On Albanese’s path to election day
Margaret Ludowyk writes: I’d like to ask Bernard Keane why, in tough economic times, is stable and orderly government not enough? It’s something we haven’t seen for more than 10 years.
The Albanese government has had no scandals, no rorting, no misusing taxpayers’ money, no bonking of staff, no sackings, no backstabbings. Just well-behaved and competent ministers doing their jobs well. It’s been a refreshing change from the nine years of chaos and instability, in which Dutton was a key player.
The alternative is back to the Abbott days of demonising the vulnerable, cutting government services and stirring up more anger and division.
Liz Johnston writes: This government has done many good things to make life better, for working people in particular. But do those voters even know about it, or just take it for granted? In this day where the loudest stirrer gets the headlines, doing good quietly gets little credit. It seems you must be enraged to engage voters.
I have always been an Albo supporter, but he doesn’t seem to be the right man for the times. Perhaps a gracious step aside using the “spend more time with the family” ruse might put a better man or woman in the job. Shame Wong is in the Senate, Plibersek is too nice, Husic too reasonable (and, anyway, there’s that religion thing), and I’m not sure Chalmers is the best dog for this dogfight. Labor needs a scrapper: Tony Burke’s your man.
Peter Grimbeek writes: I fear that Crikey has got it right. Albanese is slowly going down the gurgler, despite a number of worthwhile moves (for example, TAFE). A change of leadership might be in order.
Perhaps Daniel Andrews should be dragged, kicking and screaming, out of retirement, to be parachuted into a winnable seat, preferably prior to the next federal election, and then handed the reins of government. Andrews is a notably clever man and does not, as far as I can see, bow to anything other than necessity. He might just accomplish what Albanese cannot and keep Labor in government long enough to make a difference.
Lee Tonkin writes: I am quite sick of journalists pontificating about what Albo should do. He has achieved a great deal from my viewpoint, despite journos constantly proclaiming things he could do to win their approval. They are not in a position to do anything except complain and undermine what has been the fairest government we’ve had for years.
Robert Reynolds writes: I find it very depressing, but not all that surprising really, that so many among the Crikey readership are so deluded (pardon the forthrightness) as to think that replacing Albanese with the likes of Tanya Plibersek, Jason Clare or Tony Burke, etc. will make any discernible difference to the fortunes of the party and its supporters.
The reality is that the purpose of the ALP is to provide the illusion of an alternative to the LNP. And it serves that purpose admirably. The arguing and fist-shaking that goes on in Parliament and elsewhere is theatre. It is a pantomime designed to create the pretence of a democracy. It seems to me that both of these parties are more or less equally acceptable to our American masters who, of course, really “run the show” here in Australia (as they do in so many other places). And that is the only thing that really matters (to the Americans, that is).
The Americans perceived that Gough Whitlam represented a threat to their interests and we all know how that ended up. It could have been worse though, as any surviving supporters of Salvador Allende, the former socialist president of Chile (now deceased thanks to the Americans) could tell you.
Rob writes: One thing that has truly baffled me about global Western electorates is the willingness to give these right-wing wreckers a go after such a short stint out of power.
It truly amazes me that what is essentially the same LNP team that led from Abbott to ScoMo is even in with a chance. It’s like [the electorate] demands utter perfection from Labor (or their global equivalents) but will just accept the dog’s breakfast that the authoritarian right keeps serving up, be it here, the UK, the USA or elsewhere.
I’d genuinely love some more insights into this quirk as I cannot wrap my head around it. This is not to say the ALP have done nearly enough, but it’s fascinating what one side seems to get away with versus the other.
On Ben Eltham’s defence of the NDIS
Gary Paul writes: Great story about all these knockers of the NDIS, who are probably well off. I am vision impaired — legally blind since birth. Now 71, life has been a struggle, especially all the negativity from these knockers, narrow-minded companies and business people… all of whom, if something happened to them, would be the first to ask for NDIS help.
Without the NDIS and help from providers like Vision Australia, I wouldn’t even be able to read Crikey let alone send an email. So to all the knockers, pull your heads out of each other’s arses and do positive things for those that need help!
Michael Uniacke writes: Ben Eltham’s defence of the NDIS is a very welcome reset to its constant criticism. I have often wondered whether the more virulent attacks on the scheme have something to do with attitudes towards those who are the direct beneficiaries — people with disabilities. Any disability advocate will tell you how attitudes towards people with disabilities remain one of the greatest barriers to their participation in society. Is the extreme criticism of the NDIS costs just a fig leaf for the perception that people with disabilities loll about helplessly in chairs, unable to do a thing for themselves?
Thanks to the NDIS, considerable numbers of people with disabilities can join the workforce, becoming contributors and taxpayers. And yes, many set up businesses, run consultancies and become entrepreneurs. The idea that people with a disability are merely a cost or a drain on resources is so 20th century.
