hedaik Posted November 24, 2017 Report Share Posted November 24, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Tesla said: $16bn for by far the worst route possible for the NEL, construction costs have gotten even more ludicrous under Labor government. Option D looks the worst to me, goes out into farm land and doesn’t serve as much of the population as the others do. B and C appear better than the final choice, but I don’t really know the area that well. Just hope to god the corrupt fucker Matthew Guy doesn’t get in and we end up with those ugly underpasses he wants to build everywhere. Edited November 24, 2017 by hedaik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shahanga Posted November 24, 2017 Report Share Posted November 24, 2017 5 hours ago, Tesla said: $16bn for by far the worst route possible for the NEL, construction costs have gotten even more ludicrous under Labor government. Why is it the worst route? Actually it’s the best route. Good decision Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesla Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 On 24/11/2017 at 7:25 PM, Shahanga said: Why is it the worst route? Actually it’s the best route. Good decision Because it connects to the eastern freeway rather than eastlink, should be obvious why that's not going to work well. This royal commission into the banking industry is not going to end well for anyone, but I guess the impending depression has been delayed long enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw1739 Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 4 hours ago, Tesla said: This royal commission into the banking industry is not going to end well for anyone, but I guess the impending depression has been delayed long enough. I doubt that anything much good to anyone will come out of it. Bank shares are a big part of the investment portfolio of many Australians, whether directly or indirectly, and, much like Government interference did with Telstra, I can only see downwards pressures on the share prices of the big four. I didn't think I could ever be as disappointed with a LNP Commonwealth Government as I am with the Turnbull government. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewConvert Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 4 hours ago, jw1739 said: I doubt that anything much good to anyone will come out of it. Bank shares are a big part of the investment portfolio of many Australians, whether directly or indirectly, and, much like Government interference did with Telstra, I can only see downwards pressures on the share prices of the big four. I didn't think I could ever be as disappointed with a LNP Commonwealth Government as I am with the Turnbull government. When news broke that the FBI had spotted that the CBA was laundering money for Islamic State earlier this year, I presumed that it was a rogue operator/infiltrator that had managed to launder money a few times. I was not prepared to read that the FBI had counted over 4,000 individual instances and it was a systemic issue rather than an individual. At that time the FBI indicated that the CBA had passed the threshold of being declared a terrorist financier. Somehow the Federal government managed to avoid that classification. So for me a RC should have been called with a very wide brief as to how the board allowed that to happen, why weren't the Australian regulators onto it earlier and a myriad of other issues. The point that simply because we all own shares does not wash with me - the implications are that making a profit means that we can overlook any crime would sit well with the mafiosi but should not be accepted by society at large. Laundering for terrorists groups should have resulted in criminal charges against individuals. As for the current government - I am not surprised and whether MT was PM or someone else they were bound to arrive at this juncture at some point. Once the purge of the wets was complete in the 80s then it becomes a race as to who is more ideologically pure. Hence any compromise is seen as a weakness but rational politics calls for compromises all the time. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw1739 Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 I don't believe that you are correct in saying that "CBA was laundering money for Islamic State...." Yes, it is believed that CBA was being used as a vehicle for money laundering by people associated with Islamic State, and that various systems within CBA were either not picking up the transactions or picking up the transactions but not responding as it should. But your statement implies that it was the CBA Bank itself that was working for Islamic State and IMO that is not the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malloy Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 FWIW I believe Tesla was referring to the widespread mortgage fraud, which occurs in Australia and that ultimately a Royal Commission will trigger a large scale recession in Aus, with downward pressure on the big 4s share price the least of peoples worries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesla Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, malloy said: FWIW I believe Tesla was referring to the widespread mortgage fraud, which occurs in Australia and that ultimately a Royal Commission will trigger a large scale recession in Aus, with downward pressure on the big 4s share price the least of peoples worries. Yeah that's the main thing, but these other issues being raised are relevant as well. We all know the housing boom was due to foreign investment, and a lot of speculation is that these foreigners obtained mortgages through fake documents, we've already seen the NAB come forward with some dodgy loans but that's probably just the tip of the iceberg. In before terms of reference don't include looking into whether there are dodgy loans. Edited November 30, 2017 by Tesla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewConvert Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 9 hours ago, jw1739 said: I don't believe that you are correct in saying that "CBA was laundering money for Islamic State...." Yes, it is believed that CBA was being used as a vehicle for money laundering by people associated with Islamic State, and that various systems within CBA were either not picking up the transactions or picking up the transactions but not responding as it should. But your statement implies that it was the CBA Bank itself that was working for Islamic State and IMO that is not the case. My understanding of the law is that it is vague enough to say that if you allowed it to happen, then you are part of it. Hence my statement, but to be accurate you are correct. If it wasn't for the FBI then the laundering would still be continuing. Why the CBA's internal systems did not pick it up is unknown since the public is not allowed to know unless there is a RC. I will also note that none of the other banks have had dodgy systems but of course a RC may find otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewConvert Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 9 hours ago, malloy said: FWIW I believe Tesla was referring to the widespread mortgage fraud, which occurs in Australia and that ultimately a Royal Commission will trigger a large scale recession in Aus, with downward pressure on the big 4s share price the least of peoples worries. 6 hours ago, Tesla said: Yeah that's the main thing, but these other issues being raised are relevant as well. We all know the housing boom was due to foreign investment, and a lot of speculation is that these foreigners obtained mortgages through fake documents, we've already seen the NAB come forward with some dodgy loans but that's probably just the tip of the iceberg. In before terms of reference don't include looking into whether there are dodgy loans. I did get that but there are also other questions such as the money laundering and as to the effectiveness of the regulators. As for a recession, it is unlikely to happen purely on the grounds of the RC unless it finds that the banks are insolvent. For a recession to occur a lot of factors have to come together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw1739 Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 2 hours ago, NewConvert said: My understanding of the law is that it is vague enough to say that if you allowed it to happen, then you are part of it. Hence my statement, but to be accurate you are correct. If it wasn't for the FBI then the laundering would still be continuing. Why the CBA's internal systems did not pick it up is unknown since the public is not allowed to know unless there is a RC. I will also note that none of the other banks have had dodgy systems but of course a RC may find otherwise. Guilty by omission rather than commission - yes, I'll accept that. It's difficult to know exactly what happened, but as I understand it, many of the transactions were just under the $10,000 which is the mandatory reporting amount, and something like half a million transactions over that limit were reported but not within the timeframe required by law. As for transferring money into an account, or opening a new account, and then immediately transferring the money overseas (which was one criticism levelled at CBA) that's pretty standard practice. For example I transferred money overseas to my son that way - you set up a transaction via a Forex trading company (i.e. you lock in the exchange rate) and then you have only a limited time to complete the transaction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesla Posted December 1, 2017 Report Share Posted December 1, 2017 13 hours ago, NewConvert said: I did get that but there are also other questions such as the money laundering and as to the effectiveness of the regulators. As for a recession, it is unlikely to happen purely on the grounds of the RC unless it finds that the banks are insolvent. For a recession to occur a lot of factors have to come together. I said depression not recession. Recession is what would have happened a decade ago if the government didn't try spend its way out of it. Now there is fuck all fiscal or monetary policy options to stop things going to shit. If there are a lot of dodgy loans then the housing bubble will burst and it will be worse than the housing market collapse in the US during the GFC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewConvert Posted December 1, 2017 Report Share Posted December 1, 2017 29 minutes ago, Tesla said: I said depression not recession. Recession is what would have happened a decade ago if the government didn't try spend its way out of it. Now there is fuck all fiscal or monetary policy options to stop things going to shit. If there are a lot of dodgy loans then the housing bubble will burst and it will be worse than the housing market collapse in the US during the GFC. Generally for a depression to happen it has to be in concert across multiple nations (unless your president is Mugabe or Maduro). Secondly the banks would need to become insolvent quickly (hello to all Greeks in Europe) but everything that is in the public domain is that the four big banks are in good health. Way back in 91 there was a house value reduction by as much as 1.5% (average) and that caused the recession we had to have and back then building societies went bankrupt and the Westpac was on an hourly watch by the reserve bank. What has changed is that all financial institutions are under the purview of the Reserve Bank which was not the case in 91. So even if the average price of housing did drop 1.5% again it would not lead to a depression. What I would expect to see is that the rise in the price of real estate to slow eventually leading to a period of no growth in asset price. Also in 91 a big seller was "how to survive the coming depression". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shahanga Posted December 2, 2017 Report Share Posted December 2, 2017 So how’s old mate Sam Dastyari hey? All was well till the recording of his speech was released. Love his reaction “that wasn’t my recollection of events”. Probably more interesting is why it was released? Good speculation in that one. Anyway another dodgy politician finished. I’d celebrate, only Keeping dodgies out of parliament seems as likely as keeping flies out of a cattle yard. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeartFc Posted December 2, 2017 Report Share Posted December 2, 2017 Suck shit. Hate that snug unfunny cunt Dastyari, fucking geek. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewConvert Posted December 2, 2017 Report Share Posted December 2, 2017 3 hours ago, Shahanga said: So how’s old mate Sam Dastyari hey? All was well till the recording of his speech was released. Love his reaction “that wasn’t my recollection of events”. Probably more interesting is why it was released? Good speculation in that one. Anyway another dodgy politician finished. I’d celebrate, only Keeping dodgies out of parliament seems as likely as keeping flies out of a cattle yard. He is from NSW and a protoge of Richardson - I wouldn't say he is finished yet. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
japiedog Posted December 6, 2017 Report Share Posted December 6, 2017 the next round of the dual citizenship circus .... as shown by Barnaby ticking the box to say he's renounced his O/S citizen , then being reelected... what does this actually achieve ? and we are going to go through this how many times ?? what a waste of money and time 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cadete Posted December 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted December 6, 2017 21 hours ago, japiedog said: the next round of the dual citizenship circus .... as shown by Barnaby ticking the box to say he's renounced his O/S citizen , then being reelected... what does this actually achieve ? and we are going to go through this how many times ?? what a waste of money and time Malcolm will have his legacy to brag about on Q&A for years to come probably by the end of this week, so they should just call the election now and head out for Chinese... they dont even need to bother campaigning for this one - its over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw1739 Posted December 7, 2017 Report Share Posted December 7, 2017 1 hour ago, cadete said: Malcolm will have his legacy to brag about on Q&A for years to come probably by the end of this week, so they should just call the election now and head out for Chinese... they dont even need to bother campaigning for this one - its over. Agreed. I forecast a backlash against Turncoat. My demographic doesn't vote for faggots. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenSeater Posted December 7, 2017 Report Share Posted December 7, 2017 37 minutes ago, jw1739 said: Agreed. I forecast a backlash against Turncoat. My demographic doesn't vote for faggots. Wanna dial it back a little bit with the homophobic bullshit there mate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Embee Posted December 7, 2017 Report Share Posted December 7, 2017 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
japiedog Posted December 7, 2017 Report Share Posted December 7, 2017 47 minutes ago, jw1739 said: Agreed. I forecast a backlash against Turncoat. My demographic doesn't vote for faggots. 9 minutes ago, GreenSeater said: Wanna dial it back a little bit with the homophobic bullshit there mate? Now that Timmygate has blown over, I'm gonna sit back, watch this and enjoy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cadete Posted December 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, japiedog said: Now that Timmygate has blown over, I'm gonna sit back, watch this and enjoy Can anyone really be bothered arguing against somebody who views themselves in an Anti-Faggot Demographic? It sounds like something a Private School Kid in West Australia (Most likely a Boarder) would have said in RE Class in 1998. Its like what is the point of any rebuttal... the comeback will probably be something like: "You have GAIDS". Edited December 7, 2017 by cadete 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenSeater Posted December 7, 2017 Report Share Posted December 7, 2017 13 minutes ago, cadete said: Can anyone really be bothered arguing against somebody who views themselves in an Anti-Faggot Demographic? It sounds like something a Private School Kid in West Australia (Most likely a Boarder) would have said in RE Class in 1998. Its like what is the point of any rebuttal... the comeback will probably be something like: "You have GAIDS". Whilst I would usually agree, the fact that the post was clearly not intended to be humorous and was made by a moderator didn't really sit too well for me. On the original point of the post however, if the demographic in question feels so strongly about opposing the private actions of consenting adults then maybe they should have voted accordingly in higher numbers in the recent plebiscite, because as I recall, that view lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw1739 Posted December 7, 2017 Report Share Posted December 7, 2017 I accept the rebukes that my post has produced. If another moderator wishes to take action to remove the post or take any other action I will accept that too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewConvert Posted December 7, 2017 Report Share Posted December 7, 2017 19 hours ago, cadete said: Malcolm will have his legacy to brag about on Q&A for years to come probably by the end of this week, so they should just call the election now and head out for Chinese... they dont even need to bother campaigning for this one - its over. Just out of curiosity, if the Coalition lose the election, and they lose it big, how would you go about rebuilding the Liberal party or the National party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thisphantomfortress Posted December 7, 2017 Report Share Posted December 7, 2017 51 minutes ago, NewConvert said: Just out of curiosity, if the Coalition lose the election, and they lose it big, how would you go about rebuilding the Liberal party or the National party. Clive "meme Lord" Palmer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deeming Posted December 7, 2017 Report Share Posted December 7, 2017 3 hours ago, NewConvert said: Just out of curiosity, if when the Coalition lose the election, and they lose it big, how would you go about rebuilding the Liberal party or the National party. Fixed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw1739 Posted December 7, 2017 Report Share Posted December 7, 2017 3 hours ago, NewConvert said: Just out of curiosity, if the Coalition lose the election, and they lose it big, how would you go about rebuilding the Liberal party or the National party. IMO it should be a moderate right-wing party. ATM the two major parties seem to me to be virtually indistinguishable, just trying to buy the swinging voter by "what we promise to do for you" policies. Perhaps much of this results from our electoral system. IMO three-year terms for the House of Reps are a significant cause of our present difficulties. We're barely out of "election mode" at any time. Perhaps if we moved to 4- or even 5-year terms the two major parties would have the time to become distinguishable again. Just a thought. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tangerine Posted December 8, 2017 Report Share Posted December 8, 2017 I've got a different take (probably cause i'm in a different place on the political spectrum). For me the Liberal Party's issue is that they are really two parties - a Conservative party (Abbott, Hastie, Corman, Andrews etc.) and a slightly right of center liberal party (Turnbull, Bishop, Pyne, Wilson etc.). It is proving almost impossible for these two to exist in one cohesive party and the only reason they are still together (and the Nationals still hang-on to them) is because apart they wouldn't get elected. I know that those to the right see the Liberals as Labor-lite and therefore almost the same but i disagree. I think we are lacking a genuinely central party. Labor is pulled too far left by the Greens and fear of losing voters in that direction, the Liberals gyrate between 'liberal' and conservative. I would welcome (and vote for) a socially moderate, secular, and fiscally conservative party ......i just don't know where it would come from: Something that could move towards a balanced budget(right), tighten welfare (right) AS WELL AS closer corporate tax loop-holes (left), have a sensible low emissions energy policy (left), keep the boats stopped (right) but tone down the stupid cat-calling on immigration (left). Rant over, thanks for reading. TL;DR - Politics is f*ck'd 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bt50 Posted December 8, 2017 Report Share Posted December 8, 2017 16 minutes ago, Tangerine said: I've got a different take (probably cause i'm in a different place on the political spectrum). For me the Liberal Party's issue is that they are really two parties - a Conservative party (Abbott, Hastie, Corman, Andrews etc.) and a slightly right of center liberal party (Turnbull, Bishop, Pyne, Wilson etc.). It is proving almost impossible for these two to exist in one cohesive party and the only reason they are still together (and the Nationals still hang-on to them) is because apart they wouldn't get elected. I know that those to the right see the Liberals as Labor-lite and therefore almost the same but i disagree. I think we are lacking a genuinely central party. Labor is pulled too far left by the Greens and fear of losing voters in that direction, the Liberals gyrate between 'liberal' and conservative. I would welcome (and vote for) a socially moderate, secular, and fiscally conservative party ......i just don't know where it would come from: Something that could move towards a balanced budget(right), tighten welfare (right) AS WELL AS closer corporate tax loop-holes (left), have a sensible low emissions energy policy (left), keep the boats stopped (right) but tone down the stupid cat-calling on immigration (left). Rant over, thanks for reading. TL;DR - Politics is f*ck'd Welcome to the Liberal Democrats 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Posted December 8, 2017 Report Share Posted December 8, 2017 2 minutes ago, Tangerine said: For me the Liberal Party's issue is that they are really two parties - a Conservative party (Abbott, Hastie, Corman, Andrews etc.) and a slightly right of center liberal party (Turnbull, Bishop, Pyne, Wilson etc.). It is proving almost impossible for these two to exist in one cohesive party and the only reason they are still together (and the Nationals still hang-on to them) is because apart they wouldn't get elected. Well this has been a distinguishing feature of the Liberal Party for decades. I see no difficulty in accommodating social conservatives, economic liberals and libertarians in one party. Freedom appeals to all of those in its own way. Witness the push for freedom of religion and conscience from a majority of Coalition MPs. Ultimately those exemptions were voted down by a majority in the wider House but libertarians and social conservatives value those freedoms despite likely having diametrically opposed positions on the definition of marriage. Those conservatives you mentioned are all broadly in favour of free(r) market economics, as are the moderates. This is where the issue lies though. Irrespective of their merit, Turnbull's economic policies on superannuation, banking, schools and some tax issues are not what I would call economically liberal. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tangerine Posted December 8, 2017 Report Share Posted December 8, 2017 22 minutes ago, bt50 said: Welcome to the Liberal Democrats I'm really very close to agreeing with you. I think that Libertarianism is in many ways the purest of political philosophies and Leyonhjelm is clearly a reasoned and very intelligent person. The idea of do whatever you want as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's life is great. I mainly just disagree with LDP on guns and environment. My view is that the average joe/josephine having a gun would negatively impact my life; as do actions that might negatively impact the general environment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deeming Posted December 8, 2017 Report Share Posted December 8, 2017 1 hour ago, Tangerine said: I've got a different take (probably cause i'm in a different place on the political spectrum). For me the Liberal Party's issue is that they are really two parties - a Conservative party (Abbott, Hastie, Corman, Andrews etc.) and a slightly right of center liberal party (Turnbull, Bishop, Pyne, Wilson etc.). It is proving almost impossible for these two to exist in one cohesive party and the only reason they are still together (and the Nationals still hang-on to them) is because apart they wouldn't get elected. I know that those to the right see the Liberals as Labor-lite and therefore almost the same but i disagree. I think we are lacking a genuinely central party. Labor is pulled too far left by the Greens and fear of losing voters in that direction, the Liberals gyrate between 'liberal' and conservative. I would welcome (and vote for) a socially moderate, secular, and fiscally conservative party ......i just don't know where it would come from: Something that could move towards a balanced budget(right), tighten welfare (right) AS WELL AS closer corporate tax loop-holes (left), have a sensible low emissions energy policy (left), keep the boats stopped (right) but tone down the stupid cat-calling on immigration (left). Rant over, thanks for reading. TL;DR - Politics is f*ck'd Its really 4 parties Conservatives, Classical Liberals/Libertarians, Moderates, and 'We are not unionists so I guess that makes us Liberals'. 1 hour ago, Tangerine said: I've got a different take (probably cause i'm in a different place on the political spectrum). For me the Liberal Party's issue is that they are really two parties - a Conservative party (Abbott, Hastie, Corman, Andrews etc.) and a slightly right of center liberal party (Turnbull, Bishop, Pyne, Wilson etc.). It is proving almost impossible for these two to exist in one cohesive party and the only reason they are still together (and the Nationals still hang-on to them) is because apart they wouldn't get elected. I know that those to the right see the Liberals as Labor-lite and therefore almost the same but i disagree. I think we are lacking a genuinely central party. Labor is pulled too far left by the Greens and fear of losing voters in that direction, the Liberals gyrate between 'liberal' and conservative. I would welcome (and vote for) a socially moderate, secular, and fiscally conservative party ......i just don't know where it would come from: Something that could move towards a balanced budget(right), tighten welfare (right) AS WELL AS closer corporate tax loop-holes (left), have a sensible low emissions energy policy (left), keep the boats stopped (right) but tone down the stupid cat-calling on immigration (left). Rant over, thanks for reading. TL;DR - Politics is f*ck'd They were called the Democrats - they died because generally people are not both fiscally conservative and socially moderate. The Liberal Democrats are really a Libertarian party not quite the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bt50 Posted December 8, 2017 Report Share Posted December 8, 2017 1 hour ago, Tangerine said: I'm really very close to agreeing with you. I think that Libertarianism is in many ways the purest of political philosophies and Leyonhjelm is clearly a reasoned and very intelligent person. The idea of do whatever you want as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's life is great. I mainly just disagree with LDP on guns and environment. My view is that the average joe/josephine having a gun would negatively impact my life; as do actions that might negatively impact the general environment. Yeh agree on the gun thing; i think Australia is undoubtedly safer with gun control than what it would be without it. I appreciate the arguments for removing it, but tbh i just dont really see how the benefits of having guns back on the streets outweighs the benefits of not. I'm a conservationist of sorts as far the environment goes, but i agree with the idea that it is the government's role to create laws to protect it, not the individuals responsibility. As well as that, i think society in of itself is pretty much self policing these days by weight of numbers when it comes to environmental issues; people will vote with their feet when companies act irresponsibly and hurt the company that way. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malloy Posted December 8, 2017 Report Share Posted December 8, 2017 Better dead than Red! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesla Posted December 8, 2017 Report Share Posted December 8, 2017 14 hours ago, bt50 said: Welcome to the Liberal Democrats Seriously surely we can get someone on this forum preselected given we are 95% of the LDP voters in Victoria. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesla Posted December 8, 2017 Report Share Posted December 8, 2017 13 hours ago, bt50 said: Yeh agree on the gun thing; i think Australia is undoubtedly safer with gun control than what it would be without it. I appreciate the arguments for removing it, but tbh i just dont really see how the benefits of having guns back on the streets outweighs the benefits of not. I'm a conservationist of sorts as far the environment goes, but i agree with the idea that it is the government's role to create laws to protect it, not the individuals responsibility. As well as that, i think society in of itself is pretty much self policing these days by weight of numbers when it comes to environmental issues; people will vote with their feet when companies act irresponsibly and hurt the company that way. Fwiw on environment, I'd argue that libertarian philosophy can be quite strong in terms of environment protection. I'd say things like a carbon tax, or even a general pollution tax, are very much compatible with libertarian philosophy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thisphantomfortress Posted December 9, 2017 Report Share Posted December 9, 2017 8 hours ago, Tesla said: Seriously surely we can get someone on this forum preselected given we are 95% of the LDP voters in Victoria. Feels that way. Tbh I'd be far more interested in joining if it weren't for their stance on guns, which I acknowledge are entirely in line with classical libertarianism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewConvert Posted December 9, 2017 Report Share Posted December 9, 2017 On 12/8/2017 at 10:06 AM, jw1739 said: IMO it should be a moderate right-wing party. ATM the two major parties seem to me to be virtually indistinguishable, just trying to buy the swinging voter by "what we promise to do for you" policies. Perhaps much of this results from our electoral system. IMO three-year terms for the House of Reps are a significant cause of our present difficulties. We're barely out of "election mode" at any time. Perhaps if we moved to 4- or even 5-year terms the two major parties would have the time to become distinguishable again. Just a thought. Up until the 90s state and federal parliaments were on a maximum of three year terms. State parliaments moved to four year terms and now some are on fixed four year terms. This has not stopped the 'election mode' politics and my observations of overseas polities indicate the same thing. This could be for a variety of reasons, one of which I think is the media itself because it is cheap to generate since politicians are static, like publicity and politics are part of the daily fabric. As for being indistinguishable you have a point. When the ALP embraced market liberalism what had been a differentiating point blurred. The Liberal Party moved further to the right economically (case in point the number of ex-IPA MPs/Senators) and 'the culture wars' became the point of difference. The side effect of this has been a decreasing number of people joining political parties and an increase in the reliance on focus groups and think tanks. I remain baffled as to why focus groups are required because MPs should have a very good intuition of where the voters are. On 12/8/2017 at 0:09 PM, Tangerine said: I've got a different take (probably cause i'm in a different place on the political spectrum). For me the Liberal Party's issue is that they are really two parties - a Conservative party (Abbott, Hastie, Corman, Andrews etc.) and a slightly right of center liberal party (Turnbull, Bishop, Pyne, Wilson etc.). It is proving almost impossible for these two to exist in one cohesive party and the only reason they are still together (and the Nationals still hang-on to them) is because apart they wouldn't get elected. I know that those to the right see the Liberals as Labor-lite and therefore almost the same but i disagree. I think we are lacking a genuinely central party. Labor is pulled too far left by the Greens and fear of losing voters in that direction, the Liberals gyrate between 'liberal' and conservative. I would welcome (and vote for) a socially moderate, secular, and fiscally conservative party ......i just don't know where it would come from: Something that could move towards a balanced budget(right), tighten welfare (right) AS WELL AS closer corporate tax loop-holes (left), have a sensible low emissions energy policy (left), keep the boats stopped (right) but tone down the stupid cat-calling on immigration (left). Rant over, thanks for reading. TL;DR - Politics is f*ck'd As an old time lefty, the ALP is not to the left of the spectrum. Certainly politicians from the 60s and 70s would not recognise any of the current parties. I tend to concur with you regarding the different strains pulling at the LP. Part of the problem is that the definition of Conservative is changing - Menzies governments were high taxing, protectionist and interventionist governments. Which is one of the reasons why he never founded a Conservative party. He was for God, Queen and Country and culturally conservative (although he lived through large social changes). I would add another factor that is plaguing the LP - personality politics between Abbot and Turnbull. During the 80s the ALP had a free kick when Howard and Peacock turned on each other. This decade it has been Abbot and Turnbull. They appear to be different but practically they follow the same economic policies, same refugee policies and it was Abbot who promised a plebiscite but delivered by Turnbull. They have their differences on the social spectrum but otherwise they are the same. It is good to see that you want tighter welfare and to close the tax loopholes because if you are pensioner you certainly are seeing the tightening but corporations seem to be paying less and less taxes. On 12/8/2017 at 0:30 PM, Harrison said: Well this has been a distinguishing feature of the Liberal Party for decades. I see no difficulty in accommodating social conservatives, economic liberals and libertarians in one party. Freedom appeals to all of those in its own way. Witness the push for freedom of religion and conscience from a majority of Coalition MPs. Ultimately those exemptions were voted down by a majority in the wider House but libertarians and social conservatives value those freedoms despite likely having diametrically opposed positions on the definition of marriage. Those conservatives you mentioned are all broadly in favour of free(r) market economics, as are the moderates. This is where the issue lies though. Irrespective of their merit, Turnbull's economic policies on superannuation, banking, schools and some tax issues are not what I would call economically liberal. I would disagree with you on this. The 50s and 60s saw a general rebellion against religion. You could not be a religious conservative and believe in freedom because that was a challenge to the establish order of the power of the church. In Victoria this power was wielded mercilessly by Archbishop Mannix. In the end it led to the protection of pedophiles in the church with one central Victorian policeman effectively shutting down any investigation of any priest, purging any police officer who would investigate and damaging the reputation of the victim and their families. It is strange seeing Conservatives calling for the protection of religious freedom yet all my life they have been at the forefront of pushing against a bill of rights which includes religious protections. And of course the same arguments against a bill of rights can be used their proposals. For the record, I think what has been happening in the West (broadly speaking) is the internalisation of religion. That is, you can believe what ever you want just as long as you keep it to yourself. This of course would mean a shift in power from the established churches to individuals. It would also be against the proselytizing demanded by the monotheistic religions. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.