Australian Politics:

[beecee]

Australia has a  new Prime Minister following the ousting of Malcolm Turnbull by his own Liberal party. The new man is Scott Morrison. 

The Liberal party in our country is the conservative party and this ousting of Turnbull has occurred because the far far right faction of the Liberal party cannot accept the more moderate stance of the middle of the road faction. The count was 40-45 for the ousting of Turnbull.

Australia has now had 7 PMs in 10 years.

December 3, 2007 — June 24, 2010.John Howard: 12 years: [LIBERAL]                                

June 24, 2010 — June 27, 2013.Kevin Rudd: 2.5 years: [LABOR]

June 27, 2013 — September 18, 2013.Julia Gillard: 3 years:[LABOR]

September 18, 2013 — September 15, 2015.Kevin Rudd: 2.5 months:[LABOR]

September 15, 2015 — August 24, 2018.Tony Abbott: 2 years:[LIBERAL]

August 24, 2018 — current.Malcolm Turnbull: 3 years:[LIBERAL]

And finally Scott Morrison.[LIBERAL]

Is this true democracy in operation? Should a PM elected at an election be deposed by his or her own party? Or should the electorate expect the leader of the party and potential PM that is voted in, at the election, have the right to hold his position until the next election? We hold them every 3 years generally, but the sitting PM can call an early election if he deems it necessary. 

 

 

 

 

[beecee]

I should add that this extreme right movement in Australian politics, seems to have become lively and bouyed since the election of Trump in the US. 

 

[dimreepr]

9 hours ago, beecee said:

Is this true democracy in operation?

Unfortunately, it is but it does highlight the problem of designing a check/balance that can't be abused and, what I consider the fundamental flaw in a democracy.

5 hours ago, beecee said:

I should add that this extreme right movement in Australian politics, seems to have become lively and bouyed since the election of Trump in the US. 

1

It's always exciting when one's team wins especially when it's against the odds (and one had to endure the taunts from them!!!).

[Ten oz]

 Western styled govts seem to be experiencing major political shifts at a time of relative calm and stable economics. Not just calm and prosperity but the major shifts don't even reflect the majority citizens. In the U.S. Trump lost the popular vote and has consistently held stronger disapproval ratings than any first term President in history. In the UK Brexit has remained a 50/50 proposition at best. I am not an expert on Australian politics but GDP and unemployment have been moving in the right directions over the last few years and Malcom Turnbull had a typical apprval rating among citizens. Major shifts in Politics are normally caused by something like war,  economic depression, human/civil rights issues, etc and pushed majority support. How is some much sh!t being stirred in the absences of a catalyst or majority support? 

Not for nothing Australia too has been victim of Russian propaganda:

Quote

 

While recent attention has been focused on Russia’s efforts to influence American politics, new analysis suggests Australia has also been a target – and continues to be a target – of covert foreign influence.

New evidence shows that the infamous Russian “troll factory”, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), targeted Australian politics on social media between 2015 and 2017 – and that other Russian outlets may continue to conduct influence operations.

Russian intervention in the 2016 US election has generated considerable attention around the world. But while that attack was unprecedented in scope, Russia is not the only perpetrator of foreign influence, and the United States is not the only target.

The recent passage of legislation by the Australian Parliament targeting foreign lobbyists and strengthening regulations around espionage are a response to growing concerns about foreign influence operations in Australia.

https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/russian-trolls-targeted-australian-voters-twitter

 

 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

Major shifts in Politics are normally caused by something like war,  economic depression, human/civil rights issues, etc and pushed majority support. How is some much sh!t being stirred in the absences of a catalyst or majority support? 

I can only speak as a UK citizen but I think it stems from the 2007/8 economic crisis and the subsequent doomsaying from the press. Which scared the shit out of a large part of the populace; Dunning and Kruger can explain the rest.

[Ten oz]

41 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I can only speak as a UK citizen but I think it stems from the 2007/8 economic crisis and the subsequent doomsaying from the press. Which scared the shit out of a large part of the populace; Dunning and Kruger can explain the rest.

It is more than that. Tribalism is playing a big role too. Various groups of people feel they are more so the rightful heirs to the country than others and as a result feel their views should matter more. It isn't so much people with low ability are overestimating their abilities much as they overestimating their place in society, entitlement. Brexit and Trump's election heavily featured immigration as a means to ratchet up the sense of entitlement various groups within the populations feel regarding their own heritage and traditions. When one feels it is their inheritance or place in the world to have preference whether or not they are the smartest doesn't matter. The feeling is that its "my country and I will do want I want to do". The New Australian PM appears to fit the model. Scott Morrison is a deeply religious anti immigrant advocate.   

Edited August 25, 2018 by Ten oz

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

It is more than that. Tribalism is playing a big role too. Various groups of people feel they are more so the rightful heirs to the country than others and as a result feel their views should matter more. It isn't so much people with low ability are overestimating their abilities much as they overestimating their place in society, entitlement. Brexit and Trump's election heavily featured immigration as a means to ratchet up the sense of entitlement various groups within the populations feel regarding their own heritage and traditions. When one feels it is their inheritance or place in the world to have preference whether or not they are the smartest doesn't matter. The feeling is that its "my country and I will do want I want to do". The New Australian PM appears to fit the model. Scott Morrison is a deeply religious anti immigrant advocate.   

Indeed but my point was rather, who's the loudest.

[Ken Fabian]

Divided opinions over climate and energy were at the heart of this blow up; the conservative right leaning Liberal and National party coalition (LNP) appears to be deeply divided between the pro-coal and gas climate science deniers who don't know any better and the pro-coal and gas climate science deniers who do know better. The ones who do know better lost.

Flippancy aside, it's a serious division within the LNP, that has not been resolved by this change of leader. I don't think there is any will within the LNP to tackle the climate problem head on with eyes open but a significant proportion could still be counted as climate "lukewarmers" - in my view, this is just a variant of denial; the link between climate and emissions being considered real but, unlike actual mainstream climate scientific advice, they believe it is not that serious or significant. ie they believe the mainstream science is wrong. Practically speaking it means the lukewarmers are framing support for fossil fuels and opposition to a renewable energy led transition to low emission in ways that don't involve denying climate science - and done in ways the climate science denying faction can live with.

Had Dutton won the leadership, we may have seen subsidies for new coal power stations and withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement - bringing that essential debate about acceptance or rejection of climate science, that the ones who know better know will go badly, back to the fore. The ones who know better are almost certainly correct - the votes that climate denial will win from the extreme right will cost them the support from the centre.

Now I'm not sure how PM Morrison will play it; he was the one who brandished a lump of coal in parliament, as an unmistakeable declaration of support for fossil fuels, but he looks like a pragmatist who surely knows that - electorally - climate denial and anti-renewables rhetoric doesn't have great public appeal.

My prediction is his approach will be much the same as Turnbull's - he will not withdraw from Paris agreement and will not be caught saying outright that he rejects climate science. He will play the energy issue like a three shell game, where every bet on emissions reductions or renewable energy comes up empty. Oh, too bad. Play again?

Edited August 26, 2018 by Ken Fabian

[LaurieAG]

23 hours ago, beecee said:

I should add that this extreme right movement in Australian politics, seems to have become lively and bouyed since the election of Trump in the US. 

It's probably not a good idea to use words like extreme right in the current context of Australian politics. In fact left and right have been interchangeable since that old (extreme right wing) revolutionary 'left' wing Paul Keating sold off the Commonwealth bank and started selling the national telecommunications company. Why do you think that the 'left' wing opposition party, in the past 2 federal elections, gained their lowest first preference votes for nearly a hundred years?

With a 'left' wing political party whose right wing leaders have no concern over retaining public assets (mainly because they have all been sold) it is not surprising that many, the 'old left', have deserted the neo LGBTI/GREEN/UNION thug 'left' party and sought other parties lest they be accused of either being hypocrites or suffering from dementia.

Also, now that the current right wing government has ejected their leftie PM, surely the opposition (or what's 'left' of them) should have a good think about ejecting their right wing leader, unless, of course, they think that a union boss should do deals with big business to trade a 2 cent per hour pay rise for minimum wage cleaners for $30K  to employ someone to get that union boss elected as a politician. If you can swallow that BS don't bother to call yourself left.

[beecee]

After reading some of the early correct comments, I sometimes wonder if noting the inane crazy comments of Trump, that Americans could wish they could change Presidents as easy as we change Prime Ministers.  

 

[Ken Fabian]

I don't have any great issue with how the political party selects the Prime Minister in Australia - or that they can change PM without calling an election; if their own team can't work with the leader it seems reasonable that they be able to replace him/her - and Australians know, or should know, that is how things work. It comes with high electoral risks and normally political parties don't do this to popular Prime Ministers, rather, reserving it for unpopular ones - although not always - but there are deep divisions within the LNP that don't appear to be resolvable by changing the leader. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ik],

[hypervalent_iodine]

18 hours ago, LaurieAG said:

It's probably not a good idea to use words like extreme right in the current context of Australian politics. In fact left and right have been interchangeable since that old (extreme right wing) revolutionary 'left' wing Paul Keating sold off the Commonwealth bank and started selling the national telecommunications company. Why do you think that the 'left' wing opposition party, in the past 2 federal elections, gained their lowest first preference votes for nearly a hundred years?

With a 'left' wing political party whose right wing leaders have no concern over retaining public assets (mainly because they have all been sold) it is not surprising that many, the 'old left', have deserted the neo LGBTI/GREEN/UNION thug 'left' party and sought other parties lest they be accused of either being hypocrites or suffering from dementia.

Also, now that the current right wing government has ejected their leftie PM, surely the opposition (or what's 'left' of them) should have a good think about ejecting their right wing leader, unless, of course, they think that a union boss should do deals with big business to trade a 2 cent per hour pay rise for minimum wage cleaners for $30K  to employ someone to get that union boss elected as a politician. If you can swallow that BS don't bother to call yourself left.

 

Are you referring to Labor as the "left wing" opposition party? I think I agree with you, in that the term could not be further from the truth. They have been so interested in trying to pick up votes from and placate the right that they have alienated the very ideals they used to champion. I (for example) could never (and will never) support a party who actively pursues the offshore / indefinite detention Australia has engaged in as a solution for refugees who arrive by boat. 

I would love for Shorten to be ousted and someone else to take his place as I think he's nothing less than a vapid waste of space with no courage of conviction, and no real opinions of his own. Unfortunately, I suspect Labor is very keen to appear cohesive in the wake of all of the turmoil within the LNP ranks ahead of the next election. If ever there was a Steven Bradbury of Australian politics, it is Shorten.  

 

On 25/08/2018 at 12:04 PM, beecee said:

Is this true democracy in operation? Should a PM elected at an election be deposed by his or her own party? Or should the electorate expect the leader of the party and potential PM that is voted in, at the election, have the right to hold his position until the next election? We hold them every 3 years generally, but the sitting PM can call an early election if he deems it necessary. 

 

I can't totally decide what I think about it. I do think that having the extra check in place is a good thing least the party leader goes rogue upon being voted in. That being said, if the party in question was able to form government, then they have the votes to challenge anything the PM would try to pass on his own anyway. As well, having the leadership role cemented upon being voted in might help to stop all of the self-interested rubbish that has led to recent turmoil. Or maybe not, I can't quite decide. I am very okay if the LNP doesn't achieve any of their often reprehensible goals, but it might be nice if they spent time more time governing and less time plotting. 

I do think that 3 years is too short a time, and that we should increase it to 4. 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

I can't totally decide what I think about it. I do think that having the extra check in place is a good thing least the party leader goes rogue upon being voted in. That being said, if the party in question was able to form government, then they have the votes to challenge anything the PM would try to pass on his own anyway. As well, having the leadership role cemented upon being voted in might help to stop all of the self-interested rubbish that has led to recent turmoil. Or maybe not, I can't quite decide. I am very okay if the LNP doesn't achieve any of their often reprehensible goals, but it might be nice if they spent time more time governing and less time plotting. 

I do think that 3 years is too short a time, and that we should increase it to 4. 

My choice would have been Anthony Albanese, but I'm prepared to give Shorten a go. This recent turmoil of course [at least in my opinion] stems from  Abbott seeking revenge and not caring how he went about it.

Many years ago, I had the pleasure of meeting both Jim Cairns and Gough Whitlam who I believe to have been our greatest PM. My problem with the LNP is that over the years [and highlighted with the  stopping of supply in the Whitlam government is that they seem to have the attitude that they have a god given right to govern

Speaking of Australian PM,s here's a great video of the most popular PM ever.....

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

I would have been on board for Tanya Plibersek myself (or better, Penny Wong, although she wasn't in the running at the time); I still don't think I would have voted for Labor without a serious change in their policy platform away from appeasing the right, however. 

I have had the pleasure of watching Bob Hawke speak on several occasions at Woodford, which he attends almost every year. He always has a lot of interesting opinions on the future of the country, a lot of them I tend to agree with. He's a funny guy.

My main problem with the LNP is their callousness towards the middle class and the disadvantaged, and their short-sighted economic and environmental policies, all of which seem to be par for the course in right-wing politics these days. 

[beecee]

14 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

My main problem with the LNP is their callousness towards the middle class and the disadvantaged, and their short-sighted economic and environmental policies, all of which seem to be par for the course in right-wing politics these days. 

Bingo! They would certainly love to dismantle Medicare, but obviously are also aware of the backlash if they ever did. Gough's greatest achievement.

[hypervalent_iodine]

59 minutes ago, beecee said:

Bingo! They would certainly love to dismantle Medicare, but obviously are also aware of the backlash if they ever did. Gough's greatest achievement.

 

It's harder for them to get away with Medicare because they don't have an easy scapegoat to pit the middle-class against to make it seem as though someone else is taking advantage of them. With dismantling welfare, they can sell it by convincing your average working class person that the people engaging with the system are sitting around, insidiously mooching off your tax dollars with no regard for a hard day's work. They do a very good job of making their platform issues of us vs. them. 

[LaurieAG]

7 hours ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

As well, having the leadership role cemented upon being voted in might help to stop all of the self-interested rubbish that has led to recent turmoil.

Hmmm, in the UK the members of the opposition party vote for the party leader and the MP's only get 1 vote each, In Australia the members of the party get 50% of the vote and the MP's get another 50% (Bill Shorten only secured 40% of the party vote (Albo 60%) but he obviously has the numbers on 60% of the MP's giving him a total percentage comparable to BREXIT) and in Queensland the members of the party get 1/3, the MP's get 1/3 and the Unions get 1/3 (so the unions control the state because they end up selecting the candidate MP's). Prior to Kevin Rudd being rolled by right wing MP's and then recovering the leadership the party MP's had 100% of the leadership vote.