We still need you, Malcolm

Oh Malcolm, so much has happened since my last little chat. You’ve come back to politics! Oh, that made me happy. So happy.  And Kevin Rudd crumbled on the ETS.  For the “greatest moral problem of our time”, he didn’t really show much commitment or gumption, did he?  Both Rudd and Tony Abbott had bush league performances on the 7:30 Report. I could not have been less impressed with Australian politics if I tried.

And all of this just made me think, Malcolm, that we need you more then ever.  And we need your third party.

You see, I was sitting in the audience and Q & A, listening to my local member, Tanya Plibersek, defend the internet filter.  Plibersek. Who doesn’t even have a website, so safe is her seat.  And I thought: she’s not my representative!  She doesn’t reflect my views or the views of my electorate! She just toes the party line, because she doesn’t have to worry about her voters going somewhere else.

Malcolm, can’t you give us somewhere to go?

I can’t vote for the Greens! Their tax policy is absurd: it’s so progressive, it will hurt the economy by removing incentives for companies to invest here, and for people to work hard.  Seriously, when your top individual tax rate can be 58%, who WANTS to work long hours to build a strong career?  How is the Australian economy ever going to meet 21st century challenges with those kind of disincentives?

And this is why we need you, Malcolm.  You understand the free market.  You understand the importance of letting the market do what it does best, but intervening when it fails.  That is the best of capitalist democratic government, and you can help us be that.  I have full faith you’d take the correct position on the mining tax, on bank regulation, on corporate tax rates.  Because populist outrage isn’t the foundation of smart policy making, and one needs to balance revenue raising with the risk of curbing economic growth.

We also need someone who gets the need to tax carbon emissions (and, dare I hope, price for negative externalities?) Someone who gets the the environment needs to be protected.  Someone who understands the education and health care systems are an investment in Australia’s future, and need to be nurtured.  Someone who isn’t precious, and overly protective of the status quo, but has to courage to challenge norms.

In short, someone like you, Malcolm.

But we also need a good dose of social liberalism. Let’s get rid of institutionalized discrimination for once and all.  We need to make marriage available to ALL Australians, regardless of sexual preference.  We need to butt out of people’s private lives, and let them make the decisions that effect them and nobody else.

So Malcolm, I still think we need you.  We need your third party.  Can you please quit the Libs, run as an Independent, win your seat, and be a voice for reason in the House of Representatives?  You know, actually REPRESENT your electorate, rather than toeing some party line that you don’t agree with.

And then, once you’re elected, we can launch your party. We can target a number of seats. We can run people for the Senate. I doubt it would take long.  There’s real desire here, real need.

You can do it, Malcolm. We need you to.

PS. The Draft Malcolm movement has a growing Facebook group, a relatively new Twitter account, and a soon-to-be-launched website. Follow us on twitter or email draftmalcolm [at] gmail [dot] com.

3 thoughts on “We still need you, Malcolm

  1. Tanya actually does have a website. It’s under reconstruction.

    http://tanyaplibersek.com/

    While I agree that there needs to be more social liberalism and oppose the internet filter (don’t agree on economics), I think your main issue is actually with the structure of politics in Australia, mainly compulsory voting and the strong nature of party discipline in Australia (partially due to historical factors such as it taking 9 years to get a majority government at a federal level and the eventual fusion of liberals and conservatives in response). There being a third party i.e. Democrats Mark II won’t address it at all.

    In the case of Tanya it’s due to Westminister principles. Even if there wasn’t any strong party discipline she still would be defending the filter so long as it was a Government policy. She is bound by the principle of Cabinet solidarity. (Mind you she looked very uncomfortable having to defend the filter and the new stance towards refugees which many people, particularly in the ALP in her own seat are against). Malcolm knew that principle quite well when he was a Minister and had to defend things he disagreed with.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *