0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.
Eureka, you must lead a pretty sheltered life if you don't think Indonesian people smugglers don't have internet access.
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 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.
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.
Quote from: keith_h on July 24, 2013, 08:42:34Bugger. 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.
Quote from: Surferdude on July 24, 2013, 10:20:24Quote from: keith_h on July 24, 2013, 08:42:34Bugger. 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.
Can't disagree with anything you said Dave
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.
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