PDA

View Full Version : Who should lead the Liberals (into the wilderness?)



Kevin Bonham
25-11-2007, 03:37 PM
Howard has lost his seat and Costello isn't interested (and looks like he will soon throw in the towel for good). Who shall be the king of nothing?

(I've made it a public poll but if anyone wants to vote a bit more privately, PM me your vote and I'll edit the total.)

Desmond
25-11-2007, 04:03 PM
Hasn't the country been waiting years for the Abbott & Costello duo? Ripped off!

Basil
25-11-2007, 04:56 PM
My name doesn't appear to be on the list. An oversight, I'm sure.

Axiom
25-11-2007, 05:50 PM
Hasn't the country been waiting years for the Abbott & Costello duo? Ripped off!
perhaps just a too transparent reflection of the comedy capers ? :)

Desmond
25-11-2007, 06:02 PM
Turnbull is already 55. Too old maybe?

Capablanca-Fan
25-11-2007, 06:07 PM
My name doesn't appear to be on the list. An oversight, I'm sure.
When are you going to stand for office? Libs need fresh blood.

Capablanca-Fan
25-11-2007, 06:07 PM
Turnbull is already 55. Too old maybe?
And even more me-too to Labor than Rudd was to Howard.

Bill Gletsos
25-11-2007, 06:10 PM
Turnbull is already 55. Too old maybe?Turnbull is 53, Rudd is 50.

Not much difference really.

Aaron Guthrie
25-11-2007, 06:10 PM
When are you going to stand for office? Libs need fresh blood.So they are vampires!

Desmond
25-11-2007, 06:19 PM
Turnbull is 53, Rudd is 50.Ok thanks for the correction.


Not much difference really.The difference is that Rudd becomes PM at 50, and Turnbull won't really have a shot for, what? 6 years? Making him 59.

Axiom
25-11-2007, 06:37 PM
And even more me-too to Labor than Rudd was to Howard.
The closer and longer the 2 major parties become perceptibly indistinguishable, the greater the strength attributed to a "3rd" party.
If country town Australia is to follow the USA , then we await Australia's libertarian messiah , our very own Ron Paul.

Kevin Bonham
25-11-2007, 07:25 PM
Robb added to poll. I wasn't going to bother but apparently he has nominated. [EDIT: incorrect, the reports I saw turned out not to be true.]

Hockey and Ruddock added for comedy value. :lol:

Goughfather
25-11-2007, 07:59 PM
If Abbott runs against Turnbull, I would suggest he has the numbers. For the sake of the Coalition, he should have the good sense not to throw his hat into the ring. However, if he does, I believe his leadership will be an unmitigated disaster and there will be a leadership spill in two year's time.

Nelson never struck me as someone ambitious enough to be party leader, but I'm told that he has strong factional support, so he could be somewhat of a dark horse.

If either Turnbull or Nelson become leader, I would expect that the Coalition will move further to the left on social issues in the same way that Labor has moved to the right on economic policy. This may be problematic in itself, considering the militancy and influence of the NSW Right in the Liberal Party. I don't think it would be beyond them to cut off their nose to spite their face in the manner that they did to oust a very electable Brogden for a very unelectable Debnam. Thus, I believe that the biggest challenge over the next three years or so for the Coalition will not be recapturing the support of the electorate, but preventing themselves from imploding and subjecting themselves to an extended period in the wilderness. If they can rebuild, stay united and pick the right horse, I believe that the next election is very winnable, contrary to the rhetoric about the electorate being unwilling to vote out a first term government.

eclectic
25-11-2007, 08:21 PM
I'm going to be tongue in cheek and nominate Wilson Iron Bar Tuckey as a caretaker opposition leader. :P

Kevin Bonham
25-11-2007, 08:50 PM
If Abbott runs against Turnbull, I would suggest he has the numbers. For the sake of the Coalition, he should have the good sense not to throw his hat into the ring. However, if he does, I believe his leadership will be an unmitigated disaster and there will be a leadership spill in two year's time.

Totally agree with this. The only thing that might be more disastrous than making Abbott leader would be to put Downer back again.


If they can rebuild, stay united and pick the right horse, I believe that the next election is very winnable, contrary to the rhetoric about the electorate being unwilling to vote out a first term government.

Yes. Although you have to go back to Scullin to find a government voted out after its first term, some first-term governments have still been seriously challenged at their first election. Whitlam (1974) won by only five seats in a double dissolution which he forced to clean out the Senate (it failed, but at least he got the joint sitting afterwards), and Howard himself (1998) lost the 2PP vote and was only seven seats away from losing office,

I addressed this issue in a piece I published about six months ago, in which I wrote:

Much the same exaggeration problem applies to the interpretation of election results. It’s often thought that victory under particular circumstances destroys the opposition’s ability to recover, guaranteeing a walkover win in the next election and probably the one after that. Sometimes this is true, but usually it is not, and all the losing party needs to do to be competitive is to work out what it did wrong last time, and make sure it doesn’t do anything like it again.

Indeed many commentators said Labor could not win in 2007 after they lost in 2004.

Goughfather
25-11-2007, 09:40 PM
Yes. Although you have to go back to Scullin to find a government voted out after its first term, some first-term governments have still been seriously challenged at their first election. Whitlam (1974) won by only five seats in a double dissolution which he forced to clean out the Senate (it failed, but at least he got the joint sitting afterwards), and Howard himself (1998) lost the 2PP vote and was only seven seats away from losing office,

Exactly. What a lot of commentators don't seem to mention is that the size of the majority enjoyed by first-term governments has generally been so great that it has become almost impossible for them to lose office in one term:

In 1996, Howard held a 39 seat majority in a house that included 5 independents.

In 1983, Hawke held a 25 seat majority in a 125 seat house.

In 1975, Fraser held a 55 seat majority.

In 1949, Menzies held a 27 seat majority in a 121 seat house.

In 1943, Curtin held a 25 seat majority in a 74 seat house (Note that Curtin governed from 1941 with the assistance of independents, but only won his first election in 1943).

I would suggest that the party system in the pre-WWII is so different that it is not possible to make meaningful comparisons with the post-WWII era.

The only exception to this rule was in 1972 when Whitlam gained power with a 9 seat majority. He was voted out in 1975, after the 1974 double dissolution election. I think it would be quite reasonable to treat these results as an anomaly, considering the unique circumstances of 1974 and 1975.

The Labor government should have a 22 seat majority, giving them the smallest majority for any first-government in the post-WWII era. Given the uncharacteristic swings in seats such as Dawson (15 or so percent) and the potential for some correction to occur in the next election, winning 13 seats in 2010 is a very achievable task for the Coalition.

Kevin Bonham
25-11-2007, 09:53 PM
The Labor government should have a 22 seat majority, giving them the smallest majority for any first-government in the post-WWII era. Given the uncharacteristic swings in seats such as Dawson (15 or so percent) and the potential for some correction to occur in the next election, winning 13 seats in 2010 is a very achievable task for the Coalition.

There is a demographic change issue in Dawson that was mentioned several times that may be bumping up the swing. Also, Labor's 2PP in Queensland is its highest ever, but it's still not that high, and some of the big swings seen are simply reversing big swings from past elections (eg Macarthur).

I think the challenge for them is to work out why state Liberal parties in Australia are all so uncompetitive, and make sure they can find a way to not fall into the same situation. That will be a very serious challenge indeed.

Southpaw Jim
25-11-2007, 10:00 PM
I voted for Abbott, to help Labor secure an increased majority in 2010 :lol:

Desmond
25-11-2007, 10:01 PM
Also, Labor's 2PP in Queensland is its highest ever, but it's still not that high, Beattie stood on a lot of toes this year with the forced merger of many local councils. If not for that, the ALP's Qld result might well have been even better.

Basil
25-11-2007, 10:10 PM
Beattie stood on a lot of toes this year with the forced merger of many local councils. If not for that, the ALP's Qld result might well have been even better.
I don't think state issues touched the sides on this one, Brian.

Desmond
25-11-2007, 10:23 PM
I don't think state issues touched the sides on this one, Brian.Really? I know people in Redcliffe who are more than slightly peeved that their council is merging with other less prosperous ones.

Basil
25-11-2007, 10:29 PM
Sure. I'm not saying that state issues didn't have some traction, but pound for pound in this election, it was a relatively minor consideration IMO.

For interstate observers, Brian's comment regarding council mergers was in fact driven by Qld state government policy.

Capablanca-Fan
25-11-2007, 10:36 PM
I think the challenge for them is to work out why state Liberal parties in Australia are all so uncompetitive, and make sure they can find a way to not fall into the same situation. That will be a very serious challenge indeed.
In Vic, they are trying to be Labor Lite. There are far too many similarities between Baillieu and Turnbull that the Feds should note.

In QLD, there is too much bickering between the Libs and the Nats.

In WA, the Libs would probably have won if their leader had kept his gob shut instead of making wild promises.

In NSW, they had stupid leaders.

Desmond
25-11-2007, 10:44 PM
In QLD, there is too much bickering between the Libs and the Nats.Correct. I wanted to vote for the coalition in the last 2 state elections, but they are such a bunch of in-fighting clowns I could not bring myself to do so. Beattie has done so much that deserved his head on the chopping block, but he just kept getting away with it because there was no meaningful alternative.

CameronD
25-11-2007, 11:07 PM
Lets count the beattie problems...

- hospitals (generally)
- hospitals (doctor death - how long ago did that start)
- forced council mergers (include the stunts they he did about council referendums)

- water (did nothing for long time, are they really doing anything now)
- petrol subsidy ripoff (8c/litre)
- extreme arrogence
- traffic

I'm sure I've forgotten many more over time



note - I'm a swinging voter.

qpawn
26-11-2007, 12:00 AM
Ruddock is THE man!

Why?

Because as a personality-deprived robot with the sex appeal of cactus he will be Libera; opposition leader for a long, long time, and that suits me fine! :evil:

So I say go Ruddock! His clear asset is that he could use a dustbin to fill in for him and nobody would notice any difference.

Capablanca-Fan
26-11-2007, 12:04 AM
I voted for Abbott, to help Labor secure an increased majority in 2010 :lol:
No matter what your political preference, you should prefer a decent opposition to keep your own lot on their toes.

Spiny Norman
26-11-2007, 06:50 AM
If Abbott is elected leader, I'll probably resign my membership. The man is a walking, talking, political disaster.

Turnbull has excellent financial credentials, having been MD of Goldman Sachs in Australia. He should probably have a stint as shadow treasurer (he'd run rings around Wayne Swan).

Tony Smith (not in your list) should get a run in shadow cabinet now. He's been parliamentary secretary to John Howard for the last few years, which is an excellent position from which to view much of the action.

Peter Costello was right to announce is non-candidacy. The public would never have voted for him.

Perhaps Brendan Nelson as leader. I'm really not sure.

Southpaw Jim
26-11-2007, 07:41 AM
Jono: indeed.


Turnbull has excellent financial credentials, having been MD of Goldman Sachs in Australia. He should probably have a stint as shadow treasurer (he'd run rings around Wayne Swan).
Hardly, Swan is a PhD economist, who now has the support of the Treasury to help him. Turnbull's not exactly a scintillating public performer either - his Parliamentary response to questions on the APEC coup-that-wasn't is a case in point, and in any tv interview he comes off as dithery and unconfident. I'm not doubting his smarts, but debater of the year he ain't..


Peter Costello was right to announce is non-candidacy. The public would never have voted for him.
Plus, he's smart enough to know what's coming in the next session of Parliament, and wants no part of it. Howard's supporters will be copping that particular bollocksing. Expect blood to flow, it isn't going to be pretty...


Perhaps Brendan Nelson as leader. I'm really not sure.
Hmm, not sure here. Should the Libs be going for a 1-term strategy? I think they're better off putting a sacrificial lamb up first (Downer, Robb, Abbott, Ruddock) and then getting one of the young(er) guns in the hot seat before the 2013 election. I suspect that if they go the 1-term strategy, they'll be wasting the talent of whoever takes it on. I think the best candidates for the 2013 election would be Turnbull, Nelson, Brough (if he can get back in in 2010), or maybe Julie Bishop.

I have grave doubts whether the Libs will have recovered enough psychologically to win 2010, after such a shocking loss. Welcome to the Wilderness, next exit 2013..

qpawn
26-11-2007, 10:07 AM
If I put my own political views to one side and resist my facetiousness, I think that there is only one choice for opposition leader: Turnbull. His debate against Garratt was surely the best of all the ones at the press club. Turnbull is alos progress-orientated about the republic. Wjat I am unsuure about is if his role ab0out the pulp mill is a good thing for his political cut-through.

That being said, I don't think that anyone cal win for the Liberals next time; to lose your PM is like going back 80 squares in snakes & LADDERS.

Capablanca-Fan
26-11-2007, 10:52 AM
If Abbott is elected leader, I'll probably resign my membership. The man is a walking, talking, political disaster.
Abbott at least is a decent man.


Turnbull has excellent financial credentials, having been MD of Goldman Sachs in Australia. He should probably have a stint as shadow treasurer (he'd run rings around Wayne Swan).
Turnbull is too much like Ted Baillieu, a limousine leftist, and he would likely be just as crappy as a leader. Chairman Rudd seems better than President Turnbull, although this doesn't take into account their allies.


Peter Costello was right to announce is non-candidacy. The public would never have voted for him.
Kennett just blasted him for quitting, the hypocrite!

Capablanca-Fan
26-11-2007, 10:59 AM
Hardly, Swan is a PhD economist, who now has the support of the Treasury to help him.
Then I hope he acts like an economist, rather than spout that "We're a society not an economy" crap (translation: we will confiscate money from the productive to give to our politically favoured groups, for the good of society of course).


Turnbull's not exactly a scintillating public performer either - his Parliamentary response to questions on the APEC coup-that-wasn't is a case in point, and in any tv interview he comes off as dithery and unconfident. I'm not doubting his smarts, but debater of the year he ain't..
And he is too much of a greenie, wanting to ban incandescent lightbulbs. But at least he favours privatization of water. And his thoroughgoing arrogance won't help, e.g. blaming Howard for breaking Australia's heart, but unreality he despises ordinary Australia for not voting the way that he and other elites wanted on the Republic.


Brough (if he can get back in in 2010),
For sure: he wanted to help aboriginal children in practical ways, rather than with symbolic gestures and funding the never-ending grievance gravy train that doesn't help most of the people.


or maybe Julie Bishop.
She stood up to the politically correct christophobia in the hospitals and educracy, so she has some class.

Watto
26-11-2007, 11:03 AM
Kennett just blasted him for quitting, the hypocrite!
Why is it hypocritical of Kennett to blast Costello for quitting? He served as leader in opposition and in government. What are you referring to?

pax
26-11-2007, 11:20 AM
No matter what your political preference, you should prefer a decent opposition to keep your own lot on their toes.

This is true. And I think it's a real shame Costello has thrown in the towel - he would have been a formidable opposition leader. It is hard to see any of the alternatives coming close.

I actually quite like Joe Hockey, but I don't think he would cut through - he's more likely a Deputy. Abbott would clearly be a disaster. Turnbull, or possibly Nelson are the only ones I could see putting up a decent fight. And I have the feeling that Turnbull might not have enough support, judging by some injudicious leaks that came from him in the campaign.

pax
26-11-2007, 11:22 AM
Abbott at least is a decent man.

Maybe, but he is a pretty undisciplined politician. It would be Gaffe Central with Abbott in charge.

Basil
26-11-2007, 11:46 AM
Costello served six years in opposition.

Costello made his current position quite clear in his press conference yesterday.

Costello presented his credentials and candidacy to the party last year. It appears he had been waiting a while and might have been promised the job earlier - we'll never know - and frankly I don't care.

He made no secret of his position. He said it was time for generational change. He said he believed he was the man for the job. And the time was now.

The party said no thanks. Not now. Not you. Costello said 'OK' and continued to be an excellent party guy.

The race is run and won. Costello's done his best and now he's off. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Garvinator
26-11-2007, 12:11 PM
translation: we will confiscate money from the productive to give to our politically favoured groups, for the good of society of course Don't all political parties do this across the world, not just the ALP ;) I thought it was just standard fare :lol:


And he is too much of a greenie, wanting to ban incandescent lightbulbs. Watch it :P

Capablanca-Fan
26-11-2007, 12:16 PM
Why is it hypocritical of Kennett to blast Costello for quitting? He served as leader in opposition and in government. What are you referring to?
He quit after surprisingly losing the Victorian election to Brax, and the Vic Libs have been in disarray ever since.

Capablanca-Fan
26-11-2007, 12:17 PM
Don't all political parties do this across the world, not just the ALP ;) I thought it was just standard fare :lol:
Yes, unfortunately. I dislike corporate welfare (e.g. subsidies of farmers and arts, tariffs to prop up inefficient businesses, making consumers pay more) just as much as any other kind; in fact it doesn't even have the redeeming feature of apparent compassion.

pax
26-11-2007, 12:37 PM
...but unreality he despises ordinary Australia for not voting the way that he and other elites wanted on the Republic.
Oh, come on. The Republic referendum was a fix-up by John Howard, everyone knows that. The majority of Australians favour a republic, and Howard engineered it so that proponents of a directly elected President would join forces with the monarchists to defeat the referendum.

pax
26-11-2007, 12:40 PM
He quit after surprisingly losing the Victorian election to Brax, and the Vic Libs have been in disarray ever since.
So? When has a Prime Minister or Premier ever been expected to lead the opposition after losing an election?

I agree that Costello was perfectly entitled to decline the job, but it certainly wasn't hypocrisy for Kennett to criticize it.

Capablanca-Fan
26-11-2007, 01:01 PM
I agree that Costello was perfectly entitled to decline the job, but it certainly wasn't hypocrisy for Kennett to criticize it.
The normal meaning of hypocrisy is criticising another for a fault one has. Kennett criticised Costello for doing what Kennett himself had done.

Capablanca-Fan
26-11-2007, 01:04 PM
Oh, come on. The Republic referendum was a fix-up by John Howard, everyone knows that. The majority of Australians favour a republic,
How do you know that? And it is fair for those who want to change the status quo to decide what they want to replace it with.

Face it: most Aussies are happy with the system we have.


and Howard engineered it so that proponents of a directly elected President would join forces with the monarchists to defeat the referendum.
They had free will. And there were people like Bob Carr who said he would not have voted for a directly elected President. That really would be a "politician's republic" because a politician would be President.

Basil
26-11-2007, 01:05 PM
Oh, come on. The Republic referendum was a fix-up by John Howard, everyone knows that. The majority of Australians favour a republic, and Howard engineered it so that proponents of a directly elected President would join forces with the monarchists to defeat the referendum.
Hang on. The majority of Australians couldn't decide on which model they wished. A model actually has to get voted on.

It is quite reasonable for Howard to have promised a referendum on the republic, while he himself didn't believe in it - especially when others in the party did (Costello).

It is simply a case of timing.

Garvinator
26-11-2007, 01:06 PM
What was the national vote for the Nationals?

Mark Vaile has resigned as leader of the Nationals.

pax
26-11-2007, 01:07 PM
The normal meaning of hypocrisy is criticising another for a fault one has. Kennett criticised Costello for doing what Kennett himself had done.

Yes. And Watto and I are attempting to point out that it is not the same situation at all. Nobody expected Kennett to stay on as opposition (on the contrary, it was universally expected that he would resign). By contrast, almost everybody expected Costello to take over as leader.

Garvinator
26-11-2007, 01:09 PM
Hang on. The majority of Australians couldn't decide on which model they wished. A model actually has to get voted on.

It is quite reasonable for Howard to have promised a referendum on the republic, while he himself didn't believe in it - especially when others in the party did (Costello).

It is simply a case of timing.
The correct way of doing it should have been a two step process.

Step 1- Do you want Australia to be a republic or a monarchy?

then if the republic is passed at the referendum, then Step 2:

Step 2: and this would be where a couple of models are put on the ballot.

Garvinator
26-11-2007, 01:09 PM
By contrast, almost everybody expected Costello to take over as leader.
Yes, almost everyone. I did not.

Watto
26-11-2007, 01:11 PM
He quit after surprisingly losing the Victorian election to Brax, and the Vic Libs have been in disarray ever since.
I thought that’s what you meant, just wanted it confirmed. It’s a completely different situation to my mind. Kennett became a member of the Victorian parliament in the mid seventies, so spent about 6 years or so not being leader. He served as leader of the opposition for 10 years from 1982 following the Libs election defeat; the point at which Costello quits rather than takes over as leader (to be fair to Costello, at 49 years of age, the years are passing more quickly for him than they were for the much younger Kennett at this point.) Kennett became the state premier in ‘92 and served for seven years. When the Libs lost government in 1999, it was clear that he was no longer the electoral asset he had once been. Leaving is what most leaders do when the voters have thrown them out so I don’t see anything particularly hypocritical about what Kennett has said, quite apart from whether I agree with him or not re Costello.
Anyway, here’s the article by Kennett: http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/costello-shows-his-lack-of-mettle/2007/11/25/1195975866027.html

(one story about Kennett I like – he was particularly loved by cartoonists and immortalised as a gargoyle by a master stonemason working on St Patricks Cathedral; see http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/06/06/1022982745434.html )

Capablanca-Fan
26-11-2007, 01:14 PM
The correct way of doing it should have been a two step process.

Step 1- Do you want Australia to be a republic or a monarchy?

then if the republic is passed at the referendum, then Step 2:

Step 2: and this would be where a couple of models are put on the ballot.
Why is it correct? Clearly, many of the supporters of the directly elected president model preferred the status quo to the appointed president model. That's what the referendum showed, even if Pax is right about the preference for a republic. And Carr was not alone in saying he would prefer the status quo to a directly elected president. You way would disenfranchise both these positions.

But since we have preferential voting, we should use that to decide this question as well.

eclectic
26-11-2007, 01:50 PM
But since we have preferential voting, we should use that to decide this question as well.

that's a good point

would there be four options on such a referendum?

appointed president
elected president
english monarch
australian monarch

Spiny Norman
26-11-2007, 02:03 PM
... or Of The Above, NONE.

Aaron Guthrie
26-11-2007, 02:06 PM
... or Of The Above, NONE.Unless I am mistaken, that is in first-last name order, so it doesn't need to comma. In comma order it is NONE, Of The Above.

pax
26-11-2007, 02:16 PM
How do you know that? And it is fair for those who want to change the status quo to decide what they want to replace it with.


Polls consistently show that Australians prefer a republic to the current system. By imposing a system that many republicans opposed in one referendum, and then vigorously campaigning against it, Howard scuppered the idea.

It is generally thought that a two stage process beginning with a plebiscite and ending with a referendum would be more likely to be successful.



Face it: most Aussies are happy with the system we have. This may well be true, but it is also true that most Aussies would prefer an Australian head of state.

Spiny Norman
26-11-2007, 02:16 PM
Pedant! <laughs!>

pax
26-11-2007, 02:29 PM
The correct way of doing it should have been a two step process.

Step 1- Do you want Australia to be a republic or a monarchy?

then if the republic is passed at the referendum, then Step 2:

Step 2: and this would be where a couple of models are put on the ballot.

Since a change to the constitution is required, that change would need to be put as a referendum question to the Australian people. So there is probably no way around putting a particular model up for referendum.

A preliminary plebiscite would put two questions:
1) Would you prefer Australia to become a republic, with an Australian head of state.
2) If Australia were to become a republic, which of these models would you prefer (perhaps preferential voting as Jono suggests).

Then, if the plebiscite shows a clear affirmative on question one, you formulate the change to the constitution according to question two, and put a referendum on the change to the people.

Under these circumstances, different republican groups also might agree to be bound by the plebiscite question two, and to support the yes campaign for the referendum irrespective of which model gets up.

qpawn
26-11-2007, 04:13 PM
Tony Abbott just said on the news to support his push to be opposition leader:

"I have reasonably good people skills".

:lol:

We all know what Nicola Roxon would say to that.

qpawn
26-11-2007, 04:17 PM
I voted no in the last referendum on a republic.

I may well vote no again in a future referendum despite my desire to see a republic happen. Why? I am bemused that we may become a republic and ignore other issues that matter more such as compulsory voting, an independent speaker in parliament, state rights etc.

eclectic
26-11-2007, 05:57 PM
I voted no in the last referendum on a republic.

I may well vote no again in a future referendum despite my desire to see a republic happen. Why? I am bemused that we may become a republic and ignore other issues that matter more such as compulsory voting, an independent speaker in parliament, state rights etc.

why not have a referendum on a republic and get it over and done with?

the other problems you mention can be dealt with in due course

Capablanca-Fan
26-11-2007, 06:25 PM
why not have a referendum on a republic and get it over and done with?
Because it is costly and a distraction from policies with practical application.

eclectic
26-11-2007, 06:42 PM
Because it is costly and a distraction from policies with practical application.

would you rather us do it cheaply by waiting for the queen to die and for her successor charles (?) to tell us he is not interested in being our king or would you rather money be spent on a referendum in which we as australians take responsibility for our destiny and make the decision ourselves?

[thread split might be in order]

Capablanca-Fan
26-11-2007, 07:12 PM
would you rather us do it cheaply by waiting for the queen to die and for her successor charles (?) to tell us he is not interested in being our king
We don't know what he would do. It might not even be up to him.

There is no doubt that the current queen is a much higher class of person than her idiot first born. But support for the monarchy is support for the office, not the incumbent. It seems to have delivered Australia an enviable political system.


or would you rather money be spent on a referendum in which we as australians take responsibility for our destiny and make the decision
Already done. But the left-elites want to make us vote repeatedly until we get it "right".

qpawn
26-11-2007, 07:41 PM
I was oblique. To spell it out, my reasoning was twofold.

One, another referendum on the replublic would be a distraction from other issues such as compulsory voting.

Two, isn't it better to sort those issues out first and only then become a republic?

Desmond
26-11-2007, 07:46 PM
We had the referendum. It wasn't to be. Move on with your lives!

ElevatorEscapee
26-11-2007, 08:08 PM
... or Of The Above, NONE.

He didn't fare too well in this election, only picking up around 0.8% in the South Australian seat of Gilmore:

NONE, Of the Above (http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/guide/gilm.htm)

Also interesting was the independant contestant in the seat of Griffith (Kevin Rudd's seat) who picked up 2.4% of the vote, bearing the name the name "P M Howard". :)

P M Howard (http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/guide/grif.htm)

Kevin Bonham
26-11-2007, 10:18 PM
Abbott and Turnbull will be like Peacock and Howard if either of them wins - there will be squabbling and destabilisation until one of them leaves the parliament. Now that Abbott is contesting I suspect electing either of them will be a big mistake.

Aaron Guthrie
27-11-2007, 07:18 AM
He didn't fare too well in this election, only picking up around 0.8% in the South Australian seat of Gilmore:Gilmore isn't in SA (nor is it anywhere near Broken Hill).

Spiny Norman
27-11-2007, 07:49 AM
Brendan Nelson for leader. Turnbull for shadow treasurer. Abbott to the back bench.

Kevin Bonham
27-11-2007, 09:30 PM
I think the safest option is Nelson. Not too much would be expected from him - if he surprised well and good, if he failed then Turnbull could be installed a couple of years down the track when circumstances were less abrasive and humiliating. If they elect Abbott they risk doing themselves very serious long-term harm. If they elect Turnbull they risk wasting his talent for the sake of his ego.

Downer took one look at his cards and folded. :lol:

Desmond
27-11-2007, 09:32 PM
When will it be decided? Perhaps we should make a seperate poll for who you think will win, rather than who should win.

ElevatorEscapee
27-11-2007, 09:38 PM
Gilmore isn't in SA (nor is it anywhere near Broken Hill).
No wonder he didn't get many votes! ;)

Kevin Bonham
27-11-2007, 09:42 PM
When will it be decided? Perhaps we should make a seperate poll for who you think will win, rather than who should win.

According to the bookies it's a no-brainer - Turnbull $1.18 Nelson $3.50 Abbott $9 was one set of odds I saw today.

I've seen some speculation it could be decided on Thursday but surely they'd wait and see who had the right to vote first, unless it was really clear-cut?

Goughfather
27-11-2007, 11:19 PM
I'm still not sure what to make of the odds. I've actually seen Abbott at considerably longer odds. The only explanation I can give for this is that perhaps the pundits believe that Abbott's previously strong support base is turning away from him in droves because they realise that with him behind the wheel, the Coalition could led even further into the wilderness and will need the next decade to find their way out again. During this time, most of them will likely lose their jobs. Perhaps if there was a decent candidate from the Right, then Turnbull would find it a lot more difficult to gain cross-factional support and the absence thereof explains his short odds.

Of course, these considerations lead me to ask another question entirely: Why on earth is Abbott nominating himself for the leadership in the first place?

Southpaw Jim
28-11-2007, 07:21 AM
This morning's tv news suggested that the leadership would be voted on tomorrow.

Southpaw Jim
28-11-2007, 07:24 AM
Why on earth is Abbott nominating himself for the leadership in the first place?
Maybe he was buoyed up by this piece in The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22832056-7583,00.html) which I'm sure - notwithstanding the stated date - was first published several days ago.

Capablanca-Fan
28-11-2007, 01:30 PM
Maybe he was buoyed up by this piece in The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22832056-7583,00.html) which I'm sure - notwithstanding the stated date 7— was first published several days ago.

Abbott is an accomplished parliamentarian. In attack and effective mockery he’s second only to Costello … Abbott is capable of sympathetic engagement with people from backgrounds different from his and wry remarks at his own expense. The weekend firefighting with his local brigade, which he downplays, and the annual Polly Pedal, cycling great distances to raise money for charity, suggest a man middle Australia can warm to. These are important attributes in public life and attest not just to attainments but to character.

In Opposition, a leader needs to nurture cohesion and put the party’s best interests first. Abbott has form. For the past four years he has done his level best to assure Costello that though he might be blocked from above, he wouldn’t be undermined from below. He strikes me as more capable than his rivals of inspiring trust in the back bench and rebuilding it in the electorate.



If, as I fear, they (the Liberals) choose Turnbull, it’s likely to end in tears and sooner rather than later. His exercise in leadership at the Constitutional Convention in 1998 was a disaster. He failed to conciliate his critics, divided his supporters and rejected the safe, saleable McGarvie proposal. Instead he clung to the flawed Keating-Turnbull model, which was inherently unstable and resoundingly rejected by the people.

Garvinator
28-11-2007, 02:12 PM
Sky news on pay tv has announced that Tony Abbott has withdrawn from the Liberal leadership as he does not have the numbers.

So now it is a race in two, Nelson and Turnbull.

eclectic
28-11-2007, 02:25 PM
Sky news on pay tv has announced that Tony Abbott has withdrawn from the Liberal leadership as he does not have the numbers.

So now it is a race in two, Nelson and Turnbull.

do you think he should now retire from politics too and go off to do comedy routines alongside costello?

:owned:

Igor_Goldenberg
29-11-2007, 01:18 PM
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22841013-5012863,00.html

Capablanca-Fan
29-11-2007, 01:32 PM
Good, with Bishop as deputy, although it was a very close election. Turnbull makes Rudd look good.

Southpaw Jim
29-11-2007, 02:29 PM
This will be interesting. Nelson is very much associated with the Howard era, and is on the record as claiming that Labor doesn't have a mandate to abolish WorkChoices.

They'll want to be careful in opposing the IR changes, a double dissolution could bring the Libs more pain than they want.

On the issue of the leadership, and knowing the extent of Turnbull's ambition, I expect there will be a challenge in the next 2 years. Et tu, Malcolm?

Capablanca-Fan
29-11-2007, 02:54 PM
This will be interesting. Nelson is very much associated with the Howard era, and is on the record as claiming that Labor doesn't have a mandate to abolish WorkChoices.
That is delusional. They would be wise to let labor have its way—but only on things explicitly promised. Mind you, Labor was very obstructive after Howard won a mandate for the GST (so we got the pathetic Democrap compromise) and selling Telstra.


They'll want to be careful in opposing the IR changes, a double dissolution could bring the Libs more pain than they want.
This much is true. They should let the younger voters experience what union control and high unemployment looks like.


On the issue of the leadership, and knowing the extent of Turnbull's ambition, I expect there will be a challenge in the next 2 years. Et tu, Malcolm?
Yeah, the leadership is a bit of a poisoned chalice at the moment. Costello could be binding his time, which would explain why he doesn't just resign from politics now and take a lucrative job in the private sector. If Turnbull were leader, I'd have to remind myself that in Australia, we vote for a party not a President.

Southpaw Jim
29-11-2007, 03:15 PM
Mind you, Labor was very obstructive after Howard won a mandate for the GST
Acknowledged, but I think the distinction here is that people voted to get rid of Workchoices. IMHO Howard was elected in 98 in spite of the proposed GST (after all, he nearly lost), not because of it, and so Labor could get away with playing games. Not that that excuses Labor's obstruction, but that's politics.


Yeah, the leadership is a bit of a poisoned chalice at the moment. Costello could be binding his time, which would explain why he doesn't just resign from politics now and take a lucrative job in the private sector.
Hmm, I think Costello's time has passed and he knows it. Plus, if he was painted as gutless before, then doubly so now following Sunday's announcement. He could be waiting to play saviour if the party goes to the dogs, but I'd rate this as unlikely. IMHO, he wants out now, but knows it'd look bad to force a by-election in the first 12 months. I'd bet that he's already got a job lined up, and that there'll be a by-election in Higgins in early 2009.


If Turnbull were leader, I'd have to remind myself that in Australia, we vote for a party not a President.
LOL!

pax
29-11-2007, 03:32 PM
That is delusional. They would be wise to let labor have its way—but only on things explicitly promised. Mind you, Labor was very obstructive after Howard won a mandate for the GST (so we got the pathetic Democrap compromise) and selling Telstra.

48% two party preferred was hardly a mandate..

Capablanca-Fan
29-11-2007, 03:37 PM
48% two party preferred was hardly a mandate..
How much do you need? They won. But this is typical of lefties here and in the USA: when the conservative party wins, they need to reach out and work with the opposition. But when the lefties win, the conservatives should realise that they have a mandate and butt out.

pax
29-11-2007, 04:05 PM
How much do you need? They won. But this is typical of lefties here and in the USA: when the conservative party wins, they need to reach out and work with the opposition. But when the lefties win, the conservatives should realise that they have a mandate and butt out.

I have never said any of that. I'm simply pointing out that 48% is not a clear mandate. Once again you are arguing with a figment of your imagination. It does get a bit tiring.

Kevin Bonham
29-11-2007, 06:46 PM
45-42 is ugly. Reminiscent of Latham over Beazley 47-45.

Goughfather
29-11-2007, 06:55 PM
I agree.

I suspect that if Turnbull had won by the same margin, then his leadership may well have been more stable. However, since many of Nelson's backers initially favoured Tony Abbott, it seems to be the case that less than half the party believe that Nelson is the best person to lead the party. I suspect that Turnbull badly wants the leadership and will not hesitate to challenge if he thinks he has the numbers. Neither can we estimate the ability of Abbott to sabotage the party's electoral chances - his suggestion that he may challenge for the leadership in future was particularly Abbottesque.

Spiny Norman
30-11-2007, 05:43 AM
Unlike Costello, Turnbull will not die wondering. He will challenge in a heartbeat if he thinks he has a chance to win. He'll also not mind going to the back bench and building his leadership case from there.

eclectic
30-11-2007, 07:37 AM
as seen on the 7.30 report last night nelson has inherited howard's "sorry" hangup unlike turnbull so the latter might play that to his advantage sometime in the future

Kevin Bonham
30-11-2007, 09:20 AM
Unlike Costello, Turnbull will not die wondering. He will challenge in a heartbeat if he thinks he has a chance to win. He'll also not mind going to the back bench and building his leadership case from there.

Turnbull actually seemed almost deleriously happy with the result yesterday. Long-term, the narrow loss may well work in his favour. He gets a key portfolio that he should be very well suited to, and Nelson has no real authority.

Capablanca-Fan
30-11-2007, 09:25 AM
as seen on the 7.30 report last night nelson has inherited howard's "sorry" hangup unlike turnbull so the latter might play that to his advantage sometime in the future
Ah yes, another lefty who thinks saying "sorry" for things WE didn't do, to people who weren't done to, is more important than fixing up the horrific child abuse.

Professor Marcia Langton, Inaugural Chairwoman of Australian Indigenous Studies at the University of Melbourne, writes in It's time to stop playing politics with vulnerable lives (http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/its-time-to-stop-playing-politics-with-vulnerable-lives/2007/11/29/1196037070452.html)that Kevin Rudd to keep his word and back the intervention into troubled Aboriginal communities:


The political earth is moving after so much pretentious, vain, and ultimately anti-humanist dancing with symbols while the practical responses to the crisis never came.

There's a cynical view afoot that the emergency intervention was a political ploy — a Trojan Horse — to sneak through land grabs and some gratuitous black head-kicking disguised as concern for children. These conspiracy theories abound, and they are mostly ridiculous.

Those who did not see the intervention in the Northern Territory coming were deluding themselves. It was the inevitable outcome of the many failures of policy and of the strange federal-state division of responsibilities for Aboriginal Australians. Added to this were the general incompetence of the civil service and the non-governmental sector, including some Aboriginal organisations, lack of political will and the dead hand of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission.

The combined effect of the media campaign for action and the emergency intervention has been a metaphorical dagger sunk into the heart of the powerful, wrong-headed Aboriginal male ideology that had prevailed in indigenous affairs, policies and practices.

It’s time for the voices of women and children to be heard. It’s time for both the federal and the Territory government to stop playing politics with the lives of the vulnerable and shut down the alcohol take-away outlets, establish children’s commissions and shelters in each community — as Noel Pearson has suggested — and treat grog runners and drug dealers as the criminals that they are. Otherwise, they will all have the blood of the victims on their hands.

snowyriverman
30-11-2007, 07:25 PM
Turnbull actually seemed almost deleriously happy with the result yesterday. Long-term, the narrow loss may well work in his favour. He gets a key portfolio that he should be very well suited to, and Nelson has no real authority.

Nelson has gained the advantages that come with incumbency.
His tactic of wedging Turnbull, for the recent outspokenness of SORRY, will not rebound back on Nelson in 2008.
Labor will get a formula SORRY in place and Nelson can display small mock-outrage with no real loss of position.

The more serious issue for the LNC is that the now discredited DRY position is once again in power. No amount of packaging can present this as new for 2010.

Kevin Bonham
30-11-2007, 07:55 PM
The more serious issue for the LNC is that the now discredited DRY position is once again in power. No amount of packaging can present this as new for 2010.

Yes, although at least Nelson is marketable as someone with some sort of charisma rather than the typical wooden solid "dry" like Howard.

Capablanca-Fan
01-12-2007, 12:14 AM
Nelson has gained the advantages that come with incumbency.
His tactic of wedging Turnbull, for the recent outspokenness of SORRY, will not rebound back on Nelson in 2008.
Labor will get a formula SORRY in place and Nelson can display small mock-outrage with no real loss of position.
Nelson was very sensible in his first interview (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2105315.htm):


I've already said today that I implore Mr Rudd not to move away from the intervention in the Northern Territory, which essentially is saving the health and integrity of Aboriginal life. I think it's extraordinarily important he not cave into elements of the Labor Party on that. ...

we are very proud of what our forebears did at Gallipoli and other campaigns. That doesn't mean that we own them. Similarly, we feel a sense of shame in some ways of what was done in the past, where with good intentions, but not always with good outcomes, Aboriginal people were removed from what were often appalling conditions. We, in my view, we have no responsibility to apologise or take ownership for what was done by earlier generations. ...

I think it's not a simple issue, and it's a very sensitive one. It's a very complex one. Symbolism is extraordinarily important. But I think we need to remember, and I think most people know that I have the greatest sympathy and respect for Aboriginal people. I have a portrait of Neville Bonner in my office on the wall opposite me, twice the size of a standard door, the first Aboriginal Australian in the Federal Parliament, but I believe that our generation cannot take personal or generational responsibility for the actions of earlier ones which in most, but not all cases, were done with the best of intentions.

And he is supported by Marcia Langton, is the Inaugural Chairwoman of Australian Indigenous Studies at the University of Melbourne, in It's time to stop playing politics with vulnerable lives (http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/its-time-to-stop-playing-politics-with-vulnerable-lives/2007/11/29/1196037070452.html), as I've cited earlier.


The more serious issue for the LNC is that the now discredited DRY position is once again in power. No amount of packaging can present this as new for 2010.
What do you mean? Rudd campaigned as a "dry" didn't he, except for Work Choices?

qpawn
06-12-2007, 12:34 AM
Ah yes, another lefty who thinks saying "sorry" for things WE didn't do, to people who weren't done to, is more important than fixing up the horrific child abuse.

*******

With all due respect Jono, I couldn't disagree more; what about the governmnet policies now on aboriginal housing, health etc? What about apologising for the present at the very least?

Southpaw Jim
06-12-2007, 08:03 AM
Ah yes, another lefty who thinks saying "sorry" for things WE didn't do, to people who weren't done to, is more important than fixing up the horrific child abuse.
Out of interest Jono, how do you feel about the issue of Japan apologising as a nation for the treatment of PoWs and the 'comfort' women during World War II?

Just another bit of "lefty" empty symbolism? :hmm:

Capablanca-Fan
06-12-2007, 08:44 AM
Ah yes, another lefty who thinks saying "sorry" for things WE didn't do, to people who weren't done to, is more important than fixing up the horrific child abuse.


With all due respect Jono, I couldn't disagree more;
You mean that you think stopping horrific child abuse is less important than saying "sorry"?!


what about the governmnet policies now on aboriginal housing, health etc? What about apologising for the present at the very least?
What exactly? Maybe for throwing welfare at them? How about for encouraging communal housing instead of private ownership? Oh, and especially to Aboriginal kids killed or abused because PC social workers are too afraid of the "stolen generations" lie to remove kids in danger?

Miranda Devine writes:
Feel-good apology of little use to young dead from abuse (http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/feelgood-apology-of-little-use/2007/12/05/1196812821141.html)


Here we go again. Smug white folks have reactivated the "sorry" debate, demanding our new political leaders demonstrate their non-racist bona fides by apologising on behalf of the nation for the "stolen generation.

...

Adams should get out to Brewarrina, where five-month-old Mundine Orcher was "systematically" beaten to death over four weeks by "culturally appropriate" foster carers. Harrowing would be a visit to the gravesites of any number of Aboriginal children beaten or neglected to death by their "carers" under the not-so watchful eyes of welfare workers reluctant to intervene for fear of creating another stolen generation.

...

Unless you are deliberately insincere, saying sorry usually means you will never again do the thing for which you are apologising. It means, as abused and neglected Aboriginal children in NSW and elsewhere discover every week, that welfare agencies will remain reluctant to remove a child from life-threatening conditions.

...

The Darwin Magistrates Court last week was told of a desperately ill 12-year-old part-Aboriginal girl ordered out of her house by her foster carer to lie on the ground instead of soiling herself inside. She died in the dirt on July 12 with ants crawling into her mouth, nose and eyes while seeing "fairies in the trees" around her. The cause of death was "acute septicaemia" or blood poisoning caused by an infection of the thigh bone, which began as a boil, easily treatable.

..

When two welfare workers visited the home the day before she died, the court heard they found her lying on the kitchen floor, crying. National Nine News's Darwin correspondent, Kyrrie Blenkinsop, reported that when the welfare officers asked why the girl was upset, her foster carers allegedly said it was because she was scared she would be "taken away". Sure, she wanted to die in agony in the the dirt instead.

...

We are left with the grotesque irony of the DOCS director-general, Neil Shepherd, penning a letter to the Koori Mail, promising to "right the wrongs of the past" and apologising for previous generations of welfare workers who removed Aboriginal children from their families, while his own staff are forced to sit on their hands for fear of creating another stolen generation.

It is so much easier just to let children die. Then there's no one left to apologise to.

Southpaw Jim
06-12-2007, 08:49 AM
Ah yes, another lefty who thinks saying "sorry" for things WE didn't do, to people who weren't done to, is more important than fixing up the horrific child abuse.
Anyway, the logic in the above quote doesn't follow - saying sorry to the Stolen Generation doesn't preclude us from taking action. So the issue of relative importance is irrelevant when we can do both.

Capablanca-Fan
06-12-2007, 08:51 AM
Out of interest Jono, how do you feel about the issue of Japan apologising as a nation for the treatment of PoWs and the 'comfort' women during World War II?

Just another bit of "lefty" empty symbolism? :hmm:
Should have been part of it when it involved people who committed these crimes, for sure. Since it's likely that many of the perps and vics are still around, it makes perfect sense.

So are you seriously trying to claim that Australia was as vicious to the Aborigines as the Japanese were to Korean women and POWs? And many of the alleged "stolen generation" were not stolen at all but rescued.

Column - Betrayed by a myth (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_betrayed_by_a_myth/)
Andrew Bolt
5 December 2007


If Prime Minister Kevin Rudd can’t find real members of the “stolen generations” to say sorry to, no problem.

The media will just invent some for him. Or, in the case of Prof Lowitja O’Donoghue, reinvent.

Twice in the past week the ABC has reported O’Donoghue’s angry demand that the new Rudd Government say that “sorry”, and pay compensation.

And both times it called her “a prominent member of the stolen generations”.

In fact, O’Donoghue, former head of ATSIC and now working with Rudd on his apology, is a prominent member of a generation of activists who falsely claimed to have been stolen.

Indeed, she best symbolises how little truth there is behind the “stolen generations” myth—a myth so toxic that it’s implicated this month in the ghastly deaths of yet two more Aboriginal children. And the ABC best symbolises how determined much of the media is not to notice.

O’Donoghue was for years our most famous member of the “stolen generations”, becoming co-patron of the National Sorry Day Committee.

It was Prof Peter Read, the historian who invented the “stolen generations” phrase, who in a 1996 speech singled out both O’Donoghue and the late Charlie Perkins as the two great examples of the 100,000 Aborigines he suggested were stolen from their parents for racist reasons.

Perkins, who rose to head the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, actually denied he’d been stolen. His mother had instead pleaded with missionaries to send her talented son to a boarding school to get him the education he used so brilliantly.

On the other hand, O’Donoghue said she was indeed stolen as a child from her family.

Only when I confronted her six years ago did she at last admit she had not been stolen, but abandoned.

Her white father had dumped first his eldest two children, Eileen and Geoff, at a missionary-run home for abandoned and sick Aboriginal children in Quorn, and come back years later with three more, including Lowitja, who never saw him again.

“He wanted to move on,” O’Donoghue conceded. “He didn’t want to be straddled (sic) with five kids . . . I haven’t forgiven him.”

Only the youngest of the six children stayed with their Aboriginal mother, who’d agreed to send the others away, and it’s her we should pity most, given what I know of her fate.

All this the ABC should know. And when O’Donoghue publicly confirmed these facts, she also said she no longer wanted to be called “stolen”: “I now prefer to use the term ‘removed’.”

Attention ABC: Why do you refuse to listen to even her?

Of course, “removed” still isn’t accurate. The correct word is in fact “abandoned”, or even “saved”.

You may think I make too much of this. But O’Donoghue’s case is symbolic because it is astonishingly common, and on these pages I’ve outlined perhaps 30 others like it.

In case you missed them, here are a few—all of people once claimed by Prof Robert Manne, the leading “stolen generations” propagandist, to have been stolen under a racist policy to “help keep White Australia pure”.

There’s Peter Gunner, whose mother in fact signed a form asking he be sent to boarding school; Lorna Cubillo, rescued when she was an eight-year-old orphan in a bush camp without a guardian; activist Rob Riley, whose mother refused to take back her child or even visit him at Sister Kate’s home; and “Topsy”, who was just 12, abandoned by her white father and riddled with syphilis.

Some such false claims, as the “stolen” Daniel Forrester admitted in a court case, were made for the compensation, and others to push an ideological point. But for many Aborigines—such as O’Donoghue, I think—it must simply have been less painful to say they were stolen than to admit their parents didn’t want them.

Meanwhile, this myth is killing black children right now, as social workers are too afraid to remove them from life-threatening situations.

pax
06-12-2007, 10:07 AM
Ah yes, another lefty who thinks saying "sorry" for things WE didn't do, to people who weren't done to, is more important than fixing up the horrific child abuse.

Are you denying that the stolen generation took place then, Jono? That's a pretty controversial position.. :confused:

Edit:

Just read your most recent post, where it's clear you are denying it took place. Fine, carry on!

Capablanca-Fan
06-12-2007, 11:25 AM
Are you denying that the stolen generation took place then, Jono? That's a pretty controversial position.. :confused:

Edit:

Just read your most recent post, where it's clear you are denying it took place. Fine, carry on!
Then name just 10 who were really stolen as opposed to rescued. The usual trophy cases were clearly NOT stolen as I've documented.

And when are Lefties going to learn that results are more important than symbolism (both with the "sorry" nonsense while leaving Aboriginal kids in danger, and signing Kyoto while jetsetting to this Bali junket that released so much CO2 that it would take 2.5 million new trees to counteract).

Southpaw Jim
06-12-2007, 12:02 PM
Explain why the Tasmanian Government established a compensation scheme for members of the Stolen Generation, which was applauded by the Liberal Party Opposition.

Surely a Government wouldn't give away millions if the Stolen Generation were so demonstrably mythical :eek: surely if it were so demonstrably mythical, the Liberal Party Opposition would've hammered the Government over such a scheme? :eek: :eek:


So are you seriously trying to claim that Australia was as vicious to the Aborigines as the Japanese were to Korean women and POWs?
No, and you know it - please don't play straw man games, it's tiresome. I'd suggest, however, that the principle is remarkably similar - a nation apologising as a whole for the actions of a few, perpetrated against another few. Your position on the Japanese apology would appear to be in direct contradiction to your position on an apology to the Stolen Generation (leaving aside the reality or otherwise of it) based on the argument that WE as individuals didn't do it. Assuming for the nonce that the Stolen Generation is not a myth, but real, would you or would you not support a national apology?

None of this really matters anyway, because Jono will be apologising to the Stolen Generation, whether he likes it or not, through the Parliament of Australia. Led by his Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
06-12-2007, 12:23 PM
Explain why the Tasmanian Government established a compensation scheme for members of the Stolen Generation, which was applauded by the Liberal Party Opposition.
What's there to explain? Politicians do what's politically expedient, and jump on bandwagons more than anyone.

Meanwhile, a court case of specific "stolen" aborigines rejected that they were stolen at all. And time after time, when we look at alleged victims, they turn out to have been rescued. Would that we could rescue more now, instead of being hamstrung by this murderous myth.


Surely a Government wouldn't give away millions if the Stolen Generation were so demonstrably mythical
You have inadvertently stumbled on the real reason that Aboriginal Activists push this crap: lots of money will come to them (but precious little to most ordinary Aborigines).


:eek: surely if it were so demonstrably mythical, the Liberal Party Opposition would've hammered the Government over such a scheme? :eek: :eek:
The State Libs are often Labor Lite, which is why they stay in Opposition.


Your position on the Japanese apology would appear to be in direct contradiction to your position on an apology to the Stolen Generation (leaving aside the reality or otherwise of it) based on the argument that WE as individuals didn't do it. Assuming for the nonce that the Stolen Generation is not a myth, but real, would you or would you not support a national apology?
You would have to prove that it was official government policy as well. WW2 really was government policy, and many of the perps are still alive. I wouldn't support calls for an apology for England from Normandy for 1066 for example.


None of this really matters anyway, because Jono will be apologising to the Stolen Generation, whether he likes it or not, through the Parliament of Australia. Led by his Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd :lol:
I will repudiate such an apology, making it clear that Chairman Rudd doesn't speak for me. So much for "governing for all Australians", not that I ever believed that crap. But when Australians see a never ending hand out for more money that will follow, they might think again about voting for this fact-free clown.

Southpaw Jim
06-12-2007, 01:53 PM
You would have to prove that it was official government policy as well.
Why? Surely a government that allows a (hypothetically) widespread malfeasance to be perpetrated over many years on "its watch" is equally as culpable as the government that adopted it as "official policy". Allowing a wrong to happen/continue is as bad as engaging in it first hand IMO.

Otherwise government would be able to blamelessly perpetrate all manner of evils by proxy. Hear no evil, speak no evil...

Southpaw Jim
06-12-2007, 01:57 PM
The State Libs are often Labor Lite, which is why they stay in Opposition.
You haven't met Her Majesty's Shadow Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania, the Hon. Michael Hodgman QC, have you? :lol:

Yes, he does claim that as his title in correspondence, the ponce!

Capablanca-Fan
06-12-2007, 02:06 PM
You haven't met Her Majesty's Shadow Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania, the Hon. Michael Hodgman QC, have you? :lol:
Umm, no, never met him. But it's interesting that Kevin's 2004 column (http://www.tasmaniantimes.com/jurassic/bonhamgreen.html) said that the Liberal Party in Tassie "had been mauled beyond recognition by its own hand at state level." I don't know the context, but it seems unwise to use their agreement as proof for anything.

Kevin Bonham
06-12-2007, 02:18 PM
Umm, no, never met him. But it's interesting that Kevin's 2004 column (http://www.tasmaniantimes.com/jurassic/bonhamgreen.html) said that the Liberal Party in Tassie "had been mauled beyond recognition by its own hand at state level."

It has got a little better since, but not that much. :D

Their last two leaders, Bob Cheek and Rene Hidding, were hilariously awful. The current one, Will Hodgman, is solid but uninspiring and fairly inexperienced. They still have only seven seats.

Southpaw Jim
06-12-2007, 02:22 PM
IMO the Tassie Liberals are incompetent bumblers, and offer nothing that Tas Labor doesn't already - not that the Libs are Labor-lite, more the reverse. There's no pandering to Green interests by Tas Labor, they're very much pro-industry (particularly forestry).

There's really not that much to differentiate between the two here, except that the Libs are more socially conservative. The Libs keep floating ridiculous propositions that attempt to pander to self-interest, such as the abolition of land tax, but that example leaves a $70m hole in their "Budget" which they could only claim to fill by "cutting costs".

They'd do better perhaps if they got some decent new blood in, but there's a number of old hacks hanging on on both sides of the House.

Part of the problem for the Libs is also partly their own doing - the reduction of the lower House from 35 to 25. This was a bipartisan Lib/Lab attempt to marginalise the Greens' power and chances of minority government. However, the Greens retained their seats, and thus it reduced the number of seats available to the "major" parties - we have a different electoral system here, the Hare-Clark system: 5 members are elected in each electorate, providing they get a 'quota' (somewhere between 10-20% of the vote). The Greens' vote is pretty rock solid, so they continued to get their quotas and thus seats (Kevin knows more than I on the mechanics).

As a result, the Libs only have 7 MPs in the lower House, which reduces their options and effectiveness.

firegoat7
06-12-2007, 03:19 PM
Hi,

The correct answer is Jono.:hand: I believe an opening in Guyana has been available for thirty years.:owned:

cheers Fg7

Capablanca-Fan
06-12-2007, 05:40 PM
There is a good article in the current issue of Quadrant, "Genocide by Suicide" by Patrick McCauley. One highlight:


The Bringing Them Home report is one of the major reasons why Aboriginal children who have been suffering abuse from their own families over the past ten years have been left to suffer that abuse.

And the Howard government really was doing something about the abuse. So much for Euro's "Allowing a wrong to happen/continue is as bad as engaging in it first hand IMO" if it puts the hated Howard in a good light.

Southpaw Jim
06-12-2007, 10:13 PM
I don't recall making that statement in connexion with the Howard Government, Jono, so please don't put words in my digital mouth. I was actually referring to the action/inaction of the government(s) of the day when the Stolen Generation thing allegedly happened, which as I understand it was the 60s and earlier. I don't profess to know a lot about the detail, btw, I only know what I've seen in the media in recent years.

On the subject of Howard's intervention, I feel that there are flaws in the way it has been executed, but I don't condemn it out of hand. I certainly don't accept the conspiracy theories about land grabs for uranium exploration or nuclear dumps. I do, however, feel a certain sense of cynicism regarding its timing in the context of the (then) looming election.

snowyriverman
07-12-2007, 07:01 PM
Why? Surely a government that allows a (hypothetically) widespread malfeasance to be perpetrated over many years on "its watch" is equally as culpable as the government that adopted it as "official policy". Allowing a wrong to happen/continue is as bad as engaging in it first hand IMO.

Otherwise government would be able to blamelessly perpetrate all manner of evils by proxy. Hear no evil, speak no evil...
I am intrigued by the urban myth that seems to be emerging ; see your sign-line, the other lefty.

A far better indicator that there is a difference between the LNC and the ALP is the behaviour in taking the ministerial oath of office. Only 2 of Howard's ministry declined the oath, and took the affirmation instead. More than 50 perent of Rudd's ministry took the affirmation.

Southpaw Jim
08-12-2007, 07:47 AM
I am intrigued by the urban myth that seems to be emerging
Not sure what you're referring to here, feel free to expand.


see your sign-line, the other lefty.
This is actually a tongue in cheek poke at Jono, who referred to me in a post a few weeks ago as "that other lefty". Nothing more. Now the election's over, I'm a little bored with it, but haven't thought of anything new :hmm:

snowyriverman
10-12-2007, 04:20 PM
Not sure what you're referring to here, feel free to expand.

It is a classic political tactic to try to define ones opponents, because that sometimes leads to success in gaining control of the agenda.
When you are labelled here as a "lefty" then the others who label you his way gain some ground in defining what the political debate is about. And they park you on one side of a limited spectrum.

The 2007 election was not about leftishness. It was about honesty.
John Howard tried every previously successful LNC slogan in the 6 weeks of electioneering, except the slogan used in 2004. That slogan was TRUST ME. Polling had shown the LNC that the electorate had moved in 2007 to not trust the LNC. It was for this reason that TRUST ME was not trotted out in 2007, whereas every other prior slogan got its run.

As Gunner has argued, dishonesty can infect any political party. As Gunner has argued, down the track the ALP may show signs. For the moment they don't show signs, being fresh faces after 10 years out of power.

My previous post contained the conjecture "A far better indicator that there is a difference between the LNC and the ALP is the behaviour in taking the ministerial oath of office. Only 2 of Howard's ministry declined the oath, and took the affirmation instead. More than 50 percent of Rudd's ministry took the affirmation."
Clearly here is a spectrum that is relevant to the 2007 election. An election that was about honesty, not leftishness.

All but two of Howard's ministers took the oath on the Bible.
Who believes in the Bible?
A first group who believe in the Bible are those sophists who just like a good argument. Religion is a rich source of argument. There is the odd sophist on this board.
A second group who believe in the Bible are those old men who have traditionally used the deceit of promising riches in an after-life. Through this deceit they have been able to gain power over followers. And hence power in various ruling elites. This deceit is observable in many countries and societies. But as populations slowly beome more educated they see through the after-life promises. The fact that all but 2 of Howard's ministers had a flaw in their make-up; in the belief of a religious invention; shows the fertile ground for other intellectual dishonesty.

Capablanca-Fan
10-12-2007, 06:41 PM
Is there anything of substance to your post? Looked like an anti-Christian leftist diatribe. So what about KRudd who proclaimed his Christian credentials (but didn't fool me)? What are you here for exactly? Not to discuss chess at any time, but probably a typical leftist with too much time on his hands.

pax
10-12-2007, 10:43 PM
Not to discuss chess at any time, but probably a typical leftist with too much time on his hands.

Whereas a righty like you has no time at all for spouting diatribes on a meagre little chess forum like this :owned: :owned:

Capablanca-Fan
10-12-2007, 10:58 PM
Whereas a righty like you has no time at all for spouting diatribes on a meagre little chess forum like this :owned: :owned:
Here's the difference: I do talk about chess on this site quite a lot.

pax
10-12-2007, 11:25 PM
Here's the difference: I do talk about chess on this site quite a lot.
Ah. So clearly, you have waay too much time on your hands ;)

Capablanca-Fan
11-12-2007, 12:59 AM
Ah. So clearly, you have waay too much time on your hands ;)
For chess, mainly. But the likes of Sam and Snowy just come here to push leftist nonsense.

Garvinator
11-12-2007, 11:28 AM
For chess, mainly. But the likes of Sam and Snowy just come here to push leftist nonsense.
Would you be so critical is a person was here pusing rightist nonsense (if this is possible :P )

Capablanca-Fan
11-12-2007, 11:50 AM
Would you be so critical if a person was here pusing rightist nonsense (if this is possible :P )
Rightist nonsense is possible, I guess. I just haven't seen it here.

Answer, yes. Notice that I haven't made the same comments about the lefty Pax or the other lefty Euro, since they contribute to chess sections on this site.

Capablanca-Fan
11-12-2007, 02:19 PM
Back to the topic: this Snowy person claimed, in effect, that the election was a referendum on how many Christians and atheists there were in each party. Maybe on his home planet, but not ours.

Kevin Bonham
11-12-2007, 08:16 PM
Nelson's leadership is off to a very wobbly start. Perhaps saying it is already fatally compromised (as many are) is overreacting, but he didn't handle the stuff about having once supported the ALP effectively. Also whoever's idea it was to hold the leadership ballot before all the seat results were in, it was a remarkably foolish move.

The problem is that if they don't have him, who will they have? Turnbull could just about split the party while if Abbott leads it their primary vote may never see 38% ever again. While Gunner was right to point out (in another thread) that the Liberals only need three in one hundred voters to switch back to Labor to recover at the next election, they will not be in any position to recover any votes at all if they are a rabble without decisive leadership.

snowyriverman
14-12-2007, 07:13 PM
Back to the topic: this Snowy person claimed, in effect, that the election was a referendum on how many Christians and atheists there were in each party.]

My post 115 had the clear claim that

The 2007 election was not about leftishness. It was about honesty.

While I don't mind you having a different opinion about what was the central tipping point of voters' issue-rationale, I do think you should avoid making up an incorrect paraphrase of mine.

If you agreed that
The 2007 election was not about leftishness. It was about honesty. then we could debate what was the cause of the LNC dishonesty, or at least the populus perception of this dishonesty.


If you don't agree that
The 2007 election was not about leftishness. It was about honesty. then tell us what you think the tipping point was in your view.


Is there anything of substance to your post? Looked like an anti-Christian leftist diatribe. So what about KRudd who proclaimed his Christian credentials (but didn't fool me)? What are you here for exactly? Not to discuss chess at any time, but probably a typical leftist with too much time on his hands.

Yes, I agree there is major concern stemming from Rudd's taking the oath rather than an affirmation. It indicates a weakness for logical thinking..

But I need to correct you on the anti-Christian label. My point applied to any religion promising rewards in the after-life in exchange for ceding power to an old man elite in the real-life. For example, my comments would apply to any oath taken on the Koran.

Capablanca-Fan
14-12-2007, 11:46 PM
Yes, I agree there is major concern stemming from Rudd's taking the oath rather than an affirmation. It indicates a weakness for logical thinking..
Not that you would know logical thinking if it slapped you around.


But I need to correct you on the anti-Christian label. My point applied to any religion promising rewards in the after-life in exchange for ceding power to an old man elite in the real-life. For example, my comments would apply to any oath taken on the Koran.
OK, misotheistic label. But it's nonsense to think the election was decided by the number of misotheists in a party.

Capablanca-Fan
15-12-2007, 09:54 PM
Since a change to the constitution is required, that change would need to be put as a referendum question to the Australian people. So there is probably no way around putting a particular model up for referendum.

A preliminary plebiscite would put two questions:
1) Would you prefer Australia to become a republic, with an Australian head of state.
2) If Australia were to become a republic, which of these models would you prefer (perhaps preferential voting as Jono suggests).

Then, if the plebiscite shows a clear affirmative on question one, you formulate the change to the constitution according to question two, and put a referendum on the change to the people.

Under these circumstances, different republican groups also might agree to be bound by the plebiscite question two, and to support the yes campaign for the referendum irrespective of which model gets up.
Another idea is Condorcet voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method), where voters list all their preferences, but the winner is determined by imaginary one-on-one two-way contests as determined by the order. So if M = monarchy, A = appointed President, D = directly elected head of state, is more people rank A over D, then D is declared the "winner" of this particular match. Do the same to M v A, M v D, which exhaust the possible pairings in this case. If one candidate beats every other candidate in these contests then it is declared the Condorcet winner; this is the candidate whom voters prefer to every other candidate, when compared to them one at a time. It is the one that the majority find least disagreeable even if it is not the first choice of most.

For such a question as monarchy v two models of the republic, where large numbers of supporters of each model would prefer the monarchy to the other model, this system seems the fairest. It would also require only one election. The main problem is that sometimes no Condorcet winner results, but other methods also have their shortcomings too.

pax
16-12-2007, 12:26 AM
Condorcet is a good system. Better than simple preferential, I think, but just harder to explain to voters.

It gets around the difficulty when there are three nearly equal candidates - one candidate may be preferred by voters to each of the other two, yet they would not be elected under preferential voting if they finish third on first preferences.

Capablanca-Fan
16-12-2007, 12:32 AM
Condorcet is a good system. Better than simple preferential, I think, but just harder to explain to voters.
Yeah. But all the voters really have to worry about is listing the candidates in preferential order, as they do already. The Septix would be harder to sell on the idea, because they still have the crass Plurality system.


It gets around the difficulty when there are three nearly equal candidates — one candidate may be preferred by voters to each of the other two, yet they would not be elected under preferential voting if they finish third on first preferences.
Precisely, and this seems to be the case with the Republican debate.

snowyriverman
17-12-2007, 10:39 AM
Not that you would know logical thinking if it slapped you around.
I am judging your comment to mean that you don't much like to answer the question I raised, which was

If you agreed that
Quote:
The 2007 election was not about leftishness. It was about honesty.
then we could debate what was the cause of the LNC dishonesty, or at least the populus perception of this dishonesty.



If you don't agree that
Quote:
The 2007 election was not about leftishness. It was about honesty.
then tell us what you think the tipping point was in your view.



Maybe you would prefer to address the following evidence of some force at work.

NSW.
Was Liberal in 1995. Has been Labour since.

QLD
Was Liberal in 1998. Has been Labour since.

TAS
Was Liberal in 1998. Has been Labour since.

VIC
Was Liberal in 1999. Has been Labour since.

WA
Was Liberal in 2001. Has been Labour since.

NT
Was Liberal in 2001. Has been Labour since.

AC
Was Liberal in 2001. Has been Labour since.

SA
Was Liberal in 2002. Has been Labour since.

Federal
Was Liberal in 2007. Now Labour.

The thread title does not properly indicate just how far the LNC are in the wilderness. The evidence table I present suggest they are a long way in the wilderness, now universally.

What forces do you think are at work?




OK, misotheistic label. But it's nonsense to think the election was decided by the number of misotheists in a party.
Again, I point out that this is a mis-paraphrase of my original.

Kevin Bonham
17-12-2007, 10:25 PM
The thread title does not properly indicate just how far the LNC are in the wilderness. The evidence table I present suggest they are a long way in the wilderness, now universally.

There was a nice chart of this in Crikey showing how when John Howard assumed the Liberal leadership before the 1996 election, the Coalition had every state government. During his leadership they quickly won federally, but over time lost every state government and finally the federal government as well.

Spiny Norman
18-12-2007, 05:54 AM
Given our two-party system, over the next 10 years we can probably expect the trend to run in reverse ... and then reverse again ... ad infinitum.

Capablanca-Fan
18-12-2007, 10:53 AM
There was a nice chart of this in Crikey showing how when John Howard assumed the Liberal leadership before the 1996 election, the Coalition had every state government. During his leadership they quickly won federally, but over time lost every state government and finally the federal government as well.
But for a time, the reason the States lost was because they were so different from Howard. Now the State Libs either fight among themselves or try to be Labor-Lite. It would be folly for the Federal Libs to copy this absurd strategy.

Basil
17-07-2010, 05:38 PM
If Abbott runs against Turnbull, I would suggest he has the numbers. For the sake of the Coalition, he should have the good sense not to throw his hat into the ring. However, if he does, I believe his leadership will be an unmitigated disaster and there will be a leadership spill in two year's time.


Totally agree with this. The only thing that might be more disastrous than making Abbott leader would be to put Downer back again.

Ooops. :doh:

A number of commentators (including me) believe Abbott has been very effective and played a significant role in defeating the messiah (the quotes were made days into KRudd's glorious rule).

Basil
17-07-2010, 07:36 PM
Still too much time on my hands tonight. A couple of others plucked from teh annals just after Rudd's election win:


I voted for Abbott, to help Labor secure an increased majority in 2010 :lol:


If Abbott is elected leader, I'll probably resign my membership. The man is a walking, talking, political disaster....

:D


This is true. And I think it's a real shame Costello has thrown in the towel - he would have been a formidable opposition leader. It is hard to see any of the alternatives coming close.

I actually quite like Joe Hockey, but I don't think he would cut through - he's more likely a Deputy. Abbott would clearly be a disaster. ..

Kevin Bonham
17-07-2010, 08:20 PM
I will point out that those comments were made in the context of the idea of installing Abbott as Opposition Leader immediately after Rudd won, rather than after two other leaderships in the first term (something nobody really, as far as I'm aware, expected to happen that far in advance.) That said, Abbott has thus far done much better than I thought he would and has convinced me there is really no such thing as a truly unelectable major party leader - anyone capable of winning the confidence of a major party as leader is also capable of winning an election if their opponents perform badly enough.

That said, Rudd wasn't rolled because he would have lost to Abbott; he was rolled because his own party couldn't tolerate his internal style, which they found both frustrating and a threat to their established way of doing things. (A degree of uninformed anxiety about the election result was probably in there too.)

Abbott does deserve credit for an assist in helping Rudd into that position by taking a particularly scorched-earth attitude to the contest between the parties (basically, Abbott set out to damage Rudd no matter how much he was damaged in the process). But that's no way to win an election and very probably wouldn't have won him one had Rudd remained.

And now Abbott has the additional problem that he still carries the negatives his style has accumulated, but the negatives are no longer there on the opposing side because that leader has been removed. He is in big trouble on identity politics and most voters believe he can't be trusted. There is certainly still time for GF's prediction to come true. :lol:

Goughfather
17-07-2010, 08:25 PM
You're a very brave man making such emphatic declarations when we still have 35 days left until the election.

The campaign was only a few hours old when we had the first major backflip of the campaign when Abbott backed away from proposed changes to current industrial relations legislation. That is, if he is to be believed, of course.

Stay tuned, it's going to be a bumpy ride ...

Adamski
17-07-2010, 08:28 PM
I will point out that those comments were made in the context of the idea of installing Abbott as Opposition Leader immediately after Rudd won, rather than after two other leaderships in the first term (something nobody really, as far as I'm aware, expected to happen that far in advance.) That said, Abbott has thus far done much better than I thought he would and has convinced me there is really no such thing as a truly unelectable major party leader - anyone capable of winning the confidence of a major party as leader is also capable of winning an election if their opponents perform badly enough.

That said, Rudd wasn't rolled because he would have lost to Abbott; he was rolled because his own party couldn't tolerate his internal style, which they found both frustrating and a threat to their established way of doing things. (A degree of uninformed anxiety about the election result was probably in there too.)

Abbott does deserve credit for an assist in helping Rudd into that position by taking a particularly scorched-earth attitude to the contest between the parties (basically, Abbott set out to damage Rudd no matter how much he was damaged in the process). But that's no way to win an election and very probably wouldn't have won him one had Rudd remained.

And now Abbott has the additional problem that he still carries the negatives his style has accumulated, but the negatives are no longer there on the opposing side because that leader has been removed. He is in big trouble on identity politics and most voters believe he can't be trusted. There is certainly still time for GF's prediction to come true. :lol:I don't often agree with Kevin (Bonham) on matters political, but on this ocassion I do. I hardly ever agree with Kevin Rudd on matters political, but I do feel a bit sorry for him. What happened to him reminds me of what happened to my favourite Kiwi politician Sir John Marshall who was similarly rolled by Rob (later Sir Robert) Muldoon.

antichrist
19-07-2010, 10:41 PM
I don't often agree with Kevin (Bonham) on matters political, but on this ocassion I do. I hardly ever agree with Kevin Rudd on matters political, but I do feel a bit sorry for him. What happened to him reminds me of what happened to my favourite Kiwi politician Sir John Marshall who was similarly rolled by Rob (later Sir Robert) Muldoon.

Why was he called Piggy?

Adamski
20-07-2010, 12:33 AM
Why was he called Piggy?
Rob was rather portly!

Capablanca-Fan
20-07-2010, 04:08 AM
I don't often agree with Kevin (Bonham) on matters political, but on this ocassion I do. I hardly ever agree with Kevin Rudd on matters political, but I do feel a bit sorry for him. What happened to him reminds me of what happened to my favourite Kiwi politician Sir John Marshall who was similarly rolled by Rob (later Sir Robert) Muldoon.
But at least Sir John, who later became the patron of the NZ Chess Federation, had lost an election by then. So this reinforces your point.

Desmond
03-08-2010, 02:51 PM
I notice that Teresa Gambaro is running for Brisbane, after losing the Petrie seat in 2007.

What happens to Members after they get turfed? Do they get a wage of any sort from the party or are they left to their own devices?

Basil
03-08-2010, 03:13 PM
What happens to Members after they get turfed? Do they get a wage of any sort from the party or are they left to their own devices?
Lock in B please Eddy.