The Australian reports no change in Labor’s Newspoll lead from last fortnight: 58-42. Kevin Rudd is steady on 67 per cent as preferred prime minister, while Malcolm Turnbull’s is up one to 19 per cent. More to follow. Otherwise:
• Essential Research has Labor’s lead down from 61-39 to 60-40. Bonus questions on financial stimulus payments and how they will be spent; who will benefit from the national broadband network (everybody, it seems); and some no-brainers on the banks.
• Antony Green offers a thorough overview of results from the Western Australian election courtesy of the WA Parliamentary Library, which has assembled a page compiling all manner of helpful electoral paraphernalia. Antony calculates the two-party result as 51.9-48.1 to the Liberals.
• Ben Raue at the Tally Room has posted the nominees for Greens Senate preselection in New South Wales, where state MP Lee Rhiannon is presumably the front-runner, and Victoria, where previous candidates Richard di Natale and David Risstrom stand out in a crowded field. A productive comments thread ensues.
• Also from Ben Raue, Christian Democratic Party MLC Gordon Moyes says he “may accept an invitation from Family First” after falling out with Fred Nile.
1,556 Comments
Well, I’ve benn away from the hurly-burly all day and I must say, I’m chuffed.
Will nothing dent the facade of My. Hyde, er, Rude, er, Jekyll?
Brendan, nodding, smiling to himself.
This is GREAT News!!! For Malcolm Turnbull, Andrew Bolt, Piers Akerman and all the other racist bigots out there. I’m being sarky of course.
Is it too late to talk Brendan out of retirement?
Now, now – Turnbull is not a racist bigot. Just a very mediocre politician who has tried every populist stunt he can think of and gained nothing by it.
The cover-up noises being made by the various noise making devices may actually damage them. From a sample of one conservative voter in my house the reaction was pretty hostile. The take-away from the headlines and sound-bites was that these ~people~ are somehow accusing the Navy of causing the explosion.
A very good result after the disappointment of watching Mel Storm go down to the Tigers in the NRL.
The TPV policy will be Malcom’s get ouf jail card.
With the help of Kevin Andrews, he will be Mr Charisma again!
Ha–ha-ha-ha-ha-ha, ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho, he-he-he-he-he!
Oh yes, we were expecting a landslide back to the Libs on this one. But Mr. Rude has defied them, despite the political attack from theOpposition.
Oh, the Humanity!
HA HA The government completely vindicated, Turnball and the Liberals shown up as racist, zenophobic, opportunistic gits!
Methinks demonising refugees doesn’t work electorally in 2009!
The one-point advance in Turnbull’s PPM is within the Margin of Error, so statistically nothing has changed. The numbers must surely be being counted soon; his future must be looking uncertain.
Pressure will mount on Costello, who must, within weeks, commit to either staying or going. Should he commit to staying he can hardly avoid being drafted, a prospect which I’d say sends shivers down his spine… (Spine! What spine!?)
BB,
And all the Government has done is stick to procedure, refuse to exaggerate the situation and treated the injured with dignity and humanity.
That Rudd sure is a tricky so and so.
Is that libel?
another failed “attack” The Libs can’t have too many shots left in their locker
Why does Mal remind me of this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grbSQ6O6kbs
Cuppa: Forget Costello, I want the “Swinging Dicks” to take over.
Chris Pyne for leader.
Was Costello the shiver looking for a spine to go down? Nah, think that was Hewson.
Oh, Keating!!
Yes, GG, Rudd does use those ‘mean and tricky’ measured approaches — the swine.
don’t worry, evan, wait long enough and they’ll all get a go.
Vera: Turnball’s next shot in the locker – send “unauthorised arrivals” to Nauru.
Or is that Mal at the end of the clip?
oh how nice!!!
up yours xenophobes, opportunists and xenophobe opportunists.
Glen, Brendan is my local member and his office is just down the road. will see what i can do tomorrow
Can we call the Liberals political refugees?
evan14, nah in these times of the GFC we couldn’t afford the rent
Good idea, Evan – let’s see if we can guess the next Liberal ’scandal’.
Kevin Rudd’s mother cheated at bingo? Jasper the dog is a transexual? Therese held a slumber party at The Lodge at taxpayers’ expense?
I can see Malcolm looking very grave and concerned (whilst not actually committing himself to anything) about any of these.
Brendan can be found at the local Tarago dealership
And here is costello pondering that point here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ag8J2NMYmc
…I hear the gutter at Kings Cross at 3 am in the morning is also a good bet.
I do miss him, you know. Malcolm isn’t at all funny.
Adam @ 1265 (previous thread)
No, not publicly anyway, as far as I know, but Mead’s line (which rings true with the Obama approach so far) is that Obama may be able to engage the Palestinians in accepting the idea – there aren’t any new silver bullets as to how things can be arranged to settle everything:
but there is an opportunity now to engage more realistically with the various Palestinian groups and avoid the pitfalls of the past, for example:
Bring back Howie!!
**runs for cover**
The silence from Glen and Generic Person is deafening!
Gusface it worked for Silvio Berlusconi and he’s now PM again!
It would have been funny if Howard did stay on after 2007 after all Silvio is in his 70s lol.
Bring Back Brendo!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnztBEGRKwg&feature=related
At least the Libs cared back then!
Howie will be parachuted into Higgins when Costello takes his hammock and goes home.
If when the full Newspoll graphic comes out tomorrow, the dissatisfaction rate vs satisfaction rate is showing a widening gap then we can wave Malcolm goodbye. It defies any sane definition of Leadership to have a Dissatisfaction rate higher than the leader’s Satisfaction rate.
Glen, surely that corrupt bastard Berlusconi isn’t one of your political heroes?
He’s corrupt but id still vote for him if i was Italian.
No he isnt one of my political heros.
Brendan seemed to be having a ball on the catwalk with those models. Looks like he has moved on to better pastures.
Tony Jones was at his assertive worst tonight on Lateline tonight trying to bully Bob Debus into answering questions that he could not and should not answer about the boat fire. Seeming to have no concept of the need for a proper inquiry into what might turn out to be a criminal matter, Jones persisted in trying to extract details from Debus that will emerge only when the enquiry is complete. Debus quietly but determinedly stuck to his guns and eventually Jones gave up, seeming to be satisfied only after Debus indicated that there might be thousands of asylum seekers still in Indonesia hoping to come to Australia. Expect that to be headlines on ABC, and maybe elsewhere, tomorrow.
Glen
I dont know if you remember but before 2007 howard was touted as looking for a safer seat.
Now if in some nefarious way he was still mucking around at the edges I wouldnt put it past howard to comeback in an electorate nearby.
In saying that, it also offers the delicious idea that costello is awaiting to see what howards intentions are, before costello makes a move.
That would explain in part costello’s dithering
I wonder if one cute little puttycat just got kicked in the freckle at Point Piper?
I thought I heard on Lateline that Turnbull’s disapproval rating had increased by 4%.
If so, then his strategy is definitely not working.
So the Liberals now consider any mention of a recession is a diversion from the supposedly more important asylum seeker problem?
How insulting to the unemployed and soon to be unemployed!
Akerman will be taking the news hard. I expect him to resurrect the Heiner Affair with a vengeance. (If you can’t get rid of Rudd using the democratic process, try another means).
40
St Kev would never hurt his Jasper
http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,6573956,00.jpg
If it is correct that the dog whistle may only work if your in govt, maybe. And the indications are that it has done no good so far for Turnbull then the Govt may be happy to sit back and quietly watch Turnbull ruin himself whilst the go about their business in a professional way.
If you leave them alone too long with an issue it is inevitable that they push too far and make themselves the issue.
No 32
The sad thing about the current situation is that at least Nelson took a stand on issues and was passionate. Malcolm is terse and moribund by comparison.
Recession Talk is just a pure distraction from the real story that won’t go away – HostieGate!
If his strategy consists of opposing everything just for the sake of it, not providing any decent alternative policies and calling the worst global economic downturn since the Great Depression the “Rudd Recession,” it’s no wonder why his strategy is not working.
Rudd is just saying that a recession is inevitable to draw attention away from the recession.
No 38
Given that many key witnesses are in hospital, it will be months before the inquiry reveals anything. Debus should be full and frank with the information he has in his possession.
We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.
#41
I thought he said up 4% to 46%……what was it lat time?
No 49
What’s hilarious is that it took him 6 months to admit it.
Gp, time to roll Costello out of his hammock and cop the full voter dislike of workchoices.
$weets, HR Nicholls, Treasurer when workchoices was introduced, should see him off before the next election too.
Hahahaha…………………the “BSD’s” are more like the “Inverted D#cks”
And you can tell Turnball doesn’t believe half the crap he is spouting, his only motive is to ward off Captain Smirky and The Swinging Dicks.
No you didn’t. John Howard said that no one aboard Tampa would “ever set foot in Australia”, but MOST of the people on that boat were accepted in 2004 into Australia as refugees.
The Liberals are complete liars on immigration policy who are willing to make up all sorts of fiction just to score cheap political points.
No 53
The Workchoices spectre that you keep trying to create hasn’t materialised. Rudd & Co. have had ample opportunity to publicly slay the Opposition over it but such debate has been drowned out by the economic downturn and asylum seekers. Not to mention the fact that Gillard’s new workplace laws are job-destroying.
GP,
58/42. Suck hard on those lemons.
I vote we send the Liberal Party to Nauru or Manus Island, let em know what it feels like, they are virtual political outcasts already.
Showson hard to see any political points being scored here by the Liberals, cheap or otherwise.
The recession hasn’t got any shock value for the Libs because they have been carping that we have been in one for the last 6 mnths. That’s what telling lies will do you for.
Kevin Rudd won’t be giving the Liberals safe haven!
No 56
ShowsOn, don’t be a fruitcake. The fact that many of the Tampa asylum seekers were accepted does not contradict Howard’s statement.
GP, just trot out Costello from Hammockville and see whether Workchoices is dead.
No 61
Vera, it is no lie to say that we’ve been in recession for six months.
No 64
Steve, just admit your support for the job-killing Gillard “fair work” bill.
Exhuming the ghosts of Howard, Reith, Andrews and Ruddock is obviously doing wonders for the Libs, what’s next? Menzies is brought back from the grave?
Evan, no, Fraser.
If the Liberals had just played as a dull boring opposition making policy points and ignored the old Howard handbook they would have gained credibility and been much closer in the polls. All they had to do is appear as a safe pair of hands, not a screaming rabble shouting at everything that moves.
In fact if they just shut up and said nothing for the past 12 months they would be closer. Turnbull is a man they should encourage to talk as much as he wants.
Nice set of numbers. Me, I’m just loving the govt not playing the media and opposition’s bullshit games.
Welcome to the new political culture, muchachos. You might want to smell the wind. I reckon you’re in for 9 years worth at least.
No offence, but as a pollie, Talcum makes a good lawyer.
Turnbull reminds me of Andrew Peacock…he will go nowhere in politics.
Turnbulls ratings last Newspoll
satisfied 39
dissatisfied 42
uncommitted 19
Bring back Bill Sneddon…..whoops…..how did he die again?
Glen, ye of little faith, and you were only singing Turnball’s praises the other day.
Glen,
“Turnbull reminds me of Andrew Peacock…he will go nowhere in politics”.
He’s already there!
A master agenda setter at work. After setting the expectation today about the economy going into recession, Rudd sets expectations on more boat arrivals as insurance for the future.
What is a master fumbler like Turnbull supposed to do in the face of such an upcoming narrative? Oppose everything or blame Govt even though it was already news and expected to happen? How about the reverse wedge on TPV/people smuggler policy? Masterful.
Michelle Grattan
http://www.theage.com.au/national/rudd-warns-on-huge-numbers-of-arrivals-20090420-acr6.html?page=-1
PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd has warned of the difficult battle Australia faces to combat people smuggling and boat arrivals, saying the nation faces “huge additional numbers across the archipelago”.
Meanwhile, fault lines in the Coalition opened as Liberal moderates strongly cautioned against the reintroduction of temporary protection visas (TPVs) for refugees who arrive in boats, after Malcolm Turnbull said it should be “high on the agenda”.
redwombat: ask Sonia McMahon.
74
Bullbutter!
I am referring to his statement by Howard, Downer, Ruddock et al that no one aboard Tampa will ever set foot in Australia. THEY ALL LIED and yet you are the sort of idiotic moron that can’t accept the fact you were lied to, duped, bamboozled and tricked into believing those idiotic statements.
Smart people knew that the government could not follow through on those claims because of 1) Australia’s international obligations 2) the migration act.
Just admit your support for Malcolm Turnbull’s pro-unemployment economic policies.
Oh please. It totally detroys his statement. Howard was nothing but a dog whistling liar.
After seeing Turnbull make claims about a “cover up” on the news tonight i will have no sympathy for him at all as his ratings go down the gurgler. He ’s behaving like a complete git and incompetent trying to pull the vote of those fearful of the relatively small number of people who get here by boat. How well will that go down in his electorate??
Meanwhile, Rudd and Co are being considered and mostly careful about what they say. Letting the cops do their jobs and letting the Libs do the hysteria thing while pointing out that numbers of refugees have more to do with war in Afghanistan and Sri-Lanka. Good job so far,and i hope the poll numbers hold up over the next month. That should have Turnbull as dead and buried as he deserves to be and force Cossie out into the open.
Yeah I quite liked the fact that Turnbull’s nonsense is even being rebuked by Liberals.
No 71
I used to think different, but the last several months has changed my mind.
About the only half credible people left to lead are Costello & Hockey. Abbott is a personal favourite but he will never be PM.
Glen, have to agree with you on that. Turnbull comes across with a similar style of smug arrogance as did Peacock and look where it took Andrew!
I still reckon Fraser’s the one. Being of that age group he should cement their core support demographic.
If Howard was actually TRUTHFUL about the whole Tampa affair he would’ve gone into parliament and put forward a bill EXPLICITLY to exclude the people aboard Tampa from EVER being granted refugee status in Australia.
But he was A LIAR who just wanted to use the issue for political purposes. He KNEW that it was HIGHLY likely that many of the people aboard that boat would one day be living in Australia as refugees, and eventually as Australian citizens.
But he was a liar who knew he could appeal to dim witted morons by making statements and promises that the government could never deliver on.
No 79
Show me a link, in context, then I’ll be believe you.
You’re arguing with a straw man. The only statement for which I evinced support is “we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come”.
Simple. You believe people smugglers on rickety old dinghies is an appropriate circumstance. I think not.
I have gone off Turnbull in a big way because i know he wont make a dent in the ALP come 2010 and it is more than likely we will go backwards even further.
We need a leader who stands for something and is passionate about particular issues. I just dont see Turnbull cutting through to the voters GP and we’ll never get off this flatline of 42 2PP until things change.
Abbott is a good performer and while his views can sometimes be extreme he is an assest that should prolly have a better portfolio, i wonder if the BSD’s can help him out?
Smug arrogance = political deaths
Glen, the answer for you is…………………….Alex Hawke! LOL LOL LOL
No 89
The Member for Mitchell is formidable, but too young.
Wonder if the next Lib PM is born yet?
Tony Abbott is, to use his own descriptor, toxic.
Senate report into the Tampa crisis:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/Committee/maritime_incident_ctte/report/c01.htm
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Immigration/Most-Nauru-refugees-to-be-resettled/2004/05/23/1085250860544.html
SEE you were LIED TO, but you believed the LIES that the people aboard Tampa would never set foot in Australia, which was a LIE because it was UNTRUE and the government KNEW it was a statement that would turn out to be untrue when it was made.
Glen, if Turnbull keeps on like he is at present then you will get off the 42 2PP alright but it will be more than likely towards the 30’s!
If Turnbull is opposition leader at the next election, Labor will win at least 100 seats.
And too idiotic.
Turnbull for 5 minutes after the election loss was his own man and sounded promising. Then he whored himself to right to try and keep his tenure as Oppn leader.
And you’re an idiot for supporting this statement BECAUSE IT IS COMPLETELY OBVIOUS. The migration act is administered by the Minister for Immigration, and their department. The Minister for Immigration MUST be an Australian.
So again, the fact you seem to think Howard was saying something profound is just stupid.
Of course, the ministers for immigration – especially Kevin Andrews and Amanda Vanstone – were two of the most incompetent ministers ever who committed actions at various times that were in contravention of the migration act, Andrews during the Haneef affair, and Vanstone by being responsible for the deportation of Australian citizens.
Well done ShowsOn. There are some among us who admire liars, even elevate them to hero-status. It’s the morally bankrupt leading the morally bankrupt.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2003/09/02/937263.htm
No 93
Sorry, no contextual quote, just a senate assertion.
On what grounds? In fact, you’re only retort is to call people idiots. How banal and infantile.
No 100 you’re = your
European delegates at Durban II boycott Ahmadinejad speech:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25363198-23109,00.html
It is a shame Alex Hawke is of the religious right.
Shows On,
Vindicates our decision not to attend.
Another good decison by the Australian Government.
No 103
The “religious right” monicker is overplayed. Is Rudd on the religious left? I mean, what a silly, nonsensical label.
No GP…Rudd is a Christian Socialist
But seriously the last place I want religion to play a role is in politics but that is my personal preference, so long as he can keep it out of politics as Howard did that will make me happy.
“But seriously the last place I want religion to play a role is in politics but that is my personal preference, so long as he can keep it out of politics as Howard did that will make me happy.”
Well except the Brethren…
Actually, Rudd is on the religious centre. You know, that big 58 playing that measly 42 . . . At least Turnbull will probably get a decent book out of it making fun of his swinging party with the Trogly Right.
And GP: you want to see Workchoices rearise as a live issue? Please, please give us Costello (or even Abbott) as the next oppo leader . . . C’mon, you know you want to, gotturdammerang et al
Great job ignoring my second link, idiot. You were lied to, and you aren’t even smart enough to see that you were lied to.
Alex Hawke was previously an atheist. Which either means he is a born again, or a tremendous hypocrite.
I completely agree. I hope the U.K. now formally withdraws its delegates from the rest of the conference.
Glen and GP
According to South Park, Howie is still PM. Or maybe they can see into the future…
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25358851-5006347,00.html
No 106
Abbott is a well-known committed Catholic, but it could hardly be said that his policy decisions in government were heavily influenced by his religiosity. It his plain silliness.
Religious fundamentalism is of greater concern in sections of the Republican movement in the US. It’s influence in Australia is merely unfounded assertion by media-types.
Turnbull’s disapproval up 4%. This would seem to be a significant rise and indicates that the electorate have written off Turnbull.
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/rudd-has-67-preferred-pm-rating-poll-20090420-acta.html
Alex Hawke is an opportunist. He could only get the pre-selection numbers with the help of the religious right…
ShowsOn, you can continue to call me an idiot as much as you want, but I will continue to refute your baseless claims.
Howard was not dishonest at all. The Tampa people did not have a legal right to enter Australia and the Government was quite within its right to refuse entry until claims for asylum could be appropriately assessed.
No 108
I find religion to be the domain of illogic just like you ShowsOn, but I don’t go around calling people idiots just because they find solace in their religious faith.
GP,
I can think of the RU486 debacle as an instance where Abbott was rolled by his Government because of his religious leanings. There was also the time he was caught out lying about a visit to George Pell before the 2004 election. I also believe that Abbott’s religious devotion contributes to his lack of skill in dealing with assertive women like Gillard, Roxon etc.
No 112
What is the “religious right”? Define it, in the Australian context. So far, you’re casting aspersions on people’s integrity just for identifying themselves as Christians. Why don’t you do the same for Rudd?
No, they just influenced his actions during conscience votes, such as equating HUMANS embryos with TADPOLES! He doesn’t seem to understand that the reason humans have human rights is because they are HUMAN not FROGS. This is how nutty Abbott really is:
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2002-08-21%2F0009%22
Arguments from analogy don’t work when the REASON something is considered different is that it has features distinct from something else, i.e. frogs aren’t humans.
Exactly, that is why he converted from Atheism.
Completely irrelevant. Howard said that those aboard Tampa would NEVER set foot in Australia, but he LIED and you are an idiot for not understanding that he lied.
No 118
He didn’t lie. And you’re an idiot for accusing him of lying.
Your kidding GP, Howard Costello Downer,at least 2 should have been in jail,Howard could not lay straight in bed, and Dower should have been for being a totally incompetent idiot.
Your remark about Julia Gillards work laws is just a continuation of the employer whining that happens every time their employees manage to screw a wage rise out of them, been happening sine the commission came into existence,change the record.
Apart from that our local radio hack on 6pr still thinks the sun shines out of Barnetts backside,and Colin is like Washington and cannot tell a lie over the boat people,Barnett went for a walk in Northbridge at 9 pm to check out the place he was about as inconspicuous and a Mack truck,also very 1950s,which kinda suits him.
The local jock Beaumont just loves Colin but then I suppose he likes a one man Govt as the rest of the incompetents are kept well out of sight,also 2 singers came out against the sighing of the gas hub poor old Simon told them that should keep out of it,they should not express an opinion as Colin knows best for all.
Watched Wests Tigers go round aganist the Storm nice to see Wests get a win,but Melbourne have some work to do,thank Christ I have FOX Spoerts and dont have to watch local commerical TV,AFL and 7,10 and 9 suck,a least I can avoid it altogether now
Don’t be a fool. It was a simple analogy to illustrate the complex science and philosophy surrounding the beginning of human life. Yes, it was a poor analogy, but that neither negatives the rest of his argument nor makes him “nutty”.
How about you address the ACTUAL ISSUE of ABORTION instead of using a persistent line of ad hominem attacks on irrelevant side points.
Julia Gillard is imposing more restrictions on employers in a time of economic downturn, a time when you need to give employers incentive to employ more people! Your failure to understand that is the reason why your argument fails.
Really I think the position may be far too far gone for anybody to save them from a defeat. Stating the obvious maybe.
So you would have to question the worth of replacing Turnbull with what you think is your next best. It would only damage them. Better to save them for the next election.
They could go for Hockey as a seat warmer but the way he has changed he might not recover them anything. I would be saving the younger prospects rather than sacrifice them now. Can’t think of why Costello would want the job when there is little prospect of victory.
I guess they will end up going for Hockey.
TP,
You are probably right.
But, Christopher Pyne could be a uniting compromise.
Please name a crime for which they deserved a custodial sentence? *crickets buzzing*
You must be joking….
WHAT? You can’t read. Here’s another one:
He is arguing that embryos should be granted rights akin to fully developed humans. You can’t therefore start talking about tadpoles and frogs as if they are EQUIVALENT to humans when your argument is for HUMAN rights. The fact you can’t see this FATAL logical flaw is hilarious.
WHAT? Who said this was about abortion? It was about the use of embryos for scientific research. Learn to read before posting please.
Yes, like making it illegal for employers to unfairly dismiss their workers.
Of course your solution to unemployment is to make it easier for people to be sacked which is to employment policy what the pacific solution was to solutions.
GP,
Crickets chirrup.
Watching Malcolm Turnbull on Radio National this morning (shown on ABC2 morning news show) made me physically ill. Here was this PRIME Hypocrite, a MP who said to a constituent in his electorate back in 2004 who was worried voting liberal because they were so nasty towards refugee’s that don’t worry, Howard will be gone soon and then everything will change, i.e. He would lead the party and become all warm and cuddly towards refugees. Here is this same person, just for political opportunism, mining a DARK BLACK SEAM of FILTHY RACIAL BIGOTRY, trying to get votes, trying to claw back a lead against the government. ABSOLUTELY SICKENING!!!
GP,
Everyone seems to despise him, so he could unite the Party!
Christopher Pyne has a similar problem to Turnbull. Turnbull doesn’t know when to stop talking and going too far and sounds toffy arrogant. Pyne doesn’t know when to stop talking and going too childish. The presentation does give you the impression of poodle. He does sound a bit whiny. And like it or not presentation is very important as leader.
I might add that the Liberal Party should always remember to give thanks to Howard for this state of affairs.
I’m sorry but where on earth does he say that tadpoles and frogs are equivalent to humans? He merely made the analogy to highlight that a test tube embryo has the POTENTIAL to become a human being. Some people have difficulty conceptualising this potential, hence the tadpole analogy. Nowhere did he say that the sanctity of human life was comparable to that of a tadpole or frog. The fact that YOU can’t see that is hilarious.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I had a sneaking suspicion people wouldn’t change their vote over this. We’re in 2009, not 2001, the average joe has moved on.
By his implication that tadpoles are analogous to human embryos. You should read some basic logic texts before making even more of a fool of yourself.
WHAT? You can’t show me a lie?
You’ve got to be kidding me. All Nelson did was “continue to argue for working families”. He didn’t take a stand on anything.
Again, wrong.
He neither said nor implied that tadpoles are equivalent to the sanctity of human life exhibited in human embryos. He said they’re analogous insofar as they as exhibit a potential for life. Your inability to recognise that distinction is pure intellectual laziness.
Full newspoll results – http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/files/21apr-newspoll.html
Interestingly, the dissatisfaction for Rudd and Turnbull both rose four points. But Rudd’s last rating seems to have been noise, recent history has had it at around 25%. Turnbull on the other hand has reached a new high of 46%. He’s now a full net negative 9% for satisfaction.
AND
27% say Labor handles the issue of asylum seekrs better, against 26% for the coalition. 6% for someone else, and a whopping 41% for none/uncommitted.
It’s a dead issue. MOVE ON COALITION.
No 138
Um, you’re getting confused with Rudd bob.
Nelson tried copying Rudd, it was as if they treated the new Labor govt like they’d been in power for a decade and enacted anti-working family policies – like say for example, the Howard govt and WorkChoices.
Interesting? According to the latest Newspoll, 57% of respondents think that tougher laws would make no difference to the number of asylum seekers attempting to enter Australia. Given that, are the Libs likely to get any traction on this issue?? Looks to me like they have picked another dead horse to flog and are making much noise about an issue that will change few if any votes.
No more GP vs ShowsOn, please.
The Newspoll results pretty well reflect the dishonesty the Liberal Party and media have presented events. However people still see Labor as the party best to handle the issue. Seems their dog whistling got quite a few in but not in such a way as to win them early vote changes.
Funny that a lot didn’t like the way the Govt handled the issue (on what basis who knows?) but it didn’t mean them changing their vote. On the contrary people registered their dissatisfaction with Turnbull’s handling of the issue much more than Rudd.
It seems this issue is now one of those unpleasant things people don’t want to think about and maybe they are not sure how to think about it. Turnbull Liberal’s dog whistling must have just made them feel even more uncomfortable.
It didn’t help that media coverage helped stir up fears and provide very little perspective or context. They are still trying their best today to dive Australia aka Howard.
The dramatic deterioration in Turnbull’s satisfaction ratings is I think a worse sign than it appears, considering people did register unhappiness with the govt on the issue of the day. When people get used to the issue and the dust settles a bit you would think Turnbull will sink some more and the Govts TPP even rise.
The message to the MSM and the Liberals here is your dog whistling to xenophobia may have unexpected consequence not to your liking.
In the longer term I think Turnbull may have just hurt their brand a little more. But I guess he is just being lead around by the right wing media pack.
And re http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/files/21apr-newspoll.html and asylum seekers
Tighter laws to reduce the number of asylum seekers?
Yes/will reduce – 36%
No/no difference – 57%
That splits 31 to 64 for Labor voters, and 47 to 46 for coalition voters.
Yes Australia – this is not the issue that the coalition hoped it would be.
HAHAHAHAHAHAH
Your whole “dog whistling” mantra, which you repeat at every opportunity, is at its heart illogical. The poll result shows that the dogs aren’t listening. Indeed, the dogs never existed.
SNIP: Comment breaches spirit of #144 – The Management.
Bullshit. We all know asylum seekers saved Howard’s arse in 2001.
SNIP: No more ABOUT GP vs ShowsOn, either – The Management.
Not fair William.
It WAS a fair observation.
No 149
Rubbish. If any international event had overarching influence on the outcome, it was the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The ALP also recorded one of its worst ever primary votes meaning something more than the fate of a few hundred asylum seekers were bearing on peoples minds.
9/11 was the icing on the cake from the Govt’s response to the Tampa.
What’s your point?
Did I not vote for Labor over the coalition in 2007 because I put Green first?
The 2001 two-party vote was coalition 51.03 to Labor 48.97. The only closer election since 1990 was 1998.
It was a stupid observation, actually.
Post it then and let others decide
No. Move on, please.
Tony Abbott has recently been fuming more than most in the coalition that they have been unable to make up ground against Labor.
I wonder how he and other coalition MPs feel upon seeing the latest Newspoll and the asylum seeker questions asked in it. It reveals the opinion wouldn’t change regardless of who is Liberal leader.
It has just dawned on me that with 9/11 and Tampa occurring so close together that maybe the effect of one was not as clear as people made it out to be at the time. At the time I was doing a political cartooning course and major events all converged together during the one term. Maybe Howard’s focus on the Tampa was a distraction and the real reason for the 2001 win was in fact 9/11 but the Liberals have swallowed there own twisted cause and effect.
I just can’t remember what the polling at the time told us about the Tampa issue had on the election and whether it can be isolated from the 9/11 response anyway.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2001/s357998.htm
Howard won 2001 on asylum seekers.
Thanks for that Bob so that is a clear week before 9/11.
I wonder if the reason was they were most likely to be parents of young children and that Howard had played on their maternal instincts re people allegedly throwing their children overboad ?
Ahh.
http://www.newspoll.com.au/cgi-bin/polling/display_poll_data.pl
It would seem both helped the coalition. Their primary vote in August in both Newspolls was 40%. Then the tampa came. Then 31 Aug-2 Sep and 7-9 Sep, 45% and 44%. Then 9/11 happened. Then the next two polls after that, the coalition’s primary was 50%.
So it would seem that the 9/11 and the threat of terrorism played in to the Tampa/asylum seekers.
Interestingly, the Nationals were polling 5-8% up until the Tampa and 9/11 – after which they began polling 3-5% (with the occasional rare 6%) after that – right up until this very day. Almost fascinating.
@110
Ahem.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/04/17/morgan-61-39-6/comment-page-10/#comments
Let me repeat:
GFC – failed
Stimpac – failed
China – failed
Yellow peril – failed
Air Hostie – failed
St. Kevin, The Dark Lord – failed
Qjumpers – failed
Recession – failed
Great White Hope – May09 Budget.
Desperate White Hope – St. Kevin vs St. Gillard.
Even more desperate Great White Hope – Malcolm Fraser.
Yes, Howard played on phobias, little whistles that there may be terrorists on the Tampa, not even he believed that but it had the desired effect.
The idea of storming the Tampa was to place focus on one event and the lib govt and labor opposition response to it. Took the focus off the introduced GST, the lib memo that described Howard as sneaky and mean and the govts low polling.
Beazley reacted poorly to Tampa, we’re with the govt , we’re agin them, we agree ,we disagree. It was an audacious move by Howard that placed the opposition in the spotlight and they were found wanting.
When 9/11 happened so soon afterwards it just highlighted how the opposition and govt reacted to a crisis, real or manufactured.
If the Tampa had not happened Howard would have tried something else like he did with the NT invasion in 2007. Rudd diffused that by saying OK we agree with you but lets get the focus back on Work Choices, the economy, broadband etc etc.
Beazley should have done similar in 2001, but when someone does something so unexpected like Howard did with the Tampa it can throw you. Its like “what the fk, you have to be kidding” . Articles ntoing how other conservatives thought the move audacious but whether they would be game enough to do the same.
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/houserules/index.php/theaustralian/comments/libs_in_denial_on_the_swingers_club/
Can we see “that big swinging dicks were hanging over Julie Bishop’s head”. what a sight it will be.
Rudd has done well because:
1. In contrast to the children overboard scandal the Govt. maintained a disciplined line of not sensationalising or distorting the issue by steadfastly following procedure.
2. Allowing Carpenter et al to ‘rabbit on’ and remind the electorate of the sins on the past government.
3.Letting the media coverage of the victims plight be handled by the medical staff at the various hospitals who gave compassionate and competent assessments which kept the public informed and aware of these people as humans in difficult circumstances, therefore disallowing the tactic of dehumanising the boat-people which the Coalition used knowingly to encourage a collective hardening of public attitudes towards them.
All in all an intelligent strategy…my boss has always advocated handling tricky issues at work by allowing due process to take place and the passing of time to defuse the situation.
Meanwhile the spin continues….http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25362736-601,00.html
Try again
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25362736-601,00.html
The OO wants it both ways…
(whatever a “boatpeople regime” is)
and
Apparently nowadays, 36% of respondents thinking that tougher laws on boatpeople would stem the tide, versus 57% thinking tougher laws would change nothing is a “nation divided”.
Anywhere, anytime else a 57/36 split is a landslide to whomever has the magic “57″. But not today, not in the OO. They want torches and pitchforks, angry crowds and outraged mums, and by God they’re going to invent them if they don’t exist.
Oh dear, Turnbull is doing a very hasty Bonaparte’s Retreat on TPV.
The Daily Tele has its priorities right, though:
Possum’s graph on Turnbull’s net satsifaction rating would have the Opposition in apoplexy.
There seems no end to the declining trend into significant net dis-satisfaction.
Carpenter, unfortunately, is no longer WA Premier. You’re thinking of Colin Barnett.
HA HA yes, Turnball’s reembrace of TPVs has lasted all of one day!
Methinks he came up with that little gem 5 minutes before the radio interview with Fran Kelly.
It SOUNDED like he actually thought of it while he was being interviewed – a sudden flash of ‘brilliance’.
Which sort of reflects the Libs approach to policy making at the moment…
177
Sorry, too early in the morning for me!
Re last night’s conversation, I have been searching the web to find out whether, where and when Howard said “These people will never set foot in Australia” in relation to the Tampa. I have ascertained that he didn’t say it in Parliament. Google does not reveal any contemporary reference, or any subsequent *direct quote* of the remark, merely the constant repetition of the attributed phrase, as in “John Howard said that the Tampa people would never set foot in Australia.”
But I think I have found the origin of the quote. This is Warren Snowdon in Parliament in March 2002: “What were the words of the Prime Minister when he was walking around the press gallery here trumpeting the solution to the Tampa crisis? He said, `These people will never set foot on Australian soil.’ What we have come to see is inevitability—what everyone knew at the time—that they would in fact set foot on Australian soil, and they will.”
So the direct quote “These people will never set foot on Australian soil” seems to derive from an *allegation* by Snowdon that Howard said these words while “walking around the press gallery.” If that’s the case, he would have said it on a not-for-attribution basis, as is the convention when politicians visit the Gallery for a chat. Snowdon presuamably picked up what Howard had said from a journalist.
Unless anyone can produce a *direct, contemporary quote* of Howard saying these words, that seems to be the story. So it depends on whether you want to accept Snowdon’s word about what a journalist told him Howard had said. It is possible that Howard said those exact words, but it’s also possible that he said something to the effect that the Tampa people would not be allowed to set foot in Australia *at the time*, ie directly from the Tampa, and that the quote got sexed up a bit in transmission from Howard to the journalist to Snowdon to Parliament.
Glen,
Doesn’t matter who is sitting on the leadership chair, you’re just shuffling deck chairs on a sinking ship
The other interesting number is the 46/47 split in the Liberal Party supporters over whether tougher immigration laws will reduce the number of asylum seekers trying to enter Australia.
This means the Libs are split right up the middle. I notice that the moderates like Bruce Baird and Judi Moylan are out and about. Could indicate that the politics of “the asylum seeking boat people” are more divisive for the Liberal Party than Labor.
bob1234,
Sad but true. My in-laws voted for Beazely but were in Howard’s camp on this issue. If Labor voters were able to have their heads turned on this one issue, surely it grabbed even more swing voters.
If Beazley had not been able to persuade the majority of working-class Labor voters that Labor supported a tough line on border protection, Labor would have lost 20 seats instead of four.
Adam,
check Ian Ward’s chapter here – http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv/UQ:11247/ward.pdf
Page 28 says: “boatpeople” would “never land in our waters: ever”
And also top of page 22.
It seems Ian ward is convinced he said it
Adam,
I am sure what you say is right. However, the context of 2001 is that the 9/11 and Bali Bombing atrocities were still very fresh. I think the issues of terrorism and asylum seekers were mixed into a volatile cocktail especially since many of the boat people were Muslims.
While not doubting the potential volatility of the issue, in this instance the story seems to have played out mainly amongst the MSM and commentariat. The voters don’t seem to be particularly fussed one way or another.
People obviously have other matters on their mind.
It’s a rather different quote. “Land in the water?” And I don’t believe Howard would have used the word “boatpeople” in an on-the-record comment. It’s attributed to “Price & Garran 2001″. I will try to find what that is a reference to.
Garran I presume is the Fin Review journo Robert Garran.
The Bali Bombing was in 2002.
Adam,
Oops, so fresh it hadn’t happened yet! But there was certainly a heightened fear and awareness and fear of Muslim based terrorsism.
Adam
firstly, the internet teems with references to this quote, which suggests it was widely understood at the time.
secondly, a quick google revealed the same quote being referred to in the Senate report into ‘A certain maritime incident’. The quote isn’t direct, the source is an interview on Radio 3AW Melbourne on 31 August 2001.
I can’t source the transcript on the net as yet, but my ‘firstly’ is enough indirect/circumstantial evidence that the statement was made on the record and commonly understood at the time.
Yes I know, but that’s because anti-Howard chatters have endlessly repeated it. That doesn’t prove that the quote is authentic.
However, the 3AW reference may be getting closer to an authentic source
GG, I agree that the issue probably won’t play for the Libs now as it did in 2001. For a start we are in government now, so we control the action and all the Oppo can do is whinge. But don’t kid yourselves, refugee advocates: if Tampa II comes over the horizon, Rudd’s response will be much the same as Howard’s was. They will not land, and they will go to Xmas Is.
Adam check:
“Let the refugees land – UN demands deal from a desperate Howard”, by Megan Saunders, Robert Garran, Vanda Carson. September 1 2001, The OZ; and
“PM weighs his anger in stormy seas – Howard weighs his anger in the stormy seas of global censure” by Matt Price, Robert Garran, 1 September 200, The OZ.
I think you are right that he never said the exact words “never set foot”
Interestingly, although the words are repeated again and again (in quite reputable sources) and the August 17 interview with Mitchell is widely available, I simply can’t find the August 31 interview anywhere.
However, the Senate report cites it specifically and there’s a reference to it in the transcript of ‘The Howard years’ – apparently the quote was broadcast as part of the program, but the transcript of the program just refers to ‘transcript from Neil Mitchell interview’.
It’s enough to make you go all consipiracy theorist!!
Thanks Kit, I am finding those articles.
The Howard Government’s determination to ensure that no illegal immigrant set foot on Australian soil
John Howard, vowed none of the Tampa’s asylum seekers would set foot
Prime Minister John Howard asserted that the433 Afghans would “never set foot on
John Howard, … claiming they would “never, ever” set foot on Australian soil.
Howard’s most successful wedge, the Tampa, produced the famous declaration that none of those on the boat seeking asylum would set foot on Australian soil.
Prime Minister John Howard decided the asylum seekers would never set foot on Australian soil
that no-one stranded on the deck of the Tampa should set foot in Australia.
Despite saying none of the Tampa refugees would ever set foot on Australian soil
John Howard, vowed none of the Tampa’s asylum seekers would set foot on
John Howard said that no one aboard Tampa would “ever set foot in Australia”,
that those rescued would not be allowed to set foot on Australian soil.
— the above are just a sample of the references on the net.
I would suggest the problem (conspiracy theories aside) is that people and organisations weren’t as internet savvy in 2001 as they are now, and thus transcripts of programs etc weren’t kept as carefully.
However, the numerous references, all using much the same language, points to an original quote.
I realise it is a conspiracy theory to suggest that the direct quote has vanished from the ether because it was inconvenient for the former PM for it to remain there. But it’s just as much a conspiracy theory to say that everyone opposed to the Government’s actions invented and propagated a quote that didn’t exist to start with.
The balance of probability is that Howard did say that the passengers of the Tampa would never set foot on Australian soil.
Obviously conflated with his “never, ever” on the GST. You see the dangers of this – endless recycling of attributed quotes.
Adam,
I think we can agree to agree.
1. People understand there is a process for dealing with boat travelling asylum seekers and it seemsto have broad community support.
2. TPVs were a proven failure because they encouraged women and children to risk coming in by leaky boats.
3. The Pacific Solution was an expensive failure because Nauru asylum seekers were perceived as an Australian problem.
4. The Government is spending time money and effort with the Indonesians to stem the flow.
5. I also note that stories of the Talibanisation of parts of Pakistan are feeding the Government’s narrative that this is a “push” problem. This is supported by UNHCR figures for growth in refugee numbers.
6. There is also a much wider awareness that this is a global problem and that, really, Australia has more to be thankful for than whinge about.
7. The Government has played a straight bat throughout this recent incident, which has infuriated the local media (So what) and allowed them to control the issue.
8. Being in Government certainly allows Labor the opportunity to control the agenda. I always compare Fraser’s attitude and policies to the Vietnames boat people to the Howard reaction. Both Governments got away with what they did!
Adam – I realised that you’d pick on that one as obviously confected.
However, there are multiple references, all using the same words, some from very reputable sources e.g. transcripts of other interviews, newspaper articles, the Senate enquiry, academic articles, etc.
They all use much the same language.
We are either being asked to believe in a mass hallucination – with noone at the time any of these articles etc were written challenging what was said – or an original quote which has been lost due to the failure to archive the transcript.
Ahmadinejad walk out video:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/20/durban-ii-conference-ahma_n_188918.html
Adam
Finns wasn’t in his tank at Seaworld yesterday. He was saving a Chinese ship from Somali pirates with his friends.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25337683-5006003,00.html
OK, we have the ur-quote.
“JOHN Howard strode into the The Australian’s Parliament House Office late on Wednesday night, bristling with nervous energy. “That boat will NEVER land in our waters — NEVER,” he emphatically told a small group of reporters.”
(“PM weighs his anger in stormy seas” Matt Price and Robert Garran, The Australian, 1 September 2001)
So we see that both Snowdon and Ian Ward distorted what Howard actually said. He did NOT say that the people on the Tampa would never be allowed into Australia even if they were found to be refugees. He said that the *Tampa* would never be allowed to land, which is a very different proposition. Snowdon is a politician and can probably be forgiven. Ian Ward cannot. He clearly read this article, because he cited it, but he significantly misrepresented what Howard said. He is either careless or dishonest.
At the end of the same article, we find:
“And last night. as governments, diplomats, the UN and other international agencies sought a solution, Howard’s message was unchanged. Australia will NEVER accept the Tampa’s human cargo.”
Even that is a distortion of what Howard was quoted as saying at the top of the same article.
The second article contains this quote which makes the same point: “John Howard emphasised his position yesterday, saying: “They should not be allowed to land in Australia”.” (“Let the refugees land – UN demands deal from a desperate Howard”, by Megan Saunders, Robert Garran, Vanda Carson. Australian, 1 September 2001)
So on the current evidence GP was right last night.
No, zoomster, not a mass hallucination, but certainly a mass phenomenon: herd instinct among the anti-Howard intelligentsia.
Adam
the Senate enquiry does not reference either Matt Price or Warren Snowden or Ian Ward.
It references a direct statement made by Howard in an interview with Neil Mitchell. The same direct statement was obviously played during the program ‘The Howard Years’.
We do not have the quote.
Adam:
Senator Hanson-Young was only 10-and-a-half when Keating introduced mandatory detention so her statements today can probably be forgiven
Then she should do some research before speaking.
Zoomster, no doubt Howard gave many interviews at the time. Do we have an exact date for the Neil Mitchell interview? Maybe it gives a different wording, although Howard was usually very careful about what he said. It may be retreivable.
That doesn’t excuse Ian Ward. If a student misrepresented a source like that in an essay they’d be in big trouble.
So when John Faine says to Costello that Howard and others said they would never set foot on Australian soil, why didn’t Costello challenge Faine’s claim on a factual basis?
http://www.treasurer.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=transcripts/2003/092.htm&pageID=004&min=phc&Year=2003&DocType=2
Costello doesn’t say “none of us ever said that”, which would be the expected response if the claim was never made.
More likely the reason Costello didn’t directly challenge Faine’s claim was because he KNEW that Howard and others had said it, because mainy Australians LIKED pretending that we could insist that no one aboard Tampa would ever end up here.
Or, because by 2003 he’d forgotten what everyone actually said in 2003. As we see, this is very easy when a false version is being constantly promoted. Probably by 2003 Costello believed that Howard actually had said that.
= 2001.
Redneck Radio at 5.30 had a stooge ring in and say, ‘hey mate about these Illegals, they’d better not be bringing foot and mouth into our country… ..’ You could tell it was staged by the way the shockjock was coming out with his reply before the slimeball had finished his question, said something like, well they were in Indonesia rural farm areas before they got on the boat so it was posible. I switched the radio off in disgust.
How low can these creeps go?
Good to see that some here have nailed their colours to the mast, so to speak
Adam
you obviously are in the wromg party.
Guy Rundle, “The Opportunist: John Howard and the Triumph of Reaction”. Quarterly Essay, October, 2001, p. 3
Gusface, I am supporting Labor policy as it was in 2001 and as it is now. I don’t know which party’s policy you support.
Another interesting thing about the Newspoll asylum seeker questions is the gap between male and female responses in two out of three. Admittedly there would be a fairly hefty margin of error but on both the question of who would better handle the situation and on whether tighter laws are required, females gave a response more favourable to the Government than males. If, as Possum indicates, Turnbull is having a particular problem with female voters, it doesn’t look like this issue will help.
Well, we’ve already established that that is NOT what he said when he visited the Press Gallery.
I have no idea why you don’t believe Howard would say such a thing when his colelages would say things like it all the time:
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-47737427.html
Because I believe in truth and accuracy and verification of sources. If he said it, fine. Show me the original contemporary quote, not more recycled secondary quotes from left-wing academics.
Re 218, maybe the “never set foot” line was Ruddock’s and has been fathered on Howard, also a not unknown phenomenon among lazy journalists. Ruddock is however not talking about Tampa.
We have the Senate report: – 1.3 As the Tampa approached Christmas Island on 27 August, however, Australian authorities directed the captain to keep out of Australian territorial waters and to take his rescued passengers back to Indonesia. The Prime Minister, Mr Howard, insisted that: ‘I believe that it is in Australia’s national interest that we draw a line on what is increasingly becoming an uncontrollable number of illegal arrivals in this country’, and stated that those rescued by the Tampa would not be allowed to land in Australia.[2]
…with footnote 2 referring to the Neil Mitchell interview on the 31 August 2001, which is not retrievable (have tried several ways to find it).
Adam, I have said this several times: the quote is referred to by multiple reputable sources, not just left wing ones. You do not get this kind of consensus that something was said unless there is some basis for it. The very similarity in all the quotes indicates that it was well known at the time.
A far more likely scenario (as I’ve also said before) is that the quote was made, on an ephemeral media such as radio and the transcript has not been preserved.
However, the quote is referenced both by the Senate report (indirectly) and in the program ‘The Howard Years’ (which I’m sure someone out there has and can troll through Episode 2 to find).
220 Adam, stick to your own rules – please refer to the original quotes for your assertions.
Well you do actually. We had this argument a while ago about whether Nixon said “We are all Keynesians now.” That line has been repeatedly attributed to him, but I’m old enough to remember the actual speech, and what he said was “I am a Keynesian economist.”
If Howard didn’t say it, why has he never challenged it? Might he not have muttered more than one version of the sentiment in the press gallery? It’s very difficult to prove a negative.
zoomster 222. The article is linked to at 218:
AAP General News (Australia)
10-26-2001
FED: Ruddock adamant latest illegals won’t set foot in Aust
SYDNEY, Oct 26 AAP – None of the 200 asylum seekers who arrived at Ashmore Reef will
set foot in Australia, Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock has declared.
The latest wave of illegal immigrants follows international outcry over the deaths
of more than 350 people who drowned in Indonesian waters after people smugglers loaded
them onto a leaky, overloaded boat which later sank.
Mr Ruddock says the latest boatload of 215 mainly Iraqi asylum seekers and four Indonesian
crew arrived at Ashmore Reef “a day or so” ago despite being warned off by the Navy.
The 20-metre vessel was in a sturdy …
Clearly Ruddock is not referring to Tampa.
zoomster 222. The article is linked to at 218:
AAP General News (Australia)
10-26-2001
FED: Ruddock adamant latest illegals won’t set foot in Aust
SYDNEY, Oct 26 AAP – None of the 200 asylum seekers who arrived at Ashmore Reef will
set foot in Australia, Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock has declared.
The latest wave of illegal immigrants follows international outcry over the deaths
of more than 350 people who drowned in Indonesian waters after people smugglers loaded
them onto a leaky, overloaded boat which later sank.
Mr Ruddock says the latest boatload of 215 mainly Iraqi asylum seekers and four Indonesian
crew arrived at Ashmore Reef “a day or so” ago despite being warned off by the Navy.
The 20-metre vessel was in a sturdy …
Clearly Ruddock is not referring to Tampa.
Zoomster 222: My reply has been put into moderation, I don’t know why. The article is linked at 218. Read it and see, Ruddock is not referring to Tampa.
I think any issue touching on race is one where the Liberals will have to be quite careful so as to not alienate overseas born Australians.
The dog whistling over China and Fitzgibbons in parts by media and the Liberals as I noted here yesterday got extensive analysis yesterday on HK Chinese TV station TVBJ/8. This station is commonly subscribed to in australia by those who can speak either mandarin or cantonese or can read Chinese. The net impression was quite negative for Australian media and the Liberal Party and positive for Rudd.
In places like Darwin where Hale has a small margin the number of Chinese related voters should be significant enough to make a difference, in this case sure up his support.
The Liberal Party in try to make an issue out of the boat people have to tread carefully lest the create the impression on top of the Chiniese dog whistling that they are just a little anti ethnic. People tend not to remember details, but impressions are kept.
I think the right action by Rudd is to enlarge the issue beyond the handful of boat people as to what to do in the future with the increase in world refugees that are expected and seek to devise strategies on a global basis etc.
I don’t care he isn’t talking about Tampa. My whole point is that the previous government constantly politicised the whole issue by PRETENDING that the Government could veto the rights of asylum seekers in boats from claiming refugee status and – if their claims were found to be factual – ultimately ending up in Australia. There was a constant disconnect between what they SAID they would do, and the reality of what the migration act allows for. There rhetoric was deliberately designed to trick people into thinking that the Liberal party had a tougher stance on asylum seekers when they actually didn’t.
Someone interested in accuracy should take very seriously the ways a government pretends it can do things that it actually can’t legally do.
zoomster
It’s very common for there to be a consensus about things that never happened. The literature on urban myths and misquotations describes countless examples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_misquotations
ShowsOn, I agree with that general point. But last night you were calling GP a liar for asserting that Howard did not say what you and others said he said. I am trying to establish what he actually said. I happen to think historical accuracy is important. You, as you say, don’t care. That’s your prerogative.
The example of recent British and US elections is that opposition to illegal immigration is not a vote winner, voters express opposition to illegal immigration but it doesn’t change votes. In 1996 anti-immigration sentiment contributed to Labor’s defeat. If the economy nosedived opposition to all immigration (legal & illegal) could gain traction. The gap between African/Middle eastern living standards and those in the west, and the emerging labour shortages in the west mean that mass immigration is here to stay. Market forces will out in the end.
Aust expected to accept 27 Tampa asylum seekers PRINT FRIENDLY EMAIL STORY
The World Today – Tuesday, 29 July , 2003 12:14:44
Reporter: Nick McKenzie
ELEANOR HALL: When the Tampa crisis engulfed Australia almost three years ago, Prime Minister John Howard told the nation that the asylum seekers on board would never ever set foot on Australian soil.
But now it seems the Federal Government has decided to ignore that Prime Ministerial declaration and allow a group of around 50 asylum seekers, including a number from the Tampa, to apply for temporary protection visas.
The group has been detained on Nauru as part of what the Federal Government termed its Pacific Solution and were deemed to be genuine refugees almost a year ago. Ever since, the government has unsuccessfully scoured the world to find a country prepared to accept them.
But the Opposition has criticised that action, claiming it would have been far cheaper and more humane for Australia to accept the group as soon as they were granted refugee status.
As Nick McKenzie reports, the latest furore comes as the leader of the Australian Democrats, Andrew Bartlett, spends his second day visiting the Pacific Solution camps in Nauru.
NICK MCKENZIE: It was September 2001, the lead up to the Federal Election. The Tampa crisis was the focus of both the nation and of the Prime Minister, John Howard.
JOHN HOWARD: Our position is that they should not be allowed to land in Australia. We are in discussion with a number of countries.
– again, not the direct quote, but a reference to it, of which there are many in newspaper reports.
And this from ‘The Age’ Sept 3 2003-
Mr Ruddock rejected suggestions that Prime Minister John Howard had said in the lead-up to the last election that the Tampa boat people would never set foot on Australian soil.
“The Prime Minister made it very clear at the time that the people were being sent offshore for processing and if they were found to be refugees we would take our fair share,” Mr Ruddock told Sky TV.
“What he said was that they wouldn’t be setting foot on Australian soil by bringing boats that were going to land them in Australia… and they didn’t.”
- so Ruddock didn’t claim the original quote as his but says that what the PM said was misquoted (and if you can work out what he says the PM actually said please tell me).
The Advertiser, 1st August 2002
I’m advised that neither the federal nor Victorian parliamentary libraries have the 2001 Neil Mitchell transcript.
Come on! I said I didn’t care that my second example wasn’t referring to Tampa.
Zoomster, thanks very much. A quote from Howard in which he does NOT say “never set foot” and a quote from Ruddock denying that Howard had said it, since that wasn’t the government’s policy. The policy of both government and opposition in 2001 was that the Tampa people should to Xmas I for processing.
From ShowsOn, another recycled media attribution.
Well you should care, because that fact renders the quote worthless for this discussion.
Diog – trained historian here, know what you’re talking about BUT I am pointing to consensus across a variety of reputable sources.
If everybody recalling a statement uses much the same words then there is a high probability that that was what was said. If a variety of sources, many of them highly reputable – senate enquiry, multiple newspaper articles, academic papers – all refer to the same wording, there is a high probability that that was what was said.
Certainly the scenario that the statement was made in a media that has not preserved it is more likely that all of these people accepted it without question.
Adam
have YOU tried to find the August 31 transcript?
The Senate quote makes it clear that Howard said something along those lines, and refers to the transcript. The Ruddock quote shows that Howard said something along those lines, which he denies meant what people have taken it to mean but doesn’t really give a good interpretation of what it does mean.
Both quotes indicate that Howard said something. The Ruddock one was to show that the statement was clearly Howard’s not Ruddock’s, as you suggested.
ELEANOR HALL’s piece is typical of the phenomenon I am describing. She starts her article:” When the Tampa crisis engulfed Australia almost three years ago, Prime Minister John Howard told the nation that the asylum seekers on board would *never ever set foot on Australian soil.* But her OWN STORY contradicts this assertion. Howard says no such things, and Ruddock refutes the assertion. If she thinks Ruddock is lying, she should produce some evidence, but she doesn’t even acknowledge the contradiction. And she once again borrows “never, ever” from the GST debate. Most journalists are lazy, do not check their facts, and run with the herd.
Yes. 235.
It’s possible 3AW has it on tape, but I’m in Canberra, and they would probably charge to have it unearthed.
Sorry, Adam, you have.
As I said, that’s the most likely scenario – the original quote comes from a source which has not been preserved.
So Ruddock refutes the assertion 3 years after the fact and that’s fine, but Costello doesn’t TWO years after the fact because you say he would’ve forgotten!?
Adam, my poor cut and paste effort, I’m afraid.
Eleanor Hall’s piece is not the one which quotes Ruddock.
I included it as an example of the pervasive use of the phrase throughout the media. I could have equally cut and pasted at least 50 others.
I’ve no doubt that Ruddock has a more rigorous mind and a better memory than Costello.
OK I’ve spent most of my morning on this and that will have to do for now. On the current evidence, ShowsOn owes GP an apology.
Zoomster, Oops, I didn’t see the cut. A partial apology to Eleanor Hall. It’s still the case that she attributes “never set foot” to Howard but her Howard quote doesn’t match the attribution.
I’ve a good mind to ring Ruddock and ask him. I’m sure he remembers it all with perfect clarity.
*gone til later*
More evidence that the “asylum seekers” issue is wedging the Libs rather than the Government.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25364087-601,00.html
Lateline played a phone interview with Judie Moylan last night where she said pretty much the same things.
Neither Ruddock or Costello denied Howard said something along those lines.
Ruddock just said it didn’t mean what people had taken it to mean.
Oooh, I love historical revisionism.
AIC the whole thing about did Howard say it or didnt he has a much easier explanation. He was SAYING that the tampa people wouldnt set foot on Aus soil AT THAT TIME. The IMPLICATION that they would NEVER set foot on Aus soil was one that the government WANTED voters to believe, even if they didnt explictly state that
Bob, I dont think this is revisionism. My recollection is that the border protection issue was like a wildfire amongst the blue collar voters. Whilst I found Beazley’s position repugnant, and believe that he personally did not suppport it, the political reality of opposing the government I think WOULD have been decimation
Diog, We decide which ships can be attacked and the circumstances under which they are allowed to be attacked.
Btw; that was me on the top centre, nearest to ship, yelling instructions, in Mandarin, to the Chinese crew.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25337683-5006003,00.html
The Liberal Party has a lot of rough seas to navigate and if they continue to use a broken compass, then they will continue in the wilderness far from the sight of the promised land.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25364087-601,00.html
The polls leading up to the 2007 election, the election result itself and all the polls since are being studiously ignored. I am so glad I am not a Lib supporter as I would be getting so angry and frustrated with them by now that I would be looking for some heads to cave in.
Key statement.
No No, I meant you are in the WronG party
as to your supposed support of labor,I will let your posts do the talking
Adam, Zoomster,
31 August 2001 transcript can be found at
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/10052/20011121-0000/www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/2001/interview1201.htm
oops try again
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/10052/20011121-0000/www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/2001/interview1201.htm
Finns
They must have been pretty wimpy pirates if a pod of vicious dolphins could scare them off. If they were really nasty, they would have just ploughed through the dolphins to get to the ships. Perhaps the Chinese Government has trained the dolphins as escorts like those pigeons who were spying on Iran last year.
Glenn Stevens calls it. We’re in a recession.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25364786-12377,00.html
Diog, it’s not that they scare of the dolphins. Dolphins are held in high regard in some culture and they dont want to hurt the dolphins. Unlike someone who know here that want to confine the dolphins in tank and that they are stupid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inW91qRDGwI
Thanks for that, Aisdad, even if I can’t find the d***ed quote there.
I’ll hold out a little longer before I go near the ‘wr…’ word…the circumstantial evidence is too compelling.
I KNOW people make things up (I’m a qualified historian) but not a statement like that.
Zoomster,
My thoughts are that because Howard stated “Our position is that they should not be allowed to land in Australia” in that interview, applying a layman’s understanding would be to take that as the Tampa asylum seekers not ever being allowed to come to Australia. Whereas in fact he was saying they would not be allowed to come ashore on Australian territory from the Tampa. That did not discount their being permitted to enter Australia after being assessed.
Just my take on the available evidence.
Kevin Andrews would seem to be at odds with Sharman Stone(who stated this morning that the Coalition don’t have a policy set in stone).
The Liberals are “all at sea”(pardon the pun) on this and other issues.
The Liberal Party has a policy not to have policies.
How about a 2003 AAP story quoting Howard quoting himself in 2001 defending Tampa refugees setting foot on Australian soil:
The Prime Minister, John Howard, defended his Government’s decision to allow the Tampa refugees to come to Australia.
Before the last election, Mr Howard said the 433 Tampa asylum seekers would never be allowed to reach Australia.
“What I said two years ago was, people who came to this country or sought to come to this country illegally would not be allowed to set foot on Australian soil,” Mr Howard told ABC Radio. “These people who’ve come from Nauru are people who have been assessed as having legitimate refugee claims.”
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/03/1062548904085.html?from=storyrhs
is that a core or non core promise
The “missing” 31 August 2001 Howard/Mitchell transcript is archived here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20020624191459/www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/2001/interview1201.htm
hahahahaha
Looks like Kerry O’Brien and Tony Jones are under the gun for not quite toeing the Liberal line during interviews.
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mediadiary/index.php/australianmedia/comments/abc_monitors_kerry_and_tony/
bob1234
That Kouts is a menace. It turns out he only quit when they worked out he had 58 not 31 traffic offences. How on earth can you have 58 traffic offences and still have a driver’s license? And it’s been confirmed that the leak to the Mail came from the Labor Party.
Diogenes,
http://www.neatorama.com/2009/02/19/irelands-worst-driver-finally-caught/
#267, Gus, it’s HARDCORE. I never had sex with that Sharon Stone woman. Singapore is in the bag.
MalcoPops @ 266,
Sounds like a winner to me, perhaps the minions can now put this line of discussion to bed ……
Apologies for the delay in clearing comments from moderation.
Tell me about it. I never liked him anyway.
Source? But it wouldn’t surprise me. Mike Rann hates him but had to promote him thanks to the mega-dominant Right faction.
I really hope this issue goes away now.
bob
The Sunday Mail said it on radio this morning. I heard from a Labor Party source that Rann was thought to be behind it.
GG
Perhaps Kouts is the SA equivalent of the Great White Whale from Seinfeld who was actually Newman.
Oh dear. I really hope a shitstorm doesn’t break out. It was going to if Koutz wasn’t gonna be promoted to cabinet…
And The Advertiser/AdelaideNow is certainly having a field day with the issue. It seems they want him to resign from cabinet alltogether.
Oh dear, another attack that has gone fizzzzzzzzzzzzz:
http://business.smh.com.au/business/were-in-recession-rba-chief-20090421-adjs.html
What is left for the Libs to attack? What about the GG?
MHS earlier said someone in Labor’s Left “had had it in for Kouts”. Is that Rann? I thought he was Centre.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,27574,25358836-2682,00.html
Rann is factionally non-aligned.
The Advertiser can’t even get their grammar right.
“Member’s of Labor’s left”?
Is that a member? Members?
Who knows. News Ltd are drones.
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,28383,25358560-10229,00.html
Howard still PM of Australia!
Former Prime Minister John Howard portrayed in latest South Park episode
Beat that K Rudd!
“The Tampa, wedge politics, and a lesson for political journalism.”
http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv/UQ:11247/ward.pdf
I heard on the radio last night that Rudd and several of his “senior ministers” were flying out 24 hours ahead of other ministers for the community cabinet meeting as they were to have “discussions” with state leaders. “Senior ministers” weren’t identified and I suspect that they want to dish it out to Barnett over his comments earlier this week. If anyone hears or or sees a net article elaborating on this, please post the details, thanks
For those who need a bit of comedy relief:
Joe Hockey is about to be interviewed on Sky Nooz.
So your performing at Sea World Singapore
herr Doktor will be pleased
Please please Liberal party let Joe have the leaders gig. He is a very funny guy.
Who would be deputy then Rua?
Gus, yeip yeip yeip yeip – on the Sentosa Integrated Resort, half owned by Jamie Packer.
http://www.basf-cc.com.sg/SiteCollectionImages/singapore/IR.JPG
My pool is on the right hand side.
Rua, Hockey cant get himself untangled – in recession or not and who caused the recession. It was the worst performance from Hockey for awhile.
Glen
Barnaby? He is a member of the Qld Liberal State branch, he is a “funny” guy too.
Gus, yeip yeip yeip yeip
Good Lord, Ducky is posting here!
TWP
What is it all about Alfie?
Well done Aisdad finding the Mitchell-Howard interview. So what did Howard say?
He did not say “never ever.” He did not say “never set foot in.”
He said: “Our position is that they should not be allowed to land in Australia.” In the context of the interview it is clear he meant, “land now, off the Tampa.”
On the long-term position of the Tampa people, he said: “we want these people assessed, their status assessed by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and then on the basis of that assessment well so their destination will be determined.” He repeated that formulation several times. He didn’t say “and then we will take them if they are found to be refugees,” but unfortunately Mitchell didn’t ask him that question.
So. He not only did not say what he is accused of having said, he said the exact opposite. He did not rule out the Tampa people ever coming to Austalia. He said they should be assessed by the UN and their status determined, at a locality not in Australia. That was the government’s policy the, it was Labor’s policy then, and it is the Rudd government’s policy now.
So we still have no source for “never set foot in,” and my current view is that Howard never said it. I think the source of the story is a garbled version of the 1 September 2001 story in the Australian, when he said *the Tampa* (as opposed to the people on it) would “NEVER” land in Australia (capitals in the original).
Re 288,
found this on the web from Rudd’s twitter updates -
It’s tough economic times. Met with locals in City of Cockburn this morning about WA jobs. (about 2 hours ago from web )
And I can gather from that that there were reasons obvious to all why the Tampa should be prevented from making landfall in Australia, over and above the presence of its unfortunate temporary human cargo?
Spare me from linguistic sophistry!
“at a locality not in Australia” is not Rudd Govt. policy. Unless Xmas Island in not in Australia, which it may not be for immigration purposes?
“Not in Australia’s immigration zone,” to be precise.
Adam 298 says:
He (Howard) did not say “never ever.” He did not say “never set foot in.”
How about a 2003 AAP story quoting Howard quoting himself in 2001 defending Tampa refugees setting foot on Australian soil:
The Prime Minister, John Howard, defended his Government’s decision to allow the Tampa refugees to come to Australia.
Before the last election, Mr Howard said the 433 Tampa asylum seekers would never be allowed to reach Australia.
“What I said two years ago was, people who came to this country or sought to come to this country illegally would not be allowed to set foot on Australian soil,” Mr Howard told ABC Radio. “These people who’ve come from Nauru are people who have been assessed as having legitimate refugee claims.”
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/03/1062548904085.html?from=storyrhs
MalcoPops, exactly. He said they would not be allowed to enter Australia off the Tampa, and they weren’t. He never said they would not be admitted *ever*. He said at the time that they should be assessed by the UN, which what eventually happened. I agree the delay was too long, a problem the Rudd government has now fixed. but the basic principle is the same. No-one lands prior to beeing assessed offshore.
*see y’all later*
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2003/s969604.htm
Since we are in the Never Ever land. Did he ever or never or forever say he was the Deputy Sheriff?
Basically the Howard and Rudd Govt. policies on asylum seekers are identical. The only exceptions are we no longer send people to other countries and if they are granted refugee status they get a permanent protection visa.
So how can Turnbull et al say Govt. policies have lead to more arrivals?
Bush said he saw Australia as the Deputy Sheriff.
Howard’s survivorship instinct precluded him from expressing agreement.
It did not however preclude him from behaving as one.
Shrub mis-spoke.
Bye Bye Adam.
Of course this is his spin 2 years later. He may have said “ever” or “never” but this is not in his own direct quote.
Also it is beside the point.
The point was that he tried to convey that “these” people would never make it to Australia instead of saying that unless they qualify as refugees in which case they would make to Australia. The second part, which is what you are arguing he meant, is of course pissweak in political terms when you are trying to be the little tough guy. Therefore it was not said for that reason and it did mislead and create the intended impression.
You can’t beat a master at spin at his own dog whistling words nor should this despicable episode be now justified through the clever use of his words back then.
The spirit is very willing but the flesh is weak:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/world/americas/21paraguay.html?ref=americas
311
The Ex Bishop now President was merely engaged in practical research to better understand his flock. Before the research he was only able to talk about fornication in theoretical terms.
#312 – I am glad that there is a scientific explanation to all of that. For a moment, i thought it was the classical “God made me do it”, of which i like to employ one day as well.
btw: do you want to borrow my boxing gloves?
Boxing Gloves to spar with Herr Doktor?
Malco, i am retiring to my wading pool in the IR Resort in Singapore, courtesy of Jamie Packer. Be my guest.
Finns,
I’m pretty certain the “Deputy Sherriff” moniker was a verbal by a Bulletin journalist for a story about the future role of Australia in the Pacific. I recall that Howard and Co disavowed the statement.
The famous Sharon Stone is currently on National Radio talking about whether to TPV with Andrews or TPV with Turnbull.
What would the US actress know about Australia’s Migration Act??
Malco, that is all speculation. What we have been discussing today is the factual question of whether Howard said in 2001 that the people on the Tampa would “never set foot in Australia,” or some similar wording. So far we have no confirmation that he did, and we have reconstructed the likely origin of the belief that he did in the story that appeared in the Australian on 1 September, in which he emphatically said that the Tampa would never be allowed to land in Australia. We also now have the Neil Mitchell interview, in which he stated the government’s actual policy, which was that they should be assessed by the UN somewhere outside Australia. (He actually said in another interview that they should be assessed in Indonesia, which is where the Tampa was taking them before they hijacked it.) So we now have what I think is a good circumstantial case that Howard never said such a thing – it being impossible of course to conclusively prove a negative proposition. The onus is now on those who maintain that he did it to show us where and when he said it.
Malco please stop calling Sharman Stone Sharon… it’s conjuring bad images!
Adam
John Howard: “What I said two years ago was, people who came to this country or sought to come to this country illegally would not be allowed to set foot on Australian soil,” Mr Howard told ABC Radio. “These people who’ve come from Nauru are people who have been assessed as having legitimate refugee claims.”
Which bit does not say “would not be allowed to set foot on Australian soil”
Is the problem NEVER?
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/03/1062548904085.html?from=storyrhs
Sorry Grog – Her name is Chairman Stone?
Yes Malco, that is the issue.
Sharman
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/member.asp?id=EM6
John Howard was a good politician, he set the framework for his minsters to comment on issues. Rudd is learning how to do this.
The problem for Turnbull is that he is not a politician, he has not or is unable to set a framework for his shadow ministers to work from. This has led to the rabble, where no-one really knows what to say. Joe Hockey was proof of this on agenda this arvo, he argued that we are not in a recession, that we are in a non-farm recession and have been for yonks and that we are in a recession.
Same with TPVs – Andrews says it is still Liberal policy, Stone says its not and Turnbull says it should be high on the agenda.
Unless Turnbull decides what he stands for he is doomed.
Turnbull is already doomed!
Turnbull was very stupid to let Fran Kelly lead him down the TPV path when he hadn’t actually decided his policy. We have now have four key policy areas in which Turnbull has said that the Howard government policy has been abandoned, but has not said what it has been replaced with – WorkChoices, climate policy, broadband and TPVs. No wonder his shadows don’t know what to say. They rush in with immediate, strident denunciations of everything Rudd does, then fall over their feet when asked what their alternative is. They are breaking every rule of how to behave when in opposition.
Ru, part of the reason why they’re not getting any traction on issues, is the example Joe Hockey gave on Sky this arvo. That would have been Hockey’s worst. He fumbled, and um and arhh when Spears asked “so you don’t think where in a recession, even though the government and the RBA have said so?” He’s answer was complete and utter confusion. He fumbled his way into the usual… Not in a recession, but we are in a non farming recession, but we still aren’t technically in a recession…um what??. The precedes to say “Rudd talked up inflation which caused the RBA to lift rates TWO times”….utter BS.
What they keep on doing is thinking that the public, which is very interest rates conscious, would just forget about the 7 or so rate increases in the time they were in goverment, caused by higher inflation. Just Stoopid.
Glen, dont despair.
And then, when everything else fails, there is Cossie. It’s a real comfort to know that Cossie is and will always be there for us. Like the security blanket from our childhood that we have hidden in the cupboard for so many years. Hidden from our wife, children and mistress, but now and then we would take it out just for a sniff. Yes, it’s better than cocaine. A sniff that would bring back the glory days of our childhood.
Yes, that is Cossie. A sniff of him will bring back Australia’s glory days. $90B surplus. Unemployment of 4.1%. River of money from the Chinese and Indian. And yes, Tony Abbott was right: “We want you, we need you and we love you”.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/trusted-voice-waits-in-the-wings-20090419-abd3.html?page=-1
So saying something that no-one believed or cared about 12 months ago will work now because….
The Liberals deserve all they get for electing an empty suit as leader.
And Turnbull deserves all he gets for aspiring to high political office without any political nous.
Just think – all these bad things could have been happening to Nelson, but Turnbull was in too much of a hurry.
What a nice video.
Grog, I get really PO when they’re still taking voters for stupid people. It’s like they think that the voters made the wrong decision and they don’t know what’s good for them, even though they’ve been on the wrong side of most of the debates. It’s really sad that after nearly 17months, they still haven’t work out what kind of policy positions they’ll take. It’s not the voters they should be looking at first, but their own positions..like always being the party of NO.
This may be engraved on his political tomb. He can’t even win a battle let alone a war.
The poll suggests you’re not Robinson Crusoe
Remember Rudd’s 50th Birthday present from his staff?
The Finns, that is a very funny article. The image of Costello as an ugly virgin with the sweet singing voice that seduces and beguiles the judges and audience is destined to rival that of all Tip and no iceberg.
ru, what was Rudd’s birthday pressie?
Mr Rudd’s birthday present from his staff was a copy of The Art Of War, by ancient Chinese warlord Sun Tzu – essential reading for a man about to take part in a pitched political battle.
The book was the most recent translation and not the original text written 2500 years ago, which Mr Rudd, following his dazzling display of Mandarin at APEC, might have preferred.
The book is still used today as a motivational tool in corporate and sporting circles, and the text’s mantra, that every battle is won before it is ever fought, would appeal to someone as methodical and organised as Mr Rudd.
Would’ve thought Rudd would have already have had a copy…
Just looking at this Newspoll. Obviously 58-42 is now considered boring, what figure would be considered “exciting” (both up and down) 61-39? 54-46? 53-47?
Apart from the nice opening about Susan Boyle and the power of new media etc, Sheehan’s article is bilge. The idea that Rudd’s response to the GFC is an act of theft from the next generation is thoroughly wrong. What Rudd is trying to do is prevent the next generation having their lives ruined by a prolonged depression, as happened to the young generation of the 1930s, particularly since that depression led directly to a world war in which many of them were killed. When Sheehan has an alternative strategy to Rudd’s, he can criticise. Until then he should zip it.
Is scarifying a word ??
Yes, to scarify means “to wound with a cutting instrument,” or more figuratively “to subject to merciless criticism.” Costello seems to think it’s a cross between “scary” and “terrifying.”
The Sheehan article is up to his usual standard…
Larvatus Prodeo gets it right:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/04/20/return-to-agincourt/
342 – yep my Dad used to scarify the lawn.
Obviously Costello is now, like Shakespeare, a literary genius who is molding our language into a better form.
Bloody Hell, I just had a look at the Susan Boyle thingy. What a voice, what courage! Good on her. If Costello had her guts and talent, there might be something to worry about, but no.
Thanks, ru. I suspect Lu Kuen had Malcolm figured out pretty much when he eyeballed his behaviour prior to the election, trying to outdo the then Treasurer, his humiliation in the HoR by Howard, and had pretty much figured out what Malcolm would do to whore himself to the right of the Libs in order to be elected Leader, and what the consequences of that would be politically. Turnbull is a second rate politician, perhaps even third rate, compared to Rudd. Rudd can go over the top with teh evil people smugglers stuff, which scores a pfft from me for nuance, but then, I’m probably one of teh evil more left than AiC mob.
Ta
I thought he was trying to sound cool to the young folk
“Is scarifying a word ??”
Absolutely.
We grow native trees from seeds.
Some of our native seeds needs special treatment before they will germinate .
Some get placed in the fridge for days, some get soaked in water overnight or longer, some get ’scarified’.
To ’scarify’ the seed you have to damage it in some way so germination can occur more efficiently.
Nick the outer layer with a sharp knife or abrade by rolling them with some stones or rub them over some glass paper. Varies from species to species.
My wife is really good at scarifying seeds.
So, yep its a word.
Dunno if that is how Tip meant it tho’.
Grog went:
Two consecutive Nielsen/Newspolls with an ALP TPP of 61 or 53 would be interesting.
If Sheehan believes what he is writing then he is living in a fantasy land where they still have evil fire-breathing dragons, fairies and wicked witches. And his Knight in shining armor is getting impatient ready to come out and put the dragons back in their place.
But back in the real world, Costello spent a decade getting fat and lazy in a hammock and never learned how to use a sword and never had much ado about economics.
I personally don’t believe Sheehan believes what he writes, nobody could be that deluded. Costello was useless before the election, is not very good in front of camera and never had much to say about anything over the decade. He also lacked the courage to ever go for the job when it was a ‘real’ prize.
The only thing going for Costello is that it rained money when he happened to be in the chair, so there is this illusion that he had some talent. But people were still not that enamored with the person.
So now in there imaginations they think that if Costello steps into the breach one day when Rudd’s star has faded, people will fall over themselves to worship him. This will be a problem for two reasons.
Time will have faded his ‘mystique’ and their will be this assumption that he is the goods, he has got talent, but that really isn’t true. Costello has never lead, never had much to say on things and has been an under performer before camera.
And worse still, Rudd will have had lots of practice at politics in the top job, and take him apart. If Costello wasn’t the goods in the past decade I don’t fancy him in the next.
fredex, we have this mad tree that we cannot identify – the seed pods are approx. 15cm long with two and sometimes 3 waxy seeds covered in white flesh and the pod itself is an olivey green that has a “furry” touch (the pod is shaped like a rather large peanut). the tree is approx 30 feet high. It has almost smothered the grapefruit tree. have you any clue what it may be? kind regards Mrs Gusface
PS all the local nurseries cannot identify it.
It’s a triffid – kill it now.
‘No major IR shake-up under Turnbull’
– http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25365369-29277,00.html
Never ever GST?
People know the Liberals are WorkChoices addicts, especially Costello. This is why they will not get voted in for a long time.
Wow, Labor’s IR changes must be good. Even the Libs like them so much they want to keep them.
Don’t they realise by saying that they’ve dealt themselves out of any IR debate. The moment they complain all Labor has to say is “That is your policy too.” End of story.
#345, Snappy, it is a bit “scarifying”, isn’t it, these effing Chinese. Not only they know it all by their “The Art Of War”, but also they have:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8008108.stm
But wait, there’s more. Those chinky eyes also have:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-04/21/content_7698677.htm
But wait, there’s even more. Now they have one of their own as our PM, Mr. Lu Kewen. Those effing Chinese certainly have delusion of grandeur. No wonder Bonaparte said “let them sleep”.
Possum, why specifically, do you think those 2 TPP would be interesting? For mine, I’ve been eyeballing the primary of all of the polls and pollytrend.
Admiral Ding, I like that. His sister is called Dinh Ahling.
Gusface
No idea mate.
Doesn’t sound native to me but might be tropical.
When in doubt ring the Botanical Gardens mob in your state.
If they don’t know nobody does.
Sometimes takes a few goes to get the right person but somewhere there will be THE person who knows.
Have info at your fingertips when you ring, height of the tree, general description, detailed description of the leaf, the flower, the trunk and the bark, have a sample in front of you when you ring.
Finns, I so want a deputy commander, maybe even a commander, in any of our services, named Ding
So Costello is praising Rudds efforts to grow the economy more efficiently?
Nah, they would just bring in the minor change of individual enterprise bargaining, voluntary of course, no coercion on the employee, if they didn’t like it they have the freedom to find another job.
thanks fredex, will do, over and out, Mrs Gusface.
Adam
I have not killed the triffid….. yet.
They also said they wouldn’t oppose the Fair Work bill in the Senate and then did. It only passed because Fielding didn’t dare vote it down.
I believe when the time comes for Mr. Lu Kewen to return to the Motherland. he will be picked up and traveled in the comfort of a nuclear powered submarine. Whereas poor Harold Holt had to travel in an old steam driven submarine that had to be pushed start.
Probably that how Harold was killed, try to push start the submarine.
Spoken like a true member of the labor right wing. Unidentified, Destroy.
But I would agree tp a point on the Howard never quote on the Tampa refugees. Repeat a phrase often enough and people will believe it was actually said.
It appears to be part of the long term lib bloggers tactic against Rudd, repeat enough bull in the hope some sits in peoples memories to later become fact.
Though with Howard he was caught out in denying the coalition promised they would keep interest rates at record lows, as Costello was caught out in denying that he revealed a private talk with Greenspan.
Snapper went:
If we got two of them in a row, it would mean the polls have shifted outside of the really long run corridor of activity – which would suggest that the public have changed their behaviour for the first time in 18 months, and the second time in 28 months.
Changes of behaviour are pretty rare.
And who is running the country, hmmm?
gusface, the other thing you could do, other than treat it as a triffid, which I thought a bit harsh, AiC, is consult Gardening Australia. It’s probably naff, but they do have a problem solving segment. I personally think it’s rigged since they always know the answer, but at least there’s an answer. Unlike the Liberal Party. They are right royally gawn for some considerable period of time, despite the goings on of the meedja. I know I’ve whinged about the ABC before, however, yesterday I was home from work and everytime the news or a current affair program was on local radio, there was Malcolm, leading the news and current affair program every time. At lunch, I said to him indoors, had he ever heard anything quite like the saturation coverage we were getting of Malcolm. He, working from home, says no. Anyone else?
Thanks, Poss, makes sense. Would certainly be interesting.
It’s amazing that 58 is within the corridor of activity!
For some reason I’m no longer seeing my gravatar… can anyone else see it?
Scratch that it’s back. Computers are stoopid.
just had a 3 hour blackout, bugger candles and battery operated radios for a joke
Generic Person
Muttered an old line.
Boring
Night bludgers. Night William.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/21/2549012.htm
A challenge question for those interested in climate change. Since last Thursday there has been news coverage of reporting of comments by Dr Ian Allison CSIRO Antarctic division, about recent findings on changes in ice. Reports in the Oz have highlighted that ice cover is growing in east Antarctica while the ABC reported Allison as saying that west antarctica was still melting faster and so overall ice was shrinking.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/20/2547067.htm?section=justin
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25349683-601,00.html
It does not seem possible for both stories to be correct in their reporting. However I cannot find any original source for Dr Allison’s coments.
Can anyone help? My apology if this one was all done in the past few days while I have been away.
I had a long argument about this with someone on Facebook when the article appeared in the Daily Sceptic. There is an overall warning trend in the Southern Ocean. That has two effects.
1. More evaporation due to rising water temperature means more water vapour over the Antartctic landmass, which means more precipitation which means more snow which means an increasing mass of ice. East Antarctica is the bigger and colder part of the continent so this trend is mainly seen there.
2. Rising water temperatures and water levels means increased melting of the coastal ice and breaking up of the coastal ice sheets. Since West Antarctica is the smaller, more coastal and warmer part of the continent, this trend is seen mainly there.
Socrates@376
maybe try here:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2009/2546965.htm
it’s the audio from Radio National breakfast 20/04/09 titled Ice in Antarctica
I was quite surprised to read this. No politics involved in the “Pacific Solution”? Yeah, right!
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2009/04/16/1239474995922.html
Also, the increased weight of the ice mass is causing the slow movement of the ice towards the sea to accelerate, increasing the disruption of the coastal ice-sheets. That’s why we’re seeing increased iceberg calving.
Yes but is the overall ice mass of Antarctica growing or shrinking?
What was strange about the articles in the Daily Obscurantist was that they reported and commented on the evidence of *increased* ice as though it were proof that climate change is not happening, thus proving all the lefties and greenies wrong ho ho ho, etc. But increasing ice in a continent that has been a stable system for millions of years can only be proof that *something* is changing, even if we don’t fully understand what it is. But of course as I said above, there’s a perfectly simple explanation for why warming in the Southern Ocean produces more ice in Antarctica.
Overall is it believed to be shrinking, because the loss at the coasts and in West Antarctica is greater than the gain in the interior of East Antarctica.
Yeah, that’s what I figured, which is why the article in the Oz was so ‘interesting’
Thanks Pol Pot, that link is what I need! It seems Fran Kelly was lead liar on this one. In the interview she keeps trying to put words into allison’s mouth that there was “good news” but he quite explicitely states that overall ice is melting on both Greenland and Antarctica. So then the Oz has just run with the “journalists” false interpretation, and ignored most of what the scientist said.
Can someone sick media watch onto Fran Kelly? Or ABC management? Listen to her intro to the interview and then what Allison says and you will understand the problem.
Adam
Thanks; I regularly read Brave New Climate, Deltoid, real Climate and was quite aware of the actual science up to recently and the implausibility of the Oz being right in terms of conclusions. But I was just trying to understand exactly what Allison said and which report was factually correct. Sure enough, ABC website was correct; ABC radio (Fran Kelly) gave a false spin and the Oz was the same old Oz I still don’t usually read.
I only read the Daily Distorter’s articles because I got into an argument at Facebook about it.
BTW
the bad smell lingers……….
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/21/cheney-obama-cia-torture-memos
The only part of Fran Kelly’s story I would object to is that she describes the increased ice mass in East Antarctica as “good news,” when in fact it is no such thing – it is more evidence of global warming.
Adam
I agree on the Oz but they can do what they like with Rupert’s declining assett. I am less happy when people do it with “our” ABC.
Adam
But it was precisely her intro that the Oz ran with, and her lead in was incorrect. She also tried to offer a summary comment “the take home message” at the end that we might have more time to act (false), and again Allison corrected her.
A new and more dangerous phase of GFC has started in UK – deflation:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8009718.stm
Re this, the Wilkins ice shelf, a block of ice the size of Jamaica, is about to break away from the Antarctic and float out to sea.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/05/ice-shelf-wilkins-antarctic
Let’s see what the Obscurantist Oracle says about that.
I guess my atlas is going to be pretty out of date soon…
After listening to allison’s interview I suppose the “good” news for me was that, given there is less ice to melt now, he thinks the upper limit for this century is “only” +2 m sea level. That will still stuff Bangladesh.
Finns,
Thanks; another grim read. Policies here to encourage spending and the underpinning of the housing market should be continued if there is any possible risk of deflation.
The ABC radio interview with Sharman Stone was so painful to listen to. I almost felt sorry for her. The opposition’s refugee policy is “under review” which doesnt mean (as Andrews said) that their policy is the Howard govt’s policy, and doesnt mean (as Turnbull said) that TPVs are back. So they actually have NO POLICY at the moment.
I take back what I said about Turnbull yesterday. I thought AT LAST he had articulated a clear alternative policy ie reintroducing TPVs. I now realise that he was just fluffing.
Heard Hockey’s interview too. So, after 18 months of horrendous polls, they STILL think that attacking the popular Rudd will work? Bring on Hockey as leader!!
PM’s flights of fancy food – even on 30-minute trips
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25367510-5006301,00.html
A 5m rise in sea levels would submerge all the red areas on this map.
http://mappery.com/maps/Bangladesh-5m-LECZ-and-Population-Density-Map.mediumthumb.jpg
bob whatever Rudd may spend on meals will always be dwarfed by the cost of housing the Howards at Kirribilli. This will be another failed attack on Rudd, but watch the opposition make a meal out of it
I smell a rat. Catering OVERHAUL?? The flight attendant thing was about the wrong meal be available, not NO MEAL.
I must say this bit is very unfair considering Rudd was served red meat when he can’t have red meat due to his heart valve issue…
Was the pun intended?
And the pathetic comments over at the article start…
And if the Ross Ice Shelf and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapse, as is increasingly predicted, sea levels would rise SEVENTEEN METRES, which would drown not only Bangladesh but much of eastern China and large parts of SE Asia including the valleys of the Irrawaddy (Rangoon), Mekong (Saigon and Phnom Penh) and Chao Phraya (Bangkok). I doubt Xmas Is will be big enough to cope with that.
*gone*
Adam
Years ago while studying I did some vacation work at the Qld govts hydraulic testing lab with models of flood catchments. There are large areas of the Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast that would go under with a 1.5 metre sea level rise.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25367153-5006301,00.html
Wasn’t it Mr Howard himself that said the reason state Liberal oppositions kept losing elections was because they only released policies at the election, rather than doing it and building an image as an alternative government over the entire electoral cycle…?
So then Adam, lets start that nuclear policy change and work out what to do with the La Trobe valley when the brown coal plants shut (as they inevitably must). Either that or start a reasrch centre on dike construction….
Speaking of depressed areas, Xanthippe was telling me about the Four Corners story on Illawarra last night. Is there any hope of starting a new industry there?
Mrs Gusface @ 350,
Description of your triffid reminds me of Castanospermum australe, or Moreton Bay Chestnut, or Blackbean. Maybe it’s a member of the same family, Fabacea (I think).
Sea level rise calculator
flood.firetree.net
(Don’t waste your time if you do not have broadband.)
Looks like Macquarie is softening its approach on the BrisConnections payments for small investors. They are offering to buy them out for nill i.e. they won’t have to pay the installments:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/21/2549038.htm
Better to face reality and avoid the court cases. I’d love to know what Macquarie is saying to the float brokers now.
What’s next from the News Ltd hacks?
RUDD IS UNAUSTRALIAN BECAUSE HE DOESN’T LIKE VEGEMITE?
67% of people couldn’t give a _______ what Rudd eats for dinner, as long as he’s doing a competent job running the country.
No 242
Adam, here is the August 31, 2001 Neil Mitchell transcript you were looking for. As you can see, the PM makes no statement that these people will never be allowed in Australia (in relation to Tampa). He was making the point that their claims needed to be assessed on their merit before they would be allowed in.
Thus, Howard is not a liar.
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/10052/20080118-1528/pm.gov.au/media/Interview/2001/interview1201.html
Apologies – you’ve already found the transcript – just catching up on the missed debate.
By the way, all 2001 transcripts from Howard can be found here:
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/10052/20080118-1528/pm.gov.au/media/transcripts_2001.html
Those poor little kids at News Ltd, I would feel sad for them, but just you can’t feel sad for people who substitute vile bile for journalism.
Assuming you’re right GP (I haven’t been following this debate at all) I think you left out FIVE important words from that sentence.
Thus, Howard is not a liar IN REGARD TO THIS MATTER.
While reading that BS regarding Rudd’s eating habits the one thing that crossed my mind was “He’s the PM – why shouldn’t he be fed properly?” How petty.
GP 412
Howard is a Liar as he said: “That boat will NEVER land in our waters — NEVER,”
It did!
The rest is history and so is Howard’s legendary reputation for lying.
“JOHN Howard strode into the The Australian’s Parliament House Office late on Wednesday night, bristling with nervous energy. “That boat will NEVER land in our waters — NEVER,” he emphatically told a small group of reporters.”
(“PM weighs his anger in stormy seas” Matt Price and Robert Garran, The Australian, 1 September 2001)
For what it’s worth, I attended at a function put on today for mostly elderly (60+) mostly women, mostly of a protestant bent residents of a retirement complex. As part of the entertainment provided it was our task to mingle and give these people the chance to have a conversation, a chance they often dont get in their normal lives. Looking for conversation topics we used the radio as a background and heard Joe Hockey complaining how damaging to Australia the Rudd handouts had been. The oldies in their quiet way were scathing of him, Turnbull and the Opposition.
A quantum shift in polling figures could be on the cards if this seeming core demographic is further disenchanted of the coalition.
No 416
Howard has never lied with respect to any matter.
No 417
There’s a big difference between saying the boat (with the people on board) will never land and saying that these people will never be allowed into Australia.
Howard did not lie – his statements ever since 2001 have been distorted and misquoted due to a mixture of intellectual laziness and partisan rancour.
I think the coalition is taking a leaf out of the Labor handbook. For years Labor opposed most coalition legislation, then under Rudd they were more congenial, and people didn’t care about the past, only the present. The coalition got very pissed off over this. They figure out that they can oppose anything they want now, change their attitude under a new leader when the electorate has finally become disolutioned with Labor, and all will be forgiven and forgotten.
So, how many truths make a liar a truther?
No 418
When their lifestyle is subsidised by the taxpayer’s hip-pocket, it’s no surprise to hear them complaining about someone who, heaven forbid, thinks we shouldn’t be amassing a ridiculous amount of debt for short-term pump priming.
419 Generic Person – LOL, you have to be kidding. Blind faith at its best.
No 421
It’s not the Labor handbook, it’s the typical Opposition handbook. Regardless of what some say, to a large extent, it is about waiting for a “messiah” who can pull the troops out of a quagmire in a principled and sensible fashion. However, appearing principled and sensible requires a solid policy framework. The current Opposition has no policy and is getting thumped.
No 424
Gary, one of the most accepted distortions – i.e. that Howard lied with respect to Tampa/asylum seekers – has been comprehensively debunked.
The Neil Mitchell interview revealed a number of truisms at the time:
1. The Australian Government will accept genuine refugees whose claims have been assessed off-shore.
2. The asylum seekers are not granted asylum on the basis of race.
3. The Indonesian president was recalcitrant in respect of stemming the flow of illegal immigrants from Indonesian ports.
4. Howard is not a racist.
5. The Australian Government was well within its executive power to refuse the entry of the Tampa into Australian waters.
No 426
why land heavily armed troops on the ship of a foreign nation
No 427
The Tampa breached the orders it was given: i.e. do not enter Australian territorial waters. It did, hence the need for the SAS to stop the ship from proceeding any further.
Kevin Rudd to close tax loopholes in 2009 federal Budget
http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,27753,25368541-462,00.html
Why the heavily armed troops and not the AFP/Customs??
No 430
What difference does it make? The point was that the Tampa was not authorised to enter our territorial waters.
Quite a lot actually
1. By using overt force, you create the impression that a danger exists,where there was none
2.Seizing a ship in international borders used to be called piracy,under Howard iit was turned to “border security”
3.Ignoring convention that the Tampa was respecting the age old tradition of rendering assistance at sea ( and by implication australia would not render assistance at sea)
4.The disregard for official ’steps” thereby allowing the military, with its lesser duty of disclosure, to treat the Tampa as military target
The world’s 493 nuclears used about 70,000 tonnes uranium last year.
This is equivalent to about 7% of the world’s energy use.
There are 40 under construction.
There are about 250 in some form of project development/planning/pipe dreaming stage.
I don’t know how many of the 493 need to be decommissioned in the next little while but let’s ignore reality, and say that none of them need to be replaced. Also let’s round them up to 500.
There is about 5 million tonnes of uranium in the ground rated as recoverable on today’s costs. You would buy shares in the mines.
There are about another 10 million tonnes of uranium that more or less may exist, and more or less may be recoverable at today’s prices. You would only buy shares in the mines if you had an appetite for risk, or if you were one of those finance sharpies and you could persuade some woodies to let you invest their money in the mines for a fee.
Now for some arithmatic, not my speciality. Collegiate assistance, suggestions and mockery accepted as deserved.
15,000,000 tonnes divided by 70,000 tonnes equals 214 years at current rates of usage. This look pretty good.
Now, let’s look at the proposition that nuclears can save the world from global warming. Let’s test the idea that we can get all the world’s energy use from nuclears.
(Oh, oh, algebra required. Primal, childhood school terror cuts in… failed Mental Arithmatic in Grade 3!)
But, anyway, multiply 70000 by 100 and divide by 7 equals 1,000,000 tonnes per year.
15,000,000 generous tonnes divided by 1,000,000 tonnes per annum equals 15 years of nuclears before they run out of juice.
Better, more efficient nuclears, may decrease fuel usage rates by a quarter or a half or so.
Say 25 years of fuel at full throttle.
If ,say, 500 nuclears produce, say, 10% of the world’s energy then we would need about 5000 nuclears to produce 100% of the world’s energy.
At, say, $10 billion a nuclear, 4500 reactors (5000 less 500 existing reactors) by $10,000,000,000 to build them. That comes to $45,000,000,000,000 to build them all.
I am not sure how much money is in the world these days but $45,000,000,000,000 looks like it might be difficult to put together.
Then there is the timeline. Getting the resources together, building the scale of expertise required, getting the approvals done and so on and so forth… What are we looking at? A century?Too late, global warming-wise?
I know that there are some awful assumptions in the above, and there might well be some awful arithmatic as well.
My main point is that nuclear proponents should not just argue from the little points, ie comparing a single nuclear with a single coalie.
If they are serious about nuclears halting global warming, they should put forward a Feasibility Plan. And the Plan should include timelines, scales and investment costs on a global basis.
It seems to me that there is not enough fuel, capital or time for nuclear to be anything other than a bit player in preventing global warming. For the nuclears industry to pretend that it could be anything else is ….
And there is always this question: ‘After 25 years or so and the fuel is finished, then what?’
No 432
Sorry Gusface, but the boat people were rescued in international waters and the closest port of call for assistance was Indonesia. Australia had no responsibility under international law to accept them.
It was only after the Tampa decided to contravene the orders of the Government by attempting to enter our territorial waters, that the SAS was ordered to stop the ship from proceeding.
Um GP CI was closer than Indonesia
and that was why CI was made Unaustralian by Howard, like alot of other UNAUSTRALIAN things he did.
In fact you could say Howard is the biggest UNAUSTRALIAN we have ever had
and our biggest liar as wel
No 435
No, you’re wrong. Merak, Indonesia was the closest suitable port. The ship only turned around toward Christmas Island after the Captain acceded to the aggressive demands of some of the rescued asylum seekers.
The rest of your post is moronic piffle.
Haha
Spot the spot where the OO used ‘billion’ when it meant ‘trillion’.
I suppose an economist would would call it ‘deflation’ or ‘disinflation’ or something like that.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25368241-601,00.html
Ahh, classic GP arrogance. How obscene.
Bob1234 are you imploying that the use of ‘moronic piffle’ was itself a case of ‘egregious piffle’?
John Howard never lying. Hmmm!!
One could start with the fist full of dollars tax cut recording he made as a treasurer with no intention of honoring.
The ‘never ever’ GST interview’s real message was that a GST was not on the liberal policy radar, yet within months if not weeks of being elected in 1996 Howard set in train a policy to sell and then implement a GST. Stating something you know not to be true as a way to decive your audience is a lie.
There is enough known about the interactions between Reith and Howard post the Houston intervention in the children overboard affair to know that the truth was in all probabity a victim on that occassion. Let us not even discuss the obscenity of a government cutting incriminating captions off photos and presenting them as evidence of something that never happened.
Non core promises! Is that a lie? I’m sure some GP sohistry will set me straight on that. The argument might run along the lines our standards for political behaviour are so low that what constitues deceipt in normal parlance is merely political strategy. Expedience rules do to speak. Ontological concepts of course being foreign to the more telological thinkers amongst us? eg Torture’s great if it’s successful!
Is plausible deniability lying? When you set up a chain of interference and barriers to argue that it is plausible that you dont know or could not know or may not know what you actually know. Is that deceiptful? Prima facie yes I would have thought.
Is it deceitful to lecture about attacking the support of tyrants like Saddam and then turning a blind eye to AWB funds supporting that regime, in contravention of UN sanctions? Perhaps only to the more soft headed among us who belive that deceit is a substantive concept rather than a a more fluid and slippery one.
Dog whistling? Pretending not to be implying what you actually are implying and then feigning indignation when called on it. Deceiptful? dishonest? Disingenuous?
And finally on the general point of discussion at the time of Tampa I remarked to a friend that the government’s policy was government by the cynical for the gullible. He was quite offended as he had not visualised himself in the gullible camp at that time. The farce was all about portraying something different to the truth as informed observers would understand it . I am probably just naive because GP and no doubt the labour party hacks will tell me that’s just politics and Adam and GP will tell us that their politicians dont actually really specifically and without some form of caveats or weasel words actually lie and will cobble up some plausible semantic gymnastics in support of their propostions
When lying and deceipt no longer have their ordinary meaning, political discourse is significantly weakened and in the context of this thread can become quite a little bit sad!.
‘imploying’ Old Irish for ‘implying’
My God
While The Age’s Michelle Grattan is convinced that it is a “long bow to make too much of Kevin Rudd’s limited changes removing the harsher edges of earlier policy”, the facts suggest otherwise. As The Daily Telegraph reported on Saturday – a story ignored by large sections of the media – the Australian Federal Police provided secret intelligence briefings to Rudd government ministers weeks ago warning that canny people-smugglers had noticed Australia’s softer border protection laws.
To be sure, we must distinguish between people-smugglers, who are rational and well informed, and refugees, who are often neither. It takes a longer time for accurate information about policy changes to be disseminated among refugees but people-smugglers learn fast and with precision.
My God
tears
When it gets out of moderation – add this http://tinyurl.com/cqww8f
442-443 – in moderation
read the whole thing
My God
No 443
My God, Janet has never spoken a truer word.
I believe only 30% of the mined uranium is of a quality for ready use in power plants the remainder requires further purification at a carbon cost. I believe Switzkowskis report stated some like this and that this issue could detract from the Co2 reduction.
The cost of the fuel would be higher because of the extra processing required as well.
But don’t quote me after all this time.
I’m stunned GP
So much so, I can’t responded
Obviously, we view things very differently
Jesus…you linked to an Albrechtspewson story without warning. yuck.
Takes a man with a stronger stomach than mine to read her stuff.
Albrechtspewson truly is a an Ann Coulter wannabe. She just needs an adams apple. Oh and go from hard right to totally bat shit insane loopy right.
IT’S ALL A VAST CONSPIRACY!!!1111
She never speaks true words. She’s failed to mention some numbers though. I’ll do it for her.
37 – that’s the percentage the coalition received in the last Newspoll.
42 – that’s the meaning of life for the coalition, a very low two-party preferred vote.
67 – that’s the percentage of those polled who chose Rudd over Turnbull, or neither, in the Preferred PM stakes. An entire two thirds.
26 – that’s the percentage of those polled who think the coalition would do a better job of managing the asylum seeker issue.
57 – that’s the percentage of those polled who think tougher laws would not reduce the number of asylum seekers coming to Australia.
I do have some doubt about that simply because of the terms used. I doubt very much the AFP are use terms like this or put it to the Govt like this – ‘your softer border protection laws’ .. that sounds more like journo speak. In fact the whole phrase sounds entirely journo speak and not how a AFP briefing would be phrased. IMO
Many of these people would have started their journey in total ignorance of Australia’s current laws and some or many before they were changed. And I don’t think the smugglers give a rats, as long as they are not on the boat. They can tell the cargo whatever they like, they are in no position to know any better.
I don’t recall any dog whistling when it was boat loads of Vietnamese arriving in Darwin weekly.
My bad TP
In my defense…
I’ve never seen this stuff before (truly amased?, shocked?)
I’d like to say appalled? but I need to go away and compress this, I’m not looking forward to that
If you really want to be appalled go to the Huffington post where they relate the looney antics of the GOP and their media supporters.
As quoted many times…they have syphilitic crazy lost it.
I think that we could have expected the same looniness here from some quarters as it became obvious that the Liberals were not going to catch up. It is a realisation that leads to terror and panic as time runs out and gives us even more bizarre Opinion pieces from the lunatic right.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,,25350614-5012587,00.html?id=38494
Here’s one for you Diogenes!
Parties deny they mess with our polls – http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25359298-5006301,00.html
Those polls are useless anyway. What they measure is the on-line readership demographic and then only those who bother to read the political article and then only those who care enough to put in a vote. In other words Labor and Liberal voters who have enough energy to bother voting and others who feel pissed enough about the issue to say something.
TP, the point is, sometimes you’ll see a poll and it says one thing, and 30 minutes later it’s swung completely in the opposite direction. Regardless of how indicative they are, they should not be engineered by party apparatchiks.
I don’t care any longer what goes on over the water.(I know I should, but I just don’t, not anymore)
I’m deeply shocked that somebody, where I live, could write something that, and not only walk the streets, could do so in daylight
I can’t believe that Liberal hack actually denied it lol
No 458
I’m still at pains to work out your opposition to the article. There is nothing surprising or indeed, revelatory, about it.
Someone earlier mentioned Ann Coulter, this link gives one view of her (warning fruity language). It may seem harsh but I think the rude Pundit has got her about right. It would not be for me to say if la Albrechtson could be similairly categorised.
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/search?q=coulter
GP.
Unlike many here, I respect you opinion even when we differ
That you don’t see what I see, doesn’t really surprise me (wow, a rhyme). But seriously, her whole article just creep’ed me out, literally.
I guess you get a different reaction from different things to me
No harm in that
No 462
Creeped you out in what way? The conservative side of politics has been saying virtually the same thing as her for the last few days.
I found her argument about Indonesia most compelling.
GP @ 454
Good to see where your priorities lie.
TP
Yes it is interesting how the second and third order issues obsess the Switowskis of the world.
I make it about $45 trillion to replace all the coalies with nuclears. Governments and banks are having trouble borrowing $4 trillion to keep the world economy from going down the chute.
For capital reasons alone, Nuclears will never be anything other than a fringe player in the Global Warming response.
GP said
and then his nose grew by 6 inches.
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/jacktheinsider/index.php/theaustralian/comments/rudd_leading_the_country_by_default/
”The Coalition is not in policy stasis. Rather, its policies on this issue and many others are a dog’s breakfast, reflecting internal conflict and excruciating compromise. But if your dog sat down to eat it, you’d belt him with a rolled-up newspaper.”
Someone posted this on PB last night:
This has to be the most moronic piffle statement ever posted here on PB. Because the Australian people decided he did in some matter and kicked him out proper.
GP
have to dispute your version of Tampa events.
Yes, the boat was originally closer to Indonesia than Australia. However, that’s not relevant. When it was told to turn back, it was closer to Australia and thus our responsibility.
Maritime law is absolutely clear in this regard: if a ship is in distress and asks to land, you let it. You don’t ask whether it could land anywhere else, whether it’s been diverted from elsewhere, whatever. You MUST let it land.
Howard breached international laws of the sea by telling the Tampa to turn back. That’s why the captain ignored the order.
Not a very high bar, then
I find it indicative of the media craze for getting the story first that Dick Pratt’s impending death is already receiving front page treatment.
For God’s sake the man, by all accounts, will pass away within days. Why can’t they wait that short time before they start the obituaries and the assessments? Now the speculation is about who will take over from him. It’s indecent. Let him die in peace.
Janet is talking her usual load of hogwash.
How is the debate being gagged? Did she publish at night, from a secret location, and distribute her information via a highly dedicated group of runners who risked imprisonment or torture if caught?
Is she, even now, hiding out in someone’s cellar, shivering every time there’s a knock on the door?
Or is she simply afraid that someone might accuse her of being nasty, challenge her arguments or call her unAustralian?
If it’s the former, then that’s suppression of free speech.
If it’s the latter, then that’s simply the reverse coin of free speech – yes, you can say (within some limits) what you want, but you have to accept that others have the right to criticise you for doing that.
Janet’s idea of free speech appears to be saying just whatever she wants to without criticism.
Tp @ 453,
Agreed, HP is in my favorites list but I suspect that unless you are regularly a Labor#1 voter, most folks wouldn’t go there of their own accord. Their loss …
Wonder if Malcolm’s whinging about the 3 course meals this morning is symptomatic of this growing trend?
Oh, and an extreme pleasure to log in this morning and read a post commenting on honest political news and not arguing about semantics. Good on you
466,
Surely this is a conservative estimate?
Pratt is a public figure and still in charge of one of Australia’s largest companies. His health is a legitimate news story.
Interesting that both Pratt and Einfeld have cancer, that most psycho-induced of diseases.
Generic Pinocchio got quite upset last might cos I dared to speak the truth re Howie and his Cpt Pugwash adventures.
ps you know that Generic Pinocchio’s cage is reaaly rattling when he comes up with his childish insults.
“Howard has never lied with respect to any matter”.
Does Peter Costello agree, especially about a planned succession?
How did Howard end up with the nickname “The Lying Rodent”?
Didn’t Janet Howard rationalise by talking about “Political Lies” as being all right?
Core and non-Core promises?
Arguments about semantics can be important, Juliem. One of the good things about new media, like this blog, is that we don’t have to take anyone’s word for anything. All statements can be challenged, and those who make them have to defend them.
Yesterday, for example, we forensically examined the assertion, endlessly repeated by lazy journalists, that in 2001 Howard said that the Tampa people would “never set foot in Australia.” We traced this to an article in The Australian on 1 September 2001 (now stored here: http://www.adam-carr.net/Tampa.pdf) in which Howard said “That boat will NEVER land in our waters – NEVER.” We found a journal article in which that article was cited but seriously misrepresented, and a speech in Parliament in 2002 which also misrepresented what Howard said, thus setting in train the myth which has now become an established fact in many people’s minds. We also found a transcript of an interview Howard did with Neil Mitchell the day before that story (now stored here: http://www.adam-carr.net/howardmitchell.txt) in which he said: “I mean we want these people assessed, their status assessed by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and then on the basis of that assessment well so their destination will be determined.” That of course is a direct contradiction of the assertion that Howard’s stated position was that the Tampa people would *never* be allowed into Australia.
I feel quite proud of the fact that a handful of bloggers were able in a few hours to demolish one of the most persistent myths in Australian public discourse, work that all the lazy mainstream journalists, even the pro-Howard ones, weren’t able to do for themselves. I say that despite the fact that as an ALP member I have no particular interest in salvaging Howard’s reputation. What was important here was establishing the historical truth, which has an importance higher than mere political advantage.
Absolutely, which is why I was so obsessive about nailing it –
thanks, Adam, it was a great discussion.
Well said Adam
Jack Jones, CH – a giant of the British labour movement and a great man.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3390633.stm
Adam 478
Thanks Adam for 478 and to all for the contributions to the great 2009 Tampa debate yesterday. Interesting. And I agree that Howard seems not to be able to be quoted saying that the Tampa refugees will never be allowed in to Australia.
At risk of continuing to argue about semantics, I disagree with a part of your summary, however.
You suggest that Howard saying that “there destination will be determined” shows that he specifically wanted to make it clear that the refugees might one day be allowed into Australia.
I disagree strongly. I think that all the transcripts we trawled through yesterday showed that he was given plenty of opportunity to say that but that he never said anything as clear as that.
I think that there is a very good case on the evidence that he was very happy to allow an idea to take hold that his government was strongly opposed to the refugees ever being allowed to land in Australia.
I meant “their destination” of course
Yes, well done Adam and other Bludgers. Though I think Howard’s reputation is beyond saving, whatever Pompous Git (I’m dyslexic) might think.
What I can’t understand is why Howard’s supporters have never tried to bust the myth. Perhaps they wish he had said it.
That’s a fair point. Howard obviously did not want to undermine his political advantage by saying “If they are found to be refugees by the UN then they can come to Australia.” It doesn’t seem that anyone directly asked him that question. But Howard chose his words carefully, as he nearly always did. He did not *say* that, but he did not *preclude* it either, which is what he has subsequently been accused of.
Thanks Adam.
I agree.
I am also a bit disappointed in our journalists of the time, that they did not ask him that directly given that there were starting to appear quotes of “never, ever set foot” in media all around the world.
I am happy that we have a small but important piece
of history nailed now.
I don’t get into semantic discussions, gives me way too many reminders of the
‘ex husband so I will just continue to “shuffle past” these posts then. Also stems from the comments every now and again that I receive in the here and now (not being a native by birth) that Aussies say it “this way”. My response is generally something along the lines of “you know what I said, you know what I meant” so that is good enough even it is wasn’t spot on to your pronunciation standards. Not disputing their value (semantic discussions) to others just that I’m glad it isn’t the only topic of interest atm.
I’d be interested to know if the “never set foot” phrase appeared in the media before Snowdon’s speech in March 2002, in which he said:
“What were the words of the Prime Minister when he was walking around the press gallery here trumpeting the solution to the Tampa crisis? He said, `These people will never set foot on Australian soil’.”
His reference to the Press Gallery shows that he is referring to the story in the Australian in September, but is the distortion of what Howard said Snowdon’s own work, or is he repeating what he has read or heard elsewhere?
A quick google came up with this, from ABC’s Online forum:
” From: Leo 14/11/2001 12:05:48
Subject: re: Howard’s already doing it. post id: 2365
The backing away from the actual words used by Howard and Ruddock has begun.
They said no asylum seekers will ever set foot on Christmas Island.
They said no asylum seekers will ever set foot in Australia.
They said the tough stance means they only will never take queue jumpers or asylum seekers who turn up by boat.
Once processed on Christmas Island the people Howard and Ruddock once called queue jumpers will come here. No one else will take them, but Australia.
The election is over and nothing has changed.”
So it was current within six weeks of Howard’s ‘landing’ comments – I doubt Leo was the first person to use it or that his comment on ABC Online was influential enough to spread it.
Adam,
Sometimes you can be absolutely accurate, yet totally wrong. Focussing solely on the exact form of words uttered misses the wider political context.
Heaven help us if your trying to create a historical meme of Howard being misinterpreted or misunderstood. Having lived through it, I know when I have been bullshitted and he was a master.
Howard made an artform of conveying certain impressions that could be denied by looking at the text of what was actually said. Whether this is “dog whistle politics”, duping gullible listeners or simply astute politics is more the debate than worrying overly about his form of words.
Notwithstanding the above, the genesis of this discussion was more about fellow posters calling each others liars and idiots for having different points of view and being prepared to articulate those views on the blog. Hopefully your rigorous analysis has demonstrated that there is very little clear cut in politics and we should all show some respect for our fellow contributors.
“In the case of the Tampa, he was determined to make sure that none of those on board ever set foot on Australian soil.” – John Hewson, Fin Review, Nov 2nd 2001
So Snowden didn’t invent it.
Here is the phrase “not permitting the refugees to set foot in Australia”
) in early September 2001
being used (in the mass media
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/sep2001/tamp-s05.shtml
Ok, seeing that we’re all for making sure a Howard statement has been interpreted properly what about GP’s statement that Howard has never lied with respect to any manner?
Anyone want to defend that?
I’d argue that the discussion about “never set foot” wasn’t a semantic one, it was about facts. Semantics would imply that we were arguing about the interpretation of what Howard said, rather than about what he actually said.
David Marr’s excellent book “Dark Victory” refers to the “never set foot” assertion but it doesn’t give a reference to it (and Marr references almost everything in that book, indicating that he couldn’t find a reference either but still felt obliged to repeat it). It would be interesting to email Marr with Adam’s summary to get a response.
Door stop interview with Howard in Melbourne on 31/8/2001
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/10052/20011121-0000/www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/2001/interview1202.htm
I’m not sure I consider a Trotskyist website part of the mass media. But it does serve to show how the phrase “never set foot” was actually coined by anti-Howard commentators (of which Hewson was one by 2001) and then retrospectively fathered onto Howard. There was also a slide from “never set foot directly off the Tampa” to “never set foot ever.”
GG, I agree with you about the political context. Howard was trying to wedge Labor, and it was only Beazley’s toughness that prevented him from doing so. But we need to have our facts straight first.
Aisdad 495
Game Set Match!
Amigo GG, what else can i say about fellow Amigo. Orgulloso de ti.
AiC, you tried to ‘finger’ Snowden as the coiner of the phrase. My two references show that he wasn’t.
Now you’re quibbling about where the quotes come from and the precise wording, rather than admitting that Snowden did not make it up himself.
I know I have difficulty with the whole ‘wr—’ concept, but you could at least try.
MalcoPops @ 497
Sorry but no. In the context of the question and his response he was confirming that the Tampa boat people would not be able to land (come ashore) from the Tampa. He still did not preclude their possible entry after being assessed.
No 495
In the context of what he said and had been saying at the time, he meant that they will not be allowed to land in Australia *directly from the Tampa*. And furthermore, as the Mitchell interview revealed, the Government at the time was quite prepared to accept refugees genuinely assessed as such off-shore.
It is so easy to argue what WAS said. It’s a lot harder to prove what was intended, especially when you’re reading what was said. I think we all know what Howard wanted people to believe and believe they did.
We all know with Howard you had to dissect every sentence and every word to tie him down to anything. It was this impression people finally grasped of him that assisted his downfall.
Some people may have distorted his actual words but they didn’t distort his intended meaning.
Howard had a politicians skill in using defensible words to describe an indefensible image. If he hadn’t been a politician he would have made a lucrative career of writing the small print for dodgy insurance companies and ultimately valueless warranties .
I *asked* if Snowdon coined the phrase. It’s evident from the above that he didn’t. I don’t need to “concede” anything. I’m not the one making accusations here.
Aisdad’s 495 quote shows, again, that Howard said many times that the people on the Tampa would not be allowed to land in Australia. “Land” means “to come ashore.” He did not say they would never be allowed into Australia regardless of any subsequent determination.
No 502
Gary, you said that it’s harder to prove intention, yet you lazily accuse Howard of intending something he did not expressly say. That is why for the last 8 years, the now-proven lie that Howard said that the asylum seekers would never ever set foot into Australia was so easily propagated – people are too intellectually lazy to put facts above partisan considerations.
Gary, that’s your opinion and you may well be right. But it’s only an opinion.
GP, a lie is a deliberately false statement. The interesting point here is that most people *believe* that Howard said “never set foot”, not that they are lying.
Meaningless debate on the semantic of event long gone.
meanwhile, back at the ranch….. all i can say is “wow” and Go, Obi, Go:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ig-Lt4l7OBj1pzq-eKRjKqthYdLgD97N56RO0
Fox and Friends, there, here and everywhere must be LIVID with rage.
Enough Tampa!!!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/
Does anyone think that perhaps Barry has opened up the discussion on torture so everyone stops thinking about the economy for five minutes? A news-cycle breather perhaps?
So this is only an opinion?
Post an ironic statement and see how many people misinterpret it. Or post “You are a fool” and smile while you are typing it and see how that is misinterpreted.
OK enough on Tampa.
510: No.
You’re right Finn, enough from me on this. I’m done.
Finns
The weird thing is that Obi has said he won’t prosecute the CIA etc who used torture saying that they could use the Nuremberg Defence which seems to work better in the US than in Germany. I’d love to see the lawyers get done but I can’t see what they would actually be prosecuted for.
#510, you mean like Rudd’s recession to divert from Qjumpers and Obama’s Torture to divert from recession. You cant have it both ways.
The Republicans are even morse on climate change than the Libs:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/19/boehner-calls-global-warm_n_188688.html
Boehner says CO2 can’t be causing CC “because we breathe it out all the time.”
It used to be said that France had “the stupidest Right in the world.” The US has clearly taken over that title now.
Interesting question: Who has the stupidest Left in the world?
No 516
Venezuela?
I do not think Rudd used the recession to divert from refugees. It is quite clear that he was trying to get the jump on the IMF report that came out the night after. I’m not particularly attached to the idea that Obama is trying to divert attention, but I think you could make the argument.
Anyone would think our news reporters can’t chew gum and walk at the same time. Surely if they really want both economic news stories and assylum seeker stories to be up there they could make it happen. Silly argument.
One could make an argument for the Palestinians. The left there has been unable to capitalise on a fair swag of international sympathy, as well as allowing a hard-right organisation (hamas) to steal the left’s traditional base (poor folk) by being the only organisation to provide social services.
517, they can’t be all that stupid since they’re firmly in power. Actually I think it’s probably France. The French left live in a complete fantasy land.
520, who is the “left” in Palestinian politics?
Shhh, i’m trying to work that out right now.
Thanks to the PB’r who put up the information about the Henry Reynolds book, “the Other Side of the Frontier” a week or so ago.
I don’t know if GP [thanks Gus for your "elaboration" upon this in 476, I loved it
] took up the original suggestion on this book, but I’ve done so. I got my copy from my local public library today and have started reading it. I also picked up some light reading with “Best Political Cartoons from 2003 and 2005 so plenty to keep me busy over the long Anzac Day weekend 
Yo ho ho
Using your argument, Obama cannot address any policy issue other than the GFC until the GFC is over in three years or so without it being a diversionary tactic.
A pleasure, Juliem. Enjoy.
That’s probably a fair call Dio (not that its a diversionary tactic…that my argument is weak).
No 524
Why should I take up a suggestion known to have included fabricated citations, facts and stories. A waste of time.
528
Generic Pinocchio is hardly in a position to be calling out a University of Tasmanian historian for falsehoods
528
GP – evidence? Windshuttle, to my recollection, challenged Reynolds’ writings on Aboriginal massacres and the way Reynolds arrived at numbers cited.
Nothing to do with the book referred to.
Regardless, one should make an effort to read material one doesn’t agree with, in order to understand the other side of the argument. Thus one reads Janet (alas, without understanding…)
No 529
Juliem, Keith Windschuttle debunked most of Reynolds’ thesis in “The Fabrication of Aboriginal History: Volume 1″.
When Robert Manne edited a collection of essays in response to Windschuttle’s claims, it was surprising to think that within all the ideological bull and bluster permeated throughout, none of the essays were able to counter, with evidence, Windschuttle’s work. Reynolds and others were caught out for the bunch of historical liars and ideological crusaders they always were.
No 529
Gusface did not speak the truth about Howard. He continues to argue that Howard meant what he didn’t say, without proof or evidence.
Evan14 It’d be another lie because Kev loves his vegemite on toast every morning.
He’s got “a rose in every cheek”
This was what he said before the last election on Channel 10
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/youre-toast-says-one-happy-little-vegemite-to-the-pm/2007/11/19/1195321695075.html
generic pinocchio speak with forked tongue
ps PJ O’rourke is on at the press club on ABC1
should be fun
There should be a law against using “Howard” and “truth” in the same sentence
532,
What you meant was Gus didn’t speak the truth according to the Lib bible. That is different than Gus didn’t speak the truth. I gave up long ago, probably as long ago as 1982 (?), with the singular exception of Malcolm Fraser, putting stock in anything that comes from the “other side of the House” in either of my respective countries.
Good on you Gus for taking it to the other guys last night
No 536
Julie, thankyou for confirming your careless attitude toward facts.
Hitchens lays into the Turks.
http://www.slate.com/id/2216518/
Good stuff as always, although I think he ought to make it clear that it is the Erdogan government which is to blame, not necessarily Turkey as a whole.
GP, yes, I said Windschuttle disputed Reynold’s statistics on massacres.
That has nothing to do with the book in question.
Do you know of any suggestions that ‘The Other Side of the Frontier’ contains any of the errors you refer to or are you simply assuming that because he is accused of making errors in one book he made errors in everything?
(A bit like assuming that, if we can show one thing Howard said was a lie, therefore everything he said was – a position that I, for one, would not proscribe to).
LOL O’Rourke “When your wife is feeling Romantic and you’re feeling tired, do you get the Government to take care of the foreplay?”
Windschuttle is not a real historian, he has published nothing of substance and his attacks on Reynolds have zero credibility among real historians. They are just political bile dressed up as historical criticism.
No 541
Rubbish Adam. You just don’t like his factual approach to history.
Howard’s tricky use of language worked against him in the end. He found it hard to cut through as people began to assume everything he said had an ulterior motive. People stopped believing him straight up.
Who can remember his awful attempts to described the difference with apologise and saying sorry? Or his saying how wonderful workchoices was for people when everyone knows an individual has little bargaining power against a big corporation…then was his use of Hicks, Haneef, The Intervention…a parade of the old Howard style that reminded people why they had turned off him.
[Windschuttle ] hahahahahahaha Someone actually quotes him in support of an argument? That would be like quoting Dick Cheney in an argument on torture.
No 544
Again, no facts just personal attacks. Typical.
GP 542
Windshuttle’s factual approach to detail is exactly his problem as is his credibility.
http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20090106-How-Quadrant-swallowed-a-giant-hoax-.html
classic PJ Orourke
These were all political winners for Howard, though not enough to offset the political disaster that was WorkChoices. Howard-haters need to be clear on why the electorate turned on him. It wasn’t because they suddenly decided to like David Hicks. It was because he attacked their rights and standards of living. Howard generally played the politics of all those symbolic issues very skillfully, as he showed by outsmarting L*tham on the forests issue in 2004. But towards the end he succumbed to hubris and poor judgement. His attack on Obama was the most glaring example.
545,
Ask for facts
and ye shall receive
“truthiness” should be used instead
Or to make it easier to understand for our conservative friends
The Bullbutter Law
Do you have people as ridiculous as this in other states or are they a particularly SA phenomenon? First of all, the “one child policy” is about the dumbest response to CC I’ve seen, but the “we’ll be invaded” reposte is almost as stupid. Where the hell do we get people like this from?
*shakes head sadly*
It’s on the AdelaideNow website. My computer wont cut and paste the link.
Scuse my lack of politics for a minute – got a random question.
Do you folk over east get a public holiday this Monday coming? We do in WA (for Anzac Day, despite that being on Saturday), but apparently Melb / Syd don’t. Are we particularly lazy in the west?
Gus @ 551, you are on your game today, good work
#551 – Gus, from now on I am going to post the Amigo Law on PB everytime I see this “calling each others liars and idiots (and fool, moronic, imbecile, stupid)”
“The Amigo Law” was defined by GG with a little garnish from me. It says:
Amen and Awomen.
Today I received some junk mail from Trash Draper requesting I sign a petition to say that Adelaide doesn’t need a new hospital.
This mail suggests that Nick Minchin’s request that Martin-Hamilton-Smith dump from Liberal pre-selection in Newland has probably failed.
554 BofP – Kennett changed it so that all public holidays had to be taken on the day they fell, getting rid of all those pernicious long weekends.
Noone’s had the courage to change it back…
In Qld the Anzac Day public holiday is on Saturday. Next year because AD falls on a Sunday the Holiday will be the following Monday.
554 – Don’t worry BOP just wait long enough and Barnett will change that.
Monday is a public holiday in the ACT.
I think we become nationally standardised next year for public holidays and that if they fall on a weekend that the holiday carries over to the following Monday.
Easter and Anzac Day in 2011 coincide – I don’t think that gets the extra day.
Hey Adam stick to history.
BigBob: Including the Queen’s Birthday, I wonder? We have that at a completely different time of year to the rest of Australia, because it clashes with Foundation Day (state holiday).
ruawake
I decided to let that one go through to the keeper. I hoped he wasn’t serious.
Adelaide doesn’t get a public holiday on Monday.
Diog
It was my brain waves that caused the deletion of genes on the short arm of chromasome 17.
Would have to be Groucho Marx: “I worked my way up from nothing to a state of extreme poverty”.
And, Adam, don’t tell me Groucho didn’t say this. I don’t give a stuff.
It’s a fact. Cancer is well-known to be linked to stress and depression. Pratt and Einfeld have had plenty of both, plus guilt one would hope.
“A child of five would understand this… [pause] Send someone to fetch a child of five.”
This is not true – people have put this forward as a hypothesis but nobody has been able to prove it. Stick to history.
Optus to participate in ISP filtering pilot
The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, today announced that Optus will participate in the Australian Government’s Internet Service Provider (ISP) filtering pilot.
Conroy you idiot, give up already.
test
WA does get an ANZAC day holiday on Monday but we don’t deserve it
http://www.watoday.com.au/national/wa-doesnt-deserve-anzac-day-holiday-rsl-20090421-adup.html
You are a very well informed man, Adam, in your area of expertise. But on the subject of cancer and psychogenesis, you are way out of your depth.
From the most recent specific review I could find on PubMed (search term “cancer AND psychogenesis”)
“The reliable works analysing the impact of depression most often conclude in favour of a non-existent or a weak risk, and do not allow defining it as a well established risk factor. Most of prospective studies about the link between stress and cancer are negative. Moreover, they index stressful life events occurred for a few years before the diagnosis, that is to say during a too short delay to be allowed to incriminate them in the supervening of the disease. The question of the possible impact of coping styles with cancer on its evolution also remains debated. Some studies for instance plead in favour of a beneficial effect of fighting spirit or denial, but they are contradicted by other studies. All this forces us to be very careful when discussing the possible links between psyche and cancer. It is important to underline the hypothetical nature of these relationships. Psychosomatic explanations risk to be used to fill in gaps of knowledge, and to give us the illusion that we can avoid or control a disease which escapes us. They especially risk to make the patients guilty of their cancer or its evolution, through an inadequate point of view which does not take the complexity in stake into account.”
‘Cancer, a defect of the psyche?’
Bull Cancer. 2004 Mar;91(3):249-56.
PMID: 15171049
More asylum seekers to be taken further out to sea
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/22/2549790.htm
Adam for your education.
“Research in biobehavioral oncology has been focused on stress as one dispositional factor in the multifactorial origin and in the clinical progression of malignant disease. New insights into the transduction of environmental influences to the immune system and to other body systems by the brain and neurotransmitters have increased the salience of this approach. Behavioral medicine in the area of cardiovascular disease has been successful due to the introduction of a “Type A” or coronary prone behavior pattern in large epidemiologic studies. This pattern is marked by both psychologic and physiologic hyperresponsiveness. Type A persons appear to be hostile, easily angered, competitive and hard-driving. More recently, behavioral oncologists have similarly attempted at conceptualizing a “Type C” or biopsychosocial cancer risk pattern, as they have noted the denial and suppression of emotions, in particular anger. Other features of this pattern are “pathological niceness”, avoidance of conflicts, exaggerated social desirability, harmonizing behavior, over-compliance, over-patience, as well as high rationality and a rigid control of emotional expression (”anti-emotionality”). This pattern, usually concealed behind a facade of pleasantness, appears to be effective as long as environmental and psychological homeostasis is maintained, but collapses in the course of time under the impact of accumulated strains and stressors, especially those evoking feelings of depression and reactions of helplessness and hopelessness. As a prominent feature of this particular coping style, excessive denial, avoidance, suppression and repression of emotions and own basic needs appears to weaken the organism’s natural resistance to carcinogenic influences. This may mean that the excessive use of denial and suppression/repression has important psychophysiologic effects linked to tumor biology and host-defense.
This is the hypothesis. There is no proof – thus no fact.
Allright already
Dr Good,
Where does it say they are to be taken further out to sea?
Twenty years ago when I was active in AIDS work it was an absolute article of faith that progression or non-progression of AIDS-related cancers could be influenced by mental states, and this belief was encouraged by doctors. It’s a bit disappointing to see that this seems to have been debunked. It gave people some sense of control over their health.
ruawake
That type C sounds like almost everyone here.
No-one ever accused me of pathological niceness, or of over-patience.
Adam
There is definitely a link between cancer progression and mental state. Those with a positive attitude and “fighting spirit” do better on the whole than those who become depressed, at least for some cancers. That is different to there being a link between mental state and getting cancer in the first place.
A sense of control is only of significant value when it reflects an underlying reality. In fact, trying to maintain a sense (a facade) of control, without actually having any real control, is probably the worst situation of all.
The best we can say at the moment about psychosocial factors and cancer is that people can often improve the subjective quality of their life with cancer (ie live with it better), but cannot really affect the course of the disease itself.
Better to accept the hard reality as quickly as possible, and make the most of a bad situation
Diogenes. OK, to return to my original remark about Pratt and Einfeld – given that prostate cancer is fairly common among older men, it could be the case that the rate of progression of that cancer has been influenced by the stress and depression that both these men have been experiencing, yes?
This Cancer thingy has real parallels with barracking for Collingwood.
Dr. Jerome Groopman has a great book “The Anatomy of Hope – How People Prevail in the Face of Illness”.
Nice one Michael – sums up the little bastard quite well.
Adam
The progression could certainly have been made worse due to their very high levels of stress.
There is also good evidence that HIV progression is related to depression.
http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/bps/article/PIIS0006322303003238/abstract
justme
The literature supports that breast cancer progression esp is affected by depression etc, although the jury isn’t unanimous yet.
Depression and cancer: mechanisms and disease progression
Biological Psychiatry, Volume 54, Issue 3, Pages 269-282
Depression and cancer: mechanisms and disease progression
Biological Psychiatry, Volume 54, Issue 3, Pages 269-282
What is this, The Lancet.
Adam
Warren Zevon would have died of mesothelioma no matter how depressed he was.
Oz its a distraction to stem debate on Hanson-Young and her stoooooopid statements.
The Lancet Bludger has a ring to it.
GG @ 586,
bugger Collingwood. If Pratt passes before the bounce of the Carlton game, put your money on the Blues …..
It’s whatever those present at any given time want it to be.
Warren Zevon on Dick Pratt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHDdqubE7zQ&feature=related
What has Hanson-Young said?
I probably still have some old *special price* cardboard fruit boxes in the shed.
When I think of bloody-well getting up well before dawn during the fruit harvest, working like a b*st*rd on the farm all day before crawling exhausted into bed well after dark, seeing all this ‘titan of industry’ stuff, it really gives me the sh*ts.
I have some other suggestions for more appropriate terms, but in deference to the William’s rules, nerves, and bank balance, I am leaving them out.
So else has completed their instabudget? I managed a $4.49 billion surplus after cutting all income and company taxes.
I didn’t even know Warren Zevon was dead.
I’ll do one now, GP.
GP your kidding again a more nasty, rotten,bunch of liars, Howards would be hard to beat,he and some of his mates should have tried as war criminals,but then he did scrach the employers back lots.
As for Janet shes as bad as Ackerman and Hiener,Bolt and anything,Blair and anything,and Murdock and truth,Howard Bush Cheney and co and truth were as ships passing in the night blind
Adam
Lindsay Fox agrees with you and points a very explicit finger. Evidently elderly people shouldn’t be charged with crimes because it might impair their health. The ACCC should have just ignored the couple of hundred million dollar.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/as-pratt-approaches-death-fox-blames-betrayal-20090421-ae34.html
GG 579
The other day I had a long argument with Oz I think including whether being taken from Ashmore Reef to Xmas Island was being “taken further out to sea”.
This time I have to admit that it is clear that being taken from Barrow Island to Xmas Island is actually being taken further out to sea.
No 602
John, complete rubbish.
Turn on the lights. Liberal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtO08YjSA7E&NR=1
Instabudget is stupid. I massively boost spending in health, education, social security and fuel and energy and manage a surplus without raising a single tax and the Opposition still gives me grief.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,,25350614-5012587,00.html?id=39757
Rudd’s remarks on A-Pac at the moment. Do not know if these are from today’s community cabinet meeting or another meeting during his time here in Perth but he comments on “you here in the West” …..
OK, I suggest that everyone make ONE well considered budget proposal. Here is mine:
I propose that that from July 1st this year until July 1st 2010 he government relax the conditions of what qualifies as an acceptable activity for the purposes of receiving NewStart allowance. I think it is completely unfair to expect people to continue applying for jobs that simply do not exist due to the prevailing economic conditions.
Instead I think that volunteer work and community service should be adequate instead of applying for jobs. I know that currently SOME volunteer work is acceptable, but I think the conditions should be loosened to make it easier for almost ANY volunteer work to count.
I also think the Government should significantly INCREASE the rate of NewStart allowance (say by $100) for people people who do volunteer work for say 15 – 20 hours a week. The federal government should make more money available to councils for environmental projects that people on NewStart can perform without losing any NewStart money once the project finishes. In effect they would receive a “NewStart bonus” for going out and doing unpaid work.
There were a couple of decent Carlton supporters our way who became ex Carlton supporters.
Re 607,
This set of speakers is talking about education policy. It isn’t the community cabinet meeting.
Diogenese
Yeah, I saw good ol’ Lindsay F. sticking up for his mate. ‘Touching’ stuff. ‘Betrayed’ was he? How awful. You can’t trust anybody these days.
Swannie is in Canberra so it can’t be a community cabinet. I think it is a “Jobs Forum”.
That’s what mateship is all about, sticking up for someone when you know they are wrong.
Great, the new Australian-English dictionary in Firefox doesn’t include the word mateship
Juliem, community cabinet is at 4:30pm. I assume that’s Perth time?
http://www.dpmc.gov.au/community_cabinet/index.cfm
So the ABC is getting the new children’s channel. Good move.
Dr Good posted;
I do too Dr Good. It was very clear that Howard, Downer and other senior members of the Gov were furiously lobbying other countries to take the Tampa refugees but without success except for some that NZ agreed to accept. That was before they were sent on to Nauru.
Looks like Aotearoa can no longer be the politically correct name for the whole of that land over the ditch.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/22/2549969.htm?section=justin
WHAT!? They only use ABC2 for 14 hours a day, and yet now they are getting more money for another channel?
They already have the frequency of ABC3 which is currently just rebroadcasting ABC1 – this will nw free ABC2 to show more general programming.
Oz @ 614,
Thanks for that. Yes, I am sure that they mean 4:30pm local time. I’ve scoured my online Foxtel guide and I can’t find anyone who is showing any coverage now or later. Although I might check Sky News on their “extra” channels (the various ones that come up when you press the red button on the Foxtel remote) after 6pm local. Seems that the main stuff is between 6 and 7:15pm. I’ve got my 11yo with footy training (W&F) from 5 to 6:15pm so will see what is on the tube when we get back.
Cheers
ShowsOn
work for the dole should be looked at as well, a guy I know is a labourer in the building trade, he can no longer find consistent work. He applied for newstart hoping it would give him some income during the lean weeks.
He is happy to get no money from newstart when he works, but to qualify he has to “work for the dole” 30 hours a week, thus making it impossible to commit to the irreglar work he does.
So his choice is to get paid newstart and work for the dole (which will cost the govt more money) or to get what work he can scrounge up.
I hope it includes an R.K.O. film at midday every day.
I know someone has probably already posted this. But as they say in the article “it was a perfect strorm of ignorance and enthusiasm”
Yeah, it should be made a lot more flexible for the next financial year.
He should be allowed to enrol for work for the dole, but should be able to leave it to do paid work if he gets it, then go back to work for the dole when he doesn’t get it without being penalised at all. He should also be allowed to do volunteer work instead of work for the dole.
Seriously we just need a bit of common sense over the next financial year so people aren’t penalised for trying to make the best of a bad situation. In my area people are always crapping on about how there are so many things the council doesn’t do well, now is the time to put some people to work doing those things. The federal government should pay for it.
polyquats @ 484,
I think that was always part of the strategy, to reinforce the “tough on illegal immigration” line, the “we will decide etc” and having the media constantly refer to it was part of the conditioning process of convincing the electorate that the Libs were showing strong leadership on the matter and were protecting the people from those que jumping, children throwing, potential terrorist hoards threatening our boarders and way of life.
An ongoing conditioning of public fear and opinion which Turnbull & Co were hoping to tap into but which has lost much of its effectiveness.
The reason I said it was good is not because I’m looking forward to more Banana’s in Pyjama’s and Playschool but because hopefully it means that they’ll take some kids shows off ABC 1 and 2 and put watchable stuff on.
Not bad?
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,25368991-5017962,00.html
They can’t currently legally remove kids programming from ABC1. They have to show a certain amount each day. Sadly not everyone has digital TV yet. I believe it is still only at about 60% of house holds.
I suspect those content laws will be done away with when analog transmission is turned off, which should be done as soon as possible. The government should’ve paid for 1 standard definition decoder box per household. If it did that it would be able to turn off analog TV next year, and thus auction off the spectrum to pay for the decoder boxes (and a few hundred million profit).
This is encouraging, but they need to actually tie it in with unemployed people so those are the people that get to do the work.
My over all point is this, people on NewStart should receive HIGHER NewStart if they are willing to do work for their communities. There should be two categories of NewStart recipients, those that are looking for work, and those who are doing community service / volunteer work / community infrascture projects which should be a much higher rate. People on NewStart should be TOLD “if you do X hours of volunteer work a week, you can receive an extra $100 a fortnight.”
Diogenes
Thanks for the refs.
I think the most we can say for now is that while a more ‘positive’ attitude does not hurt and makes it easier to deal with the subjective experience of having cancer, it is not clear if it substantially alters the course of the disease itself.
However, this is getting seriously off topic. Sorry William.
It may be but it is what I love about pollybludging, there is no group think, if you make an erroneous comment someone will correct you, so we learn.
If a question is asked – normally someone knows the answer, so we learn.
That’s waht makes this place special – and maybe the dolphin.
SNIP: See article 2 of comment moderation guidelines – The Management.
Helen 2 at 408
sorry but that isn’t it, the pod on our tree is a lot smaller and softer to touch. thanks anyway.
Mrs Gusface
LOL.
POPPYCOCK!
From what I recall, it was during the 2001 election campaign. Howard and his monkeys were all in a fluff because they didn’t know what they were going to do with the people on the Tampa. One of the commercial networks in Sydney asked Howard if they had no choice but to land them in Australia? Howard replied with words to the effect that they would never set foot in Australia. Howard was prepared to leave them out at sea until the election. He most certainly lied to the Australian people.
If my recollection is wrong, of course the chances of that are extremely remote
and Howard did not say “never set foot in”, then he most certainly deceived the Australian people. I mean the whole debate is quite pedantic really. Howard was a little warmongering racist and most opportunistic PM of all time.
I do recall reading a report somewhere that said that torture was an ineffective way to obtain information. That information that you did receive was more likely to be what you the person thought you wanted, to appease. The effectiveness is even less if the victims are people you don’t know if they know anything so you torture them to find out. Thus you get yourself in the situation below, you up the torture because you not getting what you want. Eventually you will get what you want, but it is most likely to be BS.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/21/report-harsh-interrogatio_n_189817.html
OK why was mr.fox more worried about his wealthy friend than his poor employee who was killed yesterday driving one of his trucks down a 80mtr embankment?
No 606
Oz, shame on you for slashing defence spending by $15 billion.
Don’t tell me the MSM are complaining about Rudd’s flight meals? Imagine if the soon to be opposition leader Hockey became PM? He would send us broke
No 635
A most accurate description of your post.
Howard did not lie – the notion that he did has been comprehensively refuted. There was nothing racist about his policy either.
A person can’t be made a liar by subsequent events unless at the time of making a statement they knew it was false.
Thus did Howard believe he had the power to stop people setting foot in Australia and did he have the intention to enforce that power; was it likely he was speaking BS and knew it. Unless he knew he was talking BS at the time then you can’t call him a liar. I don’t think.
I don’t even think he was thinking ahead to after the election what to do with the situation, only to use it at the time for political ends.
POPPYCOCK!
No, its in your deranged defence of John Howard.
1. I doubt that Lindsay Fox is actively involved in the day to day operation of the transport business carrying his name.
2. Lindsay Fox has a track record of helping young people get jobs and is about to recreate his double act with Bill Kelty?
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Trucking-boss-joins-unemployment-fight-QTS2D?OpenDocument
tomburns
I’ve seen a few media reports on Fox and he comes across as one looks after his employees. Media reports today also mention Fox’s company will match donations for a trust fund set up for the truck drivers family.
I think it was Australian story that reported Fox would often pull over one of his drivers to enquire as to his welfare, work, safety etc.
The Republicans are just pathetic. They are in a bad way.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/21/rep-todd-tiahrt-rush-limb_n_188281.html
GP
On The Simpson’s, Homer was just accused of lying by Marj. He said “I was not lying. I was writing fiction with my mouth.” I can imagine Howard saying something similar.
LOL!
No 647
More irrelevance and few facts.
A better explanation is that Howard constantly repeated the line that they wouldn’t land here, which many accepted as meaning they wouldn’t come to Australia. But he simply meant their refugee status wouldn’t be assessed here.
Stoopid Stone wants to know why a boat got within 47 nautical miles of barrow island?
Is she advocating piracy? We board boats in international waters? Dork.
Channel 9 are running with the “They nearly made it to the mainland” line. Pity they didn’t mention that the boat was under surveillance for nearly 24 hours before that.
643,644,645,
Bullbutter as glen says,
Mr fox comes across thanks to media spin as a nice bloke, looking after his workers .
Crapp . Remember he would bail out ansett till the figures came in?
One familys loss of a husband,wife,brother, dad, would not even be a blip on his radar as long as his poor billionare corrupt buddy is ok and left alone!
Too much RAH discussion Dio?
That many accepted Howard as meaning something completely different is not of Howard’s concern. I’m glad you’ve finally conceded that your indignant claims that he lied were wrong.
GP,
Earlier today you were criticising the Liberal Party Opposition for not getting on with Policy development.
Here you are, one of their brighter stars, using all your available brainpower to defend the Howard legacy. From your zeal it is obvious that in your “heart of hearts” you wish that there must be some way to bring him back. A total waste of time.
Mate, he’s gone! He ain’t coming back! Johnny has left the building!
Deal with it!
And, carping criticisms of Rudd and Co ain’t going to cut it either.
Show me the colour of your policy development. Then people might start to take you seriously.
Ch 10 Perth reporter was complainig about Rudd’s refusal to talk to the media during his Perth vist, and they brought out Peter Van Onsolen to hammer the point.
Considering how the MSM spin things – Build a
bridge.
I’m not sure if anyone has mentioned this but the Perth Community Cabinet meeting is on Sky Noos at 10.30 tonight.
Ahh, juliem was asking me about that – she will be pleased it’s being shown.
RU,
Maybe we can interest Johnny Depp to do another Movie, “Pirates of the Antipodean”.
No, it never was a concern to him as Janette stated.
I was one of those many who wrongly accepted what he meant.
When he said “never, ever it is dead and buried to a consumption tax”, I thought he meant that that his government would never ever bring in a GST.
When he said for all of us, I thought he meant for all of us, white, brown, Asian, African, catholic, moslem, rainbow serpent, wealthy poor, fit, disabled.
When he said he would bring in a code of ministerial conduct I thought he meant it would be a code that would ministers had to adhere to.
When he said Work Choices meant employees would be better off, I thought it would mean better working conditions, hours and wages.
When he said that his government would keep interest rates at record lows I thought he meant that we wouldn’t see any increases in interest rates.
I must be as thick as two bricks to so misunderstand what Howard meant.
Utter rubbish. I am of the view that Howard fostered this view because he had plausible deniability. He didn’t say “They will not come to Australia” but he was happy to have that impression out in the media and electorate to win back the anti-refugee Hansonite types.
It is bleeding obvious to everyone (except apparently GP) that a politician wants to convey his message accurately to the electorate. If Howard had had any genuine concern that he had been misinterpreted then he would have gone to great lengths to issue clarifications.
Fact: the “misinterpretation” of Howard’s words was in the media very early on.
Fact: Howard never issued a clarification or denial of the “misrepresented” version of his words.
I didn’t concede any such thing idiot.
Fact: Howard originally insisted that the Tampa should dock in Indonesia, but it ultimately took people on the Manora to New Zealand and Nauru. So he lied.
658/659,
Yes, guys, will be pleased is is on but at that hour?
….. I can’t stay up that late I don’t think. I’m an early bird (up at 6 and change every day) so I’m not usually up past 10 save for the late footy game or cricket if the game is going really well and its a noteworthy opponent (will be burning a few midnight candles this winter during the Ashes tests).
I can hope for a rebroadcast?
ShowsOn,
Gus has christened him Generic Pinocchio, that sounds better
ShowsOn, your assertion on Monday night was that Howard had *said* that the Tampa people would *never* be allowed into Australia.
You said to GP:
You have not produced a Howard quote to support that assertion, and two days of hunting have not unearthed it. You ought to acknowledge that and stop abusing people, or if you can’t bring yourself to do that you should at least drop the whole subject.
Van Onsolen seems to be flavor of the month in the MSN,GP, Howard was is and always will be be a LIAR,followed closely by Costello the Gutless,Downer the incompetent(AWB anybody) the rest of his ministers were just as bad.
The entire Liberal Party could not lie straight in bed.
Juliem 665 – Don’t you have a video?
No 656
At least there is a legacy to defend GG. There’s no point wasting too much brain power on the current Liberal antics, most of which are unprincipled and nefarious, sold by a leader who isn’t a conservative.
That’s not true. They could lie anywhere and often did.
I am no fan of Howard by I think that we have not caught him out lying on the Tampa.
It does not seem that he actually said they will never, ever enter Australia even though he was clearly happy for the impression to be widely held that he wanted and would ensure that. It is also not the most morally reprehensible case of lying when it involves someone making a prediction about the future (ie that they will not ever land in the future). Many otherwise honest people are proved wrong by circumstance, or thwarted in their honest aims.
Instead I think that we must look for cases where he lied about the past. Apparently there is a fairly clear cut case of this to do with him talking to ethanol produces and then blatantly denying this. I think that sounds like a more clear cut case of lying.
Adam:
Here’s Senator Extremely-Young’s latest statement
http://greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/asylum-seekers-deserve-consistent-legal-status-mainland
Yolu do have a video/DVD recorder ?
GP
Would you like some facts?
Please refute these John Howard lies. There are 27 of them. I’ll choose just six.
1. “Nothing can alter the fact that I have in my possession an ONA report that states baldly . . . that children were thrown in the water.” 8 November 2001
2. “The Australian Government knows that Iraq still has chemical and biological weapons and that Iraq wants to develop nuclear weapons.” “Iraq continues to work on developing nuclear weapons-uranium has been sought from Africa that has no civil nuclear application in Iraq”
4 February 2003
3. “The Government’s position remains that we were advised by Defence that children were thrown overboard, we made those allegations on the basis of that advice, and until I get Defence advice to the contrary I will maintain that position”. 9 November 2001
4. “No, there’s no way that a GST will ever be part of our policy.” 2 May, 1995
5. “I can guarantee we’re not going to have $100,000 university degree courses.”
6. “I can promise you that we will follow policies which will, over a period of time, bring down the foreign debt . . . our first priority in Government economically will be to tackle the current account deficit.” 20 September 1995
http://www.ozpolitics.info/election2004/2004ALP/truth_overboard_howards_lies.pdf
I am invoking the Amigo Law, too many idiots
Don’t know if this was posted earlier or not, from Sky News around midday …
long and short of it, those who were med-evacuated to the Darwin hospial are eligible so good on them
674,
Frank, either not hooked up to the TV yet and/or nothing blank to record it onto …..
I think that the people of Tasmania should be upset that Senator Extremely-Young does not think their state is a fit and proper place for asylum seekers to be landed.
No 675
They’re just distortions and out of context quotes produced by – guess who – the Labor party.
Sorry, they do not qualify as facts.
I prefer your response ruawake, but Debus, is possibly a bit more nice:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/22/2550101.htm
Love the headline:
Wonder what they’d be demanding if the govt started breaking international law?
GP
Just because you don’t like the source it doesn’t follow that you can ignore them.
Please explain this one then. It’s Dr Good’s one.
John Howard Lie # 12
[Labor MP question to the Prime Minister: “Prime Minister, was the government
contacted by the major Australian producer of ethanol or by any representative
of his company or the Industry Association before its decision to impose fuel
excise on ethanol?”
John Howard:“Speaking for myself, I did not personally have any discussions,
from recollection, with any of them.”
John Howard, Question Time, 17 September 2002
The Truth:
John Howard had met on 1 August the head of Manildra Group [Dick Honan],
which makes 87 per cent of our ethanol, and they discussed how to help the
Australian ethanol industry.
Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Official Record of Meeting, 1 August 2002]
674 & 678,
HOLD the presses
…… Gary Bruce was quoting east coast time folks, I’ve just been onto the TV and checked with the online Foxtel guide and remote. 8:30 to 10pm in Perth Sky News #601.
Perfect
…. Thanks much Gary for alerting me in the first place although it has taken me about 5 to 10 minutes to come to my senses @ the time difference 
“Speaking for myself, I did not personally have any discussions,
from recollection, with any of them.”
Howard lied to Parliament or he had dementia – how can you forget a meeting over ethanol you had a week before?
In principle I think everyone would like to support that position. But in practice, as we know from long experience going back to the Hawke government, as soon as people are brought within the Australian immigration zone, they are embraced by the refugee advocacy industry, they get “lawyered up” (as they say on Law & Order), and an endless process of litigation and appeals begins, which means that by the time they are found *not* to be refugees, they have long ago acquired “roots in the community” and so can’t be deported whatever their status. That was why the Labor government introduced mandatory detention in the first place, and that was, is and will remain Labor policy.
Ruawake, too many alcopops before QT
Yohoho, one position of the Greens I will support with bells on
…… Labor has it all wrong on this one and Bob has it all right ….
via The Sun-Herald, 17 August 2003
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/16/1060936101890.html
(Apply that assertion to SerfChoices)
___
Howard told Parliament in April 1998:
Quoted by By Alan Ramsey, Sydney Morning Herald, 18 August 2004
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/17/1092508474312.html
(Apply that assertion to the manner in which SerfChoices was introduced with no warning pre-election)
___
John Howard, Radio 5AA, July 2007:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/19/1982541.htm
(Consider that assertion in light of the long-standing frostiness between him and Costello)
sorry #685, I know Labor has the policy that they do but I don’t agree with everything my party does. And just because they think that they have valid reasons for doing it doesn’t make it morally right.
ruawake
You’ll notice that he added the “from recollection” line in there. He knew he was lying and could get caught out so he fabricated an excuse.
No 685
I’d have to agree with Adam.
What practical difference would the Greens position make? None in my opinion.
I’m still not sure what the difference is between the refugees being processed on Christmas Island versus the mainland if both are in mandatory detention.
Ask Peter Costello if Howard is a lier? God wouldn’t we love to put him on a real life fullproof lie detector?
I disagree with some Bludgers about Howard. I don’t think he was ever really liked. Not like our Rudd anyway. He won in 96 because of Keating’s arrogance. He won only just in 98 courtesy of a massive MSM GST propaganda campaign and because it was a relatively new government. He won in 01 by just 51/49 with Tampa and 9/11. And he had to win in 04 over Mad Mark.
There were three contributing factors to his loss in 07. 1) The AWB scandal was the last straw in a long list of deceit. 2) Workchoices. 3) Old government.
Xmas Is is not within the Australian immigration zone so they do not have access to the Australian legal system. They can be housed securely, assessed quickly, and sent home directly.
Diog
If you make it to Australia “proper” and your claim for refugee status is denied, you can appeal to the court system.
If you make it to Xmas I and your claim is denied the relevant minister has the final say.
Thank you for that.
Can’t we just change to law so they can’t appeal through the courts?
Does anyone have any info on how all these aspirant asylum seekers get into Indonesia? I assume they fly from somewhere. What papers do they have? Why does Indonesia let them in? Are they legally in Indonesia? Why does Indonesia do nothing to stop them setting out in unsafe boats?
That would put us in breach of the 1951 refugee convention
Dio @ 693,
Christmas Island was “excised” so that doesn’t count legally in the way that Australian mainland would. See the explanation in #685. That is why they are trying to get to mainland Oz and why the blokes in the hospital in Darwin will be entitled to different legal protections.
And the quote as I saw it here on PB said this –
It didn’t say anything about mandatory detention at all. Not sure where you got that about the Greens position on this? (unless the quote put up in the original PB post was taken out of context and there is more to it.)
Which might be a problem if we were talking about a party named the “conservative party’ instead of something named the liberal party.
And all for several hundred people that have more guts an determination than the average arm chair siting, xenophobic Australian.
juliem
The only difference is if refugee status is denied.
That was attempted with the “Privavtive Clause” in the Migration Act. The consequences of which that it prevented the Department from revisiting any decisions on a visa it made. It was ultimately unsuccessful in preventing all vexatious litigation by failed asylum seekers.
juiem
My comments weren’t referring to the Greens position.
Adam
So because we tow them to an island we pretend isn’t really Australia we’re in the clear? That is unbelievably cynical and tricky and clearly not in the spirit of the refugee convention. Please tell me John Howard brought that in and that Rudd plans to undo it.
The French tried to excise airports from their immigration zone.
As I’ve said here before several times, the refugee convention is hopelessly outdated, and needs to be rewritten to cope with the modern realities of mass population movement and organised people-smuggling, which are going to get much more serious over the coming decades if we are right about the effects of climate change. If it’s not rewritten, Australia should withdraw from it. I don’t expect either will happen, so we’ll just have to work around it.
Dio, I’m with you, get rid of all of JH’s bad ideas …. if they got rid of that it would be a good thing ….
off to the cricket and then the community cabinet meeting …..
The Xmas I detention centre is a very goof compromise between continuing the inhumane Pacific Solution, which we promised to scrap and have done, and allowing hordes of economic refugees to come ashore and pretend to be asylum seekers, which no Australian government will allow.
Oooh, if you have Downing Street on Twitter, you get a live feed of PM’s QT in the Commons, and the Budget Speech.
What if the asylum seekers signed a waiver of their rights to appeals through the courts if they are housed in Australia?
Dio,
I doubt very much that would be legally enforcable
An “illegal immigrant” enters the USA every 8 seconds, every day, every week, every month, every year. That equates to 3.9 million people per year.
Lets put things in perspective.
Rudd was not elected to implement the policy agenda of the Greens and the middle-class left.
Why this micro-analysis over refugee policy – focussing mostly on the care taken by JWH over his words? Has it been forgotten that it was a standard ploy of his to whistle up the slaverers without actually making explicit extremist statements? He carefully gave out the message that he would act to satisfy the inherent racism of that, er, ‘uninformed’ part of the electorate he wanted to wrest from the One Nation demographic.
It was unconscionable for a PM to sink to the demeaning level he did – of pandering to the base elements of society rather than choosing the style of leadership that urges the nation ‘nobly to greater ideals’. Such leadership could be seen in the long periods of our history since Federation when there was a bi-partisan understanding not to stir the fires of ignorance and prejudice among the ‘ less aware’. The last glimpses of it I saw was once or twice in the leadership of Paul Keating.
But much more important is the situation we find ourselves in now on refugees.
Rudd is doing nothing meaningful to restore Australia to a respected, ethical and compassionate position under international law among wealthy nations in its attitude to taking refugees
From The World Today, today:
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2008/s2549556.htm
The only other example was apparently France attempting to excise part of Paris airport in the 1990’s ‘for migration purposes’, but it became a laughing stock. The European Court of Human Rights found the idea nonsense. It would have meant France giving up sovereignty over part of Paris.
We remain in an untenable position among the wealthy nations and the Rudd government is shabbily allowing it to continue – presumably because they want the same votes John Winston was after with his double-speak. Ah, the luxury of choice … . Two party politics is lovely to watch isn’t it?
I guess they’ll try to get out of it by putting what pressure they can on Indonesia or other nations to sign up and take refugees landing there – but that won’t be from a position of moral authority, given our tawdry approach.
ruawake @ 706
You were on to it first
* Rudd was not elected to implement the policy agenda of the Greens and the middle-class left. He was elected to implement Labor policy, which you should have read before you voted for him.
* Australia takes more refugees per capita than anuy other country except Canada.
Refugee lawyers are two-thirds of the problem.
Aisdad
They could test it through to the High Court for a precedent with one case. If it holds up, well and good. If not, they dump it.
I should add that I agree with fredn. I’ve met quite a few refugees who came here unlawfully and they’re really gutsy, determined people who are just the kind of citizens we want in Australia. They have an awful lot going for them.
LOL Centre
not to mention the Jumbo Jet to cart him around.
Diogenes, maybe so, but we can’t run an immigration policy on that basis.
Dio,
I have also met and dealt with many refugees and I agree they are a very worthy addition to Australia. I have unfortunately dealt with many “economic” refugees and I unfortunately cannot say the same for them in many cases.
The issue with a “waiver of rights” is most likely that it will be seen by the courts as a form of coercion in order to enable an application to be lodged and as such would be declared invalid.
Missed the 7.30 report tonight… anything interesting?
Adam
We can more or less, given 9 out of 10 of the asylum seekers arriving by boat are genuine, real deal refugees.
No need to keep parts of the country in some monty python limbo of being ‘excised’. It’s embarrassing.
No, let the boats in, process the people as soon as possible, send the few shonks back (not many considering only 4% of the displaced arrive by boat) and let the 90% (of the 4%) settle here.
Why make it different than it is for the 96% of asylum seekers who arrive by plane on Australian soil? A greater proportion of the plane arrivals are not refugees and are remitted.
And it doesn’t matter what policy the ALP had – counts for nothing now like all old ‘policies’. It’s what ought to be done now that matters.
Adam
Here’s a site that lists refugee numbers by country from many perspectives. Australia is ninth in terms of refugees accepted per capita for 1990-99, basically behind the northern Eurpoean countries and Canada. Sweden takes three times as many as us per capita.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_ref_inf_199_percap-inflow-1990-99-per-capita
PM’s QT about to start here, followed by the budget
http://www.number10.gov.uk/
Adam @ 538:
Hitchens:
The first three issues there existed long before Erdogan. I was under the impression that Kurdish rights had actually improved under his reign.
No 725
Cheers for the link Adam. I suspect a ridiculously high level of debt from the devalued PM of a devalued Government.
Not true. We have the second highest quota of countries that have quotas. And there are seven of them in the world.
Dio, that wasn’t the case the last time I had this discussion, but I’ll take your word for it.
JV, it’s not the purpose of immigration policy to spare you embarassment. It is to protect Australia’s borders against the people-smuggling industry and the influx of economic refugees which will continue to grow over the coming decades, while not leaving people stranded for years on Pacific islands. That’s the policy Labor was elected on.
He was elected to govern for ALL Australians.
David Cameron is absolutely slaughtering the useless Gordon Brown.
No 730
Most Australians happen not to be extreme leftists.
JV 723
Australia is one of a few countries that takes refugees direct from camps near their origins.
I think that is a far safer arrangement, and fairer, and I would rather we increased our quotas on that instead of encoraging this dangerous and exploitative people smuggling process.
LOL – love the british speaker.
Speaker Martin: “Now pack it in, you lot.” I like his style.
I guess not…
Did you ignore what I said?
ALL Australians.
Adam:
Are “climate change” refugees similar to economic refugees or are they a different category?
Adam
Our policy should spare us all any embarrassment – and did, not long ago. We are continuing a policy and practice now lacking in compassion and common recognition with other advanced nations of the plight of genuine – and I stress genuine – refugees. A policy that was devised as a response to incipient xenophobia in a group of Australains in order to shore up a block of votes. It certainly should be embarrassing for all Australians.
It only applies to boat arrivals, which is 4% of the total of applicants for refugee status . (96% of asylum seekers arrive by plane and are processed on Australian soil. Why the distinction, if it isn’t cheap politics??
We aren’t talking about economic refugees, who are sent back home.
bob1234, no government can implement everyone’s policies. They can and should only implement the policies they were elected on.
Whig, climate change will create a steady increase in economic refugees, many of whom will be coming our way.
So the Greens shouldn’t seek to implement their policies if they became the government?
Did or did not Kevin Rudd say he would govern for ALL Australians when he won the election?
JV, can you explain this assertion? No-one can get on an airliner to Australia without a passport, and no-one can enter Australia by air from most countries without a visa. Where did you get this figure from?
Yes. He did not say he would implement Liberal policy, National policy or Green policy. He govers for all Australians by implementing Labor policy.
Who is the loon asking for the PM to congratulate some soccer team lol
Luton FC just got relegated to the conference, but congrats on winning some meaningless trophy?
No 739
JV, I stand proud, not embarrassed, of a strong approach to illegal immigration and refugee policy.
JV 739
I don’t understand what this terrible policy is that applies only to boat arrivals. I think that they are also processed on Australian soil. And I understand that the processing is very quick and based on medical and identity checks rather than anything punitive.
‘Governing for all Australians’ is different to ‘doing whatever I particularly want the government to do at any given moment’.
How do you judge what ‘all Australians’ want at any given moment in time? Unless you poll every decision of government, it’s impossible. It’s also unwise, in that the majority view at one point in time might be counter productive to the country’s long term interests.
So parties do what they do – draw up sets of policies which they take to the election and, if elected, implement these on the assumption that that’s why people voted for them.
It’s not a lie to call this ‘governing for all Australians’ because, in implementing policies, a wide range of viewpoints should be taken into consideration.
It’s just that governments, however democratic and consultative, cannot implement every passing whim of every elector.
Another nail in the coffin of the old Media.
http://business.smh.com.au/business/nine-loses-copyright-battle-to-icetv-20090422-aez1.html
In the current debate of the Qjumpers. We decide what we want to watch and the time, place and circumstances under which we watch.
Gus, this bit is for you:
Gordon you idiot – it is asbestosis not asbestos which is the killer disease.
No 750
I was reading the judgment today. Seems to me to be a very commonsense approach taken by the High Court.
Seems we have some people tonight who are on QT withdrawl and can’t wait for the next sitting of parliament in Canberra
…..
Dr Good
The only difference is that as an offshore entry person they are unable to lodge an application “in Australia” unless the Minister determiones they can in writing. That is done after an initial screening for health & character and a basic assessment of their claims. The other major difference is they have no right of appeal to the RRT and ultimately the courts if their appluications fail.
So whose policy then should he implement given that each party has a different policy? Surely it is his own party’s policy, the one he took to the electorate and won the election with.
I must say that I like the short sharp approach to questions in the UK parliament.
It’s incredible to say, but our QT works better than PM’s QT in the Commons.
Question to the Bean counters.
If you exclude all candidates but for the last seven standing and then redistribute the vote from scratch applying the same rules should you not end up with the same result?
The Queensland senate election most certainly does not. The system denied the Greens unfairly representation in the last Senate election.
Whilst I hold no brief for the greens the fact is that the same distortortion in the way we count the vote could rebound on any or all of the parties.
The Queensland Senate outcome had nothing to do with the distortion in the weighting of transfer of the votes as demonstrated by Anthony Green in his analysis of the Victorian Senate election where ALP’s David Feeney could have lost his seat as a result.
The Queensland Senate seat was stolen as a result of the method used in distributing preferences from excluded candidates.
Have the Greens capitulated to support a flawed counting system in the hope that next time they will be the benefactor of the distortion?
GP and Adam,
You guys should get married!
Zoomster @ 749,
Exactly – which is why I am happy to have voted for Kevin although I don’t see elimination of (1) ALL detention in immigration and (2) this excised territory rubbish and I have yet to see concrete move on a Republic. We can’t get all of what we want and I daresay that even our resident right wing flagbearers (Generic Pinocchio and Glen) were probably not 100% happy with every single decision JH made between 1996 and 2007.
GP would be the woman. But only because of the constant moaning and whinging and carping.
Same-sex marriage is not currently legal in Australia.
No 761
Shame bob.
Plus, I believe Adam is not interested in women anyway.
Rudd never said you would see these things, and you won’t see them until Senator Extremely-Young is PM.
I take it both Luton seats are vulnerable at the next election.
GG @ 759,
Adam and I are both in the Labor camp but he and I are respectively closer to GP and Yohoho than we are to each other
Adam,
That may be the case. But 756 and 757 are great examples of two people looking at the same information and coming up with opposite conclusions.
Usually the ingredients for a happy marriage.
Alistair Darling has said nothing for the last 10 minutes. Get on with it.
Luton North 8.3, Luton South 7.3. Bear in mind that is not a 2PV figure, because the UK doesn’t have preferences. It is the difference between Labour and Tory divided by two.
764,
I do understand that, you selectively left out the rest of what I said which included words to the effect that I was happy to vote Labor even though I DID NOT see …
Juliem, Labor is indeed a broad church, but some things are policy and some things are not. We have an immigration minister from the Left, but there is no way in all the world in space he going to allow unauthorised boat arrivals to the Australian mainland.
GP – You know,
I have this sneaking suspicion that I know who you really are! Secrets safe.
Oooooooooooh!!!
Thanks very much Aisdad 754
This difference sounds very inconsequential to me.
JV, however, seems to be suggesting that these seemingly minor procedural differences lead to such actual hardship that they mark the difference between a civilized compassionate approach and some horrendous Howard-esque concentration camp solution.
Are there serious actual cases of extreme hardship which are resulting from these seemingly minor differences in procedure?
Is he Janet Albrechtsen?
Andrew Bolt?
Gotta be some right-wing nutjob!
Couldn’t be Janet… he doesn’t have a tan
Bob,
He’s probably a nobody.
Just like you and me.
Ain’t democracy grand.
I don’t care who he or she is, I am not marrying him or her.
No 779
LOL
No 776
If I was Andrew Bolt, I’m sure Possum would be calling me a miscreant or undescended testicle.
aic at 743
Most people who ask for asylum arrive in Australia on tourist or student or other visas. We had quite a few asylum applications after World Youth Day for example.
Steketee discusses this here.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25339551-5013457,00.html
Dear me Alistair Darling is even more dour and Scottish (ie, dull) than Gordon Brown.
771, no he won’t but that doesn’t change the fact that there are those of us in the party who wish he would/could/should. I, nor others in Labor, aren’t going to roll over and back policy 100% if we don’t agree with it. I’m not bound, as unfortunately Peter Garrett is and others also are, by cabinet solidarity rules.
No 782
Geez, I know. Swan is more interesting, who would have thought.
#771
If you were Bolt you would have “that” calculator up your freckle
I should hope not, there isnt a country in the world that would be prepared for the offspring!
Dr Good 774,
I am not aware of any significant hardship that has been caused since the current arrangements have been put in place i.e. abolition of the pacific solution and TPV’s. However in this I agree with Adam that many within the refugee advocate sector will argue that to deny the right of appeal infringes on their rights. In a very small percentage of cases that may well be true, but no system is poerfect and there would be no guarantee that access to appeals would rectify that. What it does eliminate is continued vexatious appeals by those found not to be genuine refugees – many of which are supported by refugee advocates simply because the appellant has arrived by boat..
Possum,
Seeing as you are still posting, then you have obviously transferred all your assets to a safe haven.
Have you received much feedback regarding your recent character evaluations of certain MSM journos.
UK Deficit: 175 billion pounds. 12% GDP
Adam – There is a good long list of refugee stats on the Crikey site – the ones you asked about are among these:
http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20090417-A-Crikey-index-Refugees-the-real-story.html
GP – Have a look at the stats, the costs, and tell me they’re something to be proud of, given the actual size of the alleged ‘problem’. It’s only a problem in talk-back land, and they’re proud too.
Dr Good
I wouldn’t call a concentration camp on Christmas Island ‘non-punative’.
GP,
I think Australia is looking at less than 5% with a $50 bill deficit next month. How we travelling or you still in the no debt corner?
Juliem, that is your prerogative. But you need to consider this: the only reason Labor is in office is because Rudd won back the large chunk of socially-conservative working-class voters who defected to Howard in 1996. He did that mainly on the WorkChoices issue. The socially-conservative Anglo working class is the key “swing” demographic in Australian politics. That class has never much liked immigration of any sort, because they see it as a threat to their jobs. They are strongly opposed to illegal immigration, and will change their vote on that issue, as they showed in 2001. The Liberals will always be alert to any possibility of coded xenophobic appeal to this “lost demographic”. (That’s also why the Liberals have rolled over on Fair Work, because they know they will never get this demographic back otherwise). Labor is not going to give them opportunities to do this.
Poss
Is geppetto part of the secret
The vast majority of refugee movements into Australia and around the world come in on aeroplanes; people with valid visas who come in and then claim refugee status. And the answer to the refugee problem is not to demonise refugees. It is not to send them to an isolated island in the Pacific. It’s not to lock up kids, and it’s not to have a pernicious policy of temporary protection visas which take away people’s permanency and leave them in a Neverland of continuing uncertainty, which we’ve gotten rid of and I say it’s a very good thing we’ve gotten rid of it.
Darling raises taxes
Greeny – I know exactly where actionable defo starts. I’ll take my toes right up to that line – but I shall never cross it…. Although, so saying – I’m no longer worth suing, my finances have been reorganised accordingly.
And yeah, quite a bit – mostly along the lines of “thanks for saying what we thought and wanted to say – but couldn’t”.
And a few bits of hatemail a little more camp than usual.
No 792
Debt for infrastructure is fine. Debt for handouts is not. That is my pragmatic view. Philosophically, the Government should not spend what it doesn’t have.
Ok, if poss wont reveal who GP is. I will:
http://www.socialsignal.com/system/files/2007-06-24-cyberdog.gif
Well GP has told us he is from Italian stock. That and the nose that grows with most of his posts just about makes it a certainty.
JV, thanks for that. You are saying that more than 4,000 people a year arrive at Australian airports and then claim to be asylum seekers. I’m surprised at that, but I’ll take your word for it. These people must have money, passports and visas, or they wouldn’t be able to get on an airliner. They are therefore not in the same class (in every sense of the word) as those coming by boat from Indonesia.
Aisdad
You bet they will – just like those supporting the Gitmo inmates’ access to the US justice system argued that ‘infringes on their rights’. Were they right to argue that way? Well, I think so.
Possum,
I always thought that given Mr Bolt pulled the numbers from his arse that it was quite reasonable of you to provide the shoehorn to return them from whence they came.
The only concern is that you introduced him to a forbidden pleasure that he subsequently can’t control. Before long we’ll have him interpreting Newspoll data: Which can’t be a good thing.
Stay solvent!
Thanks again Aisdad 788
JV 791: can you give me some factual comparisons between Xmas Island processing centre and some other processing or refugee centres in the UK, Sweden etc or elsewhere in Australia that back up your claims that the XI one is currently effectively a concentration camp?
Ahh excellent. Here we have it folks, finally admission. GP supports the Rudd government going in to debt.
This is considering that only $12b of the $42b stimulus is handouts, the rest is infrastructure.
I have it on good authority that GP is actually – John (Pig’s Arse) Elliott
No 797
I suspect you’re very much traversing the line between satire and defamation. I would be one that would classify it as an egregious personal attack, but Bolt doesn’t hold back either. The difference is that Bolt doesn’t use profanity, even when making silly points.
JV,
Two very different sets of circumstances. Boat Arrivals have their claims assessed and if found to be genuine are granted a visa and allowed to enter Australia lawfully. They are not held for years on end without charge and without any assessment of their individual circumstances.
Adam – Are you saying it is OK that ‘boat people’ arriving should be towed out to a camp on Christmas Is (complete with electric fences and tracking tags) for an indefinite period but those arriving by air deserve the full benefits of our legal system? If so, your rationale?
Remember – a much higher proportion of those arriving by air are found not to be refugees than the > 90% of boat arrivals.
I wouldn’t be surprised.
No 806
No.
Adam in Canberra
Posted Wednesday, April 22, 2009 at 10:01 pm
I fully agree with that statement. I am not impressed with the recent flood of so called asylum seekers. If they are seeking asylum then how is it that they have travelled through many countries to get to Australia. It is not as though we are a bordering country.
Australia needs to have a Lottery quota and those with needed skilled get more chances in the lottery. The proposed lottery would be a supplement not be a replacement to family reunion or sponsored skilled migration.
No 809
JV, the difference is that those who arrive by air, arrived here legally in the first place but breached the terms of their visas afterwards.
Boat people do not arrive here legally and thus do not deserve legal protection.
No 812
Good point. Why should we allow asylum shoppers? Why didn’t they remain in Indonesia?
Dr Good
Gee, must I do your research for you?
Here’s a taster from the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre to start with:
http://www.asrc.org.au/uploads/File/POSTER%20CI.pdf
Ah, so those coming by boat aren’t economic refugees. Glad we cleared that up.
JV, no, if anything I’m saying the opposite: that air arrivals should be treated the same way as boat arrivals. But that’s not possible because of course they don’t declare themselves before they are on Australian soil. We know that the boat arrivals are intending to claim asylum before they enter our migration zone, so we can intrercept them.
Those arriving by air seem prima facie much less likely to be economic refugees.
AIC at 801. As Steketee points out at http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25339551-5013457,00.html 90% of those arriving by boat claiming to be refugees are assessed as such, but only 50% of those coming by air. Which is not surprising. Those who are able to get a visa are less likely to be in danger from their country of origin.
But it does illustrate that the refugee convention is broken, in that it is not ensuring that those in greatest danger and need are placed first.
Family First will lose representation come the next federal election.
Whilst there is the typical media speculation that the Alcoho-pops legislation might give ground for a Double Dissolution trigger I fail to see any gain to be had in holding a double. Its not in the governments interest. They have better chances of increasing representation or holding their ground with a half senate election. The only advantage is if they really want a piece of legislation passed and a joint sitting is the only mechanism in which that legislation is required. I can not see the government going to the wall over Alcoho-pops.
Thanks JV. But are you cliaming that other Australian processing centres, such as Villawood?, or Swedish or UK centres do not have electric fences?
Bolt is OBSCENE
oh and for good measure
full of bullbutter
(tho not glens)
It’s very likely a DD senate would see a Labor-Green majority.
I’m not sure I see how that follows.
democracy@work @ 758
You say:
“If you exclude all candidates but for the last seven standing and then redistribute the vote from scratch applying the same rules should you not end up with the same result?”
The proposition you state seems to be a pretty obscure test for a good electoral system. It is, for example, satisfied by a block vote plurality system where voters are limited to expressing only a first preference, and the candidates with the top seven totals get elected. (Take out all but the seven candidates, the votes of the remaining candidates express no transferable preferences and can only be treated as exhausted, so the totals for the seven don’t change.) But one would have to be a bit of a twit to suggest that block vote plurality is therefore a better system than the current Senate rules.
The only grounds for a DD I can see would be the rejection of the CPRS bill. I think that’s a real possibility.
In actual fact the reverse is true. Far more air arrivals are found not to be genuine refugees than by boat. Many having arrived by air on a valid visa will apply for protection simply to avail themselves of work rights on a bridging visa while having their application assessed and will disappear into the community to be located later as unlawful non citizens when there visa’s have ceased and their application and appeals have been refused.
Here we go for the 812th time:
Indonesia is not a signatory to the 1951 convention. We are. Deal with it.
If the Asylum spoeakers are in danger from their country of origin I understand BUT they have left their country. and many states they have passed though. People Smuggling is not a backpackers cheap alternative means of travel. I would think it costs much more then an airfare to travel across continents for days if not weeks to your end destination.
If I was the government and my CPRS bill collapsed due to “Senate obstruction” I would jump up and down in glee, forget about reintroducing it and going to a DD over it.
I’d suggest that’s the plan.
Adam – I can’t see the need for the interception followed by remote incarceration for the boaties when 9 out of 10 will be allowed to stay as refugees. And the boat arrivals are the more desperate, traumatised, and disorientated. Why should an unauthorised air entry or a visa overstayer seeking asylum be treated differently to an unauthorised boat entry? It doesn’t make sense – unless it is the result of political expediency – which of course it is!
Some more info from the Crikey page:
A lot of air arrivals must be sent back quickly, I imagine.
829,
it is far easier to travel to countries like Malaysia and Indonesia with dodgy documents than it is to get uplift to Australia on an aircraft.
Geez, the Budget’s gonna be nasty…. (but compulsory viewing)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/22/2550141.htm?section=justin
The paper work required for a visa to Australia from say Africa or the Middle East is horrific, with all sorts of references required, so that limits who can apply successfully. In addition the visa holder has to board a plane with a valid passport from their country, so the genuine refugee is less likely to be able to get away with that without being detained.
828 And what about the other nations in between or did they fly first class into Indonesia and catch a boat. Sorry it is hard to support they plight. Rather then ship for asylum they should be able to register as refugees and then processed and distributed out to nations on an application acceptance basis. I am reluctent to even support their detention I think they should be just turned back. Various conventions for stateless people require the country of last origin to accept the return of stateless people.
835 reason to have a lottery quota..
Dr Good
Seems they are a lot more compassionate in Sweden, at least – once the asylum seekers are identified they are generally released into the community with a case worker ‘attached’
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/Human_RightS/children_detention/submissions/hotham.html#append2
Here is what Libya thinks about free speech. A doctor who was tortured by the Libyian government tried to raise his issue to the Libyian chair person of the Durban II preparatory conference, but she refused to let him speak. Eventually the Libyian delegation made a point of order giving the Libyian chairperson cover to go to the next speaker, thus stopping the doctor from recounting how he was tortured.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8UI6f8_6C0
http://www.libya-almostakbal.com/LM2009/April2009/200409_libya_on_trial.html
835 they managed to cross the borders of how many countries and why is it that there compass is heading down under?
No 834
The obscenity of the deficit, will of course, be blamed on Rudd. As much as $22 billion could have been saved.
There are none.
I’d like to see some stats on where these arrivals by air are coming from before I get further into this argument. Are they, for example, mostly from NZ, UK, US, etc? “Economic migrant” means something very different for them to what it means for Afghans or Sri Lankans.
Australia are now 3/100 off of 20 overs.. Clarke just out.
Why are they playing Pakistan??
How much you wanna bet?
Nah, I don’t think anything should have been saved, just spent better.
Eg. I reject the idea that boosting Harvey Norman’s revenues is a better to spend billions of dollars than say new solar thermal plants or urban transport.
Ok, have at it. Give us your “savings”
No 838
I don’t really care about Sweden. And you’re not embarrassing me by mentioning them.
Pity.
No 847
Had there not been a $10.4 billion package of handouts + the handouts included within the February $42 billion stimulus, the rough saving would be in the order of $22 billion.
Interesting goalpost shift by GP. First, he didn’t support going in to deficit at all. Now he supports going in to deficit for infrastructure spending.
And anyway it ain’t the spending that has created the defecit, it’s the revenue collapse – you know the company tax (that thing that gave Costello and Howard surpluses without having to do anything but swing in a hammock.)
Oh good so much better to have a total collapse of consumer spending over Christmas… good thing no one employs anyone in retail…
http://petermartin.blogspot.com/2009/04/retail-made-even-clearer.html
It’s pretty clearly a bit of both.
I mean obviously revenue is collapsing but if the deficit is projected to be ~$50 billion then you have to point out that there has been $55 billion + in stimulus spending.
But it’s a pretty moot point given only a small minority of idiots (the Liberals) would rather have a balanced budget and no stimulus.
Western Australia Analysis.
How and why is it that the Western Australian Government has not published the preference data files for the upper-house election. It could be interesting to see if teh Weighted Gregory transfer or the distortion in the way the system distributes preferences form excluded candidates is undertaken would have produced the same denial of representation as occured in the Queensland Senate.
Hopefully Tasmania will also publish the detailed preference data-files as we really need to serious review the methods used in counting the vote.
All the denials of the facts do nothing to instil confidence in the professionalism or lack there of various analysts. Its as simple as ABC and counting the vote properly
Yeah true. Here’s hoping any “stimulus” in the budget is more mid-long term. The short term has been covered.
Anyhoo, enough for me for the night.
Adam 843
The Air Asylum Seeker details I heard on Radio National – Australia Talks from Graham Thom Refugee Co-ordinator Amnesty International
1. Chinese
2. Indian
3. Malaysian
Yeah, give us more stuff like the NBN!
GP – [I don’t really care about Sweden. And you’re not embarrassing me by mentioning them.]
Why not care about it, if they have a good working model that allows asylum seekers greater dignity? And Sweden has a lot more asylum seekers to deal with.
JV, maybe Australia does some of the same things that Sweden does after refugees are identified and had medical checks. It seems that beforehand the Swedish checking centres are much like Xmas Island and refugees stay in them for just as long.
If after checking Australia is not so helpful then I am happy to support efforts to change that but this is not what we would talking about now.
No 851
I have always said that if we are going to go into debt, it’s better that we build infrastructure not on wasteful handouts.
The Government’s job is not to subsidise the retail industry – lower petrol prices and interest rates take care of any concerns thereof.
That’s not the question. Previously you didn’t support going in to debt. Now you do provided it’s for infrastructure.
No 860
JV – I’m sorry, but where was the dignity in coming to Australia in a rickety old dinghy, malnourished and in ill-health? I mean seriously, dignity went out the window the moment they decided to pay a smuggler to get them here. A detention centre is like a paradise by comparison. I completely reject your argument.
This is hilarious considering the government is spending $14.5 billion on new school buildings.
No 863
Yes, philosophically I’m opposed to debt. But given we are in extraordinary circumstances and governments need to play a reasonable role, debt for infrastructure is perfectly legitimate because there is something tangible at the end of it which will grow the economy long term.
LOL! Yeah, refugees should SHOW MORE DIGNITY! Great policy.
No 865
I’m opposed to the handout components of both packages. That said, there were more top priority infrastructure projects than new school buildings.
Surely this is a series of typos. You have previously proposed that governments should do absolutely nothing.
GP,
One man’s wasteful hand outs is another man’s return of taxes.
There is plenty of infrastructure spending in the stimulus package.
In other words, previously you didn’t support going in to debt, now you do.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/22/2550141.htm
Great. So you think the government should profit from the misery of thousands of families and and fixed income earners just because there has been an economic down turn. That’s exactly what I expect from you.
The infrastructure projects were chosen based on what could be built quickly. The Treasury advised the government to fund many small projects rather than a few big ones, because big projects can not be planned or built fast enough and also they only help the economy of a relatively small area. By the time big projects having are having economic impact, the economy will already be growing on its own again.
Again you are basically suggesting that the Government should IGNORE evidence of what helps, and instead just adopt the COMMON yet FLAWED position that the government should be building highways or train routes, or ports. That’s what most people think governments should build, but there are actually economic arguments about why those things don’t actually help.
No 871
Go back to the threads around the time of the stimpac and you’ll note that I didn’t have too much of an issue with debt for the purposes of infrastructure.
He must’ve been lying.
You didn’t think there should BE a stimulus package! I guess you lied.
No 873
I don’t agree with those economic arguments. I also don’t agree that thousands of families were in “misery”. The reserve bank has cut rates by 4.25% in the last several months. Petrol prices have crashed from their previous highs. These all equate to thousands in annual savings for families and individuals.
Pensioners, disabled and carers be damned. First home buyers be damned. Majority of taxpayers be damned. We wanted more tax cuts for the rich and would have made the deficit a tiny bit smaller while we were at it.
I happen to agree with GP on debt being different for infrastructure vs recurrent spending. It used to be conventional theory that borrowing to finance infrastrucure was OK if the infrastrucutre had a positive BCR; the economic gain would enable the debt ot be paid off. But that isn’t the case for borrowing for recurrent spending. We sort of forgot that in the rush to PPPs and imagining that the market would be able to work out which projects were economic. BrisConnections shows that isn’t always so.
Most poor people are renting/in housing trusts. Many don’t own cars. Those that do often won’t use them much.
But i’m not surprised considering how far detached you are from the average working-class Australian.
What? You don’t agree that it takes longer to plan and build a few big infrastructure projects (like say a railway from Sydney to Melbourne) compared with the time it takes to plan and build many SMALL infrastructure projects, like a building for every primary school in the country? I think I’ll take Treasury’s advise on this matter rather than yours.
And the government, treasury, and reserve bank felt that these changes ALONE were insufficient given the magnitude of the down turn. Again you seem to want your own facts as well as your own opinions.
Bob,
“Most poor people are renting/in housing trusts. Many don’t own cars. Those that do often won’t use them much”.
Bullshit!
Bullbutter!
No 879
To be fair, the handouts were not recurrent spending, but they are nevertheless still wasteful because they do nothing to enhance the productive capacity of the economy and their multiplier is pretty low.
Borrowing for recurrent spending is the situation you have in several European countries which is why they continue to produce the absurd levels of government debt year-in, year-out.
See I would’ve thought that G.P. would support what was effectively a tax refund.
I don’t agree that this should be the only, or even the major criteria for funding infrastructure projects from debt. Governments also have a social function, so – for example – it may be justifiable for a government to fund a hospital out of debt, even if this has little hope of producing an economic dividend through a healthier populace.
THE STOLEN SENATE ELECTION
In 2007, Andrew Landeryou’s pin up girl, Green Candidate Larissa Waters, should have won the Queensland Sixth Senate spot.
The only reason she was not declared elected is that the distortion in the system used to count the vote denied her supporters the right of representation and as such failed to reflect the Queensland voter’s intentions.
A simple analysis and count of the vote highlights the problems associated with the way the Australian Electoral system works
If you exclude all candidates, other then the last seven standing (3 ALP, 3 Liberals and 1 Green) and redistribute the vote according to existing procedures, Larissa Walters would have and should have been elected ahead of the ALP number 3 candidate.
If we can not have an accurate preferential counting system then we might as well adopt the proposal advocated by William Bowie and adopt a party list system.
Yes, debt in the double digit percentages of GDP.
What’s ours again? Remind me.
What are the multiplier figures for cash stimulus vs tax cut GP?
They’re not designed to, they are designed to increase economic demand, which is the only way to keep people in jobs. Your solution is to simply have higher unemployment, and thus pay people unemployment benefits instead. I think keeping them in a job, even if it is only a few months extra, is better.
Sorry, but the Government/Treasury/RBA are, at the end of the day, providing educated guesses based on statistical evidence. I’m not fabricating any facts herewith. I don’t agree with their conclusion that the savings amassed from expansionary monetary policy and reduced petrol prices were insufficient. The interest rate savings alone save the average mortgage holder the equivalent of $700 a month or so. That is like getting a stimulus payment every month.
Of course I agree that it takes longer to build big infrastructure projects but the benefits are felt long into the future. For example, consider the many decades into the future during which the NBN will have an effect. This is what the Government should be doing.
School buildings are of lesser importance and it astounds me that the Building Australia Fund has access to less funds than what is being issued to schools for new buildings, when there are urgent public transport, road, rail, port and other investments required.
GP @ 866
Good one GP – That’s what you do with a sick, malnourished person with a 90% chance of being found a genuine refugee from oppression, who has been forced to flee their home and country by the most risky means imaginable: tow them offshore to a remote island, put them behind razor wire and whack a tracking tag on them while they prove they aren’t one of the 10%.
And we think we’ve got a boat problem? Something like 35,000 asylum seekers arrived by boat unauthorised in Italy last year; some 15,000 in Spain. (source -Chris Evans on Insiders. Evans tried to make a distinction in principle between boat-asylum seeking people and air-asylum seeking people, but failed.)
Our problem isn’t asylum seekers arriving by boat. It’s a long-standing phobia about being overrun by ‘aliens’ that some less-informed voters can’t let go. The parties are these days reinforcing these fears with their policy. Neither big party will give the required leadership and convince such people they have are just paranoid. There’s no leadership in our two party system, only followship.
No 888
I’m not arguing for a tax cut. Don’t change the subject.
GP,
Why are you smarter than the Government/Treasury/RBA?
GP its mesothelioma is what kill people who were exposed to asbestos,I know it killed my wife,1 fiber 30 yrs before and there will be a lot more still coming
That is how ANY knowledge is attained. You look at the evidence, and then draw a conclusion. It is possible that you are wrong, but you do your best. The RBA and Treasury have teams of economists making the best guesses they can, and they give advice to the government accordingly. I have no idea why you have such a trouble with people making BEST guesses from available evidence. What do you suggest they do? Roll a dice? Do whatever one of those magic eight balls says they should do?
And what evidence do you have to back up your opinion?
The problem is people are putting that money in the bank cos they are worried about losing their jobs. The Government then hands them a lump sum payment and calls it a BONUS to encourage people to SPEND that extra cash that they previously DIDN’T think they were going to get. See, human behaviour has actually been considered. I previously referred to it as a “Tax refund” which for legislative purposes it actually is (that’s what the High Court said) but the government has CONSTANTLY called it a BONUS, cos it is believed that calling it a bonus is more likely to result in it being spent.
And the benefits of having better school facilities aren’t? I don’t believe you.
No they aren’t, because they provide a balance between benefit and the ability to be built QUICKLY. So they were an IDEAL project for a quick infrastructure stimulus.
This is hilarious for lots of reasons 1) The Howard government didn’t even HAVE an infrastructure fund 2) The Howard government’s major rail project was $200 million spent on the Alice to Darwin railway line that has NO economic benefit whatsoever! 3) The Howard government thought that public transport was a STATE ISSUE and didn’t spend a CENT on it!
No 891
JV, I don’t care. It’s all emotional blackmail if you ask me. I don’t want Australia becoming a target for people smuggling. Relaxing our tough stance will make us a target. Simple as that. The fact that many of those on board these sea vessels are likely to be genuine refugees is irrelevant. Mandatory detention ensures that there is time for the relevant authorities to assess the validity of their claims to be refugees. They are not denied appropriate medical treatment. They are not denied food, shelter or clothing. So long as there is a time limit on the detention, I remain unopposed and unashamed.
It killed my grand father, he was a builder.
GP,
The mantra of you and the Libs before the second stimulus was tax cuts rather than the hand outs.
It’s you who are changing the subject.
Turnbull got up in parliament in the last week of the last sitting and reiterated the opposition’s commitment to a tax cut.
I have no idea how a $900 cut spread over a year could possibly have a greater stimulatory effect than a $900 cut given at once. In fact, Treasury said a lump sum is far more likely to be spent, especially for those on middle and low incomes.
GP – Barrie Cassidy, surprise, surprise, got it right last Sunday: