Politics
Trump, Morrison and Dutton
The Saturday Paper last week had two articles by prominent former members of the Liberal Party – one who was the only Coalition candidate to win a seat off Labor in the 2016 election, and the other who had served as federal Opposition Leader.
Julia Banks’ article Donald Trump and the Liberal Party is about the federal party, in its last term in office and now in opposition, adopting Trumpian politics. She sees little difference in substance between Morrison and Dutton, who “share a distinct US Republican style and Trumpian flourish”. She goes on to observe that “telling lies, bending the truth or avoiding accountability are Trumpian afflictions shared by both men.”
These observations are not just about Morrison and Dutton. They are also about the federal party’s entire approach to politics, including its relationship with the Murdoch media and with the right-wing lobby group Advance.
John Hewson’s article Dutton’s delusions of grandeur starts with an observation of Dutton crowing about the Coalition holding the Fadden seat in a by-election, as if the Coalition’s success is an endorsement of Dutton’s style of negativism. Hewson reminds us that it is hardly an electoral success when the opposition achieves no substantial swing in a by-election.
His article is mainly about the Coalition’s policies – its pathetic and misleading attempts to blame the current government for present policy problems, which are actually problems resulting from mismanagement by the Coalition. That’s bad enough, but the Coalition is offering no policies of its own.
Both Banks and Hewson are critical of the misleading Trumpian style Dutton has used in campaigning against the Voice.
If you’re not a Saturday Paper subscriber you will probably be able to access only one of the articles. They’re both well-written, and even though both authors have been treated disgracefully by the party to which they gave so much, there is no hint of bitterness, and there is no sign that they have abandoned the ideology that attracted them to the Coalition. It’s the party that’s changed, not them. Perhaps you could arrange with a mate that you each read one and exchange notes. Or better, subscribe to the Saturday Paper.
Apart from Sussan Ley, who wants the Commonwealth Games?
By 2032 when the Olympic Games are on the Gold Coast, Australia will have hosted 3 out of the 22 Olympics since they were resumed in 1948. There was overwhelming enthusiasm for the games in Melbourne in 1956, and there was still a sense of displaying Australia to the world in the Sydney Olympics in 2000. Since then enthusiasm has waned, particularly as countries and cities seem to have been in an arms race of extravagance.
The most recent Essential poll, conducted after the Victorian government announced it was withdrawing its offer to host the 2026 Commonwealth games, shows that more Australians approve of the withdrawal (41 percent) than oppose it (36 percent). Notably approval for cancellation is strongest in Victoria. On reflection that’s understandable: Victoria had deferred and killed important urban rail projects, and like other states has a huge unmet demand for public housing. In that fiscal environment it can hardly go ahead with spending billions on here-today-gone-tomorrow temporary structures for a once-off sporting event.
The same poll reveals that Australians aren’t very interested in international sporting tournaments. Men have more interest than women. (Is this because they can sit back watching cricket while women do the housework?) And older Australians have a bit more interest than younger Australians. But in terms of public opinion, international tournaments don’t seem to be a winner anymore.
Also, the idea that events “create employment” doesn’t hold up in what is close to a full employment economy. It was always spurious to argue about the benefits of jobs created by events, and at last people have come to realize that if people are employed building a stadium they aren’t employed building a subway or public housing. If the “jobs” argument is a collateral victim of the Victorian government’s decision to drop the Commonwealth Games, that’s a welcome development.
Nevertheless at the Commonwealth level the Opposition has weighed in, suggesting that somehow the Commonwealth should pick up responsibility for rescuing the Commonwealth Games. You can see Acting Opposition Leader Sussan Ley being interviewed by David Speers on various policy issues. The first 4 minutes are about the Commonwealth Games, where Ley, without articulating any policy justification or costing, suggests that Australia will lose international standing if the games are cancelled.
Really? This is the party that trashed our reputation on climate change, established a model of brutality for asylum-seekers now being followed by authoritarian governments, and seeks to see the country’s reputation brought down by a “No” vote for the Voice. (If you have another 12 minutes with nothing better to do you can hear her babble on with economic nonsense as she tries to blame the present government for the economic mess it inherited from her party, and her contradictory and incoherent argument about the Voice.)
On the ABC’s Breakfast Sports Minister Anika Wells quickly dismisses Ley’s arguments. The government isn’t going to follow its predecessor’s model of throwing money at bits of sports infrastructure regardless of economic justification. (Wells’ comments on sports are in the second 6 minutes of an interview on aged care and sports.)