Well, I’m voting for Labor tomorrow. My reasons, in order of priority, are:
- Labor will ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
- It seems like Labor cares about education.
- If we return the Coalition to power, John Howard will take it to mean his previous transgressions have been forgiven. Refugee detention, war in Iraq, the Energy White Paper… He will get away with it all.
I have talked to quite a few people (including my parents) about their voting intentions and overwhelmingly, people are voting with their own interests in mind. It seems very, very strange to me. People are more concerned with their own mortgage, their own tax payments, their own health benefits. “Oh, the HECS rises don’t worry me because I’m graduating this year.”
It’s awful. We’re selfish. I personally will be better off under the Coalition; their private health insurance subsidy and superannuation co-contributions will give me thousands of dollars. But the future of our country is more important than a strong economy (and my personal wealth)! A letter to the editor in today’s Herald Sun reminded us that a strong economy is not an ends in itself. What’s the point of having a good economy if our quality of life is low? What good is a strong economy without a good health system, education system, environment?
If we really are as selfish as this voting behaviour suggests, then the environment is doomed. By the time the environment has degraded to the point that we personally suffer the effects in a dramatic (media-worthy) way, it will be too late.
You know, that’s one of the biggest problems with campaigning for the environment — a lot of the symptoms of a sick environment aren’t all that dramatic.
Recently, there was that film about crazy floods and all that (I can’t remember what it’s called. “The Day After Tomorrow”?). On one hand, it’s good that they’re putting the the nasty consequences of mistreating the environment into the public spotlight. On the other hand, does it dull the mass’ senses to real, less Hollywood environmental problems?
vera