Blatantly Political post
Oct. 10th, 2004 12:39 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
skyringGeorge W Bush called John Howard a man of steel, and last night John Howard demonstrated that he is indeed superman. He's won a fourth term as Prime Minister, he's increased his majority twice running, he's seen off the best that Labor can throw at him, he may very well win control of the Senate. This isn't just a victory, this is historic stuff.
Bob Hawke, the awesome Labor PM with incredible popularity and an unerring touch for the electorate, didn't come close to controlling the Senate. You've got to go back to the legendary Sir Robert Menzies to find a comparable record of victory.
And the amazing thing is that John Howard isn't particularly impressive on the surface. Mr Comfortable Middle-Class, he's the local lawyer putting a couple of kids through uni, taking his power walk every morning, going on holidays to the same motel on the coast every year for twenty years, and letting his wife choose his clothes. Short, balding and boring - that's what you see. He doesn't have the magisteral authority of Menzies or Fraser or Whitlam, nor the charisma of Bob Hawke, nor the stunning visual impact and razor wit of Paul Keating.
And yet he keeps winning elections.
Perhaps it's the feeling that with John Howard you get what you see: a predictable, safe, reliable leader. Perhaps it's the fact that he is well aware of the fact that it's the voters who have the final authority and he has displayed a deep humility with his very first words at every victory speech. Perhaps it's the issue on which he went to the people six weeks ago and has been stressing ever since - the question of who do you trust?
And on that note I'll make a point that I think will resonate in elections to come in the USA and the UK. For years a certain type of people have been accusing John Howard of being a liar. It is an article of faith with these people that he les and lies and lies. And yet, on examination, these people use one definition of lie for John Howard (or George Bush or Tony Blair) and another for their own partisan champions. If John Howard lies - and I'll note that he makes errors, shades the truth, doesn't tell the whole story and puts a spin on issues - then everyone lies. If you use a strict definition of a lie as being a deliberate knowing falsehood intended to deceive, then there are very few liars in public office. They inevitably get found out and voted out. Lincoln made a point about not being able to fool all of the people all of the time, and here is John Howard after thirty years in the public eye, having won the approval of the people in his own right four times in eight and a half years. The conclusion that must be drawn is that either John Howard doesn't lie, or that the voters don't mind if he does.
In fact, the Australian Democrats, who have long campaigned on a slogan of "Keeping the Bastards Honest" and more recently proclaiming themselves as "The Lie Detectors", have been all but wiped out. Their message didn't resonate with too many people, judging by the results last night, a result displayed in the shocked expressions and despairing words of the few survivors.
And, considering that the very same allegations are currently being levelled at George Bush and Tony Blair, then I must ask just how much effect they will have when the people vote in the USA and the UK. My feeling is that these people are preaching to the choir and the only ground they are gaining is in their own hearts, hearts which must inevitably be broken.
I say this, knowing quite well that some of the people reading these words hold some very strong and partisan views on this subject. These are people I like and respect, and I must ask that they step back and examine the facts without giving one side or the other special consideration. I've been around politics and politicians to know that if you only listen to one side of the story, then sooner or later you are going to be shocked, surprised and dismayed when reality jumps up and bites you on the bum.
In the end, it's a democracy, everyone gets one vote each and they add up the votes to see who wins. It doesn't matter if you care passionately about the issues and another voter bases their decision on which candidates have visible nasal hair - both votes count for exactly the same. The people have the final say and I can't see that as being a bad thing. One thing I particularly liked about John Howard's victory speech and that was that he referred to the fact that Afghanistan is having its first free election and that women are able to vote for the first time. Whichever way you look at it, that's progress.
My daughter voted for the first time yesterday. A proud moment. She's got to do it again next weekend when we go to the polls to elect a new Territory government. We have a very quirky and complicated system of multi-member electorates and what generally happens is that about a third of the sitting members get chucked out, and the party organisations have very little control over the outcome. Unlike the Senate ballots, where the major party candidate for the top slot gets elected and the number four position is unwinnable, here the ballots are scrambled and the top candidate on one ballot will be bottom on another and in the middle on a third. So voters tend to decide on personality as much as party lines, and when I've been a scrutineer for these things I've often found that voters will pick their favorite performers from a number of parties, rather than stick with a straight party ticket. I'm all in favour of this because it's what I tend to do.
It's also possible, if you choose carefully, to have your vote given a higher value than that of someone else. That's because if your first preference vote is for someone who gets a quota for election, then everyone who voted for that person as a first preference has their vote given a pro-rata value and examined to see if the surplus can be used to elect anybody else. So I tend to ignore the obvious choices and sort of come up through the bottom of the field, numbering my choices in reverse order of their chances of success by voting for independents and minor party candidates first before putting the major party candidates as a last resort. So, when my vote finally expires after skipping through a host of no-hopers, it does so at full value, rather than at a half or tenth or twentieth.
I like independents. They have to work harder to get re-elected because they don't have a party organisation helping to share the workload, and likewise they don't have a party organisation telling them what to do. The big parties tend to do deals with each other and usually work to downgrade the power of the voters in favour of upgrading the power of party machines. Independents do the exact opposite, and sure, they can be a little flakey sometimes, but in the end I want my vote to be counted the way I want it, and not the way some backroom boy thinks I should vote. That's why I always vote below the line in the Senate, for example, rather than taking the easy option of voting above the line and having my preferences allocated for me.
Anyway, we head back to vote again next week, but this time I won't be able to hand out books to the voters because polling material can't be distributed within a hundred metres of a booth.
My daughter took a few pictures and I had a catch or two, so the day was a bit of a Bookcrossing success. Certainly fun, and that's all that matters.
Bitter disappointment in another vote, where my entry in the Flowing Sheet V competition didn't get a place. Perhaps it was too subtle.
Bob Hawke, the awesome Labor PM with incredible popularity and an unerring touch for the electorate, didn't come close to controlling the Senate. You've got to go back to the legendary Sir Robert Menzies to find a comparable record of victory.
And the amazing thing is that John Howard isn't particularly impressive on the surface. Mr Comfortable Middle-Class, he's the local lawyer putting a couple of kids through uni, taking his power walk every morning, going on holidays to the same motel on the coast every year for twenty years, and letting his wife choose his clothes. Short, balding and boring - that's what you see. He doesn't have the magisteral authority of Menzies or Fraser or Whitlam, nor the charisma of Bob Hawke, nor the stunning visual impact and razor wit of Paul Keating.
And yet he keeps winning elections.
Perhaps it's the feeling that with John Howard you get what you see: a predictable, safe, reliable leader. Perhaps it's the fact that he is well aware of the fact that it's the voters who have the final authority and he has displayed a deep humility with his very first words at every victory speech. Perhaps it's the issue on which he went to the people six weeks ago and has been stressing ever since - the question of who do you trust?
And on that note I'll make a point that I think will resonate in elections to come in the USA and the UK. For years a certain type of people have been accusing John Howard of being a liar. It is an article of faith with these people that he les and lies and lies. And yet, on examination, these people use one definition of lie for John Howard (or George Bush or Tony Blair) and another for their own partisan champions. If John Howard lies - and I'll note that he makes errors, shades the truth, doesn't tell the whole story and puts a spin on issues - then everyone lies. If you use a strict definition of a lie as being a deliberate knowing falsehood intended to deceive, then there are very few liars in public office. They inevitably get found out and voted out. Lincoln made a point about not being able to fool all of the people all of the time, and here is John Howard after thirty years in the public eye, having won the approval of the people in his own right four times in eight and a half years. The conclusion that must be drawn is that either John Howard doesn't lie, or that the voters don't mind if he does.
In fact, the Australian Democrats, who have long campaigned on a slogan of "Keeping the Bastards Honest" and more recently proclaiming themselves as "The Lie Detectors", have been all but wiped out. Their message didn't resonate with too many people, judging by the results last night, a result displayed in the shocked expressions and despairing words of the few survivors.
And, considering that the very same allegations are currently being levelled at George Bush and Tony Blair, then I must ask just how much effect they will have when the people vote in the USA and the UK. My feeling is that these people are preaching to the choir and the only ground they are gaining is in their own hearts, hearts which must inevitably be broken.
I say this, knowing quite well that some of the people reading these words hold some very strong and partisan views on this subject. These are people I like and respect, and I must ask that they step back and examine the facts without giving one side or the other special consideration. I've been around politics and politicians to know that if you only listen to one side of the story, then sooner or later you are going to be shocked, surprised and dismayed when reality jumps up and bites you on the bum.
In the end, it's a democracy, everyone gets one vote each and they add up the votes to see who wins. It doesn't matter if you care passionately about the issues and another voter bases their decision on which candidates have visible nasal hair - both votes count for exactly the same. The people have the final say and I can't see that as being a bad thing. One thing I particularly liked about John Howard's victory speech and that was that he referred to the fact that Afghanistan is having its first free election and that women are able to vote for the first time. Whichever way you look at it, that's progress.
My daughter voted for the first time yesterday. A proud moment. She's got to do it again next weekend when we go to the polls to elect a new Territory government. We have a very quirky and complicated system of multi-member electorates and what generally happens is that about a third of the sitting members get chucked out, and the party organisations have very little control over the outcome. Unlike the Senate ballots, where the major party candidate for the top slot gets elected and the number four position is unwinnable, here the ballots are scrambled and the top candidate on one ballot will be bottom on another and in the middle on a third. So voters tend to decide on personality as much as party lines, and when I've been a scrutineer for these things I've often found that voters will pick their favorite performers from a number of parties, rather than stick with a straight party ticket. I'm all in favour of this because it's what I tend to do.
It's also possible, if you choose carefully, to have your vote given a higher value than that of someone else. That's because if your first preference vote is for someone who gets a quota for election, then everyone who voted for that person as a first preference has their vote given a pro-rata value and examined to see if the surplus can be used to elect anybody else. So I tend to ignore the obvious choices and sort of come up through the bottom of the field, numbering my choices in reverse order of their chances of success by voting for independents and minor party candidates first before putting the major party candidates as a last resort. So, when my vote finally expires after skipping through a host of no-hopers, it does so at full value, rather than at a half or tenth or twentieth.
I like independents. They have to work harder to get re-elected because they don't have a party organisation helping to share the workload, and likewise they don't have a party organisation telling them what to do. The big parties tend to do deals with each other and usually work to downgrade the power of the voters in favour of upgrading the power of party machines. Independents do the exact opposite, and sure, they can be a little flakey sometimes, but in the end I want my vote to be counted the way I want it, and not the way some backroom boy thinks I should vote. That's why I always vote below the line in the Senate, for example, rather than taking the easy option of voting above the line and having my preferences allocated for me.
Anyway, we head back to vote again next week, but this time I won't be able to hand out books to the voters because polling material can't be distributed within a hundred metres of a booth.
My daughter took a few pictures and I had a catch or two, so the day was a bit of a Bookcrossing success. Certainly fun, and that's all that matters.
Bitter disappointment in another vote, where my entry in the Flowing Sheet V competition didn't get a place. Perhaps it was too subtle.
