When to vote!

The whimsical comment...vote early and vote often...amuses us all. (It begs the question about whether or not there are adequate identity checks at the polling places....I note we haven't been given little identification cards this time). [A person I used to be related to is not in the country and suggested to someone else that they might vote on their behalf!!!]

Last time I voted at 30 second past 8...and spent the rest of the day anxiously waiting that happy time when (like the true tragic I am) I could be bored for several hours on end (it only seemed to take abut 30-45 minutes in the event).

So today, I am going to spread it out a bit...and perhaps vote at 10. Or if I am really risqué perhaps I'll wait until 3!!!

Oh dear...I need to get a life!

Up for grabs

I would have to say that, by and large, there is nothing in it for me...so my vote is up for sale!

While those who know me will also know I am joking, it would seem that our politicians seem to think that this is what they should be doing...ie trying to bribe the voters with bigger and better what evers.

This is so transparent that it has become laughable. As far as I can tell a couple of things are happening:

• A whole lot of people like me know more about who they are not going to vote for rather than who they are going to end up voting for. At a lunch yesterday, in a lull in the conversation I (perhaps foolishly) threw in "Well have we decided who we are going to vote for?" I was not quite prepared for the tirade that followed against our local member. Though I think it's entirely justified.
• So, a lot of people I know who think the humane treatment of refugees is important find themselves looking for an alternative way through the major party hypocrisy. They will obviously vote Green or (maybe) Democrat.
• Yes, that's another interesting thing. Suddenly Democrats have begun to appear again.
• Others who are perhaps less inclined to focus on the refugee issue seem to be gravitating back to their traditional party (I was conscious that at least one person at the above mentioned lunch who is a traditional Liberal voter would have found the vitriol against our sitting member..AS...pretty hard to cope with...she will never vote Labor, finds it hard to vote Green because they are even more pinko than than Labor.) Such folk whether Labor or Liberal traditionally will gravitate back to their comfort zone
• As one who thinks that it's quite good to have no one party having an absolute right to rule, I would like to think that the Greens will actually get enough votes to win a couple of lower house seats. I think it's unlikely, but we will see.

what should be of concern

What should be of concern to the electorate at this time is that:

1. The format of the campaigns is more interesting than the content
2. It doesn't matter what is promised by whom as the electorate seems to have doubts that either side will or can deliver
3. I have seen my local MP at least once every Saturday, sometimes twice...but for the last three years I haven't seen him at all
4. Of even more serious concern is that we, the electors, apart from being bored by this actually seem to tolerate this total and utter bastardisation of democracy
5. We are hard-pressed to articulate what either of the main-stream parties actually stands for.

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!

Thank God for the Greens!

At the bash with Tim Costello the other night (here) it was good to see at least two politicians there. Costello made the interesting point about World Vision that some aid agencies say they are "not political". He said that he made no such claim and that he thought such statements were incorrect...overseas aid is essentially political and will always be so. I agree.

Costello made the point that what he thought such agencies meant was that they were not partisan.

Any way, back to the function, present there was local Federal member Andrew Southcott. I was bemused, but pleased, to see him there...remembering that two elections ago he was teed up to come to a forum that local church members were organising and obviously decided at the last moment that he couldn't be bothered. Throwing us rather into a spin I suggested to the organisers that they should just tell him that they would go ahead without him!

He actually capitulated!

Last election a similar meeting was held and there was a lot of talk about the fact that he could lose!!! So he was there feet forward.

I was entertained by the fact that many, many questioners opened their questions to him by suggesting that he was only seen in his electorate when he was on the run!!

That may or may not be true, but it was good to see him there. And it allowed Tim Costello the cue to say something about growing up in the Australia of Robert Menzies!

Also there was the spectacularly short Sarah Hanson-Young, South Australian Greens' Senator. I took the opportunity to thank her for her outspoken support of the refugee cause.

At a time when it looks as though the Labor Party is going to commit another act of treachery against the most vulnerable her voice has been steadfast. As an idealist, I recognise that they are few and far between.

Thank God for the Greens. Thank God for Sarah Hanson-Young

Certain sense of irony

SA Attorney General, Michael Atkinson, doesn't like nasty comment. Who of us does?

We now seem to have laws, leading up to our state election (see here) which will (as usual) require people who make electoral comment in letters to the ed to identify themselves with an appropriate name and an address. The new laws particularly extend this to internet weblogs...in particular I guess news ltd's Adelaide Now which gone into conniptions about it today. And rightly so.

I am not averse to people being encouraged to speak out in their own name rather than hiding behind pseudonym or anonym...but

The Attorney thinks that the new provisions will extend to Facebook and Twitter. And that political commentators in such would/should be required to divulge addresses.

One would have thought that at a time when a man has just been convicted for murder of a girl he allegedly stalked on the internet, that we should be discouraging people from putting personal information out there like that. But you know, the aim is maybe not to get the information out there but to stifle debate. This at least is the press's story and they are sticking to it.

There are other ironies too, when pollies are allowed to say what they like under so-called "Parliamentary Privilege" in order that they may be able to speak without fear or favour...I wonder where the ordinary person may be encouraged to speak with such boldness.

And when politicians can be indemnified at taxpayers' expense, even when they are found to have spoken inappropriately or innacurately...why this dogged pursuit of the little blogger.

Fortunately the Electoral Commissioner does not seem to think the law reaches as far as the Attorney thinks.

My issue is not that vile slanderers should be allowed to say what they like, but that this sort of tactic scares people into being overly cautious. Few amongst us, could afford legal action against one who is highly paid and/or indemnified. It borders on bullying the little chap into silence.

I blogged on this only a few days ago (here) in regard to another matter. Again I say it, it is so often those who are outrageously outspoken themselves who want to intimidate others into being quiet

Counting the score

As amusing as it might be to score the government on its first year, it only serves to add to the general paranoia that ministers must feel. Is that a good thing? Probably not. It is rather, as I say, cruelly entertaining.
Governments need to be scrutinised rather than rated, but we see inevitably that Rudd is rated 8/10, Gillard 9/10, Garrett 6/10 (and dubbed the 'Minister for Nothing' )(The Weekend Oz). What does it mean? Nothing really, it is one person's impression and is akin to the 30 second grab, a not too sophisticated analysis of  complex issues; designed not so much to illuminate as to provoke discussion and not necessarily constructive discussion.
People will probably split along party lines (listen to Matt and Dave and the Two Chrises if you don't believe me...but I am sure you do), but this sort of stuff serves to seek short term results for what are obviously long term issues.
I personally think that there is much to be said for fixed governmental terms in a stable democracy like our own, so that although we can be amused by short term ratings we can actually appreciate that governments aren't going to have to pander to the need to amuse the fickle electorate when there is a long term job to be done.