It’s just a jump to the left… then a step to the right

papachango says:

04:24pm | 06/01/11

They were a bit of a nothing, centrist party, then they got lured left and disappeared. They had one of the most brilliant slogans in politics, but unfortunately failed to deliver on it.

TChong says:

01:42pm | 06/01/11

“Conservatives are the only true patriots….., “
LOL funny stuff. 
  That post has me wheezing from laughter.
Reminds of the old adage about scoundrels and patriotism.
But careful Mark S, some one might take such garbage as serios.

Rose says:

01:44pm | 06/01/11

“In fact their views are the only right views”, POT, KETTLE, BLACK ring any bells for you?

James1 says:

01:47pm | 06/01/11

Hilarious.  “Agree with me or you are an unAustralian idiot.”  I may be rather conservative myself, but it pains me to see that John Stewart Mill was so right when he said:

“I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.”

Please, Mark, if you have nothing intelligent to add, do not add anything at all.  Many progressives are not, in fact, nefarious, Australian-hating idiots.  Many are highly intelligent, and genuinely mean well.  It is just that they are wrong.

James1 says:

02:04pm | 06/01/11

Oops - wrong John Stewart - I meant John Stuart Mill.

Tripper Smurf says:

02:15pm | 06/01/11

It really strikes me as ludicrous the extent that some people can be blinded in the faith of one ‘side’ of politics.  Pragmatic, logical choices are often overlooked to serve the ideological underpinnings of a politican.  Wether they be conservative or progressive, they all have their foibles and their policy blindspots. However the Us and Them mentality is promoted by the self-same political parties and their lackeys within the corruptible fourth-estate to ensure that the 2 party system that we are forced to live in continues.

Therefore just as I said to the die hard Socialist Alliance guy who once tried to tell me that all Conservatives were morally bankrupt and deserved mandatory detention instead of the refugees, you Mark Sharma are a consumate fool!

Andrew McIntosh says:

04:38pm | 06/01/11

Name calling and simple minded ranting with a decent serve of outright paranoia. This isn’t a contribution, it’s just venting.

Chase Stevens says:

05:12pm | 06/01/11

I think Mark Sharma is taking the piss.

Fred says:

07:17pm | 06/01/11

Poes Law anyone??

Lee from WA says:

01:52pm | 06/01/11

Greens are economically conservative? You should get a job as a stand up comedian if you can play that one straightfaced.

The Greens economic strategy is tax the living crap out of everyone who makes a lot of money, nationalise all that you can, massively increase the welfare state and make all economic progress secondary to a puritanical strain of environmentalism. These are all the exact opposite of a economically conservative approach.

If that is your definition of economically conservative then Karl Marx really would qualify.

I'm officially worried now. says:

02:18pm | 06/01/11

The Greens and economically conservative in the same sentence…who would’ve thunk it. That is either the most tongue in cheek comment ever posted in the Punch or a serious fishing exercise.
There would need to be a God of some sort to rescue the country from the economic suicide the Greens would commit us to if they ever do gain power. The Greens holding the balance of power in the Senate from July 11 is scary enough, especiallly since Dillard relies on their Member in the House of Reps just to stay in power. I can easily see 2011 is going to be a horrible year for Australia with some of the dodgy, ill thought out policy that will be rushed through by Dillard and the Greens.

Tripper Smurf says:

02:18pm | 06/01/11

The point of Green politics is that economic factors are not the primary concern.  While I dont agree with the outcomes or tghe methods in a lot of ways, I do feel that some meassure of Green policies should and is being accomodated for, as was communistic policies in the past, allowing for a fusion of ideals that presents a more well rounded society.

David LD says:

02:46pm | 06/01/11

@Lee - You’re right.. I should have said Economically Responsible, not Economically Conservative, especially given the recent, demonstrably catastrophic outcome of over 30 years of Conservative fiscal policy.

Personally, I’d rather pay more tax and use publicly owned utilities, than fractionally less tax and use privately operated, unregulated utilities like we have now.

To bolster your disagreement on the Greens’ financial policies, please show proof of their financial policies failing at ANY level of government in Australia.

I’m happy to wait.

Your mileage may vary.

TimB says:

03:22pm | 06/01/11

Cute David. Really cute.

“To bolster your disagreement on the Greens’ financial policies, please show proof of their financial policies failing at ANY level of government in Australia. “

A clever little trick relying on the fact that the Greens have never been in charge of the government (thank god).
Of course this also relies on your logical fallacy that the policies need to fail in real life in order to have thier shortcomings highlighted.

Sorry, but its perfectly possibly to do so without the need for experimentation.

David LD says:

03:29pm | 06/01/11

@TimB - Then please highlight their shortcomings, if they are so easy to highlight.

It’s not a logical fallacy to request proof of concept. The Greens have long been demonised by conservative commentators as agrarian socialists, when a very brief overview of their actual financial policies describes them as anything but.

What, in particular, are the failings of the Greens’ financial policies?

papachango says:

03:35pm | 06/01/11

damn - TimB beat me to it. Fortunately for us the Greens have never been given a chance to unleash their economic policies on Australia - if they did it would be completely, uttely disastrous. I’m not willing to give them a chance to do this just to prove you wrong.

I’d love to see you tell Bob Brown and that awful piece of work Sarah Hansen-Young that they are ‘economic conservatives’. Do you really reckon they’d agree with you?

Syl says:

03:37pm | 06/01/11

Ahh David

“To bolster your disagreement on the Greens’ financial policies, please show proof of their financial policies failing at ANY level of government in Australia. “

To bolster YOUR agreement on the Greens financial policies, please show proof of their financial policies succeeding at ANY level of government in Australia. 
Hell if you can show proof that any of their financial policies have even been implemented I would be impressed.

papachango says:

04:01pm | 06/01/11

The Greens don’t actually have any financial policies, they just make airy fairy statements like they’ll immediately shut down Hazelwood and nationalise the broadband network, without providing any costings.

Most of their policies involve increasing government spending and/or regulation, with a vague reference to taxing the wealthy (anyone moderately successful) more to pay for it all. No allowance is made for the inevitable drop in earnings and productivity the Greens policies would cause.

Any half-competent accountant crunching the numbers would demonstrate that they don’t add up.

@Tripper Smurf - we should accomodate some bits of ‘communistic policies’ just to have a well-rounded society? You’re kidding right? How about chucking a bit of fascism and anarchy in there too just to really ‘round out the mix’?

I can undertsand, if not necessarily agree with, social democrats arguing for a mixed economy, but communism is a totally discredited ideology that, like its cousin fascism, should be consigned to the dustbin of history.

papachango says:

04:30pm | 06/01/11

Then there’s the Greens’ proposal to shut down uranium exports and rip $900m out of our annual GDP, just ‘cos they don’t like it.  ‘Economically responsible’? puh-lease.

TimB says:

06:12pm | 06/01/11

@David LD

Just off the top of my head:

-Legislating for another weeks annual leave. Sure sounds nice personally. Less work! Yay!
Of course this ignores the double whammy on business in reduced productivity and higher costs. I’m not selfish enough to vote to inflict that on the country.

-Shutting down as many coal plants as they can. To be replaced with…what?
Not nuclear, they don’t like that. Not hydro, they hate dams. But costly and inefficient solar and wind, technologies that can’t even come close to providing base load power.
Watch electricity prices skyrocket even more than they have.

-Papachango already brought up the uranium ban. Eliminating nearly a billion dollars from the economy based purely on ideology. Genius.
Same applies on an even greater scale with our coal mining industry. We’re talking 55 billion a year there.

-In amongst all of that we’ll have new taxes across the board. Higher corporate tax, death duties, and the grandaddy of them all the super-sized version of the carbon tax.

Those are just some examples. There’s plenty more. And it’s nothing short of economic vandalism. Heaven help us if we get the practical demonstration you desire.

Sandy says:

08:28pm | 06/01/11

David, while many of the others have gagged at the Greens being called economically conservative/responsible (I joined them in this increduality) I also find it hard to see how you could call them socially liberal. Name a social problem/restriction and the Greens will look for a way that Government can intervene to do something about it. A socially liberal party would first look to joe blogs on the street to find a solution, then the community and only reluctantly use Government powers. In fact a socially liberal party may spend more time repealing social laws than making them.

For example: Greens want gay marriage, whereas a socially liberal party would probably say the Government has no business in the bedroom at all. Or perhaps look at their education policies: compulsory student unionism, and the abolition of full fee paying places simply because it allows those with wealth to access higher education with lower marks (even though those full-fee places fund many more undergraduate positions).These policies aren’t about freedom or choice, they’re about centralised control to enforce their idea of justice. The Greens are much better described as social democrats or socialists.

Plus we shouldn’t confuse liberalism with libertarianism: liberalism doesn’t mean anything goes. It’s about choice, which requires some regulation, and it’s also about equality of oppportunity, not the imposition of equity.

papachango says:

08:51am | 07/01/11

@Sandy - you make a good point. liberalism as a word is very misused, particularly in the US where it means left wing, government interventionist, precisely the opposite of its classical meaning.

The Greens are liberal in the US sense, but are most definitely NOT liberatians / classical liberals.

Another example of the often subtle differences in drug policy. I consider myself more or less classical liberal and, similar to the Greens support decriminalising recreational drugs. But your typical Greens supprter considers this a ‘public health issue’ and ‘society’s problem’, whereas I’d say it’s more about the government not having the right to dictate what an individual may or may not voluntarily put in their own body.

I’d also caveat that the indiviual must bear responsibility for their life decisions, whereas the Greens consider it the government’s role to intervene

jf says:

09:29am | 07/01/11

“Shutting down as many coal plants as they can. To be replaced with…what?”

This one, in particular, is a ripper. Just as the policy was being implemented the Greens would be rioting in the street, protesting at the massive loss of jobs in the mining sector.

The Greens are unaccountable swill. Their policies are ill-conceived. morally vacuous and irresponsible. Thankfully they are also unelectable.

David LD says:

01:46pm | 06/01/11

I quite enjoyed this, mainly because you accurately described what happened when both of those children pushed to the right so hard we crashed.

Nice job.

Liam says:

01:54pm | 06/01/11

That could be the best analogy I’ve ever read.

David says:

01:56pm | 06/01/11

I am guessing that the fat kids are on their way to McDonalds?

hot tub political machine says:

02:01pm | 06/01/11

One for the nosebleed section

Tombowler says:

04:04pm | 06/01/11

Same old “pox on your houses” bullsh#t really….

People, allegedly educated persons at that, want to endlessly ramble about the failure of our system and how Labor and Liberal are aparatchik idiots who all govern in an orgy of self-interest, corruption and colusion.

This dystopic crap is nothing more than the bleatings of a spoiled society.

Our system is imperfect and there are many flaws, exposed regularly. Unfortuneately most of these flaws are not derivative of those in power but endemic in our Democracy, which despite these flaws is one of the more stable, equitable and fair systems in the world.

The manifestation of these flaws generally occurs in dumbed-down politics (which the Greens offer as much as anyone else; just say “socialism” and be done Bob you disingenous f@ck...) but these are themselves resultant of a stupid, self-interested population.

Your metaphor is f#$ckin stupid dude:

“he Australian people are driving, and we’re too horrified of the foul spawn we’ve shot out of our collective wombs to turn around and tell them to shut up.”

No, the Australian people are partisan, fickle, uninformed morons with 22 million of them tugging the wheel in 42 different directions simultaneously while calling one another “heartless arseholes” or “lazy lefty” respectively…

We elect the parties. We can elect whoever stands. It’s up to the individual to make a choice and take responsibility.

So Zeta, if none of the “Fat kids” meet your high standards, why buy into the system?

I put it to you, and the other “pox on both your houses” f#ckwits (who probably never read any Shakespeare) to do the right thing and your civic duty and stand for election at some level and change the system.

To bleat and whinge but do nothing about it is what characterizes the Australian voter.

“Systems f#$%cked, everyone but me is and idiot and every politician is a leach. Now pass us a beer I’m gonna watch the cricket”

Pathetic sh@t.....

Anyway, in all seriousness I am going to have a beer and watch the cricket.

Danny B says:

04:05pm | 06/01/11

Nicely put

Tom says:

07:04pm | 06/01/11

Sorry Zeta, TomBowler is right - you dumbed it down too far. On the other hand .... thanks for the great humour. It made my day.

TChong says:

01:51pm | 06/01/11

Rosie, your not thinking of two timing on Tony , are you ?
All those ship board romances has left you with a political itch to scratch ( to use a Rocky Horror theme ) 
Tea ( Bag)  time for Rosie !

Rose says:

01:58pm | 06/01/11

I’m deeply wounded that you ever thought that I had any relationship with Tony. He is, in my view, the very epitome of everything that is wrong with Australian politics. That such a man could be elevated to a party leadership position scares the shit out of me!

TChong says:

02:05pm | 06/01/11

Sincere apologies Rose, I mistook you for resident Abbottophile Rosie.
Apologies again, and I know I must take my Lefty Pinko Commie monocle for a tune -up.
Mea Culpa.

Rose says:

02:12pm | 06/01/11

TChong, read carefully….....Rose…Rosie = two different people!! Glad we got that sorted!

KnotaDemocrat says:

02:25pm | 06/01/11

The Democrats were doomed when they backflipped and supported little johnny’s GST.

Seano says:

06:36pm | 06/01/11

I agree with Knota…the dems screwed themselves when they supported Howard’s GST. If they’d stuck to no GST on food across the board I reckon they would still be a force now.

I think they still could come back, the rise of independents clearly show people are pissed off with the performance of the majors. I the dems do come back because someone has to keep the bastards honest.

jf says:

09:34am | 07/01/11

Seano says:06:36pm | 06/01/11

You do realise, Seano, that it was actually Paul Keating that first seriously proposed a GST for Australia. In fact, his proposal was for a far more broad-based GST than introduced by the coalition.

Seano says:

06:06pm | 07/01/11

@Jifflube - You’re not real smart are you? Try some basic comprehension. I didn’t say GST bad, I said that the dems rolling over on GST on food was what lead to their demise as a political force. At the time many people were up in arms over GST on food and (books), standing up to Howard would have been seen as in keeping with their “keep the bastards honest” mantra.

MY only complaint about GST (and I’m glad you asked rather than making a silly assumption that I either blindly didn’t support the GST or know that Keating proposed one…oh wait) was that Howard promised the GST would get rid of the “black economy” which was complete crap with many businesses still offering discounts for cash.

David LD says:

02:50pm | 06/01/11

Ahh yes, the LDP, whose basic stance can be summed up with :

“What do we want?”
“Tax cuts!”
“When do we want them?”
“Tax cuts!”

Throw in industry deregulation and there you have it, the perfect Randian Party, and everyone else be damned.

papachango says:

03:29pm | 06/01/11

@davidLD - given you called the Greens ‘economically conservative’ I’d suggest you have absolutely no idea about classical liberalism, economic conservativsm or any other political concept for that matter and should stick to commenting on things you actually know a little bit about.

Yes the LDP support lower taxes, and yes they share that with Ayn Rand but they are by no means an Objectivist party, nor are tax cuts the only thing they campaign for. Their philosophy is neatly summed up by CraigS - ‘intellectual, moral, personal and economic freedoms, IE Small Government’.

This includes things traditionally thought of as ‘right wing’ (laissez faire capitalism, economic deregulation), and others traditionally thought of as ‘left wing’ (recreational drug legalisation, voluntary euthanasia, gay marriage).

They are the only party that are both economically liberal and socially progressive. I won’t say ‘ecomomically conservative’, because in some interpretations that includes protectionism, which the LDP vehemently oppose.

David LD says:

03:58pm | 06/01/11

@papachango - You’ll notice I amended my use of the term conservative to responsible some time ago.

If the LDP think that pushing the same policies that drove the US and then the global market into recession is going to work for them at the polls, they can go for it.

I’d also like to point out that the LDP are one of the micro parties terminally ignored by the media’s criminal lack of professionalism and the public’s disinterest, which was actually the main thrust of my original post.

I’d prefer to see true proportional representation, and that way these parties would have their policies be actually fully tested in the rigours of parliament.

But that would also require a significant change in the way the media reports on politics, which as far as I can tell, isn’t happening any time soon.

papachango says:

04:09pm | 06/01/11

you should have stuck with economically conservative - ‘economically responible’ is even more laughable.

That’s only your opinion that the LDP’s policies ‘drove the US and then the global market into recession’ . The LDP and many economists argue precisely the opposite.

CraigS says:

04:24pm | 06/01/11

David if you think that it was free market policies that caused the last the global recession then that only goes to show how little you actually know.

It was after all a lovely piece of socialist policy inacted by Clinton that forced banks to lend to the poor that they wouldn’t normally have lent to, and how did that turn out?

In a free market the banks lend to whom they want, not who Clinton says they should to overcome some left wing namby bamby perceived injustice.

David LD says:

04:27pm | 06/01/11

@ papachango - Yes, I have dealt with the LDP before. They argue that there should have been less regulation, and the flimsy regulations that were in place are what caused the disaster in the first place.

Pointing out that this is in direct contravention with reality, as agreed by leading and noble prize winning economists, is often met with “Lalala, I can’t hear you, lalala.”

If it’s not economically responsible to not spend more than you earn, what is? Privatising industry and giving money to the landed gentry?

Sandy says:

08:38pm | 06/01/11

Just curious as to why they preferenced all the socially conservative and interventionist far-right parties in SA during the elections? Would seem to be a matter of freedom for all unless you mean non-christians, non-europeans and those who are interested in exercising social freedoms?

Richard says:

10:08pm | 06/01/11

David LD, you seem to have gone “all in” on this thread, despite possessing the intellectual equivalent of a 7 - 2 off suit in poker terms. Papachango is holding Pocket Rockets, yet you keep trying to raise him, hoping to bluff him out of the pot, but everyone can see through you. Mate, you look foolish.

Accept the plain, proven fact that free market economic liberalism did not cause the GFC. As I have explained on this forum numerous times, the GFC was caused by the credit crunch, the credit crunch was caused by the sub-prime mortgage meltdown, the sub-prime mortgage meltdown was caused by many factors, but mainly as CraigS says, it was Clinton’s left-wing socialist intervention in the US banking system in the 90’s which was a decisive contributor.

But I have just one simple exercise to demonstrate how wrong you are: name a single one of your “noble” (sic) prize winning economists that predicted the GFC? Oh you can’t think of any? That’s because NONE of them did. Not a single one of your Keynesian Social Democrat psuedo-economists saw it coming.

According to Dirk Bezemer’s research, only 12 economists in the world were accurate in predicting the crisis in advance: Dean Baker (US), Wynne Godley (UK), Fred Harrison (UK), Michael Hudson (US), Eric Janszen (US), Steve Keen (Australia), Jakob Brøchner Madsen & Jens Kjaer Sørensen (Denmark), Kurt Richebächer (US), Nouriel Roubini (US), Peter Schiff (US), and Robert Shiller (US). (mainly all Randian/Libertarian, free market economists).

Chris says:

03:41pm | 06/01/11

I’m pretty sure that’s not exclusive to residents of South Australia, or even Australia for that matter.

Case in point: Americans voting in Republicans to ‘fix’ the problems caused by the widespread, irresponsible deregulation by the Demo… wait, no, that was the Republicans. But I suppose they can at least rely on Republicans to cut the deficit, right? Cos Bush slashed the debt… oh. Right.

And it only took them 2 years to forget.

Individuals can be intelligent. People are stupid, particularly when News Corp is involved (hello Moderators!)

hot tub political machine says:

03:14pm | 06/01/11

Well given the ambigous gender going on it would have to be someone spliced from the genetic pool of Gago and Parnell

jf says:

09:38am | 07/01/11

Well stiff shit Badger because the name’s already been got.

papachango says:

04:13pm | 06/01/11

...this was supposed to be a reply to The Badger above by the way. Cheers

The Badger says:

04:33pm | 06/01/11

papachango
I didn’t call them fascist.
I merely gave them some alternative names as in “They can call themselves the Tory Party, or the Conservative party, the Fascist party or even the back to the future party.”

I might add these alternative names:
The party of NO, The party poopers, The paltry party.The capitalism rocks party, The big business party, The MacQuarie party, The market will take care of itself party or even the privatise everything party.

papachango says:

09:26am | 07/01/11

‘I didn’t call them fascist, i just said they should call themselves facsist’ Semantics, much?

By the same token I don’t think Labor are really pinkos, but perhaps they should rename themselves the Stalinists, or the Pol Pot Fan Club Party.

See how silly that sounds?

And by the way I’m not Liberal fanboy. i have some issues with their social consetrvatism as well, but calling them names won’t help.

The Badger says:

10:37am | 07/01/11

papachango
Having trouble with your comprehension skills?
using single quote marks in your comment is ridiculous, especially when you use them around something I didn’t type.
I didn’t call them anything. I was suggesting names that they could use, because the one they have is an oxymoron.
Oh, and did I say you were a liberal fanboy. Get a grip

papachango says:

11:12am | 07/01/11

Badger, maybe a more direct example. I’m not calling you stupid, but maybe you should choose a new nic - how about The Idiotic One.

That IS actually calling you stupid, albeit in a roundabout, fairly gutless way.

(No this is not an ad hominem, just a hypothetical example)

The Badger says:

12:39pm | 07/01/11

I know you are, but what am I?

Ryan says:

08:24am | 07/01/11

Yup, like the party the Greens (who have policies against the universal declaration of human rights) are in bed with, the same party that introduced the white Australia policy, oh yes the LABOR party.

Steve Putnam says:

09:55pm | 08/01/11

@Ryan the ALP and the Liberals were completely bi-partizan about ‘White Australia’ for 30 years. It was the Whitlam Government that dismantled it in the 70s. Don’t try and paint false pictures.

Steve Putnam says:

09:55pm | 08/01/11

@Ryan the ALP and the Liberals were completely bi-partizan about ‘White Australia’ for 30 years. It was the Whitlam Government that dismantled it in the 70s. Don’t try and paint false pictures.