Opinion Politics (warning, may contain political views you disagree with)

[Square Peg]

I am fairly economically conservative. I don't like over regulation to the point I've been actively involved for over a decade in reducing red tape for one of the industries I work in. That work led to the shutting down of a WA government department a few years back, saving millions (on top of a s**t load of red tape time). Which also fits with me wanting to reduce government spending. Although I'd argue a bigger issue is us spending on the wrong s**t. I'm not personally as obsessed about tax cuts as other people but I'd love the government to do more with less. I am not against investigating reducing our current three levels of government down to two. I'm annoyed both parties treat debt like it is meaningless these days. Privatisation should always be in the toolbox but Australia seems to have lost the user manual for it imo.

And on social and environmental policies I'm progressive. I'm infuriated that we are sitting on our hands in regards to EV atm. I don't see the downside of encouraging/investing in RE and other measures that actually reduce emissions not pretend that they do. I am sick of government treating the symptoms and not the causes of social issues, and effectively burning money just perpetuating the destructive cycles that exist, trying not to let them get too out of hand. Rights of people of all shapes and sizes are important to me. Having benefitted considerably from utilising diversity, I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't stand up for them. I'm a big believer in people being entitled to their opinions but I have little patience for people whose actions harm others. In a nutshell I'm about balance which is probably why I gravitate toward Turnbull and Chalmers over others.

Fair enough. One of the wets. The liberal party always says it's a broad church. I didn't realise that was actually true

 

[myfreodom]

Fair enough. One of the wets. The liberal party always says it's a broad church. I didn't realise that was actually true

I'm now genuinely curious about what your positions on things are and how much we differ about the areas I mentioned?

 

[Square Peg]

I'm now genuinely curious about what your positions on things are and how much we differ about the areas I mentioned?

Ab, I don't actually think I am capable of comprehensively describing my full political perspectives in writing. It's the sort of thing best discussed over a few beers on a Sunday afternoon. Suffice to say I agree with some positions you described, and disagree with others. I think I have already said in this thread before that my politics started on the left and then, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, I didn't leave the left, the left left me. And as I have grown more aware of the intellectual hollowness of the modern left I have naturally gravitated towards some issues that nowadays only the right seem to care about but which were once mainstream left ideas, including the primacy of protecting free speech and the great legacy of the enlightenment. As I gravitated there I guess by osmosis I am more exposed to right wing economics but haven't embraced much of it, since the right talk big and deliver **** all of their supposed economic ideology. Hence after joining then leaving and then rejoining and then leaving again the ALP I am no longer a member of any political party and doubt I ever will be again. I didn't even bother to vote at the recent general election in the lower house living in the safe Labor seat of Fremantle with that genius Josh Wilson as my member, I did vote in the senate.

 

[Kram]

That's not being cancelled.

That's one episode they they didn't wish to put on their streaming services because of the content. The shows were made in the mid-70's. Of course there's elements that pushed boundaries and maybe not everything in every episode of Fawlty Towers has to be looked on as genious. I've always thought an instance in another of the episodes where Polly, frustrated with not being able to communicate with Manuel, refers to him being a "dago dodo" was nothing more than an unnecessary slur. Perhaps when they were writing it they found the alliteration amusing - but it doesn't generally fit with Polly's character or with Cleese's claim that they're only ever ridiculing people who hold racist views. I can even vaguely remember as a schoolkid listening to to a news report on the way to school about the Spanish newspapers and someone in the Spanish govt. making a complaint to the British about the way Manuel was portrayed in the series.

Much of the humor in it still stands up pretty well today - but I don't know if the episodes with the Germans was the high point. Cleese doing the goosesteps is just a resurrection of silly walks sketch from Monty Python - and the whole "don't mention the war" would just seem bizarre to millenials and gen z's that don't bear the grudges that parents and grandparents of my generation did. (I could probably go off on a tangent here and suggest that the English veneer of politeness - don't mention the war and we'll all get along with the Germans - might in retrospect be viewed as behaviour of a cancel culture type of its time. We all to some extent modify our conversations in public situations depending on who we are with).

Its not like nobody can't see Fawlty Towers anymore. It's still regularly shown on TV here. I saw a bunch of them on a Christmas day on one of the local TV stations a couple of years ago and I know they've been repeated at least twice since then. I think they've alternated between the stations of Ch7 and Ch9 in recent years - but you can buy the DVD's if you want to see them.

Cleese has his TV show in Britain now too, to talk about cancel culture. Hardly cancelled. I saw Eric Idle was recently asked about Cleese and he said:

"But I have known him for 60 years next year … he has, in his life, given me more great laughs than almost anybody else."

"I think when people get older, they sort of turn into different people, you know. They get old and cranky."

I agree The Germans is a bit overrated as a FT episode. I'm fine with anything like that still being shown but it should have a warning at the start saying that it contains things that are no longer really appropriate.

 

[myfreodom]

Ab, I don't actually think I am capable of comprehensively describing my full political perspectives in writing. It's the sort of thing best discussed over a few beers on a Sunday afternoon. Suffice to say I agree with some positions you described, and disagree with others. I think I have already said in this thread before that my politics started on the left and then, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, I didn't leave the left, the left left me. And as I have grown more aware of the intellectual hollowness of the modern left I have naturally gravitated towards some issues that nowadays only the right seem to care about but which were once mainstream left ideas, including the primacy of protecting free speech and the great legacy of the enlightenment. As I gravitated there I guess by osmosis I am more exposed to right wing economics but haven't embraced much of it, since the right talk big and deliver * all of their supposed economic ideology. Hence after joining then leaving and then rejoining and then leaving again the ALP I am no longer a member of any political party and doubt I ever will be again. I didn't even bother to vote at the recent general election in the lower house living in the safe Labor seat of Fremantle with that genius Josh Wilson as my member, I did vote in the senate.

Thanks for that.

I'm a fan of these philosophies as well but I always like to look at things from the perspectives of others who don't enjoy the same privileges I do. The reality is for a lot of people, they've never had free speech, they are still seeking it. And many are currently on their own 'enlightenment' path.

The Enlightenment was a 130 year long process. It was off the back of one of the longest wars in history that demonstrated the worst of human kind. It was a revolution against the monarchy and the Catholic Church. It gave birth to activism amongst other modern political movements we now know.

We can romanticise about how much more intellectual things were back then but a more than a century year long story doesn't have enough room to cover the warts and all. The world is a far more complex beast than it was back then and it is now much harder to hear the smart in amongst all the dumb.

I have no fear that our free speech is currently in jeopardy. I think muting (as best we can) some dumb voices for a while so we can actually hear and have an intellectual conversation is a necessary step to achieve a more holistic and inclusive enlightenment this time around. Lots of people who think they are smarter than they are will get annoyed, just like the monarchy and the Catholic Church did during the Enlightenment. But those entities still exist, so it can't have been that bad for them.

My perspective on FoS is best summed up by this question. Are you really protecting free speech if you are only protecting one slice of society's freedom to speak?

 

[wahooo]

I saw a fair number of people on this thread bagging out the Morrison government for "corruption" and citing it as a reason they couldn't vote for the Liberals. I wonder what they make of Albanese so far:

1. $2.2b reassigned to Victoria's suburban rail loop in the budget, despite the project not being signed off by the independent assessor. It was only March that Albanese was claiming "Labor will make sure that those investments really stack up using the Infrastructure Australia model that I established.” But I guess when there's an election on? Labor’s $2.2b Victorian rail pledge not properly assessed

2. Winding back reforms that allow us to see how our superfunds spend our money to make sure they're doing it in our best financial interests. I guess voters just made the mistake of not donating as much to the Labor party. Labor is set to wind back reforms meant to hold super funds to account. Here's what that will mean

3. Scrapping the ABCC, which will cost the Australian economy $47.5b dollars by 2030. But once again the CFMEU campaign for and donate to the Labor party, and us little people who stand to lose out don't. Abolishing the ABCC could cost the economy $47.5 billion by 2030

4. Not calling his inquiry into Australia's Covid response yet. It's needed and he promised it, but the obvious outcome will be that Victoria under Daniel Andrew's was our worst performer and that's not going to look good ahead of an election. Albanese promises COVID-19 inquiry, federation reform

I'm sure if I go digging I'll find more, and this is in less than six months...

I'll bite. Firstly, I think it's laughable to try and compare Labor's conduct in their first six months in government to the blatant, widespread corruption we saw across the Coalition's term.

I'd hazard a guess what this all boils down to for you, is that [insert x union] made donations to the Labor party and Labor enacted policies that were favourable to union interests. Shock, horror! What a surprise! Who knew the Labor party supported union interests?!?! That's like being shocked that the coalition implemented a policy favourable to business interests.

The issue with pretty much all major democracies these days is that large political donations go far further to enacting policy change than a single vote. But drawing a direct link between a donation and a policy outcome is next to impossible due to a complete lack of transparency (ty major parties). A greater issue is that the general public pretty much seems to acquiesce to these donations. At least, very few seem concerned enough about the issue to vote for a party that has policies about making donations more transparent, ie the Greens have a policy (merits of it are of course, debatable) in respect of this issue, as do many independents.

It's important to discuss potential corruption in politics. Yet, the fact remains that none of your examples come even remotely close to what the coalition did. What I'm trying to say is, you can discuss potential corruption in the Labor party without reference to the Morisson government because there is simply no comparison between the two. Comparison will only highlight that Labor is the far lesser evil of the two. Most of your examples just highlight policy choices that you disagree with rather than corruption. Here goes:

1. Of the things you listed I find this most egregious. It's an example of bad policy (in the sense that it hadn't been ticked off by the independent body before the funding was allocated). At least they weren't dumb enough to use a colour coded spread sheet to inform the decision. That being said, I think the public is more tolerable of isolated or rare decisions such as this, as opposed to wide spread programs like sports rorts.

2. Firstly, Labor has announced a review, there have been no changes as of yet and I'm cautiously optimistic that there won't be major changes to the financial interests test.

Labor doesn't just hold concerns about the financial interests test, they hold concerns about the performance benchmarks too. They're concerned that the performance measurements prioritise certain types of investments over others, such as those that would offer better short term gains over those that offer longer term gains (infrastructure).

Secondly, that opinion piece is slightly out of date. It refers to the changes to the regulations that Jones made around itemising political donations, Labor has now abandoned that position after criticism from the cross bench.

Ultimately, Labor's position on these issues have been clear since the Coalition enacted the changes. Effectively, these are policies that Labor went to the election on (even though they weren't a major issue). This is not corruption. It's a policy choice.

If Labor unreasonably enacted policy that was completely contrary to the results of the review there may be cause for outrage. However, they've already shown a willingness to listen to criticism when they abandoned the changes to the regulations around itemisation. In my view, that's good government and the better policy outcome has prevailed.

3. Again, Labor's position on this has been clear for years. Policy choice. Not corruption. This is a policy that Labor took to the election, they campaigned on it.

I'm deliberately not discussing the merits of this policy as there's pretty significant disagreement about it and I'm not getting dragged into it.

4. It's unfortunate that no review has yet been announced. Also, congrats on being able to predict the result of the review. Maybe we should just skip it if the results are so bleedingly obvious? Save a whole lot of time and money and have you summarise it in a few sentences? Sounds good to me!

To suggest the decision around when to hold a review has anything to do with the victorian election is a very weak argument. Furthermore, even if Albo announced an inquiry we would have never received the results before the victorian election. I'd rather they take the time to get the terms of reference and form of inquiry right, wouldn't you?

Once again, this is not corruption.

 

[Purple_Turtle]

I'll bite. Firstly, I think it's laughable to try and compare Labor's conduct in their first six months in government to the blatant, widespread corruption we saw across the Coalition's term.

Will note two things:

1. I note you haven't bothered listing anything the Coalition has done either, other than just claiming the undefined things they did were egregiously bad in a way that throwing billions of taxpayer dollars at Victorian infrastructure projects ahead of an election without a review of the merits of that spending or removing any sort of oversight over the construction industry or how our superannuation money gets spent is not. I'd imagine you'd find a lot of what you claim is Coalition "corruption" is also defendable as "policy choice."

2. By Labor's own standards their actions are horrible. Albanese was the one who promised in March "Labor will make sure that those investments really stack up using the Infrastructure Australia model that I established," so why the change of heart now on Victoria's suburban rail loop?

If Labor was held by its shills by the same standards it holds the Coalition to they'd be screaming right now. Placing the interests of the superfunds and CFMEU over ordinary Australians because they recieve donations from these groups, throwing money without proper oversight at Victorians because that's where the votes are (the same impetus behind any pork barrelling like Sports Rorts) and misogyny (https://www.couriermail.com.au/brea...s/news-story/e0a67f3399f7e940399f81eacac9d40e).

Also Labor proposes a bad policy, realises it's unlikely to pass, and withdraws it with tail tucked between their legs isn't sign of good government. It's the same party that just proposed a change to the Australian constitution without consulting the Attorney-Generals office on the question or implications of it. Senator 'gobsmacked' by lack of legal advice for Voice to Parliament

 

[stax on the mull]

Have you seen how Chris Pratt was treated for simply saying nothing at certain times?

Do you think that Hollywood isn't extremely left and left biased? How many topics in shows and movies are centre or right positive? Top Gun Maverick was celebrated in parts simply because it didn't have pro left, woke preaching throughout the movie.

I personally don't mind different themes in stories, however, these days the preaching and virtue signalling breaks immersion. Boring.

Is Top Gun as good as Rambo III where John Rambo teams up with the future Taliban to fight the Soviets.

 

[stax on the mull]

I agree The Germans is a bit overrated as a FT episode. I'm fine with anything like that still being shown but it should have a warning at the start saying that it contains things that are no longer really appropriate.

I've noticed that they do that on these Parkinson interview repeats from sometime in the 1980's that they show on ABC. Before it starts there is some general warning about the programme that says it might not reflect the standards that we accept today.

 

[Taylor]

There could be some interesting stories breaking this week..

It looks like the money getting poured into Ukraine was then being funneled into FTX and then being donated back to the Democratic party who voted 100% to send that taxpayer money to them for weapons purchases and float cash.

 

[BanjoRules]

There could be some interesting stories breaking this week..

It looks like the money getting poured into Ukraine was then being funneled into FTX and then being donated back to the Democratic party who voted 100% to send that taxpayer money to them for weapons purchases and float cash.

I believe Fetterman was one of the main recipients of these taxpayer dollars for his midterm campaign.

Let's see if the appropriate authorities launch an investigation.

 

[Bicco]

Democrats to maintain control of the United States Senate

Democrats will maintain control of the Senate in the next term after it was declared that Nevada Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto has won her reelection campaign.

www.foxnews.com

Traditional boomer conservatism is dead. Australia, Brazil and now the US have all rejected the conservative right. Will those on the right be able to accept this, and work to make the changes that those in power clearly have a mandate for? Or will they fight tooth and nail to hang on to and promote 'Traditional values'?
Looking forwards to the conspiracy theories over personal reflection.

 

[BanjoRules]

Democrats to maintain control of the United States Senate

Democrats will maintain control of the Senate in the next term after it was declared that Nevada Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto has won her reelection campaign.

www.foxnews.com

Traditional boomer conservatism is dead. Australia, Brazil and now the US have all rejected the conservative right. Will those on the right be able to accept this, and work to make the changes that those in power clearly have a mandate for? Or will they fight tooth and nail to hang on to and promote 'Traditional values'?
Looking forwards to the conspiracy theories over personal reflection.

Has to be Biden Fetterman for 2024...what's your thoughts Bicco ?

 

[Bicco]

Has to be Biden Fetterman for 2024...what's your thoughts Bicco ?

Maybe. I'd definitely like to see someone much younger than Biden though. He's a great person, been a great politician, but difficult to argue that he's showing his age. Flip side is he's done a pretty good job. He's not perfect by any means.

 

[Taylor]

Has to be Biden Fetterman for 2024...what's your thoughts Bicco ?

African American women are the only demographic really into Kamala Harris and they are loyal. They'll actually not vote if the democratic party kick her off the ticket.

 

[Bicco]

There could be some interesting stories breaking this week..

It looks like the money getting poured into Ukraine was then being funneled into FTX and then being donated back to the Democratic party who voted 100% to send that taxpayer money to them for weapons purchases and float cash.

That'll be really interesting when it breaks.

 

[BanjoRules]

African American women are the only demographic really into Kamala Harris and they are loyal. They'll actually not vote if the democratic party kick her off the ticket.

Interesting to see the shift in how the yanks voted in the midterms.

You are spot on regarding black women, no doubt Kamala has something to do with that.

Perhaps the Dems need Kamala and a Latino to run in 2024.




Source : Anatomy of a close election: How Americans voted in 2022 vs. 2018

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

You are spot on regarding black women, no doubt Kamala has something to do with that.

Perhaps the Dems need Kamala and a Latino to run in 2024.

I sincerely hope this is not the case. Kamala is beyond hopeless.

 

[BanjoRules]

I sincerely hope this is not the case. Kamala is beyond hopeless.

Which is why I hope she runs.

 

[poshman]

Democrats to maintain control of the United States Senate

Democrats will maintain control of the Senate in the next term after it was declared that Nevada Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto has won her reelection campaign.

www.foxnews.com

Traditional boomer conservatism is dead. Australia, Brazil and now the US have all rejected the conservative right. Will those on the right be able to accept this, and work to make the changes that those in power clearly have a mandate for? Or will they fight tooth and nail to hang on to and promote 'Traditional values'?
Looking forwards to the conspiracy theories over personal reflection.

The US have 'All' rejected the conservative right. Conservatism is dead.

Can you explain how you came to that conclusion?

Is it based on the senate seats won and lost?

House seats won and lost?

Swings within states or certain demographics?

 

[Taylor]

It might be the popular vote which matters except when it doesn't.

 

[Purple_Turtle]

Republicans will retake the house, but by a much narrower margin than they'd want with a +5 R vote.



Lesson here is less that the Republicans are dead and more:

1. The economy, illegal immigration and crime are winning issues for Republicans. "Stop the steal" and loyalty to Trump are not.

2. Candidate quality matters, if you look at the split ticket voting. (People who voted for Kemp but didn't vote for Walker, for example.)

Anyone calling that "traditional conservatism" is dead from these results doesn't know what they're talking about. Conservatives who ran their states competently and focused on issues the voting public cares about and agrees with Republicans on (DeSantis, Kemp, etc.) did well, while the MAGA "traditional conservatism is dead" crowd are the ones who under-performed.

 

[BanjoRules]

Republicans will retake the house, but by a much narrower margin than they'd want with a +5 R vote.



Lesson here is less that the Republicans are dead and more:

1. The economy, illegal immigration and crime are winning issues for Republicans. "Stop the steal" and loyalty to Trump are not.

2. Candidate quality matters, if you look at the split ticket voting. (People who voted for Kemp but didn't vote for Walker, for example.)

Anyone calling that "traditional conservatism" is dead from these results doesn't know what they're talking about. Conservatives who ran their states competently and focused on issues the voting public cares about and agrees with Republicans on (DeSantis, Kemp, etc.) did well, while the MAGA "traditional conservatism is dead" crowd are the ones who under-performed.

Republicans just need to follow the agenda setdown by Ron DeSantis for his re-election and his tenure as governor of Florida. He won by 19% in what is a traditional swing state. A complete route !

He governed largely as a “traditional” conservative including advocating low taxes, restrained spending and corporate deregulation. He has a moderate pro-life position on abortion and is particularly tough in illegal immigration.

His victory speech included the following words : cause of freedom, never give in to the woke mob, we chose education over indoctrination, facts over fear, law and order over rioting and disorder, we reject the woke ideology and medical authoritarianism. Florida is where woke goes to die.

There is a pretty clear pathway for the Republicans to follow including Ron's moves to secure elections and his stand against big media, big tech and big pharma.

Source : DeSantis Playbook

 

[myfreodom]

Democrats to maintain control of the United States Senate

Democrats will maintain control of the Senate in the next term after it was declared that Nevada Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto has won her reelection campaign.

www.foxnews.com

Traditional boomer conservatism is dead. Australia, Brazil and now the US have all rejected the conservative right. Will those on the right be able to accept this, and work to make the changes that those in power clearly have a mandate for? Or will they fight tooth and nail to hang on to and promote 'Traditional values'?
Looking forwards to the conspiracy theories over personal reflection.

It's not dead, it is just people are finally starting to reject extremism which has taken control of the agenda for the Republican party in the US. And slowly more are also noticing our own Liberal party has pushed way too far right over the past couple of decades as well.

What I've been a bit surprised about recently is that a heap of people who say they are conservatives seem to have little clue what conservatism is. They simply don't understand the fiscal side at all and you ask a simple question like "what are these traditional values you believe in?" and they aren't willing to answer it. I suspect because they just blindly follow and they'd rather remain ignorant that the cult in the US resembles very little of the traditional principles of the Republican party. If they did, they'd surely realise they are voting for people who don't represent their "traditional values" in the slightest? Biden is actually closer to representing their Republican values than any of their current leadership - it's kind of ****ing bewildering they don't seem aware. Too busy shouting "Hunter Biden" and "stolen election" at clouds perhaps?

Similarly in Australia people seem completely ignorant that the current Liberal party has almost none of the fiscally conservative credentials they claim. They are still surviving solely off historical achievement (and we are talking a long time ago now). People are supporting what they think a party stands for rather than what the evidence suggests it actually does. Despite being quite economically conservative myself I would never define myself as a conservative because I think social conservatism is ****ing abhorrent. The virtue signalling religious types that are guilty of some of the worst crimes against humanity having the audacity to judge others for just being who they are, and harming no-one in the process, pisses me off no end. They can just **** right off imo. And if (mostly) white men need to have their traditional privileges revoked to help achieve ejecting these low lives with way too much power and control from our society then it seems a small sacrifice to make toward a better future.

I'm semi optimistic the mid terms are taken as a sign that people want the Republican party to return closer to the center. Although I'm not holding my breath they actually do that, given the Libs in Oz got wake up calls (last elections both state and federal) and instead seemed to double down on their shift toward the extreme right. But whilst the real politics happens inside parties, the power brokers will continue to be guided primarily by their own self interests, and their parties will follow.

 

[Purple_Turtle]

Biden is actually closer to representing their Republican values than any of their current leadership - it's kind of ******* bewildering they don't seem aware. Too busy shouting "Hunter Biden" and "stolen election" at clouds perhaps?

Sorry mate. Biden's entire shtick in his decades in office has been that he supports whatever the mainstream of the Democrats supports. If you think he somehow represents "Republican values" I don't know what to tell you.