WILL'S WEEKEND: Dear reader, who you 'gunna' vote for?
Published Saturday 30 April 2016
A few weeks ago, dear reader, I wrote a brief piece on the pros and cons of the Referendum held simultaneously with the Queensland Council Elections.
The Referendum dealt with a move - endorsed by both major Queensland parties - to cement true and full four-year terms for a Government enjoying the majority of the vote.
In the wash-up, and despite their being a relatively strong case for the 'No' vote, the 'Yes' vote was successful, so that, from the end of the current Government’s term, elections will be held in October, every four years.
The move to four-year parliamentary terms was touted as being a money saver for the Queensland people, to the tune of some $24million dollars over every election cycle. When considered against the State's debt, the $24million is the metaphorical drop in the bucket. But, we're now lumbered with ANY Government - inept or not - for four years to save the expenditure of a paltry amount.
Which brings me neatly to the question at hand; Who Ya Gunna Vote For? Or to be more accurate and less Aussie; For Whom Do You Intend To Vote in the Federal Election?
You see, I see the whole faux, pseudo election campaign, which will likely run another 70 odd days, to be a deliberate side-stepping of the issues currently at hand, and which continue to bedevil our Politicians - explaining what's wrong with the Economy and how we get out of the trouble we're in.
To wit, every time a Government Minister - from the PM down - promises $120million for this or $50million for that, we should be told that that money is borrowed. Borrowed. In an economy bordering on $2trillion, we currently owe (to lending countries) in excess of $400billion dollars, closing on 25% of our GDP.
To wit, the Prime Minister was being interviewed on ABC's 7.30 program last Monday, by veteran journalist Chris Uhlmann and answered a question about the economy by including "consumer confidence is up". Reader, I almost choked on my chateaubriand and bottle of Penfolds Grange while saying to my wife, "what tripe - consumer confidence is low".
As if to underscore my concern about the validity (or otherwise) of Mr Turnbull’s assertion, the following weekend's The Weekend Australian contained a piece from Dennis Shanahan which concluded that - by ANY worthwhile measure - consumer confidence is down some six-to-eight per cent year-on-year since 2015, meaning that, in simple terms, consumers like you and me, are keeping hold of our money.
The natural spin off from a slowing of demand is 'sales' on everything from cars to shoes and all in between. It means lower profits for business owners; it leads to lay-offs and the resultant unemployment that comes with that.
Indeed, the pundits are putting their money - what they have left of it after paying the nation's highest prices for petroleum, etc - on the Reserve Bank of Australia dropping interest rates on Tuesday 2 May to a record low of 1.75% in order to STIMULATE DEMAND - in complete contrast to the PM's assertion that all is well.
Bill Shorten, on the other hand, who is probably voted within the party as 'The Opposition Leader Less Likely Than Kim Beazley To Ever Be PM', wants a Royal Commission into the Banks. Why? Because the Commonwealth Bank has been embroiled in rather nefarious (and very unfair) Practices through its CommInsure Insurance and its Financial Planning arms; other banks like NAB and ANZ have been involved in less than honest practices with their clients.
Shorten's Royal Commission has been estimated to cost some $50-$55 million - small change compared with the nation's debt. The PM - after making comedy about a Royal Commission and its cost - has countered with a redistribution of funding to the 'cop on the beat' to the tune of $120million (twice the cost of the RC!). He and our 'deer caught in the headlights' Treasurer assure voters that they've met with the Banks and told them that from here on in, they will have to fund the cost of investigating them (the banks).
Reader, the Banks have apparently been warned by the PM and Treasurer, that they are to use THEIR money - not depositors' money - to fund future investigations. Hello? THEIR money IS depositors' (and shareholders') money! A little like leaving the fox in charge of the hen house!
One could go on. To what effect? I've no idea - a bit like most people, I suppose - where this race-to-the-bottom is likely to end. American-style election campaigns, and we've still got 10 weeks to go if the PM does decide to go to the Governor General and ask for Parliament to be dissolved and a full election of both houses to be conducted in July 2016.
It's important - given that minority parties have a better chance of being elected into the senate on a full-senate than on the normal half-senate election. Look forward to seeing more Xenophons, more Muirheads, perhaps even more Palmers in the Upper House.
Perhaps that's what's occupying the PM's mind at the moment. Perhaps he's been running around in circles, chasing his own tail and, now he's found it, wondering what on earth to do with it?
What do you think, reader?