The Abbott Government

[Smurf1976]

So you don't even give the Coalition any credit for trying to get the Budget back on track, notwithstanding the political mess they've made of it? Acknowledging that their attempts have been stymied by Labor and the Senate?

I see it as a problem with Abbott and a few others. I'd expect the Coalition would be far more successful at dealing with the financial situation under different leadership. That has nothing to do with economics and accounting, and everything to do with negotiation and politics.

It shouldn't be that hard to convince the general community that there's a need to fix the budget and get widespread support for that. The key, of course, is to have an open mind to how that might be achieved knowing that the end result may well be contrary to personal or party ideology. But if the budget is the priority, then that's the rational approach to take. Cut spending and/or raise taxes using whatever measures the Senate and broader community will accept. Steer the debate to your preferred outcomes as best you can, but there's no chance you'll win on everything. Accept that and get on with it.

It's like saying I want to get from Sydney to Perth. The obvious first choice is a direct flight. But if that isn't possible for whatever reason, well then I'll look at alternative options. Flying to Melbourne, train to Adelaide and then driving a rental car to Perth isn't the quickest way but it will certainly get me there. Abbott needs to start thinking like that, instead of threatening the airline staff for not letting him on a plane that isn't flying to Perth anyway.

In principle, I do think that the Coalition could do a better job of fixing the budget than Labor. But so long as they continue down a path of arrogance they're not actually going to be able to implement major changes. The party needs to flush out those at the top, both elected and unelected, and regain some humility.

 

[Calliope]

I guess same sex marriage is one of the social issues Smurf was referring to when he said that Labor's stance on social issues was more important than the economy.

So if we're going broke either way, and I can't see either Labor or the Coalition actually fixing things financially until forced, then there's no point voting based on that issue. That being so, Labor reflects my views somewhat better in terms of social policies etc.

 

[sptrawler]

The context of gay marriage in this thread is that the Coalition are supposedly a party of libertarians and personal freedom promoters, yet they suppress such values when practised by a certain section of the community who because of the Coalition's Conservative social values they disapprove of the minority's lifestyles.

So, could the Coalition really be said to be libertarians while they stifle the ability of a certain group to practise a lifestyle without infringing on the rights of others. Therefore are they really conformists who seek to throttle opposing views and opinions because of some inbred fear of people thinking outside the restrictive Conservative box ?

Wow, how you derived that from my post, is beyond me.

Maybe start another thread.

 

[SirRumpole]

Wow, how you derived that from my post, is beyond me.

Maybe start another thread.

This thread is about the Abbott government and (among other things) whether they practise what they preach in terms of libertarianism and personal freedom.

Their opposition to gay marriage is evidence that they don't.

 

[sptrawler]

This thread is about the Abbott government and (among other things) whether they practise what they preach in terms of libertarianism and personal freedom.

Their opposition to gay marriage is evidence that they don't.

My take on the subject was, the Government should keep its nose out of the issue as it is a moral issue not a legal issue. IMO

But it is probably worth another thread, if anyone finds it worth discussing.

 

[SirRumpole]

My take on the subject was, the Government should keep its nose out of the issue as it is a moral issue not a legal issue. IMO

Agreed

But it is probably worth another thread, if anyone finds it worth discussing.

There is, called "Gay Marriage".

 

[Julia]

The context of gay marriage in this thread is that the Coalition are supposedly a party of libertarians and personal freedom promoters, yet they suppress such values when practised by a certain section of the community who because of the Coalition's Conservative social values they disapprove of the minority's lifestyles.

Haven't we just had a discussion about the Coalition, due to Mr Abbott's leadership (plus probably people like the evangelistic Christian Kevin Andrews) not actually being philosophically libertarian at all, but conservative?
And that this is the source of at least some of the disappointment?

So, could the Coalition really be said to be libertarians while they stifle the ability of a certain group to practise a lifestyle without infringing on the rights of others.

I don't think they are stifling the capacity of homosexuals (which is what I assume you mean in your reference to a 'certain group') to practise their lifestyle at all. What is at issue is the institution of marriage which is a whole separate issue. You are conflating the two.

I think most people don't care what individuals do in the privacy of their own environment, only have concern if it hurts little kids, animals or any other creature which is defenceless.

However, I agree with sptrawler: further discussion should go to the Gay Marriage thread.

I see it as a problem with Abbott and a few others. I'd expect the Coalition would be far more successful at dealing with the financial situation under different leadership. That has nothing to do with economics and accounting, and everything to do with negotiation and politics.

It shouldn't be that hard to convince the general community that there's a need to fix the budget and get widespread support for that. The key, of course, is to have an open mind to how that might be achieved knowing that the end result may well be contrary to personal or party ideology. But if the budget is the priority, then that's the rational approach to take. Cut spending and/or raise taxes using whatever measures the Senate and broader community will accept. Steer the debate to your preferred outcomes as best you can, but there's no chance you'll win on everything. Accept that and get on with it.

OK, thanks for rational response.
What I was trying to emphasise is that the fault with the Coalition here is political. Labor are also playing political games, as is Palmer, but in addition neither of them show any commitment to the need to address the financial mess.

This thread is about the Abbott government and (among other things) whether they practise what they preach in terms of libertarianism and personal freedom.

Their opposition to gay marriage is evidence that they don't.

As hopefully a final note on gay marriage etc., you yourself have stated no objection to homosexuality, but are you equally as sanguine about gay marriage? You've probably said in the past but I can't recall.

 

[SirRumpole]

I don't think they are stifling the capacity of homosexuals (which is what I assume you mean in your reference to a 'certain group') to practise their lifestyle at all. What is at issue is the institution of marriage which is a whole separate issue. You are conflating the two.

The institution of marriage should be a matter between consenting adults, not the government or the church

I think most people don't care what individuals do in the privacy of their own environment, only have concern if it hurts little kids, animals or any other creature which is defenceless.

Of course.

As hopefully a final note on gay marriage etc., you yourself have stated no objection to homosexuality, but are you equally as sanguine about gay marriage? You've probably said in the past but I can't recall.

Gay marriage would not affect me in any way that I could ascertain, neither would its absence.

My objection is the intrusion of busybodies (politicians and churchmen) into peoples private lives.

The Coalition's failure to see this problem in the issue of gay marriage makes me suspicious about their motives in other areas, such as data retention, spying, bugging and general surveillance of the innocent affairs of the general populace in the name of security or any other issue that they have a hobby horse for.

If they have no genuine commitment to libertarianism as they attempt to portray, then I can't see how we can trust them to keep the correct balance between private pursuits and public security.

 

[IFocus]

So you don't even give the Coalition any credit for trying to get the Budget back on track, .

The Coalition have increased spending.................why do people keep repeating the above ad nauseam?

 

[Smurf1976]

I guess same sex marriage is one of the social issues Smurf was referring to when he said that Labor's stance on social issues was more important than the economy.

I could make probably a hundred examples, same sex marriage was just one that's been in the news in recent times.

Personally, I find the 6 month wait for unemployment benefits to be a far greater issue - it's just un-Australian in my view to not help others in need. Fair enough to stamp out any abuses of the system etc, but we shouldn't be leaving people in potentially desperate situations for 6 months just to save money. There must be some better way than that. There just must. It's not as though it even saves that much money, it's just about harming a few and being seen as "tough". A bit like the shirt fronting nonsense.

I have never claimed unemployment benefits and hopefully never will. But the hard line approach taken is just not acceptable in my view. This is Australia, we should be helping those who genuinely need help.

From a personal perspective, I'm definitely not a conservative in terms of social matters. Never have been and likely never will be. So in that context, the only reason to consider voting Liberal is on the grounds of economics.

I maintain my view that the economic outcome won't differ greatly regardless of who's in power. Labor will do it one way, Liberal will do it another, but in both cases the markets will ultimately force their hand I expect. They may be on different pages, but both are reading the same book.

 

[Julia]

If they have no genuine commitment to libertarianism as they attempt to portray, then I can't see how we can trust them to keep the correct balance between private pursuits and public security.

They are the "Liberal Party", not the "Libertarian Party". You seem to be using the terms as synonyms.

From Wiki:

There is contention about whether right, left, and socialist libertarianism "represent distinct ideologies as opposed to variations on a theme."[30] All libertarians begin with a conception of personal autonomy from which they argue in favor of civil liberties and a reduction or elimination of the state.

Right-libertarianism[31] developed in the United States in the mid-20th Century and is the most popular conception of libertarianism in that region.[32] It is commonly referred to as a continuation or radicalization of classical liberalism.[33][34] Right-libertarians value self-ownership and the non-aggression principle, which leads to strong support of private property and free-market capitalism, while rejecting most or all state functions. Anarcho-capitalists[35][36] believe the state inherently violates the non-aggression principle, while minarchists defend night-watchman states on the grounds that certain government functions are required to protect individual rights. They defend wage labor and concentrations of wealth so long as they are voluntary.

Left-libertarianism encompasses those libertarian beliefs that claim the Earth's natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively. Contemporary left-libertarians such as Hillel Steiner, Peter Vallentyne, Philippe Van Parijs, Michael Otsuka, and David Ellerman believe the appropriation of land must leave "enough and as good" for others or be taxed by society to compensate for the exclusionary effects of private property. Libertarian socialists (social and individualist anarchists, libertarian Marxists, council communists, Luxemburgists, and DeLeonists) promote usufruct and socialist economic theories, including communism, collectivism, syndicalism, and mutualism. They criticize the state for being the defender of private property and believe capitalism entails wage slavery.

The above is a long way from the simple definition of smaller government, encouragement to the population to take responsibility for their own lives rather than being dependent on the State, and relinquishing the sense of entitlement which inspires the conviction that 'the gummint' will always look after you.

"Liberalism" in the US sense seems more aligned with Labor/Progressive philosophy, and is directly at odds with the conservative Republican Party.

So I have some concerns about terminology because it could be the basis for quite some misunderstanding of the points of view of any of us commenting.

Rumpole, perhaps you'd like to provide a definition of what Liberalism is to you, and how it is distinct from Libertarianism, if indeed you see a difference? Perhaps you don't.

 

[SirRumpole]

Rumpole, perhaps you'd like to provide a definition of what Liberalism is to you, and how it is distinct from Libertarianism, if indeed you see a difference? Perhaps you don't.

Perhaps I wrongly used "Libertarianism" instead of "Liberalism". I apologise for that.

One of the key features of "Liberalism" (in terms of the approach of our Liberal Party), as I see it is minimal interference in the lives of the citizens unless it is necessary for social cohesion or maintenance of law and order, or to provide a level of protection for consumers that they can't provide for themselves.

I have given some examples of where I believe the Liberal Party is falling down in that regard.

"Libertarianism" in my view is the idea of "caveat emptor" in extremis, ie there should be no legal protection for consumers and the market is the sole determinant of what is acceptable or not in society. I don't hold with this view , as the market is a flawed concept as has been proven many times.

If the Liberal party could hold to the concept of Liberalism as I have stated it, and were prepared to walk the sometimes fine line between personal responsibility and public interest instead of maintaining its constipated Conservative approach to social and economic policy, then I think it would attract a wider following than it has got now.

Maybe under someone like Turnbull it could do that, but not under the current leadership.

 

[Julia]

Perhaps I wrongly used "Libertarianism" instead of "Liberalism". I apologise for that.

No need for any apology, Rumpole. I just noticed you were using the word 'libertarianism' and it prompted me to consider any differences between that and liberalism.

I largely agree with the rest of your remarks but will not be holding my breath in anticipation of any such change from the government, though hope I'm wrong.

"Libertarian" might be how we would describe Senator David Leyjonhelm perhaps?

 

[SirRumpole]

"Libertarian" might be how we would describe Senator David Leyjonhelm perhaps?

I described him as "dangerously right wing", and Libertarianism is certainly a feature of the gun toting rednecks in the US that Leyjonhelm apparently wants us to emulate.

I think we both agree that that sort of Libertarianism is something we don't need in this country, it equates to the "law of the jungle" where the little animals get eaten by the bigger ones.

 

[sydboy007]

So you don't even give the Coalition any credit for trying to get the Budget back on track, notwithstanding the political mess they've made of it? Acknowledging that their attempts have been stymied by Labor and the Senate?
It is at least in contrast to Labor's ever-expanding spending and multiple announcements of surpluses that were a complete certainty, according to Mr Swan, yet never came anywhere close to actually happening.

The Coalition at least recognises the problem whilst Labor and Palmer scoff at the need to rein in spending.
They assure us that Australia is in a better position than much of the rest of the world. Well, that won't be the case for long if spending continues to exceed income at the present rate.

How do you account for the fact the coalition's "ever-expanding spending and multiple announcements of surpluses that were a complete certainty" yet have now been pushed out to what 2018/19 or later?

The below graphs shows Govt spending. Note that Labor was able to achieve real reductions in spending twice over their last term. The last time this was achieved was the Hake Keating Govt. No Coalition Govt has ever achieved this. You will notice the inexorable rise in Govt spending projected for the Coalition. Surely if they were serious about getting the budget balanced that they could at least keep nominal spending stagnant and let CPI do some of the hard work for them. So why do you believe Labor had a spending problem when the current Govt is increasing spending at a faster rate than they did?

It's a fallacy to say the issue is only a spending problem, when revenue is as much a cause for the budget woes we have. Since 2000 both side have cut revenue repeatedly and done little to make the tax system more efficient. It doesn't bode well that the Govt has withheld the tax white paper. It was supposed to be released in December.

Do you believe Abbott was sensible in supporting the Melbourne $1B / KM tunnel when it will only generate a 45c in the $ economic return? That means half the construction cost is lost to the community, which could be around $10B if the projected construction costs are realised. Wouldn't it be better to support infrastructure projects that actually generate more than $1 of economic return for each $ invested? Certainly that's the kind of investment I'd put my own money into, otherwise it feels like the Govt is investing our money into the pokies where the guaranteed return is less than what we put in.

 

[sydboy007]

I guess it boils down to how you view it. To me, it is all about trying to give credibility, to an unnatural activity. Just my opinion.

Does this means you support Abbott's proposed changes to divorce laws?

He has proposed to bring in a dual system where couples could be married under a new law akin to the now-defunct Matrimonial Causes Act, a fault-based system of divorce.

Abbott also said "Marriage ought to be an option for people who would like it,"

Wouldn't these new laws help to strengthen Australia's moral compass by making divorce harder to achieve, thereby strengthening what people understand marriage to be?

Personally I don't think you can use laws to enforce morality, otherwise there'd be laws against say adultery, or we'd be like the US with debates over the legality of abortion. Then there's that pesky issue of slavery that was legal, but I doubt anyone would argue it has ever been moral.

 

[SirRumpole]

Govt spending. Note that Labor was able to achieve real reductions in spending twice over their last term

Any ideas in which areas these reductions were achieved ?

 

[sydboy007]

Any ideas in which areas these reductions were achieved ?

No. That would require too much time trawling through budget documents

 

[SirRumpole]

No. That would require too much time trawling through budget documents

So they could have done it simply by deferring defence procurements for another 5 years say ?

 

[drsmith]

The Coalition have increased spending.................why do people keep repeating the above ad nauseam?

What about the spending trajectory this government inherited from the former Rudd/Gillard governments ?

What about the saving measures Labor continue to block in the Senate including $5bn of their own ??

Happy new political year IF.