Many Congratulations, Ma’am: God Save The Queen!

Posted on June 4, 2012 by

Yesterday, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, celebrated 60 years on the throne and her Diamond Jubilee as the constitutional monarch of 16 countries including Australia; her reign has been remarkable, and is second only to Queen Victoria in length.

I would like of course, firstly, to minute my warmest and fondest congratulations to Her Majesty on reaching this milestone; the present Queen is the only monarch I have ever known, being just shy of 40 years of age, and it says much about the constant she has been that even people my parents’ age in their early to mid-60s have little or no memory of her father, King George VI.

As an ardent and lifelong constitutional monarchist I am delighted to be able to see the Queen celebrate this anniversary; common sense dictates that it is unlikely she will be with us long enough to celebrate a Platinum Jubilee in ten years’ time, and so as much as this is a time for festivity and celebration, it is also a time for some reflection. I do wonder in passing if she will live long enough to surpass the reign of Queen Victoria (1837 – 1901) to become the longest-serving monarch  of the realm of all time.

Much has been made — in the United Kingdom, in Australia and elsewhere — of the prospect of one day replacing the present arrangement of a constitutional monarchy with a republic and a President, however so derived. The details vary from place to place but the sentiments are the same; even in Canada, where separatism, not republicanism, is the order of the day in Quebec, and the motivation for those French-Canadians to cut their ties with the hated British and strike out alone in their own, localised version of a Gallic republic.

I believe, and I always have believed, that the best interests of our own country at least lie with the present constitutional arrangements remaining in place, and with Australia eschewing republicanism on an indefinite basis.

Australia, along with New Zealand and Canada, are arguably the most successful of the  former British dominions now thriving as modern, vibrant, successful first-world countries; all are free, fair and tolerant, are democratic and stable, and each boasts its own rigorous identity in the world.

And all retain a system of constitutional monarchy, with the present Queen as Head of State.

Whilst Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, she is also Queen of Canada, Queen of New Zealand, Queen of Australia and so forth in the countries that retain the monarchical system. (Courtesy of one Joh Bjelke-Petersen and his antics in 1973, she is also recognised as “Queen of Queensland,” but that is another matter altogether).

When we look across the puddle to our neighbours in New Zealand, do we accuse those we see of tugging the forelock to Britain? When we consider our friends and allies in the splendid country of Canada, do we regard them as kowtowing to a foreign power? If we look around the world at other nations in the Commonwealth — many of which are of less fortunate circumstance than we in Australia — do we dismiss them as being subservient lickspittle?

Of course we don’t.

Yet this is the vituperative atmospheric of the so-called republican debate that went on in this country during the 1990s; its colourful invective — colourfully prosecuted by Paul Keating — may very well have animated many people, but in the end it was based on a false premise.

As was the entire republican case, based as it was on intellectual untruths, sloppy and misleading legalities, a typical attempt at brainwashing from those to the Left of the political spectrum, and an appeal to the subjective vanities rather than the considered sensibilities of the people republicans sought to coerce away from a constitutional monarchy.

And — shamefully — the republican campaign in Australia only ever organised itself in earnest when the opportunity presented to take advantage of problems within the House of Windsor: prior to 1992, and increasingly since the defeat of the referendum on the subject in 2000, the prevailing mood in Australia has not been typically conducive to serious consideration of abandoning the monarchy.

I remember as a very young boy — perhaps of 6 or 7 — being of the opinion that people called “Sir” had been given something by the Queen because they had done very well and she wanted to reward them; I, too, therefore aspired at that delicate age to what I soon enough learnt was a knighthood.

I remember, too, being mightily pissed off as a 14-year-old with Bob Hawke and his government for rescinding the awarding of knighthoods as part of the so-called reforms enacted in the Australia Act 1986 — and Hawke didn’t just rescind knighthoods for Australians under the British and Commonwealth honours system; he rescinded the provisions in the Order of Australia that allowed the granting of knighthoods under a purely Australian honours system, too.

(The Australia Act 1986 also extinguished the right of Australian citizens to exercise a final legal right of appeal beyond the high Court to the Privy Council: this, too, is something I have always viewed as a legal and moral travesty, but more on that — and the flip side — later).

For so many people, the question of monarchy versus republicanism is one based on affection or otherwise for the House of Windsor and the current monarchy, or on dislike for the British, or on half-baked notions of Australian nationalism behind which there is little or no substance and certainly nothing by way of corroboration except a lot of hot air and noise about an Australian-born Head of State. And about a confused concept of “cutting ties with Britain.”

It isn’t a subject I intend to cover at great length tonight: for one, we’d be here long enough for the Platinum Jubilee to roll around; two, I want to turn my comments back to the Queen; and three, the points I do intend to put on the table here are quite sufficient in terms of backing any republican into a corner with no way out. There are others, but these will do quite nicely for starters.

The first — and most obvious — of these is that we do, very simply, have an Australian Head of State: her name is Quentin Bryce and she is the Governor-General, and vice-regal representative, of Australia.

It seems lost on many that whilst the Queen is indeed the nominal Head of State in Australia, she remains so in a ceremonial capacity only; whilst Sections of the Constitution do certainly confer authority on the Queen to act in certain situations (such as the disallowance of a Bill, which we looked at some months ago in relation to the carbon tax), by convention, the Queen would almost certainly refuse to exercise such authority — even on the advice of her ministers.

If anyone doubts this, they should do some research on the former Governor of Queensland, Sir Colin Hannah — another Bjelke-Petersen stooge — including the circumstances in which she refused Bjelke-Petersen’s request to extend the tenure of Hannah’s commission, and the background and events leading to her refusal to do so.

If you’re a republican, it might be quite illuminating (or disheartening, depending on how one looks at it).

Even the “Labor bastard” who turned on Whitlam — Governor-General Sir John Kerr — did more to legitimise the role of Governor-General as the independent Head of State in Australia (as a link in the chain of a system of constitutional monarchy) than he ever did to legitimise republicanism; his actions set a modern precedent in which the Queen learnt of Kerr’s actions only after his termination of the Whitlam commission took effect, and did not subsequently intervene.

The events of 1975 are often held up by republicans as “evidence” and “conclusive proof” that the monarchy must be abandoned. I’ve never really understood why; no British people, and certainly not the Queen herself, were involved. Kerr’s actions represented a legitimate course within his legal responsibilities; were constitutionally sound and valid; and did exactly as was needed: to break a deadlock between the Houses of Parliament that existed at the time.

The constitution, and the monarchy, were not faulty; and to the extent the constitution may have been perceived as defective, it bears remembering that many Labor heroes at the turn of the century were instrumentally involved in its drafting alongside many conservative figures; if it contained or contains fault, those founding fathers share the responsibility.

The numbers in the Senate had certainly been modified in 1975 — by state Premiers in NSW and in Queensland. Of course, those numbers were used by Malcolm Fraser as he worked to smash the Whitlam government from office. But those actions, also, bear no reflection at all on the monarchy.

If the Labor Party and its acolytes did not like the outcome of 1975 and the Dismissal, that’s another matter altogether. But it is not one of constitutional monarchy.

Perhaps most instructive of all, though, are the lessons that lie in the aftermath of the passage of the Australia Act 1986; cursory they may be, but they offer the greatest pointer of all to the dangers of implementing a republic in this country.

What this Act did — according to its packet directions — was to remove forever the power of the UK Parliament to legislate with effect in Australia; never mind the end of knighthoods, and never mind (for now) about the abolition of access to the Privy Council.

The Australia Act 1986 in short achieved everything the republicans who followed some years later said (and say) they wish to achieve; clearly it is a nonsense to achieve the same thing twice, and so it is necessary to dig a little deeper to see what they really want. It is not necessary to dig very far.

The only real argument remaining open to republicans in any practical sense is the “Australian Head of State” one, with the references to “cutting ties to Britain.”

We’ll come back to ties with Britain later.

As I have already pointed out, we already have an Australian Head of State — the Governor-General — who acts independently of the Queen as a cog in the well-oiled machine that is our system of government within a constitutional monarchy.

Starting with the appointment of Sir Paul Hasluck to the role in the late 1960s by then Prime Minister John Gorton, the Governor-Generalship has been held by an Australian ever since. It is true Malcolm Fraser wanted to appoint Prince Charles to the post in 1982, but for obvious reasons that do not warrant the expenditure of space here, he was very quickly disabused of the idea.

The most obvious symbol of what republicans want — an “Australian President” — may in itself be impossible to realise; as the referendum in 2000 showed, those favouring a directly elected President flatly refused to accommodate those favouring a President chosen by Parliament. So trenchant were the two camps, and so strident their opposition to the other, that this conflict alone is likely irreconcilable.

But even if it were to be resolved, the Australia Act 1986 bequeathed this country a gift on account of its inherent abolition of the right of appeal to the Privy Council.

You see, readers, the highest Court in the land now is the High Court of Australia; and whilst its role is to interpret and adjudicate questions of law, its composition is based solely on the discretion of politicians.

For there to be a vacancy on the High Court, somebody has to die or retire; then, it is a simple question of the government of the day nominating a replacement whose appointment is rubber-stamped by Parliament.

Needless to say, the High Court has — at various times — been levelled with accusations of bias, and usually in favour of whoever has most recently spent an extended period in office at the federal level.

And for those readers who think directly elected judges are a good idea as an alternative, there are certain states in America which do precisely that, and are worldwide advertisements to others not to do anything of the kind.

So what if this system — a “President” elected by Parliament, or directly elected — were to be adopted in place of the Governor-General and a ceremonial monarch?

In short, Australia would be headed by either a political puppet or another politician respectively; the very nature of the role is such that it must be, and be seen to be, apolitical.

True, former politicians have held the post, Hasluck being one, and former ALP leader Bill Hayden another; yet neither discharged their duties in a manner inconsistent with the requirements of the office.

And if you look at the High Court, the record of its rulings and its case history, and analyse these in any detail, then you may be in a position to make a valid call on whether or not you think Australia ought to become a republic.

Because if you don’t like what the High Court has done over the past thirty years, the chances are that you won’t like what becomes of this country if it becomes a republic.

I believe everyone is entitled to their view; I am equally entitled to my opinion — which is the whole point this column exists, and those opinions, if they spark debates as they have done to date, have proven to be of value even to those who may disagree.

I do think republicans are wrong at the most basic and fundamental levels; and for as long as this country’s present arrangements continue, with Parliament operating in a constitutional monarchy, then the better off Australia will be.

This brings me back to the Queen.

This remarkable woman has been a distinguished world leader for decades; modest, dignified, strictly apolitical, she has been a source of advice and counsel for many of her Prime ministers and other Heads of Government (including Australia), and has been a symbol of stability in a world which has, especially in recent years, changed so very much.

She and her family retain great affection for, and great links to, Australia; indeed, the Queen has visited here many times during her reign; the future King Charles even lived in Australia for a time, attending boarding school near Geelong in the 1960s.

And this in turn brings me to that other sacred pillar of republican faith: the “need” to cut ties with Britain.

Why should we ever do that? Modern Australia and modern Britain are very similar in many respects; we share similar societies based on similar systems and traditions, and those societies share the same similar problems that go with them.

Indeed, Britain and the British people are the most like us anywhere in the world; we share similar cultures and ways of life; we are among each other’s most important trading partners; we share common interests, opportunities and threats.

I’m very much in favour of building ties and relationships in Asia, and especially in maintaining and expanding those we enjoy with the United States; but not at the cost of the existing ties and friendships we already have, and never at the expense of those we share with the United Kingdom, and the history and tradition that accompany them.

As for the Queen herself, once the pomp and pageantry and celebration of the Jubilee has subsided, this splendid lady with her well-known preference for simplicity will no doubt enjoy some time privately with those around her, and reflect too on all she has seen in 60 years on the throne; from the young princess thrust into the role after the death of her father when the free world was struggling to recover from its war effort, to the better yet more dangerously complicated place that world is today.

My hat is off to you, ma’am, and I salute you: many, many congratulations on the achievement of your Diamond Jubilee, and long may you reign over us for many years to come.

God Save The Queen!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Romney to Challenge Obama: First Mormon In The White House?

Posted on June 2, 2012 by

With a thumping win in his party’s primary election in Texas, former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney this week wrapped up the Republican nomination and the right to challenge Barack Obama for the US Presidency in November. Can he win?

To pose that question in November 2008 — even rhetorically — would have been to invite ridicule; Barack Obama had just been elected the first ever black President of the United States; elected in a thumping win over a respected elder statesman of the Republican Party, John McCain, and his aberrant running mate, Sarah Palin.

In the aftermath of the presidency of George W. Bush, it seemed the world, to use a tired phrase, was Obama’s oyster: the younger President Bush (the better President Bush) was viewed by his contemporaries as a failure; a renegade whose military misadventures intersected with some of the worst excesses of the US military, and whose presidency ended with a sickening thud in collision with the worst economic slump since the 1930s.

I had been a staunch supporter of “Dubya” since the day in 1998 the then-Governor of Texas announced he would run for the presidency; by the time he left office ten years later he had well and truly lost me, but I have always maintained that history — with the benefit of hindsight and the fullness of time — would judge him far more favourably than his peers did.

And so it has come to pass — not four years later.

Rather than the golden era of fresh hope and aspiration the 2008 result heralded, the Obama years in America have been years of heated debate, bitter dissent, and outright division.

Reforms in education and healthcare have consumed colossal amounts of money, delivered benefit to relatively few people, and left tens of millions of Americans disillusioned; the war in Afghanistan and military operations in the Middle East generally continue apace; the US military is effectively snookered on the question of what to do about Iran and its nuclear ambitions; and US prestige abroad is diminishing as Europe increasingly pursues its own divergent path, China begins to eclipse America economically and strategically, and Russian nationalism and rearmament see that country re-emerge as a power with increasing international influence — if based only on its own self-interest.

These factors and others have created and contributed to the perception of a superpower in decline; indeed, the Obama administration is implementing plans to drastically scale back the size of both its nuclear deterrent and its conventional military forces, and presides over an economy a mere fingertip from falling back into the crevasse of recession, stagnant, barely reformed since the collapse of 2008, and in which jobs aren’t being created and wealth is disappearing.

In short, America is in almost as bad a shape today as it was when Obama assumed the presidency in January 2009; and for the first time in decades the United States’ gaze has turned inward toward a more insular (and some would say isolationist) line.

In the final analysis, the socialist Obama — and that, readers, is what he is — ought to be completely unelectable by now. The fact that he isn’t, and remains a 50-50 prospect for re-election in November, has as much to do with his opponents in the GOP as it does with any lingering remnants of the promise that was the Obama Dream.

Following its hefty defeat in 2008 the GOP turned to the right; if there’s one thing the Republican Party has reliably done every time it has lost office in the last 60 years, it has been to present a far more conservative offering in the wake of its defeat.

This time around it was the “Tea Party;” the so-called party within a party, nominally headed by Sarah Palin, whose goal was to get hardline Republican candidates endorsed and elected as widely as possible across the United States, even at the cost of cannibalising existing GOP representatives in the process.

At the mid-term elections of 2010, Tea Party candidates were moderately, but not resoundingly, successful; yet the Republican Party as a whole regained control of the US House of Representatives, reduced the Democratic majority in the Senate to a whisker, and put Obama on notice that he was in real danger of becoming the first “oncer” since President George H. W. Bush in 1992 and only the second since WWII (Democrat Jimmy Carter being the other in 1980).

What about the other guy?

Mitt Romney is nothing if not persistent: a one-time one-term Governor of Massachusetts and born into something of a political dynasty (his father was Governor of Michigan), it is his second serious run at the Oval Office, having stood four years ago, and in addition to gubernatorial office in Massachusetts, he had also stood for other elective offices previously, most notably against the late Sen Teddy Kennedy in 1994. He lost.

Romney comes to the nomination after a robust primary series; whilst its culmination has proven an anticlimax it was, for many months, bruising.

Frontrunners came and went — Hermann Cain, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, the conservatives Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum all came and faded away — yet Romney ended up the frontrunner of questionability; for whilst he did win several early contests on a simple plurality of votes, the fact Gingrich and Santorum ran second and third, taking 50-60% of the vote between them in many cases — made some of these Romney wins look shallow.

And Romney comes to the nomination with many questions hanging over him too; his record in business — proudly trumpeted as a wealth-creating, job-creating period of dynamism — is widely derided as an illusion by his detractors, who spent much of the primary season looking for holes in Romney’s story and the evidence to substantiate them, and who continue to do so.

If elected, Romney stands to be one of the wealthiest US Presidents of all time, with a net personal worth rumoured to be as high as USD500 million; this is also a point not lost on those seeking to undermine his prospects from within.

Romney is derided by more conservative elements in the GOP as too left-wing, too moderate, and not adequately committed to the core conservative values at the heart of the Republican Party’s base. Indeed, the fact he was Governor in Massachusetts, a state synonymous with the Democratic dynasty of the Kennedys, and with “north-east liberalism” generally, is an undisguised insult and a barb flung at Romney with relish.

He faces even more questions over his role and faith in the Church of Latter-Day Saints of Jesus Christ, better known simply as Mormon; again, many allegations and a lot of material found its way into the media during the primary season, yet on this account the US public — and the world at large — is largely none the wiser.

And so — at the point the nominating contests are over, and the nominating conventions loom ahead of the start of the race proper, the USA finds itself faced with a choice: the great hope who has proven an abysmal failure as President in Obama, and the undeniably clever, telegenic challenger who candidature poses significant and real questions in Romney.

Early polls are a seesaw; some point to Romney, others to Obama. Weighted against each other to eliminate error margin, their results cancel out completely to predict a dead heat.

It’s worth remembering that the best of the candidates from the Republican primaries (Gingrich) and the best candidate the GOP had who didn’t even stand (former Governor of Florida, son of President George Bush Sr and brother of President George Bush Jr, Jeb Bush) have been eliminated from contention; if Romney falls short this time and opts to stand again in 2016 Gingrich is unlikely to face off against him, but Jeb Bush could be expected to, as could defeated 2012 candidate Santorum. This is probably Romney’s first and only opportunity to face the American people in search of the presidency.

As an early tip — barring a scandal (there’s always scope for those to jump out of cupboards) I expect Mitt Romney to win against Barack Obama, albeit narrowly; should this occur, it remains to be seen what sort of President he would make.

As readers know, I would be happier and far more comfortable endorsing Gingrich; in the circumstances, I am not going to endorse either candidate in the coming US election.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, this election shapes as the most mediocre presidential contest since Gerald Ford squared off against Carter in 1976.

I will say, however, that the USA desperately needs to rid itself of the socialist yoke Obama has placed around its neck; what sort of improvement — if any — Romney might represent is for him to now show.

This is a story we will continue to revisit as it unfolds in the coming six months; it is a contest of real importance to the USA at a difficult and perhaps existential crossroads in its history, and it has spillover consequences — good and/or bad — for many, many other countries around the world, and not least here in Australia.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Massacre: Syrian Diplomats Kicked Out Of Australia

Posted on May 29, 2012 by

In the wake of the disgusting massacre of at least 110 people in Syria, most of them women and children, it is pleasing to see Foreign minister Bob Carr move quickly to expel Syrian diplomats from Australia; this type of senseless slaughter cannot and will not be tolerated.

It’s quite a quick post this evening, despite the gravity of the situation that has unfolded; I am irretrievably bogged down in work tonight, and this post is basically my cigarette-and-cup-of-tea time.

The Syrian Chargé d’affaires, Mr Jawdat Ali, was this afternoon given 72 hours to leave Australia by Foreign minister Bob Carr; also expelled was another — unnamed — Syrian diplomat.

The move is in response to the brutal slaughter of scores of Syrian civilians in Houla; a move that has mostly caused worldwide outrage, but typically elicited a splitting of the blame by Syria’s chief ally, Russia.

We have briefly mentioned Russia in the past week or so, with its posturing over mooted military strikes in Iran by Israel and its allies, and its veiled threats of nuclear war if such actions in Iran (or similar actions in Syria) are undertaken by Russia’s strategic rivals.

It is heartening, therefore, to see swift action being taken, here and abroad, despite whatever bellicose rhetoric and threats the Russians see fit to employ.

Our own government has now expelled the peak Syrian diplomatic Corp in this country; somewhat encouragingly, new French President Francoise Hollande has taken the same action in France.

Other nations have similarly responded; meanwhile, the British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, is in Russia and pressing his hosts to intervene in the situation in Syria and to take action to stop the bloodshed.

Not least, no doubt, because the Russians are being so belligerent about anyone else going in and doing it.

Former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan — now an ambassador-at-large for the UN — is in Syria, desperately trying to salvage a peace process he was the architect of designed to stop the bloodshed in Syria and bring the troubled country to some semblance of peace.

I wish I had time to say more tonight, but I don’t; I will however include here a couple of links to coverage in the Australian and overseas press. We may return to this subject tomorrow or later in the week — it depends on how thorough the general media coverage is. At the minimum, however, I think it safe to say that the bloody episode is an outrage — a morally bankrupt, nihilistic outrage.

Clearly, this is not a political issue for analysis and debate; there may well be time for that, but I do think now is the time for strong responses for what can only be described as an unmitigated tragedy.

49 children and 34 women, many blown to bits or shot dead at point-blank range. For fuck’s sake…as brutal as it is, it’s a reminder that there are barbarians in the world; and that once there are people who no longer value life, there are people who no longer value anything.

And that should always be a sobering thought.

I hope the following links are of use/interest to those wishing to read further.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/bob-carr-expels-syrias-man-20120529-1zgwp.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/houla-massacre-consequences-profound-says-un-arab-envoy-kofi-annan/story-e6frg6so-1226371019181

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/323201/UN-Syria-victims-were-executed

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/29/syrian-ambassadors-expelled-britain-france

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/world/middleeast/kofi-annan-meets-with-bashar-al-assad.html?_r=1&hp

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Labor’s Mixed Bag: A Slight Rise, A Slight Fall, And A Plot Growing Thicker To Boot

Posted on May 29, 2012 by

Tonight’s opinion polls are out, and the picture is less than clear; Newspoll finds the ALP gaining, whilst Essential shows the opposite. And behind the scenes, a deal may have been hammered out to toss Julia Gillard overboard irrespective.

After the hype in the mainstream media — and, at least, a mention in anticipation in this column — the Newspoll to appear in The Australian tomorrow doesn’t answer all that many questions about the recent goings-on in Canberra; and to the extent it does, its findings are largely cancelled out by this week’s Essential Research findings.

Newspoll finds the ALP primary vote up two points, to 32%; the Coalition also rising, by a point to 46%; the Greens unchanged on 10%, and “Others” on 12%. On the two-party vote Newspoll sees the Coalition lead narrow to 54-46, from 55-45 two weeks ago.

By contrast, Essential has the Coalition primary vote at 50% (+1%), Labor on 33% (unch), Greens on 7% (unch) and “Others” on 10%. Two-party preferred, Essential places the Coalition lead two points wider from last week at 57-43.

Essential did not ask the leaders’ approval and “preferred PM” questions; those fortnightly items will come in its survey next week.

Newspoll, however, did, and finds approval with Gillard up three points to 30% and disapproval down by the same amount to 60%. Abbott’s figures are 31% (-3%) and 60% (+4%) respectively.

On the “preferred PM” measure, Newspoll finds Gillard (40%, +4%) ahead of Abbott (37%, -3%) for the first time in some months.

So what are we to make of all of this?

The first thing I would say is that readers should treat these figures with caution; for a start, the parties’ support levels after preferences are headed in different directions in the two polls.

It is interesting that both polls record an increase in the Liberal vote, despite the Coalition falling slightly in Newspoll after preferences; and Newspoll, incidentally, has recorded rises in support for the ALP in consecutive surveys for the first time since late last year.

The most obvious observation to make is that Craig Thomson’s explanatory speech in parliament last Monday has had little, if any, impact; were it the political game changer he and some in the Labor Party thought and hoped, the increase in ALP support would have been much stronger than it is, as would the small increase in Gillard’s net satisfaction rating from -36% to -30%.

It has been said, here and elsewhere, at various times over the past eighteen months that there is a lot of flutter in the polls, as clearly there is. I would suggest these results are inconclusive, and probably become even more so when it is considered that the most recent polling prior to this — a Nielsen poll a fortnight ago, showing the Coalition ahead 58-42 — is now too old to corroborate either of these findings.

Mainstream columnists and those to the left of politics will make much of Abbott’s slightly diminished approval ratings, but I would point out that right now — at this exact point in time, with an election-winning lead in hand — it isn’t Abbott who has the problem.

And this brings us neatly to the issue of renewed leadership rumblings inside the ALP.

ALP backroom types have seen this “false dawn” pattern so many times since the 2010 election that they’d be having bets on how much the Coalition’s lead will grow by next fortnight; in short, the party’s performance under Gillard is such that it’s simply a question of how much Labor loses by next year unless something drastic happens.

This Newspoll still has Labor on course to suffer a hefty defeat; not the wipeout its MPs most fear, but something in the order of what happened to Paul Keating in 1996 remains on the cards on these figures.

Under normal circumstances — and certainly if Newspoll is the bible of polling results, which for Labor, it basically is — the conclusion to draw from those numbers would be that Gillard should at least be given a reprieve to see if the improvements continue on a sustained basis.

But these are not normal circumstances.

In any case, Gillard’s history with Newspoll isn’t encouraging; as I have already mentioned, this is the first time she has strung consecutive increases together since October last year.

Which is why I think it will do nothing to stymie the plot, reported today, that factional heavies were close to a deal to ditch Gillard late next month in favour of a return to Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister, with Bill Shorten as his deputy.

Whilst I don’t think a leadership change will make much difference to Labor’s electoral prospects — and it seems inevitable now that a change will occur — it still remains to be seen when and to whom that switch is made.

Indeed, changing to Kevin Rudd could trigger an automatic election, forced on the floor of Parliament, by the resignation of one or more MPs still too incensed by the way Rudd has treated them in the past to be prepared to serve under him.

Either way — be it to Rudd or someone else — it seems the issue of timing has been settled, if chatter around the ALP and leaks to journalists are a guide: Gillard will be asked to step down at the end of the next parliamentary session (late next month), and if she won’t go voluntarily, she’ll be blasted out in a ballot.

I guess the plotters have some homework to do in the next few weeks to ensure they have their sums right.

Make no mistake, a change is highly unlikely to restore the ALP’s fortunes. But that party is now so desperately panic-stricken that any move that may save an extra five or ten seats, heading into opposition, becomes irresistible in many respects.

Irrespective of one small rise in Newspoll’s recorded support for Labor.

It’s going to be a long week in politics…we will see what we will see.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Mutterers Mutter: Labor Party Leadership Brawl, Round 2

Posted on May 28, 2012 by

“People don’t like her; they don’t trust her; they don’t believe anything she has to say; and they certainly don’t support her.” These were my comments on Julia Gillard, after the first ALP leadership brawl in February. It now seems the second is about to start.

It was only a matter of time; in the three months since Julia Gillard decisively beat Kevin Rudd by 71 votes to 31 the ALP has lurched from crisis to crisis, with opinion polls stubbornly pointing to a landslide Coalition win at the looming election, and the Prime Minister either unwilling or unable to deal with even the simplest of the multitude of problems and scandals affecting her government.

Reports have appeared this weekend — across the mainstream media — that government whip Joel Fitzgibbon is openly canvassing his caucus colleagues for a return by Kevin Rudd to the Labor leadership.

At the time of her win in February, I wrote that the caucus vote was not an endorsement of Gillard, but an emphatic rejection of Rudd; I still believe that to be the case, and this opens some interesting possibilities. But more on those later.

Despite the lengthy list of the Labor Party’s woes in just the three months since the last caucus ballot, it seems the catalyst for the renewed outbreak of tension centres on a decision — authorising mining magnate Gina Rinehart to import 1700 foreign workers, made by Immigration minister Chris Bowen and Resources minister Martin Ferguson — which has elicited outrage from the union movement.

Gillard was purportedly unaware of the aware of the decision prior to its announcement, and is believed to have further inflamed tensions by publicly saying so in an attempt to mollify union leaders with an assurance Australians will be offered the jobs first.

In so doing, the perception is that the two ministers — who both voted for Rudd in February — have been hung out to dry.

And in what can be seen partially as a defence of the government and partially as a defence of the arrangement with Rinehart, Climate Change minister Greg Combet was quoted in today’s Herald Sun, in Melbourne, urging colleagues to “stay calm” about the plan, thus:

“Have a look at the facts…we have unemployment under 5% nationally. The labour market is fairly tight…particularly in WA. Interest rates are coming down, inflation is under control. We’re delivering budget surpluses, the economy is very strong.”

Combet is right — insofar as Western Australia is concerned. But the rest of his analysis doesn’t stack up.

Interest rates are falling simply because the overall economy is at a near-standstill, and rates had been kept too high for too long in an economy that is near stall point rather than “very strong;” overall inflation may be low but cost of living items are rocketing; and it is already accepted that the pencil-thin surplus announced in this month’s budget will be a further deficit of at least $5 billion.

His analysis unwittingly sums up one of the key problems facing this government: the economy is actually in the toilet. Take away the mining sector — as we have discussed many times now — and what is left it heavily in recession and haemorrhaging money to the point foreign borrowings by government are running at $100 million per day.

Add in the scandals that simply won’t go away, Julia Gillard’s inability to get a grip on anything or to sell a message, the horrific opinion polls and the overall perception of dishonesty, unaccountability and so forth, and there is a tinderbox sitting right there, waiting for a spark.

Now it has arrived; the Rinehart announcement and the predictable response from union types has given dissident forces in the ALP the pretext to strike the match.

Fitzgibbon — in his role, nominally a spearhead for support of, and a barrier to moves against, a party leader — was also Defence minister under Rudd who was sacked early in the government’s first term; a Gillard supporter in the last ballot, he is believed to have recently shifted his allegiance away from her.

Fitzgibbon is reported to be quite open in his pitch for change in the Labor leadership, telling colleagues that ”We need to make the switch. This chaos is killing us” and proffering the opinion that the government needed to move to “an election footing.”

Yet when the story broke, Fitzgibbon responded cryptically via Twitter, saying “I thank my colleagues for the publicity but no one does more to support the PM and the Government than me!”

This, of course, can be interpreted in one of two ways.

Gillard — publicly at least — has chosen to accept it as a reiteration of support, saying Fitzgibbon’s words “speak for themselves” and suggesting that ”I’ll be happily leading Labor to the next election.”

But happily — or otherwise — Fitzgibbon’s tweet denies nothing; and crucially, it does not rule out the counting of the numbers, canvassing of colleagues, or any of the other subterranean activities normally associated with the planning of a leadership coup.

Rudd and the people around him are, unsurprisingly, keeping their heads down and themselves out of sight, which is to be expected after the bollocking he received in the February ballot, and the undertakings he was obliged to provide in the aftermath of that event.

Rudd won’t put his head above the parapet until a) he is certain it is safe to do so, and b) he stands a realistic chance of regaining the leadership.

And there is apparently a timeframe on all of this: unnamed sources have said that just prior to the commencement of the winter recess — late next month — would be ideal, as it would give a new leader time to get established, make changes to the government, and begin the process of winning back public support.

And, presumably, to have a couple of months’ clear air without the threat of an immediate election being forced on him: even if someone spits the dummy and resigns from Parliament, such a leader would still be safe in office until Parliament reconvenes.

So what does all of this mean in practical terms?

For starters, it means that in addition to the daily and residual crises that have consumed this government for so long and rendered it dysfunctional, there will henceforth be constant leadership tension, bickering and infighting for the foreseeable future.

Whether the activities ascribed to Fitzgibbon in the media are being undertaken or not, the effect of these developments will be, at the minimum, to set in train within the ALP caucus a more concerted attempt by the Prime Minister’s detractors to get rid of her.

If and when those activities come to pass, and if and when they bear fruit, it is by no means certain that Kevin Rudd will be the candidate around whom they coalesce; despite the popularity he enjoys with sections of the electorate and in spite of a small number of caucus votes switching to him from Gillard, the fact remains that a large number of his colleagues simply refuse to deal with him on any level whatsoever.

Despite the public bravado, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that inside the government the mood is one of near-panic, with many MPs fearful that almost all of them face the prospect of wipeout at an election — even those in “safe” seats — and that election, now, is just over a year away from being called if on schedule.

So, here we go again: don’t expect anything to happen too quickly, but it will happen; in the meantime, the undignified spectacle of the Labor Party tearing itself apart is about to recommence with gusto.

A first pointer will be tomorrow night’s Newspoll for The Australian; the last Newspoll showed a slight improvement for Labor, but over the past 18 months every slight improvement in the ALP vote in Newspoll has been swiftly followed by a further collapse in support.

And that is where we will reconvene tomorrow night — assuming Monday’s events don’t throw up something else more worthy of discussion in the interim.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Fee-Free ATMs For Aborigines: Wayne Swan Gets It Wrong Yet Again

Posted on May 26, 2012 by

He’s done it again…Wayne Swan has provided more evidence, were any required, of how out of touch he is with community values; 76 ATMs in remote aboriginal communities will — from December — no longer charge transaction fees. The rest of the country, of course, will just keep paying.

An article appeared in the Fairfax press today, outlining the plan in which the 76 machines — spread across three states and the NT — will no longer charge customers for making withdrawals, balance enquiries, or other ATM transactions that otherwise would attract a fee.

These machines are located in some of the remotest aboriginal communities; often the inhabitants are poor, and have no choice of ATM provider when checking balances and whether benefits have been deposited and, if so, accessing those funds.

The plan sounds great: I’m sure it will make a great difference to aborigines in these towns who are more or less cut off from society.

And for the record, I am very happy for aborigines to have the benefit of this arrangement; it will save them a little money, and give them the sense of having a small win over the banks.

Yet this sort of thing makes me really angry; egotistical bubble of self-importance and Treasurer Wayne Swan — not content with his recent achievements in slugging it to “the rich” in the federal budget — is hailing this as a win for consumers. The scheme is being implemented by the banking sector on the recommendation of a joint Treasury and Reserve Bank task force.

Commenting on the scheme with Indigenous Affairs minister Jenny Macklin, Swan said: ‘‘Indigenous people and residents living in very remote communities often rely on a single ATM located in a community store owned by an independent ATM company to access their cash and check their account balance.’’

And The Age reports that thirteen banks and two independent ATM companies would do away with ATM transaction fees for their customers in “identified remote indigenous communities.”

I reiterate that I think it’s great that aborigines have got this deal; with some luck it will save them some inconvenience and a little money as they go about their lives.

The thing that incenses me about this announcement is that for tens of millions of Australians, this delivers nothing at a time of economic uncertainty and rocketing cost of living pressures; and it confirms Swan’s status — in the words of mining magnate Clive Palmer — as an economic pygmy when it comes to Swan’s dealings with the major banks on behalf of consumers.

Australia’s banks are raking in billions and billions of dollars in profits every year, and much of this comes directly out of the pockets of ordinary domestic consumers.

Many of these people are sensitive to movements in official interest rates, and the impact this has on their residential mortgages.

Over the past couple of years, they have grown accustomed to a few stern words being directed by Swan at the banks whenever they keep part of a cut, or pass on more than an official rise; but never more than that, and certainly never any action.

Now Swan comes out, all smiles, with a deal to abolish all ATM fees — for a few outback towns with perhaps, sight unseen, ten or twenty thousand people between them.

You see, the fact that it is aboriginal communities getting this deal — set up and brokered by Swan and his department — is unimportant on one level; it still leaves millions of people who will be slugged for using an ATM of any provider other than their own bank.

And can I just make the very obvious point that at times, even in urban areas, and even in places like here in inner Melbourne, people are often forced to pay ATM fees for the same reason — there is only one machine located within a reasonable distance.

Try getting money out at the MCG if you’re a Westpac customer — and try avoiding NAB’s withdrawal fee. There is no other machine within a 20 minute walk. It’s just an example, but by no means irrelevant or specious.

But on another level, the fact that it is aborigines receiving this deal is significant: it’s significant in the conceited little story the Labor government, through Swan where money is concerned, is attempting to construct, tell, and sell.

If you’re aboriginal; disabled; on welfare; a migrant; or from any other minority and/or disadvantaged group, this government is good at telling stories.

And as Swan proved in his recent budget, he too is adept at telling such stories.

There was a lot of fanfare about the ALP’s National Disability Insurance Scheme, with an impressive-sounding $1 billion aimed at the 400,000 Australians with permanent disabilities; the only catch is that in two years’ time — halfway through the period to which that money applies — just 5% of those 400,000 people are expected to have access to it.

So it is with this equally impressive-sounding, but similarly empty gesture aimed at aborigines; there are many, many indigenous people in this country who don’t live anywhere near 26 towns flung across three states and a territory who will get nothing from this, and a large number of those people have far more urgent needs of assistance than saving $2 at the local ATM.

You only have to get in a car and drive less than a mile or so from the centre of major regional towns like Broome, and Dubbo, and Kalgoorlie, to see aboriginal kids with their empty spirit bottles and petrol cans, passed out on the side of the road, to know that $2 at an ATM is the last thing they need.

These are just two examples among many that Swan and his colleagues have notched up in four and a half years in government.

And whilst a very small number of people will get some limited benefit from this latest initiative — just like the so-called NDIS — I would say to people in those groups and in those communities that far from helping you, this government is exploiting you; far from championing your issues and your causes, this government is tokenising them.

To the rest of the people who live in this country — who are being gouged at one end with usurious fees and charges, and ripped off at the other by the rocketing price of everyday essentials — a Treasurer who can’t stand up to the banking sector over interest rate rises, when it is pocketing billions of dollars in exactly the type of transaction fees he is trumpeting the waiver of in the initiative outlined here, is a joke.

Sadly, the fee-free ATMs for the rural communities involved present just another photo opportunity, just a little more spin and empty media space, and just another reason to send a press release; the official story is that the government is “helping,” but the reality is rather different.

And if anyone wants to defend Swan, or the government, over this latest half-baked initiative — saying “at least it’s a start” or something similar — I would respond very strongly that this is not “a start:” it’s just a stunt.

But then again, with this government and this Treasurer, it’s always just a stunt.

 

Comments must keep to the point; anything racist will be deleted as soon as I see it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

67-33 To LNP: Queensland Galaxy Poll Another Portent Of Labor’s Looming Extermination

Posted on May 26, 2012 by

Just when things couldn’t get much worse for the Labor Party, a new Galaxy poll in Queensland has that state’s LNP government leading the ALP by a 67-33 margin after preferences. This isn’t just any state poll. This is a sign of the putrefaction that will soon kill federal Labor.

Two months after scoring the most emphatic election win in Australian political history, the LNP government of new Premier Campbell Newman is gaining support; a Galaxy poll published today in the Courier-Mail shows a swing of nearly 4% to the conservatives since the election in March.

Whilst it is customary for governments to race ahead in the early opinion polls following an election win, this is a little different in that Newman’s election results represented the highest levels of support ever achieved.

It makes me think that whilst there is obviously a very deep reservoir of good will — and hope — invested in Newman and his team, their increasing support numbers are being fuelled by something else. It doesn’t take much to guess what that might be.

Primary support for the LNP in Queensland is now running at 54% (up 4.3% since the March election); support for the ALP has dwindled to a meagre 23% (-3.7%); Greens are up 2.5% to 10%; Bob Katter’s crowd has fallen 4.5% to 7%; and “Others” are on 6%.

After preferences are allocated, this represents a whopping 34-point lead on the two-party measure with the LNP ahead, 67% (+3.9%) to 33% (-3.9%). It is the only time — in more than 25 years of following this stuff — that I have ever seen a party whose lead on the two-party support index is bigger than the actual support figure registered by its opponent.

And in a world now far, far away from the one sullied by Anna Bligh and her Labor machine’s filthy campaign and despicably dishonest slurs against Newman, he leads his opponent — new Labor leader Annastacia Palaszczuk — by 72% to 15% on the “better Premier” measure.

Newman’s figures are as good — if not better — than those recorded by former Labor Premier Wayne Goss in his heyday in the early 1990s.

In terms of individual support, Newman is favoured by 64% of voters, with just 19% disapproving; Palaszczuk has carded a reasonable result in her first outing, with 38% of respondents approving of her early performance, 18% disapproving, and 46% undecided.

Again, now the air has cleared over the cesspool of a campaign conducted by the Queensland ALP, Newman’s figures on this score too have recovered as voters finally mark him solely on his own merits, and as presented.

Palaszczuk’s score is one she should take mild encouragement from, but no more; the undecided column is always bloated when a new leader is polled, but the 46% figure she records on this measure is probably also in part the result of Queensland voters being very wary of Labor Party offerings on any level at present.

Indeed, just as her approval rating may grow, these undecideds can just as easily flow the other way; and Palaszczuk could find herself with a negative net approval rating — and a colossal problem of her own — in the space of a few months.

It’s a salient point, because I don’t actually think this poll has terribly much to do with Queensland politics at all. Obviously those north of the Tweed River remain satisfied with their choice of nine weeks ago, and the figures are all pretty much exactly where I would expect them to be at this early stage of the three-year cycle in the Sunshine State.

All of the figures, that is, except the two-party measure and — to a lesser degree — the primary vote figures.

A 67% two-party support level (even remembering this is just a poll, not an actual election result) is unheard of; even the biggest election win on this measure prior to Campbell Newman’s triumph — coincidentally also in Queensland, under Joh Bjelke-Petersen in 1974 — saw a 63-37 split that Newman’s LNP fractionally bettered.

The ALP has done what any heavily beaten party that is new to opposition could be expected to do, which is next to nothing; and whilst Newman has been a ball of energy, his headline achievements — axing a literary competition and pruning the public service, balanced by the abolition of some government hospitality perks and a mothballing of the state’s private jet — hardly warrant such a large swing so soon on the back of such a thumping victory.

I think that what this poll is picking up is an early whiff of the public mindset now being directed at federal Labor in light of the events of the past week or so in Canberra.

Sure, Queensland was bad for the federal ALP in 2010, and has long promised to be a catastrophe for it at the next election; the ALP has been consistently on track to record a result of about 38% in Queensland federally, and a 33% figure — if translated to a federal election — would see it lose every seat it holds in Queensland.

It wouldn’t just lose those seats, either; the most marginal of them after such an election, if the swing were uniform, would be Kevin Rudd’s current seat of Griffith, which would go to the LNP on a new margin of about 5%. Seats like Treasurer Wayne Swan’s electorate of Lilley would be safely held by the LNP on margins above 10%.

Obviously, no federal election is going to be won by Abbott’s Coalition on a 67-33 margin. But extrapolating the additional swing to the LNP in this state-based poll to a federal result would see a movement of about 4% to the Coalition after preferences from its medium-term polling averages, which in turn translates to a 61-39 result for Abbott.

On those numbers — a 10.9% swing to the Liberals on the 2010 result — Labor would win just 31 seats, with its vote so weak that Green Adan Bandt and Independent Andrew Wilkie would likely be re-elected in Melbourne and Denison respectively. The Liberals and Nationals would win the remaining 117 seats, and an overall majority of 84.

It would be a bloodbath that would make the trouncing Gough Whitlam experienced in 1975 look like a fairly solid result.

We will see what the coming weeks and months bring; after all, there is still some way to go until the next scheduled election, and of course — proverbially speaking — literally anything can happen in the meantime.

But that 4% swing to the state LNP in Galaxy’s findings bothers me…it’s not as if Newman’s government isn’t doing a good job, or what it was elected to do, because it is; rather, I just think that inflation of support is being coloured by events elsewhere, and the obvious place to point the finger is at an emerging new trend away from the Gillard government and the various woes and disasters it represents.

If that trend is confirmed, then Labor isn’t just headed for defeat, but toward near-extermination; and Queenslanders will have been the first to show the way.

What do you think?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments