Talking Politics

[tigergollywog]

I don't think so. The ABC is a media network which the government owns - I think Lukey was challenging that.

well, Luke and dad? make the call? We dont need a government funded independant media outlet? I thought my footy analogy was a doozy. Murdoch owns all the news. Collingwood own all the umpires?



What about this one

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/christopher-pyne-suggests-collecting-hecs-debts-from-dead-students-as-way-to-help-budget-20140528-394rx.html

good chance I'll die with a HECS debt. I might instruct my kids to cremate me and sprinkle me on chrissy pynes gluten-free muesili.

 

[spook]

How low are these stooges. What a nasty bunch. There's nothing they won't stoop to.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

you might be onto something here, but rather than the lies being a distraction from the other lies, perhaps the lies are to take focus away from their actual policies, some of which are terrible.

I'm beginning to think he might be thicker than I was giving him credit for. So many bad blunders on hot topics this week he seems genuinely not to be able to keep his mind on important matters and just plays fast and loose off-the-cuff. I guess that means he has decided people aren't all that concerned that their PM can remember important things and speak intelligently about them, as long as when someone else writes it down they get it right it doesn't matter if he screws the pooch on a doorstop. Not sure how that bodes for him in the long term. If you were the foreign minister would you want to leave him alone in a room on a trade deal? Who know what he might agree to?

 

[Rosy]

Voting informal or not voting changes nothing either, though.

At a meta level, Giardiasis is right - our system of representative democracy means that we get professional, career politicians who will lie cheat and steal to get into office - and then once in won't rock the boat too much.

At a detail level there are many differences between say a Gillard and an Abbot and these differences to have real consequences in terms of policy and taxes etc. So Baloo is also right.

I haven't voted in an election for about 8 years due to frequent moves and being lazy. Copped a fine the other year though.

For the first time I'm 100% happy with who I voted for. Cathy McGowan is an independent with her electorates interests at heart. She goes out of her way to get input and feedback from the constituents. She's set up booths all over the Indi to discuss the budget with people and gave a talk on the results in Canberra yesterday. She's constantly seeking and inviting feedback and opinions. She also us informed and explains the reasoning behind certain things through various means. So unlike Sophie Mirabella, who she ousted, Cathy is there for the people.

 

[tigersnake]

For the first time I'm 100% happy with who I voted for. Cathy McGowan is an independent with her electorates interests at heart. She goes out of her way to get input and feedback from the constituents. She's set up booths all over the Indi to discuss the budget with people and gave a talk on the results in Canberra yesterday. She's constantly seeking and inviting feedback and opinions. She also us informed and explains the reasoning behind certain things through various means. So unlike Sophie Mirabella, who she ousted, Cathy is there for the people.

Yeah great example of an old style good local member is McGowan. SM was and is a nasty piece of work, geez, I really wonder what drives some of the conservative headkickers. It restored my faith in humanity a bit when she got booted.

 

[martyshire]

Yeah great example of an old style good local member is McGowan. SM was and is a nasty piece of work, geez, I really wonder what drives some of the conservative headkickers. It restored my faith in humanity a bit when she got booted.

+1

 

[Giardiasis]

You've completely missed Brodder's point there. Abbott campaigned loudly, relentlessly and almost solely focussed on being anti-lie. The ALP didn't.

Excuse me? It sounds like you are suggesting that it is ok for politicians to lie if they don't campaign on it. The ALP didn't campaign on it because they didn't want to further insult voters who were kicking them out of office for lying about the CO2 tax. Fancy telling a lie, then campaigning on honesty.

Also G you paying zero attention to EXTENT of lies. Extent matters. All politicians lie, or respond differently to new circumstances, but this is a new ball game. I've never seen anything like it, and the analysis is generally saying the same.

Its a double whammy, 1, the relentless message that lies are bad, 2. the off-the-scale level of lying

(Another key point that I made earlier, the difference between Gillard's CT lie and Abbotts lies, JG's lie upset the big boys, Abbott's lies please the big boys. Key difference that nobody has picked up on that I've seen.)

I think you consider Abbott's lies as more significant than Gillard's, because you don't agree with the outcome of Abbott's lies. The lie didn't matter in Gillard's case, because you agreed with the outcome of a CO2 tax.

Why do the big boys matter? It is the voters that matter, and it seems both lies have pissed off voters in equal measure.

 

[Giardiasis]

Not forgetting that unlike Abbotts lies, the carbon tax (whether it can even be considered a lie) was in the context of satisfying a coalition partner in a minority government.

Of course it can be considered a lie. When someone says, “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead", and then proceeds to institute a carbon dioxide tax, this doesn't leave any room for confusion. Just because it was required to get Green's support is irrelevant. She subverted the voters wishes to get into government.

 

[tigersnake]

Excuse me? It sounds like you are suggesting that it is ok for politicians to lie if they don't campaign on it. The ALP didn't campaign on it because they didn't want to further insult voters who were kicking them out of office for lying about the CO2 tax. Fancy telling a lie, then campaigning on honesty.
I think you consider Abbott's lies as more significant than Gillard's, because you don't agree with the outcome of Abbott's lies. The lie didn't matter in Gillard's case, because you agreed with the outcome of a CO2 tax.

Why do the big boys matter? It is the voters that matter, and it seems both lies have p!ssed off voters in equal measure.

The big boys matter because they have influence, dummy

The point stands. JG's lie p!ssed off big, powerful, vested interests. Abbotts lies please and help big powerful vested interests. You don't see a difference between those two facts?

 

[Azza]

Of course it can be considered a lie. When someone says, “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead", and then proceeds to institute a carbon dioxide tax, this doesn't leave any room for confusion

Perhaps not to you.

 

[tigersnake]

Of course it can be considered a lie. When someone says, “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead", and then proceeds to institute a carbon dioxide tax, this doesn't leave any room for confusion. Just because it was required to get Green's support is irrelevant. She subverted the voters wishes to get into government.

Its much more complicated than that. Polls support for action on CT, bipartisan support for an ETS at the time. Political reality of forming coalitions, which you don't seem to be able to grasp, but is a reality of politics globally. You like air pollution, that is your democratic right.

 

[tigergollywog]

you blokes might be innerested in this

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/tony-abbott-is-a-liar-its-a-mathematical-truth-20140529-zrs5h.html

 

[lukeanddad]

Its much more complicated than that. Polls support for action on CT, bipartisan support for an ETS at the time. Political reality of forming coalitions, which you don't seem to be able to grasp, but is a reality of politics globally. You like air pollution, that is your democratic right.

Bit patronising? G may have differing views to yours, but I am tipping he has a pretty good grasp on political reality.

 

[tigersnake]

Bit patronising? G may have differing views to yours, but I am tipping he has a pretty good grasp on political reality.

Just calling as I see it. Political coalitions are political reality. Happen all over the world, have since the Greek civilisation, and before. Based purely in G's post, he doesn't grasp that. So I wouldn't be taking your tip.

Azza made the completely valid point that JG's lie was based on the changed political reality of the ability to form a coalition. Abbott's lies were based on, well, underhandedness? Call it whatever you want, but there were no explicit external factors.

So, JG's lie upset the big boys, Abbott's lies would meet with the full approval of the big boys.

And JG's lie was based on the politics of forming a coalition (you may not agree with or like the fact she formed a coalition, but that is another debate), Abbott's lies were not.

2 clear differences.

 

[Brodders17]

It appears there we even lies in the budget, as Morrison has now taken away funding that was in the budget just weeks ago from the Refugee Council of Australia.

http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/immigration-minister-scott-morrison-cuts-funds-to-peak-refugee-body-20140529-397d8.html

And after Tony Abbott's comments yesterday it appears a certainty that HECS debt will be collected from the deceased:

''This government is not going to change the existing rules, and the existing rules in respect of university debt . . . is that they cease on decease,'' he told ABC radio.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-scotches-idea-of-collecting-hecs-debt-from-dead-students-20140529-395ch.html#ixzz33ANRtaxt

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Of course it can be considered a lie. When someone says, “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead", and then proceeds to institute a carbon dioxide tax, this doesn't leave any room for confusion. Just because it was required to get Green's support is irrelevant. She subverted the voters wishes to get into government.

What was the next line of that quote G? "but lets be absolutely clear. I am determined to price carbon”. It seems more than a little partisan to bleat on about JG's statement taken intentionally out of context by omitting the next line then use it as a defence of the current PM's evident lies. "but she did it too" is a pretty poor excuse for the current lies told by Australian conservatives. Not withstanding the fact that she didn't lie. The carbon price was not a tax. It was not registered in the government's accounting as a tax, where all other taxes go. Where the deficit levy will go for instance.

Your maniacal support of profit at all costs while pretending that the pollution of heavy industry has no cost is completely out of sync with global politics and real life. Democracies the world over are moving in the other direction. We were in the break-away with our transition towards an ETS. We are now at the back of the pack and losing touch with the pelleton.

 

[Giardiasis]

The big boys matter because they have influence, dummy

The point stands. JG's lie p!ssed off big, powerful, vested interests. Abbotts lies please and help big powerful vested interests. You don't see a difference between those two facts?

I don't see why it is relevant to the question of lying to the voting public.

 

[Giardiasis]

Perhaps not to you.

To anyone not blinded by political bias.

 

[tigersnake]

I don't see why it is relevant to the question of lying to the voting public.

I explained pretty clearly I thought. But I fully understand why you would think that.

 

[Giardiasis]

Its much more complicated than that. Polls support for action on CT, bipartisan support for an ETS at the time. Political reality of forming coalitions, which you don't seem to be able to grasp, but is a reality of politics globally. You like air pollution, that is your democratic right.

Justify it all you want, but your refusal to acknowledge it as a lie is embarrassing. Political realities call for dishonest politicians, something you seem to tolerate when the lie benefits you.