My thoughts on the latest policy announcement from Howard are over at New Matilda’s PollieGraph.
The onus is on Labor to make the case for better targeted spending. Strangely enough, making a case used to be part of election campaigns. Is it just me that is flummoxed by the fact that the automatic expectation of everyone is that every single promise will be â??matchedâ?? instantly by either side? And that itâ??s somehow political death not to do that? Itâ??s most odd, but then the collective memory of much of the commentariat seems to prove the old adage that a week is a long time in politics.
It might take a double dissolution election before we start seeing major policy differences between the two parties.
Rudd is often attacked by the commentariat for being all style, no substance. Maybe that’s what they think the voters want – conservatism in substance, but without the race-baiting, culture warrior style.
Rational public sphere is a lofty ideal these days, ain’t it. Good piece though.
Getting loftier and loftier by the day, dk.au. A balloon floating up to the stratosphere!
Cheers!
Yes, the campaign is looking more and more like some cruddy poker game between a few blokes, with the rest of us as mere bystanders.
Howard lunges in confidently with a huge stake of tax cuts, and Rudd calmly matches and raises with an education revolution. The National Press Club raises Rudd with a dodgy feed cut, and Laurie Oakes walks away from the table in disgust at the underhand cheating. Costello’s debating hand next, but he is short on court cards for his straight run, so watch out for the rookie Swan who is probably sitting on a social dividend flush…
the quality of the electioneering is carefully matched to the understanding of the electorate.
once you agree to take what you are given, you will be given as little as possible. one consequence of the lack of democracy is a degraded people, ignorant of politics, and not much interested, because it is outside their control.
effectively, ozzies are slaves in the way that sheep are: fed and watered when it benefits their masters, fleeced and butchered- when it benefits their masters.
here in oz, politics in public is little more than australian idol for suits.
Ross Gittins has a depressing, but accurate, piece on just this in today’s SMH.
It reminds me of the Rugby World Cup – two teams trying desparately not to lose. The rules now work against risk-taking and adventure in attack, so they just rely on defence and a kicking game.
I actually think Rudd would have been onto a winner if he had paid only half the Howard governmnet’s $34 billion in tax cuts and invested the other half in education, health and infrastructure.
Instead, he played safe, narrowed the differences between the two even further and left most of use who care for decent policy uninspired.
I should have added that a lot of this expectation about each and every promise being matched by the other side under threat of instant electoral death is fed by a lazy media.
The shortening news cycle requires the angle on every news event to be ‘rejigged’ after a few hours, to the extent that most people are hearing the response before they assimilate the news that it is based on.
This has now got to the point in journalism that the scribblers feel the urge to “throw forward” even when there isn’t a response. For example…
“Labor leader Kevin Rudd is coming under increasing pressure to match the Coalition’s handouts to pensioners as John Howard steals back the momentum in the election campaign.”
Who’s the pressure coming from? The journos themselves, of course, who need the cycle to move on because they’re bored with the last piece of news or are under pressure from their editors to come up with something new.
This is why politics turns into a tennis match, or a World Cup rugby kicking duel where two fullbacks aimlessly punt the ball back and down the field while the rest of the players stand around in the middle watching it fly overhead.
I should add that it doesn’t help that the political leaders have a lot of former journos on their staff, who manage issues with an eye to the news cycle.
Perspective from the point of view of some-one who will actually get the pensioner hand out. And from point of view of a disabled pensioner.
Gee, thanks, Mr. Howard. Why did I have to wait so f***ing long and how do I know this is not a non-core promise?
Apart from which, flattering though it is to turn overnight from non-deserving poor into deserving poor, I’m still very pissed off at not getting anything in the last budget, and I want that top up in my bank account before the election.
Aw! Piss off, Ratty, you’re never going to get my vote, and I’m safe because I’m so sick that not even you can touch me unless you scrap the disability pension entirely. I seem to remember some time ago that was your policy. And you think I’m stupid enough to believe you now. Like I said, PO Ratty!
Some good points, Mr Denmore.
That is an excellent piece from Gittins. Sadly I suspect he’s very close to the mark.
Getting back to the old codgers’ policy:
Over at Rage and Enthusiasm I have put my views on Howard’s lollies in the pocket “policy”.
There are only two elements in the statement: the rest is self-congratulatory rhetoric and an attack on the Labor Party’s statements on older Australians.
The substantive aspect has two elements: increasing the utilities allowance from $107 to $500 and extending its coverage to Disability Support Pensioners and Carers and some self-funded retirees. The other element is to make the Seniors Health Card available to more self-funded retirees and extending its benefit to $500.
The illusionists other trick is to announce â??that, if living costs for pensioners increase faster than general inflation or wages, pensions will be topped up to ensure pensioners are fully compensated for increases in the cost of living.â??
Usage of some services might increase, but on the whole costs are the same for pensioners, self-refunded retirees, middle-aged workers and teenagers, other than those concessions covered by pension benefits. Indeed transport, entertainment and some other services commonly have concessional rates and the Seniors Card provides some minimal doscounts [usually only 5%].
So, this statement is largely lollies in the pocket and no forward thinking. In 3 years a mass of baby boomers reach retirement age and this is all Howard can offer?
Rudd’s we’ll-look-at-the-costs response was, therefore equally pathetic.
Lollies in the pocket is a nice metaphor, Jim. The old adage of ‘give a man a fish and you’ll feed him dinner, teach him to fish and you feed him for life’ comes to mind, too.
Christine Milne has written about this at greensblog, too.