The mostly friendly Australian bird of the family Artamidae (not to be confused with the Corvidae of the European magpie) who uses this branch of cyberspace to express various comments and opinions from deep inside the Pacific Rim, bids you welcome...
It's the perfect outcome in a completely ridiculous situation. It's the slap in the face that the major parties needed. And us as well.
Just let me enjoy the peaceful quiet eye of this particular cyclone ...in the short space of time before the deals are done and our fates are sealed so that I can dream of actual parliamentary process reforms being made by the independants who have become king slash queen makers.
Of course, it is only a small window of opportunity. The bargaining over the carcass is about to begin and once the price of their neutrality is sounded out the blood pacts will be made.
The independants come across as human at least, which is obviously an improvement on the current state. Tony Windsor in particular impressed me today on Q&A (for those that don't live here, the best informal debating program we have in Australia - where politicians are forced to both face off against each other and the public).
The current government doesn't deserve to be returned - its ineptitude was atrocious at best, dangerous at its worst. And hell, the clan's own assassins are already circling anyway, eagerly lapping their tongues at the blood in the water.
Again.
And like proper assassins, the one that put the dirk in Gillard's hand remains slinking in the shadows, and with much disregard for the community pulled a last minute no show on the program noted above.
So much for public accountability.
As for the opposition...well, there's not much to be said. They easily ran the better campaign, but it was a desperately negative and boring affair. I'm harsher on that lot in particular because it's where my allegiances normally lay.
But they really do suck at the moment. Still, they did lose some of the fools (Tuckey) and picked up Australia's yougest representative ever to the national parliament (a 20 year old) and by the looks the first Aboriginal as well - so perhaps there's a future.
In fact, I'd say the future looks better for the "liberals" (quotations intended) - if the trend of increased popularity to the greens continues (and let's hope not - much of their popularity was undoubtably a protest vote in any event), then much like how the liberals have been squeezed by the labour party in recent times, the greens will perhaps now force the labour party into a quandary about moving back to the left.
And I think the greens are in for a surprise. Assuming they survive the loss of the protest vote, then they will become an almost major party compared to the fringe dwellers they are. It will be interesting to see how they deal with their 'purity' now that they have to balance their actions against the rest of the society they now need to consider.
It'll be good to see them held to account for their policies. For once.
Chaos is coming, if only for a little while, and I say bring it on.
"The current government doesn't deserve to be returned - its ineptitude was atrocious at best, dangerous at its worst"
Labor kept Australia out of recession, almost alone in the advanced world, in the worst global downturn since The Great Depression. Fifty of the country's leading economist and a Nobel Prize winner for economics directly credited Labor's stimulus packages for this.
People forget things awful quick.... Rudd-Gillard ended Howard's phantom culture war, and settled things with the stolen generations. They actually took notice of the UN, and decided locking children away in fly-blown malaria-infested hellholes was not worth appeasing the rednecks.
John Howard was (and is) a total pig. Grinning from the sidelines over all this, like the sleazy fuck he is, after not being given the ICC job because the rest of the Commonwealth knows what he is.
And Abbott is his protégé.
Three of those independents you like so much are ex-Nationals - i.e. three hicks from a dying parochial party that decided to bail rather than fix it.
If the Coalition government before this one was somehow more competent, then it was a competency of destructiveness. They fucking went along with the invasion of Iraq, for Christ's sake...! A million people dead. This is the mob that introduced the Australian values test. They were on their way to a soft version of the White Australia policy. The fucking pig got up in parliament and declared we are a society based on Judeo-Christian principles. Workchoices was just the final straw. People woke up then and saw what he was about.
"assassins"? Sigil, who did Abbott replace? Who did the man before him replace? That's how politics goes... Gillard had the numbers and Rudd didn't.
I know you're a couple of posts past this one now, but I feel the need to respond to at least show the rest of your audience that I'm not simply a troll that appears, drops a argumentative post and then vanishes. That's certainly not the aim - I'm just trying to present another viewpoint.
Although I agree with some of the things you raise in your reply, I still stand by my opening claim. Looking at a couple of the points you note individually:
On Labor saving Australia from entering recession:
Labor's continuous claim throughout the campaign that they were single handedly responsible for keeping Australia out of recession is just false. In addition to fiscal policy, it was a combination of falling interest rates, the fall in the value of the Australian dollar, the fact that our banks have better regulations than most countries (especially the US), China and the mining boom, and the state of the economy was when Labor won office. There are plenty of views (including a Reserve Bank director) that point out from purely a timing point of view, most of the spending hit the economy much later than the time of the crisis. There's just no way they can justify saying that they saved the world all by themselves.
And the above doesn't even begin to touch on how badly/dangerously/selfishly they handled the roll-out of the actual programs.
Let's start with the BER which had a trend of favouring Labour held seats compared to Liberals (along the lines of double the approval rate) - and sure, the Liberals are just as guilty of pork-barreling. Then there's the overblown costs of individual projects, which Labor writes off as the 'cost' of the stimulus, which could be argued as an acceptable approach, except they tend not to acknowledge that the rush lead to buildings that were either did not meet appropriate regulations, or just weren't what individual schools needed.
Then there's the Green Loans program, which suffered from almost 100% of cases being done without open competition and evidence of splitting contracts so that management authorisation could be avoided, repeated breaches of compliance in relation to government financial/procurement regulations, unaddressed conflicts of interest, lack of documentation, poor contract management etc etc. In two instances in particular, contract costs blew out from $50k to $462k, and $770k to nearly $3.5 million and above all that there was no quality assurance program implemented at all. The blow out in the solar panel scheme was almost as bad.
Finally, there's the infamous pink batts program which I know I don't need to tell you, costs aside, have led to hundreds of house fires and the deaths of four people. Now...you could argue that this comment alone is a pretty low and cheap shot to make, given that the Labor government didn't actually kill the people nor start the fires themselves and I'd agree with you.....except that they were woefully unable to and/or refused to from Canberra use any proper project management delivery in relation to this program (and by that, any sort of appropriate risk management controls) and when they did get some notification of the dangers involved, the Prime Minister (at the time - not the one that just lost, but she was there too) repeatedly and willfully ignored warnings provided by their own minister responsible for the scheme. A man, mind you, that they made take the fall for their incompetence.
So guilty are they in this that they refuse to release certain internal memorandums that could clear them of this charge....but don't. We don't even know how much danger still exists in homes - the government refuses to investigate what they've caused.
//Sorry, might need to post a couple of times to get this all here.
A quote from Milton Friedman on the four ways to spend money seems apt:
“You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that's government.”
Inept and dangerous.
On people forgetting things awfully quick:
There's a perfectly understandable reason for this. The national apology, the climate debate..everything that the government did along these lines was purely symbolic. Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing (the apology in particular in and of itself showed a great break with the stiff neckedness of the Howard era), but Labor could not, or would not, follow up these symbols with any meaningful action. After the apology was made, how has Labor acted to improve the life of indigenous people? If you don't follow up words with actions, pretty soon people tend to forget the words. Which is probably a good point to bring up...
John Howard:
Yep, a mean spirited, narrow minded little old man that's better off being gone - I won't argue with you there. Like I said in my original post, I'm really looking forward to the Liberals getting some new (and hopefully more liberal) blood. Like him or hate him, though, at least he had the conviction to fight for unpopular policies in the public arena (the GST, the massive gun dismantling program). I'm sure you're thinking Workchoices and other things he snuck in when he had a rubber stamp, and fair enough. But Rudd/Gillard wouldn't even fight when they had a broadly popular policy. Not understanding the impact of them refusing to fight for their carbon emissions trading program was just another type of ineptness. For the record, I agree with a market based approach to controlling the issue. I just want everyone (or at least the major players) to play by the same rules. Unlikely, though.
The Ghost of Workchoices:
What a broken record this was - as if the Liberals were going to bring this back in anywhere near the same form, if at all, without getting a mandate for it. They have paid for that mistake already. Gillard on the Friday before the election was claiming that an Abbott win would see Workchoices back in on the following Monday. The press gang rightfully tore shreds from her for this and was the cherry on the cake for how badly run her campaign was. Abbott's ineptness in this area was his declaration to not discuss any form of workplace reform policy. A wasted opportunity for a different point of view, but understandable given the political environment.
Such a big focus for such a little problem. Certainly an ugly side to the Liberal campaign but having said that, my neck still hurts from the whiplash caused by Labour's massive leap to the right on the topic. Same old fear mongering, just dressed up with prettier words. Inept too, given they were talking big without checking with the neighbours.
On the Mining Policy:
Might as well bring this up as well. Brokering a deal with three companies and then claiming to have the whole industry's support was just dumb. There's nothing wrong with pursuing this agenda, but it sure could have been handled better both with the industry itself and the public.
On the Independants:
Apart from the mad Katter, I didn't know any of them from a bar of soap prior to this week. I only meant that it was refreshing to hear a polictician speak as a normal human being for a change. I note that Oakeshott is trying to get discussion going on a type of combined party consensus government. While it's unlikely, it's about the closest type of catalyst for political/social change we have going for at the moment and I wish him good luck. I thought it might appeal to you too.
On the War:
You make it sound like it was only right winged governments that were or could be either fooled or blinded by Bush's clout, trickery and deceit. Do you really think that a Labor lead government (as opposed to being in opposition where it's easier to talk big on this type of stuff) at the time would have refused a request for help from the US, or not offered anything voluntarily?
On political assassination:
Are you really trying to argue that the often occuring event of opposition leadership change (in either party) is the same as what happened to Kevin Rudd? I don't remember any plunging polls or massive demonstrations when Beasley, Crean, Turnbull or Nelson were removed. It is not the same - even though it's not correct, people do believe that when they vote, they are voting for the Prime Minister that is presented to them, and hand in hand with that, should have the ability to pass judgement on him/her as well. This was clearly shown in the election results (and even Labor - or at least their candidates that lost) are conceding the treatment of Rudd had an impact. The powerbroker's argument that they'd definately have lost had he still been there is probably spot on, but it was still another poorly handled display.
Having a union leader telling the country on a national program why it had to happen before even members of the same party knew what was going on was again, just something poorly done that added up.
I'd note your summary of what happened is far more succinct and accurate than anything Labor had to say on the matter, ever.
Like I alluded to at the end of my original post, I'm happy for now that a pox has been delivered to both houses. I still hope that something positive that would otherwise be unachievable will come from it.
Sigil
PS: Sorry for the long winded post(s), will endeavour to keep length in check in the future.
Everyone who reads this... Sigil is not a troll, he is one of my closest friends. He can say anything to me. I say anything to him.
Sigil, I don't feel inclined to answer every single segment of your comment and most people who come here wouldn't know what we are talking about anyway.. so I'll be brief.
I’m well aware that we were structurally better off to deal with the crisis due to banking regulation. The entire crisis would never have happened had the US had our ‘pinko Leftist socialist communist Marxist atheist un-American’ laws.
Fifty (that’s not a number I pulled out of the air) leading economists responded to Howard in an open letter rebuffing his claims, and the media all but ignored it while talking about the colour of Gillard’s hair and Abbott’s speedos. An ‘RBA director’ does not cut it compared to a Nobel Prizing winning economist, who said the stimulus package was the best structured he had ever seen.
Who was the Coalition shadow treasurer during the crisis?
Julie Bishop. She was dumped on the grounds she has no fricking clue. Now she’d be the deputy prime minister under a Coalition government. (oh and by the way this dim cow broke the rule that there is no public comment on ASIO ops on the ground it could endanger the lives of operatives – and she did it for a cheap political point) And who’d they give the job to? Joe Hockey. A nice guy but a bombastic lightweight who couldn’t manage a piggy bank.
There was nothing “purely symbolic” about Reconciliation, Sigil. Neither one of us is aboriginal, or was wrenched by force from out parents to be raised by sadistic church masters for the express purposes of cultural genocide. Not one of the members of the stolen generations that openly wept in Canberra at Rudd’s apology thought it was “empty symbolism”.
Yes Howard did put through the gun control laws after Port Arthur. He wasn’t all bad and on that score I recant slightly on calling him a filthy pig. I downgrade him to simply dirty instead.
You’ve sneakily broadened the “war” argument. I said the Iraq war. Labor said at the time they would not participate in the invasion of Iraq without UN backing, which, not being given, meant they opposed Australian participation. That debacle is all Coalition. Howard still insists he did the right thing. When Dubbya came to Australia the Labor opposition of the day re-iterated their position.
Mining... spare me the spectacle of Gina Rinehart – the richest woman in the country – crying poor. BHP Billiton have just announced massive profit increases. Our resource sector is so hot you could fry a shrimp on it, and the money is leaving the country.
Refugees: “Certainly an ugly side to the Liberal campaign but having said that, my neck still hurts from the whiplash caused by Labor's massive leap to the right”
I agree. This is the classic Coalition wedge issue. Scare people and score the grey, bogan and racist vote. They KNOW that it would cost Labor half a dozen hick seats to take them on headlong, so Labor does the same as the Liberals – except Labor have the decency to have the offshore processing done by someone who has, at least, signed the UN conventions – without which we will fail the UN tests for humanitarian treatment of refugees.
Fascinating. Who'd have thought so many and such diverse people could be almost equally divided.
ReplyDeleteHell, the US government would take this as a message to take a long vacation and leave the country hanging.
Boomer, you're so right. And Boehner would be leading the pact. Can't wait for an interpretation whenever anyone knows anything.
ReplyDeleteIt's the perfect outcome in a completely ridiculous situation. It's the slap in the face that the major parties needed. And us as well.
ReplyDeleteJust let me enjoy the peaceful quiet eye of this particular cyclone ...in the short space of time before the deals are done and our fates are sealed so that I can dream of actual parliamentary process reforms being made by the independants who have become king slash queen makers.
Of course, it is only a small window of opportunity. The bargaining over the carcass is about to begin and once the price of their neutrality is sounded out the blood pacts will be made.
The independants come across as human at least, which is obviously an improvement on the current state. Tony Windsor in particular impressed me today on Q&A (for those that don't live here, the best informal debating program we have in Australia - where politicians are forced to both face off against each other and the public).
The current government doesn't deserve to be returned - its ineptitude was atrocious at best, dangerous at its worst. And hell, the clan's own assassins are already circling anyway, eagerly lapping their tongues at the blood in the water.
Again.
And like proper assassins, the one that put the dirk in Gillard's hand remains slinking in the shadows, and with much disregard for the community pulled a last minute no show on the program noted above.
So much for public accountability.
As for the opposition...well, there's not much to be said. They easily ran the better campaign, but it was a desperately negative and boring affair. I'm harsher on that lot in particular because it's where my allegiances normally lay.
But they really do suck at the moment. Still, they did lose some of the fools (Tuckey) and picked up Australia's yougest representative ever to the national parliament (a 20 year old) and by the looks the first Aboriginal as well - so perhaps there's a future.
In fact, I'd say the future looks better for the "liberals" (quotations intended) - if the trend of increased popularity to the greens continues (and let's hope not - much of their popularity was undoubtably a protest vote in any event), then much like how the liberals have been squeezed by the labour party in recent times, the greens will perhaps now force the labour party into a quandary about moving back to the left.
And I think the greens are in for a surprise. Assuming they survive the loss of the protest vote, then they will become an almost major party compared to the fringe dwellers they are. It will be interesting to see how they deal with their 'purity' now that they have to balance their actions against the rest of the society they now need to consider.
It'll be good to see them held to account for their policies. For once.
Chaos is coming, if only for a little while, and I say bring it on.
"The current government doesn't deserve to be returned - its ineptitude was atrocious at best, dangerous at its worst"
ReplyDeleteLabor kept Australia out of recession, almost alone in the advanced world, in the worst global downturn since The Great Depression. Fifty of the country's leading economist and a Nobel Prize winner for economics directly credited Labor's stimulus packages for this.
People forget things awful quick.... Rudd-Gillard ended Howard's phantom culture war, and settled things with the stolen generations. They actually took notice of the UN, and decided locking children away in fly-blown malaria-infested hellholes was not worth appeasing the rednecks.
John Howard was (and is) a total pig. Grinning from the sidelines over all this, like the sleazy fuck he is, after not being given the ICC job because the rest of the Commonwealth knows what he is.
And Abbott is his protégé.
Three of those independents you like so much are ex-Nationals - i.e. three hicks from a dying parochial party that decided to bail rather than fix it.
If the Coalition government before this one was somehow more competent, then it was a competency of destructiveness. They fucking went along with the invasion of Iraq, for Christ's sake...! A million people dead.
This is the mob that introduced the Australian values test. They were on their way to a soft version of the White Australia policy. The fucking pig got up in parliament and declared we are a society based on Judeo-Christian principles. Workchoices was just the final straw. People woke up then and saw what he was about.
"assassins"?
Sigil, who did Abbott replace? Who did the man before him replace? That's how politics goes... Gillard had the numbers and Rudd didn't.
I know you're a couple of posts past this one now, but I feel the need to respond to at least show the rest of your audience that I'm not simply a troll that appears, drops a argumentative post and then vanishes. That's certainly not the aim - I'm just trying to present another viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree with some of the things you raise in your reply, I still stand by my opening claim. Looking at a couple of the points you note individually:
On Labor saving Australia from entering recession:
Labor's continuous claim throughout the campaign that they were single handedly responsible for keeping Australia out of recession is just false. In addition to fiscal policy, it was a combination of falling interest rates, the fall in the value of the Australian dollar, the fact that our banks have better regulations than most countries (especially the US), China and the mining boom, and the state of the economy was when Labor won office. There are plenty of views (including a Reserve Bank director) that point out from purely a timing point of view, most of the spending hit the economy much later than the time of the crisis. There's just no way they can justify saying that they saved the world all by themselves.
And the above doesn't even begin to touch on how badly/dangerously/selfishly they handled the roll-out of the actual programs.
Let's start with the BER which had a trend of favouring Labour held seats compared to Liberals (along the lines of double the approval rate) - and sure, the Liberals are just as guilty of pork-barreling. Then there's the overblown costs of individual projects, which Labor writes off as the 'cost' of the stimulus, which could be argued as an acceptable approach, except they tend not to acknowledge that the rush lead to buildings that were either did not meet appropriate regulations, or just weren't what individual schools needed.
Then there's the Green Loans program, which suffered from almost 100% of cases being done without open competition and evidence of splitting contracts so that management authorisation could be avoided, repeated breaches of compliance in relation to government financial/procurement regulations, unaddressed conflicts of interest, lack of documentation, poor contract management etc etc. In two instances in particular, contract costs blew out from $50k to $462k, and $770k to nearly $3.5 million and above all that there was no quality assurance program implemented at all. The blow out in the solar panel scheme was almost as bad.
Finally, there's the infamous pink batts program which I know I don't need to tell you, costs aside, have led to hundreds of house fires and the deaths of four people. Now...you could argue that this comment alone is a pretty low and cheap shot to make, given that the Labor government didn't actually kill the people nor start the fires themselves and I'd agree with you.....except that they were woefully unable to and/or refused to from Canberra use any proper project management delivery in relation to this program (and by that, any sort of appropriate risk management controls) and when they did get some notification of the dangers involved, the Prime Minister (at the time - not the one that just lost, but she was there too) repeatedly and willfully ignored warnings provided by their own minister responsible for the scheme. A man, mind you, that they made take the fall for their incompetence.
So guilty are they in this that they refuse to release certain internal memorandums that could clear them of this charge....but don't. We don't even know how much danger still exists in homes - the government refuses to investigate what they've caused.
//Sorry, might need to post a couple of times to get this all here.
A quote from Milton Friedman on the four ways to spend money seems apt:
ReplyDelete“You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that's government.”
Inept and dangerous.
On people forgetting things awfully quick:
There's a perfectly understandable reason for this. The national apology, the climate debate..everything that the government did along these lines was purely symbolic. Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing (the apology in particular in and of itself showed a great break with the stiff neckedness of the Howard era), but Labor could not, or would not, follow up these symbols with any meaningful action. After the apology was made, how has Labor acted to improve the life of indigenous people? If you don't follow up words with actions, pretty soon people tend to forget the words. Which is probably a good point to bring up...
John Howard:
Yep, a mean spirited, narrow minded little old man that's better off being gone - I won't argue with you there. Like I said in my original post, I'm really looking forward to the Liberals getting some new (and hopefully more liberal) blood. Like him or hate him, though, at least he had the conviction to fight for unpopular policies in the public arena (the GST, the massive gun dismantling program). I'm sure you're thinking Workchoices and other things he snuck in when he had a rubber stamp, and fair enough. But Rudd/Gillard wouldn't even fight when they had a broadly popular policy. Not understanding the impact of them refusing to fight for their carbon emissions trading program was just another type of ineptness. For the record, I agree with a market based approach to controlling the issue. I just want everyone (or at least the major players) to play by the same rules. Unlikely, though.
The Ghost of Workchoices:
What a broken record this was - as if the Liberals were going to bring this back in anywhere near the same form, if at all, without getting a mandate for it. They have paid for that mistake already. Gillard on the Friday before the election was claiming that an Abbott win would see Workchoices back in on the following Monday. The press gang rightfully tore shreds from her for this and was the cherry on the cake for how badly run her campaign was. Abbott's ineptness in this area was his declaration to not discuss any form of workplace reform policy. A wasted opportunity for a different point of view, but understandable given the political environment.
On Refugee Policy:
ReplyDeleteSuch a big focus for such a little problem. Certainly an ugly side to the Liberal campaign but having said that, my neck still hurts from the whiplash caused by Labour's massive leap to the right on the topic. Same old fear mongering, just dressed up with prettier words. Inept too, given they were talking big without checking with the neighbours.
On the Mining Policy:
Might as well bring this up as well. Brokering a deal with three companies and then claiming to have the whole industry's support was just dumb. There's nothing wrong with pursuing this agenda, but it sure could have been handled better both with the industry itself and the public.
On the Independants:
Apart from the mad Katter, I didn't know any of them from a bar of soap prior to this week. I only meant that it was refreshing to hear a polictician speak as a normal human being for a change. I note that Oakeshott is trying to get discussion going on a type of combined party consensus government. While it's unlikely, it's about the closest type of catalyst for political/social change we have going for at the moment and I wish him good luck. I thought it might appeal to you too.
On the War:
You make it sound like it was only right winged governments that were or could be either fooled or blinded by Bush's clout, trickery and deceit. Do you really think that a Labor lead government (as opposed to being in opposition where it's easier to talk big on this type of stuff) at the time would have refused a request for help from the US, or not offered anything voluntarily?
On political assassination:
Are you really trying to argue that the often occuring event of opposition leadership change (in either party) is the same as what happened to Kevin Rudd? I don't remember any plunging polls or massive demonstrations when Beasley, Crean, Turnbull or Nelson were removed. It is not the same - even though it's not correct, people do believe that when they vote, they are voting for the Prime Minister that is presented to them, and hand in hand with that, should have the ability to pass judgement on him/her as well. This was clearly shown in the election results (and even Labor - or at least their candidates that lost) are conceding the treatment of Rudd had an impact. The powerbroker's argument that they'd definately have lost had he still been there is probably spot on, but it was still another poorly handled display.
Having a union leader telling the country on a national program why it had to happen before even members of the same party knew what was going on was again, just something poorly done that added up.
I'd note your summary of what happened is far more succinct and accurate than anything Labor had to say on the matter, ever.
Like I alluded to at the end of my original post, I'm happy for now that a pox has been delivered to both houses. I still hope that something positive that would otherwise be unachievable will come from it.
Sigil
PS: Sorry for the long winded post(s), will endeavour to keep length in check in the future.
Everyone who reads this... Sigil is not a troll, he is one of my closest friends. He can say anything to me. I say anything to him.
ReplyDeleteSigil, I don't feel inclined to answer every single segment of your comment and most people who come here wouldn't know what we are talking about anyway.. so I'll be brief.
I’m well aware that we were structurally better off to deal with the crisis due to banking regulation.
The entire crisis would never have happened had the US had our ‘pinko Leftist socialist communist Marxist atheist un-American’ laws.
Fifty (that’s not a number I pulled out of the air) leading economists responded to Howard in an open letter rebuffing his claims, and the media all but ignored it while talking about the colour of Gillard’s hair and Abbott’s speedos. An ‘RBA director’ does not cut it compared to a Nobel Prizing winning economist, who said the stimulus package was the best structured he had ever seen.
Who was the Coalition shadow treasurer during the crisis?
Julie Bishop.
She was dumped on the grounds she has no fricking clue. Now she’d be the deputy prime minister under a Coalition government.
(oh and by the way this dim cow broke the rule that there is no public comment on ASIO ops on the ground it could endanger the lives of operatives – and she did it for a cheap political point)
And who’d they give the job to? Joe Hockey. A nice guy but a bombastic lightweight who couldn’t manage a piggy bank.
There was nothing “purely symbolic” about Reconciliation, Sigil. Neither one of us is aboriginal, or was wrenched by force from out parents to be raised by sadistic church masters for the express purposes of cultural genocide. Not one of the members of the stolen generations that openly wept in Canberra at Rudd’s apology thought it was “empty symbolism”.
Yes Howard did put through the gun control laws after Port Arthur. He wasn’t all bad and on that score I recant slightly on calling him a filthy pig. I downgrade him to simply dirty instead.
You’ve sneakily broadened the “war” argument. I said the Iraq war. Labor said at the time they would not participate in the invasion of Iraq without UN backing, which, not being given, meant they opposed Australian participation. That debacle is all Coalition. Howard still insists he did the right thing. When Dubbya came to Australia the Labor opposition of the day re-iterated their position.
Mining... spare me the spectacle of Gina Rinehart – the richest woman in the country – crying poor. BHP Billiton have just announced massive profit increases. Our resource sector is so hot you could fry a shrimp on it, and the money is leaving the country.
Refugees: “Certainly an ugly side to the Liberal campaign but having said that, my neck still hurts from the whiplash caused by Labor's massive leap to the right”
I agree. This is the classic Coalition wedge issue. Scare people and score the grey, bogan and racist vote. They KNOW that it would cost Labor half a dozen hick seats to take them on headlong, so Labor does the same as the Liberals – except Labor have the decency to have the offshore processing done by someone who has, at least, signed the UN conventions – without which we will fail the UN tests for humanitarian treatment of refugees.
"He can say anything to me. I say anything to him."
ReplyDeleteRight back at ya, big guy.
To give you credit, I blame you as being one of the key factors for me now being much more moderate than I was as a younger man.
You and my eighteen month old daughter, that is.