PDA

View Full Version : Johnny's Going Down



Pages : 1 2 [3]

Southpaw Jim
16-11-2007, 03:50 PM
Not quite ... there was no mandatory requirement to abolish ... however it certainly was the intention that they be reviewed, with the eventual outcome to be that they were abolished.
That "intention" is fictional and exists only in Peter Costello's head for political purposes, because he wishes it did exist in reality. Costello perpetuates this myth because (a) he wishes he'd been able to force it, and (b) it suits him politically to bash the States over the continued existence of these taxes.

I refer you to Appendix A4 of the Agreement (http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Release/1999/intergovernmental_agreement.cfm), which specifies the taxes to be reviewed.

There are no references, express or implied, to either payroll tax or stamp duty on the conveyance of real property. I can guarantee you that, if such were the "intention", then the Commonwealth's lawyers would have ensured its inclusion in the text of the Agreeement. They're pretty good at that sort of thing.

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2007, 03:59 PM
Not quite ... there was no mandatory requirement to abolish ... however it certainly was the intention that they be reviewed, with the eventual outcome to be that they were abolished. However the revenue benefits of the GST to the states may have been oversold, hence the states are continuing to charge like wounded bulls on stampt duty and payroll tax. I wouldn't mind betting that this can be sheeted home to the Demoncrats [sic] who butchered the original GST proposal and introduced the GST-free elements (yes, I know, they had their reasons, perhaps even good reasons). Anyway, that has reduced the GST's revenue, hence no abolition of the non-mandatory components. That's how I read it.
The Demoncrats would never have been able to complicate it if Labor had not persisted so doggedly into clinging onto their variable excise taxes.

And the general understanding of the public was that they would pay GST but they would be compensated by the removal of all the crass state taxes, since the states would receive GST revenue. But Labor just loves high taxes (except when Chairman Rudd is pretending to be an economics conservative:evil:).

Spiny Norman
16-11-2007, 05:12 PM
I refer you to Appendix A4 of the Agreement (http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Release/1999/intergovernmental_agreement.cfm), which specifies the taxes to be reviewed.
I stand corrected ... I think the confusion on the stamp duty front is that one automatically thinks of it in terms of residential property stamp duty, but the agreement specifically rules that out. No mention of payroll tax. I must have imagined that (or perhaps it was put into my head via published misinformation).

Southpaw Jim
16-11-2007, 06:25 PM
No biggie :) I was pretty sure you might've been thrown on the distinction in the Agreement between real and non-real property. It's this confusion that Costello trades on in the media. I don't blame him, that's politics, but I take it upon myself to debunk that particular myth wherever I find it. I've even had to correct my accountant on the issue.

Jono, the public was compensated by the removal of state taxes. Follow the link, you'll learn which ones. If the public were misled as to the extent of the abolitions, then that's probably Costello's fault.

Labor loves high taxes? Hmm, well a number of Labor state governments have abolished taxes over and above their obligations under the Agreement. I also think it's a bit rich of you, as a Coalition supporter, to take the moral high ground on 'high taxing governments' when Coward's is the highest taxing Federal government in Australia's history :lol:

BTW, what variable "excise taxes"? State governments don't levy excise :hmm:

Southpaw Jim
16-11-2007, 06:29 PM
This is long, but an interesting read - an analysis by MacBank, made in May this year:


**Our State Treasurers are one group that is not exactly doing cartwheels in the wake of last week's Federal Budget. Canberra's effective funding of the States - properly taking into account reductions in their own-revenues as part of tax reform in the 2000s - remains flat at around 5% of GDP, down from the 6-7% of GDP that was typical from the mid-1970s to the early-1990s (Chart 3).
**Using information published last Tuesday night, this note updates the longer-term analysis of the Federal Budget and Federal/State financial relations produced here last month, and last July before that (see my previous Budget/Federalism Watch, from 23 April). For those already familiar with the issues, the attached charts (pdf) and tables (xls) summarise the updated story.
<<TAXTAKE0507.pdf>> <<CANBERRATAX.xls>>
Two key facts in Federal/State financial relations
**The Federal Government likes to tell the story that its tax/GDP ratio has fallen over the past decade, and that its post-GST revenue-sharing arrangements have been a fabulous deal for the States, indeed the "largest financial free kick since the Second World War".
**As observed here previously, neither claim has any real economic substance. Unscrambling the underlying Budget data, we find that Canberra's tax/GDP ratio - on any credible/consistent measure - is hovering around all-time highs (see Charts 1 and 2 for recent decades, and the century-long chart at p. 77 of 125 at http://www.adelaide.edu.au/saces/public … ration.pdf ).
**At the same time, Canberra's funding of the States - net of the 1.4% of GDP worth of GST revenue that has replaced State taxes - remains as low as it has been in three decades (Chart 3). Of course, it was the Hawke/Keating Government, not the Howard Government, that from the mid-1980s oversaw the big drop in funding from 6-7% of GDP.
**With Canberra's effective funding of the States flat-lining near 5% of GDP and no uptrend in sight, it's clear that the introduction of the GST in 2000 did not produce any profound shift in Federal/State financial arrangements. While that observation is controversial, it is based on a straightforward interpretation of published information from the ABS and Federal Budget Papers.
**Indeed, I challenge anyone to produce a credible version of Chart 3 that tells a substantially different story. With Canberra's funding of the States flat-lining at three-decade lows quite contrary to general perceptions shaped by exciting tales about "GST bonanzas", Chart 3 is my early nomination for the (yet to be launched) Australian Business Economists' "Eye-Opening Chart of the Year" Award.
**Actually, last week's Budget forecasts suggest that GST revenue is edging down from 3.9% of GDP over the three years to 2004-05 to 3.8% of GDP over the three years to 2007-08. Meanwhile, company tax is projected to grow over the same period from 4.3% of GDP to 5.4% of GDP (see p. 32 of 60 at http://www.budget.gov.au/2007-08/bp1/do … 1_bst5.pdf ). Which set of "growth tax" revenues would you rather have hitting your bank account?
**That GST revenue is struggling to keep pace with nominal GDP is not the end of the world for the States, of course, but naturally they yearn for a bigger slice of Australia's extraordinary tax-revenue windfalls (see Table B, at the base of Table A).
Canberra's extraordinary revenue windfalls, and getting rid of the excess cash
**A genuine understanding of the Federal Budget in the 2000s starts with the observation that Canberra has been collecting more tax revenue as a share of GDP - and keeping more for its own use - than ever before (Charts 1 and 2).
**Beyond that, one needs to appreciate the extraordinary size of the upside revenue surprises behind the unusual co-existence of tax cuts, solid increases in spending and sizable Budget surpluses that has become pretty standard over the past five years (Table B).
**Spare a thought for Treasurer Costello, as he's had to deal with a problem faced by no other Treasurer since Federation: an extraordinary embarrassment of revenue riches brought on by a decade and a half of solid economic growth, with revenues supercharged in recent years by major upswings in commodity prices and company profits.
**A measure of the extraordinary revenue uptrend in recent years is the fact that six Budget updates over the three years to May 2007 delivered - mainly via stronger-than-expected jobs growth and an unexpected surge in commodity prices and company profits - upgrades to four-year-rolling-revenue projections worth $173b in total (Table B).
**Putting that into some sort of perspective, the $96b worth of net Federal debt that accumulated over the 25 years to 1996 (now repaid) was dwarfed in just three years by the arrival of $173b worth of upside revisions to Canberra's revenue projections. For 2007-08 alone, Canberra's accumulated revenue surprises total $45b (4.1% of GDP), larger actually than the $42b (3.8% of GDP) forecast to be collected this coming year as GST for the States. Talk about a "financial free kick"!
**Thus Canberra's sizeable Budget surpluses in recent years have been both painless and hard to avoid. Treasurer Costello must feel like a bloke who checks his bank account every six months, each time unexpectedly finding it overflowing with cash. Time after time, big chunks of "free money" keep turning up, seemingly out of the blue, and finding something to spend it all on is a struggle.
**Instead of simply shaking his head and acknowledging that he can barely believe his luck, Treasurer Costello repeatedly puts on his best straight face to claim it's a demonstration of the benefits of (his) "strong economic management". Actually, it's a demonstration that largely exogenous developments in the domestic and global economies drive Canberra's Budget much more than Canberra's Budget drives our economy. Some might say it's simply another confirmation of Woody Allen's observation that "Eighty percent of success [in life] is just showing up".
**In any case, Treasurer Costello's main problem again this year was how to get rid of all the excess cash. This year's aggregate tax cuts and spending increases - the details of which have dominated our media over the past week - again were calibrated to limit projected Budget surpluses to about 1% of GDP, and to limit the uptrend in Canberra's tax/GDP ratio. A measure of the power of the long-running revenue boom is that it has taken a fifth-straight year of cuts in personal-income taxes to put a dent in Canberra's record tax-take (Charts 1 and 2).
**Who knows how long it will last, but the Australian economy in the 2000s has been generating revenues so readily that even (supposedly hopeless) State governments in aggregate have produced an extended run of surpluses and debt-reduction, though without Canberra's luxury of having room as well for substantial tax cuts along the way. (See LHS of page 8 of http://www.rba.gov.au/ChartPack/output_ … fincon.pdf ; Of course, States that have been delivering surpluses while at the same time under-delivering on the provision of services and infrastructure are vulnerable to the charge of economic mismanagement.)
**Whether or not there are further upside surprises in Canberra's revenue projections in coming months, it's close to a sure bet that a second round of tax cuts and spending increases will be announced on the eve of the Federal election later this year. Those tax cuts too will be delivered for the good of the economy, you understand, not in a last-ditch effort to encourage votes in the right direction. If only the politicians of earlier decades had thought to market common brown election-year tax cuts as a serious policy initiative to "boost workforce participation". What will they think of next?
**Meanwhile, my measure of Canberra's own-spending - that is, published outlays less Canberra's current transfers to the States - is flat-to-down as a share of GDP over the 2000s (see Chart 4). Buoyant economic conditions and three-decade lows in unemployment of course have been very helpful in limiting the need for assistance. Importantly, the low point in own-spending this time around is higher than in earlier cycles, suggesting that multi-decade highs in spending/GDP will emerge when recession next shows its long-absent face.
**Furthermore, notice that Canberra has kept its own-spending relatively flat just under 19% of GDP, right on the average of the past three decades (Chart 4). At the same time, Canberra has pegged its contribution to spending by the States at the bottom of the 5-7% range of the past three decades (Chart 3). As a State Treasurer, would you agree with Canberra's claim that this is a sweet, sweet deal?
Budget transparency and the (long ignored) Charter of Budget Honesty
**Treasurer Costello has explained that the purpose of the Charter of Budget Honesty is "to prevent, by law, false and misleading accounting designed to hide or cover up the true situation". Yet year after year Canberra continues to publish seriously misleading longer-term Budget aggregates that effectively hide the fact that its tax-take in the 2000s has been at or near all-time highs (Charts 1 and 2). How is that consistent with keeping the general public "fully informed about the current state of the Government's finances"?
**In the process of becoming Australia's biggest-taxing Treasurer, Treasurer Costello looks to have breached his own Charter of Budget Honesty. Canberra's record tax-take in the 2000s makes a mockery of its regular Budget claim to have delivered on its "supplementary objective" of limiting the "overall tax burden" to its "1996-97 level". (The detail of the seriously misleading nature of Canberra's longer-term revenue and spending aggregates is documented in my previous Budget/Federalism Watch, from 23 April.)
**As usual, the cover-up is more serious than the crime. There is nothing wrong with being the biggest-taxing Treasurer in Australia's history. It's a record held for a time by many previous Treasurers, a simple function of the long uptrend in Canberra's tax/GDP ratio (look again at the century-long chart on p. 77 of 125 at http://www.adelaide.edu.au/saces/public … ration.pdf ). Moreover, it's been sustained economic strength that drove Treasurer Costello's record-breaking tax/GDP ratios. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.
No wonder States' attitude to Canberra is "Thanks - for nothing"
**Again, information published last Tuesday night confirms that Canberra's effective funding of State budgets is flat-lining at the bottom of its three-decade range of 5-7% of GDP (Chart 3). Net of the about 1.4% of GDP worth of GST revenue officially earmarked to replace States' own-revenue in tax-reform over the 2000s, Canberra's current grants to State and local governments (including GST revenue) are running a bit below the 5.3% of GDP recorded for 1996-97 (Columns AD, AE and AF in Table A).
**Any "GST windfalls" Canberra has delivered to State budgets in recent years are embedded in that figure near 5% of GDP. What has been called the "largest financial free kick since the Second World War" actually has left Canberra's effective assistance to State budgets at multi-decade lows. Accordingly, the States reckon Canberra tends to minimise, and then exaggerate, the generosity of its revenue-sharing arrangements. That's why their attitude generally has been "Thanks - for nothing".
**What is disturbing here is not so much Canberra keeping a very tight rein on State budgets - which may or may not be a good thing, depending on your point of view - but the fact that Canberra's commentary has tended to mislead perceptions about Federal/State financial relations. By seriously understating the extent of its revenues while simultaneously exaggerating the generosity of its revenue-sharing with the States (via talk of big "GST windfalls"), Canberra has clouded the Australian public's ability to judge how our record tax revenues should be spent or saved.
**The latest hard data from the ABS show that Canberra in 2005-06 collected 25% of GDP worth of tax revenue, while State and local governments collected taxes worth just 5.5% of GDP. Taking into account tax transfers from Canberra to the States, national tax revenues are split about 3/2 in favour of Canberra. That might be exactly the right split given Federal/State functional responsibilities, or not. (For ABS tax statistics, see p. 6 of 36 in http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats … 005-06.pdf ).
**Some have made the point that Canberra's creeping takeover of aspects of health, education and "rivers" - originally areas of State responsibility - is based at least in part on Canberra's financial clout - "the power of the purse strings" - rather than demonstrated competence in these areas.
**Earlier this year, academics Anne Twomey and Glenn Withers (for the "Council for the Australian Federation") argued that Canberra's funding of the States is inadequate because "...the particular service delivery functions of the States and Territories mean that their costs are likely to rise faster than those of the Commonwealth for basic economic reasons beyond issues of good management. ...Therefore, the States need a greater share of revenue over time to support their functions…". Broadly the same story can be found in a major study by Neil Warren last year (for the NSW Government) on Australia’s intergovernmental fiscal arrangements (see http://www.treasury.nsw.gov.au/pubs/fin-bench-rep.pdf and p. 39 of 61 at
http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/CA256D800027B … Future.pdf ).
**Importantly, we have a Federal government of one political stripe that has direct control over total payments each year to State governments all of another stripe. In such a situation, it would be possible for Canberra to spend too readily in its areas of responsibility (say, defence and superannuation concessions for the well-off) while naturally limiting funding to the budgets of its political enemies at the State level (funding that might otherwise have flowed into things like public schools and hospitals, infrastructure in new housing developments, public transport, etc).
**Interestingly, Canberra's spending on defence and superannuation concessions (the latter a big part of "tax expenditures") are both in the process of growing by an extraordinary 40-50% over the four years to 2007-08, to about $20b each. In 2007-08, these two items by themselves add to about $40b, a figure only a touch smaller than total GST revenue (see http://www.budget.gov.au/2007-08/bp1/download/bp1.pdf , p. 186 and p. 193 of 354). Of course, it is up to politicians - as agents for the public generally - to judge the optimal level and distribution of public spending.
Endpiece
**The extent to which Canberra understates its own record tax-take while exaggerating its effective revenue-sharing with the States is important. Armed with a more-reliable sense of underlying Budget facts, the Australian public would be better placed to decide whether the current arrangements are exactly what they want.
**Whether you think State governments are competent, hopeless or somewhere in-between, the figures highlighted in this piece provide at least a sense of why the States think they are being dudded, why they forever are complaining that they want/need more money from Canberra to provide decent services and infrastructure for our growing population, itself boosted by Canberra's record immigration intake.
**I don't know the answer, but the key question here boils down to whether the public would prefer the next dollar of income-tax revenue collected by Canberra to be allocated according to Canberra's latest priorities or allocated to State and local governments, where - depending on your point of view - it either would be wasted or used to better fund public schools, hospitals, police, public transport and a variety of other functions and infrastructure that help to keep the show rolling in communities across our cities, towns and regions.
**It may be that keeping a very tight rein on funding to the States is a good thing. If so, Canberra should be encouraged to make that argument, to explain why it is a good idea for its effective funding of State budgets to be held around three-decade lows as a share of GDP.
**In any case, future debates about Federal/State financial relations should begin with the fact that State governments - whether you like them or not - have significantly less financial clout than the Federal Government, despite Canberra having invented tax/GDP and spending/GDP measures that show sharp declines since 1999-2000.

snowyriverman
16-11-2007, 07:20 PM
Give it up snowy. Too much crap dialogue from you. Too many unanswered questions of mine (while I answer yours)


No argument.

I thought I was answering your request for comment on why the LNC is not peceived well even thogh they think they have touched the bases that they think the electorate is currrently wanting to be represented.
My apologies if this is perceived by you as crap.
Do you want me to stop an attempted response?

snowyriverman
16-11-2007, 07:36 PM
Rudd is a chameleon, who will do/say whatever is required, depending on the audience he is speaking with (this is now amply documented).

So, for me, this election is a case of voting for the lesser of two evils. I think maybe I'm just getting too old and too cynical.

While it may be believed that Rudd is driven by focus groups, which is what I think you are suggesting, there are no apparent inconsistencies in his message.
On the other hand, the LNC seem to be bedevilled by many episodes where their veracity is now doubted by a large portion of the population. The lesser evil would seem to be the unproven evil?

Ian Murray
16-11-2007, 09:48 PM
A week may be a long time in politics, but this week leading up to election day won't be long enough for the Govt to recover from the overnight blows.

The Audit Office reports Govt pork-barrelling with the $328m Regional Partnerships grants, and Tony Abbott admits workers have lost conditions under WorkChoices ....

It's all over, Red Rover

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2007, 10:33 PM
Labor loves high taxes?
Of course. Why else keep stamp duty and payroll taxes, while crying crocodile tears over high house prices and people out of work.


Hmm, well a number of Labor state governments have abolished taxes over and above their obligations under the Agreement. I also think it's a bit rich of you, as a Coalition supporter, to take the moral high ground on 'high taxing governments' when Coward's is the highest taxing Federal government in Australia's history :lol:
What matters is the RATE of taxation, not the amount of tax taken. The tax rates have definitely dropped under the Coalition. They are set to drop further after the election, whether they carry out their promises or Labor carries out the promises they parroted.

I have also repeatedly said that the Coalition doesn't go far enough, so don't portray me as an uncritical supporter.


BTW, what variable "excise taxes"? State governments don't levy excise :hmm:
I was talking about the national excises and wholesale taxes that had no rhyme nor reason that the GST replaced.

Ian Murray
17-11-2007, 12:24 AM
I was talking about the national excises and wholesale taxes that had no rhyme nor reason that the GST replaced.
GST replaced wholesale sales tax but not excise duty, which we still pay on fuel, alcoholic beverages and tobacco products.

The pump price for petrol includes a shade over 38c per litre in excise, plus 10% GST (including 10% of the excise duty - i.e. tax on the tax).

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2007, 12:56 AM
GST replaced wholesale sales tax but not excise duty, which we still pay on fuel, alcoholic beverages and tobacco products.
Merely different terms for the same concept: money grabs by the government. OK, so there was a variable wholesale sales tax before GST, with no rhyme or reason.


The pump price for petrol includes a shade over 38c per litre in excise, plus 10% GST (including 10% of the excise duty — i.e. tax on the tax).
I know, and this is bipartisan iniquity.

Basil
17-11-2007, 01:07 AM
John Howard has received his best poll (
http://www.pollbludger.com/634) in WA since July as he topped out Rudd on preferred PM, and the Coalition was 50%+ on two party preferred.

I'm not suggesting she's stopped singing, but she seems to be looking around furtively.


http://www.pollbludger.com/634

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2007, 06:39 AM
The Audit Office reports Govt pork-barrelling with the $328m Regional Partnerships grants,
Pork barrelling from government? Wow, what a surprise. The way to stop that is for the government to take less of our money. This requires that the people stop expecting the government to do things for them. But of course, the Leftmedia has slanted this report, as usual, although the report itself said that the concern was largely a matter of perception:


“… the concern that decisions on projects were open to the interpretation that they had been made for political reasons and not on the merits of the project was the primary reason for the then Minister for Transport and Regional Services establishing a Ministerial Committee in November 2005 to take decisions on applications, replacing decisions by individual Ministers.

During the course of the audit, a number of changes to the administration of the Programme were introduced by the department, or proposed to (and agreed by) the Ministerial Committee, in response to audit findings and the department’s observations of the administration of the Programme. The administrative changes introduced have encompassed both the operations of the Ministerial Committee in taking decisions on Regional Partnerships applications and the department’s processes for administering the Programme. In this respect, by late 2006 the department had become aware of the nature and extent of the administrative problems it needed to address and had commenced a programme of significant administrative re-engineering, including the assessment of applications, the management of Funding Agreements and the monitoring and reporting of project and Programme outcomes.”


and Tony Abbott admits workers have lost conditions under WorkChoices ....
You mean that dishonestly misquoted transcript, where the Antitheists Bolshevik Collective's Lateline happily peddles a Laborite fraud. Here is what Abbott said in full (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/abbott-stands-by-workplace-comments/2007/11/16/1194766912350.html):


Tony Abbott: As that great Labor leader Tony Blair said, ‘fairness begins with the chance of a job’ and there is a lot more fairness in the workplace today in this country than ever before because there is a lot more chance of a job. [applause]

I accept that certain “protections” - in inverted commas - are not what they were. That whole raft of regulation expressed in awards that sometimes ran into hundreds, even thousands of pages, I accept that that has largely gone. I accept that. I accept that the Industrial Relations Commission doesn’t have the same power to reach into the nook and cranny of every business that it used to have. I accept that.

But in the end, the best protection for the worker who feels he or she might be under pressure at his job is the chance of another job, the chance of a better job. That is the best protection. Not going off to some judge or Industrial Commission that might order your employer, who you don’t like and he doesn’t like you, to keep you in an unhappy partnership forever.

So that is the best protection that we can give people, the protection of an abundance of jobs, the protection of an economy which is crying out for more workers. That is the best protection and I think that has been delivered in spades locally and nationally.

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2007, 07:07 AM
Furthermore, the disinvestment in things like the University sector make me sick
Yeah, we need more courses like Victoria University's Bachelor of Health Science in Naturopathy and Homeopathy, including a section on “vibrational medicine” that comprises “energy healing, the role of intuition, spirituality and all other areas related to the metaphysical”.

This should have a good side effect: bar owners can keep watering down the drinks :P, but advertise them as homeopathic super-drinks :lol:

Southpaw Jim
17-11-2007, 07:54 AM
John Howard has received his best poll (
http://www.pollbludger.com/634) in WA since July as he topped out Rudd on preferred PM, and the Coalition was 50%+ on two party preferred.

I'm not suggesting she's stopped singing, but she seems to be looking around furtively.


http://www.pollbludger.com/634

Yeah, seen it, but WA was always going to be line-ball. However, NSW and Queensland are where it's at, and Rudd could conceivably get enough seats from those two states alone.

Alan Ramsey's take (http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/history-about-to-repeat-itself--in-reverse/2007/11/16/1194766964919.html)

Shanahack admits defeat (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22772731-601,00.html)

She's cold and on the slab, but I worry that she's taken one of those drugs that feign death...

Southpaw Jim
17-11-2007, 07:58 AM
What matters is the RATE of taxation, not the amount of tax taken. The tax rates have definitely dropped under the Coalition. They are set to drop further after the election, whether they carry out their promises or Labor carries out the promises they parroted.
Only handing back bracket creep, SFA difference in real terms.

BTW, did you read the MacBank analysis? Did you note that company tax is growing as a proportion of GDP?

I love the way Coward claims it's important to hand back taxes, but he gives them to PAYG taxpayers rather than the companies he's taken them from :lol:


I have also repeatedly said that the Coalition doesn't go far enough, so don't portray me as an uncritical supporter.

Noted.


I was talking about the national excises and wholesale taxes that had no rhyme nor reason that the GST replaced.
These are Commonwealth taxes, so I fail to see what they've got to do with your anti-Labor rant :hmm:

Kevin Bonham
17-11-2007, 08:47 AM
John Howard has received his best poll (
http://www.pollbludger.com/634) in WA since July as he topped out Rudd on preferred PM, and the Coalition was 50%+ on two party preferred.

400-vote samples from just three seats. Whoopeee! And Westpoll are pretty unreliable. Furthermore the Coalition is putting lots of resources into those seats so even if they get a swing there it is unlikely they will get it statewide.

The three close WA seats are interesting as one of them is about the Coalition's only serious chance to win a seat off Labor. More likely Labor will gain one of the other two, and in any case they are a drop in the ocean as Eurotrash pointed out.

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2007, 10:47 AM
Only handing back bracket creep, SFA difference in real terms.
So does the other lot have a plan to deal with bracket creep? Or is this just another item for Gunner's thread on double standards?

Bracket creep makes an already unfair system (progressive taxation so called) far worse.


BTW, did you read the MacBank analysis? Did you note that company tax is growing as a proportion of GDP?
I also read in that analysis:


Spare a thought for Treasurer Costello, as he's had to deal with a problem faced by no other Treasurer since Federation: an extraordinary embarrassment of revenue riches brought on by a decade and a half of solid economic growth, with revenues supercharged in recent years by major upswings in commodity prices and company profits.

A measure of the extraordinary revenue uptrend in recent years is the fact that six Budget updates over the three years to May 2007 delivered - mainly via stronger-than-expected jobs growth and an unexpected surge in commodity prices and company profits - upgrades to four-year-rolling-revenue projections worth $173b in total (Table B).

...

Moreover, it's been sustained economic strength that drove Treasurer Costello's record-breaking tax/GDP ratios. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.


I love the way Coward claims it's important to hand back taxes, but he gives them to PAYG taxpayers rather than the companies he's taken them from :lol:
Again, do the other lot want to lower company tax rates?


These are Commonwealth taxes, so I fail to see what they've got to do with your anti-Labor rant :hmm:
Quite a lot. Labor wanted to keep the stupidly varying wholesale sales taxes rather than support the GST, which Keating once thought was a great idea before it became politically expedient to knock it.

snowyriverman
17-11-2007, 02:42 PM
Hopeless response. The point was, that today as commentators on the Howard Government, Flude and Rudd are suggesting that Blind Freddy should have taken action while the housing situation was cooking. Commentators (like you, Flude and Rudd) don't have to be in government to commentate. If the left wants any credibility on this issue (claiming that Blind Freddy could have seen what was happening), we need to see where they were pointing out the obvious back when the situation was apparently emerging.

The reality is that the left had no idea (your, Flude's and Rudd's attempts to suggest that you saw it all along are just facile transparent lies).

I suggest we just agree to disagree that the housing situation could be seen as emerging over the past 5 years. Perhaps it is case of where the commentator lives.


Further, as I have pointed out previously, there was little in fact to be done about it.
I guess it follows from this oservation of yours that either party could equally mismanage the issue then?



I truly don't know (and nor do you). But I am prepared to accept for the sake of argument that deception existed. My question of approximately how important is this issue (six years ago) went unanswered. Follow up question: if it is important, why do so many left commentators not allow into argument something that happened 15 years ago under Keating because its old news [/self-serving non genuine defence] but happily rake in something that happened 6 years ago.
I think Kevin's point that Keating's pronouncement was not politically astute to say, but that does not make it deceptive. And, importantly, Keating and others do not appear to have defended the lack of astuteness in the ad naseum manner that the LNC seem to be willing to defend the deceptions of AWB, dogs and balaclavas, David Hicks, the Indian Doctor, Children o/b, Interest rates.



I am not re-opening anything. The issue is live. When that question was very first raised on this BB, I said I had no problem with the statement of "keeping interest rates at record lows". It turned out not be true, but I genuinely would have allowed the phrase if a Labor pollie had uttered it and the situation was reversed. What I don't understand is
1. How the puffery of Howard's statement can, in all genuine seriousness, be called a deception [this is just more silly hating mantra], and
2. Why no genuine left commentator on this board won't say "Hey, you know what? If we are going to hang Howard for 'lying' about interest rates, it is only fair to hang Hawke by the same branch for 'No Child Will Live in Poverty". The utterings are identical! Two political leaders making statements that they genuinely believed they could deliver. I simply reject that Hawke deceived anyone. He made a claim that he wasn't able to fulfil.

While it appears most politicians in power can make silly promises, the difference is that the LNC has a smorgasboard of them that is pursues defense ad naseum. This is the difference that the population is tired of.


You guys remind me of baying mindless dolts watching an executioner in middle-ages England. The idea of balanced and intelligent fair commentary seems beyond most of you. On a good day, I have seen evidence from Kevin, Euro and pax of this ability.



Referred to above. But seeing as you have made a special post, do you accept that history should judge Hawke in exactly the same way that you are judging Howard? If not, why not?
No, and for the descriptions given above about the LNC lack of capability to admit culpability when they are caught out.





You are wasting an incredible amount of bandwidth
is this an exaggeration?


and my time.

By the way, if you have the time, have you responded to my post 361?

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2007, 02:48 PM
I suggest we just agree to disagree that the housing situation could be seen as emerging over the past 5 years. Perhaps it is case of where the commentator lives.
I haven't seen any solution, except the fake solution of "sock the rich with more taxes".


And, importantly, Keating and others do not appear to have defended the lack of astuteness in the ad naseum manner that the LNC seem to be willing to defend the deceptions of AWB, dogs and balaclavas, David Hicks, the Indian Doctor, Children o/b, Interest rates.
More of the same boring elephant hurling.


While it appears most politicians in power can make silly promises, the difference is that the LNC has a smorgasboard of them that is pursues defense ad naseum. This is the difference that the population is tired of.
More likely, they just want a change, thinking the grass is greener with the other lot.


No, and for the descriptions given above about the LNC lack of capability to admit culpability when they are caught out.
You prove Gunner's point: where were you when Labor was making silly promises they couldn't keep, when Latham was spouting his foul mouth ...? Where are the actual policy differences, as opposed to "me too"?

snowyriverman
17-11-2007, 03:25 PM
More likely, they just want a change, thinking the grass is greener with the other lot.

With all the money (government revenue sourced) the LNC spent on advertsing policies (prior to the campaign or launch), it just comes down to this does it Jono. Folk just want a change. :eek:
The LNC should thus sack a few campaign designers. Sack a few campaign strategists. :doh:



You prove Gunner's point: where were you when Labor was making silly promises they couldn't keep,
One of: Hawke's No Children IN POVERTy.
And he was sacked.

If you want to add in the Keating one on RECESSION WHTH; he was sacked by the electorate.

Time now to turn to the LNC sins.



when Latham was spouting his foul mouth ...?
Sacked.


Where are the actual policy differences, as opposed to "me too"?

IR
Skills planning
Support of state schools
Infrastructure build with surpluses. Eg broadband
Improve management of hospitals and their outcomes.

Basil
17-11-2007, 04:12 PM
I suggest we just agree to disagree that the housing situation could be seen as emerging over the past 5 years. Perhaps it is case of where the commentator lives.
Huh? You tell me when the so-called crisis started to emerge - and then tell me where Flude and Rudd advised what should have been done about it.


I guess it follows from this oservation of yours that either party could equally mismanage the issue then?
I'm not calling the situation mis-managed. This is one disagreement I have. The second is that if you are saying both parties mismanaged the situation (your side because you didn't spot it either), how can your side possibly seek traction from this issue? The whole issue is fatuous dribble whichever way left tries to cut it.


I think Kevin's point that Keating's pronouncement was not politically astute to say, but that does not make it deceptive.
What you and Kevin suggest (if KB in fact suggested it it) is slippery self-serving balls. One bloke says he'll keep interest rates at record lows. The other says he'll wipe out child poverty. To claim that one is rank deceit and the other is not is frankly a very poor showing from anyone who spouts it.


While it appears most politicians in power can make silly promises, the difference is that the LNC has a smorgasboard of them that is pursues defense ad naseum.
Smogasboard? Sam called them lies. I asked Sam for a list. What are they? He's remained mute.


By the way, if you have the time, have you responded to my post 361?
No thanks. I missed it first time and upon reading, I find the majority of your comments sufficiently continuously disingenuous. Of the ones that I find reasonable (in basis) I will continue to address (regardless of whether you are conceding or making a point for the left).

snowyriverman
17-11-2007, 04:58 PM
(your side because you didn't spot it either),

You misunderstand my intention for posting. I thought you were asking why a majority of the population is likely to send Johnny down. I have been putting forward perceptions. My post 361 was an earlier list of these. Just because I put forward does not mean I vote the same way, or am influenced by the issue(s) in question. I am not part of a side. How I vote is irrelevant. Your question was what do 50%plus see as important.
For you to knock over each of these perceptions and argue they are misconceived may be a useful application of your time; but if you knock them all out as being misconceived then you will be left with the conundrum HOW COULD THE LNC GET THE MESSAGE SO WRONG TO THE ELECTORATE. And I think we can eliminate Jono's appeal to the idea of the electorate just wanting the novelty of change.

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2007, 06:05 PM
With all the money (government revenue sourced) the LNC spent on advertsing policies (prior to the campaign or launch),
Much of it countering the millions of dollars of Union lies.


One of: Hawke's No Children IN POVERTy.
And he was sacked.
Not for that, but because of Keating's boundless ambition.


Time now to turn to the LNC sins.
Which are mostly nothing of the kind, despite the beat-up by the Leftmedia.


Sacked.
But remember Latham was Labor's previous great hope, ardently supported by Comrade Gillardova.


IR
The unions (as well as leftist and grossly misnamed "public servants") are greatly looking forward to Labor's plans here. But companies are already factoring a "risk of Rudd", and I predict a lot of layoffs soon after the election before Rudd can change the laws. Good luck to them finding another job once Rudd makes it almost impossible to fire a dud worker, as before.


Support of state schools
Best to support parents so they can choose the schools that best meet their kids' needs. Then if schools perform, then they won't need funding. But teachers' unions don't want their monopoly destroyed.


Infrastructure build with surpluses. Eg broadband
Rudd has told lies about this. In fact Australia has the 9th fastest speed in the world (http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/06/2082711.htm).

In any case, when governments pick "winners", it's the consumers who lose. Political favoritism rather than market efficiency determine which companies win the contracts.


Improve management of hospitals and their outcomes.
As opposed to the appalling State Labor mismanagement.

Basil
17-11-2007, 06:32 PM
You misunderstand my intention for posting.I have never concerned myself with your motivation for posting - and I certainly haven't commented on it. More time-wasting. :hand:


I thought you were asking why a majority of the population is likely to send Johnny down.
That is certainly where the thread started, but my claims against you have been challenging what you have put forward as assertions as to fact (not what public perceptions may be). :hand:


I have been putting forward perceptions.
Where you (and others) have put forward perceptions (and I have seen them or thought they were of interest), I have commented on those perceptions - and I might say largely agreed with them.


Just because I put forward does not mean I vote the same way, or am influenced by the issue(s) in question ... How I vote is irrelevant.
Agreed. But your statement is irrelevant.

What remains, despite all you have said, is a plethora of posts and statements during the course of this thread, where you have sought to make claims, either as to fact, or as valid refutations, when in large proportion, they are disingenuous or shallow, toppling under the merest of scrutiny.

Southpaw Jim
17-11-2007, 08:51 PM
So does the other lot have a plan to deal with bracket creep? Or is this just another item for Gunner's thread on double standards?
Yeah, their plan is the same as the Coalition's - cuts in rates and thresholds. Can't say I necessarily think either are making the best use of $30-34bn, but tax cuts are pretty much de rigeur for an election campaign these days.


I also read in that analysis:

Is that your only take-home message? ;)


Again, do the other lot want to lower company tax rates?
Dunno. Not the point. The Libs' credo has always been pro-business, low taxes. But: they've been transferring record levels of company tax to PAYG taxpayers for years in the name of "handing taxes back". Their bogus claim, not mine - but that's election politics.


Quite a lot. Labor wanted to keep the stupidly varying wholesale sales taxes rather than support the GST, which Keating once thought was a great idea before it became politically expedient to knock it.
Fine, I thought we were talking about tax reform by the States, not the argy bargy in Federal Parliament in getting the laws through.

Political expediency? You mean like "never ever"?

Southpaw Jim
17-11-2007, 08:57 PM
Out of interest - not fishing/trolling for a fight, just keen to get perspectives - what do you tory voters think about the apparent influence of groups like the Exclusive Bretheren and Opus Dei on the Liberal Party?

Does it concern you?

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2007, 09:07 PM
Dunno. Not the point. The Libs' credo has always been pro-business, low taxes. But: they've been transferring record levels of company tax to PAYG taxpayers for years in the name of "handing taxes back". Their bogus claim, not mine - but that's election politics.
There is much company tax because companies are booming, not because the Coalition have increased company tax rates. And it is very much the point: we are choosing between two actual alternatives; there is no point voting against the Coalition because they are worse than a hypothetical ideal party, when the result would be a party even worse for business.

Even the phrase "handing taxes back" shows the wrong attitude (but the other lot are much worse). This phrase implies that money we earn rightfully belongs to the Government and we the people should be grateful for what it allows us to keep, when the correct attitude is that the government should be grateful to the people for the money they take, and be responsible with it. More of our politicians need to read people like Friedman.


Political expediency? You mean like "never ever"?
Not that crap again. Howard was very open about GST: never ever when it came to the 1996 election, and he kept that promise throughout the term. Then he fought the next election on the GST, and won. That was very politically inexpedient, given all Labor's demagogery.

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2007, 09:15 PM
Out of interest — not fishing/trolling for a fight, just keen to get perspectives — what do you tory voters think about the apparent influence of groups like the Exclusive Bretheren and Opus Dei on the Liberal Party?

Does it concern you?
What influence? :doh: :hmm: Another Leftmedia beatup. If there really were such influence, the cloning and RU-486 bills would have been decided differently.

I suspect that the reality is much like America: the influence of the Secular Left on the Democrats is much higher than that of the Religious Right on the GOP (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/129/story_12994_1.html):


In an article published recently in "The Public Interest," social scientists Louis Bolce and Gerald De Maio say that journalists' parochialism blinds them to one of the biggest stories in American politics: how the Democratic Party has become a stronghold of fervent secularists, and how secularism "is just as powerful a determinant of social attitudes and voting behavior as is a religiously traditional outlook."

...

But while the media have thoroughly reported the key role religious conservatives play in Republican Party politics, they've ignored the role militant secularists play in setting the Democratic Party's agenda. "Secularism," say Bolce and De Maio, "is no less powerful a determinant of attitudes on the contentious cultural issues than is religious traditionalism." Indeed, Republican traditionalists have not polarized politics by becoming more conservative, as conventional wisdom would have it. Instead, secularists (and to a lesser extent religious moderates) have become more liberal.

Southpaw Jim
17-11-2007, 09:30 PM
There is much company tax because companies are booming, not because the Coalition have increased company tax rates.
I never suggested they had increased company tax rates.


Even the phrase "handing taxes back" shows the wrong attitude (but the other lot are much worse). This phrase implies that money we earn rightfully belongs to the Government and we the people should be grateful for what it allows us to keep, when the correct attitude is that the government should be grateful to the people for the money they take, and be responsible with it. More of our politicians need to read people like Friedman.
I agree!


Not that crap again. Howard was very open about GST: never ever when it came to the 1996 election, and he kept that promise throughout the term.
"Never ever" seems pretty clear in it's meaning to me - but hey, this is the Non-Core Prime Minister we're talking about...

I grant you that he did campaign on it in 98 - my point wasn't so much the backflip itself but that political expediency is employed by both parties, especially when in Opposition.


Then he fought the next election on the GST, and won.
Only just, thanks to Hanson preferences. Don't forget, he didn't win the popular vote.

Southpaw Jim
17-11-2007, 09:58 PM
What influence? :doh: :hmm: Another Leftmedia beatup. If there really were such influence, the cloning and RU-486 bills would have been decided differently.
I guess I'm not talking so much about that level of influence - more like the smear campaigns engaged in by the EB. This is what strikes me - that a sect that discourages its members from voting thinks it's appropriate to participate in the electoral process. Seems hypocritical to me.

BTW, who is this "Leftmedia" of whom you speak?


I suspect that the reality is much like America
Interesting perspective in the article. Ta.

However, I think that it's not entirely helpful to compare with America - as you know, it's very different. AFAIK, religion is much 'bigger' there in terms of participation, and so it's more socially influential. Could be wrong on that, but Australia generally appears to me to be much less (overtly, at least) Christian.

Plus, there's the whole lobbyist thing - it's much more a part of the political culture over there, or seems to be. And again, there's the voluntary voting thing too, which means that the politically disengaged (or disenfranchised) don't participate. The end result is that American politics tends to be driven very much by the highly politically motivated, both conservative and liberal, religious and secular.

I must state that I really don't know much about the day to day realities of the Christian community. The secrecy associated with EB and OD doesn't help perceptions of them, I must say - they appear "cultish". I was just interest to hear the view of Liberal voters (Gunner?), given the apparent extreme conservatism of EB and OD - I guess I view it in the same way as the idea of Rudd giving audience to the leadership of, say, Earth First.

Aaron Guthrie
17-11-2007, 10:06 PM
This is what strikes me - that a sect that discourages its members from voting thinks it's appropriate to participate in the electoral process. Seems hypocritical to me.Perhaps they think that voting is overrated (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=7189)? Also, what is hypocrtical about it? Do they discourage their members from participating in ways other than voting (e.g. letter writing)?

Southpaw Jim
17-11-2007, 10:10 PM
I just think it's inappropriate to be involved if you're not going to vote.

Aaron Guthrie
17-11-2007, 10:20 PM
I just think it's inappropriate to be involved if you're not going to vote.I don't see why. Would it be inappropriate to write to the member of your electorate if you never voted for them and never will?

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2007, 10:54 PM
I guess I'm not talking so much about that level of influence — more like the smear campaigns engaged in by the EB. This is what strikes me — that a sect that discourages its members from voting thinks it's appropriate to participate in the electoral process. Seems hypocritical to me.
Me too. But they are a small sect with little political influence. But what sort of smear are they supposed to have committed?


BTW, who is this "Leftmedia" of whom you speak?
AKA the MMM or Mendacious Mainstream Media.


Interesting perspective in the article. Ta.
NP


However, I think that it's not entirely helpful to compare with America — as you know, it's very different. AFAIK, religion is much 'bigger' there in terms of participation, and so it's more socially influential. Could be wrong on that, but Australia generally appears to me to be much less (overtly, at least) Christian.
Agreed. But there still seems to be a much bigger secular influence on Labor than any Christian influence on the Libs.


Plus, there's the whole lobbyist thing — it's much more a part of the political culture over there, or seems to be. And again, there's the voluntary voting thing too, which means that the politically disengaged (or disenfranchised) don't participate. The end result is that American politics tends to be driven very much by the highly politically motivated, both conservative and liberal, religious and secular.
I support voluntary voting, and the poll here was 9–7 FWIW, but one disadvantage is the dominating campaign in America to get their "own" side out to vote in the first place. It could be an advantage in that parties should theoretically have to work hard to please their base, but it doesn't seem to work out that way.

Southpaw Jim
17-11-2007, 11:21 PM
Me too. But they are a small sect with little political influence. But what sort of smear are they supposed to have committed?
Well the smear I'm thinking of was the campaign against Helen Clarke's husband, suggesting he was a closet gay.

There's other things that concern me about the EB:
- blatant political advertising, which should cause problems with their charity tax status, but hasn't yet. This included some very vicious anti-Green party advertising during the 2006 Tas election; and
- the way they ostracise their ex-members, particularly where those ex-members have children that are still within the Brethren. It seems that the standard M.O. is to persuade the children that their mother/father is evil and not to be associated with. There's been stories in the media where the former member then receives hate mail from their own kids, Family Court access orders are routinely flaunted, etc. This is the most revolting aspect of the EB - using religion to turn children against their own parents. As a parent, that saddens me.


AKA the MMM or Mendacious Mainstream Media.
I'd hardly consider the News Ltd papers, The Australian, the Australian Financial Review, or Channels 7, 9 or 10 as "Left". Most of them have been doing their utmost to spin/barrack for Howard, and are now only turning to supporting Rudd for purely commercial reasons - no-one likes to back a loser.


Agreed. But there still seems to be a much bigger secular influence on Labor than any Christian influence on the Libs.

But I don't find this at all surprising - the Libs are the natural home of the socially conservative. This would probably, to some extent, push some of the wetter liberals to the ALP, especially given the situation in the NSW Libs, where - as I understand it - the religious right has largely taken over the Party there. The influence of these people, rightly or wrongly, would put moderates like myself off. I do also wonder whether there is something of a boys club in the Libs, where religious involvement is beneficial to your advancement. Not that it's a pre-requisite, but that it's advantageous to gaining pre-selection.


It could be an advantage in that parties should theoretically have to work hard to please their base, but it doesn't seem to work out that way.
Well there is something to be said for discouraging stupid/uninformed people from voting, in that they're sort of distorting the result. Donkey votes are hardly beneficial to democracy. However, voluntary voting does seem to (in the US) favour the conservatives. That's obviously bad! :P

EDIT: orf to bed..

Rhubarb
17-11-2007, 11:37 PM
BTW, who is this "Leftmedia" of whom you speak?AKA the MMM or Mendacious Mainstream Media.

Man, this Jono guy really is a bona fide ultra-right-wing nutjob.

So rare to see them in the wild these days.

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2007, 11:37 PM
Well the smear I'm thinking of was the campaign against Helen Clarke's husband, suggesting he was a closet gay.
Oh, that was in NZ. I thought you were talking about Oz.


There's other things that concern me about the EB:
- blatant political advertising, which should cause problems with their charity tax status, but hasn't yet. This included some very vicious anti-Green party advertising during the 2006 Tas election; and
Since Australia is one of the few countries in the West where there is no tax deductions to churches, this is pretty much a non-issue here. But in America, the IRS seems to have no problem with Democrat-supporting churches, esp. Black ones.

I'm not sure what "vicious anti-Green party advertising" you mean, except possibly pointing out that it really is opposed to Christian principles (and you don't need to be EB to realise that).


- the way they ostracise their ex-members, particularly where those ex-members have children that are still within the Brethren. It seems that the standard M.O. is to persuade the children that their mother/father is evil and not to be associated with. There's been stories in the media where the former member then receives hate mail from their own kids, Family Court access orders are routinely flaunted, etc. This is the most revolting aspect of the EB - using religion to turn children against their own parents. As a parent, that saddens me.
All this is known, which is why most Christians regard them as cultic in behaviour.


I'd hardly consider the News Ltd papers, The Australian, the Australian Financial Review, or Channels 7, 9 or 10 as "Left". Most of them have been doing their utmost to spin/barrack for Howard, and are now only turning to supporting Rudd for purely commercial reasons - no-one likes to back a loser.
I hadn't noticed. They seem very much on the Left side of politics in many areas.


But I don't find this at all surprising — the Libs are the natural home of the socially conservative. This would probably, to some extent, push some of the wetter liberals to the ALP,
It's the other way round. Increasing secularism in the ALP long ago drove many Catholics to form the DLP, and more recently made the late Kim Beazley, Sr., famously exclaim at a Labor Party conference in 1970:


"When I joined the Labor Party, it contained the cream of the working class. But as I look about me now all I see are the dregs of the middle class. And what I want to know is when you middle class perverts are going to stop using the Labor Party as a spiritual spitoon."

Similarly, a lot of working class Democrats in the US became "Reagan Democrats" because of the increasing secularism and political correctness in the party.


especially given the situation in the NSW Libs, where — as I understand it — the religious right has largely taken over the Party there.
I wouldn't know. My impression was that many State Libs had tried to be Labor-Lite, so it's no wonder they were losing all the time. Vic is especially blatant. So it's not surprising if some grass-roots Libs actually wanted their party to be a choice rather than an echo.


The influence of these people, rightly or wrongly, would put moderates like myself off.
Oh, no danger that you'd be thought of as a "moderate" ;)


I do also wonder whether there is something of a boys club in the Libs, where religious involvement is beneficial to your advancement. Not that it's a pre-requisite, but that it's advantageous to gaining pre-selection.
Actually, one Christian I know who at one time wanted to join the Libs was worried that his faith might prove a disadvantage with the power brokers.


Well there is something to be said for discouraging stupid/uninformed people from voting, in that they're sort of distorting the result. Donkey votes are hardly beneficial to democracy.
Australia is an aberration in having compulsory voting.


However, voluntary voting does seem to (in the US) favour the conservatives. That's obviously bad! :P
A nice admission that more leftists are too lazy to vote :P. Not surprising, since many of them don't work for a living, or at least not in real jobs where you have to please the public to make money. ;)

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2007, 11:40 PM
Man, this Jono guy really is a bona fide ultra-right-wing nutjob.

So rare to see them in the wild these days.
To a leftist moron like you, anyone to the right of Comrade Gillardova is "ultra-right-wing". But there are plenty of us in the real world, where ideas have to work to survive, as opposed to in university humanities faculties, newsrooms, or "public service".

Rhubarb
18-11-2007, 12:14 AM
Man, you're really losing it as the last days draw near.


To a leftist moron like you, anyone to the right of Comrade Gillardova is "ultra-right-wing". I was merely suggesting that the mainstream media, viewed as a whole, is centrist rather than leftist, when one views the entire political spectrum. By the way, what makes you think I'm a "leftist" these days? (although I don't doubt you can find numerous examples of me being a moron.)


But there are plenty of us in the real world, where ideas have to work to survive, as opposed to in university humanities faculties, newsrooms, or "public service". I might try to sell this quote to Rincewind, but I think it's going to be priceless!

Capablanca-Fan
18-11-2007, 02:01 AM
I was merely suggesting that the mainstream media, viewed as a whole, is centrist rather than leftist, when one views the entire political spectrum.
There are more studies on the American and British media than Australian, but there seems little difference. I've asked before: where is the right-wing Phillip Adams? See for example BBC report finds bias within corporation (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/17/nbbc217.xml) Analysis of American papers showed that people are labelled as "right-wing" or "conservative" far more than "left-wing" or "liberal". Robert Lichter et al. found that media staff in America are overwhelmingly secular and Democrat-voting (Watching America: What Television Tells Us About Our Lives, 1992).


By the way, what makes you think I'm a "leftist" these days? (although I don't doubt you can find numerous examples of me being a moron.)
Seems pretty obvious. And you use "right-wing" as a swear word without much precise content.:hand:

Capablanca-Fan
18-11-2007, 12:14 PM
By way of a partial retraction to Euro and Shirty, this was on Andrew Bolt's site today (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/howard_wins1/) (and he doesn't know how to use emdashes any more than most people here— alt-0151):


John Howard wins - the endorsement of most newspaper editorials today, that is:

Adelaide’s Sunday Mail (http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22777430-5006336,00.html):


Change for change’s sake is not a good enough reason to vote out a Government…

It is not untrue to say the majority of Australians have never had it better.

They have unprecedented savings in the form of superannuation holdings and home ownership.

None of this is accidental. Sound stewardship of the economy has made Australia strong as some other countries have wilted.

In SA, unemployment now stands at just over 5 per cent, the lowest figure since Australian Bureau of Statistics research started in the mid-1970s. It is a figure matched elsewhere in Australia.

Inflation is running at 1.9 per cent annually and voters are mostly prepared to give Mr Howard the benefit of the doubt on the interest rate surge, even allowing for his broken promises.
...

The Sunday Mail believes the Coalition is best placed to govern Australia for the next three years.

Perth’s Sunday Times (http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,22776528-5005374,00.html):


The Sunday Times believes change for change sake is simply not an adequate trigger to throw out a Coalition Government which, while far from perfect, has overseen record prosperity in WA and the nation.

Sydney’s Sunday Telegraph (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/opinion/story/0,22049,22774600-5001031,00.html):


The Sunday Telegraph accepts readers believe it is finally time to give Labor a go. But Mr Rudd ... must stare down a Labor cabinet inhabited by many with union and factional allegiances… The Sunday Telegraph advocates a vote for Labor, provided Mr Rudd give these assurances.

Melbourne’s Sunday Herald:


But why take the chance? Why change horses when Australia galloping strongly ahead with the lowest unemployment in a generation? ... Australians should stick with Mr Howard.

Melbourne’s Sunday Age:


On the contenders’ “exposed form”, The Sunday Age does not see enough differences between the Coalition and Labor to urge readers to vote for one over the other.

(Those missing are ones I can’t yet find.)

This verdict is interesting because, among other things, it isn’t commone for newspapers to advocate a vote for the underdog. We like to back winners. Another reason this is interesting is the Rudd hasn’t even been able to get the support of the Sunday Age.
But the editorial in Brisbane's Sunday Mail says "Time to consider new leadership" and pumps the "It's time" theme to push Rudd as a possible new leader of the country.

Davidflude
18-11-2007, 02:34 PM
I did, but not only that, David Flude's suggestions of retrospective "Labour wouldn't have presided over such a thing" or similarly themed reasons for attacking the Howard government's stance on this issue is arrant nonsense.

Where was Flude or Rudd or any other half-baked commentator 3-5 years ago while this housing situation was cooking saying "whatever you do, don't give ready loans to the lower socio-economic bands" or "whatever you do, don't let the developers sell these cheap house and land packages in whoop whoop to new couples"?

Answer? Nowhere.
Reason? Because the self-serving smug bastard after-the-fact dribble that Rudd (and now David Flude and half of Australia who is now trying to give itself a crash course in ideas that have passed them by all their lives) and his limp-wristed, inward-looking, clue-free, economic, lily-white zombies are trotting out is shallow, ill-conceived, unsubstantiated, self-serving crap! like every other bloody economic utterance of theirs.

1) limp-wristed "that is a pretty pathetic insult, still I suppose that you cannot stir the possum like the australian cricket team on this site"

2) inward-looking "on the contrary I have been regularly reading the US right wing commentators regularly"

3) clue-free "Not so. I have a pretty good idea as to how a modern economy should be run. I just hope the the brothers do not develop hubris like the coalition in the last term. still if they do we can throw them out."

4) economic "thanks mate that i can agree with.

5)lily-white zombies "sorry but the term lily-white surely does not apply to zombies. It is clearly a mixed metaphor.

6) shallow - another pathetic insult

7) ill-conceived "just like this posting"

8) unsubstantiated - please show what unsubstantiated points that I have made

9)self-serving cr*p "as I am retired I cannot understand how my statements could possibly be self serving.

Davidflude
18-11-2007, 02:38 PM
I remember an English academic who made the point that though he vilently disagreed with some other academice nevertheless thought that they were well worth disagreeing with.
Gunnar you are well worth disagreeing with so please make your arguements. They are well worth reading .

Davidflude
18-11-2007, 02:41 PM
No it's not. It means greater collateral for an investment loan, which is a common way that people in the West start new businesses.

Indeed, the lack of property rights is a major reason that poor countries are poor. Hernando de Soto shows this in detail in his book The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else. But in many of the poor countries, the route to property ownership is absurdly cumbersome thanx to corruption or bureaucratic red tape. In his native Peru, the process to get a legal title to one's home "consists of 5 stages" and the first stage alone "involves 207 steps." In Egypt, anyone "who wants to acquire and legally register a lot on state-owned desert land must wend his way through at least 77 bureaucratic procedures at thirty-one public and private agencies." These procedures "can take anywhere from five to fourteen years." In Haiti, it is 19 years.

But meanwhile, a home with no legal title has nothing that a bank can accept as collateral. The same is true of businesses created and run without having jumped through all the legal hoops.

de Soto points out that the whole country suffers without property rights. Business is driven underground, with much greater costs due to lack of legal protection of contracts and from crime.


Explained by my post above. Unfortunately many young people trying to buy their first home have been hurt by financial irresponsibility of their elders living beyond their means and driving house prices skyward.


That is a brilliant book.

Basil
18-11-2007, 03:41 PM
Hi David


1) limp-wristed "that is a pretty pathetic insult
If you have a look at the quoting with particular reference to the parentheses again, you will see that the insults were directed at Rudd.

Nevertheless, 'limp-wristed': Without strength, without substance. This is the allegation I lay at the majority of leftist utterings. Pappy in substance and without traction.


2) inward-looking "on the contrary I have been regularly reading the US right wing commentators regularly"
The allegation was also made of Rudd and left. What has your reading got to do with my allegation in context? 'Inward-Looking': Until the last 90 days, the last century of leftist politics has been marked by "dinner table, pay, werka, battla, rich, evil". Almost without exception, left platforms have been marked by xyz needs more money and so we'll spend it. As is now dawning on millions of leftists around the world (over the last 5 years),
a) contrary to what daddy told them, the left don't have some exclusive moral desire for improving the lot of people
b) the way to fix a situation is NOT chucking money at it if there is no follow-up money, and
c) the best (only) way to acquire follow-up money is through the economy.

Summary judgement? INWARD-LOOKING


3) clue-free "Not so. I have a pretty good idea as to how a modern economy should be run.
I believe you do. Again you were not intended to be captured by my remark. It is quite clear to me that the Rudd-"What They Said About Economics"-Team has absolutely no economic clues, just like its forebears.


5)lily-white zombies "sorry but the term lily-white surely does not apply to zombies. It is clearly a mixed metaphor.
Again, not applied to you. Also, it is not a mixed metaphor as the statement was not a metaphor to begin with - merely a series of adjectives (and goodies too).

'Lily white': Those that seek to comment on matters of commerce, and yet the closest thay have been to coal-face is naval and model ponderering.

The idea that they have the economic answers after pooling the sum total of 'perceived outcomes' of business people who have bought and sold their life-blood, run risks, faced the enemy, had sleepless nights, juggled bureaucracy and ultimately failed 9 times of 10 is laughable. Beautifully pristine hands from all the report reading they have done - both in the lecture hall, and at night time while they shake with (misplaced) rage on behalf of the werka.

Pax suggested that Labor has experience running business because they have had union experience. Pfft! Unions have no competition! :doh: Unions customer base was born of conscription :doh: And sales come from enforced spending of the conscriptees and donations! :doh: What a faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa*ing joke.

Gillard suggested she understood business because of her rarefied stint as a partner in a city law firm. She's been as close to business as she's been to elocution lessons :doh:

Verdict 'LILY WHITE'


6) shallow & ill-conceived
Refer all of the above. Not directed at you. More than justified.


9)self-serving cr*p "as I am retired I cannot understand how my statements could possibly be self serving.
Of course you can be self-serving - retired or not. Self-serving with regard to promoting your own views. Your argument (the one I attacked) was unsubstantiated and entirely for the purpose of pushing your own barrow. For an example, see below.


8) unsubstantiated - please show what unsubstantiated points that I have made

OK. Your post #419 in this thread, which prompted my reply from which you have quoted:

... I believe that Costello was asleep at the wheel and did nothing to head off trouble at the pass. As a result we have property prices that are absurdly high, a vast increase in national debt and potential trouble.
If you and Rudd are going to lay the blame (of being asleep at the wheel) at Costello's feet (which I entirely reject, but anyway), I want to know where:

a) either you or Rudd
1) foretold the impending property cook, and
2) what you claimed you would do about it

b) once you have located these two things, prove that your advance offerings survive scrutiny (in other words, you or Rudd wouldn't have made a bad situation profoundly worse with tinkering)

Without the ability to do as I have requested, I find you, Rudd and anyone else who spouts forth about the so-called housing crisis to be monumental SELF-SERVING (with regard to not proving your assertion) dribblers.

Kevin Bonham
18-11-2007, 04:52 PM
Agreed. But there still seems to be a much bigger secular influence on Labor than any Christian influence on the Libs.

I can't take this very seriously, but I will excuse you given that you do not have to share a state with Senators like Guy Barnett.

There are plenty in the Liberal party whose political religiosity is such that they would think you were a secularist.

Capablanca-Fan
18-11-2007, 05:02 PM
I can't take this very seriously,
As I said, Kim Beazley Sr. took it extremely seriously. But you may be right: the radical secularists seem to have joined the Dems or the Greens.


but I will excuse you given that you do not have to share a state with Senators like Guy Barnett.
Who is he? OK, I just Googled amd found his site, but still not sure what the problem is.


There are plenty in the Liberal party whose political religiosity is such that they would think you were a secularist.
Like who? :hmm: :confused:

Kevin Bonham
18-11-2007, 06:35 PM
Who is he? OK, I just Googled amd found his site, but still not sure what the problem is.

The dossier linked from bewareofthegod.com (http://www.bewareofthegod.com/) provides plenty of info on the political religiosity of Senator Barnett. Senator Abetz (another local) and Tony Abbott also get the treatment. Kevin Andrews is another who springs unfortunately to mind, along with the rest of the old Lyons Forum mob.

Those characters might reckon you let the side down by supporting too much economic freedom instead of their preferred model of using the State as a fundraising apparatus for religious organisations!

Capablanca-Fan
18-11-2007, 07:29 PM
The dossier linked from bewareofthegod.com (http://www.bewareofthegod.com/) provides plenty of info on the political religiosity of Senator Barnett. Senator Abetz (another local) and Tony Abbott also get the treatment. Kevin Andrews is another who springs unfortunately to mind, along with the rest of the old Lyons Forum mob.
That site hardly seems an objective judge of character.


Those characters might reckon you let the side down by supporting too much economic freedom instead of their preferred model of using the State as a fundraising apparatus for religious organisations!
Probably true ;) Saw a CDP candidate supporting protectionism as well. But not sure that that secular site supports economic freedom is any better when it comes to economic freedom.

Kevin Bonham
18-11-2007, 07:45 PM
That site hardly seems an objective judge of character.

It certainly isn't :lol: but the facts provided in the dossiers are often objective enough.

Spiny Norman
19-11-2007, 06:11 AM
My sister-in-law was visiting last night. The topic of conversation was NOT politics. A Kevin Rudd ad came on the TV. Completely unsolicited she exclaimed "I can't stand Kevin Rudd, if I see one more of his ads I'm gonna puke, a few months ago I was going to vote for him, but not now, I'm sick of the sight of him". Staggered me. I didn't dig in to find out WHY, but wondered whether this smiling Kevin "overload" might have started ticking off a few people. Noted he was on Rove last night. His smile looked a bit plastic at times, but overall carried it off well. Couldn't imagine John on Rove...

Southpaw Jim
19-11-2007, 09:09 AM
I didn't dig in to find out WHY, but wondered whether this smiling Kevin "overload" might have started ticking off a few people.
Possibly, but I'd suggest that she might never have been particularly committed to changing her vote anyway, and was just flirting with the idea. She's probably part of that 1-2% of the polls that has shifted back and forth over the past 11 months. The average poll for Labor up to about Aug/Sept was 57, now it's closer to 54-55, so voters like your sister-in-law have obviously gone off the idea. However, there's still a solid bedrock of support around 54-55%. It'll probably shift in the next 5 days, but not much (1-2%), since there's an advertising blackout from Wednesday night onward. Thus, the Coalition will struggle to change any more minds than they already have.

And - no - can't imagine JWH ever appearing on popular tv.. he wouldn't be able to control what happens..

Capablanca-Fan
19-11-2007, 09:28 AM
And — no — can't imagine JWH ever appearing on popular tv.. he wouldn't be able to control what happens…
He might, as long as there is not something as crass as the Worm.

Southpaw Jim
19-11-2007, 09:54 AM
Don' be hatin' the Worm!

On that note, nowhere near so much would've been made of it if the Libs hadn't tried to kill the Worm. Yet another Loughnane campaign error..

Capablanca-Fan
19-11-2007, 10:06 AM
Don' be hatin' the Worm!

On that note, nowhere near so much would've been made of it if the Libs hadn't tried to kill the Worm. Yet another Loughnane campaign error..
Maybe, but it is still crass.

Southpaw Jim
19-11-2007, 10:29 AM
Jono, you're talking about commercial tv! :eek:

pax
19-11-2007, 10:30 AM
To a leftist moron like you, anyone to the right of Comrade Gillardova is "ultra-right-wing". But there are plenty of us in the real world, where ideas have to work to survive, as opposed to in university humanities faculties, newsrooms, or "public service".

That's pretty funny coming from you - who by your own admission are 100% right wing on both economic and social issues. Everybody on this board (and virtually everybody on this planet) are lefties compared to you.

Basil
19-11-2007, 10:32 AM
Completely unsolicited she exclaimed "I can't stand Kevin Rudd, if I see one more of his ads I'm gonna puke.
Rudd makes me wanna puke. I did not experience a similar reaction to Hawke or Keating or Beazley or Crean. Perhaps Latham ... nah that was giggle. Yup Rudd makes me wanna puke.

Capablanca-Fan
19-11-2007, 10:46 AM
That's pretty funny coming from you — who by your own admission are 100% right wing on both economic and social issues. Everybody on this board (and virtually everybody on this planet) are lefties compared to you.
Nothing funny about it. I don't hide my views. But the Leftmedia promote leftist commentary masquerading as news. The token Right commentators are always clearly stated as commentators, but lefties are often newsreaders and hosts. Look at Maxine McKew here, or Dan "fake but accurate" Rather in the US.

One example in economics is the news blackout on the real reason for the water shortages, which even you and the other lefty Euro admit: that the price has not been allowed to rise freely so supply and demand equilibrate. All they do is advocate cajoling, begging, and coercing people to conserve more, ignoring that a high enough price would encourage self-rationing.

It is no accident that for many years, the strongest support for the evil Soviet empire was in the media and universities. And surveys have shown that they are overwhelmingly secular and leftist on economic and social views. To them, "diversity" means a female lefty, gay lefty, black lefty and hispanic lefty, not diversity of opinion.

pax
19-11-2007, 12:34 PM
Nice one. Alan Moss gets a 50% discount on his options payout at Macquarie, because he can classify it as a capital gain - paying 25% tax as a result:
http://business.smh.com.au/the-millionaires-factory-guide-to-cutting-tax/20071118-1b6c.html

Basil
19-11-2007, 12:49 PM
Pax, I haven't followed this dialogue, but appreciate your confirming (or otherwise) that:
1. Under Labor the rich still get richer, and
2. Whatever you and Jono are discussing would be the same result under "What Howard Said About The Economy Rudd".

Capablanca-Fan
19-11-2007, 01:38 PM
Nice one. Alan Moss gets a 50% discount on his options payout at Macquarie, because he can classify it as a capital gain - paying 25% tax as a result:
http://business.smh.com.au/the-millionaires-factory-guide-to-cutting-tax/20071118-1b6c.html
I've already said that we need to simply the tax system, rather than whinge about specific examples. Then the busdriver's overtime would not be taxed so unfairly high.

But what exactly is the problem apart from the usual leftist envy? The options payout made sure that Moss' interests aligned well with shareholders', so he has an incentive to work in their interests. As the article states, if his company hadn't performed, these options would have become worthless. So these options were not just like an ordinary paycheck that can be spent right away.

pax
19-11-2007, 02:22 PM
But what exactly is the problem apart from the usual leftist envy? The options payout made sure that Moss' interests aligned well with shareholders', so he has an incentive to work in their interests. As the article states, if his company hadn't performed, these options would have become worthless. So these options were not just like an ordinary paycheck that can be spent right away.

Don't you think it's a problem that Moss is paying half the rate of tax that others pay on a fraction of Moss's salary?

I have no problem with the options themselves as a performance incentive. But treating them as capital gains is laughable.

pax
19-11-2007, 02:24 PM
Pax, I haven't followed this dialogue, but appreciate your confirming (or otherwise) that:
1. Under Labor the rich still get richer, and
2. Whatever you and Jono are discussing would be the same result under "What Howard Said About The Economy Rudd".

Nothing to do with Howard vs Rudd (as such, a bit OT but so is half the thread). Only point is regarding the ludicrous CGT discount which we were discussing earlier in relation to negative gearing and the housing affordability problem.

Basil
19-11-2007, 02:29 PM
Nothing to do with Howard vs Rudd
Roger that.


a bit OT but so is half the thread.
Roger that.


Only point is regarding the ludicrous CGT discount which we were discussing earlier in relation to negative gearing and the housing affordability problem.
Roger that.

Do you think the situation would be the same under Rudd?

pax
19-11-2007, 02:49 PM
Do you think the situation would be the same under Rudd?

Oh, quite probably. There are some endemic problems in the system that are politically very difficult to fix.

Capablanca-Fan
19-11-2007, 03:39 PM
Oh, quite probably. There are some endemic problems in the system that are politically very difficult to fix.
One of the major ones is that political incentives are often the opposite of the economically sound thing to do. Worse, the political benefits are often short term, while the economic problems take longer to surface, by which time the political beneficiary is long gone and it's his successors who are lumbered with the problem.

Sometimes this is not so, in which case good things can be done, like Joh's abolition of the death tax, an action that helped turn QLD from a backwater into an economic powerhouse.

Capablanca-Fan
19-11-2007, 03:47 PM
Don't you think it's a problem that Moss is paying half the rate of tax that others pay on a fraction of Moss's salary?
Yes. The tax rates are far too high across the board. But you support in principle this discriminatory system of taxing different people at different rates, but just as an excuse to sock the "rich". When the discrimination is on the other foot, it doesn't seem so fair, huh?


I have no problem with the options themselves as a performance incentive. But treating them as capital gains is laughable.
But then what CEO would take them? Unlike real money, there is every chance that the options could become worthless. So it is reasonable to treat shares and options given to employees in lieu of salary just like other shares and options.

pax
19-11-2007, 05:18 PM
One of the major ones is that political incentives are often the opposite of the economically sound thing to do. Worse, the political benefits are often short term, while the economic problems take longer to surface, by which time the political beneficiary is long gone and it's his successors who are lumbered with the problem.

Totally agree. We have seen a lot of that from both sides in this campaign.

pax
19-11-2007, 05:25 PM
Yes. The tax rates are far too high across the board. But you support in principle this discriminatory system of taxing different people at different rates, but just as an excuse to sock the "rich". When the discrimination is on the other foot, it doesn't seem so fair, huh?

You yourself propose a flat tax with a tax free threshold - which is "discriminatory" in the way that you protest about.

I have no problem with progressive tax bands - as long as the rates are appropriate, and bracket creep is dealt with somehow (e.g indexation). It is perfectly fair, because everybody pays the same rate of tax for their first $30,000 in income, for their second $30,000 and so on. The fact that Alan Moss pays (or should pay) more for his 15th $100k income than Joe miner pays for his first is not discrimination.



But then what CEO would take them? Unlike real money, there is every chance that the options could become worthless. So it is reasonable to treat shares and options given to employees in lieu of salary just like other shares and options.

Options are very rarely "in lieu of salary" (at least for top executives), or if they are, the value of the shares are generally much higher than the salary lost. Just ask Sol Trujillo.

Capablanca-Fan
19-11-2007, 06:54 PM
You yourself propose a flat tax with a tax free threshold — which is "discriminatory" in the way that you protest about.
Most flat-tax proposals have such a threshold. It is more efficient, as well as refuting the silly charge that it hurts the poor.


I have no problem with progressive tax bands — as long as the rates are appropriate, and bracket creep is dealt with somehow (e.g indexation).
But who has the guts to deal with that? Both major parties just love it, because then they can cut the rates or raise the thresholds later just to pay back money they should never have confiscated in the first place.


It is perfectly fair, because everybody pays the same rate of tax for their first $30,000 in income, for their second $30,000 and so on. The fact that Alan Moss pays (or should pay) more for his 15th $100k income than Joe miner pays for his first is not discrimination.
Why should he pay a much higher proportion. Good grief, high tax rates just encourage tax evasion schemes as well as lobbying for deductions for one's own group. A flat tax would make all these schemes less worthwhile.


Options are very rarely "in lieu of salary" (at least for top executives), or if they are, the value of the shares are generally much higher than the salary lost. Just ask Sol Trujillo.
If Moss or Trujillo didn't have the options, they would have had more salary. Then there would have been less incentive for them to benefit their shareholders.

Southpaw Jim
20-11-2007, 08:52 AM
LOL! (http://cgi.ebay.com.au/John-Howard-Pinata_W0QQitemZ220171750001QQihZ012QQcategoryZ410 7QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)

Capablanca-Fan
20-11-2007, 03:51 PM
Unions not the enemy (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22785001-7583,00.html)
James Allan (professor of law at the University of Queensland)


MUCH of the criticism directed at Kevin Rudd's Labor Party in the run-up to Saturday's election has been focused on its domination by unions and ex-union leaders.

With the notable exception of the regulation of the workplace, and just possibly of support for free trade, I suspect this standard line of criticism gets it wrong.

The real threat to Australia comes not from the unionists but from the other main wing of the Labor Party, what I would describe as the chardonnay-sipping, ultra-PC, anti-traditionalist wing of the Labor Party. These are the people who worry me.

Start with the legal revolutionaries among them. This Labor-voting crowd, well represented among lawyers, judges, teachers and academics, wants power taken away from elected MPs and given to unelected judges. They badly want a bill of rights.

They know perfectly well that all bills of rights - be they British-style statutory ones or Canadian-style entrenched models - have precisely this increase-the-power-of-judges effect. Indeed, if they had no effect at all on the power balance, why would anyone push so hard to have one?

This crowd also knows that if voters are asked in any sort of referendum they will always be sensible enough to vote down a bill of rights or some disguised version of one. So these people set up elaborate consultation processes that attempt to give the illusion that a bill of rights is wanted. This is precisely what the state of Victoria did before enacting its statutory bill of rights only last year. Knowing that they could not win a referendum there (or anywhere) a "consultation process" was put in place chaired by a longstanding proponent of bills of rights and lacking even a single opponent of these instruments.

Yet this consultation sham of "like-minded activists talking to like-minded activists" served a useful function for the legal revolutionaries. It helped reinforce the basic selling line that's used.

The trick is to just keep repeating the mantra: "We need to protect and uphold fundamental human rights." Never, ever acknowledge that people in Australia simply disagree about what exactly is required to protect and uphold these indeterminately phrased, vague moral guarantees.

So proponents gloss over the patently true fact that smart, reasonable, even nice people simply have different opinions about gay marriage, abortion, how to treat refugee claimants, how to balance security concerns about terrorism against individual liberties and so much more. Those are the sort of things a bill of rights takes away from parliament and puts into the province of the judges.

These instruments are sold to the public by always talking up in the Olympian heights of moral abstractions. They have real bite and effect, however, in terms of contentious, debatable moral issues where none of us, top judges included, have a pipeline to God. The problem is that the chardonnay-sipping wing of the Labor Party does rather tend to think that its moral antenna is more finely attuned than that of everyone who disagrees with it.

It's not the ex-unionists who are the preening, puffed-up moralisers in the Labor Party. Far from it. But the crowd that doth vaunteth itself has calculated that the unelected judges are likelier to give it the moral outcomes it wants than are what it sees as the grubby politicians. And just to make sure of this, it tries to appoint to the bench people in its own image, people who are as much anti-traditionalists, parliamentary sovereignty-loathing activists as it is. One need look no further than Victoria's recent judicial appointments to see what I mean.

...

One of the attractive things about Australia's left-wing party — as opposed to New Zealand's, Canada's, Britain's and, to a lesser extent, the US's — is that it has not fallen wholly under the control of the preening, smug, holier-than-thou PC brigade who like their moralising to come cheap and easy.

Sure, ex-unionists may tend to focus on their members more than on the unemployed. And sure, some of them may not see, or care much about, the wealth-creating effects of free trade, especially for the poor part of the globe. But I'd take them any day of the week over the other main wing of the Labor Party.


It's notable that more sensible leading Laborites like Bob Carr were sensible enough to oppose nonsense like a Bill of Rights precisely because it would just lead to litigation not better human rights (http://www.thenewcity.info/carr_bill_rights.htm). He also opposed a republic with a popularly elected president, and an anti-vilification bill on the line of Victoria's fascist Bill — which Chairman Rudd refused to rule out.

Kevin Bonham
20-11-2007, 08:29 PM
May surprise some given my libertarian views on moral issues but I am also opposed to bills of rights.

Capablanca-Fan
20-11-2007, 09:19 PM
May susprise some given my libertarian views on moral issues but I am also opposed to bills of rights.
Why?

Kevin Bonham
22-11-2007, 10:32 AM
Why?

Bills of rights can easily turn into grab-bag lists of arbitrary and even mutually inconsistent "rights" that then have to be funded by the State. "Rights" are better dealt with through constitutions or legislation.

Capablanca-Fan
22-11-2007, 10:41 AM
Bills of rights can easily turn into grab-bag lists of arbitrary and even mutually inconsistent "rights" that then have to be funded by the State. "Rights" are better dealt with through constitutions or legislation.
Good way of putting it, thanx!:clap:

Davidflude
23-11-2007, 05:29 PM
Hilaire Belloc:

Here, richly, with ridiculous display,

The Politician’s corpse was laid away.

While all of his acquaintances sneered and slanged

I wept: for I had longed to see him hanged.

no names no pack drill

qpawn
25-11-2007, 11:47 PM
What do you do with a cunning rodent who has evaded capture for year?

Bring in the Rudd-Gilliard pest control team and exterminate!

Good riddance! Howard's grants to millionaires for homes, his failure to give a jail term to Pratt, and his utter ignorance of global warming...

DOWN you go you clown! I will go to a restaraunt and CELEBRATE your demise.

And once the AEC, and possibly the police, investigate the Lindsay letters scandal and the truth comes out the Australian public will see the Liberal Party for the despicable compost heap that it is.

I can't believe it! The end of Johnny! :D

Woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooohoooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Yipeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! :owned: :owned: :owned: :evil: :evil: :whistle: :whistle:

Desmond
26-11-2007, 06:45 PM
Thanks for the insight qpawn. Tell me, do you dislike people who break their promises (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=5555)?

qpawn
26-11-2007, 07:36 PM
absolutely.

And Howard broke so many promises. He promised in 96 to govern for all of us. Then he introduced school funding with no means test, grants for millionaires who buy homes, and he threw around the race card to get the Hansonists' vote and get reelected.

Worse, he only had a mandate for a small part of Workchoices. Then upon getting the senate he went power-drunk and rammed through the rest6 of Workchoices. To not hae a mandate is a broken promise for me.

And worst of all, he said "I'm sorry, not sorry" about interest rate rises. Wasn't he going to keep them at record lows????

Basil
26-11-2007, 08:17 PM
absolutely.
So you broke your promise.


And Howard broke so many promises.
List them.

Bill Gletsos
26-11-2007, 08:38 PM
Thanks for the insight qpawn. Tell me, do you dislike people who break their promises (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=5555)?I dont think the clue fairy has visited qpawn for quite some time.

Capablanca-Fan
26-11-2007, 10:43 PM
This (http://www.geocities.com/sgraessle/folder1/incomp.htm)seems to describe him.

Spiny Norman
27-11-2007, 08:04 AM
And worst of all, he said "I'm sorry, not sorry" about interest rate rises. Wasn't he going to keep them at record lows????
I understand there's a class here which should be able equip you with the basic comprehension skills necessary to understand the difference between expressing personal regret (i.e. saying sorry) and accepting personal responsibility (i.e. making an apology for one's past behaviour):
http://www.holmesglen.vic.edu.au/course/detail/index.cfm?CourseCode=90994NSW&DeptCode=LNG&SessionID=LNG4947

The following modules should be particularly useful:

Beginner Strategies for Learning
Beginner Communication Skills
Beginner Spoken Discourse Skills
Beginner Listening and Reading Skills

snowyriverman
28-11-2007, 02:43 PM
I bumped into a guy in a tracksuit who said "Here's a bucket of money, don't forget who is fiscally responsible?" :eek: ;)

Maybe the same guy who failed to correct the dysfunction in Federalism where the majority of revenues are collected by the central mechanism and dolled back the state governments with a distorted outcome of confused accountability.

snowyriverman
21-12-2007, 10:07 PM
While not a certainty, it appears more likely than not that Labor will win the next federal election.

This is not devastating news to me.
- it is important to have change (perhaps not for the sake, but I digress)
- no-one can govern forever
- there is much to be said (peace of mind for me, for one) for letting Labor have a go (that's how the Libs got in last time!

so I'm settling back and looking at the marketing that is winning and losing the hearts and minds of Australia

1. Industrial Relations
Despite what any of us say intellectually or factually, the deed is done. A massive whack of Australians absolutely believe that the governments IR laws are bad.

2. Tuned Out
I was listening to some commentary a couple of weeks ago where the talking head suggested that regardless of the merits or otherwise of what Keating was saying (prior to his dumping), the nation had tuned out to him. I feel that a significant chunk of voters (not particularly politically savvy, nor particularly ignorant) have tuned out to John Howard.

3. Campaign 'Asleep on Climate Change'
The current campaign with Johnny in bed for the last 11 years is winner IMO. Again, I give it no personal weight because among other things
- I want to know what the Labor government was so actively doing 11 years and one day ago :eek: :rolleyes:
- There are genuine reasons (albeit disputed) and ones I support for the Libs' position on climate change

4. There's also the 'Sneaky' imaging which Rudd and Gillard did so well a couple of months ago

and others.

Carry on!

Crickey's summing up was this piece today

"Three moments in Conservative politics yesterday.

1. Liberal Party Federal Director Brian Loughnane faces the National Press Club and maintains the head up the a-se of the dog in the sand line that things were great, we just got a bit inward looking and didn't sell our message.

2. Brendan Nelson, Federal Leader of the Liberal Party apparently, abandons the central tenet of ideological faith that has propelled his party through the preceding three years: WorkChoices. They used to call it the industrial relations reform that was the bedrock of the country's solid economic performance. Now it's dead meat. People didn't like it apparently, so best we don't believe in it anymore.

and the clincher:

3. A year and a change of government after Terence Cole's report, ASIC brings civil actions against six former executives of the AWB, the body you will recall that under the nose of at least the Foreign Minister bribed Saddam Hussein, just before the Howard Government decided that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and should therefore be invaded forthwith.

At which point, and for the edification of Brian Loughnane at least, we should mention children overboard, Tampa, the politicisation of the public service and the board of every available qango, the subtle incitement of queasy xenophobia and a general intolerance of the Other, the denial of climate change, the perversion of national pride to political ends, the introduction of WorkChoices out of opportunism rather than coherent necessity (never mind on a mandate), the replacement of ministerial responsibility with plausible denial, lickspittle foreign policy, rampant acquisitive federalism, profligate porkbarrelling and the abandonment of any principal that stood between the Howard Government and the merest whiff of a critical vote.

In the end they stood for nothing but themselves. Sorry Brian, but there it is. Analyse that.
".

Basil
21-12-2007, 10:55 PM
Sorry Brian, but there it is. Analyse that.
".
Who is Brian, and why would he analyse the quote?

Capablanca-Fan
30-12-2007, 01:22 PM
the politicisation of the public service and the board of every available qango,
Crikey is just a leftist rantfest. What about the recent announcment reported in Rudd takes control to new highs (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/12/20/1197740472726.html):


SOME of Australia's major institutions will have their media releases vetted by the Rudd Government to make sure they reflect Labor's "key messages".

A directive was issued this week by the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research to about a dozen statutory agencies.

Recipients include the CSIRO, the Australian Institute of Marine Science, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, the Australian Research Council, the Co-operative Research Centres and Invest Australia. Even the Questacon science museum in Canberra was sent the directive.

It says the Prime Minister’s office has instructed that “all strategic media releases which relate to the Government’s key messages” must be forwarded to the department which will then submit them to the office of the minister, Kim Carr…

The directive says releases "of a more pedestrian nature" need not be vetted but anything to do with climate change, industrial relations policy, education and science reform, tax policy, national security and health must be submitted. It has caused concerns within the statutory authorities which were never subject to such conditions under the Howard government.

One former Liberal minister called the Rudd Government "control freaks".

"The CSIRO sent out a lot of things that were quite contrary to our position on climate change. We just gritted our teeth and wore it," he said.

Imagine if the Coalition had tried something as despotic, e.g. when CSIRO was swallowing alGore's pseudoscientific globull warm-mongering above: Crikey and the other Howard-hating lefty suspects would have whinged about Howard gagging scientists and silencing critics.

Kevin Bonham
30-12-2007, 01:56 PM
Actually there was quite a deal of complaint by some scientists about alleged political interference in CSIRO under Howard, over global warming especially.

pax
30-12-2007, 03:58 PM
It is indeed a concern if the Rudd government is planning to vet media releases from CSIRO and the ARC. But don't believe for a minute that the Howard government was squeaky clean on these issues. A number of ARC decisions were vetted and announced by the Minister for Education in the Howard Governement, resulting in delays of several months between a decsision being taken (such as the renewal of funding for a research centre) and it being announced - leaving research centres in limbo. Kevin Andrews is also well known to have vetoed a number of ARC grants after their approval by the ARC. In my view that was a very serious breach of the independence of the ARC.

Capablanca-Fan
30-12-2007, 08:18 PM
Actually there was quite a deal of complaint by some scientists about alleged political interference in CSIRO under Howard, over global warming especially.
But still no requirement that the Howard government vetted what they said. CSIRO managed to get away with a lot of pronouncements that contradicted the Coalition line.

Capablanca-Fan
02-01-2008, 08:17 PM
You can be sure that Labor will spend more money coerced from taxpayers on its pet projects for our own good. Lefties often justify this by, "we are a society not an economy". But as Thomas Sowell pointed out in Basic Economics:


Lofty talk about “non-economic values” too often amounts to very selfish attempts to impose one’s own values, without having to weigh them against other people’s values. Taxing away what other people have earned, in order to finance one’s own fantasy ventures, is often depicted as a humanitarian endeavor, while allowing others the same freedom and dignity as oneself, so they can make their own choices with their own earnings, is considered to be pandering to “greed”. Greed for power is more dangerous than greed for money and has shed far more blood in the process. Political authorities have often had “revolutionary values” that were devastating to the general population.

Desmond
04-01-2008, 11:48 PM
Greed for power is more dangerous than greed for money and has shed far more blood in the process....thanks to religion. But then again, religion is quite happy to lighten your wallet too.

pax
05-01-2008, 09:48 AM
You can be sure that Labor will spend more money coerced from taxpayers on its pet projects for our own good. Lefties often justify this by, "we are a society not an economy".
You make it sound as though taxing and spending is some sort of exclusive domain of the left, yet the Howard government collected and spent as many or more tax dollars than previous governments.

The fact is that both left and right believe in spending tax dollars, they just have different priorities. People like you, who believe in funding military and little else are in a very very small minority.

Capablanca-Fan
05-01-2008, 12:13 PM
You make it sound as though taxing and spending is some sort of exclusive domain of the left, yet the Howard government collected and spent as many or more tax dollars than previous governments.
First, all this would prove it that they were further to the Left than you imply. Indeed, both major parties refuse to fix the iniquitous bracket creep.

Second, it's irrelevant that a government has taken more in tax. All the government can change is tax rate; the total tax revenues have often risen after a rate reduction.


The fact is that both left and right believe in spending tax dollars, they just have different priorities. People like you, who believe in funding military and little else are in a very very small minority.
And fighting crime. But even if we were a minority, it doesn't follow that a majority has a right to take a dime from us to give to themselves. In any case, most of the things we are unhappy with are those provided by the government (roads, water, health, airport Gestapo), while most of the things that have been improved greatly (computers, cars, Lasik eye surgery, electronics) are provided by private industry. Government just makes a pig's breakfast of the things outside its proper domain of preventing fraud and coercion.

Capablanca-Fan
05-01-2008, 12:16 PM
...thanks to religion.
What an ingorant comment. The lives shed by atheistic communist regimes and evolution-inspired Nazi regimes just last century massively outweigh the lives shed in ALL religious wars, inquisition, witch-burnings etc. over all previous centuries combined.


But then again, religion is quite happy to lighten your wallet too.
They have nothing on atheistic socialists, who prefer equality of poverty to inequality of wealth.

FWIW I receive no royalties on by books, otherwise I could retire.

Capablanca-Fan
16-01-2008, 03:17 PM
Latest Labor hypocrisy:

Labor Feds are whinging at banks for being anti-competitive for large loan switching fees on home loans. But not a peep to the state Labor governments for keeping the even larger stamp duty for every switch.

Desmond
16-01-2008, 07:33 PM
What an ingorant comment. The lives shed by atheistic communist regimes and evolution-inspired Nazi regimes just last century massively outweigh the lives shed in ALL religious wars, inquisition, witch-burnings etc. over all previous centuries combined.Source?



They have nothing on atheistic socialists, who prefer equality of poverty to inequality of wealth.Yeah right, I'm sure that so many religious artefacts were built from gold because it was the most economical commodity.


FWIW I receive no royalties on by books, otherwise I could retire.I did not know that. Do you receive payment/s other than royalties?

pax
16-01-2008, 09:59 PM
And fighting crime. But even if we were a minority, it doesn't follow that a majority has a right to take a dime from us to give to themselves.
It's called a representative democracy. I thought you might be familiar with the concept?


In any case, most of the things we are unhappy with are those provided by the government (roads, water, health, airport Gestapo),
The fact is that much major infrastructure would not exist, if not for government spending. Roads, railroads, telegraph, telephone, power generation and distribution. Your little free-enterprise-can-solve-anything harping is pure fantasy. If you had your way, Australia would be a third world country.

Capablanca-Fan
16-01-2008, 10:19 PM
It's called a representative democracy. I thought you might be familiar with the concept?
Yes, and also with the fact that the American Founding Fathers opposed pure democracy precisely because it had previously led to the tyranny of the majority.

The best system I've seen thus far is the LDP/Friedman policy of a basically flat tax, but with negative taxation for incomes below $30k. This would replace welfare and end the Centrelink tyranny against jobseekers.


The fact is that much major infrastructure would not exist, if not for government spending. Roads, railroads, telegraph, telephone, power generation and distribution. Your little free-enterprise-can-solve-anything harping is pure fantasy.
Translation: the Anointed (http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?articleID=484&issueID=37)ones like Pax love to interfere with economic transactions freely entered into by both parties. By definition, such a transaction could not occur unless both parties thought that they benefited, so it's a win-win situation.


If you had your way, Australia would be a third world country.
Not so. The real third world countries are precisely those where the government runs everything. Conversely, prosperous countries like Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore have minimal natural resources but the government keeps out of the way of private enterprise.

Even huge projects like the New York subway was built with private money. There were problems only when your beloved big government stepped in, so the railway was verboten to raise prices to cover costs, and they went bankrupt. So government stepped in, and of course they ran it like crap.

Private roads have also been well maintained, and for lower costs than the "free" roads, as Stossel points out (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2008/01/16/hating_free_enterprise).

The Australian only yesterday noted that Vic has lower electricity costs after privatization. We would have far better electricity services if the government got its butt out even more, e.g. their emotive ban on nuclear power.

And to show that water privatization really works, see John Stossel’s comments about Jersey City’s water supply after it was privatized (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4993). “Unfixable” pipes were repaired, there was clean water instead of foul, and taxpayers saved $35 million.

In my days as a semi-serious chessplayer, I once attended a chess seminar in the USSR as the NZ rep. While the chess was great, while looking around the shops, the results of a centrally planned economy were plain to see: long queues, surly service and poor quality. Less visible to an outsider were shortages and surpluses depending on whether the decreed price was lower or higher than what people would freely pay.

So you faith that bigger government can do wonderful things is proven fantasy :P

It’s notable that the closest parallels to the Soviet economic monstrosity in the West are precisely those run by the government, and for the same reason. So it shouldn’t be surprising that we have water shortages due to the leftist price caps that even you and the Other Lefty agree are foolish.

Capablanca-Fan
16-01-2008, 10:26 PM
Source?
Have a look at Death By Government (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM). For all the hatred of free enterprise by lefties like Pax, his beloved big government has killed far more. And the worst offenders were atheistic communists, who butchered millions. The religious wars, crusades, Inquisition (~2000 in three centuries), Salem witch burnings (<20) ... see also Christianity's Real Record (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GregKoukl/2006/11/21/christianitys_real_record) by Gregory Koukl.


Yeah right, I'm sure that so many religious artefacts were built from gold because it was the most economical commodity.
Not sure how this relates to the equality of poverty that socialism produces. But the tithes of religions have nothing on secular taxes that go to fund modern "art" and public broadcasting.


I did not know that. Do you receive payment/s other than royalties?
I receive a salary from CMI, but no royalties or commissions from my books. Otherwise I could retire and have more time for chess ;) Actually I like my job.

pax
16-01-2008, 10:40 PM
There are very few examples of major national infrastructure built by private companies in developing countries.

I'm curious to know who would maintain suburban streets in your world? Who would have built national telecommunications networks? Who would have built national electricity power grids? How would a national rail network be built, without a government intervening to acquire the land required? All of this before the days of very large enterprises which have the resources to carry out such feats.

And even if major infrastucture such as a power network *could* be built, what is then going to stop the owner of that network from charging massive fees for access to that network? For competition to prevent monopoly pricing of essential services, there would need to be at least two power grids, two phone networks, two gas networks, two water networks, and without government intervention how will these companies get permission to dig up land and put up power poles?

And I'm really curious to know how all the various owners of all the various bits of road manage to cover their costs - toll booths on every corner?

Igor_Goldenberg
17-01-2008, 12:37 PM
There are very few examples of major national infrastructure built by private companies in developing countries.

I'm curious to know who would maintain suburban streets in your world? Who would have built national telecommunications networks? Who would have built national electricity power grids? How would a national rail network be built, without a government intervening to acquire the land required? All of this before the days of very large enterprises which have the resources to carry out such feats.

And even if major infrastucture such as a power network *could* be built, what is then going to stop the owner of that network from charging massive fees for access to that network? For competition to prevent monopoly pricing of essential services, there would need to be at least two power grids, two phone networks, two gas networks, two water networks, and without government intervention how will these companies get permission to dig up land and put up power poles?

And I'm really curious to know how all the various owners of all the various bits of road manage to cover their costs - toll booths on every corner?

The very large enterprise mentioned above are usually made of stakeholders money, which are quite numerous. In that it is similar to government project with one very distinctive difference:
People fund those project voluntary, not under coercion.
As far as road management - it could be a case where the cost of collecting money is very significant in comparison to other cost. When cost of collecting money is prohibitive, it might be a case for a government intervention. However, local roads should be maintained by local councils collecting local taxes. The advantage is twofold:
1. People can vote with their feet and relocate few kilometres away.
2. Due to smaller scale and the reason above, local governments can be made more accountable to taxpayers

Capablanca-Fan
17-01-2008, 12:55 PM
Like all the Anointed ones (http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/anointed.php), Pax invokes imperfections in capitalism to justify government intervention, but he never invokes the far bigger imperfections in government to justify privatization. And the Anointed always compare the the imperfections in real world capitalism with an idealised perfect government department that doesn't and indeed cannot exist in the real world.

One obvious benefit of private companies is that if they fail to deliver, they go under. If a government department fails to deliver, they get even more money!

And for his information, the earliest railroads in the UK and US were built by private money. But the current crappy state of the railroads is due to their being run by government.

Pax also confuses competition with competitors. Even if there is now room for only one water network, if this network raises the price too much, other competitors would have the incentive to come in, or make alternatives such as cheaper rainwater tanks. The really bad monopolies are the government ones that forbid competition—NB it was governments that banned rainwater tanks and greywater recycling for decades to preserve their monopoly of town supply.

And the current water shortage is entirely due to the government monopoly and price caps; the shortage could be ended practically overnight if the market were allowed to set the price of water. Even the lefty Pax and the other lefty E'trash can see that the current water price is set too low. Reagan proved it with fuel when he removed price caps on gasoline as one of his first acts as President.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-01-2008, 12:58 PM
Indeed, having a cheap water and slogans to conserve do not impress me. sometimes it's like a deja vu from the past I once tried to escape.
Another things that puzzles me - wasting drinking quality water on shower, gardening, dish washing, etcetera.

Capablanca-Fan
26-02-2008, 12:01 AM
Lowest paid workers better off, Commission says (http://www.bigpond.com/news/business/content/20080225/2171554.asp)


The Fair Pay Commission (FPC) says Australia's lowest paid workers are better off than they have been in a long time.

...

"The lowest paid households have actually improved their real disposable incomes over the last two years," he said.

...

"Their conditions have improved as a result of the interaction of what the Fair Pay Commission has done and what the Federal Government has done in the last two Budgets."

Yeah, Howard was such a meanie to the lower paid with his work choices ...

Capablanca-Fan
27-02-2008, 12:53 AM
Cut for not bagging Howard: Nelson (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/i-was-cut-for-not-bagging-howard/2008/02/26/1203788295306.html)
The Age
26 February 2008


Federal Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson says he was cut from this month's ABC Television program on the Liberals' election defeat because he refused to sink the dagger into former prime minister John Howard.

Dr Nelson told ABC Radio today that he had been interviewed for the Four Corners program, but had not made it to the final cut.

This was "because I was speaking very positively about the things which had been achieved" by the former government, he said.

Metro
27-02-2008, 02:40 AM
www.abc.net.au/australiawide/stories/2008/200802/s2170403.htm

Southpaw Jim
29-02-2008, 10:54 PM
Jono will just love this.

Paul's third epistle. (http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/keating_breaks_his_silence_on_newspaper_commentato r/)

:lol:

Basil
29-02-2008, 11:01 PM
I think she's got Paul's dander up! I note Keating didn't quite make it to the end before invoking Kevin Bonham's cited adage* regarding the nazis.

* I forget who the cited author is. Watch this space while I hunt it up.
EDIT : Godwin's Law (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=185626&postcount=61)

Kevin Bonham
29-02-2008, 11:54 PM
I think she's got Paul's dander up! I note Keating didn't quite make it to the end before invoking Kevin Bonham's cited adage* regarding the nazis.

Yeah, I noticed that. He gets redeeming credit for comparing Albrechtsen's attitude to a Nazi-related item sufficiently obscure that this reader actually learned something new about the public pronouncements of Hitler from reading it!

Igor_Goldenberg
01-03-2008, 05:22 PM
Last week I saw a bumper sticker "John Howard does not represent me".
Yesterday my son pointed to another bumper sticker "Kevin07".

Apparently four month is not enough for someone to move on.

Southpaw Jim
05-03-2008, 07:59 AM
Howard's "Aspirational Nationalism" gets panned by Treasury head (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/05/2180007.htm)

Basil
05-03-2008, 08:12 AM
I couldn't even finish that nasty little story, but isn't this a case of of natural difficulties between a commonwealth and a state Labor block?

The Brisbane City Council's (currently a Lib Mayor with majority Labor councillors) was paralysed and politicised for most of its life.

BTW I expect to post more entries in Wall to Wall Labor regarding innumerate debacles related to commonwealth and states not sorting it out.

Back to the point - a nasty little story of no substance.

Southpaw Jim
05-03-2008, 08:18 AM
No - COAG was working quite well for a time there between Howard and the Labor Premiers, until it became politically expedient for Howard to be... uncooperative.

No substance? Dr Henry is highly respected. It's not his fault that Howard was a vote-buying, conniving little ...

Capablanca-Fan
05-03-2008, 09:29 AM
No - COAG was working quite well for a time there between Howard and the Labor Premiers, until it became politically expedient for Howard to be... uncooperative.
You mean, he wouldn't be pushed around by lefty spendthrift Labor states.


No substance? Dr Henry is highly respected. It's not his fault that Howard was a vote-buying, conniving little ...
Of course, Rudd never bought votes by copying most of Howard's policies!

Hypocrisy, thy name is Lefty!

Igor_Goldenberg
05-03-2008, 10:06 AM
Of course, Rudd never bought votes by copying most of Howard's policies!
Hypocrisy, thy name is Lefty!

Now, when Howard is gone, who is advising Rudd on his policies?

Capablanca-Fan
05-03-2008, 01:32 PM
Now, when Howard is gone, who is advising Rudd on his policies?
That's why he needs this summit. That way he can be advised by Cate Blanchett!

Basil
05-03-2008, 02:04 PM
That's why he needs this summit. That way he can be advised by Cate Blanchett!
Apparently the summit is set for a date falling across Jewish holidays which prevents Jews' attendance.
[/not governing for all Australians]
[/muckraking]
[/important issue for some]
[/blunder]

Southpaw Jim
05-03-2008, 02:35 PM
The full text of Dr Henry's speech attached below. Doesn't make as much of "Aspirational Nationalism" as the media reports would suggest, but certainly an interesting read nonetheless:

Igor_Goldenberg
05-03-2008, 03:57 PM
Apparently the summit is set for a date falling across Jewish holidays which prevents Jews' attendance.

It breaks my heart (sob, sob, sob).

Capablanca-Fan
06-03-2008, 10:45 AM
Nation tired of confrontation: Hawke (http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/paulkelly/index.php/theaustralian/comments/nation_tired_of_confrontation_hawke)


ON the 25th anniversary of his first smashing election victory, Bob Hawke says national reconciliation is a great asset for Kevin Rudd and that Australians are sick of polarisation and confrontation, just as they were in 1983.

“I think the nation was tired of the confrontation that characterised the Howard government,” Hawke says in his Sydney office.

I.e. confrontation means disagreeing with me; consensus means agreeing with me. B. Hussein Obama thinks the same. Of course, all the confrontation by Labor against the policies of the four-times-elected Howard government was OK. Typical of the lefty Anointed (http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?articleID=484&issueID=37): those who disagree with them are spoiling the unity they desire—on their terms!

Capablanca-Fan
06-03-2008, 04:34 PM
John Howard's Irving Kristol Lecture (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23328945-5014047,00.html)
Delivered to the American Enterprise Institute, Washington DC
5 March 2008

Pretty good, stressing the benefits of strong families, free trade and markets, and resolute foreign policy.

Remember that Chairman KRudd won by 'me-tooing' many of Howard's ideas. But Nelson is being treated with contempt by voters for me-tooing where Labor differed.

Kevin Bonham
06-03-2008, 05:00 PM
Remember that Chairman KRudd won by 'me-tooing' many of Howard's ideas. But Nelson is being treated with contempt by voters for me-tooing where Labor differed.

Rudd won by selective differentiation - picking issues on which to stress differences and deliberately avoiding them on others. It is not the same thing as "small target" where you try not to stress differences at all and just hope the voters have had a gutful.

I don't think it's me-tooing that's causing Nelson's poor ratings. I think it's that he is an unconvincing leader of a party bereft of any obvious ideological direction to take.

Capablanca-Fan
06-03-2008, 05:18 PM
Rudd won by selective differentiation—picking issues on which to stress differences and deliberately avoiding them on others. It is not the same thing as "small target" where you try not to stress differences at all and just hope the voters have had a gutful.
There were over 20 me-too policies, and that comforted voters who had never known such low unemployment or interest rates.


I don't think it's me-tooing that's causing Nelson's poor ratings. I think it's that he is an unconvincing leader of a party bereft of any obvious ideological direction to take.
That's just it—he's not leading. Following Chairman Rudd on the controversial issues is no way to hold the 40+% who still voted for the Coalition.

Capablanca-Fan
07-03-2008, 09:21 AM
Ah yes, typical of the Leftist bias of the Atheist Bolsheviks Collective (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/howard_bitter_keating_simply_speaks/), which Mr Howard made the mistake of not privatising: Howard's calm talk was called "strident" and "bitter", while Keating's tirade was merely "speaks" and "wide-ranging critique".

Southpaw Jim
07-03-2008, 10:11 AM
Keating is an oracle, and Howard is a carping whinger.

Nothing new in that!

Capablanca-Fan
07-03-2008, 10:24 AM
Keating is an oracle, and Howard is a carping whinger.

Nothing new in that!
It's one thing for you to say what you believe as a typical blinkered lefty :P, quite another for a broadcaster funded by money taken from people by force.

Southpaw Jim
07-03-2008, 01:39 PM
It's one thing for you to say what you believe as a typical blinkered lefty :P
Jono, we've trodden this path before - from where you stand, everyone is a typical blinkered lefty :P

BTW, have you read Dr Henry's speech? (above) I think you'd find it an interesting diversion.

arosar
07-03-2008, 01:54 PM
Has any1 read Bernie Keane's take on Howard's trip to US? The bloke gets slaughtered.

AR

Igor_Goldenberg
07-03-2008, 02:45 PM
Has any1 read Bernie Keane's take on Howard's trip to US? The bloke gets slaughtered.

AR
Links?

Southpaw Jim
07-03-2008, 02:51 PM
Mr Howard Goes to Washingon (http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20080307-Mr-Howard-goes-to-Washington.html)

Capablanca-Fan
07-03-2008, 03:13 PM
Has any1 read Bernie Keane's take on Howard's trip to US? The bloke gets slaughtered.
Who cares what a Lefty rag like Crikey thinks? Lefties typically worship the disastrous Whitlam, thought the crazed Latham was the answer, and ignore Keating's potty mouth.

Capablanca-Fan
07-03-2008, 03:15 PM
Jono, we've trodden this path before — from where you stand, everyone is a typical blinkered lefty :P
No, just rabid Howard-haters like you, and lovers of big government and high taxes like Pax. :P

KB is centrist, Gunner is moderately right, for example.


BTW, have you read Dr Henry's speech? (above) I think you'd find it an interesting diversion.
Thanx for that. Very good points to make about the folly of price caps causing our current water crisis, which could be solved by letting the price rise till demand matched supply, and the likelihood that a free market would result in additional supply. Interesting point about the problems that interest rate caps had on the availability of home loans until Keating removed the cap. When will people learn that price caps cause shortages!

Southpaw Jim
07-03-2008, 03:35 PM
No, just rabid Howard-haters like you, and lovers of big government and high taxes like Pax. :P

KB is centrist, Gunner is moderately right, for example.
I don't deny I'm a Howard disliker (hate is a strong word), but I still maintain I'm a centrist, rather like KB.


Interesting point about the problems that interest rate caps had on the availability of home loans until Keating removed the cap.
I, myself, did not know of the existence of the "queues" for loans, although you only have to think about it (or back to 1st yr Economics for me) for a moment for it to make sense. Restrict price, and suppliers will reduce output accordingly. Result = excess demand, shortages.

Capablanca-Fan
07-03-2008, 03:52 PM
I don't deny I'm a Howard disliker (hate is a strong word), but I still maintain I'm a centrist, rather like KB.
Most people think that they are in the centre ;)


I, myself, did not know of the existence of the "queues" for loans, although you only have to think about it (or back to 1st yr Economics for me) for a moment for it to make sense. Restrict price, and suppliers will reduce output accordingly. Result = excess demand, shortages.
Of course! Even lefty economists know that. ;) It's the political demagogues who want government interference in the market.

I have childhood memories of petrol price caps in NZ, with all the same government urges to conserve, commercials on the government-run stations on how to drive more steadily to use less petrol over the distance, carless days (car owners had to nominate one day per week on which they couldn't drive), petrol stations that couldn't afford to stay open too long, 80 km/h speed limits since higher speeds use more fuel. NZ never had this nonsense ever again after petrol price caps were abolished—despite oil shocks like the Iraq wars, Katrina, simply because prices were allowed to rise to reflect the increasing shortages, despite political demagogery about ‘price gouging’. But those childhood experiences remind me so much of current policies of pricing water too low then begging/forcing us to conserve.

Same with the converse: restricting how low a price can go causes gluts by the exact same reasoning. Doesn't stop political demagogues wanting the farmers' votes supporting minimum prices, or minimum wage laws where the glut in labour that results is usually called unemployment.

Southpaw Jim
07-03-2008, 08:57 PM
Most people think that they are in the centre ;)
"Centrist" is the new "black", don't you know... :P



Of course! Even lefty economists know that. ;)
Don't you mean anointed lefty economists? :rolleyes: :P

Capablanca-Fan
08-03-2008, 12:20 AM
Don't you mean anointed lefty economists? :rolleyes: :P
Oh, the real Anointed ones probably don't.

Basil
08-03-2008, 03:26 AM
"Centrist" is the new "black", don't you know... :P
Centrist is the new fad lurking area for people who are somewhat embarrassed at the idea of being a lefty when in fact they are ummm a ... eeer ... lefty.

Desmond
08-03-2008, 08:11 AM
Someone* once said that people define normal by what they are themselves. That may apply to centrist here.



*perhaps it was someone great, or maybe just a piece of fortune-cookie-wisdom that caught my eye.

Basil
08-03-2008, 11:01 AM
Well it could be that 80% of us actually do have the same politics*, and if we're I'm brutally honest those policies are indeed broadly conservative ones.

*Not including doofus headline policies such as
- computers in schools
- Kyoto slip and slide backslide make a difference out of no real difference

Capablanca-Fan
08-03-2008, 11:56 AM
Centrist is the new fad lurking area for people who are somewhat embarrassed at the idea of being a lefty when in fact they are ummm a ... eeer ... lefty.
Just as Obama pretends to be a moderate rather than the überliberal he really is.


Well it could be that 80% of us actually do have the same politics*, and if we're I'm brutally honest those policies are indeed broadly conservative ones.
Same with America. In both places, conservatives can sampaign safely as conservatives, while lefties have to campaign as centrists, then double-cross the ever-gullible sheeple by governing to the Left.

Kevin Bonham
12-03-2008, 05:08 PM
Who cares what a Lefty rag like Crikey thinks? Lefties typically worship the disastrous Whitlam, thought the crazed Latham was the answer, and ignore Keating's potty mouth.

So do you think Christian Kerr is a "lefty"? I agree that Crikey inclines towards the left on the whole but not all of its writers are of that persuasion.

snowyriverman
16-06-2008, 01:49 PM
Well it could be that 80% of us actually do have the same politics*, and if we're I'm brutally honest those policies are indeed broadly conservative ones.

*Not including doofus headline policies such as
- computers in schools
- Kyoto slip and slide backslide make a difference out of no real difference

Rather than conservative policies I invite you to consider if common policies was what you intended to convey?
And there is obviously a lot of common ground for the two major parties.


But Johnny went down for doing some unAustralian acts.
Support for detention offshore from America to avoid access to American courts.
Rendition.
Offshore detention of some refugees.
Dogs on the wharves
Work-choices legislation.

And support for Johnny went down when he was caught lying about the Australian wheat-board, and children over-board.


UnAustralian. And lying.

It was not about policies

Basil
16-06-2008, 02:54 PM
And there is obviously a lot of common ground for the two major parties.
There are common policies.


But Johnny went down for doing some unAustralian acts.
Support for detention offshore from America to avoid access to American courts.
Rendition.
Offshore detention of some refugees.
Dogs on the wharves
Work-choices legislation.
I don't think so. It was primarily workchoices coupled with wunderkid's persona :rolleyes: (which I might add increasingly deteriorates with each passing day).


And support for Johnny went down when he was caught lying about the Australian wheat-board, and children over-board.
No he wasn't caught lying. The best that people have come up with is "he must have known - and therefore I'll convict him on those allegations coz I don't like him for other reasons".
As far as the 'must have known' test goes, I can wheel out heaps of 'must have knowns' about Teflon Kev the Milky Bar Kid
• Surely his wife must have known that company she was buying was under-paying staff.
• Surely Rudd must have known about the Burke affair.

... and so it goes on. I find your post either entirely biased or selectively ignorant of the facts. I not fussed which one applies.

Capablanca-Fan
16-06-2008, 02:55 PM
Rather than conservative policies I invite you to consider if common policies was what you intended to convey?
And there is obviously a lot of common ground for the two major parties.
In the sense that both of them contain members who think it's OK to take money from some Australians by force, to give to other Australians. But it's been a long time since such blatant crony capitalism was imposed as KRudd's confiscation of $35 million from Australians to give to wealthy Toyota to build hybrids, thus unfairly disadvantagings Honda and Commodore hybrids.


But Johnny went down for doing some unAustralian acts.
Support for detention offshore from America to avoid access to American courts.
Ah yes, you would support the activist majority in SCOTUS for giving captured terrorists more rights than American soldiers now enjoy!


Work-choices legislation.
Which many employees liked, as did employers since they would be more willing to hire if they weren't likely to be stuck with a dud. But Liberal campaining was abysmal and no match for Labor/Union demagogery.


UnAustralian. And lying.

It was not about policies
Gunner has already dealt with these pathetic accusations and pointed out the double standards (e.g. Hawke's "no child will be in poverty by 1990), and see also my Post 225 (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=172265&postcount=235).

Garvinator
16-06-2008, 05:53 PM
Rather than conservative policies I invite you to consider if common policies was what you intended to convey?
And there is obviously a lot of common ground for the two major parties.


But Johnny went down for doing some unAustralian acts.
Support for detention offshore from America to avoid access to American courts.
Rendition.
Offshore detention of some refugees.
Dogs on the wharves
Work-choices legislation.

And support for Johnny went down when he was caught lying about the Australian wheat-board, and children over-board.


UnAustralian. And lying.

It was not about policies
The only one out of this list that was a major factor was work choices and as I have said before, it was the name of the policy that was the first failure.

The second major factor was that John Howard gave the impression (at least) that he would keep interest rates at record lows at the 2004 election. As this did not happen and in fact the reverse happened (Interest rates went up), the people felt deceived.

Also JH's comment that people have never been better off went down like a lead balloon, even though for quite a few people it is the truth, but conveyed the impression that the Coalition had given up and that there was nothing more that they could do.

So the voting public agreed.

Kruddy is now getting exactly the same treatment, especially when he said that there was not much more he could do about petrol prices, except monitor them. In the 2007 election campaign, I kept hearing Kruddy giving challenges to JH about what JH should do about this and that. Maybe Kruddy needs some more help :whistle:

Sounds just like more me tooism from Kruddy.

snowyriverman
24-08-2008, 02:11 PM
From crickey .com

Canberra correspondent Bernard Keane writes:

Peter van Onselen and Philip Senior’s Howard’s End provides a detailed explanation of why the Howard Government should have been comfortably re-elected last November.

This is a book for the partisans -- the story of how a competent, high-quality government blundered its way to defeat at the hands of an opponent lacking in substance but rich in political savvy, and a media anxious for change.

Van Onselen and Senior evidently lack the sort of in-depth access to the Liberal leadership obtained by Christine Jackman from Labor’s campaign team for Inside Kevin 07, which at least provided a glimpse into the heat of electoral battle, if not any profound analysis, and the book occasionally feels like a collection of press clips. There are some curious absences, too -- Rudd’s slip-up on tax rates is cited, but not Howard’s more harmful A Current Affair senior moment on interest rates, nor the revealing problems the Coalition had with working out what campaign slogan to stick with once “Go For Growth” became an ongoing reminder of interest rates.

In essence, Van Onselen and Senior think Howard was dudded -- by the press, by his colleagues, and not least of all by his own failing political judgement, which like the proverbial frog in the saucepan left him unaware until too late that he should have gotten out much earlier.

The media come in for repeated criticism -- for being lazy, for getting on the grog when Howard wanted to convey his feelings about the death of a soldier, for helping Kevin Rudd because he used to be on Sunrise, for claiming Rudd won the debate because they were angry about the lack of chartered aircraft, and, in the case of the ABC, for being systematically anti-Coalition.

The Australian’s blatant bias toward the Government -- despite editorialising for Rudd at the last moment to curry favour with the party by then assured of victory -- goes virtually unremarked.

But cranky p-sshead journos have got nothing on Howard’s own cabinet colleagues. In recounting the events surrounding Howard’s offer, later withdrawn, to stand aside, Van Onselen and Senior do manage to effectively convey the absurd and comical cowardice of grown men and women, supposedly top political operators, who are unable to carry out the simplest of political executions even when their failing leader loads the gun and hands it to them.

However, what’s missing -- peculiarly given Van Onselen is a recent biographer of Howard -- is an effective insight into what remains the most significant miscalculation by a leading Australian politician for a generation or more, one that cost him his own seat and his party government.

Van Onselen and Senior neglect what the 1980s told us about John Howard, that he was prepared to go to any lengths, including damaging his own party, in order to lead it and that he was prepared to use the leadership to pursue what ended up being one of the few permanent goals of his political career -- suppressing the moderate wing of the Liberal party.

Howard understood that the Liberals' supposed great asset -- its union of liberals and conservatives -- was also a significant weakness in the absence of both a Labor-style internal power-sharing structure and a strong leader. Howard’s success in keeping party moderates underfoot risked being undone if he’d made way for Costello, who even if not progressive himself, would have stoked hopes of a moderate resurgence within the party, but lacked the authority to quash them.

Van Onselen and Senior also fail to make the connection that it was policy as much as political miscalculation that accounted for the end of the Howard Government. Like, one suspects, many current Liberal MPs, they see in the Government’s policies essentially sound goals, marred perhaps by implementation problems, or a well-funded campaign of opposition.

They don’t understand what the majority of Australian voters came to believe -- that WorkChoices meant unskilled workers relied on the goodwill of their employers to get a fair go, that Howard preferred to tax and spend for political benefit rather than invest the proceeds of the mining boom, thereby driving up interest rates, that the NT intervention was essentially political in nature, or that Australia’s foreign policy had become too closely associated with the views of one section of one US political party.

These were not presentational difficulties, or the consequences of union-funded ad campaigns, or merely symbolic -- they were the fundamental components of the Coalition agenda.

Despite this and Jackman’s book, no one has yet really explained what happened in 2007, what occurred in the collective mind of the electorate to embrace Kevin Rudd. One suspects that John Howard, like Paul Keating before him, lost touch with the Australia he played such a fundamental role in creating during his time in power.

But in 1996 the nation turned to a long-established political figure, a known quantity. In 2007, we bought a relative unknown from Queensland. It’s still not clear what we’ve ended up with.


+++++++++++
It would seem that the ggray policy not something else point is still not decided among the pundits.

snowyriverman
24-08-2008, 02:13 PM
Also from Crikey.com

6 . Andrews left naked by innocent Haneef 'secret dossier'
Barrister and commentator Greg Barns writes:

Whenever former Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews was criticised and accused of acting politically for his decision to cancel Gold Coast doctor Mohammed Haneef's visa after he was granted bail on July 16 last year, Andrews would simply point out that he had on his desk a "secret dossier".

The implication was always that the "secret dossier" contained information which fully and unambiguously justified Mr Andrews’ decision.

On July 30 last year Andrews told ABC Radio that he wanted to release more information about why he cancelled Dr Haneef’s visa so "people can see the circumstances in which the decision was made".

"And hopefully when people see the further information ... they'll be able to see that there are more circumstances which haven't been made available to them to date," Andrews said.

A day later, on July 31, Andrews used Sydney broadcaster Alan Jones’ program to complain that "in coming to my conclusion about a reasonable suspicion I obviously relied on the protected information from the police. I’m in a position where I’ve got one hand tied behind my back because ideally I’d like to release information but I’m being told by the Federal Police 'please don’t jeopardise the ongoing inquiry'."

And on the same day Andrews had this exchange with 2UE broadcaster John Laws which left the average listener with only one impression – that the ‘secret dossier’ was so sensitive that only a few eyes had seen it:

JOHN LAWS: Who’s seen this secret information other than you and presumably the Commonwealth Solicitor–General and maybe the Prime Minster, who else has seen it?

MINISTER ANDREWS: Beyond that I don’t think many people have. Obviously...

The clear objective of the "secret dossier" spin peddled by Mr Andrews last year was to ensure that the community thought Dr Haneef was indeed a danger to Australia, and that the community should trust Mr Andrews on this one, because he had access to highly sensitive information of a highly damaging kind about Dr Haneef.

That was not true then, and it is no truer today, according to former Howard government officials who have seen the "secret dossier". The dossier, complied by the AFP and Mr Andrews’ own department, did not contain material which either incriminated Dr Haneef or suggested he was of such a bad character that he should have his visa cancelled, according to media reports last Friday and over the weekend.

All this "secret dossier" contained, according to those officials, was information about the UK authorities' inquiry into the activities of Dr Haneef’s cousins who were involved with terrorism activities in that country, and Dr Haneef’s association with them.

As The Australian reported on Friday:

The secret dossier that former immigration minister Kevin Andrews relied on to cancel Mohamed Haneef's visa, and which federal police have since refused to publicly disclose, contained no evidence of criminality against the Indian doctor.

Instead, the document sought to establish an association between Dr Haneef and his cousins Sabeel and Kafeel Ahmed, the men allegedly responsible for the botched terror attacks in London and Glasgow last year.

The brief was prepared by Immigration Department officials based on evidence gathered by the Australian Federal Police and used by Mr Andrews to strip Dr Haneef of his visa on character grounds on the day he was granted bail on a terror charge.

According to several sources who have seen the document, it contained no evidence linking Dr Haneef to the terror attacks or any criminal activities.

"The brief didn't go to criminality," a former Howard government official told The Australian. "It wasn't concerned with any incriminating evidence against Haneef but went to the question of his association with the guys in the UK who were suspected to have been involved in criminal conduct."

Mr Andrews’ "secret dossier" strategy appears to have been a politically motivated one designed to justify Mr Andrews’ extraordinary decision to cancel Dr Haneef’s visa.

It was a cynical exercise by the Howard government in seeking to gain a political advantage at the expense of transparency and honesty. We saw it with Children Overboard and Tampa in 2001, and we can place Kevin Andrews’ "secret dossier" exercise in the same file which by the way was labelled, "Whatever it takes".

Garvinator
24-08-2008, 10:57 PM
+++++++++++
It would seem that the ggray policy not something else point is still not decided among the pundits.
I take it you are referring to me. If so, which comment in particular or phrase. Just a little unsure what you mean if you are referring to me.

Capablanca-Fan
09-03-2009, 10:46 AM
This employment law's so bad it should just be let go (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25157126-7583,00.html)
Grace Collier (former union official)
The Australian, 9 March 2009

FOR a government to impose additional costs on business during good times is courageous. In tough times it is simply foolish. Our surplus has been spent, unemployment is rising, we teeter on the cusp of recession and yet the Rudd Government is about to make life even harder for the vast bulk of our business community.

Since March 2006 the Howard government's reforms have treated businesses employing less than 100 staff like responsible entities. For the first time in ages, businesspeople were able to dismiss employees who they could no longer employ without fear of being sued and consequently having to pay huge amounts of go-away money just to avoid a ghastly legal process.

Due in June, Rudd's new laws will condemn these businesses to a dreadful legal treadmill where the only way to get off is to cough up and cough up big.

The legislation will hinder business growth and affect survival; it's an added stress and cost that they don't need and it comes at the worst possible time.

...

So in plain terms, what does the new legislation mean for bosses, workers and the economy?

After June this year, employers with fewer than 100 staff will have to pay to seek advice from expert consultants or lawyers prior to dismissing staff, costing the average small business up to $10,000 or more for every person they wish to dismiss.

...

Knowing that unsettled cases proceed to a formal court hearing, at a cost of $25,000 to $50,000, and with active encouragement, misinformation, strong pressure and even bullying by the mediator in more than 80 per cent of cases the employer buckles by agreeing to a go-away fee.

The matter is deemed settled, cash is transferred and a certificate is issued.

For the employee, the odds of success are better than at any casino; they present to the session with a $50 fee, and after an hour usually walk away with over $10,000 in cash.

...

Under Rudd's new laws, I predict we will see the small and medium business sector slugged with a go-away money bill of well over $120 million a year. In 2009, this is a cost businesses can ill afford.

Rest assured, it is a cost that will be passed on to all Australians. Now that's unfair.

Capablanca-Fan
09-04-2009, 08:54 PM
Howard's achievements (from a post on the Bolt blog):


Restructured the waterfront to internationally competitive levels, which is something the ALP were never going to touch due to the power of the MUA within the ALP.
Cut welfare to new arrivals requiring someone to sponsor them (saving billions)
Increased real wages 80%
Trebled the amount of health spending (he can’t be blamed for ALP bureaucrats and their inefficiencies in administration -- it’s a state matter)
Paid off the majority of 96 billion of the ALP generated public debt so that the Government had no NET debt (Only debt left was to facilitate the functioning of a Government Bond market)
Increased SGC requirements and introduced the government SGC matching scheme
Introduced a GST which simplified tax and got rid of the 12%, 22% and 32% sales taxes on products, and gave all proceeds from the GST to the states.
Got us through economic crises in the Asian Currency Crisis, the tech wreck in 2000 and also post 9/11.
Brought the nation Tax reform
Delivered Surplus after surplus
Introduced and delivered regular bonus payments for pensioners
Cut down on welfare fraud
Stopped illegal immigrants completely [people smuggling has revived under KRudd]
Increased spending on medicare, and introduced the safety net
Added over 300 different drugs to the PBS scheme benefitting women and the elderly
Established APRA
Brought about the highest levels of business and consumer confidence since federation
Got unemployment to its lowest levels in 35 years
Brought IR reform which has since been vindicated compared to the archaic ALP dogma.

Mischa
09-04-2009, 09:00 PM
being a sycophant

Capablanca-Fan
09-04-2009, 09:11 PM
You mean like Chairman KRudd's good buddy Commissar Obamov, bowing before the corrupt King of an Islamofascism-exporting nation?

9WlqW6UCeaY

Spiny Norman
10-04-2009, 08:07 AM
Jono, what's wrong with bowing to a foreign king? Its all about diplomacy. Its what's expected in that location. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. After all, Obama is "just" a politician. The Saudi king is royalty!

I didn't understand all the nonsense about this, comparing it to his head nod to the queen. Its what's expected. Its what they are told to do...

Garvinator
10-04-2009, 08:33 AM
Jono, what's wrong with bowing to a foreign king? Its all about diplomacy. Its what's expected in that location. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. After all, Obama is "just" a politician. The Saudi king is royalty!

I didn't understand all the nonsense about this, comparing it to his head nod to the queen. Its what's expected. Its what they are told to do...
Not quite. My understanding is that the normal courtesy for a western leader in that part of the world is a small head bow as a matter of courtesy. Hence the controversy. It indictates and or shows subservience. Or at least could be perceived that way.

Also apparently Obama has been introducing himself as Barack Hussein Obama in his visits over there, after downplaying that angle during the presidential campaign.

So much for a change candidate, just says whatever is required to gain favour, sounds more like a normal politician. Why is this guy seen as a Messiah?

Spiny Norman
10-04-2009, 09:37 AM
I don't know. You may be right. Obama's minions have gotten things arse up with others (e.g. the hullabaloo over the gift to PM Gordon Brown) so maybe they told him to do it. Or maybe he's just doing his own thing. As for your last question ... he's not the Messiah, he's just a very naughty boy!

Basil
10-04-2009, 11:56 AM
Jono, what's wrong with bowing to a foreign king?
I don't think there's anything wrong with the head/ nod/ bow etc. I think Jon's pointing out the silly willy double brain fade of lefties that revile John Howard's association with the US but are quite prepared to have Rudd so far up it or anyone else's back passage without batting an eyelid.

Same old. It's not their stupidity to which I object - it's the fact that they have a vote ;) And there are millions of them!

Capablanca-Fan
10-04-2009, 12:27 PM
The 'best place' to ride out the crisis? Not on $32 a day (http://www.theage.com.au/national/the-best-place-to-ride-out-the-crisis-not-on-32-a-day-20090409-a25f.html)
Tim Colebatch
The Age, 10 April 2009


Even the more sober trend data produced by the Bureau of Statistics shows that since October, Australia has been losing 4000 full-time jobs a week. Unemployment has been growing by almost 1000 a day.

As Macquarie Bank economist Rory Robertson points out, the pace of job losses is eerily similar to the early stages of the 1982-83 and 1990-91 recessions — both of which ended up with unemployment rising to more than 10 per cent of the workforce.

It is also eerily similar to what is happening in other Western countries, where unemployment is now galloping away. We just started a few months behind the rest.

If the pattern of those past recessions lies ahead of us now, we will soon have more than a million Australians unemployed. They will be the main victims of the recession, and their living conditions and prospects ought to be top of the Government's agenda.

Ministers keep telling us that Australia is the best place to be in this crisis. But that's certainly not true if you're unemployed. The Government pays you a breadline wage of just $32 a day, and then only if you've virtually exhausted your savings.

Yet some people voted against Howard, despite the economic surplus, low interest rates and high employment, because of Centrelink problems. Looks like many more people are going to find out these problems, which seem no better under KRudd. And best of luck in trying to find an employer who's willing to hire under Layba's new industrial laws that make it extremely hard to fire if it doesn't work out.

Spiny Norman
10-04-2009, 02:16 PM
Centrelink is noticeably less efficient today (2008-09) than five years ago (2003). Both times I was accessing unemployment/Newstart services. I don't blame either party for that. The public service's obsession with centralisation, call centres, etc, has produced too many front line staff who are unable to help with more complex situations. When their phone systems "broke down" (not physically, logically) I found that I was "lost in the system" ... in the end it was only because my wife and I knew more about how the system was supposed to work than the front-line staff did, that we were able to insist on certain things being done and, eventually, getting on to unemployment benefits. If we had not pushed and pushed, we would likely not have received any support at all.

Kevin Bonham
12-04-2009, 07:28 PM
The Government pays you a breadline wage of just $32 a day, and then only if you've virtually exhausted your savings.

Not to mention your partner's. But much as I hate to give Centrelink anything remotely resembling an even break, my understanding is that the liquid assets test "only" (haha!) applies for thirteen weeks, rather than expecting those with substantial assets to run themselves down to near-zero before they qualify.

eclectic
12-04-2009, 07:37 PM
johnny's going down?

he's been DOWN and OUT for over a year

mods close this thread please? :whistle:

Capablanca-Fan
26-10-2009, 05:13 PM
It's notable that more sensible leading Laborites like Bob Carr were sensible enough to oppose nonsense like a Bill of Rights precisely because it would just lead to litigation not better human rights (http://www.thenewcity.info/carr_bill_rights.htm). He also opposed a republic with a popularly elected president, and an anti-vilification bill on the line of Victoria's fascist Bill — which Chairman Rudd refused to rule out.
Howard weighs in on the Bill of Rights (http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2009/10/john-howard-on-a-bill-of-rights), promoted by lawyer types and Labor elitists in stacked enquiries. And he reminds us of the forgotten 20th anniversary of the Fall of Soviet Communism, largely due to Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II (naturally the leftist Norwegian politicians didn't nominate them for a Nobel Peace Prize; they miss the downfall of Communism).

Goughfather
27-10-2009, 01:00 AM
Yeah, you've got to watch out for those lawyer types - dangerous, the lot of them.

Capablanca-Fan
27-10-2009, 01:32 AM
Yeah, you've got to watch out for those lawyer types - dangerous, the lot of them.
Good advice—at least the judicial supremacist, ambulance chaser and bill-of-rights–supporting subsets of the lawyer types.

Garvinator
27-10-2009, 02:36 AM
Good advice—at least the judicial supremacist, ambulance chaser and bill-of-rights–supporting subsets of the lawyer types.
In one broad stroke you just managed to sum up Goughfather ;) :P

Goughfather
27-10-2009, 03:17 AM
That's not fair - I absolutely repudiate the claim that I chase after ambulances ...

Capablanca-Fan
27-10-2009, 07:27 AM
Lawyers have their place, but one should be suspicious of any bill of rights that would be such a goldmine for certain types of lawyer, and which increases the power of unelected judges so much.

Igor_Goldenberg
27-10-2009, 02:04 PM
Lawyers have their place
would this place be at the bottom of the ocean?

Goughfather
27-10-2009, 06:56 PM
Lawyers have their place, but one should be suspicious of any bill of rights that would be such a goldmine for certain types of lawyer, and which increases the power of unelected judges so much.

You naughty boy, Jono. What were you saying the other day about imputing motives to others?

I must say, I'm not at all convinced about your demonisation of the judiciary. What is your preferred option - policy through the tyranny of the majority and political expedience? Or could it be possible that individual liberties are best guarded by those who do not need to pander to the mob and do not need to worry about losing public support or placing their positions in jeopardy by making the just and fair decision?

antichrist
27-10-2009, 07:02 PM
A Bill of Rights should include the rights of abortion upon the request of woman and sanction of their doctor. Polls show overwhelmingly that is popular opinion, along with euthanasia, but Christian fanatics fighting above their weight have cowered politicians into denying the great majority their rights.

And if they need someone to be the hatchet man to do the dirty deeds just call me.

Capablanca-Fan
28-10-2009, 12:06 PM
You naughty boy, Jono.
Naughty GF: you were the one who bloviated about "Reformed types" on capital punishment (although my view isn't necessarily influenced by particularly Reformed writings on the topic), and against the "religious right" (my political views owe little to the usual "religious right" leaders and lots to people like Thomas Sowell, as should be obvious from this site, as well as his mentor Milton Friedman), and accused me of despising your "Anabaptist" ideas which I didn't know you had.


What were you saying the other day about imputing motives to others?
Not motives in this case, but the criterion cui bono (to whose benefit)? This is all in accordance with the constrained vision of people as flawed, and thus responding to incentives. Similarly, this consideration might explain why tax accountants like HR Block opposed Steve Forbes' vastly simplifying flat tax proposal for America; far fewer people would need tax professionals to help them with tax returns.

In any case, those who hold the constrained vision are skeptical of "throw the rascals out" ideas, since the new people are likely to be just as flawed and thus responsive to the very same incentives, cf. Friedman's brief article Barking Cats (http://www.johnlatour.com/barking_cats.htm).


I must say, I'm not at all convinced about your demonisation of the judiciary. What is your preferred option — policy through the tyranny of the majority and political expedience?
As Sowell says, there are no solutions, just trade-offs. I must say, I don't see Australia's current system as trampling on civil rights, so the Bill of Rights advocates are trying to fix what isn't broken—and would it necessarily fix things anyway? Former NSW Labor premier Bob Carr points out (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25448539-5013871,00.html):


Well, to start with, a charter or a bill of rights guarantees nothing.

Britain abolished slavery in 1772 with a court decision based on the common law. The US, as late as 1857, confirmed slavery was valid, notwithstanding its constitutional Bill of Rights.

Indeed, America had a Bill of Rights for 150 years before black Americans in the south could vote. And they didn't get it through the Supreme Court; they got it because black Americans mobilised politically.

Joseph Stalin's 1936 constitution was eloquent on rights but he murdered 20 million Soviet citizens.

I've probably made the point but bear in mind some of the least democratic countries have enumerated freedoms in their constitutions: Zimbabwe and Sudan, for instance.


Or could it be possible that individual liberties are best guarded by those who do not need to pander to the mob and do not need to worry about losing public support or placing their positions in jeopardy by making the just and fair decision?
The age old Plato/Juvenal question Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? can be updated to "Who judges the judges? (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell111902.asp)" Or as Sowell says in Knowledge and Decisions, who has the right to make the decisions for society. Sowell documents the incentives affecting judges, just as incentives affect everyone else.

Also, what makes ex-lawyers (judges) any "fairer" than anyone else? And should they be deciding what's "just and fair" or applying the law? Sowell cites (http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell050609.php3) Judge Learned Hand telling Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., "Do justice, sir. Do justice." Holmes replied, "That is not my job. My job is to apply the law." Once judges get it into their heads that they are to be "fair", then we no longer have real law in the sense of rules knowable in advance on what is permissible or forbidden.

The American constitution was designed to provide checks and balances so that power would be divided, including the tyranny of the majority. But the way it works now in practice is the tyranny of the judges, which has also been the experience of other countries with bills of rights. So this leads to politicization of the judiciary, as Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out — if judges involve themselves in political decisions, naturally politicians will try to appoint judges with the same political ideation—senators like Charles Schumer (D-New York) even overtly proclaimed an ideological litmus test for judges.

Bob Carr pointed out the nightmare of competing "rights" that will tie up courts and give too much unchecked power to judges:


But rights are an area of constant contest. A right to privacy can conflict with freedom of speech. Freedom of movement with a right to property (the Gypsies v the factory owner). Freedom of expression (a right to smoke) with a right to a pristine environment (the right to avoid others' smoke). There's always a balance to be achieved in the light of contemporary concerns and arguments.

But should the balance be designed by the judges or the people we elect?

Carr concludes:


The common sense of the Australian people tells them they are free. And that a charter would increase litigation, not rights.

Goughfather
28-10-2009, 01:23 PM
Naughty GF: you were the one who bloviated about "Reformed types" on capital punishment (although my view isn't necessarily influenced by particularly Reformed writings on the topic), and against the "religious right" (my political views owe little to the usual "religious right" leaders and lots to people like Thomas Sowell, as should be obvious from this site, as well as his mentor Milton Friedman), and accused me of despising your "Anabaptist" ideas which I didn't know you had.

I don't recall attributing the "Religious Right" title to you.

I dispute the suggestion that you have relied heavily upon Reformed theologians in the death penalty discussion.

With respect to my Anabaptist ideas, I said you had little respect for the ideas which I identified as being Anabaptist, but that didn't mean that I thought that you could specifically identify these ideas as being Anabaptist.


As Sowell says, there are no solutions, just trade-offs. I must say, I don't see Australia's current system as trampling on civil rights, so the Bill of Rights advocates are trying to fix what isn't broken—and would it necessarily fix things anyway? Former NSW Labor premier Bob Carr points out (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25448539-5013871,00.html):
...

Certainly Carr has provided the most cogent criticisms of such a Bill of Rights and his comments deserve to be carefully considered.

It's right that judicial appointments are not devoid of political considerations, but judges are not subject to the same type of pressures from the mob that politicians are. Weren't you complaining about the tyranny of the majority before?

Goughfather
28-10-2009, 01:23 PM
Naughty GF: you were the one who bloviated about "Reformed types" on capital punishment (although my view isn't necessarily influenced by particularly Reformed writings on the topic), and against the "religious right" (my political views owe little to the usual "religious right" leaders and lots to people like Thomas Sowell, as should be obvious from this site, as well as his mentor Milton Friedman), and accused me of despising your "Anabaptist" ideas which I didn't know you had.

I don't recall attributing the "Religious Right" title to you.

I dispute the suggestion that you have relied heavily upon Reformed theologians in the death penalty discussion.

With respect to my Anabaptist ideas, I said you had little respect for the ideas which I identified as being Anabaptist, but that didn't mean that I thought that you could specifically identify these ideas as being Anabaptist.

Capablanca-Fan
28-10-2009, 02:03 PM
I don't recall attributing the "Religious Right" title to you.
You might be right there; it was just a general distaste for them mentioned in one reply.


I dispute the suggestion that you have relied heavily upon Reformed theologians in the death penalty discussion.
I cite Bible verses; many Reformed theologians will cite secondary standards like the Westminster Confession, or Calvin.


Certainly Carr has provided the most cogent criticisms of such a Bill of Rights and his comments deserve to be carefully considered.
Agreed. As you are no doubt aware, he has written in much more detail about it, such as The Rights Trap: How a Bill of Rights Could Undermine Freedom (http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/winter01/polwin01-4.htm). Carr points out problems such as freezing of the priorites of the time:


Our view of the importance and priority of rights changes over time. A constitutionally entrenched bill of rights freezes those priorities at a particular point in time. If a bill of rights had been included in the Commonwealth Constitution in 1901 it would most likely have enshrined the "White Australia policy". The "right to bear arms" is a "right" under the United States Constitution that many see as the root of the tragic shootings which afflict that country. It is not enough to say that these rights can be changed by a constitutional referendum. We all know that referenda are rarely held and are rarely successful.

Even when a bill of rights is not constitutionally entrenched, and can therefore be changed by legislation, the political reality is that a bill of rights is given "quasi-constitutional status" and is almost impossible to amend.

And he points out that such bills have increased litigation, but this will overload the courts and make it harder for ordinary people to be heard:


While the Courts are swamped with thousands of Bill of Rights cases, where will the ordinary person go for justice? The Courts will be made even more inaccessible and the cost of running the court system will increase. The main beneficiaries of a bill of rights are the lawyers who profit from the legal fees that it generates and the criminals who manage to escape imprisonment on the grounds of a technicality. The main losers are the taxpayers, and society in general through the reduction of community values to mere courtroom weapons.

Carr has also written popular-level pieces where he makes my anti-lawyer banter (towards certain types) seem mild, Lawyers are already drunk with power (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23588943-7583,00.html). He points out one problem, already exhibited in Victoria's Two Dannies persecution:


Churches are becoming aware their immunity from anti-discrimination laws — a justified immunity — will end with a charter or a bill of rights. Church leaders can democratically lobby parliaments and cabinets, but not non-elected, tenured judges.


It's right that judicial appointments are not devoid of political considerations, but judges are not subject to the same type of pressures from the mob that politicians are.
But who says they are any fairer, or immune from other types of pressure? Indeed, Sowell documents that some judges seem to crave approval from left elitists for allegedly "not bowing to the mob".


Weren't you complaining about the tyranny of the majority before?
Yes, in the sense that all unchecked power has the potential for tyranny. It's even worse than Acton's famous phrase—the possibility of unchecked power attracts the most power-hungry. This applies also to a judicial oligarchy without sufficient checks.

Capablanca-Fan
09-11-2009, 03:42 PM
A book that sets out the case against an Australian Bill of Rights will be launched on Wednesday night by former Victorian Governor and Supreme Court Judge Sir James Gobbo. The launch follows the release of Frank Brennan’s National Human Rights Consultation report recommending an Australian Bill of Rights.

The book, a collection of essays: Don’t leave Us with the Bill: The Case Against an Australian Bill of Rights (http://www.mrcltd.org.au/publications/index.html) edited by Julian Leeser and Ryan Haddrick published by the Menzies Research Centre.

Contributors include Sir Ninian Stephen, Dr Sue Gordon, Chief Justice Paul de Jersey, John Howard, Dr Gary Johns, former High Court Judge Ian Callinan AC, QC, Dr David Bennett AC, QC, Major-General AJ Molan, Professor Geoffrey Blainey, Senator George Brandis, Bronwyn Bishop, Cardinal George Pell, Rabbi John Levi, Western Australian Attorney-General Christian Porter, Justice Kenneth Handley, Brigadier Jim Wallace, Professor Helen Irving, Professor James Allan and Dr John Hirst.

Sir James joins a number of serving and retired judges have entered this debate to warn of the consequences of a bill of rights including former High Court Judges Sir Ninian Stephen and Ian Callinan, Queensland Chief Justice Paul de Jersey, NSW Judges Ken Kandley and Keith Mason, former Tasmanian Chief Justice William Cox and former Federal Court Judge Peter Heerey. The rare participation of senior judges in this debate underscores the significant danger a bill of rights presents to the justice system.

WHEN: 11 November 2009 AT 6.00PM
WHERE: Royal Australasian College of Surgeons 250-290 Spring St, East Melbourne

Basil
27-06-2010, 09:19 PM
johnny's going down?

he's been DOWN and OUT for over a year

mods close this thread please? :whistle:
He might be down, but he's also had the last laugh. Now you can close the thread ;)

Capablanca-Fan
01-03-2016, 02:42 AM
John Howard: People too scared to speak about issues
Paul Kelly, Weekend Australian, 27 February 2016


John Howard has sounded an alarm about the culture war in Australia — warning that people are being “cowed” against stating their views on issues and that a dangerous anti-religious push has emerged — and branded as “pernicious” the Victorian government’s hostility to religious connections in schools.

Mr Howard said there was a “get Pell” mentality in “some sections of the media”, referring to Cardinal George Pell, who is about to answer questions before the child sex abuse royal commission and has been the subject of allegations of sex abuse by material coming from Victoria Police.

In relation to gay marriage, Mr Howard said: “There is nothing homophobic about supporting traditional marriage. Everybody did in the parliament in 2004. May I remind you that in 2004, when I inserted the definition in the Marriage Act, the Labor Party supported it. You ought to be able to have sensible discussion on these sorts of things. And you should be able to express a view on these things. But there is a sense in which people are so frightened of being accused of being discriminatory or intolerant that they don’t speak the commonsense view.”

Mr Howard said the standards of civil society in Australia were being undermined by a growing intolerance towards people who did not subscribe to a range of progressive views.

“I think the problem is that too few people are prepared to call it for what it is,” he said. “I think people are cowed because they think, ‘I can’t say that because I might lose votes or I might offend somebody’.”

He said there was a new form of “minority fundamentalism” emerging, typified by the use of the anti-discrimination law in Tasmania to silence the Catholic Church from stating its position on marriage. Having read the document issued by the Catholic bishops, Mr Howard said: “How anyone can read that as offensive to people who favour same-sex marriage or gay or lesbian people is beyond me.”

Mr Howard expressed disappointment that the Abbott government had abandoned its proposed free speech changes to section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act after winning an election mandate on the issue. He said it was probably only with the Andrew Bolt case that people realised the application of this provision “was as spiteful as it turned out to be”.

Branding the climate of repression as “pernicious”, Mr Howard said there was “almost a fear” among people to articulate the views he was expressing because of concern they would “offend our multicultural ethos” or be “branded as intolerant”.

Kevin Bonham
01-03-2016, 06:26 AM
He said there was a new form of “minority fundamentalism” emerging, typified by the use of the anti-discrimination law in Tasmania to silence the Catholic Church from stating its position on marriage. Having read the document issued by the Catholic bishops, Mr Howard said: “How anyone can read that as offensive to people who favour same-sex marriage or gay or lesbian people is beyond me.”

It doesn't say very much for Howard's perceptiveness that he can say this. Among other things, the document argues that it is "gravely unjust" to children for same-sex couples to want to marry and that their desire to marry is "messing" with children. It shouldn't be at all hard to see how this could be offensive.

As a heterosexual supporter of same-sex marriage, though, the only thing that offends me about Don't Mess With Marriage is to find that I am apparently of the same species as people stupid enough to write such a loopy load of tortured rubbish.

Capablanca-Fan
01-03-2016, 02:39 PM
Apparently this is not so obviously stupid, since the GayKK in Tasmania instead of trying to refute it they want to sic the absurd Tassie law onto them.

Kevin Bonham
01-03-2016, 02:48 PM
Apparently this is not so obviously stupid, since the GayKK[sic] in Tasmania instead of trying to refute it they want to sic the absurd Tassie law onto them.

Something can be stupid and offensive. And it's also possible to refute something and set the law onto it.

Case is in conciliation at the moment, where it might well fizzle out.

Ian Murray
01-03-2016, 05:25 PM
...


John Howard has sounded an alarm about the culture war in Australia — warning that people are being “cowed” against stating their views...


A convincing majority of Australians (76% the polls tell us) support same sex marriage. It is regrettable that many of the remainder are cowed into the minority view by the stridency of their tub-thumping peers.

Patrick Byrom
01-03-2016, 08:03 PM
John Howard: People too scared to speak about issues
Paul Kelly, Weekend Australian, 27 February 2016

Mr Howard expressed disappointment that the Abbott government had abandoned its proposed free speech changes to section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act after winning an election mandate on the issue. He said it was probably only with the Andrew Bolt case that people realised the application of this provision “was as spiteful as it turned out to be”.

Howard seems to have forgotten that he was PM for 10 years, and also had control of the Senate for 3 years - he had plenty of opportunity to change 18C, but apparently only became concerned when it was used against a prominent conservative.

Capablanca-Fan
02-03-2016, 08:24 AM
Howard seems to have forgotten that he was PM for 10 years, and also had control of the Senate for 3 years - he had plenty of opportunity to change 18C, but apparently only became concerned when it was used against a prominent conservative.

Agree that he should have done something earlier. And he should have privatized the GayBC.

Capablanca-Fan
04-03-2016, 03:03 AM
Something can be stupid and offensive. And it's also possible to refute something and set the law onto it.
The American First Amendment is much better. Even stupid, offensive, and for that matter outright hate speech is constitutionally protected, as constitutional scholar Eugene Volokh explained (in the video below, about 4 minutes in). That's because the Founders believed that the best answer to bad speech is good speech, not government prohibiting speech:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bGzn_yynSs


Case is in conciliation at the moment, where it might well fizzle out.
Hope so, but it should never even had got that far.