Thematic Musings

Tony Abbott once joked that he was the political love child of John Howard and Bronwyn Bishop. While Bishop, turning 70 this year, is still watching over Abbott in the House of Representatives, it is clear from yesterday’s budget reply that the opposition leader misses his Daddy. The most startling feature of Abbott’s speech is the incredible emphasis on the previous Howard government and the economic success of Peter Costello. It is, of course, reasonable to contrast one government with another but in-between Abbott’s reverential praise of the Howard years and the deafening silence on his own policies and costings, one could be forgiven for thinking Howard and Costello were still running the show at Coalition central.

Paul Keating famously ridiculed John Howard in 1992 looking back at the Menzies years as a golden age. Abbott has taken a leaf out of father’s book and yesterday declared that ‘the Howard era … now seems like a lost golden age of prosperity’.  We were reminded of the Howard government’s ‘consistent surpluses’, that ‘the Howard government achieved growth of 26’ and simply that ‘John Howard’s policies worked’. The funniest moment in the reply was when Abbott compared Wayne Swan’s modest $1.5b estimated surplus to that of his predecessor, Peter Costello. Abbott pondered, ‘is it any wonder that he seems to be suffering from surplus envy’. Almost as an afterthought, Abbott placed himself and his team in Howard and Costello’s reflected glory, reminding us that ‘sixteen members of my frontbench were ministers in the government that delivered the four biggest surpluses in Australian history’.

Abbott’s budget reply was certainly a glowing apologia for the former Howard government but you have to wonder if he still sees himself as Howard’s loyal attack dog rather than an alternative prime minister. Could you imagine Kevin Rudd in 2007 trying to ride the coattails of Hawke-Keating or Howard in 1996 summoning the record of Malcolm Fraser? The Coalition’s reputation as good economic managers has been severely tarnished under Abbott’s watch, not least owing to the unprecedented failure to submit costings to treasury prior to the last election. Again, there were no costings provided for the Coalition’s promises or reference to the $70b black hole in the alternative budget. Abbott is clearly attempting to capitalise on Labor’s scandals and leadership uncertainty but crucially – he is attempting to sell the previous Coalition government, not the present opposition.

Predictably enough, Abbott went to town on Labor, condemning the carbon and mining taxes. He deferred to the standard play of America’s Republican Party by accusing the government of being raging commies ‘who calculatedly plays the class war card’. The carbon tax was, he insisted, ‘socialism masquerading as environmentalism’. This is pretty standard stuff from Abbott. He has become more disciplined since taking the reins off Malcolm Turnbull and knows how to stay on song.

The reply revealed a real timidity in Abbott. The budget has received generally favourable reviews from economists but it was not perfect. The single most consistent criticism of Swan and Labor was their stubborn insistence to return the budget to surplus so quickly. If the estimates turn out to be correct, this will represent the fastest budget turnaround since World War II. A surplus, of course, is generally considered a good thing, however, finding over $30b in spending cuts in a single year can be a recipe for slowing growth and shrinking the overall economy. Abbott could have been courageous and called for a deficit. He would have had no shortage of economic experts to back him. That would have required a deviation from the simplified message he still clings to, surplus good, deficit bad, Labor waste, Liberals save. Already comfortably ahead in the polls, Abbott was not willing to rock the boat.

Astonishingly, Abbott’s entire reply included one singular new policy. When he was finally though decrying the carbon and mining taxes and the general failures of the ALP and espousing his lengthy hagiography of the Howard years, Abbott revealed a plan to increase foreign languages in schools.  Abbott lamented that language study was in ‘precipitous decline’. He was particularly concerned that only 300 non-Chinese students were studying Mandarin. There certainly would have been one non-Chinese Mandarin speaker in the House who would support this measure – although he would support even more heartily a chance to take Abbott on as Labor leader.

As things stand, Abbott is on track for a landslide victory next year. Being so far ahead in the polls, there is little impetus for him to bother with more alternative policies or an explanation of costings. Former Liberal leader, John Hewson famously claimed Abbott was ‘innumerate’ with no ‘interest’ or ‘feeling’ for economics. Peter Costello when asked if he endorses Abbott immediately replied, ‘not on economic matters’. With Joe Hockey proving himself eminently likeable but equally uncertain on economic matters, the Coalition are desperate to keep their reputation as the better fiscal managers. The strategy from the budget reply is clear. Abbott will go to the next election selling Howard and Costello, just minus Howard or Costello.

When news broke that independent speaker, Peter Slipper, was being investigated by federal police for travel fraud and facing an allegation of sexual harassment, it appeared to be yet another scandal for Julia Gillard’s shaky minority government. In the Machiavellian world of politics, things are rarely as they seem. Independent Australia was the first to suggest something was amiss in the curious case of the speaker and the staffer. Now, in the words of Lewis Carroll, the case has become curiouser and curiouser!

It is little wonder that Joe Hockey came out today pleading for an end to ‘all of this speculation’ about Slipper. What appeared to be an ace in the hole for the coalition has come back to bite them. Problems first arose for the coalition last week when Chris Pyne claimed he could not remember meeting with James Ashby. It has since been revealed that Ashby, a former Liberal party member and Slipper staffer who now claims the former speaker sexually harassed him, not only met with the senior coalition figure for two hours but Pyne had sent an email and text message seeking Ashby’s details. Pyne has accepted the evidence but maintains he doesn’t remember asking for the contact details.

It is understandable that Pyne, like Hockey wants to forget the whole affair. Even more damaging for the coalition is the revelation that former Howard minister, Mal Brough, who is planning to challenge for Mr Slipper’s seat of Fisher, met with Ashby on numerous occasions and urged him to take action against the speaker. It was revealed today that Ashby had contacted deputy opposition leader Julie Bishop’s office and that opposition whip Warren Entsch had tried to ring Mr Abbott the night before Mr Ashby’s allegations were published.

It can hardly be disputed that the opposition was feigning surprise when the story first broke. It is clear that several senior figures were well aware of the pending story and it is difficult to believe Ashby has not been coached by the Liberal Party to gain maximum impact. New foreign minister, Bob Carr, drew a fiery response from Hockey for commenting, ‘this Ashby seems more rehearsed than a Kabuki actor’.

With the numbers in the house of representatives so precarious, the opposition had a lot to gain from Slipper’s removal which forced Labor to provide another speaker and lose a crucial vote. The man with the most to gain is Brough who is trying to remove Slipper from a seat he has held for all but three years since 1984. Alarmingly, the press at large has been reluctant to join the dots in the Slipper case. Annabel Crabb, who has returned to Fairfax, even wrote an article mocking supposed conspiracy theorists. She concedes that it is ‘intensely convenient’ but ridicules the idea of ‘a sophisticated plot for the Liberal Party’.

It may well be asked, how sophisticated does a plot need to be? When Slipper left the Liberals and took the speaker’s chair he cost the coalition one vote and gave Labor one vote courtesy of Harry Jenkins returning to Labor’s backbench. It is natural enough that the coalition would welcome any tarnishing of Slipper’s name but the accusations made by Ashby are hopelessly unconvincing. Even coalition senator Barnaby Joyce has dismissed the sexual harassment claim noting that Ashby was ‘not a boy in his teens but a man in his 30s’. The allegations made to the police were made public and they simply raise more questions than they answer. The coalition are clearly not interested in protecting a vulnerable staffer but attacking a vulnerable government.

Should the claims against Slipper prove to be false, the whole slippery affair may come back to bite the coalition. If this happens it will be history repeating itself in very short cycles. Just three years ago, Malcolm Turnbull as opposition leader desperately tried to bring down Kevin Rudd’s government with the utegate scandal. With the allegations proving false and a key email proved to be forged, the Liberals were left with egg on their face. They had tried to exploit Godwin Grech, a passionate supporter of the Liberal party, to bring down the government but when your main weapon is so openly partisan, suspicions will be aroused. Ashby, like Grech, is a Liberal supporter and a former member with ties to senior figures. He is also a man with a criminal past and, in Joyce’s words, ‘he seems only slightly less dodgy than Slipper’.

The opposition have never really recovered from their landslide 2007 defeat. They have been highly effective at criticising the government but have failed to construct and sell effective alternative policies. The situation became even more acute following the hung parliament of 2010. Abbott, like Turnbull before him, is banking on a great scandal to bring down the government. He is desperately hoping he will not have to wait till the next election and that a vote of no confidence, an independent crossing the floor, a legal allegation or an unexpected by-election with gift him the prime ministership. As with Grech, it is doubtful the Ashby claims will topple the government.

In Australia to promote his new movie, The Dictator, comedian Sacha Baron Cohen, demanded to know where Slippery Pete was so he could add him to the staff of his fictional ministry. It was an appropriate lampoon as the whole affair, frankly, is a joke. The government, in all likelihood, will survive a full term and it is up to Abbott to prepare strong alternative policies with full costings. For the immediate future at least, it would pay for the coalition to focus less on stunts and ambitious young staffers and more on the weighty task of forming the next government.

A universal truth known and understood by fans around the world is that football is far more than a game. Football is a religion, it is a way of life, a code of ethics, a set of values and a great level playing field in a world of elites and commoners. The recent announcement that West Sydney will be represented in the 2012-2013 Hyundai A-League season was a wonderful occasion. Even better was the announcement that this would be a community-focused team and that everything from the colours and logo to the culture and location would be subject to consultation. I am a Westie through and through. Raised in Blacktown, schooled at Toongabbie and Castle Hill, a graduate from the University of Western Sydney and now a resident of Penrith, I will support the new team no matter what. For what it’s worth though, I would like to make a case for the new team wearing the famous claret and blue of London’s West Ham United FC and being known as the Hammers or Irons.

I became a West Ham supporter in 2004 following my first trip to the UK. I stayed in Barking in London’s East End for two months and was struck by the passion the locals had for their team, the sophisticated way in which they discussed tactics and the extensive knowledge they had of their team’s history. The thing that struck me most, however, was that these people were so similar to people from Western Sydney. I was thrilled to see a game live at Upton Park and talk with the fans. I spoke with taxi drivers, mechanics, builders, labourers, shop owners and all manner of working class people, joined by a common passion and dream.

The links between West Ham and West Sydney are strong. They are both working class areas, distanced from the wealth and ostentation of the CBD and surrounding suburbs. In the opening scene of the classic crime drama, Blood In Blood Out, the main character is asked what the difference is between East LA and LA. He firmly replies, ‘It’s a whole different country’. Similarly, West Sydney is a whole different country to Sydney and this will be represented in the football clubs. Sydney FC, like Chelsea, is a large, inner-city glamour club with a wealthy Russian owner (and they both wear blue). West Sydney, like West Ham, must be a club to represent the battlers, the working class and the true believers. We may not have the money of ‘Bling FC’ or their supporters but we will stand proudly behind our team who will carry with them the hopes and dreams of their supporters.

I propose claret and blue for two main reasons. The first reason is simply because it looks good and it looks distinctive. The A-League, of course, already has its Reds and Sky Blues. Yellow has been particularly popular with the Mariners, Phoenix and now-defunct Gold Coast all using it. In an attempt to be distinctive, Perth have used the less-than-appealing purple while the also defunct North Queensland opted for a particularly revolting lime green. Claret and blue looks great but more importantly it will be entirely unique and instantly recognisable in Australia.

The second reason is that claret and blue has such a strong history, though West Ham, as being the colours of the working class. These are the battlers’ colours and the new West Sydney team should be proud to wear them. In the same way, our team and fans should adopt the nickname the Irons or Hammers. Our logo should include the crossed over hammers as it is a powerful image and statement. It represents the skill and power of the labourers and their significant contribution to society. This is a ready-made fit for West Sydney. Among the hardcore supporters of this team will be few merchant bankers, doctors and lawyers. This will be a team wedded to the working class, to ordinary Aussies dedicated week in and week out to seeing their team succeed against the elites.

When a football club represents not just a team of players but the aspirations of an entire class of people, the loyalty and support that club receives is incredible. Here in Australia, the Sydney Hammers and various other fan clubs around the country still watch every game on the other side of the world with baited breath. If the new West Sydney team taps into the well of emotions that the working class have as they seek dignity, respect and equality with their wealthier, Eastern and Northern suburbs neighbours, then the foundations for a team with fanatical and generational support will be laid. My name is Benjamin Thomas Jones and I am a son of Western Sydney. I propose to you a new team: West Sydney United Football Club supported by the Claret and Blue army. Come on you Irons!

One of the numerous ways in which Australia’s mass media has cheapened, simplified and distorted our political process is by conceptualising political parties as ‘brands’. It is sadly a rare occurrence to hear party members talk deeply about vision, values and political philosophy (even if they use those words in tired clichés). Instead politicians are encouraged to present themselves as ambassadors of a product and the public is coached into viewing the parties as different products in the marketplace. Reporters will not ask whether a policy is consistent with the party philosophy or if it signals a shift. Rather, they will ask if a certain policy has helped or damaged the party brand. If we are to accept this unfortunate new orthodoxy then we must concede the Labor brand is doing poorly.

Describing the Labor brand as being ‘on the nose’ has become so common it is amazing no one has thought to copyright the phrase. A quick google search reveals it is one of the most common catch cries doing the parliamentary rounds. Labor, of course, have gone out of their way to make this marvellous metaphor a success. Recently setting records in Queensland and New South Wales for crushing electoral defeats, the brand is clearly unpopular.

Federal Labor must shoulder the blame for the party’s distinct unpopularity. The removal of a new prime minister after a landslide victory following a decade in opposition is absolute political hubris. They had 11 years of Howard government to get to know Kevin. To knife him in his first term claiming they had no idea he was such a dictatorial tyrant is simply ridiculous – and the public have been fittingly unforgiving. The public made their voice heard in the clearest possible terms during the recent leadership challenge and they were ignored. With a well-earned perception of instability and untrustworthiness, the Labor brand is indeed damaged goods at the moment.

It is times like these I need to remind myself that Labor is not a brand or a product, it is a philosophy and a set of values. It is a revolutionary ideal that shone out of the late nineteenth century boldly promoting the value and dignity of the working class. It is times like this that I remember the fight for the 8 hour work day, the great union strikes, the Harvester Judgement and all the other noble battles fought by the labour movement to achieve equality, dignity and a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. I remember with pride that Australia had the first Labor government in the world and I smile imagining the indignant tories who cried out to the Speaker in 1904 ‘what are these common men doing in our seats?’ From Andrew Fisher’s pioneering legislative program to Curtin and Chifley’s heroic wartime protection and rebuilding of our country, from Whitlam hammering the final nail in White Australia to Hawke and Keating modernising the economy, Labor has a long, proud tradition of doing the right thing for average, working Australians.

Labor’s leaders, of course, have made mistakes. Even the greatest of them have shown poor judgement at times but Labor is more than a brand and it is far more than the people who might be leading it at any one time. In football culture, fans, managers and players are regularly reminded that the club is more important than any individual. We need to think of Labor the same way. The party has been around for over a century and it will be around long after any of us are gone. The challenge for Labor members and supporters is to think of ourselves, not as the owners, but the custodians of a noble ideal – the light on the hill. In Chifley’s immortal words, we exist as a movement, not simply to put a few extra bob in the workers’ pay packet or to make someone prime minister but to elevate the status and dignity of working people everywhere.

Labor is far from perfect. The utopian left will say it does not go far enough on progressive issues and abandon it. The conservative right will condemn any socialist policies (no matter how watered down). Be that as it may, Labor’s record speaks for itself. Of the major parties, Labor has consistently been the one to promote workers’ rights, to seek social justice, to take a progressive stance and to champion the average Australian. It is a party I will always be proud to serve.

There can be little doubt that the Australian Labor Party desperately needs a serious period of self-reflection. Queensland and NSW Labor will not return to government seats soon and it is more than likely that a lengthy period of opposition will soon befall federal Labor also. When a brand or product loses public appeal, it is discontinued and abandoned but Labor is much more than this. It is a set of principles that encapsulate the essence of Australian egalitarianism. It is a noble ideal that proclaims the worker is worthy of his wages. The Labor Party can and will return from its political woes but it must remember and embrace the principles for which it has always stood; the protection of working Australians, the advancement of progressive, equitable policies and the enforcement of regulation to ensure national prosperity spreads to all, not just the elite. This is the soul of a party I always support. To any disgruntled Labor supporters, I urge you, do not abandon the party, take control of it. Join your local branch, go to the meetings and be the change you want to see. Let’s demand our party back and be part of the solution not the problem.