Australian Politics (7 Viewers)

[mortein2008]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd has branded the Howard Government "an absolute failure'' in preparing Australia for the end of the economic boom.

And he says the former Government "failed to do anything of substance'' in 12 years to prepare Australia for the future.

Mr Rudd made the comments in Sydney today at the launch of Inside Kevin07, a book on Labor's journey to federal election victory written by journalist Christine Jackman, who writes for The Australian.

The Prime Minister said a desperate need for change led to Labor's third-largest ever swing last November.

He blamed the Coalition for living off the resources boom rather than boosting core productivity, leaving Australia behind the rest of the world and ignoring damage to the nation's economy, environment and water resources.

"The Liberal operating procedure for more than a decade was fine for a boom, but an absolute failure in preparing for after the boom is over,'' Mr Rudd said.

"Australians were becoming conscious that they were being left behind the rest of the world in education, research, science and innovation, and in new technologies like broadband.''

He also said the previous Government dismissed the looming domination of India and China and did not prepare Australia for the "dawn of the Asia-Pacific century''.

"The world began changing around (Australians) in ways that were potentially quite threatening to their understanding of their long-term interests,'' Mr Rudd said.

"The Liberals in government exhibited no interest whatsoever in doing anything for Australia for these great changes unfolding around them and to navigate the choppy seas that therefore lay ahead.''

Eight months into his own leadership, Mr Rudd said Australia was facing some of the most alarming problems in history - citing crises in the financial markets, climate change and nuclear proliferation.

"The global storm clouds gathering are even darker ... reinforcing the urgency for a long-term responsible reform agenda to see Australia through,'' he said.

The launch wasn't all political opportunism and doom, though.

Mr Rudd also shared with the audience some of the more ridiculous moments of last year's election campaign.

He recounted how a plane carrying 25 journalists from Mackay in Queensland to Perth was forced to make a pit stop in Alice Springs when the toilet broke down.

And at a Brisbane shopping centre, how an elderly lady in a wheelchair urged him to touch her "fulsome bosom'' where she was hiding her pet marsupial.

"A terrified sugar glider felt as if it had been somehow trapped in a ravine somewhere in the Himalayas,'' he said.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...-29277,00.html

he's playing the 'blame game' that he hypocritically branded howard of playing when he was in opposition.

 

[mortein2008]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

i voted labor, but fuck rudd. srsly, why the fuck is he going crazy over climate change. fucking hell, is he a green? im sick of this guys hippy style shit talking propaganda. we only emit 0.5% of the worlds population and he expects us to fix the whole world.



fuck rudd.

+1, but i think its 2%

Well, im glad at least your not the PM

Apart from the obvious mistake, we actually emit more than .5% and on a per capita basis we are the second highest in the world.

And stop whining

per capita means jack all. china has a low per capita emission. but it's the largest emitter in the WORLD. if china were to place restrictions on its emissions on a per capita basis it would be completely insignificant, as it is placed 99th in terms of per capita. but if australia were to do the same (which we are doing) it severely hurts the economy. emissions restrictions are clearly unfair for smaller economies with low populations like Australia. screw rudd and his kyoto protocol

 

[JUSTINISANGLO]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

Carbon trading schemes are fucking retarded because no one wants to buy carbon.

 

[Slidey]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

Pretty much sums up that Rudd was living under a shell when Howard was in power for 12 years.

Oh wtf. Had some respect for Rudd, but that speech is pretty fucking bilious. I don't think Australians have even been better of than when Howard was in Government.

 

[mortein2008]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

Per capita means everything. China has every right to be the largest emitter in the world. It has the most population and use of fossil fuels is a key component of affordable food production.

The developed world is only now catching up to us per capita. In the mean time we have got away with externalising the costs of carbon emissions for decades, and we will never end up paying close to the full costs climate change will cause to the developing world.

It is absurd to compare countries on a total output basis. Afterall, they are just arbitrarily defined pieces of land. The developed world should take the first step in any sort of reduction in carbon output.

a per capita basis competely disadvantages Australia. So until every country cuts their emissions equally, and proportionately (how they do this i don't know, but a system can be worked out), i see no reason for Australia to cut theirs while the biggest emitters, the US and China, get away scot-free.

Food production? i don't see and significant connection between fossil fuels and food production. Are you saying that just because they're developing countries and that Australia has had a lucky past, that they can emit all they want while other countries must suffer restrictions?

 

[chicky_pie]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

Oh wtf. Had some respect for Rudd, but that speech is pretty fucking bilious. I don't think Australians have even been better of than when Howard was in Government.

I have ZERO respect for a guy who likes to lick his lips every time he talks

 

[mortein2008]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

It is absurd to compare countries on a total output basis. Afterall, they are just arbitrarily defined pieces of land.

however, each country has different policies so it must also be taken into account.

 

[Iron]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

It's the biggest moral issue of the century. To that extent, it's irrelevant whether the bigger players repent and reform. Rudd is booking every Australian a ticket to purgatory at least

 

[mortein2008]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

I have ZERO respect for a guy who likes to lick his lips every time he talks

this is rather petty and absurd, but, somehow Rudd seems very smug. the way he talks in a slow way, and how how he takes time to think about everything, makes him seem like a sly bastard. i think its just me though

 

[mortein2008]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

It's the biggest moral issue of the century. To that extent, it's irrelevant whether the bigger players repent and reform. Rudd is booking every Australian a ticket to purgatory at least

i'm not catholic and i don't want to be purged :rofl:

 

[mortein2008]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

Yuck. Each person in the world should be able to benefit from emitting carbon equally. If Australia and China are able to emitt the same amount of carbon that means an Australian can emit approximately 50 times as much carbon as a Chinese person simply because they live an a country with a lower population. How can you justify this?

i don't know if you agree with me on this, but how i think of it is that every country must have a minimal amount of emission, a threshold amount. The more population a country has, the less significant the threshold amount seems. It's kind of like an economy of scale. So as your population grows, it is easier to cut back on emissions on a per capita basis.

No. I'm saying that use of fossil fuels is an essential part of food production. China couldn't even produce enough food to feed its 1 billion plus people if it cut its emissions to Australia's level of total output. Which highlights the absurdity of saying it should be based on totals rather than per capita.

part of the reason china doesn't produce enough food is the extreme lack of subsidies in china. hell, the rural workers and industries are taxed several times MORE than the average city person.

and i never said it should cut its emissions to Australia's level of total output. a system to cut emissions based on both per capita and total output should be considered.

I am also saying that much of Australia's emissions is for activities that are far from essential, such as operating large cars and driving them long distances. Activities that could easily be curtailed with little impact on the economy.

this i can agree with

 

[mortein2008]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

China couldn't even produce enough food to feed its 1 billion plus people if it cut its emissions to Australia's level of total output.

part of the reason china doesn't produce enough food is the extreme lack of subsidies in china. hell, the rural workers and industries are taxed several times MORE than the average city person.
this i can agree with

uh, lol, i think i misread your post. my bad

 

[mortein2008]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

Not really. There is no evidence to support the threshold amount claim. Even if it were true, it would only indicate an imperfection in using per capital amounts. So we would perhaps have to adjust the per capita figures slightly. It certainly wouldn't show that total ouput is a fair way to measure emissions. The way to calculate it would be: Base Amount + Amount needed for each individual above the base amount. Which would still mean China needs to produce much, much more than us.

i have hypotheticals to support it. say a small, new country is established. They would need capital to create the expensive infrastructure to support the population. This infrastructure is highly expensive per person, but as the population increases, and mass production, it becomes cheaper. Same applies to emissions

And it would mean large changes to the way things are calculated simply because China's population is so huge, and we're talking in the millions of tonnes of emissions.

Of course they would still produce much more than us. But under the present scheme they pretty much won't have to reduce their emissions. By using my method [as arrogant as that sounds], it would at least mean that china restricts its emissions.

 

[JUSTINISANGLO]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

I have anecdotal EVIDENCE

 

[mortein2008]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

I have speculation and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence.

i didn't say they were evidence. i said that they SUPPORTED my theory.

I have anecdotal EVIDENCE

lol, are you trying to be funny? anecdotal evidence are an accepted, if not always reliable, form of evidence

 

[JUSTINISANGLO]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

Please google both anecdote.


Then evidence.

 

[spiny norman]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

Oh wtf. Had some respect for Rudd, but that speech is pretty fucking bilious. I don't think Australians have even been better of than when Howard was in Government.

When Chifley was PM, anyone?

Or do we not like to look to any history beyond the past ten years?

 

[Muz4PM]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24080614-2,00.html

Historic Coalition merger approved

QUEENSLAND Liberal and National parties have voted to merge, creating a new conservative force to be called the Liberal National Party (LNP).

Both parties today held separate conventions in Brisbane's Sofitel Hotel, and both voted overwhelmingly in favour of the merger.The Liberal's convention almost didn't take place, after the party's state council voted to postpone the meeting on Thursday night.But legal action yesterday overturned the decision, meaning today's vote is constitutional and binding.

Following the Liberal's vote, State President Mal Brough left the convention.
Mr Brough earlier told delegates he retained serious reservations about the new party's constitution, which he and other senior Liberals say amounts to a takeover by the Nationals.

He earlier said he would officially remain the party's President until the LNP was ratified by the Federal Liberal Party, expected to take about three months.

Mr Brough said he didn't know what his political future held.

“There's absolutely a career in politics if I want it, becuse that has been made very clear to me by my colleagues down south,” he said.

“But whether or not I intend to do that or not is another thing all together, that's not a decision I've made.”

The parties have symbolically joined by removing the wall between the rooms in which they are holding their meetings.The parties must now vote on the LNP presidency and other positions.

The Liberals wanted the first LNP president to be one of their own, but the Nationals had failed to accept compromises such as a rotating president, joint presidents, or former Northern Territory chief minister Shane Stone, Mr Brough said.

He also denied reports that he had demanded to be guaranteed the presidency.

"I have stated categorically in the press and I will state again here today I have never made any demand of anyone to be the president of either the Liberal Party or the merged party," Mr Brough told delegates.

"That has not been my agenda and I have never demanded it."

Mr Brough said the Nationals had agreed to endorse former Queensland Liberal Party president Gary Spence as President, an agreement he hoped they would honour.

"I hope for all our sakes, because if we do not get this through the federal party we will have a catastrophe, that commonsense prevails and when that wall is pulled back and there's a vote in a short while that they honour the agreement that they made before the court case," he said.

Mr Brough said he had been "dreadfully disappointed" with the negotiations, during which he claimed Nationals State President Bruce McIver refused to deal directly with the Liberals.

"This has been not the way to start a new party," he said.

If the merger is endorsed today, the LNP will not be a division of the Federal Liberal Party until it clears constitutional and legal hurdles.

Mr Brough earlier said that meant he would remain Queensland Liberal leader for about three months from today.

He said he did not know what his political future held.

"I will not be joining the LNP," Mr Brough said.

"I do not agree with the constitution that is being proposed here today and unless there is fundamental changes ... then I will remain true to my own principles."

 

[Graney]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

Carbon trading schemes are fucking retarded because no one wants to buy carbon.

They will if the alternative is scaling back production/fines.

 

[Slidey]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

When Chifley was PM, anyone?

Or do we not like to look to any history beyond the past ten years?

Looking at history is fine, but you're looking at history of the past 60 years, not past 10.

And would you really say that people of Chifley's era were better off? Really? People of Howard's era had no wars (I wouldn't exactly count Afghanistan's liberation which we sent just a couple of thousand elites to), economic stability and prosperity, easy access to high technology, easy access to high medicine, world-class levels of health to go with it, good foreign relations, a very small income gap, high incomes all around, world-class levels of education (8th in the OECD), and good healthcare and welfare. There's was little we were left wanting, comparatively.

I do of course realise that we rode on the backs of the efforts of earlier prime ministers, especially with respect to economic and social reform, but Howard certainly didn't screw it up, at the very least.

It was definitely time for a change, and there's no way I'd have supported another term for the Liberals, but let's not ignore facts.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24080614-2,00.html

There goes the neighbourhood.

RIP a moderate Liberal party. You'll never, ever catch me voting for LNP.