BF2S Forums Australian politics thread.

gina 4 prez

save australia from mediocrity

Jaekus wrote:

Public debt is actually a necessity. An economist provided a study on this based on historical data.

Wow, an economist? OK then I'm convinced.

Cybargs wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Public debt is actually a necessity. An economist provided a study on this based on historical data.

Wow, an economist? OK then I'm convinced.

yeah because what do they know about economics.

Not much, honestly. Often quite good historians, always quite terrible policy advocates.

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

yeah because what do they know about economics.

Not much, honestly. Often quite good historians, always quite terrible policy advocates.

how many professional working macro-economists do you know? most of the wisdom in macro-economic study nowadays directly contravenes the politics of austerity and deficit fetishism (I also haven't read many papers that have any historical study; where do you get this from? oh yeah I forgot you don't actually read, you bluster). it's an ideological tool of the neoliberal/centre-right political elite. the banking crisis has used public funds and offloaded debt and liability to taxpayers when it was a private investment crisis. tell me again the economists studying how markets work are wrong and policy wonks in Washington are right

yep all labor's fault.

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

yeah because what do they know about economics.

Not much, honestly. Often quite good historians, always quite terrible policy advocates.

how many professional working macro-economists do you know? most of the wisdom in macro-economic study nowadays directly contravenes the politics of austerity and deficit fetishism (I also haven't read many papers that have any historical study; where do you get this from? oh yeah I forgot you don't actually read, you bluster). it's an ideological tool of the neoliberal/centre-right political elite. the banking crisis has used public funds and offloaded debt and liability to taxpayers when it was a private investment crisis. tell me again the economists studying how markets work are wrong and policy wonks in Washington are right

You act like there's a consensus. There isn't. There are as many economic theories as economists. The dominant school among academics is Keynesian due to Samuelson's textbook but it hardly makes it correct. Some economists prescribe authoritarian commhnism, others prescribe anarcho-capitalism. Picketty or Rothbard? Keynes or Hayek or Friedman? Who is correct?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Public debt is actually a necessity. An economist provided a study on this based on historical data.

Wow, an economist? OK then I'm convinced.

Your alternative is Tony Abbott. You might be smart enough to know which one is more likely to tell the truth.

So what options do the LNP have now? The great "Good Government Starts Now" reset six months ago has amounted to diddly-squat and they can't push that button again, they don't have the political will nor capital to actually do anything people may support, they dare not replace the leader, and "scrapping the carbon and mining taxes" and "stopping the boats" is a hollow rallying call to win a second election given the lack of anything else to promote themselves over their last term. I think the only thing they have left is to keep talking up how good they are on national security which is a specious argument in the absence of any realistic threat to the country.

I keep wondering if Abbott will crack and do the populist thing by allowing same-sex marriage to pass. I don't see it happening though, I think Abbott's self-held principles have always been far more important to him than even his prime ministership. Which is admirable but dumb when you consider he's supposed to be governing for the country, not for himself.

Despite how insipid the ALP and Bill Shorten is they're fast getting into a position Abbott was at the last election. And that's a disturbing thought.

Edit: It's telling that they've stopped calling the measure the "net satisfaction rating" and are now just resigned to calling it thr "net dissatisfaction rating".

Adams_BJ wrote:

I'm over the politics surrounding gay marriage. Liberals have done the right thing putting it to referendum. Labor was in for 6 years and they didn't change the marriage act either despite it coming up. In fact Rudd, Gillard and even Wing who is openly gay said that they weren't changing it when they were last in office.

I would prefer a plebiscite to change it to a constitutionally entrenched right, since I think it'll be good if Australia starts opening a conversation about a bill of rights at the constitutional level.

I think it was politically ill advised for Tony to whip his party in line on the gay marriage vote tbh.

Shorten was smart politically force Tony to open up the gay marriage debate. Tones saying 'there's more important issues' and spending more time saying is kinda counter-intuitive.

Cybargs wrote:

Adams_BJ wrote:

I'm over the politics surrounding gay marriage. Liberals have done the right thing putting it to referendum. Labor was in for 6 years and they didn't change the marriage act either despite it coming up. In fact Rudd, Gillard and even Wing who is openly gay said that they weren't changing it when they were last in office.

I would prefer a plebiscite to change it to a constitutionally entrenched right, since I think it'll be good if Australia starts opening a conversation about a bill of rights at the constitutional level.

I think it was politically ill advised for Tony to whip his party in line on the gay marriage vote tbh.

Shorten was smart politically force Tony to open up the gay marriage debate. Tones saying 'there's more important issues' and spending more time saying is kinda counter-intuitive.

Labor have whipped their party into line on the other side, having done nothing while in government, the media isn't making an issue of that.

I don't care really, but I would like to have the tax benefits that go to married couples, I think single people should be able to marry themselves and pay half as much tax - who is fighting for my rights to that?

Cybargs wrote:

Adams_BJ wrote:

I'm over the politics surrounding gay marriage. Liberals have done the right thing putting it to referendum. Labor was in for 6 years and they didn't change the marriage act either despite it coming up. In fact Rudd, Gillard and even Wing who is openly gay said that they weren't changing it when they were last in office.

I would prefer a plebiscite to change it to a constitutionally entrenched right, since I think it'll be good if Australia starts opening a conversation about a bill of rights at the constitutional level.

I think it was politically ill advised for Tony to whip his party in line on the gay marriage vote tbh.

Shorten was smart politically force Tony to open up the gay marriage debate. Tones saying 'there's more important issues' and spending more time saying is kinda counter-intuitive.

A referendum is much better than a plebicite. A llebiscite can just be seen as a suggestion from the public and taken other way. A referendum is binding.

Last edited by Adams_BJ (2015-08-17 03:38:37)

Shorten is bad but Abbott is worse by a mile.

Bill Shorten's not Prime Minister, you have nothing to base on your assumption that he would make a worse one than Abbott. I don't rate Shorten particularly highly but it's hard to think of a worse leader than Abbott. Shorten's wooden, he's uncomfortable, he has a shady past but he hasn't catastrophically fucked up anything Labor's been attempting. Abbott has fucked up every call he's ever made personally so much so that "captain's pick" is now a synonym for fucking up. He's tactically inept. He can't communicate, he can't negotiate, he can't organise, he can't stand up to scrutiny, he has zero policy, zero direction, zero vision, and he can't hack leading the country so he's reverted to his holding pattern of being the opposition-in-government.

Other leadership options? Malcolm Turnbull? The voters like him - for now - but his party hates him. He might be a temporary shot in the arm/polls but wouldn't save them in the long run. Scott Morrison? Competent but evil. People don't know him particularly well and while he can get a job done he may just be political poison. I have doubts about his ability to sell policy in a way that brings people along with him. Julie Bishop? Again, competent but evil. Also a woman who will be undermined by her party. I don't see anyone else.

Maybe a team of Turnbull as leader and Morrison as Treasurer might work. Who knows. Probably not an issue at the moment but if the Canning by-election goes the way it's looking like it will Abbott will be in the same position he was six or so months ago when a few first term Liberal state governments were being booted out.