties will leave a residue of little transparency. Albanese promised better politics, but somehow, it got left behind in the slipstream of too many overseas trips.

Labor has lost the flare for embellishment without exaggeration. In other words, it couldn’t sell ice to Eskimos. In policy terms, they have had an excellent first term so far, but you wouldn’t think so. Many of their promises have been fulfilled, but they face a year of re-engagement with change for the better.

In Peter Dutton, the right has a clone of Tony Abbott, excellent at negativity, but after that, he falls away to nothing. Outside of policing, does the electorate know his thoughts on anything? He reminds me of that night on ABC 7.30 many years ago when Abbott asked Kerry O’Brien not to ask him any questions about the internet because he didn’t understand it. “Wow,” I wonder how he does his banking these days.

How does he see the future of Australia in a rapidly changing world? Does he have the intellectual capacity to explain himself? For example, he has no knowledge of economics, and on top of that, his current shadow ministers would form his cabinet; yes, the same corrupt lot of them.

Albanese isn’t a natural-born salesman whose words fly off the tip of their tongues with consummate ease, able to convince anyone to buy their blabber.

He must learn quickly that life isn’t about perception, not what it is, but what we perceive it to be. He must learn how to convince people of his sincerity.

The first twelve months of Labor’s tenure were dynamic, but then muckraker Murdoch’s relentless cost of living campaign slowly began to hit a government preoccupied with The Voice referendum. Of course, a sage mind would have determined that the referendum was lost the moment Dutton said he would oppose it.

His belief that the result would be a triumph of hope over experience proved incorrect. Subsequent polling by the Australian National University has shown majority support for a legislated Voice. Why didn’t Albanese just delay it when the result became apparent.

Labor passed some excellent legislation in the months leading up to Christmas, but again, Albanese should have sold it to the public using the authority of his office. He should have shouted their virtue to the heavens and every electorate. Yes, even advertisements to publicise their necessity.

  • These policies included an agreement at the National Cabinet to create a National Firearms Register.
  • They made a deal with the states to ensure the NDIS is solid and sustainable.
  • They reached a landmark healthcare agreement to take pressure off hospitals and boost our health workforce and Medicare Urgent Care Clinics.
  • They passed critical laws in Parliament to protect workers’ conditions and to improve the environment.
  • Wage theft will become a crime, and industrial manslaughter will be legislated.
  • Companies underpaying workers through labour-hire loopholes will be outlawed.
  • They also passed a bill to establish a nature repair market. This will make it easier for farmers and landholders to carry out projects that repair nature – like replanting koala habitats.
  • On top of all this was an announcement to dramatically reduce immigration.
  • Add to that further funding to healthcare, childcare, and better policies on the environment and the Murry Darling, and you find Labor has done more in 18 months than the conservatives did in almost 10 years.
  • “But that’s not all,” as the man selling the steak knives said. The sale of EVs is really picking up. There has been a slow relaxation of export embargoes. Unemployment benefits have risen. $10 billion has been designated for housing.

Labor enjoyed a dream run in their first 12 months, stabilising the government and getting things done competently, in contrast to sloppy Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison governments.

In all this excitement about the Conservatives possibly winning the next election, one thing seems to have escaped the minds of those supporting this idea: When in the hurly burly of an election campaign, the electorate is reminded of the sins of the National and Liberal parties over nine and a bit years, the hairs on the ends of voter’s heads will stand on end. Will they then feel inclined toward a repeat dose of the same medicine?

My thought for the day

People on the right of politics in Australia show an insensitivity to the common good that goes beyond thoughtful examination.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Negativity Bias: What is it and how it’s used in politics?

In the final two months of 2023, the Australian political landscape was plagued by negative bias campaigning tactics similar to those of Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison. It is unsurprising, considering that negativity is a core element of their political philosophy. They appear incapable of recognising any positive aspect of their opponents’ policies whatsoever.

Regrettably, political negativity can be a highly effective tool. If enough mud is thrown, some of it will eventually stick. Today’s hard right does not settle for merely a handful of mudslinging; they go for bucketfuls.

For example, the government was targeted by conservative mudslinging when they failed to anticipate the High Court’s ruling on refugees. This failure was shamelessly exploited by Peter Dutton et al, who placed politics above proper political conduct. They prioritised the politics of damaging their opponents over helping to solve an exacting problem.

As night follows day, the Australian right-wing press decided on some good old leader bashing, with the Prime Minister being the target of their excrement. The conversation became about refugees, and Dutton became the superhero of far-right politics.

That the problem demanded some very considered legislation mattered not to an opposition out for the kill. Dutton got what he wanted. A bill well short of considered thought. A bill that wouldn’t survive a High Court challenge.

Dutton was offered a viewing of the legal advice he had received on the subject on Sunday, 3 December, and to this day, they have yet to bother to set their eyes upon it.

Following his inglorious defeat of The Voice referendum using negativity bias, Dutton applied the same tactics to the High Court decision.

Negativity bias is now permanently engrained in what once was an adversarial but fair democracy where lies were said, but consequences risked. Now, lying is tolerated within the endless bounds of ‘Trumpism‘, where truth has negligible importance because negativity and ignorance prevail.

You believe whatever you want. It is unimportant because conservatives and their media tarts reinforce their bullshit all the time.

The Prime Minister and his Ministers must weave into their answers to questions (any question) something that refers to the LNP’s incompetence while in government. Goodness knows there is a mountain of dreadful instances to choose from. Reinforcing the LNP’s failure in office should be an automatic response within any answer.

It is well-known how negative Tony Abbott was in opposition. So much so that it was responsible for him becoming Prime Minister. They called him the best Opposition leader ever. Subsequently, he was a failure in the top job.

We know negative bias works, but how?

Research shows that we react more strongly to negative stimuli. We think about negative things more frequently than positive ones and respond more strongly to adverse events than equally positive ones.

“Research has also shown that people tend to focus more on the negative across a wide array of psychological events as they try to make sense of the world.”

We also tend “to pay more attention to adverse events than positive ones” and learn more from negative outcomes and experiences. We also make decisions based on negative information more than positive data.

The “bad things” grab our attention, stick to our memories, and often influence our decisions. Additionally, studies have shown that:

“… negative news is more likely to be perceived as truthful. Since negative information draws greater attention, it also has greater validity. This is why bad news garners more attention.”

Politics

“Differences in negativity bias have also been linked to political ideology. Some research suggests that conservatives may have more robust psychological responses to negative information than social democrats.

Some evidence, for example, has found that people who consider themselves politically conservative are more likely to rate ambiguous stimuli as threatening.”

Such differences in the negativity bias might explain why some people are more likely to value things such as tradition and security. In contrast, others are more open to embracing ambiguity and change.

If you go to the link provided, you will find a more comprehensive explanation of negative bias. However, I have given you something to think about. Moreover, we must all adjust to the fact that negativity plays a vital part in the election of a government. The reality is that a large cohort of folk thrive on scandals. They prosper on negativity. They believe they are always told the truth even when it is demonstrably not the case.

Our only recourse is to tell the truth; sometimes, more is needed. We must remind everyone of how dreadful the Coalition really was.

My thought for the day

Less informed voters unfortunately outnumber the more politically aware. Therefore, conservatives feed them all the bullshit they need. The menu generally contains a fair portion of negative bias.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

As I get older, change becomes both a nightmare and a necessity

Indeed, we only change once it gets too uncomfortable to stay the same.

A philosopher once said:

“The secret of change is to focus all your energy on not fighting the old, but on building the future.”

I have written some pieces on change for The AIMN this year. More particularly, societal change.

Now, my message requires reinforcing. With the oncoming power of artificial intelligence, it will be vital that the public votes for the party with the best credentials to manage the enormous changes that will take place in the next 20 years. A burden of immense importance.

As a father and grandfather, I was fond of telling the children that people of my generation have experienced more change than any other. They would laugh when I told them of our experiences without a washing machine, refrigerator or television.

When they talked about change, I would tell them that we dislike and resist change in the foolish assumption that we can make permanent, those things that make us feel secure. But change is part of the very fabric of our existence.

When they were older, and we talked about change more seriously, I told them that substantial and worthwhile change often comes with short-term controversy, but the pain is worth it for long-term prosperity.

Well, that’s what I have always believed.

Frankly, accepting and embracing change is one key aspect of what we define as wisdom.

People of my vintage have found change difficult to accept because they are so hooked on how they grew up. Indeed, people often become so trapped in the longevity of sameness that they never see other (better) ways of doing things.

I am also inclined to the view that change sometimes disregards opinion and becomes a phenomenon of its own making, with Its own inevitability. The election of the Labor Party has brought about significant change in this area, but it is also an example of how nothing stands in the way of change, even without a consensus.

Often, change comes about because we have become an inactive society rather than a proactive one. Still, this also applies to our personal lives. We fight against change because it doesn’t reward us personally, or we accept it because it does. Often, we reject it out of laziness.

Sorry, I have digressed. An example of what I am talking about is music. I don’t mean as in style or genre (which has undergone enormous change) but rather in its delivery.

As a small child, I remember hearing recorded music with replaceable needles for the first time on a wind-up gramophone. Sometime later, 78 rpm records improved, and the things on which we played then were grandiose pieces of furniture.

Then came 45rpm vinyl records, followed by 33 1/3 rpm LP and EP recordings with multiple tracks and stereophonic sound. I still have the first LP I ever purchased.

The next step forward was making music transportable, which came with cassettes and tape recorders. They, in turn, were replaced with CDs, which are now almost obsolete with the advent of tablets, iPods and mobile phones.

What will replace them is anyone’s guess, but the certainty is that something will.

I have used this analogy to demonstrate that change is determined by many factors: health, consumer demand, science, profit, and many others. And it is inevitable.

Change, as much as we resist it, is innate in us. It’s part of our DNA whether we like it or not.

Change is enabling us to live healthier and longer lives. So why do conservatives fight against it?

And, of course, we should not suppose that change over the next 100 years will abate. It will pick up speed and present the world with staggering life-changing advancements in many areas.

What will replace the Internet and other technology? What about physics, engineering, communications, medicine, economics.? The list is endless.

The world has much to look forward to, and today’s ideas must be honed with “critical reason, factual evidence and scientific methods of inquiry” to take advantage of tomorrow’s society.

Science has made the most stunning achievements in my lifetime, and they are embraced, recognised and enjoyed by all sections of society. The Internet has opened up the dissemination of information, bringing about a sharing of knowledge never before available.

As learning and knowledge advance, it will further bring into question the need for faith-based religion, which is still the reason for much of the world’s woes. The decline in religious belief in the more technologically advanced nations is demonstrable. It does, however, thrive in less-educated countries.

And for conservatives, who are against change, or at least only support incremental change, the problem of rampant technological change must surely confuse them.

An essential factor in all this is our ability to ethically live with the rapid changes that will take place. Will we use the gifts of new discoveries to bring about equality and make a better world, or will new artificial intelligence technologies simply advance greed, capitalism and corporatisation? Will it create more jobs, less conflict, less nationalism and more internationalism?

Here are 10 ways society will change by 2050.

Unfortunately, one of the significant obstacles to public acceptance will be our cognitive ability to intellectually understand the rationale for our technological ingenuity, which has yet to match its progress.

Our moral landscape still occupies the darkness of war and revenge, and all our thinking on intellectual enlightenment and ethical fairness has yet to advance any understanding of our purpose in being or the reason for our existence.

New discoveries in neuroscience and psychology will bring a greater understanding of what makes us tick. Free will, or at least the study of it, is an essential foundation of rational thinking and the objective application of thoughts to actions, but it needs to be better understood. AI might deliver new possibilities.

But how many seriously take up the study of free will and the constraints pre-determined facts impose on it (determinism)? We may even start questioning if free will does indeed exist. Or, if it does, is it an “inherently flawed and incoherent concept“?

I was first introduced to the Internet when I was doing some marketing for a friend, a scientist, who worked for the CSIRO. He asked me to put his email address on some marketing material I produced for him.

A short time later, I was designing and producing a fashion catalogue for a client who wanted a website to support it. I had no idea what a website was, but I quickly said I could do it. I sought expertise in the area, and over time, it transformed my business, which became firmly entrenched in Internet technology.

Although, at the time, it was so slow, I wondered how it would ever get off the ground. However, my small but progressive company was a leader in email marketing for a period.

Only when I retired did I discover the Internet as a medium for social discourse, and I have embraced it since. I have witnessed the demise of newspapers and their spurious attempts to remain relevant.

I have seen the rise of sites like The AIMN that have given people such as myself a voice. An avenue to opine about all manner of things. An opportunity to publish work that otherwise would not be read. Stories, poetry and thoughts that people might feel worthy of consideration.

Change is not always perfect, and in this respect, social networks like X, Facebook and blogs have also given a voice to the outrageous, the nutters, the bigots and the prejudiced. I have had some terrible experiences with these mediums.

So much so that I often write for The AIMN asking why the right was so feral, in which I have castigated the extreme attitudes of those so far to the right that they are in danger of falling off.

I have accumulated many friends on Facebook. Every Friday, I post under the banner “Words that make you think”, and I generally receive a good response. I follow up with other thoughts, and a conversation ensues. I am enriched by the experience.

For me, Facebook and blogs are communication tools that enable the exchange of ideas and thoughts. It makes you dive into humanity, hear things you do not want to hear and defend what you have to say.

It is for those with opinions or those without the courage to share them. And fence-sitters, of course. It attracts the reasoned, the unreasoned, the civil, and the uncivil. The biased and the unbiased. It is for people with ideas and, sadly, those without any. It whispers or shouts dissent. But mostly, it’s a society of our own creation.

For me, the changes brought about by the advancement of science and technology have been astonishing.

As a political progressive, I crave change that is worthy and advantageous for the betterment of society and our world.

Our lives should always be subject to constant reflection. Otherwise, the way forward is locked into the constraints of today’s thoughts.

My Thought for the Day

You cannot change what happens. Particularly when you have no control over it. What you do have control over is the way in which you respond.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

After 18 months of waiting to be born again, people of ‘so-called intelligence’ believe Dutton will win the next election

Within my social media circle and in the news reporting I read, there is growing support for the view that Dutton and the LNP are ripe to win the next election.

This assumption is based on views that Labor has done nothing about the cost of living or that Prime Minister Albanese travels too much and interest rates are too high. Of course, our debt needs to be lowered; asylum seekers should never have been released, and we need to spend more on infrastructure. You can add to that the cost of renting, and more houses need to be built.

Andrew Bolt is certainly confident of a Labor loss (isn’t he always?):

“The Coalition under Peter Dutton could actually win the next election.”

He then advised they needed a reshuffle and suggested they bring back former prime minister Scott Morrison. Yes, he did. Check it out. It really is difficult to take Andrew Bolt seriously.

Or Shadow Attorney General Michaelia Cash, who says that:

“… the Government’s handling of the High Court overturning indefinite detention proves they are ‘hopelessly’ out of their depth.”

Right-wing columnist Gerard Henderson, writing for The Australian (paywalled) was quick to blow Dutton’s trumpet:

“Despite all the naysayers decrying his decision for the Liberals to campaign against the voice, Peter Dutton has been vindicated and is looking strong in the lead up to the next election.”

These astonishing predictions came after The Voice Referendum and Labor’s decision to let some refugees with bad records into the community following a high court decision and before the Court gave its reasons.

Is it possible that at this time in the election cycle, the Coalition is indeed in a position to win in 2025? My first reaction is to say, “no chance”. After all, it was only a short time ago that Morrison lost on May 21 2022, after almost a decade of corruption, immorality, disgrace, continuous scandals, poor leadership, and lying. Keeping up with all the controversy and poor decisions was a daily grind: Lack of action on climate change, a poor response to the pandemic and the tragedy behind Robo debt are just a few.

Is the electorate ready to forgive them and return the same people to office within one term? In normal circumstances, you would say no; they wouldn’t, but I confess, we live in strange times.

Let’s look at where people say Labor is vulnerable, remembering we are some ways out from the next election.

1. The subs deal (a Morrison leftover) has been unpopular. Only time will tell by how much, and there is lots of it. I also disagree with this decision. However, I don’t think it is a front-of-mind issue.

2. Regarding the next tax breaks (another Morrison leftover), people think the money could be better spent other than handing money back to the wealthy. But to break a promise of such enormity. A broken promise for the greater good takes guts. Do it, Albo.

 

 

Make some big decisions. Negative gearing is nothing more than a tax rort for wealthy investors that reduces housing affordability. Get rid of it.

3. The cost of living. Coles, Woolworths and others control the cost of living more than any government. Fuel is controlled by external forces. Allow more competition.

4. High interest rates. No government controls interest rates. It is as accurate as that.

5. Albo travels too much. It is in our own interest that he does. It has also been shown that he travels roughly the same – or less- as other recent PMs. Most of it has been restoring the damage done by the previous Government. China, in particular. Labor has restored our trade, which was almost destroyed by Morrison. Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen will attend the COP 28 Meeting in December.

6. Release of asylum seekers. The Government obeyed the High Court of Australia. The Court has yet to release its reasons for the decision. The legislation passed thus far could be more explicit but can only be so once their reasons are known.

Further news on this story was exposed in The Guardian on November 21. Five of the 93 people affected by this month’s high court decision on indefinite detention had already been released into community detention by the Coalition.

7. Cost of renting. A carryover problem from the Morrison Government. A decade of doing nothing.

8. Build more housing. But both are being addressed, if not to everyone’s satisfaction.

9. Spend more on infrastructure. Yes, but now is not the time. It would make inflation much worse.

10. The Voice referendum. It was a bad loss and poorly sold, but it isn’t an election breaker. The conservatives not only destroyed “The Voice” but also any chance of us ever becoming a republic.

11. The economy. In answer to a question during Question Time, the Prime Minister said:

“Let’s compare our economy, I’m asked about international comparisons of our economy and how it’s going,” “Our unemployment rate is 3.6 – lower than what we inherited; our participation rate is 66.7 – higher than what we inherited; our gender pay gap is 13 – lower than what we inherited.”

Mr Albanese said manufacturing jobs and women employed full-time were higher than what was “inherited”. His time expired.

And let’s remember the enormous debt Morrison left behind.

Labor’s record in office so far might appear bland, but a glimpse at their website tells a different story.

For example, on November 23, Albanese announced his government would “rapidly expand investment schemes for clean energy projects.”

i. Robodebt. People will be reminded that somebody must be responsible. Who might it be? Scott Morrison, Marise Payne, Malcolm Turnbull, Alan Tudge, Christian Porter and/or Stuart Robert?

How damaging would it be during an election campaign?

Would you again put the same people in charge of policies similar to Robodebt?

ii. Many other Cases are before the NACC:

“146 referrals are pending triage. 53 referrals are currently in active triage, and 181 referrals that have been triaged are currently under assessment.”

Some, like Robodebt, will be open to the public. So, a constant stream of bad news stories will emerge from the NACC.

iii. Despite current events, Peter Dutton is still the best thing Labor has going for it. Outside of being tough on immigration, he has little going for him. A personality transplant might be a good idea. He carries a load of baggage.

iv. The Guardian Essential Survey of November 14 showed Australia at its pessimistic best, but I suspect this pessimism will have a brighter smile by the time of the election. Most people felt Australia should stay out of trouble between the superpowers and the war in the Middle East.

Most folks surveyed thought interest rates would go up again and rent would continue to rise. The price of petrol is decided overseas and not by our government.

The new social cohesion report released around the same time was also “sobering“. Katherine Murphy reports that:

“After the polarising voice referendum campaign, amid rising community tensions over the Middle East war and sustained anxiety about the economy, shows little appetite for frivolity.

v. This same apathetic view of the world, like rust, is spreading throughout the community. From its governing position, Labor is well-placed to combat the conservatives’ attacks on institutions and the future of life as we know it.

Importantly, continues Murphy, this:

“… new research suggests many Liberal and National voters are in a severe funk now Labor is in power.

“The number of people in this cohort who say they are pessimistic or very pessimistic about Australia’s future also increased by 27 points.”

If that’s what their supporters think about the future, I wonder what they think of Dutton as a leader. Is he just another Abbott, good at spewing out negative thought bubbles but never able to transition to Prime Minister?

The LNP is a coalition of political parties that took an extraordinary toll, over almost a decade, on our institutions and democracy. They are nothing more than a coalition of capitalistic shysters more interested in the top than those in need and have never apologised for the most deplorable period of governance in Australian political history. For example, see this list of lies that Scott Morrison told during his tenure as Prime Minister. Then there is this list of Peter Dutton’s lies about The Voice.

Am I to believe that the LNP under Dutton, without even a climate change or energy policy, will right all their wrongs when they didn’t even confess to Robodebt (or all the other falsehoods and acts of corruption)? Are they really a serious contender to become our next government after only 18 months?

Many conservatives believe that they have the power to shape society in a way that benefits the elite. They see themselves as the superior class, adhering to the principle of the aristocracy or the ‘betters’. They believe that they are natural leaders and the best suited to rule. They feel entitled to all the benefits that society creates as a reward for their superiority.

Considering that we live in a more complex and scientifically advanced world than ever, it seems unrealistic to expect the LNP, with its Luddite principles, to guide us through these complexities. Since the May 21, 2022 election, Labor has been busy correcting the mistakes made by Abbott, Turnbull, and Morrison. Fixing the country’s economy may take years.

Sorry, I cannot swallow this nonsense. Andrew, Michaelia and Gerard should get a grip on themselves.

Anyway, Coalition strategists would know victory next time for them is a huge ask. First-term governments federally very rarely lose.

My thought for the day

One of the oddities of political polling is trying to understand how 50% of the voting public would willingly return to a party that governed so abysmally.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

The demise of social cohesion is what threatens us most, and the Coalition has thrived on it

Internal bickering between ingrained, imported, or cultivated groups can have the most ruinous consequences for a nation’s social cohesion, particularly those of a multicultural mix like Australia.

With its extensive mix of ethnicities, Australia is a prosperous multicultural country that has maintained peace and social cohesion.

We have prospered with this influx of folk from around the world, and I have been party to many grand arrivals in my lifetime. Of course, our early settlers came in the thousands from the overcrowded jails of England. Looking for a better future, the Irish and Scottish followed. Religious differences came with them, but we managed it.

All this in the backdrop of The White Australia Policy, which prevailed as our attitude to immigration, after Federation in 1901, and for the next 70 years. Was it racist? Of course, it was. It was aimed at stopping non-white people from coming to Australia.

Yet such diversity exists nowhere else. We are home to the “world’s oldest continuous cultures, and Australians identify with more than 270 ancestries.” Since 1945, millions of people have migrated to Australia.

In the main, we have maintained social cohesion despite the complexities these folk would inevitably bring. “Populate or perish was the catchcry” of the 1950s. It worked:

  • Nearly one-third of Aussies were born overseas
  • Half of Australians have an overseas-born parent
  • Almost one-quarter of Australians speak a language other than English at home.

It was this immigration that built the Snowy Mountains Hydro Scheme. The richness of their different ethnicities merged into ours to produce a new Australia. It has, in the main, been harmonious. However, some have taken the opportunity to bring their problems with them and act them out on our soil.

Others of Australian heritage have sought to take advantage of these problems to stir up racial prejudice for their own political advantage.

However, some subjects, such as Israel, can be taboo, and the ABC’s decision to go ahead with Q&A without an audience two weeks ago illustrates how volatile some issues can be.

Our history of rejecting refugees is a case in point. John Howard, Tony Abbott, Peter Dutton and Scott Morrison have a history of stirring up anti-Muslim sentiment and racism for political advantage and religious attachment.

As recently as the first question on the resumption of Parliament (November 14), the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, deliberately misquoted what Penny Wong had said in an interview with David Speers on the Insider program. The Opposition Leader Peter Dutton began Question Time by asking Mr Albanese whether it was the government’s position to call for an Israeli ceasefire.

He put to the Prime Minister that on Sunday, Foreign Minister Penny Wong had:

“… claimed Israel, in carrying out its defensive war against terror group Hamas, is breaching international law and should undertake a ceasefire.”

Here is the transcript of what she actually said:

Speers: So just on the ceasefire argument, as you mentioned, the French President Emmanuel Macron has said that he is calling for a ceasefire. You just said you would like to see the steps taken towards a ceasefire. Can I just invite you to tease out what sort of steps are you looking for?

Foreign Minister: Well, we need steps towards a ceasefire because we know that Hamas – it cannot be one‑sided – we know that Hamas is still holding hostages and we know that a ceasefire must be agreed between the parties.”

Nowhere in her answers can you find that Australia was committed to a ceasefire, yet Dutton’s sleazy question suggested otherwise. The Australian newspaper supported his assertion with this headline: “Albanese refuses to endorse Wong call for ceasefire” (firewalled) and started with this lie:

“Anthony Albanese has refused to back Penny Wong’s call for a ceasefire in Israel’s war against Hamas, or her suggestion the Netanyahu government could be breaking international law.”

The point of all this, of course, is that while these two sides are fighting the most depraved acts of warfare, killing children, bombing hospitals and committing the most terrible crimes against each other. The Opposition Leader chooses to play dangerous politics with what is a war of far-reaching consequences.

On Wednesday, November 15, Dutton launched another attack, attempting to link criticisms of the government’s response to the Gaza conflict and the release of detainees from immigration detention. Albanese was having none of it. Visibly angry and upset, he accused Peter Dutton of “weaponising antisemitism.”

“To come in here and move this resolution and link antisemitism with the decision of the high court is beyond contempt.”

“I didn’t think that he could go this low as to link these two issues'” he said in response to Dutton’s motion.

But Dutton is not alone in these acts that create civil disobedience and threaten social cohesion. The Liberal Party and its leaders have never felt ill-disposed to stirring up racism.

Let’s test our memories for a moment.

Remember when Peter Dutton openly accused Sudanese teenagers of social disobedience by running amok in the streets of Melbourne. (Then) Prime Minister Turnbull followed him up with similar accusations that amounted to straight-out racism.

No one can forget the tensions that developed when John Howard said:

“But we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.”

The Tampa Affair followed, and the phrase “Stop the boats” further antagonised people. Remember when Alan Jones incited hatred and the Cronulla riots began. Then there were Scott Morrison’s numerous offences as Immigration Minister, Social Services Minister, and Minister for everything.

To the point of boredom, Turnbull told us that we were the most successful multi-racial country in the world, yet at the same time, while Dutton was claiming that people were scared to leave their homes to eat out because of African gangs. Turnbull and Dutton were repudiated in a sensible fact-laden piece by Waleed Aly.

Turnbull seemed to be all over the shop:

“Australia will consider adding a ‘values test’ for those considering permanent residency in order to protect its ‘extraordinarily successful’ multicultural society.”

In London at the time, the Citizenship and Multicultural Minister Alan Tudge, in a speech to the Australia/UK Leadership Forum, suggested a “values” test to fend off “segregation”. Ever the hypocrite, Turnbull agreed.

“Segregation,” I thought to myself. I dislike the word intently for the images it places before one’s eyes. Still, nevertheless, it is something we have practised – especially on First Nations people – for as long as immigration has existed and is as natural as life itself. His speech was full of racial overtones calculated to incite further violence back home.

Propaganda aims to make you feel good about the wrongs being perpetrated on you.

Craig Emmerson noted that John Howard tried this tactic in 1988 with Asian immigration, adding:

“Who would have imagined Turnbull would try it again in 2018. The Liberals haven’t changed in 30 years. Very sad for our country.”

When the Italians came to Melbourne, they gathered together in Brunswick, the Greeks in Carlton, the Vietnamese in Springvale and the Chinese in Box Hill. And so on. Then, over time, they neatly integrated into general society.

We are now confronted with more odious loathing threatening our social cohesion. This time, it is between Jews and Middle Eastern Muslim groups, both of which can claim the moral ground. These vile events are attracting protesting groups in enormous numbers, threatening to escalate into full-on rioting. On social media, commentary of a xenophobic and anti-Semitic nature is just pathetic.

Any meaningful resolution to the problems in the Middle East can only be resolved with a transformation of the minds of men and consideration of the effect religion, any religion, has on people.

Australians have a long history of finding fault with things we don’t understand. The complexity of Middle Eastern politics and religion is so electric that they can flare up at any time, and any discussion on the subject is filled with danger.

In our mindless observation at various times, we have blamed communists, Jews, women, the devil, Indigenous people and witches, even God for all manner of things.

Sitting on the platform at Flinders Street Station and watching the passing parade of ethnicity, I can only admire a country I could never envisage from the same seat in the 1950s.

My thoughts for the day

It’s no secret that our differences can often lead to conflict and division. However, imagine what we could achieve if we all worked together despite our diverse backgrounds and opinions. By coming together harmoniously, we can accomplish anything we set our minds to. So, let’s put aside our differences and work towards a common goal – a brighter future for all.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

The mystery of polls is that they tell us nothing

They tell us very little, but we are still fascinated by them. Me included. At this time in the election cycle, polls suggest zero about who will win the next election, but people believe they do.

They only tell us what people may be thinking at the time of their collation. Opinion polls, especially so far out from an election, only guide people’s thinking and do not indicate how they might vote.

Take the latest Newspoll, published in the Australian, for example. The Poll Bludger’s analysis of it says:

“… the latest Newspoll has Labor’s lead at 52-48, in from 54-46 at the poll conducted from October 4 to 12 in the lead-up to the referendum, from primary votes of Labor 35% (down one), Coalition 37% (up two), Greens 12% (steady) and One Nation 6% (steady). This is the narrowest two-party Newspoll results since the election, eclipsing two of the last four results, which had it at 53-47.

Anthony Albanese’s ratings have taken a tumble, down four on approval to 42% and up six on disapproval to 52%. The net rating of minus 10 is substantially weaker than his worst results for the term of minus one, likewise recorded in two of the previous four polls. Peter Dutton is at 37% approval and 50% disapproval, respectively, up two and down three on the previous Newspoll result, but equal to the previous poll. Albanese’s lead as preferred prime minister is now 46-36, from 51-31 last time.”

What can we take from these figures so far from the next election? Just what has Dutton done to deserve the public’s support? Well, nothing comes to mind. What Newspolls do is provide Murdoch newspapers with a solid base from which to attack Labor. They create stories around their polling that are of little substance or importance.

So, the possible reasons for change are:

1. After 18 months, the Australian public has forgiven the LNP for its decade of rotten, appalling governance and is considering reinstating it at the next election.

2. People are happy to forgive Dutton for his past vulgar indiscretions and are beginning to think that even with his appalling record, he would make a better Prime Minister than Albanese.

That’s a bit like Trump might end up in jail but would still make a better President than the squeaky-clean Biden.

3. The people have tasted Labor and don’t like it.

4. The latest polls reflect the current economic conditions – the cost-of-living pressures and the slowness of change.

5. The poll slump was a judgement on how damaging The Voice referendum was to Labor. And it is a good enough reason – for some – to kick them out.

The slumping polls show how damaging the heavy defeat of the Voice referendum and continuing cost of living pressures have been to Albanese and Labor. There is little Labor can do in this regard. Anything that would help at a personal level, like cash handouts, cannot be considered because it might add to the inflation problem.

It is pretentious to think that everything other than the facts is to blame for Labor’s poll slump.

The price of oil has increased dramatically because of two wars. The cost of food has risen by the size of overgrown pumpkins, and inflation is being helped by price gouging and profiteering from some major retailers. Increased rents are a hangover from the Morrison period, but Labor is blamed.

High-interest rates are, of course, affecting homeowners and buyers. Some of whom would never have experienced such an imposition on their budgets.

All of which Labor has no control over.

Although factually wrong, the Coalition convinces people that Labor is responsible for everything affecting them – even a shortage of intelligence.

Despite its slip in the polls, it is impossible to believe that the Australian public could be gullible enough to elect a government that performed miserably for almost a decade. Especially when it still has amongst its members some of the most devious, suspicious and corrupt men and women ever to have walked the plushness of the green carpet that so adorns the House of Representatives.

Let us remember that during an election campaign, Labor will continue reminding the electorate of all the corruption under the LNP – the lying of Abbott and Morrison. There is enough scandal to fill the first three weeks.

Do these current polls tell us who might win the next election? No, they only give us a snapshot of what people are currently thinking.

Labor has performed admirably since coming to power. Albanese and Wong have worked tirelessly to enhance our standing in the world, and restoring our relationship with China has been a highlight.

Despite the economic evil of inflation, Labor is or is committed to:

• Supporting Australians with the cost of living with cheaper childcare, cheaper medicines, extended paid parental leave, energy bill relief and fee free TAFE.

• Investing record amounts into Medicare and bulk billing.

Building new homes, investing in affordable housing and making renting fairer.

Tackling climate change by legislating to reduce emissions.

Managing the economy and creating jobs in challenging times.

It is thus incomprehensible that these polls mean that the LNP has a good chance of winning the next election. They are what they are – a reflection of today’s worldwide economic environment. It will change over the next eighteen months.

A day or so after Newspoll published

Also out today was the latest federal poll from RedBridge Group (paywalled), which has Labor’s two-party lead at 53.5-46.5; the message is repeated over and over. Support went from 54.1 to 45.9 in the pollster’s previous result from early September. The primary votes were Labor 34% (down three), Coalition 35% (down one), Greens 14% (up one) and others 17% (up three).

And The Roy Morgan poll showed that:

“… the Coalition leading Labor on a two-party preferred basis for the first time since the 2022 election, at 50.5 per cent (compared with 49.5 per cent for Labor), up 4.5 per cent.”

What follows is from my post earlier this year, and without risk of repeating myself is still relevant today:

In the time that has elapsed since May 21 2022, not once have I heard from the lips of a conservative politician any form of regret or apology, even remorse or shame. On the contrary, we have been served a recipe of poached platitudes, banalities and lies.

To listen to them is like listening to those who cannot express themselves adequately and repetitively mumble, “but we were still born to rule”.

People will, over time, forget their crimes of corruption, the scandals and their men of mad – destructive political beliefs and decisions – of inequality toward women and lack of equality of opportunity. These have been identified in various media over the years and will now be investigated by the NACC.

Of course, the best thing Labor has going for is Peter Dutton himself. On all accounts, he thinks there is nothing wrong with the party he leads. Its philosophy, its morality, its trust, its economic credentials and its equality.

Peter Dutton is so disliked by all and sundry that he couldn’t win an election if he started now.

Having said this, it must be noted that there is much to do. Labor’s first year has also seen many challenges.

Inflation is a problem, as are interest rates, the cost of living is higher than it should be, and housing and rents are also high. Most of this mess the Government has inherited from the LNP. Much of it has come from events beyond Labor’s control. The war in Ukraine and now the Middle East, and let’s not forget the Pandemic.

Labor is fulfilling its significant commitments; others are a work in progress, and some are on hold pending the release of reports.

I am not convinced that, as these polls suggest, the LNP are in a winning position. Go tell the Teal independents that they will lose their seats.

My thought for the day

I find it impossible to imagine that the Australian people would be so gullible as to return to a government that was so pathetically wretched over its three previous terms. But they might.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button