Twenty Twenty-Four – our Orwellian destiny?



Have you ever felt overtaken by the velocity of world events? Have your ever felt overwhelmed by the pace of change? Have you ever wondered what the world will be like in Twenty Twenty-Four, forty years after George Orwell’s prophetic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four?

Studying the facts and contemplating what the world will be like in just seven years is alarming, such is the pace of change we see all around us. We can avoid distress by burying our heads in the sand, or we can take a clear-eyed look at the future and reflect on how best to manage it. Many choose the more comfortable option; in this piece let’s choose the latter.

This piece draws heavily on an article in Scientific American on 25 February of this year Will Democracy Survive Big Data and Artificial Intelligence, which carried the subtitle: We are in the middle of a technological upheaval that will transform the way society is organized. We must make decisions right now. The article was written by an illustrious group of authors: Dirk Helbing, Bruno S. Frey, Ger Gigerenzer, Ernst Hafen, Michael Hagner, Yvonne Hofstetter, Jeroen van den Hoven, Roberto V. Zicari and Andrej Zwitter. Their CVs are at the foot of the article.

Most of you will not wish to read the Scientific American article in full, as it is very long. To make this piece readable, I have attempted to distill the essence of it, but to portray its message accurately I have quoted much of it at length. Therefore, this is a rather long piece, but as it focuses on an issue of critical importance to our future, I have not attempted to oversimplify its content. I hope you will have time to digest it.

If you think that our society is light-years away from acting out Orwell’s fantasy, reflect on the current angry debate around clause 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act, the way in which the Department of Human Services has given the media personal details of a complainant against Centrelink in order to punish her publicly, and on the recent emergence of ‘alternative facts’ and ‘fake news’ in the US.

To remind you of the plot of Orwell’s Nineteen Eight-Four, here is the beginning of a summary:
Winston Smith is a low-ranking member of the ruling Party in London, in the nation of Oceania. Everywhere Winston goes, even his own home, the Party watches him through telescreens; everywhere he looks he sees the face of the Party’s seemingly omniscient leader, a figure known only as Big Brother.



The Party controls everything in Oceania, even the people’s history and language. Currently, the Party is forcing the implementation of an invented language called Newspeak, which attempts to prevent political rebellion by eliminating all words related to it. Even thinking rebellious thoughts is illegal. Such thought-crime is, in fact, the worst of all crimes.
The rest of the summary, provided by sparknotes can be read here.

First, some facts from the Scientific American article. Remember, some of these are predictions, and therefore may not be accurate. They may, indeed likely will, change over time.

As the digital revolution accelerates, how will it change our world? Here are some statements from the article:
The amount of data we produce doubles every year. In other words, in 2016 we produced as much data as in the entire history of humankind through 2015.

Every minute we produce hundreds of thousands of Google searches and Facebook posts. These contain information that reveals how we think and feel.

Soon, the things around us, possibly even our clothing, also will be connected with the Internet.

It is estimated that in 10 years’ time there will be 150 billion networked measuring sensors, 20 times more than all the people on Earth. Then, the amount of data will double every 12 hours.
This is known in the artificial intelligence world as Big Data, a phrase we will hear more and more.

Everything will become intelligent; soon we will not only have smart phones, but also smart homes, smart factories and smart cities. Should we also expect these developments to result in smart nations and a smarter planet?

Artificial intelligence is contributing to the automation of data analysis. It is now capable of learning, thereby continuously developing itself.

Algorithms can now recognize handwritten language and patterns almost as well as humans and even complete some tasks better than them. They are able to describe the contents of photos and videos.

News content is, in part, automatically generated.

In the coming 10 to 20 years around half of today's jobs will be threatened by algorithms.

Today, algorithms perform 70% of all financial transactions.

40% of today's top 500 companies will have vanished in a decade.
Just reflect on that – during the next ten years, by 2027, 200 of the top 500 companies will disappear – 140 of them in the seven years to 2024!

What will replace them? What will workers in those companies do after they have gone? Will there be alternative work? If not, how will they live? Are governments planning for this eventuality? Are there any who are?


The article continues:
It can be expected that supercomputers will soon surpass human capabilities in almost all areas somewhere between 2020 and 2060.

Technology visionaries, such as Elon Musk from Tesla Motors, Bill Gates from Microsoft, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, and physicist Stephen Hawking are warning that super-intelligence is a serious danger for humanity, possibly even more dangerous than nuclear weapons.

One thing is clear: the way in which we organize the economy and society will change fundamentally. We are experiencing the largest transformation since the end of the Second World War; after the automation of production and the creation of self-driving cars, the automation of society is next.

With this, society is at a crossroads, which promises great opportunities, but also considerable risks. If we take the wrong decisions it could threaten our greatest historical achievements.

In the 1940s, the American mathematician Norbert Wiener invented cybernetics. According to him, the behaviour of systems could be controlled by the means of suitable feedbacks. Very soon, some researchers imagined controlling the economy and society according to this basic principle, but the necessary technology was not available at that time.

Today, Singapore is seen as a perfect example of a data-controlled society. What started as a program to protect its citizens from terrorism has ended up influencing economic and immigration policy, the property market and school curricula.

China is taking a similar route. Recently, Baidu, the Chinese equivalent of Google, invited the military to take part in the China Brain Project. It involves running so-called deep learning algorithms over the search engine data collected about its users. Beyond this, a kind of social control is also planned. According to recent reports, every Chinese citizen will receive a so-called ”Citizen Score”, which will determine under what conditions they may get loans, jobs, or travel visa to other countries. This kind of individual monitoring would include people’s Internet surfing and the behaviour of their social contacts.

With consumers facing increasingly frequent credit checks and some online shops experimenting with personalized prices, we are on a similar path in the West.

It is also increasingly clear that we are all in the focus of institutional surveillance. This was revealed in 2015 when details of the British secret service's "Karma Police" program became public, showing the comprehensive screening of everyone's Internet use.
Is Orwell’s character ‘Big Brother’ now becoming a reality for us?

Under the heading ‘Programmed society, programmed citizen’, the article goes on to describe how all this happened under our very eyes:

Everything started quite harmlessly. Search engines and recommendation platforms began to offer us personalised suggestions for products and services. This was based on personal and metadata that has been gathered from previous searches, purchases and mobility behaviour, as well as social interactions. While officially users’ identity is protected, it can be inferred quite easily.

Today, algorithms know pretty well what we do, what we think and how we feel – possibly even better than our friends and family or even ourselves.

Often the recommendations we are offered fit so well that the resulting decisions feel as if they were our own, even though they are actually not our decisions. In fact, we are being remotely controlled… The more is known about us, the less likely our choices are to be free and not predetermined by others.
This is startling. It is only a small step from manipulating our buying behaviour to manipulating our political and social thinking and behaviour, just as happened to Winston in Nineteen Eighty-Four via the Thought Police.

The alarming predictions continue:
But it won't stop there. Some software platforms are moving towards ‘persuasive computing’. In the future, using sophisticated manipulation technologies, these platforms will be able to steer us through entire courses of action, be it for the execution of complex work processes or to generate free content for Internet platforms, from which corporations earn billions.

The trend goes from programming computers to programming people.
These technologies are also becoming increasingly popular in the world of politics:

Under the label of ‘Nudging’, governments are trying to steer citizens towards healthier or more environmentally friendly behaviour by means of a ‘nudge’ – a modern form of paternalism. The new, caring government is not only interested in what we do, but also wants to make sure that we do the things that it considers to be right.
The magic phrase is ‘Big Nudging’, which is the combination of Big Data and Nudging.

This appears to be a sort of digital sceptre that allows one to govern the masses efficiently, without having to involve citizens in democratic processes. Could this overcome vested interests and optimize the course of the world? If so, then citizens could be governed by a data-empowered ‘wise king’, who would be able to produce desired economic and social outcomes almost as if with a digital magic wand.
Can you imagine how George Brandis would use the metadata he insists he must gather to ‘protect us from harm’. The fact that he is unable to explain what metadata is leaves us exposed to the manipulations of others who do know.

‘Nudging’ is already happening here.

When Centrelink client Andie Fox wrote an opinion piece for Fairfax Media claiming Centrelink had ‘terrorised’ her while chasing her for a debt she believed she did not owe, as reported in ABC News, Fairfax published an article from the Government's perspective, suggesting Centrelink was being ‘unfairly castigated’. In the article Ms Fox's personal information, including her history of claiming the Family Tax Benefit and relationship circumstances was exposed. The Department of Human Services, with the approval of the Human Services Minister Alan Tudge, supplied the information. Subsequently, the Department defended its ‘right’ to expose such intimate details in defence of its position, thereby ‘nudging’ any other potential complainant to back off, or else!

There is a downside though to such ‘nudging’ behaviour.
The scientific literature shows that attempts to control opinions…are doomed to fail because of the complexity of the problem. The dynamics of the formation of opinions are full of surprises. Nobody knows how the digital magic wand, that is to say the manipulative nudging technique, should best be used. What would have been the right or wrong measure often is apparent only afterwards.

During the German swine flu epidemic in 2009, for example, everybody was encouraged to go for vaccination. However, we now know that a certain percentage of those who received the immunization were affected by an unusual disease, narcolepsy. Another example is the recent attempt of health insurance providers to encourage increased exercise by handing out smart fitness bracelets, with the aim of reducing the amount of cardiovascular disease in the population; but in the end, this might result in more hip operations.

In a complex system, such as society, an improvement in one area almost inevitably leads to deterioration in another. Thus, large-scale interventions can sometimes prove to be massive mistakes.

Criminals, terrorists and extremists will try to take control of the digital magic wand sooner or later – perhaps even without us noticing. Almost all companies and institutions have already been hacked.

A further problem arises when adequate transparency and democratic control are lacking: the erosion of the system from the inside. Governments are able to influence the outcomes. During elections, they might nudge undecided voters towards supporting them, a manipulation that would be hard to detect. Therefore, whoever controls this technology can win elections by nudging themselves to power.

In order for manipulation to stay unnoticed, it takes a so-called resonance effect, where nudging is customized to each individual, an ‘echo chamber effect’. In the end, all you might get is your own opinions reflected back at you. This causes social polarization, resulting in the formation of separate groups that no longer understand each other and find themselves increasingly at conflict with one another.

In this way, personalized information can unintentionally destroy social cohesion. This can be currently observed in American politics, where Democrats and Republicans are increasingly drifting apart, so that political compromises become almost impossible. The result is a fragmentation, possibly even a disintegration of society.

Owing to the resonance effect, a large-scale change of opinion in society can be produced only slowly and gradually. The effects occur with a time lag, but they cannot be easily undone.

It is possible, for example, that resentment against minorities or migrants get out of control; too much national sentiment can cause discrimination, extremism and conflict.
Are we not already seeing this play out before our very eyes as Hanson supporters and right wing bigots vent their spleen?

Let us suppose there was a super-intelligent machine with godlike knowledge and superhuman abilities: would we follow its instructions?

This seems possible. But if we did that, then the warnings expressed by Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Steve Wozniak, Stephen Hawking and others would have become true: computers would have taken control of the world. We must be clear that a super-intelligence could also make mistakes, lie, pursue selfish interests or be manipulated. Above all, it could not be compared with the distributed, collective intelligence of the entire population.
Let’s jump to the end of this very long piece to give you ‘the bottom line’. Here is the heavily redacted conclusion written by Yvonne Hofstetter, lawyer and artificial intelligence expert: When intelligent machines take over societal control, Orwell style!

Cybernetics is the science of information and control, regardless of whether a machine or a living organism is being controlled. Cybernetics promises: “Everything is controllable.”

For Norbert Wiener, inventor of cybernetics, the digital era would be a paradise, as the world has never produced such amount of data and information as it does today.

In the digital age, machines steer everyday life to a considerable extent already. We should, therefore, think twice before we share our personal data.

Control refers to the control of machines as well as of individuals or entire social systems like military alliances, financial markets or, pointing to the 21st century, even the electorate. Its major premise: keeping the world under surveillance to collect data. Connecting people and things to the Internet of Everything is a perfect to way to obtain the required mass data as input to cybernetic control strategies.

Wiener proposed a new scientific concept for cybernetics: the closed-loop feedback. Feedback, such as the ‘Likes’ we give, and the online comments we make, is a major concept of digitization. Does that mean digitization is the most perfect implementation of cybernetics? When we use smart devices, we are creating a ceaseless data stream disclosing our intentions, geo position or social environment. While we communicate more thoughtlessly than ever online, in the background, an ecosystem of artificial intelligence is evolving. Today, artificial intelligence is the sole technology being able to profile us and draw conclusions about our future behavior.

An automated control strategy, usually a learning machine, analyzes our actual situation and then computes a stimulus that should draw us closer to a more desirable ‘optimal’ state. Increasingly, such controllers govern our daily lives. As digital assistants they help us making decisions in the vast ocean of options and intimidating uncertainty. Even Google Search is a control strategy. When typing a keyword, a user reveals his intentions. The Google search engine, in turn, will not just present a list with best hits, but also a list of links that embodies the highest (financial) value rather for the company than for the user. Doing it that way, i.e. listing corporate offerings at the very top of the search results, Google controls the user’s next clicks. This, the European Union argues, is a misuse.

But is there any way out? Yes, if we disconnected from the cybernetic loop. Just stop responding to a digital stimulus. Cybernetics will fail if the controllable counterpart steps out of the loop. Yet, we are free to owe a response to a digital controller. However, as digitization further escalates, soon we may have no more choice. Hence, we are called on to fight for our freedom and our rights afresh during the digital era and in particular with the rise of intelligent machines.
Is that frightening enough? It ought to be. Not only are we being subsumed in the cybernetic loop where we inadvertently give the very feedback that the manipulators of our choices crave, but also we are largely unaware that we are being categorized, manipulated, ‘nudged’ and inveigled into positions not of our choosing, but those chosen by others – chosen for their own purposes, whether they be commercial, or more sinisterly, political.

Be afraid, very afraid!

Big Brother is watching you!


Thirty pieces of silver



Disappointment, disillusionment, disgust, desperation, desolation, despondency, and above all simmering anger - these are the emotions so many Australians have had, and still are experiencing when they reflect on Malcolm Turnbull’s period as prime minister. And this applies to many Labor supporters, who welcomed Turnbull’s overturning of Tony Abbott. Surely, they thought, nothing could be worse than the appalling Abbott.

Yet, despite Turnbull looking and speaking like a prime minister, in such stark contrast to the malevolent Abbott, with his reckless abandonment of the values and principles we all know Turnbull once embraced, in just over a year he has killed off any respect he initially had. We deplored so many of Abbott’s principles, but at least he stuck to them. Turnbull has turned out to be a shameful turncoat, ready to betray his beliefs for thirty pieces of silver.

We are astonished, dismayed and saddened.

This piece is a companion to the last published: Abbott’s legacy of destruction. It exposes the other side of the deeply tarnished Abbott/Turnbull coin. The two pieces need to be read in parallel.

Ten pieces of silver to abandon climate change action
Of all his fine principles, shall we ever forget Turnbull's stand on climate change!

He supported Kevin Rudd’s push for an emissions trading scheme – even crossing the floor to do so! You will remember his much publicized proclamation:

I will not lead a party that is not as committed to effective action on climate change as I am.

What a tragedy it was that Rudd reneged on his promise to work with Turnbull to achieve bipartisanship to bring in an ETS. We could have had one many years ago. We now are as far away from an ETS as ever.

In December of last year, Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg was foolish enough to utter the words: “…we know there’s been a large number of bodies that have recommended an emissions intensity scheme, which is effectively a baseline and credit scheme”. Hard right-wingers Cory Bernardi and Craig Kelly went ballistic, Tony Abbott chimed in to repeat his longstanding opposition, and Murdoch’s Chris Kenny wrote a column in The Australian warning Turnbull that it was ‘political madness’ to re-consider an ETS.

Turnbull’s retreat was rapid. Within 24 hours he was insisting: “We will not be imposing a carbon tax and we will not be imposing an emissions trading scheme, however it is called, an emissions intensity scheme is an emissions trading scheme. That is just another name for it. That has been our policy for many years now.”

Suitably chastened, Frydenberg soon echoed Turnbull’s words, adding apologetically: “I have never advocated for a carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme; that is why the Government won’t proceed with one.” Ben Eltham, writing in New Matilda commented: Somewhere...a rooster crowed twice.

Although we all remember Turnbull’s 2009 proclamation, he has made many other utterances, from which he has retreated. They can be found in the archives. Some may surprise you. Take a look at them: You will find them here:

Here are a few of them:
“Climate change is a global problem. The planet is warming because of the growing level of greenhouse gas emissions from human activity. If this trend continues, truly catastrophic consequences are likely to ensue from rising sea levels, to reduced water availability, to more heat waves and fires.

“I do not believe we can effectively move Australia to a lower emission economy, which is what we need to do if we're going to make a contribution to a global reduction in greenhouse gases, without putting a price on carbon.”

“…some years from now if there's a global emissions trading scheme agreement, as many have hoped for, then I'm sure Australia would be part of it.”

“The question of whether or to what extent human activities are causing global warming is not a matter of ideology, let alone of belief. The issue is simply one of risk management.”

“If Margaret Thatcher took climate change seriously and believed that we should take action to reduce global greenhouse emissions, then taking action and supporting and accepting the science can hardly be the mark of incipient Bolshevism.”

“We are already experiencing the symptoms of climate change, especially with a hotter and drier climate in southern Australia - the rush to construct desalination plants is an expensive testament to that.”

“Look at countries like China, they are determined to dominate all clean technology areas, putting lots of money into wind, solar, electric vehicles and battery storage. America's political impotence, caused by their terrible partisanship, will see them left behind.”

“Many Liberals are rightly dismayed that on this vital issue of climate change we are not simply without a policy, without any prospect of having a credible policy but we are now without integrity. We have given our opponents the irrefutable, undeniable evidence that we cannot be trusted.”

"Direct Action is “a con, an environmental fig leaf to cover a determination to do nothing” and a “recipe for fiscal recklessness on a grand scale”.

“First, lets get this straight. You cannot cut emissions without a cost. To replace dirty coal fired power stations with cleaner gas fired ones, or renewables like wind let alone nuclear power or even coal fired power with carbon capture and storage is all going to cost money. To get farmers to change the way they manage their land, or plant trees and vegetation all costs money. Somebody has to pay. So any suggestion that you can dramatically cut emissions without any cost is, to use a favourite term of Mr Abbott, "bullshit." Moreover he knows it.”

“I believe that politicians should speak the truth all the time. Invariably there will be occasions when you make statements that are factually incorrect due to an error.”

“I've been around in public life for a long time. I think people know what I stand for. They know that I have strong convictions, committed principles and I'm prepared to stand up for them.”
How laughable! Turnbull has shown over and again that he will not stand up for his principles when members of his rabid right wing stamp their feet and demand that he toe the line he agreed to get their votes to topple Abbott. We have seen that time and again, but nowhere more flagrantly than over the issue of climate change.

The man who so strongly supported an ETS now refuses to have a bar of one.

After Turnbull replaced Abbott, climate pundits were excited. Corporate advisor, Paul Gilding, insisted that there was great support from Malcolm Turnbull on renewable energy and climate change: “Turnbull actually supports climate action and has long understood the economic implications of the transition required. And rather than being fearful of those implications he embraces them – seeing the inherent opportunity in a transition away from coal and towards a technology-driven transformation of the renewable energy system. The influence of this over time, on the business community and on public attitudes will be long lasting and leave a legacy for a generation.” How disillusioned Gilding must be now!

But as we have seen in the last couple of months, ever since September when in South Australia a ‘once in fifty-year storm’ tore up transmission towers and blacked out the entire state, Turnbull has become a fierce critic of the targets set for the adoption of renewable energy, initially blaming the state’s dependence on renewable energy for the disaster, later capitulating in the face of undeniable evidence to the contrary.

He and his minders, having decided that ‘energy security’ will be the defining issue in the months ahead, have attacked Labor and the Greens relentlessly as ‘ideologically driven’ incompetents whose ‘utterly unrealistic renewable energy targets’ will not be achievable, and will drive energy prices skyward. Turnbull has ruthlessly abandoned his long-held principles in the pursuit of political gain, for himself and the LNP.

Turnbull castigates those who seek to transition to renewables rapidly, and now supports coal mining. He even allowed his Treasurer to bring a lump of coal into parliament to mock Labor. He now talks of ‘clean coal’ technology, as if it was an imminent and financially viable possibility, which experts in the field insist it is not. His behaviour is no different from that of Abbott who proclaimed that ‘coal is good for humanity’ and would be around as a major source of energy for many decades!

He is Abbott personified, but without a skerrick of principle left!

Now, a coalition of eighteen business, energy, investor, climate and welfare groups, including the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Council of Social Services, and the ACTU, has called for an end to partisan energy politics and urgent action on global warming in the knowledge of its devastating effects on business, investment in energy, agriculture, the environment, and indeed life on this planet. But Turnbull and his government are not listening!

This whole piece could be about Turnbull’s shameful retreat from the urgency of global warming, but let’s visit some other of Turnbull’s inglorious retreats.

Ten pieces of silver to ‘demolish the NBN’
Who will ever forget PM Abbott’s infamous instruction to his then Communications Minister, Malcolm Turnbull: Demolish the NBN? Abbott wanted it destroyed only because Labor had proposed and designed it, a groundbreaking Fibre to the Premises (FTTP) proposal that would have placed Australia at the forefront of modern Internet communications, and would have given it a competitive advantage over its neighbours and overseas' rivals. After the Abbott intervention, thanks to the lily-livered, mendacious response of Turnbull, a tech-head who made his fortune in Internet communications with the sale of his OzEmail, we now rank a lowly 45th in the world for Internet speeds.

Although Turnbull knew full well that FTTP was the superior option, he messed around trying to convince us of the merits of a Multi Technology Mix (MTM) that included Hybrid Fibre-Coaxial (HFC), Fixed Wireless, and a Long Term Satellite Service, as well as Fibre to the Node (FTTN) where fibre was rolled out only to street corner boxes, with ageing copper wire making the connection to the premises. Turnbull’s selling spiel was that Labor’s FTTP was prohibitively expensive, too slow to roll out, and sotto voce unnecessary for Australia’s needs. FTTN, with its lower speeds, would be OK for this nation, which he continually implores to be ‘agile and innovative’.

The facts are that the FTTN rollout is arguably no faster than was planned for Labor’s FTTP, the speeds are poorer, and the cost is likely to be the same as for the FTTP, or higher. In other words, to placate the malevolent Abbott, Turnbull’s counterintuitive interference with the original FTTP plan has resulted in Australia gaining nothing, and we have lost a golden opportunity to be world leaders.

Once more, Turnbull has sacrificed his ideals, abandoned his technical know-how, and deliberately deceived the public about the touted merits of the Coalition’s FTTN MTM hotchpotch, leaving us no better off financially or logistically, but much worse off technically with an already out-of-date NBN that will soon need expensive upgrades.

Moreover, he has tried to convince us that the fast 100Mbps speeds promised by FTTP are not necessary, as many taking up the NBN are choosing slower speeds. But what about business and industry that need to send large files around the world; what about farmers who need to be in rapid touch with world prices and trends? Turnbull seems to be channeling the tech-ignorant Abbott who said that the speeds needed only to be good enough to send an email, or for his daughters to download a movie!

Turnbull, who does know the technical facts better than anyone else in his party, has sold his principles and values simply to gain political advantage for himself and his party. He has lied.

In answer to a question about the Coalition’s NBN on Q&A last year Turnbull obfuscated. Writing about it in Delimiter Renai LeMay said:
“On last night’s episode of Q&A, Turnbull did nothing to address persistent criticism of the Coalition’s NBN policy. Neither did he address – at all – Labor’s reworked NBN vision.

"Instead, what we got was a repeat of the standardised set of talking points which virtually every Coalition MP has been parroting about the NBN for the past two to three years.

"I find this insulting, to say the least.

"Turnbull is clearly aware that the NBN debate has moved on and that the country is now having a nuanced discussion of how the NBN project should proceed over the next decade, incorporating technologies such as HFC cable, FTTP and perhaps even new models such as Fibre to the Distribution Point.

"The Prime Minister’s failure to address that debate in any way, shape or form shows his lack of respect for the public; and also his determination not to meaningfully engage on the matter of the NBN. The increasing likelihood that the Coalition will not refine its NBN policy for the election reinforces that impression."
Once more Turnbull has recklessly sacrificed his ideals for a pottage of political advantage.

Ten pieces of silver to abandon marital equality
This piece is already long enough; so let’s conclude with Turnbull’s shameful retreat from his principles on this contentious matter.

Turnbull has always advocated marriage equality, and believes that a parliamentary vote would secure its legislative passage. Yet, despite public opinion strongly favoring marriage equality, and a majority in favour of a parliamentary vote to settle the matter, Turnbull will not budge from his commitment to the hard right of his party to have a plebiscite, which we all know was Abbott’s delaying mechanism that would give opponents the opportunity to disseminate emotive dissent, thereby creating doubt in voters’ minds, which the religious right hopes will result in a negative vote.

Turnbull has no religious, social or ideological objection to marriage equality – indeed the contrary is the case. Yet he is shamelessly sacrificing his long-held principles on the altar of political expediency, simply to placate the rabid religious right in his party, and thereby hang tenuously onto his prime ministership.

Do you need any more evidence that Turnbull has sold his political soul for thirty pieces of silver? On three crucial fronts: global warming, the NBN, and marriage equality, he has sold out so that he could grasp, and now cling doggedly onto leadership. There are many more of his values that he has sacrificed for silver: The Republic, Medicare, urban planning, and asylum seeker policy. But enough is enough.

What are voters feeling about him now, just eighteen months into his prime ministership?

Disappointment, disillusionment, disgust, disrespect, despair, despondency, desolation, and above all, intense anger.

What a political and personal price he has paid in return for his thirty pieces of silver!


What do you think?
What are your views about Malcolm Turnbull?

Have you other examples of how he has sold out his principles and values?

Let us know in comments below.

Recent Posts
Selfishness is political poison
Ad astra, 5 February 2017
Amid the contemporary chaos of national and international politics do you wonder what's behind it all?

Is there a common factor that might explain our own federal government’s failures, its incompetence, and its appalling behaviour? …
More...
Alternative facts and transparency
2353NM, 12 February 2017
Would you believe that I am a 25 year old self-made millionaire and spend my life travelling around the world — only if I can fly in an Etihad A380 equipped with “The Residence” three room suite (only plebs travel First Class apparently!). !). I also have bankers beating a …
More...
Jesus wept
2353NM, 16 February 2017
The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse continues. In the past couple of weeks, the Commissioners have been hearing evidence from Catholic clergy. Some of the numbers are scary

The Church rightly stands condemned for …
More...

Abbott’s legacy of destruction



Do you sometimes wonder how the Turnbull government has managed to get itself into such a mess?

Of course Malcolm Turnbull must shoulder much of the blame himself. A piece that I will post next week: Thirty pieces of silver attests to this. By sacrificing his long-held principles and values on the altar of his enduring ambition to be Prime Minister no matter what the cost, he has brought about many of the vicissitudes he is now enduring.

A look further back though uncovers a set of circumstances and decisions that were made before Turnbull assumed leadership, made by just one man – the malevolent Tony Abbott – who masqueraded as Prime Minister from 18 September 2013 to 15 September 2015, three days short of two years. Yet in that short time he managed to destroy so much of what this nation needs, leaving an untidy mess for his successor, who still struggles to repair the damage.

Abbott has not changed. Just a few days ago he once more exhibited his destructive nature when he publicly attacked Turnbull’s leadership and policies, which he predicted would lead the LNP to electoral defeat if it "didn't lift its game". This time his destructiveness was aimed at his leader and his party.

If you need any persuasion, it will not take too many examples to convince you of Abbott’s destructiveness. Here they are.

Deliberately ineffectual action on climate change
There is no more disastrous area than this to illustrate Abbott’s destructiveness.

It was well before his election as PM that Abbott exposed his denial of the reality of global warming. In July 2009, he told the 7:30 Report he thought the science of climate change was "highly contentious" and the economics of an ETS "a bit dodgy…”.

Then he let it slip at a meeting in Beaufort in October of that year that "The argument is absolute crap … However, the politics of this are tough for us. 80% of people believe climate change is a real and present danger." He toyed with the idea of supporting Rudd’s ETS proposal, as he thought it would not be "a good look for the Opposition to be browner than Howard going into the next election". He habitually thinks politically.

Quizzed about his Beaufort remarks by Laurie Oakes, Abbott said: "I think that the science is far from settled on all of this. But there are good prudential reasons for taking reasonable precautions against significant potential threats. That's why I think there is a strong case for an ETS but it's got to be the right ETS. It's got to be an ETS that protects Australian jobs and protects Australian industries... I am confronted by a hostile Liberal audience on this particular issue; I am trying to bring them around to support the position of the leader and the shadow cabinet.” When challenged about his Beaufort meeting statement, Abbott said he had used "a bit of hyperbole" at the meeting rather than it being his "considered position". Later, he conceded that on climate change he was a bit of a ‘weathervane’.

Clearly, Abbott saw political advantage in opposing action on climate change.

We all knew back then what Abbott’s climate change tactics really were, but just a few days ago Peta Credlin publicly exposed Abbott’s political chicanery. An article reporting this in BuzzFeedNEWS began: “Tony Abbott’s former chief of staff Peta Credlin has let slip that one of the most damaging political campaigns in recent Australian political history was based on bullshit.”

Credlin made her comments during an episode of Sky’s Sunday Agenda: “Along comes a carbon tax. It wasn’t a carbon tax, as you know. It was many other things in nomenclature terms but we made it a carbon tax. We made it a fight about the hip pocket and not about the environment. That was brutal retail politics and it took Abbott about six months to cut through and when he cut through, Gillard was gone.”

The article continued with Credlin's comments:
“It wasn’t a carbon tax, as you know.

“Okay, okay, okay. Let’s just provide some context. Australia has a complicated history in trying to do what many countries have already done – put a price on carbon emissions.

“Emissions trading scheme proposals contributed to the demise of Malcolm Turnbull as opposition leader in 2009 and Kevin Rudd as prime minister in 2010. Julia Gillard finally introduced a carbon-pricing scheme in 2011.

“It was Tony Abbott who re-framed Gillard’s scheme as a “carbon tax”, even though after the first year the price on carbon emissions was no longer fixed, and was instead set by the market.

“Abbott rode the anti-carbon tax movement all the way into The Lodge and eventually had everyone, including Labor and the media, calling it a carbon tax".
There it is – the brutal truth - straight out of the horse’s mouth!

'Direct Action' fraud
To placate voters who believed that Australia ought to take some action to combat carbon pollution and global warming, Abbott invented the Coalition’s ‘Direct Action Plan’. From the beginning it was a hoax. This is how Turnbull described it: “Direct Action is “a con, an environmental fig leaf to cover a determination to do nothing” and “a recipe for fiscal recklessness on a grand scale”.

As part of the DAP, Abbott created his ‘Green Army’ that was supposed to employ lots of young people in conservation pursuits, but we will never know how big or effective it was because it was axed by PM Turnbull and Treasurer Morrison before a review of it had been undertaken. We certainly didn’t hear much of what it was doing. Another ‘fig leaf’.

Abbott tried to convince voters that his DAP would cut emissions with little cost. Turnbull’s assessment was blunt: “First, let’s get this straight. You cannot cut emissions without a cost. To replace dirty coal fired power stations with cleaner gas fired ones, or renewables like wind let alone nuclear power or even coal fired power with carbon capture and storage is all going to cost money. To get farmers to change the way they manage their land, or plant trees and vegetation all costs money. Somebody has to pay.

"So any suggestion that you can dramatically cut emissions without any cost is, to use a favourite term of Mr Abbott, "bullshit." Moreover he knows it.”


Abbott engineered an LNP party room vote against an ETS, challenged Turnbull over his support for it (known then as a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) and defeated him as leader by a single party room vote. But in the end it was Kevin Rudd who put the final nail in the ETS coffin by shamefully reneging on action to combat climate change which he had pompously proclaimed was: “The greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time”.

Enough said. Climate change denial, abolition of the ‘carbon tax’, deliberate inaction via the DAP, opposition to an ETS and to existing renewable energy targets, together expose Abbott’s careless and destructive approach to the problem of global warming, which left unchecked will destroy our planet.

And in the process, Abbott injected his own brand of personal invective against his arch enemy, Julia Gilliard.


Demolition of the NBN
Here is another stark example of Abbott’s destructiveness. I hardly need remind you of Abbott’s infamous instruction to then Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull: “Demolish the NBN” after Labour had launched its groundbreaking Fibre to the Premises (FTTP) National Broadband Network, which would have given this nation a competitive advantage in a globally-wired world.

Instead, Turnbull’s multi-technology mix, combined with a second rate Fibre to the Node (FTTN) scheme has left us languishing 45th in the world of Internet speeds, behind schedule in rollout, and likely even more expensive than Labor’s plan. You know the distressing details of a good system ruined by Abbott’s malevolent interference, all in pursuit of destroying what his opponents had created.

In the process, he has set this nation back, damaged our competitiveness, left individuals and businesses struggling with an inadequate, fault-ridden system, and all this from a Liberal leader, who ought to have embraced the NBN as essential to our nation’s prosperity.

Abbott sacrificed his Liberal principles in pursuit of destructive vengeance against his political opponents. Shameful! Disgraceful!

Strangling marriage equality
Abbott wishes the status quo on marriage to remain. Whilst conceding that a relationship other than between a man and a woman can be legitimate, he maintains that “…however deeply affectionate or long lasting it may be, the relationship between two people of the same sex cannot be a marriage because a marriage, by definition, is between a man and a woman...

Whilst most people would concede that he is entitled to his opinion on this issue, the question is whether he is entitled to impose his views on the whole electorate. We know that his religious affiliation governs his attitude, which is understandable. But it is his devious way of engineering a decision on this matter that is so despicable and destructive of social cohesion.

He knows full well that the elected members of parliament are entitled and indeed competent to reach a decision on this matter, but fearing that this might result in a positive vote for marriage equality, he has deviously pushed the decision to a plebiscite under the pretence that this is the most democratic approach. He pushes this line despite a clear majority of the electorate being in favour of marriage equality, and also in favour of a parliamentary vote deciding the matter. While they are not objecting to a plebiscite, they see it as unnecessary, a waste of taxpayers’ money with a price tag of $160 million, and a pointless delaying tactic. The Coalition’s hard right inveigled Turnbull into agreeing to a plebiscite in return for their vote for him to topple Abbott.

Abbott knows that opponents of marriage equality will use the debate leading up to the plebiscite to unleash their venom on LGBTI people who are already vulnerable. The so-called Australian Christian Lobby, which does not represent any church or religious group, is ready and well funded to launch destructive opposition that will upset, damage and threaten the mental health of LGBTI folk. There is fear that those already on the edge may take their own life, so fragile are they.

Shortly after becoming PM, when the ACT Legislative Assembly passed the Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013, a bill to allow same-sex couples to legally marry, Abbott mounted a federal government challenge to this decision in the High Court, which ruled that the Act be dismantled as it clashed with the Federal Marriage Act 1961. This was Abbott’s first win; he is determined to have another, and kill off marriage equality once and for all.

Does Abbott care? No. A man with such destructive predilections is more concerned about political triumph than he is about the feelings and wellbeing of LGBTI folk. This issue is redolent with his mix of deviousness and destructiveness.

Imposing his moral views on others.
We know that Abbott has strong views grounded in his religious upbringing as a Roman Catholic. But he is intolerant of the views of others. Here are a few examples:

He is a trenchant opponent of embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia, and is uneasy about abortion, which he insists should be "safe, legal and rare". You will remember that in 2006, as Health Minister, he opposed access to the abortion drug RU486 so strongly that an angry Parliament voted to strip health ministers of the power to regulate this area of policy. Religious conviction overrode any vestigial concern Abbott might have had for women with unwanted pregnancies.

In his 2009 book Battlelines, he advocated at-fault divorce agreements between couples, which would require spouses to prove offences like adultery, habitual drunkenness, cruelty, desertion, or a five-year separation before a divorce would be granted. He argued that this would be a way of "providing additional recognition to what might be thought of as traditional marriage".

Abbott harbours hard line moral attitudes. He is unconcerned about what others believe. He will not change his beliefs to accommodate others, no matter how damaging his position might be to them..

This piece is already long enough. I could mention the 2014 Abbott/Hockey Budget that brutalized the less well off, and his punitive attitude to asylum seekers, but there is no need here to elaborate further on Abbott’s legacy of destruction. If you need any more detail, I recommend Wikipedia’s account of Abbott’s career.  

Abbott is politically combative, adversarial, vengeful, and pitilessly destructive.

His dictum is that if an opponent develops a policy framework, it must be destroyed, simply because it is not his or his party’s. No matter how beneficial it might be to the prosperity, competitiveness or security of this nation it must be destroyed. No matter how beneficial it might be to groups or individuals, it must be destroyed.

It is Abbott who has shaped so many of the adversarial policies with which Turnbull has now to grapple. It is Abbott’s destructiveness that has left a trail of damage and distress that will take years to rectify, if indeed they ever can be.

This man, who promised 'There will be no wrecking, no undermining, and no sniping' after he was overturned by Turnbull, after lurking in the shadows for years has finally come out into the open with a clear intent to destroy his nemesis, and his party with him.


Last Friday he launched an all-out assault on Turnbull and his government, even suggesting another set of Abbott slogans: ““In short, why not say to the people of Australia: we’ll cut the RET, to help with your power bills; we’ll cut immigration to make housing more affordable; we’ll scrap the Human Rights Commission to stop official bullying; we’ll stop all new spending to end ripping off our grandkids; and we’ll reform the Senate to have government, not gridlock.”

It is now obvious to everyone that Abbott’s destructive hand is around the throat of his party and its leader. Writing in The New Daily, Paula Matthewson put it this way: “The increasing intensity and destructiveness of Mr Abbott’s behaviour belies his claim to be interested only in protecting the Liberal Party’s conservative ethos. His behaviour is not one of protection but of destruction; a flagrant display of smashing the bat and ball, then setting both alight to prevent anyone else from playing.”

What a destructive blight on this fair nation Abbott has been, and continues to be. Has there ever been anyone worse?



What do you think?
What are your views about Tony Abbott?

Have you other examples of his destructiveness?

Let us know in comments below.

Recent Posts
Selfishness is political poison
Ad astra, 5 February 2017
Amid the contemporary chaos of national and international politics do you wonder what's behind it all?

Is there a common factor that might explain our own federal government’s failures, its incompetence, and its appalling behaviour? …
More...
Alternative facts and transparency
2353NM, 12 February 2017
Would you believe that I am a 25 year old self-made millionaire and spend my life travelling around the world — only if I can fly in an Etihad A380 equipped with “The Residence” three room suite (only plebs travel First Class apparently!). !). I also have bankers beating a …
More...
Jesus wept
2353NM, 16 February 2017
The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse continues. In the past couple of weeks, the Commissioners have been hearing evidence from Catholic clergy. Some of the numbers are scary

The Church rightly stands condemned for …
More...

Is trickle down economics a fraud?

"

The spectre of trickle down economics continues to haunt the political landscape, emerging again and again like a ghostly zombie from a dark, damp cave where it quietly moulders, refusing to die, always ready to be summoned by a believer.

Not often is the term ‘trickle down’ uttered, and when it is, it is by opponents of the concept. Instead, the proponents tell us that giving tax cuts to the top end of town will benefit those at the bottom through more jobs and better wages.

At his National Press Club address at the beginning of February, PM Turnbull again cited his plan for tax cuts to business as central to the rejuvenation of the economy, to increased competitiveness, and to the creation of more jobs and better pay for workers. Scott Morrison has been harping on this theme for months as he pushes the government’s proposed 50 billion tax cuts to business.

Donald Trump is singing from the same song sheet. He plans to stimulate job growth through massive cuts to corporate tax, reducing it to 15%, and simplifying and lowering personal tax.

In other words, these leaders are gambling on trickle down economics doing the job.

What is the truth about this longstanding economic device? Unfortunately, in this post-truth era, in this weird phase of ‘alternative facts’ the ‘truth’ is whatever one wants it to be; words can mean whatever you want them to mean, Humpty Dumpty style, or should I say Kellyanne Conway style?

For months now, I have been researching ‘trickle down economics’, sometimes known as ‘supply side economics’, a term preferred by advocates who feel offended by the more pejorative term. I have read dozens of articles from many sources.

My conclusion is that political ideology is the most significant determinant of the attitude politicians have to the trickle-down concept. Conservatives are more likely to be believers; progressives more likely to be skeptics.

There have been several pieces on The Political Sword on this subject over the years: In April 2011, after the publication by Queensland University’s professor of economics, John Quiggin, of his book Zombie Economics: How dead ideas still walk among us  (Princeton University Press, 2010), there was a TPS piece: Joe Hockey should read John Quiggin’s Zombie Economics. Quiggin’s exposé was about how discredited ideas in economics don’t die, nor are they alive, they are simply ‘un-dead’ – zombie like. Here is an abbreviated account of what that piece had to say about trickle down economics:
"Trickle-down economics is an idea that whatever benefits are given to the wealthy, they will filter down to the poorest…As long as there have been rich and poor people, or powerful and powerless people, there have been advocates to explain that it’s better for everyone if things stay that way. While great economists such as Adam Smith, John Stuart Mills and John Maynard Keynes have supported income re-distribution through progressive taxation, and most economists still do today, there are still some who argue that we should let the rich get richer and wait for the benefits to trickle down to the poor.

“Quiggin gives example after example showing the trickle down hypothesis is false, and caps this with a telling graph of household income distribution in the US from 1965 to 2005 that shows that those on the 95th percentile for income steadily improved their position by over fifty percent, while those on the 20th percentile and below were static. Here is another graph of incomes in the US for a similar period - from 1970 to 2010:



“Quiggin points out that the biggest challenge of the failure of the trickle-down hypothesis is to understand why and how inequality increased so much under market liberalism, and how it can be reversed.”
Increasing inequality is perhaps the most serious outcome of applying trickle down economics.

In April 2015 there was The trickle down effect, that, among other things, described the differing approaches of the governors of adjoining states, Minnesota and Wisconsin, to workers’ wages, and showed that rather than boosting the wealthy, giving a proper basic wage to workers had a more positive effect on the state economy. This is sometimes described as ‘middle out’ economics that proposes that the most potent driver of an economy is the spending power of the middle class, not the upper class. You can read about this here and here.

'Middle out economics’ is more likely to diminish inequality, whereas ‘trickle-down’ increases it.

In May 2016 there was another: Trickle down economics breeds inequality that emphasized the way in which trickle down accelerated inequality.

For anyone seeking to explore the history of Trickle-down economics, Wikipedia gives a good account. Here is an abbreviated version of the Wikipedia entry.

It may surprise you to learn that the trickle-down concept dates back to 1896, when Democratic Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan used the metaphor of a ‘leak’: “There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.”

The economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted that ‘trickle-down economics’ had been tried before in the United States in the 1890s under the name "horse and sparrow theory." … “If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.”

It was humorist Will Rogers who first referred to the theory as ‘trickle down’ policy.

Since 1921 the dominant philosophy in Washington has been that the object of government was to provide prosperity for those who lived and worked at the top of the economic pyramid, in the belief that prosperity would trickle down to the bottom of the heap and benefit all. The first known use of ‘trickle-down’ was in 1944, while the first known use of trickle-down theory was in 1954.

The ideological divide between believers in trickle-down and non-believers is captured in the words of Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat, who alleged that "Republicans simply don't know how to manage the economy. They're so busy operating the trickle-down theory, giving the richest corporations the biggest break, that the whole thing goes to hell in a hand basket.”

In 1992, Republican Senator Hank Brown said, "Mr. President, the trickle-down theory attributed to the Republican Party has never been articulated by President Reagan and has never been articulated by President Bush and has never been advocated by either one of them. One might argue whether trickle down makes any sense or not.” That sentiment prevails! ‘Trickle-down’ is not often articulated, but its modus operandi, tax cuts to the wealthy, is.

Here are some more excerpts from Wikipedia
In the 1992 presidential election, Independent candidate Ross Perot called trickle-down economics ‘political voodoo’. In New Zealand, Labour Party MP Damien O'Connor called trickle-down economics "the rich pissing on the poor". A 2012 study by the Tax Justice Network indicates that wealth of the super-rich does not trickle down to improve the economy, but tends to be amassed and sheltered in tax havens with a negative effect on the tax bases of the home economy.

In 2013, Pope Francis referred to trickle-down theories in his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium with the statement: "Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.”
If the income share of the top 20 percent (the rich) increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with higher GDP growth.”

A 2015 report on policy by economist Pavlina R. Tcherneva described the failings of increasing economic gains of the rich without commensurate participation by the working and middle classes.

In the 2016 US presidential candidates debate, Hillary Clinton accused Donald Trump of supporting the ‘most extreme’ version of trickle-down economics with his tax plan, calling it "trumped-up trickle-down."
Trickle-down has a long and continuing history!

Let’s look now at a few more expositions on trickle-down.

You might like to start with a short 2014 article by Kathleen Miles from The Huffington Post: Next Time Someone Argues For 'Trickle-Down' Economics, Show Them This that has a telling graph. It addresses a favourite saying of conservatives: A rising tide lifts all boats, and after providing salient facts, concludes: “a rising tide has lifted a few big boats and washed the rest aside. Note how well the top 20% are doing compared with the bottom 20%.



Next, try this one from 2015: Trickle down economics is wrong, says IMF. It begins:
Adding another nail to the coffin of Reaganomics, a recent study published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has concluded that, contrary to the principles of “trickle-down” economics, an increase in the income share of the wealthiest people actually leads to a decrease in GDP growth.

“The benefits do not trickle down,” the authors of the study write, directly contradicting the theory that US president Ronald Reagan popularized in the 1980s. Reagan argued that decreasing the tax burden for the rich investors, executives, corporations and the like, would not only increase their own income but stimulate broad economic growth as they create opportunities for others’ increased prosperity…

“But the IMF study’s five authors say we should instead focus on raising the income of the poor and the middle class. “Widening income inequality is the defining challenge of our time,” they write. “In advanced economies, the gap between the rich and poor is at its highest level in decades.”

“Raising up the poor appears to have a dramatic effect: A 1% increase in the income share of the bottom quintile results in a 0.38% increase in GDP. Meanwhile, a 1% increase in the income share of the top 20% results in a 0.08% decrease in GDP growth.”
This article highlights perhaps the most damaging effect of the application of trickle down economics – increasing inequality of income and wealth.

For those who need a more detailed appraisal, try How Trickle-down Economics Works, first written in 2008 by Jane McGrath and reproduced this year. After six pages of informative analysis the article concluded:
“Trickle-down economics remains highly controversial. Recently, George W. Bush faced harsh criticism for his tax cuts. Despite staunch political opponents to trickle-down policies, some maintain that the general consensus among economists today is that the theory works. Nevertheless, you'll still find plenty of controversy surrounding trickle-down economics among politicians. Many, including Barack Obama, contend that it failed. During a hurting economy, Obama won the support of voters by promising to tax the wealthy and ease the tax burden on the lower-income bracket. So as of 2008, the tide of public opinion certainly shifted away from supply-side thinking yet again. Time will tell if opinion will shift back again."
For a contemporary view, try this article: Can Trump make 'trickle-down' economics work? by Paul Davidson in USA Today. It concludes: “Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics, says tax cuts do lead to stronger investment and job growth, but those benefits “are generally overstated.” He says they “do not pay for themselves” through additional tax revenue, citing the ballooning national debt during Reagan's term. That doesn’t mean slicing business taxes doesn’t have advantages. Harvard Business School professor Michael Porter says lowering the corporate tax rate – highest among advanced economies – would make the USA more competitive as a location for multinationals.”

Sounds familiar doesn’t it?

There are many more I could quote, some supporting, some denigrating trickle down economics, but enough is enough. What can we conclude?

The evidence is that giving tax breaks to business DOES work – their competiveness does improve. Giving tax breaks to the wealthy DOES work – they become wealthier. What the proponents of tax cuts won’t concede though is that the benefits of these tax cuts DO NOT trickle down to those at the bottom.

The evidence about the trickle-down effects of tax breaks has not been subject to rigorous appraisal. Those supporting it select facts and figures that prop up their case, as do those refuting it. Seldom does one read a well-balanced appraisal.


Economics is complex. There are many variables. It is not possible to control for all except one, or even a few. So where trickle down seems to have provided benefits to the economy, other factors have been operative, as was the case in Reaganomics.

In my view, the evidence is STRONGLY AGAINST the benefits of tax cuts for the top end of town trickling down to lower income earners in the form of more jobs and better wages. The touted benefit of trickle-down for those at the bottom has all the hallmarks of a fraud. Bernie Sanders says the same. I know though that most conservatives would disagree.

Finally, we ought not to expect a sudden change in economic thinking. In the field of science, a theory is tested continuously against accumulating contrary evidence until it finally overwhelms the theory, whereupon a ‘paradigm shift’, as described by Thomas S Kuhn in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions occurs, the theory is discarded and is replaced by a more plausible one. In my view, that will not occur with the trickle-down theory. Economics seems unreceptive to paradigm shifts.

We can expect that conservatives will continue to promote the merits of trickle down economics (but not in those words), and will continue to implement its basic instruments – tax cuts for the top end of town and the wealthy – satisfied that benefits will trickle down to those at the bottom of the heap, a position that aligns with their ideology and their positive orientation towards those at the top, most of which are their supporters.

Progressives will argue the opposite, pointing to the undeniable evidence that the net effect of the application of trickle-down is to steadily increase inequality in income and wealth between those at the top and those languishing at the bottom. This is the most dangerous and damaging outcome, as widening inequality fosters discontent, discord, social disruption, and when extreme, revolution.

Facts, figures, reason and logic are of no value in this debate. Those whose political ideology is conservative will continue to believe in and apply trickle down economics; those whose ideology is progressive will continue to oppose it. There will never be agreement. The impasse is incapable of resolution. So we had better get used to it!


What do you think?
What are your views about trickle down economics?

Is there any prospect that agreement between believers and non-believers can be reached?

If you were in politics, what would you do?

Let us know in comments below.

Recent Posts
Selfishness is political poison
Ad astra, 5 February 2017
Amid the contemporary chaos of national and international politics do you wonder what's behind it all?

Is there a common factor that might explain our own federal government’s failures, its incompetence, and its appalling behaviour? …
More...
Alternative facts and transparency
2353NM, 12 February 2017
Would you believe that I am a 25 year old self-made millionaire and spend my life travelling around the world — only if I can fly in an Etihad A380 equipped with “The Residence” three room suite (only plebs travel First Class apparently!). !). I also have bankers beating a …
More...
Jesus wept
2353NM, 16 February 2017
The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse continues. In the past couple of weeks, the Commissioners have been hearing evidence from Catholic clergy. Some of the numbers are scary

The Church rightly stands condemned for …
More...

The Political Sword and TPS Extra at a Glance ARCHIVE

Let’s welcome President Trump
2353NM, The Political Sword, 20 November 2016

Yes, you read the title correctly. Donald J Trump will be the 45th President of the United States of America after amassing more ‘Electoral College’ votes on 8 November 2016. It doesn’t matter that Clinton won the popular vote as the ‘Electoral College’ is where you need to outperform. The reality is that close to 45% of the population used their democratic right (in the US anyway) of not voting for any Presidential candidate. It’s easy to make the assumption that a lot of people either didn’t care, didn’t like the candidates, or just couldn’t be bothered. Some of those may now be regretting their choice. More…
Aaand it’s sold
2353NM, The Political Sword, 16 November 2016

Housing affordability is perceived to be an issue in Australia. In some areas of Australia, the median price of a house is in excess of $1million and there is some justification in the common questions around how on earth can a young couple ever be able to afford a house in that market. There are a number of answers to the question and there are also a number of inequities that are assisting to take house prices in ‘desirable’ areas out the reach of those that are not on a well above average income. More…
Who invents this cruelty?
2353NM, The Political Sword, 13 November 2016

In the past week, the Turnbull Coalition government announced proposed legislation to ensure that each person on Manus Island or Nauru who were sentenced to the cruel and unusual punishment for no legal or moral reason since an arbitrary date in 2013, will never come to Australia. That’s never ever; doesn’t matter if they want to visit the Great Barrier Reef before government lack of policy on climate change kills it off; doesn’t matter if the person is a famous actor, musician or movie star in their future life; doesn’t matter if the person is representing a country at the 2018 Commonwealth Games on the Gold Coast; and it even doesn’t matter if a current refugee on Manus Island or Nauru is a head of state in the future — they won’t be allowed to visit Australia (or only allowed to visit at the absolute discretion of the minister for immigration at the time). More…
Inequality is an invasive global cancer
Ad astra, The Political Sword, 9 November 2016

Inequality has been the subject of several pieces on The Political Sword. They have focussed primarily on income and wealth inequality, which afflicts massive swathes of the world’s peoples, consigning them to constrained lives where poverty, underprivilege, disadvantage, and lack of opportunity has blighted individuals, families, communities, and in some instances, whole nations. Such inequality is divisive, disruptive and destructive to civilized society. More…
The problem with conservative warriors
2353NM, The Political Sword, 6 November 2016

A lot of employers place significant levels of trust in their employees. Retailers trust their employees to charge the customers the correct amount for the products they sell and put the money into the register; airlines trust that their employees are fit and mentally capable of servicing or flying the plane they are assigned to fly; bus and truck operators trust that their drivers will drive the vehicle along the assigned route; while health care workers are trusted to look after those in their care. More…

Statistics are people too
Ken Wolff, The Political Sword, 30 October 2016

On 20 October the ABS released its labour force survey data for September 2016. The media duly reported the drop in unemployment from an upwardly revised 5.7% for the previous month to 5.6% but most also picked up that this was largely a result of a drop in the participation rate, from 64.7% to 64.5%. More…

Trump is just part of the problem
Ad astra, The Political Sword, 26 October 2016

There are two outcomes of the US presidential election that should horrify us all: Trump wins or Trump loses.

We can see from his words and actions that on the personal front he is an ugly misogynist and a womanizer, yet is disrespectful of so many of the women who have entered his ambit…

The horror of his winning leaves little to the imagination…but while a Trump loss could hardly be worse than a victory, it would be foolish to believe that it would be without trauma at many levels. This piece attempts to tease out the possibilities. More…

All hail the mighty banks
Ken Wolff, The Political Sword, 23 October 2016

Banks have been in the news recently and there is a clear difference in the approaches of the government and the opposition. While some may suggest that Bill Shorten is being populist in his call for a Royal Commission into the activities of the banks, particularly the ‘big four’, it is clear that Turnbull’s approach of calling them before the parliament’s Economics Committee once a year has been a sham. More…

Planning - Turnbull’s black hole
Ad astra, The Political Sword, 19 October 2016

Let’s stand back from the daily tumult of federal politics momentarily, hard though it is to ignore, and look into the distance. What do we see? Given that politicians believe their role is to make this nation a better one for us all, where is the evidence of them planning to make it so? More…

Let’s talk about ‘traditional’ values
2353NM, The Political Sword, 16 October 2016

Donald Trump, in his mind anyway, is the next President of the United States of America. Last week, he was in deeper hot water than usual when a tape of a conversation between Trump and a reporter from Access Hollywood regarding his sexual exploits with women, made a decade ago, was released. Trump released an apology around midnight on 7 October: “I’ve said some foolish things, but there’s a big difference between the words, and actions of other people. Bill Clinton has actually abused women.” More…

The Turnbull endgame – again?
Ad astra, The Political Sword,12 October 2016

It was Karl Marx who said History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce. Malcolm Turnbull gives contemporary credence to these words. Seven years ago, in August 2009, as Malcolm Turnbull’s time as Leader of the Opposition seemed close to its end, I wrote The Turnbull endgame? Four months later he was gone, replaced by Tony Abbott by just one vote. The leopard has not changed his spots. What was written about him then, applies now. This piece highlights the striking parallels between now and then. More…

Turnbull – Abbott from a better postcode
2353NM, The Political Sword, 9 October 2016

Assuming the Opposition agrees, there will be a plebiscite on the proposition to allow same sex marriage in Australia in February 2017. The independents in the parliament have (mostly) stated their positions on the matter and the Greens are against the plebiscite but in favour of same sex marriage. More…




An economy without people
Ken Wolff, The Political Sword, 14 September 2016

Last week I suggested that modern economic theory has lost sight of people but the reality is now becoming that many segments of the economy require fewer people to undertake the work and that has serious implications not just for the people losing their jobs but for the broader economy. The loss of jobs is not new. In Australia since the 1970s there has been an ongoing loss of un-skilled jobs, particularly for males. More…

Our government is morally bankrupt
2353NM The Political Sword, 11 September 2016

Recently on this website, we discussed the nastiness of the conservatives that currently inhabit the halls of power in Canberra. Ad Astra’s article gave a number of examples that demonstrated the point. To paraphrase a sacked host of an extremely popular BBC television program loosely based on cars when talking about their ‘tame‘ racing driver; some say they reached a low with treatment of refugees, others might suggest that the blatant disregard of human rights was worse – all we know is that the government allowing these things to happen is morally bankrupt’. How about we look at the claim of moral bankruptcy in the cold light of day. More…

Modern economics has lost sight of people
Ken Wolff, The Political Sword, 7 September 2016

This is the first of four articles looking at particular changes, and potential changes, in our economic environment and approach to economics generally. For those who have followed my pieces on TPS you may recall that I am qualified as a social anthropologist. I take the anthropological view that economics is about how a society uses and distributes its resources — that is any society, whether hunter-gatherer or a modern technological society. It is a view that raises some questions about our modern approach to economics. More…

Toxic talk
Ad astra, The Political Sword, 4 September 2016

Are you as offended, as disgusted as I am with the language used by our politicians day after day? Have you noted how mean-spirited, antagonistic and adversarial their words so often are? More…


Bring out your debt
2353NM, The Political Sword, 31 August 2016

After a year of saying that he could get the Federal Budget back into surplus, seemingly by just cutting support to the less well off in our society, Treasurer Scott Morrison finally realised something any school child who has started business studies classes would be well aware of — a balance sheet comprises debits and credits. More…

Rethinking our priorities
2353NM, The Political Sword, 28 August 2016

Some believe that those that purchase Lotto entries, play pokies or Keno or participate in other forms of gambling are effectively paying an idiot tax. On a purely rational level, they may be right as there is a significant chance that the few dollars you give to the Lotto machine operator or similar is wasted money – albeit a small proportion goes to the government in some form of wagering tax. More…

The meaning of life
Ad astra, The Political Sword, 24 August 2016

As you sit on your comfortable chair after a satisfying meal with a glass of your favourite drink in hand and view current affairs programmes on TV, do you reflect on the plethora of distressing images that assail viewers day after day? Do you ponder how you might feel if you were part of those images? More…

A once and future Senate
Ken Wolff, The Political Sword, 21 August 2016

We now know that the Senate elected at the July election comprises 30 Coalition members, 26 from the ALP, 9 Greens, 4 from One Nation, 3 from the Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) and one each from Family First, the Liberal Democrats, Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party and the Jacqui Lambie Network. Thirty-nine votes are required in the Senate to pass legislation, so the government will require either ALP or Green support, or otherwise support from nine of the eleven minor party members. Given that NXT has three Senators and One Nation has four, their support for every Bill opposed by the ALP and the Greens becomes essential. It will be a difficult situation for the government but there is another issue I wish to discuss. More…

Rudd and Abbott: saviour of their parties
2353NM, The Political Sword, 16 August 2016

Two of the three ex-prime ministers who were deposed by their own political party have been in the news in recent weeks. Kevin Rudd requested backing from the Coalition government to bid for the Secretary-General position at the United Nations and Tony Abbott claimed there are factional divisions in the NSW Liberal Party. On face value, both men are using the media to further their own ends. To observers of Australian politics, this really shouldn’t be a surprise. More…

The election in numbers 2: minor parties and independents
Ken Wolff, The Political Sword, 14 August 2016

A number of commentators made the point after the election that almost a quarter of voters did not vote for the major parties in the House of Representatives. But that is misleading on two counts. It ignores the 5% informal vote and the 10% vote for the Greens who I think are now entitled to be considered a major party — they do contest every seat after all. That leaves about a 10% first preference vote for other than major parties and, given that there were almost 150 smaller parties and independents, that is not a significant vote — an average of about 0.07% for each of them. More…

The standard you walk past...
2353NM, TPS Extra, 13 August 2016

Lieutenant General David Morrison AO gave the speech above in 2013 when it came to light that members of the Australian Army were alleged to be guilty of inappropriate behaviour to those of lesser rank and/or female. There are a couple of clear messages in the speech – firstly, his message to those who believe that his lack of tolerance of inappropriate behaviour is incorrect: if it does not suit you – get out. Secondly he correctly states that the standard of behaviour you walk past is the standard you accept. More…

Why are Abbott’s conservatives destroying our PM?
Ad astra, The Political Sword, 10 August 2016

To those of you who dispute the assertion embedded in the title, let me provide you with supporting evidence.

Some questions for you to answer:

Is Malcolm Turnbull the man you thought he was when he rolled Tony Abbott almost a year ago?
Has he fulfilled your initial expectations?
Is he as secure in his position as PM as he was initially?
Has he been limply acting as a proxy for Abbott and his policies?
More…

The democratisation of opinion
Ken Wolff, The Political Sword, 7 August 2016

With the rise of the internet and social media almost anyone can express their opinion to an audience in the thousands, even hundreds of thousands, no longer just to a circle of people who are physically present to hear the opinion. While that provides the democratisation of opinion, it also has a more sinister side. It has led to a widespread view that in this new democratic world all opinions are equally valid. More…

Make laugh – not war
2353NM, The Political Sword, 3 August 2016

A couple of weeks ago, our esteemed blogmaster Ad Astra published a piece asking Why is there so much anger? It’s a good question. Sociologists will tell us that whatever position a person takes on a particular subject, there will be some who agree, some who disagree and some who don’t have a strong opinion either way; they’re ‘sitting on the fence’. Some of those who disagree would listen to an argument designed to change their mind; for others, successfully changing their viewpoint would be impossible. More…

Johno goes to heaven
2353NM, The Political Sword, 31 July 2016

Johno was 89 when he died the other day. He was (as they religious say) a good and decent man and accordingly soon after his death he arrived at the ‘Pearly Gates’ where as tradition dictates, he was met by Saint Peter. More…




Why is there so much anger?
Ad astra, The Political Sword, 27 July 2016

No matter when we listen to the news, watch TV, or browse social media, the pervading emotion in so many items is anger, unremitting anger. We see it in the wars in the Middle East and among terrorist organizations. We are told it is what motivates individual terrorists. More…

Someone’s gotta pay
2353NM, The Political Sword, 24 July 2016

According to the Coalition government, the ALP’s campaign over the privatisation of Medicare was somewhere between dishonest and outright lies. While it is true that the Coalition has frozen some Medicare rebates and eliminated others, attempted to introduce a $7 co-payment to see a doctor in the 2014 budget and set up a task force to examine the outsourcing of payments to Australians, the Coalition claims that these measures were nothing to do with the privatisation of the Medicare entity. More…

Mr Turnbull, where are your verbs?
Ad astra, The Political Sword, 20 July 2016

It was one of The Political Sword’s regular contributors, Casablanca, who drew my attention to the absence of a verb in the Coalition’s prime slogan ‘Jobs and Growth’. She had been alerted by an article in The Guardian by Van Badham in May: Good slogan, Malcolm Turnbull, but growth in what kind of jobs? The absence of verbs is diagnostic of the malaise that afflicts PM Turnbull, Treasurer Morrison, Finance Minister Cormann and most of the Coalition ministry. More…

The election in numbers
Ken Wolff, TPS Extra, 18 July 2016

We know the Liberals lost 13 seats, or in other words Labor gained 13 seats, with one seat, Herbert, still in the balance at the time of writing. (Labor actually won 14 but gave one back which I will come to later.) The Liberals claimed a win because they did at least manage to hang on to government, thanks to the Nationals, and Labor claimed success because of the number of seats they gained. But can either party really claim success? The numbers suggest not. The numbers also suggest that individual seats varied markedly and there was not anything like a uniform swing to Labor, although swing there was overall. More…

The Liberals are dreaming
Ken Wolff, The Political Sword, 17 July 2016

On Sunday morning 10 July, before Shorten conceded defeat in the election, Arthur Sinodinos appeared on the ABC’s Insiders. He claimed the Coalition had a ‘mandate’ for its 2016 budget and its company tax cuts. Sinodinos’s view takes no account of the reality of the new parliament. More…

Australia; we need to have a conversation
2353NM, TPS Extra, 15 July 2016

There are three types of people in this world, those who make things happen, those who watch things happen and those who wonder what happened.- Mary Kay Ash.
Mary Kay Ash, the founder of Mary Kay Cosmetics, died in 2001, so it is extremely doubtful if she knew of Pauline Hanson. However, Ash’s motivational quotation above could go someway to explaining the election of Pauline Hanson, Jacquie Lambie and Derryn Hinch to the Australian Senate in 2016. More…

Just do your job
2353NM, The Political Sword, 13 July 2016

Fairfax media’s Matthew Knott asked the other day in Election 2016: The uncomfortable truth is the media got it wrong. How did we do it”. It’s a good question. More…




How has it come to this?
Ad astra, The Political Sword, 10 July 2016

The MSM and blog sites abound with critiques of the election and tentative predictions of the political outcomes. So why bother writing yet another to explain how it has all come to this? You will judge whether this analysis adds anything useful. More…

Sausage sizzles and mandates
2353NM, TPS Extra, 8 July 2016

There was a winner to the Federal Election last weekend. A lot of school parents’ organisations and charities made money on sausage sizzles and cake stalls across the country. While you could argue that if funding for education and to those less well-off was at a realistic level there would be no need for the sausage sizzle, it is becoming a tradition and clearly part of the Australian psyche. More…

The Liberal lie continues
Ken Wolff, The Political Sword, 6 July 2016

In his speech on election night, as reported by The Guardian, Malcolm Turnbull: … accused the Labor party of running “some of the most systematic, well-funded lies ever peddled in Australia” in a campaign in which Labor claimed the Coalition was planning to privatise the government funded health insurance system, Medicare. More…

G’day America
2353NM, The Political Sword, 3 July 2016

Hi, howyagoin? We hear that you are having a real problem with who is going to be your next President. If we understand the issues correctly, there is the choice of a property tycoon who seems to be able to lend his name to a lot of developments, star in what are laughingly called reality television series, lampoon women and minorities without fear or favour and also wants to build a fence along your borders. The last one is a bit silly – is it to keep you inside Trump’s America, or to keep others out? More…

Your vote is valuable
2353NM, The Political Sword, 29 June 2016

Over the past couple of months, Turnbull, Shorten, Di Natalie and others have been attempting to convince you that they are worthy of your first preference vote. The usual claim is that your vote is valuable. Guess what – it is. Every first preference vote cast at the election on 2 July is worth $2.62784 More…



The hazards of voting Liberal
Ad astra, TPS Extra, 29 June 2016

It’s clear that around half of all voters for the major parties will vote for the Liberal-National Coalition and half for Labor and the Greens. The result is likely to be close. There are many seats that promise to throw up intriguing results. If the Coalition wins, the Senate may end up being no more helpful to it than the last one. More…

Turnbull’s Medicare backflip – or is it?
Ken Wolff, The Political Sword, 26 June 2016

Turnbull recently announced that his government, if re-elected, will not change any element of Medicare. It came in response to Labor’s campaigning that Medicare was under threat, that it would be privatised, under a Liberal government. The general media response was to take Turnbull at his word and that Labor’s continuing use of the campaign was no more than a ‘scare campaign’ now based on a ‘lie’. But let’s take a closer look, including a careful examination of the words used. More…

Your call is important
2353NM, The Political Sword, 22 June 2016

To paraphrase, hell hath no fury like a politician scorned. Dennis Jensen, MP for the seat of Tangney, was not preselected by the Liberal Party to recontest the seat in Parliament. He is running as an independent. Jensen recently claimed Liberal MPs use database software to profile constituents and decline requests for help from decided voters, even their own supporters. The system is apparently called “Feedback”. More…

The tale of two Daleks
Ad astra, The Political Sword, 19 June 2016

Good Daleks are hard to find. They’re expensive. But for the Treasury and the Department of Finance, no cost is too high. So they spared no expense in their search for reliable Daleks that could repeat their messages tirelessly. They had hoped to find some with a rudimentary knowledge of economics and some understanding of finance, but had to settle for ones that at least could recite mind-numbing messages repeatedly and consistently. More…

National security theatre
2353NM, TPS Extra, 17 June 2016

It’s probably a co-incidence that there has been a lot more advertising around the National Security Hotline since the election was called. You know the ones, the sober colours, formal fonts asking you to report anything suspicious to a free call number. The television and radio advertising (with the foreboding music and deep voice reading the message) give you the impression that all information is valuable and a team of experts will dissect every scrap of information given and act on it. More…

Time for a new economic model
Ken Wolff, The Political Sword, 15 June 2016

Late in the 1970s Keynesian economics was largely abandoned when it failed to explain the stagflation that had occurred during that decade. Recently, in my piece ‘What economic plan?’, I quoted an Australian analyst with the CBA who suggested that recent national data released by the ABS was showing ‘bizarre’ results, an ‘anomaly’. That sounds suspiciously like the criticism of Keynesian economics in the ’70s. It suggests that it is time we reconsidered the current dominant economic models. More…

Feed a man a fish
2353NM, The Political Sword, 12 June 2016

Those who missed the ABC’s Lateline last Wednesday night lost the opportunity to learn about a private (they would prefer the term ‘independent’) school in Sydney that actually seems to want to make a difference. More…



The real Malcolm
2353NM, TPS Extra, 10 June 2016

Since Malcolm Turnbull’s elevation to the role of Prime Minister, there has been consistent reference to his stated ideals and beliefs last time he was the Leader of the Liberal Party plus his public comment on ‘social issues’ such as same sex marriage, internet connectivity, climate change, the republic and so on versus he actions as Prime Minister. For a member of the same party as Abbott and Bernardi, he was really quite ‘small L’ liberal. As times he was more liberal that the ALP. More…

Turnbull is selling us a pup
Ad astra, The Political Sword, 8 June 2016

You all know what that idiomatic expression means – being tricked into buying something that is worthless. It arose from the old swindle of selling a bag that purportedly contained a piglet, but instead there was a puppy inside. PM Turnbull wants you to believe that his bag contains a piglet, but all you will find is a pup. The piglet is called ‘Jobs and Growth’. More…

The economics of debating
2353NM, The Political Sword, 5 June 2016

Economists will tell you that they practise a science in a similar way to chemists, biologists and physicists. If certain inputs are made to solve an economic problem, there will be a certain result. Other scientists also use the same process, a chemist will tell you if you add certain quantities of two chemicals together, it might change colour, smoke or (everyone’s favourite) create an explosion. Others who are less enamoured with economics will suggest that if you put 100 economists in a room and give them a problem, they will come up with a solution. When the solution doesn’t work (because it usually won’t), the same economists will give you 150 reasons why it didn’t. More…

What economic plan?
Ken Wolff, TPS Extra, 3 June 2016

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull declared that GDP growth of 3.1%, reported by the ABS on 1 June, showed that his plan for the economy was on track: “You cannot succeed without a clear economic plan. Everything we have is encouraging companies to invest, to employ. So far so good. This confirms the direction we are leading the country in, in terms of our economic plan, but there is much more work to do.” More…

It’s all their fault
2353NM, The Political Sword, 1 June 2016

Have you ever noticed that politicians in general have a great ability to blame others? An example is Labor blaming Prime Minister Turnbull (as he was the former communications minister) for a $15 billion cost blowout in the construction of the NBN. Then in 2013 Turnbull accused Labor of the same thing (only the value was $12 billion in this case) Let’s put this simply — they both can’t be right! More…

*T&Cs apply
2353NM, TPS Extra, 31 May 2016

Charles Dickens wrote a book called Oliver Twist. It is undoubtedly a classic. The book has been the subject of numerous reviews, movies and is frequently a subject for study in English Literature classes. Perhaps the best known section of the book is where young Oliver asks the Master of the Workhouse for ‘more’. More…

How the Liberals are destroying Australia
Ken Wolff, The Political Sword, 29 May 2016

The image above shows rich and poor alongside each other in Mexico. Is this Australia’s future under the Liberals? Australia has a long history of egalitarianism. Between the gold rushes and the 1890s Australia was considered a ‘working man’s paradise’. The depression of the 1890s changed that somewhat but also fostered the growth of unionism and the birth of the Labor party to represent workers’ interests… More…

Turnbull’s Australia tax
2353NM, TPS Extra, 27 May 2016

You may have heard of “the Australia Tax”. The term comes from the apparent difference in the price of a seemingly identical product sold apparently cheaper in another country than the retail price in Australia. Computer software and Apple products are frequently mentioned as being subject to this tax and while it really isn’t that simple, the impression that you pay more because you live in Australia is certainly there. More…

What happened to us?
Ken Wolff, The Political Sword, 26 May 2016

Tony Abbott liked to scare us with tales of violent terrorists coming to attack us and, therefore, requiring more and more security to protect us. Even if we thought he was crazy or going too far, at least he was addressing us. Think about Turnbull’s approach and ask where are the policies, even the broad approaches, that address us, the people and communities of Australia, and our needs. More…

Behind the NBN raids: hypothetically speaking
Ken Wolff, TPS Extra, 25 May 2016

On Thursday 19 May the AFP raided the parliamentary offices of Stephen Conroy in Melbourne and the home of a political staffer as regards leaks from NBNCo. Next morning the AFP Commissioner maintained that there had been no political influence on the investigation, nor the timing of the raids, and that the relevant minister, the leader of the opposition, and even Conroy himself, had only been advised of the ‘investigation’ when the raids were commencing. But consider these hypothetical scenes. More…

Hordes of illiterates
Ad astra, The Political Sword, 24 May 2016

If you had to pick a minister to deliver a nasty message, you would not go past Peter Dutton, master of cruel comments, replete with his trademark po-face and matching body language. Last week, on Sky News, responding to the suggestion by the Greens that we should up our refugee intake to 50,000, his comment was... More…

Dead cats and reset buttons
2353NM, TPS Extra, 23 May 2016

Let’s not give further oxygen to Immigration Minister Peter Dutton’s nonsensical, bigoted and racist comment the other day regarding refugees coming to this country, taking our jobs and adding to our unemployment queues. Apart from the obvious flaw in the argument (if you lower yourself enough to call it that) how can people are take our jobs and add to our unemployment statistics at the same time? Dutton’s outburst is factually wrong on so many levels. More…

The barbie bigot is back: on Turnbull
Ken Wolff, TPS Extra, 22 May 2016

I previously took Brandis’s advice that we have a right to be a bigot an’ had a go at our last PM, pommy Tones, an’ said I was willing to refund his £10 to send him back to pommy-land, especially if we could spare an orange life boat for him. Now I want to have a word or two about the new PM, this Mal bloke. More…

Top hats versus hard hats
Ad astra, The Political Sword, 22 May 2016

Now that the official election campaign has entered its second week, it’s time to assess how each of the major political parties is framing its narratives. More…



Medical ice age: big freeze continues
2353NM, TPS Extra, 20 May 2016

In a previous piece I asked why the freeze on Medicare rebates, that has been in effect since November 2012, was not a major issue. I did not expect that it would be dropped in the 2016 budget but I also did not anticipate that it would actually be extended to 30 June 2020. It adds to the continuing assault on Medicare and our health system generally by the LNP. More...

For earlier items on The Political Sword at a Glance click here. 
The campaign bus
2353NM, The Political Sword, 18 May 2016

So who’s enjoying the current federal election campaign? The television stations certainly are as they are boosting their revenue by the second through showing the election advertising for the various political parties and lobby groups. The newspapers are also getting their share of additional advertising revenue. There are probably some people that are also enjoying rather than enduring the media reporting of the election campaign. At the speed that the election has fallen from top billing on the nightly news, it’s probably fair to suggest that most Australians are, to coin a phrase, gritting their teeth and thinking of the mother country. More…

The mythical $80,000
2353NM, The Political Sword, 15 May 2016

Some reading this would be able to remember the days when the urban dream was the quarter acre block in a ‘nice’ suburb, with a Holden, Falcon or, if you were a real radical, a Valiant parked in the driveway. If you’re younger, you’ve probably seen the concept on any one of a number of Australian history television shows over the years. More…

Jobs and growth, but what jobs?
Ken Wolff, TPS Extra, 11 May 2016

There are two key aspects to the government’s ‘jobs and growth’ mantra: one that it has been successful in creating 300,000 jobs and that its cut to company tax for small businesses will encourage business expansion (growth) and create more. Both assertions, however, are a bit rubbery to say the least. More…

Trickle down thinking breeds inequality
Ad astra, The Political Sword, 11 May 2016

In a piece published on 13 April, I predicted that inequality would be a hot button issue in the upcoming election. Now that we have had both Scott Morrison’s budget speech and Bill Shorten’s speech in reply, we can see how this issue will play out in the election. Although the word ‘inequality’ has not assumed the repetitive status of the ‘jobs and growth’ mantra, it is subtly pervading the political discourse. More…

My innovation is bigger than your innovation
Ken Wolff, The Political Sword, 8 May 2016

Malcolm Turnbull launched his ‘National Innovation and Science Agenda’ on 7 December last, three days after Labor had launched its ‘start ups’ policy, ‘Getting Australia Started’. The launch dates for the policies mean little, as obviously before such a launch there has been considerable background work and consultation – by both parties. So, if they have both done the work beforehand, do they come to the same conclusions and have they found and addressed the real issues facing us in our future ‘innovation economy’? More...

36 Faceless men
2353NM, The Political Sword, 4 May 2016

Let’s face it, the Australian political system is a winner take all arrangement. Either the ALP or the Coalition will win any given state or federal election and then proceed to implement some version of the policy that was voted on by the members of the political party at various conventions. More:

Why isn’t the Medicare rebate freeze a major issue?
Ken Wolff, TPS Extra, 2 May 2016

Although the former Abbott government dropped its $5 co-payment for Medicare it retained and extended a freeze on Medicare rebates that has the potential to introduce a co-payment by stealth. Read more here:



Lords and Ladies: the world changes
Ken Wolff, The Political Sword, 1 May 2016

My Lords and my Ladies, I beseech your indulgence, here before your magnificent court, to present for your amusement and moral edification the fourth iteration of the tale of Tiny Napoleon O’penmouth and his rival Mal C’od-turn-a-bull. Read more here:


Divining the federal budget
Ad astra, TPS Extra, 30 April 2016

Some of you may question the purpose of trying to divine what will be in the May 3 federal budget when the Turnbull Ship of State seems to be all at sea, wallowing towards an uncertain destination, facing strong headwinds, its sails flapping, its hull leaking, with a dithering Captain at the helm, a loquacious and at times incoherent First Mate insisting he knows where he’s going, and a motley crew. Read more here:

Policy from behind the scenes
Ken Wolff, The Political Sword, 27 April 2016

Any good public servant will tell you that policy is determined by government ministers. In Senate Estimates, and other committees, you will often hear public servants say they cannot comment on policy issues, that such questions should be directed to the minister. That is the way our system works in theory but does it actually operate that way in practice? Read more here:

Castles in the air
2353NM, The Political Sword, 24 April 2016

One of the points of difference between the Turnbull Government and the Shorten Opposition is negative gearing. We would all still be here next week if the current regime and the proposals were discussed in full, so how about we attempt to do the ‘helicopter’ version. Just keep in mind that this article is general in nature and doesn’t consider your financial situation. Read more here:

The shifting risk of superannuation
Ken Wolff, The Political Sword, 20 April 2016

Since the 1980s, Australia has changed the way we prepare for our retirement. Rather than depending on an aged pension from the government and some personal savings, greater emphasis has been given to superannuation and building retirement incomes in that way. All three remain in play for retirement but for most employees superannuation has become the major component. Read more here:

So we do have a revenue problem after all – now Moody’s says so
Ad astra, TPS Extra, 20 April 2016

Who could ever forget Scott Morrison’s astonishing statement when he became our nation’s treasurer: Australia doesn’t have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem! Balanced economists were aghast. Read more here:

What can we expect in the coming election
Ken Wolff, The Political Sword, 17 April 2016

Apart from the obvious statements, we can also tell there is an election in the air as, after six months of inactivity, the Turnbull government has engaged in a flurry of policy announcements — or in some cases what should be termed policy ‘thought bubbles’. That is not to mention the concomitant increase in television advertising for existing government programs and policies. Read more here:

Inequality will be a hot button election issue
Ad astra, The Political Sword, 13 April 2016

No matter who writes about inequality, the conclusion is the same: the gap between those at the top and those languishing at the bottom of the pile is widening in many countries, ours among them.

A more familiar way of talking about inequality is to talk about ‘fairness’, a concept every Aussie understands. The ‘fair go’ is valued by most of us. Who would argue against the idea that everyone should have a ‘fair go’?
Read more here:

Perceptions of corruption
2353NM, TPS Extra, 13 April 2016

During March, in what strategists at the time claimed was a masterstroke, Prime Minister Turnbull recalled the Parliament from April 18 primarily to consider the reintroduction of the ABCC legislation by the Senate. Turnbull also advised that if the ABCC legislation was rejected in it’s current form the response would be a double dissolution election. Others questioned why there was a ‘demonstrated’ need for an anti-corruption body responsible for the building industry and not other areas of Federal Government influence.
Read more here:

The calamitous Abbott lies in wait
Ad astra, The Political Sword, 10 April 2016

You may wonder why anyone would waste time writing about this man, erased from the top job by his own party, and discredited in multiple ways by commentator after commentator. For me, the reason is twofold. First, he is still confronting us day after day in the media, and just as importantly his successor is doing so poorly that some want Abbott to return. Read more here:

Continuity and change
2353NM, The Political Sword, 6 April 2016

Malcolm Turnbull’s re-election campaign started well. He tried out ‘continuity and change’ as a slogan when announcing the potential election date of July 2. While it might have been accidental, pinching the ‘meaningless’ election slogan from a US political satire could be seen as an indicator of the standard of the research and advice Turnbull is getting. Read more here:

The small government myth
2353NM, The Political Sword, 3 April 2016

Politicians are a strange breed. They will spend millions at elections time attempting to convince you that their side is better than the other because they will better manage the country. They will also tell you that they have irretrievable differences with their opponents and in essence – it’s their way or the highway. Read more here:





Malcolm’s Magic Pudding
2353NM, TPS Extra, 2 April 2016

Around 100 years ago, Norman Lindsay wrote what certainly has to be one of the classic Australian Children’s books ‘The Magic Pudding’. The story revolves around the owners of a pudding that automatically regenerates after a slice is cut being chased by dastardly ‘puddin thieves’ who in the end get their comeuppance. Read more here:


The irrational voter
Ad astra, The Political Sword, 1 April 2016

Those who think logically, who base their opinions on facts, figures and reason, are astonished at the decisions that some people make, decisions that seem to run contrary to evidence and logic. And it doesn’t matter if they are interested, intelligent, and in possession of the facts. Where the application of rational thought would be expected, out of left field they reach decisions that surprise because they are irrational. How often are voters irrational?
Read more here:




Where are the crooks?
Ad astra, The Political Sword, 30 March 2016

Ask Tony Abbott where the crooks are and he would repeat what he said when he set up the Royal Commission into Union Governance and Corruption: the crooks are clustered in the unions, particularly the construction unions, and most of all in the CFMEU. The last two words of the Commission’s title capture Abbott’s diagnosis. Unions are corrupt; the Commission’s task was to ascertain how corrupt. Read more here:

May your god go with you
2353NM, The Political Sword, 27 March 2016

It seems that the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) is the keeper of the morals and ethics of a number of conservative politicians in this country. So does the ACL really represent the views of christian Australia, or is it an attempt to enforce the views of a small group of people upon the majority?

To look at the views of the ACL, we need to do a bit of bible study. Those that will tell you that the bible is an accurate historical document have a fundamental problem in that the New Testament (the bit about Christianity) was written sometime after the events occurred.

Read more here:


Politicians and nappies
2353NM, TPS Extra, 24 March 2016

To paraphrase Mark Twain, Politicians and nappies must be changed often and for the same reason. Malcolm Turnbull effectively called the election this week and while a 15 week federal double dissolution election campaign is long. It could be worse – we could live in the USA! Read more here:

The Peter Principle again – has the GOVERNMENT reached its level of incompetence?
Ad astra, The Political Sword, 23 March 2016
It is not often that we see The Peter Principle played out before our very eyes. We saw it recently with ex-PM Tony Abbott and his Chief of Staff, Peta Credlin as they were promoted from opposition where they were deemed to be competent, to government where they were manifestly incompetent. Are we seeing it again with the Turnbull government? Read more here:

An ode to Mal Brough
2353NM, The Political Sword, 20 March 2016

Malcolm Thomas Brough was born in December 1961. He is the current Member of Parliament for the seat of Fisher – based on Queensland’s Sunshine Coast. Between 1996 and 2007, he was the Member for Longman – based on Brisbane’s outer northern suburbs. Brough recently announced his retirement from Parliament would take effect at the next election. Read more here:

On which leg does the Liberal Party stand?
Ken Wolff, The Political Sword, 16 March 2016

The Liberal Party often describes itself as ‘a broad church’, particularly when its parliamentarians are expressing different views. It is to be expected that political parties will contain within them people with different views on some issues but it seems the Liberal Party has a basic philosophical dilemma.

John Howard famously described himself as ‘an economic liberal and a social conservative’ and referred to the philosophic traditions of John Stuart Mill (considered the ‘father’ of liberalism) and Edmund Burke (the ’father’ of conservatism) for those positions: Mill and Burke are interwoven into the history and the practice and the experience of our political party. Read more here:


Malcolm's Bitter Harvest
Ad astra, The Political Sword, 13 March 2016

It would be trite to begin with the platitude: You reap what you sow. To Malcolm Turnbull though, that cliché must have an ominous ring about it as he reflects on his past. To what extent has he brought upon himself the political troubles that afflict him now? Read more here:


Politicide
Graeme Henchel via TPS Team, TPS Extra,
11 March 2016

It was only for two years, that the Thug was in the job
In that short time, he proved to be, a hopeless lying nob
Was not just him, in this crew, the talent is so sparse
It was always going to be one enormous sorry farce
Read more here:

The Peta Principle – how Abbott rose to the level of his incompetence
Ad astra, The Political Sword, 9 March 2016

‘What’s wrong with Tony Abbott?” It’s a question that’s been asked ever since he rose to prominence as party leader, if not before. But then the question had a whimsical ring about it. What was wrong with a leader who was so nasty, so misogynist, so belligerent, so hell bent upon the destruction of his enemies? Read more here:

Let’s talk about tax
2353NM, The Political Sword, 6 March 2016

Taxes are the things that provide services to the community. They provide transport, social security, defence, education, parks, rubbish removal and so on. Read more here:




And the Robbie nominees are. . .
2353NM, TPS Extra, 4 March 2016

Welcome to the 2016 Australian Federal Election Awards. We are here tonight to present the nominations for the tri-annual awards, based on form and practice during the past two years leading up to the scheduled election this year. Read more here:



Safe Schools, Unsafe Politicians
Ad astra, The Political Sword, 2 March 2016

Now we see it, the Christian-Right Liberal reactionaries digging their cruel claws into PM Turnbull over the ‘Safe Schools’ program, one specifically designed to help kids understand that different individuals have different feelings about their sexuality, and that all of us ought to understand, respect, and accept these differences. Read more here:

Karma is a bugger
2353NM, TPS Extra, 28 February 2016

Karma is a Buddhist concept. Very briefly, the concept is that nothing happens to a person that they don’t deserve. The Buddist website explains it a lot better here in case you are interested. Others would be more familiar with the concept of ‘paying it forward’ which effectively is the same thing. The past week in Federal Politics would suggest they can't win a trick. Read more here:

Turnbull and authenticity
2353NM, The Political Sword, 25 February 2016

Question: What do Donald Trump (Republican Presidential hopeful) and Jeremy Corbyn (Leader of the British Labour Party) have in common? Well it can’t be their politics. Read more here:




The year of the union
Ken Wolff, The Political Sword, 24 February 2016
For the Chinese, 2016 is the ‘Year of the Monkey’ but I think in Australia it may well be the year of the union — although not in a positive way. As it is an election year, and in the light of the Trade Union Royal Commission (TURC) report in December, we can expect the Coalition government to have a lot to say about unions during the year. Turnbull, in releasing the TURC report, has already indicated that he will make union ‘corruption’ an election issue if his legislation to implement the TURC recommendations, including the reintroduction of the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC), does not pass parliament. Read more here:

So we do have a revenue problem after all
Ad astra, TPS Extra, 16 February 2016

Who could ever forget Scott Morrison’s astonishing statement when he became our nation’s treasurer: Australia doesn’t have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem! Balanced economists were aghast. Any analysis of our balance sheet left no doubt that we needed more revenue to enable the government to provide the services the people need: Read more here:


Selfishness is political poison



Amid the contemporary chaos of national and international politics do you wonder what's behind it all?

Is there a common factor that might explain our own federal government’s failures, its incompetence, and its appalling behaviour?

Is there an explanation for the words, behaviour, and punitive actions of Donald Trump?

Is there a common theme that explains Brexit, and the rise of extreme right wing and conservative movements across Europe and in America?

This piece argues that selfishness in all its forms is a deadly poison that infiltrates, damages and eventually destroys a nation’s political principles and values. It is a lethal poison because it places self-interest ahead of the common good, and thereby brings in its wake inequality, unfairness, disadvantage, disentitlement, dispossession, disenfranchisement, repression, hopelessness, poverty, despair, and eventually destruction.

Long ago philosophers and clerics spoke of the Seven Deadly Sins. They are: lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride.

Their origin is attributed to the ‘Desert Fathers’, early Christian hermits, ascetics, and monks who lived mainly in the Scetes desert of Egypt beginning around the third century AD.

If you reflect on their nature, there is a common thread running through them – selfishness. Those who lust, want what others have; those who exhibit gluttony, want more than is reasonable; those who are greedy, want more than their fair share; and those who show envy, want what others have. Selfishness is at the core of most of the Seven Deadly Sins.

We don’t have to look far to see selfishness at play in politics the world over.

Let’s begin with the most grotesque example: Donald Trump.

In his adult life Trump has exhibited selfishness. He has lusted after money; he has lusted after fame; he has lusted after power. He now has all three.

Of these, power is the most intoxicating. We have seen him wielding it ruthlessly in public, showing off his signature on Executive Orders, the most potent of all being his Immigration Order that bars for 90 days refugees and people from majority-Muslim countries (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan and Libya) from entering the US. Last week Trump signed an Executive Order barring Syrian refugees indefinitely, and halting the US refugee resettlement program for four months.

He has issued several other orders, but his Immigration Order is the one that has evoked the most reaction from the public in the US and overseas. Massive rallies in the US and around the world continue to protest against its unfairness. US public officials have challenged the constitutionality of his action. A federal judge in New York granted an emergency stay, temporarily halting the deportation of people detained under Trump’s Order. Acting Attorney General Sally Yates defied Trump’s Executive Order on Immigration. So, as he was wont to do on his TV realty program The Apprentice, he fired her! Yet Trump may find that the legal challenges to his power - the law versus executive power – may be what bring about his undoing. America values its laws.

Overseas governments have expressed dismay at Trump’s Immigration Order, describing it in derogatory terms. A notable exception is our own PM, who has ‘declined to comment’ in public, an action consistent with his timid behaviour. He says he will comment in private to Trump, but who believes that when he’s beholden to Trump to take our Manus Island and Nauru refugees.

Trump’s punitive and selfish behaviour masquerades under clever framing designed to appeal to his supporters: ‘Put America First’, or simply ‘America First’. To the unthinking that seems reasonable. Already our own Treasurer is mouthing ‘Australia First’, and now our Opposition Leader is talking about 'Aussie First', both hoping to entice those who find that an attractive proposition, and in the process draw One Nation supporters their way.

But it’s the other side of the coin that offends. While on the superficial face of it putting one’s country first might seem reasonable, the corollary is that all others are second or lower down the pecking order. It distracts the electorate from the distress, the pain, the dispossession, and the desperation of hundreds of millions around the world who through war or natural disaster have been rendered homeless and destitute. What does putting one’s country first mean for them? Already we see the answer in Trump’s suspension of the US resettlement program and his indefinite barring of Syrian refugees.

Human beings are innately tribal at all levels of society. So looking after oneself and one’s own first seems natural and reasonable. But much of humanity has moved beyond that. It has recognized that those less fortunate deserve our attention, respect and support. Trump’s actions erode those worthy ideals, principles espoused by the great religions of the world. His actions have rekindled tribal instincts among many. A contemporary survey in the US reports that over 40% of respondents supports Trump’s immigration stance.

Yet there are hundreds of thousands who do not. They are out in the streets in the US and elsewhere, shouting ‘Let them in’. They despise Trump’s actions. They see the selfishness of his Orders, the arrogance of his actions, and the ruthlessness of his demeanour as destructive of the moral fibre of the US. They see him leading compliant Americans down a path of self-interest: US first, and to hell with the rest of humanity no matter how much suffering these people are enduring. Despite his quasi-religious words, his actions and behaviour are anti-Christian, but equally anti-Muslim, and anti all the great religions of the world that show concern for the poor, the dispossessed and the destitute, and seek to improve their condition.

Trump is leading his nation, and dragging compliant nations along with him, down a path of extreme selfishness and concomitant disregard for all others. It is the antithesis of responsible and caring behaviour. It is reprehensible. It is destructive.

Is there no one, no leader, no nation that will stop him?

Justin Trudeau has spoken out. He has made it clear that Canada welcomes refugees.

Most other nations are mute. Some European leaders have condemned Trump’s action, but have fallen short of renewing a welcome to refugees. They are terrified of the electoral consequences. We are witnessing the emergence of extreme right wing groups in France, Germany, and now even in the Netherlands, so that the contest at their next elections will be between the right wing and the extreme right wing. The progressives are being left behind.

Why have these extreme groups arisen? Selfishness again. They resent the levels of immigration from the Middle East and Africa that has seen millions of refugees trudging into Europe or arriving on the overcrowded boats of people-smugglers. The Brexit outcome demonstrated the unexpectedly high level of anger and resentment many Britons felt at the high level of immigration to the UK from Europe. They wanted their country back again.

We here are not immune from these sentiments. From Abbott to the arrogant Morrison to the loathsome Dutton, the anti-immigrant sentiment has been handed down, echoed by our timid PM, and applauded all the time by Pauline Hanson and her supporters. Collectively they have garnered the support of much of the electorate.

Wherever we turn, we see the ugly face of selfishness, an attitude of ‘me-first and too bad about the others’. Politicians have it within their power to counter this but few chose to do so. Justin Trudeau has. But our weak lily-livered PM and his conservative puppet-masters have chosen not to. Their self-interest is incompatible with concern about the common good.

If decent people feel despairing about the morality of governments around the world; if they feel deserted by our own federal government, it is because of selfishness, obsessive concern for personal survival, disinterest in the principles so poignantly expressed in the actions of the Good Samaritan, all the time accentuated by weakness and ineffectiveness in caring for anyone but their own.

Is selfishness the ultimate Deadly Sin?




What do you think?
Do you agree that selfishness is the root cause of most political conflict and discord?

If not, name what you regard as a more basic ‘sin’ in politics.

Let us know in comments below.

Recent Posts
In 2017 – let’s be the change we want to see
2353NM, 1 January 2017
Well look at that. 2016 is finished and 2017 has arrived to present us with more challenges. To be brutally honest, 2016 wasn’t the best of years for those who prefer progressive policy, equality and fairness for all. Later this month, Donald Trump becomes president of …
More...
Watch this space in 2017
Ken Wolff, 15 January 2017
As with most political issues, the following few questions are inter-related: Turnbull’s future may well depend on the economy, on whether or not a new conservative party forms and whether there is a Trump-inspired trade or currency war between China and the US; our economy may well depend on …
More...
‘Computer says ‘no’
2353NM, 29 January 2017
Once upon a time, someone came up with an economic theory that robbery was good for the economy. The theory was along the lines that the robbers get some extra cash and most of it will reappear in the economy at some point soon after the robbery; the bank or shop is insured for the loss so it gets its money back; and as the number of robberies per annum doesn’t exceed the insurance premiums that banks and shops pay, the insurance companies are not out of pocket either. More...

Happy Christmas and New Year to all our Visitors


This is the time to wish all our readers a Happy and Relaxing Festive Season with your Family, and to thank all who have sustained The Political Sword throughout 2016.

First, thanks go to our writers. Ken Wolff and 2353NM, who have joined me to author countless articles on TPS and TPS Extra during 2016. Their pieces are of universally excellent standard on subjects of relevance to the political scene here and overseas. The insights that these pieces have brought to readers have been deeply appreciated, so much so that the The Australian Independent Media Network (AIMN) has reproduced many of these pieces on its site, courtesy of Michael Taylor who oversees the Network.

Backing them up is our coding expert Bacchus, who, working behind the scenes, ensures that the pieces appear in perfect shape with graphics in place. This is a time consuming and exacting process, for which we all thank him. He, with the other authors and my dear spouse, proof read the pieces to ensure that they appear error-free. We are thankful for their attention to this demanding task.

Even further behind the scenes is Web Monkey who maintains the backend of The Political Sword, ensuring that it opens consistently and performs as expected. The thousands of lines of code on blogENGINE are housed on a server in Singapore, which Web Monkey monitors and backs up regularly. We thank him for his support, now in its ninth year.

Lyn’s Links were an important part of The Political Sword in its formative years. They attracted many readers. When Lyn retired from this activity, Casablanca filled the void. We are indebted to them both for their contribution to the success of TPS over the years.

The TPS Ambassadors have given great support to TPS throughout 2016 by publicising on Facebook and Twitter every new piece posted on the site. We thank them for their continuing contribution to the site.

Finally, we thank those who visit TPS and TPS Extra, and those of you who leave comments that add so much to the vibrancy of the site.

Elsewhere you have been advised of the schedule for 2017, the ninth year of TPS.

We hope you have a refreshing break over the end-of-year period and join us again in 2017. There will continue to be much to write about in these turbulent political times, here and around the world.

With warmest Christmas Greetings and every Good Wish for 2017.

Ad astra

Trump’s Uncertainty Principle


Way back in 1927 German physicist Werner Heisenberg described the Uncertainty Principle that applies to quantum mechanics. It states that the more precisely the position of a particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa. With apologies to Heisenberg and quantum physicists, the uncertainty principle seems to be a suitable metaphor for America’s President Elect.

Of all the nouns that could now be applied to the name ‘Donald Trump’, ‘uncertainty’ is the most plausible. Is there anyone who is prepared to make predictions with certainty about what Trump’s contribution to American and world politics might be?

Read these synonyms of ‘uncertainty’: unpredictability, unreliability, riskiness, chanciness, precariousness, unsureness, changeability, inconsistency, fickleness, hesitancy, doubt, vacillation, equivocation, vagueness, ambivalence, disquiet, wariness, chariness, skepticism, doubt, misgiving, apprehension, quandary, dilemma, reservation, query, and suspicion.

Read these antonyms: certainty, predictability, and confidence.

Are there any synonyms that do not apply to Trump?

In the June issue of The Atlantic, long before the presidential election, Dan P. McAdams, professor of psychology and the director of the Foley Center for the Study of Lives at Northwestern University, wrote The Mind of Donald Trump, a detailed appraisal of the psychological traits that govern Trump’s behaviour. It’s a long article that is well worth the time it takes to read it.

McAdams based his analysis of Trump on the five basic dimensions of human variability, which are pretty stable across a person’s lifetime (Trump is 70):

Extroversion: gregariousness, social dominance, enthusiasm, reward-seeking behavior

Neuroticism: anxiety, emotional instability, depressive tendencies, negative emotions

Conscientiousness: industriousness, discipline, rule abidance, organization

Agreeableness: warmth, care for others, altruism, compassion, modesty

Openness: curiosity, unconventionality, imagination, receptivity to new ideas.

Who would disagree that Trump exhibits hyper-extroversion and hypo-agreeableness? He seems to be low on neuroticism, but on the ‘conscientiousness’ scale he is high on industriousness, yet low on discipline; his minders had to endure his ill discipline on the campaign trail and on social media. His ‘openness’ is questionable. He is unconventional, but who is willing to predict his willingness to embrace new ideas?

McAdam analysed Trump’s traits in detail:
“Across his lifetime, Donald Trump has exhibited a trait profile that you would not expect of a U.S. president: sky-high extroversion combined with off-the-chart low agreeableness…

“A cardinal feature of high extroversion is relentless reward-seeking. Prompted by the activity of dopamine circuits in the brain, highly extroverted actors are driven to pursue positive emotional experiences, whether they come in the form of social approval, fame, or wealth. Indeed, it is the pursuit itself, more so even than the actual attainment of the goal, that extroverts find so gratifying. When Barbara Walters asked Trump in 1987 whether he would like to be appointed president of the United States, rather than having to run for the job, Trump said no: “It’s the hunt that I believe I love.”
McAdams asked his readers to: “Imagine Donald Trump in the White House. What kind of decision maker might he be?”

He concedes that it is very difficult to predict the actions a president will take:
"Research suggests that extroverts tend to take high-stakes risks and that people with low levels of openness rarely question their deepest convictions. Entering office with high levels of extroversion and very low openness, George W. Bush was predisposed to make bold decisions aimed at achieving big rewards, and to make them with the assurance that he could not be wrong…

“Like Bush, a President Trump might try to swing for the fences in an effort to deliver big payoffs – to make America great again, as his campaign slogan says.

“As a real-estate developer, he has certainly taken big risks, although he has become a more conservative businessman following setbacks in the 1990s. As a result of the risks he has taken, Trump can (and does) point to luxurious urban towers, lavish golf courses, and a personal fortune that is, by some estimates, in the billions, all of which clearly bring him big psychic rewards. Risky decisions have also resulted in four Chapter 11 business bankruptcies involving some of his casinos and resorts.

“Because he is not burdened with Bush’s low level of openness, Trump may be a more flexible and pragmatic decision maker, more like Bill Clinton than Bush: He may look longer and harder than Bush did before he leaps. And because he is viewed as markedly less ideological than most presidential candidates (political observers note that on some issues he seems conservative, on others liberal, and on still others non-classifiable), Trump may be able to switch positions easily, leaving room to maneuver in negotiations with Congress and foreign leaders.

“But on balance, he’s unlikely to shy away from risky decisions that, should they work out, could burnish his legacy and provide him an emotional payoff.”
It has been observed that Trump reads little. He relies on his gut feelings when assessing risks, even when the stakes are high.

In his article McAdams relates a story about Trump negotiating the purchase of an estate in Scotland to convert the dunes and grassland into a luxury golf resort. “The estate’s owner, Tom Griffin, recalls that Trump was a hard-nosed negotiator, reluctant to give in on even the tiniest details, but as Michael D’Antonio wrote in his recent biography of Trump, ‘Never Enough’, Griffin’s most vivid recollection of the evening pertains to the theatrics. It was as if the golden-haired guest sitting across the table were an actor playing a part on the London stage. “It was Donald Trump playing Donald Trump,” Griffin observed. There was something unreal about it.”

Donald Trump is an actor. He is a TV reality show star. He is accomplished at acting. A week after his election he has already retreated on several policy issues that were key to his success. It looks now as if Trump’s election rhetoric was an act to attract votes from the audience that he perceived would support him strongly: working, white middle class males resentful at having lost their jobs to overseas countries because of globalization and technology.

Let’s look at what’s become of some of his pre-election rhetoric.

The Mexican wall now might be made up in part by fences. There’s been no more talk of Mexico footing the bill.

The threat to deport some three million illegal Mexican immigrants is no longer a certainty, as it was pre-election. Who can guess how that threat will play out?

It seems now that ‘Obamacare’ will no longer be discontinued and replaced by Trump’s ‘superior scheme’. How much of it will survive? Will another scheme even be offered?

NATO now seems to be back in favour with Trump, and the nuclear threat that embellished his rhetoric has been toned down.

After Trump met Barack Obama, whom he had denounced repeatedly, he began to talk about seeking his counsel. His condemnation of Crooked Hillary and the criminal Clinton family has turned into words of admiration for what the Clintons have contributed, and there’s even talk of Trump seeking their advice. The threat of criminal prosecution and gaol for Hillary has evaporated, at least for now. Trump’s acerbic comments about several of his Republican rivals and colleagues have lost much of their acidity.

Already, predictions of what President Trump might do are proving problematic. Writing in the November 12-13 issue of The Weekend Australian, Paul Kelly warns: Beware of confident predictions about what Trumpism means once the man sits in the Oval Office. This is a classic Donald Rumsfield’s notion of ‘known unknowns’ – things we know we don’t know. The smartest people in the world are clueless about how Trump will govern or what he will actually do.”

Given that Trump is a consummate actor who can be whatever Trump he wants to be at any time, who can change like a chameleon from one policy position to the converse, how finely tuned are his political skills?

He certainly tapped into the prevailing anger and resentment of unemployed white males in the rust belt. Although it was a close election (Clinton won the popular vote), Trump captured 60% of the white male vote with his promises to fix their problems.

Paul Kelly wrote: “He has mobilized a new force in the country…the key was Trump's cunning in diagnosing the ‘personal grievances’ plaguing the American soul. Trump became a symbol – the fixer, the nostalgic agent, the man who shared your anger, and he depicted a political establishment rotten to the core. His victory revealed an America even more politically divided than we grasped, with its sense of moral compass smashed to pieces.”

So far Trump gets high marks in political acumen on the domestic front for winning what the pundits and polls said was unwinnable for him. But how will he fare on the international front? Nobody knows.

Kelly’s assessment is:
"Trump’s brazen capacity to impose parts of his agenda and ditch others should not be misjudged. Remember, Trump doesn’t play by the rulebook; he just tore it up and got rewarded.

“This is a time for calm and rationality. Anger at Trump’s election is as worthless as denouncing the American public. It is as true today as it was before to say Trump is unfit to be president. But it is counter productive because he is president. History keeps remaking our realities. And Trump, inexperienced in public life, must figure out how to keep remaking himself.

“If you believe that Trump’s agenda is a danger to the world – pretty much a statement of the obvious – then the only rational response is to engage, advocate and persuade.” This is how political leaders around the world should act…

“In truth, Trump is about to enter a steep learning curve. He will be more prepared to listen to friends and supporters, not patronizing leaders who think criticizing Trump will earn them electoral kudos at home. Trump, no doubt, will treat such leaders as mugs. You don’t need a doctorate in psychology to realize Trump is a vain man with a glass jaw likely to visit retribution on leaders and countries that opt for gratuitous insults.
[He is said to keep count of insults and slights and extract revenge later.]

“The most fascinating element in Trump, however, is his dual identity. There seems to be two Donald Trumps, thereby complicating how the new president will govern: the real Trump and candidate Trump.”
What motivates Trump?

Winning, success, admiration, praise and wealth top the list.

According to Barack Obama, Trump is pragmatic rather than ideological. Judging from his pre-election pronouncements, he seems not to have fixed policy positions, nor does he have many. In that case he might not find the ideologies of the conservatives and their hard right colleagues in the Tea Party attractive enough to underpin his policies when he gets round to formulating them.

Obama has reassured us that Trump is committed to America’s four international alliances, of which NATO is the most important. Former US ambassador to Australia, John Berry, in an interview on Lateline, indicated that Trump would likely honour the deal to take refugees from Nauru and Manus Island as the US alliance with Australia was so strong; Australia is “a great friend and great ally”. The ABC reported that Australia was Trump’s ‘poster boy’! Less reassuring is the talk of the US amassing a fleet to challenge China’s incursion into the South China Sea.

Trump’s commitment to the UN Climate Change initiative is more problematic. He regards all the talk of global warming as a hoax, ”created by and for the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing non-competitive”, and has threatened to cut US funding for the UN initiative. Should he do so, the UN efforts to restrict global warming to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels would be severely frustrated. Chaos in the environmental arena would result. We can only hope his advisors will persuade him not to go down that dangerous track, and instead focus on renewable energy rather than his beloved fossil fuels.

Another contentious policy area is free trade. Trump is isolationist, and threatens to put up trade barriers in the form of high tariffs on imported goods, especially those from China. The Trans Pacific Partnership, which has only lukewarm support in America, seems doomed already.

On the economic front he talks as if he is a latter-day Ronald Reagan, intent on giving massive tax cuts – from 35% down to 15% – a move that would cut federal revenues by an estimated $9.5 trillion over a decade. He lauds Reaganomics, based as it was on trickle down economics, but as Saul Eslake points out, he ignores the fact that during Reagan’s presidency “the US Federal Reserve cut rates from 17.5 to 6 per cent, and the US debt-to-GDP ratio rose from 20 to 40 per cent.” Trumponomics will do no more to benefit the unemployed and lower income workers than any other iteration of trickle down economics has. His stated intention though to build massive infrastructure might.

Writing in The Weekend Australian about Trump, John Durie noted: “The magic wand is missing, as is some magic potion. No wonder, when asked, Australia’s financial regulators were unanimous in their warning that ‘it’s too early to tell what Trump will do’ ”

All the above leaves aside the fact that the US President Elect has many personal defects. To paraphrase what I wrote in Trump is just part of the problem:
"We can see from his words and actions that on the personal front he is an ugly misogynist and a womanizer, yet is disrespectful of so many of the women who have entered his ambit, women whom he regards as his property, to do with as he wishes. He labels as liars the continuing procession of women who have accused him of sexual predation, insisting that all these claims have been ‘proven false’, and that he will sue them after the election.


“We know too that he is a bully, and has a nasty streak that shows when he calls his opponent ‘Crooked Hillary’…labels her a ‘criminal’... calls her a liar, accuses her of ‘having tremendous hate in her heart’, attacks her over her husband’s alleged womanizing, and suggests she should be drug tested before their debates.”
It’s curious that these obnoxious attributes have attracted little comment since the election; commentators are now so concerned about the domestic and global consequences of a Trump presidency that they have faded into the background. Womanizing is one thing, but the prospect that he will propel the US and the world into chaos and conflict is what Trump observers are petrified about.

’Uncertainty’ makes for anxiety, apprehension, and fear. World and national leaders are afflicted, as are international bodies, defence analysts, economists, international and national bankers, business and industry bodies, unions, refugee agencies, advocates for women, pro-choice advocates, immigration and multicultural activists, and countless men, women and even children who are now even more uncertain about the future, the future of their nation, the future of the globe as it faces multiple challenges which world leaders seem unable to manage. To add to their anguish, they now have the burden of having to deal with a loose cannon leading the most powerful nation on earth. Understandably, uncertainty and fear are the prevailing emotions.

So much depends on those with whom Trump surrounds himself, and those to whom he listens.

Isn’t is astonishing that just one man has created this extraordinary global upheaval!



What do you think?
What is your assessment of how Trump will govern?

Let us know in comments below.

Recent Posts
Inequality is an invasive global cancer
Ad astra, 9 November 2016
Inequality has been the subject of several pieces on The Political Sword. They have focussed primarily on income and wealth inequality, which afflicts massive swathes of the world’s peoples, consigning them to constrained lives where poverty, underprivilege, disadvantage …
More...
Aaand it’s sold
2353NM, 16 November 2016
Housing affordability is perceived to be an issue in Australia. In some areas of Australia, the median price of a house is in excess of $1million and there is some justification in the common questions around how on earth can a young couple ever be able to afford a house in that market. There are a number of answers …
More...
Let’s welcome President Trump
2353NM, 20 November 2016
Yes, you read the title correctly. Donald J Trump will be the 45th President of the United States of America after amassing more ‘Electoral College’ votes on 8 November 2016. It doesn’t matter that Clinton won the popular vote as the ‘Electoral College’ is where you need to outperform. The reality is that close to 45% of the population used their democratic right of not voting for any Presidential candidate.
More...

Inequality is an invasive global cancer


Inequality has been the subject of several pieces on The Political Sword. They have focussed primarily on income and wealth inequality, which afflicts massive swathes of the world’s peoples, consigning them to constrained lives where poverty, underprivilege, disadvantage, and lack of opportunity has blighted individuals, families, communities, and in some instances, whole nations. Such inequality is divisive, disruptive and destructive to civilized society.

Recently we have seen the ‘inequality syndrome’ play out more strikingly and alarmingly as a metastasizing global malignancy that threatens to invade and destroy the very foundation of the harmonious social order we crave within societies, and more widely across national boundaries. Unless national and international immune systems can counter this cancer’s spread, we are doomed to ongoing discord, conflict, confrontation, warfare, and the death of our cherished institutions.

We don’t need to think back too far to remember Brexit and the reasons for it. And in the US we have witnessed a most unedifying display of the consequences of inequality played out during the long and distressing presidential election campaign.

Inequality is a global cancer that afflicts countless societies and billions of people. Chillingly, the cancer seems out of control. No one has the cure. We feel like the patient who has been told that nothing more can be done.

I will expand on this theme later, but for those who might not have been following the discourse on inequality on The Political Sword, in April there was Inequality will be a hot button election issue. Although Bill Shorten tried to make it so, Malcolm Turnbull and his Liberals were having nothing of that, so inequality was no more than a dark shadow in the background. Then in May there was Trickle down thinking breeds inequality that described standard neoliberal economic dogma that postulates that giving tax cuts to the top end of town will foster investment, grow jobs and increase wages. Although long ago debunked as zombie economics, it remains holy writ to conservatives, and is still being trotted out here and elsewhere.

The recent visit of French economist Thomas Piketty has heightened interest in inequality. In The Picketty divide Part 1, his basic theory is delineated: “
Piketty has a basic equation developed from tax data across a number of countries going back over two hundred years: r > g That is, the rate of return on capital (r) is greater than the rate of growth of income (g). Throughout the nineteenth century and up to World War I, that greater rate of return led to high levels of inequality, with wealth concentrated at the top. In periods of high inequality, the rich can hold capital up to seven times the value of total national annual income. Thus those with inherited wealth who invest their capital will become even wealthier, and will always outperform those on wages alone.”
Piketty’s views have been widely endorsed by economists, although not by neoliberal thinkers.

One reviewer of his book Capital in the 21st Century interpreted his thesis as follows: '…inherited wealth will, on average, “dominate wealth amassed from a lifetime’s labour by a wide margin. Wealth will concentrate to levels incompatible with democracy, let alone social justice. Capitalism, in short, automatically creates levels of inequality that are unsustainable.”'

For those interested in his work there was also The Piketty divide Part 2 and Piketty Un-picked.

Inequality has been a life-long interest of Nobel Laureate in economics Joseph Stiglitz, whose views were discussed in Focus on political ideology: Joseph E Stiglitz. In that piece there was a summary of Stiglitz’ thesis provided by Project Syndicate, an international not-for-profit newspaper syndicate and association of newspapers that distributes commentaries and analysis. It read:
America likes to think of itself as a land of opportunity, and others view it in much the same light. But, while we can all think of examples of Americans who rose to the top on their own, what really matters are the statistics: to what extent do an individual’s life chances depend on the income and education of his or her parents?

“Nowadays, these numbers show that the American dream is a myth. There is less equality of opportunity in the United States today than there is in Europe – or, indeed, in any advanced industrial country for which there are data.

“This is one of the reasons that America has the highest level of inequality of any of the advanced countries – and its gap with the rest has been widening. In the “recovery” of 2009-2010, the top 1% of US income earners captured 93% of the income growth. Other inequality indicators – like wealth, health, and life expectancy – are as bad or even worse. The clear trend is one of concentration of income and wealth at the top, the hollowing out of the middle, and increasing poverty at the bottom.

“It would be one thing if the high incomes of those at the top were the result of greater contributions to society, but the Great Recession showed otherwise: even bankers who had led the global economy, as well as their own firms, to the brink of ruin, received outsize bonuses.”
This brings me to the main thrust of this piece. Feelings of unfairness and inequality are corrosive. We see this the world over.

Take Brexit. There are many reasons why UK voters voted for Brexit, but prominent among them was opposition to immigration. Many British folk voted for leaving the European Union because they felt alienated from their own communities because of the influx of migrants from foreign countries. Some said they hardly recognized their local community when they walked down their main street because there were so many foreigners on the streets and in business there. They were angry that these people were taking their jobs, and more poignantly taking away their British way of life. They felt they were being left behind in their own country. Anguish is the genesis of their sense of dispossession and their feelings of inequality. Their anger persists to this day. The recent UK High Court decision that only parliament can trigger the activation of Article 50 that initiates exit from the European Union, has re-activated the hope among Brexit opponents that exit might be thwarted. Brexit supporters are furious.


All across Europe, in America, in Asia, and even in our own country, there are those who strongly resent asylum seekers and even invited immigrants arriving at their country’s borders. Pauline Hanson was unapologetic when she stridently asserted: “Refugees are not welcome here”. No doubt the quarter of a million who voted her in feel the same.

The resentment extends even to benign communities. Last week, citizens of Eltham, an outer suburb of Melbourne that is largely middle class, joined together to welcome government-invited Syrian refugees into spare accommodation in a local aged care facility. They initiated a ‘butterfly’ movement, festooning fences with welcoming words. To their surprise and disappointment, their peaceful suburb was invaded at the weekend by a group of protestors angry at the welcome being extended to these distressed refugees from that grotesquely war-torn nation. This vignette is symptomatic of the invasive cancer that can spread even into peaceful communities when resentful protestors feel that immigrants are getting an unfair share of this country’s resources and welfare. The Good Samaritan came out to assist the traveller, beaten and robbed and left for dead, while the Priest and the Levite, not satisfied with simply ignoring him, reviled him for good measure.

Resentment and anger are cancerous. The cancer emerges when there is a threat to what people and communities have come to value: security, a decent job, a family home, a sense of belonging, the respect of peers, and societal harmony.

The US presidential election has exposed even more starkly the ugly side of human nature. Donald Trump has tapped into the intense feelings of inequality, dispossession, disadvantage and despair that many feel as they see their jobs going overseas, or to illegal Mexican migrants, or to Muslim refugees. Many white men in America’s rust belt have lost their once-secure jobs; with globalisation manufacturing has moved from their home towns to overseas plants. Automation and rapidly changing technology has made many jobs redundant. They feel hopeless. They harbour deep resentment that the America that was once great is no longer so, and they have been the losers.

It is not surprising then, when Trump calculatingly stirs up their resentment and promises to ‘Make America Great Again’, they believe he can, and that life would be great for them again as jobs return and prosperity abounds! They think their feelings of disadvantage and inequality would magically evaporate.


Trump has taken an isolationist, protectionist stance. He says he will tear up trade deals that he believes disadvantage America, he will build a wall to keep Mexicans out, and he will put a stop to Muslim immigration. Because he believes global warming is a hoax, he boasts that he will scrap America’s commitment to the UN climate change initiatives, and will reinstate coal as America’s prime energy source. In classic neoliberal fashion, he promises that 'massive tax cuts' will restore lost jobs. All of these ideas are anathema to clear-thinking economists, but his followers believe his every word, his every promise. He backs his promises by referring to his business success, and on the international front by stating his intention to create a supercharged military that will ensure America's global superiority. What he says appeals and gives them hope. He is their messiah, and their messianic hope cannot be extinguished. Facts and logic are irrelevant; blind faith, akin to religious fervour, is their bulwark.

There is no point in denouncing their edifice of beliefs. They are built brick by brick out of feelings of disenfranchisement, alienation, dispossession, poverty, despair, and fear. They believe that the political establishment has no concern for them, no interest in their plight, no remedy for their desperate condition. They believe, and Trump reinforces this belief every day, that the political establishment is incompetent, and like its elite backers and the media, is corrupt and self-serving. Many agree with the general thrust of his thesis, but few believe that he has the understanding, or the skill or capacity to change the establishment for the better. Ironically, his background is as a member of a powerful wealthy elite that flouts the law and uses it for personal advantage. He is a billionaire businessman who has paid no tax for a decade, and who refuses to reveal any tax details.

His singular immorality though is that in pursuit of the presidency he is deliberately amplifying the feelings of inequality and dispossession his supporters feel so intensely, and promising what he would never be able to deliver.

Inequality is much broader than wealth and income equality. It affects all facets of life. As celebrated epidemiologist Michael Marmot has shown, health inequality parallels income inequality. Those lowest on the social scale have the worst health. Yet Trump says he will abolish ‘Obamacare’, even although it has afforded health insurance for millions of poor people who previously could not afford it.

Because we now live in a global society, we are able to see what others have, here and overseas. When individuals see others prospering in peaceful societies while they languish in poverty, when they endure conflict, war, destruction and death, they feel unequal and deeply resent it. Even if those in war-torn countries were gifted a good income, their suffering and terror would continue, and they would still seek a safer place to live and bring up their children.

Inequality is not restricted to wealth and income. Just as distressing are inequalities in job opportunities, rewarding employment and decent housing; inequalities in education, healthcare, life expectancy and justice; and inequalities in the enjoyment of a productive and peaceful family life free of political, religious and racial persecution, xenophobia and hatred. These inequalities are all sources of resentment and anger, and in extreme situations, discord, conflict and social disruption.

Every day we see the malignant cancer of inequality spreading throughout the world. It has invaded the UK, Europe, the Middle East, Asia, the US and its presidential election, and even our own country as xenophobic forces seek to shape our politics and our society. The cancer of inequality has metastasized globally. Is it beyond cure? Is there the possibility of a remission? Is it possible even to excise a local metastasis?

Every day there is one commentator or another who highlights inequality as a major issue in society. Progressives echo this, but conservatives never mention it. Equality is not part of their DNA. Indeed, they regard inequality as the acceptable norm. Their policies and actions worsen inequality. They do not see its malignancy, nor do they see that it is spreading inexorably, here and elsewhere. They have no cure, because to them it’s insignificant and inconsequential, a benign condition not worthy of a politician’s attention.

When conservatives are society’s physicians, expect no diagnosis of the cancer of inequality; expect no remediation.


What do you think?
What is your view of inequality in the world?

Do you see it as a threat to global harmony and stability?

Do you have a remedy for inequality?

Let us know in comments below.

Recent Posts
All hail the mighty banks
Ken Wolff, 23 October 2016
Banks have been in the news recently and there is a clear difference in the approaches of the government and the opposition. While some may suggest that Bill Shorten is being populist in his call for a Royal Commission into the activities of the banks, particularly the ‘big four’, it is clear that Turnbull’s approach of calling them …
More...
Trump is just part of the problem
Ad astra, 26 October 2016
There are two outcomes of the US presidential election that should horrify us all: Trump wins or Trump loses.

The horror of his winning leaves little to the imagination. We can see from his words and actions that on the personal front …
More...
The problem with conservative warriors
2353NM, 6 November 2016
A lot of employers place significant levels of trust in their employees. Retailers trust their employees to charge the customers the correct amount for the products they sell and put the money into the register; airlines trust that their employees are fit and mentally capable of servicing or flying the plane they are assigned to fly; bus and truck operators trust that their drivers will drive the vehicle along the assigned route; while health care workers are trusted to look after those in their care.
More...

Trump is just part of the problem



There are two outcomes of the US presidential election that should horrify us all: Trump wins or Trump loses.

The horror of his winning leaves little to the imagination. We can see from his words and actions that on the personal front he is an ugly misogynist and a womanizer, yet is disrespectful of so many of the women who have entered his ambit, women whom he regards as his property, to do with as he wishes. He labels as liars the continuing procession of women who have accused him of sexual predation, insisting that all these claims have been ‘proven false’, and that he will sue them after the election.

We know too that he is a bully, and has a nasty streak that shows when he calls his opponent ‘Crooked Hillary’. He labels her a ‘criminal’ because of her email difficulties, although no charges have ever been laid by any authority. He calls her a liar, accuses her of ‘having tremendous hate in her heart’, attacks her over her husband’s alleged womanizing, and suggests she should be drug tested before their debates, as ‘he doesn’t know what’s going on with her’. He insists that it would be a total disaster should she be elected since, among other calamities, ISIS and Muslims would take over the country, international relations would become even worse, and the economy, already 'busted', would sink still further.

At the second debate he informed her that if he won he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate her e-mail habits as secretary of state, and when she expressed relief that someone with a temperament like his was not in charge of the law, his rejoinder was, ‘Because you’d be in jail.’ Subsequently, at his rallies his supporters have chanted: ‘Lock her up, lock her up’!

In the third debate we saw more of the same. At first more disciplined, he could not sustain that demeanour; halfway through he broke out into his usual ugly Trumpisms. Just 24 hours later they continued throughout the Al Smith Charity Dinner in Manhattan, a traditionally light-hearted event attended by both candidates, one usually devoid of nasty barbs. But Trump could not contain his nastiness, as the videos show in this article in The New Daily.

We know too that his policy platform includes banning Muslims from entry, with what he likes to term ‘extreme vetting’, building a wall across the border with Mexico at Mexico’s expense to keep out Mexican ‘criminals, drug dealers and rapists’, scrapping trade deals that ‘rob Americans of their jobs’, and smashing ISIS by ‘bombing the shit out of them’, all in the cause of ‘Making America Great Again’. He shows his admiration for tough man Vladimir Putin and exhibits his willingness to cozy-up to him, contrary to contemporary US policy.

Apart from these outrageous policy positions, his campaign is largely policy-free on such matters as health, education, and foreign relations. He has threatened to ‘cancel billions in payments to the UN climate change program’ agreed to in Paris, as he considers global warming to be a hoax.

His latest assault on American democracy is his accusation of voter fraud, his assertion that the presidential election is rigged, and that the media is culpable, dishonestly representing his and his opponents case for election. Even close colleagues will have none of that accusation, which many see as Trump’s attempt to give himself an excuse for losing, which many of his colleagues and numerous social commentators believe will be the case.

Barack Obama’s response was apt: he reminded Trump that it’s ‘unprecedented’ for any candidate to try to discredit an election before it began, and advised Trump to ‘stop whining’ and get on with making a case for winning more votes. But as Women’s Agenda reminds us: “Trump has previously embraced the label of “whiner”, telling a CNN interviewer last year that “I do whine because I want to win and I’m not happy about not winning and I am a whiner and I keep whining and whining until I win.”

Trump’s threat to not honour the election result no matter the outcome, covert in his earlier utterances, became the defining moment in the third debate when in response to a direct question on this matter he replied: “I will look at it at the time”, hardly reassuring for those who expect the traditional smooth transition to the next president. If his thinly veiled threat becomes reality, we can expect a level of discord and disruption never before seen post-election in the US. The following morning he reiterated that he would accept the result, but ‘only if he won’! Now he’s insisting that the opinion polls that put him well behind are 'phoney', and that he’s really winning!

Many Americans share the horror of a Trump victory, particularly a large majority of women (although sadly not the majority of American men), and are fearful of what a Trump presidency would bring about. There is a strong consensus among leaders of many other nations, and commentators worldwide, that a Trump presidency would be disastrous. Many of his Republican colleagues share this view. Some have disowned him and his views and have distanced themselves from him lest he spoil their chances of re-election; some have contradicted his bizarre statements.

While many express fear about what a Trump presidency would do for the global economy, world stability, and international relations, how many have seriously contemplated what might come about should Trump win, a highly unlikely but not impossible outcome, and how world leaders would cope?

But while a Trump loss could hardly be worse than a victory, it would be foolish to believe that it would be without trauma at many levels. This piece attempts to tease out the possibilities.

Trump’s blanket condemnation of the mainstream media suggests a plausible post election defeat scenario: Trump will establish his own extreme right wing media outlet, one that would rival the existing one – Fox News. Trump is a billionaire businessman who has had experience in reality TV. It would come naturally to him to establish a TV network to compete with Fox News with even more extreme conservative, Republican and anti-Democrat views, and he has a readymade audience of supporters keen to lap up its every utterance. Not only would such an outlet be able to push neoliberal ideology, but it would also be a bridgehead from which it could assault a Clinton presidency, and make governing near to impossible with rancorous publicity and continuous condemnation. Fox News is bad enough; ‘Trump News’ would be even more vicious, vindictive, vitriolic, vengeful, venal and vile, should Trump seek to take out his revenge on the one who defeated him and all those who supported her.

This is not an idle thought, an improbable outcome, a fanciful scenario; it is one that Americans should contemplate, fear, and prepare to counter. Several commentators now acknowledge that possibility. One clue to Trump’s TV intentions is that he invited Roger Ailes, former CEO of Murdoch’s Fox News, who resigned from Fox last month over sexual harassment claims, to be his adviser. The latest though is that after just a few weeks they have parted company as Ailes realized that Trump “couldn’t focus, and that advising him was a waste of time.”  

Media commentators are seeing Fox News as an ailing, ageing network that needs rehabilitation and refreshing – the removal of 76 year-old Ailes is part of that process. No doubt Trump sees the audience Fox once enjoyed a ripe takeover prospect. He sees himself as the alternative right of the American national establishment, which he criticizes so vehemently, insisting it is introspective, corrupt and unresponsive to the needs of the people.

So don’t be surprised to see Trump TV News emerge early next year, with lots of beautiful presenters and experienced commentators, poached from Fox News and other networks, which will make billionaire Trump even more money.

In my view the greatest danger when Trump loses though is how his large base of supporters will react.




His supporters follow him because he gives them hope, albeit false hope, that he will fix their problems, improve their situation and make them, like America, great again.

These folk feel left behind in the wake of globalization, technological changes, and free trade, all of which have robbed them of their jobs and left them less well off, often dependent on welfare, and feeling hopeless. They are angry. They see no future for themselves or their children. It is not surprising then that when a ‘saviour’ appears and promises to make their unhappy lives better, they respond as Trump’s supporters have.

Trump cannot help them anymore than could preachers in a bygone age that promised eternal life in heaven among the angels to those oppressed by poverty or illness during their earthly existence. Yet his followers believe him fervently. Moreover, they also believe his anti-Clinton rhetoric and at Trump rallies rail against ‘Crooked Hillary’, heatedly shaking their fists at her. Having convinced them that the ‘corrupt media’ and Clinton’s allies have rigged the election, and that there will be widespread voter fraud, you can imagine their anger when Trump loses. He will tell his supporters they were ‘robbed’ by a corrupt system. We should be very fearful if Trump decides to stir up fury and resentment post election.

It’s too easy to dismiss Trump’s supporters as a rabble of discontents, as Hillary Clinton did when she labeled them “a basket of deplorables…racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it.”

But their feelings are the direct result of inequality in the American economy. Many have lost their jobs, notably in the rust belt. They are poor and struggling. The American dream has passed them by. Many are homeless, on welfare, lacking healthcare, deprived of education – the flotsam and jetsam of American society. And they are understandably angry, just as were those involved in the ‘Occupy America’ movement.

They have swallowed Trump’s trickle down economic plan of giving massive tax cuts to business. They believe his promise that these cuts will stimulate business, create jobs and increase wages, classic neoliberal trickle down thinking that we know so well. But Trump also intends to get rid of ‘Obama-care’, which had given health insurance to so many who previously could not afford it, and he will also cut welfare, which one would have thought would upset his followers, but seemingly his other promises outweigh these drawbacks. History shows that people often vote against their best interests.

On the other hand, Clinton offers a classic progressive strategy of increasing wages, taxing the rich, and stimulating the economy through government spending, such as on infrastructure, just as Democrat governor Mark Dayton did so successfully in Minnesota where the economy is booming. In contrast, in neighbouring Wisconsin where Republican governor Scott Walker implemented a classic neoliberal strategy of cutting taxes and welfare, job growth has been among the worst in the region, income growth is one of the worst in the country, it has a higher unemployment rate than Minnesota, and the budget is in bad shape.

We cannot condemn Trump’s supporters for lapping up his promises, for not seeing through the fallacy of his economic strategy. They are the manifestation of inequality, which we know leads to discord and social disruption. They feel disenfranchised, distressed, despondent and despairing. Who could blame them for embracing Trump and his offer of hope, no matter how phoney?

What is fearsome is not their understandable faith in Trump’s false promises, but the spectre of Trump stirring them to unbridled rage when he loses, as he seems likely to do, unprepared as he says he is to accept the will of the people, ‘unless he wins’. Add to that the likelihood that he will stir up even greater hatred for the winner – ‘Crooked Hillary’, ‘the criminal who should be locked up’. Can you imagine how much civil unrest Trump could inflame, and how easily he could do so? That is frightening. That would be evil. That is what should terrify all who value the democratic process.

To return to the title of this piece: ‘Trump is just part of the problem’, it is his followers, those who adore him, those who hang on his every word, those who turn up to his rallies and shout insults at his opponent, those who really believe he can lift them from their dispossessed state to a glorious sunlit land of hope and prosperity, who are a powder keg waiting for Trump to light the fuse and blow democracy to smithereens.

Trump is just part of the problem!


What do you think?
What do you think and feel about Donald Trump?

Do you believe he will become president of the United States of America?

What do you think would be the consequences if he did?

Let us know in comments below.


Recent Posts
All hail the almighty banks
Ken Wolff, 23 October 2016
Banks have been in the news recently and there is a clear difference in the approaches of the government and the opposition. While some may suggest that Bill Shorten is being populist in his call for a Royal Commission into the activities of the banks, particularly the ‘big four’, it is clear that Turnbull’s approach of calling them before the parliament’s Economics Committee once a year has been a sham.
More...
Let’s talk about ‘traditional’ values
2353NM, 16 October 2016
Donald Trump, in his mind anyway, is the next President of the United States of America. Last week, he was in deeper hot water than usual when a tape of a conversation between Trump and a reporter from Access Hollywood regarding his sexual exploits with women, made a decade ago …
More...
Planning - Turnbull’s black hole
Ad Astra, 19 October 2016
Let’s stand back from the daily tumult of federal politics momentarily, hard though it is to ignore, and look into the distance. What do we see? Given that politicians believe their role is to make this nation a better one for us all, where is the evidence of them planning to make it so? Where is the Turnbull…
More...

Planning - Turnbull’s black hole



Let’s stand back from the daily tumult of federal politics momentarily, hard though it is to ignore, and look into the distance. What do we see? Given that politicians believe their role is to make this nation a better one for us all, where is the evidence of them planning to make it so? Where is the Turnbull Team's much touted 'Plan for a Strong New Economy' that the logo promised?

Let us start with a recent calamity – the electricity blackout in South Australia. The complexities of how this came about will be explained by Chief Scientist Alan Finkel’s enquiry. This is not the place to predict its outcome, but already there is evidence of a lack of planning that has contributed to this disaster.

Although the States and energy generators and providers have responsibility for energy supply, the federal government has overriding responsibility for energy security – indeed Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg declared the day after the calamity that "Energy security is the federal government’s number one priority." Did anyone hear him uttering these weighty words anytime before it occurred. No. This was a newfound mantra, now so important that it supplanted the Coalition’s top priority – national security. Turnbull concurred.

Which raises the question of exactly how much planning the feds had made to ensure energy security. Had they contemplated the effect that intermittent (or asynchronous) energy generation from renewables might have on the electricity grid and the constancy of supply?

They have known for years that renewable energy generation has been rising steadily. At the end of 2015 there were 77 wind projects, with 2064 turbines generating 4187 MW of power, with a further 365 MW under construction. Almost a year later there are many more. As at March 2015, in addition to household solar panels, there were over one hundred solar projects generating 4,100 MW of photovoltaic solar power.

This is not restricted information – it is freely available on the Internet. Yet there seems no evidence that the federal government and its Energy Minister have undertaken any planning to integrate intermittent power generated by wind or sun into a network that hitherto has been powered by regular base-load power generated from burning fossil fuels. There are complex arrangements already in place to modulate the level of power in the grid, which allow changes to the levels of power occasioned by intermittent power inputs. These arrangements are said to have failed during the fierce SA storm with its gusts of up to 140km an hour and over 80,000 lightening strikes, which took down 22 power transmission pylons and three transmission lines.

The consequent sudden drop in energy frequency in the network triggered an automatic cut at the interconnector with Victoria to protect the national network. SA Premier Jay Wetherill said: "The system behaved as it's meant to behave to protect the national energy market", but the federal Energy Minister and the PM seemed not to understand this reality, nor were they prepared to take any responsibility for this vulnerability despite trumpeting that ‘energy security was their top priority’. What they did do immediately though was to make political capital by castigating State Labor governments for their ‘unrealistic and ideologically-driven targets for wind power’; thereby insinuating that reliance on wind power was a prime cause of the disaster.

Frydenberg then called an urgent meeting with State energy ministers to discuss how the national electricity grid might be better protected in future. Why was this the first such meeting?

If ever there was an example of a gross planning deficit at a federal level, this is it. A Turnbull planning black hole!

Marriage equality
The marriage equality issue is another example of poor planning. Propelled by the promise to his right wing to continue Abbott’s policy, Turnbull has persisted with the plebiscite idea, which will be stone dead once the Senate rejects it.

Turnbull, despite his personal support for marriage equality and his proclaimed confidence that both the people and the parliament would support it strongly, has no Plan B. For him, Plan A, the plebiscite, is all there is. Other leaders have been able to change their mind in the face of an alternative view in the electorate (Mike Baird springs to mind), but so controlled is Turnbull by his conservative rump, which refuses to even consider a Plan B, that he will not to listen to the increasing public clamour for marriage equality and the rising desire for a parliamentary vote rather than an expensive and divisive plebiscite. A sound planner would have anticipated that the long and loudly voiced resistance to a plebiscite by Labor, the Greens and several crossbenchers in the Senate would eventually kill the plebiscite plans, leaving him with nothing.

Bernard Keane of Crikey has this cryptic view: “…there is a Plan B, even if the Prime Minister won’t discuss it. It’s to hope the issue that has hovered over federal politics for more than a year goes away, put off until at least the next election!” 2353NM analyses this issue at length in Turnbull – Abbott from a better postcode.

Turnbull’s lack of an alternative plan for introducing marriage equality is another planning black hole, one that is distressing to the LGBTI community. He ought to have anticipated the outcome now upon him and have planned an alternative approach.

Budget planning
This constitutes another black hole.

How long have we had to endure the ideologically driven budget planning that started with Joe Hockey and was continued by Scott Morrison and Mathias Cormann? We know that it is based on supply-side (trickle down) economics, which benefits the top end of town but penalises those lower down the pecking order. We know that the touted benefits of increased investment, more jobs and better pay for the workers are illusory, unsupported as they are by historical evidence accumulated over many decades. Yet they persist, driven by their ideological disdain for the ‘leaners’ whom they insist depend on the ‘lifters’ who work hard and pay their taxes.

You might be interested to view this You Tube video by economist Robert Reich, former labor secretary to US president Bill Clinton, which addresses this issue:



It goes on still. Only last week the Coalition, backed by Labor, passed a bill that embraces trickle-down economics – the Income Tax Relief Bill – which will drop the marginal tax rate for the $80,000-$87,000 bracket from 37 to 32.5 per cent. This was reported upon comprehensively in The New Daily, an abbreviated version of which follows:

Treasurer Scott Morrison sold it as an income tax cut for “middle income” workers, but The Australia Institute insists it’s not a cut for middle earners because average income earners don’t earn anything like $80,000 a year. Anyone on $80,000 a year is in the top 25 per cent of income earners, and this figure doesn’t include age pensioners, the unemployed, and the disabled. If they were added in, it would push those on $80,000-plus close to the top 10 per cent. While it’s true the average full-time worker earns just over $80,000, that figure is misleading; the Institute’s economist pointed out that when part-time workers are factored in, the average wage drops to $1575 a week, which works out to roughly $60,000 a year.

It’s even worse for women. The average female worker earns only $925 a week, which is about $48,000. Female workers constitute only 39 per cent of those who earn $80,000-plus.

Not only will the tax cut not benefit ‘middle’ Australia, but it will cost the Budget $3.9 billion over the next four financial years.

Giving an extra $315 a year to low-income earners would ensure it was spent immediately, resulting in much-needed economic stimulus, whereas higher earners are likely to bank more of their tax cut – trickle down will not occur.

There are other approaches. Take Mark Dayton, Democrat governor of Minnesota, who won office in 2010. This is what the US blog Mic had to say about his approach: 
“Since 2011, Minnesota has been doing quite well for itself. The state has created more than 170,000 jobs, according to the Huffington Post. Its unemployment rate stands at 3.6% - the fifth lowest in the country, and far below the nationwide rate of 5.7% - and the state government boasts a budget surplus of $1 billion. Forbes considers Minnesota one of the top 10 in the country for business.

“Given that Dayton is a well-connected millionaire whose family controls the Target fortune, one could be forgiven for thinking this was the result of embracing the corporate world. But in fact, over the past four years, the state has undergone a series of policy reforms that most of the corporate world decries: It has imposed higher taxes on the wealthy and raised the minimum wage. (My emphasis)

“When each of these progressive policies was initially proposed, Minnesota Republicans made dire predictions about their effects on the economy, and argued that bleeding-heart concerns about economic fairness would stifle growth. Despite all the warnings, Minnesota's economy hasn't tanked. Instead, it's sailing with greater force than it has in years.”
The Mic article contrasts this with the situation in the adjoining state Wisconsin.
“As Minnesota has enjoyed economic success, observers have often compared the state's situation to that of its neighbor Wisconsin. Republican Scott Walker also won the governor's mansion in Wisconsin in 2010, but pursued a deeply conservative agenda for managing the economy. He made huge spending cuts to vital services ranging from education to health care. He reduced taxes on the wealthy, and got rid of tax credits for low-wage earners. (My emphasis)

By a number of measures, Wisconsin hasn't fared as well as Minnesota. As the Milwaukee Sentinel Journal documents, Wisconsin's job growth has been among the worst in the region, and income growth is one of the worst in the country. It has a higher unemployment rate than Minnesota. And the budget is in bad shape.
This is just one example; there are others. But it illustrates two vastly different approaches to economics: one that increases taxes on the wealthy and increases the minimum wage, and the opposite: one that reduces taxes for the rich and cuts services, and shows that the former is superior.

Why can’t Turnbull, Morrison et al consider approaches other than the traditional conservative one of cutting services and giving tax breaks to the well off? Why haven’t they got a Plan B? The truth is that this is another Turnbull ideologically driven planning black hole. So driven are they by their supply side ideology that believes economies are stimulated by giving tax cuts to the top end of town, that they are unable to consider an alternative approach. The have a Plan A, but no Plan B. This planning black hole leaves them shackled to a discredited economic policy.

In their economic planning, have they ever considered the merits of Modern Monetary Theory as described by Ken Wolff in Modern Monetary Theory and will it help? The answer is: 'almost certainly no'.

What Government planning is evident as we approach an economy where many jobs will be automated, both manual and cognitive, and unemployment and underemployment will rise? Have they thought about and planned for the ‘gig economy’ described by Ken Wolff in Are governments ready for the coming economic and social changes? The short answer is: ‘not that any of us can see!’

Economic planning is among the government’s poorest efforts, leaving us all vulnerable, and many of us worse off.

Inequality
There is now abundant evidence that inequality is a social burden for millions of people in our country and in many others. A large part of the phenomenon we witness day after day as America prepares for its presidential election is the direct result of vast swathes of the nation feeling left behind, while the political establishment does little to elevate them from their impoverished state. Thus people like Bernie Sanders, who press for more equality, excites many followers, and even the arch-capitalist Donald Trump attracts supporters by promising to fix the ‘corrupt’ political establishment that he claims cares little for them.

We know too from the work of Professor Michael Marmot that health inequality runs parallel to economic inequality. Those with the least, those with the poorer jobs, have the worst health.

In The neoliberal execution of democracy, Ken Wolff describes in detail how neoliberal politics promote inequality. He quotes Noam Chomsky: “Neoliberal democracy, instead of citizens, produces consumers…The net result is an atomized society of disengaged individuals who feel demoralized and socially powerless”

Where are the Turnbull government’s plans for decreasing inequality? The Coalition is doing nothing to ameliorate the growing inequality that exists; indeed their neoliberal actions are making it worse.

Climate change
Here is where planning by the Turnbull government is so appalling. We know that its Direct Action Plan, Plan A, is a fraud. At this historic time when the world has crossed the threshold for the Paris agreement to take effect, the United Nations is challenging Australia’s policy. A report in The Age only last week read:
“Australia is facing renewed international pressure to explain what it is doing to tackle climate change, with a United Nations review finding its emissions continue to soar. Several countries are calling for clarity about what it will do after 2020. Countries including China and the US have put more than 30 questions to the Turnbull government, asking for detail about how Australia will meet its 2030 emissions target and raising concerns about a lack of transparency over how the government calculates and reports emissions.

“It comes as the federal government has been facing calls at home - sparked by its own criticism of ambitious state renewable energy targets - to reveal what it would do on climate change and clean energy beyond 2020. An expert review commissioned by the UN found, based on data submitted by Australia, its emissions would be 11.5 per cent higher in 2020 than they were in 1990.”
The Turnbull government has no Plan B for mitigating global warming even although Plan A continues to be ineffective.

GST in WA
Malcolm Turnbull made a big pre-election political play when in Western Australia about its unfair share of GST revenue and promised to fix it. Several months later there is no fix, nor is there any plan to do so. In his quest for a fairer share of GST for WA, and in the absence of any action by Turnbull, Brendon Grylls, (who is also attempting to regain his position as Leader of the WA Nationals), is promoting a mining tax, which would increase WA’s GST take. He is highly critical of Turnbull for having no plan to match his words.

Here’s another planning black hole with which the Turnbull government is riddled!

I could go on and on, but let’s finish with a laughable procedural planning shemozzle.

Procedural non-planning
With just a one-seat majority, it would be reasonable to expect careful planning in the area of parliamentary procedure. But already, in just a couple of months, the Turnbull government has suffered three defeats on the floor of the House because some of its members decided to leave on an early flight home, and last week Kelly O’Dwyer managed to embarrass the government through a procedural bungle by accidentally endorsing a bill amended by Labor, which criticized the Government. Of course she, the Manager of Government Business, Christopher Pyne, and the PM tried to play down the incident, but observers see it as a metaphor for the awful planning of the Turnbull government.

Whichever way we turn, wherever we look, we see either no planning in critically important areas, or faulty planning that imperils the Turnbull government, and of course we the citizens who depend on government to do those things that keep us safe, that enhance our prosperity, that give each of us a fair go, that enable us to be part of an integrated multicultural society which cares for all its citizens, rich and poor, able and disabled, healthy and ill.

The Turnbull government is letting us down badly because of its many planning black holes.
And sadly there is no sign that planning will improve in the time ahead.




What do you think?
Let us know in comments below.

Can you think of Turnbull's other black holes?

What evidence do you have?
Recent Posts
The neo-liberal execution of democracy
Ken Wolff, 5 October 2016
In my inbox each day I get an e-mail from The Washington Post called The Daily 202. This year it has been, as is to be expected, mostly about the American Presidential primaries and forthcoming election but, in reporting Bernie Sanders’ primary win in West Virginia back on 10 May, it stated the win was …
More...
Let’s talk about ‘traditional’ values
2353NM, 16 October 2016
Donald Trump, in his mind anyway, is the next President of the United States of America. Last week, he was in deeper hot water than usual when a tape of a conversation between Trump and a reporter from Access Hollywood regarding his sexual exploits with women, made a decade ago, was released.
More...
The Turnbull endgame - again?
Ad astra, 12 October 2016
It was Karl Marx who said History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce. Malcolm Turnbull gives contemporary credence to these words.

Seven years ago, in August 2009, as Malcolm Turnbull’s time as Leader of the Opposition seemed close …
More...

The Turnbull endgame - again?



It was Karl Marx who said History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce. Malcolm Turnbull gives contemporary credence to these words.

Seven years ago, in August 2009, as Malcolm Turnbull’s time as Leader of the Opposition seemed close to its end, I wrote The Turnbull endgame? Four months later he was gone, replaced by Tony Abbott by just one vote.

The leopard has not changed his spots. What was written about him then, applies now. This piece highlights the striking parallels between now and then.

I shall intersperse in block quotes clips from that earlier piece, with contemporary comment to illustrate my argument.

The Australian today [6 August 2009] abounds with talk of replacing Malcolm Turnbull as Coalition leader. Dennis Shanahan and Matthew Franklin wrote a piece Desperate Liberals look to replace Turnbull with Robb, and Shanahan has a blog It's a loser or the last man standing. The sixty comments that followed are evenly divided between support for making a change and leaving Turnbull there, as Robb would be no better!

Jack the Insider has a blog Turnbull artistry no match for the numbers. He concludes “...the hard heads in the Coalition will soon reach the view, if they have not already done so, that the continued existence of the Liberal Party depends on a change in leadership.”... Most of the 240 respondents, even those with Liberal leanings, agreed that a change was necessary.

The Political Sword has long maintained that while Malcolm Turnbull was an accomplished journalist, barrister, businessman and banker, he was not a politician and would have difficulty in the political milieu.

On 19 September last year [2008] in Will the real Malcolm Turnbull please stand up?, it was argued that after starting so promisingly when he entered parliament, when this independent thinker and decision-maker was being forced uncomfortably into a political mould as a Howard Government minister, his authority faded and he became less convincing. He seemed to not have his heart in what he was saying.

Then in The Turnbull Report Card 10 days in posted on 26 September 2008 soon after he became leader, after acknowledging his pluses, concluded “...where he falls short is when he is not on his favoured turf, when he’s challenged with uncomfortable facts, when he attempts to advocate causes in which he does not have his heart, and when he has to defend untenable positions. As political life abounds with such circumstance, unless he can overcome this flaw, he will have difficulty convincing the people of the merit of his approach and his capacity to manage a nation beset with many contemporary challenges and complexities. Leading a nation is so much more complex and demanding, so different from life at the bar and managing a merchant bank.”
Sounds familiar doesn’t it!

Despite the unhappy memories of the Turnbull of 2009, when he toppled Abbott in September last year the sense of relief among the general public that finally the calamitous Abbott was gone (at least from the top job) was so great that memories of the earlier Turnbull were erased from the public’s mind. Great hope was held out that at last we had a leader that was prime ministerial in appearance, demeanour and speech. At last our embarrassment of having Abbott as our leader was behind us.

His prime ministership started well, but soon doubts began. Had he learned from his previous period as leader? Had the Turnbull nature changed? The public was at first prepared to give him the benefit of the gathering doubts that people had.

Let’s look back again to 2008:
In Malcolm’s at it again posted on 15 October [2008], when he was beginning to qualify his support initially given to the first Rudd Government stimulus package, he began to sound less persuasive, became circumlocutory, and arguably lost his audience. The piece concluded: “Kim Beasley was criticized for his prolixity, and unable to overcome it, eventually people stopped listening. Indeed this was a major factor behind the move to replace him as leader. Leaders who lose their audience – Beasley and Howard are examples - lose elections. Turnbull’s minders would be wise to point out this defect to him, and try to rectify it, always providing Malcolm’s ego will tolerate such a move.

To quibble or not to quibble, posted the next day when Turnbull again quibbled about his support for the stimulus, concluded “As said so many times in this blog, when Turnbull does his own thing and promotes his own views, he looks impressive and sounds authentic; but as soon as he’s forced to toe the party line, he loses his lustre and becomes an ordinary politician...When will the Coalition learn? When will they realize that sometimes it’s better not to quibble?”
Sounds familiar again. Balanced journalists have commented time and again that Turnbull is under the thumb of his right wing members, the very ones who extracted promises from him for their vote when he challenged Abbott for leadership.

Now we hear him arguing strongly in support of the Coalition’s paltry Direct Action Plan although he vowed previously never to lead a government that did not put a price on carbon pollution. Just as before, he now sounds unconvincing, and is marked down for being a turncoat.

Although a strong supporter of marriage equality, he persists with his intention to hold a plebiscite. His rationale is that it was an election promise, but more importantly it was a promise to his right wing. The fact that recent polls show that the public’s desire for a plebiscite is waning and that they want parliament to get on with its job of legislating for equality, has so far not persuaded him to reverse his stand and show the leadership they hoped he would. Although he knows how close he went to losing the recent election, he realizes that his prime ministership depends more on the support of his right wing than on the support of the people. He knows where the power rests.
The emerging Opposition strategy, posted on 13 November [2008], described the strategy being adopted by Turnbull and the Coalition: attacking everything the Government did, criticizing everything Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan proposed, and attacking them personally, labeling them as incompetent and reckless. At the time Crikey’s Bernard Keane said “The risk with Turnbull’s tactics are that they backfire, and create a public impression of a smart-rse, someone who failed to get behind the Government as it tried to manage a global crisis...The risk at the moment is that he cruels his public image before that can happen. Once the public has an image of you, it’s very hard to shake it off.”

The TPS piece concluded “So it’s hard to see any logic to Turnbull’s strategy and tactics other than his belief that if he throws enough mud, some will stick, and that by repeatedly attempting to discredit Rudd, Swan and the Government generally, he will gain traction, the scales will fall from the voters’ eyes, and he will emerge as the indispensable statesman who can restore Australia to the ‘glory’ of the Howard years. On the other hand, as Keane suggests, his strategy may inflict so much damage on his image that recovery will be difficult, if not impossible. Some are already punting he will not survive as leader to the next election; what he’s now doing may ensure that this becomes a discerning prophesy. Unfortunately for him, his impatience, his ego and his determination to use a ‘do whatever it takes’ strategy no matter how politically opportunistic, may be his undoing.”
The pattern of Turnbull’s behaviour was becoming clearer:
The ‘deficit’ wedge posted on 25 November [2008] was written when the deficit and debt slogan was launched. The piece concluded “What this amounts to is an opportunistic ploy by the Opposition to wrong-foot and embarrass the Government about the much-talked-about deficit, and to paint it as incapable of sound economic management if it finally does go into deficit for the good of the nation. That the Coalition’s wedge campaign flies in the face of sensible economic management in these troubled times is of no importance to them; political advantage and the wistful hope of winning the next election is all that counts...Since his election to leadership Turnbull has posed as a financial guru, but he has gained no traction in two party preferred terms in the opinion polls...The people don’t seem to be buying his rhetoric...Turnbull needs to be careful that his blatant opportunism doesn’t backfire.”

Turnbull’s benchmarks for failure of 30 November [2008] described his three benchmarks for Rudd Government failure: going into a deficit, rising unemployment, and recession. The piece concluded: “Economist after economist, commentator upon commentator agree that under the current economic circumstances a deficit occasioned by a well-targeted fiscal stimulus is necessary to limit the risk of recession. They agree with Rudd and Swan, not with Turnbull. His demand that the Government avoids a deficit, although this would be detrimental to the economy, to jobs, and to the nation, is irresponsible. But will contrary opinion be enough to stop him? Laurie Oakes doesn’t think so. Writing in the 29 November issue of the Daily Telegraph: ‘Turnbull falls into deficit’, he suggests that even if he is wrong, Turnbull is never in doubt about the correctness of his position. So it’s unlikely Turnbull will change tack – no price is too high for him to achieve political traction. If one can judge from the latest opinion polls, Turnbull is spinning his wheels. He desperately needs traction. But his strategy is risky. The people are watching. When they see through his glib talk, he will be the one who fails.”

The ‘stop at nothing’ pattern was emerging.
History repeats itself.

In the wake of the disastrous storms that blacked out South Australia, we have Turnbull in full political mode, lambasting Labor states for having ‘aggressive and extremely unrealistic targets for renewable energy’, insinuating that South Australia’s high use of wind power was a significant factor in the catastrophic failure of electricity supply to that State. He persists with this line despite energy providers and experts in power generation, as well as renewable energy providers and advocates insisting that the blackout was caused by the unprecedented disastrous weather event that hit the State, and not the use of renewables. As he condemned Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan for their actions during the GFC (now shown to be life-saving for our economy), he now condemns Labor premiers for their support of renewables, and piously (echoed by energy minister Josh Frydenberg) boasts that ‘energy security is the Coalition’s top priority’ (apparently national security has slipped down the list). Again accruing political capital is his object, not the wellbeing of the nation.
The 2 December [2009] piece Why does Malcolm Turnbull make so many mistakes? concluded “History may show that Turnbull’s biggest mistakes are underestimating Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan, perpetually insisting they ‘simply don’t understand’ financial or economic matters, consistently condemning their every move, changing his tune whenever it suits him, flying in the face of competent economic intelligence, failing to exercise strong leadership, continuing to make political points at a time of unparalleled financial turmoil and steadily losing credibility as he does, indulging in obfuscation and circumlocution while avoiding answering questions asked by interviewers, and most significantly failing to notice that the people are not behind him.”
He is now in similar mode, asserting that Labor does not understand energy security, that it is obsessed with renewables, that its targets are wildly unrealistic, all the time neglecting to set national targets to guide the states, or even to carry out modeling for the very modest emission reduction and renewable targets he agreed to in Paris. He is dragging his feet while castigating the Labor states which have filled the void. Again, he is failing to provide leadership. He seems oblivious to the increasing demands of the people who want action on climate change urgently.

And it’s not just ordinary people who want action. Major business organizations and energy users have urged federal and state governments to work cooperatively to map out a “strategic response to Australia’s energy transition and challenges”… warning that investment is at risk. The Australian Energy Council, the Australian Industry Group, the Business Council of Australia, the Energy Users Association of Australia, Energy Consumers Australia, the Energy Efficiency Council, the Energy Networks Association and the Clean Energy Council are jointly calling for leadership from and between the jurisdictions, and bipartisanship on “the tightly connected issues of energy and climate change”, warning that in the absence of bipartisanship, “uncertainty will cause essential energy investments to be deferred or distorted, to the ultimate cost of us all.” But will Turnbull listen to them?
On 11 April [2009], a piece Why is Malcolm Turnbull so unpopular? began “There’s not much need to emphasize Turnbull’s contemporary unpopularity – it’s all over the air waves and the papers. It takes only a few metrics to quantify it...He leads a Coalition that currently shows has an average TPP of 60/40 in Labor's favour across several polls, which show a steady trend away from the Coalition.
His polling situation is not quite as bad now, but compared with the stellar polls he enjoyed just a little over a year ago, his personal popularity is in a steady downward spiral, and recently the Coalition’s TPP was as bad as it was when Abbott was PM!

This piece is already long enough. Let’s finish with the conclusion of the 2009 piece; The Turnbull endgame?
To draw this long piece to an end, should we be surprised at the position in which Turnbull now finds himself? Looking back over a year or more a pattern of behaviour has become clearly apparent: impetuosity, poor political judgement, ruthlessness and self-confidence not matched by political ability, that goes to his character, his integrity and his political wisdom, all of which are now highly questionable.

Is Turnbull’s endgame upon him? ‘Endgame’ describes the last part of a chess game, when there are very few pieces left. That looks like the right word.

It seems that only lack of a plausible alternative can now save him.
Here we are again! Nothing has changed since 2009 except the dates. Turnbull is still the Turnbull he always was, and always will be. The electorate, initially buoyed with high expectations, has that sinking feeling again as disappointment and disillusionment overwhelms.

And his right wing would have him gone in a flash if they could mount a plausible case, provided they could find an acceptable alternative, as was the case in 2009.


As 2353NM put it in Turnbull – Abbott from a better postcode?: “When Turnbull became prime minister, there was a hope that he would bring the claimed decency and ability to appeal to the middle ground that was so lacking with Abbott. After 13 months, it hasn’t happened. There are two possibilities: Turnbull is just as bad as Abbott (except for better clothing choices and living in a ‘more expensive’ postcode); or, to coin a phrase, Turnbull ’doesn’t have the ticker’ to promote and implement policy and legislation that isn’t approved by his conservative rump thereby ensuring his longevity as prime minister. Either way, the rest of us as Australian citizens will continue to suffer as a result."

Marx said: History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.

We’ve had the tragedy; now we have the farce.

Is this the Turnbull endgame – again?




What do you think?
Let us know in comments below.

Is Turnbull reaching his endgame again?

What evidence do you have?
Recent Posts
Turnbull – Abbott from a better postcode
2353NM, 9 October 2016
Assuming the Opposition agrees, there will be a plebiscite on the proposition to allow same sex marriage in Australia in February 2017. The independents in the parliament have (mostly) stated their positions on the matter and the Greens are against the plebiscite but in favour of same sex marriage.
More...
Do politicians make you sick?
Ad astra, 2 October 2016
I expect most of you would answer with a resounding YES. They make us sick when they lie, break promises, assail us with mendacious rhetoric, engage in adversarial behaviour, fail to recognise this nation's problems, seek to blame their opponents for any ills we have, and exhibit incompetence in doing …
More...
The neo-liberal execution of democracy
Ken Wolff, 5 October 2016
In my inbox each day I get an e-mail from The Washington Post called The Daily 202. This year it has been, as is to be expected, mostly about the American Presidential primaries and forthcoming election but, in reporting Bernie Sanders’ primary win in West Virginia back on 10 May, it stated the win was not really about …
More...

Do politicians make you sick?



I expect most of you would answer with a resounding YES. They make us sick when they lie, break promises, assail us with mendacious rhetoric, engage in adversarial behaviour, fail to recognise this nation's problems, seek to blame their opponents for any ills we have, and exhibit incompetence in doing what they are well paid to do.

They make us sick, though, in other ways - through their legislative actions. This piece will describe how policies can and do result in illness in individuals and groups in our society. It draws on the work of celebrated epidemiologist Professor Sir Michael Marmot, president of the World Medical Association, who is currently visiting this country. His book: The Health Gap: The Challenge of an Unequal World is rich with information garnered over many years of studying inequities in health and their causes. He is a medical doctor who moved from clinical medicine to public health because he saw that it was necessary to look for the 'causes of the causes' of ill health, the causes behind the traditional medical causes. He saw that social factors were central in the genesis of ill health. He has made a life-long study of the 'social determinants of health' and headed a World Health Organization commission that published Social Determinants of Health, Closing the Gap in a Generation in 2008.

Before looking at social factors in depth, let's examine some basic principles of cause and effect. The tubercle bacillus is a necessary factor in the genesis of tuberculosis, which usually affects the lungs, but sometimes other organs. But it is not the only factor. Some people exposed to the bacillus contract tuberculosis; others do not. A homely analogy is the 'seed and the soil' concept. No matter how potent the seed, it will germinate only in fertile soil, and wither on barren soil. Likewise, the tubercle bacillus needs a 'fertile' human environment to survive and cause disease. In the era of rampant tuberculosis in earlier centuries, there were the underprivileged who lived in cold, damp dwellings, who worked in dusty, demanding and dangerous occupations and who suffered malnutrition, whose bodies were thereby susceptible to the bacillus. The tubercle bacillus was therefore a necessary but insufficient factor in contracting tuberculosis. The susceptible host was the other necessary factor, and that factor derived from poor work and living conditions and poverty - all social factors.

Michael Marmot takes a holistic view of health. While acknowledging the importance of medical science in health and illness, he insists that there is so much more to it. In the introduction to his book he writes:
Knowledge of medicine and public health is not so much wrong, as too limited. Health is too important to be left solely to doctors. Health is related not only to access to technical solutions but to the nature of society. We are being foolish in ignoring a broader array of evidence, which shows that the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age have profound influence on health and inequalities in health in childhood, working age and older age.
He illustrates his assertions with evidence. One of his most important is that the gradient of health parallels the social gradient. He contrasted life expectancy in two suburbs of Glasgow, Calton and Lenzie. He reported:
If a man dies in his prime in Calton, a down-at-heel part of Glasgow, it may be a tragedy, but it’s not a surprise. Actually, the question of what constitutes his ‘prime’ in Calton is moot. Life expectancy for men, when I first looked at figures from 1998–2002, was fifty-four. In Lenzie, a much more upmarket place a few kilometres away, ‘in his prime’ has an altogether different meaning: life expectancy for men was eighty-two. That converts to a twenty-eight-year gap in life expectancy in one Scottish city.
He carried out similar studies in several countries, with the same conclusion.
The social gradient in life expectancy runs all the way from top to bottom. It doesn’t just feel better at the top. It is better. At the top, not only do you live longer but the quality of life is better – you spend more years free from disability... The social gradient in disability-free life expectancy is even steeper than it is for life expectancy. ‘Disability’ here is quite broadly defined: any limiting long-standing illness. Talk about adding insult to injury: the more deprived people spend more of their shorter lives with ‘disability’. On average people at the top live twelve years of their lives with disability, people at the bottom twenty years.
I could go on quoting his many other studies, but will satisfy myself with his famous 'Whitehall' study of British public servants. The details are fascinating. Here's an abbreviated account of how Marmot described that experience:
The British Civil Service changed my life. Not very romantic, a bit like being inspired by a chartered accountant. The measured pace and careful rhythms of Her Majesty’s loyal servants had a profound effect on everything I did subsequently. Well, not quite the conservatism of the actual practices of the civil service, but the drama of the patterns of health that we found there. Inequality is central. The civil service seems the very antithesis of dramatic.

Please bear with me. You have been, let’s say, invited to a meeting with a top-grade civil servant. It is a trial by hierarchy. You arrive at the building and someone is watching the door – he is part of the office support grades, as is the person who checks your bag and lets you through the security gate. A clerical assistant checks your name and calls up to the office on the fifth floor. A higher-grade clerical person comes to escort you upstairs, where a low-grade executive officer greets you. Two technical people, a doctor and a statistician, who will be joining the meeting, are already waiting. Then the great man’s, or woman’s, high-flying junior administrator says that Richard, or Fiona, will be ready shortly. Finally you are ushered in to the real deal where studied informality is now the rule. In the last ten minutes you have completed a journey up the civil service ranking ladder – takes some people a lifetime: office support grades, through clerical assistants, clerical officers, executive grades, professionals, junior administrators to, at the pinnacle, senior administrators. So far so boring: little different from a private insurance company.

The striking thing about this procession up the bureaucratic ladder is that health maps on to it, remarkably closely. Those at the bottom, the men at the door, have the worst health, on average. And so it goes. Each person we meet has worse health, and shorter life expectancy, than the next one a little higher up the ladder, but better health than the one lower down. Health is correlated with seniority. In our first study, 1978–1984, of mortality of civil servants (the Whitehall Study), who were all men unfortunately, men at the bottom had a mortality rate four times higher than the men at the top – they were four times more likely to die in a specific period of time. In between top and bottom, health improved steadily with rank. This linking of social position with health – higher rank, better health – I call the social gradient in health. Investigating the causes of the gradient, teasing out the policy implications of such health inequalities, and advocating for change, have been at the centre of my activities since.
The difference between top and bottom was attributed to work stress. While initially it was postulated that those at the top had higher demand and more stress and therefore should have poorer health, that was shown to be wrong. There was another factor. Marmot puts it this way:
It was not high demand that was stressful, but a combination of high demand and low control. To describe it as a Eureka moment goes too far, but it did provide a potential explanation of the Whitehall findings. Whoever spread the rumour that it is more stressful at the top? People up there have more psychological demands, but they also have more control.
Having control over one's life, one's destiny, is a necessary factor for having a more healthy life.

Let's now look at how some policy decisions and legislative moves that the federal government has made, are likely to influence health. There are many; I shall select just a representative few.

Contemplate how those on welfare must have felt when Joe Hockey declared 'the end of the age of entitlement', when he tagged welfare recipients as 'leaners', supported by the good guys, the 'lifters', who worked and paid taxes to support them in their indolence, and when he brought in his punitive 2014 Budget designed to punish them. His behaviour increased their stress, reinforced any feelings of inadequacy they may have been harbouring, and deprived them of control over their destiny. They were in his careless hands. Hockey's policies and actions, supported by his leader and his party, created conditions conductive to anxiety, depression, feelings of inferiority and inadequacy, all manifestations of ill health. And the longer his rhetoric lasted, the more vulnerable they became.

This ideologically-driven politician made them sick.

Reflect on Eric Abetz' declaration that those on welfare must complete forty job applications a month - twice the number previously - for the very limited number of jobs in his home state of Tasmania. How did they feel about this demanding yet pointless imposition? Did that affect their mental health?

Liberals just can't give up on 'welfare dependency'. Minister Christian Porter was at it again last week. Although he clothed his policy recommendations in words of support for those in that predicament, the prime purpose was clear - to reduce the burden of welfare on the federal Budget. He exaggerated his case by using 'lifetime' projections of cost that soared into the trillions, neglecting though to point out that this figure was but a tiny proportion of the multi-trillion revenue budget over the same 'lifetime' period. Ideology dominated his thinking. But the effect on the targeted was as always - demeaning, demanding, destructive to their wellbeing and mental health. Porter's move would make them sick despite his stated intention to make their life better, sincere though it purported to be.

Remember the attempts to increase the required waiting period to receive the dole from one week to six months, a measure designed to save the Budget $1.8 billion over five years. Imagine how potential recipients felt about being without income for a long six months! The threat of this Coalition move must have made them sick with worry and apprehension. This is what Peter Martin had to say on this subject.

Attacks on welfare create anxiety, increase uncertainty, demean the recipients, and make them sick.

Reflect on the plebiscite on marriage equality, which PM Turnbull insists he is bound to implement. Already we are hearing of the distress the LGBTI community is feeling at the prospect of a bitter, biased, and likely bigoted public debate about whether they should be afforded the right to declare and publicly confirm their love and commitment as do heterosexual couples. Their right to do so is to be subject to the whims of the ACL and other opposing bodies. Will the LGBTI community feel they have been placed like insects under the public microscope? Will their mental health, already fragile from past experiences in 'coming out', deteriorate? Will suicide, that some contemplated when 'coming out', become more inviting? It seems hard to avoid the conclusion that some will take this course.

The policy of subjecting this matter to a plebiscite will make some of our community sick. Politicians do make us sick!

I could go on, but these examples, taken against the profusion of evidence that Michael Marmot has documented in his book, ought to caution us not to inflict any more distress and misery on those amongst us who are vulnerable. We have no right; politicians have no right to make us sick through making decisions, by legislating policies that can have no other health outcome among our most distressed, underprivileged and marginalised than to make them sick, even sicker than they are already.

If you wish to learn more about Michael Marmot's work on health inequality, watch Jane Hutcheon interviewing him on One Plus One on ABC TV.

For even more information, listen to Professor Marmot's Boyer Lectures.

Politicians do make us sick. They need not; they ought not; but they do.

What do you think?
Do politicians make you sick?

Please give us some examples.

Let us have your views in comments below.


Recent Posts
It’s all about me
2353NM, 18 September 2016
At the risk of earning a Godwin Award in the first sentence, according to those who staffed his office, Hitler was a kind and paternal man. Apparently Goebbels was kind to his family as are no doubt most of the world’s leaders today.

However, the same people who make sure they are kind to their staff, helpful for …
More...
Are governments ready for the coming economic and social changes?
Ken Wolff, 28 September 2016
In 1930 John Maynard Keynes predicted widespread technological unemployment ‘due to our discovery of means of economising the use of labour outrunning the pace at which we can find new uses for labour’.
More...
Who is the culprit?
Ad astra, 25 September 2016
When you reflect on the dilapidated state of federal politics; when you question how on earth we have become encumbered with so many appalling policies, do you ever ask: 'Why is it so?'

I do often. And when I do, one culprit emerges over and again. Who is it?

Who in this motley …
More...

Who is the culprit?

When you reflect on the dilapidated state of federal politics; when you question how on earth we have become encumbered with so many appalling policies, do you ever ask: 'Why is it so?'

I do often. And when I do, one culprit emerges over and again. Who is it?



Who in this motley collection is the culprit? Who is responsible for these policy calamities?

You be the judge. It's not a big challenge for the politically astute, but it might be revealing for the casual political observer.

Let's look at just a handful of policy catastrophes that afflict us still.

Consider global warming
Leaving aside the uninformed utterances of our new One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts and all the other climate deniers, there is strong consensus among thousands of climate scientists that the planet is warming inexorably towards levels dangerous to life on earth, which if not curtailed will become irreversible. A majority of ordinary people believe this to be true, and want something purposeful and effective to be done about it. So what is being done?

All our government is doing is implementing its so-called 'Direct Action Plan'. No environmental scientist or economist worth their salt can demonstrate that it is working, or even can work. It's a dud. Since Labor's 'carbon tax' was repealed and the DAP began, carbon emissions, which had begun to fall, are now rising again. Forget all Greg Hunt's talk about Australia 'meeting and beating' its emission targets, and Josh Frydenberg's reiteration of it. Emissions are increasing. We are not pulling our weight as global citizens. We are frauds in the climate change world.

Why is it so?

Who was it who thwarted the move towards an Emissions Trading Scheme that PM Kevin Rudd and Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull had agreed upon? Who used this nascent agreement to upend Turnbull and take his position? You know. Who used the repeal of the 'toxic carbon tax' as a powerful weapon in gaining power. You know.

Have you reflected upon how destructive a move this was, one that left this nation far behind comparable countries, one that made us a pariah? We have never recovered from that, and never will while we have no ETS.

Turnbull lost his leadership over this, and even today clings to it by a thread, obliged as he is by his deal with the conservative clique in his party to make no change to climate change policy. But he was not the culprit. He did not dream up the DAP; he supports it now only to save his skin. It was he who boldly said he would not lead a government that did not take effective action to combat global warming. His support for the DAP is insincere. It puts the lie to his previous pro-ETS utterances. It belittles him. You know who the culprit is in this sorry tale of missed opportunities and ineffective action.

Of all the misdemeanours of our prime culprit, this is the most egregious. It is quite the most dangerous. It is shameful. You know who the culprit is.

Consider the National Broadband Network

It is a strange coincidence that our prime culprit and our current PM were also the players in this sorry saga. Labor proposed a fibre-to-the-premises NBN that experts around the world acknowledge is the ideal model, one that would give the best results and provide this nation with an enduring position in the communications world, and a competitive advantage over those nations with inferior models.

You will have no difficulty recalling who instructed the then Communications Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, to 'demolish the NBN'. Demolition was his modus operandi. Anything Labor did must be demolished irrespective of whether it was in our national interest to keep it. Turnbull must have been horrified. His reaction was to create a hybrid, multi-technology model with a substandard compromise of fibre-to-the-node on the street corner with ageing copper wire to the premises. Turnbull knew this was an inferior model, but at least it was better than demolition. So we are now stuck with a model that will leave this nation well behind in the world of communications and uncompetitive, just when our PM tells us that we must be innovative so that we can be globally competitive.

It is shameful that this has occurred for no other reason than our prime culprit regarded anything Labor created was anathema, and therefore must be destroyed. It is shameful too that tech-head Turnbull now vigorously but unconvincingly defends the Coalition's NBN. He knows it will be inferior, probably will cost the same as Labor's, and might be no faster in rollout. Turnbull has sold us another pup with his FTTN NBN. But there is no gainsaying who is the prime culprit in this lamentable saga. But for him we could have had the best, but now we are stuck with second-best or worse. All the talk about the excessive costs and slow rollout of Labor's model has turned out to be bunk. Now Turnbull is trying to convince us that users don't want the fast speeds Labor's FTTP guaranteed. Has he checked whether businessmen want and need very fast speeds to be competitive?

Our prime culprit has inflicted on our nation yet another destructive decision born of adversarial hatred of anything his opponents proposed to do. You know who he is.

Consider marriage equality

We all know our prime culprit does not support same sex marriage, no matter what he says. So, knowing there was clamour from the community to introduce marriage equality to reverse the Howard government's 2004 insertion of 'between a man and a woman' into the Marriage Act, done so subtly by a simple parliamentary vote, our prime culprit sought to thwart attempts to change the Act by insisting it be put to a plebiscite after the recent election.

He knew a plebiscite would delay a decision; he knew that he could obscure the matter by allowing lots of time for debate and argument 'from both sides'. He is ideologically opposed; same sex marriage is contrary to his religious beliefs. He does not want it, although the community does. He hopes that by fostering debate religious groups can cast doubts in the minds of voters. He knows that doubt is a potent element in any public vote, be it referendum or plebiscite.

He knows that if his allies in opposing marriage equality, prominent among whom is the so-called but unrepresentative Australian Christian Lobby with its persuasive spokesman Lyle Shelton, are given a chance to spread misinformation, fear and doubt, even bigoted views, it might engender a 'No' vote in the plebiscite. He is devious, cunning and ruthless. His conservative supporters have locked PM Turnbull into supporting the plebiscite, although Turnbull himself supports marriage equality.

If the plebiscite fails to reach a majority in favour of marriage equality, just one prime culprit will be responsible.

Now think about income and wealth inequality

You don't hear Liberals talking about inequality - they accept it as the normal state of affairs. There have always been the Lords and the Ladies and the Serfs to bow before them. Driven by their entrenched neoliberal belief in the power and wisdom of markets, they cling tenaciously to the long-discredited theory of supply-side economics, colloquially known as 'trickle down' economics, which posits that tax cuts given to the top end of town trickle down as benefits to the workers in the form of more jobs and better pay. It's bunk, but advocates recite this belief like a catechism mindlessly repeated during worship.

All the evidence is that inequality is increasing in this country. It has been for years. It shows no sign of lessening. The construction of the 2014 Budget made inequality even worse. Neo-liberals don't acknowledge this; neither do they care about it.

Who is the culprit?

Some may identify Joe Hockey, or his successor, Scott Morrison, but think about who put them up to their budgetary strategy. The 2014 Budget was not Hockey's; the punitive attack on the less well off was authorised and endorsed by our prime culprit. He was the one who was prepared to punish the poor. Even his supporters acknowledged that the Budget was unfair, the most unfair in many years, and that those who had the least were targeted for the most punishment. Why is our prime culprit so mean?

To add insult to injury, the Coalition now proposes to give generous tax cuts to businesses. This includes the banks and wealthy international companies, many of whom pay little or no tax anyway.

The budgetary assault on the less well off and the attack on Hockey's 'leaners' are shameful, and equally the handouts to the well off are obscene.

So who is the culprit?

We know that there are a few good politicians, many mediocre ones, several poor ones, and an occasional lamentable one. This piece argues that there is one person, just one, who has inflicted on the Australian public a succession of appalling policies, just four of which I have outlined. His egregious actions have diminished us as a nation.

He has made us a pariah in the world of climate change action. He has thrust upon us an inferior broadband network that will curtail our competitiveness. He has manipulated the debate about marriage equality to diminish its chances of becoming law despite the public's wish that it be so. He has accepted inequality as the norm in our society and has sought to make it worse.

Can you think of a single politician who has inflicted so much destruction, so much damage on our society? Can you identify a meaner person whose adversarial nature has caused so much harm?

Yet he still hovers in the background like a ghost of things past, quietly, subtly eroding confidence in his successor, hoping for another opportunity to wreak havoc once more upon our lucky country.

You know who the culprit is.

If you are still scratching your head, click here!

What do you think?
Let us know in comments below.

Did you identity the prime culprit?

Do you agree with my assessment of who fits this description?

What is your assessment of this person?
Recent Posts
Modern economics has lost sight of people
Ken Wolff, 7 September 2016
This is the first of four articles looking at particular changes, and potential changes, in our economic environment and approach to economics generally.

For those who have followed my pieces on TPS you may recall that I am qualified as a social anthropologist. …
More...
It’s all about me
2353NM, 18 September 2016
At the risk of earning a Godwin Award in the first sentence, according to those who staffed his office, Hitler was a kind and paternal man. Apparently Goebbels was kind to his family as are no doubt most of the world’s leaders today.

However, the same people who make sure they …
More...
An economy without people
Ken Wolff, 14 September 2016
Last week I suggested that modern economic theory has lost sight of people but the reality is now becoming that many segments of the economy require fewer people to undertake the work and that has serious implications not just for the people losing their jobs …
More...

Toxic talk



Are you as offended, as disgusted as I am with the language used by our politicians day after day? Have you noted how mean-spirited, antagonistic and adversarial their words so often are?

They use words like poison arrows aimed at the heart of their political opponents and those in our society whom they despise.

They have no concern for the damage their arrows might inflict, or how injured or offended their targets might feel. Wounding, disabling, hurting, demeaning is their purpose. The more damage they can inflict, the more satisfied they are.

It’s akin to schoolyard bullying, but much worse. Can you recall language as ranting, as poisonous, as hurtful, as damaging, during your school days? I can’t.

Listen to them – try to pick their targets, and watch their reaction.

There is a group that conservatives loathe passionately – those at the bottom of the social scale who rely on welfare support: the unemployed, the job seekers, the homeless, the disabled, and the mentally ill. They are Joe Hockey’s ‘leaners’.

This derogatory language goes back a long while. Do you remember when Tony Abbott, as a minister in the Howard government coined the tag ‘job snobs’ to denote those who were too lazy to look for a job, or too fussy about what work they would do and where, or too demanding about terms and conditions? Those who eventually did get a job might then oversleep, or not turn up because the travel was too arduous or inconvenient or they had no transport, or they would leave work early or slack on the job – thus the tag ‘job snobs’. When job seekers moved onto Newstart, the term morphed into a peculiarly Aussie term: ‘dole bludgers’.

Joe Hockey upped the ante when he pushed his ‘end of entitlement’ message, first at a conference in Britain. Far from trying to conceal his theme, he proudly shouted it from an international pulpit. His point was that there were some, indeed too many, who felt entitled to welfare, entitled to support from the government, and of course the taxpayer, if they had no job. Not long after we heard his now-infamous descriptor – ‘leaners’ – to designate this despicable mob, who depended on Hockey’s ‘lifters’, the good guys who had a job or a business, who pay their taxes and support the idle leaners.

Hockey’s message did not go down well, especially when those castigatory tags were given effect in his punitive 2014 budget, in which he punished the leaners and the less well off. Even his own supporters recognized that his budget was unfair. Rudiments of it still languish in the Senate wistfully awaiting endorsement.

Then along came Scott Morrison, keen to transmit the same message but unwilling to use Hockey’s tags. So he coined some of his own, not as elegant as Joe’s, but replete with the same pejorative meaning. So now we have the ‘taxed’ and the ‘taxed-nots’. As keen as Hockey, and Abbott before him, to divide our nation into ‘them and us’, into ‘the deserving and the undeserving’, Morrison launched his unique tags at the Bloomberg Summit on the economy last week.



Here’s what he said:
“A generation has grown up not ever having known a recession, of seeing unemployment rates at more than 10% … On current settings, more Australians today are likely to go through their entire lives without ever paying tax than for generations. More Australians are also likely today to be net beneficiaries of the government than contributors – never paying more tax than they receive in government payments. There is a new divide – the taxed and the taxed-nots.”
Remember though that in his mind the ‘taxed-not’ cohort are the dole bludgers, the leaners, those who suck the welfare system dry because they don’t, won’t, or can’t work and therefore pay no taxes. Somehow, the almost 600 companies, major ones such as Qantas, Virgin Australia, General Motors, Vodafone, ExxonMobil, Warner Bros Entertainment, Lend Lease and Ten Network Holdings, who paid no tax last financial year, were not mentioned. Nor were international giants Apple, Microsoft and Google, who paid very little tax here on the large profits they earned in this country. Presumably Morrison does not categorize them as ‘taxed-not’. Why?

The reason behind Morrison’s apparent inconsistency is ingrained conservative ideology. Conservatives believe that we get what we deserve. Those who work hard, or are entrepreneurial enough to own a business, deserve the monetary reward they get, and what’s more deserve to keep that reward and not have governments take it away as taxes and give it to others, to those who do not work and earn. Thus we hear endlessly that Liberals want to reduce tax, and have seen them propose to do that, even for the wealthiest. The promised $48 billion tax cut to businesses awaits the verdict of the Senate.

Moreover, conservatives believe that those who have little deserve their impecunious state. They have not worked, or have not worked hard enough, or have not saved enough, and therefore deserve to be poor. These people ought not expect to get handouts from others, or from their government. They deserve their poverty-stricken situation, and should not expect the milk of human kindness to be offered to them. This view is consistent with George Lakoff’s model of politics. Using the metaphor of nation as family and government as parent, he argues that conservative politics corresponds to the strict father model that posits that people should not look to the government for assistance lest they become dependent. Conservatives regard the inequality that is a sequel to such an ideology as part of the natural order. There have always been lords and ladies, and serfs to bow to them and serve them. They see no need for egalitarianism in what they see as an inherently unequal world.

We ought therefore to not be surprised when we hear Scott Morrison or Mathias Cormann or Kelly O’Dwyer perpetuate ’the workers versus the bludgers’ way of thinking. Remember the fury Eric Abetz generated while he was Minister for Employment when he sought to introduce a rule that the unemployed must complete forty job applications a month. As far as he was concerned, they had nothing better to do. The impracticability of this soon mugged him, particularly when it became apparent that it was unlikely that forty jobs would be available in Tasmania close to where the job seeker lived. His object was not really to find a job for these people; it was to punish them with ‘homework’ for being unemployed.

Abetz reasoned:
"We undertook what we believed would be a fair consideration of an application of a job every morning and every afternoon should not be too onerous."

"There doesn't seem to be a community complaint with the cut-off of 20 job applications per month, so one assumes one might be able to increase that without too much extra community concern.”
Eventually, the idea was scrapped out of concern that employers would be ‘swamped with fake job applications’, rather than the imposition on job seekers of forty applications a month was unreasonable and stupid.

So long as conservatives are in power, we can expect this toxic talk to continue, directed as it is at what they see as a lesser grade of citizens, a poorer class of people. It is a reflection of their entrenched ideology, which they will not, indeed cannot change. It is in their DNA.

There is another variety of toxic talk, one that we witness, in fact suffer every day, many times a day. We see it whenever politicians are confronted with uncomfortable facts. Rarely prepared to say: ‘We messed up’, ‘We made a mistake’, or more benignly ‘We could have tried a different approach’, they barrage us with a deluge of disingenuous words to justify their actions, and just as deceitfully, to blame others for the situation.

All politicians are adept at this stratagem. Blame shifting, and aiming their poison arrows at their opponents, comes easy. But few do it as spitefully as our odious Minister for Immigration, the Honourable Peter Dutton.

Confronted recently with the shocking report by Save the Children about the impact prolonged detention was having on children held on Nauru, he quickly dismissed reports of sexual assault and abuse as ‘hype’ and ‘false allegations’. He went on to roundly condemn The Guardian and the ABC for promulgating the report and the ugly accusations it contained.

He accused those seeking to expose the awful occurrences on Nauru as maliciously denigrating the government’s effort. Never was there a concession that things were bad on Nauru, and needed urgent attention. To Dutton, this report was a storm in a teacup, exaggerated out of proportion. He maintained that protective systems were in place and operating effectively. He accused asylum seekers of setting themselves on fire, deliberately self-harming, or making false allegations of sexual assault in order to come to Australia. He airily dismissed the reports of sexual assault, child abuse and self-harm written by detention centre staff, insisting: “Most of that’s been reported on before.”

To Dutton, whistleblowers are simply troublemakers hell bent on embarrassing him and the government.

He was quick to add that the genesis of this situation was Labor’s relaxation of ‘border control’, and the resultant arrival of thousands of boat people, with hundreds drowning on the way (he has always got his figures off pat). His argument is that if only Labor had continued the Howard border protection policies, this situation would not have arisen. Now poor Peter has to cope with Labor’s legacy of neglect and incompetence!

So he delivered the double whammy: nothing much was wrong on Nauru, and what was wrong was Labor’s fault anyway.

Perhaps more than most, it is those ministers who are tasked with managing the nation’s finances who most regularly engage in toxic talk. Never prepared to concede that they haven’t got all the answers, or that they might have achieved a better result with another approach, they continue to blame the previous Labor government for their fiscal woes. We are regularly reminded about Labor’s legacy of profligate spending, ‘debt and deficit’, and Labor’s determination always to raise taxes, and never to cut spending. It matters not that under the Coalition spending has increased, taxes have risen, and the deficit has ballooned; it is still all Labor’s fault. Labor continues to be condemned with this toxic talk, this disingenuous language, extravagantly embellished with straight-out lies.

I could go on for pages recounting this type of toxic talk that so infuriates us all day, every day. I wrote about it extensively on The Political Sword almost eight years ago in The curse of adversarial politics. It is still worth reading. The penultimate paragraph reads:
“Those who despise adversarial politics find it to be contemptible, a damaging affliction on our political system. They resent the stifling impediments it places on governing, on governments carrying out what they promised the electorate they would do. They see it as focused on ‘winning’, on gaining a political advantage, rather than telling or establishing the truth, or contributing usefully to the discourse.

“It sets the teeth of the electorate on edge, which ‘turns off’ in despair. Voters would prefer politicians to be open and upfront, more focussed on the good of the nation, less willing to corrupt the usually-worthy principles that brought them into politics in the first place. Adversarial politics may be an important reason the public has turned away from politics and has become cynical about the motivation and behaviour of politicians. The more adversarial politics becomes, the greater the erosion of voter engagement and threat to the democratic process.”
That was written eight years ago. What’s changed? Nothing!

The public loathes toxic talk as much as ever. Will politicians ever learn?




What do you think?
Let us know in comments below.

How do you feel about the way politicians use pejorative words to describe citizens they despise?

How do you feel about the adversarial language our politicians use against each other?

What do you feel about the way they use toxic talk to attack and berate each other?

How would you prefer them to behave?



Recent Posts
Rethinking our priorities
2353NM, 28 August 2016
Some believe that those who purchase Lotto entries, play pokies or Keno or participate in other forms of gambling are effectively paying an idiot tax. On a purely rational level, they may be right as there is a significant chance that the few dollars you give to the Lotto machine operator or similar is wasted money — albeit a small proportion goes to the government in some form of wagering tax.

There are of course …
More...
A once and future Senate
Ken Wolff, 21 August 2016
We now know that the Senate elected at the July election comprises 30 Coalition members, 26 from the ALP, 9 Greens, 4 from One Nation, 3 from the Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) and one each from Family First, the Liberal Democrats, Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party and the Jacqui Lambie Network. Thirty-nine votes are required in the Senate to pass legislation, so the government will require either ALP or Green support, or otherwise support …
More...
The meaning of life
Ad astra, 24 August 2016
As you sit on your comfortable chair after a satisfying meal with a glass of your favourite drink in hand and view current affairs programmes on TV, do you reflect on the plethora of distressing images that assail viewers day after day? Do you ponder how you might feel if you were part of those images?

How did you feel when you saw the stunned, blackened, bloodied face of …
More...

The meaning of life

As you sit on your comfortable chair after a satisfying meal with a glass of your favourite drink in hand and view current affairs programmes on TV, do you reflect on the plethora of distressing images that assail viewers day after day? Do you ponder how you might feel if you were part of those images?



How did you feel when you saw the stunned, blackened, bloodied face of five-year-old Omran Daqneesh, sitting in an ambulance after being dragged from the rubble after another air attack on Aleppo? Did it bring back memories of Alan Kurdi, a three-year-old Syrian boy of Kurdish background drowned on a beach near the Turkish resort of Bodrum in September last year during his parents’ attempt to escape Syria for the Greek island of Kos. This image shocked the world, yet here we are a year later shocked again by the same conflict and the same awful outcomes for children. Now we hear that Omran’s ten-year-old brother Ali died in the same attack.



These images reminded us of a photo of a small, naked nine-year-old Vietnamese girl, Phan Thị Kim Phúc, also known as 'Napalm Girl' running away from a napalm raid on her village. The photograph is one of the most memorable of the 20th century. It may have changed attitudes to the Vietnam conflict, highlighting as it did the tragic legacy of war, but here we are again reliving the tragedies all over again, tragedies that afflict little children, innocents who suffer because of where they live, whose lives are forever scarred. These children have known nothing but war.


When you wake in the morning, do you ever ask: ‘What am I going to do today?” For older folk, now in retirement, this may be a regular question. Can you imagine what the answer might be if you were living in the rubble of Aleppo or any of hundreds of places ravished by war day after day? Can you picture what your answer might be if you were living in an overcrowded refugee camp in Turkey just over the border from Syria. The most likely answer might be simply ‘survival’, survival for another day – finding enough food, water and shelter for yourself and your family to keep body and soul together. What might your answer be if you were confined to Manus Island or Nauru, with virtually no prospect of ever settling where normal family life might be resumed?

As we enjoy our comfortable lives, how can we imagine what it must be like to suffer the torment, the danger, the uncertainty, the boredom and the endless weariness of living in limbo?

We struggle to contemplate these never-ending agonies, and feel helpless as we reflect on whether we can ever make a difference for those who live with this daily suffering. It is distressing even to think about it.

For these unfortunate people, what is the meaning of life?

When survival is their prime endeavour, how can they anticipate a secure life, a rewarding existence, and a healthy future?


Most who read this piece will have had a satisfying life. Not perfect, not lavish, not entirely free of stress, worry and ill health, but agreeable enough in this land of ours so gifted with natural resources and opportunity. Most will feel fulfilled, will feel that they have made a contribution to our multicultural society. Not all – there are always the disadvantaged, the sick, the disabled, the poor, the homeless, those who have been dealt a poor hand in the game of life. Our society recognizes these inequities and makes provision for some of them.

Most who live in this richly endowed country are likely to feel that they have been able to make a contribution to society and, to use a hackneyed phrase, will ‘leave it in better shape’. For some this has been relatively easy. Teachers, doctors, health care workers, neighbourhood workers, firefighters and police officers go to work each day feeling that what they do is valuable, indeed essential for the wellbeing of the community. Likewise, mothers know that giving life to children is crucial to the vitality of our community. Raising and nurturing a family gives meaning to life for parents around the world. Some find meaning in life by adherence to religion, or through support for charitable organizations. Some join movements protesting against injustice.

There are of course many other ways that we contribute, whether through manufacturing, commerce, industry, public service, the armed forces, or the myriad of services the community wants and needs. Some may feel that their occupation is humdrum and their contribution insignificant, but most can enjoy the satisfaction of doing something for others. For most in this lucky country, although sadly not all, there is meaning to life, and satisfaction with a life well lived.

But this does not relieve us from being concerned about those less well off, about the inequality that afflicts our Australian society, about those whom we as a nation treat poorly, or inhospitably, or cruelly, or indifferently.

How can we watch the images of war: destruction, displacement, despair and death, even of precious children, and not want to do something? All except those who have built a wall of indifference around them feel the anguish of conflict, dislocation, poverty, injustice, unfairness and inequality. Yet we so often feel powerless to effect any change. Too often, we lack the means. While life might be meaningful for us, we know it is not for so many others. How can we make a difference in the lives of the less fortunate? How can we help them to find meaning where there is so little?

The answer seems to rest largely with those whom we elect to represent us. Individually, we are unable to stop conflict, eliminate war, remedy the displacement of many millions around the world, and relieve the poverty, the injustice and the inequalities that afflict so many. But we do have our politicians and the public service that supports them.

Of all our citizens, politicians have more power than any of us to effect change. Politicians are able to assess the state of our world and our nation, to identify our problems, to evaluate our advantages, to take stock of our resources, to arrive at equitable solutions, and to put them into place. We elect them to do this. We want them to enact laws that give meaning to people’s lives, laws that give a helping hand to those who need it, that smooth out social inequities, that increase the prosperity of our nation and all who live in it, that enable all of us to make the most of our lives, to enjoy meaningful lives that enrich not just ourselves, but all those with whom we have contact.

Moreover, we want our politicians to reach out to those outside our country, to use their influence to lessen tensions, conflict and war. We want them to bring peace to our troubled world. And while they are doing so, we want them to give succour to the displaced, to the families and the children ravaged by conflict, destruction and death, to give them the opportunity of a meaningful life.

I know it reads like an impossible dream. Sadly we not only seem to be far from realizing the dream; we seem to be making the nightmare worse.

I could write reams about the inadequacies, the indifference and sheer incompetence of our federal government, but I need go no further than ask why our offshore detention arrangements continue to persecute the innocent – the men, women and children that languish without hope on Nauru and Manus Island. How in earth has it come to this?

We know the history pretty well. Look behind it though and we see the real reasons. John Howard saw a political advantage in opposing asylum seekers coming by boat. The ‘Tampa affair’, the ‘children overboard’ saga, and his words, indelibly written into our history; “We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come”, all reinforced a view that these people were unwelcome intruders. Tony Abbott, never to miss a chance to wedge his opponents, ramped up the anti-asylum seeker rhetoric, demonized boat people, stirred up enmity, even hatred among some in marginal electorates, and used the slogan ‘Stop the Boats’ to successfully wedge his opponents. His hyper-partisan approach to boat arrivals set a pattern that exists to this day.

Labor became caught up in an unseemly race to the bottom; inhumanity, cruelty and hopelessness became the norm for boat people. It persists still. Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton became loyal foot soldiers for Abbott and his conservative admirers, and now for Turnbull, who despite his own feelings, has been dragooned into taking the same punitive, unyielding, unsympathetic, mean approach of his predecessor, all in pursuit of the spurious objective of ‘protecting our borders’ from what is represented as some sort of invasion. The truth is that he is protecting his back from the knives of Abbott’s conservatives.

Our federal government seems hell-bent on depriving those on Manus and Nauru of any real meaning in their lives. Every morning, as they ask what they are going to do today, the answer is the same – survive another day. They dare not hope for any improvement in their situation. And in addition to their overwhelming feelings of hopelessness and despair, they now suffer assaults, sexual abuse, rape, child abuse, and discrimination, about which reports Dutton is skeptical and indifferent.

What has our country come to? Our reputation as a decent people is tarnished daily. We are held up to the world community as cruel, indifferent to the norms of international behaviour towards asylum seekers, and thoroughly mean spirited. Is that the image we want?

So what is the answer? What can we do to change the state of the world, or closer to home the plight of asylum seekers in indefinite detention? How can we make life more meaningful for these almost-forgotten people? How can we enhance the meaning of life for ourselves?

The ballot box is one answer. But with both major parties using asylum seeker issues as a wedge, would a change of government make any difference, so entrenched in the electorate is the anti-asylum seeker feeling, now accentuated by Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party?

There are protest movements: GetUp and 350.org are just two, but they are having little effect on the Turnbull government and its hardnosed Immigration Minister, the odious Dutton.

Blog sites and social media have a role to play; even writing something like this piece, and commenting on it, give a feeling of doing something, no matter how small.

We all seek meaning in our lives, but sadly many have few avenues of enriching it. Maybe contributing our small voices in this way is the best we can do to encourage, indeed pressure those whom we depend upon to speak out and act for us in this troubled world, to challenge, repudiate and defeat the alien forces we see operating around us everywhere, every day. But that would take fortitude and selflessness, rare attributes in today’s politicians, for whom self-interest prevails.

Oh for politicians of the calibre of William Wilberforce and Emmeline Pankhurst, whose courage, tenacity and unyielding persistence gave meaning to the lives of so many of the oppressed, so many of the disadvantaged!

Where have they gone?


What do you think?
Let us know in comments below.

What do you feel about the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East?

What do you feel about the way the government is managing offshore processing at Manus Island and Narau?

How would you prefer them to be managed?

Should those detained there be brought to Australia for assimilation?



Recent Posts
The election in numbers 2: minor parties and independents
Ken Wolff, 14 August 2016
A number of commentators made the point after the election that almost a quarter of voters did not vote for the major parties in the House of Representatives. But that is misleading on two counts. It ignores the 5% informal vote and the 10% vote for the Greens who I think are now entitled to be considered a major party — they do contest every seat after all. That leaves about a 10% …
More...
Rudd and Abbott: saviour of their parties
2353NM, 17 August 2016
Two of the three ex-prime ministers who were deposed by their own political party have been in the news in recent weeks. Kevin Rudd requested backing from the Coalition government to bid for the Secretary-General position at the United Nations and Tony Abbott claimed there are factional divisions in the NSW Liberal Party. On face value, both men are using the media to further their own ends. …
More...
A once and future Senate
Ken Wolff, 21 August 2016
We now know that the Senate elected at the July election comprises 30 Coalition members, 26 from the ALP, 9 Greens, 4 from One Nation, 3 from the Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) and one each from Family First, the Liberal Democrats, Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party and the Jacqui Lambie Network. Thirty-nine votes are required in the Senate to pass legislation, so the government will require either ALP or Green support, or otherwise support from nine of the eleven minor party members.
More...

Why are Abbott’s conservatives destroying our PM?



To those of you who dispute the assertion embedded in the title, let me provide you with supporting evidence.

First some questions for you to answer:

Is Malcolm Turnbull the man you thought he was when he rolled Tony Abbott almost a year ago?

Has he fulfilled your initial expectations?

Is he as secure in his position as PM as he was initially?

Has he been limply acting as a proxy for Abbott and his policies?

Has he disappointed you?

Has he disappointed many voters, even LNP supporters?

Has he disappointed many in his party?

Has he disappointed/angered politicians in other parties?

If you answered ‘No’ for the first three and ‘Yes’ for the others, you will be in tune with the thinking in this piece.

But the crucial question is a Julius Sumner Miller favourite: ‘Why is it so?’

This piece addresses this central question.

It is apparent to all that elements within the LNP distrust, dislike and even despise our PM. This dates back to when he was Leader of the Opposition at the time Kevin Rudd was PM. Many in his party, particularly the conservative clique, believe he is more suited to be in a progressive party – several have suggested he would be more comfortable with Labor.

For some, it was the last straw when he sided with Rudd in proposing an Emissions Trading Scheme to ameliorate global warming, a move that led to a party revolt and his removal, by just one vote, in favour of Tony Abbott. That a majority of the party regarded Abbott as preferable to him shows how deeply the antipathy towards him ran within the Liberal Party!

Initially, after he returned the compliment by toppling Abbott in 2015, Turnbull’s personal popularity soared, and the awful two-party preferred polling under Abbott that had persisted month after agonizing month (the LNP had lost 30 Newspolls in a row) reversed into positive territory. The LNP was then able temporarily to put aside its doubts and outright antagonism to Turnbull. If Turnbull could win the upcoming election that Abbott looked certain to lose, the conservatives would be able to swallow their enmity. There was nothing sweeter than the anticipation of victory to make the bitter Turnbull pill go down. The doubts persisted, but were pushed underground – an uneasy rapprochement was achieved. But it was not long though before the doubts resurfaced.

Everyone realized that Turnbull had sacrificed several of his strongly held principles to obtain the endorsement of the conservative clique that gave him the leadership.

The man who said he would not lead a government that did not take climate change seriously, folded when the conservatives insisted he stick to the highly suspect Abbott/Hunt ‘Direct Action Plan’, which he then defended as if it was Holy Writ. During the election campaign there was no mention of the Coalition’s cut of $1.3 billion from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency or the disgraceful censorship of the UNESCO report on climate impacts on the Great Barrier Reef, even as recent reports highlighted the frightening damage already caused to the reef.

Turnbull said he had paid a ‘high price’ for his previous stand on climate change; clearly he was unprepared to pay it again!

The man who insisted that the marriage equality matter ought to be settled by a parliamentary vote gave in to the conservatives’ demand that it be settled via Abbott’s plebiscite, despite the government's $66 million price tag (and Price Waterhouse Coopers calculated ultimate cost of $525 million), and the risk of community discord arising from the toxic debate that the ACL and their ilk would initiate.

The man who promoted the concept of a republic so vigorously in his earlier years, quietly put it on the back burner.

The tech-savvy man who was prominent in initiating one of the early email services – OzEmail – was dragooned by Abbott into scrapping Labor’s superior fibre-to-the-premises model, and inserting the inferior, slower, multi-technology, fibre-to-the-node model with boxes on the street corner and ageing copper wire connections to the premises. Despite all his talk about innovation and competitiveness he was prepared to give us a lesser service so as to meet the demands of the conservatives. Innovation, competitiveness, nimbleness and agility took a back seat.

With every passing week, we see a diminished Turnbull pandering to the conservatives, looking weaker by the day.

Just when he wanted to look decisive and show leadership after the Four Corners exposé on youth justice in the NT, he jumped quickly, but with little consultation with indigenous leaders, and appointed a ‘law and order’ judge to be the Royal Commissioner into juvenile justice in the Northern Territory. Having been involved in judgments as Chief Justice there, it was not surprising that a protest eventuated that saw the Royal Commissioner as potentially biased. Judge Brian Martin, showing better judgement than Turnbull and Attorney General Brandis, decided to step down on the grounds of ‘apprehended bias’, which ought to have been obvious from the outset.

This, and the pressure from indigenous groups who wanted a co-commissioner with an indigenous background, caused Turnbull and Brandis to turn turtle and appoint high-profile Indigenous figure Mick Gooda, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, and former Queensland Supreme Court judge Margaret White as co-commissioners.

How much pressure came from his cabinet we will likely never know.

On the issue of supporting Kevin Rudd’s bid to be Secretary General of the United Nations, how much influence the conservatives had in the cabinet discussion is a matter of conjecture. We do know that Julie Bishop supported Rudd and that more spoke for Rudd than against. But conservatives Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton were strongly opposed to nominating Rudd, and the meeting ended with Turnbull and Joyce being left to make a decision.

Clearly, Turnbull, more concerned with propping up his leadership among the conservatives than doing what many, even from a Liberal background, thought was correct protocol – supporting a previous prime minister on the international stage – squibbed making this decision, told Rudd he was unsuitable, leaving him fuming, and in the process attracted strong criticism from many quarters for not supporting an Australian for this post.

And most recently we see Turnbull ‘slapping the banks on the wrist with a feather’ with his threat to force their CEOs before the Coalition-dominated House Economics Committee to explain their reasons for not passing on RBA interest rate cuts. It is his way of avoiding a Royal Commission into Banking, which his conservative colleagues are intent on avoiding.

There are enough examples of Turnbull making decisions that bewilder, enough to ask: ‘Why is it so?’ Enough to evoke the suggestion that it is to placate Abbott’s conservative forces in the LNP that threaten to upend him if he does not comply. We see ‘the three As’: Abbott, Abetz and Andrews poking their heads above the parapet in their own subtle way expressing their dissatisfaction with Turnbull, as we witnessed in this week's episode of Four Corners. And we have seen George Christensen threatening to cross the floor unless the superannuation legislation is altered to his satisfaction!

With the balance of power so delicately balanced with a majority of just one in the House, and a polyglot and quite unpredictable Senate, one might have expected tight unity within the LNP to hold onto its tenuous grip on power. Instead we see actions that threaten that unity. Why is it so?

I can’t explain why some LNP members feel as they do, but it looks as if some would sooner see the leader turfed out if he does not support the party line on climate change, on marriage equality, on the NBN, and on proposed Royal Commissions. They seem hell-bent on tightly controlling their leader, and if they can’t, destroying him. They are well on the way already.

It seems more logical to do what’s necessary to retain power, even if at times uncomfortable, than to destroy the leader and the party with it. Have they got another more acceptable leader lined up? Do they want Abbott back as leader? Do they think that is possible? Insider Gerard Henderson doesn’t think so.

I can’t explain such aberrant behaviour except to offer the suggestion that sometimes, entrenched ideology, the desire for personal power, and feelings of hurt and rejection, are more powerful than the desire for self-preservation and political power. John Howard was easily able to decide which principles ‘he would die for in a ditch’, and for which he wouldn’t. Abbott’s conservatives seem to not have that gift.

Expect therefore that some will continue to say and do things that threaten their leader, and that in the end they may unexpectedly upend him.

Can you offer any other explanation for the Abbott conservatives’ anti-Turnbull behaviour? Has Turnbull the strength to counter them? What will happen when parliament resumes?


What do you think?
Can any of you give a plausible explanation of the behaviour of Abbott's conservatives, especially with just a one seat majority in the House and a likely hostile Senate?

Please comment below.


Recent Posts
Why is there so much anger?
Ad astra, 27 July 2016
No matter when we listen to the news, watch TV, or browse social media, the pervading emotion in so many items is anger, unremitting anger.

We see it in the wars in the Middle East and among terrorist organizations. We are told it is what motivates individual terrorists.

More...
The democratisation of opinion
Ken Wolff, 6 August 2016
With the rise of the Internet and social media almost anyone can express their opinion to an audience in the thousands, even hundreds of thousands, no longer just to a circle of people who are physically present to hear the opinion. While that provides the democratisation of opinion, it also has a more sinister side. It has led to a widespread view that in this new democratic world all opinions are equally valid.
More...
Make laugh – not war
2353NM, 3 August 2016
A couple of weeks ago, our esteemed blogmaster Ad Astra published a piece asking ‘Why is there so much anger?’ It’s a good question.

Sociologists will tell us that whatever position a person takes on a particular subject, there will be some who agree, some who disagree and some who don’t have a strong opinion either way; they’re ‘sitting on the fence’. …
More...

Why is there so much anger?



No matter when we listen to the news, watch TV, or browse social media, the pervading emotion in so many items is anger, unremitting anger.

We see it in the wars in the Middle East and among terrorist organizations. We are told it is what motivates individual terrorists.

Social commentators insist it is what motivates gangs of youths to invade homes, terrorize families and steal luxury cars in our big cities. It is prevalent within our indigenous communities.

We see it among the protesters in US cities where police officers have gunned down black people, and affronted citizens have retaliated by shooting police.

We see it in America where support for the mavericks Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders is attributed by political commentators to intense anger within the electorate directed towards the political establishment, which is seen as not listening to voters’ pleas, unaware of their plight, indifferent to their needs, out of touch with ordinary people, simply focused on its own agenda and power struggles.

People support Trump and Sanders because they are angry with Washington, angry about the way it goes about its business, angry that they languish while politicians and their wealthy backers prosper, angry because the politicians don’t seem to care. They want a voice, and they want the politicians to listen. It’s Trump’s and Sanders’ anti-establishment stance that attracts people to them. They promise to change the prevailing culture, which is what the voters want, now more than ever. In his acceptance speech at the recent Republican Convention in Cleveland, tellingly Trump shouted: “I am your voice”.

George Lakoff has penned a fascinating piece: Understanding Trump. Addressing the question of how Trump has managed to become the Republican nominee for president, he says: “There are various theories: People are angry and he speaks to their anger. People don’t think much of Congress and want a non-politician. Both may be true. But why? What are the details? And Why Trump?” Lakoff goes on, in the words of a linguist and cognitive scientist, to elucidate. His long article is well worth a read. Using the language of framing, he develops his argument around his ‘Strict Father’ model of parenting, which he demonstrates Trump is using to appeal to conservatives.

We see anger in our cities here in Australia. Some are angry about immigration, particularly Muslim immigrants; others are angry about racism. Some are angry about 457 visa workers taking Australian jobs. Others are angry about politics, policies and politicians.

We see anger in our parliaments too. Political opponents attack one another venomously. What the opponent suggests or does is always wrong, stupid, self-serving, or poorly thought through. Adversarial discourse overwhelms any talk of cooperation; indeed, an offer to collaborate, such as was made post-election by Bill Shorten, makes it into the breaking-news headlines!

We see anger in our institutions where conflict too often despoils the worthy agendas they are pursuing.

We see it among disadvantaged groups: the homeless, the poor, the unemployed, young people unable to afford a house, parents of students at underprivileged schools, the LGBTI community, indigenous people and communities, all of whom feel left behind, excluded from the privileges and bounty this rich country affords so many others, disenfranchised with no voice to protest, with no power to effect change.

It is social injustice that is the root of all of this. Inequity, unfairness, disadvantage, the over-abundance of have-nots in our wealthy society, and the experience of marginalisation that induces anger, and in extreme cases radicalisation and violence..

In April I wrote Inequality will be a hot button issue at this election. It was not apparent as a strident issue during the campaign; instead it manifested itself as simmering anger about the emptiness of the Coalition’s policy of ‘Jobs and Growth’, predicated as it was on giving a tax break to big business. The ordinary folk were sceptical that any benefit would trickle down to them.

They were angry that the beneficiaries of the corporate tax cut included the big banks, whose unethical behaviour is well known to us all, and the multinationals, whose tax avoidance is legendary. They remembered the ‘Panama Papers’ that exposed the tax havens so many use.

They were angry that the big boys were to get the breaks they did not need or deserve, while the little man in the street had to wait, hoping some of the oats the horses were to be fed would eventually end up in the manure on the street, from which they might take their pickings.

They realised the ‘Jobs and Growth’ mantra was a fraud. They were angry that PM Turnbull, Treasurer Morrison, Finance Minister Cormann, and all the ‘little Sir Echoes’ in the Coalition, were selling them a pup.

They showed their anger by voting for other parties and independents to the point that the LNP just scraped over the line ahead of the others; unable to legitimately claim it had a mandate for the tax breaks. In all likelihood the best the LNP will achieve is a tax cut for genuinely small businesses.

The rush to support independents, particularly in the Senate, was another sign of the voters’ anger with the major parties. They were determined to put roadblocks in the way of the unfair legislation proposed by the Coalition. Even Coalition members were angry with some of it - the superannuation changes – that they saw as unfair to their constituency. They are threatening to force amendments on a PM and Treasurer unwilling to forego the revenue the changes would generate.

The anger among Coalition members extended to the marriage equality issue, which the arch conservatives want to abort and defeat, and also to what they saw as under-representation of the conservative clique in the ministry.

Anger is everywhere. It derives from a sense of injustice, a feeling of unfairness, a perception of inequity.

We saw hard evidence of inequality last week in the ’HILDA’ report The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey: (2016). The data-rich report in pdf format can be accessed here.

It showed that the wealth of the over-65 year olds had increased over the last decade while that of the young had remained static. The wealth gap has widened. Here’s what it said:
“Wealth typically accumulates over the lifecycle (at least up until retirement), so it is unsurprising that there are large differences in median wealth by age group. In all four years in which wealth data has been collected, median wealth is lowest for the youngest age group, and increases in age up to the 55–64 age group. Prior to 2014, the median wealth of people aged 65 years and over was less than that of those aged 45–54, but in 2014 the median wealth of the 65 and over age group had overtaken the median wealth of those aged 45–54.

"This reflects the very strong growth in median wealth between 2002 and 2014 for the 65 and over age group, with the median increasing by 61.2%. Growth was also strong for the 55–64 age group (39.1%), but much weaker for the younger age groups.”
In recent times, fewer young people have been able to acquire a home. It is predicted that soon less than half of Australian families will own a home. Here are the details:
“…the decline in home ownership has been concentrated on those aged under 55. Home ownership among persons aged 25–34 declined from 38.7% in 2002 to 29.2% in 2014, with much of the decline occurring between 2010 and 2014. Among persons aged 35–44, home ownership declined from 63.2% to 52.4%, and among persons aged 45–54, it declined from 75.6% to 67.4%. There was also a slight decline in home ownership among persons aged 55–64, from 75.1% in 2002 to 72.9% in 2014. There was essentially no change in home ownership among those aged 65 and over.”
When it came to investment housing, the statistics were stark:
“… owners of investment housing are predominately in the top two income quintiles… In 2006, 70.3% of owners were in the top two quintiles and a further 14.5% were in the middle quintile… Over 50% of owners are in the top wealth quintile, and over three-quarters are in the top two quintiles. Thus, the evidence from the HILDA Survey is that owners of investment housing are relatively affluent from both an income and a wealth perspective.”
Increasing inequality is a cancer in the body of our society. Unless it is reduced, anger and dissatisfaction continues to grow. Like cancer, it spreads. Joseph Stiglitz has written about inequality for years. His book The Price of Inequality is a classic. He advances hard evidence that increasing inequality breeds anger and social disruption.

Much of the anger and aggression, much of the terrorist activity we see abroad, and sadly much of the antisocial behaviour we see in our own country, is a direct result of feelings of inequity – about income, wealth, housing, unemployment, opportunity, and social justice.

Here is what the HILDA study reported:
“There is a clear and unsurprising ordering of deprivation by labour force status, with the unemployed faring worst and the full-time employed faring best. Likewise, deprivation is strongly ordered by income quintile and is strongly connected with receipt of income support.

“Indigenous people have very high rates of deprivation...and…there is a very strong relationship between disability and deprivation, which is highest for individuals with a severe work restriction and lowest for individuals with no disability…”
Those who are unemployed, disabled, or feel deprived and dispossessed, who feel left behind, who feel they are swimming against the tide and getting nowhere or going backwards while others get the goodies and prosper, justifiably feel angry and seek to reverse their disadvantage.

Too often the system thwarts their best endeavours. Eventually they revolt as anger and frustration boils over. Then the ‘authorities’ come down on them heavily, thereby exacerbating their anguish. The ‘law and order’ advocates see more punishment as the solution, whereas what is really needed is more equity, greater fairness, better opportunities, more empathy, and consistent encouragement and uplifting. It is telling that Trump now styles himself as ‘the law and order’ presidential candidate!

How can we achieve equity and fairness in our Australian society, one so blessed with riches and opportunity?

Not through legislation that advantages those who have the most at the expense of those who have the least, not by bolstering the top end of town, not by keeping the poor and disadvantaged in their inferior position.

Only when the needs of all our citizens are acknowledged, only when income, wealth and housing are more evenly distributed, only when opportunity is available to all who can benefit, only when inequality is minimised, will the anger gradually ease, and its effects become less violent.

If we want to live in a tranquil tolerant society, free from the fear of unrest, social disruption, violence and terrorism, where we can feel secure and cared for, our governments will need to abandon ideologies that promote disparity and division, and adopt those that foster equality and a fair go for all. They will need to create an agenda that takes care of all our citizens; they will need to focus on values and show empathy for all. Lakoff puts it well in his conclusion: “Values come first, facts and policies follow in the service of values. They matter, but they always support values: empathy, devotion, love, pride in our country’s values…

With the world in the turmoil it is in, is this a vain hope? Maybe, but only we, the ordinary folk, can make a difference. The establishment is a formidable barrier, but it cannot oppress us indefinitely. It is up to us.

What do you think?
What do you think is making people so angry, here and abroad?

How can this anger be assuaged?

Let us know in comments below.

Mr Turnbull, where are your verbs?



It was one of The Political Sword’s regular contributors, Casablanca, who drew my attention to the absence of a verb in the Coalition’s prime slogan ‘Jobs and Growth’. She had been alerted by an article in The Guardian by Van Badham in May: Good slogan, Malcolm Turnbull, but growth in what kind of jobs?  

The absence of verbs is diagnostic of the malaise that afflicts PM Turnbull, Treasurer Morrison, Finance Minister Cormann and most of the Coalition ministry.

Casablanca reminds us that we learned that verbs are 'doing' words when we were kids in Primary School. Yet here we are in 2016 finding that it is the intention to do something, to take action, that is missing from the centerpiece of the Coalition’s election strategy, its much-vaunted ‘economic plan’ for 'Jobs and Growth'; indeed it is missing from many of the Turnbull government’s so-called ‘plans’.


While it repeated ad nauseam its three word ‘Jobs and Growth’ mantra, it avoided saying how it would achieve this ethereal aspiration. We were left to deduce that somehow giving a tax cut to business would magically stimulate investment, expand business activity, improve productivity, create jobs, and increase wages. It was left to Arthur Sinodinos to confidently assure us that workers would be the main beneficiaries of a tax break for business – good old trickle down all over again! It seems the electorate did not give that assurance much credence; nor did it believe the insistent declarations about Jobs and Growth that emanated from Turnbull, Morrison and Cormann. No less than Victorian Liberal powerbroker Michael Kroger castigated Turnbull and Morrison for selling the ‘Jobs and Growth’ story so poorly; in truth the slogan was never saleable as it had no substance, it had no verb.

Whatever else we thought of the calamitous Tony Abbott, we have to acknowledge that his three-word slogans at least had verbs: ‘Stop the Boats’, ‘Axe the Tax’, ‘Stop the Waste’ and ‘Repay the debt’. We could see his intentions, even if we disagreed with them. The intentions of Turnbull et al are vague, lacking in action words, sans verbs.

Now that he has his majority, we will see how he intends to action his promises.

Writing in The Sydney Morning Herald in an article titled: Federal election 2016: Malcolm Turnbull is a man with no plan, just a lot of flimflam, economics writer Ross Gittins said:
“Malcolm Turnbull went to the election offering a "national plan for jobs and growth" that was supposed to secure our future. Trouble is, it now looks unlikely he'll be able to implement the centrepiece of that plan, the phased reduction over 10 years of the rate of company tax, from 30 per cent to 25 per cent.

“Unsurprisingly, the proposed cut in company tax did not impress the voters, who think companies are paying too little tax, not too much. Labor opposed the cut, save for the immediate reduction to 27.5 per cent for genuinely small business.

“With the government now facing an even more hostile Senate, it's unlikely Turnbull will get any more than that.

“This would be no great loss in the quest for jobs and growth. The government's own modelling suggested the tax cut would do virtually nothing to create jobs, and the boost to growth in Australians' incomes would be tiny and come only after a decade or three.”
So ‘Jobs and Growth’ not only had no verb, it had no substance. Asked what ‘the plan’ was to achieve ‘Jobs and Growth’, the stock answer was: “The plan is the Budget”. The people saw through this answer, picked it as a fraud, an attempt to deceive. It nearly lost Turnbull the election.

What is this aversion to using verbs, to stating what action will be taken, to saying how promises will be kept?

Gittins continued:
“But what about the other parts of Turnbull's ‘five-point plan’? It's a muddle of things that will be done, things already done and…what the plan will achieve.”
Apart from the planned company tax cut, Gittins mentioned "an innovation and science program bringing Australian ideas to market" that’s already done with benefits likely to be modest; "a new defence industry plan that will secure an advanced defence manufacturing industry in Australia"…a highly protectionist and costly way of buying votes in South Australia, of debatable defence value; "export trade deals that will generate more than 19,000 export opportunities", which refers to preferential trade deals already made with Japan, Korea and China, which Gittins’ colleague Peter Martin demonstrated usually add more to our imports than our exports; and "a strong new economy with more than 200,000 jobs to be created in 2016-17", based on Treasury's budget forecasts for growth in employment, but few of those extra jobs would have been ‘created’ by anything the government did.

Gittins continued:
“Get it? The "plan for jobs and growth" is a (now-thwarted) plan to cut company tax, plus a lot of packaging. That is, Malcolm Turnbull has no plan.

“And, as we've been reminded by noises coming from one of the credit rating agencies, nor does he have a plan to get the government's budget back to surplus anytime soon.”
In his election announcement speech, Turnbull used the words 'plan' and 'tax' 21 times, 'jobs' 14 times, 'economic' 11 times and 'investment' 10 times. There was no mention of climate change. Verbs were sparse; the predominant one by far was ‘will’. Take a look at his May 8 ‘word cloud'.



Isn’t it laughable that as the long election campaign progressed, the focal point in his platform: ‘Jobs and Growth’ became the object of derision among journalists and commentators, some of whom mockingly personified it as: ‘Mr Jobson Grothe’.

Malcolm Turnbull turns out to be a man without verbs. He has nouns, plenty of adjectives: ‘nimble’, ‘agile’, ‘innovative’, and ‘exciting’, and an abundance of stock phrases that he, Morrison and Cormann spout whenever they get a chance, as portrayed in The tale of two Daleks.

How will he proceed with his bare minimum of seats in the House and a likely uncooperative, or even hostile Senate?

His spurious raison d'être for calling a double dissolution election: the desire to reinstate the Australian Building and Construction Commission, if necessary at a joint sitting of both Houses, seems doomed to failure. His exaggerated rhetoric about the imperative of cleansing the CFMEU and other construction unions of corruption and strong-arm behaviour has lost its zing. Nobody is listening any more. Even the Coalition-leaning Bob Katter has warned that he will not vote for what he terms ‘union-bashing’ legislation. With his slim majority in the House and the lack of a majority in the Senate, how can Turnbull muster the votes he needs? The one occasion where his intended action was spelt out, looks like being a non-event. He might have had a verb in mind, but an adjective – ‘impossible’ – will likely operate to thwart him.

How will he get his company tax cuts through the Senate? Even without the cross benches, it is likely that Labor and the Greens will not approve his full package. The best he can anticipate is a tax cut for genuinely small businesses, which Labor seems inclined to support. That will help small business, but will do nothing much for ‘Jobs and Growth’.

Except among Coalition members there is negligible support for giving the tax avoiders, the big banks and the multinationals still more tax relief. What is likely is substantial support for a Royal Commission into Banking, which will put intense pressure on Turnbull’s slender majority. The verb ‘oppose’ will be in his mind, but he might be forced to consider some nouns: compromise, conciliation, negotiation, concession, and cooperation. On top of this comes the revelation that four of our most prominent accounting firms are complicit in tax avoidance, advising big business and multinationals how to avoid paying their fair share of tax. Will there be a move to include them in the banking inquiry. What verb will Turnbull use to block that?

How will Turnbull handle the marriage equality plebiscite? If Labor or the Greens put forward legislation for a parliamentary vote, will he be able to muster his troops to oppose, or will he give way and compromise. He has to choose between a verb and a noun.

His distaste for verbs may leave him dangling indecisively, just as he has been for months now.

The behaviours that voters seek in those they elect are honesty, openness, transparency, lucid and appealing plans for advancing our nation and its citizens, decisiveness in implementation, and fidelity in keeping promises.

Voters want action, verbs that they understand, plans that have substance and 'doing' words, and nouns that indicate collaboration with other parties and cooperation that will bring benefits to us all, not just the top end of town.

Voters are tired of waffle, empty nouns, implausible adjectives, deceptive platitudes, a paucity of verbs, indecisiveness, dishonesty, self-interest and special pleading by rent-seekers. They want honest actions that lead to equitable outcomes for all of us.

Verbs are important Mr Turnbull. Verbs tell us that you intend to act - that you are going to do something. Where are your policy verbs Prime Minister?


What do you think?
What verbs would you like PM Turnbull to use?

Let us know in comments below.

How has it come to this?



The MSM and blog sites abound with critiques of the election and tentative predictions of the political outcomes. So why bother writing yet another to explain how it has all come to this? You will judge whether this analysis adds anything useful.

Far from fulfilling his oft repeated promise of stable government and sound economic management; far from avoiding the 'chaos' of a close result, Turnbull seems unlikely to achieve either. The consensus among those analyzing the election results, the commentariat, and the social media, is that the outcome will be a narrow LNP majority.

I’ll not try to best guess the long-term political outcome, and instead ask what has brought about this situation.

While acknowledging that multiple factors bring about any election outcome, I propose that this time five significant factors have been in play: the Turnbull character; Medicare; Inequality; Turnbull reversals on the NBN, marriage equality, global warming and the republic; and insensitivity towards the Coalition’s constituency.

The Turnbull character
We don’t have to go far back to gain insight into Turnbull’s character. Annabel Crabb’s 2009 Quarterly Essay: Stop at Nothing: The Life and Adventures of Malcolm Turnbull spells it out in detail. You can read a summary of it in her article on the ABC website, updated on 16 May this year.  This is what we wrote about it on The Political Sword in June 2009.

Against the background of Turnbull’s successful involvement in the Spycatcher case and his representation of Kerry Packer (the Goanna) in the Costigan Royal Commission into the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, Crabb writes: “From the Costigan affair we can draw some preliminary conclusions about the young Turnbull. The first is that he has no regard for orthodoxy...” and “This refusal to ‘play by the rules’ is something of a lifelong pattern for Turnbull; it explains much of his success, but also accounts for the worst of his reputation.”...“The second thing we learn from Costigan is that violent tactical methods are not just something to which Turnbull will contemplate turning if sufficiently provoked. It’s not enough to say that Turnbull is prepared to play hardball. He prefers to play hardball – that’s the point. It is impossible to rid oneself entirely of the suspicion that Turnbull enjoys the intrigue – the hurling of grenades...”

Turnbull is a risk taker. He backs his own judgement. He gambles on being right. Often he is, sometimes not. His gamble this year to take on Tony Abbott by challenging his leadership paid off immediately with a convincing win in the Liberal party room, high popularity in the electorate, and improving polls. But his gamble a couple of months ago to call a double dissolution election predicated on the urgent necessity to restore the Australian Building and Construction Commission, if needs be by a joint sitting of parliament, has ended in disaster for him. It was a charade from the beginning, hardly mentioned in the campaign, and now unlikely ever to pass a joint sitting. This episode was vintage Turnbull risk taking, foolish risk taking.

It is understandable that the relief felt by the electorate when he replaced the calamitous Abbott has dimmed memories of Turnbull in his earlier days as opposition leader and minister for communications. Then he performed as he is performing even now: incautious, indecisive yet at times precipitous in decision-making, inadequately prepared, and lacking in due diligence.

You will all remember ‘Ute-gate’, where Turnbull was conned by a Liberal mole in Treasury, Godwin Grech, into believing the contents of what turned out to be a fake email that attempted to implicate PM Rudd and Treasurer Swan in an underhand deal in which a car dealer gave Rudd a ute for campaigning in return for OzCar favours. Turnbull swallowed the story, hook, line and sinker, as did Murdoch journalist Steve Lewis. Turnbull, the accomplished barrister, had failed in due diligence, as had his collaborator, Eric Abetz.

In case Turnbull’s recent prime ministerial aura, such a contrast to Abbott’s embarrassing ineptitude, has erased the memory of his earlier days as Liberal leader, go to the archive of The Political Sword and re-read: The old rusty uteAfter TurnbullWhat will Turnbull do now?The Turnbull endgameTurnbull in a China shopMalcolm Turnbull’s intelligenceWhat is Malcolm Turnbull up to?, The Turnbull Twist, and Why does Malcolm Turnbull make so many mistakes?.  

It would take you hours to do so, and there are still more, but they will be sufficient to remind you that Malcolm Turnbull has not changed. What was written then could be written now. The context has changed, but the man has not. He creates his own disasters; he makes the going tough for himself.



PM Turnbull is the same man who over the years has been a big risk-taker but has lacked judgement and has eschewed due diligence. His successes have been overshadowed by his failures. We are now witnessing his most spectacular failure, one that will affect us all as politics in this nation enters an uncertain phase where governance will be very difficult.

Medicare
In an angry, ungracious speech on election night, Turnbull blasted Labor for its ‘Mediscare’ campaign: “Today, as voters went to the polls, as you would have seen in the press, there were text messages being sent to thousands of people across Australia saying that Medicare was about to be privatised by the Liberal Party. The SMS message said it came from Medicare – an extraordinary act of dishonesty. No doubt the police will investigate. But this is, but this is the scale of the challenge we faced. And regrettably more than a few people were misled ... But the circumstances of Australia cannot be changed by a lying campaign from the Labor Party.”

Turnbull sought to label the Labor campaign as the prime cause of his loss of support. The following day Scott Morrison was equally adamant; he was arrogantly unwilling to concede any fault on the Coalition side.

The next day though Turnbull was prepared to acknowledge that ‘Mediscare’ worked because the seeds of the scare ‘had fallen on fertile ground’, no doubt a reference to the suspicion created in the electorate by the Coalition’s many recent attacks on Medicare: the threat of a GP co-payment, the freezing of GP rebates until 2020, the threat to remove bulk billing inducements for imaging and pathology tests, and the increased co-payment for pharmaceuticals. Turnbull ought not to have been surprised that voters were susceptible to believing Labor’s assertion that the Coalition intended to privatize Medicare. The Coalition’s past and more recent attitude toward Medicare rightly made them suspicious. Turnbull’s denials and voluble reassurances were simply not believed.

’Mediscare’ was a significant factor in Turnbull’s humiliation at the polls, but not the only one. He reaped what he had so abundantly sown.

Inequality
Although the word was seldom uttered, the people were aware of the widening gap between those at the top and those languishing at the bottom. They spoke of feeling they were being left behind, struggling with cost of living pressures, and finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. Many were finding it hard to get a satisfying job. Their feelings of abandonment and resentment were accentuated by Turnbull’s continual reminders that there was “never a better time to be an Australian!”, something they were not themselves experiencing.

Voters needed no more than their contemporary experience to feel left behind, but then along came the Turnbull/Morrison move to give $48 billion of tax relief to businesses, extending over the decade to the big banks and multinationals, the very ones whom we all know do not pay their fair share of tax. The tax rorters were being offered a generous tax break!

The Coalition mantra of ‘Jobs and Growth’, on which they based their much-vaunted ‘economic plan’ was yet another example of the Coalition’s faith in ‘supply-side’ economics, despite it having been discredited repeatedly. The term ‘trickle-down’ began to be mentioned by commentators and included in questions to politicians, and even the long-debunked ‘Laffer curve’ was mentioned in a question on Q&A. The public became aware of the fraud they were being offered by the Coalition with their monotonously repeated and meaningless three-word slogan: ‘Jobs and Growth’.

I wrote in April that inequality would be a hot button election issue and it was - not in overt terms, but simmering angrily below the surface and significantly influencing voters’ preferences. Will the Coalition heed their desire for a fairer deal?

The Turnbull reversals
Countless comments have been made about Turnbull’s reversals of position. There has been widespread disappointment at his stance toward crucial issues. They are familiar to you all.

The NBN
In his attempt to avoid Abbott’s ‘demolish the NBN’ instruction, he has given us a hybrid multi-technology fibre to the node (FTTN) mishmash with speeds slower than are needed by a nation competing on the world scene, far too slow in rollout, and possibly more expensive than Labor’s superior fibre to the premises (FTTP) model, which Turnbull ridiculed so sarcastically. For such a tech head to oversee the introduction of this inferior technology is disgraceful. People are appalled, angry, and disappointed, especially those in rural areas, who if they can get connected to the Internet at all, suffer debilitating buffering.

Marriage equality
Marriage equality is the focus of another Turnbull reversal. In an earlier life he was strongly in favour and insistent that it should be resolved with a conscience vote of the parliament. But he reneged on that to placate the hard right conservatives who want a plebiscite, designed by Abbott to delay the debate, allow it to be debased by the bigots, and eventually to be defeated. Another disappointing Turnbull reversal!

Global warming
After all the talk in his early days: “I will not lead a party that is not as committed to effective action on climate change as I am”, he has disappointed the climate lobby by insisting that the Coalition’s paltry ‘Direct Action Plan’ is all that we need, and that it is working. All his devotion to an emissions trading scheme has evaporated, simply to appease the climate skeptics in his ranks and thereby secure his leadership. It is to many his most profound, his most disturbing and disappointing reversal of principle.

The Republic
The cause to which Turnbull devoted himself so fully for so long no longer attracts his interest. He has discarded any intention to move soon on this, much to the chagrin of those who feel it is high time Australia became a republic. While it was unlikely to be a vote changer; it did confirm in many minds Turnbull’s willingness to sacrifice his principles for personal advantage.

Insensitivity to the Coalition’s constituency
Whatever else a politician does, he needs to avoid alienating the people who support him financially and who vote for him.

Turnbull has managed to alienate a large group of wealthy superannuants by proposing that changes to superannuation be made that will disadvantage them, and by the prospect of the changes being retrospective. In some analyses of the poor result for the Coalition at this election, anger over proposed changes to superannuation among his constituency have been cited as a powerful force that tuned away Coalition voters.

Another group that has been alienated are the hard right conservative clique that is currently agitating for more say, more clout, and more recognition, led by Tea Party admirer Cory Bernardi who wants to establish a group like GetUp, but right leaning, one that can represent conservative views. Because Turnbull is a moderate with progressive views, this group may cause him more grief than his traditional opponents as he tries to keep conservatives and ‘small l’ Liberals together. The conservatives are hostile and dangerous, still angry that he toppled their patron, Abbott. They paint Turnbull as a fraud, a traitor to their cause. Writing in The Australian, right-wing Sky News commentator Graham (Richo) Richardson's assessment is: “Turnbull is a traitor to his class and constituents.” His opponents will erode his standing in the party through internal sabotage. The sharks are already circling! We saw it when Kevin Rudd sabotaged Julia Gillard; it can happen again. It is more debilitating than external attacks.

In an attempt to reverse the alienation among Muslims that Abbott provoked with his anti-Muslim attitude and his obsessive focus on terror threats, Turnbull held out the hand of friendship, even to the point of inviting several prominent Muslims, including a radical sheik, to an Iftar dinner that he hosted for Ramadan. Whilst applauded by some, it has further alienated those who follow Pauline Hanson, who has now added to her anti-Asian stance an equally aggressive anti-Muslim one.

When the Coalition gets around to analyzing why it has done so poorly at this election, coming close to defeat, expect it to include pointed reference to the alienation of important parts of the Coalition’s constituency, with accusatory fingers pointing firmly at Turnbull.

You are bound to read about reasons for the diminishment of Turnbull’s prestige and standing, other than those cited above. Tell us about them in a comment.

How has it come to this? PM Turnbull has ‘won’ but is apprehensive; Opposition Leader Shorten hasn’t, but is smiling?



Whatever other factors were in play during the election, prominent factors were: Turnbull as an incautious risk-taker; the Medicare bogey; the unfairness and inequality felt by those on Struggle Street angrily watching the top end of town get the rewards; the reversal of deeply held Turnbull principles on the NBN, marriage equality, global warming and the republic, all sacrificed at the altar of self interest; and insensitivity towards the Coalition’s natural constituency. All were recipes for failure, and at worst, political disaster. Time will tell how potent they were.

What do you think?
What do you believe are the most significant factors in the Coalition’s poor showing?

Please offer your suggestions in comments below.

Recent Posts
The hazards of voting Liberal
Ad Astra, 29 June 2016
It’s clear that around half of all voters for the major parties will vote for the Liberal-National Coalition and half for Labor and the Greens. The result is likely to be close. There are many seats that promise to throw up intriguing results. If the Coalition wins, the Senate may end up being no more helpful to it than the last one.

The purpose of this piece is not to attempt to predict …
More...
The Liberal lie continues
Ken Wolff, 6 July 2016
In his speech on election night, as reported by The Guardian, Malcolm Turnbull:
… accused the Labor party of running “some of the most systematic, well-funded lies ever peddled in Australia” in a campaign in which Labor claimed the Coalition was planning to privatise the …
More...
Sausage sizzles and mandates
2353NM, 8 July 2016
There was a winner to the Federal Election last weekend. A lot of school parents’ organisations and charities made money on sausage sizzles and cake stalls across the country. While you could argue that if funding for education and to those less well-off was at a realistic level there would be no need for the sausage sizzle, it is becoming a tradition and clearly part of the Australian psyche.
More...