The Abbott Government

[Smurf1976]

I've never considered myself as "rusted on" to any political party.

But if an election, either state or federal, were held tomorrow then there is very little chance that I'd be voting Liberal.

It comes down to arrogance, a problem that precludes sensible policy development and implementation. Since both the federal and state governments are suffering the same problem, I conclude it to be a function of the Liberal party itself rather than any particular politician.

As such, I'll look at the other candidates closely but wouldn't consider voting for any Liberals without a major change. I say that as someone who, in principle, substantially supports the party's view of the world. But they've lost the plot in practice and turned into a bunch of ideologically driven fight starters unable to sensibly govern in the best interests of the country or state.

Realistically, that probably leaves me as a Labor voter unless there's some decent independent or minor party candidates. Labor will make a mess of course, but in a different way that's what the Liberals are doing right now anyway.

 

[SirRumpole]

I've never considered myself as "rusted on" to any political party.

But if an election, either state or federal, were held tomorrow then there is very little chance that I'd be voting Liberal.

It comes down to arrogance, a problem that precludes sensible policy development and implementation. Since both the federal and state governments are suffering the same problem, I conclude it to be a function of the Liberal party itself rather than any particular politician.

As such, I'll look at the other candidates closely but wouldn't consider voting for any Liberals without a major change. I say that as someone who, in principle, substantially supports the party's view of the world. But they've lost the plot in practice and turned into a bunch of ideologically driven fight starters unable to sensibly govern in the best interests of the country or state.

Realistically, that probably leaves me as a Labor voter unless there's some decent independent or minor party candidates. Labor will make a mess of course, but in a different way that's what the Liberals are doing right now anyway.

A pretty balanced comment.

Whether Labor "makes a mess" really depends on who is in charge.

If it's Bill Shorten, I perceive him as too weak to stand up to the unions, as he comes from that background.

Someone like Chris Bowen, although he is not in the limelight at the moment, may do a better job.

Labor at the moment lacks the financial discipline of a Lindsay Tanner in the Treasury role. Perhaps Bowen and Wong can take over that mantle, they don't seem to be the wild spending types.

Let's just remember that Labor got stuck with the GFC and had to spend their way out of it, conversely they did commit to large spending increases like Gonski and NDIS. Whatever we think of the worth of these projects they cost oodles of cash that has to be found.

 

[Julia]

There certainly seem to be a lot of rusted ons here.

Yes, you would as you seem to have a condition of selective reading.

sptrawler, Calliope would be fair bets. As the membership has sadly declined there aren't as many vocal people in the political threads these days but when the politics were hot the opinions were mainly for the Coalition.

You might be mistaking disgust with the six years of Labor with automatic liking for the Coalition. I can recall many highly critical posts from both sptrawler and Calliope regarding the present government.

It seems to be a characteristic of those people who are either rusted on to a political party or conversely rusted off its opposition to assume that anyone making criticism of, for example, Labor is ergo an uncritical fan of the other side. This is simply wrong.

So, no, I do not have any 'condition of selective reading', Rumpole. And I'd dare to suggest neither do either Calliope or sptrawler, so perhaps consider not making such generalised, inaccurate assertions.

What I do think we'd pretty much all agree on is that the political landscape is presently extremely barren on both sides. Worse, there seems little prospect of this getting better. Goes not just to the major parties but to the motley assortment in the Senate where there seems little hope of sensible attitude from most of the new senators. I held out some hope for David Leyjonhelm for a while, but his recent advice that Australians should be armed has destroyed that.

 

[SirRumpole]

You might be mistaking disgust with the six years of Labor with automatic liking for the Coalition. I can recall many highly critical posts from both sptrawler and Calliope regarding the present government.

If you could point these out, I would be interested.

What I do think we'd pretty much all agree on is that the political landscape is presently extremely barren on both sides. Worse, there seems little prospect of this getting better. Goes not just to the major parties but to the motley assortment in the Senate where there seems little hope of sensible attitude from most of the new senators. I held out some hope for David Leyjonhelm for a while, but his recent advice that Australians should be armed has destroyed that.

David Leyjonelm is a wolf in sheep's clothing, seemingly reasonable on the outside, but dangerously Right wing underneath.

Nick Xenophon on the other hand seems consistently balanced and reasonable. If he starts his own party and it's possible for me to vote for him, I will.

 

[Julia]

If you could point these out, I would be interested.

That would mean my trawling through several threads which I'm not going to do Rumpole.
I'm sure, political devotee that you are, you have yourself read such posts.

Just as you have a natural inclination toward Labor, others - myself included - will also have a natural disposition to whatever aligns with our life view.
In my case it's small 'l' liberal, the wish for governments not to do what people can do for themselves, the encouragement of personal responsibility and the relinquishment of the sense of entitlement which has come to so pervade the national psyche.

Despite being "The Liberal Party", the force Mr Abbott is leading is much more purely Conservative than Liberal and that is a source of much disappointment to me and many others.

 

[SirRumpole]

In my case it's small 'l' liberal, the wish for governments not to do what people can do for themselves, the encouragement of personal responsibility and the relinquishment of the sense of entitlement which has come to so pervade the national psyche.

I certainly agree with that sentiment in principle, but let's remember that it was Liberal governments that bought in baby bonuses and family tax benefits in a mining boom that they never expected would end, instead of investing in productive infrastructure while they could. Added to that the expensive and unecessary PPL and you have a Party bereft of the principles you aspire to.

I admire you for acknowledging that fact.

 

[Calliope]

Small "l" liberals actually consider themselves to be "Progressives". My objection to the Liberal Party is that it is riddled with small ells. A little Conservative backbone is badly needed. A Conservative in Australia is;

Terminology
Until recently "conservatism" was a disparaging epithet used by radicals and Laborites and claimed by few. People on the right called themselves "liberals." That only changed in the late 20th century; Hirst shows that as a significant political movement, conservatism is "a very recent arrival in Australia. John Howard, who became prime minister in 1996, was the first holder of the office to describe himself as a conservative."

In the 21st century the term covers similar political issues as found in other Western democracies. In the early 20th century the self-styled "liberals" had connections with radicals and reform movements. However as Howard has argued, the Liberal Party became the trustee of both the classical liberal and conservative traditions. That is it combines "liberal" (market-based, pro-business, anti-union) economic policies with conservative social policies.

(Wiki)

Exactly the opposite to a Progressive.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=progressive

 

[Smurf1976]

Personally, I'd love to vote for someone who is:

Pro-market, pro-business in principle.

Supports personal freedom and choice whilst protecting those who wish to not be involved in anything harmful to themselves.

Understands that markets have their limits and that there is still a role for government.

Sees unions as a matter of personal choice.

Is socially progressive.

Actually follows its' own ideology, including where that leads to individuals making choices the government would prefer they didn't.

If the Liberal party really supported personal choice and freedom then they wouldn't see a problem with, for example, gay marriage or someone joining a union. It's a personal choice, right?

 

[sptrawler]

Personally, I'd love to vote for someone who is:

Pro-market, pro-business in principle.

Supports personal freedom and choice whilst protecting those who wish to not be involved in anything harmful to themselves.

Understands that markets have their limits and that there is still a role for government.

Sees unions as a matter of personal choice.

Is socially progressive.

Actually follows its' own ideology, including where that leads to individuals making choices the government would prefer they didn't.

If the Liberal party really supported personal choice and freedom then they wouldn't see a problem with, for example, gay marriage or someone joining a union. It's a personal choice, right? Oh wait.... We support personal choice as long as you make choices we agree with. Yep, that's closer to it.

Your earlier post said you feel Labor are more aligned with your views. Yet above you say you prefer pro market, pro business?

As far as I know smurph, joining a union is a personal choice.
What was been banned, was compulsory unionism, which didn't allow personal choice.
I've seen people 'black balled' and sent to Coventry, then lose their job. Where was their personal choice, back in the days of compulsory unionism?
Having said that, I do believe in the union collective ideal, and was always a member.
What I dislike, is that the unions have been hijacked by intellectual socialists, that use it as a platform to a political career. The last thing they represent is their workers.IMO

Gay marriage is moral issue that Australia should have a referendum on, IMO, and then be put to bed.
I don't feel it is any Governments right, to legislate a change in our moral compass, without asking if the majority want it.

I think people generally have to get their heads around the fact, that we are currently going through a period, of falling tax reciepts and increased demand on the welfare system.
Labor made a poor fist of addressing the issues, and Liberal aren't doing any better.

Irrespective of who is in office, both spending and taxation will have to be modified, and people won't be happy.

I doubt the end result will differ very much, which ever party is in office.

If Welfare spending increases, then the tax to support it will increase. If the increased taxation is on business, they will pass the increase on to the consumer, or continue to lose profit, which eventually leads to closure.

If the personal tax rates increase, wages will follow, workers still have to pay their bills.

So the end result is costs/ inflation go up, the only sector that can't change their fiscal position, is the welfare recipients.
So we increase the welfare spend, and so the cycle continues.
The difference to the equation now as opposed to pre 2007 is, the welfare is now being funded by the Government borrowing money, to pay it.

It will be addressed despite peoples discontent, even Labor will follow a similar path, IMO.

 

[Julia]

Small "l" liberals actually consider themselves to be "Progressives".

Well, 'Progressive' is usually associated with the Labor Party. It's the first time I've ever heard of such an association with small l liberal philosophy.

We can get much too hung up on terminology rather than principles. To be progressive in the conventional sense of the word is presumably to be open minded toward reform and societal improvement which seems more than reasonable to me.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are hamstrung by their refusal to relinquish old ways, are stuck in the past.

I heard a talk recently by a local Conservative councillor which I found quite astonishing.
In describing his life, he referred to his wife as 'dutiful and obedient', and his children likewise.
He admired the White Australia policy and thought that immigration has been bad for Australia.
He was intractably opposed to abortion under any circumstances.
Thought everyone should have the right to bear arms and informed listeners of his many guns.

And more along the same lines, all stuff I'd have thought sensible people would have long ago discarded.

This sort of ultra conservatism is usually only seen amongst old people so hopefully it will disappear from natural attrition. Certainly hope so.

 

[Julia]

I certainly agree with that sentiment in principle, but let's remember that it was Liberal governments that bought in baby bonuses and family tax benefits in a mining boom that they never expected would end, instead of investing in productive infrastructure while they could. Added to that the expensive and unecessary PPL and you have a Party bereft of the principles you aspire to.

Couldn't have put it more accurately myself.

Nonetheless, under John Howard the country was more in harmony with itself than has been the case since.
And - under the stewardship of Peter Costello - they left a healthy surplus.

sptrawler above makes some good points about fiscal management.

As citizens we should be able to hold our government in respect, feel confident they know what's best for Australia, and that they genuinely have the welfare of the people at heart.

Instead, we get soap operas about 'seeing the real XXX', intra-party back stabbing, myopic devotion to an outdated class structure, and money wasted on religion and the over-commemoration of war.

Little wonder the electorate feels a collective sense of despair.

 

[ghotib]

ghotib, I've been pondering your use of the 'lazy': it seems a rather unusual adjective for someone so self disciplined in terms of physical fitness etc. Mr Abbott doesn't strike me as lazy so much as timorous. He was confident in opposition because he knew he could just object and attack (as Labor is doing now) and his three word slogans pretty much did the job.

But he's perhaps finding it very different in government where much more is required of him. He seems to think he has to be liked by everyone. I wince when I listen to him being interviewed by cretins such as Alan Jones who lash him with criticism and insults while he becomes ever more pathetically defensive instead of standing up for himself...

...If you could expand on your use of 'lazy' I'd be interested.

Thanks for the ponder Julia. I was surprised myself when the words "lazy" and "Tony Abbott" occurred to me in the same sentence, but I haven't found a better description so I thought I'd put it out and see if anything came back. So thank you.

Why do I think he's lazy spite of his physical discipline? The policy inconsistencies that sydboy and smurf pointed out are part of it. The miserable performance in interviews, where he never seems to be prepared even for obvious questions like "what is metadata", is part of it. The famous remark to Kerry O'Brien that we should only believe him when he's speaking from a script is part of it. The eyerolls, and even the infamous wink, that seem to be his reaction to any attempt to press him on a statement are part of it.

But the clincher for me was his book, which I've only recently read and which I found… Well, lazy. It reminds me of essays I wrote in my student days, where I'd done a lot of reading but not much digesting. The result is notes strung together well enough to meet a word count, but not well enough to make a coherent, let alone an original, argument. As far as I know no one commissioned Abbott to write Battlelines and he was under no time pressure. I can’t see any reason for the book’s failings except that they reflect either Abbott’s refusal to think, or his refusal to put his thoughts into words that can be challenged.

I’ve seen that as intellectual laziness. I think it might be part of the behaviour you see as timorous: he doesn’t handle insult or criticism, or even honest debate, because he hasn’t done the work and he knows it.

Fascinating character. I just wish he was fictional.

 

[banco]

Thanks for the ponder Julia. I was surprised myself when the words "lazy" and "Tony Abbott" occurred to me in the same sentence, but I haven't found a better description so I thought I'd put it out and see if anything came back. So thank you.

Why do I think he's lazy spite of his physical discipline? The policy inconsistencies that sydboy and smurf pointed out are part of it. The miserable performance in interviews, where he never seems to be prepared even for obvious questions like "what is metadata", is part of it. The famous remark to Kerry O'Brien that we should only believe him when he's speaking from a script is part of it. The eyerolls, and even the infamous wink, that seem to be his reaction to any attempt to press him on a statement are part of it.

But the clincher for me was his book, which I've only recently read and which I found… Well, lazy. It reminds me of essays I wrote in my student days, where I'd done a lot of reading but not much digesting. The result is notes strung together well enough to meet a word count, but not well enough to make a coherent, let alone an original, argument. As far as I know no one commissioned Abbott to write Battlelines and he was under no time pressure. I can’t see any reason for the book’s failings except that they reflect either Abbott’s refusal to think, or his refusal to put his thoughts into words that can be challenged.

I’ve seen that as intellectual laziness. I think it might be part of the behaviour you see as timorous: he doesn’t handle insult or criticism, or even honest debate, because he hasn’t done the work and he knows it.

Fascinating character. I just wish he was fictional.

For what it's worth he was regarded as a lazy minister in the Howard Government (in terms of not putting in the hours that others did and trying to wing it).

 

[SirRumpole]

Your earlier post said you feel Labor are more aligned with your views. Yet above you say you prefer pro market, pro business?

If "pro business" really means "anti consumer", then that ideology is not something most voters would endorse.

The weakening of the financial consumer laws in favour of financial advisors would be one example of "Conservative" thinking rather than "liberal" thinking that is badly regarded by the electorate.

 

[sptrawler]

Thanks for the ponder Julia. I was surprised myself when the words "lazy" and "Tony Abbott" occurred to me in the same sentence, but I haven't found a better description so I thought I'd put it out and see if anything came back. So thank you.

Why do I think he's lazy spite of his physical discipline? The policy inconsistencies that sydboy and smurf pointed out are part of it. The miserable performance in interviews, where he never seems to be prepared even for obvious questions like "what is metadata", is part of it. The famous remark to Kerry O'Brien that we should only believe him when he's speaking from a script is part of it. The eyerolls, and even the infamous wink, that seem to be his reaction to any attempt to press him on a statement are part of it.

But the clincher for me was his book, which I've only recently read and which I found… Well, lazy. It reminds me of essays I wrote in my student days, where I'd done a lot of reading but not much digesting. The result is notes strung together well enough to meet a word count, but not well enough to make a coherent, let alone an original, argument. As far as I know no one commissioned Abbott to write Battlelines and he was under no time pressure. I can’t see any reason for the book’s failings except that they reflect either Abbott’s refusal to think, or his refusal to put his thoughts into words that can be challenged.

I’ve seen that as intellectual laziness. I think it might be part of the behaviour you see as timorous: he doesn’t handle insult or criticism, or even honest debate, because he hasn’t done the work and he knows it.

Fascinating character. I just wish he was fictional.

Very interesting take on Abbott, ghotib, one I had never considered.

If your theory is correct, I would think his hold on the leadership would be very shaky.

 

[SirRumpole]

I’ve seen that as intellectual laziness. I think it might be part of the behaviour you see as timorous: he doesn’t handle insult or criticism, or even honest debate, because he hasn’t done the work and he knows it.

Would the word "shallow" sum him up ?

 

[Calliope]

Conservatives like Thatcher and Reagan believed in personal responsibility and smaller government. So do I. It that makes me a Conservative...so be it. Reagan said;

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

Gary Johns, a former Labor minister has an interesting article in The Australian today. He believes that taxpayers should not have to support people who choose to have children, if they are on welfare. He thinks more like a Conservative than a small "l" or a Progressive.

IF a person’s sole source of income is the taxpayer, the person, as a condition of benefit, must have contraception. No contraception, no benefit.

This is not an affront to single mothers or absent fathers, or struggling parents. Such a measure will undoubtedly affect strugglers, it undoubtedly will affect Aboriginal and Islander people in great proportions, but the idea that someone can have the taxpayer, as of right, fund the choice to have a child is repugnant.

Large families of earlier generations were the result of the combination of absent contraception and the need to have many children, in order that some survive to care for parents in old age.

These conditions do not now apply. Infant mortality is minuscule in all sectors of society, and the taxpayer picks up the tab for aged care.

Therefore, there should be no taxpayer inducement to have children. Potential parents of poor means, poor skills or bad character will choose to have children. So be it. But no one should enter parenthood while on a benefit.

It is better to avoid having children until such time as parents can afford them. No amount of ‘‘intervention’’ after the fact can make up for the strife that many parents bring down on their children.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...aception-no-dole/story-fn8v83qk-1227169545069

 

[banco]

Conservatives like Thatcher and Reagan believed in personal responsibility and smaller government. So do I. It that makes me a Conservative...so be it. Reagan said;

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

Gary Johns, a former Labor minister has an interesting article in The Australian today. He believes that taxpayers should not have to support people who choose to have children, if they are on welfare. He thinks more like a Conservative than a small "l" or a Progressive.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...aception-no-dole/story-fn8v83qk-1227169545069

Hardly call that conservative. What are they going to do? Insert an IUD in the centerlink office before they hand over the cheque?

 

[SirRumpole]

It is better to avoid having children until such time as parents can afford them. No amount of ‘‘intervention’’ after the fact can make up for the strife that many parents bring down on their children.

I'm no way a Conservative, but I agree with Mr Johns statement. Of course the champions of the poor and oppressed will cry that it's everyone's right to have children, but not on my money thanks.

Will the Coalition bring back "Income management" ? Is this a good idea ? Some people with spend welfare on drink, drugs, pokies and cigarettes but I wonder what proportion of welfare recipients this group composes.

There needs to be better collection of data on welfare recipients in general, especially those on disability support. This is a very wide area that seems to cover every complaint from amputations to anxiety. Some easy to prove, others not.

There could be widespread rorting of disability payments.

 

[Smurf1976]

Your earlier post said you feel Labor are more aligned with your views. Yet above you say you prefer pro market, pro business?

In principle I'm pro markets and business, but the downsides of the Liberals outweigh that for me at the moment such that, of the parties, Labor seems the best of a bad bunch.

By "pro business" I mean that I acknowledge that business as such is legitimate, it's the underpinning of the economy and ultimately of our society. We should certainly have sensible regulation in areas such as pay and conditions, environment, safety, consumer protection etc. But it shouldn't be to the point of punishing business for the sake of it (essentially an ideological view) or making it impossible to carry on a reasonable business activity.

As far as I know smurph, joining a union is a personal choice.

It is and should be so. But I think it's fair to say that there's a degree of bias on both major sides of politics here. One side likes them, one hates them. Neither could be considered impartial.

Gay marriage is moral issue that Australia should have a referendum on, IMO, and then be put to bed.

Seems fair to me. Although a "personal freedom" government would see no reason to regulate that in the first place assuming we're talking about two consenting adults.

I think people generally have to get their heads around the fact, that we are currently going through a period, of falling tax reciepts and increased demand on the welfare system.
Labor made a poor fist of addressing the issues, and Liberal aren't doing any better.

+1

It was a very foreseeable problem too, just basic maths really. Anyone who looked at the statistics would have known about an aging population and the rest is pretty straightforward from that point. Liberal (Howard) could have moderated the boom and stashed more away for the future. Labor could have avoided blowing what the previous government did set aside. Abbott could have sold the message a lot better had he taken a calmer, less arrogant approach to it all.

The sad thing is, the longer we leave it, the harder it will be to fix eventually. At some point, we're going to have a true horror budget that everybody from the rich through to the unemployed and everyone in between will hate.