BILL SHORTEN has spent 18 months emerging as the orchestrator-in-chief of a destructive, arguably anti-democratic bloc whose chief objective is to facilitate a change of government through behaviour designed to profit from damage to Australia’s long-term interests by explicitly exacerbating that damage — damage largely caused by a Labor government to begin with. Now, he has effectively signed his own political death warrant.
Continuing to be compromised significantly by time restraints as I am and intending to post this evening after the delivery of the budget, this morning’s post is a brief one: and for once, by “brief,” I mean just that.
What time I have had available this week for publishing articles has been (belatedly) devoted to the electoral contest in the UK: with British politics an obsession I have nevertheless indulged on my own time I have been too busy to share my thoughts with readers as extensively as I would have liked, and of course the big issues of late have included things like the Bali Nine executions and the unforgivable disgrace that was the Belle Gibson juggernaut hitting its inevitable brick wall in stunning fashion.
But with the budget now hours away, one issue I have held over from last week centres on the conduct — or, ethically and morally, the misconduct — of Bill Shorten as a so-called “leader,” and his determination to force a change of government at literally any cost.
Now, with emerging evidence that Shorten has decided to attempt to block the Abbott government’s latest budget lock, stock and barrel — before it is even fully revealed to the public, it seems — Shorten’s antics have gone too far, and transcend anything he (or anyone else) might hold aloft as the mere emulation of the “Dr No” strategy prosecuted by Tony Abbott himself as leader of the opposition prior to September 2013.
Abbott did not gamble with Australia’s welfare and best interests prior to becoming Prime Minister, although I still think the reprehensible trap foisted on the Liberal Party by Julia Gillard in the form of a disability insurance scheme costed at over $20 billion per year to run was an act of stupidity he and his colleagues stand condemned for submitting to, and which is a sleeper issue designed to sabotage the prudent management of Australia’s finances from the middle of the next decade.
And by virtue of the Senate dominance then enjoyed by Labor and their cohorts at the
Communist Party Greens, the Coalition in opposition was not able to sabotage Labor’s legislative program.
Yet in today’s world, Labor — plus the Greens, along with a handful of truly objectionable MPs (who might be seen to mostly dwell either inside the Palmer United Party or adjacent to its exit chute) — have made it their business simply to wreck, to sabotage, to derail, and to gamble with Australia’s future security.
A government debt pile now sits at some $400 billion and is growing fast, eliciting warnings of downgrades to the country’s credit rating — something Shorten is already positioning to use against the government despite such action almost certain to result from Labor’s antics on his watch.
And finally, Shorten isn’t interested in what’s in tonight’s budget: good or bad, responsible or not, the Labor approach is to reject it as extensively as possible without giving it any due consideration at all — irrespective of whatever public protestations to the contrary Shorten and/or his colleagues might engage in.
I think Shorten has signed his own political death warrant: and finally, the ammunition required to destroy his tenure as Labor leader appears to have been handed to the Coalition on a platter.
Of course, the prospect of the government being able to utilise it to get rid of a dangerous economic vandal is another matter, and we will revisit it in the next couple of days.
But today’s post is simply a teaser: Shorten was on my radar anyway, and the arrival of budget day has merely delayed the intended demolition of him I sought to undertake in this column.
Now, however, his continued irresponsibility calls into question his political legitimacy altogether, and I think — once the dust from the budget has settled — that readers will find it almost impossible to refute the case that not only has Bill Shorten gone too far in gambling with Australia’s interests for political profit, but that in doing so his party is faced with the unpalatable imperative to get rid of him as quickly as possible — ironically enough, for its own political benefit, if for no sounder or more principled reason.
I will be back again this evening to comment on the budget.