What you have shown here is that pretty much any ideology can be impressed upon the plebeians, given enough time and enough gaslighting.As two examples:
Pretty much all "progressive" causes were overwhelmingly at odds with mainstream opinion when first proposed but in due course, if the underlying issue has merit, acceptance grows.
Obvious examples being the issue originally known as gay rights and separately environmental conservation. Both of those went from being extremely at odds with mainstream society to a situation of general acceptance in the space of one generation.
Second is the GST. First suggested in Australia circa 1970, then again in 1985 and more seriously in 1993. It was finally implemented in the year 2000.
The same could be said of various physical things eg bridges, railways, dams, roads etc. If the underlying idea has merit then it tends to never die. It might be knocked back the first time, it might be knocked back a few times but eventually it gets done.
The Sydney Harbour Bridge was first proposed as far back as 1815 with the first serious work underway 111 years later albeit on a bigger and better bridge than that first proposed.
The Snowy Hydro scheme was first proposed in the late 1800's, actual construction commencing in 1949 although the scheme as built is substantially different from that originally proposed.
Plenty more like that including things that haven't been built but every now and then someone has another go and/or government has agreed to keep collecting data (eg weather, water flows, whatever is relevant) so as to inform any future decision.
If a broad concept has merit then some version of it, one that overcomes identified problems, ends up being implemented. It's the genuine duds that tend to die out permanently.
The difference is that sort of things comes and goes.
Great point, but I would argue Marxist ideology has been around for approximately as long as the Sydney Harbour bridge. The Harbour bridge of course was a great idea, while Marxism was an absolutely terrible idea (objectively so)
Yes the grade 3 grandson came home from school on Monday and told me that boys can have girlfriends and they can have boyfriends and they can kiss, meanwhile the wife and I are teaching him his times tables.
www.abc.net.au
Why can't they just send these people to Christmas Island ?While we are on the subject of assumptions and ramifications of putting things in the constitution, that can only be challenged through the High Court.
The detainee fiasco shows just how lax our politicians are when it comes to investigating their own brain farts.
Blind Freddy could see the 'Voice' would have far reaching implications, that could be interpreted as people saw fit, yet there was an uproar of fearmongering.
From their ABC:
Interesting article, well worth reading in full and shows how putting something ambiguous in the constitution could have had massive ramifications, that would be completely out of the Governments control.
From the article:
This one sentence caused Clare O'Neil a whole lot of pain
It took just one sentence from Home Affairs Minister Clare O'Neil for ears to prick up. Innocuous to many, they were shocking to those in the know and again left Labor having to correct the record, writes Brett Worthington.
It took just 14 words from Home Affairs Minister Clare O'Neil for ears to prick up.
Buried in a response to a question about a landmark High Court case, she said: "We were advised that it was likely that the Commonwealth would win the case."
The case she was referring to was that of a Rohingya man who challenged his indefinite immigration detention. The government lost, with the court ruling indefinite immigration detention was unlawful and prompting the release of about 100 people from detention. More detainees may follow.
To the uninitiated, O'Neil's comments probably sounded innocuous.
But to those who understand courts and government advice, the comments were a shock and were immediately cast into doubt.
Within days, she'd be walking back her weekend comments. The record might have been corrected, but it's again left the government facing questions about its handling of the matter.
It's been two weeks since the High Court overturned an almost 20-year legal precedent, ruling indefinite immigration detention was unlawful.
In losing the case, it threw the immigration detention system into disarray, and left the government scrambling to respond, with more than 90 people, including murderers, child sexual abusers and sex offenders, released into the community.
What shocked people about O'Neil's "win" comments on Sunday was twofold.
Not only is it highly unusual for a lawyer to suggest they would "win" a case in the High Court, it's also not a prediction a lawyer worth their weight would have made in this case.
Many legal observers expected the court would rule the way it did. In this case, the writing was on the wall and why the government was working so hard for it never to have made its way to the highest court in the land.
On Sunday, O'Neil was throwing her department in front of a bus by saying Home Affairs had made the winning prediction.
When it came to walking back those comments this morning, in an interview with the ABC, she attempted to rewrite history.
"I was not referring to legal advice when I made comments about the Commonwealth's prospects in that case," she said.
"I do not, will not, will not ever talk about the legal advice that is provided to the Commonwealth.
For months behind the scenes, the government was going out of its way to prevent the case ever being decided by the court, knowing all too well the implications of losing.
O'Neil on Wednesday confirmed the government considered releasing the Rohingya man at the centre of the case from detention, a move that would have stopped it needing to be heard in court.
He'd been in immigration detention for five years after serving jail time for raping a 10-year-old boy.
The government also tried to get six countries to take him. This too would have ended the court case.
None of the options eventuated, the matter went to court, and the rest, as they say in the classics, is history.
You probably find they can challenge that, as they might not want to go.
home from home and a long swim to get anywhere.
www.aussiestockforums.com
It would appear that with a dud at the top only duds will be next to him
Just to give you a heads up on reality, Hawke promised them a treaty by 1990, while he was in office.
Yep and Barney is also real conservative unlike the current crop.Just to give you a heads up on reality, Hawke promised them a treaty by 1990, while he was in office.
Barnett promised a treaty and delivered.
The Liberal Party in W.A and Federally don't even rate as a Party IMO, that doesn't mean that the Labor Party get Carte Blanche. I still call a spade a spade, whoever is in and I try to be balanced about it.
At the moment are parties that are travelling on a three legged donkey.
Newspoll shows Anthony Albanese is follows Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd down the tubes
Anthony Albanese as Prime Minister is on the same downward trajectory in voter support and at a similar time in the parliamentary and electoral schedule as Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard in the months before they were removed as Labor leaders.
Indeed, on some measures Albanese’s support and the ALP primary vote as shown in Newspoll are worse at this stage than they were for both his immediate Labor predecessors.
While it is highly unlikely Albanese will suffer the same fate as Rudd and Gillard at the hands of Labor MPs the fall in voter support for the PM and primary vote for the Government is a grim warning from recent political history.
A combination of faulty political judgment, policy blunders, administrative mistakes, legislative failure, a lack of unified ministerial messages and a deep public belief Albanese has been distracted and not paying attention to detail means that the government is going into the summer break and beyond the half-term point with its lowest primary vote and highest dissatisfaction with Albanese’s performance.
According to the latest Newspoll, Labor’s primary vote has slumped to just 31 per cent — less than it’s election vote in May last year — and satisfaction with Albanese’s performance as Prime Minister has dropped to 40 per cent and dissatisfaction up to 53 per cent — a net approval rating of minus 13 points — his worst since the election.
That’s a fall in Labor’s primary vote of five percentage points since October and a seven-point rise in voter dissatisfaction with Albanese in the same period.
In themselves these figures are certainly not grounds for removing a leader but there are trends emerging which suggest Labor’s position could be worse early next year when there is only about 12 months to when an election must be called.
Of course, the searing experience of many of the Labor MPs who were in the Rudd-Gillard turmoil and still serving, will put a brake on loose talk about leadership change - after all Gillard took Labor to minority government in 2010 and Rudd, on his return in 2013, lost the election heavily to Tony Abbott.
But, messages coming from the public now about misplaced priorities, leaders being out of touch, unpopular policies on climate change and tax and disunity are similar to the complaints of the last months of the Rudd and Gillard leaderships.
Rudd, like Albanese, had a long political honeymoon and high voter satisfaction with a solid Labor primary vote in Newspoll surveys, but for Rudd the turnaround started quickly and accelerated. After record highs early in his prime ministership Rudd started to suffer a fall in support in October-November 2009 with voter satisfaction dropping 22 points from its record high and primary vote falling 16 points from its high to 56 per cent and 41 per cent respectively.
There was a further fall in February-March 2010 and an even greater fall in April-May 2010 after bungled immigration decisions, climate change fatigue and a proposed mining tax. Voter satisfaction with Rudd fell to 39 per cent and the ALP primary vote fell to 35 per cent.
Rudd was removed soon after when a Labor state by-election loss in the western suburbs of Sydney was blamed on federal Labor.
Gillard had a much lower platform to begin with and lost Labor’s majority in 2010. She went on to lose even more support after the Wattle Day massacre in September 2011 when she did a carbon tax deal with the Greens.
The Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on November 15.
But she recovered briefly and by October November 2012 had regained ground only to go into the 2012 summer break with see-sawing poll numbers and rising internal division.
By February-March 2013 as Parliament resumed Gillard had started to fail in the polls again and satisfaction with her performance fell to 26 per cent and dissatisfaction rose to 65 percent. Labor’s primary vote was down to 30 per cent.
Within three months Gillard was removed and replaced with Rudd for a second time who had a brief rise in ratings until losing the election in September.
While reason, logic and commonsense would suggest there is no real threat to Albanese there is terrible propensity to panic at this time in the electoral cycle — not just Labor — when trends start to go bad in polling as bad decisions turn off voters and the inexorable timetable of elections and parliamentary sittings starts to play on politicians minds.
There is still time for Albanese to turn the trends around but it is going to take a big, concentrated effort and be much improved on what has been on display since October.
DENNIS SHANAHAN
Hello and welcome to Aussie Stock Forums!
To gain full access you must register. Registration is free and takes only a few seconds to complete.
Already a member? Log in here.
