Why can't Australia handle a debate of ideas

debate illustration

Former prime minister Tony Abbott says the Turnbull government should cut immigration to ease the pressure on house prices and infrastructure, Mr Abbott said it was time to end the "big is best" thinking of federal Treasury and scale back immigration "at least until housing starts and infrastructure have caught up", in order to ease house prices.

Instead of "pandering to climate change theology", he said it would easier to take pressure off power prices by abandoning the Renewable Energy Target, a subsidy scheme which mandates that 23 per cent of energy by 2020 must come from renewable sources.

"We subsidise wind to make coal uneconomic so now we are proposing to subsidise coal to keep the lights on. Go figure. Wouldn't it be better to abolish subsidies for new renewable

FirstPrev123(page 3/3)
33 comments

Abbott is right about immigration

 

Not for the sake of housing but more so for the sake of employment 

Economic growth is stuck around 2%

Lots of people in part time or casual jobs because there is just no full time work available

We need Trump like bold measures. Ennough of this clean energy subsidy nonesense thats killing jobs and increasing costs to industry

Lower corporate taxes to boost the economy and create jobs

Sick of Turnbull - he's only in the job to placate his own ego. hasn't got the know-how or the balls to do the right thing even if its not PC

Not just housing ? But why should we fund a new Adelaide every five years , 

What is the point ?

Alarming new footage shows commentator Andrew Bolt being assaulted on the streets of Melbourne in what he says is an example of how dangerous the city has become for conservatives

Bolt told Fairfax Media the attack was the latest in a long line of threats to the safety of himself, his family and other conservatives in his home city.

"I am sick of people trying to intimidate me, trying to threaten me," he said. "I'm sick of the threats on my life and my reputation. I'm sick of being sued and bullied and I'm not going to take it. I'm just not going to take it.

"We should be free to have a debate and to walk down the street without fear of being attacked.

 

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/new-footage-reveals-sheer-violence-of-andrew-bolt-attack-outside-melbourne-restaurant-20170608-gwmx7k.html

Why has wealthy London just voted for a Marxist ... 

May’s campaign ended with the biggest swing to the Conservatives since Margaret Thatcher swept to power in 1979. The party won 2.3 million more votes than it did under David Cameron in 2015.

 

The Conservative share of the popular vote equalled that achieved in Thatcher’s Falklands election in 1983. The Tories gained seven seats in England and 13 in Scotland, the party’s best result north of the border for more than 30 years.

 

On Thursday, London’s post-industrial upper middle class voted much as Manhattan’s post-industrial upper class voted in the US presidential election — that is to say, in a post-industrial upper-class manner somewhat differently from the rest.

Across 72 constituencies in Greater London there was a two-party swing of 13 per cent to Labour against the Conservatives, more than double that in rest of the country. The closer to centre, the more fervent the anti-May feeling was held. In suburban Ruislip at the far end of the Central Line, the two-party swing to Labour was less than 10 per cent; in Chelsea and Fulham it was 20 per cent; in Kensington 21 per cent; and in Westminster North 22 per cent. 

 

How could a London-based commentator in the middle of such seismic change gauge the mood in Middlesborough South and East Cleveland, an industrial constituency 350km away that the Conservatives took from Labour with a swing of 12.6 per cent?

 

The two sides of the cultural fault line became apparent when the results were called in Mansfield, an industrial town in the East Midlands, and Canterbury, a university city in East Kent. The Conservatives took Mansfield for the first time since the seat was created in 1885 with a decisive swing of 18.4 per cent. Canterbury, on the other hand, held by the Conservatives since 1918, swung to Labour by 20.5 per cent.

 

Why the difference? Higher education. Canterbury has three university campuses with more than 30,000 students; Mansfield has a technical college where you can learn to drive a forklift.

 

Once judged by a popular TV show as the ninth worst place to live in Britain, Mansfield was once part of Labour heartland. It was at the vortex of some of the bitterest clashes during the miners’ strike in 1984. The gentrified Labour Party under Corbyn — MP for Islington North — barely speaks their language.

 

, The  further removed from London’s orbit, the stronger the Conservative vote.

 

There were two notable exceptions to that pattern: Labour did well in seats with large Muslim populations in the Midlands and the north, consolidating gains made in 2015. It also performed strongly in university towns such as Plymouth.

 

Nick Cater is executive director of the Menzies Research Centre.

Australian 13/06/2017 

 

 

Very strange . I wonder what the reason is . 

It can't be Brexit as both Conservatives and Labor are for . 

Maggie May showed no leadership in her campaign

tje young voters were soooked by brexit and came out in force 

she made a few social policy blunders with the older voters too 

unnecessary risks that she had to backflip on 

grave political miscalculations 

All by myself ... I'm a wallaby 

FirstPrev123(page 3/3)
33 comments



To make a comment, please register or login

Preview your comment