Vanstone’s hypocrisy

By May 26, 2017Australian Politics

In her usual confused, ludicrously partisan style, Amanda Vanstone tells us that the ‘bogans’ have had enough, and that the problem is the ‘clever’ are attempting to disenfranchise them1. She also states that it is a fallacy that a government’s job is essentially an ideological one. This is ironic coming from a former minister in a government who were the most enthusiastic ideologues of neoliberal economics, the system that has most effectively disenfranchised the under-educated and the under-employed in this country over much of the last 40 years.

It was during her tenure as a minister under John Howard, that tax cuts were delivered to the wealthy, and these have led to many of the structural problems in the Australian economy, which have exacerbated budget deficits2. It is her former colleagues during the Abbott nightmare who attempted to screw the poor by cutting funding for the Newstart (unemployment) allowance, health and higher education, as well as the ABC, SBS and CSIRO. This austerity budget was even too rancid for the cross bench in the then Senate to accept, and as a consequence, it was rejected twice by the upper house3. More recently, her former colleagues, now led by the disappointing Turnbull have again screwed the poor by backing penalty rate cuts for Sundays and public holidays4, and also by arguing for a minimal increase in the minimum wage. One of the arguments put forward by the government was that some minimum wage earners were “often found in high-income households”5. This vacuous argument is symptomatic of the government committed to looking after the big end of town6. This commitment is also clearly demonstrated by the government’s company tax cuts which will cost the budget bottom line about $15 billion per annum7.

The fact that Vanstone is warning the ‘clever’ people about the fact that bogans have had enough clearly demonstrates that the people in her own party are unaware that the time of neoliberal economics is over. Screwing the poor has been a hobby of conservative governments ever since the lie of trickle-down economics was adopted by ardent local followers. Vanstone’s time in government bracketed some of the worst excesses of this lie, and for her to now warn her former colleagues about a backlash from the people she helped screw, is just another example, if one was needed, of why politicians are so on the nose.

Sources

  1. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/watch-out-clever-ones-the-bogans-have-had-enough-20170519-gw91n2.html
  2. https://theconversation.com/howards-end-how-the-coalitions-last-budget-created-the-ground-for-the-current-deficits-13848
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Australian_federal_budget
  4. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/turnbull-government-backs-penaltyrate-cuts-for-low-paid-workers-20170324-gv5rzr.html
  5. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/turnbull-government-warns-fair-work-commission-against-excessive-minimum-wage-rise-20170329-gv9azu.html
  6. http://www.blotreport.com/australian-politics/screw-the-lowly-paid/
  7. http://www.abc.net.au/news/story-streams/federal-budget-2017/2017-05-11/budget-2017-live-blog-bank-tax-bill-shorten-reply/8516160

 

2 Comments

  • JON says:

    Vanstone oftens writes incoherent rubbish. Her piece on possible Japanese involvement in building our subs in the SMH 11 April last year incredibly included this gem of logic: “Putting aside the technical naval architecture issues, there’s one small design mindset that the Japanese would need to overcome: our sub-mariners are bigger than theirs. It seems stupid to mention it, but they have to live in these things and their well-being and comfort should be high on our priority list.”
    Stupid? Absolutely. But Paul Feldman summed her up to a tee in his letter in response, and added a lovely touch of humour at the end to boot:
    “Amanda Vanstone’s op-ed piece about who should build our new submarines (“Home-built subs are a must”, Times2, April 11, p4) was in many ways typical of her work: sprawling, ill-defined and full of opportunistic digressions.

    “Put simply, her argument was that the Japanese can’t be trusted to adapt their domestic submarine technology to Australian requirements or to pass on their knowhow.

    “Whatever the validity of these views, she chose to adorn them with the suggestion that the Japanese designers would need to overcome their mindset to build things small, to accommodate our larger submariners. The Japanese have for decades built cars big enough to fit Australians, even Vanstone.

    Paul Feldman, Macquarie

    http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/ct-letters/one-hall-two–stories-20160412-go4ukf.html

    • admin says:

      Jon,

      I haven’t ever read Vanstone tripe up until this effort on which I commented twice. I had to gird my loins to do so, and it was an awful read. I had to read the thing twice to make any sense out of it. She really is not very good at writing coherently. She also should have known that the Japanese, once their economy developed and their diet became higher in protein, are significantly taller than when Vanstone was a girl.

Leave a Reply