Double dissolution election (maybe) minus nine weeks

To tide us over through a quiet spot, a closer look at the Australian National University’s latest survey on issues of public concern.

We’re about half-way between the weekly BludgerTrack and when I’m anticipating the next opinion poll, this being the period of pre-budget calm before the storm, and a new thread is wanted. So I’ve decided to hang this one off the latest ANUpoll survey, an exercise conducted by the Australian National University two or three times a year to gauge the public mood on a specific area of public policy, and track the salience of various issues over time. The subject of the latest instalment, which was conducted by phone from a sample of 1200 in February and March, is tax and equity in Australia. Among various findings on tax that would be familiar from those who follow Essential Research, the report also finds support for increased spending on social services at its highest level since the series began in 1987. The report also finds that, in spite of everything, 56% consider the existing system “moderately fair”, on top of another 4% for “very fair”, while 22% rate it “not too fair” and 18% “not at all fair”.

The survey also features regular questions in which respondents are asked to name the first and second most important political problems, out of a list that presently includes 27 options. To make this easier to interpret, I’ve condensed results into various categories, which are hopefully generally self-explanatory (particularly economy/budget, environment and better government – security/external covers wars, terrorism, defence and immigration, while services covers health and education and such). The progress of these results since 2008 is shown in the chart below.

2016-04-30-anupoll

From which a number of points are clearly worth noting. Concern about service provision mounted to giddy heights after the 2014 budget, but promptly returned to normal after Malcolm Turnbull became prime minister. The combined result for the various economic issues is at a low point in the latest survey, having peaked in the years immediately following the global financial crisis. Security/external and crime/society, which are largely conservative concerns, are on an upward trend. “Better government”, I’m guessing, was a popular response among Coalition supporters while Labor was in power, but is not a correspondingly popular choice for Labor voters now it’s the Coalition’s turn.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

1,251 comments on “Double dissolution election (maybe) minus nine weeks”

Comments Page 3 of 26
1 2 3 4 26
  1. Nicholas @ #93 Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 1:17 pm

    Labor didn’t have to go Full Brutality on asylum-seekers in 2013. That’s entirely on them. You cannot absolve them of agency and responsibility.

    As has subsequently been demonstrated there are many stations of brutality past full brutality. But it was the bleating of people like you and the Greens that stymied far more productive and less brutal earlier proposals, which resulted in increasing numbers of people taking the risk of coming here and forced Labor to reopen Nauru and Manus in desperation.

    I get that the Greens are locked into their let them come in infinite numbers policy. But the holier than thou mindset that they then parade around when the consequences of their attachment to idealism and ideology hits home really sticks in the gut.

  2. Victoria

    The most ghastly thing about that Oakes article is that it does not in any way mention the merits of the issues, only the politics. Even where he declare Turnbull hypocritical, it is because of how Turnbull has exposed himself politically. It’s all about who has positioned themselves where for selling their policies and trashing their opponents in the coming election.

    Laurie Oakes unfortunately is the paradigm of everything wrong with political journalism in Australia today. As the doyen of the press corps, it is not surprising though.

  3. Despite what Rupurt News is up to I’m not convinced the L-NP can build up much of a scare campaign. The things that are supposed to scare the crap out of us change daily. A month back a “stroke of genius” from Turnbull was supposed lay out a Union bashing election. The messaging is too confused, and now Turnbull is supposed to run an effective anti-ETS campaign?

    Headless chooks.

  4. As others have said TPOF=TonyPantsOnFire according to his guardian account.

    Drat – I always assumed it was “The Price Of Freedom”. Hence my “Eternal Vigilance” comment!

  5. I don’t share the confidence of many here that Turnbull is stuffed, and that Labor will win.
    The government is making the news; Labor is being forced to respond.
    If nothing else, I sincerely hope that neither Gillard nor Rudd are heard or seen or spoken about during the election.
    Despite admirable achievements, the mere mention of their names brings back horrible memories to voters, unfortunately.

  6. I wonder when the LNP will realize that Mal is just a useless waffler and that Abbott would have been the perfect man to lead this type of negative campaign? Abbott must be smacking his lips in frustration!

    Had a look over at NutterTruckers last night (its ok, i have washed well since then) and they are all a flutter about just who to vote for. MalPM in very bad odor. Some advocating putting Libs in marginal seats who voted against Tony in the leadership spill dead last (i can support that) and voting ALA in the Senate.

    Various entertaining conspiracy type stuff scattered through the comments which is entertaining in a perverse kind of way.

    Libs and their supporters quite divided. 🙂

  7. The guy who is good at this crap, Tony Abbott, was piling on the rhetoric with every flag and seemed to get no traction at all. I’m not sure why they think Turnbull will succeed where the master failed?

    Earlier in the year my advice to Turnbull would have been “try governing”. Too late for that now I guess.

  8. Also isn’t there a number of Medicare cutbacks planned for July 1?

    Yes.

    Hmmmmm……A sarnie and milkshake tax cut, but only for people on over $80k, Medicare cuts…..at the same time??

    Mr Shouty Hardman as the one to sell it??

    I have a feeling in me waters this could be an ooopsy moment for the coalition.

  9. Player One @ #106 Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 1:39 pm

    As others have said TPOF=TonyPantsOnFire according to his guardian account.

    Drat – I always assumed it was “The Price Of Freedom”. Hence my “Eternal Vigilance” comment!

    I was Whyalla Wipeout before the last election. Hat-tip to Craig Emerson and Abbott hysteria. I adopted Tony Pants on Fire the day after the election as a reminder that Abbott was a pathological consummate liar, although it became redundant quite quickly as he did not even try to hide his fundamental dishonesty.

    I might be someone else after the next election. Don’t know yet. But as all my friends here have demonstrated there are many useful things that TPOF can stand for, even after Abbott has finally shuffled off his mortal political coil.

  10. feeny, I know what you mean, after all Abbott did win an election. But I’m confident that all the reasons people initially embraced Turnbull will be completely destroyed by all the things people like Oakes are suggesting he will try to win an election with.

  11. Unless a ‘black swan’ event comes along (thanks Bluey), I can’t see a national security campaign like that proposed having much effect in an election.
    Would the Libs come out and say Labor cannot be trusted on national security?
    Labor should contrast the ‘live within our means ‘ line against the proposed tax cuts.
    Also ask Morrison ‘household budgets ‘ where is the money coming from.
    And also ask the voters what would they prefer, a sandwich and milkshakes tax cut or better health funding.
    Perhaps even the press gallery might ask some questions, or just let Turnbull run from a press conference.

  12. victoria @ #102 Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 1:31 pm

    This may work
    LaurieOakes
    15h15 hours ago
    LaurieOakes ‏@LaurieOakes
    Column: Malcolm Turnbull cannot run a scare campaign like Tony Abbott http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/laurie-oakes/malcolm-turnbull-cannot-run-a-scare-campaign-like-tony-abbott/news-story/6d1b7445d2e820ae856c14368fa70936

    It almost certainly won’t, but you earlier gave part of the heading which I was able to successfully google.

  13. feeney @ #108 Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 1:41 pm

    I don’t share the confidence of many here that Turnbull is stuffed, and that Labor will win.
    The government is making the news; Labor is being forced to respond.
    If nothing else, I sincerely hope that neither Gillard nor Rudd are heard or seen or spoken about during the election.
    Despite admirable achievements, the mere mention of their names brings back horrible memories to voters, unfortunately.

    My analysis has always been that it will be the campaign that will make the difference. The repeated balls-ups until now have been a massive bonus for Shorten and Labor. While it is popular wisdom that campaigns do not make much difference to outcomes, I have never subscribed to that view. While few elections are won on the campaigns, that is because there is nothing in the campaign to change the entrenched generalised vibes of the swinging voters that have developed over the course of the electoral terms. But 2010, 2004 and 2001 are good examples where the campaign, or the period immediately before had a big impact.

    What will happen in a campaign is this: those politicians who are under pressure will tend to make errors. If they are good, they will cover them over. But if they are already all at sea, have expectations, are worried about things they don’t know coming to beat them up they are far more likely to make stupendous errors. If the past few months are any guide, the Coalition is in line to make stupendous errors that will remind the voters that they are disunited, incompetent and very weak on coherent policy and a forward view of Australia.

    Secondly, pretty much across the board Labor has not only the better prepared and more coherent Ministerial team, but they will also out-debate them head to head. Turnbull cannot hold a candle to Shorten in a debate. Morrison v Bowen is even worse for Morrison. Brandis v Dreyfus reflects their comparative status of one who got their senior counsel status because his mates helped him out while Dreyfus actually earned his stripes. Even Marles has a weak opponent in Potato Head.

    Finally, I’m sure that neither Gillard nor Rudd will insert themselves into the campaign. Gillard, as per 2013, will stay well away. I’m almost as certain Rudd will know that he can help most by following Julia Gillard’s lead. It is only down to the fools who might want to restart the wars. And they don’t seem to exist outside this blog.

  14. TPOF,

    As an obvious person of good will, you’ve described the AS problem as a ‘wicked’ problem. I’d just like to see people of good will acknowledge two basic things.

    Firstly having an open door policy is not in reality asking for an ‘infinite’ number of people to arrive. The exact number is very hard to put a finger on but I don’t see you or anyone having a serious debate about what would actually happen. Now, look I don’t disagree that rightly or wrongly, there is a level of migration that is socially disruptive. But I found it absurd that Labor panicked when we received some thousands of ASs and at the same time the regular intake of migrants was at least an order of magnitude higher. Unless and until we have a credible discussion about the actual numbers of people who would seek asylum, if for instance our policy was to establish camps in Indonesia, provide education there and resettle (in an orderly way, there may be delays at times) essentially anyone who is a genuine refugee, we will never have a genuine debate.

    Now, I didn’t like the actions of the Greens over the Malaysia “solution”, but I also don’t like people being disingenuous about the actual consequences of a much more open policy.

    Secondly, I think we, all of us, everyone in this country needs to face a simple reality. You cannot have a policy that deters people from coming that isn’t also cruel and damaging to at least a select group of unlucky people. What’s shameful about this is just how many people haven’t got the honesty to admit to their selves that they (through their government) are effectively engaging in torture in order to achieve some “moral” outcome (fewer drowning). Its a bit like the ethics of “do I torture someone to save thousands of lives” and then asking “ok, do I torture thousands of people..”. Same moral dilemna. We as a country need to be honest that this is what we are doing. Ok, I’m not ruling out the possibility that destroying lives could be ethically sanctioned under some circumstances (there is such a thing as a just war for instance), but we can only make these decisions if we are prepared to also do the work and actually decide what the alternatives really are – just how many people would come if we established camps in the region – and figure out (roughly) what the consequences would be to our society. If we don’t do this rationally then we are engaging in panic and madness.

    Just like so many other episdoes in our history where public policy has gone horribly wrong, if we look back in this episode from a decade or two hence, when good, permanent solutions have been found and accepted, that we’ll also look at the broken lives of certain refugees and realise it wasn’t necessary.

  15. I get that the Greens are locked into their let them come in infinite numbers policy. But the holier than thou mindset that they then parade around when the consequences of their attachment to idealism and ideology hits home really sticks in the gut.
    The truth hurts, doesn’t it?

    Take it straight from Gillian Triggs, who did an interview with The Saturday Paper last week in which she said:

    We’ve got senior public servants who will roll their eyes at the idea of a human right. They say, “Look, Gillian, you’re beating a dead horse.” It’s not going to work, because they can’t talk to the minister in terms of human rights. We’ve had, in my view, very poor leadership on this issue for the past 10 to 15 years, from the “children overboard” lie. They’ve been prepared to misstate the facts and conflate asylum-seeker issues with global terrorism. What I’m saying applies equally to Labor and Liberal and National parties. They’ve used this in bad faith to promote their own political opportunistic positions.

    https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2016/04/23/human-rights-commission-president-gillian-triggs-speaks-out/14613336003160

  16. TPOF, feeney, I am hopeful but not yet confident, you still have to assume the government will be returned with a much reduced majority, however as you say the campaign hasn’t started yet, the government now however reminds me of Howard in 2007.
    Every thing they try doesn’t seem to get traction.

  17. Cud, good post, in contrast to my doubts as each week goes on I feel a Labor win is more likely.
    It will be interesting to see how many debates are arranged, it wouldn’t surprise me if Turnbull commits to more he has to, assuming he will do well in them

  18. TPOF,

    I actually hope you are right that a campaign can actually make a difference (ignoring the possibility of the Liberals making mistakes or self destructing as a separate issue). I really do.

    I just believe that people do act on long held beliefs. Stuff like the Liberals are better managers. I mean lets face it, the vast majority of people still think that although fraudband is second best, its still cheaper – a lot cheaper. They are wrong, but where is Labor correcting these basic facts?

    Campaigns are not a good time to win battles of long standing belief and to win hearts and mind. They’re ok at persuading or scaring certain small segments of voters. But lets face it, if the truth prevailed, this election wouldn’t be close. The Liberals would be reduced to a rump.

    Where are the Labor TV ads showcasing all those nation building projects in the past. The electricity grid, Snowy Hydro, fuck even sewage lines for the suburbs. And then point out one simple thing. In every single case it was Labor who championed the cause and it was the Liberals (or their forebears) who vehemently opposed. Every single time. There’s no shortage of quotes from the past demonstrating that its the same mindset every time.

    Labor could run ads also talking about all the social reforms in this country, things like no fault divorce. And again run a very narrative about how the Liberals have always stood on the wrong side of history.

    Now, if Labor gets away from those dumb old ads with black and white photos and starts talking about big ideas, and backs it up with social media and web sites that take people who want to know (there’s lot of people desparate for real, reliable background info), then I’ll jump for joy. Heck, Labor doesn’t even have a decent website explaining exactly how if we hadn’t had the stimulus, we’d actually be in deeper strife and deeper debt. That’s another battle of ideas Labor has been too ineffective or just doesn’t care to win.

    These things actually do matter!

  19. Labor won’t have to spend as much as they normally, nor expend as much energy as they would either. Radiology and pathology clinics are going to campaign for them.

    This is a direct campaign that completely bypasses the MSM, and it’s not one the Libs can do anything about.

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/federal-election/budget2016/malcolm-turnbulls-medical-problem/news-story/3307a810cae3377f2e7c3f42c58d20be

    This is in a Murdoch rag as well so it’ll counteract any puff pieces by the likes of Bolt, Devine, Maiden, et al.

  20. Whenever Labor makes immoral and catastrophically flawed decisions such as Manus Island in 2013, there are toadies who say that the media made them do it, the Coalition made them do it. These toadies are the same people who insist implausibly that the Greens don’t deal with realities or act responsibly. You can’t absolve Labor of responsibility for its decision to set up the Manus Island arrangement and in the same breath the Greens don’t participate in governing decisions. The Greens are the only party in our system that owns its decisions and keeps the realities of asylum seekers front and center. Labor, like most, dodge the realities by doing their utmost to fear monger about hundreds of millions of huddled masses descending en masse if be abandon cruelty as state policy. Labor, like most, shirk the responsibilities of government by keeping asylum seekers out of sight and out of mind.

  21. Just saw Shorten on ABC24. Not all people will like what he says, but he is well into speaking clearly and letting people know where he stands.

    And then he cuts off the journo’s and goes off to a town hall meeting. ALP machine is working well.

    The more is see Shorten speak the more i reckon that MalPM and his minders will be trying to work out ways to avoid head to head debates during the campaign.

  22. Forgot to add dental clinics to the list that will be campaigning against the Libs.

    Good luck trying to sell a tax cut that the overwhelming majority of people won’t be eligible for against all this.

  23. It isn’t responsible and it isn’t governing to reason that if large numbers of people die in their own countries that is morally less significant than a smaller number of people dying en route to Australia. The bleating about ‘deaths at sea’ reveals a complete failure to respond to the challenge.

  24. don

    When I was still working in an office, my Treasurer presented me with a card which I still have on my fridge at home. “A messy desk is a busy desk.”
    I countered with “I’m catching up with yesterday. Tomorrow I should be ready for today.”

  25. Nicholas

    The Greens are the only party in our system that owns its decisions and keeps the realities of asylum seekers front and center.

    The Greens have no chance of ever implementing their polices, so they are effectively worthless.

  26. Well this cut tax news tells us that the LNP have nothing.

    This is the big positive? Wow!!!! How to lose an election in one easy leak.

    All subject to being confirmed by the budget itself of course but if its all they have got this is confirmation of my thinking that this is Labor’s election to lose.

    No wonder the LNP is campaigning as if Labor was the incumbent government. Watch the Press Gallery turn on the LNP after the budget. We will get return Abbott at least he is honest commentary. We will get its all sideshow they are as bad as each other from the likes of Bolt. We will get crystal clear campaigning from the rest of the media as they see there is no saving this chaotic divisive incompetent government.

    The tax cuts rhetoric works in the US however thats because there is no compulsory voting. Plus here we have had a budget that sets out the ideology in crystal clear clarity still sitting waiting to be passed by a Senate from 2014

    Add to that the usual cynicism of voters it really is Labor’s ele

  27. Manus Island would not be open if The Greens had supported the Malaysia plan.

    Simple but accurate, that is a fact

    The Lib/Nats is a coalition of utter bastards. It is a given that they would vote to prevent any resolution of the AS dilemma. Political gain is all for them. The Greens proved to be no better, much to my shock.

  28. TPOF @ 1.59 pm
    That is a good, reasoned analysis.
    I agree that Rudd and Gillard will not insert themselves into the campaign.
    Here’s to a successful campaign.

  29. Player One

    This is the overreach by the LNP.

    They are destroying off shore as an option for dealing with AS.

    It will be back to Rudd’s initial policy of onshore detention while negotiating the regional solution. The difference with the Greens will be about that detention and how long that detention will hold up to numbers building until new countries come into play for settlement is going to be interesting.

    I still credit Labor with at least getting the major problem with detention is the time taken to assess claims of refugee status not if the detention is on or off shore.

    The only advantage of the Green on shore policy is that it assumes we can still return non refugees even if they are living in the community and that we will be able to identify them for deportation so time is not a factor.

    Be in no doubt off shore detention is self destructing as we watch. This latest for example
    [ASRC1: Don’t lose hope. Turnbull has just lost his private operator of Nauru & Manus as #Ferrovial (now owners of Broadspectrum) announce it’s exit]

    The LNP are trashing off shore as a policy option making it politically impossible to resurrect. So I think Labor will return to the Rudd era policy as that only failed due to being seen to accept refugees due to ship at Indonesia incident and thus seen to be losing control of borders along with shock of photos of people drowning and Australians feeling helpless about the horror.

    The people smugglers will know this and will use PNG as transit point to avoid drowning photos upsetting their business model. For the short time that survives until Labor negotiates the true temporary solution until wars stop of a regional solution.

    I think Labor supporters have tried for the best solution in the circumstances and I do not mistake LNP policy for ALP policy. I know that Labor would have acted a lot sooner about the cruelty when it leads to self harm history proves it. As a result the PNG court result would not be so destructive because Labor would have negotiated other countries as options by now. An orderly off shore process would be under way or at least in sight and off shore could survive.

    Not so thanks to the LNP overreach and lack of planning. The LNP and the LNP alone as few will say has destroyed off shore as an option as their inhumane overreach has destroyed it. Any who doubt this has only to look at how Labor would not have had secrecy regime or military involved except as rescue option.

    I understand the Green supporters saying we told you so but I think thats incorrect however we will never know because Labor did not get their chance on this.

  30. Numbers. Wheeee!

    Please don’t think I am not aware of the serious conversation underway here.
    Instead of Borderfarce, IMO more money should have been poured into assessment and rehabilitation of refugees.

  31. The Great Barrier Reef bleaches and the Greens come round to lecture everyone about it. They have yet to save a single coral polyp from global plankton. Not one.

    Manus sparks up and the Greens come round to lecture everyone about it. Yet the Greens have yet to get a single refugee out of Manus for a single second. Not one person. Not one second.

    100% of nothing is nothing.

    If you want to waste your vote, vote for the Greens.

  32. The only wasted vote is a vote for the LNP.

    This is because a vote for the LNP is a waste of a chance to change from what we have now. Any vote that does not go to the LNP is a valuable contribution to the removal of the LNP government.

  33. Cud @ 2.20

    you’ve described the AS problem as a ‘wicked’ problem.

    Cud, by way of background, that is a public policy term of art (or jargon) to describe an issue that has very complex and competing pressures both in cause and in implementing any solution. And I don’t think there is any greater such problem today than unauthorised arrivals of asylum seekers (including many people fleeing in genuine fear of their lives).

    having an open door policy is not in reality asking for an ‘infinite’ number of people to arrive.

    By definition it is. Infinite does not mean endless, but it does mean countless. An open door policy without specific numbers means that anyone who wants to can come and claim asylum. Leaving aside those who are simply poor, but not persecuted for a convention reason, there are still many, many millions of refugees in the world today seeking a permanent home.

    Now, look I don’t disagree that rightly or wrongly, there is a level of migration that is socially disruptive.

    There is actually a bigger issue with an appearance of a lack of control. Human beings are hard-wired to fear external threats. And from the earliest history, it has been shown that such a fear is justified. Not that refugees are specific threats, but it is the apparent lack of control that is.

    But I found it absurd that Labor panicked when we received some thousands of ASs and at the same time the regular intake of migrants was at least an order of magnitude higher.

    One thing that very few people realise is that it is much, much more difficult and more expensive to settle refugees than ordinary migrants. For starters, refugees often arrive with no assets, and some with no skills. They have to be maintained by the state and draw heavily on charities while they establish themselves, which can take some years. On top of that, many refugees are mentally and sometimes physically deeply scarred by their experiences. Again, this requires a much higher level of health services and slows down their ability to start being a net contributor to society. Most other migrants either bring in skills immediately or are well supported by family networks and rely little on the state – in some cases they are excluded from social welfare for some years if family sponsored.

    This is not to argue against a humanitarian intake at all. It is totally appropriate and, in the long term, economically beneficial to take in and settle refugees. But it does require proponents to recognise that each refugee we settle is not equal to settling a migrant in the economic or family streams.

    Unless and until we have a credible discussion about the actual numbers of people who would seek asylum, if for instance our policy was to establish camps in Indonesia, provide education there and resettle (in an orderly way, there may be delays at times) essentially anyone who is a genuine refugee, we will never have a genuine debate.

    I agree that we have been sorely lacking rational and reasonable discussion. But you just have to look at the incredible performance being put on by the Coalition even now in the election period to realise that it is not possible. And the Greens have been trying for years to discuss a softer line and still seen as marginal in the impact they make on broad public discussion.

    everyone in this country needs to face a simple reality. You cannot have a policy that deters people from coming that isn’t also cruel and damaging to at least a select group of unlucky people.

    Couldn’t agree more. Which is why I hate what the Coalition did on this issue during the last Labor governments. By making it increasingly more difficult for Labor to do anything to deal with the issue, the Coalition guaranteed that the problem would only be addressed by increasingly harsh measures. Morrison complained many times that Labor did not have the stomach to impose hard measures. It disgusted me to think that being incredibly cruel was something to be proud of.

    Just like so many other episdoes in our history where public policy has gone horribly wrong, if we look back in this episode from a decade or two hence, when good, permanent solutions have been found and accepted, that we’ll also look at the broken lives of certain refugees and realise it wasn’t necessary.

    In fact, we may never be comfortable enough to look back. Things are only going to get worse, I fear, in refugee producing countries. Even the Vietnamese refugee flood had to be addressed in a regional solution and a genuine regional approach is the only way to deal with these issues. And, yes, much as we hate it making the trip to Australia less attractive than other alternatives is the only way we can maintain control. Unfortunately, we have a political party that sees unauthorised arrivals of asylum seekers – or the threat thereof – in purely electoral advantage terms.

  34. Labor’s preselection in Reid now sorted: Angelo Tsirekas, Mayor of Canada Bay (tweeted by Kaila Murnain ‏this afternoon)

  35. Puff has it right.
    The Greens and particularly SHY need to admit their culpability and own their share of blame for the cruelty along with the Liberals. The Malaysia solution would have solved the issue of boats, made it clear that refugees are not queue jumpers and those arriving are those that had been vetted by the immigration process. By standing aloof and holier art than thou and wanting perfection, they ruined the only good and workable solution and they, not Labor are culpable and guilty.

  36. Getting amused the media are calling it the Abbott Turnbull govt…..The more they mention it is still an Abbott govt the better…

  37. Greenland ice sheet melting has started early, but Direct Action will save us.
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/greenland-ice-sheet-melting-has-started-early-20160429-gohx1z.html

    Not good.
    https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
    this data offline (for good reason) at the moment, but up to the point it became unreliable it was not looking good either. 2016 is a bad year for climate matters.

    There are strange and BIG (ocean temps) things happening that we should be concerned about.

  38. The Malaysia solution would have solved the issue of boats, made it clear that refugees are not queue jumpers and those arriving are those that had been vetted by the immigration process. By standing aloof and holier art than thou and wanting perfection, they ruined the only good and workable solution and they, not Labor are culpable and guilty.

    It’s always easy to say something that never got off the ground “would have worked”. Abbott tries this too, by saying he never got a chance to bring all his brilliant policies together into a narrative during the closing months of his government’s 3-year term.

    Yada, yada.

    One thing that IS worth saying is that if you don’t have a go, you’ll never, never know. And this is what the Greens are guilty of. They saw an unsustainable system where thousands were banking up on Xmas Island and elsewhere, and they thought it could go on forever, despite the likelihood that Abbott would win the 2013 election and shitcan the lot of it (and shitcan the asylum seekers, too).

    The Malaysian Solution was worth a try. Instead, as with Climate Change policy, we got nothing… worse than nothing… we got a regression into the dark past. Our refugees and Climate policies today are far more barbaric and destructive than they have ever been.

    I haven’t got anything in particular against the Greens as such. It’s a democracy, and they have a right to exist, participate and get their members elected to parliament. No worries on that score.

    But what I cannot stand are tub-thumping bleeding hearts that only make matters worse by trying to make them pure.

    They are as bad as the ideological wreckers of the right, in their own way. Logic doesn’t mean anything, only their precious consciences and their fairy tale beliefs that every problem can be solved by adopting to a position religiously and then sticking to it, no matter how sharply reality comes along to kick you in the arse.

    When considering the Greens you really do need to ask: what have been the concrete results of their ideological intransigence? Better outcomes for asylum seekers or worse? A Climate policy regime that’s working, or a sham, with a government whose member STILL believe Climate Change is a hoax?

    The answers are obvious.

  39. CUD – You say that it is hard to put your finger on how many arrivals there would be under an open door policy. In other words, you concede that there is a realistic possibility that there will be a huge number of arrivees. I’m not sure where your argument goes from there.

Comments Page 3 of 26
1 2 3 4 26

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *