How far should feminists be supporting Julia Gillard as PM because she is a woman and the first one in this job? I agree she has had some rough rides with some s-xist judgments and criticisms and unwarranted interest in her private life. However, these experiences have not seriously weakened her position as PM but the general direction of the party is a problem she and her supporters don’t recognise.
Is her steely determination enough to swing voters? Do they see the ALP policies as positively as the parliamentary party does? The politicians promote the idea that their problems with voters and the media were caused by K. Rudd undermining their program by his leadership project. This claim ignores the fact that it is the party vote that is the problem, not just Gillard’s popularity. The Coalition vote is strong despite Abbott not being, or just being, preferred by a minority over Gillard.
There are clues in the popularity of Rudd. His main pitch at all times has been on the policy issues, on selling some sort of vision that rises above the rather dreary economistic goals that drive the ALP at present. Leadership requires more than good management of an admittedly difficult political coalition. People want a sense of visions that exceeds the rather pedestrian fixes that are presently on offer. The only two that could stir people’s sense of fairness and excitement are the Disability Insurance Scheme and Gonski’s fairer education, but both are caught in the surplus obsession time warp.
There are sins of both commission and omission by the current government in those areas often defined as “social” policy rather than economic policy. The constant political appealing to “working people” with exhortation to get a job is a very limited future vision. It leads to cruelly underpaying those who have difficulties in finding paid work, including those with disabilities increasingly pushed off the higher payments, and sole parents. Similarly, extending so-called conditional welfare, the failed NT/WA models of income management, to more welfare recipients in areas such as Shepparton and Bankstown, makes the ALP look more and more like the Coalition.
This similarity continues in their failure to recognise the problems that their indigenous NT policies have wrought. There is little evidence that any of them are working, yet their proposed extension to some bad programs is in the Stronger Futures bill presently in the senate, despite being rejected in consultations. Good policies that are developed carefully in conjunction with those affected should be examples of core Labor values rather than imitations.
The redistribution of the mining tax is also suss. Over-compensating rich men on super savings while delaying help for those with disabilities is not a good look. Pretending that finally returning overpaid super taxes to the lowest income earners is a bonus is crappy. Pretending the extra from 12% super will be good for women and low-income earners is not valid and was not recommended by Henry for that very reason. .
Education sounds good but it is all about test scores and getting a job, not about good citizenship or social capacities. Even early childhood spending talks about later work successes. The emphasis in this area on markets and competition undermines the idea that early childhood services should be part of community, not market infrastructure.
The asylum seeker mess is such that even though they are doing processing on shore, they are too scared to admit it’s the right thing to do. So they are still officially pursuing an unjust policy.
The new party and new Gillard play for voter support must take into account the serious deficits in the ALP visions of the good society, if they want to attract voters who want a vision of a fair go, not just good management of what is. The social policy initiatives mentioned above, and many others, are being neglected in favour of pushing economic credibility. This is necessary, but not at the expense of the disadvantaged groups the ALP purports to also represent. Looking too much like the Coalition in the “soft” areas of policy will not gain votes but lose them, as small l Liberals turn back to their usual party.
Spot on Eva Cox. So refreshing to read an article that looks at the big picture – policies not personalities and poly-tics.
As usual Cox is pushing to appropriate someone else’s efforts towards those who cannot produce tradable economic output. There is a limit to how much you can take away from people who act to produce things before you destroy incentives.
There was a time when consumption was directly attributed to the capacity to produce offset by the power of a third party to appropriate or redistribute part of your output. We have a mixed economy with elements of reward for effort and skill, with an appropriation of part of the output of those unwilling or capable of looking after themselves.
Nobody is asking women to have children and absent themselves from the workforce. Nobody is asking women to take lower paid social caring jobs, that is their choice.
National Disability Insurance Scheme is merely another Gillard pea and thimble trick. Gillard has conceded that while she is very committed to building a National Disability Insurance Scheme she said she is not underestimating the complexity of the funding arrangements around the scheme. This is “polly speak” for not having an effing clue where the money is coming from. The assumed cost is more than 6 billion per annum, but once you establish an entitlement, it will be an open-ended commitment for god knows how much.
An insurance scheme requires the benefit of all to be funded by those participating on a risk-weighted basis. This is not an insurance scheme, because it establishes an entitlement without any requirement to fund the payout poolpayoutit is just another tax funded rort to buy votes.
It is the classic case is selling the benefits before the cost which is exactly the same process involved with selling saving the planet with a carbon tax.
This will be another tax impost on the Australian community by government that is blowing tens of thousands of dollars per capita for every so-called refugee entering the country, including what will be in all probability a permanent social welfare drain due to the reported inability of these people to work.
Socialists are all very good at spending other people’s money, but failed to link the consumption of resources with the actual production. To cap it off under the world’s greatest treasurer, this government cannot even balance its current budget when the country is not in recession.
I agree that Cox’s analysis is all too depressingly correct. To put it epigramatically if too simplistically: Rudd was all vision but no delivery, while Gillard is all delivery but no vision.
Nonetheless, I hope Gillard gets the States and the indies to legislate even a limited implementation of Gonski since this would at least point policy in the right direction. Australia will then have to endure at best stasis if not backtracking by Abbott and Pyne, but hopefully progress will be resumed by a subsequent government.
Gavin Moodie, I think you highlight a significant problem for the PM. She appears to be an excellent manager, but is held to be a failure as National leader.
Managers and leaders have different characteristics and capabilities. Some few have a good mixture of both.
The Labor Government had solved the problem by having Rudd as leader and Gillard as manager. And now …