PDA

View Full Version : Does Krudd Make Your Stomach Queasy?



Pages : 1 [2] 3

Basil
27-02-2010, 04:24 PM
Huh?

The article says Abbott is following in Howard's footsteps. Howard (and Abbott) plays to one audience set, Rudd plays to another set, there is overlap in the middle, but one is "consistent" and the other is "duplicitous". Riiiiiiiight
You have missed both my point and that of the article.

The article says a number of things - and very few about Abbott in comparison to Rudd. Let's do Abbott first.

- Howard and Abbott do the talk-back circuit. Fine.
- At this, lefties have derided the practice. Fine.
- I never saw any of it as bad, but the idea certainly hyped a number of pea-brain lefties to trot out Howard's talk-back practice and claim some fanatic higher ground. Fine. Lefties really don't like anything that righties do until their lefty idols copy it :wall:

Now, KRudd. And your misreading of the article. The point.
- It's not that Rudd is using talk-back.
- It's that he previously eschewed it.
- It's that Rudd-Luvas previously ridiculed the practice.
- It's Rudd's chameleon-like luv-up with the announcers, clearly having had no chuck for them previously.

Bleeuuccchhhh!

Desmond
27-02-2010, 06:33 PM
Now, KRudd. And your misreading of the article. The point.
- It's not that Rudd is using talk-back.
- It's that he previously eschewed it.It's an election year. Polies will increase the breadth and depth of their media exposure. Par for the course. I mean he's going on Insiders for the second time in 27 months. Did he eschew that too.

Basil
27-02-2010, 07:38 PM
It's an election year. Polies will increase the breadth and depth of their media exposure.
You must be bunging on your act coz either being that much of an apologist or that naive certainly is well below your usual. You're saying 'hey, they're pollies, what more do you expect?'. Well that's a fine political justification 9 times out of 10, but it misses the point of this article. I'm not going to explain it again. We'll have to agree to errr differ :doh: Perhaps if you re-read the article and take me completely out of the frame, you'd see what everyone else sees.


I mean he's going on Insiders for the second time in 27 months. Did he eschew that too.
Insiders (read ball-tearing) was visited by His Highness way back when he was all talk and had had no chance to have destroyed anything. He has since avoided (read evaded) any repeat on account of his act would be destroyed, viz Insiders is NOT:
- not soft sub-30s tripe tele (Rove)
- not the controlled press conference which he has made an art form
- not the controlled "interview" (read spruiking) which isn't an "interview" coz questions aren't allowed :wall:
- not the friendly Mel and Koch and hospital bed treatment

in fact he's avoided any tough environments which (despite the hyperbole of leftards) John Howard didn't do.

And now, after all of this (bungling, 707ing, Garretting, Greening, ad nauseating) as the article points out, he needs the media he has eschewed. So "yes" he has avoided Insiders - the whole world knows it (except you and Mischa), and political commentary has been rife observing it for two years.

Desmond
28-02-2010, 09:16 AM
You must be bunging on your act coz either being that much of an apologist Wow I guess you don't pay much attention to what I write in the political threads here.


or that naive certainly is well below your usual. Nice backhanded compliment. Reminiscent of Cordover.


in fact he's avoided any tough environments which (despite the hyperbole of leftards) John Howard didn't do. Come off it. You might think that sub-30s targetting shows are tripe but the reality is that they tend to play towards the fan-base of the left and away from that of the right and hey-presto they are more frequented by the polies of the left than they are by the right. Want to know how many times JH appeared on Triple J's current affairs program? I'll give you a hint, you can count it with the toes of one hand.


And now, after all of this (bungling, 707ing, Garretting, Greening, ad nauseating) as the article points out, he needs the media he has eschewed. So "yes" he has avoided Insiders - the whole world knows it (except you and Mischa), and political commentary has been rife observing it for two years.Yes I agree that that is the gist of the article.

Basil
28-02-2010, 10:30 AM
Want to know how many times JH appeared on Triple J's current affairs program?
Triple Js what? Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ...

As for the the rest, we're simply on a different planet.

Desmond
28-02-2010, 10:35 AM
Triple Js what? Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ...

As for the the rest, we're simply on a different planet.
Yeah the one that I mentioned a while ago with the story about the Aboriginal flag being copyrighted. But no doubt you think it has no merit. :hand:

Basil
28-02-2010, 11:11 AM
Yeah the one that I mentioned a while ago with the story about the Aboriginal flag being copyrighted. But no doubt you think it has no merit. :hand:
I know I shouldn't ask, but what are you talking about now?

Garvinator
28-02-2010, 04:20 PM
I think this fits this thread perfectly for making my stomach queasy.

The old football adage used to be that if you were a coach of a team and the clubs board came out and gave you their full support, this almost always meant that you were about to be sacked.

Now we have a new one- If Kevin Rudd does a press conference and says that you are a first class minister, that minister should be very worried about being demoted.

Desmond
28-02-2010, 05:06 PM
I know I shouldn't ask, but what are you talking about now?
The Triple J program. But the program's merits, whether understood/acknowledged by you or not, are really irrelevant to the point, which was that JH's media coverage was far from all-encompasing and he shied from particular audiences.

Basil
28-02-2010, 07:14 PM
The Triple J program. But the program's merits, whether understood/acknowledged by you or not, are really irrelevant to the point, which was that JH's media coverage was far from all-encompasing and he shied from particular audiences.
Brian, the JJJ program is about as necessary/ relevant as Grade 10 social studies. One can't say it doesn't have its place or isn't necessary, but it isn't heady stuff.

As for your line about pollies selecting programs for their demographic fit, you miss the point. The pap programs are personality persuaders. Politics aren't discussed. Rudd hasn't been grilled by anyone of weight - ever (I think he's had a moderately pleasant chat with Laurie Oakes). He avoids it. Until now. Howard didn't avoid tough interviews (even though he did avoid the pap as you correctly point out; but this is not quid pro quo, as you are attempting to assert).

And because you missed it the first two times, regardless of all of that (which is more than enough) my point was that lefties howled (they do a lot of howling) down the value of AM radio while Rudd was eschewing it. And now Rudd can't get enough of it.

Hey, what about Rudd ditching Grocerywatch on the same day as M. Jackson died?

Desmond
28-02-2010, 09:39 PM
Brian, the JJJ program is about as necessary/ relevant as Grade 10 social studies. Necessary/relevant to whom.


my point was that lefties howled (they do a lot of howling) down the value of AM radio Bit like you're howling down the value of other medium.

Basil
28-02-2010, 09:52 PM
Necessary/relevant to whom.
Circular. Deflective. Der. You tell me - you introduced these programs. Either way - I'm agreeing they have their place. The point is not that they're not relevant - it's that they have no teeth and no weight.


Bit like you're howling down the value of other medium.
The. other. media. (Koch, Rove, The Good News Week) aren't. political. forums. :wall: :wall: :wall:
Hadley. Insiders are.

Desmond
01-03-2010, 11:10 AM
mmmkay. Think I'll leave it there.

Capablanca-Fan
08-03-2010, 06:18 PM
The hospital cure: more spin doctors (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/the-hospital-cure-more-spin-doctors/story-e6frg6zo-1225837966591)
Tony Morris QC (who led the first royal commission investigating Bundaberg Hospital and Dr Jayant Patel)
The Australian, 8 March 2010

WHAT is wrong with our health-care system ? Too few doctors and nurses? Not enough allied health-care professionals ? Not enough hospitals, hospital beds and operating theatres? Not enough equipment? Not enough money?

Think again. According to Kevin Rudd, the correct answer is “none of the above”. The real problem with our healthcare system is a chronic shortage of bureaucrats.

Ask anyone who has spent hours in a public hospital emergency ward or anyone who has been waiting for (so-called) “elective” surgery, such as a hip or knee replacement, for upwards of three years and they will doubtless give the Prime Minister's diagnosis and course of treatment their ringing endorsement: “No, don't put any more money into the system just ensure that an even greater proportion of it goes to pen pushers and bean-counters.”

...

Rudd did give one hint: the networks will be run by “local health, financial and managerial professionals”. Thank goodness for that. One doesn't want the serious business of health care in the hands of amateurs such as elected politicians or community representatives who might reflect public opinion, or even respond to public concerns.

In this context, the word “professionals” may be taken as code for "bureaucrats”, which is as it should be. If health is still going to be administered by bureaucrats at state and federal levels, regional networks will need their share as well. As Rudd observes, there is presently “just too much duplication, overlap and waste”. Why should patients be satisfied with duplication, when Rudd can offer them triplication?

...

(I)f one did not laugh at the absurdity of Rudd’s “fix”, the only alternative would be to cry at the shamefully cynical political opportunism with which this retrograde package of non-solutions is presented as the universal panacea for a healthcare system already in extremis.

Adamski
08-03-2010, 08:31 PM
This is unbelievable. The Health system has more than enough bureaucrats already! What it needs is more true "health professionals" - like doctors and nurses.

Capablanca-Fan
09-03-2010, 02:37 AM
This is unbelievable. The Health system has more than enough bureaucrats already! What it needs is more true "health professionals" — like doctors and nurses.
I think Bureaucrat-In-Chief KRudd is copying the following scenario from Yes Minister:hp4j956jfeo

Adamski
09-03-2010, 12:21 PM
LOL. I remember that episode. The hospital had heaps of bureaucrats but no mdecial staff and only one patient -as the clip shows he was the Deputy Chief Administrator who slipped over!

BTW. Anyone who has the Comedy Channel on Optus or Fox cable tv can enjoy Yes PM on Sunday nights, about 10.30 I think. Previously, the same timeslot had Yes Minister re-running. Both series are hilarious and often have surprising relevance to Australian current political events!

Basil
10-03-2010, 06:27 AM
The (left leaning) BBC's profile of Kevin Rudd (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7043713.stm) (which hasn't been updated in two years, such is the world's fascination with him and this country :doh:) seems to be weighted differently to what Joe Strine saw at the 2007 election.

God bless Joe Strine (actually I think it was Jane Strine but I'll save that for another post).

Desmond
10-03-2010, 08:33 AM
The (left leaning) BBC's profile of Kevin Rudd (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7043713.stm) (which hasn't been updated in two years, such is the world's fascination with him and this country :doh:) seems to be weighted differently to what Joe Strine saw at the 2007 election.

God bless Joe Strine (actually I think it was Jane Strine but I'll save that for another post).
Any part of the article in particular? I mean some of the stuff about his background was new to me but on the whole no real surprises.

Basil
10-03-2010, 10:47 AM
Any part of the article in particular? I mean some of the stuff about his background was new to me but on the whole no real surprises.
Given that he'd been in power 10 seconds, and the country believed the proverbial sun shone, the article says:


Competent but slightly humourless technocrat.

a neat turn in sound-bites, he seemed particularly well-equipped to appeal to the suburban swing voters who tend to decide Australian elections

he won the leadership, despite not having many close friends in the Labor caucus and little personal following

If there was something mechanical about his rise, there is also something mechanical about the man

Austere, cerebral and self-disciplined, he is easy to respect but harder to like

The stories of his drunken trip in Manhattan inevitably tarnished his image.

Mr Rudd has promised to withdraw Australian troops from Iraq and sign the Kyoto climate pact. He has also pledged sweeping reforms to health, education and controversial labour laws introduced by PM John Howard.

Mu God! He sounds as awful as he actually is - except the Beeb reported it, while Joe and Jane Strine went to bed thinking the world was swell.

Igor_Goldenberg
11-03-2010, 09:59 AM
Swan warns of Budget cuts because of foil stripping (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/swan-warns-of-budget-cuts-because-of-foil-stripping/story-fn3dxity-1225839434221)


THE Federal Government has warned of Budget cuts to offset the cost of stripping foil insulation installed in up to 50,000 homes under its bungled rebate scheme.
There have been estimates it may cost as much as $50 million.

I am scratching my head trying to understand it.
2.5 billions insulation scheme doesn't need Budget cuts to offset it.
40+ billions "stimulus" doesn't need Budget cuts to offset it.
40+ billions NBN doesn't need Budget cuts to offset it.

But $50 millions for stripping foil must be more then everything above to require Budget cuts.

Is there a breakthrough in maths, arithmetic specifically, that I am not aware of?

Capablanca-Fan
11-03-2010, 11:48 AM
Of course, no one should be surprised at the monumental cock-up. Why should care be taken when you spend someone else's money on someone else? And now it seems that it was justified by false pretences (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/emissions-figures-dont-stack-up-professor/story-e6frg6nf-1225839329853), that it would make a real difference to CO2 emissions:


THE Rudd government ramped up the environmental benefits of its botched $2.45 billion home insulation scheme by grossly overstating the cuts in greenhouse gas emissions that could be achieved by households, expert independent analysis says.

Garvinator
11-03-2010, 08:06 PM
Why do the words 'pattern bargaining' come to mind when I read the below article.

Mar 11, 2010 9:01am http://www.optuszoo.com.au/news/110984/200-000-on-track-for-landmark-pay-rise.html

UNDERPAID workers doing some of our toughest jobs could get a wage rise of up to $20,000 a year. The workers, 82 per cent of them women, will tell industrial umpire Fair Work Australia they are paid up to 37 per cent less than those doing the same job in the public service and hospitals.

The Australian Services Union will launch the test case with Fair Work Australia today regarding the lower pay of community sector workers. Federal Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard is backing the push for improved pay. These workers are the people who work in women's refuges, family support centres, drug and alcohol rehabilitation and migrant resources.

The union will argue that lower wages in the feminised community sector should be brought into line with pay rates in a similar, male-dominated industry. Ms Gillard, who is also deputy prime minister, said the Federal Government would ensure Fair Work Australia had all the facts it needed to deal with the union's application.

"We believe it's in the long-term interests of this nation to sort this issue out and for us to have a community and social services sector with an appropriately dealt with, highly professional workforce,'' she told ABC Television yesterday.

"If we don't have fair arrangements for these workers, we know the cost of that is continual churn in the workforce.''

Fair Work Australia allows pay equity cases.

Under the new Fair Work Australia regime, which began in January, unions can take pay equity cases to the national industrial umpire. The legal machinery is also more streamlined with community sector worker awards to come under a national system from July. Ms Gillard said a successful gender equity decision for community sector workers would be unlikely to spark wage pressures in the economy.

"It's not a change that would have flow-on into other awards, it would be for this section of the workforce,'' she said.

Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) president Sharan Burrow admitted the push for a $100 a week pay rise for 200,000 community sector workers was not small.

"We're not pretending it's not a sizeable figure but is that something that should stop women being paid properly,'' she told ABC Television. She described women in the community sector as angels who helped the homeless, women in domestic violence situations and vulnerable children.

"You name it, they're there to care for people who need help most in our community yet they're paid a pittance,'' Ms Burrow said.

Opposition is wary of pay hike.

Opposition workplace relations spokesman Eric Abetz said higher wages for community sector workers could leave the Federal Government with a substantial wages bill in difficult budgetary circumstances. "The general principle of pay equity is something I think most people would agree with but I do indicate there may well be caveats in relation to wage parity claims, the knock-on effect,'' Senator Abetz told ABC Television.

The ACTU estimates that women in the Australian labour market are paid 17 per cent less than men, and earned $1 million less over their working lives.

Ms Gillard, Ms Burrow and Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick will speak at the Equal Pay Alliance campaign today in Canberra.

The group, made up of unions and business, calls on political parties and employers to place more value on women's work.

Basil
17-03-2010, 12:37 AM
Some light relief (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/memo-to-tony-and-kevin-no-sex-please-were-voters/story-e6frg6zo-1225841086597).

No Sex, We're Voters.

Sinister
17-03-2010, 07:51 PM
I'm sick of seeing Rudd all over the place and I'm especially sick of that stupid tramp lapdog of his, she looks for any chance to get in an argument and have the last say.......*Sin is disgruntled and walking away muttering*

Garvinator
23-03-2010, 10:30 PM
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/schools-watch/red-tape-costs-top-school-handouts/story-fn56ulhe-1225843502015?from=public_rss

THE Rudd government's Education Revolution has been dubbed the Administrative Revolution by a senior Catholic education official, after it was claimed independent schools in NSW were given $8 million to evaluate programs worth just $3m.

Non-government schools say education agreements between the commonwealth and the states designed to lift school performance have become bogged down by excessive amounts of paperwork and an onerous and expensive evaluation process.

The National Catholic Education Commission and the Independent Schools Council of Australia wrote to Education Minister Julia Gillard in December expressing their concerns about the overly bureaucratic demands of the National Partnership agreements.

The Council of Australian Governments established three main national partnerships in education worth about $2.5 billion to improve literacy and numeracy, teacher quality and the performance of schools in low-socio-economic areas.

National Catholic Education Commission deputy chairman Brian Croke yesterday told The Australian that the Education Revolution would be more appropriately named the Administration Revolution.

"The whole of 2009, the first scheduled year of most national partnerships, was entirely consumed in organising them," he said. "Now with funded projects barely under way, the management of accountabilities and evaluation has the potential to displace a proper focus on teaching and learning in schools."

He said the agreements were more accurately bilateral agreements and "a series of nationally unco-ordinated state-based initiatives".

The Australian understands the independent schools sector in NSW has received more money to evaluate its programs than it did to implement them.

The sector's initial allocation for implementing programs in the first two years is worth about $3m, with funding for the evaluation process originally set at $12m and then revised to $8m. The bulk of the funding available under the partnerships is reserved for sectors that meet set targets for improvement.

Ms Gillard last night described the National Partnerships as ambitious reforms and stressed that implementing the programs were not simple. "A great deal of time and effort was made to ensure that the suite of reforms was evidence-based and jointly agreed," she said.

"It is vital that evaluation mechanisms are put in place to both measure the impact of reform and develop an evidence base of reform activity that will ensure continual improvement."

Ms Gillard said the federal government had not allocated $8m to NSW independent schools to evaluate its programs. She said the states were yet to inform the federal government how much they were spending on their evaluations, including information on their non-government sectors.

The Catholic and independent school sectors are concerned the federal government might use the partnership model for funding schools into the future under a single education funding agreement such as that mooted for health.

The NCEC argues that this places the non-government systems in a subordinate position to the states, which compete against them for students, even though the private school sectors in NSW and Victoria were larger than the government school sectors in most states and territories.

The federal government is committed to holding a review of the funding arrangements for non-government schools, provided under a separate agreement to the states.

Mr Croke said it would be inappropriate to provide general recurrent funding in schools under a single agreement, which would mean all private school funding was funnelled through the states rather than directly to private school funding bodies.

An ISCA spokesman said the sector would like to maintain its direct funding relationship with the commonwealth. He said the independent schools' main concerns with the partnerships model were similar to those expressed by the Catholic system.

Garvinator
26-03-2010, 09:29 PM
$1m shadecloth forces first BER rip-off admission
Anthony Klan and Milanda Rout From: The Australian March 26, 2010 12:00AM


THE NSW government yesterday made the first official admission that the federal government's $16 billion school building program is failing to deliver value for money after Education Minister Verity Firth reversed a decision to build an overpriced $1 million shade structure instead of new classrooms.

After intense lobbying by the principal and parents at Hastings Public School on the NSW north coast for almost a year, Ms Firth scrapped the shade structure, which had blown out in costs from $400,000 to almost $1m, granting them extra classrooms for the growing school.

The decision came amid claims that school principals in Victoria are being threatened by the state education department to stay quiet about problems in the Building the Education Revolution or risk losing their money.

Ms Firth said an audit of costs of the proposed covered outdoor learning area - or COLA, in educational parlance - at Hastings school revealed the structure was not "value for money".

"I'm not convinced this school has received value for money, I really am not," Ms Firth told Sydney's 2GB radio host Ray Hadley. "We're going to scrap the COLA project and build four classrooms."

A similar COLA built in 2003 cost the school $78,000. The builder of that structure said costs had soared but a similar COLA would cost about $250,000 in the current market.

Ms Firth's decision follows increasing concern about inflated costs and a lack of transparency in the BER, with NSW the only state to publicly provide a breakdown of costs for its schools.

Ms Firth has set up an independent audit team in the NSW education department to conduct spot audits, with 101 other audits already undertaken. The department said yesterday the audit of Hastings school was still in draft form but would be released when it was finalised. "No major issues were identified" in other schools.

The Commonwealth Auditor-General, the Senate and the NSW upper house are all conducting inquiries into the costs of the BER. The NSW Auditor-General Peter Achterstraat said yesterday his office would extend its scrutiny of the education department's handling of the program, and increase the number of schools examined.

Mr Achterstraat said his auditors had increased the size of their sample of schools receiving BER funds, in recognition of concerns that have been publicly raised by school principals and parent groups about over-charging by managing contractors and poor allocation of resources.

"If the risk increases, you increase the sample size," he said.

The events in NSW come as the Victorian opposition alleged the state education department had threatened principals with losing their BER funding if they spoke publicly about problems with the program.

While Victorian principals have the most autonomy of any in the nation and usually are allowed to speak publicly on behalf of the school, Victorian opposition education spokesman Martin Dixon said he had an escalating number of calls - including three in the past few days - saying they had been told by state bureaucrats to keep their mouths shut.

"Principals and school council presidents say they have been told if their BER project is in the media, then their funding is at risk," he said. "There are hundreds out there who are too scared to complain."

Mr Dixon said principals have contacted him to complain that their BER projects were not getting the promised money, of costs blowing out, and of significant delays in the tender and building processes.

"There are increasing number of problems and frustrations, and an increased desire to speak out but there is an increasing pressure on schools to keep out of it," he said. "Instead of listening to principals, the Victorian government have resorted to gags, bullying and intimidation to cover up the BER debacle and stop them from speaking out."

Berwick Lodge Primary School principal, Henry Grossek, who successfully spoke out against the handling of his BER project, said that he heard of principals being asked to refrain from speaking on the federal program since it began last year.

"I heard that people were getting phone calls from regional staff in 2009 saying that they really should butt out of public comment," he said.

Australian Education Union Victorian branch president Mary Bluett said she had heard of examples where regions of the department were urging schools "under duress" to head down certain paths in order to get the full BER money they were entitled to.

"There have been some cases where schools have been told if you don't amalgamate, don't expect the BER money," she said. "It goes to the issue of process and whether the decisions (to amalgamate) are made under duress."

Both Ms Bluett and Mr Dixon have also been contacted by schools who were pressured by the department to take less than the original money they were promised from the federal government.

A spokesman for Victorian Education Minister Bronwyn Pike said any incidence of intimidation by the department would be looked into immediately.

The Australian yesterday asked federal Education Minister Julia Gillard whether all states should publicly release data about the school spending, as happens in NSW, to demonstrate value for money and whether she was prepared to tie the funding to greater openness.

In a statement released through a spokesman, Ms Gillard indicated she would not revisit contracts with the states but failed to offer a view on the desirability of greater openness.

"The government has entered into national partnerships with the states and other block grant authorities (managing funding for non-government schools) regarding the delivery of BER," the spokesman said.

"The partnerships outline what is expected of the school authorities when delivering this massive injection of funds into our schools. States and other authorities are free to operate within the boundaries of these agreements."

West Australian Education Minister Liz Constable promised to launch a website with district-by-district school progress, but did not explain why the state did not provide the same transparency as NSW.

"Schools are encouraged to publish details of projects on their own websites and keep their communities informed via newsletters and meetings about timelines and project details," she said in a statement. "The department and schools also contribute information to the Australian government's website. As a public service, the Department of Education will shortly launch its own website which will publish district-by-district information about the progress of schools."

The Victorian government is not releasing the costs of its projects until all are finalised, while new South Australian Education Minister Jay Weatherill, who was sworn in yesterday, said he would get up to speed on the portfolio before making a decision on how transparent the Rann government would be on the matter.

The Queensland education department was unable to respond last night.

Basil
15-04-2010, 04:33 AM
KEVIN Rudd and his ministers have emerged as Australia's most demanding bosses, with near-record staff burnout of almost 60 per cent in just more than two years.

The staff exodus shocked recruitment specialists who said the private sector "norm" was closer to 10 per cent per year.

Rudd continues to make his staff queasy (http://www.news.com.au/national/more-than-260-staff-have-walked-out-on-kevin-rudd-in-two-years/story-e6frfkw9-1225853859546). This is a match with what one of my own staffers told me a couple of years ago (in relation to a relative of hers). Apparently Rudd is simply a four letter word.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-04-2010, 10:40 AM
It might cause the unspeakable - Canberra voting for Coalition :D

Basil
23-04-2010, 05:31 PM
If you can get to paragraph 7 (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/pm-on-the-run-from-policy-failures/story-e6frg6zo-1225857147540) without barfing, give yourself a medal. When I foretold that lefties would be murdered in their beds by their own messiah, I was neither kidding nor wrong.

It's just not funny any more.

Capablanca-Fan
24-04-2010, 12:46 AM
If you can get to paragraph 7 (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/pm-on-the-run-from-policy-failures/story-e6frg6zo-1225857147540) without barfing, give yourself a medal. When I foretold that lefties would be murdered in their beds by their own messiah, I was neither kidding nor wrong.

It's just not funny any more.
Indeed so. See also PM handballs bad news announcements to juniors (http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2010/s2880774.htm). We all know how Garrett took the fall for following Chairman KRudd's "rush rush rush" insulation spending.

Desmond
24-04-2010, 05:29 AM
Indeed so. See also PM handballs bad news announcements to juniors (http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2010/s2880774.htm). We all know how Garrett took the fall for following Chairman KRudd's "rush rush rush" insulation spending.
A fall or a dive? He didn't lose seniority or pay iirc.

Capablanca-Fan
24-04-2010, 09:06 AM
A fall or a dive? He didn't lose seniority or pay iirc.
Yet Garrett might have had enough of being blamed (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/garrett-the-fall-guy-in-rudds-roofing-fiasco/story-e6frg6zo-1225857626035) for being forced to rush through his master's irresponsible spending, despite his concerns:


ENVIRONMENT Minister Peter Garrett has become a scapegoat of the Prime Minister and his Assisting Minister for Government Service Delivery, Mark Arbib. They are the two people who should be hauled over the coals for their (mis)handling of the botched home roof insulation scheme.

The review of the program's administration, conducted by retired senior public servant Allan Hawke and released during the week, makes clear findings that Garrett's responses to the problems with the program were appropriate and timely.

In all the reporting of the review and its contents, praise for the minister's conduct has largely gone unnoticed. Garrett was handed a program he had raised serious concerns about to his Prime Minister for the rushed nature of its implementation. ...

Capablanca-Fan
25-04-2010, 02:04 AM
Even Labor-luvving Laurie Oakes calls KRudd "gutless" (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/a-cowardly-way-to-lead/story-e6frfhqf-1225857615903):


The Prime Minister had left junior climate change minister Greg Combet behind in Canberra to face the music alone over the scrapping of the botched home insulation scheme.

...

[Abbott asks] how can a Government that bungles something as simple as putting pink batts in roofs be trusted with fixing a complex health system?

When you read the report by former senior public servant Allan Hawke that finally sank the insulation scheme, you have to wonder how such an allegedly clever and hands-on politician as Rudd let it all happen.

The rushed planning, lack of oversight, alarming fraud - all the things that made the program such a disastrous failure are laid out. But they should have been evident to people inside the Government all along.

It is astonishing that Rudd failed to realise how bad the mess was until it was far too late, just as he ignored early warning signs about waste and mismanagement in the school building program.

Something seems to have gone wrong with the PM's political antenna, and that is a serious matter for a Government facing an election within six months.

Basil
25-04-2010, 05:26 AM
"you have to wonder how such an allegedly clever and hands-on politician as Rudd let it all happen."

Because, as is common among the Laba political class, being politically savvy is no guarantee of having any commercial clue whatsoever. Indeed commercial cluelessness is almost mandatory, as it forms the basis of the desire to enter left politics, and the continuing impetus to rocket through the ranks - all the while adored by that component of the electorate who share the same deficiency.

Desmond
25-04-2010, 09:18 AM
Oakes is "labour-luvving"? I thought he was quite a tough cookie in the interview regardless of the interviewee.

Capablanca-Fan
25-04-2010, 03:13 PM
Oakes is "labour-luvving"? I thought he was quite a tough cookie in the interview regardless of the interviewee.
He's well known for his leftard bias, both in Australian (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/oakes_defends_when_he_should_explain/)and America (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_oakes_damned_the_right_for_sins_of_the_left/).

Goughfather
25-04-2010, 03:31 PM
He's well known for his leftard bias, both in Australian (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/oakes_defends_when_he_should_explain/)and America (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_oakes_damned_the_right_for_sins_of_the_left/).

That's somewhat of a novel interpretation, Jono. And I suppose you think our very own Bolty is as down the line centrist as they come?

Kevin Bonham
25-04-2010, 03:53 PM
He's well known for his leftard bias, both in Australian (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/oakes_defends_when_he_should_explain/)and America (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_oakes_damned_the_right_for_sins_of_the_left/).

Andrew Bolt considering someone to be a biased lefty doesn't even make it likely that they are. It only proves they do not consistently hold the same views as him. This is the same Andrew Bolt who recently attempted to deny that he was right-wing (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_if_i_were_of_the_right_id_say_so/) claiming he was merely a "conservative" instead and basically founding his claim not to be "right-wing" on being neither a Nazi nor a Hanson-lover.

Oakes is certainly guilty of overstating a case (the "wingnut" thing) based on dodgy polling but he does say in the same article that "moderate voices are being drowned out by voices from the extremes of the political spectrum" and "Right-wing extremists are not the only ones to blame. There are plenty on the Left who are also into the hate game."

Oakes also writes:


AND it did not start when the first African-American president took office. Venom and vitriol distorted US politics under George W. Bush as well.

The Republican Bush was booed and hissed by Democrats on the floor of Congress during a State of the Union address. A Democrat congressman claimed kids were being sent to Iraq "to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement".

for which he gets no credit from Bolt at all.

Particularly when assessing the work of journalists it is very difficult to make a claim of bias fly on the basis of one or two articles or incidents that are in some respects shoddy. Journalism by its nature is unfortunately a little prone to sloppy sensationalism across the board; to show that a journo is biased you really need to find a lot of pieces slanted in one direction and an absence or scarcity of opposing leanings in their work.

aransandraseg
25-04-2010, 08:21 PM
I agree labour is retarded, but you seriously can't think that liberal will be liked when they get voted in.

Basil
25-04-2010, 08:29 PM
I agree labour is retarded, but you seriously can't think that liberal will be liked when they get voted in.
The Libs are never liked (in the end). Eventually the manufactured hysteria from the rusted-on Lefties collides with swingers who reckon it's time for a change.

There's a thread somewhere about creating your own adage. One of mine is "the left government is always turfed for incompetence, the right government is always turfed because it is hated."

Part one of that adage is well and truly in play.

Basil
26-04-2010, 02:41 PM
OMG! It's official. 'Pretty Boy Wonder' (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/when-the-going-gets-tough-the-prime-minister-gets-going-to-hobart/story-e6frg6zo-1225857630468) who only a couple of years ago had teenage girls throwing knickers and middle aged women getting interested politics again is on the freakin' nose - at society central level, not Howie level. That, my friends, is terminal (were it true and not merely commentary).

Would you good people care to point me in te direction of some known-to-be-left-leaning newspapers down south so that I may read their editorials and get an idea of the sentiment at lefty journo level.

ER
26-04-2010, 06:43 PM
The Libs are never liked (in the end)
:lol: what are they doing during so they are never liked in the end?:lol:

Basil
26-04-2010, 06:49 PM
:lol: what are they doing during so they are never liked in the end?:lol:
Stuff that needs to be done. The unwriten caveat about the 'being hated' is that often the hatred is baseless.
Lil Johnny told us we never had it so good. We hated him for it. He was right, but that didn't matter.
Lil Johnny told us about the asylum seeker solution. He was hated for it. He was right (and is now copied) but that didn't matter.
Lil Johnny taxed us somewhat appropriately and gave back when surpluses were apparent. We hated him for over-taxing and then we hated him all over again for giviing it back (bribes).
Lil Johnny was also hated for a number of other things which KRudd has gone on to adopt. Please see "stuff the message, it depends on who is say it".

He was also hated for Workchoices.
Not a lot to be done really. 11 years or so was a good run.

Anyway ... back to the incompetence ...

ER
26-04-2010, 07:16 PM
Stuff that needs to be done. The unwriten caveat about the 'being hated' is that often the hatred is baseless.
Lil Johnny told us we never had it so good. We hated him for it. He was right, but that didn't matter.
Lil Johnny told us about the asylum seeker solution. He was hated for it. He was right (and is now copied) but that didn't matter.
Lil Johnny taxed us somewhat appropriately and gave back when surpluses were apparent. We hated him for over-taxing and then we hated him all over again for giviing it back (bribes).
Lil Johnny was also hated for a number of other things which KRudd has gone on to adopt. Please see "stuff the message, it depends on who is say it".

He was also hated for Workchoices.
Not a lot to be done really. 11 years or so was a good run.

Anyway ... back to the incompetence ...

:lol: :clap:

Garvinator
26-04-2010, 08:37 PM
Insider blows whistle on insulation plan
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=1044708
18:50 AEST Mon Apr 26 2010


A whistleblower claims officials on the home insulation program said jobs took priority over safety.

Departmental officials behind Labor's botched home insulation program said job creation was more important than safety, a whistleblower has alleged.

The $2.45 billion scheme - linked to four deaths and more than 120 house fires - was dumped on Thursday.

An anonymous Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts insider told ABC TV's Four Corners program - to be aired on Monday - that staff there tried to warn their superiors about the risks posed by the insulation scheme.

"We were told many times, by senior management, that the technical and safety issues were of least importance than getting this program up and running to create jobs," he said.

"Without proper audit of the work, without the proper audit of the competence of the installers, there was no way of knowing whether a house had foil insulation, or any material, installed safety.

"Because the installers were not trained properly, there was no way of checking that installers knew what they were doing."

Matthew Fuller, 26, was one installer electrocuted on the job last October.

His mother Christine said she blamed the government for his death.

"The government (are to blame) for rolling out that insulation package with no plan," she said.

Meanwhile, federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has called on Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to reveal what he knew about the home insulation bungle.

"I think the prime minister has a very, very serious case to answer," the opposition leader told reporters in Sydney on Monday.

"What did he know, when did he know it and knowing what he obviously did know, why has he made the promises that he did make?"

Mr Abbott said the one million people who had their homes insulated under the scheme will be anxious and insecure until all the installations can be checked.

"The government received many, many warnings and those warnings went right to the top," he said.

"I think it is incumbent on the prime minister to fix this problem quickly."

TheJoker
27-04-2010, 11:26 AM
Not bad Howie but you missed the main reason any politician gets voted out (regardless of party) Which is eventually the spin catches up with them...

Lil'Johny was claiming his government was responsbile for the low interest rates. Eventually the spin caught up with him...

Lil'Johny was claiming that AWA's were the way to go and would leave everybody better off. Eventually the spin caught up with him...

Lil'Johny was taking credit for the economic boom. Eventually the spin caught up with him....

Lil'Johny was claiming to be reducing the size of government. Eventually the spin caught up with him....

Given Rudd is bigger fan of spin than Howard it'll probably catch up with him a lot sooner.

Basil
27-04-2010, 12:35 PM
Not bad Howie but you missed the main reason any politician gets voted out (regardless of party) Which is eventually the spin catches up with them...
I disagree.


Lil'Johny was claiming his government was responsbile for the low interest rates. Eventually the spin caught up with him...
I disagree. John Howard clarified very quickly what he meant (although he cocked it up when he said it) but the hystericals weren't having a bar of it and did a very good job of saddling him (erroneously) with the sentiment.


Lil'Johny was claiming that AWA's were the way to go and would leave everybody better off. Eventually the spin caught up with him...
I disagree. John Howard believed in AWAs and so did I. As for catching up with him - that's laughable as they barely had a chance for traction. Again hysteria (fuelled by excellent scare advertsising) nailed the public opinion long before any evidence of weight, worth and volume was collected.


Lil'Johny was taking credit for the economic boom. Eventually the spin caught up with him....
I disagree. He and Costello always acknowledged the buoyant conditions, but they also gave themselves credit for surfing them appropriately.


Lil'Johny was claiming to be reducing the size of government. Eventually the spin caught up with him....
I disagree. He did reduce government. He then allowed it to blow out again AFAIK.

Garvinator
27-04-2010, 01:55 PM
I feel like having one great big barf, all over some seats and everything.

Late last year Kevin Rudd was claiming that climate change was the great moral challenge of the 21st century and that we had to enact an ETS to combat climate change.

Now there is no mention of the great moral crusade by Kevin Rudd. Kevin Rudd was willing to saddle all of us with a massive new tax for something he really does not believe in, or if he does believe in the ETS, he certainly is not willing to go to a double dissolution election.

So it looks like Kevin Rudd's great moral crusades only have a shelf life of about 6 months.

I think Kevin Rudd's morals had more to do with trying to gain a political advantage over the opposition than actually doing anything about climate change, and for that we would have been stuck with a massive new tax had it been passed last year.

Basil
27-04-2010, 03:00 PM
I feel like having one great big barf, all over some seats and everything.
That's the way. You'll feel much better for it. Try and hit some wet-arse lefties and kill two birds etc.. You'll feel really good after that :D

I saw a bumper sticker today: RUDD IS DUDD
It's on I tells ya. It's freakin' on. The messiah is on the frickin' nose. Ruling for 100 years is officially off the table.

TheJoker
27-04-2010, 03:26 PM
I disagree. John Howard clarified very quickly what he meant (although he cocked it up when he said it).

AKA back-tracking


I disagree. John Howard believed in AWAs and so did I. As for catching up with him - that's laughable as they barely had a chance for traction. Again hysteria (fuelled by excellent scare advertsising) nailed the public opinion long before any evidence of weight, worth and volume was collected.

I not sure I was clear but by the introductions AWA's I meant the removal of the right to collective bargaining as they were one in the same. As far as that's concerned it doesn't need local evidence, every developed nation in the world has the right to collective bargaining, it is considered one of the universal human rights. There is a bloody good reason for that, it has by test produced the most socially optimal outcomes. There is no evidence to suggest that we'd all be better off by removing this right. That was pure spin to dress up a move knobble the power base of the opposition.

So when you say you believe in AWA's, do you also believe that the employers should not be obliged to bargain collectively with employees where they request it?

I have no problem with workers entering individual contracts (in fact that is their right), but under WorkChoices they didn't have the right to group together and bargain collectively. There is simply no evidence to justify such a radical approach to employment relations, Howard's spin "that we'd all be better off" was exactly that.

Most of Howard's IR reforms were good an simply a continuation of the decentralisation process of the previous government.


I disagree. He and Costello always acknowledged the buoyant conditions, but they also gave themselves credit for surfing them appropriately.

I think "always" is probably way to strong. I certainly got the impression that they were taking undue credit for the boom.


I'll agree that they avioded the irresponsible approach taken by much of the private sector, which was to use increased revenues to justify taking on further debt. I am not sure though whether the sale of some of the assets were justified from an economic point of view did they generate any net increase in wealth? Or were long-term recurring revenue streams sacrificed for short-term injections of cash that were less value economically but more valuable politically?



I disagree. He did reduce government. He then allowed it to blow out again AFAIK.

Why do you think that was? Was it simply a process of replacing the previous governments cronies with his own? Was it realisation that the public service in fact needed those human resources to operate efficienty and his idea of smaller government was flawed? Either way his spin eventually caught up with him... "he just took his finger of pulse" is a complete cop out.

Basil
27-04-2010, 04:22 PM
AKA back-tracking

No. Someone is allowed to overstate (carelessly if you will) and then correct immediately when pressed. To deny that much is miserable pedantry.


So when you say you believe in AWA's, do you also believe that the employers should not be obliged to bargain collectively with employees where they request it?
Collective bargaining is fine. That's not what the hysteria was about. If you assess it was, we'll agree to differ.


Why do you think that was?
I honestly don't know. Nor do I know how big it became (the degree of the blow-out, although I accept it occurred) as I'm neither privvy to the stats nor privvy to his rationale.

In any event, I'm staggered how lefties can persist in pursuing so relatively few issues over a decade run, when their offering can trounce the total number bad acts in a week.

TheJoker
27-04-2010, 05:49 PM
In any event, I'm staggered how lefties can persist in pursuing so relatively few issues over a decade run.

We were talking about why he wasn't returned to office, I doubt the positive issues had much affect on that.

Overall I think he did a very good job. His IR reforms were generally well concieved, except for of the removal of collective bargaining and the unfair dismissal stuff (mainly in terms of defining the size of a small business). Economically he was overall quite responsible. He also made a big mistake politically in aligning himself heavily with Bush, when the most of the country saw Bush as a "grade A" idiot.

However, he was still a politician just as prone to spin, equally likley to make policy based on ideology as opposed to actual evidence. Anyone who can't see that is most certainly a nuthugger.

Basil
27-04-2010, 06:28 PM
We were talking about why he wasn't returned to office, I doubt the positive issues had much affect on that.

Overall I think he did a very good job. His IR reforms were generally well concieved, except for of the removal of collective bargaining and the unfair dismissal stuff (mainly in terms of defining the size of a small business). Economically he was overall quite responsible. He also made a big mistake politically in aligning himself heavily with Bush, when the most of the country saw Bush as a "grade A" idiot.

However, he was still a politician just as prone to spin, equally likley to make policy based on ideology as opposed to actual evidence. Anyone who can't see that is most certainly a nuthugger.
That's a fair enough assessment (for what it is). I think he'll be judged by history as one of the best PMs while the present wretch will be marked as one of the worst.

Kevin Bonham
27-04-2010, 09:03 PM
That's a fair enough assessment (for what it is). I think he'll be judged by history as one of the best PMs while the present wretch will be marked as one of the worst.

I don't know if "history" ever really makes these judgements. You can look at expert gradings comparing leaders over time, but some leaders leave divided legacies. Menzies is a good example. Obviously he was doing something right tactically to stay in charge for so long but there's the side of the argument that says he was riding the boom, exploiting opposition division and wasting opportunities - especially in the areas of technology and science. I'm not sure if objective conclusions are ever reached on such things; political history is itself politicised.

Malcolm "2/3" Mackerras had a go at ranking Australia's prime ministers from best to worst in Aug 2008, but his methods were badly flawed. For instance he rated some PMs as failures who were only actually in the job for a week as caretakers and hence ideally shouldn't have been rated at all. His ranking started Menzies, Curtin, Deakin, Fisher (these four rated "great") then Hawke, Lyons, Chifley, Bruce, Hughes, Howard, Keating, Fraser, Whitlam (all these "high average" with Hawke listed as significantly above the rest). Apart from the caretakers Forde, Page and McEwen, McMahon was rated the worst and Arthur "40 days and 40 nights" Fadden second-worst; also Scullin, Reid and Cook got raspberries but in the latter two cases short term in office had a lot to do with it. Rudd was just below Whitlam but that was only where Mackerras would put Rudd if Rudd fell under the proverbial bus immediately, based on his criteria which were biased against short-termers.

Basil
28-04-2010, 12:08 AM
Perhaps they can make a special basket for Rudd. Perhaps they'll ask me to name it.

Capablanca-Fan
28-04-2010, 08:24 AM
One crazy idea gone, one to go (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/one-crazy-idea-gone-one-to-go/story-e6frfig6-1225859068927)
Terry McCrann
Herald Sun, 28 April 2010

ONE down, one to go. Kevin 'Gougher' Rudd has dropped one of his two great crazy nation-destroying policies. To coin a phrase, 'it's time' he abandoned the other equally mad, equally destructive one.

....

Really, have we ever seen a bigger prat as prime minister...?



Barely six months ago, Rudd was demanding that we lock in place our (utterly pointless, yet punishingly destructive) ETS before Coppenfloppen. No waiting to see what the world did then. As it was always going to turn out: nothing.



But this insanity has at the very least been postponed. The other one blunders on: the $43 billion mother-of all-white elephants, the National Broadband Network.

The NBN company CEO Mike Quigley ‘mis-spoke’ a couple of weeks ago when he said it wouldn’t make money ‘for 30 years’. It’d be reasonable to regard that as an ‘optimistic’ projection.

...

Oh, the 'Gougher'? Until now the Whitlam government has been the gold standard for incompetence in Australia. We finally have a prime minister that has managed to out-Gough Gough.

Basil
01-05-2010, 12:23 PM
Oh, the 'Gougher'? Until now the Whitlam government has been the gold standard for incompetence in Australia. We finally have a prime minister that has managed to out-Gough Gough.
There are those that say that comparing Rudd to Whitlam is indeed an affront to the former PM (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/spineless-pm-not-worthy-of-wiping-goughs-shoes/story-e6frg6zo-1225860818596). So much so that Rudd isn't fit to clean Whitlam's shoes, such is the spinelessness of the man.

Garvinator
01-05-2010, 12:31 PM
There are times when Prime Ministers can make sweeping statements and they get taken out of context or the average voter mis-interprets the exact meaning of what the politician is promising to do.

But for Kevin Rudd, he should be held in such contempt by his own words. From the article link above:


Rudd repeatedly has described climate change as the greatest moral challenge of our generation. He said not moving to introduce an ETS as soon as possible was a sign of political cowardice, a failure of political leadership.
Well from Kevin Rudd's own lips he deserves to be known as a coward who did not have the courage of his own convictions, or he never really believed in an ETS in the first place.

I don't know what makes me queasy more, his ACTIONS, or should I say lack of them, or that he is likely to win another term. So clearly he now thinks that the greatest moral challenge of our time is worth waiting another three years, or more. So much for his morals. What a disgrace!!!

If Kevin Rudd really believes in what he has said, put the ETS to parliament, get it blocked a second time and immediately call a double dissolution election. He is most likely to win a DD and have the numbers to pass his GREATEST MORAL CHALLENGE of all time ETS. So what is he afraid of.

Could it be that he knows the ETS is a dud, or to borrow another polly phrase, just another great big tax and so he only went down this path because his spin meisters knew that it would get blocked and so he was in no danger of actually having to enact the ETS legislation, while being able to hammer the opposition of that time over their division within their own party.

I also have a suspicion that Kevin Rudd has delayed the legislation because he knows if he went DD now, the current opposition would actually ask some really hard questions, to which Kevin Rudd does not have any good answers for.

Kevin Bonham
01-05-2010, 12:44 PM
The van Onsolen article doesn't canvass a third possibility: that Rudd has realised, especially given the lack of global support for significant action, that his earlier fervent support for an ETS was misguided. I think that could be partially true but I also think that Rudd manipulated the issue to wedge and damage the Opposition.

The ones looking really silly over this are the Greens, who opposed the government's ETS when they could have passed it, because it didn't go far enough for their liking, and now they are left with nothing. But that will give them oxygen to continue complaining, and the Greens seem to do better in that circumstance than when they actually get what they want, so they'll probably like that.

Basil
01-05-2010, 04:28 PM
The van Onsolen article doesn't canvass a third possibility: that Rudd has realised, especially given the lack of global support for significant action, that his earlier fervent support for an ETS was misguided.
Most things that KRudd does are misguided. This is because, like so many lily whites, he has a very limited clue. If Rudd wants to avoid the gutless worm millstone being so eloquently and vociferously tied around his neck in so many quarters, I for one would welcome his looking down the tube and telling us that he was errr misguided. He could also describe the amount cold cash his ummm misguided foray was going to cost us.

Lefties make me wanna puke.

Capablanca-Fan
02-05-2010, 09:18 AM
Michael Kroger nails KRudd on Lateline: (http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2887625.htm)

MICHAEL KROGER: Well, Leigh, when my father was alive, the great moral issue of his time was fighting Adolf Hitler and Nazism. When I was younger, the great moral issue of our time was fighting communism, to liberate millions and millions, tens of millions of people around the world from oppression.

This man declared this the great moral issue of this time. He should have called a double dissolution based on this issue because this was, as you said, the issue which defined him and defined our time, defined our generation. This is just another backflip from this disastrous Prime Minister who is the worst prime minister I’ve ever seen in this country in my lifetime - the worst and getting worse. And if he had ...

LEIGH SALES: So you think, in your view, worse than Gough Whitlam?

MICHAEL KROGER: Worse than Whitlam? Oh, God, much worse than Whitlam. Much worse than Whitlam. I mean, Gough Whitlam had - compared to this man, he had beliefs. I mean, he had - he opened Australia’s relations with China, he had the Trade Practices Act, the Family Law Act.

OK, he was a disaster in terms of managing the economy, but Whitlam had beliefs. There were things that he came into Parliament to do when he became Prime Minister in 1972. He was a grand figure on the Australian stage. He ended up as a disastrous Prime Minister, but at least he believed in something.

This man believes in nothing. Absolutely nothing. He’s a fraud as a prime minister. And, I’ll tell you what staggers me: it staggers me that people in the Labor Party are still prepared to work with him as leader. He changes policies every day. As Paul Kelly said, this is a man without beliefs, without a narrative. What does he stand for? Nothing. Nothing.

...

LEIGH SALES: Ken Henry is the author of the tax review. He'll also be the person implementing the Government's response to it. What do you think of that, Michael Kroger?

MICHAEL KROGER: Well, what I think is that Kevin Rudd - the last thing the Australian public needs is Kevin Rudd being let loose on the tax system. I mean, he's made a total hash of everything he's touched. To let him loose now on the tax system, oh, God, please, stop him, someone stop him.

Lindsay Tanner - Tanner's the most sensible fiscal mind in the Government. Tanner should say, "Listen, Kevin, you are a public policy disaster zone. Do not touch the tax system between now and the election or you'll make a mess of that too like you've made a mess of everything." Of course Treasury will be implementing any decisions that the Government - that the Cabinet makes, but Kevin Rudd would be very unwise to now try and touch the tax system.

I mean, he hasn't explained to anyone how the hospital changes we had to make a few weeks ago at COAG are going to help patients in Australia. David Penington’s criticised them. I mean, everything this man touches turns to disaster. He should stop touching big policy issues.

Kevin Bonham
02-05-2010, 04:46 PM
The amusing thing is that Kroger praises Whitlam for all the positive things he did but fails to mention that the reason many of them were needed was 23 years of head-in-the-sand politics by Kroger's lot, to which Whitlam was the natural, and probably necessary (however shambolic) counter-overreaction.

In the same interview Paul Howes (AWU) says this:


Well, um, it's a bit hypocritical, Michael, to have a person like yourself, as senior as you are in your party, to criticise Labor from changing policies. I mean, the Opposition at the moment - and Tony Abbott is meant to be a conviction politician - well he is the most inconsistent conviction politician that I think our country's ever seen.

I also find it amusing how Kroger tries to attribute declining interest in climate change to failures by Rudd and Wong to convince people the CPRS is necessary. And the Opposition have helped in this how?

Not defending Rudd here at all - he's guilty as charged of both hyperbole and chameleon politics. Just pointing out that almost every "Rudd's a joke" claim the opposition makes exposes them as a bigger one.

Capablanca-Fan
02-05-2010, 05:04 PM
The amusing thing is that Kroger praises Whitlam for all the positive things he did
Really? It seemed more like he praised him for having the guts to make the changes he believed in.


but fails to mention that the reason many of them were needed was 23 years of head-in-the-sand politics by Kroger's lot, to which Whitlam was the natural, and probably necessary (however shambolic) counter-overreaction.
How so? It seems that more credit should go to Hawke/Keating for some sensible reforms that were long overdue.


I also find it amusing how Kroger tries to attribute declining interest in climate change to failures by Rudd and Wong to convince people the CPRS is necessary. And the Opposition have helped in this how?
Well, if it was great moral issue of our time, requiring utmost urgency, then Rudd and his minions should not have put it on the back burner for three years.

Basil
02-05-2010, 06:08 PM
Just pointing out that almost every "Rudd's a joke" claim the opposition makes exposes them as a bigger one.
You can't be serious. Where to start?

Climate change?
Illegal boats?
Batts/ Fuel/ Grocery/ Schools/ Computers/ Spendulus?

On which issue do you think the Libs are a bigger joke than this pathetic ghost of a man?

CameronD
02-05-2010, 06:13 PM
You can't be serious. Where to start?

Climate change?
Illegal boats?
Bats/ Fuel/ Grocery/ Schools?

On which issue do you think the Libs are a bigger joke than this pathetic ghost of a man?

I think ALL political parties are a joke. And the liberal party are just as much an embarrassment as the Labor party.

Basil
02-05-2010, 06:34 PM
I think ALL political parties are a joke. And the liberal party are just as much an embarrassment as the Labor party.
Devastating Cam. Care to detail why?

Kevin Bonham
02-05-2010, 06:48 PM
Really? It seemed more like he praised him for having the guts to make the changes he believed in.

Do you think Kroger is saying that opening relations with China was a bad idea?


How so? It seems that more credit should go to Hawke/Keating for some sensible reforms that were long overdue.

Far from mutually exclusive with praising Whitlam for what he did to drag Australia into some kind of modern political reality even if he also did much that was incompetent and silly.


Well, if it was great moral issue of our time, requiring utmost urgency, then Rudd and his minions should not have put it on the back burner for three years.

Not relevant to the question I'm asking. (Of course, the fact is it is probably not the great issue of our time on any level and Rudd was exaggerating to wedge the Opposition.)


You can't be serious. Where to start?

Climate change?

That would be an excellent place to start since not only has the party been all over the place on this issue but so has its leader. Abbott clearly genuinely did not believe AGW was real as late as last year but he is nonetheless claiming his previous opinions were hyperbole because he knows his previous position is not palatable for a party leader. He's trying to make noises that appease his hardcore base without frightening the centre, which is not that different to Rudd making noises to appeal to Greens voters without scaring the centre either.

Except for one very big difference, which is that in Rudd's case the polarists and the centre have common views about the basic facts of what is happening and disagree only on how bad it might get and what to do about it. In Abbott's case, he's trying to send out one set of messages to people who don't think climate change is even real, and another to people who think it is but don't want to get too carried away. Hence the token belief that it is happening and the token policy response, but really, while the Government's performance is just a case of backing off from a bad idea over time once it became unpopular, Abbott's is a shambles and a clear case of saying one thing while he could and another once he became leader.

Basil
02-05-2010, 06:53 PM
That would be an excellent place to start
OK, let's start there. That's one (although I reject that Abbott is somehow a bigger joke than Rudd on this issue (Rudd was going to bankrupt the country and ride the issue to the front page of Time magazine)).

Next issue (of zillions available) where we claim Rudd is a joke where in fact the Libs are joke? :hmm:

Kevin Bonham
02-05-2010, 07:22 PM
Next issue (of zillions available) where we claim Rudd is a joke where in fact the Libs are joke? :hmm:

Spendulus as connected to economic management. We're supposed to believe that Rudd's economic management is disastrous, reckless and irresponsible when on the very same types of criteria used by Howard to promote his own government as an economic success Australia has thus far got off remarkably light from the GFC. The Coalition claims the credit for itself on the back of its own economic successes in office, but dismisses the line that those economic successes were themselves a product of generally good global conditions, so it takes the credit for itself both when it is arguably the beneficiary of outside circumstances and when it is arguably the cause. But all the stuff about debt and the stimulus not being necessary from the Coalition is opportunistic because they would have done very similar things in the same circumstances as did governments of pretty much any political stripe imaginable. Only they may well have done so in a more socially abrasive fashion, which in my view is one of the reasons they were tossed.

Basil
02-05-2010, 08:04 PM
We're supposed to believe that Rudd's economic management is disastrous, reckless and irresponsible when on the very same types of criteria used by Howard to promote his own government as an economic success Australia has thus far got off remarkably light from the GFC.
Well neither of us (nor anyone else) knows if Rudd went too far with Spendulus. I suspect he did. You suspect he didn't. Other lights believe he did. Other lights again believe he didn't. In any event, this line in no way supports what you're on the line for which defending the assertion that the Libs are an even bigger joke for each time we call Rudd on a cock-up.


But all the stuff about debt and the stimulus not being necessary from the Coalition is opportunistic because they would have done very similar things in the same circumstances as did governments of pretty much any political stripe imaginable.
No. While again neither of us know what the opposition would have done, the opposition claims it would have spent abut 1/2 what Rudd spent on Spendulus.

Is there anything which you can point to to support the claim that the Libs are bigger joke?

Goughfather
02-05-2010, 10:04 PM
I'll chip in.

2009 Budget - The Coalition call the ALP out on the size of their deficit, before producing an alternative budget that would have produced an even bigger deficit had it been implemented than that for which they criticised the ALP. Not only a bigger joke, but a bigger joke according to their own criteria ...

Kevin Bonham
02-05-2010, 11:05 PM
Well neither of us (nor anyone else) knows if Rudd went too far with Spendulus. I suspect he did. You suspect he didn't.

Actually I wouldn't have the foggiest by way of suspicions either way if he did go too far or not and I'm not really sure anyone can know at this stage. The circumstances are unprecedented in anything much resembling modern society after all. All we do know is that at this stage Australia is doing surprisingly well on the criteria held up as important in political debates. It will take many years to say for sure whether we did well or not.

But if he did overcook it then he'd have company from a great many other nations of a great variety of governing political orientations and all just as reliant on a similar range of expert advice for their response. Australia's stimulus response as a proportion of GDP was hardly over the top.


No. While again neither of us know what the opposition would have done, the opposition claims it would have spent abut 1/2 what Rudd spent on Spendulus.

They can say that but it's most likely post hoc political opportunism. If they'd come out with a spending plan which said "we propose spending exactly blah" when the thing first broke, and then Rudd ended up spending double that, that would be one thing, but I do not recall that being the case.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-05-2010, 09:38 AM
The Coalition claims the credit for itself on the back of its own economic successes in office, but dismisses the line that those economic successes were themselves a product of generally good global conditions

Global conditions were good for everyone, yet Australia was much better placed for the crisis then almost any other developed country. For that difference credit due to the government who did not spend as recklessly as other governments (and as Labor would had they been in the power at that time).

Basil
03-05-2010, 11:19 AM
I'll chip in.

2009 Budget - The Coalition call the ALP out on the size of their deficit, before producing an alternative budget that would have produced an even bigger deficit had it been implemented than that for which they criticised the ALP. Not only a bigger joke, but a bigger joke according to their own criteria ...
I was unaware of this. Can you point me in the right direction to support this statement?

I assume both you and Kevin are having a massive lend on account of using muddling sticks on debatable areas, all the while ignoring the staggering, overwhelming and embarrassingly large volume of evidence that not only is Rudd incompetent, but that he is all the other things that are variously leveled at him as well.

Capablanca-Fan
03-05-2010, 02:48 PM
Spendulus as connected to economic management. We're supposed to believe that Rudd's economic management is disastrous, reckless and irresponsible
Yes, FoolWatch, Grocerywatch, home insulation and school building fiascos.


when on the very same types of criteria used by Howard to promote his own government as an economic success Australia has thus far got off remarkably light from the GFC. The Coalition claims the credit for itself on the back of its own economic successes in office, but dismisses the line that those economic successes were themselves a product of generally good global conditions,
Except for the Asian Financial Crisis, NASDAQ crash, 11-9 ...

Kevin Bonham
03-05-2010, 04:27 PM
Except for the Asian Financial Crisis, NASDAQ crash, 11-9 ...

Despite all of which sharemarkets more than doubled during Howard's 11 years at the helm.

I don't think the Fuel Watch and Grocery Watch gimmicks really count as "economic management" as such although Grocery Watch did waste millions of dollars. Fuel Watch was (probably rightly) killed by the Senate.

Goughfather
03-05-2010, 09:28 PM
I was unaware of this. Can you point me in the right direction to support this statement?

It's called Google. Type in relevant terms. "2009 Budget Reply" would be a step in the right direction.


I assume both you and Kevin are having a massive lend on account of using muddling sticks on debatable areas, all the while ignoring the staggering, overwhelming and embarrassingly large volume of evidence that not only is Rudd incompetent, but that he is all the other things that are variously leveled at him as well.

And you accuse others of making arguments that are lacking in substance?

To be perfectly honest, it seems like you are the one having a massive lend given that you want to simultaneously castigate Rudd for the stimulus while acknowledging that you honestly don't know whether Rudd's stimulus package went too far or not. It would seem that by your own admission you don't have a clue what you are talking about, yet are willing to parade your ignorance just to get a chance to rail against the Rudd government.

Basil
03-05-2010, 09:42 PM
It's called Google.
That's not what I asked for. I asked you nicely to substantiate your claim, not have me substantiate it for you.


To be perfectly honest, it seems like you are the one having a massive lend ...
LMAO. Nice try. But to remind you, the topic at hand is which issues make The Libs a bigger joke than the present, preening, clueless fool in the The Lodge. You haven't come up with any (except a claim at #322 which you won't or can't substantiate).

Your point on Spendulus is fair enough so I'll take it off the table in the debate of joke status (as galling as it is and notwithstanding your amateurish attempt to use that one issue as a catch-all defence for avoiding justifying Rudd's clod-hopping). Come on, be the first in the country to present The Libs as a bigger joke than this facile, preening, clueless, debt-driven, rude, narcissitic disgrace who's ploughing through cash, botch-ups and backflips at a breath-taking pace, the likes of which have never, and I doubt will ever, be seen.

Goughfather
04-05-2010, 12:39 PM
That's not what I asked for. I asked you nicely to substantiate your claim, not have me substantiate it for you.

You said no such thing. You asked that I "point [you] in the right direction". If you wanted to be spoon-fed, you should have simply asked.


LMAO. Nice try. But to remind you, the topic at hand is which issues make The Libs a bigger joke than the present, preening, clueless fool in the The Lodge.

But you see, it is quite relevant, insofar as it concerns my discussion with your good self. If your characterisation of the Rudd government as a joke is based wholely or even partially upon criteria which by your own admission you find yourself unable to assess, then your whole characterisation is suspect. If this is the case, then your assessment of the Coalition's standing as it compares with the Rudd government will be similarly compromised.


Your point on Spendulus is fair enough so I'll take it off the table in the debate of joke status (as galling as it is and notwithstanding your amateurish attempt to use that one issue as a catch-all defence for avoiding justifying Rudd's clod-hopping).

I've done no such thing. You're the one who insisted on looking at issues one by one and I've simply chipped in on one particular episode.


Come on, be the first in the country to present The Libs as a bigger joke than this facile, preening, clueless, debt-driven, rude, narcissitic disgrace who's ploughing through cash, botch-ups and backflips at a breath-taking pace, the likes of which have never, and I doubt will ever, be seen.

Given that you've recently outed yourself as agnostic with respect to the impact of the Stimulus, perhaps you might like to retract the terms "debt-driven" and "ploughing through cash"?

With respect to most of the other adjectives, they appear to be little more than ad hominems and provide nothing of substance to which a meaningful response can or should be made.

With respect to the accusations of botch-ups, what metric does one use to to compare botch-ups? How does one meaningfully compare the home insulation scheme with the botch-ups involving Mohammed Haneef or Cornelia Rau, just to cite two examples in the last eighteen months or so of the ill-fated Howard government?

With respect to back-flips, why does a back-flip necessarily need to be construed as negative. Is there not (in some instances, at least) a virtue in recognising bad policy and henceforth reversing one's stance on it, notwithstanding the fact that this may call into question the initial judgment?

Igor_Goldenberg
04-05-2010, 01:47 PM
I haven't voted in the poll until few days ago. Initially I expected Keating/Beazley type government which, while inferior option to Howard, is not a tragedy. That's why I thougth Gunner was making things appear grimier then they were.
However, my opinion of Rudd steadily deteriorated from "stupid nuisance" to "utterly incompetent spineless machinator".
In retrospect I can see that Gunner was too optimistic about KRudd two years ago. When I came across this poll I had no hesitation in choosing the first option.

Basil
04-05-2010, 02:48 PM
You said no such thing. You asked that I "point [you] in the right direction". If you wanted to be spoon-fed, you should have simply asked.
Would you just show me some documentation to support your claim that the Liberals 2009 Budget Reply (would have) resulted in greater debt.


But you see, it is quite relevant, ...
Would you just show me some documentation to support your claim that the Liberals 2009 Budget Reply (would have) resulted in greater debt.


I've done no such thing. You're the one who insisted on looking at issues one by one and I've simply chipped in on one particular episode.
And I said your one example was fair enough to not hang Rudd so I took Spendulus off the table, but not enough to satisfy your original claim, which was the Libs are a bigger joke than Rudd.


Given that you've recently outed yourself as agnostic
Slippery games. I said that no-one can know. So your claim of "outing myself" is nothing but puffery and grand-standing trying to make a position out of nothing - much like your mate Rudd. My personal belief is that Spendulus was waaaaaaaay over the top. That Rudd can can spend like there's no tomorrow and then say 'prove it was bad' is a great position for him to be in because bo-one can argue it - despite evidence suggesting it was OTT.


How does one meaningfully compare the home insulation scheme with the botch-ups involving Mohammed Haneef or Cornelia Rau, just to cite two examples in the last eighteen months or so of the ill-fated Howard government?
Very easy to compare. I think you'd be in the gross minority if you fail, no doubt entirely for selective reasons, to do so. Perhaps I can adress that in a different post. As for the term ill-fated, do you simply mean that the Howard government came to an end (his after a long and successful run) as do all governments? And therefore do you use the term 'ill-fated' in the same sense of the ill-fated Gough government and ill-fated Hawke and Keating governments, or is there is there deeper meaning to the term? This line is just more of your trying to conjure a position and momentum out of nothing.


With respect to back-flips, why does a back-flip necessarily need to be construed as negative. Is there not (in some instances, at least) a virtue in recognising bad policy and henceforth reversing one's stance on it, notwithstanding the fact that this may call into question the initial judgment?
Sure it doesn't have to be a negative if it's in the country's interest (nice try and avoiding the the issue, which was not that the back-flips exist, but... ) But when there are so many and in such a short space of time, and in many cases so obviously politiking at its worst, and in some instances where the new policy is all-but-identical to Howard policy where lefties have sought to win when they've played both sides of the back-flip; it's time to call the medics on this flake of a man.

On which issues do you think the Libs are bigger joke than Rudd?

Capablanca-Fan
04-05-2010, 03:08 PM
Given that you've recently outed yourself as agnostic with respect to the impact of the Stimulus, perhaps you might like to retract the terms "debt-driven" and "ploughing through cash"?
Yet the Spendulus did not demonstrably stimulate, and it did more harm than good in targeted areas like home insulation. But it did plough through the surplus and leave Australia in debt.


With respect to the accusations of botch-ups, what metric does one use to to compare botch-ups? How does one meaningfully compare the home insulation scheme with the botch-ups involving Mohammed Haneef or Cornelia Rau, just to cite two examples in the last eighteen months or so of the ill-fated Howard government?
How is Cornelia Rau any fault of Howard, when she refused to reveal her true identity? So there were the occasional problems with the Howard enforcement policies -- better than the boatloads arriving under Kevin "they saw me coming" Rudd.


With respect to back-flips, why does a back-flip necessarily need to be construed as negative. Is there not (in some instances, at least) a virtue in recognising bad policy and henceforth reversing one's stance on it, notwithstanding the fact that this may call into question the initial judgment?
"Great moral issue of our time" ... gets put on backburner.

TheJoker
04-05-2010, 04:35 PM
Yet the Spendulus did not demonstrably stimulate

I suspect that statement is flat out wrong.... When I have the time I'll check whether any expert analysis is at hand.... However, I think it would be nigh impossible to pump that amount of money into the economy and it not to have stimulatory effect.

Desmond
04-05-2010, 04:41 PM
"Great moral issue of our time" ... gets put on backburner.Well to be fair he didn't say for how much of our time. Maybe it was the greatest moral issue of that week. :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
05-05-2010, 08:01 AM
Fall of a weightless man (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_fall_of_a_weightless_man/)
Andrew Bolt, 5 May 2010:

...

On April 9, Rudd sent out three ministers to say he was fixing some of the"reforms" to our boat people laws - changes he’d once crowed were more compassionate, but now regretted after they lured in more boats in six months than we’d ever seen before.

On April 12, he had Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard belatedly announce a new taskforce to try to fix his desperately rort-ridden $16.2 billion Building the Education Revolution.

On April 21, he had his Attorney-General reject a new human rights charter that is actually Labor policy, and which Rudd spent nearly $3 million promoting.

On April 22, Rudd got a junior minister to scrap his free insulation scheme, after learning he’d have to spend up to $1 billion to fix the disasters he’d caused by blowing $1.5 billion of your money to stick dangerous and shoddy stuff in people’s roofs.

Also on April 22, he had a second junior minister dump another of his populist but unworkable promises - this time to build 260 childcare centres on school grounds.

On April 23, Rudd reversed his dud decision to no longer make temporary residents sell their houses when they leave the country.

On April 28, he had his Communications Minister shelve still another unworkable policy, his promised internet filter.

And this week Rudd buried what he once billed as the key idea of his otherwise farcical ideas summit two years ago, at which 1000 of our “best and brightest” proposed more than 900 schemes - of which he’s promised to adopt fewer than a dozen, mostly trivial.

That key idea was for a review of our tax system which, Rudd burbled, would “position Australia to deal with the demographic, social, economic and environmental challenges of the 21st century”.

Ah, that characteristic spin of a man addicted to announcing something monumental, historic, unprecedented - to shout that he’s lifted his leg on the lamppost of history.

So we had that tax review, conducted by Treasury secretary Ken Henry, who proposed 138 ideas for this bold new tax system Rudd claimed he craved.

But how many of those 138 ideas did Rudd agree to, after considering the Henry review for four terrified months?

Just four at best — most notably an opportunistic smash-and-grab raid on the profits of our mining companies, and a lowering of the business tax, albeit by less than Henry recommended.

As for the superannuation changes, Rudd is in fact doing what Henry recommended against.

Again, typical. Rudd lacks the courage of his non-convictions. He dreams of being great, but fears the criticism that the great must scorn.

...

So don’t just measure Rudd’s future by the ditched policies and falling polls.

Measure it, too, by the ministers he’s sacrificed already, and by the determination of the survivors not to be the next to be sacrificed on the altar of his colossal vanity.

Capablanca-Fan
05-05-2010, 08:11 AM
Despite all of which sharemarkets more than doubled during Howard's 11 years at the helm.
Yes, because Australian investors trusted the Coalition's economic management. This is surely better than the current plunge right after KRudd's opportunistic tax grab on miners, which is reminiscent of Hansonist "fortress Australia" policy (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/greedy-magnates-ate-my-iron-ore/story-e6frg6zo-1225862281760).

Garrett
05-05-2010, 09:31 AM
just had to have a chuckle at "Barnaby Rubble".

Ok - carry on.

cheers
Garrett.

Davidflude
05-05-2010, 09:57 AM
Putting an extra tax on miners will hurt Australia. It is called "killing the goose that lays golden eggs".

Krudd does not understand that miners will move their exploration to countries with more favourable tax laws. Capital is international.

Furthermore less mines will be developed. Higher taxes means that less projects will pass the bankable feasibility process.

The leader of the opposition should be shouting these points from the housetops.

Note that the miners with projects outside Australia have risen and ones with projects in Australia have fallen.

Capablanca-Fan
05-05-2010, 10:46 AM
Putting an extra tax on miners will hurt Australia. It is called "killing the goose that lays golden eggs".

Krudd does not understand that miners will move their exploration to countries with more favourable tax laws. Capital is international.

Furthermore less mines will be developed. Higher taxes means that less projects will pass the bankable feasibility process.

The leader of the opposition should be shouting these points from the housetops.

Note that the miners with projects outside Australia have risen and ones with projects in Australia have fallen.
Exactly! :clap:

Goughfather
08-05-2010, 08:00 PM
Would you just show me some documentation to support your claim that the Liberals 2009 Budget Reply (would have) resulted in greater debt.

Just as a preliminary, responding to these forum posts is probably about 327th on my list of priorities. If I don't respond in a timely manner in future, bear that in mind.

I'm not entirely sure what you're looking for. My position is as follows:

- In response to the 2009 Budget, the ALP was accused by Turnbull, the then Leader of the Liberal Party, of excessive spending and the size of the deficit.

- Despite accusing the ALP of excessive spending, the Budget Reply did not propose to scale back any spending measure.

- The only opposition in practice was actually a measure aimed at increasing government revenue, namely the means testing of the private health insurance rebate.

- Despite criticising the ALP for the size of their deficit, the very most the Budget Reply aimed to do was to match the deficit by "replacing" means testing on private health insurance, the Budget reply proposed to impose a tax on cigarettes.

- Whether this measure would make up the shortfall was dubious cf. Turnbull trades rebate for cigs tax hike. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/14/2570901.htm)

To which of these statements do you object?


And I said your one example was fair enough to not hang Rudd so I took Spendulus off the table, but not enough to satisfy your original claim, which was the Libs are a bigger joke than Rudd.

I never made the claim, so it is quite unreasonable of you to ask me to defend it.



Slippery games. I said that no-one can know. So your claim of "outing myself" is nothing but puffery and grand-standing trying to make a position out of nothing - much like your mate Rudd.

You stated that nobody can know? Surely you include yourself in this assessment? This being the case, what's your complaint?



My personal belief is that Spendulus was waaaaaaaay over the top. That Rudd can can spend like there's no tomorrow and then say 'prove it was bad' is a great position for him to be in because bo-one can argue it - despite evidence suggesting it was OTT.

Doesn't sound like you are taking the Spendulus off the table at all.

Just out of interest, where is this evidence you are talking about? Opinion pieces in The Australian?



Very easy to compare. I think you'd be in the gross minority if you fail, no doubt entirely for selective reasons, to do so. Perhaps I can adress that in a different post.

Go for it. I'm listening.



As for the term ill-fated, do you simply mean that the Howard government came to an end (his after a long and successful run) as do all governments? And therefore do you use the term 'ill-fated' in the same sense of the ill-fated Gough government and ill-fated Hawke and Keating governments, or is there is there deeper meaning to the term? This line is just more of your trying to conjure a position and momentum out of nothing.

Try not to think about it too much. It might hurt.



Sure it doesn't have to be a negative if it's in the country's interest (nice try and avoiding the the issue, which was not that the back-flips exist, but... )

What, you honestly expect me to argue for the non-existence of backflips?



But when there are so many and in such a short space of time, and in many cases so obviously politiking at its worst, and in some instances where the new policy is all-but-identical to Howard policy where lefties have sought to win when they've played both sides of the back-flip; it's time to call the medics on this flake of a man.

Perhaps they were simply non-core promises?




On which issues do you think the Libs are bigger joke than Rudd?

I never made the claim, although the evidence presented thus far seems to speak in favour of Kevin's suggestion.

Basil
08-05-2010, 08:12 PM
I never made the claim, so it is quite unreasonable of you to ask me to defend it.
It's more than reasonable. You said that you would try and support the original claim. IN that venture, you failed spectacularly. But you went further than failure - you threw out an untruth - which you then failed to support.

The rest of your dribble isn't worth responding to.

Goughfather
08-05-2010, 08:25 PM
It's more than reasonable. You said that you would try and support the original claim.

I said I would chip in with an example. I didn't commit any further than that.


IN that venture, you failed spectacularly.

More typically insightful analysis from you.


But you went further than failure - you threw out an untruth - which you then failed to support.

Rubbish.


The rest of your dribble isn't worth responding to.

Given that the entirety of your tiresome polemic is hyperbole and ad hominem without the slightest of substance, that's no great loss.

Basil
08-05-2010, 08:44 PM
I said I would chip in with an example.
And failed miserably. Soooo ... can you cite any example where The Libs are a greater joke than Rudd?

Goughfather
08-05-2010, 09:02 PM
And failed miserably. Soooo ... can you cite any example where The Libs are a greater joke than Rudd?

I already have. If you're not satisfied with my analysis, but don't wish to put the slightest amount of energy into refuting it, then I'm not going to put any more energy into giving further commentary that you will unreflectively dismiss. When you respond in a meaningful and substantive way to my comments, I'll think about throwing you another stick to fetch.

Basil
09-05-2010, 08:32 AM
I already have. If you're not satisfied ...
:lol: You have done nothing. You have obfuscated, conjured and flapped around like a flatulent, clueless lily-white. Your performance here has been a carbon copy of Rudd. Time, energy, non-delivery.

I didn't respond to most of what you offered as it it was irrelevant twaddle.


When you respond in a meaningful and substantive way to my comments, I'll think about throwing you another stick to fetch.
That wasn't a stick. Your contribution to this thread was something you plucked from you backside - entirely without merit and certainly not worthy of addressing in any meaningful way. Your supporting text which came on the third asking was without a substantive citation and abject an embarrassment. Again, much like you, your mate Rudd and Gough.

Basil
11-05-2010, 05:20 PM
Like-minded people may evacuate the comments of their stomachs here (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=122887607722556&v=info#!/group.php?gid=122887607722556&v=wall).

Desmond
13-05-2010, 09:34 AM
Did anyone else catch Kerry's interview with Rudd on 7.30 report last night? He pretty much lost his temper and got aggressive. Grubby stuff.

Once again I have to scratch my head as to why ppl call the program left leaning, as I do just about everytime a Labor poli is interviewed, but I digress.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-05-2010, 10:33 AM
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201005/r565200_3447121.asx
At 9m50s Rudd was asked:


KERRY O’BRIEN: Mr Rudd, when the Opposition tried to argue with you on holding back a vote on the ETS until after Copenhagen, that is, until after the world had made a stand, you said that was absolute political cowardice.

So why is it now not absolute political cowardice for you to show leadership on this to the rest of the world by seeking to take the Australian people with you at the next election on an ETS?

It sparked a very passionate reply from Rudd, which, BTW, did not answer the question.

Garvinator
13-05-2010, 10:41 AM
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201005/r565200_3447121.asx
At 9m50s Rudd was asked:


KERRY O’BRIEN: Mr Rudd, when the Opposition tried to argue with you on holding back a vote on the ETS until after Copenhagen, that is, until after the world had made a stand, you said that was absolute political cowardice.

So why is it now not absolute political cowardice for you to show leadership on this to the rest of the world by seeking to take the Australian people with you at the next election on an ETS?

It sparked a very passionate reply from Rudd, which, BTW, did not answer the question.
This type of stuff is probably the most annoying thing I find with interviews like this. When it is clear that the interviewee is not answering the question (especially when it is a politician), the interviewer just seems to move on quite often, rather than pointing out that the interviewee is not answering the question and repeating it. Or asking the question in a different way.

It really feels like it just sends the message that if you dont answer the question, he/she will just move on to the next question.

Desmond
13-05-2010, 10:46 AM
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201005/r565200_3447121.asx
At 9m50s Rudd was asked:


KERRY O’BRIEN: Mr Rudd, when the Opposition tried to argue with you on holding back a vote on the ETS until after Copenhagen, that is, until after the world had made a stand, you said that was absolute political cowardice.

So why is it now not absolute political cowardice for you to show leadership on this to the rest of the world by seeking to take the Australian people with you at the next election on an ETS?

It sparked a very passionate reply from Rudd, which, BTW, did not answer the question.
Actually I was more thinking of this bit:


KERRY O'BRIEN: ...you've spent the best part of two years building up your political capital. How have you managed to damage brand Rudd so comprehensively in such a short time this year?

KEVIN RUDD: Kerry, obviously the Government's going through a tough time at present. ...

KERRY O’BRIEN: You, I, I said brand Rudd, you said the Government. I'm talking about Kevin Rudd, I'm talking about your image, your credibility, your brand.

Whether some of those that appear to have been lost to you this year come back before the next election, or not, do you understand why so many people have turned against you now, Kevin Rudd, not just the Government, Kevin Rudd, and do you accept that they have judged your leadership and found you wanting?

That went down like a lead balloon.

Desmond
13-05-2010, 10:57 AM
This type of stuff is probably the most annoying thing I find with interviews like this. When it is clear that the interviewee is not answering the question (especially when it is a politician), the interviewer just seems to move on quite often, rather than pointing out that the interviewee is not answering the question and repeating it. Or asking the question in a different way.

It really feels like it just sends the message that if you dont answer the question, he/she will just move on to the next question.Did you read/watch the whole interview? The first 5 minutes was Kerry asking the same question in several diffent ways. Head. Brick wall.

Basil
13-05-2010, 10:58 AM
This type of stuff is probably the most annoying thing I find with interviews like this. When it is clear that the interviewee is not answering the question (especially when it is a politician), the interviewer just seems to move on quite often, rather than pointing out that the interviewee is not answering the question and repeating it. Or asking the question in a different way.

It really feels like it just sends the message that if you dont answer the question, he/she will just move on to the next question.
Garv, there is an idea among journalists (the profession) that the journo is there to ask the question and for the consumer to assess the value of the response. There seems to be a tacit standard that a follow-up or re-worded question is also acceptable, but any more than that changes the journo from facilitator to inquisitor.

This is a not-so-unreasonable benchmark and I agree with it. I note that there is a difference between journalism and other styles of opinion-, talkback- and counterpoint-type presentations.

Righties tend to get a bit excited when obvious smooth side-stepping is known to be a sufficient jig to satisfy that component of the left vote whose intelligence quotient is on a par with that of a garden slug.

Basil
13-05-2010, 11:00 AM
Actually I was more thinking of this bit:



That went down like a lead balloon.
*LMAO* Sorry I missed it.

Garvinator
13-05-2010, 11:17 AM
Did you read/watch the whole interview? The first 5 minutes was Kerry asking the same question in several diffent ways. Head. Brick wall.Nope. Did not see one bit of it. My comment was more of a general statement, rather than a specific comment about one interview.

ER
13-05-2010, 11:36 AM
http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Laughing/lol-058.gif
the component of the left vote ... whose intelligence quotient is on a par with garden slugs.

ER
13-05-2010, 12:08 PM
http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Laughing/lol-058.gif

BTW do we have Tony's reaction re the way she pronounced his name?
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/7221168/rudd-behaviour-like-latham/

Kevin Bonham
13-05-2010, 03:47 PM
Garv, there is an idea among journalists (the profession) that the journo is there to ask the question and for the consumer to assess the value of the response. There seems to be a tacit standard that a follow-up or re-worded question is also acceptable, but any more than that changes the journo from facilitator to inquisitor.

I like it when journos call a politician out on the tactic of not answering the question. I also like it when politicians point out that a question is spurious and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Basil
13-05-2010, 03:54 PM
I also like it when politicians point out that a question is spurious and shouldn't be taken seriously.
Yes. Standards ever-spiralling south, especially in the gutter-press, slow news days and on perceived easy targets. Maggie (and Hawke to a degree) cutting journos a new one was always entertaining.

Igor_Goldenberg
14-05-2010, 09:42 AM
Hypocrisy of Rudd and Labor brilliantly revealed by Abbott in budget-in-reply speech:


By this budget’s bizarre logic, putting a new tax on cigarettes means less smoking but putting a new tax on resources means more mining.

Rincewind
14-05-2010, 09:57 AM
Hypocrisy of Rudd and Labor brilliantly revealed by Abbott in budget-in-reply speech:


By this budget’s bizarre logic, putting a new tax on cigarettes means less smoking but putting a new tax on resources means more mining.

That is just rhetoric, the two don't compare at all. Mining is a profit making enterprise. If it continues to be profitable then mining companies will continue to mine. Smoking is an addictive habit. People will continue to smoke although making it more expensive might make it slightly less attractive. Regardless of whether less people smoke or not, if the money collected from that tax goes to public health then that is a worthwhile tax.

Regarding the resource tax, I have nothing against collecting tax from resource companies and big business in general (although I think the banks have got off far too lightly especially considering the obscene profits they have been making until very recently). However, the deficit to surplus predictions of the government seem to be very optimistic in terms of buoyancy of the resources sector.

We will all just have to keep our fingers crossed for the next three years and hope that China's economic growth remains positive and they continue to buy our resources.

Igor_Goldenberg
14-05-2010, 11:28 AM
That is just rhetoric, the two don't compare at all.
Which one is exempt from the economic laws?


Mining is a profit making enterprise.
So is selling cigarettes


If it continues to be profitable then mining companies will continue to mine.
And tobacco companies will continue to sell cigarettes. By your and Rudd bizarre logic they even sell more cigarettes, won't they?


Smoking is an addictive habit. People will continue to smoke although making it more expensive might make it slightly less attractive.
Correct. And Mining companies companies will continue to explore and extract, although making it expensive will make it less attractive. But according to Rudd it will also make it more attractive. Go figure.


Regardless of whether less people smoke or not, if the money collected from that tax goes to public health then that is a worthwhile tax.
All taxes collected go to general revenue. Saying it will go to public health is a fig leaf for raising taxes.


Regarding the resource tax, I have nothing against collecting tax from resource companies and big business in general...
In other words, tax the rich to make sure there are no rich and everyone is poor. Very novel indeed.

Desmond
14-05-2010, 12:18 PM
I'm not sure that anyone is claiming that the tax will mean (cause) more mining. I think that the increase mining is assumed to come from other factors.

Anyway I thought the reply speech was pretty good. Didn't have a chicky sitting behind nodding and saying hear hear everytime the speaker drew breath, for one thing.

Rincewind
14-05-2010, 02:12 PM
Which one is exempt from the economic laws?

There is a financial transaction involved in both, however in one case (smoking) the market is regulated within the Australian economy the other (mining) the product is traded on a global market. So in the case of cigarettes the tax will go directly to the consumer in the cost of the cigarettes. Mining companies will not have that luxury, since it will affect the cost of production, other factors beyond the control of the government will regulate the price.

However that is another way of seeing that what Abbot said (assuming you reported it accurately) doesn't make sense.


By this budget’s bizarre logic, putting a new tax on cigarettes means less smoking but putting a new tax on resources means more mining.

"Less smoking" is a comment on consumption in a domestic market and "more mining" is a comment on production for a global market. The two just don't compare.

I haven't responded to the remainder of your message as it was generally cross purposes since you didn't understand the point I was trying to make in the first place.

Igor_Goldenberg
14-05-2010, 02:14 PM
I'm not sure that anyone is claiming that the tax will mean (cause) more mining. I think that the increase mining is assumed to come from other factors.

Swan is on record saying this tax will help mining industry grow. Rudd said it quite a few times as well.

Igor_Goldenberg
14-05-2010, 02:27 PM
There is a financial transaction involved in both, however in one case (smoking) the market is regulated within the Australian economy the other (mining) the product is traded on a global market. So in the case of cigarettes the tax will go directly to the consumer in the cost of the cigarettes. Mining companies will not have that luxury, since it will affect the cost of production, other factors beyond the control of the government will regulate the price.

However that is another way of seeing that what Abbot said (assuming you reported it accurately) doesn't make sense.


By this budget’s bizarre logic, putting a new tax on cigarettes means less smoking but putting a new tax on resources means more mining.

"Less smoking" is a comment on consumption in a domestic market and "more mining" is a comment on production for a global market. The two just don't compare.

The economical laws are still the same. Higher tax reduces production output (irrespectively of whether cost is passed on to the consumer or absorbed by the company). Pity you don't understand such a simple thing.

I haven't responded to the remainder of your message as it was generally cross purposes since you didn't understand the point I was trying to make in the first place.
I am not sure you understood the point you were trying to make either.

Goughfather
14-05-2010, 03:46 PM
Kevin, I'd be interested in knowing what you make of Abbott framing the mining tax as an election issue. Personally, I don't think it will carry much traction (either for or against the ALP) in much of Australia, but I think that it could be potentially problematic for Rudd in Western Australia, where a number of seats are probably up for grabs.

Desmond
14-05-2010, 03:46 PM
Swan is on record saying this tax will help mining industry grow. Rudd said it quite a few times as well.
Well if that is the case, the mind boggles.

TheJoker
14-05-2010, 04:21 PM
The economical laws are still the same. Higher tax reduces production output (irrespectively of whether cost is passed on to the consumer or absorbed by the company). Pity you don't understand such a simple thing.

Such economic laws require far to many assumptions to be certain in real life, they only apply ceteris paribus (all else being equal). For example growth in demand, new technologies, changes to the risk profile, tax incentives for exploration may cause higher production despite higher taxes. Demand or supply might be so inelastic that the change cost/price has insignificant effect on output. Note that firms with low profitability will get a tax break under the new scheme, their increase in production could possibly offset the fall in production of those firms that get a tax increase. This is why far more complex economic modelling is required.

Desmond
14-05-2010, 04:29 PM
Where is Jono's sig file when you need it? You'll get more of what you reward and less what you punish. Less of profitable companies, and more of "not so much" ones.

TheJoker
14-05-2010, 04:40 PM
And Mining companies companies will continue to explore and extract, although making it expensive will make it less attractive. But according to Rudd it will also make it more attractive. Go figure..

I think the idea is that exploration becomes cheaper under the new scheme, but I am not certain




In other words, tax the rich to make sure there are no rich and everyone is poor. Very novel indeed.

I think it is more about making sure the the miners are paying the public a fair price for our natural resources. Due inefficient government pricing mechanisms (i.e. royalties) that don't adjust to global market demand for resources we have been supplying them with resources to cheaply.

The new pricing mechanism is a variable charge, therefore will respond to global demadn for resources. According to the government the new tax will restore the effective tax rate on mining to levels it was in the early 2000's

Rincewind
14-05-2010, 04:47 PM
The economical laws are still the same. Higher tax reduces production output (irrespectively of whether cost is passed on to the consumer or absorbed by the company). Pity you don't understand such a simple thing.

The only thing simplistic about it is your appreciation of the issues.

Kevin Bonham
14-05-2010, 06:18 PM
Kevin, I'd be interested in knowing what you make of Abbott framing the mining tax as an election issue. Personally, I don't think it will carry much traction (either for or against the ALP) in much of Australia, but I think that it could be potentially problematic for Rudd in Western Australia, where a number of seats are probably up for grabs.

WA is no big deal for Labor. They only have four seats there anyway and those are clustered around Perth, one of them is marginal and will probably go and the others are on 6-9% cushions and probably won't fall over the issue given their urban nature.

I think it is a low-risk issue for either party to fight the election on and perhaps the Liberals would be better off not making it a primary focus, and instead suggesting the government is trying to whip up east-west divides and shift the picture.

I don't think oppositions generally profit by making elections contests about big-picture ideology. I think they do better by attacking government performance.

antichrist
14-05-2010, 06:27 PM
If the mining sector slows down a bit does it really matter, the minerals will still be there for future generations to obtain benefit from. We are not growing any more minerals. The resources is dragging tradesmen away from eastern states, that lets tradesmen who stay really jack up their prices, so can retard more longer term sustainable development. The whole world economy has to been changed, it relys on growth, growth that is killing our planet via pollution etc.

In a hundred years the then generation will think we are the most stupid and selfish people that ever existed - esp coz we could see the environmental crisis coming generations beforehand and did nothing worthwhile.

I see people weighing about 40-45 kilo driving big Mercs around to carry their tiny backside - how selfish and stupid. (whereas my big backside may deserve one)

Capablanca-Fan
15-05-2010, 02:30 AM
That is just rhetoric, the two don't compare at all.
Not at all. As Boris said, my sig line from Sowell sums it up.


Regarding the resource tax, I have nothing against collecting tax from resource companies and big business in general
I do, because companies are a legal fiction. In reality, the government sucks money that would otherwise pay wages or allow cheaper products to consumers. Also, the biggest shareholders of big companies are often super funds representing ordinary workers.


(although I think the banks have got off far too lightly especially considering the obscene profits they have been making until very recently).
Define "obscene". How are they less "obscene" than the movie industry or even fizzy drinks at fast food places or restaurants?

Igor_Goldenberg
15-05-2010, 08:57 PM
... For example growth in demand, new technologies, changes to the risk profile, tax incentives for exploration may cause higher production despite higher taxes...
According to Rudd and some economically illiterate on the this forum, it's not "despite", but "because"

Igor_Goldenberg
15-05-2010, 08:58 PM
The only thing simplistic about it is your appreciation of the issues.
I understand that you can't substantiate your claims.

Rincewind
15-05-2010, 09:46 PM
I understand that you can't substantiate your claims.

You said


Higher tax reduces production output (irrespectively of whether cost is passed on to the consumer or absorbed by the company).

That simply isn't true. This has been pointed out to you by others already in this thread but since you seem intend on asking for a reiteration... The proposed tax on the mining companies is in effect a national royalty regime. Royalties have traditionally been levied on resource companies as a way for state governments to collect money (on behalf of the people owning those resources). Often an increase in royalties occurs as the profitability of the exploitation of those resources increases (such as at the moment when demand is driving global prices up). During times of high demand production is increased to cash in on the fortuitous market, which means higher royalties often accompany increased production. The exact opposite of what you said. Some time in the future the resources demand will flag (or resources will become expended) and production will wind down and then lowering royalties (or in this case super tax) will be an option to keep mining company contribution to the state in line with company profits.

So as I hope you can now appreciate, just saying motherhood statements like increase taxes decreases productions is overly simplistic. As I said in the first post on this topic. The cigarette tax hike and the resources super tax are not analogous and it is not inconsistent to impose both and expect resource exports to continue pretty much as currently forecast (being driven by demand) and cigarette demand to decrease as the tax is passed directly on the consumer hopefully reducing demand.

CameronD
15-05-2010, 11:00 PM
One thing I dont get. If the mining companies are making massive profits, why dont the state governments discover and extract the stuff themselves. Keeping the whole profit instead of just a tax slice.


You said


Higher tax reduces production output (irrespectively of whether cost is passed on to the consumer or absorbed by the company).

That simply isn't true. This has been pointed out to you by others already in this thread but since you seem intend on asking for a reiteration... The proposed tax on the mining companies is in effect a national royalty regime. Royalties have traditionally been levied on resource companies as a way for state governments to collect money (on behalf of the people owning those resources). Often an increase in royalties occurs as the profitability of the exploitation of those resources increases (such as at the moment when demand is driving global prices up). During times of high demand production is increased to cash in on the fortuitous market, which means higher royalties often accompany increased production. The exact opposite of what you said. Some time in the future the resources demand will flag (or resources will become expended) and production will wind down and then lowering royalties (or in this case super tax) will be an option to keep mining company contribution to the state in line with company profits.

So as I hope you can now appreciate, just saying motherhood statements like increase taxes decreases productions is overly simplistic. As I said in the first post on this topic. The cigarette tax hike and the resources super tax are not analogous and it is not inconsistent to impose both and expect resource exports to continue pretty much as currently forecast (being driven by demand) and cigarette demand to decrease as the tax is passed directly on the consumer hopefully reducing demand.

Kevin Bonham
15-05-2010, 11:08 PM
One thing I dont get. If the mining companies are making massive profits, why dont the state governments discover and extract the stuff themselves. Keeping the whole profit instead of just a tax slice.

Probably because when it comes to actually making a major profit by any means other than intimidation, governments are too incompetent.

Rincewind
16-05-2010, 12:08 AM
One thing I dont get. If the mining companies are making massive profits, why dont the state governments discover and extract the stuff themselves. Keeping the whole profit instead of just a tax slice.

That does occasionally happen although often not for reasons of profit but when the government perceives that the management of a resource needs to be managed by the government (e.g. war time of at time when the resource is scarce and/or of great national importance). In the UK the coal industry was run this way pretty much since WWII until the last decade of the 20th century. My understanding is that it has since been (mostly) re-privatised but the coal industry in the UK is much small now than it was in the 1940s.

ER
16-05-2010, 08:24 AM
Probably because when it comes to actually making a major profit by any means other than intimidation, governments are too incompetent.
Exactly since amongst other things,
Immediate decision making is not one of their (Govt) strong points
Senates (lucky QLD doesn't have one) could go on like forever to pass a decision!
I can't imagine BHP and Rio functioning according to party line policies!

Igor_Goldenberg
16-05-2010, 10:07 AM
That simply isn't true. This has been pointed out to you by others already in this thread but since you seem intend on asking for a reiteration... The proposed tax on the mining companies is in effect a national royalty regime.

You don't understand the difference between royalties and profit tax. Anyway, it's not important for the sake of your dubious claims.

Royalties have traditionally been levied on resource companies as a way for state governments to collect money (on behalf of the people owning those resources). Often an increase in royalties occurs as the profitability of the exploitation of those resources increases (such as at the moment when demand is driving global prices up). During times of high demand production is increased to cash in on the fortuitous market, which means higher royalties often accompany increased production.

Higher royalties accompany increased production or lead to increased production?:doh: :doh:

Answer a simple question:
In which case production will be higher:
a. Tax is increased
b. Tax stays the same

Rincewind
16-05-2010, 12:23 PM
Answer a simple question:
In which case production will be higher:
a. Tax is increased
b. Tax stays the same

You are just imposing a false dichotomy as was stated at the beginning tax or royalties are not the only (or even a significant) driver of production. Demand is. I'm not willing to waste any more time on a simpleton.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-05-2010, 01:08 PM
You are just imposing a false dichotomy as was stated at the beginning tax or royalties are not the only (or even a significant) driver of production. Demand is.
Now you are conveniently trying to shift the goal posts and re-frame the debate. The things discussed was the impact of the extra tax. Rudd and Swan was arguing it has a positive impact. For them it could've been an inadvertent slip, because absurdity is evident to everyone (except some economically illiterate)
BTW, you did not have the audacity to answer a direct question.

antichrist
16-05-2010, 04:23 PM
I don't why you are all picking on Rudd (not that I like him that much). But you should be picking on the LIberals, it was their founder Pig-Iron-Bob-Menzies who was selling it to the Japs pre WW2 whilst the unions were warning it would come back as bullets. And sure enough it did! And good Aussie working class guys lost their lives coz of stupid Liberal capitalists!

TheJoker
17-05-2010, 09:56 AM
Now you are conveniently trying to shift the goal posts and re-frame the debate. The things discussed was the impact of the extra tax. Rudd and Swan was arguing it has a positive impact. For them it could've been an inadvertent slip, because absurdity is evident to everyone (except some economically illiterate)
BTW, you did not have the audacity to answer a direct question.

1. The new tax scheme will lower the effective tax rate for some mining companies (i.e. those with a ROE below 10% IIRC)

2. The new tax scheme includes incentives for exploration. Assuming that increases exploration, that will increase the number of new resources deposits found, that will increase production.

3. Given that the boom in production started when the effective tax rate was much higher than present, such a tax rate might not be barrier restricting production, other barriers such as finding new deposits, finding skilled employee etc might be the main barriers to production.

4. Given the economies of scale in mining, small start-up mining companies tend to be less profitable, given that the new tax scheme lowers the effective tax rate for less profitable operations, it will help them develop scale and compete with the larger firms. Increased competition generally is a major driver of innovation and productivity increases.

It's rather ironic that you are calling people economically illiterate.

From those economic illiterates over at KPMG Econtech:

"Overall total GDP is 0.7 per cent higher than would otherwise be the case, made up of contributions of 0.3 per cent from the company tax cut and 0.4 per cent from changes to resource taxation."

Are you saying that your simplistic highschool level analysis is better than that of KPMG one of the world's largest professional consulting firms?

TheJoker
17-05-2010, 10:07 AM
Double Post

Igor_Goldenberg
17-05-2010, 10:16 AM
1. The new tax scheme will lower the effective tax rate for some mining companies (i.e. those with a ROE below 10% IIRC)

2. The new tax scheme includes incentives for exploration. Assuming that increases exploration, that will increase the number of new resources deposits found, that will increase production.

3. Given that the boom in production started when the effective tax rate was much higher than present, such a tax rate might not be barrier restricting production, other barriers such as finding new deposits, finding skilled employee etc might be the main barriers to production.

4. Given the economies of scale in mining, small start-up mining companies tend to be less profitable, given that the new tax scheme lowers the effective tax rate for less profitable operations, it will help them develop scale and compete with the larger firms. Increased competition generally is a major driver of innovation and productivity increases.

The tax is forecasted to collect 9 billions more assuming the same level of extraction. It means that overall tax burden is going to be higher.
Mining companies explore because they expect to eventually being able to get big buck. If this incentive is taken away, why bother?
True, it will be easier to explore for some start-ups (even though it begs the question - why do we have to subsidise then through 40% rebate?). But it's not worth the risk (even reduced one), if the carrot at the end of the journey isn't fat or juicy anymore.

The whole concept of taxing higher profit companies to subsidise lower profit companies doesn't make sense to me.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-05-2010, 10:20 AM
"Overall total GDP is 0.7 per cent higher than would otherwise be the case, made up of contributions of 0.3 per cent from the company tax cut and 0.4 per cent from changes to resource taxation."
?????

TheJoker
17-05-2010, 11:07 AM
The tax is forecasted to collect 9 billions more assuming the same level of extraction. It means that overall tax burden is going to be higher.

Yes but nothing in that suggests a decrease in production, because that burden will be borne by established operations, those operations will still be profitable, and therefore are unlikely to stop producing in response to the new tax.


Mining companies explore because they expect to eventually being able to get big buck. If this incentive is taken away, why bother?.

Well they seemed to bother back when effective tax rate was higher than it is now, and now with the risk decreased I expect they will continue to bother, perhaps more often.


True, it will be easier to explore for some start-ups... But it's not worth the risk (even reduced one), if the carrot at the end of the journey isn't fat or juicy anymore.

Another statement based on thin air.


The whole concept of taxing higher profit companies to subsidise lower profit companies doesn't make sense to me.

That's not what the new scheme does, it simply means the government is changing its charge for access to resources from a fixed charge to a profit sharing arrangement. This means those more profitable companies will obviously be paying more to the government. Essentially the govenrment is taking on some of the risk in return for a share of the risk premium.

TheJoker
17-05-2010, 11:21 AM
?????

The results of the economic modelling by KPMG Econtech show that the propsoed changes to resource tax will generate an extra 0.4 per cent increase in GDP over the current arrangements.

While this finding is obviously subject to the limitations of economic modelling, it is a better forecast than either you or I could possibly hope to make.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-05-2010, 11:21 AM
Yes but nothing in that suggests a decrease in production, because that burden will be borne by established operations, those operations will still be profitable, and therefore are unlikely to stop producing in response to the new tax.

When levying a tax government rarely assumes changes in production, which is often a great mistake (or populist spin to sell the tax to the voters).



That's not what the new scheme does, it simply means the government is changing its charge for access to resources from a fixed charge to a profit sharing arrangement.
Profit sharing arrangement already exists - a company tax. If government wants to charge for exploitation of resources it reckon it owns, then charge per unit taken out of the ground makes more sense.


This means those more profitable companies will obviously be paying more to the government. Essentially the govenrment is taking on some of the risk in return for a share of the risk premium.
I don't think government sharing in the risk is a good idea.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-05-2010, 11:23 AM
The results of the economic modelling by KPMG Econtech show that the propsoed changes to resource tax will generate an extra 0.4 per cent increase in GDP over the current arrangements.

While this finding is obviously subject to the limitations of economic modelling, it is a better forecast than either you or I could possibly hope to make.
Is there a link?

TheJoker
17-05-2010, 11:35 AM
Is there a link?

www.econtech.com.au

TheJoker
17-05-2010, 11:57 AM
When levying a tax government rarely assumes changes in production.

Rubbish!!! Are you saying the trained economists working for Treasury and KPMG aren't going factor in changes in production. Now you are just making stuff up.



Profit sharing arrangement already exists - a company tax. If government wants to charge for exploitation of resources it reckon it owns, then charge per unit taken out of the ground makes more sense.

Firstly the reason the government reckons the public owns the resources is because we do.

A per unit charge might be ok as long as it is a market price, not fixed price like royalties. However, their is a difficulty (and cost) in measuring how much resources are actually being extracted, due to different efficiency levels of various mining operations. Also as pointed out a profit sharing arrangement helps share the risk which lowers the barriers to entry and should increase competition, which in itself has a number of advantages.



I don't think government sharing in the risk is a good idea.

That's your own personal opinion which has the value of the single vote it is afforded in the democratic process. Other people hold different opinions

Igor_Goldenberg
17-05-2010, 12:46 PM
Rubbish!!! Are you saying the trained economists working for Treasury and KPMG aren't going factor in changes in production. Now you are just making stuff up.
Do you have any evidence to the contrary? You must, given your Rubbish!!!



Firstly the reason the government reckons the public owns the resources is because we do.

Who we? Is it you, or me, or the government? It's not as clear cut as you want to portrait it. Do you also own the fertile soil that farmers use to grow crops? Should the ownership of the land include everything in ground?



A per unit charge might be ok as long as it is a market price, not fixed price like royalties. However, their is a difficulty (and cost) in measuring how much resources are actually being extracted, due to different efficiency levels of various mining operations.
I don't think it's any more difficult then measuring the profit, given that mining companies in Australia document their sales.


Also as pointed out a profit sharing arrangement helps share the risk which lowers the barriers to entry and should increase competition, which in itself has a number of advantages.
As pointed out it's not necessary the case



That's your own personal opinion which has the value of the single vote it is afforded in the democratic process. Other people hold different opinions
How does this diatribe contribute to the debate of the mining tax?

TheJoker
17-05-2010, 02:18 PM
Do you have any evidence to the contrary? You must, given your Rubbish!!!

Yes the Econtech report for starters, since it looks at changes to GDP. Which of course is gross domestic product, which is measure of production.



Who we? Is it you, or me, or the government? It's not as clear cut as you want to portrait it. Do you also own the fertile soil that farmers use to grow crops? Should the ownership of the land include everything in ground?

We means the Australian public collectively, the government are our agents. Ownership is covered by a complex set of laws, I am not qualified to judge. But it is clear that the government has the legal right to charge miners for access to resources on behalf of the Australian public.



I don't think it's any more difficult then measuring the profit, given that mining companies in Australia document their sales.

A charge based on product sales would not take into account the different levels of efficiencies within mining operations. Some mines may waste a significant amount of the resources they extract.

I not opposed to the idea of per unit price that adjusts in accordance with global prices, but it would considerabley add to the complexity and hence bureacracy of the scheme. For example, you would have to set prices for each different resource, decide how and when to index those prices. Either way you are still going to have the same debate over what is correct price to charge. Miners are still going to argue that the government is over charging. Government is still going to argue that current arrangements under-charge. It's not like there is a published price for resources still in the ground.



As pointed out it's not necessary the case.

Sorry where exactly was this pointed out.



How does this diatribe contribute to the debate of the mining tax?

I was trying to point out that your personal opinion is both irrelevant to merits of the government scheme and of little consequence based on your ability to affect outcomes.

Would you have preferred that I answered with the equally constructive "I think the government sharing in the risk is a good idea"?

Igor_Goldenberg
17-05-2010, 02:48 PM
www.econtech.com.au
Thanks.
Here is the critical review (http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/05/16/should-we-believe-the-modelling-on-the-impact-of-the-rspt/)

TheJoker
17-05-2010, 03:15 PM
Thanks.
Here is the critical review (http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/05/16/should-we-believe-the-modelling-on-the-impact-of-the-rspt/)

Yes I am well aware there as some serious limitations with economic modelling, particularly in regards to the assumptions used in the model. Same goes for any type of forecast. You will notice I also notice in previous threads I also used the term "independant" in inverted commas, since independance is always questionable when a study is commissioned by one of the key stakeholders.

However, so far I haven't seen any alternate modelling. Judith Sloan is an economist which adds weight to her criticism, she is also a former director of Santos so just like Econtech her independence is questionable

Capablanca-Fan
18-05-2010, 04:24 AM
Fear wipes $40b off the market (http://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/fear-wipes-40b-off-the-market-20100517-v6q3.html?autostart=1)
SMH 17 May 2010

AUSTRALIAN stocks slumped beyond a seven-month low today, falling more than 3 per cent as a horror lead from offshore markets that came on the back of Europe debt concerns saw investors dump local stocks.

The fear tore through the Asian region, with stock markets in Japan, South Korea, China, Hong Kong and India all down after Wall Street’s Dow Jones Industrial Average and European markets sank on Friday.

Concerns on Europe’s recovery and the prospect of weaker global growth weighed heavily on Australia’s resources stocks, already sold off since news of the Rudd government’s proposal for a Resources Super Profits Tax, but the losses were widespread.

BHP Billiton fell $1.75, or 4.53 per cent, to close the day at $36.89, as rival Rio Tinto gave up $3.85 (5.66 per cent) to end at $64.15.

TheJoker
20-05-2010, 01:18 PM
Jono , I'd be interested to know what you think is fair price to charge miners for the right to access Australia's natural resources. Should that price be based on market forces. How would you propose to implement this charge?

In Australia the royalities per unit of resources have remained the same despite the boom in demand for natural resources and the subsquent increase in global resource prices. Would you agree that this means the current arrangement is possibily undercharing for the supply of raw resources?

Given that resources are finite and that the revenue streams will eventually dry up, and investor will look for new opportunities in global capital markets, do you think it is in Australia's best interest to ensure that part of those revenue streams are invested in projects to ensure future national competitiveness?

antichrist
22-05-2010, 02:54 PM
With Howard starting all these gripe threads, and himself being politically incorrect, could he be accused of having a bad hair day though it does not seem appropriate to apply to him?

Capablanca-Fan
23-05-2010, 11:45 PM
Every Friday morning, SAfm's AMLive's radio anchor Caesar Molebatsi speaks to Martin Creamer, publishing editor of Engineering News and Mining Weekly. Reported here is this Friday's At the Coalface transcript (http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/page/multimedia/tab:6):

Molebatsi: Australia's new highly punitive mining tax is a boost for South Africa.

Creamer: Yes, South Africa is really the beneficiary, along with Canada and Brazil, of the punitive taxes that have been introduced by Australia. Australia seems to have shot themselves in the foot when it comes to mining taxes.

There has been a howl of protest with this new super profit tax, which takes 40% of the profits away from the mining industry. Now, people are sharpening their pencils and saying should we mine and go ahead with our project in Australia or maybe we can go ahead with the one in South Africa or elsewhere because of the different situation…

We always used to say that Africa has got a bad mining code and a lot of the people don’t want to put their money there, but now we are seeing Australia in a situation were people are saying there is sovereign risk. They used to apply that only to South Africa.

Capablanca-Fan
24-05-2010, 11:45 PM
PORTLAND hospital was rushed into signing a $4.9 million funding agreement (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/hospital-coerced-on-super-clinic-20100523-w3zc.html)for its new GP super clinic so the Rudd government could avoid political embarrassment, a leaked email has revealed.

Hospital management was told to sign the agreement by noon on Wednesday - just moments before shadow treasurer Joe Hockey delivered his post-budget reply to the National Press Club.

Portland District Health chief executive John O’Neill warned his board members of the urgency of the government’s request in an email that morning: “I have been asked to sign this agreement before 12 noon today - that is, before Joe Hockey makes his budget reply … If not signed, funding will be withdrawn.”

He also forwarded a copy of an email received earlier that morning from the Department of Health and Ageing asking for the agreement to be signed “by lunch time today”.

Goughfather
25-05-2010, 01:23 AM
Wow, you're really grasping at straws now - are things really getting that desperate?

All I can say is that I long for the day when I am "bullied" into accepting 4.9 million dollars worth of funding. With enemies like that, who needs friends?

Desmond
25-05-2010, 10:15 AM
Wow, you're really grasping at straws now - are things really getting that desperate?

All I can say is that I long for the day when I am "bullied" into accepting 4.9 million dollars worth of funding. With enemies like that, who needs friends?
Sounds like poor form to give such a deadline, for purely political purposes.

Basil
25-05-2010, 10:29 AM
Wow, you're really grasping at straws now - are things really getting that desperate?

All I can say is that I long for the day when I am "bullied" into accepting 4.9 million dollars worth of funding. With enemies like that, who needs friends?
I know you're a lefty (a lily-white to boot), which is a considerable hindrance in your ability to follow the birdie and participate in any meaningful way in such discussions, but just slow down a minute. For the sake of argument, make the whole world your oyster and construct for us please, a plausible, honest and wholesome reason why

a) such a deadline would be demanded, and
b) on pain of missing that deadline, funding would be withdrawn!

- Take your time.
- Try not to make a goose of yourself.
- I bet you don't even get close to such a construction.

Goughfather
25-05-2010, 07:18 PM
I know you're a lefty (a lily-white to boot), which is a considerable hindrance in your ability to follow the birdie and participate in any meaningful way in such discussions, but just slow down a minute.

Typical Howie ad-hominem heavy, substance light commentary. For what it's worth, I'd suggest that I'm not as leftist as you suggest and certainly not as parochial about the Labor Party as you are about the Coalition. I doubt you could find more than a few posts from myself that speak positively about the Labor Party. To tell you the truth, I find analysing the political scene and assessing the strategies necessary for each political party to maximise its political prospects a great deal more interesting that flying a banner. Perhaps this has something to do with the work I did on Machiavelli's "The Prince" while completing my undergraduate degree. I find the "what is" much more practical and much more interesting than the "what should be".


For the sake of argument, make the whole world your oyster and construct for us please, a plausible, honest and wholesome reason why

a) such a deadline would be demanded, and
b) on pain of missing that deadline, funding would be withdrawn!

- Take your time.
- Try not to make a goose of yourself.
- I bet you don't even get close to such a construction.

See, here's the thing - I'm not convinced that a reply is really warranted considering that you've not demonstrated any capacity to listen to my arguments on their merits and make an objective response. With this in mind, I'm not entirely sure what my response would achieve. However, for the sake of argument, make the whole world your oyster and construct for us please, a plausible, honest and wholesome reason for me to accept on reasonable grounds, that:

(a) you are genuinely interested in my response; and
(b) that you will consider what I am saying with an open mind, in spite of all previous evidence to the contrary.

- Take your time
- Try not to make a goose of yourself
- I bet you don't even get close to such a construction

For what it's worth, considering that you feel that you are entitled to dismiss my arguments without addressing anything I actually say, I reserve the right to take the same liberty. If I determine that you've actually satisfied my request, I will make a response accordingly. If I'm not satisfied, I'll simply reject your argument, without feeling any compulsion to actually address what you say.

Basil
25-05-2010, 07:49 PM
Typical Howie ad-hominem
I can't argue with that. You're an easy target. And I do enjoy it.


For what it's worth, I'd suggest that I'm not as leftist as you suggest and certainly not as parochial about the Labor Party as you are about the Coalition.
With a handle like that, it's not worth much :lol:


I doubt you could find more than a few posts from myself that speak positively about the Labor Party.
OK, your stocks are improving :D


See, here's the thing - I'm not convinced that a reply is really warranted considering that you've not demonstrated any capacity to listen to my arguments on their merits and make an objective response.
I generally engage you when you make little or no attempt at genuine commentary but instead initiate an amateur's deflection to absolve your mate Gough and his witless successor Rudd. This situation is a good case in point.

Jono pointed out a remarkable edict from the Rudd government that defies any rational justification that I can determine. Then for your part, instead of adopting the time-honoured lefty policy of standing by in silence while the gross disservice/ ineptitude/ me too policy is effected, you invoke a mindless piece of commentary and pass it off as a constructed argument.

Your deflections are so naive and obvious, they don't warrant addressing. Instead I just call them to attention and throw in a free insult. In this instance, you entirely failed to address the actions of the government in question and suggested Jono was clutching at straws, whle making no attempt to illustrate why such an apparently onerous clause is at all justified.

However, if you prefer, let me simply say, in relation to your deflection, that regardless of whether you assess Jono to be grasping at straws do you really believe that that the government's behaviour is acceptable in this instance?


With this in mind, I'm not entirely sure what my response would achieve.
It gives you an opportunity to defend your claim that Jono is grasping at straws and refute my claim that you can't construct a reasonable defence for the government's behaviour.


However, for the sake of argument, make the whole world your oyster and construct for us please, a plausible, honest and wholesome reason for me to accept on reasonable grounds, that:

(a) you are genuinely interested in my response; and
(b) that you will consider what I am saying with an open mind, in spite of all previous evidence to the contrary.
Done. I am genuinely interested in your ability to defend the government's behaviour in respect to the imposition of the deadline tied to the opposition's announcement, and also a defence of the government's threat to withdraw funding if the deadline isn't met.

antichrist
25-05-2010, 10:03 PM
Gunnar do you fight on this board coz your missus has given up - or is it you can't beat her? (in argument or otherwise)

Luckily you did not marry an intellectual or femo-nazi

TheJoker
26-05-2010, 09:46 AM
For the sake of argument construct for us please, a plausible, honest and wholesome reason why

a) such a deadline would be demanded, and
b) on pain of missing that deadline, funding would be withdrawn!

I don't really know the facts of the situation, but an obvious answer to that question is that the hospital board might have been exploiting the politics of situation (i.e. its importance to the budget / budget reply) to try to squeeze the government for extra unwarranted funding. Not wanting to be bullied or blackmailed the government may have provided an ultimatum. Of course it could be the exact opposite as asserted by Jono, but unless you know the intimate details of the negotiations you'd be guessing.

As for part b) I think that's covered above but for the sake of explaining, creating a negative pay-off for the delaying strategy of the Hospital, makes that strategy unpalatble.

Since a simple "switcheroo" of motives is very plausible I am surprised it didn't occur to you.

Basil
26-05-2010, 10:24 AM
I don't really know the facts of the situation, but an obvious answer to that question is that the hospital board might have been exploiting the politics of situation (i.e. its importance to the budget / budget reply) to try to squeeze the government for extra unwarranted funding. Not wanting to be bullied or blackmailed the government may have provided an ultimatum. Of course it could be the exact opposite as asserted by Jono, but unless you know the intimate details of the negotiations you'd be guessing.

I can only assume that this is a joke answer and not presented as a genuine way in which governments are to deliver services to those they are appointed to service. The issue of 'no funding for you' a la Soup Nazi, hurting the constituents, and not the hospital administrators is beyond rational belief that not even I would put at the feet of a lefty government.

So do you have a real answer?

TheJoker
26-05-2010, 12:07 PM
I can only assume that this is a joke answer and not presented as a genuine way in which governments are to deliver services to those they are appointed to service.

The government is appointed to deliver services to the public, using public funds efficiently it is not appointed to service individual hospital boards.


The issue of 'no funding for you' ... hurting the constituents, and not the hospital administrators is beyond rational belief

Firstly, if you can't see how a reduction in funding would hurt the hospital administrators you're a bit of dunce.

Secondly, the government's consituents consist not just of local Portland residents but each and every taxpayer. It's important they don't waste money negotiating where a compromise is unlikely and that they allocate funding according to the level of service the hospital can provide. Knowing public bureaucrats penchant for demanding ever increasing resources without any increase in services its not surprising the government make a final funding offer with no further negotiation. In fact this is common practice in business negotiations.

Let's imagine this was a private business transaction. A firm's management was purchasing healthcare services for its shareholders. The firm's management had worked out that the maximum it was willing to pay for the service $1 million, in order to ensure shareholder value (based on how else the money could be spent) . The hosiptal said it needed $1.5 million dollars to supply. Management said $1 million dollars is our final offer take it or leave, you need to respond before our quaterly Board meeting, since we need to report to them how our plans are progressing and make future plans. I doubt CU you would be screaming that this is an irrational, unethical decision that is hurting shareholders.

You are flogging a dead horse. If you were concerned that the government has possibly offered the hosiptal more funding than is warranted in order to get them on board prior to the budget reply, thus wasting tax dollars. then you might be on to something.

Coincedentally I'd like to see the government get even tougher on hospital boards demanding that they continually increase service levels and decrease costs, to get more value for taxpayers.

Desmond
26-05-2010, 12:41 PM
Firstly, if you can't see how a reduction in funding would hurt the hospital administrators you're a bit of dunce.I don't know that that necessarily follows, consider that it is funding for a new project (super clinic) not accepting the project and funding is not really a reduction.

TheJoker
26-05-2010, 12:47 PM
I don't know that that necessarily follows, consider that it is funding for a new project (super clinic) not accepting the project and funding is not really a reduction.

You are technically correct however, if you subsitute the word loss for reduction it doesn't make much difference. A failure to get the project over the line is still going to hurt the administrators and their constituents.

Desmond
26-05-2010, 12:55 PM
Secondly, the government's consituents consist not just of local Portland residents but each and every taxpayer. It's important they don't waste money negotiating where a compromise is unlikely and that they allocate funding according to the level of service the hospital can provide. Knowing public bureaucrats penchant for demanding ever increasing resources without any increase in services its not surprising the government make a final funding offer with no further negotiation. In fact this is common practice in business negotiations.
Also, best and final offers are not necessarily best or final. That is why there are negotiations...

Desmond
26-05-2010, 12:57 PM
You are technically correct however, if you subsitute the word loss for reduction it doesn't make much difference. A failure to get the project over the line is still going to hurt the administrators and their constituents.
Not really; if the hospital does not have time to investigate what the cost of the project will be, how can they hope to make a decision on whether it is attractive or even viable for them.

TheJoker
26-05-2010, 01:35 PM
Not really; if the hospital does not have time to investigate what the cost of the project will be, how can they hope to make a decision on whether it is attractive or even viable for them.

You would hope to hell that the cost of the project is known well in advance of seeking actual government funding. You would also hope that they had developed the appropriate scenario analysis tools, to deal with changes to the capital / funding structures. It should be as simple as putting the government funding figure into the appropriate spreadsheet. If this hasn't happended the government shouldn't be considering investing a cent until it has.

This is why the loss of funding will hurt the administrators since they could possibily lose the ability to recover sunk costs.

Basil
26-05-2010, 01:43 PM
The government is appointed to deliver services to the public, using public funds efficiently it is not appointed to service individual hospital boards.
Come on, stop pissing about. If the funding was warranted at 11am, then it should be waranted at 1pm.


Firstly, if you can't see how a reduction in funding would hurt the hospital administrators you're a bit of dunce.
You've missed the point. REGARDLESS of whether the administrators are hurt, the issue is about the constituents.


Secondly, the government's consituents consist not just of local Portland residents but each and every taxpayer. It's important they don't waste money negotiating where a compromise is unlikely and that they allocate funding according to the level of service the hospital can provide. Knowing public bureaucrats penchant for demanding ever increasing resources without any increase in services its not surprising the government make a final funding offer with no further negotiation. In fact this is common practice in business negotiations.
Plonk.


Let's imagine this was a private business transaction.Let's not.

TheJoker
26-05-2010, 03:29 PM
Come on, stop pissing about. If the funding was warranted at 11am, then it should be waranted at 1pm.

I think you being a businessman understand full well why investment offers are not left open ended. If not let me now I'll happily explain it to you.


You've missed the point. REGARDLESS of whether the administrators are hurt, the issue is about the constituents.

Constituents aren't hurt if that money is invested elsewhere, rather than being earmarked and sitting idle, while a bunch of bureaucrats deliberate for months on end. I'd be very skeptical of investing in any project where the management team can't when faced with a changes to capital/funding structure immediately determine the viability of the project.


Let's not.

No I guess not since it exposes your massive double standard in evaluating private and public sector management practices ;)

Basil
26-05-2010, 05:59 PM
No I guess not since it exposes your massive double standard in evaluating private and public sector management practices ;)
There's no double standard and management practices aren't in question. You're invoking all the wrong mantras. As for treating hospital funding as a business, you're a bit out of date. Treating hospitals like a business is very much 'last year'. It sounded good at the time (to some, including the Queensland government) but focus is now on 'outcomes and what it costs', and not on 'budget and what you can get for it'. But this line of yours is miles away from where we started which was your attempt to defend the indefensible of agree-within-political-deadline-or-lose-the-lot ultimatum.

As for my
Come on, stop pissing about. If the funding was warranted at 11am, then it should be waranted at 1pm. and your reply of
I think you being a businessman understand full well why investment offers are not left open ended. If not let me now I'll happily explain it to you.
You should be embarrassed. If you are genuinely proposing that this is an acceptable way for government to behave then I have no further interest in discussing this with you.

Goughfather
26-05-2010, 06:34 PM
Done. I am genuinely interested in your ability to defend the government's behaviour in respect to the imposition of the deadline tied to the opposition's announcement, and also a defence of the government's threat to withdraw funding if the deadline isn't met.

In my assessment, you get a Conceded Pass on the first question and a fail on the second. Although there may be some level of interest there, my adjudication is that you simply want me to respond so that you reply with yet another childish tantrum to bring yourself more undeserved attention. I have spoken. Your arguments were unconvincing and without merit.

For future reference, you might like to note that I do not place much value in the "opportunity" to convince yourself and/or Jono of the merits of my arguments. Firstly, this opportunity is not something that has any potential to materialise in practice, given that neither yourself nor Jono seem to have the capacity to objectively look at things from a different perspective, brainwashed beings that you are. Secondly, even if one overlooked this consideration, one could only regard such an opportunity as beneficial if one placed value in your approval or disapproval, which I very clearly do not.

Basil
26-05-2010, 06:40 PM
In my assessment,
Your ongoing claim to my lack of substance is laughable. You are now the biggest dribbler on the board (second to AC).

You have failed to propose any justification for the government's shotgun-to-the-head tactic.
You instead proposed a deflection.
Your defelection was ridiculed and you were insulted.
You have declined (again) to propose any justifcication for the government's shotgun-to-the-head tactic.
This is an action-replay of our previous interaction, save for this ocassion you have preferred to remain silent as better than offering a ridiculous defence which had neither basis in fact nor substantiation (the Liberals' bigger deficit claim).
We can leave it, and your commentary, there.

Igor_Goldenberg
26-05-2010, 07:12 PM
In my assessment, you get a Conceded Pass on the first question and a fail on the second. Although there may be some level of interest there, my adjudication is that you simply want me to respond so that you reply with yet another childish tantrum to bring yourself more undeserved attention. I have spoken. Your arguments were unconvincing and without merit.


We all could see CU arguments. We all could see The Joker argument.
Why don't you put yours forward as well?

Capablanca-Fan
27-05-2010, 07:21 AM
Firstly, this opportunity is not something that has any potential to materialise in practice, given that neither yourself nor Jono seem to have the capacity to objectively look at things from a different perspective, brainwashed beings that you are.
Oh, and of course years at in a typically leftard milieu of university and other lawyer types makes you the epitome of open-minded objectivity and clear thinking.

TheJoker
27-05-2010, 11:28 AM
As for treating hospital funding as a business, you're a bit out of date. Treating hospitals like a business is very much 'last year'. It sounded good at the time (to some, including the Queensland government) but focus is now on 'outcomes and what it costs', and not on 'budget and what you can get for it'.

You are starting to sound like a lefty if you are advocating a government approach that focuses on delivering certain outcomes at any cost. ;)

However, if you think public hospitals aren't working to a budget to deliver their outcomes but instead have an open cheque book you are truly living in fairyland.

Personally I like the government pressing public sector organisations to find a way to work within a strict budget.


But this line of yours is miles away from where we started which was your attempt to defend the indefensible of agree-within-political-deadline-or-lose-the-lot ultimatum.

Not all when working with a capital expenditure budget, you want to deploy that budget quickly and efficiently. You also want to be able to tell you taxpayers where you are going to invest their funds at an approriate forum like the budget reply. If suppliers are dragging their feet in signing contracts, you find ways to motivate, deadlines and threats of terminating the offer are effective motivators.

Perhaps if I explain it terms you might be familiar:

Manager charged with delivering the marketing campaign for a Brisbane nightclub will report to the owners at the end of the quarter about plans going forward.

Manager has identified Scene Magazine as the most effective choice for a regular advertising space in terms of reaching the greatest number of punters.

Based on Scene's quotation, the price per punter reached is not competitive (i.e. its not as efficient as less effective mediums). Negotiations commence with Scene for a better price.

A week before meeting the owners a price still hasn't been agreed. Managers offers Scene $XYZ take it or leave it response is required in 48 hours. This gives the manager time to accept an alternate quote and have something concrete to offer owners at the meeting. Good management?

It's exactly the same a the government looking for ways to deliver health services to the public, and wanting to be able to inform tax payers of what concrete investments they will make, rather than wishy washy plans.


You should be embarrassed. If you are genuinely proposing that this is an acceptable way for government to behave then I have no further interest in discussing this with you.

Actually you should be embarrased for not recognising this as standard business practice. Especially when we are talking about behaviour of monopsony firms.

Which of these two responses would you prefer from government:

1. We are thinking of building a super clinic, we cant actually say whether this project will go ahead or how much it will cost taxpayers.

2. We will definately be building a super clinic that will utlise $4.9 million in public funding.

TheJoker
27-05-2010, 02:13 PM
Something else readers might be interested to know is that the government's $4.9 million dollar offer had been on the table since 14 August 2009. So you can judge for yourself whether the hospital board was dragging its feet in signing the contract or not.

antichrist
27-05-2010, 03:58 PM
Something else readers might be interested to know is that the government's $4.9 million dollar offer had been on the table since 14 August 2009. So you can judge for yourself whether the hospital board was dragging its feet in signing the contract or not.

Well that makes muck of Keating claim that never stand between a state premier and a bucket of money - it must be like a poisoned pawn that bucket?

antichrist
27-05-2010, 04:09 PM
Duggan He infuriates me no end! He is clueless about politics (time to enter parliament) sports and underpants picking but still lovable! He is a closet lefty too! (For more info look in the latest concession poll!). Jak

Howard, your pink slip must have been showing -not the one for rego

Basil
27-05-2010, 05:14 PM
You are starting to sound like a lefty ...
However, if you think ...
Personally I like ...
Perhaps if I explain it terms you might be familiar ...

What a flog. I hope you didn't get too much wood writing that lot.

TheJoker
27-05-2010, 05:48 PM
What a flog. I hope you didn't get too much wood writing that lot.

Mate your the one caught with your pants down....

The hospital board had been sitting on that offer for over 10 months, and your whining coz the Government gave them a final ultimatum to sign the bloody thing so they could let the public know whether the super clinic was going to be built or not and avoid whinging form the opposition that nothing had been done. Little did they know people like you where going to whine about them actually getting something done.

arosar
27-05-2010, 07:45 PM
+1 TheJoker.

AR

Rincewind
27-05-2010, 07:59 PM
+1 TheJoker.

Got to agree there.

Goughfather
27-05-2010, 08:41 PM
We all could see CU arguments. We all could see The Joker argument.
Why don't you put yours forward as well?

Did you not read my post above, or did you simply want to use this opportunity to throw a wobbly?

I explained in very clear terms to Howie that I would not waste my time casting pearls before swine. As such, I gave him an opportunity to convince me that it was really worth my time and efforts making a response and that such a response would be considered with an open mind by him. I also provided the caveat that just as he is wont to categorically dismiss the arguments of others without providing more than childish ad hominem attacks, I would be taking the same liberty. Howie gave his response, which was entirely underwhelming and inadequate. He continued to undermine any claim to open-mindedness in the way in which he responded to subsequent posts by The Joker.


Oh, and of course years at in a typically leftard milieu of university and other lawyer types makes you the epitome of open-minded objectivity and clear thinking.

Why thank you. I suppose I did not give you enough credit at the time, but it turns out that you were perceptive enough to recognise that my response was simply a satirical rehashing of Howie's general approach to argument.

By the way, what is it with your seemingly pathological hatred of lawyers? Did a female law student reject your advances during your university days or something?

Basil
27-05-2010, 11:53 PM
The hospital board had been sitting on that offer for over 10 months, and your whining coz the Government gave them a final ultimatum to sign the bloody thing so they could let the public know whether the super clinic was going to be built or not and avoid whinging form the opposition that nothing had been done. Little did they know people like you where going to whine about them actually getting something done.
You have to be kidding. The hospital board is entitled to hold out for whatever reasons it sees fit. You yourself have said so (for commercial bargaining reasons). Equally the funder is entitled to try and bring the hold out to a close, and if it must, issue an ultimatum (once due process has been exhausted). But even then, such an ultimatum should have a workable and in-good-faith time-frame attached to it, such as, say a month or even two weeks; hell even a week!

But for an elected government, whose obligation to due process is paramount, to blindside a negotiation with a shotgun-to-the-head tactic (sign today or no-soup-for-you) is simply bullying political expediency.

And to top it off, now look - you've gone and excited a couple of latents. Shame on you.

Your defence of that behaviour by grabbing at business practices is amateurish and misplaced.

TheJoker
28-05-2010, 10:42 AM
You have to be kidding. The hospital board is entitled to hold out for whatever reasons it sees fit. You yourself have said so (for commercial bargaining reasons). Equally the funder is entitled to try and bring the hold out to a close, and if it must, issue an ultimatum (once due process has been exhausted). But even then, such an ultimatum should have a workable and in-good-faith time-frame attached to it, such as, say a month or even two weeks; hell even a week!

But for an elected government, whose obligation to due process is paramount, to blindside a negotiation with a shotgun-to-the-head tactic (sign today or no-soup-for-you) is simply bullying political expediency.

And to top it off, now look - you've gone and excited a couple of latents. Shame on you.

Your defence of that behaviour by grabbing at business practices is amateurish and misplaced.

The first paragraph is fair enough the rest is unsubtaintiated, firstly you have no idea about the negotiations up to that point, how many previous deadlines had already lapsed, how many extra opportunities had the government given the hosiptal. Did the government feel that the hosiptal was using the political importance of the situation to try to blackmail them for further unwarranted funding? You're jumping to conclusions based on a newspaper beat up, that doesn't even present the government's view of the situation. Hell it didn't even mention that the hospital board had already been deliberating for 10 months.

The hospital board is entitled to hold out and try to bargain for a better deal it also has to accept the risk associated with that position, that risk is losing the $4.9 million offer altogether.

As for them being blind-sided, well like I said that depends on whether there had been any previous requests or deadlines relating to signing the contract. They certainly should have already been prepared to make a decision on the current offer, given that they had 10 months to consider it, I not sure what you think an extra week would achieve in this instance, except allowing Hockey to make a fuss during the budget reply how 10 months had passed and the contracts still weren't signed.

Now you might say there are a lot of ifs or maybes in my post, all that shows is that you haven't proved your claim about the ultimatum being unjust. If you show me that the utlimatum was truly "out of blue" and that the hospital board had no idea that the government had a priorty on closing this contract, or that the government was aware of real constraints facing the board that was impeding them signing the contract then I'll agree with you. Until then you are making a fool of yourself by condemning a situation you know next door to nothing about.

Basil
28-05-2010, 11:36 AM
The first paragraph is fair enough.
Damn straight. But further. My first paragraph is the ball game.


firstly you have no idea about the negotiations up to that point...
I agree. I was going to include all of this myself as caveats and so on and so forth. But without that information no one can mount a case in defence of the government's behaviour, which, on its face, is unacceptable.


Hell it didn't even mention that the hospital board had already been deliberating for 10 months.
Neither of us knows why this took ten months. Is ten months normal? Acceptable parameters? Slightly lengthy? Partial contribution by government. To use ten months as a unilateral defence of shotgun tactics, which is what you did, is wrong.


The hospital board is entitled to hold out ...
Now you're talking my language - literally. But round in circles. By all means "risk it", but not at a dawn-raid and not tied to self-serving political expediency. As I said, in good faith and with fair warning. In the absence of reporting of fair warning, neither of us should consider that or any other invention.


Now you might say there are a lot of ifs or maybes in my post,
There's a lot of claptrap in your post and a lot of modification. Your business principles that excited your latents so much have certainly been burned with the D- exam paper.

TheJoker
28-05-2010, 01:37 PM
Damn straight. But further. My first paragraph is the ball game..

And it's exactly what I've been saying all along the government had the right to seek closure (i.e. their actions were justified). You go further to try and claim that they were being unethical because they had an obligation to provide fair warning, I disagree that any obligation exists, it exists only as a courtesy.


I agree. I was going to include all of this myself as caveats and so on and so forth. But without that information no one can mount a case in defence of the government's behaviour, which, on its face, is unacceptable.

Really, because originally you insinuated that their was no plausible reason for such a deadline. That's a significant modification of your position. If you included those many caveats, I would have agreed with you. Of course including such assumptions is surely the basis for reaching unsound conclusions. You also seem to have the onus of proof all mixed up, it usually lies with the accuser not the accused.

I am not dumb enough to take a newspaper beat-up on face value. I'll give someone the benfit of the doubt (of which there is plenty) any day before condemning them based on tabloid journalism. But each to there own.

But even reading the two articles in the Age. The second which amounts to a veiled retraction of the accusation of a politically motivated ultimatum. We can clearly see there are a number of questionable matters.

Here are extracts form the government request used in the beat-up and follow-up article:

"Your assistance in expediting this agreement is greatly appreciated,"

''We are aiming to have the funding agreement for the Portland GP super clinic signed … by lunchtime today.''

Nothing regarding withdrawal of funding:eek:

So where did the withdrawal of funding idea come from:

CEO John O'Neill, emailed board members that the Health Department had asked for the funding agreement to be signed by noon that day.Mr O'Neill said the opposition's treasury spokesman, Joe Hockey, was scheduled to give his speech in reply to the budget about then and that if the agreement was not signed, funding would be withdrawn.

O'Neill later stated that was his ''interpretation'' of why the noon deadline had been set. It's unclear whether the idea that funding would be withdrawn if the deadline wasn't met was also his "intrepretation". I'd bank on the fact it was since I am sure the Age would have used that line in their beat up if it was actually in the government's email.

O'Neill went on to say that "there was no political pressure".

Can get much more from the horses mouth than that.

Case closed.


Neither of us knows why this took ten months. Is ten months normal? Acceptable parameters? Slightly lengthy? Partial contribution by government. To use ten months as a unilateral defence of shotgun tactics, which is what you did, is wrong..

It wasn't a unilateral defence, it was pointing to possible justification. It cast massive doubt over the claim the government was being unreasonable in issuing the deadline. It shows that the hospital didn't have two hours to consider the offer, rather 10 months that is a massive difference in anyones books.


As I said, in good faith and with fair warning.[/B] In the absence of reporting of fair warning, neither of us should consider that or any other invention.

In the absence of any real detail, you shouldn't come to conclusion the government acted unethically. You did, that was stupid.

antichrist
28-05-2010, 05:14 PM
Be careful capt, it seems these guys have got your underpants into a knot twisting them around and you know about the proverbals (can I finish a sentence with a proverb?)

Goughfather
28-05-2010, 05:40 PM
Be careful capt, it seems these guys have got your underpants into a knot twisting them around and you know about the proverbals (can I finish a sentence with a proverb?)

The problem is that people like Howie don't know when they've been comprehensively beaten. Unfortunately, he seems to have about as much self-awareness as a punch-drunk fighter sprawled unconscious in the centre of the ring. And just like a punch-drunk fighter, I anticipate that he will fire back at both me and TheJoker with a few indiscriminate and artless insults before scuttling back into his hole pretending that the whole sorry affair ever happened in the first place.

Basil
28-05-2010, 07:22 PM
The problem is that people like Howie don't know when they've been comprehensively beaten. Unfortunately, he seems to have about as much self-awareness as a punch-drunk fighter sprawled unconscious in the centre of the ring. And just like a punch-drunk fighter, I anticipate that he will fire back at both me and TheJoker with a few indiscriminate and artless insults before scuttling back into his hole pretending that the whole sorry affair ever happened in the first place.
I suspect you actually believe that. You'd be alone.

BTW you're two from zip on threads with me where you've failed support your initial premise and used my ad hominem attacks on you as your get out of jail free card. No one's buying.

Basil
28-05-2010, 07:29 PM
And it's exactly what I've been saying all along the government had the right to seek closure (i.e. their actions were justified). You go further to try and claim that they were being unethical because they had an obligation to provide fair warning, I disagree that any obligation exists, it exists only as a courtesy.
We are stalemated. I say that to summarily cease negotiations where public monies and services are involved is outside of all expectations and good faith to all stake-holders. You say otherwise - God help us.


Really, because originally you insinuated that their was no plausible reason for such a deadline. That's a significant modification of your position.
The hide! I haven't modified my position at all! You're the one introducing caveats that don't exist! You're the one who's introduced a swag of concepts that had nothing whatsoever to do with your ground level belief that shot-gun tactics are appropriate in dealing with public monies and services.

I haven't read any other newspaper articles. I shall do so now. Links to articles on which you rely, please.

Basil
28-05-2010, 07:34 PM
The problem is that people like Howie don't know when they've been comprehensively beaten. Unfortunately, he seems to have about as much self-awareness as a punch-drunk fighter sprawled unconscious in the centre of the ring. And just like a punch-drunk fighter, I anticipate that he will fire back at both me and TheJoker with a few indiscriminate and artless insults before scuttling back into his hole pretending that the whole sorry affair ever happened in the first place.
Is this the sort of ad hominem attack you seek to rise above? I'm sure you'll have a delineation - I'd appreciate it for the record. You remind me of other intellectual lily-whites whose initial disdain of ad hominem attacks are soon enough shown up as further double standards that tie-in well with their politics.

TheJoker
28-05-2010, 07:45 PM
The hide! I haven't modified my position at all! You're the one introducing caveats that don't exist!.

You said there was no plausible situations in which the ultmatum would be justified, I provided a number of situations e.g. the hospital had allowed previously issued deadlines to lapse. You then modified your position to say that given none of those situations existed there would be no plausible justification. If that's not a modification I don't know what is


I haven't read any other newspaper articles. I shall do so now. Links to articles on which you rely, please.

Two articles in The Age, easy enough to search for yourself, announcement of the original funding on Dept Health website.

Basil
28-05-2010, 08:09 PM
You said there was no plausible situations in which the ultmatum would be justified, I provided a number of situations e.g. the hospital had allowed previously issued deadlines to lapse.
Der! I. Cannot. Believe. I. Spend. Part. Of. My Life. Talking. To. You. People!

Of course, if a deadline has lapsed then options on notice - such as the removal of funding - may be taken up. But this discussion IS NOT about lapsed deadlines. This discussion is about a dragging negotiation where a deadline was summarily introduced!


Two articles in The Age, easy enough to search for yourself, announcement of the original funding on Dept Health website.
Pathetic. Straight out of the Goughfather's book. FYI, if you're going to cite references, especially directly quote from them, it is appropriate for you to supply them, especially if the source is requested. An answer of "do it yourself" is very poor show.

antichrist
29-05-2010, 06:12 PM
CApt I would rather think that having your underpants in a knot would more likely make your stomach queasy than anything Rudd may do

TheJoker
30-05-2010, 01:36 AM
But this discussion IS NOT about lapsed deadlines. This discussion is about a dragging negotiation where a deadline was summarily introduced!.

Go back and read your original request you might surprise yourself!



Pathetic. Straight out of the Goughfather's book. FYI, if you're going to cite references, especially directly quote from them, it is appropriate for you to supply them, especially if the source is requested. An answer of "do it yourself" is very poor show.

What's pathetic is that haven't even been bothered to do a simple Google search to ascertain the facts before condemning the actions of the government. It's certainly more of a poor show than not linking references.

One of the articles was already linked by Jono. Here's the other (http://www.theage.com.au/national/roxon-superclinic-sensitive-20100524-w81w.html). I'll leave you to search the Dept Health Website for the Aug 2009 press release or you can simply take my word for it.

Anyway done discussing this with you. I can see that you not even willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt, when its obvious that would be the right thing to do, given the situation.

Capablanca-Fan
30-05-2010, 02:29 AM
One of the articles was already linked by Jono. Here's the other (http://www.theage.com.au/national/roxon-superclinic-sensitive-20100524-w81w.html). I'll leave you to search the Dept Health Website for the Aug 2009 press release or you can simply take my word for it.

Anyway done discussing this with you. I can see that you not even willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt, when its obvious that would be the right thing to do, given the situation.
How does this source help apologists for Layba like you and GF? It confirms an absurd two-hour deadline, and mentions sources linking it to the timing of Joe Hockey's speech.

TheJoker
30-05-2010, 09:52 PM
How does this source help apologists for Layba like you and GF? It confirms an absurd two-hour deadline, and mentions sources linking it to the timing of Joe Hockey's speech.

Read post #439

Garvinator
06-06-2010, 02:00 PM
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=1064698

The federal government is under fire for splashing money into Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner's seat in a bid to ward off a Greens challenge.

The cabinet minister's marginal inner-city seat of Melbourne has received more stimulus funds for school building, housing and infrastructure than any other Victorian electorate, a News Limited investigation has found.

Under the stimulus plan, the seat received $220 million in non-road and rail spending - $80 million more than its nearest neighbour.

Another $15 million in non-stimulus grants spending has been earmarked for Mr Tanner's seat, News Limited said.

Australian Greens leader Bob Brown said it was not right for the government to be spending money to stem a challenge from the minor party.

"That's because of the Greens but it's unfair," Senator Brown told ABC Television on Sunday.

"I would like to see some independent watch again on electorates because why should seats that aren't marginal be left out of spending on playgrounds and bike ways and refurbishing of buildings?

"And it oughtn't be happening because the minister feels threatened."

Mr Tanner suffered a 5.7 per cent swing against him at the 2007 election, despite a nationwide swing towards Labor, as the Greens candidate Adam Brandt, an industrial lawyer, out polled the Liberals.

Labor could lose the seat to the Greens with a swing of less than five per cent against Mr Tanner.

The Melbourne seat has not been held by a political party other than Labor since 1904.

The electorate, held for three-decades by former federal Labor leader Arthur Calwell, includes the Melbourne city centre and the now gentrified suburbs of Carlton, Fitzroy and Richmond.

Garvinator
07-06-2010, 09:39 AM
Kevin Rudd won the 07 on a platform of being everything that Howard was not and so those that want Howard gone should vote for him.

But each time Kevin Rudd gets caught out on something, like the mining advertising in this instance, his first response is to say that the previous government did it, so it is ok for me to do it to.

Kevin Rudd, I thought you were against Howard government practices, but you have been embracing thos same policies regularly.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-06-2010, 02:28 PM
ELECTRICIANS who have inspected 23,000 homes with foil insulation for potentially deadly problems have not been paid by the Rudd government. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/sparkies-angry-at-payments-delay/story-e6frg6nf-1225877652265)
The outlay for the payment must've been 38 millions which was used for national emergency.:doh:


Andrew Bolt noted correctly: (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/foiled_again/)
"The shonks got paid smartly, but those sent to fix the havoc get only a broken promise: "

antichrist
10-06-2010, 03:36 PM
Rudd cant be blamed if the installers were irresponsible. I believe the trouble is that they also covered down lights and fans with that foil stuff. How ruddy stupid can they be. They should have been using batts anyway as far as I am concerned. If you tread on that foil it will destroy, where as the batts wont damage.

Capablanca-Fan
10-06-2010, 04:54 PM
Rudd cant be blamed if the installers were irresponsible.
Of course he can. His rush-rush spending was sure to attract shonks just after a fast buck. When people spend other people's money on somebody else, there is bound to be little scrutiny since there is much less incentive: you don't care about economizing because it's not your money, and you don't care about quality because someone else is getting what you pay for.

TheJoker
10-06-2010, 06:04 PM
Rudd cant be blamed if the installers were irresponsible.

I think he was warned about the irresponsible installers and the it might cost lives and failed to act to ensure a quality of service. The government should always be responsible to the quality of goods or services bought with public money.

Rudd and Co. made the mistake of taking markets as being proactive (i.e. operators will consider the long-term consequences of their action and therefore act ethically) when in fact they are reactive (dodgy operators are only punished in the market after their dodgy practice become evident).

ER
20-06-2010, 08:17 AM
It's been revealed that key Labor MPs are prepared to move against Kevin Rudd's leadership to make way for Julia Gillard as early as next week.
you happy now you heartless, heartless, heartless people?

Also


PM's mental health adviser quits
Was he Mr Rudd's personal psychiatrist as well?

Kevin Bonham
20-06-2010, 07:22 PM
Given that the source is News Ltd, it's probably a beat-up. If it's real, it's madness.

Goughfather
20-06-2010, 11:11 PM
Given that the source is News Ltd, it's probably a beat-up. If it's real, it's madness.

Indeed. I'll start believing News Ltd sources of this nature when ministers come out on the public record declaring their support for Gillard.

Kevin Bonham
21-06-2010, 12:05 AM
Today's Newspoll is 52-48 for Labor so I reckon most of the media hype of the last two weeks is now fit for use only as toilet paper.

Goughfather
21-06-2010, 12:11 AM
How reliable do you think those poll numbers are?

And if they are relatively reliable, to what do you attribute the turn around?

EDIT: Actually not such a big turn around, considering that the last Newspoll showed 51-49 lead to the ALP. It appears as though the last four to six weeks shows a slow but definite trending back to the ALP if these figures are accurate.

Kevin Bonham
21-06-2010, 12:24 AM
How reliable do you think those poll numbers are?

Accurate to within about three points. I think their claimed Greens primary of 15 is overcooked though, as was the 16 in the Newspoll before. I have a (rather cautious) prediction on public record that the swing to the Greens will not exceed 55% of the highest polled swing to them by a reputable pollster. As things currently stand that's a prediction that the Greens will get a maximum of 12.3% in the election. Frankly I'll be surprised if they can even get 11.


And if they are relatively reliable, to what do you attribute the turn around?

There may well be no significant turnaround or not much of one. We may really be around 50-50 territory with the 47-53 Nielsen poll undercooking it for the government and this one slightly overcooking it.

An incumbent government around 50-50 a few months out from an election wins unless it screws up the campaign really terribly.

Garvinator
21-06-2010, 12:35 AM
As things currently stand that's a prediction that the Greens will get a maximum of 12.3% in the election. Frankly I'll be surprised if they can even get 11.I will back the Greens to get less than 10% (no rounding).

Basil
21-06-2010, 08:58 AM
Given that the source is News Ltd, it's probably a beat-up. If it's real, it's madness.
Beat-up as in how? Are you saying the reporting of disgruntled ministers' intentions to spill is fictional? I think it is more likely that Rudd has indeed pissed off a number ministers (albeit not top strata) and they have leaked their disgruntlement and intention to spill if given a large enough hole to exploit. Your assessment that the idea is a fictional creation of a journalist, or at least a grossly exaggerated one. I can'tagree that it's exaggerated when the likes of (the annoying) Richo were giving Rudd two weeks to sort himself out.

With improving (steadying) polling, those disgruntled turtles will likely stick their necks back in their shells. In any event, one can't deny that Rudd has been a non-consultative, megalomaniac across a number of portfolios.

As for this blanket 'News Ltd' sentiment that has crept into favour among left-leaning commentators, I thought it was only the award-winning 'The Australian' that was lined-up as right-leaning? When the did the net widen to capture all of them? That seems to have happened almost overnight - Rudd certainly enjoyed orgasmic waves of support from the middle-class News Ltd titles 3 years ago, hell, even 18 months ago (schoolgirls, shopping centres, t-shirts, revolutions, computers, photo ops - the list is Rudd propaganda shovelled through News Ltd outlets was endless).

Finally, are there any other mainstream titles, from Fairfax for instance, that you consider balanced in its reporting of Rudd's record-breaking slide and circumspect non-reporting of the internal anti-Rudd manoeuvrings.

Basil
21-06-2010, 09:33 AM
Rudd slips as 'Preferred PM'

'Buried just below the headline of this story (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/leaders-silence-pays-off/story-e6frg6zo-1225882035591) is some commentary, (no doubt biased as it's from 'The Oz' :eek: ), on Rudd's deteriorating position as preferred PM, and how that may (not) affect polling results.

Only passingly interested to see if other titles (News Ltd or otherwise) are reporting/ opining similar.

Kevin Bonham
22-06-2010, 06:35 PM
Beat-up as in how? Are you saying the reporting of disgruntled ministers' intentions to spill is fictional?

Well, the Shanahan (that name alone should set off warning bells!) and Karvelas piece said that "key" Labor MPs were willing to move, but didn't provide any indication of how many or any reliable evidence that they were "key". It did say that 10 MPs in marginal seats "contradicted the Prime Minister's suggestion that the negotiations with miners over the tax could last for weeks or months." but we don't know if that means they said they wanted to roll him over it or if they just said something like "we really want it resolved faster than that". So while they would have spoken to a few MPs who were flirting with a leadership spill, they provide no evidence that it was serious.

The other important aspect of this is that people don't spill the leadership without reasonable numbers. If a few of them say in isolation that they no longer support Rudd, but then look around and find that only, say, 20% want a leadership spill at this time, then the whole thing's just a waste of time. So while they might say that they're contemplating a spill, it doesn't mean they'd go ahead with it.

Now it may be there is some level of spill rumbling (after all this is the party that elected Latham as leader, and many of those who did so are still there). But if so those involved are idiots. Gillard might well be a better choice as PM than Rudd but the destabilisation plus the risk of presenting an unknown leadership quantity at the election would definitely not be worth the trouble. If Rudd's lack of approval proves permanent rather than temporary then her time will come during the next term.


Your assessment that the idea is a fictional creation of a journalist, or at least a grossly exaggerated one. I can'tagree that it's exaggerated when the likes of (the annoying) Richo were giving Rudd two weeks to sort himself out.

I don't think Richo is really that relevant anymore.


As for this blanket 'News Ltd' sentiment that has crept into favour among left-leaning commentators, I thought it was only the award-winning 'The Australian' that was lined-up as right-leaning? When the did the net widen to capture all of them?

The net's been there for quite a while. The Herald Sun is also quite right-leaning albeit in a more populist and plebby way than the Australian. It has long been widely flagged as such. I would not say all News Ltd papers display right-wing leanings (the Tassie version is merely politically confused and sensationalist) but those two flagships at opposite ends of the market certainly do.


Finally, are there any other mainstream titles, from Fairfax for instance, that you consider balanced in its reporting of Rudd's record-breaking slide and circumspect non-reporting of the internal anti-Rudd manoeuvrings.

Can't say I've noticed any, really. The problem is that the Australian is the one paper with the scope, the resources and the coverage space to really get to the bottom of what is going on in national politics, but for the last several years has persisted in churning out spin that interprets developments in polling in a pro-Coalition light, however threadbare the actual basis for doing so.

This was again evident this week. We have had an intense period of leadership speculation largely on the back of a Nielsen poll that showed the government trailing 47-53. The big story of this Newspoll is that the headline figure does not support the contention that the government is even trailing at all. But Shanahan thinks the big deal is Abbott closing in on Rudd in the preferred prime minister figure.

The problem there is that while Abbott has indeed closed in, it still doesn't say anything dangerous for Labor. It says that Abbott has finally reached the point where most of his own party (i) hate Rudd or (ii) are sufficiently impressed with the Coalition's polling performance, that they are willing to say they clearly prefer Abbott over Rudd. But it's not high enough to say that Abbott is the PPM of significant numbers of Labor/Green/other voters, and until it gets to that point, it's interesting, but hardly a big deal.

The big deal in the current figures is Rudd's bad net satisfaction rating (-19). But even that is nowhere near fatal, especially when it is the result of an attacking strategy from the Opposition that has also bombed their own leader's rating. All PMs go through bad patches and Hawke, Keating and Howard all won elections at the end of terms at which they had had net satisfactions of -30 or worse (Keating was at one stage -44 and still won).

As for preferred prime minister, Hewson led Keating as preferred PM and lost. Keating led Howard as preferred PM and lost. Beazley in 1998 led Howard as preferred PM and lost. All of these opposition leaders led as preferred PM in the final week of the campaign!

Igor_Goldenberg
22-06-2010, 09:22 PM
As for preferred prime minister, Hewson led Keating as preferred PM and lost. Keating led Howard as preferred PM and lost. Beazley in 1998 led Howard as preferred PM and lost. All of these opposition leaders led as preferred PM in the final week of the campaign!
IIRC, Keating was a prime minister when he led Howard in the opinion poll:D
Rudd also leads Abbot, let him repeat Keating fate (he definitely deserves it more!)

Kevin Bonham
22-06-2010, 09:49 PM
IIRC, Keating was a prime minister when he led Howard in the opinion poll:D

This is correct. The history of preferred PM between Keating and Howard is that Howard took the lead almost immediately and held a narrow lead through most of 1995, with Keating recapturing it towards the end of that year. In the last seven Newspolls of Keating's reign, he led Howard as preferred PM by margins of 8, 0 (tie), 4, 4, 4, 6 and 5 points. However at the same time Keating's party trailed by between five and eight points on 2PP, and Keating's net approval rating was between -18 and -24 while Howard's was in the range -8 to +8. Keating was only still ahead on preferred PM because (i) some voters thought both Keating and Howard were terrible but Keating was the lesser evil (ii) some voters actually liked Keating but thought his government was awful and hence still didn't vote for it.

This sort of thing is why preferred Prime Minister is a rubbish score and why Shanahan's claims that it is a big deal expose his cluelessness about polling. Most likely if there is going to be a change in government then the opposition will register consistent and moderate to large 2PP leads in the months before an election. Anything but that and the government generally wins.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-06-2010, 03:53 PM
Brisbane retiree promised $31m in power bill savings by Government sustainability report (http://www.news.com.au/money/money-matters/brisbane-retiree-promised-31m-in-power-bill-savings-by-government-sustainability-report/story-e6frfmd9-1225883057362)

The report said if he replaced his airconditioner he would save $24,483,733 a year and, if he installed ceiling fans, he would save $7,301,644.

The retiree said he already has ceiling fans in most of the rooms in his four-bedroom home. But he was told he'd save only $1 a year if he installed double-glazed windows.

No doubt The Joker will find a defence for the bureaucrats. :doh: :doh:

TheJoker
23-06-2010, 05:33 PM
Brisbane retiree promised $31m in power bill savings by Government sustainability report (http://www.news.com.au/money/money-matters/brisbane-retiree-promised-31m-in-power-bill-savings-by-government-sustainability-report/story-e6frfmd9-1225883057362)

The report said if he replaced his airconditioner he would save $24,483,733 a year and, if he installed ceiling fans, he would save $7,301,644.

The retiree said he already has ceiling fans in most of the rooms in his four-bedroom home. But he was told he'd save only $1 a year if he installed double-glazed windows.

No doubt The Joker will find a defence for the bureaucrats. :doh: :doh:

Software glitch:rolleyes:

Basil
23-06-2010, 08:46 PM
As Paul Daniels was fond of saying, 'You're Going To Like This - Not A Lot - But You're Going To Like It'. Actually, all Libs and some lefties, are going to love this trio.

abDQ47ZQNEo

8kloZiEqymE

7PE_vr0t3FA

Kevin Bonham
24-06-2010, 12:38 AM
Gillard might well be a better choice as PM than Rudd but the destabilisation plus the risk of presenting an unknown leadership quantity at the election would definitely not be worth the trouble.

Bzzzt! I never anticipated Rudd would have the incredible genius required to place himself in the position of being rolled without the opponent needing to destabilise him at all. :rolleyes: Indeed, he destabilised himself by trying to check whether his position was stable.

I doubt the plotters anticipated it either.

Basil
24-06-2010, 12:57 AM
Indeed, he destabilised himself by trying to check whether his position was stable.
Yes, Prime Minister :D

Hobbes
24-06-2010, 01:30 AM
Bzzzt! I never anticipated Rudd would have the incredible genius required to place himself in the position of being rolled without the opponent needing to destabilise him at all. :rolleyes: Indeed, he destabilised himself by trying to check whether his position was stable.

I doubt the plotters anticipated it either.

That isn't what Dennis Shanahan is saying:-

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/tussle-will-only-make-labors-job-harder/story-e6frgczf-1225883464291



Despite all the denials and obfuscation, Rudd's leadership has been under threat for weeks, a threat enhanced by the bungled handling of the resource super-profits tax proposal and the ferocious mining company advertising campaign.

That threat was brought into the open after Rudd was set up and framed as the "betrayer" of Gillard's loyalty - exactly the same technique that was used to put Rudd up as a challenger to Kim Beazley just four years ago.

The manner of the destabilisation of Rudd suggests two things: it was long-planned and calculated but may have run off the rails at the last minute.

The ruse of having Gillard appear as the wounded party was designed to put the leadership back on the agenda after Rudd appeared to have survived the crucial caucus meeting on Tuesday.

Kevin Bonham
24-06-2010, 02:30 AM
That isn't what Dennis Shanahan is saying:-

Of course not. :D After years of deserved derision from all those evil lefty psepho bloggers he has a bit of a hit on his hands and he's determined to cash in on it by making it look like he was completely right all along. Good luck to him. But I see no evidence that there was any "set up" or "ruse" about it - unless there were a lot more internal machinations than anyone has been letting on, and those involved were extremely careful who they let in on it.

I do like it that Shanahan says this:


The manner of the destabilisation of Rudd suggests two things: it was long-planned and calculated but may have run off the rails at the last minute.

...because that is also what it looks like (now) to me as well: Arbib and Feeney had been plotting for some time and would probably have moved earlier, but despite the assist from Shanners himself were not really getting anywhere, until things suddenly came together today.

ER
24-06-2010, 09:32 AM
strong rumours Mr Rudd has stepped down in favour of Ms Gillard who apparently is now our new PM.
"A Welsh left wing lawyer who grew up in Adelaide is our new PM" a cynical statement by a well known journalist!
Well it's official!

Garvinator
24-06-2010, 09:41 AM
strong rumours Mr Rudd has stepped down in favour of Ms Gillard who apparently is now our new PM. Well it's official!This has now been confirmed.

Garvinator
24-06-2010, 09:41 AM
Ok time to close down all these Rudd threads and start up some Does Gillard Make Your Stomach Queasy threads. :lol: :lol: :lol:

ER
24-06-2010, 09:46 AM
Ok time to close down all these Rudd threads and start up some Does Gillard Make Your Stomach Queasy threads. :lol: :lol: :lol:

He he, well I don't believe Howie would abandon his gentle manners to attack a lady the way he did with Mr Rudd. Actually does he (Howie) feel his uncompromising anti - Rudd efforts justified after the demise of the now ex Labour leader?

Basil
25-06-2010, 01:48 AM
He he, well I don't believe Howie would abandon his gentle manners to attack a lady the way he did with Mr Rudd. Actually does he (Howie) feel his uncompromising anti - Rudd efforts justified after the demise of the now ex Labour leader?
Rudd was a useless tit. A disgrace. He cocked-up, over-promised, under-delivered more policy than the entire troupe from the 20th century. His treatment of journalists (in the early days), staff and people generally was appalling. His repeated insidious attacking of John Howard policy only to adopt it later when expedient [we interrupt this diatribe to go an have a puke ...].

Garvinator
25-06-2010, 01:51 AM
His treatment of journalists (in the early days), staff and people generally was appalling. It was not just in the early days. Remember his commenting on the journos dress sense because he did not want to answer the question.

Capablanca-Fan
25-06-2010, 03:48 AM
Arthur McArthur on Andrew Bolt's blog rates Rudd the fastest spender in the West (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/can_gillard_beat_rudds_250_million_a_day/):


Rudd took a $20 billion surplus and turned it into a $57 billion deficit: a $77 Billion turnaround.

Rudd took the $60 billion ‘Futures Fund’ and turned it into a $100 billion debt: a $160 Billion turnaround.

That’s a net ‘spend’ of $237 Billion in just 944 days, at a rate of $250 million a day ($1.75 Billion a week).

Easy to be a spendthrift with other people's money spent on third parties.

Basil
25-06-2010, 10:46 AM
It was not just in the early days. Remember his commenting on the journos dress sense because he did not want to answer the question.
True, however I was thinking more of his cattling of the journos. He was master of unilaterally selecting a time, place and agenda - and then selecting one or two journalists to report - on what was largely a monologue anyway!

Any adverse questions and there was no repeat invitation. Sometimes no questions were permitted and the journo was blessed with 'the scoop' *cough*.

His management/ manipulation of the media made Goebels look like an amateur.

There were rumblings about this behaviour for a long time (as with the case of his treatment of others generally) until the whole zit popped when everyone was prepared to speak up.

many lefties are wondering why the media seemed to turn on Rudd. What i have described above is a significant reason for it. Ultimately, another area whether the control freak, couldn't control.

ER
25-06-2010, 10:53 AM
In the long term (and I mean long term) you 'll be sorry for your attacks on Rudd, who was actually beatable!
Julia will give you all a hard time before she retires (still a PM)! :P
BTW, Mr Rudd with an $80m + estate can hardly be considered as a working class lefty! He must have done something right according to the right wing ideologies! :P :owned:

Igor_Goldenberg
25-06-2010, 12:44 PM
In the long term (and I mean long term) you 'll be sorry for your attacks on Rudd, who was actually beatable!
Julia will give you all a hard time before she retires (still a PM)! :P
BTW, Mr Rudd with an $80m + estate can hardly be considered as a working class lefty! He must have done something right according to the right wing ideologies! :P :owned:
He is a not a working class lefty, he is a limousine lefty! (and Turnbull as well)

ER
25-06-2010, 12:51 PM
He is a not a working class lefty, he is a limousine lefty! (and Turnbull as well)
Good one! :lol: Then what is Mr Abbott? A right wing proletarian? :P (I am forgetting the proper dialectic materialism term! whas it Lumpen Proletarian or something?) :hmm: - my mother used to call me that due to my anarcho-nihilistic tendencies when I was about 5 yo or so! :P

Basil
25-06-2010, 02:24 PM
In the long term (and I mean long term) you 'll be sorry for your attacks on Rudd
No I won't. I was a bit sick in my mouth every time I saw him.

, who was actually beatable!
That's not what was being bandied about some months ago.

Julia will give you all a hard time before she retires (still a PM)! :P
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Is this an early offering for "They Said It"?

ER
25-06-2010, 04:40 PM
... Is this an early offering for "They Said It"?

lol I didn't think of it.. Hey Howie, what happened to the HADBBAs??? :( three years without them :(

Igor_Goldenberg
23-07-2010, 09:28 AM
After following politics for the last month I came to realisation:
Maybe we judged Kevin Rudd too harshly? In comparison to the current bunch he is not that bad.

Mephistopheles
23-07-2010, 10:17 AM
After following politics for the last month I came to realisation:
Maybe we judged Kevin Rudd too harshly? In comparison to the current bunch he is not that bad.
Would you care to qualify that somehow or are you just running your mouth again?

antichrist
23-07-2010, 10:28 AM
After following politics for the last month I came to realisation:
Maybe we judged Kevin Rudd too harshly? In comparison to the current bunch he is not that bad.

I dont think he did anything actually wrong, what did go wrong was not principly his fault.

After a few years of Hawke I began to appreciate Fraser, though I hated the so and so before that. At least one knew what Fraser stood for.

Basil
23-07-2010, 10:30 AM
I dont think he did anything actually wrong, what did go wrong was not principly his fault.

After a few years of Hawke I began to appreciate Fraser, though I hated the so and so before that. At least one knew what Fraser stood for.
Well in that case, you should be suitably reviled by his midnight axing.

antichrist
23-07-2010, 10:37 AM
Well in that case, you should be suitably reviled by his midnight axing.

Not at all. I know how politics works but I thought was rough on him coz I considered him a bit of harmless guy.

What was much worse was how the principled Turnbull was betrayed by Hockey and his party.

How I changed on Fraser I also changed on Turnbull.

And BTW there is a new Byron "Scenes" mag out for the past month or so. Full of ads - you have missed out on a niche market - that is what this board has cost you.

Basil
23-07-2010, 10:44 AM
Correction

Not at all. I know how politics works IN THE LABA PARTY
And so continues the magnificent game of Twister that lefties are required to play as part of their life-long membership to the brand.

antichrist
23-07-2010, 10:47 AM
Correction

And so continues the magnificent game of Twister that lefties are required to play as part of their life-long membership to the brand.


What about Peacock, he turned his attitude and politics as many times as the cock crowed - at least thrice - he even mounted the horse for Joh Bjelke at his lowest moment.

He changed his policies more than I was changing my underpants at the time you should be an expert on that

Basil
23-07-2010, 10:51 AM
What about Peacock, he turned his attitude and politics as many times as the cock crowed - at least thrice - he even mounted the horse for Joh Bjelke at his lowest moment.

He changed his policies more than I was changing my underpants at the time you should be an expert on that
We're talking about the axing from within of a sitting PM. Twister anybody?

antichrist
23-07-2010, 10:55 AM
We're talking about the axing from within of a sitting PM. Twister anybody?

They didn't literally amputate his head did they? Serve him right for being an obfusator(?) (first time have used that word) - if it was good enough for Starter for being driven off this board for being so that is also good enough for Rudd. Whereas Maria Antonette she didn't mince her words about cake and grass and the same happened to her - shows you can't win either way. And her head was amputated by lefties as well - a moral there somewhere.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-07-2010, 10:58 AM
Would you care to qualify that somehow or are you just running your mouth again?
If you are genuinely seeking a response try to refrain from rude language.

antichrist
23-07-2010, 11:12 AM
Spiny, if it was not for who you have considered lefties, working australians would still be downtrodden like they were 120 years ago. INspirational Aussies forget that they only have a chance at this time because of principled sacarifices of trade unionists over a century.

Mephistopheles
23-07-2010, 11:16 AM
If you are genuinely seeking a response try to refrain from rude language.
If you are genuinely trying to stimulate debate, try to refrain from posting unsupported codswalllop.