Subscribe to the YouDecide2007 newsletter






 
Home arrow Opinion Archive arrow leadership or followship?
leadership or followship?

By Gemma Snowdon,


I watched the debate last night and my suspicions that neither leader is fit to run the country were confirmed. 

I have been disheartened over the past few months in the realisation that Liberal and Labor seem to be championing much the same, if not identical, policies.

The Australian Labor Party was created by the unions and are meant to represent the working class. If this is still the case, it is a very bourgeois working class. The Labor Party has failed to make any real promises to reform the IR laws.

I perceive their proposals as a slightly softer version of the Liberal laws. Rudd mentioned that his tax plan meant people earning over $180 000 a year would be paying more taxes, he then went on to say that was people like himself and John Howard.

Great he earns a lot of money, how about giving some back to the community? No this isn’t some crazy idea I just thought up. Anne Boccabella, the Green’s candidate for the recent Brisbane by-election, pledged 20% of her weekly income to community benefit funds if she won. If the Green’s can do it then why cant the major parties?

The debate confirmed that neither of the major parties are willing to act on the really important issues. Kevin Rudd stumbled when he was questioned on how and when the Labor party was going to measure their environmental success and John Howard didn’t give to much away on the Coalition’s plans.

I had to laugh when he said we were in a position to influence the US in regards to their environmental policy. I highly doubt that George Bush, who considers himself to be the most powerful man in the world, who will bulldoze a country for their oil, and who will completely disregard fundamental human rights and the environment to benefit the US economy, is going to listen to his little lapdog, which is exactly what Australia has become.

It is much like an older sibling stringing you along, promising to do something if you do something for them first. This continues and nothing ever eventuates.

Of course terrorism got a mention, after all we need some sort of justification for being in Iraq no matter how tenuous it is. I think the governments anti-terrorism scare campaign is dividing the community and creating racism. How many people have regarded a Muslim with suspicion? How many people have seen a bag and nervously looked around for the owner? How many people have heard a plane fly over and felt a jab of fear? And how many terrorist attacks have there been on Australia?

The debate last night left so much unanswered. John Howard avoided actually answering questions like the plague and I didn’t hear him give a single clear answer all night. Kevin Rudd just looked plain smug, although I think this is his natural look so I won’t judge him on that. However all of his answers seemed rehearsed. What happened to the passion and actually believing in your policies?

The most inspiring speech I have ever heard was from Bob Brown. He truly believed what he was saying and never tripped up when questioned, he knew the policies inside out. I believe this is because the Green’s, and the Democrats, have policies that actually make sense. They don’t complicate things like the major parties do.

To combat global warming use renewable energy, accept refugees based on situation and not their race, involve Indigenous people in decisions that will affect them, respect human rights, and show compassion and passion. The most important thing is to not pretend you know everything, I know I don’t expect anyone (not even the PM to know everything), instead be willing to listen and learn.

The word leadership was thrown around last night, as it has been throughout the last week. The PM and opposition can use phrases like “the right leadership” and “new leadership” but what this country needs is REAL leadership.

Someone who is willing to make changes even if the rest of the world won’t. Someone who is willing to implement a Human Rights Bill. Someone who doesn’t support useless wars in foreign countries. Someone who will invest in things Australia could use instead of the army. Someone who will accept refugees based on their situation NOT their race. Someone who remembers that there are people behind the corporations that run our economy. Someone who realises that everyone is different and that there is no one way to define what it is to be Australian. Someone who will stop the fear-mongering. Someone who will notice human rights abuses overseas and do something about it. Someone who will stand-up and tell the world that Australia is an independent nation. Someone who will act and not just talk. Someone that will listen to us all the time and not just once every three years.

I am going to vote Green. I suppose my preference will go to Labor and not much will change except that now I have lost faith in democracy. It kind of reminds me of that Simpson's episode.......

 

   

Users' Comments  RSS feed comment

Display 2 of 2 comments

Animal Farm

By: Call_me_Ishmael (Registered ) on 22-10-2007 23:41

George Orwell got it right in that closing scene: where the old horse looks in through the window and can't tell the difference between pigs and men. For whatever reason, the two parties (that could form a government) drift towards the lowest common denominator over time. 
The two are separated by a tiny difference, and global (Western) policy swings right and left have the real influence.  
 
What's more, the person you actually cast a vote for has become almost irrelevant. The leader sets the tone, and tends to collect around them ministers/shadow ministers with similar mindsets. Hence Kevin Rudd's recent gambit on having more say in his front bench. 
 
The way ministers are selected is one difference between Coalition and ALP. Despite Kevin Rudd's wishful thought, the ALP decision is made by consensus. This allows some variety of opinion and values to be heard in Cabinet. Some people see the ALP factional differences as a weakness, but there is strength in a wide range of perspectives.  
 
The Coalition front bench is chosen by the leader. No pretence of democracy there. 
 
A second difference is that John Howard has proved many times that he is dishonest, deceitful and dishonourable and that his highest aspiration is to stay in power - for himself and his party, not for you or me or all Australians. 
 
On the other hand, there is at least a chance that Kevin Rudd is not so untrusworthy, not so contemptuous of ordinary people, not so uncaring about the people in our society who need help. 
 
Another difference is that if the incumbent government is re-elected, we will get more of the same: expediency and ideology. In 1995, if you went o/s and said you were Australian, you were welcomed almost everywhere. In 2005, we no longer have a good name internationally. External perceptions are the only objective feedback we have.  
 
In 1995, the social outcomes still carried some weight. In 2005 (and now), the most important thing to the government is the economy - money and the making of it. Tokenism in relation to social justice and compassion. Nineteenth century England re-visited: poverty is a crime. 
Any change in social ideology must be better than the rapid creation of an underclass and the increasing gap between rich and poor. Studies of national statistics all over the world have shown that bad health, education etc statistics are worse when the gap betw

» Report this comment to administrator

 

Great article.

By: anne_elk (Registered ) on 03-11-2007 21:11

Well said Gemma!

» Report this comment to administrator

 

Display 2 of 2 comments



Add your comment
Only registered users can comment an article. Please login or register.


mXcomment 1.0.2 © 2007-2008 - visualclinic.fr
License Creative Commons - Some rights reserved
 
< Prev   Next >