One Finite Planet

Brexit: Litmus test, Labor vs Liberal

First Published:

Red or Blue?  What will the litmus indicate in the Australian election just one week in the aftermath of the stunning ‘Brexit’ outcome?

It could be argued that the ‘Brexit’ result will play to whichever party best manages to leverage the angle presented to them.

The players and positions.

Liberals Position: Strong and Steady.

This is a strong position, and probably optimum.  ‘Never change a leader during a war’ or ‘never change horses mid-stream’.    Simply presenting that ‘Brexit’ heralds troubled times should be sufficient to deliver an advantage to the incumbent.  The Liberal team is attempting to present themselves as the better financial managers.

Labor Position: Defend against liberals.

This is a weak position, and there appear to be far better tactics!   Attempting to counter the Liberals argument that the Liberal team are better managers fails on many fronts.  Firstly, the public is tired of politicians simply taking a contrary position.  Secondly, having the argument as to who is best in a crisis, reinforces the perspective there is a crisis, which is not a good argument for changing the government.

What Better tactics are available for Labor?

The Liberals platform:  help big business, and that will create jobs and people will share in the wealth.   The liberals are well meaning, but it just doesn’t work.  Big business will distribute that money only to the rich increaing the gap between the very rich and resto of us.

Dissatisfaction with this increasing wealth gap is what drove the British in desperation to vote for Brexit.  The opportunity for Labor would be to tap this dissatisfaction with ‘the establishment’ and portray the tax cuts by the Liberals as being in the pocket of the big business establishment.


The Liberals have better capitalised on the opportunities available, and therefore would be expected to win.



Table of Contents


Crime: A litmus test for inequality?

Around the world, many countries have both a battle with equality for some racial groups and minorities and also a battle with crime-rates within and by those same groups.

Should we consider crime rates the real sentinels of problems and a solution require focusing on factors behind crime rates? Or is the correct response to rising crime rates or crime rates within specific groups an adoption of being “tough on crime”, thus increasing rates of incarceration and even deaths in custody for oppressed minorities and racial groups?

This is an exploration of not adjusting the level of penalties and instead focusing on the core issues and inequalities behind crime-rates. It is clear that it is “damaged people” in general rather than specific racial groups that correlate with elevated crime rates, so why not use crime rates to identify who is facing inequality?

Read More »

Ukraine: Putin and China, method or madness?

What if Russia and China both intended that the invasion of Ukraine would trigger global inflation and food shortages, and a potentially new financial crisis?

That Putin sees himself in the image of Peter the Great and restoring the Russian empire is no secret, and is generally portrayed as evidence that Putin has completely lost the plot. But what if there is a bigger plan involving both Russia and China that starts with triggering a global financial crisis? A dangerous game by two desperate leaders needing to bring others with them as their own economies collapse.

Read More »