Budget me not

It's hard not to dispair when listening to the budget summaries. I'm reminded of a colleague who once remarked that it was "democracy run fucking mad".  That was from a man who later served as a Minster in the Hawke Government and I wonder what he would think about modern day politics.

Everyone is having a say and in the chatter and vested interest clamour one can conclude anything one wants to believe, probably based on how the budget impacts on them.  What did you get for Christmas (and is there a return policy)?

I particularly like the expert shock jocks who feast over the stuff as if they have some foresight denied the rest of us.  We are being taken as fools without the ability to rationalise of see the context of arguements let alone the net effect of such an important day each year in our nations heath. 

Maybe they are right?  What do you think when some smart advertising campaign suggest that the new drink is lemon flavoured?  I know my reaction; "no fucking lemon".  You can take much of the punditary the same way.

Joe Hockey was partially right when he used the word confused (the irony being that his contribution didn't clarify anything, but clouded the issue).  How, well having been so bold, predictably, to diride the Government's economic management credentials, he then refused to suggest what the coalition might do differently.  Except his hack line about cutting the public service.  So much for clarification in our political debate.

So what to do?

I look forward to one of our jounalised suggesting what a coalition government's budget would have looked like.  That might give us a point of comparison to better understand what the government has delivered.

Meanwhile, I'm off to look for fairies at the bottom of the garden

Gillard is Going Going Gone

Gillard is Gone

The explanations for the Prime Minister dismal polling could form the basis for an academic thesis and will no doubt be the subject of a future tell-all best seller. The truth that underpins the slide in popularity of the Labour Party and its leader are, however, much more simple.   It is a matter of trust.

Julie Gillard is a perfect example of a modern day Australian politician.  Scripted to the letter she most often comes over as robotic as R2D2 and with as much humanity.  No wonder the whole episode of “who is the real Julia” got started.  And it lingers, if now not a political tactic, in the back of most Australians minds.

She has had ample opportunity to correct the image and I can only conclude that her advisors can’t see it or that she refuses to take advice which would prove to be the circuit breaker she desperately needs: the change in direction that would reveal the real Julia.

The Four Corners program of 13 February provided another opportunity in a long list to make this change.  When asked the straight forward question, “Did you know a draft speech had been prepared for you as leader two weeks earlier in the event Rudd was dumped” she gave a carefully scripted reply that avoided the answer that was made obvious the more the interviewer persisted.  Like a school child caught in a lie she dug in, pouted, repeated herself (oh not that same line again) and finally refused to answer.

For many in modern day politics this is seen as clever, the sophistry of a superior mind.  The reality is that it is no better than the work of a juvenile intent covering up something that might harm them.  The irony is that a simple “yes I did” with an explanation would have been the first step in gaining some trust back.  Trust which is fundamental to the narrative she is trying to develop.  It requires an understanding that the truth will never hurt you; it’s the lie or the deception that will always bring you down.

What is the truth?  Something like this I expect.  Both Rudd and Gillard had aspirations to lead after Latham imploded.  Rudd had the numbers and Gillard shelved her ambitions for the top job and accepted the deputy role.   Rudd’s inability to manage his team, his micro-management of all matters was a time bomb waiting for its moment which came with flagging popularity.  Those who suffered under Rudds feudal style wanted him out.  The extent to which Gillard participated is unclear, but her ambitions to lead are not.  My guess is that she was a loyal deputy, but ready to be convinced a change was necessary.

The point here is that it was Rudd’s failings as a leader of a team, not as might be claimed by some that it was Gillard’s naked ambition to lead, that was the catalyst for the events that took place.  That should have been the story and Gillard could have told it without the need to eviscerate Rudd, as some in the party, smarting from his whip hand, no doubt wanted.

But no, we went the scripted clever political route and look where we have ended up!  It set the pattern that left no sense of who Julia Gillard really is, what she actually thinks, whether she can be trusted to tell the whole truth.

What a pity as I suspect that the truth of the Prime Minister as a person is much more flattering. 

As things stands, it is just a matter of time until she is gone.