So if you think the Carbon Tax is a bit of a mistake then is it quite possible the majority of people who oppose it oppose it because they think it's a mistake rather then because Abbott told them too?
Julia - how much longer? (Part II)
- Thread starter Pessimistic
- Start date
- Tagged users None
So if you think the Carbon Tax is a bit of a mistake then is it quite possible the majority of people who oppose it oppose it because they think it's a mistake rather then because Abbott told them too?
Can't you stay in one place?
Please don't mix my words i said i would prefer an ETS to a carbon tax but at least it's a start which is better than nothing.
Do you believe in man made climate change & if so how would you prefer we tackle it, if not why not?
Climate changes. That is a given. As to the cause and effect? On a geological time scale there is not enough information. The Earth has been through harder times then us.
Tackling implies that we can control it. We can't. No more then we can control Tornadoes, Earthquakes or Tsunamis.
Australia would be better off spending the money to adapt to climate change (like we do with other weather phenomena) rather then trying to stop it.
The human race has always had an exaggerated sense of self importance.
If you oceans rise 2m the Earth wouldn't give a shit, humans might though.
Fair enough, wouldn't surprise i guess that i do not agree with you.
But on that bit i do.
Crean in from 100 to 1 plus, to 11 to one with betting suspended on one exchange. Gillard denying that she is ringing caucus members to ascertain their support.
Looks like its on.
Looks like its on.
Are you taking the golden shower?
Nope, Oakes asked her on 9 today http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...bon-tax-ad-spend/story-fn7x8me2-1226096117237
Re the odds movement, this would be an 'exotic' so would not take much to move the odds but it adds to the pressure.
Yeah estatic, cos its so much easier to make money in a shit market than a good one.
The comments re mining are not my views, just passing on something I was told by a fundie who has far better info than me.
Anyone seen any of the ads yet?
tazzietiger
Premiership Player
- Sep 10, 2010
- 4,808
- 508
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Crean is to boring. Abbott would beat him IMO. But I guess he would bring back abit of statesmenship to the Labor Party that might save some of there heart land seats and lesser the swings against them. So it give's them a better chance in the future to winning back government.
Also gotta wonder if there's been a leak that someone might be wanting to leave and cause a by-election over next few months. If something like that happened they might need to dump Gillard to save them selves from an early election wipe out.
This Simon Crean business, I mean, they're having a laugh, aren't they? That can't possibly happen.
- Aug 16, 2006
- 5,094
- 6,695
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Apologies Morgoth for picking you out, but really what is this? This is what Australians base their political opinions on? Essentially the personality of the PM? How much the PM gives you the shits or not? How likeable they are? Whether when and how they laugh or a gesture they make is appropriate or 'prime ministerial' enough?
If that is the case, then why don't we just do away then with the Westminster system (or what is left of it world wide), and go with the cult of personality that is at the base of United States Congress? Seems that is what people vote on nowadays anyway.
And yes, Howard had his detractors, and some shitty ideologues who went after him. But unlike Gillard he never had to deal with 75% of Australians print media (that is the portion of ownings of News Ltd in Australia) openly waging war on him.
Every day the Daily Telegraph, Courier Mail and The Australian editorialise on the front page against every Gillard-ALP policy and initiative - regardless of its merit or subsequent success. They employ little to no political commentators from the Centre, Centre-Left or Left. No criticism of Abbott can be found in this majority of press media.
That is a Partisan scenario Howard never had to deal with. Nor should he have had to deal with it, as it is major abuse of the power of the fourth estate.
Make no mistake, the ALP have been forced into a situation where it now must view News LTD as an enemy and political foe. That is why Conroy has publicly hardened his tone on 'News' (especially The Australian) in recent weeks.
The war waged against the ALP by News LTD is far greater in scope, intensity and real effect on the electorate to whatever left wing bias Howard felt existed at the Age and the ABC.
Have the Age run a campaign against you and the ABC criticise you and that is problem. Have The Australian, The Daily Telegraph, the Herald Sun, The Courier Mail and the West Australian run a campaign against you are GAWN.
Even if the ALP managed to find a brilliant leader the repercussions of another party spill and knife-in-the-back scenario would destroy any chances of re-election (no matter how slim they may currently be). Even the most rusted on supporters would be questioning the stability of the government.
Best bet for the ALP is that Abbot completely ****s something up. And i wouldn't put it past him.
Best bet for the ALP is that Abbot completely ****s something up. And i wouldn't put it past him.
Nankervis, remember Rudd in opposition?
How much scrutiny did he or his policies get? Apart from repealing work choices and his ETS, which Howard attemtped to match, how many policies did he have? Most just mirrored Howard yet the media including the Murdoch press said nothing, did not hold him up to scrutiny despite the lack of depth (IMO).
Every opposition leader gets in because the Govt is voted out. The last opposition leader that went big on policy was Hewson and we know how that ended. Ever since then, we have small target policy approaches.
End of the day the opposition is just that, the opposition, they have little impact on the country and rightlfuly so the Govt is scrutinised. Are they going hard at Gillard, you bet but they are sharks and they smell blood.
The media as a group make me sick, they are so out of touch with reality, sit there and preach to the masses and are nice and comfortable in their ivory towers and big fat pay cheques.
You might be right re the power of Murdoch press v Fairfax but the problem is the eyes of say, someone like me, I harden my heart and say well **** the ALP and Gillard, Fairfax and the ABC did the same, not my problem that they are not as effective.
Bias leads to bias, it creates divisions and Murdoch is a smart businessman, he saw the conservative voters being pissed on by Fairfax and filled the gap. Instant audience. He did the same in the US with Fox news.
Good for the country, probably not, understandable yes. The real problem is not the ALP or Gillard, its the minority Govt and Bob Brown but to take him down, you have to take her down. And for the good of the country Brown must be put back in his box.
How much scrutiny did he or his policies get? Apart from repealing work choices and his ETS, which Howard attemtped to match, how many policies did he have? Most just mirrored Howard yet the media including the Murdoch press said nothing, did not hold him up to scrutiny despite the lack of depth (IMO).
Every opposition leader gets in because the Govt is voted out. The last opposition leader that went big on policy was Hewson and we know how that ended. Ever since then, we have small target policy approaches.
End of the day the opposition is just that, the opposition, they have little impact on the country and rightlfuly so the Govt is scrutinised. Are they going hard at Gillard, you bet but they are sharks and they smell blood.
The media as a group make me sick, they are so out of touch with reality, sit there and preach to the masses and are nice and comfortable in their ivory towers and big fat pay cheques.
You might be right re the power of Murdoch press v Fairfax but the problem is the eyes of say, someone like me, I harden my heart and say well **** the ALP and Gillard, Fairfax and the ABC did the same, not my problem that they are not as effective.
Bias leads to bias, it creates divisions and Murdoch is a smart businessman, he saw the conservative voters being pissed on by Fairfax and filled the gap. Instant audience. He did the same in the US with Fox news.
Good for the country, probably not, understandable yes. The real problem is not the ALP or Gillard, its the minority Govt and Bob Brown but to take him down, you have to take her down. And for the good of the country Brown must be put back in his box.
- Aug 16, 2006
- 5,094
- 6,695
- AFL Club
- Geelong
^^^^Morgoth
I disagree re Brown and the Greens - his influence on the ALP is sensationalized by the media, and no greater (in fact, much less) than the right wing Nationals upon the Liberal Party. IMO, the need to appease the 'conservative independents' is much greater for the ALP.
I agree with you re the media and their "preaching to the masses". It is not the media's job to affect the opinion of the people, yet they consistently attempt to do so. People don't vote for news corporations, or, for that matter, special interest groups (whether Trade Unions or Mining Companies). They vote for local members, a Party, and leaders of that Party. It annoys me no end that special interest groups and media empires are shaping policy rather than the political parties elected by the people.
True, the Rudd opposition got a very good run from News Ltd while in opposition and not a great deal of scrutiny in much the same way the Abbott opposition is getting a very good run and little scrutiny. But remember also that Rudd came after 10 years of Beazley and co being hammered by 'News' and Howard getting a lot of very cosy coverage. "Howard's Telegraph" was the going term for The Australian during the years of ALP opposition. Also, Rudd was crucified for really not much at all by News Ltd after a very short time in government.
That said, I do appreciate your argument - media can be biased either way, and oppositions really do get a better run. But I also stick by my point - Gillard is facing a more adversarial media than Howard did, and a media whose sympathies are, in the majority, in the camp of the conservatives. Makes it bloody hard for her, I am sure.
Howard’s strength was to openly engage what he viewed as Left leaning media in certain sectors and challenge them. He called a kind of war on certain media outlets. Gillard and the ALP need to stop playing nice and do the same ASAP.
By the bye, I find your point about Hewson kind of sad in a way. You are right, he was the last opposition leader (perhaps with the exception of Latham, but he was fruit cake) to be expansive about policy construction. He was also open to bi-partisan dialogue on nationally important policy. Yet look where that got him – absolutely nowhere. Then look at Abbott, an opposition leader with no policy vision and a ‘position’ on any issue that will change in accordance with what is politically expedient or advantageous to him at the time. In other words, he is a chameleon with no policy. And look where that is getting him - straight to the Lodge!
Compare the two (Hewson and Abbott) and you could possibly say that there is just no reward for vision, integrity, consistency, or even respect for our democratic and parliamentary process.
I disagree re Brown and the Greens - his influence on the ALP is sensationalized by the media, and no greater (in fact, much less) than the right wing Nationals upon the Liberal Party. IMO, the need to appease the 'conservative independents' is much greater for the ALP.
I agree with you re the media and their "preaching to the masses". It is not the media's job to affect the opinion of the people, yet they consistently attempt to do so. People don't vote for news corporations, or, for that matter, special interest groups (whether Trade Unions or Mining Companies). They vote for local members, a Party, and leaders of that Party. It annoys me no end that special interest groups and media empires are shaping policy rather than the political parties elected by the people.
True, the Rudd opposition got a very good run from News Ltd while in opposition and not a great deal of scrutiny in much the same way the Abbott opposition is getting a very good run and little scrutiny. But remember also that Rudd came after 10 years of Beazley and co being hammered by 'News' and Howard getting a lot of very cosy coverage. "Howard's Telegraph" was the going term for The Australian during the years of ALP opposition. Also, Rudd was crucified for really not much at all by News Ltd after a very short time in government.
That said, I do appreciate your argument - media can be biased either way, and oppositions really do get a better run. But I also stick by my point - Gillard is facing a more adversarial media than Howard did, and a media whose sympathies are, in the majority, in the camp of the conservatives. Makes it bloody hard for her, I am sure.
Howard’s strength was to openly engage what he viewed as Left leaning media in certain sectors and challenge them. He called a kind of war on certain media outlets. Gillard and the ALP need to stop playing nice and do the same ASAP.
By the bye, I find your point about Hewson kind of sad in a way. You are right, he was the last opposition leader (perhaps with the exception of Latham, but he was fruit cake) to be expansive about policy construction. He was also open to bi-partisan dialogue on nationally important policy. Yet look where that got him – absolutely nowhere. Then look at Abbott, an opposition leader with no policy vision and a ‘position’ on any issue that will change in accordance with what is politically expedient or advantageous to him at the time. In other words, he is a chameleon with no policy. And look where that is getting him - straight to the Lodge!
Compare the two (Hewson and Abbott) and you could possibly say that there is just no reward for vision, integrity, consistency, or even respect for our democratic and parliamentary process.
Some truth to that.
I always think, in retrospect, one of the great what-ifs of Australian politics and economics would be if Hewson had won in '93. That result essentially kicked off the race to the bottom for both sides of politics, because it was clear the media would always place their bets on style over substance. If the decision had been reversed, we might have seen a bidding war in the opposite direction
That said, I think one of the things people underestimate, and arguably one of the big weaknesses of our political system is just how utterly impractical policy development is for an opposition when they don't have access to treasury and a public service to do the heavy lifting and number crunching- in a contest of policy substance between two equally matched political parties, the one with access to a publically funded private army of accountants, economists, lawyers and draughtsmen is always going to be at a massive advantage over a handful of staffers ordering in pizza and scribbling something on the back of an envelope. In that context, it is not unreasonable that most elections in this country are more a referendum on whether the government is doing a good job than determining whether the opposition has presented a credible and detailed plan- frankly, if an opposition can present a credible and detailed plan, it is cause for concern because it is probably a sign a foreign power is backing their campaign.
Fair points Nankervis. Where Rudd/Gillard got it totally wrong was:
1. Giving $250m to the FTA networds to help them transist to digital and comepte against Foxtel.
2. Rudd spraying news senior editorial staff at a dinner in Melbourne (was reported at the time).
Once that happened the tide turned. Dumb politics really.
1. Giving $250m to the FTA networds to help them transist to digital and comepte against Foxtel.
2. Rudd spraying news senior editorial staff at a dinner in Melbourne (was reported at the time).
Once that happened the tide turned. Dumb politics really.
evo
Let's hit the f*ken road!
Remember that agreement the ALP signed with the Greens a few days after the election whereby they would run every policy past Bob Brown? Talk about signing your soul to the devil.
It was always going to end in tears.
- Banned
- #948
Yeah, it certainly seems that way. I think people should be worried when economists make decade long forecasts and start basing policy around that.
The longer Julia and Labor is in power the relatively worse our markets and commerce will perform compared to where it should be. I reckon there's about 500 points missing from the ASX200 at the moment purely due to the 'Gillard factor'. Business out there is reluctant to move at the moment for fear of being raped and pillaged.
- Thread starter
- #950
Feck me we'd have a new PM every week if BFers wrote the constitution.
The ASX200? what next ?
The ASX200? what next ?
Similar threads
