The BludgerTrack poll aggregate has been updated with this week’s Newspoll and the YouGov Galaxy poll from Queensland, the effect of which is to add another half a point to Labor’s two-party preferred vote for a gain of only one seat, that being in Western Australia. The Queensland poll, which was a relatively good result for the Coalition, negated the effect of Newspoll in that state. Newspoll’s leadership ratings resulted in little change in the trend readings – no doubt it would have been a different story if I had a net satisfaction series for Scott Morrison, who did particularly badly in Newspoll, but there is still too little data for that to be feasible.
roger: “Income contingent loan supported contributions are the most progressive of university funding models. The government takes the full real credit cost and income risk but asks people who are going to earn more money over their lifetime to make a contribution to their education. That is, people who overwhelmingly will earn more money over their lives courtesy of said degree. HECS also funded the expansion of the higher education system. To call it “neo-liberalism” just highlights the dip-shittery of the Greens rusted ons. School vouchers are “neo-liberal”.”
I’m starting to understand that “neo-liberal” is just a blanket term to be applied to any policy someone doesn’t agree with.
However, turning to the question of HECS. I’ve always had mixed feelings about it. Back in 1986, Hawke, Keating, Dawkins et al argued that it was the only viable way to fund an urgently-needed increase in investment in the tertiary education sector. As you have noted, they argued that each additional university graduate was a blessing to society as a whole (and hence their study should be subsidised to a certain extent), but also benefited personally from their degree, and therefore should make an appropriate contribution: which, as I recall it, was set at around one-third of the total cost of their education.
To me, this so-called reform looks like another manifestation of the tendency I referred to earlier today of the baby-boomer generation, having climbed a ladder as a result of a government policy, then wanting to pull that ladder up behind them. However, it does also represent a form of compulsory taxation (with no possible deductions) for higher income earners, which isn’t entirely a bad thing.
But, in reality, we could as a society provide free tertiary education for everyone who was capable of undertaking it. If we really wanted to. It would IMO be a far better use of taxpayer funds than many other things we spend them on, or than some proposed ideas such as a UBI.
Asha:
That may be true in general, however in the eg guytaur has given of neoliberalism in Australia, the wikipedia link does not explain why compulsory superannuation is ‘neo-liberal’ or otherwise.
Further, the reference to compulsory superannuation links to a Page404 error, and in any case, would appear to be a simple chronology of superannuation events in this country. So no help there either.
I don’t really care whether people think compulsory super is neoliberal or not, but if guytaur is going to offer wikipedia as ‘fact’ that compulsory super is neoliberal (or whatever), then it should contain some actual facts that support his claim.
c@tmomma: “That was the observation made.”
By whom? Buckingham’s factional opponents, or by someone with no possibility of having a conflict of interest?
(Again, a serious question. I’m not pointscoring. As I wrote earlier, I have a very low threshold for my care factor in relation to the NSW Greens.)
Fess
I was explaining why Labor’s Super was not neoliberal even though it is a form of privatising the pension.
I was trying to be nuanced and then got told I did not understand the definition of neoliberalism.
So I posted the definition. The problem is not the wikipedia definition or my comment explaining the nuance of why Keating’s Super is not neo liberalism as it supports workers by interfering in the market.
It was the attack trying to make out that I was saying it is neo liberalism
I think based on this sentence. In an era of neo liberal thinking
meher baba,
It matters not a jot if they are factional opponents. You seem to think that way lies zero credibility for their claims. It’s a facile perspective. I’m simply going on this:
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/power-and-privilege-metoo-takes-parliament-into-uncharted-waters-20181113-p50fu1.html
If that doesn’t at least give you pause for thought then I can only conclude that you are approaching the issue from a political, as opposed to a personal, perspective.
One last thought re compulsory superannuation. Much though I prefer the industry funds to the commercial funds, I would still have greatly preferred to have one single national superannuation scheme a la the Singaporean system. I have heard it said that Keating too wanted this, but lost the battle within the ALP for the obvious reason that the leaderships of many trade unions were determined to preserve the industry funds because they basically ran some of them.
A really good national superannuation scheme could be dovetailed into the age pension system in a highly efficient and effective way enabling target retirement income to be nominated for members in which both pension entitlements and savings would be taken into account. If people wanted to save more than this (eg, for overseas trips in retirement), they would need to do that outside the superannuation system. And, as is the case in Singapore, younger workers would be able to draw out some of their super (ie, up to a level that doesn’t jeopardise their target retirement income) to buy a residential property for themselves, which is an essential requirement for a comfortable retirement.
Such a scheme would also facilitate the government making targeted interventions on behalf of people who have experienced lifelong disadvantage in accumulating savings: eg sole parents.
It’s a damn shame that such a scheme wasn’t established in Australia. It works wonderfully well in Singapore.
@CntrFutureWork tweets
Nobel Economics Laureate Joseph Stiglitz makes powerful case for sector wide bargaining to boost wages in interview with @EwinHannan in The Australian. #auspol #ausecon #ausunions https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/economist-joseph-stiglitz-says-wages-growth-needs-industrywide-bargaining/news-story/ef20a931371d052088af23ea8a16bde4?login=1
Does anyone know if it is this Wednesday Stieglitz is speaking at the National Press Club?
guytaur @ #104 Wednesday, November 14th, 2018 – 10:22 am
Yeh, righto…
lizzie
Privatising the pension as Super does is in fact neo liberal thinking. My point was the way Keating did it was not neo liberal.
Thats why I said in an era of Neo Liberal thinking. Keating had to do the politics of the time
Super does not privatise the pension. It is a supplement to the basic pension.
Win. Win.
c@tmomma: Thanks. So we are talking about other Greens who are dissatisfied, along with the complainant herself. I understand that Leong might be a factional opponent of Buckingham, but I’m less sure about Faruqi.
I do believe it was quite wrong for Leong to raise this matter under parliamentary privilege: just as it was equally wrong for the Libs to do the same in relation to the Foley matter. Leong’s justification was that the complainant was unhappy about the outcome of the inquiry. If so, surely the correct response was to continue to pursue justice through the party, rather than to expose the allegations in parliament, with full protection against the laws of defamation.
To me, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the case and the subsequent inquiry, I reckon Faerhmann has every right to express her concern about what both she and I see as a misuse of parliamentary privilege.
I recall that you and many others on this blog were rightly outraged about Senator Cash’s slurs against Shorten that were raised under parliamentary privilege (albeit, to be fair to Cash, she has resolutely denied that she was doing anything other than speaking figuratively).
The correct term for the LNP ’s economic and government policies is kleptocracy.
It is neo-liberal only when neo-liberalism furthers kleptocratic goals. 🙂
HH
Supplement means private instead of public.
In pure terms thats neo liberal.
We are on the same page as I said the way Keating did it was not neo liberal and confirms intent as supplement not replacement.
This was only necessary as raising taxes to pay for the Pension was politically unacceptable. Today we might have had the politics change where raising taxes to pay for the pension would work.
I certainly hope they have as we need that, so we can as Labor has indicated it wants to do with Newstart etc raise the rate.
meher baba,
I fully comprehend your explanation, however, I am of the humble opinion that Jenny Leong may have come to the conclusion that it was now or never, using the same methodology which had flushed Luke Foley out, to have a go at resolving the Jeremy Buckingham issue in the NSW Greens. When, possibly, all other avenues had failed. So, I’m just waiting to see what comes of that tactic. Thus, I am neither believing Cate Faehrmann, but have sympathy for the powerless female in question and her supporters. A case of, that was then and, post #MeToo, this is now, maybe?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/midterms-2018/midterms-results-democrats-blue-wave-late-vote-counts-us-election-trump-republican-a8631176.html
Conservative pollster Josh Jordan said there was a “striking” difference in the Democrat position on election night compared to a week later.
“They continue to pick up many of the close State, House, and even Senate seats in the days after,” he tweeted. ”What looked like a good night will definitely be thought of as a wave.”
Matthew Dowd, chief political analyst for ABC News, agreed. He pointed out the Democrats were on course to pick up more seats than in 2006 when Barack Obama was grappling with “a much worse economy”.
“That seems like a bit of a wave election to me,” he said.
“I’m starting to understand that “neo-liberal” is just a blanket term to be applied to any policy someone doesn’t agree with.”
Hammer meet nail. Specifically: Hello Guytaur! lols
Now I see Guytaur is rabbiting on that compulsory super kinda sorta privatised the pension (and hence fell within the neoliberal omniverse) … Head explodes with the sheer stupidity of that comment.
White House aides are ‘avoiding’ Trump as he retreats in midst of midterm losses and Mueller Probe
The walls are closing in on President Donald Trump, and he is starting to feel it. According to The Los Angles Times, White House aides are “avoiding” Trump and his “furious” behavior.
Since the midterms, Trump has taken a low profile and failed to show up to public events.
A White House aide said that Trump is nervous about the new Dememcortic House and the Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.
“He’s furious,” an administration official said. “Most staffers are trying to avoid him.”
The official said that Trump is “trying to decide who to blame” in light of all his failures.
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/11/trump-retreats-in-midst-of-midterm-losses-and-mueller-probe-white-house-aides-say-they-are-avoiding-him/
There’s a lot of very loose thinking involved in the use of the term “neo-liberal”. It’s supposedly a term from economics. But it is actually just a polemical term from political-economy; an ideological term.
ItzaDream:
Thanks for the link last night. My late partner loved ballet and I went with her on a few occasions but really coudn’t take it, though the music was great – eg, Swan Lake, the Nutcracker, La Sylphide.
Ousted Republican Congressman warns GOP to ‘wake up’: The party is being held hostage by Trump
Mark Sanford a Republican representative from South Carolina warned that after a devastating midterm lost for Republicans that it’s time for the GOP to wake up in an article for The New York Times.
“The Republican Party that so many of us care deeply about continues to be held hostage these days, and what I saw last week in a district I grew up in and know well is that there is a half-life to insults, bullying and an embrace of a post-truth world,” he said.
He warned that the GOP needs to wake up and get back to the roots of their Party.
“They don’t want to condone behavior that is counter to what they’ve taught their children. Republicans got a wake-up call last week. But will we wake up?”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/opinion/a-wake-up-call-for-the-gop.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
US judge to hold hearing on CNN White House lawsuit
A federal judge said he would hold a hearing on Wednesday on CNN’s lawsuit against the Trump administration seeking the speedy reinstatement of press credentials for White House correspondent Jim Acosta, a frequent target of President Donald Trump.
In its lawsuit filed on Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Washington, the cable news network said the White House violated the First Amendment right to free speech as well as the due process clause of the Constitution providing fair treatment through judicial process. The network asked for a temporary restraining order.
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/11/us-judge-hold-hearing-cnn-white-house-lawsuit/
If we had a national super scheme, the LNP would have privatised it by now and it would be a pot draining it’s income to Goldman Sachs. We have a system with diversified control/ownership, much of it in democratically-run hands. The kleptocrats thirst for a bigger share, but they’ll never get it. There’s an income flow controlled by workers’ organs. This has to be a good thing. A very small part of their income funds The New Daily, a media outlet that already outpaces the share of The Australian. This is also a very good thing.
c@tmomma: “I fully comprehend your explanation, however, I am of the humble opinion that Jenny Leong may have come to the conclusion that it was now or never, using the same methodology which had flushed Luke Foley out, to have a go at resolving the Jeremy Buckingham issue in the NSW Greens. When, possibly, all other avenues had failed. So, I’m just waiting to see what comes of that tactic. Thus, I am neither believing Cate Faehrmann, but have sympathy for the powerless female in question and her supporters. A case of, that was then and, post #MeToo, this is now, maybe?”
Perhaps this is where your views and mine are going to diverge strongly. I am a strong supporter of the rule of law: Rumpole’s “golden thread of British justice” if you like. Legal processes, and quasi-legal administrative processes such as those which the Greens apparently applied to the allegations against Buckingham, should be allowed to take their course. IMO, if they end up producing an outcome that someone doesn’t like, that doesn’t give them licence to overturn the apple cart.
If there’s something wrong with the legal or quasi-legal process, then challenge the process. I have read through Leong’s and Faruqi’s public and parliamentary statements, and I can’t see any sign of a detailed critique of the investigative process into the complains against Buckingham. The main thing that Leong and Faruqi don’t seem to like about the process was the outcome because “you have to believe the survivors.”
As Faerhmann has rightly pointed out, a system in which any such allegation against any male is going to be automatically accepted will end up rebounding against the genuine victims, whose motivations will be subject to ever-greater questioning.
If I were RDN, I wouldn’t have suggested that Buckingham resign, I’d have given Faruqi and Leong the opportunity to meet with the people who conducted the investigation and to critique their work.
Jacqui Maley tries to, um, explain what “icky” means, without, um, supplying an answer. Perhaps because, um, there isn’t one.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/when-is-a-touch-just-a-touch-20181113-p50frf.html
#Metoo has boxed itself into a corner. Fairly straightforward assessments as to what is harassment – “grabbing someone (of either gender) by the {insert sensitive part of anatomy here}” comes to mind – are forced to become more nuanced when the best word that highly paid executives in charge of thousands of workers (including any allegations of harassment they might wish to make) can come up with to describe a pat/rub/stroke/brush-of-hand across the back as “icky”.
Will applicants be going before Fairwork in future claiming that “ickiness” is sufficient to justify dismissal, or perhaps a compensation award? Will workplace posters in the corridors and tearooms of offices across this wide brown land have the word “icky” added to “unwelcome” and “of a sexual or bullying nature”?
Is one person’s “ickiness” another person’s innocent expression of warmth, comfort or appreciation? Is a touch “icky” when you don’t like the other person, but “okay” when you do?
Is “icky” enough to sustain an allegation of “inappropriate touching” (one that’s already been dropped once), only to be revived on national television before an audience of one million people… then withdrawn again immediately in the same interview?
Why must the man involved be forced to say – in the most convoluted language imaginable – that the reason he knows he did not intend to harass the woman, come onto, flirt or whatever with her is because he found and finds her physically unattractive and wouldn’t be seen dead touching her with or without a 10 foot bargepole? Or is that inappropriate language too?
And before we get all #metoo and outraged, physical unattractiveness is probably why the woman found him “icky” in the first place. The key words here are “unwelcome” and “inappropriate”. Would a woman complain about “welcome” touching or an “appropriate” pat on the back? Who would decide, and how would the man know, short of having everything revealed to a million strangers on 4 Corners… then withdrawn as an issue of critical importance?
Let Jacqui Maley, stranded in the moral corner where she has painted herself, tell us just when “icky” becomes “sticky” or just remains far too “tricky” by half as a way of garnering public sympathy for your position and perhaps even a negotiating edge?
Andrew Earlwood
https://www.solidarity.net.au/mag/back/2012/50/labors-accord-how-hawke-and-keating-began-a-neo-liberal-revolution/
See it from another perspective.
Then see why my argument is nuanced and not a broad Keating’s Super was neo liberal but the opposite
(yes I know that was not about super.)
Am thinking there’s a reason university students are not allowed to cite Wikipedia in assignments…..
Yes, it’s because it’s a secondary source. They’re not allowed to quote the Encylopaedia Britannica either (if they could even find one!).
Roger
says:
Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 9:52 am
“Well what else would you call the move away from the Whitlam era reforms to the HECS system ‘user pays’ model, except as the result of neo-liberal influence upon the Hawke government?”
Income contingent loan supported contributions are the most progressive of university funding models
The government takes the full real credit cost and income risk but asks people who are going to earn more money over their lifetime to make a contribution to their education. That is, people who overwhelmingly will earn more money over their lives courtesy of said degree.
HECS also funded the expansion of the higher education system
To call it “neo-liberalism” just highlights the dip-shittery of the Greens rusted ons. School vouchers are “neo-liberal”.
__________________________________
I’m not saying that HECS was the ‘most’ neo-liberal system but as a shift towards a user pays system it broadly fits that category. Especially when consideration with the entire range of the privatisation of universities. So while I argue HECS can be seen as a move towards neo liberal higher education it certainly isn’t the worst model that could be created.
caf
says:
Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 10:58 am
Am thinking there’s a reason university students are not allowed to cite Wikipedia in assignments…..
Yes, it’s because it’s a secondary source. They’re not allowed to quote the Encylopaedia Britannica either (if they could even find one!).
____________________________
It’s not because it’s a secondary source, it’s because it is a. not a primary source and b. because it is not a quality secondary source.
PhoenixRed:
[“He’s furious,” an administration official said. “Most staffers are trying to avoid him.”]
A furious Trump is an unpredictable Trump, making him more vulnerable, and who would be absolutely livid about losing the House, even though he claimed the mid-terms to be an unmitigated success.
Other president have of course faced a hostile Congress, but they generally had the knack to navigate a path. Trump on the other hand lacks the necessary skill set. I can’t wait for the Dems to give him curry.
I see that the Republican congressional candidate in Maine has given preferential (ranked choice) voting huge publicity by going to court and trying to have the vote stopped (now he looks like losing). Nobody seems to think he’s got much chance.
briefly @ #121 Wednesday, November 14th, 2018 – 10:57 am
Couldn’t agree more – diversity in a share portfolio is the first(?) thing financial advisors tell clients.
Diversity of Super funds implies the same risk mitigation concept; and it definitely keeps the Govt. away from a full sell-off to mates.
The only thing I would like to see is more transparency in outcomes to be better able to make sensible comparisons & choices. Also with CEO & other senior exec remunerations.
Think of it this way, say you were talking about the Kirribilli agreement and you cited Wikipedia, well that would be better than having no references, but not by much. Citing Kelly’s The End of Certainty, would be much better.
Citing Kelly, the Hawke autobiography and perhaps a journal article on the matter shows evidence of serious research.
What Hawke and Keating did in an era of Neo Liberalism was to limit that path.
Yes with their reforms they did privatise and I thought that was going too far.
However they preserved Medicare. Workers rights and the rest.
Yes Andrew Earlwood I can post stuff I don’t agree with to make a point.
So while you can define the Hawke Keating in broad terms as Wikipedia has correctly done if you look at the politics of the time you see why.
Denying this reality helps no one. We live in different political times now and as the Democrats showed when they moved left it did not hurt them.
Just as Labor moving to the left has not hurt them for this election. Note this still makes Labor centre right economically.
However if you were to listen to a lot of commentary you would think Labor had suddenly become the communist party.
It does not hurt to acknowledge reality. Being on the centre right is good for Labor. It can win the election and move to the Centre left in government. The narrative has changed. The important thing is for Labor to stay in the centre and not move to the right thinking it’s the centre because of commentary.
Hawke and Keating did not make that mistake. I don’t think this Labor party will either. I do think this Labor party has noted the change away from the right despite the Sky after Dark mob saying otherwise. Listen less to the right and the country will be better off.
Remember Tory Phelps won Wentworth and looks progressive only because of how extreme the LNP is.
anton; do you have a link?
When I were a lad studying, doing assignments and so forth, there was none of this newfangled Internet thingy. We had to go to the library and read actual books.
C@tmomma @ #60 Wednesday, November 14th, 2018 – 9:22 am
Not a problem. Almost every Wikipedia entry contains the original source, so you quote that instead.
If you are doing anthropology and look up Gravettian, for example, wikipedia lists 22 perfectly legit references, e.g.:
Jacobi, R., Richards, M., Cook, J., Pettitt, P.B. & Stringer, C.B. Isotope evidence for the intensive use of marine foods by Late Upper Palaeolithic humans. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Steve777 @ #135 Wednesday, November 14th, 2018 – 11:18 am
And now you can find the original article in French or German or Czech, and use google translate to turn it into readable english.
German more so than French or Czech, admittedly, but still useable.
I often read an article when just google searching, and only after several paragraphs realise that the original was in German, and Google has translated it automatically for me. The giveaway is often perfectly fine English, just not exactly the way a native speaker would use it.
As Keating has been known to point out, Howard railed against his superannuation plans and the Tories voted against every Bill to implement them.
Then they got into government and made it a great tax dodge for their wealthy mates.
Couples with a million or so (each) in a SMSF probably toast Peter Costello in Moët every night.
Re: meha baba, industry super funds cf. singapore pension scheme
1 – industry funds are intended to invest in the industries with which they are aligned, including a relatively small volume of high risk (e.g. seed / VC) investments. Industry knowledge and networking is a key ingredient in high-risk investment (smart money versus dumb money). To a rather limited extent they do actually achieve this part of the intention. National fund would be hopeless at this (at least in AU, perhaps not in SG)
2 – government in SG is regarded as honourable profession and the leaders are (very) smart. E.g. current SG PM Lee the younger was Senior Wrangler at Cambridge in 1973. In contrast AU will typically get people like Peter Costello (at best) running a national fund. So much better to spread the risk somehow, and per-industry is the obvious approach (note that “industry” funds based on state public services seem to underperform and should be consolidated into commonwealth)
3 – workers in different industries do have different profiles / needs and industry funds in principle accomodate this
4 – most compelling case for national fund is currency related a la Norway – invest exclusively in foreign currency denominated securities so as to counter resource driven appreciation of the currency ($AU in our case) and thus mitigate the tendency of resources booms to wreack the rest of the export economy. However, this mission for a national fund is not particularly compatible with funding annuities / pensions
Steve777 says:
Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 11:18 am
When I were a lad studying, doing assignments and so forth, there was none of this newfangled Internet thingy. We had to go to the library and read actual books.
————————————————————————–
When i was at uni way back in time I mostly went to the library to play cards.
The executives at CNN must be delighted by Trump’s silly revoking of CNN “correspondent” Jim Acosta’s press pass to attend White House briefings. This has given CNN the opportunity to grandstand as a champion of the free press.
Acosta has earned undeserved credibility for a media corporation that 24 hours a day normalises “The President” and spews bothsiderism like Evangelical preachers do hellfires and brimstone. CNN also camouflages its real agenda the way our SkyNews does with analogs of Richo (Axelrod) and PVO (Gergen).
Trump’s vitriol against CNN has succeeded. It’s management is terrified of losing both the 40+ percent of viewers who love Trump to FauxNews and the 50+ percent who disapprove of Trump to MSNBC. Notice, that Trump doesn’t waste much breath either praising Fox hosts like Hannity or attacking MSNBC high-raters like Maddow, not even his longtime nemesis Lawrence O’Donnell.
Throughout 2016 CNN’s owner gifted Trump and his mendacious surrogates such as Jeffrey Lord (political adviser for Ronald Reagan and Bush 41 HUD Secretary Jack Kemp) tons of free air time to shovel steaming piles of propaganda. CNN’s executives continue to delude themselves that merely some uncharacteristic “telling truth to power” by a Jim Acosta or a Jake Tapper reconstitutes CNN into a journalistic organisation with a modicum of integrity.
In effect, CNN has become a tarted up ‘Frontline’, that 1990’s Australian masterpiece satirical series created by Working Dog company for the ABC starring Rob Sitch as the feckless host of its eponymous infotainment show who craves recognition as a serious newsman. My favourite episode is “Heroes and Villains” (Season 2, episode 3) exposing the confected melodrama that is, of course, part and parcel of CNN’s modus operandi. Btw, the complete ‘Frontline’ collection DVD is still available for under $25 at usual retail outlets.
Confessions:
I’d suggest that if the Wikipedia page isn’t supporting Guytaur’s claims, that’s probably more Guytaur’s problem than Wikipedia’s.
I generally scroll through this discussion whenever it pops up on Poll Bludger, and I’ve only had the briefest skim through the Neo-Liberalism page, but as it does seem to have a couple of areas where the Wikipedia staff themselves have left notes that more detail/clarification is needed, it may not be a crowning example of an excellent Wikipedia article. And it wouldn’t surprise me that a page covering such a broad, ambiguous term – one which provokes pretty intense opinions across the political spectrum – would have some issues.
Stalin was unpredictable but he also used some management techniques repeatedly.
One such technique was to indicate that so-and-so was in his cross hairs.
HE WOULD THEN LEAVE HIS TARGET IN THEIR POSITIONS FOR A WHILE.
Fellow workers/colleagues/allies would start to avoid, shun or even engage in conflict with the target.
With the target suitably isolated, Stalin would sack, deport, jail or murder his target.
Rinse and repeat.
phoenixRED:
[‘US judge to hold hearing on CNN White House lawsuit.’]
Everytime I see that legal action is going to be taken against Trump I think of the probable outcome if he were to go all the way to the Supreme Court, his flunkey Kavanaugh waiting to do his boss’s bidding.
Having said that, if a lower court was to find against him, he’d have to go through a number of appellate stages before it reached the SC., and in the interim, would probably have to abide by the decision unless granted an injunction.
Don:
Yep. That’s what I used to do.
Wikipedia is incredibly useful, but it is not a source. Wikipedia is, rather, an anonymous collective essay in real time. Entries can, and are, edited in a moment without prior supervision.
Nobody could quote a classmate’s essay in their assignment (even with attribution). Quoting Wikipedia is the same.
Different here, though, if you want to supply some facts to support an argument. Nobody is officially marking and any rewards are purely in the realm of self-satisfaction or self-gratification.
Boerwar says:
Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 11:31 am
Stalin was unpredictable but he also used some management techniques repeatedly.
One such technique was to indicate that so-and-so was in his cross hairs.
HE WOULD THEN LEAVE HIS TARGET IN THEIR POSITIONS FOR A WHILE.
Fellow workers/colleagues/allies would start to avoid, shun or even engage in conflict with the target.
With the target suitably isolated, Stalin would sack, deport, jail or murder his target.
Rinse and repeat.
___________________________
So, standard C@tmomma and cabal tactics then? 🙂
There most certainly was a broad movement in the 80s and 90s towards a suite of policies that can be fairly described under the term neo-liberal. Broadly these were centred around removing hidden and direct subsidies from the provision of various services, introducing economic competition in areas where it was previously not present and a wind-back of regulation. The underlying motivations and desirability of this agenda are of course subject to considerable debate.
However, arguing about whether any particular policy is a part of the “neo-liberal” project seems to me to be angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff. The merits or otherwise of a policy like compulsory superannuation can be debated independently of how you choose the categorise it.
Booleanbach –
https://www.pressherald.com/2018/11/13/poliquin-campaign-sues-in-federal-court-to-stop-ranked-choice-count/
The old (pers comm) was handy.