May 2019 - Observation Point

First. At little bit of history.

The idea of a Minerals Resources Rent Tax, (MRRT), was introduced by Kevin Rudd and became law in 2012.It was a sensible solution to a genuine problem, yet it was electorally very unpopular, was – not surprisingly – vigorously opposed by the mining industry, and was eventually dumped by the Coalition in government.Today, you’d struggle to find anyone who thinks it was a bad idea, outside of the Mining Industry, and even they’d admit it, if they were honest.

So, what was the problem back then?

During boom conditions, mining companies were making vast profits from extracting irreplaceable national resources, while the great majority of Australians were missing out on any benefits. Much of the profits went overseas, so it was a double whammy for Aussies.

You’d think it’d be a no brainer.

So, why did it fail?

I would argue, it failed because Rudd told the electorate there was a problem and offered a solution in the same breath.

This enabled the mining industry and their Coalition lackies to ignore the problem and to campaign on what was wrong with the solution; that jobs would be lost. A complete lie of course, but an effective one.

So, what could Rudd have done differently?

Well, he could have spent six months telling the electorate how it was being robbed by foreigners and corporations. This would’ve forced the companies and the then Opposition LNP either to try to defend the indefensible, or to shut the hell up.

And you know they wouldn’t do that.

Once the electorate was suitable incensed, Rudd could’ve then offered the MRRT as a solution.

He’d have won a major victory and been hailed a hero.

So, what does this tell us about Labor’s recent loss?

Simply this.

Labor made exactly the same mistake Rudd did, but on many fronts. Shorten offered multiple problems and solutions almost in the same breath. This enabled Morrison, along with the various vested interests, to skip right over the very real problems, and either attack Labor’s solutions or present them as draconian and unnecessary.

And again, an electorate that wasn’t given time to understand and accept the NEED for change, was led to be terrified of the solutions.

Morrison never offered solutions of his own. He simply pretended the problems didn’t exist and daily attacked the solutions as having either much worse side effects that they actually did, or claimed they weren’t even necessary.

Just like it did with the MRRT, the strategy succeeded, beyond his wildest dreams.

So, in the unlikely event of any Labor strategists reading this, I implore you to learn this simple political lesson: Never, ever, offer a solution until the electorate is thoroughly convinced that the problem is genuine and that it’s being hurt by it.
In fact, here’s a simple action plan:
1. Get into power by any means you can;
2. Spend the first six months educating the electorate about the genuine problems you’ve inherited. Really spell them out, over and over again;
3. When and only when you’re certain the electorate is convinced that the problems are real and MUST be fixed, do you offer solutions;
4. Implement the solutions through the rest of the term;
5. Go to the next election with a track record of getting really good things done.

It’s not that hard, people, especially when the Coalition mostly can’t even acknowledge that the problems exist, because that would be contrary to their profoundly flawed ideology of Neoliberalsim.

But above all, do not make the same mistake a third time.

Australia can’t afford it.

Leave a Comment

Globally, Nationalism appears to be digging its way out the hole we thought we’d buried it in around the turn of the century.

In the US under Trump, White Supremacy – which is the barest face of nationalism – is reappearing. Similarly, in Europe, Latin America and the Middle East, and sadly here in Australia too, it’s getting a good kick along.

A lighting ceremony held by the National Socialist Movement, a neo-Nazi group, in Georgia, 2018.CreditMark Peterson/Redux Pictures

Often by the very leaders who should be taking a stand against it.

Media pundits, in between hand wringing, talk about who or what is driving the Nationalism bus.

But I’m more concerned about where it’s heading.

Because Nationalism has only one ultimate endpoint: Violence.

There are essentially two groups of people behind the movement.

At the top are politicians and carpet baggers who see an opportunity for power, or at the very least a profile which might lead to a bucket of power or money.

The second group are the foot soldiers of nationalism.

They’re almost always the disaffected. They’ve either slipped down the ladder of success, or they’re barely clinging to the rungs.

They’re pissed off, but they have no idea at whom they should direct their offpissedness.

The first group, the Politicians and carpetbaggers, say, “It’s not your fault. You’re a victim. It’s those people over there. The ones who are a different colour, or believe in a different god. It’s their fault. But you know what? You’re better than them. They’re not quite a human as you and me.”

And then they say, “Even though you’ve had a hard time, and maybe you don’t have much, but they want what you have. And if we let them, well, they’re going to come here and take it for themselves.

They’re going to slip in on boats and outbreed us.”

Or the other message is, “Them over there, it’s all their fault. And you know what? They’ve got it all, and it should be yours. You’re better than them. You deserve it. It’s not fair that they have it all and you have none. The dirty disbelievers.”

Used to be, that was pretty much how the Nationalism sales people actually spoke. But now it’s different, more sophisticated. They’re more likely to talk about tariffs and unfair trade and “illegal boat people”..

Or maybe they’ll talk about that country over there developing a super bomb to blow us up.

Heard that one recently?

Or, they’re coming here as refugees to take over our country. Now that’s got a familiar ring to it.

Or, hey, they’re going to take over the country and impose Shariah Law.

The language might have changed to suit the times, but the message certainly hasn’t.

Thing is, there’s only one possible end point for those lines of reasoning.

Violence, and eventually, war.

So, if we hear messages like these, seductive and appealing; that make it all somebody else’s fault; that give us something to fear, that slyly gives us the idea that we as a people, are inherently better than those “others”, keep in mind, that the end of the Nationalism line, where it’s everybody off the bus whether you want to stop there or not,

Is war.

Month: May 2019

What The MRRT Can Teach Us About Labor’s Loss

What’s At the End of the Nationalism Line?