• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dead Man

Member
Moron? That's a badge I wear with pride. :D

I am talking about people who will vote for the Libs next time, when they have already backed out of commitments made during the last election. Especially people like you, for whom they will do nothing while in government but will pander to you while they campaign.

Even if you agree with their rhetoric, their actions are deceptive and fit only for worms.

They are not in favour of a smaller government, or decentralisation of powers to the states. They are against some government programmes, but that is about it.
 

Arksy

Member
Well I can at least attest to the fact there's a number of us liberal grassroots who are pretty annoyed at the fact that the government has completely botched the spy issue. This is beyond rookie mistakes now.

Also, still overseas in rainy Istanbul after just coming back from Sofia and let me just say that I'm super duper glad that I live in a liberal (small-l) state and will spend my life defending it if I have to, given what the alternative means.
 

Myansie

Member
A cabinet of self interested (conservatives by ideological definition are exactly that) white men choose to advantage their own kids. North Sydney is going to do well from this government. The rest of us not so much.
 

wonzo

Banned
I think today's Crikey editorial comment sums up what I think of Bishop's stance on China:

Crikey says: appeasement not the right China policy

Julie Bishop's start in the crucial role of Foreign Minister has by no means been an unalloyed success. But her stance in relation to China's aggressive behaviour over the Senkaku islands in the East China Sea is entirely appropriate, and efforts to portray it as another stumble are wrong.

To recap, China has arbitrarily declared the airspace above the disputed islands (which are far closer to Taiwan than China) to be subject to airspace restrictions and demanded other countries observe them. Bishop's comments on this provocation echoed the line taken by our allies Japan and the United States; that the move was unhelpful and destabilising.

China's shrill insistence that Bishop's comments were "irresponsible" and that they should be corrected was entirely predictable. Alas, there is no "mistake" to correct: China's actions were indeed destabilising and have only raised tensions in the region.

There's a certain sentiment of appeasement toward China in Australia; it can be found in part of the foreign policy establishment, led by the likes of academic Hugh White, who demand we offer obeisance to Beijing in recognition of its coming dominance, and can be found in some business circles, where economic relations with China are regarded as so important that nothing can in any way upset the Chinese Communist Party leadership.

Governments of both sides of politics have resisted this insistence that we subject all other priorities to keeping Beijing happy. Kevin Rudd, in particular, showed a healthy, well-informed scepticism toward China that upset many foreign policy establishment types more comfortable with getting along with the Chinese government. Bishop's response to China's actions was entirely correct, and continues this tradition.
 

Myansie

Member
On the julie bishop comments. The air space in question has nothing to do with australia. It is, as china points out, none of our business. We can't sit silent on indonesian human rights abuses in west png or even worse give away boats to flagrant human rights abusers like sri lanka, and then get on our high horse over a minor diplomatic skirmish between allies.

I agree with what she's said, but leave it to the journalists to say it. That's their job, not our diplomatic negotiator. She'll have plenty to argue with the chinese over later ie trade agreements.

This tiff is just another example of wasted political capital with zero gain.
 
Haha, the NSW education minister just came out and said if there are to cuts to education from the federal government funding "quantum" the reduction will come out of the public system only. I wonder if there is anyone anywhere who actually like Chris Pyne.
 

Dead Man

Member
Haha, the NSW education minister just came out and said if there are to cuts in the education from the federal government funding "quantum" the reduction will come out of the public system only. I wonder if there is anyone anywhere who actually like Chris Pyne.

Fuck this country.
 
A

A More Normal Bird

Unconfirmed Member
But don't worry guys, the total funding "envelope" will remain pretty much unchanged. Changes to the model don't matter, because there isn't an equity problem in Australian schools. Plus Labor's system was unfair as it disadvantaged students in some states compared to others. So if we get rid of this shambolic model it will be more fair and equitable, but you'll have to wait for the details of our new model, which will be different to Gonski but won't disadvantage students because there isn't an existing equity problem. And since there isn't an equity problem and since we'll be adjusting the model to undo Labor's unfair and uneven distribution, that gives us the scope to reduce the funding "quantum" of the previous government's funding "envelope", which we will match, without resorting to taking $1.2 billion out of the system like Labor did during the election but in fact they hadn't done it because it was a secret and none of the deals were actually completed so we have to scrap them and start again. Which, once again, is a good thing because education isn't an issue where you can just throw money at it and expect better results. Remember the school halls debacle?!
 
The 1.2 Billion was the money set aside for WA, QLD and NT and when those three states knocked back the funding for lets face it, purely political reasons, the money went back into the budget. I can kind of understand the WA case, they already have a very good system, probably second to the ACT in Australia, but the other two really need to be called out on there decision.

Interestingly during Vice Admiral Scott Morrison's weekly non-briefing David Marr turned up. I suspect those two don't get along real well.
 

Dryk

Member
This "Fuck this policy because it's Labor's" mentality is toxic in Opposition but utterly destructive now that they're in power and still holding it.
 

Mondy

Banned
This "Fuck this policy because it's Labor's" mentality is toxic in Opposition but utterly destructive now that they're in power and still holding it.

Pretty much. This attitude is reverberating through everything, most noticeably in Gonski and the NBN. I wonder how long it is before Abbott grows the plums he'll need to roll back disability care, because that will be next at the rate we're going and then he really WILL know what it is to be a Prime Minister that is despised by the country he leads.
 

Dryk

Member
I wonder how the federal government is feeling now that the NSW Liberal party of all things is leading a campaign against them.
 

Dead Man

Member
Pretty much. This attitude is reverberating through everything, most noticeably in Gonski and the NBN. I wonder how long it is before Abbott grows the plums he'll need to roll back disability care, because that will be next at the rate we're going and then he really WILL know what it is to be a Prime Minister that is despised by the country he leads.
And he still won't have a policy of his own to actually implement.
I wonder how the federal government is feeling now that the NSW Liberal party of all things is leading a campaign against them.

Probably quite proud. They seem to be immune to criticism from all quarters.
 

Mondy

Banned
Lol @ the Graincorp decision fallout.
Anything that gives free market Liberals inside the Coalition the shits has got to be good for everyone else.
 

Dead Man

Member
Lol @ the Graincorp decision fallout.
Anything that gives free market Liberals inside the Coalition the shits has got to be good for everyone else.

Not happy with Labor's response though: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-...rejects-foreign-takeover-of-graincorp/5124262

However, Opposition treasury spokesman Chris Bowen said Mr Hockey had failed his first big credibility test as Treasurer, and suggested he had been "bullied" by his Coalition partners and Cabinet colleagues into rejecting ADM's bid, with profound consequences.

"This decision by the Treasurer means that Australia will miss out on investment it should have received - jobs won't be created that should have been created and the Australian economy will be worse off because of Joe Hockey's decision," he said.

What utter bullshit.
 

Dead Man

Member
Why on earth do most of you object to the Graincorp deal?

I'm not massively opposed to it, I do think it is silly to sell the company that deals with the vast majority of grain sales and transport to a company based in a competing country. What I mainly object to is the bullshit from those in favour of the sale.

Of course, on general principle I am in favour of Australians receiving the benefits of Australian work, not just the wages of being employed, but the profits as well. So foreign ownership of near monopoly companies will always be suspect to me.
 

Arksy

Member
Labor are pretty much a neolib party anyway, this gives them an opportunity to wedge the Liberals. Plus it helps them shake off Kevin's what was it, "economic nationalist" phase during the election.

maxresdefault.jpg
 
A

A More Normal Bird

Unconfirmed Member
Australian Council of Social Services submission to the Commission of Audit. Haven't read the whole thing yet but agree with the gist: reduce middle and upper class welfare, redirect it to neglected lower income earners and the disadvantaged, don't cut taxes at the expense of services.

What I don't agree with, and what I find to be sad typifier of the national discourse, is that an organisation such as this focuses on the achievement of a budget surplus as a desirable goal in and of itself. You're going to have a hard time achieving progressive goals if you insist on using fiscal policy to maintain unemployment, place downward pressure on wages and emphasise the role of banks and private debt creation in growing the economy.
 
A

A More Normal Bird

Unconfirmed Member
Yeah I really don't the big deal either. Especially w/r/t "food security" which is laughable considering we're a net food exporter.
Yeah but when the apocalypse comes who's gonna stop Archer Daniels Midland from shipping all of our grain off to the irradiated remnants of the USA? Matt Damon?

Personally I'd say I don't know enough about the situation to make a decision one way or the other, but I do know that a lot of the rumblings from producers in both the USA and Australia were negative. I also feel that despite ADM's claims that it is a different company now, that giving a foreign entity with a shady past such a prominent role in an important domestic industry with a shady past (AWB) mightn't be a great idea, especially with the a new FTA on the way.
 

Myansie

Member
Graincorp is a bad idea because they are the monopolistic logistical and storage arm of australia's east coast grain industry and the idea was to sell it to our competitor. Ever heard of the movie the informant with matt damon? That's the company. Think of supply side economics, it doesn't work when your competitor controls the logistics of the supply. We could be producing excess grain that would reduce the global price, instead graincorp can be used to constrain the supply.

the other big negative is we get zero infrastructure out of the deal. Normally foreign investment will result in something useful like a hotel or shopping centre which in turn stimulates our economy with more jobs. We get none of those positives. The money coming in from the graincorp deal will go to a rich few. Very little will trickle down, so for the vast bulk of aussies it is a shittie deal.
 
A

A More Normal Bird

Unconfirmed Member
Graincorp is a bad idea because they are the monopolistic logistical and storage arm of australia's east coast grain industry and the idea was to sell it to our competitor. Ever heard of the movie the informant with matt damon? That's the company. Think of supply side economics, it doesn't work when your competitor controls the logistics of the supply. We could be producing excess grain that would reduce the global price, instead graincorp can be used to constrain the supply.

the other big negative is we get zero infrastructure out of the deal. Normally foreign investment will result in something useful like a hotel or shopping centre which in turn stimulates our economy with more jobs. We get none of those positives. The money coming in from the graincorp deal will go to a rich few. Very little will trickle down, so for the vast bulk of aussies it is a shittie deal.
We seem to have similar views on this, but I will add that ADM did throw in a $200 million (I think) commitment to infrastructure towards the end to try to sweeten the deal.
 
The Labor parties desperate attempt to disparage Hockey has come across as a little silly. But like all things LNP, I imagine this was done for only two reasons: It was populist to deny it and it puts the National party back in their box for three years and gives them a win.

I do wonder what the Labor left was thinking when Bowen came out yesterday trying to out business the libs.
 

markot

Banned
I think the government should run the grain supply logistics if it cant be done competitively and has to be a monopoly.

Ze granting of monopolies should not be part of the modern business environ.
 

magenta

Member
It was done for the Nationals and their voter base. Farmers hate to see foreign ownership of companies they have to deal with.
 

Mondy

Banned
Yeah, just like google!

Yeah....Pretty much. It is especially naive to think foreign investors, especially American ones, circulate their money back anywhere except their home nations or whatever tax haven they happen to be sitting in. Mitt Romney got rich enough to run for President on the platform of sweet fuck all by doing exactly that.
 

hidys

Member
Yeah, just like google!

Blocking foreign companies from investing in Australia simply because they have the capacity to rort their taxes would make an interesting foreign investment policy.

BTW Google does not simply pay its profits from Google Australia in America which they couldn't actually do. Their tax arrangements are far more complex.
 

Jintor

Member
http://www.examiner.com.au/story/19...tion-ministers-only-public-schools-face-cuts/

Public schools will take the full hit for any cuts to Gonski funding, NSW Education Minister Adrian Piccoli says following a tense meeting with federal Education Minister Christopher Pyne in Sydney on Friday.

State and territory education ministers from all the major parties slammed Mr Pyne over the ''bombshell revelation'', saying they had even less certainty than they arrived with.

The shock development has also drawn condemnation not just from public school allies but from the independent school sector.

''The Commonwealth has implied that, if there is a reduction in funding for the states that have signed up, that indeed that reduction may well only come out of public schools,'' Mr Piccoli said.

He said Mr Pyne suggested cuts would affect public schools alone because Catholic and independent schools were protected under federal legislation. ''That is of enormous concern to all jurisdictions,'' he said. ''I sought, as chair, some clarification about that but none was forthcoming.''

Mr Piccoli said the federal government's backflip on Gonski was ''a matter of trust'', not just between governments but for parents across Australia.

''The government made a commitment that there would be no broken promises under the government that they lead and, unfortunately, that has not come to pass,'' he said.

FEDERALISM
 

Dead Man

Member
Blocking foreign companies from investing in Australia simply because they have the capacity to rort their taxes would make an interesting foreign investment policy.

BTW Google does not simply pay its profits from Google Australia in America which they couldn't actually do. Their tax arrangements are far more complex.

It's not all investment, just monopolies (which if required should be nationalised anyway).


Fuck yeah! :/
 

Myansie

Member
Spot on. I don't know what I loathe more, statists who think the state should use violence to control the populace or agrarian protectionists.

What about non-transparent corporations? You're always very quick to point at the government as bad, willingly vote to downsize it, but completely ignore that shift in power to corporations. There's this pervasive idea on the right that democracy and capitalism are synonymous. They aren't, they are seperate systems working together. For the past 30 yrs capitalism has been growing in strength at the expense of democracy.

Do you understand the reason we weathered the 2008 gfc is because of the strength of our democracy? Look at the deregulation and corporate take over that's been the norm in the usa, and witness the pain that's caused for the majority. Capitalism is deeply flawed and needs to be managed.

Do I have proof? Yep, climate change. If you accept the science and then apply it to the conservative ideology the whole thing charges into a nightmarish apocalypse. This is why the right is in denial, game theory never considered the natural limits of the environment, so it can't solve it.

The world you're prescribing where we are in an eternal spiral of government downsizing is one in which the power of a vote is engulfed in shadow by the ever more almighty dollar.
 

Jintor

Member
http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-an...troversial-speeches-wiped-20131201-2yj8q.html

Some of Prime Minister Tony Abbott's most controversial speeches have been brushed from Coalition history since the election, including a 2009 speech backing a carbon tax, and a 2004 speech in which he describes abortion as ''a question of the mother's convenience''.

During Mr Abbott's 2009 carbon tax speech, in which he described himself as a ''climate change realist'', he said he doubted climate change was man-made, saying ''we can't conclusively say'' man-made carbon dioxide emissions contributed to climate change.

But he went on to say: ''If Australia is greatly to reduce its carbon emissions, the price of carbon-intensive products should rise … a new tax would be the intelligent sceptic's way to deal with minimising emissions because it would be much easier than a property right to reduce or to abolish should the justification for it change.''

When he was in opposition, the speeches were posted on Mr Abbott's website, tonyabbott.com.au. But since the election, that website has been redirected to liberal.org.au, which only archives material back to July 2010, the month before the previous election.

Advertisement
Despite Mr Abbott becoming opposition leader on December 1, 2009, all his speeches and media statements before July 2010 have disappeared. And at least two recent transcripts have also been expunged from the public record.

They include an interview on Sky with Chris Kenny in which Mr Abbott vowed to lift foreign aid - a position he later reversed - and a speech to the conservative Institute of Public Affairs.

This just keeps getting better and better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom