Monday, September 6, 2010

On Abbott's "Why I'm the one to govern"

For those not aware, Tony released an open letter to the independents in a last ditch attempt to further smear the ALP and scramble onto the ministerial throne. So, here's what I think about Tone's letter:

Australia is far more likely to get a fresh start from a new government than from a Labor Party that's humble only because it has no choice.
In contrast to the triumphant sneering that you were carrying on with just over a week ago, Tones?

Why would the country independents throw a lifeline to a seriously bad government that's just got worse since it executed a democratically elected prime minister?
OK - correct me if I'm wrong, but, in my understanding of the political system, we don't actually elect a PM. At least, I can't remember voting 1 for Rudd in 2007.  There is no option for, 'I want this person to be PM.' We vote for representatives, they are of a certain party, the party with the most representatives form government, and the leader of that party becomes PM. So, Julia became PM, in a way startingly similiar to how Tony became leader of the LNP. Oh, and Tones, executed. That's a fighting word, that is.

Nine weeks ago, on the prime minister's own assessment, the government had lost its way. Two weeks ago, it lost its majority and its legitimacy but it still has not lost office and might actually cling to power through ruthless exploitation of incumbency.
Ah Tony, just a little problem here. In the Australian political system, the incumbent government has first dibs on forming a minority government. That's the way it's always been. I would have thought that someone who loves traditions so much, you would be aware and approve of this one: it's old. Oh, and by the way, as there is only one Prime Minister, she gets capitals. Mayhap you had better look at some adult literacy programmes, Tone.

Independent and minor party MPs have every right to make their own assessment of the respective merits of the caretaker government and opposition.
 But, as you will see, if the assessment isn't "Tony for PM," it's a wrong assessment.

Still, if they decide to back Labor - or decide not to decide (which amounts to the same thing) - they will be endorsing factional warlordism, the political execution of an elected prime minister, and the kind of incompetence that produced the roof batts tragedy, the school hall rip-offs and a $43 billion commitment to turning back the clock on telecommunications without even a business plan to justify it.
Factional warlordism? Huh, I'm getting images of crazed knight-dudes on horses. But Tony keeps going.

  • The roof batts: look, no-one is going to deny that that was a shitty episode for all involved (and in the case of loss of life, that is a major understatement). But, the thing is, the government didn't directly employ the scoundrels that did the wrong thing, so it puzzles me that this is all somehow, their fault. They just provided the funding. 
  • The school hall rip-offs: is this the BER project that recieved a 93% satisfaction rating?
  • Turning back the clock on telecommunications: this one has got me. Tony, please explain how in the ninth level of hell a major investment in telecommunications infrastructure is 'turning back the clock.' Oh, and perhaps you could read some ICT industry literature: the experts all support this. I know it's not traditional and you did just fine without teh internetz, but if Australia is going to move ahead, we need to invest in our ICT infrastructure.

So far, the caretaker prime minister has won the support of one Green MP and one former Green who is now an independent. 
 Wilkie is also an ex-Liberal. Convenient for you to leave that one out, Tony.
The Greens have already changed Labor's climate policy from a 150 person citizens' assembly with no predetermined outcome to a parliamentary committee dedicated to setting a carbon price.
 There are two things at issue here. Firstly, the citizens' assembly was majorly disliked, I think even by Tony himself. Secondly, it is clear that the majority of the Australian people want a price on carbon. That's what we voted for in 2007, (and for some reason, I would swear that the LNP were supporting it too, correct me if wrong), and the failure of Rudd to do it contributed to his fall in popularity. Further, the fact that the people may just want this can also be attributed to the pretty large swing that went the Greens way.

Then there's the Greens' commitment to reducing irrigation and turning at least 30 per cent of Australia's coastal waters into marine parks.
Oh no! Let's just keep plundering the river systems; at this rate, there will be no river eco-system to think of. Bad idea! And again! Let's not protect our coastal waters; we only have world heritage on our coast and who needs that! No-one makes any money outta the Great Barrier Reef, anyway! (cough) And well, all that other water, it's there for our use; we're the humans and God made it for us, after all.

A Labor/Green alliance spells doom for regional Australia's economic base. The slightest move towards Green defence and foreign policies would put the American alliance at risk.
Really? How? And last time I checked, Obama has committed to getting out of Iraq, BTW.

By cutting funding for independent schools, abolishing the private health insurance rebate, and ending offshore processing of illegal boat people it would damage the social fabric too.
Scaremongering at its best. When and where has it been said that funding will be cut for independent schools? Regardless of that, the fact that independent schools receive more funding than public schools is a problem. I guess it's not a problem for upper-middle classians who can afford to send their children to independent schools. Perhaps, in Tony's mind it is pretty much a matter of 'bugger the rest of them!' And on 'abolishing private health insurance rebate' - that's a little bit of an exageration. In regards to the 'ending offshore processing,' I thought that at the start of the article, one of your issues with Julia's policy was that people would be processed on East Timor. Now you're saying that that won't be happening? And how the fcuk will this damage the social fabric?

They can opt for the Labor Party, in defiance of the expressed political preference and the economic interests of their own electorates. Or they can opt for the Coalition and form the most country-oriented national government since World War Two.
Hmmm.. I seem to recall Katter stating that:
  • He saw more in the last three years for his electorate than he did in the LNP decade preceeding
  • And that in between him and his Daddy, his electorate was a Labor seat....

In regards to the 'most country-orientated national government since World War Two,' I am going to give you a little hint: the majority of us do not want to return to the 1940s/50s. We know that you do, and it has sorta caused this little issue for you.

If the Gillard government limps on, the waste will continue, the debt will mount, the new taxes will accumulate and the boats will just keep coming. There have been seven boats in the fortnight since the election.
 The debt will mount? Debt is a part of life. It's not that scary - I mean, you  have a huge mortgage, don't ya Tone? Oh, and BTW, Australia has the lowest levels of debt in the developed world, and went into that debt to get us through the recession (and we did mightily well, comparatively)

I gotta take issue with your fixation on teh boats. They have been coming for years; indeed, many came during Howard's reign. And they will keep coming. In fact, 2766 more refugees arrived by boat during 2001 under Howard, compared with in 2009, under Rudd. We know that numbers are not your forte, but Tony, try to make an effort.

The soap opera of leak and counter leak between the supporters of Gillard and Rudd will resume.
 Haven't seen any leaks for a bit, have we. Oh wait, there were those nasty leaks from Treasury, and from Windsor about your budgetary problems. Who is it, exactly, that has a leaks problem?

Buying off potential critics and surrendering to the unions will be the only policy agenda.
 Like how Julia totally laid down to the Teachers' Union?  The right needs to decide on this and create a cohesive narrative. Either Julia is an evil representative of the unions, or she isn't; you can't keep changing your minds.
A government addicted to spin and spending will continue to be all announcement and no delivery because there can be no new politics from an old government.
 This sentence doesn't add up. Either they are addicted to spending and are therefore doing something, or they are sitting around spinning their arses off and not committing to or doing anything.

Yee gads Tony, I think your little letter personifies your politics: mediocre shit-slinging based on untruths and half-truths, an appeal to combative language and behaviour, complete lack of ability with numbers and a fixation on teh evil boat people in an attempt to manipulate the inner racist that lurks inside.


Post a Comment

Copyright 2009 She Speculates. Powered by Blogger Blogger Templates create by Deluxe Templates. WP by Masterplan Header image by Julianne Hyde.