From the triumphalism of a mere three years ago.
For once, my electoral predictions haven’t turned out too badly, so I’ll offer one more before we get back to policy: The Liberal Party will never again win a federal election.
This isn’t a prediction of unending Labor rule, rather an observation that the Liberal and National parties are in such dire straits that they can’t continue as they are. They haven’t got enough support, parliamentary representation or ideas for one party, let alone two.
Strictly speaking the Liberals haven’t won just yet but observe the despair of today.
Labor is in very, very deep trouble and its long-term viability as a stand-alone mainstream political party is in doubt. The Greens’ assault on the party in the Senate has now moved to the lower house and the Labor soldiers have started falling.
I’m not sure about the ‘rebuild in government’ argument either.
Labor’s authority has been smashed by a series of events throughout this year – Rudd’s offhanded palming off of the ETS, his removal as leader and the election result itself.
Only by showing that it can govern competently, albeit under the strictures of the independents’ demands, could it hope to rebuild. Rebuilding from opposition would be a massive long-term project and there are serious doubts about whether that would be achievable, anyway. Its base is split and the party is out of money.
Labor’s authority has been smashed – true – but the Coalition have come back in less than three years from having a split base and little money. So it can be done.
If the independents opt for the Coalition, the Rudd-Gillard government will go down as one of the greatest political disasters in Australian history.
That statement will always be true, irrespective of the independents.
LOL. Did wrongologist Professor Kwiggin say that?
He also said Obama’s arrival heralded the permanent victory of social democratism. Which I suppose means that the Repubicans will never win again either.
Ya there, John? Embarrassed much?
C.L.
28 Aug 10 at 9:24 am
“but the Coalition have come back”
I’m not sure the Coalition have come back, it’s more like Labor has gone down to meet them (unless you’re willing to say Abbott is better than Howard).
conrad
28 Aug 10 at 10:22 am
From the time Abbott forced the government to abandon its ETS religious doctrine, Labor was sundered. He then destroyed Kevin Rudd and has now destroyed the majority of a first-term Labor government (under its second prime minister).
C.L.
28 Aug 10 at 10:28 am
The only safe prediction for economists re: elections is that if unemployment goes up, incumbency struggles.
.
28 Aug 10 at 10:33 am
Conrad – back in contention – who moved where is secondary.
Sinclair Davidson
28 Aug 10 at 10:41 am
And it is a clear repudiation of the Keynesian doctrine of spend spend spend. If I hear “nation building” one more time I’ll be sick.
Samuel J
28 Aug 10 at 10:59 am
Old Quiggers is just as wrong in his despair as he was in his triumphalism. But that’s the problem with your average lefty; he is so wrapped up in politics that evry eventuality can only be seen in stark emotional terms. That’s why we get all this irrational commentary about Tony Abbott. In the eyes of the rabid twats of the left, Tony Abbott, whose views and moral leanings match those of about 80% of the populace, is pictured as an extremist.
What will kill Labor, if anything, is the idea so loved by the lefties like Quiggers that life is always a zero sum game and that Government should thus only concentrate on the poorest of the poor whilst ripping off the obnoxious middle classes. Besides the fact that such an ideolgy is intellectual gobshite, it is going down less and less well with the voters. The point is that the left’s whole weltanshauung is based on the two nastiest sins in the world: envy and self righteousness. Thankfully most of us can see through their idiocy most of the time.
Rococo Liberal
28 Aug 10 at 12:36 pm
“Thankfully most of us can see through their idiocy most of the time.”
Do you live in NSW?
.
28 Aug 10 at 12:41 pm
“Tony Abbott, whose views and moral leanings match those of about 80% of the populace”
Rocco, are you living on the same planet every else is, or are you in alternative universe? Maybe you haven’t noticed, but the main winners from the election were the Greens — Labor lost, and the Libs essentially went nowhere, and it’s well known that many of Abbott’s moral values are not supported by majority of the population (e.g., Abortion, gay marriage etc. — I doubt most of the population even supports his idea of ultra-middle class welfare for new breeders).
conrad
28 Aug 10 at 2:17 pm
I doubt most of the population even supports his idea of ultra-middle class welfare for new breeders).
I don’t support either, but do you support payments to lower middle class “breeders” then, Conrad.
It’s a pretty offensive way of describing people wanting kids. No?
just askin.
JC
28 Aug 10 at 2:22 pm
Maybe you haven’t noticed, but the main winners from the election were the Greens — Labor lost, and the Libs essentially went nowhere,…
The Greens attracted 12% support; if that is winning then I’m in need of re-education.
and it’s well known that many of Abbott’s moral values are not supported by majority of the population (e.g., Abortion, gay marriage etc.
Really, do you have figures that substantiate the above?
dover_beach
28 Aug 10 at 2:29 pm
Last time I looked support for gay marriage was not in majority. Abortion is around 50/50.
However conrad thinks it’s a crushing defeat for Abbott. Interesting.
JC
28 Aug 10 at 2:32 pm
“He then destroyed Kevin Rudd”
I still don’t understand this assertion of yours, along with the declarations of “epic” wins and losses. Is Abbott the sole causal factor? Are there no other Liberals or Nationals contributing to Rudd’s demise? Was Rudd faultless in his political actions? Did Labor do nothing to harm their own interests? Were other parties devoid of influence?
Previously, on many occasions, you have described the Rudd/Gillard government as the worst in living memory (or words to that effect). If that were the case, how is a failure to topple them an epic win? The worst administration Australia’s had (according to you), with a campaign widely acknowledged as abysmal, and yet they scrambled to an electoral draw with a strong possibility of forming a minority government. How is that an epic loss?
You’re going to have to choose, CL. Either Rudd/Gillard were the worsest evah… OR Abbott is a political mastermind.
Jarrah
28 Aug 10 at 2:51 pm
It’s true that Abbott and Obama are opposed to gay “marriage.”
…the Libs essentially went nowhere.
They went from Opposition to Lodge-level support in one electoral span. Nothing seen like it in 80 years.
And by destroying Labor’s ETS, it was Abbott personally who split the lefty vote. Labor is now aligned with a far-left nutball organisation that wants to bulldoze Pine Gap, withdraw from Afghanistan, increase taxes, force 4WDs off the road and close down power stations – amonst many other ‘policies’ that aren’t exactly going to win hearts and minds in Voter Land.
C.L.
28 Aug 10 at 2:52 pm
“Last time I looked support for gay marriage was not in majority. Abortion is around 50/50.”
Gay marriage has had majority support since the ’90s, abortion since the ’80s.
Jarrah
28 Aug 10 at 2:52 pm
I still don’t understand this assertion of yours, along with the declarations of “epic” wins and losses.
No, you’re pretending not to understand because it’s all too traumatic for you, Jarrah. It was Abbott and Abbott alone who stared down the warmening/ETS cult – of which Rudd was chief priest in the eyes of the commentariat – and forced him to dump it. It was Abbott who relentlessly undermined the RSPT and forced Rudd’s colleagues to dump that.
Rudd was destroyed by Abbott.
Electorally…
Electorally, Abbott destroyed Labor’s majority. He did so against 80 years of conventional wisdom, the ALP, the Greens, angry letter-writing feminists, anti-Catholic vilifiers, the ABC, the commentariat, academe, the ’43 economists’ (LOL), the extra millions spent on advertising by the government (including during the Rudd-Gillard National Emergency), the ACTU, Ken Henry’s Treasury (acting illegally) and the usual band of lefty zombies dominating the radio and television airwaves.
Epic.
You’re going to have to choose, CL. Either Rudd/Gillard were the worsest evah… OR Abbott is a political mastermind.
I was saying Rudd was the worst ever when his approval ratings were in the 60s and 70s and Labor’s 2PP was in the high 50s. Rudd was a disaster but he was getting away with it with spin and tricks. It was Abbott who broke the spell and allowed the nation to see that the Emperor was starkers.
C.L.
28 Aug 10 at 3:02 pm
Gillard (and Keating!) also opposes gay “marriage”. Her views on this are identical to Abbott’s.
Michael Fisk
28 Aug 10 at 3:02 pm
Gay marriage has had majority support since the ’90s, abortion since the ’80s.
So Abbott is right to listen to the majority on asylum seekers. You don’t hear many lefties concede that very often.
Mmm.
C.L.
28 Aug 10 at 3:04 pm
Is Abbott the sole causal factor?
Of course not, but then lets not quibble, without Abbott, Rudd would have likely remained on and won the most recent election. Talking about ‘sole causal factors’ is merely avoiding the obvious, that Abbott destroyed Rudd.
You’re going to have to choose, CL. Either Rudd/Gillard were the worsest evah… OR Abbott is a political mastermind.
This is just brilliant sophistry since both do not mutually exclude the other. Recent NSW Labor governments have been miserable failures and yet been returned; consequently being the “worst evah” does not necessarily lead to electoral defeat. Ergo, one can say that Rudd/ Gillard were shite and that Abbott is a political mastermind.
How is that an epic loss?
Gillard to Jarrah:
Another such ‘victory’ and I come back to Canberra alone.
dover_beach
28 Aug 10 at 3:05 pm
Right, Fisk.
Abbott, Rudd, Gillard, Keating and Obama are all in agreement: gays, definitionally, cannot marry.
C.L.
28 Aug 10 at 3:06 pm
“I don’t support either, but do you support payments to lower middle class “breeders” then, Conrad.”
What type of payment? If you mean things like the baby bonus, no. Alternatively, I think tax credits for child care are fine.
“It’s a pretty offensive way of describing people wanting kids. No?”
I wasn’t aware it was. I could be wrong but I believe the initial etymology of the term comes from the gay community talking about the straight community in general, but now days its usage has changed to refer to people who are having children. Perhaps I should hide my “Breeders” CD in case it offends.
conrad
28 Aug 10 at 3:15 pm
“And by destroying Labor’s ETS, it was Abbott personally who split the lefty vote.”
I’m with DB. It was Rudd that split the lefty vote.
conrad
28 Aug 10 at 3:17 pm
Abbott is clearly a winner from this election. The fact that the coalition don’t have a majority isn’t the point. Even a dead heat with Labor gives him a decisive victory. And I’m expecting at this point that he will actually be PM even though it matters less to him than to Julia.
TerjeP
28 Aug 10 at 3:27 pm
conrad
The only state in Australia which has strong anti-abortion legislation is one with a female left-winger as Premier. And the reason there was no push for gay marriage in the Rudd government is that I have it from a number of sources – involved in the thick of such matters and machinations – that well over 50% of the ALP caucus are personally opposed to gay marriage. Just as they were against a Bill of Rights.
Peter Patton
28 Aug 10 at 3:38 pm
This has clearly been quite a traumatic election, not only for social democrats, but also for pro-Labor “libertarians. Abbott is their worst nightmare.
Michael Fisk
28 Aug 10 at 3:42 pm
In the US, gay marriage has been rejected on almost every occasion it’s been put to a vote. It’s an unpopular, fringe issue.
Michael Fisk
28 Aug 10 at 3:46 pm
Gay marriage has had majority support since the ’90s, abortion since the ’80s.
Jarrah, have you the stats for that. I’d like to see them.
JC
28 Aug 10 at 3:55 pm
Jarrah
Oh dear, you’re not stuck in that abyss where opinion polls tell us anything at all, are you?
Peter Patton
28 Aug 10 at 4:09 pm
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2009/06/25/same-sex-marriage/
John H.
28 Aug 10 at 4:15 pm
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Support-for-abortion-rights-up/2004/12/15/1102787149204.html
John H.
28 Aug 10 at 4:15 pm
I said
“Last time I looked support for gay marriage was not in majority. Abortion is around 50/50.”
jarrah says:
Gay marriage has had majority support since the ’90s, abortion since the ’80s
Andrew Norton says no:
In a question about whether same-sex marriage should be recognised by law, the public is now evenly divided, with 43.6% in favour and 43.2% against.
I’ll try to find the abortion poll that I recall.
JC
28 Aug 10 at 4:15 pm
The public is not “divided” evenly or otherwise. The vast majority of us couldn’t give a rat’s about the issue. But when some pollster calls they force you to choose.
Peter Patton
28 Aug 10 at 4:18 pm
JohnH
I really don’t think that the abortion is a good one.
There is a difference between people supporting the right of a woman to choose while also thinking abortion is wrong.
Those two things are not the same.
JC
28 Aug 10 at 4:19 pm
On the other hand, Conrad is bullshitting about Abbott’s positions and for out of field he is to the Australian public. He isn’t.
JC
28 Aug 10 at 4:20 pm
oops
I really don’t think that the abortion poll is a good one.
JC
28 Aug 10 at 4:21 pm
JC,
In terms of social issues, many have less extreme splits than 80/20 (including your own example you just gave). Given this, it must be apriori the case that Abbott isn’t with 80% of the public, because you simply can’t be with 80%.
conrad
28 Aug 10 at 4:24 pm
I’m with DB. It was Rudd that split the lefty vote.
Rudd split the lefty vote having been effectively spooked by Abbott. In other words, Abbott destroyed Rudd.
In terms of social issues, many have less extreme splits than 80/20 (including your own example you just gave). Given this, it must be apriori the case that Abbott isn’t with 80% of the public, because you simply can’t be with 80%.
I can’t make any sense of the above. Moreover, I thought that Abbott’s position on abortion is that it should be legal but rare, much like 80% of the population.
dover_beach
28 Aug 10 at 4:34 pm
Neither can I. What are “social issues”?
Peter Patton
28 Aug 10 at 4:36 pm
Moreover, I thought that Abbott’s position on abortion is that it should be legal but rare, much like 80% of the population.
Then why did he attempt to block RU486?
Conrad’s argument is funny, statistical fun, has a point.
John H.
28 Aug 10 at 4:42 pm
I don’t know for sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was because RU486 allows women to abort before the counsellors descend on them.
Peter Patton
28 Aug 10 at 4:45 pm
RU486 was approved by the AMA and is used in many countries. Abbott relied on one report from the CMO to disqualify it. His opinion was not accepted by the relevant professionals. He let his religious convictions determine policy. Naughty Mr. Abbott, off to confessional for you.
John H.
28 Aug 10 at 4:47 pm
Regular church-goers, Kevin Rudd and Hopeychange, also oppose gay marriage. Are they allowing the church to dictate their position on gay marriage?
Michael Fisk
28 Aug 10 at 4:50 pm
Labor: cigarettes banned and out of sight, Big Tobacco demonised.
Abbott: hey, maybe you shouldn’t be able to terminate your unborn baby with Big Abortion’s RU486, straight-up and over the counter.
Critics: Abbott a tyrant!
Hilarious.
C.L.
28 Aug 10 at 4:52 pm
Conrad
Where did I mention an 80/20 split you say I did.
Jc..
28 Aug 10 at 4:54 pm
Also in the sights of Labor’s Fred Nile brigade: small boobies.
Michael Fisk
28 Aug 10 at 4:56 pm
Then why did he attempt to block RU486?
Because abortion might then occur at a greater frequency?
He let his religious convictions determine policy. Naughty Mr. Abbott, off to confessional for you.
Why is that naughty? People’s moral opinions influence policy all the time. Who cares what the opinion of the AMA happens to be regarding matters of morality.
dover_beach
28 Aug 10 at 4:57 pm
Ciggies, alcopops and small boobies – all massive threats to our social cohesion, according to Labor.
Michael Fisk
28 Aug 10 at 4:59 pm
John H
What do you mean “allowed” his religious convictions…Since when do we demand our politicians make decisions without recourse to their convictions?
Peter Patton
28 Aug 10 at 5:00 pm
These labor zombies are amusing to watch when they twist themselves into tangled wire.
We currently have a government supporting the most serious control over the Internet that compares with china, which even the American government has criticized yet it’s Abbot who is the problem. Fme
Jc..
28 Aug 10 at 5:03 pm
PP, when it doesn’t suit our own it seems.
dover_beach
28 Aug 10 at 5:03 pm
He let his religious convictions determine policy.
So what? So did Abraham Lincoln.
C.L.
28 Aug 10 at 5:04 pm
What legislation did Lincoln personally intervene to shape to his own religious convictions, against professional advice, the US Congress and majority public opinion CL?
I’m interested to hear about it.
FDB
28 Aug 10 at 5:12 pm
Even a dead heat with Labor gives him a decisive victory.
Really? Will Abbott be able to use that to rubber stamp laws the first time supply gets tangled up in the mess?
The result looks more like a vote for ‘None of the Above’. Collectively speaking.
Adrien
28 Aug 10 at 5:15 pm
FDB leading with his chin again.
JC
28 Aug 10 at 5:19 pm
Since when do we demand our politicians make decisions without recourse to their convictions?
When their convictions are contradicted by the available evidence. Abbott claimed the drug was too dangerous, that was wrong. He made that claim on the basis of his convictions, he let belief triumph over evidence. You may not have a problem with that but I do.
John H.
28 Aug 10 at 5:19 pm
WTF is “professional advice”? And since when do we expect our elected executive to subordinate their personal convictions to the shady unaccountable “professional advisors”?
Peter Patton
28 Aug 10 at 5:20 pm
Peter
Leave FDB alone. He doesn’t know the Lincoln /slavery connection.
HE thinks Bill Clinton freed the salves.
JC
28 Aug 10 at 5:22 pm
“And since when do we expect our elected executive to subordinate their personal convictions to the shady unaccountable “professional advisors”?”
So you have no faith in the AMA? Fine, let’s get rid of all professionals. Their opinion aint worth shit so why should anyone listen to them. Yep, all we need is good ol’common sense and anyone who mentions statistics or mitochondria or opportunity costs or any such concept derived from the professions must be cast into Hell.
Why bother have Senate hearings? Why bother commissioning accountants to do costings? Why bother listening to economists … Sheesh.
John H.
28 Aug 10 at 5:27 pm
Labor’s Christian Right backed internet filter is now dead, dead, dead. No party of government in Australia has allowed religious cranks to dictate policy to the extent that Labor have. And now they have been rightly rejected by the electorate, no doubt in part due to their religious crankery.
Michael Fisk
28 Aug 10 at 5:33 pm
Greenfield, you feel free to demand nothing more of politicians than that they just make their own shit up, but I’m gonna go ahead and expect more.
Call me a starry-eyed idealist if you will.
FDB
28 Aug 10 at 5:34 pm
Abbott claimed the drug was too dangerous, that was wrong. He made that claim on the basis of his convictions, he let belief triumph over evidence. You may not have a problem with that but I do.
JohnH, Abbott was against RU486 because its an abortion pill. The claim that it may be “dangerous” was simply made to appeal to those that might not care two figs about the fetus. He believes it to be immoral; I can’t imagine what ‘evidence’ is supposed to triumph over this belief.
dover_beach
28 Aug 10 at 5:35 pm
John
I really think professional bodies etc. overstep their mark and veer into the area of morality far too often.
The AMA’s involvement should be nothing more than telling us a particular drug is safe and effective etc.
Their moralizing as in the AGW is unnerving. They should get lost.
JC
28 Aug 10 at 5:35 pm
Call me a starry-eyed idealist if you will.
Notwithstanding the fact that you’re Adam Ant’s buddy and supported him by voting Gangrene.
For someone whining about moralizing in politics , FDB, you side ( The Gangrenes) are the fucking masters at it, so please enough already.
what you’re really against is Abbott’s positions. If was moralizing your opinions along with Adam Ant that sort of criticism wouldn’t even hit you.
JC
28 Aug 10 at 5:39 pm
oop if he was moralizing your opinions…
JC
28 Aug 10 at 5:39 pm
“The claim that it may be “dangerous” was simply made to appeal to those that might not care two figs about the fetus.”
No, it was transparently an attempt to put a figleaf of respectability over his patently religious/moralist position.
You see the difference? Abbott knew himself that it was unacceptable (from an professional ethics standpoint) to allow his personal religious beliefs to intrude on his job as Health Minister. On what specific basis do you disagree with him?
FDB
28 Aug 10 at 5:40 pm
Abbott knew himself that it was unacceptable (from an professional ethics standpoint) to allow his personal religious beliefs to intrude on his job as Health Minister. On what specific basis do you disagree with him?
Compared to The Gangrenes religious beliefs? Fme.
JC
28 Aug 10 at 5:42 pm
So I take it from all the distractions and low-level abuse that you haven’t got any substantial criticism to offer JC?
We agree then. Cool!
FDB
28 Aug 10 at 5:45 pm
No, it was transparently an attempt to put a figleaf of respectability over his patently religious/moralist position.
FDB, that was exactly my point.
Abbott knew himself that it was unacceptable (from an professional ethics standpoint) to allow his personal religious beliefs to intrude on his job as Health Minister. On what specific basis do you disagree with him?
Rubbish. In a debate you appeal to different audiences. To imagine that one’s personal convictions shouldn’t intrude into moral decisions is itself a liberal convicton. The matter in the end was settled in the Parliament as it should have been.
dover_beach
28 Aug 10 at 5:48 pm
Ergo:
Labor’s wowser plain packaging legislation for cigarettes is an example of religious convictions determining policy.
Labor’s wowser alco-pops legislation was an example of religious convictions determining policy.
Labor’s ETS – designed to cool the planet – was an example of religious convictions determining policy.
All three – the first two, in particular – harken back to very old evangelical prohibitionisms. All three were and are based on no evidence whatsoever. Indeed, the evidence shows that plain packaging achieves nothing, targeted price crackdowns on particular drinks achieve nothing and whatever Australia does carbon-wise will make no difference at all. None.
Science tells us that life begins at conception. (Anyone who denies this is a hillbilly). It follows that RU486 was a matter far more consequential and substantive than Labor’s moral panic about customers catching an eye-full of Winnie Blues at the corner store.
C.L.
28 Aug 10 at 5:49 pm
I’m not abusing you, FDB. I’m stating facts.
I’m not fucking kidding when I say that support for the gangrenes is equal to belonging to a religious cult because their policies and opinions resembles those of a religious cult.
How the fuck can you leftists ever be taken seriously when you support a party that wants to strip away internet freedom. Do give me that shit that you don’t because you support the Greens. It was the Gangrenes that endorsed Happy Hamilton, FDB!
As for the other stuff. How do you reconcile your party’s position on all things nuclear and support for non-scientific medicine like hot rock therapy?
You gangrene leftists really have a fucking hide peddling shit about Abbott when you’re essentially a religious cult.
JC
28 Aug 10 at 5:52 pm
The Greens do not support the internet filter as a party, but they did support a candidate who advocates both the internet filter and the suspension of democratic processes. The only major party that was firmly on the side of free speech and less intrusions on civil liberty was of course the Liberal Party. Why do “social liberals” continue to support the Fred Nile Labor Party?
Michael Fisk
28 Aug 10 at 5:56 pm
Help me figure this out FDB.
1. The gangrenes want to close down Lucas heights.
2. Lucas Heights basically makes medical isotopes used in the treatment of cancer patients.
3. The Gangreens want to ban international trade in nuclear material
Ergo the Gangrene party and their supporters want to kill cancer sufferers stone dead.
Next time you see Adam ant, FDB ask him if any of this is true and if he starts babbling and stuttering tell him I think his a douchebag.
JC
28 Aug 10 at 5:59 pm
The Greens do not support the internet filter as a party, but they did support a candidate who advocates both the internet filter and the suspension of democratic processes.
Sorry Fisky. That doesn’t wash with me. They endorsed possibly the biggest wowser and strong advocate of censorship policies, which means they are really lying about their non-support of the filter.
JC
28 Aug 10 at 6:01 pm
But good point.
The only major party that was firmly on the side of free speech and less intrusions on civil liberty was of course the Liberal Party. Why do “social liberals” continue to support the Fred Nile Labor Party?
they do because most are walking zombies and what they really support more is redistribution. That’s the hidden thing about them. They don’t really give a flying cracker of a shit about civil rights in the end.
JC
28 Aug 10 at 6:03 pm
That’s interesting, JC. I didn’t know that the Greens believe there are too few cancer deaths. It’s certainly unusual for any party to be advocating policies that kill people unnecessarily.
Michael Fisk
28 Aug 10 at 6:04 pm
oops …he’s a douchebag…
JC
28 Aug 10 at 6:04 pm
“How do you reconcile your party’s position on all things nuclear and support for non-scientific medicine like hot rock therapy?”
If you’re trying to back me into a corner where I’m eventually forced to concede that I don’t agree with everything that every Green has ever said, then don’t trouble yourself. It’s a pointless exercise, cos I’m already there. My suppoort for the Greens isn’t tribal – it’s contingent on a bunch of stuff, and it’s despite a slightly smaller bunch of stuff (including your examples and Fisk’s).
But remember – we were talking about Tony Abbott and what he ACTUALLY DID IN GOVERNMENT. What do you think about the actual topic?
FDB
28 Aug 10 at 6:07 pm
But remember – we were talking about Tony Abbott and what he ACTUALLY DID IN GOVERNMENT. What do you think about the actual topic?
Here’s what i think. You, along with every other leftist that supported the Liars Party and Gangrenes are in no fucking position whatsoever to go around criticizing Abbott’s moralizing.
We can. Libertarians can, because we disagree with that sort of shit 100% and in any form it takes.
You can’t. You’re in no position to.
And in my judgment your moralizing is 1000 times worse than Abbott’s.
For someone to come here and put shit on Abbott while he supports a party that wants to kill cancer sufferers really has a freaking hide.
JC
28 Aug 10 at 6:16 pm
All I know about Tony Abbott’s opposition to the abortion pill is that Tony Abbott believes human life starts at conception, thus distributing abortion pills would result in a violation of the human right to life. This is a philosophical question to which there is no easy answer, but I think Abbott is on firmer ground than those who believe it is acceptable to hoover the brains out of a 8 1/2 month foetus, on the grounds that it is unborn and therefore not “living”.
In any case accept that people can disagree with Abbott in good faith, and the debate over whether Abbott is correct or not about a potential human rights violation is unlikely to be resolved soon. What is interesting is that the same anti-extension-of-human-rights-to-cells-and-embryos activists are calling for a Revolutionary Guard-like crackdown on boobies, ciggies and cheap booze.
Michael Fisk
28 Aug 10 at 6:17 pm
“And in my judgment your moralizing is 1000 times worse than Abbott’s.”
Just as I thought – you don’t have the guts to say what you think about Abbott, and need distractions to get yourself angry about something completely unrelated in order to deal with it.
Okay mate, I’ll leave you to it.
FDB
28 Aug 10 at 6:18 pm
“those who believe it is acceptable to hoover the brains out of a 8 1/2 month foetus, on the grounds that it is unborn and therefore not “living””
He certainly is. But since those people probably don’t exist, and certainly were never the Australian Minister for Health, there’s a relevance issue here.
“What is interesting is that the same anti-extension-of-human-rights-to-cells-and-embryos activists are calling for a Revolutionary Guard-like crackdown on boobies, ciggies and cheap booze.”
You find that interesting? I envy you your threshold for entertainment – reading the newspaper must be a fucking rollercoaster ride.
FDB
28 Aug 10 at 6:21 pm
First quote from Fisk should have contained “Abbott is on firmer ground than…” as well.
FDB
28 Aug 10 at 6:22 pm
From my point of view, although I reject abortion personally and have always counselled against it when in a position to do so, I can see that there might be a case for subsidising first trimester abortions in certain circumstances. However, ideally this would only be an option available for Centrelink clients, the chronically unemployed, drug-users, and people with a high school education or lower. Social justice demands that working class women be given special priority in abortion provision.
Michael Fisk
28 Aug 10 at 6:23 pm
“However, ideally this would only be an option available for Centrelink clients, the chronically unemployed, drug-users, and people with a high school education or lower. Social justice demands that working class women be given special priority in abortion provision.”
Ah, so you’re simply an evil cunt of a man. That explains a lot.
FDB
28 Aug 10 at 6:24 pm
FDB, President Obama has been an unfortunate supporter of hoovering the brains out of 8 1/2 months foetuses – called “late term abortion”. He most certainly does exist.
Michael Fisk
28 Aug 10 at 6:24 pm
FDB, you really have to do something about this hatred of yours. It’s not good for you.
Michael Fisk
28 Aug 10 at 6:25 pm
“Just as I thought – you don’t have the guts to say what you think about Abbott, and need distractions to get yourself angry about something completely unrelated in order to deal with it.”
I reckon FDB is too gutless to admit how retarded the Greens policy on nuclear medicine and nuclear energy is.
.
28 Aug 10 at 6:26 pm
Dot, he has alluded to opposing unnamed Greens policies. Perhaps we should invite him to name which Greens policies he opposes.
Michael Fisk
28 Aug 10 at 6:27 pm
“I reckon FDB is too gutless to admit how retarded the Greens policy on nuclear medicine and nuclear energy is.”
Despite explicitly saying that the examples of bad Greens policy thrown at me were all ones I disagreed with? Perhaps you’re not following closely enough to comment, Mark.
Anyway, I’m done capitulating to this bullshit. I was right, and you’ve proven it – Abbott’s actions/convictions must not be questioned until everything bad about a totally different group of politicians has been thoroughly worked through.
Fucking pathetic, but hardly unexpected.
FDB
28 Aug 10 at 6:33 pm
No, there’s nothing wrong with questioning Abbott’s policy views on abortion. However, it is odd to be opposing Abbott on the grounds that he injects his religious views into policy discussions, while at the same time, advocating a second preference vote for the Fred Nile Labor Party.
Michael Fisk
28 Aug 10 at 6:36 pm
“Anyway, I’m done capitulating to this bullshit”
Abbot’s shit. We bitched and moaned about his stupid tax hike and money for rooting.
“Fucking pathetic, but hardly unexpected.”
Come now, you can say what Green’s policies you don’t like now. Come on, it will be cathartic.
We’ll have “cathartic hour” from now on when talking about Abbot…
.
28 Aug 10 at 6:37 pm
Ah, so you’re simply an evil cunt of a man.
I don’t understand how Fisk’s suggestion to provide free abortions to the less fortunate makes him an ‘evil cunt.’ Surely if he advocated that such people not be given subsidised abortions, you’d say the same thing. Ah, but I see that you’re done “capitulating” so no matter.
daddy dave
28 Aug 10 at 6:37 pm
“No, there’s nothing wrong with questioning Abbott’s policy views on abortion. However, it is odd to be opposing Abbott on the grounds that he injects his religious views into policy discussions, while at the same time, advocating a second preference vote for the Fred Nile Labor Party.”
Quite ridiculous considering Christian Socialist Rudd and Stephen “DLP” Conroy.
.
28 Aug 10 at 6:38 pm
“Surely if he advocated that such people not be given subsidised abortions, you’d say the same thing. ”
That’s precisely his point.
.
28 Aug 10 at 6:39 pm
I don’t understand either, DD, but I imagine it stems from FDB’s belief that redistributing income and providing services to the less fortunate is “theft”.
Michael Fisk
28 Aug 10 at 6:41 pm
C bomb alert
tal
28 Aug 10 at 6:46 pm
FDB, why were you silent during the Kev Bjelke-Petersen crackdowns? As Julia Gillard might say, please exployne.
C.L.
28 Aug 10 at 6:48 pm
“However, ideally this would only be an option available for Centrelink clients, the chronically unemployed, drug-users, and people with a high school education or lower. Social justice demands that working class women be given special priority in abortion provision.”
Well Dad, I think it is easy to see what is wrong with that statement. Do you think that the state should support the idea that a certain class of people should be helped to ditch their babies? I wouldn’t mind it if the suggestion was simply that state support was mean tested, but Fisk is suggesting something quite different. Perhaps he’s just stirring, or perhaps he’s an offensive goat. You work it out.
pedro
28 Aug 10 at 6:51 pm
Do you think that the state should support the idea that a certain class of people should be helped to ditch their babies?
Depends, obviously, on if it’s welfare or eugenics.
Personally, I’m not a fan of abortion, so answering your question requires a convoluted thought-experiment on what my ethical position would be, if I held a different ethical position. I’d be more opposed to the eugenics motive than the welfare motive.
daddy dave
28 Aug 10 at 6:53 pm
“Independent candidate Andrew Wilkie has emerged pleased from his prime ministerial meeting, saying Julia Gillard was genuinely interested in supporting his push for national pokie machine reform.”
Sure she was, and if so, Arbib and Bitar will certainly be sharpening the knives again.
pedro
28 Aug 10 at 6:56 pm
Dad, frankly that idea that a certain class of people, irrespective of financial means, should get a saloon passage to the abortion clinic is revolting. The only word for that is eugenics. Still want to go there?
pedro
28 Aug 10 at 6:59 pm
Abbott knew himself that it was unacceptable (from an professional ethics standpoint) to allow his personal religious beliefs to intrude on his job as Health Minister.
This is complete meaningless garbage. Again, what’s with this “allow” crap? I’m sorry if you want to live in a polity governed by faceless ‘professionals’ – which, pssstttt…politicians are not – move to North Korea!
Peter Patton
28 Aug 10 at 7:00 pm
pedro,
You’re inferring looser abortion rights under subsidisation is eugenics.
Which is what I believe Fisk inferred all along.
.
28 Aug 10 at 7:02 pm
Still want to go there?
No. Not on the basis of “classes” of people.
But if abortion is the same as other medical care then why would you oppose subsidies?
daddy dave
28 Aug 10 at 7:02 pm
Mark, Fisk said that people of certain social characteristics should get subsidised abortions, but not anybody else. As Dad now realises, that is eugenics and offensive.
I am not a supporter of abortion, but am realistic enough to be glad I’ve never had to face the choice. I believe that if it is legal it should be treated the same as similar medical procedures. If not life or health threatening it should attract the same subsidy as a boob job.
PeterP, I agree. Abbott should be able to vote his convictions, but a pragmatic politician who is a member of the Government won’t piss into a cyclone.
pedro
28 Aug 10 at 7:13 pm
Perhaps he’s just stirring, or perhaps he’s an offensive goat.
Well I succeeded in my goal, didn’t I? FDB dropped a “c” bomb and stormed out. Consider yourselves stirred.
Having said that, I am making a serious point in a roundabout way – a few advocates of abortion (that Freakonomics guy, for example) have explictly said that one of its benefits has been to reduce the future size of the underclass by killing them in the womb. I agree that reducing the underclass is a good thing, but I would rather achieve that goal through means other than abortion, which I personally oppose.
Abbott’s IQ-boosting maternity leave policy is one possibility. Some people have opposed this as “social engineering” because it implies the state getting involved in family formation, but I would like to ask Abbott’s opponents if in addition to opposing his maternity/baby bonus, they would also be against Family Tax Benefits A and B. If they do not oppose the latter, then they need to explain why some families should be having children if they cannot financially support them independently of the state (which clearly implies social engineering on the part of the state), and furthermore why it is preferable to have more children born into poverty than into middle class families.
I suspect that some egalitarians believe that it is acceptable to subsidise a larger underclass and a smaller middle-upper class, but that subsidising the reverse is morally beyond the pale. I have yet to hear a coherant explanation as to why this is.
Michael Fisk
28 Aug 10 at 7:19 pm
As Dad now realises, that is eugenics and offensive.
It might be, but I don’t think you have provided an explanation as to why it is offensive.
Michael Fisk
28 Aug 10 at 7:21 pm
I don’t think the state should be in favour of any class having babies in preference to other classes. Welfare requirements necessitate money going to those with less, especially their children who are especially vulnerable. Charity (which welfare is) needs to be closely targeted so we get value for money.
pedro
28 Aug 10 at 7:23 pm
Fisk, I don’t think I have to explain why shit stinks either. People in full possession of their faculties notice it right away.
pedro
28 Aug 10 at 7:27 pm
I don’t think the state should be in favour of any class having babies in preference to other classes.
But the current situation is that the state IS in favour of one class having babies in preference to another. The government pays you more money to have children if you are unemployed or on a very low income. What are our liberal “moral neutralists” going to do about that?
Welfare requirements necessitate money going to those with less, especially their children who are especially vulnerable.
Except the baby bonus/FTB make up a much larger proportion of the incomes of people living on the “poverty line” than of those working in middle management. That doesn’t sound very “impartial” to me.
The baby bonus and the FTB are a future incentive for people living in relative poverty to have children – take away these incentives and the birth rate will fall accordingly.
Michael Fisk
28 Aug 10 at 7:27 pm
pedro
I am in no way a supporter of Abbott. In my view, we don’t have enough abortions. For many, they should be retroactive.
It’s the principle I’m defending.
Peter Patton
28 Aug 10 at 7:29 pm
Pedro, your moral aversion to eugenics is presumably equally applicable to dysgenics (in both cases, the government making decisions about who should be breeding at a greater rate). Perhaps there does exist a moral difference between the two, but I’m afraid we won’t find out until you state clearly whether your opposition to eugenics is based on principles other than “state interference”.
Michael Fisk
28 Aug 10 at 7:30 pm
Michael what’s the lastest update?
tal
28 Aug 10 at 7:30 pm
Fisk, by the same token the government is promoting cancer through medicare. The government does not pay you to have children, but because you have them. Not really the same thing.
“Except the baby bonus/FTB make up a much larger proportion of the incomes of people living on the “poverty line” than of those working in middle management. That doesn’t sound very “impartial” to me.”
Ummm, would those people need a relatively larger level of assistance. But of course the proportion of their income is irrelevant, $5000 or whatever buys exactly the same amount of stuff whether you live in Inala or Clayfield.
pedro
28 Aug 10 at 7:34 pm
The AMA did not advocate the over the counter availability of RU486. Their position is that it should be used under medical supervision (ie make sure the period does not get out of control and also they can get a fee).
I agree with their position, but I also recognise that there are very real risks with it and thus am not really concerned if it is not available. If they are already being supervised by an MO why run the risk? There are plenty of other, safer options if you are already under medical supervision.
The feministas wanted RU486 so they can have it available over the counter, and Abbott correctly was never going to agree to that.
entropy
28 Aug 10 at 7:35 pm
here is the AMA statement
http://ama.com.au/node/2157
entropy
28 Aug 10 at 7:36 pm
Fisk, I’m a libertarian if anything. That should be enough explain the opposition to eugenics. But if you want more then quite frankly it is a cousin of murder.
If you favour eugenics then you are saying that you have a special ability or qualification to decide that other people should not have the same rights as you.
I really hope you’re just shit stirring. Somethings really don’t require explanation to people with a functioning moral compass.
pedro
28 Aug 10 at 7:38 pm
If I were the minister I’d tell the AMA to Get F***ed! 2nd worst trade union in the country; pipped at the post by the Bar Association.
Peter Patton
28 Aug 10 at 7:38 pm
Another reason to be in favour of Abbott’s eugenics policies is that it will increase the relative number of Liberal voters in the future. I should state up front that this is good for the future health of the country, because there is a strong correlation between the number of Liberal voters and several positive social indicators – strong families, low crime, and stable, middle-class, private sector employment. By contrast, the more social problems and dysfunction, the more Labor voters. Not to say that all Labor voters are dysfunctional, but it is true that rising crime, welfare-dependancy and general moral decay are all vital to the health of the ALP.
Speaking of which, Tal:
The two party preferred count is 80.35% complete…
Australian Labor Party 5,374,840 50.39
Liberal/National Coalition 5,290,758 49.61
Looking better by the minute!
Michael Fisk
28 Aug 10 at 7:40 pm
Is it really Eugenics, or is it just a market interference designed to counter the already existing market distortions like Single Mothers’ Pension and the baby bonus?
I’m guessing that the abortion rate would be much higher if we didn’t pay people ridiculous amounts of money to carry pregnancies to term. Subsidising abortions is a very small compensation for those massive incentives to breed.
Yobbo
28 Aug 10 at 7:41 pm
Yobbo, you probably didn’t read the original comment.
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/08/28/how-far-weve-come-in-three-years/comment-page-3/#comment-93971
pedro
28 Aug 10 at 7:47 pm
Fisk, by the same token the government is promoting cancer through medicare. The government does not pay you to have children, but because you have them. Not really the same thing.
Firstly, no it isn’t – the government is subsidising the ERADICATION of cancer and the PRODUCTION of babies. Furthermore, there have already been studies to show that people have adjusted their delivery dates, at potential risk to themselves, in order to qualify for benefits – you think Jamie Packer’s wife would do that for 5,000 smackers? No, of course not. Proportion of income is extremely important.
Fisk, I’m a libertarian if anything. That should be enough explain the opposition to eugenics. But if you want more then quite frankly it is a cousin of murder.
If you favour eugenics then you are saying that you have a special ability or qualification to decide that other people should not have the same rights as you.
Neither I nor anyone else around here has called for anyone’s negative rights to be curtailed on account of their social class. However, mainstream politicians in Australia most certainly ARE saying that some people “should not have the (positive) rights” as you put it – they believe that underclass mothers have the right to be subsidised by the state, while upper-class mothers do not.
There is no moral or practical basis for prefering this outcome to the alternative, unless you think we have an ethical imperative to increase poverty and reduce average IQ.
I really hope you’re just shit stirring. Somethings really don’t require explanation to people with a functioning moral compass.
Half and half. In actual fact, I’m undecided as to the wisdom of Abbott’s position on subsidising management-level breeders, although it has its merits. And as I pointed out before, I personally oppose abortion.
Michael Fisk
28 Aug 10 at 7:50 pm
Sorry, that should be ““should not have the SAME (positive) rights”
Michael Fisk
28 Aug 10 at 7:52 pm
Yes, I read that comment.
Especially in marginal cases like described by Fisk, subsidising abortions is definitely correcting existing market distortions.
If a women as he describes decides to go through with the pregnancy, she will have it paid for the entire way by the taxpayer, and once the baby is born will receive a living wage for the next 18 years.
On the other hand if she decides to have an abortion, she has to pay for it herself in cash up front?
The incentives here are strongly in favour of having the baby, the fact that abortions occur at all is just testament to how much some people don’t want kids.
Ideally there should be no baby bonus and no single mother’s pension. But in a world where there is, abortions should be subsidised, if only because it saves the taxpayer a shitload of money.
Yobbo
28 Aug 10 at 7:53 pm
Speaking of cancer:
http://www.docrates.com/en/home/
.
28 Aug 10 at 7:54 pm
Another reason to be in favour of Abbott’s eugenics policies is that it will increase the relative number of Liberal voters in the future. I should state up front that this is good for the future health of the country, because there is a strong correlation between the number of Liberal voters and several positive social indicators – strong families, low crime, and stable, middle-class, private sector employment. By contrast, the more social problems and dysfunction, the more Labor voters. Not to say that all Labor voters are dysfunctional, but it is true that rising crime, welfare-dependancy and general moral decay are all vital to the health of the ALP.
I for one cannot fault your logic.
Abu Chowdah
28 Aug 10 at 7:54 pm
In fact, I don’t like the way I put this:
“Not to say that all Labor voters are dysfunctional, but it is true that rising crime, welfare-dependancy and general moral decay are all vital to the health of the ALP.”
What I meant to say was, “are all positive contributors to the ALP’s 2PP vote”.
Michael Fisk
28 Aug 10 at 7:55 pm
Spot on.
Abu Chowdah
28 Aug 10 at 7:57 pm
Yobbo, the one thing he didn’t mention was means. Plenty of poorly educated people have lots of money. I said that I support means testing on medical funding (though I prefer no subsidy for unnecessary procedures).
It is certainly true that if you provide welfare to the poor then you will have a higher number of poor, in part because less will starve or suffer medical calamities that end their lives.
I’m kind of shocked that people would be cheering the idea of breeding a better community.
“Firstly, no it isn’t – the government is subsidising the ERADICATION of cancer and the PRODUCTION of babies.”
No they are providing money to people if certain circumstances exist. The only difference is that you probably would not get cancer to qualify for the free medical care that is needed for the cancer. As a welfare measure the govt decided that people who have babies might need assistance. You can quibble with the cut-offs, but you can’t deny that is a welfare measure. Absent the support, plenty of poor people will still get pregnant.
“Furthermore, there have already been studies to show that people have adjusted their delivery dates, at potential risk to themselves, in order to qualify for benefits – you think Jamie Packer’s wife would do that for 5,000 smackers? No, of course not. Proportion of income is extremely important.”
Sure people react to incentives. I reckon that the baby bonus is a factor in the growth in pregnancies. Still, how does that get you to the point where you think a welfare measure should be dropped because it might lead to an increase in the people you don’t like? Why not just shoot them in the streets?
pedro
28 Aug 10 at 8:14 pm
No they are providing money to people if certain circumstances exist. The only difference is that you probably would not get cancer to qualify for the free medical care that is needed for the cancer
Pedro, the problem is that getting cancer is universally considered to be a BAD thing, and subsidising cancer treatment will not induce people to say “Great! I’m gonna get me a tumour so that I can have a free tumour removal operation!”. On the other hand, having kids is a great challenge but also a great reward. And effectively paying someone an additional dole is likely to affect their reproduction decisions if their only EXISTING income is the dole.
Still, how does that get you to the point where you think a welfare measure should be dropped because it might lead to an increase in the people you don’t like? Why not just shoot them in the streets?
Because that would both be inhumane, obviously. The problem is that the exact same “slippery slope” argument can be made against those who advocate avoiding birth defects through abortions – what, you don’t like disabled people? Why don’t you just kill them?
Michael Fisk
28 Aug 10 at 8:36 pm
Hmmm, this started with you offering abortions, which you are against, to PLTs, but you wouldn’t want to just shoot them in the street.
“Pedro, the problem is that getting cancer is universally considered to be a BAD thing, and subsidising cancer treatment will not induce people to say “Great! I’m gonna get me a tumour so that I can have a free tumour removal operation!”. On the other hand, having kids is a great challenge but also a great reward. And effectively paying someone an additional dole is likely to affect their reproduction decisions if their only EXISTING income is the dole.”
Sure, so people on the dole shouldn’t get extra money if they have kids. That’ll be good for the kids no doubt. Or should we just take the kids off them and adopt them out to deserving liberal voters?
pedro
28 Aug 10 at 8:44 pm
PP
To which Bar Association do you refer? Most of thme are totally innocuous.
Far worse are the Law Societies of each state. But fortunatley now we NSW lawyers don’thave to belong to the NSW Law Society anymore.
Rococo Liberal
28 Aug 10 at 8:47 pm
Pedro:
In the old days friends and family helped. To be honest I don;t see why I should be funding someone’s kid.
Welfare has been so distorted now that it means just about anything.
What’s wrong with Grandma taking care of the kid while ma goes out to work.
JC
28 Aug 10 at 8:48 pm
Fisk’s abortion proposal has a certain exquisite logic to it.
For some reason thought I could see the left turning very quickly anti-abortion if say the right began to actually subsidize abortions.
FDB, do you support heavily subsidized abortion?
JC
28 Aug 10 at 8:50 pm
JC, sure, welfare free state if you will, intellectually I like that idea myself. But if you are going to have welfare they only people that unambiguously qualify are the genuinely disabled and kids.
Same deal in Qld RL. Now they hand out discount cards in the hope that will get you to join!
pedro
28 Aug 10 at 8:53 pm
Doh
“then the only people”
pedro
28 Aug 10 at 8:53 pm
JC, how do you know that I am not a secret anti-abortionist who is trying to discredit the abortion movement by pretending to be an ultra-liberal?
Michael Fisk
28 Aug 10 at 8:56 pm
Glad to see that my comment on Tony Abbot’s moral beliefs being the same as those of 80% of the people caused a lot of discussion above.
I must say that the lefties here trying to act as though two issues (Gay marriage and abortion) somehow are what gets the juices of the general populace flowing was abnsolutely hilarious. Conrasd and John H are either very stupid or extremely stupid if that they think that such an argument will fly. Morality does not consist of pat answers to left wing political desiderata.
Rococo Liberal
28 Aug 10 at 8:58 pm
Gentlepeople – I’m not totally opposed to the c-bomb in context and appropriately used. But let’s not go overboard.
Sinclair Davidson
28 Aug 10 at 9:29 pm
Yes, FDB. I don’t know what caravan park you were dragged up in but pull your head in, champ, OK? You’re supposed to be playing the SNAG for teh rights of sheilas over against the Abbott monster, remember?
Lefty SNAGS always remind me of that hippie in Forrest Gump who beats up Jenny. “It’s just this war and that lying son of a bitch Johnson and… I would never hurt you…”
C.L.
28 Aug 10 at 9:39 pm
again I find myself deiagreeing with both sides.
“Maybe you haven’t noticed, but the main winners from the election were the Greens — Labor lost, and the Libs essentially went nowhere”
yes, that’s why Libs have taken about 10 seats from Labor
Boris
28 Aug 10 at 9:55 pm
“The Liberal Party will never again win a federal election.”
This goes both ways. I heard the reverse on this side (Labor is finished and all this crap).
People who say these things against either side are very stupid or extremely stupid, using RL’s inspiring vocabulary.
Boris
28 Aug 10 at 10:00 pm
Pedro, I don’t agree with means testing. It just rewards people who waste money if you ask me.
Basically under means testing you get the situation where a guy with a $300 per week coke habit can get assistance, whereas his neighbour who puts that $300 in the bank each week cannot.
That is why the LDP’s negative income tax is such a great system. It doesn’t create perverse incentives, and removes all the ones that currently exist.
Yobbo
28 Aug 10 at 10:38 pm
Pedro:
“But if you are going to have welfare they only people that unambiguously qualify are the genuinely disabled and kids.”
Yep. I have no issue with that. In fact it would be monstrous to remove their assistance.
JC
28 Aug 10 at 10:44 pm
“Well I succeeded in my goal, didn’t I? FDB dropped a “c” bomb and stormed out.”
I made the casual observation that your are an evil cunt of a man, then commented on something else, then went out to play poker. Whatever your ‘goal’ was, you’re still a deadshit and you haven’t won anything.
FDB
29 Aug 10 at 10:39 am
Oh, another Constitutional change we need to make is restrict eligibility to stand for parliament to those aged 40 and over.
Peter Patton
29 Aug 10 at 12:20 pm
And the voting age to 21.
Peter Patton
29 Aug 10 at 12:20 pm
Yobbo, I guess you mean that you don’t much agree with welfare, but it we have to have it the negative tax is best but means testing has got to be better than universal welfare.
pedro
29 Aug 10 at 3:55 pm
If the Liberals had wanted to make sure Labor (in its current form) didn’t win again they would have abolished compulsory voting when they had the means to do so. That they didn’t indicates they prefer the status quo, or that they’re stupid.
Timothy Can
30 Aug 10 at 8:03 am
Coalition haven’t “come back” in any real terms. They have “come back” by default due to Labor’s incredible incompetence.
If the Libs get back in power, Labor will “come back” too but not through any merit of their own, but through the Liberal party’s idiocy.
Tim R.
30 Aug 10 at 12:55 pm