Aussie Politics

Looking forward the Liberals are also in trouble in terms of future leadership - I foreshadow some fireworks between Turnbull and Costello that will mirror the recent ALP implosions.

Everything in politics is cyclical -there will come a day when the ALP will have some direction and some policies again and will be able to form government. I don't think Kim Beazley is the leader to do that but like the Liberals there is a vacuum of talent (although the Libs have Turnbull who has some major gifts as a politician).

As to the dullness of Australian politics - I actually watched Lindsay Tanner on TV the other day and thought he would make a good ALP leader!

Downer! God Keating had some fun with him.

 

The only saving grace for Australian politics recently has been the NSW state parliament. What with people retiring, others resigning, making politically incorrect statements, trying to kill themselves, trying to throttle each other and touching up women members. It's all happening in the bear pit.

Federal politics is a snooze by comparison.

I agree, there's going to be blood on the floor of the party room when Turnbull and Costello go at each other for the top job. They are already gearing up for it. Turnbull is always in the media for some reason or another and Costello is on the next day rebuking what Turnbull has said. Things will be interesting once Howard shuffles off.

 

The party have said they'll hold Turnbull back for a bit, make him earn the stripes he thinks he has. So I think it'll actually go Costello THEN Turnbull.

Loopster; leadership of this calibre looks weak, though. Like when Tony Blair owned Michael Howard when Howard tried to rake him over the coals with Iraq; he pointed out Mr Howard had talked positively of COnservative support for the war at several lunches.

If Hawke's position was from strength, then it'd be different. But he, and Beazley, are both hugely-pro-American on a few fronts, so it wouldn't have worked. Though, the simple act of being an effective opposition voice was a lesson most ALP'ers could take note of.

E_S

 

Howard Preaches Reform

This is why I really respect Howard's leadership. At his core, he's a guy totally non-plussed with making tough calls. More than that, Howard also has no qualms about appearing to be insensitive in his tough calls when in reality he's proposing a very humane solution.

The Asia-Pacific region. APAC, in my circles. A region that's spent too long with one hand out and the other swatting enemies of the despot regime du jour aside. Howard's message is clear; we'll help you, but help you to do it yourself.

I fully support economic development, and I think anything less is criminal. It's the best solution for all parties - the state, the individuals, business, society - for a developed economic system to be in place wherever possible, and it's been the case in Australian foreign politics we've assumed the role of regional power but done little outside of react.

So, I guess in a sense I am asking mainly Loopster, since he seems to outright hate John Howard on a personal level - what do you think of Howard's proposal at the summit?

(of course anyone can answer)

E_S

 

I'm sorry, I'm a bit daft. What exactly is Howard's proposal? We propose to continue to not offer working holiday makers visas from Pacific countries??

 

Speaking of visas - I read the other day that the Brits are considering getting rid of the ancestral visa (grandparents born in the UK).

I really hope not as I plan to go over in a couple of years and spend a few years in Northern Ireland (or maybe England although I've lived there before).

The coverage in the SMH on that story focused more on the fact that Howard was wearing a polo shirt rather than business attire and had to go to his hotel room and change.

 

Ditto the television coverage. But that's to expected, of course.

 

I haven't been following this story, but from just the article, I don't see a problem with allowing short term work visas for Pacific Islanders and encouraging economic growth in the region. Why can't we do both, wasn't Howard's government complaining about a shortage of workers a couple of weeks ago?

 

As the article said, those states depended (too) heavily on the profits from such visas. Howard was saying he didn't want that to be the case, he wanted development to be "compulsory" and thus start increasing their domestic revenue.

E_S

 

So what aid is he proposing in this compulsory economic development?

 

Is there anything about it in any paper, or are they truly so desperate they're commenting on his atire?

I caught something on the TV news about it last night, I'll see if there's any more articles that focus less on his attire (straw, drowning men?) and more on policy.

E_S

 

Well, his attire faux pas was a big talking point at the meeting, heads of state commented on it.

His development plans are short on detail apparently...I know the articles are.

I don't know what he expects or what investment he thinks these tiny Pacific nations are going to attract other than tourism. They could be like Nauru I suppose and have most of the island destroyed by phosphorous mining.

I think he should stop being so mean spirited. Have cup of tea, a Bex and a good lie down.

 

Why am I not surprised you can only find negative things to say here Loopster? This is a step int he right direction for the APAC region, and I have a feeling if it was Latham's idea you'd think it was great.

E_S

 

Can you leave the personal stuff out of these debates, Ender?

If you are to follow your own proposals in the THE THIRD SENATE FLOOR FOCUS GROUP REPORT thread, you should edit that post.

 

Don't tell me how to mod or post, Loopster. Ever.

The point is, I can't honestly fathom how you can be so blind in your hatred for Howard. Noone should have any doubts about my party affiliation - being a member and all - but I've stated numerous times that Keating (whom I know) and Hawke did some excellent things for the country as leaders. I also lamented Latham being forced into an unwinnable situation rather than being allowed to develop as a leader, since I thought he could have had potential.

Honeslty, I don't want you to vote Liberal; but there comes a point when you can admit, even grudginly, a leader is doing a good job on something.

Why do you hate Howard so?

E_S

 

I think it's best if we left this topic alone.

 

OK.

I assume you mean the "why you hate Howard part", so...

What would you do differently to encourage good governance and strong economic development in the Asia-Pacific region, considering it most certainly needs it?

E_S

 

I don't know the details, I can't comment.

 

I'm having trouble seeing exactly what Howard has done here other than say we'll continue to operate as normal. By the way, go ahead and get yourselves a stable economy. Even if they implement all the reforms, it's not like it's going to happen overnight. It'll probably take 10-20 years. In the meantime, Australia needs workers.

 

Does anyone have a website that outlines the new counter-terrorism laws?

 

Sil, give this a try:

smh.com.au/media/draftbill2005.pdf

You'll have to copy the URL into your browser.

 

The more I hear about the IR reforms the more I think that countries get the government they deserve.

 

The thing that pissess me off is that there was not a single whisper of the IR reforms we curently have before Parliament at the last election -it was not a campaign or election promise, it wasn't debated, it was not proposed or discussed - it was a complete non-issue.

I believe Australia voted for Howard in such numbers because of his successes with the economy and unemployment and because Labor was basically a joke to the general population (nothwithstanding Latham kicking Howard's arse in the Great Debate).

Sweeping and unprecedented IR reforms were simply not part of the picture that brough Howard back into government and with control of the senate.

These IR 'reforms' are opportunistic and are simply a means to sroke Howard's ego by allowing him to leave his ideological legacy.

 

Oh, ther IR reforms, don't get me started...

What does everyone else think of *those* adds. I swear, the next one I see which is all 'la-dee-da, everythings for the better', and I will throw something, hard!

If they really believed that, why are they trying to shove it down our throats so hard? I think they know how sucky those laws are. Face it, Howard hasn't come up with a semi-decent answer yet on it, he just deflects the questions. The fact that the opposition have not even been allowed to read a copy of the laws is... appalling!!

Fair, ha! I find that hard to believe! They are acting like they have something to hide.

Just to clarify things:
I am a Labour supporter.
I can't stand Howard.
Can't stand Latham, either.
The day Costello gets the job is the day I leave.

Has anyone else actually noticed, that the only place the Libs are in is in Canberra? The states and territories are all Labour.

~Misha
(cannot believe that she just posted in a poltics thread)

 

The current cost of the advertising campaign for the IR reforms is $55 million dollars and counting. Still, nearly 80% of the population don't approve of the new laws....

Ideology and dogmatic thinking at it's finest.