Tuesday, 3 September 2013
Friday, 21 June 2013
Disgusting hubris & hypocrisy from The Age
I was absolutely gobsmacked to read this editorial opinion in the Age. Not because it was pushing for leadership change. We already know that Fairfax under Gina Rinehart's influence has been pushing that bandwagon with all its might.
Rather my shock was the hubris and hypocrisy of what was written.
I have included the full text of the editorial below with my comments in blue.
It is time for Julia Gillard to stand aside as leader of the federal parliamentary Labor Party, as Prime Minister of Australia, so that vigorous, policy-driven democratic debate can flourish once again. Ms Gillard should do so in the interests of the Labor Party, in the interests of the nation and, most importantly, in the interests of democracy.
The biggest subversion to democracy has been the blatant failure of our mainstream media to present an accurate and fairly balanced critique of the achievements of this Parliament and of the policy platforms of the major parties.
The Age's overriding concern is that, under Ms Gillard's leadership, the Labor Party's message about its future policies and vision for Australia is not getting through to the electorate. Our fear is that if there is no change in Labor leadership before the September 14 election, voters will be denied a proper contest of ideas and policies - and that would be a travesty for the democratic process.
The media constantly ask why 'the message is not getting through' and then steadfastly refuse to ask Labor relevant policy questions or hold the LNP to account for their policy detail. Case in point, Leigh Sales interview of Craig Emerson last night.
The Age does not advocate this lightly. We do so with all respect to Ms Gillard, recognising that in the three years she has occupied the office of Prime Minister - most of it under the vexing circumstances of a hung Parliament - Labor has implemented landmark reforms, which we hope will remain. We are not saying Ms Gillard should stand aside because of Labor's policies, but because she has been unable to lift the party out of a desperately difficult political position.
All respect? For three years Julia Gillard has been under the most sustained attack from the media (in all forms) that I can remember. It's single most glaring characteristic has been the total lack of respect shown to the Prime Minister.
A big majority of the electorate appears to have stopped listening to Ms Gillard. Voters have been so distracted by internal and external speculation about Labor's leadership that efforts by the Prime Minister and her ministers to enunciate a narrative, a strategic vision, for the nation's future beyond this year have failed. If our national political discourse continues in this way, the outcome is writ large: Labor would face a devastating loss in September. Outright control of both houses may be delivered to the Coalition and, more importantly for our democracy, the opportunity for Labor to present a vigorous opposition in Parliament would be diminished.
'So distracted by speculation' huh? And who's been doing most of the speculating? Who prints poll after poll with associated dire analysis (yet refuses to acknowledge polls that show a different outcome)? Another paragraph where the Age (as influential mainstream media) appears to take no responsibility whatsoever in their role to disseminate the message that Labor has tried to enunciate.
Ms Gillard came to the office of Prime Minister three years ago, in bitter circumstances, after deposing Kevin Rudd in a caucus challenge, which he did not contest. The polls in mid-2010 had indicated Labor was in danger of losing an election under Mr Rudd, and inside the party there was concern about his increasingly autocratic style. Ms Gillard said she challenged ''because I believed that a good government was losing its way … I love this country, and I was not going to sit idly by and watch an incoming opposition cut education, cut health and smash rights at work''. The Age at the time interpreted her to mean that the Rudd government ''had struggled to explain and justify its policies to voters, and to remind them of its achievements''. The situation is eerily similar today. Unfortunately, the government under Ms Gillard has lost its way. And despite her entreaties to Labor's caucus to stick fast, nothing appears to be changing. No one in Labor has stepped onto the front foot with confidence to reinvigorate the divided and demoralised parliamentary party. The onus falls on Ms Gillard to break the impasse.
'Lost it's way'? Complete claptrap. Look at the evidence, the number of major legislative achievements. And all this done with a minority government. The implication from this editorial is that because this Parliament has not operated exactly the same as all previous ones it is a failure. Rubbish!
The electorate is despairing of the uncertainty and the petty back-biting within Labor. The Age is more despairing of the vacuum in policy debate. Mr Rudd was a flawed leader as prime minister, but he says he is a changed man and that he has learnt much from losing the confidence of his party room. The Age is not entirely convinced about that, but we cannot ignore the clear and consistent evidence of the opinion polls that his return to the leadership would lift Labor's stocks and enhance its prospects of making the election a genuine contest.
If you really 'despair of the vacuum in policy debate' why don't you start asking some policy questions?
Australians deserve a representative Parliament of diverse ideas. They deserve authoritative and inspiring leaders, who command with compassion and respect for all. They deserve a government that can clearly describe a future Australia of which we can all be proud - not one that will divide, marginalise or exclude. They deserve more than to be thrown scraps of policies couched in negative terms, or policies that are not properly scrutinised and debated. As it stands, the Coalition is being given a free run by a Labor Party which is tormented by its own frailties; too many of the Coalition's proposed policies, some little more than slogans, are sliding through.
The opposition under Tony Abbott has contentious policies on the carbon tax, the mining tax and schools funding; these are just the start of it. Yet Labor under Ms Gillard has been unable to step up to the contest. Mr Abbott is being allowed to run almost entirely unchallenged with his preposterous claim that a Coalition government would ''stop the boats'', in part by turning back the pathetic trail of rickety vessels laden with asylum seekers. This is a potentially dangerous and deeply dispiriting approach. Labor's inability to unscramble this sloganeering is damning.
It is incumbent upon major media organisations to report the facts and do the policy analysis. So where have been the rigorous dissections of Coalition policy?
Time is running out. Labor needs to refresh its public face and present a compelling, united and inspiring voice. It is capable of doing so. Now it must find the will. There may only be one chance to minimise the damage that appears inevitable in September. To do nothing would implicitly weaken the democratic choice. If it is to be done, it is best done now. But it must be an unequivocal and energising change for the better.
This whole editorial is weasel words. This is like the little boy that throws the stones then points at someone else saying it's all their fault.
The Media is calling out the Government for all it's foibles yet spectacularly failing to acknowledge that it is a major part of the problem. But they know that. They are not interested in 'democracy', or 'fairness' or 'the interests of the nation'. They are in it for a select few, and are trashing our democracy for their proprietors own ends. It is disgusting.
If the Media genuinely want a representative democracy and a Parliament full of diverse ideas it is beholden upon them to give voters all the FACTS so they can make informed decisions.
We know this, at its heart, is a push to install Rudd. They don't like Julia Gillard because she is a strong independent woman who will not be controlled. They know that with each passing day a leadership change is less and less likely. Someone is desperate for it to be this blatant.
So present it as that. You want change, fair enough, but don't dare hide behind some fabrication that the current situation is all of Julia Gillard's making. That is simply not true.
Rather my shock was the hubris and hypocrisy of what was written.
I have included the full text of the editorial below with my comments in blue.
******
For the sake of the nation, Ms Gillard should stand aside
The AGE - June 22, 2013
It is time for Julia Gillard to stand aside as leader of the federal parliamentary Labor Party, as Prime Minister of Australia, so that vigorous, policy-driven democratic debate can flourish once again. Ms Gillard should do so in the interests of the Labor Party, in the interests of the nation and, most importantly, in the interests of democracy.
The biggest subversion to democracy has been the blatant failure of our mainstream media to present an accurate and fairly balanced critique of the achievements of this Parliament and of the policy platforms of the major parties.
The Age's overriding concern is that, under Ms Gillard's leadership, the Labor Party's message about its future policies and vision for Australia is not getting through to the electorate. Our fear is that if there is no change in Labor leadership before the September 14 election, voters will be denied a proper contest of ideas and policies - and that would be a travesty for the democratic process.
The media constantly ask why 'the message is not getting through' and then steadfastly refuse to ask Labor relevant policy questions or hold the LNP to account for their policy detail. Case in point, Leigh Sales interview of Craig Emerson last night.
The Age does not advocate this lightly. We do so with all respect to Ms Gillard, recognising that in the three years she has occupied the office of Prime Minister - most of it under the vexing circumstances of a hung Parliament - Labor has implemented landmark reforms, which we hope will remain. We are not saying Ms Gillard should stand aside because of Labor's policies, but because she has been unable to lift the party out of a desperately difficult political position.
All respect? For three years Julia Gillard has been under the most sustained attack from the media (in all forms) that I can remember. It's single most glaring characteristic has been the total lack of respect shown to the Prime Minister.
A big majority of the electorate appears to have stopped listening to Ms Gillard. Voters have been so distracted by internal and external speculation about Labor's leadership that efforts by the Prime Minister and her ministers to enunciate a narrative, a strategic vision, for the nation's future beyond this year have failed. If our national political discourse continues in this way, the outcome is writ large: Labor would face a devastating loss in September. Outright control of both houses may be delivered to the Coalition and, more importantly for our democracy, the opportunity for Labor to present a vigorous opposition in Parliament would be diminished.
'So distracted by speculation' huh? And who's been doing most of the speculating? Who prints poll after poll with associated dire analysis (yet refuses to acknowledge polls that show a different outcome)? Another paragraph where the Age (as influential mainstream media) appears to take no responsibility whatsoever in their role to disseminate the message that Labor has tried to enunciate.
Ms Gillard came to the office of Prime Minister three years ago, in bitter circumstances, after deposing Kevin Rudd in a caucus challenge, which he did not contest. The polls in mid-2010 had indicated Labor was in danger of losing an election under Mr Rudd, and inside the party there was concern about his increasingly autocratic style. Ms Gillard said she challenged ''because I believed that a good government was losing its way … I love this country, and I was not going to sit idly by and watch an incoming opposition cut education, cut health and smash rights at work''. The Age at the time interpreted her to mean that the Rudd government ''had struggled to explain and justify its policies to voters, and to remind them of its achievements''. The situation is eerily similar today. Unfortunately, the government under Ms Gillard has lost its way. And despite her entreaties to Labor's caucus to stick fast, nothing appears to be changing. No one in Labor has stepped onto the front foot with confidence to reinvigorate the divided and demoralised parliamentary party. The onus falls on Ms Gillard to break the impasse.
'Lost it's way'? Complete claptrap. Look at the evidence, the number of major legislative achievements. And all this done with a minority government. The implication from this editorial is that because this Parliament has not operated exactly the same as all previous ones it is a failure. Rubbish!
The electorate is despairing of the uncertainty and the petty back-biting within Labor. The Age is more despairing of the vacuum in policy debate. Mr Rudd was a flawed leader as prime minister, but he says he is a changed man and that he has learnt much from losing the confidence of his party room. The Age is not entirely convinced about that, but we cannot ignore the clear and consistent evidence of the opinion polls that his return to the leadership would lift Labor's stocks and enhance its prospects of making the election a genuine contest.
If you really 'despair of the vacuum in policy debate' why don't you start asking some policy questions?
Australians deserve a representative Parliament of diverse ideas. They deserve authoritative and inspiring leaders, who command with compassion and respect for all. They deserve a government that can clearly describe a future Australia of which we can all be proud - not one that will divide, marginalise or exclude. They deserve more than to be thrown scraps of policies couched in negative terms, or policies that are not properly scrutinised and debated. As it stands, the Coalition is being given a free run by a Labor Party which is tormented by its own frailties; too many of the Coalition's proposed policies, some little more than slogans, are sliding through.
The opposition under Tony Abbott has contentious policies on the carbon tax, the mining tax and schools funding; these are just the start of it. Yet Labor under Ms Gillard has been unable to step up to the contest. Mr Abbott is being allowed to run almost entirely unchallenged with his preposterous claim that a Coalition government would ''stop the boats'', in part by turning back the pathetic trail of rickety vessels laden with asylum seekers. This is a potentially dangerous and deeply dispiriting approach. Labor's inability to unscramble this sloganeering is damning.
It is incumbent upon major media organisations to report the facts and do the policy analysis. So where have been the rigorous dissections of Coalition policy?
Time is running out. Labor needs to refresh its public face and present a compelling, united and inspiring voice. It is capable of doing so. Now it must find the will. There may only be one chance to minimise the damage that appears inevitable in September. To do nothing would implicitly weaken the democratic choice. If it is to be done, it is best done now. But it must be an unequivocal and energising change for the better.
******
This whole editorial is weasel words. This is like the little boy that throws the stones then points at someone else saying it's all their fault.
The Media is calling out the Government for all it's foibles yet spectacularly failing to acknowledge that it is a major part of the problem. But they know that. They are not interested in 'democracy', or 'fairness' or 'the interests of the nation'. They are in it for a select few, and are trashing our democracy for their proprietors own ends. It is disgusting.
If the Media genuinely want a representative democracy and a Parliament full of diverse ideas it is beholden upon them to give voters all the FACTS so they can make informed decisions.
We know this, at its heart, is a push to install Rudd. They don't like Julia Gillard because she is a strong independent woman who will not be controlled. They know that with each passing day a leadership change is less and less likely. Someone is desperate for it to be this blatant.
So present it as that. You want change, fair enough, but don't dare hide behind some fabrication that the current situation is all of Julia Gillard's making. That is simply not true.
Thursday, 20 June 2013
Here's an idea for Labor pressers..
After having just watched Craig Emerson's stellar performance against Leigh Sales' deplorable #leadershit interview this evening I have a suggestion for all Labor press conferences held up until the election.
If a journalist asks a question about the ALP leadership just say:
"I am here to answer any questions about policy and I am happy to explain why Labor is the best option for taking our country forward. I am also very happy to contrast our policy with that offered by the opposition".
If a journalist persists and asks yet another leadership question say:
"Any questions on policy? My portfolio? How we differ from the opposition?"
If there are no such questions or more leadership questions then say:
"I'll take that as a no then. Thank you.."
THEN WALK AWAY!
If all Labor MP's took this line then the only people journalists could ask these banale questions would be the Opposition or themselves. That would very rapidly lose it's newsworthiness.
Demand policy discussion before it is too late!!
Just an idea...
If a journalist asks a question about the ALP leadership just say:
"I am here to answer any questions about policy and I am happy to explain why Labor is the best option for taking our country forward. I am also very happy to contrast our policy with that offered by the opposition".
If a journalist persists and asks yet another leadership question say:
"Any questions on policy? My portfolio? How we differ from the opposition?"
If there are no such questions or more leadership questions then say:
"I'll take that as a no then. Thank you.."
THEN WALK AWAY!
If all Labor MP's took this line then the only people journalists could ask these banale questions would be the Opposition or themselves. That would very rapidly lose it's newsworthiness.
Demand policy discussion before it is too late!!
Just an idea...
Monday, 17 June 2013
Does the Nielsen poll show the dark side of Australia?
Last night Nielsen released their monthly poll that showed a further slump in Labor's primary vote. A loss of 3 percentage points to a dismal 29%.
What was more distressing about this number was that support amongst men had dropped a whopping 7%, with support for women gaining a modest 1%.
It seems from opinions in mainstream and social media that the interpretation of this poll result is PM Gillard's strategy of 'attacking men' has failed. Say what? Did I hear that right? Our Prime Minister is waging a war against Aussie men??? That parallel universe thing is happening again.
If this is the way most men view what has occurred over the last couple of weeks (indeed over the last three years) then I am gob smacked. I am appalled and I am so desperately sad.
Unless you live under a rock (or you take LNP happy pills) you will be aware that the PM has faced two highly sexist public attacks in the last week. The infamous #Menugate and Howard Sattler's crude and invasive questioning about the PM's partner.
A conservative man I follow on Twitter said, in defending the menu, that it seemed satire was OK if you were Kevin Rudd or Wayne Swan but apparently not if you were Julia Gillard. I tried to point out to him the difference in the so-called satire. The derogatory remarks about the PM were focused on her sex, demeaning her appearance as a woman. The menu jokes about Rudd & Swan had nothing to do with sex.
The big problem from my point of view is that he couldn't see that.
This underlying blinkered attitude was further demonstrated by Richards, the restaurant owner, who's LNP engineered response was quick to apologise to Mal Brough, but not a thought was given to apologising to the PM.
As if the #Menugate abhorrence wasn't enough we then have 'shock jock' Howard Sattler persistently asking the PM if her partner was gay. Never mind that Sattler's questions were totally and utterly disrespectful of the office of PM, they were also sexist. They would not have been asked of a male leader, pure and simple.
Of course these matters arose after the PM's #WomenforGillard speech.
Despite being painted as a veritable blitzkrieg by Murdoch & Gina's media minions, the speech was not an attack on men. If you took the reporting of mainstream media as truth you would think that the sole purpose of Gillard's oration was to say that Tony Abbott would marginalise women. All the hoopla was on abortion and blue ties. This was echoed on Twitter by right-wing trolls shrilly saying that the PM was 'starting a gender war'.
I would suggest that these reporters and twitter commentators either have not read the PM's speech or have taken a very narrow interpretation of it to suit their agendas. It was a significant presentation that covered many areas of importance to women.
The whole 'blue tie' reference was an analogy. She was saying that no amount of air-brushing, crisp white shirts, fake tans or blue ties would mask Tony Abbott's long standing attitudes and views on woman's issues, particularly abortion. Let's not forget the man has significant prior form on these matters, and most of it is retrograde. I acknowledge there was some politics in Gillard's speech, but no more than would be expected given the topic and the audience.
So we have two recent appalling sexist attacks on our Prime Minister, on top of the catalogue of previous nastiness 'ditching the witch' etc. Yet this poll result seems to indicate that many Australian men don't care, or worse, think that it's OK to behave in this fashion.
If that is indeed the case I have to ask what is wrong with the Australian male? Do most really think it's alright to treat women in this fashion and that they should just stay quiet about it? What if it were your wife, daughter, partner or mother? Just because it is focused at a strong female PM whom you may dislike doesn't make it any more acceptable. It's not a joke, it's not a laugh and it should not be fobbed off as harmless fun.
Entrenched attitudes like this have no place in 21st century Australian society.
---------------------------------------------------------------
See this great post from Fiona Armstrong - "Sexism: I've had a gutful" via NoFibs http://nofibs.com.au/2013/06/17/sexism-ive-had-a-gutful/
And we are now getting international notoriety for all the wrong reasons - "Treatment of Julia Gillard shows extent to which sexism is tolerated in Australia" - Irish Times
http://www.irishtimes.com/treatment-of-julia-gillard-shows-extent-to-which-sexism-is-tolerated-in-australia-1.1429432
What was more distressing about this number was that support amongst men had dropped a whopping 7%, with support for women gaining a modest 1%.
It seems from opinions in mainstream and social media that the interpretation of this poll result is PM Gillard's strategy of 'attacking men' has failed. Say what? Did I hear that right? Our Prime Minister is waging a war against Aussie men??? That parallel universe thing is happening again.
If this is the way most men view what has occurred over the last couple of weeks (indeed over the last three years) then I am gob smacked. I am appalled and I am so desperately sad.
Unless you live under a rock (or you take LNP happy pills) you will be aware that the PM has faced two highly sexist public attacks in the last week. The infamous #Menugate and Howard Sattler's crude and invasive questioning about the PM's partner.
A conservative man I follow on Twitter said, in defending the menu, that it seemed satire was OK if you were Kevin Rudd or Wayne Swan but apparently not if you were Julia Gillard. I tried to point out to him the difference in the so-called satire. The derogatory remarks about the PM were focused on her sex, demeaning her appearance as a woman. The menu jokes about Rudd & Swan had nothing to do with sex.
The big problem from my point of view is that he couldn't see that.
This underlying blinkered attitude was further demonstrated by Richards, the restaurant owner, who's LNP engineered response was quick to apologise to Mal Brough, but not a thought was given to apologising to the PM.
As if the #Menugate abhorrence wasn't enough we then have 'shock jock' Howard Sattler persistently asking the PM if her partner was gay. Never mind that Sattler's questions were totally and utterly disrespectful of the office of PM, they were also sexist. They would not have been asked of a male leader, pure and simple.
Of course these matters arose after the PM's #WomenforGillard speech.
Despite being painted as a veritable blitzkrieg by Murdoch & Gina's media minions, the speech was not an attack on men. If you took the reporting of mainstream media as truth you would think that the sole purpose of Gillard's oration was to say that Tony Abbott would marginalise women. All the hoopla was on abortion and blue ties. This was echoed on Twitter by right-wing trolls shrilly saying that the PM was 'starting a gender war'.
I would suggest that these reporters and twitter commentators either have not read the PM's speech or have taken a very narrow interpretation of it to suit their agendas. It was a significant presentation that covered many areas of importance to women.
The whole 'blue tie' reference was an analogy. She was saying that no amount of air-brushing, crisp white shirts, fake tans or blue ties would mask Tony Abbott's long standing attitudes and views on woman's issues, particularly abortion. Let's not forget the man has significant prior form on these matters, and most of it is retrograde. I acknowledge there was some politics in Gillard's speech, but no more than would be expected given the topic and the audience.
So we have two recent appalling sexist attacks on our Prime Minister, on top of the catalogue of previous nastiness 'ditching the witch' etc. Yet this poll result seems to indicate that many Australian men don't care, or worse, think that it's OK to behave in this fashion.
If that is indeed the case I have to ask what is wrong with the Australian male? Do most really think it's alright to treat women in this fashion and that they should just stay quiet about it? What if it were your wife, daughter, partner or mother? Just because it is focused at a strong female PM whom you may dislike doesn't make it any more acceptable. It's not a joke, it's not a laugh and it should not be fobbed off as harmless fun.
Entrenched attitudes like this have no place in 21st century Australian society.
---------------------------------------------------------------
See this great post from Fiona Armstrong - "Sexism: I've had a gutful" via NoFibs http://nofibs.com.au/2013/06/17/sexism-ive-had-a-gutful/
And we are now getting international notoriety for all the wrong reasons - "Treatment of Julia Gillard shows extent to which sexism is tolerated in Australia" - Irish Times
http://www.irishtimes.com/treatment-of-julia-gillard-shows-extent-to-which-sexism-is-tolerated-in-australia-1.1429432
Saturday, 8 June 2013
If you're going to run away from Scott Morrison do it for the right reasons
This past week we have witnessed a spectacle that sums up everything that is wrong with our mainstream media. It was an embarrassment.
A media pack interviewing the Shadow Minister for White Folk, Scott Morrison, literally ran away from him mid interview.
Now I can think of many reasons to run away from Scott Morrison. In my view he is one of the worst types of racists. His mode of operating is to use xenophobic language to gain political favour with those who are predisposed to that way of thinking. He capitalises on fear and ignorance, in the process demonising those who are the most vulnerable. He is vile, so by all means, don't listen to him, don't interview him, don't give him airtime to pedal his lies and misinformation. Run a mile, as fast as you can.
Trouble is, the media pack didn't run for those reasons. It ran because it is more interested in political farce than any meaningful reporting. Their target was resident Labor Judas Clown, MP Joel Fitzgibbon, who they had just spotted with their wanker radars.
Now the day before Joel decided to be a smartarse and poke fun at party guidelines on how to respond to bad polling. Fair enough you might say. Good for a laugh. Bear in mind though, this is the same Joel Fitzgibbon that said we wouldn't be hearing anything more from him after Julia Gillard roundly defeated Kevin Rudd when Rudd took a tilt at the leadership. This is the same Joel that was constantly white-anting the leadership of his own party.
So how does has-been Joel try to make himself relevant again? By having a subtle go at the leadership of course! And it worked, because that's all our pathetic excuse for the fourth estate is interested in. Joel was rapt, pursued by the frenzied media - he even let slip "it's nice to be popular". I'm sure he's loving it.
Which brings me back to my first point. Mainstream political reporting in this country is, by-and-large, a complete joke. If they were serious Fitzgibbon and his ilk wouldn't get the time of day. We would get some meaningful analysis of policy. Maybe we would even get politicians held to account for what they say.
Instead we get clowns.
A media pack interviewing the Shadow Minister for White Folk, Scott Morrison, literally ran away from him mid interview.
Now I can think of many reasons to run away from Scott Morrison. In my view he is one of the worst types of racists. His mode of operating is to use xenophobic language to gain political favour with those who are predisposed to that way of thinking. He capitalises on fear and ignorance, in the process demonising those who are the most vulnerable. He is vile, so by all means, don't listen to him, don't interview him, don't give him airtime to pedal his lies and misinformation. Run a mile, as fast as you can.
Trouble is, the media pack didn't run for those reasons. It ran because it is more interested in political farce than any meaningful reporting. Their target was resident Labor Judas Clown, MP Joel Fitzgibbon, who they had just spotted with their wanker radars.
Now the day before Joel decided to be a smartarse and poke fun at party guidelines on how to respond to bad polling. Fair enough you might say. Good for a laugh. Bear in mind though, this is the same Joel Fitzgibbon that said we wouldn't be hearing anything more from him after Julia Gillard roundly defeated Kevin Rudd when Rudd took a tilt at the leadership. This is the same Joel that was constantly white-anting the leadership of his own party.
So how does has-been Joel try to make himself relevant again? By having a subtle go at the leadership of course! And it worked, because that's all our pathetic excuse for the fourth estate is interested in. Joel was rapt, pursued by the frenzied media - he even let slip "it's nice to be popular". I'm sure he's loving it.
Which brings me back to my first point. Mainstream political reporting in this country is, by-and-large, a complete joke. If they were serious Fitzgibbon and his ilk wouldn't get the time of day. We would get some meaningful analysis of policy. Maybe we would even get politicians held to account for what they say.
Instead we get clowns.
Saturday, 11 May 2013
The parallel universe of Tony Abbott's rolled gold paid parental leave scheme
I'd like you to pause and imagine something for a moment..
Let's imagine "that ranga woman" (that's Julia Gillard, our Prime Minister) has just held a press conference. She has announced that Labor are changing their Paid Parental Leave (PPL) scheme. They are going to raise the number of weeks coverage to from 18 to 26 and increase the amount paid from the current minimum wage to the annual salary of the recipient up to $150,000. She says the scheme will be funded by raising the company tax on big business by 1.5%.
Now let's imagine the reaction..
Next morning's headlines in the News Corporation mastheads - "Great Big New Tax", "Welfare Gone Mad", "Drain on our Economy", "First the Carbon Tax, Now This!" - including bonus images of dictators, murderers, thieves & sad white families with 3 kids, 2 cars, 6 teles and their 'crushing' mortgage..
Piers, Andrew & Miranda frothing at the mouth about the Socialist virus that is engulfing society..
Alan, Ray & Michael apoplectic with rage, saying how more benefits like this will just encourage greater hordes of those vile, evil, bomb-loving terrorist boat people..
Gina's Fairfax political commentators pontificating about excess and waste..
Bluster bag Joe making more prophecies of economic doom and managing to get the word 'chaos' six times in every sentence..
and of course Tony, scripted straight from the Peta Credlin playbook, disparaging our Navy yet again with all his talk of 'drunken sailors'..
But hold on..
Instead, welcome to the Parallel Universe, where this is Tony Abbot's policy and the mainstream media is caught in a conundrum. Even they have to mention the discord within Liberal ranks, but not too loudly. No page one screaming headlines, no doctored pictures to whip up indignation, no graphs of red ink. Just a mention or two well away from the front page.
Yet this is a policy that is manifestly unfair, unaffordable and totally at odds with the LNP's justification for it's other policy positions.
Remember this policy is set against a backdrop of Abbott slashing public service jobs, reducing tax & superannuation benefits for the less well off, taking the slightly cheaper yet vastly inferior route on the NBN (perhaps the most important piece of public infrastructure this century), and flatly refusing to fund vitally needed education reform. All this in the name of fiscal prudence.
It's rolled gold insanity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)