Name a Conservative Success Story

[rank and file]

Getting the Vote Yes in the referendum kicked down the road.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

So, we’ve got GST and gun reform.
With being in power for so many years at the federal level, surely there’s more than that?

Nup, pretty much it, and SSM by backfire.

 

[E Shed]

Clint Eastwood?

I mean at one point he was the answer for every question there was.

Conservative as hell but makes good movies with actual morality that isn't just some dumb binary good/bad shizzle.

Grand Torino and Million Dollar Baby are stone cold classics.

 

[mcgrath_truther]

Clint Eastwood?

I mean at one point he was the answer for every question there was.

Conservative as hell but makes good movies with actual morality that isn't just some dumb binary good/bad shizzle.

Grand Torino and Million Dollar Baby are stone cold classics.

i think a lot of people didn't see the point of grand torino, media literacy is dead

 

[E Shed]

i think a lot of people didn't see the point of grand torino, media literacy is dead

I'm sure there would be Trumpies who would hate it. Thats what the world has come to, when one of the great conservative Hollywood icons for decades and a true genius of filmmaking would probably get called a lefty for calling out racism and reminding us that the true beauty of humans is found in the connections we make with others however unlikely they are and that sacrifice, humility and compassion and the true virtues of which we're capable are what make can make us great.

Trump has none, literally none of the virtues and all of the flaws of the worst of humanity.

 

[Number37]

Trump has none, literally none of the virtues and all of the flaws of the worst of humanity.

Same can be said of anyone who supports him.

 

[OPofJazz]

Nothing. I suppose I prefer the conservative notion of caring for something bigger than yourself, whether that be your nation, people or religion, compared to the liberal idea of unrestrained worship of mammon.

 

[QuietB]

the conservative notion of caring for something bigger than yourself

I assume you are referring to a conservatives personal Asset portfolio and/or cash balance?

 

[OPofJazz]

I assume you are referring to a conservatives personal Asset portfolio and/or cash balance?

Well those are just liberal economic view. But I think conservatives socially/culturally do care about something bigger than them a lot of the time.

 

[QuietB]

I agree with SBD Gonzalez.

This thread is not about franking credits. If you want to discuss them start a thread and go nuts, but this thread is not for that conversation.

From this point, franking credit chat will be deleted.

Back to the thread topic.

To be fair, since we have pretty much established that the conservatives in Australia have not achieved anything of note in the last 40 years except gun reform and the GST - which is pretty much the political equivalent of putting the bins out - and given they have no immediate ambition or policies to achieve anything, it is inevitable that their crumb maidens want to talk about something else.

 

[QuietB]

Well those are just liberal economic view. But I think conservatives socially/culturally do care about something bigger than them a lot of the time.

What?

 

[Caesar]

To be fair, since we have pretty much established that the conservatives in Australia have not achieved anything of note in the last 40 years except gun reform and the GST - which is pretty much the political equivalent of putting the bins out - and given they have no immediate ambition or policies to achieve anything, it is inevitable that their crumb maidens want to talk about something else.

you haven't really defined achievement or success, but the way you talk around the issue seems to indicate that you consider it to have something to do with passing big impactful pieces of legislation

I would consider that to be a fairly flawed assumption

 

[QuietB]

you haven't really defined achievement or success, but the way you talk around the issue seems to indicate that you consider it to have something to do with passing big impactful pieces of legislation

I would consider that to be a fairly flawed assumption

What is the purpose of government if it is not to legislate reform?

I think we can all agree that there are a lot of issues that need to be improved for the benefit of all Australians. The core of political debate is trying to agree on what are the most important of these issues.

But current Liberals don't really stand for improving anything. All they stand for is opposing their opposition in doing anything.

There is not a single organisation in the world that would accept standing still as success. A corporation would not, a football team would not, a university would not, an army would not......

Everyone everywhere is committed to improvement if they want to succeed but when it comes to politics conservatives propose we will just be a steady hand and run with the status quo and that will be enough.

So no, I would not accept that it is a flawed assumption that we should expect governments to have a vision and have a plan and implement legislation to make things better.

And I would define achievement and success as makings things better. Gun reform made things better. Financial deregulation made things better. Universal health care made things better. These things require policy and legislation - usually big impactful pieces of legislation.

 

[Caesar]

What is the purpose of government if it is not to legislate reform?

the purpose of a government is to govern

99% of governing, especially in a well-developed and stable country like Australia, is about maintenance and upkeep of systems and processes that by and large work well

'reform' is not really about government, it's about politics - politicians looking for any old announcement or promise they can make to cadge time in the media cycle and votes from malcontents

that is not to say that good reform isn't sometimes possible or necessary but I would say the number of times in my life I have voted for a government because they are promising reform is fairly minimal - far more often I am looking for the safest pair of hands to keep things running as-is, or voting against some needless change that I think is harmful

 

[rank and file]

More of a maybe.
Gina stepping up to save the Commonwealth Games.
Gina Rinehart steps in to save key sporting event - but there’s a huge catch

See if channel 7 and Baz nose swimming get on board.
Did lol at Sky NZ being the only takers for broadcast rights.
Seven Was Looking At Rights For Commonwealth Games, But "No Deal Done".

 

[DaBarz]

Gina loves the swimming !

 

[rank and file]

Gina loves the swimming !

She's got a big pool.
Tòo bad the kids are standing around the sides arguing,no-one wants to jump in first.

 

[Number37]

the purpose of a government is to govern

99% of governing, especially in a well-developed and stable country like Australia, is about maintenance and upkeep of systems and processes that by and large work well

'reform' is not really about government, it's about politics - politicians looking for any old announcement or promise they can make to cadge time in the media cycle and votes from malcontents

that is not to say that good reform isn't sometimes possible or necessary but I would say the number of times in my life I have voted for a government because they are promising reform is fairly minimal - far more often I am looking for the safest pair of hands to keep things running as-is, or voting against some needless change that I think is harmful

What a load of nonsense.
If reform isn't about govt then we could leave it to systems and processes, but we don't.

Reform means make change.
Every election we are asked to vote on reform.

The govt puts up what changes they will make.
The opposition puts up what changes they will make.
And we asked to vote.

'good reform' LOL
You should have just said things you like.

 

[DaBarz]

What a load of nonsense.
If reform isn't about govt then we could leave it to systems and processes, but we don't.

Reform means make change.
Every election we are asked to vote on reform.

The govt puts up what changes they will make.
The opposition puts up what changes they will make.
And we asked to vote.

'good reform' LOL
You should have just said things you like.

Make change for the sake of it in other words.

Honestly

 

[kickazz]

Pretty simple really. Australia's two speed economy / rich getting richer is probably the biggest success Conservatives have had in this country, if you are looking at it from Conservatives' point of view.

 

[owen87]

the purpose of a government is to govern

99% of governing, especially in a well-developed and stable country like Australia, is about maintenance and upkeep of systems and processes that by and large work well

'reform' is not really about government, it's about politics - politicians looking for any old announcement or promise they can make to cadge time in the media cycle and votes from malcontents

that is not to say that good reform isn't sometimes possible or necessary but I would say the number of times in my life I have voted for a government because they are promising reform is fairly minimal - far more often I am looking for the safest pair of hands to keep things running as-is, or voting against some needless change that I think is harmful

You missed this bit that was kind of the key;

There is not a single organisation in the world that would accept standing still as success. A corporation would not, a football team would not, a university would not, an army would not......

Why does Government get a free pass on never changing or innovating in any way?

We wouldn't accept it in a single other facet of life. Technology changes, populations change, demographics change, random events occur. There's simply no possible way to not change or innovate without deliberately burying your head in the sand.

Why shouldn't we demand a best-practice Government that looks at what's going on around the world to learn and adapt to provide the best possible outcomes for the most number of people in the country?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

You missed this bit that was kind of the key;



Why does Government get a free pass on never changing or innovating in any way?

We wouldn't accept it in a single other facet of life. Technology changes, populations change, demographics change, random events occur. There's simply no possible way to not change or innovate without deliberately burying your head in the sand.

Why shouldn't we demand a best-practice Government that looks at what's going on around the world to learn and adapt to provide the best possible outcomes for the most number of people in the country?

I think Caesar's point is that government is different to corporations.

(It is, but I disagree with Caesar that this lets them off the hook for not moving things forward.)

 

[Caesar]

Why does Government get a free pass on never changing or innovating in any way?

Well, that’s not what I said, is it?

But change and innovation is a very small part of the business of governing

 

[owen87]

Well, that’s not what I said, is it?

But change and innovation is a very small part of the business of governing

I would argue it's a bigger part than (particularly conservative) government wants to admit.

We've seen it with our education system falling behind best-practice as seen in a number of other countries for example, or health-care system falling behind capacity requirements pretty much nationwide, the NBN rollout fiasco, insufficient transport infrastructure, I'm sure plenty of others.

Simply maintaining what's already there isn't appropriate when external factors (e.g. population growth) mean that unless what's there is expanded or improved in some ways, it falls behind the requirements of the population.

 

[Caesar]

I would argue it's a bigger part than (particularly conservative) government wants to admit.

We've seen it with our education system falling behind best-practice as seen in a number of other countries for example, or health-care system falling behind capacity requirements pretty much nationwide, the NBN rollout fiasco, insufficient transport infrastructure, I'm sure plenty of others.

Simply maintaining what's already there isn't appropriate when external factors (e.g. population growth) mean that unless what's there is expanded or improved in some ways, it falls behind the requirements of the population.

you are shifting the goalposts

OP has clearly framed the discussion as success = major reforms, i.e. big banner policy that generates a note in the historical record and fundamentally changes the way the government does business in a particular area. Look at the examples cited - gun reform, GST, etc.

my response was simply that in a developed country with mature and stable government and systems, this kind of groundbreaking reinvent-the-wheel type innovation is a very small part of governing. The vast majority of $, decisions and personnel across Australian government agencies are dedicated to keeping things that mostly work well, continuing to mostly work well.

does this mean I think all government should be frozen in time? of course not - but the iterative change you cite, in terms of adapting to evolving circumstances (e.g. building a new freeway to service population growth) is hardly innovative policy - and far more about what I would regard as current system maintenance than the historic leaps that are quite clearly the focus of this thread