 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
|
|
|
 |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | The US is been dealing with this very argument at the moment. Politics is generally dirty and thuggish, so both sides always provide cover for each other's misdeeds. But at the end of the day only one side is trying to block the provision of improved health care to its citizens like deranged zombies.
David, start with the assumption that politics is dirty and thuggish; there's no other way to get into power given human limitations, and politics attracts the shady and power hungry (Pinker gets to the gnub of the matter here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS4xVcko9qw ).
Once you start with that premise, you discover that you have to elect, inevitably, people with such limitations. If so, the next thing you look for is people pushing in the right direction as best they can despite themselves. The Gliberal Party is never ever even trying to push in that direction because it's nothing but a sham and a front for old capital and old power. The left, in contrast, is at least somewhat prone to good ideas despite the muck of politics. Hence you get Hawke-Keating's economic reforms; Hawke-Keating's multiculturalism and alignment with Asia; Mabo; the Redfern Speech; the Apology; vilification legislation protecting minorities; opposition to Work Choices; an effort to implement an NBN, carbon tax and mining tax; increased disability funding, and so on. All that on top of decades of rights, education, social security, gender, minority, infrastructure access, knowledge access and capital access reforms on behalf of women, children, average workers and the vulnerable. Only one side of politics ever pushes these things with serious conviction, while the other side jumps up and down like possessed trolls time and again trying to block them, only ever jumping on the bandwagon once history has long passed them by.
In other words, the salient point is not that politics is dirty and thuggish, which it is, but that governments committed to socio-economic development and progress, as painfully infrequent as they are, can only ever possibly come from the left. The left might disappoint most of the time, but the Gliberal Party is not even playing the right game on the right planet. The lumping of the two together by the far left might make more sense in a virulently backward country like the US, but it makes less sense in Australia, again, disappointment aside. That doesn't mean we have to lose our independence, become party hacks and talk the nonsense of politics, but it does mean the claim that there is no a material difference between the two sides of politics in most advanced democracies is false. |
Do you think it's right to refer to Labor as the 'left' any more, though? Aren't they essentially centre-right neo-liberals with an (ever-dwindling) number of centre-left reformists agitating from within?
Of course, I certainly agree that they are by far the lesser of two evils and that that is a meaningful distinction. But I feel like the Greens, possibly questionable economic credentials notwithstanding, are now the only party of influence with any real commitment to social reform. Labor talk a lot but—day-to-day competence (no small thing, as we're discovering) aside combined with lack of active opposition to social progress—seem to deliver little.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Last edited by David on Tue Oct 08, 2013 6:42 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Of course you do? |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | pietillidie wrote: | The US is been dealing with this very argument at the moment. Politics is generally dirty and thuggish, so both sides always provide cover for each other's misdeeds. But at the end of the day only one side is trying to block the provision of improved health care to its citizens like deranged zombies.
David, start with the assumption that politics is dirty and thuggish; there's no other way to get into power given human limitations, and politics attracts the shady and power hungry (Pinker gets to the gnub of the matter here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS4xVcko9qw ).
Once you start with that premise, you discover that you have to elect, inevitably, people with such limitations. If so, the next thing you look for is people pushing in the right direction as best they can despite themselves. The Gliberal Party is never ever even trying to push in that direction because it's nothing but a sham and a front for old capital and old power. The left, in contrast, is at least somewhat prone to good ideas despite the muck of politics. Hence you get Hawke-Keating's economic reforms; Hawke-Keating's multiculturalism and alignment with Asia; Mabo; the Redfern Speech; the Apology; vilification legislation protecting minorities; opposition to Work Choices; an effort to implement an NBN, carbon tax and mining tax; increased disability funding, and so on. All that on top of decades of rights, education, social security, gender, minority, infrastructure access, knowledge access and capital access reforms on behalf of women, children, average workers and the vulnerable. Only one side of politics ever pushes these things with serious conviction, while the other side jumps up and down like possessed trolls time and again trying to block them, only ever jumping on the bandwagon once history has long passed them by.
In other words, the salient point is not that politics is dirty and thuggish, which it is, but that governments committed to socio-economic development and progress, as painfully infrequent as they are, can only ever possibly come from the left. The left might disappoint most of the time, but the Gliberal Party is not even playing the right game on the right planet. The lumping of the two together by the far left might make more sense in a virulently backward country like the US, but it makes less sense in Australia, again, disappointment aside. That doesn't mean we have to lose our independence, become party hacks and talk the nonsense of politics, but it does mean the claim that there is no a material difference between the two sides of politics in most advanced democracies is false. |
Do you think it's right to refer to Labor as the 'left' any more, though? Aren't they essentially centre-right neo-liberals with an (ever-dwindling) number of centre-left reformists agitating from within?
Of course, I certainly agree that they are by far the lesser of two evils and that that is a meaningful distinction. But I feel like the Greens, possibly questionable economic credentials notwithstanding, are now the only party of influence with any real commitment to social reform. Labor talk a lot but—day-to-day competence (no small thing, as we're discovering) aside combined with lack of active opposition to social progress—seem to deliver little. |
I certainly align with the Greens on most things outside their economic focus, but the Greens won't have faced a genuine moral test until they commit to being electorally viable (i.e., until they are able to garner enough support to actually win a federal election). Also, to repeat the laundry list, these are not things to sneer at:
| pietillidie wrote: | | Hence you get Hawke-Keating's economic reforms; Hawke-Keating's multiculturalism and alignment with Asia; Mabo; the Redfern Speech; the Apology; vilification legislation protecting minorities; opposition to Work Choices; an effort to implement an NBN, carbon tax and mining tax; increased disability funding, and so on. All that on top of decades of rights, education, social security, gender, minority, infrastructure access, knowledge access and capital access reforms on behalf of women, children, average workers and the vulnerable. |
The Greens have done some very important things and they play a critical role in keeping decent ideas alive, but they can't move mountains like the ones on that list above. That's not a criticism of their views and efforts, it's just a case of putting things in perspective. Comparing the theoretical positions of the Greens with the actual outcomes of the ALP is an apples-oranges comparison.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
But the salient story here is not rorting, as bad as it is, it's the rorting of senior Glibs, including Abbott, in the light of the Peter Slipper saga. The moral disgrace of the hypocrisy, based on the craven and Mafia-like violent pursuit of an individual, is something to behold.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | Stui, get a clue. They audited everyone. . |
You got a link for that or a cite? I did a google search and couldn't find anything.
I am curious as to how this stuff all comes out after a change of government. Who commissioned the audit?
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Culprit 
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Port Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The LNP have stood on the high moral ground and have been caught out. They did not nothing but bitch and go negative in opposition and it looks like the ALP are set to follow In their footsteps. How can Slipper face caught over cab charge dockets yet the same accusers paid to attend weddings? Slippers Lawyer should have a field day.
Both sides are not paying it back because it's wrong, they are only paying it back because it's out in the public arena now.
I have a wedding to attend in Canberra soon maybe I can drop into the Canberra office for a coffee and claim it as a business expense? What a joke out pollies are and reading people defending the PM is laughable.
Last edited by Culprit on Wed Oct 09, 2013 6:00 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | Tannin wrote: | | Stui, get a clue. They audited everyone. . |
You got a link for that or a cite? I did a google search and couldn't find anything.
I am curious as to how this stuff all comes out after a change of government. Who commissioned the audit? |
It's the press, Stui, doing their bloody jobs for a change. It started with one reporter determinedly chasing down leads in the Ashbygate scandal; eventually she pulled on enough loose threads to attract another reporter (a Fairfax one, I forget his name) onto the game; his exposure of Brandis' cheating really attracted the wolf pack and now the whole Fairfax team and even the News Limited hacks are digging for all that they are worth.
The next big exposure is going to be the name of the .... no, wait. First I have to explain so other stuff.
You see, the current (barking mad!) rule is that politicians check their own expense accounts. (True! Try pulling that stunt anywhere outside the Laughing Palace, such as in private industry or the public service. You'd last about 20 seconds.) Yep, they check their own claims. If Treasury queries a claim (which usually only happens after a tip-off), then there is no punishment at all for cheating your expenses, just so long as you pay the money back when they ask. (If they ask. If they don't ask, you can just keep it, same as Abbott did with the iron man rort.)
So why is Slipper facing charges when all the other Liberals just have to give the money back? Slipper has offered to repay the money four different times but Treasury refuses to accept it. Well, the answer is that Slipper - who did exactly the same thing as Abbott, Brandis, and the others - wasn't dobbed in to Treasury, he was dobbed in to the Federal Police instead by a secret individual determined to wreck him. The Feds don't normally handle this stuff, it's Treasury's job. But in this case, someone secret made a complaint of wrongdoing to the Feds and that someone had enough clout to make sure that they acted on it themselves instead of handing it over to Treasury.
This is the massive smoking gun lurking behind this scandal. Once the identity of the secret dobber comes out, that person is going to be in very, very hot water. We are talking career-wrecking hot water here. Especially as the self-interested backroom dirty-tricks involved will be very, very public.
While we don't know who that person is yet, you are welcome to speculate. Feel free to use the words "Brough" "Brandis", "Lewis", and/or "Pyne" in your answer. They would be the short-priced runners, but one or two at longer odds are still in the field. Stand by for the name to be disclosed: it might be any day now.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
Dr Pie
Dr Pie
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The Liberal Party's policy on taxpayer funded journeys takes its name from an 80s pop/folk group - Weddings, Parties, Anything!
Given that Labor's former Attorney General cannot tell the difference between the National Capitol and a Ski Resort perhaps we should not look to Labor challenge the Libs morality. Adam Bandt comes to the controversy with clean hands and very few others do.
_________________
Born and raised in Black and White |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
That's not entirely fair, Dr Pie. Not only was it a very small amount, it was two days out of a ten day stay and entirely believable as a genuine clerical error. Compare with the out-and-out deliberate rorting we have seen with Abbott claiming Slipper's wedding, Brandis claiming a News Ltd muckraker's do, Abbott claiming Mirabella's wedding and, above all, Abbotts massive claims when he used public money to promote his own book. Huge difference.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Dr Pie wrote: | The Liberal Party's policy on taxpayer funded journeys takes its name from an 80s pop/folk group - Weddings, Parties, Anything!
Given that Labor's former Attorney General cannot tell the difference between the National Capitol and a Ski Resort perhaps we should not look to Labor challenge the Libs morality. Adam Bandt comes to the controversy with clean hands and very few others do. |
Who is this Adam Bandt you speak of?
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough†Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
Culprit
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Port Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Slippers case it seems is opening a can of worms with the born to rule party being exposed on a national scale. The "Fiscally Responsible Party" is being exposed. But still we have Liberal apologists defending them despite the evidence slapping them in the face.
Official records show Mr Abbott claimed more than $67,000 worth of travel allowance payments last year - more than any other MP - as he travelled across Australia waging a de facto election campaign.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/tony-abbott-defends-his-travel-bills/story-fn59niix-1226735099409#sthash.LRQNWJEK.dpuf
| Quote: |
TONY Abbott has charged taxpayers thousands of dollars to compete in charity runs, fun runs, ocean swims and the gruelling Port Macquarie ironman event.
|
This is not related to work and if a taxpayer pulled this shite we would be audited and hit with fines. Throw in if you pay something back after 7 years do you pay interest on that? Laughable. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | Tannin wrote: | | Stui, get a clue. They audited everyone. . |
You got a link for that or a cite? I did a google search and couldn't find anything.
I am curious as to how this stuff all comes out after a change of government. Who commissioned the audit? |
It's the press, Stui, doing their bloody jobs for a change. It started with one reporter determinedly chasing down leads in the Ashbygate scandal; eventually she pulled on enough loose threads to attract another reporter (a Fairfax one, I forget his name) onto the game; his exposure of Brandis' cheating really attracted the wolf pack and now the whole Fairfax team and even the News Limited hacks are digging for all that they are worth.
The next big exposure is going to be the name of the .... no, wait. First I have to explain so other stuff.
You see, the current (barking mad!) rule is that politicians check their own expense accounts. (True! Try pulling that stunt anywhere outside the Laughing Palace, such as in private industry or the public service. You'd last about 20 seconds.) Yep, they check their own claims. If Treasury queries a claim (which usually only happens after a tip-off), then there is no punishment at all for cheating your expenses, just so long as you pay the money back when they ask. (If they ask. If they don't ask, you can just keep it, same as Abbott did with the iron man rort.)
So why is Slipper facing charges when all the other Liberals just have to give the money back? Slipper has offered to repay the money four different times but Treasury refuses to accept it. Well, the answer is that Slipper - who did exactly the same thing as Abbott, Brandis, and the others - wasn't dobbed in to Treasury, he was dobbed in to the Federal Police instead by a secret individual determined to wreck him. The Feds don't normally handle this stuff, it's Treasury's job. But in this case, someone secret made a complaint of wrongdoing to the Feds and that someone had enough clout to make sure that they acted on it themselves instead of handing it over to Treasury.
This is the massive smoking gun lurking behind this scandal. Once the identity of the secret dobber comes out, that person is going to be in very, very hot water. We are talking career-wrecking hot water here. Especially as the self-interested backroom dirty-tricks involved will be very, very public.
While we don't know who that person is yet, you are welcome to speculate. Feel free to use the words "Brough" "Brandis", "Lewis", and/or "Pyne" in your answer. They would be the short-priced runners, but one or two at longer odds are still in the field. Stand by for the name to be disclosed: it might be any day now. |
Ta for that, it was smelling like a media investigation, no one suddenly wakes up and thinks "I wonder if that trip 6 years ago was really OK to put on expenses?"
Agree 100%, if pollies are approving their own expenses that's utter BS. There needs to be some oversight, preferably from a Treasury official.
The Slipper thing I hadn't considered. You're right, that will be interesting.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Culprit wrote: | Slippers case it seems is opening a can of worms with the born to rule party being exposed on a national scale. The "Fiscally Responsible Party" is being exposed. But still we have Liberal apologists defending them despite the evidence slapping them in the face.
Official records show Mr Abbott claimed more than $67,000 worth of travel allowance payments last year - more than any other MP - as he travelled across Australia waging a de facto election campaign.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/tony-abbott-defends-his-travel-bills/story-fn59niix-1226735099409#sthash.LRQNWJEK.dpuf
| Quote: |
TONY Abbott has charged taxpayers thousands of dollars to compete in charity runs, fun runs, ocean swims and the gruelling Port Macquarie ironman event.
|
This is not related to work and if a taxpayer pulled this shite we would be audited and hit with fines. Throw in if you pay something back after 7 years do you pay interest on that? Laughable. |
Gees this is unbelievable. Looks like slipper is the scapegoat. Bt that's bloody criminal. How do they look themselves in the eye when they shave? If the above is true, it should be all over the front of the paper, instead of him running around in bloody speedos. So much for he does it for charity.
And they really get to approve their own expensess? Fricken joke
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Culprit
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Port Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The claim should be made on this basis. If Joe Bloggs Taxpayer can claim it then it's a legit claim. If Joe Bloggs Taxpayer cannot claim the same thing then it's not legit. Let's see the Pollies push that through. Won't happen when the pollies are the ones who decide.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
