Maggie Thatcher. Yes, it’s true that she did a lot of privatisation. And she did take on a lot of unions. But what was her reaction to a plan to dismantle the National Health Scheme? From her memoirs: “I was horrified when I saw this paper. I pointed out that it would almost certainly be leaked and give a totally false impression … It was all a total nonsense.” She allowed the Welfare State to prosper!

As for her position on climate change, the following is from the ABC:

“What many people admired about Margaret Thatcher was her ability to embrace the potential of science to guide and lead the way on environmental issues. What marked her out even more is that she embraced the ‘precautionary principle’ years before other politicians did. As she once said:

“…the danger of global warming is as yet unseen but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices, so that we do not live at the expense of future generations.”On November 8th 1989, she addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations about the need for nations to join together in tackling climate change.”

So, we can see that Maggie was far from the sort of Prime Minister that would have gained Rupert Murdoch’s approval.

Andrew Bolt would be condemning her as an alarmist.

And the ABC, well, they’d be right behind her, that side of politics all stick together!

•                           *                           *

Yes, I know this sounds absurd, but that’s the thing. Once you define Maggie as left-wing, then you’re the “fair and balanced” one and everyone else is the extremist. And that’s pretty much what’s been done. If you read my previous blog on Framing, then you probably already understand what I mean when I say that the debate is constantly being “framed” so that we feel that The Greens and others on the Left don’t have the right to a point of view. Labor still does, but only just, so they need to have a good hard look at themselves, or else they can just be ignored, too!

The ABC keep giving these people a chance to express what they believe – an example of bias – and Piers Akerman will appear on the ABC to point out that people like him don’t appear on the ABC, because it’s full of people that disagree with him. (Piers, the WORLD is full of people who disagree with you!)  Of course, the Liberals were concerned enough in 2003 to complain of bias in the ABC because a cynical tone was detected when interviewing people about the Weapons of Mass Destruction. The ABC reporters seemed to be suggesting that some of the reports may have been exaggerated. I can’t seem to find much about that on the Internet.

I read a comment today about this site only ever being supportive of the Labor Party. That struck me as interesting because, while I’m sure that many of the bloggers on this site ARE supportive of the Labor Party,  I don’t see the fact of being critical of the actions of the Liberal Party automatically means that one is supportive of the Labor Party. I’m sure that a large number of people reading this will be disappointed with both major political parties.

And I guess, that’s my point, for most people politics is NOT about which political party is in power. It’s about what’s being done, and how it affects the individual. Or rather, how the individual perceives the way what’s being done affects them. So, what are we hearing about? What’s happening with the NDIS, the Gonski education reforms, the boats, the Direct Action Plan, the Budget, and so on? Why are we not hearing about these things? Ah, early days. I guess we’ll be told closer to the election.

Yep, this is when some Liberal Party supporter will start to talk about the past, and say how hopeless the Labor Party was. Personally, I no longer feel the need to defend the past. Tony Abbott is our Prime Minister. I find it strange that people continue to attack the ghost of Labor past. Or sites which are critical of Abbott. It’s like they have no postive plan for the future, and the only argument they have is that at least we’re better than the other mob…

Mmm, I guess the thing that has always distinguished left-wing and right wing is that left wing who disagree with me usually attack my argument; right wing trolls attack me for being a left-winger.