That you feel able to blithely dismiss content in Scientific American as ‘typical left-wing’ gives you no credibility whatsoever to contribute to a discussion concerning education.
Strangely enough no matter how hard I try I can’t find any dismissal of any source in my comment in this thread. lets check , here is what I said again :
One persons shoestring is actually a bloody big anchor rope to another person of lesser means.
Yep that’s right no mention of a citation at all…
Good luck sniffing out those ‘cultural marxists’…
Thankfully the sort of willful blindness you exhibit is not contagious.
Did you miss the bit about ‘shoestring budget’? Depending on her parent’s skills etc there is potentially plenty of work available which, while not at all well-paid (e.g. ESL teaching, service sector) provides enough for a very modest life of living abroad. Being wealthy is not required.
One persons shoestring is actually a bloody big anchor rope to another person of lesser means.
I would suggest that there are doctors in the area of womens health who are well and truly aware of the existance of terrorists in the christian community. I would also suggest utilising google before making such bold assertions.
You could probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of christian anti abortionists willing to kill for their beliefs which is utterly infinitesimally small compared to the number of Muslims willing to kill in the name of Allah. There fore yours is a totally false comparison, And I don’t need to use google to make my argument thank you very much.
Why is a reformation such a good idea? The Reformation in Europe led to the Thirty Years’ War.
But after that war the result was a a christian faith that was more able to cope with social and technological change. Islam needs reform so that it can accept the concept that women are fully human beings and that the individual has an inalienable right to believe or not according to their conscience and most importantly it needs reform because it is totally unacceptable to kill in the name of its god.
‘most pointedly’? Are you serious?
completely serious. as I always am here
How is my exposure to your ‘citations’ more germane than the material I offered to you concerning the cultish misnomer of ‘cultural marxism’?
Your citations are both typical left-wing pieces asserting the same argument that Wilson makes and like you they are big on the ad hominem argument. Taht said I realize now that the Sargon vid I linked you too was just a short promo for a ,much longer one were he interviewed a young journalist involved with the infamous behavior of Melissa Glick.This one gives a better picture of the point I was trying to enunciate
Of course I watched the pieces. That’s precisely why I said I felt dirty. It’s hard to sit through such a garbled mish-mash of half-truth, speculation, partly-understood, context-less, at times barely coherent, self-aggrandizing which, as the Scientific American source I provided to you notes, clearly are inclined to ‘reject all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seek only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth’. There are thinkers on the right I disagree with who are nonetheless worth listening to for a range of reasons. I am a regular reader of The Economist, for instance, which adopts a generally conservative line (particularly on international finance). But those guys? They are utterly remote from any notion of serious sources of credible information or analysis. I hope I never cross their paths again.
I simply don’t believe you actually watched either vid which is why you launch into more character assassination rather than addressing any of the content
I don’t like to accuse anyone I hardly know as being deceitful, but it is difficult to credit your claim that you read ‘far more writers of the left than I do of the right’ if you are willing to describe CB as ‘center left’.
I have been watching his vids for quite some time and its VERY clear that he is what he claims to be , namely an old fashioned small l liberal.
The man is a near-irrational opponent of feminism, just to begin with.
I bet that you think that any one who questions any aspect of contemporary feminism is ” near-irrational” would that be a fair understanding of your position? Because Feminism like any ideology needs to be properly critiqued and questioned rather than just cringingly accepted the way so many men of the left accept it
But perhaps, as with your embrace of the notion that ‘cultural marxism’ is an illuminating concept (did you read the Southern Poverty Law Center piece?) your idea of a ‘left writer’ is somewhat removed from reality.
You see i don’t think that Cultural Marxism explains the entireity of the modern far left, its clearly part of it but much of it stems form the fact that the habit of activism is sadly as addictive as heroin or Crystal meth and that once some cause has been achieved its proponents seek some new social woe to conquer and there in lays the problem because those former radicals now cozily tucked up inside our universities teaching want to relive their glory days of student activism even though their current causes are well, self indulgent bullshit. Its the reason that we on the right are so dismissive of the modern SJWs (like yourself?) they simply don’t seem to realize that they are trampling on the hard fought basic rights of our citizens and trying to institute some truly regressive social changes that diminish us all.
Most pointedly you ignore my question about what exposure you have had to the gentlemen I offered as citations so does that mean I am right that you’ve not watched any of their stuff? I suspect that you are variate like Wilson who bases his opinions on the usual far left critics of Their output rather than listening to what they say and responding to it. As it happens Sargon (real name Carl Benjamin , which is no secret) is one of you classical small l liberals and is a more to the center left and frankly he just has a soft left sort of political output not that you would think so from the way you reacted in horror and the mention of his pseudonym.
I have read widely and I continue to do so and in fact I read far more writers of the left than I do of the right.
So once again I ask you did you watch the pieces I cited or not?
Oh my lord – sargon of akkad and Rocking MrE are your social and political analysts of choice? This is how you think the world works? This is your idea of “well-argued”!?
Yes both gents do a good job at putting a calm and reasoned argument, far better than Jason Wilson any day of the week
My god. Iain.
Iam just a man not a deity
I feel kinda dirty being dragged into the murky nether-realms of patreon-milking internet reaction, but at the same time it’s so illuminating. Such terrifying evidence of the potential echo-chamber effect of the internet, narrowing rather than expanding the range of ideas people are open to considering, slowly swirling so many into an abyss of partisanship and ignorance. Seriously unnerving stuff.
So all you can say in response is an ad hominiem?
Congrats to you for still having a look at the Guardian from time to time; I hope not simply to feed your dismay at all the ‘cultural marxists’ everywhere eroding the foundations of western civilization.
I have always been a political omnivore in my reading, you should try it
Here’s a small thing to consider sometime, if you will — a tiny thread of rationality. Pull it whenever; you may find certain assumptions slowly unravel. Here it is, look:
some of the most trenchant critics of postmodernism are Marxists.
Which is relevant how precisely?
The commentators you seem to favour routinely include postmodernity (and philosophical relativism, not quite the same thing) in the ‘cultural marxist’ rubric.
Says who? because that is not what I hear from either gent.but somehow I doubt that you have even watched their stuff and taht instead taht you are relying on secondhand criticisms.
In reality, Marxism is an expression of the Enlightenment tradition (not the only one of course). Postmodernists seek a radical break with this tradition.
Postmodernity and Marxism is at odds, not part of the same project. See e.g. the writings of Jurgen Habermas or Fredric Jameson.
And how precisely does that counter the concept of cultural marxism?
You need to be real about this Iain. Read. Think. Reason. Don’t just absorb rants.
For example, Herbert Marcuse (of Frankfurt School fame) was teaching at Colombia and Harvard in the 1950s my friend. And you’re suggesting that students ‘indoctrinated’ by cultural marxism are yet to come of age? In academic terms we are talking about some three generations of scholars between then and now. What’s been happening in the meantime?
It takes time for any ideology to reach critical mass and that is precisely what has happened with cultural Marxism its only now since the collapse of Communism that we have seen the rise of cultural Marxism and it began with indoctrinating the educators and now we are seeing it at a retail level.
Turn your attention to the history of the New Left in 60s – so much more was going on than Marxism, whether Orthodox or Cultural. Then look at the rise of the New Right and Neo-Liberalism. Get beyond the lazy distortions and misunderstanding.
O.K. Iain_Hall, I’ll take the bait and reply on one point only.
Ah, I must have used the correct bait says he as he caresses the online fishing rod…
If you found Rudd objectionable enough to stop voting for the ALP, how can you presently vote for the Coalition after Abbott (whom you have previously defended) and Turnbull (who has completely abandoned his previous convictions)?
You make a number of mistaken assumptions here because I have not enunciated why found Rudd so offensive that I gave up a life time of voting for the ALP. There were two issues in play here. Firstly Climate change and secondly Asylum seekers/uninvited immigrants. The former was simply oversold and over hyped and as a skeptic I simply found Rudd’s posturing ridiculousness incarnate. And the second just showed what a detached from reality political player Rudd was. I predicted the flood of boats that followed Rudd’s ill fated decision to ease border security and when it was clear I knew that abandoning Labor as a voting option was the right thing to do. For all of their faults the LNP is very much a lesser evil.
Like you, I have changed my vote over the years, but in the coming election I will place the Coalition last, because it has been a shambolic government, worse than Rudd’s, and it doesn’t deserve a second term.
they certainly have made a few minor mistakes but on the big things they have been pretty good and that is why I will vote for them despite personally preferring Abbott. A labor government would simply not be good for the country.
Wilson’s not defending it — he’s suggesting it’s a chimera, a conspiratorial fantasy; right wing blather.
Well he would say that because he is as I pointed out one of those involved in propagating it. I have known Jason since before he began writing for the Guardian BTW.
If you think he’s ‘totally wrong’ you could at least suggest where and why.
You only have to look at recent activists own goals and protest activities Like this one and their hierarchies of victim hood, safe spaces, trigger warnings and other such nonsense.
The whole story is transparently barmy. If humanities faculties are really geared to brainwashing students into accepting the postulates of far-left ideology, the composition of western parliaments and presidencies and the roaring success of corporate capitalism suggests they’re doing an astoundingly bad job. Anyone who takes a cool look at the last three decades of politics will think it bizarre that anyone could interpret what’s happened as the triumph of an all-powerful left.
This is Jason being rather disingenuous here because the generation of students thus indoctrinated are only now getting to an age when they might be getting into positions of power, The notable example of one getting into a significant office that comes to my mind is Justin Trudeau, who seems to have made a big deal about deciding who would be in his cabinet based on the contents of their underpants rather than because of any ability they may have
Indeed , witness the monotonous lock-step of government policy and neo-liberal economics over decades. So lighten up my friend, remove the tinfoil hat and look about you — even if such a thing (whatever it would actually look like) did exist, its patently failed.
No its only just now that cultural Marxism is on the rise and that is why you can’t see it’s effect
The present system is workable only for the elite, in that it transfers wealth from the “Commonwealth” to corporations and wealthy individuals.
No I don’t agree at all because it is the motivated individuals and corporations who create wealth that is then a benefit to all.
It is bad for the “Duncans” (re. Q&A last night) in our society and the inequality is growing by the day.
I missed QandA so I’ll take that on advisement
And no, I don’t advocate communism or socialism, but a more equitable system such as exists in some countries (e.g. Norway and Switzerland); I just don’t think that today’s economic neoliberalism, as practised in Australia by the two main political parties, is good for the vast majority of its citizens.
Yet the majority of bour citizens are living good and productive lives, we have low unemployment and a high level of personal consumption. Heck even the unemployed can live well enough on the dole if they are frugal
The ALP at least does try to give the battlers an education, a health system and some social welfare, whereas the Coalition, influenced by the likes of the IPA, intends to take everything away from them and give it to the affluent.
The ALP make a pretense of caring but they really have the same tendency to try to contain the costs of their apparent compassion as the LNP does.
As for the Greens, they seem to care for the unfortunate in theory, but they don’t always follow that in practice.
You, Iain_Hall, from your general comments, seem to be a Coalition man through and through (or a shill, but I give you the benefit of the doubt), so it is pointless to discuss anything further.
i have actually voted Labor more often than I have voted LNP and it was not until the rise of Rudd that I decided that I could no longer follow my family tradition of voting for the ALP
Oh now you’re speaking on behalf of mankind? The arrogance is astounding.
I’m actually a humble bloke who values humility. None the less I do have some understanding about our shared human nature
Significant global concerns (that actually impact us all) may not be in ‘your nature’ Hall.
Contemporary news media certainly allows us to see what is happening all around the world but that does not oblige us to care about what happens in communities other than our own and frankly trying to do so can be very bad for your mental health.
But many of us actually give a damn about the state of the earth, future generations, and about those less fortunate than ourselves.
We each only have a certain amount of care and compassion to give my friend, that is the way we are made.
Yet again Hall exposes the ugly side of the White, middle aged, Australian, heterosexual male (someone who has never had to question his slot in society) and his broad apathy for the plight of others. Shameless.
Its pointless having much care or compassion about things we can not change and people we can not save which is not “apathy” its realism and we think like that not because we are in any sense bad but because we are human.
Benny Hill once said if you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME.
I am making predictions not sharing assumptions
You’d do well to heed his advice. Nowhere did I suggest the Greens. More myopia from the infamous Iain Hall.
You were denouncing both the ALP and the LNP which leave s the Loony Greens as the next cab on the rank. But if I’m wrong to think you meant the Greens then please tell who else do you imagine in power if you have eliminated both the LNP and the ALP?
The Greens would be an utter disaster if they got into power in their own right, we would have open borders for a start and the sort of people flows they have seen in Germany, we would have open slather on narcotic drugs, constant blackouts because they would close down coal fired power. Petrol would be $10 per litre and we would all be forced to become vegetarians.
We dislike change for a very simple reason , so much of it has not been, as promised , beneficial to the majority of us. Remember when Rudd changed the border protection policies? He promised us that this would have no negative consequences, well 50k uninvited “asylum seekers” later and billions of dollars to support them and we still have a residue on Manus and Nauru. Nah give us some “steady as she goes”for a couple of terms at least before we change anything else thank you very much.
Actually the Australian people crave predictability and rest form the constant change that seems to be pursued by the politicla class all of the time. We don’t need teh wheel reinvented every three years what we need is stability, which we won’t get under Shorten
1. Replace all territory, state and federal governments with a single national government, preferably with an elected head of state. This would result in savings and eliminate the excuse of who is responsible for what service.
No it would cost a motza to do and result in no real savings (they tried it with council; amalgamations up here and it was a disaster. If there was to any change you have to realize that you need at least two levels of government, local and national.
2. Replace the existing electoral system with one of proportional representation. This would eliminate the two-party system and give all parties who elect representatives a voice in parliament.
NO NO NO !!!!!! just look at the countries that have PR and see how unstable they are. You would end up with an eternal hung Parliament situation where factional deals benefit those with a balance of power
3. Any important issues should be put directly to the people to decide by referendum, rather than be left at the hands of politicians, a lot of whom often represent vested interests.
As much as I support the proposed plebiscite putting too many things to referendum can be a disaster as we have seen in some places that do this kind of thing
The present system is inequitable, wasteful and tends to favour the elite. It is not a true democratic system, despite being touted as such.
ou mean those “pointless” changes like no-fault divorce,
Being able to divorce as easily as we can marry does have virtue but to imply that the whole family court edifice is perfect when its very deeply flawed is silly
Likewise a far from perfect system open to abuse form activists
rights for Indigenous peoples and,
if those rights exceed the rights of all other Australians is it really such an improvement?
later, the floating of the Australian dollar.
I’ll give you that one
Yeah, pointless if you’re a white, privileged male.
You were doing so well until you decided to take up the line of the cultural Marxists
Every 20 something I know cares and most are more aware and care more about the future than the middle aged people I know.
Maybe they just know that you are a politics junkie and respond accordingly
Maybe it’s the circles you & I move in that gives us our different views. Or, maybe its your personal bias that gives you the dismissive view of youth that you posted.
I think that you will find its only a small percentile of that demographic that care about politics at all.
The ones NOW, who have done their best at school, now in the workforce, never had a pay rise in 5 years, AND WHO WILL NEVER.EVER. be able to afford a home of their own, because of a tax system, designed to make the rich richer, with negative gearing that enables those with 5-10-20 houses, to buy even more, and THEIR taxes help them to do just this. These people make bank robbers look
I don’t believe that a young person won’t ever be able to buy a house, however they will have to actually work hard, save their money and aspire to a modest house just like by nephew who has just taken possession of a smart town house. He worked two jobs and made it happen, just like anyone else can. But so many instead dive right into the consumerist treadmill and very expensive debt to do so.
Tell me what Gen Y of sound mind would vote for a PM on $500,000 p.a base pay, who wants to pay them $4 an hour whilst removing their job opportunities and skills base offshore.
Most would just dream of emulating Turnbulls income
(Holden, Ford, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Telstra, IT, defence contracts, climate science industries, and thats before we even look at the TPA provisions of moving jobs and skills off shore.
And its you socialists who are to blame for that because you have driven up our pay rates to a level that makes our manufacturing noncompetitive
That sounds to me like a politician who doesn’t have any faith in Australia’s economy, the economy their “team” is responsible for managing. We know this because his own immense wealth, reportedly hundreds of millions, is invested off-shore to avoid local tax laws.
I sense great envy in you that someone else can be a success in their life
Actions speak louder than words even when those words carry as little weight as a politicians promise.
Hmm…. have you looked at Shorten lately????
Young Australians care about the Future and there is No Future in the Coalition.
That is utterly wrong, its just that the Coalition encourages people to make their own future while Labor wants to spoon feed everyone a sort of rehashed ersatz socialist future.
The one’s who have parents that teach and educate them to be politically engaged because it effects their lives.
You don’t have children do you? because if you did have you might realize that its not so easy to make them into copies of yourself politically.
The ones who vote, of course And they all do, because voting is compulsory in Australia.
So most see it as a chore or an inconvenience, assuming that they have actually bothered to register to vote
Besides they are more intelligent than you realise and don’t see the value in getting paid $4 an hour
But its not “$4 per hour” in reality bis it? its money on top of their dole which has to be a step up if you have been trying to get by on that pittance
And they wonder why their uni fees are going to triple, locking them into exorbitant loans and out of the housing market for decades to come.
The smart ones will probably avoid going to uni altogether and get into building themselves a career or business, instead of doing a useless “social justice” course.
The reality on education that you will never see labor admit is that its not more money that we need in our schools its a change in the teaching culture to eschew the cultural Marxism with all of its “politically correct” baggage and to focus on actually teaching our children the core skills with a far greater thoroughness than we see now.
No. They did it by cutting taxes and increasing spending. See your own post on this.
Had they not cut the taxes (on Carbon and mining )that they campaigned on abolishing would you be complaining that they failed to keep their promises?
It’s simple. Otherwise they use it to pay down existing debt or keep it in the form of improved profits.
Much to the chagrin of business ordinary consumers do that too
Making sure people have money to spend is the best way to promote business growth and the coalition’s wage policies are exactly not that. Hence this is a reason for my opinion on the coalition’s lack of economic nous.
Less profits that have to go in tax means that businesses can employ more Labour
Actually, the Reserve Bank just agreed with me. Did you see the report? They said that any policy to reduce leverage (i.e. negative gearing, capital gains) would be a good idea. Our economy is too tied up in housing and not in productive growth. Even ScoMo said this last week.Not sure where marxism comes into this.
Growth is not where our economic future lays because nothing can grow forever
That will have a massive negative effect on growth – you are aware of that? Much more than removing negative gearing.
We have enough people here already and NOTHING will deflate the houseing bubble more than reducing population growth.
Actually, the cost of producing alternative energy is now well below the replacement cost of a conventional coal-fired or nuclear powered generator, particularly when you factor in the forward estimates and environmental costs/hidden subsidies.
Which totally ignores my point about not being able to store/export energy
Yup. The national security implications of our loss of production capacity were not even a factor, were they?
No of course not because logistics tells us we don’t have to worry about being invaded
Well I don’t think think religious instruction belongs in schools.
Nor does cultural Marxism but its utterly entrenched and arguably more pernicious than any iteration Christianity
You want your kids to be indoctrinated?
All education is to a greater or lesser extent indoctrination
The state shouldn’t be paying for it. Nor should it be paying for a separate referendum on marriage equality – if it needed to be done as you say (and I don’t agree), then it could have been added to the existing election for a fraction of the cost.
Maybe it would have saved a few quid BUT it would have made that what the election would have been about.
A tiller is a steering device for a boat. A tiler is someone who fixes roofs.
“doubled the deficit,
Due to the residue of Labor policies
have no clear economic policy direction,
that is just your opinion
not understanding that cutting taxes doesn’t result in economic and employment growth,
To be frank I disagree with you here and I also think that the effect of said tax cuts has such a strongly positive effect either. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
sending money to the rich where they will waste it in property speculation over jobs-related investment,
That is just marxist nonsense
failing to understand that the housing bubble is currently the biggest threat to our economy and that the heat needs to be taken out of the market,
My solution to housing problem is simple slash immigration and encourage people to live outside of the big three cities.
failed to adequately invest in alternative energy and undermining research just as the rest of the world was putting its foot on the pedal,
Lets be real without costly subsides there would be no “alternative energy” and frankly I don’t see how we can exploit such tech anyway, we have no ability to make the tech and no ability to store and market collected energy. Maybe in a hydrogen economy that might be possible but hydrogen is hard to store/export
only having one policy (dropping the fringe benefits tax) to save the car industry despite its massive flow on benefits to the economy and importance for national security but letting it all fall apart anyway,
The unit cost of cars has fallen so much and the expectations of sophistication has gone up so much that we simply can not compete as a manufacturer with our high wages. The fall of car manufacturing has been coming for decades and it sadly has happened now but it was unavoidable
wasting massive amounts of taxpayer cash on school chaplains
I disagree that this is a waste of money
, marriage equality referendums,
Its the only way to solve this issue
early elections, and pork projects…” um… anything else?*
An election in June when its due in September is hardly that early
Apart from those few things, they have a fairly firm hand on the tiller (not sure who the ’tiler’ was).
Its a steering device for a boat
But at what cost to suffering individuals.
Who precisely are you refereeing to here?
No party in this country is anti the environment
…and their economic record?….really????
Given the mess that they inhered from Labor they are doing OK
despite my unabashed favoring of the current team I do recognize that its all really a game and that no matter what the fanbois here for the other side may say to the contrary the current team have done more that is right than they have done wrong, their fumbles have not been on big things like Rudd’s monumental error in his dismantlement of the pacific solution in 08 or Gillard’s disastrous Carbon tax in 2011. The basic plot of the current soapie just works better for most of the viewers
Iain, thanks. I know you just come here to troll, but you have provided so many people with an opportunity to lost up all the reasons why the LNP doesn’t deserve reelection. So, credit where credit is due, I say.
Yes so many here are lost…
As you must appreciate its the journey as much as the destination and for every one on your team who mouths off against the current incumbents I get a chance to give a good comeback ;o)
Ian, explain how the LNP have not been a disaster in this term….government has been moribound.
They stopped the boats
they abolished the carbon tax
they abolished the mining tax
reduced the numbers in immigration detention
they have been a steady hand on the economic tiler
Ian if your claim is that the LNP are awful because they can not convince the senate to agree with them it only proves the point. They are trying to bring home policies they can’t sell because they are awful! This DD is proof of just that. There is no honour in being a lousy salesman and if you seriously don’t think the last 3 years has been a full on soap opera for the LNP then you aren’t watching!
Totally disagree with all you say here
There is an easy comparison between Libs and Labor for this election.
Libs took office and in less than 3 years have had 2 leaders. Shorten commenced as leader of Labor just after the last election and is still the leader.
That means nothing once you consider how Rudd changed the rules in the ALP
Abbott is still in the wings, hopeful. Turnbull is hanging on by a thread to hold his leadership. And Morrison is waiting in the background ready to make his move.
Wrong, Abbott accepts that his time has come and gone, Morriosn may well be a future PM but he is more than happy where he is now
Even if Libs get into office again, who will lead the party for the 3 year term???
Damned by faint praise Iain. Is that really the best your sorry mob can do? ” vote for us because the others are too risky” sounds pathetic because it is pathetic. The LNP have shown they are divided, out of touch, bereft of policy ideas and increasingly talking like parrots JOBS N GROWTH JOBS N GROWTH JOBS N GROWTH PIECES OF EIGHT
The Labor party are a party who are tron between the far left and its unrepentant cultural Marxism (hence their embrace of the gay marriage issue) and the troglodytes in the union movement its not a good place for any party to be and it shows in their rather pathetic invocation of “class warfare”
The election campaign will inevitably remind the voters just how bad the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd experience was and the part the Bill Shorten played in that soap opera and that will turn around the doubters
Which doesn’t come close to explaining your claim that ” most of us are so over Labor ineptitude.”
I wasn’t trying to explain that claim I was countering your point about recent polling is a good predictor of the result
Present tense v future tense. What you claimed as fact you have now admitted was a prediction.
You are not even close to being right
Iain, Direct action. How many billions wasted paying big polluters to undertake projects they were doing anyway? How many billions channeled to ineffective projects by LNP party donors?This is just ONE coalition policy where they have wasted taxpayer money on a massive scale. Doing nothing would have been better.
I’m pretty sure that I have pointed out that I’m no fan of the direct action policies frankly I say we should spend zero dollars on mitigating climate change because then we will have more resources to spend on adaptation if and when we need to adapt to a changed climate.
The current LNP government is the most shameless, deceitful and inept government in my lifetime. They need to spend ten years in the political wilderness rediscovering their own principles.
That is just your confirmation bias in overdrive They are a steady hand on the tiler, who are hardheaded enough to do what was necessary on border control and they are simply better economic managers than Labor can ever be because Labor just won’t stop over-promising and then under-delivering.
Gillard got a hell of a lot more legislation passed in a hung parliament than either Abbott or Turnbull have managed with a majority in both houses. So who is inept?
Yeah sure she managed to pass some bills by selling her sould to those with the balance of power and the current government had to repeal her big ticket items as the first order of business because they were so crappy
People earning less than $80K, the majority, work just as hard as people earning over $80K. The LNP only ensures that the disparity in wage growth continues to grow ever wider.
Those earning less than 80k don’t actually pay that much tax, and they are still enjoying the very large benefit of the rise of the tax free threshold to 18k as well as a host of other benefits. No one’s wages are going up at present unless you can prove that you are worth it.
It appears to me that you are happy with the extreme right opera in the coalition.
The coalition are not in any sense taht matters “extreme right” they are at best center right
Perhaps you are happy to support Andrews, Abetz etc which are really dangerous for Australia.
They are not at the helm of the party or the government
Give me any time the ALP (which it is not my first preference ) before the coalition.
Ok you are clearly a rusted on Green aren’t you? then your vote will not decide the election because that will be those who swing who make the difference over those attached with iron oxide.
You were clearly a big fan of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd soap opera but most of us are so over Labor ineptitude.
Given the polls of late, your statement is just wrong. Labor is slightly ahead and at least line ball.
The election campaign will inevitably remind the voters just how bad the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd experience was and the part the Bill Shorten played in that soap opera and that will turn around the doubters
Rudd or Gillard are not running for government, nor are they involved in Australian politics at the federal level so your point is moot.
No almost all of the current Labor luminaries are from the alumni of the last disastrous Rudd/Gillard/Rudd experience. Its not the stars of teh soapie who are significanbt here its the showrunners and they are the same people who bought us serries one, two and two point two.
The shambolic IPA led Liberal party has presented enough evidence of ineptitude to last a life time.
On the contrary although the LNP have not been perfect their missteps have been very minor and nothing like the whoppers Labor gave us like the carbon tax and endless boats.
Bit the Libbies are so staggeringly inept. And they lie. And lie. And lie.
The Libbies are only interested in the wealthy and large companies.
No they are simply more interested people having the opportunities to thrive than the state trying to mandate an outcome
They don’t care about ordinary people.
They do actually but they also want to stay out of their lives as much as possible
The want to eviscerate Medicare,
Making it sustainable in the longer term is not eviscerating Medicare
they want to increase subsidies to private schools,
There was none of that in the budget.
they want to cut the minimum wage,
There was none of that in the budget.
they want to up GST.
There was none of that in the budget.
Under their rule, the deficit and the debt have exploded.
Thanks to an intransigent senate
They most definitely do not deserve to win.
According to you, but I expect that the voters will think otherwise.
It’s very difficult to see what point you are trying to make. Climate change due to CO2 emissions is an extremely serious problem. Nobody who isn’t an idiot or a liar would argue otherwise at this point.
Its not that hard to appreciate that as the AGW proposition claims to be a global level problem that NOTHING done here, up to and including shutting down our entire economy will make the slightest bit of difference, except to utterly impoverish our entire nation
Are you saying we should do nothing?
Pretty well if all of the “somethings” will make no difference
Just sit there and dismiss everybody who ever used fossil fuels for anything as a hypocrite?
If they are protesting against “climate change” then expecting them to walk the walk is not unreasonable.
What’s the point of that?
True believers should live what they preach or admit their hypocrisy
What does it achieve?
Nobody doubts that the transition would be difficult.
No its politically and technically impossible
This is essentially the same pathetic distracting tactic as the argument that dismissed Occupy protesters because they bought coffee and owned tents.
Its was valid then and its valid now.
It is strange how little inventive people are. Burning rocks seems to be the only way they can think of as a way to make electricity. It feels like some prefer electricity made from the burning of rocks, as if that electricity somehow taste(sic) better.
On the contrary I fully understand that electricity has no taste
We have a perfectly fine fusion reactor in the sky. We can harvest it in so many ways, as that fusion reactor power the water-cycle, the winds and the currents of this entire planet, in addition to blessing us with a filtered source of short-wave radiation. It provides the energy for basically all kinds of life on the planet. It is a great wonderful thing.
You see if you were a maker of anything then your thinking would tell you that harvesting the energy of the sun is not the real problem with renewables, the problem is storing energy when it is available so that we can use it when its not. At present we do not have a cost effective way of doing that and until we do have viable storage we will continue to need to burn coal.
It will provide perfect amounts of energy for another billion years. After that it may become a bit too effective. In a billion years calculations suggest that the temperatures here may reach the boiling temperature of water. And then we or…something do not want to hang out here any longer.
So what you and I will be long dead by then
The upside is of course that the time is close to twice that of events having happened since the first animals crawled on shore.
So I think we can have faith in our very own thermo-nuclear reactor in the sky. As for burning rocks….so 19th century.
Of course you have faith what else would one expect from the true believer in the Green religion ?
Oh and how many frequent flyer points have you accumulated on your overseas holidays recently?
Oils is fine, oil is great. Just don’t burn it. Are you really this thick? It’s not the plastics themselves that cause CO2 emissions, is it?
You don’t understand the way such plastics are made do you? Nor do you understand how much energy is required to mold those plastics either.
But then you are Iain-Hall, the deeply intransigent disbeliever of all and any form of science that doesn’t fit your small-minded belief system. And cherry picker extraordinaire, whilst I’m at it.
You are right that I am me however I would back my understanding of science against your religious convictions about climate change any day of the week.
The kayaks are being used for the highest good – to make more humans aware and the SAVE planet from further coal emissions.
That is sanctimonious claptrap for a misanthropic religious agenda
Your argument against the protestors is pathetic as is your pro-fossil fuel attitude.
There is nothing pathetic in pointing out the hypocrisy of you millennials when it comes to protests, In my day the boats would have been made by hand and out of wood.
Just how do you think that we can make a quid out of this? We can’t make solar panels at a competitive price, we can’t turn nay collected energy into a storable commodity that we can export. Heck we can’t even supply our own needs 24/7 from renewables, in other words what you advocate can’t work.
If the very worst predictions about the Reef come to pass what will happen is that the reef will effectively migrate south where the seawater will be cooler in the hotter north there will be different species of coral that are better suited to the different to the warmer water.
The thing that this article ignores is that even if they were to get everything that the Tourism operators are asking for it would simply make zero difference to the climate because this is claimed to be a global level issue not something that can be addressed by any national level government.
The essence of my comment was to point out that this current government have finally achieved an effective zero number of children in immigration detention. The fact of the matter is that no government enjoys detaining people, but the cohort in question are clearly playing the odds and they have been more than happy to use their children as bargaining chips in their quest for an immigration outcome. None the less we have gone from more than a thousand children in detention when Labor were in power to now when there are effectively none . Of course you don’t like this turn of events because it makes it a great deal harder for you to denounce the government for “imprisoning children”.
I am a realist and if a child commits a crime heinous enough then I have no trouble seeing them imprisoned, Likewise if someone is nominally a child (IE an adolescent) and they try to circumvent our immigration controls by claiming to be an asylum seeker then I have no trouble with treating them as an adult either.
David, as the article points out and as I noted in my last comment having just two juveniles in immigration detention is not actually any kind of big deal, especially when you realize that we will also have some “children” detained because they have been charged with criminal offenses, The child refereed to in the article is NOT described as an asylum seeker. As you must appreciate there are individuals who are detained by the immigration department because they have either committed a crime here or otherwise invalidated their visa, frankly its more likely that not that these two children HAVE committed a crime which is why they have been detained.
You say with great certainty We shouldn’t gaol children. End of however your sanctimonious statement ignores the fact that children do sometimes commit some rather horrible crimes do you expect that such children should just be sent to the naughty corner?
Oh dear. If you’re just going to do the lying thing it’s a bit pointless, isn’t it? There are children in detention, as you know perfectly well. It speaks volumes about the merits of your argument that you show no hesitation in stooping to this. Truly pathetic.
I stand corrected its seems that according to this article on April 6 that there were just two and it would seem that neither are “asylum seekers”
Frankly that is such a tiny number that my error is insignificant because my substantive point remains that you can’t claim some sort of moral high ground because the thanks to the LNP government we no longer have thousands of children in detention as we did under the ALP
Except of course well north of 90% ARE found to be refugees. But hey, let’s not let the facts get in the way! Mate you’re entitled to hold whatever warped view you like, but it has to be based on something OBJECTIVE, not simply what you reckon – contrary to all the evidence.
Of the latest cohort on Manus less than half have been found to be “refugees” David so you are wrong and the high numbers in the past was an artifact of a far from rigorous process that gave then too much of the benefit of the doubt.
You forget that the more people try to do as you have the more demand there will be for lithium and that will mean an inevitable price rise in the cost of batteries…