Bandt vs Keating on Neoliberalism

[thelastman]

Last week Australian Greens leader Adam Bandt accused the Labor Party of embracing neoliberalism "since Hawke and Keating".

Western citizens have been under an establishment neoliberal duopoly regime since neoliberalisms mother and father -Thatcher and Reagan - succeeded in using their neoliberal Capitalist Ratchet policies to reverse what Thatcher called the "Socialist Ratchet" of the working class.

The birth of Neoliberalism coincided with the fall of the USSR which cemented the neoliberal idea that private options and not public options are the way of the future - and as a result the political parties on the left like the US Democrats, British Labour, Australian Labor etc all embraced neoliberalism and started calling themselves 'Third Way'.

Democrat leader Bill Clinton and Labour leader Tony Blair are both credited with leading the modern left to embrace neoliberalism but Paul Keating is in fact the Godfather of the modern Third Way leftists. Keating was putting in place neoliberal policies here in Australia years before Clinton and Blair got into power.

Some - including Bandt - accuse former Labor PM Bob Hawke of being a neoliberal by lumping in his years as PM in with Keatings - referring to the era as the 'Hawke-Keating years' - but this is complete nonsense. Keating was Hawkes treasurer but it is a stretch to say the least to call Hawke a 'Third Way' neoliberal whereas Keating wrote the book.

Establishment politicians do not like to talk about neoliberalism because they are all members of a neoliberal duopoly and to talk about it tends to expose this fact. When citizens reject the establishment parties and their establishment politicians and policies what the citizens are rejecting is neoliberalism - whether they be on the right or the left. The last thing the establishment wants is for the left and the right masses to unite against their common enemy which is neoliberalism. So well done to Bandt for making this a topic for discussion.

Anyway - I was interested in how Keating would respond to Bandt calling him out for being an anti-working class neoliberal - not only because I think its important for us to talk about neoliberalism but also because I enjoy Keatings rhetoric. He did not disappoint. In his response he called Bandt a "bounder". I had to look the term up -

Bounder - / (ˈbaʊndə) / noun. old-fashioned, British slang a morally reprehensible person; cad. a person or animal that bounds.
dictionary.com

Ha.

“How could any reasonable person describe the universality of Medicare as an exercise in conservative neoliberalism,” Mr Keating told Nine newspapers.

“Or providing the whole Australian community, every working person, with mandated capital savings leading to substantial superannuation assets and retirement incomes.
“How could any reasonable person describe these mammoth changes as ‘neoliberalism’, a word associated with the likes of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.
“And more than that, the world’s leading system of minimum award rates of pay, a safety net superintended by the Fair Work Commission – a Keating government creation. Again, hardly an exercise in neoliberalism.
“But Bandt is a bounder and a distorter of political truth.”

Greens blast Paul Keating for ‘disgusting’ Bandt attack

Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi has labelled comments made by former prime minister Paul Keating about Adam Bandt as “disgusting” and “disappointing”.

www.skynews.com.au

To Bandts credit he came back at Keating pretty hard, calling Keating the "Patron Saint of Privatization". HA!

Mr Bandt said Mr Keating had a “sharp tongue but a short memory” and described him as “Labor’s patron saint of privatisation”.

“I am happy to debate Paul Keating anywhere, anytime, about Labor’s record in bringing economic rationalism and neoliberalism to this country,” Mr Bandt said on Thursday.


“If he wants a debate, bring it on.”

'Sharp tongue, short memory': Adam Bandt takes aim at Keating

Greens leader Adam Bandt has teed off at former PM Paul Keating, as a war of words erupted after the former Labor leader call Mr Bandt a "bounder".

thenewdaily.com.au

continued -

 

[thelastman]

I do not expect Keating accept Bandts challenge to debate him on whether or not he is a neoliberal because he clearly cannot win due to the fact that he is indeed a neoliberal. He is the Godfather of the Third Way for goodness sake. Bandt would slaughter him. But as I pointed out in my Bandt Speech and Neoliberalism thread ( which can be found in the conspiracy forum apparently ) - Bandt supports neoliberal policies like mass immigration himself and his hate for the working class who are the victims of neoliberal policy would put Keatings working class hate to shame. Also as a so-called 'Democratic Socialist' Bandt represents capitalisms last line of defense so while he would certainly expose Keating for the neoliberal he is in a debate - he would be limited in any attack he could make on neoliberalism itself. Neoliberalism is the antithesis of real socialism and only a true working class socialist could tear apart Keatings pathetic reply like it should be. So I will speak as a true socialist and slaughter old man Keating like he should be -

Medicare was introduced by the Bob Hawke - yes. Not Paul Keating - Bob Hawke. When Hawke introduced Medicare we already had Medibank which was introduced by former Labor PM Gough Whitlam. Medicare was no more than the Hawke government making some improvements to a universal healthcare system that had already been introduced - by Gough Whitlam. As I pointed out in my previous thread on this topic - Bandt is seeking to associate the Greens brand with Gough Whitlam which is why he used the term 'Hawke-Keating years' to pinpoint Labors shift to neoliberalism. As I pointed out - it makes far more sense to leave Bob Hawke out of it and focus on Keating as neoliberal mark. Hawke updating Medibank to create Medicare was not at all a neoliberal thing to do which does make sense because like I said - he wasnt a neoliberal and when he was PM Labor did still represent the working class - or at least pretended to. This all changed under Keating and his Third Way neoliberalism. So if Bandt was not so stupid and had not brought Hawke into this then it would make going after Keating a lot easier. Still - as I said - Bandt is not attacking the entire history of the Labor Party - only Labor since 'the Hawke-Keating years' and as I said - it was Gough Whitlam that got the ball rolling for universal healthcare in Australia - not 'Hawke-Keating. Certainly not Keating.

Is Keating 'mandated capital savings' or 'super' as Australians call it a neoliberal policy? Yes indeed - mandatory superannuation is neoliberal as hell. Working class people expect to live on an old age pension when they reach retirement age and they believe that this is part of the social contract between the state and the citizen. They do not want a percentage of their earnings taken from them and given to capitalists that bet and lose that money on the stock market. A working class person sees the stock market as a modern day slave market that exists to whip them into being more productive for the stock holders. A working class person with no surplus to speak of wants the stock market to collapse and for that to hurt the capitalist class but now thanks to Paul Keating the working class must read smug headlines from the capitalist media telling them that they cannot rejoice when the stock market collapses because our retirement savings are collapsing with it. Keatings so-called 'capital savings' ( only a neoliberal speaks this way... ) scheme forces the working class to participate in the stock market - to put the money we plan on using to buy ourselves out of wage slavery into the hands of our masters! Of course our masters keep raising the retirement age and due to the low life expectancy of the working class a lot of us arent going to live to see that stolen money anyway. On top of this the mandated 'capital savings' scheme is all part of the greater neoliberal scheme to do away with old age state pensions all-together which is why neoliberals bankrupt our governments. They will tell us that if you do not have the millions that they claim you need to retire its a bit of bad luck because the state has no money left for pensions.. Sold off all the public utilities that brought in state revenue you see - also dont like bringing in taxes unless its from the working class of course - and thats not enough. After all the 'capital works' corporate welfare schemes there isnt going to be any public money for pensions you see.. This is why we have mandated 'capital savings'. Neoliberal to the core. Personal responsibility!!!!

continued -

 

[thelastman]

The so-called 'Fair Work Commission ( how 'Orwellian' right? ) was introduced to limit union power. It exists for no other reason. To make workers strikes illegal. And also to allow for business and corrupt unionists like former Labor Leader Bill Shorten for example to strike up anti-worker agreements where workers benefits/protections are traded off in return for an extra dollar or two. The reason we have a high minimum wards is because we need one due to the high cost of living in Australia - and also due to the limited buying power if the AUD in what is not a global economy thanks to neoliberalism. I actually mentioned the so-called Fair Work Commission in my previous thread on this as an example of Keatings Neoliberalism. I mentioned the fact that decades on after Keating privatized our national carrier Qantas we get a little Irish guy running it who decided to ground the entire fleet to stop Qantas workers from taking strike action. This guy leaves Australian citizens stranded all over the world by grounding the entire fleet to hurt Qantas workers who are striking over pay but also over the offshoring of jobs - which is the result of neoliberalism - and what does the so-called Fair Work Commission do about this? They let this Irish scumbag get away with it of course - make a capitalist hero out of him. And they tell workers to end their illegal strike and get back to work. The Fair Work Commission was put in place to attack workers - not help them.

Keating knows that nobody in Australia knows what a neoliberal is but it is strange to me that two of the three points he used to defend himself prove that he is a neoliberal. So-called 'mandated capital savings' and the so-called 'Fair Work Commission' are neoliberal initiatives to push the neoliberal agenda. War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength - and neoliberalism is socialism apparently. HA. These neoliberal elites do want to end history with neoliberalism dont they? With their universal values... that promote neoliberalism. Who controls the past controls the future right? Seriously though - I would slaughter Paul Keating in a debate in a way that a guy like Bandt never could. This fact is the perfect example of why Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci said that the working class need organic intellectuals from the working class to speak for them. As if an anti-working class leftist that has been educated by neoliberal capitalist universities and has never been working class himself can speak for the working class.. Bandt is no different to these educated anti-working class 'Third Way' neoliberal scumbags that have hijacked the Labor party from the working class at the end of the day.

edit - Anyway - any of you guys want to talk about neoliberalism? What am I getting wrong?



HECTOR!

edit - Send me your champion.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

It's a stage show to counter the impression that Labor and the Greens are now in a coalition together.

 

[thelastman]

It's a stage show to counter the impression that Labor and the Greens are now in a coalition together.

Well. You think that Labor is worried their base will think they are lurching too far to the left? HA. Yes that makes sense doesnt it. Labor are no longer the party of the working class and their base isnt too much different to that of the Greens. The upper middle-class parents vote labor and their kids in uni or on gap year vote Green.. Ha. Maybe their base would be ok with them forming a coalition with the 'Teal' 'independent' neoliberal Greens. That could work right?

 

[thelastman]

It's a stage show to counter the impression that Labor and the Greens are now in a coalition together.

But. Do you honestly believe that any of these idiots know what they are doing? I would blame ego. Bandts. And Keatings.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

But. Do you honestly believe that any of these idiots know what they are doing? I would blame ego. Bandts. And Keatings.

He literally needs to present his party as left of Labor. Otherwise his party is going to suffer the junior party curse of coalitions. They could go the way of the Australian Democrats if they're tied too closely to Labor. (Or the Lib Dem's fate in the UK, for their coalition with Conservatives.)

Greens are probably also worried about the Teals. Because of their leftist platform on other issues, Greens are unable to appeal to moderate or conservative conservationists, who actually do exist. If Labor and the Teals move towards each other and merge, that's the end of the road for the Greens. Without their foundation of conservationists, they would be just another socialist group hardly deserving the title of a "party."

"These idiots" do know what they're doing, when it comes to keeping a share of power in a system which does not favor small parties.

 

[thelastman]

Ha. I used to think that Natasha Stott Despoja was a bit hot. How messed up is that. When she was young and had the short hair she wasnt too bad though hey.

And pff. I think you are giving the so-called Teal Party a little too much credit.

Honestly I dont even know what your second paragraph means. Or how to respond to it. What are you talking about? The Greens appeal to the hard left and always will. The plan apparently is for society to move further left and for the Liberal Party to become irrelevant. Bandt said that in his speech. And that fat pig .... Abbie Chatfield made pretty much the exact same comment a few months ago. Seems to be a narrative. Neoliberal Labor will become the right side of the duopoly - the Greens will become the left. Like I said in the OP - the plan is to end history with liberalism. Its the Liberal Party that needs to change - not the Greens.

And no they do not know what they are doing. You give them too much credit. You really think they wanted the Liberal Party to have to lurch hard right to mimic Trump/Brexit? Or are they reactionary? Reacting to a public they cannot control. Because they are %$%$ing worthless. EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM!!!! YOU THINK THEY ARE IN CONTROL??????????????? I think you know they are not.

edit - Pretenders. That is what they are. And they know it.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

Ha. I used to think that Natasha Stott Despoja was a bit hot. How messed up is that. When she was young and had the short hair she wasnt too bad though hey.

And pff. I think you are giving the so-called Teal Party a little too much credit.

Honestly I dont even know what your second paragraph means. Or how to respond to it. What are you talking about? The Greens appeal to the hard left and always will. The plan apparently is for society to move further left and for the Liberal Party to become irrelevant.

That's a dumb plan. Labor won't be sucked into it.

Bandt said that in his speech. And that fat pig .... Abbie Chatfield made pretty much the exact same comment a few months ago. Seems to be a narrative. Neoliberal Labor will become the right side of the duopoly - the Greens will become the left. Like I said in the OP - the plan is to end history with liberalism. Its the Liberal Party that needs to change - not the Greens.

If a "moderate Green" party can take enough seats in the Senate, then the "leftie Greens" would be irrelevant.

And no they do not know what they are doing. You give them too much credit. You really think they wanted the Liberal Party to have to lurch hard right to mimic Trump/Brexit? Or are they reactionary? Reacting to a public they cannot control. Because they are %$%$ing worthless. EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM!!!! YOU THINK THEY ARE IN CONTROL??????????????? I think you know they are not.

edit - Pretenders. That is what they are. And they know it.

If Labor does not court the Teals then Liberal will. Moving to the center and marginalizing the Nationals would be a smart move on their part. And environmentalists should actually be happy with having a major party on their side, not just the self-marginalizing Greens.

Bear in mind that I consider "taking the center" the best strategy for center-left OR center-right parties anywhere. It's just a matter of what their rusted-on base will tolerate.

 

[thelastman]

That's a dumb plan. Labor won't be sucked into it.



If a "moderate Green" party can take enough seats in the Senate, then the "leftie Greens" would be irrelevant.



If Labor does not court the Teals then Liberal will. Moving to the center and marginalizing the Nationals would be a smart move on their part. And environmentalists should actually be happy with having a major party on their side, not just the self-marginalizing Greens.

Bear in mind that I consider "taking the center" the best strategy for center-left OR center-right parties anywhere. It's just a matter of what their rusted-on base will tolerate.

The so-called Teal Independents were taking Liberal seats. They are a threat the the Liberal Party not the Greens. But like I said - its not as if the Liberal Party really wanted to lurch Trump-right was it. They will be happy to court the Teals. Back to normal... Climate Change stuff is a neoliberal agenda... The Liberal Party are an establishment neoliberal party.. And I dont see why the Teals would marginalize the mooching Nationals - as long as the Mationals are compensated to the tune of billions to get on board the climate agenda they are all good. Since the Teals are a bunch of clueless upper middle class housewives and farmer welfare is bipartisan I dont see them being for farmer welfare austerity. Its one big happy Owners Party as far as I can tell. But yeah - its very important for Labor to court the Teals. Reinforces their brand.

And Im not so sure these parties have rusted on bases any more. Western Sydney for example; The working class do not vote Labor. Members of Teachers Unions are not the working class. And you got Dutton talking about representing some "forgotten people". You know who they are? HA! Working class. Ridiculous.

Dai Le is a "real independent" right? She knows that the working class do not care about the climate agenda...

 

[thelastman]

That's a dumb plan. Labor won't be sucked into it.



If a "moderate Green" party can take enough seats in the Senate, then the "leftie Greens" would be irrelevant.



If Labor does not court the Teals then Liberal will. Moving to the center and marginalizing the Nationals would be a smart move on their part. And environmentalists should actually be happy with having a major party on their side, not just the self-marginalizing Greens.

Bear in mind that I consider "taking the center" the best strategy for center-left OR center-right parties anywhere. It's just a matter of what their rusted-on base will tolerate.

Oh - and the Greens can be much more than an environmentalist party - they can appeal to the working class that Labor has forgotten. That is the point Bandt is trying to make with his neoliberal stuff and his free dental idea. And the fact is that he can do a better job of appealing to the working class if he comes up with more idea like the free dental. The working class only moved to the Liberal Party based on culture not on any actual economic gain. The Greens will be at odds with the working class on culture issues but if they actually have something to offer - even an idea as small as free dental - then they are way ahead of both Labor and Liberal.

edit - Who can win over the working class? The Greens or the Liberal Party.... HAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!! The Liberals are offering nothing. Well. Personal responsibility.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

The so-called Teal Independents were taking Liberal seats. They are a threat the the Liberal Party not the Greens. But like I said - its not as if the Liberal Party really wanted to lurch Trump-right was it. They will be happy to court the Teals. Back to normal... Climate Change stuff is a neoliberal agenda...

I can't take that seriously. Before you said the Greens are "hard left" now you're saying their major priority of Climate Change is "neoliberal".

The Liberal Party are an establishment neoliberal party.. And I dont see why the Teals would marginalize the mooching Nationals - as long as the Mationals are compensated to the tune of billions to get on board the climate agenda they are all good.

That rural people are sympathetic to the Climate Agenda just bears out my claim that conservation spans the entire political spectrum. Rural people were instrumental in keeping Hawke's "billion trees" promise: they knew trees would lower the water table on their land, and provide protection against topsoil blowing away in droughts or washing away in floods. All it took was some free trees for them to plant. It's called "Landcare" and it was a great success, though I expect you consider it "neoliberal."

Since the Teals are a bunch of clueless upper middle class housewives and farmer welfare is bipartisan I dont see them being for farmer welfare austerity. Its one big happy Owners Party as far as I can tell. But yeah - its very important for Labor to court the Teals. Reinforces their brand.

It doesn't reinforce their brand at all. Labor's brand is still "working people" and with the working class mostly considering themselves Middle Class now (following America) they also have to appeal to non-unionized office workers, lower-paid professionals like nurses and teachers, and even socially conscious wealthy retirees. Maybe you in your solidly working class occupation of chipping rocks with a pickaxe look down on modern Labor, but what are your alternatives? The Greens? Socialist Alliance?

The Teals may be amateurs for now, but they represent Liberal base who are in rebellion against the coal-fired corporate prosperity agenda of Tony Abbott, kept alive by Scott Morrison. They would not exist, if those voters could have gone to a centrist Green party, without the strong humanitarianism and anti-gravity economics of the Green party.

Expect the Greens to get royally screwed by the Labor Party. It is in Labor's interest to form future coalitions with a centrist Green party, taking votes from the Liberals and Nationals on environmental issues alone. And it's in Labor's interests to sideline the current Green party which tries to pull them left on every other issue. There's a phantom party in the center, a party which cares about Climate Change, land degradation, National Parks and maybe Aboriginal custodianship, but not much else. That party is begging to exist, and by explicitly making deals with Teal independents, and disputing with the current Greens, Labor can bring it into existence.

Bandt is playing right into Labor's hands. Making the Teals look reasonable, and amenable to centrist solutions, is likely to bring into existence a new party which will obsolete the current Green party.

Without their environmental agenda, the Greens are just another pathetic socialist thinktank, with an office in Port Adelaide.

And Im not so sure these parties have rusted on bases any more. Western Sydney for example; The working class do not vote Labor. Members of Teachers Unions are not the working class. And you got Dutton talking about representing some "forgotten people". You know who they are? HA! Working class. Ridiculous.

Why on earth would you scorn teachers, who vote Labor or even Green? They're relatively poorly paid, considering they're professionals, and they're also heavily unionized. If you're going to deny "Working Class" status based only on income, in a country with $21.38 minimum wage, you're just setting yourself up for defeat.

Dai Le is a "real independent" right? She knows that the working class do not care about the climate agenda...

Good for her. Not a Teal independent then.

You and I agree that the "climate agenda" and far left politics should not be tied together. I see it as useless baggage on an environmental agenda. You see it as yuppifying a working class agenda. We should wish good riddance on each other.

Death to the Greens. And miserable irrelevance to the far Left.

Teals with Labor Red, form Brown.

Hail the new Brown Party! An environmental party which can get things done by playing Labor and Liberal off against each other!

 

[thelastman]

Hard left neoliberal. All of this climate change nonsense hurts the working class while rewarding the wealthy and upper middle class with government subsidized Teslas and whatnot. They also want to wave in as many immigrants as possible. Mass immigration to put downward pressure on working class ages is core to neoliberalism. Of course the Greens are neoliberal. Hard left neoliberal.

And are you insane? Most people that live in rural communities are not farmers you know. And the mooching farmers just got some free trees from Landcare did they? Farmers dont give a hell about the environment - farming itself does more damage to the environment than anything else. Plus farmers want the right to be able to clear more trees. Only an absolute fool would think that we need more trees in outback Australia. They grow themselves you know... They are everywhere that apart from land that has been cleared for farming. I remember talking to a farmer who was laughing about how the government paid him to let them put in treeline windbreaks along his fence line. Something to do with the carbon credits scam. Its a joke. And who caused the salination? And Landcare? There are Local Lands offices in pretty much every country town - their job is to help mooching farmers mooch more money from the taxpayer. But yeah - farmers do not care about the environment - they care about mooching money from the taxpayer and climate change nonsense represent an opportunity for them to mooch a lot more. Now when there is a drought or flood and they are begging for handouts they can cry about climate change to help make their point. They are such victims. And no - I do not think that farmers are neoliberals - what they are is unashamed mooching scum that take money from the taxpayer that they dont need. All they can get.

Labors brand is not working class people at all and their failure in Western Sydney is proof positive of that. As if Western Sydney wanted a working class hating scrubber like Kristina Keneally to represent them. What an insult. And more proof that they have no idea what they are doing. Proof of how out of touch they are with the working class. Albo says no covid sick pay extension because people can just work from home? HA! And there are no alternatives ( I do not vote ) . Hope for nuclear war with China is my alternative. I pray that they nuke Melbourne and Sydney every night before I go to sleep. The Greens and the Socialist Alliance are just modern neoliberal leftists. Dumb uni students. Leadership likely infiltrated by ASIO.

And like I said - the Teal independents are taking seats from the Liberal Party not the Greens. That means they are from wealthy areas and they do not identify with, like, or have any sympathy for the working class. Just like modern Labor. Also - they are a bunch of dumb upper middle class women that have no business even being in politics. Like Zali Steggall. And there are not many of them. You and the media are making too much of them. You just love to say 'Teal Independents' right? How many are there? Eight? And they were all funded by Simon Holmes a Court? Climate 200. The rise of these couple of so-called Teal independents has been manufactured - it was not organic. Having said that though - problem the Liberal Party have is that their pandering to working class culture turns off people from their electorates.. And the loons like Christensen and Lamming. The fact that the Liberals have become a clown party of fake pandering to working class culture that embraces complete lunatics did create the opportunity for Climate 200 to help make them an opposition party for the foreseeable future.

continued -

 

[thelastman]

But yeah - modern Labor would certainly have more in common with conservatives from wealthy electorates that have always been liberal strongholds than the Green Party that is trying to appeal to the working class.... Why are you even typing? Seriously. You are wasting my time. Are you some kind of

Umm... the Greens tend to target the youth. The youth are not happy with neoliberal centrist politics. Just as unhappy as working class people that have rejected the neoliberal establishment in favour of nationalist movements like Brexit/Trump... Catch Grace Tames comments today? Who is helped by commentary like this? Yeah - the Greens. Your narrative that the so-called Teals are going to make the Greens obsolete is utterly absurd. Seriously. Send ASIO an email. Ha. Talk about worthless.

University educated people are not working class people. I am speaking as a real socialist remember. For all you know I hate the working class and have a plan to enslave them forever. But - teachers are the bottom of the barrel as far as university educated people go aren they. Seriously - have you ever met a high school teacher? Jesus. And if they wanted a better job they should have paid more attention in school right? Let them go get better jobs. 5%? %$%$ them. They are only at work for 6 hours a day and of that they arent working during lunch and recess - plus they have free periods. And is it really so difficult to write a lesson plan? I dont think it is. I have dated a few teachers and seen the lesson plans they write. Made fun of them. Half these people dont even know anything about the topic they are teaching you know. I have siblings that are teachers. They can vote for Labor all they like. The working class do not want them. Ask a working class person if they think that teachers are underpaid. And Albo wants to give experienced teachers a 40% pay rise? Is he insane? They are asking for 5%. Talk about pork barrelling. Oh - Im not planning on starting a political party buddy.

And the only reason the working class are typically against the climate agenda is because it hurts them while rewarding the wealthy with taxpayer subsidised Teslas and solar panels. The working class that cant afford a new car do not get excited to hear that the government is using their money to buy new Teslas for the rich. They also do not like higher energy costs. The working class that are renting because they cant afford to buy a house and are struggling to pay their electricity bills do not get excited to hear about some upper middle class jerk getting taxpayer money to put solar panels on the roof of their house and using those panels to sell electricity back to the grid. If the Greens can find climate agenda policies that do something for the working class rather than hurt them then there is no reason why they cant appeal to working class voters. Trying to save a family of four $7k a year on dental isnt a bad start. But yeah lets be serious - they hate the working class. Its never going to work.

What the working class needs is a worker party.... CFMEU could start one. None of you would like that would you..

 

[The Stars Tremble]

Hard left neoliberal.

Wow. Worst self-label ever.

All of this climate change nonsense hurts the working class while rewarding the wealthy and upper middle class with government subsidized Teslas and whatnot. They also want to wave in as many immigrants as possible. Mass immigration to put downward pressure on working class ages is core to neoliberalism. Of course the Greens are neoliberal. Hard left neoliberal.

Wait, you're trying to characterize me? You swung wildly outside the off-stump there mate.

I'm a pragmatic leftist, I'm for all the welfare state we can afford, and all the worker rights we have the political capital for. For example, a low level of UBI without any offsets for welfare or taxes paid, and worker-owned businesses should be exempt from corporate tax.

My position on immigration is far too subtle for anyone who uses terms like "mass immigration." But I see it as an international relations matter above all else: in the case of Australia, immigration from the Pacific should be totally open like it is in Aotearoa. Allowing immigrants who then might return with skills and capital, is far better than dollars spent in paternalistic foreign aid.

Australia is also second to the US in taking refugees, and it has led both countries to prosperity despite the predictable crime when people are put into a rich economy but without basic skills like speaking the language. More importantly, it has greatly elevated both countries in moral stature. This should not be squandered just because your personal career isn't going as well as you would like.

And are you insane? Most people that live in rural communities are not farmers you know.

Yes I know. There's a tourism sector as well. Most other work in country towns is ultimately reliant on farming or mining. You don't need a bank or a local law practice, when all the farmers and miners are gone and all that is left are retirees. Even they won't be hanging around.

Sadly for some, farming and mining are increasingly automated. Labor intensive farms like berries or leafy greens, don't need to be far from cities and in fact, are more economical when they're nearby. As near as NIMBY suburbanites will allow them, anyway.

And the mooching farmers just got some free trees from Landcare did they? Farmers dont give a hell about the environment - farming itself does more damage to the environment than anything else.

I might agree, if you didn't use such a broad brush. Farming is necessary for the survival of all of us, so you must distinguish between better farming and worse.

No wait. "Mooching farmers" can't be let slide. If farmers are prepared to put in their own time (and money to employ farm hands) to reduce topsoil loss and lower water tables, it is reprehensible to describe them as "moochers" because they don't have to pay for the seedlings. Farmers are workers too, so I'm really starting wonder what university basement socialist collective you're coming from.

Plus farmers want the right to be able to clear more trees. Only an absolute fool would think that we need more trees in outback Australia. They grow themselves you know...

No. You're making no sense. SOME farmers clear trees, and they should be taxed heavily for that. OTHER farmers plant trees, because they can see the harm that deforestation has done to their own land over generations.

Broad brushes are for bad painters who don't care if they get dirty themselves. And you're very dirty by now.

They are everywhere that apart from land that has been cleared for farming. I remember talking to a farmer who was laughing about how the government paid him to let them put in treeline windbreaks along his fence line. Something to do with the carbon credits scam. Its a joke.

It's not a joke. Trees are a public good, so there's nothing wrong with government paying for them.

And who caused the salination? And Landcare? There are Local Lands offices in pretty much every country town - their job is to help mooching farmers mooch more money from the taxpayer.

-Continued-

Or not. I'm getting the feeling you're against everything rural, and I'm not. Farmers have made terrible mistakes in the past, but many of them can see the consequences right there on their own land. They're not idiots. And unlike city folk, they often think of the legacy they are leaving to their own children. Even if that's just a few hectares of radiata pine, it's more thought for the future than you display.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

But yeah - modern Labor would certainly have more in common with conservatives from wealthy electorates that have always been liberal strongholds than the Green Party that is trying to appeal to the working class.... Why are you even typing? Seriously. You are wasting my time. Are you some kind of

I'll just leave it there, thankyou. You're just the kind of anti-gravity leftist who I despise for hijacking the green agenda in Green parties everywhere. You think the Green party is the "thin end of the wedge" to make far left ideas mainstream, but really you're just parasites who will kill the Green party.

Pardon me if I'm using a broad brush, but to my knowledge the Green party in Australia is just like the original Green party in Germany, or the Green party of the USA. Well-meaning environmentalists without the political good sense to reject a few extra voters from the far left.

Labor will get you far more action on climate than Liberal ever would, and you'll just have to take what you're given. Greens can **** off.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

Australia has a unique electoral system, with Instant Runoff in both the House and the Senate. The Senate combines equal representation by State (like the US) with 6 offices filled at a time, also using Instant Runoff by party list OR individually (at the voter's choice). In the case of Senate elections, this is incredibly complicated to count, involving transfer of fractions of each vote, but technically it is sound. In recent times, it produces Senates that are remarkably representative of the national vote. "Simulating" a proportional representation system, but still with state safeguards.

This system has allowed the Liberal Party and National Party (formerly known as the Country Party) to form a coalition for nearly a century now. They can run candidates against each other, in the same districts, and they don't suffer vote splitting problems. In fact, National voters ultimately help a Liberal who is ahead on the first count, just by putting Greens and Labor last. And of course, Liberal voters do the same for Nationals. It's a stable system, and could even be seen as insurance: their Coalition lost a lot of districts at the last election, but the Nationals held firm.

However, I don't expect Liberals to ever get the Teal votes unless they change their environmental policy, and they will struggle to do that while keeping the Liberal/National coalition together.

Teal supporters are voters who broke with Liberal because they took climate change so seriously. They're not easy pickings for the Greens, not so long as Greens want to outright ban coal and gas exports, open the borders to anyone who arrives by boat, etc etc. They're looking for climate action, not climate revolution. Labor can give them that, but they don't necessarily agree with Labor on workers rights or the welfare state. But seeing it from Labor's point of view, they would make much better allies than the Greens because they're to the center not to the left.

If Labor plays its cards right, there may emerge a "Teal party" though hopefully with a name which doesn't sound like some kind of fish. In just two elections* Greens could be flushed from the Senate, to be replaced with Teals, and Labor could form the kind of perennial coalition which has served Liberal/National so well. Relocating the environmental vote from the left fringe, to dead center, would be a boon to Labor and by the magic of coalitions, would get more genuinely left legislation passed.

Liberal would have no counter to it, besides kicking Nationals to the curb, which in the medium term they cannot afford to do.

*It would take two elections, because only half the Senate is up at each election: Senators serve two Parliamentary terms, and are staggered the way US Senators are, except in two classes instead of three. This is just one of the US innovations which Australia adopted, and in my opinion it is a positive refinement. Voters get a vote for Senate at EVERY election.

 

[thelastman]

No I was characterizing the Greens. And the label fits perfectly. Left used to be working class not hug a tree and a transgender person... ( And no I dont give a %$%$ what people do. Priscilla Queen of the Desert and The Sum of Us are great movies. The problem is that the modern left prioritize minorities over working class issues. Use these issues to demonize the working class that are not POCs or some favoured minority which is the majority of the working class. )

I agree that Pacific Islanders should be able to come and go as they please and this should work both ways. It is terrible that we exploit these people through guest work programs and use Labour Hire Companies as modern day Slave Markets. We need to do something about the modern day runaway guest workers right? I mean Jesus Christ. And who gains from all this slave labour? Yep - mooching farmers for the most part.

And look outside of Australia buddy - there are plenty of inland cities. Take farming and mining away from a city like Orange and it will not cease to exist. A big reason many come to the country is for affordable housing and a safer community. A lot of people move business out here to reduce costs. What we need in this country is high speed rail to link rural areas to the cities and it will make even more sense. Decentralization will be very important for this country going forward and it doesnt need to have a thing to do with farming or mining.

And yeah - as a commie I am a huge fan of Cuban organoponicos and I also am a big advocate of moving towards skyscraper/vertical farming. The quicker we move away from the inefficient lazy mooching cocky the better.

How many farmers do you know buddy? I dont know many that are not millionaires with money in the bank from their Grandfather that they will never need to touch. How many farmers do not send their children to an expensive elite boarding school? Few. And what work do these lazy cockys do? If they need a fence mended they pay a fencer. If they need to shear sheep they pay shearers... They pay header drivers... You think they are up at the crack of dawn mending an old fence do you? The most the majority will do is move sheep from one paddock to another. Then they lazily roll into to town in their new Landcruiser ( wife is driving a $100k Prado ) to buy The Land and stand about asking each other "Whats the price of a fatty lamb today?" Or - "How many mils" Ha. Then they go home and get on the computer to see what primary producer hand outs are on offer. Workers... HA. They are in a coalition with the owners not the workers buddy.. Jesus Christ.

And - I know a farmer that had the taxpayer establish a wetlands on his property.... HA! A wetlands. Guy is a millionaire. Taxpayer gave him a wetlands. Kind of trumps free treeline hey. He didnt put the %$%$ing thing in.

There is something very wrong with a carbon credit system that allows polluters to offset their pollution by paying millionaire farmers to allow government to give them a free windbreak. Out here - where we have a major shortage of trees.... That grow themselves...

Umm - yeah farmers are no idiots. They likely went to a fancy boarding school - they are university educated and they dont seem to have much difficulty outsmarting dumb cityslickers.

edit - Growing up pretty much all of my peers were upper middle class children of farmers. Smart kids..



Ha.

 

[thelastman]

Australia has a unique electoral system, with Instant Runoff in both the House and the Senate. The Senate combines equal representation by State (like the US) with 6 offices filled at a time, also using Instant Runoff by party list OR individually (at the voter's choice). In the case of Senate elections, this is incredibly complicated to count, involving transfer of fractions of each vote, but technically it is sound. In recent times, it produces Senates that are remarkably representative of the national vote. "Simulating" a proportional representation system, but still with state safeguards.

This system has allowed the Liberal Party and National Party (formerly known as the Country Party) to form a coalition for nearly a century now. They can run candidates against each other, in the same districts, and they don't suffer vote splitting problems. In fact, National voters ultimately help a Liberal who is ahead on the first count, just by putting Greens and Labor last. And of course, Liberal voters do the same for Nationals. It's a stable system, and could even be seen as insurance: their Coalition lost a lot of districts at the last election, but the Nationals held firm.

However, I don't expect Liberals to ever get the Teal votes unless they change their environmental policy, and they will struggle to do that while keeping the Liberal/National coalition together.

Teal supporters are voters who broke with Liberal because they took climate change so seriously. They're not easy pickings for the Greens, not so long as Greens want to outright ban coal and gas exports, open the borders to anyone who arrives by boat, etc etc. They're looking for climate action, not climate revolution. Labor can give them that, but they don't necessarily agree with Labor on workers rights or the welfare state. But seeing it from Labor's point of view, they would make much better allies than the Greens because they're to the center not to the left.

If Labor plays its cards right, there may emerge a "Teal party" though hopefully with a name which doesn't sound like some kind of fish. In just two elections* Greens could be flushed from the Senate, to be replaced with Teals, and Labor could form the kind of perennial coalition which has served Liberal/National so well. Relocating the environmental vote from the left fringe, to dead center, would be a boon to Labor and by the magic of coalitions, would get more genuinely left legislation passed.

Liberal would have no counter to it, besides kicking Nationals to the curb, which in the medium term they cannot afford to do.

*It would take two elections, because only half the Senate is up at each election: Senators serve two Parliamentary terms, and are staggered the way US Senators are, except in two classes instead of three. This is just one of the US innovations which Australia adopted, and in my opinion it is a positive refinement. Voters get a vote for Senate at EVERY election.

Again - so-called Teals are conservatives from Liberal strongholds.... What are you not understanding?

 

[The Stars Tremble]

No I was characterizing the Greens. And the label fits perfectly. Left used to be working class not hug a tree and a transgender person... ( And no I dont give a %$%$ what people do. Priscilla Queen of the Desert and The Sum of Us are great movies. The problem is that the modern left prioritize minorities over working class issues. Use these issues to demonize the working class that are not POCs or some favoured minority which is the majority of the working class. )

So you're Socialist Left. You won't go Green because they hug trees and want to take jobs from miners. Is that about right?

And look outside of Australia buddy - there are plenty of inland cities. Take farming and mining away from a city like Orange and it will not cease to exist. A big reason many come to the country is for affor <snip> eed to have a thing to do with farming or mining.

High speed rail works well in densely populated countries. Japan, or France or Germany. It's a backbone for slower rail services, operating from a few stops on the high speed corridor. And of course, you need that slower rail to be there already.

And yeah - as a commie I am a huge fan of Cuban organoponicos and I also am a big advocate of moving towards skyscraper/vertical farming. The quicker we move away from the inefficient lazy mooching cocky the better.

Uh, I can't agree. Farmers and their workers work hard, and they have all the mechanical multipliers they can afford. Of course they take any government assistance they are offered, but that does not make them moochers.

Your enemy should be banks, who lure farmers into debt with unrealistic promises of how much they could earn if they irrigated, or mechanized, and then line them up with "bank certified" contractors to improve their farms. Farmers who want that finance can't just hire a bulldozer and dig their own dam, it has to be done by a contractor approved by the bank, or they don't get the loan.

How many farmers do you know buddy?

That's a rude question. I lived in the country for a couple of years. I heard a lot of sad stories about farmers being done over by the banks. It got so I wouldn't even go into the "pub" because I couldn't bear another tragic story.

And what work do these lazy cockys do? If they need a fence mended they pay a fencer. If they need to shear sheep they pay shearers... They pay header drivers... You think they are up at the crack of dawn mending an old fence do you? <snip> outs are on offer. Workers... HA. They are in a coalition with the owners not the workers buddy.. Jesus Christ.

You're still talking about rich farmers. You have no sympathy for the farmers who went broke and had to sell their land to the rich farmer next door.

And - I know a farmer that had the taxpayer establish a wetlands on his property.... HA! A wetlands. Guy is a millionaire. Taxpayer gave him a wetlands. Kind of trumps free treeline hey. He didnt put the %$%$ing thing in.

The farmer contributed land which they could have earned from, for something of public good. I have no problem with that.

There is something very wrong with a carbon credit system that allows polluters to offset their pollution by paying millionaire farmers to allow government to give them a free windbreak. Out here - where we have a major shortage of trees.... That grow themselves...

Trees grow themselves, yes, where there is some ground cover to preserve moisture for tree seedlings. Humans can vastly accelerate this process, by germinating seeds in a dedicated farm and raising the seedlings to a foot high or so, when they don't need such frequent watering to establish themselves.

But you don't care about that. A dollar or two per seedling, is too much when Real Workers have mouths to feed.

Umm - yeah farmers are no idiots. They likely went to a fancy boarding school - they are university educated they dont seem to have much difficulty outsmarting dumb cityslickers.

I see it the completely opposite way. City slickers are prepared to pay a dollar or two per seedling, for a dollar or two of farmer's time to plant them (but more if they take the trouble to keep water up to them). It's a mutually beneficial relationship and it beats the hell out of your effete promise to tend a glorified window-box to feed yourself.

You call the people who feed you "moochers" and your alternative is "vertical farming". That says it all.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

Again - so-called Teals are conservatives from Liberal strongholds.... What are you not understanding?

They're dissidents from Coalition environmental policy. They're an opportunity for Labor ... but you don't want to face that, because environmentalism taking it's rightful place in the middle of politics, would rob your far left buddies of their best ally: the Australian Green Party.

 

[thelastman]

Alright this conversation is getting stupid.

No it is not right at all.

As I said - high speed rail would encourage/allow more people to move out of major cities and lead to a more densely populated country. Urban sprawl can only go so far so we do need to decentralize. It makes complete sense to build the infrastructure to make that happen. It doesnt matter if it operates at a loss begin with. The main reason elites are against high speed rail in this country is because they want to protect Qantas. Another reason we need high speed rail is to help in the fight against climate change. How much are we spending to plant trees in the bush again? Which is utter nonsense by the way if you look into it. High speed rail can significantly reduce emissions in this country and help us reach our climate agenda targets. If you neoliberals were serious about reducing emissions rather than coming up with nonsense schemes to please idiots that allow the polluters to keep on polluting you would be willing to spend the money on high speed rail. It does not need to be profitable.

I love it when a farmer goes broke and has to sell to their neighbour. One less lazy moocher. The guy with the wetlands has the largest farm in my area. Gobbled up all his neighbours. Why? He is a better farmer. When corporations take over farming even better. Corporations represent the best combinations. To hell with the mini capitalist farmer that cannot compete. Let them get a job as a farmhand or m... well no not as a farm manager. But yes maybe a farmhand. Oh and you think that the guy that got the taxpayer funded wetlands let them use land that he farms? Ha. And you dont think that having a wetland increases the value of his property? Thanks taxpayers... Same with the guy that gets the free windbreaks... Its a windbreak that improves his farm - he isnt going to let them plant trees in the middle of a paddock he puts crops in is he?

Like I said - if you look into this tree planting nonsense its just a scam.

Why Planting Trees Won't Save Us

Jeff Goodell writes about two new studies that expose the magical thinking around the trillion trees initiative

www.rollingstone.com

You are still talking about trees. It bull%$%$. We would be better off forcing the big polluters to pay for our high speed rail network.

Vertical farming and urban farming is the way of the future. I dont see what they have to do with mooching. And these lazy moochers are in farming to offer a public service are they? Feed me?

Anyway - with all these Pacific Islanders you want to bring in I was wondering where they will live. If you had not noticed the idiots that run this nation have created a housing crisis and there is no solution in sight. Where the hell are all these Pacific Islanders going to live? Do you know why we have a housing crisis? You guessed it - NEOLIBERALISM. Why was most of the public housing sold off in this country? Neoliberalism. Public options are bad... Negative gearing... Bad. Allowing American airbnb to act as hotels with no regulation whatsoever because they are a %$%$ing app like attack on workers rights/conditions/protections parading as a business Uber. Zombie homes everywhere! Sky high rent everywhere. So where are you going to put all these Pacific Islanders exactly? HA! They %$%$ed the country and there is no fixing it. They keep writing their immigration propaganda but where will these people live? In tents at caravan parks? All the caravan parks are full because they are being used as emergency housing for families with nowhere to live. We have pregnant mothers that have working husbands that are sleeping in tents through winter. What a lucky country! And how many a so-called 'rough sleeping'? A lot right? And you want to add untold numbers of Pacific Islanders to the mix? Good thinking..

And you know what? These guest workers from the Pacific Islands are in the news complaining that after expenses they are left with only $100 a week which wont go far in this country. And Im thinking - most Australian citizens that are unskilled workers would love to have $100 dollars left after living expenses each week. HAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But yeah - if you can convince any to come - where will they live? Middle of Sydney?

 

[thelastman]

They're dissidents from Coalition environmental policy. They're an opportunity for Labor ... but you don't want to face that, because environmentalism taking it's rightful place in the middle of politics, would rob your far left buddies of their best ally: the Australian Green Party.

Ha.

Like I said - Labor getting into bed with conservatives from liberal strongholds makes perfect sense. However - there is more to politics than the climate agenda. As anti-working class as the modern neoliberal Labor is they are still beholden to the favoured unions. And they do need to throw the working class a bone or two. Right? Im foreseeing some Teal-Labor conflict on many issues... I just dont see the your Brown Party coming about. I do not see a harmonious relationship at all. Anyway - its the insignificant Greens that decide what Labor can and cant pass though right? Not your all-powerful eight Climate 200 Teals that arent even a party. And if the plan is for Labor to demonize the Greens for three years for wanting real climate action then I see it backfiring bigtime. Its easy to sit there and support school walk outs from opposition and pretend to care about the Climate Emergency isnt it. These kids have been indoctrinated for years and many are adults now that can vote - for the Greens. They are all terrified you know. They want Labor to walk the walk you know. What do you think the Climate Messiah Greta will say about Labor and their Teal allies on their weak big business/polluter protecting climate policies? I dont think it will be anything good. All you fools are going to do is create an even bigger Green monster. And it will eat you. Back to the drawing board for you. Ha. Its not gonna work.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

Alright this conversation is getting stupid.

No it is not right at all.

As I said - high speed rail ...

If you're not going to talk seriously about trees, then I'm not going to talk seriously about high speed rail. If you gave a convincing impression of knowing what you're talking about, your rude manner would be forgiveable. But you don't, so it's not.

I don't know what you consider yourself, but "anti-gravity left" is the impression I'm getting. For instance, are people going to weed their "vertical farms" just for the love of the planet, meanwhile arid areas that are only good for grazing or wheat will go back to nature and ... here's the catch ... when all this fails, Australia will be a mass food importer. And you won't take any responsibility, instead you'll point the finger at "neoliberals" who ruined your dream. And farmers of course: your contempt for farmers will still be there even when the farmers are all gone.

 

[thelastman]

If you're not going to talk seriously about trees, then I'm not going to talk seriously about high speed rail. If you gave a convincing impression of knowing what you're talking about, your rude manner would be forgiveable. But you don't, so it's not.

I don't know what you consider yourself, but "anti-gravity left" is the impression I'm getting. For instance, are people going to weed their "vertical farms" just for the love of the planet, meanwhile arid areas that are only good for grazing or wheat will go back to nature and ... here's the catch ... when all this fails, Australia will be a mass food importer. And you won't take any responsibility, instead you'll point the finger at "neoliberals" who ruined your dream. And farmers of course: your contempt for farmers will still be there even when the farmers are all gone.

I am talking seriously about trees. I have a lot more links. High speed rail is needed due to climate targets and to make decentralization easier. Private profits do not need to come into the conversation. I know what I am talking about but I am sorry if I was rude.

I agree that vertical farming will not displace the farmers tomorrow but it the way of the future. They are popping up everywhere already. The transition away from traditional farming will be as rapid as possible but it will be a transition. We are not going to just ban traditional farming overnight. Well the Greens might. Ha. Anyway - the real key to getting rid of the lazy mooching farmers is corporate farming. I think I will write a thread about this topic. Explain why corporations are the friend of the socialist while small business is our enemy. I hope to hear your thoughts. I respect your opinons and perspective and Im interested in what you have to say; Anyway - good talk friend.