Mission Accomplished: The Australian electorate may have believed they were getting rid of a dysfunctional Labor government, but media mogul Rupert Murdoch knows better. What the Australian election was really about was purging the welfare rolls and getting rid of thousands of public servants.
WITHIN MINUTES of Tony Abbott’s crushing election victory
being confirmed, the Australian-born media mogul, Rupert Murdoch, tweeted.
“Aust election public sick of public sector workers and phony welfare
scroungers sucking life out of economy.”
Is that really what the Australian election was all about?
Did it really have nothing to do with the Australian people’s impatience with a
Labor Government seemingly more interested in publicly disembowelling itself than
governing wisely? Had Australian voters really forgiven Julia Gillard for reneging
on her promise not to introduce a carbon tax? Did Australia’s perennial
xenophobia really play no part in the outcome? Was Tony Abbott’s succinct
injunction to “stop the boats” really without effect?
Former Labor prime minister, Bob Hawke, early on confided to
his Sky News audience that: “I really believe this was an election that was
lost by the government rather than one that was won by Tony Abbott.” As the
grim tally of lost seats mounted, Labor politicians, both successful and
unsuccessful, told reporters a very similar story. On the hustings, the message
from constituents had been remarkably consistent: if voting for the Liberals was
the only way to bring Labor to its senses, then, however reluctantly, that is
what they were prepared to do.
What, then, are we to make of Mr Murdoch’s tweet? Why did
the billionaire owner of nearly two-thirds of the Australian news media
characterise Australian public servants and beneficiaries as metaphorical
vampires sucking the life out of the Australian economy?
The idea that someone as wealthy and powerful as Rupert
Murdoch might be driven by the same petty prejudices as the whinging cobber
propping up the bar at the nearest RSL is unnerving. Much more reassuring is
the notion that someone with Mr Murdoch’s resources is morally obliged to take
a more detached and informed position on the challenges facing Australia.
Perhaps he knew something we didn’t.
Which is, of course, highly likely. The Murdoch Press, long
the implacable foe of both Kevin Rudd’s and Julia Gillard’s Labor governments,
undoubtedly expended considerable sums on opinion polling and focus groups. Under
the right moderator, these latter can deliver information inaccessible to all
but the old-fashioned party canvasser: the sort of unvarnished, uninhibited and
spontaneously delivered expression of opinion that all-too-often eludes the
professional opinion pollster.
Deep-seated antipathy to the poor and public servants almost
certainly emerged from the research undertaken on Mr Murdoch’s behalf. And
there is a good chance that these powerfully negative attitudes were present at
both the top and the bottom of Australian society.
The working poor, and beneficiaries struggling to escape
their situation, have no reason to love either the people they perceive to be
“bludging” off their meagre incomes, or the public servants who exercise so
much power over their own and their families’ daily lives. For these
Australians the emotional connection between personal experience and political
response is direct and visceral. Associating it with the name of a political
party is a highly effective political tactic.
In the case of the wealthy, the hostility towards “public
sector workers and phony welfare scroungers” arises out of a more complex
series of calculations.
The “phoney welfare scroungers” are proxies for the much
larger number of economically stressed Australians who might, with the right
political inspiration, be persuaded to back an aggressive redistribution of
wealth across Australian society. Forestalling such a move requires the wealthiest
Australians to convince a majority of their fellow citizens that the poor and
disadvantaged are responsible for their own misfortunes. They are lazy and live
only for the moment and cannot, therefore, lay legitimate claim to the
resources of their more diligent and self-disciplined neighbours.
That these “scroungers” are, nevertheless, allowed to gobble
up so much of the Australian federal budget, the wealthy argue, is attributable
to a “culture of entitlement” fostered by a parasitic class of intellectuals
and activists located, overwhelmingly, in the public sector. What’s more, this
“new class” of middle-class professionals and managers has become a law unto itself,
funded by and lording it over the “productive sector” of Australian society. (A
category which embraces not only the captains of Australian industry, but also the
“battlers” of the hard-pressed Australian working-class.)
Following in the footsteps of the hard-line Republican Governors
of American states like Wisconsin and Michigan, and David Cameron’s coalition
government in the UK, Mr Murdoch’s tweet signals his expectation that Mr Abbott’s
newly-elected government will safeguard the interests of people like himself by
attacking the entitlement culture from both ends
First, by dramatically down-sizing the public sector.
Second, by forcing beneficiaries off the welfare rolls.
The massive fiscal savings resulting from such a policy mean
that the redistribution of wealth that would otherwise be required can be
avoided.
In that triumphant tweet, Mr Murdoch let slip his real
reasons for backing Mr Abbott.
This essay was originally published in The Press of Tuesday, 10 September 2013.
4 comments:
What I don't get is how someone supposedly in charge of a huge multinational finds the time to tweak inanities. Obviously got too much time on his hands. Probably overpaid too :-).
I don't hold much store in what Rup the Shocker Ocker has to say. He is completely out of touch with reality. His empire never lets the truth get in the way of a good story.
Bob Hawke is correct; Govts. are voted out never voted in. Ockers had enough of the in-fighting in the quasi-liberal Labour Party and it's very public bleeding.
Tony won't do anything much different but trim bits off here and there and perhaps do a benefit bashing ala Paula Bennett. Neither will do any major thing for their economy.
Is he not just another exploiter capitalist, putting the boot into a Labour socialist government,as all exploiter capitalists like to do.
Eilizabeth Rata has an interesting take on Labours shift away form a public to a collection of cultures and she takes a swing at Nationals move from a public to a private (dominated as they are by vested interests).
http://www.fabians.org.nz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=200:democracy-diversity&catid=41&Itemid=79
Post a Comment