There was a clear difference on display at last night’s final debate between the two men who want to govern the country after September 7. The difference was not, of course, between Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott. It was between the united front those two politicians present on most issues, and the citizens asking the questions.
Time and time again an impassioned questioner tackled Rudd or Abbott on some topic — only to get the same response, with slightly different spin, from both leaders.
Same same. Like the Olsen twins, and arguably as vapid.
This election has disintegrated into a dull scrap between two not-terribly-popular leaders who offer a pretty similar plan for the next three years. The major points of difference are parental leave, broadband and a carbon price. On so much else it’s a unity ticket. Interested in health? Education? Super? Defence? Aged care? Industrial relations? You have nothing to choose between. There’s one policy, two parties.
Take the economy. As Bernard Keane and Glenn Dyer point out in Crikey today:
“Confronted with the reality of governing, the Coalition has now signed up fully to Labor’s fiscal policy (a fiscal policy, by the way, that Labor itself only embraced last December) … Not merely is [Joe Hockey] not intending to pursue austerity of any kind, despite Labor’s scare campaign, he actually thinks the economy needs a little fiscal push.”
To think that the major parties’ unity ticket on health, education and the economy is so perfect that it cannot be improved upon is alarming nonsense which not even Rudd and Abbott would believe.
What the voters could use more of is not tedious leaders’ debates. It’s good ideas and the courage to stand behind a vision for the country’s future — which might just be different to the other side’s.
This is nonsense, as Gittins (2013) and Watson (2013) show. For example, the Coalition wants to scrap the low income super contribution rebate to pay for paid parental leave for people on high incomes. Generally, Labor seeks to increase and the Coalition seeks to reduce the redistribution of the tax-transfer system.
Gittins, Ross (2013) Rich win big with class warfare in session, Sydney Morning Herald, 28 August.
Watson, John (2013) Who says this campaign is an ideology-free zone?, the Age, 29 August.
I’d agree that in many areas the two parties do have remarkably similar positions but Defence? Not a chance.
Labour has used the ADF as a piggy bank, frantically demanding efficiency measures which have hurt operational capabilities and readiness, then stripping money out of the services in a desperate attempt to conjure a suplus out of thin air.
At least the coallition has stated that they will attempt to restore funding to a key arm of government, rather than treating them, and the servicemen and women who fight and die in our countries service, as disposable ATMs.
I watched that “fight” last night – something about a rattle? There was a girl there named Alice too?
Or was that my medication?
I agree that there seems to be a substantial difference between the parties in their funding of the military.
But the piggy bank analogy is wrong. The military doesn’t have financial reserves which the government taps: its the government which spends vast sums on the military.
And how is the military an arm of government? I thought the military, above all, was meant to take direction from government.
Incidentally, in the UK it is Labour but in Australia it is Labor.
In terms of parties to govern the country, it seems like the Australian people are determined to vote for a change for the worse, in preference to voting for no change.