Interest rates under an Abbott government?

[Belbo]

Hi Belbo

A bit unfair to judge NSW and VIC Government on being in only 12 months or so. In fact, a smart gov does little for the first few years to build the bang in the election years. I suspect NSW is going that path. VIC don't know.

And again, on Abbott don't you think you destroy any objective comment by judging him in opposition. He has no power there?

Like it or not, the job of Opposition is to bag the Government. With the Labor Gov proven failures, it like "shooting fish in a barrel". Abbott is showing constraint when compared with his alleged persona IMO.

And lastly, if the Opposition is useless then what do you say about joining the Gov in the national Disability Scheme? If that a dumb idea.

Belbo, I like your posts but you need to consider both sides fairly to be considered objective.

I.e. I don't think Gillard is a bumbling fool. In another time another election she may have been great. Sadly, it is not her time.

And I voted Rudd with the hope he would be new Labor. He was except the NSW Disease of the Right and Factions gutted him.

Regards Peter 14.7

Hi Peter,

Fair questions all. The Vic and NSW Liberal state premiers may just need some more time. Abbott may actually surprise us when he comes to power by instituting a constructive economic reform programme. Perhaps Abbott isn't cynically just harvesting desperately committed single-issue voters on the disability support scheme. Maybe it's just me. But then you might ask, why is Jeff Kennett so dismayed with these leaders? Why did Malcolm Fraser resign only 48 months ago from Liberal Party he once led as Prime Minister? Just how is this generation of Liberals different from others?

In this and the carbon tax thread I've argued that a marginal, but very divisive ideology has gained ascendancy in the Liberal Party, particularly at its federal level, and implied that the fish rots from the head down to its state branches. Specifically, I've suggested that the ideology of neo-conservatism, as symbolised above all by Tony Abbott, has become predominant in the Liberal Party today.

What distinguishes neo-conservatism from the traditional liberalism of the Liberal Party is its belief (1) that economic growth cannot come about through consensus politics, but can only come about by concentrating power and wealth, and consequently (2) that a small state presence in the economy is not enough, it must first and foremost be a strong state presence. In essence it argues first divide the pie, then try to grow it. Traditional liberals are confused at this reversal of the logic of their philosophy.

Not everyone in the Liberal Party is a neo-conservative of course, but while it holds sway as it does today there can be no other play on the table. Hence we are seeing no discernible economic progress in either Vic or NSW, where creative political leadership has almost never before been needed so much more. Anything that even hints at political cooperation with workers, unions or sectional interest groups is anathema. Conflict must come before peace according to neo-conservatism.

That's how I see it, anyway.

 

[Belbo]

I'd just like to add author Stephen King's opinion from today's paper of what his fellow super rich think about paying any more tax -

"The majority," he notes, "would rather douse their dicks with lighter fluid, strike a match, and dance around singing Disco Inferno than pay one more cent in taxes to Uncle Sugar."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/tax-me-for-s-sake-pleads-stephen-king-20120502-1xy3m.html#ixzz1tfpi3DXq

 

[Peter 14.7]

Hi Peter,

Fair questions all. The Vic and NSW Liberal state premiers may just need some more time. Abbott may actually surprise us when he comes to power by instituting a constructive economic reform programme. Perhaps Abbott isn't cynically just harvesting desperately committed single-issue voters on the disability support scheme. Maybe it's just me. But then you might ask, why is Jeff Kennett so dismayed with these leaders? Why did Malcolm Fraser resign only 48 months ago from Liberal Party he once led as Prime Minister? Just how is this generation of Liberals different from others?

In this and the carbon tax thread I've argued that a marginal, but very divisive ideology has gained ascendancy in the Liberal Party, particularly at its federal level, and implied that the fish rots from the head down to its state branches. Specifically, I've suggested that the ideology of neo-conservatism, as symbolised above all by Tony Abbott, has become predominant in the Liberal Party today.

What distinguishes neo-conservatism from the traditional liberalism of the Liberal Party is its belief (1) that economic growth cannot come about through consensus politics, but can only come about by concentrating power and wealth, and consequently (2) that a small state presence in the economy is not enough, it must first and foremost be a strong state presence. In essence it argues first divide the pie, then try to grow it. Traditional liberals are confused at this reversal of the logic of their philosophy.

Not everyone in the Liberal Party is a neo-conservative of course, but while it holds sway as it does today there can be no other play on the table. Hence we are seeing no discernible economic progress in either Vic or NSW, where creative political leadership has almost never before been needed so much more. Anything that even hints at political cooperation with workers, unions or sectional interest groups is anathema. Conflict must come before peace according to neo-conservatism.

That's how I see it, anyway.

Now that a balanced post. And I learned somethings.

IMHO I see both sides.

My heart is 51% with a economically smart labor gov like Hawke/Keating.

My head is 99% with a business minded Liberal like Howard/Costello

Interesting you raise Jeff Kennett. on 2 points...

1. Jeff Kennett criticised his liberal colleagues both in and out of office. He is/was not backward at coming forward. He comments of late are nothing new. He was in advertising you know...

2. I believe it is fair to say, Jeff was the lib equivalent of Latham but he won and got to show up what he was made off.

Let me explain..

His own party sacked him as leader more than once and in the end he keep coming back to the point when Cain/Kirchner got the boot as Hayden said for Hawke in 1983 "a drover dog could have won". This is, right to say, just like Abbott is now. Anyone could lead the liberals and will win.

So the question is .....can Abbott (TA) be as good as Kennett (JK)

When JK got in he slashed and burned and shocked many causing great protests. Economically he did a lot of pain for long term gain but he paid out the debt. He fixed things. People respected him. Even my fitter and turner, westie brother in law, rusted on labor voter said "he did a lot of good".

However after a surprisingly strong second win he lost any humility and was perceived to look after mates. Critical error in Aus politics. So when his third election came up he actually campaigned on a personality cult basis. Many at the time wanted to "pull him down a peg or two" they voted as such and he was surprising smashed this time and has never got over it, neither has the voters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Kennett

But here is the bit.... JK was able to do so much change because he had both houses with him. If TA can get the senate, he will have a strong hand to make his changes completely and then we judge the result.

On this point the NSW and VIC Libs you mentioned before dont have this luxury.

Personally it belive it is unfortunate the senate means we have this situation when a Government can be voted in with a clear mandate for change and not have the power to implement. Both Libs and Labor have suffered.

So the interesting observation is Jeff was seen before election as raving, right wing, nutter .....just like Abbot .....but got in because of Labor woeful state.....just like Abbot will. Jeff then proved to be strong, blunt but effective, efficient leader....just like Abbot???? ...perhaps time will tell.

Regards, Peter 14.7

 

[Ideo]

Now that a balanced post. And I learned somethings.

IMHO I see both sides.

My heart is 51% with a economically smart labor gov like Hawke/Keating.

My head is 99% with a business minded Liberal like Howard/Costello

Interesting you raise Jeff Kennett. on 2 points...

1. Jeff Kennett criticised his liberal colleagues both in and out of office. He is/was not backward at coming forward. He comments of late are nothing new. He was in advertising you know...

2. I believe it is fair to say, Jeff was the lib equivalent of Latham but he won and got to show up what he was made off.

Let me explain..

His own party sacked him as leader more than once and in the end he keep coming back to the point when Cain/Kirchner got the boot as Hayden said for Hawke in 1983 "a drover dog could have won". This is, right to say, just like Abbott is now. Anyone could lead the liberals and will win.

So the question is .....can Abbott (TA) be as good as Kennett (JK)

When JK got in he slashed and burned and shocked many causing great protests. Economically he did a lot of pain for long term gain but he paid out the debt. He fixed things. People respected him. Even my fitter and turner, westie brother in law, rusted on labor voter said "he did a lot of good".

However after a surprisingly strong second win he lost any humility and was perceived to look after mates. Critical error in Aus politics. So when his third election came up he actually campaigned on a personality cult basis. Many at the time wanted to "pull him down a peg or two" they voted as such and he was surprising smashed this time and has never got over it, neither has the voters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Kennett

But here is the bit.... JK was able to do so much change because he had both houses with him. If TA can get the senate, he will have a strong hand to make his changes completely and then we judge the result.

On this point the NSW and VIC Libs you mentioned before dont have this luxury.

Personally it belive it is unfortunate the senate means we have this situation when a Government can be voted in with a clear mandate for change and not have the power to implement. Both Libs and Labor have suffered.

So the interesting observation is Jeff was seen before election as raving, right wing, nutter .....just like Abbot .....but got in because of Labor woeful state.....just like Abbot will. Jeff then proved to be strong, blunt but effective, efficient leader....just like Abbot???? ...perhaps time will tell.

Regards, Peter 14.7

I disagree with some of what you say and agree with others.

But I commend you on that post (and Belbo's before it) and I could learn something in not getting too passionate about these things

 

[Peter 14.7]

I disagree with some of what you say and agree with others.

But I commend you on that post (and Belbo's before it) and I could learn something in not getting too passionate about these things

As it should be. There is not absolute right or not absolute wrong. Being passionate is ok as long as it is not personal. Someone else may be just as passionate for the other side.

Thankyou... I have found over my years you only learn by seriously considering the other viewpoint. Never let ego get involved.

It is said the

 

[Hoffy]

Now that a balanced post. And I learned somethings.
7

I'm keen to understand what you learned from his opinion piece? Serious question.

 

[Peter 14.7]

I'm keen to understand what you learned from his opinion piece? Serious question.

More about the thoughts of Belbo and how he goes about it.

Sorry it is not more dramatic. Serious Answer.

Peter 14.7

 

[Belbo]

Peter / Ideo,

Thanks for the kindly replies. I'd be pleased to respond on the enigma of Jeff Kennett.

Yes, when JK was coming to power in the late 80s the centre-left called him a "right wing nutter". But his type of right wing was neo-liberal, not neo-conservative. That's the key here.

We can put aside his abrasive personal style and crash-through-or-crash approach to almost everything - the 'nutter' bit - as indisputable. He was a first-rate reforming premier precisely because he was nuts enough to upset anybody. But he wanted change, not a fight. Just no-one would accept change without a fight, so he took it to them.

But what is a neo-liberal compared to what might be called a regular liberal?

At its core, its fiscal responsibility. The neo-liberals want a much smaller state presence in the economy than traditional liberals (such as Menzies through Fraser, who never minded government debt), meaning in consequence that individuals have to take a lot more fiscal responsibility for themselves generally. This meant getting government out of the economy and people off the government tit. You might recall back in the 80s this tough-love medicine was quite new and radical. Today, Wayne Swan is doing a textbook impression of it with his balanced budget commitment. It's the new normal.

Historically neo-liberalism came about as a response to a frightening shrinking of the pie (or national indebtedness). Making people independent of the state (i.e. serious welfare rationing, serious public service job cuts, major privatisations, etc) is a means-to-an-end for it: The end of course being to get the pie growing again. It's not the end-in-itself it represents for neo-conservatism. Neo-liberalism's strict but fair. Neo-conservatism abhors fair.

 

[Player]

......................I have been lucky enough to score an invite to next week's Westpac's Federal Budget Dinner on Wednesday in Melbourne, with Bill Evans as the main speaker. Should be interesting to hear a detailed and non-partisan view of the budget.

Very nice, Mr. Lightyear. He had a bit to say in today's SMH, here:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/focused-on-staying-afloat-20120504-1y451.html

Would be delighted to hear what he has to say expanding on his views in that article. I would also welcome your sharing in this or, perhaps in another new thread.

Efharisto

 

[MIW]

Umm, no.

Revenues declined in 2008-09, and again in 2009-10.

Probably something to do with the GFC.

I said from change of government till now not for those two years, right?
Sometimes, we like to chop here and there and just present what suits us.

 

[MIW]

Don't you see MIW, to use your very own words above, there's nothing more political than optimistically wanting to make a heaven out of a hell? And I see myself wanting the very same things you do when you say in these words -

Now, I suspect you believe an Abbott team will deliver good government. Okay. Why?

Forgive me, but I expect they'll deliver a government hell-bent on pandering to power and greed.

Belbo,
Now seeing your signature comment I understand what you stand for.....
Signature
Belbo
"The relation between increasing house rent and increasing poverty is an example of the landlord’s interest in society." Karl Marx, 1844
Unfortunately, we will never agree in our life time. You come from a democratic country, with fair education, freedom of speech, hating capital greed.
My father with his family, escaped a communist country because he was forced to. No freedom of speech, lack of access to proper education - in deed selected biased education, confiscation of his entire wealth at "other" people's free will, just because they chose to drink when he held no liquor license and they produced false witnesses and chose to destroy him in one day, just because they didn't like you for no particular reason, just.....and so on and on.
My husband, beaten and risking his life at UNI just voicing his opinion, like most people here can freely do.
My grandmother denied medicine since she was past a certain old age.
Corruption everywhere since people just needed to feed their families and basic jobs would not suffice for everyday survival.
Yes, in ideology of Karl Marx, we would all want people to have equal stance, equal opportunity to education, health, equal rights, however, in reality that I lived (I do not believe you or most people on this forum lived, right?) it wasn't a reality at all.
Just have a look at a movie called "KATYN" and see how a country was shaped and governed AFTER the mass execution of its intellectuals.
So you see I will never support a communist-socialist party even though I may not think the capitalist way is best as I have lived in both and I know which one for now I prefer. It's just my personal experience that's all.

 

[Belbo]

I am very sorry to hear about your family MIW. That Marx quote was meant ironically, as in I think he was completely wrong in what he said. I'm a capitalist landlord feeding off rents myself, you see. I've changed my sig now to avoid any further confusion. But you can still disagree with me any time.

 

[MIW]

I am very sorry to hear about your family MIW. That Marx quote was meant ironically, as in I think he was completely wrong in what he said. I'm a capitalist landlord feeding off rents myself, you see. I've changed my sig now to avoid any further confusion. But you can still disagree with me any time.

You can be funny though as you did make me laugh.
Cheers!

 

[Ideo]

Ah yes.

Can we please remove all capitalist slogans from signatures as my partners parents escaped from Chile following the US supported overthrow of Allende, with many of there friends disappearing for no other reason than questioning why the government they elected democratically was removed?

That was all about capitalism and removing any hint of nationalising resources.

 

[Aaron Sice]

Ah yes.

Can we please remove all capitalist slogans from signatures as my partners parents escaped from Chile following the US supported overthrow of Allende, with many of there friends disappearing for no other reason than questioning why the government they elected democratically was removed?

That was all about capitalism and removing any hint of nationalising resources.

i used to work with a guy - Alex Rojas - his parents were in the same boat, from Chile, escaping the CIA coup, was terrible some of those stories.