Astonishing misrepresentation in anti-Labor rant

I support neither of the main two political parties but I am astonished at the anti-Labor rant from Colin Williams that you published in issue 316 ("Government should be sent packing").

There are many criticisms that can be made of the Government (and of the Opposition), but the almost hysterical exaggerations and misrepresentations that make up the letter in question seem to call for some rational appraisal.

I am sure that you will be hearing rebuttals from Labor supporters but might I make some neutral comments on some of the points raised in the letter.

I pass over the irrelevant opening references to the Stagirite, since the views attributed to him were presumably culled from Readers Digest or some similar authoritative publication.

Unfortunately, the laboured attempt to link Aristotle's moderation with Liberal Party principles of "avenues free from restriction...self-expression and enterprises" requires a level of double-think that Orwell would be proud of.

Any reading of Liberal Party policies will make it apparent that support for public enterprise is not "well entrenched in their policies" and that there is little or no "support for the admiral (sic) aspects of socialism".

The pursuit of enterprises free from restriction was what led us to the GFC, so that it might well be prudent only to rely on private enterprise when it is well regulated in the public interest.

The statement that "Labor...believes it is best equipped to cater for individuals and regulations which they foist on individuals...with very little consultation" could be simply amended by substituting The Coalition for Labor, without having the least effect on the truth of the proposition.

Similarly, the statement that "Labor emanated from socialism" (assuming that is a bad thing) can be balanced by the statement that Liberals are the descendants of the robber barons, with both being equally true.

None of this seems to have much to do with the proposition that we need a change of government.

Similarly, we all have "desperate yearnings...for the installation of personnel who will deliver a safe, secure and flourishing Australia" just as we all approve of motherhood, world peace and the elimination of poverty, but where is the evidence that Labor or Liberal demonstrates the competence to ensure the achievement of these goals?

Is it a question of "throw the rascals out" or "out of the frying pan into the fire"?

Has any party spelt out a credible, long-term policy for a sustainable, harmonious society?

As for the claims that the present Government has "presided over massive debt and budget blowouts, the loss of control of our borders, the Pink Batts and the Building the Education Revolution fiascos and the declination (whatever that means: I think it is an astronomical term) of the cattle industry", I think this information must have come from Alan Jones.

Firstly, Australia does not have a massive debt, secondly, deficit budgeting is a rational response in the present economic climate, thirdly, the loss of control of our borders is a xenophobic fantasy, fourthly, the Building the Education Revolution programme was highly successful in achieving its goals, and fifthly, the problems in our farming sector are a function of the appreciating Australian dollar which, on the other hand, all consumers benefit from, so what you lose on the swings you gain on the roundabouts.

If the pink-batts failure (an excellent programme that was badly executed) is the only negative that can be chalked up against the Government, it seems flimsy grounds for criticism.

Of course, the Government has been "guilty of lies" (shock, horror!).

All politicians lie.

However, some prefer to block out the memory of John Howard's "non-core promises" and like to overlook the Opposition Leader's frank admission that we cannot believe oral statements that he makes but only written commitments in official documents.

On this basis, how could anyone vote for either Labor or Liberal?

My objection to the Labor Government is its pusillanimous handling of the crucial fiscal, social and environmental issues that a real government would be tackling.

My objection to the Liberal Opposition is that it doesn't seem to have the faintest idea that these issues exist, in fact, it seems that the Opposition doesn't have the faintest idea of what an idea is.

However, as long as our alternatives are lunatics like Pauline Hanson, Andrew Forrest and Bob Katter, what are electors to do?

It's a pity that the only people who really know how to run the country are too busy writing letters to the Peninsula News.

Email, 29 Apr 2013

Bruce Hyland, Daleys Point