We’re all in this together

As human beings we each have a responsibility to care for humanity. Expressing concern for others brings inner strength and deep satisfaction. As social animals, human beings need friendship, but friendship doesn’t come from wealth and power, but from showing compassion and concern for others. [Dalai Lama]

It is common to make a resolution on New Year’s Eve that, if kept, will make us better people in the forthcoming year. It is also a period of reflection, of things we did well, things we could have done better and things that we just should consider — so with your indulgence, and as New Year’s Eve was only a few weeks ago, I would propose that we should all reflect on this quote from the Reverend Tim Costello (Baptist Minister, CEO of World Vision and brother of former Australian Treasurer, Peter), and that we should all aspire to it in 2015.

Ultimately we have got to co-operate for our common destiny.

If you’re reading this site you’ll probably remember that back at the beginning of November, the Memorial Service for past Prime Minister Edward Gough Whitlam was celebrated at the Sydney Town Hall. As you would expect, all the living Prime Ministers attended the service — and the public outside did not greet Prime Ministers Howard, Rudd and Abbott with any enthusiasm. Regardless of our opinions of the three gentlemen in question, it is my contention here that the treatment they received outside the Hall was inappropriate for three past and current leaders of our community. True, once inside, Abbott gave the impression he was there only because he ‘had to be there’, when speaker after speaker was pointing out the legacy left by Whitlam, so he was equally at fault.

Oliver Burkeman, writing in the US version of The Guardian opened a recent opinion piece with the headline ‘We can all get along — and for less than the cost of a Taylor Swift Album’. While Taylor Swift may not be your preferred musical choice (she certainly isn’t mine), the article asks why people ‘hate’ those with a different viewpoint. Burkeman looks at a recent study by the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America that set out to look at the reasons for intractable disputes:

Political conflict between American Democrats and Republicans and ethnoreligious conflict between Israelis and Palestinians seem intractable, despite the availability of reasonable compromise solutions in both cases. This research demonstrates a fundamental cognitive bias driving such conflict intractability: Adversaries attribute their ingroup’s actions to ingroup love more than outgroup hate and attribute their outgroup’s actions to outgroup hate more than ingroup love. This biased attributional pattern increases beliefs and intentions associated with conflict intractability, including unwillingness to negotiate and unwillingness to vote for compromise solutions. In addition, offering financial incentives for accuracy in evaluating one’s outgroup mitigates this biased attributional pattern and its consequences. Understanding this bias and how to alleviate it can contribute to conflict resolution on a global scale.

In other words, can people be convinced to ‘see the values of their enemies’? Well it turns out that the answer is yes; people can gain an understanding that the motives of their ‘enemies’ are usually the same as their own motives but they come from a different viewpoint. Where the Taylor Swift comparison comes in is that when interviewing Americans about their hatred of the Republicans/Democrats (as applicable), it only took $12 — less than the cost of the aforesaid Taylor Swift album — for the interviewee to be able to describe the motivation behind those from the other side. Yes, the potential to gain $12 may demonstrate a number of human failings rather than an opening of awareness but maybe some of the interviewees actually did begin to question their rationale that the other side is completely wrong.

Burkeman links in his analysis to the writings of Arnold Kling who wrote The Library of Economics and Liberty and suggests:

The following thought occurred to me recently. Suppose we look at writing on issues where people tend to hold strong opinions that fit with their ideology.
Such writing can
(a) attempt to open the minds of people on the opposite side as the author
(b) attempt to open minds of people on the same side as the author
(c) attempt to close minds of people on the same side as the author
So, think about it. Wouldn't you classify most op-eds and blog posts as (c)? Isn't that sort of pathetic? Here are some more thoughts:
1. The default is (c). If you are not consciously trying to do (a) or (b), then you will almost surely do (c).

Burkeman then acknowledges:

Indeed, an awful lot of opinionating, in the media and elsewhere, just takes the hate-based motivations of the other side as given. The real purpose of such writing — and I’ve done plenty of it myself — is rarely to change opponents’ minds. That kind of project would surely benefit from accepting the possibility that those opponents think of themselves as decent, loving people. Instead, it’s to rally the existing supporters of one’s cause, reinforcing their perception of the other side as driven by hate.

This line of reasoning could support the motives and operations of various media ‘personalities’ and politicians both here and overseas.

Abbott became prime minister through unfailing negativity. In opposition:

They focused like a laser beam on any action by the Labor government that could be effectively attacked. It was primarily a negative opposition, with the biggest promises being the undoing of Labor’s legislative and infrastructure agenda. Abbott opposed the NBN, the mining tax, the carbon price, poker machine reform and much more.

However, in government, this process has now come back to bite them badly.

It’s almost universally agreed by economists and policy experts that a carbon price, through a tax or trading scheme, is the most effective and efficient method for reducing emissions. Julia Gillard opened herself to attack over the carbon price because of her promise during the election campaign that there would be no carbon tax under her government. The Coalition leapt on this broken promise and attacked the Gillard government relentlessly.

Gillard didn’t sell the ‘carbon tax’ well. One could argue that NBN, Disabilitycare and a number of other policies were sold equally as badly by the ALP under Rudd and Gillard. The continual infighting made known to the public through leaks didn’t help promote a sense of unity and purpose. Abbott’s relentless attacks on those policies now puts him in a position where he can’t offer the ‘effective and efficient’ method to reduce carbon emissions, neither can he offer the ALP’s technically superior NBN, the more cost effective ‘paid parental leave’ or any form of increased assistance for those with a long term disability. Hate politics has gotten in the way of good policy — and you and I (as well as our descendants) will suffer. Abbott now calls for mature debate surrounding increasing the GST — something that he claimed was ‘off the table’ while in opposition. When Clive Palmer is literally laughing at Abbott and even NewsCorp is reporting the request with some sarcasm, Abbott has a problem. Kaye Lee discusses Abbott’s conundrum on The Australian Independent Media Network by pointing out some of the other revenue-leaking measures Abbott has promised not to touch, despite being unfair to large sectors of the community.

In November, Senator David Leyonhjelm who is an independent, wrote an opinion piece for The Guardian headed:

‘Dear Bill Shorten: you're the opposition leader, not me. It's time to drop your soft bipartisanship.’

Rather than oppose for the sake of opposing, or donning a hi-vis vest and walking into some unsuspecting factory with a media circus in the manner of Abbott while he was in opposition, is Shorten playing a longer game here? If he is less ‘absolute’ now, he will be more able to determine the best practical policy outcomes in the future, assuming the opinion polls are correct. A search of The Guardian or Fairfax Media’s websites will show a list of items where Bill Shorten is actively and publically differentiating his party from Abbott. Some of his speeches have been (in the words of Yes Minister) ‘courageous’ — such as his speech at the Christian Lobby’s convention that he is in favour of blended families and same sex marriage.

Professor Selena Bartlett from QUT has developed a ‘brain vitality index’, which she hopes will become as well known as the BMI used as an indicator of physical health. Bartlett claims

“Often we are not aware of what we are saying to ourselves or the impact this has on our brain health,” she said.

“Your brain is a massive computer. If you get up in the morning thinking ‘I'm sad’, or ‘I'm worthless’, it's like entering a search for 'worthless'.

“Your brain then sets about finding the evidence to support these thoughts and so the whole negative feedback loop becomes part of your brain's hardware.

“Our brains hold onto negative thoughts more than positive thoughts and if we maintain and reiterate endless negative self-narratives it causes stress.”

Bartlett’s research puts a scientific and peer reviewed foundation to the writings of Kling and Burkeman discussed above. She also has a free ‘app’ on the Apple and GooglePlay download ‘stores’ should you wish to ‘measure’ your brain vitality.

At the end of the day, Tim Costello is right: we do have to co-operate to survive. No one person or group of people has all the correct answers. So why is it that there are a number of people prepared to tear down not only the opinions of those who haven’t come to the same conclusion, but tear down the person as well? Burkeman, Kling and Bartlett all demonstrate from different perspectives that negativity is a dangerous weapon. Bartlett also demonstrates that negative opinions are harder to ‘modify’ than positive opinions.

It is frequently said that people go ‘into’ politics because they have a genuine desire to improve the lives and outcomes for their community. Those who meet a politician from ‘the other side’ also frequently express that they seem to be nice people who are genuinely interested. Why then did it become acceptable for political parties and their acolytes to engender hatred of ‘the other side’ for political gain?

At the end of the day, no one gets off the earth alive and we need to be able to understand that others may have differing opinions developed through a similar reasoning pattern as our own. Surely as a society we have the ability to disagree with a person’s ideas or motives — but not hate the person.

What do you think?

About 2353

As the first ‘official’ post for the year (not counting our ‘warm-up’ or the announcement of changes for TPS in 2015 during the week), 2353 has asked whether we can in this new year be more understanding of opposing views, whether people can disagree with an idea without attacking the person holding it. It is an aim that all should strive for in 2015, including our politicians. Then we might have some genuine public discourse on ideas for Australia’s future rather than political name calling. We can only live in hope! Come back next week for: 'If you doubt the scientists, what about the actuaries?' by Ken Wolff



Enjoy a new era at The Political Sword


On Saturday, 13 September 2008 Ad astra wrote: ‘This is the first posting of The Political Sword blog. Its focus is Australian politics. It is intended to give expression to those who have opinions about contemporary political events. In particular it will provide a forum for exposing deception among politicians, bureaucrats and commentators.

‘The people deserve to know the truth about political decisions, how and why they were made, and about those who made them. They are entitled to know if political commentators are truthfully representing the situations they are reporting, and that they make clear what is fact, and what is opinion. They owe it to their readers to validate the facts they report and reveal their source.

‘By challenging politicians and commentators to stick to the truth and to justify their words and actions, it is possible that the quality of political discourse in this country might improve. The Internet provides ordinary citizens with the opportunity to influence political behaviour between elections, rather than only at election time.

‘Politicians, journalists and academics read political blogs - they are bound to be influenced by them, at least to some extent.

‘Al Gore said that political blogs have become a significant new force in political debate and decision making in the US. The same opportunity exists in this country to put politicians and commentators to the verbal political sword
.’

Over six years later, the words apply even more than when they were written. Blogs and social media now do impinge on politicians; sometimes the politicians do hear what the ordinary person says and sometimes they do respond. But their honesty and their transparency has not improved; indeed it seems to have deteriorated, most noticeably since the 2013 election.

When in September 2013, at the same time as Lyn, who provided TPS users with comprehensive links to political material day after day for many years, Ad astra decided to step back from TPS, Janet (jan@j4gypsy), not wanting to see it disappear, moved in and organised a team that has maintained the site ever since. In Ad astra’s words: “Her organisational skill, and the dedication of TPS team members have been outstanding. They have authored, sought other authors, reviewed, edited, and coded countless pieces that have appeared week after week on TPS.”

Over time the nature of our author contributions has evolved. In recent months, the emphasis of most pieces has been on the philosophical aspects of politics, with a focus on economics. The pieces have been learned treatises on the chosen subject, well researched and referenced with many links, fascinating and valuable reading that has evoked reflection and deep thought about the matters that influence politics profoundly. Because these matters are seldom addressed by politicians in their discourse with the public, and are usually neglected by mainstream media journalists, the electorate has been left to flounder in a sea of inconsequential superficiality, devoid of thoughtful consideration of the central issues that influence, and indeed mould our democracy. So important have these pieces been, that it is planned that such contributions shall continue to be the solid base upon which TPS will continue in 2015. You can look forward to more of such pieces from our talented authors.

Casablanca took over from Lyn, and since then has supplied a continual stream of links to important material from the media. Her dedication and perspicacity in selecting relevant items is deeply appreciated. You can look forward to her contributions in 2015.

As we enter a new year and contemplate the 2016 election in about eighteen months, as the substandard performance of the Abbott government continues, and as its leader’s performance declines by the day and his public approval sinks to greater depths, the need has become more and more pressing for incisive commentary on the government, its leader and its ministers, as well as on what the other parties are doing.

TPS Extra

To this end, TPS has added another component to its repertoire: TPS Extra. Older readers will remember how curbside paperboys in another era shouted: ‘Extra, Extra, read all about it’ as they spruiked editions of their newspaper that contained startling news. TPS Extra is TPS’s attempt to bring you the startling — in political commentary. We will not be generating news; there are countless news generators, and we don’t have the resources anyway. What we will be doing is dissecting the contemporary news from many sources, analyzing it, looking for meaning in the events, and interpreting what they might imply. We will provide links to the news sources and will often quote from them. The pieces will therefore be opinion pieces. They will reflect the opinion of the author, and they will invite your opinion.

It is our intention to post such opinion pieces on TPS Extra. There may be several in one week, or none at all, depending on what is happening politically. You will be able to read these by switching from the main site, The Political Sword, to TPS Extra. 'Buttons' have been provided on each site to enable you to switch from one to the other and back again as often as you wish.

Our Webmaster, who goes by the nickname Web Monkey, has skillfully designed the new site and the transit buttons. We are deeply indebted to him for his stylish design.

TPS Extra is now live at http://www.tpsextra.com.au. There are several posts there: four prepared last week to trial the new site, and one added this week that comments on Australia Day . You may wish to read them, comment upon them, and rate them. Commenting and rating are done just as on the main TPS site.

We suggest you make the original TPS site your default, and switch to TPS Extra as the desire takes you.

We trust you will enjoy the variety now offered by The Political Sword in its two forms.

While the main TPS site will continue to focus on more in-depth analysis of political and social issues, we are also making some minor changes in our approach for 2015.

A call to authors

The Political Sword will be accepting shorter pieces from authors for posting. Last year, our posts were usually around 2000 words (give or take 200‒300 words) but this year we will accept shorter pieces, anything from 400 to 1000 words. So if you have been reading our posts thinking you couldn’t write longer pieces like that, now you don’t have to. When we receive shorter pieces, we will attempt to put pieces addressing the same topic together and post them together: so instead of a single article constituting a post, we may have two, three or four articles.

To help you, we now also have a list of themes. This doesn’t mean that they are the only things we will post about but we do hope to address a number of them during the year and your pieces, both short and long, will help.

Our current themes are:

  • education
  • health
  • environment/climate change
  • immigration/asylum seekers
  • economy
  • social equity
  • tax
  • finance
  • work and the labour force in the 21st century
  • welfare
  • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs
  • science, research and innovation
In addressing the themes, we will not only be looking for critiques of the current approach taken by the government but alternative approaches that may actually help improve the situation or approaches that you think Labor could take into the next election. Of course, some of the themes can overlap.

And, given our authors’ statement of beliefs (see below), there is also scope to ask them to expand on some of those beliefs and explain how they see our society achieving the ideals they have listed.

About our authors

We are also introducing a new feature: ‘About our authors’, for both TPS and TPS Extra. We all have our beliefs, our vision of the sort of country in which we want to live, and of course our biases. So that you can see where our authors are coming from as they write, a short bio and a longer statement of beliefs will be provided for you to read about each of them, all at the click of your mouse. To read about our authors, click ‘About our authors’ which you will see in the left panel immediately below ‘AA's Top Political Websites’.

During the year, each author will be asked to provide a short ‘bio’ and a statement of beliefs. A short ‘bio’ from each author will be necessary, but the statement of beliefs is optional, although we do think it adds to our readers’ understanding of the author’s position and approach.

As always, your feedback will be welcome as regards both TPS Extra and the approach on TPS.

The TPS Team

Be sure to come back on Sunday evening for our first main post of the year: ‘We’re all in this together’ by 2353.


Proud to be a bigot: a view from the barbie


Everyone knows about George Brandis’s now famous comment:

People do have a right to be bigots, you know. In a free country, people do have rights to say things that other people find offensive or insulting or bigoted.

I have decided to take him at his word and tell Tony Abbott to eff off back to where he came from. He arrived here as a £10 pom and I will willingly refund his £10 (or $20 in real Australian money) if he takes the next boat home — perhaps we can spare him an orange life boat for the journey. Why wasn’t his boat stopped at sea and turned back? Given what he is doing to Oz, he must certainly rank as an ‘undesirable’ immigrant.

Yes, before the conservative critics start pointing out that Julia Gillard was born in Wales, in my bigoted view someone born in Wales (or Scotland or Ireland) ranks considerably higher than a conservative wanna-be toff born in England. If you doubt my ‘wanna-be toff’ comment, why did he re-introduce Knights and Dames into the Order of Australia? We got rid of those stupid, meaningless titles years ago but obviously a pom like Abbott still thinks they are important to Oz — where’s he been for the past 30 years? Perhaps he is hoping that one day one of his successors will offer him a title for all the great work he has done. But I’m not sure where he thinks this ‘great work’ will be done: it’s certainly not here in Oz going by his current performance.

Why do we need a pom running our country? He’ll only ruin it. Sorry, he already is, as James Wight pointed out so well in his piece here on TPS.

Although he may have arrived here as a kid (and I mean that in both senses of the word because in my humble view he is a goat), he doesn’t seem to really understand this country. I don’t know what he was doing when growing up out here but it certainly wasn’t in any way, shape or form giving him a genuine understanding of the Australian way of life. I haven’t seen him at the pub.

He pretends he is one of us but he tries too hard. Who else but Abbott still appears on the beach in budgie smugglers? Anyone who does is up themselves, thinks they are Adonis, or god’s gift to women — in my blatantly bigoted opinion, that fits Abbott to a tee. He walks with an exaggerated swagger — ‘look at me, look at me’, it says, ‘ain’t I the best thing since sliced bread’. He is a ‘big head’ and that is un-Australian. He seems to think he deserves to be a Knight, or perhaps a Lord, who can tell the rest of us what is good for us — as long as it is also good for him and his up-town mates. Sorry (again), he’s already doing that as well.

He bicycles. He jogs. He is a member of the volunteer bush fire brigade, at least when it presents a photo opportunity. He is a member of a surf live-saving club but you wouldn’t think so the way he treats the rest of us. There are plenty of others doing those volunteer jobs who never make it onto the telly and they deserve all the praise and credit they get but when someone turns up for the photo that will appear in tomorrow’s papers, you have to ask yourself: is this bloke for real?

And he sleeps with the police! What sort of bloke sleeps with the police and doesn’t go home to his missus? Yeh, I know that they’re repairing the Lodge but they rented some posh place for him and his family — $3000 a week as I recall: I wouldn’t mind earning $3000 a week, let alone being able to afford pay it as rent. Why didn’t he take that place and have his wife with him? Doesn’t she want to be with him? Perhaps she had enough of seeing him every day during the 2013 election campaign. Yeh, that was different. He didn’t want to sleep with police then. He wanted his missus in every second picture then — and his daughters. Where is she now? Have you seen her recently? — other than in Abbott’s Christmas address, and then she looked very uncomfortable. I don’t doubt that they’re a fairly normal family (as ‘normal’ as any family can be) but, gees, I can’t figure it out.

He thinks women should be at home doing the ironing. Yeh, sometimes I think that wouldn’t be too bad. Would save a lot of money with the child-minding. But we wouldn’t have a home for the cheese and kisses to do the ironing in if she didn’t work. And I don’t need a whingeing pom telling me or the missus what she should be doing. He’s the one who’s making it harder for us to survive without the missus working, and now making it harder even when she is. He’s supporting the top end of town and our wages now aren’t even keeping up with inflation. Does he expect we should thank him for that — pig’s a*se! (or ‘ass’ as the septics would say).

I thought he said he would govern for all Australians but so many are missing out now. What happened to the Oz we knew where we looked after each other; where we did try to give everyone a fair go; when the government helped people who were down on their luck; when the government actually supported our local industry. Now if a factory decides to go to India or Vietnam, or some other cheap place, all the men and women under 30 who lose their jobs won’t get a cent for six months. Don’t tell me that’s fair! Yeh, there might be a few bludgers avoiding work but that’s no reason to take it out on everybody else who genuinely needs a hand. It’s more likely to make it harder to get a job.

He promised that abolishing the carbon ‘tax’ would help us with our cost of living and that it was his major achievement for women. I’m sure every woman in the land has thanked him for that! Yeh, there was a bit of a reduction this year but it’s a one-off. It will disappear in no time because electricity prices are still going up. And isn’t he worried about the kids? What sort of planet are we leaving them unless we do something about climate change? He can talk about it all he likes but he isn’t doing anything! He’s off in la-la-land, off with the fairies at the bottom of the garden and there’s no such thing as climate change in that garden.

He also promised ‘no surprises’ and it really was no surprise when there were surprises. Why can’t politicians ever tell the truth? We all know now that whenever a conservative government is elected, it will immediately drop most of its promises (that they made to us to get elected in the first place) and blame the previous Labor government for leaving a financial mess. It’s become a game and is so predictable: yet, as voters, we go into elections with the hope that, this time, they might actually keep their promises. They don’t have to look very far to realise why we don’t trust them anymore.

Abbott reckons he hasn’t broken any promises. He says we weren’t listening carefully enough to what he said. You can’t understand a pom at the best of times let alone when one like Abbott is twisting words to suit himself. How are we supposed to know what he means when half-the-time he doesn’t seem to know himself? And he takes so long to get a sentence out that we’ve given up listening before he’s finished.

Then he tried to big-note himself on the world stage. What a joke! He said he wanted to ‘shirtfront’ Putin. I bet that had the Russians quaking in their boots: more likely rushing to their dictionaries to find out what the hell he meant. Somewhat loses its effect, don’t you think, if the other bloke has to look up a dictionary to find out what you mean before you thump him.

Like Howard before him, he reckons that any job is better than no job. He would say that, wouldn’t he, when he’s never done a day’s labour in his life. He wouldn’t even have a parliament house to swan about in if it wasn’t for hundreds of labourers who built the place! But look at how he treats working people. He seems to think he’s lord of the manor and we are just his serfs — well, serfs for him and his mates. They think they own us and we should be happy that they’re providing work for us, even if some of them (and I won’t mention names) think we should be working for $2 a day.

Abbott wants to bring back Workchoices — under a new name of course because his mob ‘buried’ Workchoices years ago. They might have taken it off life-support but it didn’t die. He wants more individual work contracts — no awards and conditions just what the lord of the manor is willing to give you. It’s a bit hard to fight back on your own but that’s Abbott’s pommy world. And you’ll be arrested for poaching, for trying to get a feed for your kids. I can foresee it all.

The rest of his mob may not be poms but they’re just as bad. Foghorn Leghorn and Schwarzenegger having cigars when they handed down their budget that attacked working people and the poor. It reminds me of an old Irish song, ‘The rocks of Bawn’ and the lyric:

Come all you loyal comrades wherever you may be
And don’t hire with any master ‘til you know what your work will be
For you must rise up early from the clear daylight of dawn
And I know you’ll never be able to plough the rocks of Bawn

A curse attend you Sweeney for you have me nearly robbed
A-sitting by your fireside with your dudeen in your gob

(A ‘dudeen’ is an old Irish clay pipe.)

It all fits doesn’t it? And shows that the poms like Abbott haven’t really changed. They kept the Irish down. They kept the Irish in Australia down in the early years. And they keep the workers down. They want us to do the impossible, like ‘plough the rocks of Bawn’, while they sit there smoking their cigars. And you wonder why I’m bigoted!

I can finish with some fine English words that a wanna-be toff like pommy Abbott might understand: ‘You and your toffs, just naff off back to Eton’.

What do you think?

TPS presents this piece as a warm-up for the year ahead, just to get us back into a politcial frame of mind and boost the political spirits.

Our first serious post for the year will appear next Sunday. But watch out later in the week for a special post about some changes for TPS in 2015.



And that was . . . 2014


Welcome to 2015. Happy New Year from The TPS Team.

Traditionally The Political Sword tends to avoid too much politics and media bashing in January as in reality Australians are more interested in the beach, cricket, being with friends and complaining about how hot/cold/unusual the weather is. While it would be easy to write a piece about the less than impressive record of the Abbott Government, there are other sites already expending much effort on this — some examples are here and here — and in any event Ad Astra foretold the reality in 2012 but boasting of TPS’s past achievements in the first post of the year is not a good look! However we digress.

It’s often said that a week is a long time in politics. While the daily news cycle gets faster and less detailed, let’s look back at 2014 and see if there really was that much change in Australian politics during the year.

The newly minted Abbott Government came to power late in 2013 in part by pointing out that the leader of the other side of politics was either a liar or so controlling his supporters had to sack him. The federal government opened 2014 having to put out a minor bushfire over who was really running the country, the elected politicians or the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff, Peta Credlin.

Senator Abetz told a Senate estimates hearing last week: "At the end of the day it was decided by the Prime Minister as to who would be appointed to my ministerial staff and to the staff of my ministerial colleagues,"

As revealed by Fairfax, Ms Credlin has insisted that all 420 government staff appointments right down to junior electorate officers are approved by the panel.

The ‘axing’ of the ‘carbon tax’ was a work in progress early in 2014. Despite promising that the repeal of the carbon pricing scheme would be one of the first actions of the Abbott Government, reality hit when it didn’t pass the Senate. Abbott had to wait until the Senate changed to get a ‘watered down’ repeal of the necessary acts of parliament through with the assistance of Clive Palmer’s Palmer United Party. Various utilities are now passing back the ‘savings’ that were made by the repeal of the ‘carbon tax’. When Ipswich City Council in Queensland recently announced that a refund to ratepayers would be paid just in time for Christmas and average $14.04, the response was rather underwhelming according to the Queensland Times:

Carla Kompenhans posted: "$14; early Christmas present? Are you serious? I don't know anyone who would be excited about that.

"What part of Christmas will that cover exactly?"

In 2014, Australia was the ‘Chair’ of the G20 Group of Nations; consequently the Finance Ministers’ meeting was held in Cairns and the Heads of State meeting held in Brisbane during the latter part of 2014. The leadership of the Australian government (Prime Minister Abbott) was also keen to keep climate change off the agenda at the G20 meetings — much to the concern of the Europeans. With China and the USA announcing an agreement to actively reduce carbon emissions by up to 28% below 2005 levels on the Wednesday prior to the G20 Heads of State meeting, the subject was never going to go away. Widely reported was Obama’s speech to University of Queensland students in suburban ‘Brisvegas’ where he discussed his, China’s and the United Nations concerns about climate change and carbon emissions.

He then described the impact of climate change on Australia:

Here, a climate that increases in temperature will mean more extreme and frequent storms, more flooding, rising seas that submerge Pacific islands. Here in Australia, it means longer droughts, more wildfires. The incredible natural glory of the Great Barrier Reef is threatened. Worldwide, this past summer was the hottest on record. No nation is immune, and every nation has a responsibility to do its part.

Obama also called on the country to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions:

And you’ll recall at the beginning, I said the United States and Australia have a lot in common. Well, one of the things we have in common is we produce a lot of carbon. Part of it’s this legacy of wide-open spaces and the frontier mentality, and this incredible abundance of resources. And so, historically, we have not been the most energy-efficient of nations, which means we’ve got to step up.

Abbott’s response, as reported on the Mashable website, was less compelling.

In contrast, Abbott told reporters that the U.S. and China have a far greater responsibility to address climate change than Australia does. “China emits some 24% of global carbon dioxide,” Abbott told reporters in Canberra on Nov. 14. “The U.S. emits some 15% of global carbon dioxide. By contrast, Australia’s about 1%. So, I think it’s important that they do get cracking when it comes to this.”

Despite Abbott’s wishes, the final communiqué from the Brisbane G20 included some action on climate change. Turkey is the ‘Chair’ of the G20 in 2015 and has stated support for a number of climate measures in the past.

No recollection on political events within Australia in 2014 would be complete without a reflection on the life of Edward Gough Whitlam. It is claimed that Gough Whitlam made the ALP electable again. Geoffrey Robinson writing on The Conversation website suggested that the claim Whitlam was solely responsible for making Labor electable may be overblown:

The truth is more complex and interesting. Whitlam was a man for his time: his achievements were representative of new and old social movements, including the emerging progressive intelligentsia, feminists, non-Anglo migrants and the working class.

Robinson also observes

Like Keating or Julia Gillard, Whitlam has functioned as what cultural theorists call a “floating signifier” — a symbol whose power and significance is necessarily distantly connected to historical events. “It’s Time”, “the sweetest victory of all” and the “misogyny speech” exist in a world of symbols but are none the less real for this.

While there doesn’t seem to be a 1972 campaign advertisement for the Liberal Party online (if you find one, please post the link below the line), the performance of then Prime Minister McMahon on Mike Willesee’s A Current Affair is a stark contrast to the Labor Party’s ‘It’s Timeelection campaign and probably explains in part why the Liberal Party was not re-elected.

Fast forward to November 2014, and the Victorian state election. The Liberal/National coalition was removed from office after one term by the ALP, led by Daniel Andrews, who came from behind to win the fancy office in Spring Street. The common opinion at the previous election was that the ALP (then led by John Brumby) would retain Government with a reduced margin with the polls for the then state Liberal leader (Ted Ballieu) rising and falling in line with the corresponding falls and rises of Gillard’s ALP government in Canberra. Ballieu had won then but didn’t even last out the four year term as premier, being replaced by Denis Napthine soon after Rudd replaced Gillard. While Newman is still premier of Queensland, there seems to be a concern within the ranks of the LNP that Newman may also lose his seat and the LNP lose Government early in 2015 when the next Queensland election is due. The Abbott government is significantly less popular than the ALP or in fact themselves when elected some 18 months ago:

In opposition, Abbott liked to say that Julia Gillard was the most incompetent and untrustworthy prime minister in Australia's history.

The voters now have decided that they have found one that's more incompetent and just as untrustworthy.

"Only half of people polled said that Abbott is competent," says the Fairfax pollster, Jess Elgood of Ipsos.

"That's lower than for any prime minister we have figures for," a data set starting with Paul Keating in 1995.

Compared to Abbott's 50 per cent, the comparable figure for Gillard four months before she was deposed was 53 per cent.

Not a lot did change in the world of Australian politics in 2014. At the start and end of the year, we have the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff being the news rather than managing the PM’s office. At the end of 2014, there are claims of disagreements with Foreign Minister Bishop and of ruling the government with an ‘iron fist’.

The media is still leading discussion on climate change and how to manage it (with price signals — such as a ‘carbon tax’ being mentioned as an effective mechanism), and that Abbott either is changing or should change his view that ‘climate change is crap’.

Governments in various jurisdictions around the country are still not doing well in polling after they have been accused of lying or not being able to organise themselves — with Victoria changing government; Queensland’s Premier implying he will lose the significant majority won at the 2012 event at the next election; and the Federal Government some 10% behind the opposition after 18 months. Australians are still complaining about the ‘carbon tax’ — this time the small refunds that are gradually making their way onto invoices from its repeal; and the country has lost another ‘person of renown’ in the guise of Gough Whitlam.

Let’s hope that 2015 is another year of civilised discourse on The Political Sword and that the genuine nature of the discussions here spreads to other blog sites, the media and our civilisation in general. Prime Minister Hawke achieved more results through building a consensus than Prime Minister Whitlam did by trying to crash through. Please keep your hatred for the mozzie that bit you at the BBQ last week — we on this site and on this earth genuinely don’t need it.

A bit of housekeeping to conclude this piece. The TPS Team will be reducing our output for January. The ability to comment ‘below the line’ will be open all month and we invite relevant comment as usual. There will be some new commentary posted during January on an irregular schedule (so keep looking). We will return to our weekly (or better) schedule on 1 February 2015. Be aware it’s not all sitting by the pool in the banana lounge for The TPS Team, there is usually one of us sitting near the computer with our finger poised over the ‘delete’ button for those that haven’t yet lost the hatred.

Happy New Year and may all you wish for come to pass. We look forward to your continuing support and comments in 2015.

The TPS Team