Saturday, August 21, 2010
FDA Audit of the Visions of Gillard and Abbot (2010 Australian General Election)
What is the overall outlook/direction for the future of Australia, and to what degree does it represent the best interests of the people of Australia?
Julia Gillard (Australian Labor Party)
Together, Let’s move Australia forward
A Positive Plan to Move Australia Forward
As I’ve travelled around Australia, I've constantly been reminded of one thing: day in and day out, our people work for their families, their communities and their country, and they do so very hard.
Australians play by the rules, set their alarms early, get their kids off to school, and work hard to provide for their family.
This election I've worked hard to lay out a positive plan for the future of Australia.
It’s a plan to build a stronger economy, provide more jobs, provide better health, better education, invest in infrastructure, and ensure a fairer and more sustainable society for all.
I believe Australians deserve better than the backward vision that has been presented by Mr Abbott.
We’re better than that, we are a confident, optimistic people, and together, let’s show it this Saturday.
Only Julia Gillard has a positive plan to move our economy forward with business tax cuts, a National Broadband Network, and fully costed promises.
FDA Summary: build a strong economy together through business tax cuts, national broadband network, fully costed promises. Reactionary to Liberal party. No overall vision of what Australia represents now or in the future. No long-term vision.
Tony Abbot (Liberal Party of Australia)
Stand up for Australia. Stand up for real action.
End Labor’s waste and restore cabinet government
The Hon Tony Abbott Leader of the Opposition
Labor has wasted too much taxpayers’ money.
The Coalition won’t repeat Labor’s disastrous ‘pink batts’ program.
The Coalition will also stop the billions of dollars being wasted through the ‘school halls’ program, and cut spending on government advertising.
Bad processes produce bad decisions.
Unlike Labor where decisions are made without proper process or consultation, the Coalition will restore the decision-making processes of Cabinet to restore integrity to government decision-making.
FDA Summary: reduce government spending and restore decision-making process of Cabinet. No overall vision of what Australia represents now or in the future. Reactionary to the Labor party. No long-term vision.
Scores: Gillard Abbot
Rational for scores:
Gillard envisions a more active government with some financial responsibility, while Abbot envisions a reduced government with better decision-making. Both visions are short-term, and lack an overall vision for Australians. Moreover, both visions are promoting a stronger Australian government, but through different means—careful government expansion versus government contraction.
Australia is not a country onto itself. And the world economy is struggling in its recovery from a worldwide recession. Therefore, it follows that Liberal conservative is likely better in the short-term for Australians.
Both Gillard and Abbot’s visions were general to Australians and lacked a long-term, overall perspective. Therefore, their scores for vision are mediocre. Abbot received a higher score, because his vision with reduced government and better government decision-making is more reasonable considering the troubling global economy.
1.Abbot 6/10 60%
2. Gillard 5/10 50%
The lower the grade, the less satisfactory the candidate is. The higher the grade, the more satisfactory the candidate is.
The Australian electoral audit was limited to vision, and therefore, the ranking of Abbot and Gillard is limited as well. However, the visions of the candidates, and their respective quality, should give a give reasonable idea as to what these candidates offer Australians, because vision represents what a candidate offers overall.
Considering the low scores for visions for Gillard and Abbot, Australians should not expect much from these candidates.
Moreover, Australian democracy is dominated by a two party democracy made up of the Liberal Party of Australia and Australian Labor Party. Hence, the poor visions of Gillard and Abbot are amplified. (In the 2007 Australian General election for example , the Labor party won 43.38% of the vote, Liberal party 36.61%, and with the nearest other party, the National Party, 5.49%.)
Australians should strive to break the two-party hierarchy, thereby allow more parties, with differing perspectives, to have an opportunity to govern Australia.
In the context of the FDA audits for vision in the 2010 British General election and 2008 US presidential election, all the candidates had mediocre scores for visions, except for Nader who scored 100% and Brown who scored 70%.
However, Nader not being part of the US two-party hierarchy was sidelined in the US political process receiving only .5% of the US vote. Brown and his British Labor party lost the 2010 election, and his vision was offset by his poor incumbency record and the decline of the British economy. The British voters with little to choose from overall gave support to the short-term economic outlook of the British Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
Actual election results:
The 2010 Australia General Election resulted in a hung parliament, which means no party attained a majority of the seats in the Australian parliament. This result is consistent with the FDA audit, which shows the leading candidates, Gillard and Abbot, to be mediocre in terms of their visions for Australia. Moreover, a hung parliament will force the Australian Labor party and the Liberal Party of Australia to form coalitions with other parties and independents, thus allow greater representation of the Australian people and at the same time, weaken the Australian two-party hierarchical political system.
FDA 2010 Australia Vision Audit