-
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.
-
The African gang and Islamic terrorism threat being out of proportion is an interesting one. I guess it all comes down to what proportion is tolerable. My attitude with the gangs changed when I spoke with people in those neighbourhoods affected. The inaccurate rhetoric doesn't help at all and just gives opposition parties ammo to muddy the waters over the situation. It's not african gangs, it's more accurately south sudanese youth that are causing the issues, the wider African community is extremely aware of the issue. Calling it african gangs puts a lot of people offside as too when police and politicians pretend their is no problem.
Talking to some of the residents it is crazy, imagine having a young family and knowing your pregnant neighbour had just been broken into and held at knifepoint and then a couple days later you hear 2 blocks away the same happening to an elderly couple except the perpetrators had a gun as well. What do you do as a father when the police and Daniel Andrews comes out and says there is no issue and that thinking there is is just racism, oh and also by the way you cannot but even pepper spray to defend your family otherwise you can get 12 years jail time. Same too with terror attacks, 8 in Melbourne in the last 2 years. When you, family and friends just miss being involved by sheer chance the threat becomes extremely real..and again you are not allowed to defend yourself...except maybe with a shopping trolley.
If we have to get to the point where everyone agrees that these introduced problems are a real then I think we'd be looking at a city well and truly ablaze without any peaceful solution left available.
-
@rembrandt said in Aussie Politics:
It's not african gangs, it's more accurately south sudanese youth that are causing the issues, the wider African community is extremely aware of the issue. Calling it african gangs puts a lot of people offside as too when police and politicians pretend their is no problem.
The language of the issue is confusing. The authorities don't want to call them "gangs" because it gives some kind of ego legitimisation to the people involved. And they're not organised crime in the same way that bikie gangs are. So is one more of a threat than another? The victims don't care, because they can't wind the clock back on it.
The riot that Apex are most associated with - Moomba in 2016 - brought focus on this problem to people outside Melbourne. But when you look at the detailed reporting, Apex has/had numbers of Pacific Island and Anglo youth in their ranks as well. Another gang they've had incidents with - Islander 23 - is mostly Pacific Islanders but we don't hear about Pacific Islands gangs from Melbourne. Or even Sydney where there is a presence.
The common factors for youth crime are all there: socio-economic issues, low community engagement. So why are Sudanese youth over-represented in Victorian crime stats?
Media reporting "African gangs" and politicians feeding off that reminds me of the "Asian gangs" and "Lebanese gangs" thing that ran through Sydney in the 90s. It isn't necessarily helpful, particularly if an election campaign is mounting.
-
Common theme with language control at the present moment.
It's reliant on the belief that the general populace is too stupid to know the differences and variables of complex issues.
Stall, obfuscate and deny
Differs from my perception of people and society, but what would I ( and the community) know eh?
-
@siam said in Aussie Politics:
Common theme with language control at the present moment.
It's reliant on the belief that the general populace is too stupid to know the differences and variables of complex issues.I take a look around the internet and feel that statement is based on fact.
-
@antipodean sadly, I know what you mean and cling to the noisy minority hope...
The dearth of true objective data and access to it bothers me most -
I follow a few Victorian crime pages and people are pretty pissed. Currently there seems to be a 'no arrest'policy for the sudanese youth riots which are happening at least fortnightly at the moment (though you wouldn't know it from a lot of media sources) not sure if that is for stat purposes or as more of a way to try and avoid escalating a situation. All citizens really want is for the same laws that apply to NZers to also apply to other immigrants when it comes to violent crime. Immigration should be seen as a privilege not a right regardless of where you've originate from. Obviously this gets complicated with youth, maybe some better transparency especially in regards to bail conditions could help. The feeling is that there are two sets of rules out there..though not yet to the point to swing an election.
Aussie Politics