-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Aussie Politics:
What do you think the centre actually looks like?
Something well to the left of what you think, I have no doubt.
@rancid-schnitzel said in Aussie Politics:
Is that because going the full retard has been economically beneficial for the countries that have done so? Working out well in Spain, Germany and now France?
This is as tiresome as your "RAN shuttle service" quip from the other post.
I'd ask you to present your evidence, but we both know you're incapable of doing that. The fact I work in the industry, and talk to people in the industry at all levels, is irrelevant to your talkback radio "unreliable solar and wind!" diatribe that is always waiting to emerge.
-
@nta said in Aussie Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Aussie Politics:
What do you think the centre actually looks like?
Something well to the left of what you think, I have no doubt.
@rancid-schnitzel said in Aussie Politics:
Is that because going the full retard has been economically beneficial for the countries that have done so? Working out well in Spain, Germany and now France?
This is as tiresome as your "RAN shuttle service" quip from the other post.
I'd ask you to present your evidence, but we both know you're incapable of doing that. The fact I work in the industry, and talk to people in the industry at all levels, is irrelevant to your talkback radio "unreliable solar and wind!" diatribe that is always waiting to emerge.
Obviously, but I'm curious as to what you consider to be "the centre". Would you consider yourself a centrist?
What evidence do you require? Of the RAN shuttle service? You need evidence of that?
You've made it patently clear that you'll just ignore any evidence so what's the point? Makes no difference if it's renewables, refugees or anything else you're crusading about.
You've been a climate change activist for at least a decade and work in an industry that requires the destruction of traditional fossil fuels for future success. You are about as impartial as the talkback radio crowd or anyone working for Evil Big Coal. And that's the problem with this whole "debate". It's so fucking polarised that it's impossible to get any proper balanced information. But all I can do is look at the available evidence and right now I see nothing from the countries or states that have heavily invested in renewables that would indicate that their citizens are enjoying any form of economic windfall (no pun intended). In other words the economic argument is weak at best.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Aussie Politics:
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Aussie Politics:
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Aussie Politics:
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Aussie Politics:
Wiped out?
Permit me the slightest hyperbole as the party sheds seats, with a swing against it of 6% taking it's primary vote to 30%.
Look I get the whole incompetence thing. I get people want stability and I get how some people will just hate a party because they hate their leader, regardless of what they have to say. But you've yet to explain how the issues you outlined above are some kind of desperate attempt to court the far right.
What do you think Abetz, Abbott, Dutton, Andrews, Seselja, Hastie etc. are doing? That's before we witness the Vic Liberal Party stacking social conservatives in it.
Examples please.
Examples of the above named supporting a social conservative policy position?
No. Actively courting the far right or lunatics. Unless you deem socially conservative to be far right. In which case, there is no further point in continuing this discussion.
Depends on what you mean by social conservative vs far right. Someone like Alex Hawke busy branch stacking with his Hillsong muppetry might call himself a social conservative. I call him a far right religious lunatic. Bet when he was advocating for 'rules to allow religious schools to expel students who are gay, bisexual or transgender' he wasn't suggesting that we remove public funding at the same time.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Aussie Politics:
The voters have tuned out. Unless Shorten seriously fucks up, the election is his. I know you desperately want to say that more climate change, refugees etc will turn the tide, but that's absolute nonsense. Just as it's nonsense to claim that going hard right will steady the ship. What the Lib party needs is a strong leader with a spine and MPs who support him. They don't have that and perhaps the party need to get wiped out and to start again.
I agree with this. It's time for the Liberal Party to determine where it sits ideologically because being a broad church isn't helping it right now.
Refugees are a bipartisan issue and the current government seem utterly incapable of pointing out how much they've done to unwind the disaster that Rudd and Gillard forced on Australia.
As to climate; well the Liberals are never going to own that while the Greens can trade on their history of environmental activism. Besides, no one really cares about data on this subject. It's all anti-capitalism and anti-globalism, specifically trade. If by globalism you mean open borders, then the inner city unwashed are all for that.
-
Also, a UN report warns us that Australia will not meet their Paris carbon emissions reduction targets by 2030. 'Under the Paris agreement, Australia's aim is to reduce emissions by 26-28 per cent on 2005 levels.' (ABC)
Shorten will recommit a Labor Government to a 45 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030, based on 2005 levels. (ABC)
Australia’s annual emissions for 2014-15 are estimated to be 549.3 Mt CO2-e (see https://soe.environment.gov.au/theme/climate/topic/2016/trends-emissions#climate-figure-ATM10). A 45% reduction from 2005 levels would leave us with a footprint of about 329 megatonnes. Electricity in 2015 comprised ~186 megatonnes or about 69% of the required reduction. So even if we changed our entire electricity network to zero emissions generation we couldn't meet the target.
The low bound (26%) of the Paris targets would mean 75% of our electricity generation would have to be zero emission source within the next 11 years. Let's pretend this is achievable and wonder at the cost of this as the system capacity would have to treble in size (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040619016300136).
Then recognise that according to the last IPCC report, global CO2 emissions must reach net zero in 2055 while net non-CO2 radiative forcing reduced after 2030 to limit warming to 1.5°C. To result in a higher probability of limiting warming to 1.5°C, CO2 emissions must decline from 2020 to reach net zero in 2040.
So if we achieved the Shorten fantasy, we'd have to more than double our efforts again within a decade.
Nobody seems to be pointing this out. So how far down the track do we have to get with soaring power prices before we realise what a fools errand this has been? If Germany spent the sums expected on Energiewende on nuclear power instead, it could be supplying Europe (like France). And we're the most stable continent with our own supply of uranium.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Aussie Politics:
Would you consider yourself a centrist?
I'd say I'm left of centre, because I believe social support networks - and the government's role in driving them - take higher priority than social hierarchy building / maintenance based on financial or social advantage. The general principles of social conservatism (including the intrinsic relationship they have with the staunchly religious) are less appealing than a "greater-good" approach.
With that said, it isn't always that simple:
People need to have a competitive marketplace to generate rewards and incentives for themselves to improve their lot - otherwise why try?
Social support networks - health, education, family services etc - are extremely important as a rising tide lifts all boats. A society that looks after its weakest has major benefits including economic performance where more people in work and health means more money flowing through the system.
Everyone needs to pay their fair share of tax in order to keep safety nets in place and support public infrastructure.
Complicating this is a convoluted government taxation structure that makes a lot of Australians "net zero" taxpayers, via the tax-and-rebate system for child care benefits etc - so I'm up for simplified taxation reform as well (across state and fed boundaries if possible)
However, I'm against generational welfare, because it distorts the original purpose of these safety nets. Being on the dole used to have a stigma attached to it for those who were on it. Now it is entrenched, and that's bad.
I look at the US, and the advantage you have to start with in order to sustain or improve you and your family's quality of life, and much prefer what we have here. Medical bankruptcy? Fuck that.
@rancid-schnitzel said in Aussie Politics:
You've been a climate change activist for at least a decade
"Activist" is an interesting term to use, when you look at the science. It is purely necessary to make the change to renewables for the ongoing maintenance (and improvement) of our civilisation. We've known about "global warming" for decades and we're not doing a lot about it. The ozone layer we started to act on fairly quickly, by comparison.
I'm also excited by the prospects of the new technology coming on board, because there is a lot of data and systems involved, and challenges in making sure it works.
and work in an industry that requires the destruction of traditional fossil fuels for future success.
"Destruction" is the rhetoric of those with something at stake in the fossil fuel industry. I'm assuming you're not heavily invested in something like the Galilee Basin, so let's instead use the term "transition".
As I've said before - many times on here and elsewhere - we need to have a plan to transition to the most cost-effective form of energy production. New build renewables (unsubsidised, including construction) will shortly reach the stage where they are globally cheaper than existing fossil fuels (i.e. those that have already been built, usually with state money). In certain situations they already are. This means they are way ahead of new build fossil fuels.
Renewables integrated with smarter technology are simply going to be cheaper to run , and provide benefits beyond lowering the cost of energy generation. Its how technology works, and why we don't live in sod-roofed houses and ride horses around for transport; something gets displaced by advancement.
Meanwhile, coal and gas generators are critical to keeping our networks running into the future.
Let me say that again, so we are all clear: coal and gas are critical to our energy future.
They still provide the bulk of energy in the Australian networks, and can't simply be switched off tomorrow. There are impacts to the fuel supply chain (mining), and communities relying on those supply chains and the generation infrastructure themselves. The need to make sure these people are looked after should be one of the highest priorities, as it isn't their fault the fossil fuel generating assets have a limited lifespan.
@rancid-schnitzel said in Aussie Politics:
You've made it patently clear that you'll just ignore any evidence so what's the point?
I've given you plenty of evidence in the past that you've been unable to refute, so you're right: there is no point.
-
@nta said in Aussie Politics:
Renewables integrated with smarter technology are simply going to be cheaper to run , and provide benefits beyond lowering the cost of energy generation. Its how technology works, and why we don't live in sod-roofed houses and ride horses around for transport; something gets displaced by advancement.
I should add: people are still going to need to make a profit from energy, so don't expect solar/wind/hydro to suddenly make everything a hippie paradise of free love and power bills. First step is stabilisation of prices to zero growth, then a slight fall will probably occur.
I've often though a bit of nuclear wouldn't hurt us, either, but the economics are just too big a hurdle until we're desperate.
-
I don't have much time at the moment so will just reply to that first part. Take out the religious element and do you really see any difference between your views and those of say John Howard or even Tony Abbott? Neither of them (or the Libs at state or federal level) advocate a sink or swim, no support system. Shit, Abbott was pillared by libertarians as being a big govt wet. His copayment scheme was apparently on par with Hitler yet fuck me if I didn't have a copayment every time I visited the doctor in the socialist utopia of Norway. They also have them in most countries that we should apparently aspire to become. So, in short I don't see how your views on those particular issues differ at all from Liberal party policy. I suspect your comments about "moving to the centre" apply to climate change and refugees. A so called "move to the centre" on those issues would do jack shit to the Libs polling position and likely cause a flight of membership and funds from the party (even worse than now).
-
The Federal Liberals don't really need to 'move' one way or another. What they need to do is define what they stand for, and then spend six months prosecuting the argument.
The problem is they haven't been able to get out of their own way for the best part of two years. They can't articulate a clear vision if they are always having to talk about themselves - talking about Tony Abbott on the backbench, talking about Cory Bernardi, talking about Julia Banks, talking about what X or Y commentator thinks.
The public are fed up with all of it, and are rightfully taking out their anger on the Government.
Climate Change is a symptom of the malaise, but not the cause - they just can't fucking work out what they want to do. They can't articulate a vision because they don't have one. That's the problem across a whole range of things.
And now they are going to fight an election, but on what? What future vision does the Coalition have that I can judge them on? As much as I dislike Shorten, he's a country mile ahead on this front. He's funding renewables, he's increasing welfare, he's opting against tax cuts and investing in infrastructure.
Do I agree with those policies? Some. But at least I know what he's offering. What on God's green earth is Morrison offering? What does he believe?
I've got no idea. Maybe he has announced things, and I've completely missed them. But if that's the case, I can tell you why I missed them - the front page was occupied by some sort of internal stoush, or some idiot Minister talking about some stupid shit I don't care about.
For all of it's flaws, at least both sides in NSW seem to want to stand for something, and take the time to clearly lay out exactly what that is.
-
Further to the above, this from Paul Kelly today in the Oz sums it up nicely:
Most of this is beyond Morrison’s blame but it is his responsibility. The Liberals still have a good case to put but it is being drowned by internal division and the party’s crisis of political character. The problems are too deep-seated. The Liberals have misread the times. They struggle to talk to their own voters because they are unsure of their core beliefs. They have lost the battle of ideas and are usually outplayed by Labor at tactical politics. There are two rival mythologies fashioned from within — the conservative and the progressive — and this split is worsening despite Morrison’s best efforts. Victoria was a state election but there are lessons to be drawn for both state and federal Liberals since the party crisis is sourced at multiple levels: belief, talent, policy, campaigning, finance and party organisation. Australia has changed dramatically and the party is being left behind. It is no longer the party of the establishment with a dominant call on the nation’s power centres and loyalties — in big business, media, finance, family homes and elite institutions. Australia is a more fragmented, tribalised, complex entity where people have competing loyalties and where Victoria is more culturally different from Queensland than two generations ago. The Liberals have either misread this transformation or failed to respond adequately. They are victims of this transformation because the electoral base of the Liberals and the Coalition has become far more difficult to hold together: its seats constitute the richest and poorest in income terms; the most progressive and most conservative in cultural terms; the most dedicated and sceptical of climate change action; the most pro-renewable and pro-coal in energy terms; and the most supportive and critical of big business and the banks in institutional terms.
-
@rancid-schnitzel The fact that some of my answers line up with the conservative side doesn't mean that I agree with the majority of things they say or do, particularly not this bifurcated version of what they are right now.
You also CAN'T take out the religious part of Howard and Abbott, because it is part of their DNA, and a growing part of the Liberal Right that thinks it has some base to appeal to, that will win them elections.
Yes, climate change is important - and yes, there are probably votes to be lost if they decided to jump on that. But there are probably at least as many votes to be gained, and that will increase as time goes on. There is also economic opportunity.
If we run climate change in parallel with energy policy, the decision for any centre-right party like the Liberals to financially support a new owner for a clapped out coal power station is ludicrous. What happened to economic conservatism in a let-the-market-decide capacity?
I'm not saying Labor got it right every time, either. They're beholden to a different set of backers, but still just as incompetent on a lot of issues. We have many potential problems with the current electoral system we have.
====
On refugees - an issue that often gets blown out of proportion by politicians like Muslims or African gangs - I'm a humanist, with a side order of economist in "why the fuck does it cost so much to detain someone in an armpit nation like Nauru?"
Neither major party will change that, but I'm entitled to my opinion, and you're entitled to yours.
-
No word if she’s going to drop by and give them a high five for their strong policy on boat people.
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/world/pauline-hanson-backs-remote-tribe-killed-american-evangelist
-
@jegga but it was a white guy who was killed, so how does that jive with her policies?
I'm definitely backing their stance on Christian missionaries, BTW. Makes me want to set up a target on my front lawn with a few arrows in it, and a "Remember the Sentilese!" sign.
-
@nta said in Aussie Politics:
@jegga but it was a white guy who was killed, so how does that jive with her policies?
I'm definitely backing their stance on Christian missionaries, BTW. Makes me want to set up a target on my front lawn with a few arrows in it, and a "Remember the Sentilese!" sign.
He was a boat person first , white person second.
Good call on the lawn ornament, post some pics .Do you reckon Latham has a chance of returning on s one nation ticket? Obviously he can’t count on the vote of Australia’s taxi drivers.
Discuss.
-
@nta said in Aussie Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel The fact that some of my answers line up with the conservative side doesn't mean that I agree with the majority of things they say or do, particularly not this bifurcated version of what they are right now.
You also CAN'T take out the religious part of Howard and Abbott, because it is part of their DNA, and a growing part of the Liberal Right that thinks it has some base to appeal to, that will win them elections.
Yes, climate change is important - and yes, there are probably votes to be lost if they decided to jump on that. But there are probably at least as many votes to be gained, and that will increase as time goes on. There is also economic opportunity.
If we run climate change in parallel with energy policy, the decision for any centre-right party like the Liberals to financially support a new owner for a clapped out coal power station is ludicrous. What happened to economic conservatism in a let-the-market-decide capacity?
I'm not saying Labor got it right every time, either. They're beholden to a different set of backers, but still just as incompetent on a lot of issues. We have many potential problems with the current electoral system we have.
====
On refugees - an issue that often gets blown out of proportion by politicians like Muslims or African gangs - I'm a humanist, with a side order of economist in "why the fuck does it cost so much to detain someone in an armpit nation like Nauru?"
Neither major party will change that, but I'm entitled to my opinion, and you're entitled to yours.
Firstly, what part of their religious convictions clashes with your core views of treating people right and helping those in need? You don't think young girls wearing tents is an issue so what religious beliefs does, for example, Abbott have that are beyond the pale? You vehemently defend Muslims on the one hand yet slander Christians as nut-job and loonies. Remember one lot honestly believe their prophet rode a winged horse. There is actually a religious base out there. You may not know them or hate them but they exist. Alot of them vote for the Coalition. Doesn't mean they have to be pandered to but that also doesn't mean they should be thrown under a bus as you seem to be suggesting.
Yes, let's have the free market decide on energy policy shall we? You honestly want to go down that path? I can't believe you said that. What economic opportunity would be gained from shutting down the coal industry and embarking on a Germany type investment in renewables? That would be ludicrous.
You accuse me of ignoring evidence or whatever but your stance on the refugee situation is total wilful ignorance not to mention absurdly hypocritical. You're a humanist who is advocating for a return to a policy that is guaranteed to cost thousands of lives. You're an economist who completely ignores the cost of the RAN shuttle service, not to mention the cost of processing, feeding, housing etc. 10s of thousands, potentially 100s of thousands of "refugees". You want to pick them up out of the water Nick? Want to lable their separate body parts and put them in the freezer?
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Aussie Politics:
Yes, let's have the free market decide on energy policy shall we? You honestly want to go down that path? I can't believe you said that. What economic opportunity would be gained from shutting down the coal industry and embarking on a Germany type investment in renewables? That would be ludicrous.
Actually, if you stop being a complete flog for a moment, and understand the difference between what "market" means in this context, and what Energiewende was attempting to do, you'd realise that isn't the case at all.
I'll point to your complete fucking ignorance on this entire subject as my underlying point.
-
@nta said in Aussie Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Aussie Politics:
Yes, let's have the free market decide on energy policy shall we? You honestly want to go down that path? I can't believe you said that. What economic opportunity would be gained from shutting down the coal industry and embarking on a Germany type investment in renewables? That would be ludicrous.
Actually, if you stop being a complete flog for a moment, and understand the difference between what "market" means in this context, and what Energiewende was attempting to do, you'd realise that isn't the case at all.
I'll point to your complete fucking ignorance on this entire subject as my underlying point.
Keep your hair on Nick.
-
@rancid-schnitzel you started with the hysterical "pick up the body parts" shit.
-
-
@nta said in Aussie Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel you started with the hysterical "pick up the body parts" shit.
Um, that's actually what will happen. Not that you will have to do it personally. The big hearted "humanists" never actually have to do the dirty work or face the consequences of their actions.
Aussie Politics