World Politics

[auscyclefan94]

What I think this US Election shows is that Governments who create dream policies that can not be implemented get reelected. Governments that don't deliver at all and create a bigger mess get reelected. Governments who have leaders who are complete spin doctors, who make good speeches and who have a decent personality win elections. Countries that have overall media bias certainly do win elections. These issues take precedent over fiscal management and good policy. I am not endorsing the Republicans and their platform but Obama should have lost in a landslide today. This has worrying signs and parallels with Australian politics and the Coalition. Very worrying. There are so many parallels to Australia.

 

[aphronesis]

I am not endorsing the Republicans and their platform but Obama should have lost in a landslide today. This has worrying signs and parallels with Australian politics and the Coalition. Very worrying.

Bit of a contradiction: if you're not endorsing the Republicans, and they fielded nothing useful, why should Obama have lost.

What would it take to shift the terms of the debate away from the question of who should win or lose to how could alternative models of politics be implemented?

 

[auscyclefan94]

Bit of a contradiction: if you're not endorsing the Republicans, and they fielded nothing useful, why should Obama have lost.

What would it take to shift the terms of the debate away from the question of who should win or lose to how could alternative models of politics be implemented?

I see what you are saying there but there is an adage commonly used in Australian politics and I suspect globally. 'You don't vote oppositions in but you vote Governments out'. I believe that the Coalition in Australia provide a far better alternative than the current ALP Government but people swing votes due to anger against the Government. If Obama can get reelected, then perhaps even Gillard can, which scares me.

 

[aphronesis]

I see what you are saying there but there is an adage commonly used in Australian politics and I suspect globally. 'You don't vote oppositions in but you vote Governments out'. I suspect that is a theory that would be accepted in many countries.

that adage has held sway in the US since 1988 easily. if not twelve years prior.

at what point should that kind of passivity be catalyzed into a bit more?

 

[auscyclefan94]

Our PM plays the victim again. JG: "I'm good mates with Barack Obama. I tell him, 'You think it's tough being African-American? Try being me. Try being an atheist, childless, single woman as prime minister.' "

Her continual victim status makes me hate her even more.

 

[Ferminal]

Link?

charchar

 

[auscyclefan94]

Link?

charchar

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/pm-v-obama-who-has-it-harder-20120401-1w6qa.html

 

[Ferminal]

Thanks

Terrible

No doubt the supporters lapped it up though.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Thanks

Terrible

No doubt the supporters lapped it up though.

Yes, that crowd is a very gullible one of that.

Interesting to read how much the major parties looked at the campaigns of the Democrats and GOP in the US election and the parallels that I discussed earlier between the political campaigns in America and Australia. More is discussed about it here; http://afr.com/p/national/boxing_in_abbott_labor_obama_strategy_9WSmWsgKYoqa9KtBJCMQeK

 

[thrawn]

What I think this US Election shows is that Governments who create dream policies that can not be implemented get reelected. Governments that don't deliver at all and create a bigger mess get reelected. Governments who have leaders who are complete spin doctors, who make good speeches and who have a decent personality win elections. Countries that have overall media bias certainly do win elections. These issues take precedent over fiscal management and good policy. I am not endorsing the Republicans and their platform but Obama should have lost in a landslide today. This has worrying signs and parallels with Australian politics and the Coalition. Very worrying. There are so many parallels to Australia.

You should be happy if the overall media bias in Australia has an impact on the outcome of the election. The coalition would romp it in.

 

[auscyclefan94]

You should be happy if the overall media bias in Australia has an impact on the outcome of the election. The coalition would romp it in.

Typical flawed argument. I agree that News Ltd. are generally more right leaning, but then that is balanced by Fairfax's left-wing leaning. You have the ABC which is quite a strong political left leaning state broadcaster. Channel 7 and 9 barely cover politics anymore due to their 6:30om shows being quite trashy and irrelevant. Channel 10 does have Andrew Bolt on their network but when you look at programs such as The Project and the overall younger demographic that Channel 10 targets, it is traditionally more left leaning. We can also look at radio. 2GB, 2UE and 3AW are all more right leaning. the ABC and all the FM channels are pretty much left wing.

You should also take a read of this:
http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv.php?pid=UQ:10751&dsID=jh_ajr_17_2-95.pdf

Politics

Ideological leaning was tapped using Johnstone et al.'s
closed question, which allows for five possible responses.
While 41 percent of journalists describe their "general
political leaning" as middle of the road, most of the
remainder are more likely to lean to the left than to the
right. Of the total, 3.8 percent said they were "pretty far
to the left", 35 percent a "little to the left", 1.8 percent
"pretty far to the right" and 14.2 percent a "little to the
right". Journalists specialising in politics are much more
likely to lean to the left than the right: 48 percent to 11
percent.

The governing party in Australia at federal level is
the Australian Labor Party (ALP), which is ideologically
similar to the Democratic Party in the United States.
Journalists are more likely to vote for the ALP (37%) than
its conservative opponents, the Liberal Party (29%) or the
National Party (2%). (Remaining figures are: 14% minor
parties, 13% undecided, 4% refused.) Only 1 percent of
journalists are members of a political party.

http://www.cios.org/EJCPUBLIC/003/3/00337.HTML

 

[auscyclefan94]

Denmark has finally arrived at Planet Sanity, at least in one aspect of public policy.

Denmark to scrap world's first fat tax - ABC

A loss for dumb **** nanny statists.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Looks like Australia could be having a royal commission into pedophilia and the Catholic Church.

 

[42x16ss]

Our PM plays the victim again. JG: "I'm good mates with Barack Obama. I tell him, 'You think it's tough being African-American? Try being me. Try being an atheist, childless, single woman as prime minister.' "

Her continual victim status makes me hate her even more.

I think Gillard forgets that Tony Abbott would act like a contrary turd to any PM, regardless of gender, marital status, religion or hair colour.

A substantial portion of new money bogans genuinely don't like her partly because she's a woman but mostly because they don't read any political commentary beyond the headlines and don't realise she's leading a minority government and also assume she's responsible for everything, even state level policy.

Hopefully Turnbull replaces Abbott and someone more solid and marketable can replace Gillard by the next federal election and provide a realistic choice.

 

[thrawn]

Typical flawed argument. I agree that News Ltd. are generally more right leaning, but then that is balanced by Fairfax's left-wing leaning. You have the ABC which is quite a strong political left leaning state broadcaster. Channel 7 and 9 barely cover politics anymore due to their 6:30om shows being quite trashy and irrelevant. Channel 10 does have Andrew Bolt on their network but when you look at programs such as The Project and the overall younger demographic that Channel 10 targets, it is traditionally more left leaning. We can also look at radio. 2GB, 2UE and 3AW are all more right leaning. the ABC and all the FM channels are pretty much left wing.

You should also take a read of this:
http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv.php?pid=UQ:10751&dsID=jh_ajr_17_2-95.pdf


http://www.cios.org/EJCPUBLIC/003/3/00337.HTML

Several issues:

The documents you provided are irrelevant. They are written in the early-mid 1990s. I mean they even rate ACA on political bias because that was when it actually produced political content. Now it doesn't. The landscape of the media has changed quite significantly since these papers were published. If you want to try and argue these points, try and find something from the last 2-3 years.

News Ltd. are not generally more right leaning. The Australian & the Daily Telegraph (I'm going to guess their papers in other states are the same) have been little more than Tony Abbott's cheer squad since he has taken over as opposition leader. They are not balanced out by Fairfax at all. Firstly, News Ltd. has about 70% of sales in the print media. Secondly, News Ltd. is significantly further to the right than Fairfax is to the left.

ABC is a left leaning organisation, as is SBS. What you ignore is that they actually bother to report the news. This is a significant difference to the commercial stations who are more likely to report on gossip than of anything of significance. They are right leaning organisations in general. Not sure about the project as I don't turn on channel 10 unless they are broadcasting a sport I want to watch.

2GB, 2UE etc. like News Ltd. are just a political cheer squad for the Liberal party. Whilst the ABC again is left leaning, it bothers to publish the news, unlike Alan Jones & co. Calling the FM channels left leaning is ridiculous. By and large they are not news channels. It would be like saying Today and Sunrise are political shows.

Having said all of the above, the Australian media is quite pathetic. The quality of journalism is degenerating quite rapidly.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Several issues:

The documents you provided are irrelevant. They are written in the early-mid 1990s. I mean they even rate ACA on political bias because that was when it actually produced political content. Now it doesn't. The landscape of the media has changed quite significantly since these papers were published. If you want to try and argue these points, try and find something from the last 2-3 years.

News Ltd. are not generally more right leaning. The Australian & the Daily Telegraph (I'm going to guess their papers in other states are the same) have been little more than Tony Abbott's cheer squad since he has taken over as opposition leader. They are not balanced out by Fairfax at all. Firstly, News Ltd. has about 70% of sales in the print media. Secondly, News Ltd. is significantly further to the right than Fairfax is to the left.

ABC is a left leaning organisation, as is SBS. What you ignore is that they actually bother to report the news. This is a significant difference to the commercial stations who are more likely to report on gossip than of anything of significance. They are right leaning organisations in general. Not sure about the project as I don't turn on channel 10 unless they are broadcasting a sport I want to watch.

2GB, 2UE etc. like News Ltd. are just a political cheer squad for the Liberal party. Whilst the ABC again is left leaning, it bothers to publish the news, unlike Alan Jones & co. Calling the FM channels left leaning is ridiculous. By and large they are not news channels. It would be like saying Today and Sunrise are political shows.

Having said all of the above, the Australian media is quite pathetic. The quality of journalism is degenerating quite rapidly.

On some levels, yes the media has changed. But by and large it hasn't in the bias. The documents provided still prove a point about the overall stand point of a majority of media outlets.

I need to correct you on a few fronts and introduce a couple of new statistics. News Limited owns 28% of the Newspapers in the readership. That is the real important statistic here. People have choice to read a wide variety of papers. Might I add, that News Ltd are not cheer squads for Tony Abbott. That is plain rubbish. I would actually say that News Ltd have made a larger attempt to remove any image of bias than Fairfax has. Even if I am to agree with News Ltd's cheering for Tony Abbott, it does not change the fact that the media by and large is actually largely more of a centre-left persuasion. Fairfax's ownership percentage is not that far below News Limited in that area. That shows people have choice. I would strongly challenge that News Limited are far to the right as Fairfax are as far to the left.

ABC and SBS put their own spin on the news like every other commercial network does. Please don't kid yourself. They always have had a centre-left overtone. On their political based shows such as Insiders and QandA, they are severly left wing and basically cheer for anything that is pro-ALP and left wing. The producers don't even bother to disguise it. Secondly, I am actually paying for the ABC and SBS in my taxes. I do not have to pay for any so called right wing biased network in my taxes because there are none. If you don't like it, then you don't have to read it or pay for it. I do have to for left leaning networks. Also, you can't say that the commercial networks are right-wing organisations and then say they report gossip. Might I add, that the media went more 'ape-****' over the Tony Abbott 'non scandal' with Barbara Ramjam than the corruption embedded with the AWU and Julia Gillard and also the most recent union scandal today that evolved within the NSW Labor Party.

You clearly don't listen to many FM stations. Whenever they discuss politics, it is always a mock Tony Abbott and the Coalition station. It suits the demographic of their audience. Young and left-wing. With 2GB, 2UE and 3AW, most of their hosts do not present themselves as news readers or reporters but as people providing an opinion or a debate. I agree that they should provide a variation of opinion, but when a program is presented as purely to present a single opinion, then I have no problem with that.

 

[auscyclefan94]

I think Gillard forgets that Tony Abbott would act like a contrary turd to any PM, regardless of gender, marital status, religion or hair colour.

A substantial portion of new money bogans genuinely don't like her partly because she's a woman but mostly because they don't read any political commentary beyond the headlines and don't realise she's leading a minority government and also assume she's responsible for everything, even state level policy.

Hopefully Turnbull replaces Abbott and someone more solid and marketable can replace Gillard by the next federal election and provide a realistic choice.

Perhaps you are right about Abbott, but he would not act like a victim for political points and would not expect favours or cover-ups from union buddies.

Please drop the feminist, gender debate. You have really been caught up in the ALP spin, spun specifically by Gillard. People do not hate her because she is a woman. She is leading a minority government and she sold her soul out to the Greens and Independents. Good luck to her doing so. But she has to suffer the consequences of doing so. Shall I repeat those famous words days before the 2010 election? I have never read or heard people state that she is responsible for state level policy. She is only responsible for state level policy when funding is taken away from that states or she does not fund certain infrastructure projects. Face the facts, she has used her gender as a political weapon. This gender war has been engineered by John McTernan. He did the same thing to David Cameron when working for the British Labour Party.

I love it who some people keep pushing for Malcolm Turnbull to become leader. They are largely from leftists who prefer Turnbull over Abbott but will never vote for him. People have short memories about how Turnbull was as a leader. He turned the Liberal Party into a Labor lite and really was a failure as an opposition leader. The Liberals would have lost in a landslide at the 2010 election if Turnbull remained as leader in 2009. The moderates have failed to lead the Liberal party so many times in the past. Hewson, Downer, Nelson and obviously Turnbull. Malcolm Turnbull is the Mitt Romney of the Liberal Party. The most moderate potential leadership candidate going around. People from the left like him as a leader over the other candidates, but they will never vote for him. At the same time, support from the conservative side is lost. The Liberals will not go back to Turnbull. They have campaigned strongly against policies that Turnbull has supported in the past and it would be suicidal to go back.

 

[movingtarget]

Perhaps you are right about Abbott, but he would not act like a victim for political points and would not expect favours or cover-ups from union buddies.

Please drop the feminist, gender debate. You have really been caught up in the ALP spin, spun specifically by Gillard. People do not hate her because she is a woman. She is leading a minority government and she sold her soul out to the Greens and Independents. Good luck to her doing so. But she has to suffer the consequences of doing so. Shall I repeat those famous words days before the 2010 election? I have never read or heard people state that she is responsible for state level policy. She is only responsible for state level policy when funding is taken away from that states or she does not fund certain infrastructure projects. Face the facts, she has used her gender as a political weapon. This gender war has been engineered by John McTernan. He did the same thing to David Cameron when working for the British Labour Party.

I love it who some people keep pushing for Malcolm Turnbull to become leader. They are largely from leftists who prefer Turnbull over Abbott but will never vote for him. People have short memories about how Turnbull was as a leader. He turned the Liberal Party into a Labor lite and really was a failure as an opposition leader. The Liberals would have lost in a landslide at the 2010 election if Turnbull remained as leader in 2009. The moderates have failed to lead the Liberal party so many times in the past. Hewson, Downer, Nelson and obviously Turnbull. Malcolm Turnbull is the Mitt Romney of the Liberal Party. The most moderate potential leadership candidate going around. People from the left like him as a leader over the other candidates, but they will never vote for him. At the same time, support from the conservative side is lost. The Liberals will not go back to Turnbull. They have campaigned strongly against policies that Turnbull has supported in the past and it would be suicidal to go back.

Turnbull has the same problem that Rudd had. He's too smug but lately he has toned it down funnily enough since Gillard has become more popular. Gillard's timing of the Royal Commission is immaculate : I can see another "Sorry" day on the horizon. Something to fill the empty mining tax coffers ? As Rudd fades into the background I think many of the undecided voters will be willing to give Abbott a go against Gillard. So close last time. Gillard gambled on an early election and miscalculated badly. I think only the novelty of being the first female PM got her over the line. I am not convinced the polls are as close as some say they are at the moment. I don't know many people who are impressed with Gillard. I had the same impression in the US election. Romney was always going to struggle to win that election because of stupid mistakes. A shame for him that the damage had been done earlier as his performance in the final few months was strong.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Turnbull has the same problem that Rudd had. He's too smug but lately he has toned it down funnily enough since Gillard has become more popular. Gillard's timing of the Royal Commission is immaculate : I can see another "Sorry" day on the horizon. Something to fill the empty mining tax coffers ? As Rudd fades into the background I think many of the undecided voters will be willing to give Abbott a go against Gillard. So close last time. Gillard gambled on an early election and miscalculated badly. I think only the novelty of being the first female PM got her over the line. I am not convinced the polls are as close as some say they are at the moment. I don't know many people who are impressed with Gillard. I had the same impression in the US election. Romney was always going to struggle to win that election because of stupid mistakes. A shame for him that the damage had been done earlier as his performance in the final few months was strong.

I agree that there are some similarities between Rudd and Turnbull. Both are quite wealthy men and they are quite smug in their appearance. Turnbull's problem was that he is not someone who really relates to many 'rusted on' Coalition voters. Abbott does. Malcolm Turnbull and Brendan Nelson did not relate to the 'Howard battlers'. I personally think that it is't as close at the polls are stating. Often polls do overestimate Labor's advantage. The past federal election polls in the week before favoured Labor. Many of the polls before the elections Howard faced dramatically exaggerated the Labor vote. There are many more examples of this. Abbott will be PM of Australia after next election. I am 85% sure on this. What is in doubt, is the margin of the victory and whether Abbott can gain control of the Senate.

 

[Ferminal]

Which Fairfax papers are biased? I recently switched to AFR after getting sick of the News trolls at the oz writing the same thing every week. I do not see any bias but maybe it's because there isn't the heavy political editorialisation. The oz is basically a collection of blogs, most with strong bias one way or the other (of course the senior columnists are right leaning). AFR is run by a former News right-leaning commentator, so...

I get the chance to read over the Hun and the Worst although I do my best to avoid them. It's just rubbish (and same for your FM radio and commercial FTA TV), that they may have a bias is a minor concern for me. It's sad that they carry large shares of the audience.

ABC reports news and current affairs better than any other media outlet in the country, that some want to shut them down because of perceived bias or [insert Orwellian term here] is laughable. Shutting them down would only damage the landscape as there would no longer exist a conduit for the unadulterated transmission of events.

You can have good quality subjective journalism and crap objective journalism. This is more important to me although for you political fanatics bias is obviously an issue.

 

[Amsterhammer]

For you, ACF.

 

[Netserk]

Denmark has finally arrived at Planet Sanity, at least in one aspect of public policy.

Denmark to scrap world's first fat tax - ABC

A loss for dumb **** nanny statists.

So it is okay to tax gas, but not fat?

Taxes have two purposes:
1) Income for the state
2) Regulate behaviour

 

[auscyclefan94]

Which Fairfax papers are biased? I recently switched to AFR after getting sick of the News trolls at the oz writing the same thing every week. I do not see any bias but maybe it's because there isn't the heavy political editorialisation. The oz is basically a collection of blogs, most with strong bias one way or the other (of course the senior columnists are right leaning). AFR is run by a former News right-leaning commentator, so...

I get the chance to read over the Hun and the Worst although I do my best to avoid them. It's just rubbish (and same for your FM radio and commercial FTA TV), that they may have a bias is a minor concern for me. It's sad that they carry large shares of the audience.

ABC reports news and current affairs better than any other media outlet in the country, that some want to shut them down because of perceived bias or [insert Orwellian term here] is laughable. Shutting them down would only damage the landscape as there would no longer exist a conduit for the unadulterated transmission of events.

You can have good quality subjective journalism and crap objective journalism. This is more important to me although for you political fanatics bias is obviously an issue.

The main Fairfax papers such as The Age and Sunday Morning Herald have always been very left leaning. Open your eyes Ferminal. Do you ever watch QandA or Insiders? Very obvious left wing bias on those shows. Whether it be the panels or the audience, it is very left wing. I am all for privatising the SBS. ABC is more difficult for me to say 'privatise that'. I can see the use of a state broadcast but I don't enjoy the clear left wing bias. State broadcasters around the wold such as the BBC and the ABC (US) have always been left leaning. No doubt some of their investigative journalism is very good but to say that the ABC is objective and not bias displays that either you are in denial or your head has been stuck in the sand.

For you, ACF.

Yeah I saw that. Very amusing.

 

[auscyclefan94]

So it is okay to tax gas, but not fat?

Taxes have two purposes:
1) Income for the state
2) Regulate behaviour

Taxing gas and naturally mined minerals is because that taxation is encountering for the fact that the gas you talk about is coming from 'crown land'. I have no problem for the state gaining income through taxes (if it is sensible) but to regulate behaviour in this aspect is way too far. Anyway, the tax is very anti-business, anti-pro choice/freedom, is paternalistic, only helps foreign produced goods and has had very little effect on changing behaviour. People eat food because of the sensation and emotion. It is like a drug. You will always find the money to pay for it, just for the feeling. Fat taxes also create a 'class warfare' because many of the restaurants aren't directly affected by fat tax.

 

[trompe le monde]

So it is okay to tax gas, but not fat?

Taxes have two purposes:
1) Income for the state
2) Regulate behaviour

I don't see anything inherently wrong with a fat tax. Ingesting inordinant amounts of fat only helps to line the body with unhealthy amounts of adipose tissue, which in turn becomes a strain on the health care system due to the associated problems of being overweight (I'm a Canadian, so there is an impact upon my fellow taxpayers if my weight starts to approach that of fully gassed up Yugo).

The strange thing, and I say this with a degree of perplexity, is that those who chime in critiquing the great freedom rapist that is 'The Nanny State' is that they choose not to argue for a minimum baseline of what a meaningful life can or should be. Actually they do, but it is based upon an ego-centric, self-centered perspective that is fueled by harkening back to some Ayn Rand written drivel. To be solely in control of one's ability to choose does not mean that you will choose wisely. So, in a way, sin taxes are a loose of means of trying to cultivate what a person should or should not choose. So, yes, I agree with you Netserk.

Isaiah Berlin perhaps said it best that political theories really boil down to two simple questions: 'Who governs me?' and 'What is my area of non-interference?'