Die hard supporters of a Party that has lurched to the Right in the past decade are the only Lefties here?Flip wrote:Cheers Pev. Seems that MH and you were the only lefties left here so...pevfan wrote:By the way... Welcome back Filth
Haha, Filthy's head just exploded.ealesy wrote:Die hard supporters of a Party that has lurched to the Right in the past decade are the only Lefties here?Flip wrote:Cheers Pev. Seems that MH and you were the only lefties left here so...pevfan wrote:By the way... Welcome back Filth
What a ridiculous comment!
You do realise that die hard Labor supporter is not the only option on the Left Wing of the political spectrum don't you?
LOL BD....possiblybomberdonnie wrote:Haha, Filthy's head just exploded.ealesy wrote:Die hard supporters of a Party that has lurched to the Right in the past decade are the only Lefties here?Flip wrote:Cheers Pev. Seems that MH and you were the only lefties left here so...pevfan wrote:By the way... Welcome back Filth
What a ridiculous comment!
You do realise that die hard Labor supporter is not the only option on the Left Wing of the political spectrum don't you?
.WOW! =D>ealesy wrote:Flip wrote:Julia was an elected PM of the country and in a hung Parliament managed more Legislation through the last Parliament in all our history.
What is Credlin?
What an absolute load of bullshit Flip.
Your post was nothing more, than hypocritical, mysoginst bullshit, own up to it apologise for it. Don't try and excuse it by trying to say you are just some average Joe on the Internet and Liberal party figures and members of the right wing media were making similar comments about Julia Gillard publically so that's worse.
Are you suggesting that it fine to make misogynist comments about a woman unless that woman has been elected to high public office? Because that is a load of horseshit?
Those who make misogynist comments need to be called out on their bullshit, no matter who they have made the comments about, or what station in life those they've made the comment about hold in life.
I'm sure you applauded Gillard when she called the likes of Tony Abbot and Alan Jones out on their bullshit behaviour, yet you now sit back and feel like you have the right to make similar comments about a key Liberal Party figure because it suits your political ideology.
Oh and don't try and claim it was tounge in cheek or an attempt at humour, because there is nothing more pathetic than someone who trys to justify their misogyny as an attempt at humour.
Get stuffed!
In retrospect Ealsey, you are indeed correct and I apologise for any angst caused. Indeed 2 wrongs make a right.ealesy wrote:Flip wrote:Julia was an elected PM of the country and in a hung Parliament managed more Legislation through the last Parliament in all our history.
What is Credlin?
What an absolute load of bullshit Flip.
Your post was nothing more, than hypocritical, mysoginst bullshit, own up to it apologise for it. Don't try and excuse it by trying to say you are just some average Joe on the Internet and Liberal party figures and members of the right wing media were making similar comments about Julia Gillard publically so that's worse.
Are you suggesting that it fine to make misogynist comments about a woman unless that woman has been elected to high public office? Because that is a load of horseshit?
Those who make misogynist comments need to be called out on their bullshit, no matter who they have made the comments about, or what station in life those they've made the comment about hold in life.
I'm sure you applauded Gillard when she called the likes of Tony Abbot and Alan Jones out on their bullshit behaviour, yet you now sit back and feel like you have the right to make similar comments about a key Liberal Party figure because it suits your political ideology.
Oh and don't try and claim it was tounge in cheek or an attempt at humour, because there is nothing more pathetic than someone who trys to justify their misogyny as an attempt at humour.
Get stuffed!
SINCE the Coalition was elected to government, criticisms of Tony Abbott's chief of staff, Peta Credlin, have come thick and fast.
Disgruntled MPs upset with demotion (or a lack of promotion) have blamed her. Frontbenchers and backbenchers alike who have had staffing selections knocked back by the infamous "star chamber" have criticised Credlin's "controlling" ways.
She has also been attacked for the new government's media strategy, which has seen a departure from daily appearances simply for appearances' sake.
Throw in a healthy amount of sexism within the inner workings of the Liberal Party, which may be a factor behind some Liberals not appreciating being told what to do by the Prime Minister's closest adviser.
While it is easy to take issue with aspects of the Coalition's approach since winning the election, it is easier still to pile on with criticisms and direct them at one bogeyman (or in this case woman) without acknowledging the value Credlin has added to Team Abbott since she became chief of staff four years ago.
Further, the criticisms of Credlin should be more accurately targeted at the elected MPs (especially ministers) who either put forward poor suggestions in the first place, or lack the resolve to argue their case to win the day.
This point is a reason to doubt the worthiness of the new Coalition government's capacity to live up to the reforming ways of the previous Coalition government. Weakness in ministerial ranks make it easier for a prime minister to chase votes ahead of outcomes in the national interest.
Much has been made of Senate leader Eric Abetz failing to win support for his chief of staff in opposition (and long-time senior adviser throughout the Howard years), Chris Fryer, becoming chief of staff in government. Whatever the merits or otherwise of Fryer taking on the role, the failure lies with the minister. If Abetz seriously believed Fryer should have been appointed, as the third most-senior member of the government he needed to insist on the appointment being made.
That's what Health Minister Peter Dutton did when the star chamber felt aggrieved that he had made appointments without consultation. As a cabinet minister, he showed resolve. It is the same reason Abetz will fall short of business expectations on industrial relations reforms in his portfolio area, despite strong ideological beliefs that the Fair Work Act requires legislative change. In contrast, just watch what happens in the health portfolio under Dutton's stewardship.
Staffers (or potential staffers) who choose to background journalists that they or their friends have been badly treated through the appointments process only highlight the quality of the decision-making by which they were excluded.
Do I like the centralised nature of a star-chamber process that sees electorate-officer as well as ministerial-adviser appointments having to be run past a committee? Of course not. Apart from anything else, as a committed federalist it goes against the grain.
But it is easy to see why Credlin and (ultimately) Abbott have adopted such an approach.
Appointing family members, or local helpers who feel that they are owed an outcome on the other side of the election is a tricky business. Sometimes a star chamber will get a rejection right, sometimes it won't. Sometimes MPs will be relieved at being able to blame others for letting down volunteer helpers who thought a job offer would be at the end of the rainbow. This goes on more than people probably realise.
Irrespective of the worthiness or otherwise of individual appointments, one thing is always the case: an elected MP in a first-among-equals parliamentary system has the right to make their own decision on staffing appointments: it's a matter of how hard they are willing to fight. Anyone who misses out on a position and blames the upper echelons of the government needs to understand that the weakness of the MP who offered them the job is the primary reason they didn't get appointed. Or they weren't valuable enough for the MP to fight for them.
Before becoming opposition leader, Abbott was well known for his ill-discipline, never more so than during the 2007 election campaign. In fact, his long-time inability to stay "on message" was just one reason Labor in government was so confident that it had his measure. Underestimating Abbott became a way of life for the previous government.
Credlin's arrival in Abbott's political life changed that. She instilled a discipline not thought possible, and it helped carry Abbott into the prime ministership.
Now the Coalition is in government, new challenges are emerging, and it is reasonable to wonder whether Abbott (or Credlin) are up to the task ahead. When it comes to embracing necessary economic reforms, I have doubts. Abbott isn't an ideologue on such matters and Credlin's focus has never been on policy reform.
But in the world of steady-as-she-goes conservatism, laced with parliamentary skills to negotiate the passage of legislation through a hostile Senate, the pairing of Abbott and Credlin puts together track records that suit each other.
Abbott was a long-time senior minister in John Howard's government. He is the last remaining member of that inner circle.
Credlin has significant governmental experience, having worked for senators (and ministers) Richard Alston, Robert Hill and Helen Coonan. She understands doing business in the upper house, which will be vitally important if the Coalition is to secure the passage of key legislation.
For all the criticisms that can be levelled at the deal the Coalition struck with the Greens to remove the debt ceiling, it secured an outcome that helped the new government avoid losing its first significant stand-off with Bill Shorten's opposition.
And while the blunders in the fields of education and the handling of the relationship with Indonesia could have been avoided, once the crises manifested themselves, steps were taken to limit the damage. It was messy but effective tactical action: we wait to see how the moves play out in the strategic longer term.
Credlin's success has helped her and the Coalition get to where it now is. The next big test is how she performs over the medium to longer term, now that the Coalition is the incumbent. Being an effective chief of staff in government is very different to opposition. Few survive the transition. Howard and Kevin Rudd were forced to change chiefs of staff soon after winning elections and Julia Gillard's chief of staff when she was deputy PM didn't last long once she had the top job.
Only time will tell if Credlin can buck the trend and develop from a powerful opposition chief of staff into a long-term prime-ministerial chief of staff. Meanwhile, the criticisms she has endured have been way over the top.
Peter van Onselen is a professor at the University of Western Australia.
No, it's a perfect example of the Libs not valuing anything other than private education and "good" jobs. And trying to save money. It has nothing to do with most of the workers being women.MH_Bomber wrote:In terms of misogyny, perhaps the government's inherent misogyny can be seen by 2 decisions. One to ask child care workers (a very lowly paid bunch) to pay back their $3 pay rise awarded by the previous government and secondly to ditch a pay rise to aged care workers. Both these groups are dominated by female workers and lowly paid ones at that and to scrap promised pay rises to lowly paid woman is a perfect example of misogyny.
j-mac31 wrote:No, it's a perfect example of the Libs not valuing anything other than private education and "good" jobs. And trying to save money. It has nothing to do with most of the workers being women.MH_Bomber wrote:In terms of misogyny, perhaps the government's inherent misogyny can be seen by 2 decisions. One to ask child care workers (a very lowly paid bunch) to pay back their $3 pay rise awarded by the previous government and secondly to ditch a pay rise to aged care workers. Both these groups are dominated by female workers and lowly paid ones at that and to scrap promised pay rises to lowly paid woman is a perfect example of misogyny.
MH_Bomber wrote:Lets hope the twerp calls the Double Dissolution and Shorten is PM before Malcolm.
Heard Ziggy Swikowski talking about the NBN. Its embarrassing when part of his job description is to trot our arrant nonsense about fibre to the home (FTTH or FTTP) to satisfy this crap the Liberal Party is determined to spin about the NBN. He was talking about technology changes rapidly. Yes it does and all the techos agree the FTTH is a far far better idea than screw the roll out up as Liberals propose.
Its as though because it was Labor happened to be in office at the time when all the technical experts agreed that FTTH was by far the best course of action, rather than FTTN which is analogous to driving a Lamborghini to Sydney then catching a horse and buggy from Paramatta Rd to Pitt Street, the Liberals simply had to be contrary. If you are going to the trouble of installing fibre throughout all the suburbs to get the speed then you may as well put the infrastructure in place to allow virtually every home to make use of it. Allowing Telstra's decaying copper wire network to deliver the last bit of the network is putting a handbrake on progress.
I simply cant understand Malcolm's stance on this. Normally he is reasonable but on this subject he is dead wrong. He pretends he knows what he's on about and keeps talking about advances in wireless. Wireless aint going to beat the speed of fibre.
Maybe we just could not afford the Lambo in the first place.....MH_Bomber wrote: to driving a Lamborghini to Sydney then catching a horse and buggy from Paramatta Rd to Pitt Street, the Liberals simply had to be contrary..
Abbott would need to be 120% certain of winning an election after a double dissolution. In the current climate, ain't going to happen.MH_Bomber wrote:My outlandish Christmas prediction, Bill Shorten will be PM before Malcolm Turnbull. The conservatives in his party dont like him that was why he was rolled in the first place and he has burnt his credibility sticking his neck out to wreck the FTTH NBN plan.
I dare Abbott to call an early Double Dissolution election ! I dare him.
With our neophyte Prime Minister and his Treasurer struggling to find their feet - and a direction to travel in - let's hope they've been watching the ABC's interviews with Paul Keating. If not, they're out on DVD this week.
For those of us who lived through the Hawke-Keating government's extraordinary 13 years - and those who didn't - Kerry O'Brien's four interviews are a reminder of Keating's indisputable claim to be our greatest, most reforming, treasurer.
If you're tempted to doubt that, consider Business Council president Tony Shepherd's description of our economy in the early 1980s. Keating had described it as a ''moribund, inward-looking industrial graveyard'' and he'd been right, Shepherd said.
''We had a fixed exchange rate, tariffs [on imports] were still high, we were frightened of Japanese investment … our financial system was tightly regulated, our industrial relations system was centralised, complex and unproductive, and just about every service was provided by the public sector. State ownership extended to banks, insurance, telecommunications, airlines, ports, shipping, dockyards, electricity, gas etc,'' Shepherd said.
Advertisement
Keating was the instigator of virtually all those reforms. And though many of them weren't opposed by the Coalition opposition, they were radical reforms - brave steps into the unknown - controversial in the community, including among many Labor voters.
O'Brien's interviews reveal Keating in all his strengths and weaknesses. His self-congratulation (''there's nothing there to be humble about''), bravado (''what I love about the Road Runner is he runs that fast he burns up the road behind him; there's no road left for the others''), colourful language (''a pimple on the backside of progress''), disposal of people who got in his way (Bob Hawke, for instance) and revenge against supposed enemies (''don't get mad, get even'' - including with Fairfax).
But no leader of this country since John Curtin has more cause for self-congratulation than Keating. No leader is without character failings and Keating's were outweighed by his contribution.
If Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey want their chapter in Australia's economic history to be half as glorious as Keating's there's much they could learn from him, starting with his clear sense of purpose. ''I had to make sure this slothful, locked-up place finally became an open, competitive economy.''
His vision was of ''an efficient, competitive, open, cosmopolitan republic, integrating itself with the Asian region''.
''To do what's right and good gives you the surge. Without the surge, what are you? You're just mucking around with tricky press statements, appearances and 'doorstops'.'' - ''You make the political strategy around good policy rather than around trickery.''
Keating was a man of courage. ''I always believed in burning up the government's political capital, not being Mr Safe Guy.'' - ''You're nobody until you attract a good set of enemies.'' - ''If you run hard enough and fast enough for a great change you'll get it.'' - ''Statecraft and nation building are about taking the risks and moving the country on.''
And a man of toughness. ''Nations get made the hard way; nation building is a hard caper.'' - ''You've got to elbow your way through.'' - ''In the end, if you want to get the changes through you've got to hold your nerve and squeeze the system.''
Does that sound like any present politician? Last week Hockey said he had an ''economic plan'' focused on building economic growth. Great. At last. What is it?
''It is focused on getting rid of inhibitive taxes and inhibitive regulation that undermines our capacity to be at our best. We need to speed up the Australian economy and … if we repeal the carbon tax, it will add to economic growth … when we get rid of the mining tax it sends a clear message to the world that we need mining investment.''
Really? That's the best you've got - to undo the reforms of the previous government? To move to a less economically efficient instrument against climate change and undercharge mainly foreign-owned mining companies for their appropriation of our non-renewable resources? That will balance the budget? That's what will lift productivity? Seriously?
According to Abbott last week, ''the challenge is always the same: to build the strongest possible economy with lower taxes and less red tape leading to higher productivity and stronger economic growth … my business - the business of government - should be making it easier for you to do your business''.
Really? Easy as that, eh? No need for courage or toughness. No need to do anything that won't win a vote of thanks from the Business Council.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/keating- ... z2pFDhWWQs
