PDA

View Full Version : Happy Fundamental Injustice Day!



Hobbes
29-06-2010, 11:27 PM
"When the history of this Parliament, this nation and this century is written, 30 June 1999 will be recorded as a day of fundamental injustice - an injustice which is real, an injustice which is not simply conjured up by the fleeting rhetoric of politicians. It will be recorded as the day when the social compact that has governed this nation for the last 100 years was torn up." Kevin Rudd, Hansard, June 30, 1999

How did it take so long for everyone to realise what a tosser this bloke is?

Oepty
29-06-2010, 11:31 PM
What injustice had just occured?
Scott

Basil
29-06-2010, 11:31 PM
How did it take so long for everyone to realise what a tosser this bloke is?
I think you can safely leave me out of that grouping ;) :D

ElevatorEscapee
29-06-2010, 11:33 PM
Yeah, there were a lot of injustices at that time (and previously... and hence). Which one in particular do you believe he was referring to Hobbes?

Hobbes
29-06-2010, 11:35 PM
This was in response to the introduction of the GST.

ElevatorEscapee
30-06-2010, 12:17 AM
The GST, that was the tax that the majority of Australians actually voted against. (Howard claimed he had a "mandate"... he he he, I always thought it sounded like he had a "man date"... ;) )

The GST was the one that Meg Lees betrayed the Australian Democrats and their balance of power (to keep the bast*rds honest") to vote for. I can remember feeling quite betrayed at the time that the Democrats had renegged on their election promise and betrayed my vote. Lees left the party, and the Democrats never really held the balalnce of power after that.

Surely you can come up with better Kevin Rudd inconsistencies than that?

I know I can! :D

For me, I was really disappoiknted after his backflip on climate change:
"the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time" ... (2007)
"'there are two stark choices action or inaction."... (May 2010).
and he wound up endorsing the stark choice of the latter!

Even worse for me was how he wound up transmogrifying into John Howard.
Using taxpayer funds for political advertising campaigns (the new health care system, the new mining tax...) was reminiscent of the taxpayer funded GST (unchain my heart!) campaigns, as well as the "New Medicare Saftey-net" (Remember that one bombarding our tv screens? That was when Tony Abbot was health minister, and he said it was an "iron clad guarantee"... however, when the Libs were elected, they reneged on it... I am disappointed for my fellow Australians that their short term memory loss includes the broken promises of this politician.

What the current government has done right, but has marketed badly are things like the insulation scheme (hey! I got my house insulated for free, it would have cost me $1,600 - and it hasn't even burnt down yet!) and the mining tax... (if they had approached the public first with a "should we put this tax on the extra profits of mining companies? What do you think?" They would have stood a great chance of receiving a groundswell of public support, with the "greedy miners" looking like they were exploiting Australian minerals for their own profits... no ads required!

But in answer to your question Hobbes, no, I didn't think of him as much of a "tosser" until very recently, when he started behaving like one. :)

Hobbes
30-06-2010, 12:44 AM
The GST was the one that Meg Lees betrayed the Australian Democrats and their balance of power (to keep the bast*rds honest") to vote for. I can remember feeling quite betrayed at the time that the Democrats had renegged on their election promise and betrayed my vote. Lees left the party, and the Democrats never really held the balalnce of power after that.

Surely you can come up with better Kevin Rudd inconsistencies than that?

I know I can! :D



Huh?

What do your Natasha Senate Spot-Destroyer fanboy reminiscences have to do with it? The quote was not a Krudd "inconsistency", it was a (typically) way over the top verbal response to something, (followed by typical complete lack of action), and I posted it because today is June 30, the day that will be recorded as a day of fundamental injustice according to your Krudd.

It seemed to me that the speech was so comically over the top that nobody could take it (or the speaker) seriously, but I was mistaken.

Capablanca-Fan
30-06-2010, 01:54 AM
What the current government has done right, but has marketed badly are things like the insulation scheme (hey! I got my house insulated for free, it would have cost me $1,600 and it hasn't even burnt down yet!)
It wasn't bad marketing that caused the shoddy workmanship that cost lives and requires far more money to repair. It was to be expected with KRudd's rush-rush to spend other people's money on someone else, where shonks are naturally drawn to the prospect of the slush money.

Naturally you love it, since as G.B. Shaw said, a government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul's support.


and the mining tax... (if they had approached the public first with a "should we put this tax on the extra profits of mining companies? What do you think?" They would have stood a great chance of receiving a groundswell of public support, with the "greedy miners" looking like they were exploiting Australian minerals for their own profits... no ads required!
Sadly you are probably right. But this is because far too many think that "greed" is wanting to keep money you've earned, while the government is never "greedy" for wanting to confiscate more of it.

ElevatorEscapee
05-07-2010, 07:13 PM
Thanks for the clarification Hobbes.

My reminiscences of the time perhaps help to highlight the issue that the GST was at he time. In the 1998 election campaign, the Labour party had run a fear campaign against it (such a tactic had worked for them against Hewson in 1993), and a lot of people had a genuine fear of it being implemented.

Mr Rudd was only a minor politician at the time, (I certainly hadn't heard of him until many years later), and the rhetoric of his speech wasn't over the top in comparison with the campaign, or comments from other politicians at around the same time, so it wasn't considered particularly remarkable.

It wasn't until he was higher profile that people started paying attention to him.

Hope that answers your question. :)