When Paul Keating started to lose the economic debate to John Howard in the 1990s, he would notoriously crank out the debates about the Republic or the Flag in an attempt to distract the media. After all, the middle class media loves nothing more than a discussion about their own utopian dreams of their personal version of a perfect future.

 

Whilst Keating’s media distractions were frustrating, they were at least harmless. No one’s lives or rights were being used in a cynical piece of political manipulation.

 

The same cannot be said for the chosen distractionary causes of the Victorian Premier, Daniel Andrews: LGBT rights.

 

You know that Daniel Andrews is feeling the political heat right now, because in this week’s Parliamentary session he is introducing not one, but two Bills designed to show his support for gay and transgender causes. His cynicism in exploiting the lives of minority groups in order to change a media narrative is as herculean in size as it is contemptable.

 

Observers of Victorian politics will have noticed that Daniel Andrews does not seek to progress LGBT rights to improve society, or bring society together, but as a brazen political wedge against anyone that opposes him. This week’s Bills are nothing more than an exercise in divide and conquer, and I for one resent having important issues that affect the gay community used in such a manner.

 

Parliament will this week debate a Bill to remove religious exceptions for religious schools and bodies from the Equal Opportunity Act. This is a complicated and nuanced issue, but it will not be presented as such; instead, it will be presented in absolutes. You are with us, or you’re a troglodyte. You support the Bill, or you’re homophobic. Debates of these tones do nothing to improve acceptance of LGBT issues in the community. In fact, Daniel Andrews is creating exactly the sort of intolerant and division debate that opponents of a same-sex marriage plebiscite say that process will create, and has clearly forgotten that only the Sith deal in absolutes.

 

Rights are a construction of humanity, and they evolve as the collective wisdom and understanding of humanity evolves. This means that occasionally rights that might appear at first to be absolute will come into conflict, and society has to debate and balance those conflicting rights.

 

In 1996, Australia had a debate about the conceptual right of citizens to own firearms, versus the abstract right of a society to be as free as possible from gun violence. Neither right existed anywhere in our law, yet a public debate was had, and a balance reached, which leaves our community better off, especially when contrasted with the tragic results arising from the absolutist approach taken to the codified right to bear arms in the United States.

 

One of the longstanding freedoms we have valued in Australia is the freedom to practice your religion, and to celebrate your faith, provided you do so within the law. Within Australia, faith based schools – Anglican, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, etc – are an important part of our education system, and are valued by the parents who send their students to those schools in part because of the values that are imparted beyond simply teaching reading, writing and arithmetic. Indeed, these are values that many secular schools seek to emulate.

 

It is therefore surely reasonable for the school to require any employee, in their interactions within the school community, to display a respect for the values of that school. Not a private adherence to them – what anyone does in their own private lives remains their affair – but a respect for them within the workplace.

 

Let me say bluntly, as a gay man I don’t feel that my rights or welfare are threatened because teachers at a Catholic school are asked to adhere to Catholic values, any more than I feel threatened by the weekly service at the local Mosque preaching Islam. Their faith is a personal matter, as it does not hurt me.

 

Let me say further, as a former student of an Anglican school, I am very comfortable that the overwhelming majority of the staff at any such school would always put the welfare of a student first, and have genuine processes in place to manage the welfare of LBGT students at those schools.

 

(Where this is not the case, this Bill will not address the issues. At all. And it is conceited to pretend that they will.)

 

In other words, I do not put my freedom to be an openly gay person above the freedom of another to practice their religion. By all means, I will happily use my freedom of expression to debate with others when gay rights and church dogma come into conflict, but I do so seeking to respectfully engage in an argument on merit, not by using the law to crush the alternative view.

 

More pragmatically, if I want to express the view that gay people should be allowed to marry, and that their marriages would not impinge upon the lives of others not supportive of them, then I cannot in good conscience condemn a religious school for what they say within their own community which does not affect me.

 

Tolerance must be mutual, if it is to be valued.

 

So far this year we have seen Daniel Andrews wade into the Federal issue of the same sex marriage plebiscite, asking the Prime Minister to break an election commitment (this from a Premier that justifies spending $1.1 billion to not build a road on the basis of refusing to break election commitments), to distract from Victorian issues.

 

His apology to the victims of past laws criminalising homosexuality was a neat political gesture, but displayed the partisanship of omission as he failed to acknowledge that it was the Hamer Government which decriminalised homosexuality in Victoria, and the Napthine Government which expunged those records.

 

The problem is not that the Premier raises these issues, but that he raises them for naked partisan gain, and in creating an “us vs them” environment, ends up doing more harm than good.

 

Most notably, this week’s proposed amendment to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Bill, which has been rushed out just as accusations of the Premier’s bullying style are starting to bite, creates so many loopholes, and bypasses any chance for community debate, that an opportunity for a real community discussion about transgender issues will be lost in the tumult of wedge politics. It is a wasted opportunity to move the community on these issues.

 

If Daniel Andrews really cared about advancing LGBT issues he would stop exploiting these issues as a political distraction, and using them as political wedges, and start working with all sides to have a debate about improving the rights of some, without harming the rights of others.

 

I won’t be holding my breath.

 

 

The coalition has won the election.

 

Whilst it has been a close run thing, given the attacks thrown at the Government from the left and the right, and the chaos and venom created at polling booths by multiple groups not even on the ballot, this is a big deal.

 

Could the campaign have been better? Of course. There are always lessons to learn.

 

But don’t forget that Menzies won in 1961 by 1 seat, and went on to increase his majority in 1963.

 

It seems the coalition will now have 76 or 77 seats. This is 4-5 seats less than generally expected. Part of this difference is the shock result in Tasmania, when all three sitting MPs were gone by 7pm on election night. Lindsay was also an unexpected loss, as was Longman in QLD. Effectively, those 5 are the difference between a close result, and a very good result.

 

The Government lost several seats in Western Sydney, but also held seats such as Banks and Reid that were by no means certain.

 

It held on to the inner-Brisbane seats of Brisbane and Petrie, the former following the resignation of the sitting MP. Indeed, it’s very possible that when counting finishes, Longman will be the only coalition loss in QLD.

 

Indeed, there has been no “wipe out” in any State, with Labor picking off low hanging fruit in each area, rather than seeing any one state swing strongly to them.

 

And the Liberal Party again showed it is the future, with the first, second and third openly gay members elected to the House of Representatives being Liberals.

 

Although there has been a sense of unease over the last week, if we counted our votes as they do in the UK, with every seat declared by morning, Australia would have woken to a re-elected, majority Turnbull Government, with no hint of instability.

 

The last time a Government was re-elected with a majority was 2004.

 

These are difficult times, and governing is hard. The levers that governments have available to pull rarely provide instant gratification, especially on economic policy.

 

It only takes 200 mentions for something to “trend” on Twitter and be picked up and treated as mainstream by the news, however niche the issue actually is.

 

So again, for a government to be re-elected at all is a big deal.

 

Now, to mention my absolute number 1 biggest frustration with the commentary on the campaign: everyone keeps saying how they want their Government and their Prime Minister to think beyond the 24 news cycle, and to have a plan for the future that goes beyond winning the next election.

 

Malcolm Turnbull and his Government did exactly this; they outlined the direction of fiscal policy for the next ten years, and discussed an agenda for a nation that cannot rely on a manufacturing industry, and cannot rely solely on primary industry. He sought to answer the question “where is the next generation of jobs coming from?”

 

This was exactly what I wanted to hear from my Prime Minister.

 

Talking heads now tell me that it failed to “connect with ordinary voters”, and didn’t have enough “what’s it in for them”. Well, in raw political terms this might be true. But isn’t that sort of raw politics over agenda setting what previous Prime Ministers have been criticised for?

 

I supported the Turnbull agenda before the election, and I certainly support it now.

 

Finally, we have heard a lot about the disaffected on the right on this election.

 

My first very strong comment is this: nobody voted Labor or Green, because the Liberal Party was not right wing enough.

 

To abandon the liberal centre of Australian politics – for I firmly believe that the centre of Australian politics is liberal, mixing values of freedom and small government with pragmatism and compassion – would be to abandon Government.

 

There are, in my mind, two distinct types of disaffected. The “Bolt Right” and the “Hanson Right”; both are groups of the electorate with valid concerns, who feel left out of mainstream debate. As a party, we must ensure that they do not feel ignored, patronised, or abandoned.

 

However, that doesn’t mean that we have to concede every point of their agenda either, because a successful party of Government must be in touch with modernity.

 

In the case of the Bolt Right – genuine, philosophical conservatives – this is especially hard, as the debate must soon move beyond several of their key policy shibboleths. Same sex marriage will happen; every day that it does not is a day public debate is anchored and cannot move forward. Similarly, environmental policy must move forward to address the needs of modern society, and this means all sides moving beyond the stagnant debate on climate change and embracing a broader environmental agenda.

 

Perhaps these are issues that, like a band aid, just need to be ripped from the body politic so all can move on, even if things sting a little for some?

 

However, on issues of free speech and trade, there is much more common ground between the liberals and the conservatives, and those areas should be highlighted, and celebrated.

 

As for the Hanson right, who would seem to be an Australian representation of the American Trump vote, or the UK’s UKIP, we must understand that their fears are real, and genuinely meant. We must not be afraid to use some of their language when debating complicated issues of cultural significance. Certainly we must ensure them that they are not politically incorrect to want to celebrate Christmas in schools, or to call out the links between some terrorism, and some aspects of Islam.

 

However, our principles of tolerance, freedom of religion, and common moral decency mean that our leaders must also reject anything that goes beyond honest concern and becomes racism. We cannot ban mosques any more than we can ban churches. The demand for Halal food should de decided by the free market; as long as people want it, shops will sell it. If shops can’t make a living selling halal, they’ll stop selling it.

 

Our Prime Minister is right to celebrate religious festivals with Islamic leaders, and doing so does not mean that he cannot also call out extremist Islam.

 

Can our dialogue be better? Yes; and it has to be.

 

But Australia is at its best as a modern, liberal and compassionate society. Out Government should continue to reflect that, and I believe this Prime Minister is the best to achieve that.

 

Congratulations to him on his re-election.

Strange things happen inside political parties.

 

Sometimes, within the bubble universe that activists participate in, and inside which they busily reinforce each other’s views, issues that seem obscure to the rest of the world become totemic. Shibboleths.

 

Such an issue for the UK Conservative Party is that of Europe, which destroyed the leadership of its last two Prime Ministers, and could be about to do the same to David Cameron.

 

In 1990 Mrs Thatcher was wounded by a number of issues, most notably the bungling of the Community Charge (more commonly known as the Poll Tax), but it was the resignations of first her Chancellor, and then her Deputy Prime Minister, over European policy that caused the leadership challenge which ended her career after three consecutive election wins.

 

John Major went on to win an improbable fourth election in 1992, before the Maastricht Rebels (or as Major called them, “The Bastards”) blew up his Government from the inside. Yes, Britain’s forced removal from the ERM, plus years of Tory scandal, meant that Major was likely finished anyway in 1997, however the effective collapse of his Government over Europe ensured that Tony Blair won extra big.

 

The Tories went on to elect first William Hague and then Ian Duncan Smith as leaders, not because the were the best candidates, most experienced candidates, or most popular candidates (they weren’t), but because they were the most Eurosceptic.

 

This need for purity on the European issue helped ensure that Labour’s victories in 2001 and 2005 were larger than they had to be, making David Cameron’s chances of winning a majority in 2010 all the more difficult.

 

Yet, he was able to govern in coalition with the Liberal Democrats for a term, and go on to win a narrow but workable majority in 2015.

 

The election of Jeremy Corbyn to the position of Labour leader later that year led to cheers amongst Tory supporters; Labour was now unelectable, they argued, and the Conservatives would romp it home next time.

 

Even back then, I urged caution; in a two horse race, both horses have a chance. Plus, the Brexit referendum was just around the corner.

 

I won’t go into the pros and cons of Brexit here, accept to say that issues around trade, plus Parliamentary and judicial sovereignty, mean that I’m naturally inclined to support it.

 

However, David Cameron has a larger world to inhabit, and reasonably is sticking to the more financially cautious option of advocating for Britain to remain in the EU, albeit with a few newly negotiated carve outs.

 

But now, Cameron can only lose. Probably.

 

In the event that Brexit gets up, against the policies of the Prime Minister, Cameron’s leadership will be finished. He will have to resign, and before the end of the year.

 

In the more likely scenario that Cameron wins the day and Brexit fails at the ballot box, Cameron’s political end is still likely, however it will be slower, and considerable more painful for all concerned.

 

The Tory party’s backbench is far more Eurosceptic than the Cabinet is. For many, Europe is the single main reason they got into politics. They will not forgive, or forget, if their once in a generation vote to leave the EU is foiled by their own leader.

 

Cameron has allowed Government funds to be used to provide pro-EU pamphlets to British households, and has led the campaign to remain. In the eyes of his Parliamentary colleagues, he will be personally culpable for their loss.

 

At least, in the eyes of enough colleagues to detonate his leadership, and likely spark a civil war inside the Tory party.

 

How would Cameron’s loyal lieutenants in the cabinet react if their man is torn down, as his reward for rescuing them from the wilderness in 2010, and winnable an improbable victory in 2015?

 

What would happen to the majority of the Cabinet that also advocated to remain in Europe?

 

And once that Eurosceptics have tasted blood – especially if they can install a pro-Brexit leader – are they likely to stop as long as the UK is in the EU? I suggest not.

 

The one thing voters hate more than disunity, is disunity over an issue that they don’t really care about.

 

For many UK residents, the EU doesn’t really affect their day-to-day lives. At least, not as much as keeping a job, paying the bills, raising the kids, and all those other pieces of daily life. This will be especially the case if the people have just spoken clearly in a referendum and chosen to remain.

 

If the Conservatives decide to return to the 1990s and define themselves against Europe, they will lose the community, and then lose the election. And Corbyn moves into Downing Street.

 

If the referendum fails, the party – the whole party – must accept the result, and focus on governing.

 

Because the alternate is Prime Minister Corbyn. Against a Tory party in the midst of civil war, even he could win.

Rarely does an actor have as complete a breakout movie experience as Taron Egerton did with the movie Kingsman: The Secret Service, which seemed to come from no-where at the start of 2015 to be one of the success stories of the year, grossing over US$400m worldwide. The success of this film was in no small part down to the onscreen charisma of Egerton, in his first ever feature length film role.

 

The question therefore is whether Egerton is a one-note wonder destined to forever play variations of the same role (hello, Hugh Grant), or a fully rounded actor ready for a diverse and interesting career.

 

Eddie the Eagle answers this question, as Egerton plays the lead character – the real life British sky jumper Michael “Eddie” Edwards – and totally immerses himself in the part. He successfully brings the audience on side in loving the character, whilst retaining the naive goofiness of the role. At the same time, he removes all memory of his Kingsmen role, a good sign for his future.

 

This is important, as the movie will only work if the audience buys into the improbable quest of Edwards to become an Olympian. Egerton’s performance ensures that only those with hearts of stone will not.

 

He is supported by Hugh Jackman, giving his usual strong performance, whilst Tim McInnerny provides the villain of the piece, who remains a realistic character, the right side of pantomime.

 

Of special note however is the direction, by Dexter Fletcher (formally of Press Gang fame).

 

Fletcher avoids the usual trap of smaller budget films (Eddie the Eagle was made for US$23m), which more often than not try to do something innovative (and annoying) with the direction in the traditional scenes. However, his imaginative filming of the sky jumps – each one different – is excellent, allowing the audience to really appreciate the terror of the sport.

 

Is the movie a pile of feel good schmaltz? Of course it is.

 

But it’s the best quality of schmaltz.

 

By the final act of the film, the cameo by a certain high profile Hollywood actor adds the perfect evaluation to an otherwise lovely film.

 

 

One of the great joys of watching movies is seeing young stars arrive. Spotting them as talented young actors in obscure roles, before they suddenly have their breakout moment.

 

Departure – shown as part of the Melbourne Queer Film Festival – is Alex Lawther’s movie. Lawther has yet to have his own real film breakthrough, but has been successful in the last couple of years, playing the young Alan Turing in the disappointing Imitation Game, as well has having a supporting actor role in the delightful X+Y last year.

 

Lawther is a talented actor, with a natural quirkiness similar to that of Ben “the new Q in the Bond films” Whishaw, which means he’ll never be a romantic lead (who’ll burst onto screen, be amazingly successful, and then flame out by the age of 35), but instead will have decades of interesting roles ahead of him.

 

As such, he makes this rather ordinary coming of age/coming out film more interesting that it should be.

 

The coming of age (and out) sub-genre was at its peak in the 1990s, when these sorts of stories hadn’t really been told on film before. Now, it seems that every possible variation of the theme has been told.

 

Departure tries to be original by setting the film in France, at the holiday house of a couple in the midst of a marriage breakup. This does allow for some nice cinematography, and the desperation of Lawther’s character’s mother (Juliet Stevenson) does allow for a couple of minor twists that also keep the plot just the right side of interesting.

 

Oh, and there are a couple of very funny jokes about carrots.

 

As a nice piece of cinema, Departure works. Its well filmed, Lawther is engaging as the lead, and the story moves along at just the right pace.

 

But it’s also incredibly transient; this is not a film that people will be reaching for in a decade’s time, as they did its cousins of the 1990s.

 

Still, keep an eye out for Alex Lawther; this kid will be something.