Lone voice of the Right

The Lone voice of a right winger on this site..


Does anyone  see any signs whatsoever that this Abbott government is rabidly riight wing?


If you look at what this government has done, you’d be hard pressed to point to any right-wingery at all, you would wallowing in despair at its almost total absence.


Anybody think this is a tax-slashing government? That’s because it has,  raised taxes. Income taxes? Up. The scope of the GST? Up. petrol tax up? True, mining tax carbon dioxide tax were both eliminated, thanks for small mercies.


 But enough money is being spent by this government on ‘direct action’ – money that can only come from taxpayers and money could easily be better spent on other things – like raising the pension .


. Meantime the Treasurer responds to claims that this is a tax-raising government by pointing to what taxes would  have been had we elected Labor at the last election  Wow where's John Keys who has guts .


Meantime the hints of a GST hike to 15 per cent are never categorically rejected; they are never unreservedly taken off the agenda.


 I’m aware of the feral Senate and the unrepresentative swill that presently occupies its benches. I know that getting just about anything through the Upper House is a mighty big ask. 


But this government doesn’t even seem to try to cut taxes. And it never makes the case direct to the voters. As Hawkie did so well ..As for the pre-election call that ‘we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem’, well the entire Coalition front bench appears to have had a simultaneous  conversion on that one, and then decided to take a vow of silence. 

What about free speech and the desire to legislate ,that mean even bigots could speak their minds, and (shock, horror) perhaps offend or insult someone without the machinery of the State being brought to bear against them? 

.) if this sort of free speech commitment is right-wing, we have all seen how the Abbott government sold it down the river , ’. Right-wingery should be made of sterner stuff.


What about taking a really stern hand to the ABC and its ongoing and shameless bias? 


The government has asked the ABC to investigate itself. And the ABC has obliged by appointing a couple of people to do that investigating. Phew! Maybe these are two hard-nosed ABC sceptics who’ll take a firm hand with the billion dollar a year public broadcaster. Would you believe it?  would you believe that one has made remarks in the past about how unbiased and terrific the ABC is and the other has a pedigree with the SBS? That Malcolm Turnbull is exactly the Minister we want overseeing the ABC, isn’t he.


Meanwhile the Human Rights Commission keeps sucking up public funds running a Green Party line on everything. The taxpayer keeps forking out money galore to Australian Research Council social science projects that  all lean left. The latest is taking away double dipping on PPL for civil servants is a breach of human rights..

How much funding of ‘stop the boats’ or ‘traditional marriage’ is there??


And there is not a hint that our overly rigid labour relations regime, the one Julia Gillard gave us, will be touched in any solid way at all. even though the workers are voting with their feet for work choices . 90 per cent now prefer to make their own arrangements not unions who sell them down the river..


Is there any  sign at all that this Abbott government has been a right-wing one by the standards of Conservative governments in Canada, in the UK, in New Zealand.


Only by the standards of the Greens does Abbott look to be running something rabidly right-of-centre. 

14 comments

For all those who think they have cut the pension nope they raised it . 

For all those who think they cut education nope they raised it . 

For all those who think they cut health nope they raised it . 

Cut the debt nope they raised it .,,

Any action to stop the wealthy getting free GP visits Nope 

Any action on Howard's Family tax credits middle class welfare.. Nope .

Maybe this section should be renamed instead of political it should be reserved for coalition bashing from the left. 

The Federal Opposition has promised to spend $170 million on infrastructure projects in Canning as it attempts to boost the by-election campaign of ALP candidate Matt Keogh.

Federal Opposition Leader Bill Shorten made the commitment in his keynote address to the Labor Party state conference in Perth, where he characterised Mr Keogh as a local champion for the seat.

Labor hopes to win the by-election after the death of sitting Liberal Member Don Randall, who held it with a margin of almost 12 per cent.

Mr Keogh is battling former SAS officer Andrew Hastie in a contest recent polls suggest will be a tight run race on September 19.

Mr Shorten said the Canning by-election was the first round of the political battle to come at the next federal election.

In pledging new infrastructure funding, he told the conference the projects would include $145 million to duplicate Armadale Road and construction of the North Lake Road bridge.

"[It's] long overdue. The obvious replacement for the downturn in the mining boom. [It] will kickstart local jobs, help local business, help create more opportunities," he said.

"It will create 1,700 jobs and inject $600 million extra into the local economy."

Mr Shorten attacked the Abbott Government on the issue of jobs, and said 60,000 jobs had been lost with the end of the mining boom.

He also criticised federal cuts in health and education.Read more here: 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-29/shorten-pledges-170-million-for-canning-infrastructure/6734244

I am not sure what the discussion of a by election has to do with the thread of the  failures of the current government to enact any right wing policies . 

But if you are introducing a sub topic , I would say that the massive spending of the CFMEU on anti Chinese trade pact , would to me be a disappointment along with Mr Hawke, if it had any effect on the by election . 

Regarding health and education spending it has risen and forcast to do so in the forward estimates of the current govt. 

Regarding the next election if it comes down to a choice of one party saying they will spend more than another , as it appears currently by policies passed at the recent Labor Party conference . My choice would be with the one promising to spend the least.

Pete

CFMEW are spending AUSTRALIAN WORKERS FUNDS to protect AUSTRALIAN WORKERS JOBS!!!  That is what they are there for... stop and think before you spit forth inane dribble.

HEALTH & EDUCATION

Well, well, well..... IF the LIBERAL party did not GIVE taxpayers money to PRIVATE ENTERPRISE for something they already did on their own..... ie. PRIVATE health care and PRIVATE schooling.... the cost of health and education would HALVE.  

Nearly, all of the GST savings (money that didn't have to be sent to the States) was HANDED over to these PRIVATE GREEDY POCKETS so that wealthy people can have a better PRIVATE health system and be able to send THEIR kids to get PRIVATE education.

Ordinary people, who pay to enhance the pockets of the wealthy by promoting their better health and giving their children greater opportunities, UNFORTUNATELY, can't afford to participate in either).

Oh.... to add the converse, FUNDING for PUBLIC schools & health have been been desecrated in order to provide even MORE to the PRIVATE Institutions ... which means that the ORDINARY PEOPLE PAYING for ALL Health & Education are getting less and less, particularly in relation to education and therefore, opportunities for their kids.

problem solved:  - stop funding PRIVATE ENTERPRISES... this can be done by gradually weaning them off the PUBLIC teat.

DEBT

What a bloody joke Pete..... LABOR was able to provide ample and efficient services and benefits to the ORDINARY people and STILL have one of the lowest govt. debts in the world.

YOUR right wingers have TRIPLED that debt and HAVE decreased services and benefits to the ORDINARY people, saying they can no longer afford it!!!!!

RIGHT WINGERS

Sorry Pete, but you are living in the past, there really is no such thing as right or left wingers anymore.  

There is only corporatocracy and the people.  

The mega corporations want to take all by controlling our democratic processes (using their control over media; their massive wealth; and their power which will stop at nothing (murdering whole countries is not a problem either..... the new big money mega corporation are ones that train SAS standard mercenaries - one corporation ALONE has over 500,000 boots on the ground, ready to go.  Oh! they are making billions by the way).

The People, those who are not fully indoctrinated by their propaganda, will fight back, on all levels.


You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts”. Patric Monyhan 

Who're you speaking to??? 

Pete 

You are being disgustingly misgynos and hateful... reflects really well on what you interpret as 'right wingers'.

Comment removed

Pete

Your behaviour is undeniably Neo Con - Savage, hateful and pathetic.

A known fact, funny how Pete never ventures on to the forum when you are actually on line Mussitate - says a lot, hmmmm!

Mussitate if you wonder why I never reply to you it is because I want to encourage you to keep posting .You are the best weapon the Right have to ensure another landslide .

I send your posts on to ten friends asking each of them to send to ten friends . 

The posts do not Contain your pen name but are labelled ravings of the loony left .

 bet Mussi is wondering no such thing. I'm sure he realises the only way you can answer is by using reams of copy and paste of someone else's opinions.

Oh! Pete... another thing... the reason for your title "lone voice of the right" is because everyone else wants nothing to do with neo cons or their greedy, savage and economically destructive practices.  

Big boy neo cons, benefit greatly from their greed and EXTREME policital views.  Those big boy neo cons have lots of indoctrinated drongos who like to genuflect and do their bidding without a thought in their heads.  

You Pete are NOT a big boy neo con.

 

Neoconservatism's Marxist Roots Are Showing

The first generation of neocons were ex-leftists and the pattern of thought is identical. What's staggering to me is that this ideology has become even more rigid after the most obvious refutation of its delusions one can imagine. Iraq and Afghanistan were to be models of the power of military might to coerce change; they would prove that under the surface all humans were interchangeable and all culture and history would surrender to a particular version of individual liberty that was, for the neocons, a fact about humanity. The sublime popularity of the American model was self-evident; the impact of culture, of religion, of history were no matches for the "march of freedom".

http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2010/06/neoconservatisms-marxist-roots-are-showing/185857/

Taken ad verbatim from the atlantic - any opinions of your own?

These links make for interesting reading:-

“Right wing extremists more dangerous than Islamic terrorists in the US.”

http://www.npr.org/2015/06/24/417192057/right-wing-extremists-more-dangerous-than-islamic-terrorists-in-u-s

“The main terrorist threat in the United States is not from violent Muslim extremists, but from right-wing extremists. Just ask the police.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/opinion/the-other-terror-threat.html?_r=0

“Right-wing extremism equal to Muslim radicalisation, say academics.”

http://www.smh.com.au/national/rightwing-extremism-equal-to-muslim-radicalisation-say-academics-20150716-giduqp.html

Ray

Excellent stuff, I was present in a discussion on this very issue and now you have confirmed this discussion AND supported it with links.... thank you.

Gerry brought up an interesting aspect on the previous page which detailed Anders Breivik.

Anders Breivik was an extremist Christian and terrorist, who masacred children in Norway (the Christian aspect is usually played down or not mentioned at all, in western media, at least).  This monster still has no remorse over what he did.  He is more interested in complaining that he wants a better X box (or something similar) to play his games on!!!!

You can't get anymore radicalised and extreme than that.

Here is a Guardian link which links Sydney siege gunman Man Haron Monis (an Iranian who Iran had stated was not a refugee but a dangerous criminal, who the Aust. govt let in to Aust. on the 'advice' of the USA group Amnesty International and with no further checks!?!), Germanwings pilot Andreas Lubitz, Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik, and Isis killers Mohammed Emwazi and Jake Bilardi because of their narcissism.

Narcissism & Terrorism - bit long winded but you can skim.

Thanks Mussi, will have a look later today. The most dangerous people on the planet are those who are extreme right wing, that is without a doubt. These people follow blindly propoganda and will do and say things to save their own skin and to fit in.

Following on my Critism of the Abbott led Govt (above) for not being Right Wing . When Hockey and Abbott are replaced , probably over Christmas break I would like to see Julie Bishop as PM and Scott Morrison as Treasurer. 

The older Ministers left over from the Howard era should be replaced by younger junior ministers..

If Scott Morrison is not made Treasurer there will be a seiriouse split in the Libs . To the benefit of my party the LDP...

Great forecasting Pete

God help us if we have Bishop and Morrison in charge they are hard as nails and have no heart at all, I remember well the way Bishop delayed the payout for the Asbestos victims hopng they would die b4 they got to get the money, she is an out right BITCH!

I am absolutely shocked Plan B that you would refer to our Deputy PM as such. I feel  your post should be removed since it's not a good look. Should we not be encouraging a better calibre of posting?

Just my opinion.

I may add that Julie Bishop is one of the finest women in politics and because of her expertise...despite the Abbott mess ups....we still have some respect on the world's stage.

If anyone can even respect such a BITCH as Julie Bishop after the hardship and suffering she put the Asbestos suffers through I sure do not understand them and I sure would not want her to be PM. She might appear to be good at her job, I do not disagree with that,  however a harder heart you will not find. I call a person “fine” if they are of good character of which Julie Bishop is NOT

Don't worry about it PlanB believe ol' Jules 'one of the finest women in politics' got caught out referring to her opposite number as a 'bitch' in Question Time yesterday......Hilarious - Ya gotta laugh....

Why?

Plan B when Julie Bishop defended the company re asbestos she was a lawyer. Doing her job . Everyone is entitled to be represented at court . It is not a lawyers job  to decide guilt or innocence . That is a courts job . 

As a foreign secretary she is doing a great job for Australia.

Morrison did a great job of fighting the people smugglers and closing down camps and letting the asylum seekers work.

IF Julie Bishop is in her capacity as a lawyer or what ever she is still a TOTAL BITCH as I have seen her in many interviews with he wry nasty smile and the way in which she answers and I would not trust her as far as I could kick her UPHILL with a lead boot

Where politics is concerned these days, I am sitting on the fence and watching the antics of both parties - however will say this, when you employ someone to do a job you expect them to do their job.

As distasteful as it is, lawyers have to defend, that's their job , some have to defend murderers even when they believe they are guilty. When I employ an accountant to save me paying some tax, I expect him to do his job not say to me, mate I think you should pay the tax department more than you should.

I really do not know how someone can choose to be a lawyer, when they would have to so many times defend what they must surely know is wrong, IMO that is imoral

Just something I learnt along the way:

a barrister must accept a brief to appear before a court in a field in which the barrister practises, provided that the brief is within the barrister's capacity, skill and experience, and the barrister is available to appear when required.

Practices have a "cab -rank" principle which means if they are available at the time etc they are under obligation to take a case offered. Barristers are not allowed to pick and choose clients and I do know for a fact that they are not excused from taking a case because of their personal view. So PlanB, there is a great difference between a  barrister's work and the ethical obligations that come with it. Bitter pill but that's the way it is.

Looking on the bright side where would we be without them when the good guys need defending.

 



Yes Ray we do need them, however I would not ever choose to be one --if I was capable --- because I would not be able to defend against my morals, I have also spoken to a young person I know and asked her if she had ever thought of that, when she said she wanted to go into Law.

14 comments



To make a comment, please register or login

Preview your comment