It was recently suggested in comments here by Paulus that progressives should be welcoming Brendan Nelson’s leadership:
But on the other hand, he’s probably the most left-wing leader the Libs have had in living memory, and he’s not playing anything like the role Howard played on culture and symbolic issues. At least for his stance on Kyoto and the Stolen Generation, I’d have thought he’d have got a smidgen of respect from LP people for reversing the Libs’ move to the right. But apparently not.
The points about Kyoto and the Apology were adequately answered on that thread, but Nelson provides evidence every day that he’s very far from having walked away from John Howard’s cultural crusades. Whether or not he’s a captive of his party here, I wouldn’t venture to say, but it’s basically irrelevant because if that were true, what we’d be talking about would be weak leadership.
Over the last twenty-four hours, we’ve seen the Liberals delay the passage of legislation designed to give same sex couples legal equality. Why?
Liberal MP Stuart Robert warned that by replacing references to a “marital relationship” with a “couple relationship” in the super laws, it may “slowly chip away at the institution of marriage”.
Taken to its logical extreme, de factos should have no rights at all on this reasoning. But of course, it’s not straight de factos they’re talking about. And yet we’re assured the Liberal Party is not pandering to extremist religious groups or displaying homophobia?
This story has actually been getting more play than Nelson’s latest risible intervention in the Budget debate. He claims there is a “petrol tax windfall” of $1 billion which should immediately be “given” to pensioners. There isn’t one anyway, and I think Lindsay Tanner has pinged the complete lack of any policy seriousness from the Nelson-led opposition:
“Dr Nelson is an Australian Peronist,” Mr Tanner said, referring to the former Argentinian populist and nationalist leader Juan Peron. “He’s somebody who just wants to hand money around for cheap popularity, irrespective of the wider fiscal and economic consequences.”
And there’s a cost to their grandstanding on the same sex equality bills as well, which they’re claiming they want to extend to “interdependent couples”:
The Herald can also reveal the Coalition’s plan to extend same-sex equality legislation to such interdependent couples as siblings or carers would blow another $1.8 billion hole in the budget. The figure is an internal estimate by the Coalition, which is going to delay the legislation by sending it to a Senate committee.
The legislation proposes extending such financial rights to gay couples so that one would be able to inherit a public service pension or death benefit if the partner died.
If the amendment is adopted, it would cause a cost blow-out.
So what do we have here? A complete absence of principle? Stuffing over same sex couples to make a point about deserving carers, who presumably drive Tarragos with a wheelchair in the back? Whatever is going on in the weird counsels of the Liberal Party, it’s nothing about either genuine compassion or policy responsibility. It’s all about trying to buy a headline, and a few points on a meaningless preferred PM number in the next Newspoll. I think you could actually make a case that Brendan Nelson is the most disastrous Liberal leader we’ve ever had if you believe that a responsible opposition is a core part of our parliamentary democracy.
Actually Kim – it’s pretty smart of Nelson (even if he got the absolute numbers wrong). The lack of any thought whatsover for pensioners in the recent budget provides a major attack point. If the Government is picking up unexpected revenue from high fuel prices, if they’re not going to return it via excise cuts, then why not give it to pensioners. Nelson adds to recent Rudd woes which he opened himself up to with his silly ‘we’ve done all we can’ statement.
Rudd has been put completely off balance by that remark – and he’s been funbling around ever since. He had to react to the Nelson 5c fuel cut with his own tax-on-tax review and fuel watch debacle, then he got so unbalanced that he lashed out at the public service and a ‘revolting’ 13 yr girl.
Nelson’s keeping the barbs coming – which is exactly what you expect a good opposition leader to do. He’s going up in my estimation (from a low base!).
Err, because the budget is not some big kitty jar where coins can be flung around to deserving types? There’s a reason why we have phrases like “macro-economic policy” and “fiscal policy” even if Nelson hasn’t learned it.
In any case, pensioners are $900 better off next financial year and the promise of re-examining the basis for pension indexation is a much more sound basis for improving living standards then one-off handouts.
And Emo Man has just decided lesbian and gay people aren’t deserving, I suppose.
But, really, it’s a ridiculous way to govern the country – decide who’s “needy” (or who might be a powerful demographic electorally) and fling cash at them!
“Nelson’s keeping the barbs coming – which is exactly what you expect a good opposition leader to do. He’s going up in my estimation (from a low base!).”
Not sure that this is absolutely true, Andrew. I remember when Bracks was in Opposition, he didn’t get stuck into Kennett. He got a lot stick about looking weak because of this. But what he did, was keep putting out policy. And it worked.
Admittedly, Kennett and Rudd are very different opponents, but constant carping about a newly elected PM may not be the way to go.
Fiscally, at least, the ugly side of the Liberal Party doesn’t give a shit about how left-wing Nelson is. They wanted social conservatism, and because he’s prepared to give it to them, Nelson got the gig rather than Turnbull.
We saw this playing out in Nelson’s embarrassing, mealy-mouthed reply to the apology, and it’s happening again with the entitlements of same-sex couples.
In government, the story from the Coalition was that equality was too expensive. However the 2008 budget papers revealed that there was actually a windfall for the government in granting same-sex couples the same rights (and obligations) as opposite-sex de facto couples.
Now in opposition, they are willing to incur a $1.8 billion cost in order to quarantine same-sex pairings away from marriage.
Fiscal responsibility has never been a consideration in the Coalition’s policies on same-sex rights. It’s visceral, primitive homophobia, and the bastards don’t care what it costs to keep it going.
Word, woulfe!
I’d just add that they don’t care about fiscal responsibility at all now – they’re not even trying to maintain some pretence of having any sort of macro-economic policy – just suggesting tossing money around as they see fit – and blithely blowing holes in the budget. I think this is actually the logical extension of Howardianism.
I can also feel a double dissolution coming on.
Kim – that’s exactly what the budget is. Income in from taxes and redtributing it to ‘deserving types’ – your definition of deserving types is probably different from mine! Governments should not be in the business of hoarding larger and larger surpluses. If they get a windfall – it should be returned or spent on better services. I’d prefer that it was distributed back to tax-payers, but Nelson has seen a chance to jump on Rudd’s perceived pensioner snub in the budget.
Rudd looks completely off-balance since his ‘we’ve done all we can’ comment and Nelson is sensibly (from an opposition perspective) keeping him unbalanced.
Fine – it certainly wasn’t the way to go early in Ruddster’s reign, but he’s had an attack of the wobbles in the last two weeks. When they wobble in politics – it’s usually a good idea to keep on pushing.
You’re just proving my point, Andrew. Do you think that the surplus has no relationship with inflation and interest rates?
Kim “blithely blowing holes in the budget” – that’s completely wrong.
1) The budget is in massive surplus – where’s the hole?
2) The tax windfall on high petrol prices is over and above the budget surplus – it’s a surplus on a surplus!
I’m referring to the Libs’ opposition to the alcopops tax, the means test on solar, the medicare threshold changes and now – this latest move. Add all that up and you’re looking at a surplus much smaller than what is projected now. Not to mention that “returning” surpluses to households for consumption is by definition inflationary.
Andrew – you’re a captive of the MSM mate.
Have a gander at a first source once in a while and get back to us on those ‘wobbles’ you’ve observed.
Apparently no one thought they were significant enough to even think about changing their vote – check the latest Newspoll; Again – the actual poll, not the interpretations. Please don’t bother with the PPM figure. I’ll dig up plenty of long term polling to point out the effect of that on voting intention if you must. Last time I looked the PM was the leader of the most popular party – it’s not the other way ’round.
Have a look at Hansard today for a quick and simple demolition of the Nelson petrol GST surplus – there are plenty of on-line demolitions that go further.
Please advise why pensioners are doing it any tougher than the rest of the population and compare and contrast the in the pocket variation between this budget and the last.
If barbs is all it’s going to take to get Nelson elected, and that’s all he’s expected to do, well, I just don’t know what to say to that.
You might live your life from day to day and week to week, but I’d really prefer my government and opposition (alternate government as they keep telling us) to be thinking a bit further ahead than that.
Anyone would think you’re stuck in a cave with the Liberal Party tactics sheet.
They’re not too smart and you don’t look too smart quoting from it either.
Onimod,
You’ve certainly got on the Rudd coloured glasses if you can’t see that he’s been rattled in the past two weeks. What was the point of getting the PS offside? Why buy into the Henson furore? Why waste so much time debating fuel watch? I put it all down to his silly comment that ‘we’ve done all we can do’ – oh really, after 6 months?
As for Nelson – he’s never going to be elected. He’s just a speed hump in the road of the next Lib PM. His job in the short term is to keep Rudd off balance.
“As for Nelson – he’s never going to be elected. He’s just a speed hump in the road of the next Lib PM. His job in the short term is to keep Rudd off balance’
…and it doesn’t matter if at the same time he completely trashes the Liberal claim of being ‘better economic managers” while he is keeping the seat warm.
Two billion here, .5 billion there, another billion over there – it doesn’t matter, it’s only numbers. AND there is a $20 billion surplus although they better not have too many more ‘holes’ because at that rate it won’t take long before they have no surplus at all.
$900 better of compared to this year? That may be Labor propaganda, but its not true.
And Labor support lesbian and gay people so much that they stopped the ACT from passing legislation allowing civil unions (after saying while in opposition it should be up to the local voters to decide!). Even the local ACT Labor senator refused to support the people she represents after criticising the Howard government when they blocked the legislation.
Though I won’t disagree that Nelson is pretty hopeless as an opposition leader. He seems to be incapable of coming across as genuine when interviewed.
Henson – Rudd was dumb; it’s not his place to and his opinion holds no more weight than yours or mine.
PS – are you in the PS? Did anyone report on the cheers from those inside the PS? Nope.
Fuel – what did you know about fuel before the debate, your relatives, the kid in the milkbar? Have you noticed the tone of the talks Wong has been in; no – I don’t think it got reported in the MSM. If you’re persuaded by an opposition schilling for big oil on the basis that it’s bad for consumers, I’d like to offer you a bridge.
On Kev’s quote
1 – go out into Martin place; recite the quote to 10 people; ask them who said it; ask those who know who said it whether they agree. Those who disagree, ask them who they voted for at the last election and whether the quote would change their mind. Who knows, you might be right, but if you are I think it’s be a bit bigger news than it currently is.
2 – if you concede that it was a bad thing to say, you’d probably want an alternative to vote for, whoops – forgot about that part of the equation….
There’s no point yelling “look at me” when you’ve go no clothes on and it’s bloody cold outside. People won’t bother to look at all next time.
It’s interesting how these Liberal Party hacks have so recently discovered their caring and sharing side that has otherwise been dormant for the past 11 years.
“Nelson opposes changes to foreign aid abortion ban.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/04/2264812.htm
He is probably left wing of Brian Harradine but the jury is still out.
Actually, it’s not interesting at all. Boring and predictable more acurately.
Speaking of hypocrisy and double standards, I find the decision to refer legislation giving equal superannuation rights rights to same sex couple to a Senate Committee Inquiry particularly galling.
Last August the Libs used their Senate numbers to block a Senate Committee Inquiry into legislation that would have implement the recommendations of the HREOC report into same sex couple discrimination, using the excuse that HREOC had already examined the matter. To now say this legislation can’t be passed without a Senate Committee examination really is beyond a joke, especially given the absurd crap about the supposed impact on the institution of marriage.
By 2005 even John Howard was saying he didn’t support economic discrimination against same sex couples, even though he still opposed formal recognition of gay marriage (he never did anything about removing that discrimination of course, but at least he stopped vilifying people to justify his inaction – looks like even that figlead has disappeared).
I am absolutely sick of this bullsh*t that pensioners are $900 better off this year. THEY ARE NOT!! Only seniors and carers are better off. Disabvled pensioners and single parents are NOT better off! Plese stop spreading Rudd’s lies by omission.
And even seniors and carers are $400 better off compared to this year. Though perhaps if the pre-budget rumours were correct then they are $900 better off than where the Labor party wanted them to be before the public backlash. Perhaps thats why people are getting confused.
George Brandis, Shadow AG, was on Joy FM in Melbourne last night (glbti radio station) and apparently conceded that there was a push from some within the Liberal party to ensure that any legal changes should make same sex couples equal to
carers, cohabiting siblings etc. – what the Howard government termed “interdependent” – and NOT to de facto heterosexual couples.
While there is probably a case to recognise non-conjugal relationships (as is done in Tasmania’s two-level partnership registration / civil union scheme), this denial of the sex in same-sex couples needs to be challenged.
This delaying of this long overdue reform to super is homophobia, pure and simple.
My remarks at Balneus: http://balneus.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/alp-cant-find-dirt-on-nelson/#comment-8123
Kim
You say “But, really, it’s a ridiculous way to govern the country – decide who’s “needy” (or who might be a powerful demographic electorally) and fling cash at them!”
Really? You just skewered the entire Rudd election strategy from last year. Have you forgotten “working families”?
Most of what any government does is “decide who’s needy….and fling cash at them”. That’s why governments tax people and then redistribute it to those who are sick, elderly, uneducated, poor, etc.
Flinging money at who’s needy – well, that depends if you’re deserving poor – aged pensioners, carers
or undeserving poor – disabled, single parents, especially mothers, and long-term unemployed (who usually have a psychiatric problem, or addiction problem etc that’s not bad enough to qualify them
for a disability pension, which is, incidentally still at the same rate as the dole after Howard’s cut in them from 1 July last year. It’s disgraceful that Labor has not done anything to bring DSP back up to the same rate as those of us who were grandfathered. Especially disgraceful for a Labor Government.,
In fact its disgraceful that Labor buys into the deserving/undeserving poor categorisation ar all.
Not that the Libs are any better- nobody in their right mind would expect them to be. If they are actualling going to increase pensions (and I can’t quite believe that, given their history), it will only be for those people they call the “deserving” poor.