Politics, Poetry and Reviews

Category: politics (Page 34 of 42)

Politics in the People’s Republic of Moreland – the outcome!

The People’s Republic of Moreland has elected its first ever Socialist!

I’m rather proud that she was in my crazy, crazy Ward (actually, I helped vote her in, on the grounds that she is the first sane socialist I’ve seen in ages and this should be encouraged.  I didn’t expect it to work).  I suspect she benefited mightily from the donkey vote, as I’ve never seen a member of the Socialist Alliance poll 10% before (or more than about 4%, if that).

We also got a Green, a Liberal (an animal rarely seen in Moreland) and an ALP member (usually we get three… their strategy of putting 9 different ALP members on the ticket and then all snarling at each other in public forums didn’t work so well for them).

Of course, if Informal had been allowed onto the Council, he or she would probably have one, as the informal vote was 16%, more than any individual candidate managed to poll on first preferences.  I think people lost count or lost interest.

On the bright side, we didn’t get the really crazy woman with the evil emails and name-stealing or any of that.  On the less bright side, we didn’t get Mo, the standup comedian, who would surely have been the perfect addition to this council…

According to the electoral commission, we were a particularly complicated electorate to count.  Who would have thought?

I do wonder what brought this on, though.  Local politics is usually much more sedate and boring than this.

Politics in the People’s Republic of Moreland – Election Shenanigans!

This post will probably be of limited interest to anyone who doesn’t live within a few blocks of me (though it is, regrettably, rather entertaining in a train-wreck sort of way), but here goes anyway. I wasn’t taking these council elections very seriously until we got a charming flyer from one candidate (Jennifer Jacomb) informing us that only 6 of the 24 candidates in North East Ward consented to police checks and providing not just a BLACK LIST but a REALLY REALLY BLACK LIST, asking IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR, WHY WOULD YOU CALL POLICE CHECKS GRUBBY?

Other highlights of this flyer were the fact that of the people who did agree to police checks, they only endorsed the ones with non-Muslim names.  Hmm.  Oh, and also, it seems that the Greens candidates would not confirm if they and their fellow Greens would implement an anti-Israel Policy… or whether they would betray their party

Isn’t it nice to have the concerned citizenry helping us make these decisions?  Apparently, this candidate emailed all the other candidates demanding that they provide *her* with their full financial and banking details, as well as police checks and proof of literacy and English skills.  Within 24 hours.  This is, I understand, not technically illegal, but it is pretty obnoxious.

And then we have the candidate (sadly un-named) who popped into the printer just after another candidate had left, claiming to be with the first candidate and asking him to add a little something to that candidate’s flyer.  The little something was a promise of more mosques in Moreland, because heaven forbid we have insufficient racism in our election.  The candidate in question wants nothing of the sort, as it happens, but has been fairly classy in response.

Anyway, with all these shenanigans, I am suddenly much more motivated to vote in an intelligent fashion, rather than being somewhat random for once.  It’s not so much who I want to get in as who I want to keep out.  And with 24 candidates and 55 how to vote cards registered (!!! there are only four seats, for crying out loud!), it’s going to get very confusing tomorrow.

So, below the cut, you may find my brief notes on each of the candidates, as gleaned from my internet researches and studies of their pamphlets.  I’ve ordered them as they will appear on the ballot, for your convenience.

Continue reading

Politics: Julia Gillard, Feminism and That Speech

So Tony Abbott has suddenly decided that he is a feminist!  Really!  And he is shocked – shocked! – that the Labor Government can countenance as Speaker a man who sent sexist and unpleasant text messages.

Now, if this was the first time I’d ever heard Tony Abbott open his mouth, I would be mildly pleased to hear this.  And it is certainly both interesting and pleasing to note that the head of our more right-wing major party feels the need to portray himself as a feminist if he’s going to get the votes out.

The trouble is, of course, that our dear Opposition Leader’s own statements have not been without their sexist moments.  Or hours.  Which are all duly recorded in Hansard, incidentally.  And this does make his statements about Peter Slipper – who was, until recently, a member of his own party – just a tad hypocritical.

But that wasn’t enough.  Oh, no.  A mere week after the whole blow-up about Alan Jones claiming that Gillard’s father died of shame because of his daughter’s lies (yep, we have radio personalities with no sense of decency in Australia, too), Abbott commented that the entire Labor Government should already have died of shame because of Slipper’s actions.

Oh, no you don’t… Continue reading

Politics: Research Funding in the cross-hairs again…

So apparently the government is worried about not getting into surplus in time for next year, and one of their bright ideas is delaying funding of successful NHMRC and ARC grants by six months or a year.

This may sound good in theory, but the thing is, people live grant to grant for their salaries – if you delay funding for a year or even six months, when you do finally get around to funding people a lot of them won’t be around to fund, because they will have gone and found jobs which they might actually get paid for.  And no, Universities and Research Institutes do not have huge sums of money lying around just waiting to be used on salaries – most of the money they get is already being used for infrastructure (not much science gets done without electricity – or without mouse technicians – or even without admin people like me, though in all honesty, I suspect I’m only really useful because the paperwork from everything else is insane), or has restrictions on how it can be spent.

So yeah.  This would be very bad for medical research, much as we all explained last year when the government suggested cutting NHMRC funding entirely.  You can’t do good research on stop-start funding – you need continuity of people and of projects, and three years (the usual length of a grant) is not, in general, going to get a project from concept to in vitro studies to mouse studies to clinical trials.  Usually, you are looking at decades for that progression.  And you need at least some of the same people around for most of that time.

Anyway, please consider signing the petition below.  And maybe writing to an MP or two.  It’s bad enough having everyone needing to re-apply for funding every couple of years, having to campaign against silly policy on an annual basis is really not helpful.  And, oddly enough, my colleagues would much rather be doing science.

http://adambandt-melbourne.nationbuilder.com/science_petition

Politics: Open Letter to Julia Gillard on the subject of the ACL, Marriage Equality, and Christianity

Dear Ms Gillard,

I want you to know that the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) does not represent all Christians. It certainly does not represent me.

I’m a Christian, of the vaguely-Anglican variety. I don’t claim to be a very good one, but that’s another matter.

I’m also a feminist, a trade-unionist, a supporter of marriage equality and of the rights of asylum seekers, and a mild sort of environmentalist. I’m an unashamed lefty, and believe in equal access to education, food and healthcare as the foundations of society. I don’t believe that any of these opinions conflict with my faith – indeed, my political beliefs are informed by my spiritual ones.

I don’t know if my beliefs are more typical of Australian Christians than those represented by the ACL, but I suspect many of them are. Still, the Christians I know tend to incline toward the liberal side of the spectrum, so my sample may be skewed. In any case, I would not and do not presume to speak for all Christians. I can only ask you to understand that Christianity in Australia is not a monolith and cannot be represented by a single peak body.

I can only tell you what I believe.

Continue reading

Parliamentary Democracy: An (opinionated) post for non-Australians

It occurs to me that the more politically-minded among my USA-based friends might have actually gone looking for newspaper articles on Australian politics to try to work out what I was talking about yesterday, and the odds are that you wouldn’t have got very far (the Brits might do better, since we inherited most of our political system from you in the first place).

So, for the curious among you, a  short explanation not so much on what is going on just now but on how and why it can go on in the first place.

Politics: Turnbull for Labor PM? An opinionated political post

Where do I even start?  I’ve been contemplating a post over the last few days about how terrifying and depressing I find US politics… but now Australian politics has descended into farce, which would be a lot funnier if the punchline didn’t look an awful lot like getting the mad monk for PM.  And while he isn’t quite as insane as the GOP seems to be on the subject of women generally, he certainly leans in that direction.

Continue reading

Politics: Why we need feminism

Do you know what really bugs me about politics at the moment?  I mean, apart from the hideous leap to the Right on every possible occasion, and the general existence of Tony Abbott?

It’s Julia Gillard.  I really wanted to like her.  More than that, I really wanted her to succeed, even if I didn’t like her.  Deeply frustrated as I am by Labor’s determination to reach out to the right and abandon those of us on the left, if they had at least managed to do so *competently* I’d be happier than I am now.  (And I acknowledge that the Gillard government has had a particularly difficult, and possibly impossible, task, given the configuration of the Lower House.)

If Rudd or Swan or any of the other men in the Labor Party had been Prime Minister and failed at the task of getting their agenda across, nobody would even pause to consider whether this might be evidence that men should not lead political parties.  But I can pretty much guarantee you that unless Gillard makes a spectacular recovery, she’s going to become ‘proof’ that women can’t lead a country properly.

If a man fails, then it reflects on him.  If a woman fails, it reflects on all women.*

This, incidentally, is why we need feminism.

* Of course, the same rule applies to people of colour, Aboriginals, gay people, Muslims, Jews, and, I’m sure, dozens and dozens and dozens of other groups I haven’t mentioned or thought of.  Which is why we need the various -isms attached to viewing people in these groups as people first and people-who-are-members-of-a-particular-g

roup second.  But since Ms Gillard is female, I’m sticking to feminism for the purposes of this post.

Politics: A visit to my local Member

So the High Court of Australia has told the government that they can’t send asylum seekers to Malaysia, because Malaysia’s human rights record isn’t good and it would contravene Australia’s obligations under the UN Convention on Refugees.

And apparently some voices in the government, rather than saying, oops, OK then, we’d better not do that, have instead decided that the problem is our approach to human rights (which is certainly problematic, though not in the way they seem to think) and our obligations under the said UN convention.  Tony Abbott is kindly suggesting that we return to the Liberal Party’s Pacific Solution, and Labor is not ruling this out.

Of course, this would require that we cease to be signatories to the UN Convention, but that’s alright, because it’s outdated anyway (drat, I had a truly blood-pressure-raising article for this, but now I can’t find it).  And stopping people smugglers is far more important than protecting people’s human rights.

This makes me livid.

Getup is encouraging people to ring their politicians, which is a step I’ve never taken before – and with the acoustics in my workplace, I’m reluctant to do so.  But my local member has his office on my street, so I dropped in this morning before work to say hello and let him know some of my thoughts on the matter.  The poor man probably knows my thoughts on this and several other matters quite well by now, since I am an inveterate emailer and writer of letters.  Still, I’m told that phone calls and visits are more powerful than letters and emails, and I find this whole situation distressing beyond belief (I also find Labor’s current tendency to let the Liberal party set its agenda baffling and deeply unwise, quite aside from the ethics of this situation).

Visits are much more scary than letters.  I’m quite good at communicating via the written word, after all.  I can make sure I’ve made all my points, and I can put them neatly in order with the right words around them and send them off in a tidy, coherent letter.  Walking into someone’s office and saying “Hello, my name is Catherine and I live in this electorate and I’d like to speak to the MP about asylum seekers” is a different thing entirely.

The MP was, of course, unavailable.  I think he might be in Canberra, actually.  But that was OK – I figured I’d be talking to one of his staff members.  It’s still very, very disconcerting to stand there explaining my political opinions to a complete stranger, as he earnestly takes notes and assures me that the MP will certainly call me back.  I explained briefly that my father’s family were immigrants and economic refugees, that my maternal grandmother’s family had been refugees to Britain from Nazi Austria, and that I felt very strongly that we should be treating our immigrants and asylum seekers better.  I said that the Liberal Party’s treatment of asylum seekers under Howard was one of the reasons that Labor had won the 2007 election (it even broke my grandmother’s 30+ year streak of voting Liberal), and that the Labor Party needs to demonstrate that they are different from the Liberal Party.  I said that Australia is a country of immigrants, that most Australians do in fact feel we should process asylum seekers in Australia and allow genuine refugees to stay.  I did not say that even if most Australians didn’t feel that way it was the right thing to do and the government should show some moral leadership, but I thought it very loudly.

I said all this very politely and hesitantly because while I do believe every word about it, it’s very difficult to be vehement and sure of oneself while standing behind a tall counter in a very quiet, neat, official-looking office and speaking to an intimidatingly well-groomed stranger in an expensive suit, and I felt like a right twit, to be honest.  Though I was informed that the MP does appreciate hearing from people in person and on the phone.

Altogether, it was excruciating.  Letters are much easier… but that’s probably why they carry less weight.  Actually, public speaking is easier, too, at least for me.  You don’t *have* to look anyone in the eye for that.  I’m sort of hoping the MP does not get around to returning my call.  One act outside my comfort zone is enough for today.  But if he does, I’ll say it all again, and hopefully I’ll say it better.

I have no idea whether I will ever do this again.  I have no idea whether it will be less scary next time.  I still prefer letters.  But I really can’t bear for us to go back to the Howard era – and under Labor no less.

If you’re Australian and feel strongly about this, please consider ringing or visiting your local MP.  I promise you, you can’t possibly feel like more of an idiot than I did today.  I’d say you’d have a 99% chance of being more coherent than me, too.  And if you do turn into a shy, stammering idiot like me, at least you get to be a shy, stammering idiot who is trying to fix things…

Politics: An (opinionated) letter in support of marriage equality

Dear –

I’m writing to ask you to stand in support of marriage equality.

I’m writing because I am married.  Because I’m a woman and married to a man, this is an easy statement to make – one which carries no particular political message or weight, except, perhaps, a message of normality.

I have gay friends who are not married and don’t want to be married.

I have gay friends who are married, because they love each other and want to be together for life, and because they live or lived in countries where they were allowed to express this.

I have gay friends who have had commitment ceremonies, because they love each other and want to be together for life, but Australian law sadly refuses to allow them to say to their families and friends “this is my husband” or “this is my wife”.

The anti-gay-marriage lobby is correct to say that these words are special, and mean more than words like ‘partner’ or ‘girlfriend’ or ‘flatmate’.  They carry a message, not just about the relationship between two people, and the shape of a family, but about the society in which that family lives.  They carry a message about what is acceptable and what is less acceptable – about what is legal and what is illicit.  And by making these words the exclusive property of people in formal, heterosexual relationships, it gives acceptability and credibility to the attitude that gay relationships are less formal, less acceptable, less normal.

Like it or not, making gay relationships intrinsically and legally different to heterosexual ones sends a message that it’s OK not to treat gay people the same as straight people, because that is exactly what the government is doing.  Not only is this the sort of thinking that leads to bullying and discrimination, it also allows well-meaning people to stay secure in their prejudices.  Gays must be different – the law says so.  That’s why they can’t marry.  It also makes it easy for less well-meaning people to compare consensual gay relationships to pedophilia or bestiality, because they are all seen as illegal or illicit.

As long as we refuse to allow our gay brothers and sisters to marry the people they love, we encourage these attitudes.

The government’s role is to lead society forward, not be dragged backward by its most prejudiced elements.  It has been shown over and over that gay people can have the same sorts of relationships as straight people, that gay parents can raise happy and well-adjusted children, that, in short, the gender of the people we love has absolutely no relationship to our other qualities.  There is no great social good to be had from limiting marriage to heterosexual unions, but there are plenty of evils in allowing this to continue.

I ask you to support the 60% of Australians who believe that gay marriage should be legal.

My marriage does not need the kind of protection that comes from denying marriage to others.

Yours sincerely,

Catherine

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2025 Cate Speaks

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑