The Null Device

Australian politics; skip if not interested: Labor is narrowing the gap, as Howard's aura of statesmanship starts to wear a bit thin.

IMHO, both of the parties look rather uninspiring at the moment. On one hand, most of Howard's popular appeal comes from the nice shiny deputy's badge George W. Bush gave him; in addition to that, his administration is reactionary, paternalistic and vaguely reminiscent of the Joh for PM campaign of the late 80s. OTOH, Beazley is hardly a font of charisma, especially as his campaign has been based more on how conservative Labor will be.

I'd rather have Labor win, as they're less likely to be as reactionary and authoritarian as Howard's Liberals, though for the most part they'd be similar. More importantly, it'd be best if whoever wins does so by a slender margin, and the senate is in the hands of someone reasonably trustworthy (typically the greens, or various independents; the Democrats are a bit too slick, and the various loony Nu Marxists that are coming out of the woodwork are a bit too ideological).

Paradoxically enough, I'm thinking of putting the Liberals ahead of Labor in the Lower House. I live in one of the safest Labor seats in Melbourne, one routinely held by senior party apparatchiks, and it's extremely unlikely that Labor will lose it. Though the closer the margin is, the more of a message it would send that this seat is not to be taken for granted. Though what would be more impressive would be if the Greens (or even Democrats) made a scarily powerful showing in the traditional Labor heartland. (As they have in other domains; not far from here, a Green councillor won a seat on a traditionally all-Labor council.)

In the Senate, my first vote is going, as it has traditionally, to Murgatroyd.

There are 2 comments on "":

Posted by: Ben http://leviathan.weblogs.com Mon Oct 22 16:46:58 2001

Haven't I given you one of my rants about the evils of Dumb-Ox-Racy, and why you shouldn't be supporting it?

BTW The movie was pretty good. It was one cliche after another, but the trailer for the lord of the rings was worth it, and both De Niro and Brando were excellent, as always. Why does Edward Norton usually end up playing a retard? Or (as in this case) playing someone who's playing a retard?

Posted by: Graham http://grudnuk.com Tue Oct 23 10:10:22 2001

If Ox-Racy is so dumb, how come you go to a lot of public meetings for a lobby group, eh Ben? Umm. Anyway.

Charisma is not necessarily a good thing in a politician. The Dems have stacks of it at the mo with Ah Satan t the helm, but they're gone a bit pear-shaped policy wise since.