...ohhh no election time again

Apart from being my favourite movie (here) I have been wondering about the ten things I hate about the presenting parties at this election time....these will no doubt grow as time goes on so check back
Labor

1. I hate their failure to provide sufficient distinction between themselves and their opponents. This phenomenon will no doubt go down in the history books as the decade in which the two parties became indistinguishable
2. I hate their capitulation to market driven economics and their desertion of the commitment to traditional labor policies in education, health and social welfare
3. I despise the fact that the Labor party's compassion for the underdog has now been thrown away
4. I hate that they are no more compassionate to refugees than their opponents
   

Liberal

1. I hate the proposition that they and they alone have the answers
2. I hate the opportunism that in getting control of the senate they refuse to take responsibility for the fact that they alone are responsible for the failure of the Carbon Emissions Tax
3. I hate a particular candidate in whose electorate I have been who appears to have taken his electorate for granted until our support appear to have been in doubt.
4. I hate the way refugees have been treated

There is a certain irony in this post. It is based substantially on a similar post of 3 years ago!!

Not much has changed.

One of my correspondents observed about that post

I won't be voting for either party.

and I replied

Well, I have a dilemma as I live in Boothby!
I haven't voted for either major party for the 12 years we have lived here...but I guess even if you don't...you do!

As I say...not much has changed

Ohh the joy

One of the great delights living in a marginal electorate is watching the panic that is besetting the candidates. Our sitting representative, Dr Invisible, here in Boothby is a quiet man; perhaps a little maligned; and essentially a backbencher who will never be anything else

This comes as something of a shock to us who have been used for generations to living in an electorate with fairly high profile members over the last fifty years all members of the Liberal Party..Sir John McLeay, his son John, Steele Hall and now the good Doctor Southcott. I actually think he is somewhat maligned. He is a backbencher. But what's wrong with that. He does seem to work quietly for a few local causes. No one seems to quite know if he has actually achieved much, but I suspect thta there are individuals who would recognise that he has helped them with their pension problems. His local media profile suggests that he has focussed on areas that are actually State and Local government responsibility like road crossings and traffic management. Why has he done this? Because as a backbencher he has to face the reality that his electors don't actually think that he per se can do anything about climate change or the economy. He may be able to advantage local schools, or get the train re-routed..or at least bring a little pressure to bear.
But he has been more or less invisible.
So it is remarkable that I have seen him six times in the last three weeks. Last time in the local coffee shop only yesterday. My colleague and I had just been bemoaning his blandness.
He duly rocked up with his two Young Liberal apparatchiks. Same ones as last election. Same ones who posed in the public meetings for the last elections to ask embarassing questions about drug policy of the Greens.
Any way dear old Andrew looked bewildered. All this campaigning a bit too much for him!
Not so young Mr Pyne, the more precariously threatened memer for Sturt. He is an arrogant little pup, but in a likeable sort of way. Though you sort of want to smack him every now and then.
He appeared (quite legitimately) at last week's commissioning at Glen Osmond of the new Rector. He informed us in his welcome to Fr Simon that St Saviour's was a polling booth "And usually quite a good one for me" . The assembled Tory Party loved it. Though no doubt Cheeky Chris like many of us wondered if he would be there next time!
And I do warn you with regard to a prior post that invites you to examine yourself with the intent of discovering who you should vote for (here); that yesterday I tried really hard to answer the questions in as conservative a way as possible. The first time it told me that I was best suited to vote for the Labor Party.
So I tried even harder, even having to overcome internal revulsion to say that I completely and utterly agreed that coroporate taxes were too high and that internal terrorism laws weren't strict enough.
Still it told me (but with a slightly reduced compatibility) that I should vote for the Labor Party.
I did warn you that it was a Trotskyite plot!
Or does it actually mean that the ALP is now almost as far right as you can go.
Perhaps I should just try and work it out for myself, rather than rely on what others tell me.
I have never felt so undecided before an election.
So, Andrew, if you are reading this my vote is yours to buy. (Father is now rolling in his grave!)

Not much to pick

The much awaited Boothby electoral forum, put on by the group of tired-old lefties who form the remnants of Action for World Development in the Blackwood area was last night. And all six candidates turned up. I am as unsure as ever about who I am supposed to vote for.
Craig Bossie - Australian Democrats, Was quite impressive and coherent, but frankly admitted that the Dems were after a Senate seat. The same is true, of course of Andrew Cole -Family First who nevertheless made a good fist of it, and was probably the most realistic of the lot of em. I am in no way drawn to Family First, and none of their invidious social policy was aired last night, (is it perhaps being moderated as they face political realities. To have my daughter whisper in my ear...'well it's Family \First then' was quite instructive. I think little-old-left leaning-she was saying that the he was the only one of that bunch who wasn't either a loony or a party hack.
Nicole Cornes-Australian Labor Party, who has been much criticised was OK but light on. She is obviously a nice person, but iot is difficult to see her not just doing what she is told if she gets toi Canberra. Jodi Kirkby-Greens, was to my mind good, but again they are after a Senate seat too. Very little serious environmental policy was discussed though she did askthe sitting member Andrew Southcott-Liberal, how the Government could give Indonesia $200 million to stop chop[ping down tress and then give Gunn's in Tasmania $100 million to chop them down! To be fair to Southcott he is probably at the most unpopular he has ever been. He is perceived as doing nothing much, and there became an increasing titter each time he was asked a question (and he fielded most) and said "Well thank you for that question...." and people would laugh, and you began to hear "well why don't you answer it", because for sure he is a politician and has made an art form of seeming to answer questions whilst saying nothing.
The wildcard is popular TV journalist Ray McGhee -Independent who is well-liked. But he oscillated between buffoonery and sheer impatience with both major parties and a sense of frustration with Southcott's ineptitude. He is, I suggest, inviting the protest vote but does not seriously think he will get to Canberra.
He lacks the credentials, I suggest, of other journalists like Smart Money Editor, Anthony Keane of the Advertiser who has a good economic grasp and a strong commitment to family values. I would vote for him, the parties would do well to try and woo him. But he would not be so silly as to leave my niece and my two great nieces at home in Adelaide while he had to waste time in Canberra. Woops did I just declare a bias.
My serious point, there are quality candidates around most have good reason to be suspicious of the dysfunctional nature of the political system.