Religion and the polls (ii)

I am a bit intrigued by Paul Toohey's brief exploration of all this interplay between religion and politics in Saturday's press. "My dwelling on religious belief might seem overbearing", he says, "but we have a right to know what sort of Prime Minister we might possibly be getting."
He then goes on to raise the issue of Creationism, and points out that neither Abbott nor Rudd, though they are both declared Christians, believes that the world was created 6000 years ago.
It always makes my blood boil when reporters who should know better make the simplistic sort of analysis that belief in God means that you have some how parked your brain in the 12th century. Any modest analysis of history will show you that many contemporary and leading scientists are also mean and women of faith.
There are of course some Christians (often very outspoken) who are biblical literalists, that is they are so ignorant of the nature of the text that they hold so dear (The Holy Bible), that they cannot see any other approach to it than to take a simple literalistic reading and make it (often twisting it) into black and white fact. This seems to me to do a great injustice to the text, and indeed does nothing to advance its serious study.
But there are, as I say, many biblical literalists. Some of those churches are big and influential, and indeed there has been deliberate attempts in the last decade to ensure that these ultra-conservative churches are wooed (or rather not alienated). We have seen this very much in America, but also in Australia where, for example, the very influential Hillsong church has been some what feted. Even the last Federal Treasurer and Foreign Minister were publicly lauded (here) by them even though they may have seemed a little uncomfortable!

But, to my mind, the issue is not about faith leading to Creationism, (even though Abbott has famously declared climate change to be "crap" this does not appear to be because he is a Catholic, and/or creationist but rather because he is a political opportunist); the issue is about whether we deal honestly with the reality that Australians are allowed to practise their faith freely, seriously and openly.
Our nation is ambiguous about this.
We trumpet pluralism, but we are not so much irreligious as anti-religious.
There is also a new scientific fundamentalism in some quarters which would deny religion any place in public life at all. These analyses often seem to me to not address the profound nature of religious experience and reflection on human life but dismiss it as superstitious hoo-hah.

As a serious religious person myself I believe that the quality of life is enhanced by people who take faith seriously. Don't play games and don't pretend to be Christian (or Buddhist, or Moslem or....?) if you are not going to be serious.
I believe it is a good thing that religious faith should inform our wider beliefs. They are after all more fundamental, perhaps a better word is "radical".
They should not go uncritiqued, and they do not need to prevail simply because they are religious. But we should not be frightened to be political, scientific and religious people.
Indeed we should see this as a key human right.

Polls, polls and damned statistics. Or The demise of Malcolm Turnbull

I still remain committed to the idea that Malcolm Turnbull will tire of the political game playing. In reality it takes too much energy to master the polls and the statistics and this constantly detracts from the important stuff. Yesterday's polls in The Australian (see full article here) show only slight improvement in his standing as preferred Prime Minister. Coming off a very low base it would be hard to get any worse.
What is perhaps more disconcerting is that Peter Costello is still seen by more Liberals as a preferable leader despite the fact that he has disqualified himself and is on the way out. Similarly laughing Joe Hockey, who also says he is not in the running. The desperate cries (or perhaps "sighs") of the Abbots and the Pynes become less and less convincing; they two are very ambitious people and I swear I will scream if I hear Pyne say yet one more time "All I want to do is to serve the electorate of Sturt"
I guess Malcolm is a big boy and will know when enough is enough. Till then it is all a bit sad.

Sense at last

After the curious speculations of "will he- won't he?" one can only think that Peter Costello has made the right decision to quite the Parliament.

There comes a point for all of us when enough is enough, picking it is the only art!

I was however faintly bemused yesterday when he said that he felt that the present Parliament lacked a sense of humour.

Did I hear him say

"I would have thought that one  reason we were there was to entertain"?

Well, actually, I thought we paid you to govern.

Perhaps explains why some found difficulty  taking him seriously. Goes for the previous Foreign Minister, too, who never seemed to quite understand why some people didn't get his jokes.

Q & A

Couldn't help but think that Thursday night's Q & A was pretty good sort of stuff. So I was surprised when the delighted Tony Jones announced this was the last for the year. I suppose it is October.

Peter Costello,. Nicola Roxon, the bombastic Mr Marr and Ms Kernot and the curious Tom Zwister sparked pretty well together.

If you can, and haven't, then you can watch the video here

I am really glad this program has worked, it brings a new dimension to political chit chat which is less serious and yet more animated (reminds us of the good ole days of Latham and Pyne on Lateline or Pyne and Schacht on Matt and Dave... before Pyne started taking himself too seriously and became a little tedious)

Ich habe Angst vor den Wolf!

I love and I hate politics. So I am rather watching Peter Costello with awe. As he typifies both of these facets. 

In literary terms you would have to wonder whether he is Brutus or Cassius. He could be the genuine Christian he should be  as the result of his upbringing, who has steadfastly refused to play the political game to the bitter end. So he has been caricatured as weak, when in reality he has boldly just refused to be recklessly ruthless. Or he could be, as Tony suggested this morning, skillfully flogging the book; ensuring another 50, 000 sales.

But I actually suspect that what we are witnessing is not loyalty to the Liberal Party or Brendan Nelson; but Costello's opposition to Malcolm Turnbull, whose dry economics he despises, whose political opportunism he detests. He recognises, I imagine, that he has lost his chance to lead (probably) so he will now do what he can to stop a Turnbull coup. I think he will succeed at this. Maybe already has done so.

Will the party then say: well Malcolm is too unpopular and dear old Brendan is not up to it, and try to re-enlist dear Peter. I don't think so. So failing that he will settle for second-best. Ensuring Turnbull never becomes leader of the Libs, let alone PM.

The winners in all this are Brendan, who will probably survive to fight another day, and of course the Government who must think that  any Opposition squabble is good.

C is for

PETER who is so slipping out of existence that when you Google him you get pictures of the ever-present Elvis Costello
instead

Tension in the camp

As we reflect on the Howard-Costello years we see there was this tension between the economic discipline of Peter Costello, and the pragmatism of the successful Mr Howard.
Howard's genius was, I suppose, to be able to persuade Costello when it was OK to loosen the belt in order to buy the votes of the electorate. And to do this without fuelling inflation.
I think voters saw through this at the last election.
But it would appear that present leader Brendan Nelson is trying the populist Howard strategy, whilst his Opposition Treasurer Turnbull is at least as, if not more, fiscally restrained than Costello.
So it comes as no surprise that there was an "exchange of emails" (is this the 21st century equivalent of 'pistols at dawn'?). It also is not surprising that Nelson the present leader won, and I use that description advisedly.
It is, however, disconcerting for the poor dears when it all comes out in the public arena, and Turnbull is exposed as believeing one thing but having to say the opposite.
This is of course the nature of politics. Mr Downer did not bat an eyelid on Lateline last night, (false I hear you cry...but I resist the temptation to comment on Alexander's eyelashes...he was looking quite old last night)...back to to the plot. He said quite clearly that we may believe in one point of view but after the argument is over we tow the party line, even if we are fundamentally opposed. He said this is the nature of the Westminster system. I don't believe that is so, I think the Westminster system is about free and open debate...but he's a politician and I am not.
Of course he did point out that from Opposition fiscal promises are all hypothetical any way.
And we might also point out that the fiscal conservatism versus vote buying strategy is going to be the same issue for the present Government; though we are yet to see if there is the same sort of political opportunism in Rudd's heart as there was in Howard's. I suspect not.
But what would I know?

The cost of freedom

We will no doubt be embroiled soon in the resignation/byelection scandal. As is predicted, and seems an inevitability, senior Liberals will resign in the next few months; ill-suited to sit on the backbench they will no doubt employ their talents elsewhere!

But at what cost?

The first ever election for the Commonwealth of  Australia in 1901 cost £56 331. The Australian Electoral Commission's figures going up to 2005 show that the 2004 election cost in excess of $117 million.

Of great interest are  the various  by-election costs which show that since 2000 a by election cost in excess of $400,000! (see the interesting document here)

At least 4 senior Coalition MPs are being flagged as disappearing before the end of their term, maybe in the next few months (Downer, Andrew, McGauran and of course Costello). This "I didn't win so I'm taking my ball and going home" mentality will obviously be costly to the taxpayer.

I suggest that some reimbursement, perhaps from the more than generous superannuation payouts, could be expected.

They will all of course go on to very highly paid jobs, probably better paid than the Parliament, so I don't have much sympathy.

The incredible benefit of backstabbing

Will we ever understand the election process of the US? I doubt it. What we're witnessing at the moment is virtually the parties selecting their candidates, not the voting of the people for a new president. Commentary is both effulgent and effusive (see here for example) and we are warned that the dirty tricks have only just begun.
In Oz this takes place out of public view, what ever Howard said about Costello and vice versa, was firmly kept behind locked doors. What Clinton and Obama say about each other, or McCain and Romney will be said out in the open.
This public backstabbing is riveting stuff, even from the Antipodes. It has the advantage of ( win lose or draw) knowing what your "friends" can say about you in the event that you become your party's anointed. This is a benefit in a way that Howard and Costello must attest to, part (at least) of what caused their downfall was the electorate's uncertainty about them. What did they really think about each other?
Had there been blindingly open critique in the selection process, the whispering campaign would have been sliced into tiny little pieces. But it was not to be
It is always faintly amusing to watch the way the Democrats and Republican get behind their chose candidate eventually. Obama or Clinton will stand side by side and attest that the other was the best thing since Drive In Movies, despite the fact that this week she called him a hypocrite and a liar.
The big mistake (of course ) that the Democrats have made is in wanting either the first woman or the first black person, they should have concatenated the two. But I suppose Dr Rice is a Republican!

Picking it

Lest anyone think I am a wimp I do intend to call the election NOW! This is Friday, 8.30 p.m.
My prediction: that it will be Labor by a landslide of 20 or more That the result will be known by 7.30 p.m. CST.
I would further suggest that should John Howard lose, then he will resign. But he may well lose his seat, so it could be academic!
Peter Costello will never be PM. Poor old Petie!

Not feeling very afraid

An interesting campaign (which is presumably based on some research) against Peter Garret. Today's press says how the senior mobsters, Downer and Costello et al, are warning the electorate to be 'afraid, be very afraid' of Peter Garrett. The imputation being that some how he has an hidden agenda which has not yet been declared which is going to turn the country upside down if and when they get elected.
Well I don't feel particularly afraid. Indeed most Garrett aficionados want him to have done more, but there is a political reality about this that has to be faced. Attractive to people because of his greener credentials, some could well be afraid that he will be decidedly more attractive to younger voters than Malcolm Turnbull. Younger voters think the green stuff matters!!! I don't think the stuffy older set (on either side) have got this through their incredibly thick heads.
So yes, Downer and Costello should feel afraid; but I don't!

Unelieveable except for the fact that it's election time

Could you believe the poe-faced Costello running out to point out to the electorate that Peter Garret's off the cuff remark that all would change when the Labor party is elected meant that you can't trust anything. (here)
Drawing the longest bow possible Costello was suggesting that they would most certainly change, tax-cuts, climate change, water, energy...heaven knows what else.
Now Costello might have some high ground to stand on if it wasn't for the fact that the last two Liberal governments have broken promises hand over fist, and weighed in with the IR laws for which they had no mandate.
So earlier in the week ....oh what's the point they are all much of a muchness