Friday 6 March 2015

Is it a fact that all you need is the facts? - The AIM Network

Is it a fact that all you need is the facts?

March 7, 2015
Written by:
Kay Rollison
1 Reply

George Wright, Federal Secretary of the ALP is to be congratulated on howtotalktoyourliberalmate.com.au,
Labor’s attempt to use social media to connect with supporters, and to
give them answers to some of the misinformation the Liberals and their
media friends perpetuate. With 70% of the mainstream media against
Labor, this is a good way to try and fight back.

However while it may be useful in energising the Labor base, it’s not
going to do all it could to change non-Labor voters’ minds. This is
because facts alone rarely change anyone’s mind.

It’s traditional to think of the electorate as divided between
rusted-on Liberal/NCP voters, rusted-on progressive voters either Labor
or Green, and an indeterminate number of swinging voters in the middle.
It’s generally acknowledged that this last group is now larger than
previously, and not necessarily centrist in its political opinions. You
can’t ignore your base, but overall the pitch has to be to the swingers
or potential swingers. The rest will vote for or against you anyway.

It’s equally traditional to assume that the main basis for these
divisions is economic; that people vote as their hip pocket dictates.
Much rhetoric from both sides of politics is directed at cost of living
pressures for working families; for example, the mythical $550 saving to ‘average’ families
from the repeal of the Carbon Tax was central to Abbott’s 2013 election
campaign. I’ve heard young women say they voted for Abbott because of
his paid parental leave scheme; sucked in on that one.

But a quick glance at the distribution of wealth and income in
Australia shows that there must be many more factors in play than
rational economic self-interest. For example, eighteen of the twenty poorest federal electorates
are in rural or regional Australia, and of these ten are represented by
National Party members, six by Liberal or LNP Qld members and only two
by Labor members. You can see the same thing in America;
95 of the 100 poorest counties are located in Republican ‘red’ states,
the 10 poorest all being in red states. The fact that neo-liberal
economic policies don’t lead to increased prosperity for voters – and
may even cause further impoverishment – in these electorates doesn’t
seem to stop them voting conservative.

According to research,
there are identifiable differences in the brains of conservatives and
progressives. Apparently conservatives have demonstrably ‘a more
threat-oriented and reactionary mindset than liberals’ (ie progressives
in the US.) This will hardly come as a surprise. Clearly Tony Abbott –
or maybe it’s Peta Credlin – already knows this, and you can almost
certainly see a response in the latest polls to his fear- inducing ‘rising dangers’, ‘ominous signs’ and ‘new dark age’ tactics. As Mike Seccombe points out in his article in the Saturday Paper
titled ‘Tony Abbott’s new leadership plan: panic’: ‘The relevant point
is not so much that conservative people are more fearful, but that
fearful people are more conservative.’ Expect more of the same.

Cognitive linguist George Lakoff has written extensively on the way
in which voters interpret the political messages they hear. He
postulates that we all have two competing frames in our heads, though
one is usually more dominant than the other. One is the ‘authoritarian
father’ frame. Lakoff argues that for some voters, the metaphor of the
nation as family and government as parent evokes the strict parent, who
provides discipline, and values responsibility, morality and
self-sufficiency. Such voters favour independence from government,
patriotism and aggressive foreign policy, and abhor welfare and public
spending on things like health and education. The other is the
‘nurturing parent’ model, where parents – ie the state – work to keep
citizens away from ‘corrupting influences’ such as pollution, social
injustice, poverty, etc. He’s not suggesting that these frames are
completely inflexible, but he is saying that the concept of ‘welfare’,
for example, will be seen quite differently according the frame of
reference of the voter.

All this suggests that ‘the facts’ may be of limited value in
changing people’s minds if they interpret them according to pre-existing
frames. Your Liberal mate won’t care if you give him facts that show
that Australia’s budget deficit is low by international standards; he
just excludes those facts from his frame of reference.

This is further illustrated by Mark Kenny’s report in The Advertiser
in 2010 that Labor tacticians had undertaken market testing on their
strategy to communicate the mining tax and found ‘a central concept they
wished to convey, captured by the presumably positive words “fairness”
and “fair”, failed to impress. The words “tested like dogs***” an
insider revealed. Respondents apparently found the idea of making
something “fairer” meaningless because what is considered fair depends
on where you stand.’ In Lakoff’s terms, being ‘fair’ to people on
welfare is the opposite of being ‘fair’ to hardworking taxpayers. You
can see why ‘Labor for a Fair Go’ won’t work as a slogan.

So back to ‘How to Talk to Your Liberal Mate’. Here’s just one example.

Liberal Mate Says: Tony Abbott has to make cuts because Australia is living beyond its means.

Fact: Since Joe Hockey & Tony Abbott’s Budget was announced,
business confidence has slumped. Unemployment has hit a 12 year high
under this Government. On top of that, youth unemployment is at a 13
year high with around 14 per cent of young people unemployed. Over $80
billion in cuts to health and education in the last Budget won’t help
grow our economy because no country ever cut its way to prosperity.

All true, more or less. But will it change anyone’s mind? If your
Liberal mate frames his/her political values around the metaphor of the
strict father, then living beyond one’s means is anathema, and no amount
of information will change that. There is an alternate frame being
presented in the answer: that we should be concerned about the young
unemployed. But if the Liberal mate believes it’s the fault of the young
unemployed that they haven’t got a job, then that’s not going to sway
him/her.

This answer also buys into the whole notion that Australia is
living beyond its means; Tony’s just made it worse. I’d like to see an
answer that interrogates this conservative economic interpretation,
rather than simply accepting the neo-liberal metaphor. Though I guess
this answer at least points out that austerity doesn’t work, and you
can’t say that too often.

I’m not saying it’s not worth trying to change people’s minds. And if
you have to talk to Liberals, it’s useful to have some facts at your
finger-tips. Lakoff certainly doesn’t give up hope; he wants
progressives to find different language that allows them to re-frame
their position without using metaphors owned by the neo-liberals. There
are some people whose frame you’ll never change, but there are many
others worth working on. Don’t we all want to nurture our children?

Lakoff’s best known book is Don’t Think of an Elephant, 2005, revised and significantly updated in 2014. He has a blog called ‘the Little Blue Blog’, and in 2012 published The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide To Thinking and Talking Democratic. Perhaps all Australian progressives should read it.

Keep trying, George.

Monday 2 March 2015

Tony Abbott? 'I think he's a tit', Miriam Margolyes tells Q&A

Tony Abbott? 'I think he's a tit', Miriam Margolyes tells Q&A

Date: March 3, 2015 - 6:39AM

Neil McMahon

'People don't like Jews' - Miriam Margolyes

Actress Miriam Margolyes dominates
ABC's Q & A with controversial comments on Israel, tax reform and
the Prime Minister on Monday night.

Autoplay OnOff
Video feedback
Video settings

More video

It took until the very end of Monday night's Q&A for the panel to get to the crux of recent national debate. Tony Abbott: Yes or No?

"I think he's a tit," was the five-word summation from Miriam
Margolyes, the call-a-spade-a-spade actress whose response to the
audience question was the shortest, but by far the most memorable, of
those offered by the panel as host Tony Jones passed the matter around
for consideration.

Prime ministerial colleague and supporter Josh Frydenberg,
who wisely noted that "I'm in a minority here", waxed lyrical about his
boss' decency and qualities as a father, husband and upstanding member
of his local community.

"I think he's a tit.": Miriam Margolyes gave the shortest, but by far the most memorable, answer on Tony Abbott. Photo: Q&A

This drew the retort from Mamamia editor-in-chief
Jamila Rizvi that if this was all he had to offer, the PM should go back
to his local electorate and hand over to someone a little more
inspiring. Labor's Andrew Leigh passed up the chance to offer his
one-word summation, losing the plot in a rambling, partisan reply that
Jones was forced to curtail; Trisha Jha of the Centre for Independent
Studies tag-teamed with Margolyes, declaring: "The tit is a lovely
bird."

It was an earnest edition of the weekly debate program, with
the one true moment of memorable television coming again from Margolyes
in an answer to a question about anti-Semitism. Margolyes – Jewish
herself, British-born but now an Australian citizen – clasped her hands
and declared: "People don't like Jews. It's not comfortable to say that
and it's not comfortable to hear it. But I believe it to be true.

"After the Holocaust it was not fashionable or possible to be
anti-Semitic … but because of the actions of the state of Israel and
the appalling treatment of the Israelis towards the Palestinians …
anti-Semitism has again reared its horrific, ugly head and anti-Semitism
is as unacceptable as anti-Muslim feeling."

As ever, Q&A swerved from such moments of great
power to stretches of mundane political to-and-fro where the duelling
representatives of the major political parties held forth on policy
matters or debates of the day.

The controversy over Human Rights Commissioner Gillian Triggs
got a workout, as did the ever-changing status of the Medicare
co-payment. Tony Jones captured that particular moment when Frydenberg
noted that his Labor opponent Leigh had once been a supporter of such a
policy. "So were you last week," noted the host.

Unsurprisingly, not much came of it – Frydenberg agreed with
Jones that he couldn't add much until cabinet signed off on whatever the
current policy might be. Jones: "You don't know because the cabinet
hasn't told you." Frydenberg: "That's true."

In other words, as usual, wait and see. For Q&A viewers
that means wait until next week – and perhaps the most exhilarating
part of Monday night's program was the announcement of what lies in
store. It's a Q&A first – an all-woman panel, including the
host – with Jones surrendering his chair to Annabel Crabb and a panel
including Germaine Greer and Julie Bishop. As Crabb noted on Twitter
after the line-up was revealed: "Odds of that getting out of control?
Unbackable I'd say. Come along."

It promises to be the program of the year.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/tony-abbott-i-think-hes-a-tit-miriam-margolyes-tells-qa-20150303-13t6ji.html#ixzz3TGMhSI9y

Monday 16 February 2015

Deconstructing a dog whistle - The AIM Network

Deconstructing a dog whistle

February 16, 2015
Written by:
ozfenric
30 Replies

Tony Abbott’s government has taken some body-blows in recent
weeks, and Abbott’s own leadership standing is suffering. Some say that
this is due to a savage budget that seeks to address a non-existent
budget emergency by penalising those who can least afford it and by
punching the powerless, compounded by poor communications and
head-scratching political decisions. If this were the case, one might be
forgiven for thinking that the best way of recovering the party’s
fortunes might be to revisit the thinking behind the budget, to seek to
appropriately identify who the real lifters and leaners in the economy
are, and to fix the way that the government goes about doing business.

Or you could go for the approach of sowing distrust and disunity,
painting an amorphous group as the “Other” in order to convince
Australians that you are “One of them” and being strong to protect them
from the forces of darkness. This is a skill-set and a rulebook Tony
Abbott inherited from his great hero John Howard and this weekend’s video message shows that he has enthusiastically embraced it.

If national security is so important that it has prompted an address
to the nation, at the expense of attention to Joe Hockey’s “Never back
to surplus” budget and Andrew Robb’s TPP negotiations and the likely
forthcoming execution of the Bali Nine kingpins, then it would seem
worthwhile to examine the detail of Mr Abbott’s speech.

When you look at what Mr Abbott had to say, it becomes clear that he
is taking two specific incidents and generalising threats from them,
generalising failures from them, and using them to beat up the necessity
for changes. In two minutes and 23 seconds, he commiserates with the
victims of violence, generalises the threat to all Australians, spruiks
the actions of the government, reminds us of the threat and reassures us
that he is keeping us safe.

An examination of the specific incidents to which Abbott refers,
however, tells a more sobering story. There have been no significant
failures of our immigration and border protection regulations, no
breaches of our balanced and considered jurisprudence and bail system.
There are no practical measures that could have prevented these specific
events that prompt Abbott’s address. Once you understand that any
measures the government might propose can have no possible effect on
preventing these specific events, the low-brow dog whistle becomes
crystal clear, and it becomes possible to see the real threat behind the
words – the threat of further intrusive and unwarranted interference
into people’s everyday lives.

A Message from the PM

Abbott begins by referring to the recent Lindt cafe attack by Man
Haron Monis. It is perfectly appropriate to “acknowledge the atrocity”.
It was one man with a shotgun and three people, including the attacker,
died in the event. “Atrocity” is a strong word, but Abbott commences as
he means to continue. In any case, the scene is set, the tone of the
address is identified: this is a message about terrorism.

Abbott continues with a pledge to keep Australia as “safe and secure”
as humanly possible. Federal and State governments are conducting a
joint review into the siege, and the report will be released soon. The
report will make recommendations and the government intends to take some
actions. History has shown us that actions taken by a government are
often only a subset, or sometimes a completely different set, to the
recommendations of any given report, but we will reserve judgement. In
effect, Abbott is attempting to take credit in advance for an
announcement the government has yet to make. He is showing the
government is strong, by pointing to the future when it intends to take
strong action that it can’t tell us about yet.

We may get an inkling of the actions the government has in mind when
Abbott addresses the Parliament on the topic of national security next
Monday. But we may have a sneak preview as Abbott continues on.

“For too long we have given those who might be a threat to our
country the benefit of the doubt. There’s been the benefit of the doubt
at our borders, the benefit of the doubt for residency, the benefit of
the doubt for citizenship and the benefit of the doubt at Centrelink.
And in the courts, there has been bail, when clearly there should have
been jail.”

When we unpack this statement, in the context of recent events and of
the preceding text, Abbott is effectively telling us that we have not
been strong enough in our immigration policies, and failures in our bail
and justice systems. Abbott refers very specifically to the one example
he has mentioned, Man Haron Monis, the attacker in the Lindt cafe
event. Australians – particularly those in Sydney, Abbott’s home
constituency – will be very aware

also of the arrest this week of two young men, home-grown potential
jihadists. Despite not mentioning them specifically, the media has been
quick to connect the dots between their arrest and this statement by
Abbott.

The problem is that neither our immigration, residency, citizenship nor bail processes failed in any of these cases.

Man Haron Monis was on bail for a variety of criminal offenses at the
time of his cafe attack. These cases were not religious in nature. He
was accused of being accessory before and after the fact for the murder
of his wife by his girlfriend. Separately, he was on bail on indecency
charges. Neither case could have given indication that he was planning to turn into a shotgun-wielding maniac. [Read: How was Man Haron Monis not on a security watchlist?]

There were indications perhaps of mental instability, of paranoia,
and definite isolation and marginalisation. Monis was known for holding
“extremist” views. That’s easy to say in retrospect. His views on the
West’s involvement in Middle-Eastern conflicts would not be out of place
in a Greens party room meeting. He was, until very shortly before his
act of terror, a well-dressed and urbane Australian.

Could the Lindt Cafe attack have been avoided if Man Haron Monis was
denied bail? Certainly. On what basis could bail have been denied,
though? This was not a wild-haired fanatic before the magistrate.

Bail is a State issue of law enforcement. As it happens, laws have
already been tightened in NSW that would have prevented Monis’ bail. So
what exactly does Abbott, in the Federal sphere, expect to do to make
Australians still safer?

The recent arrests in Sydney were of two young men, Mohammad Kiad and
Omar al-Kutobi. Allegedly they were arrested just hours before they
intended to attack members of the public with knives. Could either of
these alleged terrorists have been captured earlier with tighter border
protection policies, or more intelligence resources? Were they abusing
their Centrelink entitlements?

It would appear not. Kiad, now 25, came into Australia four years ago
on a family visa to join his wife. al-Kutobi fled Iraq with his family
ten years ago; he came to Australia in 2009. Shortly thereafter he
received a protection visa and he became an Australian citizen in 2013.
Neither man was a wild-haired fanatic, nor obviously a danger to the
public.

The pair were not known to police. They were not known as religious
extremists. Until recently, it doesn’t appear that they were. Instead,
they were young Aussie men, fond of barbeques and American TV and luxury
goods. Their radicalisation occurred over the last few weeks, perhaps
triggered by the attacks on the Charlie Hebdo offices last month in
Paris. Their rapid radicalisation was reported to Australian authorities
by their own community about a week ago. Mere days later, police
swooped.

How were tighter immigration rules four years ago going to prevent a
planned terror attack that took months, at most, to be conceived and
instigated, from men who by all reports only became extreme within the
last six months, and on Australian soil?

The other problematic element of this densely offensive paragraph is
the reference to Centrelink. In the context of this strident message,
the inference is clear:
that terrorists rely on Newstart. This is so ridiculous as to be
laughable – yet it plays to the same crowd who lapped up the election
rhetoric about boat people clogging up the motorways of Sydney.

The other possible reading is that people who rely on welfare are as
bad as terrorists. I’m not certain which interpretation is the more
offensive.

Abbott continues his address with the key message: all too often, “bad people play us for mugs. Well, that’s going to stop.”

Who are these bad people? That’s not been shown. Hopefully it’s not
Man Haron Monis, because if we’re going to stop people like him from
“taking us for mugs”, we presumably will no longer be providing welfare
to those with mental issue. Hopefully it’s not Mohammad Kiad and Omar
al-Kutobi, because in order to curtail the terrorist threat they pose,
we would need to prevent muslims in general from entering the country.

Abbott makes a variety of references to the “Islamist death cult”.
There’s a three-word slogan that’s earned him a couple of poll points
before. It is also simultaneously emotive, highly offensive to large
groups of undeserving people, and impossible to criticise without coming
across as an apologist. Well, this author will criticise it. Islamic
State might possibly be Islamist, but using the term paints all Muslims
alike. IS is most certainly not a death cult. Yes, it uses unsupportable
means and revels in bloodshed, but it does so not for the sake of
killing people, but rather to attract those it considers devout. The
killings are a means, not an end. And the idea of a world caliphate of
muslims is dear to many. Nobody should seek to defend the actions or the
Islamic State. However, belittling IS with a three-word slogan ignores
the complexities and the real grievances and aspirations of millions of
muslims everywhere.

Abbott goes on to talk about the much-discussed “new threats” of
home-grown backyard terrorists, armed with “a knife, a flag, a camera
phone, and a victim”. Terrorists are everywhere, around every corner,
lurking under every bed.

By all means, do what you can to identify potential attackers before
they take a life. But in the same way that it’s impossible to protect
the public from an armed robber in a milk bar, it is impossible to
protect the public from a quiet young man who just wants to be
respected.

Abbott finishes his presentation by proudly boasting of working with
other nations to degrade the Islamic State through military means; and
improving the powers and resources of Australian intelligence agencies.
Finally, he claims the need for stronger laws to “make it easier to keep
you safe”. These include the data retention laws currently before
parliament, but, worryingly, might also include other laws and
regulations Abbott does not describe, but which will inevitably further
encroach on our liberties and our privacy. Of course, it’s all for our
own good. The government is being strong to keep Us safe from Them.

“As a country we won’t let evil people exploit our freedom.” As Kaye Lee has written today, it’s a pity that credo doesn’t stretch to include the current government.

If they don't know what they're talking about, how are we supposed to?

In "News and Politics"

Tony Abbott doesn't want another election

In "News and Politics"

Soft corruption

In "News and Politics"

Saturday 14 February 2015

Top lawyers and former PM Fraser slam Abbott's attacks on Triggs and AHRC

David Donovan 15 February 2015, 8:00am 280 5

Children Human rights Law Politics

Share on facebook 61
Share on twitter 50
Share on linkedin 0
Share on reddit 0
Share on google_plusone_share
Share on email
More Sharing Services

**Former Liberal PM Malcolm Fraser says Tony Abbott is a "bully-boy"**

PM Tony Abbott's claims about "good government" starting this
week looked even more shaky after Australia’s two peak legal bodies, as
well with former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, condemned remarks he
made about Human Rights Commission (AHRC) President Professor Gillian
Triggs and the AHRC.

The prime minister, who caused outrage amongst his own party this week by sacking Liberal Party elder statesman Philip Ruddock as chief whip, has another headache as the presidents of the Australian Bar Association and the Law Council of Australia, as well as a former Liberal PM, all strongly condemned the attacks on Triggs.

The attacks were largely instigated by Tony Abbott himself, who
launched an angry and extended attack on the integrity and credibility
of Professor Triggs and the Human Rights Commission both in Parliament
and the media after the release of The Forgotten Children report.

The report came after a more than a year long inquiry by the
statutory body and called for a royal commission into the detention of
children under both the Labor and Coalition Governments.

However, the Report was immediately labelled a "transparent stitch up" and "a blatantly partisan politicised exercise" in comments made by PM Abbott on Thursday. He went further, saying Triggs "should be ashamed of herself" and instead of releasing the report should instead be "sending a note of congratulations to [former Immigration Minister] Scott Morrison. The prime minister's attacks were echoed by other senior Coalition figures.

In a rare joint statement issued Saturday (14/2/15), Fiona McLeod SC, president of the Australian Bar Association and Duncan McConnel,
president of the Law Council of Australia, labelled the attacks on
Triggs and the Commission as "unprecedented" and "alarming".

From the statement:

'The leaders of Australia’s two peak bodies representing all
Australian lawyers have taken the unusual step of issuing a joint
statement because of the unprecedented attack on the President of the
Australian Human Rights Commission for carrying out her statutory
duties.'

Law Council president Fiona McLeod SC stated that the personal
criticism of Triggs were an unwarranted attack on the Commission
and served to undermine public confidence in the justice system:

“Professor Triggs has a distinguished career in the law and is
highly respected. She was the Dean of Sydney Law School and has lectured
and written extensively in international law and human rights. Personal
criticism directed at her or at any judicial or quasi-judicial officer
fulfilling the duties of public office as required by law is an attack
upon the independence and integrity of the Commission and undermines
confidence in our system of justice and human rights protection."

Abbott's angry outburst was also reportedly condemned by former Liberal Party Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser on the same day, labelling it "foolishness" and "bully-boy" tactics from a prime minister with his "back to the wall":

The Prime Minister has got his back to the wall. He's just
survived a near rebellion from his own backbench and he has
demonstrated, since then that ... he has not changed; he has not learnt;
he has behaved in the same bully-boy fashion, which is a reputation
that has haunted him since long before he was Prime Minister.

It is the utmost foolishness because it's going to be one of
those things which again are put into the scales against the Government
and against the Prime Minister.

The attacks by the lawyers are similar responses by the legal fraternity in Queensland after similar attacks on
lawyers and the judiciary by former Premier Campbell Newman's LNP
Government, whose short and turbulent time in power formally ended yesterday.

Fiona McLeod said in the statement critics of Triggs should actually
read the report, which she said commended the Abbott Government where it
was warranted:

“Those who are critical of Professor Triggs and the Commission
need only stop and read the Report to see that it is concerned with
detention practices of both the current and former government. The
Report has welcomed the reduction in numbers of children in detention
under this government."

Bar Association president Duncan McConnel said that what is being
lost in the debate is the urgent need to minimise harm done to children
by immigration detention:

“What is being lost in the commentary is the undeniable fact that
the detention of children in immigration detention has been physically
and mentally harmful to them. The detailed examination of the issues by
the Commission provides government with information .upon which it can
develop responses aimed at minimising, and hopefully eliminating, the
harm caused to children being held in immigration detention. The Law
Council is willing to offer any assistance it can in developing
practical, achievable reforms to the law that will improve the
situation”

The lawyers concluded with a joint statement condemning personal
attacks on officials and institutions simply for carrying out their
legal duties:

“The Australian Bar Association and Law Council of Australia
agree that personal attacks deflect attention from the very serious
findings of the Report and place an individual office holder under
significant pressure - we cannot tolerate our public officials and
institutions being subjected to this barrage for fulfilling their
statutory duties. To do so is to compromise the integrity of those
institutions charged with holding the government to account."

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License

Help keep Independent Australia strong. Subscribe today.

Friday 13 February 2015

Good Government Starts Today... Or Tomorrow, But We're Definitely Committed To It! - The AIM Network

Good Government Starts Today… Or Tomorrow, But We’re Definitely Committed To It!

February 14, 2015
Written by:
Rossleigh
7 Replies

There’s an old cartoon where the couple in a car are speeding down
the highway while there’s hundreds of cars stuck in traffic in a lane
beside it. The wife says, “Look at the sign – we’re going the wrong
way!” To which the husband replies, “Who cares, we’re making great
time.”

Every few days someone in the current Abbott Government makes me remember that cartoon.

Of course, unlike the man in the cartoon, most members of the
goverment seem completely unable to acknowledge that they are going the
wrong way, even though that’s what the sign clear says.

“We’ve made great progress on the Budget!”

But the deficit is growing and it’s not predicted to get back to surplus any faster than Labor planned.

“But you’d be a fool to trust what Labor said. They promised to get
it back to surplus a couple of years ago and they still haven’t done
it!”

But you’re the government now; you’re the ones promising to have it back in surplus, then changing the date.

“Yes, but I’m not a quitter. I’m determined to see this through, as
is the PM. He’s a nice bloke, you know. A terrific guy. Family man.
Athlete. He pedals really fast. Firefighter. And he’s a fighter. He’ll
get back up. Really, I can’t think of someone with more attractive
daughters. No, he’s certainly the best person to lead the country. ”

Of course, Hockey did acknowledge that having the highest
unemployment since John Howard was PM wasn’t great, but attempted to
argue that it could be worse. Basically, his point was that if there
hadn’t been so many jobs created last year then unemployment would have
been over seven per cent, so we were really, really lucky that we’d rid
ourselves of that Labor Government who wouldn’t have grown the economy.

He went on to argue that the best possible way to improve the
unemployment figures was to get the economy growing faster. Which, to
me, is a bit like a mechanic saying that the best possilbe thing for
your car is to get it moving again, because once it’s moving then you
won’t have this problem with it stalling. And if it keeps stalling,
well, that’s because it’s not moving. At this point, don’t be tempted to
ask the mechanic how you’re supposed to get it moving again, because
he’ll just tap his nose and tell you that he has a plan, and, though it
may not be popular, the best thing you could do is to pay his bill.

In fact, that’s more or less what Hockey said:

“I’m trying to get it to shift and things that have been unpopular but necessary have helped.”

I’m still trying to work out how sacking large numbers of public
servants is meant to stimulate the economy and lead to an increase in
employment numbers in the short term, even if one accepts the rather
dubious argument that it’ll help get the Budget back in surplus and once
the Budget is back in surplus, all will be well. (And once the car starts moving, it’ll no longer be stalled. $739, please, for parts and labour!!)

But, of course, the week truly belongs to Tony Abbott. Now I’m not
going to mention the war – in particular, I’ll say nothing about the
holocaust; neither will I make cheap shots about him not being able to
stop Japanese subs from coming to Australia. (Actually they’ve
announced that it’s no longer the case that Adelaide can’t build them,
and that the they’ll be allowed to put in a thing that nobody seems to
know what to call, before the contract is given to the Japanese under
the free trade deal that’ll lead to jobs, jobs, jobs in whatever part of
the world we’re trading with, and now that we have a free trade deal,
well, what benefits them, benefits us, because we’re all just one happy
free trading partnership where we’ve managed to break down the borders.
Actually, change that to barriers. We want STRONGER borders, but no
barriers to the movement of money, trade and anything else you care to
name, if your donation is big enough.)

So after we’ve had the barnacle clearing, the learning, back to work
Tuesday, more learning, and good government starts today day, we were
treated to the government’s attempt to bury a report by waiting six
months then releasing it late in the day, only to have Tony attack the
Human Rights Commission for all he’s worth (no, actually, probably a bit more than that!) A
report that was apparently partisan against his government, yet Mr
Abbott suggested only minutes later that he was doing the Labor Party a
favour by not following its recommendations, because if he implemented a
Royal Commission “… it would condemn them (the former Labor government).”
Strange that a report that was so ‘blatantly partisan’ report should
also condemn the Labor Government, but, never mind, Abbott’s attack on
Gillian Trigg’s managed to create enough attention that the report
didn’t go the way of so many reports: We’ve got it, thanks, we’ll
read it and get back to you, unless it’s the Gonski Report which
Christopher Pyne refused to read because there were no pictures.

But just to cap off the week, we had the sacking of Phil “Smiley”
Ruddock. Undertaker Ruddock, the Father of the House (do we know who the
mother is?), the third longest serving member ever, Uncle Phil, the
Liberal Party Whip was sacked. Make no mistake, Abbott wasn’t going to
give him the dignity of resigning to promote generational change, or
because he wanted to spend more time nursing a family member’s ingrown
toenail, the PM made it clear that the decision was his. (I don’t think
that he added and his alone, because that may have necessitated another
announcement about how he intended to be more consultative in future,
and people tend to grow a little cynical when you announce the same
intention to change on a weekly basis, instead of the monthly basis that
we’ve grown used to.)

Yep, I’ve heard people argue that the term, “forward progress” is a
tautology, because you can’t have “backward progress”. That, of course,
was before the Abbott Government.

Cheers,

Rossleigh

Tony - In His Own Words Or I Never Realised How Many Things I Agree With!

In "Rossleigh"

Will Tony Abbott's words come back to haunt him?

In "News and Politics"

At What Cost?

In "News and Politics"

The new Abbott, much like the old one, with added aggro –

The new Abbott, much like the old one, with added aggro

Bernard Keane
|

Feb 13, 2015 12:57PM

|

EMAIL

|

PRINT

Abbot told his divided partyroom he wanted to fight Labor.
His conception of the Prime Ministership seems to consist of nothing
more.

A few more days of good government like yesterday and Tony
Abbott will be history. And, again, the problems are entirely
self-generated. Let’s recap:

Abbott called a report showing, among many other horror stories,
that there had been 33 separate incidents of sexual assault of children
in Australian care “blatantly partisan” and said the body that produced
the report should be “ashamed of itself” — the sort of response that
used to characterise Catholic objections to criticism of its handling of
paedophiles, when it would claim sectarian victimisation;
Revealed information about the case of two Sydney men charged with
planning a terrorist attack that police had previously refused to
release, potentially endangering the chances of a conviction of the men;
Completely overturned his previous approach of seeking
bipartisanship and a “Team Australia” approach to the national security
with a deliberate strategy to try to link Labor and its asylum seeker
policies with one of the suspects;
Again failed to explain what process the government would now use to
determine the construction of the new Royal Australian Navy submarine
fleet, insisting the whole thing was Labor’s fault anyway;
Boasted about breaking his commitment to not cut funding to the ABC, saying “frankly, it is just as well we did”;
Failed to articulate what the government’s economic strategy was on the day unemployment surged to a 12-year high; and
As a kind of rhetorical grace note, accused Labor of being responsible for a “Holocaust” of jobs.

It’s clear that Abbott’s path to turning around his
leadership lies in aggression — not merely at Labor, but at anyone
perceived as not on the government’s side, like the Human Rights
Commission or the ABC. This was the path he flagged after he survived
last Monday’s spill motion when he boasted of his capacity to fight
Labor and asked to be allowed to get on with doing that.

But in style, it represents a doubling-down, not a change of
direction. It was Abbott’s aggression that exacerbated the government’s
problems last year: his refusal to accept criticism of the unfairness
of the budget and his insistence it was an example of the “fair go”; his
refusal to accept that he had broken election promises; his attack on
critics of Peta Credlin as sexist; his attacks on the ABC; and most of
all his stubborn refusal to accept any need for change until he came
within a handful of votes of having his leadership spilled.

Out of all the criticisms of Abbott made by his enemies, his
opponents, commentators, his ministers and his backbenchers over the
last 17 months, the lament that he is not being sufficiently aggressive
has rarely featured among them. Aggression is, famously, Abbott’s native
state. As a media adviser he literally shaped up to journalists; as an
MP he would challenge dinner-table interlocutors to step outside; as a
junior minister he gleefully played the role of John Howard’s attack
dog; as opposition leader he brilliantly tore down two prime
ministers — one of them twice.

As prime minister, though, aggression isn’t enough; if
anything, it can be counterproductive. The best leadership teams have a
leader above the fray and a ferocious deputy who does the attacking.
Aggression contains within it possibility of going too far; overstepping
is an occupational hazard of the attack dog, and when the prime
minister is the chief attack dog it means he ends up having to
apologise, as Abbott did yesterday.

Keating, of course, was his own attack dog, but voters also
knew it was in the service of a political and economic vision. To the
extent that voters think they know what Abbott’s political and economic
vision is, they don’t like it. And it’s not clear more aggression is
going to change that. but who knows, perhaps “good government” will
start next week.

Thursday 12 February 2015

Abbott To Re-Scrap Carbon Tax – The Shovel

Abbott To Re-Scrap Carbon Tax

By The Shovel on February 11, 2015

Eager to stamp his authority and set a clear direction for his
Government after the recent leadership scare, Prime Minister Tony Abbott
today outlined plans to abolish the carbon tax again.

“The Australian people gave us a mandate to scrap this toxic tax, and
we’ll continue to keep scrapping it,” Mr Abbott said. “That’s what we
were elected to do, and that’s what we intend to keep doing.

“If you look to our strong record of achievement over the first 18
months, you’ll see we scrapped the tax, and stopped the boats. We plan
to repeat those successes in the second half of our term.

“This is about easing the burden on households and stopping the python squeeze on our economy,” Mr Abbott said.

One Liberal MP said it was reassuring to see the PM had rediscovered
his mojo. “I think he’s found a cause he can really get behind”.

Mr Abbott bristled at suggestions that Government had run out of new
ideas. “Getting rid of a tax that’s already been abolished is certainly a
new idea,” he said.

For more breaking stories, follow The Shovel on Facebook and Twitter or sign up for email updates at the bottom of this page.

Friday 6 March 2015