[QUOTE=shackleford;43208432]labor did a bunch of stupid garbage... like what?[/QUOTE]
Faction in-fighting. Kevin went at it with a flame thrower as well. Bill Shorten basically gave him the flamethrower too.
[editline]17th December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Antdawg;43208454]The carbon tax for one was dumb. Labor had good intention with wanting an ETS (which Turnbull also wanted; part of the reason why he lost the Liberal leadership), but somewhere along the way they just half-assed it and settled for something which is much less economical, much less effective. Aside from that I reckon Labor did okay when they were in government, and it was a shame that they lost government in the last federal election.[/QUOTE]
The carbon tax was more effective in reducing emissions than a trading scheme, more economical as well if you consider climate change a market failure, less if you don't. Further, the mistake was calling it a tax and admitting to breaking a promise. If Tony teaches us anything it is that if you keep saying it, no matter how dumb it is, people will believe you.
[editline]17th December 2013[/editline]
In my opinion they deserved to lose government at the last election, they need the time to clear some space and get a clearer strategy than previously. The only shame is that we lost Julia Gillard; she had amazing negotiation powers and really was a great leader for a party and a country. Too bad it was buried by the circumstances. She shouldn't have gone through with the overthrow of Kevin in hindsight.
[editline]17th December 2013[/editline]
Also that we got Tony over Malcolm. That's a shame too.
[editline]17th December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Antdawg;43208214]What's wrong with the Labor right wing? It's healthily positioned between being too far right (Liberal) and the Greens. The reason we directly avoided the GFC was because of the Labor right wing and their Keynesian economic policy.[/QUOTE]
The main issue I have is the set up of the factions and how they operate, rather than specific factions themselves. The right wing is pushing for a platform very similar to the liberal party, indistinguishable even; making the only difference between the parties the Labor parties emphasis on employees and not employers. I've not heard anything about the right wing being the decisive factor in the Keynesian strategy, they followed advice from treasury and IMF. Wayne Swan I don't hold in very high regard in all honesty, I think that what he did could have been repeated by anyone in the same position.
I don't think Labor's Right Wing own Keynesian policy.
[QUOTE=gerbe1;43208458]The main issue I have is the set up of the factions and how they operate, rather than specific factions themselves. The right wing is pushing for a platform very similar to the liberal party, indistinguishable even; making the only difference between the parties the Labor parties emphasis on employees and not employers. I've not heard anything about the right wing being the decisive factor in the Keynesian strategy, they followed advice from treasury and IMF. Wayne Swan I don't hold in very high regard in all honesty, I think that what he did could have been repeated by anyone in the same position.
I don't think Labor's Right Wing own Keynesian policy.[/QUOTE]
Economic policy ideas might be different, but social policy I believe is consistent within Labor. in general, Labor is much more socially progressive than the Coalition. Also, yes Labor was acting on professional advice given to them, which we should all be grateful for. However, the question is if the Coalition would have done the same if they were in government at the time. A significant part of the Coalition platform is achieving and maintaining a government surplus, which is inconsistent with the need to run a deficit in economic downtimes under Keynesian policy.
Labor was a minority government and in order to form a majority they would need the greens to stay with them. That's why labor had to support a carbon tax. So antdawg, this "bunch of stupid garbage" was only carbon tax? I don't see the 'bunch' in that. at least recognise the good things labor has done- such as the Gonski reform in education, which the coalition will be scrapping.
[QUOTE=shackleford;43209334]Labor was a minority government and in order to form a majority they would need the greens to stay with them. That's why labor had to support a carbon tax. So antdawg, this "bunch of stupid garbage" was only carbon tax? I don't see the 'bunch' in that. at least recognise the good things labor has done- such as the Gonski reform in education, which the coalition will be scrapping.[/QUOTE]
Mate I wasn't the one who said 'bunch of stupid garbage', that was Hamsterjuice. And if you didn't notice, I've been sympathising with Labor in this thread, but I try not to be too out there about it. Not because I'm embarrassed about it, but because I try to keep a free mind about things; avoiding blindly supporting anything.
All that I need to say really is that in the recent federal election to the House of Reps I preferenced the Labor candidate to first, and chose the Labor ticket for the NSW Senate election. Most people on Facepunch can't say the same (regarding any election) because most of Facepunch probably isn't of voting age.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;43209051]Economic policy ideas might be different, but social policy I believe is consistent within Labor. in general, Labor is much more socially progressive than the Coalition. Also, yes Labor was acting on professional advice given to them, which we should all be grateful for. However, the question is if the Coalition would have done the same if they were in government at the time. A significant part of the Coalition platform is achieving and maintaining a government surplus, which is inconsistent with the need to run a deficit in economic downtimes under Keynesian policy.[/QUOTE]
My contention isn't with Labor v Liberal, it's with the Labor factions. I contend they (Labor) would have been no different in economic response if they were operating without the right faction.
For the record Christopher Pyne (how he is a minister I have no clue) said that the coalition would have run surpluses during the GFC. Thank goodness they weren't in government.
[QUOTE=gerbe1;43219436]My contention isn't with Labor v Liberal, it's with the Labor factions. I contend they (Labor) would have been no different in economic response if they were operating without the right faction.
For the record Christopher Pyne (how he is a minister I have no clue) said that the coalition would have run surpluses during the GFC. Thank goodness they weren't in government.[/QUOTE]
Pyne is a moron. The only way government would have run a surplus during the GFC would be through austerity, but then we would have felt the full force of it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
