PDA

View Full Version : Tony Abbott



Pages : [1] 2

antichrist
17-07-2010, 10:43 AM
From Shoutbox
16-07-2010 06:19 PM antichrist
[Edit | Delete] Abbot preferred to still have women hacked in abortion rather than allow RU486 - how any woman or aware man could ever consider vote for him I will never understand


16-07-2010 07:41 PM Spiny Norman
AC, your inability to understand is legendary mate; so don't sweat it, you'll work it out one day ...

Now Spiny, what part don't I understand?
That women are autoneous and should be able to make their own decisions as it affects their body and life? As Janis Joplin told a youngster: Don't let any male bastard boss you in your life. And Abbott was exactly who she meant!

Basil
17-07-2010, 11:27 AM
Peter, when John Howard proposed the Pacific Solution, lefties howled. When Gillard proposed the same, lefties shuffled their feet, or went out for a smoke and some even said it was the way she proposed it (LMFAO).

And now to abortion. Lefties and righties struggle with conscience on this issue. Now Abbott's position is well known - and you disagree with it. But what, Peter, do you say of the very many lefties (friends and politicians) who hold the same position as Abbott? Will you berate them - or will I find you outside having a smoke?

Ian Murray
17-07-2010, 11:39 AM
Peter, when John Howard proposed the Pacific Solution, lefties howled. When Gillard proposed the same, lefties shuffled their feet, or went out for a smoke and some even said it was the way she proposed it
When Gillard starts wearing budgie smugglers, then I'll start worrying :confused:

Basil
17-07-2010, 12:46 PM
When Gillard starts wearing budgie smugglers, then I'll start worrying :confused:
Well apart from not answering the question (which probably belongs in Questions. Lefties. Choke), I don't understand what you're saying.

Spiny Norman
17-07-2010, 01:01 PM
When Gillard starts wearing budgie smugglers, then I'll start worrying :confused:
Are you suggesting Gillard has budgies tucked away somewhere??? :eek:

Garvinator
17-07-2010, 01:11 PM
Are you suggesting Gillard has budgies tucked away somewhere??? :eek:Who would look better in a pair of budgie smugglers would probably be the most interesting debate of the election campaign ;)

antichrist
17-07-2010, 01:45 PM
Peter, when John Howard proposed the Pacific Solution, lefties howled. When Gillard proposed the same, lefties shuffled their feet, or went out for a smoke and some even said it was the way she proposed it (LMFAO).

And now to abortion. Lefties and righties struggle with conscience on this issue. Now Abbott's position is well known - and you disagree with it. But what, Peter, do you say of the very many lefties (friends and politicians) who hold the same position as Abbott? Will you berate them - or will I find you outside having a smoke?

They may very well hold the same position personally but they adhere to party line (sometimes a good thing and sometimes otherwise) and vote for women's autonomy. And one reason may be that they know that the rich and connected can still get safe abortions even if such are banned, but the working class women cannot and so get lumped carrying the bundle, illegally hacked or having to flee to NSW (from Qld as used to be in my youth).

Whereas men who certainly greatly helped causing the damage does a runner (to Nth Qld in my youth) or blah blah. Then Abbott will come along and add more hurt to injury. If only Mary could have had one we would have been spared the Jesus Freaks.

Howard, you could accuse Lefty youth of more abandon in sowing their wild oats.

Basil
17-07-2010, 02:20 PM
They may very well hold the same position personally but they adhere to party line ...
Not if it's a conscience vote. And as I asked you originally, if a lefty politician voted the same as Abbott, would he/ she be vilified by you?

Kevin Bonham
17-07-2010, 02:29 PM
They may very well hold the same position personally but they adhere to party line (sometimes a good thing and sometimes otherwise) and vote for women's autonomy.

Not true. This is a conscience vote issue where you can see where politicians on both sides really stand. So actually you weaken your case by saying the above when it would be better to query whether there are really that many in the first place.

And this is how to do it:


But what, Peter, do you say of the very many lefties (friends and politicians) who hold the same position as Abbott?

Are there really very many lefty politicians who hold that position?

In the Senate RU-486 vote Labor was split 21-7. And of the Labor Senators who voted for the Abbott side of the debate, the likes of Stephen Conroy and Helen Polley could not be considered left-wing by any sane measure. These people may be Labor but in terms of their views on social policy they may as well be Family First.

In the Reps Labor was split 54-5.

Every Labor politician who voted for Abbott's side of the legislation was male.

No Greens or Democrats voted with Abbott and the only Independent to do so was Katter. That said, a brain probe on Christine Milne's thought processes might have been interesting.

Similarly, while one does come across anti-abortion lefties now and then, I suspect CU exaggerates when he says there are "very many".

Basil
17-07-2010, 02:43 PM
Are there really very many lefty politicians who hold that position?
I said politicians and friends.


In the Senate RU-486 vote Labor was split 21-7.
25%. That's a significant number.


And of the Labor Senators who voted for the Abbott side of the debate, the likes of Stephen Conroy and Helen Polley could not be considered left-wing by any sane measure.
What? Leave it alone. They're lefty politicians. They're lefties for goodness sake. :hand:


In the Reps Labor was split 54-5. Every Labor politician who voted for Abbott's side of the legislation was male. Similarly, while one does come across anti-abortion lefties now and then, I suspect CU exaggerates when he says there are "very many".
I refer you to first reply where you have excluded "and friends". We could have a futile debate about whether I meant
a) collectively very many politicians and friends, or as you seem to be interpreting my statement,
b) both very many politicians and very many friends.

But instead (for the purposes of saving distraction from the central question of double standard) I shall modify my original statement to 'many politicians and friends'. The idea being that will such a lefty be vilified? Or are we yet again at the magnificent catch-all double standard in which all lefties wallow at one stage or other in their ideological game of Twister - "it's not the message but the messenger".

Kevin Bonham
17-07-2010, 03:24 PM
What? Leave it alone. They're lefty politicians. They're lefties for goodness sake. :hand:

No they are not. They are, in fact, examples of the strength of the evidence that the blanket classification of all Laborites as "lefties" is completely unsustainable.


I refer you to first reply where you have excluded "and friends". We could have a futile debate about whether I meant
a) collectively very many politicians and friends, or as you seem to be interpreting my statement,
b) both very many politicians and very many friends.

I am actually interpreting it as the latter. But I don't believe "very many" stands up in either case. I actually believe that very few politicians who are anti-abortion could sanely be considered lefties.


But instead (for the purposes of saving distraction from the central question of double standard) I shall modify my original statement to 'many politicians and friends'.

I would modify the "many" to "some" in the case of lefties in the general populace (the "friends" component), and in the case of politicians I am not sure there are even any really convincing Australian examples. Might be worth a look at the factional lineups of the remaining 10 Labor MPs who voted for RU-486, but info on that isn't all that easy to find. That said there are probably some lefty politicians who have anti-abortion leanings but don't dare to vote that way (I mentioned one rumoured example above.)

antichrist
17-07-2010, 03:39 PM
Not if it's a conscience vote. And as I asked you originally, if a lefty politician voted the same as Abbott, would he/ she be vilified by you?

Labor politicians still have to face their pre-selection voters, power-brokers and comrades and comradesses at state, national, women and youth conferences. They certainly also take this into account when casting their so-called conscious vote.


And right so, if these groups cannot be personally represented in the parliament their voice should also be heard for the work they do in carrying the party. It is not just the politicians party.

antichrist
17-07-2010, 03:41 PM
Gunnar, are you going to dispute that the rich and well-connected can usually get safe abortions even if illegal? Even if have to go to another country for example.

So to an extent it is also a class issue.

Basil
17-07-2010, 04:25 PM
No they are not. They are, in fact, examples of the strength of the evidence that the blanket classification of all Laborites as "lefties" is completely unsustainable.
FFS Kevin. 'Lefties', in common parlance means people who vote left and that certainly captures left wing polis. While the whole left-right paradigm can be debated to any degreed outcome (Axiom's pet), it is wholly disingenuous or pedantic in the broad context of this Abbott - Liberal - Labor discussion to discount two Labor politicians as non-lefties. And regardless of your interpretation, no matter how tortured, it is my use of the word and lefty in this debate and I'm here to tell you that I'm capturing those people with my definition.


I would modify the "many" to "some".
'Some' it is.

Basil
17-07-2010, 04:29 PM
Labor politicians still have to face their pre-selection voters, power-brokers and comrades and comradesses at state, national, women and youth conferences. They certainly also take this into account when casting their so-called conscious vote.


And right so, if these groups cannot be personally represented in the parliament their voice should also be heard for the work they do in carrying the party. It is not just the politicians party.
You're not going to answer the question, are you? Again, if a left wing politician (Labor if you prefer), held the same position as Abbott, would you vilify him/ her? Yes or no?

Kevin Bonham
17-07-2010, 04:51 PM
FFS Kevin. 'Lefties', in common parlance means people who vote left and that certainly captures left wing polis.

Voting Labor does not automatically equal voting left, in parlance common or otherwise.


While the whole left-right paradigm can be debated to any degreed outcome (Axiom's pet),

Axiom's reasons for debating it are almost completely different to mine. He doesn't dispute its measurability but rather its relevance. In very broad terms I'm leaning towards the other way around, at least as regards too-broad attempts to measure it.


it is wholly disingenuous or pedantic in the broad context of this Abbott - Liberal - Labor discussion to discount two Labor politicians as non-lefties.

Context (to the extent it's a defence) was set by you in #2 - lefties are people who howled about the Pacific Solution. Now, I don't think that adequately captures the response of the average Labor Right type or his/her voter base.


And regardless of your interpretation, no matter how tortured, it is my use of the word and lefty in this debate and I'm here to tell you that I'm capturing those people with my definition.

That's fine but if you define "leftie" too broadly then you can hardly expect AC to display solidarity with his fellow travellers. In the shoutbox last night AC said he did not trust either major party and only trusted Bob Brown. More fool him!

Basil
17-07-2010, 04:59 PM
Voting Labor does not automatically equal voting left, in parlance common or otherwise.
Really? Can you expand? Certainly I have never discerned the difference.


Axiom's reasons for debating it are almost completely different to mine.
I'm delighted to hear it :D


He doesn't dispute its measurability but rather its relevance. In very broad terms I'm leaning towards the other way around, at least as regards too-broad attempts to measure it.
OK, I understand your interpretation. I believe it's too pedantic an exercise to define lefty as such for such a broad-based, generalised term. I think I understand you believe the opposite is true.


Context (to the extent it's a defence) was set by you in #2 - lefties are people who howled about the Pacific Solution. Now, I don't think that adequately captures the response of the average Labor Right type or his/her voter base.
I do. While I can't speak for every lefty, I'm satisfied that a very significant proportion of them were happy to hide behind the vilification of Howard for his views.

antichrist
17-07-2010, 05:23 PM
You're not going to answer the question, are you? Again, if a left wing politician (Labor if you prefer), held the same position as Abbott, would you vilify him/ her? Yes or no?

If they were in the same position as Abbot as was Health Minister and responsible for such I certainly would.

Whilst still a member of the Labor Party I did one-man demos against Bob Hawke at Tweed Heads bowlo club (I think it was) and the Sydney Opera House when he opened one of the campaigns. I was the only person on both occasions.

Just like I demoed against the Chinese letting off the nuke bombs at that rugby league grand final in 1978 (I think) and got bashed up for my efforts. I demoed there not the bombs. And all the other lone demos I performed and got bashed up for my efforts.

So does that answer your question and you can accept that it is quite likely?

antichrist
17-07-2010, 05:24 PM
And Capt Underpants you are only picking on me coz KB is rubbing your nose into the dirt. There I said what I really think.

Basil
17-07-2010, 05:28 PM
If they were in the same position as Abbot as was Health Minister and responsible for such I certainly would.

Whilst still a member of the Labor Party I did one-man demos against Bob Hawke at Tweed Heads bowlo club (I think it was) and the Sydney Opera House when he opened one of the campaigns. I was the only person on both occasions.

Just like I demoed against the Chinese letting off the nuke bombs at that rugby league grand final in 1978 (I think) and got bashed up for my efforts. I demoed there not the bombs. And all the other lone demos I performed and got bashed up for my efforts. Just as happens to me on this site monthly - when mods get their monthlies.

So does that answer your question and you can accept that it is quite likely?
Yes I do accept that. You're probably a lefty who I can respect like Ian Murray. Both entirely clueless :D but worthy of respect. I look forward to your lambasting of Gillard for her Pacific Solution 'disgrace'.

antichrist
17-07-2010, 05:38 PM
Yes I do accept that. You're probably a lefty who I can respect like Ian Murray. Both entirely clueless :D but worthy of respect. I look forward to your lambasting of Gillard for her Pacific Solution 'disgrace'.

As stated else where in reply to Igor, my mother was certainly stateless and probably illegal, being born at sea with no docs, and landing in Aussie with a family already fulfilling the quota of 2 children per family. (Maybe non-British or 'non-white' countries there was this quota) So I don't think I am in a position to criticize them. But Igor certainly does though his mob had to barge in the Exodus whereever they could. He has a short memory.

Now just refer to my other post in Resident Psy and you will be okay.

Basil
17-07-2010, 05:41 PM
As stated else where in reply to Igor, my mother was certainly stateless and probably illegal, being born at sea with no docs, and landing in Aussie with a family already fulfilling the quota of 2 children per family. (Maybe non-British or 'non-white' countries there was this quota) So I don't think I am in a position to criticize them.
I don't follow. Are you saying that you didn't object to John Howard's Pacific Solution?

antichrist
17-07-2010, 05:46 PM
I don't follow. Are you saying that you didn't object to John Howard's Pacific Solution?

Have you already had that scotch. I am saying that I cannot condemn the refos coz my mother was a bit the same. At least JC had the stable whereas my mum was on an Italian ship in the dark of night. My grandmother had hidden her advance state under an overcoat in hot Egypt mind you. She fooled those Pommie officials at Port Said. Good on you Citee (grandmother)

Basil
17-07-2010, 05:50 PM
Have you already had that scotch. I am saying that I cannot condemn the refos coz my mother was a bit the same. At least JC had the stable whereas my mum was on an Italian ship in the dark of night. My grandmother had hidden her advance state under an overcoat in hot Egypt mind you. She fooled those Pommie officials at Port Said. Good on you Citee (grandmother)
Yes yes yes, Great reading. Now what was your position on John Howard's PS and now on Juila Gillard's PS?

Kevin Bonham
17-07-2010, 05:51 PM
Really? Can you expand? Certainly I have never discerned the difference.

Well, there's one view (almost invariably coming from passionate "righties") that voting left is voting for anyone except the Coalition or a recognisable right-leaning party or independent.

There's another view, and I think it's quite a common one, that the genuine "left" voters are a much smaller subset. They might vote Green, Socialist, leftist independent, Democrat or Labor. If they're voting Labor then it probably won't be unconditional. More likely they'll swing between Labor and a distinctly left party like the Greens depending on how well Labor covers issues dear to their heart, particularly: environment, climate change, refugees, wars. That said, there are some leftists who are locked-in Labor voters; the typical old-style Labor Left unionist type for example.

I'd say that a Labor voter who might otherwise be a Greens voter but wouldn't vote Coalition in a fit is a left voter and could reasonably be considered a leftie. But someone who usually votes Labor, now and then votes Coalition, and would never vote Green in a fit is not.

I don't think even the old Democrat voter base was all lefty. I think they were about half leftie and half centrist.

Rincewind
17-07-2010, 05:54 PM
Really? Can you expand? Certainly I have never discerned the difference.

I'm glad to hear that. As I can never remember voting Labor and only voted Green once in a famous by-election, I can't be called a leftie by CU. Although I can sleep at night in the knowledge that every time I have voted Liberal in the House of Reps, Labor has won the seat I was voting in. :lol:

Basil
17-07-2010, 05:58 PM
There's another view, and I think it's quite a common one, that the genuine "left" voters are a much smaller subset. They might vote Green, Socialist, leftist independent, Democrat or Labor. If they're voting Labor then it probably won't be unconditional. More likely they'll swing between Labor and a distinctly left party like the Greens depending on how well Labor covers issues dear to their heart, particularly: environment, climate change, refugees, wars. That said, there are some leftists who are locked-in Labor voters; the typical old-style Labor Left unionist type for example.

I'd say that a Labor voter who might otherwise be a Greens voter but wouldn't vote Coalition in a fit is a left voter and could reasonably be considered a leftie. But someone who usually votes Labor, now and then votes Coalition, and would never vote Green in a fit is not.

I don't think even the old Democrat voter base was all lefty. I think they were about half leftie and half centrist.

I agree with all of this. Nevertheless voting Labor (consistently - give or take one brain fart/ protest vote in a life time) makes one a lefty. As for being a Labor politician ...

Basil
17-07-2010, 06:00 PM
As I can never remember voting Labor and only voted Green once in a famous by-election, I can't be called a leftie by CU.
:eek: :eek: :eek:
There's a trick here :hmm:

Desmond
17-07-2010, 06:25 PM
Who would look better in a pair of budgie smugglers would probably be the most interesting debate of the election campaign ;)Budgie smugglers seem more palatable than the "moving forward" slogan at this point.

antichrist
17-07-2010, 06:28 PM
Yes yes yes, Great reading. Now what was your position on John Howard's PS and now on Juila Gillard's PS?

frankly speaking, I have been so busy last 3 weeks that I have not followed it. I only think that there was a difference in that Gillard's involved an official UN processing camp, so in that way was a better and less vindictive response.

Overall, the richer elite "queue jumpers" are grabbing the positions of the working class/peasant refos linguishing in the UN camps around the world. I thought you would be supporting that richer class above the peasant/workers.

But Howard's response was a complete con job if ever there was one. He spent a fortune on each refugee and about 90% of them were accepted anyway. That is after he spend about a billion dollars on the whole propaganda exercise. That was all it was.

I am against wasting public money. Also Howard Break them chains ads were a complete waste of money - 100% you must admit. They bored me to the toilet.

Basil
17-07-2010, 06:39 PM
I only think that there was a difference in that Gillard's involved an official UN processing camp, so in that way was a better and less vindictive response.
This is where you lack credibility (along with the other wet-arsed, pie-in-the-sky, dribbling lefties). Two solutions. Identical (except for the tenuous 'one nation is UN sanctioned' differentiation and even then that might not occur, or the previously not sanctioned nation has (is considering) applied to be sanctioned.

All the talk of the 'evil Howard' and the 'heartless Howard' has disappeared into foot shuffling minute differentiation.

You people make me wanna puke. Heave copious volumes of intestinal bile.

antichrist
17-07-2010, 06:44 PM
Well Howard, I have family ready and waiting to take me out. see you tomorrow. Love youall

Igor_Goldenberg
17-07-2010, 06:48 PM
the likes of Stephen Conroy and Helen Polley could not be considered left-wing by any sane measure.

Are you sure? The guy pushing $42B white elephant and internet filter is not a lefty?

Kevin Bonham
17-07-2010, 08:40 PM
Are you sure? The guy pushing $42B white elephant and internet filter is not a lefty?

The internet filter is a particularly striking reason why he's not. It was an attempt by Labor to outdo Howard when it came to playing up to the pro-censorship morals panickers on the religious right. The real left despises the proposal utterly.

Ian Murray
17-07-2010, 11:03 PM
Two solutions. Identical (except for the tenuous 'one nation is UN sanctioned' differentiation and even then that might not occur, or the previously not sanctioned nation has (is considering) applied to be sanctioned.

All the talk of the 'evil Howard' and the 'heartless Howard' has disappeared into foot shuffling minute differentiation.

You people make me wanna puke. Heave copious volumes of intestinal bile.
The refugee issue was cynically politicised by Howard with the Tampa incident, after the welcoming hand first extended in a big way by Fraser. We then had the migration zone excisions and offshore detentions of the Pacific Solution. It sickened me then, and thinking of it still does.

The politicisation continues. Yesterday I got a Coalition flyer in the mail, itemising Tony Abbott and the LNP's Six Point Action Plan - #4 is Stop Illegal Immigration to protect our borders and keep Australia strong (conveniently overlooking the fact that asylum seeking is not illegal immigration)

The reality now is that, to win in western Sydney, a party has to be strong on boat people, and to win an election the party must win in western Sydney. It wasn't Labor that created the situation, but to go soft would be political suicide in the current climate.

Realpolitik

Basil
18-07-2010, 10:20 AM
The refugee issue was cynically politicised by Howard with the Tampa incident, after the welcoming hand first extended in a big way by Fraser. We then had the migration zone excisions and offshore detentions of the Pacific Solution. It sickened me then, and thinking of it still does.

The politicisation continues. Yesterday I got a Coalition flyer in the mail, itemising Tony Abbott and the LNP's Six Point Action Plan - #4 is Stop Illegal Immigration to protect our borders and keep Australia strong (conveniently overlooking the fact that asylum seeking is not illegal immigration)

The reality now is that, to win in western Sydney, a party has to be strong on boat people, and to win an election the party must win in western Sydney. It wasn't Labor that created the situation, but to go soft would be political suicide in the current climate.

Realpolitik
Oh shit - Johnny made you do it. Is that what you're saying?

Yes yes yes. Howard is evil and he started it. That's been done and dusted, and voted on, Howard tossed, howled about, and sucked dry and yada yada yada.

Now Julia. She's doing the same thing. It is her act that is in question. That you are justifying it (or standing by silent) weakens you considerably. Get stuck in to her or be damned as politically expedient as Howard. Grow a spine and stand up and speak up for what you know is right.

Watching you sanctimonious hypocrites makes me wanna puke.

ER
18-07-2010, 11:02 AM
Now Julia.

she kissed the first baby in her campaign! In Brisbane! (fortunate little angel) :) :clap: she is lovely! She 'll speak soon. It's expected to be a monumental speech!

Capablanca-Fan
18-07-2010, 11:29 AM
The internet filter is a particularly striking reason why he's not. It was an attempt by Labor to outdo Howard when it came to playing up to the pro-censorship morals panickers on the religious right. The real left despises the proposal utterly.
More likely, the real right do, since we believe in individual responsibility, including parents being responsible for what their kids see, while the left want to rely on Nanny State to protect them. For example, one of the most outspoken opponents among politicians is the very conservative Cory Bernardi.

Ian Murray
18-07-2010, 11:59 AM
Now Julia. She's doing the same thing. It is her act that is in question. That you are justifying it (or standing by silent) weakens you considerably. Get stuck in to her or be damned as politically expedient as Howard.
The Fraser coalition government was magnificent in opening the doors for Vietnamese refugees
The Howard coalition government was despicable for slamming the doors against Iraqi/Afghan (and any other stripe, except Chinese) refugees
The Rudd/Gillard government is cowardly for abandoning the moral high ground for political expediency
The Abbott coalition opposition is despicable for fanning the xenophobic flames for political gain
The Australian people should think through the emotive rhetoric and welcome newcomers from all racial and cultural backgrounds

Basil
18-07-2010, 12:00 PM
The Fraser coalition government was magnificent in opening the doors for Vietnamese refugees
The Howard coalition government was despicable for slamming the doors against Iraqi/Afghan (and any other stripe, except Chinese) refugees
The Rudd/Gillard government is cowardly for abandoning the moral high ground for political expediency
The Abbott coalition opposition is despicable for fanning the xenophobic flames for political gain
The Australian people should think through the emotive rhetoric and welcome newcomers from all racial and cultural backgrounds
Right then. All forgiven and withdrawn :D

The only two differences then,
1. is that the ALP seeks to gain votes from both ends of the argument (pro in 2007 and anti 2010) - and that
2. the Libs believed what they were promoting - the ALP is doing so for expediency.

Pukeworthy.

Kevin Bonham
18-07-2010, 12:53 PM
More likely, the real right do, since we believe in individual responsibility, including parents being responsible for what their kids see, while the left want to rely on Nanny State to protect them. For example, one of the most outspoken opponents among politicians is the very conservative Cory Bernardi.

There's no contradiction in the real left and the "real right" being opposed to the same thing. In fact pretty much everyone opposes Conroy's internet filter except for most of the parliamentary Labor Party, its most rusted-on party-hack supporters and a small but apparently influential number of impractical anti-kiddieporn hysterics and other sundry moral zealots. Polled support for the scheme is in single figures.

It is worth noting though that Bernardi hardly believes in individual responsibility when it comes to censorship of swearing on television, for instance. His reasons for opposing the filter can be found here (http://www.corybernardi.com/2008/12/isp-filtering.html)

antichrist
18-07-2010, 07:40 PM
HOward, I am sure you understand Ian. Johnny Howard lowered the standard and appealed to the lowest basics instincts of modern man. He took away Pauline Hanson's thunder to gather her discontent vote.

And it follows Karl Marx's script to a "T" - that is social change follows economic change. And the economic change was Oz currency going down mid-eighties (after being floated) so the Japanese could buy into Gold Coast cheaply, as well the high interest rate that came with it (21%?) drove struggle farmers to the grave. Hounded by the Commonwealth Bank even. So Pauline rounded them up. And these disconted whites came to the party with their coloured Filipina wives.

And Howard got Abbot to cut the legs from under Pauline and round up those votes.

Enough said.

Basil
18-07-2010, 08:06 PM
HOward, I am sure you understand Ian. Johnny Howard lowered the standard and appealed to the lowest basics instincts of modern man.
Says you and other lefties. As you also said of George Bush sending men to their slaughter in Iraq for oil. Both lines are hysterical, lefty cluelessness because you can't fathom people doing what they think is right without attributing the most base and evil attributes.

Regardless, none of this is an excuse for your hopeless ideological double standard on present Pacific Solution discussions.

antichrist
18-07-2010, 08:12 PM
Well Howard, didn't Rightblackards support Thatcher's war on the Falklands - and that was over oil like Bush's wars were in the Middle East.

And my Dutch neighbour have got it in for the pomms for the Boer War.

Ian Murray
18-07-2010, 08:43 PM
...the Libs believed what they were promoting
Believe what - that refugees pose a threat to Australia? That international accords are irrelevant? Or that refugee-bashing is a vote winner?

Basil
18-07-2010, 09:03 PM
Believe what - that refugees pose a threat to Australia? That international accords are irrelevant? Or that refugee-bashing is a vote winner?
Neither. Nice try at verbaling. You should get a job with the ALP's scare-monger machine - you'd ace the entrance exam. The Libs believe that Australians should be in charge of their borders and that Australians should welcome asylum seekers through the front door and on their terms. These issues are never black and white, even you know that, and to reduce The Libs (my) position as you have done with your quote is as mindless as AC's position on the war.

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2010, 07:21 AM
Well Howard, didn't Rightblackards support Thatcher's war on the Falklands - and that was over oil like Bush's wars were in the Middle East.
No it wasn't; it was about the self-determination of the Falkland Islanders, who didn't want to be taken over by the Argentine military dictatorship. Fortunately, after the brilliant British victory, General Galtieri was overthrown.


And my Dutch neighbour have got it in for the pomms for the Boer War.
They should grow up. That was over 100 years ago. By contrast, the Turks and ANZACs have long since become good friends. A large part of that was the chivalry of the victorious general Mustafa Kemal, who later became the founder of modern Turkey.

antichrist
25-07-2010, 07:26 PM
Abbott has sacked candidate for saying No muslims and no atheist PM, but I am sure he agreed with him

antichrist
25-07-2010, 07:28 PM
No it wasn't; it was about the self-determination of the Falkland Islanders, who didn't want to be taken over by the Argentine military dictatorship. Fortunately, after the brilliant British victory, General Galtieri was overthrown.


They should grow up. That was over 100 years ago. By contrast, the Turks and ANZACs have long since become good friends. A large part of that was the chivalry of the victorious general Mustafa Kemal, who later became the founder of modern Turkey.

Argentina should Falklands just like China should have Taiwan. Aus is good friends with Turkey but that is only coz of Goodwil of Turks, we invaded them. Probably coz we let so many of their migrants in they considered let sleeping dogs lie

Spiny Norman
26-07-2010, 07:16 AM
Abbott has sacked candidate for saying No muslims and no atheist PM, but I am sure he agreed with him
... and your evidence for Abbott's agreement with those views is ... what exactly? ... that Abbott sacked him? :hand:

antichrist
26-07-2010, 08:26 AM
... and your evidence for Abbott's agreement with those views is ... what exactly? ... that Abbott sacked him? :hand:

Abbott has to be seen to be politicially correct. He is already behind the 8 ball coz women see him as otherwise. In his heart he is nothing more then a B A Santamaria papist apologist, who does not take his responsibility and wear condoms when he oughta

Igor_Goldenberg
30-07-2010, 09:41 AM
http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2010/07/27/1225897/411462-mark-knight.jpg

Rincewind
30-07-2010, 09:54 AM
...who does not take his responsibility and wear condoms when he oughta

Catholics can lawfully apply mathematics to avoid pregnancy. However, I think they are still forbidden from using physics or chemistry.

Desmond
30-07-2010, 10:28 AM
Catholics can lawfully apply mathematics to avoid pregnancy. However, I think they are still forbidden from using physics or chemistry.
:lol: :clap:

Rincewind
30-07-2010, 10:31 AM
:lol: :clap:

With apologies to H L Mencken who said it better as "It is now quite lawful for a Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy by a resort to mathematics, though she is still forbidden to resort to physics or chemistry."

Igor_Goldenberg
13-08-2010, 10:49 PM
Abbott intimidates Latham, says body language expert (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/abbott-intimidates-ex-leader-says-body-language-expert/story-fn59niix-1225904656155)


MARK Latham was less aggressive in confronting Tony Abbott than he was with Julia Gillard, and even seemed intimidated himself.

That's the assessment of a body language expert.

Five days after coming face-to-face with the Prime Minister in Brisbane on assignment for 60 Minutes, the former Labor leader yesterday stalked the Opposition Leader in Sydney's west.

Whereas Mr Latham had pointed his finger at Ms Gillard and demanded to know why the ALP had complained about him to his employers at the Nine Network, he made no such attack when questioning Mr Abbott, who holds two Oxford blues in boxing.

Michael Kelly, a body language and speech communication expert, reviewed video clips of both meetings and said Mr Latham appeared to lose a little nerve when Mr Abbott eyeballed him back. "He still went in hard to begin with," Mr Kelly said. "But when Abbott fronted up to him he wasn't so aggressive, and his voice shook a little bit too. There was a quaver there. Abbott kind of intimidated Latham a little bit I think. It's typical bully behaviour, really. A lot of these guys are weak underneath -- they're all upfront."

Igor_Goldenberg
03-09-2010, 02:10 PM
I think it was wrong for Abbott to offer Wilkie 1Bn for Hobart hospital (irrespectively of whether he was going to support Labor)
honourable member of Dennison is clearly on vendetta course and played bait and hook with Liberals.

Capablanca-Fan
04-09-2010, 03:19 AM
I think it was wrong for Abbott to offer Wilkie 1Bn for Hobart hospital (irrespectively of whether he was going to support Labor)
honourable member of Dennison is clearly on vendetta course and played bait and hook with Liberals.
Indeed. He is basically condoning Wilkie's theft from the other states' taxpayers.

Goughfather
04-09-2010, 03:54 PM
Indeed. He is basically condoning Wilkie's theft from the other states' taxpayers.

What a twit you are. Wilkie refused the offer of the Coalition. Even according to your incoherent political ideology, you have to concede that the Coalition are the real thieves here.

Capablanca-Fan
06-09-2010, 07:00 AM
What a twit you are. Wilkie refused the offer of the Coalition. Even according to your incoherent political ideology, you have to concede that the Coalition are the real thieves here.
Can't you read, pillock? I was agreeing with IG that Abbott was wrong in this instance. Unfortunately, it's a matter of choosing between the worst thieves, and hardly anything is worse than Labor's wasted spending on home insulation, school buildings, and the proposed $43b white elephant NBN.

Igor_Goldenberg
29-09-2010, 09:31 AM
http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2010/09/28/1225931/280310-100929-kudelka-433.jpg

Desmond
29-09-2010, 09:50 AM
So let me get this straight...

Labor + cross benchers have enough numbers to elect Slipper by a simple majority in the secret ballot.

Can't Slipper refuse the position? Or did he want the position, against the will of his party?

Goughfather
29-09-2010, 12:44 PM
The result was 78-71 to Slipper. Assuming that Katter voted against the Nationals' candidate, that leaves two votes unaccounted for. This would seem to suggest that Slipper plus another Coalition MP voted for Slipper.

Igor_Goldenberg
29-09-2010, 02:33 PM
So let me get this straight...

Labor + cross benchers have enough numbers to elect Slipper by a simple majority in the secret ballot.

Can't Slipper refuse the position? Or did he want the position, against the will of his party?
He could refuse nomination, but he wanted the position.

Kevin Bonham
29-09-2010, 03:24 PM
The result was 78-71 to Slipper. Assuming that Katter voted against the Nationals' candidate, that leaves two votes unaccounted for. This would seem to suggest that Slipper plus another Coalition MP voted for Slipper.

The other "Coalition MP" (dubiously) was probably Tony Crook.


Can't Slipper refuse the position? Or did he want the position, against the will of his party?

He accepted the nomination. It is a higher paying gig and Abbott would be nuts to take action against him and risk losing a number on the floor of the House.

Goughfather
29-09-2010, 04:08 PM
The other "Coalition MP" (dubiously) was probably Tony Crook.

I'm tentatively counting Crook as Coalition as I expect he'll lean towards the Coalition on most issues. Crook denies voting for Slipper, but he could be lying, of course.


He accepted the nomination. It is a higher paying gig and Abbott would be nuts to take action against him and risk losing a number on the floor of the House.

Clearly the result would have smarted, but he should have been expecting to lose that vote. Abbott's continual use of the phrase "on that basis" i.e. that Slipper wouldn't support Labor on supply clearly looked like he was trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Kevin Bonham
29-09-2010, 06:26 PM
Crook denies voting for Slipper, but he could be lying, of course.

Hmmm. Maybe Slipper has a special friend in Coalition ranks.

A common contrivance to maintain party solidarity in "secret ballots" is for members of the same party to show their vote to another member of the party. There was a classic example of how this doesn't always work in the Tassie speakership election in 1992 when a couple of Liberals (the new government) ratted on their party's nominee, electing one of the pair as Speaker instead, and showed their ratting votes to each other.

Rincewind
29-09-2010, 06:37 PM
A common contrivance to maintain party solidarity in "secret ballots" is for members of the same party to show their vote to another member of the party. There was a classic example of how this doesn't always work in the Tassie speakership election in 1992 when a couple of Liberals (the new government) ratted on their party's nominee, electing one of the pair as Speaker instead, and showed their ratting votes to each other.

They need to ensure the network of disclosed votes forms a connect graph. Or probably just that the minimum number of nodes in each connected graph is greater than some sensible minimum like 5-ish.

Desmond
30-09-2010, 10:53 AM
He accepted the nomination. It is a higher paying gig and Abbott would be nuts to take action against him and risk losing a number on the floor of the House.OK thanks. Seeing the theatrics of dragging the elected speaker to the chair, I thought perhaps it couldn't be refused. :)

Kevin Bonham
30-09-2010, 11:21 AM
OK thanks. Seeing the theatrics of dragging the elected speaker to the chair, I thought perhaps it couldn't be refused. :)

Well, the person appointed to the position could always immediately resign and Slipper didn't do that. I understand that, curiously, a formal acceptance of nomination doesn't seem to be required and the House can even appoint people to positions when they are absent. So it seems more accurate to say that he failed to actively object to being appointed.

Kevin Bonham
11-10-2010, 10:11 PM
Abbott has copped a pretty big hit in the most recent Newspoll. His satisfaction rating has gone down by nine points and his dissatisfaction rating up by the same amount. As Gillard's net satisfaction rating improved in the same poll, Abbott has gone from 2 points ahead on net satisfaction to 23 points behind. The Afghanistan jetlag thing appears to have hurt him - but will it be temporary or lasting?

antichrist
11-10-2010, 10:44 PM
I dont know what period the latest poll was supposed to cover, but if covers from election date the slide is understandable. He acted like a spoilt child and a spoiler - whereas Gillard was the soother and facilitator.

And the feral Country/Nationals did not help the cause. It is easy to why fair-minded people like Oakeshot and Windsor desert them.

What about Windsor for PM next time around? Leading a Labor government - I would like to see that.

Kevin Bonham
11-10-2010, 10:58 PM
I dont know what period the latest poll was supposed to cover, but if covers from election date the slide is understandable. He acted like a spoilt child and a spoiler - whereas Gillard was the soother and facilitator.

This one was from Oct 8-10. The previous one was taken from Sep 10-12, and showed no immediate fallout from the post-election negotiations.

By the way at this stage it is just Abbott feeling the heat, not his party. The parties are still at 50-50 on Newspoll.

antichrist
11-10-2010, 11:09 PM
But when was the government finally formed and speakers finally settled - after 12th Sept? Then the latest poll would have taken into consideration all developments after 12 Sept - and it was all Gillard for constructive viewers.

antichrist
11-10-2010, 11:12 PM
And it came out in today's smh that that accountancy firm did not audit the Libs accounts, of course they never, coz they would have picked up that simple error that may have been deliberate. Both Robb and Hockey deceived the electors on this issue, and it was taken up the accountants at the time.

Big con job the LIbs were this time.

Only about 2.7% of those school building were troublesome - I assure everyone that every Liberal businessman has a lot worse record than that for projects going over budget. If mine were one in 37 approx I would be thrilled.

Kevin Bonham
11-10-2010, 11:14 PM
But when was the government finally formed and speakers finally settled - after 12th Sept?

Government was formed 7th Sept. Speakership settled 28th Sept. It's possible the latter had an impact on Abbott's dive, but I doubt it as most voters wouldn't care less who the Speaker was, and if poor negotiating tactics were going to rub off on Abbott then they could have done so in the previous one.

antichrist
11-10-2010, 11:21 PM
All the LIbs I know are rich local people, but not one knows (or says more) any more than the LIbs PR. Turnbull has principle on the environment so he does not fit in. He even txt them on how the carbon is changing the ocean affecting those snails etc - did not go down well but good on him.

And the LIbs sent us to an illegal invasion of Iraq with maybe 100,000 killed, no guilty conscious about that - yet they still got votes Beats me.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-10-2010, 08:38 AM
This one was from Oct 8-10. The previous one was taken from Sep 10-12, and showed no immediate fallout from the post-election negotiations.

So it was after jet-lag gaffe but before Gillard's dirty tricking became evident.
If it was the only reason,the slide is temporary. Otherwise it might stay, but I never pay much attention to preferred PM poll. It is never a good predictor.

Kevin Bonham
12-10-2010, 12:00 PM
Otherwise it might stay, but I never pay much attention to preferred PM poll. It is never a good predictor.

The direct preferred PM measure is a useless predictor (and I ignored it for that reason) but leadership approval ratings are much better predictors. It is actually quite common (eg before last election) for preferred PM to show a big gap with leadership approval ratings not showing the same sort of gap. In this case there is a big gap in both.

One thing that has been found in the past is that where the PM's approval balance goes up or down, that quite often happens ahead of a change in the 2PP polling.


So it was after jet-lag gaffe but before Gillard's dirty tricking became evident.

I'm not sure how much attention voters are paying to the finer details of supposed "dirty tricking" by Gillard. The problem for Abbott here is that he has done something that can easily be made to look bad on a very simple level. It's tough to break through that perception and get the public to look hard at the finer detail - and even if they do look hard they might not agree.

antichrist
14-10-2010, 12:19 PM
A Cairns couple charged over a home abortion has been found not guilty.

A Cairns District Court jury took less than an hour to find Tegan Simone Leach, 21, and her partner Sergie Brennan not guilty of charges of procuring an abortion and supplying drugs to procure an abortion following a three day trial.

The couple were charged after police found empty blister packets of abortion drugs RU486 and Misoprostol during a search of their home on an unrelated matter in February last year.

They admitted in police interviews that Leach took the pills, imported by Brennan's family in the Ukraine, because they were not ready to have a child.

Under Queensland law, abortion is illegal except to protect the mother's life or her physical or mental wellbeing.

However, in his final directions to the jury, Judge Bill Everson said they had to be satisfied the drugs were noxious to Leach's health, rather than the foetus.
-----------------------------------

AC
Amazing judge's direction to the jury, I feel sure that Qld law stipulates who determines whether is detrimental to physical or mental wellbeing.

It was Abbott's Catholic view on this that should have ruled him inadmissible as major party leader.

Agent Smith
05-11-2011, 11:33 AM
I hope he's never aus prime minister. And it seems Lauire Oakes may agree with me, after his seering opinion piece in today's Courier Mail and Herald Sun.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/mining-tax-has-exposed-abbott/story-e6frfhqf-1226186251139

Politicians don't come any more ferocious and brutal than Abbott. He reverted to the wild the moment he got his paws on the Liberal leadership.

His style is pure attack dog, as feral as you'd get. Everything, irrespective of merit, has to be opposed and torn to pieces.
Oakes gets stuck into him about the Mining Tax, IMF funding and the Qantas dispute

Rincewind
05-11-2011, 05:06 PM
He is certainly the the guy that Labor wants to be the leader of the liberals. If they are to have any chance of holding on to Government.

Ian Murray
05-11-2011, 06:00 PM
I must admit I am in awe of Abbott's incisive grasp of complex issues. Whatever the issue, a succinct Coalition policy can be anticipated in moments. Coalition policy: No.

Basil
05-11-2011, 06:27 PM
I must admit I am in awe of Abbott's incisive grasp of complex issues. Whatever the issue, a succinct Coalition policy can be anticipated in moments. Coalition policy: No.
Ian, I know you to be a man of character — you will acknowledge that that a decade of Labor rule, especially the second half, was marked by naked obstructionism.

Ian Murray
05-11-2011, 07:28 PM
Ian, I know you to be a man of character — you will acknowledge that that a decade of Labor rule, especially the second half, was marked by naked obstructionism.
Some instances come to mind (GST, Telstra sell-off) but 'naked obstructionism' is a bit over the top. There was no Labor policy to repeal Coalition changes.

Basil
06-11-2011, 02:00 AM
Some instances come to mind (GST, Telstra sell-off) but 'naked obstructionism' is a bit over the top. There was no Labor policy to repeal Coalition changes.
Promises to repeal is a bad thing?

Regardless of one's politics, surely the Coalition's platforms of
a) standing against bad policy (as claimed, and at least having the benefit of popular support), and
b) promising to repeal (seeking a mandate)
is infinitely superior to this policy backflipping, hi-jacking of the electorate, and general thumb-up-arse-that your lot have indulged in while in government (don't make me write list) ?

Ian Murray
06-11-2011, 09:31 AM
Promises to repeal is a bad thing?
The best Abbott can hope for is an early election before the carbon tax comes into effect. Trying to roll back the package afterwards would be a nightmare. Withdrawing the benefits package - reducing the tax-free threshold, reducing pensions, reducing household and small business assistance? Otherwise how does he pay for them with no carbon tax?

And repealing the mining tax? Do you really think protecting the profits of the big miners has popular support?

Basil
06-11-2011, 04:05 PM
The best Abbott can hope for is an early election before the carbon tax comes into effect.
Possibly.


And repealing the mining tax? Do you really think protecting the profits of the big miners has popular support?
Ignoring the loaded nature of the question, and obvious narrowing of the issue; yes.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
06-11-2011, 04:44 PM
tony abbott is pretty cool because his desire to oppose the mining tax will help to keep bogans sufficiently funded so that they can keep buying obnoxious, loud coloured late model holden utes.

something to keep in mind.

GO TEAM TONY !! :owned:

Agent Smith
12-11-2011, 02:53 PM
Team Tony goes for gold
Abbott suggests euro nations consider drastic action (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/foreign-affairs/abbott-suggests-euro-nations-consider-drastic-action/story-fn59nm2j-1226193134143)
You'd think he'd pull his head in after last weeks scrubbing.

Must be all that lovin' at the "meeting of conservative political parties", London.

Hobbes
12-11-2011, 05:25 PM
I hope he's never aus prime minister. And it seems Lauire Oakes may agree with me, after his seering opinion piece in today's Courier Mail and Herald Sun.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/mining-tax-has-exposed-abbott/story-e6frfhqf-1226186251139

Uh huh, how's that David Icke fan (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=317176&postcount=1) stuff coming along for you?

Kevin Bonham
27-03-2012, 12:50 PM
Tony Abbott has now polled a Newspoll net satisfaction rating of -26, his worst ever, three times in a row. It's really odd that at the same time Julia Gillard's unpopularity became worse because of the Rudd stoush, Abbott's also took a ten-point hit. Furthermore Gillard has now recovered most of the damage while Abbott hasn't recovered any.

Here are some posts I made to pollbludger in response to someone who was claiming that Leaders of the Opposition normally have low approval ratings until they win. (Note that in the first post I use LOTO as the abbreviation for Leader of the Opposition as that was the usage of the poster I was replying to, but in the second I switch to using LOpp which I like better!)


Actually the history of the last few decades is that LOTOs with poor approvals don’t become Prime Minister in that term as LOTO at all, even if they are flogging the government senseless on 2PP. Rudd’s ratings as LOTO were stratospheric, and during his winning term Howard’s median result was approve 46 disapprove 38 (netsat +8) with a worst approval of 37 and a worst netsat of -12.

Hawke wasn’t in the job long enough for meaningful figures so if you want to find a PM with low approvals in their winning term as LOTO you’ll have to go back to at least Fraser (and I’m not sure if he fits the bill, from what I’ve seen Whitlam had quite decent ratings shortly before winning, etc).

Of course it is fully possible that Abbott will break the mould and win despite very bad ratings (this is a bottom of the table clash after all, where the Government generally seems hellbent on losing) but it’s something worth keeping an eye on.

I’m going to check some ratings history for successful state LOTOs.

(and almost two hours later ...)


OK, here is everything I could find on Newspoll concerning the popularity histories of successful state leaders of the Opposition and their ratings during their winning terms. Bear in mind that polling in some states has been pretty sparse so it is not quite a comparable level of detail and sensitivity to bad patches as federal:

NSW:

Nick Greiner: LOpp for five years of which Newspoll has data for last two and a bit. Generally positive netsats during this time with a worst of -3 and lowest approval of 41.

Bob Carr: LOpp for seven years (!). High uncommitted rate for first couple of years of term leading to some low positive approval scores, but worst netsat in all this time was -6 and lowest approval once the undecided rate dropped below 20 was 39 (and that during his winning election campaign). In positive territory far more often than not.

Barry O’Farrell: LOpp for four years. High uncommitted rate throughout his time but generally positive netsat; worst netsat was -2. In last 15 months before winning, consistently with positive netsat, often over +10.

Victoria:

Jeff Kennett: LOpp from 1982 to 1989 then deposed by own party. During this time polled very badly. Returned in 1991 winning a year and a half later. Only polled one positive netsat on return with a worst of -26 (Abbott’s current!) and a worst approval of 32.

Steve Bracks: LOpp for only about half a year. Only a handful of Newspolls, all with positive netsats, most with very high undecided ratings, was +52-24?24 (net +28) just before winning.

Ted Baillieu: LOpp for over four years. Generally positive netsats with a worst of -9 and a generally high undecided rating.

Queensland:

Wayne Goss: (Question asked about satisfaction as leader of the Labor Party) Satisfaction generally way over 50 and netsats all hugely positive.

Rob Borbidge: LOpp for a bit over four years for which Newspoll data exists for three and a bit with the question asked in the form “Leader of the Opposition” and before that with the question asked in form “Leader of the National Party”. Generally slightly negative netsats with some positives and a worst of -9 with the former wording but with one -18 with the latter wording early in term.

Peter Beattie: LOpp for over two years. Very popular with generally >+10 netsats, dropping off as election approached to low of -3, lowest settled approval was 39.

Campbell Newman: LOpp in all but name for almost a year. Not much data but generally +ve ratings, at first hugely so then reducing towards election.

South Australia:

Dean Brown: LOpp for about a year and a half. Netsat always positive and mostly hugely so, dropping to +2 as winning election approached. Approval never below 41.

Mike Rann: LOpp for seven and a half years. Popular for about two and a half years then fairly unpopular for three and a half (worst netsat of -18 and worst approval of 30) but became more popular in leadup to winning election.

Western Australia:

Richard Court: LOpp for about eight months. Unpopular (22-28, 24-39, 29-47) in the three polls recorded in this time.

Geoff Gallop: LOpp for over four years. Netsat always positive (lowest +3 and lowest approval 39 despite high undecided figure.)

Colin Barnett: LOpp for four years, with sometimes bad ratings, then lost election. Returned as leader for less than two months before winning. Very little data for this period (found one with 40-43).

Tasmania: There is not much Newspoll data, but:

Michael Field: LOpp for six months before “winning” (if you call it that). Only recorded approval ratings during successful term were a 33-38 and a 34-35.

Ray Groom: LOpp for a few months. Only recorded rating 50-23.

Jim Bacon: LOpp for a year and a half. Only recorded rating 38-42 just before election. (Based on other examples, suspect it would have been positive if measured before this.)

Overall: the general picture is that Opposition Leaders who go on to win at the end of their tenure (rather than in a later term) at state or federal level are generally either popular or else never too unpopular throughout their term in office, and the idea that successful opposition leaders will not be popular is an absolute myth. Examples with strong support for this view: Greiner, Carr, O’Farrell, Baillieu, Beattie, Goss, Brown, Gallop, Howard, Rudd. Many others don’t exactly contradict this but have more limited data.

Kennett, and Rann are the only LOpps who have won who were seriously unpopular for a long time during their winning term as LOpp. In Rann’s case it was not as seriously as Abbott, in Kennett’s case it bottomed out in the same place Abbott is in now.

Court seems to have been unpopular during his fairly brief term based on limited data while Borbidge generally fits in the not-too-unpopular group but had a fairly brief nasty patch.

None of this is to say Abbott won’t win but it should make the point very clearly that this is not Opposition Leadership as normal.

pax
27-03-2012, 06:02 PM
Promises to repeal is a bad thing?

Regardless of one's politics, surely the Coalition's platforms of
a) standing against bad policy (as claimed, and at least having the benefit of popular support), and
b) promising to repeal (seeking a mandate)
is infinitely superior to this policy backflipping, hi-jacking of the electorate, and general thumb-up-arse-that your lot have indulged in while in government (don't make me write list) ?

When your platform involves repealing *everything* put in place by the previous Government, it means spending an entire term of government turning back the clock. I think it could get very tired (not to mention expensive and wasteful) very quickly. How long will it take them to repeal the mining tax *and* the carbon tax *and* the health insurance rebate *and* to dismantle the NBN? How much will it cost? How will they maintain a surplus (answer: by shutting down a bunch more government services and departments).

I think the Coalition needs to pick its banner issue and be willing to let some of the other stuff stick. In particular, undoing the NBN after the next election would be ludicrous.

Capablanca-Fan
29-03-2012, 07:59 AM
When your platform involves repealing *everything* put in place by the previous Government, it means spending an entire term of government turning back the clock.
Or moving forward after the backward tax grabs of the Left.


I think it could get very tired (not to mention expensive and wasteful) very quickly. How long will it take them to repeal the mining tax *and* the carbon tax *and* the health insurance rebate *and* to dismantle the NBN?
Surely repeal is quicker than passing the laws in the first place.


How much will it cost? How will they maintain a surplus (answer: by shutting down a bunch more government services and departments).
Good! Certainly start with a lot of the extra bureaucrats, which in the health system outnumber the extra doctors and nurses.


I think the Coalition needs to pick its banner issue and be willing to let some of the other stuff stick. In particular, undoing the NBN after the next election would be ludicrous.
Why? What's wrong with saving $43b? Even if there has already been money spent, it's a "sunk cost", i.e. it has been incurred and can't be recovered. What matters now is the best path forward, which is to stop more waste on this KRudd boondoggle-du-jour.

Santa
07-05-2012, 11:39 PM
Some instances come to mind (GST, Telstra sell-off) but 'naked obstructionism' is a bit over the top. There was no Labor policy to repeal Coalition changes.

Have you forgotten rollback?

Santa
07-05-2012, 11:55 PM
The best Abbott can hope for is an early election before the carbon tax comes into effect. Trying to roll back the package afterwards would be a nightmare. Withdrawing the benefits package - reducing the tax-free threshold, reducing pensions, reducing household and small business assistance? Otherwise how does he pay for them with no carbon tax?

And repealing the mining tax? Do you really think protecting the profits of the big miners has popular support?

I accidentally bought some BHP shares for a little over 39 dollars two years ago. I bought some RIO shares at the same time, but I don't recall the price.

I had a conditional order with by broker. at $40.00 my order was to go to market. By 8:!0 AM (WA) on the day after Mr Rudd announced the original mining tax. The price had opened below my buy price.

I expect big companies to make big profits, if they do not they become smaller companies.

Big companies pay part of their profits to shareholders, many of them small shareholders, and a lot of big shareholders are super funds.

Igor_Goldenberg
11-05-2012, 03:15 PM
Some instances come to mind (GST, Telstra sell-off) but 'naked obstructionism' is a bit over the top. There was no Labor policy to repeal Coalition changes.
Like WorkChoices?

Rincewind
11-05-2012, 03:26 PM
Have you forgotten rollback?

Fair point. Beazley went to an election with a promise to rollback the GST (at least on utilities). Fortunately he didn't win.

Patrick Byrom
29-06-2012, 11:47 PM
According to the newsletter from my local LNP member, one Labor policy Abbott won't be "rolling-back" is the NBN:


"The Coalition does support a national high-speed broadband network".

Agent Smith
30-06-2012, 12:05 AM
http://images.smh.com.au/2012/06/16/3380086/port-editorial-600x400.jpg
I saw the greatest cartoon last week. Our hero, in his speedos, with a big hairy ironman chest and NO shaved into it. Cant find it though.

Kevin Bonham
30-06-2012, 12:10 AM
Interesting that the giant global warming snake appears to be modelled on a bandy-bandy. Is that intended to convey the message that the facts about global warming are black and white?

Laserlite
30-06-2012, 12:28 AM
Interesting that the giant global warming snake appears to be modelled on a bandy-bandy. Is that intended to convey the message that the facts about global warming are black and white?
I thought the same thing as per the black/white motif .

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
30-06-2012, 01:19 AM
im sorry but i have to disagree. your both wrong !

the cartoonist is subtly hinting at the fact that the real culprit of global warming is in fact every single collingwood supporter in australia.

and ................ if im not mistaken that would include alice in blunderland.

therefore i conclude that little jimmys carbon footprint is responsible for global warming and the onus is squarely on his shoulders and the rest of his ilk to get out and about and plant more trees.

start digging little jimmy !! ;)

Ian Murray
30-06-2012, 06:22 PM
The World As We Know It ends tomorrow. I'm sure Tony will keep us abreast of developments as The Catastrophe unfolds.

Reminiscent of the Y2K bug poised to strike as 1999 drew to a close.

Garrett
30-06-2012, 08:03 PM
start digging little jimmy !! ;)

Little Jimmy loves Collingwood.

He tells me every time he see's me.

He's good ole Collingwood forever and ever.

Basil
30-06-2012, 08:25 PM
The World As We Know It ends tomorrow.
I really don't recall Abbott saying that. The left has made a grossly self-serving artform out of verballing Abbott and then ridiculing the fabricated statements.

Carry on, you're all doing very well (except the worst government this government has ever seen).

Kevin Bonham
30-06-2012, 10:32 PM
There seems to be a big hope among Labor supporters that if Abbott's fearmongering about the carbon tax proves to be unfounded then suddenly the polls will turn around and everything will be OK.

At the moment I doubt that that will be the case at all. I think the combo of the Rudd rolling, the minority government (especially the Green influence) and the Gillard backflip on the carbon tax is likely to go on confusing the hell out of the majority and the government might remain largely uncompetitive all the way to the next election even if the carbon tax is a success.

Hope I'm wrong about this because whatever the result of the next election I want Abbott gone before it happens.

Capablanca-Fan
30-06-2012, 11:50 PM
Hope I'm wrong about this because whatever the result of the next election I want Abbott gone before it happens.
Who would you like instead? A real alternative to Labor, or a mere echo like Talkbull who agrees with most of Labor's policies, especially the greenie ones?

Kevin Bonham
01-07-2012, 12:02 AM
Who would you like instead?

Pretty much anyone really.

Concerning greenness, Abbott has been making some greenie noises on the subject of forestry, joining the trendy condemnation of native forest "clearfelling" for instance, and claiming ludicrously to be as much of a conservationist as Bob Brown.

Patrick Byrom
01-07-2012, 07:05 PM
I really don't recall Abbott saying that. The left has made a grossly self-serving artform out of verballing Abbott and then ridiculing the fabricated statements.
I don't think anyone needs to add too much to what he has already said - for example (http://www.liberal.org.au/Latest-News/2011/04/27/Tony-Abbott-Doorstop.aspx)

...Whyalla will be wiped off the map by Julia Gillard’s carbon tax. Whyalla risks becoming a ghost town, an economic wasteland, if this carbon tax goes ahead and that’s true not just of Whyalla, it’s also true of Port Pirie, it’s true of Gladstone, it’s true of communities in the Hunter Valley and the Illawarra in New South Wales, it’s true of Kwinana in Western Australia, it’s true of the La Trobe Valley, Portland, places like that in Victoria. There’s not a state and there’s hardly a region in this country that wouldn’t have major communities devastated by a carbon tax if this goes ahead ...

Basil
01-07-2012, 10:06 PM
... for example...
Fair enough. I hadn't seen those 14-month-old comments (which certainly weren't repeated as often as Labor is repeating now! However, on the strength of that alone, the left is allowed to make hay as it sees fit. One has to own what one says ... much the same as "no child will live in poverty ... ".

Goughfather
01-07-2012, 11:02 PM
One has to own what one says ... much the same as "no child will live in poverty ... ".

By 1990. A twenty-five year old statement that was guilty of being too optimistic rather than shameless apocalyptic fear mongering. Not really comparable, in my opinion.

Kevin Bonham
01-07-2012, 11:50 PM
I think the only real excuse that can be made for Hawke's statement is that everyone with even 10% of a brain would have picked it as obviously bulldust. Abbott's scaremongering is a fair bit more plausible to those who may be inclined to believe it.

This is a bit of a contest in menacing the electorate with opposing hobgoblins of catastrophic environmental change and catastrophic economic damage. The problem is that Abbott's act has much been more consistent than Labor's.

Agent Smith
02-07-2012, 06:56 AM
I caught a funny Brisbane news moment last night.

After the weather had been read, the ditzy weekend reporter annnounced "And a correction from before. **** electricity bills are forecast to go up $265 a 'year', not a 'week' as we stated earlier."

Desmond
02-07-2012, 07:53 AM
I caught a funny Brisbane news moment last night.

After the weather had been read, the ditzy weekend reporter annnounced "And a correction from before. **** electricity bills are forecast to go up $265 a 'year', not a 'week' as we stated earlier."
A bit of pain, to be sure, but not enough to change my energy consumption habits. At least for me.

Basil
02-07-2012, 12:59 PM
By 1990. A twenty-five year old statement that was guilty of being too optimistic rather than shameless apocalyptic fear mongering.
Fearmongering? The issue was verballing — which Pat has disposed of. After agreeing to the disposal of the verballing accusation, I then introduced the idea of standing by one's utterances. Hawke's fits the bill. Period. However, in your quest for more recent fodder, does "No carbon tax under the government I lead", qualify?
Gillard, 2010

Ian Murray
02-07-2012, 03:52 PM
...I then introduced the idea of standing by one's utterances. Hawke's fits the bill. Period. However, in your quest for more recent fodder, does "No carbon tax under the government I lead", qualify?
Gillard, 2010
How about:
"I've never been in favour of a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme"
Abbott, Jul 2011
"We don't want to play games with the planet. So we are taking this issue seriously and we would like to see an ETS."
Abbott, Oct 2009
"You can't have a climate change policy without supporting this ETS at this time."
Abbott, Nov 2009

Basil
02-07-2012, 09:30 PM
How about:
"I've never been in favour of a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme"
Abbott, Jul 2011
"We don't want to play games with the planet. So we are taking this issue seriously and we would like to see an ETS."
Abbott, Oct 2009
"You can't have a climate change policy without supporting this ETS at this time."
Abbott, Nov 2009
Completely agree. The volte-face is astonishing. Now your turn to give it up ;) Come on my lefty limpets — stop clinging to the equally indefensible!

Incidentally one might argue that there's a difference between fudging and fiddling and flipping one's position while in opposition (Abbott), and doing the same once in government (Gillard), but I'm not bothered — although the electorate sure as hell is.

Goughfather
02-07-2012, 09:56 PM
Completely agree. The volte-face is astonishing. Now your turn to give it up ;) Come on my lefty limpets — stop clinging to the equally indefensible!

Incidentally one might argue that there's a difference between fudging and fiddling and flipping one's position while in opposition (Abbott), and doing the same once in government (Gillard), but I'm not bothered — although the electorate sure as hell is.

In fairness to Tony Abbott, the last two (or earliest two) comments were before he became the Opposition Leader and perhaps it could be argued that he was merely supporting the party line at the time. Of course, his tune was very different in late November to early December of 2009 and perhaps he is more culpable in this respect.

From memory, although the no carbon tax comment is now quite infamous, I seem to recall that even before the election took place, Ms Gillard seemed to revise her statement on the subject. Am I right in this respect?

While I was not so concerned about Gillard's own volte-face, what was far less excusable was her attempts to justify her change of tack post-election. I wonder if it was this, rather than the initial comments that caused the electorate to most significantly turn against her.

Ian Murray
03-07-2012, 08:38 AM
Completely agree. The volte-face is astonishing. Now your turn to give it up ;) Come on my lefty limpets — stop clinging to the equally indefensible!
Personally I think what we saw post-election was a behind-closed-doors deal between Labor and the Greens to enable a minority government, with a carbon tax as part of the price tag.

The bottom line is that politicians do change their minds, often from expediency more than conviction.

Basil
03-07-2012, 12:30 PM
Personally I think what we saw post-election was a behind-closed-doors deal between Labor and the Greens to enable a minority government, with a carbon tax as part of the price tag.

The bottom line is that politicians do change their minds, often from expediency more than conviction.
Does this wibble mean that:
a) yes you do present Abbott's flipping and about-facing in condemnation of him, and
b) no you won't condemn Gillard for lying to the electorate?

Kevin Bonham
03-07-2012, 01:06 PM
b) no you won't condemn Gillard for lying to the electorate?

Gillard should be condemned (either for making or for breaking the commitment, it's arguable which), but again, there is no clear evidence she lied. Breaking a promise is only lying if you knew at the time of making it that you did not intend to fulfill it.

Of course it may be that the line about bringing in the carbon tax because of having the Greens as a partner in government is phoney and that even a majority Gillard government would have done the same thing, but we don't know that.

Ian Murray
03-07-2012, 01:09 PM
Does this wibble mean that:
a) yes you do present Abbott's flipping and about-facing in condemnation of him, and
b) no you won't condemn Gillard for lying to the electorate?
I don't accept the double standard - with Abbott it's flipping but with Gillard it's lying.

Basil
03-07-2012, 06:56 PM
I don't accept the double standard - with Abbott it's flipping but with Gillard it's lying.
Funny as. Anyway — pressing on ...

Actually in this case Abbott is flipping his position by saying he believes one thing is better and then completely stating the opposite is better. He's stating a belief with no-one having to do anything except listen to his wibble.

Julia, OTOH, was clearly making a commitment to the electorate, you know, lest they have any qualms on the ol' carbon tax issue :D

I accept Kevin's point of order on the term lying, so in the interests of pinning you down, 'lying' is henceforth changed to 'breaking a promise'. She might have had a change of heart (snigger), but nonetheless it's a core commitment she made to the electorate for benefit, and a core commitment she broke — along no doubt, with much trust.

Will you condemn her for that?

Ian Murray
03-07-2012, 07:55 PM
...Will you condemn her for that?
Of course

Patrick Byrom
03-07-2012, 10:31 PM
But what about those people who voted for Tony Abbott based on his promise before the last election to actively oppose the NBN?
Should he be condemned for breaking this promise?

Basil
04-07-2012, 09:09 AM
But what about those people who voted for Tony Abbott based on his promise before the last election to actively oppose the NBN?
Should he be condemned for breaking this promise?
Sure, why not? Although I think he still condemns it, but he won't roll it back — much of the cash would have largely been spent by then, but OK we're condemening Abbott for not actively enough opposing something — while in opposition :lol:

Now Pat, can we get on with the pinning down of the limpets ... will you condemn Gillard for breaking a core promise to the electorate?

Patrick Byrom
04-07-2012, 01:01 PM
Sure, why not? Although I think he still condemns it, but he won't roll it back — much of the cash would have largely been spent by then, but OK we're condemening Abbott for not actively enough opposing something — while in opposition :lol:
Now Pat, can we get on with the pinning down of the limpets ... will you condemn Gillard for breaking a core promise to the electorate?
Abbott made his promise before the last election, so some people may have voted for him on the basis of that promise - I believe this is the basis for your criticism of Julia Gillard over her carbon tax promise.
Of course, Gillard had to break her promise to achieve her political goal, while Abbott, being in opposition, was not forced to change policy.
So I don't condemn Gillard - she had no choice. If she hadn't introduced a carbon tax, she would have broken her promise about the ETS.

Ian Murray
04-07-2012, 01:33 PM
Of course, while I don't condone Gillard's back-flip, I am delighted with the outcome. Australia is on its way to becoming a low-carbon nation; the rest of the world will have to follow suit , less painfully sooner rather than later.

Capablanca-Fan
04-07-2012, 01:53 PM
Of course, while I don't condone Gillard's back-flip, I am delighted with the outcome. Australia is on its way to becoming a low-carbon nation; the rest of the world will have to follow suit, less painfully sooner rather than later.
Why will they have to? Why should they pay any attention to a country with only 20 million people, lower than some major cities. Or the people in these countries see how Australians are made poorer without the slightest detectable difference in the atmospheric concentration of plant food CO2.

Capablanca-Fan
04-07-2012, 02:03 PM
Abbott made his promise before the last election, so some people may have voted for him on the basis of that promise -
It's probably as Captain said: before the money is spent, it makes sense to promise not to waste $7,000 per Australian on this crass NBN boondoggle. After years in which much of the money is wastedspent, there is less point in the promise because there is no longer any savings to be made. Well, actually there is, because economists would recognize this as a sunk cost and refuse to throw good money after bad. While Abbott is better than Gillardova, he is not really that clued up about economics.


I believe this is the basis for your criticism of Julia Gillard over her carbon tax promise.
Yet this really is imposing a huge cost on Australians. In constrast, if Abbott wins the next election, there will be a much lower cost to Australians by spending what's left of the NBN money.

Patrick Byrom
04-07-2012, 04:24 PM
But Abbott has promised to achieve the same reduction in greenhouse gases as Gillard, except that he will be doing it by regulation and subsidies. I can't see how this can be cheaper than the market mechanism of the ETS.
And a 5% reduction in Australia's output (a bipartisan commitment) would definitely be measurable.

Ian Murray
04-07-2012, 04:40 PM
...see how Australians are made poorer...
Some perspective:

http://reneweconomy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/oz-institute.png

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/five-things-we-learned-about-day-one-of-the-carbon-price-43902

Basil
04-07-2012, 06:28 PM
Of course, Gillard had to break her promise to achieve her political goal ...
So I don't condemn Gillard - she had no choice. If she hadn't introduced a carbon tax, she would have broken her promise about the ETS.
Wow! Seriously. Like wow!

Reminds me, I have tix to see Yes Prime Minister at QPAC tomoz.

Patrick Byrom
05-07-2012, 12:14 AM
And here is Tony Abbott agreeing with me about broken promises:

In 2005, Mr Abbott said: "When I made that statement in the election campaign I had not the slightest inkling that there would ever be any intention to change this, but obviously when circumstances change, governments do change their opinions."

Yes (Prime) Minister was a great tv show because it was so topical (and also well acted, of course), so I hope they've updated their material - they would have plenty of useful stuff from the recent Tory scandals (Leveson, Barclays, etc) :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
05-07-2012, 01:44 AM
But Abbott has promised to achieve the same reduction in greenhouse gases as Gillard, except that he will be doing it by regulation and subsidies. I can't see how this can be cheaper than the market mechanism of the ETS.
Ah, what's the best way to impoverish Australians and not make measurable dent in the world CO2 levels. It's a shame that Abbott is backpedalling from what made his party competitive with the unholy Labor/Green alliance: a choice rather than the echo it was under Talkbull.


And a 5% reduction in Australia's output (a bipartisan commitment) would definitely be measurable.
On a global scale, Australia produces about 1.5% of world output, and it's only about 0.0387% or 387 ppmv in the air now. So the reduction would be about 0.3 ppmv. And actually thinking that even this paltry reduction would be achieved is a touching blind faith in the efficiency of government. As Bjørn Lomborg says, there are far better things we could do for the environment for the same cost.

Basil
05-07-2012, 07:14 AM
And here is Tony Abbott agreeing with me about broken promises
Pat, the issue is not that polis of all persuasions should be condemned for their behaviour — that much is accepted all-but unilaterally. And your repeated Abbott examples are all happily accepted into evidence (notwithstanding their varying merits —(albeit some tenuous at best).

What's truly astonishing is your stoic refusal to condemn in the indefensible and take Lefty Limpet Twister to new levels. I crown you King Of The Limpets.

I note you don't have an avatar — perhaps we've solved that one.

Patrick Byrom
05-07-2012, 03:29 PM
You do realise that the carbon tax is only a temporary measure, and it will be replaced by an ETS after a few years? The ETS is exactly what Gillard promised, but she didn't have the votes for it without the initial carbon tax. Under those circumstances, I think it's quite reasonable for her to break her carbon tax promise.
And I haven't condemned either Abbott or Gillard for breaking their promises - any party in government is going to have to break some promises.

Patrick Byrom
05-07-2012, 03:43 PM
Ah, what's the best way to impoverish Australians and not make measurable dent in the world CO2 levels.
Since you don't seem to agree with Ian's numbers, can you quote some alternative figures showing Australians will be "impoverished"?
No country can make a significant difference in CO2 levels by itself; however many countries working together will make a difference. Of course, if we all wait for the next country to take action, and do nothing ourselves, then nothing will ever happen :wall:

Capablanca-Fan
07-07-2012, 04:23 AM
Since you don't seem to agree with Ian's numbers, can you quote some alternative figures showing Australians will be "impoverished"?
Most unlikely that the taxes will stay low. They have to be high for their stated aim. Of course, the real aim is feeding ever-increasing government greed for more of our money.
No country can make a significant difference in CO2 levels by itself; however many countries working together will make a difference.
Anyone who thinks that huge-population countries like China, India, and Brazil will voluntarily impoverish themselves is in dreamland.


Of course, if we all wait for the next country to take action, and do nothing ourselves, then nothing will ever happen :wall:
It could: the way humans have always coped: adaptation. This would be a far cheaper and more effective solution than more intrusive government bureaucracies. E.g. the Dutch have adapted to being below sea level with fairly primitive technology of dykes.

Former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Lord Nigel Lawson in his book An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming (2008) points out many reasons why adaptation is both more effective and cheaper (pp. 42–43):

None of the adverse impacts of global warming are new. Drought, hunger and disease and flooding have long plagued many parts of the developing world.
Adaptation will substantially reduce the adverse impact of any future global warming that may occur.
Adverse impacts of global warming are subject to considerable local variation. Adaptation allows tailored responses to problem areas.
Adaptation allows us to pocket the benefits of global warming while diminishing the costs.
Beneficial results of adaptation will arise far more quickly than what is even theoretically possible from emissions reductions.
Adaptation requires largely local action. There is no need for any global agreements.

Goughfather
07-07-2012, 06:51 PM
It could: the way humans have always coped: adaptation. This would be a far cheaper and more effective solution than more intrusive government bureaucracies. E.g. the Dutch have adapted to being below sea level with fairly primitive technology of dykes.

I wholeheartedly agree. Why didn't we think of adaption? Instead of thinking of increasing temperatures, more frequent and intense cyclones and earthquakes, as well as lengthier periods of food shortages as things which need to be addressed, we need to think of these things as our friends. Think about it:

(1) More frequent and deadly cyclones, earthquakes and tsunamis will make for great entertainment and provide much needed fodder in our entertainment and news industries.

(2) Overpopulation is now a significant problem for the world. Increasing death as a result of natural disasters and the diseases that follow thereafter will provide a practical and natural way of reducing the world's population.

(3) There is an awful lot of disease, especially HIV/AIDS in Africa. Increasing food shortages on this continent will again help to reduce the number of people suffering from disease in a natural and effective manner and again will serve to help the problem of overpopulation.

There is one problem that exists which may have to be adapted to, but it is not particularly pleasant. Increasing death in Asia may mean that the pool of available workers to exploit in sweatshops may reduce in these areas. Problematically, this might drive wages up, increasing production costs. As a result, our Nike runners may increase in price by $5 to $10 to absorb this new cost.

Capablanca-Fan
08-07-2012, 03:14 AM
I wholeheartedly agree. Why didn't we think of adaption?
Because the left is incapable of thinking; instead, they always look to more taxes and bigger government.


Instead of thinking of increasing temperatures, more frequent and intense cyclones and earthquakes, as well as lengthier periods of food shortages as things which need to be addressed, we need to think of these things as our friends.
Warmer temperatures are quite likely better friends than enemies. In Europe, more people die of cold than heat, and frosts kill many crops and fruits.


(1) More frequent and deadly cyclones, earthquakes and tsunamis
Of course, earthquakes and tsunamis are unaffected by "climate change" since their cause is deep within the earth.


(2) Overpopulation is now a significant problem for the world. Increasing death as a result of natural disasters and the diseases that follow thereafter will provide a practical and natural way of reducing the world's population.
Overpopulation is a myth, foisted by charlatans like Paul R. Ehrlich (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=210348). People have been whinging about it for almost 2,000 years (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=227047). In reality, the worst problems are in places where the population is sparse and spread out. More people is a good thing, as Adam Smith recognized, because it enables division of labour so greater efficiency. Julian Simon, victorious in a famous wager with that Ehrlich moron (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=12726), even called people "the ultimate resource". populated countries with


(3) There is an awful lot of disease, especially HIV/AIDS in Africa. Increasing food shortages on this continent will again help to reduce the number of people suffering from disease in a natural and effective manner and again will serve to help the problem of overpopulation.
Indeed, some econazis opposed the use of the great chemical DDT because it was saving lives by wiping out their favorite population control (http://patriotupdate.com/articles/ecofascists-v-humanity-the-anti-ddt-scam).


There is one problem that exists which may have to be adapted to, but it is not particularly pleasant. Increasing death in Asia may mean that the pool of available workers to exploit in sweatshops may reduce in these areas.
More nonsense. The so-called exploitation is usually at least twice the going wage in the area, and people try very hard to become one of the "exploited", even resorting to bribery. The conditions in the "sweat shops" are also far better than the alternative, since they are sheltered from the burning sun, and they learn valuable skills. Leftards whinge about these evil multinationals which then close down these sweatshops. But as usual, the leftards don't care that the workers are now worse off without this opportunity. Instead they preen themselves on their obvious moral superiority, and move to the next cause-du-jour to meddle in. As usual, economist Dr Sowell has the facts (http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2004/01/27/third_world_sweatshops/page/full/).

Desmond
08-07-2012, 06:45 AM
This "Global warming is good for us" junk is dealt with here (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm). Some of the things Jono seems to want to happen:

Decreasing human water supplies, increased fire frequency, ecosystem change and expanded deserts (Solomon 2009)
Decline in rice yields due to warmer nighttime minimum temperatures (Peng 2004, Tao 2008)
Increase of Western United States wildfire activity, associated with higher temperatures and earlier spring snowmelt (Westerling 2006)
Encroachment of shrubs into grasslands, rendering rangeland unsuitable for domestic livestock grazing (Morgan 2007)
Decreased water supply in the Colorado River Basin (McCabe 2007)
Decreasing water supply to the Murray-Darling Basin (Cai 2008)
Increased deaths to heatwaves - 5.74% increase to heatwaves compared to 1.59% to cold snaps (Medina-Ramon 2007)
Increased heat stress in humans and other mammals (Sherwood 2010)
Spread in mosquite-borne diseases such as Malaria and Dengue Fever (Epstein 1998)
Increase in occurrence of allergic symptoms due to rise in allergenic pollen (Rogers 2006)

Agent Smith
08-07-2012, 08:02 AM
To my mind, the most notable effect of Global Warming is the increasing violence and frequency of rogue weather events like floods and hurricanes.

Of course , our polution of the atmosphere and destroying of the oceans are dispicable things too - but only tangentially related to this topic per-se. The fact is there are too many people and we're burning too many resources. It is obvious to everyone except those blinkered by their own tiny lives. :(

Agent Smith
08-07-2012, 08:11 AM
Oh yeah... It probably *is* good for the Russians - what with the increase in temperate arable land, and the freeing of the nothern strait for navigation. :eh:

Desmond
08-07-2012, 09:26 AM
Oh yeah... It probably *is* good for the Russians - what with the increase in temperate arable land, and the freeing of the nothern strait for navigation. :eh:
I'm not sure about Russia but I do know that Alaska was factoring in an increased spend of about 10%-20% to build & maintain their public infrastructure between now and 2080 due to the warming climate.

http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/JuneICICLE.pdf

Capablanca-Fan
08-07-2012, 10:05 AM
This "Global warming is good for us" junk is dealt with here (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm).
Hardly an objective site; just the usual warm-mongering agitprop.


Some of the things Jono seems to want to happen:
No, these are the invented crises so that the warm-mongers have an excuse to take more of our money and control more of our lives. Meanwhile, it's the freezing cold that kills people and crops.

With more money in our hands, we could adapt to the alleged problems on a local level in a way that meets the specific needs, while taking advantage of the warmth that led to thriving agriculture in the Medieval Warm Period and the earlier Roman warming period.


Spread in mosquite-borne diseases such as Malaria and Dengue Fever (Epstein 1998)
Yet the ecofascists hate DDT that almost destroyed mozzie-vectored diseases!


Increase in occurrence of allergic symptoms due to rise in allergenic pollen (Rogers 2006)
A tacit admission of improved crop and orchard yields!

Desmond
08-07-2012, 11:59 AM
Hardly an objective site; just the usual warm-mongering agitprop.Come off it; the article lists both advantages and disadvantages and provides links to articles to support each.

For example, and this might interest you since you cannot miss a chance to parrot that winter cold snaps cost lives:


Temperature, temperature extremes, and mortality: a study of acclimatisation and effect modification in 50 US cities
(http://oem.bmj.com/content/64/12/827.short)

Results: Mortality increases associated with both extreme cold (2-day cumulative increase 1.59% (95% CI 0.56 to 2.63)) and extreme heat (5.74% (95% CI 3.38 to 8.15)) were found, the former being especially marked for myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest deaths. The increase in mortality was less marked at less extreme temperatures. The effect of extreme cold (defined as a percentile) was homogeneous across cities with different climates, suggesting that only the unusualness of the cold temperature (and not its absolute value) had a substantial impact on mortality (that is, acclimatisation to cold). Conversely, heat effects were quite heterogeneous, with the largest effects observed in cities with milder summers, less air conditioning and higher population density. Adjustment for ozone led to similar results, but some residual confounding could be present due to other uncontrolled pollutants.

Conclusions: The authors confirmed in a large sample of cities that both cold and hot temperatures increase mortality risk. These findings suggest that increases in heat-related mortality due to global warming are unlikely to be compensated for by decreases in cold-related mortality and that population acclimatisation to heat is still incomplete.
But don't let it stop ya, as usual.


No, these are the invented crises so that the warm-mongers have an excuse to take more of our money and control more of our lives. Meanwhile, it's the freezing cold that kills people and crops.Rubbish, as shown.


With more money in our hands, you could buy more tin foil hats.

Yet the ecofascists hate DDT that almost destroyed mozzie-vectored diseases!Immaterial to the point.


A tacit admission of improved crop and orchard yields!Or maybe the conspiracy you imagine just doesn't exist.

Patrick Byrom
08-07-2012, 04:27 PM
When we talk about adaptation, this is the sort of change we could be facing:

And it means 450 ppm, if sustained long enough for slow feedbacks to take effect, would eventually return the Earth to an ice-free state, raising the global sea level by 75 metres.

Personally, I would prefer to pay a small price to try and stop this now, rather than take the risk that the above prediction proves to be correct.

Damodevo
08-07-2012, 11:03 PM
I still haven't seen anyone actually deal with the real damaging aspect of the Carbon Tax and that is the fact that it hits the most energy demanding sectors of the production hierarchy which decimates the capital base of our economy (which is why its so stupid comparing the CT to the GST, a consumption tax). This doesn't just mean costs will be passed on to the consumer but industries will, in fact, go out of business. This means less capital relative to labour which means less real wage growth and economic growth (wage growth is a factor of the ratio of capital to labour according to the Austrian school). So prices will rise for the consumer but only because there is now less supply not because any price rise has been passed on.

But this sought of reduction in industry/manufacturing is exactly what the greens want but fools like Gillard/Swan/Combet are too dumb to understand this.

Capablanca-Fan
09-07-2012, 01:54 AM
I still haven't seen anyone actually deal with the real damaging aspect of the Carbon Tax and that is the fact that it hits the most energy demanding sectors of the production hierarchy which decimates the capital base of our economy (which is why its so stupid comparing the CT to the GST, a consumption tax). This doesn't just mean costs will be passed on to the consumer but industries will, in fact, go out of business. This means less capital relative to labour which means less real wage growth and economic growth (wage growth is a factor of the ratio of capital to labour according to the Austrian school). So prices will rise for the consumer but only because there is now less supply not because any price rise has been passed on.

But this sought of reduction in industry/manufacturing is exactly what the greens want but fools like Gillard/Swan/Combet are too dumb to understand this.
And they can count on dumb voters as well (the technical term is "leftists").

It won't even affect global CO2 that much, since many producers will just move to places like China and India where the regulations are less, and if anything produce more pollution than before.

pax
09-07-2012, 10:29 AM
I still haven't seen anyone actually deal with the real damaging aspect of the Carbon Tax and that is the fact that it hits the most energy demanding sectors of the production hierarchy which decimates the capital base of our economy (which is why its so stupid comparing the CT to the GST, a consumption tax). This doesn't just mean costs will be passed on to the consumer but industries will, in fact, go out of business. This means less capital relative to labour which means less real wage growth and economic growth (wage growth is a factor of the ratio of capital to labour according to the Austrian school). So prices will rise for the consumer but only because there is now less supply not because any price rise has been passed on.

But this sought of reduction in industry/manufacturing is exactly what the greens want but fools like Gillard/Swan/Combet are too dumb to understand this.

How many industries went out of business when the GST was introduced? The carbon tax is microscopic by comparison.

Kevin Bonham
19-07-2012, 10:27 PM
http://www.anyonebutabbott.com.au/contact.html

I have no idea who is behind this though they claim to be centrists.

My pseph view: this won't work; even if you could convince Labor and the Greens to run dead and preference an indie, Abbott's buffer is too large to peel off enough Abbott-dissing Liberal voters.

My personal view: good luck to them, no matter who they are!

Kevin Bonham
23-07-2012, 10:54 PM
Being reported that our man has recorded a new worst ever Newspoll satisfaction rating: approve 31 disapprove 61 (net -30). Still just ahead of Gillard at -33.

Capablanca-Fan
24-07-2012, 07:49 AM
How many industries went out of business when the GST was introduced? The carbon tax is microscopic by comparison.
A fallacious comparison. The GST replaced many other taxes, while the misnamed carbon tax is an addition.

Ian Murray
24-07-2012, 08:30 AM
A fallacious comparison. The GST replaced many other taxes, while the misnamed carbon tax is an addition.
Via tax cuts the carbon tax is replacing some tax on earnings with a tax on emissions, lauded by economists:

Do economists all favour a carbon tax? (http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/09/climate-policy)
The Economist
19 Sep 2011


Why would we expect economists to support a carbon tax? It's very close to the economic ideal...

The economic solution is to tax the externality so that the social cost of carbon is reflected in the individual consumer's decision. The carbon tax is an elegant solution to a complicated problem, which allows the everyday business of consumer decision making to do the work of emission reduction. It's by no means the only economically sensible policy response to the threat of climate change, but it is the one we'd expect economists to embrace...

Agent Smith
24-07-2012, 04:34 PM
http://images.smh.com.au/2012/07/24/3481449/abbott720-620x349.jpg

"We already have a strong relationship with China based on shared interests," he said. "Over time, I hope it will be based more on shared values.

That'll be Catholicism i suppose.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/abbott-to-china-time-for-reform-20120724-22maf.html

Kevin Bonham
17-08-2012, 06:27 PM
For those who missed it, this was Tony Windsor's big spray at Abbott yesterday. He points out to the surprise of nobody that Abbott is a charlatan in that he criticises Gillard for breaking her promises in order to form government, when Abbott himself would have done exactly the same thing, on any issue, had the crossbench let him.

K2fRMy5rxuM

Damodevo
18-08-2012, 02:51 AM
...when Abbott himself would have done exactly the same thing, on any issue, had the crossbench let him.

Interesting to make a definite pronouncement on a counter-factual; given Abbott hasn't actually lead a government in office. So how does anyone know what Abbott would have done? Especially coming from this faux-independent. After all, the Libs have never told a lie on the level of "There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead".

Desmond
18-08-2012, 06:02 AM
For those who missed it, this was Tony Windsor's big spray at Abbott yesterday. He points out to the surprise of nobody that Abbott is a charlatan in that he criticises Gillard for breaking her promises in order to form government, when Abbott himself would have done exactly the same thing, on any issue, had the crossbench let him.And if they had let him and he had done so, Gillard (or her replacement) would be on the other side of the chamber criticising the same thing. :D What matters is what happened, not the what-ifs of the celebrity king-makers re-living their glory days. Bring on the next term.

Kevin Bonham
18-08-2012, 10:51 AM
So how does anyone know what Abbott would have done?

Abbott negotiated with Windsor in trying to convince Windsor to support Abbott. It would appear, based on Windsor's speech and Abbott not denying any of it even when effectively dared by Windsor to do so, that Abbott literally told Windsor he would do anything to become PM (except for trading his worthless posterior of course).

So assuming this is what Abbott said, then either Abbott would have done exactly the same thing or else Abbott was lying.

Certainly Abbott made a very desperate offer to Wilkie which Wilkie turned down basically because Abbott was offering too much and Wilkie did not believe Abbott would deliver it.

And why do you think Windsor is a faux-independent? Indeed, on the matter being debated at the time he gave Abbott that spray, he voted with the Coalition!


And if they had let him and he had done so, Gillard (or her replacement) would be on the other side of the chamber criticising the same thing.

Absolutely. It is just like Senate preferencing where parties try to deal with almost anyone they can and then whoever loses slams the winner for having swapped preferences with such a vile mob.

Damodevo
19-08-2012, 12:01 AM
Abbott negotiated with Windsor in trying to convince Windsor to support Abbott. It would appear, based on Windsor's speech and Abbott not denying any of it even when effectively dared by Windsor to do so, that Abbott literally told Windsor he would do anything to become PM (except for trading his worthless posterior of course).

So assuming this is what Abbott said, then either Abbott would have done exactly the same thing or else Abbott was lying.

Certainly Abbott made a very desperate offer to Wilkie which Wilkie turned down basically because Abbott was offering too much and Wilkie did not believe Abbott would deliver it.

Abbott (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/i-never-begged-to-be-pm-tony-abbott/story-fn59niix-1226452371700) has denied it;


TONY Abbott has accused Tony Windsor of being embarrassed at putting Labor in power, following the independent's claim the Opposition Leader would have done anything to win office in 2010, including introducing a carbon tax.

Mr Windsor yesterday launched a scathing attack on the Opposition Leader in parliament, saying Mr Abbott had declared he would "do anything" but “sell my arse” to secure the keys to The Lodge.

But Mr Abbott hit back this morning and said Mr Windsor had changed his story several times.

“Back in 2010 he said that I didn't want it enough, now he says that I wanted it too much,” Mr Abbott told the Nine Network.

“I think Tony Windsor is just embarrassed that along with Bob Brown he is responsible for putting in place the worst government in Australia's history.”

Mr Abbott said he would never use such language as described by Mr Windsor.

Furthermore *both* sides prostrated themselves before the minor parties to gain power. Labor has been a hand-maiden to the greens since taking power, had to promise porkie reforms to Wilkie that they couldn't keep and sent billions to the electorates in the form of slush-funding exercise for the votes of Oakshott and Windsor.

Abbott at least wouldn't have prostrated himself to the Greens as much and here is the big difference on broken promises;

Gillard's lie was to the *people*, not just another politician.


And why do you think Windsor is a faux-independent? Indeed, on the matter being debated at the time he gave Abbott that spray, he voted with the Coalition!

Simple, he voted for a government his electorate didn't want and has been complicit in this deceitful governments actions - rarely criticizing them even when Labor MPs themselves have.

His claims of bipartisanship are as genuine as yours...:P

Kevin Bonham
19-08-2012, 01:22 AM
Abbott[/URL] has denied it

Doesn't look like a thorough denial but I'll see if I can find the full version. Abbott claims that he "self-evidently" wasn't prepared to introduce a carbon tax but it is not clear how this is meant to be self-evident. He does say that the comments were not "the language that I would ever use" (hardly believable after "shit happens" etc) but he doesn't specifically deny the charge that he begged for the job. And that was the bit that Windsor said he wouldn't deny.

There is a rumour that Windsor has something damaging to Abbott up his sleeve here. It's probably just wishful thinking but it would be excellent if it was true.


Furthermore *both* sides prostrated themselves before the minor parties to gain power.

Of course; that's how it works in this sort of situation. Which makes it all the richer for Abbott to object to Labor doing it when he was trying to do it himself. As road runner pointed out, had Abbott succeeded we would now have Labor being the hypocrites and the Liberals being the promise-breakers instead.


Abbott at least wouldn't have prostrated himself to the Greens

True, and Gillard did that far more than was necessary and it was one of her biggest mistakes. Abbott could have prostrated himself to the other minority radical, namely Katter, instead.


Gillard's lie was to the *people*, not just another politician.

There is still no evidence whatsoever that Gillard lied. Failing to keep a sincerely made promise is not the same thing as lying. It may well be that her promise was sincerely made and she just did not anticipate the circumstances that arose. It may be that she intended to break it as soon as she said it. We're not her and we can't know.

There should be enough to criticise her just for breaking her promise without people needing to confuse the meaning of the word "lie".


Simple, he voted for a government his electorate didn't want and has been complicit in this deceitful governments actions - rarely criticizing them even when Labor MPs themselves have.

Labor MPs themselves have typically done so for the sake of leadership infighting.

The key to Windsor seems to be that he deeply dislikes some people within the Coalition, rather than having any particular liking for Labor. There is a long history there because of him being disendorsed when he first stood (but winning anyway) and because the Nationals have been his main competition. Despite this, in the NSW state parliament when there was a hung parliament in 1991, he quickly sided with the Coalition.


His claims of bipartisanship are as genuine as yours...:P

Which claims of bipartisanship by me were those?

I don't like any of the parties in federal parliament much at all, and many of the ones outside it are worse. But I find Abbott particularly awful, mainly because of his more or less sweeping illiberalism (which a lot of supposedly freedom-loving righties have failed to notice) and especially his history of support for religious moralising.

Damodevo
19-08-2012, 02:36 AM
Of course; that's how it works in this sort of situation. Which makes it all the richer for Abbott to object to Labor doing it when he was trying to do it himself. As road runner pointed out, had Abbott succeeded we would now have Labor being the hypocrites and the Liberals being the promise-breakers instead.

Nothing of what you have said still doesn't change the main point; lets substitute 'Gillard lied' for 'Gillard's broken promise' if you think that is more a genuine reflection of what happened. In effect, Gillard broke a very explicit promise to the people (made also by Swan) in order to curry favour with the Greens. This is a far greater sin than anything Abbott could've/would've done to get Windsor's vote. Remember, pollies are responsible to the people first and foremost than to each other.


Which claims of bipartisanship by me were those?

I don't like any of the parties in federal parliament much at all, and many of the ones outside it are worse. But I find Abbott particularly awful, mainly because of his more or less sweeping illiberalism (which a lot of supposedly freedom-loving righties have failed to notice) and especially his history of support for religious moralising.

I thought you claimed to be neutral between left and right. But everything I have read from you indicates you're on the left.

And how is Abbott less illiberal than the current Labor gov't? At least the Coalition reduced the debt and modestly cut taxes (rather than just relying on giving vote-buying hand outs). And I hardly think his 'religious moralising' is going to be a major factor in his governing. He may be like the Howard gov't and be moderately socially conservative, i.e. pro-family (oh the horror of it!)

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
19-08-2012, 03:09 AM
tony abbott is so cool, he even has an online diary.

what a man !!!!! :D

Kevin Bonham
19-08-2012, 03:49 AM
In effect, Gillard broke a very explicit promise to the people (made also by Swan) in order to curry favour with the Greens. This is a far greater sin than anything Abbott could've/would've done to get Windsor's vote.

Do we know that? Abbott made promises too; he just had no opportunity to break them because nobody struck a deal with him.


Remember, pollies are responsible to the people first and foremost than to each other.

The people don't always think so. Howard broke promises whenever he felt like it but just defined those abandoned as "non-core". Hardly anybody cared. It's not Gillard's breach of her promise that's her problem; it's her inability to sell it to the people.


I thought you claimed to be neutral between left and right.

What I said was:


Well that won't explain my view since I'm not a leftist. My views on various issues can be found in many different places on the left-right spectrum.

I didn't claim to be exactly in the middle.


But everything I have read from you indicates you're on the left.

That is just because you get a skewed impression of my views from the small sample of debates on this forum. My main opponents here are right-wing "Christians" and gun-toters. On Tasmanian Times, most of my opponents are greens, and I am strongly opposed to their environmental scare campaigns, especially on forestry issues. Therefore on that site many people think I am a right-winger, and get surprised when I make strident noises in favour of same sex marriage. Likewise in student politics I opposed compulsory student unionism and was widely considered a right-winger for that reason.

On tests like Political Compass (http://politicalcompass.org/test) I tend to come out as rather "left" on social issues but roughly centrist on economic issues. There was an old Australian test that had three axes - economics, social issues and traditional values. I scored almost dead centre for economics and social issues and as far opposed to traditional values as it was possible to go.


And how is Abbott less illiberal than the current Labor gov't? At least the Coalition reduced the debt and modestly cut taxes (rather than just relying on giving vote-buying hand outs).

Abbott was not a big player in Coalition economic policy in government (not that it was exactly a small-government model anyway) and has made it clear he isn't that interested in economics. He would be a big spender as his maternity leave policy already shows.


And I hardly think his 'religious moralising' is going to be a major factor in his governing. He may be like the Howard gov't and be moderately socially conservative, i.e. pro-family (oh the horror of it!)

i.e. defending the family from imaginary threats by persecuting others.

Tony Abbott's past copybook includes opposing stem cell research, opposing euthanasia, stridently opposing abortion, opposing the overriding of Tasmania's former anti-gay laws (albeit while still claiming them to be out of touch), recently stating he felt threatened by homosexuality, offering numerous quaint and dated views on women and practically idolising the deep social conservatism of B.A. Santamaria.

What I find particularly offensive about Abbott is that as a young man he was already a Catholic but didn't bother consistently living up to the values of his faith - the same values he has frequently supported imposing on others. I do not trust him to keep his moralising side under control when in office and that is why I am dearly hoping he is booted by his party before they (probably) win.

Damodevo
19-08-2012, 04:55 AM
Do we know that? Abbott made promises too; he just had no opportunity to break them because nobody struck a deal with him.

Of course not! That was my point from the beginning. We don't know which means you can't equally indict him. Otherwise you're committing the argumento ad ignorantiam



The people don't always think so. Howard broke promises whenever he felt like it but just defined those abandoned as "non-core". Hardly anybody cared. It's not Gillard's breach of her promise that's her problem; it's her inability to sell it to the people.

Are you really implying that it was only the perception that was different between Gillard's and Howard's broken promises? In other words, Gillard's was only worse because it appears that way?

Can you name a broken promise by Howard as brazen as Gillard's and on a policy as consequential?


That is just because you get a skewed impression of my views from the small sample of debates on this forum. My main opponents here are right-wing "Christians" and gun-toters. On Tasmanian Times, most of my opponents are greens, and I am strongly opposed to their environmental scare campaigns, especially on forestry issues. Therefore on that site many people think I am a right-winger, and get surprised when I make strident noises in favour of same sex marriage. Likewise in student politics I opposed compulsory student unionism and was widely considered a right-winger for that reason.

On tests like Political Compass I tend to come out as rather "left" on social issues but roughly centrist on economic issues. There was an old Australian test that had three axes - economics, social issues and traditional values. I scored almost dead centre for economics and social issues and as far opposed to traditional values as it was possible to go.

Fair enough. I have no reason to distrust you. Good to see you thinking independently.


Abbott was not a big player in Coalition economic policy in government (not that it was exactly a small-government model anyway) and has made it clear he isn't that interested in economics. He would be a big spender as his maternity leave policy already shows.

Interesting perspective. Do you think he will spend more than Howard? More than Rudd/Gillard? I know Howard was a big government conservative and Rudd/Gillard wound some of this back (at least for those above a certain income level). But overall they ran surpluses on most budgets so their record of spending is better than Rudd/Gillard. It seems Rudd/Gillard spending was more in the area of stimulus, than family payments. The former, I would think, is more prone to waste given the speed and centrality of it.

Having said this, I doubt his spending will be as reckless as this current government. Paul Kelly (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/abbotts-gamble-on-cultural-change/story-e6frg74x-1226405951205) is a fairly bipartisan observer of ideological trends in Oz and he seems to think Abbott is for smaller government (who knows if this will pan out in office);


The first is a deep commitment to the prudent state typified by surplus budgets, debt reductions, dismantling "Labor values" spending and an attack of sorts on the entitlement culture, an idea pushed by economic spokesman Joe Hockey, long seized by the fiscal task he faces.
Second, the Coalition seeks a rebalancing between enterprise and the environment with a sweeping agenda to dismantle Labor "green and red tape", purge regulatory complexity, facilitate development, promote northern Australia as an export food bowl and run environmental policies that are more direct and practical ...
Third, as a social fabric conservative Abbott wants to curb the idea that "government knows best", limit interference in people's lives, cut social engineering and, as a perpetual volunteer in his personal life, promote Edmund Burke's concept of "little platoons"-Abbott's notion of social communities based on individual initiative and much greater personal responsibility.

I hope he's right.

Capablanca-Fan
19-08-2012, 06:43 AM
Tony Abbott's past copybook includes opposing stem cell research,
I never heard of him opposing somatic ("adult") stem cell research—you know, the kind that actually works, (http://creation.com/stem-cells-and-genesis) e.g. the work on olfactory stem cells by Professor Alan Mackay-Sim (http://www.griffith.edu.au/professional-page/professor-alan-mackay-sim), Queenslander of the Year 2003, rebuilding a windpipe (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2008/6010.html), and repairing chemically-burned corneas (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20008986-10391704.html?tag=latest).


opposing euthanasia, stridently opposing abortion, opposing the overriding of Tasmania's former anti-gay laws (albeit while still claiming them to be out of touch),
Sounds good.


What I find particularly offensive about Abbott is that as a young man he was already a Catholic but didn't bother consistently living up to the values of his faith - the same values he has frequently supported imposing on others.
Yes, he realized that those values should have been lived up to, and his was a moral failure with bad consequences. By contrast, leftards fail to live up to their values, but in many cases this failure improves their lives and that of society. E.g. Gloria Steinem married, Mike Moore invests heavily in shares, including Halliburton; Noam Chomsky made millions from the Pentagon; the Kennedys use tax shelters to avoid having their own money wasted by the government; Barbara Streisand hires workers from Canada where minimum wages are lower; Obamov and Clinton sent their own kids to expensive private schools.


I do not trust him to keep his moralising side under control when in office and that is why I am dearly hoping he is booted by his party before they (probably) win.
What, back to Turnbull? If he had stayed leader, Rudd would never have been rolled.

Damodevo
19-08-2012, 09:23 AM
E.g. Gloria Steinem married, Mike Moore invests heavily in shares, including Halliburton; Noam Chomsky made millions from the Pentagon; the Kennedys use tax shelters to avoid having their own money wasted by the government; Barbara Streisand hires workers from Canada where minimum wages are lower; Obamov and Clinton sent their own kids to expensive private schools.

Let's not forget the higher tax advocating Hollywood (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/15/business/la-fi-ct-runaway-tv-20120814) moving from California to avoid paying taxes;

"Hollywood Hurts as TV Production Joins Film Exodus"

Kevin Bonham
19-08-2012, 02:28 PM
Sounds good.

Do you really think maintaining the "right" of an Australian state to jail a person for 25 years for gay sex (and it also applied to consensual heterosexual anal sex) "sounds good"? The comment I made at the time was that those laws were so bad that it didn't matter how they were got rid of so long as they were.


Yes, he realized that those values should have been lived up to, and his was a moral failure with bad consequences.

As noted elsewhere I don't find his contrition that sincere. There's a certain kind of sin/repent cycle common among a certain kind of young Catholic in which anything goes so long as you say sorry afterwards and spend your life trying to stop others from doing the same thing. It's a kind of sin licence.


What, back to Turnbull?

I'm very confident that if Abbott is replaced, which at the moment probably won't happen unless Gillard goes first, it will be someone else rather than Turnbull. It might be Hockey or it might be someone not even very much on the radar at the moment.

Kevin Bonham
19-08-2012, 02:54 PM
Of course not! That was my point from the beginning. We don't know which means you can't equally indict him.

Indeed we can't really be sure he would have done the same. But we do have the known case of him offering Wilkie a billion for a hospital, which he could not convince Wilkie he could fund. We also have Windsor's claim, incompletely denied, of begging and expressing a willingness to do almost anything. Of course, it's possible that Abbott might have said he would do anything, and then if asked to introduce a carbon tax, backed down on his previous stance and refused.


Can you name a broken promise by Howard as brazen as Gillard's and on a policy as consequential?

I would say "never ever" a GST was perhaps even more brazen (when made). However, he managed the breaking of that promise by seeking a fresh mandate for doing so.


Interesting perspective. Do you think he will spend more than Howard? More than Rudd/Gillard?

I don't think anyone will spend as much as Rudd/Gillard for a while and that includes Labor if they are re-elected. That spending was partly dictated by economic circumstances and the Coalition would very likely also have spent lots in the same circumstances, albeit not as much. Likewise, economic circumstances are likely to dictate restraint on the part of whoever wins the next election. But if we get a few terms of Abbott, and Abbott is really the one steering the ship rather than just a figurehead for Hockey, I reckon the discipline won't last and people will be looking back to the imaginary restraint of Howard and comparing Abbott even to Fraser. (*shudder*)


Third, as a social fabric conservative Abbott wants to curb the idea that "government knows best", limit interference in people's lives,

If only this was what social fabric conservatives actually did! Rather, they tend to believe that "government knows best" just as much as many lefties, only in different spheres.

Patrick Byrom
19-08-2012, 03:28 PM
I never heard of him opposing somatic ("adult") stem cell research—you know, the kind that actually works, (http://creation.com/stem-cells-and-genesis) e.g. the work on olfactory stem cells by Professor Alan Mackay-Sim (http://www.griffith.edu.au/professional-page/professor-alan-mackay-sim), Queenslander of the Year 2003, rebuilding a windpipe (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2008/6010.html), and repairing chemically-burned corneas (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20008986-10391704.html?tag=latest).
Jono, you'll need to update your website: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/01/24/embryonic-stem-cells-can-we-make-the-blind-see/.

Mrs Jono
19-08-2012, 03:54 PM
Let's not forget the higher tax advocating Hollywood (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/15/business/la-fi-ct-runaway-tv-20120814) moving from California to avoid paying taxes
That article forgot to name Vancouver, where a lot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Television_series_produced_in_Vancouver) of Hollywood has been or is filmed. So in addition to avoiding taxes, they often also avoid keeping business in America, yet hypocritically point to others and make the same claims.

(used Wikipedia since I'm feeling lazy)

Damodevo
19-08-2012, 08:31 PM
Indeed we can't really be sure he would have done the same. But we do have the known case of him offering Wilkie a billion for a hospital, which he could not convince Wilkie he could fund. We also have Windsor's claim, incompletely denied, of begging and expressing a willingness to do almost anything. Of course, it's possible that Abbott might have said he would do anything, and then if asked to introduce a carbon tax, backed down on his previous stance and refused.

I think you are making too much of hyperbolic statements. I don't believe he would have brought in a Carbon Tax (interestingly Warren Mundine said today he doesn't believe Abbott would have either). And Wilkie/Windsor wasn't asking for a CT anyway. In fact, I think the only MP that did was Adam Bandt of the Greens (which means Gillard was not forced to bring it in except as a willing accomplice to the Greens).

(And it was wrong of the hypocrite Windsor to accept the slush fund [600 million and counting] and early NBN release to his electorate especially given his moralising on "transparent and accountable" government.)

His whole raison d'etre as head of the opposition was opposing the CT. Of course, bribing Windsor's electorate was wrong but Gillard did that anyway and gave us the CT to boot.

So its implausible to say the least to draw a moral equivalence between Abbott and Gillard.


I don't think anyone will spend as much as Rudd/Gillard for a while and that includes Labor if they are re-elected. That spending was partly dictated by economic circumstances and the Coalition would very likely also have spent lots in the same circumstances, albeit not as much. Likewise, economic circumstances are likely to dictate restraint on the part of whoever wins the next election. But if we get a few terms of Abbott, and Abbott is really the one steering the ship rather than just a figurehead for Hockey, I reckon the discipline won't last and people will be looking back to the imaginary restraint of Howard and comparing Abbott even to Fraser. (*shudder*)

Yes they probably would have brought in a stimulus but their aversion to debt would mean they wouldn't have run it as high. See this interview with Howard, he is skeptical of Keynesian type stimulus (not to mention the recent failures of Keynesian stimulus in the US after the GFC, and in Japan in the 90's);

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmBvvbslfEA

Kevin Bonham
19-08-2012, 10:07 PM
I think you are making too much of hyperbolic statements.

To which Abbott seems incredibly prone. Much like Howard with his non-core promises, Abbott seems to have quite a line of these sorts of excuses for foot in mouth: hyperbolic statement (he's used that one himself), not a carefully scripted prepared remark (etc).

If Abbott's best defence to this one (if Windsor's claims are true) is that he was just dishonestly hyperbolic in what he said then it doesn't put him in much of a position to call someone else a liar just for breaking a commitment under unexpected circumstances.


In fact, I think the only MP that did was Adam Bandt of the Greens (which means Gillard was not forced to bring it in except as a willing accomplice to the Greens).

Whose one vote she needed to govern, since without Katter and Bandt it was 75-75 and an unworkable parliament (She has suggested she might have been able to deal with Katter or Crook instead but that, again, is something we don't know). But I do think Gillard made a big blunder there and she should have simply assumed that the Greens would support her since their supporters would devour them if they put the Libs in. On that basis, she should not have been prepared to give them so much.

Damodevo
20-08-2012, 12:20 AM
Whose one vote she needed to govern, since without Katter and Bandt it was 75-75 and an unworkable parliament (She has suggested she might have been able to deal with Katter or Crook instead but that, again, is something we don't know). But I do think Gillard made a big blunder there and she should have simply assumed that the Greens would support her since their supporters would devour them if they put the Libs in. On that basis, she should not have been prepared to give them so much.

Here is another choice. If she couldn't keep her explicitly made promise to the people then she shouldn't have taken the government in the first place.


To which Abbott seems incredibly prone.

Unlike Gillard who called Abbott a "hollow, bitter man" and insulted his suburb of residence. So you harangue Abbott for making a few over the top remarks which the government has done anyway but give Gillard an excuse for betraying the people.


...it doesn't put him in much of a position to call someone else a liar just for breaking a commitment under unexpected circumstances.

What were the 'unexpected circumstances'? The hung parliament? No excuse. Her desperate bid for power isn't a reason to break such an explicit promise. There were NO changing circumstances that would have warranted the breaking of this promise. And you can't give any example of Howard doing anything even remotely similar yet you follow the usual lefty tactic of fetishing Abbott's semantics.

Kevin Bonham
20-08-2012, 01:10 AM
Here is another choice. If she couldn't keep her explicitly made promise to the people then she shouldn't have taken the government in the first place.

Indeed that was an option. However, politicians of any party aren't too likely to make choices like that. After all, the consequence of such a choice in that position is that you lose power and don't know if you'll ever get it back, whereas the consequence of choosing instead to break a commitment is only that you have power now and may lose it later.

I do know of some cases where oppositions have refused to go into minority government in order to keep their pledges, and instead left the incumbent government there in minority. But in these cases the opposition nearly always wins the next election outright so it is strategically advantageous to keep their word.


Unlike Gillard who called Abbott a "hollow, bitter man" and insulted his suburb of residence.

The former was in response to an attack (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bitter-clash-climaxes-week-of-debate-over-carbon-tax/story-fn59niix-1226027553828) from Abbott which included calling her "delusional" and stating that she had never been truthful. So just the usual exchange of parliamentary abuse where Abbott was the initiator, and hardly extreme given the provocation.


So you harangue Abbott for making a few over the top remarks which the government has done anyway but give Gillard an excuse for betraying the people.

What I harangue Abbott for is not excesses but hypocrisy.

I don't think there was any real excuse for Gillard making such a silly unqualified commitment in the first place, nor for giving the Greens so much in negotiations. What does concern me though is that people call it a lie when they have no evidence that it was. Not so much because Gillard doesn't deserve such an appraisal (it is, after all, self-inflicted) but because it trashes the meaning of the word "lie" and leads to people too casually calling each other liars, which I think is a bad thing in public life in general.


What were the 'unexpected circumstances'? The hung parliament? No excuse.

But one I do not think she was considering when she made the comment. I think her comment was about what she envisaged in a majority government. While there is always talk about a hung parliament in a close campaign, it had been talked about and not happened so many times that even some election experts got egg on their faces by saying it wouldn't happen in 2010.

I don't want to give the impression I actually like Gillard or think she is a good Prime Minister. When I was polled by Newspoll about a year ago I gave her a "disapprove" as well as Abbott.


And you can't give any example of Howard doing anything even remotely similar yet you follow the usual lefty tactic of fetishing Abbott's semantics.

I already gave the example of Howard's "never ever" comment on the GST. That he sought permission to break that promise and was re-elected, thus obtaining a mandate for breaking it (which Gillard does not have) does not change the fact that his election in 1996 was under false pretences on a major issue having promised that he would never introduce a GST.

Howard's statement may well have been honest at the time just as Gillard's may have been. But had Howard gone to the people in 1996 with a policy that reflected what he later did (ie that there would be no GST in the first term but a GST policy would be taken to the election after) there would have been a repeat of the 1993 scare campaign against it and Howard may well have either not won, or won with a much smaller margin (in which case he may well have been unable to run on the GST without losing.)

Capablanca-Fan
20-08-2012, 01:11 AM
What were the 'unexpected circumstances'? The hung parliament? No excuse. Her desperate bid for power isn't a reason to break such an explicit promise. There were NO changing circumstances that would have warranted the breaking of this promise. And you can't give any example of Howard doing anything even remotely similar yet you follow the usual lefty tactic of fetishing Abbott's semantics.
The usual example is Howard and the GST. But when he promised no GST, he kept that promise throughout that term. Next election, he explicitly campaigned in the intention to introduce a GST to replace the labyrinth of excise and other silly taxes. He kept that promise as well. The GST was much worse than Howard's intention only because the Democrats wanted silly exceptions, and Labor of course wasn't going to budge at all and agree to any GST. So Howard had to accept the Dem amendments or concede defeat on tax reform altogether. And the result was the lowest unemployment and interest rates in decades, turning Labor's $90B debt into good surpluses, which KRudd quickly squandered.

Kevin Bonham
20-08-2012, 01:21 AM
The usual example is Howard and the GST. But when he promised no GST, he kept that promise throughout that term.

It is not just that he went to the people promising not to introduce a GST. Had he in 1995-6 just said "we won't introduce a GST in this term" then he would have kept that promise. His actual promise was to never introduce a GST. As soon as he announced an intention to impose a GST if re-elected, he committed himself to breaking his previous promise.

Here are Howard's comments in 1995 on the matter:


“Suggestions I have left open the possibility of a GST are completely wrong. A GST or anything resembling it is no longer Coalition policy. Nor will it be policy at any time in the future. It is completely off the political agenda in Australia.”

“No. There’s no way a GST will ever be part of our policy.”

“Never ever. It’s dead. It was killed by voters at the last election.”

Capablanca-Fan
20-08-2012, 01:28 AM
It is not just that he went to the people promising not to introduce a GST. Had he in 1995-6 just said "we won't introduce a GST in this term" then he would have kept that promise. His actual promise was to never introduce a GST. As soon as he announced an intention to impose a GST if re-elected, he committed himself to breaking his previous promise.
All promises have an implicit lifetime of the next term. If they need to be changed, then they should wait for an election to put them to the voters. This is exactly what Howard did. Likewise, JuLiar should have put the carbon tax to the voters before introducing it after promising not to.

Damodevo
20-08-2012, 03:48 AM
The usual example is Howard and the GST. But when he promised no GST, he kept that promise throughout that term. Next election, he explicitly campaigned in the intention to introduce a GST to replace the labyrinth of excise and other silly taxes. He kept that promise as well. The GST was much worse than Howard's intention only because the Democrats wanted silly exceptions, and Labor of course wasn't going to budge at all and agree to any GST. So Howard had to accept the Dem amendments or concede defeat on tax reform altogether. And the result was the lowest unemployment and interest rates in decades, turning Labor's $90B debt into good surpluses, which KRudd quickly squandered.

I believe it was the Henry Tax Review or something like (commissioned by this government) that where it was found that the GST was the most efficient of all the taxes. That is, it discouraged the least amount of investment and economic growth. Along with the Grattan Institute that review recommended, as you say, broadening the base of the GST instead of bringing in other taxes that hit investment and income.

Kevin Bonham
20-08-2012, 10:37 AM
All promises have an implicit lifetime of the next term.

Not true when they are explicitly stated as "never ever", thus explicitly contradicting that otherwise implicit condition.

If the fudge above for Howard's broken promise is acceptable then it is equally acceptable for Gillard's promise to have been considered to have an implicit basis of what she would do as leader of a majority government, and on that basis to rule that her promise was never even broken and that she did absolutely nothing wrong at all.

To actually call Gillard a liar while giving Howard a free pass for breaking "never ever" is just irrational hypocritical partisan gutter trash. Or maybe that's too kind. :lol:

Ian Murray
20-08-2012, 03:38 PM
...Abbott was not a big player in Coalition economic policy in government (not that it was exactly a small-government model anyway) and has made it clear he isn't that interested in economics. He would be a big spender as his maternity leave policy already shows.
He's not too flash on basic science either:

Tony Abbott, in South Dandenong, answering a question about how CO2 emissions are calculated: ''It's actually pretty hard to do this because carbon dioxide is invisible and it's weightless and you can't smell it.''
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/intelligent-discussion-all-but-extinct-20110720-1hos2.html

I suppose, for Tony, two out of three ain't bad. It is invisible and odourless.

Capablanca-Fan
20-08-2012, 04:03 PM
To actually call Gillard a liar while giving Howard a free pass for breaking "never ever" is just irrational hypocritical partisan gutter trash. Or maybe that's too kind. :lol:
Come off it. Times change, and Howard had the decency to go to the voters when it became clear that a GST was the best way forward. JuLiar did not; she just gained power then introduced what she said, just before the election, that she would not in a government she leads.

Capablanca-Fan
20-08-2012, 04:08 PM
He's not too flash on basic science either:

Tony Abbott, in South Dandenong, answering a question about how CO2 emissions are calculated: ''It's actually pretty hard to do this because carbon dioxide is invisible and it's weightless and you can't smell it.''
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/intelligent-discussion-all-but-extinct-20110720-1hos2.html

I suppose, for Tony, two out of three ain't bad. It is invisible and odourless.
It's not hard for me, but then I'm a chemist. Could you do it without Googling? Do you think Gillard or Gore could?

Rincewind
20-08-2012, 04:34 PM
It's not hard for me, but then I'm a chemist. Could you do it without Googling? Do you think Gillard or Gore could?

What? Know that something comprising matter would have weight in a gravitational field? All chemical elements (and hence also all compounds) have weight in the same sense and one doesn't have to be chemist to know that. It's like saying you have to be an lexicographer to know that all English words comprise a non zero number of characters.

Ian Murray
20-08-2012, 04:56 PM
It's not hard for me, but then I'm a chemist. Could you do it without Googling? Do you think Gillard or Gore could?
Any schoolboy would know (What's heavier - a ton of lead or a ton of feathers?). I certainly didn't need any help from Google or elsewhere. And Abbott is a Rhodes scholar.

Kevin Bonham
20-08-2012, 05:14 PM
Come off it. Times change, and Howard had the decency to go to the voters when it became clear that a GST was the best way forward. JuLiar did not; she just gained power then introduced what she said, just before the election, that she would not in a government she leads.

A "conservative" using "times change" as an excuse. Priceless! :lol: And, of course, much the same excuse used by Gillard, since when she made that comment she was leader of a majority government which she envisaged continuing, but then times changed and a minority government was formed.

The difference above is a relevant difference in assessing the way in which each broke their promise. But it does not change the fact they both did, and nor is it a big enough difference to justify giving one a clean pass while calling the other a liar. Therefore I will not "come off it." :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
21-08-2012, 12:13 AM
A "conservative" using "times change" as an excuse. Priceless! :lol:
Well, as an economist you probably like (RW loves him) said, “When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?” (John Maynard Keynes). You should also know, because I have said so, that "conservative" is a somewhat misleading label for me, because there is plenty I don't want to conserve, like government schooling and the current convoluted tax/welfare system.


And, of course, much the same excuse used by Gillard, since when she made that comment she was leader of a majority government which she envisaged continuing, but then times changed and a minority government was formed.
But she didn't go to the electorate first unlike Howard. The difference should be obvious.

Kevin Bonham
21-08-2012, 01:46 AM
Well, as an economist you probably like

Not sure about that bit actually. I think we'll have a better idea how well he's travelling in another 5-10 years.


“When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?”

And what information changed for Howard? He always wanted to bring in a GST, but at a given point he supposedly thought it could not be sold to the public, so he said he'd never do it. Gillard may have been the same or she may have really been silly enough to think her daft citizen's assembly twaddle was really a good idea.


You should also know, because I have said so, that "conservative" is a somewhat misleading label for me, because there is plenty I don't want to conserve, like government schooling and the current convoluted tax/welfare system.

Ah yes, all the new stuff that shouldn't have come in in the first place (supposedly.) "Conservative" was too kind in that instance then; should I instead use "reactionary"?


But she didn't go to the electorate first unlike Howard. The difference should be obvious.

An obvious difference, sure. But nowhere near a big enough difference to justify giving one a clean pass while calling the other a liar.

Goughfather
21-08-2012, 01:50 AM
Not sure about that bit actually. I think we'll have a better idea how well he's travelling in another 5-10 years.

I'm pretty sure he'll still be dead. That being the case, I don't expect him to change his opinion anytime soon. :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
21-08-2012, 12:13 PM
Ah yes, all the new stuff that shouldn't have come in in the first place (supposedly.) "Conservative" was too kind in that instance then; should I instead use "reactionary"?
More imprecise terms, since they all depend on one's reaction to the status quo, in the case of conservative, or the status quo ante, in the case of reactionary. Neither term by themselves explain what these states are. Supporting the LDP tax/welfare plan and school vouchers are neither, since it is neither the present nor has it ever existed.


An obvious difference, sure. But nowhere near a big enough difference to justify giving one a clean pass while calling the other a liar.
It's a huge difference: Gillard would never have one if she had not promised NOT to introduce a carbon tax. Howard went into an election saying that he would introduce a GST, so the voters had a chance to reject it.

Kevin Bonham
21-08-2012, 12:48 PM
Supporting the LDP tax/welfare plan and school vouchers are neither, since it is neither the present nor has it ever existed.

Agreed.


It's a huge difference: Gillard would never have one if she had not promised NOT to introduce a carbon tax.

We don't really know that. It's certainly possible she would have lost had she not made that promise in that exact form, but polling evidence before that promise was not pointing to a loss. Actually it was pointing to a probable win and there was a dip in Labor support in the last two days after that promise was made.

And the same sorts of things can be said about Howard's promise, even though he won in 1996 by a mile. At least, Howard seemed to believe that unless he ruled out introducing a GST ever, he would never be elected. I think it's more likely that had he gone to the people in 1996 with a promise of no GST in that term, he would have won a much smaller majority, which would have made it much harder to get a mandate for one at the next election.

Indeed Howard actually lost the 2PP at his GST election in 1998, albeit partly because of One Nation's perverse preferencing strategy. He was only able to win despite losing the 2PP because he had won the previous election so comfortably (which brings the advantages of sophomore effect and being able to porkbarrel marginals).

Igor_Goldenberg
21-08-2012, 09:49 PM
Interesting to see how far Gillard's supporters are willing to go trying to excuse her lie.
I especially liked the one "It's possible that Abbott would've broken the promise as well". Based on that we can excuse any lie from any politician
Another is a feeble attempt to compare with Howard's GST.
If you make a promise to someone, but them decide not to go ahead, you seek permission from that someone. Pretty obvious, isn't it?

Kevin Bonham
21-08-2012, 10:13 PM
Interesting to see how far Gillard's supporters are willing to go trying to excuse her lie.

Gillard supporters? Not sure I see any of those here. Abbott opponents? That's a different story. :lol:

I think I would positively support Gillard though, if she switched to enthusiastically supporting same-sex marriage and apologised profusely for taking so long and being so silly about it. Til then, I hope she gets rolled, but not nearly as much as I hope the same about Abbott.

It's almost to the point where I'd preference the Libs if they replaced Abbott just to reward them for doing the right thing, whoever they replaced him with and even if I thought their policies were worse than Labor's. Anyway luckily I live in Denison, so I am able to cast a House of Reps vote that isn't likely to ever reach either of the major parties, and nor the Greens for that matter. :lol:


I especially liked the one "It's possible that Abbott would've broken the promise as well".

The alternative is that it is not possible, which if Windsor's account of Abbott's comments is true means that Abbott spoke insincerely to him during negotiations on the formation of government. While some posters have claimed this is not as bad as speaking insincerely to the people, at least a politician who does the latter can always be held accountable for it.


Another is a feeble attempt to compare with Howard's GST.
If you make a promise to someone, but them decide not to go ahead, you seek permission from that someone. Pretty obvious, isn't it?

But a bit late after you have already used that broken promise to win an election on false pretences, and when that broken promise helped get you into a position where you could obtain that "permission" despite losing the 2PP vote 49-51. Pretty obvious, isn't it? ;)

Capablanca-Fan
22-08-2012, 05:19 AM
But a bit late after you have already used that broken promise to win an election on false pretences, and when that broken promise helped get you into a position where you could obtain that "permission" despite losing the 2PP vote 49-51. Pretty obvious, isn't it? ;)
No, more like a desperate attempt at moral equivalence between Gillard, promising "There will be no carbon tax in a government I lead" then promptly introducing it after she wins the election under false presences; and Howard, who went to the people when he decided that a GST would be a good idea afterwards, and won election under the rules in which popular vote is not the deciding factor. Also, the Dem votes should probably count in Howard's moral favor because they ended up supporting GST, albeit after ruining it a lot.

The GST has been the object of much demagoguery. Keating proposed it in 1985, but it was apparently too much of a hot potato for Labor. Then Hewson led the Coalition on the 1993 election with a GST as a major part of its platform. Its erstwhile supporter Keating, now PM, demagogued against it for purely political reasons. His success in scaring the electorate prompted Howard to his "never, ever" promise. But upon finding out that Keating had left the country with $90B in debt, and realizing that the moronic mass of sales and excise taxes would be better replaced by a GST, he called an election 6 months early to put the idea to the people.

Agent Smith
22-08-2012, 06:59 AM
I think I would positively support Gillard though, if she switched to enthusiastically supporting same-sex marriage and apologised profusely for taking so long and being so silly about it. Til then, I hope she gets rolled, but not nearly as much as I hope the same about Abbott.

:eek:

Desmond
22-08-2012, 07:03 AM
Interesting to see how far Gillard's supporters are willing to go trying to excuse her lie.For that to be true the supporter would have to believe it was a lie in the first place. Is anyone who voted (http://chesschat.org/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=481) that it was a lie doing so?

Capablanca-Fan
22-08-2012, 07:14 AM
For that to be true the supporter would have to believe it was a lie in the first place. Is anyone who voted (http://chesschat.org/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=481) that it was a lie doing so?
You didn't vote in that poll. :hmm:

Desmond
22-08-2012, 07:21 AM
You didn't vote in that poll. :hmm:
No, at Igor's request in post #1.

Kevin Bonham
22-08-2012, 08:24 PM
No, more like a desperate attempt at moral equivalence between Gillard,

But I did not say they were exactly morally equivalent and indeed I explicitly countered it by saying that the difference you refer to is relevant. I just consider that turning it into a free pass for Howard and an accusation of lying for Gillard is stretching the magnitude of the difference to at least ten times its actual size. So the above can only be a desperate attempt at strawmanning. :lol:


promising "There will be no carbon tax in a government I lead" then promptly introducing it after she wins the election under false presences; and Howard, who went to the people when he decided that a GST would be a good idea afterwards, and won election under the rules in which popular vote is not the deciding factor.

But his ability to win the 1998 election with that vote distribution at all was influenced by his large margin in 1996, which was acquired under false pretences and therefore gave him an unfair advantage in 1998. A landslide win equals porkbarrelling opportunities, sophomore effect for new MHAs, increased electoral funding, and a difficult task for an opposition since it cannot concentrate resources on winning just a few seats from the government.

Sophomore effect happens when a new MHA wins a seat. They develop a profile that gives them an advantage at their second election. Howard retained 11 seats with margins inside 51.1 2PP in 1998. In all but one of these his candidate had the sophomore advantage, meaning he probably would not have won any of those seats in 1998 but for winning them from Labor the election before. (Admittedly, he won six of them in 1996 by margins of 54-46 or greater.)


Also, the Dem votes should probably count in Howard's moral favor because they ended up supporting GST, albeit after ruining it a lot.

Well actually not all of them supported it, and those who did were breaking their party's own election promise of no GST on food. Also the Dems ran on a platform that they didn't like either party's tax policy but would cooperate with either within certain limits (which they exceeded). The best way to count the Dems in the equation as concerns a Lower House mandate is simply with their votes distributed as per the 2PP result.


The GST has been the object of much demagoguery. [..] Its erstwhile supporter Keating, now PM, demagogued against it for purely political reasons.

I agree with this much.


But upon finding out that Keating had left the country with $90B in debt, and realizing that the moronic mass of sales and excise taxes would be better replaced by a GST

This wasn't a sudden epiphany upon taking office; it was a view he had held all along. Whether he really was so freaked out by 1993 and thought that the GST would never be accepted by the people, or whether he cannily denied any intention to introduce it so as to fatten his margin and introduce it later, we can't know.

Igor_Goldenberg
22-08-2012, 11:36 PM
But a bit late after you have already used that broken promise to win an election on false pretences, and when that broken promise helped get you into a position where you could obtain that "permission" despite losing the 2PP vote 49-51. Pretty obvious, isn't it? ;)
2PP is good predictor of seats distribution, but not the actual distribution of the seats in HoR. Pretty obvious, isn't it?
Laborites like to whinge about 2PP (like in 1998), but only when it suits them.

Kevin Bonham
23-08-2012, 12:31 AM
2PP is good predictor of seats distribution, but not the actual distribution of the seats in HoR. Pretty obvious, isn't it?

Yes, and one of the reasons for mismatch between 2PP and seat distribution is incumbency advantage. Especially relevant in this case because the incumbent had won the previous election on the back of a false promise.


Laborites like to whinge about 2PP (like in 1998), but only when it suits them.

Not being a Laborite I'm free of that burden. Can't remember who I voted for in 1998 but do remember writing during the year that Beazley would lose and deserved to lose because Labor had not learnt sufficiently from their defeat.

Actually I usually find the argument about 2PP all a bit silly, because quite often when a party wins despite losing the 2PP it is because it focused successfully on winning seats and was not concerned whether it won the 2PP or not. If 2PP determined who formed government, such a party would have adopted different strategies, and might have won anyway.

The point in this case is not against winning with a low 2PP by itself, but that Howard's ability to win comfortably with such a bad 2PP was a flow-on from his big margin in 1996. And that margin was acquired using a false promise to "never ever" introduce a GST.

It may have been sincere on Howard's part all along. But if it wasn't, I could hardly fault the tactical skill of it all. :lol:

Kevin Bonham
23-08-2012, 06:05 PM
Abbott goes down in a series of screaming heaps on 7:30 last night. Alas this was only ABC so its unclear whether anyone will care.

zXhbg80E2JE

Ian Murray
23-08-2012, 07:06 PM
...As for Tony Abbott, who blamed the carbon and mining taxes for the Olympic Dam decision without even reading what BHP had to say — indeed, he appeared to suggest Marius Kloppers had deliberately misled investors — he should pay attention. This has potential significance for the economy he thinks he’ll inherit...
http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/08/23/olympic-dam-the-warning-of-an-asian-slowdown/

Kevin Bonham
17-09-2012, 12:23 AM
Our man has just turned in some nightmare polling results:

Newspoll 50-50 2PP
Gillard 14 points lead in PPM - not that it predicts a thing but people do care about it in Canberra (better than Rudd when Rudd was rolled)
Gillard netsat -16 (best for ages)
Abbott netsat -30 (equal worst ever)

Nielsen 53-47 2PP (to Coalition)
Abbott netsat -23 (his worst ever in Nielsen)
Turnbull leads Abbott 63-30 among all voters
Turnbull leads Abbott 53-45 among Coalition voters
6 in 10 Coalition voters think there should be a change in leader

In many ways the Nielsen stats are actually worse for Abbott than the Newspoll ones which might just be explained as sympathy vote for Gillard following the recent death of her father.

Basil
17-09-2012, 01:00 PM
Just warming up the 'Tony's Going Down' Thread! Will wait a wee while though.

pax
17-09-2012, 01:21 PM
Our man has just turned in some nightmare polling results:

Newspoll 50-50 2PP
Gillard 14 points lead in PPM - not that it predicts a thing but people do care about it in Canberra (better than Rudd when Rudd was rolled)
Gillard netsat -16 (best for ages)
Abbott netsat -30 (equal worst ever)

Nielsen 53-47 2PP (to Coalition)
Abbott netsat -23 (his worst ever in Nielsen)
Turnbull leads Abbott 63-30 among all voters
Turnbull leads Abbott 53-45 among Coalition voters
6 in 10 Coalition voters think there should be a change in leader

In many ways the Nielsen stats are actually worse for Abbott than the Newspoll ones which might just be explained as sympathy vote for Gillard following the recent death of her father.

That's a pretty remarkable pair of polls. After the Qld election debacle, most people probably assumed that federal Labor was in an irretrievably lost situation. And yet it may ironically turn out that Campbell Newman's landslide was the best thing to have happened to federal Labor.

Agent Smith
17-09-2012, 01:39 PM
That's a pretty remarkable pair of polls. After the Qld election debacle, most people probably assumed that federal Labor was in an irretrievably lost situation. And yet it may ironically turn out that Campbell Newman's landslide was the best thing to have happened to federal Labor.
Yes. It's all quite poignant. They did a great job painting Campbell as a moderate, and in truth he is - Compared to Abbott.
Come on Julia. Apart from the large number of aus who are too misogynist to accept a women PM or short sited to see beyond their own noses, we *do* love you. ;> It'd be great to see her get back in ... but it's going to be tough.

Kevin Bonham
17-09-2012, 02:04 PM
After the Qld election debacle, most people probably assumed that federal Labor was in an irretrievably lost situation.

They may well have assumed the same when the Kirner and Lawrence governments were drubbed (though not so badly as NSW and Qld Labor recently) not long before federal Labor under Keating faced an election. State results don't predict federal results very well because there is so often a backlash against the party in federal power.

In today's Essential Report poll Gillard is outperforming Abbott on every single leadership indicator except "understands the problems facing Australia" and "trustworthy", which are both tied. Even after TWBNCTUAGIL*, Gillard still leads Abbott 31-27 on "More honest than most politicians".

* Shorthand for the infamous "there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead"

McTaggart
17-09-2012, 04:07 PM
Catholics can lawfully apply mathematics to avoid pregnancy. However, I think they are still forbidden from using physics or chemistry.


Absolutely brilliant! I only wish I had thought of it first...Cheers:clap:

McTaggart
17-09-2012, 04:16 PM
I dont know what period the latest poll was supposed to cover, but if covers from election date the slide is understandable. He acted like a spoilt child and a spoiler - whereas Gillard was the soother and facilitator.

And the feral Country/Nationals did not help the cause. It is easy to why fair-minded people like Oakeshot and Windsor desert them.

What about Windsor for PM next time around? Leading a Labor government - I would like to see that.

That would be fantastic! AC completely thinking outside that box! I love it

Rincewind
17-09-2012, 04:17 PM
Absolutely brilliant! I only wish I had thought of it first...Cheers:clap:

Me too. It was Henry Louis Mencken originally, as far as I know. And since he died before I was born, he did have a rather unfair advantage when it comes to the primacy of witticisms.

McTaggart
17-09-2012, 04:22 PM
Can't you read, pillock? I was agreeing with IG that Abbott was wrong in this instance. Unfortunately, it's a matter of choosing between the worst thieves, and hardly anything is worse than Labor's wasted spending on home insulation, school buildings, and the proposed $43b white elephant NBN.


Jono, explain to me how money spent on home insulation, better school facilities and the NBN is a waste of public money? Surely there is a beneficial outcome from all of these endeavours.

Kevin Bonham
17-09-2012, 04:53 PM
The Morgan out today more or less confirms the Newspoll, although they claim it shows the Newspoll to be rogue. The difference is in the way preferences are allocated - Morgan uses respondent-allocated preferences although this has been proven to be inaccurate. If Morgan's data are used with preferences allocated based on the last election result then Morgan's 46.5:53.5 becomes 49.5:50.5.

McTaggart
17-09-2012, 04:55 PM
tony abbott is pretty cool because his desire to oppose the mining tax will help to keep bogans sufficiently funded so that they can keep buying obnoxious, loud coloured late model holden utes.

something to keep in mind.

GO TEAM TONY !! :owned:

Beaker, whilst I do not quite understand how the mining tax or lack there of keeps bogans happy,:lol: I just love the imagery... Cheers....

Ian Murray
17-09-2012, 05:41 PM
Jono, explain to me how money spent on home insulation, better school facilities and the NBN is a waste of public money? Surely there is a beneficial outcome from all of these endeavours.
In Jono's worldview all Labor/Democrat/liberal (small l) initiatives are ipso facto public money wasted

Capablanca-Fan
17-09-2012, 10:52 PM
Jono, explain to me how money spent on home insulation,
Are you totally unaware of the fiasco where houses were burned and several people died because of shoddy insulation, so more taxpayer money was spent removing it?


better school facilities
Many were not better as far as the school was concerned.


and the NBN is a waste of public money?
It is: $43 billion is a lot of money to spend on technology that could become outdated quickly in a very fast growing field. Also, while faster internet is nice, is it worth paying that much for it? There are a little over 9 million households in Australia (http://theconversation.edu.au/australian-census-one-in-ten-live-alone-but-that-doesnt-mean-theyre-lonely-7674), so is it really $4800/household nicer?


Surely there is a beneficial outcome from all of these endeavours.
Now you are committing the fallacy exposed 160 years ago by Bastiat in What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen (http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html), an essay well worth careful study. I.e. you consider only the benefits you see; you don't consider what is not seen—the benefits that could have been possible if the money had not been sucked out of the wider economy that could have been spent on things people were prepared to pay for, rather than that which had political benefits. Ian "I've never seen government spending or extra tax I didn't love" Murray commits the same fallacy.

McTaggart
18-09-2012, 12:48 AM
In a huge undertaking like the insulation program there are bound to be mistakes made. These are human errors not governmental errors. Sure, a few people died and that is regretable,but do you know how they died? At least two died from heat stroke, one fell through the ceiling space after being told only to walk on the rafters and two ( I think) were electrocuted through using the wrong materials. Hardly the fault of the Government. The sub-contractors who were in charge of these and other faulty jobs are being brought to account. With a success rate of installation of over 96% one could say a rousing success and money well spent
I have had the opportunity to view the end results of the schools improvement programs and I have been greatly impressed. So were the teachers and pupils, who are really the ones who count. Again with a success rate of 98%. Were those rates of success carried into the commercial field you would be cheering from the sidelines but sadly your ideological blinkers and your ingrained predudices prevent you from seeing that.
Regarding the NBN, what a fantastic and brilliant way to spend public money,on facilities that the public will gain unbelievable benefits well into the future. It is true that technology is advancing all the time but at what point do you make a move? Do you keep putting things off until the perfect system arrives. No, you make the best call armed with the best judgement.
Just to help you with your thinking, when I arrived in Australia they had just completed the Snowy Mts Scheme at enormous financial cost and with tremendous loss of life ( 169, I believe). What were the headlines in the papers? Nothing but triumph and civic pride, the difference being, to you, that it was accomplished under the conservative government of Bob Menzies. Now that should gain your approval...... By the way, all the contractors who worked on these projects ran all the way to the bank, paid their staff and suppliers, who inturn spent their money. Can you see how it works, it is not too hard, really.

pax
18-09-2012, 01:04 AM
It is: $43 billion is a lot of money to spend on technology that could become outdated quickly in a very fast growing field.

Gee, those copper wires sure outdated quickly. Maybe the government should have saved all that money - after all, the telegraph and the postal service were perfectly sufficient!

Capablanca-Fan
18-09-2012, 01:06 AM
In a huge undertaking like the insulation program there are bound to be mistakes made. These are human errors not governmental errors. Sure, a few people died and that is regretable,but do you know how they died? At least two died from heat stroke, one fell through the ceiling space after being told only to walk on the rafters and two ( I think) were electrocuted through using the wrong materials. Hardly the fault of the Government. The sub-contractors who were in charge of these and other faulty jobs are being brought to account.
But your ilk never realize that it was precisely the government largesse that attracted these cowboys. You are like those who claim that communism would have worked were it not for butchers like Stalin and Mao. But they fail to realize that the huge, powerful government required for forced wealth distribution attracts and enables those who lust after power.


I have had the opportunity to view the end results of the schools improvement programs and I have been greatly impressed. So were the teachers and pupils, who are really the ones who count. Again with a success rate of 98%.
Oh really? Seemed to go to many schools who didn't need it—Big pay day for top private schools in cash handout (http://www.smh.com.au/national/big-pay-day-for-top-private-schools-in-cash-handout-20090405-9tb3.html#ixzz26jvEWgPP). Even the far-left ABC didn't agree with you:
tCDjy0vtktM


Were those rates of success carried into the commercial field you would be cheering from the sidelines
Yes, and because they were achieved with their own money, not with money forcibly taken from me. And if they failed, they would suffer the losses; bureaucracies who fail are rewarded with still more funding.

And this is a major point of Bastiat—there is less private money to go around to generate real economic growth, because of the government "stimulus". This is what is not seen.


but sadly your ideological blinkers and your ingrained predudices prevent you from seeing that.
Ah yes, and you are the epitome of objectivity, with no ideological blinkers against any challenge to your faith that big government can spend money better than those who actually earned it.


Regarding the NBN, what a fantastic and brilliant way to spend public money,on facilities that the public will gain unbelievable benefits well into the future.
Are you a prophet now? Maybe you should learn some history: the American government spend loads of money to try to develop powered flight, paying the best and brightest, Dr Samuel Langley of the Smithsonian. It was an abject failure. But shortly after Langley's abject failure, a couple of obscure brothers whose paid job was bicycle repair managed real powered flight. You can read the interesting story in Air Transportation: More Government = Less Safety (http://www.economicthinking.org/technology/noballoonattached.html).

On NBN, I would not pay almost $5,000 for a slightly faster connection.


It is true that technology is advancing all the time but at what point do you make a move? Do you keep putting things off until the perfect system arrives. No, you make the best call armed with the best judgement.
The best judgement is made by millions of people spending their own money, not by politicians and bureaucrats spending other people's money.


Just to help you with your thinking, when I arrived in Australia they had just completed the Snowy Mts Scheme at enormous financial cost and with tremendous loss of life ( 169, I believe). What were the headlines in the papers? Nothing but triumph and civic pride, the difference being, to you, that it was accomplished under the conservative government of Bob Menzies. Now that should gain your approval......
Not always. Conservative governments have not always acted conservatively.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-09-2012, 12:23 PM
Another contributor to improvement in the polls could be gillard's absence from the public eye (and Swan keeping reasonably moderate profile).
Seeing Gillard on TV screen doesn't do much good to Labor 2PP. It would be interesting to see next poll.

Kevin Bonham
19-09-2012, 08:28 AM
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/bishop-says-disunity-to-blame-for-poor-poll-20120918-264ta.html

Ah, remember that famous Coalition unity that Abbott had created that no-one had thought possible and that indicated what a great Leader he was. Guess what? One (1) 50-50 Newspoll and hey presto, it doesn't exist.

Ian Murray
19-09-2012, 08:35 AM
Are you totally unaware of the fiasco where houses were burned and several people died because of shoddy insulation, so more taxpayer money was spent removing it?
A worker dies every week in the housing/construction industry, each death a tragedy unremarked in the media. Chairman Murdoch's The Australian, after the first three deaths during the Home Insulation Program, named Kevin Rudd as Australian of the Year for steering us out of the GFC. It was after the fourth (and final) death that The Oz changed tack and the Murdoch press turned against the stimulus package. The rest is media-distorted history (http://inside.org.au/a-mess-a-shambles-a-disaster/).

Basil
19-09-2012, 08:38 AM
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/bishop-says-disunity-to-blame-for-poor-poll-20120918-264ta.html

Ah, remember that famous Coalition unity that Abbott had created that no-one had thought possible and that indicated what a great Leader he was. Guess what? One (1) 50-50 Newspoll and hey presto, it doesn't exist.
If perchance Abbott were to win government with a commanding (or better) majority, I wonde whether the work would magically reappear.

Desmond
19-09-2012, 11:37 AM
A worker dies every week in the housing/construction industry, each death a tragedy unremarked in the media. Chairman Murdoch's The Australian, after the first three deaths during the Home Insulation Program, named Kevin Rudd as Australian of the Year for steering us out of the GFC. It was after the fourth (and final) death that The Oz changed tack and the Murdoch press turned against the stimulus package. The rest is media-distorted history (http://inside.org.au/a-mess-a-shambles-a-disaster/).
Interesting article, thanks for the link.

Capablanca-Fan
19-09-2012, 12:34 PM
A worker dies every week in the housing/construction industry, each death a tragedy unremarked in the media. Chairman Murdoch's The Australian, after the first three deaths during the Home Insulation Program, named Kevin Rudd as Australian of the Year for steering us out of the GFC.
Really? Was it worth turning Howard's surplus into huge debts? It's amazing how recessions under Coolidge and Reagan, and all those before Coolidge, managed to get right all by themselves. For example, Burt Folsom writes (http://www.burtfolsom.com/?p=365):

In fact, Harding and Coolidge argued that the proper antidote to the 11.7% unemployment was tax cuts and reduced federal spending. When those two reforms were enacted, the 1920s gave us budget surpluses each year and a top tax rate of only 25%. The result was massive entrepreneurship, including inventions from Kleenex to scotch tape, sliced bread to the zipper. Radio was the biggest of them all. Unemployment dropped quickly and was only 2% in 1923.

How to confront 11.7% unemployment. Learn from Presidents Harding and Coolidge. The principles they applied will work today as well.

But that wouldn't benefit leftist narcissists like KRudd because then they couldn't take credit. But Coolidge said:

Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration has been minding my own business.

Ian Murray
19-09-2012, 02:19 PM
Interesting article, thanks for the link.
www.inside.org.au is one of two local sites I find valuable for informed opinion on all sorts of issues. The other is www.theconversation.edu.au Sign up for their newsletters.

Kevin Bonham
19-09-2012, 06:52 PM
If perchance Abbott were to win government with a commanding (or better) majority, I wonde whether the work would magically reappear.

Probably not. Large majorities are usually ill-disciplined rabbles. A majority of, say, five would be a better test.

Capablanca-Fan
20-09-2012, 11:58 AM
Less than a week since Muslims rioted in Sydney and murdered an American ambassador in Libya, Abbott says last night:


"I used to believe multiculturalism could lead us a nation of tribes. But I was wrong."

Abbott is becoming useless. He has caved on abortion, workchoices, socialism, homosexuality, paid maternity leave, and now multiculturalism.

The real Abbott might have been abducted by aliens, who removed about 75% of his brain so he now talks and acts like a leftard.

Ian Murray
20-09-2012, 01:50 PM
Really? Was it worth turning Howard's surplus into huge debts?
Fiscal stimuli were adopted worldwide to cushion the effects of the banking sector meltdown during the GFC. Australia emerged with the lowest national debt of all developed countries, expressed as a percentage of GDP (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html). Otherwise the global prospects were:-
- bank collapses
- public runs on bank deposits
- surviving banks unable to attract deposits so unable to make loans
- business unable to fund running costs with overdrafts or to borrow development and expansion costs
- business bankruptcies
- labour layoffs and rising unemployment
- reduced household savings and expenditure
- all spiralling down into recession and possible depression

The only agencies capable of counter-action were governments. The Australian government immediately guaranteed bank deposits, then fast-tracked stimulus packages to keep the economy ticking, including infrastructure construction and long-term energy savings with home insulation. Not all smooth sailing, but we avoided the squillion-dollar bailouts like Citigroup, AIG, GM and Chrysler.


It's amazing how recessions under Coolidge and Reagan, and all those before Coolidge, managed to get right all by themselves.
Get right? The lead-up to the Great Depression (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Causes.htm) occurred under Republican presidents:

The Roaring Twenties were an era dominated by Republican presidents: Warren Harding (1920-1923), Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929) and Herbert Hoover (1929-1933). Under their conservative economic philosophy of laissez-faire ("leave it alone"), markets were allowed to operate without government interference. Taxes and regulation were slashed dramatically, monopolies were allowed to form, and inequality of wealth and income reached record levels. The country was on the conservative's preferred gold standard, and the Federal Reserve was not allowed to significantly change the money supply.

The fact that the Great Depression began in 1929, then, on the Republicans' watch, is a great embarrassment to conservative economists. Many try to blame the worsening of the Depression on Hoover, for supposedly betraying the laissez-faire ideology. ... however, almost all of Hoover's government action occurred during his last year in office, long after the worst of the Depression had hit. In fact, he was voted out of office for doing "too little too late." ...

But much more importantly, the economy was clearly turning downward even before Hoover took office in 1929. Entire sectors of the economy were depressed throughout the decade, like agriculture, energy and mining. Even the two industries with the most spectacular growth - construction and automobile manufacturing - were contracting in the year before the stock market crash of 1929. About 600 banks a year were failing. Half the American people lived at or below the minimum subsistence level. By the time the stock market crashed, there was a major glut of goods on the market, with inventories three times their normal size.

The fact that all this occurred even before the first act of government intervention is a major refutation of laissez-faire ideology.

As for Reaganomics (http://useconomy.about.com/od/Politics/p/President-Ronald-Reagan-Economic-Policies.htm):

Bank regulations were eased. In 1982, the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act was passed, which removed restrictions on loan-to-value ratios for Savings and Loan banks. Reagan's budget cut also reduced regulatory staff at the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. As a result, banks invested in risky real estate ventures (sound familiar?). Reagan's deregulation and budget cutting contributed to the Savings and Loan crisis of 1989.

Import barriers were actually increased, as Reagan doubled the number of items that were subject to trade restraint from 12% in 1980 to 23% in 1988. Little was done in other regulations affecting health, safety, and the environment. In fact, although Reagan reduced regulations, it was at a slower pace than under Carter.

Despite campaigning on a reduced role for government, Reagan wasn't as successful as he was at tax cuts. During his first year, he cut domestic programs by $39 billion. However, he increased defense spending to achieve "peace through strength" in his opposition to Communism and the Soviet Union. He was successful in ending the Cold War, with the famous quote "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." However, to accomplish these goals, Reagan wound up increasing the defense budget by 35%.

Reagan did not reduce other government programs. He expanded Medicare, and increased the payroll tax to insure the solvency of Social Security. Under Reagan, government spending increased 2.5% annually. By the end of Reagan's two terms, the national debt had more than doubled.

Capablanca-Fan
20-09-2012, 02:33 PM
Fiscal stimuli were adopted worldwide to cushion the effects of the banking sector meltdown during the GFC. Australia emerged with the lowest national debt of all developed countries,
Of course, thanks to the surpluses that the Howard government left, they had the best starting point!


The only agencies capable of counter-action were governments.
Your faith in big government is so touching. As I've shown, previous American recessions righted themselves without government "stimuli", showing that a free market is capable of better counter-action. The American one did not succeed in reducing unemployment as Obamov promised, but accumulated more debt. Similarly, during the Depression, (http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=347) Treasury Secretary Henry J. Morgenthau Jr., one of Franklin Roosevelt's best friends, testified before the House Ways and Means Committee: “I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot.” When he spoke, unemployment exceeded 20 percent.


Get right? The lead-up to the Great Depression (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Causes.htm) occurred under Republican presidents:
[INDENT]The Roaring Twenties were an era dominated by Republican presidents: Warren Harding (1920-1923), Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929) and Herbert Hoover (1929-1933). Under their conservative economic philosophy of laissez-faire ("leave it alone"), markets were allowed to operate without government interference.
The first two really were laissez faire, and as documented, their reduction of tax rates and spending led to very low unemployment, reduction in national debt, and a time of great innovation. And that's despite coming out of war, huge tax rates, and higher unemployment than now.

But Hoover was anything but laissez faire, as documented in as shown in Hoover and FDR: big government Presidents who prolonged the Depression (http://patriotupdate.com/articles/hoover-and-fdr-big-government-presidents-who-prolonged-the-depression), after the stockmarket crashed, he instituted what would now be called stimulus spending. Then he signed the disastrous protectionist Smoot–Hawley tariff bill, although 1,028 economists begged him not to. It was only after this that unemployment passed 10%. Then he raised the top tax rate from 24% to 63%.

After FDR campaigned against Hoover for his socialism, his New Deal was basically Hoover on Steroids, as economic historian Burt Folsom put it (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/our-economic-past/comparing-the-great-depression-to-the-great-recession/). New Dealer Rexford Tugwell later commented (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/goldengate/sfeature/sf_30s.html), “practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.”


The fact that all this occurred even before the first act of government intervention is a major refutation of laissez-faire ideology.
Garbage source. They can't get around the fact that FDR never got America out of the Depression, but rather made the Depression as Great as it was.

Thomas Sowell's review (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell100903.asp) of Jim Powell's book FDR’s Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=fdr%27s+folly&x=0&y=0) says it:


“spells out just what the Roosevelt administration did and what consequences followed. It tried to raise farm prices by destroying vast amounts of produce—at a time when hunger was a serious problem in the United States. It imposed minimum wage rates that priced unskilled labor out of jobs, at a time of massive unemployment.”


As for Reaganomics (http://useconomy.about.com/od/Politics/p/President-Ronald-Reagan-Economic-Policies.htm):
[INDENT]Bank regulations were eased. In 1982, the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act was passed, which removed restrictions on loan-to-value ratios for Savings and Loan banks. Reagan's budget cut also reduced regulatory staff at the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. As a result, banks invested in risky real estate ventures (sound familiar?). Reagan's deregulation and budget cutting contributed to the Savings and Loan crisis of 1989.
Utter crap. It was the Carter/Clinton Community Reinvestment act that forced banks to make risky loans to meet their affirmative action quotas, and Dems covering up Fannie and Freddie who donated big to Obamov and other Dems:
Lr1M1T2Y314&feature=relatedNQXbT5ZMYaY


Import barriers were actually increased, as Reagan doubled the number of items that were subject to trade restraint from 12% in 1980 to 23% in 1988.
If true, that is bad.


Despite campaigning on a reduced role for government, Reagan wasn't as successful as he was at tax cuts. During his first year, he cut domestic programs by $39 billion. However, he increased defense spending to achieve "peace through strength" in his opposition to Communism and the Soviet Union. He was successful in ending the Cold War, with the famous quote "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." However, to accomplish these goals, Reagan wound up increasing the defense budget by 35%.
So Clinton benefited from the "Peace dividend".


Reagan did not reduce other government programs. He expanded Medicare, and increased the payroll tax to insure the solvency of Social Security. Under Reagan, government spending increased 2.5% annually. By the end of Reagan's two terms, the national debt had more than doubled.
Reagan was opposed by a Democrat congress. Clinton did well only with a Republican congress which under Gingrich had cojones to present a balanced budget and welfare reform for Clinton to sign.

Ian Murray
20-09-2012, 08:44 PM
...The first two really were laissez faire, and as documented, their reduction of tax rates and spending led to...
the Great Depression

Utter crap. It was the Carter/Clinton Community Reinvestment act that forced banks to make risky loans
No it wasn't (http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html):

Fresh off the false and politicized attack on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, today we’re hearing the know-nothings blame the subprime crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act — a 30-year-old law that was actually weakened by the Bush administration just as the worst lending wave began. This is even more ridiculous than blaming Freddie and Fannie.

The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.” ...

The CRA was at its strongest in the 1990s, under the Clinton administration, a period when subprime loans performed quite well. It was only after the Bush administration cut back on CRA enforcement that problems arose, a timing issue which should stop those blaming the law dead in their tracks. The Federal Reserve, too, did nothing but encourage the wild west of lending in recent years. It wasn’t until the middle of 2007 that the Fed decided it was time to crack down on abusive pratices in the subprime lending market. Oops.

Better targets for blame in government circles might be the 2000 law which ensured that credit default swaps would remain unregulated, the SEC’s puzzling 2004 decision to allow the largest brokerage firms to borrow upwards of 30 times their capital and that same agency’s failure to oversee those brokerage firms in subsequent years as many gorged on subprime debt.

Capablanca-Fan
20-09-2012, 10:41 PM
the Great Depression
Rubbish. As documented, it led to the huge explosion in prosperity, employment, and slashing of national debt known as the Roaring 20s. The Depression really started, in the sense of skyrocketing unemployment, with the big interventions of Hoover especially passing the huge protectionist Smoot–Hawley tariff act.


No it wasn't (http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html):
Comments on that article:


Dana Reed Thurston
September 30, 2008 9:18 AM
Cpmpletely disingenuous and politiaclly coloured view of the CRA and the havoc it wrought. One the ball got rolling with CRA supervised banks making bad loans with no repurcussions and a way to bundle those bad loans up for sale so that they had more money to loan, the Ponzi scheme began in earnest. If people watch while banks do something that is completely against logic yet still works, they are going to go mad for it. And as with all good Ponzi schemes, the money keeps getting pumped into the scheme until no more takers can be found or the participants realise that the upper floors of the scheme are being constructed with material scavenged from the ground floors.

The CRA forced banks to reinvest in the poorer areas where they were taking deposits. The CRA made the loans. The world didn't end. But eventually the cracks showed in the dam but those cracks were covered over instead of repaired.

If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were so sound, how did they collapse I ask?


Robert NYC
September 30, 2008 10:09 AM
check your facts. The CRA tweak of 1995 made sub prime mortgages able to be collateralized. This Clinton initiative allowed firms outside fannie and freddie to issue the sub-prime crappy paper and then sell IT OFF THEIR BOOKS. This ability to pass it on resulted in A LOT more sub prime paper. Without the demand for the sub prime paper that was created by the CRA revision in 1995 private lenders would have issued very little of it as they would have had to keep it on their own books.

Demand for sub-prime was created by the CRA.


GG
September 30, 2008 10:30 AM
Surely you joke? Subprime lending along with CRA, overbuilding of McHouses that ppl didn't need (2500sq ft for family of 3 or 4?) - Bill S-190 to try to regulate Fannie and Freddie that was blocked by the Dems? Chris Dodd, Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines, all getting sweetheart deals - along with Obama and the Fannie Mae Contribution 4 times more for Obama.

All MAIN STREETS lead to Wall Street - all monies were stolen by dirty-handed lawyers and their buddies. Most are Democrats and I'm tired of their underhanded lies.
Opensecrets.org should be a starting point for Americans seeking truth.


Chuck Cardiff
September 30, 2008 10:01 AM
"The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's mortgage policies fueled the trend towards issuing risky loans. In 1995, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began receiving affordable housing credit for purchasing mortgage bank securities which included loans to low income borrowers. This resulted in the agencies purchasing subprime securities. Subprime mortgage loan originations surged by a whopping 25 percent per year between 1994 and 2003, resulting in a nearly ten-fold increase in the volume of these loans in just nine years. As of November 2007 Fannie Mae a held a total of $55.9 billion of subprime securities and $324.7 billion of Alt-A securities in their portfolios. As of the 2008Q2 Freddie Mac had $190 billion in Alt-A mortgages. Together they have more than half of the $1 trillion of Alt-A mortgages.[82] The growth in the subprime mortgage market, which included B, C and D paper bought by private investors such as hedge funds, fed a housing bubble that later burst."

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/06/10/GR2008061000059.html

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#Government_Policies

Note this was all related to Mr. Clinton's ingenious changes to the CRA in 1995.

I suggest Mr. Pressman try doing a little research before he writes.

Mrs Jono
21-09-2012, 04:45 AM
Community Reinvestment Act

Business Insider (http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-06-27/wall_street/30009234_1_mortgage-standards-lending-standards-mortgage-rates): 'Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending'


Earlier this week I noted that I had changed my mind on the Community Reinvestment Act.

Contrary to my initial conclusion, the evidence is overwhelming that the CRA played a significant role in creating lax lending standards that fueled the housing bubble. Once I realized this, I had to abandon my suspicion that the anti-CRA case was a figment of the rhetoric of Republicans attempting to distract attention from their own role in the mortgage mess.

So I laid out the facts and arguments that had convinced me to switch sides in the CRA debate.

...

Let's begin:

How could a piece of 1977 legislation be significant to the deterioration of mortgage standards 25 years later?
The CRA was not a static piece of legislation. It evolved over the years from a relatively hands-off law focused on process into one that focused on outcomes. Regulators, beginning in the mid-nineties, began to hold banks accountable in serious ways. Banks responded to this new accountability by increasing the CRA loans they made, a move that entailed relaxing their lending standards.

...

Wait a minute! Paul Krugman told me the CRA was relaxed during the Bush administration. What about that bit of evolution, buster?
It’s true that the CRA requirements were relaxed during the Bush administration. But at this point the lax lending standards were already in place. In any case, the relaxation took a peculiar form that actually made CRA lending more important rather than less. You see, the government let banks drop things like putting in ATMs in rural areas in favor of letting their compliance be judged entirely on CRA loans. This means the CRA had more of an influence on home lending after the requirements were relaxed, not less.

What's more, George W. Bush was a major proponent of the kind of mortgages that banks had started making under the CRA. He urged low-to-no doc mortgages and the elimination of downpayments, just like the CRA regulators had long done. “We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home,” the President said in a 2002 speech. “We can change the print, and we've got to.”

...

I thought you said CRA loans caused this crisis.
Nope. It isn’t losses from CRA loans that drove the crisis (although they are disproportionately responsible for losses at some banks). Instead, the CRA required lax lending standards that spread to the rest of the mortgage market. That fueled the mortgage boom and bust.

The entire article (4 pages) is worth the read, but those were the relevant parts.

Kevin Bonham
02-10-2012, 11:39 PM
A little bit of pseph stuff some people might find interesting.

A recent Pollytics article (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2012/09/29/the-primary-dynamic/) pointed out that:

1. There is a strong relationship between the net approval rating of the PM and the Government's 2-party-preferred score

2. This has been even stronger under Rudd and Gillard than before.

3. It is predictive in a way that looks causal - if the PM has good ratings then that causes their government to be liked - not the other way around.

4. For Opposition Leaders, there is next to no relationship between their approval rating and their party's polling.

This is his graph for Prime Ministers:

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/files/2012/09/netsatsvote.png

and this is his graph for Opposition Leaders:

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/files/2012/09/oppnetsattpp.png

(His comment: "A drunk bloke shooting paintballs on a chart comes to mind with that particular graphic.")

But I think the one for Opposition Leaders is distorted by two things - firstly, the high net satisfaction ratings received by new Opposition Leaders (who usually take over when their party is polling badly) and secondly, the Abbott Factor. The reason new leaders tend to have high net ratings is that there are a lot of undecided voters, who are more likely to dislike them than like them later.

Removing all cases where the "undecided" rating for an Opposition Leader is 20 or greater, this is what the relationship for leaders prior to Abbott looks like (2PP horizontal, netsat vertical).

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/therealsleepycat/nonabbottnetsats.png

And this is the same graph for Abbott, which slopes in the opposite direction:

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/therealsleepycat/abbottnetsats.png

So far, the less popular Abbott has been, the better his party's ratings - but it's not clear this is directly causal.

My interpretation of this data (plus some causality tests, such as they are) is that when Gillard does unpopular things, this encourages Abbott to go on the attack, but his method of attack is such that while some mud sticks to Gillard, further damaging Labor's ratings, much of it sticks to Abbott dragging him down further.

Whether he can even recover when Gillard is not so much on the nose is what we may now discover. That lonely little triangle at (50,-30) is the last Newspoll, though other polls suggest the 50 should probably have been 51-52.

Kevin Bonham
08-10-2012, 09:35 PM
Much better Newspoll for the Coalition this time, 54-46 with Abbott's netsat up to -22.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-10-2012, 04:31 PM
Contrary to my initial conclusion, the evidence is overwhelming that the CRA played a significant role in creating lax lending standards that fueled the housing bubble.
Underwriting of the loans by FNMA and FHLMC was a carrot,
CRA was a stick.
Artificially low interest rates didn't help either.
I'd say the first one is the main reason for GFC with CRA being the second largest contributor to the problem.

Kevin Bonham
09-10-2012, 10:29 PM
Abbott is denying that he was intentionally echoing Alan Jones. If he is telling the truth then it is a pretty amazing gaffe in the circumstances.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-10-2012, 10:46 PM
Really? Was it worth turning Howard's surplus into huge debts?
Of course! How else could Labor promise and even try to take credit for "returning to surplus three years earlier".
They should've promised budget deficit for three more years, then claim "returning to surplus six(!) years earlier". That would be quite an accomplishment.

Ian Murray
10-10-2012, 08:35 AM
Abbott is denying that he was intentionally echoing Alan Jones. If he is telling the truth then it is a pretty amazing gaffe in the circumstances.
If he says so then it must be true :whistle:

Rincewind
10-10-2012, 09:43 AM
Abbott is denying that he was intentionally echoing Alan Jones. If he is telling the truth then it is a pretty amazing gaffe in the circumstances.

It does stretch credulity but may be true as politicians say some pretty crazy things at times. It reminds me of the insensitive comment that was the final nail in the coffin of Downer's opposition leadership. However I'm sure Abbott has more than enough support for such gaffes not to be terminal.

Desmond
10-10-2012, 09:59 AM
I think he's probably telling the truth.

Kevin Bonham
10-10-2012, 06:56 PM
I think he's probably telling the truth.

It's been shown that he uses the expression regularly and he's said he just forgot about the Alan Jones thing, which seems quite extraordinary given it is such a major story.

My question is then this: suppose he's unintentionally exacerbated the offense caused by Alan Jones'remarks by repeating them. It's his fault he didn't pay more attention, so why not apologise just for repeating the Jones wording (but not for the underlying sentiment), instead of trivialising the response as "the political correctness police are on a rampage"?

Abbott seems to have a naughty-schoolboy mentality such that no matter what he does he is never truly sorry

Rincewind
10-10-2012, 07:41 PM
It's been shown that he uses the expression regularly

It could actually be a goes-around comes-around thing. Alan Jones mimicking Abbott and then Abbot mistaken for echoing Jones. :lol:

Agent Smith
13-10-2012, 06:43 PM
Abbott is denying that he was intentionally echoing Alan Jones. If he is telling the truth then it is a pretty amazing gaffe in the circumstances.
I saw a bit of the action on youtube. Seems blatantly deliberate to me.
Of course he'd deny it. That means nothing.

Basil
13-10-2012, 07:01 PM
I saw a bit of the action on youtube. Seems blatantly deliberate to me.
Of course he'd deny it. That means nothing.
Did you factor into your conclusion that he's got form for using the phrase regularly?

pax
13-10-2012, 08:59 PM
Did you factor into your conclusion that he's got form for using the phrase regularly?
I don't think even Abbott is so stupid as to do that deliberately.

Agent Smith
13-10-2012, 09:50 PM
I've seen plenty of shit stirring prats in my time. The gleem in their eye is unmistakeable, laugh.

And apart from seeing it for myself, give Abbott credit for knowing what he's doing - all so innocently prying open hurtful wounds. And it worked - he really got Julia out of her comfort zone.... It's his job as leader of the conservative opposition to undermine the PM any way he can.

Anyway, thats what i reckon.

Agent Smith
14-10-2012, 07:58 AM
Waterstreet (who's a lawyer, not a political columnist really) reckons JG won the tussle, but i'm not so sure.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/gillard-brought-down-the-house-20121013-27jmn.html