Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Victorian election 2022

Jump to new
orr said:
The Conservative thought Leaders of the likes of Nick Cater, Menzies Research Centre, who's piece in the Sunday Australian 13/11 "Single young females the biggest threat to parties on the right"...
Get hold of this Please. And read it....

The problem for the Liberal party's near term prospects ain't the Guardian....As proven in Vic, 80% of under 30's see better alternatives to the Lberals
The problem is giving colunm inches to thinking like Cater, anywhere.

Don't misinturpret this as that Cater shouldn't be printed; The more he is the better I like it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, 'cause 80% of under 30s have the education, wisdom and life experiences :laugh:
 
Don't cast stones if you get butthurt and need to defend what you read:roflmao:

I enjoy the stir.
 
Yeah well.... I'd be more than happy if the Guardian sucks Trump into a black hole vortex pit where anything that resembles truth and decency has disappeared up Murdoch's backside never to be seen in the real universe again :cool:
 
PZ99 said:
Yeah well.... I'd be more than happy if the Guardian sucks Trump into a black hole vortex pit where anything that resembles truth and decency has disappeared up Murdoch's backside never to be seen in the real universe again :cool:
Click to expand...
Didn't his "news" outlets get relabelled as "entertainment"?

At least he was partially honest about one thing.
 
SirRumpole said:
"Climate Change "

"Wind farms"

"Renewable energy"

"Trump is a d**k"

"Biden is great"

"Dictator Dan romps home",

:D
Click to expand...
I noticed you left LGBTQIA off your list. I find this both bigoted and discriminatory for a guardian reader.

You also left off POC. While the above may have been "accidental", two important struggles being left off the list is outright Nazism. It's the worst thing I've witnessed since Ukraine was invaded by Russia.

The Guardian editor will be hearing about this
 
wayneL said:
Ditch conservatism?

I think that part of their problem, depending on what we're defining as conservatism here. It seems to have a pretty loose definition.

But if you ditch conservatism (again, loosely defined), what do you have?

Two "progressive" parties?
Click to expand...
I can't prove it but anecdotally I think there's a lot of people who'd like a government that was economically conservative but not to an extreme whilst keeping out of the lives of individuals except where genuinely justified.

At present we get the opposite. Governments that run up huge debts whilst for a long as I can remember, there's always been some issue where government's trying to dictate how people live their lives.

Our politicians in general, of any persuasion, seem to be spendthrift control freaks. :2twocents
 
Smurf1976 said:
I can't prove it but anecdotally I think there's a lot of people who'd like a government that was economically conservative but not to an extreme whilst keeping out of the lives of individuals except where genuinely justified.
Click to expand...

That would be the ideal situation, except I would point out that when things go wrong in peoples lives, unemployment, illness, low wages etc, most people expect and demand that the government does something about it.

Maybe we have been coddled by government services like Medicare, but the alternative is a commercial health care system like the US, would we want that ?
 
SirRumpole said:
That would be the ideal situation, except I would point out that when things go wrong in peoples lives, unemployment, illness, low wages etc, most people expect and demand that the government does something about it.
Click to expand...
I was thinking more of interference as such. Thinking back over the years, there's always been something:

At one point it was about when pubs were allowed to open.

Then the debate was about when supermarkets were allowed to open and the old closing at midday on Saturdays and so on.

Then there's been debates about what consenting adults do in the bedroom.

Once we stopped worrying about what they're doing in bed, then we argued about marriage.

Now I see that smokers are in the firing line once again, that was in the media yesterday. Now I'm not a smoker, I'm somewhat against it actually, but for heaven's sake I think at this point every adult knows it's unhealthy. If people want to smoke well they really don't need ugly coloured cigarettes to discourage them which is the government's latest idea.

At what point do governments stop telling people how to live their lives? Make them aware of danger, educate them and encourage things sure but over the years there's been far too much outright interference in my view.

Here in SA they "improved" shop trading hours by allowing them to open at 9am on Sunday. OK, well that's an improvement yes but I'm really trying to get my mind around why, exactly, we need to be regulating when groceries can be sold in the first place? Some regulations around gambling OK, alcohol perhaps too, but laws as to when I can buy an apple and a box of corn flakes? What serious problem is that fixing?

So I'm basically saying give people freedom, stop making laws for the sake of making laws about things that ought be a matter for individuals to decide. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have Medicare or that we shouldn't have welfare systems and so on but if I want to buy a chocolate bar, well I really don't need government telling me when I can buy it and then, once I've bought it, reminding me that it's unhealthy. Just let me eat the chocolate and go worry about something more serious - like the housing crisis or homelessness or aged care or infrastructure or..... :2twocents
 
Smurf1976 said:
I was thinking more of interference as such. Thinking back over the years, there's always been something:

At one point it was about when pubs were allowed to open.

Then the debate was about when supermarkets were allowed to open and the old closing at midday on Saturdays and so on.

Then there's been debates about what consenting adults do in the bedroom.

Once we stopped worrying about what they're doing in bed, then we argued about marriage.

Now I see that smokers are in the firing line once again, that was in the media yesterday. Now I'm not a smoker, I'm somewhat against it actually, but for heaven's sake I think at this point every adult knows it's unhealthy. If people want to smoke well they really don't need ugly coloured cigarettes to discourage them which is the government's latest idea.

At what point do governments stop telling people how to live their lives? Make them aware of danger, educate them and encourage things sure but over the years there's been far too much outright interference in my view.

Here in SA they "improved" shop trading hours by allowing them to open at 9am on Sunday. OK, well that's an improvement yes but I'm really trying to get my mind around why, exactly, we need to be regulating when groceries can be sold in the first place? Some regulations around gambling OK, alcohol perhaps too, but laws as to when I can buy an apple and a box of corn flakes? What serious problem is that fixing?

So I'm basically saying give people freedom, stop making laws for the sake of making laws about things that ought be a matter for individuals to decide. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have Medicare or that we shouldn't have welfare systems and so on but if I want to buy a chocolate bar, well I really don't need government telling me when I can buy it and then, once I've bought it, reminding me that it's unhealthy. Just let me eat the chocolate and go worry about something more serious - like the housing crisis or homelessness or aged care or infrastructure or..... :2twocents
Click to expand...

The issues that you mention were basically the result of religion in the political parties.

The Labor Party was full of Catholics in "those days", and maybe still is. Our PM is a devout Catholic and look at his predecessor. :rolleyes:

Maybe we need politicians to sign a "religious declaration" certificate before running for election so we know where they stand.

I didn't know Albo was a devout Catholic until he became PM.
 
SirRumpole said:
The issues that you mention were basically the result of religion in the political parties.

The Labor Party was full of Catholics in "those days", and maybe still is. Our PM is a devout Catholic and look at his predecessor. :rolleyes:

Maybe we need politicians to sign a "religious declaration" certificate before running for election so we know where they stand.

I didn't know Albo was a devout Catholic until he became PM.
Click to expand...
Don't know where you got the Albo is a devout catholic from, but according to this SBS piece
He has described himself as a non-practising Catholic and is pro-abortion and in favour of legalising voluntary euthanasia. He is also a republican and has voiced his opposition to the government's policy of refusing asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat.
Click to expand...
Your not a Mason are you?:eek:
Mick
 
Smurf1976 said:
So I'm basically saying give people freedom, stop making laws for the sake of making laws about things that ought be a matter for individuals to decide. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have Medicare or that we shouldn't have welfare systems and so on but if I want to buy a chocolate bar, well I really don't need government telling me when I can buy it and then, once I've bought it, reminding me that it's unhealthy. Just let me eat the chocolate and go worry about something more serious - like the housing crisis or homelessness or aged care or infrastructure or..... :2twocents
Click to expand...
I think it all boils back to what we have talked about before, a new boss has to change things, even if it is already working like clockwork.
It all boils back to people feeling they are doing something, even if it's counterproductive and actually causes more problems than it solves.
You can't have all these highly paid politicians of dubious intellect, just moving in after the election and saying "jeez this looks like it going o.k, i'll leave it alone". ?
 
sptrawler said:
I think it all boils back to what we have talked about before, a new boss has to change things, even if it is already working like clockwork.
It all boils back to people feeling they are doing something, even if it's counterproductive and actually causes more problems than it solves.
You can't have all these highly paid politicians of dubious intellect, just moving in after the election and saying "jeez this looks like it going o.k, i'll leave it alone". ?
Click to expand...
Yes but you could also say that if things were ok, then the voters would not have changed the government.
 

Similar threads

Knobby22
2026 Victorian Election
Replies
2
Views
733
sptrawler
sptrawler
bigdog
Bill Shorten: High Flying Fake Or The Worker's Friend
Replies
5
Views
2K
Investoradam
Investoradam
W
Did Peter plan it all along?????
Replies
6
Views
4K
xyzedarteerf
xyzedarteerf
Top