Kevin Rudd is doing what it takes to win the next election. But just because Mark Latham lost a huge amount of support in Tasmania at the last election because of his forestry policy doesn't mean that Labor got it wrong. The rednecks got it wrong. Mark Latham offered them a hand out of the hole they were digging themselves into and rather than take it they beat him to death with their spades and kept on digging. They're stupid and short-sighted, and ignoring the blame due to the shitty, unsupportive, back-stabbing team Mark Latham took into the last election, it's in no small part due to Tassie's healthy population of hicks that we've had to endure another term of John Howard as Prime Minister.
Kevin Rudd knows he has to appease these morons and distance himself from Latham's policies if he's going to succeed in Tasmania. He says he'll work with the Tasmanian state government. Both sides of the state government in Tassie are in the pocket of Gunns. There's not a whisper of the other G-word from the new Labor team. They're doing what they have to do in order to win. That doesn't mean they're doing the right thing.
6 comments:
Your post got me thinking...
Do you think Australian politics has reached the point where the ALP should be doing "the wrong thing" to appease "hicks" just to get in power again?
Is one or two sacrifices here a trade off for the greater good of Australia?
Good question... I've wondered the same thing. My admiration for the Greens stems from the fact that they stick to their principles regardless of majority public opinion. However it is a fair question as to whether it's worth the Labor party doing some kind of trade-off, say on an environment issue such as the Tasmanian old growth forests in order to win government and abolish Howard's IR laws. Or temporary protection visas, or detention of asylum seekers (I don't recall if Rudd has actually outlined a policy on anything except TPVs as yet).
If it comes down to immediate human issues such as workers' rights and human rights, I would be in favour of the ALP 'sacrificing' some of its environmental credentials in order to gain power. I wouldn't vote for that; I'd vote green, but I'd definitely consider preferencing Labor, whereas when Kim Beazley jumped on the "I hate refugees just as much as Howard" bandwagon" in 2001, I made a point of putting Labor way down my list.
Yeah its a tough moral question I think.
Sometimes small steps backwards are required to take a few steps forward :(
Shut down timber production to protect the forest - and lose jobs? Isn't Labor a party for the workers?
Actually Latham's plan didn't threaten jobs but threatened job expansion. And threatened Gunns - the premier logging company in Tasmania.
Fact is wood chipping and use of tree products from Tasmania belongs in 19th century thinking when plantation hemp and other fast growing less enviro practices can easily be put in place.
Unfortunately it requires investment of time and energy.
Merry Christmas Sarah!
Post a Comment