Far away in another place the forces of socialism were dealt a death blow. You might quickly say this isn't relivant but way back when, the election of a socialist government in Australia was a forerunner to the election of BO. Call it bellwether if you like. Last weekend the ruling Labor Party was all but wiped out in the election in the Australian state of Queensland, there are not even left with enough members to be recognised as a political party under Queensland electoral law. This was more than a landslide, it was a massacre. This is the third time the party has been defeated in state elections recently not only being a harbringer of doom for socialist politics in Australia but pointing to a change in community attitudes which echoes in other places.
Julia Gillard's party is just about over as Labor routed in Queensland | News.com.au

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Far away in another place the forces of socialism were dealt a death blow. You might quickly say this isn't relivant but way back when, the election of a socialist government in Australia was a forerunner to the election of BO. Call it bellweather if you like. Last weekend the ruling Labor Party was all but wiped out in the election in the Australian state of Queensland, there are not even left with enough members to be recognised as a political party under Queensland electoral law. this was more than a landslide, it was a massacre. This is the third time the party has been defeated in state elections recently not only being a harbringer of doom for socialist politics in Australia but pointing to a change in community attitudes which echoes in other places.
Julia Gillard's party is just about over as Labor routed in Queensland | News.com.au

---

Hi Clete,

It is interesting to look historically at state elections in terms of Labor versus Liberal. In nearly all Australian states Labor has always had the problem of being the incumbent party for too long. The exception being a 20 year Petersen government in Queensland from the late 60's onwards. Interestingly in Federal elections the opposite seems to be the case.

So long as Newman and O'Farrell don't not make the same mistake as Greiner. After 12years of Labor, Greiner only lasted for a brief period. The Liberal party was banished back to the wilderness for another 16 years of Labor party rule.

Now in power, I think O'Farrell and Newman are acutely aware of this history.

I think history will repeat itself in Queensland and NSW. If the electorate see the Liberals as moving too quickly on too many issues they will be shafted at the next election.

Tut

Quote:

---

a forerunner to the election of BO

---

Hopefully their defeat will be a forerunner to an Obama defeat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Hopefully their defeat will be a forerunner to an Obama defeat.

---

That was the point Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Hi Clete,

It is interesting to look historically at state elections in terms of Labor versus Liberal. In nearly all Australian states Labor has always had the problem of being the incumbent party for too long. The exception being a 20 year Petersen government in Queensland from the late 60's onwards. Interestingly in Federal elections the opposite seems to be the case.

So long as Newman and O'Farrell don't not make the same mistake as Greiner. After 12years of Labor, Greiner only lasted for a brief period. The Liberal party was banished back to the wilderness for another 16 years of Labor party rule.

Now in power, I think O'Farrell and Newman are acutely aware of this history.

I think history will repeat itself in Queensland and NSW. If the electorate see the Liberals as moving too quickly on too many issues they will be shafted at the next election.

Tut

---

Hi Tut

Yes a very chequed history there but Labor has a self destructive quality about it, no doubt stemming from the selection of its candidates and it seems, an ability to create a gerrymander to retain power. People like Carr, Beattie and Bligh leave a vacuum behind them and Liberals stayed out of power not because of labor brillance but because of dearth of leadership. This isn't evident in federal politics. Conservative politics have a natural home in Queensland, along with big hats,the rise of people like Joh, Katter and Hanson demonstrate this but in NSW the spectre of Labor is rarely far away despite the recent election result. For those in far away places, Qld is akin to Texas, and NSW akin to Boston

One can see that same dearth of leadership in the conservative ranks in other places, stemming both from long periods out of power and factionalism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Hopefully their defeat will be a forerunner to an Obama defeat.

---

Hi Tom,

I don't know what you guys are complaining about. As far as I can see Obama is pretty much a 'once off'. All up we have had decades upon decades of labor rule (socialism if that is what you want to call it.)

Tut

If you go by his "hot mike" comments to Medvedev ,he appears pretty confident he will have a 2nd term.
Obama promises Medvedev 'more flexibility' after election - latimes.com)

I won't talk about the implicit betrayal or deception of the comment... hopefully Romney will force him to clarify what he dare not reveal now.

Let's put it this way ,it's tough to unseat an incumbent and it's way too early to predict the outcome. 2008 everyone thought foreign policy would be the deciding factor going into the fall campaign . Then the economic collapse occurred at the perfect time for the President's prospects.
So to prognosticate now would be a futile exercise.

Tom without a theory, now there is a first, what's the matter, don't want to be wrong? You are suffering from that dearth of leadership I spoke about and your system doesn't allow the best to rise so you get the mediocre. Yes BO probably thinks he doesn't have a viable opposition but he doesn't command where it matters. I think though, we are starting to see that the world has had a little too much of socialism for the moment so even a second string might get up.

Oh I have a theory all right. The last President who was reelected with such cr@ppy economic numbers was Roosevelt. Obama has to play the blame game "I inheritted it" to win in November. That's if the economy is still the big issue. As you know ,the world is a tinderbox right now and foreign policy may emerge as the big issue. It really is too early to tell.

This time in 2008 I was predicting a McCain v Evita race . Romney won't secure the nomination until late April the earliest .(Newt is already history... he doesn't ven have the press following his campaign right now... Paul has his devoted 5-6%... and Santorum will likely bow out when he loses his home state Pennsylvania primary... He thinks he's holding out for a VP slot ,but there is no advantage for Romney to have him on the ticket. All Santorum is really doing now is preparing the battlefield for the 2016 campaign if Romney loses).

I'll have a better idea of the race when I see Romney consolidate the support of the base after he is the inevidible . I think that's happening already .

I did not want to make this post about American politics . I agree the world has had it's full of socialism . May it be consigned to the scrap heap of history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I agree the world has had it's full of socialism . May it be consigned to the scrap heap of history.

---

I disagree. Countries with a socialism leaning seem to be doing quite well:
Human Development Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah OK... the only thing the UN can accurately measure is their level of graft and corruption. If I want to see how Scandinavian my country is ,I'll reference the HDI .

Tom if socialism is to be consigned to the chasm of history it will take capitalism with it, If ever there was a failed philosophy it is capitalism.

You are standing in the aftermath of a capitalist meltdown and you still think this is good.

This thread isn't about the american economy it is about the way people think and it really doesn't matter where they are the truth wins through eventually

That would be true if it was a capitalism melt down. I contend it was government policy spurred .

Hello clete:

I don't know Australian politics. It may be that when YOU refer to a socialist, you might actually mean a real socialist. Here in the US, when the right wing refers to a socialist, they're talking about a center right capitalist. I don't know how they do that.

So, WHATEVER doom your election might predict for socialism, it's NOT going to affect OUR election.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello clete:

I don't know Australian politics. It may be that when YOU refer to a socialist, you might actually mean a real socialist. Here in the US, when the right wing refers to a socialist, they're talking about a center right capitalist. I dunno how they do that.

So, WHATEVER doom your election might predict for socialism, it's NOT gonna affect OUR election.

excon

---

Yes Ex I do mean socialist and even closet communist, but Fabianists are everywhere and I think BO is one of them so when we see rejection of socialism we really see rejection of fabianists. These things echo, right now you have people who are very vocal about a piece of social engineering, we have the same sort of thing going on here, the tools are different, but the political outcome the same

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Yes Ex I do mean socialist and even closet communist,

---

Hello again, clete:

I'm confused. The ONLY law that Obama pushed that COULD be considered socialistic, was Obamacare... And, you appear to support it.

??

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, clete:

I'm confused. The ONLY law that Obama pushed that COULD be considered socialistic, was Obamacare... And, you appear to support it.

???

excon

---

Ex I support fairness in distribution of wealth in the economy, access to health care is part of that. I don't think you can understand my perspective because you live in a place dominated by capitalistic thinking. There are aspects of obamacare I would not support but the concept behind it is sound. That is that there are costs of maintaining a system and you can't opt out just because you don't have the need at this moment and you can't deny those in need because they lack resources

Being conservative doesn't mean I have to give in to mean and selfish thinking, this means I think that people should be able to develop and that government should provide the environment for them to flourish. Government is financed by taxation and so a fair taxation system minimises its impact on the socially disadvantaged but ensures that certain universal services are delivered and where private enterprise doesn't deliver the government fills the gap. In my world the government is not the enemy of the people but the people acting collectively.

When we wrote our constitution we had regard for your example but we had more than a hundred years of history to consider how well your example had worked and our version removed some of the issues where yours is obviously designed to prevent government from working effectively

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Ex I support fairness in distribution of wealth in the economy, access to health care is part of that.

---

Hello clete:

It's like I said. Here, in the US, those beliefs would label YOU a socialist. So, I'm confused about what you mean when you accuse Obama of being a socialist, and you call yourself a conservative..

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello clete:

It's like I said. Here, in the US, those beliefs would label YOU a socialist. So, I'm confused about what you mean when you accuse Obama of being a socialist, and you call yourself a conservative..

excon

---

Did I say BO was a socialist? Even so is this a bad thing? When I say I'm a conservative, I mean that I'm not on board for certain aspects of socialist behaviour such as a tightly controlled economy but nor am I on board for certain aspects of capitalist behaviour such as lack of social consciousness and exploitative behaviour. Sticking labels on people is what McCarthyist politics did and I'm sure you know more about that than I do. I am a conservative because I don't go along with the high taxing, high spending agenda of our socialists which here fall under the definition of Labor, a political alliance of academics and labour unions, and I do have certain views about immigration and the environment which also fall outside their purview. But in no respect could you see me in the ranks of your republicans, they are too far right for me.

So here are some thoughts for you
Affordable health care
Minimum wages set with cost of living in mind
Unemployment benefits and retraining available to those who need it
Minimum standard of education
Exploitative trade practices banned
A defence force not an offence force
Nuclear energy

My views would probably not sit well there because I see what I regard as a lot of foolish and corrupt behaviour

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Far away in another place the forces of socialism were dealt a death blow.... way back when, the election of a socialist government in Australia was a forerunner to the election of BO.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Did I say BO was a socialist?

---

Hello again, clete:

It LOOKS to me like you did. If not, never mind.

excon