Election 2013: choice between ‘bad’ or ‘worse’?

So. The policy “debate” of how best to deal with the issue of Asylum Seekers attempting to come to Australia by boat continues… continues to inflame, provoke, disgust, and draw out the best and worst in this country’s soul, and in its elected representatives. I will publish a post soon (when less exhausted/distracted) comparing the policies of the two major parties, and the Greens, on this issue (and thereafter, a few other important issues we talk less about, because of the “hot button” nature of this one. Who else is tired of this shit???).

For now, I will just share here 3 opinion pieces I read yesterday.

First 2 are expressing both dismay at the Rudd led ALP’s radical policy lurch regarding asylum seekers (people often labelled by the likes of Bob Carr as “economic migrants”), but also acknowledging (conceding) that Abbott led LIB/NAT’s ongoing policy and rhetoric regarding asylum seekers (people frequently referred to by the likes of Scott Morrison as “illegal arrivals”) to be worse. In fact, LIB/NAT’s are worse on a number of issues. So despite currently dealing with my total repulsion towards recent policy developments involving my country of birth, I can appreciate the perspectives, and being reminded of the bigger picture here. The bigger, sadder picture.

Article 1: Voting for Kevin Rudd makes me sick, but here’s why I’ll do it anyway

The choice for ethical Australians presents not as between good and bad, but between bad and worse. There are two ways forward through this moral molasses. By Van Badham on The Guardian

Article 2: Defend the Bad against the Worse

By Julian Burnside

The 3rd article has been published on the Drum –

Article 3: Spend your $2.49 wisely this election

Under Australia’s electoral system it can be frustratingly difficult to deny either of the two major parties your vote, but it is possible to deny them your money, writes Greg Jericho.


Does our first preference matter?

Well yes, actually. Not only can your first preference have an impact in an electoral sense, but it also serves to send a quite powerful message to the two main parties when you put someone else as Number 1. And the reason this message is powerful is because it affects their bottom line.

In the coming election, each first preference vote is worth $2.49 (or to be precise, 248.8 cents). To get this funding a party or person must poll over 4 per cent of the vote in any division (or State in the case of the Senate). So this doesn’t mean every vote of theCoke in the Bubblers Party gets them $2.49 – unless of course they poll over 4 per cent, which is pretty unlikely. Indeed at the 2010 election only 59 per cent of candidates reached the threshold, in 2007 it was 54 per cent.

Does this funding matter to the major parties though? Well at the 2010 election, the ALP all up received $21.2 million, the Liberal and National Parties combined received $23.58 million, and the Greens got $7.2 million.

So yes, it matters.”


One Comment on “Election 2013: choice between ‘bad’ or ‘worse’?”

  1. cartoonmick says:

    I note in your first para your intent to compare the policies of the two major parties and the Greens. Good luck in finding details of the Libs policies.

    They seem very shy about releasing many or any policy details on most matters, and merely criticize decisions from the Rudd camp.

    In the meantime, Rudd is putting policies out like a man possessed, which seems to be helping him in the preferred PM polls.

    This is my cartoon on the situation . . . .




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s