The last thing the country needs is another leader or political party.

Political parties have now lead us into high levels of government and household debt, overpopulation, unemployment and underemployment, insecure jobs, falling wages, increased consumption, depletion of natural resources, unsustainability, multiculturalism, americanization, fracturing of families, failing education and health systems, and a sell off of publicly owned assets.

Time for processes of direct democracy, rather than leaders of more political parties

"What would Menzies do to fix all this if he was still around?

Without the slightest shadow of a doubt he would form a party that had as its basis a union of the right wing of the ALP with the left wing of the Liberals. Then, he would add to it an educated group of Young Turks (more females than males) with open minds and no ideology who signed up as nation builders, financially and socially."

With respect,this is nonsense.
Menzies set a high priority on the following matters:-
1.Fiscal discipline.
2.Rule of law.
3.Carefully consideration of public policy and immunity to ideas of the moment.
To imply as you do that these are matters of right wing zealotry is just nonsense.
In fact, Everard,Menzies was very cautious about dealing with people like you-who are rent seekers from the Government

Well argued Everald; and you had me and my goosebumps until you revealed your fundamentally flawed judgement of (economic illiterate) John Howard! Who simply wouldn't allow the zealots to use him like a figurehead puppet, with more positions than the kuma sutra?

But would likely force a spill or another election to put the troglytes back in their box?

It's sad commentary, but it may be argued that today's fiscally conservative Labor is further to the right than Mr Menzies liberal wets. None of whom ever annuciated a desire to sell off publicly owned income earning infrastructure? That generations of ordinary australians sacrificed and slaved to create! But rather allowed a private enterprise model that competed where appropriate?

Thus we had TAA and its private enterprise competition Ansett! If Menzies had a flaw, it likely would have been his subservient forelock tugging to Her Majesty?

I agree with most of your observations and intend to vote for contemporary independants not given to jumping, when the puppet master pulls the strings!

Other than that, always putting the incumbent last, but particularly visionless party hacks seems like an erstwhile strategy all the disillusioned could emulate as opposed to a donkey or invalid informal vote? Which in effect is a vote for the incumbent and oh so clever!
Alan B.

I agree with Sabena that the article is nonsense, although I can cite different reasons. To conclude that Turnbull has been captured by the right wing of the Liberal party, for example, is in straight defiance of what is known of the man. He is most certainly not a dry or a free trader (Abbott might have been that) and has made approving noises about gay marriage.

But most ridiculous of all, Compton still has not grasped the basic point that many voters have a view of immigration that is completely different from that of the bulk of the media-political elite. That and the decline in real incomes explains much of the rise of both Hanson and Trump (although Hanson makes considerably more sense than Trump).

To explain those changes as the result of maneuverings by political parties or personalities is to entirely miss the point.

Alzheimer’s is a terrible disease, or is it just selective memory here Everald & interactive.

In Menzies day, you had better have some money if you got sick.

No free doctor health care no free hospitals [except in Qld, where it was paid for by a lottery, not government]

You had to pay full price for medication.

You had to win a bursary to get past year 10 at school, let alone to university.

People on low wages actually paid net tax, rather than be given much more in handouts than they paid in tax.

Unemployment benefits & age pensions were just about enough for food, if you lived in a tent, or under a bridge.

People hitchhiked everywhere, as they could not afford the train fare.

If Menzies came back he would be horrified at the way socialism has taken over everywhere, & the handout mentality it has developed. In all the practical things that matter he was way right of Abbott, & he would have considered Rudd/Gillard/Shorten/Turnbull deep pink or full communists.

Unlike the term left wing - which invariably refers to an ideology of advancing the powers of big government - "right wing" is an intellectually incoherent concept.

This is because it is used to refer to at least four fundamentally inconsistent ideologies:
1. national socialism aka fascism, with their creed of unlimited government power, their denial of the primacy of individual liberty, and their economic policy for government to control any and every aspect of production, supply, demand, prices, interest, money, credit, wages, education, infrastructure, tariffs, subsidies, motherhood, you name it;
2. "conservatives" a la Edmund Burke. This category includes modern American neo-cons. Among other distinguishing features, they fought the fascists. In America they embrace perpetual war and thoroughgoing government control of anything and everything; through the war on drugs, they have sponsored the modern American police state, overflowing jails, and the militarisation of police, and creed of unlimited government power.
3. classical liberals i.e. small government libertarians a la Locke, who believe that government legitimacy is strictly limited to protecting person and property from aggression.
4. voluntarists aka anarcho-capitalists: libertarians who deny the ethical and economic legitimacy of the State itself.

In fact most of the time, the term right wing is used to refer to authoritarian and collectivist ideologies, with national-socialist economic policies of open-ended government control of anything and everything, and drenched in socialist beliefs in central planning, for example, the modern day Liberal/Nationals in Australia, Conservatives or Tories in England, and Republicans in America.

The term right wing wrongly assumes that these parties are somehow *opposites* of left wing parties. But it should be obvious that, as against libertarians, they share virtually everything in common with the parties of the left wing.

Therefore anyone, such as Everald Compton, who uses the term "right wing" without defining what they mean by it, is only displaying their ignorant confusion.

The war on drugs and typical of right wing control freaks, has been going on now for over eighty years and costing more American lives than WW11! Moreover, it has resulted in (private enterprise) American prisons bulging at the seams, mostly with small time drug dealers/addicts?

Not only has the war on drugs failed to stem the flow, but has created the MR Bigs, the ice epidemic, orphans and fatherless families in the millions!

When confronted with these undeniable facts, their only recourse is to throw even more money and sacrificial personal at the problem, to underline as nothing else can, in view of history, the absolute paucity of their thinking, humanity and rationality!
Alan B.

"Right wing zealots" eh, Everald? Do you take notice of anything that is going on? Do you not know that the Liberal Party 'of Menzies' is lead by a complete Leftist? That many Liberal politicians are behind extreme-left social engineering and 'marriage' for homosexuals?

Everald, get somebody to attach two different coloured bands to your wrists: say, blue on the right side, and red on the left side. That way you might get to realise which is which.

Everald Compton has a long history of writing OLO articles remarkable for their blithering idiocy. This one is no different.

With nary a nod to logic, history, domestic or international politics, Compton seems to think that political parties in Australia, the US and UK are identical and interchangeable, fitting some fantasy variation on what he thinks Menzies created. Just check the examples he cites in his article.

Consider his swipe at George W. Bush, for example, whom he blames for the rise of Islamic State. Yet Bush was long gone from US politics before IS arose to fill the vacuum created by Obama's announcement that he would withdraw US forces from Iraq long before Iraq was stable enough to survive. And IS duly filled the vacuum with levels of sub-human barbarity not seen in the past 200 years at least.

Far from being dominated by the right, under Turnbull the Liberal Party has been dragged to the left. The Liberal Party is in danger of collapse because, under Turnbull's "leadership" - remembering that the Libs dumped him as opposition leader because of his unhinged and unchanged view that "we're all progressive parties now" - in policy and programs, it is almost indistinguishable from Labor and the Greens.

Take Hunt's loopy left wing environmental posturing, for example, which has given us a new carbon trading regime, despite the costs and failures of similar schemes and in total absence of any definable benefit to Australia. Or Turnbull's own gay-left posturing on "marriage" while ignoring the very real and present consequences of left wing authoritarian ideology embodied in 18C. Would Menzies have tolerated either? Not bloody likely.

People who have held the same political, economic and social values since the Menzies era are now being vilified by the likes of Compton and GetUp as "extreme right" and the creepy Green Left as "moderate" - the mob who have brought us the Safe Schools program, for example. By your friends we know you, Everald.

While Compton regards himself as competent to comment on current politics, he is giving geriatrics a bad name.

Everard is not noted for accuracy or insight, but particularly, he has failed to notice that the Labor party primary vote has shrunk to record lows.

Hasbeen,

I agree with most of your comments, however I wouldn't place Menzies 'way right of Abbott'. Our recently deposed leader is probably as socially conservative and economically illiterate as Menzies. It's difficult to assess his politics as he and his government were beneficiaries of the long post-war boom, until 1961 when they thoroughly stuffed the economy and nearly lost office as they so thoroughly deserved. Menzies was also extremely lucky to be faced with a monumentally incompetent Opposition. He was not the master politician that the LNP myth makers would like us to believe.

mac,

I am wondering what Menzies would have done in this situation.

The Speaker of the House began screaming abuse at the opposition, and the Parliament nearly erupted into a riot.

But throughout this, the Prime Minister sat there and played with his spyphone, and made no attempt to silence or control his own Speaker of the House.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/christopher-pyne-and-the-parliamentary-art-of-talking-through-his-paper-hat-20160831-gr5d64.html

I sense the Prime Minister is just a figurehead, and does not have any real influence or control over his political party.

However, we have had about 6 Prime Ministers in 7 years, and none of them seem to have any real influence or control over their political parties.

I saw throw out political parties.

interactive,

Oh jeez! What a circus. The joke's on us isn't it? The voters get the politicians they deserve.That said, it's a far more challenging time now than the Menzies era.

"...throw out political parties", or a least threaten to throw them out by voting for independents.

mac,

Yes, I think the corruption of political parties now goes right through the system.

Christopher Pyne has been ejected from Parliament 43 times, and in 2010 Christopher Pyne was ejected from Parliament for calling the then Prime Minister "hopeless".

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/questions-for-greater-minds-than-these-20100930-15zcw.html

But now, Christopher Pyne is allowed to yell out "scum" and "grub", and he is not ejected.

The political system has deteriorated completely, and there is no use continuing to vote for the major political parties, or any political party for that matter.

Something other than political parties has to be tried.

Mac, interactive: Suggest you vote independent and always put the incumbent last on the ballot paper.

If the disillusioned and the hopeless did just that much rather than voting informal or refusing to get off their tired lazy backsides for a few minutes every three or four years and vote, we'd compel change!

The two party status quo changes nought! As does doing what you've always done! Or doing nothing/wasting the only power we the mugs out there in mugsville have, our vote and the ballot box!
Alan B.

It's amusing that some people are really scathing of the article, to the point of abuse, yet advocate the same solution that the author does.

Seriously folks, what happened to civilised conversation?

Alan B,

Yes, I suppose the Brexit vote is an example of that approach to politics. Voters who felt that they were being ignored by their pro-EU political elites, effectively gave them the finger.

They certainly 'compelled change'. So whatever the outcome of Brexit, the plebs will be treated with more respect in the future.

Alan B

Yes, the question could be "What independents are you voting for"?

Rather than "What political party are you voting for"?

Independents seem to be much better behaved than members of political parties, and I don't think an independent has been ejected out of Parliament for some time, compared to members of the Labor party who were ejected over 400 times last government, and I think one was ejected over 50 times (breaking Christopher Pyne's previous record of 43 ejections).

I favor a system whereby the public votes directly for the Prime Minister and votes directly for the Ministers, which makes political parties completely redundant.

One thing is certain, independents are easy to vote in and easy to vote out.

As compared to someone such as Christopher Pyne, who is protected by his political party and has been in Parliament since 1993.

Christopher Pyne is totally disruptive and a very bad influence in Parliament, but if Christopher Pyne was an independent he would have been voted out many years ago, and not allowed to have his face in the trough for over 20 years.

Interactive,

You are right about Pyne: dreadful fellow. Even his 'mates' in the truly dreadful political class find him irritating. You can blame the "doctors' wives" in the leafy eastern suburbs of Adelaide for him polluting parliament.

Craig Minns,

Your smug admonition to 'civilised discussion' is likely to stir things up rather than tone them down - even if it was your place to be making such po-faced condemnations. We have an editor/moderator to do that, thankyou.

I find that the more robust kind of language is used when some people give a clear impression that others really should not be permitted to express opinions differing from their own and, occasionally, when a contributor preaches with the idea that everything rotates around him or her. All people are entitled to express their opinions and, generally, it is only when some holier-than-thou smart aleck taunts a poster and sneers at those opinions as though they are unworthy that the tone changes. When and if it does, the creator of OLO will deal with it - not Craig Minns.

Thank you for the excellent example of Kohlberg's Stage 2 of pre-conventional morality, ttbn.

You're really good at this. First you nailed "I'm all right, Jack, screw you" and now this!

It's not often we're lucky enough to encounter a genuine textbook example in the wild, as it were...

Anyone who knows anything about Menzies knows that Bob was hardly a left leaning centrist.

Instead of refuting Everald's peculiar remembrance of history, perhaps it would be more positive to tell him the facts of life?

The Australian political body politic has changed completely out of sight to what was fifty years ago. The Australian Labor Party is no longer the socialist and extremely racist party of the working class and disadvantaged class white Australians. It realised long ago that with rising prosperity, it was losing it's traditional voting base. It needed a new voting base and it chose migrants over it's own people. Labor then became the "Immigrant Party" with it's electoral strongholds in the immigrant areas of every capitol city.

The "centre" was once the preserve of Don Chipp and his Australian Democrats, who were primarily class conscious Labor voters who did not want to associate with the working class peasants. But the Democrats imploded as they grew progressively more leftist. Most of the survivors either went back to the Labor Party, or teamed up with the now defunct Communist Party of Australia, to become The Greens. .

For many years, the Liberals' were the centre -right, with strong connections to the business class. It teamed up with the Country party (now the Nationals). But with ever increasing immigration, much of it from third world countries, it too realised that it needed to suck up to the immigrant vote. So it shafted the white Australian people it has once fought for, and like Labor, did everything it could to destroy the influence of the Australian people in their own country.

With all political parties now sneering at their own people, and sucking up to immigrants, it was hardly surprising that a party would arise which would represent white Australians. Evereld thinks that this is just terrible. How he reconciles the existence of numerous ethnic associations who are only interested in the welfare of their particular religious, tribal, or ethnic groups, but thinks that when white people do it, it is evil, is something he might enlighten us on?

Do you realise Craig Minns, that posts & the attitude it displays is the reason most Ozzies, even those with a university education are coming to despise academia?

Hasbeen, you do realise that the attitude displayed by ttbn is contemptible...don't you?

I recommend you look up the work of Lawrence Kohlberg. I'll even make it easy for you

http://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html

Perhaps if some of those who post here could move toward developing their moral sense towards stage 4 a few more people might actually bother visiting the site. Yes, I realise that would mean that the endless circle jerk might come to an end,but it might mean that you lot of miserable old buggers might get to enjoy some intelligent conversation for a cha...gawd, what am I saying? OK, as you were. What a silly thing to suggest...

Craig Minns,

Rather than post a link, perhaps you could provide a critique of any of the 'miserable old buggers' comments, using Kohlberg's theory. That would give you a chance to display your erudition, please avoid excessive jargon.

Hi Mac,
As a matter of fact, I'm preparing an article on just that topic, as a break while studying for mid-semester exams. At 53 I find my capacity to keep up with my younger colleagues, particularly in advanced maths topics, leaves rather a lot to be desired and taking a break to think about something completely different helps to recharge things, at least a little.

In the meantime, that link I posted is very straightforward and there are lots of other resources available online. The work was done in the late 50s, after all. Later work has only shown just how good the Kohlberg research was. Look it up for yourself and make up your own mind.

I do agree with your admonition to avoid jargon. It's something I spend considerable effort on.

Craig Minns,

What course are you studying? I'd assumed it was psychology.

No, psychology, particularly moral psychology, has been a long-time interest and I've done a huge amount of private study on the topic, but only a brief period of formal study in that field.

I'm studying a dual degree, Electrical Engineering and a B.A, majoring in economics and philosophy.

Craig,

I majored in economics at business school it's an interesting subject, but it's also often hijacked by ideologues. Couldn't get interested in philosophy.

I certainly wouldn't have attempted to complete an electrical engineering course in my fifties, or probably ever, actually. I should mention that I agree with some of the opinions of the 'miserable old buggers' commenting here, although not always with the way those opinions are expressed. I'm a grumpy old man myself.

Ah, young Mr. Minns. I get it. You are a left wing troll, 'doing' degrees (which you might or might not finish), and you believe that makes you superior to the rubes. You make some smart remark, hoping that the rubes will respond, as I foolishly did, so that you can slap them down. How old are you, boy? Late teens?

Whether or not Hasbeen would agree with you that my comments were 'contemptible', I can assure you that most people of maturity in our generation would regard you as a cocky little snot, with a lot of growing up to do. We have all been through the Marxist-social clap trap when we were kids, but we matured and realised the truth of things. It is hoped that you will mature some day as well, with a lot more life experience. It is also hoped that you pass, get a job so that we are not left with your HECS debt. I'm quite happy to admit that my time at university was limited to a short cut I took through the University of Adelaide on the way to somewhere else, but I read, probably better than you do, and I have had the advantage of not have my brain washed by left wing twats posing as lecturers.

I checked the miserably slim bio you admitted to before reading your first 'unlearned' contribution: if I recall correctly, little Minns "is a man" (hmm) with a son, a dog, and a dustbin. Wow! That doesn't match the ego.

You caught me once, Sonny Jim; it will not happen again. Can't be bothered with inexperienced windbags who think history began the day they were born.

Why don't you just say "miserable white old buggers", Craig Minns, and proudly display your racist contempt for old white people?

But I suppose as a supposed anti racist, you can't be too open in your racist contempt for the older members of the white race. The trick is to always imply, and if challenged, deny.

Craig Minns is like the batch of people who recently said that they were leaving OLO because of the "right wing" posters; the "rightist nutters"; the "hard right" and so on. What they really meant was that conservatives were not bowing to their (the leftists') 'moral superiority' and 'knowledge', nor were the conservatives here frightened off by the bullying and name calling they practised - the constant use of words like 'racist', 'hater', 'homophobe' etc. In other words, the kiddies were not getting their own way as they were used to; suddenly, they found themselves among people different from themselves with different life experiences and different values. What a cheek!

Minns thought 'ignorant old idiots' would go to water at the mention of some relatively obscure philosopher, who has many critics, and who is no more qualified to make up theories than anyone else.

When Minns intimated that some of us were keeping more people from expressing their opinions on OLO, he meant more people like him, who think that they are right, and people with contrary opinions are wrong. The left has control of schools, universities and the media. The last couple of generations of people put through the system think that there are no opinions other than theirs. They spit on history, traditional, morals and experience. They cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.

Dear Craig,

They do remind one of a bunch of snotty nosed brats at the back of the class don't they. The ones who always got so enraged when another kid showed the slightest bit of intelligence.

This following refrains are certainly indicative of the fragile nature of their self esteem;

“not bowing to their (the leftists') 'moral superiority' and 'knowledge'...”

“Why don't you just say "miserable white old buggers", Craig Minns, and proudly display your racist contempt for old white people?”

“You are a left wing troll, 'doing' degrees (which you might or might not finish), and you believe that makes you superior to the rubes.”

Don't they just scream a toxic inferiority complex.

Expressing a desire for more civilised discussion on OLO is a worth sentiment since it featured just that virtue once. Now the rabid right have crawled out from their kennels to snap at heels and gnash their fangs. They are incapable of biting with any substance but the shear cacophony of their yelping does get tiresome.

This line from Cannery Row rings very true;

“...men in fear and hunger destroy their stomachs in the fight to secure certain food, where men hungering for love destroy everything lovable about them.... In the world ruled by tigers with ulcers, rutted by strictured bulls, scavenged by blind jackals.... What can it profit a man to gain the whole world and to come to his property with a gastric ulcer, a blown prostate, and bifocals?”

Steele, I'm not proud of bringing that out in people, I actually sympathise with their plaint in some ways. It's tough to feel that others aren't taking you seriously because of some perceived lack in your qualifications. What I hope is that the hurt feelings will subside and they will think back on the course of events and reflect a little with the wisdom of hindsight.

mac, I'm finding it quite a struggle at times, but it's also been a great chance to remind myself just how bloody bright the kids are and how much we're going to need every bit of that in the coming years. I agree with you that economics can be pretty ideologically driven, but that is gradually being reduced, as work in behavioural econ advances. Ideology is a form of heuristic that allows people to ignore the detailed mechanics of a proposed solution to a problem; they can focus instead on the "winners" and "losers" in simplified terms and barrack for "their side". Great for hack journalists and politicians, not so great for those who have to respond to problems in meaningful ways. Philosophy is vital, in my view, because it teaches how to think about thinking, which is not taught especially well in other disciplines.

ttbn, try to settle down mate. If you don't want to be made to feel like a twit, don't act like one! If you took the time to read the stuff I wrote you'd be able to comment on it more usefully. For example, in the post at the top of page 5 of this thread I mention my age.

Kohlberg was a psychologist, not a philosopher except to the extent that any curious person must be. As I said to mac, don't take my word for his findings, do some research and make up your own mind.

LEGO, why didn't I say "old white men"? You might find the following link useful, it's a previous article I wrote

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18456

Talk about undergraduate type peeing in each others pockets. Steele & Craig, you remind me of the undergraduate twits indulging in anti Vietnam moratorium marches, when I went back to Sydney uni to finish my BSc. I'd had time to grow up, serving as a fighter pilot in the navy, & found the wet behind the ears arts & humanities students extremely disgusting.

All to many of them never did manage to grow up, which is where most of our problems come from today. A few years service in Afghanistan was what they needed to make adults of them.

Sadly you still display that behaviour indicating the same growing up experience would do you the world of good.

Of course I would not really wish such a pair of pseudo people on the men currently serving our country.

Hasbeen,

I can't see the military wanting fairies like those two.

Dear Hasbeen,

You must be a lousy poker player mate. As soon as you feel pressured you dive right for the 'I was a navy pilot' line. It is your bolt hole albeit a repetitious one.

The fact that you have flagged it with such regularity so very many times on this forum is plainly indicative of the fact your ability to form coherent and rational responses is rather tested.

Perhaps you might like to wean yourself off it for a while and put some thought into your posts. It would be a welcome change and one I'm sure would keep the ulcers at bay.

Dear Craig,

“I can't see the military wanting fairies like those two.”

Nip, yelp, snarl.

He is a caricature isn't he.

You're right, Hasbeen, what the world needs is a good war to bring out the best in people...intestines, livers, spleens...

Steele, he's not a caricature, he's an old fella who's desperate to have someone pay attention to him. He lived his life by a set of rules that don't work any more and he's struggling to cope with the idea that there is more than one way to skin a cat.

It's a crying shame that in our social structure there isn't a more useful role for him than screaming imprecations into the void, hoping that some other miserable old bugger will scream back.

Craig,

I applaud your desire to better yourself, however, flaunting your undergraduate reading to diagnose someone else unfavourably based on a few lines in a blog is school yard level antics, and demonstrates that your level of maturity is no better than his. It is not surprising when he thinks you are being a bit of a dick.

That Everard's contributions consist entirely of a series of polemics devoid of any new information or insight makes him a great favourite of such left whinge blogs such as the New Matilda and Independent Aus where journalism goes to die.

Hello Shadow Minister,
I've put up with a great deal of abuse from ttbn and his fellow travellers over the time I've posted on OLO.

In responding, I'm not "flaunting" anything except my opinion, based on some knowledge - mostly not gained from my formal studies. If you don't like that, you're entirely free to hold that opinion, but please don't try to justify it with ttbn's hurt feelings. If he didn't act like a "dick" as you say, then I'd be polite to him, as I am to others who conduct themselves in a civilised manner.

Perhaps you might try to encourage him and his cronies not to act like overgrown children, rather than taking issue with my response? The quality of discussion on this site is abysmal, largely due to their presence.

I don't have any special opinion on Everald's article. Is there anything in particular you think is definitively wrong with it?

Dear Shadow Minister,

What an interesting post.

If you want to see flaunting at its best look no further than Hasbeen, continuing as he always does, to 'flaunt' the fact that he was a navy pilot time, and time, and time again. Yet not a peep from your good self.

Craig gives a rather innocuous reference and you accusing him of “school yard level antics”.

This was Craig's apparently 'offensive' post;

“It's amusing that some people are really scathing of the article, to the point of abuse, yet advocate the same solution that the author does. Seriously folks, what happened to civilised conversation?”

The cantankerous little lap poodle immediately goes to work with “holier-than-thou”, “smart aleck taunts”, “sneers at those opinions “ none of which were warranted.

Craig answered was far less belligerent;

“Thank you for the excellent example of Kohlberg's Stage 2 of pre-conventional morality, ttbn.”

Sure it might have been a touch cheeky but again hardly deserving of the attacks that came after.

Yet it is Craig you are so keen to go after?

While i'm not sure I agree with the contention in the article that the Liberal Party “has been assassinated by right wing zealots” the fact that you are defending nutjobs like Hasbeen and ttbn is a fine example of how the rightwing have been hijacked into feeling they have to support such nasties. Why in the hell do you lot do it? We have most certainly had our differences of opinion but even on your worst day you have never been anywhere near as toxic as these two on their best days.

Time to cut them loose mate.

SR,

There are a number of writers on OLO that I don't comment on them primarily because I don't read them, and largely I have avoided this thread because of the vitriol and personal attacks.

My criticism of Craig might well seem unfair, but for Craig to call for civilized discussion then essentially pin his protagonist as retarded is hardly going to calm the debate.

Craig,

Wrt the article Everard confuses his opinion with the facts leading him post BS like "Bush was a poorly educated man" which I would hardly reserve for an alumni of Harvard and Yale.

Shadow Minister, I suggest you take the trouble to read Kohlberg before you insultingly characterise my comments.

He made the point that few people develop beyond stage 4 and that people move between behaviours defined by earlier stages of development throughout their lives.

Stage 2 is defined by behaviour characterised by "what's in it for me", which I believe is a fair characterisation of the poster in question's behaviour across many threads.

I have no idea of what his intellect is like, I haven't seen it displayed yet.

WRT your concerns with the article, would you be more comfortable if he had characterised him as a man easily manipulated by the Macchiavellians who surrounded him?

Whatever Bush was, he was no intellectual power house and a notable outlier in a job that has generally not thrown up fools, although the current election may level that playing field a little in his favour.

Craig,

I am familiar with the Kohlberg's work to which you referred, and aside from your "diagnosis" which was simplistic at best, the use of the reference was primarily a thinly veiled insult, which unsurprisingly got a negative reaction.

Secondly, you asked me "I don't have any special opinion on Everard's article. Is there anything in particular you think is definitively wrong with it?" I gave a prime example of Everard's writing complete BS to make a political point. That I don't particularly like GWB is irrelevant to the point I was making.

If you are genuinely interested in civilized discourse avoid ad hominems however subtle.

There was no ad hom, Shadow Minister, merely an observation of behaviour and a deliberately simplified characterisation of that based on Kohlberg's work, which I have invited others to explore for themselves, including linking to a good layperson's explanatory page.

You can't have it both ways: if I expand beyond the most basic explanations I'm "flaunting" my (apparently offensive) learning; if I don't, I'm being simplistic. Which is it?

I was also acting in the hope that the poster in question might reconsider his propensity for childish outbursts. It seems unlikely if people like you choose to defend the indefensible way he behaves. Remember mate, lie down with dogs and you wake up with fleas...

I have to say I agree with Everald's characterisation of Bush. He may have attended Harvard and Yale, but he escaped without being tainted by education.

A good timely article. I generally agree, bar a few provisos.

If anyone thinks that the Menzies era was a land of milk and honey think again. The reality of 1960s Australia was a time when Pensioners were eating dogfood while paying exorbitantly high private rents to live in slum like conditions. No Medicare, no public hospitals except in QLD under Joh.

If today we were living in a nation built on Menzies's "values" there would be riots, blood on the streets, buildings burning. But if the RW ideologues that infest the LNP/ONP today win out then we will be heading there soon enough.

This nation (no nation) can afford to be governed by pathological narcissistic ideologues. Our nation is founded on Empathy and a Commonwealth not who has the biggest egos!

Don't believe anything Howard says about "Menzies built modern Australia." It's 100% false and a twisted version of reality. Howard's distorted personal mythology, a myopic deluded world view.

re: "Then, the rot set in as the Liberals moved steadily to the right, finally going heavily in that direction when Tony Abbott arrived"

I vehemently disagree. It shifted to the right extreme neo-liberal ideology and 'welfare for the already well off' under Howard. Abbott was his love child. Howard & Costello laid the foundations for today's fiscal fantasies, housing price bubble, $4 billion/yr given to non-productive property investors in Tax Breaks, the end of car manufacturing, rising national debt, unsustainable tax cuts, a new political class with hearts of stone!

Howard's Govt ruined this nation. Destroyed the values of egalitarianism. He callously pitted groups against each other not seen since the early 20thC.

He threw Govt funds at people for their Vote and made Laws for special interests/corporations/think tanks for their PR backing. Took us into an insidious war with an untrustworthy dishonest partner.

He was so bad he lost his own seat. The worst PM this nation ever!

re: "Hopefully, Independents would eventually outnumber all of them."

YES!

Liberals, Nationals, Labor, Greens all deserve a shellacking by The People.

We are the Government not IPA/LNP High-Priests

Craig,

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem

Ad hominem is when someone instead of addressing the topic addresses the character of the opponent in negative fashion, and you comment did exactly that.

Secondly, I said your analysis was simplistic, not your explanation. Perhaps I should have used other descriptions such as superficial, flimsy etc.

Thirdly, Perhaps you could dig deep into your training and work out what irritates people, education or "flaunting"

Finally, it is common error of the left to confuse people's unpopular decisions with stupidity or poor education If they were better educated they wouldn't make such elementary errors.

Shadow Minister,

I agree with your comment about flaunting one's education. sooner or later you will encounter someone who has a much bigger one, eg with a masters degree or two PhDs.

A few years ago the 'counter jihad' I occasionally commented on was attacked by a pair of Swedish 'leftists'. They had decided, without any evidence, that most of the commenters on the site had 'only primary educations'. The admin surveyed the commenters and discovered that we were better educated than the Western average.

Good manners prevent me from 'flaunting'.

Shadow Minister, the poster in question made no argument to address: his only response was abuse (which is also his standard response on every other topic), which was why I responded the way I did. I wish he would make some cogent arguments, but it seems that isn't within his grasp at the moment. Perhaps you, as one of his more ardent supporters, might try to persuade him to learn how?

Now, to your own comments: presumably you can inform me what was "simplistic [...] superficial or silly" about my analysis? I'm fascinated...really.

First, of course, you'll have to tell us what you think my analytical process involved, since I certainly haven't done so. It must be nice to be clairvoyant.

mac, I have made no effort at all to "flaunt" my education. I only mentioned it in response to a question from you. If you didn't want to have it known, why did you ask?

However, I am quite proud of being still capable of undertaking high-level study at my age. I'll be even prouder if I succeed. what have you done recently that you're proud to "flaunt"?

Craig, it's not always about you, relax. I was replying to Shadow Minister's moments.
You're not the only mature age student in the universe. As to what I've done recently, nothing much, I'm 20 years older than you and I'm not interested in more formal education. I was awarded a Masters in economic history when I was in my mid forties. I can remember a report about a woman receiving a PhD I when she was in her early eighties, now that is impressive.

Now let's stop the 'mine is bigger nonsense', it's pointless.

mac,
I was asking a genuine question: what have you done lately you're proud of? I think we here in the Land of Oz are all too ready to diminish even minor achievement, including our own.

If you're 20 years older than I am you have 20 years more experience and have had at least 10 years post work to achieve whatever you couldn't find time for while you were younger. Tell us about it: we could do with some positivity around here.

It's a crying shame that the usual suspects tend to derail any effort at creating a more positive environment for discussion. They're old enough to know better.

Craig,

I admit, you showed no intelligent analysis whatsoever (not silly as you wrongfully quoted), but at least you have stopped with the ridiculous assertion that your post was not an ad hominem.

Your second wondrous deduction that I am an ardent supporter of a poster that I have never mentioned makes me wonder whether your "university" grants degrees for attendance?

I used the term "flaunt" to try and be subtle as I generally find people that try to name drop unrelated academics are wannabe posers.

And if you think I am just being pissy, I am the same age as you and have recently finished my 4th degree with my first being electrical engineering.

Shadow Minister, an ad hominem argument is designed to discredit the opposing point of view by attacking the character of the person who holds it. I did no such thing, since no argument was offered that could be discredited. I merely characterised a set of behaviours that I have observed in the poster in question.

Now I'd love to have a go at your own behaviour, but it seems unfair to do so while you're in your cups. Perhaps once the hangover wears off you can use one of those rolls of "diploma" to wipe up the mess...

You see the difference between you and I is that I stand behind what I say; it can be checked easily with a quick google search among other methods. You, on the other hand have nothing but your pseudonym and your rather shabby reputation for unethical and dishonest conduct on this site. You've created that situation for yourself, so have another drink, you've earnt it...

Dear Shadow Minister,

I feel if you were to be a touch less equivocal regarding Hasbeen and ttbn then I would happily to recognise that your right to challenge Craig. If it is indeed the case that you do not read their posts then I am prepared to accept you are neither pissy nor failing to be even handed.

Perhaps it would be appropriate to park the subtlety since as it stands now, without such a clarification, you exude pissiness.

Just out of interest I'm wondering if a cogent argument was put that ttbn's post exhibited all the hallmarks of “Kohlberg's Stage 2 of pre-conventional morality”, would that be cause to review your assessment of Craig's post?

Craig,

Losing an argument and you go full troll, abuse, lying, misquoting, narcissism, hypocrisy, tantrum, etc.

All in all a classic example of “Kohlberg's Stage 2 of preconventional morality”

P.S. Earned not earnt

I refer you to another scholarly work, the Oxford Dictionary http://www.oed.com which will help you in your endeavours to educate yourself.

SR,

All the hallmarks? in one post?

Oh dear, Shadow Minister, you're really not very good at this, are you old chap?

My name is Craig Minns: a quick google search will reveal many things about me and about the things I have made statements about. A google search for "Shadow Minister" reveals nothing about you or about any of the grandiose claims you've made. I'll leave the reader to decide who is the "troll"...

Oh, by the way, you might like to have a look at the OED, your grasp of English could do with some improvement.

If that's too hard, here's a simpler version from Wiktionary

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/earnt

An extract:

"Verb

earnt

(chiefly British) simple past tense and past participle of earn  [quotations ▲]
2005, Andrew Milner, Literature, Culture and Society:

An exceptionally popular commercial writer can even become rich from royalties: immediately prior to the release of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, J. K. Rowling was reported by The Times to have earnt some £280 million from the sale of an estimated 200 million copies of her books worldwide combined with royalties from the films based on them [...].

2010, Aileen Cater-Steel, Women in Engineering, Science and Technology:

In 2006 women in the mining sector earnt an average weekly wage of $1335.40, compared to women working in the retail trade sector, who earnt an average $726.10 per week."

No need to thank me old chap.

Craig,

http://www.whichenglish.com/Better-English-Grammar/usage/earnt-or-earned.html

Because your misspelling coincided with a medieval version of the word convinces no one.

"In modern-day usage the only accepted spelling is earned in all forms of English" http://www.whichenglish.com/Better-English-Grammar/usage/earnt-or-earned.html

I did google you and if you really are

"The "angry white male" who can't find work because he has "only" a school certificate and even basic jobs require ridiculous and meaningless jumping through qualifying hoops has every reason to be angry. The "angry white male" who has to fund his own legal proceedings (or more likely try and fail to self-represent) in divorce, while his ex-wife is fully funded through legal aid has every reason to be angry. The father who watches his son being left behind by an educational system that has over 40 years been tailored to suit girls has every reason to be angry."

Then I forgive you, for you knew not what you were doing.

You're historically challenged as well, old man. 2005 and 2006 are not generally regarded as part of the medieval period. If you have a concern about whether it's correct, then I suggest you take it up with JK Rowling.

I'll leave the rest of your sour grapes for you to tread, I'm not fond of whine...

Craig,

Why would I ask JKR about someone writing about her?

As for your previous articles, whining seems to be your sole skill.

Well now you are both being pissy. I will leave you to it.

What a good idea Steele.

Congratulations, Shadow Minister, you've repulsed another possibly interesting discussion opportunity. You must be so proud...

Oh, just as a parting aside, after analysing your commentary in this thread, you tend to shift between Kohlberg's stage 1 and stage 2, mostly the former.

Feel free to look up what that means, or you can read my article when I write it.