[Surferdude]

Not often Laurie Oaks has anything nice to say about either side of politics.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/at-last-a-boat-that-just-might-float/story-fni0cwl5-1226682182665

[Doggie 1]

Eureka, you must lead a pretty sheltered life if you don't think Indonesian people smugglers don't have internet access.

Terry, you say that about people who don't support Labor but it's just not true.
I certainly haven't led a sheltered life and I don't support Labor.
I think that the ads are definitely political ads paid for by the Australian tax payer.
Labor's "get out of jail free" card is that they can say they are aimed at relatives of potential asylum seekers.
Whilst difficult to counter, personally, I don't buy it.
All of this just happens to be occurring as a federal election looms. Pity Krudd didn't run this line six years ago after he got elected.
Oh, that's right, he was already elected then. Now he wants to get elected. 

[Ugly Mongrel]

Dave, the intent of my reply to Eureka was not mean to  offend, it was simply responding to Eureka's assertion that refugees   were not "sitting back, in Indonesia, reading The Age".

Anyone in today's age of the internet and smart phones that thinks people in Indonesia can't read Aussie newspapers is way behind the times.

[Doggie 1]

Dave, the intent of my reply to Eureka was not mean to  offend, it was simply responding to Eureka's assertion that refugees   were not "sitting back, in Indonesia, reading The Age".

Anyone in today's age of the internet and smart phones that thinks people in Indonesia can't read Aussie newspapers is way behind the times.

I didn't think that your intent was to offend, Terry. I wouldn't think you'd do that.
But you have used that phrase a time or three and whilst I accept your point that Indonesians are no doubt up to speed with Australian political issues, I do believe that the advertisements released by the ALP are nothing more than ALP political advertisements with a view to winning over the Australian electorate and at the expense of tax-paying Australians.
I think Eureka has a valid point.
If the PM wanted to target those people, he wouldn't be placing large advertisements in national Australian newspapers.
As I said, he can always use the argument that he is targeting the relatives of prospective asylum seekers.
It just happens that I, for one, don't believe him.
On another (but related) note, did anyone watch Q&A tonight?

[Dazzler]

I didn't Dave (what was the gist?)

[Doggie 1]

Skewed left, as always (well it is the ABC) but it was mainly about asylum seekers.
I have to say that Bill Shorten comes over very well, almost a voice of reason within the ALP, dare I say and he communicates well.
I don't think (judging by his body language) that he agrees with Rudd's new policy but regardless has to sell it to the people.
One of the problems of being in a team....

[Dazzler]

Thanks Dave, interesting 

[Aussie Keith]

I'm hoping there's going to be a "none of the above" box on the ballot so we can get rid of the lot of them and maybe outsource it. We should start putting out tenders now and see if anyone is interested in taking over the administration of the country. 

[Phil №❶]

The Taliban have expressed some interest recently. 

[Aussie Keith]

Bugger. Looks like we are stuck with making a choice from this lot then.

So what are these liberal and labour values that are so highly esteemed (or not) that people won't stop and consider the policies that each party is proposing. According to some scholars, Howard has aligned or blurred the distinction between values and national identity.

From an article in the Australian Political Journal author Johnson covers the following "More recent arguments influenced debates over foreign policy, counter terrorism measures, industrial relations policy and the banning of same-sex marriage. In particular, the article explores the relationship between Howard's ‘values’ and Anglo-Celtic identity, social conservatism, the Christian Right and a neo-liberal ‘entrepreneurial culture’. It suggests that Howard is using his emphasis on the relationship between values and national identity to endorse and encourage particular forms of citizen identity (which also have policy and electoral implications). This is despite Howard's earlier critique of Keating for using debates over national identity to engage in social engineering."

(DOI:10.1080/10361140701319986 for anyone that wants to read it.)

Think about it. Remember the term "unaustralian"? This was used to put down any idea that opposed liberal policies, a clever tactic. Rather than saying "no" Tony Abbot style you could just say its unaustralian.

But what are liberal values? Once again according to scholars "In Australia the Liberal Party is more to the right of the political spectrum and the Labor Party is more to the left".

However in recent years, both parties have moved closer to the middle, their policy ideals are actually not dissimilar in many respects.  Its hard to tell at the moment since the libs are yet to reveal any actual policies, but their book of tree hugging motherhood statements seems to echo what labour are on about as well. So lets assume they both want the same things for Australia which at face value it seems they do, what are the real differences? And why would you select one party over another?   

If you cut through the BS espoused by both sides and really analyse whats on offer, whats the difference - seriously?

I think it gets down to the candidates. krudd and abbot seem to polarise opinion. Both are either the messiah or the devil depending on which side of the political divide one stand on with no real reason given for different opinions, just regurgitation of spin.

It makes sense to abandon political allegiances long enough to examine the actual policies and politics of both parties to help make an informed decision about which way to cast a vote. Because right now it looks like a popularity contest and this is far more serious than voting for class president.

[Eureka]

I agree there is a good chance that the smugglers or potential refugees or whoever in Indonesia or wherever could see the ads in our newspapers.  But how often would they need to run these ads for that particular purpose and how much $ is being spent on these ads?  How much $ is being spent on all the other - clearly political - government advertising?

Like I said before, they both do it.  I have a vague idea that Howard might have spent $100 million on advertising in one of his terms of office. 

It's a disgrace.

[Ugly Mongrel]

Keith, what a great post. 

II'm looking forward to having a beer with you on Sunday to celebrate your birthday (and to talk about Dave)

[Ugly Mongrel]

I agree there is a good chance that the smugglers or potential refugees or whoever in Indonesia or wherever could see the ads in our newspapers.  But how often would they need to run these ads for that particular purpose and how much $ is being spent on these ads?  How much $ is being spent on all the other - clearly political - government advertising?

Like I said before, they both do it.  I have a vague idea that Howard might have spent $100 million on advertising in one of his terms of office. 

It's a disgrace.

I couldn't agree more, Eureka

[The Gonz]

 

[Ugly Mongrel]

Even PNG has it in for Tony

http://brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/in-veiled-swipe-at-tony-abbott-png-lashes-australian-politicians-for-impugning-the-dignity-of-its-leaders-20130724-2qj84.html

[Surferdude]

Bugger. Looks like we are stuck with making a choice from this lot then.

So what are these liberal and labour values that are so highly esteemed (or not) that people won't stop and consider the policies that each party is proposing. According to some scholars, Howard has aligned or blurred the distinction between values and national identity.

From an article in the Australian Political Journal author Johnson covers the following "More recent arguments influenced debates over foreign policy, counter terrorism measures, industrial relations policy and the banning of same-sex marriage. In particular, the article explores the relationship between Howard's ‘values’ and Anglo-Celtic identity, social conservatism, the Christian Right and a neo-liberal ‘entrepreneurial culture’. It suggests that Howard is using his emphasis on the relationship between values and national identity to endorse and encourage particular forms of citizen identity (which also have policy and electoral implications). This is despite Howard's earlier critique of Keating for using debates over national identity to engage in social engineering."

(DOI:10.1080/10361140701319986 for anyone that wants to read it.)

Think about it. Remember the term "unaustralian"? This was used to put down any idea that opposed liberal policies, a clever tactic. Rather than saying "no" Tony Abbot style you could just say its unaustralian.

But what are liberal values? Once again according to scholars "In Australia the Liberal Party is more to the right of the political spectrum and the Labor Party is more to the left".

However in recent years, both parties have moved closer to the middle, their policy ideals are actually not dissimilar in many respects.  Its hard to tell at the moment since the libs are yet to reveal any actual policies, but their book of tree hugging motherhood statements seems to echo what labour are on about as well. So lets assume they both want the same things for Australia which at face value it seems they do, what are the real differences? And why would you select one party over another?   

If you cut through the BS espoused by both sides and really analyse whats on offer, whats the difference - seriously?

I think it gets down to the candidates. krudd and abbot seem to polarise opinion. Both are either the messiah or the devil depending on which side of the political divide one stand on with no real reason given for different opinions, just regurgitation of spin.

It makes sense to abandon political allegiances long enough to examine the actual policies and politics of both parties to help make an informed decision about which way to cast a vote. Because right now it looks like a popularity contest and this is far more serious than voting for class president.

Great post Keith. But doesn't your last par sort of fly in the face of this   However in recent years, both parties have moved closer to the middle, their policy ideals are actually not dissimilar in many respects.  Its hard to tell at the moment since the libs are yet to reveal any actual policies, but their book of tree hugging motherhood statements seems to echo what labour are on about as well. So lets assume they both want the same things for Australia which at face value it seems they do, what are the real differences? And why would you select one party over another?     

I think that drags the decision making process back towards the popularity thing.
It's a difficult decision.

[Aussie Keith]

Bugger. Looks like we are stuck with making a choice from this lot then.

So what are these liberal and labour values that are so highly esteemed (or not) that people won't stop and consider the policies that each party is proposing. According to some scholars, Howard has aligned or blurred the distinction between values and national identity.

From an article in the Australian Political Journal author Johnson covers the following "More recent arguments influenced debates over foreign policy, counter terrorism measures, industrial relations policy and the banning of same-sex marriage. In particular, the article explores the relationship between Howard's ‘values’ and Anglo-Celtic identity, social conservatism, the Christian Right and a neo-liberal ‘entrepreneurial culture’. It suggests that Howard is using his emphasis on the relationship between values and national identity to endorse and encourage particular forms of citizen identity (which also have policy and electoral implications). This is despite Howard's earlier critique of Keating for using debates over national identity to engage in social engineering."

(DOI:10.1080/10361140701319986 for anyone that wants to read it.)

Think about it. Remember the term "unaustralian"? This was used to put down any idea that opposed liberal policies, a clever tactic. Rather than saying "no" Tony Abbot style you could just say its unaustralian.

But what are liberal values? Once again according to scholars "In Australia the Liberal Party is more to the right of the political spectrum and the Labor Party is more to the left".

However in recent years, both parties have moved closer to the middle, their policy ideals are actually not dissimilar in many respects.  Its hard to tell at the moment since the libs are yet to reveal any actual policies, but their book of tree hugging motherhood statements seems to echo what labour are on about as well. So lets assume they both want the same things for Australia which at face value it seems they do, what are the real differences? And why would you select one party over another?   

If you cut through the BS espoused by both sides and really analyse whats on offer, whats the difference - seriously?

I think it gets down to the candidates. krudd and abbot seem to polarise opinion. Both are either the messiah or the devil depending on which side of the political divide one stand on with no real reason given for different opinions, just regurgitation of spin.

It makes sense to abandon political allegiances long enough to examine the actual policies and politics of both parties to help make an informed decision about which way to cast a vote. Because right now it looks like a popularity contest and this is far more serious than voting for class president.

Great post Keith. But doesn't your last par sort of fly in the face of this   However in recent years, both parties have moved closer to the middle, their policy ideals are actually not dissimilar in many respects.  Its hard to tell at the moment since the libs are yet to reveal any actual policies, but their book of tree hugging motherhood statements seems to echo what labour are on about as well. So lets assume they both want the same things for Australia which at face value it seems they do, what are the real differences? And why would you select one party over another?     

I think that drags the decision making process back towards the popularity thing.
It's a difficult decision.

Not really, one side has policies on the table for better or worse and the other is yet to reveal their grand plan for you and me. I'm hoping that when the reveal actually happens there will then be a basis for making an informed decision. If one party makes a compelling pitch for my vote I will listen. If only one party reveals their intentions, then I have nothing to base a comparison on. I think its as simple, and as difficult, as that.

Bear in mind also that Mulder was right.

[Surferdude]

Bugger. Looks like we are stuck with making a choice from this lot then.

So what are these liberal and labour values that are so highly esteemed (or not) that people won't stop and consider the policies that each party is proposing. According to some scholars, Howard has aligned or blurred the distinction between values and national identity.

From an article in the Australian Political Journal author Johnson covers the following "More recent arguments influenced debates over foreign policy, counter terrorism measures, industrial relations policy and the banning of same-sex marriage. In particular, the article explores the relationship between Howard's ‘values’ and Anglo-Celtic identity, social conservatism, the Christian Right and a neo-liberal ‘entrepreneurial culture’. It suggests that Howard is using his emphasis on the relationship between values and national identity to endorse and encourage particular forms of citizen identity (which also have policy and electoral implications). This is despite Howard's earlier critique of Keating for using debates over national identity to engage in social engineering."

(DOI:10.1080/10361140701319986 for anyone that wants to read it.)

Think about it. Remember the term "unaustralian"? This was used to put down any idea that opposed liberal policies, a clever tactic. Rather than saying "no" Tony Abbot style you could just say its unaustralian.

But what are liberal values? Once again according to scholars "In Australia the Liberal Party is more to the right of the political spectrum and the Labor Party is more to the left".

However in recent years, both parties have moved closer to the middle, their policy ideals are actually not dissimilar in many respects.  Its hard to tell at the moment since the libs are yet to reveal any actual policies, but their book of tree hugging motherhood statements seems to echo what labour are on about as well. So lets assume they both want the same things for Australia which at face value it seems they do, what are the real differences? And why would you select one party over another?   

If you cut through the BS espoused by both sides and really analyse whats on offer, whats the difference - seriously?

I think it gets down to the candidates. krudd and abbot seem to polarise opinion. Both are either the messiah or the devil depending on which side of the political divide one stand on with no real reason given for different opinions, just regurgitation of spin.

It makes sense to abandon political allegiances long enough to examine the actual policies and politics of both parties to help make an informed decision about which way to cast a vote. Because right now it looks like a popularity contest and this is far more serious than voting for class president.

Great post Keith. But doesn't your last par sort of fly in the face of this   However in recent years, both parties have moved closer to the middle, their policy ideals are actually not dissimilar in many respects.  Its hard to tell at the moment since the libs are yet to reveal any actual policies, but their book of tree hugging motherhood statements seems to echo what labour are on about as well. So lets assume they both want the same things for Australia which at face value it seems they do, what are the real differences? And why would you select one party over another?     

I think that drags the decision making process back towards the popularity thing.
It's a difficult decision.

Not really, one side has policies on the table for better or worse and the other is yet to reveal their grand plan for you and me. I'm hoping that when the reveal actually happens there will then be a basis for making an informed decision. If one party makes a compelling pitch for my vote I will listen. If only one party reveals their intentions, then I have nothing to base a comparison on. I think its as simple, and as difficult, as that.

Bear in mind also that Mulder was right.

I understand. But, in all fairness, stated policies or not, we can be pretty sure what each is going to do or try to do.
These days, election policies and promises don't hold much water, from either side.

Do you mean Agent Mulder? 

[Aussie Keith]

The same. And he was right.

[beerman]

Hey Keith,

Thats a nice pic of Kevie you have in your sig.

[Doggie 1]

There may well be some common ground between the two major parties but the way they go about achieving their objectives is decidedly dissimilar.
As I have said before, there is no way in this world that we would be in the poor financial position we are now in as a nation had the Liberals been in power, although I acknowledge that with a minority government it would have been much more difficult. I do not mean in comparison with the Euro zone or the U.S.A. either. Just imagine what would have happened had the Liberals not left us in such a strong position prior to the onset of the GFC. What on earth would Labor have used then to "stimulate" the local economy? I shudder to think.
A lot of people do try to make it a popularity contest between the two leaders but I would hope that voters look deeper and think more deeply than that superficial level.
Neither party is perfect, but what can be seen from even the discussions we have had on this forum, is that depending on where you stand one side is more perfect than the other.
Past performance may not be a guarantee of future outcomes but given what I have seen throughout my life I am certainly willing to place a lot more trust in one side than the other and the basic fundamentals of Liberal beliefs align a lot more closely with my own.
Therefore I do know which party I will voting for on election day.
I have no doubt they will have some policies that I agree with and some that I don't, but from my viewpoint, I could not possibly risk another term of governance by the ALP considering the damage they have inflicted since 2007. They have been a political party in chaos and now their current leader is trying to "shore up" votes by introducing policies that just a short time ago were completely contrary to Labor's ideology and indeed his own statements on these very subjects. Because he wants to get elected and at any cost.
That some voters will decide the future of this nation based upon the perceived popularity of one or two individuals worries me. It really does.
There is a whole lot more to consider than that.

[Dazzler]

Can't disagree with anything you said Dave 

[Doggie 1]

Do you want to be deputy PM then? 

Can't disagree with anything you said Dave 

You guys break me up. Just because I call "carn the pies" doesn't make them the better team.

WRT to the point about saving and spending... it would not have mattered who was in at the time. There is a time to save and a time to spend. The time to save was when Peter was there presiding over a booming economy. He did the right thing.

When the other guys were there the potential was for a recession (that everyone else was having) so this was a time to use the bank. They did the right thing.

This is born out by our AAA rating and independent (i.e., not a political party) evaluation of our debt to GDP. Low!

Repeating political slogans and crap from (biased) newspapers does not convince me.

I've said before, show me the empirical data and I'll judge for myself and I judge that both of the last governments have done a pretty good job. The current one for mine has not stuffed up enough that I need to get rid of them before they build the NBN.

The NBN is the biggest thing we need to get right. Once this is done, I'm open again for next time.

[Doggie 1]

Sensible spending yes. Reckless spending no.
Check out our daily interest payments, consider the huge amounts of money they wasted on stimulus (it's well documented), try to reconcile the two  and don't bother telling me I'm repeating political spin.
Krudd is the King of Spin and plenty of pundits believe him. Apparently. 

[Ugly Mongrel]

Tony nicks Kev's policy.

http://brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/coalition-to-add-most-of-png-solution-to-boats-policy-20130724-2qjqk.html

[Aussie Keith]

Sensible spending yes. Reckless spending no.
Check out our daily interest payments, consider the huge amounts of money they wasted on stimulus (it's well documented), try to reconcile the two  and don't bother telling me I'm repeating political spin.
Krudd is the King of Spin and plenty of pundits believe him. Apparently. 

The IMF begs to differ. http://www.petermartin.com.au/2013/01/howard-was-your-most-wasteful.html

There's plenty of numbers there to look at. And don't forget that right now Australia is in a very strong place fiscally by global standards, the debt levels are actually quite low by world standards (3rd lowest I believe by the normal measures). You may recall this as well: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-21/swan-named-best-treasurer/2908654

It seems the opinion that huge amounts of money were wasted really is not shared by the global financial community, academics, economists and other credible sources that know about this sort of thing. I'm struggling to find a single article to back the case that we are in dire financial peril - the case proposed by the would be government. Not one credible source agrees with this position based on searches of academic libraries and the internet generally. What should I make of that?

Kevvie spins well but no one can hold a candle to JH. His memoirs continue a long tradition of fabrication and self promotion and its not standing up to scrutiny. It was reported that those referenced in one event asked to be removed from future editions since the event referenced apparently never happened. And it wasn't the Tampa either. Go figure.

http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2010/december/1354143842/robert-manne/man-wood

Is this memoir a reflection of liberal values? I hope not.

[Aussie Keith]

Tony nicks Kev's policy.

http://brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/coalition-to-add-most-of-png-solution-to-boats-policy-20130724-2qjqk.html

No kidding. That's original.

[rustynutz]

Surprisingly I'm quite enjoying this thread.....

What rebuff will the Liberal Lovers follow up with now?

Stay tuned for the next exciting episode....

[Aussie Keith]

I'm probably considered as showing a bias but I'm attempting to stay apolitical. Other than my obvious contempt of John Howard of course.