-
@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.
-
@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?
-
@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.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Aussie Politics:
the alarm bells in Canberra then! Ffs.
Btw anyone who thinks the Libs can improve their polling position by going hard on climate change is absolutely kidding themselves.Liberal MP Tim Wilson, may disagree with you:
-
@nta said in Aussie Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Aussie Politics:
the alarm bells in Canberra then! Ffs.
Btw anyone who thinks the Libs can improve their polling position by going hard on climate change is absolutely kidding themselves.Liberal MP Tim Wilson, may disagree with you:
Cherry picking much?
Yes, both him and his constituents are certainly representative of the population at large. For a balanced view on capitalism, let's cross over to Adam Bandt.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Aussie Politics:
Cherry picking much?
Yes, both him and his constituents are certainly representative of the population at large.They're a fair bit closer than the LNP whacko religious right, holed up in their echo chamber/compound, thinking they need to go MORE right to "appeal to the base".
The issue is that people like Abbott, Abetz, Andrews and, yes Dutton, have effectively created a second base further out than where the Libs traditionally sit. And that makes it hard to appeal to all of them. As @antipodean said: there aren't enough votes way out in the far right of centre to make a difference.
If the swing vote starts to desert the Liberals, they're sunk. That's where elections are won and lost.
The moves are already starting as they realise their grip is getting tenuous. These two might find their rhetoric and voter popularity gets them isolated:
Jim Molan pulls out of Q&A after being relegated on Coalition's Senate ticket
Liberal senator says he cannot bring himself to defend his party after preselectors drop him to unwinnable position
Craig Kelly won't rule out crossbench switch if he loses Liberal preselection
Colleagues anticipate outspoken conservative MP will run as an independent if he is dumped from seat of Hughes
Now, I completely get you don't like Turnbull at all because he was only in it for himself. These guys are equally as bad.
But I think its the right move - the Libs have shown they are no more united than the ALP back was in the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd days. They can limit the damage in May by starting to tiptoe back to the centre, and cut some of their loony fringe away at the election booth.
They could even return to government next time around, having decided on a unified direction. Let's face it: Labor are hardly operating under dizzying competence.
In any case, the next battleground at this stage is NSW, and here I think the Libs are giving themselves a glimmer of hope with a few recent policy announcements. Not the fucking light rail that has turned the CBD into an even bigger shit hole, of course.
I'd be keen to get @barbarian 's opinion on the new opposition leader, who from what I've seen is miles ahead of Luke Foley.
-
@nta said in Aussie Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Aussie Politics:
Cherry picking much?
Yes, both him and his constituents are certainly representative of the population at large.They're a fair bit closer than the LNP whacko religious right, holed up in their echo chamber/compound, thinking they need to go MORE right to "appeal to the base".
The issue is that people like Abbott, Abetz, Andrews and, yes Dutton, have effectively created a second base further out than where the Libs traditionally sit. And that makes it hard to appeal to all of them. As @antipodean said: there aren't enough votes way out in the far right of centre to make a difference.
If the swing vote starts to desert the Liberals, they're sunk. That's where elections are won and lost.
The moves are already starting as they realise their grip is getting tenuous. These two might find their rhetoric and voter popularity gets them isolated:
Jim Molan pulls out of Q&A after being relegated on Coalition's Senate ticket
Liberal senator says he cannot bring himself to defend his party after preselectors drop him to unwinnable position
Craig Kelly won't rule out crossbench switch if he loses Liberal preselection
Colleagues anticipate outspoken conservative MP will run as an independent if he is dumped from seat of Hughes
Now, I completely get you don't like Turnbull at all because he was only in it for himself. These guys are equally as bad.
But I think its the right move - the Libs have shown they are no more united than the ALP back was in the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd days. They can limit the damage in May by starting to tiptoe back to the centre, and cut some of their loony fringe away at the election booth.
They could even return to government next time around, having decided on a unified direction. Let's face it: Labor are hardly operating under dizzying competence.
In any case, the next battleground at this stage is NSW, and here I think the Libs are giving themselves a glimmer of hope with a few recent policy announcements. Not the fucking light rail that has turned the CBD into an even bigger shit hole, of course.
I'd be keen to get @barbarian 's opinion on the new opposition leader, who from what I've seen is miles ahead of Luke Foley.
There's projection here from all sides depending on who thinks their policies are the best. The Libs have knifed 2 PMs before they could finish their terms. Just like the unstable Labor govt that the Libs bashed mercilessly. Regardless of what you think of Abbott, that veneer of stability went out the window when he got the arse. They're now no better than their predecessors and the internal struggles and egos are making things much worse.
Ultimately, the Libs could suddenly pull out brilliant policy, but it won't make any difference. 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.
-
@nta I reckon he's pretty similar to Foley. I was surprised they didn't opt for a bit of a newer face - Daley served in the old Labor cabinets and was a protege of Obeid and MacDonald. Puts a bit of a target on his back, and he's definitely old Labor as far as these things go.
But he's no dummy and won't make too many errors. You'd still have Gladys as favourite but the way things are going it's going to be tough for her to get anywhere close to the result that Andrews did.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Aussie Politics:
I know you desperately want to say that more climate change, refugees etc will turn the tide, but that's absolute nonsense
Facing up to climate change and evolving energy networks definitely won't help the Libs, and my personal opinion is they shouldn't even try. Firstly, they've fought against it for so long - ignoring their supposed economic management principles in doing so - that no-one is going to believe them.
Secondly, there is a need to purge the Libs of several of their worst proponents, and it will be educational for the party leadership, and the Young Libs, to watch that happen.
-
@nta said in Aussie Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Aussie Politics:
I know you desperately want to say that more climate change, refugees etc will turn the tide, but that's absolute nonsense
Facing up to climate change and evolving energy networks definitely won't help the Libs, and my personal opinion is they shouldn't even try. Firstly, they've fought against it for so long - ignoring their supposed economic management principles in doing so - that no-one is going to believe them.
Secondly, there is a need to purge the Libs of several of their worst proponents, and it will be educational for the party leadership, and the Young Libs, to watch that happen.
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? South Australian economy going gangbusters. Good luck winning that argument with actual evidence and not theoretical computer modelling prepared by people with massive amounts of skin in the game.
Regardless, you mention a move "towards the centre". What do you think the centre actually looks like?
-
@nta said in Aussie Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel as for the refugee situation - given Labor brought "stop the boats" in, I am thoroughly interested to see if that changes. Particularly given the economics of offshore detention versus the other options.
What other options? The RAN shuttle service? Labor won't change because they know they'll lose the election if they do. Rudd dismantling the pacific solution was an enormous fuck up that cost hundreds possibly thousands and lives, not to mention the enormous cost that certain people didn't seem to have a problem with at the time. Funny that cost is so important now. Why anyone would think this needs to be changed given what happened up until 2013 and what was witnessed during the European migrant crisis is anyone's guess.
-
@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.
Aussie Politics