Remove this Banner Ad

The Liberal Party - How long? - Part 2

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

It's less than ten years since a future PM rocked up to QT with a lump of coal extolling it's value. Not letting the current government off the hook but the alleged Liberal moderates are still having to deal with very powerful people in their party who don't even think climate change is real.
The Libs are debating Net Zero as a policy (for show). The ALP have a net zero policy (for show).

Both do whatever the fossil fuel industry tell them to do. What did the ALP do differently in its first term than the Libs would have done other than renewable energy generation? What have they dont to reduce fossil fuel extraction and use?

Gas use has doubled in Australia in the last 20 years.

Coal use is only down 20% since 1998.

The ALP aren't treating climate change seriously either.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

The Libs are debating Net Zero as a policy (for show). The ALP have a net zero policy (for show).

Both do whatever the fossil fuel industry tell them to do. What did the ALP do differently in its first term than the Libs would have done other than renewable energy generation? What have they dont to reduce fossil fuel extraction and use?

Gas use has doubled in Australia in the last 20 years.

Coal use is only down 20% since 1998.

The ALP aren't treating climate change seriously either.

Gas is going to be in the energy mix for decades to come in Australia.
Coal is going to be in the mix in some other countries like India and China for longer than we’d like.
The good news is that both India and China are rapidly moving towards renewables as is most of the world.

We cant expect the world to stop suddenly. It’s a transition.
 
Gas is going to be in the energy mix for decades to come in Australia.
Coal is going to be in the mix in some other countries like India and China for longer than we’d like.
The good news is that both India and China are rapidly moving towards renewables as is most of the world.

We cant expect the world to stop suddenly. It’s a transition.
I mean, we could moderately tax it to pay for our own transition and encourage theirs.

But we pretend like it's their emissions and they pretend like it's our emissions and we both keep emitting.
 
They hear it everywhere.

So if they hear it “everywhere” then repost some evidence of that here to prove it.

We’re waiting……

You referred to the education of "the urgency of climate change being removed" and then denied this is happening.

I said that, you said I said “kids are being taught the world is imminently coming to an end”.

You’ve misrepresented and exaggerated what I said. You lied.
 
So if they hear it “everywhere” then repost some evidence of that here to prove it.

We’re waiting……



I said that, you said I said “kids are being taught the world is imminently coming to an end”.

You’ve misrepresented and exaggerated what I said. You lied.

This is probably all true. Just an example. But we inform kids when their developing brains can handle it. Think the realities of human mortality and all that. There is an appropriate and most practical time for everything, and people suffering from mental health problems tend to be less productive than others.

And my apologies for accepting your premise. Stay angry.
 
What are the Libs and Nats actually split over?

I don't believe it's climate change. I don't think either of them thinks denial of climate change is viable.

I think there's more pressure to be anti-renewables, and there's debate over how they do that. And it's mostly because renewables are decentralised and won't result in big donations to either party in the future, and will fight with the existing fossil fuel funding they receive.

But for cost of living, tax, economic, defence, what else are the two parties actually at odds over? It seems over things that matter to the voters, they don't have a lot of differences (because neither of them really have any policies).

Or is the money from fossil fuels so much for one of the parties that they can't possibly follow the other any longer and it's all about being anti-renewables and only anti-renewables?

It's two country parties arguing over who's the most country party.
 

This is probably all true. Just an example. But we inform kids when their developing brains can handle it. Think the realities of human mortality and all that. There is an appropriate and most practical time for everything, and people suffering from mental health problems tend to be less productive than others.

And my apologies for accepting your premise. Stay angry.
It's likely that climate change becomes the most defining element of any child born in 2020's lifetime. Rising sea levels, changing industries and agriculture, massive cost of living increases. It'll be computer and social-media upheavals to many industries. It's apt they should be informed about it.

I do agree that talk of mass deaths is overblown in Australia, which has many different climates and you'd think one of them will still be able to grow food and provide water in the future. The likely conflicts arising in other parts of the world are too abstract to really warn children about in a meaningful or effective way. We're pretty good at ignoring what's going on in the rest of the world when we want to.

The potential mass migration of billions of people due to climate change is too abstract for kids and nobody really knows what the results will be, that's the scary part, and again, another reason not to go too overboard until kids are mid-teens.
 
Firstly, nice length bow.

Secondly, make students feel empowered in the solution. I just said climate change is happening and we're contributing, but making kids feel like Armageddon is scheduled and inevitable is not helping anyone.

Thirdly, there is stuff that is school education and stuff that is tertiary education.
It's hard to make them feel empowered in the solution when the ruling class are actively working against the solution.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

They hear it everywhere. We can teach kids about scientific reality without making them feel helpless or doomed.

You referred to the education of "the urgency of climate change being removed" and then denied this is happening. It's urgent like all the other things, but pimply 14 year old kids (I have one) aren't about to fix the problem.

Again, we need more nuance and less emotion in debate, especially when it comes to education.
perhaps they feel doomed because the theoretical adults (LNP politicians) publicly show ongoing coal and fossil fuel support. When Italian Canavan admits that nuclear was a bluff to extend fossil fuels
 
I said it in my initial post: for their mental health.
their mental health will suffer anyway from other issues out of their control (housing unaffordability, job insecurity etc)
Can't protect people from reality, the only way toward resilience is via challenge
 
Everyone should stop talking, clicking or engaging with culture wars.

Culture wars are predominantly driven by the media. Who only want pollies to engage for the continued rage clicks.
Should flame bomb (via social media, not advocating arson) any outlet that craps on about culture wars as

"You useless parasite clickbaiters have no idea what ****ing matters now kindly unplug yourselves from broadcasting"
 
Can't protect people from reality, the only way toward resilience is via challenge
the rights 'nuanced' approach to climate change (along with any number of issues that challenge their orthodoxy) is

  • bury their head in the sand
  • deny
  • and if denial fails ...... never - at any cost - accept fault, blame or responsibility

their power and entitlements must be protected at all cost - even if it endangers the health, wellbeing and safety of present/future generations ..... look at the long sweep of history and tell me im wrong
 
Last edited:
If you want to win government in Australia you have to win urban seats. Period. This is not negotiable.

With the exception of Goldstein, not a single one of the swathe of blue ribbon Liberal Party seats lost in 2022 went back to the Libs (and you could argue the Goldstein loss was due to other exceptional factors that does not indicate a trend back to the Libs). Perth, inner Brisbane, Tasmania and Adelaide are entirely free of a Liberal Party representative. Melbourne has one and the marginal ALP seats became safer. Voters had three years of teals and have largely been okay with it as reflected in the swings towards most of them, and short of Ley and co delivering an electable alternative government the Libs can look forward to continued exile from most of urban Australia.

I don't think it will happen as long as the membership has been infiltrated by the far right and evangelical base - both of which are unappealing to the average swinging voter. What are the Libs going to offer that make voters choose them over the ALP? A 55/45 2PP is brutal.
 
No, my party should stop talking about the culture wars.

Should we teach the kids about the cost of nuclear submarines and what they are for? The politicians that invented AUKUS, and how they migrate into cushy military industrial complex jobs?
The holocaust, and why 'never again' doesn't seem to apply to everyone?

Just trying to work out where we should draw the umbrella line. Because climate change is somewhat easier to teach compared to those, don't you think?
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Should we teach the kids about the cost of nuclear submarines and what they are for?
The holocaust, and why 'never again' doesn't seem to apply to everyone?

Just trying to work out where we should draw the umbrella line.

You can teach your children about whatever you want.

But I don't think you are trying to work it out.
 
If you want to win government in Australia you have to win urban seats. Period. This is not negotiable.

With the exception of Goldstein, not a single one of the swathe of blue ribbon Liberal Party seats lost in 2022 went back to the Libs (and you could argue the Goldstein loss was due to other exceptional factors that does not indicate a trend back to the Libs). Perth, inner Brisbane, Tasmania and Adelaide are entirely free of a Liberal Party representative. Melbourne has one and the marginal ALP seats became safer. Voters had three years of teals and have largely been okay with it as reflected in the swings towards most of them, and short of Ley and co delivering an electable alternative government the Libs can look forward to continued exile from most of urban Australia.

I don't think it will happen as long as the membership has been infiltrated by the far right and evangelical base - both of which are unappealing to the average swinging voter. What are the Libs going to offer that make voters choose them over the ALP? A 55/45 2PP is brutal.
The Liberals used to not be against higher education when there were large young libs branches at them.

It's become embarrassing to anyone under the age of 40 to associated with the Liberal Party, especially somebody from an educated background at a University ( unless they're a small business-person or old-money). Nobody at University would want to be seen dead at a Young Libs event, except the born-to-rule kids who got there on daddy's money rather than scores.

The inner-city seats are filling up with under 40's living in apartments in middle class jobs and University degrees (even Masters - shock, horror!). Many with no kids. They're the antithesis of what the Liberals have been appealing to for the last 20 years. In fact they're the kind of people the Libs have gone to significant lengths to demonise.

Goldstein doesnt have as many apartments as Kooyong (Hawthorn and Camberwell and Toorak) or Menzies (Box Hill). Wilson was lucky he didn't get Carnegie and Murrumbeena in the redistribution.

The Libs definitely need a plan to win back two constituencies:
1) urban people - seems like a short-term problem
2) young people - seems like a structural long-term problem and probably underlies number 1.
3) Women - also a structural long-term problem and also underlies number 1. Some suburbs in Sydney and Melbourne have 15% more females than males.

Here's the age profile which tells you how Wilson might have won Goldstein, they're all oldies. Poor old traditional Menzies has lost its weight to the youth of Box Hill which is now in the Division.


1748234682969.png
 
This is pure gold….

“Why are you going to get your teeth kick in Hawke?” Credlin LMFAO…

“Bowen is Toxic in hunter” Barnaby 🤣


FMD I feel like I've woken up back in the 60s, I'm under a blanket on the couch, home from school with a head cold, and Beauty And The Beast is on television and I don't understand why everyone is arguing.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

The Liberal Party - How long? - Part 2

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top