It looked for a while as if Roy Morgan had returned to its weekly polling schedule, but that may have just been a short-term response to the stimulus package kerfuffle. In any event, there was no poll today. That being so, this week’s news nuggets will have to survive on their own:
• Alicia Bowie of the Campbelltown Macarthur Advertiser reports on Labor aspirants for Macarthur, whose Liberal member Pat Farmer has long since stopped behaving like a man who cares if he gets re-elected. The narrowly unsuccessful candidate from 2007, local carpenter Nick Bleasdale, is again in the running, but faces competition from Camden councillor Greg Warren. However, “the ALP will wait until the new boundaries are decided late this year before selecting its candidates for local electorates”.
• Col Allison of the Hills News reports that David Elliott, former Australian Hotels Association deputy chief executive and staffer to John Howard – or as Allison would have it, “the ambitious Liberal Party stalwart lusting for a parliamentary career”, – has denied he will stand for preselection in Brendan Nelson’s seat of Bradfield. However, “insiders say he will try to win preselection for a State Liberal seat in the North-West at the May 2011 elections, upsetting the ambitions of other card-carrying right-wing conservatives, or even a sitting MP”. The seats mentioned are Riverstone, which is reasonably safe for Labor, and “even Baulkham Hills, in the unlikely event Wayne Merton, decides to step down”. Allison reports that Elliott “has the support of MLC David Clarke, controversial leader of the so-called Christian Right of the party and a back-room wheeler-dealer”, which is odd because he was put forward as the moderate candidate against Clarke protege Alex Hawke in Mitchell before the 2007 federal election.
• Peter Tucker at Tasmanian Politics reports that Michael Ferguson, defeated in Bass at the 2007 federal election, will run for the state seat at the March 2010 election.
• Matthew Franklin of The Australian reports that “Kevin Rudd has renewed his backing for four-year, fixed parliamentary terms but refused to criticise Queensland Premier Anna Bligh’s decision to call a state election six months before it was due”.
• Alex Mitchell in Crikey tells us we should “forget the nonsense written in The Australian about an early election being impossible”, because “the advance of Costello has spooked Labor which is now quietly preparing for an early election later this year”. We’ll see.
• There is a Queensland state election campaign in progress.
1,256 Comments
Labor spooked by the advance of Costello? I can understand how it would create a desire for an early election, like kids who can’t wait to open their Christmas presents.
Anyone watching Fitzroy versus Essendon?
It begins to look as though federal members for Bass only use the seat as a stepping stone into state politics: Sylvia Smith, Michelle O’Byrne, Michael Ferguson. What has become of Warwick Smith, by the way?
He went into business. He was a delegate at the 20/20 summit too. He was in the innovation stream that Gillard led.
Labor is about as spooked by the advance of Costello as Monty was spooked by the advance of Marshal Graziani.
ShowsOn from the last thread:
A budget deficit of 2.2% of GDP doesn’t seem like such a big deal when you have zero debt, but when you currently have $11 trillion in debt and by 2013 comes around that will probably be more than $15 trillion, you have to wonder when the deficits are going to end.
Only 15 more now!
wtf??? Show me ONE (just one) poll that would give them any reason to be spooked?
But the other side of the coin is if you try to cut the deficit too quickly, then you may just stop the recovery before it starts.
Paul Krugman says this is exactly what happened in 1937. FDR managed to get the economy growing, with employment up (essentially because a heap of people were put on the federal payroll). Then in 1937 Republicans demanded he cut spending, and the result was growth slowed and unemployment started rising again.
It doesn’t make sense to me to concentrate too much on the deficit until the economy is growing at 2 – 3% again.
It is a joke isn’t it?
The ALP being spooked by Costello. The journos can’t be that stupid, they must be spending too much time on the p*ss together and believing their own fantasy stories.
It’s only a few months since Labor was supposed to be spooked by the rise of the Great Economic Genius Turnbull. So far he hasn’t laid a glove on Rudd.
That one that said Costello was the bigger cause of Liberal problems than Turnbull (60/40) would’ve spooked Costello.
Suggesting Rudd is spooked by Costello is like suggesting Ali used to get spooked working the punching bag in the gym.
These inch fillers who insist on writing utter rubbish about Labor being ’scared’ of Costello are such comedy. One wonders how they manage to keep themselves in employment, given the sheer volume of garbage that eminates from their fingertips. Not that they would care… the delusions would be so thorough that it must all seem like reality to them. Poor sods.
North 85* at lunch. I’d be bloody nervous if I was him.
Game on!!!
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/game_on/
It’s just a sad fact that over the last 10 – 15 years or so, proper journalism has been taken over by opinion writing.
Yes wouldn’t be eating too much (but I bet Hughes wishes he was feeling te same nerves!)
If Krugman is satisfied then I will feel like there is some hope for them.
‘This budget looks very, very good.’ Krugman
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/opinion/27krugman.html
Australian journalists no longer exist as far as I am concerned
Grog
I have lost all respect for you after that U2 comment. Forgive them for they know not what they do.
A quick general question. Galaxy had Qld Labor as preferred manager in every category over the LNP in their poll this week EXCEPT Health. When was the last time Labor lost to the Libs on Health???
(Mutters and shakes head ruefully)
Do Nielsen still do polling?
The real sad fact is these opinion writers still call themselves journalists. I have no problems with someone writing opinion pieces, but please then don’t suggest you can also write objective researched articles. I don;t expect Philip Adams to be regarded as a journalist, and yet Janet A’s columns (for eg) get treated by The Oz at times like she has got some great scoop.
*giggle* Oh Janet, you sk*nky h* you.
Mmm, Macarthur. Could be very winnable or very unwinnable on the new boundaries, depending on where the commission decides to abolish a seat. Should the redistribution abolish a Sydney seat, then it’s possible that a sitting Labor MP would lay claim to Macarthur.
I suspect Rivertstone will be eminently winnable for the NSW Libs the way the state Labor govt is travelling. They only need a 10% swing.
Michael Ferguson is following the career path of Michelle O’Byrne…
And yawn @ Alex Mitchell. What “advance”?
What did Grog say about U2?
BTW go North….
Hey maybe Pat Farmer can stand in Bradfield. He lives closer to there than Macarthur anyway
I’m used to it Dio!
But I’ve been with them since I was 12, I can’t leave them now!
Could’ve been worse I guess, when I was 12 I could have decided that Uncanny X-Men were to be my all time favourite band.
Maybe he turned over in his hammock
I’m surprised no one has mentioned Shannahan’s article today. Looks like he has been on the “Red Cordial” again.
He has gotten so excited about the Coalition’s efforts to un-nerve Joel Fitzgibbon that he seems to have almost had an “Organism”.
People must ensure they are seated in a secure chair to read this as personal injury could result from a fall whilst laughing uncontrollably.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25111814-7583,00.html
Grog
The Uncanny X-Men would have been better. At least you would have been forced to move on. When Obama chose U2 to play at his inauguration, I almost switched to backing Hillary to enact the Final Solution to the Obama Problem.
Yes, the “Roosevelt Recession”. Rather unfair to blame the Republicans however. FDR had just won a thumping re-election victory and the Democrats had lopsided majorities in both houses of Congress. It was FDR’s desire to repaire the budget balance, but he did so prematurely.
Diogenes @ 21: not all that long ago, unless you mean specifically in Queensland.
Is this Alex Mitchell who’s being portrayed as some sort of Liberal stooge the same one who wanted David Hicks named Australian of the Year?
Shamaham is full of s**t as usual. He has plenty in store.
Well Hughes can get another record – a pair on debut. I think Grahame Gooch has managed that.
I admitted that I bought their new album today (is playing as a write)
Mostly fair comment actually. Fitzgibbon may have been right on the facts of the matter but his defence was poor – he has been sick apparently. Once was the “$0 pauslip” was known to be bogus he should have stuck it right up Turnbull and Bishop, but he failed to do so.
#36
That’s a bad thing? It’s a good album.
You would think some OO ‘journos’ would start to feel just a little embarrassed about continually and publically ’self pleasuring’ themselves to satisfy the voyeuristic desires of a small group of the Howard faithful still committed to conservative political pornography.
Libs go hunting…..lame wildebeest, could just as equally mean Bishop or Turnbull.
Oh geez Dennis. It’s a non-issue outside of parliament house. Momentum??? ffs. The LIbs came off the worst week they’ve had since the election, and because (as I do agree) Fitzgibbon had a bad day on Wednesday (but a good one on Thrusdya) he thins the LIbs are back in charge???
Oh well, when you see a straw you might as well clutch it.
I’m sorry guys, but I have been watching all week and Shanahan is right.
Fitzgibbon was really not the same man i knew or the same parliamentary performer when he tried to defend himself in the House, him being ill probably would explain this…
He should have made a bigger deal with the fact Bishop wouldnt table the document…that could have ended it then and there and constantly repeating the words of Senators in a committee just sounded weak…
BTW Israel still dont have a government because Livni in having a hissy fit and wont come to the table with Bibi…
btw GO NORTH!
More Dennis:
It did work, because nothing the SA Libs had thrown at Pyne had made front page news. Gillard’s attack didn. and he is now forever the minicng poodle.
Yes if you stopped watching on Wednesday. On Thursday the wildebeest turned around around and showed everyone that the attackers were toothless.
You’re not the only ones who have you know…
Today I bought:
Peter Tosh – Boston 1976: Live & Dangerous
Andrew Hill – Black Fire
Ignacio Berroa – Codes
Well not really. It was better than Weds but still not very good. He should have buried them with the bogus payslip but he still looked hesitant and defensive. Snowdon was much better.
not to mention
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/beating-about-bushes-in-the-great-lib-hunt-20090226-8j22.html
Will the parliament have to ratify the ASEAN + 2 Free Trade Deal?
I agree – on Wednesday he was really bad. (though others here thought otherwise, I acknowledge). But on Thursday he made Turnbull and Bishop look like they had over-played their hand when he showed them the pay slip.
But to be honest I’ve never thought a great deal of Fitzgibbon.
My tip is a reshuffle at the end of this year.
Bob Brown: Payouts to CEOs over $1 million shouldn’t be tax deductible.
Sounds fair enough to me.
Nice bit of prophesy by one commrnter in that piece by JA.
Janet Albrechtsen Blog | September 20, 2008 (5 Months and counting)
I too think the Shanahan piece was OK (in fact one of his best for a while).
The small point I would make though is that I don’t think it had much to do with the stability of Turnbull’s position, which I think it is more to do with those undermining him stepping back when they saw how out of control it can get.
Personally i dont see the big deal with them just getting smaller payouts
Sol at the most should have got 5m not 20m that’s 15m you could save…
I would tax any payout (golden handshake) over 5m at an extremely high rate…
Grog so who would get Defence?
Shorten??
Does he ever get fired up?
Was he ill Glen?
BTW I think those who thought Turnbull would make a difference extended far beyond JA.
Commenter: What ARE you going to do when Turnbull fails to make ground on Rudd? How are you going to spin that then?
The Ho: I’m going to start writing the same tosh about Costello, of course.
He was in hosital in Poland after the NATO-plus meeting.
William
I’m amazed that WA Labor lost every category to the Libs except Environment. It’s no wonder they lost. It does bode very well for Bligh that Labor beat the Libs in everything except Health. It’s hard to see her losing.
Health really is poison for State Labor Governments. How Beatty ever got re-elected after Patel and the waiting-lists disgrace is beyond me. I’m not surprised they keep asking the Feds to take it over. I’m betting big that the Ruddster doesn’t fall for that one, even if it was his election promise that the “buck stops with me”.
Thanks for that Vera – the Chris Henning piece was pretty funny.
Oh well, Stephen Conroy doesn’t have to suffer a 12 year old showing reporters how easy it is to bypass his shiny new system while adults complain they can’t get access to useful sights. It would have been fun to watch.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/26/1344207
Well there is a bit of a line up for it. Combet would be the front runner at the moment (assuming he leap frogs Snowden).
If Shorten does well with the bushfire parl sec position, he’ll have to be given a Ministry in the run up the the election. I’d say he’ll get a bit of media time doing his new job, and I would say Rudd will look to put his best media performers in good spot for the last 10-12 months before the election.
Igather Shorten was a bit on the outer last year due to his marriage, but I doubt that will be much of a handicap now. It ain’t 1959.
On Wednesday he did look like he was suffering from a taking bit of “flu medication”
The Poles use vodka to treat most ailments, physical and spiritual. Maybe they had him on a vodka drip.
This is a bit surreal. An unnamed Labor source tells Shanahan that there’s a plot afoot to remove Fitzgibbon as he’s apparently sympathetic to Gillard and the “hard left” and replace him with someone from the right-faction. Two days later, Fitzgibbon’s politically dead according to most and those being touted as his replacements are solid right faction MP’s.
I’m yet to be convinced of Shorten’s reputed talent. He’s good – far from convinced that he’s PM material.
Grog
The Bushfires are basically being run by the Defence Forces now, to the chagrin of a few civilians. I’ve been involved in a few disasters and, as someone with a not terribly sympathetic view of the Defence Forces, each time the civilians stuff it up and Defence is bloody good at running big operations in a hurry. Shorten will have plenty to do with Defence in his new Parl Sec job and it will be great experience if he’s looking at Defence Minister.
You got that right!
#65
Having the bar set so high (”Future PM material”) sure wouldn’t help.
I think he’s aiming higher than that
As a high flyer, he’d want to avoid Defence like the plague. Fraser would be about the only PM who ever came through that protfolio? (and he was Minister for the Army wass’t it?)
(64) I thought it was Milne who ran the story.
Yes well then Grog he’d have to take out Swan or Tanner or Smith…all but Swan looks safe long term IMHO but nobody will dump Swan when he has faithfully repeated the lines Treasury has drummed into him…
Smith has his role safe, most PM’s come from Treasury/Finance or Foreign Affairs….Shorten will have to take a senior ministry if Defence is offered…
Combet is probably wanting IR IMHO…
A junior doctor in SA got struck off for doing that to a patient in hospital. He mixed it in with the IV fluids.
There was another one who rang up to say he wasn’t coming to work because it was raining too hard. That was bad enough but he actually lived in the hospital building in the nurses wing. He also had a habit of sitting down on the floor during ward rounds which didn’t endear him to his superiors.
Agree
There are plenty of people who are claiming just that. I’m not one of them.
He was Army Minister under Holt and Defence Minister under Gorton.
Never been that impressed by Shorten on the TV myself. Maybe he just looks exciting for a TU bureaucrat.
I can never forgive Fraser for stabbing Gorton in the back in the House of Reps!
Geez Glen, you are definately not a “wate runder the bridge” guy!
Yeah he did – last Sunday. Though his angle that Rudd was putting up the defences against Gillard is a bit rish methinks. Seriously who would be thinking of challenging Rudd at this point? 2013 maybe.
Not even when he was representing his members in Beaconsfield?
Gillard isn’t stupid enough to challenge a guy who has a preferred PM rating 44% above the opposition leader.
Is there any fatuous pompous cliche that Mike Cowars is too ashamed to use?
My sister once saw him speak on behalf of workers whose company had just gone broke. She was there represneting the creditors (I think), and by the end of his speech she wanted to give the workers the money she had in her own purse.
I think he’ll have to fight Burke for the top job (in 10 years time).
10 MORE!
I thought that this piece by Alan Wood would be interesting reading.
I went through the article looking for the measured, thoughtful analysis of the “flaws” that Wood had identified. Got right to the end and realised that Wood had just rehashed a dose of Liberal spin and any semblance of genuine criticism was very shallow indeed.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25111815-7583,00.html
Wood probably should have had a quick look at a piece by some of his mates at News Ltd before he wrote it.
“Humans are in a pretty difficult position and I don’t think they are clever enough to handle what’s ahead. I think they’ll survive as a species all right, but the cull during this century is going to be huge,” NASA scientist James Lovelock said.
“The number remaining at the end of the century will probably be a billion or less.”]
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25114359-5009760,00.html
Don’t forget Chipperfield! 99 not out on debut
That’s like all his articles. At least he’s consistent.
Come on Northy
What’s happened to Paul Kelly? Haven’t seen him write anything for ages.
#88
Isn’t he on sabbatical in America or something?
Yeah, probably guesting at some think tank.
We’ll be off to Gallipoli soon. I’d almost prefer Kerry O’Keeffe’s fart jokes.
I have to say I don’t think she will ever be PM. By the time Rudd goes I think she considered part of the old brigade.
The only way she’ll get the top job is a PJK attack in 6-7 years time.
Let’s say the ALP wins next year and loses in 2013. Would the ALP go with her or one of the younger ones? I know we’re off in fantasy land here though…
No doubt writing the third book in his trilogy:
The Hawke Acendency”
“The End of Certainty”
“The Wasted Decade”
I agree. That is why I think in 2014 Australia’s P.M. will be Bill Shorten. It would have to be someone in the late 30s or early 40s now. Labor aren’t going to idiotically stick with the same person for 5 elections in a row.
I thought he was getting ready for the fire Aid concert
Tony Burke is one of Labor’s best parliamentary performers he shredded Turnbull in QT….
The only way Gillard becomes PM is if Rudd goes under a bus and even then some other person in the right will try to stop her…she should be content with the roles she currently has because i doubt the right will give her Treasury no matter how well she’d go maybe she may get Finanace if Tanner loses to the Greens in 2010 but i cant see her being PM anyway let alone staying PM after an election…
You forgot the subtitle – The Wasted Decade: Ten Years of Wankery.
Yeah, you’ve got to worry when an opposition leader bases their climate change policy on nonsensical extrapolation.
He made Turnbull look foolish when he brought out Turnbulls plans for planting trees in the wheatbelt in WA and taking away primary producing farmland in QLD and NSW to plant trees lol!
Im a rusted on Lib but even i was laughing with Tony Burke lol
Rudd is already 51. I very much doubt he will want still to be in politics when he’s 60. He might well walk after two terms and a bit, say in 2015. Gillard will then be 54, Shorten will be 48.
It was good. And conveniently forgotten by Shanahan and co when they talk about “momentum”.
I believe the next eleciton may have more to do with envrionmental policy than SAS soldiers’ pay slips…
personally i think it will be on economics but the ETS will play a role i feel too…
I reckon he will walk after 1 year into a third term.
It would be pretty cool if he was willing to take up a senior diplomatic post after being P.M. China, or U.S., or U.N. He’d have greater stature than any other Australian diplomat.
I think it was good of him for letting Robert Hill stay on.
Tony Abbott is just embarrassing
ONE MORE RUN!
WD Marcus!!! 100
North did it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Who needs Symonds?
Who needs McDonald when we have North?
Go North, young man.
I was at Adelaide Oval for Mark Waugh’s century on debut. That and Lara’s 226 are the best innings I’ve seen at a ground.
Who needs Howard/Nelson/Turnbull/Costello/? when we have Rudd?
Glen?
Who needs McDonald, period.
Same here! (Also saw Blewitt’s maiden ton – sigh such hopes…)
I will take Howard over Rudd anyday thankyou very much…
I’d even consider taking Turnbull over Rudd…
Just hearing Howard talk at the Howard Lecture makes me sad at how far we’ve come down in a short period, we no longer have a dictatorial leader and we no longer have the stability we had under Howie…
“we no longer have a dictatorial leader”
Um…what?
We wuv you uncie Howie!
Tony Burke has stolen Bob Hawke’s 1983 hair!
lol @ Glen
Well you can blame your buddy George W for that, Glen.
Seriously Glen. What is the lesson for centre-right parties given the current economic circumstances? What policies that they pursued in the boom times will they never return to given what has happened?
Surely some of what happened during the boom times has caused the crash. So there must be a take home lesson for all parties that certain policies were wrong and should never be repeated.
MDMConnell i am talking about within the Liberal Party of course…
Tony Burke is a better Parliamentary performer than Hawke….
ShowsOn according to Gillard and the ALP they reckon we’ve got one of the best set up and balanced economies in the world and that is why we’ve so far avoided a recession so i hardly think what we did in 11.5 years made the situation worse for Australia…
But what about the housing boom, where prices rose to ridiculous levels, which just encouraged people to take out loans against the inflated value of their houses. Then they spent that money, and the prices of their houses have crashed. So the mortgage is now effectively worth more than the house.
Shouldn’t politicians be wary of price increases like that, because they know it can’t last forever.
I think it’s more what you failed to do, Glen. You had a decade of boom fuelled by Chinese demand for our commodities and you failed to invest in skills and infrastructure. You also made tertiary education much harder to afford, and you finished up by trying to destroy the living standards of Australian workers.
#124
Well that’s largely the individuals’ fault for borrowing and spending more than they could afford.
Give him enough time, Mitcho will get his century!!!
I agree. But we can’t just let a whole heap of people stuff the economy through bad decision making in the future. There has to be a lesson for what has happened that enables us to stop the same thing from happening again.
Bullbutter Adam and you know it…
We set up the Future Fund and the Health Funds and OZ Link worth billions and billions of dollars, we ran surpluses which then have been spent trying to avoid a recession (a luxury that other countries didnt have) and we regulated the banking system very well during our time in office…
Adam at least Australian workers had jobs under us under Labor they had 13% unemployment under us 4% who has the better record here??? We didnt make tertiary education harder to afford, you could argue we left funding of them to the States….
Exactly Glen. And wasn’t it fascinating to have Gillard showing off in Davos on the same day that Kevin went all reincarnated leftie on us, and solemnly announced that neo-liberalism had wrecked Australia. Er, that would be the same Australia (I presume) that we keep being told has the best chance of any Western country of coming through unscathed…
Maybe there are two Australias. The one that Julia says has the best financial system in the world. And the other one that Kevin says has been wrecked by the Liberals.
I wonder which Australia Marcus North thinks he’s playing for?
Has there ever been a year in which Australian workers had higher living standards than they did in 2007? 2006 perhaps?
What’s the alternative? A command economy? They always work brilliantly, don’t they?
Those standards were delivered by the Hawke-Keating IR system, which you destroyed with WorkChoices. Fortunately you were thrown out before your system could have much effect.
I’m always amused by Liberals denying that the object of WorkChoices was reducing the living standards of Australian workers. What other object could it possibly have had? Business has always opposed paying workers more – and fair enough from their point of view – just as unions have always tried to make them pay more. Under the old IR system, the state held the ring between these contending class forces. By demolishing the IR system, WorkChoices transferred power in the workplace to the employer. How could it do anything else? What is the point in denying that that was its intent? Why else does business support the Liberals, if not to have their agenda furthered?
In all seriousness there are plenty of things in the regulatory realm that could do with improvement:
- making shareholders votes on pay, etc binding on Directors and management – should be pretty easy I would think
- fixing up accounting standards so that assets and liabilities are reported at a value that makes sense – crucially important, very hard to actually do
- making it easier for people to change from one bank to another – lots of hard, tedious work to get this one right – this one was on Swan’s to do list, fair enough though, he’s had more important things to do
But you can’t make a law against bad decisions.
Only the interest is spent Glen, which was a couple of hundred million a year, obviously a lot less now given the state of the economy.
When Labor was elected in 1983 there were 6.9 million people employed in Australia. When Labor left office in March 1996 there were 9 million employed. This was achieved without reverting to stripping wages and conditions, and included a universal health care system, and superannuation, which substantially improved work conditions.
Adam, WorkChoices was a dud, and I have no qualms in saying that Howard deserved to be thrown out for doing something so utterly pointless, and so politically stupid.
But I have yet to meet a business person (and I interact with lots of them every day) who was any more than lukewarm about it. And most business people, frankly, thought it completely irrelevant.
That is admittedly a CBD view. Maybe things were different in blue-collar land, I don’t know.
WTF where did I suggest this? Do you honestly think the only options are to have either a completely market economy or a command economy?
So you want the same thing to happen again in 50 years time. Whatever…
By far the dominant reason business people give for supporting the Liberals is to keep Labor out.
ShowsOn, I like seeing the local tories get put in their place too, but wasn’t there a bit of population growth in that 13 years? It’d make that increase look a bit less in real terms…
North gone
Dyno, the Liberals’ social base is small business – Fountain Gate, not Collins St. Remember the Spotlight contracts scandal? That’s the type of businessperson that wanted WorkChoices, and also the type that joins the Liberal Party. The Andrew Forrests of the business world don’t bother with such things.
Sure. The massive change during that period was women taking part time work in retail. I believe it increased by 50% in the 13 years.
Of course I don’t. See my 134 for a very short list of things that can be done to stop the same thing happening in 50 years time. There are plenty more, too.
But I reiterate – you just can’t stop people making bad decisions, unless you stop them making any decisions. With freedom comes the ability to make mistakes. It’s human nature.
You can, however, make people better informed, so they are less likely to make bad decisions, and provide some amelioration for when they stuff up.
Now Siddle is in, he’s good for a few.
I never suggested you could. But since you can’t stop them making bad decisions, public policy has to be reorganised to ameliorate the effects of a heap of people making a heap of bad decisions.
The Liberals here, the Conservatives in the U.K., and the Republicans in the U.S. all don’t seem to think there is any take home lesson from what has and is happening to the world economy.
That’s possibly a fair comment. But I would balance it by saying that it is far from clear (in a macro sense) what the take home lessons are. There are, however, some very specific reforms that should have been done years ago, and will hopefully be done now.
Employed as a percentage of total population
January 1983 55%
January 1996 59%
January 2007 63%
Johnson needs another 17 for a century. He has hit 5 sixes, three in the last over.
Told you Mitcho is going to get his century given time
From 1983 to 1996 the population increased by ~16%
From 1996 to 2007 the population increased by ~19%
Another factor is that our skilled migration program was dramatically increased during the Howard government. Such people are more likely to find employment. I’m not saying they don’t ‘count’, but obviously skilled migration helps the unemployment rate go down compared to regular migration and refugee migration.
Yeah, well. Do I need to see, look, hear Tony Abbott. No. Thanks ABC. For nothing.
As I type, I hear a little Mozart, as a compensation for, they say, the World of Dismay.
They just happen to be right.
In defiance of the no money, I booked yesterday for the ASO etc performance of Verdi’s Requiem at the Adelaide Festival Theatre. Ironic, but there we go. I will be taking a friend who has endured touch and go, so hope she makes it. Sounds glorious, 200 plus choir and so on.
And stuff the dollars! I recall sitting spellbound in a city street at midday, unable to leave the car, and attend to my duties, as this music was performed on ABC. Think it was Sutherland, but not sure.
PS bought some seeds for the vegie supply.
FOUR MORE RUNS!
LOL! Even Siddle is bashing fours now.
Bloody hell. Foxtel is 5 secs behind ABC Radio.
LOL! Siddle walks on a no-ball caught behind.
GO MITCHELLLL !!!!!!!11111!!!!!!!
Oh dear, a wicket off a no ball!!
Ha! Caught behind next ball.
Is this the last day of a match?
I wish, 159.
NO WAY!
2nd
What did i say, wtf did i say. Mitcho has to be given time!!!!
Mal Fraser reckons the global economy needs a do-over
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/the-global-economy-needs-a-makeover-20090227-8k9m.html
communist swine!
what a tragedy!
ooo regional trade deal, global warming stuff..ooooo
more pointless comments oooo
we are dooooomed
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25114359-5009760,00.html
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/a-bigger-challenge-than-kilimanjaro 20090216-89be.html?page=-1
Annabel Crabb, <Sydney Morning Herald, 17 February 2009:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/its-war-minister-takes-aim-at-defence-20090227-8k8r.html
My suggestion would be for Fitzgibbon to sack some people. It is clear cut, the military is controlled by civilians, i.e. the Minister, it doesn’t control itself. It is not as powerful as the ministry that tells it what to do.
I have to admit i thought Labor was going Macarthur and was a little disappointed. From what i understand Camden was one of the areas Labor underperformed from what their potential was. I don’t know much about either of the Labor candidates and even though the redistribution may change i would think from a labor perspective a Camden based candidate would be advantageous. I personally hope Farmer stays and fights on, he deserves to have it taken from him.
Something that i would find interesting to know is the effect vandalism and acts of aggression at political symbols plays on some swing voters, sympathy wise. I know it was particularly bad in Macarthur. It also happened abit in Franklin where i live but its impact (if any) here was hard to tell due to the whole kafuffle with the retirement of Quick and the candidate troubles. Think i heard of some in Hinkler and Gilmore also.
Has anyone heard of any coalition member criticising Rudd for going over to see Obama re the GFC? They wouldn’t dare would they?
He is showing lots of signs of imminent retirement – moving out of the electorate, making only a few (bad) speeches in parliament. Not even being given the chance to ask any questions.
Not YET.
Holy crap! 2 for 4.
I guess at this point RSA will start a 400 run partnership.
Must say I am fed up with the Good Ship the Economy and all who sail on it. Especially their deserting captains, or are they rats? such as Trujillo and the King Geejuz mob, to nominate only the most recent candidates.
What ho, crew!
LOL! The Coalition even has “non-core” promises when in OPPOSITION!
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25117297-2702,00.html
Laurie Oakes on the money about Rudd
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25115083-5001031,00.html
Bree
Oakes, in the same article, on the money about Turnbull/Hockey?:
‘In other words, the Turnbull-Hockey strategy – such as it is – could see the Government going even deeper into debt. The Coalition’s approach is riddled with inconsistencies. On Sky News the other day, for example, Hockey blasted Rudd for talking down the economy and failing to provide a message of hope.’
Zombie Mao
‘we are dooooomed’
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25114359-5009760,00.html
Well of course we are doomed, unless we can get around to colonizing newer solar systems, with which there are a technical challenges, or setting up self-sustaining systems in space independent of a planet. Given that we can’t manage the latter on a perfectly good planet I wouldn’t be putting my money on it.
Sooner or later the Sun will get a bit further along the path to entropy and turn into something like a Red Dwarf and expand to include Earth. We are looking a billions of years so humanity might have figured out some adequate responses. I predict they will be spun as ‘realistic’, ‘balanced’ and ‘practical.’
Oakes prefers a Costello-led opposition rathar than a Turnbull led one.
So do I. The sooner Costello comes along and flops, the better.
No they weren’t. They were delivered mostly by Howard’s Workplace Relations Act 1996.
Remember, 59% of those exit polled at the 2007 election said they do not want Costello as PM. That is 6% more than those who were exit polled as voting Labor on two-party, and 6.3% more than the real result.
No 181
Costello won’t flop. He’d at least ensure that the party runs a consistent line on policy. Turnbull has allowed the party to become a disorganised, incoherent rabble.
No 183
Things have changed a lot since 2007, namely the world economy has crashed. Voters would probably be inclined to support someone who can keep the economy in safe hands – who else but Australia’s longest serving treasurer?
At the end of the day, if a toxic bore can become Australia’s PM, so can a smirking ex-Treasurer.
GP, how do you know? Costello has never led the party, let alone in opposition. Look at John Howard when he was opposition leader.
No 186
Costello has infinitely more authority than Turnbull. It’s as simple as that. Even if you hate him, you’d have to be blind to think Costello doesn’t exude authority in the parliament and in public.
Wishful thinking. The Liberal government rode the mining/trade boom. What would Costello do differently? Slash health/education/infrastructure like the early years of Howard? The media now know what they’d do if they got back in to power based on that, and they’d hammer Costello as to how he’d do it, and saying he’d cut everything prior to the election would ensure his party’s defeat.
People love Rudd, look at the polls since he became Labor leader. Perhaps people prefer someone bland and steady, rather than a smirking arrogant Costello. And lol @ Q & A… right on the money when I forget who said it that the biggest toxic bore was the person who said it. And the toxic bore line was said out of such frustration that Rudd remains calm and collected, not giving the Liberals any ammunition on Rudd. They hate that.
Again, 59% said they don’t want Costello as PM, against 53% for voting Labor. The polls remain in the same territory as prior to and after the election. Nothing has changed.
Wishful thinking. But you keep hammering out those lines, if only to keep up the morale of rusteds like yourself and Bree. Whatever helps you sleep each and every night until the 13 years are up like last time your mob was in oppositon.
Read above. His party, yes, the public, not a snowballs chance in hell.
Adam
On CC, you asked what I would have Rudd do?
Objective: Get in place a global 20% by 2020 treaty, applicable to all nations. (What Australia does on its own is basically insignificant.)
Rationale: This would probably delay the rate of global warming to something like a manageable rate rather than something like a completely unmanageable rate. (It is a sobering thought that even the most optimistic outcome of the global treaty only slow the rate of growth of atmospheric C02.)
Tactical steps
1. Give complete priority to the only game in town – a global CC response treaty. All Australia’s national actions should be bent to this single purpose. This would necessarily involve Australia committing to a 20% target now but on the basis that it is adopted universally. It would means shedding the 5% ETS proposal. Setting it in motion will basically be an acknowledgement of global failure. Putting it on the table now gives the wrong signal in international negotiations. If the 20% by 2020 fails, the 5% ETS funds should be applied straight away to mitigation measures. They will be needed.
2. Take co-leadership in the negotiations. We have considerable credibility and we have the ability to act as go-betweens among various power blocs.
3. The 20% would need to be real. That is, it should not include the sort of fudge factors the Europeans have indulged in.
4. Acknowledge that those who have become disproportionately wealthy and thereby inadvertently creating the problem will have to bear a disproportionate burden in addressing the problem. This will involve: mechanisms for wealth sharing by capital transfers; mechanisms for sharing technology free of charge; mechanisms whereby wealthy countries succour the humans who are, and who will be, driven out of their lands by climate change.
5. In terms of mechanisms, the targets should be built around the point of consumption, not production, storage or transport. In other words, the total C02 cost of goods and services should be factored in at the point of consumption. Whole of life C02 costs would need to be factored in. [There may be an argument that a basic quality of life level of C02 production is set (free) per person. This would include the C02 production involved in food, housing and clothing.] The reasons for targeting C02 production at the point of consumption are clear. The Europeans, for example, are net importers of energy in the form of food including stock feeds. They have simply exported C02 production to third countries. Similarly, Australians emit vast quantities of C02 by consuming items manufactured in China.
6. Inform Australians that it is not possible to maintain current standards of living and simultaneously realistically address global climate change. We are disproportionate emitters of C02. There is no way the rest of the world is going to get serious about C02 on the basis that Australians will continue to live like Eloi. Inform Australians that there will inevitably be a large variation in the outcomes for winners and losers in anything we do. Stop pretending that the Government can do all that much to mitigate this.
7. Develop sustainable thresholds for Australia. The current assumption is that limitless growth is sustainable. No-one has any idea what the limits are but some key trends are these: (a) we are running out of fresh water (b) our soil quality is declining in all sorts of ways (c) our fisheries are either fished to capacity or over-fished (d) our biodiversity is going down the tubes (e) our capacity to feed the population with home-grown cereals is being tested (f) without decent Autumn and Winter rains our MDB food bowl will only have enough water next year for town drinking purposes.
8. Fund heavily technical developments that may help (Being done by Rudd, tick – more could be done given the gravity of the issue). Foster heavily international cooperation on these. (Being done by Rudd, tick).
9. Fund global engineering studies (sulphur particles in the upper atmosphere for example) that may or may not be feasible.
There are reasonable considerations in all of the above, including whether the public would wear it, whether it would get through the Senate and so on. I acknowledge these. My point is that on CC response, it would actually be better to have tried and failed, than not tried at all which is where we are at.
My basic criticism of Rudd is that both 15% as target and a 5% ETS are destructive international signals. Apart from that I believe that some of lesser (but still important) technical criticisms made by others of the ETS are valid and that is should be revamped.
My prognosis? Pessimistic. My basic view is that party political systems in nation states will not deliver the rate and scale of change required on a global basis.
Global warming transitions will therefore most probably be disorderly. The closest thing in history that we have experienced that comes to mind may have been the Plague. It killed about a third of the population and destroyed social and political systems along the way. Global warming will be different from the Plague. Its general effects will be much slower, except for some threshold trigger events and except for some regions effects which will move faster than others, for example, for example, Arctic summer sea-ice extent. But the Plague expresses my sense of the order of magnitude of what we are facing.
How sad. I think you should read Hewson’s appraisal again. He’s in a position to judge because he’s been an Opposition Leader, which is more than you can say for your great white hammock hope.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/you-missed-your-chance-peter-20090221-8e70.html?page=-1
No-one really knows what Costello would be like as leader, because he’s never done it. Hewson’s hardly a political genius, who cares what he thinks?
The exit poll from the 2007 election is interesting but I can’t see how it’s conclusive – how people view politicians’ leadership capabilities is probably conditioned to a fair extent by the role they’ve seen them in. For example you can’t be sure how many of the 59% in that exit poll were thinking “I don’t want Costello, I want Howard”.
Look at the way the media talked about Latham and Rudd respectively when they were about to become leader. Latham was the messiah, Rudd was Kevin Who? Leadership quality is not all that easy to predict.
The bottom line is Costello’s had two occasions on which the leadership was his on a plate – 25/11/07, and then Aug/Sep 2008. Both times he spurned it. I could understand this the first time but I really think he should have taken it on, once Nelson was going to get the chop. Either that or announced a time line for getting out of politics. Or done a William Hague and said he would never be Leader again – full stop.
His current position is destabilising for the party and the only plausible explanation is he’s doing either to (a) destabilise in the hope of getting himself in as Leader or (b) just because he likes the attention. Maybe both.
As an employer I can’t get too excited about a job applicant who doesn’t want the job all that much. As a Liberal voter I can’t get too excited about a Liberal leader who doesn’t want to be Leader all that much.
Turnbull has well-documented failings but he’s still – by a long way – the Liberals’ least bad option for the next election.
Btw, assuming he hasn’t been verballed, Fitzgibbon would have been better advised not to come out with this:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/its-war-minister-takes-aim-at-defence-20090227-8k8r.html
Wait… it’s not 1 April already is it?
Dyno,
His sulking, self-indulgent carry-on over a period of years is surely not the personality-type of a leader. A leader has the capability to bounce back from disappointment, betrayal.
In fact you could say that what makes a leader is emotional resilience in the face of adversity. Cos, whatever happens to them, leaders surely have plenty of adversity; they have to be able to rebound, not be sent into years-long spirals of sulking and brooding that bring down the rest of the troops.
Agree with that. Agree it’s fairly hard to characterise Costello as having emotional resilience. Not as sure as you that Costello would be a disastrous leader but I can certainly see the line of thought.
I think – to use Generic Person’s favourite phrase – it’s obscene for the Liberals to even consider putting a sook like Costello up as prospective Prime Minister. Imagine if by some miracle he got the top job; Australia would be ill-served indeed with a sulking petulant emotionally-immature coward at the helm. I’m talking disaster, rapid or slowly unfolding. How dare the Liberals.
Adam in Canberra
Posted Friday, February 27, 2009 at 11:28 pm | Permalink
I think your being a bit harsh. There was a reasonable large set of business people that feared work choices, it completely destabalized a working a system, it created additional work, it removed benchmarks to pay people against, and those considered the big picture where worried about declining living standards; it’s easy to resist declining wages when your competitors actions are limited by law..
I think work choices resulted in the Liberals losing power and considerable funding from their support base. The moderates failed, the mad right finally got what they wanted and they destroyed the party. To see where the liberal party is now at just look at the writings of bree and GP.
But Costello supports the stance taken by Turnbull and his rabble. Costello is one of the architects of the strategy i.e. be negative, carp, spread doom and gloom, make personal attacks but above all agree with the government on nothing.
This strategy was taken to the ultimate when Costello called on the party room to oppose the 2nd stimulus package. Turnbull, gutless wonder that he is, said “Yes! Full steam ahead – make straight for that large iceberg” to avoid his own position coming under immediate threat.
Oakes would be happy to see a change of opposition leader – not because it might improve their performance but because Oakes makes a living out of reporting on the high drama in the theatre of parliament. It makes no difference to him whether it’s Costello or People Skills or Joe Work Choices or some other member of the rabble in charge.
The bottom line in this is what changes to policy might there be if Turnbull is removed? Seeing as they have no policies we can’t say but I bet a new leader won’t change the carping, the messages of doom and gloom and the opposition for opposition’s sake. That’s why the rabble is going nowhere.
Remember how Rudd acted as opposition leader? He was labeled the ‘me too’ man as he supported the government’s position on most issues. What he did however was target 3 or 4 key areas of opposition, developed sound arguments that stood up to scrutiny and presented them consistently morning noon and night. The result? A very big tick from the public.
The rabble in opposition would do well to take a leaf out of Rudd’s book.
Who in the Liberal Party resisted the imposition of SerfChoices? I am not aware of a single one. Reminded of this quote from the Sydney Morning Herald, 21 March 2008:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/phillip-coorey/2008/03/20/1205602572716.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Oh that’s beautiful. It’s like that morning in Jonestown when the Rev Jim told his people it was time to drink the potion and go and meet their maker.
There’s certainly precedent for unpopular quitters being elected to office… Colin Barnett.
Steve, How could they have not seen the suicidal nature of the thing they rose to their feet to applaud?
I’m guessing they were in raptures at the prospect of finally putting an end to the hated workers’ unions.
Did they see that their glorious “policy” would bring an end to fairness and decent living standards of Australian employees? If they did, they didn’t care; “getting the unions” (and thus the ALP) was more important to them than Aussie living standards. This from the supposed party of economic improvement. Appalling.
ltep, in the quitters stakes Costello beats Barnett hands-down and blindfolded. Try googling the terms “peter costello leadership speculation”. 71,800 hits! This is a guy who is well renowned for never having the balls. Throw in also a sooky temperament and a poor work ethic, and you’ve got someone singularly unqualified to be a “leader”. What on earth are the Liberals thinking, wanting to put a dud up as prospective Prime Minister? Does desperation make for their stupid irresponsibility to the nation? If so, they deserve to lose a few more elections yet.
Saturday moring reflections:
The opposition to an ETS, and the parallel reluctance of the US to admit its banks are dead and nationalise them, illustrates to me how much debate about political economy has degenerated in recent decades and how slavishly bound to market solutions we have become. Markets are usually the best solution, but not always. So when we have a serious problem the market can’t fix, shouldn’t we have a government solution instead?
I was struck by this link from Tim Lambert’s blog recently:
http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/hey-wait-minute/2009/02/11/surprise-economists-agree
So most economists agree global warming is a problem, the fix is affordable, and inaction costs more. Plus we know a majority of voters want action too. We also know its an example of market failure. So why do we have to find a market solution?
If we can solve global warming with that level of spending, government should regulate to prohibit the harmful causes, spend to replace them with new infrastructure etc, and tax us to pay for it. If other countries don’t do the same we tax their imports to reflect the cost of their emissions to us. Some of our exports will be less competitive, but only by a few %, except for industries we too must restructure anyway if we are serious about solving this. If this sounds crazy, it seems from my reading that the cost is no more than the world is currently spending to (barely) fix the GFC. The spending to fix global warming would probaby restart our economy anyway.
So I think the problem with global warming is not scientific (we know the problem), not technical (we know the solution), not economic (we can afford it), nor social (there are game theoretic solutions) but ideological (we are obsessed with finding a market solution).
Please note this is not a criticism of those working on an ETS. If an ETS could be politically accepted that would be fine. But if it can’t (seems to be the case) then we need a Plan B. I say that is direct government action.
Who Repub voters want for 2012:
Palin 29%
Huckabee 26%
Romney 21%
Jindal 9%
Costello 0%
Adam
Abbott might appeal to them more – the people skills will go down well with the rednecks. Obama vs Palin would be funny. They could kiss goodbye every NE state.
Yes, the American North-East. A lucrative hot-bed of Republican support.
BB, thanks for your comments at 190. I’m reluctant to agree but I fear I may have to.
A very insightful piece from an intelligent conservative, Charles Krauthammer. Obama as America’s first genuinely social democratic presodent:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/obama_wants_a_european_transfo.html
I hope he’s right.
Looks like Julie Bishop has stuffed up again and taken Turnbull for the ride as well
The OO – Holes appear in SAS pay packet claims.
They certainlt d it differently in Russia:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/28/2503958.htm?section=justin
They certainly do it differently in Russia:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/28/2503958.htm?section=justin
I wish there was a 2 minute period after posting where I could edit a post before it becomes locked.
My double post above is a case of trying to fix a typo. Apologies.
The mistake Oakes makes is assuming the average person takes any notice of parliament. They don’t. The very issues he points to made but a small blip out there in voterland and even that is overstating it on my part. Neither Carr or Fitzgibbon made the main news services I saw and even if they had the average person would ask “Who?”
As for Oakes comments on Rudd polls suggest differently. Say no more.
I noticed 3AW tried to make something of both issues but not even they could muster up a lot of public interest.
Gary, You must have a strong stomach if you can listen to Neil Mitchell and his fellow cronies.
[A very insightful piece from an intelligent conservative, Charles Krauthammer. Obama as America’s first genuinely social democratic presodent:
Obama is essentially saying it doesn't make sense increasing the size of the federal government (like what occurred during te Bush years) without making health care and education more affordable, and transitioning the economy to green energy.
If this means the U.S. becomes a bit more like Europe, who cares. It has had inadequate health and education systems for too long. Obama is a pragmatist, it is just that social democratic policies are the right policies at this time in U.S. and world history.
freaky @210. You got a link.
Steve K,
The only thing 3AW is good for is Rex broadcasting the footy …..
Steve, I have a policy in regard to listening to Mitchell. The moment he starts getting into the government I turn off for that day. I hardly listened to him last week. I actually heard some of the Mitchell promos on other AW programs. The man claims to be neutral politically but you only have to listen to him for a awhile to realise this is total BS.
So why listen to him at all?
GG, Here’s the link. I found it by using googe
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25117300-31477,00.html
220 – Because Mitchell is not wrong on everything and he interviews some interesting people, including politicians. I just don’t like it when his bias is clear, petty and montonous, which it can be on many occasions. The moment that occurs he’s off.
I have the same policy for all politically based shows and articles by the way, not just Mitchell. QandA is a case in point. It’s a case of sifting the BS from the reasonable.
I reckon you often learn more from people you disagree with than from people you agree with.
I’ve finally found where on the OO site the article ‘Holes appear in SAS pay packet claims’ resides. It’s located under the ‘Defence’ tab a whopping 13 tabs to the right of the ‘Breaking News’ tab. Now it’s reasonable to class this article as an opinion piece and not therefore list it as a news item. But how often are OO opinion pieces presented as news? Each and every day is my guess. So why is this article buried in a deep hole on the site? Could it be that it basically puts a lie to much of the opposition bluster in parliament this week? You betcha.
Well done freaky for finding it in the first place.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25117300-31477,00.html
By that standard, every single member of the Howard Government should have been sacked.
He actually did mention this, but the problem is the Liberals didn’t want him to give clear answers, hence they just constantly interrupted him.
It just shows you how low the Liberals will try to do to deal themselves back into the political debate.
Yep, hide it away in Defence News where no one will see it yet when I was in the Newsagents a few days ago I glanced at the OO and the story was all down the right hand side of the front page.
The wife of a soldier who KNEW OF a soldier, not who KNEW a soldier , all herersay and the OO jumps in feet first to slur the government but now that it is full of holes they are putting the blame for the flawed story squarely at Bishops feet to save their own sullied reputation.
No, anything to take away media attention from the absolute shambles that is the coalition opposition. Just a week ago they were falling to bits with internal power struggles.
This one is breathtaking: “Executive pay shouldn’t be limited” – ACCI
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/28/2503971.htm
Imagine the reaction if the headline read: “worker’s pay shouldn’t be limited” – unions. Governments set limits for the pay of pubic servants, soldiers, almost everyone on an award, and even many forms of fee income. Why not CEOs? Its pretty clear that company directors and cmopnesation committees are not limiting their pay. Time for action on this I think.
I meant public servants
Vera, The OO are out to save both their own reputation and Bishop’s. That’s why the article is buried. I wonder if Matt Franklin expected his work to be hidden under the ‘Defence’ tab or presented as a mainstream news item where the vast majority of readers would see it.
Oz 208
True, but it wasn’t always so. And its the same for the entire west coast. They won’t get back into office without any representation in those two regions.
True SteveK but I also think there is no honour among Fibbers not just thieves
Yes, I had to dig pretty hard to find it. Eventually used the “SEARCH” function.
Two days ago the story ran thus:
Not much uncertainty there, is there?
But by today it was:
So it’s gone from “proving” on Thursday to “indicating” on Satueday.
Just a sentence later, the Australian prints a statement from a woman who knew about the incident:
So, now completely contradictory evidence only “appears” the back “claims” by Fitzgibbon.
Julie Bishop “proves” while Fitzgibbon “claims”… and it’s all buried on the back page anyway.
Scum.
We are once again shocked – shocked! – to discover that the Daily Liberal supports the Liberals. When will you people learn?
I know nothing about this pay packet issue (been too busy to get into it) but it obviously appears the Liberals have been up to their usual tricks. Labor should fight back vigoursly and clearly expose their deceitful tactics and incompetence. Fitzgibbon is a good bloke btw. Remeber it was his idea to team up Rudd with Julia.
A bit early yet but of this payslip story develops further it’d be interesting to see if Media Watch showed some interest.
I’m thinking that that’s why Franklin’s piece was published – to make sure that the OO can claim to have reported each development in the story even though as the story reaches a most interesting stage the latest installment is hidden from view.
BTW I am in no way casting dispersions on Franklin’s integrity; he has done his job. The person I have a problem with is the editor who decided to keep this installment hidden.
Media Watch doesn’t cover anything political any more. Supposedly typos and slip ups in community newspapers are the big issues nowadays.
You mean like typos in SAS payslips?
This is untrue. One of its best shows last year was when it showed how the federal opposition tried to verbal the treasury secretary.
The decline of MediaWatch into an insipid gotcha show is another reason I want my 8c a day back from the ABC.
Gotcha show? Did you see this week’s episode detailing the complete hatchet job A Current Affair conducted against the young Australian of the Year?
So when do you expect to finish your metamorphosis in to a card carrying Liberal?
Simon O’Donnell is much more convincing commentating horse racing than cricket.
bob1234, that is a textbook example of argumentum ad hominem.
(But you were probably being light-hearted.)
Media Watch is essential viewing IMO. The people that attack it always simply attack the show for having an agenda, they never seem able to explain exactly what is wrong with its stories.
Lovely picture of Howard on election day 2007:
http://www.theage.com.au/ed_docs/YIR07b.pdf
I stumbled across it and wanted to share.
If I see “Howard’s end” used as a headline ONE more time I will throw something at someone.
Media Watch is a great show.
The local Illawarra Mockery – sorry, Mercury – used to make a regular appearance.
I was thinking that photo was the one you were showing to us prior to opening it. It’s a lovely image isn’t it!
Ditto for Malcolm in the Middle …
Isn’t it funny that the coalition were only prepared to spend the surplus when they realised their political hides were on the line? I’m glad Australians kicked out this government that hoarded money when they felt safe, and spent the surplus when they felt insecure. This isn’t how one runs a country.
I will laugh if Bligh loses to the LNP with a 22 seat majority lol!
257 – Mature comment that.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/electioncentral/2009/02/27/196/#comments
Oh, and Glen, wrong thread.
And so you should. But somehow I doubt you’ll be smiling too much (and most ALP supporters will be going “whew”)
Obama now says the war in Iraq gave “a precious opportunity to the people of Iraq,” that it gave the Iraqis “a chance to choose a better future,” and that the US armed forces “succeeded beyond any expectation.” Does this mean that the war, which he opposed from day 1, was right all along? Does it mean that he concedes that the Petraeus surge in fact worked, something he flatly denied all through the campaign? Does he intend apologising for his attacks on Bush for waging the war, and on Hillary Clinton for having voted for it? In all cases, apparently not. Furthermore, Obama’s withdrawal is bogus, no quicker than Bush or McCain would have done – combat forces will stay until August 2010, and support forces until December 2011. Obama is a brilliant politician, but also a very slippery one.
http://www.politico.com/largevideobox.html?id=14378982001
Oily’s the word… but i don’t know if we are allowed to use it anymore.
Well, I assume you think Obama should be telling the troops that their long presence over there was a total waste of time, that their fellow soldiers died in vain and that their families really have nothing to be proud of. How presidential that would be.
For heaven sake grow up. You can oppose something while at the same time make life just a little less arduous for those poor souls that have lost loved ones or been badly wounded in the war.
You know as well as I do it is not all black and white, well I thought you did.
I almost thought of saying exactly the same thing, Vera – which would have been funny if I’d done it. You on the other hand are sternly reprimanded.
Just kidding. For the record, my original edict read: “Barack Obama or any other politician can be described as ‘oily’ (adjective) provided it’s not abused, but ‘oils’ and ‘(his) oiliness’ (nouns) are banned under the tedious nicknames provision.”
William I slapped my wrist and stood myself in a corner and promise to behave in future
I’m with Gary on this one.
The POTUS can’t say a war was futile, any more than our PM can say we’re heading towards recession.
You’d love to say everyone should tell the unvarnished truth always, but in a mass media age it isn’t that simple.
If that’s what he thinks he should have the courage to tell the troops that to their faces. It’s certainly what he appeared to be saying through the whole length of the war, and during the campaign. If you oppose a war root and branch, you can’t then turn around and say, oh, in fact it was a success, and not acknowledge that you were wrong in your first position. Not without being guilty of gross hypocrisy anyway.
the police have just been out with the DVD of next monday nights ACA and now i can relax, it’s a 1/2 hour crime stoppers special and well done without the usual lurid crap, i was worried sick as to what i got my family into but its ok.
In this interview
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19424.html
Obama says: “I think what we can say unequivocally is that our military succeeded in every mission that was given to them,” Obama said. “I don’t think we can rightly say that the strategy cooked up by our civilian leadership, with respect to either going in, in the first place, or how the war was managed, was a success.”
What does this mean? The military was given the task of removing Saddam’s regime, which they did, and then of defeating the insurgency, which they did. Who gave them those tasks? The Bush administration. How can the military get credit for carrying out those missions, and thus giving, in Obama’s words, “a precious opportunity to the people of Iraq” in the form of “a chance to choose a better future,” and yet continue to condemn the people who gave the military those tasks?
“Oily ain’t oilyness” I always say.
269 – So you do see it in black and white terms. You really don’t care about those soldiers or their families do you? Bloody disgraceful.
Oops I started one sentence and finished another. That last sentence should end: “and yet the people who gave the military those tasks continue to be condemned?”
Obama and many other people spent the whole of the past six years opposing the war, arguing that it was misguided and futile. Many of them (not Obama) also described the US military as war criminals and all sorts of other things. Who cared then about the sensitivities of military families? What a load of sh*t.
Have to say, the sooner Bill Leak is back full time at The Oz, the better:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/gallery/0,25198,5024288-20581,00.html#
Spot on Dyno. That’s politics and that’s life. We all have times where you’d like to ‘lay it on the line’ to friends, family etc. but spare their feelings by sugar coating the real message. That’s called tact Adam. You may want to look it up one day.
Both silly and tasteless.
It would have been perfectly possible to praise the courage and loyalty of the troops without conceding that the war had in fact been a success. That is my line on Vietnam, which I opposed at the time and still oppose now, as it were. But that’s not what Obama did. He acknowledged, in effect, that the war had liberated the Iraqi people, a position he specifically denied during the campaign. He did this without admitting that he had changed his mind, and without apologising to those he traduced at the time. That’s not tact, that is dishonesty and lack of courage.
278 Adam in Canberra – Stop being pompous.
How is it pompous to say a cartoon is silly and tasteless?
The war in Vietnam was seen as a failure and we know how those soldiers were treated.
281 – Sorry, I thought you were replying to me.
I said the cartoon was silly and tasteless, and you were a load of sh*t. Take your pick
This is actually a myth. The Vietnam veterans were not ill-treated. I always drew a distinction between my opposition to the war and my attitude to those sent to fight it, and so did most people in the anti-war movement.
Tell the Vietnam Vets that Adam.
Then:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yAt6SoZbkE&feature=related
Now: “If we get it right over the next few months and years, … there is a strong possibility we can leave Iraq as a stable, peaceful partner in the region,” said Obama.
Some Vietnam vets, sadly, and for various reasons, have chosen to buy into this myth. But it is still a myth.
i am still trying to get over for Mitcho not getting his century and also missed his ball that got Smith for a quack quack. Tony Greig, where are you? all is forgiven. You are the model of impartiality when compared with the current mob of SA commentators on Faktel.
Anyway, as an old hand on Obama’s Roy Orbison. I am with Mr. Adam here. As per usual, his opposition to the Iraq War is now under the bus together with the Rev and Grandma.
Well said Adam.
I would have thought it is lot easier to give the idea that the war has been somewhat a success and thus pull out than give the impression it was indeed a total failure and withdraw. No-one likes to think their country is squibbing it and it was all for nothing. “Our soldiers failed” is not a good look. Again tact and tactics are in play. That’s politics. You don’t like it Adam. Many don’t but that’s life.
287 – What makes you say it is a myth?
Absolutely Adam @ 284
Having been very involved in the anti-war movement at the time I have no recollection of actions directed against returning soldiers. Our actions were directed against the Govt and the military-industrial complex.
In fact, the vets were let down by the Govt & the RSL.
Many vets suffered from the trauma of the war but to suggest that the anti-war movement waged some sort of campaign against vets is nonsense.
Surprise, surprise Finn.
I’m sorry but until I hear from the ‘other side’ of the anti war movement I’ll suspend my judgement on this myth idea.
For example, we are often told that the “welcome home” parades in 1992, or whenever it was, were the first public recognition of Vietnam veterans. In fact there were parades in Sydney and Townsville in 1971 and 1972, and of course many Vietnam veterans were decorated. We are told that blood or red paint was thrown on veterans. No specific incident of this has ever been verified. (It may be a confused memory of red paint being thrown at Lyndon Johnson in Sydney in 1966.)
GB, i am consistent from Day 1 on the Big O.
I didn’t say that.
So Adam, you with Hitlers aggression in the second world war because the Blitzkriegs worked so well…
Tom
296 – Me too and your point is?
Since when is it the president’s job to do what is easiest? This after all has been one of the most bitterly fought issues in American public life for decades. Opposition to the war ruined both Bush and Blair. Now, having been elected on the back of that sentiment, after attacking both Clinton and McCain for their support for the war, Obama suddenly turns around and proclaims the war a success, and we are supposed to applaud him for being “tactful”? Give. Me. A. Break.
My understanding is that until the Vietnam War there weren’t “welcome home” parades. Those returning from Vietnam were treated no differently.
Tom, I do not respond to reductio ad hitleram arguments, particularly ones as stupid as that one.
I’m going shopping now so save further witty comments till later.
so you agree…
Tom.
Sorry Gary @ 297.
So what are you saying?
GB, my point is you should not be surprised. If you look back at the PB archive, it was me who first coined Obama as the Big O.
Maybe you are too young to remember, it was the time when the 3 Amigos Vs the 300 Spartans.
The fact that this was felt to be necessary suggests to me that the “myth” had some currency to it, that it wasn’t just the belief of a small number of Vietnam Vets.
All is forgiven Finns. Anyone who sees me as young has made a friend for life. I grew up with the Big O.
Well Adam lets change the situation to the Russian invasion of Hungary after the second world war. That was a sucessful military action. Using your own logic you must therefore agree with the Russian administration? Are you going to answer this one or are you going to run away hurling childish abuse in a poor attempt to defend yourself and you simple logic?
Tom.
Gary,
Adam said that the contention that Vietnam vets were ill-treated was a myth.
You rejected that.
Based on my recollections I have supported Adam’s view.
So your views are based on what?
So this was a myth?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/out-of-the-political-twilight/2008/08/18/1218911572820.html
Maybe not “myth” but it does get overstated – Australian vets were treated better then American ones.
Ironically the RSL was among the worst towards the vets – the Vietnam War didn’t count in many of the old diggers eyes as a real war… (though to be honest usually by those “veterens” who spent most of WWII behind a desk)
GB, i have also forgiven Obama on the conditions that:
1. He made Hillary the SOS – ticked
2. He fixes the GFC – pending
3. Like Moses, he leads the American out of Disneyland – pending
All I know is that my old man thought the welcome home parade in 87 was one of the highlights of his life.
my husband was a career soldier, he signed up as a young teenager for Korea and went through every war zone including Vietnam, he was against Vietnam but had to carry out his oath, with his blessing i marched against the war pushing a stroller of kids, Vietnam changed him, having to have scared conscripts beside him made him feel ill, he said things and the way they were treated had changed when he came home, the treatment was different, after he came back he never took out his medals nor marched in Anzac again, all he said was wars a fools game and he left the army as soon as his time was up.
Don’t you know your Baudrillard? Disneyland is America.
I was lucky I missed the Vietnam Lottery by a few months – my elder brother was not, he had his birthday pulled out of the hat.
Kids just out of school were “selected” to kill people, then they were expected to return to normal life as if nothing had happened.
I applaud Billy McMahon for pulling our troops out of vietnam, but successive Govts. failed to appreciate the damage done.
Hopefully we have learned the lesson.
Pray we never see the National Services Act again. Thanks God (or is that Gough) for its departure from this place…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Service_Act_(1964)
Yes, the vets believe they were ignored and neglected – as the reference indicates mainly by Govt & the RSL.
But what I am saying is that they were treated little differently from those from previous wars by the general public.
Suicide/depression, tragic as it is, is an outcome of the experience of war.
Just on a personal note, my father suffered depression for 30 years after WW2 before it was detected. Ruined his life.
309 Winston – research. Do some and you’ll find many Vets felt shunned. You can argue all you like that they weren’t but that was the feeling. My cousin is a Vietnam Vet. The war messed so many of those soldiers up and they felt they got a raw deal from the authorites and, yes, from some people in general. What is actual and how they felt maybe two different things but that to me is irrelevant. They felt let down by those who should have been cheering them.
I’ve seen it first hand. My number came up when I was 21 but Whitlam came in just in time. I lived through that time.
Tom, i find the best advice for AIC is for him to go and have a good cry and a lie down
It seems to work
I don’t discount the depression/suicide after any war, but you’d have to say the veterens of WWI or WWI never were made to feel ashamed of their fight.
But geez, it’s all just utter hell for anyone invovled in them. I couldn’t do it.
gary @ 319.
Yes – I’ve heard they feel shunned. However, relative to all previous wars they actually weren’t.
And I’ve got my own “first hand” thanks.
GB, for us BB, there is only one line that is applicable. It’s by the old master, Mr. Dylan:
“Ah, i was so much older then, i’m younger than that now”.
Winston
Posted Saturday, February 28, 2009 at 6:49 pm | Permalink
Granted it only lasted a few week, but obviously you don’t recall the attempt by some in the RSL to exclude them from membership.
When Vietnam finished it was not well supported within the community and the returning vets did not receive a warm welcome.
I have a lot to thank Whitlam for, he won the year my Marble was to roll, unfortunately I was young and stupid, if unlucky I would have accepted my fate, it required a little travel and a little time to see the protesters where right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Urtiyp-G6jY
Grog, Ronnie Burns made some very good records but that one was the best. Written by Johnny Young if I remember correctly.
Again, irrelevant Winston. What is real and what is perceived can be polls apart and make the world of difference. I will say this though if so many had this perception of being shunned then we didn’t do a good enough job of showing our appreciation.
Also I don’t recall such a popularly held perception being reported after the first or second world wars. I’m not saying there wasn’t that popularly held perception after those wars its just that i haven’t heard of it or read about it. You?
Ru, my bro was in the anti-war movement and was technically a draft dodger,until gough came in.
My parents used to sweat on the sunday night “death lottery” which BTW was televised.
Something more macabre I have yet to see as a Televised Death Lottery
fredn @ 324
I think I’ve acknowledged they weren’t well supported by the RSL.
But the “myth” here is that the RSL actually looked after returning soldiers from previous wars.
323 – Great song that Finn.
Turnbull, Pyne, Hockey should all resign for giving unnecessary stress to Defence Force payees and for giving the enemy a good laugh in time of war.
Smiley – a great OZ song of all time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3__s39V3mYE
I’m glad Obama spoke the way he did to the Marines. I was opposed to the war in Iraq from the start and think it has proven a terrible mistake. But the fault lay not with the soldiers, who were trying to do their duty (or what they were told was their duty), rather it lay with the politicians who ordered them. It will be good if the mistake of Vietnam in this respect is not repeated (respecting the soldiers when they get back).
Winston 319
My sympathy for your father’s situation and I agree all wars are terrible. However I’d have to say that I think the situation of Vietnam vets was far worse than previous vets. I don’t know a single vet who would say otherwise (admittedly only a half dozen people, but still).
Finns did you see this
big bird with big skull to hold big brain? it must have had it’s nest in that knowledge tree of yours
http://abc.com.au/news/stories/2009/02/28/2504005.htm?section=justin
Cheers Finns – I didn’t think to look it up on youtube!
Well I was heavily involved in the anti war stuff, Vietnam era that is.
And so were several of my mates, not by choice.
The best man at my wedding had the wrong birthday so off he went never to return alive.
2 mates of mine that I shared classrooms with all my school days went, one came back alive, the other has a street named after him in our home town.
The returned bloke muttered “We know how to deal with types like you” the one time we met afterwards.
My lifetime best friend went also, he is now buried about 40 metres from where I am typing this. When he returned he was given extra credit for his interupted studies and an extended scholarship to complete.
Fair enough.
Me, on the other hand, well I was sacked for my part in the anti-war stuff, at least until it was pointed out to my employers that they could not actually sack me. So they rescinded the sacking and transferred me to a place as far far away as they could and gave my new regional boss explicit instructions to give me as hard a time as possible. Which he did.
He actually apologised 20 years later for that, not to me not to me because we never met, but to a mutual friend, himself a returned Viet vet and a lifetime friend and colleague, and that fella passed it on to me.
During that era, the 60s and 70s, we, ie those opposing the war, rarely met soldiers in any large numbers and we certainly had sympathy for them being caught between a rock and a hard place.
So please don’t confuse the reality with the media inspired myths.
Compared to what the men, women and children of Vitenam suffered from our soldiers going over there, I must admit the sensitivities of those who thought it was right to go over there and invade another country pales into insignifigance in my view.
When can we just say that those who chose to go and fight in an unjust war should take responsibility for doing so?
Those who try to justify the war in Iraq can’t win:
1. No weapons of mass destruction.
2. Ignored real intelligence.
3. Fabricated false intelligence.
4. Started war on the verge of Hussein being declared disarmed.
5. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives destroyed.
6. Thousands of US lives destroyed.
7. Hundreds of $millions wasted.
8. Badly failed to finish job in Afghanistan.
9. No plan to end war.
10. Used propaganda of cut and run.
It was only when the Republicans were going to get booted out of office that they formed a troops home strategy. Obama is now following on from that strategy to end the war.
Now because that strategy is working, somehow those trying to justify the war are saying that Obama was never really against the war afterall. Well their tiny little brains are a tiny little bit muddled, aren’t they?
As I recall, the anti-war demos never really took off in Australia and the US until we started to lose.
Never. Governments fight wars, not people.
Centre @ 339
I would’ve said #7 would be in billions.
Whatever else you can say about his time as PM, Menzies can rot for what he did in getting Australia into Vietnam and bringing in conscription. Read Paul Hamm’s Vietnam War and you’ll see how he lied to parliament and the public about his intentions to go to war.
And yet there are those who claim him as our greatest PM.
I wouldn’t waste spit on him.
Depends how you define “started” and “lose”
centre
on the old oz politics blog there were some great debates about iraq.
I originally supported the war but once all the lies were exposed it seemed so futile for Oz to be involved.
Unfortunately Obama has been suborned by the US penchant for lying to itself about its military and its wars. They are all heroes, right. (Johnny Howard was on the same bandwagon, incidentally. The lies here are big lies of ommission:
(1) It was an unnecessary war. there were no weapons of mass destruction. Worse, even if there had been, there is no evidence that Saddam would have used them on the West. Maybe on Iran, but not the West.
(2) Even before the war, the blockade was driving Iraquis to desperation, including mass malnutrition of its children.
(3) Up to four million Iraqis have been displaced. Success, anyone?
(4) Up to one million Iraquis have been killed. Success anyone?
(5) A generation of Iraqi children have suffered malnutrition, loss of life, maiming, loss of access to schools and death or dislocation of family members. Success anyone?
(5) Iraq is divided into heavily armed camps. The notion that democracy will survive is a highly risky assumption. One cannot reasonably claim it as a success until it has been properly tested.
(6) The jihadis have simply transferred their main attentions from Iraq to Afghanistan/Pakistan and they are doing quite well there, including destroying very large amounts of our equipment and supplies. The area of contested ground is increasing, not decreasing. This has increased the risk of Pakistan tumbling. Success, anyone?
(7) The invasion of Iraq featured a gross initial military failure because have gained the ground the military failed to secure it. Success, anyone?
(8) The invasion of Iraq featured systemic torture and a huge loss of moral authority in the West. Success, anyone?
What Obama should have said was:
(1) I was right to oppose the war.
(2) It has brought mass death, dislocation and trauma to the entire Iraqi population, whether they supported Saddam or not.
(3) I thank the soldiers for risking their lives, showing courage and skill, and for following the directions of the democratic Government of the day.
(4) I am pleased to get them out of Iraq while the same time reinforcing the somewhat limited successes we have achieved.
There has been much confusion about opposition to the Vietnam War and the response to the vets returning. Apart from the frosty reception by the RSL, who seemed to regard it as not a “proper” war, and isolated anecdotal reports of vets. being poorly treated, I’ve never encountered anything other than an ambivalence about how to react to people you know have gone to do what they are directed to do, but which you fundamentally oppose.
I think the same applies to Obama and the Iraq War, and getting the forces out. There are many who opposed the war, including Obama. Some nuance and tact, however, is required in the doing.
TPS, my husband stood by his oath, it had stood him in good stead until Vietnam, he didnt go willingly and he didnt want to be there, this a man who proudly fought elsewhere for his beloved OZ, he tried to be a bit of a mentor for those poor unfortunate kids who were forced over there, it was his urging that got me out marching, when your a member of the ADF you dont have choices, you can only stay true to your personal ethics while your there.
Yes DaveM.
Delete millions, insert billions
it’s ironic that one of my great grandies is half vietnamese
Grog, that’s not right about the demos not taking off in Australia and the US until we started to lose. In fact, it’s absolutely wRONg.
trillions?
I’m back from shopping, and will ignore (but not not forget) various childish ad hominem remarks made in my absence.
As I said, I would have no problem with Obama getting up and saying “I opposed the war but I honour your service.” But that’s not what he said. He said the war had been a success! It had liberated the Iraqi people! Mission accomplished! Now, if he had said, “I opposed the war, but I was wrong and I acknowledge it was a success,” I would greatly admire him for that. But he didn’t do that either. He said the war was a success, took credit for ending it, and ignored the fact that he had been opposing it only a few months ago.
Yes Gus. They were the good old days. Steven Kaye and Nostradamus would make GP look like an angel. And as for Dyno, well, he’s gonna go to heaven.
Even Glen is nearly a goodie now lol.
HSO – I was suggesting it was wrong – I was rather sceptically saying that using phrases like “lose” with regards the Vietnam War are a bit dopey.
Judith, from what you say it sounds as though your husband was well aware of what I was saying, that we are responsible for our decisions.
Today in his speech Obama said the U.S. has spent about $1 trillion on the Iraq war.
TPS, my comment should have been directed at you. Let me assure you, because I was a part of the organising of it, that we were demonstrating against the Vietnam War, long before it went sour militarily. It’s why we got State and Fed. gov’t special police or other files. And I know they exist because I’ve seen them. Gave me a laugh too.
On the Vietnam vets, here is a commentary from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. Read and learn.
http://vietnam-war.commemoration.gov.au/vietnam-war-myths/
Sorry, Grog
My favourite is that in Sept 2002 the director of teh CIA TOLD Bush that Saddam didn’t have WMDs, but he still went in anyway.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/
that and the fact Powell based his UN speech on an informant who was alcoholic hungover during debriefings, and needed to be coached to give the right answers..
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/11/1089484242583.html
buying in on the service pay fiasco, when John was in the army there were two payments, one week the wife/family recieved the bulk of the digger’s pay, the following week he recieved his increment, he could draw on his in advance if needed but couldnt touch the family payment, i dont know what the arrangements are now.
Harry (358) of course there were demonstrations long before the Tet offensive, but in my view it was the war getting bogged down that was the major spur to the mass demos of the Moratorium.
and what i was saying TPS he had no choice it wasnt his decision to be there, he made an oath to his government and he kept it, until Vietnam he was proud of what he had done for OZ.
Did you take the chance to be like Bogart in Casablanca and say :
“Are my eyes really brown?”
was this more because “we don’t like to lose” or just that more people woke up to the realisation that we had gotten ourselves into a hellish mess?
Vietnam was the first and last TV war.
TPS (363), it helped, but there was significant opposition to the war long before it got bogged down militarily.
(366) Both, in my view.
2 quick comments.
I was involved in anti-war stuff in 1965 but I dunno about when it ’started’ or when ‘we’ started ‘losing’. Strangely enough it was the Quakers who got me involved.
Cost of Iraq to the US taxpayer in dollars?
Latest estimate is 3 trillion US dollars.
Now I wonder who got all that money?
No matter what the estimate is its a helluva lot of money any way you slice it.
Grog, as my eyes change colour, it’s a bit difficult for them to be sure, which is a hoot.
What Tenet ACTUALLY told Bush was that the IRAQI FOREIGN MINISTER had assured him that Iraq had no WMD, and that THE FRENCH agreed with him.
Kim Beazley has his say on the payslip saga
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/libs-caused-defence-infighting-beazley-20090228-8ki5.html
Back from shopping, AIC? Any comment on Vietnam?
Yes there is a lot of “myth” (if you must) about the war and the vets.
If you have a few hours (or more!) here’s a PhD by a friend of mine on Vietnam Vets and thier treatment (including having to deal with the stereotpyes of the Vietnam Veterens like Rambo and etc)
http://eprints.jcu.edu.au/1113/2/02whole.pdf
HSO – 359
Socrates @ 334.
I usually respect your considered opinions but to suggest that Vietnam vets had it worse than any others is an insult to those who fought in other wars.
People will tell stories about their experiences, whether other people want to re-tell those experiences will depend on that person’s own agenda. We’ve discussed this here endlessly in relation to the behaviour of journos of various hues. I’d say ditto historians. Psychotherapists can be just as bad, and the only thing I’ve found of value is to be open to both the science and art of human listening.
Adam
I read your link, it mainly deals with the difference between the Australian effort and that of the USA. Different page same site gives a better picture of the topic under discussion. Read and learn, and try to respect the views of people that actually lived through it.
AIC, I did read it and refer you to 378.
Winston
The topic under discussion is no “war is hell” of that there is no doubt, but the treatment on return. Second world war vets received land grants and other assistance on return with the country littered with return soldier settlements. In other words do a bit of study, and cut the crap.
Hollywood had to make Rambo so that Americans could pretend that they actually won in Vietnam.
Oops left out the link
http://vietnam-war.commemoration.gov.au/aftermath/veterans.php
So much for the great test match umpire referral system:
fredn, are you a Vietnam veteran? If so, I honour your service. If not, spare me pious lectures.
Since you choose to misrepresent the text I linked to, I will now post it for the edification of all:
Associated with misunderstandings about the extent and longevity of opposition to the war is a widespread view that those who had served in Vietnam were denied recognition when they returned to Australia and that many veterans of the conflict were treated with hostility by the public. For infantry battalions at least, a parade was a normal part of their return to Australia. When a battalion sailed into the country aboard HMAS Sydney, the ship was often met by the Minister for the Army, the Chief of the General Staff and other local dignitaries. Those who had just sailed in from Vietnam usually received a parade within hours of their return. Only the occasional lone dissenter indicated that support for the war was less than widespread. For other returning soldiers the situation was different. Many, replacements and members of smaller units, came home in small groups, by aircraft, often arriving at night to little fanfare. The absence of parades for these people had more to do with the piecemeal nature of their return than a policy of denying them recognition.
As is the case with any conflict, myths and misunderstandings about Vietnam abound. These few examples are perhaps the most prominent and some have been perpetuated by veterans. Men who perhaps encountered the hostility of a few upon their return took this to be the opinion and experience of many. Acts of hostility against returned soldiers were not isolated, but they were not universal. Australians fought in a war that, over time, became unpopular and which ultimately ended in defeat for the side on which they fought. It was a unique position for Australian service personnel to be in. Veterans of earlier wars had the experience of being involved in conflicts in which Australia fought on the winning side. They also fought in conflicts that were widely supported by the public and, in the case of the Second World War in particular, required the active participation of a large percentage of the Australian population. Vietnam was different, it lasted far longer than previous wars in which Australians had fought and it occurred at a time when societal changes, some brought about by the war, meant that attitudes at the beginning of the war were very different to those at the end. Many of the myths that have arisen about the war are partially attributable to this. Generalisations about one part of the conflict – and the dissent that arose in its final years is one example – do not necessarily apply to another.
Amigo Vera, not only Diog, but also some of our friends here can do with some contemplation under the Knowledge Tree
http://pro.corbis.com/images/100338-12.jpg?size=67&uid={533A66E8-EA37-4270-9912-93F86644D8CC}
Finns
Name names dammitt
Try this:
http://conversationinfaith.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/418px-tree_of_knowledge.jpg
I prefer this one…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_Knowledge_(Australia)
Gusface, you want names – i give you names.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MJLi5_dyn0
It’s dead Adam, move on.
Fredn @ 381
Returned soldiers from previous wars were expected to simply go back to work & get on with life. No fanfare, no parades.
Soldier settlements? Most of them were too small to be viable, many of them were in desolate areas and many sold up after a few years.
How were the ones who refused to fight, because they thought the war was wrong, treated after Whitlam released them from jail?
South Africa 5-138
How many conscripts were there in total from Australia?
Well Simon Townsend made good with Woodrow!
But it’s progeny live on!
TPS @ 393
If my employer had known of my anti-war activities I would have been sacked.
Can’t say returned vets would be in the same situation. In fact, I recall that returned soldiers were considered favourably when applying for jobs.
Yikes! But its progeny live on!
Wikipedia says: “About 63,735 National Servicemen served in the military from 1964-1972. Of that number, 19,450 ‘Nashos’ served in Vietnam, all with the Army.’
SA 6-138 whoopie
No Adam, as I said I was lucky, I missed out by one year, it means I was old enough to have lived through the news, and keenly interested in what was happening. I saw how the returned soldiers were treated, oh yes the large groups had their little ticket tape parade but that is not the issue. The appalling behavior of the RSL is the thing that got me. Ok they we where only kids and the RSL was bunch of oldies, but RSL stood for Return Soldiers League and they were return soldiers.
Read the link I provided, it’s on the site you seem to consider to be the source, it actually gives a good summary. What they say about the country RSL branches is correct, farthers don’t tend to treat their sons so badly.
Your myth page misses one very important point when it come to the growth of the opposition. The protest movement grew, a couple of hundred thousand marching in Melbourne was the climax, not the beginning. Compared to the anti war movement the protest against work choices was a walk in the park. It was serious and it took a while for things to calm down afterwards. I would argue the Vietnam war pushed the social change hard and fast, not that social change pushed the anti war movement.
My own view is the Vietnam war shapped the age, it gave the youth a very solid reason to reject authority, war and started the peace movement started.
(396) Thank god for telly. I’ll pray for your cuttings, Adam.
What it means Adam is that Obama disagrees with the strategy used to devise false justification for invading Iraq in the first place. It also means that he believes that the military did a good job despite the bumbling and incompetent Bush administrations pathetic efforts to run a war. I know you won’t directly answer the question put to you twice now by me because you would rather hide behind your childish abuse and run off and hide. I’ll take your run away as you call people names behind as a victory over your simple logic.
Tom.
In case anyone is interested, messy web links can be included in your comments using the following code:
<a href=”URL”>reference text</a>
For example, if you want to link to Shaun Carney’s piece in today’s Age, you would type
<a href=”http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/in-the-spin-cycle-20090227-8k9p.html”>Carney’s article</a>
What will appear is
Carney’s article
(I know many of you are geeks, but I thought some of you might find this useful.)
Another good anti Veitnam Song by Russell Mrris about a Nurse serving there.
BTW, the superior Stereo version has finally ben released on “On The Prowl – Australian Pop Of The 70’s Vol 2 (all previous reissues have been the mono mix.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGnn7_7Rxwk
That should read Morris
fredn, since we appear to be the same age I suggest neither of us lectures the other about what we would know had we been there at the time.
I read the page you refer to when I first located that site. It doesn’t contradict the text I posted.
Your last two paras above are quite true, but not relevant to the matter under discussion.
How did we get onto this, anyway? I was arguing about Obama.
(398) I suspect you’re right Winston. It puts things in perspective as far as I’m concerned.
Oz – here’s some stats:
Ruddie at the soccer getting a few cheers
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-sport/pm-makes-plug-for-2018-soccer-world-cup-20090228-8kyf.html
7/154 ring a ding ding!
Frank @ 407
My preference is “Feel Like I’m Fixing to Die Rag” by Country Joe & the Fish
Winston
Posted Saturday, February 28, 2009 at 8:44 pm | Permalink
We now have the internet, it doesn’t take much effort to overcome ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldier_settlement_(Australia).
Open your eyes in any town, they all have a war memorial and an RSL hall. If you want picture of the parades go to the library and have peak at the papers from the period, I’ve seen the women weekly because I had a relative who kept them.
From your link Adam,
it appears that that site is an Australian Government website for Veterans Affairs.
Briefly Adam i was a member of the royal Australian Navy for the period 1961-1970.
During the Vietnam War the RAN had something like 13,500 personel involved in either escorting the Vung Tau Ferry or on the gun line with 20 odd ships involved. I was a volunteer.
I was on one of the ships that escorted the Vungtau Ferry with its first load of troops arriving at Vung Tau on 8 June 1965.
It took three days to unload.
I was still a crew member of the same ship when the first lot of troops were extracted and returned in company with the Vung Tau Ferry to Sydney with them.
It was the day after we arrived or the next day we did the march with these troops as described in your link from Garden Island up to the Cenotaph.
The Army guys were in their good gear and we were in full whites.
I can only assume that the person who re-wrote the history on that link was no at the march on that particular day.
There were people there cheering but the majority were protesting toward us with regard to the war. There were the odd condoms full of blood (assume it was collected from abbatoirs) and plenty of loud vocal stuff. I really felt sorry for the Army guys after what they had been through and it has always been my contention that they should have been protesting at the Government and not us.
For Navy personel it was not until 1986 that the “Returned from Active Service Badge” and repatriation benefits were awarded. In 1992 the australian Government approved the “Vietnam Logistic and Support Medal”
I can not comment on any treatment concerning future returning troops as i was not there.
I did however do two more escorts of the Vung Tau Ferry and troops to Vung Tau.
Those future troops were unloaded in a day with big choppers.
My point is that i am of the opinion that the returning troops were ill treated not only by the public but also given shocking treatment and recognition by the Government.
I think the person who wrote that did so from the cocktail bar at the Hilton in the Cross. You believe what you like Adam you are free to.
I also might add that after talking to mates on the Vung Tau Ferry some of those poor army guys were chronically sea sick from when they let the ropes go at Garden Island until they arrived in Vietnam and the same on the way home.
Never forget a thing called ‘Agent Orange’ many soldiers came home severely effected by it. A good friend of mine was conscripted at the same time as myself and Doug Walters, also Normy Rowe was also an early conscript. Any way My good friend and another school friend also conscripted went to Vietnam and both were effected by the Agent Orange, the one I still see has mental problems and his 3 children have some mild deformities.
Vietnam was an ugly place and I would say that Iraq is also an ugly place especially seeing children blown up and cut to pieces. I was lucky I did not go to Vietnam, I was differed for 12 months to allow me to finish my apprenticeship then I was allowed to do my time in the CMF (now known as reserves). Due to our family having a poultry farm and my dad having suffered a heart attack.
8/156!
You probably ferried my Dad. He was gratefull he came back that way rather than on a plane. He felt at least he was given a few days to prepare.
AO was also sold as a farm insectide,variously under the names 2,4,5,T or 10,9,8
I still have vivid memories of spraying the blackberries with it in the eaely 80’s.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/758336/sas-troopers-wife-says-soldiers-paid
Yes, that was at the top left corner of page 18 of today’s Advertiser.
Beazley on the pay thing:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=758496
Do we know who is going to be on Insiders tomorrow? Do we watch or do we sleep in?
Btw, I think Barry Cassidy has been pretty balanced since Rudd won the election, and I don’t think a lot of the criticism from some bludgers is fair!
Also I reckon Q&A is not a bad show!
Fredn @ 414
I don’t think your wiki article disproves my claim that many of the the soldier settlements were unviable (remote it says) or that many were abandoned within a few years.
Also, I am aware that – especially in rural areas – there were some local welcome home parades, but I don’t think this was done on a national or statewide basis.
bob
The reason MediaWatch is so crap now is that Howie emasculated every semblance of political commentary from the ABC by terrifying it’s staff with the sack. I’m not sure why I’m becoming a card carrying Liberal for thinking that.
And I’m surprised that no-one has mentioned the disgrace that was the NSL Grand Final. We lost 1-0 but I think Mr Guillotine should be allowed back for a demonstration on the referee who made the worst decision in NSL history to rob us.
1,2,3,4 I declare a flame war!!!
Dio @ 425,
I was going to mention the A League GF result but I see you beat me to it …. been a hot day for sports. Rather than channel switch randomly, we put the TV to the GF and the radio to the cricket and then when ABC said there was wicket, we turned it over to the cricket to see the action. Now that the GF is over, we can run the cricket only after the lunch break. Think that Ponting will enforce the FO if it comes to that ……
It is?
This is nonsense. What about late last year when Media Watch attacked the opposition when it claimed that the Treasury secretary and RBA Governor disagreed on the Government’s loan guarantee?
ShowsOn
I didn’t say every single segment was crap, but the overall content has been ‘encrappened’. It used to be my favourite show on TV, now I just nod off during another complaint about some no-hoper journo plagiarising another no-hoper lourno.
Rabbitohs 18 Sts 6!
go the mighty bunnies
I should add that I have spoken to a few people working at the ABC who tell me they are continually in fear of their job if there could be a complaint about bias. They’ve had colleagues pulled off air, suspended and sacked.
I wouldn’t be cheering Vera. The bunnies won the same game (charity shield) without gettin’ the 2 points, and then lost something like 12 in a row in the real competition rounds.
Of course, playing the Charity Shield during the competition proper (where 2 points is available for the winner) would involve far too much common sense for the NRL.
centre ,wins are hard to come by for us bunnies so we got to make the most of it when one comes along
Isn’t the gay and lesbian mardi gras meant to be on tonight as well? Not that I’m really interested, I’m not gay. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
SAF 8/158 (66.0 overs) HAHAHAHAAAH take that Sud Afrikans!
make em follow on lol!
Hubby (a St’s supporter
) say mardi gras is in March
He’s not gay either, not that there is anything wrong with that
I have a theory that the poor form of the Aussie cricket team is all due to Lara Bingle. If she’s not in South Africa, my theory is starting to look pretty sweet.
Winston
I didn’t say the policy was a success, only that it happened.
Thanks Adam and Grog.
What happened to the Productivity Commission’s report on maternity leave? Wasn’t that going to be released today?
Centre, the David Brent of Poll Bludger …
(The Parade is on March 7, not that I know coz I’m gay or anything coz I’m not but it wouldn’t matter if I was coz being gay is fantastic I mean I’ve got lots of friends with poodles and they’re normal I mean they’re not normal as in dull actually they’re very sort of flamboyant and extroverted not that all gay people are flamboyant and extroverted coz that’s a stereotype …)
(!)
Adam
I apologize for getting on my high horse, at the time I was pretty discussed by the whole thing clearly you were not, nothing changes, different people see things differently. I’m not arguing with you over Obama, I agree, but the military is a big part of USA society and economy and it is not going to change.
Mardi Gras parade is on March 7th.
I am gay….. plus happy, delighted, glad, joyful, joyous, jubilant; ecstatic, elated, enraptured, euphoric, overjoyed, rapturous, thrilled; appeased, mollified, pacified, placated.
is there anything wrong with that?
Yes. You must contact Fred Nile immediately.
Bloody hell, you go off for a bit of dinner, and what happens? It’s back to the cricket. And am I complaining? Of course not. What’s the score?
Just ask Johnny O’Keefe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4CFo4NGkJU
The Finnigans, darling, sweetie, blossom buttocks, have you consulted a thesaurus recently?
Harry baby, “thesaurus”? did they die out when the earth was hit a massive rock & roll
8/178
Inner Westie, I was copying a Seinfeld episode where they were talking about gays, and they kept saying “not that there is anything wrong with that”. Like many Seinfeld episodes, it was hilarious
Should we impose the follow on? I don’t think so. I think we should play them out of the game first.
Did someone say fred Nile?
Our mayor is one of his boys and he tells the local council that God will show the way.
Oh, I’m ashamed to admit that I’m Seinfeld illiterate.
(I’m also Simpsons and Star Trek illiterate.)
(Which has made for some boring dinner parties.)
So why did he run for mayor then? Surely his being there is unnecessary.
Oh, The Finns, you’ll always be blossam buttocks to me forever after. And you can be as funny and rude back to me and I’ll just laugh. After all, shared Celtic history is not to be sneezed at. Argued about, sure. Sing songs about it, sure. Just don’t sneeze.
Does anyone know whether there is something in the constitution or any Act of Parliament that makes it an offence to give comfort to the enemy in time of war?
If so, shouldn’t the police be investigating Turnbull et al for the offence? There would be two elements of any possible charges:
(1) undermining the morale of the armed forces during time of war by making false, misleading and mischievious statements about their payslips.
(2) giving the enemy an opportunity to laugh themselves silly.
Inner W if you get the chance you should watch it sometime – guaranteed to laugh.
There is nothing in the Constitution. There is presumably still a law against treason and sedition. However it doesn’t apply to anything said in Parliament, which is absolutely privileged.
Boerwar, I’ve got no idea, but it sounds unlikely. I do like no. 2 however.
The most tedious and unfunny show ever put to air.
Now HERE’S funny
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTcRxIgPvx0&feature=related
Seinfeld is the best sitcom ever made Adam and dont you forget it!
“Serenity Now, Insanity Later” – ‘Llyod Braun’
Vera, have you noticed a disproportionate number of “places of worship” popping up in your neighbourhood?
If I were a dodgy developer wanting to seize parkland for speedy conversion into a Club Yarrawonga or a Caroline Springs, I’d be approaching the mayor with a line like: “And at the centre of this marvellous resort (housing estate), right alongside McDonalds (Aldi), will be a Monument to the Methodist Eucharist: Brumby’s and Dan Murphy’s!”
Adam @ 458
A pity, although I am a supporter of parliamentary privilege.
It looks like we will now have to wait for either of two alternatives:
(a) Turnbull et al, realizing that they have behaved in a disgusting manner, do the right thing and resign.
OR
(b) We will just have to wait for Bolt, Aker, Janet et al to take up the cudgels. I am sure that they will find it disgusting that Turnbull et al are prepared to play politics with army morale in time of war.
harriet baby, i am now in total despair as sa is still 8 and that twit from nz said not out
Adam in Canberra, since you’re back from the shopping and probably dinner has been prepared and enjoyed, perhaps you’d indulge replying to a question? Thinking back to the worst the nation has had to confront, has there ever been a time when the nation has gone with the Coalition vs. Labor?
Do you mean, has there ever been a time when the nation faced a real crisis, and the voters entrusted the conservatives to deal with it? I suppose that was true in 1931. The Scullin government fell apart in the face of the Depression, and the voters turned to Lyons – who was of course a recent defector from Labor rather than a Tory.
Steyn gone.
9/208
Adam in Canberra @ 460, that’s really,seriously funny. Thanks.
sa 9 down. No follow on
Great match for North so far! A century on debut, a wicket, and now a catch.
Who was the last test cricketer to be man of the match on debut?
Thanks,Adam. I’m having a bit of a problem responding, as the 3 legged cat has decided to climb all over the joint. The shadow min ister for Julie Bishop has been adopted by some one else, fortunately.
ALL OUT!
All Out for 220
So South Africa is gone?
shows, mitcho will be motm. Sa all out
Whoa
I may have posted this before, but here is Sir Robert Helpmann with his tongue firmly planted in his cheek
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdfsLglal0o
Do you think Spike would be allowed to do this today?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nfz9O_mSY1U
Probably. I doubt they could chase much more than 350 on this pitch. So basically all we need is 200 in our next dig to make it impossible for them to win.
Hughes would be bloody nervous now, don’t want to make a pair on debut!
What a great old trouper he was.
Why are there so many posts about cricket here? I thought this was supposed to be an intellectual blog?
Inner Westie @ 462 I haven’t spotted any. I think the Shaolin Monks were after approval for a temple/resort type project but that was when the previous mayor was in office. Not sure if they got approval, they were getting stuffed around a bit and at one stage threatened to take their business elsewhere.
There’s no intellectuals here.
tisa, william did say his intellectual requirement is not very high
Ok let me rephrase…I thought this was supposed to be a political blog.
where you live?
Down with communism!
Yay! Hughes gets 4.
Cricket is a HIGHLY intellectual game.
This is WAR with Pretoria!! How more political do you want.
Is this Kim Hughes or Merv Hughes? Both are a bit past it, I would have thought, what?
Adam in Canberra, I laughed myself silly. What a fabulous and totally off the wall bloke he was. I keep thinking Kev is missing a Spike gene. I know he does the self deprecating thing quite well, but he could do with a touch of the surreal, just to get him by, I reckon. Appreciated your other response about who the nation turns to in crisis. Bit hard to read anything into it given ongoing fire debacle here. Brumby seems to have responded well, and to be seen to have done so. Crap scene, though, so really enjoyed having a laugh. Thanks.
He does, it’s called “Question Time”.
ShowsOn, you reckon? I reckon they could spin it out to a series if they put their minds to it.
I don’t wish to make overt political commentary about the fires, but I must assume that Brumby will benefit politically by showing a much more human side than the public has seen before.
(I just discovered that last week’s fire near Daylesford came with 500m of my sister’s house.)
Tim in SA, let me be the first to welcome you to something that will take you anywhere, but mostly to analysis of any sort.
A flash in the pan by the intellectual-ridden politicals of the OZ team. For balance they need Spike bowling googlies.
Despite temporary setbacks, the doughty spirit of the South African team will see them hold onto number one position in the cricketing universe.
The Senate is the best reality show going IMO. The PERSONALITIES! John Hogg! Bob Brown! Chris Evans! Erica Betz!
All the action and drama you’ll ever need in one red room.
They don’t have it yet. They need to WIN this series. Even if the series is drawn Australia remains #1 on the ICC rankings. If South Africa can WIN the series, they’ll get the $500,000.
Possum is an intellectual. Here is just one of many glowing testimonials:
‘I have acquired several possum items from Teresa at Possum New Zealand, which never cease to receive favourable comments whenever I wear them. The scarves are amazingly warm, and are not only practical for the cold English winters, but also, their vibrant colours lift the dullest winter’s day. The detachable fur cuffs are an ingenious creation for dressing up a garment and can totally transform the look of a black coat or jacket into a fashion statement, and there are no worries when it comes to cleaning, as they are removable. Similarly, with the detachable boot cuffs. I can recommend these clever accessories as a versatile addition to help ‘multiply’ the look of your wardrobe.’
http://www.possumnz.com/Testimonials_38.aspx
I understand that, Adam, I’m simply telling what people have told me about the response of both the State and Fed. gov’ts. I hope your sister is O.K. Even if the fire missed her, it may have an effect, so keep an eye on her. If you need to, William can give you my email address offline, if she needs help.
Shows On
Who cares about a measly $500,000? It would only be enough to buy a bank or two. Useless.
I note that cricket-rule post colonialism is rigged to deny South Africa its rightful place.
HSO @ 501
Spot on with respect to the fire experience effects on people and on their need for a bit of TLC, help and support – even if they were not materially affected.
HSO, where are you based?
Why would the government make this stupid change?
All it’s doing is allowing the ATM operator to increase their profit at the expense of everyday consumers. I don’t understand the impetus.
Boerwar, you’ve gone all funny, mate. As in, I laugh. Actually, I thought they, i.e., your mob, would have done a bit better.
Yeah, and your point is?
Adam in Canberra, I’m based in Melbourne, but don’t let that get in the way. We go anywhere.
what is South Africa’s rightful place?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSLMKUXZ3hk
WTF?
Another early Anti-Vietnam Protest Song by the Masters Apprentices
WARS OR HANDS OF TIME
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXzOU9n1vJw
Has anyone noticed that South Africa V Australia test series are usually played in very high spirits featuring tough cricket but fair play, whereas Australia V India series are always controversial? That wouldn’t have something to do with India would it?
That song was also on the B Side of their UK No 1 Single “The Chicken song” which basically took the piss out of Agadoo.
You have been warned
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vUVJsfG3eA
Post or Pre Apartheid?
Adam in Canberra, that was off the wall. Yay. What will those looking for “intellectual” think of us?
HSO
Temporary setbacks such as the Boer War have not held the boers back in the past. As far as I know only one Boer War general went on to become Prime Minister of his country – Smuts, and he was a boer. The other Boer War participant who went on to become prime minister made a perfect tool of himself while in SA – a rooinek called Winnie. The Australians should have learned from that and stayed well away from him and from Gallipoli in WW1. Hamilton was the other codger who helped murder the Australians at Gallipoli – another British Boer War dud. Those who ignored the history of the Boer War certainly paid for this sin at Gallipoli. Well, the people who sent them did not, but the PBO did.
Anyway, back to the present century, now that we have got rid of the silly Apartheid system the team can represent all South Africans – a much better talent pool (if only it wasn’t for all that football). It is only a matter of doughtiness and remorseless time before the South Africans rule the cricketing world.
I take it all back. That twit from NZ has just made a good decision for Hughes.
Frank, Boerwar will be offended.
Silly? as in ha ha ha ha ha
Boerwar, it may well be all the silliness that goes on with feetball, that gets in the way of your mob doing something great in terms of cricket. Like being the No.1 team. I thought they were very good on their tour in Australia, and really deserved to win. I just like a really good game of test cricket. About as sensible as being a Spike Milligan afficianado, I suppose.
Ah the Chicken Song. Seems like yesterday.
How much of a joke is the referral system. Boucher wasn’t out and the thrid umpire doesn’t correct it, then a blatant LBW gets turned down! Why bother having it if the guy upstairs is never going to overturn a decision???
For this test match they don’t have the hot spot infrared system installed at the ground, therefore it is much harder for the third umpire to determine if the batsmen hit the ball.
Crikey, I seem to have stumbled into a swamp of sensitive Ozzies…
Well, I did get into a bit of strife in the anti-apartheid demos, so ’silly’ as in inhuman, stupid, deadly, murderous, destructive and ultimately, totally pointless. But all in the name of a whites-only God, so that was alright.
Obviously the South Africans don’t make cricket rules. That job is done by Indian bookmakers and media moghuls.
Always happy to see the Ozzies beaten by a better team…
Have to go now. Frank, have taken your warning to heart and have decided to avoid being offended by avoiding seeing offensive thingie, whatever it is…
Must go now. Hope the the current test ends in a draw and the South Africans get back on track in the next test.
The ICC ranking system has been in place for about a decade. The ranking system is the same for every team. Why you think this is some sort of conspiracy is beyond me.
They’re not exactly getting beaten at the moment…
It occurred to me probably the first week we were dealing with the fires that there would be people who didn’t get help that they needed. If anyone who posts here are such folk, or knows of people who need help, William has my permission to put them in direct contact with me.
That they can have effectively a different set of ‘rules’ for some tests is even worse. Either fork out the dough and get hotspot everywhere or nobody uses it. The ICC are pathetic.
I agree. But India makes them pathetic by vetoing any policies they don’t like (the India cricket board essentially pays bribes to the Zibabwian cricket council so they hold a majority of votes).
We missed out on a decision too, Duminy played at a ball down leg side and possibly hit it, Australia wanted it referred, but apparently the camera of the leg side angle wasn’t working, or wasn’t framed properly for that particular ball.
Well yes, that’s true as well
I know. No hotspot… some cameras not working… utter debarcle. Do it properly or piss it off.
Krugman giving an explanation of the way things are, why and the way forward.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/trevorcook/2009/02/28/paul-krugman-the-global-economy/
Obama still achieving Ruddian type approval/disapproval ratings.
Gee and even 43% of Repubs support him. Guess the whining obstructionist Liberal Party type tactics are not helping them. Keep it up.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116224/Obama-Approval-Rating-Increases.aspx
Abbott having a dig at Pyne now and Pyne brands Gillard a failure lol, Pyne’s all noise and bluster.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25120942-5006301,00.html
Judith
The spelling of the header is incorrect. Probably a journo doing his/her own sub-editing.
I don’t particularly appreciate the harrassment of Pyne which is based around his sexuality, real or presumed. I mark both Gillard and Abbott down for it. Gillard did it deliberately. She should know better – it was anti-gay stuff and down to the dog whistling standards of the Howard Government. As usual, Abbott got his mouth motoring before his brain was in gear. No excuse there either.
As for Abbott’s criticism of Combet, any politician who has not got a clear agreement in regard to the confidentiality of a conversation with somebody from another party is just asking for trouble. Arguing for some form of ‘locker room’ confidentiality makes Abbott look even more foolish. To top it off, Abbott made it clear that he is miffed that Turnbull chose Pyne over Abbott. What an inept contribution of a senior shadow minister to his party! Also quite reminiscent of Abbott’s contribution to the destablization of Nelson.
Now, let’s see, what have Abbott’s substantive contributions been to policy development in fourteen months of opposition…?
TP @ 530
I had a look. Thanks. Great link. Not sure if I agree with it all, or even understand it all, but a fascinating watch, all the same.
the whispering about replacing Turnbull with Hockey if Cossie doesnt come good has already started, interesting things in the coalition.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25120980-5001021,00.html
Boerwar, hey i only posted it i didnt write it, i cant stand Pyne but his sexuality is his own problem, Wong and Brown are honest about themselves and nobody even thinks about it or mentions it, in fact i dont think it crosses anyones mind, being who they are and no pretence disarms any purient interest.
They snap at each other like rabid dogs, slavering madly over power. The projectile vomiting of their fear and hatred spatters all who come near. Backstabbing in a frenzy of envy, they slip and slide on floors drenched in the blood of their colleagues. The bile of loathing and despair gushes from their mouths.
What a lovely Party they are all having!
that extreme right wing paper the Daily Terror {Howard’s favourite} seems to be going flat out to undermine Turnbull, i would have thought they’d want him in place at least till after the election.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25120916-5006010,00.html
Judith
I wasn’t criticising you, just the article. I apologise to you for not making that clear.
It is fine for Wong and Brown to be open about their sexuality. It is their call, and Brown in particular received some particularly nasty smearing in Tasmania at a period when, if I recall it rightly, sexual relations between men was still a criminal offence.
Pyne may or may not be gay. His call. Gillard targetted him in language that was clearly an attack based on Pyne’s presumed sexuality. Not satisfactory, and I hope this does not become a new low standard for Labour. IMHO, keeping people’s private lives more or less out of politics is one of the better aspects of Australian politics.
Shows, Australia Vs anybody more commonly ends in controversy than any other team. That does have a lot to do with Australia.
Tom
TP @ 531,
Sign of a man doing a beautiful job
…. wouldn’t have caught 43% of Dems supporting Bush 
……
Boerwar, ‘mincing’ doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with sexuality.
I agree, however, that Gillard’s comments were childish and offensive. It surprised me to see her devolve into such ugly politics based on gender role stereotypes…
Re 531 & 541,
This article shows a “worm” trained on a group of voters during Obama’s SOTU address
……
Malcolm Turnbull linked to mass logging operation in Solomon Islands
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,25119923-421,00.html
Anyone would think that there is factional problems in the Liberal party – but we all know that there are no such things as factions in the Liberal party, don’t we
Tom
The Turnbull story was published as far back as 2004. Sydney Morning Herald, 30 September:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/30/1096401687340.html
Gillards on Meet The Press.
Agonising “choices” this morning for the Insiders. Whether to run with the unfolding Turnbull logging story – or try to wring some more mileage from the Fitzgibbon payslip story, even as cracks open up in the Coalition’s version of events.
You’ve placed that slant on Gillard’s comments. She could very well have been slinging off at his demeanour and stature and have nothing to do with his sexuality.
Laurie Oakes, a very fair and fine journalist IMHO, gave Hockey a free kick on the Fitzgibbon payslip story. He didn’t ask Joe about the payslip just about the effect the story would have on serving members. A very weak interview on that issue I thought.
a mincing poodle certainly doesnt mean sexuality to me, i took it as a dig at his whining high voice and fussy mummy’s boy manner, lets face it in some labor quarters Pyne has been known as Christopher Whine since he went into parliament, apparently as a rookie polly he took offence at a pun made at him and complained to parliament about it, i personally cant stand the prissy little twirp but i dont give two damms about his sexual preferences unless they cause problems for others.
hmmm Hockeys going on about renumeration salarys, isnt that Turnbull calling the pot black? isnt that how he got his golden handshake re the HIH fiasco? seems a bit of double standards to me, but then why let the truth get in the way of a good anti government kick.
with apologies to William, i wish someone had warned me the leperous toad was on insiders, i do try hard to avoid him and his poisonous opinions where i can.
Right on Judith – even the others on the panel are laughing at him.
He depicts the current mood and morals of the liers party to a “T” !
GB@548. That’s how I read the comments. I assumed she was calling him weak and pathetic. So I am more worried about the people who jumped to the conclusion that weak, pathetic, mincing, and abbaphilia equals gay.
Fran Kelly and Malcolm Farr were AWFUL on Insiders.
Porky now trying to link so called SAS dissatisfaction with the Bangladesh mutiny.
What a low life. Malcolm Farr openly laughing at the slime piers
Bree, actually i thought they were well balanced for a change, actually a nice change.
If they were serious about balance they would have Karl Marx on the panel to counter Akerman.
Fran and Malcolm were sucking up to Rudd while Piers Akerman was actually displaying investigative journalism.
The moment I read this I assumed they mustn’t have been fawning over the Libs for once.
LOL – True.
Let me decode this for everyone. Piers Akerman was fawning all over the Libs.
“Piers Akerman was actually displaying investigative journalism”.
Is that what you call his massive beer gut?
the Adelaide Sunday Mail, page four, huge headlines and i mean HUGE—- HYPOCRITE’ TURNBULL, Newsltd seem to be certainly doing a job on Malcolm, so who have they got in mind next? Hockey or Cossie lol, bring it on.
pmsl, the toad now claims the government is acting boring in question time so people wont tune in to watch how hopeless they are–well at least thats original.
Judith what Piers doesn’t get is that most don’t watch parliament anyway and those that do are fanatical so will watch it no matter what.
More to the point, what he doesn’t get is that he eats too many pies
Piers is a friend of Kinky Friedman, the brilliant crime writer and lead singer of the band “Kinky Friedman and the Texas Jewboys”. He got 12% of the vote for Governor of Texas in 2006. Some of his songs include “They Ain’t Makin’ Jews Like Jesus Anymore” and the feminist classic “Get Your Biscuits In The Oven and Your Buns In Bed”.
From the Prisoner of Vandam St.
The thing we know for certain after watching Insiders this morning is that the time is getting very close to FINALLY put Piers in a nursing home.
What about Farr’s butt lick saying that Ackerman should be paid 20 times more than Rudd?
Could the ABC please discipline it’s guests from such obscenity, there are people having breakfast at that particular time of the morning.
Just saw this story in the ABC site: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/01/2504167.htm?section=justin
In it, Greg Hunt says that not a single Australian home has had insulation batts installed in the 18 months since the scheme was announced. Maybe my memory is failing me but wasnt the insulation rebate scheme only announced as a part of the stimulus package only a few weeks ago?
The neocons look pretty happy with Romney. This CPAC poll gives him the lead as Repug for 2012. CPAC is pretty hard-core. 95% disagree with the job Obama is doing.
Mitt Romney – 20 percent
Bobby Jindal – 14 percent
Ron Paul -13 percent
Sarah Palin – 13 percent
Newt Gingrich -10 percent
Mike Huckabee – 7 percent
Mark Sanford – 4 percent
Rudy Guiliani – 3 percent
Tim Pawlenty – 2 percent
Charlie Crist – 1 percent
Undecided – 9 percent
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/28/romney-wins-cpac-poll-pal_n_170787.html
ABC News:
“Mr. Fitzgibbon ordered the army to stop docking the soldier’s pay last October but it was still happening last week”.
I thought we realised it hadn’t?
The Insiders should be renamed The Offsiders and vice versa. It’s a better reflection of what they are.
Yes I heard the same thing on ABC radio in the car about half an hour ago. In a news item they stated “Solider’s pay was still being docked last week”, not as a quote from the Opposition, but as a FACT. ABC up to it’s usual tricks eh?
I just heard the report on NewsRadio, it was very clear that it was the opposition asserting something, it wasn’t stated as a fact at all. It was followed by a quote from Julia Gillard rejecting the opposition’s claims.
Well it looks like their ABC is pushing for Joe to take over, I notice the main story featured on their newspage lately at regular intervals is always what Joe says accompanied by this photo http://www.abc.net.au/news/ I guess they think he looks masterly, it just makes me think of those side show clowns with their mouth open that you put balls in
They did the same with Turnbull after he became leader, had a photo of him that accompanied every political story and was forever on their main news page.
oops try this, http://www.abc.net.au/news/
I don’t know why the older webpage with the soccer came up??
Why do you think it is the ABC? The Daily Telegraph has run the most detailed story saying that Hockey will be the next opposition leader:
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25120980-5001021,00.html
Why is it surprising that the ABC will report an opposition interview? I would be worried if the ABC DIDN’T report on opposition interviews.
It is not their reporting of inteviews, it’s the fact that the photo and story is left up on the site as main item . the first thing you see when you go to their newspage.
To me what the Libs say isn’t the main news of the day
Supposedly ‘balance’ to some people means only publishing the Government’s views.
Balance like Insiders
Also when you start comparing what the Daily Terror says to what the ABC says I need so no more
so= say
Lindsay Tanner gave a very measured and professional performance on the Insiders this morning. How he did it with Ackerman only metres away is a mystery.
No, my point was simply that the ABC was reporting on an interview that Joe Hockey conducted this morning on Channel 9.
This is just absolutely par for the course for Sunday political coverage. Most of what gets reported on Sundays is what was said on Insiders, Meet the Press, Laurie Oakes’ interview on Sunday Today, or whatever Glenn Milne rustled up for the News Ltd. tabloids.
There is no anti-government conspiracy here…
Alcopops tax seems to be working.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25122354-12377,00.html
Piers must be pining for the return of days like these where he was the main Actor.
rip snorter of a day
Alcopops tax has worked:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25122354-29277,00.html
So even accounting for the fact that decline in alcopops sales led to an increase in sales of other alcoholic drinks, over all consumption has declined 2.7%.
Vera, i’ll forever visualise Joe as one of those sideshow clowns from now on and the picture in that article has only reinforced the image, oh golly gosh, question time is going to be a comedy caper for me after this with the mincing poodle and the sideshow clown.
Gillard was refferancing Pynes style only. I think that people assume it was something else indicates the old world. His style is as open to teasing as rudds or turnbull.
Didn’t think she was at her best this morning – her answer on executive pay was rather too “we’re looking at all options”.
Everything else was good; but she wasn’t really fired up that much.
Looking less likely that IR will be a DD trigger:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/01/2504208.htm?section=justin
It seems in some quarters it’s ok to call Rudd a toxic bore, even clever, but not to call Pyne a mincing poodle. Either they’re both ok or they’re both not. I tend to think they’re part of the game, childish, but part of the game none the less.
Supposedly ‘balance’ to some people means only publishing the Government’s views.
thats completely wrong Ltep, balance is when they give both sides of the argument, or maybe pull either side up when they are making obviously pie in the sky comments, i for one wouldnt enjoy nodding yes men to everything the government says, but on the other hand i get antsy when everything the opposition comes up with, no matter how far out is reported as fact — which it very rarely proves to be, balanced reporting is something very few of todays commentators are capable of implimenting, Matt Price was revered because of his sense of humour AND his balanced columns.
I cant believe how much you lefties are bitching about bias in the media, you had Tanner on Insiders and Gillard on Meet the Press not a Tory in sight!
Do all arguments have only two sides?
They have more than one side.
Hockey on 9. wRONg again Glen.
Oh, and Ackerman on ‘Insiders’.
Bree, what are you smoking?
Piers Ackermann is an “impartial journalist”?
LMAO
(591) I agree Grog. Thought she has not adapted the Workchoices argument to the new times either, it should have been about this being the worst time to undermine job security, rather than “there is always a time for fairness”.
Labor seems curiously reticent to take advantage of how exposed the Liberals are at the moment. I thought Burke could have slaughtered Abbott on Friday’s Lateline.
Gillard’s put-down of Pyne was funny.
The “toxic bore” comment wasn’t all that funny but Rudd’s response to it was – see this week’s “Under the Flag” for example.
Whilst I think Gillard is clever and funny in Parliament, I think she probably realises she needs to tone it down a bit at times, so she doesn’t come across as too much of a smart arse like Keating did.
Wouldn’t you love to see Porky Piers on Celebrity Biggest Loser?
HA HA HA
TPS,
The reason Labor doesn’t want to slaughter the Liberals too much at the moment is because Labor is sh1t scared of what the economy is going to do. Coming out with a collection of classic put-downs, etc, however much short-term gratification it may bring, could blow up in Labor’s face if the economy goes right off. I actually think Labor is right in calculating that it’s in their best interests to hold back on the aggression a bit.
And how many should the ABC show?
On the 11am news on ABC 702 Sydney it was clearly stated as a fact, not an Opposition opinion
Hockey was on 9 this morning.
But seriously, balance isn’t just about who is on the TV. You could invite someone on and ask softball questions, or someone can go on The 7:30 Report where Kerry O’Brien always asks the questions that the person being interviewed doesn’t want to hear.
http://www.abc.net.au/contact/complain.htm
Cmon Gary face it you had 2 we had one…
Ackers doesnt count he’s a jurno not a polly.
But at best only one of them is right. The other one is wRONg.
dyno, I think they are doing the wrong sort of aggression at the moment. Gillard’s macho/poodle comment was pathetic (and ridiculously flattering to Abbott!). The Liberals are significatly exposed at the moment, they have a leader they do not support, they have put themselves in a denial position on the downturn at a time when two-thirds are worried about losing their jobs. Labor needs to destroy the Libs economic credentials before the downturn really hits.
Its been interesting watching Andrew Fraser in Queensland, who has been doing this, I think, effectively. Definitely he is one to watch.
The good news is Hockey will have a shot at Tanner on Q&A on Thursday and that will be more of a challenge for him than Wendy Swan.
TPS,
The old adage of do and say nothing while your opponents are tearing themselves apart applies. Of course. the occaisional well aimed jibe is alright. However, the devastating impact of such simple words is more indicative of the state of disarray the Opposition are in rather than the innate wittiness of the ALP.
With a tpp of 60/40 it is hard to imagine what upside there is to to further humiliating the Opposition in debates will achieve.
Labor has got to the top by focussing on policy and cultivating an “intouchiness” with the electorate narrative. In a situation where thousands will be losing their jobs over the next twelve months or so, then avoiding “hubris” and triumphalism will be very important.
I thought Costello was going to be on?
Already have
True GG, but we are moving into a downturn that Labor is going to find tough, the more it can undermine the economic credentials of the Libs, the better it will prepare them. It is interesting watching it in Queensland where this is already being forced on them.
LOL!
Just to finish that sentence –
and Costello.
This morning on Insiders Malcolm Farr quoted Brendan Nelson saying that being Defense Minister was much harder than being Leader of the Opposition. Has anyone actually found a quote of Nelson saying EXACTLY that? Or is Farr just paraphrasing from the SMH article on Thursday?
No, Ackerman is as good as having a conservative politician on the panel.
As for this 2 to 1 BS I’ve seen Sunday mornings where no government minister or member has been on any of the shows. All Conservatives. So don’t give me that Glen.
Yeah well im just saying sometimes we have all ALP sometimes all Libs so just learn to live with that.
Same here – during the Howard Government years.
If today all the political shows had Government members, would we be saying all the TV stations are biased against the opposition?
Well it’s just piss poor. If the ABC news mob want to give the Opposition a leg up and lead off every news item with their point of view on each particular issue then that’s one thing, but taking their claims and stating them as the facts of the matter is either bias or incredibly lazy reporting.
620 Glen – You were the one that was complaining about no conservatives being on.
Take your own advice.
TPS,
ALP and Rudd need to maintain the aura that they have a plan, that it is endorsed by all sensible economists and that they are doing all they can to protect working families and those likely to be impacted by the GFC.
Excessive abuse of the Oppposition will be perceived as a sign of distraction from the job at hand and an indicator that they are a little concerned with the alternative.
The reality is that the electorate can change horses despite the alleged incompetencies of the alternative whether they be economic or moral.
no one watches political shoes anyway. The odd clip from them might turn up in the evening news if a polly stuffs up, but that’s about it.
If you want what effects public opinion, sunrise and the today show, for example, are where its at.
That’s not the impression I got from the story.
It is a curious paradox that the ABC is the least biased media corporation in the country, yet it is the one most often accused of bias by Labor and Liberal sympathisers alike.
That suggests to me it is doing its job properly.
Did you hear the 11am news on 702?
I heard the same story on NewsRadio. They use exactly the same scripts.
in the lead up to the election labor refused to buy into the abusive tirade from the then government, who could forget Cossie’s hysterical denouncement over Burke that ended up with them losing one of their own ministers, that restraint stood them in good stead, labor came across as the steady reliable pair of hands, they dont want to destroy that goodwill now, a few cutting one liners like Gillards that will stick every now and again is all they need, Rudd can stay as quiet and boring as he pleases, voters like that in him.
So you heard the part where it was stated something along the lines of:
‘The Government is under pressure over the defence pay row… due to soldiers not being paid last week’
I don’t know about that zombie. The world was pretty interested in Imelda Marcos’ footwear.
I am going to agree with Glen that Hockey did have a small victory over Swan (he scored with Wendy I must admit) on Q&A.
This week, if Tanner will be on the show, the Libs will need to use the same tactics again to have any hope. That is interrupt in a louder voice before they land a blow, talk at a hundred miles an hour, and use spin to what the audience may applaud to. Hockey did it effectively with a free reign last week.
The Libs think that because they have house trained Hockey not to drop loud smelly farts in mixed company that this indicates they are on a winner.
Meanwhile the alleged loser, Wayne Swan continues as Treasurer. Oh, that labor could lose like this more often. 60/40 tpp, Oh the humiliation. Liberals in complete dissarray. What a bastard. Further leadership speculation. Please remove this hair shirt now.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/01/2504286.htm
as someone pointed out earlier,if this had been labor alleging such tosh,the MSM would have been dining out for months on it.
everything from in-depth analysis to how labor was anti military blah de blah blah.
Now ,because they have lost the divine right to rule us, the spin is still all from the liberal side, but posed in such a way that labor still is the “bad guy”
this is tantamount to idle speculation and does not even have a factual base to assert from. Perhaps the ABC should just direct inject from liberal HQ and be done with any sense of journalistic integrity.
It is obvious that there is a conspiracy by the ABC to re-elect a Liberal government, they had Lindsay Tanner on Insiders this morning to talk about it.
Shows
Did you have your nuclear earpiece on (TM) pat. pending.
Does the serving of tosh not register on your synapses, or does the idea of bias only seep in when it is,god forbid, those rabid anti nukes types?
Exactly, GG. If the economy goes not too badly (or less badly than other Western countries) Labor is in no difficulty anyway for the next election.
On the other hand, if the economy tanks, you will hear the sound of one hand clapping from the electorate every time the Govt rips into the Opposition. People are only going to be interested in what the Govt is doing, not in what the Govt says about the shortcomings of the Liberals’ economic management.
Either way, Labor has not much to gain and plenty to lose right now by eating out on the Opposition’s problems. Moreover the Opposition is quite capable of tearing itself apart without too much help from Labor – that’s the sad truth.
That might be true of the OO and it’s brethren, but if you watch Channel 7, 9 and 10 they are much less biased. They call it as they see it. That’s why Rudd is up 60-40. Those stations have worked out that “Labor=good, Liberal=bad. Why rock the boat?”.
The ABC insists on giving as much credibility to the political equivalent of intelligent design as to evolution. Sometime, one side is just plain wRONg and I’m reliably informed the it is always the Liberals.
This is a very naive comment, like many others on this topic. Of course partsians of both sides think their own side is always right and the other side is always wrong. I certainly do. But you can’t expect the ABC to take such a view. If Labor says “2+2=4″ and Liberal says “2+2=5″, the ABC must give equal coverage to both statements, even though one is plainly wrong. It is not the ABC’s job to decide who is right and who is wrong. I no longer own a TV so I can’t comment on the current standard of ABC TV news and current affairs, and I only listen to AM and PM on the radio so I can’t comment on much of their radio coverage either. But over the many years that I was an avid consumer of politics on both ABC TV and radio, I always found their coverage to be fair and balanced. Maybe that has changed since Howard’s time but I doubt it. Fraser tried very hard to get control of the ABC (remember Sir Henry Bland?), but he never succeeded in weakening its culture of fair reporting, and I’d be very surprised if Howard succeeded where Fraser failed.
They were invited Glen but were too busy sharpening their knives.
That about sums it up.
“That’s why Rudd is up 60-40.”
I don’t think the media has too much political influence anymore unless their attacks are well orchestrated, relentless and intense, and even then could only shift a minor amount of votes.
Most voters may not know a great deal about politics but they seem to have this uncanny ability to make an instant assessment of the character and suitability of a politician. Latham was an instant no. Rudd was an instant yes. Turnbull is an obvious no etc.
But that’s not where the ABC stops. They run the headline:
Here’s a real headline:
[Soldiers 'may quit' over SAS pay bungle
...
There is a massive risk not only that Australia's elite soldiers leave the SAS because of the pay bungle by someone who is shaping up as an incompetent minister, the Defence Minister, [but] more alarmingly there is a widening gap in the relationship between the Defence Minister and his frontline soldiers,” he told Channel ]Nine.]
Where is Hockey’s proof? Will one soldier be enough to change the headline to, “Soldiers to quit over SAS pay bungle”? Two soldiers?
This is a clear case of the ABC running an article that attributes a non-existent rush of soldiers resigning from the SAS to an “incompetent minister”. All because Joe made up something from the hollow bell of his own empty head.
Calling the relationship between the Minister and the SAS one between a man and “his” troops is just gilding the silly lily.
Steve K…perhaps…
Adam that comment about ABC reporting is bulldust.
The job of the media outlets is to tear a side up when they do the wrong thing and they generally do to both sides which is what should happen.
I should add that it’s not that I think the ABC favours the Liberals over Labor. They just mindlessly regurgitate what they’re told to by both sides. As Colbert says, the President should make the decision, the press secretary should announce them and the press should type them up. “Make. Announce. Type.”
I see nothing wrong with the ABC reporting Hockey’s comments, however fatuous you and I may find them, provided of course that they are balanced, over time, by statements from Fitzgibbon or whoever stating the opposite case. In the headline
Soldiers ‘may quit’ over SAS pay bungle
the quote marks serve to show that this is an attributed statement, not a statement of fact being made by the ABC.
I’m as partisan as the next person here, but we really need to try not to let partisanship completely cloud our judgement.
Yes, that’s called balanced and factual reporting.
I reckon 75% of people I know are convinced the ABC is biased against their own side of politics. Lots of Liberals I know hate the ABC with a passion.
This “ABC is biased against Labor” theme won’t fly.
Adam
No, that’s not reporting. That’s called being a press secretary.
If Fitzgibbon was smart he would direct his attacks onto the Defence chiefs for it was they who he told to fix it 5months ago and they stonewalled him completely and didnt do what he wanted. So Fitzgibbon has failed in not following it up but he did try to fix it. Still he should have given the chiefs a dressing down IMHO.
It’s not Woodward and Bernstein admittedly, but 99% of political reporting is just relaying what people say (especially on the weekend when very little real political action occurs).
Glen, yes he should blast the chiefs. But he’d be better off (for his own sake) to do so in private, not to the press as was reported yesterday.
No 648
I’m a Liberal supporter through and through and I love the ABC. The standard of journalism is of a much higher calibre than other FTA networks. It is an irrefutable fact.
The way it works is that THE MEDIA (I hate that term) reports the spin from both sides, then the public decides which spin they think is closer to the truth.
It’s not the job of The Media (and certainly not the ABC) to say “Today the opposition lied when they stated that S.A.S. pay is still being docked.” That is expressing an opinion of the validity of a claim that doesn’t count as reporting what was said.
Yes, GP, on the whole I agree with all that.
Here’s Crabb skewering both sides effortlessly:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/this-column-brought-to-you-by-the-limelight-hogs-in-canberra-20090227-8k7q.html?page=-1
Especially 4 Corners. Last week’s episode on terrorism in Pakistan was some of the best TV so far this year.
ABC have added yet another headline stating
which when reading the article is another Joe statement, to go with these other words of Joe that have been made into headlines for ABC newstories which give the immpression they are fact not just Joe quotes
All 3 statements were made on 9 this morning so you’d think there would be just the one story reporting on the interview which would be fair enough but ABC have made it into their 2nd 3rd and 4th main stories.
this seems a bit of overkill to me
What do people make of the story that the G.G. has asked for high level briefings?
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25121860-5007133,00.html
I think it just demonstrates that she cares about what is happening in the country, and she wants to be informed directly rather than asking Ministers.
Except for the fact they are in single quotes.
This is what ALWAYS happens on Sundays when there is hardly anything else going on to report on.
No doubt he has done, in private. It is not appropriate for a Defence Minister to criticise service chiefs in public. If he judges them incompetent he can replace them. Nor is it appropriate for a minister to blame his subordinates. Under the Westminister system the minister is responsible to Parliament for their actions.
Diogenes, don’t be an idiot. I’m sure you know the difference between a press secretary and a journalist. The ABC is a state broadcaster. Its job is to report what both sides of politics say about any issue. “Minister says X, Shadow Minister says Y.” It is the job of a *commentator* to say “Minister said X today, but he was wrong.”
Vera, if the claims were not in quotes, your argument would have some validity. Unfortunately, you continue to demonstrate an ardent disregard for the finer points of journalism.
All 3 statements were made on 9 this morning so you’d think there would be just the one story reporting on the interview which would be fair enough but ABC have made it into their 2nd 3rd and 4th main stories.
this seems a bit of overkill to me]
Agreed, and whatever happened to “Soldiers ‘may quit’ over SAS pay bungle: Hockey”?
Hi Judith, just got home and read your post about poodles and clowns
yes QT will be fun, especially if we hit that mute button and watch the poodle yapping and the clowns head nodding with no sound 
The ABC was biased in favour of Labor before the 2001 election. That’s why Liberal supporters hate the ABC. However the bias of the ABC nowhere near offset the massive bias in favour of the Liberals by Channels 7, 9 & 10, who were disgraceful.
Since the 01 election Howard managed to sway the bias of the ABC to Liberal, whereas with Rudd winning the commercial networks have had little choice but to move towards a more balanced position.
I’m actually enjoying the bias of News Ltd, they look foolish. They can’t shift a vote and are copping a hiding in the poles.
Sure, but this rule or convention doesn’t apply anymore. If it did then Vanstone would’ve been sacked 2 or 3 times. Likewise Peter Reith, Michael Woolridge, etc. The Howard years has created a new standard, Ministers stay on until the P.M. thinks they should go, the major consideration is politics, not ethics.
That is what Fitzgibbon needs to do, he won’t change the culture until he sacks some people. That may piss a lot of people off, but it would set things up for a more competent department for whoever is the next minister.
GP
what Dario said
No 666
The problem with Defence is not unique to Labor, in all fairness. I think Fitzgibbon would do well to purge the Defence department.
Channel 9 in particular.
Examples?
Adam
I think we have different ideas of what the ABC is for.
ShowsOn, that is not her job she is after all the Queens Representative and while she is the ceremonial head of the ADF she doesnt need to be informed about the economic crisis by Ken Henry or about Foreign Policy issues by DFAT. If she has broken convention as it appears she has by wanting to know so much sensative information then she has crossed the line and should be criticised for doing so. She isnt a President and her roles are limited for a reason.
I agree. They need to be shown that they are run by civilians, they don’t run themselves.
Robert McNamara talks about half his time being spent demanding the U.S. department of defense do the things that he and LBJ told them to do.
Worked for Stalin.
No 670
Diogenes, clearly you think the ABC should be a mouthpiece for the government given its substantial lead in the polls. That is not a sound method by which to run a state broadcaster.
And a nice try by GP.
Why not?
If she has broken convention as it appears she has by wanting to know so much sensative information then she has crossed the line and should be criticised for doing so. She isnt a President and her roles are limited for a reason.]
Ahhh, conventions are made to be broken. If she was breaking laws, then that would be a much more serious matter.
I strongly doubt that these senior officials would supply her with any “sensitive” or classified information that she wasn’t entitled to. If they did they could all lose their jobs, or worse, be charged.
He obviously meant sack some people, or shift them into different jobs.
By the way where’s Ron? does anyone know? I’m missing him, it just isn’t the same without him
Just watching the Insiders replay and noticed that Tanner provided a reasonably effective rebuttal of binding shareholder votes on executive salaries. I still think the option needs to be effectively explored because if he really believes that governments should not be determining salaries, he would agree that shareholders should have the ultimate decision.
Shows On @ 669. “Examples?”
Look at the headlines other Bludgers have been pointing out. Watch the 7.00 pm ABC News in Sydney.
But like I said in an earlier post, Barry Cassidy has been very fair in my opinion since Rudd won the election and Q&A is a good show.
In fact it very nearly caused the defeat of the Soviet Union in the first year of the Soviet-German war. Hitler attacked the SU with confidence partly because of the abject performance of the Red Army in the Finnish War, when Red Army commanders were too scared to do anything for fear of being purged. It also caused the massive losses of June-December 1941, when whole armies allowed themselves to be destroyed rather than retreat. It was only at the end of 1941, with the Germans at the gates of Moscow, that Stalin agreed that generals like Zhukov should be allowed actually to command their armies
So should they have reverse auctions? Start at a maximum figure that board is willing to pay, then the shareholders hold a vote to determine the actual figure? As soon as a figure receives 51% of the vote, that’s the figure the board offers?
What happens if the CEO then rejects it and decides to go somewhere else? It could be awfully complicated.
What is needed is a decision by the G8 or OECD to introduce uniform rules on CEO payments, directors fees and golden parachutes. Then there would be no “somewhere else” to go.
Vera, Amigo is contemplating under the Knowledge Tree over some leafless branch ……… to everything turn, turn, turn
I didn’t mean overseas, just to a different company offering more money.
That’s a bit unfair! It’s this “state broadcaster” role again. Do we actually need one? I would say yes but I think we need one to do in-depth, quality reporting which keeps us informed (4 Corners still does this). That kind of reporting doesn’t make money for the commercial networks so they don’t do it.
I was hoping he had been sent off to remedial English classes.
So far as I know the GG has the right to be informed of anything she wants to be informed of. According to Bagheot, the three rights of the Crown are “to advise, to warn and to encourage” ministers. She can’t exercise those rights if she is not fully informed.
I’m shocked that none of our previous Governor Generals has asked for the same. I guess that means they just signed whatever was put in front of them.
Pro-airport protestors bail up Bligh
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25122472-5018787,00.html
My Yogi friend was right. wRONg was smarter than the average historian.
There’s no point in being smart if you can’t master the basic arts of communication.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLxNbEuOO20
No 682
I agree. Either way, it’d be nice to see a detailed coalition policy, or government whitepaper, to examine all the realistic options. As I see it, there’s a lot of bull, bluster and feigned indignation about executive salaries, but zero action on it.
I think we can all agree that it would be inappropriate for governments to determine salaries. I’d cautiously support, however, legislation that linked pays & bonuses with general company performance. Shareholders should also be empowered as much as possible.
Rev Chasuble: Charity, Miss Prism, charity! None of us is perfect! I myself am peculiarly susceptible to draughts!
No bonuses if the share price declines by more than 10% in a 12 month period.
No 696
Shareprice is not always an accurate indicator of company performance. For all the anger about Telstra’s share price, it has still outperformed the market by substantial percentages. It is also doing better compared to British Telecom and Telecom New Zealand.
The problem is that pay is generally done annually, while “company performance” must be judged over the longer term. Pay can’t be linked to annual profit or share price, because that encourages short-termism. I think it can only be done by setting a maximum % of average weekly earnings that CEOs can be paid – say 500% (just a random figure). There should be an outright ban on bonuses for non-executive directors and on CEO golden handshakes, particularly when the company is not making a profit.
This is a big issue in hospitals around Oz. The public hospitals are funded to look after public patients. To make extra money, they pretend they are private patients and also charge Medicare the bulk-billing rate. One hospital admits its cardiac bypass patients as private, bills Medicare for their surgery and then changes them back to public patients when they discharge them.
Some states do it routinely, some hospitals in some states to it and some units in hospitals do it. It’s a huge mess. I suppose it’s only illegal if it gets taken to court and a judge says it is but it’s extremely dodgy.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25114607-5018787,00.html
I’d be interested to see a poll at the moment on the desirability of abolishing the states. I don’t think there’s ever been a time when the states, as institutions, have been at such a low ebb. They have really just become spending conduits for the Commonwealth, and not very effective ones.
I think this happened to me when I went to a hospital for a minor procedure last year. I paid $30, Medicare paid the rest.
Mr. Buffett is also not perfect. The worship of equity as an asset class maybe the new cargo cult.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25122596-643,00.html
Quiz question: will the fall in oil prices bring down Putin or Chavez first?
Adam but then of course Tasmanians and West Australians wont be happy….
GP, I missed it. What did he say?
No 703
Neither are likely to be going any time soon. Though my money would be on Chavez.
So is Chavez nationalising rice production as a backup plan?
No 705
See the interview at http://www.abc.net.au/insiders
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7917176.stm
[See the interview at http://www.abc.net.au/insiders
I’m lazy, was hoping you could summarise
Heaps more data here:
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/03/01/weekinreview/20090301_CONNELLY_GRFK.html
ShowsOn
I hope that wasn’t in a public hospital because that would be illegal.
Read the transcript:
http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2009/s2504312.htm
Funny you should ask! It WAS a public hospital that was privatised by the previous Liberal government, and was then made public again by the current Labor government. However, I believe the actual unit within the hospital I went to is a private unit.
No-one ever sees the last post before a page turns, so I’ll post this again.
I’d be interested to see a poll at the moment on the desirability of abolishing the states. I don’t think there’s ever been a time when the states, as institutions, have been at such a low ebb. They have really just become spending conduits for the Commonwealth, and not very effective ones.
Thanks. He does have a few good points. This shouldn’t just be swept under the carpet though.
Has anyone every explained if or how it would be constitutional to abolish them?
ShowsOn
I wouldn’t complain having heard that. You should just be thankful that you’re still alive. When Rann bought Modbury back for $1, I knew he’d paid too much.
Still, as a public patient you should not have paid anything.
Has anyone explained how the States would run if we became a Republic?
No 717
The states cannot be abolished without a constitutional referendum.
Shame that
The only way we can get the full benefit from federated politics is to allow the states to be more autonomous and less reliant on federal grants to exist.
We would need to have a new constitutional convention to write a new, non-federal, constitution, which would then be put to referendum.
But GP we became a federated nation not a confederacy like the Canadians…
The whole trend of the last 60 years has been against this. The only way to do it would be wind the clock back to 1939 – give the states their tax powers back and abolish federal grants. Some chance.
The same as they do now. Except everyone swears an oath to the President (and indirectly, to the Australian people).
That’s what I thought. But that just begs the question, what if some states vote against it, and the other states vote for it. That means people in some states effectively voted for other states they don’t live in being abolished. That doesn’t seem particularly fair.
Adam
I’d vote for it. The duplication in my area (health) is ridiculous. The cost-shifting and buck-passing mentioned in that article isn’t helping anyone and costs a huge amount in administration. Every state reinvents the wheel when they have any initiative.
And while Rudd is trying to stimulate the economy and save jobs, the states are cutting spending and shedding jobs.
This is impossible unless the states go back to collecting income tax. Even now they don’t earn enough revenue from the GST, hence they need silly taxes like stamp duty and payroll tax.
There’s no way the Feds will ever give up collecting income tax, and the States couldn’t ever justify doing it.
Way to not address the question ShowsOn…how can we have Governors of States?
Who would appoint them? Would we have to elect them?
Who would enact State laws?
What power would they have?
The States would have to be totally changed too if we became a Republic an even greater waste of money!
Why not? If Australia becomes a republic, they would just amend their state constitutions to replace Queen with President. DONE.
That’s for each state to decide on its own.
The respective parliaments
The same power they have now.
You mean like when Costello changed “Commonwealth Government” to “Australian Government” which cost tens of millions of dollars?
Parliaments cannot assent Laws i got mixed up with enacting…there requires them to be assented to by a constitutional head being either a Governor (in States) or the GG (Federally)…thus who would assent laws???
This is covered by section 58: “When a proposed law passed by both Houses of Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen’s assent, he shall declare … that he assents in the Queen’s name.”
This makes any proposed law effective. But without such a person how can laws be given assent by Parliament?
Abolishing the states would require even stricter requirements than a regular referendum wouldn’t it? It would require a majority in each state supporting it. I doubt Tasmanians, Western Australians or South Australians would agree to it.
Diog
That Mater Hospital news piece was probablt a beat up.
Mater Health Services run the Public and Private Hospitals on the same site. They also run the Mater Private Medical Centre. All of these instututions are connected, it is difficult at times to know what “bit” you are in.
If my heamatologist sees me at the public hospital it costs me nothing, bulk billed. If I see him at the Medical Centre I pay and claim back from medicare.
But he is not employed by Mater Health Services, but by Heamatology, Oncology Australia.
Its a dogs breakfast –
Section 128 says that the Constitution can be altered if a referendum is passed with an overall majority and majorities in four states. However it also says:
“No alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of any State in either House of the Parliament, or the minimum number of representatives of a State in the House of Representative, or increasing, diminishing, or otherwise altering the limits of the State, or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become law unless the majority of the electors voting in that State approve the proposed law.”
Some argue that this means that the Constitution cannot be altered in a way that affects the status of any state without that state voting in favour of the proposal, and that therefore the agreement of all six states would be needed to alter the status of the states. Others argue that the Australian people are sovereign and can alter the Constitution in any way they like. It is also unclear whether s128 itself can be altered by four states or by six. Only the High Court can answer these questions.
This explains how the federal parliament works. The States have their own constitutions and can figure out there own means of giving laws assent.
I think it would be VERY unfair for a proposal to abolish states being passed using the regular S128 mechanism. A state should only be abolished if voters in that state agree to it. So there should be a series of state and territory referendums.
ruawake
That’s the dodgy bit. Qld Health is getting billions from the Ruddster to run outpatients to provide healthcare for you and the rest of the public. And then the Mater/Qld Health is slugging them again with a Medicare bulk-bill payment. Qld Health is being paid twice to deliver a single service, ie double-dipping.
I should add that this happens all over the place including SA (but not much at the RAH). It’s rife at FMC though.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. She should shut up and mind her place, stick to opening kindergartens and attending state funerals.
The last thing we need now is another “activist” Governor General. Look what the last one did to the country!
The role of the Governor General is not to “summon” senior bureaucrats and state governors to Yarralumla. She is appointed by the Prime Minister of the day to do as she is bloody-well told, and I don’t care what Bagheot says. He’s not in the Australian Parliament either. The article mentioned “Presidential”. This is what I’m personally afraid of (even though it is a Tele article asking the question). Our Governorn General (and our President, if we ever get one) should be completely above politics, and separate from it. The Governor Generalship is a ceremonial office not an executive one.
And I don’t need Bagheot to tell me diferent. Please, no more interfering GGs.
That is not her place. Those are just trimmings. Her place is as the highest constitutional officer of the state. That brings with it both duties and rights. One of those rights is to be informed about what is going on so that she can exercise her constitutional functions. Kerr’s problem was not that he was an activist GG, but that he knowingly broke the conventions surrounding the exercise of his constitutional role.
Diog
Another thing that should be addressed.
My Heamatologist is a company Dr “Crookblood” Pty Ltd, he contracts to Heamatology Oncology Centres Australia, HOCA then contracts his services to various medical establishments.
The duplication in health specialities and the multiple administrations and company structures make it impossible to find who is arthur or martha.
Can’t disagree more with you Adam. If she sees unconstitutional happenings then maybe she should advise discretion and so on – privately – but summoning state governors and senior public servants, bypassing ministers to get to the nub of the matter (or whatever) is not her role.
I don’t care what the Constitution says. The GG’s role – as evolved in the Australian model – is to do as he or she is told, to sign where “x” marks the spot and to keep out of politics. If she thinks different, she should have not taken the job.
Once the GG starts out taking an active role in politics it’s the thin end of the wedge. She is appointed, not elected. She (and we) should remember that.
No more Queen Victorias, meddling in affairs of State.
What about Sir William Deane? He was an activist too, and rightly so, he spoke out for indigenous issues and repudiated Pauline Hanson when the Prime Minister wouldn’t.
I’d never condone a G.G. sacking a P.M. (the House of Representatives will take care of that if ever necessary), but G.G.s appointed by Labor governments usually speak out more than Coalition appointed G.G.s who tend to just blend into the background.
LOL! I do, it is our best defense against legal chaos.
Adam, apart from Blighs current activities being within her rights, what are the conventions in regard to Blighs current activities?
Tom.
Exactly how s128 would be interpreted in relation to a bill for a referendum to abolish the states would be a matter for the High Court. The Court would have to consider the intent of the framers, but also the changed constitutional status of Australia since 1900. The Australian people are now fully sovereign in their own country. It would be a brave Court that argued that the Australian people did not have the right to change their own constitution by majority vote. The 1999 referendum should be considered a precedent. No-one in 1900 would have argued that the Constitution gave the people the right to abolish the monarchy. But by 1999 it was accepted by everyone – even David Flint IIRR – that we did have that right.
In any case, there is no good reason why Tasmania would need to oppose such a step. Tasmania is a mendicant state now. If it was one of say 25 regions in a non-federal Australia rather than one of six states, its position would be no different. It would probably have less representation in the Senate, but so what? Its Senators always vote on party lines anyway.
I’ll put my money on Putin, the Russian state isn’t as broken as Venezuela.
i know i missed it, but did Glen call Ackerman a journo?? I wonder what the criteria are?? That great work he did on the Heiner affair that had such a devastating impact on the political scene?? Ackerman is not even a commentator. He is simply an opposition mouthpiece and even as the token torie is so extreme that he cant be taken seriously
Setting aside the legality, I just think fairness would require state referendums to be held first. It just strikes me as completely unfair if the people of one state vote to have nothing to do with being abolished, then voters in other states effectively force that on them.
If all states support being abolished, there would then need to be a prolonged period of debate to write a completely new constitution that would then be voted on by a federal referendum.
Bushfire Bill, I bet you support a republic, and a GG directly elected by the people.
The GG is appointed by parliament, she/he is appointed to do a job and it is not opening buildings. The GG role is to insist the rules get followed, a more important job can not be had.
listening to insiders earlier today (on my SOLAR radio) I really think that Packerman should have awarning broadcast before he speaks- something along the lines that the following is a work of fiction and no resemblance to fact.
Instead of abolishing States, I’d like to see a large expansion in their numbers running simultaneously with an expansion of s.51 and the removal of local government.
Would have to figure out a new way to elect the Senate though – but while we’re completely rewriting the constitution, removal of fixed Senate terms would be a handy things as well.
The GG is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the PM.
No state can be divided without its own consent (s128), so you have the same problem.
Do you have a link for the radio?
Fraser passed the laws that allowed them to do so, the states ignored the opportunity.
Surely the options are not to either maintain the status quo or abolish the states and leave everything else as is.
Adam rightly points out that the states are simply a conduit for service delivery. This results in duplication and waste. I think there are some areas that a lot of Australians would agree are unnecessarily the responsibility of states – things like health, education and even some aspects of law & order. But there are other services that would be better delivered locally, though local government is probably too small. Things like transport and planning.
A restructuring of what the role of the states is and a change in their size/number is what is needed, not simply making them disappear.
And the PM is selected by the party that can control the house. Or if you want to be picky, by convention appointed by the Governor General who is appointed by the queen of Australia on advise from the prime minister. And bushfire bill wants someone who can live with that opening buildings.
They still could, the problem is that the Federal government would be entitled to income tax first, then the states would be imposing income tax on top of federal income tax.
How long do you think a state government that did that would last?
Public transport should be run by the feds. The reason for this is simple, smaller states don’t need to order enough trains, trams and buses at once, so they have to pay a premium, and wait YEARS for their orders. Surely it would be better if a single national order was placed for buses, trams, trains etc so we could buy in bulk, and get our orders filled faster.
Have we ever thought about making more new States or merging exisiting ones together???
Victoria/Tasmania + part of SA
WA and part of SA + NT
NSW and QLD + ACT
It would mean less money and less bureaucracy…
Abolish the States?
So we don’t whip those Canetoads in Origin anymore? So we can relieve those Victorian Mexicans of their inferiority complex over the great Premiere State of NSW?
NEVER!
No,just an aerial
Actually it runs on little rechargeable batteries that I can put on this solar thingrybobby that recharges them
I found this site on google
(my radio was a present,like our solar shower- a black bag that you hang from a branch)
http://www.21st-century-goods.com/page/21st/CTGY/SPTRadio?gclid=CKPM9vmogZkCFRFWagodK1Amnw
The only changes I’d would make is make ACT part of NSW (it could be a council rather than a territory) and you could add NT to S.A.
Oh, and pass a law so that the central time zone is merged with NSW and Victorian time zones. Having a half hour time zone is pointless, and it means we don’t get Question Time live!
For once the opposition is right, to deal with excess director and CEO salaries all one has to do is make share holder votes binding. The shareholders are supposed to own the company, I can’t see any reason for it to be otherwise (unless the aim of the corporation act is one of screwing shareholders).
So did you listen to the NewsRadio replay of Insiders, or does the radio actually pick up TV stations?
I bought a “wind up” radio, with torch, alarm, reading light and mobile phone charger from Aldi. Works when the sun don’t shine.
It’s never going to happen. When governments can’t even manage to get relatively minor constitutional changes through I can’t see that such a major change would be supported.
Not to mention it’d be a very brave Government to attempt to force states unwilling to be abolished to be abolished via the High Court rather than via a democratic vote. Plus there’d be too much mileage to be made by opportunistic Oppositions.
This isn’t a guaranteed fix, a lot of big companies have huge institutional share holders that would have an effective veto.
Every city and every area isgoing to have completely different needs in terms of how many buses, trams and trains they need and what kind of each they need. Public transports and roads do not belong in the domain of Canberra. A Federal Department of Transport would have no way of building, operating, maintaining and upgrading the transport networks for every Australian city.
I’m kind of surprised that shareholder’s votes aren’t binding already, after all it’s their money. Why have a vote at all if it’s not binding? That’s like Mugabe having a vote and ignoring the outcome.
You can make a good argument that anything you care to nominate should be run by the feds. We could be like France, where everything is decided in Paris, right down to the appointment of schoolteachers. Is France a better run country than Australia?
My proposal would in turn have only 3 States.
Victoria/Tasmania + half of SA
WA plus NT and half of SA
NSW and QLD + ACT
with Melbourne as the capital city
ShowsOn
Do you really think institutional investors are impressed by what is going on. Directors packages that have been voted down recently got voted down because of the no vote by institutional investors. Unfortunately the vote isn’t binding.
I agree. Other than a Republic, the best constitutional reform we could enact is giving Parliament the power to make constitutional changes. For example, a 2/3 + 1 vote of both houses (100 votes in the House, 51 votes in the Senate) should be enough to change the constitution.
That would mean we could get constitutional reform on some issues if they are supported by both the Government and Opposition.
Never.
ShowsOn so any political party which gains 2/3rds could alter the Constitution that is not cool!
No 769
Nope.
No 772
I don’t like this model. I’d prefer an amendment to s128 that removed the need to have a majority of states.
Western Australia (WA, NT + western SA) – capital city Kalgoolie
Eastern Australia (NSW, QLD, ACT) – capital city Newcastle
Southern Australia (VIC, TAS + eastern SA) – capital city Melbourne
Sure, but each year we should put in ONE order to the bus companies. We have a huge problem in S.A. in that we only need to order like 4 or 5 trams a year and 1 or 2 dozen buses, which means we have to pay ridiculous prices for them. The whole country could save money if this was done at a Federal level. The states tell the Feds what sorts of trains buses and trams they want, then the Feds do a single order on behalf of the entire country.
We do it for other things like credit, the states ask the Feds for loans, then the Feds go and get them so that the states don’t compete against each other, thus forcing up interest rates.
The buses I’ve caught in Adelaide are a lot like those caught in Sydney and Melbourne. They’re not that exactly the same, but nor are they completely different.
Binding shareholder votes is very good and all that but Tanner raised a few good points – there has to be some kind of mechanism for deciding salaries rather than an ad hoc process where anyone can raise a motion with a figure plucked out of the air.
yes the 11am est replay.
I understand that the rechargeable/Solar option has not really taken off- why I dont know considering the options that are out there.
I get up to 48 hrs use without charging.
No 777
Glen, that’s very anti-Liberal! Centralisation of power into three superstates is a bit extreme.
Yes. During the Howard government the BEST they did in the Senate was just over 50% of seats. I can’t fathom a single party, or coalition of parties, getting 50 votes of their own in the Senate.
I think it should be easier to change the constitution. History has shown that it is too hard, numerous excellent suggestions of constitutional reform have been rejected.
Ok so buy them federally, but I’m talking about the delivery of those assets.
That would still need the support of four states. I don’t like your chances.
The fact is that those two wily old Tories, Sir Samuel Griffith and Andrew Inglis Clark (a Queenslander and a Tasmanian) wrote a Constitution which includes a built-in veto for the small states, which cannot be removed without their consent. They have kept us all nicely tied up by their Constitutional strings ever since. You could make a good case that Griffith, in his grave since 1920, is still the most powerful man in Australia.
GP i am a Gorton Liberal
Centralisation is better and would save us money vis a vis the States or we could create more States either way???
No 784
Fair enough, but supposing any amendment had a chance, I’d rather constitutional change be authorised by the people, rather than a cohort of their representatives who are usually held back by partisan considerations.
John Howard was the biggest centraliser of all time! Industrial relations, hospitals (remember the Mersey?), he was an ASPIRATIONAL NATIONALIST remember.
It won’t work fredn. It’s a stupid policy and typical of the Liberals representing their rich top-end-of-town mates.
Executive salaries will be determined by the major shareholders. Executive salaries are basically determined by the major shareholders NOW in return for information of the real state and progress of a company.
With the Liberal policy, nothing much changes.
Both Parties are weak on this issue. It is not as complex as they make out. A sliding scale should be adopted with the range of salary across the board of a company and the market cap of a company. Any excesses should incurr a taxable income rate of, say, 80%. Problem solved. If executives like Trujillo think they can make more money overseas – good riddance and get stuffed.
It is a very important issue, not only for the injustice of obscene salaries BUT for the integrity of the market as well.
wtf, Oz 3/0???
There could be SOME national organisation. National concession for IDs, national ticket system so tickets can be used anywhere.
I think we already have enough runs, but we need to waste time for another two sessions.
Bring back Matty Hayden.
I’d rather not have a mining town as the capital of my supposed super state!
Why? The share holders own the company, with large companies shareholders with large holders are usually people or institutions with enough ability to make put rational motions and make rational decision.
Too difficult and costly to administer. Issues regarding visitors from other countries or other states can be solved far more cheaply than entrusting ticketing to a federal bureaucracy.
That’s just a recipe for a race to the bottom.
Centre
You arguments may be rational, but a good place to start is to return control of companies back to shareholders. The current rules are open to abuse, and they have been abused.
But Glinn Mgraw the people of Ceduna and Darwin wouldnt like their capital being so far over in Perth…
Superstates are sweet!
But doesn’t the parliament represent the people? After all, the parliament drafts the amendment, and ordinarily we just vote on it.
AIC, bring back Bradman!!!!
The people of Port Hedland and Broome already have to deal with that.
Motion passes to pay executive A $500,000. Shareholders say “Hey, let’s try lower!”. Another motion passes to pay executive A $400,000. Another motion to make pay $300,000. That doesn’t pass. Motion tries for $350,000.
How long do you go on for? Who’s pay is decided by shareholders and whose isn’t? Any “banding” of salaries to prevent rorting?
You support the ‘cultural cringe’ theory, I presume.
We have been suckered into thinking that o/s execs are the panacea.
mostly they are the discards/castoffs from their own business communities.
Personally I see some humor in limiting CEO salary to a multiple of the minimum wage. It would be interesting to see who lined up to oppose the next increase.
Yes but think of the mining royalties an expanded super WA would have, Brendan Grylls would have a field day
Centre
The idea of a tax rate of say 75% cutting in at $1M is an excellent one. I don’t like the idea of Governments getting involved in setting wages in companies they have to stake in (if they’re propping them up that’s a different thing).
The problem is that they’ll be able to avoid the tax by becoming a company and pay 30%.
I think Woolies held to something like this in the early 1990s, the board could only be paid 20 X the amount the lowest paid worker earned in a year.
No 799
But the constitution is more important than parliament.
Lord Brendon of Merredin…maybe he’d try to make Merredin the capital!
Oz
Motions to be put to the general meeting have to be circulated well before. Remuneration packages for directors etc are currently put to non binding votes. I suspect binding votes would make them a little more cautious when it came to rape and pillage.
North gone…
I do digress but now that it’s incorporated in Hansard I took a look and it’s even funnier in print than it was live:
Butter wouldn’t melt in her mouth – it’s those naughty members opposite that are willing her on.
No 806
Which is why the idea will never float. Tanner mentioned that they were very mindful of creating unintended consequences and such an obscene tax rate would open another can of worms.
This sounds great, but it is actually meaningless. All laws are a representation of the will of the parliament, and thus the people. I can’t see how giving them the power to amend the constitution would somehow not be an expression of the people, especially when amendment would require an overwhelming vote.
Maybe the system could be the parliament can make amendments, but these these have to be passed by a majority of state parliaments before coming into effect.
Fredn the major shareholders do have the control of a compny. Average shareholders (or the vast majority of shareholders) do not have a say.
GP, believe me, there is a lot more talent around than those overpaid incompetent losers that are on the huge salaries at the moment.
Also, massively gross salaries encourage poor performance because their is no incentive for good performance. If I was on $10m a year, I’d be playing golf and gettin’ a body massage twice a week until your contract runs out. Who cares about working very hard!
It’s a joke!
Yeah, that would be pointless. Labor got rid of those sorts of absurd tax rates in the mid 1980s.
Centre
The oppositions proposal is a start, a start that gives shareholders rights they should have. Proposals such as high tax rates and limits on remuneration have unknown consequences.
Spot on Diogs @ 806. Of course loopholes should be closed such as your last paragraph may suggest.
No 818
How do you close that loophole Centre? Raise the company tax rate to 80%? Gee thanks. I’d like to know whether you’d work until October just for the government.
Centre
It very easy to reduce your income, invest in the future of Australia, is that something that should be discouraged?
Hughes still on track to be only the third player to make a duck then century on debut
Has there ever been two century debuts in the same match?
Those rights that the Opposition suggests are not going to be practicle to implement. For eg. if you think a company can call a General Meeting every time it wishes to employ a CEO is ridiculous.
Also there are no consequences with introducing a very high tax rate above a certain amount. There is plenty around who would be capable and willing to do the job for a fair and proper amount.
Well surely we should support the Greens policy – bonuses over $1 million can’t be written off by the company as a tax deduction.
That is the standard way governments regulate spending on certain things – they tax them.
SIX for HUGHES
Pretty sure that’s already the law in America. It hasn’t worked there.
Hughes gone.
At least the Government gets some extra tax $s out of it.
Hughes gone.
GP I am talking about a tax rate at say 80% above $3m a year for a blue chip coy with an average market capitalisation for Example.
No 824
Well, without knowing the full detail of the policy, that seems ok. I can’t see why the bonuses should be allowed to be written off as a tax deduction. That said, the recipient of the bonus would still be taxed at normal personal income tax rates.
Shareholder votes on pay should be binding. It’s a scandal that they’re not already.
All these strawman arguments about “what if this happens or that happens” miss the point. Sure, there are details to be worked through, but fundamentally, the owners of the company should be able to set the CEO’s pay.
BTW this should only apply to CEOs and Boards. Don’t worry, CEOs will prove remarkably effective at ensuring that no-one else in the company gets more than they do!
I can’t see why ANY pay, bonuses etc should be able to be written off as a tax deduction!
Can a small family business write of award wages as a tax deduction? Paying people is just a fact of buying their labour.
Sure, but this isn’t a panacea, because big companies with big institutional investors will still wield a veto over mum and dad shareholders.
No 830
Centre don’t you think people on more than $3 million a year can afford to investigate every singe method of tax avoidance possible?
People always talk about corporate greed, but government greed is certainly worse.
GP who is talking about the company tax rate. We are talking about a tax rate for executive salaries above an obscene amount.
Dyno refer to one of my earlier posts. The average shareholder has no say.
Correct, it isn’t a panacea. But it’s better than what we have now and therefore worth doing.
The term “government greed” is nonsensical.
So what. This proposal would still be a massive improvement on the current situation.
You’ve lost me here. Aren’t (nearly) all companies taxed on profits? And don’t wages come out of what profits there would otherwise be?
Please explain!
I’m not sure it would make much of a difference. My guess is most institutional shareholders just vote with what the CEO wants, unless the company is being completely mismanaged.
A company can’t claim the money spent on wages as a tax deduction. So why should bonuses paid to CEOs be tax deductible?
Warwick Capper to run against Pauline Hanson:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25123635-29277,00.html
Are you sure about that?
dyno, it won’t work. The large institutional shareholders will have THE say on CEO salaries. They basically already have now!
At the moment executive salaries must be reported to shareholders. The solution is to introduce a sliding scale which accounts for the market cap of a coy and the range of full-time salary in that company.
If someone pays themselves above the limit for that company, the excess amount should incurr a very high tax rate. The solution is not as difficult as they make out.
Is this a contest for World’s Stupidest Candidate?
Yes but the frustration derives from precisely the situation where the company is being completely mismanaged, and yet the execs still get big bonuses etc.
I’m not saying that binding shareholder votes are a panacea – they’re not – but they’d still improve things massively. Don’t forget it’s not only the effect of shareholders actually voting down pay, it’s also the fear that Boards and management would have that a pay or bonus proposal mght be voted down. I think there would be instances where this provision would significantly modify exec behaviour – for the better.
I understand what you are saying Centre. I just don’t think it’s a reason not to make this change.
No 844
Centre such a scale would make us the laughing stock of the world. The relationship between executive salaries and that of an average full-time worker is not relevant. What is relevant is how the company is performing and whether the collective strategy of the executive directors has produced good returns for shareholders.
I find the talk about salaries to be banal anyway. Many of these companies are worth billions of dollars or have revenues in that high range, thus making executive salaries miniscule by comparison.
Of course in most cases institutional shareholders vote for what the CEO wants.
All salaries, including bonuses, are tax deductable for a company.
Company tax and personal income tax are totally seperate issues.
Bidgood V De-Anne Kelly in 2007 goes close.
It isn’t JUST that. We are in an economic slow down now where business are asking workers to show “restraint” when asking for pay increases, CEOs should do the same now as well if their company is being well run or not.
I agree. The only way you punish poor performance is punishing the hip pocket.
But isn’t this whole issue saying there SHOULD be a connection, because executive salaries are so much more than average or media earnings?
So take all the tax deductability away, so that anything given to the CEO is a real cost to the company.
No 837
Government greed is a reality. This gives you a pretty good run down:
http://www.holisticpolitics.org/Greed/Altruism.php
Not at all. CEOs rise or fall according to the success or failure of their overall company strategies. Aligning their salaries according to some sort of arbitrary multiple of average earnings is silly because it doesn’t take into account the performance of the company for which they are directly responsible.
The text you quote has nothing to do with “Government greed”. A teachers, special education instructors, police officers welfare case workers, and prison guards aren’t “government”. They are often – but not always – members of the public service. But that doesn’t mean the Government can’t reform what they do and how they do it.
Moreover, I don’t trust a website that tries to rationalise an ideal government role by free associative interpretation from the Bible:
http://www.holisticpolitics.org/GodsWelfareSystem/
That’s perhaps the worst book you could refer to when trying to design a fair system of government. Try Rawl’s A Theory of Justice instead.
No way! Haddin is giving up runs!
Capitalism survives by popular consent. Paying hundreds of million of dollars to corporate executives in the midst of a recession is so stupid that it undermines popular consent for capitalism – and as Lady Bracknell said, I hope I don’t have to remind you what THAT unfortunate movement can lead to. Once again social democratic governments have to rescue capitalism from the stupidity of its own practitioners. We need a global agreement that no public company can pay any employee more than a set mutiple of average weekly earnings. This gives company executives an incentive to increase AWE, because their own pay will rise in line with the pay of their employees.
and its MINUSCULE
I don’t think the U.S. would agree with it. I think they like the idea that someone can get a job where they have the possibility of earning an unlimited amount of money.
No 857
The same argument can be made about paying workers in the midst of a recession.
Your solution is a stupid as problem you describe.
Someone was asking last night what became of imprisoned Vietnam era draft resisters. Here is one of them, who I used to know many years ago.
http://brianpola.com/
No 860 should read “Your solution is as stupid as the problem you describe.”
I guess it could, if you were talking about paying them millions of dollars.
Haddin hits a six
GP, I really don’t think you get it. Your posts @ 748 and 854 are nonesense.
Got to go, discuss further next time.
I agree. CEOs should do that. Some will (and chances are there’ll be little publicity about this, because reports of reasonable, moderate behaviour doesn’t sell Daily Telegraphs). However as a person who works in the corporate sector I am ashamed to admit that not only will many CEOs not show restraint, in fact many will try to get pay rises, bonuses, etc, even as their staff and shareholders suffer.
But this is a debate about whether the shareholders, who are the people WHO OWN THE BLOODY COMPANY, should be able to dictate the pay of the Board and the CEOs.
I admit this is not a panacea. I admit the mechanism for it requires some planning and thought. But as a principle it’s an absolute no-brainer.
Technically Haddin is better than Gilly
I fail to see why corporate executives are such godlike creatures that they deserve to paid VASTLY more than anyone else – many times more than professors, archbishops, army generals, prime ministers, senior public servants, vice-chancellors and others with similarly heavy responsibilities. Running a big company is certainly a demanding job. But is it VASTLY more demanding than running a university or an army or a government department? Is it VASTLY more useful to society? I don’t see that it is.
It sounds attractive, but it would probably lead to management buy-outs of all the good bits.
No 863
Jobs are always the first to go in recessions because they are typically the largest cost for an organisation.
No 868
That’s because those other professions are typically subsidised by taxpayers and are not subject to market forces.
There is a annual general meeting once a year, that is why they are called annual general meetings. How often do you think the CEO gets replaced?
Making shareholder votes binding does not mean the directors lose the right to appoint the CEO so I really don’t see where your going with this argument.
Bull. A company is taxed on profits, wages are an expanse and like all expenses they are deducted from profit.
Adam @ 868,
I agree. Big corporate types are often surprisingly unimpressive when observed from up close. Especially in a long boom – because it’s hard to get anything too wrong, the people who tend to rise to the top are sales types.
This sounds like an excellent argument for FORCING CEOs to cut their salaries in order to save jobs.
fredn,
Agree with all that. If you appointed a new CEO between AGMs you’d simply make his/her pay deal contingent on approval at the next AGM – that would stop them spending it all at once!
Yes, that’s true, and I’m not arguing that CEOs should not earn lots of money, or even more than anyone else. I’m arguing that CEOs being paid MANY MULTIPLES of what anyone else earns, and particularly when other people’s incomes are falling, and ESPECIALLY when their companies have their hands out for public funds to get them out of troubles these selfsame CEOs have created, is very bad policy, because it undermines popular support for the capitalist system – which is not a law of nature, you know.
Not that it matters now, but yep – 4 times.
Twice a player from either side made centuries, and twice it was players from the same side:
http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Batting/BattingHundreds4.asp?Stat=4&SortOrder=Match
I heard on ABC grandstand today that it North takes a catch in the second innings he will be only the second player to have made 100, got a wicket and taken a catch in his debut test. The first to do it was WG Grace…
Yes. Any company that’s been bailed out should definitely have exec pay capped at the Govt’s discretion.
Of course the case of Australian banks is a tricky one because they’d claim they never asked for the Govt guarantee.
No 876
That’s an argument against subsidising failed companies. Congratulations I agree. The government causes these moral hazards.
I reckon some of these CEOs need to be taught about that obscure historical event commonly referred to as the French Revolution …
Well, some like Mill would say that capitalism is the only economic system compatible with human rights, such as the right to own property (and not have it stolen) and to self determination.
871
GP
I disagree, it’s because CEO’s and directors are too close to large pots of money and the share holders have lost control. It’s greed and the putting of self interest ahead of the employees and the shareholders, nothing less and nothing more.
I agree with this is most cases. Hard to let banks fail, though.
How any of you can watch Cricket is beyond me. It’s more boring than watching Senate committee hearings.
Or the Russian Revolution.
I find both entertaining.
dyno, Oh yeah, a CEO is going to sign a contract so it can be voted out at the next AGM. fredn, umm an AGM and a General Meeting can be different meetings.
I have to go.
Yeah, I don’t think they’d bother to work for a company with such a rule.
That is the way it should be, if you don’t like it don’t be a CEO.
No 888
If the Corporations Act was amended to make all executive employment contracts have an implied term that all remuneration is subject to shareholder approval, the only choice would be for them to run away overseas.
And I agree with him. But 20th century history shows that popular support for capitalism is not automatic: it has to be earned and can be forfeited. That’s why capitalism works best when it is regulated by a state controlled by moderate social democrats – which happily is just what we have in Australia
Of course they would, Centre, stop being ridiculous. The average CEO is, shall we say, not lacking in the ego department. They’d all fancy their ability to get their pay deal ratified at the next AGM.
Getting a chance to lead, say, a top 100 Australian company is not something many people would pass up. Even if it meant a few months of uncertainty about the precise details of the package.
Not if all the OECD countries did the same thing.
Same here…. I think we both need help Shows On!
They would. For one thing all companies would have the rule, if it was part of the law. For another thing most CEOs are not the sort of people who sit around pondering the consequences of failure.
Exactly. Whatever CEOs are, they are not the sort of people who need to be protected species.
The people who own the company should set the pay. That’s actually truer capitalism, and fairer to boot, than a system where you have a little club of Directors and execs who all set their own pay.
No 893
But even so, Australian CEOs haven’t proven themselves to be huge flight risks. At the end of the day, if a CEO can’t justify his pay to his own shareholders, he doesn’t deserve his asking price. Simple as that.
It’s a Bennite solution.
Can’t possibly be. He would never come up with anything half as sensible.
Rubbish. Benn would nationalise the lot. It shows how far political debate his shifted to the right that no-one of any significance is advocating that.
Sure – so what’s the problem with letting the shareholders set their pay?
The concept of public companies was introduced so that companies could access enough money for major projects to be undertaken. It wasn’t introduced so that shareholders could be ripped off and generally ignored.
Tony hasn’t quite got the hang of the intertubes yet.
I’m just quoting Sir Humphrey. I never even knew Benn was a politician until a minute ago.
Quite so. Another reason (albeit only a tactical one) for us Liberals to get on the front foot and start reforming the unsatisfactory aspects of the current system.
No 901
Agreed. Shareholders need to be more activist. Stephen Mayne has long been a proponent of shareholder activism and I think I agree with much of what he says.
Have to admit that’s where I first heard of him as well.
Er, that is, it would be such a reason, if we were actually in power anywhere important …
Although Mayne can be a bit of a looney at times he is right more often than he is wrong.
Binding votes on pay would provide a very tangible way for shareholders to clip the wings of Boards and CEOs, without taking the drastic step of sacking them. It would be an effective way for people to make a point without having to make Mayne-like spectacles of themselves at AGMs.
It ought to happen.
At least you can admit the system has problems. According to Glen, the Howard years were full of bliss. Increasing middle class welfare and cutting taxes while taking money out of health and education was fine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E21MdXe3BOQ
The irrepressible Tony (the former Viscount Stansgate, the first man to renounce his peerage). When he retired from the Commons he said “I am retiring so I can devote more time to politics.”
Mayne of course also had a well-publicised fracas with Glenn Milne, which might endear him to certain PBers!
Yes Minsiter and Yes Prime Minister were documentaries.
No GG, they were instruction manuals!
Which one was Manual.
Hilfenhouse off the mark in test cricket with a 5!
How many others have done that?
So now that it has become the flavour of the week, the coalition (or at least Joe Hockey) are now championing cuts to CEO and others salaries. Can you imagine them taking such an action if they were in government? Would Malcolm be in favour (particularly how it would affect his mates at Macquarrie Bank)? I dont think so. Yet another example of extreme hypocrisy from the Opposition.
No. But the theatrics over S.A.S. pay shows you they are clutching for ANY issue. Unfortunately petrol is currently too cheap.
I guess the opposition’s argument was that it was a boom when they are in government, and it is inappropriate to talk about taking money off people during a boom time. I mean, that seems to be their argument of perpetually proposing tax cuts.
RSA need 454 to win.
Hello Bludgers. Just one post from me this evening, though glad to see everyone is still arguing with each other, endlessly. Haven’t had a chance to catch up with it all. Anyway what I wanted to say is that if you’re concerned about someone who has been affected by the fires, just let William know. He has my permission to give you my email address. I may not be able to deal with the person myself, but I’ll make sure some one responds. Another caveat, there’s not enough of of us across the nation to heal the wounds to the individual and collective psyche.
We seem to be paying off debt:
http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,27753,25124013-31037,00.html
Can’t agree with that, enjaybee. Any more than it would be “extreme hypocrisy” if Labor took this opportunity to make a change (after all, they haven’t been pushing the issue either, up to now).
Crises are a great chance to fix things. This whole issue of CEO and Director pay has needed fixing for a while and this is a perfect chance to do it. The Govt ought to do so, and the Opposition ought to harass them if they don’t.
Ah, some excellent Thatcher for a quiet Sunday: “So long as the gap is smaller, they’d [the socialists] rather the poor be poorer.”
Gold.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw
Was it “extreme hypocrisy” when Howard changed the gun laws? Of course not, it was just a pragmatic way of using circumstances to the greater good.
Labor ought to do something about the pay issue now (this year, anyway). There’s nothing wrong with the Liberals saying so.
So why didn’t the Howard government fix it in 1996? If they are to be believed, the economy was so bad then the world was about to end.
SO,
Not sure why Howard didn’t fix it in 1996. I don’t think CEO pay was anywhere near the levels then that it is now, but I’d have to look it up to be honest.
The reasoning that goes “Howard didn’t do this, therefore don’t blame Labor if they don’t” is just very, very unimpressive, to be perfectly honest. I don’t see why the universe of permissible topics ought to be defined by Howard’s achievements.
GP,
Margaret Thatcher was asked what she would like for dinner. She replied, “roast beef”. When asked about vegetables she replied, “They can have roast beef too”.
She was talking about her Cabinet colleagues.
GP
The shareholders own the company. It seems very surprising to me that you would oppose the unfair dismissal laws and also oppose share holders having the right to employ and dismiss the board ( which they do) and CEO as they see fit. I would see some humor in the CEO relying on unfair dismissal laws to keep angry share holders in check, it would then be interesting to see who lined up against unfair dismissal laws.
As for these wonderful CEO’s running overseas, good luck to them.
1) Japan doesn’t go in for this nonsense; companies seem to have CEO’s.
2) USA and England are in a bigger mess thanks to general incompetence at this level of management, fortunately we only got a few of them over here.
3)Paying themselves such salaries is rape and pillage of the company and the company is better off if it isn’t raped and pillaged.
No way! Ponting burns our first referral already!
fredn,
Leaving aside the unfair dismissal stuff (not 100% sure of what you and GP were previously arguing about there), I basically agree with all that.
One of the ironies of the current fuss about CEO pay is that this is often couched in terms of “the excesses of capitalism” and similar phrases. Whereas in fact CEO pay rorts are actually prejudicial to the interests of those who provide the capital, and therefore in a sense are anti-capitalist.
yes enjaybee, extreme hypocrisy, not that they’ll admit it. I dont get. Youre either for the free market and capitalism or you arent. You cant have it both ways. The fake outrage is ridiculous
No, but it has opened up an opportunity for the government to give shareholders back their rights. If they come out and agree with the Liberals the Liberals will look stupid if they back away from their stated position. I know looking stupid has not been a barrier to Liberal action before, but I am sure Labor would consider that a bonus.
dyno
I haven’t argued with GP, it was Liberal policy and GP seems to follow the Liberal Line ( the extreme right line) pretty closely.
fredn @ 931,
Agree. The Libs won’t be able to back away from this if the Govt does something.
The Govt ought to swallow its pride, accept that Hockey (for whatever motives, good or bad) beat it to the punch, and do something good here.
That’s a very shallow analysis I’m afraid. There’s absolutely no reason you can’t be for the free market and capitalism, but still acknowledge it has faults that ought to be fixed.
No 927
I don’t recall where in fact I’ve argued against the notion that shareholders should have the ability to dismiss CEOs.
As an adjunct to 935, I already argued that shareholders should be more activist and thus have more rights. It follows, therefore, that I would scarcely oppose a vote by shareholders to dismiss a poorly performing CEO.