The Pobjie Principle and the dire results

I was reminded today when reading Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s piece in the Guardian, Power, Purpose and Labor’s Future, of a number of things. One was that I liked her and thought she’d done a pretty good job while in office, but really, what the hell do I know?  I do know that Professor Stiglitz, former World Bank chief economist said “federal Labor did a fantastic job of saving Australia from the global economic crisis” in the Herald in 2010. Also Paola Totaro pointed out the we are entering our 21st year of fiscal growth which no other nation on earth can boast post Financial Crisis of 2008. Labor obviously did something right across that tumultuous period.

Another was that Gillard was staunchly Labor and even in ‘defeat’ was supporting them if not its recent leader (and who can blame her?) While I actually thought Rudd a pretty fair leader, I am not privy to the man’s personality (other than he does some really nerdy shit that is just not funny – trying to push the cameraman into the harbour- really? It just reeks of Bruno Kirby’s line in Good Morning Vietnam after being annihilated in the popularity stakes by the hilarious Robin Williams: “I just know in my heart that I’m funny.”) 

Word to the Wise: Pollies, don’t try to be funny. You’re just  not. It just makes people cringe. Because you’re clever enough to choose an amazing speech writer who is funny, doesn’t ever, EVER make you funny.

I remembered  Ben Pobjie’s clever article in the Guardian in June about how Australians are prone to vote for ‘nice’ candidates or for people we think are a ‘good bloke’ or a ‘courageous woman’. I am not, I say again, not politically aware and fall headlong and ignorantly into the abyss of they- seemed- nice- mediocrity of the dumb-arse voter who has no clue about policies or what they’ll actually mean with regards to Australia’s future. An important point surely? Are we really just seat-of-my-pants-cowboys/girls? No worries, she’ll be right mate…

I was also reminded that Labor was for many years, regarded by Catholics as the party of choice. It has a long tradition coming from the demise of slave workers and the rise of a  free born Irish Catholic and immigrant working class who started the fight for fair wages and working conditions. From the morass of the Great Strikes of the 1890’s came the emergence of organised unions.

Did you know that the first Labor government in the world came about through Anderson Dawson in 1899 and the national version through Chris Watson in 1904? I was impressed. These early governments were essentially socialist in nature and established social security measures through old-age and disability pensions, a maternity allowance and workers compensation. These pro-worker governments attracted relationships with the unions over many years with a shared vision of a welfare state that aided its weakest citizens. At least at first.

Depending on which side of the fence you are, or which side of the tracks you were born on often determines who you will vote for. Following the Depression, many unionists became militant and despite having achieved much good during desperate times with the unemployed, this new manifestation only tarnished their image, particularly as western powers began to fear and demonise communism, a worldview some in the Labor party had adopted. The 1960’s saw the unions hey day with militant radicals locked in long and nasty battles with government and employers. And hence the demarcation between employee and employer became pretty much the division between Labor v Liberal (simplistic, I realise).

But in recent years, as in much of the west, the difference between the parties is marginal at best. The policies seem homogenous and geared only to win votes in a bid to stay in power. Gillard herself said in the article that she believed the main reason she was ousted was not in response to a mad policy but in order to promote someone at the head who might have a better chance at the polls; here we are back to the, what I will call, the Pobjie Principle; we vote because they’re ‘nice’ or handsome or perceived to be clever and end up with a tosser at the helm. God help us possibly because some old dears thought he looked good in budgie smugglers and the pub stool leaners thought he seemed a nice bloke even if his ears are a tad big.

In his article, E W Campbell reminds us of Lenin’s words, “Isolated from socialism, the labor movement becomes petty and inevitably becomes bourgeois: in conducting only the economic struggle, the working class loses its political independence; it becomes the tail of other parties and runs counter to the great slogan:

The emancipation of the workers must be the task of the workers themselves”

I refer to this because I think we have indeed become bourgeois and voting for the staple reasons of : “What’s in it for me? What tax cuts can I expect? What windfalls to my pocket can I expect in exchange for my vote?” Gone is the fair go and all welcome if you want to work, we have plenty to share…

The gestalt entity of the AustralianHomogenousMajorParties leaves the voter with little choice. In June during the debate over administrative funding with regard to preference votes, independent MP Rob Oakeshott accused “the major parties as indulging in ‘cartel behaviour’". Sally Young in the Age says this theory is based on a political science study that has been researching the behaviour of major political parties since the 1990s. Research by Katz and Mair discussed "The Emergence of the Cartel Party".

“They argued that although major parties usually appeared to be staunch opponents, they actually colluded on many matters of common interest. Katz and Mair noticed especially how parties in different countries colluded to use the resources of the state to ensure their collective survival.”

As Catholics this should all be a source of great shame. We should be holding the Labor Party to account if we are to vote for them. We are meant to uphold the principles of justice for all and equality for all.  We should be agreeing with tax hikes if it is to aid the poor, the education system, the disabled and their carers, the marginalised- not making sure that “I’m ok thanks, Jack”.  

Whether you’re a Christian or not, most agree that the historical figure of Jesus in his human incarnation, was nothing if not a radical. A rebel of the first order who died for his beliefs; the welcoming of the disenfranchised, the caring of the infirm, the healing of the sick and haranguing the powers of the land in their hypocritical behaviour.  We seem to have jumped on board with the Tea Party advocates of the US in demonising public spending particularly if it be seen to be being spent on the bottomless pit that is the undeserving denizens who wallow in the largesse of the Welfare State that steals from the hardworking rest.

Well Matt Cowgill for one, defends Australian welfare saying we are not big spenders when it comes to payments to the less advantaged; spending 8% compared to 12% by other advanced economies. Interestingly he goes on,

“The US is no one’s idea of a generous welfare state, but we’d need to spend around $60bn extra on welfare each year to match its spending as a proportion of GDP.”

As our payments are means tested, the money is going to low income households only. The paradigm where the rich benefit is through tax breaks and superannuation concessions.

“We’re one of the lowest taxing countries in the developed world. There’s no need to gut our social protection system to balance the books.”

As Prime Minister Gillard says, the Labor Party has some serious matters to consider concerning its future and what it stands for. I’m all for blasting the hell out of tradition as in Dalton’s  version of the Four Pillars in Dead Poet’s Society, changing: Tradition, Honour, Excellence and Discipline to Travesty, Horror, Decadence and Excrement. Because really that’s what the Labor Party has now come to represent with such as its Asylum Seeker’s Policy.