PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original
Old 16th Jan 2015, 02:32
  #15852 (permalink)  
MTOW
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 543
I don't suppose there's ever been a time, if people were really honest with themselves, when a majority of the electorate felt overwhelming trust and respect for their political leadership. The Brits have pretty successfully sold us the line that Churchill was a loved and respected wartime leader, but, having read a few books that dealt with his Prime Ministership during WW2, I think I would be pretty safe in saying that that was just propaganda. The fact that he was voted out of government 5 seconds after winning the war says it all about his popularity with the majority of British voters.

But the fact remains - he was a LEADER, (granted, with many 'warts [and all]'), but a leader none the less. A man willing to make some very hard and politically unpopular decisions for what he saw as the common good - (or what might be quite accurately described as 'national survival'). And so I suppose it would be fair to say that, warts and all, he comes about as close to that mythical political leader who had the respect (if sometime very, very grudging) of the majority of the electorate.

We're in a disturbingly similar situation with the current choice of national leaders in Australia. Tony Abbott has been a real disappointment to many on the conservative side of politics - and for the absolute opposite reasons, an equal disappointment to those on the Left. The conservatives see him as too soft and middle of the road; the Left see him as rabidly right wing (despite glaring evidence to the contrary, evidence that will be studiously ignored or blatantly misreported by the majority of the MSM, particularly the national broadcaster).

So really, Australia finds itself in a situation not unlike the UK in WW2. We're in a battle for survival - or at least survival in some semblance of our current form of society. The enemy might not be as clearly defined as Nazi Germany, but it's one that could crush and destroy our current way of life just as thoroughly, and that enemy is debt.

Put simply, we have been living - and continue to live - beyond our means, in a totally unsustainable la-la land where the current generation continues to push forward an ever-growing debt upon following generations. And warts and all, with both sides displaying disturbing failings, we have a choice between an all too imperfect leader who says he wants to inflict a bit of pain upon us now and rein in that ever-growing debt and another who promises that he will maintain the largesse, giving us whatever we want, and someone else at some time in the future can handle the debt.

Anyone with a modicum of brainpower should be able to see which is the smarter course. However, if the polls are to be believed, more than 50% of voters would seem to going for option 2.

One reason this may be so would seem to me to be the total failure of the Abbott government in getting this simple message across to the voting public, made worse my the mixed message it sends every time it cries poor and then gives another 'n' millions of borrowed dollars away to some half-baked United Nations scheme or US proxy war.

Message: we're broke. Answer: the debt must be repaid. All outlays that infringe in any way on our ability to pay off that debt must be put on hold. Without exception.
MTOW is offline