Effects of an Entirely Labor Australia? (1 Viewer)

[circusmind]

Thanks for the info further above, circusmind.

Just as a hypothetical though, if the AUS/US relationship deteriorated for one reason or another, would Rudd make as overt an effort to save the relationship as much as Howard would no doubt make?

Sure, why not.


I don't know why you think Howard is some sort of genius at managing the American alliance. Personally, I think he's been rather clumsy with it.

 

[TwoNiner]

Your perception of his clumsiness may be that he complies with pretty much everything that America says, and agrees with what they do, but I'd say that's actually the most effective way to maintain the relationship. Because if Howard was to disagree with the US, well I'm sure they could easily give Australia a hard time.

Of course, the AUS/US relationship isn't the most important. I'd personally be interested to see ties re-inforced with the UK and parts of Europe, as well as a closer relationship with South Africa, but that's just me...

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

^Agreed. You know, seeing as he's pretty much completely alienated himself from all but one party who seem destined to lose the next Presidential election.

And the best form of welfare a government can provide to it's people is income and employment; income generated via the incentive and opportunity to work not through the burdensome policies of the welfare state. Policies that ultimately create dependent and economically downtrodden societies.

I disagree. The best form of welfare that a government can provide to its people is one which ensures that all people are given equal opportunities from birth, regardless of the financial or social situations of their parents etc. For instance, if (and I assume you are) you propose that all forms of health welfare should be abolished and driven to the private sector where a good job pays for healthcare, inevitable disadvantages will occur that will be passed on from generation to generation. That would indeed be highly unfair, and unable to be regulated in your self-orgasmic, fully privatised "free market" economy.

Are you also saying that Kevin Rudd lied in relation to Iraq? Is he as equally as culpable for believing any such misinformation?

Correct, although one must consider that Rudd wasn't the Prime Minister, nor a Minister, nor in a defense portfolio at the time. As such, he wouldn't have had access to any of the information that Messrs Howard, Bush etc had at the time. I think it's rather...outrageously foolish for you to even consider putting Rudd, a lowly Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister at the time, on the level of ministers who were the only ones able to receive high classified intelligence and documents. But you know, whatever floats your boat I spose.

Why is it you always launch into these irrational tirades? It seems when you lack substance you attack the person. It's definitely becoming a regular occurrence in relation to a number of members..

It gets rather annoying when someone, such as yourself says something completely irrational. Maybe you should join in the fun?

n.b. I also feel touched that I qualified for the 'smelly jerks' list.

 

[frog12986]

I disagree. The best form of welfare that a government can provide to its people is one which ensures that all people are given equal opportunities from birth, regardless of the financial or social situations of their parents etc. For instance, if (and I assume you are) you propose that all forms of health welfare should be abolished and driven to the private sector where a good job pays for healthcare, inevitable disadvantages will occur that will be passed on from generation to generation. That would indeed be highly unfair, and unable to be regulated in your self-orgasmic, fully privatised "free market" economy.

I'm not saying that we abolish welfare, but rather that the emphasis be placed upon incentive and the provision of conditions for employment. We must always have a safety net for society's most vulnerable, however government should strive to minimise the reliance of the population on government to obtain income, wealth and the ability achieve their life goals.

 

[circusmind]

Your perception of his clumsiness may be that he complies with pretty much everything that America says, and agrees with what they do,

Partly. That aspect of Howard's foreign policy is clumsy in the sense that it alienates us from other important groups in the world, and promotes distrust of Australia in some quarters.

What I was really getting at is the way Howard has endeared himself not so much to America as to the current American administration. His recent meddling in domestic US politics was particularly cringe-worthy.

but I'd say that's actually the most effective way to maintain the relationship. Because if Howard was to disagree with the US, well I'm sure they could easily give Australia a hard time.

What you're talking about isn't a relationship, it's one-sided subservience.

Of course, the AUS/US relationship isn't the most important. I'd personally be interested to see ties re-inforced with the UK and parts of Europe, as well as a closer relationship with South Africa, but that's just me...

The UK has realigned herself with Europe, and rightly so! (coughrepubliccough) We should likewise be focussing our efforts on engaging with our neighbours.

 

[Raginsheep]

Thanks for the info further above, circusmind.

Just as a hypothetical though, if the AUS/US relationship deteriorated for one reason or another, would Rudd make as overt an effort to save the relationship as much as Howard would no doubt make?

I don't see why not although it would depend on all sort of circumstances. If the reason for the deterioration was over something which would be adverse to Australia's interests, then I would expect any leader to uphold our interests above that of the US.

 

[jimmayyy]

@ the bearded lady

you have so far "proved" ONE of ten which has already been picked apart by those above me

its not a lie if you are given wrong intelligence, which the WHOLE FREAKIN world was.

so, 9 to go, i hope they are good as that one.

 

[TwoNiner]

@ circusmind

I agree Howard does appear to sympathise with Bush rather than the US itself, and yes I perceive that what Howard is doing in merely keeping the US happy may be perceived as a 'one sided relationship'. Yet I feel that it works. Anyway given time I'm sure we'll see some new relationships come into effect.

@ Raginsheep

I've no doubt any leader of our nation would uphold our own interests, but like I imply, I think Rudd would take anything as an excuse to pull out of the relationship, regardless of what his current policies on the matter may be.

 

[Raginsheep]

@ Raginsheep

I've no doubt any leader of our nation would uphold our own interests, but like I imply, I think Rudd would take anything as an excuse to pull out of the relationship, regardless of what his current policies on the matter may be.

I don't understand where you get this "Rudd hates the US" thing from, Latham? As far as I can see, Rudd and Kim Beazley are/were both supporters of the Aus/US alliance. Their only point of contention is how closely we should follow the US in all matters.

 

[kokodamonkey]

Look. i used to think that welfare was all evil and we should get rid of it and put the money into politicians pay rises.
But now i do realise we do need welfare for things like hardcore unemployment. But i do believe that anyone else that is going between jobs should have to WORK for their payment. Some go on about aww cant get a job, well then i think they should have to work for the council or something. THat way they can ensure theres work to give them. whether its planting trees, garbarge truck driver, community service whatever. just get them doing something so theyve atleast done SOMETHING For the buck.

 

[circusmind]

I think Rudd would take anything as an excuse to pull out of the relationship, regardless of what his current policies on the matter may be.

Got any reasoning whatsoever behind that belief?

 

[kokodamonkey]

Got any reasoning whatsoever behind that belief?

hes from the alp

 

[Raginsheep]

If you follow that logic, then please add the fact that he's also from the ALP right which means that he supports close realtions with the US.

 

[TwoNiner]

Meh, I'll withdraw myself from the argument before it gets any more heated!

I just thought Labor disagreeing with the US was the natural logic. I mean, one of their key campaign points is that they'd withdraw Australian armed forces from the war in Iraq, which pretty much equates to going against the US.

Annnnnnnyway...

 

[Raginsheep]

But the US is perfectlly happy to keep its farm subsidies and fuck over Australian farmers but I'd still be friends with them over other countries. Just because you disagree doesn't mean that you still can't be friends.

 

[circusmind]

Meh, I'll withdraw myself from the argument before it gets any more heated!

I just thought Labor disagreeing with the US was the natural logic. I mean, one of their key campaign points is that they'd withdraw Australian armed forces from the war in Iraq, which pretty much equates to going against the US.

Annnnnnnyway...

 

[Captain Gh3y]

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21464925-5000117,00.html

Rudd's dangerous liaison

Terry McCrann

March 29, 2007 12:00am
Article from: Herald-Sun

KEVIN Rudd has recommitted a Rudd Labor government to damaging the economy in the short-term and destroying it in the longer-term.
What he proposes would do far more economic damage, sow far worse social chaos, and specifically and directly hurt individual Australians more than the damage we are still suffering from the disastrous Whitlam period all that time ago in the 1970s.

That's of course, if words mean anything. In this case I suspect not: that Rudd is only mouthing 21st century religious pieties much as people did over the previous two millenia. Before they promptly kept on sinning.

The danger is also of course, that symbolism can matter; can be made to matter. That you are actually forced to live up to your pieties.

Yesterday, Rudd restated that Labor would sign the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gas emissions; and that its policy was to target a 60 per cent reduction in Australia's emissions by 2050.

Now it's a fair bet that Rudd won't be around to be held answerable to the outcome in 2050; or indeed at an earlier period where it's reasonably clear where the emissions are trending.

Nevertheless a Rudd government that lasted only as long as Whitlam's, could still do huge damage if it actually sought to start on that journey.

It's already fairly clear that Rudd is not big on arithmetic. He's wisely leaving the sums to the duo of shadow treasurer Wayne Swan and shadow financial minister Lindsay Tanner.

But let me give him one number. A target to cut total emissions by 60 per cent would mean something like a 90 per cent reduction in emissions per person or per unit of economic output.

Just think of that in personal terms. Could you really cut petrol use by 90 per cent? Electricity? And then essentially 90 per cent of everything else?

Even assuming a lot of windmills and solar panels, that is beyond any rational possibility. We really reduce emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, we will have dramatically shrunk the economy.

Rudd was repeating Labor policy, in gushing adoration at the feet of one of the high priests of the First Church of Climate Apocalypse, Sir Nicholas Stern, visiting Australia on a -- ahem, flying -- visit.

The Stern Review which carries his name purports to examine the Economics of Climate Change. It does no such thing. It merely preaches the same apocalyptic hysteria. And does so dishonestly.

It purports to establish by rigorous economic analysis that if we tackle climate change, by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide -- Stern said yesterday, by between 60 and 90 per cent by 2050 in the industrialised world -- the cost will be equivalent to 1 per cent of global GDP a year.

The off-setting benefit would be between 5 and 20 per cent of global GDP a year. A sort of 'negative' benefit, because that is what we would lose if we didn't stop emissions and we were overwhelmed by catastrophic temperature change.

Presented like that, it's a no-brainer. Using current global GDP, that's trading around $US500 billion for between $US2.3 trillion and $US9 trillion a year. Where do I sign?

Problem is it's entirely shonky. It's apocalyptic hysteria masquerading as economic analysis.

The real costs, cutting emissions, happen now; the benefits (avoidance of climate costs) happen in the future. To line them up you have to use what's called a discount rate.

Again a simple question. If I said I'd pay you a salary of $1000 a week, but you would only get the money in 20 years' time, would you be happy with only getting $1000 then?

No way. You'd probably like the $1000 to be compounded at say 10 per cent a year; you might accept 6 per cent a year. The discount rate is that in reverse, counting back from some time in the future.

So what discount rate did the Stern report use? Just 2 per cent. And in 700-pages it couldn't find the space to actual disclose that -- so much for analytical rigour.

Why does it matter? Think of your $1000 being compounded at just 2 per cent a year.

In the Stern context, it has the effect of dramatically overstating the relative value of those future benefits. Use a more realistic 6 per cent, and today's costs of attacking climate change will be greater than tomorrow's benefits.

Why did Stern the supposed economist use 2 per cent? On the basis that catastrophic climate change was so bad, when it happened in, say 2050, it was almost as bad as happening right now.

That is Stern not an economist but a fully fledged member of The Church. Not analysing the costs and benefits of climate change but factoring the negatives as timeless absolutes.

The Stern Review is not an economic analysis of climate change, but just another climate change (hot) gospel.

And Rudd wants to sign Australia up. At least on paper. Presumably it will come with the 21st century version of a confessional.

All of this utter lunacy was captured with exquisite perfection by Sir Nicholas's closing words on the telecast of his address to the National Press Club yesterday.

Earlier asked what could Australia do now, his response had been "set a target (for reducing emissions) for 2050".

His closing words were to admonish Australia for not signing up to Kyoto, even though "we'd be one of the few countries actually meeting our commitment".

So almost nobody is meeting the relatively soft Kyoto targets; so the solution is to set much tougher targets manana.

Priceless. You could not make this stuff-up if you tried.

SMH commentors disagree; need to save the world.

 

[frog12986]

Ah, St.Kevin is yet again trying to appeal to every person, every cause, yet does so at his peril. The ALP made a dangerous mistake believing that prioritising environmental causes over economic imperatives in 2004, it seems it is heading down an even more radical path in 2007.

 

[menelaus]

hes from the alp

anyone who has done yr 10 history will know that John Curtin, a labor PM, took one of the biggest steps towards the Australian/US alliance, when he withdrew troops from the middle east and announced the shaping of a new plan "with the us as its keystone" in 1941.
it seems that a few ppl discount a lot of the things labor governemnts have done (e.g. reducing protection and moving towards freer trade, building ties with asian neighbours, etc.) because they are affected by the most recent labor government and the recession, which interestingly enough, many people here would have been too young to remember.

also, wouldnt rudd's experience in chinese culture, language, etc. be seen as a benefit when trying to develop stronger ties with one of our largest trading partners?

 

[menelaus]

in terms of an all labor australia, i dont think its the armageddon that some liberal supporters are predicting. the shadow immigration minster tony burke recently highlighted a key point regarding this issue after the nsw election.

the real danger lies in one government having control of both houses as there is no sense of review. this is the current situation federally. the 'problem' of having the same party in both levels of government is nothing compared to the one party controlling both houses.

another point is that the problem people seem to be thinking that state and federal labor agree on everything. have people not seen the differences in the state and federal education policy?