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 > The Great Debate: no choice is the new choice > Comments

The Great Debate: no choice is the new choice : Comments

By Aaron Nielsen, published 28/7/2010

Hobson's choice! Sunday night's leadership debate proved that Australian voters aren't hoping for a third option, but a second one.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
“What the Greens are offering is simply a vision of something different…”

They certainly are, and it’s clearly not a vision that most Australians care for. Nine percent of the primary vote in the 2007 election, and who knows what next month. The 12%-15% is wishful thinking, but if a party with that low a vote does, as predicted by some commentators, gain the balance of power in the Senate, then we are in big trouble.

Irrespective of which party gains power, the Greens will cause chaos unless they are placed last on ballot papers.

The Greens are not “progressive”; their extremist policies would drag us back to the dark ages
Posted by Leigh, Wednesday, 28 July 2010 2:53:45 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
Examinator
That quote I quoted was from CO2 in the first post to this thread.

The precautionary principle doesn't have to entail absolute or instant dismantling of 'our' current structures to be bad, and to entail a risk of killing large numbers of people.

This risk cannot be conjured away by a superstitious belief in miraculous government, and the divine knowledge of a mystic 'we'.

(BTW, who exactly is this 'we' you refer to?)

To prove that government policy were able to produce a better outcome than the status quo, you would need to be able to answer the questions that all the warmist/interventionists have been unable to answer in: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10724&page=0

Those questions are:
a) It’s true isn’t it, that facts do not of themselves, supply value judgments and therefore that positive science does not, of itself, justify policy action?
b) How is government to know whether all the costs of a given policy action exceed the benefits? (By ‘all costs’ I mean those which can, and those which cannot be calculated in terms of money.)
c) How is government 1.to know, 2. to weigh up and 3.to reconcile the inconsistent value claims of all people, both now and in the future, affected by any proposed policy?
Posted by Peter Hume, Wednesday, 28 July 2010 3:31:18 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
If Gillard had won the debate on Sunday night boy oh boy wouldn't the commentators and the media have gushed on about how important the debate was.

Abbott revealed Gillard as nothing more than another Rudd and perhaps worst than Rudd ever was. Since Sunday night Gillards and Labors campaign has descended into a chaotic shambles. A prime example was Wong and Richardson squabbling with Milne on Q & A over who did what to who, last Parliament, over ETS.

You've gotta give it to Abbott though. Not only did he come out of the debate looking PM material but it's increasingly looking like he's totally undermined and sent packing two Labor leaders in a year. Two one term PM in three years is a record never likely to be repeated.

By the day it must be becoming painfully obvious to the Labor powerbrokes why it is unwise to dump an elected PM in his first term. What a bunch of short-sighted dipsh-ts. Did they really think Kevin 07 would go quietly in an election year?

The greens will benefit from Gillards implosion, as they did with Kevies, but this time so will the coalition. Labor will lose votes to both and an increased % of preferences will flow from the greens to the Coalition.

I reckon Abbotts managed to focus the election onto competent Government.

After Rudd I think the Grand Vision and Aspirational politic's is in the can and the electorate is totally disillusioned with that bs. It is now turning to merely wanting a government that is competent.

I think most of the media and commentators have misread this move across the electorate. They see and express it as rejection of the major parties or disinterest. They're wrong. There is rejection of Labor and Gillard but not of politics nor of the Greens but more importantly nor of Abbott and the Coalition... and there is a great deal of real interest in the campaign.

Competence will give us all we want!
Posted by keith, Wednesday, 28 July 2010 3:51:00 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
Thank you for engaging as an article author on the comments thread, Aaron.

It is no myth that, in the absence of new and very significant oil discoveries, Australia is in a very exposed position as a liquid fuels importer, with its heavy dependency on such fuels. Australia would appear to be in a potentially very fortunate position with respect to coal reserves, what with the recent Pedirka Basin discoveries perhaps doubling, or even tripling known world reserves.

Without going into the issue as to whether or not, or to what extent, coal, used in the manner it presently largely is, may contribute to climate change, would it not be making sense for Australian governments to be at the very least planning to ensure such things as an Australian-based industrial capability for coal-to-liquids fuel production to at the very least the level of self-sufficiency? Yet where do we see any sustained planning at government level for such projects?

Where do we see sustained government initiatives, monitored and reported upon as to progress being achieved, in any area of energy security?

Australia, girt by sea, seemingly is to be left to the 'tender mercies' of the global energy markets, courtesy of sustained tacit bi-partisan inaction on the part of successive Australian governments.

Where is the vision?

Do we leave our defence policy and preparedness to the 'market' to provide our only options as to 'supply'? Of course we don't! It is a matter of public policy. Where is the public policy on energy security and energy source substitution? Where is the public policy as to planning value-added energy export to what is anticipated to become an energy-short world?

Where is the planning as to Australian equity, public and private, in the value-added end products that will ensure Australian energy security and give Australia something to sell to the world in the future?

Apropos the acquiring of old clunkers, in the face of Australia's oil dependency and the apparent absence of GTL and/or CTL development policy, what signal does this decision send?

http://www.smartcompany.com.au/finance/20100726-solar-sector-furious-after-gillard-robs-industry-to-fund-new-cash-for-clunkers-deal.html
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Wednesday, 28 July 2010 5:17:15 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
Peter Hume,

Like I said any (human societal) argument that is predicated on the sole basis of a competition between extremes/absolutes isn't worth the effort of serious consideration. That includes the originator of the quote.

My bad? I thought you were defending the indefensible.

Based on the three questions no government or people should do anything in issues of society, economics, etc as those three questions can't be answered in the absolute they demand.

the laws of probability suggests that the *appropriate* answer is more likely to be found within the +/- 2 standard deviations of the mean. An exact where is again a matter of probabilities.

Nature is about balance, Not dominance. The latter is Malthusian, an extreme and unsustainable. Inevitably ends up in the destruction of the whole or a realignment of the balance.

Cumulative relevant science suggests that that realignment may not be beneficial to homo sapiens or life as we know it. Change is one of the immutable facts of life the key is time limiting change to a speed that permits adaptation. Change that is so rapid to prexclude adaptation = catastrophe.

By your choice of label it would appear that you are assuming an aweful lot.

Notwithstanding I agree that superstition beliefs of any kind is not the answer. Neither should we do nothing and wait untill the evidence is absolute either.
Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 28 July 2010 5:37:14 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
Keith,

"I reckon Abbotts managed to focus the election onto competent Government.

After Rudd I think the Grand Vision and Aspirational politic's is in the can and the electorate is totally disillusioned with that bs. It is now turning to merely wanting a government that is competent."

I understand the impression that the Labor Party is incompetent, but it doesn't imply that the Liberal Party is somehow *not* incompetent.

This is the exact mindset I wrote about: many people who reject Labor now will vote Liberal by default, as if there aren't other options (and as if it couldn't be any worse). Both parties are making good use of that in their campaigns. Personally, my memory isn't that short.

Yes, the Liberal Party will gain in popularity as voters give up on Labor, and yes, Abbott did better than I expected at the debate. However, on Sunday night, neither he nor Gillard looked as if they even want the job. Suits me.

Cheers,

Aaron
Posted by aarongnielsen, Wednesday, 28 July 2010 7:15:50 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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