Oct 9 - The real vote on the Aviation Reform Group

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Dick Smith and his cronies made aviation more political than it has ever been.

Anderson and Howard gave him that chance.

I will be helping to vote them out in my response to one of their many miserable failed policies and the consequent enormous cost to aviation.

This thread is about politics. And if you think it has nothing to do with aviation you are a fool.

If you don't like it - don't contribute.

I am sure the Woomeri will pull it if they deem it inappropriate.

But I say it is time to have a collective say and ditch these ignorant vandals.

I don't neccessarily prescribe voting in the ALP - but I wholly endorse the democratic dismissal of the arrogant incumbents. Whitlam said it best: 'It's time for a change'.

(Who knows: Missing in action Anderson may even come out of hiding and say something)

http://****sutonka.port5.com/nhj.jpg

This is a party political broadcast paid for by the ****su-Tonka Party.

[turnleftnow]

They are not getting my vote.

Time for someone else to have a go



Bye Bye John 1 and John 2

[Whiskery]

LATHAM - can't add up, bully-boy, makes policy on the run and an inexperienced player at big time politics.

Sheeez, and they reckon Crean was an idiot !

I won't be voting for Johnny Howard either, but I will be voting LIBERAL, simply because there is no alternative party.:mad:

[Shitsu-Tonka]

How can you vote for Liberal but not for Howard?

(Oh, thats right - Peter Costello will be the leader in 6 months - hopefully of the opposition)

All that other stuff sounds just what the party propoganda machine are basing their campaign on: playing the man, not the issues. Precisely why you can not vote Liberal without endorsing John Howard as the leader of Australia - in the worlds eyes not just ours.

At least they have revived GA - right Dick?

[Whiskery]

All that other stuff sounds just what the party propoganda machine are basing their campaign on: playing the man, not the issues.................

My point exactly ****su. The Labour Party are trying to discredit Howard instead of getting on with showing us how they will manage the country. Who cares if Howard lied about the children overboard, I haven't met a politician yet who doesn't lie !

Vote Labour and Australia will be broke in 12 months, you'll have illegitimate "refugees" as neighbours and inflation will soar (based on Labour's current fiscal policy).

They don't deserve it - but the Liberals will get another term.

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Who cares if Howard lied about the children overboard?

I do.

And I would like to think I am part a growing number of Australians who care how Australia and Australians are now regarded in the world.

People who see Australia not just as a snapshot of economic figures and a US subsidiary, but as having a sense of what is right morally - not just financially.

you'll have illegitimate "refugees" as neighbours

What is an illegitimate refugee? You are either a refugee or you are not. Or is this another resurrection of the kidnapping of Pauline Hansons rhetoric and policy again? Next will you be telling me about the queue jumpers? You remember. The ones from Iraq who were here for economic reasons so we sent them back. And then 18 months later helped Sherrif Dubya invade their country because of their despotic leader who had persecuted their ethnic minorities - so, oops, I guess they were refugees after all? Or did we help bomb Iraq because of their WMD's after all? Or did our PM just get 'bad and untimely advice?'.

Your point about the pending financial ruination by an ALP government is a perfectly scripted scaremonger statement - textbook stuff straight from the Lib disinformation campaign that I expect to hear lots of in the next 6 weeks.

But I will agree with you on one thing:

The Liberals don't deserve another term

[tobzalp]

On the Aviation front, from listening to the announcement speech, when he thanked and appluaded his govt, he did not mention that retard Anderson at all.

[Binoculars]

This raises an interesting point. The Poms can talk politics all they like on JetBlast 'cos they think they are the only ones with a right to be there, and anybody who doesn't like it take can take a walk. D&G is supposedly reserved for aviation topics, yet if an overtly political thread is moved to JB only the Aussies who frequent those august halls will see it or contribute, and it will lose its flavour.

So, Oh great Spearchucker, would it be possible to leave this thread here and cover your tender ears for a few weeks? Perhaps it could even be renamed to make it obvious it is an election thread. Personal abuse is the norm in Parliament, surely we can't be too precious about a little stone throwing here? It's OZ after all! Sticky it, call it the one and only election thread and let the dogs loose! All good fun in the end, and anybody likely to be offended can be warned to stay clear.

Well, it was just a thought!

:8

[HotDog]

Kim Beazley, who is miles ahead of Latham in every respect, failed to make the grade and the same people who rejected him will reject bovver boy, ex barman Latham. Wether you like John Howard or not, you must admit that Australia has prospered and is advancing globally under his leadership. As for that old chestnut of "children overboard"; who the hell cares? Everybody is getting sick and tired, listening to the same old cracked Labor record. You don't have to quiz me in an exit poll to see who I will vote for.

[Duff Man]

Don't fall for the fear campaign.

Fear of national insecurity
Fear of dark-skinned reffos
Fear of economic mismanagent
Fear of young inexperienced leadership
Fear of industrial chaos
Fear of moral depravity in public schools
Fear of lesbian mothers
Fear of invading hordes without our big bro' U.S.A.
Fear of North Korean ICBMs
Fear of environmental controls
Fear of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait islanders

About time for Australians to become proud of themselves, and unafraid of the big wide world. Howard is a fear-monger and must go.

[Uncommon Sense]

Hot Dog:

With all due respect, the cracked record analogy you refer to is to be found in your post:

Australia has prospered under John Howard.

No. Australia, along with the rest of the developed world, has prospered - despite John Howard.

But I am sure we will hear that chestnut rolled out, along with the 'experience' tag. Of course he has got experience. He has served three terms.

And I wonder who will be getting his mug photographed wherever he can when our Olympians return next week - trying to let some of the glory rub off. :yuk:

[Chronic Snoozer]

The coalition are the lesser of two evils. Never again should we let Labour run Oz into the ground. Its the economy stupid!

I agree that Howard is past his use by date. If there is one thing that should get him (but not the Libs) thrown out it is the appalling policy of cuddling up to the US. No US troops on Oz soil!

The fact that the government can say 'we are not under a greater terrorist threat because our involvement in Iraq' with a straight face is also appalling and smacks of conceitedness.

Mr Howard you are touchable.

[Duff Man]

Unless there's another Howard-Wedge Issue ® then we'll see the following electoral pattern on 9 October:

1. 90% of lifetime Liberal voters will stick with Howard/Costello.
2. An unknown number of the remaining 10% will vote otherwise on the trust issue.
3. An unknown number of lifetime National voters will vote otherwise, most of these in QLD.
4. Most swingers will abandon the coalition
5. A small percentage of lifetime Labor voters will move further left.

Bottom line: large swing to Labor (on preferences) is inevitible. How much? We'll have to wait.

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Chronic Snoozer:

Your points about Howard sucking up to US policy, and placing Australia in the terrorists sights with our almost unilateral adherence to the Washington neo-con doctrine are indeed accurate .

I therefore find it hard to reconcile your view that this makes the incumbents the lesser of two evils.

My reading of latter 20C Aus/US history suggests the APL are more likely to stand up to the US and break this doctrine than the Coalition.

Most of the world still stands appalled at the USA's abandonment of the Clinton era Multilateral foreign policy agenda, and arrogant dismissal of the UN protocols. Australia supported the US on this. It is now biting the US on the arse bigtime - and now the US want UN support for an exit strategy in Iraq!

The sooner we disassociate Australia from the fundamentalist fringe running Washington and its foreign policy on behalf of Corporate America, and become a country with our own identity, ideas and culture again, the better.

Frankly I don't ever see Howard as the man to achieve that - not the way he and his government have attched themselves to the US and abandoned our more immediate region.

http://****sutonka.port5.com/nmh.jpg

[Howard Hughes]

Now party politics aside, John Howard is a smart politician, love him or hate him, he knows how to play the game.

Mark Latham and Peter Costello are not smart politicians, they are bully boys and who in their right mind would want them to lead us?

Tip: Kevin Rudd will be the next Labour prime minister of Australia because he is another smart politician!! (you heard it here first)

Cheers, HH.
:ok:

[Chronic Snoozer]

Yep, not easy is it. Under the incumbents Australia has prospered, they have not abandoned Defence, which Labour historically has, yet their foreign policy leaves a lot to desired.

They are the lesser of two evils as Labour has no policy platform on which to win my vote. Tit-for-tat politics is not substitute for balanced consistent policy. The fact they allowed Crean to be their leader alone rules them out as a serious contender for the next decade. Beazley is still in the mix, so Labour to me just looks like the same old tired rhetoric. Don't know a lot about Latham, sounds like a thug.

But....I think a lot of Australians have become disillusioned with Howard. Just because I don't believe Labour to be viable alternative, yet, doesn't mean I don't shake with rage at what my PM does in Government. I reserve the right to vehemently disagree with his foreign policy, however there are more portfolios than that to consider. He is smart, you can't deny that.

[DirtyPierre]

Why vote for Howard;


Hmmmm.....

- Children overboard
- Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
- GST and the Black Market Economy
- IT companies and JH's son
- Medicare
- NAS
- lies, lies and damned lies!

makes anything other than Liberal look very good.

If you can vote for what seems to be pathological lying, than you deserve the government we can't afford.

BTW, Labour governments making the country broke is an urban myth. Check your facts.

And the Labour party does have policies, maybe you missed them in the media when they get 15 seconds between the footy scores and the Olympics.

[Binoculars]

****ohdear, it's the same old cliches from both sides. I'll retain my request to make it a sticky at this stage, but ffs people, can we have some original thoughts here?

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Snoozer:

Going back to the orginal 'theme' of this thread, the much heralded superior economic 'management' you refer to does not seem to extend to our common pet here - aviation.

The waste of god-only-knows how much in excess of $100M on appeasing political 'thugs' (http://****sutonka.port5.com/ds.jpg) as you call them is scandalous, and worthy of a far reaching inquiry with autonomous powers.

Yet the response from the Dep PM, Minister suggests he was kidnapped about 12 months ago and has never been heard from since!

If NAS / ARG / NASPAG / DOTARS is an example of superior economic management I will be thoroughly investigating the credentials of those potential administrations deemed less 'superior'.

I will agree with you that Howard is a smart politician. His smart non-committal answers always seem to leave him with an 'out'. Very smart indeed. Makes it hard to know what he truly believes thought doesn't it? Or when he is telling the truth? (http://www.johnhowardlies.com)

Very smart.

[Oh come on Bino - be a bit more specific!]

http://****sutonka.port5.com/liars.gif

[Col. Walter E. Kurtz]

"The bewildered herd is a problem. We've got to prevent their roar and trampling. We've got to distract them. They should be watching the Superbowl or sitcoms or violent movies. Every once in a while you call on them to chant meaningless slogans like "Support our troops." You've got to keep them pretty scared, because unless they're properly scared and frightened of all kinds of devils that are going to destroy them from outside or inside or somewhere, they may start to think, which is very dangerous, because they're not competent to think. Therefore it's important to distract them and marginalize them."


Noam Chomsky

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Whilst they don't have a vote, as an aside it is revealing / interesting to see how the election announcement is being viewed from outside Australia, and what the international media perceive as the key issues:

From The BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3609258.stm):

Opening Line: "The presence of Australian troops in Iraq is expected to dominate the polls. "

"Mr Howard's Liberal/National coalition last won in November 2001, with a strong policy against illegal immigration. "

From Television NZ (http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_world_story_skin/444568%3fformat=html)

"Australians will vote on October 9 in a cliff-hanger election pitting the conservative government against centre-left Labor, with national security and the economy as major issues"

From :

The poll offers voters the choice of maintaining Mr Howard's controversial military engagement in Iraq or backing Labour leader Mark Latham's vision of pulling hundreds of Australian troops out of the Middle East by Christmas and boosting economic aid to Iraq.

Mr Howard, 65, a staunch ally of US President George W. Bush, sent 2,000 troops to take part in last year's invasion of Iraq...

..Mr Howard arguing his administration is tougher on homeland security and a better guardian of the country's economy.

From: www.washingtonpost.com (]Straits Times (Singapore)[/url)

"Howard is banking on ../.... strong stand on national security, which included sending troops to Iraq and Afghanistan in enthusiastic support of the United States."

From [url]www.latimes.com

"Among the key issues in the campaign will be the economy, national security and the war in Iraq"

"The vote will pit Howard's three-term conservative coalition against a resurgent Labor Party led by maverick lawmaker Mark Latham. It will offer voters the choice of maintaining Howard's controversial military engagement in Iraq or backing Latham's vision of pulling hundreds of Australian troops out of the Middle East by Christmas and boosting economic aid to Iraq. "

And from our own alternative non-media Crikey! (http://crikey.com.au/politics/2004/08/29-0002.html)

"On a rainy day in Canberra, John Howard today chose to cut and run to an October 9 election, seeking to avoid parliamentary scrutiny of his Children Overboard obfuscations – and handling Labor its best chance to govern the nation in eight and a half years.
This could be Howard's final crazy-brave act as Prime Minister, and it was a doozy. He will allow the Senate to sit for two days, during which time Labor will combine with the minor parties to re-open the Kids Ahoy inquiry.

This is very dangerous, and Bob Brown has just told journalists he would move to keep the Senate itself running during the election campaign to put the Government under a Children Overboard blowtorch. This is an unprecedented move that will fill the Government with dread as it tries to push the PM's election platform of – wait for it – "trust"."

[Duff Man]

http://www.singularity.net.au/justnotjohn/downloads/bigbanner1.gif (http://www.justnotjohn.com/)
http://www.justnotjohn.com/

[Chronic Snoozer]

I'm not going to pick a fight about aviation policy/management. Indefensible. Disgraceful. Has been for quite some time now wouldn't you agree? Countless reorganisations and re-printing of stationary to administer a pretty simple part of the world (in aviation policy terms) Not high on the list of election issues according to the links you posted. Therein lies the problem.

However I try not to confuse the man with the party. I don't like liars either, hell they all do it, thats politics. Its almost a choice about which lies you choose to accept/believe and those you don't. I don't give a rats about the overboard thing. Its the only pathetic 'issue' the media go on about. Although I thought it really, really poor form to besmirch Defence as the government did.

I just happen to think a change of party leader is in order, not a change of party. Otherwise it could be case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Shitsu-Tonka]

I accept your point of view.

But would you seriously fear spilling the bathwater consisting of John Anderson, Alexander Downer, Wilson Tuckey, Phillip (Monty) Ruddock, Amanda Vanstone, Larry Anthony.....?

Even in this vicious drought I would happily see that aquatic talent pool swirling down the plughole forever.

[Chronic Snoozer]

By what measure are you judging these people? I don't know them personally, and I'm certainly not going to believe 10sec media grabs about how bad they are/seem/perform. There are a shedload of public servants that run government capably in spite of these MPs, and I'm not certain that IF the party in power were to change we wouldn't be replicating this exact same exchange in say 2 years.

I'm not prepared to run them out of town before I'm sure who's gonna be sherrif instead.

Its important to remember that people running for office want power and that generally means saying anything to get it. Its like a tri-annual groundhog day. Of course Labour could do a better job, trust us!

[woftam]

Umm...............Who is this "Labour" party anyway?
Don't you mean "Labor"?
:confused:
Johnny aint perfect by any stretch.......but the country hasn't got anywhere near the credit card bill that it had under the "labour" party.
;)

[Rich-Fine-Green]

I have a long memory.

I remember trying to pay off aeroplanes and a house at 15% - 20% interest under Labor!!.

I remember a destroyed G.A. due to the previous Labor Govt.

Anderson has been a hopeless Transport Minister (except for QF), however, Collins and other Labor Ministers were worse.

The Liberals may not be perfect, but they have run the country pretty well through two world economic downturns and Australia got through it pretty well.

I remember under Labor, everytime the world had a small economic downturn, Australia's economy suffered.

D.P. - Labor's hopeless economic skills are not an Urban Myth - It happened. I was there - were you?!.

I remember LATHAM'S economic policy during HIS Mayor term of Liverpool City sent the City broke.

Look at ALL the spending promises Latham has made in the last 9 months. Books for Kids, 100% bulk-billing etc etc etc etc.

IF he keeps his promises - the country will be broke for sure. At least the Liberal spending spree is paid for.

As for trust and telling the truth - Look at Latham:

Beats up Taxi Driver.
Beats up City of Liverpool Labor member.
Beats up first Wife (her story).

As much as I think Anderson is a total zero and that Howard will not be there for a full term - it is still better than the alternative offered by Labor.

GST: Correct me if I am wrong: But GST can only be increased if all the states and Govt. agrees......

IF Labor wins, there will be total Labor control - state and Federal.

Under labor - I foresee an increase in GST from 10% to 12.5 % as per New Zealand.

:uhoh: :uhoh:

[Sunfish]

Rule !: "Oppositions don't win, the Government loses"

It does not matter what Latham does or says. Its what Howard does or says. My guess is that Howard may get back in, but only just, by running another fear uncertainty and doubt campaign.

Fear - of terrorism, union power, interest rate rises.

Uncertainty - What is Latham really going to do?

Doubt - Can Latham do it?


Latham has to counter all of this which is not going to be easy. Calling Howard a liar is one thing, but coping with a FUD campaign is another.

[NAMPS]

RFG, I remember all those things too.

Also, which party was responsible for bringing in HECS? - Labor :yuk:

The education "rung" in the "ladder of opportunity" was stuffed up in the first place by Labor.

[DirtyPierre]

Sorry, but Labor governments have not been financially inept. They spend there funds on social programs that the Liberals think are not required. Obviously you feel the same.

Labor governments don't send Australian troops to Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq. In 1974, Labor stopped cconscription. This was widely cheered by me and my friends at the time. I didn't want to be another fatality in a futile war in a south-eastern country.

I remember trying to pay off aeroplanes and a house at 15% - 20% interest under Labor!!.

Actually, when the Labor government came to power at that time, interest rates were 13% and rose to 19%. The economy has an inertia that lasts longer than the term of a government, so saying one government alone causes high interest rates is a furphy. Any financial advisor will tell you this.

D.P. - Labor's hopeless economic skills are not an Urban Myth - It happened. I was there - were you?!.

I have been a voter since 1976, when I turned 18, so yes I was there. Labor with its bevy of Rhodes scholars as leaders, are not hopeless economic managers. They like to initiate programs of social concience.

I got my Uni degree without having to pay a cent for it. My children will be in debt for years to receive a similar education. How hopeless is that!

I work hard to self fund my retirement, yet my super is taxed at 15%. How fair is that?

Every service and goods I receive are taxed at 10%. No wonder the Liberals are such great economic managers. They introduced a new tax, that taxes everything! Even me with my Human Movements degree and my diploma in aviation can work out the economics there.

Not too many boat people when Labor was in government. Might be something to do with foreign policy and Oz-Indonesian relations at the time.

Medicare.....is being decimated by the Liberals. Even the AMA, normally big supporters of the Liberals, have publicly denounced the governments health policies. My father is a GP, as are my uncle, my brother and 4 cousins. Most work in the same practice and most will probably not vote Liberal this year, some for the first time, because of the governments determination to destroy our good public health system.

NAS.......been done to death, but this alone is a big reason for me not to support a Liberal government.

Enough reasons for a change. I think so.

[rtforu]

The way I see it, Howard lives in the past, he lies and gets a big brown nose every time he visits the US or his mother country England.

Downer is a stupid man who should never had held a position in government, he makes Australia look stupid!

Anderson should be jailed.

Get rid of this lot, bring on the republic!

[Howard Hughes]

Hang on whats all this talk about Howard?

Oh and ****su I take offence to your banner!!

What have I ever done for you? Perhaps as much as my namesake? ie: NOTHING!!


On a more serious note, you can change elected members if you like, however, the same public servants and appointed representatives will still be running the country and that includes our friends at the airspace reform group!!

Cheers, HH.

:ok:

[Jet_A_Knight]

Try feeding, educating, clothing and entertaining a familywithout a squillion dollar income under this government and then tell me they're doing a good job.

:mad:

Not to mention making us all look like a bunch of lap-dogs across the world. Once upon a time, we didn't have an enemy in the world.

[Duff Man]

Visit my Election 2004 quicklinks page (http://members.optusnet.com.au/ppruneaholic/) :8 find links to sites like this:
http://www.votehowardout.com/logo_small.jpg (http://members.optusnet.com.au/ppruneaholic/) and more.

The divide between rich and poor has never been so great in all of Australia's modern history. Howard et al are trampling on the less fortunate, marginalised, soft targets. Abusing human rights. YOU may have it comfortable, but you are fortunate. You are comfortable at the expense of many, many others.

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Sorry HH, but I tell it as I see it. They ARE liars. Not white lies - big Porkers!

Your point about the public service:

the same public servants and appointed representatives will still be running the country

I 100% agree. The same public servants who have done such a fine job running finance and treasury that all the Howard supporters here give him credit for. Remember: Treasury set interest rates - the Reserve Bank governor, NOT Costello or Howard.

The same public servants, of whom their better numbers continued to offer frank and fearless advise to their respective ministers - Scrafton, Wilkie, and the 'Daquiri Diplomats' who all know that the Truth was the only thing thrown overboard.

When the real truth gets out, the Howard team swings in to action and does the only thing they know how - play the man and play him hard. Remember how long it took Howard to reprimand that cockroach Bill Heffernan over his unfounded attack on High Court Justice Kirby? Disgraceful conduct. And they continue it to this day.

I think you can continue to have faith in the non-political appointees of the Australian Public Service to run the country.

The same can not be said for the shifty, mean-spirited lot in the current cabinet. The only relaxed and comfortable beneficiaries are all the ex-Ministers working as 'consultants' - Reith and Alston spring immediately to mind.

Is Howard and his government fit to govern Australia? What of the following charges (source:tonykevin.com):

Did the Howard government deliberately ignore repeated Australian official intelligence reports, and public reports, of serious Indonesian Army-sponsored killings and other human rights abuses in East Timor throughout 1999 that culminated in the massacres of up to 2000 East Timorese, forced expulsions of 100,000 East Timorese, and the scorched-earth destruction of scores of towns and villages in East Timor, in the three weeks after the UN-supervised referendum in September 1999 ? Was it Australian policy to maintain Indonesian acquiescence and international diplomatic momentum towards the UN referendum and subsequent UN authorisation of the international peacekeeping force INTERFET, regardless of the human rights abuses suffered by the East Timorese on the way ? Was this policy of turning a blind eye to these human rights violations in East Timor contrary to Australia’s international legal obligations under the UN Human Rights convention ?

The decisions were Downer’s, but the command responsibility was John Howard’s.

Was there criminality in Australia’s setting-up and operating at arms-length a mostly covert people smuggling disruption program in Indonesia 2000-2001, involving the use of Australian-recruited Indonesian police disruption teams (i.e., our mercenaries) and undercover civilian agents (eg Kevin Enniss), and which allegedly contributed to the deaths by drowning of unknown numbers of asylum-seekers in unsafe boats that were deliberately sunk off the coasts of Indonesia ?

Responsibility for this potentially criminal program lay within the portfolio responsibilities of Ruddock and Ellison (in respect of DIMIA and AFP), and possibly Downer (in respect of ASIS) but the command responsibility was John Howard’s.

Did Australian border protection and maritime rescue authorities criminally put over 400 people’s lives at risk on the asylum-seeker vessel Palapa, which in August 2001 very nearly sank in an overnight storm 60 miles from Christmas Island, after Australian authorities had twice overflown and inspected it on the previous day, but had chosen to ignore the passengers’ obvious hand-signals appealing for rescue from their damaged and immobilised boat ? Did this negligence, which very nearly caused over 400 deaths, violate Australia’s safety of life at sea international and domestic law obligations?

The decisions were made by Coastwatch and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority under the ministerial portfolio responsibility of Ellison. The command responsibility was John Howard’s.

Did Australian authorities criminally put at risk the lives of over 200 asylum-seekers, who could well have drowned during an illegal 22 hours circular tow by HMAS Adelaide on 7-8 October 2001, during which time they were ordered to remain on board their unseaworthy and sinking vessel Olong (SIEV 4), within 24 miles of Christmas Island ? Did Canberra’s orders to Commander Banks of Adelaide to keep the people on board their boat under post-rescue tow violate Australia’s safety of life at sea international and domestic legal obligations?

The decisions were allegedly made by the Prime Minister’s Department-chaired People Smuggling Taskforce and by the ADF (under Defence Minister Reith), but the command responsibility was John Howard’s.

Did Australian border protection authorities fail in their duty to conduct a legally required safety of life at sea search for the 353 people who drowned when their asylum-seeker boat SIEV X sank in the Australian border protection surveillance and interception zone on 19 October 2001 ? Have these authorities made deliberate efforts from then until today to cover up the facts of this alleged serious evasion of Australia’s safety of life at sea legal responsibilities ?

The decisions were made mainly by the ADF under Defence Ministers Reith and Hill, but the command responsibility was John Howard’s.

Did Downer, aided by his department DFAT, choose to take no action over a period of 13 months prior to the Bali bombings in October 2002, pursuant to at least three ONA and ASIO generic intelligence warnings of possible terrorist attacks on Western bars in holiday resorts in Indonesia ? Was the failure to amend DFAT travel advices in respect of Bali on the basis of these clear warnings, a manifest breakdown in the Foreign Minister’s duty of consular care to Australian citizens travelling abroad ?. Is there a legal case of contributory Australian government negligence in respect of the deaths of over 200 people including 88 Australians in the Bali bombings ?

The decisions were made by Downer, but the command responsibility was John Howard’s.

The attempt to destroy Justice Michael Kirby’s public reputation and tenure as a High Court of Australia judge, based on a libellous forged paper trail and associated unfounded accusations, is on public record. . The circumstances of Senator Heffernan’s public claims were defamatory and potentially litigable had Justice Kirby chose to go that route.

The actions were apparently initiated by Parliamentary Secretary Senator Bill Heffernan, but the command responsibility was John Howard’s. Howard to some extent accepted this, in demoting Heffernan: but he never made a proper apology to Justice Kirby.

The successful destruction of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party by highly dubious legal manoeuvres, culminating in her unjustified (and three months’ later judicially overruled) jailing. Pauline Hanson would have a strong legal criminal case against those who allegedly set out clandestinely to destroy her party and violate her rights as a citizen, should she ever choose to mount such action.

The legal actions were allegedly set in train by a group set up by Tony Abbott, but the command responsibility was John Howard’s.

The misrepresentation and misuse of coalition intelligence re alleged WMD in Iraq, prior to the coalition invasion. It appears that Howard took our nation to war on false pretences.
The action and command responsibility were John Howard’s.

The government decision to involve Australia’s ADF in the invasion of a sovereign nation Iraq, an invasion that did not have UN Security Council authorisation and was therefore illegal according to the general consensus of international government and expert opinion.
The action and command responsibility were John Howard’s.

The launch of secret pre-emptive ADF armed combat inside Iraq 30 hours before the expiry of a declared 48-hour coalition pre-war ultimatum to Saddam , and the misleading by Howard of the Australian Parliament and people at the time as to when Australian combat would start, and the subsequent attempts (after the timing of the covert preemptive attack had been exposed) to pretend that the preemptive attack was properly authorised and in accordance with the laws of war. How many Iraqi soldiers died during these 30 hours of illegal undeclared warfare ?
The action was under Defence Minister Hill but the command responsibility was John Howard’s.

The now admitted denial and cover-up of what Australian ADF officers serving with American forces in Iraq may have known and reported back to Canberra since September 2003 about ongoing tortures (including deaths under torture) of Iraqi prisoners in American-run military prisons in Iraq. Why was nothing was done by Australian authorities to protest against this obvious misconduct by their coalition partner in the military occupation of Iraq ? Were Australian human rights obligations and obligations as a signatory to the international Convention against Torture thereby breached?
The action was under Defence Minister Hill’s portfolio but the command responsibility was John Howard’s.

The neglect over nearly three years of the Australian government’s legal duty of care to its citizens Hicks and Habib who have been imprisoned without charge or prospect of fair trial at the US military prison of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Were Australian consular protection and international human rights obligations, and possibly Australia’s obligations as a signatory to the international Convention against Torture, breached by this neglected duty of care ?
The actions were under Attorneys-General Williams and Ruddock, but the command responsibility was John Howard’s

Continuing well-documented cruelties from 1999 to the present day towards asylum-seeker men, women and children, in detention or under house arrest in Australia or Nauru, or living under the cruel uncertainty of never-ending (at the immigration minister’s pleasure) Temporary Protection Visas. It seems clear that Australia’s human rights obligations, and possibly Australia’s obligations as a signatory to the international Convention against Torture, were thereby breached.
The actions were under immigration ministers Ruddock and Vanstone and Attorney-General Ruddock, but the command responsibility was John Howard’s.

http://****sutonka.port5.com/nmh.jpg

[Boney]

Who says Aussies don't care about politics?

I have been a Liberal voter all my life but will never vote liberal ever again. That low life took this country to war, against the wishes of the majority and based on bull$hit.

For the first time ever, this country went to war as an agressor. The day it happened, for the first time, I was ashamed to be an Australian.

Bush, Howard and Blair should be arrested by The United Nations and charged as war criminals. If it were anyone else besides The United States of Aggression, this is exactly what would happen. I would love to work in The Middle East but would be too embarrassed these days.

Howard, you sir are an absolute disgrace to the office of Prime Minister. Rot in hell you horrible little turd.

[Whiskery]

THIS (www.pm.gov.au/gov_rep_card/gov_report_card.cfm) is the reason I'll be voting LIBERAL :ok:

Boney I would love to work in The Middle East but would be too embarrassed these days.


I work in the Middle East and you don't have to feel embarrassed. I have local friends who are most thankful to see the end of The Butcher of Bagdad.:E

[Pharcarnell]

Whiskery?
You actually believe political publications? Silly boy.

It matters not whose hand is on the whip or with what colour political brush he(she)'s been tarred, we're still in for a flogging.

History of the last few decades show we are as badly off under either of the major mobs. Our economy is peanuts to the ones that matter and we survive, generally, despite their best efforts, not because of them.

What we need is to be able to Control our politicians, not have to take what they decide we should have, which invariably means to their interest and the furthering of their agenda, not ours. The only time you get a pollie to listen is when they are trying to suck up to you get another session at the trough, then you are ingnored.
Bring on Citizens Initiated Referendums. I want my representative to represent ME, not only the guy that has most recently bought him/her.

It's gonna be a LONG 6 weeks!

[Howard Hughes]

This is a great thread, but I think the links to political sites should be stopped.

I mean I cant believe that you guys(&gals) read that drivel, let alone think it has any merits!!

I think Pharcarnell said it best:

It matters not whose hand is on the whip or with what colour political brush he(she)'s been tarred, we're still in for a flogging.

Cheers, HH.

:ok:

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Whiskery,

Just in case I have misinterpreted your rationale...

You will be voting Liberal because you read on John Howards own website what a great job he is doing?

Is that correct?

The Libs must just love the inquiring minds of their faithful.

[Whiskery]

****su - you have no idea of my rationale, so I'll put it another way. Just for you !

THIS (http://www.alp.org.au/policy/platform2004/index.html) is why I shall NOT be voting for Labour. :{


Pharcarnell - no I don't. I am merely reading what achievements the Libs have made during their term in office and they will get my vote because of THAT record.

Oh - and I do agree with your "hand on the whip" theory.:ok:

[Woomera]

OK, OK, Children!! :{ I've been scrutinising this thread with my scrute eye!

This has obviously turned into a political thread - what else could one expect in Australia? I'll let this thread run, but:

1. No links to, or images from political sites.
2. Stick to real - and preferably aviation/transport related issues.

There will be more than enough political cr@p on radio and TV over the next month - don't need it in PPRuNe as well!! :{

Those who don't play by the rules may find it very difficult to post in this thread for a week or so........ :E

Woomera

[Chronic Snoozer]

Mike Moore eat your heart out.

(source:tonykevin.com): Don't tell me you believe these political sites?

I still don't see aviation reform as a burning issue in any of these platforms. Shame. What is a change of government going to bring as far as aviation reform/improvement goes?

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Chronic,

Is it that you wish to dispute the facts presented, or just shoot the messenger?

What was presented in my post is available from a number of sources all referenced to mainstream media and committee reports. (I will post them all here if you wish.)

Or do you only choose to believe what suits your point of view?

Do I believe political sites? Not blindly - No. But when a sufficient amount of evidence in produced time and time again thats says it looks, walks and sounds like a duck......

Its why I actually really like elections - especially in Australia where voting is compulsory. Because of that it forces people who are a-political or just apathetic to think about the issues, and look at the evidence.

[dingo084]

Day one of the election period and I am SICK of it already.

I sincerely hope that so called professional people DO NOT believe anything said on a site like this one will have any effect on anything save the posters inner warm feeling.

I'd rather be flying

ding

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Gee. Am I glad we live in a democracy where free speech is not only condoned but actively supported. Imagine what it would have been like if the target of your bile was Uncle Sadam instead of Uncle Sam.

On October 9 make your vote count. Remember that no matter who wins, we deserve the government we voted for.

VOTE 1 None of the Above

Mark

PS Agree with RFG. However, I must come clean. I was a pre/post 75 RAAF ATC/QAIRTC cadet. I too have a long memory.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Q1. Just the way the facts are presented, hence the MM comparison. I've no bone to pick with your point of view, I just don't feel quite so hostile toward the incumbent government. Thats not to say, as I have previously indicated, I don't get thoroughly annoyed being spoken to like a lowest common denominator by my PM.

Q2. Just as the media butchers aviation reporting, (hope that suffices Woomera as far as aviation referencing) so too the media sensationalises what it sees are the 'issues', whether we agree or not. Therefore before developing my point of view based on my beliefs, I need to believe the right 'facts'. Crikey hasn't this whole 'believe' thing gotten us into a lot of trouble?

The points you have raised are worthy of debate, I don't think the answers to the questions raised are simple. I would hazard to guess the goverment has a lot of support on asylum seekers issues among the silent electorate. It is an issue all over the world and I have seen a little of it here and there, particularly what works and what doesn't. They are bloody difficult decisions and the government will win friends and make enemies because of them.

If you visit Mike Moore's site, and those that counter his, it just ends up being a confusing game of my truth/your truth. Elections are fought like that unfortunately. I prefer to take the wider view and whilst I certainly don't agree with the government's policies in all areas, the litmus test says that Australia is in pretty good shape. Its not by accident, and I don't remember it being this good before. (Remember big picture stuff!)

For me the question is not whether its a duck. Its whether I'd rather have a goose.

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Chronic

Is Michael Moore to be demonised because he believes he is being a true patriot and defending values that America is rapidly losing through the stripping of basic civil rights disguised as 'homeland security'? Or has he awoken the sleeping giant of the US - the so called 50% of the 50/50/50 vote (the 50 who don't normally vote)? I don't think Michael Moore should automatically be pigeon-holed as some sort of left-wing nutcase - the only reason he is even heard in the US is because of his success - ironically. At least in Australia it hasn't yet come to needing enormous personal wealth to still have a say. The vote in November will answer the question about how the US really feel about the Bush neo-con agenda. Judging by the protests today in (admittedly Liberal [in the US context] leaning) NYC (which Bloomberg attempted to stymie) the results will see the end of Republican administration for the next term. (Hopefully the second domino after the defeat of Howard in Australia)

Hostile? Yes - apathy doesn't facilitate change. Engagement does. Through engagement comes knowledge and the consequent anger and hostility. (Thoroughly annoyed is an excellent cornerstone for hostility BTW)

Whilst I agree that media reporting, especially on topics one has intimate knowledge of, appears atrocious, it is still incalculably better than what you can get in the US, thanks partly to continued pressure on keeping the cross-media ownership rules in place in Australia. When it comes down to it, we all have to get our information from somewhere - I don't think any media reporting is without some sort of bias (the BBC excepted IMHO). The best you or I can do is absorb as much of the information from a variety of sources and make a balanced judgment.

My balanced judgement: there is overwhelming evidence for me to remain hostile - stay angry, and argue that Howard and his cronies do not possess the integrity to continue to govern Australia.

As has been said here already - governments get voted out not voted in.

This government needs voting out. What I know about the deception, ignorance and obfuscation on Aviation policy from John Anderson alone requires it, if that is indicative of the policy handling capabilities of this administration in the future.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Let me just say I enjoy reading your point of view. It is provocative. But.....

Is Michael Moore to be demonised because he believes he is being a true patriot and defending values that America is rapidly losing through the stripping of basic civil rights disguised as 'homeland security'? Or has he awoken the sleeping giant of the US - the so called 50% of the 50/50/50 vote (the 50 who don't normally vote)? I don't think Michael Moore should automatically be pigeon-holed as some sort of left-wing nutcase - the only reason he is even heard in the US is because of his success - ironically.

Listen - I never pigeon-holed or passed judgement on MM. He's definitely not a nut-case. MM is unquestionably manipulative with his 'facts'. But hasn't he just given the media-manipulating neo-cons a taste of their own medicine? I say hats off to the guy!

I think it is sad that the electorate is polarising around two so-called sides of politics forcing most of us to choose between bad and not-so-bad. Or put another way, the grass on both sides of the fence is brown, which side do you want?

[Transition Layer]

There's currently a poll running on http:///www.news.com.au - there's a link on the front page under "Vote - Best PM".

When I last checked, after almost 9000 votes, the lead to Howard was just 8 votes!!! Incredibly close for a poll like that.

TL

[CoodaShooda]

****su
All very good to criticise leadership decisions with the benefit of hindsight. However, the real question is "How would the Opposition have managed these situations had they been in power?"

If you can convince me that Latham, with his populist, policy on the run, backflipping style would have handled things differently or better than stolid Honest (but not really honest) John, then I'd have a preferred winner from this contest.

As it stands, I have lost a lot of respect for Howard but have yet to be convinced that Latham has substance.

Personally I'd like to see an amalgamation of the two front benches, Howard as leader, Costello with Treasury, Rudd with Foreign Affairs, Beazley with Defence and Transport, Latham the Arts.

Better still would be a 'none of the above' box on state election ballot papers, so we can break the power of the parties at the grass roots and try democracy for a change. :uhoh:

Cooda
Wavering between political atheism and anarchy :E

[Like This - Do That]

Cooda, Mr Beazley run Defence again? Perish the thought. The cabinets in which he served as Defence Minister did plenty of damage to the ADF ...

I've never voted Labor and I've always believed I never would ...but ... I'm between a rock and a hard place as I can't vote Liberal again; this lying manipulative government doesn't deserve it. However my seat is a dark blue ribbon solid safe Liberal seat ('Monty' Ruddock is the member) so what's the point?

When push comes to shove, at the end of the day, I mean, like, yeah no, you know .... neither will buy back the airports, reduce excises on AVGAS, etc, the sort of things that will revive GA. Dems or Greens, no way, they hate aviation. Coalition or Labor? Crappy track record.

I suppose I just have to get cynical and worry about my phone number sized mortgage and vote for someone who will stack the RBA board with communists!

[CoodaShooda]

LT-DT

I really need a 'tongue in cheek' smiley :}

While I said I'd like to see it, I didn't necessarily mean it would be a good thing for the country. :E

The amalgamated Cabinet would lead to anarchy much sooner than letting one party/coalition have power.

The cracks in Howard's mantle can only widen and his focus will be on damage control, Costello will be divisive until he can take the top job, both will be fighting off the smooth faced, electorally attractive Rudd who will be distracted by having to work harder to maintain his veneer of capability in a higher profile role, Beasley will hate all of them for preventing him from moving up the ladder over the past few years and Latham will spit the dummy and return to type.


Unfortunately, Aviation, in all forms, hardly registers on the political radar. So regardless of who wins the election, nothing much will change. :{

I think I'd prefer to see the RBA staffed with practising Muslims. They have interesting views on interest. :cool:

[Uncommon Sense]

If you really want to keep this thread on the aviation track of politics, somebody from the 're-elect the poison dwarf party' campaign explain to me how you can vote for them after John Andersons (post parliament suspension) decree to Airservices Australia today to install radar approach facilities at all Class D control towers?

If ever there was a supreme example of incompetent policy on the run from a Dick Smith glove-puppet this would have to take out the gold logie.

My hostility is re-vitalised.

[Andu]

Ask yourself the following questions before you decide how you’ll vote on Oct 9th:

(1) (Bear with me, I think this first question’s relevant.) If the Communist Chinese authorities had not cracked down hard on the Tiananmen Square protestors, (as horrible as that crackdown undoubtedly was), what would be the state of China today? Could the answer be, just possibly, a fragmented nation in a state of anarchy run by a half dozen warlords, (as it was until 1949)?

(2) Bearing your answer to the first question in mind, if John Howard had not cracked down heavily on illegal immigration, (as unpalatable as that crackdown might have been to many Australians), how many more boatloads of high-paying hopefuls would have set out from Indonesia over the last three years?

(3) With Latham in charge, will the boatloads of hopefuls start again? I’d be willing to put money on it.

(4) Does Howard deserve another term? Probably not. But after the “feel good factor” of “teaching that terrible man Howard a lesson” has worn off, is the alternative government going to serve your best interests? God help the country, for I can see another Liverpool Council spreadsheet in the making, but on a national scale, if Latham gets in, and I can’t afford to see my savings go up in smoke again. (Who else can remember paying 17% interest on their mortgage.)

I’m reminded of the old saying that Socialism is like wetting the bed on a very cold night – it’s a lovely warm feeling at first, but it very quickly gets very cold and uncomfortable as the long night progresses.

Look past knee jerk emotions and accept that pragmatic politicians quite frequently have to do unpalatable things in the national interest. Howard might not be Mr Nice Guy, (where Latham is????!!!!), but having lived through the Whitlam years, (another member for Werriwa), from pure self interest, I think I’d prefer to live in an Australia governed by Howard’s brand of politics rather than Latham’s.

Another way to look at it is to ask yourself who you’d pick to run your company or your stock portfolio (if you had either) – some nice (!) young hopeful with bu*ger all experience in the field who lost a truck load of money when he tried to run a very small company some years ago, or that not very nice CEO/fund manager who you thought might not lose your money?

Someone has said it before me – it’s a question of the lesser of two evils, and I’d prefer the bloke who tells a few fibs (as they all do) rather than the one who resorts to fisticuffs every time he doesn’t get his own way.

[rtforu]

I think this thread has moved far away from aviation related matters. I'm starting to think that maybe there are a few participants with more than a casual interest in politics!

[buzztart]

LT-DT
__________________________________________________
"However my seat is a dark blue ribbon solid safe Liberal seat ('Monty' Ruddock is the member) so what's the point?"
__________________________________________________

Last election the safe liberal seat of RYAN (BRISBANE WEST) was lost to Labor (after 50 years of liberal majority), after then defence minister John Moore retired under bad smelling circumstances. Sometimes your vote does count.

[Duff Man]

This was touched on in the last election but it becoming much more important this time around. If you saw ABC Lateline (http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2004/s1189346.htm) last night, you would have heard Amy Walter from The Cook Political Report (http://www.cookpolitical.com/) (a non-partisan, online analysis of US lectoral politics.) mention, in reference to the Republican booing of Michael Moore, People who go to see the movie really are folks who already feel - they're pretty much against the war.

They're committed already to their cause, a movie like that helps to sort of cement that.

Folks on the other side would never dream about going to see a movie like this.

I think we're seeing that culturally more and more in terms of the kind of TV you watch here, the kind of Internet sites that you now see.

You can insulate yourself in this country more so than ever and I think worldwide you can do this too where you wake up and get your news and your information and never have to listen to one dissenting point of view.

It's not a particularly good thing, I think, but it's certainly become part of our culture. I'm coming to the conclusion that at least in this campaign, the fairest way to assess each party is to analyse their own primary policy web sites (with a big dose of NaCl) and watch the campaign develop on the least-biased news site in the country (http://www.abc.net.au/news/).

[Chimbu chuckles]

I agree whole heartedly with Andu on this one.

Politician and economical with the truth go hand in hand.

To pick based on honesty or trust is impossible...you can only vote on who will likely do the least damage.

To suggest that Labor have a good economic record certainly flys in the face of my memory...anyone remember Keatings efforts in 93...and his subsequent raising of indirect taxes?

Who came up with the plan to have a GST first? Keating!!!

I dislike the Libs intensely but Labor does not present a better alternative.

Anyone who thinks Anderson's lack of moral fibre with respect to avaition reform is going to have any effect whatsever on his/Libs re-election chances is playing with themselves.

Unfortunately...or possible fortunately:uhoh: Politicians and the entire democraic political process long ago worked out that the electorate have extremely short attention spans and the vast majority of voters do not vote based upon their understanding of the big issues or various platforms espoused by the elected liars...they vote on personality.

If Latham gets over the line I will be amazed...at the % of Oz voters who appear to be the target audience of 'The Footy Show' and Jerry Springer....in my opinion if the % of the voting population which can be charachterised as 'traditional Labor voters' was removed and only the left wing 'educated elite' were left to vote Labor they'd get less votes than the dopey old fart from Tassy.

I tend to think that as the population of Australia has become wealthier and more afluent (on average) more traditional labor voters have found they no longer agree ideologically with Traditional Labor. Hawke/Keating dragged Labor from being, essentially socialist, to being more center right...Latham/Labor seems now to want to go back to their 'working class' roots.

Modern politicians are more about power and ego than substance...certainly the figurehead Leaders, perhaps not so true of back benchers who may still have altruistic feelings.

I dislike Howard intensely just less intensely than any of the options from either the opposition or his own cabinet.

[Dark Knight]

Green Alternative

The Greens always provide an appealing alternative political party for one to vote for.
Apart from other fascinating and varied policies their Air Transport Policy makes for interesting reading providing solutions to resolve almost all within the industry.
Why it could even solve the Ansett aftermath, the Qantas/Jet* integration dispute, Sydney airport, etc., etc.

Air Transport Policy
3.15 Recognising that air transport causes considerable environmental damage and is also less fuel efficient by a large factor particularly to transport by rail or by sea, the Australian Greens consider it important that the environmental costs of air transport are taken into account openly and incorporated into the cost of air travel.
3.16 The Australian Greens believe there are many unexplored possibilities for decreasing the dependence on air travel. One of these is the expansion of teleconferencing. In general, the Australian Greens will support measures such as tax incentives which will encourage people to travel less by air.
3.17 The Australian Greens recognise that bad planning in a number of cases has caused housing areas near airports to have an unacceptable noise level and support moves to remedy such mistakes, for example through modifying flying patterns and airport operations and compensating residents in the most affected areas.
Check their website: http://www.greens.org.au/policies/services/transport

DK

>>ps: this could appeal to our fearless aviator, Diccus Smithus, perhaps attracting him as a Green Candidate?

[Boney]

Dick Smith as a green? Being a geek, you would have no choice but to join the Libs, I would have thought. Right next to the Chief Geek - Lord Downer of Bagdad.

The only thing I have ever seen that had more knobs than a Young Liberal Convention was a B727 cockpit!

[DownDraught]

I think I just thought of a way to stop terrosism....Let Dick Manage it. Give him a year at the helm and both sides would be so confused and frustrated they won't know what to do, and thus stop fighting, so on that thought I say Put dick inbetween them.

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Those Liberals certainly are a pragmatic lot. Even carrying a leader along they privately (and lately openly) despise, they see that he is their best chance of retaining government. Prime Minister Costello is not quite palatable to the Liberals in the public sense yet, despite the deal having already been made, and some public frustrations by Costello himself at the slow baton change. Maybe he was recalling his own feigned outrage at the so-called 'Kirribilli accord' between Hawke and Keating? Best not make it too obvious about the 'arrangements' in place huh Pete? I must say though, his TV denials need a lot more polish to be convincing dont you think!? That is one thing he could learn from the master of evasion and obsfucation: The Prime Minature himself.

Personally I am no Costello fan, but I would think that he would be far preferable as a PM to Howard if the Liberals really cared about trying to woo in some new voters. Although the term 'Compassionate Conservative' is in itself a paradoxical term at the outset, (quite cycnically conceived to steal all us disenfranchised old lefties!) it does seem to have more applicability to Pete than - as Liberal Senator Brandis would refer to the incumbent leader - 'that lying rodent'.

I can't help wondering (and hoping) if they have miscalculated by rolling out the old bloke for another tour selection? His shot selection is not very wide, and it has been quite a while since he scored a boundary.

There are no new tricks forthcoming either - The old scare campaign tactics have even been taken out of the freezer like and old bit of fishbait and thawed out for another round. This time they are just a bit 'too' stinky though. Disinformation abounds once again about Labors record on the economy - no mention of the inherited bag of crap they got from 'treasurer Howard' in 1983.

If as many contributors here say, there is nothing to pick between the two major parties, why would you then encourage another term be given to a tired old bunch who care only about retaining power without any ideas how to usefully use it?

Trust Us they say - those that are willing to continue to sell out Australias reputation as an independant-thinking and morally sound member of the international community who once respected international standards on Human rights, but now gladly sheds it all in favour of local politics to win over a few rednecks?

What an embarrassment it has become to present my Australian Passport in Europe, Canada and Asia.

As former Liberal President John Valder would say: Not Happy John ( dot com)

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Rodent lovers offended by 'lying' claim
The alleged "lying rodent" comment made against Prime Minister John Howard has upset members of the Australian Rodent Fanciers Society.

Queensland Liberal Party branch chairman, Russell Galt, has signed a statutory declaration which claims Senator George Brandis described Mr Howard as a "lying rodent' in relation to the children overboard affair.

Australian Rodents Fanciers Society spokesperson Louise Dux says its members are somewhat offended by the statement.

"We would have to say that it's quite funny that it's not technically correct," she said.

"Unfortunately, most rodents, we have around 30 at our place, actually have a little more integrity than prime ministers and politicians."



http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200409/s1190071.htm

[3 Holer]

Boney

Would you please refrain from comparing the B727 to a Young Libs convention.

That's SACRILEGE young man !

[Chronic Snoozer]

I'm never embarrassed to present my Australian passport.

[Boney]

Young man, I wish - that's why I can remember what the cockpit looked like. Never got my hands on it though, not THAT old!

Yeah, but sorry, was abit of an insult to B727?

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Chronic,

Well, wait until it gets to the point like in the US where the government encourage it's citizens to activel hide their passport and nationalities when travelling overseas to prevent becoming targets.

(Of course, our own passports might soon as well be US ones anyway)

[Zapatas Blood]

"I tend to think that as the population of Australia has become wealthier and more afluent"

According to the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, average disposable income AND Social wage income have decresed in the past 20 years in Australia.

[HotDog]

Hey ****zu, go and check out this place. They spout the same political views as you and your mates.

Communist Party of Australia
74 Buckingham Street, Surry Hills, NSW 2010, AUSTRALIA:(

[DirtyPierre]

Hotdog,

Just when the debate was getting interesting and light hearted, you come in with the old red under the bed.

To think I thought Menzies was dead.

Mate, how about contributing instead of demeaning. Your candle won't glow any brighter because you try to dim others.

Don't be a schumck...say something meaningful.

[HotDog]

Well Pierre, that's meaningful to me; we are obviously not on the same wavelength. When somebody relentlessly rubbishes my beliefs, am I supposed to turn the other cheek? Sorry mate, not christian enough for that.

[Binoculars]

And the only answer HotDog can give is that anybody who "rubbishes his opinions" is a commie? Oh dear, that's pretty sad. I hope that's not the same Hot Dog I played golf with a few times when DC9's used to overnight in MK? I credited him with a lot more intelligence than that.

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Hotdog,

If your beliefs lie somewhere in the foundations of the Liberal Party and what it stood for during it's inception, I have not, and do not rubbish them.

If your beliefs lie within what John Howard has turned the Liberal Party in to, then I have a duty to rubbish and expose them, along with Malcolm Fraser, John Valder and probably every pre-90's Liberal Minister who would not recognise the party since the right-wing pragmatists destroyed the values the party was originally based on.

It is the 'new' values that Howard has hijacked from the likes of One Nation that now have fools of dogma like you always playing the man: i.e. if you are not with us you are against us / if you are not a right-wing raving loony you are a communist.

For Christ Sake - grow up, get some objectivity and learn to listen not just regurgitate propoganda.

By your logic if one is not a communist they are a facist: it is apparent you are NOT a communist...... ipso?

[Chronic Snoozer]

What an embarrassment it has become to present my Australian Passport in Europe, Canada and Asia.
Why? Because the government isn't to your liking? What about the governments in Europe, Canada and Asia?

Well, wait until it gets to the point like in the US where the government encourage it's citizens to activel hide their passport and nationalities when travelling overseas to prevent becoming targets.
They're not embarrassed to show their passports, its for their own security!

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Chronic,

Your point just strenghtens my argument.

Why is their security at stake?

Why is ours?

Something to do with the same unilateral foreign policy perhaps?

[Zapatas Blood]

Politicians should be seen for what they are. Self serving lackeys of corporate power. Australia's increasingly internationalised economy will rise and fall more as a result global currency flows and trans-national corporate interests than because of which moron occupies the Lodge.

Andu,

Illegal Immigration and Assylum Seakers are two different things. I assume you are referring to Indonesian Assylum Seakers (United Nations Refugee Convention of 1951).

[Chronic Snoozer]

Nowhere in that first post did you mention security issues. Its a general tirade about the state of the party. Because of the way politicians behave you then, remarkably, stated you were embarrassed to show your passport in a few countries/continents.

Still not embarrassed to show my passport, Labor or Lib government.

I agree with you on the 'unilateral policy' issue. I agree with you that the threat to our personal well being that the government has bestowed upon us through these policies, is maddening and short-sighted.

But aside from slamming the Libs, which anyone can do, you tell us what so appealing about the other mob? Don't bother with rhetoric, point out why they will be sooooo different therefore worth a vote.

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Why do you change anything?

[Andu]

No, ‘Zapatas Blood’, I am NOT referring to Indonesian asylum seekers, I am referring to the many ‘asylum seekers’, mostly from Middle Eastern countries, most of whom who travelled through (or over - in commercial jets) some ten to twelve other non threatening countries before reaching Indonesia, where they paid very large amounts of money to people traffickers who put them on boats bound for Australia, where they would claim political asylum.

There are some – quite a few, in fact – who would class such people ‘illegal immigrants’ rather than ‘asylum seekers’. Having carried quite a few such people as commercial, fare-paying passengers as far as Jakarta, I’m one who finds it had to see them as genuine asylum seekers.

I will be very interested to see how Mark Latham handles the first boatload to arrive off our coast after (if) he takes over the reins of Government.

[Capt Claret]

Andu,

Please bear with my fanciful scenario and answer a few questions.


Labor is successful in October's election and withdraws Australia's troops from Iraq. George Dubya gets shiity and decides to invade, enslaving all Australians and removes all the rights we have come to cherish. We work for peanuts, are not allowed to own property, and are in essence an occupied people.

Our Australian way of life is no longer, and life here is intolerable. The only option of escape is to go west, as the US has also occupied Hong Kong and there is the threat to the region of a nucular (to emulate Dubya) holocaust.


What country would you try to escape to for the safety, well being and future of your family?
Would you try to settle in Europe or would some where like India or Saudi be acceptable?
How many countries would you pass over between here and your country of choice?

[Wiley]

‘****su-Tonka’, it’s as much a waste of time my debating with you as it is you debating with me – we’re both so damn sure we’re right we won’t listen to the other side. The difference between us, (IMHO, at least), is that you are still a True Believer – and I saw what a succession of ‘True Believers’ did to my country’s economy from 1975 on. (Was it you who said you got your university degree ‘for free’ under a Whitlam Government, where your children will be burdened for many years with repaying a student loan? It may surprise you to learn that nothing comes for free, and every taxpayer – including the many who were not lucky enough to get a university education – were burdened with your ‘student loan’.)

I don’t believe there’s a totally honest one among either Front Bench. (It’s simply impossible to get to the Front Bench on either side of the House without being beholden to the faceless men who pull the strings from behind the scenes in both parties. They couldn’t afford to let a man with no debts to repay [or no skeletons in the closet] into a position of power.)

But maybe they’re all being crooks to some degree isn’t quite as bad a situation as many would think it is at first glance. Look at the absolute disaster Jimmy Carter made of US foreign policy in trying to be ‘Mr Nice Guy’. Did that buy America respect? Quite the opposite, if my recollections are correct.

Sadly, the people represented by nice guys are all too often sold down the river as the nice guys get stomped on by the not very nice guys they have to deal with in world politics. (When oh when will Australian politicians get it into their heads that they were elected by Australians to represent Australia’s interests, and not those of the UN?)

I’m seriously unimpressed – appalled would be a better word – at what John Anderson has allowed Dick**** Smith to do to Australian aviation. I also think that huge mistakes have been made – and continue to be made - in the helicopter purchases being made by the Australian Army, and these mistakes could have consequences so grave should we ever go to ‘real’ war they don’t bear thinking about.

However, I can’t help myself… I simply know it in my gut that a Latham government will send the Australian economy into another tailspin, and, like an earlier writer on this thread, I believe that Howard’s mob, for all the undoubted faults, will do a less bad job of it than Labor – particularly Labor under the leadership of a tyro like Latham.

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Wiley,

Actually I really will listen to solid coherent arguments about why you think you are right. So far I haven't heard anything resembling that from either you or your cohorts.

There is nothing wrong with the Liberal Party philosophy - it's just that it was abandoned completely about 15-20 years ago.

[You are confusing me with someone a little older v.v. the degree. I will be paying for the privlege of a M.Bus. for some years, unlike in enlightened socially progressive countries like Ireland. Education is always the key that differentiates progressive countries and forms cohesive societies. The 'new brand' of Liberal Politics we see from the Howard regime either have no grasp or a complete grasp of that concept - if you get my drift.]

I would say that President Carter is in fact now one of the few American ambassadors able to garner international respect - why else is he parachuted in as a diplomatic firefighter when an outcome is absolutely positively required overnight?

Your pragmatic line equating to: 'Sure their crooks, but they are the best crooks of a bad bunch' is really a sad indictment of the lack of idealism that dominates the Liberal 'true believers' and what you are prepared to allow government be. I think Graeme Richardson (A total embarassment to the ALP I admit) said it best : 'Whatever it takes'. Just because it is the status quo it doesn't make it right or anywhere near acceptable. Bad things happen when good people do nothing.

I am not a true believer in the context you suggest.

But I do believe - and have always believed - that Australia has a unique place in the world to be able to stand apart and stand up for what is right - nearly 100% of the time it works out in the long term to be more beneficial than all the short term gains perceptions anyway. Instead we sell out the icons that make Australia unique and envied to fall in line with the US. Pathetic.

If you are going to gamble away Australia and it's identity so you can compete in the international commodities market with an economy smaller than that of Californias, you will lose. The brazeness of the US with its own protectionist tarrifs propping up inefficient fat industries preaching the benfits of free trade to Australia is almost pornographic in its obscenity. And what does Howard et al do? To 'allow' us to participate in this one-sided rout, we go to war with the US in Iraq as part of the Coalition of the Gullible - with: no objective, no exit strategy and no validity.

If you vote for the incumbent Government you endorse that philosophy. You say: 'We just love what you are doing for Australias image in the world - you have made Australia a much safer place, and chosen the right battles for our sons and daughters to fight for, with the right allies and for the right reasons. You have kept Australias voice an independant one and not succumbed to the polarised unilateral stand of the bullying US. And you have done all this with the highest ethical ministerial standards, probity and accountability. Give us some more!!'. Let me bend over to help you'.

If my standing up for Australias independence as a culture and nation makes me a crazy commie in your twisted view of the World, well paint me red comrade.

[DownDraught]

Well said, and on the FTA, Why is it that we have to sign a legal doc to achieve free trade, would not the opposite be true, that be not signing, we have Freedom of/to trade, without apply restrictions etc

[Chronic Snoozer]

why do you change anything?

A whim? Personal agenda? Ego? Isn't this whats been going on in aviation? Look where that got us. Why do you want to change?

[HotDog]

Seems to me, that fat slob Michael Moore has had a lot of effect on a lot of gullible people in here.:rolleyes:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Claret You forgot one option...:E

[Capt Claret]

OZBUS

Which one was that?

Anyhow, it's my scenario so I can make it how I want!! :=

[Shitsu-Tonka]

HotDog,

I see your well researched response to Michael Moores production of a movie, payment of independant factual auditing of his sources, is that he is:

that fat slob?

Keep shooting the messenger.

I take it you have never done any military service or have children in the service? Oops. Thats right. Of course not. You are a Liberal voter. You don't have to do that. Its for others.

[DirtyPierre]

Wiley,

That was me who said that my children will be landed with a considerable debt to achieve the same sort of education I received for free. Yes, you are correct, it's not really free, the tax payers fund it. That means, however, it's available for everyone, not just the wealthy. Just like roads, public health, old age pensions, etc.

I currently send my children to private schools, because I can afford it (the Catholic education system is great for this). I cannot, however, afford to put my children through Uni. The current cost of a degree in Law, Medicine, Dentistry, etc is in the order $120K. That's right! Increase that by 25% next year, and see if you can afford it.

As for 1975. Well, Whitlam was ousted by Malcolm Fraser. Fraser was a good PM. But as my financial advisor told me, Oz market is but 0.5% of the worlds economy and bigger forces outside Oz governments drive our economy. Saying that Labor bankrupt Oz's economy is BS, and no amount of saying it over and over makes it more right.

The real question is will Labor be better. I'm willing to give them a try. They've got three years to do something, including get rid of dick, before the next election.

DP

[Zapatas Blood]

Andu

"how many more boatloads of high-paying hopefuls would have set out from Indonesia over the last three years".

My sincere apologies, when you mentioned Indonesia, I thought you meant Indonesia.

As Cap Claret is alluding to, according to the United Nations Refugee Convention, the mode of transport (commercial jet) and the "very large amounts of money" they paid to reach Australia has no relevance to whether or not they are seeking asylum. Similarly, it does not matter how many other countries they flew over en route.

Latham, if elected, is compelled to treat asylum seekers according to international law and convention, something the present government has not done. However, being a politician, he will twist the situation, muddy the waters and deceive the people in order to make it a political issue supporting his agenda of the day. Why would you expect anything more.

[HotDog]

I take it you have never done any military service or have children in the service? Oops. Thats right. Of course not. You are a Liberal voter. You don't have to do that. Its for others.

Well **** su, you are right; I did escape military service. I guess the three years I spent in lots of air raid shelters as a kid has made up for it. Anyway there is no need to worry; if Latham gets in nobody will have to serve in the military anymore as we won't have one. Same as New Zealand.

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Wont have a defence force? Right. Based on what? More Liberal propoganda? I seem to recall the defence force being significantly stronger in ODF deployable numbers before 1996.

Same scare campaign as the 'ALP will increase Interest rates'.
Even most liberal voters know that the government doesnt set the bench rate.

HotDogWould I be correct in guessing that you earn more than 52K a year - so you have had a tax cut and agree with John Howard that unless you are a high income earner you don't deserve one? (Just a 'baby bribe' instead). Yes - masters of economic management this lot..... when it comes to buying votes that is.

Frankly I would rather listen to what Bernie Fraser (http://afr.com/articles/2004/09/02/1093939034274.html) has to say about Howards nonsense and economic 'credentials'.

[Like This - Do That]

****su-Tonka

You're right to an extent in refuting Hotdog's post re shutting down the ADF. The Defence bill each year as a proportion of Commonwealth outlays since the mid-1970s (ie Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Howard governments) has been about the same +/- a tiny little bit.

A Latham government won't slash Defence spending a la Whitlam but I fear a little bit for the army if the 'Sea Air Gap' nonsense comes to dominate thinking again. The army was incrementally reduced in strength (by very rough and iffy measurements I grant you if we talk solely in number of RAInf battalions) from 9 Bns of RAR in 1972 to the mid-1980s 6 Bns of RAR down to the nadir under Minister Ray (I think) of 4 ARA Bns of the RAR plus 2 RRes Bns. Also Mr Hawke's government eliminated the FAA's FW strike capability and organic fleet air defence - defence of the 'Sea Air Gap' my a#se!

So Mr Bomber Beazley has recently suggested we need another infantry battalion. Would they be so cynical as to reclassify 4RAR as light or motorised or mechanised infantry instead of (CDO) and say "Look we have another infantry battalion!"? Hope not but you never know. Frankly given the 'bare cupboard' we saw in 1999 I'd have thought that anyone trying to claim good defence credentials would arge for a massive increase in the size of the army - battalions, troop lift, battlefield mobility, logistical tail, the whole works 'n' jerks.

Didn't Mr Latham claim he'll keep the budget in surplus for each year of the next parliament? If so, imagine a 10% real increase in defence spending. Does it really amount to much as a proportion of total Commonwealth spending? Less than 1 percent, methinks.

Oh and by the way to add fuel to the argument before I sign off, Mr Dawkins as Education Minister in the Hawke ALP government oversaw the introduction of HECS. It's probably the least unfair way of helping fund the tertiary system but they also turned very good regional CAEs into 'Dawkins Universities' that now struggle to compete with the Group of 8. Should we start asking why tax payers fund everyone Tom Dicky & Harriet through a Bachelor of Leisure Studies at University of Western Buggery? Should universities be ultra elite centres of excellence.... I don't know the answer but the fact is the ALP opened the door to overt university fees in 1989 (called by whatever name).

PPRuNers I am not voting coalition this time; this government doesn't deserve it, so please don't read my criticisms of the ALP as meaning I'm a Lib stooge. I've just reread my post and the last paragraph is a bit unclear - much like my essays of old! But I'm too tired to clean it up....

Good night one and all, sleep tight.

[Shitsu-Tonka]

It was late in the afternoon. Mike Scrafton had been answering questions, on and off, since 9am. Now it was after 4. When the official transcript came out the next day, I did the sums. Scrafton's interrogation had lasted five hours in a 7½-hour hearing. The five politicians on the Senate committee asked him 620 questions. Fifteen minutes from the end, Labor's Robert Ray, the ex-Hawke/Keating minister, went to the heart of what had become obvious. "Would you agree not all your evidence today can be crystal clear? That some recollections are vague and some are accurate, that it is a mix?"

Scrafton, without pause: "Yes, I think that's true."

Ray: "That then leads to the question: do you know of any motive that would cause you to misrepresent your evidence?"

Scrafton: "There's nothing I gain from what I've come forward and said. I've seen sufficient Senate inquiries and estimates hearings to know exactly what I'd be subject to through this process. I have nothing to gain from this. I'm not coming back to [work in Canberra]. There is an air of notoriety and a lack of anonymity which is not good for a public servant. No, there's nothing I gain personally from having done this."

Nor is there. Scrafton is not a Labor activist, a Labor stooge nor a member of any political party. Nor has he ever been, so far as we know. He was a federal public servant for 18 years. Almost his entire career was in defence. He was good enough at what he did to reach the senior executive service. He headed up the East Timor policy unit in 1999. The former Howard defence minister John Moore made him his chief-of-staff, under secondment four years ago, and Scrafton agreed to stay until the 2001 election after Moore quit in December 2000 and was replaced by Peter Reith.

Scarred by the children overboard affair, Scrafton gave up his defence career last December. He now works in Melbourne for the Victorian state public service. Tony Abbott, as grubby as ever, is shrill in seeing this as Scrafton's partisanship. Yet politicians like Abbott are responsible for that "air of notoriety and lack of anonymity" Scrafton talks about in the workings of the Commonwealth public service these days.

However, what Scrafton really did three weeks ago, if you believed him, was show up his Prime Minister as a liar. Either Scrafton is right in his account of what he said to John Howard on the phone three years ago about children overboard, or Howard is right when he repudiates Scrafton. There is no room for compromise. One or the other has lied about the detail of their phone calls on the night of November 7, 2001 - three days before the 2001 election.

However, it was Scrafton in the dock this week, not Howard. It was Scrafton who had to prove himself under public interrogation, not the Prime Minister. Howard did a runner. He called the election last Sunday and closed down the Parliament from 4.59pm Tuesday (the precise timing has to mean something, though nobody's sure what). The House never sat at all, the Senate for one day only. Howard the coward evaded parliamentary scrutiny altogether. And when the Senate committee met on Wednesday to grill Scrafton, the Prime Minister was the man who wasn't there. In his stead we got Queensland's Senator George "Soapy" Brandis.

In a superb piece of irony, the Government's designated chief defender of Howard's truthfulness was outed on the Nine Network the night before the Senate hearing as having boasted 15 months ago to a group of Queensland Liberal colleagues that Howard was a "lying rodent" whom he and others would have to "cover his arse again" on children overboard. Brandis denies the accusation unequivocally, a denial Labor's John Faulkner dismissed with contempt at the Scrafton hearing.

When Brandis produced what he said were Telstra records of all telephone calls - including mobile calls - to and from the Lodge on the night of November 7, 2001, he refused to make the records public for "security" reasons.

Ray: "So they can be given to you but not tabled in this committee? We have offered for people from the Prime Minister's office to come and give evidence if they wish, not to take second-hand evidence from you in some closest."

Labor Senate leader John Faulkner: "I do not believe anything the Prime Minister's office says about anything. And I do not believe anything the Prime Minister has ever said about anything. He is a known liar. Senator Brandis knows that, and says it."

Brandis did not respond.

Scrafton was rarely anything but forthright. The picture he drew of a public service, timid if not cowed, makes a travesty of the Government's constant assertions of its independence and the quality of its advice.

The Democrat leader, Andrew Bartlett: "Do you believe there is a culture at high levels within Defence and the public service of avoiding saying things ministers or governments do not want to hear?"

Scrafton: "Do I think some senior people find it difficult or reluctant to provide advice on occasions? Yes ... My experience is there is an increasing tendency to represent material, not intended for public usage, for political reasons or for public explanation reasons. The whole experience I had during "children overboard" involved a lot of finding positions to deny evidence...

"I think evidence of poor advice comes from the fact Defence knew, certainly from the second week of October, 2001 [that is, three weeks before polling day] that almost certainly the event [children being thrown overboard] had not occurred, but at no point did anybody put formal advice before Government to make it unequivocal. Part of why they did not do that, I think, was because they did not think [such advice] would be received very well."

Bartlett: "Without getting too starry-eyed about the good old days of frank and fearless advice, because I imagine it always looks more rosy in retrospect, how big a problem is it that ... you just do not say things because it will stuff your prospects for the future?"

Scrafton: "Put simply, from within Defence's perspective, I would say on the one hand there is nowhere near the rigour and analysis put into the advice that goes forward now. It is much more tailored, I think, in lots of ways, to what wants to be heard. There is not the same strength internally to critically filter out bad advice."

Scrafton was adamant about what he'd told Howard. When the Liberals' Alan Ferguson asked if he could not be sure how many times the Prime Minister had phoned him on November 7, 2001, and that wasn't it possible he "could not recall clearly a lot of other events", Scrafton said: "I suppose the answer to that is, I do not know if you have ever been in the position of having to explain to a prime minister that the position he has been taking [on children overboard] for a month is wrong. That is not something that somebody with my length of time in the public service would ever forget."

And when Brandis, a barrister, kept boring in, ad nauseam, on how many phone calls there'd been from Howard, Scrafton told him: "The very salient issue burnt on my mind from that evening is what I said to the Prime Minister. There was more than one phone call. My recollection is that there were three. I am not prepared to go to the grave fighting over that. But I have no doubt whatever as to what I said."

The only other two witnesses called at Wednesday's hearing were both from the military. Their evidence backed Scrafton's credibility.

Major-General (ret.) Roger Powell made it clear he did not want to be there, and although he would at all times "be frank and forthright" in his answers, he would "not be drawn on any matter" he felt would "harm the reputation" of the "profession of arms". His evidence concerned a post-election internal defence inquiry in December 2001 in which, among other Reith staff, he'd interviewed Scrafton who had told him, "off the record", of his phone conversations on the night of November 7, 2001, with the Prime Minister.

Powell told the hearing: "I do not have a strong recollection of the detail. I only recall a clear understanding of the fact that, if what Mr Scrafton told me was accurate, the Prime Minister would have been in no doubt that children had not been thrown overboard."

A second officer, Commander Michael Noonan, was present during Powell's interview with Scrafton. He confirmed Powell's recollection of what Scrafton had told him three years earlier. "I did not have any reason to think there was anything but a frank and honest conversation between the general and Mr Scrafton. I felt he had been very open with the general." Remarkably, none of this was made public at the time.

Wednesday's hearing adjourned until after the October 9 election. John Howard's credibility is still in the dock. Voters give their verdict before the committee does. And depending what voters do, we might never hear of the matter again. Never ever.

Alan Ramsey
http://smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/03/1093939140764.html?oneclick=true

[Boney]

Yep, hoWARd is a liar alright.

I remember in the last few months of 2002, hoWARd was asked repeatly if Australia was going to join the "co-ilition of the killing".

He kept saying, "it is a hypothetical question", "it is hypothetical" etc. etc., it was pathetic to lisyen to. He kept saying this crap right up until Christmas.

And guess what?

On the 6th of January, ONLY about 10 days since it was a hypothetical question, a couple of fully loaded war ships left Sydney for the waters off Iraq.

Why the 6th of January? Because most Australians, including the media, were off on holidays. That is why this sneaky little turd did it at that time - no big uproar in Parlement and the general public doing other things.

Of course, if needed, such as an in the case of Austarlia being invaded, you could probably have a war ship ready to go in a matter of hours. But don't tell me, in this case that on Christmas Eve, it was "hypothetical".

This had been planned for months, and hoWARd just lyed his ar$e off to the Austalian people, who he obviously thinks are a bunch of morons and has absolutely no respect for.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Comrad ****su,

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

your a raving :mad: idiot.

You are seriously trying to say that Labor looks after defence just as well / better than the coalition? :yuk:

While you're are ripping bits from hansard. Why don't you rip the bits where he can't explain why the alleged phone call was 52 seconds long.. oh that's right, because it doesn't suit your purpose.

It's a shame people as :mad: stupid as you associate with the aviation industry.

:mad: wit, haven't you got a small corner that you can :mad: off to and die??

[Swingwing]

PAF - you do neither yourself nor the Government's cause any good by resorting to abuse. What they can't stand is rational argument - so let me have a go, for all the good it will do.

Let's get some ground rules understood first though. As a relatively educated audience, Im sure we can all accept that politics - like life - isn't all black and white. However, the great bulk of the electorate isn't particularly sophisticated, nor engaged when it comes to matters political and economic. That, combined with the dominance of the ten-second media grab, is why the arguments are mostly grossly over-simplified. Ergo, when it comes to interest rates, the message is "Howard - good. Latham - bad" - even though the truth is probably somewhere in between.

So, that understood, why vote for Howard? Probably the biggest reason is he lives in the real world. He's flint-hard, pragmatic, and in most cases will do "whatever it takes" to get the right outcome as he perceives it. That could be on trade policy, illegal immigrants or war on Saddam Hussein.
Paradoxically this realism - what I see as his greatest strength - is also what his enemies hate most about him. (Note that when I say enemies, I'm not talking about your average Labor voter. I'm talking about your real rusted-on, venomous Howard-hater - the likes of Philip Adams, Tony Kevin, Margo Kingston and our very own Mr ****su-Tonka.)

Having said that Howard lives in the real world, my thesis is that these people largely live on an entirely different planet from most of us. For the purposes of this illustration, why don't we call it "Planet Adams", after it's most long-standing, bilious and vocal resident. What would life be like there, you ask? Well, let me give you just a taste.

On Planet Adams, the Prime Minister of Australia is Public Enemy Number 2 (the President of the USA having nabbed top billing). It is perfectly acceptable - nay, compulsory - for residents to routinely refer to the PM as a rodent, a creep and a liar. Of course, that rule only works one way. Should members of the Government dare to question the motivation or agenda of, for example, the 43 self-appointed guardians of the public good, or perhaps disgruntled ex-staffers, then they are to be attacked as "playing the man" - resorting to personal attacks rather than a policy critique. Remember that next time you hear the "R" and "L" words bandied about. My guess is that you won't have to wait long.

Part of this strategy is to obfuscate on the issues. Therefore, all you ever hear about children overboard is that "Howard lied". Now it is true that children (on SIEV4, anyway) were not heaved over the side. However, as the logs of the HMAS Adelaide show quite clearly, the boat was subsequently sabotaged by the passengers - causing it to sink and putting everyone, not just the children, into the water. That's a bit inconvenient though, so we won't get into that - that liar Howard is the only issue here, remember.

Also on Planet Adams, the nation's present economic success has absolutely nothing to do with the Government, or eight years of good management by Howard and Costello. Apparently everyone in the world's doing well. The countries to our north - recovering from the Asian economic crisis which Australia curiously avoided - were presumably just unlucky.
This world view would have you believe that if Simon Crean became Treasurer on Ocotber 9 (and never forget that's exactly what we're talking about here) then the good times would just keep on rolling.
Now Mr Tonka will no doubt say that I'm just regurgitating propaganda - and to some extent he's right. It's that black and white portrayal again. There's no doubt that some of the success we currently enjoy is as a result of the structural reforms of the Hawke and Keating Governments. But is it true to say that economic success or failure has absolutely nothing to do with the Government? Was Paul Keating responsible for 1 million unemployed and 17% interest rates all on his own? Of course not. Underlying fundamentals had something to do with it. But did he contribute to them with ill-judged fiscal responses? Absolutely.
Therefore, when the Government seeks to draw a distinction on economic management, it's quite entitled to do so, and to claim some credit for record low unemployment, unprecedented economic growth and a huge reduction in public debt. Similarly, the statement that "average interest rates have been higher under Labor than the Coalition" isn't propaganda - it's a historical fact.

What about foreign policy? On Planet Adams, we're hated around the world for our alliance with the US. From where I sit, we're on the same sheet of music as the United States and Britain, (not to mention Singapore, Japan, South Korea.....etc.) Particularly in the case of the former two, they are our greatest historical allies, and the nations with which we have the most congruent world view. I'm sorry, but if the price of that alliance is being disliked by the Germans (not that I think for a minute that that's true), then I'm afraid I think we've picked the right team.

A corollory of this argument is that we're even more hated in the region than we used to be. Presumably that's why under this Government, our trade with China has increased by 300%, we've signed a free trade agreement with Thailand, done the courageous thing in East Timor but stayed on speaking terms with Indonesia, and now have unprecedented influence in the South Pacific.

On Planet Adams, the big old cuddly UN will fix all the world's problems. Nothing must be done without their imprimatur. Therefore, we should all return to our homes and wait for the UN to follow up their spectacular successes in Rwanda, Somalia, the Balkans and the Middle East. World peace will be delivered shortly.

By contrast, Howard lives in the real world. He knows that 10 years of violated Security Council resolutions on Iraq turned out not to be worth the paper they were written on. The UN squibbed it in the end, and vested interests meant nothing would ever have been done about Saddam. However, on Planet Adams, because the French and the Russians wouldn't give us approval, that would have been it. Presumably poor old Hans Blix would still have been chasing shadows while Saddam relaxed in the palace in Baghdad.
Howard also knows that a UN resolution to authorise the successful Solomon islands operation would never have been possible - because Taiwan is a donor to the Solomons, China just wasn't interested in helping. So on planet Howard, we do what we did in Iraq - put together a coalition of like minded nations and get on with the job. Fortunately there was still enough of a government there to invite us in. God knows what would have happened on Planet Adams.

On Planet Adams, the US is not the victim of September 11 - it's actually all their fault! Terrorism is nothing to do with Islamofacism, religious hatred, woefully low education standards and the fatuous oligarchies so prevalent in the Muslim world - it's actually caused by McDonald's and Coca Cola trying to take over the world.

Meanwhile, residents of the planet cry crocodile tears and fill acres of newsprint over David Hicks (a man who watched 9/11 on TV and went out and picked sides) but never mention Sergeant Andrew Russell. He's the Australian SAS member that died in Afghanistan while putting the skids under the repulsive Taliban, and helping to root out Al-Qaeda from their caves. Remember that Howard commitment? Didn't think so.

I could go on, but I've lost the rage (and probably the audience). If I can summon it up again, I might deal with the rubbish about the $100 000 uni degrees.

But that's it in a nutshell. If you think that the times demand a hard PM, with runs on the board on issues from defence to the economy, then vote Howard.

If you think that Australia needs a violent, foul mouthed yob from Western Sydney as PM instead, then good on you - vive la democracy! I'm off to lock in my home loan for three years on fixed interest.

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Pass-A-Frozo,

Your style of argument reminds me so much of Dick Smith - long on rhetoric, short on facts.

I will let your credibility in this way speak for itself with respect to your criticism of an article by Alan Ramsey - NOT by me.

Your posting history is here for all to see and consider.

There is no one blinder than one who refuses to see - you cannot shoot ALL the messengers - that would just be a dictatorship wouldn't it?...... comrade.

[Thanks for the personal abuse by the way - nice touch!]

SwingWing

Your post whilst erudite contains a few falsehoods, myths and a nice sprinkling of propoganda.

As you have spent some time on it I will too before replying to it and addressing those points.

(You may well want to reconsider your comments on Andrew Russell from SASR. The treatment by this government of veterans from recent campaigns, especially those from Swanbourne, are cause for nothing but shame by the Howard government)

[Pass-A-Frozo]

****su,

Well then . What do you think I should do. What I won't do is what you do. That is delete your posts when you come off looking like an idiot.

You arguments are not full of "fact" or anything close to it. It's full of political advertisements, book ads and nothing close to an informed opinion.

As I've said in the past , perhaps you should learn at least a little economics before trying to offer a view on it.

Yes, the Reserve Bank sets interest rates. However as you know monetary policy is directly linked to fiscal policy and usually is cause and effect. Get out your economics text book and read up on "crowding out" . When the government SPENDS a lot , they go into deficit. They have to get the money from somewhere, that money comes from people's savings and investments. When the goverment starts taking credit out of the market money becomes scarce the price of money goes up. That being Interest rates.

The Reserve bank sets the cash rate for overnight money market loans, however this is not the sole determining factor in mortgage rates.

This is why Latham will destroy the Australian economy and force hundreds of thousands to default on morgages. A $10 billion deficit will drive rates through the roof. You talk of lies and trust, lets have a look at Labour in government. Keating saying the books were looking fine and there would be a small surplus when the truth was a $10 billion hole in the books. They can't be TRUSTED with the purse strings.

On a positive note though , your vote for Latham will help my investment scheme though. I'll be able to afford a much nicer house when the prices crash after interest rates force everyone to sell up and head back to the cheap seats.

The most amusing part of your latest post is where you declare that Swingwing's post contains a sprinkling of propoganda... I think the term "Pot this is Kettle Over" comes to mind. You started this thread as one huge "sprinkling of propoganda". But it's better than free book advertising like your first post. Not sure how you get around the no advertising rule on that one.

As for posting histories, yours to is available, and everyone can see that you rarely actually talk about aviation anyway.

What I also find interesting is that you copy hundreds of words from a newspaper article under your name and post it (obviously to support your view) but don't wish to talk about the sustance of it because "it wasn't my work" .. If you post it, you can talk about the substance of it.

I'm looking forward to your next economic pearl of wisdom, or defence opinion.

[HotDog]

Pass-A-Frozo;On a positive note though , your vote for Latham will help my investment scheme though. I'll be able to afford a much nicer house when the prices crash after interest rates force everyone to sell up and head back to the cheap seats. . How very true, as well as your other comments. Rest assured, you are not alone.

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Previously you wished upon me a corner I could go off and die.

Now you look forward to my next pearl of wisdom.

I think I will just ignore your invitations until you decide which it is.

As an aside are skyrocketed house prices a good thing or bad thing for Australia overall?

Sue Richardson, Professor of Labour (that is Labour not Labor) Economics and Director of the National Institute of Labour Studies, Flinders University questions how much debt Australia is living on as a consequence.

For those of you who can bear to listen to ABC without fear of being branded a commie by our local ice cream vendor, the audio link is here (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/lnl/audio/LnL_06092004.ram).

[DirtyPierre]

Woomera, I think that this thread has done its course. The rednecks are starting to go the knuckle (so to speak) and are trying to shout down the argument with abuse and innuendo.

Such abuse, if said in a pub or bbq would cause a fight I'm sure. It's uncalled for. S-T is a hell of a nice guy trying to argue his convictions using the facts as he knows them. He doesn't deserve the abuse because his opinions differ to others.

That said, I'm off to me bed.

DP

[Rich-Fine-Green]

I can agree with DP for once....

The Reds and Blues to a Neutral corner.

Time for the lock. it's lost touch with Aviation.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

it's lost touch with Aviation

You mean it was ever in touch with Aviation??

:suspect:

[Woomera]

104 Posts. The magic number.........

Woomera