A matter of conviction

Today's paper has one cartoon called "The Politician". The interviewer is pushing a microphone in the mouth and asking "Do you have any convictions that we don't know about?"

The Politician answers... 'Not sure which way you mean it. Either way, No!'

It is an interesting joke, I have oft times bemoaned how many politicians seem to be headline driven rather than principle-driven. It leads to poor policy and the sort of tedious politics that we seem to be experiencing at both a national and state level just at the moment.

The curious reporting of the visit to Afghanistan by both the PM and the Leader of the Opposition in the last week is a case in point. Both seem to have handled this poorly.

Julia could have just chosen to note that Abbott was unable to go at the time and that he would have been travelling later. And why did Tony have to be so stupid as to say he wasn't going going to avoid being jetlagged, allowing the PM and others to at least suggest that troops in Afghanistan were less important than the Conservative party conference.

Then this morning he cries "bastardry", but at least he gets his gun-toting picture in the paper (I wonder if and indeed why he might have had training to use such a weapon). He said he wanted to be 'embedded' with the troops.

How crazy is that? Any fool can see that that is essentially a risky proposition. (At Least Prince Harry who presumably is a similar sort of risk is a highly trained combatant), and it's not that Abbott is endangering himself but he is endangering soldiers who are already at high risk.

Both of them should be ashamed of the way they have attempted squeeze the political advantage out of this.

The point

Hugh Mackay's analysis of the election is that it is not so much a choice between Abbott and Gillard, as giving Gillard the chance to be PM.(see some of Mackay's wisdom here)

I think this is correct, and it perhaps explains some of the frustration in the electorate about being unable to discriminate between two parties.

I think this analysis holds water. Because of the manner by which she came into the leadership she has not really had the chance to put much of her stamp on anything. Unlike, for example, Abbott who was an ongoing and frequent performer in the Government of John Howard.

So I guess, in a way, we are judging them both on an equal footing...not as Prime Ministers...but on their performance as ministers in former governments. We shall see what it all means tomorrow.

The hermeneutics of politics

(This article could be subtitled "If you aren't bored enough by the electioneering then here's another boring article")

It is disturbing to us all, I suspect, that there is more discussion about the hermeneutic (here) of the election campaigns, than the policy content.

That is, how the plans are structured, composed, written...and by whom...and to whom they are directed...is actually proving to be more interesting than the policy itself. (see this cartoon)

When you think about it this is not really surprising.

When 'opposing' parties actually seek to ensure they are keeping up with the other in the bidding war then we see (as is clearly observable) that policy looks remarkably similar. It gravitates to a centre of mediocrity.

It is differentiated not by substance, but by degree. It is not (if you like) 'this is my ideology' that drives policy but "anything you can do I can do better".

So we look rather at the (only slightly) more interesting campaign structure and hermeneutics.

"Who is making the decisions?", and "What is the process (eg focus groups) that is used?". "What role does media play in driving the campaign?"

But, in the end, we all realise that this is not what the real game is about.

So we will content ourselves with deciding on whether we think Abbott is more of a bastard than Gillard is a bitch!

God help us!

The real Ms Gillard & the real Mr Abbot

One has to laugh at Abbot';s cheek in standing up saying "Will the real Julia Gillard please stand up?" and then following up with "If you elect Tony Abbott then you will get Tony Abbott!"

Hugh Mackay rightly remarks that 'we haven't seen the real Tony Abbott'

Abbott has been so totally under control...he has curbed his loose lip, but this is not his usual modus operandi. he is usually a loose cannon who doesn't claim to speak the absolute truth on the run....to be fair which of us does?....but this lip-pursing Abbott never seems to me like 'the real Tony Abbott'!

A new degree of bizzaretude

Last week I was at a function where we were discussing same-sex civil unions. An openly gay person (who has been in a long term committed relationship for 27 years) made the observation that in any long-term political lobbying it would be better if the spokesperson was clearly identified as heterosexual.

I understand what this is about. But I made the observation that I had some problem with that and my opinion was that we shouldn't be requiring people to identify themselves by what is essentially private information and no else's business other than their own...viz. their sexuality!

The politician present made the observation "Obviously you are not a politician!"

I was happy to state that I was not!

But I recognise that despite all the niceties about people's privacy, about tolerance, that people are fascinated by other people's personal affairs.

But, it would seem that we have stooped to a new low in the political arena when the private affairs of our lady PM are being treated in such a cavalier fashion.

She is living in a heterosexual relationship in a way that a good number of the general populace is. Why is it in any way remarkable? Why is it my business or yours?

It would be my hope that the electorate will express its disapproval of this sort of crap, and the invasion of privacy

In a community in which so many people have chosen (and without condemnation) to live in de facto relationships, it seems to me no more or less remarkable that one of our elected leaders should be in such a relationship. It is in reality none of my business.

And even more ridiculous when half the populace now seems to live in such relationships without anyone batting an eyelid.

Julia versus God

I have no problem saying "Hooray!" that our PM told the truth about her belief in God. It would be ludicrous and total lies to do otherwise. It was a Roman coin question (here)no one was interested in the answer (we all knew already) they weer trying to trap her.

I make two points:

1. Just because she doesn't believe in God doesn't mean that we who do are absolved of our responsibility to pray for our leader.
2. There have been many who called themselves Anglicans who embarrass me more by their hardness of heart towards refugees. A Prime Minister, a Foreign Minister, two Immigration Ministers and an Attorney General in the last government were outspoken protagonists of some of the cruellest policies I believe this country has ever known.

Can I also just observe (as I have before) that too much is made of the fact that Rudd used to do doorstops outside St John's Canberra week by week.

It seems to me that he is not the one who engineered this. The reality is that he was a weekly church attender and the press quickly realised that if they wanted to catch him Sundays, even if they wanted to try and "catch him out" or catch him "unawares" (see the aforementioned Roman coin story) then all they had to do was be outside the Church at about 10.30 and he would always be there.

Good on him that he didn't say 'I don't want to be seen to be enthusiastic about being an Anglican and so I'll stop going to church lest they think I'm too pious'.

A true victim of damned if you do and.....

Just Julia

I am inclined to think that Julia Gillard is not the ambitious vixen that some would try to caricature as.

She seems to me to have been about as open as you can be about her desire to lead the nation, and also as reluctant as you must be to pursue this with the sort of ferocity that many of her male counterparts would only too happily indulge in.

The absolute and utter hypocrisy of much of what transpired as comment yesterday on all sides of politics, almost infuriating if not so utterly transparent and laughable.

I mean, who could fail to be aghast at the audacity of the mad monk standing up there lecturing the Labor Party about how no leader should be treated as Rudd was by the bovver boyz of his own party.

I mean if he wanted to be taken seriously he should at least have been made to look Malcolm Turnbull in the eye while he was saying this.

Having worked for over thirty years in an institution (the Anglican Church) which is even more male-dominated than the Parliament, I hope for our country what I believe is true also for the Church. And that is, that female leadership will be different in style from all-male leadership.

There are those who find this laughable, who tend to suggest that women are more ruthless than men and only get into power by being more power-driven than their male counterparts (some of those voices were heard yesterday).

In my experience the proponents of this are very often men who have been rolled by strong women who are not prepared to be patronised.

What seems to be truer, is that women rather value and encourage certain loyalties rather than others. They are not so driven by the need to 'win' so much as to 'succeed'. This might seem a subtle, even nuanced, difference. But it is rather important.

Winning is rather short-term, where success is a much more wholistic idea.

I think Ms Gillard's language indicated that she is aiming to succeed rather to win. Kev's problem (and I suspect Abbot's) is that they have to win

Preferred leaders

Julie Bishop the Deputy Opposition Leader and Labor Senator Mark Arbib were asked an "objective" question on Lateline on Friday night (here)

When does a party know that it's time to change leader? What are the signs that are, "Look, you know, we really need to change courses now."

Arbib couldn't really bring himself to answer the question as Leigh Sales wanted it, and while Bishop got the point she didn't do much better. Though she did make the good point that it doesn't really make much difference changing the leader if they don't also bring about change in policy.

This is of course what happened when Abbot took over from Turnbull, there was an about face on emissions trading policy. But not when Nelson took over from Howard.

Present speculation that K Rudd is now so unpopular with the electorate that he may be a liability makes this sort of question interesting and is rife here in the press today and here.

While Ms Gillard, as the Deputy, is no doubt front-runner Labor seems to be in the fortunate position of having any number of candidates. This is partly because of the phenomenon of being in government, I would suspect, we see Lindsay Tanner, Julia Gillard, Craig Emerson, Chris Bowen, Nicola Roxon...perhaps not so much Mr Swann, and certainly not the hapless Peter Garrett ... but also the affable and feisty Mr Arbib.

So, all this begs the question....when do you know that you should change your leader?

Julia's journeys

The Deputy P.M. is in India at the moment trying to shore up the rising tide of panic about violence against Indian students, particularly in Sydney. You would wonder why it requires such high level governmental representation until you hear that the foreign student revenue is something like 15 billion dollars a year.

And the whole service delivery appears to be a bit suspect (Four Corners exposed this a few weeks ago)...chefs who use an electric frypan, accountants who never count a bean...aand so on.

Amidst all this is the fear that we all have, that the genuine education system (perhaps the schools, TAFE and the Universities) has actually been sold out to economics of the paying students. And they are now so dependent upon the revenue that their actual service delivery may be compromised if they can't maintain student numbers.

The economic rationalists call this the dictates of the market and that this is the reality of the world.

Meanwhile the educationalists bemoan that there is no longer any learning for its own sake. Where is pure science and unbridled research? Where is the opportunity for genuine philosophy and scholarly (rather than political) history? Where is the exploration of classic and modern literature, of ancient text.....and dare I say it....theology

Coming into their own

What ever you may think about the Acting Prime Minister (yes that's right, for 60 hours until Kev gets back from Bali .....half his luck) isn't it good when you see people coming into their own?
Despite her and my good fortune of having red hair (you brownies, blondies and blackies just don't get it!), and her nasal voice. Don't you like the way she just ploughs on?
In yesterday's paper the Vox Pops asked the question of whether a woman would be a good PM...the resounding response was yes. And the reason? Because they see things differently.
This is (for those who could care less) one of the reasons why we need women bishop's too. Most bishops I have known (all men) have a side of them which is blinded by their own glory; some cope with this better than others. For the rest it can be disastrous.
Women don't seem to be so easily deceived. (I don't imagine a woman Pope would have dreamt up the doctrine of papal infallibility). So often women are some what more confident of themselves and don't need to be constantly worshipped and adored, like we frail creatures who need our Mummy!
So I am finding Ms Gillard's growth in stature, character and stateswomanly behaviour wonderful to observe.