107 thoughts on “Monday Message Board

  1. John, do you think Labor’s 50% RET target by 2030 is achievable? What would it costs?

    With the cost of solar dropping like a rock, it doesn’t seem too unrealistic to me.

  2. Krugman getting it all wrong yet again….

    Austerity is largely to blame for Greece’s current depression ….

    So what causes austerity?

    although he does point to the bleeding obvious;

    I believe strongly that the policies being imposed will not work, that they will result in depression without end, unacceptable levels of unemployment and ever growing inequality.

    and thinks that the only solution is;

    inclusive capitalism

    … the only way to create shared and sustainable prosperity.

    See the whole piece at: New York Times .

    A very, very slow learner indeed.

  3. Kevin, John wrote a post on the 50% Renewable Energy Target yesterday: https://johnquiggin.com/2015/07/26/how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-ret/

    I quote him, “…it’s clear that the economic impact will be minuscule. Owners of coal-fired power stations (if they are not compensated, as they should not be) will bear most of the costs. Electricity prices may rise a little compared to the current RET, but will probably be no higher than if we had stayed with a coal-based system.”

  4. @Ivor

    Well, the piece you have linked to is by Joseph Stiglitz not by (Paul) Krugman. So either you got the link wrong or the author’s name wrong.

    The piece is reasonable and makes overall sense to me, albeit within the current political economy paradigm. It is possible to have really bad capitalism (for workers) and various levels of not-so-bad capitalism. Within the democratic-capitalist paradigm Stiglitz is not getting anything wrong and he is advocating not-so-bad capitalism. I would guess that “inclusive capitalism” means a system where capitalists and workers are both accommodated. This has occurred in the past in the Keynesian and welfare era. This has broken down now under 40 odd years of neoliberalism. The bourgeois economists, even the good ones (technically and morally) like Stiglitz, think the clock can be turned back and capitalism reformed again. I guess nothing is impossible but I don’t like their chances.

    In the end, capitalism is the base problem. But you can’t expect bourgeois economists to entertain that idea. It’s a mental bridge too far for them. In this context “bourgeois economists” just means “capitalist economists”. They are those who take the capitalist system as given, best and even “natural”.

  5. @Ikonoclast

    When you write ‘capitalism is the base problem’, I don’t understand what you mean by ‘the base problem’, whether you mean ‘the problem that underlies all other problems’ or something else.

  6. Isn’t it nice that we can all afford cheap cat food now.

    You wouldn’t want nasty tariffs would you – just think of all the jobs that would be lost, like these.

  7. @Ivor

    I think the problem with Stiglitz’s piece is that he doesn’t really grasp the credibility issue. As he says, Greece needs reforms – but how to ensure that Greece is credible about reforming, and not simply hoping for conditions to improve so they can go back to borrowing and spending again like in the pre-2008 days? It wouldn’t be the first time a country backed off from commitments after getting the money.

  8. Ivor :
    Krugman getting it all wrong yet again….

    So you got the name wrong but there’s your backhand swipe at Krugman still sitting there. From my reading he’s been right on most things over the years. Much better than most others.

  9. @David Allen

    Krugman is not the topic here. The arguments of the piece are – irrespective of the person.

    You obviously did not read my correction or deliberately choose to ignore it.

  10. @J-D

    Yes, I do mean that. I mean “the problem that underlies all other problems” in the political economy sphere. I mean it in both the political economy and ideological senses. To expand, I mean our system of ownership of production is wrong and this leads to a small, powerful, rich elite (the oligarchs) making most of the economic decisions, development decisions and allocation decisions for our society. This is outside what is left of the now ever-shrinking government sector and welfare sector. The system of (capitalist) ownership is underpinned by our current institutions, laws and prevailing justificatory ideology so clearly these need to change too.

    I use the term “political economy” in two senses. I mean the “national economy” and the complex of national economies making up the international economic system. I also mean to convey that politics and economics are always inextricably linked and that there are no pure political decisions and no pure economic decisions. All decisions in this arena are hybrid political-economic decisions.

  11. > Krugman is not the topic here.

    Who made you the topic police? People can talk about things you’re not interested in, and there’s not much you can do about it except pout.

  12. @Collin Street

    By all means make Krugman the topic if you want. Why assume I am not interested in Krugman.

    An intelligent reader would have realised that the topic I referred to was the author of the NYT piece.

  13. Some reaction to recent ALP conference – ACTU and GetUp….

    It was a weekend of highs and lows at the Labor Party National Conference. This week the dust is settling on Labor’s new policy positions, but with so many of the campaigns championed by GetUp members involved in the weekend’s debates and votes, we wanted to give you the wrap on what those decisions mean for our movement. Some of them were great victories, while others were decisions that made it clear we have more work to do – and we’re already diving straight into it. Here’s what happened:

    Clean energy

    One of the biggest wins out of Conference? The ALP committed to sourcing 50% of Australia’s electricity from clean, renewable energy by 2030 – a promise they’ll take to the next election.

    That’s a huge win for thousands of clean energy workers and for our country, made possible by the power and passion of the thousands of people like you, pushing the major parties to unshackle us from the big polluters and their dirty energy. In the months leading up to this decision, GetUp members flooded Labor MPs’ offices with calls from constituents and funded strategic ads whenever clean energy policy was up for debate. And as the decision went down this weekend, GetUp members were there rallying in our hundreds alongside clean energy workers and community leaders to show Labor that Australians are ready for vision and leadership on a clean energy future.

    This is great news, but it’s not over yet. Labor hasn’t yet committed to cutting any more pollution than Prime Minister Tony Abbott and without strong cuts we can’t transition to a cleaner, safer economy. Mr Abbott has already stepped up his attack on clean energy, making this a key battleground ahead of the election. Your power will be crucial in keeping up the pressure in this campaign – not just in making sure Labor follows through, but in pushing all parties to do better, especially the Coalition who remain hell-bent on destroying our chance at a clean, safer economy.

    Refugees & asylum seekers

    On Saturday, Labor delegates voted to support a refugee policy that includes increased humanitarian intake and a commitment to get kids out of detention quickly. The media is reporting they also voted to turn back boats carrying asylum seekers, but that’s not quite right – what they did do is vote down an amendment that would have prohibited turning asylum seekers around at sea,[1] leaving the Labor platform without any mention of the policy.[2] While details are still coming in, it’s clear from comments from Shadow Immigration Minister Richard Marles that a Labor government would keep the option open to turn back refugees fleeing persecution.[3]

    The Conference has voted, but that doesn’t mean the debate is over. The decisions from Conference mean Labor’s platform is effectively silent on many of the core problems facing Australia’s asylum seeker policy. And we can work with silence. We can fill silence with our demands – and we will.

    Manus and Nauru detention centres are expensive, harmful and heartless experiments – and yet they remain open and supported by our major parties. Kids have been systematically abused in our offshore detention centres and yet they remain imprisoned. Turning back asylum seekers on the open sea risks endangering the lives of entire families – and neither major party will stand against it.

    Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)

    Trade Minister Andrew Robb is headed to Hawaii this week for talks that could decide the fate of the controversial TPP deal.

    We know from previous remarks that Minister Robb is all aboard the TPP train and will likely sign Australia on to the deal – but rest assured, that’s not the end of the line. The Labor Party will still have a critical vote to determine the future of this dirty deal when the enabling legislation is debated in the Senate.

    That’s why over the weekend more than 220 GetUp members from marginal Labor electorates hit the streets distributing door hangers in their neighbourhood, putting the facts about this secretive deal straight into the hands of key voters. This was happening at the same time the Labor Party was debating their national policy on trade deals. We heard some strong words from Conference delegates against the nastiest part of the TPP deal – the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions, which will allow multinational corporations to sue Australian governments.[4]

    The Buffett Rule

    Another win! On Friday, the Labor Party adopted the Buffett Rule as part of the tax policy they’ll be taking to the next Federal Election.

    Over the past several months, 63,000 Australians have been calling for an Aussie Buffett Rule that would close loopholes for the wealthiest 1%. Last week alone, over 7000 members of the GetUp community got the facts into the hands of their Labor MPs and senators, and hundreds more chipped in to fund a giant mobile billboard promoting the Buffett Rule to Labor National Conference delegates. And we won their support!

    The Buffett Rule was part of a groundbreaking report by The Australia Institute, funded by GetUp members, that found that closing tax loopholes for those who earn over $300K could generate $2.5 billion a year in revenue.

    Just this morning, Treasurer Joe Hockey told ABC radio that he’s happy to look at the policy as part of the government’s tax white paper. That’s why GetUp members are again leaping to action to get the Buffett Rule into the Treasurer’s office.

    Negative Gearing

    For this year’s budget, GetUp members tried something game changing, pitching in to fund eight fairer budget policy alternatives backed by rigorous modelling and analysis from some of the best policy brains in the business. And it’s having a massive impact: not only did the ALP endorse the Buffett Rule at National Conference, Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen also put negative gearing reform and changes to the capital gains tax discount into the mix, recognising the impact of these tax breaks on housing affordability.

    Our revenue ideas have helped shift the conversation about reform in Australia. This demonstrates the importance of getting on the front foot to propose positive alternatives to the Abbott Government’s austerity cuts.

    China Free Trade

    Together, we’ve just scored a great win.

    Over the weekend, the Labor Party agreed to oppose the parts of the China trade deal that shut out locals from jobs. If Abbott doesn’t go back to the negotiating table, then Labor will block the legislation needed to make this deal happen.

    For everyone who has taken action against this deal, you are making a difference. Help us stay on the front foot. We still need more parliamentarians to listen, and we need to hold Labor to its promise.

    References:
    [1] ‘ALP conference: left loses vote on motion to prohibit boat turnbacks – politics live’, Guardian Australia, 25 July 2015
    [2] ‘Draft National Platform’, Australian Labor Party, July 2015
    [3] ‘Richard Marles on ALP’s boat turnback policy’, ABC Radio National, 27 July 2015
    [4] ISDS: The devil in the trade deal, ABC’s Background Briefing, 26 July 2015

  14. It’s interesting how two people can observe the same event and one will think it a wondrous thing, while the other will perceive it to be an enormous scam perpetrated on a gullible bunch of fools.

    I don’t remember where in the previous ALP policy platform it mentioned opening offshore indefinite detention concentration camps with no chance whatsoever for “genuine” refugees to be given asylum in Australia – and yet, Bingo! here we are with exactly that policy introduced by the ALP.

  15. @Megan

    Assumptions; the difference in the two people could be the way they assumptions they make and the way they interpret the intentions behind the events and the potential for these intentions to become reality.

    If one person assumes that the people who are involved in the current process are all bad people and unable to see and interpret the zeitgist or the vibe, then one would be disappointed and distrustful.

    It is possible to assume on the basis of the way the current process was carried out and the response in the public – for example my redneck neighbours – that the people involved have learned a lot about conflict resolution and are involved in a long term process of persuading the population to trust politicians again.

    It is a shame that you see the Australian population as a gullible bunch of fools. I don’t. I see them as people who have not had a chance to use their intelligence to make a choice about our way of life because of the Murdoch propaganda machine.

    Ameliorating the effects of this propaganda on our thinking has to be a process that involves persuasion not forcing ‘them’ to accept a reality that they don’t understand.

  16. for you, Megan, from “the piping shrike” this week, another observer of the same event:-

    In reality over the last twenty years, there is only one election that Labor has arguably not toughened up on its asylum seeker policy going into it, the 2007 election, and that being also the only election it has won in that twenty years.
    There may not be a direct relation between softening up on asylum seekers and Labor winning an election, but there sure as hell isn’t one the opposite way.

    of course, there’s more, much more at:- http://www.pipingshrike.com/2015/07/unity-is-death.html

  17. @Megan

    So how did you “observe” the ALP conference? or are you just spreading vomit on the work of others?

    The different views are based on qualityt. Some use skill and balance with understanding of the complexities of life and involve all stakeholders to obtain a negotiated outcome. Others are useless sectarian looney-leftists who attack the efforts and gains of others either to satisfy their own psychological urges or to ameliorate deep-seated jealousies.

    Currently they are focusing on refugees but the same sectarian vomit is also launched at trade unions, aboriginal activists, feminists, Greens, and peace activists and worse of all – parliamentary routes for change.

    More often than not they grow up when they try to operate away from their campuses, but some get stuck for life. And they call the rest of the world “a gullible bunch of fools”.

    This is just a Freudian slip as in fact their labels attach to themselves.

  18. @Megan

    A group of ordinary members of the ALP may realistically consider themselves to have some chance of having some influence over the wording of the official ALP platform even though they have no chance of influencing the behaviour of a Labor government. I think there’s a natural tendency for people to attach increased importance to something when they feel they have some influence over it; hence it’s natural enough for ordinary ALP members to feel that the wording of the official ALP platform is important.

    It’s also not surprising for this tendency to be more salient when the ALP is in opposition, so that the question of influencing the actions of an ALP government does not arise directly. Even the party leader is probably more involved in contesting the wording of the platform when the party is in opposition.

  19. @alfred venison

    Labor may have won the 2007 election but they very quickly lost the plot and the disappointment and feelings of being ripped off that emerged among a lot of people in response to the behaviour that followed this ‘victory’ which meant they lost the next election – or was it a war.

    People who did vote for the ideals that Rudd promised, were disappointed and shamed really in front of their Liberal friends when nothing came from all that idealism. Attitudes change and what people vote for has changed since 2007, and is still changing. I think.

  20. @Julie Thomas

    I do not think that Labor won the 2007 election. This is Rudd-think. The fact is that the ACTU ran a huge effective “Right to work” campaign to defeat the Howard regime. The ALP was the obvious alternative and benefited from this groundswell.

    We all remember the orange “right to work” posters and stickers spread across Australia – and even today you can still see faded examples.

    Rudd then misunderstood his “victory” and operated as a Napoleon and got shafted as a result.

    The ALP was elected – but they did not win the election.

  21. Julie,

    No, I don’t “see the Australian population as a gullible bunch of fools”, and

    Ivor,

    No, I do not “call the rest of the world ‘a gullible bunch of fools'”.

    I see and call a core of very keen ALP supporters a “gullible bunch of fools”, and to some extent I see them as victims of the faceless operators of the ALP.

    Those people may well be very earnest, and it would seem likely that they are, but they are being played for fools in return for their unconditional support for the ALP.

    The vote that the ALP ends up with ebbs and flows but, like “base load” power, there is an essential lump of “rusted on” or “true believers” who can be counted on to advocate for the ALP regardless of all other factors or expressed concerns – hence we get the “Abbott would be worse”, “ALP is always least worst” and the “number every box but put LNP last” phenomena.

    It is thanks to that core that this country has steadily lurched further to the “right” over the last 20 years or more, and as a non-partisan citizen of this country I am critical of that situation and the machinery that enables it.

    Recent history demonstrates that the ALP can do whatever it likes and this core’s support will be unshaken – even if it needs to undertake moral contortions to justify the constant shifting away from professed values and principles.

    That is sad, not just for those people but for my country and the victims of the resulting policies.

  22. @Megan

    you may not see population as a gullible bunch of fools. But based on your behaviour I think you are lying.

    So what is your alternative explanation for the population voting in their millions for the ALP, Liberals, Greens, Democrats, Nationals etc. etc.

    Do you think they are voting correctly of misguided by guile?

    The phrase gullible fools was Julie Thomas’s and is an reasonable interpretation of your antics. However it seems rather a too polite form of conduct to actually have been authored by you. You see people as fascists, stooges and so on including ‘fools’.

    If you actually saw people as gullible fools, this would be an improvement, but you want to stay in your gutter.

    Your slander about faceless operators just means you are a noxious provocateur. There are no faceless operators except you.

    So why would the core of this country so profoundly reject you if you agree they are not gullible?

    I call it tried and true wisdom.

  23. @Ivor

    I notice that you continue to abuse Megan with personal invective. Megan has not and does not abuse you personally, if I recall all the exchanges correctly. Megan criticises the ALP and the group-think that runs its worst policies like refugee policy. In doing this she uses robust language, strong rhetorical terms and has no respect for official figures and official parties when they are morally in the wrong and/or when are they are pretentious, deceitful and bullying. This is very much in the Australian “larrikin tradition”. Official and organised authority is not conferred any respect unless it fully earns it. The ALP is earning NO respect now. You are also earning no respect by the way you are carrying on.

    This benign, non-violent ridicule and rejection of official and organised authority when it does not fully earn the people’s respect is the BEST trait of the Australian people in my opinion. Long may it last and long may we verbally ridicule and reject hypocrites, fools and liars like the current ALP leadership and its rusted on unthinking supporters. Criticising the ALP from a left perspective is not being left sectarian since the modern ALP is simply not a left party at all any more.

  24. @Ikonoclast

    I only point to its own mouth.

    It was given free reign until it started vomiting.

    Everyone needs to reject hypocrites, fools and liars and I am happy to assist in this.

    You obviously do not know what you are talking about – there is a very strong left inside the ALP with membership, networks and contact many times greater and with far more relevance than the looney-leftist sectarians parading their megaphones and banners from the sidelines.

    If these elements were able to build an alternative party of relevance to Australia, they would have done so.

  25. @Ikonoclast

    Yeah I think Ivor needs to get over his outrage at Megan just being Megan, and give us an example of how Labor supporters are not like the stereotypes we hear about the hard faceless men and true believers.

    Ivor, Megan did first use the term “gullible fools’, not me, see! you are too cranky to think straight, and she has explained how she used the term.

    I have to say that characterising Australian voters as gullible fools is not a way of thinking that I have never entertained and I don’t think it is particularly objectionable; rednecks and sad old people do seem like that until you get to know them.

    These views that they have are more to do with the Murdoch misinformation campaign than what Labor actually did, but one real worry they have is that Labor and the hard left, are determined to change our way of life, and force political correctness on us.

    This view wasn’t freely chosen, I think there is a growing realisation of what the media did and some understanding that we all have been manipulated. People seem ready to listen to other points of view, but people also need to save face and justify why this time they can trust Labor again, so I think it was a good thing that Labor did to do something different this time around.

    I’m willing to give Labor a chance because of the way they did this; I’m not so worried about the product because the process seems to have had integrity.

  26. @Julie Thomas

    Can you point out where it used “gullible fools”. I missed it and I want to add it to the list.

    The hard left is not a meaningful term, and there are many many people who need to change our way of life and they are not trying to force so-called political correctness on anyone.

    But this sort of false accusation was probably used against Sylvia Pankhurst by defenders of the old ways.

    It is certainly used by those opposed to equal marriage rights.

  27. @Ivor

    As an outsider, I can only judge the ALP by its extant, exterior performance, not by all its internal workings and membership. In any case, only its real, objective political performance matters. Going on this extant performance it is no longer a real or effective party of the left in any substantial sense. It has not been so for some time. I exercise my free speech rights to criticise it and my voting right to not vote for its candidates. The mandatory federal preferential voting system gives me problems as I assume my preferences leak through to Labor as an alternative still not as bad the LNP. I wish I could avoid this.

    You are wrong in stating that the preferential system leads to proportional representation. Indeed, it does no such thing. You need to research the various systems (e.g Hare-Clark system) so that you understand the clear differences.

  28. @Ikonoclast

    Yes the ALP is not an effective left party, however efforts championed by the Australian newspaper to remove the Socialist Objective (with 23 explanatory qualifications) were rebuffed essentially by the strong stance of ACTU delegates.

    Only a preferential-voting system can ever create proportional representation. There is no alternative.

  29. @Ivor

    “The hard left is not a meaningful term, and there are many many people who need to change our way of life and they are not trying to force so-called political correctness on anyone.”

    I know this; you misunderstood or didn’t actually read what I wrote. If you’d like to take part in a conversation rather than continue your tantrum, I wrote that there are people who believe these things to be true.

    But I win, you really are too emotional to have a proper conversation about this.

    And why? WTF? You should be happy that things are looking good for re-election rather than doing whatever it is that you are doing. Pfffft.

  30. @Ivor

    “Only a preferential-voting system can ever create proportional representation.” – Ivor.

    This is incorrect. Preferential voting on its own does not create a proportional system. It is in fact possible to have proportional representation without preferential voting.

    There are systems which combine both as in the Hare-Clark system.

    “The single transferable vote (STV) is a voting system designed to achieve proportional representation through ranked voting in multi-seat constituencies (voting districts).[1] Under STV, an elector (voter) has a single vote that is initially allocated to their most preferred candidate and, as the count proceeds and candidates are either elected or eliminated, is transferred to other candidates according to the voter’s stated preferences, in proportion to any surplus or discarded votes. The exact method of reapportioning votes can vary (see Counting methods).

    The system provides approximately proportional representation, enables votes to be cast for individual candidates rather than for parties, and minimizes “wasted” votes by transferring votes to other candidates that would otherwise be wasted on sure losers or sure winners.

    Hare–Clark is the name given to STV in lower house elections in two Australian states and territories, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory. The name is derived from Thomas Hare, who initially developed the system, and the Tasmanian Attorney General, Andrew Inglis Clark, who modified the counting method on introducing it to Tasmania. Hare–Clark has been subsequently changed to use rotating ballot papers (the Robson Rotation). The upper houses of New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia, as well as the upper house of the Parliament of Australia, use a variant of STV allowing “group voting”.[2]

    STV is the system of choice of groups such as the Proportional Representation Society of Australia (which calls it quota-preferential proportional representation), the Electoral Reform Society in the United Kingdom and FairVote in the USA (which calls it choice voting).[3][4][5] Its critics contend that some voters find the mechanisms behind STV difficult to understand, but this does not make it more difficult for voters to “rank the list of candidates in order of preference” on an STV ballot paper (see Voting).[6]” – Wikipedia.

  31. @Ikonoclast

    I cannot see the point.

    STV (and variants) is a proportional voting system that produces proportional representation.

    Preferential voting can be designed in such a way as to not produce real proportional representation but this is completely different issue to my statement.

  32. Breaking up is hard, but keeping dark is hateful
    I had so many dreams, I had so many breakthroughs
    But you my love were kind, shining through this darkness
    And all I had to give, was guilt for dreaming…

  33. Very nice Tim 🙂

    Not sure I get it but I know the song. I’d have chosen these lines

    “The sniper in the brain, regurgitating drain
    Incestuous and vain, and many other last names
    I look at my watch it say 9:25 and I think “Oh God I’m still alive”

    Anyway one does not live by song along which is a shame, but here’s another idea.

    Some people should listen to this woman, Michaela Cash, squawking nonsense at Eleanor Hall who it seems to me can barely stop laughing at the argument Cash is making that the ‘woman’ problem in the LNP is not a problem at all.

    http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2015/s4282980.htm

    The transcript will be up later.

    Some people should appreciate lefty women of all kinds.

  34. Thanks, good article by Matt Taibbi.

    I agree with his conclusion:

    …if politicians don’t have to work for your vote, they won’t.

    That is the unconditional (ALP) support I am so critical of. If they can do anything no matter how heinous and still bank on your vote, they will.

  35. @Megan

    If Scenario A is the situation where politicians are not working for our votes, and Scenario B is the situation where politicians are working for our votes, is there anything you can do, or that I can do, or that Matt Taibbi can do, that might help to move us more in the direction of Scenario B? Or is there something you’re actually doing already that might help to move us more in that direction?

    Because I’m guessing that as things are you don’t find that politicians are working for your vote.

  36. Ivor must either be the archetypal ALP supporter or a Poe – not just any Poe, but the exemplar of the genre, never missing a beat and always played straight 10/10.

    Anyway,

    “Media Lens” has just put up a post about the impending atrocity of the UK Labour leader candidate Jeremy Corbyn’s possible success (he is doing very well in the opinion polls, apparently).

    The whole thing is too long to reproduce here and has too many good points to summarize in a quick grab, but I liked this quote from Frankie Boyle (the context is the entire political and establishment media class piling on to scream about how even thinking of electing this Corbyn communist is a horror):

    ‘in the press, public opinion is often used interchangeably with media opinion, as if the public was somehow much the same as a group of radically rightwing billionaire sociopaths’

    And they conclude – after pointing out that the vast majority of the electorate wants the things Corbyn is talking about (e.g. NHS, Public Transport, Govt owned Postal Service, anti-Trident, anti-war/s, nationalizing energy etc…):

    Like Blair and the rest of the establishment, the Guardian and other corporate media claim their motivation is to preserve Labour’s electability, rather than to attack any and all politics that stray off the ‘centrist’, ‘modernising’ path. In reality, it could hardly be more obvious that this collection of profit-seeking, corporate enterprises – grandly and laughably proclaiming themselves ‘the free press’ – is opposing a threat to their private and class interests.

    We are plagued by fascist neo-liberal stooges and their puppets (at all levels of the political and media establishment).

  37. @Ivor

    To save you the trouble of looking it up – you can put “calls die-hard zombie, unconditional, ‘whatever it takes’, morally flexible ALP supporters Poe’s” on your list as well.

  38. The ALP are corporate stooges. They are bought lock, stock and barrel by corporate and oligarchic capital. The only difference between LNP and ALP is that the LNP are loud and proud about being corporate stooges. The ALP pretend they are not and some few with a conscience in the ALP might even be ashamed that they are corporate stooges.

  39. @Ikonoclast

    The Liberals and Nationals are loud and proud about being corporate stooges only in your imagination. As a statement about the world that really exists outside your own head, ‘the LNP are loud and proud about being corporate stooges’ is a flagrant defiance of the facts, a demonstrable and outrageous falsehood.

  40. @alfred venison

    The opinion polls have been all over the place since the last election, and with polling day scheduled for October there’s plenty of time for more changes. At this stage I’d say no result would surprise me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s