What would a Dutton Liberal leadership mean for the Liberals and the country?

[Festerz]

Again, this is viewing absolutely everything through the lens of climate change. There are other aspects to economics in governance than that. What is the stance of Climate 200 candidates on tax cuts for top earners? Or a wealth tax? Or an inheritance tax? What is their stance on raising welfare above poverty levels?

Tip: Try googling the policy positions of individual Teal MPs and candidates rather than posing loaded rhetorical questions on a footy forum and you might find your claims of a lack of policy breadth to be far from the truth. They stand as independents with a wide and sometimes varying range of policy positions and not just those on climate change.

For example:

Teal MP details top tax reform priorities in green paper

Allegra Spender has released her review of Australia’s tax system, calling for sweeping changes to address inequality and boost productivity.

www.accountantsdaily.com.au

https://www.allegraspender.com.au/4821/tax

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Tip: Try googling the policy positions of individual Teal MPs and candidates rather than posing loaded rhetorical questions on a footy forum

This seems unnecessarily hostile. They weren't loaded or rhetorical. I'm sorry you've chosen to see it as such.

and you might find your claims of a lack of policy breadth to be far from the truth.

I didn't claim that. I claimed you specifically were focusing everything through the lens of climate change.

 

[Festerz]

I claimed you specifically were focusing everything through the lens of climate change.

Wrong again. You misunderstand what Climate 200 is about. It's not a political party. It's a non for profit organisation that provides funding to independent candidates prepared to support their principles, of which climate change is the most prominent but others such as transparency and honesty in policy positioning and gender equality are others.

The funded candidates themselves, are free to have a wide range of other policies on matters that they think are important to the country and will resonate with the electorates for which they stand. The difference is they make their policy agenda/position and principles clear to their individual electorates and seek input from their electorate.

My comment to which you responded was about that model and how it is likely to be used for future political campaigns for independent candidates.

Youy specifically stated that you wanted to hear 'what gives people confidence that the Teals have more of an interest in solving the problems than the Liberals do.'

I hope you understand my reasoning now. IMHO the difference in focus and approach between Climate 200 and the individual teal candidates they fund and that taken by both the Coalition and ALP is enormous.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Wrong again. You misunderstand what Climate 200 is about. It's not a political party. It's a non for profit organisation that provides funding to independent candidates prepared to support their principles, of which climate change is the most prominent but others such as transparency and honesty in policy positioning and gender equality are others.

This is a bit confusing, you first say I'm wrong and then write a paragraph about something which isn't about what I was raising. Again, I said you were focusing on economic matters through the lens of climate change.

I know that Climate 200 is not a political party. But since you're claiming the teals and Climate 200 are a viable alternative to the majors for most Australians, I was curious as to their stances on some of the biggest issues in politics right now, because that's likely to be what most competitive electorates vote on. I think climate change ranks behind all of them on voters' list of priorities. The teals have so far mostly won electorates that are well off and not as concerned about material conditions.

The funded candidates themselves, are free to have a wide range of other policies on matters that they think are important to the country and will resonate with the electorates for which they stand. The difference is they make their policy agenda/position and principles clear to their individual electorates and seek input from their electorate.

In other words, they don't have a unified stance on anything outside of climate change, transparency, gender equality etc. Which is fine, but it doesn't say anything for their ability to address the material concerns of Australians in electorates that aren't as well off as Warringah, Goldstein and the ACT.

Perhaps some teals are willing to vote for real economic change and others aren't. I see that several of them are in favour of winding back negative gearing, which is good for housing affordability, though I doubt it'll be enough by itself. More concerning to me is Steggall's desire to increase the threshold for corporate tax, which I think is a mistake.

My comment to which you responded was about that model and how it is likely to be used for future political campaigns for independent candidates.

Okay.

Youy specifically stated that you wanted to hear 'what gives people confidence that the Teals have more of an interest in solving the problems than the Liberals do.'

I hope you understand my reasoning now. IMHO the difference in focus and approach between Climate 200 and the individual teal candidates they fund and that taken by both the Coalition and ALP is enormous.

I'm afraid I don't.

 

[peetoo]

Climate change might be down the list of priorities for voters, but power policy is high, and the coalition have proven over and over thy can’t be trusted, preferring to have no policy than disadvantage their fossil fuel masters.

Don’t agree? Search for Malcolm turnbulls NEG policy and how it wears hated in sections of the coalition

 

[craffles]

This election will be a landslide of votes towards sound fiscal policy. People don’t give a **** about climate change, gender equality etc when they can’t afford a roof over their head.

 

[schneebly111]

This election will be a landslide of votes towards sound fiscal policy. People don’t give a **** about climate change, gender equality etc when they can’t afford a roof over their head.

Sound fiscal policy? The Liberals have us 9 years of deficits, Labor have given us 2 years of surplus.

Afford a roof over their head? Let’s see how “super for houses” boosts prices

 

[peetoo]

Sound fiscal policy? The Liberals have us 9 years of deficits, Labor have given us 2 years of surplus.

Afford a roof over their head? Let’s see how “super for houses” boosts prices

The last LNP govt, of which Dutton was a major player, is just a long list of fails

Oh but he’s softening his persona? It’s still fails

Wikipedia. It’s quicker to count the couple of successes than fails.

Big on racist xenophobic anti progressive rhetoric.

Light on actually doing his job

 

[nut]

This election will be a landslide of votes towards sound fiscal policy. People don’t give a **** about climate change, gender equality etc when they can’t afford a roof over their head.

So you want the government to gut spending and raise the unemployment level?

 

[Gavin Excell]

The last LNP govt, of which Dutton was a major player, is just a long list of fails

Oh but he’s softening his persona? It’s still fails

Wikipedia. It’s quicker to count the couple of successes than fails.

Big on racist xenophobic anti progressive rhetoric.

Light on actually doing his job

It may end up being enough to win with Murdoch cheerleading

 

[MPMonkeys]

Mate I've lived in different parts of Melbourne so I've been out an about and I know exactly what the outer East for example think in regards to the Labor Party so any excuse to not vote for them they will. As illinformed and as uneducated as you can get. All they care about is getting pissed on weekends, Sport and Cars. Cut and paste the South East. I'll reiterate what I said, if they think Dutton is the better choice we are in real strife as a nation.

This is such a cartoonish take on the suburban demographic that its obvious you have never mixed in those circles.

And if Labor think these are the typical voters they need to win over, then they are in even worse trouble than anyone could imagine.

 

[Vindicater]

This is such a cartoonish take on the suburban demographic that its obvious you have never mixed in those circles.

And if Labor think these are the typical voters they need to win over, then they are in even worse trouble than anyone could imagine.

What suburban pubs do you frequent?

Can I please have a list and locations of each?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I'd like to hear what gives people confidence that the Teals have more of an interest in solving the problems than the Liberals do.

Oh, that's easy! It's an anagram. Tesla!

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

This election will be a landslide of votes towards sound fiscal policy. People don’t give a **** about climate change, gender equality etc when they can’t afford a roof over their head.

Well that's not a ringing endorsement of Labor for the next election but it's an absolute damning of the Coalition.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

This is such a cartoonish take on the suburban demographic that its obvious you have never mixed in those circles.

And if Labor think these are the typical voters they need to win over, then they are in even worse trouble than anyone could imagine.

Arguments about which party is more in touch/out of touch with the voters never go anywhere.

They're both equally in touch and both equally out of touch.

What is clear is just how beholden the Coalition are to their paymasters. There is simply no comparison.

Albanese Labor may have shown themselves to be dismayingly reluctant to take on powerful vested interests, but the Coalition are for all intents and purposes actually owned by those same interests.

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

And if Labor think these are the typical voters they need to win over, then they are in even worse trouble than anyone could imagine.

Labor is losing said demographic though.

 

[Festerz]

This election will be a landslide of votes towards sound fiscal policy.

Which would be ironic given that the current focus on the 'cost of living crisis' and the reluctance of the Reserve Bank Board to reduce the cash rate is a matter relating to monetary policy, which is often at odds with the government's fiscal policy objectives.

Which sort of proves the point that most of the voting public in Australia have no idea what 'sound fiscal policy' looks like, let alone willing to accept the fact that sustainable policy change takes years and decades to achieve. And they sure as heck won't get an education on those matters from the mainstream media, let alone social media platforms.

As the failed Shorten election campaigns of 2016 and 2019 showed, any attempt at a comprehensive redirecting of Federal policy, to improve equity and fairness for the average Australian will only be subject to a massive scare campaign from the Murdoch press who still control a large chunk of news reporting in Australia via their print and online outlets.

'Sound Fiscal Policy' would involve a concerted effort to address the housing affordability crisis - which started in earnest
around the year 2000 when the relationship between the cost of housing and both average incomes and the rest of the economy has altered everything about the way Australia operates and Australians live. But the policies to change that necessarily involve changes to tax concessions and rebates for home investors. What chance having THAT as a basis of your election/re-election strategy getting accepted by the media and the masses?

People don’t give a **** about climate change, gender equality etc when they can’t afford a roof over their head.

The two things are not mutually exclusive of course. Caring about the future liveability of our planet and taking action to protect the rights and improve the living conditions of all individuals regardless of gender, race and ethnicity is all a part of 'sound fiscal policy'.

The fact is that the front pages of a large chunk of our mass media is all about being 'anti-woke and culture wars - it's front and centre of the Dutton election strategy in case you haven't noticed.

No one on the conservative side of politics and their media backers are talking about anything else - certainly not 'good fiscal policy'. Case in point:




As Alan Kohler reminds us, land and energy are the two basic economic inputs apart from labour, but while Australia has more of both than just about any other country, we export most of the energy and price our own at global parity, so there’s no home-grown advantage there, and we crowd into a few cities and pay each other seven to eight times our salaries for land.

And high-priced houses do not create wealth; they redistribute it.

'Sound Fiscal Policy' would be centred on fixing these basic things. Show me who is talking about it in mainstream media?

'

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Which would be ironic given that the current focus on the 'cost of living crisis' and the reluctance of the Reserve Bank Board to reduce the cash rate is a matter relating to monetary policy, which is often at odds with the government's fiscal policy objectives.

Which sort of proves the point that most of the voting public in Australia have no idea what 'sound fiscal policy' looks like, let alone willing to accept the fact that sustainable policy change takes years and decades to achieve. And they sure as heck won't get an education on those matters from the mainstream media, let alone social media platforms.

As the failed Shorten election campaigns of 2016 and 2019 showed, any attempt at a comprehensive redirecting of Federal policy, to improve equity and fairness for the average Australian will only be subject to a massive scare campaign from the Murdoch press who still control a large chunk of news reporting in Australia via their print and online outlets.

'Sound Fiscal Policy' would involve a concerted effort to address the housing affordability crisis - which started in earnest
around the year 2000 when the relationship between the cost of housing and both average incomes and the rest of the economy has altered everything about the way Australia operates and Australians live. But the policies to change that necessarily involve changes to tax concessions and rebates for home investors. What chance having THAT as a basis of your election/re-election strategy getting accepted by the media and the masses?



The two things are not mutually exclusive of course. Caring about the future liveability of our planet and taking action to protect the rights and improve the living conditions of all individuals regardless of gender, race and ethnicity is all a part of 'sound fiscal policy'.

The fact is that the front pages of a large chunk of our mass media is all about being 'anti-woke and culture wars - it's front and centre of the Dutton election strategy in case you haven't noticed.

No one on the conservative side of politics and their media backers are talking about anything else - certainly not 'good fiscal policy'. Case in point:

View attachment 2198423


As Alan Kohler reminds us, land and energy are the two basic economic inputs apart from labour, but while Australia has more of both than just about any other country, we export most of the energy and price our own at global parity, so there’s no home-grown advantage there, and we crowd into a few cities and pay each other seven to eight times our salaries for land.

And high-priced houses do not create wealth; they redistribute it.

'Sound Fiscal Policy' would be centred on fixing these basic things. Show me who is talking about it in mainstream media?

'

Excellent post mate.

 

[peetoo]

Oh, that's easy! It's an anagram. Tesla!

Which would be ironic given that the current focus on the 'cost of living crisis' and the reluctance of the Reserve Bank Board to reduce the cash rate is a matter relating to monetary policy, which is often at odds with the government's fiscal policy objectives.

Which sort of proves the point that most of the voting public in Australia have no idea what 'sound fiscal policy' looks like, let alone willing to accept the fact that sustainable policy change takes years and decades to achieve. And they sure as heck won't get an education on those matters from the mainstream media, let alone social media platforms.

As the failed Shorten election campaigns of 2016 and 2019 showed, any attempt at a comprehensive redirecting of Federal policy, to improve equity and fairness for the average Australian will only be subject to a massive scare campaign from the Murdoch press who still control a large chunk of news reporting in Australia via their print and online outlets.

'Sound Fiscal Policy' would involve a concerted effort to address the housing affordability crisis - which started in earnest
around the year 2000 when the relationship between the cost of housing and both average incomes and the rest of the economy has altered everything about the way Australia operates and Australians live. But the policies to change that necessarily involve changes to tax concessions and rebates for home investors. What chance having THAT as a basis of your election/re-election strategy getting accepted by the media and the masses?



The two things are not mutually exclusive of course. Caring about the future liveability of our planet and taking action to protect the rights and improve the living conditions of all individuals regardless of gender, race and ethnicity is all a part of 'sound fiscal policy'.

The fact is that the front pages of a large chunk of our mass media is all about being 'anti-woke and culture wars - it's front and centre of the Dutton election strategy in case you haven't noticed.

No one on the conservative side of politics and their media backers are talking about anything else - certainly not 'good fiscal policy'. Case in point:

View attachment 2198423


As Alan Kohler reminds us, land and energy are the two basic economic inputs apart from labour, but while Australia has more of both than just about any other country, we export most of the energy and price our own at global parity, so there’s no home-grown advantage there, and we crowd into a few cities and pay each other seven to eight times our salaries for land.

And high-priced houses do not create wealth; they redistribute it.

'Sound Fiscal Policy' would be centred on fixing these basic things. Show me who is talking about it in mainstream media?

'

This and most of the things the coalition are using against the govt pre dated the current govt.

Not one word of contrition for their part in all this.

Voters taken for fools

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

This and most of the things the coalition are using against the govt pre dated the current govt.

Not one word of contrition for their part in all this.

Voters taken for fools

And the most infuriating thing is politicians just don't understand the huge amount of respect they'd earn if they'd just offer a heartfelt apology when shown to be wrong.

The Coalition and Murdoch ridiculed Labor mercilessly when they were having their tiresome leadership squabbles. Rudd (for all his faults) introduced Labor leadership challenge laws making that shit a thing of the past. No acknowledgement from the Coalition.

Then the Coalition had their own leadership squabbles. Suddenly not a peep from them. Though they eventually then introduced their own tough new leadership challenge rules, closely modelled on Labor’s.

Meanwhile Murdoch, rather than mercilessly hounding this new outbreak of squabbles, reported it as straight, unremarkable news.

When the two Greens senators were the first ones found to have been caught out with the dual citizenship prohibitions, they resigned promptly and with dignity, but were ridiculed by Labor, Coalition, and Murdoch.

Next minute, Labor and the Coalition were turning up so many in their own ranks who were ineligible. Any apology? No. Silence.

Voters don't hate politicians being wrong; they understand we're all human. They hate them being arrogant, and they hate them gaslighting us.

 

[AlwaysHawks15]

This is such a cartoonish take on the suburban demographic that its obvious you have never mixed in those circles.

And if Labor think these are the typical voters they need to win over, then they are in even worse trouble than anyone could imagine.

Stop with your denial mate, I lived in those demographics for over 20 years and mixed with all types of personalities, just because your recollections are different or in this case not accurate doesn't mean that what I'm saying isn't the truth. It is. I haven't met anyone who lives in those pockets that isn't a dyed in the wool conservative and I've been associated with and been in the same circles as quite alot. It's part of the reason I shifted across town because I couldn't deal with the complete denialism and stupidity of their views. Nothing has changed since I left, I still get the same ramblings on social media from said type of people who I use for a good laugh these days. You don't actually know my history so to say that you do shows ignorance on your behalf.

 

[JackOutback]

This and most of the things the coalition are using against the govt pre dated the current govt.

Not one word of contrition for their part in all this.

Voters taken for fools

The West Australian has an op ed from Angus Taylor about how Labor is sending us broke. No mention of the debt or deficits during their decade in charge, of course.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

The West Australian has an op ed from Angus Taylor about how Labor is sending us broke. No mention of the debt or deficits during their decade in charge, of course.

Being a Lib Means Never Having To Say You're Sorry.

 

[schneebly111]

The West Australian has an op ed from Angus Taylor about how Labor is sending us broke. No mention of the debt or deficits during their decade in charge, of course.

Out of interest did do they have a corresponding op ed from Labor or is the West just confirming their Liberal newsletter status?

 

[E Shed]

Which would be ironic given that the current focus on the 'cost of living crisis' and the reluctance of the Reserve Bank Board to reduce the cash rate is a matter relating to monetary policy, which is often at odds with the government's fiscal policy objectives.

Which sort of proves the point that most of the voting public in Australia have no idea what 'sound fiscal policy' looks like, let alone willing to accept the fact that sustainable policy change takes years and decades to achieve. And they sure as heck won't get an education on those matters from the mainstream media, let alone social media platforms.

As the failed Shorten election campaigns of 2016 and 2019 showed, any attempt at a comprehensive redirecting of Federal policy, to improve equity and fairness for the average Australian will only be subject to a massive scare campaign from the Murdoch press who still control a large chunk of news reporting in Australia via their print and online outlets.

'Sound Fiscal Policy' would involve a concerted effort to address the housing affordability crisis - which started in earnest
around the year 2000 when the relationship between the cost of housing and both average incomes and the rest of the economy has altered everything about the way Australia operates and Australians live. But the policies to change that necessarily involve changes to tax concessions and rebates for home investors. What chance having THAT as a basis of your election/re-election strategy getting accepted by the media and the masses?



The two things are not mutually exclusive of course. Caring about the future liveability of our planet and taking action to protect the rights and improve the living conditions of all individuals regardless of gender, race and ethnicity is all a part of 'sound fiscal policy'.

The fact is that the front pages of a large chunk of our mass media is all about being 'anti-woke and culture wars - it's front and centre of the Dutton election strategy in case you haven't noticed.

No one on the conservative side of politics and their media backers are talking about anything else - certainly not 'good fiscal policy'. Case in point:

View attachment 2198423


As Alan Kohler reminds us, land and energy are the two basic economic inputs apart from labour, but while Australia has more of both than just about any other country, we export most of the energy and price our own at global parity, so there’s no home-grown advantage there, and we crowd into a few cities and pay each other seven to eight times our salaries for land.

And high-priced houses do not create wealth; they redistribute it.

'Sound Fiscal Policy' would be centred on fixing these basic things. Show me who is talking about it in mainstream media?

'

Before the GFC I remember an economist I used to follow warning that housing was a Ponzi scheme & the amount of debt in the system was unsustainable.
When it collapsed would have been the time for a hard hard recession & let the banks fail & the finance bros get jailed and start again.
Since then the amount of debts in the world has increased so exponentially it is completely impossible for it ever to be paid down & the entire economic model of exponential growth relies primarily on real estate as an ever expanding asset.
It’s simply impossible for a government to take it on.