75 radical ideas to transform Australia. Be like Gough.... but in reverse.

[Wonaeamirri33]

^ As I say, not the slightest meaningful attempt to defend the policy agenda as outlined.

Thus proving the case against it even further.

And of course, the LNP in Queensland and the Coalition in Victoria, in their endeavours to bring such a policy agenda about - with the privatisation push by both governments, the massive cuts to TAFE funding, and the push to close and otherwise sell off numerous state schools - have all met with massive criticism and anger. Again, overwhelming opposition, including substantial outrage from amongst their own voters as well.

So many who voted for them at those State elections have now turned on them savagely, of course. Unfortunately, they were silly enough to believe they could elect Coalition govts without these things occurring.

 

[Ripper]

^ As I say, not the slightest meaningful attempt to defend the policy agenda as outlined.

And of course, the LNP in Queensland and the Coalition in Victoria, in their endeavours to bring such a policy agenda about - with the privatisation push by both governments, the massive cuts to TAFE funding, and the push to close and otherwise sell off numerous state schools - have all met with massive criticism and anger. Again, overwhelming opposition, including substantial outrage from amongst their own voters as well.

So many who voted for them at those State elections have now turned on them savagely, of course. Unfortunately, they were silly enough to believe they could elect Coalition govts without these things occurring.

When the money runs out , it is gone. And if you advocate increasing taxes or borrowing to sustain the unsustainable , there is less money available to keep the real economy ticking over.

Simple experience with a double entry ledger will tell you that.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

I see you still can't think of a serious counter-argument against the points made so far there Rip. But of course, you couldn't help replying anyway though

 

[pazza]

Privatising the ABC and SBS basically and drastically alters the balance of journalism in this country. Gone will be the whole story on issues..all that remains will be sensationalism.

You need a balance in the workplace too..if the workers don't have an equal say in what their wages and conditions are, that causes anger and frustration and would see more disputes.

The problem for the Coalition and the IPA is they would rather create and expand the haves and have nots, hence creating a "Class War".

 

[RUNVS]

Privatising the ABC and SBS basically and drastically alters the balance of journalism in this country. Gone will be the whole story on issues..all that remains will be sensationalism.

You need a balance in the workplace too..if the workers don't have an equal say in what their wages and conditions are, that causes anger and frustration and would see more disputes.

The problem for the Coalition and the IPA is they would rather create and expand the haves and have nots, hence creating a "Class War".

The problem is that the right wing do not want balance. Get rid of ABC and SBS and all the television news media will be owned by the right wing.

 

[greennick]

And of course, there's his claim that inaction on global warming, including removal of the carbon price,

I support this, it negatively impacts our international competitiveness for limited benefit to the environment. Until the rest of the world moves, I didn't want us to move. However, if they drop the price to the European level, that would be OK IMO.

striking down even existing meagre accountability measures designed to ensure responsible reporting within the Australian media,

I think the same number of people that were against these reforms were for them (ie, not many).

a return to a WorkChoices-style IR agenda,

Which is not supported by Abbott, so he cares what some think tank has in mind? He didn't support work choices the first time around. Though, with the fairness test in, what actually issue did you have with work choices??

terminating federal taxation on mining,

And so they should. They're state assets, not federal assets. They should have sat down and negotiated the tax with the states as Henry recommended.

VSU,

When I was at uni, I never met a person that was in support of forced student unionism. Most people don't utilise any of the services, but pay a ridiculous amount for them and then are forced to support political guild activities they don't agree with. Joining a union should be voluntary no matter what you are doing. At the very least they should have separated "amenties and services" components from the "union" component.

a scorched-earth agenda regarding environmental oversight of industrial development here,

You know it currently takes about 3 years to get the environmental approvals to open a new mine? These used to take 12 months, however no additional checks are included, only the timeframe has exploded. Some changes to reduce the unnecessary red tape are required.

and the demolition of the NBN,

Which won't actually be demolished, just not continued to be FTTH. Not that I support the policy, but I get where they are coming from re the cost and connecting the half of Australia that has no interest in connecting to it.

 

[medusala]

Lol, Look at Detroit. all the new Manufacturing in the US is going to anywhere but.

Just another example of union stupidity destroying lives.

One wonders why people keep advocating policies that we know are doomed to failure.

Those of us with a better understanding of the issues facing Australian manufacturing being well aware that the high dollar is the most immediate issue hurting the ability of manufacturers in various areas to operate here (as it's damaging every export sector besides mining), since the rising dollar increases the cost of our exports

Why does it cost twice as much to build a car in Oz as it does in Europe? High AUD? Please.

If you had a decent understanding of the issues you would know exactly why their costs are so high. It isn't rocket science.


Perhaps try making a car people want,

(oz pay wall)


But, just in case the company did try to make any changes, the agreement says "no redundancies will . . . result from continuous improvement activities as defined in this agreement and any excess labour that may occur will be handled by transfers and/or natural attrition . . . Continuous improvement will not be used in a narrow job shedding way but more as a means of involving employees in the search for a better way of performing work through upskilling and job re-design."

And I just love all the allowances: confined space, dirty work, height money, extreme artificial temperature, high voltage - the list goes on.

 

[pazza]

And I just love all the allowances: confined space, dirty work, height money, extreme artificial temperature, high voltage - the list goes on.

So let me guess this perfectly straight.

Take those bolded bits away and what is the potential cost?

I'll give you the answer.

Death and injury in the workplace.

Sorry but i would rather have high costs of labour than needless loss of life and injury.

 

[Dan26]

The problem is that the right wing do not want balance. Get rid of ABC and SBS and all the television news media will be owned by the right wing.

Wow.... just wow.

The level of ignorance in what you have posted is going to take a lot to wrap my head around, here.

You have just essentially admitted that the ABC and SBS are left-wing bias, hence it is "okay" that they remain doing what they do, because it balances out the right-wing perception you claim exists elsewhere.

The big problem which you fail to mention is that the ABC and SBS have to be un-biased. It is part of their charter. They are taxpayer funded organisations. They are obligated to be totally unbiased. Last night's episode of taxpayer-funded Q&A was a disgrace with 5 lefties vs one conservative. I'm paying for that, and this is the crap they gave me?

If I buy the Herald-Sun and read Andrew Bolt, I am making a decision to give my money to that company. That is my choice. That is the free-market.

If someone wants to start up a newspaper with a left-wing bias, they are perfectly entitled to do so, and the public are perfectly entitled to make their choice on whether they read it or not. Oh, wait, this is what happens with The Age and no one reads "Pravda by the Yarra" anymore.

You know why The Age is struggling? because the ABC provides for free, what people have to pay for to read the Age. The ABC is putting the Age out of business.

Privatising the ABC would result in saving The Age. If people want to read left-wing rubbish, then there will be a market for it, and people will pay for it. You don't need a taxpayer funded broadcaster to be deliberately biased to the left to provide "balance." How is that fair on me, given that I fund the ABC?

What you are suggesting in your post is abhorrent, and typical of the left.

 

[HeavyPop]

want to repeal the alcopops tax

That's how you win the youth vote, Rudd, rather than legalizing gay marriage.

 

[Dan26]

Privatising the ABC and SBS basically and drastically alters the balance of journalism in this country.

No it doesn't.

Both are taxpayer funded and are obligated to be unbiased.

Both are biased towards the left. Most journalists (and by most I mean 80%) lean to the left. That is why talkback radio is mainly right-wing, because it reflects the people NOT the left-wing journos.

If there is a market for a biased left-wing TV program, then someone will start one up to make money.

Andrew Bolt admists he is a conservative and admits his TV show has a conservative bent. This is fine. That is the free-market at work. People want to watch it, and it now consistently outrates the Insiders.

he ABC and SBS are owned by the people and under no circumstances can they be biased. They are both failing their charter.

The problem for the Coalition and the IPA is they would rather create and expand the haves and have nots, hence creating a "Class War".

Hahahahah!

A lefty complaining about the class war? Now I've heard everything.

Conservatives never engage in class war. Ever. It is purely the domain of the left.

What you don't seem to understand is that left say they want to help those that are disadvantaged. The conservatives want to ensure they don't become disadvantaged in the first place.

It's pretty obvious which is the better path to prosperity.

 

[RUNVS]

You have just essentially admitted that the ABC and SBS are left-wing bias, hence it is "okay" that they remain doing what they do, because it balances out the right-wing perception you claim exists elsewhere.

Read what I said again. I was arguing that the ABC and SBS are two of the only unbiased news media channels. Without the ABC and SBS the right wing propaganda machine would almost be unstoppable.

 

[pazza]

So the right don't want disabled people (using them as an example) to miss out?

Well then why in the hell is the NDIS opposed by the born to rulers?

Oh that's right - they never thought of it and the left did.

 

[Dan26]

Read what I said again. I was arguing that the ABC and SBS are two of the only unbiased news media channels. Without the ABC and SBS the right wing propaganda machine would almost be unstoppable.

Commercial TV is biased towards the left.

It just is.

Journalists and people who work in that industry tend to be left-wing types.

The ABC is so far to the left it is almost cartoonishly left-wing. Did you see Q&A last night? What an utter disgrace.

Not one person who hosts any of their flagships shows is of the right. They are all of the left. Every host.

Yes, every last one of them.

 

[RUNVS]

Commercial TV is biased towards the left.

It just is.

Journalists and people who work in that industry tend to be left-wing types.

The ABC is so far to the left it is almost cartoonishly left-wing. Did you see Q&A last night? What an utter disgrace.

Not one person who hosts any of their flagships shows is of the right. They are all of the left. Every host.

Yes, every last one of them.

Commercial TV is owned by right wing billionaires, all with their own political agenda.

 

[Dan26]

So the right don't want disabled people (using them as an example) to miss out?

Well then why in the hell is the NDIS opposed by the born to rulers?

Oh that's right - they never thought of it and the left did.

That's ridiculous way of looking at it. Firstly I support the NDIS because it applies to people who can't help themselves. I actually support it more than public healthcare which is the worst idea in the long history of stupid leftist ideas. I don't actually support public-funded healthcare, in the same way I don't support food being publically funded or housing being publically funded. last time I checked poor people still have to pay rent and still have to go to the same supermarket as rich people.

People like me support smaller government. That means I support less government intervention.

The best way to lift the middle class, is to reduce the size of government. The wealth is then poured into the economy where it belongs and everyone's standard of living goes up.

YOU want to help the disadvantaged.

I want to stop them being disadvantaged in the first place.

The best part is that as soon as you get rid of government intervention, the standard of living goes up.

BUT it also becomes cheaper. Because all of a sudden, there is competition in the private market for people who want your business. It's win-win.

Do you honestly think if the government totally controlled the mobile phone industry, that the Iphone5 would be available? Of course it wouldn't.

If the government controlled the mobile phone industry, all those poor people who can't afford phones would get a "free" taxpayer funded phone.

But by having the government NOT involved (as it is now), the quality of phones has gone up and up and up, and now EVERYONE benefits from having better, and cheaper phones available.

 

[pazza]

That's ridiculous way of looking at it. Firstly I support the NDIS because it applies to people who can't help themselves. I actually support it more than public healthcare which is the worst idea in the long history of stupid leftist ideas. I don't actually support public-funded healthcare, in the same way I don't support food being publically funded or housing being publically funded. last time I checked poor people still have to pay rent and still have to go to the same supermarket as rich people.

People like me support smaller government. That means I support less government intervention.

The best way to lift the middle class, is to reduce the size of government. The wealth is then poured into the economy where it belongs and everyone's standard of living goes up.

YOU want to help the disadvantaged.

I want to stop them being disadvantaged in the first place.

The best part is that as soon as you get rid of government intervention, the standard of living goes up.

BUT it also becomes cheaper. Because all of a sudden, there is competition in the private market for people who want your business. It's win-win.

Do you honestly think if the government totally controlled the mobile phone industry, that the Iphone5 would be available? Of course it wouldn't.

If the government controlled the mobile phone industry, all those poor people who can't afford phones would get a "free" taxpayer funded phone.

But by having the government NOT involved (as it is now), the quality of phones has gone up and up and up, and now EVERYONE benefits from having better, and cheaper phones available.

Time to get into the real world.

I had private health insurance for a number of years. Got rid of it. Why?

Because the very thing I needed it for, wasn't actually covered in the insurance policy - and still isn't.

So what are my options.

Either I die from asthma..which the doctors thought would happen in 1980 and almost happened in 1996 - or I utilise Medicare and the PBS to fund the very medications I need to survive. And i am sure of this - I am not the only one. There would be millions of Australians just like me.

Smaller government isn't based in the real world.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Despite the usual bleating from certain sources there is nothing wrong with the idea at all. State taxes are an excellent idea. Competition in tax as in most other things is common sense.

For very low values of nothing wrong. The Gina/IPA northern development plan is horrendous. It is not about development of the north, it is about exploitation of the north. Lower taxes, less regulation, less environmental regulation. All serviced with a super cheap FIFO workforce from Indonesia or the Philippines, so not even an income tax windfall for the government, and no compulsory superannuation contributions going into the national savings pool to fund future investment.

It is about more profit for the proprietors of the mines at the expense of lower taxes and lower wages. Not to mention the natural environment.

Rubbish idea.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

I support this, it negatively impacts our international competitiveness for limited benefit to the environment.

This judgement made after one year of its operation, of course. And your supporting evidence is...?

I think the same number of people that were against these reforms were for them (ie, not many).

Based on the last Nielsen poll conducted on the topic, as I recall, a full-scale media inquiry was supported by over 60% of Australians. With good reason.

He didn't support work choices the first time around.

The word of a man who affirmed that you can't trust anything he says unless it's written down, then went on to prove you couldn't trust anything he said when it was written down either, is about as worthless as it gets.

Though, with the fairness test in, what actually issue did you have with work choices??

Howard brandishing around that so-called 'fairness test' didn't change the fact that it was anti-worker legislation, designed to further disenfranchise people in the workplace, nor significantly alter the effect thereof.

They're state assets, not federal assets.

If this rationale against the mining tax had validity, Forrest's High Court challenge would have posed a serious threat to its continued operation, and it doesn't.

A conclusion reached by many respected jurists within Australia before now, including George Williams, Greg Craven, John Williams and many others. A conclusion even upheld, of course, by WA Coalition Premier Colin Barnett.

We've done this one many times before.

forced student unionism.

Talking about 'forced student unionism' in this way is like talking about people being 'forced' to pay local council rates. It fails the laugh test.

Most people don't utilise any of the services

Another sweeping claim without evidence.

 

[medusala]

Lower taxes, less regulation, less environmental regulation.

Absolute no brainer. It is simply too hard to build mines in Australia due to idiotic IR and environmental legislation not to mention the right to negotiate (well for some, not for everyone)

Paying someone a fortune to clean a toilet shows just how absurd it has all become. The cost comparison to the US it staggering.

They're not 'state assets'. If this claim had validity, Forrest's High Court challenge would have posed a serious threat to the continued operation of the mining tax, and it doesn't

If they weren't state assets the Commonwealth would have tried to tax them years ago and it would have bent over to make sure it was a tax on profits. I can quote various legal opinions to say the war in Iraq was legal. Does that make it so.

It is no wonder you vote green, you are detached from reality

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

The problem is that the right wing do not want balance. Get rid of ABC and SBS and all the television news media will be owned by the right wing.

Indeed. Even the manifest poisoning and perversion of the ABC which has taken place over the last 17 years (and the substantial damage done to SBS, of course, under a similarly stacked board of Howard appointees, including Zampatti as Chairman, and former managing director Shaun Brown) does not satisfy the political aim of these forces.

As we know, obviously, the desired goal is absolute irrevocable partisan hegemony within the Australian news media across all mediums - where the voices heard are those which back a neoconservative agenda, and the wishes of the vested interests behind same, and contrary voices are silenced sufficiently that the agenda goes unchallenged.

A goal highlighted most acutely in recent years of course by the Rinehart push within Channel 10 and Fairfax - in line with the plan as revealed in that meeting with Monckton and others at the offices of that 'thinktank' of hers in WA.

Unfortunately, of course, the Internet poses a growing threat to said goal, and the NBN dramatically heightens that threat, since greater high-speed Internet access opens up greater possibilities for new media, new entrants into the Australian media landscape, a number of whom, like Al Jazeera, Independent Australia and the Guardian's new outlet in this country, are already building momentum.

Abbott's opposition to the NBN rollout is a particularly obvious factor in the stridency of the support given to him by the Murdoch press over the last few years, for instance.

 

[medusala]

The desired goal is absolute irrevocable partisan hegemony within the Australian news media across all mediums - where the voices heard are those which back a neoconservative agenda, and the wishes of the vested interests behind same, and contrary voices are silenced sufficiently that the agenda goes unchallenged.

Nice copy and paste from Socialist Worker.

If you keep words to two syllables or less people will be more likely to believe you had written it yourself.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Time to get into the real world.

Mate, I'm afraid Dan prefers living elsewhere.

Smaller government isn't based in the real world.

Well, it is in countries like Pakistan, of course.

Pakistan essentially represents the end-point of Tea Party 'philosophy', as it were.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Nice copy and paste from Socialist Worker.

If you keep words to two syllables or less people will be more likely to believe you had written it yourself.

Repped for the lulz



Feel free to share some more thought bubbles from the HR Nicholls Society with us Meds. They're always entertaining

 

[medusala]

Well, it is in countries like Pakistan, of course.

Singapore spends less than Pakistan as a % of gdp and has a brilliant health service.

The US spends more on health than Australia, does that make their health system better?

France also has a good health system with extremely high private coverage.

The UK has a horrendous health system (which kills lots of people every year unnecessarily) and yet very little private coverage

Your argument falls apart on so many levels.