The Liberal Party - How long? - Part 2

[SBD Gonzalez]

Good. This shit stain of a party can take its hatred of women, young people, the poor, Indigenous Australians, first generation Australians, future generations of Australians etc. and soon be consigned to the dustbin of history. What a disgrace. I'm surprised they've even got 20% support, with the Nats on a miserable 4%, with a good proportion of stupid, mean, whinging, whining, Australia hating boomers moving to One Nation.

My biggest concern is we’ll see a greatly increased One Nation presence in parliament. Obviously not an actual opposition, but a cohort of nasties motivated solely by spite, who actually consider themselves competent human beings.

 

[Grin]

My biggest concern is we’ll see a greatly increased One Nation presence in parliament. Obviously not an actual opposition, but a cohort of nasties motivated solely by spite, who actually consider themselves competent human beings.

Just like Liberal and the Nats, they'll be puppets of Murdoch and Gina and foreign owned greenhouse gas producers, and like them, gradually get less and less support as their hate filled neanderthal supporters die out, mostly from senile dementia and obesity related diseases.

 

[Gough]

My biggest concern is we’ll see a greatly increased One Nation presence in parliament. Obviously not an actual opposition, but a cohort of nasties motivated solely by spite, who actually consider themselves competent human beings.

I take comfort from the fact that every time this lot have been given the chance to step up in the past they've fallen over.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I take comfort from the fact that every time this lot have been given the chance to step up in the past they've fallen over.

Me too, hence my reference to how they deludedly consider themselves competent human beings.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

as their hate filled neanderthal supporters die out, mostly from senile dementia and obesity related diseases.

Not a fan, I take it?

 

[Grin]

Not a fan, I take it?

They have their place. Stupid's gunna stupid.

 

[The Punter]

I've long said the depth of and in policy from the parliamentary party is badly lacking. While they've just come to a position and it's still only just over six months since the last election, they need to flesh this out.

In this case, the Sky people have a point. It's a bit like the nuclear policy at the last election: the rank and file want nuclear, but they don't want billions of taxpayer's dollars spent to make it happen. I don't need the ridiculousness of that statement to be pointed out to me, on currently viable technology, nuclear doesn't stack up economically.

But the no net zero stay in Paris policy (for the hopeless want for a mutually agreeable word to describe it) has the same issue: it's neither one thing or the other. If you abandon net zero, staying in Paris is sort of pointless. Do we still need to reduce emissions? If yes, then by what amount by when?

It's funny: the Libs (and ones like me) have been criticised for being Labor-lite, seeing votes flock (on a 2PP basis at least) to the real thing. No one ever thought that the same thing could happen for One Nation. The real thing is there, why settle for a pale imitation? The Libs will get nowhere being One-Nation lite either.

On the other hand, we could always have a policy of a emissions reduction target through a market-based solution, but that ship has well and truly sailed inside the party.

 

[nut]

I've long said the depth of and in policy from the parliamentary party is badly lacking. While they've just come to a position and it's still only just over six months since the last election, they need to flesh this out.

In this case, the Sky people have a point. It's a bit like the nuclear policy at the last election: the rank and file want nuclear, but they don't want billions of taxpayer's dollars spent to make it happen. I don't need the ridiculousness of that statement to be pointed out to me, on currently viable technology, nuclear doesn't stack up economically.

But the no net zero stay in Paris policy (for the hopeless want for a mutually agreeable word to describe it) has the same issue: it's neither one thing or the other. If you abandon net zero, staying in Paris is sort of pointless. Do we still need to reduce emissions? If yes, then by what amount by when?

It's funny: the Libs (and ones like me) have been criticised for being Labor-lite, seeing votes flock (on a 2PP basis at least) to the real thing. No one ever thought that the same thing could happen for One Nation. The real thing is there, why settle for a pale imitation? The Libs will get nowhere being One-Nation lite either.

On the other hand, we could always have a policy of a emissions reduction target through a market-based solution, but that ship has well and truly sailed inside the party.

So it’s not about doing what’s right? For the planet and the economy? It’s about … blah blah blah … something about not being Labor? Must be different we oppose everything…. FMD the LNP signed up to net Zero!!!!

And seriously lacking policy is an understatement …. There is no policy … just words.
How can they claim they’ll lower the cost of net zero by supporting higher costs of power generation?????

 

[The Punter]

So it’s not about doing what’s right? For the planet and the economy? It’s about … blah blah blah … something about not being Labor? Must be different we oppose everything…. FMD the LNP signed up to net Zero!!!!

And seriously lacking policy is an understatement …. There is no policy … just words.
How can they claim they’ll lower the cost of net zero by supporting higher costs of power generation?????

As I said, they just arrived at a position. It is reasonable to demand further detail from them in due course, but they've had the position for less than a week. Parties change their positions regularly.

And the parliamentary party have decided that "doing the right thing" is lowering energy prices rather than lowering emissions. Pick that apart as you want. As I have said previously, the world is warming and humanity is contributing to that warming.

 

[nut]

As I said, they just arrived at a position. It is reasonable to demand further detail from them in due course, but they've had the position for less than a week. Parties change their positions regularly.

And the parliamentary party have decided that "doing the right thing" is lowering energy prices rather than lowering emissions. Pick that apart as you want. As I have said previously, the world is warming and humanity is contributing to that warming.

So the Position becomes before the policy? How can they claim “doing anything” when they don’t know how they’ll do it?
It’s stupidity … especially as the current system is brining down wholesale prices.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

When the new no net zero 'position' was being discussed, did nobody bring up the Paris agreement?

Because the various media fails when journalists brought up the Paris agreement certainly make it look like nobody inside the party room considered or discussed it.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

So the Position becomes before the policy? How can they claim “doing anything” when they don’t know how they’ll do it?
It’s stupidity … especially as the current system is brining down wholesale prices.

That was how the nuclear 'policy' was announced, why were you expecting anything to be different in this instance?

 

[Gough]

That was how the nuclear 'policy' was announced, why were you expecting anything to be different in this instance?

Like the nuclear policy this version of their energy policy is reliant on stuff that doesn't even exist yet. It's laughable.

 

[nut]

That was how the nuclear 'policy' was announced, why were you expecting anything to be different in this instance?

That’s my question to The Punter

 

[nut]

This is brilliant

Liberals aren't alone as net zero sceptics — but the data doesn't lie

The strange macho appeal of fossilised vegetation means that 30 years of annual United Nations meetings to stop the planet heating any more have been a bust.

www.abc.net.au

 

[The Punter]

So the Position becomes before the policy? How can they claim “doing anything” when they don’t know how they’ll do it?
It’s stupidity … especially as the current system is brining down wholesale prices.

Every time the position comes before the policy, it's just that most times the position doesn't get announced well before the policy does. I'm not hopeful on the policy being full of detail once announced.

The detail on nuclear was "the government is going to pay for it, and they'll go in these places". The sites hadn't agreed because they wouldn't agree and would leak it if asked before agreement.

This is brilliant

Liberals aren't alone as net zero sceptics — but the data doesn't lie

The strange macho appeal of fossilised vegetation means that 30 years of annual United Nations meetings to stop the planet heating any more have been a bust.

www.abc.net.au

It is in some ways. Kohler's implication of an intrinsic male commitment to burning coal is a little forced and makes it sounds like he is straying from cool, calm contention. But he hits the mark on the "net" part.

We just need to lower emissions. Look under the bonnet of any effort by an organisation to be carbon neutral by offsetting emissions and you'll find something else where the engine should be. It's magic. We just need to reduce emissions and then reduce emissions and when we're done there, reduce emissions some more.

 

[nut]

Every time the position comes before the policy, it's just that most times the position doesn't get announced well before the policy does. I'm not hopeful on the policy being full of detail once announced.

The detail on nuclear was "the government is going to pay for it, and they'll go in these places". The sites hadn't agreed because they wouldn't agree and would leak it if asked before agreement.

It is in some ways. Kohler's implication of an intrinsic male commitment to burning coal is a little forced and makes it sounds like he is straying from cool, calm contention. But he hits the mark on the "net" part.

We just need to lower emissions. Look under the bonnet of any effort by an organisation to be carbon neutral by offsetting emissions and you'll find something else where the engine should be. It's magic. We just need to reduce emissions and then reduce emissions and when we're done there, reduce emissions some more.

Yes individually we can all do our bit, asking governments or other countries to do it for us is not the answer.
By an EV charge during the day.. walk to work? Use public transport. Ride a bike.

The major problem is relying on governments.

 

[The Punter]

Yes individually we can all do our bit, asking governments or other countries to do it for us is not the answer.
By an EV charge during the day.. walk to work? Use public transport. Ride a bike.

The major problem is relying on governments.

To be clear, my post wasn't intended as an advocacy for individual action over government action. Clearly government action to reduce emissions is needed. It is also clear one side of politics now no longer see this sufficiently as a priority.

 

[nut]

To be clear, my post wasn't intended as an advocacy for individual action over government action. Clearly government action to reduce emissions is needed. It is also clear one side of politics now no longer see this sufficiently as a priority.

When have they ever?

 

[The Punter]

When have they ever?

On another thread in this forum there has been a discussion about incrementalism. Frydenburg's NEG was better on all fronts than what the party is offering now.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Like the nuclear policy this version of their energy policy is reliant on stuff that doesn't even exist yet. It's laughable.

Yeah but by putting all their eggs in the basket of technologies that don’t exist, they can present themselves as “forward-looking”!

 

[Chadwiko]

Holy shit

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

My biggest concern is we’ll see a greatly increased One Nation presence in parliament. Obviously not an actual opposition, but a cohort of nasties motivated solely by spite, who actually consider themselves competent human beings.

What seats though? The ways to pick up seats would seemingly be the way the Teals do it off the Liberals (relying on a token Labor campaign in those seats and then getting theirs and the Greens preferences - will never happen with One Nation), or the way the Greens do it (mainly) against the ALP and in inner city seats.

I feel like their only realistic prospects are in remaining Coalition strongholds and there they'd need a massive primary vote, because anyone left of the Libs/Nats will always preference ON last.

 

[nut]

On another thread in this forum there has been a discussion about incrementalism. Frydenburg's NEG was better on all fronts than what the party is offering now.

I think that’s what I’m asking… what are they offering?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Don't get me wrong, I give daily thanks to the almighty we don't have PM Peter Dutton, but Albo could do so much more. This really is a once in a century opportunity, but Albanese just isn't that guy.

I've knocked McGowan in WA for similarly showing a lack of progressive ambition when he was handed huge majorities, but even he did more with it than Albanese. Built several new train lines and made the electoral system fairer. I'm aware federal Labor doesn't have outright control of the upper house like WA Labor did, but there's still a lot of reform that the Greens and David Pocock would be willing to vote for, if only Labor had the ambition.