Australian Politics (3 Viewers)

[Lentern]

That wasn't my implication at all (although I could easily see how you assumed so). It's really quite depressing that both the major parties are doing a pretty terrible job at the moment. On one hand you've got an absolutely hopeless liar and a clueless leader without any firm underlying principles. On the other you've got a bloke who's only chance at winning the election is by keeping his mouth shut.

Australian federal politics.

The clueless leader also is prone to tell porkies on fairly big matters. I recall him saying that he would not nominate for the coalition leadership if Hockey did too. Presumably the change of mind coincided with his discovering he had enough numbers to win (or close to it, I doubt he knew he would win by one vote). He also made statements before becoming leader to the effect of the coalition should and would pass an ETS. He offered to cooperate in good faith to see the reintroduction of offshore processing at Nauru right up until the point the government tried to accept his offer then he backpedaled and said only if it came with TPV's. His claims that the coalition would have kept the budget in surplus during the GFC, despite the revenue collapse which would have put John Howard's projected expenditure into deficit.

I wonder what peoples preference of Prime Ministers are on this place, mine would be
Bishop
Turnbull
Rudd
Hockey
Smith
Shorten
Gillard
Abbott
Crean
Swan

Yes that means if Crean was made leader I would vote for Tony Abbott at the next election. Labor need to purge this idiocy from their ranks.

 

[SylviaB]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100139577/my-favourite-politician-in-the-entire-anglosphere/

 

[Lentern]

You're a lot more likable when you make no contribution of your own you know Silvy.

 

[soloooooo]

I wonder what peoples preference of Prime Ministers are on this place, mine would be
Bishop
Turnbull
Rudd
Hockey
Smith
Shorten
Gillard
Abbott
Crean
Swan

Rudd
Smith
Turnbull
Bishop
Hockey
Abbott
Gillard
Shorten
Crean
Swan

 

[SylviaB]

Turnbull
Abbott
Bishop
Hockey
Gillard
Swan
Rudd
Crean
Brown











Shorten

 

[Lentern]

Turnbull
Abbott
Bishop
Hockey
Gillard
Swan
Rudd
Crean
Brown











Shorten

You realize Swan is as bedded down in the AWU as Shorten? Perhaps more so, Shorten has a lot more clout in the union.

 

[SylviaB]

i dont know man

all I know is that shorten is jsut the worst person

 

[Minion of Doom]

greens ftw

 

[soloooooo]

greens ftw

Why?

 

[Minion of Doom]

treat the asylum seekers with dignity and help reduce pollution. also gay rights.

 

[soloooooo]

treat the asylum seekers with dignity and help reduce pollution. also gay rights.

Reducing pollution is good. However Australia is small in terms of global pollution (i.e. look at China). Australia could stop all pollution overnight and the world wouldn't notice, within a month China alone would have opened up enough new factories to make the sacrifice of Australia irrelevant.

 

[Minion of Doom]

no we have to set an example to the world.

 

[soloooooo]

no we have to set an example to the world.

There is no point in doing so if 'the world' does not follow suit. We just fuck ourselves (Australia) instead and send jobs overseas.

 

[Lentern]

There is no point in doing so if 'the world' does not follow suit. We just fuck ourselves (Australia) instead and send jobs overseas.

Ugh no it's quite the opposite. If China, India, the United States, the EU, Canada and Japan all made drastic cuts to their emissions than the bulk of the crisis would have been averted and our own sacrifices would be nothing more than some field good tokenism. However with the US in particular refusing to make cuts (India has a carbon tax, China's about the implement an ETS) the impact of every reduction is magnified significantly. But as I've said before it's about taking personally responsibility for your actions. Australia is inflicting this damage on to the environment, we need to be taking responsibility for the harm we and we alone are causing.

 

[SylviaB]

lol wtf

australia cutting its emissions completely would have negligable effect on climate change


smaller cuts are utterly token (read: damamging without being useful)

 

[Lentern]

lol wtf

australia cutting its emissions completely would have negligable effect on climate change


smaller cuts are utterly token (read: damamging without being useful)

Yes but if the cuts aren't happening elsewhere the impact of our reductions would be comparatively greater than if they were already happening. The real tokenism would be if China, India, the UK, US, Canada and Japan all made massive cuts and then we just came along for the ride. And again there's that thing called personal responsibility that you Tory's are so fond of talking about.

 

[soloooooo]

I used to be of the same opinion as you Lentern. However the actions of the past couple of years have seen me think differently now. There is no global push to reduce emissions, there is a lot of talk although not a lot of action. Without the US, China, India et all it is utterly pointless of Australia to try to single handily do anything about climate change.

China and their so called reductions are an absolute joke. The US won't even come to the table. As for India, that is a basket case.

We need to protect the environment, although at the rate we (Australia) are going we will force many Australian manufacturing jobs and industries overseas (due to economics). Not only will we see a net transfer of jobs from Australia to (in all likelihood) either India or China, we may actually see an increase in the production of pollution & CO2 emissions as a result of that. Environmental standards are already fairly stringent in Australia and well above those of India/Chinese. If we keep the industries in Australia we can at least regulate what they can & can't emit and the PPM etc. If they go overseas, they can basically do almost anything they want.

 

[Lentern]

I used to be of the same opinion as you Lentern. However the actions of the past couple of years have seen me think differently now. There is no global push to reduce emissions, there is a lot of talk although not a lot of action. Without the US, China, India et all it is utterly pointless of Australia to try to single handily do anything about climate change.

China and their so called reductions are an absolute joke. The US won't even come to the table. As for India, that is a basket case.

We need to protect the environment, although at the rate we (Australia) are going we will force many Australian manufacturing jobs and industries overseas (due to economics). Not only will we see a net transfer of jobs from Australia to (in all likelihood) either India or China, we may actually see an increase in the production of pollution & CO2 emissions as a result of that. Environmental standards are already fairly stringent in Australia and well above those of India/Chinese. If we keep the industries in Australia we can at least regulate what they can & can't emit and the PPM etc. If they go overseas, they can basically do almost anything they want.

Again, no. If there was a global push to reduce emmisions then our efforts would be nothing more than tokenism, the job would get done with or without us. If there is no global action than, whilst ineffective at reversing the tide of global warming in itself, the impact of our carbon emmision reductions would be substantially larger.

 

[soloooooo]

Again, no. If there was a global push to reduce emmisions then our efforts would be nothing more than tokenism, the job would get done with or without us. If there is no global action than, whilst ineffective at reversing the tide of global warming in itself, the impact of our carbon emmision reductions would be substantially larger.

Australia is insignificant on the world stage in terms of both CO2 emissions (relative to world, not on a per capita basis) and political clout.

 

[Lentern]

Australia is insignificant on the world stage in terms of both CO2 emissions (relative to world, not on a per capita basis) and political clout.

Yes and as such any participation by Australia in a concerted global movement would be swamped by the big emmiters (come reducers) and in effect be pointless. Without a global movement however you get into a situation the proportionate impact of our reductions multiplies many fold. Therefore far more good would come from us acting now when nobody else is, than would come from us acting as part of a global consensus.