Awesomely stupid attack in The Australian:
MORE public housing units are being demolished than built under Kevin Rudd’s $42 billion economic stimulus package, designed to buoy the building industry.
As at two weeks ago, only 73 new houses had been completed under the $5.4bn spending package, announced in February, while hundreds of existing homes had been demolished to make way for new buildings.
Silly government – it should’ve known The Australian was expecting the buildings to be finished two weeks ago, regardless of when the government ever said they’d be finished. The program’s success can and should be judged on how many buildings are built before they’re scheduled to be built. The fact that at this particular arbitrarily-chosen point they’ve technically gone backwards just proves they’re not fit to govern. Why can’t they complete the new buildings BEFORE they demolish the ramshackle, unliveable ones currently occupying those sites? Eh? Eh?
Seriously, Matthew, how dumb are you prepared to go to try to hurt the ALP? Okay, sure, a few idiots will buy the smear, but they were going to vote against the ALP anyway. Is giving a few blogging monkeys a morning’s fodder worth making a total fool of yourself in the eyes of everyone else? The attack itself will fade into obscurity – particularly once the buildings are completed – but you Matthew, you… have now earned yourself a category on the right.
UPDATE: It’s been suggested in comments that some of the buildings being replaced are houses being turned into units to increase the overall number of dwellings, rather than solely the upgrading of “ramshackle, unliveable” ones. Both scenarios are obviously part of the government’s program. Neither justifies The Australian’s silly “the government is reducing housing” line.
11 Comments
Apart from th idocy of the article, I was struck by the last two paragraphs:
Wayne Swan will again emphasise the stimulus’s economic credentials in a breakfast speech to the Australian Industry Group today, arguing it remains appropriate. “Our program of infrastructure investment is not only supporting a pipeline of work for business today, it is also building productive capacity for the future,” he will say.
Mr Swan will argue it is temporary spending with lasting gains. “And it will leave a legacy of improved social and economic infrastructure that provides better social services and supports the productivity of Australian businesses in future,” The Treasurer will say.
It’s not clear whether this section is a quote from the rather-vague ” Mr. Morrison” or a quote from Wayne Swan’s as-yet undelivered speech.
Incredibly lousy, amateur stuff.
Your not much better than those you oppose jermy
While the attack from the Australian is “Awesomely stupid” so are the highly emotive and in many cases untrue words “ramshackle, unliveable ones currently occupying those sites”.
In many cases the houses demolished were perfectly servicable. Its just that they were HOUSES. They were demolished to make way for units which can house more people.
They were NOT demolished because they were unliveable.
The article shows political bias and is truly stupid however it appears that your the one using intellectual fraud here. eh? eh?
Twobob, I’m actually working on these housing sites, and believe me, most of the houses demolished wouldn’t be fit for my dogs to live in.
twobob, in what way does Jeremy’s error in relation to why the houses are being demolished render his criticism of Matthew’s article fruadulent?
Let’s assume he’s wrong about why the houses are being demolished – how does that invalidate the point being made? What, exactly, justifies you labelling him an ‘intellectual fraud’ as opposed to just, say, misinfomed about a minor (and irrelevant) detail?
“In many cases” indeed. In many other cases it was because they “urgently needed upgrades”, according to the article.
I’ve added an update the post to express a broader, less sarcastic view of the situation.
You missed the point modo.
The fraudulence (which was quickly recognised and corrected,and kudos to you jeremy) was in the facts within jeremys own post, not in his criticism of the original article.
You see exposing the use of highly emotive language used to convey a point that is not in fact accurate is (at least in mho) a lot of what PP is about. For its own authors to do it is a little hypocritical in MHO.
Yes just the usual anti-Rudd government blather the Australian puts out every day. I notice the paper has had a make-over, but not when it comes to it’s content.
The fraudulence (which was quickly recognised and corrected,and kudos to you jeremy) was in the facts within jeremys own post, not in his criticism of the original article.
I don’t think you know what ‘fraud’ means twobob. It’s not the same as ‘wrong’ or ‘incorrect’, just in case you were wondering.
looks like Matthew Franklin has been studying at the Andrew Bolt School of Statistical Analysis!
Cheers.
mondo
I dont think you know what fraudulence means
the definition of fraudulence as according to http://www.wordreference.com/definition/fraudulence is
something intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage
as jeremy put it initially it was deceitful and hence a fraudulent representation of the facts. It is subtly different to fraud did you not know?
That’s garbage – it was not “deceitful” at all. It wasn’t an exhaustive description of every single reason why the old buildings are being torn down, sure – although according to stonefree it was an accurate description of most – but the point was the same.
No more of this off-topic rubbish, twobob. We’re here to discuss the Australian’s pathetically empty attack.