The first by-election since Kristina Keneally became NSW Premier will be held tomorrow, for the seat of Penrith, vacated by Karyn Paluzzano after she admitted lying to ICAC over irregular payments of staff allowances.
Antony Green has provided a compendium of useful and interesting information at this page of the ABC’s election website. At his blog, he analyses some of the political implications, and updates readers about where we can find results.
William Bowe has some further interesting background at The Poll Bludger.
The Twitter hashtag for the by-election is #penrith (though it also appears to be the hashtag for the NRL team, which might cause a little bit of confusion). I’ve previously assessed the Twitter debate in this post.
This is an open thread for predictions, links, reports and analysis.
Update: Live blogging of the result at The Poll Bludger will commence at 6pm AEST.
Elsewhere: Ben Raue at The Tally Room.
Of course, there will be no link between the outcome of this by-election and the outlook for the Rudd Government.
None. What. So. Ever.
Of course, there will be no link between the outcome of this by-election and the outlook for the Rudd Government.
None. What. So. Ever.
I disagree. If the ALP lose this seat it will be beacuse of the electorate’s disgust with the federal government. After all if this was a blue ribbon north shore seat and the Lib’s lost it we would be making a big song and dance wouldn’t we.
I disagree. If the ALP lose this seat it will be beacuse of the electorate’s disgust with the federal government. After all if this was a blue ribbon north shore seat and the Lib’s lost it we would be making a big song and dance wouldn’t we.
What I found interesting on PM yesterday was that while the reporter said it was hard to find anyone saying they would vote ALP they found only one person willing to declare, after some prevarication, that he would “probably” vote Liberal. One woman thought it had something to do with how disappointed people were with Kevin Rudd, which underlines the point about the commercial/ABC media narrative.
In NSW of course one has optional preferential — which is tailor-made for by-elections. You can vote for as few candidates as you like, especially since whoever is elected gets to face the electorate again in March 2011.
If The Greens don’t get a primary vote of at least 12%, I will be very disappointed. It would be nice to see them finish ahead of the ALP candidate in 2PP.
If there is one upside to all this it is the chance to see that Roozendale fellow get a political black eye. He was horrible in student politics in his role as Student Unity (along with his allies, Gabrielle Harrison and the late Andrew Ziolkowski) in the mid-1980s at Macquarie and he hasn’t got any better.
What I found interesting on PM yesterday was that while the reporter said it was hard to find anyone saying they would vote ALP they found only one person willing to declare, after some prevarication, that he would “probably” vote Liberal. One woman thought it had something to do with how disappointed people were with Kevin Rudd, which underlines the point about the commercial/ABC media narrative.
In NSW of course one has optional preferential — which is tailor-made for by-elections. You can vote for as few candidates as you like, especially since whoever is elected gets to face the electorate again in March 2011.
If The Greens don’t get a primary vote of at least 12%, I will be very disappointed. It would be nice to see them finish ahead of the ALP candidate in 2PP.
If there is one upside to all this it is the chance to see that Roozendale fellow get a political black eye. He was horrible in student politics in his role as Student Unity (along with his allies, Gabrielle Harrison and the late Andrew Ziolkowski) in the mid-1980s at Macquarie and he hasn’t got any better.
@1, I doubt KRudd is helping, Razor, but I’d have thought the good voters of Penrith would have had enough concerns about the NSW government to occupy their minds.
@1, I doubt KRudd is helping, Razor, but I’d have thought the good voters of Penrith would have had enough concerns about the NSW government to occupy their minds.
Update: Live blogging of the result at The Poll Bludger will commence at 6pm AEST.
Update: Live blogging of the result at The Poll Bludger will commence at 6pm AEST.
Razor @ 1
You’re right. The overlapping federal seat of Lindsay will be lost for reasons other than the state member for Penrith perjuring herself before the Independent Commission Against Corruption.
Razor @ 1
You’re right. The overlapping federal seat of Lindsay will be lost for reasons other than the state member for Penrith perjuring herself before the Independent Commission Against Corruption.
One interesting move that Keneally could pull would be to have a referendum proposing a reform of the fixed term provision. The Opposition could scarcely oppose one in principle.
One possibility would be as follows:
The parliament shall agree (within 2 years of the last election and by a super majority of 60%) an election date for the next election. If they cannot agree by a super majority within these two years, the next election is set by default on the 156th Saturday after the last election i.e. three years. In any event, the eldction shall be held no longer than four years after the last election
One interesting move that Keneally could pull would be to have a referendum proposing a reform of the fixed term provision. The Opposition could scarcely oppose one in principle.
One possibility would be as follows:
The parliament shall agree (within 2 years of the last election and by a super majority of 60%) an election date for the next election. If they cannot agree by a super majority within these two years, the next election is set by default on the 156th Saturday after the last election i.e. three years. In any event, the eldction shall be held no longer than four years after the last election
Elsewhere: Ben Raue at The Tally Room.
Elsewhere: Ben Raue at The Tally Room.
This byelection will have nothing to do with the federal election. People can tell the difference between the state and federal parties, e.g. in february Kevin Rudd’s approval was in the 60s, while the state labor governments approval ratings were 20-30.
Also, in a byelection, Labor won Ryan before the 2004 federal election.
This byelection will have nothing to do with the federal election. People can tell the difference between the state and federal parties, e.g. in february Kevin Rudd’s approval was in the 60s, while the state labor governments approval ratings were 20-30.
Also, in a byelection, Labor won Ryan before the 2004 federal election.
I’ve just spent the day handing out in Penrith (in one of the most Tory booths partly in the Blue Mountains) and can confirm that not once was Kevin Rudd ever mentioned by anybody who was not a Liberal Member of Parliament.
I’ve just spent the day handing out in Penrith (in one of the most Tory booths partly in the Blue Mountains) and can confirm that not once was Kevin Rudd ever mentioned by anybody who was not a Liberal Member of Parliament.
Still, Liam, must have been a depressing day.
Still, Liam, must have been a depressing day.
I’ve had worse. But it wasn’t great, no.
I’ve had worse. But it wasn’t great, no.
Update: Labor loses the seat on a -24.4% primary swing.
Update: Labor loses the seat on a -24.4% primary swing.
Labor is scum and Krudd, who has taken tax and spend government to the next level (tax and give it away), should be worried; especially if he goes to the polls before the NSW voters can vent their fury at NSW labor next March.
Labor is scum and Krudd, who has taken tax and spend government to the next level (tax and give it away), should be worried; especially if he goes to the polls before the NSW voters can vent their fury at NSW labor next March.
You know Liam, there can’t be many people less keen than I than giving aid and comfort to the Liberals, but had I been in Penrith I can’t think how I could have held my nose and voted ALP.
I’d have voted Green and left it there.
You know Liam, there can’t be many people less keen than I than giving aid and comfort to the Liberals, but had I been in Penrith I can’t think how I could have held my nose and voted ALP.
I’d have voted Green and left it there.
“tax and give it away”
Financial assets do not simply evaporate because they have been taken from one place and sent to another.
“tax and give it away”
Financial assets do not simply evaporate because they have been taken from one place and sent to another.
Looks like Greens came in on 12.6%. In Penrith. Hmm.
Looks like Greens came in on 12.6%. In Penrith. Hmm.
Yep, great result for the Greens. There may minor implications for Rudd – but when a state member has gone the way she did, from a govt as on the nose as NSW Labor – I think its pretty obvious state issues dominated.
Yep, great result for the Greens. There may minor implications for Rudd – but when a state member has gone the way she did, from a govt as on the nose as NSW Labor – I think its pretty obvious state issues dominated.
A disappointing result. Hard to think that state issues did not dominate, though.
A disappointing result. Hard to think that state issues did not dominate, though.
True, Izquierdista.
Well say what you like about the Federal Government, none of their MPs have yet caused by-elections in marginal seats because they perjured themselves in front of anti-corruption bodies.
True, Izquierdista.
Well say what you like about the Federal Government, none of their MPs have yet caused by-elections in marginal seats because they perjured themselves in front of anti-corruption bodies.
Fran – I’ve been cranky with the NSW Liberals ever since they scuttled electricity privatisation. However I’d be keen to hear why you’re sour towards them. Given how long they have been out of power it is hard to recall who they have offended and how.
Fran – I’ve been cranky with the NSW Liberals ever since they scuttled electricity privatisation. However I’d be keen to hear why you’re sour towards them. Given how long they have been out of power it is hard to recall who they have offended and how.
@20 The world didn’t begin when you were born laddie.
@20 The world didn’t begin when you were born laddie.
Interesting to hear George Megalogenis suggest on ABC Insiders that the Greens strategy for the Federal election should be running two high profile candidates against Rudd and Abbott respectively, on the basis that poll results show both leaders to be electorally unpopular – for different reasons. Sure would be a way of getting both to concentrate on ordinary voter concerns. But his main argument was that the media would love the blood sport and the Greens would reap the publicity benefits. Lindsay Tanner might see some benefits in the idea given the Green threat he faces.
Interesting to hear George Megalogenis suggest on ABC Insiders that the Greens strategy for the Federal election should be running two high profile candidates against Rudd and Abbott respectively, on the basis that poll results show both leaders to be electorally unpopular – for different reasons. Sure would be a way of getting both to concentrate on ordinary voter concerns. But his main argument was that the media would love the blood sport and the Greens would reap the publicity benefits. Lindsay Tanner might see some benefits in the idea given the Green threat he faces.
And yet again the ALP allegedly try to cheat in a similar way as they allegedly did in SA.
See here http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/andrewbolt/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/labor_loses_even_its_honour/#commentsmore
If the ALP keep this sort of s**t up I will have no choice but vote for Abbott on principle.
And yet again the ALP allegedly try to cheat in a similar way as they allegedly did in SA.
See here http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/andrewbolt/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/labor_loses_even_its_honour/#commentsmore
If the ALP keep this sort of s**t up I will have no choice but vote for Abbott on principle.
Voting for Abbott on principle is, I suspect, an oxymoron.
Voting for Abbott on principle is, I suspect, an oxymoron.
How else can I punish the ALP? This is the second time now.If Howard and his crew pulled this sort of stunt we’d have been wanting everyone’s head from the bottom up.
How else can I punish the ALP? This is the second time now.If Howard and his crew pulled this sort of stunt we’d have been wanting everyone’s head from the bottom up.
Tssk, would it make you feel better or worse for me to tell you that the Liberals also had equivalent pamphlets on my booth (Lapstone Public)?
Disclaimer: I had the opportunity to hand out the please-preference-the-ALP leaflets, but declined in favour of the just-vote-one-Thain HTVs.
Tssk, would it make you feel better or worse for me to tell you that the Liberals also had equivalent pamphlets on my booth (Lapstone Public)?
Disclaimer: I had the opportunity to hand out the please-preference-the-ALP leaflets, but declined in favour of the just-vote-one-Thain HTVs.
Did anyone get photos of the Liberal ones to compare?
Did anyone get photos of the Liberal ones to compare?
“by-elections in marginal seats because they perjured themselves in front of anti-corruption bodies”
Liam it wasn’t a marginal seat, it was a blue ribbon seat that Labor has held for decades.
Flynnboy is it sound economic management to distribute Howards surplus as cash give aways?
“tax and give it away” Rudd now wants to tax the miners, maybe if he didn’t squander the surplus on cash give aways and other batty rorts, he might have more money to spend on infrastructure and tax cuts to aid the increase in super burden he is going to put on business. Krudd is morally bankrupt and his ambition is to bankrupt the nation.
“by-elections in marginal seats because they perjured themselves in front of anti-corruption bodies”
Liam it wasn’t a marginal seat, it was a blue ribbon seat that Labor has held for decades.
Flynnboy is it sound economic management to distribute Howards surplus as cash give aways?
“tax and give it away” Rudd now wants to tax the miners, maybe if he didn’t squander the surplus on cash give aways and other batty rorts, he might have more money to spend on infrastructure and tax cuts to aid the increase in super burden he is going to put on business. Krudd is morally bankrupt and his ambition is to bankrupt the nation.
terjep, don’t you remember that little debacle with John Brogden’s attempted suicide? That was a setup by the religious right of the liberals that sunk a leader who was going to be a shoo-in at the next election, all because he was a social moderate. Unless they’ve had a cleanout since then, it seems like their entire electoral strategy is to wait until labor become so stinky that people will vote for anyone; then sail in with their religious right intact, and start wreaking havoc.
As a libertarian I’d imagine you have some minor concerns about that? But then, libertarians are always willing to side with the statist right against the social democratic left, aren’t they?
terjep, don’t you remember that little debacle with John Brogden’s attempted suicide? That was a setup by the religious right of the liberals that sunk a leader who was going to be a shoo-in at the next election, all because he was a social moderate. Unless they’ve had a cleanout since then, it seems like their entire electoral strategy is to wait until labor become so stinky that people will vote for anyone; then sail in with their religious right intact, and start wreaking havoc.
As a libertarian I’d imagine you have some minor concerns about that? But then, libertarians are always willing to side with the statist right against the social democratic left, aren’t they?
sg. Please keep it civil. Thanks.
sg. Please keep it civil. Thanks.
was it the reminder of how smelly the liberals are that was uncivil, tssk? Or pointing out the obvious about libertarians and the parties they support?
was it the reminder of how smelly the liberals are that was uncivil, tssk? Or pointing out the obvious about libertarians and the parties they support?
Sg – yes that was a disappointing episode. I agree that the Liberals fail to be social liberals. However so does the ALP. On this issue I have trouble separating them. Sure the ALP has more socially liberal rhetoric but not much. And on issues like smoking, drinking and Internet censorship the ALP is somewhat less liberal.
Sg – yes that was a disappointing episode. I agree that the Liberals fail to be social liberals. However so does the ALP. On this issue I have trouble separating them. Sure the ALP has more socially liberal rhetoric but not much. And on issues like smoking, drinking and Internet censorship the ALP is somewhat less liberal.
I think using Brogden’s problems to make a point is a bit harsh. And as much as I disagree with Terje (a lot, I would think it’s fair to say we are ideologically opposite) I think it’s a long bow to say he’d turn a blind eye to marginalising someone on the social left to the point of driving them to self harm.
I think using Brogden’s problems to make a point is a bit harsh. And as much as I disagree with Terje (a lot, I would think it’s fair to say we are ideologically opposite) I think it’s a long bow to say he’d turn a blind eye to marginalising someone on the social left to the point of driving them to self harm.
For what it is worth the party I vote for is the Liberal Democrats (LDP). They are economic liberals and social liberals.
For what it is worth the party I vote for is the Liberal Democrats (LDP). They are economic liberals and social liberals.
I don’t think it’s harsh at all, tssk. Brogden’s “problems” were no-one’s business until the socially illiberal right-wing of the liberals decided to stitch him up in public and drive him to suicide, so they could flatten the socially liberal part of the party. It wasn’t just a “disappointing episode,” it was vicious, thuggish behaviour, and showed they were willing to put an unelectable fool in power rather than let the progressive wing of their party have any influence on society. They actively threw away an election in order to undermine the only part of their own party that’s in touch with mainstream Australian social thought.
If after you watched that you “have trouble separating them” on these issues you’re not trying very hard.
I don’t think it’s harsh at all, tssk. Brogden’s “problems” were no-one’s business until the socially illiberal right-wing of the liberals decided to stitch him up in public and drive him to suicide, so they could flatten the socially liberal part of the party. It wasn’t just a “disappointing episode,” it was vicious, thuggish behaviour, and showed they were willing to put an unelectable fool in power rather than let the progressive wing of their party have any influence on society. They actively threw away an election in order to undermine the only part of their own party that’s in touch with mainstream Australian social thought.
If after you watched that you “have trouble separating them” on these issues you’re not trying very hard.
Terje
The NSW Liberals are going to provide the paid places to park the new generation of Federal Liberal honchos, so it is hardly surprising that I’m not keen on helping their careerists at public expense, especially when the stringpullers are far-right Abbottesque culture warriors. They will continue to act as the primary obstacles to progress.
The Liberals need to be out of power long enough for them to become liberal in a policy sense.
Does that mean I regard the ALP as in any meaningful sense, progressive? No. The current lot in NSW are vacuous when they aren’t pandering to the big end of town. But until there is an opposition to the ALP from the left — one which could institute actual progress, I have to look at the local party in terms of its national significance.
Terje
The NSW Liberals are going to provide the paid places to park the new generation of Federal Liberal honchos, so it is hardly surprising that I’m not keen on helping their careerists at public expense, especially when the stringpullers are far-right Abbottesque culture warriors. They will continue to act as the primary obstacles to progress.
The Liberals need to be out of power long enough for them to become liberal in a policy sense.
Does that mean I regard the ALP as in any meaningful sense, progressive? No. The current lot in NSW are vacuous when they aren’t pandering to the big end of town. But until there is an opposition to the ALP from the left — one which could institute actual progress, I have to look at the local party in terms of its national significance.
Fran – so your position has more to do with federal politics than state issues?
SG – Brogden imploded following media presure relating to racist remarks he made about Bob Carrs wife. Sure the religious right had a different view of things to Brogden but they didn’t cause him to attempt suicide. It is a nonsence to suggest that any political group should stay quite on political issues of difference lest one of their opponents attempt suicide. I agree that personal attacks are grubby but the religious right are hardly unique in making them. Witness the personal attacks on Howard by the secular left.
Fran – so your position has more to do with federal politics than state issues?
SG – Brogden imploded following media presure relating to racist remarks he made about Bob Carrs wife. Sure the religious right had a different view of things to Brogden but they didn’t cause him to attempt suicide. It is a nonsence to suggest that any political group should stay quite on political issues of difference lest one of their opponents attempt suicide. I agree that personal attacks are grubby but the religious right are hardly unique in making them. Witness the personal attacks on Howard by the secular left.
Terje
Yes it does, though it is worth remembering that IR laws are also a state matter. If the Liberal Party were actually a liberal party i.e. a party like The Greens, then that would be a different matter entirely and one could welcome the relief. The again, one suspects that if this were so the ALP would be more liberal and accountable too.
Terje
Yes it does, though it is worth remembering that IR laws are also a state matter. If the Liberal Party were actually a liberal party i.e. a party like The Greens, then that would be a different matter entirely and one could welcome the relief. The again, one suspects that if this were so the ALP would be more liberal and accountable too.
Tony G asks “is it sound economic management to distribute Howards surplus as cash give aways?”
And you’ve have to ask Howard about that – he was the king of the cash giveaway.
At the top of the market too, no ‘tanking world economy’ excuse for Liberal drunken-sailor spending. How much do some want to re-write history?
Tony G asks “is it sound economic management to distribute Howards surplus as cash give aways?”
And you’ve have to ask Howard about that – he was the king of the cash giveaway.
At the top of the market too, no ‘tanking world economy’ excuse for Liberal drunken-sailor spending. How much do some want to re-write history?
No TerjeP, John Brogden “imploded” after his unpleasant behaviour was reported to the press, with the general suspicion that the controversy was set up by people to his right in the liberal party – it had Hawke and Howard’s hands all over it. It was widely reported at the time that it was not an official function, so his personal behaviour had no bearing on anything. What happened breached all the basic rules that politicians and journalists follow about reporting on politicians’ personal behaviour – it was another grubby attempt by the right of the liberal party to ride roughshod over any tradition or norm of behaviour if it benefits them. It is not the same as, for example, the media hounding Turnbull over the Grech affair and no, Brogden would not have attempted suicide if his career hadn’t been ended in such a shameful way by members of his own party.
Whether or not the religious right are “Unique” in making personal attacks (I don’t remember anyone in the “secular left” accusing Howard of dodgy behaviour at a function), this was an instance of them doing it to one of their own side and throwing away an election in the process. Why do you think they did that, eh?
The only other comparable moment was the shameful treatment of that democratic senator over his supposed “assault” of that liberal politician. Howard and his cronies would break any tradition of our parliament in order to destroy their enemies, and now the liberal party are wondering why they have such talentless yes-men at the top…
No TerjeP, John Brogden “imploded” after his unpleasant behaviour was reported to the press, with the general suspicion that the controversy was set up by people to his right in the liberal party – it had Hawke and Howard’s hands all over it. It was widely reported at the time that it was not an official function, so his personal behaviour had no bearing on anything. What happened breached all the basic rules that politicians and journalists follow about reporting on politicians’ personal behaviour – it was another grubby attempt by the right of the liberal party to ride roughshod over any tradition or norm of behaviour if it benefits them. It is not the same as, for example, the media hounding Turnbull over the Grech affair and no, Brogden would not have attempted suicide if his career hadn’t been ended in such a shameful way by members of his own party.
Whether or not the religious right are “Unique” in making personal attacks (I don’t remember anyone in the “secular left” accusing Howard of dodgy behaviour at a function), this was an instance of them doing it to one of their own side and throwing away an election in the process. Why do you think they did that, eh?
The only other comparable moment was the shameful treatment of that democratic senator over his supposed “assault” of that liberal politician. Howard and his cronies would break any tradition of our parliament in order to destroy their enemies, and now the liberal party are wondering why they have such talentless yes-men at the top…
SG: Are you using the term ‘libertarian’ in an entirely new and interesting manner? If not, then I don’t understand your linking of your ‘libertarians’ to a ‘statist right’.
SG: Are you using the term ‘libertarian’ in an entirely new and interesting manner? If not, then I don’t understand your linking of your ‘libertarians’ to a ‘statist right’.
It’s not difficult, PeterTB: libertarians sing a social liberal, economic liberal song, but when push comes to shove they always side with the socially illiberal party that supports the rich over the poor. Rhetorically about freedom, in practice it’s about “I’m alright, jack.” Which is why when faced with two statist parties, they always end up favouring the rhetoric of the conservative parties.
It’s not difficult, PeterTB: libertarians sing a social liberal, economic liberal song, but when push comes to shove they always side with the socially illiberal party that supports the rich over the poor. Rhetorically about freedom, in practice it’s about “I’m alright, jack.” Which is why when faced with two statist parties, they always end up favouring the rhetoric of the conservative parties.
I can understand: when faced with two statist parties, they always end up favouring the rhetoric of the conservative parties – though I think you are reaching somewhat.
However, what you actually said was: libertarians are always willing to side with the statist right against the social democratic left
which is quite different, isn’t it?
I can understand: when faced with two statist parties, they always end up favouring the rhetoric of the conservative parties – though I think you are reaching somewhat.
However, what you actually said was: libertarians are always willing to side with the statist right against the social democratic left
which is quite different, isn’t it?
No, it’s not different at all.
No, it’s not different at all.
Saying that the Penrith election outcome was a vote against Rudd is just as stupid as saying that it was a vote for Abbott.
Saying that the Penrith election outcome was a vote against Rudd is just as stupid as saying that it was a vote for Abbott.
“Flynnboy is it sound economic management to distribute Howards surplus as cash give aways?”
I think the results speak for themselves.
And what makes you think that government budget surpluses always constitute good economic management? Government and private sector fiscal positions are a mirror image of one another and government budget surpluses are necessarily manifested as private sector deficits. This is not opinion or theory or a political position of left or right – it is one of the most basic facts of national accounting.
“Flynnboy is it sound economic management to distribute Howards surplus as cash give aways?”
I think the results speak for themselves.
And what makes you think that government budget surpluses always constitute good economic management? Government and private sector fiscal positions are a mirror image of one another and government budget surpluses are necessarily manifested as private sector deficits. This is not opinion or theory or a political position of left or right – it is one of the most basic facts of national accounting.
Now, that is a beautiful set of numbers.
Now, that is a beautiful set of numbers.
Three observations about the Penrith by-election.
1. The result was a damning indictment of the NSW Labor Right and its incompetent and corrupt control of New South Wales.
2. The NSW Labor Right, desperate to obscure thesis 1, has resorted to the ploy of claiming that the result is all about TEH ASYLUM SEEKERS.
3. Glenn Milne is a receptive receptacle for this ploy.
Three observations about the Penrith by-election.
1. The result was a damning indictment of the NSW Labor Right and its incompetent and corrupt control of New South Wales.
2. The NSW Labor Right, desperate to obscure thesis 1, has resorted to the ploy of claiming that the result is all about TEH ASYLUM SEEKERS.
3. Glenn Milne is a receptive receptacle for this ploy.
This by-election result has nothing at all to do with Federal Labor and everything to do with NSW Labor which is arguably the most corrupt regime NSW has ever seen. If there is a reflection on Federal politics it is that the NSW Right is dominant within the Feds still and it is this presence that prevents the ALP from becoming a party of genuine social democracy.
I see Richo is on Q+A this week. I’d watch but I don’t have a puke bucket deep enough to hold my disgust.
This by-election result has nothing at all to do with Federal Labor and everything to do with NSW Labor which is arguably the most corrupt regime NSW has ever seen. If there is a reflection on Federal politics it is that the NSW Right is dominant within the Feds still and it is this presence that prevents the ALP from becoming a party of genuine social democracy.
I see Richo is on Q+A this week. I’d watch but I don’t have a puke bucket deep enough to hold my disgust.
If I’d been living in Penrith, not only would I have voted Liberal, I would have handed out Liberal how to vote cards. I hope the Liberals win the state election, and win big. I don’t think O’Farrell is all that bad. Yes, there is a chance that the Liberal far right will try to take over social policy, but that is a fight that will have to be fought if need be. It will be well worth it to get rid of the stinking, morally bankrupt, decrepit sewer that is the NSW state Labor government.
But I would rather eat my own shit* than vote Liberal at the Federal election.
*Speaking of which, does anybody know when Salo is coming out out on DVD?
If I’d been living in Penrith, not only would I have voted Liberal, I would have handed out Liberal how to vote cards. I hope the Liberals win the state election, and win big. I don’t think O’Farrell is all that bad. Yes, there is a chance that the Liberal far right will try to take over social policy, but that is a fight that will have to be fought if need be. It will be well worth it to get rid of the stinking, morally bankrupt, decrepit sewer that is the NSW state Labor government.
But I would rather eat my own shit* than vote Liberal at the Federal election.
*Speaking of which, does anybody know when Salo is coming out out on DVD?
What I got out of the lift in Abbott’s personal numbers is that the less he says, the more people like him, which doesn’t really help him when he has to say something — like during an election campaign.
Not only that, his disapproval numbers continue to climb as well even when he is keeping out of the headlines. Over the weekend, the National Party made clear that should the coalition win the election, they’d like to demur on Abbott’s model for parental leave and also on water policy. Joyce remains on the shadow front bench.
That will be fun.
People have assumed that the campaign can’t overlap with football finals but the more I think about it, the more I think that this might actually help the ALP. After all, if something not running against the ALP is taking up oxygen then this must be at the expense of the media narrative. That has to hurt the opposition more than the government because if the opposition blunders, that will be the only thing being talked about in the remaining space after football has been set aside.
It’s hard to run an insurgency when people are focused on football.
What I got out of the lift in Abbott’s personal numbers is that the less he says, the more people like him, which doesn’t really help him when he has to say something — like during an election campaign.
Not only that, his disapproval numbers continue to climb as well even when he is keeping out of the headlines. Over the weekend, the National Party made clear that should the coalition win the election, they’d like to demur on Abbott’s model for parental leave and also on water policy. Joyce remains on the shadow front bench.
That will be fun.
People have assumed that the campaign can’t overlap with football finals but the more I think about it, the more I think that this might actually help the ALP. After all, if something not running against the ALP is taking up oxygen then this must be at the expense of the media narrative. That has to hurt the opposition more than the government because if the opposition blunders, that will be the only thing being talked about in the remaining space after football has been set aside.
It’s hard to run an insurgency when people are focused on football.
Fran – the Greens are not a liberal party. They are control freaks. Anybody that votes for the Greens thinking they are voting for a more liberal society are tragically deluded.
Fran – the Greens are not a liberal party. They are control freaks. Anybody that votes for the Greens thinking they are voting for a more liberal society are tragically deluded.
AN @ 50.
Bob Askin. NSW Liberal Government in the 1960s. Y’know, Run over the Longhaired Bastards Askin. ? Far more corrupt than any recent NSW Labor Government.
AN @ 50.
Bob Askin. NSW Liberal Government in the 1960s. Y’know, Run over the Longhaired Bastards Askin. ? Far more corrupt than any recent NSW Labor Government.
SG – more libertarians would split from the Liberals if there was a viable alternative. That’s why the Liberal Democrats were formed, to provide a viable alternative. It is the only party that supports a smaller government sector. The social democratic left are statist to the core having never seen a problem that didn’t warrant more taxes, more regulations and more bureaucrats. Their idea of freedom is free health care. So of course libertarians keep their distance. If you want the support of libertarians then clean up your act.
SG – more libertarians would split from the Liberals if there was a viable alternative. That’s why the Liberal Democrats were formed, to provide a viable alternative. It is the only party that supports a smaller government sector. The social democratic left are statist to the core having never seen a problem that didn’t warrant more taxes, more regulations and more bureaucrats. Their idea of freedom is free health care. So of course libertarians keep their distance. If you want the support of libertarians then clean up your act.
Of course The Greens are liberal Terje. They favour human rights and more accountable and open government. They are against concentration of power (economic and social) and favour greater pluralism. They favour secular rule. They favour greater fairness and equity while warranting capitalism as the best of all possible systems. That makes them liberals.
Of course The Greens are liberal Terje. They favour human rights and more accountable and open government. They are against concentration of power (economic and social) and favour greater pluralism. They favour secular rule. They favour greater fairness and equity while warranting capitalism as the best of all possible systems. That makes them liberals.
That said, Fran #56, the Greens are centrally committed to ecological sustainability, and on that basis must logically:
(a) disagree with liberal notions of private property rights which fail to acknowledge that ecosystem processes transcend cadastral boundaries; and
(b) disagree with liberal notions of “rights of the individual” when those rights, if exercised without restraint and in aggregate, overshoot ecological and biophysical limits; and
(c) disagree with the concept of the unencumbered, pre-social and pre-ecological individual when we know that (i) the human is an animal in an ecosystem and (ii) the individual human person is constituted by the social relationships within which they are born, raised and live.
That said, Fran #56, the Greens are centrally committed to ecological sustainability, and on that basis must logically:
(a) disagree with liberal notions of private property rights which fail to acknowledge that ecosystem processes transcend cadastral boundaries; and
(b) disagree with liberal notions of “rights of the individual” when those rights, if exercised without restraint and in aggregate, overshoot ecological and biophysical limits; and
(c) disagree with the concept of the unencumbered, pre-social and pre-ecological individual when we know that (i) the human is an animal in an ecosystem and (ii) the individual human person is constituted by the social relationships within which they are born, raised and live.
Agreed Paul … though of course the usage of the term “liberal” here is relative rather than an iteration of some sort of sine qua non of the liberalism.
In any event, I don’t regard liberal ideas as entailing unencumbered exercise of rights. The notion of licence is prominent in those most commonly associated with the rise of liberalism, even if the boundaries are in different places.
Agreed Paul … though of course the usage of the term “liberal” here is relative rather than an iteration of some sort of sine qua non of the liberalism.
In any event, I don’t regard liberal ideas as entailing unencumbered exercise of rights. The notion of licence is prominent in those most commonly associated with the rise of liberalism, even if the boundaries are in different places.
“They are against concentration of power (economic and social) and favour greater pluralism.”
I’m afraid that does not gel with their views on taxes. They want more of our income controlled by the state which clearly entails a greater centralisation of economic power.
“They are against concentration of power (economic and social) and favour greater pluralism.”
I’m afraid that does not gel with their views on taxes. They want more of our income controlled by the state which clearly entails a greater centralisation of economic power.
TerjeP, you’re getting tiresome.
I don’t expect you to agree, but it’s obvious that most of our problems are caused by, rather than solved by, The Market (TM), and it’s actually not possible to base a civil society solely on the law of contracts (particularly when said laws are unenforceable without the dead hand of the State getting involved).
TerjeP, you’re getting tiresome.
I don’t expect you to agree, but it’s obvious that most of our problems are caused by, rather than solved by, The Market (TM), and it’s actually not possible to base a civil society solely on the law of contracts (particularly when said laws are unenforceable without the dead hand of the State getting involved).
Terje said:
No it doesn’t. They want a greater proportion or revenues for public policy sourced from corporate profits and high income earners and want this distributed as benefits of one kind or another to lower income earners. Since this redistribution is relatively egalitarian (poorer poeople have more benefits at the expense of wealthier people), it means that economic power is less concentrated and assets are more widely dispersed.
Terje said:
No it doesn’t. They want a greater proportion or revenues for public policy sourced from corporate profits and high income earners and want this distributed as benefits of one kind or another to lower income earners. Since this redistribution is relatively egalitarian (poorer poeople have more benefits at the expense of wealthier people), it means that economic power is less concentrated and assets are more widely dispersed.
David – you are right, I don’t agree.
Back to Frans point. How can a party that wants to centralise the control of an increased proportion of our income be regarded as being against the centralisation of economic power? The centralisation of economic power is central to their entire agenda. I’m bemused by such willful blindness.
David – you are right, I don’t agree.
Back to Frans point. How can a party that wants to centralise the control of an increased proportion of our income be regarded as being against the centralisation of economic power? The centralisation of economic power is central to their entire agenda. I’m bemused by such willful blindness.
Fran – when was the last time the greens suggested an increase in the tax free threshold so that low income workers could keep a greater share of what they earn? If they seriously wanted to redistribute then they would be lookin to reduces taxes for the poor but they don’t. They want to take from the rich, those on moderate income and the poor and centralise control of expenditure in government hands. They are statist to the core. The state is both means and ends for the Greens.
Fran – when was the last time the greens suggested an increase in the tax free threshold so that low income workers could keep a greater share of what they earn? If they seriously wanted to redistribute then they would be lookin to reduces taxes for the poor but they don’t. They want to take from the rich, those on moderate income and the poor and centralise control of expenditure in government hands. They are statist to the core. The state is both means and ends for the Greens.
Terje
The Greens focus on payment of cash assistance and benefits in kind (eg health, transport, education services) because many of the poorest earn too little to benefit from tax threshhold improvements (esp[ecially with allowable income on welfare limits).
Moreover, the delay in tax rebate payments arrives too late to assist when it is needed, and amounts to a form of forced saving — which in no way offsets the charges associated with pay day loans and high credit card bills.
Misleading. The state doesn’t get to keep the income. It is merely a waystation. If the Greens had their way, it would be taking income from the wealthy and delivering benefits to the not so wealthy. It’s not our income (when our refers to the least/less advantaged) but the income of the wealthy tha is being targeted.
Terje
The Greens focus on payment of cash assistance and benefits in kind (eg health, transport, education services) because many of the poorest earn too little to benefit from tax threshhold improvements (esp[ecially with allowable income on welfare limits).
Moreover, the delay in tax rebate payments arrives too late to assist when it is needed, and amounts to a form of forced saving — which in no way offsets the charges associated with pay day loans and high credit card bills.
Misleading. The state doesn’t get to keep the income. It is merely a waystation. If the Greens had their way, it would be taking income from the wealthy and delivering benefits to the not so wealthy. It’s not our income (when our refers to the least/less advantaged) but the income of the wealthy tha is being targeted.
Terje, you are a silly sausage.
How can the process you describe be called “centralisation” of economy power? Under the Greens proposal they intend to redistribute the money. In other words, they are taking the money from the hands of a few and redistributing it into the hands of many. In any sensible lexicon that is DEcentralisation, not centralisation.
Your “centralisation of economic power” argument is valid only if the Greens proposed to hang on to all the tax revenue for the sole purposes of government. I trust that even you are not silly enough to believe that this is the policy of the Greens.
Terje, you are a silly sausage.
How can the process you describe be called “centralisation” of economy power? Under the Greens proposal they intend to redistribute the money. In other words, they are taking the money from the hands of a few and redistributing it into the hands of many. In any sensible lexicon that is DEcentralisation, not centralisation.
Your “centralisation of economic power” argument is valid only if the Greens proposed to hang on to all the tax revenue for the sole purposes of government. I trust that even you are not silly enough to believe that this is the policy of the Greens.
Fran – if the Greens take money from you and me and spend it on public transport or hospitals then that is a centralisation of economic power. You may approve of such spending but it isn’t a decentralised approach. If they merely want to redistribute income they would propose higher taxes on the rich and equivalent reductions in revenue via tax cuts to the poor. However they don’t merely want to redistribute (something which is in itself about control) but want to actually centralise purchasing decisions.
The Greens are not in favour of increasing freedom, they stand for the centralisation of control and are at the core authoritarians. It is obvious from their policies. If they favoured freedom then they would ditch their authoritarian policies.
Contrast the Greens with the LDP. The LDP policies clearly entail returning economic and social power to individuals and communities. The LDP does not seek to centralise decision making in Canberra or Macquarie street. The LDP stands for a diffusion of power and a much more modest and disempowered state.
Fran – if the Greens take money from you and me and spend it on public transport or hospitals then that is a centralisation of economic power. You may approve of such spending but it isn’t a decentralised approach. If they merely want to redistribute income they would propose higher taxes on the rich and equivalent reductions in revenue via tax cuts to the poor. However they don’t merely want to redistribute (something which is in itself about control) but want to actually centralise purchasing decisions.
The Greens are not in favour of increasing freedom, they stand for the centralisation of control and are at the core authoritarians. It is obvious from their policies. If they favoured freedom then they would ditch their authoritarian policies.
Contrast the Greens with the LDP. The LDP policies clearly entail returning economic and social power to individuals and communities. The LDP does not seek to centralise decision making in Canberra or Macquarie street. The LDP stands for a diffusion of power and a much more modest and disempowered state.
Katz – I have not insulted you so why open your comment to me with a personal insult. It is uncalled for and rude.
Katz – I have not insulted you so why open your comment to me with a personal insult. It is uncalled for and rude.
Terje
Your analysis is flawed because it bundles things that are complex. Spending money on public transport provides non-liquid benefits to all public transport users. Since usage is skewed downmarket, this tends to benefit the poor and the lower middle class more than the upper middle class and higher. So benefits are decentralised.
The same goes with health and education benefits. By relieving the poor of some of the burden of these costs, they ensure that more of their income is discretionary and yet, they get the benefits that we want them to get. This empowers them to earn income. It also breaks down generational disadvantage, so again it subverts inequality.
Terje
Your analysis is flawed because it bundles things that are complex. Spending money on public transport provides non-liquid benefits to all public transport users. Since usage is skewed downmarket, this tends to benefit the poor and the lower middle class more than the upper middle class and higher. So benefits are decentralised.
The same goes with health and education benefits. By relieving the poor of some of the burden of these costs, they ensure that more of their income is discretionary and yet, they get the benefits that we want them to get. This empowers them to earn income. It also breaks down generational disadvantage, so again it subverts inequality.
It’s an “insult” only if it isn’t true. When it is true it is a “description”.
You insult your boss when you call him a tyrant. You describe Mugabe when you call him a tyrant.
I notice that you have amended your phraseology from “economio centralisation” to “centralisation of control”. Well done. that is much less silly. In fact, it’s sensible.
It’s an “insult” only if it isn’t true. When it is true it is a “description”.
You insult your boss when you call him a tyrant. You describe Mugabe when you call him a tyrant.
I notice that you have amended your phraseology from “economio centralisation” to “centralisation of control”. Well done. that is much less silly. In fact, it’s sensible.
“When it is true it is a description”.
I see. That’s how it works. Well then stop being a dickhead.
“When it is true it is a description”.
I see. That’s how it works. Well then stop being a dickhead.
terjep, when are you going to realise that increasing taxes is not equivalent to decreasing freedom? Your own tax fetishism aside, there is no relationship between higher taxes and less freedom.
terjep, when are you going to realise that increasing taxes is not equivalent to decreasing freedom? Your own tax fetishism aside, there is no relationship between higher taxes and less freedom.
Sg – When are you going to quit with the idea that higher taxes mean more freedom. When is Fran going to quit with the idea that centralised economic planning isn’t a decentralisation of economic power. I don’t know the answer to these questions.
Sg – When are you going to quit with the idea that higher taxes mean more freedom. When is Fran going to quit with the idea that centralised economic planning isn’t a decentralisation of economic power. I don’t know the answer to these questions.
Now you’re being a silly sausage again.
I encourage you to be more accurate in your choice of words and concepts (which you do to your personal benefit and education). Then I praise you for your improvement and all I get is contumely.
Your behaviour is verging on the irrational.
Now you’re being a silly sausage again.
I encourage you to be more accurate in your choice of words and concepts (which you do to your personal benefit and education). Then I praise you for your improvement and all I get is contumely.
Your behaviour is verging on the irrational.
Now you’re being a dickhead again.
Now you’re being a dickhead again.
Katz – seriously I have no beef with you but please desist with personal insults. I’m not a sausage and I don’t wish to be refered to as a sausage.
Katz – seriously I have no beef with you but please desist with personal insults. I’m not a sausage and I don’t wish to be refered to as a sausage.
I’ve debated this before with Terje. He is not being irrational. He’s annoyed that his hard earned is being taken from him and used for purposes against his will. Essentially from his point of view tax taken in this way is theft.
As someone who was raised on welfare payments I can’t really debate with him rationally as I am biased. But I can see his point. He is perfectly fine with paying for important services that he uses like roads and the defence force.
But I can totally see his point. He’s being the opposite of irrational. He’s being completely honest and logical. Whether or not enforced payment for the good of society is theft or not should be up for debate but that’s for another thread all together.
Anyone want to start one?
I’ve debated this before with Terje. He is not being irrational. He’s annoyed that his hard earned is being taken from him and used for purposes against his will. Essentially from his point of view tax taken in this way is theft.
As someone who was raised on welfare payments I can’t really debate with him rationally as I am biased. But I can see his point. He is perfectly fine with paying for important services that he uses like roads and the defence force.
But I can totally see his point. He’s being the opposite of irrational. He’s being completely honest and logical. Whether or not enforced payment for the good of society is theft or not should be up for debate but that’s for another thread all together.
Anyone want to start one?
I think I see why the LDP achieved way less than 1% of the vote last election.
Do you need help with that?
I think I see why the LDP achieved way less than 1% of the vote last election.
Do you need help with that?
I’m not going to mince words – you’re carrying on like a pork chop.
I’m not going to mince words – you’re carrying on like a pork chop.
The problem SG is that Terje sees every individual as a decontextualised private sovereign with his or her own purchasing power. If someone has less cash they are less powerfuland rtherefore less free.
That’s simplistic of course since it is not merely the amount of cash that one has, but how much purchasing power it has. Right now, my 17 year old’s income is quite low, but as he lives at home, and we bear all of his basic expenses plus even some of his dfiscretionary ones, his income can be spent, if he wishes, entirely on discretionary purchases. If one merely examined his share of the household income, he’d look a lot poorer and dismepowered on paper than he was in practice. If someone gave him the full notional cash benefit and then we made him move out and look after himself he’d certainly be no better off, and indeed, he’d almost certainly be worse off in practice because his capacity to budget and his capacity to buy at the best marginal cost would be poorer.He wouldn’t be more empowered.
There are some benefits that are best bought in bulk and distributed to individuals even if not all of the individuals benefit equally all the time. Health, housing, education, transport, communication etc fit that description.
The problem SG is that Terje sees every individual as a decontextualised private sovereign with his or her own purchasing power. If someone has less cash they are less powerfuland rtherefore less free.
That’s simplistic of course since it is not merely the amount of cash that one has, but how much purchasing power it has. Right now, my 17 year old’s income is quite low, but as he lives at home, and we bear all of his basic expenses plus even some of his dfiscretionary ones, his income can be spent, if he wishes, entirely on discretionary purchases. If one merely examined his share of the household income, he’d look a lot poorer and dismepowered on paper than he was in practice. If someone gave him the full notional cash benefit and then we made him move out and look after himself he’d certainly be no better off, and indeed, he’d almost certainly be worse off in practice because his capacity to budget and his capacity to buy at the best marginal cost would be poorer.He wouldn’t be more empowered.
There are some benefits that are best bought in bulk and distributed to individuals even if not all of the individuals benefit equally all the time. Health, housing, education, transport, communication etc fit that description.
You guys need to understand where Terje is coming from. (Terje feel free to correct me if I’m wrong on this.)
Imagine you are in a park. Someone runs over to you, shoves you over, rips out your wallet and takes out a quarter of your money before tossing the rest next to you.
“Help I’ve been robbed!” you cry. But instead of assistance or sympathy people look at you oddly or sneer at you.
“What are you complaining about. Most of your money is still there.”
“Hey man, he probably needed it more than you.”
“What’s your beef, are you like obssessed with material stuf?”
“He’ll probably use it for the greater good man.”
You’d be seriously annoyed wouldn’t you.
This is where Libertarians come from. They feel they’ve been robbed and worse still they get shunned or sneered at for feeling put out.
You guys need to understand where Terje is coming from. (Terje feel free to correct me if I’m wrong on this.)
Imagine you are in a park. Someone runs over to you, shoves you over, rips out your wallet and takes out a quarter of your money before tossing the rest next to you.
“Help I’ve been robbed!” you cry. But instead of assistance or sympathy people look at you oddly or sneer at you.
“What are you complaining about. Most of your money is still there.”
“Hey man, he probably needed it more than you.”
“What’s your beef, are you like obssessed with material stuf?”
“He’ll probably use it for the greater good man.”
You’d be seriously annoyed wouldn’t you.
This is where Libertarians come from. They feel they’ve been robbed and worse still they get shunned or sneered at for feeling put out.
Is this really how Libertarians picture how legislation is passed into law in a democracy? Is the Governor-General the person who mugs you? Does Her Majesty know that her Viceroy is doing this?
If so, I’m shocked. Shocked.
Is this really how Libertarians picture how legislation is passed into law in a democracy? Is the Governor-General the person who mugs you? Does Her Majesty know that her Viceroy is doing this?
If so, I’m shocked. Shocked.
WTF are you talking about tssk? Your analogy makes about as much sense as LDP policies.
WTF are you talking about tssk? Your analogy makes about as much sense as LDP policies.
Quite simply, the raising of funds through levying of taxes by a lawfully constituted and democratically elected parliament, and the authorisation of payments from said funds by said parliament, cannot in itself be considered theft by anyone who accepts the legitimacy and the sovereignty of the parliament.
Quite simply, the raising of funds through levying of taxes by a lawfully constituted and democratically elected parliament, and the authorisation of payments from said funds by said parliament, cannot in itself be considered theft by anyone who accepts the legitimacy and the sovereignty of the parliament.
That libertarian dude in tssk’s analogy was really unlucky.
He appears to have wandered into the last park on earth where hippies still live.
That libertarian dude in tssk’s analogy was really unlucky.
He appears to have wandered into the last park on earth where hippies still live.
tssk said:
Well there you go — I’d like to pay less for roads and the defence services, but that is not how buying pools work. When you buy Foxtel (actually I don’t) you get a package. Some of it may be uninteresting and some you like but you get the package for a price and work out whether on the whole that is worth it or not. You don’t get to complain that you’re not that interested in the Grand Prix coverage and don’t want to pay for that bit. The same applies at your local gym. You might not use all of the equipment and the most expensive bits of the equipment — the swimming pool — you might not use at all. What you have to work out is whether on the whole it’s still worth paying the fees.
You generally don’t get to pick which country you belong to, but the principle is the same. You decide what services are worth having and decide on some way of allocating them and paying for them fairly and accept the package. That the support of services should be related to capacity to pay is not merely equitable, but is rational.
The fact is that poor people are in a weak position to use their purchasing power to meet their needs and tend to choose between paying too much and going without. Typically, the poor quality food and poor quality housing leads them to make further poor quality lifestyle choicesand foten these disadvantages become part of the lifestyle and adaptive behaviour of their children concentrating disadvantage. This in turn raises the cost of supplying these people and their children the quality of benefit we would want if we were to empower them to have the shot at life we’d like everyone to have, so policy makers tend to skimp on this and accept that “the poor will always be with us” and move on after some suitably nice words about how we value “the little people”.
It is far easier to leave rich people rich and poor people poor and pretend it’s all for the best and about “personal choices” — at least if you are closer to being rich than poor. That doesn’t make it right and it certainly doen’t make economic control “less centralised”. It makes it a lot more concentrated.
I was talking to someone the other day who was a commercial pilot in the US. Apparently, over there, light aircraft pilots are paid less than busdrivers and not uncommonly supplement their income with a second (minimimm wage) job and/or welfare. Training is perfunctory because there’s not enough money to do it properly and who is going to pay for it? Nearly anyone can be a pilot. Safety is poor and so is regulation so people tend to work longer hours to make up money. But the market is working exactly as it should, ensuring that pilot services are at minimum cost. How this helps ensure that power is decentralised is anyone’s guess.
tssk said:
Well there you go — I’d like to pay less for roads and the defence services, but that is not how buying pools work. When you buy Foxtel (actually I don’t) you get a package. Some of it may be uninteresting and some you like but you get the package for a price and work out whether on the whole that is worth it or not. You don’t get to complain that you’re not that interested in the Grand Prix coverage and don’t want to pay for that bit. The same applies at your local gym. You might not use all of the equipment and the most expensive bits of the equipment — the swimming pool — you might not use at all. What you have to work out is whether on the whole it’s still worth paying the fees.
You generally don’t get to pick which country you belong to, but the principle is the same. You decide what services are worth having and decide on some way of allocating them and paying for them fairly and accept the package. That the support of services should be related to capacity to pay is not merely equitable, but is rational.
The fact is that poor people are in a weak position to use their purchasing power to meet their needs and tend to choose between paying too much and going without. Typically, the poor quality food and poor quality housing leads them to make further poor quality lifestyle choicesand foten these disadvantages become part of the lifestyle and adaptive behaviour of their children concentrating disadvantage. This in turn raises the cost of supplying these people and their children the quality of benefit we would want if we were to empower them to have the shot at life we’d like everyone to have, so policy makers tend to skimp on this and accept that “the poor will always be with us” and move on after some suitably nice words about how we value “the little people”.
It is far easier to leave rich people rich and poor people poor and pretend it’s all for the best and about “personal choices” — at least if you are closer to being rich than poor. That doesn’t make it right and it certainly doen’t make economic control “less centralised”. It makes it a lot more concentrated.
I was talking to someone the other day who was a commercial pilot in the US. Apparently, over there, light aircraft pilots are paid less than busdrivers and not uncommonly supplement their income with a second (minimimm wage) job and/or welfare. Training is perfunctory because there’s not enough money to do it properly and who is going to pay for it? Nearly anyone can be a pilot. Safety is poor and so is regulation so people tend to work longer hours to make up money. But the market is working exactly as it should, ensuring that pilot services are at minimum cost. How this helps ensure that power is decentralised is anyone’s guess.
Tssk – taxes are a form of theft (sometimes a reasonable theft most times an unreasonable one) but that isn’t central to the point I was making to Fran. If Robin Hood steals from the rich and gives to the poor then one may make the claim that Robin Hood is basically just redistributing wealth (with theft as a means). However if Robin Hood rallies an army, takes vast sums of money from the masses by use of the sword, buys a stack of farmland, employs a lot of poor workers and starts producing food for the nations people all whilst banning the farming of wheat by all but those that he grants license to then he isn’t just engaging in redistribution. And even if Robin Hood is so smart that we all end up with more food he has still decreased freedom.
Some people may want to give up freedom for more food. I can understand that. However I wouldn’t call it an increase in freedom. I wouldn’t call it liberal.
Tssk – taxes are a form of theft (sometimes a reasonable theft most times an unreasonable one) but that isn’t central to the point I was making to Fran. If Robin Hood steals from the rich and gives to the poor then one may make the claim that Robin Hood is basically just redistributing wealth (with theft as a means). However if Robin Hood rallies an army, takes vast sums of money from the masses by use of the sword, buys a stack of farmland, employs a lot of poor workers and starts producing food for the nations people all whilst banning the farming of wheat by all but those that he grants license to then he isn’t just engaging in redistribution. And even if Robin Hood is so smart that we all end up with more food he has still decreased freedom.
Some people may want to give up freedom for more food. I can understand that. However I wouldn’t call it an increase in freedom. I wouldn’t call it liberal.
Fran, that bit about airline pilots is seriously scay. Remember that guy who managed to land that plane on the Hudson? He doesn’t get interviewed that much because he doesn’t fit the hero narrative. (His wage if I remember correctly has dropped 50% in the past ten years. A victory for shareholders. Yay!)
And sorry for the crudeness of my story. I’m just trying to see it from a Libertarian perspective. My personal story? I would have starved as a kid and been homeless and uneducated without welfare. I can’t really knock a social system that made me into the productive taxpaying unit I am today. Which is why I’m so biased. Libertarians intrigue me. I’ve tried reading Ayn Rand but I can’t see the same thing rationalists see in her.
Anyway…again major thread derail…maybe we should have a Libertarian debate thread.
Fran, that bit about airline pilots is seriously scay. Remember that guy who managed to land that plane on the Hudson? He doesn’t get interviewed that much because he doesn’t fit the hero narrative. (His wage if I remember correctly has dropped 50% in the past ten years. A victory for shareholders. Yay!)
And sorry for the crudeness of my story. I’m just trying to see it from a Libertarian perspective. My personal story? I would have starved as a kid and been homeless and uneducated without welfare. I can’t really knock a social system that made me into the productive taxpaying unit I am today. Which is why I’m so biased. Libertarians intrigue me. I’ve tried reading Ayn Rand but I can’t see the same thing rationalists see in her.
Anyway…again major thread derail…maybe we should have a Libertarian debate thread.
For what it is worth I don’t have Foxtel and I think we spend too much on defence. I happy for roads to be user pays. When it comes to footpaths I’m a communist.
For what it is worth I don’t have Foxtel and I think we spend too much on defence. I happy for roads to be user pays. When it comes to footpaths I’m a communist.
Fran – we can have buying pools without government. We used to do a lot through mutual societies before the state got big. We used to fund retirement schemes build telephone exhanges (in the US) and even set up schools and hospitals through voluntary collectives. I agree that there are benefits to be had from pooling resources but this is not the same as saying that coersion increases welfare.
Fran – we can have buying pools without government. We used to do a lot through mutual societies before the state got big. We used to fund retirement schemes build telephone exhanges (in the US) and even set up schools and hospitals through voluntary collectives. I agree that there are benefits to be had from pooling resources but this is not the same as saying that coersion increases welfare.
Tssk – I don’t believe you would have starved without the existance of government funded welfare. Not if you lived in Australia as a child. Human starvation is very rare and the modern examples we see on TV (eg ethiopia) are often the product of too much tax and government not too little.
Tssk – I don’t believe you would have starved without the existance of government funded welfare. Not if you lived in Australia as a child. Human starvation is very rare and the modern examples we see on TV (eg ethiopia) are often the product of too much tax and government not too little.
I’d love to revisit the debates we used to have on Inside Politics but…we’re both driving this thread waaaaay off topic. thanks to everyone for being so patient.
So….Penrith by-election….
I’d love to revisit the debates we used to have on Inside Politics but…we’re both driving this thread waaaaay off topic. thanks to everyone for being so patient.
So….Penrith by-election….
adrian @ 82 – I think that’s exactly the point tssk was making.
TerjeP @ 90, you’re young, aren’t you? Fifty years ago, there was serious disadvantage and poverty in Australia. For instance, parts of North Adelaide were definitely slums. I’m afraid tssk’s facts trump your glibertarian witterings.
adrian @ 82 – I think that’s exactly the point tssk was making.
TerjeP @ 90, you’re young, aren’t you? Fifty years ago, there was serious disadvantage and poverty in Australia. For instance, parts of North Adelaide were definitely slums. I’m afraid tssk’s facts trump your glibertarian witterings.
David – I’m 40 later this year. So yes I’m young.
David – I’m 40 later this year. So yes I’m young.
I’m 40 this year as well. I’ve already outlived my father so every day awake is a bonus in my eyes.
I’ll leave you with this thought on government spending from Paul Krugman.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/opinion/18krugman.html
I’m 40 this year as well. I’ve already outlived my father so every day awake is a bonus in my eyes.
I’ll leave you with this thought on government spending from Paul Krugman.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/opinion/18krugman.html
Bah. Can a mod please fix my quote tags? Thanks.
Bah. Can a mod please fix my quote tags? Thanks.
Tssk – Krugman thinks government spending creates growth and prosperity. I don’t. Cutting taxes and cutting government spending are both good ideas. Although obviously cutting taxes is more important.
Tssk – Krugman thinks government spending creates growth and prosperity. I don’t. Cutting taxes and cutting government spending are both good ideas. Although obviously cutting taxes is more important.
terjep, the NHS was introduced because those “voluntary” buying pools for hospitals were fast going bankrupt, and incapable of providing services effectively to any but the very rich. A bigger buying pool was needed…
terjep, the NHS was introduced because those “voluntary” buying pools for hospitals were fast going bankrupt, and incapable of providing services effectively to any but the very rich. A bigger buying pool was needed…
Sg – I don’t think you are correct about them going bankrupt but if you have a reference that say otherwise I’m happy to look.
Sg – I don’t think you are correct about them going bankrupt but if you have a reference that say otherwise I’m happy to look.
For those interested in community (as opposed to government) based welfare:-
http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2009/10/18/the-old-should-pay-for-themselves/
For those interested in community (as opposed to government) based welfare:-
http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2009/10/18/the-old-should-pay-for-themselves/
I think in the interest of honesty I should also point out I grabbed the Krugman quote from a thread at Boing Boing and Krugman as well as people who agree with him on spending out of recession are getting totally schooled by the Libertarians.
See http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/20/economic-reality-ver.html#comments for more.
I think in the interest of honesty I should also point out I grabbed the Krugman quote from a thread at Boing Boing and Krugman as well as people who agree with him on spending out of recession are getting totally schooled by the Libertarians.
See http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/20/economic-reality-ver.html#comments for more.
terjep, try reading “The New Politics of the NHS” by Rudolf Klein – the first chapter is about the establishment of the NHS, and the reasons for it. Libertarians etc. try to claim that the whole thing was a leftist plot, but in reality both parties were desperately trying to find a way to fix a private system that was heading south before the war, and was only arrested on its way down by the planned economy of the wartime era. Naturally, having seen the successes of planned economies at that time, they settled on such a solution for after the war.
I think it would have been amusing if they’d proposed following the German model, which has ultimately been more successful and involves, I think, a greater mix of private organisations; but I don’t think that would have got up in 1948, for some reason…
terjep, try reading “The New Politics of the NHS” by Rudolf Klein – the first chapter is about the establishment of the NHS, and the reasons for it. Libertarians etc. try to claim that the whole thing was a leftist plot, but in reality both parties were desperately trying to find a way to fix a private system that was heading south before the war, and was only arrested on its way down by the planned economy of the wartime era. Naturally, having seen the successes of planned economies at that time, they settled on such a solution for after the war.
I think it would have been amusing if they’d proposed following the German model, which has ultimately been more successful and involves, I think, a greater mix of private organisations; but I don’t think that would have got up in 1948, for some reason…