http://www.independentaustralia.net/Wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/TurnbullMenzies.png


Quote:

The Liberal Party of Australia is at risk of becoming a shadow of its former self as it lurches to the right under Abbott and disenfranchises a large portion of its base, Daniel Carr explains. IF ABC’s Q&A has taught us anything last year, it’s that our collective nostalgia for the leadership of Malcolm Turnbull shows no sign of abating. Since losing the Liberal Party leadership in 2009, Turnbull has been busy cultivating a public image as a principled and considered statesman. This is without doubt a significant factor in his confessed “thousands of requests” to form a new party. The fact Turnbull is being asked to form a new party, rather than take back the reigns of Liberal Party, is telling. It appears Australians now see too great a gap between the ‘small l’ liberalism championed by Turnbull and the conservatism of his party. The two political traditions cohabit in the Liberal Party as a result of Menzies’ fusion of the two to fight their common enemy, socialism, during the 1940s. Though this fusion was not seen in other Westminster system nations, it was highly effective in combatting socialism and saw the Liberal Party become the natural party of government in the latter part of the 20th century. Though with the Liberal Party campaigning to protect middle class welfare, scrap a carbon price (in favour of a government ‘pick-a-winner’ scheme), oppose gay marriage and having recently voted against wheat export deregulation, it has to be asked — are today’s liberals well served by this arrangement? http://youtu.be/XcY_ECIEjXY I recently took to OurSay, an online forum, to ask Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey what the Liberal Party offered to liberals as distinct from conservatives. Hockey’s answer, broadcast online and on Sky News in mid-December, was an indictment on what passes for liberalism in the Party. Hockey rightly acknowledged the Liberal opposition to the government’s internet filter and push for press regulation in his response — but liberalism is not an ideology concerned with free speech alone. It also contains a commitment to the freedom of the individual and equality of opportunity in society. One would be hard pressed to argue the Liberal Party is still true to these ideals. In his answer, Hockey made much of the right to cross the floor on votes without being expelled from the Party. Though this is unabashedly liberal, with Sue Boyce, Mal Washer and Judi Moylan all set to retire, the majority of Liberal MPs that have wavered, abstained or voted against their party on the issues of gay marriage and asylum seeker policy will have left parliament by 2013. Given this, I am sceptical of how ‘small l’ liberal voters benefit from voting Liberal, if the increasingly conservative make-up of the party sees crossing the floor as now unacceptable. The remainder of Hockey’s answer dwelt on the ‘compassion’ of the Liberal Party in seeking to “stop the boats” as evidence of a commitment to liberalism. As the answer I received on the OurSay forum confirmed, there is little in the Liberal Party’s 2013 election pitch for a liberal to take solace in. Tony Abbott’s vision boasts no ambition beyond locking in the economic and social status quo of John Howard’s prime ministership, despite the mining revenue that buoyed it evaporating and the social conservatism of the nation declining. Beyond addressing the non-issues of an immaterial surplus in 2013, ‘stopping the boats’ and a judicial inquiry into the Gillard AWU fiasco, the Liberal Party will be hard pressed to meet the real challenges Australia faces without the liberal values of internationalism, fiscal prudence, civil liberties and equal opportunity.

continue

Quote:

http://youtu.be/m1O2K399eSo Cuddling up to a geographically removed ally, such as Indonesia, is not a formula for success in Asia. Let’s not forget Indonesia is currently passing mandatory-sentencing laws to lock up impoverished Indonesians seen as completely expendable to the people smuggling business. The issue of a massive looming fiscal imbalance between expected revenue and expenditure (due to demographic and healthcare cost changes) cannot be dealt with by unspecified four to six point plans based on ‘cutting red tape’ and ‘stopping the waste’ alone. Creating a long run sustainable budget will require a fundamental rethink on public service delivery, an end to subsidising the resources and automobile industries and greater reliance on efficient taxes on minerals profit and wealth. Australians are not content to let government exercise undue influence on their private lives. The community’s embrace of same-sex marriage and euthanasia makes our politicians’ feet dragging a national embarrassment. The Liberal Party promises greater freedom, but offers little unless you are a miner with deep pockets. The  education status quo is locking children into lives of poverty based on their postcode. The creation of ‘glass floors’ sees the children of the affluent grow ever more prosperous relative to those less parentally fortunate. A refusal to back the Gonski needs-based funding model shows the Liberal Party has forgotten that capitalism works only when underpinned by equality of opportunity. Having participated in the OurSay forum last week (timeliness issues) I am now convinced the ‘broad church’ of the Liberal Party is no more. It would seem that just as Liberal Party Minister Don Chipp saw an opening for a new ‘small l’ liberal party, when he launched the Australian Democrats in 1977, a similar opening exists today. Whether Australians will do more than just spray tweets with the #qanda hash tag on Monday nights, imploring Malcolm Turnbull to form such a party, remains to be seen.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/liberalism-australias-forgotten-ideology1/

if it was anything but the independent I might find an hour or two to read this.. ;) ;)

cods wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 8:33am:

if it was anything but the independent I might find an hour or two to read this.. ;) ;)

Yep. the unbiased Independent by the er, wiseone?

Federal Labors heading for a Bligh style wipeout and labor supporters want Turnbull so they can turn that wipeout into a tsunami LOL  ;D

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 8:48am:

Federal Labors heading for a Bligh style wipeout and labor supporters want Turnbull so they can turn that wipeout into a tsunami LOL  ;D

You mean similar to the wipe outs the Vic and Queensland Conservative govts are going to have at their next elections... ;D

Turnbull should definitely make the move to labor

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 8:54am:

Turnbull should definitely make the move to labor

they certainly need a new leader. Maybe they could have Mr 16% instead of us?

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 8:54am:

Turnbull should definitely make the move to labor

Exactly.  Or retire to the leather lounge at Goldass Suck.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 9:10am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 8:54am: Turnbull should definitely make the move to labor they certainly need a new leader. Maybe they could have Mr 16% instead of us?

60% for Turnbull and 29% for Phony Tony  ;D
Na..ya better keep Phony Tony for the leader coz by the election he'll be in single figures  ;D

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/abbott-praises-turnbull-after-new-poll-20121105-28t6z.html

Malcolms most recent addition to his file..a long winded rant on ABC 24 about the desperately competitive, swirling,changing, confusing, unstable and uncertain future was over the top even by his standards... :)

Quote:

Should Turnbull make a move

Yes, I think he would do well in South America.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 9:10am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 8:54am: Turnbull should definitely make the move to labor they certainly need a new leader. Maybe they could have Mr 16% instead of us?

cant think of anybody else they could have to be honest... slippers out..and it would seem old Libs have more support from the left on here than gillard or swan have.. hilarious..

cods wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 8:33am:

if it was anything but the independent I might find an hour or two to read this.. ;) ;)

If you only read articles that you agree with, how the f--k are you ever going to learn anything?

KJT1981 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 8:39am:

cods wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 8:33am: if it was anything but the independent I might find an hour or two to read this.. ;) ;) Yep. the unbiased Independent by the er, wiseone?

if you two idiots don't like Independent Australia web site then read this one


Quote:

It is a truth universally acknowledged, one might say, that contemporary Australian politics is uninspiring and unengaging. In an atmosphere of increasing cynicism about the political process, few of its practitioners appear able to connect with a largely disengaged electorate. Those politicians who do elicit trust and admiration, then, are particularly noticeable. One such figure is former Liberal Party leader Malcolm Turnbull, who famously lost out to Tony Abbott by only one vote in December 2009 and went on to cross the floor to vote for the Rudd government's doomed emissions trading scheme. Turnbull inspires respect across party lines, and it is not difficult to see why. He makes speeches like this, tweets about literature and global politics as well as local concerns (and recently gave Rupert Murdoch a classy serve regarding Fox News' approach to gun policy in the US), and continues to emphasise the need to address climate change in the face of an awkward ambivalence on his party's part. Where Abbott chose the occasion of Margaret Whitlam's death to have a partisan dig at the 1972-1975 Labor administration, Turnbull spoke warmly of her optimism, generosity and compassion. It is therefore understandable that Turnbull has become somewhat iconic among political junkies (he is for instance regularly voted 'sexiest male politician' in Crikey's annual poll). What is more mysterious is the habitual suggestion that he wandered into the wrong political party by mistake and ought to be a member of the ALP – or even its leader. In 2009, Turnbull was forced to deny that he had ever approached the ALP to seek a parliamentary seat, and stated instead that he had been 'courted' by prominent party members, including former PM Paul Keating, and had advised Keating that 'I wouldn't be comfortable in the Labor Party and it wouldn't be comfortable with me'. Some voters appear to have found Turnbull's political allegiance difficult to accept, or entertaining to reject: 11% of respondents to an Essential poll from August 2011 supported Turnbull as Labor leader (Kevin Rudd garnered 37% support to Julia Gillard's 12%). Turnbull downplayed the poll, while maintaining that that popularity with the 'other side' was useful rather than detrimental, arguing: 'You don't win elections by persuading your most devoted supporters to cast a vote for you with even more enthusiasm than they did at the last election…You win elections by persuading people who didn't vote for you at the last election to vote for you. Elections are always won at the centre'. This concept of the 'sensible centre' was evoked in the latest rush of blood to collective heads about Turnbull's place in Australian politics. A charming double-act between Turnbull and Rudd on Q&A late last year intensified a flurry of enthusiasm about both former party leaders; at the end of the program, an audience member asked: You two have a lot in common. You both are moderate, wealthy, and not very popular in your own parties but very popular among people…Many Labor voters are very disillusioned with the influence of the factions and unions. Many Liberal voters are disappointed with the influence of big business and the far right wing. Why don't you two join and establish a new party that can open a new chapter in politics in Australia?

continue

Peter Freedman wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 10:12am:

cods wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 8:33am: if it was anything but the independent I might find an hour or two to read this.. ;) ;) If you only read articles that you agree with, how the f--k are you ever going to learn anything?

Best tell that to the lefties that say they don't read Bolt, Ackerman or listen to Jones or Hadley.

The Member for Independent Australia website has spoken.

The good Professor from the Riverina has the floor....

:)

Quote:

The enthusiasm for a return to Rudd and Turnbull as leaders of their prospective parties has already been subjected to critique and the concept of a new third force in Australian politics comprising the two old adversaries and other 'moderates' remains a rather strange fantasy. What is striking, though, is how little ideology featured in these discussions. The view that Turnbull ought properly to sit across the chamber from the Coalition seems based at least in part on his style – witty, charming and urbane – rather than the substance of his beliefs (which is, incidentally, not very flattering to the Liberals). Where his actual political leanings are discussed, there seems to be an assumption that Turnbull is of the left simply by virtue of acknowledging the existence of climate change, supporting marriage equality and being a republican – a characterisation that seems to set the bar for progressive hero status rather low. On Q&A Rudd alluded to Turnbull's supposed radicalism when he joked that the two men could not form a new political party because 'Malcolm's far too [sic] the left of me. I just couldn't, you know'. This is passing strange. Although, as Andrew Leigh points out, Labor has always had a liberal strain, there is still a difference between Turnbull's small-l liberalism and the social democratic project which the ALP (in theory, at least) supports. It should not be forgotten that Turnbull was a member of the Howard government, although not yet a minister, when it brought in the punitive Work Choices regime. More recently, in 2011, Turnbull conceded that the Coalition had been 'sent a message in 2007′ and that 'Work Choices is dead' but opined that 'there should be the maximum freedom and flexibility in the workplace'. The terms 'left' and 'right' have become blurrier over the years, and no Australian political party can boast of ideological consistency, but if a person can be described as 'left-wing' who does not prioritise the rights of workers over managerial 'flexibility', the term really has lost all meaning. If Turnbull is indeed a 'centrist' (which some have doubted), so what? Why ought we to revere the centre? There is a danger that strongly held ideological positions can become overtly rigid, and it is true that the majority of legislation passed by the parliament each year is uncontentious, but a reasonable-sounding liberalism can only take us so far. It is ideology which helps us determine our view of the good society and, accordingly, what policies we support. It is not just a matter of a neutral 'management', contrary to Turnbull's statement, prior to the 2010 election, that 'the Labor Party has demonstrated they are not capable of managing Australia… The Coalition is capable of governing. We have done it before and done it well'. Further, the argument that the 'sensible centre' ought to prevail – that those 'in the middle' will tend to be correct on any particular issue – is superficially appealing but vague. In his recent book Why Marx was right, academic Terry Eagleton asked: 'why should the middle always be the most sensible place to stand? Why do we tend to see ourselves in the middle and other people as on the extremes? After all, one person's moderation is another's extremism'. He asked rhetorically, for example: 'What is the middle ground between racism and antiracism?' Even if Turnbull does not 'fit' within the Liberal Party in its current incarnation, this fact alone would not necessarily mean he could slot neatly into the ALP. The spectrum of views that an individual can hold is vast and multifaceted, and is by no means adequately encompassed by the parties which hold seats in Australia's parliaments (which party, for instance, could offer a comfortable home for libertarians?). It was the inability of existing political parties to address particular views and beliefs that led to the creation of the Democrats, and the limitations of the two-party system helps to explain the Greens' popularity. Crikey cartoonist First Dog on the Moon responded to the enthusiasm for a 'Ruddbull' political party by asking: 'Does anyone seriously believe that the path to Australia's political redemption is ANOTHER political party made up of the same sorts of people doing the same or slightly different sorts of things?' Beyond this question, we might also ask what a focus on style at the expense of substance, on personality instead of ideology, says about the current state of play in politics.

http://sarahburnside.com/


this goes for all you neo-cons that don't like IA web site

If two different web sites are saying the same thing is Abbott days number

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 10:20am:

The Member for Independent Australia website has spoken. The good Professor from the Riverina has the floor.... :)

bugger OFF IDIOT IT HAS STUFF ALL TO DO WITH YOU

Now go and run to FD and report me and get me barred

FYI GOOSE the seat of Riverina in the Australia parliament is held by a National party member

John S wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 10:21am:

Quote: The enthusiasm for a return to Rudd and Turnbull as leaders of their prospective parties has already been subjected to critique and the concept of a new third force in Australian politics comprising the two old adversaries and other 'moderates' remains a rather strange fantasy. What is striking, though, is how little ideology featured in these discussions. The view that Turnbull ought properly to sit across the chamber from the Coalition seems based at least in part on his style – witty, charming and urbane – rather than the substance of his beliefs (which is, incidentally, not very flattering to the Liberals). Where his actual political leanings are discussed, there seems to be an assumption that Turnbull is of the left simply by virtue of acknowledging the existence of climate change, supporting marriage equality and being a republican – a characterisation that seems to set the bar for progressive hero status rather low. On Q&A Rudd alluded to Turnbull's supposed radicalism when he joked that the two men could not form a new political party because 'Malcolm's far too [sic] the left of me. I just couldn't, you know'. This is passing strange. Although, as Andrew Leigh points out, Labor has always had a liberal strain, there is still a difference between Turnbull's small-l liberalism and the social democratic project which the ALP (in theory, at least) supports. It should not be forgotten that Turnbull was a member of the Howard government, although not yet a minister, when it brought in the punitive Work Choices regime. More recently, in 2011, Turnbull conceded that the Coalition had been 'sent a message in 2007′ and that 'Work Choices is dead' but opined that 'there should be the maximum freedom and flexibility in the workplace'. The terms 'left' and 'right' have become blurrier over the years, and no Australian political party can boast of ideological consistency, but if a person can be described as 'left-wing' who does not prioritise the rights of workers over managerial 'flexibility', the term really has lost all meaning. If Turnbull is indeed a 'centrist' (which some have doubted), so what? Why ought we to revere the centre? There is a danger that strongly held ideological positions can become overtly rigid, and it is true that the majority of legislation passed by the parliament each year is uncontentious, but a reasonable-sounding liberalism can only take us so far. It is ideology which helps us determine our view of the good society and, accordingly, what policies we support. It is not just a matter of a neutral 'management', contrary to Turnbull's statement, prior to the 2010 election, that 'the Labor Party has demonstrated they are not capable of managing Australia… The Coalition is capable of governing. We have done it before and done it well'. Further, the argument that the 'sensible centre' ought to prevail – that those 'in the middle' will tend to be correct on any particular issue – is superficially appealing but vague. In his recent book Why Marx was right, academic Terry Eagleton asked: 'why should the middle always be the most sensible place to stand? Why do we tend to see ourselves in the middle and other people as on the extremes? After all, one person's moderation is another's extremism'. He asked rhetorically, for example: 'What is the middle ground between racism and antiracism?' Even if Turnbull does not 'fit' within the Liberal Party in its current incarnation, this fact alone would not necessarily mean he could slot neatly into the ALP. The spectrum of views that an individual can hold is vast and multifaceted, and is by no means adequately encompassed by the parties which hold seats in Australia's parliaments (which party, for instance, could offer a comfortable home for libertarians?). It was the inability of existing political parties to address particular views and beliefs that led to the creation of the Democrats, and the limitations of the two-party system helps to explain the Greens' popularity. Crikey cartoonist First Dog on the Moon responded to the enthusiasm for a 'Ruddbull' political party by asking: 'Does anyone seriously believe that the path to Australia's political redemption is ANOTHER political party made up of the same sorts of people doing the same or slightly different sorts of things?' Beyond this question, we might also ask what a focus on style at the expense of substance, on personality instead of ideology, says about the current state of play in politics. http://sarahburnside.com/ this goes for all you neo-cons that don't like IA web site If two different web sites are saying the same thing is Abbott days number

We should just let these 2 sites vote for us all. After all, they must be right because they have similar opinions.

If not, maybe you could pick 2 people for us.

::) ::) ::)

cods wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 10:00am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 9:10am: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 8:54am: Turnbull should definitely make the move to labor they certainly need a new leader. Maybe they could have Mr 16% instead of us? cant think of anybody else they could have to be honest... slippers out..and it would seem old Libs have more support from the left on here than gillard or swan have.. hilarious..

You can say what you like, but Swan and Gillard have both come to my notice for threatening the safety and security of the marginalized and aggressive tendencies, so they are right wingers, not left...

John S wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 10:24am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 10:20am: The Member for Independent Australia website has spoken. The good Professor from the Riverina has the floor.... :) bugger OFF IDIOT IT HAS STUFF ALL TO DO WITH YOU Now go and run to FD and report me and get me barred FYI GOOSE the seat of Riverina in the Australia parliament is held by a National party member

Oh dear, and you call yourself The Wise One.

KJT1981 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 10:32am:

John S wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 10:24am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 10:20am: The Member for Independent Australia website has spoken. The good Professor from the Riverina has the floor.... :) bugger OFF IDIOT IT HAS STUFF ALL TO DO WITH YOU Now go and run to FD and report me and get me barred FYI GOOSE the seat of Riverina in the Australia parliament is held by a National party member Oh dear, and you call yourself The Wise One.

Only to the choir. It all falls apart when someone has a differing view.

KJT1981 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 10:20am:

Peter Freedman wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 10:12am: cods wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 8:33am: if it was anything but the independent I might find an hour or two to read this.. ;) ;) If you only read articles that you agree with, how the f--k are you ever going to learn anything? Best tell that to the lefties that say they don't read Bolt, Ackerman or listen to Jones or Hadley.

I will leave that to you, Angelbuttocks, you're so good at it. But what the f--k Jones could teach anyone with a brain I have no idea.

Bolt is always worth a read, Ackerman is hard going, though.

Peter Freedman wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 10:41am:

KJT1981 wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 10:20am: Peter Freedman wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 10:12am: cods wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 8:33am: if it was anything but the independent I might find an hour or two to read this.. ;) ;) If you only read articles that you agree with, how the f--k are you ever going to learn anything? Best tell that to the lefties that say they don't read Bolt, Ackerman or listen to Jones or Hadley. I will leave that to you, Angelbuttocks, you're so good at it. But what the f--k Jones could teach anyone with a brain I have no idea. Bolt is always worth a read, Ackerman is hard going, though.

Miss Borg calls me Soren.

Life is so confusing.

KJT1981 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 10:32am:

John S wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 10:24am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 10:20am: The Member for Independent Australia website has spoken. The good Professor from the Riverina has the floor.... :) bugger OFF IDIOT IT HAS STUFF ALL TO DO WITH YOU Now go and run to FD and report me and get me barred FYI GOOSE the seat of Riverina in the Australia parliament is held by a National party member Oh dear, and you call yourself The Wise One.

I don't give a stuff if I get barred from here because none of you neo-cons know how to debate anything all you are good at is throwing shyte at anything you don't agree with

There is heaps of other sites that a person can have a good debate on and not put up with the shyte that goes on here.

John S wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 10:45am:

KJT1981 wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 10:32am: John S wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 10:24am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 10:20am: The Member for Independent Australia website has spoken. The good Professor from the Riverina has the floor.... :) bugger OFF IDIOT IT HAS STUFF ALL TO DO WITH YOU Now go and run to FD and report me and get me barred FYI GOOSE the seat of Riverina in the Australia parliament is held by a National party member Oh dear, and you call yourself The Wise One. I don't give a stuff if I get barred from here because none of you neo-cons know how to debate anything all you are good at is throwing shyte at anything you don't agree with There is heaps of other sites that a person can have a good debate on and not put up with the shyte that goes on here.

Don't go Wise One, where else will I get my daily comedy?

BTW, since when has C&P been considered debating?

John S wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 10:45am:

KJT1981 wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 10:32am: John S wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 10:24am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 10:20am: The Member for Independent Australia website has spoken. The good Professor from the Riverina has the floor.... :) bugger OFF IDIOT IT HAS STUFF ALL TO DO WITH YOU Now go and run to FD and report me and get me barred FYI GOOSE the seat of Riverina in the Australia parliament is held by a National party member Oh dear, and you call yourself The Wise One. I don't give a stuff if I get barred from here because none of you neo-cons know how to debate anything all you are good at is throwing shyte at anything you don't agree with There is heaps of other sites that a person can have a good debate on and not put up with the shyte that goes on here.

Cya and good luck with that labor hack site.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 10:25am:

We should just let these 2 sites vote for us all. After all, they must be right because they have similar opinions. If not, maybe you could pick 2 people for us.

All you neo-cons want is for Murdoch to nominate who should be Prime Minister of Australia.

He try to put the Republican into the White House but the Tea Party let him down and the far right of the liberal party will do the same here

John S wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 10:56am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 10:25am: We should just let these 2 sites vote for us all. After all, they must be right because they have similar opinions. If not, maybe you could pick 2 people for us.   All you neo-cons want is for Murdoch to nominate who should be Prime Minister of Australia. He try to put the Republican into the White House but the Tea Party let him down and the far right of the liberal party will do the same here

As they should. We have our next PM, but thanks for trying. Vote 1 Tony Abbott.

Peter Freedman wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 10:12am:

cods wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 8:33am: if it was anything but the independent I might find an hour or two to read this.. ;) ;) If you only read articles that you agree with, how the f--k are you ever going to learn anything?

that only works if the alternative is credible which independent australia is not. It is not in any way 'independent' but is a unashamedly pro-labor site with some really quite daft articles. It prins Bob Ellis for goodness sake!!

I wouldn ask you to read or listen to Alan Jones and nor should you - he is a nutjob. this site is the same level as him - worthless.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 11:09am:

Peter Freedman wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 10:12am: cods wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 8:33am: if it was anything but the independent I might find an hour or two to read this.. ;) ;) If you only read articles that you agree with, how the f--k are you ever going to learn anything? that only works if the alternative is credible which independent australia is not. It is not in any way 'independent' but is a unashamedly pro-labor site with some really quite daft articles. It prins Bob Ellis for goodness sake!! I wouldn ask you to read or listen to Alan Jones and nor should you - he is a nutjob. this site is the same level as him - worthless.

I saw Bob Ellis on Looney Tunes.

John S wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 10:21am:

Quote: The enthusiasm for a return to Rudd and Turnbull as leaders of their prospective parties has already been subjected to critique and the concept of a new third force in Australian politics comprising the two old adversaries and other 'moderates' remains a rather strange fantasy. What is striking, though, is how little ideology featured in these discussions. The view that Turnbull ought properly to sit across the chamber from the Coalition seems based at least in part on his style – witty, charming and urbane – rather than the substance of his beliefs (which is, incidentally, not very flattering to the Liberals). Where his actual political leanings are discussed, there seems to be an assumption that Turnbull is of the left simply by virtue of acknowledging the existence of climate change, supporting marriage equality and being a republican – a characterisation that seems to set the bar for progressive hero status rather low. On Q&A Rudd alluded to Turnbull's supposed radicalism when he joked that the two men could not form a new political party because 'Malcolm's far too [sic] the left of me. I just couldn't, you know'. This is passing strange. Although, as Andrew Leigh points out, Labor has always had a liberal strain, there is still a difference between Turnbull's small-l liberalism and the social democratic project which the ALP (in theory, at least) supports. It should not be forgotten that Turnbull was a member of the Howard government, although not yet a minister, when it brought in the punitive Work Choices regime. More recently, in 2011, Turnbull conceded that the Coalition had been 'sent a message in 2007′ and that 'Work Choices is dead' but opined that 'there should be the maximum freedom and flexibility in the workplace'. The terms 'left' and 'right' have become blurrier over the years, and no Australian political party can boast of ideological consistency, but if a person can be described as 'left-wing' who does not prioritise the rights of workers over managerial 'flexibility', the term really has lost all meaning. If Turnbull is indeed a 'centrist' (which some have doubted), so what? Why ought we to revere the centre? There is a danger that strongly held ideological positions can become overtly rigid, and it is true that the majority of legislation passed by the parliament each year is uncontentious, but a reasonable-sounding liberalism can only take us so far. It is ideology which helps us determine our view of the good society and, accordingly, what policies we support. It is not just a matter of a neutral 'management', contrary to Turnbull's statement, prior to the 2010 election, that 'the Labor Party has demonstrated they are not capable of managing Australia… The Coalition is capable of governing. We have done it before and done it well'. Further, the argument that the 'sensible centre' ought to prevail – that those 'in the middle' will tend to be correct on any particular issue – is superficially appealing but vague. In his recent book Why Marx was right, academic Terry Eagleton asked: 'why should the middle always be the most sensible place to stand? Why do we tend to see ourselves in the middle and other people as on the extremes? After all, one person's moderation is another's extremism'. He asked rhetorically, for example: 'What is the middle ground between racism and antiracism?' Even if Turnbull does not 'fit' within the Liberal Party in its current incarnation, this fact alone would not necessarily mean he could slot neatly into the ALP. The spectrum of views that an individual can hold is vast and multifaceted, and is by no means adequately encompassed by the parties which hold seats in Australia's parliaments (which party, for instance, could offer a comfortable home for libertarians?). It was the inability of existing political parties to address particular views and beliefs that led to the creation of the Democrats, and the limitations of the two-party system helps to explain the Greens' popularity. Crikey cartoonist First Dog on the Moon responded to the enthusiasm for a 'Ruddbull' political party by asking: 'Does anyone seriously believe that the path to Australia's political redemption is ANOTHER political party made up of the same sorts of people doing the same or slightly different sorts of things?' Beyond this question, we might also ask what a focus on style at the expense of substance, on personality instead of ideology, says about the current state of play in politics. http://sarahburnside.com/ this goes for all you neo-cons that don't like IA web site If two different web sites are saying the same thing is Abbott days number

I'm not likely to take a lot of notice of a website that literally states that we should not have the right to hold an opinion (see further down the site).

John S wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 10:56am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 10:25am: We should just let these 2 sites vote for us all. After all, they must be right because they have similar opinions. If not, maybe you could pick 2 people for us.   All you neo-cons want is for Murdoch to nominate who should be Prime Minister of Australia. He try to put the Republican into the White House but the Tea Party let him down and the far right of the liberal party will do the same here

Glad you decided to stay Wise One? My Wednesday morning laugh is guaranteed now.

I am only leaving if I get barred. Lets see how much guts andrei has got to report me for reply #18

KJT1981 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 11:10am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 11:09am: Peter Freedman wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 10:12am: cods wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 8:33am: if it was anything but the independent I might find an hour or two to read this.. ;) ;) If you only read articles that you agree with, how the f--k are you ever going to learn anything? that only works if the alternative is credible which independent australia is not. It is not in any way 'independent' but is a unashamedly pro-labor site with some really quite daft articles. It prins Bob Ellis for goodness sake!! I wouldn ask you to read or listen to Alan Jones and nor should you - he is a nutjob. this site is the same level as him - worthless. I saw Bob Ellis on Looney Tunes.

Is that after your mum turn play school off?

John S wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 11:20am:

KJT1981 wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 11:10am: gold_medal wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 11:09am: Peter Freedman wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 10:12am: cods wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 8:33am: if it was anything but the independent I might find an hour or two to read this.. ;) ;) If you only read articles that you agree with, how the f--k are you ever going to learn anything? that only works if the alternative is credible which independent australia is not. It is not in any way 'independent' but is a unashamedly pro-labor site with some really quite daft articles. It prins Bob Ellis for goodness sake!! I wouldn ask you to read or listen to Alan Jones and nor should you - he is a nutjob. this site is the same level as him - worthless. I saw Bob Ellis on Looney Tunes. Is that after your mum (turn)  turned play school off?

Nah, it was High Five actually.

John S wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 11:20am:

KJT1981 wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 11:10am: gold_medal wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 11:09am: Peter Freedman wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 10:12am: cods wrote on Jan 8th, 2013 at 8:33am: if it was anything but the independent I might find an hour or two to read this.. ;) ;) If you only read articles that you agree with, how the f--k are you ever going to learn anything? that only works if the alternative is credible which independent australia is not. It is not in any way 'independent' but is a unashamedly pro-labor site with some really quite daft articles. It prins Bob Ellis for goodness sake!! I wouldn ask you to read or listen to Alan Jones and nor should you - he is a nutjob. this site is the same level as him - worthless. I saw Bob Ellis on Looney Tunes. Is that after your mum turn play school off?

even labor MPs are embarrased by Bob Ellis and his utter stupidity.