The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > 'Battlelines' - what’s Tony Abbott really about? > Comments

'Battlelines' - what’s Tony Abbott really about? : Comments

By Tristan Ewins, published 23/3/2010

To understand the political thinking behind the politically-resurgent Tony Abbott you could do worse than to read 'Battlelines'.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Looks like a decent number of people have read the article - but there aren't any comments. It's good to provoke some real debate - so if anyone has anything to say - or wants to comment - pls do. :))
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Tuesday, 23 March 2010 8:13:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In observing the interplay between ‘compassionate conservatism’ and ‘ruthless neo liberalism,’ especially relevant to the companion issues of ‘social justice’ and ‘employment equity’ the article refers to, two prime factors I observe of such consideration are first, are those issues of interplay realistic constructs, and second, if they are, what are the prime determinants of their prospective pursuit?

Of the first consideration, I hold no confidence in their reality, that demonstrated market volatility, regressive events observed such as the GFC, climate change requirement, and the comprehensive record of conservative liberal ideology, consistently demonstrating it dislocated from, and without any substance, of proof or reason, for me demonstrates its consideration entirely pointless.

Aspects of Labour political ideology may be observed similarly aberrant, however in context, it is able to demonstrate some attributes qualifying and quantifying its central tenets.

Considerations of social justice and employment equity are increasingly observed submissive of economic considerations, and to fathom their potential according to current parameter indicators, we are required to observe macro economic consideration and position.

That observation according to most reliable projections, indicates a decline in western economic growth until the pertaining GDP ratios of both the west and eastern ‘tigers’ are observed in balance. That such indicator is synonymous of comparative per capita standard of living rates between the two demographics, observes a potential for such western decline to continue for an indeterminate and perhaps extended period. Unless of course there is observed a paradigm cultural change.

Continued
Posted by Ngarmada, Wednesday, 24 March 2010 10:54:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For how may you implement such reforms proficiently if your economy is in gradual and progressive decline? Yes, progressive consideration of such issues as social justice and worker equity, may in fact be part of the solution of such anomaly, but only if they are part of the big [macro economic] picture. And that picture retains considerable challenge.

For it is currently observed in the west, its retention of severe competitive disadvantage of wage comparison with the eastern tigers, especially in manufacturing. In an open market such observation obviously impacts upon consideration of Return On Investment.

For the west to culturally get its head around its entrenched market concepts, that will require new paradigm and dynamics for reform, I suggest will encounter considerable resistance.

For example, its concepts of worker equity, toward comprehensive ability to compete within eastern and wider global markets, where the profit scales of ROI will correspondingly require consideration of dynamic change
[including decrease in opportunity for profiteering], I suggest will require a new paradigm. For a principle of scientific management is balanced distribution of wealth.

The question may inevitably be, whether that resistance of the west to such required dynamic cultural change, will realise such reform meeting intransigence or progressive consideration, that may be reflective of the current comparative example of requirement for addressing the issue of climate change.

It may be observed further, of no coincidence, consideration of energy requirements is a prime factor of both these current issues.

For the key determinant for both issues will be the ability to meet and engage the timelines required.
Posted by Ngarmada, Wednesday, 24 March 2010 10:54:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Tristan, I post because I felt sorry for you. When a writer gets only the sort of response you did from Ngarmada, you’ve pretty well had it.

I found your article too laced with socialist diatribe. The only thing it tells me is just how much of a threat an opposition is to you. Now why, in a democracy, should that be?
Posted by spindoc, Wednesday, 24 March 2010 11:17:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bad luck Tristan, that the only other post you have received so far is spindoc who may be only able to string two sentences together with a worn out cliche.
Posted by Ngarmada, Wednesday, 24 March 2010 11:24:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan
Could a 'compassionate Conservative' really be a boon for workers given that Abbott's focus is on delivering incentives for wealth creators?

Abbott is not the only pragmatist in a middle class corporatised society. The middle class is not as easy to reach ideologically as the elites with obvious economic vested interests; nor those at the disadvantaged end of the spectrum who depend on social justice and a fair and equitable industrial relations system.

Both the left and right play to middle class materialism and pander to the business lobbies - gone are the days when the Libs stood for the interests of small business and fair competition.

The failure of Work Choices should be a sign Australians still possess an egalitarian streak and that you can only push an electorate so far. While acknowledging the importance of business Australians won't accept huge imbalances in power between workers and employers (or labour and capital).

What would be new if government started to listen to the electorate on issues like privatisation, housing affordability, disability assistance, importance of carers, social housing, corporatisation of education, pursuit of wealth at the expense of quality and merit-values based systems, improved democratic processes, accountability and improved healthcare we might be getting somewhere.

I don't think Tony Abbott is offerring anything new just more of the same. Then so is the ALP. We stand where we have for sometime with the tweedledee and tweedledum face of Australian politics.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 24 March 2010 11:33:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spindoc;

I was disappointed not to get more of a response in the form of discussion. As a writer it's always rewarding to provoke meaningful debate. On the other hand the article's been showing as one of the most read... So - I still think people are reading the material... And therefore I don't think I've 'had it' as you put it.

Re: your argument about 'opposition being a threat'. I'm a liberal as well as a democrat and a socialist. Pluralism is part of a legitimate liberal democracy. But part of that picture is taking on the politics and the arguments of one's rivals.

You'll note I think it would be a good thing were 'compassionate conservatism' to prevail over 'ruthless neo-liberalism' in the parties of the Australian Right.

Neo-liberalism wasn't always in a hegemonic position in Australia - including in the parties of the Australian Right.

And I think it is perfectly legitimate to argue the case there there are some areas where there should therefore be bipartisan consensus. (a fair and just tax system, a welfare safety net which does not condemn the vulnerable to poverty, meaningful protections for workers, a mixed economy)

Most of these prevailed even under Menzies. Why therefore is it that there are so many on the Australian Right who cannot conceive of a politics - on that side - beyond the confines of what I call 'ruthless neo-liberalism'?
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Wednesday, 24 March 2010 11:41:42 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican;

I agree that an Abbott government could in many ways be very bad for workers. From reading his book in great detail I was struck by how many times he played upon the 'union bogey'. And he's on record as saying "the WORD WorkChoices is gone". I think it's reasonable to assume from this that the Conservatives want as much of the substance of WorkChoices to 'make a comeback' as they can manage.

On the other hand - the debates which take place on the Australian Right matter a lot to us. Usually there is an area of bi-partisan consensus beyond which the main parties in Australia won't venture. (Although I take the point that both the ALP and the Libs purused privatisation when there was very little support for this amongst the public...)

For instance - Medicare is part of that 'consensus' - and while some would like to undermine it directly, they do not dare...

But also remember - centralised wage fixing, progressive tax, a mixed economy: were once part of a bipartisan consensus also...

That said: if Abbott presses a paradigm - 'compassionate conservatism' - as he says - 'in solidarity with those doing it tough' - this influences the level of political exchange in this country... It could ultimately mean bipartisan consensus on issues like: 'a fair welfare safety net'; and "stronger minimum protections for the lowest paid'.

When the field of 'bipartisan consensus' shifts in this way - it's a victory for progressives; and indeed ANYONE concerned with the rights of the vulnerable...

That said: personally I'm still a socialist, liberal and democrat. But again - the level of debate taking place on the broad Australian Right affects us - and thus we have an interest...
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Wednesday, 24 March 2010 11:57:26 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
nb: One last point for now - I don't know that Abbott HAS embraced 'compassionate conservatism' as opposed to 'ruthless neo-liberalism'.
As I write in my review - 'ruthless neo-liberalism' is still the dominant tendency in the Australian Right.

But from my perspective it would be a good thing if a shift did take place here - even though I can't personally see myself voting Conservative in 100 years :)) ...

From a progressive perspective - it is a good thing for the area of 'bi-partisan consensus' to expand to include many areas that are important to you.

That said: such a shift need not be considered a 'defeat' either from a 'compassionate conservative' perspective. Here there would be areas of convergence - but still plenty of room elsewhere for rivalry...
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Wednesday, 24 March 2010 12:21:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan, you’re a what? << I'm a liberal as well as a democrat and a socialist >>? Then a << socialist, liberal and democrat >> and a << long-time member of the Socialist Left of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and you blog at Left Focus? It’s a pity Pauline Hansen is going overseas, she could ask you for a please explain?

No, really, please don’t explain, you’ll do my head in.

I think you’re right though, your thread has finally kicked off, good luck. I’m just off to find some Max Weber and Karl Marx so I can brush up on my socialist-babble.

“compassionate conservatism”, “ruthless neo-liberalism”, “meaningful protections for workers”, “centralized wage fixing”, “progressive tax”, “legitimate liberal democracy”, “ideologues”, “solidarity”, “social fabric”, “socially-illiberal”, “compassion for workers” “social justice” “crush the union movement”, “human dimension”, punitive welfare”, “vulnerable to poverty”.

Yep, it’s all there, coming along nicely Tristan, keep going.
Posted by spindoc, Wednesday, 24 March 2010 12:56:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree, Spindoc. There are too many labels.

Tristan, There's too much philosophising in what you say for my liking. I feel like I'm being smothered (ie deadened) when I read your stuff.

To make a difference in this world, you must call a spade a spade. Even though I don't think Australia would be best served with Abbott as PM, he is at least a breath of fresh air ready to say what many down-to-earth types have known forever, but which Governments have been loathe to acknowledge. That's where the real action is if you truly want to start effecting change. Until that happens, you can go on and on as you do and it won't make an ounce of difference.
Posted by RobP, Wednesday, 24 March 2010 1:43:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I trust spindoc will eventually find his head, comparatively observed, it may be like looking for the rest of the needle in the haystack.

As I indicated in my 1st posts Tristan, the potential paradigm for change required in facing the current and future challenges we face, may potentially, as undoubtedly, require both bi partisan consensus of approach, and a new paradigm for its basis, by all political parties, relevant to that requirement. For example, currently we have a Family First member retaining influence of the balance of power in Govt.

The question is whether that will may prevail, for resistance and intransigence to such prospect may only observe distancing of our ability to meet the time lines of such requirement.

Personally I’m not holding my breath, for demonstration of both Federal political leaders currently, does not inspire confidence of their grasp or capacity for these key issues, that they appear still engrossed with their political machinations. Although its patently clear Rudd is much nearer the competence capability than Abbott.

For without key economic reform relevant to management application, and its paradigm cultural change required, other reforms are observed unsustainable. This is not rocket science.
Posted by Ngarmada, Wednesday, 24 March 2010 1:44:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ngarmada sounds like someone channelling PM Kevin Rudd
Posted by odo, Wednesday, 24 March 2010 2:03:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy