Home > Regular Features > Monday Message Board

Monday Message Board

Another Monday Message Board. Post comments on any topic. Civil discussion and no coarse language please. Side discussions and idees fixes to the sandpits, please.

Categories: Regular Features Tags:
  1. Sancho
  2. Ken Fabian
    July 11th, 2017 at 12:02 | #2

    On the LNP’s internal divisions – whilst Rudd vs Gillard was about who the leader would be, the essential world view and policy was not greatly different; for Abbott vs Turnbull it looks to reflect deep divisions within the party that aren’t going to be resolved by any change of leadership. The LNP is closer to fracturing than I’ve ever seen before, but rather than the relentless criticism our journalists and commentators heaped on Labor in the hope that they would, they seem almost reluctant to go there when it’s Liberals and Nationals.

    Will we see the LNP implode in a mess of internal contradictions? Surely even most members know the climate obstructionism, like the no gay marriage is untenable – although party members may be more that way inclined than the broader minded voter base they rely on. I tend to see the marriage equality thing as something of a proxy for that broader division. And somewhat of a distraction from it.

  3. cory
    July 11th, 2017 at 23:58 | #3

    @Ken Fabian
    there is no policy division between abbott and turnbull. both are soppy big government liberals who are much more at ease with ALP type than the people who vote for them.

  4. rog
    July 12th, 2017 at 11:47 | #4

    Another PPP venture by NSW govt scrapped – Maitland Hospital.

  5. Greg McKenzie
    July 13th, 2017 at 09:05 | #5

    Both Sancho and rog raise interesting points of view.
    Genghis Khan (“Universal Ruler”) was the name given to the Mongolian steppes horse warrior Temjuin. He led the tribal warriors of the steppes, never more than 40 000 horse warriors, to the successful conquest of large Asian armies. Then he overcame the army of the Caliphate of his day. His attitude to rule was autocratic to say the least. As for being neoliberal, that happened when Kublia Khan, Temjuin’s grandson, came to power over a Mongolian Empire. This had, for a brief period of time, a larger land mass than any before it and few since this time. He was neoliberal because Mongolian rule was even accepted, indirectly, in The Roman Empire (what was left of it by the 13th century anyway). Rule by proxy is very neoliberal.
    As for PPPs, they fail because government ministers cannot help but interfere. The Sydney Olympics was a classic case in point. The Premier who won the bid, said that he would be in charge of everything. Yet many federal government ministers enacted the “golden rule” – they provided the gold so they made the rules- and Sydney was left with some wasted resources. Mind you local councils also butted in and enforced their petty zoning regulations. No PPPs often fail because they do not factor in the social costs of their operations.