NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/turnbull-vows-to-tackle-rudd/1274506.aspx
http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Turnbull

A former lawyer, turned banker with Goldman Sachs, turned chief campaigner for the Republican movement, turned member for the richest seat in the country, turned environment minister, then shadow treasurer and now almost certainly the candidate for the next election. I've been on his newsletter for two years or so now, after hearing that back before he was muzzled by the political scene he openly voiced support for a flat tax regime in Australia.

At any rate, this is the first time in a while that a proper liberal has had any sort of say in the Liberal Party. It'll be interesting to watch how much he'll have to pander to the party base, which includes the usual mob of anti-immigrant, anti-progress, religious sorts, and how much of his views he can preserve.

We'll see, but this is a clear change from the John Howard Liberals I opposed so strongly. Given the choice between Rudd and Turnbull, I'd certainly pick the latter. What do you reckon?

Here I was thinking the Wizard of Oz.
I feel stupid... :(

He looks like Dennis Hopper.

I'd like to think a new generation of politicians are coming through across the world, slightly less bound by the game of politics and media and more straight-talking about actual issues, brave enough to brush aside petty-lical reporting.

I don't know if Malcolm Turnbull is one of these.

I wouldn't choose either, mainly because they'll both say whatever they can to get in power (and who does that remind you of?), and tolerate other party members, no matter how crap they were.Also; No to a flat tax (though that probably shouldn't be discussed here).

Here I was thinking the Wizard of Oz.
I feel stupid... :(
You should, as everyone knows the Lollipop Guild hasn't put forth a serious candidate since 1939.

Anti-progress? Leon what anti-progress did we see under the Howard Prime Ministership? As for religious, really? I would say the same amount of religion in both the ALP and the Liberal Party and there aren’t much just those on the fringes, which has very little say on the sayings of the party line. Turnball won’t pander that much to the party line Liberal leaders have a lot more say then Labor leaders, he will only have to ensure that he doesn’t go communist on them. But kudos to him personally I would have waited till after the next election since they are going to lose anyway but he has a chance to put forward some strong opposition towards the likes of Rudd and Gillard.

If any Americans are reading this thread, religion plays a very small role within Australian politics on the whole, yes there may be some but there is nowhere near the extent as in the US.

I wouldn't choose either, mainly because they'll both say whatever they can to get in power (and who does that remind you of?), and tolerate other party members, no matter how crap they were.
Turnbull is notoriously hard on those he works with. He doesn't tolerate people being idiots, and indeed people disagreeing with him. No doubt, that will be held against him, but if it means wiping out the remains of the Howard faction from the front bench, it can't be all bad.

Anti-progress? Leon what anti-progress did we see under the Howard Prime Ministership?
Economically, a massive drop in innovation and, later-on, entrepreneurship as each budget was progressively more tailored for the mortgage belt.

Socially, continued attacks on immigrants (legal or otherwise) and, drugs, gay rights and refusal to engage in the Aboriginal issue.

Face it, Howard was a conservative, and conservatives are, pretty much by definition, anti-progress.

As for religious, really? I would say the same amount of religion in both the ALP and the Liberal Party and there aren’t much just those on the fringes, which has very little say on the sayings of the party line.
Except that an ex-pastor with a problem with abortion has no business being let anywhere near the health portfolio, for example. I have yet to see that sort of crap from the ALP.

But kudos to him personally I would have waited till after the next election since they are going to lose anyway but he has a chance to put forward some strong opposition towards the likes of Rudd and Gillard.
He would have waited until closer to the next election, but Nelson forced the issue now. And the man at fault for all this is Peter Costello, of course, for the crappy way he's handled the question of his future.

I have to say, this could be an exciting new leaf for the small "l" liberals of this country. I sincerely hope he sticks to his guns. Of course, its hard to know just how much of a change he is going to be from the short-sighted conservatives of the Howard era, but we can hope.

I for one always like a strong opposition. I favoured Rudd in the last election but he, too, seems annoyingly populist. I hold out hope that Turnbull, although I may not agree with all of his policies, he will at least stick with them.

What I'm looking forward to is the inevitable move by Rudd of making the Republic THE election issue: it'll divide the Libs, but Turnbull will have to support it or lose any chance of remaining credible. I bet Rudd can't wait.

Turnbull will need to be patient. Normally incoming governements like the Rudd one get two terms at least before they are chucked out.

But then again, thesae are interesting times - as we've seen on Wall St.

I feel sorry for Nelson, though. He never really had a chance - the knives were out fromm almost day 1.

I'm with Fiddlebottoms on this. I'd seriously consider the Lollipop Guild - but I'd want to study their Dental Benefits plan.

Economically, a massive drop in innovation and, later-on, entrepreneurship as each budget was progressively more tailored for the mortgage belt.

Socially, continued attacks on immigrants (legal or otherwise) and, drugs, gay rights and refusal to engage in the Aboriginal issue.

Face it, Howard was a conservative, and conservatives are, pretty much by definition, anti-progress.

Yes he was a conservative, but there were reforms during his prime ministership, GST, industrial relations not just the ones that lost him the election but he started it back in 1996. So he wasn't anti-progress, and to be against something changing doesn't automatically make you a anti progress, only if you are against it because it is a change, there are other reasons to be against change, it is just as bad to embrace change simply because it is change. His continued attacks on immigrants really only referred to those that came here by breaking the law, he and many other people wouldn't mind if they came here by legal means. What I found amusing was that many people were against mandatory detention of illegal immigrants yet the issue wasn't that big when the ALP started it back in 1992.

Howard was a Liberal and I think that Turnball is more of a liberal but the leader of the liberal party does have more say over party policy than the leader of the ALP, and we would expect to see party policy move over from Liberal to liberal.

I would like to hear explanation on how the budgets lead to a decrease in innovation. I am not saying that it didn't but I would like clarification.

Except that an ex-pastor with a problem with abortion has no business being let anywhere near the health portfolio, for example. I have yet to see that sort of crap from the ALP.

So 1 man, as I said the fringes of the party, he has very little support, and it hardly matters as the Health portfolio isn't all about abortion and the issue on RU-486 went to parliament anyway. What sort of crap but you know as well as I do that religion is a very very small part of Australian politics and how they are voted in maybe Abbot and Senator Fielding from the Family First Party. What type of crap?

He would have waited until closer to the next election, but Nelson forced the issue now. And the man at fault for all this is Peter Costello, of course, for the crappy way he's handled the question of his future.

Hardly I would say it is more the fault of the media beating up the issue not giving it a rest when it is hardly an issue what Costello does anymore. Every year the media comes out wanting to talk about if Costello will be leader, it seemed like an annual event that they would come out it is the first year that we haven't had Costello and Howard maybe the media forgot to take it off its calendar and just decided to do it anyway.

I have to say, this could be an exciting new leaf for the small "l" liberals of this country. I sincerely hope he sticks to his guns. Of course, its hard to know just how much of a change he is going to be from the short-sighted conservatives of the Howard era, but we can hope.

I for one always like a strong opposition. I favoured Rudd in the last election but he, too, seems annoyingly populist. I hold out hope that Turnbull, although I may not agree with all of his policies, he will at least stick with them.

What I'm looking forward to is the inevitable move by Rudd of making the Republic THE election issue: it'll divide the Libs, but Turnbull will have to support it or lose any chance of remaining credible. I bet Rudd can't wait.

Rudd seems like an annoyingly populist because he is a annoyingly populist granted there are worse ones then him out there but still.

Why would he make it THE election issue? That might have been the reason why he said he was going to wait till the next term to bring it up, after all he needs to ensure he doesn't lose the election, he would have known that Turnball would take over from Nelson in the end so decided to leave it. I don't see how it would make him lose all credibility Turnball has already stated that he doesn't want to see another Referendum until after HM Queen Elizabeth II has passed away, but who knows people might not mind King George VII, but it depends what the model is and if checks and balances are still going to be in place. while this will be for another thread I think it is a very sneaky thing that was proposed at the 2020 summit that forces it onto the populance.

I don't think Turnbull has much of a chance at the next election. Rudd will still be able to point up the flaws in the Howard government and say "Do you want them back?", while Turnbull will NOT be able to make a clean break from the Howard policies - there are too many vested interests in the Liberal that would unseat him if he tried, regardless of what that would do to their election chances.

But if he plays his cards right, and does well in opposition, he'll be able to make some real changes over the next three years and have a good chance of victory come the following election, especially if Rudd screws up.

I feel sorry for Nelson, though. He never really had a chance - the knives were out fromm almost day 1.
He came up as the fall guy; taking all the flak for Howard's era and allowing a more popular/able person to take leadership and not be bogged down by that (which is why I though they would have kept Nelson at least until next year, if not until the end of it. It's still too early from my pov).

Turnbull is notoriously hard on those he works with. He doesn't tolerate people being idiots, and indeed people disagreeing with him. No doubt, that will be held against him, but if it means wiping out the remains of the Howard faction from the front bench, it can't be all bad.
I remain to be convinced (though that isn't saying much as I almost certainly wouldn't vote federal Liberal anyway). By the way, wouldn't not being able to tolerate people disagreeing with him be a problem?

The front bench isn't the main problem, it's the back bench, and what remains of federal Nationals.

I've never considered voting Liberal before (my family has always been staunchly Labor), but I might just give Turnbull a go. Kevin Rudd seems too much like John Howard (his alcohol tax and reforms to the Liquor Licencing Act - yes I'm a binge drinker) and his raising of the Medicare Levey Surcharge Threshold without a firm commitment to improving our health system to cope with the influx are ridiculous and will end up costing Australians more in the long run. Furthermore, his indigenous policy just seems like more of the same patronising crap as before.

Malcom Turnbull if a self made man. He created his own wealth and went through all the positions due to his tallent, timing and success.

There have been no allegations about his behaviour. Tho he is criticized for being rich. But then again should we count this as a negative when it was his mind that created his own wealth? I would take it as a sign of intelligence. I want a smart leader.

Turnbull is notoriously hard on those he works with. He doesn't tolerate people being idiots, and indeed people disagreeing with him. No doubt, that will be held against him, but if it means wiping out the remains of the Howard faction from the front bench, it can't be all bad.

that sounds a lot like the claims for kevin Rudd. So if its a bad thing its a bad thing for both parties.

Economically, a massive drop in innovation and, later-on, entrepreneurship as each budget was progressively more tailored for the mortgage belt.

Socially, continued attacks on immigrants (legal or otherwise) and, drugs, gay rights and refusal to engage in the Aboriginal issue.

Face it, Howard was a conservative, and conservatives are, pretty much by definition, anti-progress.


Well the Liberals under Rudd got rid of Labours massive debt. They also reduced tax. I thought that would be a good thing. They also introduced the GST which no one in power is suggesting of removing

Socially there were many issues. But for aboriginals who started the NT intervention. and who is continuing it as it is such a bad thing.

But that must be something of anti-progress. To me the two things that got rid of Howard were workchoices (but that has now been longer under Labour) and the time he spent in office. He was the nations longest serving prime minister. He must have done something right.

Except that an ex-pastor with a problem with abortion has no business being let anywhere near the health portfolio, for example. I have yet to see that sort of crap from the ALP.

And when necessary a conscience vote occurred in parliament. The Liberals are right wing but still introduced anti abortion drugs. Nothing was really against the parties standing. Many people hold antiabortion beliefs. I personally think abortion should increase as it lowers the crime rate in 20 or so years.

He would have waited until closer to the next election, but Nelson forced the issue now. And the man at fault for all this is Peter Costello, of course, for the crappy way he's handled the question of his future.

Finally something I agree with you on.

But since there is a new opposition leader lets wait and see what he does. One of the first things I think he may try in parliament is to introduce a $30/week pension rise. The greens will probably support it. So if Labour votes against it they are voting against a rise in the pensions pay.

This will look really bad especially if they increase it by a simular amount later.

What I'm looking forward to is the inevitable move by Rudd of making the Republic THE election issue: it'll divide the Libs, but Turnbull will have to support it or lose any chance of remaining credible. I bet Rudd can't wait.
It would divide the Liberals, but Turnbull has a lot more credibility on the issue. I think the ALP is more likely to attack him as "neoliberal". I can already see problems arising related to my blood pressure.

Yes he was a conservative, but there were reforms during his prime ministership, GST, industrial relations not just the ones that lost him the election but he started it back in 1996.
Reforms aren't progress though. I mean someone who will look in the future, rather than into the past. Howard has never been about forgetting all this stuff about Australia as a white, British country fighting various types of black people. His mindset never moved past 1959.

It was just plain tiresome.

So he wasn't anti-progress, and to be against something changing doesn't automatically make you a anti progress, only if you are against it because it is a change, there are other reasons to be against change, it is just as bad to embrace change simply because it is change.
You can't give me a good reason why allowing gay marriage, or changing the way drug use is policed, or including Aboriginal history in school classes are bad change. They're just things that violate the image Howard has of Australia, which is an image firmly rooted in the past, with white picket fences, pettycoats and dancing halls.

His continued attacks on immigrants really only referred to those that came here by breaking the law, he and many other people wouldn't mind if they came here by legal means.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s2057369.htm

What I found amusing was that many people were against mandatory detention of illegal immigrants yet the issue wasn't that big when the ALP started it back in 1992.
I wasn't around these parts in 1992. I can tell you that I oppose it on principle, not because of who happens to support it. By far the best thing the Rudd government has done is end the "Pacific Solution" and all the rest of it, and that alone is already more than enough to be happy about the outcome of the last election.

I would like to hear explanation on how the budgets lead to a decrease in innovation. I am not saying that it didn't but I would like clarification.
http://www.innovation.gov.au/innovationreview/Pages/home.aspx

That should give you some sort of idea. In short, every time they spent money on vote-buying schemes, they didn't do anything about this crisis.

What type of crap?
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6117&page=0

Hardly I would say it is more the fault of the media beating up the issue not giving it a rest when it is hardly an issue what Costello does anymore.
Of course it is. He was a former leadership candidate with better poll figures than the current leader and all the connections you could hope for. Until he steps away his shadow necessarily falls over anything the current leader will be doing. His refusal to be clear about his plans causes nothing but confusion and pain for his party. It's a load of crap, and I'll eat my hat if some time in the future you won't get Costello challenging again, just one last time.

that sounds a lot like the claims for kevin Rudd. So if its a bad thing its a bad thing for both parties.
I didn't say it was a bad thing. I want a government run not by people who enjoy the work, but by people who are constantly under threat of getting their arse kicked if they don't do a good job. If they're going to be using violence to take my money and spend it on their fancies, the very least they could be doing for me is feel miserable doing it.

Well the Liberals under Rudd got rid of Labours massive debt. They also reduced tax. I thought that would be a good thing. They also introduced the GST which no one in power is suggesting of removing
Look, realistically the Liberals just followed the course the ALP had set previously. I reckon the Howard governments gets way too much kudos for economic management. They had a few good policies, not because they came up with them but because they let a few smart economists from various universities free reign in designing them, but that's it. They can't claim any credit for a housing boom ultimately sustained by, you guessed it, the pile of rubble in Wall Street.

Socially there were many issues. But for aboriginals who started the NT intervention. and who is continuing it as it is such a bad thing.
I'm not saying it's a bad policy, I'm saying it's a band-aid.

He was the nations longest serving prime minister. He must have done something right.
You may not know me very well yet, but I consider majority opinions utterly irrelevant in judging pretty much anything. Considering the average voter, him having been reelected so much is a minus rather than a plus, if you ask me. Simply doing what the mob wants seldomly produces good government.

But since there is a new opposition leader lets wait and see what he does. One of the first things I think he may try in parliament is to introduce a $30/week pension rise. The greens will probably support it. So if Labour votes against it they are voting against a rise in the pensions pay.
If you ask me, the pensioners should be glad they're getting what they're getting now. The way their argument is made is appalling - rather than claiming any genuine right, or giving any genuine reason for why we should be fanning inflation, they hold up their wounds (figuratively speaking, mostly) as though the fact that they're poor has any influence on the matter.

That being said, I think that unfortunately that seems to be a weak point the Rudd government can be attacked on at the moment.

Malcom Turnbull if a self made man. He created his own wealth and went through all the positions due to his tallent, timing and success.

There have been no allegations about his behaviour. Tho he is criticized for being rich. But then again should we count this as a negative when it was his mind that created his own wealth? I would take it as a sign of intelligence. I want a smart leader.

He is criticized for it because of the tall poppy syndrome that is a feature of Australian society.

that sounds a lot like the claims for kevin Rudd. So if its a bad thing its a bad thing for both parties.

Well the Liberals under Rudd got rid of Labours massive debt. They also reduced tax. I thought that would be a good thing. They also introduced the GST which no one in power is suggesting of removing

Socially there were many issues. But for aboriginals who started the NT intervention. and who is continuing it as it is such a bad thing.

But that must be something of anti-progress. To me the two things that got rid of Howard were workchoices (but that has now been longer under Labour) and the time he spent in office. He was the nations longest serving prime minister. He must have done something right.

Second longest actually the longest was Sir Robert Menzies founder of the liberal party. The major thing that got rid of Howard was work choices which was progressive and reforming but he went a bit to far with it which allowed the unions to spend millions of dollars spreading half truths and lies just enough to make people scared.

I personally think abortion should increase as it lowers the crime rate in 20 or so years.

Did you read the same book I did? Not that, that is the only reason why I support abortion.

Reforms aren't progress though. I mean someone who will look in the future, rather than into the past. Howard has never been about forgetting all this stuff about Australia as a white, British country fighting various types of black people. His mindset never moved past 1959.

It was just plain tiresome.

You can't give me a good reason why allowing gay marriage, or changing the way drug use is policed, or including Aboriginal history in school classes are bad change. They're just things that violate the image Howard has of Australia, which is an image firmly rooted in the past, with white picket fences, pettycoats and dancing halls.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s2057369.htm

I am not saying I am, but I don't think we should just have progress for the sake of progress, but you can't deny reform isn't wanting to keep things exactly the same way. The teaching history was more about teaching kids about some of the more important things on top of aboriginals in Australia. I know a few teachers and speaking to them on what they have to teach on Australian history (I am talking about the SA curriculum here) they spend 7 weeks simply on aboriginal history, yet other things such as local history how Australia was formed, important discoveries things that affected Australia and its way of life and how the country works is over looked. But I think that discussion is for another thread, I don't mind teaching kids about Aboriginal history but the question is more how it will be taught rather than what is taught.

I wasn't around these parts in 1992. I can tell you that I oppose it on principle, not because of who happens to support it. By far the best thing the Rudd government has done is end the "Pacific Solution" and all the rest of it, and that alone is already more than enough to be happy about the outcome of the last election.

Really? I thought you said you moved here when you were 3, maybe that was someone else. Perhaps it is really the only good thing that they have done since they came into power. That is a bit to much really they have done some other good stuff but I am just focusing on the general stuff, which isn't good at all but I'm getting tired

http://www.innovation.gov.au/innovationreview/Pages/home.aspx

That should give you some sort of idea. In short, every time they spent money on vote-buying schemes, they didn't do anything about this crisis.

Ah ok, yes thank you, I am aware that a lot of the budget was about appeasing the voters, which I do agree with you was a failure of the government (even before today) nearing the end of their term, it was to appease their supporter base and go for the populist view. Something which annoys me more than you can imagine,

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6117&page=0

Ah yes I forgot about that initiative, but that all depends if you want all religion left out of government decisions or not, of course that would also have to include beliefs which is near impossible. Again another thread topic. Do you remember Rudd showing off his credentials as a good christian though? Would he bring some sort of thing in order to appease Steve Fielding in order to get his vote in the Senate. As he has done now and yes I do know that it wasn't religion based, belief based maybe but not religion.

Of course it is. He was a former leadership candidate with better poll figures than the current leader and all the connections you could hope for. Until he steps away his shadow necessarily falls over anything the current leader will be doing. His refusal to be clear about his plans causes nothing but confusion and pain for his party. It's a load of crap, and I'll eat my hat if some time in the future you won't get Costello challenging again, just one last time.

Yes, if the media decide to bring it up again we will bring it up again.

Look, realistically the Liberals just followed the course the ALP had set previously. I reckon the Howard governments gets way too much kudos for economic management. They had a few good policies, not because they came up with them but because they let a few smart economists from various universities free reign in designing them, but that's it. They can't claim any credit for a housing boom ultimately sustained by, you guessed it, the pile of rubble in Wall Street.

Well would you rather them coming it up with themselves or would you rather them talking to people who may have some idea such as a few smart economists?

Actually Leon I seem to remember you saying you were liberal in another thread, though I am sure you mean small 'l' liberal. But it all depends on what your priorities are as to who you vote for, if immigration was more of an issue for someone then it would be and I sure it is for you considering you yourself are an immigrant though through legal means, if education and basic principals are more important to you than you would place things over that.

I didn't say it was a bad thing. I want a government run not by people who enjoy the work, but by people who are constantly under threat of getting their arse kicked if they don't do a good job. If they're going to be using violence to take my money and spend it on their fancies, the very least they could be doing for me is feel miserable doing it.

Sometimes the threatening boss dosnt produce the best result. But spin appears to keep the public happy.


Look, realistically the Liberals just followed the course the ALP had set previously. I reckon the Howard governments gets way too much kudos for economic management. They had a few good policies, not because they came up with them but because they let a few smart economists from various universities free reign in designing them, but that's it. They can't claim any credit for a housing boom ultimately sustained by, you guessed it, the pile of rubble in Wall Street.


I dont care where the policies come from. If they are good I want them. If a leader listens to the right people and follows their advice I approve of it. The thing is they at least had the courage to introduce the GST. They took it to an election despite the states being against it and won. and when the states and feds where all ALP there wasnt a wisper about removing it. They must see some value in it now.

If you ask me, the pensioners should be glad they're getting what they're getting now. The way their argument is made is appalling - rather than claiming any genuine right, or giving any genuine reason for why we should be fanning inflation, they hold up their wounds (figuratively speaking, mostly) as though the fact that they're poor has any influence on the matter.

That being said, I think that unfortunately that seems to be a weak point the Rudd government can be attacked on at the moment.

I agree. But still it is smart politics.

Second longest actually the longest was Sir Robert Menzies founder of the liberal party. The major thing that got rid of Howard was work choices which was progressive and reforming but he went a bit to far with it which allowed the unions to spend millions of dollars spreading half truths and lies just enough to make people scared.

Depends if you countinous or not :D

Really? I thought you said you moved here when you were 3, maybe that was someone else.
I came here when I was about to turn 16, in '01.

Actually Leon I seem to remember you saying you were liberal in another thread, though I am sure you mean small 'l' liberal. But it all depends on what your priorities are as to who you vote for, if immigration was more of an issue for someone then it would be and I sure it is for you considering you yourself are an immigrant though through legal means, if education and basic principals are more important to you than you would place things over that.
If the choice is between conservatives and a centre-left with an economically liberal general outlook, I'll pick the latter pretty much always. Conservatism in modern politics has no positive sides to it whatsoever. In this country this was made worse because it came along with a virulent and too often racist nationalism that made thinking about something like the Pacific Solution even possible.

Turnbull stands for a different course for the Liberal Party, hence why I prefer him to the ALP.

The thing is they at least had the courage to introduce the GST. They took it to an election despite the states being against it and won. and when the states and feds where all ALP there wasnt a wisper about removing it. They must see some value in it now.
Yeah, $40 billion+. :wink:

I came here when I was about to turn 16, in '01.

Ah ok, it must have been someone else.

If the choice is between conservatives and a centre-left with an economically liberal general outlook, I'll pick the latter pretty much always. Conservatism in modern politics has no positive sides to it whatsoever. In this country this was made worse because it came along with a virulent and too often racist nationalism that made thinking about something like the Pacific Solution even possible.

Turnbull stands for a different course for the Liberal Party, hence why I prefer him to the ALP.

Fair enough. Was the rest of my post just shit or what?

If the choice is between conservatives and a centre-left with an economically liberal general outlook, I'll pick the latter pretty much always.
I'd call the current federal ALP centrist overall...

I'd call the current federal ALP centrist overall...

Your dreaming mate, Rudd may be more centrist then the rest of his fellow MPs but the heart and mind of the ALP is still set in the left along with some of their old mindsets, some have dropped down but a lot of the old mindset is still there.