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


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

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.

Quote:




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:


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

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



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

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


Oh dear, and you call yourself The Wise One.

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



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.

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



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