Who will defend this government?

[scon]

So, in summary, the best that we can hope for from this government is...

NOTHING.

If it could be contained to that it would be a win.

 

[smokingjacket]

Nope, merely practical. Regardless of your stance on stopping climate change and taxing mining companies, both were terrible and ineffectual policy. The former because it ignored the geopolitical environment and the latter because it was bastardised legislation.

What geopolitcal situation was this? The one where our competitors were racing past us, commercializing all of our hard won solar, wind, wave and geothermal technology because of inaction? Or are you referring to a short term slump in global economic demand and a high Australian dollar?

Decisions on power plants are made with time frames of plus fifty years. Climate change itself will be something we'll be dealing with for the next century. If you can justify the repeal of one of the few pieces of legislation with immediate impact but long term benefit from any democratic government in the last few years on "geopolitical grounds" then congratulations, you may have a career in politics yet.

 

[smokingjacket]

They are NOT the Labor party

After the utter financial disaster - not the mention general incompetence of running government programs - that the previous government left, it is a breath of fresh air to have a competent government in charge. The very fact that they are NOT a labor government is probably the biggest tick you can get.

You know you're dealing with a carefully reasoned, first rate intellect when you see a post like this. However in fairness we've goaded the LNP's supporters to come and defend this wretched government and you've taken a shot. Carry on.

Consider:

a.) The government is united. There are no leadership tensions. It is a united team.

I thought it was only a couple of months ago that Mr Team Australia himself Andrew Bolt, nearly had a stroke after finding Turnbull in a dark, smoky saloon with Big Clive?

b.) Abbott's effort on foreign policy have been a 10/10. He has been wonderful in his trips overseas.

Foreign policy is far to important to be left to politicians, that's why DFAT handles it. Australia's foreign policy was actually strongest under the Gillard government precisely because she was more concerned with domestic matters. I'd say the things the Abbott government have pushed for have been unnecessary disasters. Take battering Russia over MH17 as an example. What possible purpose could annoying a great power, with a history of holding grudges, over a conflict not in our region serve our national interest. Predictably the Russians weren't too keen on us participating in the processing and return of our dead civilians after that, causing untold grief to the families involved. On the other hand the budget was looming ominously so anything for a front page.

c.) Abbott's leadership. I TOLD you guys he would be a good PM. I told you so. Whether you like his politics or not, he has been a statesman, he has been measured. He has not embarrassed himself or his country. And the left-wing media know this, but don't want to admit it. Gradually, those cartoons with him in the budgie smugglers are stopping. The jokes about Abbott have stopped. He is the Prime Minister not just in name, but in stature and standing. Rudd and Gillard were never this. Remember Gillard in the oval office with a Sherrin? Cringe-worthy. Remember Rudd's "point and wink" and George Bush as if to say "we're mates." Cringeworthy. Abbott, for the most part has allowed his ministers to do their jobs and not micro-managed. That's the sign of a good PM.

At what part in Abbott's goodies v baddies and baddies v baddies geopolitical breakdown of Syria was I meant to stand up and applaud this great statesman of the 21st century? At least Rudd spoke like an adult when he was discussing something important, even if he reverted diplo-babble every now and again.

c.) The trade deals that Andrew Robb an Co. and struck

DFAT struck them and they're terrible. A classic case of AGAIN Australia paying overs for something the other party would have given anyway. Our obsession with bilateral FTA's to help our agribusiness is just bewildering when it comes at the cost of far more vulnerable, and job heavy manufacturing sector.

The problems in the Senate are not of the Coalitions making. It's not their fault that we are 100's of billions of dollars in debt, and are forced to repair this damage, with a dangerous populist holding the balance of power. Labor never have to save money because they always come into government with money in the bank.

Crikey, even Howard is humble enough to admit that the Hawke/Keating government did all the heavy lifting in reform to even allow the boom to take off. Secondly that billions of dollars of debt is just as much to do with the structural deficit Howard left from lavishing money on anyone who resembled his new type of Liberal voter.

Left-wingers tend to believe in bigger government, more rules and regulations etc. Government is the answer to everything, in their misguided opinions. They tend to be good conceptual thinkers, good at coming up with ideas.

Not much of the new left think this way at all actually. The Occupy movement in the US had a heavy tinge of libertarianism as many believed the state was the source of disproportional power and influence of the elite. It was Clinton not Bush that declared big government dead, Bush actually expanded the state significantly. Greens Senator Scott Ludlum is very much a small government liberal too. This might be why he's one of the few voices in Parliament holding the government to account over its enormous expansion of the surveillance powers of the state. Or again are you just another "libertarian" who thinks liberty starts and finishes at a low taxation rate?

But when it comes to dealing with actual problems in the real world, they are hopeless. Right-wingers tend to take the world as they see it, imperfections and all. The left think they can create a utopia through government action and when problems arise, they are often unforseen and they cant deal with them.

It's true enough that the very purpose of socialism is the social progress of man on earth. Aim to change the world as it is, not wait for our eternal reward for playing the pious peasant. This applies to the few socialists and social-democrats left in the Labor Party, which is not many.

Equally though, the right is built upon the missionary purpose to save, to cleanse our society and bring us back to godliness. Witness opposition to abortion, to equal benefits and legal status for gay couples, to divorce and to households with two working parents ie. working mothers. Welfare is also attacked as the state now controls the fate of the 'deserving poor', not the morale, charitable right. "Right-wingers" take the world imperfections and all? Firstly they don't, so no. Secondly even if they did I'd be happy to throw my cap in the opposite camp of whoever espoused the philosophy of - saw a homeless guy today, walked straight past him, I take the world warts and all - with pride.

 

[Brown Bottle]

 

[pokerspiv]

What geopolitcal situation was this? The one where our competitors were racing past us, commercializing all of our hard won solar, wind, wave and geothermal technology because of inaction? Or are you referring to a short term slump in global economic demand and a high Australian dollar?

3 currently useless technologies and 1 that is probably the least relevant energy solution to Australia possible. Australia is the most geologically stable continent in the world, our geothermal capabilities are practically zero.

 

[madmug]

3 currently useless technologies and 1 that is probably the least relevant energy solution to Australia possible. Australia is the most geologically stable continent in the world, our geothermal capabilities are practically zero.

Well thats not what 'Google' says

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Australia is the most geologically stable continent in the world, our geothermal capabilities are practically zero.

What?

What geopolitcal situation was this? The one where our competitors were racing past us, commercializing all of our hard won solar, wind, wave and geothermal technology because of inaction? Or are you referring to a short term slump in global economic demand and a high Australian dollar?

Decisions on power plants are made with time frames of plus fifty years. Climate change itself will be something we'll be dealing with for the next century. If you can justify the repeal of one of the few pieces of legislation with immediate impact but long term benefit from any democratic government in the last few years on "geopolitical grounds" then congratulations, you may have a career in politics yet.

I couldn't say our foreign policy was awesome under Gillard due to the Indo Cattle kerfuffle (a problem caused by private enterprise, but not handled well by JG), but agree with everything else you said in the above posts. Having chatted to Caesar a fair bit a year ago, I assume his point on Climate Change will be that the big emitters weren't doing anything so there was no point acting first. My argument is a carbon tariff on entry would solve that, but of course tariffs aren't seriously discussed for fear of offending the WTO/IMF and looking like we're backtracking. I don't think that fear is well-placed seeing as we were taxing our own suppliers and a tariff would've simply evened the playing field.

 

[Dan26]

I thought it was only a couple of months ago that Mr Team Australia himself Andrew Bolt, nearly had a stroke after finding Turnbull in a dark, smoky saloon with Big Clive?

Oh, give me a break. There has been NO leadership speculation at all, other than rubbish drummed up by Abbott haters. That Turnbull thing had no legs, and you know it. There will always be people with ambition to be PM within any government, but the government has been united from day 1, and you know that as well as I do.

Foreign policy is far to important to be left to politicians, that's why DFAT handles it. Australia's foreign policy was actually strongest under the Gillard government precisely because she was more concerned with domestic matters.

Foreign policy was strongest under Gillard? All I can recall about Gillard's overseas trips was a cringe worthy photo of her kicking a Sherrin in the whitehouse. In fact, I recall her actually SAYING that foreign policy was not in her interests, and she was more at home visting local schools. Now, that's fair enough, every PM has their strengths, but to suggest foreign policy was strongest under Gillard is a bald-face lie.

I'd say the things the Abbott government have pushed for have been unnecessary disasters. Take battering Russia over MH17 as an example. What possible purpose could annoying a great power, with a history of holding grudges, over a conflict not in our region serve our national interest.

What a pathetic thing to say. If every country took that view, Russia would just do whatever they wanted. You need to stand up to bullies, and Russia is a bully. The plane was downed by a missile which was launched by Russian-backed rebels, and killed Australian citizens. And you just want to stand and do nothing? What are you a green, voter?

In fact, it is probably western inaction that caused the MH17 disaster. How weak were the Europeans? The Germans want to buy Russian gas; the French want to sell the Russians war ships, the British like having Russian money in their banks.

The West should have made it clear to Moscow early on just what an enormous price it could expect to pay for its Ukrainian aggression. This needed much more assertive leadership from the US President

Abbott was heralded as providing this leadership. He was on the front foot RIGHT FROM THE START and was complimented by foreign media as having been the first leader to stand up to the Russians.

This was one of Abbott's finest moments, and to suggest it is not, is just typical leftish denialism, by people who can't bring it upon themselves to praise anything Abbott does.

. On the other hand the budget was looming ominously so anything for a front page.

Unbelievable. Just.... unbelievable. *shakes head in disbelief at the stupidity and insulting nature of the above post*

That is low, smokingjacket. Really, really low.

At what part in Abbott's goodies v baddies and baddies v baddies geopolitical breakdown of Syria was I meant to stand up and applaud this great statesman of the 21st century? At least Rudd spoke like an adult when he was discussing something important, even if he reverted diplo-babble every now and again.

It was "baddies vs baddies" was his quote. Here are two other, sorta big world leaders using similar language:

US President Barack Obama, June 7:
THAT’S not to suggest that, you know, you just say, “trust me, we’re doing the right thing, we know who the bad guys are”.

BBC TV, July 21:
ANDREW Marr: Bluntly, this is a war in which the bad guys are winning and the good guys, from your perspective, are losing, and there’s no sign of that changing?

David Cameron: Well I think where you’re right is that there are, as it were, you know, you’ve got a lot of bad guys in Syria.

Gonna criticize Obama and Cameron too? Or is this just another stupid leftist attack on Abbott out of pure spite.

DFAT struck them and they're terrible. A classic case of AGAIN Australia paying overs for something the other party would have given anyway. Our obsession with bilateral FTA's to help our agribusiness is just bewildering when it comes at the cost of far more vulnerable, and job heavy manufacturing sector.

Rubbish. Free trade benefits everyone. Anyone with even a minor interest in the economics of the world over the last 200 years knows this to be true. It isn't even disputed anymore. The only reason countries are protective is to look after their own self interest, for political purposes. Tariffs and protective policies drive up the price of goods. This lowers the possibility of buying those goods and benefitting from them, hence lowering the levels of prosperity and standard of living. This crap about losing jobs in the manufacturing sector is socialist rubbish. Those people who lose jibs would be better off being employed for a company that makes products that people want to buy in a job that has a positive impact on the economy.

Now it wasn't a "free trade" deal that was struck I admit, but simply "freer than what it was." Craig Emerson, who was involved in this with the previous government complimented the government on getting the deal done - something his government couldn't get done

You're the type of person who would advocate deliberately breaking windows to create more local jobs for window makers.

Crikey, even Howard is humble enough to admit that the Hawke/Keating government did all the heavy lifting in reform to even allow the boom to take off. Secondly that billions of dollars of debt is just as much to do with the structural deficit Howard left from lavishing money on anyone who resembled his new type of Liberal voter.

Jesus, now I've heard it all. The Coalition took office in 1996 with $96 billion dollars of debt. They left office in 2007 with billions in the bank. Labor left office in 2013, and in just six years had racked up, $300 billion in debt, and now it's John Howards fault? LOL! I respect the reforming actions of the Hawke government (nearly all of which were voted WITH by the Coalition I might add), but the reasons we have a massive debt now is because Labor spent all the money, not because of some of Howards middle class welfare. This is an argument you can't possibly win. Ever.

Secondly even if they did I'd be happy to throw my cap in the opposite camp of whoever espoused the philosophy of - saw a homeless guy today, walked straight past him

I'll bet you any money conservatives, overall, are more compassionate, give more to charity, and do more to help others. You should read the book "Who Really Cares" by Arthur C. Brooke. He shatters stereotypes about charity including the myth that the political Left is more compassionate than the Right. He identifies the forces behind charity: strong families, church attendance, earning one's own income (as opposed to receiving welfare), and the belief that individuals - not government-offer the best solution to social problems

It's easy to pretend you're compassionate when you're using someone else's money to give to someone in need. If person A (the government) steals money from person B and gives it to person C, is person A compassionate? Or a thief?

 

[smokingjacket]

3 currently useless technologies and 1 that is probably the least relevant energy solution to Australia possible. Australia is the most geologically stable continent in the world, our geothermal capabilities are practically zero.

Nice to hear from you pokers, I thought our lack of recent banter meant you had me on ignore

Anyways, I'm not sure how you came to these conclusions it seems at least a decade out of date. I'll give you wave and large scale Australian geothermal being some time off in price competitiveness but solar and wind are already cheaper than fossil fuels in some countries. As a libertarian rural lad I'm actually surprised that you're not already on board with solar and wind technology as nothing would give power back to rural communities better than self sufficiency. I know you're a hard headed economic rationalist not interested in the ethics of the situation so I'll just point you in the direction of the new lay of the land from an economics point of view if you're actually interested in the future of cheap Australian energy as I am.

The Danish Energy Association (DEA) has released analysis showing that wind power has overtaken all other fuel sources as the cheapest new form of electricity in the country.

Denmark is reaping the rewards of a long-term commitment to wind power and the study has concluded that new onshore wind plants coming online in 2016 will provide energy for about half the price of coal and natural gas plants and will cost around 5 euro cents/kWh.
...
The Danish government aims to meet 50 percent of the country's total electricity needs with wind power by 2020.

http://www.thermalplant.com/coal-fired-power-plant/wind-power-wins-in-denmark/

This next bit is on the state of WA's electricity market. Definitely worth a read if you're interested in why WA pays so much more for power than the East Coast. Quoted to compare to above.

The report says that wholesale prices in the state – often decided through bilateral contracts rather than the open market – average $180/MWh (see graph above). This is twice the average of the eastern states. What’s more, it is twice the cost of wind energy and more than the cost of solar. But the capacity mechanism subsidy favours the development of fossil fuel generators.
Clearly, though, Nahan and Rowe recognise what is at risk: The state will lose its competitiveness.

“Increases in tariffs for both domestic and industrial customers will also continue to erode the state‟s competitiveness and may constrain economic growth to levels below what could otherwise be achieved,” the report says.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/the-madness-of-was-multi-billion-fossil-fuel-energy-disaster-70983

Small/Medium business in WA pays around an average of 25c per unit for electricity in WA.

More here about the disastrous state of WA's fossil fuel energy grid.

The chances of the West Australian electricity grid becoming the first to fall victim to the so-called “death spiral” for utilities appears to have increased after it was revealed this week that the gap between the cost to generate, transmit and sell electricity and the charge to consumer has widened.
...
Synergy, the WA Government-owned electricity and gas retailer that has just been merged with the government owned generator Verve Energy, revealed this week that the gap between consumer bills and the cost of delivery through the grid had blown out to nearly $500 million in the 2013 fiscal year. This is despite the fact that residential power prices have risen 70 per cent since the Barnett government came to power in 2008.
...
Synergy CFO Karl Matacz told the committee that solar panel installations, which have grown from zero to 130,000 in just five years, continue to grow at a rate of more than 2,000 a month, despite the removal of feed in tariffs.
...
If the WA government was to lift the consumer price to reflect the actual cost of generation and delivery, this would put the retail price at close to 40c/kWh. That compares to around 15c/kWh for rooftop solar PV.

As for solar being "currently useless" technology, well those big greenies at Rio Tinto would disagree.

Mining giant Rio Tinto is to host a $23.4 million solar PV plus storage facility at its Weipa bauxite mine, that is the first of its type and scale in the world and could unleash billions of dollars of similar investment.
...
The ending of the commodities boom has made miners more focused on energy costs. Rio Tinto recently announced the closure of the Groote Eylandt mine in Northern Territory because it was being crushed by fuel costs. Solar and other technologies are now emerging as viable alternatives, even with the diesel excise exemption enjoyed by the mining industry.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/rio-tinto-to-deploy-6-7mw-solar-pv-storage-at-off-grid-mine-58009

Also solar is already price competitive in favourable conditions, of which Australia has a plenty. Chile is breaking ground with a series of baseload solar projects.

In addition to its solar PV market, Chile leads Latin America in the deployment of solar thermal technologies, including solar thermal for electricity generation (also known as concentrating solar power or CSP).

Recently, with the backing of the Chilean government Spain's Abengoa began work on plant in Chile that will be the first full-scale CSP plant in Latin America and one of the largest in the world. Even more significant, the Cerro Dominador plant will be able to provide electricity on demand 24 hours per day, due to the use of thermal energy storage.

http://www.theguardian.com/global-d...014/jun/05/chile-renewable-energy-solar-power

Sad thing is it should be Australian not Spanish companies leading these projects.

 

[madmug]

Nice to hear from you pokers, I thought our lack of recent banter meant you had me on ignore

http://www.thermalplant.com/coal-fired-power-plant/wind-power-wins-in-denmark/


http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/the-madness-of-was-multi-billion-fossil-fuel-energy-disaster-70983

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/rio-tinto-to-deploy-6-7mw-solar-pv-storage-at-off-grid-mine-58009

Also solar is already price competitive in favourable conditions, of which Australia has a plenty. Chile is breaking ground with a series of baseload solar projects.

Sad thing is it should be Australian not Spanish companies leading these projects.

Yeah, what I said (plus a bit)

But really, why argue with facts? This Government is only interested in its Ideological bent. & maintaining the status quo for certain 'interests'.

The future means nothing, except to create fear & division to maintain power.

Future industries have no future here. Their was once a comparison between Argentina & Australia. We will again be comparable with them considering the irresponsible track we are on.

 

[pokerspiv]

Nice to hear from you pokers, I thought our lack of recent banter meant you had me on ignore

Anyways, I'm not sure how you came to these conclusions it seems at least a decade out of date. I'll give you wave and large scale Australian geothermal being some time off in price competitiveness but solar and wind are already cheaper than fossil fuels in some countries. As a libertarian rural lad I'm actually surprised that you're not already on board with solar and wind technology as nothing would give power back to rural communities better than self sufficiency. I know you're a hard headed economic rationalist not interested in the ethics of the situation so I'll just point you in the direction of the new lay of the land from an economics point of view if you're actually interested in the future of cheap Australian energy as I am.

It would be great if it did work, but the reality is that neither wind nor solar is capable of providing baseload power and doesn't seem likely to in the immediate future. There are 3 currently viable methods for producing baseload power: Hydro, Coal and Nuclear. Viable solar and wind power are still science fiction at this point.

 

[The Coup]

It would be great if it did work, but the reality is that neither wind nor solar is capable of providing baseload power and doesn't seem likely to in the immediate future. There are 3 currently viable methods for producing baseload power: Hydro, Coal and Nuclear. Viable solar and wind power are still science fiction at this point.

Do you have any official connection to the IPA?

 

[Play by Numbers]

I will be revealing of posters if they support or defend Abbott's speech today.

 

[smokingjacket]

Hey Dan, thanks for the response. Sorry about the delay, I'm in the middle of making some lamb ragu.

Anyways, I found your reply illuminating but possibly not in the way you intended.

Oh, give me a break. There has been NO leadership speculation at all, other than rubbish drummed up by Abbott haters. That Turnbull thing had no legs, and you know it. There will always be people with ambition to be PM within any government, but the government has been united from day 1, and you know that as well as I do.

Do I? Is Andrew Bolt an Abbott hater? News to me. That whole story stunk like a planned leak from the PM's office to warn off Turnbull from doing what he was doing. You don't need to be a genius to figure out that the LNP will ditch Abbott if he continues to be a drag on their primary vote. Piece of advice? Just because you vote for the Liberal Party doesn't mean you have to swallow every press release as gospel truth.

Foreign policy was strongest under Gillard? All I can recall about Gillard's overseas trips was a cringe worthy photo of her kicking a Sherrin in the whitehouse. In fact, I recall her actually SAYING that foreign policy was not in her interests, and she was more at home visting local schools. Now, that's fair enough, every PM has their strengths, but to suggest foreign policy was strongest under Gillard is a bald-face lie.

This might be because you have a shallow understanding of foreign affairs. No business is done in talks between heads of state, it's ceremonial, a photo-op, a meet and greet. I'm also not sure how you managed to quote my post and fail to read it.

Foreign policy is far to important to be left to politicians, that's why DFAT handles it. Australia's foreign policy was actually strongest under the Gillard government precisely because she was more concerned with domestic matters.

So yeah, my point was precisely that DFAT left to it's own devices were more than capable of carrying out routine diplomacy and furthering Australia's interests abroad. During this time the US came to us to establish a small Marine base in Darwin. A rather token gesture but an important one for Australia as it raises the risks associated with any assault on Australia by a foreign power by possibly embroiling the US.

What a pathetic thing to say. If every country took that view, Russia would just do whatever they wanted. You need to stand up to bullies, and Russia is a bully. The plane was downed by a missile which was launched by Russian-backed rebels, and killed Australian citizens. And you just want to stand and do nothing? What are you a green, voter?

In fact, it is probably western inaction that caused the MH17 disaster. How weak were the Europeans? The Germans want to buy Russian gas; the French want to sell the Russians war ships, the British like having Russian money in their banks.

The West should have made it clear to Moscow early on just what an enormous price it could expect to pay for its Ukrainian aggression. This needed much more assertive leadership from the US President

Abbott was heralded as providing this leadership. He was on the front foot RIGHT FROM THE START and was complimented by foreign media as having been the first leader to stand up to the Russians.

This was one of Abbott's finest moments, and to suggest it is not, is just typical leftish denialism, by people who can't bring it upon themselves to praise anything Abbott does.

Again, your answer lies in your own response. Whilst I admire your internationalism, there are limits to what a middle power (at best) like Australia can or should do in an international incident. We don't have the leverage or power of a giant like the US to bend others to our will so often, sadly I would add, crying foul at countries with a permanent UN seat is a sure fire way to achieve nothing. As happened.

Yes as you say the foreign media were adoring of Abbott in his stand against Putin, in much the same way that if a stranger is silly enough to poke a bear eating your picnic for you, afterwards you thank him generously if he lives to tell the tale. The Ukraine want's to join the EU not APEC or ASEAN. The Germans needed to take the lead on this one and quite frankly might not have appreciated the way Abbott grandstanded forcing Russia in to a corner. A slow negotiated settlement was preferred on all sides.

Lastly Russia is a bully like all dominant countries (bar Germany) are bullies. They like their zones of influence. This doesn't make it right mind you, but as a corollary Australia s**t a brick last year when China started muscling in on PNG, Solomons and other Pacific countries that are in OUR influence zone.

That is low, smokingjacket. Really, really low.

Your naivete of the depths of modern politics is charming.

It was "baddies vs baddies" was his quote.

"It's not goodies versus baddies - it's baddies versus baddies,"

He obviously liked it because he used it again.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...syria-baddie-tag/story-fn59nm2j-1226807342693

Rubbish. Free trade benefits everyone. Anyone with even a minor interest in the economics of the world over the last 200 years knows this to be true. It isn't even disputed anymore. The only reason countries are protective is to look after their own self interest, for political purposes.

Now it wasn't a "free trade" deal that was struck I admit, but simply "freer than what it was.

I have to say I do take an interest in the economics of the world of the last 200 years and I'm struggling to find the place where it states free markets = prosperity. Most large economic powers have used mercantilism, subsidies and tariffs to great effect to enrich themselves.

Unfortunately this is problem with all "pure" free market theory. It ignores the obvious realities of power imbalance, political pressure and other distortions in the economy. Indeed can you imagine any economy that is unaltered in some way by laws, culture or politics? It's absurd. Why is a powerful country going to sign up to a deal that is disadvantageous to it's interests? These deals are so far from being full stop FTA's it's a joke.

Despite your slur on Keynes he did at least understand that even the freest complex economies are inherently not pure markets.

The Coalition took office in 1996 with $96 billion dollars of debt. They left office in 2007 with billions in the bank. Labor left office in 2013, and in just six years had racked up, $300 billion in debt, and now it's John Howards fault? The reasons we have a massive debt now is because Labor spent all the money, not because of some of Howards middle class welfare. This is an argument you can't possibly win.

Can too. Firstly it's hard to save money without economic growth (Hawke/Keating reforms)
The debt was paid off from asset sales (Telstra)
Nearly all economists agree that Howard wasted the proceeds of the mining boom to keep himself in power.
The Labor government, correctly spent the money on stimulus to prevent a banking collapse in Australia, however it should have been spent on infrastructure not personal cash. Although this was the advice of a terrified Treasury.

I'll bet you any money conservatives, overall, are more compassionate, give more to charity, and do more to help others. You should read the book "Who Really Cares" by Arthur C. Brooke. He shatters stereotypes about charity including the myth that the political Left is more compassionate than the Right. He identifies the forces behind charity: strong families, church attendance, earning one's own income (as opposed to receiving welfare), and the belief that individuals - not government-offer the best solution to social problems

It's easy to pretend you're compassionate when you're using someone else's money to give to someone in need. If person A (the government) steals money from person B and gives it to person C, is person A compassionate? Or a thief?

On cue, you again prove the very point I was making and fly it as your standard.

The right have always given more to charity, they traditionally have more to do so. Tax breaks for charity have meant that charity has been the tax minimisation and power source of the elite for hundreds of years. The point I was making is that socialists don't believe in charity as it's been used as tool for social manipulation and class warfare for centuries. The point of the welfare state was to liberate the poor from the yoke of the church and the "charity" of a landlord so as to provide everyone with a bare minimum living standard, no matter if they voted for the local Lord, attended church or were generally a bit odd.

 

[smokingjacket]

It would be great if it did work, but the reality is that neither wind nor solar is capable of providing baseload power and doesn't seem likely to in the immediate future. There are 3 currently viable methods for producing baseload power: Hydro, Coal and Nuclear. Viable solar and wind power are still science fiction at this point.

Did you read any of the links?

Just realised I missed the last one off so you can have a browse if you like.

http://www.theguardian.com/global-d...014/jun/05/chile-renewable-energy-solar-power

Baseload solar is already here. There's already one in Spain, Chile is building several to 400Mw capacity and a Spanish company Abengoa Solar is building a trial 20Mw plant right here in sunny old Perenjori, Western Australia with the backing of ARENA.

http://arena.gov.au/project/feasibility-study-for-perenjori-20mw-dispatchable-solar-tower-project/

 

[smokingjacket]

I will be revealing of posters if they support or defend Abbott's speech today.

Is this the speech in parliament regarding 'terrorism?'

 

[Play by Numbers]

Is this the speech in parliament regarding 'terrorism?'

Yep.

 

[Dan26]

Do I? Is Andrew Bolt an Abbott hater? News to me. That whole story stunk like a planned leak from the PM's office to warn off Turnbull from doing what he was doing. You don't need to be a genius to figure out that the LNP will ditch Abbott if he continues to be a drag on their primary vote. Piece of advice? Just because you vote for the Liberal Party doesn't mean you have to swallow every press release as gospel truth.

Oh for crying out loud, don't be so bloody naïve. Of course, the Liberals "might" change leaders closer to an election if they thought that by doing so it would be the difference between winning and losing an election, but that is not the case 7 months into their first term! That story had no legs whatsoever and was a complete beat up. It's ridiculous to string together a dinner with Clive Palmer and say that that amounts to some kind of challenge to the Prime Minister. If Bolt unsinuated this, he shouldn't have, as there was clearly nothing in it. There has been no leadership speculation of any substance whatsoever.

This might be because you have a shallow understanding of foreign affairs. No business is done in talks between heads of state, it's ceremonial, a photo-op, a meet and greet. I'm also not sure how you managed to quote my post and fail to read it.
So yeah, my point was precisely that DFAT left to it's own devices were more than capable of carrying out routine diplomacy and furthering Australia's interests abroad. During this time the US came to us to establish a small Marine base in Darwin. A rather token gesture but an important one for Australia as it raises the risks associated with any assault on Australia by a foreign power by possibly embroiling the US.

Abbott's overseas trips have been well received so far. Anyone who has been following politics can see that. is it "THAT" hard to give credit where it is due, or is it just impossible for you? Julie Bishop deserved much of the credit.

Abbott, and Bishop in particular have:
1. Addressed the United Nations Security Council
2. Rebuked Russia over its response to the MH17 tragedy – and won public support at home by doing so.
3. Found the approval of John Kerry in her denouncement of ISIL
4. They have repaired a relationship with Indonesia damaged by the recent spying scandal by signing a fresh code of conduct with them that defines the limits of intelligence gathering

Again, your answer lies in your own response. Whilst I admire your internationalism, there are limits to what a middle power (at best) like Australia can or should do in an international incident. We don't have the leverage or power of a giant like the US to bend others to our will so often, sadly I would add, crying foul at countries with a permanent UN seat is a sure fire way to achieve nothing. As happened.
Yes as you say the foreign media were adoring of Abbott in his stand against Putin, in much the same way that if a stranger is silly enough to poke a bear eating your picnic for you, afterwards you thank him generously if he lives to tell the tale. The Ukraine want's to join the EU not APEC or ASEAN. The Germans needed to take the lead on this one and quite frankly might not have appreciated the way Abbott grandstanded forcing Russia in to a corner. A slow negotiated settlement was preferred on all sides.
Lastly Russia is a bully like all dominant countries (bar Germany) are bullies. They like their zones of influence. This doesn't make it right mind you, but as a corollary Australia s**t a brick last year when China started muscling in on PNG, Solomons and other Pacific countries that are in OUR influence zone.

Calling for Abbott to back off, as you are doing is weak. I can tell you're a leftie. Western countries need to stand up for their values, their prosperity and their liberty. Calling for Abbott to back off "might" have merit if Australian weren't involved but we lost civilians in that air tragedy. These civilains, were, essentially murdered by Russians. The most important part of any government is the protection of it's citizens. Making a strong, firm and appropriate stand against Russia by denouncing them, as Abbott did, was more than reasonable. The civilized world should have denounced them.

Your naivete of the depths of modern politics is charming.

This above quote of yours is in reference to me criticising you - justifiably - for insinuating that the tragedy in the Ukraine was somehow made bigger by Abbott simply to get the budget off the front page. This is absurd, insulting, and you really should apologise for such a remark. It's not Abbott's fault that a plane, carrying Australians was shot down by Russian militants killing all on board, somehow taking attention away from the budget.

I'm very sorry the murdering of your own countryman has come at such an inopportune time, just when Labor was getting traction with their opposition to the budget. How inconvenient for you.

Idiot.

"It's not goodies versus baddies - it's baddies versus baddies,"

He obviously liked it because he used it again.

Who cares? Obama used it. So did David Cameron. And it IS baddies vs baddies. All three of them are right.

I have to say I do take an interest in the economics of the world of the last 200 years and I'm struggling to find the place where it states free markets = prosperity.

Well, you don't know much about free markets. The reason countries pursue free trade is because it benefits everyone.

Most large economic powers have used mercantilism, subsidies and tariffs to great effect to enrich themselves.

I know it might "seem" like they've enriched themselves, but it usually done for political reasons to keep jobs at home, rather than for reasons of prosperity. If people pay more for products that have tariffs, then that means they have less money to spend on other things that will enrich their life.

Governments import restrictions are not aimed at foreigners. These restrictions penalise consumers by forcing them to buy higher priced or lower quality products than they would prefer. By raising prices trade barriers deprive us of the savings we would use to buy other products that would be generated by employment in new industries. So, if you have 5 coins and use 1 to buy the imported product, you have 4 left to buy other things. But if the import is not allowed you have to spend perhaps all 5 coins on the local product with nothing left to buy other goods.

The excuse offered for import restrictions is that governments are "patriotically" protecting domestic jobs and companies, however as long as those jobs are protected, they will never ever outgrow their need for protection. What makes companies competitive is competition. If they can't compete, it would be better if they shifted their resources into product lines, where they have an advantage over other markets. Then, everyone is better off and the overall prosperity of the country goes up. Trade barriers in retaliation against another country only hurt the innocent. The home country gains nothing by injuring their own citizens. Protecting local industry slows competitive innovation, and leads to dependency on politicians who hand out the money, and makes otherwise good products that would further enrich your life harder and more expensive to obtain.

Can too.

No you can't. The Liberals came inot power in 1996 with a $96 billion debt., and ended their power with billions in the bank. Labor, in just six years turned that surplus into $300 billion of debt. Yet, according to you, it's all John Howards fault.

Can too. Firstly it's hard to save money without economic growth (Hawke/Keating reforms)

Agree. The Hawke government was a reformist government who actually had a good relationship with small businesses. Virtually all the big policies were voted WITH by the Coalition on a bi-partisan level. That didn;t change the fact that labor - like all left-wing governemnts were still mad spenders and left us with a $96 billion debt

The debt was paid off from asset sales (Telstra)

So? Hell, they should have sold the sold the ABC, SBS, and Australia Post while they were at it.

Nearly all economists agree that Howard wasted the proceeds of the mining boom to keep himself in power.

And who are "nearly all economists"? Australia's strong economic performance is largely attributed to the reforms made by both the Hawke-Keating Government and Howard Government and the growth in the world economy over the same period . All you're doing is giving credit to your left-wing party and ignoring everything else. Howard probably spent a but too much on middle class welfare in his last term, but the facts are that the country was left with money in the bank. During the governments fourth term (by which time they "owned" the economy), 855,000 new jobs were created, unemployment declined to just over four percent, and the economy had grown EVERY year during their tenure.

The Labor government, correctly spent the money on stimulus to prevent a banking collapse in Australia, however it should have been spent on infrastructure not personal cash. Although this was the advice of a terrified Treasury.

It's doubtful there would have been a banking a banking collapse. Our banks are too strong. The stimulus was too big, too rushed, too impulsive, and poorly targeted. Typical panicked left-wing response to a crisis. Remember I said that the left are hopeless at governing because they are good conceptual thinkers but no good at dealing with problems? The stimulus spending was another good example of that. I received it. Why me? I didn't spend it or pump it into the economy (which was the whole point). I just added it to my bank account. Why did I receive it? I didn't spend it, and the whole point was to spend it. Now, the interest bill on this massive deficit could pay for new highways and train lines, and you name it. But we can't afford it, because labor wasted the money on flawed Keynesian principles. I'm more of a believer in Austrian economics myself.

 

[smokingjacket]

This conversation feels like arguing with a bot that's spewing out misunderstood talking points from The Australian, along with my own put downs, again misused, back at me.

Oh for crying out loud, don't be so bloody naïve. Of course, the Liberals "might" change leaders closer to an election if they thought that by doing so it would be the difference between winning and losing an election, but that is not the case 7 months into their first term! That story had no legs whatsoever and was a complete beat up. It's ridiculous to string together a dinner with Clive Palmer and say that that amounts to some kind of challenge to the Prime Minister. If Bolt unsinuated this, he shouldn't have, as there was clearly nothing in it. There has been no leadership speculation of any substance whatsoever.

As I'd just brought the case to your attention and demonstrated an understanding of the internal pressures on Tony Abbott, this makes no sense. Cynical, the opposite, was the correct word to use. As I say, it wasn't the Fairfax papers or the ABC leading the charge on this one it was Andrew Bolt. Obviously you know more about the inner workings of the Liberal Party than Australia's "most read columnist" though and this gives me great solace as it would make him a greater twit than I already think he is.

In any case these posts are getting way off track from a thread that was in my view, doing a great job at asking LNP voters to justify specific policies and backflips of the current government. I'm quite happy to argue up and down hill with you about your revisionist economic history and half baked theoretical knowledge but I'll move it to another thread on economics where I can give it a proper answer without feeling like I'm ruining everyone's reading experience.

I'll keep my answers to foreign policy as this contains the most relevance to this government.

Abbott, and Bishop in particular have:
1. Addressed the United Nations Security Council

And? They weren't invited to because the UN like the cut of their jib. DFAT and the previous government lobbied furiously for years for a temporary seat on the UNSC despite it being condemned as a colossal waste of time and money by the then opposition.

2. Rebuked Russia over its response to the MH17 tragedy – and won public support at home by doing so.

I'll cover this later but so what? The fact it was popular at home means nothing more than populist sabre rattling is popular with voters, not that it's good foreign policy.

3. Found the approval of John Kerry in her denouncement of ISIL

Honestly, I cannot believe that the Head of the US State Department agreed that ISIL was a threat. They probably helped write the speech.

4. They have repaired a relationship with Indonesia damaged by the recent spying scandal by signing a fresh code of conduct with them that defines the limits of intelligence gathering

Fair enough, good bit of diplomacy. However cancelled out completely by pissing off every country in the Middle East bar Israel for changing the legal definition of the occupied territories...just as we needed their help in combating ISIL.

Calling for Abbott to back off, as you are doing is weak. I can tell you're a leftie. Western countries need to stand up for their values, their prosperity and their liberty. Calling for Abbott to back off "might" have merit if Australian weren't involved but we lost civilians in that air tragedy. These civilains, were, essentially murdered by Russians. The most important part of any government is the protection of it's citizens. Making a strong, firm and appropriate stand against Russia by denouncing them, as Abbott did, was more than reasonable. The civilized world should have denounced them.

Ah yes, weak, and I am a leftie, how did you tell? Was it all the talk about advances under social-democracy or the fact that I could construct an argument that didn't deal in absolutes? This must explain the attraction of new right/neo-cons to people on the internet. A dogmatic belief in pure market theory and a nice clean little foreign policy that allows you to denounce anyone who points out complexity as moral weakness.

Indeed we should denounce them all.
DENOUNCE the Russians, they supplied the arms to the rebels that shot down a plane over disputed territory.
DENOUNCE Assad, he's killing his own civilians with chemical weapons. Actually wait, don't denounce the Russians we need their help to stop Assad using chemical weapons.
Alright then DENOUNCE ISIL, the new face of evil. Actually wait, don't denounce Assad we need his help to stop ISIL gaining a greater foothold in Syria and Iraq.
This is getting messy let's stick closer to home. DENOUNCE the Labor Party, they DENOUNCED the Indonesians who mistreated our cattle.

When you run foreign policy like this you end up running from spot fire to spot fire, it makes no sense strategically. Just because we oppose the actions of a foreign power doesn't mean the best way to stop them and to get them to work constructively with us in the future is to grandstand at the UN with the attention of the worlds media on you so you can appear like the defender of Western civilisation to the voters back home.

Also, I consider myself an international liberal too but what exact part of our "values, prosperity and liberty" did Russia offend by arming a separatist group that agrees with it's world view? Was it, don't blow up civilian aircraft, that's bad? Because I'm pretty sure the Russian government believes that too. If the West applied the same view to themselves and took personal responsibility for every group they've armed in a proxy war over the last fifty years, our human rights record would make Saddam Hussein blush. As it happens we also armed him to fight Iran where after he used our weapons to commit attempted genocide against the Kurds of Iraq...yes, the very people we're arming now. Let's hope they don't stroll off the plantation too eh?

This above quote of yours is in reference to me criticising you - justifiably - for insinuating that the tragedy in the Ukraine was somehow made bigger by Abbott simply to get the budget off the front page. This is absurd, insulting, and you really should apologise for such a remark. It's not Abbott's fault that a plane, carrying Australians was shot down by Russian militants killing all on board, somehow taking attention away from the budget.

I'm very sorry the murdering of your own countryman has come at such an inopportune time, just when Labor was getting traction with their opposition to the budget. How inconvenient for you.

Idiot.

If you think I'm going to apologise to you for pointing you in the direction of truth then you have another thing coming. I am sorry if it caused you grief as your addled brain wrestled with the idea that our elected officials might use a national tragedy to further their own careers and electoral position rather than get the best outcome for the families of the dead but still it is so. If the strategy was genuinely to gain proper access to the crash site, repatriate the bodies in a humane manner and help discover exactly what happened to the plane so the international community could bring to justice those responsible, then they failed magnificently, as generally happens when you announce yourself as the enemy your opposition isn't too keen to have you scratching around in it's backyard.

Lastly whilst you might have swelled your chest with pride as Abbott waved the flag of freedom in Putin's face, spare a thought for the 2000 dead, 6000 seriously wounded Ukrainian civilians caught in the crossfire of the ongoing rush to war after Abbott's bravado forced Putin in to a situation where he either backed down and looked 'weak' (can't have that now can we) or he pursued a policy of further escalation including providing heavy artillery and rockets to the rebels so that they were able to withstand a strengthened Ukraine . It's not weakness to seek compromise to avoid bloodshed. After all, aren't we going in to Iraq again to stop the killing of civilians?

 

[medusala]

. My argument is a carbon tariff on entry would solve that, but of course tariffs aren't seriously discussed for fear of offending the WTO/IMF and looking like we're backtracking.

Wow. Lets start a trade war!! Chinese and Japanese wont retaliate. What % of our exports go Asia?

I have to say I do take an interest in the economics of the world of the last 200 years and I'm struggling to find the place where it states free markets = prosperity. Most large economic powers have used mercantilism, subsidies and tariffs to great effect to enrich themselves.

Mercantilism is hardly a great success story. See French failure vs Great Britain success

Hong Kong- about as free a market as possible. Raging, indisputable success story.

The rabid Jew hater's best contribution was to recognise the folly of punishing Germany too hard. His economic theories have little to offer. They are simply a smoke screen for higher spending and for vested interests to shove their snouts in the trough.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Wow. Lets start a trade war!! Chinese and Japanese wont retaliate. What % of our exports go Asia?

So you bold one part of the sentence and then repeat the same downside I mentioned in the rest of the sentence? And China would have a very good reason to retaliate. After all, how many of their emissions are created making stuff for everyone else?

 

[medusala]

So you bold one part of the sentence and then repeat the same downside I mentioned in the rest of the sentence? And China would have a very good reason to retaliate. After all, how many of their emissions are created making stuff for everyone else?

Hole. Digging. Best to stop.

"I don't think that fear is well-placed"

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Hole. Digging. Best to stop.

"I don't think that fear is well-placed"

If you had any ability in arguing you wouldn't feel the need to stop.

I gave a solution, pointed out a potential flaw, but suggested it was over-stated.
You quote that sentence, repeat the same flaw and then over-egg it with hyperbole. Bravo.

 

[Play by Numbers]

I will be revealing of posters if they support or defend Abbott's speech today.

Will anyone attempt to defend the national security bill which passed the senate in recent days passed?

Sanctioned mass surveillance, provisions for muzzling the press, legal immunity for the security services?

A dark day in Australian history, that stirred naught but a whimper from much of the press and public.

 

[Floor Pie]

Will anyone attempt to defend the national security bill which passed the senate in recent days passed?

Sanctioned mass surveillance, provisions for muzzling the press, legal immunity for the security services?

A dark day in Australian history, that stirred naught but a whimper from much of the press and public.

They are too busy talking about the damage 18c is doing...

If the media doesn't tell us to care, we don't care!