The Liberal Disconnect

This is the second in three related posts about the major political parties in Australia. This post deals with the Liberal Party. Across the world those on the left side of politics are often referred to as liberals whilst those from the right are often called conservatives.

As the conservative party in Australian politics is the Liberal Party (LP) it must be quite confusing for people not from Australia who are trying to wrap their head around Australian politics. None the less that’s the situation here down under. Despite a few shocks from minor parties over the years it’s a situation which doesn’t seem likely to change in the immediate future.

Over the past twenty years it has probably been more stable, in terms of its overall message and certainly more stable in terms of its leadership, than the Labor Party. For this reason the Liberals have been in government for the majority of the previous twenty years. Despite this it would be an enormous mistake to suggest that the Liberal Party has governed well during all of its time in government or that the Liberal Party does not face significant challenges of a similar nature to those facing the Labor Party.  

Perhaps the most obvious of these challenges revolves around what has historically been one of the great strengths of the LP and of other conservative political parties around the world. Their much vaunted reputation as economic managers.

There are many challenges facing the world’s economies most of whom are struggling through a difficult period after the GFC and the ‘great recession’ which followed it. Compounding these issues for Australia is the evolving demographic of our population and the resulting changes to our tax base and the cost of government services that result from these changes.

With regards to income tax Australia uses a progressive taxation system in which higher earners are taxed at a higher rate than low income earners. There are arguments for and against this system but I think on balance the majority of Australians are content with the current system. The problem for the government is that the Australian population is aging and over time this may reduce the amount of income the government will receive from income tax.

Compounding this problem is what happens after retirement. Australian citizens who retire either access the pension, their accumulated superannuation or a combination of both to pay their bills. Obviously the pension is paid by the government and is a direct cost for the government so superannuation is the preferred option from the government’s perspective. For this reason there are generous tax concessions around numerous aspects of the superannuation scheme.

In terms of contributions to super these are taxed at a flat rate of 15% up to $300,000 and those earning less than $37,000 actually have that ‘tax’ credited back to their account. If people make additional contributions to superannuation it is not taxed at all up to an amount of $195,000 a year. All this is very sensible in my view as it encourages people to fund their own retirement which should theoretically reduce the overall cost of the pension for government.

In terms of income earned from superannuation it is not taxed at all for people aged over sixty. A fifty year old person earning over $180,000 is taxed at $54,547 plus 45% of every dollar earned over $180,000 per annum. A sixty year old person who has retired and is earning $180,000 per annum from their super fund is not taxed at all.

I’m not sure how you can conceivably justify taxing income progressively for everyone except those who have retired. This is not to say that those who have retired should not be taxed differently, but to not tax them at all? It’s an inconsistency which is difficult to qualify.

If Australia was to tax those retirees who are earning very high incomes from their superannuation it would certainly increase the tax base which in turn would assist the government to meet future increases in expenses. Surely the LP, the party with the reputation as responsible economic managers, would consider changes to taxation of retirement income. Yet they are not and are unlikely to. Why?

Consider the demographics of the LP voter base. This base has a higher proportion of the elderly, and in particular the wealthy, self-funded elderly. Would those people vote for a party who amended the taxation system in a way which clearly disadvantaged them? That seems unlikely.  

What I find particularly fascinating about this situation is some of the rhetoric espoused by the LP since winning government. Often the ‘message’ has talked about ending the age of entitlement and the need to make hard decisions which are unpopular but which are none the less necessary.

It’s a challenge to imagine making a choice more difficult than one which disadvantages the core of your party’s voting base but is none the less an obviously sensible economic decision. It’s less obvious if this a challenge which the LP can overcome?

The Labor Disconnect

People often accuse me of being a ‘conservative’. When they say that, it’s often meant as an insult. I don’t consider myself a conservative. In fact I really struggle to fit my views into an Australian political spectrum which at times seems only to have two shades.

Conservatives don’t support diverting intergenerational wealth to government. They don’t suggest making all financial services a government function. Of course progressives rarely criticise horizontal fiscal equalisation and other like forms of wealth distribution. So I find myself a little like Treebeard. I am on nobody's side, because nobody is on my side.

With that in mind this post, and those to follow, deal with the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the tensions rippling through its organisation at present. The ALP’s national conference has recently concluded. I’d like to highlight something in particular which in my view illustrate the deep divide that exists within the ALP.

Consider the contentious ‘turn back the boats’ policy. Bill Shorten has publically shifted the ALP’s stance to more closely align with the current governments views on turn backs. It seems the party has accepted this (1). This acceptance however has come at much cost.

Leading elements representing the left of the Labor party delivered a number of emotional speeches clearly against the policy of turn backs at the recent national conference. It’s an emotive issue. Whatever your opinion, surely most people would agree that we should care about what happens to refugees and that we should try to assist them where possible. Personally I’m still deeply undecided about what our government’s policy should be on this issue.

Now consider that one of the pillars of the Labor Party is unions. Even after significant recent reform union delegates still exercise a huge proportion of power in the selection of political candidates. I’m not sure how anyone could conceivably describe the pre-selection process of the ALP as democratic. Also as all members of the ALP have to be in a union in order to represent the ALP in government it seems difficult to imagine an ALP representative that doesn’t represent the unions.

The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) is one of, if not the most, powerful union in Australia. The CFMEU funded a recent television advert which comments on the proposed free trade agreement between China and Australia.

The advert is critical of the current government. It implies that through this trade agreement the Prime Minister is allowing the Chinese to ‘steal’ Australian jobs. I could go on in greater detail. Instead I’d encourage readers to view the advert itself (2).  

In my view the advert is a disgrace. I wonder if it is not in breach of existing anti-discrimination legislation. It is Xenophobic. It has racist undertones. 

What I struggle the most with though is that the same party which can argue so passionately against turning back asylum seeker boats can also be affiliated with a piece of advertising that looks like it was taken straight from the White Australia Policy (3). 

This country needs a reasonable centre-left party. The ALP does not meet that brief at the moment. It is torn between the far left and its progressive principals and the union organisations whose goals simply do not align with either the progressive left or the moderate majority which constitutes the majority of Australian voters.  

Why do we need a reasonable centre-left party? A reasonable centre-left party keeps the less reasonable elements of centre-right and right wing parties in check. Without a viable alternative people gravitate towards a stable option. In Australia, right now that option is the Liberal Party (LP). That’s why despite their less than stellar performance over the past year and despite being behind on the polls at the moment, it’s likely that the Liberal Party will get a second term in office.

I’ll end this post here with the promise that the next post will deal with the LP, specifically the challenges it faces and the similar obvious conflicts which clearly impact on their ability to govern.  

(1)   http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/bill-shorten-shores-up-his-position-with-strong-alp-national-conference-win-20150725-gikfp6.html

(2)   http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2015/07/cfmeu-television-ad-on-the-free-trade-agreement-with-china-await-the-government-response.html

(3)   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy

We Should be Better Than That

I’ve never really been a fan of Nathan Buckley. However this week Buckley shared a story about taking his kids to the footy. When one started booing an opposition player, Buckley told him in no uncertain terms that he could barrack as hard as he liked for his team and the players he loved, but that booing was taboo (1). I admire Nathan Buckley for that excellent piece of parenting.  

When watching the football at home I’ve hurled all types of abuse at the television. When attending games I’ve abused umpires, opposition players and players on the team I support. I’ve decided to stop doing that. I should be better that that and I want my two year old son to understand that booing isn’t acceptable. If I can’t get it right how can I expect my son to?   

Recently one AFL player has been abused more regularly than has been the norm. The booing of Adam Goodes should stop if for no other reason than the one Nathan Buckley provided for his child. Booing should be taboo. We should all be better than that. If only the context under which Goodes has been abused were so simple.  

To begin with to imply that the booing of Goodes is not in part racially motivated is ludicrous. He was never subjected to that kind of treatment consistently until he picked out a member of the crowd at a game during the indigenous round of the 2013 season and called them on a racist remark they had made.

The abuse of Goodes by crowds across the country escalated after he was chosen as Australian of the year in 2014. Goodes used his profile to highlight Aboriginal issues and racism in Australia. Predictably, your average Aussie punter didn’t like this one bit. Of course racism is not the only reason people abuse Goodes.

His behaviour on the footy field has been highly questionable at times. He has often been accused of being a dirty player. This reputation is the result of a habit of sliding tackles targeting player legs and a history of questionable high contact. This along with a reputation as a player who stages for free kicks combines in a way which makes it all too easy for many football fans to dislike Goodes for reasons that are not racist.

Furthermore Adam Goodes is an extremely talented player. He has won two Brownlow medals and that is the games highest honour. In pure footballing terms he is an excellent footballer. This is of course another reason for people to hate him as Australians are well known for our love of cutting down tall poppies.  

Goodes has been abused fairly consistently over the past few seasons but matters really escalated further this year when Goodes, who was abused all day by the crowd, responded with an aboriginal dance directed at the crowd. It was remarkable behaviour. The AFL’s response was perhaps even more remarkable. They did nothing. Let’s just put that into context.

In 2007 Mark McVeigh was fined $900 for a giving a mate in the crowd ‘the finger’. In 2009 Ben Cousins was fined $2,500 and given a $7,500 good behavior bond for giving an unmanned change room camera ‘the finger’ at Subiaco Oval before the match even started! Dustin Martin copped a $2000 suspended fine for a ‘jailbird salute’ to the crowd during the 2013 finals series (2).

What about examples of similar situations elsewhere in the world? FIFA’s view is that “If a player incites the crowd and/or takes his shirt off after scoring a goal he is likely to get booked by the referee” (3). In Brazil first division club SAO PAULO recently suspended a player who confronted his own team’s fans in the middle of a match because they were constantly jeering him. The club said a decision on whether he will continue at the club will be made shortly (4).

We need to remember here that whilst Goodes behaviour is pretty clearly inappropriate, I have a great deal of sympathy for him. That’s because the crowd’s behaviour has been nothing short of disgraceful. If I had been abused as consistently as he has for as long as he has I’d have told the crowd to go fuck themselves long before Goodes finally snapped and did his dance.

Compounding the crowd’s behaviour has been the fairly hysterical response from the media. On one side you have the clearly delusional such as Alan Jones who is convinced that the crowd’s behaviour isn’t racist (5). On the other hand you have the people who focus only on the racism and ignore the fairly obvious fact that professional sportspeople should not be inciting the crowd.  

To conclude in my view this is a perfect opportunity for the AFL, Goodes, the coaches and the fans to show some real leadership by agreeing on a solution which is inclusive.  Simply, discourage booing for any reason. It doesn’t matter if it’s racist. It doesn’t matter if people are booing because of any other ist or ism. Don’t boo, simply because we should all be better than that.

(1)   https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/29122927/booers-just-don-t-get-it/

(2)   http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-09-11/suspended-fine-for-martin

(3)   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goal_celebration

(4)   http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/soccer/brazilian-soccer-player-suspended-flipping-fans-article-1.2171669

(5)   http://www.smh.com.au/afl/sydney-swans/swans-star-adam-goodes-always-plays-the-victim-alan-jones-20150729-gimmn3.html

Much less of a Fight between Good and Evil

I really enjoy Dan Carlin’s Podcasts (1). He produces two podcasts; there is Common Sense which is mainly about the American political system and Hard Core History which is like nothing else on the web. Sure there are other history podcasts but Carlin is so obviously passionate about his subject and that really comes through on his podcasts. The result is the listener almost can’t help but become engaged about the topic. 

Whilst Carlin has a degree in history, he takes great pains to explain that he is not a historian, rather he considers himself a fan of history. This, he says, allows him to relate historical events with passion rather than the dispassionate explanation that is favoured by many modern historians.

Like most people, I rarely if ever agree with everything somebody says. Yet with Carlin I find myself agreeing with the majority of what he says. This is true whether it is about politics, or his view on historical events. I’m a huge fan of his work and I’ve recommended him repeatedly to almost everyone I know. Sure every now and then he’ll say something that I will disagree with but this is not the norm.

In my experience Carlin is very, very good at telling both sides of the story. He endeavours to put the listener in the shoes of the people on both sides who are making the decisions. To help the listener see why historical figures might have made the decisions they are famous for.

Carlin’s latest hard Core History work is entitled ‘Blueprint for Armageddon’. It’s about the First World War. A number of times across the different episodes ‘Blueprint for Armageddon’ Carlin expressed a view that I strongly disagree with. He said, and I’m paraphrasing here, that the First World War was much less of a fight between good and evil than the Second World War was.   

I was stunned when he said this. Utterly stunned – speechless. Now I’m not sure why Carlin holds this view. Perhaps it was just a throwaway line that doesn’t adequately reflect the sum of his views on the matter. In any case let me explain why I find that comment so utterly untrue.

For many people, both world wars were caused by Germany. It’s an opinion which is my view is flawed. Carlin goes to great lengths in the earlier episodes of Blueprint for Armageddon to show that whist German foreign policy was aggressive, and the Kaiser must share much of the blame for the conflict, the First World War itself was not caused by Germany and that if we were in the same position as Germany was, perhaps we would have acted as they did. 

With regards to the Second World War it’s fairly widely believed that the treaty of Versailles was a major if not the major underlying cause of the Second World War. I’d suggest that if for some reason our country was forced into the kind of reparations which Germany was in 1919, we’d be pretty angry in twenty years’ time.  

Would we be angry enough to elect a Jew hating corporal and then let him install himself as a dictator? You’d hope not, but until you’ve walked in those shoes who can say. In any case World War Two was clearly kicked off by Germany in 1939 with the invasion of Poland. As unfair as the Versailles treaty was, I’m not sure it justifies the invasion of a sovereign state.

Again though, perspective blurs the lines here. Is the invasion justified when part of the nation you are invading used to belong to your nation? What if some of the areas you are invading speak your language? Why should your nation share all the blame when another nation, led by a murderous dictator also invaded the same nation state just after you did?

These questions lead nicely to the reason why the Secord World War was not more of a struggle between good and evil than World War One. As ‘evilly’ as history views the Nazi’s they were not the only ‘evil’ regime struggling for world domination in the 1930’s. I’d argue that the Soviets were just as bad as the Nazi’s. 

So how bad were the Soviets under Stalin? Surely they were not as bad as the Nazi’s? Let’s start with Stalin’s record regarding the Jewish. Between the years of 1932-33, five to seven million Jews were starved or murdered in the Ukraine. Another two million or so were sent to Siberia to be worked to death. It was almost a quarter of the population of the Ukraine at the time.

This was well before the Second World War started. The United States, British, and Canadian governments were aware of this genocide but did nothing. Perversely, the only European governments to speak out about the Soviets actions in the Ukraine were the Germans and the Italians, although this was for purely self-serving reasons.  

Of course Stalin didn’t just mistreat the Jews. He massacred half a million Don Cossacks. The Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians of the Baltic States were sent to Siberia in their millions. Two million Muslim people living in the Soviet Union were also exterminated. Countless others were imprisoned in the Gulags for a range of ‘crimes’ despite rarely if ever facing formal charges.

Whilst I’m sure you could do a detailed comparison of the Soviet Union to Nazi Germany in terms of the exact numbers killed and when they were killed it’s all a little past the point. They were both terrible, cruel regimes which murdered large numbers of their own citizens.  

As much as they have tried to I don’t think The Western Allies can completely distance themselves from the atrocities committed by the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was one of the big winners at the end of the Second World War. I’m not sure how you could argue that the Western Allies didn’t assist them to achieve this and the Soviet’s success was a disaster for Eastern Europe.

The Soviets controlled all of Eastern Europe and parts of Central Europe through the satellite states they set up when they ‘liberated’ Eastern Europe from the Germans. Whilst it’s outside the scope of this piece to detail these abuses, between the end of the Second World War and the fall of communism countless people were killed or mistreated by the Soviets.

As unpalatable as it might seem the Western Allies were in part responsible for what the Soviets did, particularly in Eastern Europe. Now you could argue that in allying with the Soviets the Western Allies chose the lesser of two evils. Perhaps this is true, it’s a fascinating debate. However the very fact that the Western Allies chose to ally themselves with a regime such as the Soviets is evidence that the Second World War was not more of a fight between good and evil than the First World War.

It’s always risky to try and distil any historical conflict down to simple absolutes such as good and evil. But if you were to attempt such an exercise here then surely the Second World War was evil (the Nazi’s) versus evil (the Soviets) with the Western Allies desperately trying to survive.

It is my hope that this piece triggers further debate on the subject. As I stated earlier perhaps Carlin’s remarks were just a series of throw-away lines that I’ve blown out of all proportion. I’d encourage anyone reading this piece to give Hard Core History a listen as its wonderful work. It’s so emotive that maybe, just maybe, those listeners who have never lived through war will know the horror of it and like our forebears will promise their children ‘never again’.   

 (1)   http://www.dancarlin.com/