Matthew Guy. Can a mediocre leader with a 3rd rate team win government?

[QuietB]

This is the same Premier that put elderly people in room arrest in their nursing homes, created mental health issues for thousands of young school children by isolating them from their peers. Ramped up the pandemic to hysterial levels.

Andrews though his actions proves the is a fine line between socialism and fascism.

Hyperbole much.

You will see how many people share your ridiculous views come election time.

 

[The Punter]

This is the same Premier that put elderly people in room arrest in their nursing homes, created mental health issues for thousands of young school children by isolating them from their peers. Ramped up the pandemic to hysterical levels.

You forgot when he locked public housing tenants in their buildings and stationed the police outside to make sure no one got out.

 

[Todman]

I don't want to be unnecessarily rude here.

Without going into either fascism or socialism too deeply, socialism features collectivisation of industry and resources and the redistribution of the profits to everyone equally. Fascism uses society and government to collect resources and give it to those at the top.

These two ideas are completely incompatible, and neither of them apply to Dan Andrews.

Socialism has never redistributed the profits to everyone equally. That is why it fails. The ones in charge never let go of the largesse and certainly not to the serf at the bottom that they claim to represent but secretly despise.

 

[Todman]

Hyperbole much.

You will see how many people share your ridiculous views come election time.

Stockholm syndrome. People will continue to vote for a "strong leader" even after he has sailed them off a cliff.

 

[Todman]

You forgot when he locked public housing tenants in their buildings and stationed the police outside to make sure no one got out.

Yes. A disgusting act by our Police force.

 

[QuietB]

I don't want to be unnecessarily rude here.

Without going into either fascism or socialism too deeply, socialism features collectivisation of industry and resources and the redistribution of the profits to everyone equally. Fascism uses society and government to collect resources and give it to those at the top.

These two ideas are completely incompatible, and neither of them apply to Dan Andrews.

"Fascism uses society and government to collect resources and give it to those at the top" - this applies pretty accurately to the LNP generally and certainly to Morrison.

 

[QuietB]

Stockholm syndrome. People will continue to vote for a "strong leader" even after he has sailed them off a cliff.

lol - so why is Morrison gone?

Stockholm syndrome - is that seriously going to be the Liberals excuse

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Socialism has never redistributed the profits to everyone equally. That is why it fails. The ones in charge never let go of the largesse and certainly not to the serf at the bottom that they claim to represent but secretly despise.

So you are saying that it wasn’t socialism?

 

[Gethelred]

Socialism has never redistributed the profits to everyone equally. That is why it fails. The ones in charge never let go of the largesse and certainly not to the serf at the bottom that they claim to represent but secretly despise.

And this is a completely different argument. You cannot jump from argument 1 to argument 2 just because someone counters argument 1.

Dan Andrews is neither a socialist or a fascist. Matthew Guy and the Liberals will struggle if they try to make this a law and order election, given a) how that went last time, and b) how they've tried to portray Dan as a left wing strongman over the course of the last two years. And if Matthew Guy can turn the election, it won't be on health unless it has to do specifically with the Covid response failures.

 

[Gough]

Hyperbole much.

You will see how many people share your ridiculous views come election time.

If the Vic Libs had decided to piece something together that looks like an alternative government they might be in with a shout but it would take a pretty dim voter to reward the mob who've spent two years yelling "Dan Andrews" at the top over their voice over and over again.

 

[Gethelred]

"Fascism uses society and government to collect resources and give it to those at the top" - this applies pretty accurately to the LNP generally and certainly to Morrison.

This is one of those things where the specific differences mentioned were only those that directly contradict each other. Fascism is significantly more complicated than that, and socialism is as well. Most economic systems derived from ideologies of the right feature something akin to this; feudalism functioned similarly from an economics perspective without being (completely) fascistic.

That is not to say that socialism isn't without flaws either, just that it is incompatible with fascism. You cannot have socialist fascists; what you mean is authoritarian socialists. Authoritarian isn't a synonym for fascism, despite a lot of people (some of whom encourage deliberately conflating the two) behaving as though it is.

 

[Todman]

And this is a completely different argument. You cannot jump from argument 1 to argument 2 just because someone counters argument 1.

Dan Andres is neither a socialist or a fascist. Matthew Guy and the Liberals will struggle if they try to make this a law and order election, given a) how that went last time, and b) how they've tried to portray Dan as a left wing strongman over the course of the last two years. And if Matthew Guy can turn the election, it won't be on health unless it has to do specifically with the Covid response failures.

The issues with Victoria's health system has been around for decades. Long before Andrews came to power but then his party has been in charge for 29 of the last 40 years. Dan is building new hospitals that have no staff.

 

[Todman]

If the Vic Libs had decided to piece something together that looks like an alternative government they might be in with a shout but it would take a pretty dim voter to reward the mob who've spent two years yelling "Dan Andrews" at the top over their voice over and over again.

you getting it.

 

[Gethelred]

The issues with Victoria's health system has been around for decades. Long before Andrews came to power but then his party has been in charge for 29 of the last 40 years. Dan is building new hospitals that have no staff.

This is another different argument. Just because you want to attack doesn't mean I have to play defense.

If you continue to argue in this manner - in which you do not consider the post you quote, instead jumping straight back into attack - you will be threadbanned. You have been warned.

 

[QuietB]

The issues with Victoria's health system has been around for decades. Long before Andrews came to power but then his party has been in charge for 29 of the last 40 years. Dan is building new hospitals that have no staff.

What are the issues with the health system? Summarise them for me.

 

[Sttew]

I think you're grasping at straws.

That's questionable. As soon as "Matt" Guy announced he would redirect SRL funding to Health, Dan supposedly commissioned private polling to see what the public reaction would be. How do we know that? An unnamed Labor minister tipped Neil Mitchell off, and a furious Dan demanded that mobile phones be handed in so he could investigate who leaked.

Now I know Dan apologists will say "Neil Mitchell, pffft!"

The thing is Dan is out there telling anyone prepared to listen that under Labor you can have both, new hospitals AND the SRL. "It's not either or". How many times have we heard him say that? But as we all know, Labor has been in power in Victoria for 16-18 years in the 21st Century. Why is it that 94 days out from a state election Dan is suddenly able to fix the Health system? Answer is he can't and won't. He is just full of s**t.

Dan will still win, but at least the Opposition is trying to make a difference

 

[Gethelred]

That's questionable. As soon as "Matt" Guy announced he would redirect SRL funding to Health, Dan supposedly commissioned private polling to see what the public reaction would be. How do we know that? An unnamed Labor minister tipped Neil Mitchell off, and a furious Dan demanded that mobile phones be handed in so he could investigate who leaked.

Now I know Dan apologists will say "Neil Mitchell, pffft!"

The thing is Dan is out there telling anyone prepared to listen that under Labor you can have both, new hospitals AND the SRL. "It's not either or". How many times have we heard him say that? But as we all know, Labor has been in power in Victoria for 16-18 years in the 21st Century. Why is it that 94 days out from a state election Dan is suddenly able to fix the Health system? Answer is he can't and won't. He is just full of s**t.

Dan will still win, but at least the Opposition is trying to make a difference

I hope they do, that they drive him to making changes in health that benefit the community. That's how opposition is meant to work; what you have just described is an opposition holding the government to account and campaigning on an issue the government is not doing well to correct it.

That, more than anything else from the last 20 years of government here, is what pisses me off the most. It doesn't need to be total war. It can absolutely be consultative, and when your opposition is providing you with quality feedback on where your problems are it gives you opportunity to correct them.

The point of government is community improvement, not a single party state. You need opposition to be capable of both exposing your flaws but also to be willing to work with you to improve the state around you.

 

[The Punter]

I hope they do, that they drive him to making changes in health that benefit the community. That's how opposition is meant to work; what you have just described is an opposition holding the government to account and campaigning on an issue the government is not doing well to correct it.

That, more than anything else from the last 20 years of government here, is what pisses me off the most. It doesn't need to be total war. It can absolutely be consultative, and when your opposition is providing you with quality feedback on where your problems are it gives you opportunity to correct them.

The point of government is community improvement, not a single party state. You need opposition to be capable of both exposing your flaws but also to be willing to work with you to improve the state around you.

I mean, this is some rolled gold analysis.

Firstly, Andrews chooses not to consult the opposition. As is his prerogative. Andrews has consulted with who he needs and absolutely no more. For most of this term this has mean consulting with Meddick, Patten and the Greens Party. Events earlier this year meant he had to widen that to at least two more MLCs.

The post above also makes it sound like the opposition's is to improve the performance of their political enemies. The opposition raises a concern, the government addresses it, the government keeps to keep governing. Only problem with that is if the government is addressing concerns after the become public when it knew of the concerns privately, for example, through it's expansive public service.

What is described here is effectively a one-party state. Only one party gets to govern. The opposition has not been asked to work with the government at any stage during this term. It just can't grab a seat at the negotiating table - the government has to offer it to them, and for whatever reason, it has not. It's a neat little rhetorical workaround where the opposition gets criticised no matter which tack it takes.

And the opposition truly believes it can do a better job than the government. But let's make sure Danny Pearson or Ingrid Stitt or Gayle Tierney are getting better at their jobs.

 

[QuietB]

I mean, this is some rolled gold analysis.

Firstly, Andrews chooses not to consult the opposition. As is his prerogative. Andrews has consulted with who he needs and absolutely no more. For most of this term this has mean consulting with Meddick, Patten and the Greens Party. Events earlier this year meant he had to widen that to at least two more MLCs.

The post above also makes it sound like the opposition's is to improve the performance of their political enemies. The opposition raises a concern, the government addresses it, the government keeps to keep governing. Only problem with that is if the government is addressing concerns after the become public when it knew of the concerns privately, for example, through it's expansive public service.

What is described here is effectively a one-party state. Only one party gets to govern. The opposition has not been asked to work with the government at any stage during this term. It just can't grab a seat at the negotiating table - the government has to offer it to them, and for whatever reason, it has not. It's a neat little rhetorical workaround where the opposition gets criticised no matter which tack it takes.

And the opposition truly believes it can do a better job than the government. But let's make sure Danny Pearson or Ingrid Stitt or Gayle Tierney are getting better at their jobs.

How can Dan consult the opposition?

They are all protesting outside the Royal Children's Hospital.

Which is odd given they are telling us they care about health

 

[Gethelred]

I mean, this is some rolled gold analysis.

Firstly, Andrews chooses not to consult the opposition. As is his prerogative. Andrews has consulted with who he needs and absolutely no more. For most of this term this has mean consulting with Meddick, Patten and the Greens Party. Events earlier this year meant he had to widen that to at least two more MLCs.

... okay. Don't see what your problem is. My post was about ideal government, not directly the Andrews government, but sure.

The post above also makes it sound like the opposition's is to improve the performance of their political enemies. The opposition raises a concern, the government addresses it, the government keeps to keep governing. Only problem with that is if the government is addressing concerns after the become public when it knew of the concerns privately, for example, through it's expansive public service.

Why are you in furious agreement with me? You could just agree and be happy about it instead.

What is described here is effectively a one-party state. Only one party gets to govern. The opposition has not been asked to work with the government at any stage during this term. It just can't grab a seat at the negotiating table - the government has to offer it to them, and for whatever reason, it has not. It's a neat little rhetorical workaround where the opposition gets criticised no matter which tack it takes.

Outside of an election campaign, what I stated is the task of opposition because - and I said this before - community welfare and improvement is the point of government. It doesn't exist to return the Labor party or the Liberal party, it exists to serve us.

The only reason you would think the opposition would get criticized for behaving in this way is if you disagree with this, and if you do I'd like to hear why.

And the opposition truly believes it can do a better job than the government. But let's make sure Danny Pearson or Ingrid Stitt or Gayle Tierney are getting better at their jobs.

This last sounds a bit petulant.

In an election year, your job is to get elected, but election year is a single period of around 4 months every 3-4 years. MP's spend too much time trying to get re-elected instead of what they're actually there for.

If you don't like this, you are welcome to join us on the other side of the eisle in wishing to overthrow the corrupt capitalist system! Hail comrade!

 

[The Punter]

Should I quote it? I should quote it. Wouldn't want anything bad to happen.

Outside of an election campaign, what I stated is the task of opposition because - and I said this before - community welfare and improvement is the point of government. It doesn't exist to return the Labor party or the Liberal party, it exists to serve us.

The only reason you would think the opposition would get criticized for behaving in this way is if you disagree with this, and if you do I'd like to hear why.

This last sounds a bit petulant.

In an election year, your job is to get elected, but election year is a single period of around 4 months every 3-4 years. MP's spend too much time trying to get re-elected instead of what they're actually there for.

If you don't like this, you are welcome to join us on the other side of the eisle in wishing to overthrow the corrupt capitalist system! Hail comrade!

It's always an election campaign. I've worked long hours in opposition, trying to hold governments to account and also trying to help people, which is almost impossible as a state opposition MP because everything needs to go through a Minister's office for action (in comparison, fed MPs have direct lines for assistance for Centrelink, Immigration and NDIS, so if you an issue with those areas, go to your federal MP). Those state opposition MPs would rather be in government because they believe they can do it better. Working tirelessly to improve the performance of your opponents is not the point of opposition, and it never will be. It is certainly not what Albo did in opposition, and he didn't get any criticism from me for being political - it's his job.

And the rubbish about capitalism is just that. So I won't be going to the other side of the "eisle".

 

[Gethelred]

Working tirelessly to improve the performance of your opponents is not the point of opposition, and it never will be.

This part is the only part which serves as an actual response to my post.

You're not improving the performance of your opponents, you're improving the lot of the wider community.

I think we see the world differently in an irreconcilable way. This is a sticking point for you because we have different views of the role of power; "If they'd just let me do it, it could be way better!", compared to "I serve my people, and will do what is in their interests over my own."

Note: there's nothing inherently wrong with the desire for more power. I impose no value or moral judgement on you with the above. For all I know, you could absolutely do a better job with government power than those who currently have it.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

If the public are 2x as confident in the integrity of an Andrews government vs the alternative, you've gotta think that is terrible news for the Libs.

Victorian voters give Labor the lead on integrity

With 13 weeks until the state election, a survey shows 42 per cent of voters believe Labor is the best party to “govern with integrity and honesty”, compared with 21 per cent for the Coalition.

www.theage.com.au

 

[Millky95]

If the public are 2x as confident in the integrity of an Andrews government vs the alternative, you've gotta think that is terrible news for the Libs.

Victorian voters give Labor the lead on integrity

With 13 weeks until the state election, a survey shows 42 per cent of voters believe Labor is the best party to “govern with integrity and honesty”, compared with 21 per cent for the Coalition.

www.theage.com.au

"2x 0 is still 0!" - Libs probably

 

[Messenger]

The thing is Dan is out there telling anyone prepared to listen that under Labor you can have both, new hospitals AND the SRL. "It's not either or". How many times have we heard him say that? But as we all know, Labor has been in power in Victoria for 16-18 years in the 21st Century. Why is it that 94 days out from a state election Dan is suddenly able to fix the Health system? Answer is he can't and won't. He is just full of s**t.

Dan will still win, but at least the Opposition is trying to make a difference

Ive sat in planning meetings in the last eight weeks for the expansion of a major hospital in the west; a $1.2B expansion that would effectively triple bed capacity over the next 10-15 years. So yes, you can do both.

Todays announcement for a childrens hospital in Werribee ignores the existence of the Kirner Womens and Children’s Hospital in Sunshine (opened in the last 2-3 years) and the expansion of existing facilities, which includes PPPs For under-utilised existing facilities.

The Libs have no history of developing healthcare and no history of interest in anything or anybody west of South Yarra. Georgie Crozier is singularly useless in the health portfolio. Hasnt been across her brief for years.