The Left: Hoist by their own petard

Dan Nolan on why the left on the internet is absolutely losing their minds, and why they brought this all upon themselves.

Were you to take at face value the grotesque outpouring of utter vitriol from the left-aligned members of the twitter cognoscenti, you would have thought Tony Abbott had taken up a policy of punching babies, burning down forests and beheading immigrants personally. At least, that’s what most sane people would take from the insane out roar of fury currently flitting around the twittersphere. Catherine Deveny, much reviled or revered for her candor even went as far as to state she would be committing suicide if Tony Abbott became PM. Though this does frivolously deal with the serious issue of suicide, such a statement is as utterly vulgar as it is utterly idiotic. You’d think the fact that Australians obviously thought both sides were pretty equal but wanted to put the boot into Labor for how they treated Kevin Rudd would be something people would be able to have a rational discussion about.

Though it is a trend for the blood to boil in all manners of politics, but these attacks on Mr Abbott seem to stem from the old-fashioned geek term of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt). Abbott is portrayed as some manner of religious fundamentalist, and insane free-marketer ‘brutopian’ fantasist, or as a complete idiot who will burn this country to the ground with a gigantic grin from ear to ear. Whilst his religious beliefs differ substantially from mine, I don’t find them disgusting or repugnant as most of the virulently atheist crowd do on twitter, simply because he tends to keep them to himself, or at least not vote entirely informed by them. To put it simply, he’s a fairly moderate Catholic, interested in issues of Social Justice, and as a Catholic, issues of contraception and abortion.

It’s utter idiocy to speculate that we’re going to move back to the 1950’s because he’s now a potential candidate for PM. The ‘insane free-marketeer’, well that’s spoken to by his track record, he seems to be quite economically liberal (small-l) particularly in issues of the maternity leave scheme. Lastly, the cry that he’s in any way an idiot is unfathomable, given his quite impressive intellectual track record, in particular his Rhodes Scholarship. I’ve yet to meet a Rhodes Scholar who wasn’t less than whip-crack smart, and I’d challenge anyone to point to one that is in the slightest bit intellectually deficient.

The reason for this hair-pulling and furious insanity is much the same as the uproar regarding the partnership between the Lib-Dems and the Conservatives in the UK. The Guardian, which had put its cards on the table and supported the Lib-Dems over New Labour in the UK had its blogs beset with furious commenters saying that the Guardian need to apologise to its readers, asking ‘do the editors feel ashamed of what they’ve let happen?’. Whilst those of us grin and bear it when we are led by those on the left, those on the left feel utterly betrayed and show a manner of paranoia and revulsion regarding leadership by anyone even mildly right-leaning.

Much as the Lib-Dem voters in the UK guaranteed New Labour’s defeat, those of whom voted Greens locally as their primary vote guaranteed Labor’s electoral calamity on Saturday. This would normally not be an issue, as we have constantly speculated that those who vote Green vote Labor secondarily, but it was an interesting issue in this election where the Greens decided to not hand out HTV’s that specified particular preferences. Even Bob Brown himself said that preferences (at least in the lower house) were not something he put much credence in. Were the preferences to flow the normal way that Greens/Labor candidates speculate, we would almost certainly be in a different position. However, based on the current statistics (and some speculation on my part, surely baseless) it would appear that the split on Greens preferences was somewhat equally Labor/Liberal.

What this tells us, at least, somewhat, is that the Greens instead of being the normal bolstering vote for Labor, was embraced by the Australian population as somewhat of a protest vote, but the form of which they preferenced around 50/50 to the Liberals as well as Labor. Not only did the Greens come into their own this election ( with a substantial senate tally (9 as of the current estimates) and their first Member of the House of Representatives elected at a general election) but their current vote breakdown showed that the traditional greens supporter is slowly becoming a thing of the past. I’d posit that a great deal of greens voters, though pushing through a protest vote, are environmentally interested (and as Daniel Hannan says, the environment is too important to leave to the left), but the claim that the Left has over the environment, or progressive social policy is utterly fatuous.

Again, this is all speculation until the true figures about the preference flow can be determined, but it is certainly something to reflect on. To the left losing their minds on twitter and facebook and all around the internet, you brought this upon yourselves. Either in the form of the Labor party’s absolute complacency in regards to the will of the Australian population, or in regard to your claim to moral authority and moral governance. Their uproar of repugnance at the concept of Tony Abbott as PM shows how far away the average left-wing individual is from the wills of the Australian electorate. Though many voters may like the Green’s stance on electoral-wildfire issues such as gay marriage, or the treatment of refugees, when it comes to sound economic management and sound governance they know the economy is better in the hands of the right than anyone else.

Dan Nolan is a Software/UX Engineer at the UNSW and an avid follower of the political landscape in Australia.

Comments

[Dominic Bohan]

1.

It's a shame his plans for economic management include a huge new tax, and a socialistic maternity leave scheme. I agree that "the economy is better in the hands of the right than anyone else." I'm just not convinced that he is more right that Labor at all.

[Dan Nolan]

2.

I'd agree with you Dom, but where we are moving towards an overall reduction, a reduction in Company tax (a slight increase) plus a reduction in spending and a promise to reduce the liability every Australian citizen has as a part of government debt, well I approve of that.

[Cameron]

3.

Here's a headline you'll like

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-election/coalition-to-revive-identity-card-20100819-12s1l.html

Mr Hockey said the failure to get the card introduced was his biggest regret in politics. Asked if he would try to introduce it again if the Coalition wins, he replied: ''Absolutely - but only if we get fair dinkum consolidation (of agencies' IT systems) to give better use of technology.

[Dan Nolan]

4.

Oh god, why. Why?!

[Robert Candelori]

5.

I'm surprised that Hockey supports an identity card given his speech on personal freedom a few months ago denouncing things like CCTV and internet censorship.

[Ralph Prestage]

6.

It is interesting to note the Greens "IDEOLOGICAL" Agenda was inconspicuously published in WA on the 19 August just two days before voting day, 21 August.
But understandable when it contained the following initiative destroying policies;
Increase in Company Tax.
Introduce Estate Tax.
Restore resources super profits tax.
Abolish 30% private health insurance rebate.
Cut emissions by 40% by 2020
Allow medical marijuana use, increase injecting rooms and trial heroin prescriptions.
Abolish mandatory detention of asylum seekers.
End public subsidies for wealthiest private schools.
Allow same sex marriage.
The last item is understandable as the Greens leader, Bob Brown, wishes to take his partner Paul Thomas as his wife. But the other policies are a further blight on medical availability for the elderly and the most antiquated and socially destroying commitments ever unleashed on an unsuspecting voting public.
The party has the mantle of absolute Communism in the guise of environmental tree huggers.

[Dan Nolan]

7.

"Allow medical marijuana use, increase injecting rooms and trial heroin prescriptions."

All thoroughly medically sound policies. Medical Marijuana is a fantastic treatment for those undergoing chemotherapy. Injecting rooms reduce the instance of diseases transferred by injective drug users [you can live in the fantasy land that we can end drug use by being tough on drugs but we can't even keep heroin out of prisons let alone out of the general population] and heroin prescriptions worked after WW2 to help servicemen who were addicted to Morphine, heroin prescriptions help addicts live a productive life, rather than relying on a life of crime to deal with a serious addiction.

[John Angelico]

8.

Yes, he is clearly not wearing his thinking cap on this one!

[MichaelC]

9.

If you read his manifesto Battlelines, Tony Abbott in fact has a socially progressive agenda. His mind is thoroughly occupied with making the poor better off. The difference is, his is a 'tough love' versus the left's welfare state ideology.

I guess he wants to teach them to fish rather than setting up a nice little business of handing out to them other people's fish.

If you haven't read the book - I have summarized it at www.tonyabbottexposed.com. [don't mind the 'exposed' - it's just meant to tantalize].

[Fermista]

10.

Indeed, heroin has many useful properties as a prescription drug, and is a powerful analgesic. In the UK, heroin is a legally prescribed controlled drug, sold under the name "diamorphine" and is widely used in pallative care: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamorphine

[Benjamin Bankruptcy]

11.

Hey I'm a vego, climate change believer who voted FOR the coalition. I just think it 's the peoples responsibility to take action rather than the government. I think government should get out of the way of private people and businesses taking action.

[Benjamin Bankruptcy]

12.

I would also like to add that 80% of green preferences go to labour and 20% go to the coalition. So 1 in 5 green voters are potential coalition voters

[Tom F]

13.

Really? Your perception is that the right "grins and bears it" compared with the left, and to prove this you're using Catherine Deveny as a yardstick?

Urm... Catherine Deveny is to left as Piers Akerman is to right. Now, I'm no scientician, but my amateur analysis is that Daily Terror readers have just been privileged to observe 3 years of brimstone, apocalypse and bile aimed at the rather centre-right Kevin Rudd. I'd also be obliged if anyone could point me to a Miranda Devine or Andrew Bolt article showing strong evidence of the grin and bear it mentality you mention.

It's not lefties you're criticising, it's nutters who take politics waaaay too personally.

To quote one of the great poets of our generation:
H8trs gonna h8.

[Ralph Prestage]

14.

Dan, 24 Aug. It is also said that Ice and speed should be available free from Chemist shops. An interesting society!
To reduce drug abuse we should adopt the policies of Indonesia and Malaysia.
Some contend that America has not been successful with its death penalty but where would it be without it, catching up with the crime level in Australia.
Regarding the Greens on global warming (no, not 'climate change' when they find their is no warming) they should listen to Dick Smith who correctly identified the problem as massive world over population leading to this planet becoming a barren landscape.
The only statesmen to identify this problem was the Chinese, with a one child policy, against a large world wide condemnation. It is interesting that Carmen Lawrence, a later WA Labor Premier, together with a bunch of do gooders visited China on a protest mission. After a day of meetings the Chinese had the fortitude to deport them.
Unfortunately the only product from our legal system and the 3 tiers of government is not progress but combined incompetence and the constant crucification of the middle class working people.

[.]

15.

One child policies, executing recreational drug users (i.e Ben Cousins)...tell that to the 40% of Australian adults who have used drugs (i.e you want them to be put to death) (especially AFL fans) and you want people to basically substitute their children for money in the bank or more stuff...at the expense of future economic growth!

Dick Smith is a population crank. A sustainable population is a function of technology. Free markets are the best way to engender tehnological growth.

Is this Menzies House or Mao's House?

[.]

16.

Just a reminder of the trash that has been posted here lately.