Stability at a cost? Money or people.

Earlier this year, US billionaire Donald Trump was a figure of fun; now he’s a serious contender for the world’s most powerful job. Just a week ago, Britain was a key member nation of the European Union; now it’s adrift, the people having voted (perhaps rashly) to go it alone. And on Saturday, Australians will go to the polls in what promises to be a close election to determine how, and by whom, we will next be governed.

It’s a crucial election, because the stakes are high. The world is unstable; Australia (like other nations) is heavily indebted; on top of globalisation we now have digitalisation changing the way we live, at a mind-boggling pace.

At such a time, stability in government is what this nation needs. Having seen four prime ministers variously elected, deposed and/or reinstated since 2010, we need a dose of leadership continuity to see some order restored over the chaos. Whether the Liberals were right to dump Tony Abbott last September in favour of Malcolm Turnbull is now a moot point. At the end of the day, it’s the party – and its culture, and allegiances – that matters, not the leader.

At this election, where the economy is (rightly) in centre stage, Labor’s slogan – “Putting People First” – sums up everything that’s dangerous about installing a Bill Shorten government.

It’s a nice, warm and cosy, concept, but at the risk of appearing mercenary and heartless, we have to put money first. Only if a nation has the funds to play with, can it do the things it wants for its people. And to have the funds, it needs tax revenues, which means stimulating employment in the private sector, which in turn means cultivating a business environment in which employers – from mega-corporations to ‘Fred Farmer’ – can turn a profit.

Much of the interest in this election centres on the battle under way in the northern NSW seat of New England, where Nationals leader and deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce is facing an unwelcome challenge from the resurgent independent, Tony Windsor.

Much as I respect Windsor’s passion for rural causes, his integrity as a parliamentarian and his effectiveness as a local member, I consider it a “spoiling” act on his part, to attempt to unseat the heavily handicapped Joyce.

As party leader and an effective campaigner, Joyce is required to be all over the country during this election, while Windsor can stay home and work the electorate to the full. One hopes the New England electors (and others) will put aside any local personality preferences at this election and focus instead on the bigger picture. If it comes down to another cliff-hanger, would they really want to see the colour of the next government being determined (as in 2010) by a gaggle of free-thinking independents?