World Politics

[rhubroma]

Of course she can. The idea is never to claim your opponents tricked you into doing something. In this case she complains that the “liberals” are once again attacking her. “Making a big deal out of every little mistake she does.” In this way totally changing the subject from the mistake she made, to the hatred the liberals have to her, which is a common theme already.

She doesn’t need to do any of this herself. In fact preferably not. Get a radio hosts and conservative leaders to go out there, and make 3 points.

1 Give examples of other occasions on which they went after her. Say that when “liberals” make gaffes they are treated nicely, but the second Palin makes an “innocent mistake” they “CRUCIFY” (needs to be a strong word) her.

2 Sexism . Make the point that she is a woman and “liberals” don’t like Conservative women. A lot of women out there will nod their heads strongly to this. I remember Ralph Naeder saying Liberals were being sexist towards her. If they find that clip they can use it. And Subliminally try to make it look like it’s a bunch of guys beating up on a lightly built, small statured defenceless mother.

3 a quip about how they should obsess less about her and more about fixing the economy, or something to that effect. Or that liberals are trying to change the subject while Americans suffer. Pre prepared quotes like this are very effective in America.

Divisions create blind support. The stronger "liberals" hate on her, the more the conservatives will ignore her faults and choose her. Also the more the liberals are seen to try to “kick her down,” the more a feeling of invincibility to “the liberal media” she builds up.

And for Palin, divisions are good. Hatred is good. Elections in America are won, not by convincing everyone to vote for you, but by firing up your base, and making sure your base turns out in droves.

Especially in your state.

I think this can help her. I still don’t see her being nominated though.

Palin is what we would call in Europe a "popularist," which means one who presents himself/herself as being in harmony with the common folk, who shares their same social habits, same cultural aspirations, same intellectual standards, education, etc. In short one who isn't above them, but like them, even if not one with them.

The biggest sign of degeneration within Western and especially American politics today is that any idea that the people we vote for should be, oh my!, more intelligent than us, better prepared than us in all the complex global political situations, should have higher cultural aspirations than most of the masses - in short, a model to encourage those masses (oh my! again) to elevate themselves with higher aspirations by their example - has become a cultural anathema and has thus been politically branded (mostly by the conservatives, though even many so called liberals) as hubris and intellectual snobbery.

This of course, apart from being a demonstration of just what a major inferiority complex exists among the masses today (what the hell was universal and equal opportunity education supposed to be about, if not to instruct the emerging citizenry to have a more noble sense of self and to teach that we can always improve our cultural and intellectual standards - but this is another matter); it also demonstrates, and this is the worst part about it, how lowly those same politicians think of all of us. Thus for many among the conservative political class it is merely a calculated and instrumental accusation levied upon their opponents among the left to not "seem" to smart, which also makes it a base form of hypocrisy.

The real and dangerous problem, of course, isn't that our politicians are better then us (how happy I'd be if they were!), but the same or, worst of all, inferior to us.

I'd place Palin and her kind in the last category. It is simply unacceptable that a possible, if not probable, future candidate to the White House doesn't know the difference (even if accidentally) between North and South Korea. It makes me cringe just to imagine what else that woman doesn't know!

The point is how low and mean the aspirations of the masses have become, if they feel threatened at the first sign that anyone among the leadership class aspires to being an example of something more involved and committed than communicating at the level of the ball park, or has a knowledge base somewhat more extensive than your average milkman from the Midwest (no offense to those in the profession, of course).

This contemporary political culture is the same, by the way, as that of Berlusconi's in Italy unfortunately. The left here are always being branded as intellectual snobs, the left media denounced as a communist coven of witches. Meanwhile the country has sunken to its all time moral and cultural low-point under the man's political leadership and what he has represented as a cultural model of the "self made entrepreneur," Italy's version of the American Dream, for the past 20 years or so. Yet the same mendacious and sinister left, which would pose such a terrible threat to Signor B and his cronies, remains pathetically ineffective in offering another political, let alone social and cultural, alternative. So it seems that America and Italy do indeed share something in common.

Perhaps this is merely an indication of what democracy and capitalism have really produced: namely conformism to mediocrity.

And to think that democracy was envisioned to produce something entirely different. After the fall of the absolutist monarchies and the domination of the aristocratic class, the masses were supposed to have been given their opportunity now, for the first time, toward reaching excellence by being no longer kept down by their social superiors.

Yet the materialism of today has meant that it is enough that we can afford the latest SUV model, buy the newest product lines, then finish the week on Sunday perhaps in front of the TV watching our favorite sporting event to be content in life.

If anything the republican party has understood the popular mindset better than their rivals with a showpiece like Palin.

So be it. Those that feel differently can just shake their heads and think "what a world, what a world." Even if there isn't much solace in that. Perhaps democracy hasn't produced those desired effects precisely because collectively, if we are to really be honest, the masses have never had such worthiness in them (which means us). And the results among our political class, I'm afraid, has made this painfully apparent.

What would they think of our daily socio-political tragic-comedy men like Erasmus, Kant, Marx and Gramsci?

What would someone like Pier Paolo Pasolini write about our pathetic real-trash television?

And if we take a look at our economy, and it's relationship with politics, what would men like Freidman and Sir John Maynard Keynes have to say?

 

[auscyclefan94]

So earlier this year Aus voted and there was a hung parliament, now they are tipping a hung parliament or possibly a coalition victory. People are very divided...I hope Labor wins all the inner city seats. Having people who live in the city who claim they know lots about the environment could be making descisions on people who live in the country about the environemnt in the country is scary.

 

[Spare Tyre]

Palin is what we would call in Europe a "popularist," which means one who presents himself/herself as being in harmony with the common folk, who has their common social habits, the same cultural aspirations, the same intellectual standards, education, etc. In short one who isn't above them, but like them, even if not one with them.

The biggest sign of degeneration within Western and especially American politics today is that any idea that the people we vote for should be, oh my!, more intelligent than us, better prepaired than us in all the complex global political situations, should have higher cultural aspirations than most of the masses - in short, a model to encourage those masses to (oh my! again) elevate themselves with higher aspirations by their example - has become anathema and been branded (mostly by the conservatives, though even many so called liberals) as hubris and intellectual snobbery.

This of course, apart from being a demonstration of having a major inferiority complex among the masses today (what the hell was universal and equal opportunity education supposed to be about, if not to instruct everybody to have a more noble sense of self and to teach that we can always improve our cultural and intellectual standards - but this is another matter); it also demonstrates how lowly those same politicians think of all of us. Thus for many among the conservative political class it is merely a calculated and instrumental accusation levied upon their opponents among the left to not "seem" to smart, which also makes it a base form of hypocrisy.

The real and dangerous problem, of course, isn't that our politicians are better then us (how happy I'd be if the were!), but the same or, worst of all, inferior to us.

I'd place Palin and her kind in the last category. It is simply unacceptable that a probable future candidate to the White House doesn't know the difference (even if accidentally) between North and South Korea. It makes me cringe just to imagine what else that woman doesn't know!

The point is how low and mean the aspirations of the masses have become, if they feel threatened at the first sign that anyone among the leadership class aspires to being an example of something more involved and commited than communicating at the level of the ball park, or has a knowledge base somewhat more extensive than your average milkman from the MidWest (no offense to those in the profession, of course).

This contemporary political culture is the same, by the way, as that of Berlusconi and Italy. The left here are always being branded as intellectual snobs, the left media denounced as a communist coven of witches. Meanwhile the country has sunken to its all time moral and cultural low-point under the man's political leadership and what he has represented as a cultural model of the "self made entrepreneur" a là American Dream for the past 20 years or so.

Perhaps this is merely an indication of what democracy and capitalism have really produced: namely conformism to mediocracy.

And to think that democracy was invisioned to produce something entirely different. After the fall of the absolutist monarchies and the domination of the aristocratic class, the masses were supposed to have been given their oppurtunity now, for the first time, toward reaching excellence by being no longer kept down by their social superiors.

Yet the materialism of today has meant that it is enough that we can afford the latest SUV model, buy the newest product lines, then finish the week on Sunday perhaps in front of the TV watching our favorite sporting event to be content in life.

If anything the republican party has understood the popular mindset better than their rivals with a showpiece like Palin.

So be it. Those that feel differently can just shake their heads and think "what a world, what a world." Even if there isn't much sollace in that. Perhaps democracy hasn't produced those desired effects, precisely because collectively, if whe are to be honest, we have never had such worthiness in us. And the results among our political class, I'm affraid, has made this painfully apparent.

I agree with a lot of this, and I struggle to see how it can be turned around, or lead to any decent outcomes for the future. I don't know how much is "democracy" per se or the increased way in which the market has come to dominate and organize our lives. Perhaps the two are simply different aspects of the same impulse.

 

[Spare Tyre]

So earlier this year Aus voted and there was a hung parliament, now they are tipping a hung parliament or possibly a coalition victory. People are very divided...I hope Labor wins all the inner city seats. Having people who live in the city who claim they know lots about the environment could be making descisions on people who live in the country about the environemnt in the country is scary.

Membership of the Greens continues to rise, unlike membership of the Liberal party, which is declining and comprised AFAIK mainly of over-65s.

Greens membership is split between inner urban voters and rural voters. A significant proportion of country residents depend on the land for their livelihoods and know only too well that tackling climate change is imperative and urgent. They are often the "greenest of the green". It is the suburbs between the inner urban areas and country areas that form a conservative or reactionary wedge and this is where Greens voting and membership is lower.

Edit: On reflection I realise that, of course, you're not interested in the membership base of the Greens, or the fact that not every rural Australian is conservative, reactionary or a member of the National Party. You're simply in fear of the big bogeyman Greens taking a few seats in the election tomorrow.

 

[rhubroma]

I agree with a lot of this, and I struggle to see how it can be turned around, or lead to any decent outcomes for the future. I don't know how much is "democracy" per se or the increased way in which the market has come to dominate and organize our lives. Perhaps the two are simply different aspects of the same impulse.

As I added to what I first wrote:

Yet the same mendacious and sinister left, which would pose such a terrible threat to Signor B and his cronies (or the American conservative establishment), remains pathetically ineffective in offering another political, let alone social and cultural, alternative. So it seems that America and Italy do indeed share something in common.

What would they think of our daily socio-political tragic-comedy men like Erasmus, Kant, Marx and Gramsci?

What would someone like Pier Paolo Pasolini write about our pathetic real-trash television?

And if we take a look at our economy, and it's relationship with politics, what would men like Freidman and Sir John Maynard Keynes have to say?

And I agree with you that our economic and consumer model has much to do with our own debasement.

 

[fatandfast]

often times a slip on the tongue is taken out of context . When it's done with a stupid grin on your face and translated into another language..it could be a disaster. Slipping up on North and South Korea when they are firing rockets at each other is major. Palin is some part of a Bush repeat button. After seeing the UK proceedings and all the data available in the US we might not want anybody who is fast and loose when it comes to foreign policy. One war due to misguided paperwork is enough.

 

[The Hitch]

Palin is what we would call in Europe a "popularist," which means one who presents himself/herself as being in harmony with the common folk, who shares their same social habits, same cultural aspirations, same intellectual standards, education, etc. In short one who isn't above them, but like them, even if not one with them.

The biggest sign of degeneration within Western and especially American politics today is that any idea that the people we vote for should be, oh my!, more intelligent than us, better prepared than us in all the complex global political situations, should have higher cultural aspirations than most of the masses -

This contemporary political culture is the same, by the way, as that of Berlusconi's in Italy unfortunately. The left here are always being branded as intellectual snobs, the left media denounced as a communist coven of witches. Meanwhile the country has sunken to its all time moral and cultural low-point under the man's political leadership and what he has represented as a cultural model of the "self made entrepreneur," Italy's version of the American Dream, for the past 20 years or so. Yet the same mendacious and sinister left, which would pose such a terrible threat to Signor B and his cronies, remains pathetically ineffective in offering another political, let alone social and cultural, alternative. So it seems that America and Italy do indeed share something in common.

Perhaps this is merely an indication of what democracy and capitalism have really produced: namely conformism to mediocrity.

And to think that democracy was envisioned to produce something entirely different. After the fall of the absolutist monarchies and the domination of the aristocratic class, the masses were supposed to have been given their opportunity now, for the first time, toward reaching excellence by being no longer kept down by their social superiors.

Yet the materialism of today has meant that it is enough that we can afford the latest SUV model, buy the newest product lines, then finish the week on Sunday perhaps in front of the TV watching our favorite sporting event to be content in life.

If anything the republican party has understood the popular mindset better than their rivals with a showpiece like Palin.

So be it. Those that feel differently can just shake their heads and think "what a world, what a world." Even if there isn't much solace in that. Perhaps democracy hasn't produced those desired effects precisely because collectively, if we are to really be honest, the masses have never had such worthiness in them (which means us). And the results among our political class, I'm afraid, has made this painfully apparent.

What would they think of our daily socio-political tragic-comedy men like Erasmus, Kant, Marx and Gramsci?

What would someone like Pier Paolo Pasolini write about our pathetic real-trash television?

And if we take a look at our economy, and it's relationship with politics, what would men like Freidman and Sir John Maynard Keynes have to say?

I can sympathise, slightly with this idea that politicians should be common folk. First of all, this is by no means limited to America Here in Britain it exists big time, only the other way round. THe left Labour and Lib Dem Parties call the Conservative Party "Toffs", complaining that they all come from Eaton and Oxford.

But generally this becomes a popular idea as people become disenchanted with politics. They see the corruption, the gridlock as they themselves suffer and have no solution. They also see how Bush, Clinton, Dole, Rand, Reid etc etc etc all get their families into high office, and the Kennedies claim the right to any senate seat which happens to be free. The perception becomes that someone not tied into all this can help.


Ive heard hundreds of times people, especially from the "liberal" side, mock the stupidity of middle America. While this is true, and there are stupid people there, stupid people have a right to vote as well, so dont be surprised when their responce is to vote for their own, gun tooting, bible thumping ... people.

And most of these people are not living the american dream, so i am not at all surprised that they distrust politics and politicians, who dont share their hardships and never get anything done to help them.

But as i said, this is by no means limited to America, or Britain, or the West. Its a very common idea world wide.

 

[rhubroma]

I can sympathise, slightly with this idea that politicians should be common folk. First of all, this is by no means limited to America Here in Britain it exists big time, only the other way round. THe left Labour and Lib Dem Parties call the Conservative Party "Toffs", complaining that they all come from Eaton and Oxford.

But generally this becomes a popular idea as people become disenchanted with politics. They see the corruption, the gridlock as they themselves suffer and have no solution. They also see how Bush, Clinton, Dole, Rand, Reid etc etc etc all get their families into high office, and the Kennedies claim the right to any senate seat which happens to be free. The perception becomes that someone not tied into all this can help.


Ive heard hundreds of times people, especially from the "liberal" side, mock the stupidity of middle America. While this is true, and there are stupid people there, stupid people have a right to vote as well, so dont be surprised when their responce is to vote for their own, gun tooting, bible thumping ... people.

And most of these people are not living the american dream, so i am not at all surprised that they distrust politics and politicians, who dont share their hardships and never get anything done to help them.

But as i said, this is by no means limited to America, or Britain, or the West. Its a very common idea world wide.

Well mine was merely about aspiring to a cultural/political model that doesn't have to based on the lowest common denominator. No more, no less.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Membership of the Greens continues to rise, unlike membership of the Liberal party, which is declining and comprised AFAIK mainly of over-65s.

Greens membership is split between inner urban voters and rural voters. A significant proportion of country residents depend on the land for their livelihoods and know only too well that tackling climate change is imperative and urgent. They are often the "greenest of the green". It is the suburbs between the inner urban areas and country areas that form a conservative or reactionary wedge and this is where Greens voting and membership is lower.

Edit: On reflection I realise that, of course, you're not interested in the membership base of the Greens, or the fact that not every rural Australian is conservative, reactionary or a member of the National Party. You're simply in fear of the big bogeyman Greens taking a few seats in the election tomorrow.

I know there will be a swing towards the greens but there also be a swing towards the liberal party. Did you watch a story on nine news last night about farmers?

Anyway, most country seats are dominated by conservative voters and greens do not have a clue about agriculture, farming or logging. They're are many farmers that are strongly against what the greens and the alp's policies. Anyway family background infulences my opinion of them because i have seen first hand of what they're policies can do. It is looking more likely that the greens will not pick up the inner city seats.

 

[Spare Tyre]

I know there will be a swing towards the greens but there also be a swing towards the liberal party. Did you watch a story on nine news last night about farmers?

Anyway, most country seats are dominated by conservative voters and greens do not have a clue about agriculture, farming or logging. They're are many farmers that are strongly against what the greens and the alp's policies. Anyway family background infulences my opinion of them because i have seen first hand of what they're policies can do. It is looking more likely that the greens will not pick up the inner city seats.

Yet again you are showing your ignorance. Really, you ought to try gaining your information from a much wider range of sources.

 

[Ferminal]

Good luck to you two...

I have more or less lost interest in state politics, it just seems to be the same issues rehashed every 4 years. The only time these days that I look at state politics is when Colin tries to take something away from me/the public (I think I voted for the *******) or the Nationals who hold country seats try telling people in urban areas what they can and can't do. It's a pity federal ALP is sending WA Labor back to the stone age.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Yet again you are showing your ignorance. Really, you ought to try gaining your information from a much wider range of sources.

No you are. I have seen it first hand.

 

[auscyclefan94]

People have turned on Labor and a Coalition government is looking exrtemely likely! Little swing to greens

Expecting spray from spareTyre in 3...2...1

Anyway, sparetyre, even though we have different views on politics please don't take it that I have it out for everything you say as I have often agreed with you in the past.

 

[auscyclefan94]

On twitter, I have just ben called an arsehole by an official Labor twitter account. I am so proud!

 

[Cobblestones]

Looking forward to see the new Wikileaks today. It's going to be fun.

 

[usedtobefast]

http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/

cablegate. here it is.

 

[Spare Tyre]

Good luck to you two...

I have more or less lost interest in state politics, it just seems to be the same issues rehashed every 4 years. The only time these days that I look at state politics is when Colin tries to take something away from me/the public (I think I voted for the *******) or the Nationals who hold country seats try telling people in urban areas what they can and can't do. It's a pity federal ALP is sending WA Labor back to the stone age.

What do you mean by that? (I could guess, but I don't know much about WA politics and it'd be better to hear your account.)

Under Brumby state politics in Victoria has become a cesspool. From what I can gather property developers run the state. It became a fine and quite open example of a government blatantly governing for large corporations and industries with deep pockets and disregarding the wishes of the people. For instance, people are begging for better public transport and the Brumby government kept coming up with new PPP road projects instead. Transparency and accountability have been on the retreat for years.

I'm not at all confident Baillieu's mob will do better, and after the savagery of the Kennett years I'm a bit nervous. I haven't followed the campaign so I don't know how rabidly neo-liberal Baillieu's version of Liberal is, or how likely they are to ignore climate change, or how dictatorial (a la Kennett) they might be. It has been a long time since we have had a "born to rule" Liberal from upper crust old-boys-Melbourne in charge (brought up in Toorak, Portsea mansion, as hi-so/aristocratic as Melbourne gets); it might be interesting seeing how that resonates over time.

In general, I can hardly bear to follow the Australian political scene any more, state or federal. In 2004 or '05 I sat in a series of public lectures which reflected on torture and "rendition" and found myself increasingly outraged. I kept thinking "someone should do something!" before it dawned on me that in a democracy that someone is we, me. I then got involved in grass roots activism on a range of issues and spent several years devouring books, journals, articles and other sources of information to find out what was really happening behind the scenes in Australian politics, and the history & politics of various international "hotspots".

The media version of Australian politics is full of PR-spin and discourse control. It's like commentary on a shadow chess game. You have to get involved in particular issues and battles to know the full dirty story of our governments and Australian politics. That's why "letters to the editor" by people active in local issues are often useful sources of information.

As to the crap that appeals to so many voters, and the influence of shock jocks/tabloid commentary and wedge politics and dog whistling etc, well that just makes the whole thing even more sordid and depressing.

(Big exhale of frustration.)

 

[Anonymous]

http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/

cablegate. here it is.

So far, very interesting stuff. Good piece in The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-wikileaks

Billions sent for "aid" with no accounting. Foreign policy through bribe...there is an inherent problem there, I wonder if the paranoid American Exceptionalists in the Bush administration ever figured out the moral hazard? Doesn't appear so...

 

[auscyclefan94]

What do you mean by that? (I could guess, but I don't know much about WA politics and it'd be better to hear your account.)

Under Brumby state politics in Victoria has become a cesspool. From what I can gather property developers run the state. It became a fine and quite open example of a government blatantly governing for large corporations and industries with deep pockets and disregarding the wishes of the people. For instance, people are begging for better public transport and the Brumby government kept coming up with new PPP road projects instead. Transparency and accountability have been on the retreat for years.

I'm not at all confident Baillieu's mob will do better, and after the savagery of the Kennett years I'm a bit nervous. I haven't followed the campaign so I don't know how rabidly neo-liberal Baillieu's version of Liberal is, or how likely they are to ignore climate change, or how dictatorial (a la Kennett) they might be. It has been a long time since we have had a "born to rule" Liberal from upper crust old-boys-Melbourne in charge (brought up in Toorak, Portsea mansion, as hi-so/aristocratic as Melbourne gets); it might be interesting seeing how that resonates over time.

In general, I can hardly bear to follow the Australian political scene any more, state or federal. In 2004 or '05 I sat in a series of public lectures which reflected on torture and "rendition" and found myself increasingly outraged. I kept thinking "someone should do something!" before it dawned on me that in a democracy that someone is we, me. I then got involved in grass roots activism on a range of issues and spent several years devouring books, journals, articles and other sources of information to find out what was really happening behind the scenes in Australian politics, and the history & politics of various international "hotspots".

The media version of Australian politics is full of PR-spin and discourse control. It's like commentary on a shadow chess game. You have to get involved in particular issues and battles to know the full dirty story of our governments and Australian politics. That's why "letters to the editor" by people active in local issues are often useful sources of information.

As to the crap that appeals to so many voters, and the influence of shock jocks/tabloid commentary and wedge politics and dog whistling etc, well that just makes the whole thing even more sordid and depressing.

(Big exhale of frustration.)

I think Ferminal may be refferring tothe mining tax they introduced which affected labor badly in WA. You say you haven't followed the campaign yet make strong suggestions of what he is not going to do. What do you have to say about the poor green vote?

Brumby was brought up in wealth also. I personally see baillieu's wealth as totally and utterly irrelevant. He has been a successful businessman and unlike brumby (who was a teacher) he was earning a lot more before politics than after.

btw, I am very happy with the result in my seat as the guy who was voted in lives in the seat.

 

[Cobblestones]

So far, very interesting stuff. Good piece in The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-wikileaks

Billions sent for "aid" with no accounting. Foreign policy through bribe...there is an inherent problem there, I wonder if the paranoid American Exceptionalists in the Bush administration ever figured out the moral hazard? Doesn't appear so...

I've now read a few. The one about Gaddafi is quite fun. Apparently he has a Ukrainian nurse (describe as voluptuous blonde) who 'knows his routine' (whatever that means). Here it is. Who knew this could be so entertaining. It's like a special edition of the National Enquirer.

ETA: One of the funniest statements I've read is the Ambassador to Germany castigating the FDP (a German liberal (in the European sense) party):

The FDP has been out of power for over 10 years and lack experience tackling security issues in the Internet age.

You, know, the fact that I can read this cable tells me how much experience the US has tackling security issues in the Internet age. Oh the irony! Again, here's the cable.

 

[Ferminal]

What do you mean by that? (I could guess, but I don't know much about WA politics and it'd be better to hear your account.)

WA feels hard done by due to the disproportionate redistribution of the GST (Commonwealth Grants Commission?). WA gets around 70% of its GST back, whilst the other major states get closer to 90, and SA, Tas, NT and ACT get over 100%. Of course the federal government is not directly responsible for these numbers, and to a lesser degree this occurred whilst the Coalition was in Canberra. Naturally, as WA becomes stronger, we receive less of the pie. Over the last half of the decade especially, WA's relative strength grew enormously (for obvious reasons).

But it's more than that, you get the feeling WA sees itself as the ignored cousin, who cares what happens in the West, it's too far away and two-three hours behind to be of any significance to the rest of the country. It's historical too, a WA referendum voted in favour of secession from the Federation during the 30s. I'm not sure I can describe it, but there is definitely some underlying scepticism ingrained in WA society.

So along comes the resources boom and WA starts feeling very proud of itself for having a lot of valuable dirt and gas. Wealthy, powerhouse, and a vital component of the Australian economy. What do we get in return? Less and less support, be it in redistribution of GST or from the federal government in general (due to our electoral insignificance more than anything else?).

Introduce Kevin07. Whilst before we were more inclined to just accept the redistribution as the price to pay for being the amazing state of WA, Rudd gave people a reason to be annoyed at the federal government. The proposed health reform goes right to the heart of the GST debate. From a WA perspective, why should we hand over even more of our GST when we only get 60-70% of it to start with. Rudd suggests momentarily that WA may miss out on the bonus funding if it doesn't agree to the GST deal. Barnett was never going to move though, and WA Labor agreed that there's no way WA should comply (the only position politically possible). Brumby may have caved to Rudd and Roxon, but that was never going to be the case for WA.

Then there's the mining tax. How dare the federal government try and siphon money made from our dirt and gas. This is ours, we deserve to manage our mining industry not the federal government. No we will not agree to remove state royalties. The feds say they will reinvest the money raised, but how can we trust them given the GST situation and overall lack of federal spending in WA. I think this is the one which struck at the heart of WA culture - "The federal government is going to ruin our boom". It didn't even matter if you weren't directly or indirectly affected in the resources industry.

How does all this impact state politics? Who better to oppose this federal interference than the Liberal party. We couldn't trust state Labor as they are too close with the 7 other ALP governments around the country, state Labor will sell us out if we are not careful.

(Note the above is my attempt to describe the collective view, and not necessarily my own).
-------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no way WA Labor can get into a politically beneficial position on this issue. The best thing they can do is reiterate how it will stand up for WA, basically an echo of the government's stance. So as long as WA feels neglected and mistreated by a federal Labor government, WA Labor is a lame dog.

Barnett's win in 2008 was a huge result, but they still only formed government with the help of the WA Nationals. It's likely that next time around (early 2013) they will consolidate and be able to govern alone.

It's interesting, WA seems predominantly conservative, but also seems to go against the party in Canberra. The ALP won in 2000 (I think), possibly a reaction to a conservative federal government, in 2007 Rudd wins and the next year WA is back supporting state Liberals. It seems like this trend is country wide too with a shift towards state Liberals (NSW then QLD next to fall?).

So basically, WA Labor is going nowhere until the federal government is axed, or they start being very generous. We all know how Labor seems to come and go, unfortunately they will be gone for a while here, I can't see them in government until at least 2017. So that's another 7 years of this clueless conservative Cottesloe clown. He is so out of touch on a number of issues but it doesn't matter because the epic middle class in Perth love a nice 50 or something white male conservative. Note: In my short voting life I've never once considered voting ALP, but Barnett leaves me with little choice. I never really understood what conservative government was before 2008.

But that's the only thing which fuels any interest in state politics for me. If we had a moderate government I would probably forget to vote on election day and never listen to discussion of local issues on the radio. I feel federal politics is far more relevant to me. I'm just as disgruntled with our political systems as I am politics itself, can QEII hurry up and die.

 

[Spare Tyre]

WA feels hard done by due to the disproportionate redistribution of the GST (Commonwealth Grants Commission?). WA gets around 70% of its GST back, whilst the other major states get closer to 90, and SA, Tas, NT and ACT get over 100%. Of course the federal government is not directly responsible for these numbers, and to a lesser degree this occurred whilst the Coalition was in Canberra. Naturally, as WA becomes stronger, we receive less of the pie. Over the last half of the decade especially, WA's relative strength grew enormously (for obvious reasons).

But it's more than that, you get the feeling WA sees itself as the ignored cousin, who cares what happens in the West, it's too far away and two-three hours behind to be of any significance to the rest of the country. It's historical too, a WA referendum voted in favour of secession from the Federation during the 30s. I'm not sure I can describe it, but there is definitely some underlying scepticism ingrained in WA society.

So along comes the resources boom and WA starts feeling very proud of itself for having a lot of valuable dirt and gas. Wealthy, powerhouse, and a vital component of the Australian economy. What do we get in return? Less and less support, be it in redistribution of GST or from the federal government in general (due to our electoral insignificance more than anything else?).

Introduce Kevin07. Whilst before we were more inclined to just accept the redistribution as the price to pay for being the amazing state of WA, Rudd gave people a reason to be annoyed at the federal government. The proposed health reform goes right to the heart of the GST debate. From a WA perspective, why should we hand over even more of our GST when we only get 60-70% of it to start with. Rudd suggests momentarily that WA may miss out on the bonus funding if it doesn't agree to the GST deal. Barnett was never going to move though, and WA Labor agreed that there's no way WA should comply (the only position politically possible). Brumby may have caved to Rudd and Roxon, but that was never going to be the case for WA.

Then there's the mining tax. How dare the federal government try and siphon money made from our dirt and gas. This is ours, we deserve to manage our mining industry not the federal government. No we will not agree to remove state royalties. The feds say they will reinvest the money raised, but how can we trust them given the GST situation and overall lack of federal spending in WA. I think this is the one which struck at the heart of WA culture - "The federal government is going to ruin our boom". It didn't even matter if you weren't directly or indirectly affected in the resources industry.

How does all this impact state politics? Who better to oppose this federal interference than the Liberal party. We couldn't trust state Labor as they are too close with the 7 other ALP governments around the country, state Labor will sell us out if we are not careful.

(Note the above is my attempt to describe the collective view, and not necessarily my own).
-------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no way WA Labor can get into a politically beneficial position on this issue. The best thing they can do is reiterate how it will stand up for WA, basically an echo of the government's stance. So as long as WA feels neglected and mistreated by a federal Labor government, WA Labor is a lame dog.

Barnett's win in 2008 was a huge result, but they still only formed government with the help of the WA Nationals. It's likely that next time around (early 2013) they will consolidate and be able to govern alone.

It's interesting, WA seems predominantly conservative, but also seems to go against the party in Canberra. The ALP won in 2000 (I think), possibly a reaction to a conservative federal government, in 2007 Rudd wins and the next year WA is back supporting state Liberals. It seems like this trend is country wide too with a shift towards state Liberals (NSW then QLD next to fall?).

So basically, WA Labor is going nowhere until the federal government is axed, or they start being very generous. We all know how Labor seems to come and go, unfortunately they will be gone for a while here, I can't see them in government until at least 2017. So that's another 7 years of this clueless conservative Cottesloe clown. He is so out of touch on a number of issues but it doesn't matter because the epic middle class in Perth love a nice 50 or something white male conservative. Note: In my short voting life I've never once considered voting ALP, but Barnett leaves me with little choice. I never really understood what conservative government was before 2008.

But that's the only thing which fuels any interest in state politics for me. If we had a moderate government I would probably forget to vote on election day and never listen to discussion of local issues on the radio. I feel federal politics is far more relevant to me. I'm just as disgruntled with our political systems as I am politics itself, can QEII hurry up and die.

Thanks for this Ferminal, very interesting.

I can understand WA feeling like the ignored second cousin or whatever. That's how power always operates, and the power in this country is definitely centred on SE Australia in all sorts of ways. It's the distance factor, as you say, and also WA's relatively small population.

It sounds as though a lot of the grievances hinge on the grey areas between state and federal governments: what properly belongs to which domain, what benefits and costs are reasonable. If WA started again seriously considering secession it might realise afresh what benefits (assuming there are any) arise from being part of the federation. Maybe it needs that debate. I personally think anything taken from the ground should belong to the Australian people, not the people of a particular state, but I can't imagine we'll be reorganizing the current system any time soon.

I used to focus on federal politics almost entirely too, until the state government started to take away our right to oppose local planning developments. (The same concerns had me suddenly looking harder at local politics too.) So many things that come under state jurisdiction affect quality of life in a day-to-day sense. Perhaps they can seem more pressing in a city which has grown from 3 to 4 million or thereabouts over the past 10 years and which has not seen a concomitant improvement in infrastructure.

 

[Spare Tyre]

So far, very interesting stuff. Good piece in The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-wikileaks

Billions sent for "aid" with no accounting. Foreign policy through bribe...there is an inherent problem there, I wonder if the paranoid American Exceptionalists in the Bush administration ever figured out the moral hazard? Doesn't appear so...

The Guardian article gives me the impression it's pretty much all stuff we already know, at least those of us who pay attention and don't subscribe to tabloid media.

The sad part is that this will pass in the blink of an eye and likely not change anything.

 

[auscyclefan94]

What did you think about the greens vote in the state election, SpareTyre?

btw, do any australians on here watch the 7pm report? Watched it for the first time. Bunch of labor fans on there which just mock any liberal leader at any chance. I guess that is Channel 10 for you.

 

[Nick777]

What did you think about the greens vote in the state election, SpareTyre?

btw, do any australians on here watch the 7pm report? Watched it for the first time. Bunch of labor fans on there which just mock any liberal leader at any chance. I guess that is Channel 10 for you.

Spot on. If George Negus is on, you are sure to get a balanced view... not. He just can't hide his left wing bias. The others aren't too bad, but there is a distinct lean to the left. I used to watch it occasionally, but they gloss over too many issues and don't get into any depth on anything... That's channel 7, 9 & 10 for you..!
They did a feature on cyclists vs cars a few months ago, and interviewed a very talented guy by the name of Michael Forbes, who became paralyzed when hit by a car on beach road a few years back. Again-the story had potential, but not enough depth.