Australian elections 2010

For decades our elected leaders have used the hackneyed phrase 'governing for the country and not for opinion polls' as a way of excusing their autocratic decisions and impositions. Claiming to serve what they said was the "national interest," they have ignored public opinion and even election promises.

The implied justification is that only those at the levers of power with expert advice available to them can hope to understand the necessary choices to best serve the public interest. Ordinary members of the public, on the other hand, are supposedly incapable of arriving at the correct choices.

Elite view historically not in public interest

History shows that this elite view of political reality is wrong.

In fact in the last three decades, public opinion, as expressed through public opinion polls (as limited and imperfect as polling has been in general), has been far more correct about what is in the public interest than the opinions of the politicians who have ignored it. The most clear and obvious example is privatisation. Almost never has a government been elected because of its privatisation policies (Jeff Kennett's re-election in the 1990's in preference to the discredited Victorian Labor Party could arguably be held to be an exception to the rule). Never has any privatisation enjoyed majority public support and polls have usually shown emphatic opposition.

Every privatisation, without exception, has harmed the public interest. Yet governments, supposedly governing for the "national interest" continue to sell off publicly owned assets in defiance of public opinion.

Other unpopular policies purportedly in the national interest

Other unpopular policies implemented by governments "in the national interest" include slashing of public spending, deregulation of our finances, removal of protection of Australian manufacturing from slave-wage economies, the privatisation of retirement income, etc.

Will Abbott discover a Gillard Abyss like Howard discovered the Beazley Black Hole?

Upon the election of an Abbott Liberal Government it is almost guaranteed that Tony Abbott will 'discover' the national finances to be in a far worse state than he now claims he realises they are. An immediate Liberal precedent to this, was where, after his election in 1996, Liberal Prime Minister John Howard 'discovered' that the country's finances were in a far worse state than he claimed to have realised during the election.

Because of the so-called "Beazley Black hole" Howard assumed a right to massively cut social spending, never knowingly given to him by Australian electors in 1996.

Our best guarantee against such unmandated and harmful expenditure cuts being foisted upon us is the re-election of the current Labor Government, for all of its flaws.

At least this Government has the virtue of being led by a leader, Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who has stood up to the previous leader, Kevin Rudd. Rudd's policies, not Julia's, may have created excuses for an incoming Liberal Government to 'slash and burn' in the style of John Howard in 1996.

A Gillard return would be a #winlose" id="winlose">Win-lose rather than a Lose-Lose

Looking at our less-than-perfect election choices pragmatically, it is far less likely that a re-elected Gillard Government will 'discover' a necessity to savagely cut Government spending than a newly elected Abbott government is likely to.

For this reason, if no other, Australians should vote Gillard back in.

Today, on Geraldine Doogue's "Saturday Extra" (ABC radio national), the wrong impression was given by a British-accented commentator that the GST had been brought in in Australian in a fair and reasonable manner. This is infamously untrue and misleading on election day. Wide-eyed talk of how people oddly resent 'change' ignores the fact that change initiated by the people is resisted adamantly by the press and the politicians.

Geraldine's Saturday Extra on Election day 2010

Today, on Geraldine Doogue's "Saturday Extra" (ABC radio national), the impression was given by a British-accented commentator that the GST had been brought in in Australian in a fair and reasonable manner. This is infamously untrue.

History of Howard's Goods and Services Tax (GST) whitewashed

Howard won the 1996 election promising that he would never never introduce the GST (which had rightly been made such poison by former prime minister, Keating.) After Howard was elected in 1996 he set up a sham parliamentary inquiry to look into supposedly reforming Australia's tax system. One person on the inquiry, Paul Zammit, resigned because he was interested in serious alternatives but found that Howard had planned for the inquiry to ram through a GST. Howard used this inquiry to pretend that an independent inquiry had recommended the GST, weeks prior to the 1999 elections. As a result of a confusing campaign, Howard clawed back into power in 1999, whilst losing the popular vote. On a two party preferred basis, the Liberal Party lost 49.02% to 50.98% [1]. Had more been understood about the GST, the loss would have been greater. Nevertheless, and in spite of a Senate majority opposed to the GST, Howard claimed a mandate to introduce the GST. He was able to get the Democrats leader, Meg Lees, to vote for the GST against the wishes of most Democrats and most of the Australian public. This history shows that the GST was introduced deceptively and against democratic objections.[2]

Change is good?

The election commentary this morning is full of how strong politicians supposedly inflict pain on the electorate for a greater good which the electorate is too stupid to understand. There is also wide-eyed talk of how people oddly resent 'change', but of course people resent change because they have no control over the results and they have adjusted, to their benefit, to what is. Change initiated by the people is resisted adamantly by the press and the politicians.

What a grab-bag of last-minute propaganda surfaces in these desultory election 'commentaries' on the ABC.

Footnotes

1. The two-party preferred vote was originally given as "48.5% to 51.5%". I have since discovered from these pages that that figure was wrong. It was in fact 49.02% to 50.98% - our apologies. 49.02% to 50.98% is still a substantial loss of the popular vote. That was a substantially larger margin than the 1990 two-party preferred margin of 50.10% to 40.90% against Labor. For having lost the 1990 election Howard was depicted a victim of injustice by the Australian newsmedia. - JS, 14 Oct 11

2. For discussion on the GST, see also #comment-98088">comment to John Quiggin's article Core Promises of 8 May 2008. See also SMH article Let's have the honest truth, once and for all of 18 August 2004 by Alan Ramsey which was #comment-98057">quoted in that discussion. Note that the evidence of John Howard's dishonesty was not challenged on that forum discussion by any Howard apologist.