And, let's face it, people who would lose money with the taxation policies pursued by other parties. I'm not saying that this principled in the slightest. Just the way it is.

Rightly or wrongly, people who stand to lose money if a non Liberal government is going to be voted in are less likely to vote for it.

I have no great love for the Liberal Party. But I'm always unlikely to vote for the Labor [sic] Party. The rampant hypocrisy of the Gillard Government should have disillusioned the entire country. Reducing the single-parent payment from parents of 16 year olds to 8 year olds was a disgrace of the highest order. Gillard wanted to reduce already diminished funding to universities. Go figure.

She was a deplorable person. The idea that she was opposed to same-sex marriages, for somebody supposedly progressive, is beyond the pale. She was willing to sacrifice all her principles for the sake of keeping power and leaving some kind of a political legacy. She was hellbent on bringing through the Gonskii reforms. Well, at the cost of making things even tougher for universities in this country? No thanks. Universities in this country are already lacking so much funding. Research needs serious help.

Is Shorten's lot any better? Probably not. I hear next to nothing meaningful from them.

Is Turnbull any better? No. Another who has probably sacrificed his principles for the sake of holding power.

I'm sorry but power and legacy isn't something that should be sought. It should be earned by morally upright, informed and innovative policy.

Are the Greens any better? At least they oppose the racist and illegal "border" policy this country pursues (with bipartsian support, demonstrating how far we have fallen). But they know jack shit about economics. The economy would crash with them in any position of relative power.

This country is disgraceful. It's not a fair go country. Nobody gives a shit about those less fortunate than themselves.

It's also divided by the politics of envy. Greed and envy. It's everywhere. The rich are greedy. Too many who are battling are just envious and embittered. This is no way to be. There's a cultural element of tall poppy syndrome in Australia which I find toxic.

We have continually falling educational standards.

We have no innovation. IT? Start-up companies? I reckon we're so far behind other parts of the world. We're overly reliant on things like our resources.

No creativity. Rather than encouraging innovation, any time anybody thinks of anything out of the box, it gets shut down by those who lack imagination or suffer from more tall poppy syndrome.

I'm seriously fed up with Australia.

There is no party to vote for.

Rant over.

=d>

Edited by salmonfc: 25/5/2016 01:25:32 AM

The utopia doesnt exist.

Actually, what you are looking for is closer to America than Sweden.

You need to vote for the one that makes people money. Because, innovation to cure all the worlds problems is driven by profit. A communist or socialist system (aka left) does not encourage innovation, it encourages mediocrity.

You may look at it the other way and say it is the cause not the solution, but we are where we are.

Vote Liberal until somebody invents a machine to make it rain on command in Australia.

Of course no utopia exists. My post didn't depict one.

Firstly, I agree totally that communism discourages innovation. But I'm not endorsing communism. Do you think that Sweden is practically communist?

The Liberal Party ain't what it used to be. When Malcolm Fraser, one of the greatest Australian PMs ever, was around it was a different beast to the one we see today. Maybe then it encouraged innovation. We know it did, at least to a point. Fraser had the AIS built. But these days, I don't know that it's too crash hot. I think Labor are as bad or worse, though.

But I don't think you've got it right that American-style neoliberalism encourages innovation either. If I've misrepresented your views in any way I do apologise and I will correct that. And even neoliberalism does (to an extent) encourage innovation, its effects are felt so unevenly.

It's all about striking a balance somewhere in between. Has Sweden struck that balance? I'm not claiming it has done (just that it has done a far better job than the US).

I don't necessarily agree with the more lunatic elements of the Australian (economic) left who want everything taxed to the hilt. I think that in some areas investment capital is already far too discouraged in Australia.

Some sectors can cope with being taxed more, some cannot (or may even need to be taxed less) and others need to be really tightly regulated at all times regardless (banks, for instance).

I think economics/taxation is a nuanced balance of traditional and Keynesian policies to encourage investment in the right areas but to take in enough revenue to maintain the welfare state which the state is obliged to do.

I should point out that I'm not a proper economics student and I defer to the knowledge of others.

I realise that some aspects of my post seemed inconsistent (although, arguably, with really bright policy-making, it's not as inconsistent as one might think). Most of the things I've referred to have little to do with the communism vs capitalism debate. Only really the criticism of lack of funding for single-parent families and education in Australia. I don't think it reeks of communism for a government in a liberal democracy to prioritise these things.

But the problem in Australian society is that there's this constant division in Australian society. There is greed and there is envy. The wealthy in this country are smug. Those worse off are bitter and envious. We end up getting a false dichotomy of those promoting neoliberalism gone mad versus those promoting Communism. That misses the point. You've got to look somewhere in between.

Australians, for a long time, have a cultural history of tall poppy syndrome. This tendency, which exacerbates the politics of division, means that we are just about stagnant in terms of innovation.

Sweden is an interesting one. I recall a Swedish chick I know expressing similar sentiment to you. She thinks Sweden is not brash enough in some ways. She loves her country's commitment to social welfare (or so I gather). But she thinks that it needs work in terms of the US style sense of invention. Probably, she is right. It could be better and aspects of Sweden would be better if it were more individualistic.

However, it must be remembered that Sweden is incredibly innovative in IT and start-ups. Spotify and Skype are the obvious examples. Look at Australia. We do jack shit in terms of innovation and we're far more, culturally, individualistic than Sweden.

I'm not saying Australia should necessarily aspire to be just like Nordic countries. I'm not even necessarily advocating their style of socialism in Australia because it may not be feasible or compatible.

But by God Australia needs to lift its game. If I were in a policy-making chair, I'd look to the examples of Scandinavia and Singapore. People more versed in these things than me will be able to think of other relevant examples.

Scandinavia and Singapore aren't on the same end of the spectrum of taxation. But, regardless of that, they're doing some things right. Australia should look to what works and try to incorporate successful individual aspects into our education system, taxation system, etc.

But all this is, of course, made difficult by the politics of division/envy and tall poppy syndrome that is prevalent in Australia.

Edited by quickflick: 25/5/2016 03:23:31 AM

Edited by quickflick: 25/5/2016 03:47:53 AM

Regarding the United States...

America's just fine. If you're loaded. Otherwise it ranges from okay to shithouse (and shithouse for a huge proportion of the population).

Nordic countries do not have the might of the US. They do not have the biggest corporations in the world. They do not have the cultural domination of the States. But at least they make some kind of effort to help those who really need help. If you're not born into privilege in Scandinavia, your life is not fucked. In the States... well, everything is against you if you don't get off to the right start in life which is, of course, arbitrarily determined.

Masses of people in America protested against Obamacare. How selfish can they get? It's impossible to reform gun-law because of attachment to an antiquated right to bear arms which was only necessary in 1791 (when the Second Amendment was drafted) because back then there was no competent standing police force and individual rights were best protected by arming the civilian population. They apply that logic today. As a result, they have shooting sprees en masse. How is that fair?

This video has one of the best political speeches I have ever heard. It's by Glenda Jackson. It's not about the United States. It's about Britain under Thatcher. But the system employed by Thatcher was Britain's foray into American neoliberalism.

[youtube]W0G2r7G96RY[/youtube]

Edited by quickflick: 25/5/2016 03:25:01 AM

Yes.

One of my best friends has a Joe Hill tattoo on his arm.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Party_(Sweden)

Typical baseless, ignorant statement that I could hear from any right winger living inside their uninformed echo chamber
"The Greens are commies", ""they'll destroy the economy", pretty much sums up.


You forgot to add "all politicians are crooks"


You tell this to yourself to make you feel better about your, gutless, donkey vote


It was quite a whinging diatribe that I've heard from so many people so many times before

Edited by Murdoch Rags Ltd: 25/5/2016 04:35:40 AM

Your 'Liberal' (*snigger*) Party more than doubled the country's debt after trumpeting that, once in power, it would achieve a surplus in its first term in office & every year after that. So the issue skyrocketed in the opposite direction to their, supposed, key competency
So even the slogan on that big badge their wear they couldn't even live up to.
Frauds, borne out by the evidence.

Except, smart-arse, I'm not right-wing or left-wing. Some of us aren't blinkered into thinking all policy needs to be extremist.

Thank you for proving my point though...

the crux of things in Australia is a false dichotomy of either neoliberalism gone mad (as espoused by the Thatcherite elements of this forum) or communism (as espoused by MurdochRags).

You've just shown the problem rather magnificently. People like you are the problem. The nuances of this discussion are ignored because people think in extremes on account of the fact that the likes of you constantly hijack the debate.

I'll leave you to regurgitate the tweets at the bottom of the screen from Q&A in peace. Much easier just to say all those who disagree with you are stupid rather than explaining, with evidence, why their opinions are wrong. But you don't deign to bother with more intellectually rigorous concepts. You just like to hurl insults and imply that those with reduced IQs are less capable of empathy.

Yuk.

Like 95%+ on here, totally misrepresented my position. Maybe you need to better understand the word 'nuanced' and its antonym 'dichotomous'
PS: thanks for the insults, too. Oops.

The only way to make an informal vote valuable is to organise a mass informal vote protest in your electorate ... I am pretty sure though it is illegal to encourage informal votes. I think overall the informal vote is still too small ... you'd have to do it at a local electorate level. Though political parties would probably see it as an education issue rather than a protest (unless again made public).

So your better course of action (probably too late now I'd say) is run as an independent or set up your own political party (and use as your platform that you are a "protest" vote).