“Human beings who blind themselves to human need make themselves less human.” William Sloan Coffin
Our mandarins in Canberra would do well to take note whilst deliberating on just which party forms government.
I wonder if the politicians are actually factoring in what’s best for Australia when debating which party should form government?
At the outset of this Federal poll, I was largely unsympathetic towards the Labour party after what they did to Kevin Rudd. So I think I can weigh into this debate with a fairly unbiased view on the matter.
On balance, the Labour party is the best outcome for this country right now.
For one they will provide the stability of incumbency – especially given they’ve only served one term. And let’s face it – both sides have moved so close to the centre there’s barely any difference between the two. Even Treasury’s costings of their policies showed negligible difference between the two according to ABC’s economics analyst interviewed on Lateline (Friday 3 September, 2010). So why not stay with the party in power for the time being at least?
Secondly, a disparate coalition of players that represent a broad church of citizens will best serve our country. If Labour does get over the line with the support of a least two of the conservative “three amigos” along Bandt (Greens) and Wilkie, there will potentially be a wide range of views in government. Given the nation-wide voting patterns, such a government will more accurately represent the will of the people.
Finally, Julia Giilard has a track record for being a skilled negotiator. Given the factor of the independents, stable government will require a leader that can arbitrate their potentially conflicting views. Whichever side gets in – negotiation skills will be vital to effective leadership.
So let’s allow Australia to ‘move forward’ with a government the people have clearly asked for. A Labour/Greens/conservative independents team headed up by an experienced negotiator with the stability of incumbency is a winning combination.