theangle.org

Self Interest, the Major Parties and the Independents

admin — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 01:53:22 +0000

By Rich Bowden:

To paraphrase Paul Keating: “Always back self interest.”

Yesterday after an excruciating 17 days of deliberations (and final dramatic press conferences) the country has a government after the last three Independents put their cards on the table. In the end they split over their support, with Queensland’s Bob Katter backing the Coalition, explaining his decision in a rambling and at times disoriented press conference at around 1.30 pm, before the NSW’s Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott announced in a 3.00 pm press conference that they were both giving conditional support to the ALP.

Oakeshott, the final speaker, indulged in a kind of “political striptease” according to Sydney Morning Herald journalist David Marr, explaining the facts and deliberations behind his decision for around 20 minutes (it seemed longer) before announcing his support for Ms Gillard.

The verdict in the end was no surprise given Windsor’s animosity to the Coalition partners the Nationals and support for Labor’s broadband policy and Oakeshott’s similar views and calls over the past 17 days for Parliamentary reform. However the point made by Tony Windsor, that he considered the ALP the most likely to try and make the next parliament work because it was less popular, has created a media firestorm of sorts.

Veteran political commentator Glenn Milne, in a column for the ABC’s Drum called it “extraordinary” decision-making by Windsor saying he would “rue the day” he made the comments.

Tony Windsor, whose vote delivered Julia Gillard a second term, has undermined that term at the outset by admitting that he decided to back a Labor Government because if an election were held now the Coalition and Tony Abbott would be more likely to win.

By Windsor’s logic – and it is his alone – stability is better served by going with the less popular of the two alternatives. Because given it is less popular Labor will be less likely to go to the polls within the three years of the full Parliamentary term. In other words the risk that democracy might prevail is too much of a risk.

Indeed Mr Abbott made no move to dispel questions over his full support for the next parliamentary term in his speech following the Independents’ announcement.

“How quickly we go back to an election depends entirely on the performance of this Government,” he said.

“If the Government’s performance is so manifestly deficient that it loses a vote of confidence in the House, then it is highly likely that we will have an election.

But why the shocked tone from the commentators over Windsor’s decision to back stability over a return to the ballot box?

Back to self-interest.

Windsor, and the other Independents, have a once-in-a-political-lifetime chance to push their agendas which, not remarkably, involve a better deal for their rural constituents. It is in their interest to vote for the option they consider most likely to make the next parliament last the full term.

Windsor, in what some have quoted as a slip, yet may well be brutal honesty, has intimated that it is the ALP (and their supporters) who have most to lose by going to the polls after a swing of over 5 per cent against the Labor government at the August poll. On the famous Fred Daly scale of “Rooster to Feather Duster” the ALP is very much at the business end of the duster having managed, in around six months, to turn an election winning lead into a near rout.

The Coalition, though it gained less than two per cent of the swing against Labor, would be doing its utmost to destroy the next parliament to return to the polls to build on its perceived momentum and gain a majority in its own right. Again self-interest. Only two considerations remain in the minds of Coalition strategists. One is to avoid appearing as if they want to go to the polls, as Australian voters traditionally dislike being dragged away from their weekend activities to vote, and the second is the ubiquitous opinion polling, which will be monitored closely for any signs of a Labor resurgence. These two factors notwithstanding, the Coalition can’t get to the polls fast enough. It is clear then that the self-interest test works for both the Coalition and the ALP.

Self interest at present for the Labor government involves building on what they hope will be a period of stability in which a Gillard government, in concert with Green and Independent support, can show the Australian people that it is capable of delivering strong and purposeful government for as long as possible in the parliamentary term. The ALP then, is much less likely to back a new election until it has had a chance to deliver on policies, election promises etc and a hoped for return to ascendancy in opinion polling.

Such a surge of public support for Ms Gillard could well tempt strategists to call an early election to “seek a mandate.”

Using this self-interest test, it would appear that Mr Windsor is correct and the party less likely to go back to the polls is the ALP. However in nailing this, Mr Windsor has exposed the cynical nature of Australian politics.

Party interests are paramount, it seems, without any consideration of the national interest. Both Gillard and Abbott articulated narrow election policies in a lackustre election campaign, designed to appeal to their supporters or swinging voters (the toughening of asylum seeker policies springs to mind.) Both of course were tainted by the way in which they grabbed power in their own party rooms after pledging support for their party leaders.

Perhaps this is why Australians are increasingly looking to third parties and Independents to represent their views. With the two main parties very much “on the nose,” with the Australian electorate, this parliament may well mark a watershed in Australian politics and see the rise of Greens and Independents as real alternatives at the expense of the major parties.

UN Reports Show Systemic Racism Against Indigenous Australians

admin — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 00:22:49 +0000

By John Passant:

Originally published August 30 in John Passant’s blog En Passant.

The United Nations has pointed out yet again that racism is systemic in Australia.

This year it was the turn of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. It condemned the ”unacceptably high level of disadvantage and social dislocation” of Aborigines and the fact the Australian Government does nothing but talk.

Right on cue the Minister for talking about aboriginal disadvantage, Jenny Macklin, pontificated about Labor’s aspirations for addressing the life expectancy gap.

Earlier this year a UN report, State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, found that Australian aborigines have the worst life expectancy rates of any indigenous peoples in the world. In Australia the life expectancy gap is 20 years. In Guatemala it is 13, and in New Zealand it is 11.

Last year James Aneya, the UN special rapporteur on indigenous rights, said racism was entrenched in Australia and that the Northern Territory intervention was an attempt to disempower Aborigines. “It undermines the right of indigenous peoples to control their own destinies, their right to self-determination,” he said.

The racially discriminatory Northern Territory intervention and the huge life expectancy gap are the two most obvious indicators of this entrenched racism.

The most recent example of this systemic racism is the hate mail and abusive comments Ken Wyatt has been receiving. Wyatt is the first aborigine to be elected to the House of Representatives in Australia.

This racism is important to the Australian ruling class. Capitalism was built in Australia on a campaign of genocide against the Aboriginal people. That genocide – dispossession, massacres, poverty, assimilation, stealing the children, disempowerment – continues today overtly and covertly.

Racism also divides workers and shifts the focus of anger from the ruling class and its exploitative system to aboriginal people and more recently refugees and Muslims.

But there is an honourable tradition of resistance to ruling class racism - from the aboriginal freedom fighters of long ago to today.

One example is the Alyawarr people’s walk-off. The Labor Government compulsorily “acquired” their community for five years. Their welfare income was quarantined, meaning a basics card replaced half their income. The card means they have to go to certain shops to buy basics like food.

The excuse the Liberal and Labor Governments use to justify the Northern Territory invasion is to protect children from neglect and abuse. It’s a lie.

The intervention is about stealing aboriginal land and disempowering aborigines.

There is massive overcrowding in Aboriginal communities. After 2 1/2 years the intervention had not built one new house. Since then a few have been built in hub towns. This is a way of removing aboriginal people from their traditional lands.

Earlier this year unions and activists got together and built a house at Ampilatwatja to highlight Government inaction and racism. It took a few days to build it.

There is a wider message here. Liberal and Labor politicians used the Little Children are Sacred Report to justify the Northern Territory intervention.

That report had at its heart aboriginal empowerment, giving the communities the power to address the problems. Howard, Rudd and Gillard ignored this and have imposed racist solutions on the aboriginal people of the Northern Territory.

The UN has highlighted Australia’s embedded racism. The Alyawarr people’s walk off and the community and union house building at Ampilatwatja show an alternative to systemic racism.

A long term solution must involve recognition of prior ownership and sovereignty, paying the rent and negotiating a treaty with aboriginal people.

Only a mass movement from below involving hundreds of thousands of people across Australia can win that new Australia.

Ultimately, to be successful, the fight against systemic racism must be a fight against the system and its racism.

UN Chief Tells Delegates to ‘Keep the Promise’ on MDGs

admin — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 01:41:39 +0000

By Rich Bowden:

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon addressed a UN health conference in Melbourne by videolink saying countries were falling short of some of their health goals with the focus on women’s and children’s health.

Delegates at the three-day health summit, attended by over 1400 delegates from 70 countries, heard discussion on the world’s progress towards achievement of eight of the health-related UN’s millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The gathering took place at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre.

Ban told the conference earlier this week that more needed to be done and called on attendees to “keep the promise” of the goals set in 2000.

“We still have some distance to go,” the UN secretary-general told the opening session. ”I welcome your focus on women’s and children’s health, this is the area where we are most behind.”

Mr Ban called for NGO’s and aid organisations to lead the moves towards the MDGs, slated for the year 2015.

“You understand like no others the daily challenges faced by the most vulnerable, you have the passion and networks to spread our messages far and wide,” he said. ”We need to hear your voices.”

Kiyo Akasaka, UN Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information, said at the closing ceremony that while there was some frustration at lack of progress in some areas, the importance lies in sticking with the targets and increasing efforts towards achieving the goals in the next five years.

“This is not the time to question the validity of the MDGs themselves, but rather a time to roll up our sleeves and do what is necessary to attain them, and beyond that, to look at the question of ensuring that they are sustainable after 2015,” he stated at the closing ceremony.

The conference has taken place just weeks before world leaders are summoned by Mr Ban to New York to discuss progress towards the MDGs.

Hung Parliament Negotiations Reveals Liberal Methods

Alex Schlotzer — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:50:13 +0000

By Alex Schlotzer:

If there has been one noticeable outcome from the first hung Parliament since World War 2, it has been that the Liberals cannot cope with a situation where they have to negotiate for ‘power’.

More’s to the point, the necessary negotiations with independents who now hold the balance of power, are revealing the Liberal Party’s strong arm modus operandi.

The so-called rogue elements of the party may be described by Liberal leadership as “out of character,” however a quick look at the personalities involved shows the sometime bizarre behaviour is not so unusual. The Leader of the Opposition was himself a former bomb thrower and notorious hitman in his own party under the Howard administration and any talk of a gentler Australian politics remains pure posturing from Abbott.

For form one has only to think about (the former) Member for O’Connor, Wilson ‘Iron Bar’ Tuckey, who was defeated by WA Nationals’ Tony Crook last week. During a long career Mr Tuckey became famous for gaffes and ridiculous accusations, the last being that the Labor Government was responsible for the deaths of a number of mining executives in a plane crash in Africa because of the mining tax introduced by Kevin Rudd. At the time of his departure from Parliament, Ironbar had offended almost everyone including many in his own party. Would-be Treasurer Joe Hockey described him as as “a mad uncle.”

But what is really being revealed is the way in which the Opposition’s factions and operatives operate. Back room operatives Bill (“its the devil”) Heffernan and Alby Schultz have illustrated their preferred style of negotiations is to use stand over tactics – the very same tactics the Liberals have accused Labor of using.

Abbott has dismissed the heavying of independents as just mates having a chat however the language of ‘friends’ having a conversation is hardly the case. The Liberals prefer to operate in a more clandestine way and manage to keep their affairs more private. This form of operation is revealed in John Hyde Page’s wonderful expose of the Liberals; “The Education of a Young Liberal”. Page reveals that the Liberal Party operates along factional lines, just like the Labor Party – remember the terms wet and dry Liberals?

However, this doesn’t explain the kind of terrible behaviour on display over the past week. Clearly Tony Abbott isn’t happy about the situation but will apologies for the ham fisted approach be enough? Perhaps it’s a good thing that ‘Iron Bar’ Tuckey didn’t make it across the line given his own propensity to suffer foot-in-mouth disease.

Yet one has to wonder about the likelihood of the independents aligning themselves with the Coalition in the first place. There has been little public evidence that the Liberals are prepared to commit much to their requests for information and cooperation from the Liberals. It was only on Monday (30/08/10) that Abbott agreed to allow the independents access to the Treasury-costed policies, as long as the results weren’t revealed to the government. This was something the Opposition had refused to do during the entire campaign.

There is also the fact that aside from Andrew Wilkie (IND- Denison), the others are maligned former Nationals. And we can’t forget the often noted peculiarity of Mr Crook, the WA Nationals; a separate and arguably more ‘militant’ version of the softened national ‘Nationals’ brand. Like Crook’s state counterparts, there’s no guarantee that he’ll deliver support for the Liberals or the Nationals, although Prime Minister’s Gillard pledge to continue with the controversial mining tax means he’s more than likely to support the Coalition.

If that isn’t enough the Liberal National Party of Queensland is hardly the most stable political party. There are problems within the party as the former divides between the Queensland Liberals and Nationals remain unresolved. So for Tony Abbott there are not only structural problems but residual difficulties in the differences that remain between the Liberals and Nationals to ensure his own coalition remains together.

With the negotiations and counting continuing, these kinds of displays of what life would be like for the independents, if they align themselves with the Liberals, can’t be good for negotiations. It would appear to make the ALP’s case to form minority government all that much stronger.

Alex Schlotzer is a straight talker when it comes to politics and loves to vent his spleen. Actively involved in Australian and international politics with a keen understanding of the dynamics of the political machine, Alex has a prolific online presence and has been a cyber activist for over 15 years. Regional editor of theangle.org, he can also be found at his blog and his exciting online project Australian Politics TV.

UN Flays Australia on Indigenous Discrimination

admin — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:45:41 +0000

By Rich Bowden:

A UN human rights committee has said discrimination against Aborigines is “embedded” in Australian society, criticising what it describes as the unacceptable level of social disadvantage experienced by Indigenous people in the country.

A report released by the United Nations’ Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) found a number of concerns including the fact that the Australian constitution, according to the committee, fails to protect against racial prejudice, reported the ABC.

While CERD welcomed the Labor Government’s 2008 apology to the stolen generation, it heavily criticised the “unacceptably high level of disadvantage and social dislocation” of Aboriginal people which has continued under the Labor administration. It added the controversial 2007 intervention by the Howard Government (and continued by the Labor Rudd/Gillard Governments) had been mishandled.

“That may be a certain disappointment, if I may say so, that this issue particularly to do with Aboriginal communities – it could have been handled in a more sensitive and culturally sensitive way,” the ABC quoted committee member Patrick Thornberry as saying.

One of the key issues was the fragile nature of Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act, which had been suspended by the Howard Government in 2007 in order that the Federal Government could intervene in Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory.

Australian Race Discrimination Commissioner Graeme Innes said it was the third time the Act had been suspended in its 35-year history and said the UN committee had called on a future Government to implement legislation that would make it impossible to suspend the Act.

“The actions that needed to be taken in the Northern Territory could have been done on a non-discriminatory basis,” he said.

“So what the committee is recommending to Australia is not only we completely remove the suspension – which we haven’t yet done – but we entrench in the constitution a provision so that never again can race discrimination law be suspended in Australia.”

Mr Innes said Australia should “face the facts” and admit to “elements of racism.”

“We need to do much better in terms of having a national multicultural policy, which we haven’t had for almost 15 years, which includes an anti-racism strategy,” he said.

“I think the problem for Australia is that we try to pretend that racism isn’t there. What we need to do is face the facts that there are elements of racism in this country and take some positive action to address it.”

Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin agreed that, while a great deal had been achieved under Labor, more needed to be done.

“Federal Labor has allocated record funding to tackle indigenous disadvantage, including $5.75 billion over the next three years. Labor’s policy is to continue to drive long-term change on the ground. We have made a start, but we know there is much more to do,” she told reporters.

Election Analysis: A Political Geeks Wet Dream

Alex Schlotzer — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 06:38:15 +0000

By Alex Schlotzer:

Well apparently we’re in turmoil because of the outcome from the weekend’s federal election. There’s already been a lot of talk about the discussions happening to arrange further discussions, once the final result is known. And according to the great people at the Australian Electoral Commission, there could still be another few days before all of the ballots have been counted and the preferences allocated.

There are still some seats in the mix for either Labor or the Coalition with the pre-polls and postal ballots showing a see-saw effect in some of these very, very marginal seats. In some seats we’re talking about as few as a 50 votes.

There’s all sorts of different scenarios that can be the final result, with negotiations about who will form a minority government.

A lot of media attention is focusing on what they’ll want in exchange for either party being given the opportunity to form minority government, despite the efforts of the independents and the Greens MP to say they haven’t started getting to such considerations. Indeed when you look at what they have been saying since Sunday, they continue to repeat the same kinds of themes. Each wants to be able to help form a stable minority government, and each wants to ensure that any minority government is able to see its term through to the next general election. Each wants to see the national broadband network rolled out and more attention on infrastructure and services for regional, rural and remote Australia.

However on a range of other issues there’s very little that binds them. But how much of these things will really be included in the mix of discussions and negotiations? Interestingly enough though is the lack of attention on how far either Labor or the Coalition are prepared to incorporate the desires of the ‘king-makers’.

The recent calls for a change to the way politics is done, sounds more like red-herrings than anything legitimate. However, these calls have been given legitimacy, which could have lead to Oakeshott’s calls to consider cross-party representation on the Executive and government benches. Independent MP, Rob Oakeshott is advocating, a Frankenstein’s monster kind of government with a Labor/Coalition arrangement.

Somehow this is being seen as advocating a new kind of politics, and a maturing of our parliamentary system.

Until there is great clarity about the final make up of the parliament any discussion about the likely negotiations are pretty mute. But then it’s a lot of fun to speculate about the future of the parliament.

The result from the weekend is a political geek’s wet dream.

Alex Schlotzer is a straight talker when it comes to politics and loves to vent his spleen. Actively involved in Australian and international politics with a keen understanding of the dynamics of the political machine, Alex has a prolific online presence and has been a cyber activist for over 15 years. Regional editor of theangle.org, he can also be found at his blog and his exciting online project Australian Politics TV

Peak Water and the Asian Water Crisis (Part Two)

admin — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 23:30:26 +0000

By Rich Bowden:

Recycling, Desalination the Answer?

While water recycling and desalination have both been touted as showing the way forward on water reuse, and helping to offset a “peak water” scenario, experts have noted significant drawbacks to both, including the amount of energy needed to power wastewater recycling and desalination plants.

“In general, desalinization and wastewater recycling are environmentally beneficial, since each practice reduces pressure on existing freshwater sources, potentially leaving more water available for ecosystems support and environmental services,” said the ADB’s Arjun Thapan, though pointed out that “the primary drawbacks are likely to be found in the energy intensity of these processes.”

“Although technological advances, including membrane and nanotechnology, are reducing the costs and energy intensity of these processes, they still require considerable amounts of energy. To the extent that this energy is being provided by fossil fuels, these processes then contribute incrementally to global warming, which is possibly their most serious environmental impact,” he continued.

“With regard to wastewater re-use, there is also an issue of public acceptance if this water enters the drinking water supply, although over time it is likely that the practice will become more common.”

Maude Barlow concurred that desalination was often not the answer in Asia, due to the high energy demands and lack of access to cheap energy sources, as in the Middle East. Ms Barlow also highlighted the by products produced by the process which are damaging to the environment.

“Desalination is not an answer except in the most dire circumstances,” she said. “It is energy intensive, so it is part of the very problem it is supposed to address; it is very expensive so these poor countries do not have the money for it; and it produces a by-product made up of intensive brine, dead aquatic life that was sucked in with the ocean water for treatment, and the chemicals used in the reverse osmosis process.”

Planning For the Future

Though the term “peak water” remains contentious, there is no doubt that increased water stress is affecting Asia as it is in most parts of the globe and governments need to use the concept to help them plan for the future and avoid conflicts on the issue of increasing water scarcity.

A report released last month by the UK-based sustainable development NGO Forum for the Future, said regional co-operation in sharing scarce water resources needed to be supported over natural urges by water scarce nations to horde dwindling supplies.

The study, commissioned by the UK Government’s Department for International Development (DFID), quoted Faisal Islam, Environment and Livelihoods Advisor at DFID Bangladesh as saying more dialogue was required to overcome water shortages.

“The scope for regional solutions will need to be explored much more over the next 20 years,” he said. “The South Asia Water Initiative promotes dialogue but more is needed, for example, with watershed management and possible new storage in Nepal and Bhutan. The South Asia region is already reasonably connected but more regional co-operation may be needed to address some of the connected energy, water, flood and food issues.”

Alternative methods of supplying water resources may be an answer to ongoing problems on water supply and whether or not the term “peak water” can be framed as an adequate description of a renewable resource unlike oil, the reality is the concept describes neatly how the over extraction of water resources from groundwater leads to a non sustainable scenario.

Combining with burgeoning population growth, changes brought about by global warming and increased irrigation for agriculture and industrial, the overuse of water resources “peak water” leads to dire consequences for local populations and vital challenges for the region’s lawmakers.

With the concept of peak water acting as a wake up call for Asian governments, and indeed the world, Maude Barlow believes the term may help to bring about a new way of thinking on how humans interact with their water systems.

“Humans have seen water as an infinite resource for our convenience and profit and we must move away from this model soon,” she said. “We need to start building our lives around water systems and protect and restore watersheds, stop polluting water, stop over mining groundwater and conserving like never before.”

See Part One of “Peak Water and the Asian Water Crisis” here.

Article originally written by Rich Bowden for green news portal EcoSeed.

Peak Water and the Asian Water Crisis (Part One)

NSW Greens Warn of Conservative Domination of Upper House

admin — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 06:17:24 +0000

By Rich Bowden:

NSW Greens MP Dr John Kaye has warned that probable domination of the state’s Upper House by conservatives at the next election will do nothing to fix the state’s problems.

Dr Kaye said the latest Newspoll, published in the Australian on 25 August, indicated the Coalition will control the house of review with the aid of conservative crossbenchers.

“If today’s opinion poll is translated into Upper House votes, it is likely that the Coalition will end up with 18 seats, the conservative crossbench with 5 members, the Greens with 5 and the ALP will be reduced to 14 members,” he said in a news release.

“On these figures the Coalition will be able to control the Legislative Council with the support of the rightwing crossbench members.”

He added this would have a detrimental impact on a number of progressive causes with deals being made with conservative crossbenchers to implement legislation.

“This could have appalling consequences for the environment and civil rights, with a woman’s right to choose an abortion, the future of marine national parks and gun laws all on the line.

“Just as Labor has done for the past three and a half years, the O’Farrell Coalition will attempt to do deals with the Shooters and Christian Democrats to pass their legislation and block motions that impel government departments to release documents,” he added.

However Dr Kaye said the Greens will look to hold the major parties accountable adding that, despite the worrying trends in the Upper House, the polls point to a big chance of Greens representation in the Lower House for the first time.

“The Greens will be calling on voters to use their Legislative Council vote to make sure that the government is subjected to the checks and balances of an independent house of review. ”The community wants to take a baseball bat to Labor at the ballot box. ”However, handing over the NSW Upper House to a Coalition government that is beholden to the Shooters and Christian Democrats will do nothing to fix the state’s problems.”

“The March 2011 election also gives the Greens our best chance of breaking through into the Lower House, with Balmain and Marrickville looking very promising,” Dr Kaye said.

Random Posts

Election Analysis: Pastures Greener?

Simon Hukin — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 23:28:59 +0000

By Simon Hukin:

A disclaimer before I begin: writing at four in the morning after having had a few is probably not the wisest of ideas, yet reviewing the vote count (yes, sad, I know) has compelled me to do something to take my mind off the twin horrors of the possibility of losing government and the prospect of having to wake up in three hours.

The likely Labor loss in Hasluck is, in all respects except the numbers in the House, not a Liberal gain. The primary vote for the Liberals was, indeed, higher than that of Labor, but they still suffered a swing against them. The combined swing in primary vote against Liberal and Labor is almost entirely represented in the increased Greens primary vote, with the rest being distributed among the minor parties and independent. To me this indicates, rather than a surge of support for the Greens, a large number of protest votes – as the reduction in Liberal primary vote seems to demonstrate the desire of voters to find a credible alternative (perhaps any alternative) to the big two. What we’re seeing is a macrocosmic pattern of dissatisfaction nationally neatly summarizes in the microcosm of Hasluck. If any party deserves to win the seat, it is probably the Greens, with their vastly increased primary vote – totaling a whopping 12.35%, something the Greens have never before seen in any WA seat except the urban Curtin, Perth, Swan, and Fremantle (the only seats in the State where they have ever broken double figures, and even then only at the 2007 election, perhaps as a result of the prevalent anti-Howard sentiment).

Going through the WA seats, we see the Greens vote break double figures in every seat except Durack, Canning, and O’Connor, and even there they increased their margins – in Durack by 3.17%, O’Connor by 1.47%, and Canning by 0.17%. These smaller figures are, in the cases of O’Connor and Canning, most likely caused by the heated contest between two favoured non-Greens candidates with strong personal brands. In O’Connor, this was between the inimitable, inimical, (yet, strangely and possibly sadly unseated) Wilson Tuckey and the highly respected Nationals candidate Tony Crook, and in Canning the sitting Liberal MP Don Randall (who was awarded the accolade by an internal Liberal party survey of running the most efficient electorate office in the country, and who is, according to Young Liberal volunteers, out in the electorate at least once a week), and the former Member for Armadale, Minister for Infrastructure in the State Government and excellent all-rounder Alannah MacTiernan.

Since the election night commentators – expert and otherwise – have been declaring this election a shift in the political landscape. I’m not sure they understand how right they are. Their comments are, for the large part, focused on the idea of a hung parliament, with a minority government, and to a lesser extent on the Greens holding the balance of power in the Senate. For me, the shift is much deeper. The nation has declared that it is ready not only for a change in the way we handle politics (less of the infighting, backstabbing, powerbrokering, and generally childish bickering, for a start), but also for a shift in ideological focus. This upswell in Greens primary vote can be seen in every state, and almost every seat, around the country. It is, of course, signaled most strongly by the election of Adam Bandt in Melbourne, and the likely election of ‘Green Independent’ Andrew Wilkie in Denison. But they alone can not be the focus.

Of the national primary vote, the Greens took 11.3% – the first time they have ever reached double figures in those stakes and a swing of a strong 3.62% toward them. Compared to the paltry 1.11% toward the Liberal party and the schemozzle that is the -4.90% against the ALP, the Greens have demonstrated themselves to be a truly national force – far superior to the Nationals and their anemic 3.86%. However, unlike the Nationals’, the appeal of the Greens is universal.

This has, traditionally, been their greatest problem. Rather than having centralised support in three or four seats around the country (as the Nationals have, thanks to their agricultural roots and rural focus), they find themselves appealing to anybody who values environmental concerns and progressive social policy. This puts them a) in direct competition with the ALP – traditional holders of the left flank, and b) at a great disadvantage when it comes to taking seats in areas more interested in their hip pockets than global warming. They don’t understand the aspirational voter, nor can they condone them politically. Their support swells in high income, urban areas, where concerns run beyond the kids, the car, and the mortgage, but they are inherently unsuited to campaigning in areas like Western Sydney, regional Queensland, and Canberra’s satellite suburbs.

Yet they continue to grow. Slowly and surely they are whittling away the support of the major parties, gaining credibility and changing their party so that it can accept those who think the good life will come when they have another car or have finished tiling the bathroom. They are developing (or rather, have developed) a comprehensive agenda. They are at pains to demonstrate their competence and reliability now they hold the balance of power in the Senate and tremendous sway in the House. If they emerge as a real contender for the votes of those to the left of the political spectrum we may come to see a time when we have a right party (presently the right of the Liberals and the Nationals), a centrist party (the Liberal wets, such a Malcolm Turnbull, who are so obviously disenchanted by the party as it stands, and the right and moderate member of the ALP), and a force on the left composed of the Greens, the left Labor factions, and the ragtag band of socialist alternatives, resistances, alliances, fronts, communes, and rebellions we see peppered around the place (mostly in posters on university campuses) from time to time.

It seems that they will, inevitably, become the third power of Australian politics. Whether this is a good thing or a bad one, I cannot say. However, it will certainly be interesting to see how things unfold.

Simon Hukin is a student at the Australian National University, General Secretary of the Western Australian Secondary Students’ Association, peripatetic music teacher and general curmudgeon. He is heavily involved in politics and the union movement.

Election Analysis: What Went Wrong For Labor?

admin — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 08:23:17 +0000

By Tristan Ewins:

Left Focus‘s Tristan Ewins gives us his perspective of the ongoing drama of Election 2010 and what went wrong for Labor.

To begin; the mining industry assault on Labor has laid bare the real workings of power in this country, and the fragility of our democracy in a meaningful sense. No grassroots or popular organisation could match the mining industry ‘fear war-chest’ that ran into the hundreds of millions.

And great sections of the media ‘came on board’ for this assault on Labor too. Often this bias is subtle: involving selective quotations, framing of debate or emotive language. At other times it is blatant. Even the ABC focused relentlessly for the first two weeks of the campaign on the ‘leaks drama’ . This focus was at the expense of policy and substance – where the ALP could have made up ground given the opportunity.

Everything Labor did, most of the media put a ‘negative spin’ upon it. For instance: former PM Kevin Rudd was ‘brought on board’ to sell the message that whatever voters thought of the ‘coup’, too much was at stake to elect a Liberal government. The ‘Rudd legacy’ was itself at stake. The idea was to put speculation about disunity and instability to rest: to show a ‘united front’. Instead we had commentary on Rudd’s body language, and more disruptive and damaging media speculation.

The work of media in a democracy should be balanced scrutiny and allowance for diverse viewpoints, including scrutiny of policy: not the pursuit of the most ‘entertaining’ narrative. Was this just something to do with Australian media culture – or something more sinister?

Many were disillusioned with Labor on climate change and refugees: but the vast majority of these would have defected to the Greens and not the Liberals.

In pursuit of a majority, Labor has been on the back-foot for decades, as shown on the issue of asylum seekers. (although for some much of the neo-liberal ideology has actually been internalised, and thus support for its tenets is not even seen anymore as a compromise)

Labor has to compromise to hold together a broad constituency marked by internal contradiction. The rise of the Greens means there is now room for alternative (Left) perspectives to be voiced openly and publicly – and thus influence the ‘terms of debate’. This could also translate into policy leverage in the context of critical and reasonably conditional support for Labor. But the broader support base now enjoyed by the Greens, and the imperative of maintaining the balance of power in the Senate, might mean the Greens also have to contain some of their most radical impulses. The Greens should also try and open lines of communication with the progressive Christian community in an effort to broaden their support base further.

Over the long term change is a matter of mobilising the social and economic forces to counter the dominance of concentrated private wealth; in the public sphere, civil society, and in an industrial sense. Being a voluntarist I don’t see this as impossible. But this is no easy task given the realignment of class forces in this country over recent decades. What I think is that we need to get unions, progressive NGOs and progressive political parties working together, pooling their resources and co-ordinating their efforts. These are the ‘power resources’ possibly available to us. Imagine a co-ordinated and determined effort here; including marginal seats campaigning; and efforts at establishing alternative media – especially where it’s needed most.

Of course the importance of marginal seats in this country undermines the political leverage of most voters. The Greens are right in supporting proportional representation. But even despite our electoral system; ordinary people can achieve influence and power by organising and intervening: in their communities, their workplaces and in the public sphere. A participatory culture is part of the answer to monopoly media and ‘one way information flows’. Although many older Australians are not engaged with ‘new media’: so undermining the power of the monopolists could occur ultimately in the form of generational change.

The Libs also pretty much got away with their line on debt and waste without much media scrutiny. They blew these out of proportion grossly – especially debt – and we need continue the work in putting the record straight here.

It is extremely important: that despite what’s happened we cannot afford to let the Right determine the historical narrative. We need to continue to contest this narrative vigorously, arguing the need there was for progressive stimulus, progressive tax reform, infrastructure investment: and how the ALP achieved positive outcomes here.

We need continue to emphasise that – based on their own statements – the Liberals would have seen us into recession had they been in government. Despite the outcome the ALP made up significant ground on the theme of ‘economic management’ during the campaign. There was a movement away from neo-liberal consensus – and the credibility of neo-liberal ideology – and we need to hammer this home as well.

In the long run contesting this narrative is amongst the most important challenges; because if we don’t then Left and Centre-Left forces in this country will be on the back foot – and probably out of government – for a very long time.

We also need focus on so-called ‘working class Tories’; ‘Howard’s battlers’: It’s unavoidable that some working people will be socially conservative; but we need a clearer appeal to economic and class interests to undermine this base of support for the Liberals.

In the election aftermath there are also other issues Labor must address.

The prospects of a minority Labor government are not yet ‘dead’.

Ex-National Bob Katter might hold the key to who forms government in Australia. We know he’s a protectionist and so may try and use his position to get protection for Australian agriculture. But can he hold onto this in the long term? (any hung parliament will not last) This gives him incentive for a long-term deal with Labor.

What if Labor offered a long-term deal that ‘locks agricultural protection in’ for over a decade, delivers infrastructure to the bush, and supports Katter as Agriculture Minister so long as he remains in parliament? This in return for ongoing support, including observation of cabinet discipline. Other independents may also be swayed in return for regional and rural infrastructure – locked in for a long-term deal. Of course big commitments to rural infrastructure would impact upon the budget, and would necessitate progressive tax reform to finance. Cutting other programs to make room is not the answer.

The Greens should be offered something in return for their support also: and implementation of their proposed $4.3 billion dental health scheme could be a very good start. That and the $2 billion commitment they want for Education. Some compromise policy on climate change will also be necessary. Understandably – delivering on the environment is crucial for Greens credibility.

Finally there is the issue of post-election reprisals within the Labor Party.

Some will believe that Labor should have held off going to the polls until later in the year, or even until 2011. And we will never know now what would have happened had the parliamentary caucus given Rudd a window of opportunity to turn public opinion around. Had he resigned under circumstances of a voluntary agreement, the process would not have left such a ‘bitter after-taste’ as it did for many.

So some are pointing to the leadership change; others are questioning the quality of the campaign. And then there is the issue of state Labor governments in New South Wales and Queensland – where infrastructure privatisation split the ALP within, and left many wondering if state Labor in NSW and QLD stand for anything other than dividing the spoils of office. Certainly the intervention of the mining giants was crucial, comprising the real ‘turning point’. But the behaviour of the media – with sometimes-subtle, sometimes-blatant bias – was out of our control.

What’s crucial for the ALP now is that the process of reprisal and counter-reprisal not get out of control. For the immediate future – while there is still some prospect of a minority Labor government – there is a need for internal discipline to maintain credibility.

But there will also be a need for analysis and reflection after the issue of who forms government is decided. What’s crucial in this context is the development of a structured and ordered process: honest reflection, but also such inclusiveness as to maintain cohesion: planning and mobilising for the next election.

This article originally appeared in Tristan’s progressive blog Left Focus.

theangle.org

Self Interest, the Major Parties and the Independents

Related Posts:

UN Reports Show Systemic Racism Against Indigenous Australians

Related Posts:

UN Chief Tells Delegates to ‘Keep the Promise’ on MDGs

Related Posts:

Hung Parliament Negotiations Reveals Liberal Methods

Related Posts:

UN Flays Australia on Indigenous Discrimination

Related Posts:

Election Analysis: A Political Geeks Wet Dream

Related Posts:

Peak Water and the Asian Water Crisis (Part Two)

Related Posts:

NSW Greens Warn of Conservative Domination of Upper House

Random Posts

Election Analysis: Pastures Greener?

Related Posts:

Election Analysis: What Went Wrong For Labor?

Related Posts: