PDA

View Full Version : Does Krudd Make Your Stomach Queasy?



Pages : [1] 2 3

Basil
24-03-2009, 08:09 PM
This is an optional poll for centrists and right-wingers. Lefties should go away and march or create their own poll.

We the undersigned ...

Kevin Rudd is entirely clueless. He has never had a good (and workable) policy idea in his life.
Kevin Rudd has pinched the Liberals policies on matters green and minimum wage.
Kevin Rudd is as chummy with the US as Howard ever was.
Kevin Rudd gave the distinct impression that
- he would distance himself from the US
- he would rip into KYOTO and embrace it until pregnant
- he would ram minimum wage through the roof
Kevin Rudd has failed in all these expectations
Kevin Rudd specialises in enterprises that would fail miserably if he ever had to compete in the commercial world - which he never has

Kevin Rudd is a ruddy-faced, clueless clown who manipulates people to the extent where he has done nothing, promised so much, delivered so little and has the public eating out of his hand baying for more.

For these reasons, Kevin Rudd makes us nauseous.

Please note ... you may add your vote over the coming months and years!

Miranda
24-03-2009, 08:30 PM
I read in the newspaper today Rudd's popularity was at an all-time high.. perhaps it would be better to run this poll in 2011? Gives him enough time to shatter our already fragile economy and completely wreck Australia.

Basil
24-03-2009, 08:31 PM
I read in the newspaper today Rudd's popularity was at an all-time high..
It is Miranda. So is my blood pressure ;)

Capablanca-Fan
24-03-2009, 11:21 PM
I read in the newspaper today Rudd's popularity was at an all-time high.. perhaps it would be better to run this poll in 2011? Gives him enough time to shatter our already fragile economy and completely wreck Australia.
You're not wrong. Note that Nixon's popularity was once even higher: he won his second presidential term with 49/50 states. But there is no guarantee that Rudd would be voted out even if he did wreck the economy -- look at Layba in QLD winning yet again despite wrecking hospitals, water, roads and our credit rating.

Mephistopheles
25-03-2009, 05:53 AM
What actually makes me queasy is the infantile use of "KRudd" which seems to be a substitute for thought for some on the right.

I despise Kevin Rudd beyond measure. He is a socially conservative wowser whose policy on the economic front differentiates itself from Howard's only where Rudd's is patently idiotic. I still don't have to stoop to calling him "KRudd" which is not nearly as clever as those who do so appear to think.

Basil
25-03-2009, 06:30 AM
What actually makes me queasy is the infantile use of "KRudd" which seems to be a substitute for thought for some on the right.

I despise Kevin Rudd beyond measure. He is a socially conservative wowser whose policy on the economic front differentiates itself from Howard's only where Rudd's is patently idiotic. I still don't have to stoop to calling him "KRudd" which is not nearly as clever as those who do so appear to think.
You cope your way, I'll cope mine. If you "despise him beyond measure" and there's no release valve, something's gonna give somewhere, Scotty! If keeping it together means handing out nuggets of advice on chesschat, I'm here for you old boy ;)

Did you forget to vote?

Mephistopheles
25-03-2009, 07:08 AM
Did you forget to vote?
Not so much "forgot" as "deliberately decided not to". I find the major parties a little too far to the right of centre on most issues for my taste and the Greens are mostly foamy-mouthed loons so there's not really much out there for a cynical lefty like me.

I also live in the safest Labor electorate in the country (I think). Last majority I read about was a whopping 23 percent and the Greens candidate polls very, very slightly behind the stuffed shirt that the Liberals put up every time. Poor bastard has no chance whatsoever so they generally put up the incredibly dim offspring (apologies for PG-rated expletive) of a party hack or a very, very pretty girl (who may also be the former).

No point in voting if my vote counts for nix on top of there being nobody I feel moved to vote for.

Garrett
25-03-2009, 09:53 AM
I don't follow the media.

Kevin Bonham
25-03-2009, 10:32 AM
I find Rudd most dislikeable when he is in paternalistic moralist mode (which is unfortunately far too often) or when he is making hackneyed tryhard-intellectual contributions to public debate, often on grand theories of economics. Fortunately his government's worst ideas tend to get killed off by the current Senate.

I am still grateful that he is in the job rather than his more actively odious predecessor.

Mephistopheles
25-03-2009, 11:02 AM
I am still grateful that he is in the job rather than his more actively odious predecessor.
As indicated above, I can differentiate little between them. Most policy divergences between Rudd and his predecessor can be observed when Rudd suggests (or tries to get passed) something patently idiotic.

Spiny Norman
25-03-2009, 11:06 AM
As indicated above, I can differentiate little between them. Most policy divergences between Rudd and his predecessor can be observed when Rudd suggests (or tries to get passed) something patently idiotic.
So to sum up your analysis ... what we basically have in "new improved KRudd" is really just "Little Johnny LITE, now with added IDIOT".

God help us all. :wall:

Basil
25-03-2009, 12:44 PM
What actually makes me queasy is the infantile use of "KRudd" which seems to be a substitute for thought for some on the right.

I despise Kevin Rudd beyond measure. He is a socially conservative wowser whose policy on the economic front differentiates itself from Howard's only where Rudd's is patently idiotic. I still don't have to stoop to calling him "KRudd" which is not nearly as clever as those who do so appear to think.
Not that I wish to tangle you in too many discussions of double standards ...

... but I assume that you not only hold all the lefties on this board by the same name-calling standard (this board is machine-gunned with lefty name-calling rants), but will also feel moved to call them on it as they present :whistle:

Now, where's the fat chance smiley?

Mephistopheles
25-03-2009, 01:36 PM
So to sum up your analysis ... what we basically have in "new improved KRudd" is really just "Little Johnny LITE, now with added IDIOT".

God help us all. :wall:
He's definitely Howard Lite and, yes, I think that he is, in many ways, an idiot. It's the subject of another thread but don't get me started on the Great Firewall of Australia. It makes me very, very angry.

Spiny Norman
25-03-2009, 02:13 PM
You and me both ... but for different reasons it would seem! BTW, I agree with you about the firewall issue. Its a complete waste of time (and another example of meaningless gesture politics that lacks substance).

Redmond Barry
25-03-2009, 03:07 PM
So to sum up your analysis ... what we basically have in "new improved KRudd" is really just "Little Johnny LITE, now with added IDIOT".

God help us all. :wall:

yes but kevin has hair and his stylist seems to have been able to control his eyebrow volume to sensible levels, something our venerable former leader was unable to achieve.

thats the most impressive difference i can observe.

and with kevin rudds proficiency in mandarin, theres a greater possibility that chinese equity with be flowing into australian miners for some time to come attempting to compromise mineral pricing (did someone say rio tinto) and weakening our mining industry. this link may be tenuous, but im running with it.

;) ;)

Spiny Norman
25-03-2009, 03:48 PM
... and with kevin rudds proficiency in mandarin ...
... I believe he's certified in several other citrus fruits ... notably lemons ... Grocery Watch is the best example of lemon that springs to mind, however FuelWatch goes close ... along with his "war on inflation" (he won that one, drove it backwards into the ocean, now the economy itself is drowings).

Denis_Jessop
25-03-2009, 04:15 PM
This is an optional poll for centrists and right-wingers. Lefties should go away and march or create their own poll.

We the undersigned ...

Kevin Rudd is entirely clueless. He has never had a good (and workable) policy idea in his life.
Kevin Rudd has pinched the Liberals policies on matters green and minimum wage.
Kevin Rudd is as chummy with the US as Howard ever was.
Kevin Rudd gave the distinct impression that
- he would distance himself from the US
- he would rip into KYOTO and embrace it until pregnant
- he would ram minimum wage through the roof
Kevin Rudd has failed in all these expectations
Kevin Rudd specialises in enterprises that would fail miserably if he ever had to compete in the commercial world - which he never has

Kevin Rudd is a ruddy-faced, clueless clown who manipulates people to the extent where he has done nothing, promised so much, delivered so little and has the public eating out of his hand baying for more.

For these reasons, Kevin Rudd makes us nauseous.

Please note ... you may add your vote over the coming months and years!


I don't follow your logic on this one Gunner in insisting that lefties stay away. All the reasons you put forward are those that make real lefties agree with you. You should be applauding our Kev for being indistinguishable from Howard as nobody could ever argue that honest John was a leftie. And don't you admire Kev's routine Sunday interview outside St John's church Canberra?

DJ

Spiny Norman
25-03-2009, 05:16 PM
And don't you admire Kev's routine Sunday interview outside St John's church Canberra?
Add that to the list of things that makes me nauseous!

Redmond Barry
25-03-2009, 05:40 PM
a list of problem areas for labour.

:clap: # ideas weekend (remember that - didnt that achieve a lot)
:clap: # fuelwatch (id prefer the money spent on fuelwatch to be given to an amateur theatre company to re-enact the battle of mafeking that scout founder robert baden powell was involved in. value for money i say.)
:clap: # grocerywatch (we might as well have spent the money on chocolate submarines and achieved the same result)
:clap: # internet filtering (my connection is already annoying me enough, dont anger me further kev)
:clap: # alcopops (obviously teenagers wont buy full bottles of spirits instead. their obviously not that crafty.)
:clap: # the use of the word sh**storm (is kevs native tongue bogan?)
:clap: # short selling ban (smoke and mirrors once again. obviously people predicting that company stock should be worth less in the future should be banned from exercising their judgement. its obviously their fault that the economic meltdown occured.)
:clap: # julia gillards voice (its really annoying. plus her cringeworthy appearances on tv with abbott. )
:clap: # peter garret is clueless
:clap: # wayne swans inability to muster up any personality.
:clap: # 2 attempts to prop the economy up by just giving money to "the people", that has no realistic guarantee to stave off increased unemployment and a further deterioration in economic activity. maybe a considered approach would have involved an ECONOMIC POLICY. this whole affair stinks of IGNORANCE and LAZINESS, but im sure next election when were all in deeper poo, voters will think back to who gave them $900 and re-elect kevin back in. (im pretty sure even the labour aligned thinktank came up with a better policy than the actual government.)

im officially underwhelmed.;) ;)

Basil
25-03-2009, 05:45 PM
Welcome Denis ;) I managed to winkle you back!


I don't follow your logic on this one Gunner...
I regret it's an ever-increasing club :doh:


... in insisting that lefties stay away.
Not really insisting - more a pre-emptive strike at the belly-aching that I was expecting considering my poll options were somewhat loaded! :lol:


All the reasons you put forward are those that make real lefties agree with you.
Now this, I have time for and should probably stop my vitriole for a heartbeat and have a proper discussion with you or someone elsewhere. While I might not agree with a 'real lefty', I would probably enjoy the conversation more than banal 'temporary lefty' conversation that I have to endure while they're emerging into future righties.


You should be applauding our Kev for being indistinguishable from Howard as nobody could ever argue that honest John was a leftie. And don't you admire Kev's routine Sunday interview outside St John's church Canberra?
In case I haven't mentioned it, and to be honest I can't quite recall ... Kevin Rudd makes me wanna puke!

eclectic
25-03-2009, 05:46 PM
but keep onside with kate ellis in case she does get to have chess officially recognised as a sport ;)

Basil
25-03-2009, 05:49 PM
a list of problem areas for labour.

:clap: # ideas weekend (remember that - didnt that achieve a lot)
:clap: # fuelwatch (id prefer the money spent on fuelwatch to be given to an amateur theatre company to re-enact the battle of mafeking that scout founder robert baden powell was involved in. value for money i say.)
:clap: # grocerywatch (we might as well have spent the money on chocolate submarines and achieved the same result)
:clap: # internet filtering (my connection is already annoying me enough, dont anger me further kev)
:clap: # alcopops (obviously teenagers wont buy full bottles of spirits instead. their obviously not that crafty.)
:clap: # the use of the word sh**storm (is kevs native tongue bogan?)
:clap: # short selling ban (smoke and mirrors once again. obviously people predicting that company stock should be worth less in the future should be banned from exercising their judgement. its obviously their fault that the economic meltdown occured.)
:clap: # julia gillards voice (its really annoying. plus her cringeworthy appearances on tv with abbott. )
:clap: # peter garret in clueless
:clap: # wayne swans inability to muster up any personality.
:clap: # 2 attempts to prop the economy up by just giving money to "the people", that has no realistic guarantee to stave off increased unemployment and a further deterioration in economic activity. maybe a considered approach would have involved an ECONOMIC POLICY. this whole affair stinks of IGNORANCE and LAZINESS, but im sure next election when were all in deeper poo, voters will think back to who gave them $900 and re-elect kevin back in. (im pretty sure even the labour aligned thinktank came up with a better policy than the actual government.)

im officially underwhelmed.;) ;)
Fantastic! Who is this man!?
Regrettably unable to pay copious HCDs* I'd practiucally empty the vault.

* Not payable for political kickings

Capablanca-Fan
25-03-2009, 05:58 PM
All the reasons you put forward are those that make real lefties agree with you.
Why? KRudd campaigned as an "economic conservative", but wrote a nonsensical verbose revisionist attack on the free market.


You should be applauding our Kev for being indistinguishable from Howard as nobody could ever argue that honest John was a leftie.
Except that once he got into power, he showed how different he was. Howard knew how to manage an economy, paying off Keating's debt and building up a good surplus, which KRudd has already squandered and indebted us.


And don't you admire Kev's routine Sunday interview outside St John's church Canberra?
Nope; they are just to fool churchian useful idiots like the Australian Christian Lobby. They don't impress me or Snail King.

Basil
25-03-2009, 08:24 PM
Did you forget to vote?

Not so much "forgot" as "deliberately decided not to". I find the major parties a little too far to the right of centre...
I was referring to this poll on this page.

Kevin Bonham
25-03-2009, 09:13 PM
I was referring to this poll on this page.

But he's a lefty as he already noted. His political compass scores are -7s and beyond! And you already said at the top:


Lefties should go away and march or create their own poll.

I strongly suspect that the ranks of diehard Rudd-dislikers would include nearly as many serious lefties as right-wingers of any description. Not only do left-libertarians have all kinds of objections to him but many greenies can't stand him after his 5% carbon reduction target (though they'll still preference Labor next election anyway). The "lefties" that really like Rudd are mostly soft moderates and wishy-washies - though there are heaps of both of those.

Basil
25-03-2009, 09:17 PM
^ Oh gawd ...

But he elected not to walk away ...
and he elected to claim a dislike for Rudd, lefty or otherwise ...

There seems to be a lot of selective invoking of what is and isn't a directive within threads such as these.

Look ... ah never mind .. it's hardly important! Carry on!

Kevin Bonham
25-03-2009, 09:20 PM
Sure. All of the above. The point I was making is just that the sets {Ruddlovers} and {Lefties} are not as similar as someone opposed to either might imagine. That's all.

Basil
25-03-2009, 10:06 PM
Sure. All of the above. The point I was making is just that the sets {Ruddlovers} and {Lefties} are not as similar as someone opposed to either might imagine. That's all.
Yes, I think it's a good point and almost sigworthy. I meant to acknowledge that (main point) prior to signing off.
I have a habit of short-changing my final post at work before driving home, which was my post above. The corresponding post last night was in the thread where you were analysing the Qld election.

God bless you Sally94!

Redmond Barry
26-03-2009, 02:40 AM
Fantastic! Who is this man!?
Regrettably unable to pay copious HCDs* I'd practiucally empty the vault.

* Not payable for political kickings

excuse my ignorance but what does HCD stand for ?

thanks in advance, ace.

Mephistopheles
26-03-2009, 05:53 AM
A reply to Howard that has been hard to post for some reason (all kinds of 404 errors). In regards to Howard's expectation that I should respond negatively to name calling...

The server appears not to want me to post a reply at all. I am continually getting a 404 on newreply.php. This annoys me immensely as it was a reply that contained substance rather than fluff.

The reply itself can be found here (http://www.freakishandunnatural.net/tmp/ccreply.html).

Basil
26-03-2009, 07:01 AM
...but I assume that you not only hold all the lefties on this board by the same name-calling standard ...

Most certainly ...
I look forward to it. It was a fair question and you have given a fair answer.


Why is it that I get the feeling that I'll be "held to account" if I don't pick up on every instance of name-calling ...

Because you have Watto-Goggles* on. You are only seeing what you want to see. What is I quite clearly said was "but will also feel moved to call them on it as they present".

*For inclusion in the next Newbies Quickstart.

Basil
26-03-2009, 07:33 AM
what does HCD stand for ?
Hi Ace, http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=4533

Mephistopheles
26-03-2009, 08:21 AM
Because you have Watto-Goggles* on. You are only seeing what you want to see.
However condescending you wish to be with the above, you have actually posted a truth so obvious that it is almost axiomatic of internet forums. Of course I only see what I want to see as I choose the threads that look interesting to me. If you think that I sift through the chaff of Chess Chat in order to audit every post appearing herein you are loopy.


What is I quite clearly said was "but will also feel moved to call them on it as they present".
If I see them I am likely to make a noise about them. If I don't, I can hardly be expected to.

Basil
26-03-2009, 08:58 AM
Of course I only see what I want to see as I choose the threads that look interesting to me.
Now you're just being silly. :hand:

I'm clearly talking about the difference between reading what is actually is on a page and what someone with preconceptions assumes to to be on a page.

In this case you were indignant about being a new poster hardly being able to check every thread and even those historical ones. I have clearly never suggested you go trolling through threads that and further I have only ever asked you to call a double standard as they presented themselves to you. This I made clear from the beginning. Stop wasting time.

Denis_Jessop
26-03-2009, 03:12 PM
Add that to the list of things that makes me nauseous!

It's almost no.1 on my list.

DJ

Basil
26-03-2009, 03:14 PM
It's almost no.1 on my list.

DJ
The board is alive, Jerry! Bravo!

Watto
26-03-2009, 03:26 PM
Because you have Watto-Goggles* on. You are only seeing what you want to see. [/SIZE]
This is absolute crap. Like much of what you write, dear Gunner.

Jim_Flood
26-03-2009, 04:01 PM
........And don't you admire Kev's routine Sunday interview outside St John's church Canberra? DJ

Not really.

Always feel that I am being preached to by him and he does it with motherhood statements, such as this one from Australia Day 2009.

"Compassion, when we extend an outstretched hand to those who fall by the road, who stumble or who are injured, and help to see them through, as seeing them through is seeing all of us through."

If I feel the need or wish to see a confessor, I'll go to a church. I don't need such in a Prime Minister who is elected to lead: not to take on the work of Archbishop Pell.

eclectic
26-03-2009, 04:05 PM
not to take on the work of Archbishop Pell.

cardinal pell actually
be thankful he isn't pope
well not yet at least ;)

Capablanca-Fan
26-03-2009, 04:18 PM
A reply to Howard that has been hard to post for some reason (all kinds of 404 errors). In regards to Howard's expectation that I should respond negatively to name calling...

The server appears not to want me to post a reply at all. I am continually getting a 404 on newreply.php. This annoys me immensely as it was a reply that contained substance rather than fluff.
I've had that happen too. I have no idea why.

eclectic
26-03-2009, 04:22 PM
iirc the problem and the solution have been mentioned elsewhere

Basil
26-03-2009, 04:27 PM
This is absolute crap. Like much of what you write, dear Gunner.
That's quite the conundrum. Perhaps you're assessing my writings with your Watto-Goggles firmly affixed. Without them, you might find my writings quite fair, or where not, clearly light-hearted. I don't think you'll much bad stuff, seriously delivered.

I do confess to being quite severe on double standards. I loathe those second only to weakness.

Jim_Flood
26-03-2009, 04:58 PM
cardinal pell actually
be thankful he isn't pope
well not yet at least ;)


Ah, poo. I was baptized as a lapsed Roman Catholic so I should've known.

eclectic
26-03-2009, 04:59 PM
attention mods or admins:

thread split please ...

!!watt and duggat required!!

;)

Kevin Bonham
26-03-2009, 08:19 PM
A reply to Howard that has been hard to post for some reason (all kinds of 404 errors). In regards to Howard's expectation that I should respond negatively to name calling...

The server appears not to want me to post a reply at all. I am continually getting a 404 on newreply.php. This annoys me immensely as it was a reply that contained substance rather than fluff.

The reply itself can be found here (http://www.freakishandunnatural.net/tmp/ccreply.html).

This happens now and then - see http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=9683.

Glad you were able to find a way around it by posting a link to the reply somewhere else and anyone else affected by this bug is welcome to do the same.

The word "curl", which you used, is one of the commonest triggers.

Kevin Bonham
26-03-2009, 08:24 PM
thread split please ...

!!watt and duggat required!!

;)

Naaah, it's Gunner's thread so if his introduction of the term "Watto-Goggles" on a thread Watto had not previously posted on causes a degree of off-topicality then it can be filed under "self-inflicted". :D

ER
26-03-2009, 08:33 PM
... The word "curl", which you used, is one of the commonest triggers.
rightly so too, it's a baldist word! :P

Redmond Barry
27-03-2009, 02:50 AM
Hi Ace, http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=4533

thanks. nice to see paradigm outlawed.

ER
27-03-2009, 03:50 AM
Full military guard rolled out for Kevin Rudd in Washington
Article from: The Australian
IN the 27 months since Robert Gates became US Defence Secretary, no dignitary visiting his Pentagon office has been welcomed by a military guard of honour...
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25248759-5013871,00.html

This is not to provoke anyone, just a reminder of the respect our PM and Australia enjoy in the USA! :)

eclectic
27-03-2009, 07:18 PM
were there any other cabinet secretaries besides gates who were carried over from the previous administration?

ER
28-03-2009, 03:05 AM
Hi Eclecticus
I don't know of any specific case, but an interesting source of the current line up with bios etc is here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/07/politics/main4583057.shtml
ok Howie, no more interferences! ;)

Mischa
28-03-2009, 10:23 PM
none of the above

Basil
28-03-2009, 11:57 PM
none of the above
You luv him! Just can't get enough. If you could grab a Kevin 07 shirt and flick your brain into neutral, you'd be first one in the shopping centre line, right? ;)

eclectic
29-03-2009, 12:00 AM
i'd be sorely tempted to do a peter costello just to vote in this poll :uhoh:

Spiny Norman
30-03-2009, 10:19 AM
Worth reading this Times Online article about the upcoming G20 summit ... gives a summary of the various positions going into the talks.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/G20/article5993108.ece

One very amusing bit is where they assess the "best G20 leader for..." where Kevin Rudd heads the list:


BEST G20 LEADER FOR ...
... A PARTY
Kevin Rudd
Despite his austere image, the Aussie PM can let his hair down with the best of his countrymen. He was embarrassed when it emerged he ended up in a strip club after a New York drinking spree

Good on yer Kevvie ... glad to see you've made such a wonderful impact on the international stage ...

Desmond
30-03-2009, 12:06 PM
:lol:

Basil
30-03-2009, 02:16 PM
The man's approval rating is 74 points, one short of that other useless pruck, Hawke (a freaking Rhodes scholar and union official - can you think of a more out of touch farked-up combination that that!?).

I mentioned prior to Rudd's winning the election that people's futures would be murdered in their beds. That mission is well under way.

Kevin Bonham
30-03-2009, 11:00 PM
The man's approval rating is 74 points, one short of that other useless pruck, Hawke (a freaking Rhodes scholar and union official - can you think of a more out of touch farked-up combination that that!?).

Hawke had charisma by the bucketloads that gave him a positive appeal for many "ordinary voters" (who often saw him as very much in touch), and he was replacing a government that had turned into a more or less total flop. It surprises me that Rudd's ratings are virtually identical to Hawke's given that none of these things apply to Rudd. My view is that Rudd is so inoffensively boring that it is hard for most voters to find any real reason to dislike him. Furthermore because of the GFC it is more difficult for voters to even try to say objectively whether the government is doing a good job or not, and as a relatively new government it tends to be given the benefit of the doubt.

Basil
30-03-2009, 11:09 PM
Hawke had charisma by the bucketloads that gave him a positive appeal for many "ordinary voters" (who often saw him as very much in touch)...
No question. In touch with their working class ideals - (whatever they are). Importantly, the man had no idea about the elementary workings of a cash register - and I'm guessing (from his policy and utterings) he believed funds either dropped out of thin air (such as a scholarship) or were there to be appropriated into the pockets of dockers and builders.

Coupled with "no child shall live in poverty..." and the mindless and clueless luved it. Wot more could you want in a PM :wall:

Then there was a recession :doh:


My view is that Rudd is so inoffensively boring that it is hard for most voters to find any real reason to dislike him.
Apart from being Offended by his manner, you've hit a nail on the head with voters finding no reason to dislike his manner. They should be disliking his duplicity (which leaves Howard for dead) and his incompetence. With many voters being obsessed with whether they'd have the PM around for dinner as opposed to what he's doing for the country, I'll have to force myself not to feel sorry for them when they're murdered in the beds.

What I would really really love is for these same people to be polled at the same time as to what they like about his policies! That would be fascinating.

Kevin Bonham
31-03-2009, 12:07 AM
What I would really really love is for these same people to be polled at the same time as to what they like about his policies! That would be fascinating.

Apparently they like everything. On virtually all issues voters, when asked if they prefer Labor's approach to the issue or the Coalition's, say they prefer the former. Whether they could actually describe either would be a really interesting question.

ER
31-03-2009, 01:13 AM
No question. In touch with their working class ideals - (whatever they are).
Are you knocking Hawkesy here or the working class? You may as well make a joke about Hawke but don't make the mistake to take the Australian working class too lightly!

Importantly, the man had no idea about the elementary workings of a cash register -
He was just a likeable larrikin, he was voted cauz people understood him, they knew he was a bullshit artist too and voting for Bob was another indication of their acute sense of humour since no fair dinkum Australian would take any politician seriously anyway!

and I'm guessing (from his policy and utterings) he believed funds either dropped out of thin air (such as a scholarship) or were there to be appropriated into the pockets of dockers and builders.
No argument here

Coupled with "no child shall live in poverty..." and the mindless and clueless luved it. Wot more could you want in a PM :wall:
He stuffed up badly here!

Then there was a recession :doh: That wasn't his doing!

Some plus points for Hawke:
He could hold his own in any surroundings be it amongst the boganest of the bogans or the most refined aristocratic Crown sissies!
He knew his sports (lots of them) well, he loved a bet and would never turn his back to a beckoning sheila or three! I know this as the next is polically incorrect yabbering but people liked this kind of attitude at the time and I strongly suspect they still do!
He loved a quiet smoke and a beer with his mates more than a heated ideological discussion in the Caucus meetings, although he gave them as much as he took there!
He knew his Fabian Model of Socialism well, he believed in it and fought for it!
He never lost an election and got kicked out of office by his own mob!

Basil
31-03-2009, 10:24 AM
Are you knocking Hawkesy here or the working class?
No knocking. Suggesting the working class don't know what their ideals are. Ask them (or tell me). I think you'll find they get twisted in an awful knot that get debunked in 10 seconds flat by any one of mine or Jono's signatures. The bleatings about social justice come to mind, for instance.


You may as well make a joke about Hawke but don't make the mistake to take the Australian working class too lightly!
By working class, I assume we're talking about blue collar - for want of a better categorisation. No taking them lightly at all. Doesn't mean that I can't articulate argue that in the arena of politics they have a clue approximating the size of [an Arrogant-One] brain cell.


He was just a likeable larrikin
He was a prat who played a part that people thought they could relate to. Then again, anyone who gets up on tv and mouths about 'working families and have a beer and the day off' is going to strike a chord with a significant portion of the 'working class'.

ER
31-03-2009, 11:13 AM
No knocking. Suggesting the working class don't know what their ideals are. Ask them (or tell me).
Fighting to establish better working conditions and wages! To their proud and honest struggles we owe the 8 hour day, 40 (34 in my case :P suffer!) hour week, the right to unionise and knock the living daylights out of crappy and unpopular workplace legislation!

I think you'll find they get twisted in an awful knot that get debunked in 10 seconds flat by any one of mine or Jono's signatures. Jono and you rightly castigate pseudo revolutianary professional centrelink handout receivers. From the moment you include honest working people who strive to improve conditions, wages and standard of living of their families in your rhetorics I will refuse to subscibe to them!

By working class, I assume we're talking about blue collar - for want of a better categorisation.
You wouldn't go wrong if you included all people who work for a wage here!

anyone who gets up on tv and mouths about 'working families and have a beer and the day off' is going to strike a chord with a significant portion of the 'working class'.
People (voters) are the same! They vote out parties when they had enough of them and their leaders be them Coaliion or Labor! You are doing well carry on! :P

Basil
31-03-2009, 11:26 AM
Fighting to establish better working conditions and wages!
For God's sake Elliott! That was 6,000 years ago. How long can you guys milk that rallying cry as an excuse to get together and pretend toi have some workable policies?


From the moment you include honest working people who strive to improve conditions, wages and standard of living of their families in your rhetorics I will refuse to subscibe to them!
FFS What improvements am I refusing for instance, or what improvements does Rudd want to bring in? This is the fantasy on which you guys float around. There is no argument. It is the suggestion of the existence of an argument that I referred to in a previous sig that keeps you guys fighting a fight which doesn't exist.


You wouldn't go wrong if you included all people who work for a wage here!
I work for a wage! I've worked for less than a wage! I've worked for other people. I've been a cab driver. Do you think all subscribers to mt POV are world bankers?

ER
31-03-2009, 11:52 AM
How long can you guys milk that rallying cry as an excuse to get together and pretend toi have some workable policies?
For as long as there are bums who are born with silver spoons up their arses you will find less fortunate people reacting to that! It's only natural!

FFS What improvements am I refusing for instance?
None said you are refusing improvements, from what position can you or can't you refuse improvements anyway? Enter politics and I promise I would come and live in QLD just to vote for you!

...or what improvements does Rudd want to bring in?
What? Rudd? Improvements? Where did I imply that the guy has anything to do with workers rights?

This is the fantasy on which you guys float around.
No mate, PP not having a computer at home, not being able to go to excursions and having to go to school with bread and vegemite sandwiches for lunch everyday because his dad lost his job is not a fantasy at all!

There is no argument. It is the suggestion of the existence of an argument that I referred to in a previous sig that keeps you guys fighting a fight which doesn't exist.
I am not fighting any fights son, I belong to what you might consider a comfortable class but I worked my guts out to get there! I just can't go against people who weren't so lucky or successful as I am!

I work for a wage! I've worked for less than a wage! I've worked for other people. I've been a cab driver. Do you think all subscribers to mt POV are world bankers?
Did you say cab driver? Did I notice a thread somewhere in this forum defending their rights and protesting their mistreatment? Was that thread started by another lost cause leftist social justice ear basher?
PS Since only by chance I saw that tournament you won in the ShoutBox, can you start a thread on it please? Congrats by the way! :clap: Plus you look great in the pic, rosy cheeks and all! :)

Basil
31-03-2009, 12:51 PM
For as long as there are bums who are born with silver spoons up their arses you will find less fortunate people reacting to that! It's only natural!
Arrrggghhh. This is my point! (one of them). You are fighting (raging) against a handful of fortunates and voting left doesn't change a damn thing. Yu guys are so obsessed with the fortunates, you will put up with appalling ideology, appalling backflips, and appalling cluelessness all in the name of fighting a demonised few.

Further, voting left stuffs up the people you are trying to assist. This is basic right conservative ideology. I've been explaining it here for three years.


No mate, PP not having a computer at home, not being able to go to excursions and having to go to school with bread and vegemite sandwiches for lunch everyday because his dad lost his job is not a fantasy at all!
But Elliott, we're back to the fantasy. These people exist, but voting Laba doesn't move the chips any closer to their table. This is the fantasy on which the left trades - and very successfully I might add.


I just can't go against people who weren't so lucky or successful as I am! :wall:


Did you say cab driver? Did I notice a thread somewhere in this forum defending their rights and protesting their mistreatment? Was that thread started by another lost cause leftist social justice ear basher?
Yeah, that right-wing ear basher was me - shock! I'll defend anyone's rights and rail against mistreatment. You might be surprised to know this is not exclusive to lefties.


PS Since only by chance I saw that tournament you won in the ShoutBox, can you start a thread on it please? Congrats by the way! :clap: Plus you look great in the pic, rosy cheeks and all! :)

I didn't win a tourn - I did well compared to my rating. But thanks!
Rosy cheeks :P

Capablanca-Fan
31-03-2009, 01:17 PM
That's the problem. The Left have committed rhetorical fraud by claiming to be on the side of the poor. Many of the leaders of the Left are the ones born with silver spoons, while many Righties came from poor backgrounds. For examples, see The Oldest Fraud (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4022) by Thomas Sowell, who himself grew up as a poor black orphan raised by relatives. And of course, many leftist policies hurt the poor they claim to want to help. A case in point is the Layba IR reform, which will just make small businesses more reluctant to hire if they know they might be stuck with a dud they can't fire, as I've just posted on another thread (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=236179#post236179).

ER
31-03-2009, 01:43 PM
You are selectively ignoring points which are very important:
I do not fight, or rage, or ear bash anyone!
I think that Labor Party is nothing but a gathering or revisionistic pseudo-left pseudo-socialist opportunists.
This lot winning Federal and State Elections proves nothing more than how useless and out of touch the Federal and State Opposition is!
I hate repetitions, however, I have to remind you:
ONE

What? Rudd? Improvements? Where did I imply that the guy has anything to do with workers rights?
TWO

I am not fighting any fights son, I belong to what you might consider a comfortable class but I worked my guts out to get there! I just can't go against people who weren't so lucky or successful as I am!
THREE
It won't hurt your right or left or whatever political wings you use to fly over your Quixotian triumphs over non existant class enemies if you realised that the only negotiating power workers have throughout the ages is unity and resistance to exploitation!
PS. Now to serious business, it says there you won your rating group or something like that; would you please start that thread? Whol and Froelich played there, it's gotta be interesting!

ER
31-03-2009, 01:59 PM
That's the problem. The Left have committed rhetorical fraud by claiming to be on the side of the poor. Many of the leaders of the Left are the ones born with silver spoons, while many Righties came from poor backgrounds. For examples, see The Oldest Fraud (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4022) by Thomas Sowell, who himself grew up as a poor black orphan raised by relatives. And of course, many leftist policies hurt the poor they claim to want to help. A case in point is the Layba IR reform, which will just make small businesses more reluctant to hire if they know they might be stuck with a dud they can't fire, as I've just posted on another thread (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=236179#post236179).

Hi Jono
I repeat I do not subscribe to any political theories be they left or right communist or fascist, or whatever other ideological connection they might have. I am not doing political commentary or propaganda of any kind here. All I am saying is that my nature of business involves private as well as public enterprises. I work with people under me in my private ventures and I work under other people in my other public job.
As an employer I respect my workers' rights and as a result I have their respect and loyalty.
As an employee, I try to do my best according to my abilities! That sometimes involves extra hours of non paid work! That's because I want to do it and I feel comfortable with it! If, however, my supervisor would try and impose to me more hours for less pay, I will tell them where to go and take them to court, or strike, or demonstrate, or use whatever other means I have at my disposal.
I will definitely not tell them yes boss, whatever you say boss! What would you do?

Capablanca-Fan
31-03-2009, 03:02 PM
As an employer I respect my workers' rights and as a result I have their respect and loyalty.
Good for you. And you don't need the Government to tell you who to employ or how much to pay them.


As an employee, I try to do my best according to my abilities! That sometimes involves extra hours of non paid work! That's because I want to do it and I feel comfortable with it!
Again, good. You don't need Government rules to regulate this.


If, however, my supervisor would try and impose to me more hours for less pay, I will tell them where to go and take them to court, or strike, or demonstrate, or use whatever other means I have at my disposal.
Fair enough too. Employees should be free to do as you say. But they should not be free to prevent other workers from working at those jobs. This is the real evil of unions: they are anti-worker, either because government makes unions compulsory, or turns a blind eye to thuggery.


I will definitely not tell them yes boss, whatever you say boss! What would you do?
Nor should you. As SK said, employers who mistreat staff will find it harder to hire them. Howard's workplace reforms actually favour good employees, since employers would be more willing to try them out in the first place.

Basil
31-03-2009, 08:52 PM
You are selectively ignoring points which are very important:
I do not fight, or rage, or ear bash anyone!
AFAIK, this is true. I have never seen you do any of those things.


I think that Labor Party is nothing but a gathering or revisionistic pseudo-left pseudo-socialist opportunists.
That is fantastic. I will use it as a sig!


This lot winning Federal and State Elections proves nothing more than how useless and out of touch the Federal and State Opposition is!
Well that's debatable. Certainly their collective talent isn't the best of all time, but there is something called sentiment which, when it shifts, is a very powerful phenomenon that is all but impossible to shift back. It must shift by itself. 2008/09 is a good case in point and there is actually very little to be done about it ATM. I might develop that idea more in my book.


What? Rudd? Improvements? Where did I imply that the guy has anything to do with workers rights?
I didn't say you did. I was asking about KRudd's improvements. This is about KRudd and Hawke, not you!


It won't hurt your right or left or whatever political wings you use to fly over your Quixotian triumphs over non existant class enemies if you realised that the only negotiating power workers have throughout the ages is unity and resistance to exploitation!
Oh gawd.


PS. Now to serious business, it says there you won your rating group or something like that; would you please start that thread? Whol and Froelich played there, it's gotta be interesting!
Just for you.

Mischa
31-03-2009, 09:41 PM
rednecks

ER
31-03-2009, 10:17 PM
Well that's debatable. Certainly their collective talent isn't the best of all time, but there is something called sentiment which, when it shifts, is a very powerful phenomenon that is all but impossible to shift back. It must shift by itself. 2008/09 is a good case in point and there is actually very little to be done about it ATM. I might develop that idea more in my book.
Flactuating sentiment is a topic that always fascinated me since as a four year old I was told about the Lord's triumphal entry in Jerusalem, followed by his crucifixion days later, both events celebrated by public sentiment! Are you writing a book about it? Are you examining the phaenomenon it in terms of loyalty? I mean in politics, even for "traditional" voters a change of party prererences is just another shruggable matter. Do that in football, and you are in deep trouble! In my social environs changing my loyalties from Man Un, to any other team would be equivalent to high treason and it would lead to my eternal damnation, absolute contempt, social isolation if not physical extermination. Dangerous, unthinkable stuff!

ER
31-03-2009, 10:56 PM
Fair enough too. Employees should be free to do as you say. But they should not be free to prevent other workers from working at those jobs. This is the real evil of unions: they are anti-worker, either because government makes unions compulsory, or turns a blind eye to thuggery.
Say that again, I have witnessed this kind of thuggery, some of which we all watched on TV ads during the last election campaign. It is scary, intimidating, despicable. I saw it directed against a worker whose only crime was claiming that she was happy with the conditions she worked under and did not want to pay union fees for non existing services and protection!
On the other hand, I do not consider as leftist/laborite dialectics to get together and discuss with your employer ways to improve workplace safety or negotiate pay rise or super contributions etc.

Davidflude
31-03-2009, 11:19 PM
The right wing in Australia is still in denial. It is the first stage of grief.

We desperately need a strong opposition and we do not have it now. If the coalition is not careful they will have longer on the bottom then the Carlton Football Club.

What to do?

First they must accept that the electorate threw them out for good reasons. They need to identify where the policies they carried out and the views they espoused were rejected by the electorate.

Second they need to come up with a raft of good policies.

May I suggest that the right wingers on this forum have a good long look at pebble bed nuclear reactors. No I will not tell you why they are so good. You can find it all on the internet.

Again have a look at how one of the Smorgen family aged over 90 has a better solution to carbon emissions than the unproven expensive idea of pumping the carbon dioxide underground.

Third have a long look at the Singapore health care system to see whether it could be adapted for Australia.

One short term fix the opposition should be urging is for the Reserve Bank to not just stop paying interest on overnight deposits from the trading banks but even to charge them negative interest. This would encourage the banks to start lending again.

All of the above are dinki di private enterprise ideas.

Basil
31-03-2009, 11:44 PM
Thanks Davo, but does Rudd make you at all queasy?

Davidflude
01-04-2009, 09:53 AM
John Howard gave me very bad feelings. I cannot state my opinion of him without committing libel, obscenity or really bad taste.

I was not in Australia when Gough was PM although he was clearly worse.

Rudd is clearly a technocrat and mandarin with all the strengths and weaknesses you would expect.

So far he is making a reasonable fist of the job There is of course one minister that he should dump. Unfortunately no-one can ask him the question that every red blooded aussie male would like answered. I shall not ask the question as this forum may have family readers.

Capablanca-Fan
01-04-2009, 10:50 AM
John Howard gave me very bad feelings.
Well, lefties are governed by feelings. Righties are swayed by results, which in Howard's case were low inflation, low interest rates, low unemployment, and a high budget surplus. How many can truthfully say that they are better off now under KRudd's big-spending deficit-loving reign?

Rincewind
01-04-2009, 11:09 AM
Righties are swayed by results

The title of this thread belies your assertion.

Davidflude
01-04-2009, 12:24 PM
I hope that you all visit the Henry Thornton web site regularly. I has some great stuff.

The following is relevant to this thread

Rebuilding centre right politics
Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Author: Henry Thornton

The Liberal-National Coalition was dealt two severe blows by Labor in recent days.

The LNP lost its' first election contest against a woefully incompetent Labor government in Queensland, whilst Malcolm Turnbull slid further behind Kevin Rudd as preferred Prime Minister.

Lawrence Springborg only led the LNP to a mere 3% swing. It should have been much bigger.

Labor 'led' Queensland through the Dr Death scandals, refused to build any new dams or recycle water and is now responsible for a $1.6 billion budget deficit. Queensland was ripe for the taking, but somehow the LNP blew its chance.

On the federal level, Kevin Rudd's aura of invincibility continues. The most recent Newspoll showed Rudd leads Turnbull 65 to 20% as better Prime Minister.

Most state voters are sick and tired of Labor governments but are still not prepared to change sides. Why is this the case?

Henry believes the Coalition partners have two main faults.

The first is a clear lack of policy based on classical liberalism. Ultimately, politics is a battle of ideas and parties must have a solid ideological grounding.

The Liberals must ensure all their policies embrace small government in both economic and social policy. Recent policy reversals on industrial relations, climate change and deficit spending were irrationally made after the 2007 defeat.

Australian history shows parties stay in opposition for two terms at the very minimum. The Liberal Party should not change policies for purely short term political gain.

Industrial relations policy is a perfect example. The Libs immediately abandoned labour deregulation after the 2007 defeat to get rid of John Howard's legacy. But the economic meltdown now means Labor's 'fair' industrial relations laws will only drive up unemployment. If the Liberals had stuck to labour deregulation then they would be in a much stronger position to attack the government's employment policies.

Click here for Henry's most recent blog on the urgent need for market deregulation.

Besides labour deregulation, Liberal economic policy must return to tax cuts, balanced budgets and reduced government spending. If the party supports deficit spending, then it must be purely on infrastructure like roads, dams and power stations.

The Coaltion's second problem is it lacks talented parliamentary speakers. The opposition frontbench, with a few exceptions, looks like a b grade debating team compared to the Howard-Costello duo.

The explanation for this is rather simple. The Coalition (and Labor for that matter) has virtually no MP's with serious economic qualifications amidst the worst downturn since the Great Depression. Admittedly, this problem is harder to fix in the short term but needs to be dealt with.

The 2010 election is almost gone for the Liberals, but there is still time to regain power in 2013 if they make the necessary changes.

This blog was written by Henry's son Bert, in Henry's absence.

Basil
01-04-2009, 01:29 PM
Ultimately, politics is a battle of ideas and parties must have a solid ideological grounding.
You'd like to think so. Not so much these days.

Laba has/ had no ideas. Certainly no workable ones.
They all but entirely pinched the ideas or the executions of the Libs in the majority of key areas - pick one and we'll talk about it. Those areas where Laba claimed to be different, have all been watered waaaaay back. A marketing sell-out.

Your author talks about the Libs needing to check their roots - how about KRudd and Swan check their roots with Hawke and Keating and Jessop and earlier - they'll find a very very low score on their homework and ideals test.

This federal election was all about spin. And Rudd was the master. Same said for Queensland. Your author is a fool reading tealeaves from a coffee cup in danger of disappearing up his own tailpipe.

Laba -
had the gall to claim the economic conservative high ground
had the gall to claim the fresh think party

and the people lapped it up.

The people are fools. It's as plain as the nose on your face.

Most state voters are sick and tired of Labor governments but are still not prepared to change sides. Why is this the case?


Henry believes the Coalition partners have two main faults
Henry is full of shit.
Federally, the majority of people are either
- too ashamed to say they stuffed it up
- certainly not on this BB or anywhere that I visit saying what they like about Rudd
- are simply happy that there aren't any wars or tangible issues they have to confront and are let the status quo ride pro tem
- happy to tune out to politics after their minds were raped and brought to hyteria over workchoices
- still quite happy to let a new government have a crack after 12 years of Libs

State election I've discussed elesewhere.

Capablanca-Fan
01-04-2009, 02:56 PM
The title of this thread belies your assertion.
I was talking about the results of actual policies, not the political success of spin, of which KRudd is a master.

Rincewind
01-04-2009, 03:45 PM
I was talking about the results of actual policies, not the political success of spin, of which KRudd is a master.

No you were stereotyping and continue to stereotype the left as both the intelligentsia and the hippies who are either thinkers and not doers, or else clueless new-age spiritualists, whichever suits your purpose at the time.

Meanwhile you stereotype the right as level-headed and sensible with no emotions. However, it is clear from reading here that neither stereotype is particular suitable.

eclectic
01-04-2009, 03:50 PM
q: why does krudd make the stomachs of you righties go queasy?

a: it's because you suffer from CBTRRTRS

chronic born to rule right to rule syndrome

:hand:

Capablanca-Fan
02-04-2009, 12:34 AM
No you were stereotyping and continue to stereotype the left as both the intelligentsia and the hippies who are either thinkers and not doers, or else clueless new-age spiritualists, whichever suits your purpose at the time.
But only as soi-disant intelligentsia. As Thomas Sowell says in The Vision of the Anointed, the leading leftists are more articulate than logical. That's why they are concentrated in places where words matter and results don't, such as universities and the media.

They also believe that only the Anointed should be in power since the masses don't know what's good for them, so have more motivation to succeed politically.


Meanwhile you stereotype the right as level-headed and sensible with no emotions.
Some stereotypes, like the above, have some basis in truth. And because they generally distrust concentrated power, they are usually less motivated to succeed in politics as opposed to business, for example.

Mephistopheles
02-04-2009, 04:54 AM
Excellent rhetoric, Jono, but short on supporting argument and logic.

Essentially what you've done above is repeat your stereotyping with no supporting argument and the usual name drop. No applause from these quarters, I fear.

Capablanca-Fan
02-04-2009, 11:10 AM
Excellent rhetoric, Jono, but short on supporting argument and logic.
For that, see plenty of other posts where I defend the free market and show why government intervention causes more problems than it solves. And above, it's incontrovertible that we were better off under Howard than we are now by all sensible measures.

A case in point: KRudd's claimed that his $10.4 billion stimulus package would ”create up to 75,000 additional jobs over the coming year”. Yeah, right. Why expect more from his next? All that's happening is getting us into huge debt, which will result in higher interest rates or inflation down the track.

Capablanca-Fan
02-04-2009, 11:14 AM
Henry is full of shit.
Not completely. He is right with:


The Liberals must ensure all their policies embrace small government in both economic and social policy. Recent policy reversals on industrial relations, climate change and deficit spending were irrationally made after the 2007 defeat.

Australian history shows parties stay in opposition for two terms at the very minimum. The Liberal Party should not change policies for purely short term political gain.

Industrial relations policy is a perfect example. The Libs immediately abandoned labour deregulation after the 2007 defeat to get rid of John Howard's legacy. But the economic meltdown now means Labor's 'fair' industrial relations laws will only drive up unemployment. If the Liberals had stuck to labour deregulation then they would be in a much stronger position to attack the government's employment policies.

...

Besides labour deregulation, Liberal economic policy must return to tax cuts, balanced budgets and reduced government spending.

It is disappointing to see Liberal leaders acting like Labor-Lite, when they could be pointing out how much better Australia was under Howard, and that his supposedly harsh IR law reforms resulted in lower unemployment than now.


Federally, the majority of people are either
- too ashamed to say they stuffed it up
- certainly not on this BB or anywhere that I visit saying what they like about Rudd
- are simply happy that there aren't any wars or tangible issues they have to confront and are let the status quo ride pro tem
- happy to tune out to politics after their minds were raped and brought to hyteria over workchoices
- still quite happy to let a new government have a crack after 12 years of Libs.
This is astute analysis.

Mephistopheles
02-04-2009, 11:14 AM
For that, see plenty of other posts where I defend the free market and
blah blah blah

Evasion noted. Feel free to admit at any time that your stereotyping has very little to support it in terms of facts or logic. Or perhaps you can react using your head rather than your heart from here on in?

Capablanca-Fan
02-04-2009, 11:17 AM
Evasion noted. Feel free to admit at any time that your stereotyping has very little to support it in terms of facts or logic. Or perhaps you can react using your head rather than your heart from here on in?
You're too lacking in objectivity to recognize sound logic if you tripped over it. It's also unreasonable to expect me to cover everything in one post, when I've amply justified my claims on this site already.

Mephistopheles
02-04-2009, 11:25 AM
It is disappointing to see Liberal leaders acting like Labor-Lite, when they could be pointing out how much better Australia was under Howard, and that his supposedly harsh IR law reforms resulted in lower unemployment than now.
Have the Work Choices IR laws been rolled back or are they still in place? IIRC, they were still in place until very, very recently (or are still in place), meaning that the current unemployment rate came into being under those laws. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Mephistopheles
02-04-2009, 11:28 AM
You're too lacking in objectivity to recognize sound logic if you tripped over it.
It would appear otherwise, as I have already pulled you up on a number of glaring logical fallacies.

BTW, objective != "agrees with Jono".

Happy to have cleared things up for you.

Capablanca-Fan
02-04-2009, 11:29 AM
Have the Work Choices IR laws been rolled back or are they still in place? IIRC, they were still in place until very, very recently (or are still in place), meaning that the current unemployment rate came into being under those laws. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Something Snail King mentioned: under the new laws, it will be very hard to dismiss a useless employee without huge amounts of "go away" money, so a number of companies are getting rid of marginal employees now to avoid possible problems later.

Mephistopheles
02-04-2009, 11:33 AM
Something Snail King mentioned: under the new laws, it will be very hard to dismiss a useless employee without huge amounts of "go away" money, so a number of companies are getting rid of marginal employees now to avoid possible problems later.
Under the old laws, though, surely it was in a company's interests to dismiss a marginal employee, especially given the downturn in the job market since late 2007?

The argument makes some sense but I feel that it is a waving of hands and little else. For example, are employers currently sacking "marginal" employees suddenly imagining that these employees will get worse rather than remain the same or improve? If so, why were the employees not dismissed in the first place?

TheJoker
02-04-2009, 03:46 PM
It is disappointing to see Liberal leaders acting like Labor-Lite, when they could be pointing out how much better Australia was under Howard, and that his supposedly harsh IR law reforms resulted in lower unemployment than now.

Jono I think you forgot about a little thing called cause and effect.

I think you'll find a great deal of economies that have had constant IR laws over the last decade experienced a declining and then recently rapidly rising unemployment rate.

IIRC the new IR laws haven't even taken effect yet, whilst their might be some preemptory action on the part of employers, that will pale into absolute insignificace compared to the action taken as a result of the global economic crisis.

I give the liberal leaders credit form not being so dim-witted as to make such a stupid statement as you suggest.

Spiny Norman
03-04-2009, 04:36 AM
via Bolta:


KEVIN Rudd reduced a young female RAAF cabin attendant to tears with a tirade of abuse because he did not get a meal he wanted during a VIP flight. The Prime Minister was forced to apologise for his behaviour, which appalled a number of senior Government officials.

An official report was filed by the flight crew about the behaviour of VIP No. 1 - Mr Rudd - after the flight from Port Moresby to Canberra in late January...The PM’s chief spin doctor, Lachlan Harris, initially tried to cover up the incident with a flat denial that it had even occurred.

Space_Dude
03-04-2009, 04:34 PM
Just saw in the news that Kevin Rudd needs to apoligise for making a flight attendant cry! So funny!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Spiny Norman
03-04-2009, 05:14 PM
Not funny for the flight attendant. Apparently he used "bad language", whatever that means. Not the first time that "Christian Kev" has been pinged for having a potty mouth. These little incidents probably track back to his reputation for being a complete control freak. Any little thing which doesn't fit his tightly regulated world may cause him to drop his bundle. Perhaps he needs some counselling?

Basil
03-04-2009, 05:29 PM
I'm not going to 'pile on' on this instance, but I will stake my claim for the future that there will be more of these stories to surface during his tenure - especially ghosts from the past. Two reasons:
1) I feel it in my water ;) :cool:
2) Ex staffer here has(d) a relative in Kev's office who reported the same thing (rude explosion). Staffer and relative were Kev fans and there was no bad blood other than the Kev explosion. I appreciate this is all just heresay and nothing more ... but I reckon there'll be a few more people speaking up as gloss thins.

arosar
03-04-2009, 05:52 PM
Yeah...the pri*k does strike me as a bit of a passive-aggressive type. They're always calm and composed most of the time, but then when their buttons are pushed at just the right moment, in the right spot - BOOM!!! The bastards just explode.

AR

Capablanca-Fan
03-04-2009, 05:58 PM
Not the first time that "Christian Kev" has been pinged for having a potty mouth.
But his "Christian" claims, just like those to be an "economic conservative", were made just to dupe useful idiots, like the Australian Christian Lobby. But those with a discernment greater than that of a dead fish knew he was a fraud even back then.

Kaitlin
03-04-2009, 06:07 PM
Not funny for the flight attendant. Apparently he used "bad language", whatever that means. Not the first time that "Christian Kev" has been pinged for having a potty mouth. These little incidents probably track back to his reputation for being a complete control freak. Any little thing which doesn't fit his tightly regulated world may cause him to drop his bundle. Perhaps he needs some counselling?

She should have slapped him - > "Australian PM gets slapped by Flight Attendant for having a potty mouth" <- would have made the headlines

Hobbes
03-04-2009, 06:35 PM
And this one from Tim Blair (http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/rudd_stunned/)


Check Kevin Rudd’s reaction when Barack Obama describes Brazilian president Lula da Silva as “the most popular politician on earth.”

And listen carefully for Rudd’s verbal comeback.

Kaitlin
03-04-2009, 06:41 PM
Every time Kevin does something good someone should give him 1 point and every time he does somethng not so good he gets [red] 1 and someoone can add them up to see how hes going :P

Spiny Norman
03-04-2009, 06:51 PM
It would be a sea of red ...

eclectic
03-04-2009, 06:57 PM
1

:rolleyes:

Mephistopheles
03-04-2009, 07:34 PM
The man is a walrus of the first order but his having a foul mouth actually warms me to him a little. I am a big believer in swearing. It makes me feel big and grown up.

The strikes against him are, to my mind:

a) being a wowser.
b) being a religious fruitcake.
c) likely being a teetotaler.
d) likely being a vegetarian.

That's more than the requisite three, by the way.

Join this nonsense with the stomach queasy thread, someone.

Basil
03-04-2009, 08:01 PM
I don't think it's the swearing, I think it's the petulance and God complex as has been suggested.

eclectic
03-04-2009, 08:06 PM
the food made his *stomach queasy*; isn't "airline" food supposed to do that? :rolleyes:

*pretext for thread merging hint as suggested by mephistopholes :uhoh:

ElevatorEscapee
03-04-2009, 09:28 PM
The banner headline of today's Melbourne Herald Sun was "Rudd Rage"! :clap: :lol:

Good thing he wasn't flying Tiger! :eek:

Spiny Norman
05-04-2009, 01:59 PM
Seems that our PM has full confidence in proven liars too:

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25290790-5001021,00.html

Basil
07-04-2009, 06:36 AM
KRudd's approval lifts again! Newspoll's result has Rudd lifting another two points to 67% (preferred PM) with 68% satisfied with Rudd's performance. Turnbull's ratings have fallen by a similar or greater margin.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

ER
07-04-2009, 08:21 AM
Is "queasines" going to be updated to "convulsions" now? :hmm:

Capablanca-Fan
07-04-2009, 10:52 AM
Rudd beyond reach (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/rudd_beyond_reach/)
Andrew Bolt
7 March 2009

It isn’t enough to say Rudd is merely profiting from splashing cash that voters haven’t yet realised must be paid back — with interest. After all, his ratings have been high for two years now.

Nor is it enough to say it’s too early to get voters to admit they were wrong at the election. After all, John Howard’s ratings after his 1996 win soon fell.

Rudd’s leave-it-to-busy-beaver act is what nervous voters want. The impression of frantic activity (no matter how misapplied) impresses them, and makes him seem not just in control, but in their control. His nerdishness seems proof of his cleverness. His soothing words count for more than his deeds. And voters are in a dangerous mood to be nannied.

On the other hand, for two years the Liberals have yet to offer a competing vision — and particularly a competing moral vision. Indeed, for too long they failed to offer even an effective criticism of what most needed criticising. They seemed to run from their own legacy. And they were stuck on winning a weekly popularity poll, rather than concentrate on winning — and starting — the important arguments they’d need to win by the time of the next election. Think emissions trading. The first stimulus package. Workplace reform.

The most effective way for the Liberals to announce they’ve changed is to elect a new leader. That’s the easy bit. The second is to elect a new leader who indeed brings that deep change. That’s the hard bit. And all this has to be done not yet, when voters still are believing or hoping that Rudd’s spend-spend-spend comes at no cost, and when the media still has plenty of time to get bored with the new Liberal leader and to tear him down.

For the Liberals, then, its an agony to endure. And a time to plan a revolution, not a criticism. A story, not a line.

Basil
07-04-2009, 10:55 AM
Is "queasines" going to be updated to "convulsions" now? :hmm:
No - there's a subtlety here.
The queasiness remains as hitherto referred to.
My post immediately above (the news of popularity) and the laughing is aimed at you saps who just luv it - and him. All one can do (in my position) is laugh.

ER
07-04-2009, 11:06 AM
No - there's a subtlety here.
The queasiness remains as hitherto referred to.
My post immediately above (the news of popularity) and the laughing is aimed at you saps who just luv it - and him. All one can do (in my position) is laugh.
lol :lol: :clap:

Basil
07-04-2009, 11:24 AM
Jono, I disagree with half of what Bolt says.

The first half I agree with - the 'leave it to Beaver', the giving of the appearance of plan and so forth.

The second half, while true in its basic premise (that the Libs didn't do well early), I disagree with its conclusion - that the Libs should have tackled Rudd earlier and harder on stimulus, emissions trading and workplace reform.

Simply, I don't believe the electorate is in the mood or has sufficient brain-space to process the things Bolt suggests the Libs pursue. Here's why.

Workplace reform
I think you'll find polling and other research (formal and otherwise) will show that there isn't a thing that the Libs can utter on workplace reform that won't score against them. As I said in a previous post, there has been some serious brain-washing of the electorate and it will take some time for that sentiment to ebb away. It is entirely irrelevant to the electorate (and barely understood I might add) that Rudd has done nothing for workplace reform in reality, however
a) the very successful demonising workchoices, and
b) the grand promise and show of ripping it up (which Gillard stills plays it magnificently) has deeper cuts than anything intelligent, or indeed necessary, for the country that the Libs might offer.

Stimulus
An appalling fark-up that history will mark as such. No question. Right now however, you can refer to Bolt's initial part (with which I agree) to account for the electorate's acceptance of it.

Green
Rudd has pinched the Libs platform. Rudd implied so much before the election and has retreated from it.
•He has successfully neutralised the Libs (economically) on green.
•He dumped the Greenies right in it (but they still love him more than they love the Libs).

The lefties who feel duped, feel only somewhat duped and are prepared to forgive this, and
•his behaviour elsewhere, and
•his rampant cluelessness commercially, and
•his duplicity on social issues (welfare, homeless, indigenous) - and

in an environment like this, there is little point in the Libs driving any message home - especially if it's a bitter one. The conservatives in the US are in the same boat. The cycle is just coming to a close in the UK.

As one comedian put it while being interviewed for the Melbourne Comedy Festival yesterday, with Bush gone, the performers will have to work harder on their material - but also tread a very fine line between appearing to make political fun of their masters while staying true to their man-crushes on Rudd and Obama. Make no mistake, the population has a generation-size crush on these people.

When a crush is involved - think of it as the teenage girl being told by dad that she can't go out. There is no upside. There is no possibility of a win. All rational thought has vacated the premises.

This is sentiment. And there is very little shifting it. The reason for this is that the sentiment is self-induced. The electorate will need to mature and heal from its wounds.

Capablanca-Fan
07-04-2009, 02:18 PM
Thanx Gunner. It's a pity you don't have regular columns.

Miranda
07-04-2009, 04:02 PM
Think of it as the teenage girl being told by dad that she can't go out. There is no upside. There is no win.
Gunner, that's all you really needed to say to get your point across.

Garvinator
08-04-2009, 12:21 PM
I have put this in the Queasy thread because it is how I feel about it, so seems like the right thread.

With the announcement of the national broadband plan, I have a very queasy ;) feeling over the total figure announced of $43b. It just seems a little too close to the figure of the stimulus figure of $42b.

I have a big feeling that this government are just making figures up as they go along, with no real though or real projections.

Capablanca-Fan
08-04-2009, 12:33 PM
True, GG. Also, if this were so great, then private investors and businesses would be flocking to it. In any case, governments are notoriously bad at picking winners, and it is even more absurd with such a rapidly changing area of technology. Who can say that fibre-to-node won't be totally obsolete 10 years from now? But since KRudd isn't spending his own money but ours, he doesn't have to worry about this.

eclectic
08-04-2009, 01:06 PM
But since KRudd isn't spending his own money but ours, he doesn't have to worry about this.

of course he's spending our money; that's a corollary of being in government!! :doh:

Desmond
08-04-2009, 01:15 PM
True, GG. Also, if this were so great, then private investors and businesses would be flocking to it. In any case, governments are notoriously bad at picking winners, and it is even more absurd with such a rapidly changing area of technology. Who can say that fibre-to-node won't be totally obsolete 10 years from now? But since KRudd isn't spending his own money but ours, he doesn't have to worry about this.
Private investors and business have flocked towards it, but Telstra has stonewalled them at every opportunity.

Basil
18-05-2009, 10:23 PM
BUMP!

Below is an action replay of the first post in this thread. Any more stragglers inclined to vote?
---------------

This is an optional poll for centrists and right-wingers. Lefties should go away and march or create their own poll.

We the undersigned ...

Kevin Rudd is entirely clueless. He has never had a good (and workable) policy idea in his life.
Kevin Rudd has pinched the Liberals policies on matters green and minimum wage.
Kevin Rudd is as chummy with the US as Howard ever was.
Kevin Rudd gave the distinct impression that
- he would distance himself from the US
- he would rip into KYOTO and embrace it until pregnant
- he would ram minimum wage through the roof
Kevin Rudd has failed in all these expectations
Kevin Rudd specialises in enterprises that would fail miserably if he ever had to compete in the commercial world - which he never has

Kevin Rudd is a ruddy-faced, clueless clown who manipulates people to the extent where he has done nothing, promised so much, delivered so little and has the public eating out of his hand baying for more.

For these reasons, Kevin Rudd makes us nauseous.

Please note ... you may add your vote over the coming months and years!

Igor_Goldenberg
19-05-2009, 04:06 PM
Add another option - "I have a strong stomach, even KRudd won't upset it".

ER
19-05-2009, 04:32 PM
Add another option - "I have a strong stomach, even KRudd won't upset it".

lol what about - "The man is pure medicine himself, even when I am crook a smile by Kev is enough to make me well again!"?

It might not be right for the topic but would make the poll more successful! :P

Basil
19-05-2009, 07:48 PM
The man is pure medicine himself
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y105/scene66/smilies/puke.gif

Sinister
19-05-2009, 07:56 PM
I'm sick of that freakin' retard Krudd, he has screwed everything so bad...it is not fair that everyone has to retire a few years later, because of his money wasting abilities, while he goes overseas free of charge just to go to strip clubs and act like the biggest dickhead in Australia :evil: :evil: :evil:

Basil
19-06-2009, 09:45 PM
I wanted to start a thread calling for best Rudd insults. Even I thought that might be a tad lacking depth. So I put my offering here. I throw down the gauntlet to do better!

Rule = only three descriptors. Bonus points may be awarded for alliteration.

Rudd: A beady-eyed, smarmy git.

ER
20-06-2009, 08:52 PM
lol now that Peter quit politics you 'll be searching for new insults for a long long long time son! :P

Basil
20-06-2009, 09:01 PM
lol now that Peter quit politics you 'll be searching for new insults for a long long long time son! :P
Limp-wristed lefty dribblings like that make me think again about running in my next lifetime. Right I'm off to puke - I haven't heaved today.

kjenhager
20-06-2009, 09:28 PM
I wanted to start a thread calling for best Rudd insults. Even I thought that might be a tad lacking depth. So I put my offering here. I throw down the gauntlet to do better!

Rule = only three descriptors. Bonus points may be awarded for alliteration.

Rudd: A beady-eyed, smarmy git.
how can you beat "KRudd" ?

Spiny Norman
21-06-2009, 06:24 AM
Much as I would like to participate in the discussion (words like "narcissistic preening doppleganger" spring to mind) ... that's just me being self-indulgent.

Whilst I hate just about everything that Rudd is (I was going to write "stands for", but I dont think he really stands for anything except self-promotion), the man is, after all is said and done, our PM. He is at least worthy of the respect that comes from the office of PM, even if I cannot reasonably attribute the source of that respect to his character.

So I am ruling a line in the sand. Henceforth I will try and lift my game. Turn over a new leaf. I don't just want to be a name-caller. If I relapse into personal invective, I hereby give my permission for all and sundry to call me on it.

Basil
21-06-2009, 10:19 AM
Much as I would like to participate in the discussion (words like "narcissistic preening doppleganger" spring to mind) ... that's just me being self-indulgent.

Whilst I hate just about everything that Rudd is (I was going to write "stands for", but I dont think he really stands for anything except self-promotion), the man is, after all is said and done, our PM. He is at least worthy of the respect that comes from the office of PM, even if I cannot reasonably attribute the source of that respect to his character.

So I am ruling a line in the sand. Henceforth I will try and lift my game. Turn over a new leaf. I don't just want to be a name-caller. If I relapse into personal invective, I hereby give my permission for all and sundry to call me on it.
Respec. Aye.

I liked preening the best!

ER
21-06-2009, 11:28 AM
you still gonna have to wait a long long long time! :P

Capablanca-Fan
21-06-2009, 01:39 PM
Do hyphenated adjectives count, such as self-righteous narcissistic control-freak?

ER
21-06-2009, 08:17 PM
Do hyphenated adjectives count, (...)?
:lol: :clap: :lol: Classic!

TheJoker
22-06-2009, 01:48 PM
I liked preening the best!

Sounds to much like a euphemism for "ear wax eating" in Rudd's case

Igor_Goldenberg
26-07-2009, 10:55 AM
Gunner, I think you will like this:
http://kevinruddrless.blogspot.com/2009/07/forget-mary-saint-kevin-is-done-deal.html, I found it hilarious.

Basil
26-07-2009, 11:29 AM
Gunner, I think you will like this:
http://kevinruddrless.blogspot.com/2009/07/forget-mary-saint-kevin-is-done-deal.html, I found it hilarious.
Thanks. A good giggle. Except I'm crying - it's so close to the bone.

Basil
26-07-2009, 11:33 AM
And this (http://kevinruddrless.blogspot.com/2009/07/messiah-to-visit-vatican.html) from the same satirical source drew an even bigger giggle. Crikey, KRudd wants to make me barf - voluminously and copiously.

Garvinator
31-07-2009, 08:50 PM
Allan Menham just sent me this by email, I think Gunner might get a laugh out of it.


How To Start Each Day With A Positive Outlook

1. Open a new file in your computer.
2. Name it ' Kevin Rudd'.
3. Send it to the Recycle Bin.
4. Empty the Recycle Bin.
5. Your PC will ask you: 'Do you really want to get rid of 'Kevin Rudd?'
6. Firmly Click 'Yes.'
7. Feel better?
GOOD - Tomorrow we'll do Wayne Swan!!!!

Basil
31-07-2009, 08:58 PM
Paying $100 HCDs to be shared by Garv, Allan and the original author. 2nd best giggle all day. Unfortunately macs do not use the same syntax when deleting. But the mind's eye is a wonderful thing :D

Igor_Goldenberg
01-08-2009, 10:54 AM
Paying $100 HCDs to be shared by Garv, Allan and the original author. 2nd best giggle all day. Unfortunately macs do not use the same syntax when deleting. But the mind's eye is a wonderful thing :D
You see, even Windows has it's usage:lol: :lol:

Spiny Norman
24-10-2009, 03:14 PM
From: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26251222-5014047,00.html

St Kevin's halo may choke him by Chris Uhlmann

Selected quotes follow:


... for the past two years the Sunday night news has often carried pictures of the Prime Minister leaving St John's.

The practice began with a request from television networks and, when his office agreed, it was on the condition that it was a picture opportunity only; Kevin Rudd was not to be assailed by journalists asking questions. Then one morning, instead of walking past the camera, Rudd stopped and made a statement.

Now his post-church sermons have become a regular feature of Sunday political fare.

Pause for a moment and imagine what the reaction would have been if John Howard had done that.

Gunner: someone else has noticed the hypocrisy ... at last!


... But Rudd has made a parade of his beliefs and is given to cloaking political arguments in moral garments.

...

There is a lot to be said for moral arguments. One of the problems with deploying them is that they are impervious to compromise. And if you lay down fields full of moral landmines to blow up your opponents, you run the risk of stepping on one yourself.

...

In Faith in Politics, Rudd measured the Howard government against the kind of Christianity Bonhoeffer preached and found it wanting. Then he listed a series of challenges for Christians. Among them was this: "Another great challenge of our age is asylum-seekers. The biblical injunction to care for the stranger in our midst is clear. The parable of the Good Samaritan is but one of many which deal with the matter of how we should respond to a vulnerable stranger in our midst."

So how, exactly, does that sit with prime ministerial mantra: "I make absolutely no apology whatsoever for taking a hard line on illegal immigration to Australia"? Or: "This government makes no apology whatsoever for the fact that we have a tough line on asylum-seekers."

On Thursday, Rudd was busy picking specks from the eyes of others as his moral indignation rose to a shriek. Castigating Malcolm Turnbull over comments Wilson Tuckey made about asylum-seekers, he accused the Opposition Leader of "an absolute want of courage and moral leadership on this most important question for the nation".

Earlier in the week he declared the Liberals "a party without one skerrick of moral compass when it comes to people-smuggling". Rudd's morality exams always seem to be set for others and the opposition's compass at least has the virtue of pointing, roughly, in one direction.

...

So the Prime Minister was faced with a choice.

The narrow gate was to make a complex argument, to explain what he was doing, and to try to change the tone of Australia's debate about asylum-seekers. The wide path was to play the hard man and tub thump.

His life was not at risk. The state he had to speak boldly to was run by him. All he was risking was an approval rating of 71 per cent.

And Rudd chose the wide path.

In the modern, relativistic, world of politics the only way of measuring a man or woman is against their own words. This was not a large test of character. But it is a telling one.

Garvinator
24-10-2009, 03:49 PM
From the above by Snail.
In the modern, relativistic, world of politics the only way of measuring a man or woman is against their own words. This was not a large test of character. But it is a telling one. I do not agree. The only way of measuring a man or woman is against her actions, not words.

Spiny Norman
24-10-2009, 05:12 PM
I think both ... comparing a person's

-- words against words (consistency of message)
-- words against actions (integrity vs hypocrisy/spin)
-- actions against actions (consistency of behaviour)

All of these work in tandem to determine a person's: I-N-T-E-G-R-I-T-Y

One might especially compare what a person does/says when people are watching (e.g. in front of the TV cameras) with what that person does/says when they think people are NOT watching (e.g. when they are on a parliamentary o/seas trip, land up in a strip joint and get so drunk they can't remember their behaviour) ... :whistle:

Garvinator
24-10-2009, 05:44 PM
(e.g. when they are on a parliamentary o/seas trip, land up in a strip joint and get so drunk they can't remember their behaviour) ... :whistle:and gets a rise in the polls from it ;)

Capablanca-Fan
28-10-2009, 02:08 PM
Now Chairman KRudd is following his idol Commissar Obamov in trying to gag criticisms. Sen. Cory Bernardi writes (http://www.corybernardi.com/2009/10/the-high-price-of-free-speech.html):


Free speech is the cornerstone of our democracy. We allow our politicians the protection of parliament so they will speak without fear or favour in the interests of their constituents and country.

Yet under new rules introduced by the Rudd Government, speaking in the Parliament is fine but sharing that message with the broader community will be subject to the approval of the public service.

In an attempt to effectively censor MPs’ communications, any material sent from electorate offices needs to be cleared by a panel of bureaucrats.

Words that fall foul of Big Brother include "reckless", "dreadful", "mismanagement" and "disgraceful", all of which could apply to any number of government programs.

Worse still, the official record of the Parliament, Hansard, also needs to be approved before it can be sent to members of the public. This makes a mockery of representative democracy, open and accountable government and the people's parliament.
...

Basil
28-10-2009, 03:01 PM
This cannot be the full story. It simply can't. Else Rudd has really outdone himself this time. How much of this sheeeeeeeeet can lefties put up with (and justify in the name of the brotherhood) before ... you know ...

Capablanca-Fan
04-11-2009, 12:30 PM
Rudd hell-bent on beating Whitlam: bad government (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,26282704-14743,00.html)
Terry McCrann
The Australian, 31 October 2009

FOR more than 30 years the Whitlam government has been the—unsurpassable—benchmark for bad government in Australia


Now, however, Kevin Rudd seems embarked on challenging that benchmark …

So what’s the basis of my call? The fiscal stimulus—or to give it its official Swan title, stimulus—is actually part of my case against the Rudd government, but it’s more the “filling” between the two truly totemic failures. The $43billion National Broadband Network and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. …

Here we have a government prepared to spend $43bn on the 21st century national infrastructure project without having embarked on the most basic cost-benefit assessment. And without having the slightest idea of what the most basic metrics could be or would have to be to make any sense of it. The very uncertainty of the figure is most damning of all.

Or perhaps the failure to ask even the most basic question of all—is there any need for it?. …

What arguably takes Rudd beyond being merely Whitlam Mark II is the CPRS—a direct and all-pervasive attack on the very foundation, not just of our national prosperity, but our very existence … Rudd wants to be the only developed country to go to Copenhagen with a mandatory carbon dioxide scheme. A sort of collective insanity seems to have engulfed the government. A seemingly trance-like desire to embrace national suicide.

Garvinator
04-11-2009, 12:40 PM
What arguably takes Rudd beyond being merely Whitlam Mark II is the CPRS—a direct and all-pervasive attack on the very foundation, not just of our national prosperity, but our very existence … Rudd wants to be the only developed country to go to Copenhagen with a mandatory carbon dioxide scheme. A sort of collective insanity seems to have engulfed the government. A seemingly trance-like desire to embrace national suicide.I wonder what Kevin Rudd plans to do if the CPRS is passed by our parliament and then after Copenhagen the other governments decide to go in a different direction.

Also another thing that has been bugging me about all this is that it seems to be based on agreements, rather than forceable actions. So what happens if in five or ten years time a future major government decides that these agreements are not for them. Does the world really have any comeback, or will it be just like everything else, where the other government will just left to beg that country to comply.

Basil
07-11-2009, 09:13 PM
Turnbull gets ovation for slamming PM

AAP November 07, 2009

KEVIN Rudd is running an "extraordinarily vain" government that is handing over Australia's immigration program to people smugglers, Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull says.
Mr Turnbull was speaking at the Victorian Liberal Party's state council today where about 300 delegates gave him a standing ovation for a speech marked by scaresult in a weakening of Australia's border control.

"Our borders should be secure, they were secure. We recklessly unpicked the policies of the previous government that worked, and as a result he has outsourced our immigration program to the people smugglers,'' Mr Turnbull said.

About 50 boats and 2200 people have arrived over the past 14 months, Mr Turnbull said, calling it a "real surge'' in arrivals.

On climate change, he told reporters after his speech at Geelong's Deakin University that negotiations with the Government on an emissions trading scheme were going well, despite Mr Rudd claiming on Friday that the talks could be sabotaged by climate change sceptics within the Liberal Party.

"That speech had a slightly loopy flavour to it,'' Mr Turnbull said of Mr Rudd's comments.

"It was really quite over the top. I think it just shows how desperate he's become.''

Mr Turnbull repeated his criticism of the government's planned national broadband network, saying it had been announced with no business plan or feasibility study.

He suggested voters were losing faith in Labor because of dramatic policy differences between the present and previous federal governments.

"We are a party of freedom, enterprise, the individual and small business,'' Mr Turnbull said.

"Labor is a party of government, of big government, of government-knows-best. And the arrogance of that approach is becoming more and more apparent to Australians every day.''

The conference continues tomorrow.

ER
08-11-2009, 02:14 AM
Mr Malcolm Turnbull, our leader of the Federal Opposition is really a likeable person; if you meet him you will notice too, He should check the contents of his e-mail more thoroughly before he goes on to makes big issues out of them!
Mr Kevin Rudd our PM has gained a massive poll popularity and he is becoming very popular in the international political scene as well.

Capablanca-Fan
08-11-2009, 04:29 PM
Howard nails Rudd as do-nothing PM (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sunday-telegraph/id-stop-the-boats-howard/story-e6frewt0-1225795330694):


FORMER Prime Minister John Howard has branded Kevin Rudd as head of a “do-nothing’’ government that has wasted the nation’s savings and bungled asylum-seeker policy.

In his first extensive interview since losing office two years ago, Mr Howard criticised the Rudd government over its spin and symbolism, profligate spending and weakness on asylum seekers.…

“The current handling of the 78 people aboard the customs ship? I’ll refrain from comment on that ... but speaking robustly in defence of our policy — we stopped the boats. People knew where we stood. We didn’t try and be all things to all men. The net result was support for immigration and a humanitarian refugee program increased.’’…

In the wide-ranging interview in his Sydney office, Mr Howard was scathing of Rudd Government achievements…

“I can’t think of a major thing it has done, except spend the bank balance that Costello and I left behind. Nothing else…

“Mr Rudd will say he had the global financial crisis to handle. Well, courtesy of us he was well endowed with money in the bank.’’

Igor_Goldenberg
08-11-2009, 05:28 PM
FORMER Prime Minister John Howard has branded Kevin Rudd as head of a “do-nothing’’ government that has wasted the nation’s savings and bungled asylum-seeker policy.

"do-nothing" is what I hoped for when Rudd took office. Unfortunately he has done (and is still doing) a lot more then "nothing".

Capablanca-Fan
08-11-2009, 09:01 PM
"do-nothing" is what I hoped for when Rudd took office. Unfortunately he has done (and is still doing) a lot more then "nothing".
Yeah, the Spendulus, and wanting to commit us to $7bill/year and abandoning national sovereignty with this crass Copenhagen treaty.

Goughfather
08-11-2009, 09:29 PM
Howard nails Rudd as do-nothing PM (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sunday-telegraph/id-stop-the-boats-howard/story-e6frewt0-1225795330694):

FORMER Prime Minister John Howard has branded Kevin Rudd as head of a “do-nothing’’ government that has wasted the nation’s savings and bungled asylum-seeker policy. ...

I'm not sure John Howard really understands yet that if people wanted his opinion, they would have re-elected him to office in November 2007 ...

Basil
08-11-2009, 09:36 PM
I'm not sure John Howard really understands yet that if people wanted his opinion, they would have re-elected him to office in November 2007 ...
I'm not sure you understand that
a) John Howard was asked for his opinion
b) Many people have clearly decided they were duped by a fraud or a dribbler at the last election

Mischa
08-11-2009, 09:40 PM
and yet you do not look like a Nazi..:)

Desmond
08-11-2009, 09:44 PM
No doubt whatever Howard's opinion "proves" will be "disproved" should someone ask for opinion of a Keating et al.

Garvinator
08-11-2009, 09:45 PM
No doubt whatever Howard's opinion "proves" will be "disproved" should someone ask for opinion of a Keating et al.
And we all know about people's opinions ;)

Capablanca-Fan
08-11-2009, 11:44 PM
I'm not sure John Howard really understands yet that if people wanted his opinion, they would have re-elected him to office in November 2007 ...
Not that you bleated so bitter when pottymouth Keating flapped his trap. Reminds me of Obamov demanding that his opponents "stop talking and get out of the way", while dissent against Shrubby who had won two elections was a patriotic duty.

Kevin Bonham
09-11-2009, 12:00 AM
b) Many people have clearly decided they were duped by a fraud or a dribbler at the last election

How many? Assuming the most recent Newspoll is a rogue (which the evidence currently points towards) then I struggle to see evidence of significant belief in this view. Coalition support in polls has generally been not much more than the loyalist rump, and Green support isn't exactly booming either.

Capablanca-Fan
09-11-2009, 01:26 AM
How many? Assuming the most recent Newspoll is a rogue (which the evidence currently points towards) then I struggle to see evidence of significant belief in this view. Coalition support in polls has generally been not much more than the loyalist rump, and Green support isn't exactly booming either.
The support won't come until the wannabe Layba Talkbull does more than me-too Rudd on the absurd ETS and Copenhagen treaties, and the Coalition starts to stand for something. The people smuggling revival under Rudd has caused many blinkers to come off.

Goughfather
09-11-2009, 03:48 AM
Not that you bleated so bitter when pottymouth Keating flapped his trap. Reminds me of Obamov demanding that his opponents "stop talking and get out of the way", while dissent against Shrubby who had won two elections was a patriotic duty.

How do you know? I'm not convinced that Keating sticking his nose into the fray has been all that helpful to his cause either. Among other things, he's looking rather aged and bitter. But more than that, whinging as a member of the "Opposition" (whether because Howard was Prime Minister, or because Labor under Rudd is a different party) does not suit him nearly so much as when he was the Prime Minister himself and was in charge of the agenda.

Basil
09-11-2009, 08:34 AM
How many? Assuming the most recent Newspoll is a rogue (which the evidence currently points towards)
I was relying on the recent Newspoll and unaware that it has been designated a rogue. If the poll stands as an accurate sentiment of the people, then so does my comment.

Kevin Bonham
09-11-2009, 11:55 AM
I was relying on the recent Newspoll and unaware that it has been designated a rogue.

A single poll showing a dramatic change is generally unreliable; confirmation should be sought from other polls before relying on it for anything.

The other polls (Morgan face to face, Essential Report, Nielsen) taken over similar time periods have all shown no significant decline. The first two named overestimate the Labor vote but if it crashes they should still catch the crash.

An interesting thing coming through in current polling from multiple posters is that despite Rudd's attempts to sound hardline, close to half the respondents think this government is too soft on asylum seekers while less than 20% think it is too harsh. But there is no strong feeling one way or the other on whether the Coalition would handle that issue any "better".

Capablanca-Fan
09-11-2009, 12:26 PM
McKibben punished for dissent, too? (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/mckibben_punished_for_dissent_too/)
Andrew Bolt
Herald Sun, 9 November 09

We’ve had the CSIRO censor a critic of Kevin Rudd’s emissions trading scheme (http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2009/s2733688.htm). School principals banned from criticising Rudd’s school spending (http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/state-tries-to-gag-principals-20090715-dlho.html). Journalists stopped from asking embarrassing questions (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_rudd_spins_the_gallery/) and now publicly smeared and vilified (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/or_up_to_your_decayed_ankles_in_100_years/). A diplomat demoted after givng Rudd unwelcome advice (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/or_up_to_your_decayed_ankles_in_100_years/).

Now this:


RESERVE Bank director Warwick McKibbin has publicly questioned (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/outspoken-rba-director-warwick-mckibbin-dropped-from-pms-science-council/story-e6frg6n6-1225795575621) whether the Rudd government dumped him from the Prime Minister’s science council as payback for saying its fiscal stimulus package was “too big”.

Speaking yesterday after Wayne Swan said the RBA was “entirely comfortable with our fiscal policy”, Professor McKibbin said he had no doubt history would show that the Rudd government had overdone the stimulus…

“I think when people look through the entrails of this, they will find billions, if not tens of billions, that was just lost,” he told The Australian.

A few weeks after he suggested that the second part of the stimulus package was too large while giving evidence at a Senate inquiry in May, he was dumped from a government advisory role on the Prime Minister’s Science and Innovation Council, Professor McKibbin said…

“I have never been punished by any other government, but maybe my views haven’t been at odds with them. I wouldn’t say it was punishment or not punishment but it wasn’t a good look.”

If only there were a David Marr around, who could write something like this (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/careful-he-might-hear-you/2007/06/01/1180205513603.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2) - but this time with far more accuracy:


Since 1996, Howard has cowed his critics, muffled the press, intimidated the ABC, gagged scientists, silenced non-government organisations, neutered Canberra’s mandarins, curtailed parliamentary scrutiny, censored the arts, banned books, criminalised protest and prosecuted whistleblowers.

Capablanca-Fan
09-11-2009, 12:35 PM
A single poll showing a dramatic change is generally unreliable; confirmation should be sought from other polls before relying on it for anything.

Today’s Nielsen poll (http://www.theage.com.au/national/nation-split-on-rudds-asylumseeker-stance-20091108-i3in.html)says support for the Rudd Government has hardly dropped at all:


Kevin Rudd’s disapproval is up 5 points and 44 per cent of Australians think current asylum-seeker policy is too soft. But Labor’s two-party lead has fallen only 1 point in a month. The ALP’s margin is 56-44 per cent, which would give the Government extra seats.

Even the favorable poll didn't help Turnbull much:


But despite the shift, Malcolm Turnbull has failed to gain popularity, with Kevin Rudd rated preferred prime minister by 63 per cent to 19 per cent...

Nelson was dumped for such low popularity ...

Basil
09-11-2009, 12:38 PM
Right then, it appears that voters haven't yet determined the guy is a useless, strutting, controlling tit.

Kevin Bonham
09-11-2009, 01:05 PM
Today’s Nielsen poll (http://www.theage.com.au/national/nation-split-on-rudds-asylumseeker-stance-20091108-i3in.html)says support for the Rudd Government has hardly dropped at all:

Indeed it may well not have dropped at all. 1 point is not stat. sig.

It would be interesting to know whether the increased disapprovals of Rudd were over asylum-seeker policy (highly likely) and if so which end of the spectrum (possibly both) they were coming from. Note also that although Rudd's disapproval is significantly up, it is up from an extremely low base. The 28 it is at now in Nielsen's polling is lower than the 32 in mid-May.

As for the Newspoll, some other signs it likely to be a rogue included the lack of an abrupt shift in leader approval ratings to match the supposed 7-point primary shift. So most likely just a really screwy sample, or less likely some kind of survey design glitch.

But it is possible that if Rudd's disapproval is up slightly over the issue, the Labor vote will take a small hit in subsequent (non-rogue) polls.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-11-2009, 01:15 PM
Right then, it appears that voters haven't yet determined the guy is a useless, strutting, controlling tit.
Do you mean Rudd, Turnbull or both? :D

ER
09-11-2009, 07:30 PM
I don't like this poll it's not a real poll since it is unbalanced and biased. Plus it doesn't have a burp category! :P It also gives the impression to overseas visitors that we all have gastric problems of some sort!

Capablanca-Fan
09-11-2009, 07:53 PM
Do you mean Rudd, Turnbull or both? :D
Probably Rudd; the polls indicate that most Australians realize that about Turnbull already.

Basil
09-11-2009, 08:45 PM
I don't like this poll it's not a real poll since it is unbalanced and biased.
Taken care of in the preamble (post #1)


Plus it doesn't have a burp category! :P It also gives the impression to overseas visitors that we all have gastric problems of some sort!
Blame Rudd :)

ER
09-11-2009, 09:11 PM
http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Laughing/lol-058.gif
Blame Rudd :)

Thunderspirit
09-11-2009, 09:49 PM
Rudd hell-bent on beating Whitlam: bad government (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,26282704-14743,00.html)
Terry McCrann
The Australian, 31 October 2009

FOR more than 30 years the Whitlam government has been the—unsurpassable—benchmark for bad government in Australia


Now, however, Kevin Rudd seems embarked on challenging that benchmark …

So what’s the basis of my call? The fiscal stimulus—or to give it its official Swan title, stimulus—is actually part of my case against the Rudd government, but it’s more the “filling” between the two truly totemic failures. The $43billion National Broadband Network and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. …

Here we have a government prepared to spend $43bn on the 21st century national infrastructure project without having embarked on the most basic cost-benefit assessment. And without having the slightest idea of what the most basic metrics could be or would have to be to make any sense of it. The very uncertainty of the figure is most damning of all.

Or perhaps the failure to ask even the most basic question of all—is there any need for it?. …

What arguably takes Rudd beyond being merely Whitlam Mark II is the CPRS—a direct and all-pervasive attack on the very foundation, not just of our national prosperity, but our very existence … Rudd wants to be the only developed country to go to Copenhagen with a mandatory carbon dioxide scheme. A sort of collective insanity seems to have engulfed the government. A seemingly trance-like desire to embrace national suicide.

Of course, this is a completely unbiased view of the Government... This seems more emotion that arguement...

Goughfather
09-11-2009, 10:45 PM
Of course, this is a completely unbiased view of the Government... This seems more emotion that arguement...

Surely you can't be criticising an article from the ex-Government Gazette, that pinnacle of journalistic integrity and excellence?

Capablanca-Fan
10-11-2009, 01:35 AM
Of course, this is a completely unbiased view of the Government... This seems more emotion that arguement...
Now that is an emotional response to McCrann's factual documentation of KRudd's spendthrift ways—that will have to be paid for some day—and the $43 billion broadband scheme launched without basic business analysis?

Kevin Bonham
11-11-2009, 01:45 AM
Re the apparently rogue poll that showed the two parties equal on primaries, Newspoll are copping a lot of abuse at the moment. The reason is that they have just released a fresh poll on the asylum seeker issue, but they have not released the raw breakdown of party support among the respondents, although it's obvious that they asked the question in order to classify results by party.

The suggestion is that the 2PP breakdown in their new poll is different to their rogue and that they are not releasing it because it would be too embarrassing to admit their previous poll was rubbish.

Capablanca-Fan
14-11-2009, 02:52 PM
A shape-shifter in the Lodge (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/a-shapeshifter-in-the-lodge-20091113-iem9.html)
Annabel Crabb
SMH 14 Nov 09

... When orthodoxy demanded it, (Kevin Rudd) was an economic conservative. When global financial exigencies encouraged it, he became a big spender. In the past month, we have witnessed manifestations in which the PM is by turns a hardline border protectionist and a humane friend to refugees.

A public proponent of the “calm, methodical” approach to policy debate, who last Friday night capped off a week of such measured exhortations with a foaming, quasi-Biblical attack on climate change sceptics, whom he accused of conspiring to “destroy our children’s future”.

A leader who was able to trumpet, on Thursday, his “vast … comprehensive micro-economic reform agenda”, having smartly abandoned one element of it, the mooted abolition of parallel import restrictions in the publishing industry, just 24 hours earlier…

Footy scarves cause him to break out into a hive of Ockerisms; the merest flash of Australian Defence Force camouflage in an audience is sufficient to roughen his vowels, and elicit the occasional expletive… “You guys really know your shit,” he enthused to a heat-packing posse of Australian troops in Kandahar last December. But seed the audience with enough think-tankers ....and you’ve bought yourself tickets to a jargon fight…

After nearly two years of Rudd as Prime Minister, close observers find themselves in an unusual position; the more we see of him, the less we know about him for sure… Rudd’s colleagues are as much in the dark about his true motives and beliefs as anyone else…

“It’s weird,” says one MP. “Yes, he doesn’t use the extraordinary amount of petrol he has in the tank to drive things, like change the dynamics of the refugee issue. But I don’t know if anyone actually knows what he really believes on this stuff...”

Garvinator
15-11-2009, 03:00 AM
Can someone help me out with this Oceanic Viking situation? I am trying to work out what right the current asylum seekers actually have to successfully claim asylum in Australia when Australia is not their first port of call.

From all the reports I have been reading and seeing, they have travelled through at least one other country to try and get to Australia. They even spent quite a lot of time in Indonesia in attempting to get to Australia.

When the Oceanic Viking picked them up, their closest port was in Indonesia, so under the International rules of the sea, that is where they were taken.

So if they were genuine refugees/asylum seekers, they would make their claims for asylum in their first port of call. I certainly can not see how any of this is Australia's responsibility.

Spiny Norman
15-11-2009, 06:55 AM
I think you will find that Australia is the first country on their path that is an actual signatory to the UN convention for the treatment of refugees (Indonesia is not a signatory).

But since they have not been on Australian territory (yet), that point would seem moot.

Kevin Bonham
16-11-2009, 04:51 PM
Labor support has now taken substantial hits in both a small poll by Morgan (down 5 points) and an Essential Report poll (down 4 points). So while the Newspoll was apparently overestimating the damage from the asylum seeker issue, it may have also caught it at a stage when other posters pollsters were only getting a whiff of it.

Garvinator
23-11-2009, 05:49 PM
Not sure which thread the following question should go, but since the question makes me a bit queasy and Kevin Rudd gives me the same reaction, it can go here.

With all this talk of negotiations and votes on the ETS/CPRS, how differentially do think all this stuff would and will have played out if Labor had a one vote majority in the senate ie they could ram through any piece of legislation without needing Coalition and other parties support?

Spiny Norman
23-11-2009, 06:08 PM
You may have seen huge pressure applied to the climate change skeptics in the Labor camp. They have been let off very, very lightly so far. There are quite a few of them, including front benchers. The mainstream media have basically ignored this and have just rammed all the 'blame' home to the skeptical Libs such as Minchin and the Nationals.

ER
24-11-2009, 12:50 PM
The Federal Government has doubled the compensation for the coal sector and more than doubled it for the electricity sector in its deal on an emissions trading scheme.
Impressive move by the PM earlier this morning!

Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull retreated behind closed doors for the long-awaited showdown with his own climate change rebels!
Interesting! Will he be able to offer some real opposition? Then again, no team, no uniformity, no homogeneity!

Igor_Goldenberg
24-11-2009, 03:16 PM
Impressive move by the PM earlier this morning!


The Federal Government has doubled the compensation for the coal sector and more than doubled it for the electricity sector in its deal on an emissions trading scheme.

So the government taxes polluting industries and pays them compensation at the same time?

ER
24-11-2009, 05:16 PM
yes and you 've seen nothing yet, wait till you see the tax payers energy extras! :)

Basil
01-01-2010, 12:15 PM
Aaaaaaahhhhhhhhh. Rudd on tv in full folksy mode telling us the monster mind-boggling debt that he thrust upon the country saved us from teh worst of the gfc.

Does he really believe this? Does the electorate? I reckon a) no (although he once did) and b) yes. Jayyyyy-sus! Like this country wasn't hugely insulated from the coalface. For the love of God and all his little angels when will this stop?

All his talk about being in this together made me puke all over the living room. He wasn't in it with me. I didn't want it. Hell he doesn't even understand it. And as for the plonkers who are sucking this tripe up ...

Whoooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Capablanca-Fan
01-01-2010, 12:30 PM
Aaaaaaahhhhhhhhh. Rudd on tv in full folksey mode telling us the monster mind-boggling debt that he thrust upon the country saved us from teh worst of the gfc.

Does he really believe this? Does the electorate? I reckon a) no (although he once did) and b) yes. Jayyyyy-sus! Like this country wasn't hugely insulated from the coalface. For the love of God and all his little angels when will this stop?

All his talk about being in this together made me puke all over the living room. He wasn't in it with me. I didn't want it. Hell he doesn't even understand it. And as for the plonkers who are sucking this tripe up ...

Whoooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Of course. Like leftards everywhere, he had to Do Something before the economy recovered on its own, as it would if left alone, especially with the surplus left by Howard/Costello. This way, KRudd can take credit, and leave the huge debts for the next Coalition government to repay.

Capablanca-Fan
01-01-2010, 12:33 PM
So the government taxes polluting industries and pays them compensation at the same time?
The French courts just ruled a similar scheme in France unconstitutional because it exempted some industries and not others.


"The large number of exemptions from the carbon tax runs counter to the goal of fighting climate change and violates the equality enjoyed by all in terms of public charges," said the constitutional council in its eleventh hour ruling last night."

This is a blow to the Turnbull-like Sarkozy. Maybe his party will do what the Aussie Coalition did and knock some sense into him, and end his fantasy of something like the ETS (Energy Tax Swindle).

Spiny Norman
01-01-2010, 07:50 PM
If the Government had spent all its savings (e.g. the Future Fund) on trying to stave off the worst of the GFC, I would have given them plenty of approval. Even better if they had either:
(a) spent that stimulus money on high-profile projects that improved the nation's productivity; or
(b) spent that stimulus money on anti-AGW projects, such as water tanks, solar panels, wind farms, etc

But the fact that they have gone so deeply into debt is just nuts. The up-to-$300B of debt will be a millstone around the neck of this economy for years to come. Money that should be spent on improvements to the productive capacity of our nation will now have to be spent in paying down the principal and interest on that debt. Taxes will have to be higher than they otherwise might be in order to pay it all back.

Stinks really. I don't think there was any need to do so much. After all, the government is still pumping stimulus into the economy now, yet homeowners are suffering interest rate rises. In effect, a good chunk of the money from government stimulus (which is, after all, our money) is going straight into the pockets of the banks.

If you take a reductionist view, you could even suggest that the government is borrowing money to subsidise the banks, and "we the people" will be continuing to pay for that subsidising for perhaps a whole generation to come. :wall:

Basil
02-01-2010, 12:25 PM
What were the mouthings Rudd made about homeless? I can't recall them, but I recall their effect. It was the first of his gesture political gobbings that continued to endear people to the lie (and the neural tap) of Brand Laba.

Well two years down the track and the problem is worse. Bugger all has been done. And the f***er's popularity continues to soar.

What. Is. The. Matter. With. You People? Mischa, you "love him". What is your parrot-brained justification for this myopic, unbreakable tract of stupidity in the face of a raft of facts that the man is a Klueless Klown?

CopenKrudd. FuelKrudd. GroceryKrudd. StimuKrudd. KyotoKrudd. BorderKrudd.

Aaaarrrggghhhhh!

Capablanca-Fan
02-01-2010, 01:14 PM
The whole political vision of the left, including socialism and communism, has failed by virtually every empirical test, in countries all around the world. But this has only led leftist intellectuals [and I would add, KRudd lovers here] to evade and denigrate empirical evidence.—Thomas Sowell (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell032399.asp)

Garvinator
02-01-2010, 04:58 PM
From the courier mail: This one gave me a chuckle.

Garvinator
02-01-2010, 05:05 PM
Damn, I can not get a picture of yesterday's cartoon from the courier mail. Can someone help out. It is in the talking point section of the paper.

Mischa
02-01-2010, 05:33 PM
would like to vote but there is no "NO"

CameronD
02-01-2010, 06:40 PM
would like to vote but there is no "NO"

I agree with mischa about the dodgy antichristish poll.

Personally, about a year ago Rudd was around 60% for me, now down to 45%

The problem is the opposition is pathetic at 0%

I can see federally, labor winning due to no alternative.

Desmond
02-01-2010, 06:48 PM
I agree with mischa about the dodgy antichristish poll.

Personally, about a year ago Rudd was around 60% for me, now down to 45%

The problem is the opposition is pathetic at 0%

I can see federally, labor winning due to no alternative.
I don't get what your percentages mean.

CameronD
02-01-2010, 06:53 PM
I don't get what your percentages mean.

my personal satisfaction level of his party

Garvinator
02-01-2010, 09:06 PM
my personal satisfaction level of his party
Update your sig... sheesh!

Capablanca-Fan
03-01-2010, 05:19 PM
Naturally there are a number of KRudd-adulators who credit him with Australia's strong economic performance relative to the rest of the world. Yet Britain and US also applied huge spendulus packages like KRudd, but their economies still suffered, with US unemployment going above what Obamov had predicted it would be without the spendulus. So if the spendulus is common to all, but Australia's performance is far better, what is the difference? KRudd-lovers are too infected with Howard Derangement Syndrome to think that it might be the strong surplus accumulated during the Howard/Costello years—and this was despite inheriting a huge debt from Keating, the NASDAQ crash and Asian financial crisis.

CameronD
03-01-2010, 05:30 PM
Update your sig... sheesbuy mh to !
No

Anyone wantingto buy my sig space, please inset your bid.

Garvinator
04-01-2010, 04:38 AM
No. Anyone wantingto buy my sig space, please inset your bid.Tumbleweeds.

Garvinator
04-01-2010, 04:39 AM
And in just one short cartoon, three years of Kevin Rudd's accomplishments.

Capablanca-Fan
04-01-2010, 10:17 AM
And in just one short cartoon, three years of Kevin Rudd's accomplishments.
Not to mention FoolWatch, GroceryWatch, 2020 Summit ...

Garvinator
04-01-2010, 08:20 PM
Not to mention FoolWatch, GroceryWatch, 2020 Summit ...Well the cartoon only has a limited size, so they had to cut some of them from the list ;)

Goughfather
04-01-2010, 09:42 PM
KRudd-lovers are too infected with Howard Derangement Syndrome to think that it might be the strong surplus accumulated during the Howard/Costello years—and this was despite inheriting a huge debt from Keating, the NASDAQ crash and Asian financial crisis.

I think its quite amusing that you contend that Australia was insulated against the brunt of the GFC, but that they were right in the middle of the NASDAQ crash and the Asian financial crisis. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story, right Jono?

Basil
04-01-2010, 09:54 PM
I think its quite amusing that you contend that Australia was insulated against the brunt of the GFC...
It was. Do you disagree? I appreciate you are making a different point, which I am not concerning myself with in this post - I merely want to know if you believe Australia was insulated from the brunt of the GFC.

Capablanca-Fan
04-01-2010, 09:54 PM
I think its quite amusing that you contend that Australia was insulated against the brunt of the GFC, but that they were right in the middle of the NASDAQ crash and the Asian financial crisis. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story, right Jono?
Your Leftard dogma continues to addle your brain, GF. You imagine contradictions that are not there.

As Gunner said about the first; the other part was to refute Leftard claims that Howard/Costello had it easy and were lucky rather than good economic managers.

Goughfather
04-01-2010, 11:09 PM
Your Leftard dogma continues to addle your brain, GF. You imagine contradictions that are not there.


Meanwhile, you baldly assert that the contradiction is not there and expect us to simply believe you in spite of the fact that you are nothing more than a shameless Howard apologist.

Capablanca-Fan
05-01-2010, 07:11 AM
Meanwhile, you baldly assert that the contradiction is not there
The onus is on you to prove it is there.


and expect us to simply believe you in spite of the fact that you are nothing more than a shameless Howard apologist.
Nothing to be ashamed of in defending his record of government, which inherited high debt and ended with a good surplus and the lowest unemployment in decades. Who besides union leaders, green rent seekers and certain lawyer types can honestly say they are better off now than under Howard?

Garvinator
05-01-2010, 07:30 AM
With all the talk about how much it is/is not going to cost to build the NBN, when will details be released of how much the consumers will have to pay to use their broadband after the network is built?

That information seems to be suspiciously missing from all the debates.

Spiny Norman
05-01-2010, 07:45 AM
That information seems to be suspiciously missing from all the debates.
That's because, when you run the numbers (using rough rule of thumb estimates) you will find that a $40B+ investment in broadband is needed like a hole in the head and will be a white elephant. Either it will be so highly priced that only businesses will be able to afford it, or it will be so cheaply priced (to get consumer takeup) that it will lose loads of money.

Add all the ISPs in Australia together and tell me their turnover? If you don't know, I'm not surprised (neither do I). But Telstra claim that their ADSL revenues in 2009 were $149M (source: their annual report http://www.telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/investor/docs/tls696_2009annualreport.pdf).

Lets guestimate some things ... some rough assumptions:
-- Telstra only account for 20% of the retail ADSL market
-- mobile data services might give them an extra boost over time

20% of x = $149M means x is roughly $750M/year. Add some mobile data and lets suggest that the market is therefore about $1B.

Interest bill on a $40B project is at least $2B/year (generous interest rate assumed). The $40B figure is very, very suspect. No technology plan has been announced as far as I know. No business plan was ever written.

If anyone can make money off a $40B broadband project, I'll be a monkey's uncle.

Garvinator
05-01-2010, 08:08 AM
If anyone can make money off a $40B broadband project, I'll be a monkey's uncle.Since you have mentioned businesses, I can think of someone who will make money off a 40B broadband project. So, welcome to the monkey's uncle club.

The business that will make money is the banks :lol: with loan re-payment interest rates :whistle:

Desmond
05-01-2010, 12:14 PM
No

Anyone wantingto buy my sig space, please inset your bid.
Yep that would be a better sig. Don't think Moz had much luck but you're welcome to try.

Capablanca-Fan
05-01-2010, 02:16 PM
That's because, when you run the numbers (using rough rule of thumb estimates) you will find that a $40B+ investment in broadband is needed like a hole in the head and will be a white elephant. Either it will be so highly priced that only businesses will be able to afford it, or it will be so cheaply priced (to get consumer takeup) that it will lose loads of money.

Add all the ISPs in Australia together and tell me their turnover? If you don't know, I'm not surprised (neither do I). But Telstra claim that their ADSL revenues in 2009 were $149M (source: their annual report http://www.telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/investor/docs/tls696_2009annualreport.pdf).

Lets guestimate some things ... some rough assumptions:
-- Telstra only account for 20% of the retail ADSL market
-- mobile data services might give them an extra boost over time

20% of x = $149M means x is roughly $750M/year. Add some mobile data and lets suggest that the market is therefore about $1B.

Interest bill on a $40B project is at least $2B/year (generous interest rate assumed). The $40B figure is very, very suspect. No technology plan has been announced as far as I know. No business plan was ever written.

If anyone can make money off a $40B broadband project, I'll be a monkey's uncle.
That seems like a sound analysis. So where it any business plan from Layba to justify it?

But even if it bankrupts our country, the KRudd-adulators like GF will still adore him.

Garvinator
10-01-2010, 04:02 PM
Ok, as most of you might have noticed, I am not shy at giving it to our Labor governments. But for this post I think the opposition really are being ridiculous.

The opposition have been saying that Kevin Rudd should guarantee the safety of the Australian Commonwealth Games team when they go to India.

What a ridiculous call from the opposition. There is no way Kevin Rudd or anyone else can guarantee the safety of an entire team from an terrorist attack. The only possible way is to ban them from going.

Swathe
10-01-2010, 09:21 PM
I voted permanently, cannot stand the man.

Igor_Goldenberg
20-01-2010, 10:06 AM
Rudd says big spending days are over (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/rudd-says-big-spending-days-are-over/story-fn3dxity-1225821358284)
Really?


"Mr Rudd said his plan to restrain finances, which includes lifting the pension age to 67, would leave the budget 3.5 per cent of GDP better off by 2050.
That equated to $130 billion."

According to shadow treasurer Joe Hockey:

"This is the man who has said he was a fiscal conservative, but he's taking our nation towards $256 billion gross debt," he told ABC Radio.

130 billions over 40 years does not look like a good return on 256 billions.

Basil
20-01-2010, 11:15 AM
Rudd/ Gillard ticket super pukeworthy again. After months of attempting to foist an indulgent, self-serving green agenda (pre-Copenhagen) upon his people (no doubt visulaising that Time front cover) in order to lead the world by example ...

... I am force-fed Gillard spinning down post-Copenhagan making it *very clear* (and entirely unprompted) that "Laba doesn't want to be ahead of the world" but merely to walk along side of it.

Bloody, lying, cheating, dribbling, spinning, puking, little bastards.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh.
Where's the bucket? Too late.

Desmond
20-01-2010, 11:20 AM
Mr Rudd also sought to blame the Howard Government for the economic challenges of the future.

The soon-to-be-released third Intergenerational Report had found that the big spending of the Howard years "has locked in a permanently higher spending base'', he said.

That made it harder to help the economy cope with the challenge of an ageing population.

Mr Rudd criticised former PM John Howard for increasing annual spending by 3.8 per cent a year during the mining boom of the early 2000s, saying that was profligate.

"Governments in boom times ought to exercise spending restraint.''

Jaysus is he for real? He should try his hand at stand-up.

Spiny Norman
20-01-2010, 11:31 AM
Always remember that the key to being a good politician is that you must be an expert in the art of deception; the very first person you need to deceive is yourself, because if you cannot lie effectively to yourself about your actions when you look at yourself in the bathroom mirror, you have no hope of lying effectively to the population at large.

Capablanca-Fan
23-01-2010, 10:03 AM
Leftards don't realize that the best protection of employees is other employers. I.e., if an employer treats his employees badly, he risks losing them to another employer who offers better conditions.

Or rather, leftards won't admit they realize this, because they are in bed with the union leaders, and just pretend to be for the "workers". That's why they support policies that make it harder for employers to hire, e.g. the payroll tax which is a fine on hiring people, and getting rid of work choices, so employers are more reluctant to hire in case they can't get rid of them if they don't work out, or minimum wage laws that discriminate against young and less skilled workers. These leftard policies hurt workers and result in more unemployment, but the protect the unions from competition so drive union wages up.

Garvinator
23-01-2010, 11:30 AM
There should be a thread, Does TAbbott Make Your Stomach Queasy?

Capablanca-Fan
10-02-2010, 11:44 AM
Rudd doesn't impress a polite young audience with his political spin:


In just over an hour Kevin Rudd did more to alienate young voters than he has in more than two years of government (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/how-teens-took-rudd-to-the-cleaners-in-question-time-20100209-npjb.html)…

Six minutes into Q&A on ABC TV, came the first question to unsettle the Prime Minister: ‘’Mr Rudd, I’d like to know how you expect us to trust you...Our generation are the ones that got behind you in the Kevin 07 and now you expect us to trust you on everything you’re saying. And you broke promises like the laptops ones and the health ones and all the ones that are important to our generation.’’

This was the tenor of the evening - a Prime Minister criticised by young people, responding to them as he would journalists, looking all the more unattractive for it. You could see Rudd expected it to be easy, but once it started he oscillated between aggression and condescension…

As one Twitter user wrote: ‘’Kevin Rudd is ripping into the sort of girls who denied him sex in high school.’’ Unfortunately, there were moments when that was exactly how it looked.


THE performance of Kevin Rudd on Monday night’s ABC TV program Q&A was nothing short of embarrassing (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/tetchy-pm-fails-to-satisfy-young-audience/story-e6frg6zo-1225828494797)…

As Rudd was taken to task by the youngsters for failing to deliver on his election commitments, he became increasingly surly, lecturing them with glib uses of political spin. The audience was having none of it (neither was Jones).

At one point, Rudd almost lost his temper with a girl all of 16 years of age, who shook her head at his answer on school laptops, telling her with a sharp look and tone in his voice: “You’re shaking your head. Can I just say that is a fact, and if you ring up principals from around the country, it’s happening.”

Yeah, right. The Australian begs to differ:


What Rudd said on Q&A versus reality -----

RHETORIC: “Laptops, which is computers in schools, we said we would have a computer for every young person at secondary school from Year 9 and above by, I seem to recall, 2013 or thereabouts.”
REALITY: The original 2007 election commitment was for the laptops to be rolled out in four years (by 2011).
----------------------------------------
RHETORIC: “We are on track to doing that. We have about 260,000 computers out there in schools now ... can I just say that is a fact.”

REALITY: According to Senate estimates, 154,000 of the one million promised laptops are in operation.

----------------------------------------
RHETORIC: “My predecessor ripped a billion dollars out of the public hospital system.”
REALITY: According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, federal government expenditure on public hospitals went from $5.2bn in 1995-96 to $10.7bn in 2006-07.
----------------------------------------
RHETORIC: “In our two years in office, and our predecessors were there for 12, we’ve increased investment in hospitals by 50 per cent.”

REALITY: According to the intergenerational report, an additional 11 per cent of funding over the next five years is going into the hospital and health system above what was already in previous agreements.
----------------------------------------
RHETORIC: “Since we’ve taken this measure on alcopops, the consumption of alcopops, I think, has gone down by about 33 per cent.”

REALITY: Alcopops consumption initially went down by 25 per cent before starting to increase. Treasury estimates further increases in consumption in the coming years.
----------------------------------------
RHETORIC: “If the states and territories do not accept the government’s reform plan for the future of health and hospitals, then we will go to the people and seek a mandate to take over overall responsibility for the system.”

REALITY: What happened to the timing from Kevin Rudd’s August 23, 2007, press release? “If by mid-2009 the commonwealth and the states and territories have not begun implementing the National Health Reform Plan, a proposition for the commonwealth to assume full funding responsibility will be developed and put to the Australian people.”
----------------------------------------
RHETORIC: “We’ve increased also the number of nurses for training.”

REALITY: Nicola Roxon on Sky News yesterday admitted the government had attracted only 800 out of an anticipated 8000 new nurses in the Bringing the Nurses back to the Workplace Program, two years into a four-year program.
----------------------------------------
RHETORIC: “Unemployment here - it’s 5.8 per cent. It’s the second-lowest of all the major advanced economies in the world.”

REALITY: South Korea 3.5 per cent; The Netherlands 4.0 per cent; Switzerland 4.6 per cent; Japan 5.1 per cent; Austria 5.4 per cent; and Mexico 5.4 per cent.

Spiny Norman
11-02-2010, 05:36 AM
Some people are generous and call that stuff Rhetoric. When its as consistently wrong on so many topics in such a short space of time, I have to conclude that its not rhetoric but rather Lies.

Either lies, or perhaps Breathtaking Incompetence.

Any other suggestions for how our PM can get is so wrong so often in such a short space of time?

Desmond
11-02-2010, 09:50 AM
I watched the QandA show and I think some of the above is taken out of context. Some of it's accurate too.

Capablanca-Fan
15-02-2010, 02:01 PM
Typical of the Lefty Anointed, the KRudd Government doesn't really care about the people it pretends to. For them and their Union buddies, workers are “better off” with “rights” than jobs they actually want: (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/despite-sackings-workers-better-off/story-e6frg6nf-1225827624087)


WORKPLACE Relations Minister Julia Gillard yesterday boasted workers were better off under Labor despite the sacking of six teenagers because the government’s new laws won’t let them work shifts under three hours. Ms Gillard said that under the Fair Work Act, workers would not be disadvantaged since their take-home pay was guaranteed and they had improved rights.

...

Last week, The Australian revealed that six teenagers aged between 16 and 18 had lost their jobs at a Victorian hardware store because under the new laws they were prevented from being able to work less than three hours a day.

Their employer, Charlie Duynhoven from the Terang and District Co-operative, 210km southwest of Melbourne, wanted to keep giving the teenagers shifts at the store but he had no option but to sack them because he couldn't afford to pay them for three hours when only 1.5 hours of work was available.

...

Opposition workplace relations spokesman Eric Abetz said more flexibility was needed under the new laws. "What we're seeing is the Julia Gillard straitjacket of one size fits all causing a lot of discrimination and hurt in the community and we believe that flexibility and common sense should be prevailing," he said.

Newsagent Mark Fletcher points out (http://www.newsagencyblog.com.au/2010/02/15/high-school-and-uni-students-suffer-from-fair-work-act.html) that newsagencies are also being forced to sack students doing after-hours work, although the students want this work:


Students are a valuable labour force for newsagents. Newsagencies have been a valuable learning and income opportunity for students. The Fair Work Act is changing that thanks to the minimum hours provisions.

Consider the case of “Nick”. For three years he has worked three nights a week, after school, for between and hour and a half and two hours. The newsagency was on the way home. He was happy with the work and the award wage he was paid. Now, under the new provisions, he will have to be let go since he cannot be given the minimum hours as the business closes at 6pm and he cannot get there before 4:15pm.

This story is not unique. I have heard from at least twenty-five newsagents of with similar stories, especially in high-street and regional situations. I’d estimate that more than two-thirds of newsagencies employ students for short hours. While it is hard to give a number of students affected without surveying all newsagents, I’d estimate that more than 15,000 students would be affected.

Adamski
15-02-2010, 03:29 PM
Yes, this is sad. People wanting to work should be able to work, even if it is only for 1.5 hours or so in a stint. Change the law, Labor! My son, who happens to be named Nick but is not the one in the link from Jono, is one who has sometimes only been able to get short work stints, less than 3 hours. He has a disability. The law penalises people with a disability. That is ridiculous.

Ian Murray
15-02-2010, 10:14 PM
The flip side is that the minimum shift payment prevents workers being called out unwillingly for an hour or two at a time, which is exploitive. Where do you strike a balance?

Basil
15-02-2010, 10:23 PM
The flip side is that the minimum shift payment prevents workers being called out unwillingly for an hour or two at a time, which is exploitive. Where do you strike a balance?
A flip-side? A flip-side? Sacrilege! Has Comrade Ian advised Comrades Gillard and Rudd that there is a flip-side? We were of the distinct understanding that the very righteous new policy had been written over the very evil old. Now there is talk of a flip-side? This is more of Comrade Learning-On-The-Job if you ask me.

Capablanca-Fan
15-02-2010, 11:54 PM
The flip side is that the minimum shift payment prevents workers being called out unwillingly for an hour or two at a time, which is exploitive. Where do you strike a balance?
The people who losts there jobs were willing to work short shifts. But Leftards give short shrift to people making their own decisions on how long they want to work or hire people.


Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “Think things, not words.” In words, many see a need for “social justice” to override “the dictates of the market.” In reality, what is called “the market” consists of human beings making their own choices at their own cost. What is called “social justice” is government imposition of the notions of third parties, who pay no price for being wrong. —Thomas Sowell (http://article.nationalreview.com/409160/think-things-not-words/thomas-sowell)

Kevin Bonham
16-02-2010, 12:59 AM
I've had to deal with this sort of nonsense too. Early last year I was working a couple of casual jobs for different employers on campus at once and if there were holdups on one then working 60-90 mins on the other was often good time management; also switching between the two made for pleasant task variation. But there was red tape preventing me from making a claim for working less than three hours on one job on a specific day, so I had to get around that by claiming those bits and pieces in batches as if they had all been worked on one day.


The flip side is that the minimum shift payment prevents workers being called out unwillingly for an hour or two at a time, which is exploitive. Where do you strike a balance?

How about by giving the worker the right to accept, refuse or negotiate such callouts and subjecting any employer found to have sacked a worker for refusing such a callout to a penalty so hefty that no employer would even think about it?

Adamski
16-02-2010, 04:51 AM
How about by giving the worker the right to accept, refuse or negotiate such callouts and subjecting any employer found to have sacked a worker for refusing such a callout to a penalty so hefty that no employer would even think about it?Good thinking, Kevin. I agree.

Ian Murray
16-02-2010, 07:21 AM
How about by giving the worker the right to accept, refuse or negotiate such callouts and subjecting any employer found to have sacked a worker for refusing such a callout to a penalty so hefty that no employer would even think about it?
Agreed. Such an agreement between adults would be fine.

But thinking of the young kids working casual jobs, like those whose causes are espoused by Jono and Adamski, they remain open to exploitation. If the boss says "I want you to come in for half an hour on Saturday morning and Saturday afternoon - is that OK?" how many of those kids would have the gumption and the workplace-law knowledge to stand up and say no? They may have the right to refuse, but are too young to exercise that right. How do you legislate to protect them, and adult workers in a similar position?

Basil
16-02-2010, 07:24 AM
Agreed. Such an agreement between adults would be fine.

But thinking of the young kids working casual jobs, like those whose causes are espoused by Jono and Adamski, they remain open to exploitation. If the boss says "I want you to come in for half an hour on Saturday morning and Saturday afternoon - is that OK?" how many of those kids would have the gumption and the workplace-law knowledge to stand up and say no? They may have the right to refuse, but are too young to exercise that right. How do you legislate to protect them, and adult workers in a similar position?
Well excuse me comrades, it would have been great if you'd have worked this out BEFORE implementing your own brand of clueless, overbearing, uni/ dockfront group-think witterings, presented as new fresh think.

Ian Murray
16-02-2010, 07:52 AM
Well excuse me comrades, it would have been great if you'd have worked this out BEFORE implementing your own brand of clueless, overbearing, daddy-taught-me-in uni/ dockfront witterings, presented as new fresh think.
Armchair criticism is easy, but perhaps the only practical alternative with no loopholes is a minimum three-hour callout.

Capablanca-Fan
16-02-2010, 09:23 AM
Armchair criticism is easy,
Is that what you call concrete cases of many after-school jobs being lost, despite being wanted by the schoolkids and approved by their parents? But of course leftards know better how to run people's lives than they do themselves.


but perhaps the only practical alternative with no loopholes is a minimum three-hour callout.
Yet that would have made many of my tutoring jobs illegal.

Just like minimum wage laws, minimum hour laws leads to higher unemployment. The former discriminate against the low-skilled, and the latter hurt those with limited hours. They hurt minorities and poor people more, by denying them the chance to start on the job ladder and acquire skills like punctuality, serving customers, co-operating with other staff, handling money.
ca8Z__o52sk

Capablanca-Fan
16-02-2010, 11:31 AM
Terry McCrann says that KRudd's government is becoming like Whitlam's (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/kevin-rudds-chaos-theory/story-e6frfig6-1225830693701), but at least Whitlam had an apolitical treasury to provide independent advice unlike the current lap-dogs.


THE Rudd Government is careening out of control. It has lost all policy coherence beyond seemingly one central idea - throwing (your) money around.

Two things make it worse. The government is back to ‘picking winners.’ Whether by throwing darts at a hypothetical dartboard. Or on the basis of who manages to catch a ministerial ear in a plush snow hideaway or even the prime ministerial ear in a lush tropical hideaway.

Secondly, and what makes the reality of a prime minister and a government that are already worse than the benchmark in Australia - Gough Whitlam and the Whitlam government - so much more disturbing, is the utter compromising of an incompetent bureaucracy.

At least in the Whitlam period, Treasury was a bastion of tough independent advice. Both detailing reality and warning the government of the consequences of its crazier irresponsibilities. Today the Treasury of Ken Henry excels in telling the government what it wants to hear; Henry seems to relish a role as an ex officio member of the cabinet.

Kevin Bonham
16-02-2010, 01:08 PM
But thinking of the young kids working casual jobs, like those whose causes are espoused by Jono and Adamski, they remain open to exploitation. If the boss says "I want you to come in for half an hour on Saturday morning and Saturday afternoon - is that OK?" how many of those kids would have the gumption and the workplace-law knowledge to stand up and say no? They may have the right to refuse, but are too young to exercise that right. How do you legislate to protect them, and adult workers in a similar position?

There aren't any adult workers who are "too young to exercise that right" so I'm not sure what similar position you have in mind there - workers with diminished intellectual capacity perhaps?

If children have inadequate workplace-law knowledge then the solution is better workplace-law education and requiring the employer to inform the employee of their legal right to refuse when calling them up. If children have insufficient gumption (even in consultation with their parents) then acquiring it at an early age can be part of their workplace learning experience.

One further reform that might be worth considering, however, is to require employers to pay the employee's travel time to and from the workplace for short callouts, at minimum allowable rates. I know from experience that travel time can be one of the most irritating aspects of very small bits of work - if you're being paid a reasonable hourly rate but have to travel an hour in each direction to work one hour, it can turn into sub-award payment for your total time very quickly. Of course, this would advantage workers who lived near the workplace in question, and some who lived further out might be happy to travel an hour in each direction and get ripped off, as an alternative to not working at all.

All these issues are products of the complexity created by the perceived need to regulate employment conditions at all. Most of that perceived need results from unemployment being so unattractive that an incentive exists for people to accept employment under exploitative circumstances. Make the conditions of unemployment payments more reasonable and nearly all workplace regulation becomes unnecessary and can be abolished, since people treated too exploitatively by employers will simply quit. Of course, you then get increased dole-bludging but I suspect the economic benefits of deregulation would cover for that.


Armchair criticism is easy, but perhaps the only practical alternative with no loopholes is a minimum three-hour callout.

A few people, underage or not, being exploited via loopholes as a result of their own decisions to accept exploitative conditions when offered the choice would be preferable in my view to denying all the possibility of work under conditions many would be happy with.

Garvinator
16-02-2010, 01:39 PM
I thought it was that if a person was rostered for a shift less than three hours, they still had to be paid for the total three hours. Has this changed under the new laws?

Capablanca-Fan
17-02-2010, 09:34 AM
IM's example was indeed a well-meaning fear of exploitation, but "hard cases make bad law". The ones hurt by the law are those who would stop by at a small business on the way home from school and work for one or two hours. KB's solution would be reasonable.

Note also, Commissar Gillardova is also helping big business, i.e. crony capitalism, by making it harder for small ones to compete by offering low-hour jobs that schoolkids want and their parents are happy for them to have.

Basil
17-02-2010, 08:01 PM
I don't follow the media.
Wrap your goggles around this one (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/opinion/kev-the-chamelion-keeps-on-changing-his-colours/story-e6frgd0x-1225831111826)
One of the best lampoonings that I've seen so far. Incidentally, they're coming thick and fast ATM.

Capablanca-Fan
21-02-2010, 06:56 PM
Curiouser and curiouser (http://www.theage.com.au/national/curiouser-and-curiouser-20100220-omsa.html)
Miles Peterson
The Age, 21 February 2010

...

I was given my first speech to write. I was not given an induction, training, an occupational health and safety lecture, a security clearance, a standard operating procedures manual, a style guide or anything you would expect when starting a job with the federal government of Australia…

Around the same time a section meeting was called. Our boss arrived late, but in the best of moods. ‘’We’re under budget!’’ she announced proudly. The old-timers let out whoops of joy… Our section was under-budget by hundreds of thousands of dollars, necessitating we blow all the unspent money before the end of the financial year. Unfortunately, ‘’training’’ did not mean I would finally get some training. ‘’Training’’ consisted of hastily booked, dubiously relevant conferences and courses, most of which were conveniently located a long way from Canberra....

I started to have my first run-ins with the ministers’ staff, cranky young professionals who were forever firing off orders and then countermanding them.... The ministers’ staff were as fond of cancelling events as they were of commissioning them. Then it fell to someone, usually me, to ring the nursing home or hospital or wherever the planned visit was to be and tell the locals to stand down their troops. The minister would not be coming....

After remaining silent on the issue for many months, the Prime Minister suddenly took an interest in the nation’s health. I found out when a grim-faced boss herded us all together. ‘’The PM is going to make a health announcement and you have to organise it,’’ we were told.

‘’When’s it happening?’’

‘’Monday.’’ (It was Friday afternoon.)

‘’When did we first learn about it?’’

‘’Now.’’

And that is how the department’s major reform initiative, YourHealth, and its associated round of public consultations began. ..

The Prime Minister’s office staff feared nobody and respected them less. The only time they shut up was when the Prime Minister himself was speaking. Any other speaker, including Minister Roxon and the commission’s spokeswoman, could go to hell. One grabbed my pen from my hand and stormed off with it. I later asked for it back and was laughed at....

A (YourHealth) website was thrown up that looked ghastly when it first went live, so ghastly the Prime Minister refused to promote it as had been planned… The gossip was the Prime Minister’s attention had been caught by the Web 2.0 phenomenon, as had many Western leaders in the wake of Obama’s presidential campaign, and YourHealth.gov.au would be the first to jump on the bandwagon.

Along with the tidal wave of events we suddenly had to organise, I was given a new duty: ensuring photographers were always present to capture our ministers nodding gravely as they consulted. There was no limit to the cost. Fortunate photographers around the country suddenly found themselves hired, whatever quote they supplied.... Money was thrown at local production companies to create sincere-looking website testimonials. Staff were ordered to use the site and vote on the polls to generate hits…

Capablanca-Fan
22-02-2010, 09:07 AM
How Rudd the dud dropped Australia in the alphabet soup (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/how-rudd-the-dud-dropped-australia-in-the-alphabet-soup-20100221-ontz.html)
Paul Sheehan
SMH, 22 February 2010

Rarely has a government promised so much, spent so much, said so much, and launched so many nationwide programs, and delivered so little value for money and expectation. Two years of Kevin Rudd has produced 20 years of debt, and most of it cannot be blamed on the global financial crisis. This alphabet soup is self-inflicted.

...

Debt and deficit The Rudd government inherited a massive $90 billion financial firewall when it came to office, via a federal budget surplus, the Future Fund and two infrastructure funds. In two years the budget has gone from $20 billion in surplus to $58 billion in deficit. Net federal debt has gone from zero to a projection of between $130 billion and $180 billion. It took the previous government 10 years to dismantle the $96 billion debt mountain that it inherited. It took Rudd one year to build it back up again.

ETS The Copenhagen climate conference was a disaster. Rudd's emissions trading scheme is abstract, complex, expensive and polls show about 80 per cent of Australians do not understand or trust it. A T-shirt produced by Newcastle steelworkers distils the political problem: "Rudd's ETS: Higher Prices. Lost Jobs. 0.001 degrees cooler."

Fuelwatch Big promise, empty outcome.

Grocerywatch Ditto.

Hospitals Ditto.

...

Opposition theft The Rudd government inherited the strongest budget position and banking sector of any major Western economy, which protected Australia from the global financial crisis. The government pretends this was all its own work.

...

Basil
27-02-2010, 11:52 AM
The lefties who enjoyed trotting out anti-Howard commentary regarding Howard's love affair with talkback may find succour (not!) in this scathing examination of Rudd's own far more insidious duplicitous, arrogant and self-serving media machinations (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/be-ready-the-pm-will-speak-to-you-now/story-e6frg74x-1225834951275).

John Howard was consistent. Rudd is ... found out!

Desmond
27-02-2010, 12:23 PM
The lefties who enjoyed trotting out anti-Howard commentary regarding Howard's love affair with talkback may find succour (not!) in this scathing examination of Rudd's own far more insidious duplicitous, arrogant and self-serving media machinations (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/be-ready-the-pm-will-speak-to-you-now/story-e6frg74x-1225834951275).

John Howard was consistent. Rudd is ... found out!
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