Burly Workers in Neon Vests

After one of the more protracted, drawn out, postponed and neverending gestation periods in Australian political history, our carbon tax policy has arrived.

And one of the first things to be thankful for is that the carbon tax has been called just that; 'The Carbon Tax.' For anyone who's thinking 'Well, what the fuck else would they call it?' just cast your mind back to Kevin Rudd's doomed Carbon Trading Scheme, officially called 'The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.' Anyone that wants to track the downhill trajectory of that policy need only start with the name, as horrendous as anything that the language mangling Ruddbot ever came up with.

Moving on from the name to the policy itself proves trickier, due to the complex nature of what has been put forth. Which is nothing short of an attempt to recombobulate and reform Australia's energy sector, manufacturing sector and tax system simultaneously (when a reform of any one of these areas on it's own would normally have been considered epochal).

A brief summary of what has been proposed:

THE TAX:

A carbon price of $23 per tonne of emissions.

HOW IT'LL WORK

Paid by the top 500 carbon producing companies, the tax will increase annually to a projected rated of $29 per tonne by 2015. From 2015, the Government plans to replace the tax with a market driven emissions trading system, where the carbon price will 'float' and be set by trade in carbon permits.

THE COSTS

Companies subject to the tax are expected to pass on their costs to consumers. As these companies come from a diverse range of industries - including mining, transport and manufacturing - costs of most goods and services are expected to increase. The average cost increase per household per week is predicted by Treasury to be $9.90 per week, while the tax is expected to raise about $17 billion worth of revenue in it's first year.

THE COMPENSATION

A broad suite of compensation to measures to offset these cost increases. These will be delivered through tax cuts, increases in welfare payments and a set of 'one off' bonus payments to help pensioners and low income households. Average compensation is projected at $10.10 per household per week, costing the Government about $21 billion in the first year of operation.

Now that last sentence is important. As it means that Treasury modelling of the Carbon Tax shows that on average people will be marginally - very marginally - ahead of where they are now.

This from a tax that has been widely posited as the end of civilisation as we know it. The last Revenge of the Green Nerds who - for reasons known only to the Tony Abbott and his supporters on the extreme right - want to destroy modern society.
We can see now that they want to do this by giving us a generous package of tax cuts and payments and hoping we all... spend ourselves to death? Which is, you know, devilishly clever (or something).

Which is not to say that there aren't losers from the carbon tax legislation. The compensation measures are on a sliding scale so those at the bottom end of the income scale will do much better than those at the other end. Anyone with kids and earning over $150 000 will be worse off by a few hundred dollars a year, as will single people with no kids on about half that amount (including myself in this last category).

But to speak of losers out of such a package as this one is to overlook a fairly crucial point. And that is: this is a tax that you can avoid, or minimise your exposure too. Even more pointedly, this is a tax the Government wants you to avoid, as much as possible.

For if the carbon tax is to serve any useful purpose at all, then it's primary function will be to alter the way people spend their money. By adding a carbon price to good and industries that are carbon intensive, the hope is that carbon free or reduced alternatives will become cheaper in comparison. And so savvy people who are willing to look for services in low carbon areas will receive not just the Government's compensation, but save themselves money by dodging the tax altogether.

Again, not exactly what you'd expect from a policy who's purported purpose was to return Australia to the Dark Ages.

Not that this could stop the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, from claiming that this was just what it was designed to do. The Action Man's response to the carbon policy was both predictable... and seemingly scripted out about a month before the details of the policy were released, as his comments mostly ignored the specifics of what the Government had just proposed.

The carbon price would 'drive up prices and threaten jobs,' the Opposition leader said. It would 'do nothing at all' to curb emissions while ensuring that 'millions of Australians are worse off.' It was nothing more than 'a tax increase pretending to be an environmental policy' and, as such, would be 'the first time since the 1980s that marginal tax rates have been increased.' He colourfully predicted that the the policy would prove so unpopular with the punters that the Government would suffer 'the death of a thousand cameos,' as regular folk stepped forward to complain about it. He further offered to provide all 1000 said cameos by noon of the following day.

In short, he had plenty of tightly scripted, vaguely general, acutely non specific lines that the waiting media hordes could sample and run as five second grabs as his response throughout the subsequent few days. Typically, for Abbott, he had much less to offer in the way of actual details; whether or not he'd reverse the tax if elected and whether he'd keep the more generous income tax arrangements that accompany it first among these points he was silent on.

And he had nothing whatsoever to say about his own plan to reduce carbon emissions.

Yes, that's right, that previous sentence is not a misprint. Mr No-Taxy Pants is a Global Warming believer himself. And he has his own little scheme to reduce Australia's carbon emissions which he made no reference to during his carbon tax response and which involves spending $3.5 billion dollars of public funds on... tree planting? Burying, er, stuff? No one, including Abbott himself, seems quite sure exactly what his 'Direct Action' plan will entail, nor how he intends to pay for it. It also seems to be fairly certain that we won't find out either of things, until about four minutes before the next election.

In the meantime, then, we are treated to a most unusual sight. Both Government and Opposition engaging in an election campaign with no election due for about two years. Julia Gillard has promised to 'wear out her shoes' while travelling the country to explain the policy (and she has conducted more than 100 interviews since it was released), while The Action Man is never likely to miss out on a chance to roll up his shirt sleeves in public and shout a lot.

This faux campaign will involve much claim and counter claim from both sides, and will suck up all the available political oxygen for the forseeable future. Julia Gillard's has staked her Prime Ministership on this policy and, not to be outdone, The Action Man has doubled down and bet the house too. Expect many colourful charts and ads as they seek to exaggerate the benefits of their respective ideas.

Not to mention many more photos of what is likely to be this debate's enduring image; burly workers in neon vests looking non plussed.

D-D-D-D-D-D-Disaster

This week marks 12 months since Julia Gillard replaced Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister.

To mark the occasion, the 'Herald Sun' in Melbourne had a flash application on their website, which enabled people to rate Julia's performance from A to D in 17 categories, covering aspects of her leadership and performance. A virtual report card of sorts. I went through the exercise, distributing mainly C's, with a few A's and D's thrown in. The results, showing my score and compared with the average of the 'Hun's' readership are shown below:



You may not be shocked to see that they don't rate her very highly. I mean, 'D' in every category!

Now I know this is an exercise conducted by a Newscorp publication and so, as such, should be treated with caution. And the sort of person likely to have done it - 'The biggest crock of shit in the universe' declared 'Megan' of the PM, in an attached article - also needs to be taken into consideration. I mean, for anyone living in Melbourne it would be easy enough to imagine Andrew Bolt sitting in his office, hitting 'D-D-D-D-D-D-D' as he filled in the scorecard twenty thousand times and so skewing the whole exercise to match his own warped view of the universe.

But nevertheless, you can still derive a point from it (and other recent, related, media coverage): Julia Gillard is sinking fast.

In another story on the same day, The Hun had her predecessor and potential successor, Kevin Rudd, pulling a 60% approval rating in a poll they conducted in 12 marginal seats across the country. And easily leading Tony Abbott in a two party preferred contest in those same seats. Julia's comparative performance? Too depressing too consider... unless you are 'Megan' or Andrew Bolt.

The only thing now appearing to stand between Heavy Kevvy and a second coming to the leadership, then, is the extreme loathing that nearly all of his Labor colleagues feel towards him. If any polling were done of the ALP caucus, the likely result would be that they'd rather follow 'The Simpsons' lead:



and install anyone... anything... as leader before they'd consider going back to him again.

Julia, meanwhile, soldiers laboriously on, with everything she touches seemingly turning into a combination nightmare/fist fight. On top of the neverending battle over the Carbon Tax and the NBN and developing stalemate over live cattle exports, she now finds herself under attack from promising to cut taxes and raise family benefits. Normally about as close to a rock solid popular vote winner in this lazy ass country as you can get.

The ALP has indicated that, as part of the Carbon Tax package, they would be offering fairly generous tax cuts and a raise in benefits to offset expected cost increases. Nothing very concrete has been put out in public about what these benefits would entail but a few details are slowly starting to leak out.

Which undoubtedly was what prompted Tony 'Action Man' Abbott to get on the front foot by stating this week that the Liberals would be offering their own generous tax cut package at the next election as well. It probably doesn't need to be said that the Opposition leader also promised that his package would be bigger, more generous and would not be attached to any revenue raising efforts, particularly none that would help save the environment at the same time. And so was much, much better. Save money and do nothing to help the environment? That's gold out in the suburbs!

He said all this, of course, without naming any specific details of his plan, nor indicating how he would pay for it. It is indicative of the current debate, and Julia's troubles, that Abbott's plan was praised while hers was lambasted.

Until she is able to turn the debate back to Abbott, and highlight both the short sightedness and lack of detail in any of his proposals, her troubles look likely to continue. And Kevvy's annoying smirk will only get larger.

TipGate

There are times you can tell that the fates are conspiring against you.

For example, if you're me, and you're on your way to work, and the tram that takes you to the train is late and then, when you get to the train station, you find that the train is cancelled anyway, and then, when you go to get a plain sausage McMuffin from McDonalds while you kill time waiting for the next one and they give you that horrible, plastic egg in your muffin as well as a sausage patty... well, you can tell that fate is out to get you (This scenario happens to me most days, actually, so it's lucky I'm stoic.

Or, to take another example, if you're the Prime Minister, and you're leading a flimsy minoirty Government, and your populist opponent is getting a free ride form the press, and all of your policies are about as popular as Hitler with plague, and you're facing rock bottom jump out the window, numbers in the polls and then... and then!... the way you put your footy tips in for a newspaper comp generates controversy, then you probably know the fates are against you too.

And this is what happened to our own hapless PM, Julia Gillard, last weekend .

Ms Gillard, as most people would know, is a pretty keen footy fan and the number one ticket holder of the club that shall be known here as Footscray. Here's a picture of the PM with out on the ground with the Doggies full forward Barry Hall (in a happier moment for both):



Now like a lot of footy fans, the PM is in a few tipping comps, at least two of which are in large daily newspapers; the 'Herald Sun' in Melbourne and the 'West Australian' in Perth. The mini scandal - 'TipGate!' - that enveloped her today sprung out of the fact that, when Footscray played West Coast in the last round of the AFL, the PM appeared to tip the Dogs in the Victorian paper, while tipping the Eagles, the home team, in the 'West Aussie,' and so appeared to be trying to curry favour with fans of both clubs:



Her opponents had a field day.

'Loyalty to your team even in bad times is a test of character,' Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop hooted, scarcely able to contain her glee. 'With Julia Gillard, self interest trumps loyalty every time.'

Sadly for all of us interested in politics, worn out as we are by months of bickering about the blasted carbon tax, no sooner had this mini scandal reared it's head, then it was quashed again. For someone in the PM's office immediately let it be known that Julia had forgotten to put her tips in to the 'West Australian.' The paper then confirmed that when this happens, as sometimes does with busy celebrity tipsters, the paper automatically puts that person down for the favourite in each game (West Coast in the game in question).

Scandal averted.

Nevertheless, the situation did place the PM in a situation, castigated as she often is by Tony 'Action Man' Abbott as being out of touch with the regular punters, that many of them could relate to. That is, who do you tip when you barrack for a team that's a bit shit and who are playing a good side? Put this question any follower of a team that's a bit shit and you'll probably get the following response:

'Fuck off, you back your boys in!'

Which is a mentality that the PM, castigated as she often is by the Action Man for being a bit wishy washy as well, would do well to adopt.

Treading Water

Last week saw the release of The Budget, which is probably the biggest event on the political calendar in a non election year.

The reasons are obvious. Vast quantities of money are sloshed around in a big vat right in front of our eyes, hypnotising us. It's all $1500 for this and 30% rebate for that and 'a program costing 4 billion dollars over four years.' It reminds me of when I feed my girlfriend's cats; when I get the food out of the fridge, they're absolutely riveted by my every move, knowing that all that wonderful food is right there but that they can't quite get at it... yet.

And so it went this week.

Most of the talk and analysis of the Gillard Government's first budget revolved around who would get what sort of cash handouts and who would have their's trimmed back. The same grim, unedifying spectacle that Budget week has been since the Howard Government massively expanded Government assistance to middle income families in the year 2000 and so turned the whole process into something akin to a game show.

Prior to the budget being released, Gillard and Treasurer Wayne Swan had made quite a bit of noise about how they were going to get 'tough. You know, how they would bring in a 'tough' budget and get 'tough' on dole bludgers and make some 'tough' cuts to programs that they really liked and that 'tough' sacrifices would have to be made in the national interest. And if people didn't like it, well, that was just tough.

So it would probably surprise very few, after all this 'tough' build up, to find that the Budget, when released, did nothing of the sort. What we were given, in very brief summary, was $22 billion worth of cuts in spending married to new spending worth $17 billion. A net change in the overall position of the Government's finances for the next fiscal year, in other words, of $5 billion. Now perhaps that sounds like a lot of money, but in an economy worth more than $400 billion, it's a bit like someone deciding to lose weight by eating low fat cream instead of regular.

Most of the cuts were directed at trimming some of the fat off what is usually referred to as 'middle class welfare' i.e. Taxpayer funded cash handouts to people who really ought to be able to stand on their own two feet but never have to because a lot of them live in marginal seats and both major political parties suck up to them. The major cuts to these programs this time were directed at Family Assistance payments and the Dependant Spouse Rebate tax offset. In case you're unfamiliar with these payments, a brief note on both and what the Government has decided to do with them:

* FAMILY ASSISTANCE: Payments to help with the cost of raising children, paid either fortnightly or annually to parents with dependent children aged 0 - 25. Means tested with a cut off point previously tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), meaning the cutoff point would rise a few percent each year. What the Government has decided to do is freeze the cutoff point at $150 000, meaning that families with income close to this point will, most likely, find their income gradually rises above it and their benefits will cease. A measure expected to effect approximately 70 000 families over the next three years.

* DEPENDANT SPOUSE REBATE: A tax credit of up to $4 000 per annum for couples who have no children and have one member staying at home... That's right, up to four grands worth for one childless adult to sit at home and do essentially nothing. This measure dates from 1936 so may be a bit past it's use by date, in terms of relevance, and the Government has decided to do away with it, for people with dependent spouses under 40 years. Affecting approximately 120 000 people.

These, then, are the primary savings measures, affecting just under 200 000 households.

At the same time, the Government has opted to increase the Family related benefits for anyone not effected by the above measures i.e. the vast majority of people. So a lot of people will actually be better off under the new provisions and the ones that aren't, well, I agree that a household income figure of $150 000 doesn't make you rich, but if you can't live on that level of income without Government support then something is wrong somewhere. Time to buy some budgeting software or see a financial counsellor, folks.

You would think then, considering that the cutbacks are targeted at a small number of people and are attached to increases for everyone else, that the Government would be immune to criticism of heartlessness or not wanting to help Australian families.

And you'd be wrong.

For this is exactly the argument that Tony Abbott is making.

And the Opposition Leader appeared to have made up his mind beforehand that he would get straight out and attack Labor as a pack of miserable scrooge grinches determined to ruin the lives of any double income families, regardless of what the Budget actually contained. For he was at it as soon as Wayne Swan's turgid Budget speech was over, (and yes, that link goes to a transcript of the speech, but I'd only consider it if you are suicidal) immediately taking to any available media outlet to declare Labor's hatred of 'aspirational' families (Aspirational in this instance seemingly meaning any family that might 'aspire' to voting Liberal at the next election).

Abbott himself had a more entertaining, and entirely unique, strategy for his nationally televised, Budgetary reply speech: Ignore Labor's budget altogether and talk about whatever popped into his head (primarily boat people, boat people and... ummm... boat people).

He did this in spite of what was contained in the Budget itself, and in spite of his repeated recent criticism of Government waste, repeatedly declaring:

'What you've got to realise Tony/Tracey/George/Anna is that this Government has always been happy to splash money around everywhere, in the most wasteful fashion imaginable, with no regard to the impact on the Budget bottom line, or what's best for the country, and now that they've decided to stop doing that we're determined to stop them from stopping!

For which sort of mealy mouthed Doublespeak he mostly got a pat on the back from the conservative press, something along the lines of 'ABBOTT VOWS TO PROTECT FAMILY BENEFITS.'

And this highlights the problem with the Opposition leader, who seems to feel that he can say and do whatever he likes, regardless of how tenuously it may be attached to reality.

Or, alternately, it may just highlight a problem that has crept into our political system in general, whereby Opposition Leaders do just that, 'oppose' and then worry about figuring out what they actually stand for or what policy aims they'd like to achieve once the Government falls over and they find themselves elected. This phenomenon is very much on display where I live in Victoria where, after years of lambasting the former Labor Government about the level of public debt it had run up, the newly elected Liberal Treasurer, Kim Wells, announced he would be tripling that same level of debt in his first budget. When asked about the apparent hypocrisy of this, he said:

'Well I said a lot of things before. But that was then and this is now and why don't you just go and get fucked, eh?'

Well, he didn't actually say that, but the actual quotes he used in his defence would make you want to punch something.

Which brings us back to the Federal Budget.

And the reality of the situation is that the Budget released last week does little more than tread water, highlighting the fragile position Labor finds itself in, governing in a minority and feeling beset on all sides. There are no big new policy ideas in this years Budget, and no really real cuts to existing programs either. They tried as hard as they could not to offend anyone and while they may have succeeded on that score, the public hasn't warmed to what has been announced either.

With Labor faring so badly in the polls - if recent figures were repeated at an election the only Labor figures you'd see near Federal Parliament would be the workers tending the Parliamentary lawns - a little more boldness than what has been displayed will be required.

The Death Defying Parachutist Stuntman

Deja vu in politics can be a terrible thing.

This is because it so very often relates to a former leader resurrecting themselves.

Think of 'The Bomber,' Kim Beazley, for a recent example of this. Everytime the wallopers in the backroom of the Labor Party got a bit twitchy - very often about the same time the current leader started talking about 'reform' of the party structure - The Bomber would find himself pressed into service, a safe pair of hands - and no reform ideas - to guide the party through a rough patch. In fact, this happened so often, the poor bloke probably got a bit confused and forgot where his seat in Parliament was. No wonder he muddled up Karl Rove and Rove McManus.

And everytime The Bomber came off the bench, he'd pledge himself to 'a fresh start,' 'bold policy ideas,' 'a new Kim Beazley' and all the other half baked, cliched nonsense that politicians come out with when they hope no one's actually listening. And everytime, he'd fair about the same; he'd waffle on for a bit, Howard and Costello would make fun of him and he'd be packed off to the back benches as soon as another half credible leadership alternative presented itself.

One of which was Kevin Rudd.

So it was with an odd sense of deja vu, mixed with goodly amout of dread, that one watched Heavy Kevvy's performance on 'Q & A' on Monday night (sorry, no embed option available, get with the times 'ABC'!):

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201104/r749026_6194007.asx

For there can be no doubt, based on this effort, that Kevin Rudd imagines that he can one day lead the Labor Party and be Prime Minister again.

I mean, let's look at the evidence.

The first time around, when Rudd became ALP leader - seemingly several lifetimes ago but actually only 3 and a bit years in the past - he did this largely through the media. Partly, this was down to necessity.

Rudd does not come from a union background, or some other sector easily identifiable to the Labor faithful, and had never cultivated much of a personal following in Federal Caucus. The media allowed him to bypass these more traditionally required steps to the party leadership and establish himself as a prominent public figure. And so he developed his media profile, on the one hand appearing on popular mainstream shows like 'Sunrise,' and on the other becoming a well established leaker and confidante of leading press figures, who he could then use to help push his agenda.

And here he is again, years later, cracking lame jokes and mugging to the cameras through the forum of a national TV program. And while 'Q and A' may not be 'Sunrise' (to everyone's relief), it's not the 'Mt Gambier Advertiser' either.

The Rudd persona that was on display on 'Q and A' is another indicator that the little nerdy bloke is thinking about taking the top job back again. He's had a couple of these, personas, since Gillard and the wallopers pushed him over last year. There was the teary windbag from 'resignation' day:



The sulky outcast, wronged by the world:



The hard working local candidate, just trying to represent his local constituents:



And the death defying parachutist stunt man:



Ahhhh... if only.

But this latest incarnation is the first one that has attempted to connect Rudd back with his successful public persona of 2007/08; nerdy but compassionate, compassionate but tough, tough but brainy, brainy but not that far removed from you. You can almost see him thinking: 'It worked a treat last time round... Why not again?'

Why not indeed?

While it's unwise to rule out anything in politics, Kevvy will find his path back to the top much harder this time round. For starters supporters, whether inside a political party or out in the boarder public, do not return to discarded leaders easily. Part of the appeal of a new leader is that they have something fresh about them, that they haven't yet bored us to death with their personal catchphrases and tale of woe upbringing anecdotes. Rudd no longer has this advantage. Whatever charm the way he asks himself a stream of rhetorical questions, or mangles the classic Australian vernacular:



used to possess, dissipated long ago.

Secondly, Rudd has almost certainly made himself more enemies within the ALP since he was last leader. As mentioned, he was never personally popular but when he became leader he'd also done his best to avoid the worst of the factional infighting and skullduggery that seems to make up so much of modern Labor. This is not the case this time, where his internal standing has been tarnished by a number of mini scandals; chief among them the leaks from Rudd's cabinet that seriously threatened to derail Labor's election campaign last year.

And finally, and perhaps most importantly, the third key element that will work against Rudd's quest to return to the Labor leadership is that John Howard is no longer Liberal leader. Rudd has always been a weird, tightly wound, bureaucratic little freak with a short temper, but, in direct comparison to Howard, suddenly looked like Hunter S. Thompson.

Rudd's public persona at the 2008 election was essentially Howard-lite: all the conservative tendencies without the extreme elements of Howard's policy program, 'Work Choices' chief among them. Flash forward till now and the roles would almost be reversed in a contest that pitted Rudd against Tony Abbott. A lot of people may be wary of Abbott's politics, but he is widely perceived as a knockabout sort of bloke. An every day sort of guy, largely free of artifice, who speaks his mind and, perhaps most importantly in Australian politics, the sort of bloke who wouldn't look out of place at the local pub. In other words, about as far removed from Rudd as you could imagine.

None of which, I suspect, will deter Rudd, in his second quest for the top (perhaps the only thing that would, would be a bottle in the face, and that only briefly). And it may not deter potential backers inside the Labor Party either. Rudd, after all, is an election winner, and that is something that has been in very short supply in the ALP recently.

All of which makes for the prospect of highly unstable times ahead for Labor, and creates another problem for the Prime Minister to deal with. And for Julia Gillard, this will make for a very strong sense of deja vu indeed.

Pauline, Adolf and Tony

Australian politics can be a little dull at times.

I mean, much as I love it and obsess over it, it doesn't have the same kind of loopy showbiz razzle dazzle that politics in, say, the US does. Or the ever present hint of a kinky sex scandal like what they get in England. Our political leaders are mostly a conservative, middle of the road bunch, as befits the conservative, middle of the road country they represent.

So things like last week's Anti Carbon Tax rally in Canberra are truly to be savoured:



For there they were in all their glory: Australia's lunatic fringe.

Now the lunatic fringe is a small minority in this country (see previous note about middle-of-the-roadness) so to see them all out in the sun in public together is a rare thing indeed. Normally the only time you'd see that many nutters together in one place in Australia would be the Katter family Christmas.

Ostensibly a gathering to protest Federal Labor's embryonic carbon tax policy, the rabid right wing atmosphere of last week's event brought forth not only climate change deniers:



but also fanatics opposed to boat people, multiculturalism, conservation, immigration and even, seemingly, women:



Not that the bloke, Tim, who made the above sign would accept that it was offensive. As he outlined when interviewed the following day on 2GB:

'Not one person at that rally was upset by my poster.'

Well yeah, you know, obviously. If you'd dragged Julia Gillard out of Parliament House, tied her to a stake and burned her alive they wouldn't have been upset by that either, but that doesn't mean that doing so wouldn't have contravened a few good taste boundaries.

Also moving among the protestors was someone who looked very much at home, in the person of Pauline Hanson. You remember her, right?



No, wait, that was one of her many imitators. Of course, there were lots of those at one time. I mean, here's another well known one:



But I'm quite sure that no one with even a passing interest in Australian politics has forgotten Pauline. And there she was last week, signing autographs and shaking hands like it was 1998 and her red hair and excruciating accent were still the hottest thing in Australian politics. Although, at least one thing had changed since those heady days of 12 years ago, when Ms Hanson's 'One Nation' party won eleven seats in a Queensland state election. It was most noticeable when Pauline said this about the Opposition leader:

'Tony Abbott has my full support in his campaign against this unfair tax.'

Tony Abbott has Pauline Hanson's 'full support'? The bloke who organised a private fund to campaign against her and, ultimately, helped organise the prosecution that saw her jailed for fraudulant use of public electoral funds? Strange times indeed.

Strange, but perhaps fitting on a day when the Federal Opposition leader, a man hungrily in search of credibility, saw fit to address a rally where one man held a placard that read:

'GREAT LIARS ARE ALSO GREAT MAGICIANS - ADOLF HITLER'

You can't help but think that any association with Hitler could only be bad for the Opposition leader, who's main problem lately is that a fair chunk of middle Australia are worried he might be an angry nut. In fact, the whole day played out badly for Abbott, to the extent that you wonder why his media people or minders didn't keep him away from the event. Images and videos of him addressing a small crowd of baying crazies would seem to be something that will inevitably appear in the campaign advertising at the next election, which should be entertaining for the rest of us, if not for the Liberal Party.

Sadly, this one brief moment of humorous sunshine is already receding into the background, as the Carbon Tax debate returns to the grim everyday reality of 'We-want-to-save-the-planet/You-want-to-destroy-the-world' rhetoric.

And that's something that's entertaining for no one.

50th Post Anniversary: Some Political Favourites Recalled

It came to my attention the other day that I had achieved a signficant milestone with this blog: 50 entries. Which makes it about the longest running project of my entire life.

So the importance of this milestone is not to be underestimated. And I feel like I've come along way in the past 6 and 3/4 months, since it was pouring rain one Sunday afternoon and the Foxtel had gone down and my girlfriend was out of town and I had nothing better to do but rant online. Well, I should say, we've come a long way on this journey together, as I wouldn't want the 14 people who regularly read this stuff to feel left out.

So to mark my 50th post, I thought I would give a kind of brief (it's kinda sunny today and nice outside) recap of some of favourite moments in Australian politics, during my time as an observor.

I'm from New Zealand originally and when we moved to Australia in 1986, Australian politics was dominated by the long, and bizarrely coiffered, shadow of Bob Hawke. Among a number of achievements in public life, he is now perhaps best remembered as the wearer of the most spectacular jacket in Australian political history:



Although I also think of him as the teller of the perhaps the greatest joke in Australian political history:



Hmmm... the greatest joke in Australian Political History? It's hard to say. I mean, it's a tough call. There's a lot of competition:



In any case, Hawke worked a very effective double team for a few years with Paul Keating, who served a lengthy apprenticeship as Treasurer, Deputy Leader and Principal Head Kicker. Keating would eventually grow tired of playing second fiddle and have Hawke removed in a fairly bloody coup, which left him to take up the fight against the then Opposition Leader John Hewson. Hewson had been riding high in the polls against Hawke, but found the going harder against Keating, who quickly moved to attack him on a variety of fronts as the 1993 election drew close: (the good bit starts about 2.50. Sorry, I didn't have time to cut it down):



History, of course, shows that Keating did stage a remarkable comeback and defeat Hewson at that election, although it was probably hard not to feel a little sorry for the Liberal leader. Next to Keating, he was left looking a little insipid:



Hewson's defeat would, eventually, pave the way for the return of Mr 17%, old 'Lazarus with a Triple Bypass' himself: John Winston Howard. Howard had suffered at the hands of Hawke in the 80's, but Keating was never as popular with the public as the Silver Bodgie and Howard sensed his chance. Gearing up for the 1996 election and his final tilt at the top job, Howard's thirst for power was the same, only this time he came armed with a secret weapon; He could sing:



Howard, of course, became PM and just like some parable out of the Old Testament, darkness settled over the land. A darkness that lasted for about a thousand years... or at least 12. There was no singing.

I lost my interest in politics for a bit around this time. The years 1996 - 2003 are largely a blank in my political mind, as Howard and his acolytes took over and did their best to make Australia into a small country town circa 1950, while Kim 'Marshmallow' Beazley drove lots of people like me out of Labor Party forever.

In this dark time, right thinking people opposed to Howard were very much in the minority, and had to take solace in things like this:



But in 2003, a ray of hope appeared again, in the form of Labor leader Mark Latham... Yes, I know, in these enlightened times that sentence seems to make no sense, but there it was. Labor had a Keating-esque leader again and for the first time in seemingly forever, looked likely to be competitive at the 2004 election as Latham took the attack up to Howard:



But a little of this sort of thing can go a long way. And in an election where serious issues like the Iraq war, middle glass welfare and Australia's brutal treatment of refugees seemed to be largely ignored, Latham found himself getting jeery thumbs-down signals for this trivial moment:



Some pundits even went so far as to say that this overly aggressive handshake may have cost Latham the election, which is so unlikely that it may well be true.

The 2004 election marked something of a generational change in Australian politics as younger, fresher faces made their way into Parliament and began to make their presence felt. They also showed some of the older hands some new moves:



Although Costello's mimicking of Peter Garrett's dancing in that last clip is undoubtedly a payback for this (quite possibly my favourite political moment from the last 20 years):


Midnight Oil - Beds Are Burning Live At Olympics... by ZapMan69

Gumption on an important issue on a very public stage. Let's hope the current ALP takes note when trying to sell their carbon pricing policy.

From the new crop, Labor would also find their next leader. A man who's unlikley culinary tastes would make him something of a global internet sensation:



Kevin Rudd was, perhaps, the unlikliest leader the Federal Labor Party has ever had. Quite apart from the ear wax thing, he was a man only 9 years in Parliament, without a lot of personal support in caucus and without strong links to the trade union movement, all of which should have been fatal handicaps. Nevertheless, when Kim Beazley was finally, mercifully, taken out and put down, this was who the ALP would turn to. And who would, even more surprisingly, lead the ALP out of the wilderness by defeating Howard at the 2007 election. Howard, less surprisingly, did not take this occurrence well:



Rudd was a new player on the national stage and was largely unknown to the general public when he took office. He would very quickly move to establish his own unique style, one which included asking himself an awful lot of questions:



'Do I look like I'm interested in answering your question? No I don't.' A motto that all politicians seem to live by.

Rudd's idiosyncrasies would soon bug the population very badly, so much so that his cabinet colleagues would have him replaced before his first term as PM was even up. Which proved a boon for the advertising industry, if no one else:



Rudd's replacement would be Julia Gillard who, after a promising first 5 minutes, would quickly end up emulating all of his unpopular traits. I was going to post a clip or a photo of this, but searching for something just proved too depressing.

So we should probably just move onto Julia's opponent, the one and only Tony Abbott, who generates that much oddball media he should probably have a highlights package of his own. Now when people think of Abbott at the moment, they probably think of this:



But to think only about this truly bizarre moment, where the first time round you're really not sure if he's going to punch the journalist or spontaneously combust, is to forget about some of his other hits. And we wouldn't want that to happen. So how about the time he denied and then confirmed a meeting he'd had with Cardinal George Pell, all in the space of 8 seconds:



Or the time he accused a dying man trying to get justice of conducting a 'stunt' by trying to meet with him:



I mean, I said 'Say what's on your mind Tony,' but Jesus! And then there was the time he swore at his shadow opposite number:



And the time he tried to explain how we shouldn't necessarily pay attention to everything he said. I mean, not to go assuming that he meant all of it:



The upside, of course, is that Abbott is a young guy, and so there should be plenty more material for me to use, when I recap the next twenty years.

And, just very quickly in small print, can I thank everyone who's had a look a look at this so far and given me feedback.

A Great Big New Tax on Everything

One thing we know for certain about Tony Abott: He is a man who can spot a 'Great Big New Tax On Everything.' Although his task has been made easier in this respect, for the 'Great Big New Tax on Everythings' have been proliferating like jack rabbits.

First there was the 'Resource Rent Tax,' a tax on mining profits above a certain level, first proposed by Kevin Rudd and then modified by Julia Gillard. Abbott identified both original and modified proposals as a 'Great Big New Tax on Everything.'

More recently, we had the 'Queensland Natural Disaster Levy,' a tax on anyone earning more than $50 000 who's house wasn't washed or blown away, to help with reconstruction after the cyclone and floods in that state. Abbott had this one pegged as a 'Great Big New Tax on Everything' too.

And now that we've finally reached what will likely be defining moment of the Gillard Government (or the Gillard/Whoever They Replace Her With Before the Next Election Government), the attempts to lower Australia's carbon emissions by attaching a price to them, Abbott has found another one. Gillard's embryonic proposal to introduce a modest tax per tonne of carbon released into the atmosphere, designed to help the environment and, you know, save the planet, is actually another one of these bloody 'Great Big New Tax on Everythings' that the Government is so keen on:



So a good question would seem to be: Why is the Labor Party so keen on bringing in a Great Big New Tax on Everything?

And an even better question might be: How is it that a member of the Howard Government, who really did introduce a Great Big New Tax on Everything in the form of the GST, is allowed to get away with this nonsense?

But we can leave those questions for another time.

Right now, let's just reiterate what is obviously an established fact: TONY ABBOTT IS VERY OPPOSED TO NEW TAXES TO HELP LOWER CARBON EMISSIONS.

He's stated this opposition, in every available media outlet at his disposal, so often that you start to wonder if his vocabulary contains anything more than the words 'opposed, 'new,' 'tax,' 'on,' and 'carbon.' Which, if true, is probably a bit dull for his wife and kids, let alone those of us who pay regular attention to his public pronouncements.

But this is not to say that he doesn't think carbon emissions shouldn't be lowered. He may be a late convert to the whole 'Inconvenient Truth,' global warming business, but he's inside the tent now. His previously stated skepticism (Abbott once referred to global warming as 'absolute crap') has gradually given way to oft repeated acceptance.

What, then, does the alternative Prime Minister propose to do about lowering Australia's carbon emissions? If he's not going to put a price on them and let the market sort it out? How's he going to fix this problem at no cost to us, the taxpayer?

Well, he's got a $10 billion dollar 'Direct Action' policy that would fund a variety of initiatives designed to directly lower emissions; tree planting, clean coal, free fluorescent light bulbs for all, that sort of thing. A whole range of things really, hundreds of them. And best of all: No new GREAT BIG NEW TAX ON EVERYTHING!

But wait.

Whereabouts is he going to get his $10 billion worth of funding from to pay for all these warm and fuzzy programs? I half expected him to go:

'Magic!'

when he was asked this question, and then maybe throw a smoke capsule on the ground before making for the exit, in the style of some sort of super villain:



For the very obvious answer is that that $10 billion dollars is going to come from the Australian tax payer, either through new taxes or reallocation of funds from existing revenue. A case of 'Half a dozen new, small taxes on everything' perhaps?

And this is where Coalition fantasy land starts to diverge from reality. For the Government's heavily criticised carbon tax is actually a tax on business, not on us regular punters. At least not directly. Businesses are the ones that are going to have to pay the levy for whatever tonnage of carbon they emit into the atmosphere (currently expected to be about 4c per 100 trillion tonnes or something equally negligible).

Abbott's argument is that businesses will then pass this extra tarriff onto us regular punters in the form of higher charges, and so higher prices, and this forms the basis of his GREAT BIG TAX ON EVERYTHING spiel. Which undoubtedly has some basis in fact. Nevertheless, us punters have a choice about how we spend out money. We can choose to accept these extra prices and stick with the same polluting companies that we've always used or, or, we can take our money elsewhere and buy products and services from carbon neutral industries that don't attract the tax and so have cheaper prices. This is the whole purpose of putting a price on carbon through a tax (or an emission trading system): peoples desire for the best price and the best value for money will reward non carbon industries through increased business.

Which is the market in action.

But with Abbott's proposal, there's no choice at all. He'll simply take $10 billion from our collective pockets and funnel it off to whatever fiddling-at-the-margins schemes he thinks will play best in the media. Which will mean more tree planting and more solar panel rebates, all paid for directly by us. And tree planting and solar panel rebates are all well and good, and certainly have their place in an overall climate strategy, but they really aren't an effective centrepeice of a policy if the goal is really to reduce carbon emissions in a cost efficient manner.

Take a recent report in 'The Age,' for example, that showed that in the last ten years Federal Governments of both stripes had spent $5.5 billion on climate reduction policies of the tree planting and solar rebate type that had reduced our emissions at the cost of $168 per tonne. And then compare that to the Government's mooted carbon tax that will reduce emissions at the price of $20 - 25 per tonne (not 4c per 100 trillion tonnes as has been inaccurately reported elsewhere) and see which one you think is the better policy.

Hmmm... the $168 dollar per tonne one paid for by us? Or the $25 per tonne way paid for by the polluters? Tricky...

It says a lot about the current state of political debate in this country that Abbott is allowed to go around the country masquerading as an anti-tax campaigner, while simultaneously proposing to take $10 billion dollars worth of extra taxes from us. Government in fighting and a lack of detail in what has been announced so far has let Abbott off the hook.

Julia Gillard must also lift her game as the Prime Minister has shown, so far, that she is not a good sales rep for her Government's ideas. The focus is on her and the ALP and they must deliver in two areas simultaneously. Explaining their carbon tax policy better and turning the attention of the media and the people to the cost and flagrant hypocrisy of what the Opposition is proposing.

It's a chewing gum and wallking at the same time moment for Labor and, so far, they haven't shown that they're capable of doing either.

Bad Week... Good Week...

Tony Abbott has known bad days in politics.

There was that time, on the campaign trail in 2007, where he abused a dying mesothelioma victim, rocked up late to a televised debate with his shadow ministry opposite and then swore at and abused said opposite for criticising him. Or there was the time, immediately after the Liberals 2007 election defeat, that he wanted to put his hand up to be leader, only to sound out his parliamentary colleagues and find out that none of them would support him. And, of course, there was the 2007 election defeat itself, which left Abbott staggering, Heathcliff like, across the cliff tops of Eastern Sydney, after his mentor John Howard was pitched out of office.

But all of these bad days had been in Abbott's past.

Since his unlikely and unexpected rise to the Liberal Party leadership in late 2009, he has had nothing but sunshine, lollipops and rainbows:



And a bit of good luck. Firstly, his seemingly entrenched and popular opponent, the robotic bloke from Queensland, conspired against himself and self destructed in a flash of bad polls and 'ratfucking' jokes. Secondly, the robotic blokes replacement, Julia from the Suburbs, almost immediately started acting just like the bloke she'd just replaced - flimsy, no policies, weasel word language - and so nullified any appeal she may have had. And finally, the ALP ran one of the worst and most inept election campaigns in the country's history and nearly threw away a comfortable electoral buffer.

Even the fact that Abbott ultimately led the conservatives to defeat at the 2010 election, normally the very bottom of the heap for a political leader, didn't seem to have quite the same effect on him. Somehow, he managed to convey the impression that he had actually won in some way, or that the new government was illegitimate or, at least, that being Opposition leader was better than leading a rag tag coalition of misfits, rebels and weirdos.

So perhaps his good luck was due to run out...

For last week contained a number of bad days for Tony Abbott.

Firstly, a recap.

Tony's week of misery started with the release of his proposed cuts to the Federal budget. The ones that will generate $2 billion worth of savings and so negate the need for a flood levy/tax to pay for disaster relief. As is the case with these types of things, even people who might be in favour of spending cuts in general, can become opposed once they see what, exactly, will be cut.

Which is what seemed to happen to Abbott's, previously loyal, deputy, shadow foreign affairs minister Julie Bishop. Bishop had strongly opposed Abbott's initial plan to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to Africa and had succeeded in getting him to drop the idea... only to have him replace it with a plan to cut hundreds of millions of dollars to an AusAid scheme that funds secular schools in Indonesia. Bishop was angry enough to confront Abbott in his office about it, a meeting which leaked out into the press and fuelled already existing rumours that the pair don't get along and can't work together.

Although the proposed cuts are simply that, proposals, which are not going to be enacted in reality, Abbott's trenchant opposition to the Government's tax/levy had made them the focus of media attention and his ideas significant. A major public spat with his deputy over them was not a good look for the Opposition leader. As they say in politics, 'Disunity is death.'

Of course, later in the week, Abbott would look back on an argument about hypothetical budget cuts as a happy sort of time. A tea and scones in the garden with the newspaper and the family kind of Sunday morning. For later in the week, Abbott would find himself overtaken by 'Shithappensgate.'

This issue had been percolating for a few months, from late last year, when Abbott went to Afghanistan to visit Australian troops, in the wake of the killing of one of them, Jared Mackinney . The Australian Defence force took some video footage of Abbott while he was with them; joking with the troops, wearing a helmet, firing some weapons, the usual sort of macho idiot stuff that politicians can't resist around the army.

This footage was not released to the public and would not have been, if veteran Channel 7 reporter Mark Riley hadn't played a hunch and obtained it - after a three month legal stoush with Abbott's staff, who didn't want it out in public - via the 'Freedom of Information' act. The acquired tape contained footage of Abbott discussing the death of Mackinney with local commanders and then clearly stating the words, 'Well, it's obvious that... shit happens sometimes doesn't it?'

Now Abbott was quick to point out that his remarks needed to be taken in context (and it seems the whole political system would fall apart without the existence of that phrase). He had been on the public record as critical of the level of logistical support our troops received in Afghanistan and had implied this may have contributed to the death in question. The local commanders had told him that he felt the troops were well supported and so Abbott was trying to say, in a way, that he'd been wrong. But his remarks were pretty careless and would, undoubtedly, make some people seeing them think of him as a cold, heartless cunt.

Which may have been a better look than initially thought, after Abbott was confronted by the footage by Riley outside Parliament House. After watching it on Riley's laptop and answering a few questions in a hostile yet perfunctory way, Abbott suddenly lapsed into an angry silence, glaring at Riley as if he was about to explode. Or, at least, turn the clock back to his university days and flatten him with a few punches:



Later, Abbott's supporters would claim that their boy was maintaining a 'dignified silence' and choosing not to respond to 'gutter journalism' and a 'media ambush.' If this is true, then it's only true in the sense that the Black Knight from 'The Holy Grail' chose to surrender quietly:



The truth is that Abbott's 'dignified' response did much more damage than the 'Shit happens' video, which ultimately, no one seemed to give a shit about anyway. But by going on national TV and acting like a nutjob, Abbott confirmed all the worst suspicions that people (including some inside the Parliamentary Liberal party) have about him; that he's rash, unstable, prone to let his emotions get the better of him and incapable of thinking on his feet.

A tough week for Abbott, then, with one damaging issue after another and all of it covered with maximum hostility by the national press. So it must have come to some surprise to him, and us, to start the following week (this week) with polling showing the Liberal Party in a triumphant position in the polls. I mean, the conservatives are so far ahead that if the numbers from yesterday's poll were repeated in an election, Labor's representatives in Canberra would be reduced to the blokes that run the parliamentary canteen. And even their position might be shaky.

And it's difficult to know what to make of this. Either Abbott is better liked - and so more resilient in the polls - than we'd thought, or Julia Gillard is so on the nose that nothing Abbott could do could really affect the Liberals numbers much. Either way, this spells dire news for the ALP... and anyone who thought about moving to Canada if Abbott won the election last year.

Inertia

'The Age' editorial yesterday made the point that Victoria's new-ish Premier, 'Big' Ted Baillieu, was a bit of a slack arse.

Well, not in so many words, of course. Even as it sacks people and moves as much of it's content online as possible, the Melbourne broadsheet is still pretty conservative.

But it did make the point, more delicately, thet Big Ted has been Premier for a few months now and that there aren't many signs of life emanating from the Premier's office. In fact, the only tangible thing that Baillieu seems to have acheived since being elected is that he managed to make the Premier's Christmas Party an alcohol free event, so ruining the day for everyone attending (Baillieu is a tee-totaller and so marks himself out as unique in Australian political history).

In terms of what he's managed to do in relation to the big issues facing the state; public transport, health, education, crime, the economy and so on to infinity, you'd struggle to find any Governmental movement on any front. Which may surprise people. Especially the people that voted for him.

I may be wrong, but I seem to remember Big Ted going on at some length about all the problems facing Victoria during last years election campaign. I mean, he had a pretty extensive list - which, well, I've already written out in the previous paragragph, so I won't redo it here - which he talked about at mind boggling length and which his party put all over every availabe media outlet in negative campaign ads:



And this worked well for him.

People took notice, or were just sick of being told that waiting 4 hours for a train was 'Part of the Plan,' and turfed Labor out on the back of a 6% statewide swing to the conservatives. The era of Big Ted had arrived!



Aaargh! What is that thing with him? Kill it!

Anyway, at least we thought his era had begun.

Some of his supporters are now starting to look like people waiting for an overdue plane; it was meant to be here two hours ago and they've moved from mild disinterest, to annoyance, to concern, to a growing certainty in their hearts that terrorists have blown it up over the Pacific.

Did Big Ted's supporters take the wrong message from the election campaign? Was all that talk about late trains and hospital waiting lists and crazed gangs of homeowner hating youth criminals meant to be... I dunno, reportage? Just to let us know that things were bad? In case we hadn't noticed that the train we were waiting for never showed up or that our aunty was hobbling around while waiting for corrective surgery?

If it was, well, nice of them to point it out. But maybe a little disappointing.

Although anyone that did actually pay attention to the last election campaign would not have been surprised that solutions to Victoria's problems are not materialising. For none were proposed. From either side.

John Brumby stuck doggedly to the same unpopular, universally derided policies that he'd been pushing for several years, and so committed political suicide. And Baillieu and the Liberal Party mainly just nodded and smiled and made sure everyone knew that Jeff Kennett was no longer a candidate.

In terms of specifics, Baillieu offered us two new train lines, a handful of new trains, about a gazillion more police and that was about it. And even this minimal 'agenda' has been pretty much glossed over, forgotten about and obfuscated since Big Ted was elected and Liquorland had their state parliament contract terminated.

The counter agrument to all this, of course, is that the Liberals were only elected a few months ago and that time will be required for them to enact their policies. Or, for starters, for them to figure out what their policies are. And additionally, Labor ran the state for a long time and the public service is intrinsically slow in responding to change, so even when the Liberals are ready to move in key policy areas, we will need to be patient in order to see results.

But this is no reason for inertia.

Baillieu was given a clear mandate by the electorate and he enjoys a majority in both houses of Parliament. He has far fewer obstacles in his path than, say, Steve Bracks had when he took over a Premier. So there is no excuse not to get on with it. Especially since the same people that were unhappy with transport and health and so ended Brumby's career, will quickly turn on the new bunch if they sense that they're sitting on their hands.

'Well after 12 years of Labor neglect...'

Will only work for so long. Baillieu and co need only look at the Rudd/Gillard government to see how popular a timid, do nothing style of governance is with the punters. Baillieu needs to outline his agenda, properly, and nominate his policy priorities as soon as he can. And then actually move forward with some boldness to legislate for them.

The fact that the same issue of 'The Age' that featured the critical editorial contained not one story of what the Baillieu government was doing is not a good sign.

Flood Relief

A quick word association game in relation to the flood disaster that has hit Queensland and Victoria. I say the words 'Flood disaster' and you say the first thing that pops into your head. Ready?

Flood disaster.

(Pause)

Ok, let's try that again.

Flood disaster.

Oh wait, that's right, I'm sitting here by myself. Ok! Well then let's have a 'Google' search fill in for the other person. Type 'Flood disaster' into Google and you'll get the following list of words (a brief selection from many):

Chaos, volunteer, emotional support, grief, wiped out, severe, victims, devastation, biblical, stranded, wall of water, ruin.

Which probably sums up the situation pretty nicely, without any turgid linking material from me. I mean, it all sounds very serious, horrific and heartbreaking. A bad thing, in other words, without any obvious upside.

So is it cheeky to propose that some of the nations political leadership are slowly, carefully and very privately starting to think about the advantages of the crisis? And, more specifically, how they will benefit from those advantages? Well, perhaps it would be, if this wasn't exactly what has started to take place.

This is not to suggest that the political leaders in question don't take it all very seriously. I mean, some of their best friends are flood victims. And they're obviously emotionally effected by what's happened, just as the public at large has been. To varying degrees, they have committed themselves personally to trying to help the people in those regions.

But what I am suggesting is that politics is politics and is applicable in every situation, short of apocalyptic nuclear war. And even then, if more than one person survived the mushroom clouds and the fallout, you can bet that the next day the survivors would have formed into rival groups and would be arguing about how to distribute the one remaining crate of baked beans. And just like every situation where politics is a factor, there are bound to be angles to be worked, opportunities to be taken and enemies to be vanquished.

A brief look then, at some of the major political players and how they are trying to subtly, craftily and oh so gently turn the flood crisis to their advantage.



QUEENSLAND PREMIER ANNA BLIGH (Labor)
The obvious political beneficiary of the flood crisis, Bligh has been turned from someone about as popular as her namesake, the one who captained the HMAS Bounty, to someone regularly referred to as a 'hero.' She has done this through hard work, dedication, a few tears and relentless use of the phrase 'Queenslander.' As in 'We're all Queenslanders, you and I, and we're built tough up here.' Bligh has been too busy to really reap the benefits of what has happened yet, but she can expect to be significantly boosted in the polls when it's all over. Expect her to take her chance to properly revitalise her political fortunes and sweep away some of her dud ministers, replacing them with people much like herself, preferably one's in gumboots and muddy shirts who lost their house (or, at least the family Subaru).



PRIME MINISTER JULIA GILLARD (Labor)
That's right, that's her in the back. Anyways, the Prime Minister has not been enjoying the best of runs from the press during the flood crisis, least of all when she's standing beside the anointed hero noted above, but in her diligent, plodding way is doing her best to cash in on the situation regardless. Her prime mechanism for this is a reordering of Government budgetary priorities, AKA 'Tax and Don't Spend.' The Federal Government is committed to paying for 75% of the reconstruction bill after the waters subside and the PM has decided to pay for this in two ways. Firstly, by cutting back in Government spending in some areas , AKA cutting unpopular, poorly conceived and just plain barmy policies like her loopy 'Cash for clunkers' scheme. This allows her to get rid of policies she wanted to ditch anyway, without appearing to break her election promises. Secondly, Labor plans to raise money by introducing a short term levy on most everyone not living in a flooded area; AKA a brand new tax on workers earning more than $50 000 per annum to be maintained, essentially, at the PM's whim. This allows Labor to cover up some of the shortfall in their finances they created when they cut their mining tax back while not cancelling any of the unpopular, loopy and just plain barmy policies that they're really attached to. And it gives them some remote, unlikely hope of still getting the budget back to surplus by 2050 (or whenever it is they're proposing to do it by).



FEDERAL OPPOSITION LEADER TONY ABBOTT (Liberal)
In times of crisis, Opposition Leaders often find themselves somewhat marginalised, and Tony 'Stop the Boats' Abbott is no exception. After all, Opposition leaders can't allocate funds or call out the troops or really do anything except talk... and initially no one wanted to hear anyone speaking except Anna Bligh. But 'Stop the Boats' has his chance now that the aforementioned new levy/tax is on the table, as it gives him a fine opportunity to do what he does best; rush around the country with his shirt sleeves rolled up, yelling non stop about how he's fundamentally opposed to blah-blah-blah until his brain nearly dies from oxygen deprivation. You can almost hear his advisors grinning to each other as Abbott takes a deep breath and prepares to start his angry man routine: 'He's back!'



VICTORIAN PREMIER TED BAILLIEU
'Big Ted' Baillieu has been a little love starved as well, what with Victoria not getting quite as much rain or as badly damaged as Queensland, so consequently his political opportunities have been fewer. Nevertheless, 'Big Ted' hit the media yesterday to stake out his political territory, which you could basically think of as 'Don't Do It And Do It Faster.' Essentially, he said words to the effect that he also opposed Federal Labor's new levy/tax, that he thought it was immoral and wrong and would hurt working families in Victoria... and that Federal Labor were wholly responsible for fixing Victoria up and if they didn't give him a chunk of cash the size of the Opera House straight away then he'd have to start stalking the PM wearing nothing but a pair of Speedos. Which puts him in an almost impregnable position, politically; if Labor raise the cash and give it to him they've hurt Victorian families and if they don't they've neglected flood victims. So yes, he's done a fine job with the political maneuvering... And a less fine job in terms of what he's done, tangibly, constructively, in reality, to actually help any of his constituents. At this point it's obvious where his priorities lie.


And these are only the more obvious examples of the political benefits that are flowing from the floods. More can be expected to be heard from the players noted above, as well as from any half well known elected official that can get themselves in front of a microphone and try and work the situation to their advantage.

If you were to make comparisons, a natural disaster most closely resembles a war in it's political impact, in that it mesmerises the population, provides ample opportunity for political advancement, costs and generates staggering amounts of revenue and can prove fatal to any politician who does not handle it deftly. And while you consider this and all the political activity that will buzz around the floods in the coming weeks, it is perhaps worth considering the other trait that natural disaster share with wars: They both often have truth as a first casualty.

Kevin Rudd: The Lethal Weapon Memoirs

Editor's note: If this is to be funny to you in any way, shape or form, it should be pointed out that the villain of the movie 'Lethal Weapon 2' is also named Mr Rudd, just like our former PM. It should also be pointed out that I watched 'Lethal Weapon 2' the other evening, after much consumption of beer and vodka had taken place. Did you need to know that in order to find what follows funny? Well, not really, but at least you know why I find it funny...

THE ABRIDGED CAREER OF KEVIN RUDD

As Told by 'Lethal Weapon 2'

Kevin Rudd started his political career in the Department of Foreign Affairs. There were lots of reasons why he chose this area to work in; his love of travel, his proficiency with Mandarin, the fact that he had no friends in Australia. But, above all, he loved having:



He thrived and quickly took control of the Labor Party, although he would endure an ongoing rivalry with another rising start, Julia Gillard. His attempts to keep her under wraps and the focus on himself were heavy handed at times:



In 2007 he lead the ALP out of the wilderness, with a thumping victory over John Howard's Liberal Party in the Federal Election. In his election night speech he paid out on Howard and everyone who had knocked him over the years:



After the election, he moved into The Lodge and had it refurbished to suit his tastes:



Rudd had some success early in his Prime Ministership; ratifying Koyoto and apologising to Australia's indigenous stolen generations. He would endure controversy as well. His close association with China would cause the Americans to regard him with suspicion. As he confided in Gillard:



He would also be faced with guiding Australia through the Global Financial crisis of 2008-09. Although the Rudd Government's policies were largely regarded as a success and Australia avoided the worst effects of the global downturn, Rudd's deficit spending would damage the budget bottom line. Rudd owned up to this publicly, admitting,



These and other policies would eventually cause Kevin Rudd a dramatic fall in the polls. As his popularity plunged throughout 2010, the faceless men of the Labor Party backroom decided to act:



They would replace Rudd with Gillard. Although shattered and surprised by this turn of events, Rudd would acknowledge:



Gillard was not entirely without sympathy for the man she replaced, however, and after winning one of the narrowest elections in Australia's history, she would return Kevin Rudd to her front bench. Once again, he would be able to hold his head up and declare to the world:

The Politics of Disaster

During last years Federal Election campaign, there was a lot of pundit speak about how the struggling Labor Governments in New South Wales and Queensland may hamper Federal Labor's chances in those states. And by struggling, we mean 'thoroughly despised.' So badly were both of those Governments travelling, and so entrenched had voter dislike of them become, it was considered a rock solid, lay down, close the betting markets certainty that both would drag Federal Labor's vote down and both would be turfed out at the first available opportunity.

This is now true only in New South Wales.

Last November, Queensland Premier Anna Bligh faced polls that showed her Government's primary vote on 28% and her own approval rating at 25% (with 70% disapproving), figures that indicate electoral oblivion. This week, as raging flood waters swept through her state and Mrs Bligh worked tirelessly to try and keep spirits up and keep people informed (no mean feat, doing these simultaneously), more than one daily newspaper referred to her as a 'hero.' When things return to something resembling normal, she can expect to see her standing in the polls considerably strengthened.

Such is the dramatic nature of The Politics of Disaster.

Now this is not to suggest that Bligh has done this deliberately, or tried to milk the flood disaster for her own benefit. Far from it. Throughout, she has been hard working, diligent, compassionate and is obviously trying her best to try and manage the still developing crisis as well as it can be managed.

The point is, Anna Bligh has always been hard working, diligent and compassionate - she's a very down to earth, no frills sort of person - and these character traits had lead her to a point where, before the flood crisis, people spat on the ground whenever they mentioned her name. She is the same, the extraordinary circumstances that she and her state find themselves in are what is different.

Nevertheless, she is going to reap a benefit in both plaudits and polls, due to her conduct so far.

But The Politics of Disaster is a fickle thing. For evidence of this, and the flipside of Bligh's experience, we need look no further than the other woman involved in the disaster this week. And by this we mean none other than Julia Gillard. C'mon, you remember her... You know, the Prime Minister!

In any case, Gillard's efforts during the flood crisis were much the same as Bligh's; she toured affected regions, repeatedly briefed the media and freed up as much emergency cash as the Government could spare. She even stood behind the Queensland Premier while she gave one of her tear streaked, highly emotional and highly popular press conferences:



And her reward for these efforts? A mild to severe case of loathing and revulsion. Gillard was described, at various times this week, as 'cold,' 'aloof,' 'disengaged' and that she 'doesn't appear to care.'

As noted, the difference between Gillard's and Bligh's performances over the past week or so is only minimal. But the perception of the differences in their performance is stark; hero on one side, cold hearted bitch on the other. What we can take from this is that The Politics of Disaster is a complex and unpredictable thing. People are highly emotional in times of crisis and their judgments not always rational. Political leaders can even experience the whole spectrum of emotions going from hero to bitch/villain in the space of just a few days or weeks.

Some more examples from recent political history further illustrates the point:

Example 1: John Brumby versus The Victorian Bushfires
The then Labor Premier started out pretty well in the crisis management stakes. Similar to Bligh, Brumby was a dour, reserved sort of guy and his grave, solid demeanour was what the public wanted to see as large parts of Victoria burned up. But Brumby proved less adept at managing the recovery, as reconstruction moved slowly and the Royal Commission he instigated produced a series of recommendations that he didn't want to implement (compulsory buybacks of property among other things). His standing was subsequently damaged, although he probably managed to break even overall.

Example 2: George W. Bush versus Al Qaida and Hurricane Katrina
The drawling, cowboy inflected, wannabe macho Texan saw both sides of The Politics of Diaster, although with each separated by several years. The 9/11 terrorist bombings probably saved his presidency, after he had made a mediocre start in the wake of the 2000 election controversy. A drawling, macho, cowboy was exactly what America wanted after the terrorist attack had shaken them and, since, no real ones were available, Bush made an acceptable substitute. His approval ratings soared above 90% as a result. But flash forward to 2005 and this schtick was completely wrong for the Hurricane Katrina disaster (which called more for a diligent, Bligh style approach). It appeared for a time that Bush either didn't know where New Orleans was, or didn't care that most of the poor people living there had drowned. Sending Dick Cheney in to tour the aftermath probably wasn't a great idea either:



Bush's long slide in the opinion polls started shortly after.

Example 3: Barack versus the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill
The boy wonder President was determined not to repeat Bush's mistakes, when a giant oil spill threatened the same part of the country as Katrina. He got his hands dirty as soon as he could; touring the area repeatedly, addressing the nation in prime time, massaging cash assistance through Congress, even taking his holiday there to try and help the tourist industry. He reaped some initial rewards for his efforts but, as the weeks and then months dragged on and oil continued to flow, support for his efforts began to collapse. It seemed almost as if, by working so hard to try and solve the problem and being so omni-present around it, Barack had himself become associated with the leak... and then blamed for it. Damage was undoubtedly done to his standing as a result of this, although how much remains to be seen.

And this is the problem that may lie in the future for the Queensland Premier. While her constituents are united behind her at the moment, the flood crisis has a long way to run. And once the waters start to subside, a massive reconstruction effort will need to be overseen by a Government who's poor record in competent service delivery had lead to their hopeless position in the polls last year. And people living in temporary shelters while they wait for the Government to declare their houses safe to return to are understandably impatient.

The Politics of Disaster will also demand that the Queensland Opposition, after a brief period of bipartisanship, will almost immediately begin to criticise all of the Government's reconstruction efforts as slow, inefficient, cheapskate and completely bloody useless. In this scenario, Bligh's diligent, hard working public demeanour, which is serving her so well at the moment, may become a liability again, as she may not seem to be energetic or vigorous as she should be. She's a plodder, is Bligh, not a racehorse and people without electricity or with a front yard full of dead fish and garbage,



often want a racehorse.

The Queensland Premier, like the population of her state, has a large and difficult time ahead of her. We wish her well.