Julia's Reign

[Ruggo]

That’s a very fair explanation Hornet. I am also a fan of the 'Third way' if you will. I believe in capitalism and private enterprise, but I also believe government has moral and social responsibilities to its people. I’m all for people being successful in life, but I also believe that all people should be given relatively equal opportunities to achieve such success.

Very well said Bowside. I couldn't agree more.

 

[Scotty]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...limate-committee/story-fn59niix-1225936185415

Democracy at work.

A spokesman for Senator Milne yesterday said the claim was "untrue". South Australian Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young said there was "no space available" for Senator Xenophon on the committee. "The committee decides that, and at this stage he's not on there."

So there is no final committee, yet the committee has already determined who should be part of the committee. Anyone else thing this committee has already decided the outcome before they have even begun?

 

[barbarian]

Yeah I think we all know the results the committe is going to produce. The Liberals turned down the opportunity to be a part of it though, so I can't see how they can really complain. Also the result is going to be what I suspect most Australians want (not the overwhelming majority, but most) so the ends justify the means somewhat.

But I shudder to think what will happen when the Greens start to throw their weight around like this on issues that they are not as suited to.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

It seems like amateur hour with the Greens sometimes. The Libs turned down their chance, rightly or wrongly, but Xenophon is an indepedent so I don't understand where the problem is. He's all over the map ideology wise, so it's not like he'd be a total obstructionist member.

 

[Scotty]

Yeah I think we all know the results the committe is going to produce. The Liberals turned down the opportunity to be a part of it though, so I can't see how they can really complain. Also the result is going to be what I suspect most Australians want (not the overwhelming majority, but most) so the ends justify the means somewhat.

But I shudder to think what will happen when the Greens start to throw their weight around like this on issues that they are not as suited to.

Xenophon seems to want an ETS, which seems to make more sense to me than a carbon tax. At least it limits the amount of carbon being produced. A carbon tax could just increase our cost of living without actually reducing emissions.

 

[Scotty]

I totally resent your last paragraph. The Labor ideology encompasses the idea of equality of opportunity, in some cases this necessitates bigger spending and bigger government.

I was fortunate to receive huge levels of opportunity in life. Born in Australia into a supportive family, my parents worked hard to send me to a GPS school, where I was constantly pushed to achieve. While at high school my parents insisted I not get a part time job so that I could focus on my studies, which meant I achieved more than I ever thought I would and gave me a massive head start in regards to tertiary education and my eventual career.

Thing is not every kid is born into a good house-hold in a nice middle class suburb in Australia. Some kids have parents who could not provide in the same way mine could, who could not send their children to a GPS school or who were not educated enough to posses the foresight to push their children in order for them to reap the rewards later in life.

The Labor party emphasises the plight of these people, provides them with opportunity, and encourages them to make the most of opportunities given to them. Not all of them will, and you can put that down to human nature.

However thats not to say they don't deserve the same opportunities you or I were given, and who are you to allege such things.

I'm sorry, but can you point out where I have state that everyone doesn't deserve the same opportunities?

I have three large issues with Labor:

1. Its left that believe in bigger spending, bigger taxes and bigger government. They are self serving and you only have to look at countries such as Greece to see where this could lead. Ultimately this leads to reduced, not increased opportunity.

2. Unions. Unions have too much power in this country, and too much influence in the Labor party. Union membership is meant to voluntary, but in many cases it is not. How does that fit in with our democracy?

3. Economic credentials. This only applies to the post 07 mob. They have been found wanting in their ability to manage the economy, and have now lead us to a very precarious position where another global financial downturn will see us go under.

Idealogy is often different from what actually happens. You can not deny that many unionist are self serving (even though you may, as you seem to want to believe that big business leaders are making up stories about the current government).

You also can't deny that when thing such as 'equality of opportunity' is spoken about in relation to unions, it often means that everyone has the same opportunity but also the same reward. This to me is not equality, when someone more deserving ends up getting the same as the next person that is less deserving.

 

[Bowside]

When you state that Labor governance creates a culture of people getting things they don’t deserve, in my mind that statement is you judging a class of people(often favoured by labor) as being less deserving than others. I rebutted your claim by saying that it is true that the 'higher' class (for lack of a better word) may be more deserving due to their achievements, however said achievements are in most cases a result of the opportunities given to them.

The left does not necessarily believe in bigger spending, bigger taxes and bigger 'government', these things are just a means to achieve the goal of a better society. I don’t think it is fair or true to say that the left is more self serving than the right. At the end of the day all people are self serving and the left always has, and hopefully always will serve the interests of the majority of the population. Your example of Greece is void, as the party that presided over the listed problems was in fact a right wing party. This is also true of America. Indeed it would be fair to say that right wing politics and economic management played a significant role in creating the current economic climate. To their credit, the Australian right aren’t as bad as the rest of the world.

You cannot deny that in most countries the minority of people hold the majority of wealth, whilst the majority of people have to bust there arses just to survive. You can also not deny that more often than not wealth is direct result of opportunity. This is not always true, but most of the time it is.

What I'm getting at is that the reason I identify myself as centre-left is that at the end of the day I think that it is morally right for government to govern in a way that empowers the vast majority of the population by giving them opportunities to succeed, opportunities that they would not otherwise receive under a rightwing government.

That is not to say that Labor governments don’t at times perform their duty poorly. This is very much true. It is also true that unions, whilst they have noble intentions, at times abuse power. But they are an important part of a capitalist society, and there power must be upheld.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

The problem I have with the ALP at present, in some states and the current federal government is how reckless they've been with spending and their relationship with private enterprise. In my opinion, we haven't had this bad a national government since the Whitlam years. The Hawke/Keating partnership, along with the excellent support of Ralph Willis, Peter Walsh and Jon Button did great things for our economy, particularly after the lost opportunities that marked the Fraser government. However, the current bunch are a complete shadow of that group. Look at the financial problems of NSW and QLD as well, with long running incumbent governments that are on the nose with their electorate.

 

[Scotty]

The problem I have with the ALP at present, in some states and the current federal government is how reckless they've been with spending and their relationship with private enterprise. In my opinion, we haven't had this bad a national government since the Whitlam years. The Hawke/Keating partnership, along with the excellent support of Ralph Willis, Peter Walsh and Jon Button did great things for our economy, particularly after the lost opportunities that marked the Fraser government. However, the current bunch are a complete shadow of that group. Look at the financial problems of NSW and QLD as well, with long running incumbent governments that are on the nose with their electorate.

Hawke and Keating lead economic reforms in this country that could well be considered in line with conservative politics. For his first two terms Howard kept these reforms going, but unfortunately went too far in his third. These three governments have led us to be in the strong position we are today, with opportunity for all, should they want it.

 

[Scotty]

Obviously we aren't going to agree on many of these points, however I will say that I am also, despite what the description of this sub forum is, close to the centre of politics. I mean I took a poll the results of which aligned my views close to Michael Moore (although that did freak me out a bit).

Just for the record I believe in equal opportunity for all. We both do. However I think our definition of equal opportunity differs immensley. Basically I believe that no one should get something for nothing, as it generally doesn't lead to improved outcomes. You should either work or pay for the opportunities afforded to you (eg I am a big supporter of work for the dole). I wish I had the article at hand, but recently I read that something like 1/3 of the federal budget goes to welfare. A good percentage of this is creating a culture where welfare is relied upon by those receiving it, and thus don't feel the drive to make a better life for themselves. As BH said, hand up not hand out is the way to go.

When you state that Labor governance creates a culture of people getting things they don’t deserve, in my mind that statement is you judging a class of people(often favoured by labor) as being less deserving than others. I rebutted your claim by saying that it is true that the 'higher' class (for lack of a better word) may be more deserving due to their achievements, however said achievements are in most cases a result of the opportunities given to them.

The left does not necessarily believe in bigger spending, bigger taxes and bigger 'government', these things are just a means to achieve the goal of a better society. I don’t think it is fair or true to say that the left is more self serving than the right. At the end of the day all people are self serving and the left always has, and hopefully always will serve the interests of the majority of the population. Your example of Greece is void, as the party that presided over the listed problems was in fact a right wing party. This is also true of America. Indeed it would be fair to say that right wing politics and economic management played a significant role in creating the current economic climate. To their credit, the Australian right aren’t as bad as the rest of the world.

You cannot deny that in most countries the minority of people hold the majority of wealth, whilst the majority of people have to bust there arses just to survive. You can also not deny that more often than not wealth is direct result of opportunity. This is not always true, but most of the time it is.

A couple of points in response to the above:

1. The bolded bit - you appear to admit that Labor favours a particular part of society. How is that equal opportunity?

2. Greece - the way I understand it the centre line in greek politics is further left than ours. So you either have left or far left parties. Have a look at the way the voting went at the last election for proof that Greece is more or less a socialist country.

3. America - Clinton started the reforms that led to the current lending arrangements of the banks in the states. Bush didn't make it any better, but that main point here is the downfall was started by the left.

4. I agree that great wealth (that small percentage you refer to) is highly related to opportunity. Opportunity, hard work and talent play equal parts. However, in this country having enough money to get by comfortably doesn't take a huge amount of opportunity. Hard work is the key ingredient here. Giving people hand outs does not encourage this characteristic.

 

[Bowside]

Labor does favour a certain part of society, but so do the liberals. What I was trying to argue is that the part of society Labor favour's is not only larger, but more in need of favouring. I dont support Labor because I get some great economic beneift out of it, because I really dont.

To an extent I agree with TBH and understand why he is angry at some parts of the Labor party. I think the current mob have definatly 'cheapened' the brand a bit with some short sighted populist policy. But in general terms, taking into account current policy and vision, I still think Labor have it over the Liberals.

The American example is interesting. While Clinton was partly responsible, he also left Bush with a pretty decent budget balance to fund reform. The money was however pissed away in foolishly run wars and high end tax cuts. His administration was one of the worst examples of right wing governance in memory.

 

[Scotty]

We have to be careful comparing to the Americans though. You couldn't say that the Liberal party here is as far right as a Bush led repulican party.

Their system and culture is all together different.

For the record I am only truly against the current Labor government (inclusive of K Rudd led mob). Both Hawke and Keating achieved very important reforms along with Howard.

The current government has promised very much (I very nearly voted for Kevin, but I just didn't believe anything he said) and delivered very little. The are the kings of spin when it comes to Australian politics and they lack a lot of substance. We are currently in a much poorer position, on many fronts than we have been for over a decade. If they continue to perform as poorly and put themselves first in everything they do, our position will be more precarious.

They have had plenty of good ideas, but they don't seem to know how to evaluate them properly, or implement them. It is almost like we need a few Labor ideas guys put together with a Liberal team to see progress. Don't forget that many of the current Labor party haven't spent more than a few years outside of either the Labor party or unions.

 

[Scotty]

Further to my previous post about business leaders being threatened by this government (I know it is a bit old):

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...for-a-fair-share/story-e6frg8zx-1225881089017

YESTERDAY we observed, like many others, that the PM has a jaw of crystal when it comes to criticism, after he dubbed unspecified Australian miners as "ugly". Our words were prescient, because in the wee hours before The Australian hit the streets the PM had again stunned his fellow Australians gathered at the Canberra Press Gallery's Midwinter Ball with an acerbic aside that carried with it a bleak threat to the mining industry.

"The mining industry are here tonight," Rudd said in a prime ministerial speech that, in more normal times, would have been protected by Chatham House rules but was circulating widely yesterday.

"I extend my greeting to each and every one of them. I notice there's a small fire which has been erected down the back. I understand that myself and Wayne Swan and Martin Ferguson will soon be erected above that fire. Can I say, guys, we've got a very long memory."

This is not the first time representatives of the mining industry have been warned of retribution by this government.

I've been told, for example, that one very senior member of Rudd's team made even more pointed threats to a table of mining industry folk dining in the hours after the recent federal budget. They were warned that the government intended to secure a mandate for the super-profits tax at the election and then, with victory in hand and tax in place, it would come after all those who had been dense enough to challenge Rudd's reform.

 

[barbarian]

Well that is more about Rudd being a pretentious fuckwit than anything else. Hopefully with Joolya we are past all that. She dealt with the miners far better than Rudd did.

 

[Scotty]

I hope you are right. However, much of Julia's dealing quickly with the miners was due to trying to get a deal done prior to the election.

And then we also have Swan still in the same position he was previously.

 

[Moses]

I hope you are right. However, much of Julia's dealing quickly with the miners was due to trying to get a deal done prior to the election.

And then we also have Swan still in the same position he was previously.

Swan was very lucky to win his seat, had one of the biggest swings against him of the election, polled less than the liberal candidate and only got in on green preferences. Fair chance he wont be around after next election.

 

[chief]

Swan is gone at the next election. Had there not been a redistribution in his seat he would have lost it I'm afraid. Lilley the seat which he is part of used to include Ascot and Hamilton which are two of the highest income earning areas in Brisbane. I read 70-80 percent are Liberal voters.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

And so he ought to be. Our worst treasurer since Cairns and Howard. Surely there is someone better in the parliamentary labor party who do a better job in that crucial portfolio.

 

[Richo]

I think it's unfortunate that the partisan divide in Australia appears only to be widening. I understand the politics of Abbott's obstructionism -- and on if I was advising him on the politics, I'd tell him to do what he's doing -- but in terms of the long-term health of Australian democracy, it's bad. Of course, Labor would have done nothing different if the shoe was on the other foot, so I'm not blaming Abbott per se. It is very concerning to me, however, that on issues like the ETS, one entire half of politics simply won't come to the party. The Liberals have learned from the successes of the Republicans in America but it's like not being able to see the forest for the trees. Obsessing about tactical victories precludes strategies that lead to good governance.

I, for one, don't want to see our government become any more American in style. Watching that country grind itself deeper into the muck while wracked by political paralysis is a sad to behold. Like it or not, the Rudd government did do a very good job steering our country through the GFC. Do we really want to be as incapable of meeting such challenges in the future as the Americans now are?

 

[Scotty]

Don't forget (despite what Labor want us to think) that it wasn't only the Coalition that stopped the ETS getting through the senate. The Greens also voted against it. So it was a lot more that just half of the political spectrum that were against the ETS in the form it was presented. We also shouldn't forget that if Rudd hadn't won in 2007, we would likely already have an ETS with Howard and Turnbull supporting it (which obviously speaks somewhat poorly of Abbott).

The Rudd government doing a 'good' job in steering us through the GFC is also open for debate. At the time their stimulus package was being debated in parliament (they didn't even want to give the Coalition time to have a look at it remember), both Turnbull and Hockey called for it to be halved. It is a widely held opinion now that the stimulus package indeed would have been just as effective as half the spend (since a good proportion still hasn't been spent), meaning that if Labor had listened to the calls from the Coalition we would still have avoided a recession, but would be in a stronger position financially right now.