They essentially represent possibly conservative electorates.
They have to, as far as I am concerned, make a decision for Australia, not just their own electorates. They will be under great pressure from all factions, and if what is reported is correct have been under immense pressure from the conservatives to go for the conservatives. Particularly since the other independent, Wilkie has gone Labor and the Greens have supported Labor as well.
They have at their disposal much more information to make an informed decision than any independent has ever had before. This type of transparency should be available to all voters before the election happens, but then again "pigs may fly".
I will point out who I think they should support and why.
Philosophically I lean more to Labor. I am not a conservative. So I do have a bias.
I think the Independents should go for Labor.
Labor has a good record recently in saving Australia from the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). There is much contention that they spent too much. The conservatives say they would have spent about half of what Labor spent in Stimulus Packages. I am not an Economist so I do not know who is right. I have heard many financial people here and overseas applaud Labor for their stimulus package. But of course some have criticised it as well. In fact I have heard more praise than criticism.
Labor have a National Broadband Network already started. This network will have integration nationwide. I feel this very fast fibre optic network will thrust the whole of Australia into the 21st century.
The Conservatives plan seems to rely too much on the private sector and is possibly too fragmented. The private sector will not service the sparse rural areas. I do not trust the conservatives to deliver on this.
Their track record with infrastructure and nation building is woeful. John Howard had eleven years of inactivity, presiding over massive surpluses, and only giving tax cuts back. He wasted this massive surplus just so he could say, "look how good a financial manager I am." He should have not given the tax cuts. He should have started some much needed infrastructure building instead and he would still have had a surplus.
I am afraid that Tony Abbott is going to be just as inactive as his hero was. We cannot have another eleven years of conservative inertia.
This now leads me to Tony Abbott and what has happened since the elections.
Of course first off is the up to eleven billion dollars of black hole in his costings for his policies. No wonder he would not give them to Treasury for costing. He only did this because if he did not the independents would not have supported him. How does this sit with his own tag of being a much better economic manager of the country.
Then there was the one billion dollar (what Tony thought) clincher of promising Wilkie a brand new Teaching Hospital in Hobart. How did he cost this? How reckless was this? Luckily Wilkie saw through this and rejected it.
I think Labor will form a more stable government, particularly after July next year when the Greens will have the balance of power in the senate.
They will also get a carbon price and set up a carbon tax or emission's trading scheme that will get through the senate.
How the independents will go I do not know. They have taken their time and talked to and looked at a lot of documentation so hopefully will make the best decision for this country.
It's exceptionally difficult to weigh things up.
ReplyDeleteFor example, we can point at Howard's failure to invest the surplus but if he had done so, Rudd would have had no surplus to use for the stimulus.
I find myself smack in the political centre most of the time. I believe in reward for effort but I believe such reward has moral/ethical limits and it's difficult to see how one person (a corporate CEO, for example) can be worth thousands of times as much as any other working individual. I know others have seemingly valid reasons why these people are worth that much.
I consider Abbott's $1B post-election Wilkie promise in light of Gillard's $2.8B pre-election promise to McKew's electorate and see similarities in the antics of both major parties.
Then I look at Labor's very enticing NBN but see Conroy's mandatory filter inextricably glued to it.
I don't like either side and it sucks. I have my fingers crossed that our new-found instability might fix a few things, if only for a short time.
Sorry, I should add that Gillard was of course not attempting to buy McKew's support (but it was the general idea was the same)
ReplyDeleteHoward could have started some much needed infrastructure. If he had not given those tax cuts we would have had an even bigger surplus. We could have had infrastructure + surplus.
ReplyDeleteSure we used the surplus for the stimulus, but, we would have had to possibly borrow a bit more, but not invest so much now on much needed infrastructure.
I detest conservative inactivity.