WTF? I am never 100% sure of anything and I don't use percentages to qualify any ideas i hold. — Tom Storm

OK. Sure, you do you. And I will do me. Fair enough.

Bear in mind Billabong has been a popular brand of sports wear so the name has recognition if nothing else. — Tom Storm

Yeah but I just found one that has nothing to do with that. @Banno check this out:

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=paterson%2Clawson&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3

I'm not really a graph guy.

I'm not really a graph guy. — Tom Storm

Me either, but @Banno is the one who appealed to that instrument, so, that's what we're using right now. It doesn't mean anything by itself, the instrument. Because that is what a graph is: an instrument.

:up:

How far do you think Dutton will go emulating Trump-style politics as we head towards the election and how do you think it will play where it matters? Like many, I've generally held that opposition leaders don't win elections, governments lose them.

I've generally held that opposition leaders don't win elections, governments lose them. — Tom Storm

In other words, you believe in Westminster wisdom, so to speak.

Oh man, this next one is really dark. @Banno check it out:

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=paterson%2Clawson%2Cwestminster&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3

This one is even worse, whatever it may signify:

https://books.google.com/ngrams/

EDIT: I'll summarize the one about "Albert Einstein, Sherlock Holmes, Frankenstein" as search terms, to the best of my ability. The current results are, more or less: 1) Frankenstein, 2) Sherlock Holmes, 3) Albert Einstein.

So, the lesson here is that people today pay more attention to fictional characters than to real people. Right? Or is there a different moral lesson to this particular story?

My general view is that the Liberal Party is opportunistic, run by Old Boys who live by their own Entitlement. When forced to make policy, which they hate to do, they reach for vaguely liberal, market ideology. They studied Law, and sometimes economics, but never science, let alone humanities.

They like Dutton because he is from Queensland, has a certain machismo and never had an original thought.

Dutton learned at the feet of Abbott, and will follow that playbook.

Abbott seems consumed by Jordan Petersonesque ideology and Western Civilization style chauvinism. I met him for work a few years ago and he was present, funny, charming and smart. The opposite of his public persona.

They are all present, funny, charming and smart...

But in answer to your question, Dutton is I think more like Abbott than Trump.

They are all present, funny, charming and smart... — Banno

Hmm, not the ones I have met. But it's only been a few. (edited) On reflection you are probably right.

Dutton is I think more like Abbott than Trump. — Banno

I think Dutton lacks the barnstorming showbiz persona to be like Trump. But I am thinking more about extravagant claims and blatant lies, stunts and fear mongering. They all do this, but the magnitude has escalated radically under Trump, who seems to have ascended the Parnassus of bullshit.

But I am thinking more about extravagant claims and blatant lies, stunts and fear mongering. — Tom Storm

...all in Abbott's record.

The issue is, will the Australian population be taken in, in sufficient numbers, for the Liberal Party to gain an absolute majority? They have been sliding slowly into conservatism for a long while, and the disenfranchised middle class are retaliating through the teal independents. Liberal failure to address energy, housing and environmental issues in their last government hangs over their heads still, and looks unlikely to change.

Australians have a natural, inveterate aversion to smart arses not shared by 'mercans. I hope imitating a Trump-like campaign would just increase the disenfranchisement of their middle ground.

Look at Clive Palmer, $100 million for a single Senate seat.

Australians have a natural, inveterate aversion to smart arses not shared by 'mercans. I hope imitating a Trump-like campaign would just increase the disenfranchisement of their middle ground. — Banno

Yes, I think this is right. I hope he tries it and gets an electoral excoriation.

They have been sliding slowly into conservatism for a long while, and the disenfranchised middle class are retaliating through the teal independents. — Banno

Yep.

The issue is, will the Australian population be taken in, in sufficient numbers, for the Liberal Party to gain an absolute majority? — Banno

Doubt it. I can't see a lot of energy getting behind Dutton.

What is your take on Albo?

Albo... — Tom Storm

... lacks the arrogance of the historically most successful ALP leaders. And I can't decide if that is a negative or a positive.

He's been unwilling to make strong policy decisions. Negative gearing should have been changed, Aukus reconsidered, and long overdue reforms in health and eduction implemented.

But again, perhaps keeping away from controversy will work.

But it's dull.

... lacks the arrogance of the historically most successful ALP leaders. And I can't decide if that is a negative or a positive. — Banno

:rofl:

But it's dull. — Banno

Yep.

Left | Right | Out

An analysis of how Australian voters see their position on the left-right scale. Age, property and god are conservative, while the educated tend to the left. The central party in Australia is the ALP, the Libs leaning to the right and the greens to the left (see fig. 1.)

Yes, the socialist party is seen as most central. Australians do have a preference for socialist policy, quite a difference to the US.

Australians do have a preference for socialist policy — Banno

Australian philosophers nowadays seem to have a preference for the work of Alain Badiou. Except for the rogue Deleuzians and rogue post-Deleuzians that seem to visit this Forum regularly, which seem to be much more joyful than Badiou-ians.

@Banno,
"Australians do .....socialist policy..."

Disagree to the extent that, lately, that preference seems to be on the decline (or isn't being offered by major political parties capable of seeing it through), at least for large govt ownership/involvement in nation building and maintaining projects that have been allowed to be franchised out to private capital while lowering personal income taxes has been cited as more important.

There is only a need for higher disposable income if private corporations are allowed to set the citizens' costs of common necessities of life and their wages.

Agree though, to the extent that, lately, that preference only extends to little socialistic frills like small scale govt investment in extra social housing, acknowledgement of climate change and subsequent "encouragement" of (some more) EV cars and turning off lights when not being used. That is, the little feel good social consciousness socialist policies that cost but don't make much money. Certainly not the massive industry size socialist policies that could lower living costs across the nation.

Why? Everyone knows governments can only spend money, they couldn't possibly run an industry, apparently....Thatcher-Reaganomics propaganda being hung onto by the business sector, plus the constant citing of the general direction of world ( read USA educated) investment policy boogeyman.

Maybe good governance should look out, long term, for its citizens/those within its jurisdictional limits, and uses foreign policies to blend that good governance acceptably into the world scene. Instead we get governance based on 3 year long reelection political decision making with very limited trust in oppositions.

Just a thought.

questioning eyebrow lift

Totally unrealistic thought, of course.

sad smile

Totally unrealistic thought, of course.

sad smile — kazan

Let me help you out there, fellow inhabitant of the Southern Hemisphere. A totally unrealistic thought is nothing to despise. As an Oceanian (or as an Australian) you might perhaps connect it to the concept of the Dreamtime. It is similar to what the ancient Greeks called Xaos (Chaos), it is the thing that existed before the gods, and it existed even before the titans. It is what Heidegger calls "Being", the stuff of poets and philosophers alike.

With all of that in mind, and even if it's scientifically incorrect, there is no reason to smile sadly about having a totally unrealistic thought. Quite the contrary, in fact. It should be reason enough to happily frown.

@Arcane Sandwich,

Expression of one's meaning by language of opposite or different tendency,especially simulated adoption of another's point of view for purpose of....( fill in your own word or phrase)

A suggestion: self deprecating humour

hopeful smile

Age, property and god are conservative, while the educated tend to the left. — Banno

It was expected, as well as most countries of the EU zone. Most of the greens are also leaning to the left here. It is understandable since traditional conservatives lean toward reactionary political parties that deny climate change and even blame social democrats for a fire or floods.

Australians do have a preference for socialist policy, quite a difference to the US. — Banno

Because socialist or leftist policies do exist in AU. Although Elon Musk is continuing to show his dementia, socialism per se never existed there. They never had a 'labour' party like in the UK or AU; neither did they have social democrats like in Sweden, Spain, Portugal, or Germany.

@javi2541997,

What is called out or considered in Aus politics as socialist politics has changed over the years.
Once, considered to be the same as communist, its meaning has nuanced in the public's mind more towards social consciousness.
But for some older socialist diehards, it still is about citizens government ownership economics set in a democratic political state.

Swimming against the latest world tide.

Smile

Yeah, good brief summary, Kazan. :up:

I guess most social democrats went from Marxism or communism to a modern socialist perspective. Some of them no longer call themselves 'socialists' but 'social democrats.'
That wave started in the Nordic countries around the 1960s or 1970s and spread all over the world, with the only exception of the U.S.A. (because they don't know what social democracy is.)

citizens government ownership economics set in a democratic political state. — kazan

Yeah, exactly. The classic battle between people and enterprises; we and them; the mass and the elite. Ah, beautiful. Isn't it? Imagine your country never experienced some of those historical features. We can be proud of being Europeans or Australians too!

for purpose of....( fill in your own word or phrase) — kazan

For the purpose of understanding how the Universe (Reality itself) itself works? Sounds good enough enough to my ear, at least.

A suggestion: self deprecating humour

hopeful smile — kazan

Self-deprecating humor in my own case? My very existence seems to be self-deprecating humor, at least part of the time.

Yeah, exactly. The classic battle between people and enterprises; we and them; the mass and the elite. Ah, beautiful. Isn't it? — javi2541997

I used to believe that, but it's a simplistic and reductionist thing to believe. I mean, where do you place the Royalty and the nobility in that analysis? Are they "the people"? Are they "the enterprises"? I guess you could say that they're "the elite", but they're not the same kind of elite that the enterprises are. I don't think that Lady Di, for example, was bad for the people of Wales. She was actually good for the Welsh people.

Where would one place the Pope in the classic battle between people and enterprises? Where would one place religion in general? Not just Christianity in general, not even Monotheistic religions in general. Where would one place religions like Hinduism or Buddhism in the "we and them, masses and the elite" battle?

All I'm saying is that the reality of politics cannot be reduced to the "mass vs the elite" battle, IMHO. I mean, some musicians (i.e., the Rolling Stones) and some athletes (i.e., Lionel Messi) are millionaires. Does that automatically turn them into oppressors of the poor? I don't think so.

I mean, where do you place the Royalty and the nobility in that analysis? Are they "the people"? Are they "the enterprises"? — Arcane Sandwich

The people vs bourgeois. A classic match in European societies. I can't think of a country that is the exception to the rule. It has been the same power struggle since the 19th century. Back in the day, the people called "nobleman" to mates who looked like Elon Musk in our modern era. No doubt about that!

Where would one place the Pope in the classic battle between people and enterprises? — Arcane Sandwich

They are not even related or connected to the same struggle which is the extension and limitations of the rule of the capital. What is the rule of the Pope on increasing the income or monopolising the market? None. Well, yes, back in the day he used to fund wars. But that was a long time ago.

Where would one place religions like Hinduism or Buddhism in the "we and them, masses and the elite" battle? — Arcane Sandwich

Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, etc. Is another expression of masses themselves...
.

All I'm saying is that the reality of politics cannot be reduced to the "mass vs the elite" battle, IMHO. I mean, some musicians (i.e., the Rolling Stones) and some athletes (i.e., Lionel Messi) are millionaires. Does that automatically turn them into oppressors of the poor? I don't think so. — Arcane Sandwich

It is obvious that Messi and the Rolling Stones are not part of the elite although they are rich.

Elites are the unknown persons who pull the strings in the dark with the aim of protecting the advantages of their privilege.

Elites are the unknown persons who pull the strings in the dark with the aim of protecting the advantages of their privilege. — javi2541997

What evidence do we have that there are people doing that (pulling the strings in the dark)? Isn't that just a conspiracy theory?