Two years in and what are the major accomplishments of the Kevin Rudd government?
According to Leon Bertrand‘s article “Rudd’s second year” – nothing. I’d be a little bit more complimentary and add the following:
1. His government has taken steps to curb Telstra’s power. That’s goodness… IF they follow through. And that’s a big IF.
2. They signed Kyoto – sure, since then they’ve done their best to make sure the earth burns to a crisp, but they at least signed it.
3. They said SORRY – sure, since then, they’ve done nothing to improve the living conditions of our indigenous population, but they at least said sorry.
Of course, I disagree with Leon that dumping Fuelwatch, Grocerywatch and delaying the ETS have been positive things the government has done – as far as I’m concerned, that just demonstrates their inability to deliver on anything they say they are going to do – but I do agree with him that:
Nevertheless, the Rudd government is unlikely to take bold reforms in the next year. In modern politics, the last year of a term in office involves focusing on winning the election and not upsetting sections of the electorate.
So, please remember this lesson come the next Federal election, my friends – voting for a major party is a WASTE OF TIME. Whether you live in Australia, the USA or the UK, voting for one of the major parties just delivers MORE OF THE SAME.
We need to start strengthening the minor parties or, even better, START A NEW PARTY – one that actually gives a shit and doesn’t exist to pacify the elite.
Oh and as a general rule, DON’T VOTE FOR A MILLIONAIRE. Do you really think a millionaire is going to do anything to upset the applecart? He or she is just going to try to maintain the status quo.Why would they do anything but?
Cam,
While in principle I agree with you, I think you need to flesh it out a little further.
For example, if we adopt proportional representation in the lower house, we might get a broader range of interests and people represented, but it would be a clusterfuck for “getting things done”. Italy is the golden child of political compromise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Italian_Republic
When we do see the small parties in our system, we end up with deals like the Family First /Labor preference deal that got Steve Fielding into office with 2% of the overall vote. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Fielding#2004_Election
Perhaps your comment that “In modern politics, the last year of a term in office involves focusing on winning the election and not upsetting sections of the electorate” is actually a call to do away with elections altogether?
Cheers
Tom
Wasn’t Napoleon, to all intents and purposes, a millionaire when he came to power? I don’t buy that having a million (of a particular currency) necessarily precludes you from giving a shit and wanting to make a difference anymore than having nothing precludes you from being greedy.
Charlie. Napoleon was on a general’s salary before he became First Consul. That would have been okay, but he wouldn’t have been rich. Josephine had money before the Revolution, but she would have lost it all. That aside, I don’t think being wealthy necessarily means you are a bad person – but it does mean that your interests will naturally lie in a system that will help you MAINTAIN your wealth and against any system that moves society towards a system based on a more equal distribution of wealth and resources.
Tom, if the secular voters got as organised as the happy clapper christians, perhaps WE could get our own Steve Fielding elected – someone with the balance of power who could effect positive change.
But ideally I’d rather see us create a new party – or a range of parties – that truly represented the people and not corporate / elite interests.
I’d rather just get rid of parties all together. They just stuff democracy up !!!! Let’s have true government by the people for the people which means ALL representatives represent their electorates and not a party !!