The Liberal Party - How long? - Part 2

[Demonic Ascent]

Buying the lies from Bush and Blair on Iraq doesn't cover Howard in glory.

Buying into the lies to be more precise.

 

[Saint]

I think what Punter means is that Howard wasnt a populist. He did a lot of awful things to pay for middle and upper class welfare.

It's similar to Trump really, except Trumps just upper class economic populism and racist populism for the lower classes.

 

[The Punter]

I think what Punter means is that Howard wasnt a populist. He did a lot of awful things to pay for middle and upper class welfare.

It's similar to Trump really, except Trumps just upper class economic populism and racist populism for the lower classes.

I'm happy to concede Howard was too much of a populist for many people's liking, including some on my side of the aisle.

But by today's standards, his was a busy government filled with significant reforms, many of them unpopular at the time.

 

[Saint]

I'm happy to concede Howard was too much of a populist for many people's liking, including some on my side of the aisle.

But by today's standards, his was a busy government filled with significant reforms, many of them unpopular at the time.

I agree that he did a lot (and I think most of it bad). But my biggest problem is that most of it was aimed at division. Everything had to be defined in a Manichaean Good and bad.

Unions are bad.
White Australians are good.
Foreigners are bad unless they became "Australian".
Boat people are all evil criminals.
Public Ownership is bad.
War is good if it's overseas against brown people.
Guns are bad at home.
Progressive taxes are bad.
Regressive taxes are good.

There wasn't ever a hint of balance or subtlety. I don't know if that's because of the method of delivery, but I suspect, based on his comments since being ousted, that he genuinely sees the world in this way, much like many of the religious zealots who have followed his lead.

 

[Vindicater]

one of the things i admire about gillard is that after leaving politics, she pretty much stfu. the mad monk, after being sent packing by his party, then his electorate, remains all over the media spouting his ill-informed, rejected drivel.

The way she was treated I think she is quite happy to just be done with it.

 

[Saint]

The way she was treated I think she is quite happy to just be done with it.

I think she never really believed in much (other than herself) and was just driven to have the top job, not to actually achieve anything when in that job. As evidenced by how she got the job.

 

[The Punter]

Saint

I mean, that's the rub, isn't it? It's the allegation of a mendacious motive to his actions that separates it from usual political criticism. And this sort of stuff is historically much more mainstream on the left side of the spectrum. The assertion is not that anyone on the right is merely incompetent or misguided: it's that we're morally deficient.

It's gotten worse on both sides recently: clearly MAGA Nation feels exactly the same way about Democrats now. But personally, it just pulls me towards intellectual retreat, because you can't compromise with someone who thinks you have a moral character flaw.

What would be the point of talking about the years of economic growth after the enacting of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 with someone who thought I only supported it because I wanted to hurt poor people? My default is not to think the worst of people.

 

[Saint]

Saint

I mean, that's the rub, isn't it? It's the allegation of a mendacious motive to his actions that separates it from usual political criticism. And this sort of stuff is historically much more mainstream on the left side of the spectrum. The assertion is not that anyone on the right is merely incompetent or misguided: it's that we're morally deficient.

It's gotten worse on both sides recently: clearly MAGA Nation feels exactly the same way about Democrats now. But personally, it just pulls me towards intellectual retreat, because you can't compromise with someone who thinks you have a moral character flaw.

What would be the point of talking about the years of economic growth after the enacting of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 with someone who thought I only supported it because I wanted to hurt poor people? My default is not to think the worst of people.

Didn't I also criticise Gillard for a character flaw as well?

I do assume the best of politicians (and anyone really), and the leaders they continue to elevate keep proving me wrong.

The people without serious character flaws that I could point to across the spectrum are David Pocock, Andrew Leigh, Darren Chester and Malcolm Turnbull.

I actually think the ALP are mostly more flawed than Liberals. But I do think anyone from the Liberal side of politics who has any talent is probably in a much better-paying job and would never become a politician, so we're really getting the dregs of the Conservative class. The ALP seems to be the smarter kids of progressive communities. (as a massive generalisation).

I do think most conservative politicians ( and an even greater % of their voters) do believe in Trickle-down economics or at least the moral flaws of progressivism. They're just too poorly educated to realise it's been proven wrong so many times.

 

[The Punter]

Didn't I also criticise Gillard for a character flaw as well?

I do assume the best of politicians (and anyone really), and the leaders they continue to elevate keep proving me wrong.

The people without serious character flaws that I could point to across the spectrum are David Pocock, Andrew Leigh, Darren Chester and Malcolm Turnbull.

I actually think the ALP are mostly more flawed than Liberals. But I do think anyone from the Liberal side of politics who has any talent is probably in a much better-paying job and would never become a politician, so we're really getting the dregs of the Conservative class. The ALP seems to be the smarter kids of progressive communities. (as a massive generalisation).

I do think most conservative politicians ( and an even greater % of their voters) do believe in Trickle-down economics or at least the moral flaws of progressivism. They're just too poorly educated to realise it's been proven wrong so many times.

We're hitting all the classics, aren't we? Too poorly educated... drink!

Three current MPs out of 226 and one former MP. There's little reason to conclude only 2% of elected officials are without serious character flaws and then think that most people in the community don't have serious character flaws.

But then again, I have issue with thinking people are fundamentally different because their job is different to mine or they don't agree with me.

 

[Saint]

We're hitting all the classics, aren't we? Too poorly educated... drink!

Three current MPs out of 226 and one former MP. There's little reason to conclude only 2% of elected officials are without serious character flaws and then think that most people in the community don't have serious character flaws.

But then again, I have issue with thinking people are fundamentally different because their job is different to mine or they don't agree with me.

That's more like out of people who have enough of a profile who I have heard enough to have formed an opinion. Which is definitely not all 226.

There's no other reason for anyone to believe in trickle down economics any more. They're either lying (they don't actually think it works) or they're stupid.

 

[Proper Gander]

I think she never really believed in much (other than herself) and was just driven to have the top job, not to actually achieve anything when in that job. As evidenced by how she got the job.

I personally think that’s not the case. Gillard government pushed more legislation through than any govt. prior and did it in a minority government. Commitment to establishment of the NDIS was real and felt, as was the Royal Commission into Institutional Child Abuse. That’s only a few examples of policy and legislative reforms.

Doubts people seem to have about her passion for policy reform stemmed l suspect because of the manner in which she arrived in the position and the ridiculous and viscous distraction campaigns levelled at her for the most base reasons by the most repulsive people. These things seem to have lingered in people’s memories with political achievements entirely pushed aside.

 

[The Punter]

I personally think that’s not the case. Gillard government pushed more legislation through than any govt. prior and did it in a minority government. Commitment to establishment of the NDIS was real and felt, as was the Royal Commission into Institutional Child Abuse. That’s only a few examples of policy and legislative reforms.

Doubts people seem to have about her passion for policy reform stemmed l suspect because of the manner in which she arrived in the position and the ridiculous and viscous distraction campaigns levelled at her for the most base reasons by the most repulsive people. These things seem to have lingered in people’s memories with political achievements entirely pushed aside.

I'm of the view that the Gillard Government was more consequential and achieved more than its predecessor, and if I'm being honest, probably its immediate successor. The most reform from 2013-2022 took place under Turnbull, it's just that Turnbull has turned his back (and to a large extent vice versa) on those who would defend his legacy.

The three Rudd years were more about their responses to crises, and in this regard, they most closely resemble the Morrison Government.

 

[Proper Gander]

I'm of the view that the Gillard Government was more consequential and achieved more than its predecessor, and if I'm being honest, probably its immediate successor. The most reform from 2013-2022 took place under Turnbull, it's just that Turnbull has turned his back (and to a large extent vice versa) on those who would defend his legacy.

The three Rudd years were more about their responses to crises, and in this regard, they most closely resemble the Morrison Government.

I agree with this more or less. I feel as though history might look more kindly on the Gillard government in time, once the outside circus of the time is less fresh in minds. I do think it was a high achieving government working in very challenging circumstances. People might disagree with some of the policies, but they were there. As for the Prime Minister herself she was a very hard-working and talented politician - I don’t think she ever needed to look at a QTB twice. There were any number of distractions at the time though and a very cruel media.

It’s weird. At the time I wondered how the hell political and social issue discussion had reached such a low point, but we and any number of countries have burrowed a lot further down since.

 

[The Punter]

I agree with this more or less. I feel as though history might look more kindly on the Gillard government in time, once the outside circus of the time is less fresh in minds. I do think it was a high achieving government working in very challenging circumstances. People might disagree with some of the policies, but they were there. As for the Prime Minister herself she was a very hard-working and talented politician - I don’t think she ever needed to look at a QTB twice. There were any number of distractions at the time though and a very cruel media.

It’s weird. At the time I wondered how the hell political and social issue discussion had reached such a low point, but we and any number of countries have burrowed a lot further down since.

They were plagued (and some of it was an inability to deal with the newly minted 24 hour media cycle) by a complete inability to avoid political mistakes.

They got a whole bunch of legislation through a most-difficult parliament, but couldn't go two minutes without doing something that cost them politically. The media was the way it always it when it senses political weakness.

 

[Gavin Excell]

I'm happy to concede Howard was too much of a populist for many people's liking, including some on my side of the aisle.

But by today's standards, his was a busy government filled with significant reforms, many of them unpopular at the time.

Yes agree
More modern governments major goal just seems to be to stay in power. The legacy is pretty barren

 

[Spirit Level]

All the Liberal party needs is to move back to being centre-right (without all the Christian BS), have a robust immigration policy and have a plan to roll back some of the over-engineered social stuff.

Is that so hard?

 

[Saint]

All the Liberal party need to is move back to being centre-right (without all the Christian BS), have a robust immigration policy and have a plan to roll back some of the over-engineered social stuff.

Is that so hard?

Explain "Roll back some of the over-engineered social stuff"?

I don't think Albanese has done anything social, what exactly is over-engineered in the social realm?

Gillard came to power shooting down the PRRT, the watering down of which has cost the Australian public a couple of Robodebts a month for a decade. The NDIS ball started rolling under Rudd after the 2020 summit. Gillard did pass more legislation, but hung parliaments always do because both sides are supposed to stick to the deals they make. Though Gillard stiffed Nick Xenophon and Andrew Wilkie (two who I don't think had character flaws) on pokies reform.

Essentially, Gillard was happy to roll over on anything to retain power and support of well-funded lobby groups.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

Explain "Roll back some of the over-engineered social stuff"?

I don't think Albanese has done anything social, what exactly is over-engineered in the social realm?

The failed referendum was about all I can think of, but no need to roll back something that never happened.

 

[Proper Gander]

They were plagued (and some of it was an inability to deal with the newly minted 24 hour media cycle) by a complete inability to avoid political mistakes.

They got a whole bunch of legislation through a most-difficult parliament, but couldn't go two minutes without doing something that cost them politically. The media was the way it always it when it senses political weakness.

Labor under Rudd and Gillard was naive and too young.

I don’t think people are always aware just how much of the political manoeuvring is orchestrated by advisors. And they do virtually all ongoing management of their portfolio responsibilities other than hold the pen to sign the brief. And almost all ministerial advisors are very young. Makes sense really as they are working upwards through the ranks to meet their own political ambitions. They fight as much and more with each other as competitors than any other tasks. None had been in Government before, in fact most I worked with wouldn’t have had a drivers license when Labor was in power prior - some not even close. Coming in with a mandate on a landslide didn’t do a lot for the humility of 24-5 YO types who thought they were invincible and none had the background of learning from errors of the past. Your CoS will always be older and more credentialed, but still all were brand new to the particular role.

At least in Canberra at the time, a lot of the Public Service grew to cheerfully loathe Rudd from quite early days which was a surprise given the vast majority would have voted that Government in - but the culture and arrogance made work between departments and MO way too tense, with advisors often openly contemptuous of the public sector without a clue about how much damage they might do their achieving their own goals. The Gillard MO managed to work with their department better than most - though was still made difficult with the creation of a stupidly large portfolio and “super department” which was dreamt up for no reason other than creating a suitably impressive scope of command for a DPM with a significant media profile.

Having said that, I have respect for many of the the political achievements, particularly late with the government hanging by a thread, but these were not easy people to work with always.

 

[The Punter]

Explain "Roll back some of the over-engineered social stuff"?

I don't think Albanese has done anything social, what exactly is over-engineered in the social realm?

Gillard came to power shooting down the PRRT, the watering down of which has cost the Australian public a couple of Robodebts a month for a decade. The NDIS ball started rolling under Rudd after the 2020 summit. Gillard did pass more legislation, but hung parliaments always do because both sides are supposed to stick to the deals they make. Though Gillard stiffed Nick Xenophon and Andrew Wilkie (two who I don't think had character flaws) on pokies reform.

Essentially, Gillard was happy to roll over on anything to retain power and support of well-funded lobby groups.

Xenophon had a seven year relationship with a subordinate while a parliamentarian. I've clearly indicated I don't see this as a character flaw but others might.

 

[Spirit Level]

Explain "Roll back some of the over-engineered social stuff"?

I don't think Albanese has done anything social, what exactly is over-engineered in the social realm?

Using airlines as an example, encouraging companies to have their anglo employees (ie flight attendants) perform welcome to countries for one, means absolutely nothing and is actually quite offensive to some first nations people after having had conversations with a few at work.

First nations elders performing them? Yeah that makes sense and has meaning.

22 year old Sasha reading words that mean nothing to her from a script? ****en stupid

 

[Proper Gander]

The media was the way it always it when it senses political weakness.

Well, quite.

But it wasn’t the media that coined the phrase “ditch the witch”, nor the media that introduced the bizarre thought-line that there was something wrong with the PM for being a “childless woman” and so on.

That was reprehensible and entirely outside the scope of criticising political errors and was generated and led by some extremely unpleasant individuals in opposition. It was shameful and still makes me ashamed today

 

[Proper Gander]

I’ve now forgotten what the hell thread I’m in.

Liberal party? Yeah they are crap and look to broken for repair at this point.

 

[schneebly111]

Using airlines as an example, encouraging companies to have their anglo employees (ie flight attendants) perform welcome to countries for one, means absolutely nothing and is actually quite offensive to some first nations people after having had conversations with a few at work.

It’s an “Acknowledgement of Country”, not a Welcome.