A letter to one of Julia’s Staffers

I sent the following letter to one of Julia Gillard’s staffers after reading an extract from her speech to Howe’s boys. This is the letter.

The Office of Her Majesty,
The Prime Minister of Australia,
Our Virgin Queen,
Ms Julia Gillard.

To whom it may concern,

I was confused by a couple of section’s of Prime Minister Gillard’s speech at the AWU national conference this week relating to the core principles of the Labor party. Would you be able to assist me?

My specific consternation arose from the following:

“I do not believe the Labor Party has ever forgotten its purpose, which is to ensure that every Australian, no matter the circumstances of their birth, enjoys opportunity. A fair nation does not unfairly deny a child access to opportunity. This is what we have fought for, opportunity and social mobility.

“That’s why the manual worker dreams of his son getting an apprenticeship. That’s why the trades person dreams of his daughter going to university.”

Opportunity here seems to be equated with the fomenting of a social hierarchy to climb, a la Robert Menzies project for Australia’s forgotten people.
Then the following is offered, giving a slightly different qualification to opportunity.

“We will work together as a political party, with the labour movement, with the broader community, to bring change to our nation, to further opportunity for every child, opportunity for every person, driving towards a nation where we can truly say demography is not destiny and you cannot predict a child’s path by knowing which postcode their parents reside in.”

Here opportunity is equated with an equality that maximises individual choice. The goal is to create a society in which the choices that a person makes are not determined by the choices of their parents or any other ancestor.

Isn’t there a contradiction here? If we understand it as just, fair, to help a person pursue social advantage for their children does it not then become unjust, unfair, to create a society in which demography is inconsequential to such efforts?

Further, if we wish to create a society in which demography is not destiny then aren’t we rendering it a matter of simply taste whether or not one would like their child to become a university graduate, video gamer aficionado or ‘manual worker’. That is, render it material inconsequential what ones demography is.

My understanding of the Labor party was that it was the party devoted to the removal of prejudice in Australian law and government. That is, I understood that the Labor party was the party inclined towards removing demography as a determiner of ones worth, at least in so far as Australian law and government support the opposite. Has this changed?

Or have I just been caught by a ruse aimed at picking up some of the Liberal party’s votes? Is this a play at the idea of supporting a social hierarchy for the a climbing a la that ‘forgotten people’ business. Is my confusion here just a result of attempts to trick some conservatives? My suspicion is that her majesty is attempting to trick the conservative by omitting certain opportunities that the Labor party has equally facilitated (i.e. single parenthood and video game aficionado alongside getting an apprenticeship or going to university) and only subtly suggesting the attractiveness of social hierarchy?

It would be much appreciated if you could clarify her majesty’s political allegiance and that of the Labor party for me? Is she and her party in favour of or against the supporting of social hierarchies by law and government?

If it is the case that her majesty has been engaged in trickery I must assume that either yourself, her agent and adviser, or another in a similar position, was the source of such an idea since it seems manifestly against her genius to have its origin there. This is a strategy that I must counsel against. Generally, people are not morons. The very few whom you do manage to trick will be quickly brought back to the liberal fold by their more pronounced statements. Such strategies will, in the end, result in the loss of more supporters to donkey votes or donkey parties then they gain in the acquisition of donkey voters.

Your humbly servant,

I am awaiting a response. I sent it to an email address that I could only guess was connected to her highness. Her website only has connections to those facebook, twitter and myspace things and an Australian Parliament House website offers a pro forma form. Since I am far too important to use any of those methods of communication I resorted to taking her name and applying to what seems like the standard email address for MPs. Tony Abbott has one and I am hoping Julia does too.


About barkingcoins
This author is just another fucking dickhead.

One Response to A letter to one of Julia’s Staffers

  1. barkingcoins says:

    I received a reply today. It was from Julia’s Postmaster.

    It read:

    Thank you for your interest in corresponding with the Prime Minister, the email address julia.gillard.mp@aph.gov.au is no longer an active address. To contact the Prime Minister please go to http://www.pm.gov.au and use the ‘Contact the Prime Minister’ facility.

    In order to avoid the Contact the Prime Minister facility I will use the snail mail address. This is recommended on the site for those that are weary of the ‘unsecured’ nature of internet communications.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: