Eyes straight ahead, total focus on Ryan, John Howard is unashamedly doing everything possible to win it. He’s become a Keynsian overnight, just one element of his spectacular humiliations over the last month. In my view he’ll do it.
What’s the psychology of true-blue Liberal voters of the Mosman/Toorak of Brisbane at the moment – the professional types who did the unthinkable last month in the Queensland election and voted Labor for the first time?
They made their point last month in voting Labor. They said that rather than risk the disarray of the right, they’d find refuge in the relative stability of the left. It was a vote for self-interest, their own and the State’s.
Of course federal issues played a part, but in my view State issues were paramount.
We’re heading for a byelection where Liberal voters can hardly swing to Labor in protest at an arrogant, out-of-touch government. Howard didn’t do as Keating did after the Canberra by-election shock before the 1996 election wipeout and sneer at the nappy valley dwellers upset their house prices weren’t rising.
On the contrary, Howard succumbed to his core constituency’s demands and simplified the Business Activity Statement and postponed a tightening of the taxation of trusts. He then gave back 1.5 cents a litre of petrol tax and abolished automatic indexation of the excise completely, saying, quite simply, that he was wrong to say it couldn’t be done.
This week, when it was revealed that the economy contracted substantially in the December quarter, he said sorry again, and today doubled the $7,000 grant to first homebuyers if they built their home. It’s kickstart time, and all of a sudden, it’s the people’s surplus, not the governments’.
Now it’s Labor’s turn to smirk. They’ve got everything going for them except that when you have a good look, there’s no policy or vision to latch onto. Kim Beazley said today that “the economic managers have become the economic manglers, and basically what it is all related to is the election in Ryan – this is the most expensive by-election in Australian history”. By the way, he supports the homebuyers decision.
So what does a Liberal in Ryan do? Kick a man when he’s down and begging for mercy? If so, the wreckage of the Liberals, with Howard impotent and his only viable replacement, Peter Costello, equally tainted by the GST mess, would be complete.
Is that what a Liberal voter really wants? I don’t think so.
I think Howard is playing this the right way. He will win Ryan, and when he does, he will have drawn a line under the Government’s descent into chaos. That means this longest of election campaigns will take another turn.
There are more turns to come, but I just can’t believe voters in a Liberal seat like Ryan will not want to given their party a ghost of a chance at the federal election.
Today discussion continues on the makeup of the new politics, courtesy of Matthew Pearce and Peter Parker. David Davis wants to heat put on Kim Beazley and Murray Henman adds his comments on the British election to those of Evan Duffield (Webdiary Wednesday). The Australians in the UK are taking over this space; to end Fiona Rothwell, an Australian lawyer in London, writes about mad cow disease.
MATTHEW PEARCE of Macquarie University.
Regarding your question the other day about alternatives to left and right, I think we can better use the terminology of progressive (those who want some change), radical (those who want great change) and conservative (those who want no change). Furthermore, we can apply those terms to two main areas: economics and culture.
In this context, the economic rationalists of the late 1980s and early 1990s were definitely economically radical. They tried to overhaul the whole welfare state and redirect expenditure.
Similarly many of the S11 protestors could be described as economically conservative, because they deny the so-called necessity to open up national borders for trade. Certainly, regarding trade, the S11 protestors are similar to the conservative Pauline Hanson and her One Nation Party.
But culturally, to make generalisations, the S11 protestors and One Nation supporters couldn’t be more different. The S11 protestors were often culturally radical, doing their best not to subscribe to society’s conventions. The One Nation party, however, would definitely appear to be culturally conservative.
Some people, such as Michael Warby of the Institute of Public Affairs, like to refer to liberal and conservative when refering to the political spectrum. But I think there is much disagreement, and has been for a couple of hundred years, over what liberal means. It’s such a contentious term that its value in public debate is pretty limited.
Regarding the two main areas of culture and economics, referring to progressives, radicals and conservatives is much more fruitful, and more relevant to today’s society, than speaking of left and right.
PETER PARKER
I agree that the old left and right classification has become less important since the collapse of communism. Both the Labor and non-Labor parties have been affected by this trend. This has been because of two factors.
The main parties of the ‘Right’ have lost their common enemy of communism. The common enemy of communism united both liberals and conservatives in the one party. Communism masked the differences between liberals and conservatives.
The main party of the ‘Left’ has suffered a loss of faith in collective solutions following (1) lack of public support for socialist solutions (2) the collapse of communism (3) consumerism and widespread material affluence (but not necessarily widespread wealth) and (4) a degree of suspicion of government (though less strong here than in the USA).
Like some others, I also see four categories:
Social Liberals
Social Conservatives
Economic Liberals
Economic Conservatives
Examples of policies favoured by each group
* Social Liberals
Strong support for multiculturalism and active encouragement of diversity
Non-judgementalism over people’s lifestyle choices
Moral relativism (except when criticising absolutism)
Support for drug decriminalisation and injecting rooms
Support for homosexual rights
Support for apology to Aborigines
Sympathetic towards ‘affirmative action’ to improve position of disadvantaged groups in society
Republican
Sympathetic to boat people refugees
Oppose censorship
* Social Conservatives
Suspicion of overt encouragement of diversity and need to maintain social cohesion
Moral absolutism clear idea of right and wrong for all
Opposition to drug decriminalisation
Opposition to homosexual rights
Opposition to apology to aborigines
Belief that aboriginal and ethnic rights should be equal rights
Monarchist
Less sympathetic to refugees
Support censorship
* Economic Liberals
Globalisation
Free-trade
Less government involvement in economy
Support for market forces
Labour market de-regulation to increase ‘flexibility’ for business
* Economic Conservatives
Support for national economic sovereignty
Protectionism
Government involvement in economy to protect national interest
Suspicion of market forces
Labour market regulation to ensure fair wages and conditions
Let’s see how prominent figures show up. John Howard: Economic Liberal, social conservative. Jeff Kennett: Economic Liberal, social liberal. Kate Carnell: Social Liberal, maybe economic liberal. Malcolm Fraser: Social Liberal, economic conservative. Gough Whitlam: ditto. Kim Beazley: Economic Conservative, social conservative. Richard Court: Economic liberal, social conservative. Peter Costello: Economic liberal, social liberal (some issues).
Of course there are imperfections in the above. For instance a feminist may be socially liberal, but support censorship of sexist pornography. Also some of the social liberals are heavily into identity politics and group rights, while some social liberals emphasise the primacy of the individual (especially those who are also economic liberal). Also I haven’t found a place for environmentalism on this spectrum. However I would suspect that many environmentalists are economic conservatives and social liberals (though serious environmentalism would have to eventually curtail the ‘right to consume’ or the right to produce’ to reduce resource depletion).
DAVID DAVIS in Switzerland
When is the media going to focus more attention on the incoming Labor government? It seems SO inevitable that they are going to take power. Shouldn’t we know what is in store for Australia once Kimbo and Co are at the wheel?
I heard that Mr Beazley now has a personal trainer. I think it is great that he has an objective to improve his health and sense of well being. No one can knock this. Then on the other hand I have this recurring image of Mr Beazley sitting at the gym in an expensive towelling bathrobe, sipping on a freshly prepared carrot juice flipping though interior decorating magazines wondering how he can add his touch to the Lodge when he moves in later in the year. That is his biggest challenge, how to redecorate the Lodge and to phsyically prepare for the office of Prime Minister. It’s such a forgone conclusion, why does he have to bother with anything else?
Meanwhile, the media and the electorate have grown weary with the smug grins of Peter Costello. OK, that’s fine, but how long will it be before they grow weary of the snarling Simon Crean? Personally, I’d rather take the grinning than the snarling.
My view: if Mr Beazley and the snarling Crean get in, they will be a one term government. After the “euphoria” of the recovery from “recession” (ie minor downturn, 25% of Keating’s recession) and the apology to the Aborigines, people will want a return to competence.
I can handle Kim Beazley in a “seems like a nice bloke” kind of way, but people need to remember they are electing an entire government. It’s not just a personality contest.
What goes on in the minds of the electorate anyway? They certainly dont care about charisma anymore. That seemed to die off with the end of Hawke and Keating. Now what is it?
Finally, the petrol price drop will be blown away by the fall in the dollar and upcoming meetings of OPEC in Vienna. Now perhaps people will get it through their thick skulls that it isn’t all about GST. The biggest causes of petrol price movements have ZERO to do with Howard. If people want to lash out, tell them to go to Vienna or New York; these places are more relevant than Canberra to petrol prices. Oh yes, but who is interested in reality? It’s far easier to spin anti-Hoared claptrap in some kind of shark-like feeding frenzy.
Ok the victim is bleeding. Now start having a go at the man in the bathrobe drinking carrot juice.
MURRAY HENMAN
Like Evan Duffield, I would also like Labour to win a second term in the UK. But I am not convinced that they deserve one. They have not acted like a Labour government (typically introducing legislation even the Tories would hesitate at), but having lived through the Hawke-Keating era and watched Clinton’s Democrats from afar, I am too used to seeing the left betray its own to be too surprised or disillusioned at what I have seen here.
But then, maybe I’m just another member of the liberal intelligentsia – one of William Hague’s regular targets. Does this sound a bit like John Howard circa 5 years ago? He’d probably start talking about battlers if it were part of the local vernacular.
The Tories may be unpopular, but I think there are a few differences between the disaffection of them and their Australian counterparts. While John Howard may be mean-spirited, William Hague comes across as simply mad. Either that or so poll-driven as to be insensible. He has lurched from issue to issue in an effort to get noticed, moving on when he has finished appealing to whatever sectional group he is supposed to be attracting that month (yes, it’s not just the left who like minorities).
Last week, he predicted that the UK would become a foreign country if Labour won a second term. This sounds closer to the rhetoric of Pauline Hanson than that of an opposition leader. I agree that a One Nation party won’t get a start here, but that’s only because the Tories have already staked the ground.
FIONA ROTHWELL
FOOT IN MOUTH OR A SURE THING?
As I sit here on a yet another cold, bleak (spring) afternoon in London, I think of you all tucked up in your beds having enjoyed an evening doing whatever it is you do in the evenings at your place. More than likely you ate dinner and may be that dinner involved eating meat of some kind. Lucky you.
What I would give for a nice big juicy steak cooked on the grill at the Duke of Gloucester in Randwick or at the Coogee Bay Hotel. The fact is, I haven’t had a steak since I left Australia in June last year.
As you know, this country is not faring well in the eating-loads-of-meat stakes at the moment. As I write, the supermarket a few doors up from my office is bare of all meat products except for some over-priced tuna steaks, salmon fillets (which will be cooked in the English way – until dry and tasteless) and some 98 per cent. fat-free shoulder ham. Any meat still available for purchase is not contaminated by the really-charming foot and mouth disease doing the rounds of England and now Europe at the moment.
The Guardian newspaper reported on 5 March of Professor Richard Lacey, the clever guy who, many years ago, claimed that BSE or mad cow disease, could possibly infect humans in the form of CJD. Few believed him and he was accused of scare-mongering. Nice one. I guess Professor Lacey wouldn’t be taking too much delight in the old pearler of “I told you so” however much he may be entitled to.
He has made the call however, for a return to smaller scale farming and states that until such practices are adopted, there will always be the risk of farming catastrophes such as this latest catastrophic one.
I genuinely feel for farmers, trying to make a living in this country, who have – or soon will have – lost their livelihood because of this. They sit and wait, praying that their stock won’t be infected and that the wind will blow the disease in the opposite direction to them and that they will be spared.
Hopes are probably slim and the daily reporting of how many new cases reported (74 farms as at 6 March) and how many beasts slaughtered (14,092 out of a total of 77,614 – 64,804 sheep, 10,894 cattle, 2003 pigs and 13 goats) is incredibly discouraging.
Now as crass as it may be to take advantage of another’s downfall, Australian farmers could do really well out of this. Some months ago, I was lamenting in an email to my father that I couldn’t magically fly in to Canberra for the day to participate in a family barbie and feed my face on steaks and prawns. He responded by gloating in his good fortune but then suggested a brilliant idea for a dot com – care packages of Australian beef or lamb sent with a slab of your favourite Australian beer. Issues of how one might get this past our intrepid Customs officers aside, my mouth was watering at the thought – how popular I would be with my friends – deprived (and looking not just a little bit pallid and sickly) of some magic Aussie meat.
In actual fact, this idea is probably not a new one and for all I know is already a thriving empire, netting some clever dick in suburban somewhere a tidy profit.
Every Australian in London worth his salt knows about the existence of the Australia Shop in Covent Garden (http://www.australiashop.co.uk/). It is where we all go to pick up our Cherry Ripes, Butter Menthols and Blackmores Eye Cream. On the list of available goodies were such essentials as Capilano Honey (a mere GBP3.90 (AUD$9.16)), Cottees cordial at AUD$4.67 and a 1 kilo tin of Milo for AUD$12.45. There was however, no meat on the menu though I daresay this shop would be the perfect opening for farmers all over Oz to try and sell their rump steaks. Furthermore, they could charge a premium because from the prices of the goods available at the Australian Shop that Australians in London, when desperate for something that reminds them of home, will quite happily pay through the nose.
There are those who that say that – in the case of BSE – the damage is done and that if you ate beef in the late eighties/early nineties then yes, you may be at risk but that English beef now is perfectly safe and don’t make the English farmers suffer by buying beef from overseas (or not eating it at all).
I accept that may be true and feel for the farmers who are up against people with attitudes like mine but I cannot help but agree with the wiser-than-was-first-thought Professor Lacey, who has not, he claims, eaten beef since 1988.
All this is not to say however that there have not been momentary lapses by me: a few months ago my flat mate in an effort to kill me for not taking the garbage out/cleaning the bathroom/taping Eastenders for her, fed me beef mince in a spag bol. At the time I thought it was lamb but was most distressed when she confirmed what animal it actually came from during an ad-break in The Bill.
I have diarised this meal and shall bring it out and present it to my lawyer if ever I start to display symptoms of v-CJD. Not so diarised is the meal I had a few weeks ago with a friend. Suffering terribly after a night out on the town and in desperate need of fatty, comforting food, a friend and I demanded beef burgers and fries, throwing caution to the wind (as
one does when full of the demon-drink).
For the amount of money I paid for this experience, an Australian farmer could put a deposit on a new John Deere or a bull. From where I stand I see a real marketing opportunity for Australian meat – get your product on our shelves before we learn to live without.