-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
HR said:
How can support be gained for the cause for action on climate change? Is stating the facts too offputting? Would it be better to pretend its not happening? It is something I'm passionate about, I'm angry, disappointed and disillusioned. 3 years is a long time, epsecially considering the urgency required and the performance of the Turnbull/ Morrison government thus far. Labors policies are hardly world beating, but the Coalition''s are retrograde. Got it right? I disagree.
easy said:
Why are you ok wit ducking at one end but not the other?
I'm with Baloo on this, anyone too far to the right is dangerous, as is anyone too far to the left. Centre ground is where the optimal society exists, enough capitalist policies to drive growth and drive innovation, enough socialist policies that give all citizens similar basic human rights and gives everyone a chance. Unfortunately in any society that isn't purely socialist / communist there will always be a divide between the rich and poor, its just those policies that governments use that limit the gap.
I don't vote in Australian politics (I'm not allowed to but will be doing my citizenship soon as Australia is my home now) but I feel I still get a say in discussion. I'm a centre voter, swing centre left on some issues, swing centre right on others.
The environment clearly swings a bit to the left but it was interesting reading up on the detail (not just the headlines). Bill Shortens 45% emissions reduction was not only allowing companies to buy Domestic carbon credits but International ones too. He was going to allow these to be used as tax deductions which some independent analysis was suggesting this could cost the country over $10bn in tax revenue. So the budget takes a massive hit BUT the emmissions reduction would be fake, the companies in Australia would just be purchasing credits from overseas and inferring that they had reduced emmissions when really they hadn't. I know they had some increase to solar installations but so to the coalition. If anything was going to be given either a tax deduction or any extension of the REC's / FIT scheme it should have been this, to encourage not only homes but businesses to invest in solar technology. This would be a REAL policy on climate change not some bulldust that you could use to spruik a rubbish example of this.
On the right, I don't agree with the changes that labour suggested for negative gearing changes. They were plain dumb and ill thought out. I don't mean dumb and ill thought out in terms of going after negative gearing, I'm fine with that but not the way they were planning. They were stating it was for first home owners but wouldn't crash the market, righttttt, so removing circa 40% of the buyers of existing properties wouldn't crash the market, maybe a basic economics course should be taken by Chris Bowen and Bill Shorten. If this was what they wanted then state it. IMO the changes to negative gearing make far more sense to put either a limit on number of policies or a limit on the total $'s you can get as a tax deduction. Ie. anything upto the limit same as current, anything above pay for it yourself. This would allow ordinary Aussies to invest in their future but wouldn't allow people to build up large taxpayer supported property portfolios. The funding from this should have then be pushed to remove stamp duty for first homeowners upto say a property price of $700k. That system would have been the fairest move and really support first homeowners. By stating that the changes labor put forward would not push the market down more than a couple of % but this was for first homeowners made no sense. The cost for first homeowners to purchase a home is enormous, 20% deposit plus stamp duty. Even a $500k home means you need a $100k deposit plus around another $30-35k in stamp duty. The best way to support first homeowners is to remove stamp duty. Very simple but doesn't seem to be considered.
Don;t get me started on the tax system here, its ridiculously confusing and costs a fortune to administer. Simplying this system by removing tax deductions and using the reduction of that to lower the base tax rate (starting with the lowest rate). This would then allow them to move towards a propert PAYG system whereby signifcant numbers of people wouldn't have to file tax returns (PAYG systems in the UK and I believe NZ devolves this power to companies, as the system is essentially a YTD PAYG system instead of individualised by month). This would either reduce the size fo the ATO or enable them to focus more on tax cheats.
Baloo said:
swinging? PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFffffffffffftttttttttt. Really? I thought I was just trying to make a point so there you go.
the preciousness and glass jaw observation stands regarding the right, regardless of who you voted for.
Snake I am also keen to see action on this world issue.tigersnake said:
Climate change or what ever it needs to be called needs action.
I do what I can to influence our/my output, as do most Aussies. Some can influence more than others. I put considerable time and money for me into making sure I do what I can. I will not however do more than I should at the expense of US. I will not let the greens dictate a bit of climate change served up on a plate of socialism gone mad. I spend my hard earned on planting trees, solar, driving hybrid, restoring our native bushland and paying more than my fairshare of tax as a single wage earner because my family is number one.
The greens don't do it for me, they should.
Labor don't do it for me, they used to.
The Libs are not far right, they are closer to old labor than current labor themselves.
It's climate, it's policy and its finance.
It is not pie in the sky unexplained cost and feigned policy.
Panthera Tigris said:
That's the same Fraser Anning who only had his fleeting moments of fame because he got into the senate as a One Nation senator?
Baloo said:
I reckon one of the great cons the Libs and other conservative have pulled off recently is to tar the Greens with the same brush of parties such as One Nation and Palmers party.
You can disagree with the Greens policies, as you can agree with any parties policies, but they have been a stable party for a long time. you know what you will get, and for the most part you get sane, stable pollies who can argue their opinion (likeable or not).
One Nation have not been able to keep any elected politicians. the only one who has stuck around is Malcolm Roberts (who lost his seat due to dual citizenship- even that he handled badly). he is now possibly back in the senate. he is a nut. pretty much everyone else linked to the party has left. Anning was on her Senate ticket last election, he quit as soon as he was given his senate seat. Hanson complains that she is always let down by those around her, perhaps some self reflection would help.
Palmer is in it for Palmer, i cannot believe anyone would dispute that. Like One Nation anyone who was bought a seat by Palmer at the last election quit the party. most of those running for him this election are, or were employees. His main policy of deferring tax for small business was easily discredited, and he was using the same figures he used 3 years ago.
tigersnake said:
Makes not a shred of difference unless the burgeoning economies of China and India reel their emissions in. We could go to zero emissions tomorrow and the benefits would be erased in two weeks by China alone.
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Your sums are just wrong on this L2. Cumulative effects matter. China and India ARE building renewable into their systems. Their size is causing the problem but if everyone else is ahead of them as they grow towards their own prosperity that just means we are closer to the goal when their emissions heavy growth phase tails off. If we all wait then when they tail off we will be that much further from our goal. We will all have to do the work to undo all the extra CO2 emitted over the intervening years just to reach parity with where we stand today. How is that a good idea?
E
easy_tiger
Guest
mrposhman said:
because of this
Brodders17 said:
If you listened to Barnaby Joyce's vitriolic victory speech, he spent most of it spewing hatred for The Greens.
I understand why he hates the Greens.
Him and his colleagues euthanised the Murray river and helped Pat Corrigan get richer accumulating cheap water rights under Nationals policy he lobbied for, then rigged all the water meters, then stole heaps of water on top of the rigged metered allowance, then sold the rights back in an inflated buyback.
The evil extreme Greens want a royal commission. Imagine that? Holding someone to account for killing off the nations circulatory system?
Greens extremism = ban coal, save the reef, save the Murray, get kids out of detention, decent urban planning, housing affordability.
One Nation/Anning extremism = zero regard of the environment, ban muslims, sell policy space to Charlton Heston and the NFA, seek a final solutions FFS
equally destructive to our society, really?
HR said:
Theres another one I'd be terribly embarrassed if I fell for it.
GetUp's spent $4m
Palmer spent $80m
Murdock spent $200m
and you really swallow that sh!t without thinking about it?
jeez.
Baloo said:
ahhhh, I see what you did there now :hihi
I thought you were serious
antman said:
Here's an example of the doom tripe you are talking about. You'd think shopping centres are no go zones from this sort of report. A torrent of fear.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/australias-youth-crime-crisis-laid-bare-disturbing-footage-shows-how-kids-are-running-riot-and-terrorising-innocent-families-as-staff-at-nations-most-dangerous-westfield-beg-for-help/ar-AABDwP2?ocid=spartanntp
And he left One Nation within an hour of getting into the Senate. I actually took the time to read up on the backgrounds of the candidates in both of these parties. They are not really on the same wave length. Fraser Anning had a number of candidates in his party who had criminal records for violent offences and some were actual members of White Supremacist and/or Fascist organisations. Serious lunatics! And their party website unashamedly resembled a Fascist manifesto. One Nation hold views further to the right than most of us, and they made absolute fools of themselves in the whole Aljazeera wash up. But their platform was not that comparable to what Fraser Anning's National White Supremacists were offering.Brodders17 said:
Interestingly, as I suggested earlier, One Nation have begun taking voters off the ALP, whereas in their earlier years it was primarily disillusioned National Party voters. Look at what happened in the Joel Fitzgibbon's seat of Hunter (in the Newcastle hinterland). One of the most working class, true blue ALP seats in the country. A 21% swing away from the ALP. And the Coalition received none of this swing. Their vote was actually down 0.4%. The swing went entirely to One Nation. Fitzgibbon still held on, as he had such a massive margin. But his primary shrunk from 57% to 36%. With One Nation and the Nationals about equal on 21-22% each.
Is Mark Latham joining and being the face of the party a factor in legitimising the party in the eyes of a working class ALP voter? Perhaps in NSW in particular, this is one factor.
IanG said:
That's the biggest crime in Australian political history that's been committed by both parties.
How Australia isn't a leader in the field of renewables is beyond me. We have the elements, resources and available space to be the world leaders in renewable power. Instead we're brining lumps of coal to parliament.
Brodders17 said:
The greens aren't necessarily stable.
https://www.crikey.com.au/2019/02/11/crisis-watch-the-various-scandals-threatening-the-greens/
The libs don't need to tar the greens with any brush, they do their own painting.
Agree with the rest of your post.
I was chatting to a mate yesterday, who is a climate scientist and has in the past been a paid up member of the Greens at various times. He isn't anymore as he is totally disillusioned with them. Not for their environmental stance, he still agree wholeheartedly with that side of things. But his viewpoint was, in an attempt to grow, they broadened their umbrella to take in a large portion of people who, once upon a time were more involved with the Socialist Alliance and other such University activist, Marxist organisations. These people are more interested in the more radical elements of gender, sexuality and racial politics, with environment taking a back seat to this faction. He says this has been a very unstablising force, more so in NSW and Victoria, than other branches. And in his opinion, takes them away from their core business and alienates more voters than it attracts. He now votes for centre-left independents running on an environmental platform.MD Jazz said:
As part of our conversation, I was trying to steer him across to the Sustainable Australia Party, who are a party based on environmental politics, but coming at it from a different angle to the Greens and more palatable if one isn't too partial to the overreach of gender, sexuality and racial politics I mentioned above.
I agree very much with this post. Where I'm a bit unconventional. I'm not opposed to a combination of an optimum mix of renewables and nuclear energy. We have the perfect elements for both these types of zero emissions energy sources.Baloo said:
