Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

MAD doctrine doesn't translate in modern domestic politics

By Rick Brown - posted Wednesday, 5 June 2013


Many of us think that while unions are affiliated to the Labor Party a group of careerists will manipulate the system to achieve their goals, regardless of how much money the unions give to Labor.

As for the Liberals, we think that, regardless of how much money Coles and Woolworths or BHP and Rio Tinto give, they will have more sway over them than we do. After all the big three mining companies did not change Labor's mining tax by donating money to them.

What they also do not get is the apparent hypocricy of this argument.

Advertisement

On the one hand we have governments all around the country, both Labor and Liberal, telling public servants that they have to tighten their belts. It is called a 'productivity dividend' and it has been foisted on public services for years.

On the other hand, with odd exceptions such as the car industry (i.e. the equivalent of Coles and Woolworths), businesses are told that, if costs are too high, do not come looking to governments looking for a handout.

Likewise if the local football club cannot recruit enough members or enough players it fields fewer teams or folds up.

Yet, when it comes to the inability of political parties to recruit members or attract donors, there is not any suggestion of folding up or cutting back election campaigns. Rather the solution is to sting the taxpayer.

If democracy is as threatened as political parties say and they want us to come to the rescue, they need to convince us that things are as bad as they claim and that their solution will work.

After all, what evidence is there that our throwing more money into the honey pot will not merely mean more television advertisements and more work for pollsters and political consultants?

Advertisement

Why would the problem not be solved by restricting expenditure on election campaigns?

Why should taxpayers fund the administration of political parties? If they cannot sell themselves to recruit members why should that become the taxpayers' problem?

Why should political parties not be like any other business? If they cannot raise the money do not spend it.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

6 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Rick Brown is a director of CPI Strategic, which focuses on strategic advice and market analysis. He was an adviser to Howard government ministers Nick Minchin and Kevin Andrews, from 2004 to 2007.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Rick Brown

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Rick Brown
Article Tools
Comment 6 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy