The Inside Outside Dilemma

It's interesting to step back & watch a changing of the Government. It's not just the list of promises that will inevitably be broken - because the party that makes the biggest promises generally wins, by definition - but the rapid change in gears from being in Opposition to being in Government, being an outside observer pointing out mistakes to being the one supposedly with the hand on the tiller.

Some new Governments do it well. Some get lucky, so decimating their opposition that there is no-one left to effectively heckle. Some ... just have to grin sheepishly & make excuses as to why statements they made in opposition were based on insufficient information, or that they weren't aware "how bad things were" until they took the reins.

Worse, sometimes there has to be an about-face where politicking gets in the way of governing. Then we see a change from "our economy is stuffed - we will fix it!" to "hey, Mr Trading Partner, our economy is actually a great investment", or "we will force our neighbours to comply with our border protection plans!" to "hey, Mr Neighbour, we're in desperate need of your assistance because we can't actually do anything without you".

It's not naivety that makes an Opposition say stupid things. It is naivety that makes people believe them. That's the sad part. Oppositions will get away with outrageous lies as long as they can - that seems to be their sole purpose after being elected to parliament without being able to form the majority.

We often think that Governments lie because they break promises. The reality is that Governments rarely make promises they don't keep - they are in Government & are empowered to act. It's only Oppositions who can make outlandish claims without any need to back them up with evidence. They just need to make an emotional appeal through the media, who know full well what a good story looks like - & that really correlates with, or contains, the truth.

We - the voting public - are to blame for the quality of our Oppositions as much as for the Government. We elected them all at exactly the same moment.
Perhaps we should have a review of the voting system whereby people could mark off their choices with more than a tick - a truly preferential system, for example (number these for each candidate):

• I think this candidate would perform well as an effective member of the Government
• I think this candidate would bring the Government to task as a member of the Opposition
• I think this candidate is excellent entertainment, but should never be a member of a major party
• I think this candidate should be locked up
• I think this candidate is the least dangerous of the options before me

That would truly turn things inside out.