Monthly Archives: October 2013

News That’s Fit To Punt – 28/Oct/2013

Foreign Misadventures

The worst aspect of Tony Abbott might not be his stupidity but his inability to represent all of Australia. You expect the Prime Minister of Australia to front for the whole nation when he speaks to foreign media, but not Tony Abbott. He can’t resist the urge to put the boot in to his domestic opposition. Here’s the offending bit in the Washington Post:

Labor wanted a national broadband network?

It’s a government-owned telecommunications infrastructure monopoly, which was proceeding at a scandalous rate without producing any commensurate outcomes. We are changing the objective from fiber to every premise in the country to fiber to distribution points, and then we will use the existing infrastructure to take the broadband to individual premises.

Is that cheaper and more efficient?

Vastly.

But Labor wanted to extend fiber to every household?

Welcome to the wonderful, wacko world of the former government.

So you believe the former government was doing a lot of things that were bad for the country?

I thought it was the most incompetent and untrustworthy government in modern Australian history.

Be more specific.

They made a whole lot of commitments, which they scandalously failed to honor. They did a lot of things that were scandalously wasteful and the actual conduct of government was a circus. They were untrustworthy in terms of the carbon tax. They were incompetent in terms of the national broadband network. They were a scandal when it came to their own internal disunity. They made a whole lot of grubby deals in order to try and perpetuate themselves in power.  It was an embarrassing spectacle, and I think Australians are relieved they are gone.

Where does one begin with how this interview exchange is so wrong-headed. You all know how I feel about the NBN, so it surprises me none that Tony Abbott is trying to paint the NBN as evidence of how the ALP were “wacko”. No evidence, just a straight up assertion as if its some kind of self-evident thing when the opposite is clearly true. This is followed up with this sloganeering assertion that the former ALP government were somehow lying incompetents. No evidence. So when he gets pressed on the points, he makes a whole bunch of blank assertions – none of which are factual – and finishes off with another crappy assertion that I’d like to see tested at the ballot soon.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t think this “throw the other party under the bus at every opportunity” style of conduct really is becoming of a Prime Minister. It’s the dead opposite of what he’s supposed to be doing when he is representing our polity. Regardless of our differences in our nation, when he’s talking representing Australia, he’s supposed to have the common decency to be speaking for the whole nation. Not just for the people that voted for him.

That Tony Abbott was given to talking out of his hat was a known quotient. What was not really understood was how he would use such an interview to keep playing these domestic politics. This has surprised quite a number of people.

Norman Ornstein, an author and political scientist with the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said he ”winced” when he read the interview in which Mr Abbott put the boot into the Rudd-Gillard government in unusually strong language for a foreign interview.

”It really does violate a basic principle of diplomacy to drag in your domestic politics when you go abroad,” Dr Ornstein said. ”It certainly can’t help in building a bond of any sort with President Obama to rip into a party, government and – at least implicitly – leader, with whom Obama has worked so closely.

”Perhaps you can chalk it up to a rookie mistake. But it is a pretty big one.”

Politicians around the world typically refrain from engaging in fierce domestic political argument when they are speaking to an overseas audience.

It’s a worry he’s gallavanting around the globe like this. Which reminds me of something I learnt way back when: The number one rule after a bad shoot is that you never bad mouth your own production. It might have been hell to work with so-and-so, but if you ever find yourself in front of a camera or a ape recorder, you’re supposed to say, “It was great. It was fantastic working with So-and-so.”

Grin and bear it for the production so that it has some shot of surviving the market place.That’s the golden rule.

Tony Abbott should have grinned and beared it and said, “Hey, the NBN was an adventurous idea in its time but we’re trying to be more pragmatic.”  Instead he threw the ALP under the bus and made Australia look foolish. I guess you send an idiot to to do a job, you get idiotic results.

While I’m on this one, Pleiades sent me an article, presumably from Crikey which went through the ways in which Tony Abbott flubbed Australia’s position with Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono in Indonesia:

According to sources close to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) is less than impressed with Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop. It is said this view was formed before the election, when Abbott, Bishop and now Immigration Minister Scott Morrison talked loud and long about turning around refugee boats and sending them back to Indonesia.

The rumour was confirmed when Abbott turned up late for two important gatherings at APEC where SBY was in the chair, and in case there are some who would to contest this, when the egos of heads of state are on the line the attendance at all meetings of conferences such as APEC are important.

Politicians and other public figures do not live in a vacuum; whatever is said domestically about another government will be reported, with comment, to that government by its embassy, and additionally its foreign ministry will pick up the remarks from wire service reports.

It is a measure of the lack of sophistication and parochial outlook of Abbott and the government he leads that there is an apparent failure to understand the way the world works.

So far, he’s been quite adept at making an ass out of himself on the international stage. In that way he is exactly like his mentor John Howard, a man you’d be embarrassed to show anywhere on the planet.

Screen Australia Still Sucks

This one comes from Monologan.

I must confess, I’ve been feeling uneasy about Screen Australia for some time now.

I’ve never been able to shake the impression that the whole thing is something of a club. When announcements come through of the latest beneficiaries of the millions of taxpayer dollars that go into feature and television production, the same names tend to pop up again and again. Even if their films lose money at the box office again and again.

And in part, I’m uneasy because I feel conflicted about whether those millions of dollars should be spent at all, when they as often as not appear to be used to prop up a local film industry incapable of standing on its own feet, rather than in primarily funding the telling Australian stories. The decision to pour millions of dollars into the quintessentially American story The Great Gatsby is a good recent example. If the car industry no longer needs propping up, why should the production sector? But that’s a debate for another day.

The reason for writing this now though is the fact that it emerged last week that Screen Australia had ponied up $50k to get The Conversation writing about the screen industry more regularly.

I say emerged, because normally, Screen Australia holds a board meeting, then issues press releases about the projects it intends to fund.

The trick is that the guy writing this runs Encore magazine:

I’m heartened that Screen Australia now recognises that “arts journalism is under pressure”. Based on our previous experience, Screen Australia doesn’t spend its “sponsorship” money easily. In the four years or so we’ve owned Encore – which is the oldest title of its type with a three decade heritage in the production sector – our sales team have never been successful in persuading them to spend a single dollar on sponsorship or marketing – and indeed they never once put out a brief. A cynic might say that they don’t like some of the things we’ve written so it was never going to happen anyway. But there again, perhaps our sales director, otherwise excellent at his job, just had a series of off days on the five or six occasions he went in to see them. Either way, having closed the loss making print edition last year, I can’t help ruminate on what a difference $50k would have made to the title.

But I can’t help thinking that the explanation is more likely to be that Screen Australia took a liking to the cut of The Conversation’s jib, and decided to find a way of helping it out. If you’re wealthy like Global Mail’s funder Graeme Woods or are a business with a budget for this sort of thing like CommBank, that’s fair enough. But if you’re a public body, you have a duty to do these things in a fair and above board way, no matter how worthy the recipient.

I think The Conversation deserves the money. I just don’t think that Screen Australia can justify how it made the decision.

If you don’t want people to think you’re a club, then don’t act like one.

So, yes. It does look like a club, and it’s pretty friggin’ awful.

Leave a comment

Filed under Cinema, Film, General, Movies, Television

Russell Brand’s Revolution

His Take On The Infeasibility Of our Civilisation

This is worth a read.

While I don’t agree with all of it, it’s still good to know somebody is writing something fundamentally questioning the value of our current social systems in a big publication.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

A Pack Of Liars

No, Really, Won’t They Stick To Their Lousy Script?

The worst thing about the 2013 Federal election – apart from the obvious that the idiots won – might be that the Coalition ran on statements that really have no bearing to what they are actually doing, now that they are in government. It’s hard to say who the worst offender is because they’re all doing dodgy things on the public purse and Tony Abbott is the leader amongst this group of perk partiers. I’m sure when they called their party the Liberal Party, they didn’t mean their attitude to the public purse for private concerns.

Tony Abbott in fact has been amazingly incapable of living out his own script where he would rush off to Jakarta in his first week (he didn’t) and he sure as hell isn’t going to reel in the deficit any faster than the ALP would have. Now we find Joe Hockey has gone and given a pile of money to the RBA – because they asked nicely – but this money is going to blowout the deficit this year.

The Hockey of ”budget crisis” fame, the government debt warrior, the dry who never met a deficit he didn’t hate, has turned into the half-trillion dollar man, spent all the $7.1 billion in policy savings he was trumpeting just five days ago and blown out this year’s deficit by $7 billion beyond Labor’s best efforts. And the financial year is young.

Overshadowed by the commission of audit announcement and boosting the debt ceiling from $300 billion to the magic half-trillion is the former fiscal Scrooge playing Santa Claus down at the Reserve Bank. Will Joe Hockey raid the RBA for a dividend with which to shave the deficit? What a foolish and wrong-headed question I posed here on Monday – Joe is giving the RBA $8.8 billion, which, obviously, blows out the deficit by the same amount.

Not content with that Joe Hockey is scrapping the Mining Tax

‘‘The minerals resource rent tax (MRRT) is a complex and unnecessary tax which struggled to raise the substantial revenue predicted by the former government,’’ Treasurer Joe Hockey said in a statement. ‘‘This failed tax imposed significant compliance costs on one of our most important industries, while damaging business confidence which is critical to future investment and jobs.’’

While many of the measures linked to the tax will also be scrapped, the coalition government will keep the increase in compulsory superannuation from 9 per cent to 12 per cent, currently paused for two years.

Mr Hockey said the government was still considering the issue of the ‘‘onshore administration’’ of the petroleum resource rent tax.

The draft laws repeal a range of Labor policies including the SchoolKids Bonus, the business loss carry-back, accelerated depreciation for motor vehicles, geothermal exploration provisions, the low income superannuation contribution and the income support bonus.

The bill also gets rid of the reduction in the small business instant asset write-off threshold.

So if you’re a small business owner and voted Liberal (because you’re a self-interest-driven knob), this is the bit where you should be complaining that the Liberal Party is looking after the big end of town again, and selling you down the river all the while claiming to represent you in government.

Walk-off HBP sent in this link where Penny Wong explains just how mendacious this Coalition lot have been.

Details about asylum seeker arrivals are being withheld – apparently the entire nation imagined the Coalition’s announced tow back the boats policy. Despite promising severe regulation of foreign investment, the government is now proposing to rush through free trade agreements. Now Joe Hockey has announced the details of their commission of audit, a well-used Liberal tactic to make drastic and punitive cuts to services, kept secret before the election.

Not only is this a government that isn’t doing what it said it would do; it doesn’t want to tell Australians what it’s really doing.

Over the last few years, Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey were unrelenting in their scaremongering over the state of the nation’s finances; Australians were told that “there is now a budget emergency”, and, worse, that Labor was “drowning the nation in debt”.

But, now in government, the Liberals tout some debt as “good” and the “budget emergency” appears to have disappeared. So much so, under the Coalition, the nation can now apparently afford a $500bn debt ceiling. So much for the “budget emergency”.

Just pause for a moment and imagine the extent of Hockey’s hyperventilation had a Labor treasurer proposed such an increase.

The new treasurer has flagged higher infrastructure spending funded by government borrowing – that is, by debt – and the assistant infrastructure minister, Jamie Briggs, blithely suggests thinking “more broadly” about using the Commonwealth balance sheet.

Of course, when Labor borrowed to invest, Abbott and Hockey declared a “debt crisis”, but now they are finally being honest that some borrowing can be smart.

Well, yes Ms Wong, they lied. And they still won. It makes for much misery.

How Does Greg Hunt Live With Himself?

It’s a mystery how party politics can change a man’s convictions so he is willing to argue white is black for the sake of party unity. As we all know by now, Greg Hunt is entirely willing to do or say anything for the sake of holding power.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt has hosed down suggestions of a link between climate change and increased bushfire intensity, saying he had ”looked up what Wikipedia” said and it was clear that bushfires in Australia were frequent events that had occurred during hotter months since before European settlement.

Yes, the Minster for the Environment gets his facts from Wikipedia, and not from the scientists in his own department. Of course, given that this is an administration without a Minister for Science, it is entirely believable that he had nowhere to go but Wikipedia given his lack of faith in such things as facts.

The epistemological problems of quoting Wikipedia seems to have escaped the minister as his own entry descended into a farce.

“He [Hunt] is notorious for using Wikipedia to conduct research on environmental issues on Wikipedia despite having access to a vast bureaucracy staffed by some of the finest and most dedicated minds in the nation, like some total turd. Critics concede that his 1990 Honours thesis on the necessity of a carbon tax was probably more academically rigorous than the manner in which he comports himself as one of the most powerful people in the country, but others defend their characterisation of the Environment Minister as an utter weiner.”

I know I quote Machiavelli a lot here but it has to be said that Niccolo Machiavelli made the important point that contempt is the greatest enemy of the Prince, and here we have a politician held deeply in contempt. At this point you wonder if the Coalition has anything positive to enact or do to help the environment. It looks pretty unlikely based on the last 6 weeks since the election.

The Abbott Government has been a bus crash and they haven’t even sat in Parliament properly yet.

Leave a comment

Filed under General

A Poem For A Lost Soul

It’s An Ode, So To Speak…

I don’t write poetry normally. As writing/scribbling/doodling goes, it’s not my strong suit.  I’ve written all of 2 poems in my life, …and this is my second.

 

Farewell to thee, the blossom of youth,
Errant of soul, fragrant of flowers,
Sheveled, feckful, innocuous, couth,
gainly and gaumy; righteous upon the hour.
Thy kingdom cleansed of signs of hell
thine yacht has sailed to the Isle of Id
Look not back to thy towering success
’tis but a dream of deeds gone unbid
When ultimately thine remembrance comes,
Recall then thou were’st once young, dumb,
and full of cum.

Leave a comment

Filed under General, Literature, Pop

Unrepresentative Swill

While I’m On A Roll Ranting About The Coalition Government…

Here’s something interesting.

She’s offered it only within the confines of the government, but word is Peta Credlin has some world-weary advice for rookie Labor leader Bill Shorten: if you’re serious about making Labor competitive again in 2016, you best swallow hard, take a deep breath, and turn your back on carbon pricing. And you best do it now.

It’s that simple. Or is it?

That Credlin is Tony Abbott’s chief of staff, is enough to provoke suspicion. Indeed, coming from the respected but highly partisan Credlin, such unsolicited advice is just as likely to make the ALP cling ever more determinedly to its carbon pricing commitments like the proverbial … to a blanket.
But some in Labor are beginning to question the longer-term implications of an automatic assumption of staying the course. Ever so quietly, they are whispering ”hold on, let’s just think about this”.

One of those is thought to be Shorten himself – the man Abbott described this week as ”nothing if not pragmatic”.

Abbott’s super-focused Environment Minister, Greg Hunt, agrees the term ”pragmatic” was a coded appeal to Shorten’s personal exceptionalism – his sense that, more so than his colleagues, he is a realist and will do the political maths pretty dispassionately when needed.

Credlin, of course, knows first hand about the wilderness Shorten has just entered.
As an adviser in the Howard government and then as chief of staff to a succession of leaders – Brendan Nelson, Malcolm Turnbull, and finally Abbott – she has seen her share of political failure.

Just for the record, Peta Credlin isn’t anywhere near being an elected representative of Australia’s constituency. Yet there she is offering unsolicited advice to the new Opposition Leader in the most patronising of ways. But basically she’s saying, roll over and play dead or you won’t have any shot at winning government. And she says this from her authority of having been chief of staff to Nelson, Turnbull, and Abbott – but hey is that a position you get voted in. Uh, didn’t think so.

It says she thinks the Coalition won government on its policy platform when in all likelihood the electorate rejected the riven and fractured ALP government. What’s worse is that the ALP allowed it self to be so riven and fractured just by having Tony Abbott saying a bunch of ridiculous things over and over again. But the main point is, if Peta Credlin thinks they won on the back of policies, she is so wrong it’s not funny. But this is a good thing because it means they’re willing to go to a Double Dissolution, because they really believe in their own bullshit. This is going to be really interesting if it gets to that point.

The Honorable Clive Palmer, Mouthbreather Patrician

It’s really difficult to watch Clive Palmer giving speeches because he’s such a mouth breather. He sounds like his nose is perpetually blocked, and you start to feel like you’re running out of breath, just listening to him.

Anyway, Clive is saying he won’t pass anything until he and his ragtag bunch of Climate Change Deniers gets treated like a major party. I guess he doesn’t have a problem being described as ‘entitled’. He’s playing brinkmanship with Tony Abbott knowing full well Tony Abbott needs the balancing block to repeal the “Carbon tax”. What’s even stranger is that he wants to be reimbursed the Carbon tax already paid by his company. Otherwise, Abbott won’t get to repeal the Carbon Tax after his Senators take up their positions in the Senate after June next year.

Now, I don’t know about you but this strikes me as a massive conflict of interest. You never saw the Australian democrats make this kind of demand when they had the balance of power – not in the most fey and feckless moments of Cheryl Kernot, or the closet-Liberal moments of Meg Lees, or for that matter the petulant and idiotic moments of Natasha the Stoat-Destrpoyer. Not even Bob Brown made demands like that. Cheryl or Meg or Natasha or Bob never said “I won’t pass this legislation unless I get a tax refund on a previously-legitimate tax that I paid.”

How is this not a massive conflict of interest? Forget for the moment Clive is saying he’s effectively going to block Tony Abbot from governing unless he gets what he wants which is Tea-bagging enough. Forget all those weird-ass expenses MPs have been racking up at the tax payers expense. Clive won’t say yes to anything unless he gets a refund for the Carbon Tax.  He wants a freaking ransom!

Paul Keating was sure right about the Senate being unrepresentative swill. I sure as hell can’t believe how Australia saddled itself with such a crazy Senate.

Leave a comment

Filed under General

Sleep Driving

Really? The Politicising Only Started Now?

What is a sane person to do when confronted with this?

Environment Minister Greg Hunt has condemned attempts to link the bushfires to the need for greater climate action as politicising a ”human tragedy”.

Amid concern among scientists and environment groups that the ferocious fires before the start of summer were part of a pattern of increasing extreme weather events, Mr Hunt’s office dismissed questions about the need for a more ambitious climate policy.

After Greens deputy leader Adam Bandt provoked controversy by linking the risk of bushfires to Mr Abbott’s plan to scrap the carbon tax, Mr Hunt said that nobody should politicise a tragedy. ”There has been a terrible tragedy in NSW and no one anywhere should seek to politicise any human tragedy, let alone a bushfire of this scale,” he said.

Wasn’t this the Environment Minster for the Party that just spent the last 3 years politicising Global Warming in the face of mounting evidence? I know that we have freedom of speech but sure that doesn’t mean unlimited access to hypocrisy and stupidity, does it? Or are we so tolerant now of head-in-the-sand-Climate-Change-Denialism, that we just accept this kind of rhetorical positioning? It’s clearly at odds with the narrative of the coalition that Global Warming and Climate Change are somehow in the category of maybe but when the evidence is glaring in your face, and not for the first time but on a daily basis for about a 5weeks since the election – and election day that happened on the warmest September day on record to boot – isn’t it disingenuous to try and hose down the obvious debate to be had by saying we shouldn’t politicise it? Weren’t they the party that politicised it first in this term of government by shutting down the Climate Change Commission?

And that’s being delicate about it. The fact is, they politicised it when they decided they didn’t agree with the science, as if there were any rational ground for an argument about the nature of global warming.

There’s a view going around that the Coaltion have no intention whatsoever of making any kind of serious dent in emission because they don’t believe in the science; that the whole point of the Direct Action plan is that it’s really not going to do much, and that should be the way business like things. It kinds of ignores that fact that agribusiness operates in the context of the environment and the last time we had a drought, it brought the Nationals to their senses briefly in endorsing an ETS under John Howard. What’s worse, Greg Hunt devised it. Which is the same ETS the ALP set up because it was a market-based solution as opposed to a big tax on the emitting businesses like the Direct Action plan being proposed by Greg Hunt. You really have to wonder about a man who wrote  a perfectly fine bit f policy, then didn’t get to implement it; who then had to write a worse policy just to get elected and now must sell it against his better idea. As in, how does he sleep at nights?

You sort of wonder what you’d get if you interrogated him with truth serum and polygraph. What the hell can this man be thinking? Forget Howard who was by temperament a disbeliever, or Tony Abbott who is by ideological bent, a disbeliever. What sorry ass ground has Greg Hunto got to be standing on to be even saying we shouldn’t be politicising this now. If not now, then when did we stop politicising the science of Global Warming, Mr Hunt? Did we conveniently decide upon this on the day your party won office?

Let’s put things into to perspective. After the hottest September on record, we’re having the kind of October that wouldn’t be out of place as being a January when we normally have these big bushfires. We may have record breaking sequence of November through to February this year with a drought thrown in. All of it presumably from Global Warming caused by human activity, but at what point do we get to talk about it as apolitical issue without offending the fine, delicate, vulnerable sensibilities of Greg Hunt?

The truth is, Global Warming is the elephant in the room you are furiously trying to ignore, except the more you ignore it, the more it grows and the more it throws the weight around in the room. So, as environment minister it must be asked of Mr. Hunt: what the hell are you going to do about all this? Are you really going to dismantle the system you designed to incentivise the cutting of emissions? Are you really going to replace that system with a system that has far less scope of working? Is your choice really, doggedly to choose sleeping at the wheel?

Leave a comment

Filed under General, Science

Generation Change

The ALP’s Gen-X Crew

The Herald was making the point today that the ALP have gone Gen-X with their choice of frontbench. When you think about it, Bill Shorten is 46 going on 47 so that puts him at the older range of Gen-X, and Tanya Plibersek at 44, it’s true that the ALP have indeed gone Gen-X. I have a late Boomer friend who tells me that all this demographic stuff is just a construct not worthy of analysis, except I’ve been writing here under the banner of ‘Gen-X View Of The Universe’ for a good 5 years now. It obviously means something.

What could it mean?

The Generation X politician in Australia would have arrived at Tertiary education after the AUS was disintegrated by the likes of Peter Costello and Tony Abbott in 1983, Interestingly enough, Julia Gillard was the last President of the AUS when it collapsed in 1983. If you anted a model to the fractious politics of the Julia Gillard Prime Mininster-ship, you would have found it in the demise of the Australian Union of Students, with the same cast of late Baby Boomers thrashing and trashing institutions to make their political mark. What’s scary is that they’re still around aplenty in the Liberal and National party ranks, and they probably still don’t think much of indulging in that sort of ratbag behaviour. This explains the histrionic opposition style Tony Abbott chose to work with – because it is the method he used in his youth to destroy the AUS , headed up by Julia Gillard. Worse still, it worked again, so that may be why he’s so convinced he has some kind of mandate.

The demise of the AUS and the years where there was no student lobby until the NUS got up in the late 1980s allowed HECS to be brought in. Unlike the Baby Boomers, most of the Gen-X politician would have had to pay HECS. When they say education and the opportunities it affords are important, they know what they are saying. All these things are intimately entwined.

If there is one thing that I do think is encouraging about the Gen X ALP politicos is that they are of the generation that had to put back together the NUS and have the experience of rebuilding institutions. If the ALP under Rudd-Gillard looked positively fractured, then I think the current group might be able to start from scratch and build a proper agenda that suits the time. As I wrote the other day, I’m feeling fairly optimistic about the Shorten-Plibersek team, much more so than I felt about the Rudd-Gillard team when they first rose to the level of Opposition leader and deputy back in 2006. They’re not perfect human beings and they will make their mistakes. I just don’t think they’re as fractious and crazy as the generation of politicians who were forged in the dying days of the AUS.

Right now, the Coalition are the party of the Baby Boomers much more than Gen-X or Gen-Y by dint of the ageing population and makeup of the Liberal and National Party demographic. The fissure hasn’t been more stark than any other time since Mark Latham as late Baby Boomer was taking on John Howard who was born before the Boomers. That fissure sort of leaves the current ALP firmly in the Gen-X camp with the hope of picking up a big portion of support from Gen-Y.  The question then is whether Gen-X+Gen-Y interest is a big enough voting constituency to overcome the Baby Boomers’ interests in their twilight years.

Demographically speaking, Gen-X is small and shorter than either the Boomers before or the Gen-Y that follows. That being the case the duo may never make it. And if they did, they may be seen off by a Gen-Y politician. Consider the American experience. Bill Clinton was the first Boomer President, who was followed by George W. Bush who was followed by Barack Obama, all of whom are Boomers. All three Presidents won two terms, so the Baby Boomer reign will last 24years. If a Gen-X candidate won 2 terms after Obama, the next election after that will likely see a pair of Gen-Y candidates. It’s entirely possible there will never be a Gen X President of the United States.

Similarly, I don’t see any Gen-Xers knocking on the door in the Coalition ranks. If Abbott is replaced for some reason, it’s possible the leadership reverts to Malcolm Turnbull or goes to Joe Hockey – both of whom are Boomers. The longer the Coalition stay in power, the less chance there will be of a government of Gen-Xers in Australia.

So when you look at it through the demographic filter, that’s what we have with Bill Shorten and Tanya Plibersek: The one and only shot at Gen-X forming Government in Australia.

Leave a comment

Filed under General