Thursday 29 January 2015

The Credlin thing - The AIM Network

The Credlin thing - The AIM Network




The Credlin thing









Is Peta Credlin really to blame for all the government’s woes? And should the buck stop with her? Jennifer Wilson reports.


I don’t get all this Murdoch-inspired hoo haa about Peta Credlin, the Prime Minister’s embattled Chief of Staff.


Ms Credlin has been in the spotlight ever since her boss was Opposition Leader.


Remember how her IVF journey was so thoroughly
manipulated as to become “evidence” for Abbott’s “compassion” for
women?  Ms Credlin gave generous media interviews about this most
personal of experiences, and never once mentioned her partner in the
journey, her husband, Brian Loughnane. Instead, it was entirely about
how her boss was helping her by keeping her eggs in his fridge. I can’t
think of any other situation that compares, in which a Chief of Staff so
publicly reveals her or his private life for the sole purpose of
 helping her or his boss win an election.



It was Abbott’s apparent unpopularity with women voters that provoked
the Credlin IVF pieces. It was intended to portray him as a softie with
the ladies, as was hauling out his three daughters who giggled on cue
about their lovely churchy dad.



I may have a limited imagination, but I find it hard to visualise a
male chief of staff being so forthcoming as was Credlin about his
personal life, in order to make his boss more popular with the voters.



It therefore makes a kind of bizarre sense that when things go as
badly wrong as they have for Abbott, ridding himself of Credlin is seen
as the first move that might lead to some kind of improvement. It won’t,
of course, because the man is beyond all help, but they have to try
something as they aren’t ready to replace him. Yet. May they continue
not to be. He is the ALP’s best asset.



As far as Ms Credlin is concerned, the situation sucks. She obviously
isn’t responsible for the numerous outstandingly appalling decisions
the Abbott government has attempted to inflict on an electorate that
trusted them to behave in entirely different ways. It is, of course,
impossible to know what her input has been into these decisions,
nevertheless, Abbott has taken them, and being above Ms Credlin in the
chain of command, is entirely responsible for them. With great power
cometh great responsibility.



There was a period in which Ms Credlin and Mr Abbott were
photographed so frequently together on occasions when one would have
expected Mrs Abbott to be at her husband’s side rather than his Chief of
Staff, that prurient speculation as to the nature of their relationship
was rife. It has today been suggested that Mr Abbott is “psychologically dependent
on Ms Credlin. (That link may be paywalled, but it may not. I did my
best). Psychological dependency on another person can be a problem,
especially for a political leader. It can cloud his or her judgement,
and lead him or her to become deafened to other points of view.



We cannot, of course, escape the gender issue in this latest
government drama. Is Ms Credlin easier to scapegoat because she’s a
woman? It was her gender that was exploited in Abbott’s election
campaign, and nobody much complained about it then, least of all Ms
Credlin. Female gender was exploited to gain Abbott votes. Female gender
will be exploited again if it is considered to be a factor in losing
Abbott votes.



When a man is an idiot, blaming the woman behind and beside him is a
common default position. There is in our culture a pervasive belief that
women are responsible for controlling men in almost every situation one
can think of, and this belief could well be at work in the Credlin
situation. Of course, we women aren’t and can’t be responsible for what
men do, and the sooner we all divest ourselves of that mythology the
better.



I have suddenly remembered footage of Wendi Deng hurling herself in
front of her then husband Rupert Murdoch at the News of the World
hacking hearings, when somebody attempted to assault him with a cream
pie. Sometimes we ladies are our own worst enemies.



This article was first published on Jennifer’s blog No Place for Sheep.




Tuesday 27 January 2015

Abbott's Royal Knightmare -What should Shorten do? - The AIM Network

Abbott's Royal Knightmare -What should Shorten do? - The AIM Network



Abbott’s Royal Knightmare -What should Shorten do?














The premise of my last post for THE AIMN, ‘’ Bashing  Bill Shorten’’ was this.


‘’ In terms of political strategy I think for any
opposition leader to draw attention to himself (other than making
rudimentary comments) while his opponent is in self-destruct mode would
be political folly. The same goes for the release of policy. Timing and
patience is required. The only exception would be commentary on the
reform of his party’’

The Prime Ministers incredulous appointment of Prince Philip as an
Australian Knight and the following furore serves to reinforce my
argument.



The fact that we have knighthoods at all is insulting and
fundamentally undemocratic, and to give it to a bloke whose interest in
Australia is at best marginal, is extraordinary.

Then the PM with spellbinding cringe worthy ignorance calls social media
“graffiti on a wall” while his government spends 4.3 mil on finding out
the extent of its influence. One word suffices to describe him, it is
Luddite. But then the Prime Minister has always been guilty of being
himself.



‘’Thus the captain of team Australia continues to bat for the other side. Nobody wants to play on his.’’

If he had not already lost the peoples trust his decision to Knight a
92 year old boring Greek who has survived on the public purse all his
life most certainly has.



However, when reading the comments on my previous piece, two things
were apparent. The first was that Bill Shorten was not popular. This is
confirmed by similar postings on Facebook. The consensus seemed to be
that Bill Shorten should, with much urgency, become more aggressive,
spruik policy together with ideas and a planned future pathway for the
nation and a narrative that explained it all in Whitlam style
grandiosity.



What was misunderstood in my piece was the presumption that I was
unsympathetic to these objectives. I am not. I want the same passion
advocated by other writers on this blog, but I was suggesting there were
a number of contexts’ to consider before making any ideological pitch
to the Australian public. And given Abbott’s pre disposition to terminal
political illness there was no hurry. He should be left to squirm and
fester in the cancer he has created.



Let’s look at context.


1. in the latest Essential survey when asked


‘’How much trust do you have in the following institutions and organisations?’’

Political parties were placed last on 13%. Regaining peoples trust is of
major importance to the progressive side of politics. (See list at the
end of this article.) Shorten has to build his and not rely on Abbott’s
unpopularity.



2. It must be remembered that if in the unlikely event the Liberal
party replace Abbott with Turnbull (Bishop would be a major leap of
faith.) there would be a 10% turn around in the polls. This would not
make their task impossible because Turnbull would not necessarily be
able to turn around their stinking policies because there is enough
distrust among the Dries against him. He might be tightly reigned in,
and they may not give it to him regardless.



3. Many Labor policies are probably still a work in progress.


4. There is a widespread belief that the political system, our democracy, is corrupted.


5. It suffers from an emptiness of explanation that needs to be addressed.


6. The next Australian Labor Party National
Conference takes place in Melbourne next July. The conference is still
the supreme decision-making body of the (traditionally) centre-left
major party of Australian politics. National Conference is therefore the
main opportunity to secure ‘progressive’ change in ALP policies during
this term of Parliament, including on those issues affecting the LGBTI
community.



7. 6% of eligible voters went missing at the last
election believing they were disenfranchised from the system. Given they
are probably disaffected Labor voters, Shorten has to win them back.



What should Shorten do?


In my piece, I counseled well thought out patience, letting Tony
Abbott self-destruct at his own pace. Of course he can’t afford to wait
around for Abbott to become terminal; it may not happen, and if it does,
it will only mean that he will fight another, and perhaps more
effective, opponent.



What I am advocating is that Shorten should firstly take on the high
moral ground starting with the repair of our democracy. Necessarily
required because of the destruction caused to it by the Prime Minister.
There is any amount of evidence for it.



There is no doubt that the Australian political system is in need of repair, but it is not beyond it.


Labor has already taken a small but important first step in allowing a
greater say in the election of its leader, however it still has a
reform mountain to climb. Besides internal reform that engages its
members, it needs to look at ways of opening our democracy to new ways
of doing politics: ways that engage those that are in a political
malaise so that they feel part of the decision-making process again.



Some examples of this are fixed terms, and the genuine reform of Question Time with an independent Speaker.
No Government questions etc. Mark Latham even advocates (among other
things) its elimination in a new book ‘’The Political Bubble’’. In fact
he makes many suggestions of considerable merit.



Shorten needs to promote the principle of transparency by advocating things like no advertising in the final month of an election campaign, and policies and costing submitted in the same time frame. You can add reform of the Senate into this mix, and perhaps some form of citizen initiated referendum. Also things like implementing marriage equality and a form of National ICAC. Perhaps even a 10 point common good caveat on all legalisation. A plebiscite on the question. Should we have an Australian as head of state?

Address inequality. The world’s richest 1 per cent will
own more than the other 99 per cent of the world’s wealth by next year.
It must promote and vigorously argue the case for action against
growing inequality in all its nefarious guises, casting off its
socialist tag and seeing policy in common good versus elitist terms. The same fight must also be had for the environment.



Appeal for bipartisan government for the common good as Howard did with Hawke and Keating. On top of this is the need to do something about politicians expenses and there justification.


We need to exercise our creativeness, use our brains, and talk about
what is best for ourselves as individuals, couples, families, employees,
employers, retirees, welfare recipients and what is affordable for the
future of the country.



The biggest issue though is a commitment to truth.


He needs to convince people of the need for a truly collective
representative democracy that involves the people and encourages us to
be creative, imaginative and exciting. In a future world dependent on
innovation it will be ideas that determines government, and not the
pursuit of power for power’s sake.



His narrative must convince the lost voters who have left our
democracy to return. (And I am assuming that most would be Labor),
Shorten has to turn Labor ideology on its head, shake it and re-examine
it. Then reintroduce it as an enlightened ideology-opposite to the Tea
Party politics that conservatism has descended into.



He must turn his attention to the young, and have the courage to ask
of them that they should go beyond personal desire and aspiration and
accomplish not the trivial, but greatness. That they should not allow
the morality they have inherited from good folk to be corrupted by the
immorality of right-wing political indoctrination.



He might even advocate lowering the voting age to sixteen (16 year
olds are given that right in the Scottish referendum). An article I read
recently suggested the teaching of politics from Year 8, with
eligibility to vote being automatic if you were on the school roll.



Debates would be part of the curriculum and voting would be
supervised on the school grounds. With an aging population the young
would then not feel disenfranchised. Now that’s radical thinking; the
sort of thing that commands attention. It might also ensure voters for
life.



Why did the voters leave?


How has democracy worldwide become such a basket case? Unequivocally
it can be traced to a second-rate Hollywood actor, a bad haircut, and in
Australia a small bald-headed man of little virtue. They all had one
thing in common. This can be observed in this statement (paraphrased):



“There is no such thing as society. There are only
individuals making their way. The poor shall be looked after by the drip
down effect of the rich”.

Since Margaret Thatcher made that statement and the subsequent reins
of the three, unregulated capitalism has insinuated its ugliness on
Western Society and now we have an absurdly evil growth in corporate and
individual wealth and an encroaching destruction of the middle and
lower classes. These three have done democracy a great disservice.



Where once bi-partisanship flourished in proud democracies, it has
been replaced with the politics of hatred and extremism. Where
compromise gets in the way of power, and power rules the world.



3.3 Million Australians have tuned out of politics because of the
destabilisation of leadership, corruption on both sides, the negativity
and lies of Tony Abbott, the propaganda of a right-wing monopoly owned
media, and the exploitation of its Parliament by Abbott. Somehow the
lost voters must be given a reason to return. A reason that is valid and
worthwhile. A reason that serves the collective and engages people in
the process, and a politic for the social good of all – one that rewards
personal initiative but at the same time recognises the basic human
right of equality of opportunity.

Shorten needs to campaign for a robust but decent political system that
is honest, decent, and transparent, and where respect is the order of
the day. A political system where ideas of foresight surpass ideological
politics, greed, disrespect, and truth. Where respect, civility and
trust are part of vigorous debate and not just uninvited words in the
process.



“The right to vote is the gift our democracy gives. If political
parties (and media barons, for that matter) choose by their actions to
destroy the people’s faith in democracy’s principles and conventions
then they are in fact destroying the very thing that enables them to
exist”.



The reader might determine that the writer is an idealist of long standing. That is so and I make no apologies.


There is much in the way of common sense to support the narrative I
suggest but will a politician of Bill Shortens ilk take the plunge?



2015 will reveal the character of his leadership.


As President Obama said.


“A better politics is one where we appeal to each other’s
basic decency instead of our basest fears. A better politics is one
where we debate without demonising each other; where we talk issues and
values and principles and facts rather than ‘gotcha’ moments or trivial
gaffes or fake controversies that have nothing to do with people’s daily
lives.”

The Essential Report is a very interesting survey on how people rate our institutions.




In "Politics"

Saturday 24 January 2015

Clique of secrecy

Clique of secrecy

 

Clique of secrecy





This
government does not have the healthiest relationship with truth. We
knew this from the first election Tony Abbott contested as opposition
leader.



In that campaign, he had the following to say on the subject, during
an interview with Kerry O’Brien: “I know politicians are going to be
judged on everything they say. But sometimes, in the heat of discussion,
you go a little bit further than you would if it was an absolutely
calm, considered, prepared, scripted remark. Which is one of the reasons
why the statements that need to be taken absolutely as gospel truth are
those carefully prepared scripted remarks.”



Since then, his government has been shown to have lied in its
successful tilt at office, on funding cuts to the public broadcasters,
changes to health and education, changes to the pension and changes to
tax, among other things. It has continued to lie in government.



The Abbott government’s frequent misrepresentation of the truth is
worrying in itself. But it is made worse by its vicious campaign to
prevent the access of contrary information.



The government’s counterterrorism laws neatly control the reporting
of activities by Australia’s security agencies, introducing the threat
of a decade in prison to journalists covering operations. Its
legislation on data retention would make easier the prosecution of
journalists’ sources.



Immigration has been an area of particular secrecy for the
government. One of the reasons asylum seekers are processed on remote
islands, at great expense, is to control information about their cases
and conditions.



While Scott Morrison was immigration minister, stonewalling was a
hallmark of his office. Peter Dutton’s first impulse in the portfolio
has been to deny reports he is forced later to confirm.



This week, Guardian Australia revealed a concerted effort to
stop reporting of offshore detention centres and boat arrivals –
Morrison’s famous “on-water matters”.



The report showed at least eight news stories about immigration from
various outlets had been referred to the Australian Federal Police in
the past year, in an attempt to uncover sources.



In one referral, the head of Customs and Border Protection Service,
Michael Pezzullo, wrote: “On review of the article, it appears that
several of the claims may have drawn upon classified information. This
suspected disclosure of this classified information relates specifically
to operational and assessment activity that is not available through
open sources or authorised media releases. I would be grateful if your
agency would accept the responsibility for investigating this matter
with a view to identification and, if appropriate, prosecution of the
persons responsible.”



The words would be laughable to anyone who has sat through the
obfuscation and obstructions of an Operation Sovereign Borders briefing,
or read an “authorised media release”.



If these were the only source of information about the appalling
treatment of asylum seekers in offshore detention, Australians would
know almost nothing of what is happening on Manus Island or Nauru.



Of course, this is what the government would prefer: falsehoods in
the “heat of discussion” and the odd drip of “absolutely calm,
considered, prepared, scripted remarks”.














This article was first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper on Jan 24, 2015 as "Clique of secrecy". Subscribe here.

Wednesday 21 January 2015

Abbott: “Frankly the alternative to this government is national decline” - I Never Thought National Decline Would Sound So Appealing! - The AIM Network

Abbott: “Frankly the alternative to this government is national decline” - I Never Thought National Decline Would Sound So Appealing! - The AIM Network



Abbott: “Frankly the alternative to this government is national
decline” – I Never Thought National Decline Would Sound So Appealing!














“You know, if there is one lesson to be learnt from
the fate of the former government in Canberra, maybe even from the fate
of the former government in Victoria, is you do not change leaders,”
Abbott told 3AW on Thursday.



“You rally behind someone and you stick to the plan and we’ve got a good plan.”


The Guardian 22nd January, 2014



Now why does this sound familiar? Oh that’s right!








Still let’s be fair. The attempts to make Medicare more affordable by
making us pay more doesn’t seem so bad when compared to Baldric’s
solution to the low ceiling.



“We’ve decided that we can’t afford Medicare, so you can pay for it,
because we don’t want to raise taxes. Unless it’s the GST, we need to
review that and possibly just charge it on a few more luxury items like
food, which isn’t raising it, it’s just spreading it wider and when you
spread things wider than don’t get higher!”



But I did like this bit in The Guardian:


The Coalition’s Senate leader, Eric Abetz, acknowledged
the government needed “to re-engage with the Australian people”, but he
defended Abbott against criticism from “maybe one or two” Coalition
members who were backgrounding journalists.



“They’re always so very brave when they don’t have to give their name,” Abetz said.


“This sort of backgrounding, if it is occurring – it’s just people
who aren’t willing to put their names to it, or in fact stories that are
sort of half concocted … and it’s amazing how the lowliest backbencher
all of a sudden becomes a ‘senior Liberal’ in stories such as this.”



Abetz said he was receiving feedback from Coalition colleagues that they were “committed to the course the government has set”.


“Is it a difficult course? Yes, it is,” Abetz said.


“In a democracy no government deliberately sets about making these sort of decisions that they know that the population instinctively doesn’t like, but I also think instinctively they understand that they are the correct decisions for the future.”

Yep, those Liberals are big on instinct. Just like when Howard said that he instinctively doubted climate change. “Think?
We don’t need to think, we have our instincts, and it’s much better to
trust them than scientists who waste their time on rational arguments.”



Of course, we also get an insight into the way Senator Abetz feels
about us all when he refers to the “lowliest backbencher”! If a Liberal
backbencher is only “lowly” who shouldn’t be listen to, what about a
member of the general public? As for someoen without a job. But it’s
good to see that – after all the background briefings that “senior Labor
figures” gave the media during the Gillard years – that Senator Abetz
seems to doubt that these background briefings are newsworthy, because
we don’t even know that it’s true. “This sort of backgrounding, if it is occurring…”



Is he suggesting that the media could be making things up? I just know that it wouldn’t be true.


Instinctively!






Wednesday 14 January 2015

Giving Bigots More Rights Is The Wrong Response To Charlie Hebdo Massacre | newmatilda.com

Giving Bigots More Rights Is The Wrong Response To Charlie Hebdo Massacre | newmatilda.com

Giving Bigots More Rights Is The Wrong Response To Charlie Hebdo Massacre



By Lydia Shelly





Terrorists massacre journalists. Australia responds with a debate about the rights of bigots. Lydia Shelly remains underwhelmed.



I
oppose any amendments to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.
This is despite the fact that the Act does not protect me, or any other
Australian Muslim, from discrimination on the basis of our faith.



I say this as both a Muslim and an Australian. Although I am not from
a racial minority, as Noel Pearson recently rightly recounted, one need
not be to understand the importance of these issues.



This is because they define the nation in which we live.


We can learn an awful lot from Australia’s Jewish community on this
score, for they know too well the horrific consequences when countries
are permitted to vilify, dehumanise and essentially treat other people
differently based on racial (and religious) grounds. 



I was always taught while at school to shy away from bringing the
Nazis into your school debate. It usually meant you lost. I am, however,
coming around now to the view that this avoidance is guaranteed to see
them rise again. Maybe under a different name, or a different leader, or
a different flag - but the danger is there.



When Australian Muslim leaders ask for further resources for the Bias
Crimes Unit based within the New South Wales Police, we do so in
acknowledgement that perhaps, having only one officer responsible for
investigating crimes committed against Australians - based on their
perceived or real gender, ethnicity, disability status, sexual
orientation, age, homeless status or religious identity - is
inappropriate and inadequate.



From my life and my professional career, I can tell you that hate
crimes are very real. It is disappointing that tackling these terrible
crimes – crimes against our whole social fabric - are not a priority for
the NSW police.



I would have thought terrorism, arguably, is the ultimate bias crime – the ultimate hate crime.


The tragedy in Paris or Martin Place should not result in Australian
Muslims being at the end of “collective punishment” for criminal actions
they did not commit. We do not deserve to be ridiculed, reduced,
legislated against, mocked, vilified and subjected to hate speech.



Political actors and social commentators have confused section 18C as being an obstacle to free speech.


The Australian Muslim community most certainly has not “bullied,
bludgeoned or terrorised” largely White Anglo Saxon men in keeping
silent on what Muslim women wear, what Muslim’s eat, halal
certification, terrorism, radicalisation, “imaginary backlash” or
whether Australian Muslim women are permitted to enter our parliament.



It is mischievous to assert that the mere existence of section 18c
has halted any criticism of Australian Muslims. In fact, the opposite is
true. Islamophobia is still alive and well under the “18C regime” – but
I would hate to think how and what we will end up without it.



Those who advocate an absolutist position on “free speech” ought to
comprehend what they are arguing for. Surely the absolutist would
support the letters written by the Lindt Café shootist to war widows?
They would support the anti-vaccination advocate Sherri Tenpenny in
proceeding with her anti-vaccination speaking tour highlighting the
“dangers” of vaccination from the United States. They would speak out
against the (then) Immigration Minister Scott Morrison’s decision to
cancel pick up artist and “dating coach” Julian Blanc’s visa on the
basis that his seminars were derogatory against women.



Significantly, they should have opposed the ‘Advocating terrorism
provision’ in the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign
Fighters) Bill 2014 which was introduced by our ‘you have a right to be a
bigot Attorney General’. This provision is so expansive, it could
capture legitimate speech and have a chilling effect on public discourse
on issues of terrorism, armed conflict and Australia’s foreign policy.




As we slide back into Iraq for a “humanitarian mission with military elements” (not a war!) this is significant.


The context of the current discourse surrounding civil liberties and
rights is also significant. There has been a sustained ideological
attack against our democratic values and civil liberties since the
introduction of the first tranche of counter terrorism laws in 2003.



To further illustrate that the threat against our rights and freedoms
is not just contained to terrorists, one can turn to the National
Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No 1) 2014 which was also passed in
2014 with little opposition.



The NSLA restricts press freedoms and criminalises whistleblowing -
hallmarks of a healthy democracy - in an environment with declining
transparency and accountability.



Not all those who pose a threat to civil liberties and freedoms stand
behind a foreign flag and hold Kalashnikovs. Some stand behind the
Australian flag and promote the myth that civil liberties and freedoms
need to be sacrificed in order to obtain security.



They can be persons in positions of power who seek to use freedoms
and civil liberties as tools to maintain their power. They draft, and
then pass, draconian legislation that strikes at the heart of democracy
and the very same freedoms they are purporting to protect.



To truly champion civil liberties and freedoms, we need to engage in
more than hashtag politics. If all we take from the Paris tragedy is
that romanticised Charlie Hebdo is martyred into a symbol of free speech
and a backdoor to state sanctioned vilification, the rights discourse
in Australia is in deep trouble.



We need to defend our freedoms and civil liberties from all attacks,
reinvigorate the public rights discourse, refuse the temptation for our
core democratic values to be hijacked and demand a Bill of Rights for
all Australians.



Our Constitution should be a living and breathing document that
protects all minorities. I can think of no better way of honouring those
who lost their lives in the Martin Place tragedy. I can think of no
better way than uniting all Australians.



The question is whether the politicians want to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.


Tuesday 13 January 2015

Plutocrats and Pitchforks - The AIM Network

Plutocrats and Pitchforks - The AIM Network



Plutocrats and Pitchforks














The word ‘revolution’ has throughout history been
synonymous with the cry for equality and social change. The French
Revolution of 1789, the Russian Revolution of 1917, the Cuban Revolution
of 1959 to name a few, all began because the divide between the haves
and the have nots became intolerable. In the examples above, social
inequality was at historically high levels and getting worse by the day.
Something had to happen and it did, much of it violent and bloody.



Revolutions were generally born of peasant unrest, dissatisfaction, a
sense of betrayal by once revered heroes who were seduced by their own
power and their accumulation of vast wealth. When that peasant
dissatisfaction reached a tipping point, revolution became the only
recourse.



Today the wealthiest 1% in our society enjoy a lifestyle that much of
the 99% could not even imagine. Furthermore, the gap continues to widen
such that the line between middle and lower class workers is now
blurred, while the gap between middle and upper income levels grows
wider and easier to see.



While any high functioning capitalist economy will always have
inequality to some degree, the divide as it exists today is so geared
toward greater wealth for the fewer that the middle class is in danger
of disappearing altogether. The message for all those living in their
gated compounds and ivory towers is, it cannot last.



Statistics are not needed to reinforce these claims. They simply
confirm what the 99% already know. But, for the record, in 1980 in the
USA, the top 1% controlled about 8% of the national income while the
bottom 50% shared about 18%. Today, the top 1% share 20% of the national
income while the bottom 50% share just 12%.



In Australia, similar comparisons are difficult to find but in measuring wealth by quintiles, the
ABS found that in 2011 the top 20% of households owned 62% of the
wealth while the bottom 20% held less than 1%. In fact the top 20% held
more wealth than the rest combined. The conclusion was that wealth
inequality was rising fast.



Free market capitalism in its present form is no longer a recipe for a
sustained, prosperous, happy, healthy society. Today, capitalism is
synonymous with inequality, unfairness and discrimination. With today’s
capitalism we are drifting toward feudalism.



trickle downInequality
has grown so dramatically over the past thirty years that our once
great egalitarian Australia of the 1960s and ’70s has all but
disappeared. And to quote Joseph Stiglitz, “one
of the major culprits has been trickle-down economics—the idea that the
government can just step back and if the rich get richer and use their
talents and resources to create jobs, everyone will benefit. It just
doesn’t work; the historical data now proves that.”



If ever world leaders had an opportunity to revolutionise capitalism
it was in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). Just six
years on from that incredible opportunity, we can see they have failed
and have done so, spectacularly.



Bank bailouts without conditions will be a dark legacy for Barack
Obama in an otherwise reasonable presidency and now the opportunity has
all but passed. The US stock market has not just recovered but surpassed
pre 2008 lows. The rich are richer and the poor are poorer in far
greater numbers than before. For the 1%, the plutocrats, it’s business
as usual.



The Reagan trickle-down effect is back with a vengeance and is now
the hallmark of the present Australian government despite a plethora of
information, data, and recent history to demonstrate its failure. They
still expect business to lead a national recovery with investment in
goods and services. What they don’t get, is that an underutilised
workforce cannot afford it. Business knows this. That is why they will
not commit.



The government cannot see that a vibrant, active, well-educated
workforce is an essential component of a strong, robust economy; a
component that creates demand that results in stronger growth, stronger
investment and stronger taxes.



Blinded by the advice from bankers, investment houses and those whose
fortunes are derived from manipulating stock markets and overvaluing
mortgage stocks, Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey are no more than a
mouthpiece for the 1%; the plutocrats. They are victims of their own
self-serving ideology. While they are in power nothing will change, no
improvement for the 99% will ever eventuate.

nick


Any realistic observer can see that this trend is unsustainable and
its future unpredictable. While the plutocrats continue to build their
wealth, billionaire Nick Hanauer thinks they might inherit pitchforks.



While the 1% enjoy their wealth, blind to the signs of desperation
around them, a single act of defiance by someone desperate and destitute
enough could mobilise thousands in support and roll across the country
like a tidal wave. The 1% could be caught like the frog in the saucepan
unaware the water has reached boiling point. But by then, it will be too
late.



I don’t think anyone in government, least of all Scott Morrison,
anticipated riots leading to murder and self-immolation when he embarked
upon his ruthless policy of deprivation detention on Manus Island. That
crept up without warning. And now, I don’t think either he or his party
foresee all the possible outcomes if they embark upon a policy of
reducing welfare at a time of fiscal contraction.



He may not even care but he could well be responsible for creating a
new underclass that has no respect for law and order. He could well
extend existing poverty further into the realm of the middle class,
bringing welfare agencies to their knees trying to cope. This is where
that one defiant act could likely emerge.



pitchforksHistory
is littered with such circumstances and the consequences of doing
nothing. The 1% won’t see it coming, but governments should. And they
should do something to stop it, or they too will feel the pitchforks.
They can plead ignorance but that won’t save them.



They can say their hands were tied but their complicity will be all
too obvious. The plutocrats will never change voluntarily. The
government is running out of time to do it for them.