Home > Regular Features > Sandpit

Sandpit

September 18th, 2013

A new sandpit for long side discussions, idees fixes and so on.

Categories: Regular Features Tags:
  1. Will
    September 21st, 2013 at 12:00 | #1

    Would dearly love to have an honest exchange of views with a thoughtful conservative but apparently reeling off a list of fifty year old trite soundbites is an acceptable debate substitute.

  2. September 21st, 2013 at 18:45 | #2

    @TerjeP
    Your health policy appears to have been written by someone who has rote learned free market ideology, and knows nothing about health.
    Roll on Senate reform.

  3. TerjeP
    September 21st, 2013 at 18:51 | #3

    Fran – I agree with you regarding One Nation preferences. Although the preference system kind of makes it inevitable that minor parties will preference swap before the majors. Assuming of course they actually care to win. But the following statement is just ludicrous:-

    We have a more liberal policy towards free speech and civil rights than does the Coalition whom your party also preferenced ahead of us.

    The Greens want a licensing scheme for newspapers which the Liberals opposed. The Greens and the Liberals both opposed the Internet filter although Greens were admittedly quicker off the mark. The Liberals want to remove restrictions on speech that “offends” whilst the Greens are committed to keeping it. So on free speech the Liberals get 3/3 whilst the Greens get 1/3.

  4. September 21st, 2013 at 18:52 | #4

    @TerjeP
    One part that most struck me was the bit about how poor people should look for support from the community to cover their health costs (once you’ve opened everything up to the ‘free’ market). I can just imagine the scene, unemployed person begging in the street with sign “having heart attack – please give generously”.

  5. TerjeP
    September 21st, 2013 at 18:58 | #5

    Val – In senate voting 25% of Australians gave there first preference to a political party not currently in parliament. In short a quarter of Australians don’t want Labor, Greens or Coalition. I don’t mind senate reform but everything I have hear suggested in the media would ensure that 100% of the senate went to Labor, Greens or Coalition. The 4% threshold test would close the door on newcomers. Above the line optional preferential would do the same. The LDP would probably survive above the line compulsory preferential but other minor parties would be out of contention. Most of the calls for reform are self serving suggestions from the major parties. So whilst I agree the existing setup is far from ideal the alternatives suggested would be far less representative. Be careful what you wish for.

  6. September 21st, 2013 at 20:25 | #6

    @TerjeP
    And have you got a defence of your health policy? Because if you send me the first year economics undergraduate who wrote it, I can explain to that person why handing over your health care system to organisations that stand to make money out of it, isn’t actually going to save money for anyone.

    Re the senate I need to check your figures so will get back later.

  7. Jim Rose
    September 21st, 2013 at 21:58 | #7

    isn’t great that almost anyone can get into the senate. the only parties rejected were the socialist left.

  8. TerjeP
    September 21st, 2013 at 23:11 | #8

    What are you talking about Jim? The Greens won 4 senate spots this time around.

  9. J-D
    September 22nd, 2013 at 07:29 | #9

    @TerjeP
    The notion that state power must be mobilised to make a nation great is obviously accurate. It may even be tautologous. The mistake you’re making (not that you’re along in making it) is thinking in terms of making a nation great. That’s an extremely poor choice of objective (not that people refrain from making it just the same). There is no relationship between the greatness of a nation and the welfare of its people.

  10. BilB
    September 22nd, 2013 at 09:07 | #10

    The ABC just can’t help themselves from being the compromised politcally biased defunct organisation that they are. I’ve banned anything ABC from my household along with everything Murdoch (Foxtel is going soon). But this morning I found myself briefly watching an ABC news item while flicking stations.

    Apparently 457 visa exploiters are unhappy at having to pay for their kids education while they are in Australia. “We pay taxes” they exclaim. So apart from pinning the whole issue on Julia Gillard with a clip of her expressing the view that 457 visas are being exploited, the total substance of the “reporting” was that most states now apply a varying level of fee to such people. And that is it.

    One bunch are unhappy, Gillard is to blame, states profit. That is now the depth to which Australian journalism has sunk.

    No attempt to point out that any person’s tax is insufficient on a day by day basis to cover the education and health needs of families. The ABC judges that Australians are too thick to absorb any explanatory detail. These costs are amortised over the life time of a tax payer extending well before and well after a family’s education drawdown occurs. So for cheap imported labour to swing in, with families in tow requiring educating, to serve the convenient needs of a mining mogul this IS an imposition on the Australian taxpayer, and a cost that the employer should include in the wages to such people. 457 visa labour not so cheap when all of the costs are included.

  11. September 24th, 2013 at 19:53 | #11

    I’ve just read how France is introducing a carbon price and a levy on nuclear energy to pay for the transition to renewable energy and energy efficiency:

    http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/france-to-tax-nuclear-fossil-fuels-to-boost-shift-to-renewables-42651

Comment pages
1 2 11870
Comments are closed.