The Australian politics thread

[social]

Originally Posted by howardj

Seems that way, doesn't it mate.

Fraser, ever since he has retired, has made it his life long ambition to suck up to and be accepted by the Labor party. Shades of Turnbull for the last 6 months if you ask me - MT just so desperately wants to distinguish himself from the Liberal party and, moreover, wants to be recognised by Rudd. Meanwhile, Rudd and Labor just laugh at how meek and pathetic Turnbull and Fraser are anyway.

At least Straight Talker knows that Labor are the evil enemy who must be exterminated.

Tbh, I think they're slightly different cases

Fraser, IMO, wants to be seen as the honourable elder statesman and seems to be intent on proving his impartiality by attacking the Libs whereas Turnbull is blinded by hate due to what he sees as betrayal by his colleagues

Cant really believe that he gives a flying **** about Rudd tbh

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by morgieb

. Possibly the most dumbest thing I ever read. Do you think that people are that right-wing to feel this way?

And yeah I realise that Stedders probably wasn't being serious, but still.....

Yep.

Tax cuts anyone?

Been watching 'Liberal Rule' over here the last few weeks, it's interesting stuff. If nothing else it's proven that most politicians are as boring as bat**** and that Alexander Downer is so madly in love with himself it's almost comical. He reminded me of David Brent if you totally remove any humour from the situation. Watching Johnny hanging around the world leaders not knowing what to say at the start and end of his leadership was quite amusing too - looked like the pimply, Dungeons and Dragons playing kid in high school attempting to make contact with the cool kids. Was entertaining to see Paul Keating giving it to Howard, Downer and co early on in the piece (when he was Prime Minister), they looked like deer in headlights. You could see the smoke coming out of their ears and Downer looked like he was about to throw his handbag across the table. Howard had the last laugh though I suppose.

Enjoyed watching the summary of the Liberal years, it was quite a round-up.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by social

Fraser is a bitter and twisted old fart who is trying to compensate for his disastrous spell as PM

Originally Posted by howardj

Seems that way, doesn't it mate.

Fraser, ever since he has retired, has made it his life long ambition to suck up to and be accepted by the Labor party. Shades of Turnbull for the last 6 months if you ask me - MT just so desperately wants to distinguish himself from the Liberal party and, moreover, wants to be recognised by Rudd. Meanwhile, Rudd and Labor just laugh at how meek and pathetic Turnbull and Fraser are anyway.

At least Straight Talker knows that Labor are the evil enemy who must be exterminated.

Doesn't make his views on Tampa or how Howard won the election in 2001 any more incorrect. Play the comments, not the player.

[howardj]

Originally Posted by Jono

Doesn't make his views on Tampa or how Howard won the election in 2001 any more incorrect. Play the comments, not the player.

I am, and his comments stink.

Funny putting Howard, and don't play the man in the same sentence though.

[James90]

Originally Posted by morgieb

. Possibly the most dumbest thing I ever read. Do you think that people are that right-wing to feel this way?

And yeah I realise that Stedders probably wasn't being serious, but still.....

Was definitely an exaggerated and oversimplified analogy but I still think it's fairly accurate.

Low taxation and low levels immigration are extremely popular. Governments selling off assets and cutting services are not.

Right-wing isn't a synonym for stupid. Too many people (on both sides of politics) don't appreciate the opportunity cost of decisions. I just think that given the major roles of federal govt, this tends to favour the Libs more. With state government it probably favours the ALP.

[stephen]

Originally Posted by James90

Was definitely an exaggerated and oversimplified analogy but I still think it's fairly accurate.

Low taxation and low levels immigration are extremely popular. Governments selling off assets and cutting services are not.

The protectionist rumblings you occasionally hear are never actually heeded. The thing is strong population growth plays a big part in economic growth and the Libs under Howard had the largest immigration intake of any government in Australia's history to that point. The current Libs know that as well, but they also know that cheap populist attacks on the fear factor of a population surge are an easy way to swing some voters.

Right-wing isn't a synonym for stupid. Too many people (on both sides of politics) don't appreciate the opportunity cost of decisions.

These statements are very correct. The problem with politics is that people tend to forget the cost of something if someone else is paying for it (which is how the public perceives public spending) but get very upset to see someone else spending their money (which is how they see taxes.

Lower taxes with a balanced budget is, generally speaking, economically more productive than higher taxes with a balanced budget as in most cases privately owned enterprise is more efficient than publicly funded services. This is why unions so violently oppose privatisation - because they are afraid that jobs which are economically wasteful will be cut. Which might be true in the short term, but is a long term fallacy (i.e. the money saved from cutting those wasteful jobs will be put to better use elsewhere in the economy thus creating more jobs than were lost).

This is the problem with US politics. The democrats always want to increase taxes and expenditure and the republicans want to increase debt and expenditure. These are not sustainable long term without inflation effectively increasing taxation to cover the gap. So the republicans are tax and spend, but just in a more insidious form. Still, they tend to tax and spend a bit less than the democrats, though not by much since Bush Jr started his little wars.

I just think that given the major roles of federal govt, this tends to favour the Libs more. With state government it probably favours the ALP.

Howard was right when he said that Australians tend to like their federal government and their state government to be run by different parties.

[stephen]

Originally Posted by James90

Knives have already pierced the skin.

The amount of work some people have done to keep her in the top job...at some stage they'll dessert a sinking ship and save their own bacon one feels.

The fact that Bligh has survived this long is testament to the fact that there are too few seats in QLD parliament at the moment. There are not enough backbenchers and because of this there is little internal party pressure on the leadership.

The lack of a senate really hasn't helped QLD politics either. We really need one reinstated and enshrined in the QLD constitution - though I doubt that any government will do that.

Originally Posted by James90

Considering that the feds are mostly responsible for taxation and immigration issues, it's not surprising that the public is happy to stick with grossly conservative leaders who pander to people's fears and run negative campaigns about how a Labor Government will waste your money on pointless things like health and education and infrastructure. People are much happier with low taxes and zero population growth even if the country goes backwards on the world map and doesn't invest in the labour market or new technology.

I see the ALP as a necessary evil to remind us how good Liberal rule is.

Seriously though, big spending governments being good for a country is a fallacy that only works on the West Wing. Keynes debunked work notwithstanding.

On a different topic, I hear that there was a lot more pressure on ALP MPs to vote with the government in the recent QLD conscience vote than there was on the last one. I am really not surprised that Margaret Keech and Michael Choi were the only ones to cross the floor, when you hear terms like "ignorant redneck" and "vile stupidity" thrown around by the Anna Blighs and Andrew Frasers of the party. Really think the whole leadership team should be knived just for that to be honest. I mean what's the point of calling for a conscience vote if you put so much pressure on your own party that it effectively isn't a conscience vote?

The fact is that Bligh might appeal to the lefties who live in her electorate, but she is seriously angering a lot of people in suburbia at the moment. And we all know that suburbia turns elections. I understand how Howard Haters felt now that we have Bligh in charge of QLD (except that Howard was a good leader ). There is no redeeming value in her being in parliament. It's bad enough to make me want to move to WA.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by howardj

I am, and his comments stink.

Funny putting Howard, and don't play the man in the same sentence though.

Unless you're speaking generally, I think that's unfair. Point me to a time where I've unfairly targetted Howard for the sake of doing so.

[Matt79]

Wouldn't say Keynes was debunked. A competing theory was put forward. Both are helpful.

I reckon you need to alternate from one approach to another, just as you do with leaders themselves. You probably do want a less interventionist government for maybe like 3/4s of the time, but that other 1/4 is necessary to the health of the nation and society. And honestly, if it takes ten years to repay work that an interventionist government does, sometimes that fine.

If households and businesses took the hysterical approach to debt oppositions normally push, no one would ever buy a house or start up a business

[Matt79]

The 'play the comment not the man' line always annoys me anyway. How is the background and history of a guy not a valid context to consider/interpret someone's comments?

[howardj]

Originally Posted by Jono

Unless you're speaking generally, I think that's unfair. Point me to a time where I've unfairly targetted Howard for the sake of doing so.

Wasn't aimed at you, just general.

[howardj]

The irony with the $2.5 billion pink batt program was that it was meant to create jobs... but they are now spending an additional $40 million on gettig that industry back into work.

[stephen]

Originally Posted by Matt79

If households and businesses took the hysterical approach to debt oppositions normally push, no one would ever buy a house or start up a business

The difference is that private debt is naturally better targetted than public debt. The psychology of borrowing money that other people will have to pay back encourages wastefulness, whereas when you incur a debt that you will be paying back individually or in an organisation you are naturally more cautious.

Frankly, I would rather take risks myself than have the government take risks for me. I'm going to have to pay off the debts regardless.

[stephen]

Originally Posted by Matt79

Wouldn't say Keynes was debunked. A competing theory was put forward. Both are helpful.

I was a little extreme in my use of the word "debunked". They do have their place. Pump priming the economy really works to instill confidence. Confidence is essential to economies. Though in Australia's case, whether that confidence is worth the price paid for it is still up for debate.

[James90]

Originally Posted by stephen

The fact that Bligh has survived this long is testament to the fact that there are too few seats in QLD parliament at the moment. There are not enough backbenchers and because of this there is little internal party pressure on the leadership.

Probably due to the fact that the ALP are behind 41-59 and people are too wise to take on the leadership.

Also the fact that privatisation is what killed her and there were only two MPs who voted against it in the caucus room.

On a different topic, I hear that there was a lot more pressure on ALP MPs to vote with the government in the recent QLD conscience vote than there was on the last one. I am really not surprised that Margaret Keech and Michael Choi were the only ones to cross the floor, when you hear terms like "ignorant redneck" and "vile stupidity" thrown around by the Anna Blighs and Andrew Frasers of the party. Really think the whole leadership team should be knived just for that to be honest. I mean what's the point of calling for a conscience vote if you put so much pressure on your own party that it effectively isn't a conscience vote?

Unlike the Libs. There were definitely some people on that side of the room who would have supported it had they not been under so much pressure from the Nats.

The fact is that Bligh might appeal to the lefties who live in her electorate, but she is seriously angering a lot of people in suburbia at the moment.

Apart from the fact that the unions are almost entirely based in her electorate and if you drive around South Brisbane you're confronted with billboards that say "Anna Bligh sold us out"

Yeah. Appealing to her electorate. Sure.